THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1881. THE PUBLIC LIBRARY QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2188, 1 March 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1881. THE PUBLIC LIBRARY QUESTION.

“ Save us from our friends ” may well be the cry raised by those who object to the Public Library being opened on Sundays. Their case is a respectable one, and if the grounds on which they base it are not recognised by all as strictly logical, yet the public aro aware that these gentlemen are moved by motives which must command respect. But the modus operandi adopted by Messrs Hamilton, Percday, and Webb, at yesterday meeting of the Board, must inevitably have the effect of alienating any sympathy for the minority which they represent. Each of those gentlemen championed their cause from a different standpoint, but they all united at the close of the meeting in acting in a manner which was purely obstructive in character.

Mr Hamilton’s great point throughout was that no arrangement had been made for seeing that the care-takers were not employed on Sundays. Ho said the Library Committee should have brought down a scheme whereby it would have been provided that the present library staff should have the first day of the week to themselves. It was of no use for Mr. Yeel, on behalf of the said committee, to assure him distinctly that they had no intention of employing the present staff on Sundays, Although his flank was turned by this assertion, Mr. Hamilton faced about and took up the position that under a volunteer staff the amount of plundering that would take place would be something alarming, that they must either have a responsible paid staff or nothing, that they had no funds to pay people to do the work, and that consequently, nolens volens, they must fall back on the present staff. Mr. Hamilton was utterly unwilling to trust the Library Committee further than he could see them, and, not at all satisfied with Mr. Veel’s assurance, based his rejection of the whole proposal on his tender regard for a staff who are not in the slightest danger of being imposed upon. The tenacity with which Mr. Hamilton clung to this point throughout the proceedings was not the least singular feature in his conduct. Had he taken up a broader standpoint the public might understand his attitude ; but at present his position is completely illogical. Mr. Webb, for his part, based his opposition on the ground that public opinion was against the proposal. If they carried the motion a very large section of the community would he scandalised. Ho relied on the two memorials presented to the Board of Governors, which ho euphoniously termed “ so many memorials.” Now we have on a former occasion given an opinion on such memorials as that emanating from the meeting presided over last week by Mr. Twentyman. That meeting we pointed out begged the question in an appalling manner. The memorialists solicited attention “ to the fact that recent intelligence from England shows that the opening of museums and similar institutions in that country has been followed by the most unsatisfactory results.” We took the liberty of doubting the correctness of this assertion, and suggested that the memorialists naturally took the coloring of their views from a certain class of literature which looked at things connected with the observance of the Sabbath through its own spectacles. Nothing that has since transpired has in any way shaken our belief in our theory that the public at large aro in favor of throwing open the Library on Sundays. All that Mr. Webb could bring forward outside the memorials was a memo, from the late president of the Sunday School Union stating that the married men in the Addington workshops were not in favour of tho opening, and, of the single men, some were in favour of it and some were not. If the men in the Addington workshops were very earnest in the matter surely they might have got up a memorial on their own account. At the utmost the memo, merely shows that those of them who have homes to spend their Sundays in do not care to go elsewhere. But we have throughout argued that the movement is more particularly directed to give rational employment to those who have no places to go to hut public-houses qnd crowded lodging-houses. Wo notice, too, that at last night’s meeting of the Sydenham Borough Council the following resolution was carried by 6to 3 :—“ That this Council respectfully requests the Board of Governors of tho Christchurch Public Library to open the Public Library and Reading Room on Sundays, the Council considering it would be a great boon to a large number of persona residing in Sydenham and Christchurch and the subscribers generally.” The duly elected representatives of the ratepayers of Sydenham, at all events, are in favor of the proposal, and they may fairly bo considered to represent the views of their constituents.

We now come to Mr. Foroday’s ground of opposition. He said that he should always oppose any curtailment of the privileges of the Sabbath, and why—because if the proposal were carried out he should expect to see the continental Sabbath carried out hero! Surely Mr. Fereday cannot be serious. Does he recognise the fact that on Sundays on the Continent the shops are open, and the theatres, public-houses, and other places of amusement drive a roaring trade. Sunday there is the groat day of festivity—the day on which libraries are less patronised than en any other day of the week. The bookworm on that day takes a holiday and lays himself out for thorough enjoyment. Is there the slightest analogy between the two cases ? The Board are not anxious to provide a jovial day of amusement for the citizens. They wish, on the contrary, to give them a place where they can escape from the public houses and such like places, and to provide them with mental pabulum of an improving character, when they are not attending divine worship. The Museum has been opened for this purpose, and wo venture to affirm that the experiment has been a successful one.

We have treated of the throe separate views held by the three main opponents of the Board’s proxiosal, and have

shown that wa consider each of them perfectly unsound. It stands to reason, therefore, that, taken collectively, they are not worthy of consideration. There aro yet the final tactics of these throe obstructionists to treat of. Finding themselves beaten on all points, they were not willing to accept their defeat in a fair and open spirit. On the main question being put and being declared carried on the voices, they left the meeting hurriedly, thus breaking up the quorum and putting a stop to all further business by the Board. We cannot but consider this an underhand and purely obstructive method of proceeding. Had the voting gone with them they were ready enough to stay on, but an adverse vote drives them out of the room, and much important matter has to bo held over until the next meeting of the Board. Such is not the action of fitting representatives of an important public body. It is not loyalty to the body itself. It is the action rather of spoilt children than of gentlemen who should respect the decision arrived at by the majority of their co-representatives. But we may fairly trust to public opinion to back up the majority and, moreever, when a fuller meeting of the Board is held we cannot but think that the proportion in favor of the Sunday opening will be considorably increased.