In addition to the above, the officers of 116 societies, having 175,403 members, signed the form in their individual capacity, because their rules prohibit the discussion of political subjects, or for other reasons; but many of them state their opinion that their members are in favour of Mr. Broadhurst's amendment. These have not been included in the above summary, but due weight will be given to these opinions by impartial seekers after the truth on this question. The names of the societies, with their addresses; the number of members; the names of the secretaries or officials, with the remarks made by many, are in print as a shilling pamphlet. A second edition has been published, and, in order to make the document as accurate as possible, the Committee of the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association went to the very heavy expense of sending a marked copy to each of the 2,335 organisations in the first edition, calling attention to the particulars of each society, and requesting to be informed of any inaccuracies. The great care taken is proved by the fact that only about twenty-eight corrections were made, nearly all of which related to the names, not to the figures. These corrections, with the addition of seventy-seven more societies, were inserted in the second edition, and the document is the most conclusive proof ever issued of the views of the working classes on this question.2 We assert, without fear of contradiction, that nothing could have been more fair than to place Mr. Broadhurst's amendment before the societies for their consideration in the way it was placed by the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association. Lord Dunraven asserts that the question of the Sunday opening of national institutions affects the metropolis only. This we cannot admit. The supreme governing body of the British Empire is asked to break down by a vote the principle of Sunday closing, and to set an example of Sunday opening and Sunday labour. The influence of the votes and example of the English Legislature is felt in the remotest parts of the world; and a vote of the House of Lords or the House of Commons adverse to the great principle of Sunday closing and Sunday rest would have an evil influence in every town and village in the country. Another groundless assertion made by Lord Dunraven is that the "Lord's Day Rest Association asked merely for the opinions of the secretaries of the various societies.' The contradiction to this is seen at once, even on the face of the mutilated form given by Lord Dunraven. That form says the committee or managers of the undermentioned Society approve of the amendment moved by Mr. Broadhurst.' 2 This pamphlet can be obtained for one shilling, at the offices of the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association, 13 Bedford Row, W.C. 6 Referring to the delegates' meeting (page 419), his Lordship says: This meeting at St. James's Hall' (the meeting was held in a small room at St. James's Hall) was absolutely free and open to all working class organisations, and yet the opposition found no place in its proceedings.' We deny emphatically the accuracy of this statement. The absolute unanimity at this meeting ought to be sufficient to open the eyes even of the blind: the strings were pulled by the managers of the meeting so as to make a show of fairness, but so as to shut out all real opposition. To assert that after five months' efforts not a single organisation could be found to oppose Sunday opening proves too much. Two indisputable facts will show how this was done. The promoters of the meeting, which was held in December, 1882, began to work for delegates to be appointed in the previous July and August. They appealed repeatedly to upwards of 1,900 organisations, in those directions where they thought they would get support. They took five months to get those delegates they wished to attend appointed and to arrange for the meeting. Ten days before the meeting in December a letter was received by the Secretary of the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association from the Secretary of the Sunday Opening Committee, in which he says:-' I am instructed to ask you to favour me with the names of any clubs or societies to whom you would like invitations sent.' On December 5 a further invitation was sent to the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association asking the Committee to send a speaker to their meeting. Let it be distinctly borne in mind that the promoters of the meeting had been working to get their delegates for five months, and not till ten days before the meeting did they invite the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association to give a list of clubs or societies to whom they would like invitations to be sent. They gave (excluding two Sundays) just eight days to do that which had taken them five months. It was simply impossible for the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association to supply the list of 217 London societies opposed to Sunday opening, which they obtained a few months later, and for the committees of these societies to meet and appoint delegates to attend the meeting in the short space of eight days. Lord Dunraven mentions many circumstances in support of his opinion that the working classes desire the Sunday opening of museums, but there are many missing links in his chain of evidence. His Lordship refers fully to the Trades Delegates' Meeting in proof of his views; but the facts connected with that meeting prove beyond question that the working classes as a whole are not for Sunday opening. One thousand nine hundred societies were invited to send delegates to the meeting. Sixty-four only responded. The others were either opposed or indifferent to Sunday opening. In a circular issued by the promoters of the meeting in September 1882, it was asserted that one of the largest halls in London will be taken for the meeting.' The largest halls in London are the Albert Hall, Exeter Hall, and St. James's Hall, holding from 2,000 to 5,000 persons. The effort was such a failure that the meeting had to be held in a small room at St. James's Hall, which the Daily News stated 'was capable of holding 300 persons.' The meeting in this room included the delegates and as many other persons as could be got together by the three Sunday Opening Societies by the issue of hundreds of tickets. The official report of this meeting states on page 26 that the following twenty-nine Trade Societies, having 35,017 members, appointed representatives to attend the meeting and to support Sunday opening. This list is a grave misrepresentation of the facts. The London members of those societies (fifteen in number) having a them are counted twice over. against 1st. They are included in the 15,480 members of societies affiliated to and connected with the London Trades' Council, which stands first on the list. 2nd. They are also counted as separate societies. The Report of VOL. XV.-No. 86. Ꮓ Ꮓ 2 the London Trades' Council and the Reports of the Sunday Opening Societies compared prove this. 3rd. The list includes country members, while it has been represented that the members are London men. 4th. Several of the Boot and Shoe Makers' Societies are counted separately, and are then counted again in the 'Amalgamated Boot and Shoe Makers' Society.' The Sunday Opening Societies, having asked separately the fortynine societies affiliated to the London Trades' Council to support them, have a right to count the fifteen out of the forty-nine who consented; but, having appealed to these societies separately, it was a serious misrepresentation to count them again under cover of the London Trades' Council, and to include the members of upwards of thirty-four societies which did not respond to the appeal of the Sunday Opening Societies. The deliberate double counting in this case is not the unavoidable overlapping referred to by Lord Dunraven. On a careful examination of the facts and consultation with those well acquainted with the London Trade Societies, we assert that the 35,017 members of London Trade Societies said to be represented should be reduced to 11,490. We arrive at this conclusion in the following way : On the foregoing list will be found the following as one of the Trade Societies of London: Sugar Workmen and Dock Labourers (3,700 members)." A trade society with 3,700 members would need an office, secretary, and clerk, and a large amount of book-keeping with reports, &c. We went to the address given to us by the Sunday Opening Committee of the above society, namely, Trafalgar Coffee House, Leman Street, Whitechapel; but we failed to find any such office or secretary, and could not obtain any reports or papers relating to the society; but we learnt what we had been told by two gentlemen well acquainted with London Trade Societies, that no such organised society with a large number of subscribing members, as is represented in the list got up by the Sunday Opening Societies, was in existence. Mr. Wigington, whose office is at the above-named Trafalgar Coffee House, Leman Street, wrote in answer to inquiries as follows: Amalgamated Society of Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames MR. C. HILL, 13 Bedford Row, W.C. SIR,—In reply to yours of yesterday's date I have only to say that I know of no society answering the name given; if such existed I feel sure I must have known it; the only Dock Labourers' (bona fide) Association being the Amalgamated Stevedores, which I may safely say has done much good among that class of labourers. There is a Riggers' Society in the East End. Yours faithfully, F. WIGINGTON. On carefully considering the 35,017 men said to be represented, we come to the following calculation : Number of men said to be represented Deduct the 15,480 of the London Trades' Council, because the 15,480 35,017 3,700 1,700 Deduct 550 country members of the Amalgamated House 550 Deduct 300 country members of the City of London Boot and 300 Deduct 825 country members of the London Metropolitan 825 11,490 Number of London working men represented A number of letters have been received and published by the Committee of the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association, 13 Bedford Row, from the Secretaries of those Trade Societies whose members have been counted as favourable to Sunday opening, stating that no authority whatever has been given for the members of their societies to be returned as favourable to the Sunday opening of museums, &c. Lord Dunraven gives a table, on page 420, which shows what appears to be, and what is described as, a misrepresentation and exaggeration by the Lord's Day Rest Association.' His lordship will at once perceive that his table is inaccurate, when I state that the report of the London Trades' Council, from which his lordship's calculations are made, is for a different year to that from which the statements of the Lord's Day Rest Association are obtained. The circumstances referred to were in 1882, and relate only to the Report of the Trades' Council, dated 1882. It should, however, have been stated in the document referred to by Lord Dunraven that the London members of the societies affiliated to the London Trades' Council were counted twice over, and the country members were put down as London men, as described in the statistics already given. Lord Dunraven says that general Sunday labour is not likely to |