lots to see whose something shall be, and I cannot see where the wrong comes in if a certain number of persons agree to pay a Is. or a £1 as a price for their lot in order to help a lady selling at a stall to get rid of an expensive article which she cannot otherwise dispose of. The real answer to this difficulty is that you cannot give a quantitative definition of an indefinite word, such as "heap" or "wrong." We cannot give an exact definition of wrong, for what may be right for one person may be wrong for another. There are great differences in the sensibility of consciences, and what would very much go against the conscience of one person would not at all affect the conscience of another, and therefore we must take very great care lest we overstep the mark and get into what is really a perfectly untenable position.

But it will be said, "if we are not to do this, what is the way in which we are to treat the gambler and the man inclined to betting?" I should ask in the first place, "Is it worthy of you to spend your money in this way?" and in the second place, "Are you quite sure that in this amusement you are not injuring your neighbours?" But in dealing with a deficient sense of the importance of life there is nothing like showing the highest possible Christian doctrine and practice, such as is shown to us in the early Church at Jerusalem. There we read that no man said that aught he possessed was his own. No one asks us to carry that principle out to the letter at this day, but surely we can, and ought, every one of us to carry it out in the spirit. We can remember and ought to impress upon others that everything we have, our time, our possessions, and our opportunities, are not ours for our own sakes only, but have been given us that we should use them for the common benefit of mankind. In conclusion, I would say that what is really needed at the present time is not new methods or new practices, but simply increased zeal. In the presence of an epidemic we should not find doctors and sanitary reformers sitting down to revise their theories, and, if possible, invent new ones. They would take the theories they had and do their very best to make their practice square with them, they would try and secure that healthy conditions should prevail, because in that case they would feel certain that the epidemic would die out of itself. And so let us strive to bring ourselves and those around us to a higher sense of the responsibility and dignity of life; let us attract our weaker brethren, by showing them the beauty and harmony of a well-filled and well-ordered life, with its varied interests, its large charity, its peace and joy. And just as an epidemic of fever distinguishes and heightens the contrast between the healthy house and the foul garret, between the broad street and the narrow alley, so I would ask you to let this spirit of selfish excitement serve to bring out into brighter contrast the eternal and essential distinction between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

DISCUSSION.

The Right Rev. CHAS. WALDegrave SandFORD, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gibraltar.

As I have had some experience of the misery and demoralization caused by the gambling establishment at Monte Carlo among our countrymen who, year after year, visit the Riviera, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, this evening, on the mportant subject of gambling. Most thankful am I to find that the sin of gambling is attracting the attention of Englishmen at home, and I hope the noble words which have been spoken this evening may open the eyes of our people who, season after season, visit the Riviera, to the terrible mischief which they are doing when they give Monte Carlo the sanction of their presence. It may be very difficult to define gambling, and

to put one's finger upon that particular element which makes it a sin; but that it is a sin as leading to sin-a sin in its consequences, none who have sojourned in the neighbourhood of Monte Carlo will for one moment deny. Proofs of this are constantly brought to our notice in the wrecked fortunes, ruined reputations, and broken hearts which these gambling tables are seen to produce; proofs we have in the discord which they introduce into family life, in the estrangement which they create between father and son, between husband and wife; proofs we have in the effects which they work upon the character of the gamblers themselves, in the heartless selfishness, in the moral degradation, in the shame, anguish, and despair, not unfrequently ending in selfdestruction. Gambling is an excitement and fascination which gradually and stealthily grows on a man, making him dishonest and deceitful, poisoning his whole being, and exercising over him a tyranny as absorbing and imperious as the tyranny of drink. Gambling is more perilous than even this form of intemperance, because in gambling there is little or nothing of that coarseness which in drink repels every refined nature. At Monte Carlo vice assumes its most smiling aspect. A further proof that gambling is a sin as leading to sin we have in the immorality of the place. The immorality of Monte Carlo is its worst feature. There are to be met the reckless, the unprincipled, the abandoned of both sexes, gathered together from all parts of the world. But our conscience and moral instinct tell us that gambling is a sin, not only in its consequences, but in itself. Money is a sacred trust, just as our lives are a sacred trust, just as our souls are a sacred trust; no man has a right to gamble away his money any more than he has the right to gamble away his life or to gamble away his soul. Whether a man stake little, or stake much, the principle is the same; in playing ducks and drakes with his money he is playing ducks and drakes with a most solemn trust, given him by God that he may use it to His glory and the good of His redeemed people. Thousands of our countrymen go to Monte Carlo not for the sake of making money, not like the professional gambler for the greed of gain-it is not the spirit of gambling, but the spirit of curiosity which takes them there-they may stake a Napoleon or two, but that is for the mere fun of the thing; they never think that they are dipping into danger and dabbling in sin. They go there for the love of hearing good music, for the pleasure of gazing at exquisite scenery, or of witnessing for once a strange and novel spectacle. But these persons I would have reflect that they are adding to those wages of iniquity by which the place is supported, they are giving to it a semblance of respectability, they are increasing its attractions, and decoying brothers and sisters to their ruin. A new prince has just succeeded to the Principality of Monaco, by the death of his father. It is earnestly to be hoped that England and the Great Powers will take the opportunity now presented to them of entering into negotiations for the suppression of this gigantic scandal, which has converted one of the fairest spots in God's universe into a nest of temptation and sin.

The Rev. C. ARTHUR LANE, Forest Gate, Essex.

AMUSEMENTS in their general aspect have been put before us to-night in two sorts of ways; first, as regards theatres; and secondly, as regards social amusements in our parishes. I will confine my attention to the former. We have listened to one of the most celebrated representatives of the modern theatre to-night; and in coming to hear him-for none can deny the fact that we did come to hear him-we have shown that we do not wish harm to the stage. It is a satisfaction to me to learn from Mr. Terry that it is only the very few of his profession who do not wish well to morality; but I did not remark, in any of the subsequent papers and speeches, a single suggestion to the dramatic profession by which they and we might be brought more closely into harmony and sympathy. The drama represents itself to us, in modern days, in two forms-the historical aspect and the social aspect. And in both of these ways it may be made to teach us a great deal. Every child who learns Shakespeare's plays-and we all know that they are learned and studied in our schools-must feel in his mind a desire to see these plays reproduced in a manner that the writer himself would have desired; and many of us have learned to take deeper interest in our country's history by seeing Shakesperian productions on the stage. Ten years ago, when first ordained, I had some misgivings of mind as to whether I ought again to see a play. But a love of Shakespeare from early youth impelled me to go and see a representation of Hamlet, by the greatest modern exponent of histrionic art; and I was very much

surprised to find myself in the centre of half-a-dozen other parsons. I at once felt that if other clergy could go to hear lessons of elocution from Mr. Henry Irving there was no reason why I should not do so too. But there is another thought in connection with modern plays. There have been several reproductions of history, on the Shakespearian model, recently placed upon the London boards; and in some of them questions materially affecting the history and the faith of the Church have been put before large multitudes of people in an untrue guise. I think that in such a case we might offer a respectful suggestion to stage managers. I refer especially to "The Armada," which was produced at Drury Lane last year. I remember very vividly one scene in that play, wherein a soldier enlisted volunteers to fight against the Spaniards. In doing so, he had to enter into an argument with a representative of the Romish Church. The person who rallied the loyal sons of England to the standard of Queen Elizabeth, spoke of the Roman Catholic faith as though it were the old faith of England, and of the Church of England faith as though it were a new one. Most people here will at once see why I adduce such an illustration. When managers wish to place upon their boards any reproductions of historical events affecting our ecclesiastical history, is it too much to ask that they should enter into some sort of consultation with an accredited representative of the Church of England before the piece is laid before the general public? If such were done, we should have greater pleasure and satisfaction in attending modern representations of our national history, and we should be able to recommend our young people to spend a pleasant evening under such auspices. With reference to the social aspect of the drama, of which we have with us to-night a most popular representative, I feel that it would be well if there was a distinct expression of opinion on the part of the Church, that, although we do not wish any harm to the dramatic profession, we do want managers to purify the stage; for the difficulty that we find in attending modern representations of social matters is, that many of them are not fit for us to see and hear, because, to say the least of it, they are suggestive. We would like to see the dramatic profession increase in popularity, that it might be an increasing benefit to the country, and a real means of improving the minds of the people; but to that end all managers must do, as Mr. Terry has done in his delineations of modern life, and seek to purify the stage from every suggestion of immorality and vice.

The Rev. W. S. CARTER, Clerical Organizing Secretary to the Young Men's Friendly Society, Northumberland Street,

London.

It has been said that the great secret of a successful meeting is to send the audience away in a good humour. I am not sure that I altogether agree with this. I think that a successful meeting is best proved by the audience remaining to the end; but, perhaps, that is hardly to be expected when so many have to run away to catch trains. I shall not, however, detain you more than three or four minutes. This great meeting would not have been possible ten years ago, for prejudice on this subject would have prevented its free discussion. Now notice, for a moment, the wording of the subject this evening :-" Popular amusements in relation to the Christian life." Then it is admitted that there is a connection between popular amusements and the Christian life! If so, the clergy ought to take their part as leaders of public opinion in this matter, and not abandon it to Dissenters or others, as I grieve to see the question of the settlement of the dock labourers strike was abandoned to Cardinal Manning the other day. All honour to him for it; but I could wish that our own Church had carried the matter through. We must strive, then, to elevate public opinion in the matter of amusements. And that in two ways. (1) By our sermons: for I believe in the power of the pulpit, and do not believe that an earnest sermon is ever really wasted; and (2) by starting clubs and other means for athletic exercises in our own parishes. I am not going to argue whether raffles are, or are not, such evils as they have been represented; or whether it is wrong to play whist, or other games, for trivial sums; these things seem to be comparatively unimportant. What we want-and this is what I rose principally to say-is some definite principle, upon which we should act, in relation to our amusements; and it seems to me that S. Paul has given it to us in two short sentences, in which he says, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat none while the world standeth," and "Whether ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all

to the glory of God." If we followed these principles out in our lives, we should not hear so much of the evils of gambling in relation to amusement. Do you say that you cannot do much, that your influence is very small? Granted, if you like. But I heard a story of a little child, four years old, who was pushing against the wheel of a wagon that was stuck in a ditch; and when asked what good he expected to do, replied, "I can push a pound." And you all know how, in fable at least, it is said that a mouse once gnawed the ropes of a net and set free a captive lion. The British lion has been declared to-night to be bound by the rope of gambling. If so, let each one of us do what we can to set him free. And, if we thus honestly strive to raise the tone of the people in relation to their amusements, I believe that, by God's grace, they will be freed in time from the evils which now encompass them.

The Rev. A. E. CAMPBELL, Rector of Castle Rising,
King's Lynn.

MAY I be allowed to refer to one point suggested by Canon Maclure's allusion to the
Girls' Friendly Society? As a branch secretary of the Young Men's Friendly Society,
and the only existing chaplain to the Girls' Friendly Society, I have had a certain
amount of experience of our young people of both sexes, and would venture to suggest
that clear explanations be given to what things ought to be done, and what left undone,
when they take their amusements together; giving the reasons for such social
regulations. Let us take an example to illustrate my meaning. You know that when
young men and young women meet together, chaperons are a most necessary
institution, and it is our custom to explain this to our young people. In Norfolk we
are fond, now and then, of going for what we call a frolic; and these frolics some-
times lead to disastrous consequences-not so, however, when chaperons are taken as
a matter of course. In two towns I know of, dancing classes were started. In the
one, no such explanations as I have suggested had been given, and the class was
described to me as a
"hell upon earth." In the other town the practical teaching I
plead for had been given, and the young men and girls who had got up the class of
their own accord, applied to the clergy, saying, "Will you help us to get some
married lady to attend our class?" The result was excellent-the meetings were
always attended by one or more married women from different grades of society, and
the class was brought to a conclusion without fault of any kind. There is great need
of legitimizing the amusements in which both boys and girls take part, and which are
not in themselves wrong. They require to be placed on a right footing. If this is
done, we shall prevent much that is sinful and wrong.

AN OVERFLOW MEETING was held in S. Mary's School-room, Bute Terrace, the Rev. John Mitchell, presided; and the Papers and Addresses were again delivered. The following speeches were also made:

The Rev. H. G. HOPKINS, Vicar of Clifton, York,

As an "Old Oxford Blue," and a Yorkshire clergyman, claimed to know something about popular amusements. He thought that they had heard a good deal about the amusements, but not much that was helpful towards the spiritual life. He feared that the latter was too sensitive and delicate a plant to be safely exposed to the atmosphere of many popular amusements in their present condition. He deprecated clergymen being seen frequently in theatres, for although it might do themselves no harm, it would tend to shock and alienate and grieve the more spiritually-minded of their flock. After mentioning the hindrance which the perpetual recurrence of cheap trips put in the way of Sunday school and other religious work, and the tendency to force theatrical performances and other exciting and exacting amusements upon their Bands of Hope, and various parochial gatherings, Mr. Hopkins proceeded to deal with the

question of athletic clubs. Of these he entirely approved, and thought much good might be done if the clergymen (as he had done himself) and leading laymen would take some part in their direction and management. He could only say, in reference to one important branch of the subject already frequently referred to, "From betting and gambling, and all professionalism, Good Lord deliver us."

C. E. NICHOLS, Esq., London.

THE thanks of this assembly are due to the preceding speaker for bringing us back to the subject of "Amusements in relation to the Christian Life." I do not appear as an advocate of the theatre, neither can I be numbered amongst those who absolutely condemn it. Theoretically there is no reason why, if properly conducted, the stage should be worse than any other profession. As a fact, the associations and surroundings of the modern theatre are not conducive to spiritual life or vitality. Far be it from me to condemn those who have chosen the stage as a profession. I can testify, from my own boyhood's recollections, that certain leading actors and managers of whom I knew something at that time, were devout and God-fearing. At one time I was apt to be severe on theatre attendance, but seeing the terrible evils wrought by the modern music hall, in which the social element is so prominent, and the apparent reason of their existence being to facilitate and encourage the consumption of intoxicating liquors, I was led to reconsider my views as to the theatre, which I believe has not yet adopted the temptation to drink as an inducement for attendance. As to the effect of social entertainments on the Christian life, I would say that, when, as a youth, I was led to think seriously, I avoided entirely all social gatherings on Saturday, and as much as possible on Friday, because the remembrance of them disturbed my worship on the Lord's day, and distracted my attention when I desired to profit by the preaching of the "Word." Further, when enjoying such entertainments in the beginning of the week, their tendency was to drive from my mind the instruction I had received on the previous Sunday. The impression left by some of the addresses this evening is that we live to be amused. Amusement as an object in life must tend to hinder our growth in grace; the mildest objection being that it is apt to occupy too much of our time, and thus injure our usefulness. It is as if we went as near the edge of a precipice as possible without falling over, when our wisdom should be to keep as far off as possible, remembering that our example may lead others into that which is temptation to them, but which might not be so to us. I have now in my mind the action taken by a young man, an actor, and belonging to a family of actors, who, having been religiously brought up, was led to offer himself for Confirmation, the instruction preparatory to which was the means of leading him to give his heart to Christ; the practical consequence being that he abandoned his brilliant prospects on the stage, and devoted himself to business-in his leisure time seeking the good of others. He has not taken the position of condemning either the stage or actors. His position is that he has higher interests to serve. Time is too short. He is now engaged in mission work amongst the poor, and also amongst other classes whom he now seeks to influence for the glory of God. We are not dull or miserable because we do not frequent the theatre and such-like amusements. The man whose Christian life is vigorous is always happy and cheerful. While he will not debar others of those enjoyments which are not in themselves sinful, he is not to be condemned if he refuses to encourage them.