The Sun. — London, England, 1856-02-22 00:00:00

LENT. to alter in any way, the fortifications of this country, or in the colonies,' either by the erection of new works, whether for the defence or for the accommo lation of troops, no doubt the Secretary of State for the War Department exercises that financial control which is inseparable from his office in the erection of such works, which must of cour3e have his concurrence in a financial point of view ; but I wish to know whether in all these cases it is definitively un derstood that the first initiative rests with the Commat der-in-Chief ; that to him the inspector-general of furti- Ecations makes his report, that to him the director ge neral of artillery would make a report, and that he sub sequently receives the financial assent of the Secretary of State for the War Department for those works which be a military capacity he judges to be important to the country ? My lords, there is another subject upon which I should wish to ask a question ; which is with regard to the bestowal of military honours in the field. I believe the course is, that recommendations for the granting of honours in the field proceed generally from the officers commanding upon the spot ; those recommenda tions are reported to the Commander-in-Chief ; they re ceive his sanction, and he forwards them to the Secretary of State for the War Department, by whom the pleasure of the Crown is signified. Am I mistaken ? (No, from Lord P anmure .) a Then I wish to know whether, as the Commander-in-Chief—who, I presume, may exercise his responsibility and discretion with regard to the reconi- Mendation of the officers on the spot—may exclude some and include others not so introduced to his notice, the Secretary of State for the War Department claims the lame power of disregarding recommendations that come to him from the Conamander-in-Chief, having received his 'wection ? If there has been any instance in which the Secretary for War has thought proper to disregard the leport of the Commander-in-Chief, withholding distinc tions from some who have been so recommended by him, and granting them to others who have not, I hope it will be answered. This is a point upon which great mis conception, great doubt, and great uncertainty prevai. it the public mind, and that uncertainty prevails both with respect to what is and what is intended. It is, there fore, most important that a distinct and explicit declara tion from the Government should be made upon this sub ject. If I am not rnietaken, in 1812, or thereabout, some document was actually drawn up distinctly defining the limits of the authority of the War Office and the Secre tary of State for War. With regard to the appointment to a foreign station, does the selection of the officers rest with the Commander-in-Chief of her Majesty's Forces or with the Secretary of State for War ? I admit that there may be a great distinction drawn between honours to be conferred and offices to be conferred in conse quence and in reward of distinguished services ; but I wish to kn ow w h e ther there is a single and undivided r esponsibility upon the Commander•in-Chief, or whether that responsibility is shared by the Secretary of State for the War Department ? Then, again, with regard to the appointment of such officers as the quartermaster general or the adjutant-general, I ask whether such appointments are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commander-m-Chief, or whether the consent of the Secretary of State for the War Depart loent is necessary—in fact, whether he can, if he thiake fit, exercise the power of disapproving the recommendations of the Conimander-in•Chief and interposing his own authority to prevent or secure t he appointment of any particular officer. This subject is not very remote from one which formed the topic of e onversation in the eerier part of the evening. In the course of the last few months two appointments, at least, have been made with respect to which a good deal of discussion has arisen, and on which, I think, some misunderstanding has taken place in the public mind. I Allude to the appointment of my noble and gallant f riend behind me (Lord Cardigan), as inspector-general of the cavalry, and to the appointment of another gallant officer (Sir Richard Airey) to the office of quartermaster • general. (Hear, hear ) The appointment of my noble a nd gallant friend took place in February, 1855, and, as I understand, was made by the Commander-in-Chief 0 0 the strong recommendation of the noble duke (Ne a' - c astle) who at that time filled the office of Secretary for the War Department. The appointment of Sir Richard Aires to the office of quartermaster-general took Place in —(Lord Panmure—Last December). Now I see that there have been many attempts made, in the E ret place, to impugn these appointments, and, in the next place to throw the dud vidual responsibility of "ow, upon my noble friend the Commander-in-Chief. "'eve, I wish to know distinctly from her Majesty's Go vernment whether the responsibility of these appoint coents, be they good or bad—for upon that point I say nothing at present—rests exclusively upon my noble friend the Commander-in-Chief, or whether they are ap- Pointments over which the Government can exercise Go vernment, influence, and in respect to which her Majesty's ` Y overument, and more especially the Secretary of State for the War Department, must take a full share of re &Ponsibility ! I mention the quartermaster-general's a ppointment, not unnaturally, because it bears upon a question which was the subject of discussion a short time a gn- I mean the report which has been laid up on t he table of both Houses of Parliament, impugning the c onduct of certain officers in the Crimea, and I must say that on this suhject I fully concur with the observations W hich fell from the noble earl, that unless her Majesty's Government wore prepared to adopt the recommenda tions in that report, the noble lord (Panmure) ought, in justice t o th e officers impugned in it, to have abstained Ora laying it upon the table of your lordships' house Until he had given those officers an opportunity of being heard in their defence ; and his not having done so had been the means of inflicting serious injury upon them ; ,n (1 , not only that, but had placed a serious impediment 'la the way of her Majesty's Government in justifying the error into which, as I think, they have fallen by per mitting the premature publication of this report. But if the statement which I have heard be true, I think that there is another point in t his case which bears reediately upon the question which I have to put, and °as which I should like to hear som e ex p lanation of. " 1-f say theory be correct, the Commander in-Chief is the guardian of the character of the officers of the army— (cheers)—it is to him that they are to look for protec tion. (hear, hoar) —it is from him they are to "Peet praise and promotion, or to dread censure e * -- (eizeers)—and I say that if it be true, as I cannot until I hear it stated by my noble friend the C ommander-in-Chief, that until he received that report as x peer of this house, he had never been shown it, althou g h it was in the hands of the Secretary of State for the War Department so long ago as the month of `lune, to say nothing of that sond one in the month of aouary—l must say that to withhold such a report from the Commander-in-Chief is an injustice to him, an injustice to the army, and an injustice to the public service. (near.) That, my lords, even if it stood alone, would be sufficient ground for putting those questions ; b ut when the noble lord (Panmure) says, with reference to that report, that it contained merely some general s tatements, and that it was put into his hands as re ferring to the commiesariat, I am quite sure that the noble lord must have forgotten that in that first report is contained a series of charges that were Made with regard to the cavalry led by the noble earl (Cardigan) behind me ; and it is only in this report that the charge is made. It is contained in this passage When the supply began to fail them the cone t niesariat officer referred to, who appears to have done ' e verything in his power to meet the difficulty of the case, Promised, as he knew there was plenty of provender at J aalaklava, if a detachment of the horses was allowed to to down, that he would engage to bring enough in for the rest of the brigade. This proposition was substan• Vally made known to Lord Cardigan by Col. Hay, who at rtes that his lordship declined to accede to it." .rteord PANMURE—That is all they say. The Earl of DERBY—Now I think, my lords, that none of your lordships would say that passage, standing alone, is not of the utmost importance, as reflecting upon the dhiceretion and conduct of an officer, and you will have the less- hesitation in taking that view when it is recol lected that the starvation of the horses is recorded. I ask whether when such a statement was made, it was not a fittin g subject for the Secretary of State for the War lieparteneti t to communicate to the Commander•in-Chief --(hear, hem r) —for I should be very much surprised if the Commistideren-Chief, on receiving such a communi eetion or complaint, did not call upon the officer for an explanation of his conduct, which explanation he has not hitherto , had any opportunity of making. I say, therefore, in regard to this—as in regard to every other c ase to which , I have called your lordships' attention— that the duties of the Secretary for War, and his relation with the Commander-in-Chief, ought to be clearly defined, so that there should Tee no question either as to the autho rity or jurisdiction of one or the other, it being essential to the public service that a good communication should Subsist between then*, because it bears upon the disci the conduct, t he character of the army, and upon the officers commani eine the army. Nothing of such a wature should be wiithheld for an hour from the know ledge of the Commeolder - in - chief , who is responsible for the conduct of his o fficers. It is quite clear to me that the Commander-in-C thief never can fulfil the duty of su perintending the conduct of the officers of the armyif documents of this character are to be with by the Secretary of State for the War Depart "went, a n d which are tot brought to his notice until they are laid before Parliament, and consequently the public. I do not know, my lords, that I need add anything to What I have said in putting these questions to the noble lord opposite. I had not intended to enter into the details of arrangemen is with which, not being a mili tary wean, I am by no means conversant, but I am afraid, from what I have he ard, that considerable confusion, ' u ncertainty, and doubt have occurred with respect to the two departments, especially in the ordinary exercise of their functions, this t there has not been such a com plete regulation of the , respective duties of all their offi• cers as could have been desired, and that consequently much confusion has arisen among subordinates, and some obscurity as to whom they should look for support or to receive their orders. I should be glad to hear from the noble lord opposite a 'distinct statement of the mutual responsibility both of I iimself and the Commander-in• Chief. It will be still more satisfactory if he can lay upon the table any such doc urnent as that to which I have referred definitive of Cie relative duties. Such a docu ment ought to exist, anel I think that no changes should be m a d e so extensive in their character as that of consti tetiag a Secretary of St ate for the War Department by the consolidation of two offices, without having upon re cord in the most authentic form the duties that are to be done and the reeponsibe'ity that is to be borne by the Person to whom has beem transferred the duties which were performed by another department. Such a record might be embocUed in the order of counoil. If it were not it was impor tent that it should be ; and if it were, he was sure that the noble lord would have no objection to produce it. stet all events, it will be readily admitted t hat such a conflict of authorities as that to which I have alluded csienot long exist without serious conse quences both t o tile Government and the country ; and t,aking that v i ev I beg to put the question of which I gave given no tice to the noble lord the Secretary of state for War, And also to niove for the production of the THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING,_FEBRUARY 22, 1856; document to which I have alluded, if such a document exists. (Hear.) The noble earl concluded by asking the terms of his motion, what were the respective duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the War Department and the Comenander-in-Chief of her Ma jesty's Forces, and moving for any document in which such respective duties were limited and defined. Lord PANMURE—The question of which the noble earl gave notice has now resolved itself into four or five distinct inquiries ; but I do not complain of that, and will endeavour to answer them as I best may. Dismissing for a moment the important questions—and I admit. none can be more so—with respect tothe relative clutiesof the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief, I will advert to the last cptestion put by the noble earl. The noble earl stated that there was a rumour that the first report which was sent me at the latter end of June, was not placed by me in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. It was no doubtedlynot placed by me in the hands of the Commander in-Chief. (The Earl of Derby made a gesture expressive of astonishment.) The noble earl, I observe, exhibits marks of surprise at the announcement : but his surprise will, I think, be lessened when I ask him to read that re port through, and point out to me, with the exception of the single sentence to which . he has alluded, one word of the report which refers to any single department over which the Commander-in-Chief had any control, or for which he was responsible in any manner. Under these circumstances, I think it need hardly be a matter of won der that I did not think it necessary to trouble my noble and gallant friend with the report ; and in the only son tence quoted, all that is alleged is that the commander of the cavalry was asked to send some of Lis horses clown to Balaklave, and that he refused. Why, my lords, he might have had the very best possible reasons for refusing. (Hear, hear.) It must be remembered, too, that there was no accompanying evidence to the report, and, therefore, no judicial conclusion should bo drawn from it; so that even had the sentence boon submitted to the Commander-in-Chief, all that could have resulted was an cal parte statement from the noble and gallant earl himself. I did not for those reasons refer to it. The other report, with the evidence, was placed in my hands for the first time on the 28th of January. I took up a few days to go over the re port and the evidence; and according to my feeling of the engagement which I entered into with Parliament and with the country when I sent out that commission, I con ceived that it was my duty—without binding myself to statements impugning the conduct of officers referred to in that report—to place it before the public on the earliest possible opportunity. Ipresented it, therefore, on the third day after Parliament met, and the first printed copy which I saw, with the exception of the proof, was delivered to me after it was presented to Parliament. I considered that I was bound by good faith to Parliament and to the public to present it immediately ; and if in doing so I have com mitted any error I am willing to take on myself the entire responsibility of it. Having stated thus much I come now to a gnostical of far greater magnitude, which the noble earl has put—namely, what are the relations between the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief ? In doing this the noble earl has opened a wide subject, and one which at the present moment is attracting the at tention of the public out of doors. I did not wish to anti cpete the discussion which must arise when we shall have b deal effectually and openly with the whole of these ques tions in Parliament; but the Roble earl's reference to-night to the subject leaves me no alternative but to state one of two cases, and to avow openly and honestly whether her Majesty's Government are prepared to abandon the present system as it exists, or whether we will maintain it in its integrity. Now, in considering the relative positions of the Secretary of State and the Cotnmander-in-Chief, [ think it will be necessary first of all to make a slight reference to the administration of the departments when they were sepa rate. My lords, with respect to the conduct of military af fairs by her Majesty's servants, the Secretary of State for the ColonialandWarDepartments exercised thoseinfluences and thosepowers over the administration of the army which have since been transferred to the Secretary for War. Your lordships are aware that that Minister was the Secretary of State for the Colonies as well as for War. His duties I will not recapitulate, because you will find them clearly laid down in the very able report of the commission issued in 1837, over which my noble friend behind me presided. It was the duty of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to take her Majesty's pleasure as to the establishments of the army, and having done so to convey the orders to the Commander-in-Chief. It was his duty also to control all that related to the movement of troops in the colonies un der his charge. If certain troops were required by certain colonies, he it was who intimated the fact to the Com mander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-Chief ordered them out ; it was his duty to sign commis4ions for all offi cers proceeding abroad, and it was further his duty to sob mit to the Sovereign the honours which were recommended to be distributed by the Commander-in-Chief. I think tkat the noble earl opposite has somewhat confounded duties relating to fortifications abroad with certain others. With respect to fortifications in the colonies, the noble earl does not seem clearly to have comprehended what the duties of Colonial Secretary were. If fortifications were required in any particul it colony, he not only hail the financial control of the amount to be expended ou those fortifications, but if they wore recommended to him by the Master General of the Ordnance, it was presumed that he consulted his own officer, the inspector-general of fortifi cations ; and then the Secretary of State was to be the judge, and to be responsible to Parliament for the erection of the fortification as well as the proper expenditure of the money. If a fortification were erected nselesely, if the design were bad, or the situation an improper one, then the responsi bility rested upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State. Then, again, with reference to the office of Secretary of War of what might be called the home department, he had, iu his capacity of Secretary of State, a certain control over the Commander-in-Chief. He convee ed to the Commander-in-Chief his pleasure as to where troops should be stationed at home, whether in one district or another, judging where the necessity most existed. He signed all commissions, appointed to commissions, or pro moted at home, and in some other mattershe exercised au thority co.ordivateiy with the Commander-in-Chief. Now all these powers were transferred to the new Secretary of State for the War Department. It is his duty to communi cate with the Commander-in-Chief as to the stations of the troops that are quartered either at home or abroad, unless some sudden crisis should arise which rendered it necessary either for the Colonial Secretary or the Horns Secretary to order the movement of troops, when it was their duty at once to communicate with the Commander-in-Chief, with out calling for the interposition of the Secretary of State for War. Then, my lords, the posieion of the Com mander-in-Chief was that which the noble earl hes stated. It was the business of the Commander-in-Chief to con duct the discipline of the army. It was his business also to administer all the promotions in the army, taking the pleasure of the Crown upon the subject of those promotions. But I must not omit, my lords, to state at the same time, that in respect to all appoint ments to the higher commands, and all the higher promo tions in the army, it always was, and it still is, the practice of the Commander-in-Chief before making any of those appointments or submitting them to the Sovereign, to consult with and to obtain the consent of the Secretary . of War. Then the Secretary of State shares the responsi bility of the Commander-in-Chief, as regards those appoint ments, by sanctioning them before they are formally sub mitted for the approval of the Crown. I way as well, per haps, allude here to the question of those recent appoint ments to which the noble earl opposite has directed your lordships' attention—l mean the appointment of my nob's friend opposite (the Earl of Cardigan) to the office of in spector-general of cavalry, and the appointment of Sir R. Airev to the office of quartermaster-general of the army. For both these appointments, whatever may have been stated to the contrary, I am as responsible as my noble friend the Commander-in-Chief; and I shall be quite ready, when the proper time comes, to offer such a defence of them as will, I hope, prove satisfactory to your lordships. So much for the past relations between the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief. I shall now pass to a eousideration of the relations which have been established between them since the creation of a Secretary of State for War. When that office bad first been constituted there was no intention, I believe, of carrying the duties attached to it further than to provide for the transference to the Secretary for War of all the powers relating to the army previously vested in the Secretary of State. It was •m -sidered that the exercise of those powers would afford ample employment to the new war minister, inasmuch as ou all occasions of a foreign war it had been the duty of the Secretary of State to conduct the correspondence with the generals commanding the troops abroad, who all took their orders directly from him. That was so much the case that the Commander-in-Chief did not cor respond officially at all with the commander of the foram But it was found, from the very commencement of the war, that difficulties arose in consequence of the collisions which took place between different departments, all con ducting different branches of the military administratiou. At that time the commissariat was under the direc tion of the Treasury ; the Ordnance was a distinct depart ment in itself, and the Secretary of State and the Secre tary at War had two distinct and separate offices. Before I had been very long in the office of Minister of War I found it was absolutely necessary that the Ordnance should be under my sole and entire control, as far as its civil branches were concerned, and that I should have the su perintendence of all the arrangements connected with stores and contracts of the army, and so strong were my convictions upon those points that evou in the midst of war at a time when great chan g es could not be made without considerable inconvenience,l deemed it indispensable that those additional branches of military service should be brought within my immediate jurisdiction. All .the civil departments of the army—all that relates to the Ordnance Department—all that relates to the clothing of the army —all that relates to the store-keeper's department—all that, relates to the contracts and to the supplies —and all that relates to the manufacture of those supplies, are now under the control of the Secretary for War ; and I may add that since that coot; el has been committed to my hands I have been enabled, with the assistance of the gentlemen engaged in the War Office, to secure for the British army abroad ample supplies not only of all the materials of war, but also such supplies of the necessaries and even comforts of life as must render the condition of that army an object of deep gratification to your lordships ail the country at large. (Hear.) After all the civil departments of the army had been brought under one and the sumo control, I took care that all the military departments should be placed in their proper re lative positions ; and tho result of the important changes that have been accomplished in the latter direction is, that now for the first time the Commander-in-Chief of the British army is commander, in fact as well as in name, of every arm in the service--of the artillery and engineers, not less than of the cavalry and the troops of the line. In carrying out these extensive reforms, it was impossible to lay down on paper any rules which should establish a dis tinct lino of demarcation applicable to every case between the civil and military departments of the service. It is true thet an attempt was made to lay down some such line of demarcation in a paper drawn up in the year 1812. A very long controversy had at that time arisen between the then Secretary at War and the Commander-in-Chief. I have read at the War-office the correspondence throuh which that controversy was conducted, and I may observe that I have found therein exhibited on the part of a noble friend of mine (Lord Palmerston, we believe), that talent which has since so signally developed itself, and which has boon productive of so much benefit to his country. Bnt the controversy to which I am referring was solved by an order in council in the year 1812, which laid down to a certain extent a v er y broad lice of demarcation between the War-office and the Horse Guards, and that line of demarcation has been observed ever since. But the line as not rigidly defined, and it is quite impossible it could be so, because questions arise every day in which points of discipline and points of administration are so nicely mixed up, that it would be utterly out of the power of any man, however skilful, to determine pre cisely where the one jurisdiction should commence, and whore the ether should end. Many of these questions are settled by means of private communications between my noble friend the Commander-in-Chief and myself, as simi lar questions bad been settled at a former period between me and the Duke of Wellington, when T had been engaged in the office of secretary at War. Those questions are settled amicably between the two departments ; and I can not conceive that any such rupture should arise between the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War as could lead to the necessity of having recourse to that ap peal to the First Lord of the Treasury provided in the do cument of the year 1812. But it is impossible that some difficulty should net occasionally arise in drawing the line of demarcation between the two offices. For instance, that difficulty presented itself in the very case of an inspector of fortifications to which the noble earl had referred, for an inspector of fortifications had civil as wellas military duties to per form—civil duties in the erection of barracks, and mailitary duties in the erection of places of mere defence. Under these sircimstances it appears to me that to attempt to lay down by any definition a strict line of demarcation he tween civil and military duties in the management of the army would only be to attempt to frame a rule which should be revised from day to day, nay, from hour to hour. Charged as I am with the superintendence of the civil de partment of the service, I hold myself responsible for all the appointments made in that department ; but I must necessarily leave the details of business to the officers over whom I am placed. I have great confidence in their dis cretion. I am satisfied that so man should be introduced i, t , any of the offices of the department who is not so far fitted for them as to be able to pass the examinations r e q uired by the civil service commissioners ; and I take care that after he has so passed he shall rely for promotion on his merits. and on his merits alone. Such is the state of things with regard to the department of the Secretary for War. With regard to the present state of the Horse Guards, all that I have to say may be summed up in these few words—that the Commander-in-Chief still eontinaes to administer and the discipline of the army nu i eterfered with uncontrolled by the Secretary fer War. He still continues to administer the patronage of the army uninterfered with and uncontrolled by the Secretary for War, further than that in all the superior appointments, I either regimental or on the staff, he consults the Secretary for War, before he takes the pleasure of the Crown with respect to them, and so far the Minister for War renders ' himself responsible for the acts of the Cetumander-in-Chief. The Secretary for War does not interfere in the first ap pointments to the army ; but at the same time I do not deny that T ought, perhaps, to be considered legally re sponsible for these appointments, because there is no act of the Commander-in-Chief, however small or however great, that does not constitutionally come within the revision of my department. (Hear.) That is the pre sent state of these two departments. I have already said enough to show that I conceive it would be impossible for me to frame any document which would precisely de fine the respective duties of the Commander-in-Chief and of the Secretary for War. But I must say that in all ma terial points the line of demarcation between the two de partments lis so great that no necessity can exist for attempting to draw up any such document. But there re mained behind the important question raised by the noble earl, as to what are the intentions of her - Majesty's Govern ment with respect to the continuance of the present rela tive powers of the Secretary for War and the Comman der-in-Chief. My lords, it would be quite useless for us to attempt now to shrink from a consideration of that question. We all know perfectly well that it largely occu pies the public mind, and that it is much discussed' in the public prints ; and I believe, therefore, that it is now high time for the army and the country to be made acquainted with the ♦iews of her Majesty's Govern ment upon the subject. Hitherto the Crown lass ad ministered the patronage of the army through the Com mander-in-Chief; and through him the Crown has con dected the discipline of the army. But the Crown would not be able either to administer the patronage of the army, or to conduct its discipline, unless Parliament in the first inetance granted the money required fer the maintenance of the troops, and passed the Mutiny Act, by which they were made amenable to military law. And while Parlia ment continues to possess the power of voting the supplies for the army and of passing the Mutiny Act, it is useless to say that its constitutional powers over the army is not ample and complete. But you would find that you would have to deal with a different state of circumstances if you were to determine that noble lords and hon. gentlemen, as well as officers in the army, should have to look to the Minis try of the day for the introduction of their sons to the ser vice, and for their subsequent promotion while they should continue attached to it. I say that such an arrangement would be as fatal to the efficiency of the army as it would ul timately be unsatisfactory to the people generally of this country. (Hear, hear.) An idea has get abroad that the ma nagement of the patronage and discipline of the army is in the hands of auofficer not himself directly responsible toPar liament, and even that in his case no responsibility at all to Parliament exists ; but there never was a more erro neous impression. An idea has also got abroad that in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief the patronage of the entry is exercised unfairly, and even that it is exercised in obedience to some secret influence on the part of the Crown itself; but a greater mistake than this again was nevermade. It may be, my lords, that in dealing with this question, I am taking what is at present the unpopular side; but I am quite sure that if I were to advocate a system which should place the patronage of the army in the hands of the Ministry, we should have Parliament interfering from day to day in the administration of the discipline of the troops. (Hear.) I believe we should thus establish a practice which could not tend to promote the interests of the ra tion, or to uphold the dignity of the Crown; and, there fore, looking at all the circumstances of the case, and con vinced as I am from experience that the present system is the one best calculated to give general satisfaction, it is my intention to support the authority of the Commander in -Chief, and to maintain, as far as I can, the connection which the Crown at presentholds through the Com mender io-Chief with the army. I can see no constitutional ob jection to that course. None of the commissions which have inquire). into the state of our military administra tion have seen their way to the abolition of the office of Commander-in-Chief. The commission of the year 1837 stated that they had no tut ontion of altering the relative positions of the Commander-in-Chief and the civil adminis tration of the army. I saw no reason myself to change the opinion I have hitherto always held upon that subject. I must further say that during the period when I had the honour of filling the office of Secretary at War while the Duke of Wellington was Commander-in-Chief, I never knew that great man to have exercised unfairly the pa tronage of the army ; and havingebeen connected by friend ship and by public duties with my noble friend the pre sent Commander-in-Chief, I will publicly say that any charge that may have been made against him of mal-ad ministration in dispensing the patronage of the army is utterly false as far as my knowledge goes. (Hear.) I know no man to whose hands so great a trust has been committed that has more worthily used it. (Rear.) I have now answered, I hope with sufficient distinctness, the ques tions put to me by the noble earl ; and, in conclusion, I will only say that I trust if ever this question is again to be brought under our consideration, your lordships will carefully deliberate before you determine on diminishing the authority of the Crown over the discipline and patron age of the army, as at present exercised through the Cora mander-in-Chief, or on altering the relations which now subsist between that high functionary and the Secretary of State for War. (Cheers.) Lord HARDINGE then rose and addressed their lord ships teethe following effect :—My lords, I merely rise for the purpose of noticing an observation which fell from my noble friend opposite (the Earl of Derby). He stated that he thought the Commander-in-Chief ought to have taken up the defence of the officers whose conduct was impunged in the report which was lately presented to the house. I did not road that report until the 30th of January, and as soon as I road it I put myself in communication with my noble friend behind me (Lord Punmuro), and I concurred with him that the means by which we ought to deal with the questions raised by the report was the appointment of a court of inquiry, constituted after the manner of the court which had sat in the year 1808. I told the adjutant general I wished he should state to both my noble friends whose conduct had been impugned, that I was anxious they Should send me copies of the report, accompanied by any comments they might have to make upon it ; and I also directed that any officers in this country who were impli cated in the report should net return to the Crimea, in order that they might be here to facilitate the proposed in quirt'. I felt great difficulty in taking any steps for vindi cating the officers impunged in reply to the statements contained in the report of a commission. The two members of the commission were men of honour and respectability; and I could not adopt any measure for calling in question their accuracy. Whatever may be my private opinion in reference to that report, I felt that I had no other course open to me than to agree with my noble friend the Secretary for War in referring it to a court of inquiry. With respect to the question raised by my noble friend (the Earl of Derby) as to the relations between ' the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War, I have to state that I am not aware that the duties of the Com mander-in-Chief have been in any way restricted by my noble friend behind me. On the contrary. my duties have been greatly enlarged since the abolition of the office of Master General of the Ordnance. The names of my two noble friends (Loris Lucan and Cardigan) and of Sir R. Airoy have been brought is a special manner before the public in consequence of certain statements iu the report, and in consequence of appointments which they have re cently received. My two noble friends can defend them selves iu their places in Parliament ; but, with respect to Sir R. Airey, I must observe that I considered him to bo a man of very great talent, and as he had ably performed his duties, as far as I was then informed, I felt bound to secure his services to her Majesty at home, and I therefore appointed him to the office of qnartermaster-general as soon as I found that it had become vacant. In that arrangement my noble friend the Secretary for War con curred. He, like myself, had not boon at that time aware of the allegations which had been put forward against Sir R. Airey. I entertain so high an opinion of that gallant officer, that I feel confident when the time for explaining his conduct shall have come his explanation will be found satisfactory. I have no desire to detain your lordships any further, and in conclusion I will only repeat that the duties of my office, so far from having of late been diminished, have undergone a considerable in crease, (I-Tear, hoar.) Earl GREY said he did not quite concur with his noble friend the Secretary for War in that part of his speech which had reference to an alteration of the existing relations between the Commander-in -Chief and the Secretary for War ; but he felt that there was not a con vonient opportunity fur discussing so large a question. lie had been glad to hear his noble friend (Lord Panmure) ad mit the responsibility of the Government for every act of military administration. He thought that the noble ear l opposite had fallen into considerable misapprehension upon that subject. If we meant to preserve our constitution, it was absolutely necessary that her Majesty'e Government should be held completely responsible for our whole mili tary administration ; and if they were to have responsibi lity they should have the power of control. No man had held that doctrine more distinctly than the late Duke of Wellington. When he (Earl Grey) had been in office the noble duke frequently addressed to him such language as the following : —" I think so and so ; the Government must decide, they are responsible, and whatever they order must bo done." He believed that in practice there was not the least difficulty in uniting a complete control on the part of the Government with the absence of any irritating interference with the duties of the Cominander-iu-Chief. Upon all questions of peculiar importance the Commander in-Chief consulted the Secretary of State or the Primeyi nister ; and up to as recent a period as the year 1830 he believed that even such a piece of patronage as the com mand of a regiment was not given away without the con currence of the Prime Minister. With regard to appoint moute abroad, ho could state that while he had been Co lonial Minister the Duke of Wellington had never made an important military appointment in any of the colonies without having first taken his opinion upon the subject ; and he was quite sure the same course bad been taken by the noble duke in reference to important military appoint ments at home. The fact was that he had even consulted the Government upon important points of discipline, such ag the question which had boon raised some years ego whether soldiers off duty in the streets should wear their side arms. He entirely differed from the noble earl oppo site on the subject of the amount of military duty which the Colonial Secretary had formerly to perform, even in the time of peace, and he could state from his own know ledge that it had been his busineAs to decide the amount and description of force to be employed iu every colony, the removal of regiments, and the honours to be awarded for military services. On every question of that sort the Se cretary of State, as the organ of the Government, was supreme, and the Commander-in-Chief invariably carried out his wishes. The Earl of DERBY replied. He said he had not meant to impute any blame to his noble friend the Com mander-in-Chief for not having defended the officers whose conduct had been impugned in the report of the commis sioners. On the contrary, his noble friend had himself confirmed everything he (the Earl of Derby) had said upon the subject, because he had told their lordships that as soon as the report had been brought under his notice, he I had thought that an opportunity should be afforded to those officers of exculpating themselves. What he (the Earl of Derby) complained of was that the report had net been communicated to his noble friend until the time had some for laying it before Parliament. He was ready to confess that in enumerating the duties of the Secretary of State he had omitted to mention that that minister was re.,ponsible for the amount of the forces to be maintained ; but he still contended that the military duties attached to the office had been inconsiderable. He could not sit down without expressing the satisfaction with which he had heard the statement of the noble, earl opposite iu re ference to the costiuuauce of the office of Commander-in- Chief. (Hear.) It appeared to him that the noble lord hail made the case between himself and the Commander in-Chief as clear as the nature of the subject would admit; and ho believed the language of the noble lord would re move much misunderstanding and misconception. (Hear, hear.) He rejoiced at having obtained a formal declara tion on the part of the noble lord, and, of course, on the part of her Majesty's Government, of their determination to maintain inviolate in the hands of the Commander-in- Chief the coatrol of the discipline, of the organisation, and of the patronage of her Msjesty'e forces. (Hear, hear.) The conversation then dropped, and their lordships ad j ourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.--<YESTERDAY.) OPENING THE MUSEUM, &c. Sir J. WALMSLEY moved the following resolution : "That, in the opinion of this house, it would promote the moral and intellectual improvement of the working classes of this metropolis if the Collections of National History and of Art in the British Museum and the National Gal lery were open to the public inspection after Morning Service on Sundays." The hon. member said it was due to the memory of his re vered friend the late Mr. Joseph Hume, to say that the motion now proposed was a pert of those labours which for a long series of years he (Mr. Hume) had endeavoured to carry out, and which he was convinced was essential to the elevation of that class whose interests he had specially at heart. Ix the remarks he desired to submit he should, as heretofore, avoid as much as possible disputed theologi cal subjeots and every observation of a personal character. He did not, however. wish to avoid any necessary discus sion calculated to elicit the truth, nor did he yield to any, there or elsewhere, in an earnest desire to preserve the Sunday as free from labour as was consistent with the ne cessities of the people, and as a day of devotion, rest, and innocent enjoyment ; and he might add, that all those who were acting with him entertained similar opinions. They believed that the measures they proposed would not only conduce that end, but would elevate the moral aid religious character of those portions of the people of the metropolis which, from whatever cause, had not hitherto been brought within the influence of those whose duty it had been to teach and improve them. The immediate ob ject of the motion of which he had given notice, and which he now submitted, was to enable the working men of the metropolis, or such of them as had no other opportunity of doing so, to visit the works of art in the British Museum and in the National Gallery on the afternoon of Sunday, and to this object alone was the proposition confined. (Hear.) In the petitions which these men had from time to time presented to the Legislature they had fully set forth the grounds on which they based their claim to such admission, and it was not to much to say that hitherto no valid reason had been assigned for the refusal of their prayer. They stated that the necessities of existence de manded six days labour out of seven, that Sunday was their only day of relaxation from toil, and, consequently, the, only day on which they could avail themselves of amain stitutions ; and they asked why establishments of so na tional and educational a character should be closed to those most in need of instruction, at a time when alone they could participate in such teaching. (Hear.) Their admis sion to these nurseries of science was stated by the artisans of the metropolis to be essential to the proper cultivation of their taste and mechanical skill, and to enable them to moot the yearly increasing competition of other nations. That it would advance the social condition of their families and themselves, would draw numbers from other and less desirable pursuits to the improvement of their minds and the development of their natural talents, and thet it could not in any way interfere with the religious rights or the devotional exercises of those who entertain more severe I views of the purposes and application of the Sunday. It had been well asked, are our working men, with all their skill and industry, socially inferior to, or less capable of good impression than, the same class in other countries, that they should be debarred from those privileges? It would be admitted that they were not; that thole was as much intelligence, as much real piety, and as earnest a de sire to hold fast by the blessings of one day of rest in seven, amsegst our oven as could be found amongst any other people ; aid far from desiring to see the Sunday employed otherwise than as a day of devotion, rest, and innocent enjoyment, they believe the opening of these institutions would increase the reverence for that day, and ultimately augment the attendance upon public worship. No one would question the wisdom of eccouraging the working men to visit these places, and to mix with those calculated to improve their tastes and habits ; and it was morally certain that were these institutions opened on the after noon of Sunday, thousands, if not tens of thousands, who themselves seldom left their crowded courts and alleys oil that day, save for the public-house, would be found with their wives and families at those sources and instruc tion, and would return to their homes better and wiser, encouraged by their association with intellect and science. They were told by scone that these were mere theoretical opinions—that a certain training was ne cessary before the mind could profit hr such teach ing ; but it could not be denied that sufficient time and ample means had been appropriated to such is training had the proper application been used by those whose duty it was to attend to it. It had been said that such privileges would be abused ; but the conduct of the working men, wherever it had been tested, had simply re futed this opinion, and the theory so called had received practical illustration in the sober and orderly conduct of the thousands who weekly availed themselves of the oppor tunities to visit the public institutions already opened on the Sundays, and the success of these experiments ought to have removed much prejudice. The sum of the matter iu the words of an able divine was—" That to the good and industrious such opportunities would afford innocent and useful recreation without doing harm. and to the bad and idle would hold out inducements to forsake vicious habits which might result in good." Several objections had been raised against this boon to the working men, to which he (Sir J. Walmsley) would refer. It had been said that the working men had not sufficiently shown their anxiety for admission to these institutions. For his part he thanked them for the moderate and constitutional course they had adopted, and he should greatly regret to see more striking demonstrations than those which had recently occurred. He would ask hon. members, who, rejoicing in affluence, would very likely forget the fact, to bear in mind that the expenses incidental to the getting up of petitions fell heavily on the means of working men. Another objeotion was that the adoption of the measure would engage the labour cf a few officials during the afternoon of Sunday. How far that scruple was allowed, by those who advanced it, to affect their aotions in the ease of that large class of the community, domestic servants, he would leave for themselves to determine. The conduct of this class of op ponents had, Le confessed, always appeared to him to be a striking monument of inconsistency. Bat in truth the labour required in proportion to the instruction to be ob tained would be almost infinitesimal, and no individual would he prevented from attending divine service at least once on Sunday. The evidence of Dr. Grey, the curator of the British Museum, before the Fine Arts Committee in 1541, was so pointed on this part of the sub ject, that he would venture to read a few brief extracts. It should be remembered that that evidence was taken by a committee not unfavourable to the cause which he was ad vocating. Dr. Grey said—" I do not anticipate any difficulty in making arrangements for opening on Sunday afternoon. The same assistance by the police as on great holidays might he adopted. If the British Museum were open on the after noon of Sunday, many men who new go alone for pleasure to the country would accompany their wives and children to thellritish Museum, and I see no objection to the admis sion of children with their parents. Judging from the at tention on holidays, when the husband and wife visit the there is evidently a great desire to avail instruction which the place affords. The behaviour of o go f eftlir the together, people is very good. I am delighted to see the manner in which they exami ne the collec tions on hell days. The mechanics appear much interested in the speci mens, and, frequently, one who knows more than others will demonstrate for the rest of party. Great advantages are derived from the perusal of the collection. It gives the mass of the people a general taste for the study of nature, which must be highly advantageous to their morals. I consider the Museum one of the greatest educational institutions in the country, and one of those places where people may gain real sound knowledge. Galleries of werks of art I regard in the same light, and I thing they ought to be as free as possible. Having formerly practised as a medical man in one of the largest districts of Spitalfields, I am well aware there is a mass of people who have no opportunity of visit ing the Museum or any gallery of, art save on the Sunday, and many of whom would rather spend their Sunday afternoon in that manner than as they have been accustomed hither. to." Stoll wus the evidence of a man of practical experience and great knowledge, and he bad reason to believe that these opinions were unaltered. Another plea adverse to this motion and urged by no less apersonage than the first minister of the crown,was, that it would offend the religious feelings of a certain portion of the coneinuuity : what portion the roblo lord had not said. (A. laugh.) No one knew better than did the noble lord that such pleas carried to their legitimate results had, in times past, lighted the fires of Smithfield, and kept, at the present time, a large portion of our fellow-Christians under the ban of pains and penal ties. It was such a plea which at that moment withheld their political rights from one sect among our fellow-coun trymen—which still suffered for conscience' sake, arid that, although one of its members had been raised by his fellow citizens to the highest dignity they could confer. It was a plea at variance with the right of private judgment and adverse to the principles of the Protestant faith. Some again, for lack of better argument, had been pleased to im pute motives and to assert that there was a covert desire on the part of employers to encourage Sunday labour, in order to obtain seven days' work for six days' pay. He (Sir J. Walnisloy) thought the assertion convoyed a very sorry compliment to the intelligence of the working men. It carried, however, its own refutation. It was simply as absurd as it was untrue; and it was a source of regret to him to find those who professed so much more than their neighbours wanting in the great attributes of Christianity —charity and truth." (Hear.) No one would accuse the working men of a desire to add to the hours of toil; they, a', least, were anxious to reduce them ; they were not only the promoters but the chief supporters of the motion, satis fied that its success would facilitate that objact—that it would at least furnish another opportunity for rational en joyment ou the afternoon of Sanday, and cast a gleam of sunshine to cheer the hours spent in the factory and the workshop. Much had been said and written on what was called the continental desecration of the Sunday, and an at- our neighbour he would tempt had been made to mix up the two questions. It was not our for nationality wacomp that p butoit between n say that he could not see any connexion between a visit to him to and dra that of comparison ou the British Museum on the afternoon of Sunday and the desecration of that day. Upon this point he would venture to trouble the house by reading an extract of a letter from one whe was more qualified than himself—perhaps indeed better qualified than any other man in Europe—to give an opinion upon this subject. He had not the authority of the writer to his name, but he (Sir J.Walmeley) could as sure the house that he Lad by no means overrated that writer's capacity for giving judgment upon such a ques tion. The extract was as follows :—" I am of opinion that vice and inailorelity are relatively more prevalent in Lon don than in the great continental capitals, and especially that the relative proportion of immorality which pros- a il s on the Sunday, compared with any other day of the week, is far larger in London than in the continental capitals— that in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where what may be called the Judaical observance of the Sunday is greater than is London, the vice and criminality prevalent on that day are also relatively greater than in that metropolis." One case he could from actual knowledge refer to in support of this opinion. Who had witnessed the strict observance of their religious duties by the people of the Swiss cantons— he referred them specially to the Protestant cantons— with their joyous and innocent relaxation on the afternoon of Sunday—(hear)—w'ouli be prepared t' say that such relaxation, sanctioned by the presence of their pastors, tended to lower either the moral or the religious character of that people? In fact, the aseetie interpretation was placed by some ou the observance of the Sabbath was not sanctioned by many pious divines, both of church and chapel. He (Sir J. Walineley) had, when this subject was last before the house, referred to the opinion of Dr. Ar nold, and he would then quote from one whose piety and virtue that good man had always spoken with enthusiasm —the then Archbishop of Dublin—who said, " The Lord's Day is to be held purely as a religious festival. Judaism being abolished, all its ritual observances must, of course, be wholly at an end ; so that we are no more compellet to keep the fourth commandment than we are to keep the worship of the temple or the daily sacrifice." (Hear.) And again, Paley, whose opinion 4 most hou. members, would honour, had sail—" Cessation from labour on the Sunday beyond the time of attendance on public wor ship is not intimated in any passage of the New Testa ment, nor did Christ or his apostles deliver any command men to their disciples for a discontinuance on that day of the common offices of their profession. The resting on that day from our employment longer than we are detained from it by attendance on public worship, is to Christians an ordnance of human institution." (Hear.) This insti- tution, however, he (Sir J. Wslrusley) regarded as one of the greatest blessings conferred ou man, and as such he desired to see as much freedom from lal,our on that day as was consistent with the necesAties of the people. But he thought that experience had shown that penal enactments and restrictive measures, far from elevating the moral or the religions tone of the people, and filling our churches and chapels with devout worshippers, had unfortunately begot an antagonism greatly detrimental to both. Nor did the exclusion of the working classes from the sources of in struction and enjoyment, embra^ed by the motion intrusted to him, on the afternoon of Sunday—during the only few hours the poor man could call his o —comewith a good grace from those who, themselves having all things richly to enjoy on every day of the week, yet opened their clubs and news rooms, enjoyed their piotures, their statues, their parks, and gardens, and oven iu some cases held their Sunday mu sical soirees and reunions. Surely this was straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. It was at least hold ing out one law for the rich and another for the poor. He (Sir J. Walmsley) regarded this motion as purely au edu cational one, and he should indeed rejoice could he induce others to look upon it in that light. It was educational in the most comprehensive sense, and would extend that blessing to tens of thousands whom the millions spent on a church establishment had not yet reached. If hon. members would look at the question in this light he should have but little fear fur the fate of the motion which he had placed in the Spoaker'e hands. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. V. SHELLEY said that if ho wen.' t , ) consult his own convenience he should give a silent vote on that •ecasion, but entertaining as be did a strong opinion on the matter, and feeling, as sue of the representatives of the metropolis, that his constituents were amongst those mainly interested, Ise thought it his duty to second the motion. He felt that in so doing 'no was taking an unpo pular part in that housi=he was not aura that, to a cer tain extent, it was sot an unpopular one out of doors; but haying a decided opinion, it was only right that he should express it. He was anxious that no matters not properly connected with the subject of the motion should be brought into question. It was with regret that he had heard the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) upon a former occa sion represent that the working men ought to look to this subject, for the Sunday opening movement would speedily lead to au attempt to obtain seven days' work fur six days' pay. Such an argument was beside the matter ; aid, even passing by that, it was not based on fact. He would point out to the house that the promoters of this movement were those who favoured the movement for eat ly closing and for the Saturday half-holiday. (Hear.) Wheu this subject _ . • was last befOre the house, the noble lord at the head of - the Government (Loid Paltherston) made some remarks so ex actly expressing his (Sir J. V. Shelley's) views, that he thought it right to call the attention of the noble lord and of the house to them: Unfortunately, on the occasion to which he alludel, the noble lord had not been able to yield to the views of those with whom he (Sir J. V. Shelley) acted. He trasted that upon the motion it might be other wise. The noble lord admittel that Sunday ought to be a day of innocent and healthful recreation, but that Par liament ought not to attempt by law to draw any line be tween different classes of amusements, If the noble lord thought so, why did he tolerate a system under which ex cursion trains were allowed to ply between London and Sydsnham without let or hindrance? and yet when the working man arrived at the Crystal Palace there an arbi trary line was drawn, and ho was told it would be impious to unbolt the doors in order to admit him to that which could only end iu profitable instruotion and amusement to him. Again, when the noble lord said the matter must be left to the conscience of every individual, he (Sir J. Y. Shelley) was at ono with him. But the present state of the law did not leave it a private matter of conscience, but imposed a rule binding on everybody. With regard to the feelings of those chiefly interested in this question, he would remind the house that an association, called "The Sunday League," had been formed. Of course this had been followed by an opposition association at Exeter Hall, con sisting, ne clout, of those who were conscientiously opposed to the movement. The prospectus of the League would be a fair test of the views of the working men upon the question. This document, signed by working men, stated that, in the belief of those sending it forth, the intellectual and moral progress of the working elass would be greatly promoted by giving them an opportunity of rational and intellectual enjoyment that, instead of increasing labour on the Sunday, it would lessen it, for, under the present system, men frequently worked on the Sunday in order to be able to afford to take a holiday ou those days upon which places of amusement were open to them. It was hardly possible that the law could remain in its present anomalous shape. Wore further restraints to be put upon the people ? Seine of the petitions presontod—and he aright incidentally remark that he believed letters had been sent to every clergyman in the country, requesting him to get up petitions. Some of these petitions stated that it was unjust that the gatekeepers and others engaged in the pub lic parks should be so employed on Sunday, and asked that the parks might be closed on that day. Recent experience in Hyde-park would be a warning to the Legislature on that subject. Ho would ask the attention of the house, while upon the subject ef restraints upon the people in this respect, to a case which was mentioned in a Manchester journal. It appeared that one John Woollencroft, a barber, was summoned before the magistrates, charged under the 29 Chas. 11., c. 1, with exercising his calling on a Sunday. The judge before wiaom the matter came called a police. man, who said he saw him shaving a man. Mr. Cobbett de fended the case, and said the question for the magistrates to decide was, whether the defendant bad been carrying on his lawful occupation, or was doing a work of necessity or charity. Mr. Cobbett urged that shaving was performed on the person, and should be classed with the operations of the surgeon or the dentist, adding that it had been de cided that bakers when cooking dinners on Sunday were not following their lawful occupation. The magistrates decided that they had no discretion, and fined the man ss. and costs. He mentioned this to show the length to which matters were sometimes driven. He asked the house to pause before they refused the petition of the working melt of London as represented by the Sunday League, and trusted that they were not going to uphold one law for the rich and another for the poor. (Hear, hear.) Ho asked them whether it was possible that any working man could afford to give up a day for the purpose contemplated by the motion. No one who was acquainted with the actual position of our workmen would assert that any ef them could afford to give up Monday for a visit to the Museum or National Gallery. To those institdtions he contributed by the payment of his taxes, and therefore it was only fair th.t they [should be made accessible to him on the only day upon which he was able to visit them. (Hear, hear.) On the question being put, Mr. A. PELLATT moved the following amendment : "That, in the opinion of this house, more frequent oppor tunities should be afforded for week-day inspection of the National Gallery, Government museums, and works of art; also, that the British Museum should he open five days in the week, and especially on Mondays and Saturdays, those days being most convenient to the working classes." He denied that the werkiug classes were in favour of the hoe. member for Leicester's motion, and was ready to take issue on that point in so far as the labourers of London were concerned. If they doubted the state of public feeling, let thew look at the number of petitions that had been pre- Rented, at the ferment in the public mind, and the number of letters that had been addressed to hon. members. As to the Sunday opening of these buildings being instructive he believed that mechanics held quite a contrary opinion and believed that it would load them into expense which might otherwise be avoided, while it would completely deprive them of all the benefit to be derived from the Sunday schools. He might here mention it as a curious fact, that Sunday schools were worse attended in London than in any other part of the kingdom. Then the clergy were unani mously against any alteration, and earnestly deprecated any interference with the Sabbath as a step in a downward direction. (Cheers.) With respect to the Sunday school teachers who had petitioned he quoted some statisth famished by Mr. Baines of Leeds. Having quoted an anecdote of Dr. Johnson and Sir Joshua Reynolds, in which the former is made to obtain from the latter a pledge to observe the Sabbath, the hon. member Calls eluded by moving his amendment. Mr. BAXTER said this was no party question, a ques tion between rich and poor, or between churchman and dis senter. It was a matter which, in his opinion, intimately concerned the well-being of this country, and its civil and religious liberties, and therefore he hoped it was one upon which a British House of Commons would net come to an ambiguous or uncertain decision. That which we looked upon as the great bulwark of our Christianity was as sailed, and it was sought by legislative enactment to over turn that which the great majority of the people of this country change tiyheld t i o .e t s o tr b ic e te s d ac t r h ed ei . r niThootioandvtoocatutees Borfittihseh pro-Mu seum and the National Gallery ; but could they atop there ? If those places were opened, why not the Panopticon, or Madame Tussa.ud'e, or Miss Horton's Gallery of Illustra itniosnt;nacltliovfe wahsiwchelelnatserataminumsineng.ts Neat cw o o n l a t i l d d e c r o ed me hi a gh d ly . o maid for the theatres- There were a g reat man y men in this country who held that theatres conduced ,very m uc h to the moral and intellectual advancement of society. Were they to be pleaded for, and if not, why ? Ho asked the house to consider also what a vast amount of daily toil would ha created by the Sunday opening of these exhibi tions. Omnibuses, cabs, shops for refreshment would all be ealled into requisition to accommodate the crowds which would gather if the privilege were conceded. Soon then they would find the warehousemen compelled by sor did masters to work on the Sabbath-day. (Hear, hear.) If this resolution pa.ssed, the house might depend upon it a reaction would follow such as was now going on in France, and as had already secured a rigid observance of the Sabbath in the United States. Ile was at a loss to know either how museums or collections of pictures could bo looked upon as moral agents. That they might refine the taste he was ready to admit, but those who had spent any time in such cities as Munich, Florence, or Rome, might fairly be ex cused for doubting the influence of art in promoting social happiness or the domestic virtues. (Hear.) Let them ask the City Mission or the police whether they believed in this movement ; or even the publicans themselves, whether they thought it wonll be for their advantage. (Hear.) It was said that the Museum and the National Gallery were supported by the people, and that the people had a right of access on Sunday. As well might it be said that, hav ing elected that house, they had a right to command the service of its members on Sunday. He believed that the country did not wish to have these exhibitions open o n. Sunday, and that they looked to their representatives to give a strenuous opposition to this motion. He should have been best pleased to meet it with a direct negative, but es he was an advocate for the Saturday half holiday, he felt gratified in supporting the ainendteent. Mr. MURROUGH supported the original motion, and observed that if they wanted arguments in its support they , might turn to the Monday's police-sheet, with its half-in toxicated ruffians and bleeding victims of Sunday benta lity. His object in supporting it was to serve the workmen of the metropolis, aid therefore he wee not to be influenced by the petitions of Sunday-school teaohers from distant villages. He was anxious to have not only the Museum and National Gallery thrown open, but also the portals of our metropolitan eithedrale. It was a degrading fact that that assembly, whi c h arrogate d to i tse lf SO muc h of Chris tinnily, should permit national churches like St. Petel'e, Westminster, and St. Paul's Cathedral, to be kept with closed doors through the week, in order that they might be used as an exhibition to put money into the pockets of a grasping and sordid priesthood. Mr. F. CROSSLEY opposed the motion. Lord STANLEY, who was very indistinctly heard, com menced by stating that he still held the opinions he had formerly expressed upon this subject, notwithstanding their unpopularity with a large portion of the house. He did not deny that souse public opinion had been called forth upon this question. Admitting that 150,000 persons had signed petitions against the present proposition, what was that compared with the demonstrations which had taken place upon the great constitutional and administrative questions by which the public mind had at one time or an other been excited? In 1837, when the Church-rate ques tion was much agitated, there were no less than 600,000 signatures to the petitions sent in from various parts of the country, praying for relief. Again, how had those 150,000 signatures, be they more or less, been obtained ? (Cheers.) There could be no doubt that a large majority of the clergy of all denominations entertained a very strong opinion upon this question. There were in orders in this country 30,000 ministers of religion, and supposing one-half of these to have come forw a rd o exercise their influence upon their respective congregations, that would only give ten signa tures to every petition. Remember that it was in the pul pit that this question was chiefly agitated ; and both in the pulpit and at public meetings, he regretted to say that the agitation had been prompted by misrepresenting the objects and motives of those who supported this motion. There were not tens, bat hundreds, in every congregation who were at all times ready to sign any petition their minister recommended, and in this case the appeal for signatures, he was told, had been made from the pulpit itself. On the one side, therefore, they had an organised movement conducted by a most powerful and influential body, and upon the other there was merely the voluntary and spontaneous efforts of some few individuals. In estimating the force of public opinion on the one side and the ether, as represented by petitions, all this must be taken into account. Now what was the social plea upon which this motion was resisted? It was said, you will offend the scruples of many honest and conscientious persons. If that plea were allowed the full weight which some seemed disposed to give it, the world would have stood still lone. ago. But the question was, not whether offence would be given, but whether the offence was well founded ? And this appeared to him to be the fundamental difference between permissive and compulsory legislation. They had heard something about legal enactments for turn ing the Sabbath into a day of amusement. He could under stand that if a man supposed it to be an act of impiety to enter a museum or gallery of art on the Snuday, and any attempt were made by legislation to compel him to do so, he would be justified in offering all the resistance to such a measure in his power. Bqt that was not the point. The op ponents of this resolution did not ask for.freedom fortheru selves to stay away from the British Museum and National Gallery—they asked to have the power put into theirhands to compel all others to keep away also, and to observe the Sabbath as they themselves desired to observe it. They might consider that it was a religious duty imposed upon them to press for a legislative obligation to keep the Sabbath, and that they were to a certain extent responsible for the acts of the community. In dealing between nation and nation no doubt every man was responsible for the acts of the community. England being at war with Russia, ever♦ Englishman was at war with Russia, whether he approved of the war or net, but the principle of making every indi vidual responsible for tho acts of the whole community was not to extend to the relations between men and th© Sa- promo Being. In religion every man must act for hi mself ; religious duty was a question of morality, dependent upon the conscience of each individual man, and for one man to attempt to enforce his religious views and ob se rv ances u p on another was tyranny of the worst kind. its believed that fully one-half of the social injustice which had been done amongst uien—fully one-half of the misery endured on th e . _ earth—had arisen from tho manner in which all men and all governments had endeavoured to enfo'rce their own par ticular religious views upon the consciences of others. They had proceeded upon this principle " Though I know cannot make my neighbour adopt my creed, I will com pel him to act in his outward observances as though be did." That was the principle upon which a large portion of mankind had at all times acted, and the result; had been an amount of hypocrisy and persecution which had gene far to bring the very uame of religion into contempt. Ho denied that that was the principle upon which the Legis lature ought to proceed in this matter, He denied the right of that house, or of the Government, or of any legis lative tribunal, to lay down and enforce the duty which man owed to his Maker. (Hear.) They might have laws as many as they pleased to define and enforce the duty of man to man, but the duty of man to the Supreme Being was not a matter of law, but of individual conscience. There were some who contended that the commands of the decalogue were all of them still literally binding upon all men—(hear)—but if they accepted the obligation of the commandments in their literal sense, why no follow them out literally in all things ? (Hear.) But, by the fourth commandment, if taken literally, they were bound not one day in seven merely, but the seventh day. - Very much might be said as to the degree of sanctity to be given to the Sabbath, but he felt that the House of Commons was not the place for a discussion upon that point. It would be easy enough to show that the rigid observance of the Sun day was never insisted upon in the early days of Chris tianity, and that until about two centuries ago it was un known. Neither the early fathers of the Christian churches nor the great Protestant authorities ever contended for the ascetic observance of that day. He might be allowed to quote one authority, which every :religions Protestant, of whatever denomination, would, he was sure, readily ad mit—viz., Luther. Luther says--" If anywhere the day is made holy for the mere day's sake—if any where any one sets up its observance upon a Jewish foundation— then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall re prove this encroachment on the Christian spirit aid liberty." That was the opinion of the greatest religious reformer of former these. Among modern authorities Paley said— " Cessation upon Sunday from labour beyond the time of attendance upon public worship is not inti mated in any passage of the New Testament, nor dil Christ or his apostles deliver any command to their disciples for a discontinuance upon that day of the common offices of their professions." Again—" The resting on that day from our employments, longer than we are detained from them by attendance upon public worship, is to Christians an ordi nance of human institution." And if he might quote the opinion of a man whose authority would be received with respect by many hen. members of that house, as those of one whose piety and learning was known to them perso nally, he would refer to Dr. Arnold, the late head master of Rugby. Dr. Arnold said—" That Sunday should be a day of greater leisure than other days, and of the suspen sion, as far as may be, of the common business of life, I quite allow ; but then I should have much greater indul gence for recreation on a Sunday than you might have ; and if the railway enables the people in the great towns to get out into the country on a Sunday, I should think it a very great good." (Cheers.) He had heard it used as an argument out of doors that to open places of public amuse ment on the Sunday was aPepish practice ; but was it not Popish to strain conscience? (Cheers.) He had alluded so far to the religious qusstioa, because everything that had been said on social grounds against Sunday opening had been put forward to cover and conceal the religious ground, which was the real question upon which the motion was resisted. (Cheers.) It was said that to open these institu tions on the Sunday was the first step towards making the Sunday a working day. To that proposition he had to answer that there was a wide difference, and one that it was scarcely possible to overlook, between the opening of places of amusement on the Sunday and the giving a legis lative sanction to the non-observance of that day as a day of rest. The experience of all countries and of all people was in favour of the maintenance of one day of rest in the seven, and public opinion was unanimous for it. He knew us reason why, therefore, the State should not take upon itself to protect the proper observance of that day— (hear)—but he contended that in the resolution as it stood there was nothing to give, either directly or in directly, the slightest sanction to Sunday desecration in any form. (Hear.) But apart from the question of legis lation, was it true that the working man was so entirely in the power of the employer that if he could not he restrained from going to places of amusement on the Sundsy, his employer would call upon him to work on that day ? The member for Halifax (Mr. Crossley) had expressed a ver a y s decided opinion on this point. The hon. gentlemane rela tions was an employer, and must necessarily understand th between employers and employed, but when the hon. gentleman wanted an illustration to prove his argument that if the Museum were opened on the Sunday, the work ing man's Sabbath would be taken from him altogether, he referred not to whet he had observed in France, but to what he saw in the southern states of the American. Union. Where was the parallel bet ween the two cases ? (H ear. ) He (Lord Stanley) thought that what had occurred of late years might have shown the hon. gentleman, en the one hand, that the employed were not so utterly the slaves of the employers as he wished it to be inferred ; and on the other, that the employers were not so regardless of the wants and comforts of the employed. There was no reli gions re quirements or obligation of law to compel the em pl )yers to close early, yet the good sense and humanity of the e mployers had responded to the demand for early clos ing and for the Saturday half-holiday in most parts of the country. The hon. member for Southwark had said that if you opened these places of public amusement on the Sun day, the Sunday schools would be empty—that was, the the children who attended them would find more attrac tion in the Museum, the National Gallery, and other insti. tutions of that kind. Ho fully admitted the great value of Sunday schools, but he thought that when young children under ten years old were kept four or five hours on the Sunday at school, and were compelled, as he had known done, to attend Divine worship in the church or chapel be sides, it was far too great a strain upon the mind, anti if the effect of the success of this motion were only to relieve young children from this excessive teaching, which he believed to be injurious both mentally and physically, it would not, in his opinion, be altogether useless. (Hear.) Then it was said the agitation on this subject would tend to disturb the public mind and lead to further demands. But this was not a qeestien of obtaining new privileges, but of continuing the law which the public now possessed. There was no single argument that applied against the opening of the British Museum which did not go to the • stopping of every Sunday excursion train and every steam ! boat that plied upon the Sunday. Did they mean to say that the hundreds of thousands of people who inhabited Shoreditch and Bethnal-green should be deprived of those the only means they had of obtaining fresh air en the only day on which they had the opportunity of inhaling it ? He would not take into account the cry about there being one law for the rich and another for the poor, but ho would say that the spirit of legislation which the opponents of this motion advocated was calculated to raise that cry, and had already done so. (Hear.) With regard to the suggestion of the injustice of requiring certain persons to work on the Sunday that others might be amused, he referred to the fact that policemen, Post-office officials, and many other persons in the service of the Government, were required to labour on the Sabbath for the benefit of the rest of the community, but recommended, in order to meet the objec tion, that persons employed in the national institutions who were conscientiously averse to Sunday labour should be excused, and that those only who did lot object should be employed on that day, receiving extra remuieration for their services. Ho did not consider that such a measure as that proposed would at all interfere with religious wor ship. A. large majority of the working classes were not in the habit of attending religions worship, and if they were there was not sufficient accommodation for that purpose. Under these circumstances, therefore, he thought it rather hard that the present generation of working men should be compelled to pass their Sundays in pot. hoe sem because there were no places provided for their amusement or instruction. But if there were church accommodation sufficient, an entire day passed in religious observances and mental effort was im possible—there would be ample time for religions worship before or after the time spent in these institutions. By c on . tinning to l eg i s late i n the spirit of ascetic observance of the Sunday they might succeed in making religion unpopular --they might succeed in throwing back the cause of educa tion, the pe o pl e wou ld ga i n no thi ng i n religion or morality, the clergy would loss mush, but the pockets would be tilled and the hearts wonld be gladdened of all the brewers, the distillers, the publicans, and the heershop•keepers in the country. (Cheers.) Mr. NAPIER admitted that there ought to be no compulsion in matters of religion ; but so much the more ought they to use the moral and persuasive influences of example and education. (Hear.) He con tended that the success of this motion would lead to pri vate exhibitions, from those to theatrical amusements, and from recreation and pleasure to trade. And all this was throngli the Legislature setting the example. If Parliament made Sunday a day of pleasure, it ceased to be a day of rest. He then entered into a theological argument in fa vour of a strict observance of the day. Mr. HEYWOOD contended that men of science had shown no disposition to keep the Museum or the National Gallery shut on Sundays. He would support the motion, because he thought modern science had disproved the lite ral meaning of the Book of Genesis. He admitted that Sunday was a Christian institution, but he thought it was sufficiently observed by attending divine observance in the morning, and going to a museum er a gallery in the after noon. Mr. CAIRNS opposed the motion. No one denied that there was a divine law on this subject, and though some gentlemen on the othor side argued that the strictness of the observance was relaxed under the Christian dispensation, that was not a view which had ever been recognised by the constitution or the Legislature, or, what was more, by the people of this country. He contended further, that if this step were once taken, it would be impossible to check the opening of other exhibi tions, of places of amusement, and finally of trade, wiser@ tho working men would be compelled by the strong intim- • _ once of competition, to give seven days' labour for six days' wages. The working classes had found this out, and ho believed the majority of thew. were agthist this motion. Lord EBRINGTON yielded to no one in respect for the Sabbath, but he could not help feeling that at present the condition of the working classes was not what it ought to be. He was anxious to improve their state by every means in Lie power, and looking upon the object of this otioa as one means to that end; he was inclined to sup port it. Mr. ROWNDELL PALMER. reminded the house of the physical advantages of a weekly rest, remarking that no man could say how much of the greatness of this country was owing to the supply of strength derived from it. The moral and spiritual objects of the day were more impor tant still. An 1 all this rested upon the feeling of the people that there was a higher law than any law of this house commanding it. If, then, the observance of the day rested upon the religious convictions of the country, they ought to appeal to the religions portion of the people as to the best moans of observing it. It was said by Lord Stanley that there was no chance of masters compelling their labourers to work on Sundays. But the noble lord forgot that one or two masters could force all other was tors to follow their example, and the labourers would be compelled by the pressure of competition to continue their employments on Sundays as on other days. He admitted that it was impossible to defend all the Sunday practices that were allowed, but the great principle was, whether the Government, when it interfered at all, interfered to meculariss or to keep holy the day, at the same time that it would not interfere with private action or with winks ;hat might positively conduce to acts of necessity or mercy. Mr. EDWARD BALL opposed the motion. Mr. WIGRAM also opposed th© resolution, and cons . plained that no member of the Government had taken part in the debate. Lord PALDIERSTON—I can assure the hon. and learned gentleman that if 1 have abstained from presenting myself at an earlier moment, it has not arisen in any degree from my undervaluing the importance of the subject; but I thought it more respectful to the house, and to these who wished to express their opinions, that they should de so before any member of her Majesty's Government took part in the debate. (Hear, hear.) It is not my intention to support the motion of my hnn. friend, but I am afraid that the way in which I look at the motion will not satisfy those with whom I vote, and certainly it will not sa ti s fy those against whom I vote. (A. laugh.) I attach as much value as any hon. member to the observance of the Sun day. 1 will not go into and repeat the arguments so eloquently expressed by the hon. and learned gentleman at my right (Mr. Palmer), why it is desirable on every account, bcth with regard to intellectual and moral, and, indeed, physical considerations, that the Sunday should be kept a sacred day ; on the other hand, I cannot myself think that the mere opening of these two places of resort would in itself morally effect the observance of the Sunday. I mean that I cannot go so far as those who object to this motion, in thinking that the mere admission to the Na tional Gallery and British Museum would be that sort of infringement of the sanctity of the Sunday which should excite the alarm—which should justify the alarm--which has been expressed, or produce those evil consequences which have been attributed to it. But those who object to the motion; object to it not so much for the effect which the particular thing required might produce, as because they consider it the first stop towards somothiag else. Un doubtedly that is a consideration well deserving the atten tion of the house. When, however, we are arguing on this question, and when hon, members consider the alter native to be, whether the bulk of the population of this great metropolis shall attend divine service, or shall resort to these plaees of amusement, we ought not to forget that, unfortunately, the places of public worship in this metro polis, as I fear, do not afford accommodation to more than a very small portion of the population, the continued clos ing of these places, therefore, would not be securing the object they seek. Concurring with the majority of this house in thinking that it is not expedient to take tie step proposed, not a very important one in itself, I cannot help thinking that great exaggeration has been resorted to in arguing this question, in representing it as a great moral and intellectual object to be attained in opening the British Museum and the National Gallery. It certainly would be a very innocent amusement for those who resorted to it, but as to its being likely to produce great intellectual im provement in these who went there, I think undue stress has been laid upon that point. Considering on the one hand that the advantages which, even in the view of those who make this motion, could be derived from the opening of these places could be attained ; on the other hand, con sidering the great amount of feeling expressed from all parts of the country—a feeling that is entitled to the utmost respect and deference by this house—considering that, I think it would have a very bad effect on the moral feeling of the country if it were thought this house would set itself in opposition to the opinions proceeding from such a vast number of persons, whose opinions are entitled to respect— considering that nothing could be worse than Parliament should appear to be less careful uponthe moral and religious feelings of the country than the people of the country them• selves. I undoubtedly shall without any hesitation give my vote against the motion of my hon. friend. With regard to the course of our proceedings, I would suggest one ooneide ration. An amendment had bean announced which, in its form, tends to prescribe a certain course to the trustees of the British Museum. Now, it is not unusual, I think, for this house to interfere by directing the conduct of the in stitution. The trustees have given additional facilities on the Saturday afternoon. The amendment proposes to direct. the Museum shall be open on the Monday. 1 humbly sub mit to the house that it would be the better course simply to negative the motion of my hen. friend, because the feel ing of the house is so clearly ascertained, that it would be quite sufficient to say " Aye," or " No" on the question rather than to vote on the amendment, which would have .the effect of interfering with the management of an !anti ' tntion which, I think, this house has hitherto net inter fered with. The trustees are perfectly ready to make any arrangement consistent with the order of the institution for the purpose of giving facilities to the public to view it, and I think the house will do well to leave the matter in the hands of the trustees, rather than interfere as proposed, well-intended as I know it to be. I would propose to my hon. friend to vote "Aye" or "No" on the question. Mr. MUNTZ said that few men had sacrificed more than he had done for the working classes, and it wall for that tvheeryil,eoatsioon.,. anidloenrte w as hei r a bah elf, that should votoe thest strong d's rog • t ' Tbh working classes of their Sunday. if once a concession were ma de, where would they stop? He knew of the greatest manufacturers in this country who never would engage a workman unless he would consent to work on the Sunday. if required. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn had alluded to the . easy manner in which early closing was obtained. But that was yielded when the country was in great prosperity. What would be the state of things when months and years of adversity came ? Mr. A. PELLA.TT—I will take the hint of the worthy Premier—(loud laughter)—and I consent to withdraw the amendment. Sir J. VALMSLEY replied—This was net tho fret step, nor the second, nor the third. They had opened Kew gardens, the Painted Nall at Greenwich, and other place', and now they were asked to open the British Museum and the National Gallery. He referred to the opening of Hampton. Court Palace, Kew Gardens, and the Pain ted Hall, Greenwich, on Sundays. The former had been visited by 52,000, and Kew Gardens by 160,000 pOll s, whose praiseworthy and orderly conduct had e licited the on approbation of all. He next referred to the beneficial results from opening one of the libraries a t Oxford on Sunday afternoons, and"which had bee n approved of by the Bishop of Oxford. Tie time would soon come when much .of that prejudice and misconception that existed ' with regard to this question would be removed. Many honourable members who would to-night vote against his motion would by doing so vote against their conscienees, If they voted in that house by ballot ho felt certain he should have been in a majority. (Hear, hear, and laugh. ter.) The house then divided, when the nntnliers wens For the motion Againstit ........................ ............. 376 Majority against the motion ......... _mg POST OFFICE (DUBLIN AND EDINBURGH). Mr. VANCE moved for a copy of correspondence be• tween the Postmaster-General and the Treasury, relating to an inquiry into the administration of the Dublin and Edinburgh post-offices.—Agreed to. The Delamere Forest Bill was read a second time. The Commons Enclosure Bill passed through committee. The Charitable Uses Bill, as amended, was considered. and ordered to be read a third time on Monday. DRAINAGE ADVANCES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. This bill, Re amended, was considered, and ordered lot third reading to-morrow (Friday). The house adjourned at ten minutes before twolve. IA Y). di g Air