The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-23 00:00:00

HARBOUR.

The Earl of HARDWICKE, on Tuesday, called the
attention of the house to the fact that no means had
yet been used to ascertain whether the Russian men-
of war sunk in Sebastopol harbour were destroyed,
or were capable of being ultimately floated. He be-
lieved that if after the conclusion of peace theAe
vessels were to be raised by the Russians, great
irritation would prevail in this country. He appre-
hended that operations might be now successfully
carried on to complete their destruction.
Lord PANMURE, in reply, said that nothing, he felt
sure, would be left undone to complete the destruc-
tion of everything above and below water at Sebas-
topol.
OPENING OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM AND
NATIONAL GALLERY ON SUNDAYS.

After the nception of a mass of petitions from all
parts of the country against this motion, and a few in
favour of the same, the delivery of which took up-
wards of an hour,
Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY rose to move-1

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
Gallery were open to the public inspection after morning
service on Sundays.
It was due, he said, to the memory of his late
revered friend to state that he (Mr. J. Hume) was
was the originator of this. This measure which he
proposed was calculated, in his belief, to advance the
moral awl religious character of the labouring
classes. He wished it to be perfectly understood,
that he simply desired the working classes of the
metropolis to have an opportunity of visiting the
works of art in the British Museum and the National
Gallery on the afternoon of Sunday, and that was the
full extent of the motion, although he admitted that it
had been mixed up, to a great degree, with proposi-
tions of a different character. It was especially un-
just to the working classes to exclude them, on the
only day they had for recreation and enjoyment, from
places which would elevate their taste, develop their
talents, and advance their social position. To the
objectio❑ that it would lead to a desecration of the
Sabbath, lie replied that he could not see the neces-
sary connection between the desecration of the
Sabbath and a visit to the British Museum and
National Gallery after divine service. To another
objection, that opening these institutions would em-
ploy labour, he replied that the amount of labour
employed, to the benefit and instruction derived
would be infinitesimal. He fully believed that by
admission to such establishments on a Sunday, vice
and immorality would sensibly decrease among the
w,irking classes. and they would be rescued from
the gross and sensual indulgences now alone left to
them. In conclusion, the hon. btu °yet contrasted
the mode in which the upper classes generally spent
their Sabbath, and pointed out that, with regard to
the people, restrictive measures, far from encourag-
ing a moral and religious tone of mind, nourished a
spirit of antagonism to religion. The law, as it at
present stood, practically prescribed one measure for
the rich and another for the poor.
Sir J. SHELLEY seconded the motion. He thought
that, atter morning service on Sundays, the labour-
ing men should have inducements to quit their
croNded homes and seek recreation, instruction, and
amusement during the afternoon. In this manner,
he believed, the real intention of the Sabbiith would
be better fulfilled than by the present prohibitive
system.

Mr. PELLATT moved an amendment, that more
frequent opportunities should be afforded for week.
day inspection of the National Gallery, Government

174

museums, and works of art; also, that the British
Museum should be opni five days in the week.
Mr. BAXTER seconded this amendment, and argued
that the adoption of the original resolution would be
a prelude to the opening of the theatres, as well as
places of amusement in the provinces, on Sundays.
Mr. Munnouou supported the original motion. It
was impossible, he contended, for the working classes
to spend their Sunday in a worse manner than at
present. The opening of museums and such estab-
lishments would, he believed, do much to promote
the intelligence and morality of the people.
Mr. CROSSLEY opposed the original motion. He
regarded it as the first step in violation of the sacred
character of the day. If Sunday ceased to be a day
of rest it would become a day of work, as in France.
It' galleries and museums were opened, the theatres
and other places of amusement could not be kept
shut. Even the attempt to supply means of enjoy-
ment to one-half of the community would involve
the continuous labour of the other half.

Lord STANLEY, after suggesting that large deduc-
tions should be made from the weight otherwise due
to the vast number of petitions presented to the
House against the object of the motion—on the
ground that they were the result of an organised
movement, conducted by an influential body—ob-
served that the question was not, as had been alleged,
whether the resolution would offend conscientious
feelings, but whether the offence was reasonable.
The resolution proposed was not compulsory, but
permissive :

He apprehended the object of the resolution before the
House was not to ask for liberty to stay away from the
British Museum or the National Gallery on Sunday; that
they had already. (Hear, hear.) The opponents of the
resolution asked not to be allowed to keep the seventh
day in their own way, but to have power placed in their
hands to compel all others to do the same. In doing that,
he believed they mistook not only the theory of govern-
ment, but the nature of a religious duty. In dealing be-
tween man and man, as individuals, every individual
citizen was of necessity held responsible for the acts of the
community of which he was a member For instance,
England being at war with Russia, every Englishman was
a sharer in that war, whether he approved it or not. Such
arrank,ements were inevitably incidental to the imperfec•
tion of human justice, but they could not extend t 3 the
relations subsisting between the individual man and a
higher power. Those relations were, by the very nature of
the case, personal and not social. In Toro conscientie each
man must answer for himself. Any attempt to force our
own views upon others was in reality not to strengthen,
but to destroy their consciences. He dwelt on this, be-
cause half the social injustice committed, half the misery
endured on earth, arose out of the manner in which a large
proportion of mankind, in all ages and countries, had
reasoned on this subject. They argued thus:—" I think
this or that act wrong; therefore my neighbour ought to
think it wrong. 1 cannot control his thoughts, but I can
and will control his acts, and I will make him act as
though he agreed with me." What were the fruits of that
principle ? Oppression on the part of the strong, Iwo-
crisy in the-timid, persecution undergone by the bold and
honest, discredit brought on the name of religion itself.
He denied the right of that house, or any earthly tribunal
or legislature, to prescribe the relations which should
exist between man and the Supreme Being. Law existed
for the purpose of enforcing duties between man and man
—all other duties were cognisable by conscience alone.
(Hear, hear.) If it were a religious duty—which he
could not admit it. to be—not to enter museums on a Sun•
day, even then he denied the right of the law to enforce
it. But was it a duty to abstain from so doing ? Some
a gued that the fourth commandment was still binding
ttem us; but, if that were so, it should be accepted strictly,
aid in its literal interpretation. In that case they were
bound to observe as sacred, not one day in seven, but the
seventh day as originally enjoined.
He dissented from the argument that to relax the
o iservance of the Sabbath would necessarily convert
it into a working day :
There was a wide difference between opening places of
national amusement and allowing trade. Upon social
grounds a national hilyday was desirable. The experience
of all nations and ages proved that; and on social grounds
he thought the State had a right to enforce the day of rest.
He felt that so strongly that lie had supported, and would
again support, a bill for the suppression of needless Sun-
day traffic. The details of that bill of last year might have
been faulty, but he held its principles to be sound. As
for this resolution, he took it as it stood on the votes, and
could not find in it anything which either directly or in-
directly gave the slightest sanction to Sunday trading. If
the hon. member who had made the motion had so worded
it as to make it apply to any private institution or estab-
lishment whatever, he would no doubt have opened the
door for the admission of a most complicated and difficult
question; but he had carefully abstained from doing so.
(Hear.) The resolution in—the form in which it was sub-
mitted to the house dealt with Government institutions
only, with institutions which, supported by the national
Exchequer, were freely open to all. The question of trade,
therefore, was nu element in the consideration of this case;
and, admitting its difficulty, he was glad that it had been
excluded.

Was it true that the labouring classes were so
entirely dependent on their employers that their only
security for labour on a Sunday lay in legislative
restrictions?—

Had not some events occurred in the manufacturing
districts, within the last two years, which might show him