The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MA_RCH 21, 1855,

to the opening of the British Museum on the Sabbath,
confining it to the afternoon after Divine service. No
ill results had attended the opening of Kew-gardens nod
the Painted-Hall at Greenwich ; and he (Sir Joshua

the country to think less carefully of this principle—
which ought to be a recognised principle of the commu-
nity—than the community does at present. For these
reasons, then, I think the resolution of the bon, mem-
ber (Sir J. Walmsley) would do violence to the people
of this country, and, therefore, I shall give my vote
gainst his motion, and I shall also vote against the
amendment; but to the amendment I do not object upon
the same grounds as those urged against the motion, but
upon technical grounds-e-namely, because the opening
of the institutions on Saturday would materially inter-
fere with those operations which are so necessary fur the
cleaning of the buildings.
Mr. BARROW said he merely rose to bear his testi-
mony that the larger proportion of the people of this
country objected to the principle contained in the me-
tion of the hoz. member for Leicester (Sir 3. Walmsley).
Mr. HEYWOOD was understood to speak in favour
of the motion. Throughout the hon. gentleman's
speech the cries of " Divide was so great that he was
not heard in the gallery.
Sir J. WALMSLEY, in reply, gave credit to hon.
members who had spoken for the same sincerity which
he entertained himself. He brought forward the motion
for the purpose of eliciting the opinions of hon. members.
That having been done, he found a majority of the house
differed with him. (Cries of "No, no," and " Divide.")
Well, so it appeared to him, but if hon. members wished
to divide, he would do so—loud cheer., and cries of
" divide")—though he must say that he had no desire
to press his opinions further upon the house. He, how-
ever, believed that if the motion were rejected now, it
would ultimately be acceded to. It had been brought
before the house before—this was the third time, and he
believed it was in accordance with the opinions and feel-
ings of the country. (Divide, divide.) He had listened
with great attention to the arguments, but he had not
heard one point urged against the arguments in favour
of the motion.
The house then divided—
F.,r the original motion 43
Against it.

SHARE MARKETS.
(Thls DAY.)

RAILWAYS.

Walrusley) might refer to such authorities as Dr. Arnold,
Archbishop Whately, the Rev. Mr. Holding, and the
Rev. John Griffith, to show that some portion of that
day might be devoted to proper recreation and refresh-
ment. He believed this quution to be one of great and
growing importance, and whatever might be the fate of
the present motion, he had not the slightest doubt as to
its final success. _ _

RAILwiTt.

nosing Prices
yebtrily.

Btaineve done
this day.

Mr. BM-GS seconded the motion, and convulsed the
house with laughter as he propounded the "discoveries"
he had made in the Scriptures, that there was nothing
there to justly the observance of the first day of the
week. This was a discovery which he challenged all
the bishops in the other house to disprove.
Mr. L. DAVIES made his maiden speech in opposi-
tion to the measure, which he characterised as a dese-
cration of the Sabbath, and as but ill calculated to pro-

mote the morality of the country.
Mr. DRUMMOND objected to the puritanical ob-
servance of Sunday as much as any one, but he could
not forget that it was the Lord's-day, and not the
people's. He hardly knew what course the house would
take on this question, after tue votes it had given on
kindred subjects ; but he bad himself a profound con-
viction that to open these institutions would be a dese-
oration of the day.

The Marquis 6f BLANDFORD opposed the motion,
on the ground that the Lord's-day was a divine institu-
ftrioonm, its
strictth a t
ogbrseeartvas oncciea
n tthis advantages
cou
ntrylm.d been derived
Mr. A. PELLATT moved as an amendment, that the
Museum should be opened on every day of the week but
Sunday, especially on the Saturdays and gondays.
Mr. A. KINNAIRD thanked the hon, gentleman
who had brought forward this motion, as he was satisfied
that in their hands the question of Sunday desecration
had received a blow which it would not speedily recover.
He pointed to the case of Paris, where working men
were not enjoying themselves in the museums and
theatres, but toiling at their reTec;ive trades. This, he
was satisfied, would be the result of this motion. He
was not sure it was not the object of the movers ; for he
must say he suspected the motives of men who advocated
the opening of museums while they opposed every motion
of protecting the factory workman.
Lord STANLEY said that he wished to say a few
words in explanation of the vote which he intended to
give, for he believed that he should give one which was
unpopular in that house, and, perhaps; in this country.
He believed. that there was no duty more sacred than to
combat what we conceived to be a prejudice, although it
might be entertained by persons for whom we had the
sincerest respect. All the arguments that Lad been ad-
duced against the proposition might be summed up under
two heads. First, the abstract ground of the sanctity of
the Sabbath-day ; next, the argument that, by opening
thes 3 institutions, they were unnecessarly imposing ad-
ditional labour upon Government officials. As to the first
ground, the mo,t important, he conceived that the mover
and seconder had conceded toe much. He thought that
the idea belonged to a false theory, ,'though a very com-
mon one, which attempted t.) establis,h a kind of opposi-
tion between things secular and things f• a rn• e d . He did
not mean to say that museums and paces of that de-
scripion were the best means of affording, moral educa-
tion ; but he did say, that, taking them for what they

Majority against the motion lB7
Thb declaration of the numbers was received with ap.
planse.
Mr. A. PELLATT then withdrew his amendment.
PAYMENT OF WAGES.

Mr. PA CKE move that the select committee of last
session, on payment of wages, be re-appointed to inquire
as far as regards the hosiery manufacture.
Mr. CRAUFURD opposed the 'notion, as the hon.
genVenvin had moved to re-appoint the committee only
to inquire into a part of the subject.
Sir H. HALFORD said the inquiry was promised to
the persons engaged in the hosiery trade, who had pe-
titioned the house to thenumber of 33,000.

Mr. WILKINSON opposed the appointment of any
committee, as be could not see that the Legislature
could do any good in the matter.
S•r G. GREY said that if the house wi,hed to re-
appoint the committee he would not offer any opposition.
The motion wad agreed to.
The rep.irt on the newspaper stamp raolujion was re-
ceived and a bill cr lered to be brought in. The bill was
subsequently brought in and read a first time, and
ordered to be read a second time on Monday next.

The house adjourned at half-past ono o'clock, till
Thursday.

nitre worth in the way of moral and intellectual improve-
ment, they constituted in themselves a part of religion.
When he heard of the sanctity of the Sabbath, he ad-
mitted it —he &lowed it— he regarded that institution as
perhaps the most va'uable and venerable that had c ;me
down to us. But why was it va'n able ? No institution,
however, sacro,l, could be in itself but as a means to an
en'l, and the endof this sacrA day was intellectual and
moral improvement. This was essentially a question fir
the working classes. What as the c‘ingEtion of working;
men on the week day ? Of the 144 hours which com-
posed the working days, 60 were employed in work,
which, with the necessary rest, would absorb two-thirds

THE ARMY IN' THE CRIMEA.

:From a Supplement t) the Lonion Gazette of TueSday,
(March CO.)

WAR DEPARTMENT, March 20, 1855,

Lord Panniur3 has this clay rc:;cived a despatch and its in-
closurs, of which the follo wino. are extracts, addfcasel to his
lordship by Field-Marshal the Lord Raglan, a.c.r.

EXTRACT Faom A DESI'ATCLI FROM TIM LORD
RAGLAN, DAThD " BEFORB SECASTOPOL," M.,,,iz.JH 3, 15.,55.
I beg now to lay More your lordship Dr. Hall's report of
the state of the sick, and I will direct him to make one
weekly, which I will transmit for your lordship's information.

of the entire time. It did not require any very laboured
argument cr calculation t) show that no man could
have his ^ energies ar.d ii:tellectual powers in a

condition for self-improvement and self-education after
10 hours of manual labour. (Hear.) Was he to be told
that the mechanical improvements which were taking
place would operate to diminish the amount of human
labour ? (Hear.) He believed that that was a conside-
ration which could not in any degree be calculated upon.
It was not in the power of the men to reduce the hours
of labour where competition urged all forward.—compe-
tion between man and man—competition with foreign
msrkets. Was the opening of these places to keep
people from church ? Why did they allow Hampton
Court, Kew Gardens, and other places of like descrip
tion, to be opened ? They not only allowed them, but
encouraged the inhabitants of the town, ou the only day
they had, to breathe the fresh air of the country.(llear.)
If there was any desecration of the Sabbath, surely it
applied to those places, which were in general kept open
the whole day. But, did they mean to apply to them-
selves the same rules which they were applying to the
working classes? (Hear.) Were there many among the
clergy who would say that it was a profanation of the
Sunday if they looked npnn a picture or went over a
museum ? He did not object to hon. members having
conscientious opinions, but he did object to them forcing
those opinions upon others—(hear)—aud more particu-
larly upon those classes not represented in that house.
(1.1. ear.) He called this, not morality, but a servile sub-
mis,ion to cant. (Hear.) But did they think that they
could compel people to go to church by shuttii.g up
those places of instruction ? The man who went to
church simply because he had no where else to go to,
was not likely to gain much by it. (Hear.) They would
not close the public-houses on Sunday. He did not believe
that they could. They had made an an attempt in that
direction, but he believed that there were such difficulties
in the way as to present an obstacle to legislation, There
was another class of persons whom he believed to be
opposed to this measure—he meant the publicans. He
had received a circular from a society, which called itself
a " Society for the Duo Observance of the Sabbath,"
and which threatened those who voted for it with pub-
lic exposure. (Hear.) He humbly suggested that that
society should change its name, and entitle itself a so-
ciety for the promotion of intemperance. (Hear.) If in
the manufacturing districts you asked any rational man
what was the great social evil of the day, he would tell
you it was intemperance. (Hear.) He himself knew a
district in Lancashire where 1,0001. a day was spent in
intoxicating drinks. He believed, moreover, that one-
half the disease, and more than one-half the insanity
whiCh prevailed, arose from the same cause. (Hear.)
Look at the evils arising from the want of anything like
intellectual occupation ! It was hardly possible for
them, living the life which they did, to conceive the in-
tense, the utter weariness which came upon a man who,
without any intellectual occupation or pursuit whatever,
was engaged in one unvaried routine of bodily labour.
(Hear.) Time was not given to the working man on
week days for intellectual occupation, therefore, as far
as desecration of the Sabbath-day went, he said sin-
cerely and honestly, though with deep respect for those
who differed from him, he did say that those who were
' opposed to this bill were putting that day to purposes for
which it was not intended. With regard to the question
as it affected labour on the Sabbath, lie should only ob-
serve that the opening of a museum or a picture gal-
lery required but very little labour. They did not re-
quire the curators to be present or any large number of
persons—all they required was the mere supervision
of the police. There was not a family in all this coun-
try in which household service was altogether dispensed
1 ss ith on the Sabbath--and, if a family of eight or
1 10 persons did not hesitate to give employment to at
/ least one servant for the greater part cfthe day, he con-
fessed he could not see upon what principle 10,000 or
i 20,000 persons would not have the right to command the
attendance of, perhaps, not one in every 500, or not one-
tenth the amount, of attendance required for a private
family. (Hear.) Taking it, then, to be a most important
measure, and one which would apply, not in London
alone, but in all the great towns of the country, he con-
fessed ho thought the line of demarkation could be easily
seen by those who were not wilfully blind. (Cheers.)
Mr. E. BALL opposed the motion.
Mr. GOULBURN, as a trustee of the British Museum,
reminded Mr. Pellatt that the Museum was already
opened on Mondays ; and he promised that the practica-
bility of opening it on Saturday evenings should be care-
fully considered. With respect to the motion, he re-
garded it as a desecration of the Sabbath, and, further,
as bringing the house into direct collision with the law
of the land.
Mr. W. J. FOX replied to some personal arguments
introduced into the debate, and argued that this was not
a question of theology, but of property. The Museum
and the Natioral Gallery were the people's property, and
yet this house excluded the people from their own pro-
perty. As to the religious question, he thought religion
was never more dishonoured than when it was made the
pretext for intolerance.
Lord PALMERSTON—I think the house has pretty
well made up its mind as to the vote upon the two mo-
tions presented to us. I wish to state in very few words the
grounds upon which I am induced to vote against both
motions. It seems to me that this mode of bringing
these questions before the house is not a very good one
—I mean the mode of bringing them on in the way of
abstract resolutions—and I think the principle, which
seems rather to prevail, of bringing abstract resolutions
before the house, is one which ought not to be adopted,
and which it will be very desirable should not be fol-
lowed. With regard to the motion itself, I think, with-
out entering upon the theological discussion which has
beers urged, that all here will agree that the respectable
observance of the Sunday is a principle which it is highly
desirable should be, and is absolutely necessary to be,
encouraged ; and in proportion as that observance pre-
vails may we expect to see the people of this country
highly motel and well conducted ; and, in proportion as
the Sunday is treated with disrespect, shall we see the
people in a state not fit to be witnessed. My opinion is
that Sunday should be a day of rest, and of cheerful
aid innocent recreation--(hear, hear)—but, to enforce
that strict observance of Sunday for which some per-
sons contend, is, I believe, cot t (impossible and imprac-
ticable. To say that no work should be done would be
to arrest all social and domestic existence. (Hear, bear.)
That a law should be passed to define the precise degree
of exception from the strict principle cannot be at-
tempted ; but the matter must be left to each individual
—each man must be left to say in what degree ho can
or cannot comply with the necessary occupation of life,
awl what considerations he thinks proper for the due
observance of the Sunday. But I think, when the matter
is brought before Parliament, we must consider that
it is a question in regard to which the religious feelings
of the c3mmunity are deeply engaged, and it is highly
inexpedient that Parliament, by any vote at all, should
Bet
irnsgek
itself
wofi n
et
oh
Je oppositionlecp i
et
at o f
ee whatling I
which
s foundedi s tlle e
ugeneralpon
lila lest principle, and which ought to be carefully re-
scpected. Parliament will be pursuing an injudicious
by any resolution of its own, it shall Mach

*