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

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 changes 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 very 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 earl
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 ogofeftlir
the together,
people is very good. I am delighted to see
the manner in which they examine the collections 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
anddra 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-ails
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 opinion4most 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
changetiyheld tio.etsotrbicetesdactrhedei.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
cwoonlatilddecroedmehiaghdly. o
maid for the theatres- There were a great many men in
this country who held that theatres conduced ,very much
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 on.
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, which arrogated to itself SO much 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 forward 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 observances upon
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 the
. _

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 verays
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 between the two cases ? (Hear.)
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 requirements or obligation of law to compel the em-
pl )yers to close early, yet the good sense and humanity of
the employers 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 con.
tinning to legislate in 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 people would gain nothing in 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 satisfy
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 washeir a
bah elf, that should votoe
thest
strong d'srog •t ' Tbh
working classes of their Sunday. if once a concession were
made, 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 Painted
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 elicited the
on
approbation of all. He next referred to the beneficial
results from opening one of the libraries at Oxford
on Sunday afternoons, and"which had been 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.