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

be a decisive verdict that will either convict or
vindicate the characters of the accused. We
trust, then, that while there is yet tine the
determination as to the secrecy to be observed
with respect to the proceedings may be rescinded,
and that everything may be carried on above
board, without concealment or mystery.
Nor can we quite approve of the constitution
of the court. It is to consist of general officers
" totally unconnected with affairs in the
Crimea." If it were a court-martial (as
it ought to be), we can easily understand
why none but military officers should be
appointed. Bat when it is a mere inquiry
that may or may not lead to ulterior proceedings,
no sufficient reasons can be adduced why eminent
civilians should not be associated, who would be
exempted from the prejudices with which men of
high military rank might regard charges against
persons holding similar positions. But, above
and beyond all, why should officers who have
served in the Crimea be excluded ? Surely such
men would be more capable of arriving at correct
conclusions on every point under consideration
than those who had no such experience to guide their
decisions. They could at once perceive the weight
to be attached to the acts, either of commission
or omission, attributed to the defendants, or some
of them, and could more properly condemn or exo-
nerate them from responsibility for things which
they have either done or left undone.

For these reasons we feel that tho proposed
inquiry cannot be satisfactory on any side. It is
so strictly in accordance with the red-tapist
system, that the only possible effect can be
to shelve the matter until it is supposed
the public interest has abated. We warn them,
however, that such cannot be easiLy accomplished,
and that a stringent and searching investigation
must ultimately take place, and that before a
truly impartial tribunal, placed beyond the reach
of suspicion. We repeat that it is alike due to
the public and the accused, that such should be
the case, and the sooner it be instituted the better
for all parties concerned.

Just what we anticipated. The motion of Sir
JOSHUA WALMSLEY for the opening of the British
Museum and the National Gallery after morning
service on Sundays was last night defeated by a
considerable majority. The scene was sufficiently
amusing and instructive. Honourable members,
whose individual observance of the " Sabbath"
carries with it no painful reminiscences, and is
pleasingly compatible with a good deal more than
was asked for on behalf of our workmen, tottered
with the resignation of ascetics towards the table
with their loads of petitions, relieving their over-
drawn muscles with a laugh as the frosty billets
melted in their arms and dropped like icicles on
the floor. It would have done the thirty mil-
lions of the population good to have seen what a
lot of petitions may be got up out of a hundred
and fifty thousand subscribers, and was enough to
set the pa,permakers into tits of ecstacy at the
thought of the roaring trade they would drive if
the example were followed by the people.
Exeter-hall was really in great force ; but, for
the consolation of our anti-Sabbatarian friend!,
we can stets that its bray was but a stupid per-
formanee. The good creature's voice was neither
so resonsnt nor so musical as of yore, and its
kicks might ba described as a little spas=
modic. The largeness of its triumph seemed
indeed to excite in it a feeling of uneasiness,
and it now and then might be observed listening
for the roar of the British Lien without. " An-
other such victory and"—but let ua drop meta-
phor and turn to the debate.
Beaten in point of numbers, the moral and in-
tellectual triumph was beyond all controversy with
the supporters of the motion, ancl to this triumph
Lord STANLEY essentially contributed. His speech
. is/fa Llicia c. viKULII*2
Magi - - -
and persuasiveness, and ought to be put into the
hands of every working man. Summarily dis-
posing of the alleged expression of public feeling
in the petitions, by showing how miserable was
the minority which the petitioners constituted,
and how little importance attached to tho sig-
natures of most of them, who are prepared, or in
a manner compelled, to sign what their spiritual
pastors and masters set before them, whether they
understand the subject matter or not, ho pro-
ceeded to inquire on what principle the resolu-
tion before the House was opposed. Honest
and conscientious persons (as we ourselves are)
ready to admit and certainly believe) might be
offended by the resolution. But that was not the
question ; the question was, whether it was a
reasonab!e Offence ? Those who so arguei did not
know the fundamental difference between cempul-
eory and permissive legislation. No supporter of
the motion would make it csmpulsory upon 111:1:„
man to go to a Meseuru. or National Gallee:y ou
Sundays. On the other hand, the ei,posers of
this resolution did not ask for freedom to stay
away from these places on Sundays, " bu,.! what
they wanted was to compel oPrws to act as they did
—(the legislative voluniary Sabbatarians at this
stage began to prick up their cars and look asif they
had got into a mess) —and in so doing," said his
Lordship, " those persons, in his opinion, mistook
and misunderstood not only the theory of Govern-
ment, but that of religious obligation. In dealing
between State and State, each member of a commu-
nity was, of course, bound by the act of the ruler
of the State. But there was no such individual
reeponsibility in the relations between man and a
higher Power—in foro conscientice, each man weal
answer for himself. Relative dirties were the per-
sonal attributes of each individual_ man, and if
they attempted to force their notions of duty
upon other men they -rather injured than
strengthened their consciences. (Hear, hear.)
He believed that half of the social injuries com-
mitted among men—half of the misery endured
upon earth sines it was first inhabited, arose out
of that mode of argument to which all men were
prone. That which men considered right they
took for granted that it was absolutely right, and
therefore they would compel their neighbours to
do, not as their neighbours thought _tight, but to
do as they did. The necessary consequence of
this was hypocrisy and persecution, so that, in
the end, religion itself was brought into discre-
dit. He denied that this was a principle upon
which that House ought to legislate—he denied
the right of that House, or of any earthly tri-
bunal, to define and enforce the duty which each
man owed to a higher Power. (Hear.) Human
laws existed, and must exist, in order to enforce the
observance of duties between man and man,
but the duty between man and the SUPREME
BEING was enforceable by conscience alone (the
Compulsive Voluntaries seriously uneasy here !).
Ent, granting that it were a religious duty not to
go to a leueoure on a Sunday,; still lie denied it
was such a duty as the law had a right to en-
force. There were some who contended that this
ancient Command was still binding upon us ; but
the reply to that argument was, that the day
having been changed the obligation was not bind-

nig—that, according to the DIVINE command, we

were obliged to keep, not merely one day in seven
sacred, but the seventh day, and he did not think

that objection had been answored, Sunday, he ad-
111itted) wa a most yaluablo mstitutioa, but it would