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

TUE SUGAR, TRADE.

- Mr. MOFFATT moved for tabular returns showing
the quantities of sugar of the several sorts imported into
the United Kingdom; and the quantity retained for
home consumption ; together with the rates of duty
charged thereon, and the net revenue accruing therefrom
in each year, from 1800 to 1855 inc!usive.
JOINT-STOCK BANKS.

In reply to a quegtion from Mr. DUNLOP,
Mr. LOWE said it was intended to apply the Joint
Stack Act to Scotland. On Monday he proposed to
proceed with this bill pro forma, and also with the
Limited Liabilities Bill, and the Local Dues on Ship-
ping Bill.

CAVALRY SUPPLIES.
Slr J. FERGUA.SON asked the Under-Secretary for'
War whether it was true that the saddles recently j
sup-
plied to the 2d Regiment of German Cavalry
were
so - -bad that the commanding officer refused
to receive them, as they would • have injured
the backs of the horses ; that a Board, of which
Cofonel ' Baldares from Maidstone Was a member,
Condemned every one of them ; that,
General Stutterheim inspected this
charging ten bits, broke in two in the horses' mouthq
that, from the cloth of the overalls being so bad, or
from its not having been fibrunk before being wrought
up, in many cases it had been complained that, when
wet, the leather with which they were strapped had
come away-from it?
Mr. MONSELL said that the saddles were con•
deuined.bx a board, of which Colonel Baldares was a
They were made on a new construction,. by
one —6( tha beit h0u304 in 'London, Which arose
Tani the demand for saddles being;so'great
that dry „wood could not be obtained
fur then. Officer's in the. East had made similar corn-
plairdi of the manufacture of-their harness. The cotn•
plaints with *ieferenoc to the bits and the cloths were
alsd true, bat'arrangemorits hal been made to prevent
the oectirrenre of such thins in future.
Col, buNN-1 . asked who inspected the clothing ?
Ate MONSELL Paid the cloths had been inspected
. ,
by ille'pro'per'inipeetors itt Tower.

• 4 Ikt‘Nti I.'S
Caorel NORTH asked the. Under Secretary for \liar
whetlutr
,gutire report. and evidence 'of Sir
M'lshil and Cqlonel Tuiloch had been laid upon the
table.of that.liottae; and, if not, whether the whole of the
reppyt would tQpri al ?
Mr. F. PEEI. sa.id the raport3 of Cie commissioners
were identical with thoqo laid before the house. Some
returns had beta prepared by one of the commissioners
will). reference to the severity of the disease andsuffer-
iog of the army in the East, which bad been disap-
proved of bythe other commissioner. It was not proper,
under such circumstances, to prsent those returns:
FALL OR gArts.
Mr. WHITE: IPS Atha the noble lord (Palmerston)

ens eyment, they believe the opening of these institutions
weals' increase the reverence for that day, nail -ultimately
augment the attendance upon public worship. No one
would question the wisdom of encouraging the working
men to vieit thesEeplaces, an ; 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 on
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 some that these were mere
theoretical opinions—that a certain trAning was ne-
cessary before the mind could profit by such teach-
ing ; but it could not be denied that sufficient
time and ample means had been appropriated to such a
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
workieg men, wherever it had been tested, hnd simply re-
futed this opinion, and the theory so called had received
prac4ical illustration in the sober and orderly conduct of
the thouseuds 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 pFejudice. The sum of the matter
in the words of en able divine was—" That to the good and
industrious such opportunities would afford innocent and
useful recreation withoit 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. Walinsley) would refer. It had been said that the
working men had not sufficiently shown their anxiety for
admiseroa to these institutions. For his part he thanked
them for the moderate and constitutional course they had
adopte I, and he should greatly regret to see more striking
demonstrations than those which had recently occurred.'
He would ask han.i, members, who, rejoicing in affluence,
would very likely forget the fact, to bear in mind that the
expel. s.ss incidental to the getting up of petitions fell
heavily on the means of working men. Another objection
was that the adoption of the measure would engage the
labour f a few of during the afternoon of Sunday.
How far that scruple was allowed, by those who advanced
it, to affect their actions in the case of that large class of
the community, domestic servants, he would leave for
th,emfelves to determine. - The conduct, of this class of op-
ponents had, le confesses, always appeared to him to be a
striking monument of inconsistency.. Bat in tenth the
labour required in proportion te the instruction to be ob-
tainer would bealmost infinitesimal, and no individual

1 would he p:erented from attending divine service at least
"once on ,Sunday.- The evidence of Dr. Grey, the
c i -ator of the British Museum, before the Fine Arts
Committee_ in 1841, was so pointed on this part of the sub-
le A, that ho would ven tura to read a feW brief extracts. It '
should be remembered that that evidence was taken by a
committee not unfavonrable to the cause which he was ad-
vocating. Drs. Grey said—" I do not anticipate any difficulty
in making arrangements for opening on- Sunday afternoeee.
The same assistance by the police as on great holidays.Aghe
be adopted., If the British Museum were open on 1"-;..ze after-
uoen of Sunday, many man who now go alone !let pleasure
to the country would accompany their wivere and children
to the 'British Museum, and I see no objecision to ilea admis-
sion of children with their parents. J edging frem the at-
tention on holidays, when the husbend and wife visit the
elueeum together, there is evidereeee a great desire • to avail
themselves of the instruction % vnich the place affords. The
behaviour Of the people is vehe good. I am delighted to see
the manner in which they examine the collections on hell
days. Thelneehanics e.ppear much interested in the speci-
mens, and, frequeetey, one who knows more than others
Will demonstrate Pei the rest of party. Great advantages are
rierived from-the. perusal of the collection. It gives the mass
of the people a, general taste for the study °feature, which
must be hig',l4ly advantageous to their morals. -I consider the
Museum o.ne of the greateeteducational iustitutions in the
country, and one of those places where people may, gain
- seal sqund knewledge. Galleries of -rorks of art r regard
in tete same light, and I thing they ought to be as free as
-prusible. 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 manlier than as they have been accustomed hither-
to." Such wasthe evidence of a man of practical experience
and great knowledge, and lie had reason to believe that
these opinions were unaltered. Another plea adverse to this
Motion said urged by no less apersonage than the first minister
of the erown, was, that it would offend the religious feelings
of a certain portion of the community : what portion the
eoble 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-coma-
, trymen—which stile suffered for conscience' sake, and 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-
prate 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. Wellesley) thought the assertion conveyed a very sorry
compliment to the intelligence of the working men. It
carried, however, its Own refutation. It was simply as
absurd aa 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,
at 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 objeate--that it
would at least furnish another opportunity for rational en-
jo.vmeutt• on the afternoon of Sunday, end cast a gleam of
sunehine to cheer the hours spent an the factory and the
workshop. .Much had been said and written on what was
celled the continental desecration of the Sunday, and an at-
,tempt had been made to mix up the two questions. It was
Lot for him to draw a comparison on that poiut between
onr hatienality and that of one. neighbour ; but he would
say that he could not see any connexion between a visit to
-the :British Museum on theeafternomi of Sunday and the
aleseeratien of that day. .Upon ills point he eveuld venture '
to trouble the house by reading an extract of a letter from
one who, was snore qualified than himself—perlitTs iridted
bettqr (pealed than any other man in Europe—to give an
opinion upon this subject. Ho had not the authority of
but he (Sir J.Wahnsley) could as-
st
dlio writerrethehto o
us
eh is m
t hnf,athe,
he
had
by
no means overrated that
writer's capacity for riving
judgment upon such a ques-
in Lon--
tied:. The extract was as follows :_Jr I am of pinion that
.vice and immorality are relatively more prevalent
don than ia the groat continental capitals, and especially
that the relative proportion of immorality which prevails
oh the. Sunday, compared with any other dayeof the week, .
is far larger in London than in the contiuental - capitals--
that in Edinburgh and Ghtegovr, where what may bo awed ,

the Judaical observance of the Sunday is greater than in
Leaden, 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 iu support of
this opinion. Who had witnessed the strict observance of
their religions duties by the people of the Swiss cantons—
he referred them specially to the Protestant cantons—
with their joyous and innocent relaxation on the afternocn
of Sunday—(hear)—would be prepared to say that such
relaxation, sanctioned by the presence of their pastors,
tended to lower either the moral or the religious character
of that people? Ia fact, the aseatic interpretation was
placed by some on the observance of the Sabbath was not
sanctioned by many pious divines, both of church and
chapel. He (Sir J. Walmsley) 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 compelled to
keep the fourth commandment than we are to keep the
worship of the temple or the daily sacrifice." (Hear.)
And again, Paley, whose opinion'most hon. members,
would honour, had-said—" 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. Tho 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. Walmsley) regarded as one of
the greatest blessings conferred ou man, and as such he
desired to see as much freedom from labour on that day es
was consistent with the necessities of the people. Bat he
thought that experience had shown that penal enactments
and restrictive measures, far from elevating the moral or
the religious 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 hisowu—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 pictures, their statues, their parks,
and gardens, and oven in 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 as edu-
cational one, and ho 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 for the fate of the motion which he had
placed in the Speaker's hands. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. T. SHELLEY said that if he were to consult his
own convenience he should give a silent vote on that
occasi n, but ante: taining as he did a strong opinion on the
matter, and feeling, as one of the representatives of the
metropolis, that his constituents were amongst those
mainly interested, be thought it his duty to second the
motion. He felt that in so doing he was taking au unpo-
pular part in that house—ho was not sure that, to a cer-
tain extent, it was not an unpopular one out of doors; but
having 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 an attempt to obtain seven days' work for six days'
pay. Stich an argument was beside the matter ; and, 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 early closing and fur
the Saturday half-holiday_ (Elwin) When this subject
was last before the house, themoble lord at the head of the
Government (Lo d Palmerston) 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 allude i, the noble lord had not been able to y ield
to the views of thbse with whom he (Sir J. V. Shelley)
acted. He trusted that upon the motion it might besother-
wise. The noble lord admitted that Sunday ought to be
a day of ianccant and healthful recreation, bet that Par-
liament ought not to attempt by law to draw any lino 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
Sydenham without let or hindrance? and yet. when the
working man arrived et the Crystal Palace there an arbi-
trary line was,drawn, and he was told it would bo impious
to unbolt the doors in order to admit him to that which
could only end iu profitable instruction and amusement to
him. Again, when the noble lord said the matter must,
ire left to the conscience of every individual, he (Sir J.
V. Shelley) was at one 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 chiely interested iu this question, he
would remind the house that an association, called " The
Sunday League," had boon formed. Of course this had been
followed by an oppusition association at Exeter Hall, con-
sistiag, no doubt, 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 thoee sending it forth, the intellectual
and moral progress of the working class 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 on 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. Were further restraints to he put upon
the people ? Seine of the petitions preeented—and he might
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 gatekeetiers and others engaged in the pub-
lic parks should be so employed on Sunday, and asked that
the parks might be closed on th•lt day. Itecoat experience
in Hyde-park would be a warning to the Legislature en
that subject. He would ask the attention of the house,
while upon the subject of restraints upon the people in this
respect, to a case which was mentioned in a Manchester
journal. It appeared that one John Woolloncroft, a barber,
was summoned before the magistrates, charged under the
29 Chas. 11., c. 1, with exercising his calling on a Sunday.
The judge efore whom 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 defen cant had 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 operatiolea
of the surgeon or the dentist, adding that it had bee:d de-
cided that bakers when cooking dinners on Sunilay were
not following their lawful occupation. The 'enagiatrates
decided that they had no discretion,_ and fined the man ss.
and costs. He mentioned this to show thte length to which
matters were sometimes driven. He asked the house to
pause before they refused the petit'.orr of the working men
of London as represented by 'etas Sunday League, and
trusted that they were not e"..,
e;leg to uphold one law for the
rich and another for the
0.,
them whether it was r eesible that any working man could
; (Hear, hear.) He asked
afford to give up a. day
the motion. No.
prig, trie,,.!Pf out for the purpose contemplated by
one who was acquainted with the actual
workmen would assert that any of them
could auvrd to give up Monday for a visit to the Museum
cot at;.onal Gallery. To those institutions he contributed
,I),Y tree payment of his taxes, and therefore it-was only fair
t"st they :should bo 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. PELLA-TT 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 be open five days he
the week, and especially on Mondays and Saturdays, those
days being most convenient to the working classes." Ho
denied that the working classes were in favour of the hoc.
member for Leices' er'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
them look at the number of petitions that had been pre-
sented, at the ferment in the public mine, and the number
of letters that had been addressed to hon. members. As to
the Sunday opening of these buildines being instructive he
believed that mechanics held quite a contrary ofiiniou and
believed that it would lead 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 hero 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. With respect to the Sunday school teachers who
had petitioned be would quote some statistics furnished by
Mr. Baines of Leeds. According to Mr. Baines, these
teachers, who had the control of the children for an average
period of 8 years and 4 months, were )0 in number.
We might have some 25,000 ministers of various denoinina-
Cone, 60,000 teacher a, and perhaps 30,000 local teachers, but
here was a body more numerous than all put together the
most powerful moral agents in the country, and there was
not one who would suppoit the mover of this question. He
(Mr. Pellatt) could vouch for the excitement the agitation
of the question had caused in Southwark, where every one
whom he had had the opportunity of consulting looked
upon the motion as dangerous to religion and morality.
Paley, who had been quoted on the other side, had written
strong opinions in favour of Sunday being set apart as a
day of leisure. Mr. Polk, a magistrate of Soutnampton
warmly opposed the threatened. desecration ; and Mr.
Kingieill, the chaplain of a model prison, stated that the
usual steps in crime of 100,000 criminals were impatience of
parental restraiut, violation of the Sabbath, awl neglect of
religious ordinances. (Hear.) They had an example of how
the Sabbath might be kept in the face of strong tempta-
tion, in the case of the Great Exhibition of 1851. On that
occasion all the foreigners who visited the Palace cons-
plimented our coantrymen on the respect they paid to
Sunday, and when a deputation of the peace party sub-
sequently visited Paris, the Emperor gave them an oppor-
tunity of seeing the waters of Versailles awl St, Cloud on
Monday, out of deference to their religious opinions. He
trusted that nothing would now be done to lose a charac-
ter so honourable to the country. (Cheers.) Having quoted
an eneclote of Dr. JObuson and Six Joshua Reynolds, in
which the former is made to obtain from the latter a
pledge to observe the Sabbath, the hon. member con-
cluded by moving his amendment.
Mr. BAXT R. said this was no party question, a ques-
tion between rich andpoor, or between churchmen and die-
seet Jr. It was a matter which, in his opinion, intimately
concerned the well-being of this country, and its civil and
religions 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 Wai as-
sailed, and it wassought by legislative enactment to over-
turn that which the great majority of the people of this
country bold to to he sacred. The advocetes of the' &im-
posed change restricted their motion to the British Mu-
seum and the National Gallery ; but could they stop there ?
M
If those places were opened, why not the Panopticon, or
Tussaud's, or Miss Horton's Gallery of Illestra-
tion, all of which entertainments were considered highly
instructive as well as amusing. Next would come a de-
mand 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 be created by the Sunday opening of these exhibi-
tions. Omnibuses, cabs, shops for refreshment would all
be called into requisition to accommodate -the crowds

which would gather if the privilege were eonceded. seen
then they would find the vvarehoueemtin der:welled by sor-
did masters to work oh the Sabbath-day. (Hear, hear.)
If this resolution passed, the house might, depend upon it a
retectioh 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. He was at a loss to know either how
museums or collections of pictures could be looked upon as
moral agents. That they might refine the taste he was
ready.to admit, but those who bad spent nay 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. (bleer.) Let them ask
the City Mission or the police whether they believed in this
movement ; or even the publicans themselves, whether
they thought it would 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. Ho 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 as ho was an advocate for the Saturday half holiday,
be felt gratified in supporting the amendment.
Mr. MURROUGa 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 bruta-
lity. His object in supporting it was to serve the workmen
of the metropolis, and therefore he wasiet to be influenced
by the petitions of Sunday-school teachers from distant
villages. He was anxious to have hot only the Museum
and National Gallery thrown open, but also the portals of
our metropolitan cathedrals. It was a degrading fact that
that assembly, which arrogated to itself so much of Chris-
tianity, should permit national churches like St. Petal's,
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 poekets of
a grasping and soreid 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 some 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 constittitional 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 cc lase than 600,003
signatures to the petitions sent in from various parts of the
country, praying for relief. Again, how had these 150,000
signatures, he 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 iu orders in this country
30,000 ministers of religion, and s apposing one-half of these
to have come forward to 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, but hundreds, in every congregation'
Who were at all times ready to sign any petition their
minister recommended, and in this. ease the appeal for
signatures, he was told, had been. made them 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, yon
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 long ago. But the question was, not whether
offence would be'given, but -*bother the offence was well
founded ? And this appeared to him to betheiundamental
difference between permissive and compulsory legislation.
They had heard something about legal epactinents for turn-
ing the Sabbath into a day-of ammiemeht. He could under-
stand that if a man suppoked it to be an act of impiety to
enter a museum or gallery 'of art on the Sunday, a•nd any
attempt-were made by legislation to compel bins to. do so,
he would be justified in offering all the resietance to such a
measure in his power. But that was not the point. The op-
ponentehof this resolution did not ask for freedam forthena-
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 up 'n 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 wills Russia, every
Englishman was at war with Russia, whether he approved
of the war or not, but the pOnciple of making every indi-
vidual responsible for the acts of the whole community was
not to extend to the relations between man and the Su-
preme Being. In religion every man must act for himself ;
'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. He believed that
fully one-half of the social injustice which had been done
amongst oleo—fully one-half of the misery endured on the
earth—had arisen from the manner in which all men and
all governments had endeavoured to enforce their own par-
ticular religious views upon the couscie Ices of others. They
had proceeded upon this principle : "Though 1 know I
cannot make any .gighbour adopt my creed, I will com-
pel him to act iu his outward observances as though he
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 gone
far to bring the very name of religion into contempt. • He
denied that thaf was the principle upon wild' the Legis-
' latureeaught to proceed in this matter. He denied the
right of that house, or of the Government, or Of any legis-
lative tribunal, to ay down aud'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 (laity of man to the Supreme Being
was not a matter of law, but of individual conscience.
There wore some who contended that the commands of the
decalogue were all of them still literally binding upou all
oneo—(hear)—but if they accepted the obligation of tho
commandments in their literal sense, why not follow them
out literally in all things ? (Hear.) But, by the foul th
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 lie given to
the Sabbath, but he felt that the House of Commons was
not the place for a discussion upon that point. It, would he
easy enough to show that the rigid observance of the Sun-
day was never insisted upon in the early days of Chrie-
tianity, and that until about two ceuturies 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 ono aUthority, which every ireligious Protestant; of
whatever deanornination, would, he was sere, readily ad-
mit—viz., Luther. Luther tiaye- -" 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, te dance
on
„it, to feast on it, to do anything that shall re-
prove thiS encroachment on the Christian spirit' and
liberty." That was the, opinion of the greetest religions
reformer of fOrmer times. Among modern authorities
Paley said-- " Cessation upon Sunday from labour beyond
the time of attendance upon public worship is not into.
mated in any passage of the New Testament, nor (a IChrist
or his apostles deliver any command to their disciples for a
diecontinuance 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 hon. members of. that house, as those of
ono 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 rail Way 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 us an
argument out of doers thateteitopen places of public amuse-
ment on time Sunday was a Popish practice ; but was it not
Popish to strain conscience ? (Cheers.) Ho had alluded so
far to the religious question, because everything that hid
been said on social grounds against Sunday opening had
been put forward to cover anal conceal the religious ground,
which was the real question upon which- the motion Taos
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 wido,differeuce, and one that it
was scarcely possible to overlook, between the opening of
places of amusement on the Sunday aud,the giving a legis-
lative sanction to tie-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 is the
seven, and public opinion was unanimous for it. He
knew no 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 al
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 roan was so entirely in
the power of the employer that if he could not be restrained
from going to places of amusement on the Sunday, his
employer would call upon him to work on that day ? The
taeueber for Halifax (Hr. Crossley) had expressed a very
decided opinion ou this point. The hon. gentleman was
an employer, and must necessarily understand the rela-
tions between employers and employed, but when the hon. •
gootlernan wanted an illustration to prove his argument
that if the Museum were opened on the Sunday, the work- i
ing man's Sabbath would be taken from him altogether,
he referred not to what 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 eases ? '(Hear.)
He (Lord Stanley) thought that, what had occurred of late
years might have shown the hon. gentleman, on the oee ,
hand, that the employed were not so utterly the slaves of
the employers as be 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-
gious requirements or obligation of law to compel the em-
ployers to close early, yet the good sense and humanity of
the employers had responded to the demand for early doe-
.ing and-for the Saturday half-holiday in most parts of the
country, The hen, member for Southwark had said that
if you (evened these places of puhlic anausemeat on the Sim-
day, 'the Sanday schools would be empty—that was, tha
the children who attended, them would find _more attrace
thee in •the Miteeum, the National Gallery, and other insti-
tutions of that kind. He fully admitted the great endue of
.Sunday achoele, 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-
.sideee it *as far too great a strain upon, the mind, and if
the effect of the success of this motion were only to relieve
young children from this excessive teaching, 'which he
believed to bo 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 question of obtaining new privileges,
but of continuing the law whiCh the public now posteseed.
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. Aid they mead to aay I

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 ' Wail anxious to improve their state by every
means in his power, and lookitie upon the object of this
motion as one means to that end, he was inclined to sup-
port it- . '
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER remindei the house of the
physical advantoges 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 iniper-
tant still. An i all this rested upon the feeling of the
people that, there was A, higher 'law than any law of this
house •cominanding it. ' If, then, the obServance of the
day rested upon the religious convictions of the country,
they Ought to appeal to the religious portion of the people
as to the best means of observing it. It was said by Lord
Stanley that there was no chance of masters compelling
their labourtrs to' work ou Sundays. But the noble lord
forgot that one or two mesters could force all other mas-
ters to follow their example, and the labourers would be
compelled by the pressure of competition to continue their
employments on oundays as on otter days. He admitted
that it was impossible to defend all the Sunday practices
that were allowed, •but the great principle was, whether
the Government *hen it interfered at all, interfered to
secularise or to keep holy the day; at the same time that
it would not interfere with private action or with works
that might positively conduce to acts of necessity or mercy.
Mr. EDWARD BALL opposed the motion.
Mr. WIGRAM alSo opposed the resolution, and com-
plained'thit no member of the Government had taken part
in the debate; . .
Lord PALMERSTON—I can assure the hon. and learned
gentleman that if I 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 those who
wished to express their opinions, that they should do so
before any member of her Majesty's Government took part
in the debate. (near, hear.) It is not my intention to
support the motion of my lion. friend, but I sin 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 hen. member to the observance of the Sun-
day. I will not go into and repeat the arguments so
eloquently expressed by the bon, and learned gent:eman
at my right (Mr. Palmer), why it is desirable on every
account, both with regard to intellectual and moral, and,
indeed, physical considerations, that the Sunday should
be kept a sacred day; on the oth,r hand, I cannot myself
think that the mere opening of these two places of resort
would.in itself morally affect 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 2,luseurn 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 proince 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 tower. s something else. Un-
doubtedly that is a consideretion 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 places of amusement, we ought not to forget that,
unfortunately, the places of public worship in this metro-
polis, us 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 the 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 bo attained in opening the British
Museeta 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 those who went there, I think undue stress
has been laid upon that point. Considering oa the one
hand that tile advantages.whieh, 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
thiuk 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 upon the 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 conside-
ration. An amendment had been 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 hens() 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. I 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 insti-
tution which, I think, this house has hitherto not 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 pahlic to view it,
and I think the house will do well to leave the matter in
the hands of the trustees, rather thin 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 was for that
very reason, and on their belidf, that he should vote against
the motion. There was a strong disposition to too the
working classes of their Sunday. If once a concession were
made, whore 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 Lyur
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 anc, years of adversity came ?
Mr. A. PELLATT—I will take the hint of the worthy
Premier—Vloud laughter)—and I consent to withdraw the
amendment. _ .

WALMSLEY replied —This was not the first
step, nor the second, nor the third. They had opened Kew-
gardens, the Painted Hall at Greenwich, and other places,
and now they were asked to open the British Museum
and the National Gallery, He referred to the openino. 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 person's,
whose praiseworthy and orderlyconduct had elicited the
approl3ation of all. He next referred to the beneficial
results; from opening one of the libraries at Oxford
on Su adayr afternoons, and,which had been approved of by
the B ishop of Oxford. The time would soon co the when
much of that prejudice and misconception tha t existed
with regard to this question would be removed,. Many
lt honorle.members who would to-night vote aga inst his
.motion would by doing so vote against their coast ienees.
If they voted iu that house by ballot he felt certain he
should have _been in n majority. (Hear, hear, and laugh-
ter.) •
The house then divided, when the numhPrs -
• For the motion
... 48
Against it ................................. 376
.; .3dajority against the motion
... ....
......

POST OFFICE (DUBLIN AND EDINBUR.GI3:).
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 Dahlia a xd.
Edinburgh Post•offrces.—Agreed to.
The Delaniere Forest Bill was read a second time.
The Commons Enclosure Bill passed through com.-nittee..
The Charitable Uses Bill, as amended, was consi dereo.4
and ordered to be read a third time on Monday.
DRAINAGE ADVANCES ACTS AMENDXSN'T

---,
BILL. •
This bill, as amended, was considered, and ordered, for
third reading to-morrow (Friday):
The bowie adjourned at ten minutes before twolye.