said, he should oppose the Motion, for the following reason. It was proposed to raise the sum of 800,000l. for the purpose of improving the harbour and converting it into a harbour of refuge. In order to pay the interest of this sum three several sources of taxation were originally proposed, namely, duties were to be levied upon ships availing themselves of the advantages afforded by the harbour, upon goods exported from the port, and a rate was to be made upon the owners of property in the town; but, in consequence of the opposition which had been raised, the two latter sources of taxation had been abandoned. He did not think the amount which would be received from vessels using the harbour would anything like pay the interest of the debt to be incurred, and the ordinary annual outlay; and, even if it did, it would be inflicting a gross injustice upon the individuals engaged in the shipping trade in that port. He should therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, he should support the second reading of the Bill. He thought the measure was justified by the rapidly increasing prosperity of the town and port. Eight years ago the revenue enjoyed by the two great dock companies in Hartlepool was 65,000l., which had now increased to 200,000l. There was no intention by this measure to levy a passing toll, the only object being to extend the trade and afford conveniences for sheltering distressed vessels on that coast; neither was toll leviable till 250,000l. had been expended, and no shipowner, he thought, would object to pay a reasonable toll when he found that the cost of insurance was materially lessened, as it would be by reason of the increased safety of the port. The harbour had been inspected under the direction of the Admiralty by a competent engineer, and the report, he believed, was very favourable as to its capability as a harbour of refuge if the proposed improvements were carried into effect. He therefore trusted the House would not throw out the measure, which was, he conceived, one of great public importance.

said, he should oppose the Bill, not seeing how the interest and the sinking fund for the repayment of the capital and the working expenses were to be raised. That amount would not be much short of 60,000l. a year. He believed, practically, the whole cost would fall upon some half-dozen coal proprietors in the immediate neighbourhood, and it was most unjust to saddle them with the expense of making this a harbour of refuge, which, if it were required as a national undertaking, ought to be made at the cost of the nation.

said, he thought a Private Bill, unless it contained some general public principle, should not be rejected on the second reading, but should be investigated in Committee. The facts regarding Hartlepool were very striking, and the trade of the place had increased in a most extraordinary way. In 1835 it was a mere fishing town; docks had been made, and last year no less than 10,177 vessels entered the two docks of that port; and he found that the trade, foreign and colonial trade alone, without including the vast coasting trade in coal, was so great, that, as regards the export trade in foreign ships, Hartlepool was now the sixth port in the United Kingdom; and as regards the export trade in British ships, it was the tenth in importance. Now, it was proposed to make a great harbour by enclosing the bay. To effect this object, the Commissioners would lay a tax on the ships entering the port; they had power to do so, to a certain extent, by an Act of Parliament passed three years ago, and this Bill would only be an extension of that power.

said, he should oppose the Bill. No parties had a right to come to Parliament and ask permission to raise the enormous sum of 800,000l. without being able to show by what means they would raise it. He understood that the tax proposed to be laid would raise 15,000l. a year, if it were levied on all the shipping in the port. But how could any body of men, upon an annual revenue of 15,000l., be enabled to borrow 800,000l.? The result would be that, after having got 250,000l., or at most 300,000l., and having expended that, the Commissioners would be obliged to come to Parliament again, and say, "We have expended upon the security of our own tolls 250,000l., the whole of which will be totally lost, unless you give us fresh powers." What would those powers be? They must be allowed to levy a passing toll; or else it would be demanded that a certain sum of money out of the public funds should be granted to complete this work, on the plea that a harbour of refuge would be very advantageous to all the shipping that frequented the north of England. Now he had great suspicion of such plans, for there had been too many jobs of that kind. He had not had any representations from his constituents respecting this Bill, but he opposed it because it related to those shipping interests to which he had devoted his exclusive attention, and on which he was accustomed to speak in the House.

said, he hoped the House would not assent to any such proposal as this, by which persons who did not derive any benefit from the scheme were to pay the expenses.

said, that viewing this matter on public grounds only, he thought the Bill ought to be read a second time. He was quite sure it would provide an admirable harbour of refuge, where one was most wanted, and a great public desideratum. Judging from the opinion of Mr. Rendell, the engineer, who had investigated the site, he had confidence in the utility of this work; and the only question was, with respect to the funds by which it was to be executed. A passing toll was not asked for, and there were strong checks on the operations of the Bill. The Board of Trade had reported on the matter, and the report of Mr. Rendell had just been presented to the Admiralty. The outlay of 800,000l. was indeed large, but the rapid growth of the trade of this harbour justified the parties applying for this Bill, who had no personal interest in the speculation.

said, he begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Austrian Ambassador had called upon Lord Clarendon for any explanation of the words stated to have been used by a Member of the Administration, that "no settlement of the Eastern question would be satisfactory unless Hungary and Poland were restored?"

Sir, in regard to that Member of the Administration to whom the noble Lord refers, I shall merely say that it has caused me great satisfaction that that hon. Friend of mine has accepted service under the Crown, and that I have the most confident expectations that his great natural abilities and the remarkable energy of his character will render him an ornament to Her Majesty's service, and will enable him to do honour to the memory of his illustrious father. The question of the noble Lord, however, refers to the policy of Her Majesty's Go- vernment, and upon that I am prepared to give him the fullest information. The Austrian Government know, and have all along known, that the Government of Great Britain would consider it a great misfortune to Europe if Hungary were separated from the Austrian empire; because I consider the Austrian empire, as an aggregate body in the centre of Europe, to be an essential element in the balance of power of Europe. The Austrian Government, therefore, have no doubt as to what are the policy and views of Her Majesty's Government in regard to Hungary. With respect to Poland, I have no hesitation in stating my own opinion that the kingdom of Poland, as at present constituted, and as at present occupied, is a standing menace to Germany. It is for the Powers of Germany to determine how far they may think that constitution of Poland is or is not dangerous to them, and whether, under circumstances which may lead them into war with Russia, they will think it for their interests to endeavour to change that position of affairs. But, undoubtedly, no stipulations in regard to a new arrangement of Poland form a part of those points upon which Her Majesty's Government are now, in concert with the Government of France, negotiating at Vienna. Those negotiations are carried on upon the basis of the Four Points, which have been frequently published and are well known to everybody; but the two Powers have reserved to themselves the right, according to circumstances, and according to the events of the war, if hostilities, either owing to a prolongation or a rupture of negotiations, should continue—they have, I say, reserved to themselves the right of adding in future to these Four Points any other stipulations which they may think essential for the future security of Europe. At present, however, the negotiations are going on upon these Four Points, and that is the policy of the Government with respect to this subject.

said, the noble Lord had not answered the question put to him.

I have stated that the Austrian Ambassador and Government are perfectly cognizant of what is the policy and what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and there has never been any secrecy on our part, or any doubt entertained on the part of the Government of Austria upon that subject.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it was his intention to introduce any measure during the present Session to alter either the excise duty on British hops or Customs duty on foreign hops; and also, if he would be good enough to explain the object that the deputation from West Kent had, that waited on the right hon. Baronet last Thursday, on the subject of the hop duty? He observed, that, some accounts had appeared of a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the hop duties, at which it had been stated by some one, that the growers were indifferent to the repeal of the duties. Now, he knew the reverse to be the fact; and a year or two ago large meetings had been held to promote their repeal. He, therefore, begged to ask whether the Government contemplated such a measure, seeing that it was calculated to be a far more important benefit to the country than the repeal of the newspaper stamp duty, which certainly did not seem to be at all desired by the principal parties concerned; and which would entail a loss to the revenue of from 200,000l. to 300,000l. a year, whereas the repeal of the hop duty would only involve a loss of not much more than 100,000l.; and it was much more vexatious in its nature than it was oppressive in amount.

said, the Government had no present intention of making any alteration in the excise duty on hops. In respect to the customs duty, it would be 1l. per cwt. until August 1, when, unless intermediate legislation took place, it would be 2l. 5s. per cwt. He could not state that circumstances might not arise which, in a fiscal point of view, might make it desirable to prolong the lower rate of duty.

said, he rose pursuant to notice, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the intended policy of the administration with respect to the Colony of Newfoundland and the complaints made by the House of Assembly of that Colony, and set forth in a petition from that Assembly to the Home Government? He should put the question to the noble Lord in preference to the Secretary of the Home Department, as he considered the noble Lord responsible. The noble Lord who was nominally at the head of the Colonial Office was now on a mission at Vienna, and at that moment they had not in that House anybody representing the Colonial Office, neither a Colonial Minister nor an Under Secretary for the Colonies. If the Colonial Office were kept open for any person who had in his former career shown any peculiar fitness for colonial administration he should have felt more confidence in the present administration of colonial affairs; but seeing that the noble Lord who was now at the head of the Colonial Department was flourishing away at Vienna as Ambassador, and seeing that when the noble Lord some time ago was at the head of the Colonial Office, the largest Colony we had was driven into rebellion, he thought it was not very advantageous to the country to keep open the Office for the noble Lord. Some years ago he (Mr. Roebuck) proposed to that House to concede to Canada certain demands which the people of that Colony made respecting their own government. When he made that proposition, it was received unfavourably by the then Government and unfavourably by the House; but subsequent events proved that the proposition he then made was what prudence demanded, and since that period all those demands had been conceded. Among them was that which had been denominated responsible Government—that was the power on the part of the colonists themselves to conduct their own Government; and one of the questions that he wished to put to the noble Lord was, whether that responsible Government which had been conceded to Canada was about to be conceded, according to promise, to Newfoundland? The next question was, whether or not the complaints made by the people against the present Governor were about to be listened to. He would not enter into the complaints, he would bring no charge against the Governor, except this, that he had made himself unpopular to the colonists, inasmuch as when the Duke of Newcastle had promised to the Colony a responsible Government he had expressed opinions unfavourable to the adoption of that course. In fact, so unpopular had he made himself, that in the course of the two years during which he held office no fewer than three delegations had been sent to this country to complain of his conduct. He would wish to submit to the noble Lord that the fact of the Governor of a colony opposing the wishes of the Home Government to concede to the colonies a system of responsible Government might unfit him for a continuance in office. He asked the noble Lord, in the second place, if it were the intention of the Government to remove the Governor, not entirely from the government of any colony, but to make an exchange from the Colony of Newfoundland to the Colony of New Brunswick, in which responsible Government had been introduced, and in which, therefore, the same difficulties would not arise. There was one reason which seemed to give great force to the representations of the Colonists. It was well known to the House that we had entered into a treaty with the United States with regard to the trade between the North American Colonies, and the United States; but the introduction of the provisions of that treaty depended on the Colonial Legislature. In Newfoundland there was at present a party who had an interest in monopoly, but the people of the Colony desired free trade. For the purpose of free trade they must have a local Government in accordance with the wishes of the people. The Governor had declared himself in opposition to their wishes. He (Mr. Roebuck), therefore, asked the noble Lord, with regard to the people of Newfoundland, not to go through the long agony that he went through with regard to the people of Canada. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be wise in time; that they would not continue the dispute that had DOW existed between the people and their Governor of Newfoundland for years to come, and so at last, after twenty years' fighting between the people and the administration, the people should at length obtain that which they desired.

said, he willingly accepted the responsibility which his hon. and learned Friend said he ought to bear with respect to the Colonial Department, but he could not admit the reflection which his hon. and learned Friend had cast on the policy of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) who was not amusing himself at Vienna, nor neglecting any duty at home, but was performing abroad duties of the most important character, and which he had undertaken previous to his having accepted the seals of the Colonial Department. It was not likely, however, that he would long continue absent. With respect to the question put, it was the firm in- tention of Her Majesty's Government to keep faith in all respects with the people of Newfoundland in reference to the system of responsible government which had been promised them. Steps had been taken to carry that promise into execution. There was to be a reconstruction of the popular assembly—an enlargement of the numbers of that body. There was, it was true, a difference of opinion on the part of the people and the Governor as to the time when this reconstruction should take place, but the Governor was correct in law in the decision which he took to have the elections in the spring and not in the winter, for as regarded the objection that some of the voters would necessarily be absent in the spring, the same might be said of others in the winter, because many could not attend for physical causes. With respect to the Legislative Council to be constituted, an intimation had been given by the Governor that he postponed the nominations to the Council till after the elections, in order that the two assemblies should be in harmony. He did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was rightly informed as to the feelings and opinions of the Governor on the question of free trade, for he believed that the Governor had not the slightest indisposition to carry out the principles of free trade, but, on the contrary, was disposed to carry those principles out to their full extent. With regard to the last question, he felt convinced that the House would not expect him to state the intentions of the Government as to the removal, continuation in office, or exchange of Colonial Governors; all that he could say was, that it was the intention of the Government that the colony should enjoy all the advantages of that system of responsible government which had been promised to them by the Duke of Newcastle.

said, the House would observe that there was a difference of opinion between the statement of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) and that of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown. There was a gentleman in this country as a delegate from no less than two-thirds of the Assembly of Newfoundland, with regard to the conduct of the Governor; and the House, he thought, might take it that the statement of his hon. and learned Friend with regard to the Governor was true. The Governor (Mr. Baillie Hamilton) had been in office only two years, and during that time three deputations had visited this country to seek redress against his conduct. He (Mr. Bright) was not about to find fault with the noble Lord the Member for London, in that he did not happen to be present to perform the duties of his office. He agreed with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that the good he might do at Vienna would more than balance any harm he might do by his temporary absence from this country. But he was one of those who thought that gentlemen who came from the colonies to the Colonial Office ought to be treated in a different way. They had had within a few months at the head of that office the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir George Grey, and now Lord John Russell, so that when delegates came from the colonies there were so many changes in the Colonial Department that they did not know where to go to, or to whom to apply. In his opinion, the people of a colony, who found that representations made to the Home Government were, by such a state of things, rendered of little or no use, had good cause to wish to get rid of the Home Government altogether. Generally, the Governor of a colony was chosen in a peculiar manner. Often his best qualification was that he had a bad banking account, but had at the same time some claim upon a political party. The Government frequently found it extremely difficult to appoint a good man to a colonial governorship, and there was no reason why the Legislature of Newfoundland should not be allowed to appoint their own Governor. They would be enabled to appoint a better Governor than they had at present, at one-third of the salary, and he, therefore, recommended the Government to take into consideration the propriety of allowing, he would not say all, but many of the colonies to appoint their own Governors. He agreed in all that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, and he thought it was the duty of the Government to remove from office the Governor of Newfoundland, who appeared to some extent to possess a disposition that prevented him from working harmoniously with the Legislature over which he presided.

said, he hoped the turn which the debate had taken would justify him in saying a few words upon a subject of the most pressing importance, to which he begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. On the 31st of May in last year there arrived in this country the draught of a constitution for the great colony of Victoria. Since that time events had taken place there of the greatest importance and of the most lamentable character. In fact, something very like civil war had arisen in the colony, owing to serious differences between the golddiggers and the Government. It was found expedient to send a large body of troops to the diggings at Ballarat. The diggers had entrenched themselves in a stockade. The troops had attacked them in regular martial array. Volleys of musketry had been exchanged for ten minutes between the diggers and the troops, the result of which was that several of the troops, including one officer, were killed, and at least thirty of the diggers were left dead upon the spot, and many others had since died of their wounds. This lamentable occurrence happened recently, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if they were to have a repetition of it, or were they to take measures for putting an end to a state of affairs which might lead to its repetition? The remedy must be applied by the Government immediately, without waiting for the termination of the Vienna Conference. The only measure that could prevent it was immediately to pass a Bill settling a constitution for the colony, and to send it out forthwith. The Government of the colony had fallen into contempt. The population at large sympathised with the diggers and held meetings to express their sympathy. In consequence of this state of things the secretary and other functionaries of the Government had withdrawn, and the colony was now almost at the mercy of the people. The only remedy that could be applied to this state of things, the only course which could prevent a recurrence of such struggles, and preserve the Queen's Government from being brought into contempt—was immediately to pass a measure to establish a new constitution for the colony, and to send it out without delay. He, therefore, desired to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the propriety of giving such a measure precedence over the other Bills for establishing Australian constitutions, in consideration of the greatness of the emergency and the danger that threatened the union of the mother country with the colony in question, and consequently with all our Australian colonies?

said, he could not give a pledge to the House that the Bill referred to by the right hon. Gentleman would be considered separately. There were certain leading principles which it was desirable to consider in the first instance, but he hoped that no great time would elapse before the attention of the House would be called to all the measures about to be adopted in regard to the constitution of the colonies. When the Bill alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was brought to this country it was accompanied by a measure relating to the extension of the elective franchise, which the Governor hoped would be taken into consideration immediately and returned to the colony. A partial consideration had already been given to the subject to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention, but by law it was necessary that the Act in question should remain before the House for thirty days before effect could be given to it by Parliament. With regard to the disturbances which had recently taken place in the colony of Victoria, no doubt they had been of a very serious character, but they had only been of short duration. They arose in part from the refusal of many of the diggers, chiefly foreigners, to pay the license fees, and when the outbreak occurred prompt measures were taken to quell it. He regretted, however, to state that the disturbances were not put down without loss of life. He had every reason to believe that the colony was at present in a more satisfactory state.

said, that these disturbances arose altogether from the want of good faith on the part of the Government in not giving a constitution at once. Within a few months front the present time the colony of Newfoundland had been assured in a despatch from the Duke of Newcastle that responsible government would be granted to them to the fullest possible extent. Although, however, there was not one of our North American colonies more interested than Newfoundland in the alliance which had recently been concluded between England and France, according to the latest accounts the Governor of that colony had never acquainted the House of Assembly with the message of Lord Clarendon communicating the fact that such an alliance had been established; and, although the Assembly had agreed upon a Loyal Address to Her Majesty, he believed it had never been transmitted to the Home Government. He thought, if the Government of this country were sup- porting the Governor of Newfoundland in a struggle with the colonists, they ought at least to provide for the payment of the Governor, but he found that the colony of Newfoundland was required to pay the Governor a sum equal to ten times the salary which was paid to the Governor of the State of Maine. He considered it most important that the Government of this country should do all in their power to promote the prosperity and to insure the loyalty and attachment of the North American colonies, and, although Newfoundland formed a comparatively small portion of those colonies, he thought it most essential to the safety to the British empire that the inhabitants of Newfoundland should not have any cause for such remonstrances as they had addressed to the Home Government.

said, he was glad to hear the noble Lord's statement characterised by so much fairness to the Governor of Newfoundland, who had been made the subject of very harsh accusations by other speakers. He had no personal or private feeling with regard to Governor Hamilton; for though in the year 1852 he had recommended him to Her Majesty for the office, he had done so solely on account of the ability and success with which he had conducted a small government in the West Indies. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr, Roebuck) had charged him with misconduct and unpopularity, and the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had referred to several deputations which had come to this country to complain of him. But nobody that had studied the history of Newfoundland for the last twenty-five years would be surprised at the unpopularity of the Governor; for the colony had unhappily been torn with parties, whose strife had been aggravated by religious dissensions. One of the charges against Governor Hamilton was, that he had opposed the introduction of responsible government. But he had only followed the course which all other Governors before him had previously taken. Sir Gaspard le Marchant, one of the ablest Colonial Governors this country had ever possessed, had done precisely the same; and Lord Grey had also refused the colony a responsible government. The Duke of Newcastle had, however, conceded it; and he (Sir J. Pakington) most sincerely hoped that it would succeed; but he must confess he had considerable doubts of it. When a colony took so strong a course as to request the Imperial Government to recall their Governor, they ought to be able to allege some very powerful reasons for it; but he must declare that he thought those which had been adduced on the present occasion were wholly insufficient. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had disposed of the charge against Governor Hamilton of having delayed the appointment of the Legislative Council; and he (Sir J. Pakington) believed that to have appointed it earlier would have been a breach both of law and of justice. He hoped, therefore, that the public character of the Governor would not suffer on account of the unfounded charges which had been been brought against him.

said, he must express a hope that Her Majesty's Government would give instructions to the governor of Newfoundland to afford the French fishermen on the banks of that island all the facilities that were extended to the subjects of the United States of America.

said, he thought great mistakes had been made with respect to the government of Newfoundland. The colonists had made frequent complaints upon the subject, and they had repeatedly sent over delegates to this country to demand an alteration in the constitution of the colony. It was, in his opinion, a very strong case which would justify the recall of a Governor, but in this instance he thought a strong case had been made out. In February last year the Duke of Newcastle sent a despatch, desiring the governor to call the Assembly together to pass the Constitution Bills, in order that they might be considered by Parliament; in the month of Juno they were passed by the House, but, being resisted by the Governor, were eventually thrown over, and the consequence was, that the House refused the Vote of Supply, which caused great inconvenience in the colony and much disarrangement of money affairs. Subsequently a despatch was sent out by the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Home Office, after seeing delegates from the colony, directing the Governor to call the Assembly together again. He did so, and in November the Bill was passed; but, without any just ground, the Governor, before it had gone through the necessary stages, dissolved the Legislature, and, instead of proceeding at once to an election, when the voters, who were mostly fishermen, were disengaged, he postponed it to a period when they could not avail themselves of their privileges, thus inflicting great injustice upon them. He mentioned these facts as instances of misgovernment with regard to this colony, and he could not avoid expressing his regret that the Duke of Newcastle, who deserved great credit for his vigorous administration of the Colonial Department, had ever left it. He wished to point out the injustice done to the colony by so long withholding from it a responsible Government, which had for some years been granted even to the little dependency of Prince Edward Island, and he must complain that the consequences of deferring a constitution in Newfoundland had been most disastrous; that its revenue was rapidly declining, while its poor rates had during the last ten years increased from 1,000l. per annum to 12,000l. Another grievance was, that while the majority of the population were of the Roman Catholic faith, the offices were principally distributed among Protestants, for, while fifty-four officers of the Roman Catholic faith were placed in situations the aggregate remuneration of which amounted to 4000l. a year, 121 Protestants filled offices bringing to them 18,000l. annually. At the same time there was no religious acerbity in the colony, for in many instances Protestant constituencies returned Roman Catholic representatives, while Roman Catholic districts returned Protestants. He would conclude by expressing his belief that a continuance of such mismanagement would tend to alienate the feelings and affections of persons who had hitherto been most distinguished for their loyalty and devotion to the Crown and country.

said, he would now beg to move that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty with reference to the future management of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst—1st. That ten orphans, sons of officers of our army, navy, and marines, shall receive their education, board, and clothing free from expense to their friends. 2nd. That the number of cadets at Sandhurst, who are now admissible into the first class, be increased to fifty. 3rd. That depart- ments in the civil branches of the public service shall be open to those cadets who may entitle themselves to them by their good conduct, and by having passed those examinations which may be required of them; those cadets who prefer the military service to receive commissions as at present upon passing the necessary examinations; and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the expense of the same. If he had not considered his proposition to deeply affect the interest of the orphans of officers, he should not again have brought forward a Motion which had previously fallen to the ground, owing to an informality in the mode of proceeding. The establishment of the college was due to the zeal, talent, and untiring perseverance of the late General Le Marchant, who fell at the head of the heavy cavalry brigade at Salamanca in the year 1812; and its scheme had been approved by the late Duke of York. The first warrant establishing the college was dated the 27th May, 1808, and divided those who were to share in its benefits into three classes:—First, the sons of subaltern officers; secondly, the sons of officers; and thirdly, the sons of noblemen and gentleman, who were admitted as a matter of favour. But the intentions of its founders had been perverted, and the change which had taken place in the regulations practically shut the door against the entrance of any orphans of officers who had not held high rank in the army. Youths were now called on to pay 40l. a year; and as the means of the widows of such officers were unequal to such an outlay and accompanying expenses, the benefits of the college were denied to deserving persons. His object, then, was to restore the conditions and regulations of the college to their original form and scope, namely, that a certain number of young men should be educated thereat at the expense of the country.

I have much satisfaction in seconding the Motion now before the House; I consider it one founded on the strictest principles of justice and national gratitude and such as at this time is specially demanded. According to the present constitution of the sister services, only the more fortunate, the few who have resources of their own, can look to have their families independent of want. In the army especially, an officer in the purchase of a commission buys a poor annuity on his capital, he receives the interest on the money thus invested, his services to his country are in fact gratuitous. After his death the Government virtually confiscates his income, it appropriates his commission but does not reimburse his survivors. In the navy, promotion is seldom the reward of merit and actual service; too often it is the consequence of family connexion, influence and patronage. At this moment the College at Sandhurst is self-supporting; the country, to some extent, greatly to its discredit, suffers the maintenance of a national establishment at the expense of the widow and orphan. It may be said that the children of officers who have died in adverse circumstances are received at a small cost—what is that sum? 40l.—Let me remind hon. Members that pensions to widows of captains and subalterns are slightly beyond that sum, and to field officers under 90l. When the Duke of York presided over the foundation of Sandhurst, such boys were received free in board, clothes and education. Now the House is asked to sanction the admission of only ten orphans, the sons of officers in the army, navy and marines, gratuitously. With the recollection of the services rendered of late and acknowledged by this House, I cannot believe such an application will be refused, rather I should hope, will be deemed too insignificant, too unworthy. How would you animate the officer if you would assure him that a grateful country will be a parent to his child if he falls in her cause! The private soldier, the seaman and marine, knows that his boy shall be received at Greenwich or Chelsea and enabled to earn his livelihood; the poor subaltern, sinking down to die on the couch or battle-field, knows that now the agony of bereavement will be enhanced by lessened means in his humble home; that after all his sacrifices, his anxious thought by day and night, bereaved of their protector, he leaves his widow and children to the mercy of a hard world. Reverse this conviction, and show by your vote that England through you accepts his legacy, and whilst the Sovereign gives medals and honours to the survivors, the House never forgets those who have perilled and lost life in their country's cause.

said, if the only question involved in the Resolutions of the hon. and gallant Member was whether or not such an appropriation might be made of the income of the Military College at Sandhurst as would secure for the orphan children of the officers of the army the means of receiving a gratuitous education there, he did not think there would be any difference of opinion on either side of the House with regard to the Motion. The present arrangements of the college did enable the sons of officers in the army to receive an education at Sandhurst at a very reduced cost, and he was sure it would be satisfactory if the advantages of this college could be extended and the objects of the hon. and gallant Gentleman accomplished. It appeared to him, however, that before the House agreed to Resolutions which would involve a grant of money, it should be clearly ascertained whether or no the object could not be attained by some other means. They ought, for example, to inquire whether the income of the college might not be so appropriated as to secure the object of the hon, and gallant Member without calling upon the public for any assistance of this sort. At present the college was self-supporting. The first class of students there comprised twenty-five cadets, who each paid 40l. a year, in return for which they were provided with an excellent education, boarded, and clothed; and, such was the anxiety to obtain admission into this class that, although the number of vacancies was not more than seven or eight annually, there were at this moment at least fifty applications for admission. The boys admitted into that class were children of captains and subalterns in the army. Then there was a second class, containing fifty cadets, who paid sums varying from 50l. to 80l, a year, the young men who were admitted into that class being the sons of field and general officers; and next came a third class, comprising 105 students, the sons of private gentlemen, who each paid 125l. a year. The income derived by the college from the contributions paid by the sons of private gentlemen was sufficient to enable it to educate the cadets in the first and second classes, the cost of whose education was not covered by their own contributions. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was to increase the number of the first class, paying 40l. a year, from twenty-five to fifty, and that there should be a class of orphan children who were to receive an entirely gratuitous education. This it was proposed to accomplish by calling upon Parliament to make good whatever deficiency might arise. But he wished to know, in the first instance, whether the income of the college could not be applied to the same purpose. Now, the income of the college averaged about 18,000l. or 19,000l. a year, and, with the exception of some 70l. derived from the rent of land, this sum was entirely drawn from the contributions of the different students. Some years ago the income of the college did not more than cover its expenditure, because, at that time, it was called upon to undertake the expense of repairing the buildings. Latterly, however, that charge bad been thrown upon the Board of Works, and there was now an average surplus of income over expenditure to the amount of about 1,200l. a year, which was at present paid into the public Exchequer, and was carried to the credit of the country. Now, it would be a fair proposal to consider what scheme could be adopted by means of which this sum should be applied to the gratuitous education of officers' sons, or to the reception of a larger number of that class of students who paid a reduced contribution. When the Vote with respect to this college was before the Committee, objections had been taken to the expensive establishment maintained at Sandhurst. It certainly appeared that those expenses were considerable; and, although it would be impossible to touch the interests of existing incumbents, it would be a very fair engagement on the part of the Government to promise, when any vacancies occurred, that the propriety or not of filling up those vacancies for the future should be considered. But supposing they were to adopt the plan of these Resolutions, he doubted whether any collegiate institution ought to be made dependent on the liberality of Parliament, unless there was some assurance that Parliament would be likely to vote year by year the money which would be required to maintain it, because without some such assurance the useful- ness of such an institution might be increased by a grant of public money this year, and next year the vote might be withdrawn. He would remind the House that not many years ago this college was supported by a Parliamentary grant. Twenty-five years since the House of Commons used annually to vote for its maintenance a sum of between 8,000l. and 10,000l., which was systematically opposed by the late Mr. Hume, and was at last withdrawn and the college thrown upon its own resources, the consequence being that it was necessary to discontinue gratuitous education there. Seeing, therefore, that Parliament had taken this course, he could feel no confidence that at some future time they would not do the same if a public grant were now allowed. He would also express a doubt, looking at the terms of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen's Motion, whether the public could fairly be called upon to provide free instruction for the sons of officers. The hoe. and gallant Member did not confine his proposed gratuitous education to the orphans of officers killed in action; it was made applicable to the sons of officers generally. Now, in his opinion the sons of civil servants had as great a claim to be educated at the public expense. He thought that the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman could be effected by means of the surplus which the Government then had, and he hoped that he would leave the matter in the hands of the Government, and not press his Motion to a division.

said, he was opposed to any such grant as was asked for by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North). He quite concurred in the view taken by the hon. Under Secretary for War, believing that Sandhurst was able to maintain thrice the students now educated there. The grossest extravagance prevailed in that institution. No less than seventy-three officers, including professors, masters, servants, clerks, and others, were employed to take care of about 180 boys, at an expense of upwards of 13,000l. The boys paid for clothing, washing, &c. about 4,000l., making in all near 18,000l. The governor had 1,000l. a year and forage for four horses; this alone would maintain double the number of cadets proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire. What need was there of such a governor? As he was a general of dragoons, he had his salary of 1,200 a year, independent of the college. Many such officers would only be too glad to go and live at Sandhurst, and enjoy the advantages of that situation, without any salary whatever. A great reduction might also be made in the other salaries.

said, he objected to the governor receiving such large pay when the duties he had to perform were so slight. He could not understand why an allowance should be made to him for forage for his horses. He was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the War Department speak of the moderate cost of education at Sandhurst when the annual expense of each pupil was 98l. 15s. He hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would press his motion to a division, for in his opinion there was in the management at Sandhurst a vast amount of jobbing and abuse.

said, that although the question before the House was a very small one, it nevertheless involved a principle which he hoped would meet with its support, and that was, whether they were to go on according to the same jog-trot fashion as of old, or whether they would alter that plan to the very limited degree now proposed? The request made to them was, what were they prepared to do for the orphans of officers who fell in the service of their country? And let them remember that request was urged at a moment when those orphans were daily increasing. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary at War had called upon the hon. and gallant Member not to divide the House. He (Captain Scobell) hoped the House would divide, if it was only to prove whether or not they had regard for those who fell in the service of the country. They were told, indeed, that there was already a class to admit students at 40l. a year. He was ashamed, however, to hear such an argument urged; and it could only proceed from persons who had their thousands a year. Why, how could the poor widow pay 40l. a year, who perhaps had only a pension of 60l. a year to maintain a whole family. Let them, then, look at the question as practical men. He had not been long in Parliament; but this he would say, that he had never seen a grant withdrawn which was for a deserving object; and he could not help feeling that if Mr. Hume was still amongst them he would not at such a moment grudge the expense of giving a gratuitous education to the orphans of officers. He offered his most cordial thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for having brought the Motion forward.

said, he only rose to say that he entirely concurred in the feeling of shame at hearing the argument used by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel). Instead of raising the character of the army, the speech of the Under Secretary at War tended to its degradation, and he trusted that the House, by its vote, would tend to show that it joined in that opinion. The college at Sandhurst, forsooth, had been styled a public establishment, while in truth and reality it was a mere private one, and it was so because the institution had to bear the expense of supplying rewards for long services to gallant officers, whom the niggardliness of their country either could not or would not otherwise provide for. It was a perfect disgrace that the college should be administered as it was, while there need be no concealment of the fact that the army was not in the slightest degree indebted to the country fur the fact of its maintenance.

said, he must confess that he had never heard a more narrow view taken of a question than that urged by the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Peel). The practical effect of the present system of management at Sandhurst was to deter altogether the sons of the gentry who enjoyed but small fortunes—and who invariably made the best officers in the army—from entrance to that institution. Its advantages, therefore, were exclusively confined to the children of the richer classes, and those of officers. For no one would pretend that the small gentry of the country could afford to pay 125 guineas annually for the education of their children. He would certainly vote for the Motion, and he hoped that there would be a complete investigation into the whole system pursued at Sandhurst.

said, the present discussion was in reality an instance of a remark made in reference to the House of Commons—namely, that it was apt to he exceedingly liberal at one moment, and very niggardly at another. For the establishment at Sandhurst was founded originally upon a much larger scale than that on which it now existed; and there was an annual vote of a considerable amount towards its maintenance. Well, his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Scobell) had said that if Mr. Hume was still with them he would now, at a time of war, not hesitate to support a vote of the public money for the gratuitous education of the sons of officers. [Captain SCOBELL said, he meant that Mr. Hume never grudged a proper payment for a proper object.] But he could say he remembered fighting many battles with Mr. Hume during a time of peace in reference to this establishment, when his lamented Friend was accustomed to urge upon Parliament, year after year, first, the reduction of the grant, and then its withdrawal altogether. It was contended then that the college ought to be self-supporting. Well, the House of Commons agreed with Mr. Hume, and all assistance from the public revenue was withdrawn from it, and the college was made self-supporting. Now, there was a certain degree of reason in this, because certain privileges were attached to education at Sandhurst; for young men who had gone through their course of studies there were entitled to commissions without purchase, and it was a very fair equivalent for this that they should contribute towards the expenses of the establishment during the period in which they pursued their studies at it. To the assertion, then, that it was not fair to compel young men to contribute towards the expenses of that establishment, his (Lord Palmerston's) answer was, that a great portion of the young men educated at the college, if they distinguished themselves in their examinations, received their commissions without any payment whatever. Now that he considered was a good reason why they should be called upon to contribute towards the expenses of the establishment in which they were instructed for the military service. His hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) stated that those contributions exceeded, in point of fact, the whole expenses of the institution; and it might be reasonable for the Government to consider whether, out of the surplus of the revenue, there might not be found some means of accomplishing the object which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire had in view by his Motion. Surely, nothing could be fairer than to ask the House to suspend its decision upon the Resolution before it, while it was possible that the object of it might be accomplished without any contribution whatever from the public revenue. Now, with regard to the Resolutions before the House, one portion of them referred to the qualifications of young men educated in the college for the army, while another part goes to say that those young men were entitled to appointments in the civil service. Now that proposition seemed to him to be an extraordinary one. He could very well understand how young men who upon examination proved themselves well qualified should obtain commissions in the army gratuitously; but he should like to know by what arrangements the hon, and gallant Gentleman proposed to carry out his plan by which those young men should be appointed to situations in the civil service? What part of the civil service was thus to be disposed of? What qualifications were to be required for the civil service, different from those that were tested by the usual examinations in the college? A young man might be most competent for a commission in the army or navy, but not for employment in the civil service; at all events, that portion of the Resolution was one to which he thought the House would, under no circumstances, be disposed to agree. He put these facts to the House—namely, the institution originally was maintained upon a much larger scale than it at present was. It was subsequently reduced by the votes of that House; and it was now self-supporting and more. There were now funds belonging to the college which might be applied towards effecting a large amount of gratuitous instruction. Under all these circumstances Her Majesty's Government were not disposed to agree to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.

said, the noble Lord seemed to forget that the balance was paid into the Treasury. If the Government would bear the expenses of these ten orphans, and extend the first class by twenty-five, it was perfectly immaterial to him from what source the money was obtained. As to his proposition that these young men should be employed in the civil service, he could not see any objection to it. [Mr. F. PEEL: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War apparently objected to that part of the scheme, and perhaps thought the orphans of officers required no consideration. He thought otherwise, and as long as he had the power he was determined to fight their cause in that House. When pressing questions arose, on which votes in that house were required, situations in the civil service were obtained without difficulty, and why were the orphans of officers to be debarred from that service? The instruction at Sandhurst fitted a man for anything, no matter what it might be. If a young man showed proficiency in lan- guages let him be employed in the War Office, and if another possessed other qualifications, let him enter those departments where his acquirements would be of service. The Government seemed to feel no sympathy for the families of officers who fell in the field, or under the influence of unhealthy climates to which they were exposed. But he would take the liberty of reading a beautiful expression of sympathy on the part of Her Majesty. After the battle of Inkerman Her Majesty wrote thus:—

"Proud of the victory won by Her brave army—grateful to those who wear the laurels of this great conflict—the Queen is painfully affected by the heavy loss which has been incurred, and deeply sensible of what is owing to the dead. Those illustrious men cannot, indeed, receive the thanks of their Sovereigns, which have so often cheered the soldier in his severest trials, but their blood has not been shed in vain. Laid low in their grave of victory, their names will be cherished Mr ever by a grateful country, and posterity will look upon the list of officers who have fallen as a proof of the ardent courage and zeal with which they pointed out the path of honour to no less willing followers."

He would certainly divide the House, and let the army see who did and who did not appreciate their gallant deeds.

said, he would suggest that it would be most desirable that an inquiry upon the subject should take place before a Select Committee, and if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not consent to such inquiry, he (Mr. Watson) would certainly vote with the hon. and gallant Member opposite. He was an old cadet; his father died in the service of his country, and he was left an orphan in the establishment at Sandhurst. His education was good, and he there learned the principles of honour under the gallant old soldier who had gained his victorious laurels upon the fields of Salamanca. He, however, considered that it was a disgrace to the country that they had not a proper establishment for the orphans of officers. Those who had spent their lives in the service of their country had a right to expect that their families would be received and protected in an adequate asylum. We had brave and noble officers, but the education of the staff officers was lamentably deficient. Because he had a respect for the establishment in question, and a warm heart towards the army, he felt indignant at the scandalous system by which nepotism and patronage monopolised those places which merit alone should possess. He hoped that the noble Lord would assent to the appointment of a Committee.

I have not the slightest objection to such a proposition—so far from it, I think it both reasonable and advantageous that the whole arrangements of the institution should be inquired into; and I myself shall have no objection to make that Motion.

said, be must express a hope that, under such circumstances, his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Motion. He would request of his hon. and gallant Friend to accept the offer of the noble Lord.

said, he would accept the offer of the noble Lord for a Committee of inquiry, and would not divide the House upon his Motion.

rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to relieve Grand Juries in Ireland from fiscal duties, and to place the administration of local affairs in elected councils. As he understood that it was the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to take the unusual course of dividing against the Motion, he should be compelled to enter upon some explanation relative to the general spirit of the grand-jury system in Ireland—a system which afforded a curious illustration of the opposite views which might be taken of the same object by opposite parties in the same country;—for while the grand-jury system was described by some as an institution disgraceful to a free country, demoralising in its working, beneficial to the few and oppressive to the many—on the other hand it was represented by the opposite party as a venerable institution, beneficial in its effects, and loved by the people. He wished the House to be guided by neither of these statements, but to listen to him while he described the general system and working of the grand-jury laws, and then to say whether such a system ought to be allowed to continue in any civilised country. Under the grand-jury system in Ireland all their public roads and works were made and maintained; it built and regulated all their court-houses and county establishments; it provided the funds for the payment of prosecutions and witnesses; their gaols and bridewells were constructed and regulated by them; and they had, at least, the power of checking all such expendi- ture:—they had, moreover, considerable power in respect of a portion of the medical charities. It appeared by the Report of the Devon Commission, that the amount of taxation levied by the grand juries for these purposes amounted on the average to more than 1,100,000l. yearly. This large sum was levied upon the holders of land. Hon. Members were aware that in Ireland every man contributed to the poor-rates who was rated at 4l.—or in some cities at 8l.—and it appeared from the poor-law returns, that there were, in 1843, 564,144 persons who were rated at and under 6l., and 401,291 who were rated above that sum—in all, very nearly 1,000,000 persons who were liable to be taxed by the grand juries to the expenses he had before alluded to. Now, by whom was the amount and destination of this large sum determined on?—by those who pay? Not at ail. By the gentry or the magistracy? No Peer could sit upon the grand jury—though his agent could, and thereby it frequently happened that a gentleman totally unconnected with the county might be put upon the grand jury—the ratepayers had no right to interfere; and as for the gentry and magistracy, except they happened to be selected by the sheriff, they had no right to take any part in the management of this local expenditure. The grand jury were thus constituted—the high sheriff for the time being selected twenty-three gentlemen of each county, and in these vested the whole power of local taxation—and the ratepayers of the county had no right and no power to interfere with this selection. It must not be supposed that the sheriff was obliged to select the largest ratepayers, or, indeed, any ratepayers at all—or that he took the men most popular with the ratepayers; so far is this from being a recommendation that any man who had been elected to that House on popular influence was nearly certain to be rejected. In some counties rank was the leading motive, and the sheriff who should omit certain persons from his list would be certain to give offence: in other counties the choice rested on mere caprice. There was but one restriction imposed by law upon the sheriff, and that was that from each barony there must be one 50l. freeholder—who that one should be was left entirely to himself; and as there were, on an average, ten baronies in each county, ten of the twenty-three grand jurymen were selected under this restriction—the rest were left entirely to his caprice. Was it likely that such a system would be either popular or satisfactory? The sheriff, moreover, held office for only one year; he could not, therefore, do justice by selecting the gentlemen of the county in turn—he generally took a few personal friends, and for the rest he had recourse to the names of those gentlemen who had usually appeared on the grand-jury lists. Was a system which placed the taxation of the county, and the granting or refusal of its public works, in a body so constituted, likely to be popular? Was it in accordance with the spirit of our institutions, which boast that no man shall be taxed without the consent of his representative? But it might be said that the matters submitted to the grand jury must have been previously brought before the ratepayers at the sessions. But this was a mere mockery—for how did the House suppose that the members of the sessions were chosen? At each assizes a list of the highest ratepayers was put before the grand jury, who selected from twelve to twenty-four persons to be associated with the magistracy. Thus all that connects the public expenditure in Ireland with the ratepayers, was a body selected by the grand jury themselves; and in practice the selection of the ratepayers for each barony was left to the grand juryman who was connected with the barony, who, of course, selected those persons who agreed with his own views. The crowning absurdity was, that the grand jury selected double the number wanted, and when the sessions came, if the whole twenty-four should attend, as only one half of the entire number can serve, their numbers were reduced by ballot—though nobody did attend unless canvassed to carry some job; and, finally, as if to take away all responsibility, all check and all interest in the county affairs, those who attend one sessions must be struck off the next list. The sessions thus composed of magistrates, and of ratepayers thus chosen, have only the power of deciding whether the work shall or shall not be submitted to the grand jury, they frequently knew nothing of the matter on which they were called to decide, they felt that the real decision did not rest with them, and that power merely of rejection placed them in an inferior and little creditable position—and the magistrates took very little interest except they have some personal interest to serve. Such was the Irish grand-jury system. There is no responsibility, and none of that moral feeling which resulted from responsibility. The grand juror and the ratepayer at sessions are alike ephemeral, they exist but for the day; they are not responsible for the results of their acts—they are not under the control of public opinion, for before it can be expressed they have ceased to exist. How could such a system be popular? He did not go into particular cases of abuse—he attacked only the principle—hon. Gentlemen around him, no doubt, did all they could to carry on the business of their counties honourably and well. But they deceived themselves; their influence enabled them to get what they wanted themselves, and to reject what they disapproved of, and they thought everything went on right. But the mass of the people thought otherwise—they saw nothing in the system but what worked well for the few and the wealthy, but which utterly ignored the interests of the great body of the ratepayers. The grand jury, then, was an irresponsible body; and an ephemeral body; it had no continuity of thought or action, and what was rejected by one grand jury as worthless might be carried by the next. It was totally irresponsible for the results of its acts, and acted therefore without conscience; it had no connection with the wants and wishes of the ratepayers; it was ignorant of the subjects on which it had to decide, and was led by those directly interested; it was a demoralising system, destructive of public opinion and public honesty, and compelled every man to resort to influence and combination; and it was utterly at variance with the spirit of our institutions, and was calculated to destroy all respect for them. This was the system under which one-half of the local taxation of Ireland was administered. Compare it with the other half. The grand-jury rates were about 1,000,000l., the poor rates amounted to about the same sum. The grand-jury rates were levied on the barony, which is composed of parishes and manors, which again are subdivided into town-lands or ploughlands. The framers of the poor law found the baronies to be so unequal in size, so irregular in form, and so inconvenient—the portions so little connected in interest with the rest, and the chief places so ill situated, that they determined to discard them, and to form an entirely new territorial organisation. They took as many of the chief towns as they required, and made them centres, placing the workhouses there; they surrounded them as nearly as the physical features of the country, as identity of interests and consideration of property would admit, with combinations of townlands, forming them into electoral districts. The electoral district elected one or more guardians according to its size, property, and value, and these guardians with an equal number of magistrates formed the Union Board. It was not necessary to defend now the introduction of the magistrates; but as he proposed also to adopt the same principle, he might say that as the poor rates were paid by the non-occupying landlord as well as by the occupying tenant, he held it to be right that property, as distinguished from occupation, should be represented. Here, then, we have the occupier electing their representatives, and the intelligence and education of the country represented by the magistracy. This system was entirely new among us. Opposing and repulsive elements have been brought together; and men trained under the grand-jury system to believe that favouritism and the total abstinence of all public considerations where the interest of a friend was involved was a simple duty, have had to conduct a system which was open to every system of malpractice. The landlords, who thought that their tenants were bound to be their followers, and that as the land was theirs those who occupied it were theirs also, were brought into contact in the boardroom. No doubt, at first, collisions and jobs occurred; but what had been the result? All classes were now acting well together, business is well transacted, personal interests are not allowed to interfere, but above all a public spirit has been created, which was unknown before. He believed that this half of our local taxation was as honestly and as well administered as its authors could have anticipated—nay, he thought it did honour to the Irish character; they had been allowed to govern themselves; and they had done so well that the Government proposes, even to a greater extent than he approved of, to take away all restraint from the board of guardians, and to give up their power of supervision. We have only been eighteen years in existence as guardians, yet we can manage our own affairs, and can be trusted. Such were the two systems under which the local affairs of Ireland were managed in nearly equal proportions. Under the one the taxation was carried on through an irresponsible body, totally unconnected with the body of the ratepayers and ephemeral; under the other they had responsibility to the ratepayers by representation; on the one side, we find their own affairs not managed by the ratepayers; on the other, we find the ratepayers managing their own affairs—generally with much prudence and good sense. All he proposed was, that the system which was in operation in respect of poor-law affairs should be extended to the other half of the local taxation of Ireland. Mr. Wyse, Mr. Smith O'Brien, Sir R. Musgrave, and others, had long since proposed county boards: there was nothing new in his proposition. If they failed, and if he (Sir Denham Norreys) hoped to succeed, it was not from any superior merit of his plan, but that he took advantage of an organisation which did not exist in their days. The fact was, we have hitherto distrusted our countrymen, and have thought them unfit for self-government. It had been tried, and they were found quite capable of doing so. What was more calculated to elevate the character of our countrymen than to place in their hands all the powers of self-government which were not inconsistent with the general interests? What is so calculated to make a man throw aside the consideration of selfish and personal interests and views as the feeling that he is acting for the community—which would reward him with its approbation if he acted well, or disgrace him by rejection at a future election, if he was found incapable or dishonest? If they could not make men really honest, at least they could make them assume its semblance; and no society was so degraded, but that honesty and integrity were appreciated. They might be sure that the same desire to be well thought of by their country which actuated hon. Members in this house, also acted on the humble guardian, and that it would act on his class more largely in proportion as they the more entrusted to them the management of all their affairs. He proposed to entrust to his countrymen the power of managing all their own affairs. Nay, he went further, and would propose to entrust them with far greater powers, with much larger discretion, than had been hitherto entrusted to grand juries. This might startle those who have no confidence in their countrymen. The people of this country have begun to feel that they might learn from foreign nations. Unhappily we have had a severe lesson in the Crimea as to war—so, in ques- tions of peace, they were, on the subject of education, copying not only from America, but even from Austria. He would tell them how local affairs are managed on the Continent. The system of dividing the country into small districts called communes, and giving them the power of electing their own council of management, subject to the control of superior councils also elective, was one of the greatest and most lasting results of the French Revolution. He would not speak of it as it exists in France, first, because they would not feel much inclined to follow the example of France in respect of its civil institutions; and, secondly, because he had had less opportunity of studying it—besides the present Emperor proposed to change its organisation, and assume more power over the communes. But the House would probably allow him, as it was so connected with his plan, to refer to the communal system as it now existed in Belgium—in a country where the people were as free, as industrious, as steady in character, as moral, as intelligent, as in their own or in any other country in the world. He could do so with the more confidence, as Belgium, since the establishment of communes, had passed through many political vicissitudes; but then each change had been for the political amelioration of the people. The communal system had also been altered from time to time. He did not consider it perfect, but at least it had received such gradual amendments as the representatives of a free people had thought it prudent to make in it. He did not, therefore, hesitate to avow that he had borrowed as much from the Belgian communal system as he thought could be engrafted on the Irish poor-law organisation. Belgium was about the third part of the size of Ireland, and had not more than half its population. It was divided into nine provinces, each of which had its elected council, and into about 2,500 communes, each also having its council elected by the ratepayers. The provincial council was elected for four years, one-half going out every two; the communal council for six years, one-half going out every three years. The governor of the province was selected and paid by the Government. The council elected a permanent body called the "deputation permanente," which he might call its Executive Committee. The members of this Committee receive small salaries, one-half of which depends on the regularity of their attendance. The members of the council receive a small allowance for their reasonable expenses, and for the cost of travelling to and from the place of meeting. The number in the provincial council varies from thirty-four in Luxembourg to seventy-six in East Flanders, and there are in all 461. The number of councillors to each commune varies, according to population, from seven to thirty-one. Each commune has its burgomaster and two or four echevins. The burgomaster and echevins form the Executive Committee of each commune; the burgomaster and echevins are nominated by the Crown. This would at first view seem to be a faulty arrangement, but it would he unwise for a stranger to offer a decided opinion against its propriety. Perhaps its justification may be this; the communes have much power not only in respect of the administration of the law generally, but also in respect of general taxation, and the administration of hospitals, schools, the general militia, the maintenance of the churches, and so forth. The selection of the burgomaster and echevins by the Crown, is the representation in each commune of the general Government. Now these are great powers. He would give the House an idea of the classes by whom they were administered. There were 1,305 communes, with a population of 1,000 and under.—Nay, out of 2,524 communes, 2,250 have populations of only 3,000 and under; in fact, however small a commune may be, it finds seven persons within it who are competent to act as councillors—if its population amounts to 3,000, it has nine councillors, and so on to thirty-one. There are nearly 21,000 persons who act as councillors—and so well do they act that the system is one of the most valued institutions of Belgian institutions—so well does it act that Holland has within a few years adopted the Belgian system; but he could not speak of this. He would not detain the House with the powers of their councils. They had generally the complete management of all the local affairs, subject to the supervision of the State; they are intrusted with most of the powers which poor-law boards, grand juries, ecclesiastical commissions, national education commissions, and municipal councils enjoy in Ireland. When, in Belgium, such powers are entrusted to the smallest communes, and that men are found everywhere who honestly execute them, why should he doubt that in the far larger districts which he proposed to form in Ireland, we should find men able and willing to manage their own affairs? He had, he trusted, established that the grand-jury system was bad; that there existed in Ireland an organisation for the management of local matters which acted well; that the organisation which worked well might be transferred to that which worked ill; and that in a country smaller—certainly not wealthier than Ireland—the system of self-government worked well, and therefore might be copied. He would now proceed to show how he proposed to make the change. He proposed that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to divide Ireland into districts, formed of electoral divisions, and as nearly the same as the present poor-law unions as possible; into counties which would be the same as the present counties, with such alterations of outlying portions as he might consider requisite. Each electoral division would elect one or more wardens. These wardens, together with the magistrates, would form the board or council of the district. There would then be two councils or boards in each union—the poor-law board and the new district council. Their districts would not in all cases be the same, but as nearly so as the retention of the old county boundary would admit; but, hereafter, he had no doubt that one council will suffice to administer all the affairs of the district. In reference to the county, he proposed that the several district councils within a county should each select a deputy—one or more—who, together with an equal number selected by the magistrates of the county, should form the council of the county. He did not propose that either the district council or the magistrates should be confined to select from their own bodies; but that they should be at liberty to select the best men. There will thus be two classes of councils in the county. To the district council he assigned the care of existing roads and the formation of new ones, and also the levy and appointment of all rates required for the purposes hereafter described. To the county council he assigned all those powers and duties of grand juries, in which general interests, or works of a more permanent and expensive character, were involved; all county establishments, all expenses connected with the administration of justice, bridges and public buildings, piers, and harbours; also such roads as the council should determine to be of county importance. Although the county council would be a superior council, and, on appeal, have power to coerce the district council, yet the district council would be, to a great extent, independent; e. g. at present a work proposed was approved by the sessions and brought before the grand jury; the grand jury knew nothing about it, passed or rejected it on the advice of one or two grand jurymen. Instead of this, application would be made to the district council in sufficient time to allow a general consideration by the engineer, and every councillor would have had notice of it. It would be brought before the first council. The first council would simply approve or disapprove. If approved, it would be referred to the engineer and executive committee. The former would check the plans and examine the proposal; the executive committee would ascertain its cost and obtain contracts for it. The proposition brought before the council at its next meeting would have been well considered, and its full cost would be known by the court; it would then be granted or rejected. If granted, there would be a power of appeal to the county council, by a given portion of the council, by any electoral division at its own risk, or by any individual aggrieved, also at his own risk. As the district council will thus be the representative of the wishes and feelings of the district, he proposed to give it considerable powers. In respect of these powers he would very nearly adopt the Belgian words, "le conseil règle tout ce qui est d'interêt communal." The district council will determine on all subjects connected with the interests of the district, subject to appeal to the county council, or, in respect of general interests, to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. Every portion of the district will have its warden to protect its interests. In addition to this he would make the engineer of the district also responsible to the public. That is to say, if he neglects to bring the state of the roads of any portion of the district under consideration of council, he may be sued for neglect of duty; and if the council neglects its duties, the county council may interfere. Each council will meet four times in the year. Each will elect a chief officer, called in the county, chairman of the county in the district chairman of the dis- trict. Each council would also elect an executive committee, with considerable powers. Each council may depute, by special minute to its executive committee, to act in the name of the council. As the chairmen and executive committees will have heavy duties, he proposed that their necessary expenses should be paid by the county, or the district, as the case may be. He would not fatigue the House by going further into the details of his proposed measure; for, as the efficiency of the plan depended entirely upon those details, it would be better to let the House judge of them in their printed form. He would therefore now move for leave to bring in a Bill.

in seconding the Motion, said, that the Bill of his hon. Friend sought to promote self-government in Ireland. The principle had been tried with success in England under the Municipal Corporations Act, and he saw no reason why it should not be followed by the same beneficial results in Ireland. The poor ratepayers in Ireland exercised care and caution in the selection of the board of guardians because they had an interest in keeping down the rate, and the same principle should be applied to the grand-jury system.

said, that he did not think it would be for the benefit of the country that so important a subject should be taken up by a private Member. There were a great many Members who thought that the grand-jury system of Ireland required amendment; but the Bill for that purpose ought to be introduced on the responsibility of Government. He begged, therefore, to move a negative to the Motion of the hon. Member for Mallow.

said, he fully concurred in the opinion that it was exceedingly inappropriate for any private Member to attempt to deal with the extensive and difficult legislation necessary to carry out the objects of the Bill. The grand-jury system in Ireland had often been represented as a nest of jobbing from which no benefit whatever was derived. He thought that was a most unfair representation. The grand-jury system was doubtless susceptible of improvement, but no one could deny that it was a cheap, safe, and expeditious sys- tem. They should not change a system which had been established for over 100 years for the mere sake of change. The grand-jury system was a representative and open system, and the works which it sanctioned must be approved of by the county surveyor. Under such circumstances, the grand jury were not likely to pass a work which was not necessary. But beforehand the cesspayers must in the first instance have sanctioned it, and, after all this, there was an appeal to the Judge of Assize. As an instance of the great superiority of the system pursued in Ireland, he would refer to the cost of the public roads. They kept in repair 40,000 miles of road in Ireland, at a cost of 327,000l., according to the last Report. In England, 26,000 miles of road were mortgaged to the extent of 9,000,000l. He would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, which showed a great deal of research, but he did not think that his hon. Friend had made out a sufficient case for the abolition of the present system.

said, the county cess, amounting to near 1,000,000 of money, was paid nine-tenths by occupying tenants, who had no voice in the assessment or in the applotment of that sum. In fact it was assessment by one class, and payment by another. His (Mr. M'Mahon's) impression was, that Ireland would never be right or prosperous until it was approximated, in point of local government, to England. The grand jury jobbing in Ireland was at the base of all the other jobbery which caused the misery and the misfortunes of that country. He thought much good would result from the measure.

said, as he understood the hon. Member for Mallow, he did not ask the House to do away with the grandjury system altogether, but to put it on a better footing. The grand jury were selected by the sheriff, who was an annual officer. The control of the expenditure of a vast sum of money was therefore in the hands of the sheriff, who was elected for the year, and the grand juries who were selected only for the assizes. The counties in Ireland complained that the money advanced by the Government was expended without their having any control. That was an argument in favour of the Bill of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be a direct responsibility instead of the present system of irresponsibility, and that was so reasonable a principle that the Government would not oppose the introduction of the Bi11. It was admitted by all that the present system was defective and required amendment, and no one who heard the speech of his hon. Friend could deny that he was competent to deal with it. Of course he did not pledge himself to the details of the Bill, of which they could not properly judge till the Bill was before them.

in moving 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 Natural History and of Art, in the British Museum and the National Gallery, were open to the public inspection after Morning Service on Sundays,"

observed, that the Motion was on the table of the House, during the greater part of the last Session, in the name of His late lamented friend the then Member for Montrose, but who was unable to find an open day for its discussion: he felt it to be his duty to bring forward the Motion as an eminently practical one, and one which he had promised his friend Mr. Hume to support. It was not intended to advance any speculative opinions, to interfere with the observance of the Sabbath, or militate against religious feelings in any way, but was introduced at the earnest request of numerous bodies of workmen in the metropolis and young men in offices, who, in the petitions which they had presented to the House, had stated that it would be of great benefit that the British Museum and National Gallery should be thrown open upon Sundays after divine service. They looked upon those collections as public property, and thought they ought to be thrown open to the great bulk of the community on those days upon which alone they had leisure to examine them. No one could deny that it was most desirable that the working classes should be furnished with abundant means of recreation and improvement, in which their wives and their families might freely participate. Nothing could have a more humanising tendency, be better calculated to draw closer the ties of mutual affection, or more effectually lessen those degrading and brutal scenes of which our police reports gave such ample evidence. In these galleries they would find objects of interest to wean them from other and less desirable pursuits: it might be from Vice to virtue. The study of the works of creation would lead their minds to the love and veneration of the Creator, and, therefore, he thought that throwing open such exhibitions as the British Museum, so far from injuring the morals and bringing religion into disrespect, would raise the people in the scale of human beings, render them thoughtful and observant, and, by leading them to the contemplation of the wonderful power, skill, and adaptation shown in the works of the Creator, would tend to the improvement of their moral and religious condition. Those most interested and most anxious for the success of the Motion, declared they were actuated by no spirit of irreligion, no contempt for established forms of worship, or the sacred expression of private devotion, but by the firm belief that the proper study and contemplation of the creations of nature and works of Art, powerfully enlarge the mind, and open it to a true perception of the Deity. Apart from the religious consideration of the question, there were many reasons why we should give to the workman the means of improving his knowledge, his science, or his taste. Why, he asked, were the ornamental productions of other countries so sought after in England but from the fact that the workman of the Continent, having more opportunities of improving his taste by the contemplation of the public collections, was able to produce designs of a more elegant character than our own workmen, with whom the struggle of life was so incessant that no other day but Sunday afforded them the least leisure to improve themselves. He admitted that considerable diversity of opinion might exist upon the religious view of the question, still he assured the House that it was from no indifference to religion, but because he believed it would promote the welfare and lead to the regeneration of the large class whose cause he was advocating that he had brought forward the Motion. He would venture to urge upon those who enforced upon others the pharisaical observance of the Sabbath the divine doctrine of Him who taught that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. He was persuaded that great numbers of those who upon Sundays pursued a course of vice and dissipation might be saved from such degradation if fitting opportunities were afforded them. The proposal which be made involved in a very slight degree the attendance of the officials upon the Sabbath. A few police officers would be ample for the purpose, and not one individual would be deterred from attending divine service. Having quoted the opinion of Dr. Gray in 1841 in favour of this view, he reminded the House that the Committee of last Session upon public-house licences had urged the opening of these nurseries of science as calculated in a great degree to mitigate the evils of immorality, intemperance, and crime; and he contended that the throwing open of Kew Gardens, Hampton Court Palace, and the Painted Hall at Greenwich afforded evidence of the wisdom of that. He contended that such a recommendation, deliberately reported to the House, should not be lightly regarded, especially when they remembered the highly intelligent and practical character of the men who sat on that Committee, and agreed to that report. Many good, and wise, and pious ministers of the Gospel had declared their opinion that, so far from desecrating the Sabbath, such a measure as he proposed would hallow that day; and many most eminent living Statesmen, of all views of politics, had recorded their opinions in favour of innocent recreation upon the Sabbath. He had supplied himself with a great number of authorities upon this branch of the case, but he would only trouble the House with a few brief extracts. That excellent man Dr. Arnold, in reference to railway travelling on the Sunday, which sonic regard as desecration, said—

"That it should be a day of greater leisure than other days, and of the suspension, so fir as may be, of the common business of life, I quite allow; but then, I believe that I should have much greater indulgence 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 the Sunday, I should think it a very great good."

A great authority on this subject, the Rev. Mr. Holden, says—

"No express permission is found in the law of Moses, but that they were at least allowable, to a certain extent, may be inferred from several considerations; as a total abstinence from all amusement would render it a day of gloom and sadness, productive of melancholy rather than of religious comfort, no such enactment, it may be presumed, would be promulgated by a benevolent Deity."

Again, he says—

"Many writers and preachers condemn without restriction, all secular pleasures on this sacred day: but, that amusements arc, to a certain extent, permitted, is implied in the sabbatical command; for the injunction to remit the accustomed toils of life, not only is, but must have been intended to be a source of delight, and it is in perfect harmony with this design, to allot some portion of the day to proper recreation and refreshment.

That astute and learned man, one of the truly enlightened dignitaries of the Church, Archbishop Whately, says—

"There are two volumes, as it were, both by the same divine Author, spread out before us for our instruction and benefit, from each of which we may learn something of his dealings, so as to apply what we learn to our own practical advantage. One of these may be called the book of Nature, the system of the Created Universe; the other, the Record of Inspiration,"

And, elsewhere, the same distinguished divine and scholar, says—

"Other things being equal, you will find that those who have had the best general mental training are the best prepared for a correct and profitable reception of religious instruction, and that those who have been taught little or nothing, beside what are called the general principles of religion and morality, not only do not embrace those principles so well as those of more cultivated understanding, but will be still more deficient in the right application of such principles."

He would only trouble the House with one more, although he might well read such evidence as he believed likely to carry conviction to those who would fairly reason on the question. The Rev. John Griffith, vicar of Aberdaire, in addressing his own flock on the general question, said—

"I have spoken my mind honestly on the subject; I think it is time the clergy should speak; I will yield to none, in doing all and everything to keep holy the Sabbath-day, and I am quite sure my parishioners will bear me witness in this; but there is a vast difference between keeping this day holy, and that rigid Sabbatarianism which has nigh threatened more than once to bring back the vapid emptiness of the days of the Roundheads: the question is not one of desecration of the Sabbath, but the enlightening, the recreation, the rest, and the elevation of the working man. Lord Derby has done a noble act, and I trust he will be supported therein. I fear nothing of continental desecration, I fear nothing for religion or the Church; open people's minds, and let us, the Clergy, pray God to open ours as well, and the City that is set on a hill can never be hid."

It might have been observed that in some of the petitions which had been presented it was forcibly remarked, that a constant familiarity with beautiful forms was one of the readiest means of acquiring all that was graceful and most applicable to art, since it was through the eye amt the perceptive and moral faculties were the most easily reached. Doubtless there were Gentlemen in that House who would bear wit- ness to the moral and religious influence which had been produced upon the minds of many who had flocked to witness the glories of the late Crystal Palace. Among them were men, who, sullen from suffering, were so ignorant as to confound order with oppression, and wealth with injustice; but yet those men, whose minds religious teaching had never softened, were subdued at the grandeur of the sights which they there beheld, and, for the first time, they learnt to reverence genius, intellect, and property. This question was one of high and growing importance, and whether the present Motion succeeded or was rejected he had no doubt of its ultimate success. He asked the House, however, fairly to consider this question, and to decide in favour of a course which he believed would promote the moral, the intellectual, and the religious character of the people.

seconded the Motion. He considered that the course advocated by his hon. Friend was one which would tend to raise the condition, moral as well as physical, of the lower classes of this country, and ultimately to benefit them in a religious view. Notwithstanding this he was well aware that the chief opposition to the Resolution would be based on religious grounds. The House would doubtless be told that the course proposed would lead to a desecration of the Sabbath. But this statement assumed that the Sabbath of the Christians was like that of the Jews. That was entirely a false idea. He would remind the House that upon the Continent, Sunday was observed in a far different manner to what it was here, and even in this country its observance was very different from what it had been. In Catholic times it had been a day of rational devotion and amusement. But unfortunately for us in this respect the Scottish feeling had penetrated here, bringing in its train religious fanaticism. He did not deny but that in other respects we had received advantages from Scotland. With reference to the question as to the manner in which the Sabbath should be observed, he would quote the opinion of Dr. Arnold, of Rugby. That rev. gentleman said, upon being asked whether he objected to Sunday travelling, that it was a question of degree, and that he for one would never use his influence to put a stop to all railway trains upon a Sunday, although upon many accounts he should wish to see their number diminished upon that day. For the satisfaction of his Scotch friends he might mention that Mr. George Coombe gave a similar opinion upon the question. After a most careful perusal of the Scriptures, he found with pain and regret that there was no written Christian injunction or command to keep the first day of the week as a Jewish Sabbath at all. All their Beer Acts and other similar legislation were founded on the fallacious idea that there was some such written injunction. But he would surprise the House still more. There was no written Christian injunction or command to keep sacred the first day of the week at all. There was the same reason for keeping Wednesday or Thursday as a Jewish Sabbath as Sunday. The only rule for observing the first day of the week as a Sabbath was the universal custom of the Church for 1,800 years, and the custom had been to devote the morning to worship and the afternoon to recreation or even amusement. This observance was founded on a knowledge of human nature. To that statement he defied contradiction. He was stating that fact in a spirit of seriousness and as the result of his own inquiry into the subject, and as it was necessary to come to close quarters, he would again state that the obligation upon Protestants to keep holy the first day of the week rested entirely upon the universal custom of the Christian Church. He did not wish to be understood as in any way undervaluing the Sabbath; so far from doing so, he thought that if it were even a human institution it was founded upon sound and wise principles, but at the same time he did not consider that that day was set apart for gloom and fanaticism, but rather for devotion and enjoyment. The Roman Catholic Church in respect to the Sabbath acted upon a much better judgment of human nature; for, in his opinion, millions of the working people of this country were repelled from the Protestant Church by the ill-judged asperity it displayed with regard to the observance of that day. It was not right, nor was it, he believed, in accordance with Holy Writ to deprive the working man of rational means of enjoyment and instruction on the only day of the week which was at his own disposal. He hoped that he should not be answered by vulgar declamation, but that the House would approach this subject with the desire of doing all that could be done to elevate the minds of the lower class, and to raise them from the state of wretchedness and debauchery in which too many of them were plunged.

said, he must ask the courtesy of the House, as a new Member, to bear with him while he read a letter from a Welsh clergyman, surrounded by a primitive congregation, whose habits, thank God! had not yet been corrupted by too much admixture with the world, but who still devoutly followed the observances taught them in youth. That rev, gentleman said he viewed this proposition as part of the great scheme of Sabbath desecration, which tended, in his opinion, to bring the divine vengeance upon us as a nation. He could not avoid expressing his apprehension lest the pious injunctions the people might have received in church should be soon destroyed by their going in crowds to a place of amusement. He said this Motion, so rashly brought forward and so feebly sustained with declamation, but without argument in support of it, had no claim to be adopted.

Sir, an expression fell from an hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether accidentally or by design—which marked the spirit in which this question is brought forward. For the first time in my life did I hear that which has been by universal consent of all Christians up to this hour called the Lord's day, designated, in the most extraordinary way, the "people's day." Now, Sir, I am going to speak of it as a question of the Lord's day. I have always been as much convinced as any man of the impropriety of the puritanical way in which the Lord's day has been observed in Protestant countries—that is to say, that whereas it was held in the universal Christian Church as a festival, since the Reformation it has been considered as a fast. But, of course, it was not called the Sabbath, because Sabbaths is the seventh; and it would have been a mere misnomer to call the first day of the week the seventh. The principle remained the same. It is of no use hunting for texts about it. Texts, Sir, are very much like precedents, and precedents are very much like quotations, of which Payne Knight said, that they are "the remembrancer of the scholar and the oracle of the dunce." Whatever texts may be cited, the principle is that the seventh part of every man's time and the tenth part of his substance, is due to God. [Suppressed laughter.] Oh, Sir, I have not the least doubt that the derisive smile—suppressed out of good breeding rather than from any sense of truth—is connected with the question of the "people's day." There is a thorough contempt for tithes as an institution of' God. It may be, or may not be, a convenient way of paying parsons. That is the people's affair, however. The religious aspect of the question is rejected altogether. Sir, I have great difficulty on this question—not as to what I myself think right, but in saying what ought to be the determination of the House; for when I see them constantly entertaining questions for refusing support to the national churches—those churches which are for the benefit, almost exclusively, of the poor—and then seeking a substitute for the churches which they will not give—going to the British Museum to see the gentlemen just arrived from Nineveh—those red men with green beards—when I see them, by way of improving the morality of the nation, encouraging incestuous marriages—when I see them year after year, bringing in Bills to rob the Church of her property, and, I am ashamed to say, those who are the trustees of that property defending it on the ground that it is private property—I am at a great loss to know what an assembly which recognises such principles ought to do on this occasion. But still I think there is a very great distinction between what an individual feels in his conscience it may be right to do on the Sunday, and what is public desecration. There is a distinction between that and his uniting as a member of a national assembly in a measure for opening public institutions on the Lord's day, and thus aiding in its public desecration.

said, he was not desirous of imputing any unworthy motives to the hon. Gentlemen who had thought it their duty to bring forward a Motion of this nature, but of all the arguments used for the promotion of this measure certainly the last which should have been resorted to by its supporters (though no doubt their ideas, which were peculiar, might be sincere) was the reliIgions argument. Their attempt to resort to such an argument he considered most extraordinary; and he considered this as an underhand, circuitous, and subtle mode of introducing the "thin end of the wedge," with a view to the desecration and destruction of an institution the pride, the treasure, and the glory of every Christian nation. He felt that it was an important matter to consider in this case whether their acts would be in conformity with that religion they professed, and that Word of God they reverenced. It had been endeavoured to show that the Sabbath was a part of the Jewish law which had been repealed by the Christian dispensation. That he entirely denied. The word "Sabbath" did not mean the "seventh day," but was the Hebrew word for "rest:" the substance of the Divine institution was a day of rest, and the fourth commandment mentioned it in that manner. That commandment was in the midst of others, which, it was admitted, belonged to the moral law of God—binding on men in all ages and countries, as much so as the command to honour parents or the prohibition of murder. The hon. Member who had denied that there was any passage in the New Testament recognising or reaffirming the obligation to observe the Lord's day, had forgotten that solemn text, "Whoever shall break one of the least of these commandments"—of the moral law—"and shall teach men so, the same shall be called least in the kingdom of God." It was quite true that the "Sabbath was made for man," but in what sense? Not as a mere day of amusement and entertainment; in a higher, and holier, and more sacred sense—as a day of rest and nourishment for the soul; the six days being for the sustenance and support of the body, the seventh was for the rest, and nourishment, and refreshment of the soul—for its exercise, for its spiritual support and sustentation. The question might also be argued upon social grounds. The House must not forget the views of the Legislature, formed for a long period by a series of Acts of Parliament, passed for promoting the observance of the Sabbath, from the age of Edward III. to the present time. Those Acts related to a variety of subjects, and though in terms they might be obsolete, yet in principle they were not effete, for they were passed to put down abuses of the Sabbath which had arisen at different periods, and proved the anxiety of the Legislature to preserve its due observance. A great part of the question related to public-houses and the Report of the Committee on the subject, which had shown the grievous evils arising therefrom. There had been a similar Committee in 1832, another in 1847, and a Committee of the House of Lords in 1851. Their Reports showed how necessary was legislation on the subject, in order to restrain the vices which were rampant in public-houses, and the great abuses which especially arose from their being open on Sundays. It also appeared that the opening of places of amusement did not diminish the attendance at public-houses on Sunday. It was said that the Zoological Gardens had been opened on Sundays at Dublin, but it had not appeared that the public-houses had been less frequented in consequence. On the contrary, it had been proved, that when the Crystal Palace was being built, and there was a great resort to it on Sundays, the public-houses in the neighbourhood were much frequented. Nor was there ever a more irrational conclusion than that come to by some Members of the Committee, that when the Crystal Palace was completed, its being opened on Sundays would not lead to similar results. If before the opening of the Crystal Palace such was the state of things, what might not be expected when, after its completion, greater crowds still would be attracted? With regard to the opening of Kew Gardens on Sundays, a gentleman who had taken the trouble to observe the visitors remarked that they consisted of persons above the lower classes of life, who, tired with walking all the afternoon, refreshed themselves in the numerous public-houses of Brentford, and often remained in them all the evening. [Cries of "Divide!"] There was only one other subject to which he would call attention. Last Session an important Act was passed for the closing of public-houses for a greater number of hours on Sunday, and the effect in the metropolis had been an immense decrease in the number of drunken cases brought before the police magistrates on Monday morning. The effect in Scotland of closing public-houses on Sunday, under the Forbes Mackenzie Act, had been most extraordinary, and had shown how remarkable a connection existed between crime and drunkenness. The sanctity of the Sabbath was the ground on which the Legislature interfered to close public-houses on Sunday, but if the British Museum and the National Gallery opened their doors, every other place of amusement would follow their example, and the sanctity of the day would be entirely destroyed, and the ground on which the legislature would interfere removed. The Motion before the House was specious in its appearance, but fatal in its results. He trusted that Parliament would never sanction such a measure, but would pursue the policy of sanctifying the Sunday as a day of rest, believing that such a policy would bring its abundant reward, according to the promise. "Them that honour me I will honour."

said, he should regret exceedingly if this Resolution, candidly brought forward and peculiarly seconded as it had been, should diminish in the minds of the working classes that reverence for the sanctity of the Sabbath, which was the honour of this country. He had mixed a great deal with the working classes, and was of opinion that opening the British Museum and other places on Sundays was taking the wrong course in order to enlighten their minds. What was wanted was, that such places should be open in the evening, and on Saturdays and Mondays, but particularly on Saturday afternoons. A movement for early closing in the City was in progress, and another movement was gaining ground for half-a-holiday on Saturday afternoon. Unhappy should he be if we lowered ourselves to the standard of France and Germany in the reverence of the Lord's Day, and happy should he be if we could raise them to our standard. There was at present a movement in Paris to lessen the amount of Sunday trading, which he was gratified to find was regarded with favour by the French Government. As a proof that the opinion of the country was opposed to propositions similar to that which was brought forward, he would refer to the fact that the number of petitions against the opening of the Crystal Palace on the Sabbath amounted to 835, which were signed by 186,048 persons, while the number of petitions in favour of opening it were 127, to which were attached only 24,249 signatures. He would, therefore, move an Amendment to the Motion in furtherance of his views on the subject. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the National Gallery and the British Museum should remain closed on Sundays as heretofore, and that they should be opened every day in the week except Sundays; but, at all events, they should be open on Saturdays and Mondays, those days being most convenient for the Working Classes;" instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, he had persuaded his late Friend (Mr. Hume) not to bring forward this Motion last Session. He was glad he had done so, because the question in the hands of the present Mover and Seconder had received a blow from which it would not now recover. He would read to the House a few lines from The Times, which set this question at rest, and was perfectly satisfactory to his mind. The Times said—

"The opening of museums on Sundays would preclude the possibility of closing other exhibitions equally innocent and attractive. Why should private collectors be debarred the licence assumed by the nation? If Sunday visitors are able and willing to spend a shilling of their weekly earnings in the purchase of a harmless gratification, why should they not be as free to do so as to avail themselves of a gratuitous exhibition? Why should not Madame Tussaud's be open? Why not Vauxhall? The line of demarcation would grow more and more difficult to draw. Under our present institutions we can very justly close the theatres on a Sunday, but after the proposed infraction of them we should be in a strange dilemma even on this point. If scenic representations are abstractedly innocent, why proscribe them on a Sunday? If abstractedly otherwise, why encourage them on the other six days of the week? But each of these exhibitions would entail a proportionate extension of traffic and trade, till at last a closed shop on a Sunday would be a rarity resulting from the circumstances of the district or the position of the individual.

Let these hon. Members look at Paris. He had been there during two Sundays, on both of which the building of the new streets was going on. This was a question for the working men, and the result would be that they would have to give seven days' labour for six days' wages. This result might be seen carried out in Paris, for there the working classes laboured every day in the week, and the same effect would follow here if the Government withdrew its protecting arm from the rapacity of individuals. When the marriage question was under discussion, an opponent of the Bill asked the supporters of it why they did not act like men, and propose at once that men should be enabled to marry their grandmother; and he (Mr. Kinnaird) would say with respect to thus question let them act like men, and look its full bearing in the face. He believed the object of the promoters of this scheme was to cause people to work on the Sabbath day, for it was supported principally by those who had resisted every effort to protect the poor people employed in factories; and he, consequently, distrusted their professions of attachment to the labouring classes. He hoped his hon. Friend (Sir J. Walmsley) would not withdraw his Motion, after having kept Members waiting, week after week, in expectation of it, but that he would allow the House at once to express a straightforward English opinion upon a question which was of vital importance to the country.

said, he thought he was entitled to infer, from the last two speeches which had been delivered, that whatever considerations might be involved in this question it was entirely removed from considerations of a party nature. He was anxious to say a word or two upon it, because, if they came to a division, his would be a vote unpopular, he believed, in that House, and, perhaps, still more unpopular in the country; because he conceived that a Member of that House had no more important or sacred duty to perform than that of combating what he thought was a prejudice, although it might be entertained by persons for whom he had the sincerest respect and might be grounded upon the most conscientious motives. All the arguments he had heard or read against the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Walmsley) might be summed up under two heads—first, the abstract argument of the sanctity of the Sabbath; and next, the argument, that by opening these institutions unnecessary labour would be thrown upon Government officers. The most important of these questions was, of course, that which related to the desecration of the Sabbath, or, as it was called, Sabbath breaking; and, with respect to that question, he thought something too much had been conceded by the mover and seconder of the Resolutions. Those hon. Members had argued the question as if it was in fact a question of the desecration of the Sabbath, and the dispute was whether that institution was binding upon us, and whether that desecration was permissible or not. He thought that idea belonged to a theory utterly false and unfounded, although not uncommon in this country—he meant the theory which attempted to establish a kind of antagonism between things secular and things sacred. He did not mean to say that a man would learn in a museum or a picture gallery that which would be so important or so valuable to him as what he could learn in church, but he said that, taking it for what it was worth, intellectual and moral improvement was itself a part of religion. When he was told of the sanctity of the Sabbath, he would admit that he regarded that institution as, perhaps, the most venerable and valuable which had come down to us from past ages; but why was it so venerable and so valuable? No institution, however sacred, could be in itself an end; it must be a means to an end, and the end for which that sacred day was to be reverenced was the moral and intellectual improvement of those who observed it. What was the leisure of the working man upon a week-day? Out of the 168 hours which composed the week about sixty hours were employed by him in work, and at least two-thirds of his entire time would therefore be taken up by the necessities of that labour by which he earned his bread, and by the repose necessary to recruit his strength after it, and enable him to undergo the succeeding day's labour. When it was said that the working man ought to educate himself upon a weekday, let those who thus argue make the case their own, and ask themselves what would be their capacities for self-education and self-improvement after ten hours of manual labour? It was perfectly true that mechanical improvements might in the progress of time operate to diminish the amount of human labour. That was a consideration for the future, as up to the present time they had certainly not operated in that direction, and he believed the amount of manual labour now performed was as great, or greater, than it had been at any previous period. Neither the labourer nor the employer had any option as to reducing the hours of labour; both were driven on by that competition which urged us all forward, man against man, in this country, nation against nation in the markets of the world. As matters now stood, if they were to lay down the principle which lay at the bottom of all argument about the sanctity of the Sabbath, namely, that the whole of the day of rest was necessarily to be appropriated to subjects and studies of a theological character, they were thereby deciding that the education of the working man should virtually terminate in his youth, which was equivalent to saying that his intelligence and knowledge should in future remain very much upon their present footing. He believed that this exclusive appropriation of the day of rest, in popular opinion, to subjects exclusively theological, lay infinitely more than the want of an Education Bill, or the want of proper schools, at the bottom of that ignorance which they all lamented; and he believed that, unless they applied some remedy in this direction, all educational measures, even such as that which his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had lately introduced, would be comparatively useless. Was it asserted that the objects proposed by this Resolution would necessarily interfere with the performance of any religious duties? Did it follow that the opening of a picture gallery or a museum upon a Sunday afternoon would take away from the attendance of churches? What was done now? They allowed Hampton Court and Kew Gardens to be opened on the Sunday, they encouraged, by allowing excursion trains to run, the inhabitants of the town upon their only holiday to breathe the fresh air of the country; but the argument of desecration on the Sabbath applied much more strongly in these cases, for an expedition into the country generally occupied an entire day. This was not, however, a mere question of what had been permitted by previous legislation. Did hon. Gentlemen mean to apply to themselves the same rules which they applied to working men? If any Gentlemen would say that they passed the Sabbath in such a manner that they should regard it as a comparatively profane occupation to visit a museum or to look at pictures, he would not dispute the question with them; although even in that case he might observe, that there was a wide difference between doing that which we ourselves thought right, between obeying the dictates of our own consciences, and endeavouring to force others to obey them. But to force on other persons, especially if they belonged to a class not represented in that House, the rules of a morality more strict than we ourselves practised, did not appear to him to be conduct which had in it much of religion or of honesty. And who were to be the real gainers by the prohibition it was sought to enforce? Was it the belief of hon. Gentlemen that they would either send to church or keep at church any man who would not be there if these institutions were opened? A man who went to a place of worship, simply because he had no other place to go to, was not likely to profit much by what he heard there. An attempt had been made to close the public-houses upon Sundays, but he believed that the practical difficulty of the question of what con- stituted a traveller would be an obstacle in the way of such preventive legislation, and would compel them, whether they would or no, to keep the public-houses open during a certain portion of the day. It was his belief, that where the proposed measure would have the effect of taking one person from the church, it would take ten from the public-house. If he wanted proof of this, he found it in the nature of the opposition made to this Resolution. This opposition came from perfectly opposite quarters. There were those who were anxious for the interests of religion, and on that ground voted against the Resolution; and he had nothing to say against their sincerity; but there was also a large class who opposed this and similar Resolutions, and though he did not regard their opposition with the same respect as he did that of the first class he had mentioned, yet he thought they were more correct in the results which they apprehended from these Resolutions—he meant the publicans. A circular had also been issued by a society for the due observance of the Sabbath which had threatened all persons who voted for this measure with public exposure. He was not acquainted with the working of this society, but if this was the way in which they carried on their proceedings, he thought that they should change their name and call themselves a society for the promotion and encouragement of intemperance. He had endeavoured to speak on this matter without exaggeration, because he knew that in every part of England, especially in the manufacturing districts, if they asked a sensible man what was the great social evil of the time, ninety-nine out of every hundred would give the same answer, "It is drunkenness." He knew from returns that in a single town in Lancashire, with between 70,000 and 80,000 inhabitants, 1,000l. was daily spent in intoxicating drink. If they asked the Judges what was the cause of the greatest amount of crime, they would answer, "Drunkenness." If they asked medical men what was the cause, directly or indirectly, of disease and of more than one-half of the cases of insanity in our hospitals and asylums, they would give the same answer, "Drunkenness." He believed that the trouble of finding the cure for this evil was the great problem of our time. How were they to do this? Not by restrictive laws, though, perhaps, they were useful enough in their way; but prohibitory legis- lation would assuredly not effect the cure. In order to apply the remedy, they must first find the cause, and he believed that, more than anything else, the great cause was the want of right intellectual occupation for the working classes. It was hardly possible for hon. Gentlemen, leading the lives they did, engaged as they were in intellectual pursuits, to conceive the intense, the utter weariness that came over a man without any intellectual pursuit—who was engaged in an unending and unvarying routine of bodily labour, The first requirement they ought to have in view ought to be to afford some means of recreation and self-instruction to the people; he said, and he asserted it without fear of contradiction, that for such improvement and self-instruction time was not given in any week-day. As regards the question of desecration, he did sincerely and earnestly say, with deep respect for the feelings of those who desired to see the Sabbath kept holy, that the purpose for which that clay was intended was carried out when it was applied to any purpose of moral and mental improvement. As to the labour question, he thought that he could easily show that the opening of a museum or picture gallery required the employment of a very limited number of persons. All experience as to the conduct of the people in such instances always proved that they conducted themselves admirably, and that little mischief was ever done. The presence, therefore, of curators and managers would not be wanted; they would require no skilled superintendence, only the supervision, as in all places of public resort, of a limited number of police. He was quite ready to allow that they had no more right to do an injustice to a few than they had to a many; but, after all, this was only a question of degree; the police, under existing laws, had duties to discharge on Sunday as well as on other days: the same persons would not be employed week after week, and relays could easily be obtained for the limited number that would be required for such a purpose. He did not know on what ground hon. Gentlemen could argue against the employment of attendants in a national institution to wait on the public, because there was not a family or household in the country that altogether dispensed with domestic services on that day; even those who advocated the strictest observance of the Sabbath did not hesitate to employ a domestic ser- vant; and if a family of eight or ten persons did not scruple to give employment to some one domestic servant during a part of that day, he did not see on what general ground or principle it could be contended that, perhaps, more than 20,000 persons who entered a museum or picture gallery had not a right to command the services of the limited number of servants they required, as this would probably not amount to more than one attendant to every 500 persons, or not more than one-tenth of the labour, proportionate to the advantages and conveniences derived, which is required in every ordinary family. He could only say that he should vote for this Resolution, believing it to be, educationally and morally, a most important measure; believing it would be a precedent which would be applied not only to this metropolis, but to all the great towns of the country, and believing that the line of demarkation which an hon. Gentleman had told them it was so difficult to draw between places of an innocent and improving recreation and those of a wholly opposite nature, would be easily defined by those who were not wilfully blind to it.

said, this was one of the most important questions that could engage the attention of that House, because it concerned the due observance of the Sabbath. The hon. Mover of the Motion had claimed the advocacy of Dr. Arnold, on the ground that the doctor was not averse to the running of mail trains on Sunday; but Dr. Arnold had never said or done anything to justify a violation of the Sabbath, and therefore he considered that an unfair use had been made of his name. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion had reminded them that originally the Sabbath was held on Saturday, but the hon. Member forgot that the original Sabbath was held in commemoration of the creation of the world, while the Christians changed the day—not the purpose of the day—in honour of the salvation of the world. Therefore, the one day was just as sacred as the other. He was admonished by the clock that they were rapidly advancing upon the fast day, and it seemed somewhat strange to him to find the House on the eve of a fast day discussing the question of a due observance of the Sabbath. The speech, however, of the noble Lord who had just addressed them he had listened to with so much sorrow and pain, that he felt constrained to continue the discussion, if it was only for the sake of exposing the evil tendency of that speech. It advanced principles which he considered to be adverse to all good government, which were opposed to all true religion, and which he believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the community at large. The noble Lord argued that the poor man, being engaged in work for six days, could not afford sufficient time for instruction. What, then, was the natural inference? Why, that the seventh day should be devoted to instruction, and what better places could they resort to for instruction than those where they were taught the best things for their eternal interest? Spite of all the secular knowledge they might obtain at your British Museums and National Galleries, much better would it be for them to go to church or to chapel, where they would learn how to obtain everlasting salvation. The noble Lord's notions of teaching were akin to that of the Athenians and Corinthians, who excelled in all the polite arts of life, but whose proficiency in those intellectual acquirements did not tend to the advancement of their morals and religious feeling. This was a most important question, and he hoped the hon. Mover of the Motion would have the courage to bring it to the test of a division.

said, it was his fortune to be connected with one of the institutions referred to in this Motion, and perhaps, therefore, he might be permitted to offer a few observations, not only with regard to this institution, but also upon the general question. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Pellatt) proposed, as an Amendment to the original Motion, that the British Museum should be opened every day in the week except Sunday; but that at all events it should be opened on Saturday and Monday evenings. Now, as a trustee of that institution, he could honestly say that it had been the desire of that body that the Museum should be opened on the day most convenient to the working classes, and upon examination of those most competent to give an opinion, it was determined that Monday was the day which, generally speaking, the working classes devoted to such purposes as visiting these institutions. The hon. Member for Southwark could hardly be aware, judging from his Amendment, that the British Museum was opened to the general public on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; Tuesdays and Thurs- days were appropriated to artists, and if Saturdays were not allotted to the working classes it was because one day in the week was required for the purpose of cleansing the building. If, however, such an arrangement could be made, as to give Saturday evenings to the working classes, he was sure the trustees would reconsider the question of opening; and although he could not promise what the result would be, he would yet undertake that the matter should be duly considered. But hon. Members would form a very erroneous opinion if they thought this Motion was confined simply to opening the British Museum on Sundays; it involved, upon the showing of those who advocated the Motion, the great principle of allowing public amusements to be part of the business of the Lord's day; and if hon. Gentlemen advocated the Motion so far as the metropolis was concerned, how could they refuse a similar concession to Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns, where the places of public resort might not be of the same intellectual and moral character as the British Museum? Dr. Gray, of the Museum, had well remarked, if they allowed people to inspect inanimate representations of wild animals on Sundays, how could they refuse them the right of witnessing, on the same day, the living forms as they were carried about in caravans to different places? He looked, therefore, upon this measure as the first step towards the authorised desecration of the Sabbath. He had been surprised to hear the noble Lord opposite declare his intention to vote for a resolution which called on the House to express an opinion at variance with the existing law. The law required the Sabbath to be observed, and that no works should be done on that day but those of necessity, piety, or charity. The resolution was in direct collision with the law, and before they adopted it, they were bound to fix the limits to which public amusements should be allowed to run on Sundays. It was a mistake to argue this question upon the ground that it was better to allow people to visit the British Museum than to frequent public-houses, because the due observance or the desecration of the Sabbath was not to be determined by any comparison of that nature. The question at issue was simply this—would the opening of the British Museum in the manner proposed by the Resolution be conformable or not to the will of Him who framed the Sabbath? It was a violation of the divine law, and in the violation of the divine law there could be no degree. All experience proved that the breach of one divine law was only the forerunner of more aggravated guilt. If they disregarded the little sin, they would soon come to commit the greater sin. Could it believed that by the mere insertion of the words, that these places of amusement should be opened after the hours of divine service, they would promote the attendance of the people at their respective places of worship? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Biggs) who seconded the Motion appeared to be of opinion that the British Museum was intended for the benefit of those who resided in its immediate neighbourhood. Such was not, however, the case; indeed, the greater number of those who visited that institution were in the habit of coming from Whitechapel, Kensington, and the more distant quarters of the metropolis; and if, as the Motion proposed, the Museum were to be open after the hours of divine service, the consequence would be that attendance at church would to a great extent be precluded in the case of those visitors from the more remote quarters of London. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had stated that Sunday was the only day upon which the poorer classes could enjoy the privilege of visiting the Museum; and supposing that to be the case, it would follow, if it were thrown open on the Sabbath, that parties would be formed by the inhabitants of the more distant portions of the metropolie to visit it, and that those persons, instead of attending at the churches of their respective districts, would pass the greater portion of the Sunday either in travelling to and from their homes, or in those places of refreshment contiguous to the Museum. In the evening, then, they would return tired and weary, and he was afraid but little improved in a moral or intellectual, and still less, in all probability, in a religious point of view. But passing from that topic he would ask the House what right they had, by passing a Resolution which was in opposition to the existing law, to enjoin the necessity of the attendance of a certain number of individuals at such institutions as the British Museum upon a Sunday? Let them suppose that some of the parties refused to obey, what then would be the consequence? Why, the House must, under those circumstances, either enforce the orders or remove from their situations the individuals who declined to obey it. It could hardly be supposed that the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Lord Chancellor, who were trustees of the Museum, would aid the House in enforcing an order which was contrary to law; and if the latter alternative were urged, and the person refusing to obey the order should be dismissed, the result would be that he would be regarded as a martyr, and a feeling of opposition to the Legislature would be excited throughout the country generally, which would tend to bring upon it the contempt of the public at large. These being his sentiments upon the subject, he should vote against the Resolution.

said, that after the admirable speech of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, he would not have intruded upon the attention of the House at that late hour, but that he considered some remarks had been made in the course of the debate which ought not to go forth to the world unanswered. The supporters of this Motion had been represented as being animated by a sordid desire to extend the hours of labour and grind down the operative classes; but surely when the hon. Seconder of the Motion had been distinguished for his liberal treatment of those in his employment, and when other advocates of the Resolution had only the other night recorded their votes in favour of the protection of the working classes from excessive labour to a degree which the majority of the House thought too far for legislative enactment to go, accusations of this kind were the last that should be preferred against them. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last told them of the generous intentions of the trustees of the British Museum for the accommodation of the working classes; but the proposer of the Amendment argued upon an assumption which was both a fallacy and a mockery—namely, that Saturday and Monday would be convenient days for this portion of the people to visit that institution. Why, this Motion was only brought forward after repeated attempts had been unsuccessfully made to have the Museum opened in the evening, that those whose occupations prevented them from frequenting it in the daytime might enjoy that privilege during their only hour of leisure. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (the Marquess of Blandford) rested his argument on the experience already acquired of the working of the Beer Bill, but if he had examined the returns from the Duchy of Lancaster he would have found that, although the amount of Sunday drunkenness might, perhaps, have diminished there under the operation of that measure, yet that the aggregate amount of drunkenness spread over the whole week had rather increased. Moreover, that Bill checked the disposition of the people to make Sunday excursions, because it told them that if they went into the country on that day they could not obtain the refreshments they required; but surely if they were to be precluded from enjoying the grand and lovely scenes of nature, they ought not to be denied the other alternative of access to those marvels of antiquity and of art which they could find at home. It was greatly to be regretted that the debate had taken so much of a theological turn—a thing totally unnecessary and very undesirable, because the first four or five speeches that had been made had developed as many different theories relative to the due observance of the Lord's day. An assembly like that, embodying so great a diversity of religious doctrine and opinion, was not a fit body to argue a question on peculiarly theological grounds. The Motion did not necessarily involve such a discussion—indeed, it was only introduced to assert the assumed right of one man to impose his own theology upon another. The real question was chiefly one of property. The British Museum and the National Gallery were national institutions, and enriched by liberal donations of the public money—they were the people's collections and the people's treasuries of art, and yet they locked their doors against their rightful owners and contributors on the Sunday. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) said that the people of Manchester and Liverpool could not be prevented from going to see collections of living animals if this Motion were adopted for London; but did he forget that a man might now see as many living specimens of wild beasts of different countries as he pleased in that metropolis on a Sunday, if he were only rich enough to pay twenty guineas as an entrance fee and a five guinea annual subscription. It was contended that there was no gradation in the desecration of the Sabbath; but what must be said of this general practice, which was now tolerated and patronised by the aristocracy? It had been continually assumed in the discussion of this question that there was some divine law enjoining the strict observance of the Sabbath, which was contended for. That, however, was a matter of opinion. Sabbatarianism, in the modern sense of the word, never had been a doctrine of the universal Christian Church. It was never a doctrine of the early Christians, of the Roman Catholic Church, or of the first Protestants. Luther exhorted—nay, even commanded his followers, if any one attempted to impose such a law on them, to walk, to ride, to dance, and to hunt, and to do anything on the Sabbath. Calvin, Cranmer, and most of the celebrated teachers of the early Protestant Church, condemned the doctrine. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn had spoken of the natural tendency of the objects which it was now sought to admit the working classes to visit on the Sabbath, to elevate the religious feelings and associations of the people; and that it was so was evident from the fact that all religious bodies to the extent of their ability had availed themselves of associations similar to those produced by the great works of art and the curiosities of nature to awaken and keep alive religious feelings in the minds of their congregations. What Church was there which had not availed itself, so far as it could, of the splendours of sublime architecture, and the power of statuary, painting, or music? He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, that it would be well if some law could be passed to define what could and what could not be done on a Sunday. At present, the strict observance of the Sabbath, as contended for by the extreme party, was notoriously set at nought in all classes of the community, and perhaps most of all by the rich. They were asked what would be the outcry through the country, if a porter of the British Museum suffered martyrdom for refusing to do his work on the Sunday. But it was forgotten that, even at the present time, if such dismissal could be called martyrdom, the porter of a gentleman's house might suffer martyrdom for not working on a Sunday. A rich man, by his Sunday wants, set at least ten persons to work, and the British Museum could be opened without imposing labour on any greater number, and that not for the enjoyment and accommodation of one man, but for the recreation and instruction of thousands. It certainly was discreditable to see useful reforms of this nature opposed and defeated by prejudice, ignorance, and intolerance, acting under the disguise of religious feeling.

The House, I think, Sir, has pretty well made up its mind how to vote upon these two Motions, but I wish shortly to state the grounds upon which I shall feel it necessary to vote against both. In the first place, this mode of putting questions before the House, of proposing Motions in the shape of abstract Resolutions (though certainly in this case there might have been a difficulty in placing the question directly before the House), is not one which it is desirable should be generally adopted. Without, however, entering into the theological discussion which has been raised to-night, we must all agree that the respectful observance of the Sabbath is a principle which it is highly desirable and necessary to encourage. We must all admit, too, that in proportion as that observance prevails, we may expect to see the people of a country moral and well educated, and in proportion, on the contrary, as it is treated with disrespect, we may expect to see the conduct of the people such as we should not desire it to be. My opinion is that Sunday ought to be a day of rest, of devotion, and of cheerful and innocent recreation. To enforce that strict observance of Sunday for which some persons contend is obviously impossible. That no work should be done on Sunday would stop the whole movement of social existence; but it is impossible for any law to define—and I think it would be inexpedient for Parliament to attempt to pass such a law—the precise degree to which that principle may properly be carried. That must be left to the conscience of each individual. Each man must be left to determine, according to his own position and circumstances, to what degree he can combine the ordinary and necessary occupations of life with what he considers the proper observance of Sunday. But when a matter is brought before Parliament in regard to which the religious feelings of a great portion of the community are deeply affected, it is highly inexpedient that Parliament should by any vote set itself in opposition to that which is the religious feeling of the people. I think Parliament would be doing an injudicious act if, by any vote of its own, or or by any Resolution, it should lead the country to think that it is less mindful of those religious principles which ought to govern the conduct of all men than the great mass of the community themselves are. For these reasons, thinking that the Resolution of the hon. Member for Leices- ter would do violence to the feelings of a large portion of the community—feelings which we are bound to respect, and which it is highly desirable studiously to encourage—I shall give my opposition to the original Motion. To the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark I shall object, not, of course, on the same grounds as to the original Motion, but for the technical reasons urged by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn), that the opening of the Museum and the National Gallery on the Saturday as well as on the Monday would allow of no opportunity for keeping those buildings clean mid in proper order.

said, he must beg to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the statement of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, that steps should be taken, if possible, to open the British Museum to the working classes on Saturdays.

said, he had brought forward the Motion believing it would be practically useful, but he had no wish to press it, finding the great majority of the House to be of a different opinion. He still believed that his views were in accordance with those of a large portion of the public, and if it were the wish of the House he was quite willing to go to a division. If his Motion were rejected at the present moment, he was sure it would ultimately be carried.

said, that he would withdraw his Amendment in full confidence in the pledge which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge with respect to opening the British Museum on Saturday afternoon.

said, he had not given any pledge. He had only promised that the subject should be carefully considered.

said, he would now beg to move, that the Select Committee of last Session on Payment of Wages be reappointed to inquire as far as regards the Hosiery Manufacture.

said, this Motion was an attempt to evade a former Resolution of the House, and he should therefore oppose it.

said, he was at a loss to know on what reasonable ground the appointment of this Committee could be opposed. All that was asked was that the subject should be inquired into, and he thought that demand ought to be granted.

said, he objected to the appointment of the Committee altogether.

said, he did not think that any further inquiry into this subject was necessary; but, since the House had referred it and the truck system to a Committee, and as that Committee, at the end of last Session, had recommended that they should be reappointed, he did not think it desirable to oppose the Motion.

said, he believed that questions of this nature could be better discussed in the House than before a Select Committee. Still, under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, he should support the Motion.