The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-23 00:00:00

SUNDAY.

Lord PANMURE presented a petition against the
opening of the Crystal Palace on Sunday.
The Earl of DERBY took the present opportunity of
correcting a misapprehension which had existed on this
subject. He himself had had an interview with the
directors of the Crystal Palace Company, during which
this question had been brought forward. For his own
part he had no hesitation in saying, notwithstand-
ing the many representations which he had received, that
subject to certain restrictions, to which he believed the
directors were willing to submit, the opening of the Crys-
tal Palace on Sunday, so far from being a desecration
of the Sabbath, would be productive of great advantage
in enabling the population of London to obtain those ad-
vantages which the company would afford to them on the
Sunday afternoon. (Cheers.) The directors had dis-
tinctly stated to him that they intended to throw open
to the public only the beautiful and extensive park, gar-
dens, and conservatory, but to keep closed those portions
of the building which were devoted to machinery, manu-
factures, and commerce, which would require the atten-
dance of exhibitors. The hours at which the grounds would
be opened, would be such as not to interfere with the at-
tendance of the population of London at Divine service
in the morning ; return tickets would be issued to carry
the visitors straight back to London, without accumu-
lating in the neighbourhood, and it was intended that in
the precincts of the building no spirituous liquors should
be sold. It was a question at present under the consi-
deration of the proper law officers, whether a certain
statute, passed for a very different purpose, might not be
so construed as to prevent the Crystal Palace being
opened on Sunday ; and if such should turn out to be the
case, no clause inserted in the charter, could make it
legal—the consent of Parliament alone could do it.
After a few words from the Marquis of CLANRI-
CARDE, who condemned the whole law of partnership
in this country,

Lord CAMPBELL had heard the statement of the
noble earl with satisfaction, and he hoped it would also
I satisfy a great majority of the people. He was no
friend to the Crystal Palace remaining in Hyde-park, but
transferred to Norwood, he was its firm friend—(hea-.-
and laughter)—and he thought it would not only be con-
ducive to the amusement of the people, but to morality
and religion. The opening of such a place would not
desecrate the Sabbath, but prevent a great deal of de-
bauchery and immorality. There was an act of Parlia-
ment in force which prohibited the taking of money for
admission to any place of amusement on Sunday, but he
trusted Parliament would remove that difficulty. (Hear.)
THE MEETING OF CONVOCATION.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY wished to put a ques-
tion to the noble earl with regard to the sitting and pro-
ceedings of convocation, which had justly been regarded
with some alarm. He wished to know what the inten-
tions of the Government were with respect to convoca-
tion. It was, he believed, adjourned to the 16th of
February, and he wished to know whether it would be
allowed to meet again ; and whether, during the interval,
the committee appointed by convocation would be
allowed to sit ?

The Earl of DERBY—As far as her Majesty's Go-
vernment is concerned, there is no intention to make any
deviation from that which has ordinarily been the cus-
tomary practice for many years as to convocation ; nor
do I understand that there has been, except in one par-
ticular, any deviation from the ordinary practice.
Although the meeting of convocation this year has been
accompanied by considerable excitement, and has led to
much discussion, yet the proceedings of convocation have
gone no further this year than on all preceding occasions
—that is, the body meeting together for the purpose of
voting an address to the crown at the commencement of
the session. It is true that there was a discussion on
the address to the crown, previous to which it is not
courteous or proper that any authority should be e:_er-
cised over convocation—it is true, I say, that there was
a discussion, and that it lasted nearly three days, but
this is not the first occasion on which the meeting of
convocation has led to a discussion, rnd on which an
amendment has been proposed and discussed. In 1847
the discussion lasted the whole of one day, and an
amendmen:; was-,:oved praying the Crown to re-establish
the active no .7ers of convocation. The power of pro-
roguing convocation rests with the Crown in the last
resort, but I believe there is no instance of that power
having been exercised by the Crown for many years—it
has always been exercised by the archbishop, either by
his own authority, or consensu fratt um. The nook earl
is wrong in speaking of proroguing, for I understand the
usual course pursued is not to prorogue, but to adjourn :
the address having been voted, the convocation is ad-
journed by the archbishop to a period not very distant
from the next meeting of Parliament after the recess. I
understand there is nothing unusual in the prorogation
to a distant day for the purpose of receiving the answer
to the address from the Crown, as it is not usual to receive
the answer, as in the cages of the houses of Parlirment,
immecrately on the address being preseated. I have not
had an opportunity since my noble friend gave me notice
of his question, of communicating with his grace
the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I have no reason
to suppose that convocation will meet again, and
that his grace will depart from the practice which has
hitherto universally prevailed ; nor do I apprehend
that he will do more than lay before convocation the
answer to the address, and then, in the usual form,
prorogue. Ido not anticipate that the archbishop will
depart from the usual course, and therefore I think that
the intervention of the Crown will rot be necessary ; but
this I have no hesitation in saying, that the Ministers of
the Crown have no intention to advise her Majesty to
depart from the ordinary course, and sanction the revival
of the active powers of convocation. (Hear, hear.) As
to the commitee to which my noble friend has referred,
officially I know nothing of it. I only know that con-
vocation was prorogued, and the lower house appointed
a committee to investigate certain errors. It is a ques-
tion of law upon which I do not like to pronounce an
opinion ; but I confess that I do not understand how a
body prorogued can have any official power in any com-
mittee to act during such p:o:ogation. (Hear, hear,)
My own opinion is that the powe: of that committee is
null and void ; and undoubtedly, on the other hand,
there is no power on the part of the Crown, or any other
body, to prevent gentlemen meeting as a private body
and considering whatever matters they choose ; but I
repeat that I believe the body prorogued have no power
to constitute a committee.
-Lord LYTTLETON made some observations which
were totally inaudible in the gallery.