The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-04 00:00:00

be bad indeed, if not superior to " the precious bud-
get," or the " brick-dust budget," or, indeed, any
which Sir CHARLES WOOD ever brought forward.
We may look for earnest debates on, and a new settle-
ment of, the Property and Income-tax, on a sounder
basis than at present. This is indispensable, and on
the course adopted the fate of the Government will
in a great degree depend. The Budget will probably
be carried. Our only hope is that it may be worth
carrying. Certain Government measures will ad
vance, in the interim, through some of their respective
stages, and a tithe, perhaps, of the bills of which
notice bad been given by independent Members,
may also " drag their slow length along." By
and bye will come the Estimates, and the Money
Votes, the latter, as usual, subjected to strict, but
unsuccessful scrutiny from Mr. HOME, and a few
congenial associates, and (as usual also) passed
in thin houses, and at late hours. Once the
the money is voted, the actual business of' the Session
is ended, and visions of the white-bait dinner at
Greenwich dawn on the Ministerial mind, together
with the more agreeable prospect of the absence of
the Parliamentary " baiting" to which they have been
for many months diurnally subjected.
The actual time given to real practical work during
this period, will be small—the balance of it will be
expended in discussions on "things in general," and
a few crochets in particular. COBDEN and BRIGHT
will dilate on the unparalleled advantages of Free
Trade. The Irish Brigade will, of course, get up
some ultra montane debates. The veteran Member
for Montrose will endeavour to collect the dig-
jecta membra, the scattered elements of Liberalism,
into something practical and tangible. The Church
party will have their palaver, and HENRY of EXETER,
Will once more obtain the notoriety so dear to his
heart—being abused and praised, as if he were at
once the worst and best of sinners and of saints. The
Caffre war will be fought over again ; the East India
Charter will call forth the eloquence of the nabobs,
rejoicing heartily at the absence of GEORGE Tnontr-
sox. Mr. ROEBUCK will, as a matter of course, fling
about some of the agreeable acidities with which be is
wont to correct the crudities of debate. The war
with Burmah will be on the lapis. National Educa-
tion will again be discussed; National Art consoled
with the promise of a gallery, among the market
gardens, at Brotnpton. Joint-stock projects will
have their share of legislation ; the connexion between
FRAIL, the barber, and Major BERESFORD, the Privy
Councillor and Secretary-at-War, will be examined
into, unless the Right Hon. Gentleman should seek
refuge in a West India Government. Sundry elec-
tion petitions will be disposed of, and different com-
mittees will have to express their opinions as to what
is legitimate interference with the voter, and what is
unconstitutional dictation or intimidation. The deci-
sions will probably be that words are lawful—that
threats of either temporal or eternal punishment may
be resorted to, but that bludgeons, or brickbats, or
hard cash, are forbidden. Lord JOHN will again bid
energetically for office, and show his devotion to the
cause of Reform, by voting against Mr. BERKELEY'S
motion for the Ballot. Lord PALMERSTON will touch in
his own clever way upon foreign affairs, including the
French Empire, Italian absolutism, and the American
cod-fishery. Law Reform will again be extended
a little further—the wants of the country in that re-
spect being supplied by rather small instalments, but
all steps in the right direction. But above all, and
through all, will be one constant and incessant attack
on Ministers—very probably led by GRAHAM and
GLADSTONE—because they are so hard-hearted as to
remain in office. Even in the centre of the melee
certain to follow Baron ROTHSCHILD taking of his
seat, this cuckoo-cry on the part of the outs against
the ins will certainly prevail. After months of talk-
ing, a few Bills mutilated and emasculated,, will be
hurried through, and thus will close the long-ex-
pected and anxiously looked-for Session.

Now all the Government measures might be de-
liberately considered, and, if deemed expedient,
passed, if the plainly obvious plan were adopted, of
letting a moiety of such measures originate in the
Upper House. Instead of this, all are commenced
in the Lower House, and hurried into the Lords, at
the very end,of the Session, where many good Bills
are rvjected—not from caprice or opposition, but
because the Peers are naturally unwilling to give
their sanction to laws on which they have been
allowed but little time for deliberation. Hence, too,
during two-thirds of the Session, very little is done
in the Lords. Occasionally there may he an eloquent
oration from BROUGHAM, a sarcastic speech from
LYNDHURST, or a splenetic effu,ion from Earl GREY,
but for the most part the Lords are idle until the
Session is nearly over. The Commons, of course,
retain their privilege of originating all measures of
supply, but these are not very numerous: and so
long as the substantial control over the public purse
is retained by the representatives of the people, there
need not be any unreasonable jealousy at any merely
formal interference with the recognized right.
Give the Lords their Ear share of work at the
commencement of the session, instead of overweight-
ing them at its close. They are ready, able, and
ever anxious to do this work. And if the reform in
law making is to be carried out properly, let it be
provided that measures which have been postponed
merely from want of time (the result of throwing too
much work on one House, and too little on the
other), shall be resumed in the next Session of the
same Parliament at the respective stages in which
they were left.

From the turn which the Crystal Palace business
has taken, it becomes desirable, laying aside all tem-
per and declamation, to look dispassionately at the
principles on which it ought to be settled. We are
disappointed, as we have observed, in Lord DEBBY;
since, had he seen fit to adhere to a Government en-
g igement with a commercial company, on the faith
of which they have already incurred a considerable
outlay, we are confident that our business-like Par-
liament would promptly, by a special Act, have met
his legal oversight. There is, however, a view of the
whole question, which seems to have been pretty
generally overlooked, and by none more so than the
religious agitators, against granting a charter to the
Palace. That question is, whether they are taking a
course consistent with thorough-going religious
liberty. Whether the imprisonment of the MADIAISI
with which England, Ireland, indeed, all Europe is
now ringing, may not be defended on the same prin-
ciples, in virtue of which a charter is to be denied to
the Crystal Palace. Tee degree of punishment may
be different in Tuscany and England, the thing
deemed irreligious may be different, but the principle
is identical, namely, that it is the province of Go-
vernment to cherish religion, and to prevent irreligion
by law—i.e., by physical force—hy penalties.
Let us examine the case. What do the Crystal
Palace Company want ? They want, as a commer-
cial company, an exercise of the right of the Crown
to grant a commercial charter—a right entrusted to
the Crown for purely secular purposes, and never
withheld from aoy respectable company. An Act of
Parliament could effect the same objects, and is never
withheld, except it can be shown that powers injuri-
ous to the property or life of her MAJESTY'S subjects,
are claimed by the applicants. A Charter, or an Act,
can limit the responsibility of shareholders, so that
each shareholder cannot be sued by a malicious credi-
tor, but the company can sue, and be sued, in the
name of its secretary. An invaluable convenience
commercially, a protection to the individuals
hcom-
posing the company against caprice or spite, but a
whichproteetion
which
can show h
any t companya
is of
not a honest
mere
b anyl e
company tit
or fraudulent scheme, has the fullest right to demand.
Now, what is the ground on which this claim of
the Company is opposed ? Is it alleged that its estab-
lishment will be ruinous to any other company already
chartered ? That it will be a nuisance in a populous
neighbourhood ? That it will ruinously depreciate
the value of property near it ? That it will foster
drunkenness, riot, or licentiousness ? That it will
endanger the life, health, or limbs of her MAJESTY'S
subjects? On the contrary, the very reverse of these
usual objections is true of the Company's projects
They claim "a liberty which is—

Unimpeached of usurpation,
And to no man's wrong."

No ; the single ground of opposition is a religious
one. Certain parties think it very irreligious to use
the Sunday (to call it the Sabbath is really to beg a
very grave question) as the Company will give oppor-
tunities for doing. In their view, it is irreligious to