The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-26 00:00:00

bear more efficient and leis expense, nod would betides
net disturb society, as the present measure proposed to do.
he htd such entire confidence in them: ttiaae superio:ity
of .this country, that he ba. w no necessil for /he Bill,
which ho should now oppose, believing it would be in-
effec ive, mischievous, and vexatious.
Lord SEYMOUR believed it was the opinion of the
majority of the House that some measure was neces-
sary for increasing our national defences.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") Two Governments would not
have introduced a Militia Bill without having been
convinced of the existence of such a necessity.
Now, he asked himself this questien —lf the
present Bill was rejected what chance had they of any
other being introduced and passed?—(Hear.) Clearly
no Government would venture to propose any measure
either for a compulsory or voluntary militia. In this
Bill they had both the voluntary and compulsory principle,
and those who were in favour of either ought
to support it.—(Hear, hear.) All the high autho-
rities on the subject had admitted that such a
Bill was necessary, and ho was astonished to find parties
in the House not only anxious to defeat the Bill,
but also to defeat the Government.—(Hear, hear.)
was this Bill would be defeated, because the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell) was opposed to it—because he thought
a local and not a general measure wog necessary. He
thought that neither he nor any independent Mem-
ber of the House ought to take the responsibility on
themselves of throwing out the measure. He should
vote for the second reading on the und, rstanding that be
should be able to move amendments in Committee.
. _

General REID thought he should commit a great
breach of his public duty it he remained silent on
so important a subject. As a military ram], he looked
upon the measure wiih very little satisfaction;
but as the Government had sated that they had pro-
posed it after consulting the hi7,hest military ea-
thorities, ho should not refuse his sup-
port to the Bill that he gave that support reluctantly.
He thought this kind of force would be a method of
pruvitting for the safety of the country which would be
most acceptable to all parties because it would not be a
permanent burden on the resources of the country.
Mr. ELLICE did not consider this so much a Militia
Bill as a Bill for raising a subsidiary force by voluntary
enlistment. Now, considering that emplo3ment was easy
to be obtained all over the country, he was afraid that
supposing this principle of voluntary enlistment were
adopted, there would be an unfortunate competition be-
tween the two services ; and as the regular army fuund
it rather difficult to obtain recruits, he did not think
there would be much chance of obtaining a suffi-
cient number of men for the militia service. He
was not willing to argue the question as to the
necessity of some increase in the military de-
fences of the country, but if we were to have
such an increase, then it certainly ought to be
effected in the most economical manner possible. He
had some considerable experience of militia expense!,
and he remembered that this country bad paid
six or seven millions for not one day's effi-
cient service. It eccurred to him that a great
saving might be made; by an alteration in the
military arrangements of our colonies. For instance,
in Canada, we had been keeping double the
number of troops there for many years than were
really needed. There were thirteen or fourteen stations
over which our troops were scattered, serving more as
police in some cases than anything else. We hal also
5,000,000/. or 6,000,0001. werth of ordnance stores
there, and a large proportion of our artillery
which so far from being of service had probably only
had the effect of causing observations to be made with
respect to our fears of a foreign attack which would
not otherwise have been made,—(Eft ar, hear.)
At one time he had intended to propose a Committee
of Inquiry to ascertain what were our existing means of
defence, for really it appeared to him that the House
had no settled information upon this point.—(Hear
hear.) The House had no established military
authority to guide them, and, in fact, it
seemed to him that the House was now
legislating in the dark. Admitting, however, that the
country did want more defences, he had no Lith in
the efficiency of Mtlitia Blle, and he for ore
hoped the House would pause b.:fore in adopted th.
expensive measure.—(Hear.)
Colonel LINDSEY rose, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

PRESERVATION of the CRYSTAL

PALACE.

REPLY OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE TO THE
REPORT OF THE TREASURY COMMISSION.
The following reasons are submitted to the considera-
tion of Parliament and the public, as proving that the
report cf the Commissioners appointed to inquire into
the cost end applicability of the Crystal Palace ought
not to be acted on.
I. It is submitted that in that report the uses to which
the building could be put, and the question of expense
involved in its preservation and adaptation to these
uses, are all treated from the diadvautageous and
isolated point of view that the whole is to be a Govern.
ment undertaking—worked out by Government machi-
nery, and paid for by the public money.
H. It is contended that a properly-constituted Com-
misdon would have bad power given to it to examine
evidence and report whether the Crystal Palace might
not be maintained for the recreation and instruction of
the people by other and less objectionable means than a
Parliamentary grant.
111. It is submitted, that the House of Commons having
by a distinct vote suspended the provision of the contract
for an immediate removal of the Luilding, the regular
and legitimate mode of following up that vote is by a
Committee of Inquiry, appointed by the House, in
which the interest of the public would be fairly
represented. An ex-parte inquiry, instituted by Govern-
ment, while bound by a pledge to remove the building—
presided over by the head of the Department of Works,
who would naturally consult his official convenience and
that of the Government in the matter—is not such an
investigation of the subject as either Parliament or the
public can consider satisfactory.
IV. Taking the report as it stands, and waiving all
objections founded on the source from whence the Com-
mission issued, on the limited character of its
powers, and on other grounds affscticg the known
previous opinions of the Commissioners—into which
we de not wish to enter—it is asserted that that
report cannot be supported ou the evidence given before
the Commission, and ought, therefore, to be rejected as
fallacious. For this assertion the following reasons are
given :
(a.) Only seven witnesses were examined—the con-
tractor, Sir Charles Fox; the designer, Sir Joseph Pax-
ton; two members of the Executive Committee, Mr. Cole
and Mr. Dilke; the Duke of Sutherland's gardener at
Trentham, Mr. Fleming; Mr. lielk, the owner of house
property opposite; and Mr. Hawkins, head of the Anti-
quarian Department of the British Museum. Of this
list, Sir Charles Fox, Sir Joseph Paxton, Mr. Cole,
Mr. D•lke, and Mr. Fleming gave evidence strongly
in favour of retaining the building ; Mr. Kelk made
a statement amounting at most to a private claim
for compensation, w hich, however, was utterly
denied by Mr. Cole ; and Mr. Hawkins was
examined as to the applicability of the building
for portions of the British Museum Collection, whieh
no one ever thought of removing there. It is confi-
dently asserted that the whole weight of the evidence
thus generalised is not against, but for the preservation
of the Crystal Palace.
(b.) The question of cost is that upon which the Com-
mission rests this rejection of evidence, and the chief
consideration in that question is thus stated:—
" Even after making those extensive alterations in the
present building, Sir Joseph Paxton has admitted that
it will not be, in all respects, the best adapted for its pur-
pose; and that for the sum of 150,00C1., he could put
up a much finer, a more magnificent, and more ap-
propriate structure than the Exhibition building. We
are not prepared to say that the sum of 150,0001.
would cover the cost of adapting the build-
ing to the purposes cf a garden—we should
think it more prudent to assume 200.000/. as the
expenditure which would be necessary for these works.
Considering the large annual expenditure (20,000/.)
which will be required for the maintenance of the gar-
dens, when made, it appears to us to be inexpedient to
commence the work upon a plan admitted to be
imperfect."
To this statement it is objected, that Sir Joseph Paxton
denies positively the accuracy of the evidence put into
his mouth. He denies as a consequence the inference
drawn from that evidence. Ile and all the advocates
for the building deny that these inferences can be logi-
cally deduced from the premises, even incorrectly stated
as they are; and, finally, Sir Joseph Paxton brings
the grave charge against the Office of Works, of
having withheld from him alone, of all the witnesses
examined by the commission, an opportunity of revising
his evidence, though he applied for it most urgently
twice in person, and once again through a friend.
(c.) It is submitted, that even supposing a finer
structure and one better adapted for the uses contem-
plated than the Crystal Palace could be put np for
150,0001., that is no reason why the Palace should not
be retained; and that. on the same argument, every
public work in the country, avid even in the world,
ought :mmediately to be pulled down. It is also
submitted, that an annual expenditure and a per-
manent outlay, which may seem large and
unjustifiable when drawn from the public purse, may
present no difficulty when provided for, on " the self-
furnishedid feo
ar
et hk
nt
oh
we
Isepdl;
end-
tfd hoo
us
nrgrad
of supporting
aeatot
nhit
epi
of
Gar i
irntescai
ptpolEep'xu'hlaiwbrihittiyicohnand success. Finally, upon
submitted
as a fact which appears to have
escaped the memory of the Commission in the financial
part of their inquiry, that within six months of lest
year 400 0001. was taken chiefly iu shillings at the doors
of the Crystal Palace.
(d) The report contains no direct and opon expression
of opinion that the building should be removed, and
only covertly pints at that conclusion in passages of
which the two following may be taken as the strongest
examples:—
" We believe that the remembrance of the late Ex-
hibition would be nnfavourable to a new appropriation
ftsl placed teen,.
of the Building, as it would be impossible to reproduce
the brilliant effect obtained from the rich collections
whichroofweretemporarily
which,Tghheticleosiestraasutd of ltransparency,ignt andshade re-
sembles the open air.
is, however, deemed advantageous to sculpture, and the
colossal character of these antiquities may be, by other
persons. thought to accord bast with massive a.chi-
tecture."
Attention is particularly drawn to these distinct traces
An ,
of a foregone conclusion on the part of the Commission;
renAu
improbable;
Effect a s brilliant,
norli aut
is for there was no evidence whatever before them to justify
such assertions.
so, than that of the Great Exhibition, cannot be declared o
andthe even
there
the moreleast
•-- - _ _