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

tion will again be discussed; National Art consoled
with the promise of a gallery, among the market
gardens, at Brompton. Joint-stock projects will
have their share of legislation ; the connexion between
Fr AIL, 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 Uudgeons, or brickbats, or
hard cash, are forbidden. Lord JOEIN will again bid
energetically for office, and show his devotion to the
caue 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 B ills 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 vevy enkof the Session, where many good Bills
are rejected—not from caprice or opposition, but
becat-,se the Peers are naturally unwilling to give
their sanction to laws on which they have been
allowed but little time for deliberation. Hence, too,
duping two-thirds of the Session, very little is done
in the Lords. Occasionally there may be an eloquent
oration from BROUGHASI, a sarcastic speech from
LYNDIIURST, or a splenetic effusion from Earl GREY,
but for the most part the Lords are idle until the
Session is nearly over. Thu 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 fair 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 llouse, 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-
gagement 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
greelnigerieaullsyaogvietartloeorek,ed, and
against
byg nonerantin mgeoerhe so than h
etterte the
Palace. That question is, whether they are taking a
course consistent with thorough-going religious
liberty. Whether the imprisonment of the MADIAIEtt
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. The degree of punishment way
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 farce—by 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 any respectable company. An Act of
Parliament could effect thet same objects, and Is never
withheld, except it can be uhown that powers injuri-
ous to the property or life of her RIAJEsTr'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 com-
posing the company against caprice or spite, but a
protection which any company of honest men, any
company which can show that it is not a mere but Ale
or fraudulent scheme, has the fuller t 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 corn pang already
chartered ? That it will be a nuisance iu a populous
neighbourhood ? That it will ruinously depreciate
the value of property near it ? That it foster
drunkenness, riot, or licentiousness ? That it will
endanger the life, health, or limbs of her MAJE: ITT'S
subjects ? On the contrary, the very reverse of tl less
usual objections is true of the Company's projeors.
They claim "a liberty which is—

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

No ; the single ground of opposition is a r gligions
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 op por-
tunities for doing. In their view, it is irreligiott, 3 to