The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-29 00:00:00

THE SUN,

\IQ' km= AIM

LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1851.

In the House of Lords last night,
On the report of the Select Committee on the Smith
field Market Removal Bill being brought up,
Earl GRANVILLE moved that the clauses giving com-
pensation to the Corporation of London, which had been
introduced by the Committee, should be expunged, and
that the clauses giving the Corporation six months to
determine whether or not they would establish a new
market should be restored as they stood in the original
Bill.

The motion was opposed by the Earl of Powis, but
on a division was carried by a majority of 59 against 15
The report was then received; several Bills were
forwarded a stage and their Lordships adjourned.
In the Commons, in the morning sitting,
Sir W. SOMERVILLE announced the abandonment of
the Valuation (Ireland) Bill, and of certain portions of
the Medical Charities (Ireland) Bill.
The Commons held their evening sitting in the New
House for the first time.
Sir B. HALL moved that the electors of Greenwich
should be heard by counsel at the bar in support of
their petition that their representative, Mr. Alderman
SALOMONB, should be allowed to take his seat.

The motion, which was opposed by the ATTORNEY -
GENERAL, GENERAL, Sir F. THESIGER, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Sir J.
HANMER, and Lord J. RUSSELL, and supported by Mr.
C. ANSTEY, Mr.VILLIERS, Mr. AGLIONBY, and Mr. Alder-
man SIDNEY, was negatived on a division by 135 to 75.
Mr. RAIKES CURRIE (who had presided over the meet-
ing of the electors of London at which the petition was
agreed to praying to be heard in reference to the election
of Baron ROTHSCHILD) would not after the decision of the
House press the petition, more especially as there wero
portions of the petition of which he did not approve.
Mr. ANSTEY would, since the Honourable Gentleman
refused to do his duty, move that the electors of the city
of London be heard by counsel at the bar of du) House
according to the prayer of this petition.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the motion.
Mr. B. OSBORNE advised the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government to bring in a Bill abolishing all reli-
gious tests, and added that if the House Of Lords con-
tinued to refuse the admission of Jews to Parliament,
people would demand a reform of their Lordships'
House.

Sir J. TYRELL opposed the motior.
Mr. IlosliousE supported the motion, which, on a di-
vision, was negatived by 77 to 41.
The adjourned debate on Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S mo-
tion of Tuesday last, declaring Mr. Alderman SALo-
MONS incompetent to sit until he took the oath of
abjuration in the form prescribed by law, was then
resum ed.

Mr. ANSTEY proposed an amendment, declaring the
expediency of forthwith making such an alteration in
the form of the oath as would enable the Honourable
Member, without violating his religious scruples, to
take it.
After some observations from Mr. HEADLAM and Mr.
J. EVANS,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
' Against it ...
Majority

50
88
-38

Mr. BETHELL iurged the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government not to press his resolution; but, as two
actions had been brought against Alderman SALOMON!!
for penalties, to postpone the discussion until the de-
cision of a court of law should have been taken as to the
♦alidity of the oath as taken by the Hon. Member for
Greenwich.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that though perfectly willing
that the opinion of a court of law should be taken upon
any question which could properly come before it, he
could not see how it could be a case for such a court
whether a Member of that House had or had not duly
taken the requisite oaths.
After come observations from Mr. ANSTEY and Mr
J. A. SMITH,

The House again divided, when there appeared—
For the resolution ... ... 123
Against it .•• ••• ••• 68
Majority ... ... ••• —55
The House then passed to the orders of the day.

An admirable, because moderate, suggestion in re-
ference to the Crystal Palace will this evening be
submitted to the House of Commons by the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire. From
our proximity to the day which will witness the pro-
rogation of Parliament by the SOVEREIGN, we are
peculiarly rejoiced that the question is reduced to the
very reasonable limits proposed by Mr.-HEYWOOD,
so that the objections of all parties indiscriminately
may be waived until such time as the Legislature has
leisure to remove all responsibility in the matter from
the shoulders of the Royal Commissioners. Unless
some such delay is permitted the public may
be deprived of an inestimable boon by a servile
obedience to a preposterous punctilio. What
Mr. HEywoon suggests is this, that an address
be presented to her MAJESTY, praying for the preser-
vation of the Crystal Palace at the very least until
the Mayday of 1852, in order that sufficient time may
be afforded to determine whether it may not be se-
cured with advantage to the metropolis for " purposes
of public utility and recreation." By couching this
demand in these most unexceptionable terms of mode-
ration, the advocates for the retention of the building
have an infinitely better chance of disarming their
opponents, and of insinuating themselves into a
position of SUCCESS, such as might otherwise
prove altogether unattainable. Besides which the
procrastination of a definitive resolve may tend in the
most effectual way to reconcile those to the idea who
are at present its most violent antagonists. Those, at
least, are our opinions, because we regard the question
at issue as admitting only of one view after a reason-
able amount of consideration.

Latterly the population have heard the matter dis-
cussed in all its bearings, not merely by journal-
ists in the newspapers and by legislators in the Par-
liament, but also, and in a more elaborate manner,
by the advocates pro and con., who have con-
sidered it worth their while to come forward
in the character of pamphleteers. "DENARIUS " has
already spoken at length upon the benefits which
would inevitably accrue to the public from the em-
ployment of the Crystal Palace as a winter garden
and as an arena for summer amusements. " GREVILLe
has since insisted upon what he considers the folly of
such a proposition,* maintaining that the Commission
should be faithful to its promise of a removal of the
edifice by the exact period stipulated. What the
nature of that compact is may be readily perceived by
a glance at an announcement made this morning to
the following effect :—" Yesterday a Parliamentary
paper was printed, containing a copy of the Royal war-
rant to enter on the ground in Hyde-park for the
Great Exhibition, and a copy of the deed of covenant
from the Commissioners to her MAJESTY, by which
they undertake that the said Exhibition ' shall be
closed and concluded on or before the Ist of Novem-
ber, 1851.' According to this agreement, all things
are to be removed and carried away at the expense of
the Commissioners by the lat of June, 1852, and they
public do not interfere." Now, we
distinctly proclaimed by the PRIME
havewiillNl IlesbeTe—Ea
Rr be—if the
that eravttyhis interference of the public is the
only thing which can lead to the release of the Royal
Commissioners from the difficulty of their present
situation, authorising them to connire at the pre-
servation of the Crystal Palace, instead of permitting
them to insist upon its removal after the Ist of No_
vember. Hence it has been, bearing in re
membrance this assurance from the lips of
Lord JOHN RUSSELL himself, that we have
regarded with so much satisfaction the number of
petitions recently poured in upon the tables of both
Houses of the Imperial Parliament. Those petitions
it will, doubtless, have been remarked emanated not
exclusively from the inhabitants of the metropolis,
Icoming rather frcm all parts, sometimes from the re-

• "An answer to What is to become of the Crystal
Palace ?' By Greville." Bvo,, pp. 29. London : 0111-
vier. 1851.