The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-30 00:00:00

people of England, and of their friends and allies, whom
' they had welcomed. Although he did not undervalue
the good conduct of the police, he believed that if it had
not been from the higher principles which animated the
great masses that had been brought together in
the Crystal Palace, ten tim-s the amount of police
would not have been sufficient to maintain order.—
(Hear, hear.) Further, he could not but ecknowle.ige
the great obligation the country owed to the prescient
sagacity of the illustrious Prince who devised the plan,
and who had successfully carried it out, notwithstanding
the lukewarm support of many, and the ill-concealed
aversion of others,—(Cheers.) That illustrious Prince
foresaw, not only the immediate pleasure which his con-
ception would contribute to his fi llow-subjects, but also
the great ultimate and Listing benefits which would re-
sult from it. Those benefits, ho (Sir R. Inglis) appre-
hended, would not be of a limited or of a temporary na-
ture; but, if the building were destined to fall to-morrow
those benefits would be felt for many generations to
come. It was, indeed, a peace congress, in which were
brought together those who were formerly regarded as
natural enemies, and who, without the sacrifice of prin-
ciple, and without any difference of opinion, had drunk
at the same spring, and all of whom, he hoped, were
equally thankful for the pleasure they had been per-
mitted to enjoy,—(Hear, hear.) No one could have
*visited the Exhibition without experiencing a joy
he had never felt before at beholding so many happy
faces brought together.—(Hear, hear.) If he differed
from his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) in any
part of his address, it was that in which he withdrew
himself from all responsibility as a Minister of the
Crown. The Ministers of the Crown, from their posi-
tion, ought to guide and govern the House. But he did
not consider the question to be whether the preservation
of the Crystal Palace or the erection of a now one woul 4
or not be for the best interests of the country. He felt
that he was not at liberty to take into contideration any
benefit that might result from the continuance of the
building. To him it was simply a question of contract,
end more especially with those whose property had al-
ready been deteriorated to a great extent by the build-
ing, and would be much more deteriorated if the build-
ing should be made permanent. His Right lion. Friend
wished to have an expression of the opinion of the House
on that point ; bUt if that opinion were unanimous it
could not effect the contract. Nothing but an Act of
the Legislature could possibly get rid of the contract.
He should, therefore, oppose the motion.
Mr. EWART (who was very indistinctly heard) en-
tirely agreed with his Hon. Friend that the House could
not alter the existing contract, but he forgot to state who
the parties to the contract were, and that if they pleased
they could dissolve the contract. As to the proprietors
of the houses in the neighbourhood of the Crystal
Palace, they were no parties to the contract, but were
merely accidentally concerned in the matter. He
thought it a most important thing that the building
should be permanently maintained. It would serve both
as a place for the promotion of science, and as a place of
recreation, and for the preservation of health. It might
be said that it was not built originally for a permanency,
but Mr. Paxton had stated that he from the first con-
structed the building in such a manner that if it were
desired afterwards to be permanent it would remain so;
and he also stated that he from the beginning contem-
plated its conversion into a winter garden. In supporting
the motion, he believed he should express not only the
opinions of his own constituents, but of the great ma-
jority of the people of this country.
Mr. MACGREGOR said he had built a house in the
neighbourhood of the park solely for the benefit of the
retirement which it afforded, his wife having been for
several years in such a state of health as prevented
her from mixing in society. The building,
therefore, had been to him a source of great incon-
venience, as well as to many of his neighbours; but
when he considered what was taking place within that
palace, when he looked at the gathering of the nations
there, and when he looked at the wondrous productions
there exhibited, he should consider himself exceedingly,
selfish if he were to oppose his own immediate conve-
nience to that great work of civilization.—(Cheers.) As
to the continuance of the palace in its present situation
he should give no opinion further than that he thought
they would commit a very rash act if they decided
upon its immediate abolition. He had doubts of its
success as a winter garden, but they might make it a
mti.eum.

Colonel THOMPSON would suggest as one reason
for the preservation of the building that a large portion
of the working people of this country would be very
glad to see it kept up in perpetuity. The Exhibition
bad formed an opportunity to all nations, with the moat
harmless and honest rivalry, to see what conveniences
of life could be procured for them by exchanging their
own productions for the productions of foreigners with
greater advantage than if they made them within their
own doors. He believed that class of the people would
be happy to see the palace applied triennially or septen-
nially to a purpose similar to that to which it was at
present devoted. For that reason its demolition ought,
at all events, to be postponed for the present.
Mr. GOULBURN, after observing that on many ac-
counts he might be favourable to the motion now before
the House, said that when he considered that no less a
principle than the maintenance of perfect good faith
with the parties concerned in these transactions was in-
volved in the question they were then discussing, he felt
bound to oppose the proposition for an address to the
Crown on this subject. He put it to Hen. Gentlemen,
would the building ever have been erected—would the
public have consented to an encroachment on 20 acres of
Hyde-park, if they had not received a distinct assurance
that when the object of the building was answered it
should be puiicd down and the park be restored to the
people as a place of health and recreation? Nothing
could warrant a departure from that arrangement. He
would not refer to the strict provisions of the contract,
but to the general understanding which took place be-
tween the Hence and the country. But, even if the
building should be retained, Honourable Gentlemen
were not agreed among themselves as to the pur-
poses to which it should be applied. If, as some
suggested, it were to be used as a place of re-
creation for the benefit of Belgravia, or as the scene
where ladies' clubs should assemble—(Laughter)—what
would be the consequence? Would not the people of
Tyburnia demand a similar portion of the park to bo
appropriated for their recreation also? The immense
annual expense also which the permanent maintenance
of the building would impose on the country was de-
serving of consideration. They must have an extensive
number of keepers, whether the building were used as
a garden of plants, as a museum, as a ladies' club, or as
a new Tattersall's. They were told that public feeling
was iu favour of the continuance of the Crystal Palace,
but where were the petitions? One would have natu-
rally supposed they would have poured in from the me-
tropolis, but whence had the petitions actually come?
From Glasgow, Falkirk, and Stirling, in Scotland, and
from Falmouth and Exeter, in England, while from
London there had scarcely been any. He, for one, had
always viewed with jealousy any encroachment upon
what might be called the lungs of the metropolis; and
for that and other reasons he was decidedly opposed to
the present motion.
Mr. WAKLEY observed that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman seemed surprised that no petition had come from
the metropolis in favour of retaining the Crystal Palace.
Why, the mass of the population of London never for
one
ext momentraordina considered
ryamind thaastot there was
desire
st o its da en syt rbueci tni go
n .of
solt
impossibleeach t
ah a t
buildingi oo ul d. e n
Thet e r intogthhte
Hh eoand.
owfams
at hnotuog
dh
et
Gentleman was afraid that the public would sustain a
great injury from the appropriation of twenty acres of
Hyde-park; but, if he would take an unprejudiced view
of the question, be would see that that appropriation
would bo a great gain to all classes. It was not in-
tended to devote the institution to any particular class,
but to open it to all classes during a portion of the year,
without any charge. With regard to the cost, no appli-
cation would be made to the Government for money to
sustain the building; on the contrary, Mr. Paxton had
stated that a party was already willing] to take a
lease of the structure for twenty-one years, if permitted
to do so; and to guarantee the keeping up of the
palace. It was a marvellous thing to him to observe
that two Hon. Gentlemen out of the three who had
opposed the motion were Members for the two Universi-
ties, when the object contemplated by the motion was in
a great measure to devote an institution to objects of
which one would suppose those Hon. Members ought to
be the most prominent advocates. But, between whom
did the contract itself exist? Why, between the public
arid itself.—(No, no.) Messrs. Fox and Henderson had
signiiied their readiness to accept a notice in the month
of May next instead of in September, provided they
should be placed in the same position as if the notice had
been given at the period first agreed upon. The point,
therefore, was disposed of. He could not conceive how
any man could contemplate the destruction of such an
establishment otherwise than with feelings of pain. The
institution was connected with the noblest associations
which could engage the mind of man. The original con-
ception was a grand one; it embraced the universe; and
they had absolutely seen its effects manifested in every
quarter of the globe. He might be wrong, but it was his
conviction that if they determined to destroy the Crystal
Palace, the labouring men of London would unanimously
resolve not to lay their hands upon it. After speaking of
the sanitary advantages which would be derived from
the conversion of the building into a winter garden, the
Hon. Member adverted to the allegation that the pro-
perty in the neighbourhood of the park had been dete-
riorated by the erection of the palace, and said he cone
sidered that a cunning trick on the part of the owners
with a view to urge a claim for compensation. Would
those persons sell their property after the palace should
have become permanent at the same price for which they
would have disposed of it before the palace was built?
But the same plea used to be urged with regard to pro-
perty near which railway stations were constructed, and
yet what was the fact? Why, that property in those
localities had increased more than fourfold. He could
not ask. the House to come to a unanimous vote, because
three gentlemen had spoken against the motion, and they
would certainly be objects of great curiosity at some
future day—(Laughter)—but he hoped the House would,
with the exception of those three gentlemen, support the
present motion, which he believed met with the hearty
approval of forty-nine out of fifty of the inhabitants of
London.

Mr. BANKES was not for the destruction of the
building. nor was he for its continuance on its present
bite, as that would be a violation of public faith. But if
there was a great desire for the establishment of a winter
garden in the metropolis, the Hon. Member (Mr. Wak-
ley) vial the propoaer of a new park in Finsbury, and
thither the Crystal Palace might be transferred.
Mr. WAK LEY—I should be delighted.
Mr. BANKES would be most happy to vote with the
Hon. Member it' such was the proposition. The Hon.
Gentleman was the advocate of the interests of the la-
bouring classei, and if the Crystal Palace was removed
from Ilyde•pttrk to Finsbury-Park the labouring classes
would be employe3, the experiment of a winter garden
would he triad, and public faith would be kept.—(Hear,
hqar.) It was not a question of Fox and Henderson—