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

trator, and proving himself, in so doing, the unpo•
pular, as Lord PALMERSTON has shown himself the
popular Minister of the Cabinet—the former the
greatest, the latter the smallest of the statesmen in
her MAJESTY'S Government. As a kind of supple-
mentary testimony of these facts, we have had gra-
tuitously thrust upon our attention the speech deli-
vered last evening in the House of Commons by the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Reiterating their one argument against the preser-
vation of the Crystal Palace, the antagonists of Mr.
HEYWOOD yesterday insisted, as we have shown, that
the building must be removed on the close of the
Exhibition, because any other course of proceeding
would be detrimental to the national honour, the
nation being pledged to the removal of the edifice by
the solemn engagement entered into from the first by
the Royal Commissioners. Mr. QOULBURN maintained
this opinion, Sir ROBERT INGLIS maintained it, and,
above all and beyond all, let it not be forgotten for a
moment, Sir CHARLES WOOD maintained it. Now
it appears to us, that this little faction of
opponents to the scheme of preservation have, in
their extreme self-sufficiency, entirely overlooked one
very important consideration, and one which it must
be acknowledged materially militates against the
force of their argument. What we would remind
them of in the matter may be very readily explained.
We would say to them—lf there is this solemn re-
sponsibility, on a plea of honour, requiring the re-
moval of the Crystal Palace after the close of the
Industrial Exhibition, how do you account for that
provision in the contract entered into between the
Messrs. Fox and HENDERSON and the Government,
whereby it was stipulated, on the part of the
nation, that in case it might ultimately be deemed
advisable to retain the structure in its present posi-

tion, an additional limn of 70,0001. should be paid
over to the builders in lieu of the materials which

they would otherwise have carted away themselves ?
It seems to us that this stipulation has been altogether
forgotten, or that it has been overlooked, or worse
still, that it has been disingenuously set aside by Sir
CHARLES WOOD and his companions in their paltry
opposition to the proposal of the Member for
North Lancashire. It is a provision we
conceive, moreover, which would not only exo-
nerate the Government in any change it might deem
advisable in regard to the palace of the Exhibition,
but one which actually empowers them to study in this
matter the wishes as well as the interests of the po-
pulation.
It must be confessed, nevertheless, that our demon-
stration of the unfairness of the arguments adduced
by the enemies of the Crystal Palace is somewhat
superfluous, when it is remembered that the votes in the
House of Commons, last evening, decided emphati-
cally in favour of the continuance of that struc-
ture upon its present site until the May-day
of 1852, by which time ample opportuni-
ties will have been afforded for the discovery
of its value or unimportance as an adornment to the
British metropolis. The thanks of the public are due
to Mr. Herwoon for the sagacious course pursued by
him in a matter of some difficulty, and under
circumstances of no inconsiderable embarrassment.
Indirectly he has been, we are satisfied, the means of
preserving to the capital of England an edifice essen-
tially characteristic of the age, and one which may
prove the means of very materially advancing
the cause of enlightenment and the interests of
civilisation.

The case of Mrs. ANNE Hicxs, whose recent sum-
mary expulsion from Hyde-park, has excited the
public attention and given rise to a paper warfare
waged with considerable energy on either side, was
last night brought under the consideration of the
House of Commons. Lord Sat MOUE, in his official
capacity of First Commissioner of Woods
and Forests, made the promised and anxiously
looked-for statement respecting the eviction
of the veteran ginger-beer seller. We are
bound to say that the Noble Lord, completely estab-
lished the legality of his proceedings. Mrs. HICKS
had no claim that could be enforced at law,
nor could she in a court of justice defend
her possession against the authority of the Crown.
It seems to us, however, that the Chief Commissioner
travelled a little out of the record. He declared
that the unfortunate sufferer " did not hold any
house by the gift of GEoa.B IL, or of any other
Royal personage."
"It needs no ghost to tell us that, Horatio."

If she had such " a gift" you could not hhve driven
her from her humble tenement ; she might have
defied all your powers. "Prescription," a century's
uninterrupted possession might not have sufficed, but
a Royal " gift" could not well be impeached by one
of the servants of the Crown, particularly by one who
regards with such perfect equanimity the invasions and
usurpations on the Royal forests, by persons occupy-
ing more exalted stations in society than Mrs. ANNE
HICKS. The Noble Lord excited a certain degree of
risibility from some aristocratic " olaqueura" while
detailing the correspondence that had taken place
between Mrs. Hicks and the Commissioners. It
might not have been conducted with very great elo-
quence or elegance on the part of the claimant; the
value of " a little fireplace, for the purpose of making
a cup of tea," must appear infinitely ludicrous to
persons of ample fortune. It is not by such argu-
ments that the Duke of GRAFTON would assert
his right to retain the annuities of 7,191/. Iss.
from the Excise revenue, and 3,407/. 103. from the
Post-office. His complaints, if called upon to esta-
blish the perfect legality of his demands, would be lis-
tened to with respectful and earnest attention, and his
advocate would receive the sympathy of the audience.
Mrs. limas has, however, unfortunately no
seat in the hereditary branch of the Legislature.
Although a satirist might. maintain that there are
many old women in that august assembly, ANz
HICKS is not one of the number, nor has she any
friends or relatives returned for nomination boroughs,
to support the Minister in the House of Commons,
and receive a full equivalent through the intercession
of the Treasury whipper-in. The fact, that she ne-
glected to put forward the strength of her case, and
received the necessary permission, rather from the
good feeling of a former Chief Commissioner, than
on the fact that she had been, if not a licensed, at
least, a tolerated occupant for so many years, and
that she owed the privilege to a valuable personal
service rendered by her ancestor to the great-great-
grandfather of our Most Gracious SOVEREIGN, must
be ascribed to her ignorance and inability to obtain
professional advice, and not made a subject of heart-
less jestings, and clumsy and vapid attempts at wit.
After all, however, there has been no attempt to
impeach or contradict in any particular the story
which the injured woman detailed at the Marl-
borough-street Police-court. She simply stated that
her grandfather had extricated King GEORGE the
SECOND from the Serpentine, and had received, as a
mark of Royal gratitude in return, the privilege of
vending cakes and similar articles in the park—that
it had continued for many years in the enjoyment of
his son, and had eventually descended to her-
self—that she had been allowed by the then Com-
missioners to build a shed, on which she had expended
all her eavings, and that she bad been driven
out, without any adequate recompense, and her
humble structure razed to the ground. This story
has now been confirmed in every particular by Lord
SEYMOUR. We say in every particular, because,
under the circumstances of the case, the points not
referred to by the Noble Lord may be taken as con-
fessed. Had he the power of denying with truth
the origin, or the long continuance of the privi-
lege, he would unquestionably have done so; and it
is quite clear that Mrs. HICKS would not have been
allowed to build her shed in 1843 if she bad not some
claim upon the indulgence of the then Commissioners.
We do not, however, blame Lord SEYMOUR.
We may sympathise with Mrs. 'hots, and be quite
willing that she should receive such pecuniary assist-
ance as will place her in at least as good a position as
that which she bad previously occupied. Her cha-
racter we believe to be unimpeachable, although she
might occasionally have resorted to the woman's
weapon—the tongue—to such an extent as to infuse
a salutary terror into those whom Lord SEYMoTJR
euphoniously terms " the Park authorities." She
is, therefore, a fitting object of charity;
but that is no reason why she should
be permitted to transfer to her private
use any portion of public property. We have, how-
ever, a right to demand that the " principle " should
be fully carried out—that the various usurpations on