THE EXHIBITION (SYDENHAM). (Hansard, 22 November 1852)

§ LORD PANMURE
having presented a petition from the Free Synod of Aberdeen against the opening of the Exhibition (Sydenham) on any part of the Lord's Day,

§ The EARL of DERBY
said, he was glad to have the opportunity of calling their Lordships' attention to the subject to which the petition had reference, and 274 respecting which he had not had a previous opportunity of giving an explanation. He begged to be permitted to state how the case stood with respect to the proposed charter which was sought to be obtained for the Crystal Palace, because misapprehensions had arisen concerning it which had taken a great hold on the public mind, and he should be gratified if the explanation he could give would relieve any of the parties from their apprehensions, and relieve him from the vast number of memorials which were presented to him almost every day of his life. When first it was determined to form the Crystal Palace Company, it was a great object with the Directors to have a charter of incorporation—not to give them any powers which the law did not give them before, but for the purpose of securing to the shareholders the advantage of a limited liability, which would afford great facilities for carrying into effect the objects they contemplated; and a memorial was presented to the Government accordingly. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley) was not in this country at the time the Company made their application; but he (the Earl of Derby) saw the Directors of the Company; and when they had stated their views to him, he stated to them that he thought the most convenient course they could pursue was to put down in the form of a draught Charter the objects they had in view, and the restrictions to which they proposed to submit, in regard to the opening of the building on the Sunday, in order to obtain the countenance of the Government. He had since been in communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), and the parties were informed that they were to consider the conversation that had taken place as merely an explanation of the views of the Government with regard to restrictions as to the opening on Sundays; but as to the issuing of any charter at all, that was a subject for consideration on the part of the proper authorities. They had proceeded on the assumption that there was nothing in the law which prevented the opening of the Palace on Sundays, and thought they had only to consider what clauses it would be necessary to introduce on granting the charter. He had no hesitation in saying, for his own part, that (subject to the restrictions which the Company had declared its willingness to submit to), the opening 275 of the Crystal Palace on the Sunday, far from being a desecration of the Sabbath, would be a great benefit to the people of this overcrowded metropolis, by enabling them to avail themselves on the Sunday afternoon of the innocent recreation and amusement provided for them by the building and the beautiful grounds attached to it. If this scheme had involved an exhibition of articles of manufactures, machinery, and commerce, within the walls, and the attendance of the exhibitors to explain their inventions in arts, science, and manufactures, or if it had required the presence of a numerous body of attendants to guard and protect them on the Sunday, he might have taken a very different view of the subject. But the representatives of the Company had stated to him that their object was to close on the Sunday all the exhibition of machinery, manufactures, and commerce, and merely to throw open their beautiful park, garden, and conservatory, setting aside for that purpose certain hours, which would not interfere with the attendance of the population of London at Divine Service in the morning. It was further intimated to him by the Directors that it was their intention to run trains to the building itself, to issue return tickets, and to carry their visitors direct from the locality to London; they would thus be prevented from being scattered over the vicinity, and from being accumulated in the public-houses in the evening. It was also stated to him that it was the intention of the Directors to prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors in the precincts of the building and in the building itself. Subject to those restrictions, and to the risk of violating them, he still continued to be of opinion, notwithstanding the remonstrances that had been addressed to him, that, far from desecrating the Sabbath, the opening of the Crystal Palace on the Sunday would be useful to the population in giving them fresh air and amusement, and in promoting moral and social improvement among the working classes. Since these arrangements had been spoken of, a question had arisen as to whether the opening of the Crystal Palace could not be prohibited under the existing law, and whether under a certain statute—passed for a very different purpose, and enacting that the payment of money for admission into any place of amusement on a Sunday should be deemed an illegal offence—it could be opened at all. If that should be the ease, he need not Bay that no clause 276 inserted in the charter could render that legal which was declared illegal by law; and if such were the law, it could only be altered by the authority of Parliament, and they would not attempt to mislead the public opinion by giving a sanction which they could not really give. The alteration could only be made with the consent of Parliament; and he hoped that he might he permitted to say, on the part of Ministers, that if the payment for admission into the Crystal Palace on the Sunday were found to be contrary to the law, they would be the last persons to ask for the enactment of such a provision as would legalise it, however advantageous they might think it for the health, comfort, and morality of the population. When the clause to which he had referred was proposed to be introduced into the charter, it was looked upon by the Government, and by the promoters of the project, as a restrictive clause; but if the opening of the Crystal Palace should be illegal—a point which was then under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown—no clause authorising it would be inserted in the charter. In that case, the clause must be inserted, not by the consent of Her Majesty's Ministers, but by the authority of Parliament.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE
said, he had listened a few nights previous with great gratification to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, in which he referred to four or five subjects of legal reform; but he was disappointed at finding no mention whatever of an amelioration or amendment of the law of partnership. Under the present state of the law it was impossible for persons who had moderate means to associate their capital together, whereby their earnings would fructify in a laudable manner. Why should they not be permitted to associate together under the limited liability which the directors of the Crystal Palace Company were now so anxious to obtain? The consequence of the present state of the law was that they had to go to the Board of Trade for a charter, and the granting of that charter was regulated by no fixed rule whatever. That was a great grievance, because it gave to large capitalists the power to enter into speculations such as this; whereas a large number of small capitalists who were inclined to invest their money in such an undertaking were unable to do so. He would suggest to those who were much more competent to deal with the subject then he was, that it would be a most use- 277 ful and acceptable reform, if a law of partnership were passed something like that in operation in France, or like that in force in Ireland, which had been found to work most beneficially in that country.

LORD CAMPBELL
rose to express the high satisfaction with which he had heard the statement of the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted that statement would be satisfactory to the great majority of the country. Their Lordships would recollect that he had been no friend originally to the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, but since it was transferred to Sydenham he was the warm friend of it, as conducive, not only to the recreation of the people, but to the cause of morality and religion. Under the restrictions which the noble Earl had stated, he believed the opening of it on the afternoon of Sundays, would not only be a recreation, but of the greatest advantage. There was an Act of Parliament in force, which prevented the taking money for admission into any place of public amusement or recreation on a Sunday; but he trusted that Parliament would relax that law in favour of the Crystal Palace Company, in consideration of the restrictions mentioned by the noble Earl opposite, and assented to by the Company.