The Express.
London, England, 1859-10-19 00:00:00

ettPiIVISION or •10=131.

Mr. Alderman 11,788 moved "TWt iTiss referred to s
committee to take into consideration the law Mass to the
sworn brokers of this city, and to report thereon." The
subject generally vina, Intend, a very important one, and as
be believed that the new Corporation Reform Bill might
propose to deal with It, he thought an inquiry ought to take
place, In wiser that if the government should call upon them
for information, they might be prepared to sbow that they
bad eurciesd a proper supervision over that olses of gen-
tlemen who acted between parties as brokers in sale and pur-
chase.

Mr. Aklarman HALL is emondiag the motion, exprewsed
his belief that the supervision of the court over brokers was
attended with very great advantage.
Alduman Sir P. LAURI' reminded the court that the
Court of Common Council had decided to agree with nothiag
that injured the rights of the Livery. He did not know
whether the motion would hays that effect, but with regard
to • Corporstion Reform Bill it was, in his opinion, a hose
altogether.
Mr. Alderman Roan said the motion would not interfere
with the rights of the Livery in any way. It wee only •
question of j addiction se televised by that wort for meaty
yeses peat.
Mr. Alderman 13/1)Nli thought that before anult a motion
was outdo the mover ought to have been prepared to show at
least a prima fade reeran for the einentimeat of the present
reirak&oe. Bat Mr. Alderman Rose had dew nothing of
the kind, sad ea the government, Is their bill, would= doubt
deal with the question, and very likely deprive that open of
its jurisdiction over bookers altogether, he held that the
lams of a committee viand he thrown away. He there-
fore as an mornilment moved the previous question.
Sir P. LA C ate seconded the amendment.

Mr. Alderman LAWRENCI said the mere probsbility that
the government would deal with the supervinon of Lookout
in their bill was is itself a sufficient raison for the appoint-
ment of a committee of inquiry.
Mr. Alderman COPILAND said ha did not intend to oppose
the motion, bat at the same time he fait bound to armee his
opinion that the court could never exercise supervision in an
efficient manner miler the legislature armed them with
ampler powers. What had been their experience in cases
what they had interfered to premed against brokers who
had been guilty of breaches of the regulations ? Within the
lest year or so there had bees two such mere, and in
both the petitioning parties ultimately withdrew
because the nutter had been compromised, and so
that court had been merely made the medium of
diseang compromises, where 80/11ethialt further ought to
have been done, since one of the cams more especially was
of the mot flagrant descripdon. And then there were the
shipowners, who advertised emigration versals to sail on •
certain day, and who, by detaining their vessels beyond the
day, often indicted the greatest hardship and suffering upon
the poor solpreata. He should like to ese something done
to marl these men to keep faith with the emigrants.
The LORD MAYOR Mid the Lew Silt stood wen strong
enough to deal wilt this evil; and it was their own fault that
It was sot more often put Into opseatiorh.
Mr. Aldermen Ross said that in the two mere referred to
by Mr. Alderman Copeland, In which proceedings had been
stayed, the supervision of the court, so far even Si It went,
exercised • most salutary and stringent influence, since the
peilioners obtained full end substantial redress.
The amendment was then negatived, and the motke was
agreed to.