The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-07 00:00:00

rfiE SUN, LOADON, WEDNESDAY EVEISIN

Court of Aldermen,

Yesterday the Aldermen of London held a meeting at
Guildhall, for the despatch of business, the Lord Mayor

(Alderman Hale) presiding.
For the first time in the history of the Corporation, a
Parsee gentleman applied to the Court for permission to

practice the profession of a broker in the city of London
The applicant was Burzorgeo Durabjeo Burzorjee, and he

asked to be admitted to act as a general produco broker. A

number of gentlemen of repute in the city had certified to
his great respectability, and he had complied with all the
requisite formalities. The Court, recognising the applicant
as a subject of her Majesty in India, gave the requisite per-
mission with every mark of respect.

BROILERS' RENTS.
This subject was brought yesterday under the prominent
consideration of the Court in a variety of ways. Of late the

impost of brokers' rents levied on that class of the commu-
nity in the city has caused some dissatisfaction both among
some of those who pay and still more among those who
contrive to evade it. By way of rendering what follows
intelligible it should be stated that from time imme-

moriai the Court of Aldermen has, in the public in-
terest, exercised a supervision over the numerous class
of brokers in the city. First of all it requ;res that the
memorial of every applicant for permission to practise shall
be endorsed by a limited number of persons of known stand-
ing and repute, who are able to vouch for his respectability,

and then that he shall give security for his good behaviour,
and especially for his observance of certain long-established
and recognised rules fur the conduct of his business, him-
self in £l,OOO and two sureties in £5OO each. The principal
ene of those rules, which are entirely conceived in the pub-
lic interest, is that a broker shall never act except in the
legitimate capacity of an intermediary between buyer and
seller—in other words, that he shall not act as a buyer or
seller on his own account. The supervision of the megis-

strates of London in this respect, to the evasion of which a

penalty of £lOO attaches, has, upon the whole, always been
beneficial, and again and again men who have taken upon
themselves the office of a broker without authority have
been brought within the scope of the criminal law for frauds
which they have practised upon innocent and confiding
persons, It remains to be stated that brokers pay each a

small nominal rent of £5 a year to the Corporation, just as
an attorney pays an annual sum for keeping his right to
practise his profession on foot, and these rents pio-

duce from £5,000 to £G,OOO a year, which sum goes
to augment the general revenues of the city. The
subject received a curious illustration from an incident
in the proceedings of yesterday. A memorial addressed to
the Court was read from Messrs Capper, Escoute, and Law.

son, stockbrokers. They stated that on the sth of Nov. Mr
G. C. Capper, one of their firm, received an order from the
Chamberlain of London, in accordance, as he understood,
with an order of a committee of Aldermen, instructing him
to sell sufficient Consols standing in the names of the poor

of Emmanuel Hospital, which is governed by the Court of
Aldermen, to produce the sum of £7OO, Mr Capper being
out of town, the sale was effected by his partners, and the
stock duly transferred by the Chamberlain on the 16th of
November. On the 21st the memorialists, very much to
their sarprise, received a letter from the City solicitor re-

questing them to favour hint, on or before the 24th, with
£3OO, being penalties incurred by them for acting as brokers
within the City wiatout being admitted by the Court of

Mayor and Aldermen, The memorialists urged that they

had not the remotest idea that in carrying out the instruc-
tions of a commiiteo of the Court of Aldermen they were

rendering themselves ;liable to a penalty, or that as any
members of the Stcck Exchange they were incurring

penalty in charging commission on transactions entered into
by them in the execution of their business. Had they had

any such idea they would hive lost no time in applying to

the Court of Aldermen tor admission to the office of broker.
Having now for the that time learnt that they were con-

travening the city laws they were willing at once to make
the requisite application, and to take such steps as were
necessary for their admission. Under the circumstances
considering that they were acting in total ignorance of
doing anything that was not strictly legal and right, the
memorialists humbly prayed the Court to instruct the City
Solicitor to withdraw his application for the penalties so
unconsciously incurred in carrying out the instructions of
one of their committees.

On the motion of Alderman WATERLow, seconded by
Alderman Sir R. CARDEN; the prayer of the memorial was

granted.

Mr CORRIE, the Remembrancer, reported that notice
had been given of an intention by parties outside the Cor-
poration to apply to Parliament next Session to repeal so
much of an existing act as imposes a penalty of £lOO on any
person acting as a broker without the requisite licence from
the Court of Alderman.

Alderman WATERLOW then proceeded, pursuant to no-
tice, to propound a motion on the general subject. 116
thought the time had arrived when the Court of Aldermen
should take active steps to place all the brokers in the city
of London on the same footing. There were men, he said,
who regularly followed the business of a broker, and yet
who gave no security for their good behaviour and paid no
rent, while all the more legitimate practitioners obeyed the
regulations laid down by the magistrates in the public in-
terest. He read an extract from a letter recently addressed
by "A Sworn Broker" to the Times, is which the writer

said :—" The Lord Mayor has recently had before him a
person who was charged on suspicion with improper deal-
ings, and who has been notorious for the last two years for
advertising in all the papers that ho b ught and old stocks
and shares at half the usual commission, The Lord Mayor
had this person's contracts produced before him when in-
vestigating the charge. Now, on behalf of the public and
my brother brokers I wish to ask the Lord Mayor the fol-
lowing questions : —Did any of the city officers take pro-
ceedings against this man during the time he was exten-
sively advertising to buy or sell, he not being an authorised
broker ? If they did net, then the plea of protection to the
public is all nonsense. Had the authorities done their duty
the aggrieved party would perhaps not have had to appear
as a prosecutor. Since the case transpired has the Lord
Mayor instructed the proper officers to inflict the pains and
penalties upon the off!nder for those contracts which came
under his notice ? If ho has not done so, it only shows
that I am fined in the sum of £5 every year because I am
too conscientious to run the risk of breaking a law which
the great municipal authorities have not the inclination to
put in force. The instance I have referred to is not en
isolated one. There aro andhave been numbers exercising
the calling of a broker without any impediment from the
civicunaer authorities, and
similar to many have appeared before them
those I have just referred
to," Upon that letter the writer of the Money article in the
limes thus commented :—" The objections to the payment
are not well founded, but the argument that the city, so long
as they exact it, aro bound to enforce vigilantly those regu-
lations for the advantage of the public which aro urged as
the justification for it. cannot be questioned. Many circum-
stances recently transpired would seem to
strengthenset
much
h
impression that the corporation have in this
p
good, and it may therefore be
re
et
power to do
hoped they will now give attention to the matter, and for
their own dignity resolve either to deal unflinchingly for
the future with every case that
may require action, or to
abandon the impost altogether." Alderman Waterlow next
read a letter, similar in its object and purport, addressed by
Mr Heise, of Hatton-court, Threadneedle-street, a stock
and sharebroker of nearly 20 years standing, to the City so-
licitor; and he moved that it be referred to the General
Purposes Committee to adopt such measures as they thin
fit for ascertaining what persons were acting as brokers
in the City and liberties without being duly admitted by the
Court, and for enforcing against them the penalty imposed
by the act of Parliament, and that the committee have au-
thority to give such directions in the matter as might from
time to time be requisite.
The motion was seconded by Alderman Rosa, M.Pi,who,
speaking from an experience of 25 years, held that the su-
pervision exorcised by the Court over the brokershad tended
greatly to the public advantage, both from the promptitude
and publicity with which it was broUght to bear upon those
who evaded the law, and from the practical influence it had
over the dealings of all the more respectable of the brokers.
The resolution was put and carried.