The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-26 00:00:00

APRIL 26, 1852.

ally attempted to cut her throat, and inflicted a wound
on her throat which still remained unhealed. On that
ua,ruin; he locked her out of her house, and from the
viol2nce of his manner she very much feared that if he
caught her alone ho would carry out his threats, and
murder

Mr. NORTON—Is this the same young man who some
time rgo had been charged wita you at this court?—
Mrs Liefie/d—Yes, Sir, the same.
Me. NORTON—Ik I mi,Atke uot, there Was some mys-
tery c3caeoted with his h:5;;;:y. Have you any objec-
tion to state what it was? Mrs. I, nfield—Not all all,
Sir. The f,ets are that I had been called in to attend
a female in her confinement, and it was the intention of
the mother• to have thrown the child into the canal, and
no clothes were provided for it. It was such a fine child
that I undertook to bring him up as my own. I ac-
cordingly to, t him, and sent him to nurse, but, after
some years, the mother found out where he was, and
took away the poor child. Instead of taking care of the
little fellow, she nearly starved the poor boy, and for
this I had her punished at the :Union•hall Police-court,
and have not since seen her. The real name of the
boy is DAvis, but he has always gone by the name of
William Lin&ld.

Mr. NollToN thought the case was one which the
officers of the parish of Newington ehnuld take cogni-
'A once of, and have the young man taken proper care of,
and directed Lockyer, one of the summoning officers,
to accompany the applicant to Newington Workhouse,
and request one of the relieving officers to attend to it.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.
On Thursday a court was held for the dispatch of
business.

THE NEW CORPORATION BILL.

Alderman SIDNEY rose to call the attention of the
court to what he considered to be a breach of one of the
most important of the privileges of the corporation. It
was well known that the new municipal Bill, which it
was agreed upon all sides was calculated to operate
beneficially for the citizens of London, had been in •
troduced to Parliament, after having undergone
the most grave deliberation and discussion, had
passed through certain stages in the House of Commons
without opposition, but had been suddenly ad-
journed from the 6th to the 29th instant.—(Hear, hear.)
For that postponement, which looked very much like
the result of a confederacy between the clerks of the
companies, to which some of the clauses referred, and
those to whom the office of superintending the passing
of the Bill was committed, no cause was assigned; but
he considered that such a delay was likely to be
fatal to the measure during the present session—an
event which would be greatly to be deplored. Ho thought
the corporation ought to defend their own course of
proceeding in the most determined manner. They had,
after haviug re-argued the clauses afr.cting the City
companies, resolved to prosecute the bill in its entire
condition, and referred it to the freedoms committee,
with perfectly intelligible directions. In the House of
Commons Selection Committee, of which Mr. Bernal was
chairman, however, ho found that the long postponement
had taken place notwithstanding the anxiety so unequi-
vocally expressed that the necessary measure should, as
soon as possinle, become the law of the land. As u
member of the Corporation, and of the House of Com-
mons, he considered it to he his duty to write to Mr.
Bernal upon the occasion, and the following was the
answer he had received from that gentleman :
" 93, Eaton-square, April 12.
TJy dear Alderman Sioney,—l am not able to give
you the information you wish for. I am not aware of
the cause of the postponement of the London Corpora.
tion Bill. When I sat lately in my tribunal the party in
charge of the Bill mentioned that he was not ready to
proceed, and he applied for and obtained a postpone-
ment as a matter of course.—Believe me yours very
truly, " R. BERNAL."
Ho then wrote to the City Remembrancer, who had the
charge of the bill, on the subject, stating his apprehen-
sion that the delay would be, in all probability, fatal to
the accomplishment of the great object of the corpora-
tion in the present session of Parliament. To that com-
munication he received ihe following reply :
" Guildhall, 13th April, 1852.
_

" My dear Sir,—ln eons, quence of the Court of Com-
mon. Council not having determined upon the form of
the bill until the 2d instant, I was unable to settle the
bill with Lord Redesdale by the 6th instant, and It was
in consequence postponed. I particulary request‘d Mr.
Bernal to fix the earliest day he could after the Easter
rece.s for the committee on the bill, which I have no
doubt he has done.

" If Parliament continue long enough to pass the ge.
neral private business, I see no reason why the Corp°.
ration Bill should not pass.—l am, dear sir, yours truly
" E. TYRRELL.
_ _

" Mr. Alderman Sidney."
He subsequently wrote again to the Rembrancer, repre-
senting that there was a mistake as to the actual
condition of the Bill, the principle of which had been
a,treed upon in aoeber, and had never been disturbed
since, notwithstanding the efforts made to esicluae
the companies from its operation. It however up
peered teat the proceedings of the court were to be
disregarded; and ho had been just informed that it
would be an act of policy to give the exemption to the
companies, in order to secure the success of au important
measure, the most imetortayt part of which tended to the
diminution of the power winch those companies had
usurped.—(Hear, hear.) He had given notice of a mo
Slim upon the subject to the Town Clerk, but that officer
had not complied with his request to place the motion
upon the paper of business. Now he would seriously
ask the court whether they would surrender their Bill
in consequence of the machinations of what he might
a little c,nspiracy within doors? whether they would al-
low their proceedings, calculated as these proceedings
were, to extend to their fellow citizens generally the
right to vote for the highest municipal offices, to be tam-
pered with and rendered of no avail?—(Hear, hear.)
Alderman Sidney concluded by moving the following re-
solution :
" That this court having been informed that the
Corporation Election Bill has been introduced into
Parliament, and was on the 15th of March last read a
second time in the House of Commons, and committed
and referred to the Committee of Selection without op-
position; that the time fixed for its further consideration
by that Committee was the 6th of April, but at the
express instigation of Mr. Remembrancer was post.
poned, and is now fixed for the 29th instant; that this
delay iu the consideration of the Bill endangers its pass-
ing through Parliament during the present session, and
thereby defeats the intention of this honourable court iu
seeking to rectity the acknowledtghe conductedevilsof
othie present
state of the municipality; that
membrancer, as the Parliamentary officer of the corpo•
the passing of this measure into a
raft n, in delaying
law, is unauthorised, and is in contravention to the de-
cisions of this court."
(Strong expressions of disapprobation, and loud cries
of " Withdraw, withdraw.")
Mr. BENNOCU seconded the resolution.
The TOWN-CLERK—The principle upon which I acted
in not
muting Alderman Sidney's notice of motion upon
the paperr of business is that upon which it has been the
invariable practice of the Court to act. The question
was a question of privilege, which, by right, takes pre-
cedence of all other matters, and without any notice
vithatever, and if I had placed the notice upon the paper
of business, such act would have been an unwarrantable
interference with the rule and practice,._(Hear, hear.)
The REBIENBRANcER described, in a manner which
called forth the loud and unanimous approbation of the
Court, the whole of the proceedings adopted by him
for the purpose of facilitating the progress of the mew
sure in Parliament. He showed that he had acted,
.not hastily nor negligently, but deliberately, cautiowly,
Led energetically, in the performance of his duty; that
tile delay which had taken place was unavoid.ble, and
tie at everything had been dune to carry out the inlets-
Loa's of the Court—an object which could not be accom-
pi i 4 bed without a very close and judicious attention to
the, ~everal stages of the bill;
1 iii. ANDERTUN said it was quite evident that the re-
geo,l on upon the conduct of the Reasembrancer was quite
an e,tror, and Mr. Alderman Sidney would not hesitate
to wi tOdraw that part at least of his motion.—(Cheers.)
Alt,4 Than SIDNEY nodded assent.
Mr. WILLIAM JONES said if the complaint bad been
made 1,3' any one except a member of Parliament he
would look upon it as being too ridiculous to be noticed.
---(Lou I laughter.) He was quite satisfied that the
Rernemi arancer had acted upon the important occasion
with the judgment which that gentleman never failed to
exhibit i is the performance of his duties, and he believed
that in Parliamentary proceedings of the nature to
which chi fir Attention had been drawn, policy was the
better part of valour.—(Hear.)
Mr. G ODSON said he thought the delay which had
taken place, would be of advantage to the Bill, which
would, no doubt, come out of Parliament somewhat
alter, d in a Nape and condition.
Mr. R. 'AYLOR said he saw from the Remembrancer's
statement tl sat the Bill had been taken to Lord Bodes-
dale, and hi wished to know why that course had been
pursued, id en the Bill had not as yet passed the Com
mons.

The RE3IB MBRANCER said it was the invariable prac-
tioe of Paris smentary agents to apply to have Bills
settled in the A 'louse of Lards before the passing of such
Bills in the IYouse of Commons.
Mr. STAci :said it was obvious that the Remem-
brancer had ac, 'cd by the direction of the committee,
that there was a difference of opinion between the Court
and the committi ',O, and if the Court attached blame to
the Remembrance T for the act of the committee, it would
have been more n asonablo not to have appointed a com-
mittee at all.—(H, tar, hear.)
Mr. HENRY BLA Ka said the fault lay with the QOM-
mittee, whose duty it was to advocate the Bill in its in-
tegrity; instead of doing which, they had taken out its
essence.
Mr. Deputy Bow ER pleaded guilty to the charge of
having agitatiA the necessity of altering the Bill to meet
the difficulties wb ich presented themselvesile,i'llieatrhe)
threatened oppositio in of the companies.—(float,
Ile was convinced t hat the corporation would, backed.
by such a power as the new Bill would give them, b•
soon enabled to car ry the clauses whicri lay in thew;
of it 4 success. _ _ _

Mr. b. PHILLIPS anti Mr. TOWSE approved of the
whole proceedings Pf the itemeinhrancer upon the Bill,
and look,cl to the e 1-nt with confidence.
' Mr. Deputy Flat tstisoN defended the committee from
the attack which Ell considered Alderman Sidney bad
made upon thew, thi'ough the medium of the insinuatioss
against the Remert ;brancer, and moved as an amend-
ment that the expl.el cation of that officer was most satis-
tactory.—(ll.ar, 'not )
Mr. Deputy S. rEv ENS seconded the amendment.
Alderman Sr ONEY said he had sought several oppor-
tunities of with
drawing his motion, but :such had been
the excited stat e of the court that ha could not make
himself under& .00d.
There wc.3 some objection to the off,'. of Alderman
Sidney to wish draw the resolution, but ultimately the
court agreed to a motion to that effect.