The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-27 00:00:00

THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE.

Deputy FRY moved " That it be referred to the Officers
and Clerks' Committee to consider the duties of the clerks in
the Town Clerk's-office, and to report their opinion as to the
present arrangements for conducting the business of the
office; and whether any, and, if any, what increase should
be made to the salaries of the clerks." He said it appeared
to him that the present system of salaries was not a satisfac-
tory one, and that it was advisable that something should
be done so as to have a progressive increase according to
ability and length of service, and thus prevent the necessity
for the frequent applications that were being made for in-
crease of salaries. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was agreed to.

THE THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Deputy jortss brought up a report from the Law. Par-
liamentary, and City Courts Bill upon the subject of the
Thames:Conservancy Bill at present before Parliament, and
also the draft of a petition against it. The hon. deputy, in
moving that the report be agreed to, expressed his opinion
that this bill contained provisions which most materially
affected the rights and privileges of the Corporation, and
that there was nothing in the report of the committee of the
House of Commons that in any way justified such a radical
measure. (Hear, hear.)
Deputy ELLIOTT said he thought the Court ought to
pause before they decided upon going to Parliament to op-
pose this measure. It was true that some additional conser-
vators were to be appointed, and that they were to be paid
£1,500 a year salary, but the Corporation of London would
still form one-third of the whole body, which he could not
help expressing his opinion was a fair share. He was afraid
that if the Corporation was continually going before Parlia-
ment they would obtain the character of being a very med-
dling body, who were thinking of nothing else but looking
after what they considered their own rights and privileges.
Alderman SoLomoNs complained of such a measure
having been introduced, and said he could come to no other
conclusion respecting it than that the privileges of the Cor-
poration in their capacity of conservators of the river would
be very materially abridged, and that additional powers
would be given to the Government, and that in fact it would
be a complete departmental job. (Hear.) He maintained
that the Corporation of London had faithfully performed its
duty in reference to the erection of piers in the river, and
rendering that important highway as accessible as possible.
(Rear, hear,) The proposed bill not only affected the rights
of the Corporation, but would also entirely confiscate and
destroy the ancient privileges of the Watermen'e Company,
and a great many of his constituents were deeply interested
in that portion of the question. At present none but com-
petent persons were entitled to navigate craft upon the river,
or without a license from the Watermen's Company ; but if
this bill became law these licenses would be altogether
abolished, and any person, whether competent Or not, might
take the charge of a boat or other craft, and the safety of
the public, as it appeared to him, would be seriously endan-
gered.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR said it appeared to him that ..e more
flagrant act of injustice had been committed by
rant7eGo_vieemr%
ment than the bringing in of this measure after solemn
compact ago,
compact made with the Corporation only sear,
t objectionable,
alterations were, in his opinion, most but which was now entirely ignored. (II
proposed near.) The
the
and hear.)
every means in their power. t
(Sear,right that the Court should
he thought the Corporation ought to oppose bill y
present body of conservators
proposed measure. (Hear.)
FRYo thseafiadc he
bepaeratlye
Deputy JONES the petition
After a few words in reply r
eththatoutghhettle
were unanimously opposed tof
from
mprop
was agreed to.
A letter was read from the secretary to the Thames Angling
Preservation Society,thanking the
Court for its liberal
guineas aid
donation of one hundred
the society.
The letter was ordered to be entered upon the minutes of
the Court.