The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-25 00:00:00

FREEDOM OF THE CITY.

The TOWN-CLERK read a list of applicants to be admitted
to the freedom of the City, and among them was Mr.
Giovannelli, the proprietor of Highb-ary Bark, to be ad-
mittel in the Company of Lorrimers.
The whole of the applications were granted.
The CITY REMEMBRANCER (Mr Corrie) reported to the
Court that a bill had been introduced into the House of
Commons for further regulating the public houses of the
metropolis, but which would not affect the City of London ;
and that another bill had been brought into that house
having for its cbject the regulation of the gaols throughout
the kingdom,which last-mentioned measure proposed to give
very great additional powers to the Home Secretary, and
would not only affect the privileges of the magistrates of
the city of London, but also those of the whole of the ma-
gistrates throughout the country.
Alderman M P., in moving, "That the bill
be printed and a copy sent to every member of the Court,
and that it be also referred to the General Purposes Com-
mittee for them to take such steps in the matter as they
might think fir," said it appeared to him that the measure
referred to verged upon centralisation to such an extent,
and conferred such enormous powers upon the Home Secre•
tary, that the Legislature would never consent to it becom-
ing law. (Hear.) By some of the clauses of the proposed
bill that functionary was invested with the power of making
any rules or appointments in the different gaols throughout
the country that he pleased, and the magistrates were vir-
tually entirely superseded, If this measure became law,
therefore, it would be in the power of the Secretary of
State to appoint Roraan Catholic chaplains, who must be
paid for out of the county rates, and the magistrates would
have no power to interfere. (Hoar, hear.) He did not
know whether the recent decision of the Middlesex magi-
strates refusing to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain, and
the representations made to the Government by a number
of Roman Catholic peers and other influential persons pro-
fessing that religion upon the subject of this decision, had
anything to do with the introduction of this measure, but
he could not help saying that if such proceedings as those
proposed were forced upon a Protestant community, it
would not be going too far to foretell that there would be
another Reforueation in this country. At present every pri-
soner could be visited by the minister of the religion he
professed, and it appeared to him that there was no neces-
sity for granting those additional powers to the Secretary
of State.

Alderman SIDNEY, M.P., inquired by whom the bill had
been introduced into Parliament.

Alderman COPELAND replied by Sir G. Grey.
Alderman SIDNEY then said it appeared to him that the
question was one of so much importance that this Court
ought at once to take active measures in the matter and
come to a resolution to oppose the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Alderman COPELAND observed that it was a public bill,
and could be opposed at any stage, and as a magistrate of
the city of London and of several counties he should cer-
tainly, in his place in Parliament, offer all the opposition to
it that was in his power. (Hear, hear.)
Alderman FINNIS said he thought power ought to be
given to the General Purposes Committee to oppose the bill
by petition or otherwise if they thought necessary.

The '1 OWN CLERK (Mr Woodthorpe) said that the com-
mittee, under the proposed motion, Would have the power to
take any steps they might consider advisable with refer-
ence to the measure.
The motion of Alderman Copeland was then agreed to,
and the court shortly afterwards adjourned.