The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-22 00:00:00

Court of Common Council,

Yesterday, at a meeting of the Common Council, held at
Guildhall, the Lord Mayor presiding, Mr Alderman Rese
called attention to a bill which had been introduced into
Parliament for reconstructing the Thames Conservancy
Board and adding six new members, three of whom are to
represent the shipowners, two the steamboat interest, and
one the barge owners. The bill, he said, also provided for
the first time for the payment of members of the board, and
apportioned a sum of £5OO a year to the deputy-chairman.
He regarded that part of the measure as extremely objec-
tionable, for this, among other reasons, that the representa•
tives of the Common Council at the board had always consi-
dered it an honour to serve the corporation in that capacity.
But he has opposed to the whole principle of the bill, inas-
much as it went completely to disturb a great settlement of
long-pending suits between the Crown and the corporation
come to only seven years ago, and which established the
Conservancy Board on its present basis, Mr Thorpe,
deputy-chairman of the Conservancy Board, explained that .
the bill was founded on the report of a select committee of
the House of Commons, who had carefully investigated the
manner in which the Conservancy had been performed since
1857, when the settlement referred to was arrived at. He
added, in reply to Mr Hartridge, that the bill had been in-
troduced by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and
not at the instigation of the Conservancy Commissioners.
Deputy Harrison expressed in strong terms the surprise
with which he had heard that it was in contemplation to ect
aside a charter granted by the Crown and confirmed by
Parliament only a few years ago. Eventually, on the mo-
tion of Alderman Rose, copies of the bill, of the report, and
evidence on which it was founded, and of the Act of Par-
liament of 1857, which embodied the agreement effecting
the compromise in question, were ordered to be sent to
every member of the court. Mr Lawley brought forward a
motion, of which he had given notice, to the effect that the
corporation, highly appreciating the municipal institu-
tions which it had enjoyed for so many centuries, and
believing that the time had now arrived when the privileges
of self-government should be extended to those portions of
the metropolis not yet intrusted with the management of
their own local affairs, and desiring to aid in the accomplish-
ment of that result, were prepared to contribute the sum of
£5,000 as a nucleus of a borough fund to each of the Par-
liamentary boroughs of Southwark, Westminster, Maryle-
bone, Lambeth, Finsbury, and the Tower Hamlets, to be
paid them when these boroughs shall have obtained charters
of incorporation, under the provisions of the Municipal Cor-
porations Act. He grounded his motion chiefly on the ten-
dency to spread of the obnoxious system of centralisation,
which he contended was adverse to popular liberty, and of
which they had examples in the administration of the poor
laws and the police, and in the proceedings of the Metrope-
litan Board of Works, and in the changing character of the
constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board. He dwelt
also on the right of the metropolitan boroughs to municipal
institutions, having regard to their enormously increasing
population. Between 1831 and 1861, a period of 20 years,
he said the population of Southwark had increased front
134,000 to 193,000, in round numbers ; of Westminster
from 202,000 to 254,000; of Finsbury, from 224,000 to
387,000; of Marylebone, from 134,000 to 436,000; of Lam-
beth, from 150,000 to 294,300 ; and of the Tower Hamlets,
from 302,000 to 647,000. The motion was seconded by M;
Rudkin. On the other hand, Mr. Anderton ridiculed the
idea of the Corporation of London expending £30,000 in an
enterprise so Quixotic—and Mr. De Jersey opposed the
motion, contending that the Common Council ought to be
above the attempt to maintain the prestige of the Corpora-
tion
by seeking to obtain municipal institutions for agglo-
merations of parishes throughout the metropolis. Deputy
Elliott deprecated the Corporation interfering in the manage-
ment of other people's affairs to the neglect of their own.
The motion was received with little sympathy, and at one
thee the Court was very nearly being counted out. Mr
Medwin spoke in favour of the proposition, as
holding out
the right hand of fellowship to the metropolitaialcommuniiy,
by whom the Corporation of London
was regarded with
envy. Mr. H. Lowman Taylor contended that the nich-oe
politan boroughs had the power of
establishing municipal
institutions for themselves if they wished, without any as-
sistance from the Corporation of London. The motion was
eventually withdrawn. Mr Fry, cha !man of the Improve-
ment Committee, reported that they had accepted,_ subject to
the approval of the Court, a tender of Messrs. Bros ne endßobinson for the erection of improved .swellings the
labouring peer, at the sum of ie7,043. The report was
adopted,

The beautiful chateau of Chenoncettur, on the
Loire, which has for some time barn advertised for
sale, has just been purchased by M. Pelouze, a son of the
celebrated chemist and a member of the Institute, for
800,000 f., with the land belonging to it. This chateau was
bequeathed by Catherine de Medicis to the widow of Henry
111., who gave it in marriage to her niece, the Duchess de
Vendome. In 1720 it was sold by the Princess de Concl6
to the Duke de Bourbon, who subsequently sold it to a
farmer of taxes named Dupin, from whom, in 1799, it
passed to the family of Vallet de Villeneuve.