The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-13 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL

Yesterday a Court was held for the dispatch of
business.
Mr. STACEY called the attention of the Court to an
article which appeared a few days ago in the Globe
Newspaper, on the subject of the prosecution against
Mr. Rock and others in the Mayor's Court, for hazing
carried on business in the City of London, without
taking out their freedoms, and also accusing the Cor-
poration of extravagant expenditure.
After afew observations on the subject,
Mr. LAURANCE said that he supposed the next
course the Court would adopt would be to summon the
printer of the Globe before the Court, and deal with
him according to his deserts.—(Laughter.)
The Towx-asai said that he had applied to the
attorney who conducted the prosecution for the particu-
lars of the case, and that as soon as he received the
documents they should be laid before the Court.
ROYAL EXCHANGE COMPENSATION COURT PROCEED.

INGS.

lAs soon as a Report from the Royal Exchange
Committee upon some subject of no moment was
brought up,
Mr. FRENCH (of Cornhill, whose premises were burnt
down along with the other buildings connected with the
Royal Exchange), rose and said, " I have, my Lord
Mayor, to complain of a gross falsehood which was
chargedt against me in a recent trial with the City. Sir
V 4 illiam Follett, who was Counsel for the City, proved
by one of my witnesses that I was a member of this
Court, and as such ought to know and did know, that
my house, No. 86, Cornhill, which I bought from Mr.
M'Cabe, would be required for the improvements, and
therefore 1 bought it with an intention to defraud the
City. As the City called no witnesses my Counsel could
have no reply. I therefore myself, on Sir Wm. Follett
resuming his seat, charged that Learned Gentleman with
having promulgated a falsehood with regard to me, and
having argued on those premises to my prejudice with
the Jury, when the Learned Gentleman, in the most hand-
some manner, showed his brief to one of my Counsel
and myself, and said, pointing to the lines, ' Such
are my instructions.' At that moment the Chair-
man of the Committee was referred to, and he
said " It as notorious as the sun at noon-day that he
did know," and in consequence of that the Jury are not
disabused of the fact, and I have therefore lost a clear
2,000/. I declare now, as I declared before, that the
whole was a direct and positive falsehood, and I chal-
lenge all the lawyers about this Court, the Chairman
of the Royal Exchange Committee, and all the members
-of that Committee individually, to disprove that asser-
tion. What are the facts, my Lord Mayor? I hold in
my hand a check for 1,0001., which I gave the day after
the fire for the house, 86, Cornhill, on condition that I
should get possession on the same day, which posses-
sion I did accordingly obtain. My check is dated the
12th January, and indorsed to Robert M'Cabe. and was
passed by that gentleman through the Bank of England.
The remaining 1,5001. was paid on the 22d, when the
writings were complete. This Court was not called
together till the 18th, for the purpose of forming a
Committee for consulting with the Mercers' Company
as to the best steps to be taken with regard to the re-
building, at which period I had been in possession six
days, and the Committee did not make its report until
the Bth of March ensuing, I have refunded 3,300/.,
since the fire.took place, on the leases, No. 86 and 80,
Cornhill. The Jury have, in consequence of this most
detestable falsehood, only awarded me 1.282/., by which
>-o• u will see that I have incurred a dead loss of more
than 2,000/. This is the most awful tyranny to which
any roan can possibly be subjected.
Mr. STEVENS said that Mr. French evidently felt
that his character was at stake, and it was not to
be wondered at that he expressed himself strongly. He
felt that he was injured in his person, but he felt more
deeply that there was a reflection upon his character in
the eourse pursued towards him.—(Hear, hear.) In
fact the 41010 matter ought to be investigated by the
Royal Exchange Committee, and who could ascertain
and state from whci7rt
the information as to Mr.
French's knowledge of the Matter imputed to him pro-
-1 ceeded ?—(Hear, hear.)
Alderman COPELAND said that it would be rather too
much for the law officer of the Court to put in his brief,
which had no foundation in fact, and was not borne out
Ny his instructions. He would put it to Mr. French
whether it would not be advisable in him to go to a su-
-1 perier sour t witk the question.—(Hear.) He (Alder-
man Copeils:nd) was willing that the matter should go
to a Committee :o ascertain why such a charge, calcu-
lated to injure Mr. Fre:.7ch's character and property, had
been made against him. .I"',e circumstances most cer-
tainly ought to be investigated. ,I;Ic happened to be
accidentally acquainted with the circtirn....tance.,?l Fr.
French's negociation about the house :: Mr.
M'Cabe, and would bear testimony to the fact that
the negociation took place in the manner de-
scribed by Mr. French, He should move that it
be referred to the Royal Exchange and Ores-
ham eztaimittee to examine and report under what
circumstances the instructions were given to Coun-
sel in the case of French against the Royal Exchange.
Another touching the knowledge of Mr. French that
his house in Cornhill would be taken ; and whether the
reprosentations made on the authority of the instruc-
tions diminished the just compensation he would have

other write -veceitTed.
Mr. LAURANCE was titwe that the Utimmiitee would-
not sanction such a proceeding as that described.
Mr. FRENCH----It is due to myself to say, that I have
been grossly abused. I shall first clear my character,
and then I shall try whether I cannot obtain justice in
other respects.—( Hear, hear.) I shall apply, if neces-
sary, to the highest authority in the land, without
caring about the expense to which I may be subjected.
—(Hear, hear.)
After some observations from other members of the
the Court, the motion was unanimously agreed to.

---- .
ROYAL EXCHANGE.
Mr. STEVENS said he had a petition to present to
the Court, the language of which must astonish many
of the members, considering the length of time which
had elapsed since the occasion arose for it. All would
remember that when the plans were submitted to the
three eminent architects, eight designs were selected,
to three of whom the prizes were awarded as being the
best of those which came within the instructions of the
Committee, although they at the same time rep rrted
that gone of them were fit to be carried into execution.
The Petitioner obtained the first prize of 300/. ; an en-
deavour was then made to refer these three selected
designs to threes eminent architects, so that they
might make one out of the whole, but they
refused to undertake the enviable office. They
were then referred to two atl'er eminent architects;
but they likewise refused the job ; ~,:el now it had been
agreed upon that a reference should be :nade, to one,
architect, Mr. J. Smith, the architect of the .o..fercere
Company. It was expected that, at all events, wrieln
a reference was made, all the five plans, but
most certainly the three which had gained the prizes,
would have been those referred, but how great was the
surprise of all when it was found that not one of them
were so referred, but that three plans were laid before
that gentleman, which, in the Report of the Architects,
were said not to be within the instructions of the Com-
mittee. The Petitioner had petitioned to be examined
before the Committee, but no notice was taken of it,
and he was obliged to have recourse to that Court for
redress. The Hon. Gentleman then presented the pe-
tition, which, after reciting what had been done re•
specting the designs, went on—
" That the report of the said three architects, while
it named your Petitioner's design as the best, did, never-
theless, accompany such honourable distinction by re-
marks as to its impracticability, inadvisability, and inca-
pacity of being made a durable edifice.
" That your Petitioner, therefore, immediately after
the publication of such their report, sent in a petition to
the Honourable the Gresham Committee, praying
to be all
assertions, and to prove that a building according to
such his design could be erected without any difficulty,
whichct'e should be a safe, practicable, and durable edi-
; but your Petitioner is sorry to add that to this
petition h© has
not
4, That your
yet received any answer.
w,aichstill Petitioner
, in consequence of such as-
sertions,fetter his design, in common
with other designs,
with s
imprac-
ticability, inadvisability, the charge of
laand incapability of being
male a durable edifice,
professional friends, and alserferred with several of his
of whom unhesitatingly pronounce e severaldur a b
le
ibuilderse %,,
e al
r all
his design as very
practicable, and perfectly sound and
part of its construction.
competencyl
" That your Petitioner, therefore, fearlessly challenges
an investigation and impartial examination into the- --m6-es-
rits and practicability of his design, and his
to carry the same into execution, and submits
exclusion from such investigation is highly injurious toat an
professional character and reputation of your Petitioner.the
" That your Petitioner farther states that the de
submitted by him for the rebuilding of the Royal Ex-
change is not liable to any of the objections mentioned in
the said Report, but that on the contrary in your Pe-
titioner's design every wall has its proper bearing ; every
room has its fireplace, with provision for the carrying,
up of its flue ; every room and every part of the building
is well and sufflcienCy lighted, and that with due regard
1 to correct architectural appearance ; every room, with
.one exception, is rectangular, and has access thereto
from passages or corridors, avoiding the necessity,
so glaring in other plans, of having to pass through
othes• rooms to gain access to the same ; every
portion of the building held as a distinct tenement
15 fire-proof in itself ; every accommodation required
by the Instructions has been fully worked out, even to
F. the approval of the parties proposed to be accommo-
-1 dated ; every attention has been paid to rental, and your
Petitioner has no hesitation in stating that the arrange-
-1 raente provided in his design would secure a far greater
1 rental than most and an equal rental with any other
design offered to the Committee ; and, lastly, every
)tare has been taken that the amount stated in the In-
structions, as the excess intended to be expeaded,should
not be exceeded ; and here your Petitioner begs to re-
, mark, with respect to his estimate, that the quantities

were taken off by an eminent surveyor, that he received
estimates from two highly respectable builders who au-
thorise his stating that the building, according to its
present arrangements, can be erected in the most
substantial manner for the sum stated in the particular
or description which accompanied his design, viz. :
144,7501., leaving the balance from 150,0001. at the
disposal of the Committee for alterations or additional
ornament as the Committee might judge most expedient.
" That your Petitioner therefore cannot be charged
with having committed any error whatever in the pre-
paration of his design, unless your Petitioner was wrong
in rigidly attending to and carefully working out the
Instructions he was required to adhere to,
" That notwithstanding the 14th Resolution of the
Committee's Instructions expressly states that " all
Designs shall be excluded from the competition which

were not in strict conformity with the Instructions in
every respect," your Petitioner has been informed,
greatly to his astonishment, that the Committee have
selected and referred certain other designs, which are
not in conformity with those instructions, and which do
not provide the accommodation required, to the Archi
tect of the said Committee for examination and revision_
and to report thereon, with a view to the selection o
one for execution, but that the said Committee have
not so referred either the Designs of your Petitioner orf
of any of the persons who obtained prizes for their de-
signs for the said Exchange.

That the great inducement for entering upon so
labourious an undertaking as the preparation of such a
design, was to obtain the full benefit implied by the 10th
Resolution of the Instructions, the which your Peti-
tioner was led to believe would be conferred on the
party obtaining the first premium, provided such a party
were of known respectability and character.
"Your Petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that this
his Petition may be duly considered in this your
Honourable Court.

" That your Petitioner's design may be referred to the
said architect, in common with the said three other
designs, to report thereon.
" That an impartial examination may be instituted
respecting the merits, utility, and practicability of your
Petitioner's design and your Petitioner's competency to
carry the same into execution.
" That your Petitioner may at least have all the same
privileges and opportunities afforded him of testing
and proving the merits, utility, and practicability of
his said design, as are acceded to others.
" And that your Petitioner's design, if found to possess
superior merit, and advisable for adoption, may, as in
justice due, be carried into execution as implied by the
loth Resolution of the Instructions.

" And your Petitioner will ever pray.
" WILLIAM GRELLIER.
" 20, Wormwood-street, Dec. 12."
He moved that it be referred to the Royal Exchange
Committee to inquire and report.
Mr. G. BRYCE seconded the motion. The United
Gresham Committee had published to the world that
the design of the petitioner was the best.—(No, no.)
He said Yes—for they had awarded him the first pre-
mium—why then did they now wish to draw back. If
they had committed a blunder, let them come forward
and manfully acknowledge it, and retrace their steps.
At present they were charged with injustice, not only
by the petitioner, but by the public, and it was the duty
of the Court to recommend them to do justice not only
to the petitioner, but to all the other architects who had
sent in designs. If there were any difficulties in the
way, let them boldly state them, and they might reckon
on the Court, and the public, to extricate them from
them.

Mr. LAURANCE denied that the Report, which was not
that of the Committee but of the architect, stated the
three designs which obtained the prizes to be the hest—
they were the three best of those which could be con-
structed under the cost of 150,0001. It expressly al-
luded to a better class of designs, but that the expense
would be much over the allotted sum—that was the
reason the premiums were awarded to the other de-
signs. He could assure the Court that the Gresham
Committee had no secrets. They discussed nothing
that they would be ashamed of all the world knowing.
The difficulties which had arisen were thrown upon
them by the petitions referred to them by the Court.
Some of the excluded parties denied that their designs
would involve an expense above the 150,0001., and
three of the first class had been referred to
Mr. Smith, so that he might report as to
the practicability of building them for the exact sum. He
was anxious for every inquiry, and would support the
motion for sending the petition to the Committee.
Mr. JONES had expected to have heard from the
Hon. Member some reason why the petitioner bad
not been called before the Committee. The Commit-
tee, or their instruments, the architects, had selected
the design of the petitioner, but they said it was im-
practicable, and could not be carried into effect. He
wished to show that they were in error in that conclu-
sion, but the Committee refused to hear him. Now, of
fink he had a good right to complain. He only asked
fair play, and it was denied him. He ought to be al-
lowed to show that his design might take a substantial
and durable building at a cost less than 150,000/.

Mr. J. L. JONES said the reason that the petitioner
was not called before the Committee was, that they
had called no one. He was of opinion that no resolu-
tion of the Court would alter the position of the Com-
mittee with respeat-te the dosigua.-- Theis-4.visit_fesp,mk
to the course taken by the Committee, prejudicing the
petitioner, did not believe it would. • The same bad
taken place with respect to London Bridge, and the
architect there, so far from being prejudiced, rose rapidly
in his -profession, and he trusted that would be the case
wihb the young man then before the Court, who had
certainly shown much talent.
Mr. TAYLou said the Gresham Committee had
acted according to the wishes of the Court in trying to
,and which of the best designs could be executed for the
sum of 150,0001., and how could they do that
without the assistance of eminent architects? They would
indeed be blockhea.ds, had they attempted to decide
upon 38 designs of such importance without competent
professional assistance and advice.
The Logo MAYOR hoped the Court would under-
stand that the Report said the designs in the second
class were one and all unstable and unsafe, irrelevant of
the expense. They had got into great difficulties, and
the question now was how to get out of them. He had
unfortunately always been in a minority in the Commit-
tee, and be regretted that many of the suggestions of
the Chairman bad met with so much opposition. He
had daily complaints of the want of accommodation for
business, and of the delay. He was aware that there
was only one desire in the Committee, which was, to
have a building that should be worthy of and an orna-
ment to the City. He trusted some opportunity would
soon offer itself to the Committee for putting an end to
all difficulties, and proceeding with the building.
After a few words in reply from Mr. STEVENS, the
:,e4ition was referred to the Committee, _ _ _

I,4untE slid the Lord Mayor had convinced
him that. the C:.'ruCittee did not know what they were
about, nor did he think
y good would be done until
the whole matter was left in u .
hands of some eminent
architect—( Hear, hear)—until it wa,s taken entirely
out of the hands of the Committee and I-intrusted to
Mr. Barry, or some equally eminent man. He had a
petition to present from Mr. Wyatt, one of the gentlemen
who sent in a design--lie was one of those in the first
class ; and were his designs to undergo the inspection
of Mr. George Smith? It was a diAgraeu fo,the City
of London that two years had been suffered to 014 se
and nothing done towards affording accommodafian far
the merchants of this great City. It had even become
the subject of caricature—a bill was put upon the
ruins—" To let for 99 years, and after that probably
an Exchange may be built."—(Laughter,)
This petition was also referred to the CommitteC,

OBERLIN INFI'ITUTION.
The Report from the Finance Committee, to whom
the petition of the Oberlin Institution was referred" was
read, granting them 200/. in aid of their funds. Ihe
object of this Institution is the education of the white
and coloured population of America, and the ultimate
extinction of slavery in the United States.
It was then moved and seconded that the Report ht,
received.

Sir PETER LAURIE opposed the reception of the ite,
port. The Corporation of London had no right to in•
terfere with the internal regulations of another country.

Mr. RODGERs moved an amendment to the effect that
the Court, while it expressed its abhorrence of the slave
system, and its desire to exercise its influence for the ex-
tirpation of slavery, was of opinion that to grant a dona-
tion in aid of the funds of an institution in a foreign coun-
trv, the operations of which appeared to he inconsistent
with the existing laws of that country, would be an un:
warrantable intermeddling with the affairs of a foreign
and a diversion of the funds of the Corporatcioounn;tr)at.'id therefore the Report ought not to be agreed to.
Mr. Alderman T. WOOD, in a very able speech,
supported the grant. He ridiculed the idea that the
grant of 2001. would be an interference on the part of
the Corporation with the internal policy of America
or that the objects of the Institution %v ere
re
Oberlininconsistent
r
with the laws of the United States.
stitution was situate in Ohio, and had received a Char
ter from the Government of Ohio. But he could nice
otlifoa nos
other
teuir u
mfreioeeronundstlyreiittstances in which the
Corporation had
interfered, as it was called, with the internal regulation!,
countries,
terms Twithh e
Clu Corporation
to support and protect the Poles, and yet this countr;
a,ton did not hesitatt•
.i
Mr. BURTON would
oppose a grant of 2001. to any
foreign institution, however praiseworthy the object of it
might be.
Mr. Pewtress, Mr. Richard Taylor, and Mr. Norris,
spoke in favour of the Report.
After some further disc •
"'ion, a division took place,
when there appeared--
For the report ...............
For the amendment .................... 38
Majority in favour of the ;tn
e. .
d;7 ...... 42
ment
The ttknendment was then put as a sub,tantive re'o-
lution, hut the previous question was moved and carried
without a division.
The LORD MAYOR then said, that at that late hour