The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

A special Court of Common Council was holden yester-
day, in consequence of a requisition to the Lord Mayor, for
the purpose of considering a petition presented by Mr.
Lawley, of the committee representing the vestries, boards
of works, and boards of guardians of parishes on the south
side of the Thames, for the assistance of the Corporation,
independently or in co-operation with them, in their op-
position to the Court of Chancery, to the site in Stangate,
selected for the erection of St. Thomas's Hospital, and also
to aid them gratuitously with the needful witnesses and
documents.

The Lord Mayor presided at the Council, which was held
in the Egyptian Hall at the Mansion-house, and there was
a full attendance of members of the Court.
ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL.

Deputy SCAMELL, before the business for which the Court
was specially convened was proceeded with, brought up a
report having reference to the appointment of the late Mr.
Cubitt as Governor of St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

It will be remembered that at the last Court of Common
Council a motion was agreed to that the City Solicitor
should at once, by applying for a writ of quo warranto, take
steps to test the validity of the election of Mr. Cubitt as one
of the Governors of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, on the
ground that not being an alderman of the city of London at
the time of his election he was not eligible. The death of
Mr. Cubitt of course entirely altered the position of affairs,
and the General Purposes Committee, to whom the matter
was referred, and of which Mr. Deputy Scaruell is chairman,
now brought up a report, in which they recommended that
the election of Mr. Cubitt should be treated as altogether
void, and that a writ of mandamus should be applied for,
calling on the governors of St. Bartholomew's Hospital to
elect the Lord Mayor, who would have been entitled to the
office of governor upon the original vacancy, if Mr. Cubitt
had not been appointed.
The report was agreed to, and instructions will be given
to the City Solicitor immediately to proceed in the matter,

ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL.
Mr. LAWLEY then moved that the petition and memorial
of the parishes opposing the scheme of the Governors of St.
Thomas's Hospital for the erection of the new building at
Stangate should be read.
It was signed by Mr. Rendell on behalf of the delegates
of the different petitioning districts, which comprise the
whole of the parishes, boards of guardians, and boards of
works in Southwark, Lambeth, Clapham, Camberwell, and
Newington, containing a population of nearly 400,000 souls.
They objected to Stangate as a site for the proposed new
hospital on several grounds, the principal of which were,
that they believed that it was not a healthy position, and
that it would be very inconvenient for the poorer classes,
who had for 300 years enjoyed the advantages of the hospital
at a spot close to their own residences, to go to such a dis-
tance as Stangate. Upon these and other important grounds
they asked the Corporation of London, who, they said, had
been such great benefactors to the different Royal hospitals,
and who had always taken such deep interest in endeavour-
ing to render them fully available for the important objects
for which they were founded, to render them assistance in
opposing in the Court of Chancery the proposed scheme for
the erection of the new hospital at Stangate.
Mr. H. L, Taylor, Deputy Elliott, Dr. Saunders, and one
or two other gentlemen, put some questions to Mr. Rendell,
in answer to which he stated that the parishes and districts
he represented on the present occasion had not agreed upon
the advisability of any other site for the erection of the hos-
pital; but the obj ect they now principally sought to obtain was
to prevent it from being erected at Stangate, which they con-
sidered a most objectionable spot for the reasons they re-
ferred to in their petition, and particularly on the ground of
its unhealthiness, and he referred to the Registrar-General's
reports in support of this assertion. He also stated that they
considered Bethlehem Hospital, the Surrey Gardens, or
the piece of land at Newington, that had been suggestoefdtohne
former occasions, were all better sites for the erection
new hospital than Stangate, and they were undoubtedly
more more central. He added, in answer to a question put to
him, that he believed it would be necessary to apply. for an
act of Parliament in order to obtain possession of either of
the sites he had referred to ; but he said he
a ap
dpre that the
hended
that this would not create any dilty, n
Legislature would readily assist in obtaining a healthy and
a p
ir or
.p i aAtiev pßoyt
thenf o r s uacdb.d
addressed
ansoebdl e i
the n s
ct lot uu
rt ito
inn.
a( fplpe
oa
rr
t, ho ef at rh.
e)
petition, and he explained that unless something was done
at the present moment it might be too late, and •the noble
hospital which for 300 years had rendered such important
benefits to a large mass of the poorer classes would be
erected at an inconvenient spot, and they would be deprived
of the advantages they had heretofore enjoyed, and to
which they had an undoubted right. (Hreeadr,tohear.) 6
went on to say that the Corporation of London had
contri-
butedtaken lgarregaetl yt
interest
reel!
tin thesenoblethe ; institutions, and
and had
him
always
that
it was the duty of the Corporation to endeavour
what he believed to be an impending evil, as
affectingto avert
this
important institution. The hon. member went into some '
details into connexion with the subject, and concluded by
moving;
Committee,th t the petitionfor
them betoretfaekrro suchetlthe
General Pur-
posessteps in the matter
as they might deem advisable.

Mr. U. TAYLOR Secondca the' ?notion, and thought

with Mr. Lawley that the site of Stangate was not the place
for an hospital to be built, and if it were possible to find a
site more suitable, he certainly thought it would be ad-
visable.

Mr. Deputy BOWER asked if the Court, in agreeing to
the motion, pledged itself to incur any expense.
Mr. ILAWLEY said, merely in producing the necessary
witnesses, and to be represented by counsel.
Mr. Deputy ELLIOTT supported the motion, and thought
that any money would be well spent in such an object. He
thought the site proposed was a very undesirable one, and
for his part thought there was no spot like his old favourite,
the Surrey Gardens. He hoped the Court would unani-
mously send the matter to the General Purposes Committee.
The motion WE,S put and carried unanimously, and the
Court adjourned.