The Sun.
London, England, 1865-10-14 00:00:00

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. H. L. TAYLOR rose and said he wished to call the at-
tention of the Board to a matter of considerable importance
in reference to his position as a member of the Board. It
would be in the recollection of the members that at their
last meeting, on the question of raising the salary of their
engineer, he had felt it his duty to make certain observa-
tions upon the proposition that was then made, but in the
course of those observations he was sure that ho said no-
thing that could give offence to any member, and the Board
eventually took the view which he propounded, and many
of the members gave up their own views and voted for his
motion. Among them Mr. Peckett, who originally intro-
duced the question, as a matter of policy voted for his mo-
tion, and the whole question was referred to a committee
by a large majority. Accordingly, on Tuesday last, ho (Mr
Taylor) attended the committee forthe purpose of perform-
ing his duty, but the question was introduced by Mr.
Peckett, although he (Mr. Taylor) considered that, as Mr.
Peckett's motion had been superseded by his amendment,
such duty should have devolved upon him as the mover of
it, and that he was the proper person to take up the ques-

tion. After one or two speeches had been delivered he (Mr
Taylor) got up to say a few words on the question, when,
finding that there was a loud discussion going on at the
other end of the room, and finding that his address was not
thought to be worth listening to, he said he would reserve
what ho had to say upon it until the meeting of the Board
on the following Friday. He got up from his place when
he was immediately followed by an :hon. member who
said that his conduct was " most dishonourable." Now,
he thought such a term was so strong as applied to his
conduct, and, not being well at the time, he at once walked
out of the room. Now, that having taken place in a com-
mittee of the Board, he wanted to know if such a term
ought to bo applied to any member, for it was his opinion
that if such a term could be borne out and sustained that
he ought to be a member of the Metropolitan Board of
Works no longer. The honour of every member was in the
' hands of the chairman, and ho could not expect to be sup-
ported unless ho defended the honour of the members com-
mitted to his charge ; and if such a term could be applied
to a member who had devoted a great deal of his time to
tho public service—if such a term applied to his conduct
could in any way be justified—he felt that he ought not a
moment longer to be a member of the board. (Hear.) Mr.
Doulton was the member who made the observation, and,
unless
ho was prepared to justify such a term, he ought no
longer to be a member of the board.
The CHAIRMAN said he was sorry that the matter had
been raised in the board, and when Mr. Taylor had taken
exception to the objectionable expression he had called upon
Mr. Doulton to withdraw it ; but Mr. Taylor did not remain
to hear the withdrawal which had taken place. He would
have neglected his duty unless he had called upon the hon.
member
r there
remainedto
fwithdrawactingn
ao f
d i suchfew
who o r
of
thel
y d apply.
mn
memberoianunu expression, pl ro e
board
ncsogs
could
olr n t ,
hto eas,w
h to
a whom is
th know-
ledge,
im-
putationyl o wasottecliahrarad
it
woulde'x
have been set right on the spot in regard to his
which had been most unjustly attacked.
Mr. DOULTON, M.P., agreed with the chairman that it
was not convenient to discuss such matters in the public
board. He had expressed himself strongly in the corn-
mitten, and he continued to feel very strongly upon this
matter. The hon. member (Mr. H. L. Taylor) said, as the
author of the motion for referring the question to a com-
mittee, he had the right to bring it forward; and that when
he rose to express his opinions upon it he observed a disin-
clination at one end of the room to listen to him, but he
ma e
Ta
(Mr. Doulton) did not hear it. The hon. member imme-
diately rose and quitted the room, and the words he (Mr.
Doulton) used were that his conduct was most extraordi-
nary, and he had almost said dishonourable, for no member
of a public body had ever treated his colleagues as the hon.
member (Mr. Taylor) had treated them upon that occasion.
He would take the practice of the House of Commons
where members were in the habit of speaking to each other;
but in this case there were only two members exchanging
words, upon which the hon. member rose from his seat
and said he would not remain.
The CHAIRMAN said the fact was that there was an in-
terruption,that said that if the com-
mittee wore not then prepared to hear him he should reserve
and Mr. Taylor on
'
the observations ho had to make until Friday.
Mr. DOuLTON resumed—Such conduct on the part of
Mr. Taylor was trifling with them, for, although they were
then in committee, ho coolly told them that he should not
give them the information until the board met. It seemed,
however, that as soon as one member whispered to another
member he was to treat the board coolly, and refuse to give
them any information unless ho chose. He (Mr. Doulton)
protested against such trifling conduct on that as well as on
other occasions, and although he represented the City of
London, he was no more than any other member of the
board.

The CHAIRMAN said he understood after the .hon mem-
ber (Mr. Taylor) left that the offensive expression would be
withdrawn as one that could not be justified. Ile under-
stood that Mr. Doulton had withdrawn the expression, but
that now appeared to be a mistake.

Mr. MILLER, M.P., said he understood Mr. Poulton had