The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-03 00:00:00

Court of Common Council.

A Court of Common Council was hold yesterday al
Guildhall, under the presidency of the Lord Mayor.

THE GUILDHALL IMPROVEMENT.

The Court proceeded to take into consideration a report
of the Guildhall Improvement Committee, having reference
to the works that have been for a long time going on in the
interior of the Guildhall with a view to its restoration to
its original condition, as nearly as maybe. This report has
been printed, and it recommended certain additional works
to be performed in connexion with the proposed alterations
at an expense not exceeding £9,330, and also that it should
be referred to the Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee to
provide this sum, and an additional amount of £5,900 that
had already been incurred for works agreed to be executed,
and which were not included in the original estimate of the
cost of renovating the hall.
Mr. J. KELDAY, the Chairman of the Guildhall Improve-
ment Committee, in moving that the report be agreed to,
adverted at some length to the matters in connexion with
the subject, and said that although only a portion of the
works had yet been completed, he believed that the im-
provements that had been effected had given complete
satisfaction. At 'first there appeared to have been some
doubts as to the propriety of the design for the new roof ;
but all these doubts were removed upon its completion, and
he was justified in saying that some of the most eminent
architects and men of science, when they saw it completed,
had expressed an opinion that it was a perfect success, and
that when all the other improvements were carried out the
Guildhall would be second only to Westminster, and would
be second to no other hall of a like character in this coun-
try. He believed that they had gone in the right direction,
and that in the result it would be said by the world at large
that the Corporation of London was perfectly competent
to undertake a great work of this description, and to carry
it out successfully. The hon. member then referred to
some details of the proposed alterations, and expressed his
opinion that the opening of the windows in the hall was
one of the grandest efforts for its restoration, and that when
they were illuminated, as it was proposed they should be,
the effect could hardly be guessed at. He then said that one
of the alterations that was proposed to be carried out was
to lower the statue and monuments, so as to bring them
nearer to the eye, which would give a much better effect,
and by a proposed alteration in the pavement of the hall
an opportunity would be afforded for warming the building
by means of hot-air pipes.
Mr. STUART said he should be glad if Mr. Kelday would
inform him what was the total amount that was intended
to be expended in the improvements of the Guildhall.
Mr. KELDAY said ho believed the original sum voted by
the Court was £lB,OOO, and £5,900 was afterwards voted.
Mr. J. SYMONS asked if the £15,000 now asked for was in
addition-to those sums.
Mr. KELDAY said that it was.

Mr. FINLAY inquired whether the chairman was in a po-
sition to say in round numbers what those improvements
were likely to cost from beginning to end. (A laugh.)
Mr. KELDAY said he really was hardly able to answer the
question. (Laughter.) All he could do was to assure the
Court that no expense should be incurred for this object
without their sanction.

Mr. It. N. PHILIPPS said that the first estimate for these
improvements was about £24,000, this being nearly £6,000
in excess of the original amount, and now they were asked
for £15,000 more. Ho expressed his opinion that a great
deal of this money had been expended in making altera-
tions that were not at all consistent with the original char-
acter of the hall, inasmuch as the matters to which he re-
ferred were not in existence until nearly two centuries after
the Guildhall was erected. He complained of the lavish ex-
penditure of money by the committee on what, in his opi-
nion, were very doubtful matters of restoration, and said
that if they were to continue in the same course he could
not see where it was to end.

Upon a division the report of the committee was agreed
to by a majority of 40, the numbers being—

For the motion
Against

A motion in which the Corporation was interested was
then discussed with closed doors, and after the public were
re-admitted some of the business upon tho paper was dia
posed of, and the Court adjourned.

The Loss of the Maria Somes,

OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the report of the magistrates to the Board
of Trade with reference to the loss of the Maria Somes :

My Lords,—We, the said justices, have the honour to
report that the Maria Somes was a wooden vessel, built at
Southtown, in the county of Suffolk, in the year 1841,
registered in London, of the bnrthen of 785 9-10 tons. She
was owned by Mr. George Seymour, of 116, Fenchurch-
street, in the city of London, and was commanded by
Mr. George Lambton, who holds a certificate of service
dated in 1851, and had a crew of 18 hands, all told. The
Maria Somes left Sunderland (coal laden) on the 9th of
May, bound to Alexandria, in Egypt. On leaving the
port at 3 p.m., she was in charge of Mr. George
Telford, a pilot licensed by the Trinity House of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne for the North Sea, Eastern Coast of
England, and the Baltic, and who also held a certificate
of service as a master in the mercantile marine. It would
appear from the evidence that Mr. Telford's services as
pilot were secured by the ship's husband in the presence
of and with the full concurrence of the master, who was
to pay half the pilotage to the Downs. The weather on
leaving was thick, with rain, and the wind a moderately
fresh breeze at N.N.E. The evidence shows that the courses
steered, if correctly stated, should have taken the vessel
well clear of Whitby Rocks. The ship was lost upon them
shortly after midnight, and it is difficult to believe that the
courses, as given, could have been correctly steered ;
for, if they were, we cannot account for the loss
of the ship. Be that as it may, the weather was so
thick that neither the land nor the lights were
visible in passing along the coast. Yet, nevertheless,
the lead was not used till the ship struck, about 200 yards
from Whitby Pier end, and became a total wreck. The
crew were saved by the Whitby lifeboat. We are of
opinion that the pilot was alone responsible for the loss of
the said ship ; for, however great his experience of the
coast might have been, he was not justified in neglecting
the lead in such weather as is described by the witnesses
brought before us. From the evidence adduced we find
that it is very much the practice of the northern ports, of
ships bound foreign, to take a pilot as far as the Downs, and
it is thought a pru_
rYm'aster is but adletnhtoumgehastuhree,prkillorttaigcue
liasrnlyotwchomenputhlseo
imper-
fectly acquainted with the navigation of the East Coast of
England. We are not prepared to gainsay the Propriety
of this custom, but we hold that the fact of having a
pilot on board (oven when the pilotage is compulsory)
does not exempt the master from the ordinary care and
duty of his ship. The pilot so called is there to assist
him in tho navigation where the master's knowledge may
be presumed to be imperfect, and any laches on the part of
the pilot, such as the ordinary precaution of using the lead,
ought in strictness to be visited upon the master. In this
case the master acted as many others have done before
him, by giving up charge to the pilot, he himself not being
acquainted with the coast. When the weather became so
thick that objects at a very short distance could not be
discerned, had the master been at his post instead of be-
low, it would have been his duty to see that his lead was
timely hove—a precaution which in this case would have
saved the ship. As we have no power to deal with the
pilot under the Merchant Shipping Act, we must leave his
neglect to be dealt with by the pilotage authority. But
as regards the conduct of the master, seeing that he was
unacquainted with the coast, and having full reliance on