The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-20 00:00:00

RAILWAY SCHEMES IN ST. SEPULCHRE'S PARISH.

A petition was presented from the inhabitants of the
parish of St. Sepulchre, in public meeting assembled, pray-
ing the Court to oppose the London, Chatham, and Dover
Railway Company, and the London, Chatham, and Dover
Railway and London and South-Western Railway Com-
panies Bills in Parliament, and setting forth that, if the
schemes of these companies were carried out in St. Sepul-
chre's parish, 200 houses there would be destroyed.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR moved that this petition be ordered to

lie upon the table, and stated it seemed unaccountably
strange to him that the rich parish of St. Sepulchre should
ask the Court to do what ought to be done by the parishioners
themselves. He called upon the corporation to recollect
that they had squandered thousands of pounds last year by
acceding to applications of this description. If now again
they were to oppose railway bills in Parliament to what
would it lead, and where would the expense end ? If once
they retained counsel they would have to employ them, and
then, at the end of the session, the particulars of :all the
charges would be furnished. Farringdon Ward always
wanted everything they could obtain ; but the time had
arrived when they should be told that if they wanted to op-
pose railway schemes they must do so out of their own
pockets. If any real interference with the city were
threatened, then let the Council show theMselves ; but let
them not, at the bidding of St. Sepulchre's, which would
involve an outlay of thousands of pounds. If this petition
were received how could other parishes be prevented from
making similar applications ? He had no doubt that the
committee of last year regretted the enormous expense in-
curred in fighting the Parliamentary battles, and he was
anxious that no other committee should be placed in a simi-
lar dilemma this year.
Mr. STEWART reminded the Court that they had opposed
the railway schemes last year at the earnest request of the
bankers and merchants of London, who came before the
natural custodians of the rights of the city, which the cor-
poration were, and asked that they should do so. He hoped
the parishioners of St. Sepulchre would at all events be now

treated with respect.
Mr. HARTRIDGE said there was nothing too hot or too
heavy for the London, Chatham, and Dover Company to
undertake, and that the petition ought in fairness to be sent
to a committee to consider and report.
Mr. LAWLEY was in favour of the reception of the peti-
tion, believing that the Court ought always to be approach-
able by any of their fellow-citizens who had a grievance to
complain of.
Mr. Deputy SCAMELL also supported it ; and
After some discussion, in which Mr. Deputy Lott, Mr.
Deputy De Jersey, and Mr. Philipps took part, the petition
was referred to the Law and Parliamentary Committee.
THE RECORDER AND COMMON SERGEANT.

Mr. TAYLOR moved " That it be referred to the Law,
Parliamentary, and City Courts Committee to prepare a
return of the several occasions during the years 1862, 1863,
and 1864 on which the Recorder and Common Sergeant
have been respectively engaged as counsel on behalf of this
corporation, either before parliamentary committees or
otherwise, setting forth the particulars of the cases, and the
sums received, or to be received by them in reference
thereto, and that the committee be authorised to apply for
similar returns froni the hon. the Irish Society and the
Commissioners of Sewers, and report thereon to this Court.',
In submitting the motion, he said, he had but one feeling
—namely, that the Court- should obtain as much informa-
tion as possible touching the expenditure. He did not dis-
parage the ability either of the Recorder or the Common
Sergeant, but then the former received £3,000 a year, and
the latter £1,500 a year for their respective services, and
they had been, in addition, employed and paid by the cor-
poration for their services in Parliament and elsewhere.
There was no necessity on the part of the Court to employ
them as counsel in Parliament, and certainly some rule
ought to be acted upon in this matter different from that
which now existed. On the other hand, if they could get
the best legal advice at home, there was no occasion for
them to go abroad in search Of it. Still, he wished it to
be understood that they were completely independent of
their officers in the matter of employing them in Parliament.
Mr. FRICKER seconded the motion.
Mr. ROWE supported it. He Wished to know what the

duties of the Recorder and Common Sergeant were defined
to be at the time those gentlemen were appointed, because
it was iindeniable that now, in addition to their handsome
salaries, they were.receiving extraordinary pay for extra-
ordinary work in Parliament.
Mr. HARRIS said that Some time ago, when legal assist-
ance was wanted, there was no legal gentleman to be found
—the Recorder being in Italy, the Common Sergeant being
in the West of England acting as a Judge, the City Soli-
citor being in Switzerland, and the Town-clerk being
somewhere spending his vacation. The only legal gentle-
man who then canie to the aid of the corporation was the
City Remembrancer.
Mr. Deputy FRY movesfl as an addition to the resolution,
that the nature of the duties owl the terms of the appoint-
ment of the Recorder and Commxl Sergeant be added to
the motion.
Mr. PEDLEY seconded the amendment.

Mr. H. L. TAYLOR replied, and said he had no objection
to the amendment, as his object was information.

The COMMON SERGEANT reminded the Court that the
last three years were exceptional ones entirely as regarded
Parliamentary business. (Hear, hear.)
The amendment was adopted ; so also was another
amendment, moved by Mr. SAUNDERS, which struck out
from the motion the words " during the year 1862, 1863,
and 1864," and substituted the following :—" since their
respective appointments."
With these amendments the motion was passed.
THE "BUDGET MUNICIPALE."

Mr. MnnwiN moved—" That Mr. Town-clerk apply to
M. le Baron Haussman, of Paris, the Prefet of the Seine, for
a copy of the Budget Municipale; that the same be trans-
lated into English at a cost not exceeding £lO, and a copy
furnished to every member of thiwourt." He said the in-
formation he sought for had been published in the Moniteur,
and that in wishing to obtain a translation of it he intended
to institute a contrast between the cost of improving Paris
and London, and the time in which improvements in these
respective places were:accomplished. This information, he
believed, would tend to satisfy many complaints now made
in London.

Mr. WEBBER seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

RETURNS.

Mr. MEDWIN moved—" That the Commissioners of
Sewers be requested tp make to this Court the following
returns for the years ending the 29th of September, 1854
and 1864 respectively :—The amount of rental upon which
the consolidated and sewers-rates were assessed ; the rate
of such assessments in the pound; the separate total
amounts received in the same year respectively ; the num-
ber of public lights ; total cost of the same ; cost per light ;
number of yards superficial of foot paving in the city ; the
cost per yard new ; total amount expended on ditto in new
work and for repairs separately ; total number of yards
superficial of roadway paving in the city ; cost of ditto,
new work, per yard ; total cost of new work ; ditto of re-
pairs ; cost of water for the public streets ; ditto distribut-
ing the same ; cost of cleansing the roadway ; the total
number of yards lineal of brickwork in sewers under the
control of the Commission ; total cost of constructing new
sewers ; repairs of sewers."
This motion, after an opposit ion on the part of Mr. De-
puty De Jersey, was agreed to.