The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-12 00:00:00

who attended should be dressed either in official or
court costume, and should be season ticket holders.
The LORD MAYOR opened the proceedings by
briefly explaining that he had been, as the Court
was aware, in communication with the Commis-
sioners for the Exhibition upon the subject of the
accommodation that was to be provided for the Cor-
porat.!on at the opening meant ; and upon receiv-
ing the oflicisal notification of what was intended
to be done, he had called the Court together for
the purpose of considering the subjectupon the
earliest possible day, as it was necessary illat an
answer should be sent on or before the 15th ;
and, having heard the nature of the accommoda-
tion that was intended to be provided, it was for the
Court to make its own arrangements, and de-
cide which of its members should form the deputa-
tion to attend the opening ceremony. He at the
same time said that, in his opinion, the attendance
of visitors either in a court dress or in an official
costume, was calculated to give great eclat to the
proceedings, and when it was considered that they
were inaugurating a great national work, in which
the whole country was interested, he thought that
no one who desired to be present on such an im-
portant occasion would object to the restriction of
being compelled to purchase a season ticket.
Au inquiry was then made by Mr. Snelling as to
the course that was adopted upon the occasion of
the former Exhibition in 1851, and
The TOWN CLERK stated that upon that occasion
the same number of seats were appropriated to the
members of the Court as at present, and every gen-
tleman who desired to attend sent in his name, and
the names were all placed in a balloting glass, and
forty were selected by ballot.
Mr. SNELLING then moved, and Deputy LLOYD
seconded, the motion that the same course be pur-
sued on the present occasion.
This led to a rather warm debate, which was
commenced by 111 r. H. L. TAYLOR, who expressed
his opinion that a great want of respect had been
shown to the Corporation by the mode in which the
members of the Court of Common Council were pro-
posed to be accommodated. The name of the Lord
Mayor was omitted among the list of those invited,
and he could not really understand why the
"officers" of the Corporation should have precedence
of the members of that Court. (Hear, hear.) He
should also like to know who wore referred to by
the term " officers," and whether it included mes-
sengers and beadles, for these were all " officers" of
the Corporation. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Again,
they were to be allowed the privilege of introduc-
ing a lady each ; but nothing was said as to
whether seats were provided for those ladies, or
whether they were to sit in their laps.
(Laughter.) He also could not refrain from
expressing an opinion that an invitation which
was saddled with the condition that every
one who occupied it must pay six guineas for two
season tickets was no invitation at all, and that it
would have been much more courteous to have left
the purchase of the season tickets to the discretion
of the gentlemen who accepted the invitation than
to enforce it as a condition of receiving the invita-
tion. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD MAYOR interposed, and observed that
himself and the sheriffs would of course be invited
to attend in their official capacity. He also said he
was satisfied that if there was any failure in the
form of the invitation, it was quite unintentional
on the part of the commissioners or of Mr Sand-
ford, the secretary.
Mr. LONGDEN expressed his opinion that the ex-
planation that had been given by the Lord Mayor
was quite satisfactory, and that the secretary of the
commissioners had merely exhibited a want of
knowledge of the proper etiquette that should have
been observed. (Oh, oh.)
Deputy FRY supported the view of the matter
that was taken by Mr. Taylor, and expressed his
opinion that the Corporation of London was not
placed in the position it ought to be by the coarse
that was proposed to be taken.
Mr. TAYLOR then moved a resolution as an
amendment, to the effect that the town clerk be re-
quested to write to Mr. Sandford and acknowledge
the receipt of his letter, and at the same time in-
form him that no invitation could be accepted
that did not embrace the Lord Mayor, aldermen,
and commoners of the city of London. (Hear, hear.)
That was the style they were entitled to, and by
which they ought to be addressed, and they ought
not to give up any of their rights and privileges on
an occasion like the present. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LAWLEY supported the amendment, but at
the same time said he did not believe there was the
slightest intention of offering any insult to the Cor-
poration on the part of the commissioners or their
secretary.
The LORD MAYOR here said he thought it right
to inform the Court that, in the communications
he had had with the commissioners, he had him-
self, following the precedent of the former Exhibi-
tion, sugggested the number that should be in-
vited, and he believed that if there was any
omission in the form of the invitation the commis-
sioners would willingly rectify it. (Hear, hear.)
Dr. ABRAHAM said he would put it to the good
sense of the Court whether, after the explanation
they had just received from his lordship, it was ad-
visable to pass any resolution at all upon the sub-
ject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NORRIS, M.P., said he thought the Court
ought not to lose sight of the fact that in realityl3o
persons connected with the Corporation
Were i
to the ceremony ; and it appeared to him that
linvited
at this
was quite as great a number as they could expect
to be invited. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD MAYOR said that be could not help feel-
ing that he was to some extent put tent put upon his trial
on the present occasion, for if there Was anything
wrong he ought to have informed the commissioner:,
the proper course for them to have taken. He added
that he should feel himself placed in a humiliating
position if the Court
cfused to accept the invitation.
(Cries of "No, "'1: :a a
The Court then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Tailor's amendment, 68; against it, 59;
majority for the amendment, 9.
After some further discussion,
pr. ABRAHAM moved another amendment, that
the proceedings be adjourned to Monday, which
was carried by a majority of 9.
The Court then broke up.