The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-23 00:00:00

Court of Common Council.

Yesterday a meeting of Common Council was held at
Guildhall, the Lord Mayor (Alderman Hale) presiding.

THE CALAMITOUS FIRE IN LEADENHALL-MARKET.
Mr. WEBBER, addressing the Lord Mayor, asked if there
was any public officer in the city of London whose duty it

was to render assistance in the interests of relatives and
others in such calamities as that which had taken place in
the ward of Langbourne. The place, he said, at which the
fire occurred was left untouched for three days afterwards,

though it was known that two persons had perished, and
that their remains were buried in the ruins. He understood

that no steps were taken in the first instance for their re-
covery, because it was said the persons immediately inte-

rested in the matter were poor.

The LORD MAYOR should say it was the duty of the
district surveyor to interfere in such an emergency, and
to secure the public from danger by having any dangerous
structure propped up. It would also, he thought, come
within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Sewers.
Alderman WATERLOW, the alderman of the ward in which
it happened, said he had his attention called to the fire on
the Thursday morning, shortly after it occurred ; that he
communicated with the district surveyor, and that the sur-

veyor (who did not visit the scene until the Friday) said
hehad only power to act where there were dangerous struc-
tures, and none to search for the bodies, and that if he at-
tempted to search for them he would be treated as a tres-
passer. He (Alderman Waterlow) had recourse next to
Mr. Haywood, the engineer to the Commissioners of Sewers,
who told him that he had no power to interfere, and that

nothing could be done. He then went to the Commissioners
of Sewers, while they were sitting on Tuesday last, and
they, too, said they had no power to act in the matter, upon
wbich he urged them—power or no power—to take on
themselves the responsibility for once of acting in the

emergency. They did so, and within an hour afterwards
a search was made, which resulted in one of the bodies
being found in the ruins.
Deputy FARRAR, a Commissioner of Sewers, explained
that the whole matter had been referred by them to a com-
mittee to inquire whether there was not some local civic
authority whose duty it was to search for sufferers or their
remains on such occasions. Whenever a question of salvage

arose at such times the insurance offices interested took care
to institute a search; but in this particular instance the

office concerned (there being a total loss and no salvage ex-
pected) declined to take any steps to recover the bodies. It

was remarkable that what was known on Thursday morn-
ing to the whole city of London was not known to the dis-
trict surveyor (Mr. Young) until the Friday. He then took
immediate steps to shore up the dangerous walls, to prevent
injury to those who were searching for the remains ; but
five days elapsed from the time of the fire before one of the
bodies was found.

Mr. FINLAY remarked upon the excessive punctiliousness
of the men employed at the ruins under the district sur-
veyor in leaving off work in the emergency at 3 o'clock on
Saturday afternoon, and not resuming it until Monday
morning, the remains being allowed to lie in the ruins in
the interval.

Mr. BOIVEING said that this was not the first occasion
on which a search had not been made for the remains of
persons who had lost their lives in a fire in the city of Lon-
don on some pretext of want of power.
The subject then dropped.
THE SIIPPLY OF GAS TO THE CITY.

Mr. HAINES, the chairman of the General Purposes Com-
mittee, brought up a report on the reference to them of
Nov. 17 last of certain petitions presented to the Courtfrom
the inhabitants of various wards in the city complaining of
the present supply of gas, which they alleged to be insuffi-
cient, costly, and inferior in illuminating power. The com-
mittee reported that the companies now engaged in the sup-
ply of gas to the city are the Chartered Gas Company, in-
corporated in 1810 ; the City of London Gas Company, in
1817 ; and the Great Central Gas Company, in 1850. Prior
to 1823 the first two companies competed in the supply, but
in that year, under an act of Parliament, the city was
divided between those two companies, and, as a necessary
consequence, a monopoly was created. By the repeated
action of the Commissioners of Sewers the price of gas,
which was originally 15s. per 1,000 cubic feet, was gradu-
ally reduced to 65., which was the charge in 1847. Inves-
tigation, however, proved that even this amount was far
above a reasonably remunerative price, and the failure to
induce the two companies to make a further reduction led
to the organisation of the Great Central Company, which,
with the countenance and support of the city, obtained in
1851 their Act of Incorporation, and as the result gas was
supplied to the citizens at 4s. per 1,000 cubic feet. This
continued until 1860, when, in consequence of a previous
action on the part of the gas companies surrounding the
city, and with a view of reinstating the principle of dis-
tricts (which existed before the establishment of the Great
Central Gas Company), and thereby stopping competition,
the Metropolis Gas Act was passed. Under that act the
three companies supplying the city raised the price of gas
to 4s. 6d., and, notwithstanding a contract entered into by
the Great Central Company, on the 12th of February,
1850, to supply gas- at a price never to exceed
45., and to be reduced under certain circumstances
to 33., the company was successful in proving their legal
right to increase the charge to 4s. 6d.; and this abrogation
I of the contract was estimated, as between 4s. and 4s. 6d.per
1,000 cubic feet, to give an, excess charge of £25,000 upon
the private consumption of gas in the city. With regard to
the gas itself, the deputations that had attended before the
committee had agreed in stating that it was impure and de-
ficient in illuminating power. A standard of purity was pre-
scribed by the Metropolis Gas Act, and thongh in many
provincial towns a far higher chemical purity was now
maintained, Dr. Letheby reported that the prescribed stan-
dard for the city had scarcely ever yet been attained,
excepting recently, by the City of London Gas Company.
As to the illuminating power of the gas, it would appear
to be the general opinion that it was even less than it was
before the passing of the Metropolis Gas Act, though that
act provided a minimum power which appeared to be for
the advantage of the citizens. The committee recom-
mended an application to Parliament for a modification of
the Metropolis Gas Act of 1830, as far as it affects the city
of London, and especially with the view of obtaining for
the citizens gas of a higher illuminating power, of greater
chemical purity, and at a cheaper price than that now sup-
plied, and such other powers as might be beneficial to the
ratepayers and gas consumers.
On the motion of Mr. E. D. ROGERS the report was re-
ferred back to the committee with instructions to confer
with the Law, Parliamentary, and City Courts Committee,
to consider as to an application to Parliament at the earliest
possible period for an act to empower the Corporation
either to purchase the existing mains, plant, and works in
or supplying the city of London, and to contract for the
supply of gas into those mains, or to erect works and enter
into the manufacture and distribution of gas to the consu-
mers, as was now so successfully caryied on by the Corpo-
ration of Manchester and other towns.
HOLBORN VALLEY IMPROVEMENT.

Bonds (149 in number)from the Mayor, commonalty, and
citizens of London, were sealed for securing payment of
various sums of money, amounting in the whole to £76,800,
raised under the powers and for the purposes of the Hol-
born Valley Improvement Act, pursuant to an order of the
Court of Common Council of the Bth Dec. last.
CONCENTRATION OF THE COURTS OF LAW.

The REMEMBRAINTER (Mr. (:orrie) read a lotter he had
just recofml from the Lord Chancellor on this subject.