The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-12 00:00:00

Court of Common Council.

A. special Court of Common Council was held
yesterday at Guildhall, for the purpose of proceed-
ing with the adjourned debate in reference to the
constitution of the Commissioners of the City of
London.
The LORD MAYOR presided.

It will be remembered that on the former occa-
sion Mr. Rudkin, the chairman of the special com-
mittee appointed to consider the subject of the con-
stitution of the Commissioners of the City of Lon-
don, brought up a report which recommended that
instead of one commoner from each ward being eli-
gible to sit as a Commissioner of Sewers, every
commoner who was eligible should have that privi-
lege, thus virtually throwing the court open to every
member of the Court of Common Council. He
moved that the report be agreed to, to which Mr.
Gover proposed, as an amendment, that it was not
expedient to increase the number of the Commis-
sioners, and after some discussion had taken place
the consideration of the matter was postponed until
yesterday, the Lord Mayor having named the ear-
liest possible day for the discussion of the subject.
A long and animated discussion then took place,
in which most of the leading members of the court
took a part.
Mr. R. N. PHILIPS said he should support the re-
port, and he observed that in Manchester, Liver-
pool, Leeds, Hull, and other large towns, the cor-
porations did not entrust the important-powers that
were vested in the Commissioners of Sewers to any
other body than themselves, and he thought the
same system ought to be adopted in the City of
London.

Mr. LAWLEY also supported the report, on the
ground that under the present system some of the
largest and wealthiest wards in the City were, in his
opinion, not sufficiently represented at the Sewers
Commission, and that on this account a change was
desirable.

Mr. PEDLER opposed the report, and he suggested
that instead of what was proposed to be done by
the special committee he thought it would be the
best course to strike off all the deputies who were
ex-officio members of the Sewers Commission, and
appoint the same number of commissioners from the
different wards in their place.
Mr. PRICKER expressed his opinion that the pre-
sent proceedings were merely intended as a hustings'
cry for St. Thomas's-day, and he could state as a
fact that many members had been threatened that
they would not be re-elected if they did not support
the motion. He believed that a great many votes
would be obtained from members who would be
afraid of losing their seats if they did not support
the motion; and although he felt humiliated that this
should be the case, he was determined to act con-
scientiously and without any fear of the consequences,
and should support the amendment, believing, as he
did, that there was not the slightest occasion for the
sweeping change that was sought to be carried out
in the constitution of this important branch of the
corporation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DE JERSEY, the Chairman of the Commission
of Sewers, next addressed the court, but before he
did so he said he should like to ask the Recorder to
give an answer to a communication he had ad-
dressed to him a day or two ago, requesting him to
state whether the Commissioners of Sewers could
legally delegate the powers vested in them to com-
mittees in the way that had been suggested by the
supporters of the present motion?
The RECORDER said that he had considered the
subject attentively, and in reference to the various
acts of Parliament conferring powers on the Com-
missioners of Sewers, and he was of opinion that
they could not legally delegate those powers to com-
mittees, and that if they did their acts would not be
binding. It had been suggested, he said, that the
act of Parliament known as Michael Angelo Taylor's
Tohp
act would have some bearing upon the matter, and
he had referred to it, and it did not in any way affect
the
incaitoonhme3 lileoenNi
hadt formed on the matter. (Hear.)
entirely SERGEANT,concurred
i who wasth e
eappealed
thatt o ,
said teii
n had been expressed by the Recorder. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DE JERSEY then addressed the court at con
siderable length, and he complained of the great-
warmth
into the adnedhapteerhsyoneaolmitye
etfhtaitiehepadeakbeeresn,
am
introducedount o f
and said it was a portion of the " vindictive hound-
jugs" to which he had been subjected during the
last two years in reference to this question.
Mr. ROWE rose to order, and complained of such
an expression as " vindictive houndings" being
made use of by any member of that court.
Mr. DE JERSEY said it was not his expression, but
one that had been made use of by other parties in
reference to himself. (Hear, hear.) He then pro-
ceeded to state that with regard to the charge that
had been made by an hon. member during the de-