The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-16 00:00:00

Cl2'Y OF LONDON COMMISSION.

The royal commission re-assembled yesterday, at No,
32, Abingdon-street, and resumed their inquiry. Com-
missioners present—Mr. Labouchere (chairman), Sir J.
Patteson. and Mr. Cornewall Lewis.

Mr. Deputy Lott was first examined—He said that
he was a member of the Court of Common Council, and
had served on the coal, corn, and finance committee,
and also on the City lands committee. He denied Mr.
Elliott's statement that the aldermen and their deputies
exercised a preponderating influence in the committees
of the corporation. Mr. Elliott had stated that the
committees consisted of 21 members, and that the alder-
men and their deputies composed about two-thirds of
the whole number. This was not the fact. The alder-
men very seldom acted on the committees, the members
of which were generally twenty-nine and not twenty-
one in number. He thought the election of the sheriffs
should no longer take place in the common hall, but
should be vested in the Crown, as in other parts of the
country. He considered the aldermen very efficient
magistrates, who acted independently of their legal ad-
viser, excepting upon questions of dry law. He would
recommend that the number of members upon a com-
mittee should be reduced to twelve, which would be
quite sufficient. The Lord Mayor's equipage had been
severely attacked by the press, but it very much re-
sembled that in which her Majesty went to open Parlia-
ment, and which the newspapers were afraid to attack.

THE IRISH SOCIETY.
Further evidence on the subject of the Irish Society
and its management of its estates in Ireland was
then gone into ; a deputation, consisting of the fol-
lowing gentlemen from the city of Londonderry- and
Coleraine, attending before the commission, for the
purpose of making representations on that subject,
viz. :—Sir Robert Ferguson, M.P., and Messrs. Has-
lett, Babington, Franks, Colquhoun, and Moore (from
Londonderry), and Messrs. S. Knox, D. M'Gonigie,
and Bellas (from Coleraine).
Mr. Haslett said that he had held the office of mayor
of Londonderry, and was elected as the senior alderman
in the reformed corporation of that city. His attention
had been drawn to the management of the affairs of the
Irish Society in Londonderry and its neighbourhood.
That deputation fairly represented the views of the great
majority of the tenants of the society in Derry, Cole-
raine, and their vicinity. Up to the period of the re-
formed corporation the Irish Society paid the municipal
officers of Londonderry, but they afterwards withdrew
the payment. The corporation of Londonderry remon-
strated against this proceeding; and the payment was
afterwards resumed, and the Irish Society now contri-
buted 7001. per annum to pay the corporate officers, and
500/. more for municipal improvements in London-
derry. Mr. Haslett then proceeded to detail the history
of the colonisation of Ulster in the reign of King James,
and particularly as relating to the city and county of
Londonderry, and pointed out the circumstances of the
grants of land made to the corporation of London under
charter and articles of agreement from the Crown, the
management of which had been delegated by the corpo-
rati,,ii of London to members of its own body, constitu-

ting the Irish Society, and which was subsequently in
cor norated. . .

Mr. C. Lewis intimated that the commissioners were
already in possession of documents relating to the his-
torical part of the question
Air. Haslett said he would not occupy the time of the
commissioners unnecessarily, but he wished to point out
that it did not appear from any of the records that the
Crown had ever received any money for the grant, a
sum of 20,0001., which was specified in the articles of
agreement in 1609, having been spent upon the property,
and of which expenditure the society reaped the fruits
now. The whole of the county belonged to the society
with the exception of the Church lands and some native
freeholds. Complaints were made of the corporation of
London, or rather the Irish Society, from the earliest
date of their connection with Ireland, and the King
seemed to have been latterly disappointed with the neg-
ligent manner in which the settlement of the plantation
had been proceeded with. Under the grant of the Crown
it was directed that 4,000 acres should be " laid " to
Derry, towards the maintenance of the mayor and cor-
porate officers of that town ; but in 1623 only 1,500
acres had been so apportioned. Seven hundred acres
were also directed to be allotted for a freeschool, but the
Irish Society had not carried out either of these direc-
tions, and it now retained the 1,500 acres above stated
in its own hands, which ought to be in the hands of the
city of Londonderry.
The Chairman said that Mr. Haslett was now raising
a question as to title, which that commission was not
competent to determine. That was a question for a
court of law to decide. If he could point out any power
with which the society was entrusted for the benefit of
the district, and had failed in its exercise, the commis-
sioners could take cognizance of it.
Mr. Haslett was aware that the commissioners could
not enter into any question of title in the ordinary sense
of the word, but with regard to these, 1,500 acres and
other matters the society had taken a course adverse to
the interests of Londonderry. The society was incorpo-
rated by the same charter as the corporation of Lon-
donderry, to protect and promote the interests of that
c►ty and of the town of Coleraine, and he contended
that they were bound to provide for the support of the
corporation of Londonderry, and otherwise to promote
its municipal prosperity. In the reign of Charles I. the
charter of the Irish Society and that of the corporation of
Londonderry were annulled in the Star Chamber, and the
Bishop of Derry, from his influence with the King, be-
came possessed of these 1,500 acres by letters patent of
the Crown. The corporation of Londonderry then
leased the property from the bishop, but tithe lease
having expired, the bishop refused to renew it, and the
corporation applied to the Irish Society to assist them.
The Irish Society did assist them, and succeeded in a
suit against the bishop, but, instead of returning the
property as it ought to have done to the corporation,
the society took possession of the lands and kept them
to itself.
Mr. C. Lewis—That is again raising the question of
title, and the possession goes back to the time of
Charles.
Mr. Haslett said that, as trustees for the city of Lon-
donderry and for Coleraine, which he contended was the
position of the Irish Society, they were bound to pro-
tect them in the possession of lands which had been regu-
larly assigned to them against any assailants of their
right. His ground, therefore, was this, that the Crown
had certain intentions in making the extensive grant
which it had done ,to the society, but that those inten-
tions the society had failed to carry out, and he thought
that it was only by means of a commission like the pre-
sent, issued by the Crown, that they could obtain that
redress which the Irish Society had denied to them.
Mr. Haslett then proceeded to give evidence with re-
gard to the allowance made by the city of Londonderry
for corporate salaries. He said that the mode in which
the allowance was made was highly objectionable in
principle, because it give to a body in London control
over a municipal corporation in Ireland, which ought to
be free and independent. The ofcers thus paid in-
eluded the mayor and recorder, an the town clerk,
the aggregate allowance being 7001. a year. A
borough rate was levied in Londonderry to pay the
inferior officers. The Irish Society hold that the allow-
ance they make is merely optional and not compulsory,
but he disputed that doctrine, maintaining, on the con-
trary, that they were bound and ought to pay it. Mr.
Haslett then said he had also objections to make to the
conduct of the society as landlords in Ireland. He par-
ticularly objected to the short tenures they gave, and
also to one of their standing orders, which he believed
did not exist anywhere else, and which was to the effect
that no lease should be granted in perpetuity, and that
no determinable lease should be renewed until within
three years of its expiration. This regulation had a
most injurious tendency in checking improvements. The
gre Ater part of the town property, however, was held
under leases for lives, and leases renewable for ever.,
These leases were granted in consequence of a governor-
of the society visiting Ireland, and finding that.tho pre-
-4 VIM rule with regard to leases had had the effect of re•