The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-05 00:00:00

~/

72._.,._,

,e2l

/ ,

4 r.

:~ ~'~

/. 41
. .
,40*.: ''',- :'
.4-, zak., 4 , • / ..-
ade
, _ 4,44 ^j,' . . 1t174 : ..fdt, •
gal, ,i • ,
-Z4`1.;,...,,, • ...„Ir . ~,, .
4 '4 Fri '1,41...• ./ ''.'•• ,
~,,44114:-4, ~„ . . wv,A"
_ .
4.,
.* /
•..7: -, '.--- ~,, ;,-4.- .157.\ , ~, , ,
. . 0 4,-*,t*: I .7,k `, r• , ' ~. gili ;9,..
...
vr
7.y
,‘,, ~ ts
~,c,„....771,c2 4,-..:6 -,-2, t," -
.-..- 41..': • - - -4-.. / -,,,
.- `,. -
,/,.. , •-: .., .
.'.;•s ~ , \ w 1 . -,,,: ,
\ 1 ,-;. ti , 4E#C'‘l''%•kt 4.44'1
‘,, —010•1•11N.F`' ,\, • - ~;11"---- _ „s-. 4,„ ;;.7 7, , „,,,,;„
. 'Zit -..-, 's* ' ' ' 1 k-"' I, r 2:.;
''. ' ' t--' -,` ' .'
i / r
•
-4k,4;11 '-- --'-'s‘ ~e.• ' . "4 'AY tr, cra
c - ~,T ; , , -.. ..A, f'.. 415" 'A:4414, -• , 1
(°:;_______7."----: 1.40;1.!
,/ ',' .
~))),,',I:,X, .2 , kl, ~.. ";.1':,;
. , ,
~, , / .
.‘,. r' . k.,,,,,,, ' zytoiT,p,- -.,,,A, s \,-
, .`".s.; \''''': Is'''. :4
: '..
': ' 4 %in' '''''/'/:
~.. :Die.ll3-7-PAI--- 412:4;1.-1":':, .:' 'n.15.--o.°- '''
'.

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 5, 1853.

CORPORATION
_OF THE CITY OF

publish regular and detailed accounts of the expenditure
of the 150/. ?

then explained that ho had refrained from laying before
the commissioners his own Views as to the best mode of
remedying the evils connected with the system and work-
ing of the corporation, as he had thought it preferable in
the first instance to go through the whole of the existing
abuses. At the same time he might state that he was now
engaged in maturing a scheme for the effectual reform of
the City corporation, and he should be ready to develope it
to the commissioners in a few days. He would also pre-
pare a series of documents bearing upon the financial
affairs of one present corporation, which he thought would
have Die effect of placing this complicated and difficult
part of the corporate administration in an intelligible
lisf:nt before the commissioners. He would be prepared,
'Lie believed, by Tuesday next to enter fully upon both of
these subjects.
At this stage of the proceedings, the [commissioners
adjourned the inquiry till Tuesday.

LONDON.

The commissioners re-assembled in the offices of the
Privy Council, Downing-street, yesterday, to continue the
prosecution of their investigation. Commissioners present
—Mr. Labouchere (president), Mr. Cornewall Lewis, and
Sir John Patteson. The proceedings Were commenced by
the resumption of the examination of
Mr. Acland, who, having corrected a mistake which he
had made on the previous sitting, in asserting that the
office of surgeon to the city police was held by the brother
to an alderman's partner, said—" I will begin by taking
up in the first point the charge against the corporation of
having allocated a certain sum of money for the purpose of
inducing a better representation by the press of their pro-
ceedings. I believe I was somewhat incorrect in my state-
ment on this subject. In 1849, the corporation having been
for years in a spirit of opposition, not to say antagonism,
to the wishes of the Government, a report was made by
the consolidated committee to the Court of Common
Council, of which -report I hold in my hand a litho-
graphed copy, issued by the Common Council. It is as
follows : viz.,—

Mr. Acland—l say they profess to give accounts ; tkey
give account in this matter, and it is open-to the fair pre-
sumption that they have spent the whole amount.
The Chairman—That is a very different thing from what
you stated, that 1,000/. was spent on the newspapers.
Mr. Acland—l conclude that it was so spent from their
own reports.

Mr. Cornewall Lewis—ls there any document of the cor-
poration to show that they vote 1,000/. as a subsidy for
the press ? •

Mr. Acland —I do not say that. I have no proof as to
the specific sum spent, but a power to spend a sum not ex-
ceeding 1,0001. was given to the committee.
The Chairman—Passing to the consideration of the state
of the courts of the city of London, and beginning with
the civil courts, have you any observations to make with
regard to them?

THE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION
AND THE PRESS.

(From the Morning Chronicle. )

We have always kept aloof from newspaper
quarrels. The squabbles of journalists have no
interest for the public, and reflect no credit on the
character of the Press • and we prefer occupying
our columns with matter of more importance and
value than attacks on other newspapers or lauda-
tion of ourselves. But when a journal of standing
and influence thinks proper to make an ostenta-
tious assertion of its own purity the vehicle of
wholesale and indiscriminate insinuations against
_the. integrity of its contemporaries, it is due to
univalves- and to our "readers that we should
specifically repel and disprove the imputation.
Yesterday morning, the journal to which we refer
thought it necessary to offer a formal denial of all
participation in the venality with which the Lon-
don Press has been accused by a witness under ex-
amination before the Corporation Commissioners.
For our own part, we considered that the accusation
was sufficiently refuted by its absurdity and extra-
vagance, and we did not deem it requisite to
assure the public that we were guiltless of
having bartered our honesty for civic largesses.
We do not, indeed, blanie our contemporary for
regarding the charge in a different light, and for
supposing that his readers would be better satisfied
with a solemn protest than with simple silence ;
but he might at least have abstained from putting
the matter in such a shape as to compel others to~
follow his example. Not content with repudiating
the accusation, he demands further inquiry, and
asks " which of the London journals have received
the bribes of the London Corporation in return for
praise and support I" After this public challenge,
from a quarter where it might be presumed that
the character of the Press would not be wantonly
aspersed, we can scarcely refuse the very simple
task of self-expurgation.
We beg, therefore, to state that on application to
the City Hall-keeper—the functionary. who is said
to have been the medium of the alleged- corrupt
transactions—we have obtained a return of the
number of occasions on which purchases of copiei
of the different morning papers were made by him,
under the directions of the Consolidated Commit-
tee, during the year for which a return was ordered
by the Common Council on Thursday last—viz.,
from July, 1852, to July, 1853. And what is the
result ? We find that while, during that period,
our indignant contemporary was four times ho-
noured with the custom of the Corporation—we
are very sure, without the slightest injury to the
public virtue of which ho so superfluously boasts—
we have not on any single occasion had the good
fortune to receive their patronage. Our publisher's
books, so far as we are concerned, tell the same
tale—on no occasion, from July, 1852, to the pre-
sent time, has the Hall-keeper favoured this jour-
nal with his orders. The City Newsman assures
us further that, neither in 1852 nor in 1853, was a
copy of this journal bought for the Corporation ;
and we ourselves have no knowledge that any
copies were ever purchased. When we add that
the object of the purchases which the Hall-keeper
was instructed to make was merely to obtain copies
of journals containing, not laudation of the Cor-
poration, but full reports of Corporation proceed-
ings, it will be seen that even this simple statement
of facts is needless for our vindication.

"COMMON COUNCIL.
" Thursday, March 8, 1849.
" Report of Consolidated Committee to the Right Hon.
the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City
of London, in Common Council assembled.
" We, whose names are hereunto subscribed, of your con-
solidated committee, to whom, on the 22d day of May,
1846, it was referred to confer with her Majesty's Govern-
ment and others upon such of the matters specially referred
to the several oommitteesas .we may deem expedient, and;
tcr report thereon from titn to time, do certify that, pend-
ing the progress of the negotiations had on the references
to us with various departments of the Government, and
also in the proceedings in Parliament during the last two
sessions, it has appeared to your committee that the mo-
tives and objects of the corporation have frequently been
much misunderstood, to the great hindrance of your com-
mittee, and the embarrassment of the concerns entrusted
to them, impeding materially the arrangements they were
proposing with the Government and the Crown ; and that
those inconveniences have, in a great degree, arisen from
the imperfect publication of the reports of the proceedings
of the corporation, by which means want of confidence
was engendered, and misconception encouraged:
" That the proceedings of most other corporate bodies,
of public meetings and public transactions, are more fully
reported and published than those of this corporation.
Your committee therefore feel it incumbent upon
them to report to this court those practical evils which
their experience as committeemen, and chairmen of the
several committees has enabled them to point out, and to
suggest, as the most efficient remedy for such evils, that
provision should be made for more certain reports of the
proceedings of the corporation and its courts, and a more
systematic and periodical publication of them.
"Your committee recommend that it should be referred
to them to make temporary arrangements for these pur-
poses, and to report to this honourable court the provisions,
if any, which they may think fit to suggest for permanent
adoption.
" All which we submit to the judgment of this honour-
able court. Dated this 23d day of February, 1849."
[Here followtho names of 21 members of the consolidated
committee, as signing the report.]

-
2
_
- _ _

,A

/e. 9.

z'

'7

on the morning after each sitting of the court, and to
select from them the one that seemed to contain the best
39..gount of the proceedings. Of this paper, whatever it
might be, the nall-ke3per has ordered 300 copies. Of
these, 250 were circulated among the members of the
court, and the other 50 were sent to the town-clerks of
the various boroughs throughout the country. The cost
o this amounts to about 1501. a year.

.~-----

Such was the insignificant fact out of which this
fine story of " 1,0001. a year spent in bribing the '
newspapers" was concocted.
The only really dirty part of the story, as might
be expected, is the use which the TiAnqs endeavours
to Make of the original story. After giving, as it
could not help well doing, Mr. Wood's plain amnia
of the matter—namely, that the hall-keeper of the
corporation had. orders to buy 300 copies of such .It
papers as might contain the best reports of the pro-
ceedings of the corporation, the Times goes on to
bluster as follows :

"Mr. Acland has" not named the guilty parties, he
has not said who took the bribes ; but he has said who
did not take them. God forbid that we should, there-
fore, wish to extend the blame to the conductors of all
the other London journals. For their sakes, however,
as well as for our own, we challenge further inquiry into
this statement. It has been made without any seeking
of ours, but it cannot be allowed to rest here. Which
of the London journals have received the bribes of the
London corporation in return for praise and support ?"
Of course, as far as we are concerned, the Times
may have as much inquiry as it likes. -As we have
given the London corporation neither " praise"
nor " support," we shall hardly be suspected of
having been bribed to praise and support that body.
But the dirtiness of the insinuation of the Times
consists in this, that it puts into the witness's Mouth
what he did not say, and passes over the utter con.;
tradietion of what he did say, given by Mr. Wood,
whose knowledge and veracity would outweigh three
scores of Aclands. " A thousand a-year," says Mr.
Acland, " was set aside to influence the new
papers." "It is false," replies Mr. Wood, " that
any 10001. a year was voted, or that. any
.49004,44.
year was spent. Copies of such newspapers as gave
full reports of the corporation proceedings were
bought for actual use •, and in this way about 1501.
a year was spent." That Mr. Acland's statement
can stand, in the face of Mr. Wood's contradiction
is impossible. But what does Mr. Wood's state-
ment/ amount to, when taken as the substantive
fact ? Does the Times mean the public to suppose,
that the five morning papers of London, or any one
of them, could be " bribed," or biassed, by the '
purchase of copies amounting in all to the trifling
sum of 1501. year.
We are sorry to have to give the Times another
hint—which is, however, forced from us by its out-
rageous self-laudation as to this corporation story.
We would say, then, that a censor, such as the
Times assumes to be, should, at least, be impartial.
The Times has pounced, with cat-like avidity on
this absurd fition of Mr. Acland's, imputing some
sort of subornation of the press to the London cor-
poration ;Twhile, at the very same moment, it was
deliberately shutting its eyes to a much greater
attempt of the same kind in a totally different
quarter.
On the 26th of October the case of Mr. West- /.
brook was heard in the Bankruptcy Court, and in
the hearing the history of a certain Islington Cattle
Market Company came to light. For obvious
reasons, we prefer to copy the report of the Daily
News, in which this paragraph appears .
" There is a claim of 5,7301. on Messrs. Laurie and
Attree, of which 1,5001. will be credited and carried to
incidental charges, whenever they render an account of
the manner in which 150 ten pound [shares have been.
distributed among the members of the press, for which
purpose they were placed in their hands."

This report, we repeat, we copy from the Daily
News 3 • but the same fact was given in the report
of the Morning Chronicle, and also in that of the
Morning _Herald. .

The Times of the same day (Oct. 27) gives a
report of the case, of equal length with the reports
given in the Daily News, or Chronicle, or herald.
But there is one remarkable difference. In the
Times' report not one syllable is found about the
" 150 shares appropriated to members of the press."
This is unfortunate ; for it certainly gives the
Times the appearance of not being impartial—of
having one rule for the corporation, and a different
and more lenient rule for other corrupters of public
virtue.