The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-20 00:00:00

LONDON-, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 20, 1854.

BOYS' and YOUTHS' WINTER DRESS.—
The First House in the City of London for the Fabric,
Fashion, and Manufacture in CHILDREN'S, BOYS' and YOUTHS'
ATTIRE, is that of L. HYANI. Separate Designers and Manufac-
turers are employed
in the fabrication of L. Hyarn's Juvenile Dress,
and the Public are strongly recommended to try the above articles.
L. HY A VI, Tailor, Clothier, and General Outfitter, 36, G racechurch-
street, City.

AW LIFE ASSURANCE OFFICE,
'A Fleet•street, London, January 2, 1854.j-N.-oricE Is HEREBY
GIVEY, That, a GENERAL MEETING of the Proprietors of the
Law Life ,Nssnrance Society will he held at the Society's Office,
Ficet-street, London, on THURSDAY, the 2d day of February next, at
half past 11 o'clock in the forenoon pursuant to the provisions of the
Society's deed of settlement, for the purpose of receiving the Au-
ditors' Annual Report of the Accounts of the .-ociety up to the 31st
of December, 1853; to elect two Directors in the room of Anthony
Brown, Esq., deceased, and the Right lion. Samuel March Phillips,
whose name was withdrawn at his own request when proposed for
re-election in June last ; and for general purposes. The director
to be chosen in the room of Anthony Brown, Esq., will remain in
office until 24th June. 1855. Toe director to bechosen in the room
of the Right Hon. Samuel March Phillips will remain in office until
24th June, 1857.

By order of the Directors,
WILLIAM SAMUEL DOWNES, Actuary.

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

The commissioners met again in the Privy Council-
chamber, Downing-street, yesterday, and resumed their
inquiry. Commissioners present :—Sir John Patteson
and Mr. Cornewall Lewis. At the commencement of
the sitting,
Mr. C. Pearson, City Solicitor, said he wished to
state, in reference to that part of his evidence given
yesterday relating to the propriety of leaving it to some
legal officer to exercise a supervision or control over
legal proceedings before they are instituted, that he had
yesterday expressed himself according to first impres-
sion. It was a subject to which his attention had never
been drawn before, and he had, therefore, spoken as he
felt at the moment. He did not desire to qualify the
statement he had made yesterday to the effect that he
believed the committee of the corporation exercised a
wise discretion in almost all cases, and that they were
advised by prudent and cautious officers. But, looking
at this as a matter of principle, and in reference to cer-
tain facts which had come across his mind, upon reflec-
tion he now wished now to be allowed to change the
opinion he had yesterday expressed, and to state that he
thought an alteration in the present system would be
beneficial. He saw no objection to the functions of
supervision referred to being vested either in the Recor-
der or in the present Town Clerk. Such a change
would often relieve his own mind very much in the
discharge of his duties as City Solicitor ; and he
would therefore have no objection to a part of his own
salary being handed over to the officers who might
have the superintendence of the suits transferred to him.
Mr. Pearson then proceeded to explain the connection
between the corporation and the oyster meters in Bil-
lingsgate market. The oyster meters, he said, bought
their office of the grantee and purchaser of the office of
yeoman of the waterside a century ago, and with their
places they purchased the right of alienation. Two of
the meters have died in the course of years without
alienating, and since that time the corporation has re-
fused to sell any office ; and the corporation thereupon
appointed two oyster meters in their stead. There are,
however, at present eighteen day meters and three
night meters, who have purchased their places, and
consider themselves independent of the corporation.
There are some abuses connected with this system (par-
ticularly that of giving gratuities to the "holdsmen," or
the men who deliver the oysters from the hold of the
vessel on to the deck), which abuses the corporation
have endeavoured to rectify, but hitherto without suc-
cess. He was not aware how large a sum would be
necessary to compensate these twenty-one meters, if
their offices were bought up, but he believed it would
be a considerable sum. The amount originally paid for
the places of the oyster meters would be considered ex-
travagant now a days. The evil was one which had
been created by our ancestors, but time would remedy
it. Mr. Pearson then put in the following statement of
reasons which had induced the counsel to recommend
the corporation to demur to the suit instituted by the
Crown against the City respecting the right to the soil
and bed of the river, viz. :

THE MAYOR, &C., OF LONDON AND TOWN CLEAR APPELLANTS, AND

ITER, MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENBEAL RESPONDENT.

REASONS.

" First.—Because the issue raised by so much of the in.
formation as is demurred to is simply a question at corn.

mon law.
"Second.—Because the Court of Chancery has no juris-
diction to determine matters and things depending upon
the legal title to lands and tenements, when such legal
title is contested until after the title has been established

•
in a court of law.
" Third.— Because the Crown does not possess any pre-
rogative to transfer to the jurisdiction of the Court of
Chancery matters which as between subject and subject
would be exclusively cognizable in a court of law.
" Fourth.— Because so much of the information as is de-
murred to relates entirely to matters and things which
form a fit subject for an information of intrusion at com-
mon law, or of some other legal proceeding where the ap-
pellants would obtain the benefit of the statute of the 21st
James 1., c. 14, of the benefit of which statute the appel-
lants will be deprived if the Attorney-General shall suc-
ceed in compelling them to answer and defend themselves
in the Court of Chancery in respect to the matters and
things inquired after, and put in issue by that part of the
information which is demurred to.
" Fifth.—Because the present information, if it can be
supported at all, ought to have been filed in the Court of
Exchequer as a court of revenue, that court having both
legal and equitable jurisdiction, and such equitable juris-
diction not having been transferred to the Court of Chan-
cery by the statute of the sth Victoria, c. 5.
" THOMAS WILDE.
RICHARD BETHELL.
HENRY RANDELL."

He alio put in the following translated extract from
the record of a judgment in the Court of Exchequer,
in the reign of James I.: An information had been filed
by the Attorney-General, Sir Edward Coke, complain-
ing that the corporation .had usurped the office of con-

servator of the River Thames, and the office of measurer
of coals, corn, and all other measurable goods within
the port of London and the River Thames between
Staines and Yantlet ; the corporation pleaded the right
by immemorial usage to these offices in terms nearly
identical with the words embodied in the charter granted
in the following year by King James. The corporation
likewise pleaded the confirmation of their rights in the
following terms :

" And further the same mayor and commonalty, &c.
say that all the customs, liberties, privileges, and fran.
chises of the City aforesaid, for a long time used, by the
authority of the Parliament of the Lord Richard IL, late
King of England, after the conquest, held at Westminster,
in the seventh year of his reign, were ratified and con-
firmed to the then mayor and commonalty and citizens of
the City aforesaid, and to their successors ; and by that
warrant the same mayor and commonalty and citizens of
the said city of London, for the whole of the said time,
&c.' to hold and exercise the said office, &c., have used,
and still use, &c.
" And Edward Coke, Knt., the Attorney-General, to.,
who, &c., present here in court at the same day, in his
own proper person, and being asked and required if he
was willing further to proceed in the premises against
the aforesaid mayor, &c., says that having seen the plea
of the aforesaid mayor, &c., and having fully and dili-
gently understood and examined, &c., because it suffi-
ciently appears to him, and is sufficiently attested here
in court, as well by view of the aforesaid act of con-
firmation of the liberties, privileges, and franchises
aforesaid, as of divers evidences and other proofs, as by
the relation and testimony of divers trustworthy persons,
that the aforesaid mayor, &c., and all their predeces-
sors, from time whereof the memory of man runneth not
to the contrary, have used and enjoyed all and singular the
liberties, privileges, and franchises aforesaid, and other
the premises in the said information aforesaid, above spe-
cified, in manner and form above in pleading alleged. The
same attorney of the now Lord the King doth not deny
the same, but confesses and acknowledges the plea afore-
said by the same mayor, &c., in form aforesaid above
pleaded to be true. And that .he the same attorney, &c.,
will not further prosecute in the premises against the said
mayor, &c. ; and whereupon the aforesaid mayor, &0.,
pray judgment in the premises, and that they and their suc-
cessors may use, have, enjoy, and perceive all and singular
the liberties, privileges, offices, franchises, wager, rewards,
and fees aforesaid, and other the premises in their afore-
said' plea mentioned ; and on view of the premises here
had by. the barons, and on mature deliberation between
them, its is considered by the same barons that the afore-
said mayor, &c., and their successors may have, receive,
enjoy, and use all and all manner of offices, privileges,
liberties, franchises, wages, rewards, and fees aforesaid,
and other the premises in theirplea aforesaid, above claimed
from time to time by virtue of the aforesaid act of Parlia-
ment, and other the premises."
Mr. Pearson then withdrew. The next witness ex.,
amined was
Mr. E. Bullock, common-sergeant of the city of Lon-
don; who said that he had held his present office for four
years, and his salary was 1,600/. a-year. His duties were
to attend the sessions of the Old Bailey as one of the City
judges. He sat inane court and the Recorder sat in
another. There are abotit twelve sessions held at the
Central Criminal Court every year, and each session
lasts generally for four or five days. He attended the
Court of Aldermen and the Court of Common Council
whenever his advice was necessary, but never took part
in the debates in those courts. He had also acted as
assessor to the sheriffs at the elections in Common-hall.
He wished to.add his testimony to that of the Recorder
as to the abstinence of the aldermen from interfer-
ence at the trials in the Central Criminal Court. He
had, however, received valuable assistance from them
with regard to the extent and nature of the punishment

to be inflicted upon prisoners who had 'been found
guilty.
_ -

Mr. Russell Gurney examined—l ace jri edge of the
Sheriffs' Court in the city of London, and also act as
judge of the Small Debts Court. I have d this office
since 1850. My salary is 1,2001. a year. I receive no
fees in addition to that sum. I sit for two- or three days
in every week in the City Small Debts Co•art., to transact
business. lam also on the commission of the Central
Criminal Court, and have to attend there: occasionally.
My time is therefore fully occupied by my official duties.
Between 10,000 and 11,000 cases were entered in the
City Small Debts Court last year ; but of course all that
number were not actually tried, many of them being
settled by the parties themselves. The custo na of foreign
attachment is very useful in' the City, a:ad indeed I
think it would be desirable that it should be extended,
not only over the whole metropolis, but over the whole
of the kingdom.

Mr. F. Brandt examined--I am the cairn ptroller and
solicitor of the Bridge-house Estate, and I save held these
offices fifteen years. My gross income is 1, 0131. 18s. 6d.,
from which deductions for salaries o f clerks and
other expenses (amounting to 3121. 1,45.) must be
made, leaving the net income I receive a't. 7011. 4s. 7d.
The Bridge-house Estate originated in . sticient grants •
from the Crown, in the gifts of different is ilividuals, and
in purchases of property made at differen t periods from ,
the savings effected out of the revenue of f, tie estate. The •
estate is held in trust by the corporation for the main-
tenance and repair of London-bridge. The present
London-bridge was built out of the Cons, elidated Fund,
the advances made by the GoVernment t--;being secured
upon the revenues of the Bridge-house. Estate. The
estate is also charged with the paymei at of a sum of
77,0001. expended for the repair of Bla cl:friars-bridge
some years ago. The sum of 21,5001. a year is paid in
annuities to the Government to diSchart ;e the debt in-
curred in respect of London-bridge. Thi is debt will be
extinguished in the year 1867. The bridge-master
receives the rents of the estate. Blackfr is rs-bridge was
in a very bad state a short time ago, and the corporation
spent about 10,0001. in repairing it ; a-iid it has been
under consideration whether the bridge must be rebuilt
or can be effectually repaired. The fun ds of the estate
are exhausted by the expenses of Lon don-bridge and
Blackfriars-bridge, and the costs of colle( tion. The cor-
poration are trustees for the fund, but th e proceeds must
be devoted to a particular purpose ; a. 2cl the corpora-
tion cannot alter their appropriation with out the sanction
of Parliament. It was stated by one if the witnesses
that the income of the Bridge-house Est ;ate for the year
1852 was 47,000/. ; but this is an error, for 12,7401. put
down as revenue and income forms no part of it. The
fact is, this sum was received in that yei it by the sale of
property, and was invested in the publi e funds, and the
interest became part of the income of the. estate, and has
to be applied hereafter in the purchase of freehold pro-
perty. The Bridge-house Estate corm aittee have been
in negotiation with the directors of the Southwark-
bridge Company for the purchase of Sou thwark-bridge.
These negotiations commenced in 1849, at id the company
asked 300,0001. as purchase-money, the sum which it
stated it had been Offered by the projeci to rs of the North
Kent Railway, when they wished to buy the bridge.
The bridge only pays dividends to the preference share-
holders, the traffic which passes over it being very small.
This preference dividend is only per cent. at present,
and the income of the bridge last year 'vas only 1,500/.
The cost of maintaining the bridge is said to be very
small. The corporation thought 300,0,00/. a very high
price, and the negotiations were sr 12 pended. They
were, however, renewed last year, wham the company
still insisted upon receiving 300,000/. ;. indeed, they in-
timated that if that offer was not soon ; ii ccepted the price
would be raised. The impression d the- -company appears
to be that the bridge must be purchas ie d for the public,
and that they can obtain almost what sum they like for
it. At present the toll levied at the 'b ridge is 2d. for a
one-horse carriage, and ld. for each fc t passenger. The
approaches to the bridge are very bai 1, and if the City
bought the bridge, a further outlay, be, sides the purchase-
money, of about 150,0001, would be real wired to improve
the approaches. The Bridge-house Est ate funds cannot
be called upon to make such a pur eb ase, nor, in fact,
could all the money necessary be fairly expected to be
advanced by the City, as Southwark-ibridge, if thrown
open, would be a metropolitan object, and not one con-
fined to the City. But what the corporation has de-
cided has been to put the matter in :such a train that it I
might provide a portion of the funds for the purchase of
the bridge if the Government Would supply the rest. He
wished to correct a misstatement as: to another point.
It had been alleged by one of the v eitnesses (Mi. Ben-
noch) that the duties of the Bridge -house Estate com-
mittee, and the duties of the navigati ion committee often
conflicted, and in support of this a isertion it was said
that the works carried out at Bk iekfriars-bridge five
years ago interfered with the navil lation of the river.
Now, the fact was, that when synn rtoms were observed
of the sinking of one of the piers of Blackfriars-bridge, a
report was made by Messrs. Walk( es and Burgess, the
engineers under whose superintende nee the bridge was
repaired ten years ago, and this r sport recommended
that a quantity of rubble should be t;:hrown into the river
to support certain piers of the bridges. It was not true
that this rubble had produced any sh cials. It was stated
when an accident occurred to the steam-boat, that
this rubble had caused the accident. ; but on inquiry it
was found that none of the rubble b ad moved from its
position, and the navigation committee discovered that
the accident had occurred to the Ant before she reached
Blackfriars-bridge. In point of fact, there was no con-
flict between the jurisdiction of the :Bridge-house Estate
committee and that of the navigation committee ; and
in any works carried out for the. improvement of the
bridgesf care was always taken tha,t nothing should be
done which would be prejudicial to the navigation of

the river.
Sir John Key examined—l hold the office of City
Chamberlain, to which I was elected in the month of
June last year. There was a corttest for the vacancy
when I was a candidate.
Mr. C. Lewis—A. witness named Mr. Rose has told
us that you informed him that your election expenses
amounted to upwards of 7,000/.
Sir J. Key---I have never been in communication with
Mr. Rose at all.
Mr. C. Lewis—Have you any
objection to state to us
the cost of your election ?
Sir J. Key—l should think about 5,000/. When a
person stands as a candidate for any public office, and
even for the office of member of Parliament, the expenses
are naturally very large, without the fact implying that
there has been any corruption. I was not in town when
the late chamberlain died, and a number of persons
were employed as agents in my behalf in my absence.
The poll was open for seven days, and at my election
there were eighty cabs engaged and sixty clerks em-
ployed, all which led to considerable expense. The cost
of bringing up the non-resident voters to the poll was
not very heavy.
Mr. C. Lewis—Were the expenses of your canvassing
agents large ?
Sir J. Key—That was a large item. I also retained
several attorneys. The tavern expenses did not much
exceed 1001.
Mr. C. Lewis—Proceed with any statement that you
wish to make.
Sir J. Key—lt has been stated by one of the wit-
nesses (Mr. Acland), in answer to the question whether
the duties attached to the office of Chamberlain are
weighty and arduous, " that the office is the next
thing to a sinecure." Now this is an entire misre-
presentation of the fact. I attend to the duties of
the office of Chamberlain personally and discharge them
regularly. The office is one of great trust and respon-
sibility. My office has charge of receipts amounting
yearly to 1,219,5111., and payments to the extent
of 1,229,242/. ; making the gross total of money passing
annually through my office, and for which I am respon-
sible, no less than 2,448,7531. These are, of course, not
all money transactions ; but in actual cash I receive for
the corporation, in different payments, 800,000/. a year.
I gave security to the amount of 30,000/. on taking
the office. The City balances can be invested in the
public funds ; but, inasmuch as we occasionally want
large sums of money, we lend them out at call, getting
either City or Government bonds as collateral security.
The banking and other business, together with the
making out of accounts, occupies my time from ten in
the morning till five in the afternoon daily, and the office
is certainly no sinecure. Besides this I have other duties
to perform. I hear complaints between masters and
apprentices, and have the power of sending apprentices
to the City Bridewell. I never commit them for more
than ten days. I give advice to the master, and read
the apprentice a lecture as to his duty. I believe, if a
master has been guilty of maltreatment, I can cancel
the indentures, but I have had no case of that kind
come under my attention since I have been chamberlain.
Mr, C. Lewie—Captain. Williams, the Government

nspector of prisons, has informed us that vagrants are
committed to the Bridewell prison, and that confinement
in this prison acts most mischievously on apprentice

boys. What is your experience on that point ?
Sir J. Key—The cases of commitment of apprentices

are not very frequent, and I have not found any mischief
arise to the boys from being sent there. Generally
speaking, they are not confined there above a day or
two altogether, as the masters generally apply for their
liberation on promise of better conduct for the future.
Mr. C. Lewis—Proceed with your statement.

Sir J. Key—Another portion of my time is occupied

in admitting persons to the freedom of tne City. I like-
wise attend all courts of common council and courts of

aldermen. The City has 4000 tenants, and I have to re-
ceive rents from them to the extent of 103,0001. per annum.

The total emoluments of my office never exceed 2,5001.
a year. I wish to correct a misrepresentation made by

one of the witnesses (Mr. Acland), who stated, with

regard to the late contest for the office of chamberlain,

in which Mr. Scott, the chief clerk, stood as a candidate
in opposition to myself, that " an overture was made

to Mr. Scott during the contest that his situation (as
chief clerk) should be improved pecuniarily if he would

resign, and a threat conveyed that if he persisted in
the poll after a certain time he would lose the appoint-

ment, for that a new chamberlain would appoint some
one else." Now, in answer to this, I distinctly swear
that no such overture was made to Mr. Scott during

he contest, as far as my knowledge extends, and I

never had any intention to make any change in the

office of chief clerk. There is another statement in the
evidence of the same witness to which I wish to refer.

He says :—" I believe the corruption upon the present
system commenced in the year 1831, when there was
an election for the office of Lord Mayor between Sir
John Key and Sir Peter Laurie. At that time Alder-
man Lucas, who was a very extensive lighterman, took
a very prominent part in the election, and being a
lighterman, he was well known along the shores of the
Thames by the people connected with the navigation
and business of the Thames, who, under the corpora
tion, must of necessity be freemen, in order to hold cer-

ain offices, or members of livery companies. Alder-

man Lucas brought those men in large bodies to vote
for his friend. The election cost from 12,0001. to

15,0001. for the two candidates, a very large proportion
of which went to those men who are now called "long
shoremen." Now I have to say that the insinuation of
this witness, who puts me forward as the author of the
corruption of the 'long-shoremen, are diametrically con-
trary to the fact. I was a candidate for the mayoralty at
the period stated, which was a time of great popular ex•
citement connected with the passing of the Reform Bill in
assisting to promote which measure I had taken a some-
what active course. Towards the close of my first year
of office (as Lord Mayor), I was waited upon by a depu-
tation, who wished to know if I would serve in the office
a second time, and assist in forwarding the Reform Bill,
in advocating which I had taken so active a part. I
consented ; but at that time the great majority of the
aldermen were opposed to that measure, and it is well
known that the Court of Aldermen elects one of two
aldermen nominated by the livery to fill the office of
Lord Mayor. The aldermen made a choice which was
not favourably received by the livery, and a poll was
demanded. The contest lasted for twenty-four days ;
but as to Alderman Lucas having returned me by his
influence with the long-shoremen, the witness has sworn
what is contrary to the fact. And so far from the
expenses on both sides having cost from 12,0001. to
15,0001. Ido not believe that they cost 2,0001. My
belief is that my own expenses in that contest did not
come to more than 1,0001. altogether. The same wit-
ness had likewise stated that 19 aldermen agreed to
find 1001. a piece for the purpose of securing my election
at the late contest for the office of chamberlain ; and it
had been insinuated that this money came out of the
corporation funds. Now, I have to say that no such
agreement as that alleged was made by the aldermen to
secure my election, and that no such subscription was
ever entered into. I paid the whole of the expenses of
my election out of my own pocket. I wish to correct
a statement made by Mr. W. Williams, M.P., in his
evidence, to the effect that the salaries of 12 officers
of the corporation amounted to 41,4351. in 1853,
or to a greater amount than the aggregate salaries of
twelve Cabinet ministers. This is contrary to the fact.
The salaries of the twelve highest officers of the corpo-
ration, instead of being 48,4351. amounted only to
19;600/. The duties of the Chamberlain and those of
his chief clerk are perfectly distinct, and no one person
could properly discharge the duties of both of these
offices if they were to be consolidated.
[Sir J. Key gave his evidence in so low a tone of voice
that it was with great difficulty that even the general
purport of his answers could be caught.]
The next witness examined was Mr. Joseph Daw,
principal clerk to the City Commission of Sewers ;—He
said that the City Commission of Sewers is appointed by
the Common Council under the provisions of a local act.
It consists exclusively of members of the corporation,
and has upon it the Lord Mayor, the recorder, and com-
mon sergeant (who are ex officio members), all the alder-
men, the deputies, and one commoner from each ward.
The commissioners have the power of making and levy-
ing the consolidated rate and the sewers rate, the former
of which must not exceed 18d., and the latter 4d. in the
pound. The commission manages the paving, lighting,
sewerage, cleansing, &c., of the City. A rate of id. in
the pound raises about 4,0001. The consolidated rate
seldom exceeds ls. in the pound, which produces a total
of 50,0001. The total rental of the City is 1,100,0001..
During the last two years the consolidated rate has
armonnted to 15d. in the pound. Last year the sewers rate
was 2d. in the pound, and in 1846 and 1847 it was the same ;
but with these exceptions it has usually been 4d. in the
pound. The City Commission of Sewers and the Metro-
politan Commission work harmoniously together, and
during the 22 years that I have held my present office
I have never known any question of difference to arise
between the two bodies. The two systems, as it were,
dove-tail together admirably, and no practical evil arises
from there being two separate jurisdictions in the me-
tropolis. The abolition of the City Commission of
Sewers, and the transfer of its functions to the General
Metropolitan Commission, would be unjust to the citi-
zens, because extensive drainage works have been carried
out in the City at the exclusive expense of the citizens ;
and to make them pay for providing similar works for
the rest of the metropolis would be most unfair. Again,
the City managed its own sewers by ancient prescriptive
right, and it would be unjust to deprive them of that
right without any reason for it. The sewerage of the
City is very perfect, and the machinery of the Commis-
sion works extremely well.
Mr. Heywood, engineer to the City Commission of
Sewers, examined—My duties are co-extensive with the
functions of the commission. I have the direction of the
whole of its sanitary works, and am generally their ad-
viser in the execution of those works. There are 1,000
public ways in the City, extending over 51 miles ; and
it contains 16,000 houses. The sanitary state of the
City is very satisfactory, and the City has a complete
sanitary staff. The regulations of the City in all sani-
tary matters, and in all subjects affecting the public
ways, are very stringent, and they are constantly
enforced. The Common Lodging-houses Act does
not apply to the City, but the officers of the City Com-
mission of Sewers have full powers of inspecting com-
mon lodging-houses. I have never known any instance
in which practical inconvenience has arisen from there
being two separate sewers commissions in the metropo-
lis. The only shadow of a reason I have heard assigned
for anticipating the possibility of any inconvenience
from the two distinct jurisdictions, is, that the corno-
ration might object to a commission outside the City
draining through their area ; but such an objection is
not at all likely to be raised by the corporation. All
applications to form connections with the City sewers
are generally agreed to within a week, and carried out
in a month. There is not a house in the City without
a proper supply of water, and in no part of the metro-
polis is there so much accommodation afforded to the
public traffic as in the city of London.
The Commissioners then adjourned the inquiry till
this day.

A DRAB-COATED CABINET !-Mr. Bright, if he have
a political principle at all—if any one of his desultory
and impulsive antagonismS may be called principles—is
consistent in his hostility to the House of Lords, and in
his advocacy of predominance to the commercial, the
manufacturing, share-jobbing, and money jobbing classes,
over the senators of hereditary independence. This, too,
is Mr. Cobden's " homely legislature" of " homely
men." Working men ! you have been duped, and will
be again ; but the worst day you shall know on this side
of the grave will be that, if it ever come, which sees the
delegates of new and old Rochdales on the Treasury
benches, a " man of peace" at the Horse Guards, a
" lock-out" at the House of Lords, the key in the pocket
of some John Bright, with a "homely man" of a
" homely legislature" stripping the court of its " bar-
baric pomp," and England of her chivalry and honour
Sornervil:e's Cobdenic Policy, by " One who has Whistled
at the Plough."