The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-27 00:00:00

[I'RIOE SD•

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

The Royal Commissioners resumed their inquiry again
in the Privy Council Chamber, Downing-street, yester-
day.sr J hCno mpyptermaeataoidtsr
seteshsrioooennrni
circumstances
s the
r shepterotceunhs
Cinseet nydi
commencement
wteyo,
n:Mror wnihel rhi
had
ipdni
eCtrhnoooebrertn,teenheeeeanednwp
et
pgasdoeleofl
iaoaztrLide eddas
ss
onoiti sfstnott andex-
plain
tori
ts
rGreyefMunastrnalit,hCtoefia. take up his freedom. He said that Mr. Gen-
induce them to take up their freedom, and, judgment
having been signed against each of them, six writs were
placed in the hands of the officer of the corporation,
who was instructed to inform the parties that the pro-
ceedings had been taken, not for the purpose of recover-
ing the penalties, but to increase the constituency, and
that if it were their pleasrue to take up their freedom,
and they would apply to him, he (Mr. Pearson) would
relinquish his costs, and that he had no doubt the com-
mittee would relinquish the fine also. In consequence
of this representation, five of the parties took up their
freedom, and the costs and fines were relinquished
accordingly ; but the officer reported that Mr Gentry
refused to make any such application—that he said he
would not step over his threshold on the matter if
anybody were to offer him 501. to do so ; and, in fact,
that he dared the corporation to proceed against him.
He (Mr. Pearson) then told the officer that in that
case he must do his duty, but at the same time
begged him to state to Mr. Gentry that if he would
still come to his office on the subject he would not con-
sider what had taken place as an affront offered to
himself, but would stay the execution of the warrant, in
the same way as he had done in the five other cases. He
(Mr. Pearson) afterwards saw Mr. Gentry himself, and
remonstrated with him on the matter, telling him that
if he would even then take up his freedom the money
would be returned. Mr. Gentry then spoke in a sub-
dued tone, and he sympathised with him ; but he sub-
sequently came to his (Mr. Pearson's) office and com-
plained of the manner in which the warrant had been
executed. He then once more repeated the offer that
if he would take up his freedom the penalty would be
relinquished ; but Mr. Gentry had chosen to take his
own course, and all he (Mr. Pearson) could say, under
the circumstances, was, that what had been done in
lawha d
wbeen'
good
de in due e
or coursenot
was of
leaxwec;utainndg
whether
et ra
an entirely different question. He (Mr. Pearson) had
made this statement in order to vindicate his professional
warrant
then t
character, and to show that he had not acted with any
degree of harshness ; hitt that, on the contrary, he had
gone out of his way, and sacrificed his own profes-
sional emoluments to prevent the possibility of any such
imputation being cast upon him. The officer who exe-
cuted the distress was now present, and would explain
his own part in the transaction to the commissioners.

Mr. J. Z. Gore examined—l am sheriff's officer of the
city of London, and was employed by the C►ty Solicitor
to execute a distress warrant against the goo.ds of Mr.
Gentry. It was on the 3d February that I received my
instructions to do so. I then went and asked Mr.
Gentry if he would discharge the claim, and avoid un-
pleasantness. He said lie would do no such thing. I
then requested him to call and see the City Solicitor, to
prevent the necessity of my removing his goods and in-
curring further expenses. He, in answer to this, de-
clared that he would take no trouble to see anybody,
and that if the corporation had authority to seize his
goods they must do so ; that the corporation had almost
ruined him by making him remove his place of business
and driving away his customers ; that he had sustained
the loss of several hundreds of pounds by pulling down
his premises, and he had been led to expect compensation
for it, but that it had been denied him. I saw him again
afterwards, and he was still of the same mind, and would
not take up his freedom, or go and see the City Solici-
tor on the subject. I was therefore obliged to enforce
the writ against him. The sum to be levied was as
follows :—Cost of writ, 4s. ; bailiff's fee, ss. ; man in
possession (two days), 10s. ; appraisement, 21s. ; van and
men, 7s. Bd. ; warehousing goods for several days before
they were sold, 20s. ; carting goods, ss. ; auctioneer's
fees, 235. ; making the total expensed, 15s. Bd. The
amount for which the writ itself was obtained was 8/.
6s. 4d., which added to the expenses ;hove stated, made
a total of 131.25. To recover this amount a portion of
Mr. Gentry's goods were sold, from which the 13/. 2s.
was deducted, and the remainder handed over to him.
That is all I know of the transaction.

Mr. Child examined—l have been surgeon to the
City police since the year 1844. Mr. Acland had
stated that I was the son of the partner of an alderman ;
but that is not the fact. Mr. Acland appears to hare
confounded my name with that of one of the other can-
didates for my situation, who was the son-in-law of an
alderman. When the appointment I now hold became
vacant there were 25 candidates for the place, and I was
selected for the office without any interest, and solely on
the ground of professional qualifications. My salary is
now 5001. a year, without fees. The amount has been
raised in consequence of the onerous nature of my duties.
The witness having detailed the various duties he had to
discharge said—The City police is a very fine body of
men ; its standard of height is five feet eight inches,
the standard of the metropolitan police being one inch
below that. lam not aware why taller men should be
more necessary for the City than for the rest of the me-
tropolis ; but I think the practice secures a vigorous and
efficient body of men. The metropolitan and the City
police act interchangeably in each other other's districts
when necessary. The two bodies co-operate harmoni-
ously ; and the feeling between the two is the same as
that between two policemen on different beats.
Mr. Benjamin Bower examined—l am the deputy of
the ward of Billingsgate, and also deputy-governor of
the fellowship porters. The governor of that body does
not act personally in his office; and practically I dis-
charge his duties. I have been connected with the fel-
lowship only one year. There are 12 " rulers" of the
body, whose duty it is to meet oncea month to manage
the finances, settle disputes between-I he meters and
workmen, acid hear complaints against the porters. The
deputy-governor has the power of appointing the men,
of fining them for misconduct, and even of dismissing
them if necessary. The fellowship porters claim their
rights by prescription, like the privileged watermen. I
suppose that, originally, the corporation claimed the
right of performing all porterage within the port of
London, and that they employed these men as their
servants to do the work. The corporation has no other
interest in the matter, and derives no revenue from the
present system. There are 2,000 fellowship porters on
the books, but a great number of them do not attend to
do the work at all, or work only occasionally. From
800 to 900 of the fellowship, on an average, are at
work constantly. The fellowship porters must all be
freemen, and they have to apply for appointment to
the deputy-governor. Each porter, on his admis-
sion. deposits 51. as a sort of security for his good
conduct. The men arc all reqtfired to be strong' and
able-bodied. I think it would be in the power of
the corporation to dissolve the fellowship, as it was
constituted by an act of common council ; but I
believe the porters are a very useful body, and in
my own trade (the fruit trade) I am satisfied that
we could not do without their services. The ordi-
nary class of unprivileged porters cannot be so well
trusted as the members of the fellowship, who are an
organised body acting under a kind of surveillance, with
security for efficiency and good behaviour. Our trade
has forty fellowship porters allotted to it, but that num-
ber is often inadequate, and the fellowship in these cages
do not object to work with other parties, but on the
contrary guarantee their fidelity, by which, however,
they frequently lose money. I
do not consider the fel-
lowship porters are over-paid—indeed, in some cases,
thank they are paid too little. They have a
of their own, amounting to 3,5001., which is invested in
Government securities. This fund is created out of the
entrance money paid by each porter (Si.). There is a
further fund, of 5,5701., kept in the h
ands of Mr. Rush-
ton, the "shifter," who always retains it in his posses.
sion, in order that he may be able to pay the men from
it immediately their work is done, and afterwards collect
their wages from the persons who employ them. I
think, however, that 5,5701. is a much larger sum than
there is any necessity for the shifter retaining as a se-
curity for this purpose, and an alterationin this respect
might be beneficial.
Mr. C. Lewis—Are the fellowship porters a distinct
corporation ?
Mr. Bower—l hardly know.
Mr. C. Lewis—They cannot sue and be sued, can
they, as a body ?
Mr. Pearson here interposed to explain that the fel-
lowship was not a legal corporation, and for that reason
it applied to the corporation of London to lend the fel
lowshipits name in bringing the action against the
Messrs. Combe and Delafield. It was, however, a quasi
corporation in some respects. •
Mr. C. Lewis—Have you anything else you wish to
state, Mr. Bower ?
Mr. Bower—If I may be permitted, I would like to
say a word or two on an entirely different subject. It
has been stated to the commission that it is the practice
of the committees of the corporation to choose for their
chairmen the men who are fondest of conviviality. This
is not the fact. The practice rather is to select for
chairman the man who has shown the greatest know-
ledge and aptitude for the business which the committee
has to discharge. The best business man may not
always be the most brilliant speechmaker. Mr. Bennoch
was never elected to a chair, because he was a man who
looked in at the committee room to gossip for half an
hour with somebody, and then went away. He was not
a man who attended patiently and regularly to the
business, but preferred to be showy and to make a
display.
Sir J. Patteson—But would not the fact of a chair-
man of committee declining to partake in the convivial