The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-14 00:00:00

THE CITY OF LONDON SCHOOL.

Mr. W. S. HALE, the chairman of the City of London
School Committee, brought up a report on the subject
of the foundation of a scholarship, to be called "The
Lambert Jones Scholarship." The report recommended
that they should be empowered to cause a tablet, with a
suitable inscription, and the armorial bearings of Mr.
Jones, to be placed in a conspicuous part of the school,
at the expense of the City, in like manner with the me-
morials already put up by the directions of the court with
respect to other similar benefactions.
The report was agreed to amidst acclamations.
CITY OF LONDON FREEMEN'S ORPHAN SCHOOL.

Mr. Deputy HALE said that, seeing that his friend
Mr. Gilpin had given notice of a motion, "That the
resolution of the court of the 28th September last, 'that
the head master of the City of London Freemen's Orphan
School be a clergyman of the Church of England,' be
rescinded, and that the general rule be altered accord-
ingly," he took the first opportunity that presented itself
of saying that, in order to avoid all dissensions of a
religious tendency amongst the members of the court, he,
as chairman of the committee, should not object to the
words "clergyman of the Church of England" being
omitted, and the following words substituted for the
original resolution :—" That the head master of the City
of London Orphan School shall be elected from such three
candidates as shall be specified to be best qualified for the
office by the head master of the City of London School,
the head master of King's College School, and the head
master of University College School, London, or the
majority of them." (Hear.)
Mr. GILPIN expressed his willingness to agree to the
resolution, and atter a short discussion it was put, and
carried.

It was then agreed that the assistant-master's salary
should be 1001. per annum.
OPPOSITION TO THE REMOVAL O➢' TEMPLE BAR.
The Chairman of the City Lands Committee brought
up the report of the committee upon the allegations of
the petition of the inhabitants of the parish of St. Dun-
stan-in-the-West, against the removal of Temple-bar.
The following are extracts from the report :
" That the said petition is signed by Messrs. Child and
Co. (bankers), Messrs. C. Hoare and Co. (bankers), Mr. C.
W. Lees (churchwarden of tho said parish), Messrs. Simp-
son, Graham, and. Co. (tea-dealers), and 52 other persons,
and alleges that they have heard with great concern that a
motion was about to be submitted to your honourable court,
having in view the immediate and entire removal of that
ancient barrier and landmark of the City, and that in the
judgment of the petitioners it is most undesirable that all
visible mark and token of the City westward should be re-
moved, and that the two cities of London and Westminster
should in future appear to be one and undistinguishable.
That they do not plead for the perpetuation of the present
barrier without repair or improvement. They admit that
it is probable that modern art may devise a structure
which shall be more pleasing to the eye, while it presents
no obstruction to the traffic ; but they humbly submit that
any such project of improvement should be maturely and
sufficiently discussed before any steps shall be taken for
the removal of the present structure.
" That meanwhile, however, as inhabitants of that part
of the City which is alleged to be injured by the obstruc-
tion offered by the present edifice, they beg to submit to
your honourable court their sincere opinion that the total
removal of this venerable landmark of the City is neither
rendered necessary by the requirements of trade and com-
merce, nor is yet desirable with a view to the City's ap-
proaches. Hence they regard its removal as a step which
will be viewed by the inhabitants of the City generally
with feelings of sincere regret and dissatisfaction. The
petitioners further observe that, from long observation,
the obstruction complained of does not arise from Temple-
bar, but at the end of Chancery-lane, from the immense
number of omnibuses, &c., passing and ropassing from and
into Holborn.

" That we, your committee, have not only maturely con-
sidered the said allega,tionss but we have reason to believe
that similar opinions aro entertained by a large portion of
the inhabitants of this City, and particularly those of the
pariah of St. Bride, in Fleet-street (adjoining the parish of
St. Dunstan-in-the-West), who had signed a petition to
your honourable court on the subject ; but which latter pe-
tition was not presented from a feeling that what was stated
by the inhabitants of St. Dunstan-in-the-West would be
sufficient to induce your honourable court not to consent
to the removal of Temple-bar. Your committee also con-
sidered the several arguments which had been adduced
for the entire removal of Temple-bar but found they
principally consisted in its being alleged to be an unsightly
structure, although erected by Sir Christopher Wren, and
that its destruction would increase the carriage and foot-
way accommodation. But, upon the fullest consideration
of the subject, your committee were of opinion that unless
great expense were incurred in the removal of houses on
each aide of the bar, the bare removal of it would not in-
crease the carriage way sufficient to allow more than two
carriages to pass, as at present, without encroaching more
upon the foot pavement than the piers of the centre arch
now extend ; and that the continuance of such piers affords
a protection to passengers, and that if the bar is substan.
tially and handsomely repaired, according to the plan
prepared by the City Architect, it would still be an in-
teresting structure, indicative of the boundaries between
the ancient cities of London and Westminster, and that
the obstruction to passengers and traffic arise chiefly at the
end of Chancery-lane and Fetter-lane, and not at Temple-
bar, where one regular line of carriages pass each way with-
out that confusion which would ensue from attempting to
pass more, unless the sides of the street at that spot were
enlarged.

" Your committee therefore directed Mr. Architect to
prepare estimates of the expense of restoring and repairing
the building, who has reported to us that the cost of per-
fecting the building in all its parts will be from 1,2001. to
1,5001., and we are of opinion, and recommend, that
Temple-bar should be restored according to the plan pre-
pared by Mr. Architect, at an expense not exceeding
1,5001.

" All which we submit to the judgment of this honour•
able Court.

" D. CORK. " B. BOWER.
" T. FARRAR. " J. HILL.
"L. REDHEAD. "W. RAYMOND.
"W. ARCHER. "G. TAYLOR.
" H. BLAKE. " G. VIRTUE.
" W. RATEIBONE. " J. JOHNSON."
On the motion by the CHAIRMAN that the report be
agreed to,
Mr. Cox moved, as an amendment, "That the report
be sent back for further consideration, and that the
plan now submitted, or any other plan having for its
object to obtain further roadway and footway on that
portion of Fleet-street, be considered." Mr. Cox said
that he looked upon Temple-bar as one of the very great
number of nuisances that existed in the City, and that,
if he were to classify these, he should place this erection
at the top of the list. (Laughter.) It answered no good
or useful purpose as it now stood, it created a great
stoppage of carriages. (No, no.) He affirmed this
from personal observation, and after having given the
subject a great deal of serious consideration. It had
been said that the antiquity of Temple-bar ought to save
it from destruction ; its antiquity only extended to 150
or 160 years, and even if it extended to 1,600 years, it
ought no longer to be permitted to remain, seeing that
the great traffic of the City rendered its removal abso-
lutely necessary. Mr. Cox produced, and laid upon the
table, some plans which he had prepared at his own ex-
pense, showing how on the present site a modern struc-
ture could be formed, answering the purposes of the ex-
isting one, and preventing all the inconvenience and pres-
sure at present experienced at that part of the City.
Mr. LAMBE seconded the amendment.
Mr. Deputy Holm thought the court ought to pause
before expending a sum of 1,500/. upon an erection that
was evidently distasteful to a groat number of the citi-
zens. He was in favour of the amendment. (Hear.)
Mr. Deputy BOWER, after denying that Temple-bar
was an obstruction to traffic, said the question was not
between one plan and another, but whether there should
exist any boundary at all between London and West-
minster. (Hear.) They were told by their architect
that the present structure must be repaired. If alto-
gether knocked down, there would be such a united force
of the press against its being rebuilt, that another erec-
tion would be totally out of the question. (Hear.)
Were there boundaries enough to prove that the City
had a distinctive mark, then he apprehended the cor-
poration would not be so particular with regard to the
removal of Temple-bar, but this was the only gate now
left, and ought it to be sacrificed ? (No, no.) It was
such things as these that kept together the old land-
marks of their rights, and the old privileges belonging
to the corporation. (Cheers.)
Mr. Deputy HARRISON had no apprehension of the
liberties and privileges of the corporation being de-
stroyed by their taking down Temple-bar. (Laughter.)
He considered that the corporation must be maintained
for more useful purposes than any that could be identi-
fied with Temple-bar, otherwise the sooner they were
swept away the better. He was of opinion that the
sooner the corporation removed this obstruction, the
more would they be honoured and respected by persons
resorting to the City for the purpose of business or
otherwise. (Hear.)
Mr. Deputy BLAKE strongly opposed the removal cf
Temple-bar, and said that a ceremony there took place
whenever the Sovereign visited the City, which was, at
all events, appropriate while there was the existence of
a bar. That ceremony had been greatly ridiculed both
by the press and by the members of that court, who had
little thought of what the ceremony was the symbol.
(Hear, hear.) That ceremony was more pregnant with
instruction to the court and to their fellow-citizens than
could be found in any ceremony performed within the
City—it was the last homage within this realm paid by
the Sovereign to the free institutions of the great city
of the world. (Cheers.)
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR said he would not advocate the re-
tention of Temple-bar on any account ;he was most
anxious to remove all impediments to the traffic and com-
merce of the City, and, at this time of day, it was too bad
that the corporation should attempt to sustain such au
obstruction as Temple-bar. (Cheers.) The subject of
redecorating the bar had been discussed before the City
Lands Committee, and the City's architect had emphati-
cally stated, "Down it must come," (Hear, hoar.)
He (Mr. Taylor) thought the corporation would not be
doing their duty to the citizens if they did not seek to
remove the obstruction. (Hear, hear.) He asked the
court whether they were prepared to incur the censure
of the public press, which they most assuredly would do
if the report were received at the very time when the
Royal Commissioners would not be able to come through
Temple-bar on their way to Guildhall. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)

Mr. Deputy CORK having briefly spoken, the court
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —l2
The court then adjourned.

Signor Gaetano Giardini, the eminent jurisconsult,
condemned to death by the Criminal Court of Naples for
political offences, has arrived safe at Turin, having .re-
mained concealed four years in his native country.