The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-15 00:00:00

MARSEILLES AND TOULON RAIL

WAY AND DOCK COMPANY. ----
A public meeting of the shareholders in this under-
taking was held yesterday, at the London Tavern,
Bishopsgate-street, to take into consideration the mea-
sures necessary for the dissolution of the company, and
the return of the deposits to the shareholders. The
directors, it is said, are willing to return the deposits, if
indemnified.

A resolution, setting forth that it is not expedient to
proceed with the undertaking, but that it be abandoned,
the affairs wound up, and the deposits returned to the
shareholders, was passed unanimously ; and Messrs.
Hemmings, Carvalho, and Spackman were appointed a
committee to carry it iato effect.

COURTS OF ALDERMEN AND
COMMON COUNCIL.
MEETING OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE AND
GENERAL COMMITTEE OF THE MEMBERS
OF THE COMMON COUNCIL.
The General Committee having been summoned,
about 120 of the members of the Common Council assem-
bled to consider the course to be pursued by them at
the next Court, in consequence of the refusal of the Lord
Mayor to put a question which had been moved and
seconded.
At the preliminary meeting of the subcommittee,
Mr. R. L. JONES said that although he had been cor-
rectly reported in the press as having earnestly con-
tended for the right of the Court to insist upon the ques-
tion being put, he was desirous not to be understood as
I opposed to the Court of Aldermen on all the inesSures
which had been spoken of as likely to come under dis-
cussion. He desired to be understood as having confined
himself to the one point, and he expressed an earnest
wish that a conciliatory course would be adopted, and
that all inclination to discussion would be dropped.
The Sub-committee then heard the several reports of
the officers, and resolved that Mr. Ashurst should be
requested to state the views of the Sub-committee to the
general meeting of the members. They then adjourned
into the Council Chamber.
Mr. ASIAURST having been called to the chair, and the
minutes of the last meeting, with the resolutions, to
assert the right of the Common Council being read,
said, he was requested by the Sub-committee to state to
them the course which they thought it desirable should
be pursued by the Court when it should be assembled.
From the nature of the contest that had arisen, and the
circumstances which gave rise to it, the motives of the
Court of Aldermen bad been canvassed, and much that
was not strictly pertinent to the real question at that
moment under discussion, had been brought into view.
That Committee was not unconstitutional in their views,
as one of the members of the Court of Alderman had
proved himself to be, who had proposed that the Lord
Mayor should not even summon the Common Council,
but should do without that body altogether. Such an
arrangement would doubtless be very congenial to the
views of many of the members of that Court, but as
the suggestion happened not to be consistent with law,
the person who made it was soon corrected in that respect
by his more discreet fellows. The Committee had however
resolved, and no doubt they would be summoned by the
Court to insist upon their right, and to assert that right
firmly, steadily, legally, and peacefully, to have a question,
when proved, put by the Lord Mayor. The only diffi-
culty they apprehended was one which the present
meeting would be likely to obviate. In a popular
assembly unity of action was necessary for the realisa-
tion of a common object. Now, it was probable that
members, knowing, or believing they knew, what the
objects of the aldermen were, would seek to bring into
discussion what they believed to be those objects, rather
than the immediate question ; and the committee
wished particularly that he should earnestly impress
upon the members, that the only point before the
Court, but which involved all others, was whether the
Lord Mayor could suppress all discussion by refusing to
put a lawful question. That question, and that alone,
the Committee strongly urged the members to adhere
to. If that power were once conceded to the Lord
Mayor, there was an end to the power of the representa-
tive body, and the sooner they left the Court the better.
for they would be dependent upon the opinions and mo-
tives of the Lord Mayor for the time being. If such a
power should ultimately be established, it would be wholly
useless to contiuue members of the Court. They would
be merely a registering body fur the Aldermen. The
committee felt it was most important not to introduce into
the discussions any of the other questions that were
coming before the Court. If these other questions dif-
fered, members might have different views, and none
ought to be concluded on these subjects until the subjects
themselves came regularly before them for discussion.
If the right contended for by the Lord Mayor to sup-
press the discussion of any measure he did not approve
wore submitted, he for one would unite with those who
support him out of doors. Parliament must be then ap-
plied to, but in that respect ho spoke as an individual,
and not as the organ of the sub •committee. Their re-
commendation was to confine themselves at the next
court to one, and only one question, and tl preserve
unity of purpose in the assertion of their rights to be
masters of their own proceedings, and to have all legal
q
Committee)
ume s n
rt o
Ls
ow put
(chairman
the
al
rmCaonu
or tf. —t
h(eL ocuidt
City
cheers. .$)
then moved a resolution approving of the course taken by
the sub-committee.

A discussion arose as to the propriety of giving certain
notices to the Lord Mayor, but the matter was ultimately
left to the sub-committee.

LORD THLTRLOW AND THE PRINCE OF WALES.---
At Brighthelmstone the Prince of Wales, living with a
gay set of frivolous young men who displeased the Ex-
Chancellor much, asked him frequently to -dinner, bat
always met with an excuse. At last, walking in front
of the Pavilion in company with them, he met Lord
Thurlow, and pressed him much to dine with him, say-
ing, " You must positively name a day." Lord Thurlow,
looking at the party who were with the Prince, said, " If
I must name a day and time, it shall be when your
Royal Highness keeps better company." At another
time, Lord Thurlow had voluntarily given the Prince
some advice, which was far from being palatable. His
Royal Highness was so angry that he sent to him to
say, that in future Carlton House gates would be shut
against him. Lord Thurlow answered, "I am not sur-
prised; proffered favours always stink." The Prince, ,
conscious of the ungenerous return he had made, ac-
knowleged his error, and they again became friends.
The Prince once sent Sir Thomas Tyrwhitt to the Ex-
Chancellor, to ask his opinion respecting some difference
in the Royal Family. " You may tell your master,"
said Thurlow, "I shall not give him my opinion." "My
Lord," said Sir Thomas, " I cannot take that message to
His Royal Highness." " Well, then," said Lord Thur-
low, " You may tell him from me, that if he can point
out one single instance in which he has followed my
advice, I will give him my opinion on the matter."—
Lord Campbell.