The Sun.
London, England, 1834-10-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1834

correspondent. St. James's, as we have often said
before, appears to us to be unexceptionable. But if
His Majesty's pious reverence towards the memory
of his predecessors should lead him to regard such an
employment of the old brick edifice of Henry VIII.
as unworthy the charaeter of its founder, seeing that
a monarch who trampled on all laws, divine and
human; could never have meditated the conversion of
any house of his into a receptacle for the legislators of
a free people, there is nothing for it but a respectful
acquiescence by all loyal Englishmen in the Royal
pleasure. Nevertheless, is not Exeter-hall still dis-
posable ? We have already stated that the proprietors
of that vast and commodious building have within
these few days offered the use of it to his Majesty's
Ministers. What prevents the acceptance of such a
proposal ? We dare say that the fittings up of Exeter-
ball would not cost a thousand pounds, and the rent of
it, until the new houses could be finished, perhaps two
or three times more. It might be well for Ministers to
reconsider their refusal. But the worst, according to
our correspondent, is to come. He writes like a
• grave man, and not too credulous, yet he surely is
so. He says that the temporary buildings at West-
minster are to serve until Buckingham-house can
be got ready ! Why, in the name of wonder, was
Buckingham-house itself to be more than a " tem-
porary' sojourn for the two houses ? Whoever
dreamed of Buckingham Palace being a permanent
place of meeting for the British Parliament ? Can it
have occurred to those who propose this Palace as a
permanent place of sitting, that the Park must be cut
up with coachroads for all sorts of vehicles, and its
beauty and usefulness as an ornamental promenade be
completely destroyed ? No ; so inconvenient a spot
cannot be intended for a permanent house of sitting,
and if it be but a " temporary" depository of the Par-
liament, but a lodging-house for a season, how many
such experimental stages are Lords and Commons to
encounter before they find themselves comfortably at
home ? We have set out with disbelieving the whole
story, yet it looks ominous that the workmen employed
about Buckingham-house have been dismissed. The
thing is yet a conundrum, but we hope it will end in
saving the people's money, and we take this occasion
to warn against scheming harpies the unsuspecting and
upright mind, but perhaps too easy disposition, of Sir
• John Hobhouse.—Tinzes.

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

Yesterday a Court of Aldermen was held for the tran-
saction of general business.

SECRECY OF THE COURT.

After the reading of the minutes of the former Court, a
communication was made to the Sheriffs by the sword-
bearer, that they must remove from the seats within the
bar of the Court, which they had occupied from the time
of their entrance, and remain in attendance below the bar.
Mr. Sheriff RAPHAEL appealed to the Lord Mayor, to
know whether it was by his orders that the interference of
the sword-hearer had taken place ? He was, he said,
aware that the seat of the Sheriffs within the bar was con-
ceded to them in courtesy, and not claimed as a right ; but
he desired that the wish of the Court might be distinctly
stated, so that the Sheriffs might not be looked upon in the
light of intruders, which the communication of the sword-
bearer seemed to indicate.

Alderman ATKINS said that the Court of Aldermen was
a close court, and that the Sheriffs had no right to a scat
within the bar.
Alderman COPELAND moved that the Sheriffs should
leave the Court until the question should be decided one
way or the other.
Me Sheriffs then retired. _

As soon as the doors of the Court were closed against
the possibility of intrusion from anybody not under an oath
of secrecy,
Alderman `ENABLES rose and moved that the Sheriffs
should be invited to take their scat within the bar during
their year of office. He did not mean to contend that the
hon. gentlemen who now filled that distinguished station
were more respectable than their predecessors, and he was
equally convinced that those who mo:•ed for their exclusion
from the bench did not insinuate that they were less so.
—(Hear, hear.) The sheriffs were forced to be in attend-
ance during the sitting of the Court, and it was derogatory
from the respectability of the gentlemen so circumstanced
to be required to sit below the bar amongst the inferior offi-
cers, when it was well known that the sheriffs were selected
from that class of men whose wealth and station in society
were equal to their own.
Alderman KELLY seconded the motion.

It was contended by several Aldermen, that the Court
was bound to support the ancient usage, and to exclude the
sheriffs from the body of the court. The Aldermen them-
selves were sworn to secrecy, and could not divulge what
passed within the walls without the violation of an oath.
All this would be an idle ceremony, if the sheriffs, who en-
tered into no such obligation, were permitted to sit amongst
them.—( Hear.)
Sir C. MARSHALL was most anxious that the sheriffs
should be admitted to a seat within the bar.
Several other Aldermen addressed the Court.

Alderman VENABLES replied, that the argument which
had been adduced respecting the Court being a close
Court was, in his opinion, most fallacious. The sooner the
foundation upon which that argument rested was destroyed,
the better, in his opinion, it would be.
The Court then divided, when there were—
For the amendment 7
Against it 6
Majority —1
The motion for the exclusion of the Sheriffs from the
seat within the bar was then carried by a majority of one,
and the Sheriffs were called in, and the Lord Mayor an-
nounced the decision of the Court. _ _

Mr. Sheriff RAPHAEL said—My Lord, on behalf of my
colleague and myself, I bow with submission to the decision
of the Court ; but I must be permitted to state that that
decision appears to us very far from progressing with the
spirit of the times, and, if I may be allowed to say so, not
at all in good taste.
The LORD MAYOR—Every gentleman is allowed to en-
tertain his own sentiments, but this is not the proper place
in which to express them.
The Sheriffs immediately withdrew.
Although the sheriffs had been excluded from the Court
of Aldermen pending the discussion, and although the Court
during the whole time was as hermetically closed as the
oaths of its members could seal it, the division upon the
motion had scarcely taken place before all that had passed
was publicly known in the passages leading to the Court,
and in all the committee-rooms, and the reading-room of
the Corporation. In the latter the sheriffs received the
congratulations of their friends upon having been so highly
distinguished by the disapprobation of a closed Court, but
an ex-sheriff and popular M.P., who happened to be pre-
sent, daily observed that the present sheriffs must not
plume themselves too highly upon such a mark of distinc-
tion, as he had also been honoured by the refusal of a seat
upon the bench ; upon which occasion, when leaving the
Court, he had informed their worships, that although they
considered the sheriffs as servants in attendance upon the
Court, he at least would not be their servant in livery, and
stripping off the trappings of office, he had coldly performed
his duty by flinging the official paraphernalia upon their
table, and leaving the Aldermen to revel in all the luxuries
of a close and secret Court, assuring them, that as they
would not have his company above, they should not have
his attendance below, the bar.