The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-02 00:00:00

SMITHFIELD i

JULY 2, 1851.

MOVAL BILL,

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDING
ORDERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Yesterday the Standing Orders Committee of the
House of Lards, to which the Government Bill for the
removal of Smithfield Market was referred, met in the
Royal Gallery, at twelve o'clock. This Committee,
which, in the late Earl of Shaftesbury's time, consisted
only of the Noble Earl, to whose jurisdiction the stand-
ing orders were exclusively confined, now consisted of
Lord Redesdale (the Chairman of Committees), Viscount
Hawarden, Lord Colchester, Earl Waldegrave, Lord
Beaumont, and Lord Camoys. There was a large number
of Parliamentary agents and municipal people present.
Mr. Lyon, of the firm of Lyon, Barnes, and Ellis, of
Spring-gardens, to whom the conduct of the measure is
entrusted, appeared in support of the Government Bill,
and Mr. Tyrell (the City Remembrancer) and other gen-
tlemen, on behalf of the Corporation of the city of Lan-
don, in opposition to the Bill.
The Noble CHAIRMAN read the memorial which had
been presented to their Lordships by the Mayor and
Corporation of the city of London, complaining of non-
compliance with the standing orders. The memorial re-
presented that the Bill in question proposed to provide
a metropolitan market in lieu of the present one in
Smithfield. of which the Mayor and Corporation were
seised in fee, the market being held by them prescrip-
tively, and confirmed to them by divers charters and
Acts—that King Edward HI. did by charter grant and
confirm to the citizens of London that no other market
should thenceforth be established within a seven mile
circuit of the City, and that this grant had been perpe-
tuated by divers Acts of Parliament—that the petitioners
had since 1828 expended upwards of 40,0001. in enlarg-
ing and improving Smithfield, which now produced to
them a net revenue of 5,0001. per annum—that if the
Bill passed into a law the rights and interests of the peti-
tioners would be seriously affected, no compensation being
proposed to be granted to them by the said Bill. The me-
morialists further alleged that the standing orders of their
Lordships' House, applicable to the Bill, had not been
complied with: in the first place, because the notices in
the case of a Bill of the first class, relating to the erect-
ing, improving, repairing, maintaining, or regulating a
market or market place, or to corporation property, had
not been given as required by the standing orders of the
House—that no notices had been given in the London
Gazette or newspapers in March last, for three succes-
sive weeks, by order of the House of Commons—that the
promoters of the Bill intended to ask for power that no
new market for the sale of cattle or horses should be
opened in the city of London, or Westminster, or liber-
ties thereof, or in the borough of Southwark, or any
place distant less than five miles in a straight line from
St. Paul's, whereas the Bill contained a provision that
after the opening of the new market no other market
shall be opened within seven miles of St. Paul's—that the
Bill, if passed into a law, will virtually repeal the charter
and acts of the Corporation of London, and that notice of
intention to amend or repeal any former Act is to be re-
quired to be specified in the notice, but that no notice has
been given of such intention to amend or to repeal such
Acts. The memorial concluded with a prayer from the
Corporation for permission to be heard by their counsel,
agents, and witnesses against the passing of the Bill.
Mr. LYON having stated the objects of the Bill to their
Lordships, and Mr. TYRELL having argued the standing
orders question in the terms of the proceeding petition,
in the course of which Lord Beaamont expressed an
opinion that, the Bill being a public Bill, the standing
oreers ware not applicable to it, the room was cleared,
and their Lordships remained some time in deliberation;
but on re-admission, the parties and the public were left
to conjecture the decision of their Lordships, it being a
remarkable custom in these matters not to announce the
conclusion the Committee have com.e to, but to proceed
with the other business. The consequence was, that
more than one version of the nature of the decision got
abroad—the decision, in reality, being that their Lord-
ships had resolved that the standing orders were not
complied with, and that they would report their opinion
that the Bill ought not to be proceeded with—it being
open to the House either to confirm the report, or to de-
termine that the standing orders might be dispensed with.

TO HARRY WINTON, ESQ., CHAIRMAN OF
COMMITTEE OF EXHIBITORS AT THE
CRYSTAL PALACE.
Sir,—l was yesterday favoured with your letter en-
closing a protest which " expresses an unqualified opi-
nion of the very UNJUST and harsh treatment the exhibitors
have hitherto experienced and are 7LOW receiving at the
hands of the Royal Commissioners." and it' I approved
thereof, inviting me to sign and return it to you;" but as
I entertain a very strong opinion that such language is to-
tally inapplicable, and indeed " unjust," you will, trust,
permit me, as an exhibitor, to state my reasons for dis-
senting from your views:
Although it is clear that without our co-operation and
assistance the Exhibition could not have taken place,
yet it is equally certain that without the Crystal Palace
we should gave been unable to exhibit our several arti-
cles. Surely, then, the obligation is reciprocal—with
this wide distinction, that the Royal Commissioners are
acting for the benefit of the public, while we, as exhibi-
tors, have been influenced by private and personal mo-
tives. This fact leads me to believe' that we should con-
sider ourselves the obliged and not the obliging party;
and with the view of testing the accuracy of this opinion,
I would divide the exhibitors into three classes:-
Ist. Those who, like the Duke of Devonshire and Mr.
Hope, have exhibited objects of art acquir©d by them-
selves or received from their ancestors.
2d. Those who have exhibited articles from which
they cannot possibly derive any personal emolument, but
who are desirous of bringing under public attention some
favourite object.
3d. Those who have exhibited articles similar to those
in which they deal, from the sale of which they expect
to realise a profit.
The Fiist Class are an obliged party, by being en-
abled to confer a benefit upon their fellow-creatures, by
giving them the opportunity of seeing objects which
will arrest attention, stimulate exertion, and advance
the cause of civilization.
The Second Class are more obliged, for they are en-
abled to bring under public attention some object which
they consider important. As one of this class, who have
for many years been occupied in reclaiming waste lands,
I consider myself much indebted to the Royal Commis-
sioners for the opportunity of shoving what has been
actually accomplished at Corwar.
The Third Class are yet more obliged, for they hope
to reap (and I trust will not be disappointed) emolument
from the display of articles in which they deal.
If your committee could be induced to reconsider their
opinion, and adopt that which I have expressed, they
cannot better or more gracefully atone for their error
than in setting on foot a subscription from the exhibi-
tors, and from the exhibitors only, with the view of pur-
chasing a magnificent plateau, representing the Crystal
Palace, and presenting it to Prince Albert, as a testi-
monial of the obligation we have individually received.
We are nearly 20,000 in number, and an average sub-
scription of ono pound each, would purchase a splendid
plateau, which, fitted up as a Ward's case, would be a
suitable ornament for the royal table.
I have the honour to remain, Sir,
Your very obedient servant,
RIGBY WASON.
Corwar, Juno 28, 1851.

LONDON MUTUAL LIFE AND GUARAN.
TEE SOCIETY. _ .

Yesterday a general meeting of this society was held
at the offices, 63, Moorgate-street, for the production of
the report of the directors and the balance-sheet, as re-
ported upon by the auditors; for the election of three
directors and two auditors; and for the transaction of
such business as might be required by the deed of settle-
ment of the society."
Mr. G. Wilson occupied the chair; and, after the usual
preliminaries, called upon Mr. Eliffe, the secretary, to
read the report, which stated that—" Within a period of
little more than twelve months, and in the first year of
its existence, no less than 862 policies wore issued by
the society, assuring the sum of 144,8541. The total
number of proposals for assurance during the same pe-
riod was 1,035, for a sum of 247,9041; of these 68 were
declined, bn the report of the medical officers, or for
other sufficient reasons. No less than 38 of the policies
issued aro for sums not exceeding 501., and 270 for sums
not exceeding 100/4 a circumstance which attests con-
clusively the readiness of the poorer classes to avail
themselves of the benefits of life resurance, when brought
within their reach."

The CHAIRMAN then read an account of the business
of the society up to the 28th of June. The policies
issued were 1,146, and the sums assured thereby
186,1001. The proposals received were 1,318, and the
sums allowed 307,5601. Tho proposals declined were
91, amounting to 23,6251. There had been accepted, but
not completed, 338 for 89,930/., and there were under
consideration 27, amounting to 5,850/. The policies re-
maining in force were 948, assuring 157,3901., the annual
income from which was 5,033/. 12s. Hid. Of the policies
issued 970 were for the whole of life, with profits; 16
ditto, by a limited number of payments; 89 were for a
sum payable at a given ago or death under that age;
47 were endowments, 13 for deferred annuities, 24 for
life assurance and guarantee combined, 60 lives were as-
sured for sums not exceeding 50/., 341 for sums not ex-
ceeding 1004, 271 agents had sent business, 4,1161. bad
been lent to 33 members, five depositors had deposited
5471. 165.; the average age of those assuring was 334
years, and the average amount per policy was 2471. He
then moved the adoption of the report, and that it be
entered on the minutes.
Mr. WELCH seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
Mr. MOORE moved " That the thanks of the proprie-
tors be given to the directors for their past services.'
Mr. SCULLY seconded the motion, which was carried

unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN returned thanks, and subsequently
moved the re-election as directors of Mr. P. Broad and
Mr. S. Hinchcliffe, and the election as such of Mr. Mar-
getson.
The motion having been seconded, a discussion of a
technical character, mixed up with some personal matters,
took place, after which the above-named gentlemen were
elected.
Mr. Moore was re-elected an auditor, as also was Mr.
Fox.
It was next resolved that for the future the fees of the
chairman should be a guinea-and-a-half for attendance
at the board, and a guinea to each of the directors, and
half such amounts for attendance at committees, and
that the fees now standing at their credit be paid.
The thanks of the proprietors were given to the trus-
tees for their valuable services, as well as to the auditors,
the medical officers, the secretary and the agents.
A discussion of considerable lergth took place rela-
tive to soma dispute, arising out of a question as to the
law charges which existed between the directors and
the solicitors of the company; the upshot of the whole
was a division, in which the directors took no part, and
in which a large majority of the proprietors negatived
the proposal for a committee to inquire into the matter,
on the ground of confidence in, and consequent non-in-
terference with, the mantigewent of the board.