The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-20 00:00:00

Court of Common Council.

Detective Williams, of the Salford police, said he
saw the last witness a fortnight ago at a brick croft
near Regent-road barracks. He said he knew Kay
and Mannering. Witness took down what he said
in writing. He described to witness the dress of
both Kay and Mannering, and said he saw them
about 7 on the morning of the sth inst. dressed as
though going on a cheap trip. Had seen him again
yesterday in court, when he said he remembered all
he had told him.
Johnson was recalled, and solemnly swore that he
never said anything of the kind.
Frederick Bagley sworn—ls a partner of Bates and
Co., brickmakers at Droylsden, which is on the fur-
ther side of the canal, in the Ashton district, and is
separated by the canal only from the Manch ester brick-
makers' district. Had a plant there value £3OO and
300,000 bricks,the market for which had been taken
away by the Manchester Union forbidding him from
carting them across the canal to builders on the
Manchester side. They had two other yards
about a mile from the other, and the Ashton
brickmakers had given him notice that they in•
tended to work those yards. The result would
be that he would have a stock of three million
bricks, with a very restricted district in which
to sell them. He employed none but union men, but
had 40,000 bricks destroyedin 1863 for having carted
bricks against the rules of the Manchester Union.
John Kettle said he was foreman to Mr. Braman
in building the new gaol in 1864. The bricklayers'
labourers struck in April, and afterwards the brick-
layers and joiners. Three men only remained at
work. The works were picketed afterwards by the
three unions. The three men were beaten on the
way from their work, and two men, John Nolan
and Thos. Daly, were taken into custody for the as-
sault, but had to be discharged through the wit-
nesses being taken out of the way. The places of the
men were afterwards filled up by non-society men.
Had not been threatened, but a man named Gomer
Roberts told him that during the strike the brick-
makers proposed to shoot him, or blow up his house,
but the bricklayers would not take part in the pro-
position, and the chairman left the chair. For some
buildings he had been engaged in he had made a
contract to be supplied by Mr. Pimlott with 200,000
bricks, but had received only 11,000, owing to the
Manchester brickmakers deciding that he must not
have them. This was in July last year, and by this
time 150,000 bricks ought to have been delivered.
When working at the gaol the Bricklayers' Union
sent to Mr. Bramall to say he must discharge wit-
ness, or he should have no more men from their so-
ciety. About three weeks ago the brickmakers, on
application, agreed to let him open his works again,
but the bricklayers interfered and said they should
stop the supply of bricks. So the brickmakers
thought it better to throw over witness than quarrel
with the bricklayers.
Benjamin Bradburn, bricklayer, said he was not a
Union man. In Feb., 1865, he was working at the
new gaol. On the 22d he was assaulted along with
Wm. Bradburn and another in Deansgate by men
who called them " knobsticks." He and his compa-
nions received a few bruises, but were not hurt. The
men were taken and imprisoned two months.
Daniel Callaghan—ln 1864 worked for Mr. Bra-
mall as a bricklayers' labourer. They (the Union)
had stopped him working before that because he had
been a member and could not pay 2s. 6d. a week
to the Union, and had been turned out. Witness
described various assaults upon him by Union men.
George Henry Carr sworn—ls a railway clerk,
and in 1864 saw the assault on Wilfred, Upton,
and Bradshaw, the men who were working at the
gaol after the strike. One of the tnen was Nolan,
and he was afterwards examined before the magis-
trates. Swore to Nolan. Another man charged,
named Daly, he could not identify. Was dodged
about the streets for a fortnight. Was afterwards
told through his brother to meet two men in
Strange-ways'. He did this, and they said Wilfred
had received £2 to leave work at the gaol, but he
returned to work, and they asked witness to swerve
in his evidence before the magistrates. Did notpro-
mise them anything. Afterwards the men met him
and his father in Salford at a publichouse and gave
his father £lO. After that, before the magistrates,
witness said he believed Nolan was the man who
committed the assault, but he could not swear to him.
William Mills, a joiner, gave evidence of acts of
intimidation by Union men.
George Burton said he bad been a member of the
Bricklayers' Society 20 years. There was a certain
amount of co operation between the bricklayers and
joiners some eight months after the gaol strike.
They (the bricklayers) came to a resolution not to
use machine bricks in consequence of the difficulties
thrown in the way after a trial of six or seven years.
Witness considered the machine bricks decidedly
inferior to hand made, except the bricks made of dry
clay, by Platt's machine. The attempt at the gaol
to utilize the clay got on their ground at the gaol was
an utter failure. The bricks were not fit to be used.
Knew a man in the club named Highley. Would
swear he never made a claim on the society for
destroying books. He made a claim of 225, for
re-entering minutes from an old book into a new
one. Did not copy all the old entries, and supposed
it was because they did not want all their proceed-
ings seen. It was against his opinion, because he
thought there was nothing in them which they should
fear being sceu. The society wished it, and so it
was done. The old book was in the hands of the
president.
henry Davis, who had been president of the
Bricklayers' Society at the time the last witness
transferred the entries to a new book, produced the
old book, and said he saw no reason why there should
have been any omissions. They were mostly en-
tries relating to strikes, which would be found in the
book produced.
Richard Coppock, bricklayer, said he was a mem-
ber of the society, and acknowledged to taking some
of the witnesses to London out of the way, when
the men charged with assault on the men working
at the Assize Courts were in custody. They had
£7 each while away and expenses. They were away
for 14 days.
James Powers, president of the Bricklayers' As-
sociation, said he paid the money to the last witness.
The money was furnished by the Labourers' Asso-
ciation. Remembered a strike supported by the
Amalgamated Society costing £920, and this might
occur again if necessary. Each member of the
Union subscribed 3d, per head per mouth to the

Yesterday a Court of Common Council was held
at Guildhall ; the Lord Mayor in the chair.

REPORTS.

The CITY REMEMBRANCER reported that the Con-
tagious Diseases Bill, the Metropolitan Streets Act,
and the County Courts Act Amendment Bill had
all received the Royal assent. It was then ordered
that a copy of the Metropolitan Streets Act, as
obtained from the Queen's printers, should be sent
to each member of the court.

THE GAS QUESTION.
The TOWN CLERK (Mr. Woodthorpe) read a
lengthened report from the Special Gas Committee,
in which they entered into the whole of the gas
question, referring to the proceedings in Parliament,
the conduct of the Government, and the action
taken by the various gas companies in relation to the
price and illuminating power of the gas. Adopting
the report of the special committee of the House of
Commons, the committee reported as follows :
"It is their decided opinion that, either by way of
regulation, or by way of an independent supply, the
consumer is entitled to a far more efficient control
than he at present enjoys with respect to the supply
of gas to the metropolis. The difficulty with which
the committee have had to contend will be found to
apply to every general Bill which may be introduced
without the concurrence of the companies for the
regulation of their present monopoly. But it will
always be in the power of Parliament to prescribe
terms of regulations as each company comes be-
fora it to apply for new powers, and the necessity
for new powers has usually brought the companies
to Parliament at no long intervals of time. The
Committee, however, do not think it would be just
to the consumer to leave him to the casualties of
this mode of remedy, and recommend that if the
companies decline to submit to general regulations
such as Parliament may consider reasonable,
measures should be taken for the introduc-
tion of a new supply in independent hands.
It is evident from the nature of the case
that the possibility of introducing competition
in respect of gas is qualified by circumstances which
restrain it within even narrower limits than those
which apply to other large incorporated undertak-
ings. The difficulty of finding room for mains and
service pipes in the already crowded line of the
streets, the public inconvenience of frequently
disturbing the pavement, the objections usually
entertained by the inhabitants of populous dis-
tricts to the introduction of new gasworks, &c.,
all are obstacles in addition to those which are con-
nected with the raising of the capital required for
so great an undertaking as that of supplying with
gas any large portion of the metropolis. It seems
to the committee, therefore, that the consumer can-
not rely upon the probable introduction of new
companies in competition with the powerful
organisation whose existence has been confirmed
by the Act of 1860, and that if the consent of the
companies to an amendment of that Act cannot be
obtained, the proper remedy will be for Parliament
to concede to the city of London, the Metropolitan
Board of Works, or other local authorities of the
respective districts, the power of supplying those
districts in the manner in which the Corporation of
Manchester supplies that city and the surrounding
neighbourhood. If it shall be urged on the part of
the companies that it would be hard to compel them
to compete with the public authority, the sufficient
answer, in the judgment of the committee, will be
that they have brought the competition upon them-
selves by rejecting reasonable terms, and that it
would be unjust to the consumer that he should
continue subject to monopoly, and not be provided
with the safeguard of effective regulation. The
committee consider that the main cause of the
failure of legislation which has thus taken place in
the present year has been the absence of any bills
authorising the establishment of an independent
supply of gas in the hands of the local authorities.
They recommend that unless terms satisfactory to
the consumer can be arranged with the companies
the Board of Trade should abstain from the intro-
duction of any other measure like the Metropolis
Gas Bill of 1867." The Parliamentary Committee
considered that unless the gas companies were pre-
pared during the recess to consent to an arrange-
ment as to terms, as suggested by the committee,
every facility should be afforded to the local autho-
rities of the metropolis in the session of 1868 for the
introduction of an independent supply. The Special
Gas Committee then recommended that they should
have authority to act upon this opinion of the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, and to take such
steps as they might deem necessary effectively to
prosecute in the ensuing session a bill to confer on
the corporation the power of supplying the city of
London with gas.
Mr. BONTEMS, the chairman of the Special Gas
Committee, in a speee'a of great length, inoved the
adoption of the report. At two of the meetings of
the gas companies, he said, the corporation had been
accused of a desire for gain and popularity in pur-
suing their present course, but to that charge he
would not deign to rcply. To say nothing of the
health and property o: the public, which had been
injured by impure gas, he believed it would be a
moderate assertion on his part to say that at least
the sum of £2,800,000 had been taken injudiciously
by the gas companies within the last few years from
the pockets of the consumers. But how did he make
that out ? In the first place the companies took off
6d. a thousand from the price of gas. That
amounted to £200,000 a year, and there was no
reason why that 6d. should ever have been put on.
Therefore, during the five years that it had been
imposed there was £1,000,000 taken from the con-
sumers. Then, the committee of the House of Com-
mons were of opinion that the price might still fur-
ther be reduced by 3d. per 1,000 ft.,
and that reduc-
tion, accompanied with the reduced cost of making
16-candle gas, would come to £160,000 a year. In
this way, extending these and other reductions over
a series of five or seven years, he came to the con-
clusion that the excess of charge to the consumers
to which he had alluded- was more than fully borne
out by fact. The corporation had hitherto been
called upon to expend something like £7,000 to pro-
mote this gas inquiry in Parliament. It was pro-
bable that this year £5,000 additional would be re-
quired. Why should they be called upon to expend
a further amount? Simply, upon the ground that
further expenditure was necessary. He regretted its
necessity for several reasons, chiefly for the sake of
the gas companies themselves. When he looked at
the magnitude of the property
imperilled by these
companies, involving a capital of £6,000,000 and a
net profit of £600,000, and recollected that their
Parliamentary expenses since 1857 had amounted
to £lOO,OOO, he confessed that he felt regret on their
account. Hitherto, unfortunately, those heavy Par-
liamentary expenses had been charged by the com-
panies upon the consumers, but that was a burden
which he had some reason to believe would never be
allowed to be imposed again. '['he companies now
were trying whether nine of them should not be im-
molated iu order to preserve the remaining four.
They knew they had been condemned by two Parlia-
mentary Committees—in the first instance delicately,
but in the second boldly, declaring that not only
must the price be reduce], but that the magnifying
power must be increased. The Government had
brought in a bill to rectify matters. The corpora-
tion had withdrawn their own bill and supported
that of the Government, and there had been 336
petitions, signed by 27,000 gas consumers, presented
from the city. The real reason why the Bill of last
Session was rejected was because the companies
wanted still to retain the power in their own
hands of making up their back dividends out of
present profits. He believed that the rejection of
that bill was unwise. So thought many of the lead-
ing journals. If the gas companies would not yield
to the reasonable demands of the consumers an in-
dependent supply should be obtained. He called on
the corporation, as they had put their hand to the

A long discussion ensued, at the close of which the
motion was rejected by a majority of 47 to 42.

DIR. PEABODY'S STATUE.

Upon the motion of Alderman Sir B. PiIILLIPS
the Court granted the appropriation of the railed in
portion of the ground opposite the north-eastern
corner of the Royal Exchange (formerly the church-
yard of St. Benet Fink) as a site on which to erect a
statue to Mr. George Peabody.

THE UNITED lIORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.

Upon the motion of Mr. Alderman Hale, a peti

Lion from the United Horticultural Society for the
use of the Guildhall on the 12th, 13th, and 14th of
November next, for an exhibition of flowers and
fruit, was referred to a committee for consideration
and report.