The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING; NOVEMBER 10,- 1858.

Seymour had propounded to the meeting. He (Mr.. '
Jones) was desirous of aiding in bringing about a
cordial union between the middle and working
classes, whom some politicians had characterised,
erroneously as he thought, as natural enemies.
Manhood suffrage was a measure which he (Mr.
Jones) and those with whom he acted were resolved
Ito carry. Mr. Seymour had said he would give a
vote to every male adult who was the occupier of a
house or part of a house in cities and boroughs
having a certain population and upwards. But
Mr. Seymour appeared to overlook the fact that his
plan would go to withhold the right of voting from
millions of the population in certain boroughs
which he would disfranchise on the ground that
their population in each case ;was less than 7,000.
(" Hear, hear," and a voice " They would vote for
the counties.") Again, Mr. Seymour held that no
man should have a vote who could not read and
write. He (Mr. Jones) would wish to see every
man capable at the least of reading and writing ;
but he was also in favour of every man having a
vote, whether or not he could read and write. What
was education ? It was not reading and writing, or
a knowledge of Greek and Latin ; the true educa-
tion was to feel the right, and then to have the
will to do it. He had seen many a man who could
neither read nor write, and who, nevertheless, had
more sense in his little finger, and more honesty in
his great heart, than many a peer of the realm. It
was curious to see men, after toying with rose-
water Reform Bills, falling back more or less on the
principles of the people's charter. He exhorted the
meeting, with all the solemnity and all the earnest-
ness in his power, never to permit themselves to
swerve or vacillate in their demand for manhood
suffrage—never to tolerate any extension of the
franchise that did not give a vote to every man of
21 years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing
punishment for any crime. He contended, besides
—and this was a new argument—that every man
ought to have full power and control over his own
vote. So long as that vote was based on an occu-
pation or a rating qualification, it was not the
voter's own property, but that of man to whom
the house belonged. Excepting the two cases of
freeholders and leaseholders, every man's vote un-
der such a system would be in the power of his
landlord. With working men short tenancies were
the order of the day ; they held houses at weekly
or monthly rents, and many of them from their own
employers ; and if the occupation of a house or the
' payment of rent was to qualify in such cases, the
working man would be in the power of his land-
lord or his employer, and his vote would not be free.
Therefore, he contended that nothing short of man-
hood suffrage, coupled with the ballot, would be
satisfactory to the great body of the people. He
submitted that the tendency. of Mr. Locke
King's Bill would be still more to strengthen
the hands of the aristocracy. A £lO house in a
rural district was equal to a £6O house in London
or a £3O house in a large manufacturing town ;
and did any of them think that working-
men lived in £lO houses in the rural villages ?
(" No," and a laugh.) No; it was the small shop-
keepers, who were more dependent on the squire or
the parson than the .E5O tenants-at-will, and who
would be coerced beyond control by the landed
aristocracy. He would say, in conclusion, that he
desired to see this Reform Bill, whenever it was
propounded to Parliament, carried out without
riot, bloodshed, or violence of any kind. He be-
lieved. that any popular movement which was
sullied by riot or violence hardly ever came to a
successful termination; and that any right of the
people gained by physical force rarely gave satis-
faction. He trusted, at the same time, that the
spirit of the people would be far different from
what it had been. He believed that their submis-
sive disposition had been a contumely and a dis-
grace. Abject, mean, and slavish, they had en-
dured too far, and deferred too long the vindication
of their rights. It had been their flunkeyism—
(cheers)—their toadyism of the higher and middle
classes—of broadcloth instead of corduroy and fus-
tian, which made those who trampled on them de-
spise them while they did so. He honoured the
working men because they were the foundation of
our national greatness ; and he would counsel them
to be no longer patient and submissive, but in calm
majestic energy to gather their concentrated force
together, and make one grand effort for the achieve-
ment of their political emancipation. (Cheers.)
Several other speakers addressed tire meeting, and
the proceedings did not terminate till a late hour.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

Yesterday a special court, which was numerously
attended, was held for the purpose of considering
a report from the Corporation Inquiry Committee
upon the subject of the projected measure of the
Government for the better regulation of the cor-
poration.
Mr. J. WooD, chairman of the committoe,brought
up a report to the following effect The com-
mittee had had an interview with Mr. Walpole, the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, and
had been informed by him that it was his intention,
as a member of her Majesty's Government, to in-
troduce a bill into Parliament in the ensuing ses-
sion for the better regulation of the Corporation of
London, foundtcl upon the bill as amended by the
select committee of the House of Commons in the
last session. The committee had duly considered

the circumstances connected with this important
question, arid recommended the Court to give them
authority to confer from time to time with her Ma-
jesty's Government upon the subject, and to make
such arrangements as might be considered desirable,
with the view of passing a bill during the ensuing
session of Parliament. They are also of opinion
that it is not advisable for your honourable Court to
introduce a bill for the better regulation of the cor-
poration in the ensuing session, but to permit the
committee to use their best endeavours for the pur-
pose of obtaining such modifications and alterations
in the bill which is proposed to be introduced by
her Majesty's Government as may appear most
advisable."
Mr. WOOD, in moving that the report be agreed
to, said—lf they gave the committee power to confer
freely, and as man would with man, upon a mea-
sure to be produced and aeted upon, good results
might arise to the corporation. That the result
might not be entirely satisfactory he could believe,
but that a measure of change and regulation must
pass was admitted on all hands. Mr. Secretary
Walpole had told them that it was his duty to
bring in the bill, which would be founded upon the
resolutions of the select committee of the House of

Commons last year, unless he should see reason

before he finally settled it to alter his opinion upon
any one point. Under these circumstances he trusted
they would agree with the committee in their re-
port. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BARKLEY—When did you have this inter-
view with Mr. Walpole ?
_ _

Mr. WooD—On the 21st October.
Mr. BARKLEY-WhO authorised the committee
to have any interview with Mr. Walpole
Mr. WOOD—The court.

Mr. BARKLEY—Certainly not.
Mr. WOOD—We applied as soon as possible after
the court met, and Mr. Walpole gave an interview
as soon as he could der he came to town.

Mr. ANDERTON hoped the report would be
carried unanimously.
Mr. FARRAR—WouId the worthy chairman re-
peat in as concise terms as he could the object in-
tended to be obtained by this report. What was
the object the committee had in view ?
Mr. WOOD—I cannot do that. The court must
go over all these resolutions to get at that.
Mr FARRAR—This court is to be bound hand
and foot to such agreement or arrangements as the
committee may think proper to make. If that is
so, it is most unconstitutional and most unfair to the
other members of the court. (Hear, hear.) We
sit as the representatives of the citizens of London,
and we have no right to delegate the power con-
fided to a small section of the court. r protest most
strongly against the report, and if in a minority of
one only I will hold up my hand against it. (Hear.)
Mr. Cox said he attended at great inconvenience
for the purpose of asking the court to refuse their
assent to the powers which the committee asked
for. When the former bill was in the House of
Commons every member of the court had an oppor-
tunity of reading it, and they gave powers to the
committee to get that bill as far as possible worked
into the shape of the resolutions they had agreed to.
It was a totally different state of circumstances to
the present. A deputation was appointed by the com-
mittee to wait on Mr. Secretary Walpole, and he '
should like every gentleman of that deputation to
get up and give his version, and the result of what
the Home Secretary said upon that occasion. He
believed that if the report was sent back the result
would be such a reform as would not be satisfactory to
the public : and in a short time afterwards the
radical reformers would have their way. He would
move as an amendment the insertion of the follow-
ing words at the end of the report, " But that
before agreeing to any proposition or arrangement
the committee shall report the same to this court."
Mr. BARKLEY, in seconding the amendment, said
that if the court placed in the hands of the com-
mittee the powers asked for, no reform of the cor-
poration would take place. He trusted that the
matter would be left entirely in the hands of the
Government who were of Tory principles, and so
anxious to court favour that they would grant any
reform that was asked of them.

Deputy DAKIN—I am not one of the deputation
who waited upon Mr. Secretary Walpole, but I am
one of the members who heard the very intelligent
and the very consistent statement which every
member of that deputation brought to the com-
mittee by whom they were a2pointcd. Their

whole statements agreed, and the statement of the
learned Recorder agreed with the rest. (Hear.)
By the masterly statement of Mr. Rolt in the
House of Commons, when the last bill was before
that assembly, an impression was produced upon
those members who heard it, and I believe upon the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, that
that part of the proposed bill which went to the
spoliation of the corporation, to take from its
revenues without any compensation would not for
a moment hold water, and the bill was dropped, and
I believe that the present Secretary of State is
anxious, whilst he gives all attention to a due
measure of reform, to avoid on the other hand any-
thing like spoliation or unduly attacking corpora-
tions which shall sap the foundations upon which
property is held. As stated in the report, he in-
tends to bring in the bill as it came from the select
committee of the House of Commons in the last ses-
sion. The language is, " a bill founded upon that,"
and the Secretary of State, desirous as he is to hear
the reasons and consult the wishes of the citizens
of London, invites you to send him an ac-
credited deputation in order that, he may learn
your wishes, and, if possible, mould a bill to
suit what is just to you and what the public exi-
gencies require. We believe that he will not
attempt that which we designate spoliation and
injustice ; that he will not take from our property
without giving us an equivalent; and that he will
not so reduce the number of this court as was pro-
posed by the bill. (Hear, hear.) There are a
number of other ameliorations which are worth
listening to if you would give the committee power
to approach him in that spirit. Does the report
ask to give us any undefined powers? These very
powers were given to us in June last. If the court
are desirous of having such a measure as shall meet

Jae public objects in view, and at the-
same time
not unduly damage or depress this ancient corpora-
tion, they will agree with the committee in their
report. (hear, hear.)
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR—I think the committee are
acting prematurely in bringing up this report.
Their principal object in meeting to-day is to take
the sense of the court as to the propriety of the
corporation introducing a bill of their own. If it
had not been for that feeling on the part of the
committee they would not have brought up a report
asking for the powers which it contains. It appears
to me that it will be time enough for this court to
give powers to the committee when they have the
bill before them ; but at the present moment the
committee are asking that this court shall place in
their hands the entire power of determining what
course they shall pursue, and what they shall accept
on the part of the corporation in reference to any
reform. There can be no doubt whatever that if
once the committee have the power to deal with
the Government upon the question of reform, the
court will never recall that power, and the com-
mittee will act as if they were the whole court.
(Hear, hear.) I repeat, wait until the bill is pro-
duced, because no power that you can place in
the hands of a committee, who will delegate their
power to a deputation, will have the least effect
upon the minister in respect to the prepara-
tion of the bill. I think it of the utmost im-
portance that a conference should take place
with the Government, and I believe that a mutual
understanding will result therefrom. I think it
would be unwise to stand and let the Government
deal with us as it thinks proper. I think that
we should do all in our power to get such a
reform bill as the majority think is best ; but upon
such a vital question as that of the protection of
our property,; I think it of the utmost consequence
that we should endeavour to obtain interviews with
the minister, and urge him to protect the interests
of the citizens of 'London. (Hear, hear.) I be-
lieve that the court have great confidence in the
committee, but it is unwise to delegate to any sec-
tion the -whole power of the court. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BLAKE said it ought to be remembered that
a bill that emanated from the minister could not be
laid before the court till it was first introduced in
the House of Commons, and it would then be too
late to discuss its provisions. He trusted that the
gentlemen who had for years advocated reform in
that court would not from any petty jealousy take
from the instruments which they themselves had
created the means of effecting good. (Hear.)
Mr. BESLEY hoped that the report would be
unanimously agreo to.
Mr. YOUNG was in favour of the amendment.
Mr. GRESHAM did not like the idea or giving
absolute power to the committee to deal with the
Government.
Mr. DE JERSEY said he did not think that the
corporation ought to defer the consideration of the
matter till the Government bill was brought before
them, but that they themselves ought to meet the
Government, and endeavour to convince them that
the court was anxious for all necessary reforms.
Alderman CUBITT—I take it for granted that this
court does desire that this great question should be
settled. I will just remind the court that when
the bill was in committee, and just before it left, it
had got all those parts which apply properly to the
reform of the corporation into a condition which
was very nearly such as we could have assented to,
but after having got through all those parts we
then came to, the great fiscal question, by which the
City was to have been deprived of a large amount
of property, and there we felt it our duty to make
a stand. It was in consequence of that that the bill
was thrown out. We are now bold by the Secretary
of State for the Home Department that the bill which
he feels it his duty to bring in will be founded upon
what I understand to be similar to the bill brought
before the House of Commons last year. After we
had been battling in the committee-room for a con-
siderable time—having reported to the Court of
Common Council from time to time—the Court of
Common Council at length, in order to carry it
through with the least possible delay, did invest
the committee with power to make the best ar-
rangement it possibly could, and it only did not
make that arrangement because it could not do so
without sacrificing the interests of the city of Lon-
don, and therefore, although it had the pcwer, the
Court of Common Council having given it the
power, it felt that it must not increase that power.
It refrained, therefore, and it recommended that the
bill be opposed, and it was opposed ; it was opposed
successfully, and was withdrawn. Well, now, as I
said, we are really, desirous—l am sure that the
whole corporation is really, desirous—that this great
question should be settled, and that the greater
number of the corporation are satisfied that some-
thing in the way of reform should be done. Surely,
then, the sooner it is done the better, and the way
to get this carried through and soon will be to have
an understanding with the Minister while he is yet
drawing a bill. (Hear, hear.) It seems to me that
upon that question will depend whether we are to
have another conflict in the House of Commons.
If the bill is drawn and laid en the table of the
House of Commons without our having had an op-
portunity of reading it in any way, I am satisfied
that it must be a bill which you must oppose, and
then we shall have to enter upon another session of
Parliament with another conflict before us, with no
sort of notion of how long that may be carried on.
I think that the Court of Common Council might
very safely delegate these powers to portions of its
own body such as havebeen appointed for this pur-
pose. Ido most earnestly hope that the court will
agree with the committee intheir report. (Cheers.)
Deputy HARRISON said the committee proposed
that the court should transfer to them the entire
power of the corporation with reference to sugges-
tions for their reform—that the committee should
have an uncontrollable power to pledge him and
every member of the court. The suggestion of
the amendment was, that the committee should be
required to report to the court any arrangement
that they might be able to suggest. Committees
had hitherto never been allowed to pledge the court
to anything, but had come with details and sug-
gestions which were submitted to the court. It was
the bounden duty of the court to see any provisions
before they were agreed to. Under these circum-
stances he felt it his duty to support the amend-
ment.

Deputy LOTT trusted that the court would con-
tinue to repose confidence in the committee.
Mr. T. H. FRY said, he considered that the cor-
poration had arrived at the most critical period of
its history. The government asked the corporation
to confer with them, for the purpose of seeing whe-
ther the government and the City could agree to
the provisions of a bill which would satisfy both
parties. The very necessity of the conference was,
that both parties should be accredited. If the
committee had no credentials, the minister would
introduce a bill of his own. The Home Secretary
was anxious to bring in a bill that should satisfy
the corporation, and if the present opportunity
were not embraced of conferring with the govern-
ment previous to the introduction of the bill, one of
the best opportunities of framing a measure suitable
to the requirements of the time, honourable to the
City of London, and satisfactory to the country,
would be lost. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that the
report would be carried unanimously.
After some furth--r discussion, the amendment
was put and carried by a large majority.
Mr. Cox called for a division, when there ap-
peared—

For the affirmative
For the negative
The amendment was then put as the original
motion and carried.
PUBLIC DRINKING FOUNTAINS.
Mr. ANDERTON gave notice of the following mo-
tion :—" That it be referred to the City Lands
Committee to examine and report upon the desira-
bility of erecting for the benefit of the working and
labouring classes public drinking fountains within
the City of London, with power to confer with the
Commissioners of Sewers thereon, and if necessary

the Metropolitan 'Board of Works. And should
the same be found desirable, then to ascertain the
sites where they would be most convenient and
useful. Also the probable cost of the erection of
each of such fountains, and the probable annual ex-
pense of maintaining the same when erected, and
to suggest the means for defraying the costs and
charges of erecting and supporting the same, whe-
ther by voluntary contributions or otherwise, and
if by voluntary contributions that this Court do
subscribe towards the same such sum as the Court
may hereafter in its wisdom think fit."
The Court adjourned.