The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-19 00:00:00

COMMON COUNCIL-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD MAYOR took the Chair a few minutes past twelve.
The minutes of the last Court having been read, it was
moved, after some conversation, that the alterations, as fixed
by the last Court, should stand, with respect to the sum of
money and fines levied on taking up the freedom of the city.
Sir PETER LAURIE then rose to give notice that he should,
at the next meeting of the Court, move to rescind the resolu-
tion which had just been passed.
After some discussion between Mr. Pritchard, Mr. Stevens,
Alderman T. Wood, and Sir Peter Laurie, as to the pro-
priety of rescinding a resolution at one Court, which had met
with the grave deliberation of another,
Mr. CHARLES PEARSON said he did not think it competent
for the Court on this occasion to depart from the usual prin-
ciple adopted at all their meetings. The present resolution
had been passed at the last sitting after grave consideration,
and a discussion of more than one hour, and he thought it,
therefore, completely child's play for the Court to rescind it
withuut regular notice of motion. As to what the Ho-
nourable Member had said, that now was the most fit
time to enter upon the merits of the question, he
(Mr. C. Pearson) entirely differed with him. The gentleman
who brought it forward was not now present. At the last Board
there were thirty persons present at that Court who were
not here now, but who would have been if they had contem-
plated this discussion. He did therefore ask honourable Gen-
tlemen not to violate the usual course of this Court, and not
allow this resolution to be superseded without notice of motion.
Mr. LAMBERT JONES was strongly against the principle of
every man, whether trader or otherwise. being compelled to
take out his freedom. He thought that either the standing
order should be suspended, or that the resolution should be
rescinded..( Hear.)
Sir PETER LAURIE was quite convinced that bis resolution
would be triumphantly carried at the next meeting of the
Court. He was satisfied, that before that time there would be
hundreds of petitions against the compulsory clause, which
greatest emer-
gency.
who
compelled every poor tenant to pay the sum of 5/. He admitted
thatthestanding order should not be rescinded except in cases of
emergency,
was
st
too t the eb
ad presentthat was
poor one
devils of
of the
journeymen,
could not afford to pay their rates, should be compelled to take
out their freedom whether they wished it or not. He trusted,
for the character of the Court, that this order would be re-
scinded, and that they would not let it go forth as a stigma upon
them. It was one of the greatest acts of cruelty that could
be perpetrated, and he hoped they would not let it be said that
men who had liberality at all times upon their lips, were the
greatest tyrants in their hearts—( Hear.)
Mr. STACEY thought it would be a most extraordinary pro-
ceeding for the Court to adopt. It was true they had the
power, if they wished to exercise it, of compelling every per-
son to come in and take out his freedom. It was, however,
incumbent upon the Court to support something like consis-
tency ; the question had had a full hour's deliberation, and it was
now sought to induce the Court to depart from the practice
that had always regulated its proceedings.
Mr. PRITCHARD said a few words in explanation.
Mr. C. PEARSON suggested as an amendment, that a com-
munication should be made to the Commissioners that a notice
of motion, such as that given by the worthy Alderman, had
been given, and would be taken into consideration at the next
meeting.—( Cries of " No 1" and laughter.)
Alderman MATTHEW WOOD said that from all he had heard
he was of opinion that there should be a suspension of the re-
solution, and that a communication to that effect should be
made to the Commissioners. There was surely something
alarming in the statement which had been made that the com-
pulsory clause was to fall upon all classes of the community.
There were at least four or five hundred poor persons in his
Ward, who, he was informed, were not able to pay either
their poor-rates or watch-rates, and yet this class of poor men
would be forced by that compulsory clause to pay that fine
of 5/. each. If such a recommendation was sent up to the
Corporation Commissioners, and that they recommended its
adoption for the consideration of Parliament, they might be
perfectly satisfied that the House of Commons would not
assent to such a proposition. He thought, therefore, there
should be a suspension of the resolution.
Mr. TAYLOR—The compulsory clause arose out of the pro-
position of the worthy Alderman, T. Wood.
Alderman Wow) rose, and said it was no such thing. ( Cries
of " Order.") He appealed to the Lord Mayor whether he
was out of order. He thought it most unfair, that such a
charge should be brought against him. The worthy Alder-
man here proceeded to explain the course he had adopted with
respect to the resolution in question, and observed that it was
much more easy to find fault than to state what had actually
occurred, by gentlemen who knew nothing about the matter.
Mr. TAYLOR explained.
Mr. LAWRENCE thought the resolution one of the greatest
absurdities imaginable.
Mr. Alderman BROWN was of opinion that the Court had
greatly erred, and the sooner they set themselves right the
better. He thought, therefore, the resolutiou ought to be re-
considered, as great objections in his mind existed to its being
sent up to the Commissioners in its present shape.
Mr. FRENCH was against the suspension of the standing
orders. He thought the subject ought to stand over, and come
on in its regular course
Mr. MATTHEWS thought it any thing but liberality to com-
pel a poor man to pay a sum of Si. when he had only ss.
A MEMBER would venture to say that if the motion was
passed by the sanction of that Court, it would go to the extent
of annihilating the Corporation of the City of London.
Mr. FIGGINS thought the order ought to be rescinded.
The COMMOM SERGEANT then put the question, whether
the 27th order should be suspended or not, and declared it to
be carried in the affirmative.
The question then was put whether the word and or or
should stand part of the resolution.
Mr. TAYLOR said he rose solely for the purpose of answer-
ing some expressions which had been made use of, in which
he had heard motives] imputed against those who passed

the motion which he was sure never entered into their
minds. It was not right to suppose he supported that
motion merely to oppress the poor. How could that be
when they had actually reduced the fine from 401. to
51. in order to relieve them, and he intended to carry
out this principle still further, and submit to the consideration
of the Court, that instead of 51. the fine should be only
ss. He repelled with indignation such a charge as that
lie was anxious to oppress the poor by this resolution, and he
took the opportunity of refuting that imputation which had
been thrown out against him. It was most absurd that they
should be asked to swallow this resolution, merely as it was
printed, as various mistakes might occur, which ought to meet
with separate deliberation.
Mr. STACY thought it was quite necessary that the resolution
should be compulsory, as in the case of the watermen in the
city, a very numerous, and at the same time, a very poor
body, every person had to pay 31. 7s. before he could carry on
his avocation. By the word compel' it was not to be understood
in its strictest sense, but merely as a protection to the indus-
trious. It would be highly unfair that one man who, by ex-
treme diligence to business, had 'been enabled to take up his
freedom, should, by the approximation of another of less in-
dustrious habits, forfeit all those advantages which this security
at present gave him, by allowing the same opportunity to every
one without exception.
Mr. F►coiss opposed the alteration, as he thought it would
be a loss to the poor man.
Mr. PRITCIIARD thought that as the resolution stood at pre-
sent it would certainly be a great hardship to the poor man. He
would suggest that the wording should go to the effect that all
persons occupying premises of the value of 20/ a year and up-
wards, and carrying on business in those premises. By these
means it would imply that the person holding the premises was
bound to connect himself with sonic particular trade.
Mr. Alderman VENABLES said that the City would be going
farther than they had ever done before, if they required all
persons residing in the City to take up their freedem.
An Hos. MEMBER did not think that the Corporation had
any right to compel private individuals to take up their free-
dom. It was said that the fine only amounted to 51. He
had inquired into the subject, and could state that the ex-
penses altogether amounted to 14/. 9s.

Mr. C. PEARSON would be nnder the necessity of repeating
some of the remarks he had made on a former occasion, and if
those gentlemen who had heard him before and were com-
pelled to listen to him again, it was not his fault. He was not
Irishman enough to say that he saw many here on the former
occasion who were absent now-- (a laugh). but he saw the places
of many unoccupied who were present on the former occasion.
The resolution was supported by reasons totally opposite ; it
appeared to him so objectionable, that any attempt to enforce
it would strike at the root of the Corporation. He opposed
the resolution altogether, and as the standing order had been
suspended, he would move that the resolution be rescinded, as
an amendment to the present motion, and he would take the
sense of the assembly on the question. The Hon. Gentleman
contended that the resolution was both impolitic and improper.
The number of freemen had been gradually decreasing in the
City of London. In the year 1724 there were 10,850 free-
men, and 5,440 non-freemen; whilst in 1832 the number of
freemen was 7,100, and of non-freemen 7,800. In the year
1700, about 1;800 freemen took out their freedom, whereas
at present the annual number was only 800. The present re-
solution compelled men to take out their freedom. He con-
tended that nothing could be more injurious to the city.
It was most unjust to call upon the petty householders—the
green grocers and milkmen, to take out their freedom, when
gentlemen of property, who came to establish themselves in
the City, were not bound to pay it. On the contrary, he
trusted that the price of the freedom would be reduced, and
that eventually it would be in the nature of a registration.
Mr. Pearson here referred to a list of the persons returned to
the Chamberlain to be prosecuted for not having taken out
their freedom ; the meaning of which, in plain Eng-
lish, was that they should not be allowed to carry on
business in the City of London, or do their duty to their
families, without obtaining permission from that body. It ap-
peared by these returns that most of the persons who had been
so prosecuted had bolted,—( Cheers, and a laugh)—had run
away, and he asked, was such a tystem to• be tolerated in a
Christian country ? Those men who attempted to earn an
honest livelihood, and support their families, to be hunted
down like wild beasts ? He would say a few words with res-
pect to the humbug of exemption from serving in the militia
—but was it not most absurd to make such a statment, when
they were obliged to pay in money instead of sinew and muscle?
( Hear.) The Ward of Portsoken was about to be visited by
the vengeance of the Commissioners, because they d d not do
what they had no right to do. They had been called upon to
pay for the mere expense of the militia drummers and fifers,
from the year 1822 to 1831, a sum of 12,0001. and this out of a
rental of 750,0001., and a population of 129,000. There
were no ten counties in England which paid so enormous a
sum. These things were so frightful that he could scarce
permit himself to enter into their deteils. In conclusion
he would move that the resolution be rescinded altogether.
If a well-digested plan for a graduated scale be submitted, it
should have his support, but to the present one Parliament
would never give its assent. He should move as an amend-
ment that the resolution Le rescinded altogether.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)