The Sun.
London, England, 1866-12-14 00:00:00

COURT 0:

C

OIirNCLL.

Yesterday a meeting of the Common Council
was held at Guildhall for the despatch of business—
the Lord Mayor presiding.

A communication was read from the directors of
the Albert Orphan Asylum, thanking the Court for
the loan of the Guildhall for holding a bazaar, and
stating that the net profits to the institution from
the bazaar had amounted to £1,400.
THE CITY OF LONDON SCHOOL.

On the motion of Mr. Alderman HALE, chairman
of the City of London School Committee, the sala-
ries of 16 of the under-masters of the school were
raised by sumsvarying from £3O to £lO a year each.
NEW CENSUS OF THE CITY.

Mr. LAWLEY, chairman of the Local Government
and Taxation Committee, presented a report on a
census which had been obtained in reference to the
city, from which it appeared that the night popula-
tion of the city and liberties, consisting chiefly of
" care-takers" of property and the humbler classes,
numbered 113,387 ; the mercantile and commercial
population engaged -in the city daily, but not in-
cluded in the last-mentioned number, amounted to
170,133 ; the total day population residing in the
city to 283,520 ; and the number of persons resort-
ing to the city daily, in 16 hours, not included in
the above, being customers, clients, and others, to
509,611. The persons frequenting the city daily in
12 hours, from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., were 549,613 ; in
16 hours, from 5 a.m..to 9 p.m., they were 679,744,
and in 24 hours they were 728,986. Mr. Lawley
stated, in reply to Mr. Dresser Rogers, that the
committee had not received any :official communi-
cation from parties now engaged in the movement
for creating metropolitan municipalities, but that
movement had his entire sympathy.
A HISTORICAL PICTURE.

Mr. J. E. SAUNDERS, chairman of the City
Lands Committee, brought up a report from that
body, recommending that the picture painted by
Mr. Alexander Melville, representing ,the ceremony
of the presentation of the freedom of the city to
his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, should be
purchased by the corporation for a sum not exceed-
ing £5,000. The report stated that the picture was
15ft. long and about 10ft. high, and covered 150
superficial feet of canvass ; that it represented 582
figures, of which 482 were absolute portraits, in-
cluding those of many members of the Royal family,
and of about 80 members of the nobility. Mr.
Saunders, in moving the adoption of the report, said
in effect that the late Prince Consort was a eteady
patron of the painter, Mr. Melville, and that the
latter had painted as many as 20 portraits of the
Queen. He read a letter addressed to the painter by
Sir F. Grant, President of the Royal Academy, in
which the writer stated that the picture was care-
fully and well executed, and that all the portraits
bore the stamp of individuality, which would lead
him to suppose they were faithful representations.
• He likewise read a letter from Mr. Frith, R.A., to
much the same effect, and adding that the painter
deserved credit for the industry and perseverance
with which he hadcarried out a most laborious work.
Mr. Saunders caused some amusement by stating
incidentally that no member of the committee or of
the corporation had been asked his opinion as to his
own likeness in the picture, though in his opinion,
when members of that Court had assumed a con-
spicuous position in its proceedings their heads be-
came public property. He argued as a whole, from
his own knowledge, that the picture was historically
correct, but he.admitted in one or two cases that
persons were represented iu it who were not then
members of the Common Council, though they were
members now. He stated, in reply to Mr. R. P.
Taylor, that the painting was not undertaken in
any wayat the request of the corporation. He moved,
in conclusion, the adoption of the report, and ,that
it be referred back to the committee for execution.
There were 41 members of the committee recom-
mending the purchase of the picture, and it was ,
stated by the Town Clerk, in reply to a question,
that their report was signed by seven of them.
Mr. JOIINSON ridiculed the notion of its historical
accuracy, and contended that it, was a fancy picture.
Mr. D. ROGERS moved, as an amendment, that I
the report be referred back to the committee for
them to consider whether the picture was historically
correct, but it fell to the ground for want of a se-

conder.
Mr. FRICKER then moved an amendment that the
report lie on the table, that being the usual means
of avoiding a decision on the merits of a question
under consideration:
Deputy BURNELL," having asked whether it was
delicate in them as a public body to sit in judgment
upon a picture composed for the most part of like-
nesses of themselves, contended that no one would
venture to say that to give 15,000 for it as a work of
art would be a proper disposition of public money,
and money, too, muck needed for urgent purposes.
Mr. R. P. TAYLOR opposed the purchase of the
picture, and created some laughter by saying, on
the point of historical accuracy, that his friend Mr.
D. Rogers was represented in it, and in uniform '
too, though not at that time a member of the Com-
mon Council.

co contending
a ntendi
Mr. BEDFORD took the same side
that it was not worthy their considerationa work
of art, and that if thew corporation purchased it they
would be guilty of an immense waste of public
money. As to its historical accuracy, he put it to
the Court whether—pointing to the painting in the
Council Chamber representing the siege of Gibral-
tar—if the figure of General Abercrombie were de-
capitated and the head of Mr. D. Roger substituted,
it would be any lodger a historical picture.
(Laughter.) lie did not recognize in Mr. Mel-
ville's picture a single portrait to which the epithet
" speaking" could be applied. Likenesses there
were, but there was no mind, no soul in any of
them. (A laugh.) It was chiefly made up of like-
nesses of Common Councilmen with the Prince of
Wales in the background. (A laugh.)
Mr. Deputy DE JERSEY urged that the artist was
never in any way commissioned to paint the pic-
ture, and said he should be ashamed of being a
party to spending public money for their own self-
glorification.

Mr. C. REED argued, on the other hand, that the
occasion represented by the picture was one of the
greatest events of recent times, and one upon which
the corporation spent a large sum of money at the
time, and was, therefore, worthy of commemoration.
It would have been desirable, he said, for the cor-
poration originally to have given a proper commis-
sion for such a work, but having let the opportunity
go by it was desirable for them to possess them-
selves of the work of Mr. Melville, who had laboured
at it continuously for three years. a
Deputy ELLIOTT held that they, as trustees of
public money, were bound to spend it for municipal
purposes, of which this was not one, and suggested
that every member of the Common Council who
was represented in the picture should subscribe from
his own pocket £lO to compensate the artist for
his labour and skill. He bitterly regretted, he said,
having been caught in a weak moment to sit for his
portrait on the occasion—(a laugh)—but he should
be willing to atone for that by entering into an ar-
rangement such as he had suggested.
Dr. Saunders and Deputy Fry strongly urged the
claim of Mr. Melville upon the consideration of the
Common Council, and that the occasion was every
way worthy commemoration.
Mr. Ellis, Deputy
Jones, and other members
spoke on the same side.
The TOWN-CLERK stated in reply to a question,
that the painting belonging' to the corporation, and
representing the presentation of their address to' the
late King Louis Philippe at Windsor Castle, was
painted by a famous French artist, at the desire and
expense of the late King, and given to'the
cor
tiou. pora-

the amendment reject-
Eventually, on a division,
ing the purchase of the picture vas carrier] by a Ina_
jority of 33 in a court of 151 members.

Mr. Sheriff WATERLOW then moved a fresh
amendment to the effect that the Court grant £5OO
to Mr. and Mrs. Melville to requite them for the
time, trouble, and great labour they had bestowed
on the picture. lie explained-that, while wishing
the Court to grant that sum, he did not absolve him-
self as an individual or other members of the corpo-
ration from the duty of subscribing privately in addi-
tion, if they chose so to remunerate the artist.
The
amendment was pronounced to be out of