The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-15 00:00:00

THE IRISH CHURCH QUESTION.

Mr. J. SYMONDS said that as a question of pri-
vilege he wished to put a question to the Lord
Mayor in reference to what he was reported to have
said at the recent meeting that took place at St.
James's Hall upon the subject of the disestablish-
ment of the Irish Church. (Cries of " No, no.")
He found that there was a great deal of noise and
confusion at the meeting, and he thought it was
possible that the reporters had not heard him dis-
tinctly—(cries of
he
" Oh, oh ")—and he wished to
know whether
was correctly renorted to have
said that he attended the meeting as the head of
the Corporation of London, and that he was speak-
ing the sentiments of the Corporation. (Hear.)
He wished to be informed whether there had not
been some misapprehension as to the observations
that were made by his lordship in reference to this
matter, and to observe that this Court had not ex-
pressed any- opinion that would justify his lordship
in making such a statement upon a political sub-
ject. (Cries of " Oh, oh.")

The LORD MAYOR said that the report was cor-
rect, and he requested the Town Clerk to read what
he stated in moving the resolution he did at the
meeting in question. It was to the effect that he
attended the meeting as the head of the Corporation
of London, and that he believed the majority of his
fellow-citizens at least were opposed to the pro-
position for disestablishing the Irish Church.
(Hear, hear.)
The matter then dropped.
PRIVILEGES OF THE COURT.

Mr. GovER called the attention of the Court to
a fact that bad come to his knowledge, which he
said materially affected the honour and dignity of
the members of the Court. A discussion had re-
cently taken place, with closed doors, upon the
subject of the Sheriffs' Court, and some matters
connected with the judge of that court, and he was
told that one of the members who took part in that
discussion had communicated to the judge of the
Sheriffs' Court what had taken place during the
discussion. (Rear, hear.) Such a proceeding, he
considered, was most improper, and, indeed, con-
trary to the oath that was taken by the members of
the Court, and he should, therefore, move that any
member who should adopt such a proceeding in
future should be held guilty
of a breach of privi-
lege. (Cries of "Name, name.") He said he had
no objection to state that the member to whom he
referred as having made the communication was
Mr. M'George.
Mr. M'GEORGE claimed the right of explanation,
and he went on to deny that he had done anything
that was wrong in the matter. (1-lear, hear.) All
that occurred was this—ln the course of the dis-
cussion referred to, one of the speakers asserted
that it was nothing but a question of money with
the judges of the Sheriffs' Court, and he simply in-
quired of the judge whether he had given the mem-
ber referred to any authority for making that state-
ment, and he assured him that be had not. (fiea.r,
hear.) That was the only foundation for the
miserable charge that was made against him. (A
laugh.)
The COMMON SERGEANT, in answer to a ques-
tion put to him by a member, said that the judge
of the Sheriffs' Court would have the right to be
present at the discussion referred to, if he had
pleased. He was always summoned with the other
officers of the Corporation.
The motion of Mr. Gover was then put and
negatived.

THE CORPORATION OF LONDON AND THE METRO-

POLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

Mr. H. L. TAYLOR, one of the representatives of
the City at the Metropolitan Board of Works, re-
ferring to the question that had been put to hini at
a former meeting of the Court by Mr. Lawley, the
chairman of the Local Government and Taxation

Committee, as to whether a letter written by Sir J.

Thwaites, the chairman of the Metropolitan Board
of Works, to the different metropolitan members of

Parliament, in reference to the bill that had been
introduced into the House of Commons for im-

proving the dwellings of artisans and labourers,
was written with the sanction of the Board, said he
wished to put the Court in possession of some fur-
ther information. lie had made inquiries upon
the subject, and had ascertained that no member

of the Board was aware that such a letter had

been written, and the subject had never been dis-
cussed, and, finding this to be the case, he put the

question to Sir John Thwaites, and he admitted

that he had written the letter in question upon his
own responsibility, as there was no opportunity to
bring the matter before the Board. Ile considered

that the board generally bad been improperly corn-

promised by the course that had been taken by
their chairman, and he brought the subject for-
ward ; but a resolution was proposed that the
chairman was justified in the course he had taken
under the circumstances, and his (Mr. Taylor's)
was the only hand that was held up against it. Ile

added that he hal since received a letter from Sir

J. Thwaites, iu which he embodied the same excuse
for the course he had taken that he had previously

given, and he considered the matter of so much im-
portance that he should move that the letter be re-

'erred to the Local Government and Taxation Corn-

mittee for them to consider and to state what steps

they thought necessary in reference to it.
Mr. LAWLEY seconded the motion, and in con-
demning the course- that had been pursued by the
Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works in
reference to the bill in question, said it was too much
the fashion to malign the Corporation of London
and to say that they desired to shrink from paying
their share towards things that were required
for the benefit of the public. He asserted that
there was no foundation for this suggestion, and
said that the Corporation considered they were en-
titled to have control over the expenditure of their
own money, and if this privilege were acceded to
them they were ready to contribute their share
equally with any other portion of the metropolis
towards any amount of money that might be re-
quired for public purposes. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was then agreed to unanimously.
PRESENTATION OF TILE FREEDOM OF THE CITY TO
SIR JOHN BURGOYNE.

The adjourned debate upon the motion of Mr. J.
E. SAUNDERS, " That the freedom of the City, en-
closed in a gold box, of the value of one hundred
guineas, be presented to General Sir John Bur-
goyne, G.C.8., Constable of the Tower of London,
in recognition of the distinguished services rendered
by him to his country during a long and useful pro-
fes,sional career," was then, proceeded with.

I' yqu • . •.
l
It beertibered that. at theast
,Court.
long discussion took•-plaoe.upon 'this queition,and.
tlke motion was .:strongly; opposed • by sev4al46ly;
niembers, chieflythe:greund that before-:,
_:proposition of ,thisAapeeet, wits submitted /ft,' the
Vourti ite eon re es by a
•_ •
~.0-taratei and' reconitin6nded for adoption. • '
_ ,
• Mr. L. \WLEYnow proposed as an amendment that
the consideration of the question be adjourned, and
that in future no such motion should be brought
forward until it had received the sanction of the
Lord Mayor for the time being, and the chairmen
of the several committees of the Court of Aldermen,
or that the propriety of such motion should h.tve
been discussed with closed doors in this court.
A long and somewhat personal discussion took
place upon the motion, in the course of which seve-
ral honourable members pressed Mr. Saunders to
withdraw it. The points relied upon by the
speakers in opposition, were that Sir John Bur-
goyne's military services were not of such a high
character as to entitle him to the distinction, and
that four other field-marshals were alive who
were his seniors, both as regarded age and period
of military service, and that it would be invidious
to confer the proposed honour upon him alone. In
the course of the discussion a question was raised
by one honourable member, whether, after what
had taken place, and the difference of opinion that
existed in the Court, Sir John Burgoyne would
accept the proffered compliment; but this difficulty
was got over by Mr. Saunders expressing his belief,
that if the motion were carried, Sir John would
accept the honour intended to be conferred upon

In the result, an :I after a very warm debate, Mr.
Lawley withdrew his amendment, and the motion
of Mr. Saunders was agreed to.