The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-11 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COf7NCIL.

At the Court held yesterday, Alderman SALE pro-
posed that the freedom of the City and a valuable sword
be presented to Sir H. Havelock, for his heroic conduct
in India; bit on its being sugg?stad that it was the
opinion of many members of the Court that the motion
was submitted too enrly, Alderman Halo conFonted to
postpone it till the 'ocginning, of the year.
THE VACANT GROUND IN ST. PAUL.S-CTIURCLIVARD. •

A report from the Improvement Comreitteo was
brought up by Deputy Down, " relative to the vacant
site on the south-cast of St. Paure-churchyaril, with a
plan for the apprupriaiion of the same." The deputy
said that the matter had stood over Pr some time, in
consequence of difficulties which had arisen front the
Coopers' Company, and in consequr nee of the large
amount of compensation required by that body, the
committee had not been able to effect an amicable ar-
rangement. They had proposed to give up two-thirds
of the ground, and he conFithred that was enough for
them to do. The view of the noble cathedral would not
be obstructed, while at the same time some portion of
the site might be advantageously realised. He moved
that the Court agree with the committee in their
report. The committee, he might say, were unani-
mous, and he therefore hoped there would be no further
opposition.

Mr. DE JERSEY strongly objected to the report. It
was extremely meagre, and considering the largeness of
the question, it was extremely insignificant. (Hoar.)
The fact wae that the committee would not have one to
that-court at all if they could have helped it, He oh.
jetted to the report further, because it proposed to deal
with a piece of valuable ground. They bad paid 500,000/.
for Cannon-street out of the fourponny coal-duty. Where
was the money to come from in this case ? From the
City cash, he (Mr. De Jersey) was told. This could not
be adowed, and it was not right for the Court to decide
to give to the public 30,0001. or 40,0001. out of the
City's cash. Were they prepared to do so ? Ho thought
not. 40,000/. or 50,0001. waa not to be thrown away.
But of this there will nothing in the report There
were no figures there, at d therefore he objected
to the report. They ought to know what
amount of money would be required, and where that
amount was to be obtained. The committee were
bound to furnish that informa'ion, There was
another thing. The committee had full power to set out
the street and appropriate the ground ; then why did
they go to the Court at all ? Simply because they. were
compelled to ask leave to give away that large money
value in obedience to the arbitrary will of public tutu.
The Architects' Institute had ietitnated, through the
public press, that they should look to Mr. Bunning, the
City's architect, to preserve this open space to the public,.
He (Nlr. De Jersey) objected to this species of intimida-
tion ; and if they pleased, they might consider him to
be both a Goth and a Vandal, but he would not be called
a coward, while he felt it to be his duty to oppose such
a mode of giving away the funds of the Corporation in
such a manner. (Cheers ) They were trustees of the
public funds, and it was their duty to see that they were
properly applied. Tee public would not subscribe a
penny ; as to giving us a 5-pound note, they would see nu
at Jericho first. The Board of Works would not give
themape ay. Theysaid, "No, do ityourselves ; we know
you will not cover the ground ;"—aud that from men
who were in the habit of insuling the Corporation even
within those walls. Were they going to succumb to
such parties as these ? Certainly not. (Hear, hear.)
Then let them look at the value of the ground. Who-
ever could have thought the re ice of ground within the
City would have reached the enormous value of 91. per
foot ? Bat it has so, and in some casts infinitely greater.
Then let them look at the enormous increase which was
taking place in the rating o' the City. Let them look
at the consolidated rate. In 1855 it was 54,0001. ;in
1856 it was 80,0001.
Mr. PERKINS—But the cemetery has been bought,
laid out, and paid for. That was tae charge. (Hear.)
Mr. DE JERSEY—The fact was, the rates were in-
creasing in an alarming ratio. They remetntered when
the sewers rate was but, 5,0001. Last year it was 9,0001.
What was it at that moment ? 21,900/. (Hear, hear.)
Let them, then, pause before they voted away so large
and valuable a piece of ground, and well consider
before they sunk so large a sum in value of corporation
property, and thus involve those who in after years
might follow them. Ho moved that the consideration of
the report be adjourned to a future period.
Mr. YOUNG seconded the amendment.

Deputy PRWTRESS defended the committee, and con-
tended that there was no ground whatever for the propo-
sition of Mr. De Jersey. The report had been well
considered for many months, and farther ,reference was
perfectly unnecessary. He was sure that if they adopted
the report it would give the greatest satisfaction to the
members of that Court ; and he was quite certain that
such a step would give the greatest satisfaction to the
body of citizens, and the inhabitants of the metropolis at
large.
Mr. BESLEY supported the report.
Deputy LoTT, F.S.A., observed that the committee
had applied to the Board of Works, which body had
been constituted to represent the liberties of the people,
upon whose shoulders they had been brought in ; but
that board had evidently given them the cold ehoulder,
having refused to have anything to do with them. He,
for one, would not succumb to the opinions of the press
in the matter, but he would give something up for the
people. He thought the committee acted judiciously,
and exhibited wisdom is their proceedings. He, there.
fore, should vote for the adoption of the report.
Mr. ELLIOTT remarked that the question was one of
the greatest importance. He was strongly opposed to
the speech of Mr. De Jsr3ey. They had there, he would
not say one of the best, but one of the grandest sites
over the whole of the metropolis, he alluded to the
proximity of St. Pees Cathedral. (Hear.) He was
for sending the report back to the committee and for
allowing the vacant site in St. Paul's-churchyard to
remain as it was at that time for an indefinite period.—
(Oh 0
Deputy DaKrsr hoped that the Court would agree
with the committee in their report. He thought Deputy
Lott was quite wrong in the remarks he had made, as
no doubt when their architect had examined the eleva-
tions of the proposed buildings upon a portion of the
site, that officer would take care to see that they were
in keeping with the magnificent dome and noble pro-
portions of that unrivalled building. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FRY trusted that before the Court consented
the would pause before they committed themselves by
giving up the site, as proposed in the report, especially
when they considered the financial position of the funds
of the Corporation. The worthy commoner then, ia
illustration of his view, recapitulated many of the items
contained in the report of the Special Revenue Com-
mittee, to which we referred some time ago.
Mr. BLAKE considered that the members of the Cor-
poration, being trustees for the public, had a right to
dispose of the ground, and pay for it out of the moneys
entrusted to their charge. The proposed improvement
was a public improvement, and that Court, he was
assured, would be justified in doing so. Mr. De Jersey
had said that that Corporation had nothing to do with
the public taste. He (Mr. Blakf) was of a very different
opinion, as he thought it was their business not only to
spend money on public improvements, but at the same

tinsa to see that they were executed as tastefully as
possibly. He should heartily support the motion.
Deputy BOWER replied in a most forcible speech, after
which the proposition was put., and carried by a large
majority, and ordered to be carried into execution.
Upon the question being about to be put,
Mr. ELLIOTT moved as an amendment that the report
be sent back for reconsideration, in the midst of much
confusion, and cries of "No, no."
Mr. MURRELL seconded the motion, which was nega-
tived, and the original motion was carried by an over-
whelming majority.