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
s lid 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 " Oh, oh ")—and he wished to
know whether he was correctly reported to have
said that he attended the meeting as the head of
the Corporation of Loudon, 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 be
attended the meeting as the head of the Corporation
of London, and that he believel 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 had 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. (Hear, 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 be
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. (Hear, 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. (Hear,
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 tly3 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.

TILE CORPORATION OF LONDON AND TILE METRO-

POLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

Mr. 11. 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 him 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. He had made inquiries upon
the subject, and h:Ad 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 iu question upon his
own responsibility, as there was no opportunity to
bring the matter before the Board. He considered
that the board generally bad been improperly com-
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. lie
added that he had since received a letter from Sir
J. Thwaites, in 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-
ferred to the Local Government and Taxation Com-
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 THE 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 'rower of London,
in recognition of the distinguished services rendered
by him to his country during a long and useful pro-
fessional career," was then proceeded with.
It .Will be reMembered that at the last Court a
loiia discussion took place upon this question, and
•
the, incitiou was strongly opposed by several hon.
members,:cliiefly upon -the' 'ground that before a
proposition, of Luis character was submitted to the
Court, it -'ogbt."pret:iously to be considered by a,
Eommittee and tedoiumehdedfOr 'adoption: '

Mr. LA wLEY now proposed' as an amendment that

the consideration of the question be adjourned, and
that iu fu►ture 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 have
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
him.

In the result, and after a very warm debate, Mr.
Lawley withdrew his amendment, and the motion
of ➢lr. Saunders was agreed to.
TIIE PEABODY STATUE.

Mr. J. SYMONDS brought up a report from the
City Lands Committee on the petition of the Com-
mittee of the Peabody Statue Fund, recommending
that the sanction of the Corporation should be given
to the proposed statue being erected upon a part of
the site of the churchyard of St. Benet Fink.
Mr. RIGBY said he should like to call attention to
the way Mr. Peabody's gift was being applied. It
was well known that some buildings had been
erected, one of which was tolerably full, another
half full, and a third nearly empty ; and it was a
matter of surprise that the trustees should keep these
dwellings so sparsely occupied as he mentioned.
Surely the intention of the donor would be better
met by drawing a less percentage on the outlay and
having them better filled. There were two of the
buildings especially, situated in the poorest neigh-
bourhoods, where there were thousands that would
be glad of their shelter and accommodation, but
the people could not pay the rents that were
asked. Under these circumstances, he hoped that
attention would be called to this matter ; and he
ventured to hope that the munificent gift to the City
would be better carried out in the future than it had
been hitherto.
Mr. SYMONDS said his hon. friend would perceive
that his observations had no reference to the ques-
tion before the Court ; and he need scarcely say
that the City Lands Committee hal no control over
the funds referred to.
The report was then agreed to unanimously.

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
Mr. H. L. HAMMACK moved a resolution to the
effect—" That inasmuch as important matter, which
in some cases had been on the paper of business so
far back as October, 1867, had not yet come under
consideration, and it was evident that unless some
alteration in the mode of the proceedings of the
Court took place its proceedings could not be at-
tended to with proper promptitude and care, it was
desirable that the meetings of the Court be con-
vened for, and the chair taken at, two o'clock in the
afternoon, and that the Court continue its sitting,
unless previously adjourned by resolution, until
eight o'clock."
Mr. Deputy DE JERSEY (in the absence of Mr.
11I‘George) moved as an amendment that it be re-
ferred to the General Purposes Committee to con-
sider whether any arrangement could be made to
facilitate the business of the Court; and also to con-
sider the various standing orders and. resolutions of
the Court which regulated the present arrangement
of business, reporting generally thereon, with such
suggestions as might appear desirable.
After a brief discussion the original motion was
withdrawn in favour of the amendment, which was
then carried, the Lord Mayor remarking that it
would be most inconvenient far him to sit from two
to eight, and that he could not consent to such an
arrangement.