The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-18 00:00:00

1g every ex;

Mr. WILLIAM DONALDSON, the Chairman's brother,
followed on the same side. The question had
been mooted at the former meetings of that Court,
and argued with great ability by the Honourable
Commissioner (Mr. Leslie). It had then been set at
rest, and it was quite impossible, he thought, that the
public business could be carried on, if on every fresh
opportunity the question were started anew.
After some words from Mr. Baylis and Mr. Chambers,
The CHAIRMAN went at considerable length into the
merits of the question. He contended that the
law binding on the Holborn and Finsbury Com-
mission was in effect the same that guided that
Court. But that very contract was essentially, and in
principle, like Mr. Leslie's, for he admitted that they
must have a contract for " job work," and every item in
these particulars was likely, at some time or another, to
be called into requisition by these same job works. The
Hon. Commissioner had thought proper to bring for-
ward that information, in order to induce them to accede
to his resolution, but he (the Chairman) greatly doubted
the correctness of the Hon. Commissioner's figures ;
they were certainly very puzzling, for they were not
classed so as to enable one at once to see what sewers
were cheap and what dear ; and he was the more doust-
ful of their correctness when he saw some second class
sewers charged more than others of the first class. He (the
Chairman) knew many persons who were losers from taking
jobs by the lump without being well advised what they
were doing, and the consequences were that the sewers
were made from the pockets of private individuals, tha
which he knew of nothing more dishonourable, more
cruel, more ungenerous.
Mr. GRIFFITHI—HOW are contracts for churches taken?

The CHAlRMAN—Churches were built under iVai
system ; and it was most revolting and iniquitous that it
should be so. They ought, between man and man, to
give a fair price for the work of his hands, for the sweat
of his brow—and not to take steps which might even-
tually involve his ruin. The Hon. Gentleman then went
on to argue that works taken at low contract prices, as
in the Holborn and Finsbury district, could not be well
done, for the men were inclined to " shirk" the
work, and the whole system induced a sort
of antipathy between the officers of the Commissioners
and the contractor's workmen. He thought that by ac-
cepting Mr. Jay's proffer they would be saving, as he
was lower than the lowest of the three candidates who
had resigned the contract for the district. It was sin-
gular, if Mr. Leslie's figures were correct, that these
men, who would be enabled to make a fortune by their
contract prices, should so readily let it slip through
their fingers. He thought it furnished another proof
that the Hon. Commissioner was mistaken.

Mr. LESLIE shortly replied. It had been said that it
was he who had induced the contractors to resign their
contracts. It was not he, for unfortunately he was ever
in the minority in that Court. But it was of the majo-
rity they were afraid, for they could not confide in the
honour of the majority of the Court, in which he agreed
with them, and from a dread of that majority,
they had given up the contract. His own opinion
was, that all the works in the district could be legally
claimed by the contractor ; but their legal adviser said
no, and their Chairman said no also. He had done his
duty in bringing tho matter before them, and he now
left it in their hands.

The amendment and the original motion were then
put, when the former was carried by a majority of live.
Mr. HERTZLET, the Chief Clerk, intimated that he
should be ready with a precept for a new rate on the
Western Division at the next Court,
Ile Court then adjourned.