Revelations Concerning the London City Guilds.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 85, 18 April 1885, Page 4

Revelations Concerning the London City Guilds.

Tiik report on the City €om ... T^f^t., eße ::;K' former age have property W J * € .Cl,.,ooo,ooo l andani„ comeofab "hJ''t: per annum. Of this, Some S' 000 spent in charity, and thoM^ b ' easting and keeping up theKj^g*, the feasting takes $&__ ff^_M4 oughttobc sold, and the feas___ fy**, suppressed, an d the amount no g w °Ughtt»^ in chanties ought to be ov &, n .* then aro many iteins-^ f^ W A as an anuual sum given to nre__, ___*& •»' m commemoration of the -rmal 8*. 01-? ' am mere waste. Allowing forth? *hich ' am,, of all proper charitable iC^' ! should, by the suppression of th__.' ■■- establishments, obtain nearly SHB** annum. Having caught tbehare T_. ' that we shall find nodifficullvin- i.4*" The Mercers' Company wft °? k -git (_j .(30,000, put £10,431 into their own°° m. °* ' as "court fees," pay their rtaff-?s*.< gorge to tho amount of £. 371 _?", **7> 185, .C0,7«6 in managing their citato?£_s had somo experience of this Pn__ olll*' liarl bought a long tee on p oSS' * ' ing te it. The late Sir _fi_2T1- 1 °_• .. quested mc to call upon hk__?j.»f:' ho thought that the BSSi*B an excellent police ecu" and Z _ , ? A« '■" if 1 wouw s-n the 1 se d ek!i»r: that would on an e.timat. 'ft • value by some independent survevn t_. that he would probably find that_,___?'* have trouble with the MeS *&%&& which was the groond-landlord «fl__-fi he said ; "I will speak to tho Lord C___, 1 lor, who is a Mercer, and hew__T3__ it." This he did, andlbdlvetSl Chancellor b^ghttheSSC'' at a court ot the Company. They 2_ to listen to the proposal/ OCT why, they replied that their tenants _.? - neighbourhood objected to affiS The tenants then signed a iBSS there should be apolio- court,E&S Company refused again, without S ' any reason. I endeavoured to _K1 why they were so obstinately pig head 7, and, so far as I could make It out, £ 1 members of the Court-or rather of on ffl the two families that have Z _! Company into their hands-felt BfcJ.l that the Lord Chancellor, andnot «_. should have been first consultei ■ %,' lawyer was one of the family, themttisl another, and altogether the'f__jJS ' to be making very decent pickings, W_7.ever any new lease was to be signed, a M '-" mittee was appointed to inspect, andeteh I committee-man received a fee. iS. penetrated into the Company's- dtMam is usual in City offices, I kept my hat on-A venerable gentleman touched me,find', pointed to my hat when I addressed tin I could not make out what he meant'ft6 said : "Your hat." Still I did not under.,,' stand, M-ljeii he said, "You must take v_. ; hat off." T replied "With pleasure; Mt if you wish it, Iwilltakeallmyclot_«2".i Poat-bly this readiness to comply w_m regulations intended to do honour to M . Company may have been one of the reasftr : why the Court declined to agree to the sale'V of my lease to the Government. . •_•'■.'■'