THE Thames Advertiser. THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1877.

Thames Advertiser, Volume X, Issue 2601, 19 April 1877, Page 2

THE Thames Advertiser. THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1877.

The Borough Council, at their last sitting, very wisely determined that the payment of fees accruing to'.the Borough under the Sharebrokers' Act of 1871 should be enforced. It was stated that this would place the Borough in possession of much-needed fluids to liquidate liabilities, as they are again on the wrong side of the ledger in their banking account, and not a little surprise has been expressed by the general public that such a legitimate and equitable source of augmenting the revenue has been so long neglected by those who are placed in tins position of trust and responsibilty— whose duty it is to conserve the public revenue, and see that all measures over which they have any control are carried out in their integrity, without fear or favour. We believe that since the last meeting, of the Council, when it was resolved to call in the Brokers' licensing fees without delay, the members of the Thames Stock Exchange have been button-holing Councillors and using their utmost persuasive efforts to get them to rescind a resolution which involves a payment on their part of a sum of <£25 per annum each, and subjects them to certain regulations which are not convenient, and are calculated to entail a too wholesome check upon some of their number who are driving a profitable trade by an infringement of the clauses of the Act in question. We learn, also, that the influence of the Association has been successfully brought to bear upon some members of the Borough Council, and that, as the result, a special meeting of the Council has been convened to be held this afternoon to re-consider the question, and, if members are weak enough and pliable enough, to rescind the resolution passed at last Thursday's meeting. At that meeting, out of four members who spoke on the subject, three were in favour of doing what Avas right in the interest of the public,—whose servants they are,—and the fourth was almost persuaded to throw in his vote; but this stock impartiality caused him to sympathise with the guilty fraternity who had deprived the Borough of so much money, and he came to the conclusion that "he thought it would be unwise to be in too great a hurry over this tax." If a private individual or a bank manager neglects through'inadvertence or ignorance to comply with the very stringent regulations for entering gold lodgments, the police do not allow such anfexcuse to interfere with the carrying out of the law, and the enforcement of the penalties. If a publican or an auctioneer or a hawker is detected in the slightest extent overstepping the stringent rules under which he carries on business—if a miner is detected using a pestle and mortar even to prove the yield of some quartz obtained by prospecting,—the guardians of the law are clown upon him like a vulture on his prey; but circumstances alter cases, and the Thames brokers are all such decent fellowssuch hail-fellow-well-met sort of individuals, who never indulge in any sharp practices, and are innocent of the tricks of trade which common shopkeepers are given tor-that Cr. Eenshaw, after very mature consideration, concludes that it" would be unwise to be in too great a hurry over this tax." Cr. Eenshaw may be a very kind-hearted indulgent sort of fellow, but in this instance he is in the wrong. The Council have no right or authority to say what Acts of the Legislature which they are elected to carry out. shall be made a dead-letter, and any connivance on their part in the instance under discussion will in itself constitute a breach of the law. They have no right to iffc ject the means of augmenting the functs of the Borough by some £400 to satisfy even a conscientious scruple, if such can exist in this case. If any member of the Council feels the tax press too heavily uponhisfriendSjheisnot justified in over-ruling an Act of Parliament to satisfy them; and we. trust the better sense of Councillors will prevail, instead of leading them to make fools of themselves in the eyes of the burgesses to gratify a member of the sharebroking class. Crs. Read and Ehrenfried very sensibly said it was the duty of the Council to enforce the fee, whatever their private feelings might be. If the Act does provide that brokers, are prohibited from trading in shares on their own account we consider it is a very proper provision, and the only safeguard the investor can have against unscrupulous persons who enter the ranks of the profession, and are admitted to membership with the ■ Stock Exchange, provided they patronise a respectable tailor and possess £15 in hard cash to solace the members of the ring with. "We will .quote the obnoxious clause of the Act/which is really the cause of so much flutter in

the Exchange dove-cot, and must say that we consider it a very wholesome protectionagainst questionable practices which have ruined many a small speculator on this field. In addition to the payment of the fee clause, the Act provides that every sharekoker, before a license is granted to Mm, " shall enter into a bond to her Majesty the Queen in the penalty of £1,000 for himself, and two responsible sureties of £250 each, or the security of some guarantee company to the amount of £500, conditioned that he will not during the time he shall continue to be licensed buy or sell any shares for himself or on his own account, except through another broker, and that he shall keep a book to contain entries of every sale tp.every person, and the price at which the same shall be sold."