The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-01 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 1, 1853.

the Bank of England, at 4 per cent., for making the ap-
proaches to London bridge, and 250,0001. for Farringdon
Market. The expenses of maintaining the market were
greater than toe receipts by 3311.1 in 1833, by 71. 85. in
1811, and by 79/. in 1351.
Mr. Lewis—lots have stated that the officers of the cot-
, p nation centred a sum of 74,0.501. which aces not appear
in the 'teems.' of the corporation. Do you mean to say
that that vim does not appear in any way en the blue books
published by the corporation ?
Mr. Williams—Not one single farthing of it appears, to
the best of my belief, in any one of the blue books. The
money we, received by the officers of the corporation, se
appears from their own returns, in the shape of fees and
other emoluments, Audis not published in the City accounts.
I will now proceed to state the coat of the salaries of the
officers. There are 485 officers of the corporation, and
their salaries, including the Lord Mayor and the City Soli-
citor, whou accounts were not filled in in Schedule A of
the report of 1883, amounted in that year to 123,8141. The
salaries of the ward officers amounted to 3,4671. ; the sums
paid to the committees of the Common Council amounted to
6,5941.; the allowances for the City barge and shallop, and
other expenses for the conservancy of the Thames, amounted
to 2,0001.; pensions, 2,7931. The total of these items is
138,6781. The bills of the three City lawyers—the City
Solicitor, the Comptroller, and the Remembrance,—
amounted, in the ten years from 1826 to 1835, to 162,6201.,
which gives an average of 16,2621. for each year. There
were also 28 other lawyers, who received in 1833 22,8431.
These lawyers are the Recorder, Town Clerk, Common See-
jeant, judges of the Sheriffs Csurt, de. These two last items
give an amount of 39,1051. per annum for lawyers' expenses.
1833 the salaries of twelve City officers, including the
Lord Mayor, amounted to 56,1971, from which official
deductions were made to the extent of 6,7621., leaving a
balance of 48,4351. In the same year the salaries of twelve
Cabinet ministers amounted to 4.5,4801., so that the twelve
City officers received 2,9.5.51. more than the same number
of Cabinet ministers. I must mention, however, that the
Lord Chancellor is not included in the twelve Cabinet
ministers, because the Great Seal was at that time in com-
mission. Fur the purpose of further elucidating the expen-
diture of the City corporation I will compare it with that
of some other municipal towns in England. Birmingham
has a population of 242,841, the salaries and emoluments
of its municipal officers amount to 1,1311., and the law
expenses to 1,4001.
'1 he Chairman—But you cannot iestitiee a fair compa-
rison between London and Birmingham, because there are
many items included in the municipal expenditure of Lon-
don which are not included in that of Birmingham. For
instance, there is the salary of the coroner and the adminis-
tration of justice and the gaols.
Mr. Williams—l admit that to be so. and the comparison
can, therefore, be only regarded as a proximate one. Then
Bristol has a population of 137,000, and the salaries of the
corporate officers amount to 7,6141. Hull: population,
84,600 ; salaries, 1,7091. • legal expenses, 1061. Leeds :
population, 172,000 ; salaries of officers, 1.0791. ; law ex-
penses, 1481. Liverpool : population, 375,935 ; salaries of
corporate officers, 11,8641. ; law expenses, 13,1381. Man-
chester : population, 303,332 ; salaries, 4,4631.; law ex-
penses, 3,7831. Norwich : population, 65,195 ; salaries,
3,4291. ' • law expenses, 1,0431. Sheffield : population,
135,310; salaries, 2251.: law expenses, 7211. I have
taken these figures from a report presented to the
House of Commons in 1943. In London the enormous
vim of 192,0001. was levied in the shape of coal tax from
off the inhabitants of the entire metropolis; and up to
the present time the whole of the proceeds of that tax
has keen expended in City improvements, with the
ception of a balance which last year was paid over to the
Office of Works for metropolitan improvements. It ap-
pears to me to be most unjust that one-twentieth part of
the metropolis should have the power of taxing the Villa-
...

under acts of Wallin, Ash e, and George 1., which on-
powers the corporation to ins.' ce certain regulations with
regard to brokers. They awl. %,,.• pay this tax which is not
only unjust but illegal—a court of Ow having decided that
it was illegal. In December,
Ists, / ceeetled to broker's
businessin the City, but before I could
do so I was told I
should have to pay 3/. a year rent,
the fees, when I
was admitted and sworn before the Court of Aldermen. I
spoke of this to other brokers, and was told by t: em that it
was not necessary to pay this sum of Si. I inquirei: into the
subject, and found that out of two hundred ship brokers in
the City of London but fifty-three were sworn brokers. Jn
another list I find that out of one hundred and thirty-six
broken who earry oat the same business exactly as myself
but thirty-five were sworn. I find it stated in M'Cul-
loth's " Commercial Dictionan " that the shipping insur-
ance brokers did not come within the meaning of the acts
of parliament I have referred to. And it was so decided by
the judges in 1827.
The Chairman—Why then don't you resist the claim of
the corporation /
Mr. Offor—Simply for this reason, that I gave two secu-
rities that I would regularly pay the rental or tine. I went
yesterday to the town clerk, and was there again told that I
could not be admitted a ship broker without paying the
fine, and that if I did so I would be proceeded against. I
told them that m 7 partner was not sworn, and that is the
fact. I was also Informed yesterday, that by being a sworn
shipping insurance broker I could carry on the business of
a share and stock brober, but that a share and stock broker
could not carry on my business.
Mr. M'Nasiara-1 rioted as an agent in City elections. I
sat on Sir J. Key's committee at the last election for cham-
berlain. Money was paid to flog bearers, canvassers, and
constables. Some of these were electors and some not. I
did cot pay any persons myself. I have heard that some of
these men got so much as :10s. or lfis. a day. I paid 201.
myself fur tavern expenses. There was not mulls treating.
I don't know how much the election coat. I think the
liverymen are, on the whole, a respectable body. I have
taken part in the election of aldermen. I reside in the
ward of Portsoken, where some severe contests took place.
The election of Alderman Moon lasted for a long time, yet
it did not cost more than 6001. I don't think a Ghillies
was taken for votes on that occasion, though the ward is a
poor one.
Mr. Thomas Plant Rose—l was engaged as a confidential
agent on the part of Mr. Scott at the last contest fur cham-
berlain. There was a very considerable expenditure on that
occasion, but not more than usual. The money is spent in
bringing up voters from a distance, and the voters in the
town from their work. A gnat number of persons were
employed as colourmen, &c., and they received the usual
pay of about 7s. 6d., and some were paid 11. The total
amount spent by Mr. Scott was, I think, 3,4001. The
whole was spent in agency and bringing up voters. I a
knew any person to get a direct money payment for his
vote. I heard that money was paid in that way. Very
little was spent in treating. The expenditure on the
aide of Sir John Key was 1,9001. That was only
iu one department. The whole expenditure on the
part of Sir John Key, was 7,0001. A great deal of
that was spent in sending persons to all parts of the country
to bring up the voters. I do not believe that all that
amount coald be spent in that way, bat I believe that a
good deal of it must have been spent in direct bribery. I
do not know that of myself. I attribute the defeat of Mr.
Scott to that large expenditure. I do not think any bribery
has taken place in the election of sheriffs or aldermen. The
office of sheriff, however, is not much sought for.
Mr. Grey, of Stepney-green, said—l am a citizen of Lon-
don, and a member of the Drapers' Company. I was robbed
by a gang of swindlers who held offices in the City, and
carried on their operations on a large scale. This was in
1847. I prosecuted three of these men to conviction at the
Old Bailey. I was told by my solicitor that the expenses
would not be more than 251. But when the trial was over,
I found that they amounted to 1524 A subscription was
opened to reimburse me, to which Baron de Rothschild,
Mr. Travers, and other gentlemen in the City, contributed.
The City of London contributed 501. The subscription did
not amount to more than 3811., leaving me out of pocket,
independent of the loss of my time and other private ex-
penses. I then petitioned the Treasury to ho allowed a
part of the entreat (2001.), and the petition was favourably
entertained. It was found, however, that the sureties lived
within the precincts of the City, and the esteem were paid
over to the City Secondary, Mr. Potter. I then petitioned
the corporation for a portion of the money to pay the ex-
penses of the trial, but was told that it belonged to the
sheriff and not to the corporation. 'the prayer of my peti-
tion was not granted. I have been reduced in circum-
stances in consequence of the prosecution. I was offered
2501. to give up the judge's warrant, but I refused. I don't
say that the corporation were bound to reimburse me any
part of the low I sustained, but I think they ought to have
done so. They did so in other cases.
The inquiry was then adjourned to to-morrow (Friday).

bitants of the remaining nineleen-twentieths in this man-
ner. In providing for the future municipal government
of the metropolis I would give corporations to each of
the metropolitan boroughs, and I would form out of these
different sections a central body, with extensive powers
for certain general purposes, such u sewerage, police,
and public improvements. I would have no objection to
continue the name of Lord Mayor, and I would make
him the chief officer of the coastal body. I would give
that officer a liberal allowance, so that he might he able
to maintain a becoming hospitality. I think an allow-
ance of 4,0001. a year or thereabouts would be sufficient
for that purpose, but my opinion is that gentlemen would
be found who would be prepared to exercise a becoming
hospitality as Lord Mayors at their own expense.
The Chairman—But do you think it would be right to
throw this burden on the gentleman who exercised the
office ?

Mr. Williams—A gentleman of that description has been
found in Liverpool in the person of Sir J. Potter, and if I
was elected myself I would rather defray the expense of the
hospitality from my private funds than have it borne out of
such a tax as a coal tax levied on my fellow citizens. I be-
lieve the City corporation represents in no one respect the
general interests of the metropolis. It taxes the metropolis
but does not represent it. In my opinion the prevalent
feeling of the members of the Court of Common Council is
to preserve things as they are. They are not in general
reformers, or they would have done something before now
to reform themselves. Whenever they see anything like a
commission they begin to show a seal for reform, but that
is all. I consider that nearly all of the privileges of the
City are disadvantageous to the rest of the metropolis, and
that the City would not be satisfactorily reformed by any
partial alteration of the present corporate system.
The Chairman—What change would you propose?
Mr. Williams—l would apply the provisions of the Muni-
cipal Corporation Act to the City of London. There is no
earthly reason why London should not be brought under
that act as well as other plac.s.
Mr. Lewis—Da you think it would give satisfaction to
the City ?
Mr. Williams—l am sure it would work as well there as
in any town in England. I am sure if that were done
ample precautions might be taken for the proper adminis-
tration of the trust funds of the City. In Bristol and in
' Coventry there were is great many trust funds, and although
there were many complaints about their administration
before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1
have not heard • single complaint since those trusts were
placed under the guardianship of the Lord Chancellor. I '
would take from the corporation the conservancy of the
Thames. I think so important a trust as that ought to be
in the handed the government.
Mr. George Edwards, • member of a Scotch linen firm,
was called au to give evidence, but as it did not bear di-
rectly on the corporation, it was not pursued.
• deputation from the vestry of St. Panama, assisting
of Mr. W. E. Cooper, Mr. Stockton, Mr. Lawton, and Mr.
Billed, were then called.
Mr. Cooper spoke on behalf of the deputatles. The
Oat paint we complain of is that we are taxed foe im-
peeremment in the City property, by • tax on coal, same of
the of which is spent in our parish. The poor
paalic who have bees driven out of St. Gilea's and ether
17: have settled in St. Pancras, to the amount of from
700 per yes, for the last seven years. The pariah
dim declares that the numbers thus removed amount to
ese-sizth of the out-door poor, who amount in our 'wish
to 6,027. We think that an improvement rate would press
less heavily than the coal duty on the ishabitants, especi-
ally on the poor of the parish. We have also to complain
of the duties en carts entering the city. The population of
St. Pancras is 167,000, and the rateable property
707,8571. There is no municipal corporation in the pariah,
and we have no legal power for enforcing a paving and
lighting rate. We applied for • bill to parliament, but it
was rejected in the House of Lords. The North Western
Railway Company refused to pay the rates demanded of
them, and we have no power to compel them to pay. It was
hamssequeace of their opposition that the bill was lost.
Vs are therefore in this position, that we have important
delis to perform, and yet have not the means of carrying
this out. In consequence of the want of a municipal oor-
nti, or any good local act, the value of the property in
aTeras is dimulishod. We have had the public roads
' to maintain, and very great expense is caused by the in-
creased coal traffic brought over them, all of which we have
to pay for. We paid 9,0001. on this account, and there is
more due. We have the tax to pay, and others have the
benefit. We have spent about 110,0001., including paving
and lighting. The highest rate we have had is 2s. on the
rental. We have to pay 8,2871. for county rate ; fully ono.
third of what we raise in the parish is spent without our
control. We object to the mode in which the police rate
is levied and apportioned. We have to pay over 4,0001. for
lunatics. If we had a corporation a large portion of
these expenses would be saved. We are unanimous
es to the advisability of a municipal corporation,
and it is being discussed to-day whether we will ask
for one in conjunction with Marylebone and Pad-
dington, or separately. There are more 101. house,
in St. Pancras than in tho other two parishes together.
The present system of conducting the sewers and the water
supply entails an additional expense on the inhabitants of
St. Pancras, which would be obviated if there was a gene-
ral board for conducting these matters. The auditors of
St. Pancras are elected by the general ratepayers, and they
have the power of disallowing any or every item. They
have in point of fact disallowed items. The vestry don't
feel that they have sufficient powers for the management '
of the parish, and they fa I difficulty in getting a proper
local act, in consequence of the opposition of the North
Western Company, which threatened to proceed against us
by injunction, and make us pay individually for the ex-
penses of seeking • new bill. We are thus completely
hand-tied, as far as regards lighting and paving. The num-
ber who actually polled for the vestrymen ix St. Pancras
sow larger than the number who voted in our division for
the election of members fur Marylebone. With regard to
the power of attachment possessed by the Lord Mayor's
Court, it is known that that court has the power of attach
ing money is the banks within the City of London. But it
may not be known that the court has tne same power
in the case of joint stock barks in the City having branches
in the west-end or other parts of the metropolis. It the
money should be deposited in a west end branch the court
has the power of attaching it. Still further, if the bank
should be in the west-end, and have no branch in the City,
it would be only necessary for one of the parties to appear
within the City walls to give the power of attachment. This
shows the extent of the power possessed by the court, which
was originally given fur the City only.
Mr. Stockton, one of the deputation, said, in reference to
the coal duties, that the middle classes consumed on the
average about seven tone of coal per house in the year.
In the houses of the poorer classes a greater number of fires
were lighted, as a greater number of (amides lived in them,
consequently the coal tax tell heavier on the poor than on
the middle class. The proportion was about If. to lie. The
expenditure from the coalicontributed neither to the use nor
ornament of St. Pancras, and he was sure the commission
would feel the necessity and justice of abolishing it.
- -

MUSIC.

Mr. Olio_ ,r jun., a shipping insurance broker, of the
City of London, said the shipping insurance bro-
ken of the City are taxed to the extent of 51.
per annum for carrying on business. This is claimed