The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-30 00:00:00

nthan the-City -of Laudon. The expendtture for the year
ag September 1, 1853, was 17,6631.6.. sd. ; the salaries
sad &Common were 1,2591. In the parish of Marylobes',
with a population of 157,696, an area of 1,490 acres, whisk
is twice that of London, the total expenditure for the
year ending December 31, 1852, including 10,8001. Interest,
annuities, and bonds paid, was 148,6001. • owl the salaries
amounted to 1,7421. 17s. There is a difference in the police
expenditure of Maryiebone, which is but one pariah, and
that of the City, which contains 110 parochial districts, of
20,0001.; although the moot the former is twice as large
as that of the latter.
Mr. Lewis—Marylebone only pays its proportion of the
metropolitan polies rate, but the City maintains its own
prisons, so that the comparison cannot fairly be instituted
between the two.
Mr. Hickson—There are many soirees of in the
City of London over which I think any new municipalit
in connexion with the metropolis, ought to have power. The
indirect taxation of the City in 1862 amounted, as well as I
eau estimate it, to 333,7021. 1 hat amount is thus made up:
The 4d. duty on coals, 67,5911. ; Bd. ditto, 113,6691. ; Id.
ditto, 14,W71. ; total, 185,4481.; market dues, 20,5981. ;
street tolls, about 7,260/. ; corn dues, 63,6391. ; fruit, potato,
and oyster outages, 16,8561. ; sundry corporation I=l
including weights and measures, brokers, rents, f
floes, sheriffs' ditto, 5,8a91.; fees to of of the corpora-
tion, 30,0001. ; freedom and livery floes, about 6,0001. ; loss
to the public by exclusive privileges of town carmen, water-
men, to., 10,0001. The total estimated amount of indirect
taxation was 277,4481. This sum includes local rates, poor
rates, ward rate, rbureh rate, tithes, and Easter offerings.
The Trusts Estates for public and charitable objects
amounted to 427,6851. The port of London charges
amounted to 68,3771., making a total of direst and indirect
taxation to the amount of 1,107,1641.
Mr. Lewis—Do you mean to say that it is a common
practice in municipal boroughs that the poors.rate, charities,
tithes, and Easter offerinp, form part of the municipal
amounts ?

; but I put them aU together, because
I think that under a new municipal organisation all the ex-
penditure of • local nature, whether belonging to the cor-
poration or other bodies, should be placed under age
management. The corporation receive 200,0001. from their
(states, 200,0001. from the nal duty, and 200,0001. from lila
police rate, the consolidated rate, and other local rates.
With reopen to the coal duties a very inaccurate impres-
sion MOM to prevail. The corporation claims the 4d. duty
as their property, and it is thought that they have handed
over the Bd. duty to the Office of Works for metropolitan
improvements. That is not so. The Bd. duty has been
diverted to improvement, within the city, and has been
expended under the officers of the conioration. Here are
the figures in support of that fact. Here is the statement
of the loans secured on the Bd. coal duty from 1831 to 1853:
Remaining part of 95,0001. for debtors' prisons, 1,0001.;
ditto of 6,0001. for Moorfields, 1,5001. • ditto of 80,0001. for
site of new Pat-office, 68,1001.; London-bridge approaches,
1,000,0001.; removal of Fleet-market, 250,0001.; improving
the site of Royal Exchange, 160,0001.; ditto, 40,0001.;
now Farriegdongtreet, 25,0001. ; total, 1,635,800/. Here
is a further statement of further loans secured upon the
prospective receipts of the Bd. coal duty :—Fer New Belton-
street, Long-acre, New Oxford-street, and new street from
London Docks to Spitalfields, 200,0001. ;_
i ditto, 100,0001.;
Coventry-street to Long-acre, East Smithfield to Rosemary-
lane, and in aid of improvements in Southwark and West-
minster, 189,0001.; for ditto and general improvements,
116,0001.; new street in Southwark, 30,0001. ; Victoria-
street, Westminster 30,0001.; New Farringdon-street to
Coppice-row, 88,000/. ' • total, 763,0001. (Act 13 and 14
Vie., c. 103.) Up to the present time, therefore, the cor-
poration of London are clearly responsible for the whole ex-
peudtture of the Bd. duty.
Mr. Lewis—How much of the coal duty of 1852 was ab-
sorbed ky the metropolis ?
Mr. Hickson cannot answer that.

Mr. Lewis—Bat is not that the whole question ?
Mr. Hickson—The corporation are not only responsible
for the expenditure of the money, bat they are responsible
for having retarded to a great extent, by the sectional and
antagonistic spirit of their institutions, the progress of
metropolitan improvement. The penny coal duty is the
fund out of which the New Coal Exchange has been built.
Since 1845 the peony duty has been paid to the Office of
Works. The coal duties, which extend to the whole me-
tropolis, ought to be placed under a board representing the
metropolis. The contract for the building of London-
bridge was 426,0001., but the expenditure up to 1831
was 1,426,0001., or 1,000,0001. more than the con-
tract. The City unused to represent the metropolis in
regard to the conservancy of the Thames, and in other
particulate, bat that power should be taken away from them,
and placed in the hands of a metropolitan municipality.
The power of interfering with metropolitan improvements
generally should be placed in other hands than the City
corporation. The corporation opposed the plan for the im-
provement of the City, pro by Sir C. Wren after the
great fire. The City have allowed encroachments upon the
river. There is a building on the south side of the river
near London bridge, which projects twelve feet beyond the
stain of London-bridge into the river. This is most dis-
graceful to the corporation. In other cities the most
beautiful parts are g e lly the river frontages, but that
cannot be said of the City of London. With regard to New
Oxford-street, and other streets, the Woods and Forests
proposed plans for the improvement of the west-end of the
town, but the corporation put forward counter
plans for the Exchange and its approaches,
and their architect appeared before several com-
mittees of parliament in opposition to the metropolitan
improvements proposed by the Woods and Forests. The
result of the opposition was, that the sum for metropolitan
improvements was cut down from 638,0001. to 310,8001. I
thine the money laid out in the City hue beer badly ex-
pended in this sense—that it has not been laid out with
duo consideration of the wants of the metropolis generally.
The new street in Cannon•street is so far good and useful,
but what should be done was to bring the street from
London-bridge to Charing-cross, instead of bringing it out
at Ludgate-hill.
Mr. Lewis—What would you do with the Temple gar-
dens ? The corporation has no jurisdiction over them ?
Mr. Hickson—That is another instance of obstructive-
ness. In regard to metropolitan improvements generally,
I think there should be a general metropolitan body to
which such questions should be referred, because
the votes of members of parliament coming from
the most distant parts of the kingdom are
often brought to bear, in the interest of local and private
parties, in reference to those improvements in which they
cannot be supposed to have any great interest. The effect
of having London divided into three Poor-law Unions in-
stead of one, has been to cause an expenditure of 300,0001.
more than need be. I think the poor would be not only as
well eared for, but better cared for, if the three unions were
consolidated into one, and if the corporation took the dutyof
managing the poor upon themselves. They have now &com-
mon house in Norwood for the poor children, but In
ether respects the three unions are still divided.
The workhouse accommodation expenditure alone has been
100,000/. more than it ought to be sine the City was di-
vided into three unions. The expenditure on account of
the pour is rattly greater in London than in any other parts
of the country. The expenditure for the poor in the three
City unions, with a population of 129,128, and exclusive of
parochial expenditure, was, in 1852, 78,7391.; in hiaryle-
bone, with a population of 157,698, 47.7311. ; in Lambeth,
with a population of 139,325, 33,9231. I believe there would
be lees difficulty in consolidating the City unions it there
were no corporation.
Mr. Hickson's evidence had not terminated when the
cestaimioaen adjourned at four o'clock.