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

CITY CORPORATION COMMISSION.

-- «-

EXAMINATION Of MR. WILLIAMS, M.P.
The Commissioners met yesterday; Mr. Labou-
chore in the chair.

Mr. Williams, M.P. for Lambeth, was the first witness
examined. ile said—ln the year 1830 I became connected
with the corporation of London. At that time it was the
practice of the Caurt of Common Council to select gentlemen
perfectly independent of them, to audit their accounts. In
1829 the auditors complained that they had not sufficient
informatian to enable them to discharge their duty,
and, in the tenoning year, I i.nd another gentle.
man were elected by the Common Hall, in oPPo
motion to the gentlemen who had been proposed, as
auditors by the Court of Common Council. 1 and my col-
league were supposed to have made at that time a more
luminous report on the state of the finances of the corpora-
tion, than any that hail been made during the preceding
60 years. It was previously the custom to allow the
auditors 301., which was to be expended on
dinners ; but we declined to accept that sum. We
received a very gratifying vote of thanks for what was
called our luminous report. That arrangement had gone
on for same years, but in 1834 the corporation finding it
inconvenient, as I imagine, to supply the bills of particulars
which the new auditors required, instructed the chamber-
lain not to furnish those bills of particulars for the futon,
We therefore refused to continue our services as auditors,
and the result was that at a Common Hall held on the 30th
of January, 1831, the following resolution was adopted :
" Resolved, th►t the Common Hall has heard with surprise
and indignation that the present chamberlain has, contrary
to the custom and practice of the former chamberlain, and
in defiance of • resolution passed unanimously by the
citizens in Common Hall assembled on June 24th, 1329,
refused to furnish the auditors with t►e bills of particulars
and other accounts of money paid by him and of the funds
belonging to the citizens at large." Th►t resolution of the
Common Hall was referred to the Committee on City
Lands, who reported as follows: —" And although it
appears that the bills of artificers and others were formerly
prodoad to the auditors en the examination of the
chamberlain and bridge.master's accounts, the practice arose
from their having been &teethed to each orders or warrants
for general convenience, and not in any respect from their
being necessary, to say such examination, and from the
tallest consideration of the subject the select committee

were of opinion (as suggested in the said report) that the
miditors have no power or authority to require the produc-
tioa of any bills of particulars, or to reject or disallow any
payment made under such competent authority ; were it
ot►erwise, the corporation would become subject to the
views of the auditors or the body of the livery who form (as
liverymen) no part of the corporation, nor pacers any right
to an interest in the property of the corporatiou." I
believe that without bills of particulars, audits would be
little better than a mere force. The auditors appointed by

the City afforded no check against misappropriation. The
gentlemen appointed to the office of chamberlain are
always men of high character and unquestionable integrity,
and I do not in the least wish to impute to them
any actual malversation. When the City Corporation
Commissioners instituted the inquiry in the yea• 1933,
some of the leading City ;reformers, of whom I was one,
formed themselves into a committee for the purpose of
giving all the information in their power with respect tO
the state of the corporation. Mr. Dillon, myself, and others
gave evidence before that commission, but the gentlemen
who composed it seemed to make little of our evidence, and
were Wanly led away by the statements of the City off'.
errs, who, of coney, made out the best cam they could for
themselves. Whenever any inquiry took place, these offi-
cers showed great ability and adroitness in protecting their
own interests. A vacancy took place in the Common Coun-
cil about the middle of the year, in the ward in which I
carried on my business. I was induced, reluctantly, to
offer myself u a candidate for the office, with a view of
getting at the City accounts, which the corporation denied
all access to. The Court of Common Council passed an
order to the effect that the officers of the corporation
should furnish no information of any kind to any
one except to the regularly constituted authorities.
I was erected without opposition, but after my election 1
found that I could not obtain say informa'ien beyond
what was to be found in the blue- books published
under the authority of the corporation, and which afforded
no correct idea of the money exacted by them from the
public in various shapes. I believe the Common Conseil
themselves had no knowledge of the money received ►y the
various officers under the name of fees and other sources.
Under these circumstances I moved fora committee to in-

quire into the salaries, fees, profits, and emoluments of the
officers of the corporation: the amount of the City re-
venues; the various sources whence derived, and the mode
in which it was upended. That committee was granted
after considerable delay. It was what is called a ward
committee, a member being elected for each of the twenty-
six wards. I believe the list of names was pretty much
that which I proposed, and I cannot complain of any un-
fairness in the selection of the committee, or of the mode
in which they discharged their duty, although many of
them were not City reformers. I must say,
they acted most honourably and conscientiously.
We soon found that there were so many officers em-
ployed under the corporation that it would take up an
enormous length of time if we were to call each officer
before us. N'e therefore wrote to each officer, soliciting
t the desired information as to the nature and amount of his

ii;larirnd fees. A sub-committee was formed from the
general committee, for the purpose of arranging the
different accounts which were furnished. They presented
a report to the Court of Common Council, which report was
referred back to the general committee, as is the custom in
these cues. The committee had the assistance of Mr.
Scott, the Chamberlain's chief clerk, a most able account-
sat, and a very clever man, and also of the town clerk. A
report was finally agreed to, and was drawn up by Mr.
Scott I have • copy of that document here, and it is one
of a very able and comprehensive character. The first
pies which the committee took into consideration was the
1110 of she smoralty, sad this was a question of extreme
allimbp. We took a great deal of pains to arrive at an
OSSIISISSO sonde. The conclusion we came to was that the
swum of the mayoralty in the year 1833 amounted
ft *WU. The cost of the Lord Mayor's office
Via turceeed by 1,5001 in 1800, and in 1811, on the
the depreciation of Bank wheat those periods;
art. dot depreciation no longer sedeled in 1833 we re-
esuinewded that this 1,5001. should be snook et; but the
Our{of Csessess Council never adopted eist resolution.
We wrote to all the aldermen who had the chair
Bre returns of the money they had during their
migwralty rear ; hut Sir P. Laurie woe the may one who
anneffillel with the request, and he stated his receipts to
hue been 7,900!. The emoluments of the Laid Mayor
lure mseasionally increased by mend muss of income.
We W. for instance, the right of oppsisaisi persons to fill
Wed. et Jew broken, and these memo paid 1,5001. for
Iheiggillmt. The Court of Oman Dural paned
•gm teethe ant that may et the istniss of income
MID be the committee were euggerated ; but
SINS MOM were accounted for be the report.
U any gentleew billowing to the emperation should
di- to the Mang of the Tabu., in the report
before the ammilides, I hope I will get an °pre-
allsity of=ow his. Thos rest of premiers auks%
;b, dwiles, Ike. realised he the
ias 141,0311. Last' year the receipts the
some Mies amounted to 213,2.571. The emoluments
received by various odious which did not appose is
the corporation accounts amounted in 1833 to 74,4401
every shilling of which was accounted for in the report se
the committee. Then there are the receipts of the Irish
Society, which I maintain form an integral port of the 00r.
poration. Their receipts in 1833 amounted to 7,88 U.
From these three sources, therefue, a sum of 223,1251. was
reali•ed. Of this there we. leviedlBs,oool. from the taus
on corn, coals, salt, potatoes, fruit, &e., and by tolls, due,
floes, &c. Last year the same charges amounted to
205,1311. The value of the real property of the sorporation
had greatly increased of late years. The sum raised
by the City for lighting, cleansing, and paving
is the year 1833 amounted to 64,9371.; the sewers
rate amounted to 9,7181. • the watch rate, to 33,6811.
The total amount of the last four items is 321,4611.
These were the taxes levied by the corporation, in addition
to their real estate in 1833. I think the income of the
eorporation last year must hare amounted to 406,8551.
But taking it at 321,4611„ the amount at which it had
been calculated in 1833, that sum gave a tax of 2/. 12s, Gd.
for each head of the City populatios, exclusive of the enor-
mous cost entailed on the public, by the practice of allow-
ing none but freemen to be employed in various handi-
craft-, of which the fellowship of porters afforded an exam-
ple. A gengeman of high respectability, carrying on •
large business in the City, informed me that be was com-
pelled to pay 61. and 7/. • week for work which he could
get done, if he were left free in the matter, for 255. or 265.
a week. In order to show the true proportions between the
City receipt and expenditure, I will contrast it with that of
the United Kingdom. The City expenditure in 1833, 1
have stated to be 21. 125. nil. per head for each inhabitant of
the City. The expenditure of the United Kingdom amounts to
U. 17s. for each individual in the empire, although out of
the latter sum had to ne defrayed the interest of the debt
the expense of all the great public officers, the army and
navy, and our vast colonial empire. The City expenditure,
therefore, in proportion to population is 50 per cent. more
than that of the central government of the whole empire.
In addition to the charges already enumerated, there are
various sums paid to the corporation, or its officers, which ,
I must present to the notice of the commissioners. There
was a sum of 15.813/. levied in the shape of tolls on boats
and barges to the west of London-bridge ; then there were
tonnage dues on ships entering the port of London to the
amouid of 7,0001. Anil then there were 1,6571. received
for fees in the court of requests. These items, added to the
sum of 321,46 U., give • total of 354,4291. as the revenue of
the City corporation in 1833. Then there were charitable
trust funds, which I will now enumerate. There
were the Bridge House estates, which amounted
to Z..),5811., and sixteen other charitable trusts,
'mounting to 14,1961 , making • total of 43,7771. There is
next the Bel. duty on caste, which in 1833 amounted to
69,010/.; the wine duty, amounting to 3,681/. • sum re-
ceived for freedoms and apprenticeships, 5311. ; and 11,500/.
received from the City funds. These four last items mak-
ing altogether a sum of 84,6251. which was to be applied to
pay the principal and interest of 1,000,0001., borrowed from