The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-17 00:00:00

Act. The right honourable baronet quoted the follow-
ing return :—" Return of the number of cellars used
as dwellings in the following divisions, contrary to the
provisions of the 21.-tr,p,:siie .-1
B. 137; D, comprising part of S:. Lary-Ir.:bone and Pad-
din ten, 1,260. In these parishes there are two surveyors,
one receiving 5401. 135., and the other 1,5411. 9s. 6d. per
annum. E, 183, comprising St. Pancras and other parishes,
in which the surveyors receive incomes varying from 1001.
to 1,5571. 13s. 6d. ; and, in 1852, the amount paid to the
surveyor in St. Pancras was 1,7911. 153. Gd. ; F, 232; G
and H, 870 ; K and L, 109 ; making a total of 2,714 cel-
lars used as dwellings contrary to the provisions of the
act, according to the police return. As to the acts of Par.
liauieut which had been obtained, he might state that the
7th and Bth Victoria, cap. S 4 (1844), contained a provi-
sion that a registrar be appointed by the Chief Commis-
sioners of Woods, at 1,0001. per annum ; one official re-
feree, to be appointed by the Secretary of State, at 1,0001.
per annum ; and that two other official referees be ap-
pointed by the Secretary of State, at 5001. per annum each.
The expenses of the office in 1853 amounted to 2,510/. ;
making a total of 5,5101. per annum. These offices are
paid partly out of the Consolidated Fund and partly out
of the county sate. Besides these there were 52 surveyors,
appointed by the magistrates in quarter sessions; they
had incomes`, varying from 2001. to 1,6001. per annum,
derived from fees ; and that the total amount received by
them in 1853 was no less than 24,3611. So that the cost
of this establishment to the country and to the ratepayers
was just 30,0001. per annum. Several attempts had
been made to induce Parliament to legislate en this
subject. In 1844, in 1847, and in 1851, unsuccessful at-
tempts were made at legislation by the parish of St. Pan-
cras, which, by its unfortunate constitution,.had not only
to pay the costs of promoting, but of resisting the passing
of those acts. One of the greatest grievances of the me-
tropolis was the Commission of Sewers, which had juris-
diction over an enormous area, extending in some districts
much beyond the metropolis ; but there was a great por-
tion of that area which had never come under rating, or
been considered in any way by the commissioners. In
1847 the metropolitan area was divided into seven separate
districts (exclusive of the Regent's-park and Regent-street
district), under the superintendence of as many separate
commissioners. They were as follows

Date of Commission at Number of
Commission. time of Supersedeas. Commissioners.
-Westminster and part of }Dec. 5, 1837, 240
Middlesex
- - -

Holborn and Finsbury - Same date,
Tower Hamlets
Poplar and Black wall Same date,
Surrey and Kent Ang. 15, 1841,
Greenwich

... 150
... 179
... 67
... 280
... 116

St. Katherine Dec. 5, 1838, ... 33
Being a total of 1,065, exclusive of the directors for the
time being of the St. Katherine Dock Company. Amongst
the names of the commissioners wera the Duke of Welling-
ton, the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and ether
noblemen and gentlemen, who could not attend to such
matters. Oa Nov. 30, 1847, the first six of the above
commissioners were superseded, and six new and distinct
commissions were issued, one for each district, but ad-
dressed to the same body of individuals-23 in number.
On the 4th of December, 1847, the St. Katherine Com-
mission was superseded, and a new commission was
issued, appointing, as commissioners for that district,
the same twenty-three individuals who were named in
. .

the commissions for the other six districts. The amount
of debt due on November 30, 1847, when these commis-
sioners were appointed, was 64,1331. Besides these com-
missioners, there were the Regent's-park and Regent-
street districts, which were formed in 1824, under the pro-
visions of statute 5 Geo. IV., c. 100, out of portions of the
contiguous district and ha their own separate body of
commissioners appointed under that statute. The debts
did not devolve upon the Metropolitan Commission of
Sewers, but remained a peculiar charge upon the district
itself, and have been paid by the districts liable. In the
year 1843, the 11th and 12th Vic., c. 112 under which one
Commission of Sowers was established for the whole me-
tropolis, excepting the city, was passed, and was brought
into operation on the Ist of Jan., 1349, by the issuing of
the First Metropolitan Commission of Sewers. Since that
time five commissioners have been appointed, and the debts
have constantly increased. At the time the first was ap-
pointed the debt was 63,4891. Since the issuing of the pre-
sent commission, the amount of debt had been increased
by a new loan of 140,010/.' and a contract had been also
entered into fora further lean of 150,0031., in pursuance
of powers given to the commissioners by the Sewers Act of
last Session, enabling them to charge the rates With an
additional debt of 300,0001., so that the debt new existing,
and to which the ratepayers are liable, amounted to the
great emu of 587,0741. 63. 4d. Thus it would appear that,
since the year 1847, there had been no less than seven
commissions the old commission existing in that
year, a new one in part of that year, and a third
iu January, 1840; a fourth in October, 1849; a
fifth in October, 1851; a. sixth in July, 1852 ; and a
seventh in November, 1854; and that the debt new
considerably exceeded half-a-million of money. Since
1847, there had been no less than seven commissions, each
increasing the debt, and rendering greater the liability
of the ratepayers. The accounts of the Commissioners of
Sewers showed the following results :—ln 1849, the receipts
were 71,6231. 13s. 10d. ; expenditure, 85,3451. 3s. tld. ; cost
of management, 22,4001. 17s. 5d., or 28i per cent, In 1850,
the receipts were 91,0701. Os. lld. ; expenditure, 94,5541..
105. 11d. ; cost of management, 21,1041. 175., or 23 per cent.
Since that period, the amount levied by loans and taxation
has been so great—varying from 129,1001. in 1851, to
194,105/. in 1853—that the percentage of cost of manage-
ment, on the gross amounted collected, is less. But still the
cost of management was, in 1851,16,4301. ; in 1852, 14,5511. ;
and, in 1853, 17,3861. The commissioners have attempted
only one great work, the Victoria, Sower, the estimate of
which was 28,854/. ; and the cost, as far as can be ascer-
tained, 41,4721. But this, it is said, falls far short of the full
amount. The time for completing the contract expired in
March, 1854 ; and the accounts have not yet been rendered.
Various plans had been proposed, some of them so compli-
I eaten as to oe nanny worth any notice, and with which he
should not trouble the house. The right hon. baronet then
read the following extract from the report of the City Com-
missioners :—" London, taken in its full extent, is (as it has
with literal truth been called) a province covered with houses ;
its diameter from north to south, and from east to west, is so
great that the persons living at its furthest extremities have
few interests in common ; its area is so large, that each inha-
bitant is, in general, acquainted only with his own quarter,
and has no minute knowledge of other parts of the town.
Hence the two first conditions for municipal government,
minute local knowledge and community of interests, would
be wanting if the whole of London were, by an extension
of the present boundaries of the City, . placed under a single
municipal corporation, The enormous numbers of the popu-
lation, and the vast magnitude of the interests which would
be under the care of the municipal body, would like-
wise render its administration a work of great difficulty.
(Hear, hear.) And these considerations appear to us deci-
sive against the expediency of placing the whole of the metro-
polis under a single municipal corporation, without advert-
ing to those snore genes-al questions of public policy which
naturally suggest themselves in connection with the subject.
We see no reason why the benefit of municipal institutions
should not be extended to the rest of the metropelis by its
division into municipal districts, each possessing a municipal
government of its own. What the form of this government
should be, and what should be the number or extent of the
districts, are questions not lying within the scope of our com-
mission, and upon which we are not competent to express any
opinion. We may be permitted here to remark, that the
power of petition to the Crown, for the grkst of a munici-
pal corporation, given to Parliamentary boroughs by the Mu-
nicipal Corporations Act, and by the Act of 1 Vict., c. 78,
does not appear to us to be practically applicable to the metro-
polis. In order that a proper distribution of the metropolis
into municipal districts should jbe effected it would be neces-
sary to take a connected view of its different parts, and to
arrange the boundaries and size of each district with reference
to the other districts. Without such mutual adjustments a
proper combination of districts would be impossible ; and
such adjustments could not be made if charters were granted
singly to Parliamentary boroughs. If a distribution of the
metropolis into municipal districts is to be made, it ought, as
it seems to us, to be made simultaneously, and with a due con-
sideration of the manner in which the interests of each part
are affected by the genes-al plan. The commissioners, there-
fore, suggest in their 28th recommendation ' that the rest of
the metropolis be divided into districts for municipal pur-
poses.' In the event of a division of the entire metropolis,
such as we have ventured to indicate, being hereafter made
by the authority of Parliament, we suggest the creation of a
Metropolitan Board of Works, to be composed of a very
limited number of members deputed from it by the council of
each metropolitan municipal body, including the corporation
of the City. We propose that the management of public
works, in which the metropolis has a common interest,
should be conducted by this body. At present works of
this sort can only be undertaken either by the corporation
of London from its own peculiar funds, or under powers
created for the purpose by special legislation, or by the
Executive Government out of Parliamentary grants. It is
manifest that a power of executing public works of general
metropolitan importance, well as the construction of bridges
over the Thames, or the opening or widening of main lines of
street, accompanied by a power of metropolitan taxation,
would, though founded ou a basis of popular election, repuire
efficient safeguards for its prudent and useful exercise. We
therefore think that the plans for the works to be executed
should be submitted to a committee of the Privy Council, and
its consent obtained before they are carried into effect. We
may add, that cases may arise where public works may be
executed in the metropolis partly out of the metropolitan
fund and partly from Parliamentary grants, and that in these
eases a control of the Excoutive Government such as we have

Proposed would be indispensable." The commissioners recoin-
niend, in their 29th suggestion, ," that, in tho event of a divi-
sion of the metropolis into municipal districts being made, a
metropolitan board of works be created, composed of members
deputed to it from the council of each metropolitan municipal
body, including the Common Council of the City." He pro-
posed that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and boundaries should
not be interfered with in the slightest degree whatever:nor the
Powers of the Poor-law board; such as these powers were they
should remain. The plan he proposed to submit to the house
was contained in the bill which he would now propose. Ho
-did not propose to include the City, because another bill
Would be brought in having reference to it. The bill would
extend to all the districts comprised in the registrar-general's
returns. Representations had been made to him that it
would be utterly impossible for any one board to manage
and control the whole of the districts. This, however, was a
subject deserving of further consideration, and he would re-
consider it before the bill went into committee. The district
boards would have the powers and duties of the local boards,
so far as they related to the prevention or removal of nui-
sauces, the appointment of officers, and they would have
power to appoint a commit.o) to manage the (Verent boards.
The rating under the powers of the bill would bo the time as
under the present system, and, to save expense, there would
be only one collector. Regarding existing liabilities, there
was one provision which would make them chargeable upon
the localities where they had been created, so that no place
not made subject to the debt would under the bill be made
liable. Provisions were inserted as to the time of paying . off
all debts and liabilities. It would be necessary, while pro-
viding for the local wants of the different districts, that there
should be some general board for the whole of the metropolis;
and, therefore, he should propose—following the suggestions
of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of
the City of• London—a Metropolitan Board of Works. After
reading from the report, the right hon. baronet said that the
commissioners suggested that there should be one board to
decide upon all great improvements, and that they should send
plans of these improvements to the Privy Council for their
approval or sanction. He would, however, deviate a little
from the suggestions, and, instead of the plans being sent to
the Privy Council, he would have them sent to the office of
the Chief Commissioner of Works, who, he thought, would be
a better judge to decide upon those improvement than the
Privy Council. The riettatitution of the board would consist
ofof 42 elected members ; two would be appointed by the City
London and the others by the different districts, in accord-
ance with the schedule proposed to be set cut at the end of the
Lill. Of this board, there would be a alutbaaan--making in all
44 members. Persons would. be eligible whether. they should
cohrasihrmoualniinhoet bu7i,ohritthe district boards. With regard to the
„went would have' might
that is Lamar years the Govern-
sired that the chairman should be aP -
pogitecl by the lizecutive, but now they wished to frame a