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

THE SUN, LONDON. SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 17. 1855.

ount of ignorance, and the amount of consequent cri-
minality to be found in the country. I have no doubt the
instances he mentioned were instances tiith c'' rd to
which the facts were accurately state(' ; but I think we
are not entitled to take these instances as examples where-
by to judge of the criminality of the country at large.
(Hear.) I can only say, as far as my own local knowledge
extends, the districts with which I am acquainted cer-
tainly do not resemble the places from which the informa-
tion of the right hon. gentleman has been derived. No
doubt the religious question is one which must, I am afraid,
-oppose great difficulties in the way of those who take this
subject in hand ; but at the same titne I entirely agree with
the right hon. baronet in hoping that those who entertain
different opinions on this branch of the subject will consi-
der that we all hold opinions in common, which ought to
be, and may be, the foundation of a common system of
education ; and I confess I do not agree with the noble
lord opposite, who said that the differences on the religious
question are so radical and so complete as to render it im•
possible to have a common system applicable to persons of
all denominations. (Hear, hear.) Under these circum-
stances, I accept with the greatest pleasure and cordiality
tha -proposal of the right hon. baronet to bring in this bill.
I think he is right in postponing further proceedings upon
the bill until after Easter. The house will then have before
it the two measures—the one of my noble friend, and that
of the right boa. baronet ; and I must say, with regard to
the former, the criticism of the hon. gentleman who has
just sat down does not seem to me to apply. He has con-
trasted what he alleges to be the greater liberality of the
arrangement proposed by the right hon. baronet with the
illiberality of the measure of my noble friend. One pro-
poses that the management of these schools should be con-
fided to persons elected by the ratepayers, and my noble
fiend places them more in the hands of the town councils
and vestries ; but surely he forgets that the town councils
and vestries are the creation of the ratepayers, and there-
fore it is merely a question of one election or a &lisle
election ; but the election in either case is complete
popular suffrage. It is for the house to determine which
of the two measures is the best in point of principle, but
each relies and is founded upon pure popular and general
choice. I should hope that the discussion which
has taken place will satisfy the horse on the present
occasion. (Hear, hear.) I trust hon. members, re-
serving their more detailed opinions until the two bills
are equally before them, will allow the house to proceed to
those other matters which are equally worthy of attention.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
bKETROPOLITAN LOCAL MANAGEMENT.

Sir B. HALL, in rising to ask for leave to bring in a bill
for the local management of the metropolis, said, after
the various disappointments which had taken place, he waP
glad to hale an opportunity of laying before the house a
measure on that subject. At the commencement of the
present session, her Majesty, isfthe Speech from the Throne,
said, that though the prosecution of the war would natu-
rally engage their chief attention, she trusted ether matters
of great interest and importance to the general welfare
would not be neglected. Now, he knew of no subject of
greater importance than that which referred to the im-
provement of the first city in the empire, and it was to
that subject he wished to direct the attention of the house.
Various Governments had promised to take the matter
into consideration, but Ministry after Ministry passed
away without attempting to legislate in that, direction.
In 1843, Lord Morpeth, when Chief Commissioner of
Woods and Forests, introduced the Public Health Act,
and, in doing so, said—" I have said the bill makes no ex-
ceptions in England and Wales, and accordingly the metro-
polis is.not excluded from its operations. But Ido not wish
to mislead my hearers. Owing to the great number of local
bodies, and generally the whole condition of a community
outuumberingin itself many continental states, I am hound
to declare that some preparatory and supplementary mea-
sures must be enacted by the Legislature before the provi-
sions of the bill I am now about to introduce can be made
applicable to the case of the metropolis. One of such mea-
sures I hope to introduce within a very short period."
Seven years had elapsed since that period, and no measure
of any kind had been brought under the consideration of
the house. He knew the difficulties of the case--he was
aware of the opposition which would be raised byinterested
pasties to a measure intended for the benefit of the com-
munity at large; but still he hoped the measure heshould
lay on the table would be received with some favour by the
Legislature, and of this he was perfectly satisfied, that it
was so framed as to be acceptable to the public atlarge. The
first point he wished to establish was the area of the metro-
polis. He proposed to take the registrar-general's district,
and call that the metropolis, for the purposes of the bill. A
very coirect and clear account of that district was given
the report of the commis,ioners appointed to inquire int
the existing state of tho City of London in 1852, and which
was, presented to the house in May last year. It was as
follows ;—" Since 1831 the metropolis of the registrar -
general has been used for the census and other statistical
objects. The metropolis recognised by the registrar-
general is formed of 36 registration districts, extending
from Hampstead in the north to Wandsworth in the
south, and from Stepney in the east to Chelsea in the
west. Its greatest dimensions measured in these direc-
tions are 11 and 15} miles. It is according to this di-
vision that the census of the metropolis fer the year
1851 has been arranged. It appears that the entire me-
tropolis within these limits contains an area of 78,029
acres, with 305,933 inhabited houses ; that its population
was 958,863 in 1801, and 2,362,236 in 1851, having more
than doubled in the last 50 years ; and that the value of
its property assessed to the poor rate in 1852 was 9,964,3481.
But whilst the metropolis at large, as set forth in the re-
gistrar-general's district, had rather more than doubled
since 1801, in the following districts the population has
considerably more than doubled since 1801 :

Districts. Fop. in lief. rop. in 1851.
Kensington
Pancras 31,779 166,956
Islington
Stepney 31,909 110,775
Poplar
Lambeth ... 27,985 130,325
Newington

148,475 724,367
Wag five times greater than in 1801." From the whole
tenoux,of this report, it was utterly impossible for many
months to elapse before the Government of the day should
bring in some measure for the better local management of
the metropolis. He did not expect at that time that he
should be theperaon to undertake the task, but being con-
fident that a measure would have to be proposed by some-
body, in the month of June last, in concert with his noble
friend the member for the City of London, he framed a
series of returns, which, with his sanction, he obtained, and
they sot forth to a very great extent the manner in which
the metropolis was managed. They were very imperfect,
but still from them they might obtain some satisfactory
result. He should be able to show from them that hardly
two parishes were managed alike. By way of example, he
proposed to take a few parishes in the different metropoli-
tan boroughs, andhe came first to the borough of Finsbury.
In the Liberty of the Rolls the vestry was composed of
"the ancient inhabitants," i.e., such as had served the
office of overseer. Tho paving committee had 1,509 yards
of streets, and paid 1261. a-year in salaries, or 1471. a-mile.
St. Sepulchre had nearly a mile and a quarter of street,
and paid. 1291. for supervision, or at the rate of 1041. a-
mile ; the commission was self-elected. Ely-place was 326
yards long, and 156/. 2s. was paid for its superintendence,
being at the rate of 8421. 15s. per mile. In St. Giles and
St. George, Bloomsbury, no person was entitled to attend
or vote at the meeting for the election of vestrymen, sin-
less he was rated to the poors rate at an assessment of 251.,
anti no person letting part of his premises could be a vestry -
man, although he might be rated at 5001. a-year. In
Islington the qualification was 201. He would take the
Borough of the Tower Hamlets. In Norton-Folgate the
vestry was composed of these inhabitants who had served
or paid fines for refusing to serve either of the offices of
overseer, constable, or headborough. In Christchurch,
Spitalfields, it was composed of those who had been either
eburchwardens or overseers. In St. Botolph Without,
Aldgate, it was composed of persons who had served all the
parochial offices, viz., headborougb, constables, church-
wardens, and overseers ; the vestry had existed in this form
from time immemorial, and was not constituted by any
local act. In St. John, Hackney, the vestrymen were
elected by the inhabitants, but no inhabitant could
vote who was assessed at less than 401. a year. In Mile-
end, New Town, the qualification was 121. In St. Paul,
Shaclwell, 101. In St. Mary, Stratford-le-Bow, 151. In
All Saints, Poplar, 301. In St. George-in-the-East the in-
habitants could vote who paid 245. a year to the poor rate;
while in St. Anne, Limehouse, they must pay 48s. a year.
St. Leonard, Shoreditch, had three paving boards ; one of
these (the High-street Commission) had one mile of street,
and paid in salaries 1181. 25.; self-elected and elected for
life. Another (the Hoxton-square Trust) bad 456 yards ;
salaries, 471.—the receipts being 46/. ; rate per mile, 1861.
lds. 4d. ; the commission was self-elected, and for life
The Old Artillery Ground had 814 yards ; salaries, 122/.
Bs. • rate per mile, 264. 13s. ; commission self-elected, and
for-life. In St:Geer-r°e-in-the-East the paving was under
five separate boards. The: lighting and cleansin? under
three boards--one of which paid at the rate of lbs. 7.3 d.
each for the supervision of 3b3 lamps. In the borough t.i
Lambeth, the parish of St. Mary, Newington, had two
paving and four lighting boards, which were confined to
the parish, and five other boards, which also extended over
other parishes. The average cost of the superintendence
of each lamp was lls. 6d. Of these boards seven were
self-elected. Lambeth had nine lighting boards, and the
average cost of the super intendence of each lamp was Its.

so far as it could lie ascertained. In the borough cf
Southwark, in the parish of St. George the Martyr,
the paving was under six different: boards, and the West
Borough Pavement Commissioners had 21 miles of streets,
awl paid 4541. in salaries, or 217'. per mile. They
were self-elected, and for life, and there were two other
12.. ttsunilarly elected. In St. Olave, St. Thomas, and
John, the East S ruthwark Commissioners paid
fur little'rno
cy
were
self-elected
than six miles of road, or 1361. per tulle.
liw•im a
se
_‘.
vey-eleeted, and for life. fn St. John there
ler
rated s'i•;,77ejrted b the arishioners, one-half by
- sari persons-not less than 1.0"/.. and upwards; one-half under 751.
the city of Westminster, the
psh of St. George, \ila
ps.rer-square, contained 1,161
acres, and. was in three divisions.
vestry, elected under the pro':i.Tl3* The part under the
s of llobhouse's Act, hid,
14 miles of road, paid in salair?ne
there \
• anti was most admirably r,,,,„,,,1,,:a.63,!. or 45/. per sae,
.-31'; average per
Trust bad 12 miles of road. SZlaries.liiVrosvenor-place
mile 1101 54 Besides these
jurisdiction
p fiiBo yards of
......--, . •-• • f
'Argo of
218 acres, called Cnbitt s district, with4ut, any .
, ias
841.
lt.l)rei nie
whatever.• In St. Ma-le-Strand there werf„
'kilo."' in"'
streets. Salaries 1201. or
04/ 01. Bs.
streets. 6
. Savoy there were 600 yards .
or 2481.' 14s. 21t1. per mile. And in the svhol ' •'
the ° of the
Strand Union,the two last
comprising, besides , parish
Soho, St. Paul s, Covent-garden ;It
and places of St. Ann's, .
the Rolls, there '
Clement Danes, and the Liberty of
n
11 miles of streets, seven distinct paving boards, having
.
ot whh
each separate clerks, collectors, and surveyors
on i
(1 c
trade as a
surveyors was, when appointed, carrying
se to the
tailor, and another its a law stationer), at an expense
ratepayers of 9701. 3s. 3d., or 881. per mile for officiol staff.
In the Strand between Northumberland-house and Temple-
bar, a distance of about 1.336 yards, or a little more than
three-fourths of a mile, the street was divided into seven
different paving boards. First was St. Martin's from the
starting point to the centre of Cecil-street, between Nos. 81
and 85, a distance of about 480 yards. Up to this point the
whole width of the street belougs to St. Martin's, but from
Cecil-street to opposite the centre of Burleigh-street, near 1
No. 112, a distance of about 145 yards, only one-half of the
• street, the north side, was under that paving board. Thu
otherhalf, from Cecil-street, between Nos. 84 anti 85 to No.
107, a distance of about 118 yards, holonged to St. Clement's.
• At No. 107, the district belonging to theSavoyeommonced.
and, for a distance of about 27 yards, the street was divided
between the Savoy and St. Martin's. From opposite the
centre of Burleigh-street, from No. 112 to opposite the east
side of Wellington-street North, nearNo.l3s, a distance of
about 83 yards, the street was divided between the Savoy
,11d-list,Olonsent's, and from this point to Dneby-place,
between Nos. 137 and 138, a distance of about 25 yards, it
was divided
this . between the Savoy and St. Mary's. From
point to the east end of St. Mary's church (near No.
161),
a distance of about 226 yards, the whole width of the

Strand belonged to St. Mary's with the exception of a
piece in front of Somerset House. This porti,n was about
.7artir3 , ,'-'; I'3'll's

sonlerset-pLee contractor. latch the east end of St.
Mary's church to Temple-bar, a distance of about 403
yards, the whole width of the Strand belonged to St.
Clement's. The different paving boards along the Strand,
from No. 1 to Temple-bar, therefore came in the following
order :-1 St. Martin's alone ; 2. St. Martin's and St.
Clement's ; 3, St. Martin's and the Savoy ; 4, Savoy and
St. Clement's ; 5, Savoy and St. Mary's; 6, St. Mary's
alone ; 7, St. Mary's and Somerset-place ; 8, St. Mary's
alone; 9, St. Clement's alone; the distance being 1,336
yards, or three-quarters of a mile, and there being nine
divisions. Cecil-street, a street raining from the Strand
towards the river, with a carriage way about 10 yards wide,
was under two separate managements—viz., St. Martin's
and St. Clement's. Along Wellington-street North, from
the North end of Exeter-street to the south side of the
Strand, a distance of about 100 yards, there were four
separate jurisdictions, viz. :—ln St. Paul's, Covent-gar-
den, there were the three divisions of St. Martin's, St. Cle-
ment's, and Savoy. It happened that St. Clement's divi-
sion came close up to the houses at the east side of 'Wel.
lington-street North. The paving of the rwslway for a
considerable length of the street was thefore done by
that parish ; but, as the houses on the east side were in St.
Mary's, they could not be rated for the repairs of the roads
way. A precisely similar ease as regarded the number of
jurisdictions occurred from the north end of Exeter-street,
along Burleigh-street, to the South side of the Strand.
There the houses on the west side of Burleigh-street were
in St. Martin's. The division between that parish and St.
Clement's took nearly the lino of the footway, so that there
again St. Clement's repaired the carriage-way
and got no
rate from the houses on the west side of the street: In
St. Ann's, Soho, the following were the boundaries of
this parish, or that portion of it under the paving
boar. :—The west side of Crown-street, the west side of
Moor-street, and the west side of West-street, while the
east side of these streets belonged to St. Giles's; Upper St.
Martin's-lane, the north side of Great Newport-street, the
west side of Castle-street as far as Bear-street, the north,
side of Bear-street, the north and west sides of Leicester-
square, the north side of Spur-street (the other sides of
these streets were in St. Martin's) ; the east side of Princes-
street, the east side of Wardons-street (the other sides of
these streets, with the exception of a short piece, were in
st. Japees's). As 111 the case of St. James's, some of the
most inconvenient boundaries were paved, by arrange-
ments, by either one board or the other. By an act of Par-
liament, St. Martin's, Charing-crors, was paved as far as
the Horse Guards. Nearly the other boundaries of St.
Martin's were along the centre of the streets. In St.James's,
Piccadilly, only one-half of Princes-street, Coventry-street,
and Wardour-street, were in the district of St. James's,
but owing to the narrowness of the streets, much inconve-
nience arose to the division of the paving ; arrangements
had therefore been made between St.James's and the neigh-
bouring boards for one or other of them to pave the whole
width of the street in some of those instances. In another
case, the road was under one paving beard, but the light-
ing and watering were under tw3 separate boards- one
havingjurisdiction on the north, and the other on the south
side. The two boards quarrelled, and one of them said—
" We will have the watering done in the morning ;" the
other said—" We will have ours done in the evening ;" so
that during the summer months the parties paying for the
watering of their roads were covered with dust during
the whole 21 hours. (Laughter.) He had touched upon a
great many parishes, but he had not yet alluded to those
which he represented; but he would not suffer them to re-
main unreformed, for he believed that one portion of them
was managed worse than any other part of London. This
was no fault of the inhabitants themselves, but he should
be able to show where the fault lay. He would begin with
the western part of the great borough which he reiresented
numbering about 400,030 inhabitants. One parish had.
170,000, another 160,000, and the third about 60,000 in-
habitants; and the whole borough, having reference to its
size, was the richest district in the whole world. But how
was this largo borough governed ? To begin with Padding-
ton, he found that, in 1801, there were 1,800 inhabitants;
while, in 1831, the number had inereased to. 13,540; and
in 1851, when the last census was taken, the population
amounted to 46,306. In 1837, when he first became con-
nected with the borough, there were less than 1,000 elec-
tors ; last year there were 3,686. It was governed by is
local act passed in 1844, under the provisions of the old
statute, known as Sturges Bourne'e Act ; and a person
must be rated at 101. before ;he could have one vote in the
election of vestrymen, and higher qualification than was
inquired to give him a vote for members of Parliament.
The number of assessments was 6,941.
Number of assessments under 501. 3,582, having 1 vote
Ditto, at 501. and under 751., 1,3;3 „ 2 „
Ditto, at 751., and under 1001., 73-2 „ 3 „
Ditto, at 1001., and under 1251., 431 „ 4 „
Ditto, at 1251., and under 1501., 259 „ 5 „
Ditto, at 1501., and upwards, 607 „ 6 „

Total 6,944
se that 1-11th of the ratepayers, or 607, had 3,642 votes,
which was more than the number of votes possessed by
3,582 ratepayers in th• same parish, and was more than half
the number of assessments in the parish.
Parish debts (1824-25) £lO,OOO, since paid £6,090
Church debt (1846) . 19,000, ~ 7,200
Guardian board (1846) 16,500, „ 6,300

45,500

Leaving a present debt of £26,000

X19,:.;00

The vesTry;nen appointed a; committee of 18 to manage the
affairs of the parish; their decision might be overruled by
the ex officio vestrymen, amounting to 40, independent of
the minister, &c. Every member of Parliament, every
judge, every magistrate was an ex officio member of the go-
verning body of the parish ; and besides those, the Con-
naught-terrace trustees appointed a vestryman, and also
the Grand Junction Water Works. There was this pecu-
liarity about the constitution of the vestry—no innkeeper
could be elected. In 1815 an attempt was made to upset
this absurd state of things, and to introduce Hobhouse's
Act, which requires a majority of two-thirds of those who
vote ; tho consequence was, that though 1,091 supported
' the change, there being 1,212 against it, the proposed altera-
ions could not be made. Three years must elapse before
the proposition could be again entertained. It. was again
attempted in 1853, when it was negatived by about 200. Se
much with regard to the western parish. He would now
come to the eastern; and there he found the most extraor-
dinary state of local management that ever existed in any
country—he referred to St. Pancras. Its population had
increased from 71,838 in 1841, to 180,000 at the present
time. There were 16 paving beards; and a great portion
of the parish was without paving, and without any juris-
diction whatever. The Bedford estate was admirably ma-
naged, so well that a person might go into that district,
and see where the Bedford estate commenced. The man-
ner in which so many different boards were created was
this. When a person had some land which he wished to
let out on building leases, he applied for an Act of Par-
liament. This had been the case with the Somer's-town,
the Camden-town, the Southampton, the Bedford, and
other estates. In the Camden-town district there were 15
self-elected commissioners, of whom about seven attended.
There was no treasurer. There were 4i miles of road, and
they spent 4081. 17s. for officers' salaries' the whole expen-
diture being 3361., exclusive of lighting. They had incurred
a debt of 1,1901., and had levied ls. per pound upon the
rateable value. There were no public pumps. Take the
Doughty estate : there were no public pumps—rate, 2s,
6d. in the pound; there were 18 commissioners, and the
sum expended for repairs was 1/. 17s. 4d., whilst there
'were expended for salaries 180. Bs. 9d. ; debt, 6,7321. On
the Foundling Estate Paving Board the commissioners
were self-elected • about 10 attend ; they have one mile and
a quarter of road, and expend 7631. 19s. lei. in repairs, and
pay 3131. ss. sd. to officers, clerks, &c. ; they have a debt of
44761., which is 50 per cent. of rateable value, and levy a
rate of Is. 6d. in the pound, besides special rates. On the
Lucas Estate Paving Board, they have about three-quarters
of a mile of road ; pay 381. 19s. for paving, and 1171. 14s.
for salaries and collection. They have a rateable vaiuo of
5,867 e and a debt of 4,9091. No public pump. In Somers-
town there were 21 commissioners, self-elected ; about 8
attend ; they havenot any treasurer, have three miles of
road, and spend 5381. 7s. Bd. in repairs, and 3011. in sala-
ries ; they have a debt of 15,0001., which is 35 per cent.
on the rateable value, and levy 10.1. in the pound—one,
pump. On the South-Western district there were 75 com-
missioners, self-elected; attendance 11. They have five
miles of road, expend 983/.145. Gd. in repairs and water-
ing, and 3521. for officers, besides a residence for the clerk
and surveyor, and they have a debt of 5,5001., and levy ls.
in the pound on the rateable value, which is 81,000/. On
the Southampton Estate Paving oard, only 12,i miles of
road, and the payments to officers amount to 6771. 4s ,
being more than 501. per mile for official payments; in
other respects this board is well managed. With respect
to Holmes' Estate Paving Board, the amount authorised
to be raised by the act is 1,500/.,:bnt it is believed bonds to
about the extent of 2,40.4. have been issued ; commis-
sioners
self-elected ; no interest or annuity has been paid
since the year 1836 or 1837; for the last 15 years no op ra-
tions under the Act of Parliament have taken place, and
the pavements and roads within the district are in a most
dilapidated; ' .clangeroas, and dirty state, and under no
_efficient control.; the books and papers of the expired com-
mission are believed to have been destroyed, and this re-
turn is signed by the surveyor to the board. (Hear.) Thus
it appeared that, according to a Parliamentary paper
printed in 1859, those parts of this great parish which had
any paving at all were govered by 16 district boards, 11 of
which are self-elected, and wholly irresponsible to the rate-
payers. There were 427 commissioners, of whom 255 are
self-elected.. They bad set up 14 public pumps for the use
of 170,000 inhabitants, of which ono was returned as out
of order. 'They had 40 miles of road, and 63 officers of
various sorts to superintend, and these 63 otEceri received
no less than 4,0001. a-year in salaries, or 1031. per mile ;
'and to complete the whole they had incurred debts to the
amouet 0f1.35,:3571.—:0 that excluding the Southartpton
district, which had little or no debt, these commissioners,
most of whom were self-elected, had incurred a debt of (
about 140,0001., or exactly 5,0001. per mile, for which, of
course, the ratepayers are liable, and of which , lia-
bilities they had little or no knowledge. So much for the
local government of St. Pancras under petty, self-el, cted
boards. (Hear, hear.) Nose, contrast St. Pancras parish
with the parish of Marylebone, which was governed by
one board, and this was the reason ho instituted the
comparison. In Marylebone the population was 160,000,
in St. Pancras 170,000. Marylebone contained 1,560,
St. Pancras 2,700 acres. The number of officers in
A! arylebone were four, in St. Pancras 63. In Maryle-
bone the cost of the staff was 6571., in St. Pancras 4,0001.•
The debt of Marylebone was 16,5001., of St. Pancras
135,0001. In Marylebone the streets were paved by the
board, in St. Pancras they were, as be bad stated, let out
t(ollcsru:iceatorr.ls. He quoted this to show bow much say-
easment of i"
would
ises had been effected in Marylebone compared with St.
Paneras by having one board —the same as the vestry
—vld how expensive 'yes the other under many boards.
, ludo
nnmlier of diere()reti now give a summary of the ma-
-2,2330118 :the metropolis. It had a population of
value
t Ipoetitli,cttesfiiptufh,
9,01111.mb:r of inhabited houses, 291,240; rateable
was about 2M) •
nistered by not less te:
had returned
they amounted
the nu
to 4,7mne.
there was not any return
there would be 5,710 more
a.clusive of city of London. The
lriceo
general
the
acts, metropolis
u d il i.
081,..1e103 different bodies ; 137 of these
p.esrcoomprisiug these bodies, and
; but at
From the other boards
poi ROl:tltSia same computation
a total of
10,448. Besides these there were the making
! bodies :—Lincoln's-inn, Stapin, Now_Vine chartered
Furnival's-inn, and Charterhouse. There wour'e ',l-oriaDrs-inn,
containing 880,000 inhabitants, and assessed to iett:li'llrs'
psrty, in 1843, at 3,900,0001., which may probably auniY.not:
to much more than 4,C00,000/. at the present time, atird,
consequently, they represent nearly ore-half of the whole
ralue of the metropolis. On examination, it eppeat e that
these parishes are. each of them governed,eitliesreiwf.lected,heolly or
in part, by commissioners or trustees, who are
()ill-
orers electedponsilel of toor tl
hi fee ,
roartebpoetyhecas
.n d
Tehoensaecqttuwani tclhyairngenofodregreo
eers' salaries it was impossible for him to ascertain, but
his own impression was, that it was not less than from
70,0001. to 80,000/. a
(quoting according to th
had complied with the requirements of the Lodging-house
year.
3 police H e
divisions) showthos e how
parishes

Act. The right honourable baronet quoted the follow-
ing return :—"Rettirn of the number of cellars used
"-- di evattli.ry tJ hilt

.ir7j;

provitions of ale Metropolis Buil,;ieg Act—Police divi.ioi
13, 1:371 D, comprising part of Si. Marylebone and Pad-
dington, 1,260. In these parishes there are two surveyors,
one receiving 5401. 135., and the other 1,5441. 93. 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. 15s. 6d. ; F, 232 ; G
and H, 870 ; K and L, 109 ; snaking 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.
Himont which had been obtained, he might state that the
-7th and Bth Victoria, cap. 84 (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.
par 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 Sowers, 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 auy 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 separ ate
commissioners. They were as follows :

Date of Commission at Number of
Commission.
Westminster and part of }Dec. 5, 1837, 240
Middlesex
Holborn and Finsbury
Tower Hamlets
Poplar and Blackwall Same date, ... G 7
Surrey and Kent Aug. 15, 1841, ... 280
Green with
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 thp commissioners were the Duke of Welling-
ton, the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and other
noblemen and gentlemen, who could not attend to such
matters. On Nov. 30, 1847, the first six of the above
commissioners were superseded, and six now 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 those 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 pf the
contiguous district, and had their own separate body of
commissioners appointed under that statute. The debts
(lid 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 1848, the 11th and 12th Vic., c. 112, under which one
Commission of Sewers was established for the whole me-
tropolis, excepting the city. was passed, and was brought
into operation on the Ist of Jan , 1849, 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 anew loan 0f140,0i0/.' and a contract had been also
entered into fora further loan of 150,00)1., 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 now existing,
and to which the ratepayers are liable, amounted to the
great sum of 587,0741. 6s. 4d. Thus it would appear that,
since the year 1847, there had been no less than seven
eowinissions the old commission existing in that
year, a new one in part of that year, and a third
in 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 now
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. 101 ' • expenditure, 85,3451. 3s. 6d. ' • cost
of management, 22,4001. 17s. 5d., or 28} per cent. In 1850,
the receipts were 91,070/. 6s. 11d. ; expenditure, 94,5541.
10s. 11d. ; cost of management, 21,104/. 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
104,105/. 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, 14,551/, ;
and, in 1853, 17,386 f. The commissioners have attempted
only ono great work, the Victoria Sewer, the estimate of
which was 28,8541. ; and tho cost, as far as can bo 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-
cated as to be hardly 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 eztent, 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 more general questions of public policy which
natarajly 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 metropolis by its
division into municipal districts, each possessing a municipal
government of its own. What 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 grant of a munici-
pal corporation, given to Parliamentary boroughs by the Mu-
nicipal Corporations Act, and by the Act of 1 Viet., 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 ibo.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 general 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 specLi legislation, or by the
Executive Government out of Parliamentary grants. It is
manifest that a power of executing public works of genet al
metropolitan importance, such as the construction of bridges
over the Thames, or the opening or widening of main lines of

street, accompanied by a power of metr4olitan taiation,
would; though founded on 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 arisJ where public works may be
executed in the metropolis partly out of the metropolitan
fund and partly from Parliamentary grants, and that in these
cases a control of the Exeoutive Government such as we have
proposed would be indispensable." The commissioners recom-
mend, in their 29th suggestion, " that, in the 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 subinit to the house
was contained in the bill which he would now propose. He
did not propose to include the City,- because another bill
would be brought in having reference to it. Tho bill would
extend to all the districts comprised iu 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 dbetricts.- 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-
SAUCCS, the appointment of officers, and they would have
power to appoint a commit'• to manage the c I levant boards.
The rating under the powers of the bill would be the s cme 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 timo 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 hoe. baronet said that the
commissioners suggested that there should be one board to
decide upon all groat improvements, and that they shouldscnd
plans of those 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
toolfireLsQ:nomiudelofl:27ao.nt Commissioner of. Works, who, he thouulit, would be
a better judge to decide upon those improvements than the
Privy, ouncil. The constitution of the board would consist
o4f34r:ooelfelcted members ; two would be appointed by the City
(blpetehio.e others by the different districts, in accord-
adicie with the schedule proposed to be Set out at the end of the
this board, there would be a chairman—making in all '
Persons
ewou districtl would be
boards.eli whethervitth xregaer
gt they-should
- sthoo ulthed
hmavigehtdeosbitse.earvtehathtatthien former years Govern-
mentmilthedhoap
chairman,w o
pointed. by the Executive, but now they wished to frame

this bill on the principle of local self-government. There
was no wish whatever to interfere beyond that which would

alwolut I.- : u v fui the I,nelit Gi 07, letblie. I
vas prop osou that tire Afeto)olitan Board of Wo ks should
select tho names of three persons—not necessarily from
their own body—not from the local boards—but from the
whole length and breadth ,of the empire. After selecting
three names for the offico.ofichairman, they would be sent to
the Secretary of State, who would select one of them, and
the person so selected would be, as proposed in the bill, en-
titled to a salary of not less than 1,5001., and not more than
2,006/. a-year, and he would hold office during pleasure. He
would also propose to give the board power to take land for
outfall works, so that the metropolis might l e drained—
which at prevent could not be done, because no power had
been given to take land out of the districts. The metropolitan
board should have power to make a sower on each side of the
river, so that the Thames might be cleansed of all impurities.
Where districts are now partially drained, the board would
have powers to take other parts if found more convenient.
He would propose that the district boards should make a re-
port of their proceedings annually to Parliament, and in such
reports all details should be given—the names of all the mem-
bers of the local boards, and the officers appointed—and it
should contain a general review of what had been done by
the local boards throughout the year. He had stated gene-
rally the object of the bill, which was to give municipal
powers to local districts, and they would have a mayor, al-
dermen, and councilmen. He proposed not to interfere with
the metropolitan police, or the magistrates. The city of
London, as before observed, would be excluded from the ope-
ration of the bill, except so far only as included within the
scope of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The coal duties
would, under another bill, be proposed to be transferred to
the Metropolitan Board of Works. He also proposed, if the
house would grant him leave to introduce the present mea-
sure, to bring in a short bill for the purpose of allowing a
greater number of polling places to be-erected, to meet the
convenience of persons residing in the larger parishes. Among
the general provisions of the bill, there were three great ob-
jects in view with regard to the sanitary improvement of the
metropolis. He proposed that every house should be drained
into a great sewer, to be constructed in every street ; that
cesspools—the seed plots of fever and all kinds of disease—
should be abolished—(hear)--and that great drains should be
provided to intercept the sewage of the Thames. (Hear, hear )
He was not sanguine enough to expect to be able to restore
the river to its condition as described in the time of Henry
VIII. by the Spanish Minister, as " that magnificent river
flowing by the Tower, on whose bosom 200 swans were swim-
ming," but he did hope that it would no longer be known as
the cloaca maxima of the metropolis. (Hear, hear.) Then,
with regard to the supply of water, it would not be possible
for him to interfere with it in this bill, in consequence of the
compact entered into between Parliament and the water com-
panies in the year 1852. By that agreement the companies
were allowed, until August, 1855, to perform certain works,
and until the expiration of that time it would not be compe-
tent for him to move in the matter. , As noon as the three
years had expired it would be his duty to recommend to the
Government and the house that 'a commission should be ap-
pointed to inquire into the manner in which the companies
' had complied with the act of Parliament under which they
had undertaken to perform certain works for the better sup-
ply of water to the metropolis. (Hear, hear.) It was his in-
tention to propose that the commission should issue in August
next, and in case the Government agreed to it, he would then
be in a position to lay the report of the commission upon the
table of the house at the commencement of the ensuing ses-
sion in February next. It now remained for him to express
his regret at being compelled to go so much into detail. He
was aware that in undertaking a matter of such great im-
portance, and with only imperfect information to guide him,
there must be many omissions in the bill, which would be de-
tected by hon. gentlemen who might do him the honotir
examining it, and also others who took an- interest in the sub-
ject. He could therefore only hope that those hon. members
who were associated with him in the representation of the
metropolis, and those who took an interest in a scheme in-
' tended for the benefit of the public, and the improvement of
the metropolis, would communicate with him, and offer him
such suggestions as, in their opinion, it would be most ad-
visable to adopt fer the greater efficiency of the measure-
, (Hear, hear.) It would be his duty, as it would be his
pleasure, to adopt those suggestions as far as they were prac-
, ticable ; and if the house would allow him to introduce the
bill, he would not propose the second reading till the 16th of
next month, so as to give a month for the consideration not
only of the measure itself, but of those suggestions which it
might be desirable to introduce when the bill was in com-
mittee. (Hear, hear.) Again begging to thank the house
for the attention with which it had heard him, he now begged
to move for leave to bring in the bill. (The right hon. ba-
ronet was loudly cheered as he resumed his seat.)

Mr. FITZROY objected, first, to the manner in which
the bill had been introduced ; and secondly, to one of its
most important features. He thought that so important a
bill should have been introduced by a member of the
net, and not by a person representing so inferior a depart-
ment as that of the right hon. baronet; and further, he
com, laMed that its introduction was unaccompanied by
sufficient information. One principle of the bill was start-
ling, namely, that which conferred powers of sewerage for
three millions of inhabitants ou a body of parochial dele-
gates. The only mode of obtaining an efficient system would
be to divide the main drainage from the district sewerage,
and to place the former in the hands of a commission of emi-
nent professional persons, or at least of eminent practical men,
to be appointed by the Crown, and to be responsible to Parlia-
ment. They might then with safety leave the district sewer-
age to local boards, on the condition, however, that they
should undertake no works of importance until they had first
laid them before the central board, and obtained its sanction.
(Hear.). To this part of the bill he should certainly offer his
strongest opposition, and he trusted that Parliament would.
never assent to it. (Hear.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought the speech of the hon.
gentleman who had just sat down was calculated to raise a
very unfounded and unjust principle. During the sitting
of the late commission such strong statements incidentally
came before it, of gross abuses in the existing system by
which the metropolis was managed, that the commissioners
thought it right to state that these institutions should be
renewed and reformed. The present hill was undoubtedly
founded upon these principles, and nothing that had fallen
from the hon. gentleman had shaken his opinion in those
principles of local self-government under the control of
the ratepayers. The system had been found to work well
in every other city in the kingdom, and therefore he
thought it should be applied to the metropolis.
Confusion of government prevailed throughout the whole of
the metropolis, and surely that was not a state of things
which ought to continue. He gave his approval to the
general principle of the bill ; but he reserved to himself the
right of afterwards considering the details, upon which the
house would have to exercise the greatest care. The sewage
system especially required those checks which a body elected
by the ratepayers could exert ; and he doubted not but that
such a body, once established in the metropolis, would be
found to work as well as it had in other towns. He thanked
the Government for having brought forward that bill, and the
hon. baronet for the labour he had bestowed on it, and the
ability which he had evinced in bringing it forward.
Lord EBRINGTON said be agreed with the hon. baronet
in the description which he had given of the evils from which
the metropolis suffered, but he differed with him as to the
remedy which was to be applied. For instance, the hon.
baronet proposed dividing the metropolis into 36 districts
altogether, irrespective of the levels and lio of the ground.
He doubted not but he would find also his officers underskil-
led and overpaid. Again, although the sewage rate was en-
tirely a landlerd rate, and the metropolis was the only place
iu which it wac a landlord rate, yet the right hon. baronet
proposed. that the decision of all the important questions
affecting that rate, and hew it should be applied, should be
in the bands of those who did not pay the rate at all.
Lord PALMERSTON—I do not fear that the house will
be deterred from giving their approval to the bill which is
about to be introduced by my right hon. friend, in conse-
quence of the disapprobation expressed by the hon. mem-
ber for Lewes. (Mr. Fitzroy), and that disapprobation mainly
founded on the fact of my right honourable friend having
been selected to. bring in this measure. Now, the facts are
these, as my right hon. friend had more local knowledge of
the matters to which this bill applied than anybody else, and
as he had consulted with me during last autumn, and both
submitted his plans and considered them with me ; and as
he had, with great industry and ability, completed his ar-
rangements, the Government thought that he was best fitted
to sti:Jmit that plan to Parliament, and, indeed, that it would
be unjust to have put it into other hands. I quite agree
with my right hon, friend near me (Mr. Labouchere) that the
principle of self-government which obtains in Parliament has
been found most congenial with the habits of the people of
this country, and I think that local interests will not be mis-
managed if -committed to the influence of that priliciple. The
commissioners had the care of the great arterial drainage, and
it was thought that one body should superintend the general
arrangements and arterial drainage ; and that other bodies
should be .entrusted with the task of keeping in repair the
sewers in the different local districts, Both these objects will
be accomplished by the bill of my right hon. friend. I will
not dwell upon the cogent reasons which my right hon. friend
has stated for the enactment of this measure. I say that it
will mot be calculated to create chaos, but that it will dispel
chaos, and substitute in the metropolis for confusion, regu-
larity and order. (Hear.)
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that he should be happy to facilitate
as far as he could, any system to improve the management of
the sewage of the metropolis. He understood that the City
was to be only represented by three members, but ho did not
think that was a sufficient number. With respect to the coal
tax of 3s. ld. a ton on coals, 9d. was paid to the Board of
Works, and the remaining dd. to the corporation. That tax
would expire in 1862, but the 4d. would still remain to be re-
ceived by the corporation under their ancient charters.
Sir B. HALL, in reply, stated that he had uo intention
whatever to interfere with the drainage of the City, which
was in a most efficient state.

Leave Was then given to bring in the bill.
• _ MILITIA (IRELAND) BILL.

The house w nt into committee on this bill.
Clauses -from 1 to 5 inclusive were agreed to without dis-
cussion.

Ou clause 6 being proposed,
Mr. MACARTNEY moved its omission, on the ground that
it attempted, by a side wind, to give to the Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland the direct power of removing officers from the
militia. By the existing law he had not an immediate power
of that sort.
Mr. FITZGERALD said that the clause would assimilate
the law of England and Ireland on this subject.
The clause (which was the last in the bill) was agreed to,
and the house resumed.

THE LONDON GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT.