The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-20 00:00:00

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY.

Deputy FRY, the chairman of the Improvement Com-
mittee, brought up the report from the committee relative
to the expenditure incurred by the Commissioners of Sewers
in effecting certain street improvements in the City during
the years 1862 and 1863, and recommending that it would
not be desirable for the Corporation to contribute towards
the cost of the said improvements. The ground upon which
the committee made the recommendation appeared to be
that the improvements had been paid for, and that the
accounts were all settled, and therefore it was not advisable
to reopen the matter.

Mr. SAUNDERS proposed an amendment to the effect that
the improvements in question were of great public import-
ance, and that the Corporation ought to contribute towards
the cost of them, in order to relieve the ratepayers from a
portion of the burden, and that the subject should be re-
ferred back to the Improvement Committee for reconside-
ration. He referred to the various important improvements
that had been made in the City, and said, that although
much had undoubtedly been done, the public convonience
and comfort required a groat deal more, and it was impos•
Bible that this could be effected if the Corporation cast the
whole burden upon the ratepayers of the City, and refused
to contribute towards such improvements. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NORttIS, M.P., seconded the amendment.
A lengthened discussion took place upon the motion and
the amendment, during which

Mr. LAWLEY expressed his opinion that the real question
at issue was whether the Corporation should conduct its
own business or whether it should be over-ridden by the
Commissioners of Sewers. (Cries of " Oh, oh.") lie said
that the matter had been fully considered by the committee,
and they ought not to be asked to reconsider their decision.

Mr. H. L. TAYLOR expressed his opinion that the com-
mittee had not fully considered the question that was sub •
witted to them, and that in their report they had entirely
given it the go-by. (Hear, hear.) All they were called
upon to consider was whether the improvements that had
been effected were of importance to the public, and whether
the Corporation ought to contribute towards the cost of
those improvements. He was ready to admit that this Court
had a right to control all the expenditure of the Corporation,
and that was the matter. (Laughter.) He always bowed
to the decision of the Court, although sometimes he did so
very unwillingly, but he had no hesitation in expressing his
opinion that the Corporation had not done anything like
what it ought to have done in reference to the yublic im-
provements in the City, and that it had neglected its duty
in this respect. Believing that the subject had not been
properly considered by the committee, he should support
the amendment of Mr. Saunders, that the report be referred
back for further consideration.

Mr. RuDKIN said he was not opposed to the principle of
the City's cash contributing towards the public improve-
ments in the City, but on the present occasion he thought
the Improvement Committee were justified in refusing to
contribute towards improvements that were made in 1862
and 1863 which were already paid tor. In his opinion, how-
ever, the proper course was not to leave the entire control
in the hands of the Commissioners of Sewers, but that this
body should put itself in communication with the Improve-
ment Committee, or some other committee, upon the sub-
ject of any improvements that were proposed to be carried
out, and that the two bodies should act jointly in the
matter.

Deputy DE JERSEY, the chairman of the Commissioners
of Sewers, addressed the Court at some length in support of
the amendment, and he expressed his opinion that the con-
clusion arrived at by the committee was not founded upon
the merits of the question, but upon the feeling and preju-
dice that existed in the breasts of some of the members,—
(Cries of " Oh, oh.") He regretted to find that upon such
an important question feelings of this description should
exist, and he could not help saying that in his opinion the
improvement of the streets and providing for the accommo-
dation of the public was a municipal duty, and the Corpora-
tion ought to perform that duty and not allow the ratepayers
to be salcileci with the entire cost.

The Court then divided, when the amendment was carried
by a mejority of 27•
Deputy DE JERSEY then proposed two motions having
reference to certain proposed improvements in the City, one
of which is the making a thoroughfare out of Newgate-
street through King Edward-street into Smithfield, both of
which were agreed to.

Mr. RUDKIN then proposed that the Improvement Com-
mittee Le empowered to confer with the Commissioners of
Sewers with a view to facilitate the widening and improving
the streets and thoroughfares of this city, reporting to the
Court from time to time whether any and what amounts
should be contributed out of the City's cash towards such
objects, _ _

The motion was agreed to, and the Court then ad-
journed.

Registration of County Voters,

The Commons' Select Committee on the Present System
of Registration of County Voters in England have made
their repot t. They have to state that the registers are at
once impure and defective, and the process of remedying
them is frequently attended with annoyance and expense to
individuals. Great facilities are afforded for unqualified
persons getting upon the register, while, on the other hand,
persons entitled to a vote are liable to be annually called
upon to substantiate their right, and objections are ven-
tured on the chance that they will not take up the chal-
lenge. The majority of the witnesses examined before the
committee consider the following alterations in the law to
he desirable

" 1, That eYery notice of objection given by a registered
elector should specify the grounds of his objection.

"IT. That overseers otjecting should be bound to specify
the grounds of their objection, and to give notice thereof to
the addzess of the person objected te, in the same manner
as any other objector.

" 111. That any claimant or registered elector objected to
on env ground as not qualified to have a vote should be at
liberty to make a statutory declaration under the sth and
6th William IV., cap, 62, in support of his right, and to
inform the objector that ho had made it; that any objector
thereupon persisting lli his objection should, unless he suc-
ceeded in keeping or striking the name off the register, be
necessarily subject to costs.
', tor objected to
" IV. That any claimant or registered CIO.
on the ground of any error or incompleteness in
his claim
or entry in the register should be at liberty to correct EtZh
error, or to supply information to complete his claim or
entry, by letter addressed to some person officially charged
with the preparation of the register, and to inform the ob-
jector thereof ; that any objector thereupon persisting in his
objection should, unless he succeeded in making it good,
be necessarily subject to costs.

" V. That each parish list in the register should contain
not only the names of voters qualified for property situate
within such parish, but also the names of voters residing in
such parish, but qualified for property situate in other
parishes of the same county; and that the register or polling
number of such voters should be placed against their names
in the parish of their residence, instead of in that of their
qualifying propel ty.

VI. That the clerk of the peace should annually fur-
nish the overseers of the parishes in his county with a suffi-
cient number of lists of registered voters in their several
parishes for publication and male front the copies of the
register in his possession.

" VII. That the list of voters on the existing re-
gister in each parish should be annually published by the
overseers on the same day as the notices to claim. The
committee are of opinion that these changes would be im-
provements; but they consider that in regard of objections
by overseers, when made on the grouud of death, notices of
objections need not be served.
" They consider that each ground of objection taken by
an objector should ho treated as a separate objection ; that
costs should follow the event, unless the revising barrister
in his discretion saw tit to ;withhold them, or, in a case
where several grounds of objection had been taken, some of
which had succeeded while others failed, to compound the
costs.

" The committee particularly inquired into the possibi-

lity of making the registration of county voters less depen-
dent on the care of individuals, or the activity of political
agents, and more a subject of official agency. In Scotch and
Irish counties, and in boroughs throughout the three king-
doms, registration is a matter of official agency, supple-
mented and checked by individual action. The nature and
variety of the qualifications for the county franchise in
England and Walem, depending as it does mainly on title,
tenure, and beneficial interest, liteit the application of any
official system, and render it impossible to dispense with in-
dividual action to the same extent as in constituencies in
which tho franchise depends on more apparent circum-
stances,
" Most of the witnesses havel expressed themselves in
favour of intrusting the correction of claims and entries in
all points not essential to the right to vote to official agents,
to whom the claimants and electors should be invited to
furnish all requisite information,"