The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-15 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

By Mr. NORRIS against the amalgamation of the metro-
politan city police ; Mr. HENLEY against the sale of intoxi-
cating liquors on the Sabbath; Mr. HEADLAM, to the same
effect; Mr. WHALLEY against the Prison Ministers
Bill.

SIR WM. WISEMAN, R.N., AND HIS DISTANT

COMMAND.

Sir. F. SMITH askedth;SeCietary to the Admiralty,
whether there was any truth in the report that Captain
Sir William Wiseman, R.N., who was lately Vice-Presi-
dent of the Ordnance Select Committee, was about to be
sent to a distant command. He had no desire, in asking
the question, to cast any imputation on the gallant officer
He confessed, however, he was surprised that he should
have ,been appointed to so distant a command, looking at
the position he had recently held.
Lord C. PAGET replied that Sir W. Wiseman had been
offered and accepted the commodoreship on the Australian
station. He was a very able and gallant officer, and he
could assure his hon. and gallant friend that the Admiralty
had no intention, in offering him the appointment, of shelv-
ing him, because, strictly speaking, he had not yet served
his full time.
TILE LOSS OF THE ANGLO-SAXON.

Mr. DAWSON asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether any detailed report had been made to that
department of the loss of the Anglo-Saxon steam ship from
Londonderry to Quebec, on the 27th April, and whether
the circumstances of that lamentable event were correctly
stated in the public press; also, whether the Government
had ever refused permission for the use of Daboll's fog
trumpet upon Cape Race in Newfoundland ; and, if so,
what were the grounds for such refusal? He desired to re-
mind the right hon. gentleman that three wrecks had
already taken place on that coast,.
Mr. M. GIBSON replied that no detailed statements or
reports had yet reached the Board of Trade with respect to
the wreck of the Anglo Saxon. The official pa, titulars with
respect to that melancholy event would not arrive until the
next mail. It appeared that last year the Associated Press
of New York put forth a proposal to erect a fog signal on
Cape Race, but neither the colonial authorities nor the j
Rome Government deemed it well to entrust the work to the
execution of foreigners. But the Board of Trade had urged
upon the steam ship owners interested in the navigation of
the waters off Cape Race the propriety of erecting some
adequate fog signals upon that important beach. The
Board of Trade had the power of erecting fog sig-
nals on points that appeared to required them,
and of taxing ships passing for the cost of
maintaining them. It appeared, however, with respect to
Cape Race, that the shipowners had not cared to incur the
expense of erecting the suggested light. It was usual to
communicate to shipowners the intention of the Board of
Trade to erect lights. It was not, however, quite certain
that the fog signal specified was a good one. The United
States had reported that it promised well, but they
did not go the length of saying that it was sufficiently good
to be erected on an important point like Cape Race. It
was also under the consideration of the Trinity House.
At Holyhead, on one of the adjacent hills, a grin was
fired at intervals in foggy weather which could be heard at
four mile' distance, and it was a gun that the Board of
Trade had proposed to erect at Cape Race. The subject
was, however, under the consideration of the Trinity
House.
Mr. DAWSON inquired if there would be an official
inquiry into the causes of the disaster ?
Mr. M. GIBSON could not reply to the question until
the subject came officially before his department.
PRISON MINISTERS BILL.

This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to,
with the addition of an amendment by Mr. HENLEY, and
the bill ordered to be read a third time.

VOLUNTEERS BILL.

The Marquis of lIARTINGTON moved the second
reading of this bill, and explained its provisions. The bill
was based upon the recommendation of the late Volunteer
Commission. In the recent estimates, £198,000 was
unanimously voted without any opposition in aid of
the volunteer force, testifying that Parliament and the
public considered that some additional aid ought to be given
to this important service. The noble lord explained
the qualifications that would be requisite in order
to entitle corps to a share in the grant so voted by Parlia-
ment. It was proposed in the future to allow 20s. a year
to each volunteer, and 10s. extra for proficiency in ball
practice. This year it was proposed to allot 158. to each
foot, and 20s. for each mounted rifleman. He paid a high
complement to the efficiency and equipment of the
volunteers, which now numbered 150,000 well trained men,
who in the event of the country being in danger would
corstitute an efficient body for its defence. The Govern-
ment claimed no credit for the present condition of the vo-
lunteers, as it had spontaneously risen out of the chivalrous
feeling of the people. It owed most of its success to
the unwearied exertions of Lord Elcho. (Hear, hear.)
All the Government had done was to foster the movement,
and to give it all the legitimate assistance in its power.
Major EDWARDS said the bill would be generally ac-
ceptable to the volunteers.
Col. FRENCH said he should in committee take the
sense of the house as to whether Ireland should not partici-
pate in the grant, and have a volunteer force of its own, as
in former times, when the body constituted a great support
to the regular army.
Sir J. SHELLEY hoped it would never be forgotten
that the force was thoroughly voluntary, and trusted ne
rigid unalterable rules would be forced upon them. If so,
the existence of the volunteer force would be endangered.
Regimental orders should, in the first instance, :emanate
from the War-office, subject to the adaptation by the corps
to the particular circumstances of each. He should propose
a few amendments in committee.
'

Colonel DUNNE supported the bill, and suggested that
the proper time to enter upon a discussion of the details
was when the bill was in committee.
The bill was then read a second time.
THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

Upon the motion to go into committee on this bill,

Mr. CRAWFORD wished to call the attention of the
house to some suggestions which had been put forward by
a committee, of which he was one, appointed by the corpo-
ration of the City of London to inquire into the subject of
continuing those duties. The General Improvement Fund
was by the Act of 1862 declared to remain in existence until
1872. The wine duties were but small, but the coal metage
dues granted to the corporation in ancient times, and con•
firmed by the charter of James 1., was 4d. a ton. Then
there was another duty of 8d per ton levied under several
Acts of Parliament,and a further duty of ld per ton granted
for the purpose of erecting the Coal Exchange and for general
improvements in the neighbourhood. By the Act of 1862
the Improvement Fund was formed for the purpose of the
Thames embankment and for general improvements, and
the bill then before the house proposed to continue the
duties forming that fund another 10 years beyond 1872.
By the Act of 1862 the 4d duty was reserved for improve..
ments in the City, such as at Holborn-hill, &c., and the
other 9d was to be held at the disposal of the Metropolitan
Board of Works, for the embankment of the Thames and
other improvem nts. Now, there was already appropriated
out of the dues for the next 10 years £2,330,000—viz.,
Z1,000,0.:0 for the north embankment of the Thames,
£760,000 for a new street from Blackfriars, and LiBo,o 0
1:7 the south embankment of the Thames. It was clear
that, unless the duties were continued, there could be very
few other imttovements attempted out of the funds already
provided.
i
jealousy
t of state of things the City, feeling a very
naturaloadous
within their bo anyl introduction of the Board of Works
8, proposed that the 4d duty should be
continued for the pu
Bank;
.making the new street from
Gresham-street to the
would
make
it and if the amount were nut
eufficient the City
the
tup out of their own funds.
That was not accepted, andwnitnittee reported the
bill to the house in the same state with regard to that
point. Since then the corporation had made several pro-
posals to the Chief Commissioner of wo
to construct,
out of the corporate resources, the street, Which
was to cost
£650,000, provided Government would contribute £300,000
out of the 9d. duty; but the Chief Commissiener had
swed that if the corporation had so large a sum av an-
erfor improvements in the City, there were plenty ofa iol at
lab ler
places to which it could be applied. The offer of the City
was, rin plain terms, to give 4350,000 for the privilege of
making the Areet. If the whole expense was paid out of
the 91 rate, it would stop City improvements for the next
20 years ; whereas the City offer was equal to £50,000 to
ea&s of the metropoli
tan boroughs to be spent in improve.
—and he reminded the house there
ments—(hear,
was much to be done in that way, arid in building free
bridges and throwing open toll-free the present toll-paying
bridges over the Thames. He had no desire to set the
City against the l‘letropolitan Board of Works, and,
without at all detracting from the latter, or of-
exaggerating the merits of the other body, he appealed to
past experience, which showed that but with few
City had
exceptions
all the public improvements undertaken by the
been completed within the estimates, but in no one instance
had that been the case in any great works carried on by
the Metropolitan Board of Works, arising, in his opinion,
from the greater experience and knowledge possessed by
the members of the corporation over that of the members of
the Metropolitan Board of Works. The latter had been
seven years engaged in the formation of a new street in the
Borough, and it was yet in an incomplete state ; and in the
thoroughfare from Covent-garden to St. Martin's-lane there
was yet much to be done. Public interests would be ranch
better served by committing the formation of this street to
the City Corporation than to the Metropolitan Board of

Works. He concluded by moving the recommittal of this
bill,

Mr. J. T. NORRIS seconded the amendmen

Mr. COWPER said the amendment was on- f conside-
rable importance with regard to the practice that house,
and he considered it was undesirable that t \ should en-
courage motions of the kind except upon .de', uate grounds
—either that the committee to which the I . had been re-
ferred had not satisfactorily discharged their duties, or else
that facts had come to light since they had reported. The
Corporation of London and the City Commissioners of
Sewers were the only opponents of the bill, and no objec-
tion had been taken to the committee's proceedings. He
understood that the new fact to be brought before the com-
mittee was that the City was willing to make a present of
£350,000 for the honour of building this street out of their
corporate resources. Now, he had reason to complain of
the ambiguity of those words. His answer to the corpra-
tion was that they could not do better with their money
than in improving the streets and thoroughfares of the City
(Hear.) He wished first to know what corporate funds
they referred to, but from the day when the offer was made
to the present time he had not been able to ascertain that
important and interesting fact. (Hear, hear.) He believed
the corporate funds referred to related to the 4d coal tax.

—(hear, hear)—and that they claimed it as their own, and
to spend it in this manner. After referring to the legisla-
tion that had taken place with reference to the 4d and the
9d taxes, the right hon. gentleman said the question was,
whether the house agreed to accept the offer of the City,
which was not an offer to pay money, but to receive money
and to expend woney that had been confided to the Metro-
politan Board of Works. That, he thought, was a question
that could be as well decided by a committee of the whole
house, as by a select committee upstairs. If they complied
with the proposition they would sanction a retrograde move-
ment. There had always been a distinction made between
the two funds- The 4d tax was confined to City improve-
ments, and the 9d tax to the carrying out of the Thames
embankment and metropolitan improvements, and that dis-
tinction was continued and maintained when Parliament
decided on giving to the Metropolitan Board of Works the
9d tax for the Thames embankment, of which the new
street in question formed part. The Metropolitan Board
of Works had been crated sines the last Continuance Act
was passed, and the whole of the 9d was intended
to be spent on improvements irrespective of
locality whether City or Metropolis. By this act the City
was made subordinate to the Metropolis, and the City was
represented at the Metropolitan Board of Works by three
members of the corporation, and therefore it was impossible
for the City to say they were a superior and independent
body; and, being represented at the b3ard, they could not
expect to have it both ways. The Metropolitan Board of
Works did really represent the City as much as any other
part of the metropolis, and it would be contrary to the prin-
ciples of local self-government and representation going
with taxation, if they took away from the whole of the me-
tropnlis any portion of the 9d, and gave it to the City of
London, which was only one district of the metropolis. He
had been unable to ascertain what were the corporate re-
sources referred to by the corporation—and all the com-
mittee were able to ascertain from Mr. B. Scott was that
there was a floating balance of £350,000, which the City
borrowed in 1857 from the Bank of England, which had
not yet been repaid, and which might be employed
till the time of repayment arrived towards City improve
ments ; but he never led the committee to believe that it
was really available for the purpose. He hoped the house
would not accede to the motion, except they were furnished
with more definite information.

The LORD MAYOR said the right hon. gentleman was
very anxious that these great works should be carried out
with something like certainty. Well, if the bill was not re-
committed, the right hon. gentleman might rest assured
that there would be no certainty in the matter. The hon.
member who had moved the re-committal of the bill had
given them proofs of the mismanagement of the body to
whom the right hon. gentleman was anxious to entrust the
execution of the new street, in regard to the works already
under their control, The Corporation felt that, if this pro-
posal were carried, it would prove one of the most fatal to
their privileges ever brought forward. Funds raised in the
City, and intended for great City improvements, had ac-
tually to be placed under the control of a foreign body.
Could there be a more destructive measure in regard to the
corporation? The right hon. gentleman had spoken of the
shadowy nature of this fund of £350,000, which the corpo-
ration proposed to allocate as their contribution to the
scheme if the execution of the work was left to them. But
had the corporation of London ever entered into any pecu-
niary undertaking which they had failed to carry through ?
And were not their estimates for public improvements in
marked contrast to those of the Metropolitan Board of
Works, the estimates of the one being within the mark,
while those of the other body fell far short of their expendi •
ture ? The expetience of the corporation with respect to
the formation of large public works was much greater than
that of the Board of Works, while they possessed in a pecu-
liar degree the knowledge requisite for the successful laying
down of a new street, and, above all, the knowledge re-
quisite to enable them to deal with questions of compensa-
tion. Moreover, the corporation could promise, with per-
fect certainty, that the works would be completed in the
time they undertook. (Hear.) If the right hon. gentleman
desired to know the sources whence the contribution of the
corporation was to come, his answer was, that the right hon,
gentleman had no right to such information. The corpora-
tion of the city of London had shown that they could exe-
cute great public works in the most successful manner ; and
if they were to guarantee under the corporate seal their
readiness to undertake any work, the country might rest
satisfied of its sure accomplishment. He eid not hesitate to
denounce this inquiry of the right hon. gentleman as an in-
quisitorial attempt to pry into the resources of the corpora-
tion, and to assert that the bill was a direct attack upon the
municipal institutions of the country. (Hear.)

_ . .
Mr. NORRIS could assure the house that if the bill
were recommitted abundant evidence would be forth-
coming to show that the corporation were possessed of
ample funds to make good their undertaking. One re-
source on which they could now count, and which was
not at their disposal six months ago, was the £200,000
invested by them in the Metropolitan Railway, and the great
successs which had attended that scheme fully justified
1 them in relying upon the value of that resource being still
more enhanced. Then, again, the corporation were pos •
sessed of lemehold and other property to the extent of about
£250,000 a year in the gross ; and if from that gross revenue
certain fixed charges were deducted, the corporation had an
income of between £BO,OOO and £lOO,OOO a year available for
the purpose of public works of acknowledged usefulness,
the building of schools, and the encouragement of charities.
Well, rather than suffer the intervention of this foreign body
in matters which ought to be under the sole control of the
corporation, the corporation were willing to divert a large
portion of that income from the work of charity, and appro-
priate it to the formation oft he new street.
Mr. DOULTON said he did not mean to argue whether
the 4d. coal tax belonged to the corporation or net. Parlia-
ment had dealt with it, and they might therefore fairly as-
sume, it was not corporate property, The corporation of
London now came to Parliament and objected to the juris-
diction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, urging that it
was outside the City. If the Metropolitan Board of Works
was a body outside the jurisdiction of the City, how came
it that membera of the corporation had seats at that board?
Nor could he understand why the corporation should make
an offer of £350,000, while it was notorious that they were
constantly applying to the Board of Works for petty doles
to carry out metropolitan improvements. He could prove
from documents which could not be contradicted that the
corporation of London did not represent the commercial in-
terests of the City. The corporation had nothing to do with
sewers, they had nothing to do with education, nothing to
do with the relief of the poor—indeed, the only department
which the corporation had under their management was the
eating and show departments. (A. laugh.) He believed that,
but for the mistake with regard to the Police Bill and the
humiliating withdrawal of it, the present proposition would
not be submitted to Parliament.
Lord J. MANNERS said he regretted the tone of hon,
members who spoke on both sides of the present question,
and although he entertained a great respect for the munici-
pality of London, he was bound to say that the corporation
had failed to make out a case before the committee ; and, in
point of fact, the members of the committee representing
the City voted for the preamble of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Unless, therefore, some new fact of startling importance
had been discovered, he could not see the use of referring
the bill back to the committee.
Mr. TIT E defended the jurisdiction and the competency
of the Metropolitan Board of Works to execute the proposed
street, which would be a great benefit both to the metropolis
and the City.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said he disapproved of the pre-
sent proceeding on the part of the City authorities, and he
thought, instead of seeking to prevent the Metropolitan
Board of Works from carrying out a great metropolitan im-
provement, they should devote their attention to the City
proper. There were various works to be done in the City,
\
such as the erection of a new meat market in West Smith-
field, the widening of Newgate-street, the improvement of
Holborn valley, Tower-street, Thames-street, and Billings •
gate market.

Mr. WILLIAMS opposed the amendment, and condemned
the extravagance of the corporation, which ke said spent
more money in managing the City of London than was re
(pared for the whole town of Liverpool, including its public
debt.

Mr. CRAWFORD then withdrew his amendment, and
the house went into committee on the bill.
Mr. COWPER proposed an amendment, to the effect
that the new street out of Cannon-street should be 80 feet
wide instead.
Mr. CRAW FORD opposed the amendment, which would
lead to no great improvement, and would cause a loss of
2,000 square yards of land, worth £lOO,OOO,
After some further opposition from Sir J. Shelley, Mr.
Ayrton, Mr. Cox, and Lord Fermoy,
Mr. COWPER said he would withdraw his amendment
until it had received further consideration.
Clauses up to 7 were agreed to.

On clause 8, relating to the subway under the new street,
Mr. CRAWFORD moved an amendment that the sub •
way should be placed under the control of the commissioners
of sewers for the City of London instead of the Metropolitan
Board of Works.
Mr. CUNT oupporta -the amendment. The Me-

troiiolitan Board of Works should have power over the
subway in connection with the sewers.
Mr. DOULTON considered it was unadvisable to give
two bodies separate control o-ercflae subway.
Mr. COWPER supportertlifilause.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
Clause 9 was agreed to.
On clause 10,

Mr. CRA WFORD moved that the certificate handing
over the new street to the City should be signed by the
Chief Commissioner of Works, instead of the chairman of
the board.

Mr. COWPER would rather some other person was
named than the Chief Commissioner of Works for signing
the certificate. He thought it would be better some compe-
tent person should be named to join the chairman in giving
the certificate. He should not oppose the amendment.
After some discussion, in which Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Cox,
Mr. Tite, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Alderman Salemons, Mr. J. T.
Norris, and Sir John Shelley took part, the amendment was
agreed to.
NAMING THE NEW STREET.
Mr. CRAWFORD said, it was desirable the house
should insert in the clause the name of the street, and
not leave it to the tender mercies of the Metropolitan
Board of Works. Lately that body had, in new naming
the streets, given some of them their own distinguished
names. (Hear, hear.) He had no desire to see that prin-
ciple carried oat in naming the new street, and he proposed
it should be called Mansion House-street. (Oh oh )
Sir J. SHELLEY said it was very amusing to hear the
manner in which the citizens of London spoke of the Board
of Works, and the horror and dread they had of that body.
The hon. member (Mr. Crawford) alluded to the " tender
mercies" of the Board; and the Lord Mayor had called
them a " foreign body." He hoped they would give the new
street some better name than the one proposed.

Mr. AYRTON said there was one objection to the pro-
posed name, viz,, that many of the citizens would not be
able to pronounce it, (Laughter.) One of the earliest writers
on the City said that "what struck him as most curious in
London was the enormous quantity of provisions he saw,
and the wonderful powers of the citizens to eat them."
(Laughter.) The Mansion House was only suggestive of
that one faculty of the corporation. (Laughter.) If it was
necessary to have a name connected with the City, his hon.
friend (Alderman Sydney), who knew all about the corpo-
ration, and who informed them on a former evening how
the corporation behaved in their cups—a condition for which
they were most celebrated—(laughter)—might be able
to give them some historic name. For instance, why not take
Whittington or his cat—(laughter)—and call it Whitting-
ton-street or Cat-street. (Laughter.) If they could not get
a historic name in the corporation, let them take one out of
it, Let them identify the noble lord's with it (Lord Palmer-
ston), and, as he was a patron of the bill, naming the street
after him would be a compliment worthy of his administra-
tion. (Laughter.) There were many names that could be
selected; but as to Mansion House-street, why he had hoped
before this to have seen the Mansion House converted into
a railway station. (Hear.) The footing and stability of the
corporation were like the Brahmin's description of the
world. The globe, he said, " stands upon an elephant's
back, and his legs on a turtle's back"—(laughter)—an
that he (Mr. Ayrton) thought, was very much like the
stability of the corporation of London. (Renewed laughter.)
He hoped the house would negative the amendment.
Lord PALMERSTON—I can only say that I hope the
duty of baptising the new street will be left to the proper
parties, namely, the Metropolitan Board of Works.
(Laughter.)

Mr. CRAWFORD then withdrew his amendment, and
all the clauses having been agreed to, the bill passed
through committee.

The house having resumed, went into committee on
THE LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CON-

TINUANCE BILL.

On clause 2,

Mr. COX proposed an amendment, the effect of which
was to declare that the very first work to which the 4d
fund should be devoted was the removal of Middle-row,
Holborn. The Holborn Board of Works had estimated
that it might be removed at a cost of £45,000 or £50,000,
and that in the course of a few months. He did not con-
sider that the existence of Holborn-hill was anything like
so great an obstruction to the traffic westward from the City
as Al iddle.row, Holborn. Then, let the corporation do the
graceful thing, and consent to allocate the comparatively
trifling sum of £50,000 for the purpose. If they did, they
could henceforward take their stand, not upon turtle, as had
been suggested by an hon. friend near him, but upon
Middle-row, Holborn, (Laughter.)
Mr. CRAWFORD had no authority to pledge the cor-
poration to the doing of graceful things. (A laugh.) At
the same time he felt quite sure that the corporation would
be willing to recognise the removal of Middle-row as a
work so adjacent to the City that it would come within the
province of the bill; but there could not be a doubt as to
the prior necessity of getting rid of Holborn-hill.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was understood to say that he
considered the whole discussion premature.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS inquired whether Middle-
row was not within the limits of the borough of Finsbury ;
if it was he did not doubt but that it would be a very agree-
able announcement for the hon. member to have to make to
his constituents that he had brought about its removal.
Mr. COX would be very angry with his hon. friend the
member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) if he
thought improper motives were imputed to him by his hon.
friend, but the fact was that up to five minutes ago he did
not know that Middle-row was in Finsbury.
Mr. AYRTON thought that the money expended upon
the filling up the valley at the foot of Helbom-hill would
be thrown away unless Middle-row were also removed.

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said that there were improve
ments to be made in the eastern parts of the metropolis
which had the first claim upon the corporation.
Mr. CUBITT could not allow that the filling up of the
Holborn valley would be of no use unless Middle-row were
also removed.

Mr. COWPER urged that the raising of Holborn-hill
was of much more importance than the removal or widen-
ing of Middle-row. It was therefore treated as a primary
charge on the duties, but whatever was left would be ex-
pended on the widening of Middle-row.
The amendment was negatived without a division. The
clause was then agreed to and the bill passed through com-
mittee.