The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-03 00:00:00

•--i
r.
. - - • • r ZZ---- -7- e-d;-.)6.. Z:........., - 4--
ri(itica,
... ••• •
alikt...
_ ..
40itc" , • 7
~ , ,_
..........
* I* ‘--. ~ •of tb '
_ 4 • Wit
' ./(4
..
Zadeti
ri
:';„
t_ , _
__,,, ,44 _ ° .
.
- -
_
A
- -,,--'4) , ... - z 1
~ ,"'' • ' ir .X.;* , -si . -
, 44,-< - ',..:
;.r-- IF ,
' - ' s•?.‘,
.0 i•
1,..5, ~,,, , • . •''' ' ' I ' '4. • 44,11 -.'
' - 111.1&,. \
',..e4 ,
' ) Iti lllL: ' ' 41 lq ( .'IV Of ''
I, 1111116,,,,. 1111 P% s S...':-.. 7).:
.46,,,, .(). , s ~... int,....., :
i ..A 4 tlti+/-7------------
\ ''''',
. i
, ,",S' '-
, '4,14*" DIE 1 -!."‘"... -74C74/ite,f,4" AD. P. ' ~„3,*4. , "n OI T -
, ...
1 '
- --

r PRP= sri.

that I may fit out a vessel which may bring a cargo of coals
from the north and convey it all the way to my wharf at
Isleworth and nobody can say nay, but I cannot navigate
a barge from the port of London by my own men. So long
as the journey of a barge begins below the jurisdiction of
the City, the City watermen have no exclusive right to
navigate her. Any body like the corporation might dis-
charge the duties of the conservancy if they appoint 3cl the
proper officers and required them to do what was neces-
sary ; but I think the navigation committee of the crap°.
ration, as composed of its present members, can hardly be
suitable for the exercise of such functions, as they cannot
be acqu inted with the circumstances of the then The
absurdity of the City's claim to allow none but privileged
watermcn to navigate barges on the Thames is further
as a waterman without his ever appearing on the river,
the wouldremneedwi a
i ni
and he would be permitted to act without undergoing any
illustrated by this fact, that I might have a son apprenticed
examination whatever as to his efficiency. I think the
Government can impress a certain number of watermen
for the service of the royal navy, and upon that I believe
the watermen found their claim.
Mr. W. Edmund Hickson was then recalled, and his evi-
dence resumed from Wednesday last. He said that he
stateuatresthewchiomehaohisetoonuierad
apply
pal government of the city of London. He would not
occupy-the ti ne of the commission with any theory which
might be applicable to a new state of society, but rather
consider how the existing evils might be most effectually
overcome by gradual and Progressive transition, involving
no sudden or violent change. The first 'p t•Cal measure
that he-would suggest was the rsrac
introduction of the prin-
ciple of free trade into the city_ of -London,which had
been applied pretty extensively to the t
He would propose that the 14th clauseres
of the
the country.
the Municipal
Reform Act of 1835 should be applied to o
the city of Lon-
don, thereby abolishing every exclusive right to Jo tis
any trade or employment within its limits ; and if the
commissioners should not be prepared to go any further •
lYgetolletree mviuniewcoif-
the next session than merely to recommend the introdume-
tion of a short bill into Parliament embodying this single
clause, he considered that they would deserve the thanks
of the., public. He would also propose the &mono:Won to
the City of the first clause of the Municipal Ea.fm Act,
which abolishes all existing charters and preddifitive
rights now held or claimed to be held by the municipal
bodies to which the act refers. This would be an impor-
tant step in the right direction, and would put an end to
all the vexatious litigation which has been going on for
many years between the corporation
' and the Crown with
reference to the conservancy of the river and the right to
the soil of the shore. It would also meet the case of the
fellowship porters, the watermen, the town carmen,
meters, and others. The same sort of privileges as the
Municipal Reform Act repealed were enjoyed previously
to its passing by the other corporations of the country,
but they were all abolished under the provisions of that ,
measure. This proposal would also deprive the City of
the conservancy of the Thames, which is not a local, but a
national concern ; and, until some better organisation is
provided, he would suggest that the conservancy should be
handed over to the Woods and Forests. He would have
the compensation granted to municipal officers whose
offices should be abolished regulated upon a 'liberal scale.
The City claims the right of excluding the metropolitan
police from the City side of Temple-bar, and even of prohi-
biting the Sovereign herself from passing through until the
Lord Mayor permits. This system is very inconvenient.
Under it gangs of thieves often remain in the City until
they become known to the police, when they migrate into
other districts west of the bar to practise their depreda-
tions. When they cannot stay there any longer with
safety to themselves they return to their old quarters,
where they have, perhaps, been forgotten by the police. If
the commissioner were legislating for the whole metropolis
and creating one metropolitan municipality, he would, even
as regards the management of the police, introduce the
popular element. The City police, he thought, should be
amalgamated with that of the whole metropolis; but at
the same time he conceived that the civic authorities should
have the power of appointing a body of police or watch-
men, in addition, if it were considered necessary. The
area of the City proper is one square mile and a half in ex-
tent, for which there is a police force of 500 men ; whilst
the whole of the rest of the metropolis which extends to
700 square miles, has a force of only 5,600.
The Chairman—Pass to the next subject, if you please.
Mr. Hickson—The principle of the coal tax is very objec-
tionable. If a tax is imposed on coal at all, it ought to be
levied at the pit's mouth, where the article is cheapest, and,
if necessary, a drawback might be allowed on coal consumed
in London.
Mr. C. Lewis—How would a tax at the pit's mouth
benefit the city of London?
Mr. Hickson—l am not considering that. lam only
dealing with the justice of the principle of the tax. When
the food of the people has been liberated.from the weight
of taxation, I think the next thing to be done would be to
establish free trade in coal also, and exempt the fuel of the
people from taxation, for it is also a necessary of life. The
machinery for levying the tax is becoming every year more
cumbrous and inefficient, and there is no proper mode of
ascertaining how much of the tax is stopped in its progress
into the public coffers. I calculate the amount of the loans
still unpaid, which are secured upon the coal tax, at
750,0001.; and a penny rate over the whole metropolis, as
a coal compensation tax, would produce 48,0001. annually,
a sum which world be sufficient to pay the interest on the
loans.

The Chairman—Pass to the next point.
Mr. Hickson—My view of municipal government is that,
as far as that government is purely local, it should be left
strictly and entirely in the hands of a local body. Lon,'
corporations ought to have unlimited power to do as they
please with their own local rates. but should possess no
power to spend the money of other districts ; and every-
thing which the local corporations do ought to be required
to be in accordance with the common laws of the land.
The Legislature, of coin-se, should overrule all by-laws of
independent corporations interfering with the general pub-
lic interest. Tf local municipalities were given to the dif-
ferent metropolitan districts, he would wish to see a central
body created, which should be clothed with the power of
overruling the sectional municipalities, so far as their de-
cisions were inconsistent with the general interest. With
regard to the sewerage of the metropolis, for instance, he
would have the arterial drainage managed by the metro-
litan commission, but the house drains and the minor de-
tails of sewerage in particular localities he would leave to the
control of the district authority. Again, with regard to
the paving, he would hand over the control of the main
arteries of the metropolis to the central board, and the
management of the side-streets and by-streets he would
give to the district. The lighting he would entrust to the
separate districts. Ho would also confer upon the new
municipal board of the City the power of electing the
board of guardians of the poor. It was well known that
the new Poor-law Act had failed in its application to the
City, the expenses at the present moment being conside-
rably greater than they were before the City was formed
into three distinct unions. The Central Union in the City
contains ninety-eight parishes. The average annual sum
expended in the relief of the poor in the three years 1834,
1835, and 1836 (before the passing of the new Poor-law),
was 59,110/. ; the population at that time being 57,100.
In the last three years, however, viz., 1850, 1851, and 1852
(since the passing of the above act), the annual average ex-
penditure was 88,4491., the population being only 55,908.
There are no fewer than 101 elected guardians in the City
Central Union, besides 15 ex officio; and altogether the three
City unions have about 160 guardians. This is too groat
a number, and it is difficult to find enough persons of the
highest class to undertake the administration of the poor
relief system. Another function which he would give to
the now municipal council would be the consolidation of
the numerous ecclesiastical jurisdictions within the City,
which was divided into no less than 110 separate parishes.
This he proposed in no desire to weaken or injure the
Church. On the contrary, he believed that the bishop of
the diocese would not refuse his sanction to such a mea-
sure. He would, therefore, invest the new municipal body
with the power to confer with the ecclesiastical authorities,
and, with their concurrence, to prepare for the approbation
of Parliament a bill for the consolidation of the 110 exist-
ing parishes into a reduced number of districts. He would
also invest them with power to assist, by a committee, the
new charity commissioners in their investigations, and to
prosecute, where nec ssarv, all parties committing a breach
ineremodellinglined thet,opote copyr
tmoyunnl;
yiatcbdioiemina
admits
ta
lcseolwnorsf
atlt Poor-lawtelutearnya cleyirtsvo,
rifobuLfialoti
inadaelofo.
of trust with regard to charity funds. With respect to the
bmeo de
wouldof be
tion now adopted for electing boards of guardians, which
rewrfnerdearntshcohefisspyersnotem of sending round votins, listsi to be
confersualpsoonp all leltfleol
tbbyetahyestveornterosf
p(aesraiosndar
aettuenncdlearnteheeat Newte
polling-
place.
does not restrict the suffrages to residents alone votes,
fipAllealetcd)e.utHep He now came to the subject of the various chartered
City companies and corporations within the of London.
was computed at the loawd ems t i
ni
s t er
e d estimate.
Their private p,orioovait.e annum,rtpperropey
and
it
was
in
his
opinion
very
de spierrtabyl ebtellioano.s,
titshaenud by legallyldbe,,bomit doenfignbetdttoobwehom that pro--
The property of these companies had arisen from very heavy
municipal fines which they formerly imposed, and those
fines having been invested in the purchase of estates. The
companies are often composed of very discordant mate. rials;
and it was very desirable that the system of corruption
now practised in them under the guise
of eating and dnnk-
ing and good fellowship should be abolished, and a better
mode of appropriating the funds adopted. Members at-
tending the dinners sometimes found a Si. note under tohnelicri
recommend in their report that another commisoej
plates. He would suggest that the Commissioners
f otne City
be issued specially to inquire into the state
have upon it
companies, and that that commission
should
ho would be
some of the first law officers of the Crown, !,'
legal branch of the
competent to give an opinion on the i. of compelling
subject. He would take away the P.?
irweeedom and become
ii ssil'iould
the citizens generally to take up
air. Hill for South Austra-
liverymen of the companies. Ftrie
system of voting suggested by
representation of the mi.
lia, which provides for the dnue ht
to be ten alderman in
nority. He thought theiriedebe
elected by the Common
the new council, who sho l the
recommend the
ni., by the whole constituent body.
Council itself,
anuleiasdildlignhot
Concur in the
and n-- - ,dit not to exceed 100 in num-
couninors 0u,,,.,
The common
her. Ho would P PeSe, also, that the mayor should be
Would you make it obligatory that the
The Chairman
should be restricted to a member of the
choice of
ina”r ?
Comm" Council I would.
/Kr. Hickson—
elected from the c r°
mon Council.
I do not think there can be any material
afr. Hickson— . .
I believe that is the
- . to such a limitation.
IVhy would you confine the choice in
ipa
the country. By 100
hs, and it works well in .
' ..' l Reform Act in other
1.3.u01n,,,
nigaid down by the Munic
have the best means of securing an intelligent choice.
It does not follow that because a man is the wealthiest
selected men electing one man from their own body you
otbbiaTethetejoCiiiiirn manner?ise
man in the district that he is the most eligible person to
presideg
over the
ete:
latiaiahnoyreliginlbelio)oertbfeoolui
lgbihaers .
invidious, men of the standing of Baron Rothschild, or
Mr. Thomas Baring for instance, might be verychawracelltegruinallii
field for negotiating foreign loans, or for managing large
e and
practical
intehtraotptehlis
should
trainingpc or ma ma ee ra cl
thati
ability,a l transactions,would
it
best
s
fi atnn
eta:
ee yet
them
at
rf notoyr
tthbahe
p a r l i a tmaltehisNei
Iw)eheiscthabllimsdhebaeciini madetli e
mu-
nicipal cbi pe afil
t duties.for
civic Provided
distinction. a m
sin-
usually rich, or one of the magnates of 1.1. '
district munici-
ould be regu-
lated according to the existing
Those boroughs Atm& in c, ~„,
` vrY 41201114 • •
pseagligteiesstieton
anomalous position, as con-

in the eorporative o#elit""
of their population and number of representMives
'lotted to them ; and were, therefore, not likely-to be in t pm) E R
in the measure of parliamentary reform whisk
aovernment had promised, to introduce in the eostainvses,'
sion. This point ho, therefore, thought ought to be - 4V,Nf
served for future consideration.
Mr. Hickson then withdrew. " 4 X
Mr. Thomas Woodley t
examined—l am a lsettgar carry..
ing on business in Aldgate High-street. Thert§iirelteween :•-•••°
30 and 40 slaughter-houses in my neighbourhood,' +
annoyed by a class of men who claim, as freeineu of tho-Fr---11444
City, the right to monopolise the whole of the trade. they ri s
demand 2s. 6d. per bullock for slaughtering, which is very •"`
high charge, and 30 per cont, more than I could get the
work done for by other persons. They claim under an old
by-law passed by the Court of Common Council, under
which any one employing non-freemen in any business is
liable to a fine of U. Actions were brought against me in
the Lord Mayor's Court for not employing freemen, anct I
was obliged to compromise the matter by taking up the
freedoms of four of ray men. These men afterwards
endeavoured to act as petty masters over me, and
raised their charges to a higher rate than I paid them
before I took up their freedoms ; and the effect of
the system when the men lay out 61. or 71. of their own
money in taking up their own freedoms is to make them
have higher notions of themselves, and try to domineer
over the masters. I think the members of the corporation
are not favourable to the system, as when I was summoned
a fourth time for employing a non-freeman, Sir John Key
dismissed the case, on the ground that it originated in pure
malice, one of my men who had left my service, knowing
that I was liable to the penalty, having sought to enforce
it against me. No such fine is exacted anywhere else that
I am aware of ; but it is useless to defend an actionbrought
against you in the Lord Mayor's Court, because it is almost
always sure to be successful. The system is not enforced
in Newgate-market ; it is only enforced in Whitechapel-
market. It is, I believe, capriciously applied, and is not
extended to any other trade but ours. The privileged
slaughterman can earn from 10s. to 12s. per day at their
own rates.

Thomas Pillow examined—l am a lighterman, carrying
on business at Lower Thames-street, and also at Simon's-
wharf, Tooley-street. lam a member of the Watermen's
Company, and one of the court of assistants of that body.
The gentleman from Isleworth made a mistake with re-
gard to the Medway. We have no jurisdiction over that
river ; and he has the same power of bringing his craft
from that river, as he has of navigating his own vessel from
the collieries in the north. Our freemen enjoy the exclu-
sive right to manage and navigate all craft and barges be-
tween Yantlet Creek and Staines ; but their right does not
include the Medway. They enjoy this under act of Parlia-
ment and not under charter. We have no exclusive priej.
leges extending over the loading or unloading of ships, they
extend to the navigation of them only. Anybody, there-
fore, can employ his own servants in loading and unloading.
If a barge comes from a point below our company's juris-
diction, the owner can bring her to his own wharf without
our intervention. I admit that the community would be be-
nefited by the throwing open of the trade. lam an advocate
of free•trade principles, but if our privileges were abolished
there would be no guarantee for the efficiency of the men
employed on the river, and collisions would ensue, and the
remedy would be worse than the disease. I would, how-
ever, prefer the abolition of the present system to its being
continued exactly as it stands now ; but there are changes
which I could suggest, that would be very great improve-
ments. For instance, in our own act there
are restrictions
upon the employment of apprentices, which I think are
very injurious. If a man has 12 barges, h
two apprentices ; but if he has 100 barges,h '7'. can only have
e cannot have
more than three apprentices. I would suggest that a man
If the
should
tradehe were thrown open, I do not think
ourl rates.
would fall very much, or that the present freemen would
suffer much. I believe our men would still be employed.
We are not connected with the corporation, and have no
political standing in the City. We have have at present
7,786 freemen of the Watermen's Company on our books.
Our body is bound by act of Parliament to send a con-
tingent to the royal navy in certain cases, and if the Go-
vernment required it, we could be compelled to-morrow
to supply 500 men for the fleet in the event of hostilities.
In fact, if absolutely necessary, we can be compelled to
serve her Majesty to the full extent of our whole number.
At the breaking out of the last war we were called upon
to supply 500 men. We have 1,680 apprentices, 800 of
our number are master lightermen, and the number of
barges and lighters registered is 5,107. The number of
barges has increased slightly of late.
Mr. Charles Brown examined--I am one of the rulers of
the City fellowship porters. Our governing body consists of
the present Lord Mayor, who is the governor, a deputy go-
vernor, twelve rulers of the body, two corn ifters, a halt
shifter, and a fruit shifter. The number of the fellowship
is limited to 3,000 by an act of Common Council, but
the actual number, I believe, is not more than 2,000.
The body of the free fellowship porters of London, al-
though admitted to be a legal institution, is not a corpo-
ration in itself, but claims the right to this species of
labour under the prescription of the corporation of Lon-
don. The body has existed from the time of Edward 1.,
and was originally created for the purpose of landing and
delivering corn, salt, apples, pears, plums, onions, and every
other other article in its nature naeasureable, entering the
port of London between Yantlet Creek and Staines. Their
wages are fixed from time to time by the Court of Com-
mon Council. They must be all citizens of London, and
if they wish to be appointed they must go through the
ordeal of sending in an application to the Court of Rulers,
and then waiting for their turn. The extent of the busi-
ness to he done varies. Only last week there was a large
importation of potatoes, and the merchants memorialised
the Lord Mayor, as governor, to appoint more porters to
do the work, because the supernumeraries they had been
obliged to employ had committed depredations, and the
merchants were desirous to have the protection which is
derived from the men being subject to the jurisdiction of
the fellowship. A member of the fellowship must find
two sureties in 401. each for his honesty and general good
conduct. As a specimen of their charges, I may state
that fellowship porters receive, when they are working
oats, 2d. per quarter, which has to be divided among as
many men as are employed on the job—say seven or eight,
as the case may be. Out of that sum they have to find.
a " shift." For heavier grain—wheat, barley, peas, and
tares—they receive 2:la. a quarter, and whatever charges
may he sent in to the importers, the sum I have stated is
all that the porters receive. Ido not think that the rate
received by the fellowship is any higher than the market
value of the services performed ; indeed, I believe it is
considerably lower; and if the fellowship porters were re-
moved to-morrow, the corn trade would experience a
difficulty in getting- their work done.

Mr. C. Le;is—Then if their exclusive privileges were
abolished, the porters would not be losers ?
Mr. Brown—l believe they would actually get more
money. The porters are compelled to take jobs at a loss.
Their living is very precarious, and the small jobs, which
form a large proportion of their work, do not pay. Com-
plaints have been made about their charge for landing
potatoes ; but they only receive, for conveying, from the
first, second, third, fourth, or fifth vessel in the tier to the
shore, thrAe halfpence per sack. I took out my citizen-
ship by redemption, and paid 501. for it, and I have to com-
plain that the corporation takes the redemption fee from
our class, but does not secure to us our exclusive privilege.
I believe that there are about 100 of the fellowship who
have paid as much as myself for their freedom. Before
1835 we were compelled to be freemen of a company. The
corporation suffered the dock companies to take our labour
away from us without our receiving compensation for the
loss. With regard to the oyster dues, which, I under-
stand, have also been complained of, the fact is, it is not
the importers, but the public who pay the porters for their
labour. The porters are only paid ld. per peck for taking
the oysters a certain distance ashore, andithree halfpence
per peck for a greater distance ; and what profit there is
beyond this all goes to the meters—the porters are only paid for work actually done. If any mistake or irregu-
larity occurs, the party to whom the oysters belong has
only to apply at the Fellowship-hall, and the whole of his
loss is at once made good to him.
At the conclusion of this witness's examination, the com-
mission adjourned the inquiry until Friday next.
--......___