The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-02 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

The commissionersmet again onWednesday, at the offices
of the Treasury, and resumed their inquiry. Commissioners
present : Bight Hon. Mr. Labouchere (the chairman), Sir
John Patteson, and Mr. Cornewall Lewis.
The first witness examined at this sitting was—
Mr. William Williams, M.P. for Lambeth, who stated :
I was once a member of the Court of Common Council of
the city of London, when I was commercially connected
with the city. Independent auditors used to be appointed
by the city for auditing the city accounts, and in the year
1830 I was elected one of the city auditors. Vouchers and
other particulars used to be furnished to me and my col-
leagues as auditors, to facilitate our examination of the
accounts, a resolution of Common Hall having been passed
in the year 1829 requiring such documents to be submitted
regularly to the auditors. After my appointment I and
my brother auditor made a lengthened report to the corpo-
ration, entering into full particulars relating to the ac-
counts. A sum of 501. was voted to the auditors, to be
spent in dinners ; but I and my colleague refused to accept
anything.
The Chairman—Was it made an absolute condition that
this money should be spent in dinners?
Mr. Williams—No ; but it was understood that it was
to be so spent. We received a very gratifying compliment
for our report, which was termed very luminous and com-
prehensive, and it was said that a document of such a
character had not been presented in the city of London for
the previous fifty years. Subsequently, however, the cor-
poration thought proper to order the chamberlain to dis-
continue furnishing the auditors with the vouchers and
bills of particulars hitherto submitted to them in their
audit ; and under these circumstances the auditors of that
year refused to examine the accounts al all, unless they
received the proper facilities. The citizens also disapproved
of the order given to the city chamberlain, and held a
meeting in Common Hall on the subject. That Common
Hall came to the following resolution, viz.:—" This Com-
mon Hall has heard with surprise and indignation that the
present chamberlain has, contrary to the practice of the
former chamberlain, and in defiance of a resolat;on passed
unanimously by the citizens of Common Hall assembled,
on the 24th of June, 1823, refused to furnish the auditors
with the bills of particulars and other accounts of moneys
paid by him out of the funds belonging to the citizens
at large." The same Common Hal further resolved,
" that the chamberlain be directed, in future, to pay no
further sums whatever without laying the bills of par-
ticulars thereof before the auditors for their inspection
and examination ; and that the auditors be directed
hereafter to pass no accounts without first seeing the
bills of particulars connected therewith." This re-
solution of the Common Hall coming to the knowledge
of the corporation, the matter was referred by the Court of
Common Council to a select committee of the City lands
committee, which select committee made a report, which
contained the following passage, viz. :—" Although it ap-
pears that the bills of artificers and others were formerly
produced to the auditors on the examination of the cham-
berlain's and bridgemaster's accounts, the practice arose
from their having been attached to such orders or warrants
for general convenience, and not in any i espect from their
being necessary to such examination; and from the fullest
consideration of the subject, the select committee were of
opinion that the auditors have no power or authority to
require the production of any bills of particulars, or to re-
ject or disallow any payments made under such competent
authority. Were it otherwise, the corporation would be-
come subject to the views of the auditors, or of the body of
the livery, who form, as liverymen, no part of the corpora-
tion, nor possess any right to, or interest in, the property
of the corporation." The Court of Common Council agreed
to and adopted this report, and the former order to the
chamberlain to withhold these vouchers and other docu-
ments from the inspection of the auditors was not re-
scinded, but, on the contrary, was continued in force from
that time forward.

The Chairman—Does the order still exist, or are the pre-
sent auditors allowed to examine the vouchers?
Mr. Williams—l do not know if the present auditors are
furnished with bills of particulars, but it is perfectly clear
that without them the audit of the accounts must be a per-
fect farce. When the last commission of inquiry into the
City corporation was appointed, I and other gentlemen who
advocated reform, offered to afford them every information
on the subject. I was anxious, subsequently, to ascertain
what was the financial position of the corporation, and ac-
cordingly, in 1834, I was elected a common councilman,
without opposition. On my obtaining a seat in the corpora-
tion I moved for a committee of inquiry into the fees, sala-
ries, profits, and emoluments of the several officers of the
corporation, and also into the City revenue and its various
sources, and into the manner in which it was expended,
specifying each item in detail, with the amount at which
it stood in the year 1833. The committee was granted, and
it was very fairly constituted. A sub-committee was also
appointed, which was assisted by Mr. Scott (the chamber-
lain's clerk), who is a very able accountant, and by the town
clerk's chief clerk. I was a member of the committee.
Our task was very laborious, and at its close we made our
report, a copy of which is before you. A schedule in our
report contained a list of all the City officers, showinc, by
whom they were appointed, the sums paid to them out of
the City cash, and their various emoluments ; and we also
gave a full account of the other expenditure of the corpo-
ration. With regard to the mayoralty, we made a special
report on that subject. We found that in the year 1833
the expenses of the mayoralty amounted to 25,0341. We
applied to all the aldermen who had passed the chair for a
return of the amount of their respective receipts during
their year of office, but none complied with our request
but Sir Peter Laurie, whose return amounted to 7,9081.
We also asked for a return of the cost of the Mansion-
house in building, and it was stated to us at 76,0001. The
officers of the corporation are very adroit in throwinc, dis-
credit on all persons who seek to place the corporate ex-
penditure in a true light, and therefore I am particular in
the figures which I give ; and if the accuracy of my state-
ments are challenged, I hope proof of their incorrectness
will be produced. I now come to the City accounts as they
stood in the year 1833, the period to which the inquiry of
the committee of which I was a member applied. In the
year 1833 the City's income, from rent of premises, mar-
kets, tolls, rates, dues, fines, &c., amounted to 141,0311. ;
the fees and other emoluments received by the various
officers of the corporation, but which do not appear in the
corporate accounts, amounted to 74,4401. ; andthe receipts
of the Irish Society (which forms an integral Dart of the
corporation, in my opinion) amounted to 7,6541. ; making
together a total of 223,125/. The tolls, rents, &c., this

year amount to 155,0061.,_ which, added to the fees and

emoluments of officers and the Irish Society's receipts, gave
a total of 295,321/, ; the great increase being upon the re-
venue from estates. In addition to the items above stated.
the paving rate amounted, in 1833, to 54,937/. ; the sewers
rate to 9,7181. ; and the watch rate to 33,6811., making a
total of 321,4611. These are all taxes levied by the corpo-
ration, in addition to the real property. Last year they
yielded 406,8851. ; but taking the amount at what it stood
in 1833, if divided, it will give a sum of 21. 12s. 6:1. per
head for every person of the population of the City in that
year, independent of the enormous cost to the public by
none but freemen being allowed to be employed in various
handicrafts, and as porters, &c. The Government expen-
diture is only 11. 17s. per head for each individual in this
country, orlss. 6d. per head less than the cost of municipal
government in the city of London. Besides, the receipts
already stated there were 15,8131. for tolls on barges and
shipping levied to the west of London-bridge, tonnagedues
7,000 ; fees of Court of Requests, 16,7001.; trust funds,
43,777/. In 1833 the coal duty of Bd. per ton also yielded
69,1101., and last year it yielded 117,6061. The dyes on
wine produced in 1833, 3,584; freedoms and apprentice-
ships, 5311. ; there was also received out of the City
revenues 11,0001. The three last items amount to
15,615, and adding to them the produce of the Bd. coal tax
they amounted to 84,6651. in 1833. The produce of the
corresponding items last year was 136,2371.
Mr. C. Lewis—You say that 74,0001. in fees and emolu-
ments to officers does not appear in the accounts of the
corporation for 1833 ?
Mr. Williams—lt does not.
Mr. C. Lewis—How were you able to make out the
amounts, then ? _

Mr. Williams —There are 485 officers, and the committee
took the sums received by each officer, and added them all
together, which gives the total I have stated. Having ob-
tained the total number of the officers, we took the case of
each officer singly, and we would have begun with the
Lord Mayor first, but as there was a dispute as to whether
the Lord Mayor was a corporate officer, his salary and
emoluments are omitted. There is next the Recorder, who
we found received from 2,50 W. from the City cash, and
from other sources 6611. 10s. more ; making together a
total of 3,1611.

Mr. C. Lewis—How do you get at the sums derived
from other sources besides the fixed salary ?
Mr. Williams—We applied by letter to the Recorder,
and to all the other officers, and obtained returns from
them in that manner.

Mr. C. Lewis—Then you make up your estimate of the
74,0001. in fees, on the authority of the figures furnished
by the corporate officers themselves.
Mr. Williams—l do.
The Chairman —Has any report similar to yours been
presented to the corporation since the year 1834?
Mr. Williams—No, I believe not.
The Chairman—Was any such report laid before the last
commission of inquiry ?
Mr. Williams—No, the last commission did not sift mat-
ters so thoroughly as I believe the present commission is
doing. I will now come to another branch of the financial
affairs of the corporation, as reported upon by the commit-
tee of its own body, of which I was a member in the year
Mayor's
andT h e
emoluments c o coasts s tos f
fio
ef e
1834. The report, as I have said, applies to the year 1833.
Having already gone through the City revenue, I now
arrive
:—The(i expenditure.ngthesalariesr,:l
and
oftthath emanagement4Bs
of wereotffih e.
Ccaesirtfs;lsilonolweilcsuiter, amounted to a total of 123,814 ; the ward
officers received 3,487 ; allowances to committees, 6,5841. ;
voted by the
Council and AS
City barge and shallop, 2,000/. ; pensions
Courts of Common.
Aldermen 2,7931. The
which, added
~ committee allowance
to the pension-,8, ,ke., gave a
The ten City expenses of administration- were 122,0001.,
total of 138,6781. tradesmen have
the patronage
expended by the am
of eighteen Irish livings, as I
informed. The total amount _ . corporation
officers actually • ' •
receive snore
annually, in the shape of lawyers' salaries alone, is 39 105/
Twelve of the principal City .
ds of 48,4001.; and the 12
tween them, in 1R33, upwards than is paid to 12 Ca-billet Ministers. They received be-
0, i., or
to an equal number of
actually 2,9201. less than was paid
state that in 1833 the
Cabinet Ministers in the same year received 4" 486
corporate officers. It is but fair to
great seal was in commission, and therefore I have not in-
cluded the Lord Chancellor's salary. In order to afford the
Lo
commissioners the means of drawing an approximate_ com-
parison between the municipal expenditure of
other corporations, I have collected the followingwith a facts
from parliamentary papers. In Liverpool,
popula-
tion of 375,935 persons, the corporate salaries and pensions
amount to 11,8641, and the law charges to 13,1381. In
Birmingham, with a population of 240,000, the salaries
and pensions amount to 1,1311.; in Manchester, the salaries
and pensions amount to 4,4631., and the law charges to
3.7831.; in Bristol, the salaries and pensions amount to
7,6141., and the law charges to 3131.; in Leeds, the salaries
and pensions amount to 1,078/., and the law charges to
1481. I will now say a few words on the subject of the
coal tax levied by the City upon the whole of the metro-
politan districts. The coal dues last year produced as
follows :—The Bd. per ton, 117,6061.; the 4d. per ton,
60,0001.; and the la. tax, 14,467/. ; snaking a total of
192,0001. It is very unfair that the city of London should
have the power of levying such a tax upon all consumers
of coal within a circle of 20 miles from the General Post-
°Men. The 4d. coal tax is considered by the City as being
as much part and
u'm
elthell filth: parcel of its own property as its estates
co rate are ; and they treat it as such. They may try
e tphueb
filigeurbeeliseaysemthuacht
iatsaltlhgeyoespfloearseciitny i ou
ir dp er
or v teo .
ments ; but it i
th t s not so—only 20,0001. of it is applied for
a purpose. Mt own • •
impression is, that the various me-
tropolitan boroug a would
dis-
tinct municinalities butlvish to be constituted into
created for dealing w. ith tt, would have a central body
measure is required by the Zia upon which a general
as the sewers, the police and Public good, such, for instance,
regard to which sectiondie4:—ge'r improvements, in
....‘x We d be inadequate and

inexpedient. I would allow the Lord Mayor to be the
chairman of the central board, and give him an adequate
salary to maintain a magnificent hospitality in entertaining
the members of the Government, distinguished foreigners,
&c. I think, however, many gentlemen would pay the
expenses of such hospitality out of their own pockets,
as Sir J. Potter did when he was mayor of Manches-
ter. In my opinion, the City corporation in no re-
spect represents the interests and feelings of the whole
metropolis. I consider the majority of the members of the
corporation are opposed to reform, or they would have
effected some changes in their own body themselves before
now. I see no reason why the Municipal Reform Act
should not be applied to London as well as to the rest of the
kingdom, and in the existing provisions of that act you
have a remedy for the defects of the City ready made to
your hands. I would take the conservancy of the river
from the City, and transfer it to the Government, which I
consider would be better qualified for the discharge of such
functions.

Mr. Williams then withdrew. The next witness called
was

Mr. George Edwards, who stated—l am the resident
partner of a Scotch linen firm in the city of London. On
one occasion the corporation intimated to us that the "
Tap-
pers" employed by us in our business would be required to
become freemen, but the interference of the officers of the
corporation was not persisted in in this respect. I have
no complaint to make against the corporation with refer-
ence to my trade.