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

DEPUTATION FROM ST. PANCRAS.

A deputation from the parish of St. Pancras, consisting
of Mr. Lawton, Mr. Billett, and Mr. Stockton, attended
before the commissioners, to represent the feeling of the
vestry of that parish with regard to the coal tax, and also
on the general subject of the extension of municipal insti-
tutions to the whole metropolis.
The Chairman of the deputation stated—l appear here
on behalf of a committee appointed by the vestry of St.
Pancras to wait upon this commission to explain that the
parish is taxed by the city of London on its consumption
of coals, no part of the proceeds of which taxation is spent
on improvements in St. Pancras. On the contrary, the im-
provements recently effected in SL Giles's and that neigh-
bourhood have caused the poor who were dispossessed of
there numerous dwellings there to migrate in large num-
bers into our parish. Between 500 and 600 poor persons
of this class have become chargeable to our parish every
year for the last 7 years, in consequence of these changes.
The coal tax presses on the poorer ratepayers more severely
than an improvement rate would do. St. Pancras desires
to obtain a share in any general extension of municipal
institutions through the metropolis—whether in com-
bination with other parishes or separately, it is now
about to determine. The population of the parish is
167,030, and the rateable value of the property in it
amounts to 707,857/. ; the number of ratepayers being
19,909. Nomunicipal powers at present exist in St. Pancras.
and the vestry has no means of enforcing paving, cleans-
ing, ,or lighting rate. We applied a few years ago to
Parliament, at great expense, for a local act, but the
House of Lords rejected our bill. The North-Western
Railway Company has rafnsed to pay the rates demanded
of them, and we had no means of compelling them to pay.
We are, therefore, in this unfortunate and anomalous posi-
tion, that we have no efficient parochial act, and no muni-
cipal powers. The railway traffic passing through our
throughfares has caused us great expense in maintaining
the roads, and we have recently spent 9,0001. in repairing
part of the New-road alone. Notwithstanding the diffi-
culties of our position, our parochial management is very
economical. Our whole taxation amounts to 110,0001., in-
cluding paving and lighting. The proportion raised by the ,
vestry itself is 71,7971. of this amount. Including ls. for
an improvement rate, our rates do not amount to 3s. in the 1
pound for everything. We pay 8,2871. for county rates,
which we would not have to contribute at all if we had a
corporation, and that sum we believe would suffice for the
expenses of a corporation. In St. Pancras upwards of
16,0001. a year is charged to us for police. We do not com-
plain of the general metropolitan system of police being
applicable to our parish, but in St. Pancras we have only
four police stations and less than 400 policemen. 24,000/.
a year, or more than one third of the whole amount which
the St. Pancras vestry raises, is spent without our control
or without our possessing any means of knowing how it is
laid out. As far back as 1850 our vestry decided iu favour
of the principle of municiple institutions being extended
to the parish, mil the vestry is discussing this very day
minor question as to whether they should prefer incorpo-
ration separately or in conjunction with St. Marylebone
and Paddington. We have auditors elected by the pa-
rishioners, but they are not paid for their services. They
are persons, however, in a sufficiently independent posi-
tion to object to items when they deem it necessary, and
they often practically do make such objections. The parish
has gone to very great expense in endeavouring to obtain
sufficient powers for managing its own affairs from Parlia-
ment, but without success; and the administration of our
parochial affairs is, therefore, brought to a stand-still. It
may be said that very few ratepayers take an interest iu
the elections to the vestry ; but the fact is that more per-
sons vote at these elections than vote at the election of
members of Parliament. We have also to complain of the
power of attachment for debt existing in the City. If a
man keeps his money at a banker's in the City he is liable
to have it attached ; but that is not all—it is liable to be
attached in St. Marylebone if the City banker has a branch
in St. Marylebone. This custom is inconvenient, and often
forms a subject of complaint.
Mr. Stockton (another member of the St. Pancras depu-
tation) said—l also appear to point out the oppressive ope-
ration of the coal tax, and how objectionable it is in prin-
ciple. The poor pay more in proportion than their richer
neighbours. We estimate the consumption of a middle
class family at seven tons per annum ; that is, calculating
the consumption at two fires for each house. But houses
rated (at 30/. are generally occupied by more than one
family, and we calculate that in such a tenement the con-
sumption of coal will be that of five fires, instead of two in
the higher class of property. The effect of this is that the
consumer who is least able to pay the tax has to contribute
20s. to the City, where the tenant who is better able to
pay contributes only 14s. We have two great railway ter-
mini in St. Pancras— that of the London and North-
Western, and that of the Great Northern ; and in addition
a great portion of the heavy traffic by the Great Western
passes through our thoroughfares. TUB causes very great
extra expense to the parish, in maintaining the roads; but
we do not call upon the City or any other part of the me-
tropolis to bear any part of that expense, and we therefore
do not see why the city of London should have a right to
come into our parish and exact 12,0001. or 14,0001. a-year
from it, in the shape of coal dues, for improvements in the
City. As for the statement that the tax is appropriated to
improvements for the metropolis generally, all I can say is
that I have lived in St. Pancras for a considerable number
of years, and I have never known an improvement to be
effected in it out of any other fund than the parochial
rates.

The deputation then withdrew. The next witness called
was

Mr. George Offor, jun., who stated—l am a shipping in-
surance broker in the city of London, and I wish to call
attention to the fact that the City claims a tax of 51. per
annum from all members of my profession for the right to
carry on business as insurance brokers. They do so by
virtue of certain acts of Willi-m 111., Queen Anne, and
George 111., which give them certain powers to frame re-
gulations for the shipping insurance brokers of London.
The claim is illegal, according to the decision of a court of
law. It is said that the charge is made for the privilege of
admission to the body of sworn brokers in the City. In the
month of Dec. 1849, I was called on to pay 61. or 71. for ad-
mission to that body, and was required to execute a bond,
and since then have paid 51., as broker's rent, yearly. Yet I
find on inquiry that out of 200 persons in my profession,
whose names are given in the Directory this year, only 53 of
them are sworn brokers who have been required to pay the
tax ; and there are 156 other brokers, carrying on identi-
cally the same business as myself, only 35 of whom have
been sworn and required to pay the fees. The system is,
therefore, partial and unjust, the City exacting the tax
from those who will pay, but those who hold out and re-
fuse to pay are not compelled to do so, and yet they enjoy
the same privileges as those who do pay.
The Chairman—lf you know that the City does not en-
force the payment of the tax of 51. a-year, how is it that
you continue to pay it ?
Mr. Offor—l would not do so, but that when I was ad-
mitted they bound me over by a deed, under heavy secu-
rities, for the payment of the yearly sum of Si., and I can-
not now honourably escape from the exaction. (A. laugh.)
Mr. Arthur Macnamara examined—l have occasionally
assisted at elections in the City, but they were principally
Parliamentary. I was employed as an agent for Sir J.
Key, at the recent election of chamberlain. Money was
expended at that election. It was paid in hiring flagmen,
canvassers, and constables, which is a usual practice in the
City. I have heard of as much as 10s., 125., and 15s. each
per day being paid to men who are voters, for their ser-
vices in these capacities ; but I never paid any of them
myself. I think much more money is spent in the City at
the parliamentary than at the municipal elections. The
livery are generally a very respectable body of men, who
would take nothing for their votes—not so much as a glass
of wine. The expense of bringing up non-resident voters
entails very heavy expense upon the candidates. I myself
have paid two or three non-resident voters from a pound
to two pounds each for travelling nxpenses. At the elec-
tion of Alderman Moon, for the ward of Portsoken, there
was a severe contest, and the election lasted for seven or
eight months. The whole expense of that election
amounted to 6001., and although the ward is, I believe,
one of the poorest in the City, not a shilling was paid to
the voters for their votes.

Mr. Rose examined—l have been engaged in very few of
the City elections. I was, however, employed as a con-
fidential agent to Mr. Scott in the recent contest between
him and Sir J. Key for the office of chamberlain. There
was a very great expenditure incurred at that election, as
there usually is when there is a contest for the office of
chamberlain,. Payments are made by the candidates to non-
resident voters who come from a distance to record their
votes in their favour, and to conpensate them for loss of
time, as well as to pay for refreshments. A large number of
colourmen are employed, at an average of from 7s. to 10s. a
day, but I have never known more money than the value of
the services rendered to be paid by the candidates to the
voters. Nothing is given to the colourmen in consideration
for their votes. 1 never saw any payments made, directly or
indirectly, in order to induce persons to vote, but I have
heard of such things being done. Some persons who are
pbereinevieeseithtien
employed to go round the different wards, and bring up
liverymen to poll I have known to be paid from 15s. to 20s.
a day for their services. The total of the expenses in-
Mr. Scott amounted to 3,4001., and Sir John
toifontheexaplednegsrme,sen. amounted altogether to 7,0001. I
wholetoa
and that
Sir Ja.
considerable Ke y s
must have
211ikeshharrevrrigseloboinneycrey in
knowledge,
bribery and corruption. No corrup-
tion, I
a y a x
awralie:
de_
it aakme s a
e citizen place
ttr
eant
at
nh
de
freeman elections oe ff thet h e
city of London.
Mr. Gr
I wasofengaged some time ago in a prose-
business in a fraudulent swindlers, who were carrying on
cution against a gan
of manner97l.
winortthhe
of
fitooy London.rodfage.T he
snvooflvtehde aPrg°reeeaetdinnugmßbwerereofverY
They had defrauded me
heavy. The prose-
ncexi
odplieeonsnsseithan 49 witnesses to be examined.
informed that 251. would cover the whole oif was
and there were
at first
prosecuting
legal ex-
penses,subscription
or I would not have felt justified iAn.
but after the trial they amounted to 3521.
had been raised to help to defray them b
indi-
viduals in the City, including Baron Rothschild, MrTravers, and other gentlemen ; and the corporation also.
voted 501. towards the same object. Three of the prisoners
were convicted at the Old Bailey in December, 1847. The
subscriptions and vote of the corporation amounted to
3041., leaving me out of pocket 481., independent of loss of
goods, loss of time, and other private expenses. After the
trial I paid the attorney 2501. on account, leaving a balance
of 1021. unpaid. The other three prisoners had absconded,
after being bailed, and the recognisances of their sureties
were estreated. I applied to the Lords of the Treasury to
be allowed a portion of the estreat (2001.), to assist me in
liquidating my legal expenses, and my petition was favour-
ably
entertained. It was, however, subsequently found
that the sureties lived within the precincts of the City,
and the entreats were, according to custom in such cases,
paid over to the City secondary, Mr. Potter. I then peti- I
upped the corporation for a portion of the motley to pay

the expenses of the trial, but I was informed that it be-
longed to the sheriffs, and not to the corporation; and the
prayer of my petition has, therefore, never been complied
with. I have been reduced in circumstances in conse-
quence of the prosecution ; and I have been offered various
bribes—one of 2501. in particular to give up the judge's
warrant for the apprehension of one of the prisoners who
had absconded, sho ald he ever return to England. The
goods which I lost, and which were of the value of 207 e.,
I never recovered ; and my losses have been very great.
Sir J. Patteson—Yours is a very hard case, certainly ;
but you cannot complain of the denial of any right. The
practice of the City, is for the fines and forfeited recogni-
zances to go to the sheriffs ; and the corporation has not
thought it right that that practice should be deviated
from in this' instance.

Mr. Gray—l do not claim it as a right ;it is only my
humble petiticat.
At the conclusion of this witness's examination, the
commissioners adjourned the inquiry until Friday.