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

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

The commissioners met again onWednesday, at the offices
of the Treasury, and resumed their inquiry. Commissioners
present : Right Hon. Mr. Labouchere (the chairman), Sir
John Patteson, and Mr. Cornwall 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 doctiments to be submitted
regularly to the auditors. After my appointment I and
ray 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
angihelnaairman—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 at 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
TTa3l 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 resolution 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 Hall further resolved,
" that the chamberlain bel 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 committeerad,e,
Althoughre report,
ita _ whichp
contained the following passage, viz.:—
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 iespect 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 On;
report, a copy of which is before you. A schedule in our
report contained a list of all the City officers, showing 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 76,00'd. The
officers of the corporation are very adroit in throwing 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 111,031/. ;
the fees and other emoluments received by the various
officers of the corporation, but which do not appear in the
corporate accounts amounted to 74,440/. ; and the receipts
of the Irish Society (which forms an integral -Dart of the
corporation, in my opinion) amounted to 7,654/. ; making
together a total of 223,1251. The tolls, rents, &c., this
year amount to 155,000/., which, added to the fees and
emoluments of officers and the Irish Society's receipts, gave
a total of 295,3211. ; the great increase being upon the re-
venue from estates. In addition to the items above stated.
the paving rate amounted, in 183.3, to 54,937/. ; the sewers
rate to 9,718/. ; 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 406,885/. ; but taking the amount at what it stood
in 1833, if divided, it will give a sum of 21. 12s. 6d. 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, tonnage dnes
7,000 ; fees of Court of Requests, 16,700/. ; trust funds,
43,777 e In 1833 the coal duty of Bd. per ton also yielded
69,1101., and last year it yielded 117,606/. The dues on
wino produced in 1833, 3,584; freedoms and apprentice-
ships, 5311. ; there was also received out of the City
revenues 11,000/. The three last items amount to
15,615, and adding to them the produce of the Bd. coal tax
they amounted to 84,665/. in 1833. The produce of the
corresponding items last year was 136,2371.
Mr. C. Lewis—you say that 74,000/. 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 begn 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
City we found received from 2,5001. from the ,
cash,, and
from other sources 6611. 10s. more ; making together a
total of 3,161/.
Mr. C. Lewis—Haw 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 rip 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—Vas any each 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 tho year
1834. The report, as I have said, applies to the year 1833.
Having already gone through the City revenue, I now
arrive at the expenditure. The coasts of management were
as follows :—The salaries and emoluments of the 485 offi-
cers, including the Lord Mayor's office and that of the
City solicitor, amounted to a total of 123,814 ; the ward
officers received 3,487; allowances to committees, 6,5841. ;
City barge and shallop, 2,000/. ; pensions voted by the
Courts of Common Council and Aldermen, 2,793/. The
expenses of administration were 122,0001., which, added
to the pensions, committee allowances, &c., gave a
total of 138,678/. The ten City tradesmen have
the patronage of eighteen Irish livings, as I am
informed. The total amount expended by the corporation
annually, in the shape of lawyers' salaries alone, is 39,1051.
Twelve of the principal City officers actually receive more
than, is aid to 12 Cabinet Ministers. They received be-
egress,
em, in 1833, upwards of 48,4001.; and the 12
aetCab..,_,inetMinisters in the same year received 45,4861., or
uyeLY 2,9201. less than was paid to an equal number of
corporate °fa It great seal
was but fair to state that in 1833 the
eluded the , commission, and therefore I have not in-
„meneside:gircheehancellor's salary. In order to afford the
com-
parison between
the of drawing an approximate cora-
.,rasenicipal expenditure of London and
other corporations
fro, pareeem„ta;ele_have collected the following facts
In Liverpool, with a popula-
-8641., and the /ion of 375,935 perUrtrte,a
is and pensions
amount to 11,
Birmingham, with a peptise= charges to 13,138/. In
and pensions amount to 1,131/ .._q_a24o,ooo, the salaries
end pensions amount to 4,4ed.:aefianiester, the salaries
3,783/.; in Bristol, the salaries and the law charges to
7,6141., and the law charges to 313 z.• ilMi°lls
theemount to
pensions amount to 1,0781., and th-ueceas
salaries
and
few words law charges to
1481. I will now say a on the subject of the
coal tax levied by the City upon the whole a the metro.
• ' •cts. The coal dues last year pr d
politan distri o uced as
follows :—The 8d• per ton, 117,6061.; the 4d. per ton,
60,000/.; • and the id. tax, 11,467/. ; making a total of
'that the city of London 192,0001. It is very unfair
e such a tax upon all consumers
of the power of levying
from the General
of coal within a circle of 20 miles
arty hits Post-
office. The 4d. coal tax is considered eyas being
as much part and parcel of its own prop_aes estates
corporate are ; and they treat it as such. Th maYertry
to shuffle the figures as much as they please
.ord to
make the public believe that it all goes for City improve-
ments ; but it is not so—only 20,000/. of it is applied for
that purpose. My own impression is, that the various me-
tropolitan boroughs would wish to be constituted into dis-
tinct municipalities; but I would have a central body
created for dealing with matters upon which a geueral
measure is required by the public good, such, for instance,
as the sewers, the police, and general improvements, in
regardtoWmACll
1"°1261 "ttiQn ITQUICI 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 tho 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.
DEPUTATION FROM ST. PANCRAS.
Aconsistingatt e d
Stockton, Pancras,
of
Mr. Lawton,
from
on!mr. tEhileieptait
;isahndofMrSt:
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 St. 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
167,000, 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 refused 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-
chiding 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
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. 24,0001.
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 i
laid out. As far back as 1850 our vestry decided in favour
of the principle of munieiple institutions being extended
to the parish, and 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 in
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 I
rated [at 301, 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. This 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 tax is appropriated to
improvements for the metropolis generally, all I can say is
that 1 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 5/. 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 on 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 5/.' 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 5/., 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 dayebeing 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 tho 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
r of Nine. 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 expenses. 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 600/., 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 aro
employed to go round the different wituds d bring up
liverymen to poll I havo known to be pa d from 15s. to 20s. .
a day for their services. The total of the expenses in-
curred by Mr. Scott amounted to 3,4001., and Sir John
Key's election expenses amounted altogether to 7,000/. I
believe the whole of Sir J. Key's expenses could not have
been legitimate, and that a considerable part of them must
have gone in direct bribery and corruption. No corrup-
tion, to my knowledge, takes place at the elections of the
sheriffs or of the aldermen.
Mr. Gray examined—l am a citizen and freeman of the
city of London. I was engaged some time ago in a prose-
cution against a gang of swindlers, who were carrying on
business in a fraudulent manner in the city of London.
They had defrauded me of £97/. worth of cordago. The
expenses of the proceedings were very heavy. The prose-
cution involved a great number of cases, and there were
no Ices than 49 witnesses to be examined. I was at first
informed that 251. would cover tho whole of the legal ex-
penses, or I would not havo felt justified in prosecuting ;
but after the trial they amounted to 352/. A subscription
had been raised to help to defray them by private indi-
viduals in the City, including Baron Rothschild, Mr.
Travers, and other gentlemen ; and the corporation also
voted 50/. towards the same object. Three of the prisoners
were convicted at the Old Bailey in December, 1847. The
s3ncriptions and vote of the corporation amounted to
u'., leaving me out of pocket 48/., independent of loss of
goods, loss of time
trialof
a 1102.1
.p
unpaid.a id the and other private expenses. After the
attorney 250/. on account, leaving a balance
The other three prisoners had absconded
after being bailed,
and the recognisances of their sureties
were entreated. i
be allowed a portionapplied to the Lords of the Treasury to
legal
el' the estreat (200/.), to assist me in
liquidating my
ably entertained. expenses,lt was, and nay petition was favour- '
4,,hihnowever, subsequently found
that the sureties live
and the °streets were, accordingtheprecincts of the City,
secondary,, to. custom in such cases
secon,
paid over to the City potter. I then pais
tinned tho corporation for a portion
the money 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 250/. in particular— to give up the judge's
warrant for the apprehension of one of the prisoners who
had absconded, should he ever return to England. The
goods which I lost, and which were of the value of 29V.,
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.
. .

Gray—l do not claim it as a right ;it is only my
humble petition.

At the conclusion of this 'witness's examination, the
commissioners adjourned the inquiry until Friday.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE SUN.
Sir,—Please to correct an error in your report of my
evidence before the Corporation Commissioners. I did not
state " that reform was needful in the City companies ;"
but I said, "It was my belief that the Merchant Tailors
and the other companies administered the funds and trusts
committed to their care most righteously, and it was
delightful to see continually on entering those courts, the
advertisements of gifts and. bequests, &c., to our poorer
brethren."—Yours obediently, FRED. WHISTLER.
16, Sise-lane, Nov. 30.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.