The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-07 00:00:00

THE CORPORATION OF LOIVDON.

( From the Times.)
The proceedings before the commissioners ap-
pointed to make inquiry into matters connected
with the Corporation of London have, during the
last few sittings, assumed a more satisfactory form.
Hitherto we have been compelled almost exclusively
to attend to the complaints of individuals. The
fruiterers were injured—the corn-dealers—the coal-
dealers—the steam-packet companies—the attor-
neys—the different classes of citizens who held
themselves aggrieved by the various petty exactions
of the corporation. Sheriffs, even, and Common
Councilmen came for ward to bear testimony against
a system in the operation of which they were un-
willing participators. The same kind of complaint
has net- been wanting during the last three meet-
ings of the commissioners, but these have been par-
ticularly distinguished by the evidence of three
gentlemen who have addressed themselves to the
consideration of the subject in a more comprehen-
sive spirit—we mean Mr. William Hickson, Mr.
W. Williams, the member for Lambeth, and Mr.
Leigh Pemberton. The two former of these gentle-
men have been long familiar, as well as any one
could be so, with the various items of corporation
expenditure, and with the general management of
city concerns. Mr. Hickson is well known as the
former conductor of the Westminster Review, and
many years ago he endeavoured to force the whole
subject of corporate reform on public attention.
He has been long commercially connected with the
city, and appears to have enjoyed every opportu-
nity for mastering the subject on which he recently
gave evidence. The evidence of this gentleman is
so far favourable to the city magnates that he
their own persons, although con-
siders them to be tolerablycl
acquiesce in this statement, it will
distinct answers should benecessary that
crecerc:cr)a tliPetLlc
accusa-
tions which have been brought against them with
regard to the mode of election to many the higher
civic offices. Let them, however, have clear a r
given frombt ebofeo
of Mr. Hickson's testimony. We shoeul
tdhe benefit
be
disposed to agree with him so far as to admiteite
the men are, in most instances, far better than the
that
system in which they find themselves involved.
They are, no doubt, fair samples of the class of our
uppertradesmen—shrewd, industrious, clearsighted
in their own particular occupations—honest in the
main, but with a strong admixture of ostentation
and vulgarity. Mr. Hickson is, in all probability,
not far fro _n the truth when he says that the main
evil is, " that we are eaten up with the cost of ma-
nagement, arising out of conflicting jurisdictions
and divided authority." According to this witness
the amount of the salaries paid to the officers of the
corporation appears to stand as follows for the year
1835:

£ 8. d.

Legal staff, consisting of appointments
held by solicitors, barristers, proctors,
and attorneys' clerks
State officers—the Lord Mayor, Cham-
berlain, sheriffs, yeomen, trumpeters,
&c.
Officers of customs and market dues
Officers of city gaols
Officers of public works
Miscellaneous officers, including hall-
keepers, beadles, Irish Society, port
of London, &c.

. 24,187 2 9
... 29,338 12 8
4,330 7 2
5,403 12 5

9,653 5 3

110,930 19 9
Matters since that period are worse rather than
better ; but, when we come to speak of Mr. *Wil-
liams's evidence, we shall have occasion to look a
little more narrowly into the subject of salaries.
Mr. Hickson presumes that if the account were
fairly stated, as at present, the sum total of the
above estimate should be increased by at least
10,0001.—and this, as we understand the report,
without taking into account the various fees which
are exacted from persons who come into contact
with the various corporate officers. "In some
cases my belief is," said Mr. Hickson, " that offi-
cers receive Larger fees than the corporation is
aware of." The Chamberlain receives nominally
2,5001. per annum—the cost of his office is 4,6001.
The salary of the Town-clerk is I,BB2l.—the cost
of his office is 4,6691. We have understood that
the gains of the City Solicitor have been increased
in a similar manner, and to a very heavy amount;
but this is a point to which the attention of the
commissioners will, no doubt, specially be directed.
Mr. Hickson then passes from the expenditure
to the receipts of the city, and these he places at a
higher point than any witness who has yet been
heard before the commissioners. From his evidence
we extract the following figures :—First, there is
the sum levied by indirect taxation ; as coal-tax,
market dues, street tolls, corn dues, fruit and other
dues, freedoms and sundries—in all about 333,7021.
Bs. a-year. Then there are the local rates, sewers,
' paving,lighting, cleansing, police, andtrophy-tax—
about 120,0001. The poor-rates are set at 88,4751. ;
the ward-rates at 4,000/. ; the church-rates, tithes,
and Easter offerings at about 70,0001. The total
of the local rates reaches the sum of 277,488/.
per annum. Next we have the trust estates for
public and charitable objects ; the revenue from
this source amounts to the enormous annual total
of 427,586/. Finally, there are the port dues
in various shapes—as river tolls, tonnage dues,
pilot licenses, ballastage charge, lighthouse dues,
(ec., and these are set down at 68,378/. The aggre-
gate of the city revenues, according to Mr. Hick-
son's view, amounts to no less a sum than 1,107,154/.
9s. Surely, these figures are more eloquent and
significant than any comment we could offer upon
them. The defenders of the London Corporation
will with difficulty be able to justify the levy of
such revenue, as contrasted with the benefit the
public may be supposed to derive from its expendi-
ture. Before we conclude even this cursory notice
of Mr. Hickson's evidence, we must call attention
to his assertions with regard to the coal duties.
Since the inquiry before the commissioners was
commenced a strenuous efibrt has been made to
convince the public that two-thirds of the coal
duties have been habitually handed over to the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the gene-
ral benefit. This is not so. Mr. Hickson posi-
tively asserts that from 1831 to 1853 the loans se- '
cured upon the eightpenny duties have been exclu-
sively devoted to local improvements within the
city boundaries, executed under the auspices of the
corporate officers. If this be so—and we make no
pretension to decide the question of fact—it is very
little honourable to the city witnesses or to their
superiors that the report should have been spread
abroad that these dues were devoted, to the extent
of two-thirds, to purposes of general improvement
(lehors the city limits, or to the construction of New
Oxford-street and other similar purposes. We
can-
not be too cautious in admitting statements of this
kind from interested and unscrupulous
enats This
witnesses,
Mr. Williams, who was heard on. Thursday, is
devotee
gentleman equally c clear a
would
oaunl
dd explicitsee
to inb ehi
as
s szealoustatm
of economy as the late Sir Humphrey Davy in his
osyciedreicaed. Tily
gases, l e grei an t
oc
rhde
emr i
ts
ot
,youth
swallowed lvas
uo of
icihe es
in it
ai
tc
iai 11
test their action upon the human frame ; in the
same manner, Mr. Williams caused himself to be
elected a member of the Common Council, in order
that he might penetrate into the mysteries of cor-
poration expenditure.
statements are reallyappSaolrineg
expanses of the
of this gentleman's
missioners that the
than 25,0001. We should say. thHate
1833 in all probability May
higheroral
sum
f
amounted to a
i‘tiorld. thei _ cit,oino.._
%V.ll"ams
speaks with authority, for lie took advantage of
his position as Common Councilman to obtain
into these subjects, and it
the appointment of a committee 'to iwillirc
of the evidence then collected that speaks._herat
on of
I This gentleman mentioned, i
_n corroboration
similar
Mr. Hickson's previous stateni.eeaii.
is upon the strength
the fees and
effect, that in a particulariroL
officers of the
emoluments paid to
to 74,000/. This sum
accounts which contain the
fifty or sixty confusedlorporation. The salaries and
corporation, independednitd(l;f:tohteairpsi/laair.iiens,aanmyoonfuttieide
fiscal records of tBl5
officers, with the Lord Mayor
' emoluments r.taNlVliiels•
Mams'ilreavienith Mr. Hickson's estimate. Then,
o utuot eld2,3,aBclc4olr.d,
inagndtothlrs
"gu-1" with
Williams takes as the average of City
. Mr.
at their
ds of 39,009/. a-year. The
iaga,din' penses upwards
3-- fel-farce lawyers—the City Solicitor, the Con-
headioa,ftia:mn
". ii 0 and the Remembrances, amounted in ten
troller, oAccording tone same witness's
years to 162,6m01. . ,
twelve Cabinet Ministers re-
estimate, whereas
re-
ceived only 45;4801., twelve officers of the corpora-
tion received net salaries amounting to 45,4351.
"Upon a comparison," adds Mr. Williams, signi-
ficantly, " I find that Birmingham, with a popula-
tion of 232,841, paid in salaries and pensions to
municipal officers only 1,1341., and expended in
law 6911."
With this last point we should have wishel t
conclude our present notice, for it is d.fr ~ ~.°
1 icutb Lo
cram into the comments of a single 1
( ay more than
a given number of facts ; but we are compelled to
advert to the testimony of Mr.
Edward Leigh P
berton, from the importance of the em
subject
which he touched—namely, on
river Thames. the conservancy of the
The public may suppose that
sketched the proceedings. e when Mr. Dickens
v. Jarndyce," he haute in the case of "Jarndyce
of Chancery exhausted
the possibilities
the
practice. He
Corporation of I, lid
Scirae fashion or
shown that chicane
Hilary T should have made
0 on parties to the suit iu
other and he might then have
yethad secrets uurevealed. In
.erm. of 1844 an information was filed by
the Attorney-General Corporation of
against the
London, for having granted licenses to Individuals
to make embanknaeuts on the Thames, and for hav-

Total..