The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-26 00:00:00

THE IRISH SOCIETY.

Mr. JAMES Low moved : " That, with a view to the
more effective management of the affairs of the Irish So-
ciety in future, it be a. standing order, That those members
who have served on the Irish Society for two years shall
after the lapse of one year, be re-appointed to serve a se-
cond two years, in order that the society may have the full
benefit of the experience they have gained during the first
two years." Mr. Low said he was anxious that the motion
should be carried, as it was impossible for gentlemen in
two years to make themselves fully acquainted with the
duties of the society, not only on account of the peculiar
nature of the property, but of the peculiar tenures under
which it was held. He was now nearly closing his
second year. (Laughter.) He thought sneers very un-
becoming a deliberative body, as he inferred from them
that the idea was entertained that his object in bringing
forward the motion was that he might continue a mem-
ber of the Irish Society Committee—an idea which he
altogether repudiated.
The motion fell to the ground for want of a seconder.

THE CORPORATION OF LONDON.

( From the Times. )

We have at last, from Mr. Bennoch's evidence, ob-
tained something like an insight into the revenue, and,
in a more limited degree, into the expenditure of the
London Corporation. It appears that we are dealing
with a revenue estimated at 400,0001., without taking
all items into account. There is the income derived
from rents and quit-rents, 86,3111. ; from renewal of
fines, 12,800/. ; from markets, 20,5981. ; from tolls and
dues, 6,9411. ; from offices—that is, from coal dues and
meta,ge---73,169/. ; from bequests, 1321. ; from brokers'
rents, 7,6561. ; from freedoms, 8,8401. ; from interest,
1,3921. ; from sheriffs' fines, 1,2001. ; from casual re-
venue, 6,459/. ; from navigation, 8,3771. ; from the con-
solidated sewers-rate, 66,8611. ; from the general sewers-
rate, 19,426/. ; from the Bridge-house Estates, 47,0211.;
from the police-rate, 30,0001. (we have seen it at
40,0001.) ; and from the Irish Society—no returns.
The gross amount of these charges is about 400,0001.,
although there is little doubt that the credit would be a
still heavier one if all were known. From the evidence
of the witnesses it would appear that the estates of the
city are generally well managed, and that the corpora-
tion are good landlords. Some praise also is bestowed
upon the management of the sewers, and the city police
is said to be an efficient body, although a far more
costly one than the general police of the metropolis.
The conduct of the corporation, however, as landlords,
is one thing, and their right to be landlords quite
another. If they are tortious owners of Thames-street
and the adjacent property on the northern bank of the
Thames, it is but very modified praise indeed to say that
they manage the property excellently well for their own
private benefit. It is obvious that the above items of
income must be considerably reduced if justice is to be
done between the corporation and the public. Most of
the tolls and dues would be entirely removed, and the
future corporation would only be entitled to exact pay-
ment for services actually required and performed at the
usual market rate of labour. Unless, too, the corpora-
tion should succeed in rebutting the very violent pre-
•sumption that has been raised against their right to pro-
perty over which they were appointed conservators or
trustees for the public good, it may also eventually
appear that their receipts may be very unpleasantly
decked under another head. All such matters, however,
must stand for future consideration. When we are
better informed upon the facts of the case, it will be easy
enough to apply the law to them ; but, in the meantime,
it is a simpler course to turn to the head of " expendi-
ture," and to investigate, as far as may be, the manner
in which the corporation disposes of so considerable a
revenue.

We have spoken of the income of the City as 400,000/. ;
it appears that, in the gross, the amount of this money paid
away in salaries reaches the very considerable sum of
107,0001., or morethan 25 per cent. of the whole income.
The legal salaries are set at 14,7001., of which the Re-
corder receives 3,0001., the Common-Serjeant 1,5001.,
and the judge of ihe Sheriffs' Court 1,2001. Of these
salaries there is no complaint, as the offices are efficiently
filled. But then the Town-clerk receives 1,8921., the
Secondary 1,249/„ and the Remembrancer 1,7651. We
speak under correction, but we believe the duty of the
last-named officer is to attend occasionally in the House of
Commons, and to take notice of any clauses injurious to
the interests of the city which may be introduced into
acts of Parliament, or, vice versa, to slip in dexterously
certain clauses of an opposite tendency—for example, the
coal .iue clause. Passing from these more important
offices, we find that the chief clerks at the Mansion-
house and Guildhall receive between them 1,250/.
a-year, which is not excessive, if true, as they are the
bona fide magistrates of those courts. The Mace-
bearer receives 5501., and the Swordbearer 5501. ;
the Upper Marshal, 4501. or 500/. ; the Under
Marshal, 2001. or 3001. These Bumbles draw besides
701. for uniforms, 141. for boots, and 201. for cocked
hats ! We cannot afford space he.te to reprint more
of Mr. Bennoch's figures, but we would entreat of our
readers carefully to con over the report of his evi-
dence for themselves ; for his figures make up a better
case against the Corporation of London than any
hitherto published :—" The whole expense of establish-
ments in the Corporation of L.mdon is much greater
than the whole expense of the Federal Government of
the United States, or, which is perhaps a more start-
ling statement, its expenditure upon itself, in administer-
ing the funds of the Corporation, is larger than the
whole amount of revenue from rents, tolls, and fees from
brokers which it receives." Mr. Bennoch well contrasted
the reveuue and expenditure of the Corporation of Lon-
don with that of Manchester. It appears that the gross
expenditure of the Manchester Corporation amounts to
485,2821. a-year, while the whole expense of administer.
ing that sum, inclusive of salaries, is but 8,8491. Let
the advocates of city abuses ponder well upon that sim-
ple fact, and consider with themselves how they will he
able to justify a ninefold rate of expenditure in salaries,
&c., in the case of the Corporation of London.
But the whole thing is too bad. Let us pass from the
Lord Mayor and his Gog and Magog tomfooleries. The
London Corporation is equal to itself in its smallest as
in its more important developments. The curator of the
monument is, it appears, either a Common Councilman
or the brother of a Common Councilman. For a
period of years he received for this nominal duty 2401.
or 2501. annually. His whole duty was confined to
keeping a couple of subalterns, one of whom remained
at the bottom to admit visitors, while the other stationed
himself at the top to see that nobody threw himself off.
Might it not be advisable to relieve this last functionary
from his duties, and to suggest to the Corporation the
propriety of examining their domains in person from so
elevated a situation ? One does not know what might
happen. Be this however, as it may, it appears that
during the Exhibition year the Keeper of the Monu-
ment, the Do-nothing, received and pocketed in fees no
less a sum than 1,3371., not one penny of which went
to the maintenance or decoration of the building,
or to any other public purpose. We must entreat
pardon for skipping about discursively from the
Monument to Guildhall, but the subject will bear no
other treatment. We are dealing with a number of
scattered items, only connected with each other by com-
mon ridicule or common injustice. The unfortunate
sheriffs, it seems, are hardly enough used. They are
fined if they will not serve, and if they do serve, they
are also fined about 5001. or 6001. in the shape of a
subscription to that most uncomfortable of all festivi-
ties the Lord Mayor's dinner. The way the city
endeavours to justify the imposition of the fines
for not servingi is pleasant enough. The fines, when
extorted are devoted to a good object, and therefore are
just. So with regard to the coal dues. The city re-
tains one-third of the proceeds for its own use, and
hands over the remaining two-thirds to the Government,
for the purpose of general metropolitan improvements.
The Corporation, in short, put the Government in the
position of receivers of stolen goods, in order that
they themselves may be permitted to prosecute their
own dubious operations with impunity. But an
end of all this is at hand. The case against the city
has been but opened, but quite enough has been shown
to prove that the London Corporation is an institution
quite unfitted to the age in which we live. There must
be an end of these sinecurists, of this nepotism, of this
prodigal expenditure. In the year 1849 we are told our
Precious aldermen went in state to Oxford for guzzling
purposes, and charged their expenses on the city funds.
At another time they must needs take it into their heads
that one of their number has made himself immortal by
his great deeds. and straightway the city must pay for
the full-length portrait
ttehethielluFsrterinonuhsEmmapne;reorr, t
andmust
charge g et
the ucpo s t upon the public funds. There must, we
say, be an end of all this. Most of the officers of the
Corporation are annually appointed, so that there need
be no question of compensation. By a few simple mea-
sures of reform the government of the city might be
purified of all its abuses, and remain an instrument of
unmitigated good under the control of the general body
of the citizens.

(From the Aforning Advertiser.)
Mr. Bennoch has very properly said in his evidence
before the City Corporation Commission, that the tax
on coal is a bad tax, that it injures the poor and retards
trade. There is now smile good reason to hope that one
of the earliest practical results of the commission will be
to relieve the public from this odious and most impolitic
impost, and we trust that no kind of legitimate influence
which can bear on this tax will be wanting.
The total amount of the tax on coal is thirteenpence
ton. Of this sum, one penny is paid for collection, and
fourpence go to the City. The remainder is paid to Go-
vernment for the purpose of effecting improvements in
beent h themetropolis
under
th eg
impressionenerall3-. Wteh believeatthe
man
whole
to the City, and some have harboured the uncharitable
notion that a goodly portion is constantly assisting to
give to our aldermen that goodly gastric angle by which
they are distinguished. The evidence brought before the
commission on the tenth day, puts the facts of the case
in a proper light ; but we believe the public, on being
fully informed as to the manner in which these funds are
disposed of, will be by no means satisfied that they should
continue to have this essential article of domestic con-
sumption subjected as it is to taxation for purposes which,
whatever may be their value, ought to be provided for
in some other way, or left unaccomplished.
It is a great injustice to the consumers of coals in
London and the surrounhing district, to compel them to
pay, as they have now to pay, whether
for City im-
provements or for any of those metropolitan improve-
ments to which the taa is dedicated. New Oxford-
street. the approaches to Leicester-square, the ap-
proaches to London Bridge, and the intended new street
from the Town-hall in the Borough, are all good things
in their way ; but there is no more reason why coals
should be taxed for these objects than for the purpose of
gaining any of the ends which might enter into the
heads of any body of men who think that this and that
great undertaking would minister to the public good, if
only they could hit on some effectual way of getting at
the public purse.
The fact is, that there is a downright wantonness of-
taxation in reference to this impost. Money is col-
lected that is not wanted, and hoarded up if it cannot
be expended. The sum of 90,0001. are now lying to
the account of the Southwark Commissioners for the
construction of the street which at present exists only
sn posse, and which is to run from Southwark-bridge to
the Town-hall in the Borough ; and if it were really de-
sired it would have been easy to have saved the public
from the injustice of which they have had to complain.
While this money, a large portion of which is lying
idle, is thus aceumulating, cases of real oppression
are
constantly occurring, of which there is the greatest rea-
son to complain. Mr. Bennoch mentioned the case of
one sugar refiner, who pays as much as 2,000/. per an-
num coal tax, and another who pays as much as 2,5001,
a year. The latter large sum is paid by a gentleman
who provides gas for the citizens, and in connection
with this fact Mr. Bennoch mentions, that if it were not

for the tax on coals, the public lights might be furnished
for nothing.
The approaches to London-bridge also, for which the
tax was originally granted, have long since been paid
for ; and it would gratify a very laudable curiosity if the
public knew exactly how the money, no longer wanted
for this object is now appropriated.
A deputation from the parish of Marylebone has very
properly made this City tax the subject of remonstrance
and complaint. In Marylebone there are about 170,000
persons on whom the impost falls, and if it be said. in
reply to their remonstrances, that they have no reason
to complain, inasmuch as 40,0001. were paid out of the
fund for the formation or New Oxford-street, the depu-
tation from that parish rejoins that they would rather
have a parochial rate than submit to the coal tax for
street improvements. There is nothing to jusrify this
shameful tax on the fuel consumed by all classes, and
there is no tax against which it more becomes the people
of all classes to utter their most vehement protest. We
hope that the example set by Marylebone will be followed
by every metropolitan parish, and that the Commis.
sioners, when they have to make their report, will have
to deal with such an amount of public opinion on this
subject, as will necessitate some arrangement by which
the tax will be speedily removed.
If the inhabitants of the metropolis have reason to
complain of the impost to which they are subjected,
much greater justice is there in the remonstrance made
by the inhabitants of the large circle around the metro-
polis, and which has a circumference of forty miles.
The people around London for twenty miles in every
direction have no interest in the various works to
which the coal tax is apppropriated, and yet they are
put to great inconvenience by the present oppressive
arrangement.
Persons living within a few miles of the circle on
which these duties fall are put to great inconvenience
in being obliged to send a distance, in order to avoid
the duty. Vessels are in the habit of going beyond
Gravesend to save the dues, and take in coals there,
instead of in London, to the injury of the metropolis.
The pressure of this tax on trade, in various ways, is
extremely severe in the country towns around London ;
and we should hope that the various parties who, a
year or two since, met for the purpose of expressing
their grievances, would take the opportunity which is
now afforded them of letting those grievances be known
to the commission now sitting.
Reading furnishes a fair instance of the advantages
which would be secured, both to traders and consumers,
by the repeal of the tax. At that town the coal trade
is flourishing more than at other places, because it is
just beyond the boundary of the twenty mile range. If
the tax were removed, we should find as the result that
a most oppressive load would be taken off, not only the
coal trade, but from various branches of manufacture
dependent on the supply of coal.
We protest against the coal tax on principle. It is
as wrong to interfere with fuel as with food. In our
country, coal is nearly, if not altogether, as essential as
corn ; and all interference with it ought to be aban-
doned. If it is wrong in principle, it is found also to
be highly inexpedient and injurious in practice, and in
every way entitled to reprobation.
It cannot be too widely known, therefore, that an
opportunity is now afforded the public to speak out o❑
this most important subject, where they will be heard,
and to persons whosa duty it is to record and report
their evidence. If this opportunity is embraced, the
coal tax will soon be doomed ; but if neglected, no one
can say how long it will be maintained ; and those who
suffer from it in future, will have to blame themselves
for allowing the favourable opportunity to pass by un-
improved.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE of YESTERDA Y.