The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-19 00:00:00

nted

each year, and five or six professors are, xpis.
whose lectures are pretty well attended, particularly'
the music lectures ; but I do not say that I think it a
very_ efficient educational institution. The new Ex-
change
cost more than the income of tbe Gresham estate •si
would provide, and that building is now in debt to the' 7(
corporation on this account. The a pproaAes to the -i
Exchange were very Costly. -The question as to-whether
the general words of an act of Parliament can over-ride
the special cnstornii 'of the city has ne yet/ en .E.-
cided by the highest courts of the realm. Every free-
man of a livery company could vote in the common
hall, but it was extremely difficult to say whether the
companies separate and distinct from the corporatiOn, or
formed an integral part of it. This was a point on
which witness had not been able to satisfy himself, be-
cause the companies elected their own officers and dis-
posed of their own funds. The Goldsmiths', the Apothe-
caries', the Stationers', and the Vintners' companies
were composed of persons carrying on these trades re-
spectively. If the livery companies were abolished, the
elections in common hall, under the act 2d Geo. 1.,
could not take place.
Mr. Me ether then withdrew.
avid
Mr. E Tyrrell, remembrancer of the corpora-
ttoio
anded. Hsneooseaeiddetdhahtishfeawthaesraipnpiot.inHteida
emoluments are derived from two sources. 'He received
1,0001. a year from the corporation in a fixed payment,
and 2501. more for office oharges ; and he was also paid
certain fees on acccount of the parliamentary businees
that passed through his hands, and which fees amounted
corpora-
tion,
office itnexlaBms2l,n
altogether to 700/. ix 1852. These fees fluctuated
very considerably ; and it would be more satisfactory
to him if he received a fixed salary in lieu of them.
His average income, after deducting the expenses inci-
dental to his office (which were NOP amounted to about
1,400/ a yeaa. He acted as parliamentary solicitor to the
corporation, and had the superintendence of the corpo-
ration business in both Houses of Parliament. The cor-
poration regarded him as the responsible party for every- -
thing which passed in either branch of the Legislature
in any way affecting the interests of the City. He had
also to attend all the Courts of Aldermen and Courts of
Common Council, and was likewise the medium of com-
munication between the corporation and the Crown.
Last year the number of public and private bills in which
the City was interested was fifty. That was a rather
larger number than usual. It was his duty at an early
period of each session to report to the Court of Common
Council all the bills which were likely to affect the inte-
rests of the City. The subject of these bills were then re-
ferred to a committee of the corporation, and if any
further step was taken in Parliament with regard to the
bills, he (witness) had to communicate with the chair-
man, who would then call . the committee together to
consider the matter.
The Chairman—We have heard of an extraordinary
expense incurred on the part of the City, in opposing
the Government measure relating to the removal of
Smithfield market. Had you any control over the
management of that expenditure ?
Mr. Tyrrell—The control, generally, was in my hands.
I sat from time to time, and Mr. Scott knew what was
done. A. great deal of it passed through my depart-
ment.
The Chairman—l allude to that part which is called
the irregular expenditure. Were you not the-party who
had the management of that ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l was in some degree, because no great
outlay was incurred without a communication passing
between me and Mr. Scott. The total amount of this
expenditure was 2,7501.
Mr. C, Lewis—Mr. Scott said that out of that sum
professional gentlemen were employed. Did you employ
any of them ?
Me. Tyrrell—l think not.
Mr. C. Lewis—By whom were they employed ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l really at this time hardly know the
names. It was represented to me that it was desirable
to have the aid of some literary gentlemen, and I gave
my sanction to the expenditure of 100/. in that. way.
The Chairman—How was the remainder of the 2,750/.
applied ?
Mr. Tyrrell—The main part of it went to parties who
got up petitions. I believe about `;2001,, or perhaps a
larger sum, went in that way. . .
The Chairman—Did you authorise and control that
expenditure ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l did, in a certain degree. Whenever
any amount was paid, the bill was brisaght to me. -
The Chairman—Probably you selected the agents you
thought best able to carry youi views into effect ? -
Mr. Tyrreil—l did not personally employ the agents,
although I gave my sanction to their being employed.
The Chairman—ls it an unusual occurrence to set
aside a sum of money for the conduct of Parliamentary
business, or is it the common practice, when any im-
portant question affecting the City is under discussioia
Mr. Tyrrell—lt is a most uncommon occurrence, al
thoggh on a few other occasions there have been smaller
expended.
,____ .
Mr. C. Lewis—What was the total cost of the Parlia-
mentary opposition to the removal of Smithfield market ?
Mr. Tyrrell--There was the 2,7501. of which I have
just been speaking, and then there was 3,109/., the
amount paid by me for counsel, witnesses, and the other
usual legal charges • and these two items make the en-
tire sum, which I Celieve is rather under the sum paid
by the Government for the same purpose in promoting
its Smithfield-market Removal Bill,
Mr. C. Lewis—But the bill of the solicitor of the Go-
vernment was printed and published among the Parlia-
mentary papers at length. A return of the whole ex-
spense was moved for.
Mr. Tyrrell—l was not, aware of that. The accounts
of Parliamentary expenditure. are laid before the Court
of Common Council in detail ; but they are not pub-
lished in detail. As soon as any Parliamentary effort
is concluded, the account of the expenses is sent in, and
is laid before the committee to whose department the
business belongs, and when the committee is satisfied
that the thing charged was ordered by them, the chair-
man signs the bill, and it is then laid before the Court
of Common Council. It is next submitted to the law bills
committee, which is composed of legal members 'of the
court, and after the vouchers have been examined, the
charges are either. allowed or abated, and afterwards
paid. The account specifies every particular measure,
1 such as so much for opposing the Smithfield Market
Removal Bill.
The Chairman—Do you see any objection to laying
these accounts before the corporation in detail?
Mr. Tyrrell—None whatever.
Mr. C. Lewis—When the City Police Bill was intro-
duced were you an officer of the corporation ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l wes.
Mr. C. Lewis-e-When Mr. -Rogers was examined
by the commissioners as a witness, he stated the mode
in which the corporation opposed the measure of the
Government of Lard Melbourne as follows :—" They
(the corpoiation) immediately fixed their town-
clerk in New Palace-yard. They gave him a
large body of assistants, and instructed him to com-
municate with every, corporation in the United King-
dom. The consequence was that by the influence of
those country corporations, the Minister found that his
support fell like a "rope of sand." Is that a correct
statement ?
Mr. Tyrrell— It is rather an over-coloured description.
The fact was a committee engaged an office at Palace-
yard, and I believe communications were made to other
corporations, but what the nature of those comraunica-t:
tions was lam unable to state. The whole expense of
these proceedings was 3061.
The Chairman—Were any literary gentlemen engaged
on that occasion ?
Mr. Tyrrell—None whatever.
Mr. C. Lewis—l believe the corporation considers
that it has the same right to its tolls and markets as it
has to its lands or other property ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt does.
Mr. C. Lewis---LAnd it would regard any attempt to
take away its markets without compensation as confis-
cation and injustice ? .
Mr. Tyrrell—Yes.
Mr. C. Lewis—Would it apply the same doctrine to
the Coils on earts ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt might make a voluntary surrender of
the tolls cn carts.
Mr. C. Lewis—But supposing the corporation did not
They
property,wre
*rat
consent to that, would not these tolls be a portion of its
revenue which it would call its property ?
Mr. Tyrrell—Certainly.
Mr. C. Lewis—How would it be with the. tonnage s
wo.Aullrd.brreyttshreelic_aseTlwlphartltiye
tpgtadoi
nri 1 uveo Mr,
LlSn el
erplilseni
rear%
nv?.
make
wouldbot
0 teTyyuh. yl,teadhr Tyrrell—Thatle erebtevael
compensation
o—fn be
tplnpoa'
entitled Tyrrell—That alni
itcast
Lewis—Howal
smai
ttisi differenteisordmoneaondttyu?focompensation.ooc
rutiatago compensation
decidedly
iview
eo particular
et
uhhoeri
e nsv g
d repeal . i
ftehoteahleyt
tax
,
xwalenrde
corpora-
tion
M
Mr. C, Lewis—ln the event of their repeal, who ought
withdrawn.
re
pprehend. And the same
whoin deprives the City of its
The Chairman—ls there no distinction to be drawn
between the right given to a public corporation to levy
a duty for public purposes, and a similar right given to
any indiiidual for his private benefit ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt would depend a good deal on the
terms of the grant.
The Chairman--Is not every revenue of a public body
like a corporation intended for public purposes, and not
for private purposes ?
Mr. Tyrrell—lt belongs to the corporation.
The Chairman—Do you mean that it belong's to indi-
viduals, or to the community ?
Mr. Tyrrell—l should say it belongs to the persons
from whom the representative body is chosen-
The Chairman—At the time the coal duty was given
did not the City constitute the whole of the metropolis ?
Mr. Tyrrell--It was given to the same body as now
holds it, but there certainly was not the same popula-
tion outside the walls then as there is now.
The Chairman—Do you consider that if the size of
London had been the same as it is now in those days, the
right of levying a duty on the whole of the inhabitants
would have been given to so small a portion as is now
contained within the walls?
Mr. Tyrrell—That is a question which I can hardly.
answer ; it depends so much on the particular circum-
stances of the case. .
The Chairman—ls it not reasonable to conceive that
the right of levying the duty was given because it was
known at the time that the City was the whole, or
nearly the whole, of the metropolis, and that it would
scarcely have been given in perpetuity if it had been
anticipated that London would become so much larger?
Mr. Tyrrell—That is impossible to say. I dare say,
no idea that the buildings outside the walls
when the coal duty was first granted, there was, pro-
bably,would become so numerous ; but, so far as the application
of the proceeds of the coal tax went they bad been ap-
plied for some time not only for the benefit of the City,
generally.
but of the metropolis .
The Chairfnan- -But I distinguish the 4d. duty from