The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-25 00:00:00

CITY 07 LONDON COMMISSION,

Yesterday, shortly after twelve o'clock, the Royal 1
Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the
Corporation of the City of London, resumed their sit-
tings at the Judicial Office of the Privy Council, in
Downing-street. Henry Labouchere, Esq., presided.
The other Commissioners, Sir John Patteson, and G.
C. Lewis, Esq., were also present.
When the Commissioners had taken their seats, it was
intimated to them that two deputations were in attend-
ance—one from the oyster-bed proprietors connected
with the port of London, and the other from the im-
portant and populous parish of Marylebone.
Mr. H. S. Gibbs, attended by five other proprietors of
the oyster-beds, were first introduced. He stated that the
deputation appeared before the Commissioners on behalf
of the several oyster companies, and the proprietors of the
oyster fisheries. He was one of the partners belonging
to the oyster grounds at Queensboro', which grounds were
leased to trustees appointed by Act of Parliament.
Their object in waiting upon the commissioners was to
inform them that they considered the trade with which
they were connected to be most severely taxed by the
oppressive duties imposed by the City, in the shape of
metage, porterage, and other City dues. They had also
idnvan the
tag se am
ofe
to compete with other enterprising men,
line of business, who very properly took a
the facilities the railways afforded for the transit of their
property to Billingsgate market, by which all the dues
for metage and porterage w
for er
thee avoided. It was d
of these
ese
dues they complained, charges presse
heavily and seriously upon the companies' sales. Some
of the companies disposed, during the season, of not less
than 24,000 bushels of oysters, the metage upon which,
with the porterage, would amount to Is. 6d. per bushel ;
and if to this sum was added the freight of the vessel to
Billingsgate, the entire charge on " water-borne" oysters
would be found to amount to at least 2s. 6d. per bushel ;
whereas those "rail-borne" were exempt. The difference
A position between the two sellers was thus manifest.
A very large amount of capital was annually expended
' in the purchase of oysters, and the breeding of natives,
to the extent, in fact, of the sum of 30,0001., and often
35,0001., through which there were usually employed in
the various fisheries during the year from 10,000 to
12,000 men and boys, the wole of whom were brought
up to a seafaring life, so that the trade in this respect
• might be regarded as a national nursery for sailors of
the best possible description.
The Chairman—Do you mean to say that 35,0001. is
the value of the trade, or the profit arising from the
trade.
Mr. Gibbs said that was the value of the trade during
the season, which lasted only a few months, sometimes
it reached 50,0001. in one year. Their object upon that
occasion was to submit to the Commissioners the desir-
ability of the proprietors having the power of appointing
their own men as holdsmen to assist them or their sales-
men in the measuring and shovelling of oysters into the
holds of their several vessels anchored with the supply
of fish at Billingsgate-market. One of the reasons for
this suggestion was, that when the oysters were delivered
in bushels in accordance with the present practice, it
often happened that full ten per cent. short of the quan-
tity was delivered to-the purchaser.
The Chairman—You complain of the metage and por-
terage dues of the City, more especially because the
, oysters sent by rail are exempt from such charges.
Mr. Gibbs said they considered that to be a great
hardship.
The Chairman—Do you possess any advantages from
P their being sent by water ?
Mr. Gibbs—Our warehouses are near to Billingsgate-
market, and we convey them in our own vessels.
Mr. Lewis—Do you think the metage of the oysters
by the corporation is of any advantage to your trade ?
Mr. Gibbs believed not. One of the grievances of
which they had to complain was, that they had no con-
) trol over the City officers ; further the public suffered by
• the system—they were compelled to pay when they had
P no right to pay at all. Many poor buyers would, if they
were allowed, carry their oysters from the vessels to the
shore themselves, but according to the present system
' they were not allowed to do so by the men employed by
' the sinecurists, who held the appointments under the
Corporation.
Mr. Lewis—Supposing the public paid nothing, how

would you manage? -
Mr. Gibbs replied that the trade would have control
over their own servants. The business would be done
with equal convenience, and at much less expense.
The Chairman—Are you aware of what the practice
may be in this respect in other large towns ?
Mr. Gibbs could not exactly say.
The Chairman—ln what shape do you sell the fish to
the large dealers ?
Mr. Gibbs—By the peck and bushel.
The Chairman—Did I understand you that the City
officers sometimes gave short measure ? If so, do not
the retailers find it out ?

Mr. Gibbs—Certainly ; and that is another of our
grievances.

- The Chairman—Have you anything more to say ?
Mr. Gibbs replied—There was one other thing to
which the deputation wished to refer—he alluded to the
proprietors of the smacks being compelled to pay 2s.
per voyage for each vessel landing at Billingsgate.
This amount, they understood, was levied by the Marine
Society, but by what right they had never been able to
understand.
The Chairman—Then that amount is not levied on the
part of the corporation!
Mr. Gibbs said it was not ; still the imposition of
the tax was injurious, both to the trade and the public.
The Chairman—What is the Marine Society ?
Mr. Gibbs—Believed it to be a public body—the lads
were brought up in it, and qualified fur entering the
naval service.
The Chairman—Have you ever complained of these
matters to the corporation ?
Mr. Gibbs—Frequently, and while we have always
been kindly received, we have invariably been met with
the answer, that they had not the power to render us
any assistance.
The deputation then withdrew.
Several gentlemen from the parish of Marylebone
were then introduced, headed by Mr. Clement George,
who acted in the capacity of chief spokesman.
The Chairman having inquired what statement the
deputation desired to lay before the Commissioners,
Mr. George said that the body they represented was
the vestry of the populous parish of Marylebone, by
which they were requested to inform the Commissioners
that they felt themselves aggrieved in consequence of
their being compelled to pay coal dues, from the outlay
of which moneys, when collected, they did not receive
any equivalent advantage whatever. No portion of the
amount was expended upon the parish of Marylebone.
They were further of opinion that there w.ks no necessity
for the tax, and that an improvement rate, placed under
proper control, would obviate all occasion for such an
unequal and oppressive tax as that of the coal duties
impost. The subject of the coal duties had been fre-
quently before the Marylebone vestry, for, on the 31st
of January last, a committee upon the subject had
brought up a report, after having maturely considered
the question, in which they recommended the vestry
in the first place "to petition Parliament to repeal
the Act 1 and 2 William IV., cap. 76, and
all the other acts which levy 4d. per ton
of coals, leavfng the retired allowances to be paid out of
the increased produce of the remaining 9d. ; and secondly
to petition Parliament to pass an act causing the Acts
Ist and 2nd Wm. IV. c. 76, Ist and 2nd Vict. c. 101,
Bth and 9th Vict, c. 101, and all other acts which levy
the duties of Bd. and id. respectively, absolutely to
cease and determine on the sth of July, 1859, or sooner,
should the charges before that time be satisfied." Upon
this, a petition to the House of Commons was prepared,
and presented in the course of the last session of
Parliament.

The Chairman—At present the Bd. is not expended by
the city; it goes to the Board of Works, who kave the
disposal of it for metropolitan improvements. Maryle-
bone is benefited by the improvement of Oxford-street,
for instance.
Mr. George—So far as the new street went, that
might be so, but the result of making that new
thoroughfare ' had operated very injuriously to the
parish of Marylebone.ne.h By clearing away the small
been driven into the
of St. Giles's, the poor had
houses in the
they became a burd low streets in Marylebone, where
with whom
to the parish. It was his opinion and
that of those
ought to be allowedwtoeenixthiree acted,in thatlB62, ntehvee
never
otaol dutieshe
re-
neged
rate for
ttthhere would be no difficulty
in rais i
na gg aai
generaln. He thou
purpose of improvement.
With reference to incorporating Marylebone Marylebone with the
the style
would be
style of Lord Mayor,
City, he was of opinion that
ezahe thought should
parish.
He
such h
believedn am es
never applieendy
would
willing to be so incorporated ;
Aldermen, and Common Counweilan:
u otoervaenn
be abolished if such a thing
were decidedly unpopular in that
. prefer
the parishioners of Marylebone had
act of incorporation. He was of opinion that they
were noBlPese;
prefer not being joined with any other parish,
with St. Pancras or Paddington ; they would
being alone, while it would be an advantage
owersto,
°give
ct oi a
itihye these twost.
Pancras,parishes separatwhiche
parish
insihc i pt
ha le r
ep
than 17 paving trusts, all of which might then be regu.
fated by one board only.
The Chairman--As the law now stands, no single
parish can have granted to it municipal powers. This,
however, is not the business of the present inquiry.
Have you anything more to say -
Mr. George replied that the vestry regarded the tax
on carts, entering and leaving the City, as being very
objectionable, and they hoped that the Commissioners
would recommend its abolition.
After having made some further statements, of no
special importance, the deputation withdrew.
Mr. John Kearns, wharfinger, then stepped forward.
His complaints against the corporation had sole ref e- i
rence to the metage dues, of which so much had been I
said. These he regarded as being obstructive to trade,
and highly injurious to the prosperity of the port of
London.

Mr. Henry Bateman, timber-merchant, was the next
witness. He said he had bean connected with the city
of London twenty years. He was a member of the
Goldsmiths' Company, and resided in the ward of Bishops=
gate. He had never been connected with the Corpo-
ration of London, although he had long taken a great
interest in city matters. He had no interest in the
Corporation of the city of London, and for some time
he had endeavoured to induce parties to come forward
as Common Councilmen • but the office had some how
or other fallen so much' into disrepute, that it was al-
most impossible to get independent parties to come for-
ward. The consequence was that the present class of men
in the Corporation were not the proper class for the regu-
lation of the affairs of the city. He would suggest that the
metropolis be divided into seven municipalities to be regu-
lated by the powers of the Municipal Corporation Act.
Many of the features of the plan this witness
proposed were
very similar to that recently submitted by Mr. Bennoch,