08- 
 
 (/. 
 
 REESE LIBRARY 
 
 OP TIIK 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Receded _ . <2L) ^^^. , i8^ / 
 
 A ccessions No. >^^ ^ §^ ^^^^^ . ^^' " ■' 
 
 08* 
 
 
 iM 
 
 
 mn 
 
 % 
 
 
 m 
 
 rM'^Kmfi 
 
 wi 
 
 
 i 
 
 f/M/ '//ml ■ 
 
 P 
 
 m ml m 
 
 1 
 
 MM 
 
 
 mmih 
 
 '■w 
 
 

 2^ 7^ 
 
 
 
) 
 

 ¥ 
 
 r^„„^/.A\/:>,rf 
 
 '^f \ si'OKi; JmKwiNCi'ir 
 
 , STOKeI/ne Wl N 6fON 
 
 KENTISH ^'»;,T OWN 
 
 80, 000 ^ •5^// X^Vr V 
 
 HAMP^JEAD ><- \\^^- /I . :i \ ^^|//H| 
 
 80 oq8\ ,,<?«- ••'-'nP ^ *• (ISLINGTON \ p o I' ^1l 
 
 « ^ \ 1 ISI IN hjnI 
 
 00-00 
 
 N. 
 
 9 . 
 
 lAHK 
 ik^ LE BON.E 
 
 ioooooj^J^-^holbornV ^ o \ *" LC 
 " ' ^ " ' 100.000 ^ ^ — ■ ^ ^ ' ^- ' 
 
 S T E P N EVy 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON, 
 
 AS SUB-DIVIDED INTO 
 
 FORTY DIST RICTS. 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 i; s 1 iM ATI : \ ) roiT n at ion . 
 
 5IOTE. 
 
 Thf Boimfinnr.f of fhr City ,irr re/nirteil 
 int^n-f ^ (iTjtl tfn^se o/^(hfrtfft t^/' the diMji't't ar-e 
 faTy'r-d' atr>n<j ThhLCc Itoafi^. 
 
 "I" ,-i 
 
 "t HWaa4« 
 
 Riruingtu, 
 
 jStRfkrio 
 
 
 
 STHKtNSlM.loNV /' 
 
 ^KENSl N G T On\ /chELSEA 
 
 <^» 
 
 /SPOT «.« aA^ 
 
 rtjo 000 \ X ' ' 
 
 yBERWON DSEV Vv"*^ 
 
 7~i00 Q,q'? , i,, , \ P P L A R \ 
 
 L i„v: ,E rtoy^ S E 
 —too 000/^ ^^^ 
 
 100 000 
 
 M Wll/l 1 N 
 
 /KtMNIN<5T0^^ 100 000 
 
 90 000 -I 1 rVw:.!! i„. 
 
 , j'r 
 
MUNICIPAL LONDON; 
 
 OR, 
 
 LONDON GOVERNMENT AS IT IS, 
 
 AND 
 
 LONDON UNDER A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOSEPH F. B. FIRTH, LL.B. 
 
 V ^ ■ 
 
 T .. 
 
 ^^^'-/FORM 
 
 " The subdivision of London into independent districts, each with its separate arrange- 
 ' ments for local business (several of them without unity of administration within 
 '■ themselves), prevents the possibility of consecutive or well-regulated co-operation for 
 
 ■ common objects ; precludes any uniform principle for the discharge of local duties ; 
 ' compels the general Government to take things upon itself which would be best left to 
 '■ local authorities, if tliere were any whose authority extended to the entire Metropolis ; 
 
 ■ and answers no purpose but to keep up the fantastical trappings of that union of modern 
 
 ■ jobbing and antiquated foppery — the Corporation of the City of London." 
 
 John Stuaet Mill. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. 
 
 1876. 
 
f- 
 
MUNICIPAL LONDON; 
 
 OR, 
 
 LONDON GOVERNMENT AS IT IS, 
 
 AND 
 
 LONDON UNDER A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOSEPH F. B. FIRTH, LL.B. 
 
 " The subdivision of London into independent districts, each with its separate arrange- 
 '■ ments for local business (several of them without unity of administration within 
 ' themselves), prevents the possibility of consecutive or well-regulated co-operation for 
 
 ■ common objects ; precludes any uniform principle for the discharge of local duties ; 
 
 ■ compels the general Government to take things upon itself which would be best left to 
 
 ■ local authimties, if there were auy whose authority extended to the entire Metropolis ; 
 
 ■ and answers no purpose but to keep up the fantastical trappings of that union of modern 
 jobbing and antiquated foppery — the Corporation of the City of London." 
 
 John Stuart Mill. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. 
 
 1876. 
 

 LONDON' : 
 
 PRINTED BY GEO. PHIPPS, TOTHILL STREET, 
 
 ■WESTMINSTER. 
 
 y^ ^ ^f^ 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 In many of the essentials of a Capital, London 
 stands at the head of the cities of the world. In 
 the wealth, enterprise, science, sldU, and number 
 of her citizens, she has no rival. London is the 
 centre from whence the destiny of more than two 
 hundred millions of human beings is moulded by 
 the hands of the Great Mother of free peoples. 
 From within her borders are issued every day 
 decrees affecting the most complex relations of 
 mankind ; and the elaborate network of commu- 
 nications which, through the electric telegraph, 
 the Post-office, and the steam -ship, enwraps 
 the globe in its embrace, is woven in the 
 brain of this Great City. It is here that the 
 human interests of the world are focussed ; 
 and it is here that there may be found — as 
 Humboldt has it — " human development in its 
 richest diversity." 
 
 Such being the position of London, it would 
 be incredible — if it were not so palpably true — 
 that this power of government receives no illus- 
 tration from the capital itself. Although the 
 ablest organizing minds of the age live in Lon- 
 don, yet, the government of the Metropolis is 
 utterly without system, regularity, or order. The 
 
 /^ 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 average citizen of London, whilst conscious of 
 the existence of various taxing authorities, rarely 
 knows either their origin, theh powers, or even 
 the names of the men who constitute them. If 
 he does succeed in ascertaining the facts with 
 respect to any one of the various hodies that rule 
 him, and endeavours to procure its reform, he 
 soon despairs of the task, being appalled by the 
 magnitude and complexity of the work, and over- 
 come by the strength of opposing interests. 
 
 The following pages have been written in order 
 to clear the ground for reform, by delineating the 
 exact character and power of every existing insti- 
 tution exercising or claiming to exercise Municipal 
 or quasi-Municipal functions within the Metro- 
 politan area. An endeavour has also been made 
 to indicate the manner in which such authorities 
 may be absorbed into a single Municipal system. 
 The difficulty of collecting and collating the facts 
 as to existing institutions, has in some cases, been 
 very great, and in view of the enormous variety of 
 matter that has been dealt with, it is not unlikely 
 that errors will be found. But every effort has 
 been made to render the narrative part of the work 
 absolutely correct, and the Author has to return his 
 grateful thanks to those, who, in various depart- 
 ments of London Administration, have rendered 
 kind and valuable assistance, by the loan of books; 
 the supply of information; or in the correction of 
 proof-sheets. In the few cases in which it has 
 been deemed necessary in the public interest to 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 animadvert strongly upon either institutions or 
 individuals, the facts are, as a rule, given upon 
 the authority of responsible men, prepared in case 
 of necessity to justify what has been written. 
 
 In addition to the services thus rendered by 
 workers in every department of the field of Lon- 
 don Government, the Author has to express his 
 deep obligation to Mr. James Beal, who may be 
 justly regarded as the father of Municipal Eeform 
 in London. It is to his energy and patriotism 
 that the present advanced condition of this ques- 
 tion is mainly due, and if ever from existing 
 chaos, there should come forth a London Muni- 
 cipal Government worthy of the name, it is to 
 him that the thanks of the citizens should be 
 given. 
 
 The Author has not travelled on exactly 
 parallel lines to those laid down in a recent parlia- 
 mentary measure prepared by Mr. Beal, and intro- 
 duced by Lord Elcho, but the end and the means 
 are practically the same. Without the aid of his 
 unrivaUed collection of current municipal literature 
 — freely placed at the Author's service — the chap- 
 ters on Gas and Water Supply could never have 
 been written, whilst many of the details of the 
 inner life of the Metropolitan Board, and of the 
 London Vestries, have been supplied from his 
 intimate knowledge of those institutions. Valuable 
 aid has also been rendered by way of suggestion as 
 to the constitution and functions of the Supreme 
 Council and its Committees. 
 
VI PREPACK. 
 
 To the second part of the work are prefixed 
 three chapters, containing a history of attempted 
 Municipal Keform, and a discussion of the various 
 schemes that have been proposed. These chapters 
 will serve a useful purpose in illustrating the 
 different methods by which the interested City 
 Corporation has succeeded in shelving the ques- 
 tion, and they will enable future Municipal Ke- 
 formers to steer clear of the rocks on which former 
 measures have been wrecked. 
 
 A system whereby the whole Metropolis may 
 be governed by a Supreme Kepresentative Council, 
 is elaborated in the later chapters of the book. 
 For this part of the work the Author claims only 
 such credit as may be due to practical suggestions, 
 based upon well-considered principles of Municipal 
 Government. 
 
 It is impossible for any independent student of 
 London Government as it is, to derive any sub- 
 stantial satisfaction from the investigation of its 
 character, or to avoid forming some exceedingly 
 strong opinions about it. Whilst there are some 
 institutions, as for example, the London School 
 Board, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and the 
 Thames Conservancy Board, which merit much 
 commendation, there are others that must excite 
 very opposite sentiments. 
 
 Whatever may be our future condition — 
 whether the London Vestries and the Metro- 
 politan Board do or do not continue to extend 
 over us the benefits of what by a figure of speech 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 is called their " rale " — it would seem to the 
 ordinary intelligence impossible that the grave 
 pubhc scandal involved in the existence and pro- 
 ceedings of the present Corporation of the City 
 (in which are of course included the Livery Com- 
 panies) can be allowed much longer to continue. 
 
 But it is not to be forgotten that when Lord 
 Brougham (himself a member of a Livery Com- 
 pany) delivered in 1843 in the House of Lords, 
 his scathing denunciation of the City and its 
 practices, he prophesied an early change, and yet 
 thirty years have rolled away without that pro- 
 phecy being fulfilled. Like many other people, 
 Lord Brougham under-estimated the power of the 
 City, and miscalculated the nature and extent of 
 the influence that it was able to exert. The same 
 mistake ought to be carefully avoided in the future, 
 and it is satisfactory to know that those who have 
 this reform at heart to-day are taking a juster 
 measure of the difficulties in their path. 
 
 Various wi-iters in the daily, weeldy, and 
 quarterly press* are bringing the facts of civic life 
 to the surface, and gradually the public opinion 
 of the Metropolis is being moulded and prepared 
 for the impending struggle. This book lays no 
 claim to conclude the whole question. But it 
 sets out in terms some of the counts in that 
 Great Lidictment which, sooner or later, the 
 people of London will prefer against their rulers. 
 
 * Vide Edinburgh Review, October 1875, and Westminster 
 Review, January 1876. 
 
VIU PREFACE. 
 
 If those rulers are innocent of the charges pre- 
 ferred against them, nothing will be easier than 
 for them to demonstrate such innocence ; but the 
 day is now gone by when the public will rest 
 satisfied with a simple denial, or will bate one jot 
 of their just demands because they do not coincide 
 with the interests of a dominant section. From 
 all quarters, evidence is coming to hand which 
 makes it clear that the impeached governing 
 bodies have nothing to fear so much as the pub- 
 lication of the exact truth respecting them.* 
 
 Charges of the utmost gravity have been made 
 against the Livery Companies of the City, and it 
 behoves those members of these Companies, who 
 are also members of the House of Commons — 
 said to be about one-fourth of the whole House — 
 to insist upon a full investigation at the hands of 
 a Commission, if they have any reason to doubt 
 their truth. It is announced that Mr. Gladstone 
 has now joined the Turners' Company. This is 
 one of the few Companies that appear to be at all 
 carrying out the objects of their foundation. 
 
 There are those who believe that within the 
 Corporation of the City there exist more malver- 
 sations of public trust and misuse of public trust 
 funds than elsewhere throughout the whole broad 
 realm of England ; and when the voice of the 
 
 * The Author would suggest to those who are anxious to 
 assist in this patriotic work, that they put themselves in com- 
 municatiouwith the Hon. Secretary of the Municipal Association, 
 20, Ecgent Street, W. 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 people of London shall, in unmistakeable tone, 
 demand the restitution of their rights, and the 
 cession of that Municipal freedom which is 
 granted to the smallest town in the Empire, 
 there can be no doubt but that Parliament will 
 hearken to their request. 
 
 If this book should, by one single day, advance 
 the coming of that time, then the object with 
 which it has been written will be amply satisfied. 
 
 South Kensington, 
 
 February Ath, 1876. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LONDON GOVERNMENT AS IT IS. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 THE COEPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 City Charters : their origin, nature, provisions, and eflfect : their 
 
 present validity and value. ....... 1 
 
 Chapter II. 
 THE COEPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 
 The origin of the Corporation. — The present Constitution of the 
 Corporation. — The Lord Mayor : history, duty, and powers of 
 the office.— The Aldermen : their history and functions. — The 
 Court of Aldermen : its work. — The Common Councillors : 
 their origin, election, &c. — The Court of Common Council : its 
 work. .......... 23 
 
 Chapter III. 
 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 The Court of Common Hall : its constitution and powers.— The 
 Livery Companies of the City : their rise, early character, and 
 objects.— Membership and method of Government: their 
 former and present control of Trade.— The Rights of London 
 Tradesmen in the Companies. — The Property and Income of 
 the Companies: their source and extent. — The expenditure of 
 the Companies.— Rights of control and interference by the City 
 and by the Crown.— The present Policy and Character of the 
 Companies. ......••• 4:2 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 THE COEPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 
 Method of Government. — The Court of Aldermen and its Com- 
 mittees : and herein of the City Prisons.— The Court of 
 Common Council. — Division of Representation. — Occupation 
 and Status of Members.— Committees and Commissions of the 
 Common Council : and herein of the Irish Society. — Of certain 
 City Officers, Courts, Markets, and Schools. — Of Government 
 by Committees generally. ,..••. 104 
 
XU CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter V. 
 
 THE CORrORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 
 The Income and Jlxpenditure of the City: and herein of the City 
 Estate : City Markets : Rates : Coal, Wine, and Grain Duty : 
 Metage, and Brokers' Rents, &c. — Expenditure on the Adminis- 
 tration of Justice. — Police : Maintenance Accounts, &c. : City 
 Loans: Salaries of Officials: Charitable Gifts:. Analysis of 
 Expenditure. ......... 159 
 
 Chatter VI. 
 METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. 
 
 The Origin of the Board. — Constitution and Powers under " The 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855." — The Work of the Board 
 for nineteen years.— Present Work and Jurisdiction of the 
 Board. — Revenue and Expenditure of the Board. — Metro- 
 politan Board Loans. — Work of Committees. — Constitution 
 and Character of the Board generally ..... 226 
 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 THE LONDON VESTRIES. 
 
 London Local Government before 1856.- — Establishment of Ves- 
 tries. — Inequality of Division. — Functions of Vestries under 
 Metropolis Management Act, Nuisances' Removal Acts, Free 
 Libraries, Baths and Wash-Houses, Workshops, Ai'tizans' 
 Dwellings, and other Acts. — Method in which Vestries perform 
 their Work. — Income and Expenditure. — Loans, &c., &c. . 294 
 
 Chapter VIII. 
 
 THE GAS SUPPLY OF LONDON. 
 
 History of London Gas Supply before 1860, with the Establish- 
 ment of the Companies. — Effects of their Competition and 
 Amalgamation. — The Gas Act of 1860. — Gas Bills of 186G and 
 1867.— "The City of London Gas Act, 1868."— Gas Bills of 
 1869, 1872, and 1875— Inaction of the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works. — Gas Committee in 1875. — Gas Statistics . 340 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 THE WATER SUPPLY OF LONDON. 
 
 Supply to Old London. — London Bridge Waterworks. — Origin of 
 New River Company and other Companies. — Character of 
 Supply before 1852.—" The Metropolis Water Act, 1852."— 
 
CONTENTS. Xm 
 
 FAOB 
 
 " The Metropolis Water Act, 1871."— Sources, Nature, aud 
 Extent of Supply. — System of Constant Supply. — Capital 
 Revenue and Expenditure of the London Water Companies . 381 
 
 Chapter X. 
 
 VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 The Corporation of Westminster. 
 
 History and Constitution of the Corporation. — Its present 
 Functions and Powers. 
 
 The London Police. 
 
 The Constitution aud Powers of the Metropolitan and City 
 Police. — Their Duties, and the method in which they are 
 performed. — Income and Expenditure. — Statistics of the 
 Force. — Metropolitan Police Courts. 
 
 The London School Board. 
 
 Constitution and Powers of the Board. — Method of Work. — 
 The Work of the Board for five years. — Income and Ex- 
 penditure of the Board. — Educational Statistics. 
 
 The Thames Conservancy Board. 
 
 Constitution of the Board. — Income and Expenditure. — Work 
 for seventeen years. 
 
 The Lee Conservancy Board. 
 
 Constitution. — Income and Expenditure. — Work tor five 
 
 years ......... 408 
 
 Chapter XI. 
 
 VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 Poor Relief. 
 
 •'Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867." — Sick Asylums. —Infirmaries. 
 — District Schools. — Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. — 
 Metropolitan Asylums' Board. — Registration Districts. — 
 Statistics of Pauperism. — Poor Rate Receipts and Expen- 
 diture. — County Exiienditure charged on Poor Rate. 
 
 The Tower of London. 
 
 Burial Boards. 
 
 Parliamentary Boroughs. 
 
 London Charities ......... 479 
 
 Chapter XII. 
 
 Summary of Divisions of Metropolis for various Purposes. — Metro- 
 politan Loan Liability. — Income and Expenditure of the 
 Metropolis 532 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 LONDON UNDER A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. 
 
 Chapter XIII. 
 CORPORATION REFORM. 
 
 PAOR 
 
 The Municiiml Corporation Act, 1835. — Special Report of the 
 Municipal Commissioners as to the City. — Recommendations 
 of the Commissioners. — Reform thwarted by the City.- — Con- 
 dition of the Question of City Reform from 1837 to l.'^53. — 
 Appointment of Corporation Commissioners in 1853. — Report 
 and Recommendations. ....... 539 
 
 Chapter XIV. 
 
 BILLS IN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 Bill of Sir George Grey, 1856. — City Opinion and Action upon it. — 
 Bill of 1858. — Reference to a Select Committee and With- 
 drawal. — Government Bills of 1859-60 and their Withdrawal. 
 —Report of Taxation Committees, 1861-7.— Police BiU, 1863. 
 — Mr. Mill's BiUs, 1867-8 : their provisions.— Mr. Buxton's 
 Bills, 1869-70.— Lord Elcho's BiU, 1875.— Summary of Cor- 
 poration Reform Bills, and what became of them. . . 558 
 
 Chapter XV. 
 
 METHODS OF REFORM DISCUSSED. 
 
 Opinions of Public Men. — Opinion and action of the Corporation 
 of the City. — Necessity of a Central Municipal Authority. — 
 Community of interest. — Necessity for purposes of protection. 
 — Functions of the Central Authority. — Source of Reform. — 
 Conclusion of Argument. ....... 591 
 
 Chapter XVI. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Desirability of establishing Local Councils considered. — Division 
 of the Metropolis into Electoral Districts. — Division of Rei)re- 
 sentation. — Numbers of the Supreme Council. — Election of 
 Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors. — Qualification of Members. 
 — Extent of suffrage. — Time of election. — Voting papers. — 
 Cumulative voting. ........ 612 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 PAOB 
 
 Chapter XVII. 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 The Livery Companies in the Future. — Transfer to Supreme Coun- 
 cil of powers of City Corporation over Livery Companies. — 
 Appointment of a Royal Commission. — Probable result. . 63-t 
 
 Chapter XVIII. 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 City Chai'ters in the Future. — Origin of Charters. — Subject to 
 Change by Crown. — Custom of Yearly Re-grant — Consent 
 of Parliament. — Present Character of Charters. — Classification 
 of same. — Method of dealing with them .... 638 
 
 Chapter XIX. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Method of dealing with the Corporation of the City and City 
 Property. — Appointment of a Commission to settle Boundaries, 
 ascertain Rights, &c. — Adaptation of City Institutions and 
 Officers, and the Work of City Committees, to the New 
 System 049 
 
 Chapter XX. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Rights of Londoners vnth respect to Gas Supply. — Necessity of 
 Supply being in Municipal hands. — Methods of Acquirement 
 considered and illustrated by example of other Towns . . 661 
 
 Chapter XXI. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Method of dealing with Metropolitan Board of Works; with 
 Vestries, with Water Companies : with the Corporation of 
 Westminster ; with Police Force ; with School Board ; with 
 Thames Conservancy Board and Lee Conservancy Board ; 
 with Boards of Guardians, Metropolitan Asylums Board, and 
 Poor Relief System ; with County Jurisdictions within the 
 Metropolis; with the Tower of London, (tc, (fee. . . . 688 
 
 Chapter XXIL 
 WORK OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 General Regulations of the Council. — Appointment of Permanent 
 Staflf.— Delegation of Powers to Committees. — The Municipal 
 
XVI CONTENTS. 
 
 PAOE 
 
 Work of London, and the method of its performance, con- 
 sidered with respect to the various Committees of the Supreme 
 Council 706 
 
 Chapter XXIII. 
 WORK OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 A Tabulated Summary of the method in which the Municipal 
 Work of London would be performed under a Supreme Coun- 
 cil, aiTanged so as to show the Work and Jurisdiction of the 
 Permanent Staff of the several Committees and of the 
 Supreme Council ........ 751 
 
 Chapter XXIV. 
 
 LONDON IN THE FUTURE. 
 
 Consideration of the position, of London under a Municipal 
 Council. — Various matters of Municipal Government passed 
 in review. — Improvement in the condition of the Metropolis. — 
 Character of the Supreme Council and of the future Lord 
 Mayor. — Conclusion ...... . • 7C0 
 
 Index .......•••• '''67 
 
MDNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 
 Oity Charters : their origin, nature, provisions, and effect ; 
 their present validity and value. 
 
 The charters of the City of London form the basis of its 
 constitution. They are the legal framework upon which 
 rest the rights, privileges, franchises, and legal status of its 
 citizens. Strangely enough these title deeds have never 
 received an authorized interpretation. Their language is 
 frequently archaic, conflicting, and of the vaguest possible 
 character : they were generally granted by needy monarchs 
 iu consideration of money payments : they are intended to 
 apply to a state of circumstances of which we have but a 
 meagre conception, and to which we have no parallel ; and 
 yet they form the only fount whence a knowledge of the 
 privileges and rights of the City can be derived. 
 
 From one point of view they may be said to be of equal 
 validity and force with Acts of ParKament, inasmuch as by 
 a statute of William and Mary, the rights, charters, Hber- 
 ties, franchises, and customs of the Mayor, Commonalty, and 
 Citizens were re-granted to them, and the judgment in the 
 Quo Warranto case set aside. But the statute gives no 
 summary or definition of what these rights and franchises 
 consist in, and so we are relegated back to the charters 
 themselves. 
 
2 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 It would be difficult to conceive a more hopeless task 
 than that of endeavouring to evolve from these 120 docu- 
 ments any fair conception, or indeed any definite conception 
 at all, of the ri'ghts and powers of the Corporations of 
 London. Hitherto, the rulers of the City have never applied 
 for a governing charter, and they have deftly eluded all 
 alien attempts to impose one upon them. They prefer to 
 rest their title upon prerogatives sanctioned by hoar anti- 
 quity; upon charters of undefinable extent; and upon 
 customs ripened into law by long prescription, and when 
 needful, certified as such, ore temis by the mouth of the 
 Recorder, 
 
 In this chapter we propose succinctly to set out such of 
 the charters as have been of notable value and importance 
 to the City, together with those which may be supposed to 
 continue of any validity or force. We shall attempt to 
 indicate how far one charter is modified or abrogated by a 
 succeeding one, and in some measure to estimate the extent 
 and character of the privileges and customs of the Corpora- 
 tion. In a subsequent chapter we shall consider ho^v these 
 charters, liberties, and franchises may be most fairly dealt 
 with in the event of any alteration being made in the 
 extent, jurisdiction, or character of thr City of London, 
 
 We have no available record of any special franchises 
 or privileges being possessed by London prior to the year 
 827, when Egbert the king of the West Saxons, after 
 uniting the other kingdoms of the Heptarchy under his 
 banner, chose it for his capital. Stow, the great historian 
 of the City, and " that painfull Searcher into Reverend 
 Antiquity" (as one of the editors of his Survey styles him), 
 makes no such claim for her, and we may dismiss as finally 
 exploded what Maitland terms " the infamous and iniqui- 
 tous romances" of Geoff'rey of Monmouth, who ascribed the 
 foundation of the City to Brute the son of -^neas, and who 
 
CITY CHARTERS. d 
 
 interposed no less than seventy kings of London between 
 the death of Brute and the advent of JuHus Caesar. 
 
 There can, however, be little doubt that very soon after 
 Egbert had fixed upon it for his capital, London began to 
 be distinguished by special usages and customs. These were 
 digested and published by Alfred the Great: they were 
 afterwards reviewed and altered by Edgar, and finally re- 
 modelled and codified by Edward the Confessor. King 
 Edward confirmed the usages and customs of London to the 
 citizens as law, and specially preserved and confirmed the 
 " privilege " of meeting in " hustings " every Monday, for 
 the transaction of the business of the City. 
 
 A deputation left London in 1066 and went to offer the 
 keys of the City to "William Duke of Normandy. He 
 accepted the offering, and promised the deputation to pre- 
 serve inviolate the ancient rights of the City. Subse- 
 quently to his coronation he ratified this promise by what is 
 regarded as the First of the City Charters. It is in these 
 terms : — 
 
 " WilHam the King greets WilHam the Bishop and 
 Godfrey the Portreeve and all the Burghers within 
 London, French and English, friendly, and I make known 
 to you that I will that ye be law- worthy as ye were ia the 
 days of King Edward. And I wiU that each child be his 
 father's heir after his father's days. And I will not suffer 
 that any man command you any wrong. God keep you." 
 
 Probably this first charter was the most important, so 
 far as regarded its actual effect, that ever was granted to 
 the City. Within a few years from its promulgation a 
 change was introduced into the tenure of land in England, 
 perhaps as radical and complete as ever took place in 
 any country at any time. Whilst the Feudal System was 
 gradually bringing within its grasp all the lands in the 
 country, the citizens of London were permitted by virtue of 
 
4 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 this charter to hold theirs in a manner scarcely less free 
 than in the days of Edward the Confessor. The galling 
 incidents of Aids, Relief, Wardship, Marriage, Livery, and 
 so forth, which were incident to even the best form of 
 feudal tenure, — to say nothing of viUenage, which reduced 
 men to a condition little better than adscripti glebce, — were un- 
 known in London. The citizens were in the proud position 
 of tenants in capite, holding directly of the king with 
 no intervening lord, and probably compounding for services 
 by the payment of a sum of money into the king's ex- 
 chequer. And their rights in these respects were never 
 subsequently lost. Whilst the country at large during the 
 centuries that followed was painfully struggling to free 
 itself from the iron bands of the Feudal System, and 
 the courts of law were devising fictions to circumvent it, 
 London enjoyed free proprietary rights. It was not until 
 the Restoration, six centuries later,* that England generally, 
 obtained the privileges conceded to London by this charter. 
 The right of Testamentary Disposition remained intact in 
 London alone, and was unknown elsewhere in England 
 for nearly five centuries.f So, too, the free right of trans- 
 mitting property to a successor was to be found under the 
 Norman kings in London alone. 
 
 The good old customs were preserved nearly intact : 
 the privilege of electing their own Magistrates, the Portreeve, 
 the Bishop, and the Ealdermen : the right of suing and 
 being sued in their own Hustings Court : the right of trial 
 by jury. These were the pri\aleges at this time enjoyed 
 by the capital city, and although they are now the common 
 birthright of every Englishman, they were peculiar after 
 the Norman Conquest to London alone. Her position was a 
 most enviable one, enshrining as it did all the freedom and 
 
 * By the Stat. 12 Car. II., c. 24. f 32 Hy. VII., c. I. 
 
CITY CHARTERS, 
 
 independence of the laws of Alfred the Great and Edward the 
 Confessor, amid the bondage of an enslaved nation. Probably 
 the citizens of London were at this time as independent 
 and well governed a community as was to be found on the 
 face of the globe. All the rights confirmed and preserved by 
 the charter of William remain still intact, but the rest of 
 the country is now fully abreast of them, and so, save in the 
 election of its own judicial officers, there is no marked 
 peculiarity remaining from this charter to London. 
 
 London suffered three times from fire in the 11th century, 
 and each time came forth better built and better laid out. 
 Henry the First, ascending the throne whilst his brother 
 was still aKve, endeavoured to strengthen his position by 
 conciliating his Saxon subjects. To his capital city he 
 granted a charter extending and confirming their franchises 
 and rights. He grants to the citizens of London the 
 Sheriffwick of Middlesex on payment of £300 yearly to him 
 and his heirs. This right is still exercised, one of the two 
 sheriffs elected every year being Sheriff of Middlesex and 
 the other Sheriff of London. Probably the Sheriffwick of 
 London was also granted, but if so, it would seem to have 
 been lost in the succeeding reign. He also granted to the 
 citizens the right of appointing their own Justiciar, and that 
 none other shall be Justiciar over them : they were also 
 privileged from being impleaded without the walls. Thus 
 justice was always at their own doors, and they were relieved 
 from following the aula regis. And the citizens have been 
 very tenacious of the privilege ; those pleading outside were 
 disfranchised; freemen on taking out their freedom were 
 compelled to swear not to do it; and City pleaders, upon their 
 appointment, were sworn not to plead a foreign plea. The 
 City pleaders are now a thing of the past ; the freeman's 
 oath was abolished in 1725 ; and this privilege, which was 
 
b MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of enormous advantage when justice was intermittent and 
 ambulatory, is of no use in the present day, and so the 
 custom has long since sunk into desuetude. 
 
 The citizens were also freed from "Scot" (not the 
 ordinary citizen tax, but probably some royal exaction) : and 
 from Danegeld : from fines in case of undiscovered murderers : 
 from having the king's servants and soldiers quartered on 
 them : and from trial by battle. All these have long since 
 passed away, the last of them being legislatively abolished in 
 ISIO.'^ Power was granted to creditors to attach the goods 
 of those debtors who declined either to pay or to discharge 
 themselves in London; probably one of the first beginnings 
 of the custom of foreign attachment, which was long peculiar 
 to the Mayor'u Court, and which has done much to make it 
 popular with suitors. The Court of Hustings met on the 
 Monday in every week, the king undertaking to decide 
 according to the laws of London. 
 
 The rights of the citizens were confirmed to them by 
 Stephen ; and when Matilda summoned the great Eccle- 
 siastical Council to settle the crown, deputies from London 
 were present and insisted that the king should be Hberated 
 from prison. 
 
 It was at this Council that the king's brother, answering, 
 replied to these deputies " that they were almost accounted 
 noblemen because of the greatness of their city, and it did 
 not become them to condescend to take part with these barons 
 who had basely forsaken their lord in battle, and who had 
 treated the Holy Church with contumely." The reputation 
 of the City was well founded, as Matilda herself found after 
 her exactions had spurred the citizens to revolt, and when 
 by their influence she was driven from the kingdom and 
 Stephen reinstated on the throne. 
 
 In the reign of Henry the Second the prosperity of 
 
 * Consequent upon the case of Ashford v. Thornton, 1 B. & Aid. 405. 
 
CITY CHARTERS. 7 
 
 London was unchecked. London Bridge was rebuilt of 
 stone, and a new wall with seven noble gates erected. The 
 houses of ecclesiastics and of the chief nobility rose in every 
 quarter of the City, and more than one hundred churches 
 attested the liberality of the citizens. One charter only 
 was granted by this king. It was mainly confirmatory of 
 the privileges already obtained. 
 
 King Richard the First granted two charters to the City. 
 One of these was confirmatory : the second, in 1197, provides 
 for the removal of all obstructions and weirs on the river 
 Thames. This charter does not expressly grant the Con- 
 servancy of the Thames, but it may be doubted whether it 
 was not the first step towards that supremacy over the river 
 which was subsequently asserted. 
 
 King John endeavoured by all means in his power to 
 conciliate the citizens, hoping to profit by their support in 
 case of any difficulties arising as to the succession. He 
 granted them no less than five charters. The same privi- 
 leges that were in the charter of Henry the Second are 
 continued The weirs and obstructions which had again 
 appeared in the Thames and Med way are again removed. 
 The shrievalty of London and of Middlesex are re-granted at 
 the rent of £300. In 1215 a charter was granted which 
 contains the first mention of a Mayor eo namine, and the 
 Barons of the King's City of London are empowered an- 
 nually to elect a discreet man to this office. The Chamber- 
 lainship is reserved to the king. This officer was the 
 Treasurer of the King within the City, and moneys received 
 by him for forfeitures, estreats, tolls, and from other sources, 
 were paid by him into the Royal Exchequer. 
 
 In the struggle which preceded the grant of Magna 
 Charta the City sided with the barons, and when afterwards 
 the king obtained from the Pope absolution fi'om the oath 
 he swore at Runnymede to the barons and to the people the 
 
8 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 City of London at once rose in rebellion. They success- 
 fully maintained their position until the death of the 
 king. They had invited over Louis, husband of Blanche, 
 grand-daughter of Henry the Second ; but after all the king- 
 dom, save London, had recognised Henry the Third, Louis 
 returned to France, having first obtained from the guardians 
 of the young king an undertaking that they would confirm 
 the rights and privileges of the city that had treated him so 
 hospitably. Magna Charta declares that London shall 
 preserve its customs and franchises {antiquas lihertates et 
 liber as consuetudines suas), and being probably regarded by 
 the citizens as specially beneficial to the City they were pro- 
 portionately anxious to have it upheld. 
 
 During the reign of Henry the Third the City of 
 London sufi'ered much at the hands of the Crown. The 
 nine charters granted by the king were so many new 
 declarations of old but violated rights. Again and again 
 the Hberties of the City were taken away, and charter after 
 charter, granted and confirmed privileges and rights sup- 
 posed to be the inalienable possession of the citizens, but 
 of which the "life passed in a series of perjuries," — as 
 Hallam says, — required the constant re-assertion. It is 
 probably true that the citizens were rarely well-affected 
 to the king, and their open advocacy of the cause of the 
 barons would not incline him to leniency. The fifth charter 
 is confirmatory of a sale of land at Uueenhithe made by the 
 king's brother to the Corporation, and the sixth is addressed 
 for the first time to the " Mayor and Commonalty : " the 
 seventh is to the " Mayor and citizens." The last of the 
 charters granted in 1267 recites that the king had received 
 the citizens into grace and favour after transgressions by 
 which they had incurred forfeiture of life and Hmb. The 
 " consideration for this gracious proceeding was twenty 
 thousand marks." 
 
CITT CHARTERS. 
 
 London prospered under Edward the First, but she 
 quarrelled more than once with her master, and in 1284 the 
 king being offended at the haughty conduct of the Mayor 
 and citizens deposed the chief magistrate for twelve years. 
 The franchises and Hberties of the City were only restored 
 on payment of 20,000 marks. An Inspeximus Charter, 
 quoting and setting out several of the charters of Henry the 
 Third, and confirming them, was granted by the king. 
 
 In 1319 the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London 
 agreed upon certain articles for the government of the City. 
 These were submitted to Edward the Second, and being by 
 him modified and altered, they were confirmed "to be 
 perpetually observed in the City and suburbs thereof." 
 There does not seem, judging from the conduct of the 
 Corporation, to have been the smallest question as to 
 the supreme prerogative of the Crown as to all matters 
 dealt with in these articles. They provide for 
 
 The election of Mayor and Sheriffs according to old 
 
 charters ; 
 Mayoralty to be annual ; 
 Aldermen amoveable from year to year by the full 
 
 body of citizens ; 
 Assessment of Tallages and Aids not to be arbitrarily 
 
 increased by Mayor and Aldermen ; . - 
 Aliens admitted to the freedom only at Court of 
 
 Hustings ; 
 English trader only by surety of six members of the 
 
 Company of the same trade ; 
 Persons who are not in scot and lot, and who do not 
 
 partake in burdens of City, to lose their freedom ; 
 Common Seal of the City to be in custody of two 
 
 aldermen and two commoners ; 
 Judgments in City Courts not to be delayed ; 
 
10 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Weights and scales to be in custody of men elected by 
 the Communitas ; 
 
 Merchants not freemen forbidden to sell by retail in the 
 City and suburbs; 
 
 Chamberlain, Town Clerk, and Common Serjeant to be 
 elected by the Communitas, and amoved at will ; 
 
 The Lord Mayor, Aldermen, Citizens, and Commu- 
 nitas, to have power to raise moneys by taxes in the 
 City to carry out government of same : such taxes 
 to be raiseable upon their own chattels, upon the 
 mysteries, or in any other way ; 
 
 and these are to be observed in the City and suburbs for 
 the benefit of the persons inhabiting therein or resorting 
 thereunto. 
 
 In 1322 a charter of the same king recognises the pre- 
 scriptive right of the City to confine its citizens from 
 serving under arms out of the City, or from being impressed 
 for the Navy, 
 
 The first confirmatory charter of the reign of Edward 
 the Third was granted in 1328, and was granted with the 
 assent of the Parliament at Westminster, and in " con- 
 sideration of the good service rendered to the king and his 
 progenitors." The franchises of the citizens as set out in 
 Magna Charta are confirmed to them, and many of the 
 special privileges are set out at length. No attachment 
 is to bo made within the City except by officers of the City. 
 No market shall be granted by the Crown to be held within 
 seven miles of the City : the Mayor shall always be of the 
 commission for the deHvery of Newgate. 
 
 In 1336 an ordinance was made in Parliament at York, 
 enacting that all persons, irrespective of their citizenship, 
 might buy and sell wares and merchandize- in all towns and 
 cities notwithstanding any charter or statutes granted to 
 
CITY CHARTERS. 11 
 
 such place to the contrary. But the power of the City, 
 whenever its profits were in danger, was felt then as it has 
 often been felt since, and we find two years later a charter 
 by which London was excused from this excellent law. The 
 ground alleged for the exception is that Magna Charta, in the 
 sentence, " Quod civitas Lond. habeat omnes libertates suas anti- 
 quas et liheras consuetudines suas illcesas,'^ provided for the con- 
 tinuance of the custom of exclusion in London, and that it 
 was not the intention of Parhament in any way to repeal 
 Magna Charta. In 1342 the king granted another con- 
 firmatory charter, and further, that if any customs within 
 the City should be defective, the Mayor and Aldermen, with 
 the consent of the Oommunitas, should have power to ordain 
 such remedy as might be consonant with reason and good 
 faith : hence would seem to have arisen the right of altera- 
 tion of constitution or internal City legislation possessed by 
 the Corporation. 
 
 .During the reign of this king the position of the capital 
 city was well maintained, and upon one occasion four 
 sovereigns — those of England, France, Scotland, and 
 Cyprus, — partook with the Black Prince of the almost 
 regal hospitality of Henry Picard, the first Mayor to 
 whom the prefix of "Lord" was given. The citizens 
 and their rulers seem to have made plentiful use of the 
 power of petition. They petitioned Parliament for a grant 
 (or, in fact, a re-grant) of the town of Southwark, on the 
 pretence that it was the resort of malefactors and thieves 
 from the City, and that City officers could not meddle with 
 them in that asylum. This was granted.* They petitioned 
 that their Serjeants-at-Mace might carry maces of gold or 
 silver gilt, as did the King's Serjeants-at-Arms, and not as 
 hitherto of copper, and here, too, their supplication was 
 successful,! and they seem to have been constantly presenting 
 * 1 Edw. III. t 38 Edw. III. 
 
12 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 petitions against " strangers" being allowed to settle and to 
 deal in the City, contrary to the ancient franchises of the 
 City, whereby, as they allege inter alia, " the navy was im- 
 poverished and the secrets of the realm disclosed"! In the 
 last year of the king's reign, these petitions seem to have 
 been acted upon, and the king with the assent of Parliament, 
 grants to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens, that in future, 
 no stranger should be permitted to act as broker, to keep 
 hostel, or to sell by retail within the City. 
 
 Eichard the Second began his reign with the usual 
 confirmatory charter, including, upon the express prayer of 
 the citizens, the penalties of forfeiture of merchandize on 
 non-freemen trading in the City. Subsequently, in 7 Ric. II., 
 another confirmatory charter was granted. In this reign 
 the dagger was added to the City arms, in honour of the 
 slaying of Wat Tyler, by the Chief Magistrate, and the 
 wealth of the citizens was illustrated by the armament of 
 one thousand men, fitted out by Sir John Philpot, to rid the 
 north-eastern coast from Scotch privateers. The king, 
 however, imposed many exactions upon the City. London 
 gave a warm welcome to Henry the Fourth. It also sup- 
 plied him with a contingent of men, and enabled him to 
 defeat the Duke of Surrey and those conspiring with him 
 to reinstate Richard. In the first year of his reign the king 
 granted the City a full confirmatory charter exemplifying 
 and confirming many of the preceding charters, including 
 Magna Charta itself. A second charter dealt with the vexed 
 question of foreigners trading within the City. This reign 
 marked material progress in the City ; the Guildhall was 
 built ; the streets paved and first lighted with lamps ; con- 
 duit pipes were also laid down to supply the City with 
 water from Highbury and Paddington, 
 
 Henry the Fifth and Henry the Sixth granted confirm- 
 atory charters. Under a charter of the latter king the 
 
CITY CHARTERS. 13 
 
 Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen who have passed the chair, 
 are to be Justices of the Peace within the City. Fines 
 imposed in the courts of justice, treasure trove, waifs, goods 
 of felons, and all waste grounds within the City, are also 
 granted to the citizens and their successors. The rights 
 of package, carriage, and porterage of the goods of ahens 
 are also confirmed. This charter was supposed to be inva- 
 lidated in consequence of a resumption by the king, in 1448, 
 of all rights granted by letters patent during his reign. 
 
 The allegiance of the City seems to have been more con- 
 stant to the House of York than to that of Lancaster, and 
 the efficient service they rendered to Edward the Fourth did 
 not pass unrewarded. "We accordingly find this king granting 
 no less than four important charters to the City. The old 
 charters are confirmed, and many of the former grants speci- 
 fically re-granted, as that the Mayor and Aldermen past 
 the chair should be Justices of the Peace, and it is further 
 provided that they shall be Judges of Oyer and Terminer 
 within the City. Southwark, mentioned in many charters, 
 is granted with rights as full "as if the same were in the 
 king's own hands." The grant is to the Mayor, Commonalty, 
 and Citizens. In the third charter of this king, it is 
 provided that for the consideration there set out the City 
 should have the liberty to purchase in mortmain, lands and 
 tenements to the value of 200 marks per annum, the Statutes 
 of Mortmain notwithstanding. It is provided further that 
 officers appointed for collection of the various customs due 
 to the king, should be under the control of the City, thus 
 preventing royal extortion on citizens. The sum of 
 £1,923 9.S. 8d. seems to have been paid for the right to 
 purchase lands in mortmain. And £7,000, part of a larger 
 sum due to the City by the king, was released as the con- 
 sideration for the fourth charter granted in 1478. This 
 charter granted, or re-granted, the package, carriage, and 
 
14 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 portage of merchandize in London, and also the right of 
 appointing the coroner for the City, a privilege which seems 
 at that time to have belonged to the Chief Butler of England. 
 
 Henry the Seventh granted only one charter to the City, 
 and for it they were compelled to pay a large sum of money. 
 No new rights were granted by it, but a re-grant of certain 
 rights of survey, of the office of ganger, and of the rights 
 of forfeiture in case of goods or merchandize sold between non- 
 freemen, or " foreigners " — as they were caUed — within the 
 City. It also grants in specific terms to the Mayor, Com- 
 monalty, and Citizens, the government of all men within 
 the mysteries. 
 
 The jealousy against foreign intruders, which is stamped 
 upon the petitions of the citizens through so many reigns, 
 seems to have led to serious riots in the following reign, 
 and in 1515 many of the houses of foreigners within the 
 City were pillaged, and much property destroyed. Henry 
 the Eighth severely reprimanded the Mayor and Aldermen, 
 but ultimately most of the culprits were reprieved, the 
 rules of exclusion became more stringent than ever, and 
 in 1526 we find the Common Council prohibiting the import 
 of wood by foreigners, and in the following year a decree was 
 passed, that citizens trading in the goods of foreigners should 
 be disfranchised. Two charters were granted by the king, and 
 thecontrolof the City over aU weights and measures confirmed. 
 An effectual stand was made in 1525 against a Royal Benevo- 
 lence, but beyond this the City took little part in political 
 action. The wealth of the citizens largely increased under 
 the rigorous system of excluding every foreign trader : most 
 of the citizens lived within the walls, and the appearance of 
 the City improved. Moorfields was drained, and the princi- 
 pal streets were paved. The suppression of the monasteries 
 brought with it many changes, as it is estimated that two- 
 thirds of the City area was in ecclesiastical hands. St. 
 
CITT CHARTERS. 15 
 
 Bartholomew's developed into a hospital, and the monastery 
 of the Grey Friars into a school. 
 
 Edward the Sixth granted a charter in 1550, giving the 
 Lordship and Manor and the King's Manor of Southwark, 
 and re-granting the forfeitures in the same, and also granting 
 the right of appointing coroners in Southwark, and the cog- 
 nizance of pleas, and in other ways assimilating the borough 
 to the City, apparently with the intention of finally uniting 
 the two into one body. The civil jurisdiction of the City was 
 complete. Aldermen past the Chair, and the Lord Mayor, 
 were the Justices of the Peace, and the Ward of Bridge With- 
 out, with a representative Alderman, was constituted. These 
 rights seem intact, although the union of the two was never 
 completed. The High Steward and High Bailiff'* of South- 
 wark are both officers of the City. 
 
 The action of the City in Edward's reign was one of the 
 main causes of the downfall of Somerset, and in the reign of 
 Mary, the stand taken by the City against the insurrection of 
 Sir Thomas Wyatt was probably the cause of its non-success. 
 These may be taken as indications of the powerful position 
 filled by the City. Both Queen Mary and her successor granted 
 confirmatory charters, and Elizabeth received essential assist- 
 ance from the City in the time of the Spanish Armada, when 
 London fitted out and maintained at its own expense 10,000 
 men, and thirty vessels. A large sum was paid by the City to 
 Queen Mary for her assistance in prohibiting the exportation 
 of goods by foreigners in London, and in EHzabeth's reign, 
 the dangerous riots against traders led to the establishment 
 for a time of martial law in the City. 
 
 In view of this state of things, it is somewhat disedifying 
 to find James writing to the Lord Mayor from Holyrood be- 
 fore his coronation; "London, the chamber of my imperial 
 crown, has ever been free from all shadows of tumults 
 • This officer fuliils the duties of Sheriff. 
 
16 MUNICIPAL L0N1X)N. 
 
 and unlawful courses," James the First was very anxious 
 to conciliate the good will of the citizens, and during his 
 reign the king and capital were on fairly good terms : the 
 obstinacy of the latter in the matter of loans being the main 
 point of disagreement. He granted the Mayor, Citizens, and 
 Commonalty three charters. Their "prescriptive rights" to 
 the conservancy of the Medway, and of the' Thames from 
 Staines Bridge in the west to Yenfleet in the east, and their 
 control of the banks, shores, and wharves, were recited and 
 confirmed. The metage of coal, grain, salt, and fruit, in which 
 they had been " hindered," was confirmed. The second charter 
 is mainly confirmatory, but it specifically alludes to rights of 
 search and survey in articles coming to the Port of London, 
 and specifies certain districts which shall be within the juris- 
 diction of the City. All these districts are within the present 
 City boundaries. They were, in all probabiKty, the sites of 
 suppressed monasteries, and places where the City jurisdiction 
 was matter of doubt. The third charter deals with the 
 weighing and metage of coal. The corn and coal metage 
 long remained in the hands of the Corporation. 
 
 In 1638, Charles the First granted a confirmatory charter. 
 It recites and sets out nearly all the charters and patents 
 granted to the Corporation from William the Conqueror 
 downwards, and they are all confirmed and restored. The 
 title of the City to waste and reclaimed lands is confirmed. 
 Much of the title to the present house property, standing on 
 the site of the City walls, and old waste ground, seems to 
 rest on this charter. The right to hold fairs and markets in 
 West Smithfield is confirmed. The possession of Moorfields 
 for the pubhc use is confirmed ; but by virtue of an Act of 
 Parliament, in 1812, this public playground was covered with 
 houses. Many of the specific privileges of the City are also 
 set out and re-granted. The widows of freemen are entitled 
 to carry on as widows, their husbands' trades in the City. 
 
Crri CHARTERS. 17 
 
 And the old provision that no market shall be granted, 
 erected, or allowed by the Crown, '^ infra septem leucas in 
 circuitu civitaiis" is specially re-granted. Right is also 
 given to purchase and build upon five acres in the parish of 
 St. Giles, notwithstanding the Statutes of Mortmain. 
 
 A general Inspeximus Charter was granted in 1641. The 
 City had been grudging in the supplies granted to Charles. 
 When he applied for a loan of £100,000, to aid him in his 
 projected war against France and Spain, the City refused to 
 aid him, but were ultimately compelled to furnish twenty 
 ships. In 1634, to the claim for ship money, the Common 
 Council, relying on the City charters, returned no satisfactory 
 answer ; but by dint of confiscation, and of the imprisonment 
 of the Lord Mayor, Sherifis, and four Aldermen, the City 
 was brought to terms. The king had also, in consequence of 
 a riot, threatened the withdrawal of all the City charters. But 
 London struck a notable blow for Liberty during this stormy 
 reign, when the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, Common Council- 
 lors, and leading Citizens presented a petition to the king 
 for the redress of grievances under which the people suffered : 
 grievances, as they believed, contrary to the law of England, 
 and for the summoning of a Parliament. The grievances of 
 ship money, monopolies, imprisonment of citizens, constant 
 dismissal of Parliaments, acts of the Star Chamber, &c., were 
 duly set out and enlarged upon. The king promised to 
 summon a Parliament, and forthwith the City presented a 
 petition setting out twenty-eight different grievances under 
 which they suffered, and petitioned the House of Lords for 
 the impeachment of Strafford. 
 
 The credit due to the City for this public-spirited course is 
 by no means her due in all the acts of this period of her history. 
 She early deserted the cause of the king, and subscribed 
 £10,000 a week to the support of the Parliamentary forces. 
 But so far as exactions went, she found her new allies more ex- 
 
 6 
 
18 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 acting than her legal sovereign. No charters were granted to 
 the City during the period of the Commonwealth ; hut the 
 welcome accorded to the Protector in 1654 was certainly not 
 less effusive than that given to sovereigns of royal line. 
 The allegiance of London was easily changed, and she 
 hlazed with illuminations to welcome Charles the Second. 
 From Breda he had written a special letter full of good 
 promises, and soon after his arrival we find him confirming the 
 grant of the Ulster Estates. In 1663 he granted to the City 
 the last of its general charters. It is a most comprehensive 
 document, and recites and sets forth nearly all the previous 
 charters granted to the City, and in the fullest possible manner 
 confirms them. This Inspeximus Charter of Charles the 
 Second is by some regarded as the most valuable of the City 
 charters. But in the later years of the king's reign, when the 
 minds of the citizens were alienated by that hatred of Popery, 
 and of the Duke of York, which was fast becoming common to 
 the whole kingdom, the "privileges and rights" built and 
 buttressed up in so many charters and royal grants were first 
 encroached on, and then forfeited. The encroachment began 
 with thearrogationbythe Crownof the appointment of Sheriff, 
 whereby the justice of verdicts was no longer ensured by 
 impartially-summoned jurymen. This was followed by the 
 forfeiture of the rights of the City in the famous "Quo 
 Warranto" case. The grounds of forfeiture alleged were the 
 presentation of a seditious petition by the Common Council, 
 and the estabHshment of certain toUs on the rebuilding of the 
 markets after the fire, "whereby they had not only scandal- 
 ized the King's Government, but had oppressed their fellow 
 subjects." The very charge seems to have been in opposi- 
 tion to the terms of several of the charters, that the customs 
 and rights should continue, whether " rightly used or abused," 
 or even "not used at all." However, either the City really 
 believed they were in error, or were cowardly and time-serving, 
 
CITY CHARTERS. 19 
 
 or else they knew and recognized that their charters were 
 purely dependent upon the will of the sovereign ; for at no 
 long time subsequent we find them on their knees before the 
 king at Windsor, both confessing their faults and acknowledgin'g 
 the justice of their sentence. There was, however, no re- 
 grant of their charters, and during the remainder of this reign 
 the subjection of London, and other to whs in similar case, 
 was complete. 
 
 James the Second began his reign with a prosecution of 
 Alderman Cornish for treason. This citizen was executed 
 for an offence of which he was afterwards proven to be 
 innocent : the victim of the king's pique against a sup- 
 porter of the Exclusion Bill. James made no attempt to 
 conciliate the citizens of his capital until news of the invita- 
 tion sent to William of Orange impelled him to offer them a 
 re-grant of the forfeited charters. But disaffection had gone 
 too far, and negotiations- were already entered into ■nith 
 William of Orange. A loan of £200,000 was guaranteed ; 
 one citizen contributing £60,000. 
 
 The first Parliament of William and Mary amply repaid 
 the City for the trouble that they had undergone. The 
 2 William and Mary, Sess. 1, c. 8, declares that the Mayor, 
 Commonalty, and Citizens of London should for ever remain a 
 body corporate and politic : that they should enjoy aU the rights, 
 charters, liberties, franchises, customs, prescriptions, markets, 
 tolls, &c., that they enjoyed before the ** Quo Warranto " 
 judgment, and pretended forfeiture : the proceedings on the 
 said judgment were declared illegal and arbitrary : and 
 all the acts of Charles and James, prejudicial to the interests 
 of the City, null and void. The effect of this statute 
 appears to be to relegate the City to the possession 
 of the same rights as it enjoyed under the great Inspeximus 
 Charter of Charles the Second, with the additional sanction 
 of Parliament, — and so far as respects the rights and privileges 
 
20 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of the City, this is the statute upon which they now rest. 
 Two minor charters in 4 William and Mary, and 15 George 
 II., affecting the magistracy in the City, and extending the 
 same to all Aldermen, are the only subsequent charters 
 granted. They in no way modify the statute of 2 William 
 and Mary. As that statute does not set out in terms the rights 
 and privileges re-granted, or — to speak more strictly — de- 
 clared never to have been taken away, we have to derive a 
 conception of their present effect from a number of documents. 
 The Report of the Commissioners of 1854* well illus- 
 trates and defines the position : — " The City of London has 
 no governing charter, in which respect it differs from many 
 of the EngHsh Corporations. It is true that the great In- 
 speximus Charter of Charles the Second recites and includes 
 almost all the former ones, but it gives no explanation of 
 them. It collects them, but does nothing towards their in- 
 terpretation. There is no authoritative exposition of the 
 multifarious rights and privileges, many of which are said 
 to be founded on the language of these charters. Hence 
 arises much uncertainty as to the meaning of the charters 
 themselves. A document of the simplest and shortest kind 
 may be put forward as the legal basis of rights the most 
 various and important : and the apparently simple and 
 obvious meaning of a charter may be controlled by usages 
 affecting its import. There are likewise difl&culties inherent 
 in the documents themselves, which render it desirable that 
 the whole subject should be put upon a clearer and more 
 satisfactory footing. The brevity of the ancient charters, 
 the antiquity of the language in which they are couched, and 
 the vagueness resulting from the use of concise and general 
 expressions, make it often a hard matter accurately to define 
 their meaning. They refer often to a state of things which 
 
 * " Report of Commissioners api3oiii<^ed to inquire into the state of 
 the Corporation of London," p. 15. 
 
CITY CHARTEES. 21 
 
 has wholly passed away, and their language has to be ex- 
 plained often through the doubtful meaning of antiquarian re- 
 search. It is also often uncertain what charters, and what 
 portions of charters, are actually in force ; how far a subse- 
 quent charter repeals or interferes with the provisions of a 
 former charter : a question depending upon the intentions of 
 those who gave and received the charter many centuries ago, 
 and obviously full of doubt and obscurity. There is also the 
 further question as to the alteration effected in the authority 
 of customs and charters of the City, by general Acts of Parha- 
 ment, in which the City is not specially named. The customs 
 of the City having been solemnly confirmed by Act of 
 Parliament, have themselves the force of an Act of Parliament, 
 and we have been told in evidence, by witnesses peculiarly 
 conversant with the subject, that the highest legal authori- 
 ties are divided as to the effect of general Acts of Parliament 
 within the City, when they conflict with the City customs 
 and do not repeal them by express enactment." 
 
 Probably, this is as exact an exposition of the anomalous 
 position in which the City stands, as to its privileges, as 
 could weU be given. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at 
 that whilst the City is constant in its assertion and enforce- 
 ment of its privileges — upon which it puts its o\vn construc- 
 tion — it is equally reticent of producing its title to them. 
 A standing order of the Common Council provides that no 
 officer of the Court may show the books or records of the 
 Corporation without leave, to any one not a member of the 
 Corporation ; and when any of their claims are put in issue, 
 they resist the discovery of their charters and authorities to 
 the last.* Under the circumstances, perhaps, it is the wisest 
 
 * See evidence of Mr. Delafield quoted in " Repoit of Commissioners 
 on Corporation," pp. 70-74. The case here alluded to. of " The Corpora- 
 tion of London v. Combe & Co-T raised the question of the right to the 
 metage and portage of corn landed on the banks of the Thames, 
 anywhere between Staines and Yantlet Creek in Kent. The answers 
 
22 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 policy for the City to pursue, as it is quite possible that 
 a clear examination of their charters might lessen their 
 privileges seriously. 
 
 The difficulties which existed in 1854 exist still, there is 
 the same doubt as to the construction of the charters, the 
 same reluctance in producing them : the same enforcement 
 of very doubtful rights, and the same difficulty for citizens in 
 ascertaining how far the claims are justifiable. The proper 
 method of dealing with these multifarious and comj)lex charters 
 would appear to be to repeal them all, and to grant to a 
 new MimicipaHty an Incorporating or Governing Charter, in 
 which should be embodied such of the privileges and rights 
 as it may be desirable to conserve. The "customs" of the 
 City, if preserved at all, would also be embodied in the same 
 instrument. 
 
 Lord Coke, nearly three hundred years ago, WTote : " to 
 treat of the great and notable franchises, liberties, and 
 customs of the City of London, would require a volume in 
 itself," and their number has been largely added to since his 
 day. The preceding summary contains nearly aU of much 
 importance, and certainly aU that have any practical bearing 
 upon the present government of the City. 
 
 of the City to a Bill of discovery of documents, were twice excepted 
 to, and when an order was made for production, it was appealed to 
 the Lord Chancellor, and then to the House of Lords. Fortunately, in 
 this case, the defendants were men of capital and they were successful. 
 When the Corporation found that the production of original muni- 
 ments of title was needful, they withdrew J rom the claim. 'We may add 
 that the compulsory metage of grain was commuted under the provisions 
 of the Act 35 & 36 Vict, c. 100 (see chapter on City Eeceipts and Expen- 
 diture, infra). In like manner the difficulties as to the chartered rights 
 of Package, Scavage, BaUlage, and Porterage, were removed by the pur- 
 chase of these rights by the Exchequer in 1835. The sum paid was 
 ii'163,000, being mure than thirty years' purchase. 
 
« 
 
 23 
 
 Chapter II. 
 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 
 The origin of the Corporation. — The present Constitution of 
 the Corporation. — The Lord Mayor : history, duty, 
 and powers of his office. — The Aldermen : their history 
 and functions. — The Court of Aldermen : its work. — The 
 Common Councillors : their origin, election, ^c. — The 
 Court of Common Council : its work. 
 
 The earliest period at which anything at all analogous 
 to a Corporation can be said to have existed in London, was 
 during the reign of Richard the First. We may take a Town 
 Corporation to be a body of persons with perpetual succes- 
 sion ; a mayoralty ; a common seal ; and an established 
 and continuous body of officers : and tried by this test we 
 cannot regard London as a Corporation till a date subse- 
 quent to this reign. Probably, the whole body of citizens 
 united in some manner amongst themselves for the payment 
 of general imposts including the large sums paid for the 
 early charters. These charters were, with the exception of 
 the charter of WilHam the First, addressed to the " citizens 
 of London," or the "men of London." The first mention of 
 the word " Mayor," as applied to the Governor or Port- 
 reeve, was in the time of Richard the First. The City was 
 divided into various bodies, for different purposes ; but the 
 "ward," as we understand the term, had not come into 
 existence, and, probably, the City was not finally divided into 
 wards before the reign of Edward the First. There is no 
 record of a Common Seal before Henry the Third, and 
 without a Common Seal no community could well exercise 
 
24 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 and pursue the rights accruing to them as owners. The 
 earliest time to which the possession of landed property in 
 the Corporation can be traced, is 1235. In this year, 
 Walter de Bruin, a farrier, bequeathed the land known as 
 " the Forge," in St. Clement's Lane, to the City, to hold 
 by the same service as he rendered to the Crown, from 
 whom he had purchased it.* In 1377 there is another 
 record of the City dealing in its corporate capacity with 
 land, and, probably, it had exercised a jurisdiction over 
 public lands, and waste, long before this. We have already 
 noted the charter of Henry the Third confirming the sale 
 of certain lands at Queenhithe to the Corporation.! 
 
 In the time of Henry the Third, the meeting of the 
 citizens was still in the Folkmote at Paul's Cross, and the 
 Sherifis, Aldermen, and Magistrates regularly attended there. 
 The form of City government, as we now know it, was 
 not complete till the reign of Richard the Second, but in 
 Edward the First's reign, the "aldermanries," "sokes," 
 and other territorial divisions of the City seem to have 
 disappeared, and thenceforward the divisions were known 
 as " wards." The word was not unknown in City history 
 before this reign, but probably this was the first division 
 made of districts for purposes of City government. 
 
 In the reign of Edward the Second, a remarkable 
 change was made in what may be called the " con- 
 stituency " of the City. Up to this time, inhabitation in 
 the City, and frankpledge, seem to have been the basis of 
 all Municipal privileges. It was so, probably, under the 
 Conqueror, and it was declared by the citizens to the 
 Justices in Eyre, in 1229, " Sciendum autem etiam quod 
 
 * This service is six horseshoes and sixty-one nails, which was a very 
 probable service for a farrier. The same are rendered every year by the 
 City to the Queen's Kemembrancer ; formerly they were paid into the 
 Exchequer. 
 
 t Vide chap, i., p. H, supra. 
 
ORIGIN OF CORPORATION. 26 
 
 major et cives dicunt quod nullus potest esse in civitate ut 
 civis et ut maneat in civitate et legem civitatis haheat, ultra 
 tres nodes nisi inveniat duos plegios et sic est in franco 
 plegio." But by an ordinance agreed upon by the 
 Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens, and ratified by the king, a 
 great change was effected. We have dealt with the provi- 
 sions of this ordinance more at length in the chapter on 
 City Charters. The provision affecting our present purpose 
 is, that no person should be admitted to Municipal rights, or 
 the freedom of the City, unless he were a member of some 
 trade or mystery. Thus the residential basis of freedom 
 was changed for the mercantile. An able writer on the 
 City franchises, says : — " This revolution appears, in a 
 political point of view, the greatest inroad upon the 
 genuine principles of the English Constitution which has 
 ever been made."* By the 49 Edw. III., all City officers 
 were to be elected by the Livery Companies or their 
 nominees; but in 1384 this provision, so far as it regarded 
 the election of Common Councillors, was nullified, and 
 each " ward " sent four members to the general legislative 
 City Assembly. The election of the other City officers 
 remained upon the footing established in 1376 until one 
 century later, ''^ when the election of corporate officers, and 
 Members of Parliament, was extended to the body of 
 liverymen of the various Companies associated with the 
 Common Council. This was the first time that the free- 
 dom of a Company conferred the franchise. Some of the 
 Companies had enjoyed it in a certain delegated way, with a 
 power of selection amongst their nominees, vested in the 
 Mayor ; but in 1475 the electoral power of the members of 
 the Companies was complete. 
 
 • Vide Norton's " Commentaries on the City of London," 3rd ed., 
 Longmans, 1869, p. 103. 
 t 15 Edw. IV. 
 
26 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 In 1725 an Act of Parliament was passed* whereby all 
 freemen paying scot and lot, and £10 a year rent, should be 
 the electors for Aldermen and Common Councillors. By an 
 Act passed in 1849,f the right of voting was given to every 
 sole occupier of the value of £10, and joint occupiers of the 
 same relative amount, and by 30 Vict., c. l.,jpassed in 1867, 
 it was enacted that it should no longer be essential that these 
 electors should be free of the City. The electoral body 
 being now assimilated to that for Members of Parliament, 
 includes the Household and Lodger franchise. But these 
 alterations apply only to the election of Aldermen and Com- 
 mon Councillors. The Livery Companies are still the only 
 members of the governing body, known as the Common 
 Hall, and they were confirmed in their privileges by the Act 
 of 1725. The Common Hall has in its hands the election 
 of various City ofi&cers, including the Mayor, the Chamber- 
 lain, the Bridge Masters, and the Auditors of the City 
 accounts. 
 
 The Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 regulate the elec- 
 toral body voting for Members of Parliament. The former 
 restricted the Liveryman suffrage by confining it to livery- 
 men who were also free by birth or servitude, and who 
 resided within twenty-five miles of the City, and conferred 
 it on £10 householders generally. The latter Act added 
 the Household and Lodger franchise. 
 
 The Lord Mayor of London is the head of the Corpora- 
 tion. He is the modern representative of the Port-gerefa or 
 Portreeve, who under the Norman kings presided at the 
 Folkmote and the great Hustings Court, and was the chief 
 magistrate of the City. In the time of Richard the First 
 the title of this chief officer was changed to Mayor, as would 
 appear from cotemporary City records. In the fourth 
 * 11 Geo. I., c. 18. t 13 & 13 Vict., c. 94. 
 
THE LORD MAYOR. 27 
 
 charter of John, allusion is made to the "Mayor and 
 citizens," and in the fifth charter of the same king it is de- 
 clared that the king " has granted and confirmed to the 
 'harons' of London the right of choosing a Mayor every 
 year, and at the end of the year of amoving him and substi- 
 tuting another if they will, or electing the same again. He 
 is to be presented to the king or his justice in his absence, 
 and is to swear to be faithful to the king."* The word 
 "barons " in this charter was probably co-extensive in its 
 meaning with citizens paying scot and lot, and at this time, 
 therefore, the constituency was a large one. 
 
 The election of Mayor gave rise to serious riots in the 
 reign of Edward the First, by reason of which the king 
 appointed a custos over the City. The broad constituency 
 indicated by the charter of John had narrowed down till the 
 election of chief magistrate rested in the hands of selected 
 members of each ward. The selection was made by the 
 Mayor himself, and in 1298 we find this officer elected by the 
 Aldermen and certain Commoners summoned from each ward. 
 The method of selecting electors produced serious evils in the 
 reign of Edward the Second, the same man being selected year 
 after year ; and accordingly in 1347, by the ordinance con- 
 vening members of each ward for deliberative purposes, it is 
 provided that a certain number, according to its size, should 
 be selected by each ward annually to meet and elect the Lord 
 Mayor, Sheriflfs, and other officers. It does not, however, 
 seem that the whole of the persons so elected by the citizens 
 formed the elective body, but a number selected from them 
 by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. And this body, more- 
 
 * In 1253, by virtue of the seventh charter of Henry the Third, the 
 customaroseof presenting the Mayor before the Barons of the Exchequer at 
 Westminster, to be sworn in when the Idng was absent, and of being pre- 
 sented to the monarch on his return to the capital. The presentation is 
 now made in the first instance to the Lord Chancellor, who signifies the 
 royal assent, and the oath of oflice is afterwards taken before the barons 
 at Westminster. 
 
38 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 over, "would seem to have differed from the men selected for 
 the deHberative Common Council. Great objection was 
 taken to the power of selection as exercised, and at an 
 assembly of the citizens in 1376 it was enacted that in 
 future the members elected should be the same both for 
 electoral and deliberative purposes, and that instead of being 
 elected by the wards, they should be nominated by the 
 Trading Companies. At this time, therefore, the Lord 
 Mayor became chosen by the nominees of the London 
 Trading Guilds, It would appear that it was in this reign 
 that he first assumed the title of "Lord." 
 
 In 1384 the arrangement as to elections was again changed 
 by the citizens ; and the body to whom was deputed the over- 
 sight of general corporate affairs was once more chosen by 
 the wards ; but the Lord Mayor continued to be elected by 
 certain men summoned by him from the nominees of the 
 Trading Companies for the purpose, down to 1467, when it 
 was provided that the election of the Lord Mayor and 
 Sheriffs should be in the Common Council aided by the 
 Master and Wardens of each Trading Company. In 1475 
 the whole of the liverymen of the Trading Companies 
 were admitted to this franchise. They exercised it in 
 Common HaU, and it was only subject to the hmitation 
 that they must be freemen of the City. And from 
 this date, for 250 years, down to 1725,^ the election of 
 the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and some of the other corporate 
 ofiGicers, was conducted by the Uverymen of the Companies, 
 assisted by the Common Council. In this year a statute 
 was passed to regulate the elections in the City, and it is 
 therein declared that every person before he is admitted to 
 poU for the Mayor and certain other officers shall take oath 
 or affirmation that he is a freeman of London, and a H very- 
 man of a Company. The Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Chamberlain, 
 * 11 Geo. I., c. 18. 
 
THE LORD MAYOR. 29 
 
 and some other officers of the Corporation, are still elected by 
 those who are freemen of the City, and on the livery of a 
 Company. It is not needful that these electors should live or 
 have any interest of any kind within the City. 
 
 The Lord Mayor is elected from the Aldermen who have 
 served as Sheriff. Of the twenty-six A Idermen now in office 
 sixteen have passed the chair, and each of those who has not 
 passed the chair, with one exception, has filled the office of 
 Sheriff. The method of election consists in the nomination 
 of two persons by liverymen who are free of the City, and, 
 secondly, of the selection from the nominated two of one to fiU 
 the office. The day of election has been the 29th of September 
 for some 300 j^'ears. Early in themonth the Lord Mayor issues a 
 precept to the Masters and Wardens of the Livery Companies, 
 summoning the liverymen to attend the Guildhall for purposes 
 of election. The Recorder explains to the assembly so brought 
 together the object of the meeting. The Aldermen, Lord 
 Mayor, and Recorder retire, or are supposed to do so, and 
 the Sheriffs and Common Serjeant remain. This latter 
 functionary is the spokesman of the Common Hall. The 
 Common Crier reads over the names of all the Aldermen 
 below the chair who have filled the office of Sheriff. Any 
 Alderman above the chair may then be proposed by two of 
 the electors. A show of hands is taken for each of those so 
 proposed, and for the Aldermen who have not passed the 
 chair. The Sheriff declares the names of the two Aldermen 
 having a majority, and in case of dispute a poll is taken. 
 The result is announced to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen 
 by the Common Serjeant. The Aldermen and the Mayor, 
 with the Recorder, are supposed to be then assembled, and 
 after the Common Serjeant has made his announcement, the 
 Aldermen beginning with the one last elected, and ending 
 with the Mayor, vote for one or other of the two nominees of 
 the Common Hall. The nominees may vote for themselves, 
 
30 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 and the Lord Mayor has a casting vote. The quomm of 
 Aldermen for this purpose is thii'teen. The Recorder then de- 
 clares upon whom the choice has fallen. The person elected 
 then accepts or declines the office. The Recorder returns to 
 the Common Hall, and announces to the liverymen the 
 result. Almost invariably the two persons selected by the 
 Common Hall are the two senior Aldermen' who have not 
 passed the chair, and so the senior one of the two is 
 generally the elect of the Aldermen. Practically, the 
 Common Hall can force any candidate upon the Aldermen. 
 The person elected must, in default of good excuse, pay a 
 fine of £1,000 ; but no person who has served once can be 
 compelled to serve again. 
 
 The Lord Mayor elect is presented to the Lord Chan- 
 cellor in lieu of the king, and on the 8th of November he is 
 sworn in before the remaining Aldermen and the Lord 
 Mayor. He is then presented to the Judges at Westminster. 
 If he die during his year of office, another Mayor, frequently 
 the senior Alderman, is elected and sworn in. The Lord 
 Mayor may appoint a lociim tenens from amongst the 
 Aldermen who have passed the chair. 
 
 The Lord Mayor of London is Lord Lieutenant within 
 the City. He is Chief Butler at the Coronation. He has 
 certain duties which he is expected to perform towards the 
 Government of the day, kings, princes, or other distinguished 
 foreigners visiting the countrj% and more or less towards 
 other corporations. He represents the City on great occa- 
 sions, and is expected to exercise a dignified hospitality 
 befitting his high position. 
 
 He is the chief depository of the privileges, and assertor 
 of the rights of the City. Thus, in strict law, he was the 
 Meter of coal, salt, and fruit ; the Clerk of the Markets, 
 and the Gauger of wine and oil. He was also formerly the 
 Conservator of the Thames and Admiral of the Port, but 
 
THE ALDERMEN. 31 
 
 many of these offices are lessened in importance or abolished, 
 and most of them can be performed by deputy. 
 
 He is a Justice of Oyer and Terminer, and a Justice of 
 the Peace for the City. He is ex-qfficio chairman of the 
 Court of Aldermen, the Court of Common Council, and the 
 Court of Common Hall. 
 
 He is provided with officers suitable to his position ; with 
 a mansion house ; with the user of some £40,000 worth of 
 gold and silver plate ; with a regal coach; and with £10,000 
 per annum as a contribution to the expense of his year of 
 office. ., 
 
 The word " Ealderman" was applied by the Anglo-Saxons 
 to people in command ; sometimes to those in command of a 
 province, appointed and removeable by the king, and subse- 
 quently to those exercising minor jurisdictions. After the 
 Conquest, the territorial divisions known as "sokes," or 
 " gilds," were presided over by Aldermen : distinct mention 
 of this is made in the reign of Henry the Second. In the 
 time of Edward the First the district, so ruled, began to be 
 called a " ward," and seems to have included a court leet 
 exercising certain criminal jurisdiction.* At first the 
 Aldermen were elected by the inhabitants of the soke, but 
 in temp. Hy. III. the office became hereditary. Sub- 
 sequently, this was changed, and, under Edward the 
 Second, they were amoveable yearly by the Oommunitas ; 
 but Edward the Third, by an order in Council, made 
 
 * The importance attached throughout all England to this office, may 
 be surmised from the language of Stow— " This name of true dignity 
 declareth the most eminent degree of magistracy, and it doth extend 
 through all England in cities, towns, and corporations, in which, some- 
 times, the Alderman is sole and chief. Even so in the chief city of the 
 land ; in London, the Metropolis of Great Britain ; the mother of 
 authentic memory ; the ancient and eke the modern seat of her royalty, 
 yea, the very chamber royal of majesty ; the open haven of merchandize ; 
 the storehouse of commerce : the safe asylum of peace and plenty." 
 
82 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 them irremoveable without cause, and this was confirmed 
 by the 17 Ric. II., c. II, in 1394, and so remains to the 
 present day. Aldermen, therefore, hold ofiice for life.* The 
 senior Alderman now living was elected in 1842. 
 
 After various changes, the present electoral body, by 
 whom the Aldermen in each ward are elected, is the same 
 as that by whom Common Councillors are chosen. It was 
 regulated by the 11 Geo. I., c. 18, and extended by the 
 12 & 13 Vict., c. 94, and the 30 Yict., c. 1, the last 
 of which Acts takes away the freeman qualification and 
 confers the franchise upon all who are entitled to vote 
 for Members of Parliament, The qualifications of electors 
 for Aldermen are now three, viz. — (1) The sole occupation 
 of a building of £10 annual value, or a joint occupation 
 representing a proportionate value ; (2) Household suffrage 
 where rates are paid ; (3) Lodger franchise where the 
 lodging is of the value of £10 per annum or upwards. 
 An eminent authority on City franchises,! schedules the 
 qualifications as above, and an examination of the Acts 
 seems to justify his conclusions ; but the clauses of the 30 
 Vict.,c. 1, are somewhat inconsistent, and we are informed 
 that it is construed as extending the franchise to those only 
 who are separately rated, and that much consequent dis- 
 satisfaction exists in the City. Such a construction of the 
 statutes is, however, as we think, wrong. 
 
 The present method of election is as follows : | — Within 
 fourteen days from the happening of a vacancy in the body 
 of Aldermen, the Lord Mayor issues a precept to the Common 
 Councillors summoning a wardmote, in the vacated 
 ward, for the election of a successor. This summons is 
 
 * It would, however, appear that pledges to vacate the post in case of 
 insolvency have been exacted from candidates. — Vide kvidence of 0. 
 Pearson, Esq., before the Commissioners of 1854. Ans. 8477. 
 
 t Norton's " Commentaries," 3rd. ed., 1869, p. 251. 
 
 J As to foi-mer method, vide "Liber Albus," by Riley, p. 34. 
 
THE ALDERMEN. 33 
 
 served on each elector. The candidate must be a freeman, 
 and this is now the only limitation. Residence within the 
 ward or within the City is not needful. Within seven days 
 after the election, the Lord Mayor announces the result to 
 the Court of Aldermen, and the new Alderman is sworn in. 
 The fine upon non-acceptance of office, on election, is 
 £500, but it would seem that no fine is imposed where the 
 elected Alderman swears that he is not worth £30,000.^ 
 
 Aldermen are permitted to appoint deputies — generally 
 the senior member of the Court of Common Coimcil in the 
 ward. The old Aldermanic powers of governing the ward, 
 and controlling the conduct of a£tairs within it, is now 
 almost gone. Formerly, he was supposed to know every in- 
 habitant in his ward ; to-day he often knows very few, 
 Formerly he controlled the police, the streets, the taverns, 
 weights and measures, and so forth, but these are now all 
 taken from him save his voice in licensing applications, and 
 beyond certain ministerial functions at the wardmote, nothing 
 is put in their place. Since 1829 every Alderman has been an 
 ex-qfficio Justice of the Peace, and he attends at the Guild- 
 hall Justice Room according to arrangement. He is also 
 liable to attend at the Central Criminal Court. Aldermen 
 who have passed the chair are Justices in Southwark. 
 
 Aldermen are members of the Court of Common Coun- 
 cil, and of the Court of Aldermen, and have certain privi- 
 leges and exemptions. There are at present twenty-six 
 Aldermen, being one for each ward ; of these, sixteen have 
 passed the chair. The wards are : — 
 
 Aldgate. Aldersgate. 
 
 Cripplegate. Candlewick. 
 
 Billingsgate. Castle Baynard. 
 
 Tower. Langbourn. 
 
 • This sum was increased in 1812, from £16,000, at which it had stood 
 for a hundred years. 
 
 C 
 
34 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Bridge Without. Cordwainer. 
 
 Bridge Within. Bassishaw. 
 
 Cornhill. Lime Street. 
 
 Queenhithe. Bishopsgate Within. 
 
 Bread Street. Portsoken. 
 
 Farringdon Without. Dowgate. 
 
 Farringdon Within. Coleman Street. 
 
 Yintry. Broad Street. 
 
 Cheap. Walbrook. 
 
 The first united legislative action of the Aldermen would 
 appear to have taken place early in the reign of King Henry 
 the Third,"^ and in the reign of Edward the Third certain 
 powers seem to have been conferred upon the Mayor, 
 Sheriffs, and Aldermen for the rule of the City. 
 
 The body thus constituted is still in existence : its fuU title 
 is the Court of the Mayor and Aldermen in the Inner Chamber. 
 The Mayor is ex-officio chairman ; all the Aldermen are 
 members ; and the quorum appears to be twelve. The 
 Recorder, Common Serjeant, and Chamberlain are also 
 expected to be present at the sittings of the Court. These 
 sittings occupy twenty to thirty days in every year. The 
 Court is called together by the Lord Mayor upon certain days 
 fixed at the beginning of each year, and upon additional 
 days when summoned. 
 
 Its functions are elective, magisterial, judicial, and legis- 
 lative. It elects the Recorder, the Steward of Southwark, 
 the clerk to the Lord Mayor, and the assistant-clerk, the 
 cashier and accountant, the clerk to the sitting Justices and 
 the assistant-clerk, and the cashier and accountant. The aggre- 
 gate salaries of these officials are somewhat over £5,000 a year. 
 
 The Court is the Bench of Magistrates for the City. It 
 is the licensing body, and decides upon questions affecting 
 the election of Aldermen, Common Councillors, and others. 
 * See PuUiBg's " Laws of London," 2nd ed., p. 32. 
 
THE AJ.DEBMEN. 35 
 
 It admits brokers,* and is the body to whom all questions 
 affecting the freedom of the City are referred. 
 
 The Court has a certain control over the City cash ; may 
 order the preparation of Bills for ParHament ; has a 
 superintendence over police and prisons ; and other duties 
 and powers, some of which are concurrent, if not conflicting, 
 with those of the Common Council, and none of which are 
 accurately ascertained or defined. The proceedings of the 
 Court are, as a rule, only reported in the Journals of the 
 Court, and in occasional authorized newspaper paragraphs. 
 
 The Court of Aldermen formerly exercised considerable 
 control over the City Companies, but this is now almost 
 entirely abandoned. It has, however, recently claimed to 
 exercise the anomalous and extraordinary privilege of en- 
 larging the constituency of the City, irrespective of residence, 
 interest, or any of the local claims which go to make up the 
 ordinary citizen. The power of the City Companies to admit 
 new members to freedom is well known, and the constitu- 
 tional right of every person practising the art, whose name 
 they bear, to admission within them, is we beHeve clear ; but 
 in certain cases the number of the members of a Company 
 is limited, and as many of the older Companies decline to 
 admit any more freemen, the Court claims to exercise the 
 privilege of extending the number when requested so to do. 
 
 In 1656, OHver Cromwell granted a charter of incorpora- 
 tion to the needle-makers of the City of London. This 
 charter was treated as invalid in the following reign, and a 
 new charter granted in 1664, upon the petition of divers 
 
 * Application for admission to practise as a broker within the City is 
 made by the broker in person. He may be questioned by the Court as to 
 his antecedents, and he must produce a certiticate signed by six respect- 
 able persons as to his character. If admitted, he enters into a bond with 
 sureties for the due performance of his duties, payment of his rent, and 
 good behaviour. The office is held during the pleasure of the Court, and 
 the juriadiction appears to be coeval with the practice of broking. 
 
36 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 persons using the mystery of needle-makers, and because of 
 the prevalence of improper practices in the trade.* But it 
 was not until 1712 that the Municipal rights of the members 
 were recognized. These rights were granted by an order of 
 the Court of Aldermen, dated the 10th of March in that 
 year, the reason alleged being that there were " divers 
 eminent and worthy citizens free of the City, and free of 
 that Company only," sufficient in number to make up a 
 Livery. The number was limited to 50. The fine for 
 admission to the Livery was increased at various times, and 
 for more than fifty years, from 1779, stood at £6 19s. But 
 in March 1874, the Court gave permission to increase the 
 Livery to 100, the fine then standing at £19 19s. In the 
 year of grace 1875, the fee is raised to £26 55., and the 
 number of the Livery increased to 200. Thus, 150 persons 
 have been authorized by the Court to purchase the citizen- 
 ship of London, by becoming members of a Company es- 
 tablished for the protection of " British needle manufacture," 
 but which has now no more connection with needle making 
 than with any other honest trade. 
 
 This creation of "faggot" votes (as Alderman Lusk 
 aptly termed them) was defended in the House of Commons 
 by Mr. Cross, in answer to Mr. Rathbone, on the ground 
 that it was an " ancient custom " which had never been 
 perverted to political uses.f 
 
 There are Committees of the Court for the despatch of 
 special business, and many of the payments out of the City's 
 cash are made by its order. 
 
 Amongst their privileges it would seem that when the 
 Court presents a petition to the Sovereign, they are entitled 
 
 * 9th February, 16 Car. ii. 
 
 f When the question was debated before the Court, Sir Francis 
 Truscott answering Sir Benjamin Phillips, taunted the opponents of 
 this extension with being " all Liberal in politics." — Vide Report in 
 Times, June 1875. 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL. 37 
 
 to have it received by such Sovereign when seated upon the 
 Throne ; if it be to the House of Commons, then to have it 
 presented by the Sheriffs at the bar of such House. 
 
 In the reign of Edward the First, a custom arose of 
 electing " assistants" to the Aldermen, probi homines, from 
 the several wards. These deputies began to take an active 
 part in the government of the City, and in 1347 an ordi- 
 nance was passed at the assembly of the citizens, whereby 
 a number of citizens, proportionate to the population, 
 should be annually chosen from each ward, for the purpose 
 of "deHberating on the common interests of the City." 
 The choice at this time rested with the citizens of each 
 ward, but a certain selecting power was exercised by the 
 Lord Mayor and Aldermen, from amongst those who were 
 elected, and only a portion of them were actually summoned 
 to the deliberative Council. In 1376 the method of ward 
 election and of selection by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen 
 was abohshed, and it was decreed by the assembly of the 
 citizens that the Coancil should be nominated by the Trad- 
 ing Companies, each Company, according to its size, sending 
 delegates to vote. Forty-eight "mysteries" appear to have 
 sent delegates to the first of such elections, but in the fol- 
 lowing year the Mayor only summoned delegates from thirteen 
 of the Companies. The citizens were soon dissatisfied with 
 the new system, and, in 1384, the immensa communitas of 
 the citizens gave the electoral power, so far as it related to 
 members of the deliberative Council, to the wards once 
 more. It was provided that four members in each ward 
 should be annually elected, as a kind of Standing Com- 
 mittee. The meeting of this Standing Committee was the 
 deliberative Common Council, and the parent of the 
 present body.* The total number of members was, at that 
 
 * Vide " Liher Albus," by Riley, p. 897, et seq. 
 
38 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 time, 96, and it was provided that not more than eight should 
 be elected from any single mystery, so that there might be 
 no undue preponderance. The ordinance was made per- 
 petual in 1386. The number in various ways increased, 
 probably, as a rule, by the direct grant of increased repre- 
 sentation by the Common Council itself, until it reached 
 240 ; but by an act of the Common Council, in 1840, the 
 number was lessened to 206, at which it now stands. 
 Some of the wards, as Bassishaw, and Lime Street, send 
 only four members each, whilst Farringdon Without sends 
 no less than sixteen. 
 
 After the settlement of the form of election, in 9 Ric. II., 
 the Common Council continued to be elected by the wards, 
 the electors being probably all freemen householders paying 
 scot and lot. By the 11 Geo. I., c. 18, the electors for 
 Common Councillors are to be householders of the ward, 
 and freemen of the City, paying taxes to the amount of 
 thirty shillings, bearing lot in the ward and living in 
 houses of the annual value of £10 and upwards, with a 
 provision for joint occupiers voting where the proportion of 
 each was £10 or over. This statute is extended by the 12 
 and 13 Vict., c. 94, and now by the 30 Vict., c. 1, it is no 
 longer necessary for voters to be free of the City. The electors 
 duly qualified are therefore, now : — (1) The separate, or — if 
 joint — proportionate, occupation of premises of the value of 
 £10 ; (2) Household suffrage where house rated to poor, and 
 rate paid ; (3) Lodger franchise where rent paid to extent of 
 £10 for unfurnished room or rooms. Tbe last two classes 
 come in under the 30 Vict., c. 1, conferring the franchise 
 upon all who may vote for Members of Parliament. 
 
 The Act 9 Geo. IV., c. 17, provided that this oath should 
 be taken by Common Councillors, viz. — "Ye shall swear 
 that ye shall be true to our Sovereign Lady the Queen that 
 now is, and readily come when ye be summoned to the 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL. 39 
 
 Common Council of tliis City, unless ye be reasonably ex- 
 cused ; and good and true council ye shall give in all things 
 touching the common weal of this City, after your wit and 
 cunning ; and that for favour of any man ye shall maintain 
 no singular profit against the common profit of this City ; 
 and after that ye be come to the Common Council ye shall 
 not from thence depart till the Common Council be ended, 
 without reasonable cause, or else by the Mayor's license ; 
 and also that all secret things that be spoken or said in the 
 Conmion Council, they which ought to be kept secret ye 
 shall in no wise disclose." 
 
 The fuU title of the Common Council is the " Qourt of 
 the Lord Mayor, Aldermen^ and Commoners of the City of 
 London in Common Council assembled." It is comprised, 
 therefore, of the 26 Aldermen and the 206 Councillors, 
 making a total of 232, the Alderman who is for the time 
 being the Lord Mayor being the ex-officio chairman. The 
 Chairman acts as the Speaker of the Assembly, and puts 
 questions to the vote, and decides points of order. The 
 needful quorum includes the Lord Mayor or his deputy, two 
 Aldermen, and 37 Common Councillors. 
 
 The Court of Common Council is the great legislative 
 body of the Cit)^ In the chapter on City Charters we have 
 set out the provisions of the 15 Edw. III., whereby the 
 Mayor and Aldermen should, with the consent of the 
 Communitas, have full power to alter and remedy anything 
 they should find defective in the customs and regulations of 
 the City,* and the inclusion of this with the rest of the 
 charters in the 2 WiUiam and Mary, Sess. 1, c. 8, has been 
 supposed to give it the force of an Act of Parliament. It is 
 a power, as will be seen, that is far in excess of that pos- 
 sessed by any other Corporation under the Municipal 
 Corporations Actf (which Limits their power in this 
 * Vide chap, i., p 11. t 5 & 6 William IV., c. 76. 
 
40 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 respect to the ordinary enactment of bye-laws), and it is a 
 power that has been repeatedly acted upon by the Common 
 Council from the very earliest period of the existence of the 
 body, tem}^. E-ic. II., to recent days. The 11 Geo. I., c. 18, 
 passed — as its preamble tells us — " because of the dissensions 
 that have arisen between the Aldermen and Commons of 
 the Common Council of London concerning the making or 
 passing of acts, orders, or ordinances in Common Council, 
 which, if not timely settled and determined, may occasion 
 great obstruction of the public business and concerns of the 
 said City, and create many expensive controversies and 
 suits at law," would appear to be the only serious inter- 
 ference dii'ectly made by the Government in the internal 
 constitution of the City, and, however necessary, seems to 
 have been much resented. Nearly all the other alterations 
 in the constitution of the Corporation have been effected 
 under this " immemorial custom" of internal self regulation. 
 And the power would appear to extend even to the creation 
 of a Company or fellowship.* Several Companies are in 
 existence, and exercising privileges within the City that owe 
 their existence to this power. 
 
 The Court of Common Council elects most of the officials 
 of the Corporation, and it has unlimited control over the 
 City cash. To it is also confided the management of the 
 great estates of the Corporation, and the control of the 
 Common Seal. 
 
 Most of the executive work is delegated to one or other 
 of the Committees, the numbers of which are still as the 
 Commissioners of 1854 then reported themf " inconveniently 
 large." The number of these Committees is considerable, 
 the principal being — The Bridge House Committee, the 
 City Lands' Committee, the General Purposes' Committee, 
 and the Finance Committee. The members receive certain 
 
 * PuUing's " Laws of London," p. 73. f Report, p. 19. 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL. 41 
 
 payments for attendance, and indulge in an excursion in tlie 
 summer. The annual cost of these Committees, in this way, 
 is considerable, and is defrayed out of the City purse by a 
 warrant directed to the Chamberlain. We shall deal with 
 this subject more fully in the chapter on City Expenditure. 
 
 The Court probably meets on an average some twenty 
 times a year ; but it may be summoned at any time by the 
 Lord Mayor. The requisition of seven members is always 
 sufficient to justify such special summons. The Town Clerk, 
 Common Serjeant, and the Judge of the Sheriffs' Court are 
 members of the Court, but have no vote, and only speak when 
 requested. The Recorder is also present, and reads the 
 motions put to the Council. The Lord Mayor may at any 
 time dissolve the Court by an order to the Sword Bearer to 
 remove the sword, and so it would appear he may also delay 
 a motion for adjournment. 
 
42 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 
 The Court of Qommon Hall : its constitution and powers. — 
 The Livery Companies of the City : their rise, early 
 character, and objects. — Membership and method of 
 Crovernment : their former and present control of trade. 
 — The Rights of London Tradesmen in the Companies. — 
 The property and income of the Companies : their source 
 and extent. — The expenditure of the Companies. — Rights 
 of control and interference by the City and by the Crown. 
 — The present policy and character of the Companies. 
 
 The fuH title of the Court of Common Hall is, " An 
 assembly of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Liverymen of the 
 several Companies of the City of London, in Common 
 HaU assembled." It is constituted of the Lord Mayor, a 
 number of Aldermen, not less than foui-, and such of the 
 Liverymen of the various City Companies as are of one 
 year's standing, free of the City ; and have duly paid their 
 hvery fines. 
 
 This assembly appears to be the modern representative 
 of the old Folkmote, and of the assembly of the Commonalty 
 under the Plantagenets. But, as we have seen, the con- 
 stituency is very much narrowed, and no longer includes 
 freemen and citizens generally, but only such members of 
 the City Companies as have taken out their livery. Neither 
 is it now called together for the conduct of the general busi- 
 ness of the City, but only for the election of certain officers. 
 In the time of Edward the Third we find a Common HaU 
 
THE COURT OF COMMON HALL. 43 
 
 summoned to supply the king with seamen. In 13 Edw. 
 III., we find the assembly was designated as " congregatio' 
 majorum et aldermanorum et totius communitatis." In 21 
 Edw. III., and again in 31 Edw. III., we read of the 
 " immensa communitas " being called together for the trans- 
 action of City affairs. In 13 Ric. II. one was summoned for 
 the transaction of general business, and so during succeeding 
 reigns. Under the Stuarts the Common Hall was often 
 called together for the support of the army, the grant of aid 
 to Ireland, and for the raising of money. And, although 
 now only called together for election purposes, there appears 
 but little doubt but that it might be convened for other 
 business.* 
 
 The Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Chamberlain, Bridge Masters, 
 City Auditors, &c., are the oificers elected by the Common 
 Hall. Great abuses have attended these elections in former 
 years ;f but they are probably as pure now as can be ex- 
 pected in so anomalous a constituency. 
 
 Except as an electoral body, the Common Hall has 
 lost all active control over corporate affairs ; and, since the 
 narrowing of the constituency by the 11 Geo. I., c. 18, has 
 ceased to be, in any fair sense, representative of the citizens. 
 There appears to be no reason, beyond that of its existence, 
 for continuing to confide important Municipal functions to 
 this body. Many of the free liverymen are, however, 
 tenacious of what they regard as their inherited privileges 
 and rights in Common Hall, and proportionately jealous of 
 the encroachments and usurpations of the Common Council. | 
 
 * This would seem to have been linally settled iu the case of the 
 "Trial of the Refractory Companies," in 1773, when the warden of the 
 Goldsmiths' Company was successfully prosecuted in the Mayor's Court 
 for inattention to a summons to Common Hall on other than election 
 business. — Vide Report of this case, Lmuijer's Magazine, July 1773. 
 
 t Vide evidence of Mr. Acland and others before Commissioners on 
 the Corporation of London, 1854. — Report, p. 59, &c. 
 
 X This grievance is coeval with the concession of power to the 
 
44 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 It now becomes necessary to inquire into tlie origin, nature 
 and position of the Livery Companies of the City. They 
 exercise, as we have seen, Municipal functions of an exten- 
 sive and important kind, and their history is closely inter- 
 woven with that of the Corporation of which they form 
 part.'" Membership in these Companies has been an 
 essential to citizenship, and is still a pre-requisite to the 
 discharge of certain Municipal duties or the enjoyment of 
 certain Municipal privileges. 
 
 The Companies keep their connection with the Corpo- 
 ration to a large extent in the background, and the tendency 
 is still further in the same direction with respect to every- 
 thing affecting their property and internal management. 
 They have formed and still form, by far the most formi- 
 dable opponents to corporate reform, and none the less 
 formidable because their agency is seldom seen, and is 
 exerted, as we shall hereafter point out, in many unsuspected 
 ways. They are well aware that any serious alteration 
 either in the way of extension or reform of the City is 
 fraught with danger to themselves, as likely to expose their 
 title and their proceedings to public examination. When- 
 ever the problem of how to deal with the Livery Com- 
 panies comes up for solution, it will be found to be a difficult 
 one to meet ; but as, in our opinion, no true reform can be 
 carried out in which these bodies are ignored, it must sooner 
 or later be grappled with. 
 
 Common Council, and seems to have existed ever since. See an elaborate 
 
 and amusing work by William Stone (London, 1797) on the rights of the 
 Common Hall, in which he claims to " have put the great question to 
 eternal silence" (p. 17). 
 
 * In the City argument in the noted case of the " Trial of the Ee- 
 fractory Companies," qxxote'l supra, we find the language: — " To suppose 
 the Goldsmiths' or any other Company to be self-existeut, independent, 
 subject to no laws but those of its own will ; to allow this is to suppose 
 a part to bear no relation to but to be altogether independent of the 
 whole, — a proposition which carries absurdity on the very face of it." 
 
LIVERY companies: their rise. 45 
 
 We shall first endeavour to ascertain from such imper- 
 fect data as are available, the exact position of these bodies 
 before the law, and in a subsequent chapter suggest the 
 method of dealing with them. 
 
 The Livery Companies of the City are the present re- 
 presentatives of the old mercantile guilds of Norman and 
 Plantagenet London. The word " gild " under the Saxons 
 was generally applied to a territorial division of the City 
 somewhat analogous to a modern ward. Such division had 
 its separate organization, and was composed of enrolled 
 householders known to each other, and presided over 
 probably by an ealderman. Membership of a territorial 
 guild was based upon tenancy within it, and the relations of 
 the citizens of the same guild to each other were not dissi- 
 milar to those that existed between the inhabitants of the 
 same hundred. The assembled guilds formed the communitas 
 or governing body of the City. 
 
 Every citizen was bound to be enrolled in the particular 
 district in which he dwelt, and it is possible, as some writers 
 suppose, that in a trading community the qualification for 
 citizenship would be the practice of some trade. But as we 
 know that the enrolment of London citizens took place in 
 the Hustings Court, irrespective of mercantile qualification, 
 down to the reign of Edward the Third, it is clear that 
 there was no such restriction before that date. Be this as 
 it may, mercantile guilds gradually rose into prominence in 
 Norman and Plantagenet Ijondon. Traders carrying on 
 the same business, and Hving in the same quarter of the 
 City, united together for the common benefit of their craft. 
 These guilds exercised considerable control over the trades 
 whose names they bore, and within a comparatively short 
 period from their establishment it became impossible to 
 practise the trade in the City without being enrolled in a 
 guild. " These Companies," says Norton, " derived theij- 
 
46 MUNICIPAL LONDON, 
 
 constitution and monopolous privileges both in England and 
 abroad, cither from the express or impHed sanction of those 
 needy pruices who endued with very little political fore- 
 sight, were open to the temptation of large bribes for such 
 concessions .... and during the reign of Henry the 
 Second, these gilds had increased to such an -extent in Lon- 
 don, that their evil tendency became obvious to that wary 
 prince, and many of them were abohshed, though more, it 
 may be presumed, remained."* This prince, however, 
 granted a charter to the " Weavers," confirming their guild 
 and its privileges, and the right to the exclusive practice of 
 their art in London, Southwark, and places outside the 
 City. This guild seems to have been petitioned against 
 early in the reign of John, but an attempt made by him to 
 abolish it at the suggestion of the "Mayor and Citizens," 
 would seem to have been only partially successful. 
 
 The objects of the mercantile guilds were to preserve 
 existing trade privileges, and to acquire new ones : to mono- 
 polise the trade by excluding rival traders, not members of 
 their community : to regulate prices : to assist members 
 who became decayed or infirm, and to promote social inter- 
 course amongst themselves by frequent meetings and by 
 feasting. 
 
 The ties that bound together the members of a territorial 
 guild were purely Municipal, but the ties which bound 
 together the members of mercantile guilds, although with- 
 out any recognized public character, were necessarily much 
 stronger, and as all the citizens were traders, it came to pass 
 that London under the Plantagenets was not merely a 
 collection of territorial guilds, but also a great aggregation 
 of gildated trades. The uifluence of these mercantile asso- 
 ciations increased, until we find that during the later 
 Plantagenet kings, no one could exercise Municipal rights 
 * " Commentaries on City of London," p. IO4. 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : THEIR RISE. 47 
 
 as a freeman of the City unless he was also free of one of 
 these Trading Companies. By an ordinance of the Qom- 
 munitas passed in the 49th year of Edward the Third, the 
 nomination of representatives to consult on the general 
 interests of the City was taken from the wards (to which 
 such nomination had been delegated by an ordinance passed 
 twenty-nine years before), and was given to the trading 
 Companies. The election of the Mayor and the other 
 corporate officers was also entrusted to them. As we have 
 seen in our chapter on the Common CouncO, the election of 
 this body was taken from them by an ordinance of the 
 immensa communitas in the seventh year of King Richard 
 the Second, but the other electoral powers of the nominees 
 of the Livery Companies remained intact till the fifteenth 
 year of King Edward the Fourth, when the electoral power 
 was conferred upon the liverymen of the Companies gene- 
 rally, and there it has since remained. 
 
 In the reigns of Edward the Thu'd and Richard the 
 Second a large number of the mercantile guilds received 
 charters of incorporation. Some Companies date back to an 
 earlier period than this, but, as a rule, their prior existence 
 was dependent upon prescription, and not upon any royal 
 grant. The origin of a guild was of the simplest possible 
 sort. Twenty-two "■ pepperers," carrying on business in 
 Soper's Lane, Cheapside, met at dinner at Abbot of Bury's, 
 in St. Mary Axe, one morning in 1384, and agreed to form a 
 guild. They elected Roger Osekjoi and Lawrence de 
 HaUiwell their first governor and warden ; every member 
 subscribed twelve pence towards the expenses ; a priest was 
 engaged to sing and pray "for the brotherhood and for all 
 Christian people," and each member agreed to subscribe one 
 penny a week for his support. So, amid prayer and feasting, 
 began the Grocers' Company. And as it had begun, so it 
 prospered, tiU, in the zenith of its power, as many as sixteen 
 
48 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Aldermen of the City were inscribed on its roll of members 
 at the same time.* The £6 16s. which constituted the sum 
 of its first year's corporate disbursements (every member 
 paying for his own dinner) is to-day represented by a rent- 
 roll of many thousands a year. 
 
 And the origin of the Grocers' was typical of that of 
 many other Companies. Every member of the Company 
 was engaged in its trade, and had its interests at heart ; he 
 subscribed his quarterage regularly to the common fund ; he 
 was co-equal with all the other members of his Company ; 
 he helped to regulate and control its expenditure ; he had 
 relief in case of necessity ; and if he died in poverty, he was 
 followed to the grave and buried by the brotherhood, and 
 the Company's private chaplain publicly prayed for the re- 
 pose of his soul. 
 
 At a comparatively early period in their history the 
 different Companies began to be distinguished by their simi- 
 larity in dress. Matthew Paris tells us that large numbers 
 of them attended the marriage of Henry the Third, wearing 
 the same costume. There appears to have been a dis- 
 tinguishing dress, or part of the dress, for each Company, 
 for Stow, in his account of the marriage of Edward the 
 First and Queen Margaret, in 1270, tells us of six hundred 
 of the members of these fraternities who rode " in one livery 
 of red and white, with the conuzances of their mysteries 
 embroidered on their sleeves."f 
 
 In the reign of Edward the Third the name "Livery 
 Companies" was adopted, and the different "liveries" worn 
 received royal sanction ; indeed, the king himself donned 
 the livery of the Linen Armourers, The Governing Body of 
 each Company was careful to enforce the use of its livery ; 
 and over the dress of the members, both of the higher class, 
 
 * " Herbert, on London Livery Companies." Vol. I., p. 39. 
 t Strype'a " Stow," p. 1247. 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : THEIR LIVERY. 49 
 
 who were entitled to wear it, and of the freemen generally, 
 these rulers exercised the completest possible control. The 
 Merchant Taylors, in solemn conclave, enacted what the 
 young men of the Company should wear, and the Master 
 was instructed to punish those who had " taken upon 
 them to weare costlie apparrell and garments of the newest 
 fashion, having little substance or none, and not fit for their 
 degree and caUinge.""^ 
 
 The selection of the livery was a most momentous tran- 
 saction for a Company, the colours were frequently changed, 
 and the " cote and surcote " of ordinary habit were as care- 
 fully discussed as the "cloke and hood" worn at ceremonies. 
 The custom of having two classes in a Company gradually 
 superseded the old one of entire equahty, and the livery was 
 only worn by the higher of the two classes, by reason of 
 which this class came to be known as the "livery" as dis- 
 tinguished fi'om the workmen and others who were simply 
 free of the Company. At a solemn feast held once a year, 
 the cloth for the new yearly suits was cut up and distributed, 
 and when the suits were duly sewn, and the day set apart 
 in the calendar for their patron saint had arrived, the 
 members marched in procession to hear mass. This occa- 
 sion was made one of considerable show. Stowe describes a 
 procession of the Skinners' Company on Corpus Christi Day, 
 when more than 200 torches of wax were borne before them 
 " costly garnished burning bright " and above 200 clerks 
 and priests in surphces and copes, singing, and the Mayor 
 and Aldermen in scarlet; and lastly the whole body of 
 Skinners in their new liveries. The priests offered a mass 
 for the deceased members, and prayed for the Company, 
 
 * This control of the dress of their members by the Governing 
 Bodies of the Companies was continued for centuries. In 1574 we find 
 record of one Robert Maltby being committed to prison for going to bis 
 hall " in cloke of pepadore, a pair of hose lined with taffity, and a shirt 
 edged with silver." 
 
 D 
 
50 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 and for each living member by name, and the members 
 then offered alms. So with other Companies, the cere- 
 monies always concluding with a feast, towards the cost of 
 which every member subscribed. 
 
 By an Act passed in 1397, the use of liveries was re- 
 stricted to trading Corporations, and so if possible the honour 
 of wearing a livery was increased. Gorgeous in their robes 
 of murrey and scarlet, the Companies welcomed King Edward 
 the Fourth to the capital, and he confirmed the statute. 
 The name of " Livery Company " has remained, but the 
 public use of the liveries to which so much honour was 
 attached has long since ceased. The control by Master 
 or "Wardens of the dress of members has ceased also and 
 would be now as much resented and as little regarded as an 
 act of the Common Council interfering with the dress of 
 ordinary citizens.* 
 
 The ordinary freemen of a Company were frequently 
 compelled to take up their Hvery and so pass into the higher 
 class. Such compulsion was necessary sometimes, when the 
 honour was not without its compensating duties and re- 
 sponsibilities, but no such compulsion is exercised now. 
 Those who are in favour with the Court of Assistants, and 
 who are possessed of the inclination and the money, are glad 
 to get a step higher, and a firmer hold of the vested interests 
 of the Company. The jurisdiction of the Court of Aldermen 
 to compel a freeman to take up his hvery appears to be 
 undoubted. If he prove recalcitrant he may be fined and 
 
 * In 1611 the Common Council enacted that"mayde servauutes in 
 London should not wear any fardingal great or little : nor any body or 
 sleeves of wii-e whalebone, or other stiffing, saving canvas or buckram 
 only." The king himself ordered the Wardens of the City Companies 
 to call their members together and address tliem on the sins of dress in 
 the City, and " the abuse growing by excess, and strange fashions of 
 apparrell used by many apprentices, and by the inordinate pride of 
 many mayde servauntes in their excess of apparrell and follye in vaiietie 
 of new fashions." 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : THEIR LIVERY. 51 
 
 sent to Newgate, but this power seems to have fallen into 
 desuetude. 
 
 . The days of trade liveries are past. Time was when two 
 "Ironmongers" and two "Grocers" were deputed to stand 
 at Bishops Gate all day to see that no citizen passed through 
 wearing any dress that his position did not entitle him to 
 wear ; but to- day they could have no power to molest him, even 
 if he assumed the gorgeous garb of their own representative 
 beadles. The part that these Livery Companies have 
 played in the history of London has been one of much 
 significance. In the days when every freeman of the City 
 was bound also to be free of a Company, they represented 
 both the glory of their separate trades, and united, the 
 greatness of their City. As their long processions in 
 " brown-blew gowns with broaderyed sleevys and red hoods" 
 wound through the narrow lanes of old London, the citizens 
 recognized the most powerful organizations of the capital. 
 What a stirring sight was that which met the eyes of King 
 Henry the Fifth as he rode towards his capital on his return 
 from France, February 13th, 1422, and was met ere he 
 arrived at its gates by the Mayor and Commonalty clad in 
 white gowns and red capes. EUzabeth loved to evoke the 
 showy loyalty of the Livery Companies, and to swell her 
 pageants with the " hanssom men " and the " whiffellers " 
 which she called upon them to provide. Fourteen hundred 
 liverymen in polished armour and coats of mail once in 
 Greenwich Park offered her homage, and the scarlet and 
 puke habits of the Merchant Taylors were often to be found 
 near her person. Later still, in 1639, Mary of Medicis 
 passed along Cheapside through thousands of the assembled 
 Hverymen. From end to end of the thoroughfare under the 
 shadows of fifty different trade banners sat these merchant 
 traders in their citizen gowns trimmed with marten skin, 
 giving an impressive idea of the wealth and commerce of the 
 
62 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 capital. The Companies have now withdrawn from par- 
 ticipating in public civic pomp. They have ceased to march 
 from the City to Westminster on Lord Mayor's Day, and 
 the rich pennants and flags are laid up in lavender, and the 
 gorgeous beadle who attended the show on horseback now 
 vegetates in the Company's hall lodge. 
 
 The method of admission to the membership of a Com- 
 pany has varied considerably ; but in the days when it was 
 compulsory upon every tradesman in London or the suburbs 
 to be free of a Company, there was but little difficulty about 
 it. The Companies have always exercised the power of pre- 
 senting their freedom ; but, with this sole exception, member- 
 ship can only be acquired by servitude, by patrimony, or by 
 redemption. Freedom by servitude was granted upon pay- 
 ment of small fees by those who had been apprenticed for a 
 certain number of years — generally seven — to some member 
 of the Company. They were supposed, during such appren- 
 ticeship to have been duly taught the mysteries of the craft, 
 and, at its conclusion, to be duly qualified to practise it. 
 The custom of seven years' apprenticeships is less frequent 
 now than in former times ; but freedom by servitude can 
 now be obtained in many Companies by apprenticeship to a 
 member, irrespective of whether the member practises the 
 craft or not. Thus a West End solicitor might apprentice 
 his office boy to himself, and thus give him the needful 
 qualification for the freedom of a trading Company. 
 
 Freedom by patrimony is granted by right of birth to 
 those whose fathers are members of a Company ; and we are 
 told that in those Companies where admission to the 
 Governing Body is a matter of seniority, it is customary for 
 members to enter their sons on the rolls of the Company 
 before they are breeched, so that they may have substantial 
 benefit from it in their early manhood. Certain fees are 
 payable, which vary in amount in different Companies. 
 
LIVERY companies: membership. 53 
 
 Freedom by redemption is granted upon payment of a 
 certain sum of money. This sum varies in different Com- 
 panies, from £3 or £4 up to something like £200 or more ; 
 but the legal right to exact any such sum as £200 is open 
 to much doubt. No advantage is, as a rule, now offered to 
 any member of the particular trade who may wish to 
 become a member of the Company, — but he would be 
 required to pay as much as any one else. Thus no Iron- 
 monger could become a member of that Company with- 
 out paying at least £100, unless he had the sagacity or 
 pluck to apply for a mandamus to the Master and Wardens 
 to admit him at a less rate. Such application would 
 probably succeed. 
 
 In whatever way the freedom of a Livery Company was 
 formerly acquired, it was mainly confined to those who were 
 connected with the trade. This has long ceased to be 
 the case. The members of many of the larger City 
 Companies have no connection whatever with the trade, and 
 often reside in the provinces. It is said that there is more 
 than one Company, extensive both in number and resources, 
 that does not possess either on its Governing Body or 
 Livery a single person possessing any practical acquaintance 
 with the trade which gives the Company its name. When 
 it is remembered that many of these Companies' charities 
 were left for the benefit of working craftsmen, and their 
 property was amassed for the express advantage of the trade 
 as a trade, the grievous anomaly of tliis is manifest. 
 
 In many cases the legality of the grants of freedom by 
 purchase to candidates who are not members of the trade, is 
 open to considerable doubt.* Upon this most important 
 
 * In 11 Hj. II., by an Act of the Common Gouucil, provision was 
 made that none should be admitted but in the Companies whose art they 
 intend to practise. But now as the Commissioners of lb37 report 
 (p. 64), "the mere fact that apprenticeship may be in any Company i 
 
54 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 question — important as afifecting the status of many hun- 
 dreds of members — Mr. Serjeant Pulling writes : "It has 
 been repeatedly decided that a bye-law that any person not 
 otherwise entitled to the freedom should be admitted a 
 member of a pubHc corporation upon payment of a certain 
 sum, is void as an essential alteration of the constitution of 
 the corporation. Much more it is conceived would the 
 system adopted by many of these corporations, which are 
 expressly established for so important a purpose as the 
 protection of trade, be held bad, by which the freedom is 
 sold to persons wholly unconnected with the trade or mystery 
 they profess to represent."* 
 
 A London Livery Company is in theory governed pretty 
 nearly in the same way to-day as it was at its foundation,! 
 but practically there is far less power or fi-eedom in the 
 Livery and Commonalty ; and as the objects of the Company 
 have ceased to be such as concern the advantage of the 
 trade, there is far less independence. As a rule every 
 Company is governed by a Master, Wardens, and a Court 
 of Assistants. The election of Master and Wardens 
 generally takes place once a year, but a seat on the Court 
 of Assistants, the number of which is strictly Hmited, is a 
 life tenancy. The Governing Body of a Company had 
 formerly ample duties to perform in the oversight and regu- 
 lation of trade, but their duties are now as a rule confined 
 to the management of the Company's property. They claim 
 to be the owners of the property, the depositories of the 
 bye-laws, the stewards of the Company's charities and 
 
 seems to be conclusive against the supposition that the preliminary pro- 
 ceedings in the Compauj- tend to secure the acquisition of knowledge in 
 the trade." 
 
 * " Laws of London," p. 80. 
 
 ■\ As to this compai-e Maitland's " History of Loudon," ed. 1739 ; and 
 "Keport Municipal Commissioners," 1837. 
 
VA/,, y) 
 
 LIVERY COMPANIES : GOVERNMENT. 65 
 
 funds, and they frequently decKne to allow to liverymen of 
 the same Company any participation in the stewardship or 
 even in a knowledge of what the Company's property con- 
 sists of. Prior to the reign of James the First the election 
 of the Company's officers was by the commonalty, but many 
 of the charters granted by that king (for a consideration) 
 make them self-elective, and from this vice they still suffer. 
 In the larger Companies especially it is foimd true that the 
 greater the accumulation of property the more dense is the 
 darkness in which all its management is enveloped. In 
 some Companies the Governing Body claim to be self-elective, 
 without any charters enabhng them, and here the Livery 
 could recover their rights if they chose to do so.^ But the 
 interest of the Livery to stand well with the Governors, who 
 may elect them on to the Court, or may vote them good 
 pensions in case of " decaie," keeps them prudentially quiet. 
 The anxiety on the part of liverymen to be elected on 
 the Court of Assistants of a Company is readily miderstood 
 when its advantages are known. Men are willing to pay 
 down more than £100 to become members of the larger 
 Companies, and common sense tells us they do not do this 
 without hope of due reward. That reward takes many 
 forms, and reaches its highest point when a man is elected 
 on the Court. Before he is elected on the Court, he may, 
 if judicious and discreet, have some good pickings. He 
 will probably have dinner tickets representing an outlay of 
 £50 to £100 per annum, and he may get one of the many 
 sinecure appointments at large salaries, which are in the 
 gift of the Company. He may be its clerk at a salary some 
 ten times the amount of the market value of his work; 
 he may be soKcitor or deputy, or assistant to these officers, 
 or he may be auditor, remembrancer, librarian, chaplain, 
 * The " Coohs' " Company did so in 1824. 
 
56 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 standing counsel, and so on through many highly paid 
 oJB&ces, the tenants of which enjoy the maximum of income 
 with the minimum of work ; in fact, sometimes, not a shadow 
 of it. 
 
 But the good things culminate when a man is elected to 
 the Court of Assistants. It is a matter of common repute 
 that the estates of Companies are often leased to members 
 at absurd rentals, enabling the lucky lessees to make an 
 excellent profit in re-letting them. In the estimates we 
 have given of the aggregate income of the Companies, we 
 have considered these estates at their true value, not at the 
 value put upon them by the Companies. It is clear that 
 we are justified in regarding that as income of the Com- 
 pany, which is allowed to various members, in the way of 
 beneficial leases. Every now and then as feast days come 
 round, the members of the Livery wiU receive a few pounds 
 a head for some old custom, or in memory of some ancient 
 benefactor. The responsibihty of a seat on the Court carries 
 with it a salary ; the meetings of the committees are duly 
 paid for ; some Companies have dinners of some kind, as 
 often as once a week, and lucky are the committeemen of 
 such Companies, for in addition to their salaries, they 
 sometimes find a bank-note delicately secreted under their 
 plates, and "sometimes find huge boxes of bon-bons upon 
 them. It is indeed a good thing to be on the Court of a 
 City Company. Relations may be educated in the Com- 
 pany's schools, and then accommodated with exhibitions to 
 the University free of expense ; when they grow up they can 
 be presented with livings, of which the Company is patron. 
 For your poorer friends there are almshouses and pensions. 
 
 The system speaks for itself; it requires no language of 
 ours to enhance its gravity. The Commissioners of 1837 
 — those mildest of men — say " the system is Kable to very 
 great objections, attaching a pecuniary interest to a seat on 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : GOVERNMENT. 57 
 
 the Court which never ought to be attached to the character 
 of a trustee."^ 
 
 The charters of the Livery Companies provide for the 
 Governing Bodies of the Companies being composed of men 
 skilled in the mystery of the Company. In how few cases 
 does this exist now. It would be interesting to know how 
 many skilled tailors there are on the Court of the Merchant 
 Tailors, and how many of the Court of the Skinners' Com- 
 pany are skilled in peltry. And yet no language can be 
 clearer than that of the charters on this head. Take the 
 great charter of the Skinners, granted 4 Jac. I. This charter 
 provides that, thenceforth, yearly, and for ever, the Master 
 and Wardens of the said guild should be chosen from such of 
 the freemen " as had used and professed the mystery and art 
 of a skiimer, and not of any others ;" but this was only 
 compulsory in each alternate year as far as the Master was 
 concerned, but it is provided that in any year when the 
 Master is not a professed skinner three of the Wardens shall 
 be such. And one-half of the Court of Assistants must be 
 professed skimiers. This charter may be taken as a type of 
 many others. The Companies hold their property under 
 these charters, but only use so much of them as is con- 
 venient. The control and benefit of the trade is the very 
 raison d'etre of the Corporations ; it was solely upon their 
 undertakings in that regard that their original charters were 
 granted and permission given to hold land in mortmain, and 
 yet, whilst abandoning the trade, they claim to enjoy the 
 property. 
 
 There are not more than half-a-dozen Livery Companies 
 that exercise any control whatever over trade to-day. But the 
 control exercised by the Livery Companies, or " mysteries "f 
 
 * "Report of Municipal Cominissionei'S of l.s37." Part II., p. 19. 
 f Dr. Johnson tells us that a " mystery " is something " above human 
 intelligence, something awfully obscure, or something artfully made more 
 difficult." This definition was leas applicable to the mysteries of mediaeval 
 
68 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 as they were called, of tlie Middle Ages was most extensive. 
 Every Company of importance could furnish from its early 
 records many examples of this. In 1456, the Grocers, or, 
 as they were called, the " Pepperers," were an useful organi- 
 zation, and had oversight of the whole trade. We find that, 
 in this year, the " wardeyns and feHship " of this Company 
 ruled that one "John Ayshfelde shall make a fine of 6s. 8d. 
 for ofi'ens don in makynge of uutrewe powder gingere and 
 cynamon ;" but in the year of grace 1875, a grocer might 
 sand his sugar, or mix his powdered ginger with powdered 
 hones, without any interference by the wealthy City Com- 
 pany.* The stewardship of a few charities and of many 
 dinners is responsibility sufiicient for them. 
 
 In those days no one was permitted to trade unless he 
 were a member of a Company ; care was taken that every 
 member was duly qualified, no member being allowed to 
 employ in his shop a journeyman who had not served his 
 time to the craft, or any apprentice not duly bound. Mem- 
 bers of the guild made " rounds " of investigation and 
 inquiry, weighing, measuring, and testing all the goods on 
 sale of their mystery. The Merchant Taylors, for example, 
 attended West Smithfield and Bartholomew Cloth Fail's, for 
 years, with their yard measure weighing thirty-six ounces of 
 solid silver. 
 
 London than to the Livery Companies of to-day. " The Master and 
 Wardens, Brethren and Sisters, of the Guild or Fraternity of the Blessed 
 Mary the Virgin, of the Mystery of Drapers, of the City of London," is 
 the full title of the Company that in those days ruled over the woollen 
 cloth trade. The mysterj- — such as it was — was the mystery of manu- 
 facturing and making up cloth ; but to-day the mystery is no longer 
 connected with an abandoned trade, but where it exists, is as to the 
 management by aliens of funds given and amassed for the benefit of that 
 trade. This is indeed " awfully obscure," and it is also " artfully made 
 more ditficult." 
 
 * See another trade ordinance of the Pepperers, Edw. II., 
 1310, set out in " Memorials of London," by T. AV. Riley, — Longmans 1868, 
 where are also other trade regulations illustrating control of trades by 
 Skinners, Gii'dlers, Cutlers, &c. 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : TRADE CONTROL, 59 
 
 The Goldsmiths' Company have a charter of 2 Edward 
 the Fourth, giving to them for ever thereafter the trial, in- 
 spection, search, and regulation of all sorts of gold and 
 silver, wrought or to be wrought and exposed' of sale within 
 the City of London and the suburbs therc'^f, and in all fairs, 
 marts or markets,cities, towns and boroughs, and all other places 
 throughout England. Powers are given to destroy deceitful 
 wares, and by an Inspeximus charter of Henry the Seventh 
 (20 Hy. VII.) they are empowered to commit offenders 
 to gaol, and make search for and destroy deceitful wares in 
 London or within three miles. So far as we know these 
 primitive powers still technically exist, but probably their 
 exercise to-day might raise unpleasant questions, and so the 
 Company wisely confine their pubHc services to the assaying 
 of gold brought to them for the purpose.* 
 
 The Skinners' Company had by a charter of Edward the 
 Third (1 March, 1 Edw. III.) a similar power to punish 
 the defective manufacture of furs, and formerly maintained 
 entire control over the manufacture. By the 3 Jac. I., c. 9, 
 no person was allowed to employ a servant or journeyman 
 to work as a skimier who had not served the usual seven 
 years' apprenticeship. 
 
 The Merchant Taylors' charter of 18 Hy. VII. grants 
 that no one shall hold a counter or shop of the " misteries 
 of the Taylors and Linen Armourers," unless he be free 
 of the City ; nor sball any one be admitted to the freedom of 
 the City, unless the men of the mystery testify to his honesty 
 and fitness for the same. 
 
 So the Clothworkers' charter of Charles the First (24 
 April, 9 Car. I.) is most clear in its terms, and declares that 
 aU persons, "tam indigence quam alienigence,^^ who then used 
 or should thereafter use the mystery of Fullers, Sheermen, or 
 
 * For the history of the " assay " or " touch," see an interesting note 
 in Herbert's " London Livery Companies. " Vol. II., p. 173. 
 
60 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Clothworkers, within the City or suburbs, should be one 
 body politic. 
 
 The Dyers' Company have full control over the trade in 
 London, and within ten miles ; and by one of the last of 
 their charters, every person practising the mystery in that 
 district must be a member of the Company. 
 
 The Pewterers' Company, under their charter of 
 Edward the Fourth, have the search and regulation of all 
 merchandize of that mystery, and, for a lengthened period, 
 were in the habit of assaying merchandize exposed for sale, 
 of destroying it if defective, and of taking proceedings 
 against the manufacturer. The Company, down to a com- 
 paratively recent period, settled the assay of the true pewter, 
 and regulated the methods of working it. 
 
 The Bakers' Company have power to prove and weigh all 
 bread sold in the City, and within a considerable area round 
 it, and, if defective, to seize it and give it to the poor. They 
 have power to impose fines, and levy the same by distress. 
 
 These illustrations sufficiently show the nature of the 
 trade control exercised by the Companies, and that such 
 control was not confined merely to the articles manufactured, 
 but extended to the power of deaKng with every one carrying 
 on the trade. The right of membership in a guild, possessed 
 by every trading citizen, had its correlative liability in the 
 power given to the Company to compel tradesmen in the 
 given districts to take up their freedom. If they were 
 obdurate and decHned the honour, or if an apprentice on the 
 conclusion of his term objected to enter the Company, an 
 application to the Mayor and Aldermen soon reduced them 
 to obedience.* 
 
 * See, in illiistratiou of this, tht proceedings of the Wax Chandlers' 
 Company against Robert Lancashii-e, set out at length in " Eepoit of 
 Municipal Commissioners," 1837, p. 106, etseq. See, also, case of William 
 Fordham (ibid., p. 108) who was committed to Newgate by the Mayor and 
 Aldennen, until he came to tenns and agreed to take up his livery. 
 
LIVEKY COMPANIES : TRADE CONTROL. 61 
 
 Illustrations of this power of compulsion on tlie part of 
 the Companies, and liability on the part of London tradesmen, 
 are common in the various charters. Other illustrations of 
 its nature may be found in the right given to the Tallow 
 Chandlers by the charter of Charles the Second (29 July 
 28, Car. II.) to fine all tallow chandlers practising the art 
 within three miles of London, if they refused to take up 
 their freedom, and in the charters of the Armourers and 
 Braziers, the Plumbers, Saddlers, Inn-holders, Founders, 
 Farriers, and others. 
 
 The control of trade exercised by the Stationers was 
 somewhat peculiar. In 1556* the advisers of Queen 
 Mary apprehending much ill to " the State and to Holy 
 Mother Church," from the printing and circulation of sedi- 
 tious and heretical books, granted a charter to ninety-seven 
 stationers of the City of London, giving them sole power to 
 print and publish books, and enabling them to seize and 
 destroy all prohibited and unlicensed works. Many thou- 
 sands of books were committed to the flames under the 
 auspices of this Company. Meantime, these "monopolists 
 of books and destroyers of literature," as Godson calls them, 
 flourished exceedingly, and obtained from James the First 
 the sole right to publish almanacs. Astrology was then in 
 commoner acceptance than now, and so, for more than 150 
 years, whilst this monopoly continued, we find prophets 
 prophesying, and soothsayers soothsaying in the Company's 
 almanacs. The stars revolving under such auspices, fore- 
 told success to Charles the First, to Cromwell, and to 
 Charles the Second when in power, and finally the Company 
 returned thanks under William the Third, for the " deKver- 
 ance of the country from Popery and arbitrary Govern- 
 ment." 
 
 We believe, although they have lost their monopoly, 
 * By the charter i May, 3 & 4 Ph. and M. 
 
62 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 that the Company still publish something like twenty 
 almanacs. Old Moore's almanac has an enormous circula- 
 tion, and this is mainly due to the prognostications as to 
 the weather, for which this publication is famous. Thus, a 
 worthy City Company, supposed to be the patron of 
 learning and Hterature, is responsible for the dissemination 
 of a greater amount of superstitious rubbish than all the 
 publishers in the kingdom put together. 
 
 The Stationers' Company keep a register of new books 
 — a register without index or arrangement— and which if it 
 has any influence at all, is about as near as may be the 
 exact opposite of that which was anticipated in the statute 
 of George the Third, confirmed m 1842, by which it was 
 estabhshed "for the greater encouragement to the produc- 
 tion of literary works of lasting benefit to the world." 
 
 The Apothecaries' Company still exercise some control 
 over the trade, and examine candidates as to their skill in 
 pharmacy. They have a power of destroying adulterated 
 drugs. 
 
 The Grunmakers' Company have statutory powers 
 enabling them to prove gun barrels. 
 
 The Fishmongers' Company do not exercise the trade 
 control formerly enforced, but perform a public service in 
 the condemnation of unsaleable fish. 
 
 The care taken with the technical education of the 
 young is altogether gone from the London Companies. 
 The seven long years of apprenticeship are rarely served, and 
 it is no longer needful for a man to know his business before 
 attempting to practise it. It was formerly provided that 
 the mysteries of London should be " lawfully regulated and 
 governed, each according to its nature in due manner, that 
 so no knavery, false worhnanship, or deceit, should be found 
 in any manner in the said mysteries,"* and that they should 
 * "Liber Albus," translated by T. W. Ril«y, p. 484. 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : TRADE CONTROL. 63 
 
 be ruled for the " common profit of the people," but these 
 are now old-world notions and quite out of date. 
 
 In those days great care was taken in the preservation 
 of the "trade secrets," which were the especial property of 
 the Company. Very often these secrets were of the smallest 
 possible value,* but they Avere none the less jealously 
 guarded and any infringement of them resented. For 
 example, the Painter Stainers petitioned Queen Elizabeth, 
 from whom they received their charter, to insert a clause 
 therein, to the efi'ect that persons should be restrained from 
 painting pictures of the queen, noblemen, and others, unless 
 such persons had served seven years' apprenticeship to some 
 member of the Company, and the reason urged for this pro- 
 posal was that such works showed fair to the sight, but 
 were not " substantially wrought ! " 
 
 But the preservation of the monopoly of ti'ading was 
 the privilege guarded with the most jealous care. Not 
 merely were all members of a trade compelled to take up 
 their freedom in a Company, but foreigners setting up 
 business in the City were fined and imprisoned. Early in 
 the reign of King Edward the Sixth, an enactment was 
 passed enabling building artificers to pursue their calling 
 without the necessity of belonging to any Company, or being 
 free of the City ; but the Corporation strongly opposed it, 
 and so just a provision was repealed. So, also, in cases even 
 where the Crown granted special licenses, the City stood 
 upon their privileges. The Grocers' Company successfully 
 appealed to the Mayor and Aldermen against one Acerbo 
 
 * Probably they were well illustrated in a letter said to have been 
 written by au old City Vintner to a young Vintner commencing 
 business in the outlying district of Covent Garden : — " The trade of a 
 Vintner is a perfect mystery, for that is the tei-m which the law bestows 
 upon it. Now, as all the world are supported by hard and unintelligible 
 terms, you must take care in this spii'it of mystery to christen your wines 
 by some hard names, the farther fetched the better." Probably some 
 of this old-world wisdom is not without its application to-day. 
 
64 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Devitelto, to whom Queen Elizabeth had granted a license 
 to import " sallet oil," and sell it at " his own heame," being 
 allowed the benefit of the royal grants.* 
 
 Within recent years, some galvanized interest in their 
 several trades has been manifested by the Goldsmiths, 
 Turners, and others, who have offered certain prizes for 
 works of art and for technical instruction, and a great deal 
 of credit has been taken for this ; but, considering the infi- 
 nitesimal proportion which the money thus spent bears to 
 the income which is really due to the trade by the trustees, 
 but which is spent in frivolity, the thing is too ridiculous to 
 merit more than a passing notice. 
 
 The trusts as to trade and the control of it were not 
 confined mthin the boundaries of the City, but extended 
 beyond it ; and this consideration is important, when we 
 come to consider the right of Londoners generally in these 
 Companies. 
 
 Whilst under the Tudors and their predecessors, by 
 stringent enactments or otherwise, London was confined 
 within the walls, the possibilities of expansion were provided 
 for in the charters of these Companies, so that the interests 
 of the different trades should be preserved ; and when the 
 City had burst its bounds, under James the First and his 
 successors, we find in the various succeeding charters the 
 area of the Companies' power is still equally wide. Thus 
 by the charter (7th July, 2 WilHam and Mary) granted to 
 the Grocers, it was provided that all persons carrying on the 
 " mysteries of confectioners, druggists, tobacconists, tobacco 
 cutters, and sugar bakers or refiners, within the City and 
 liberties, or within three miles thereof, should be of the 
 Commonalty of Grocers." 
 
 * See, also, account of patent granted by Queen Elizabeth to one 
 " not a member" of a Company to sell leather, and the opposition of the 
 Liveij.—Strype's " Stow," ii., 293. 
 
LIVERY companies: rights in suburbs. 65 
 
 By the Drapers* charter, 38 Edw. III., no one may 
 
 use the mystery of drapery in the City of London, or the 
 suhurhs thereof, unless duly apprenticed or admitted. 
 
 The Goldsmiths' charter from Henry the Seventh (sub- 
 sequently exempKfied and confirmed) authorizes search for, 
 and destruction of deceitful wares in London and within 
 three miles of the same. 
 
 The "honest and faithful men of the City," who, as 
 members of the Skinners' Company, were empowered by 
 the charter, 1 Edw. III., to search for defective furs, were 
 entitled to pursue their searches in the City and the suburbs 
 thereof. 
 
 The Merchant Taylors' charter, 18 Hy. VII., provides 
 that the Masters and Wardens of the Company shaU have 
 entire search and correction of all the natives and strangers 
 engaged in the working of men's apparel within the City of 
 London and the libei'ties and suburbs thereof. 
 
 A charter of the Clothworkers (24th April, 9 Car. I.) 
 grants that aR who use, or shall thereafter use the mystery, 
 in the City or suburbs^ shall be and thereafter remain one 
 commonalty and members of the guild. 
 
 The first charter of the Dyers' Company (16th Feb., 
 49 Hy. VI.), incorporating the Company, and granting it 
 perpetual succession, gives the Wardens authority to govern 
 all persons carrying on the mystery in the City or suburbs 
 thereof These charters were subsequently exempKfied and 
 confirmed, and finally, by a charter of Queen Anne (26th 
 April, 3 Anne), aU persons exercising the mystery of dyers 
 within the City of London and the suburbs thereof, and in 
 all other places whatsoever within ten miles of the same, are re- 
 incorporated into the Dyers' Company. 
 
 The Master and Wardens of the Brewers' Company have 
 a chartered power of controlling aU who exercise that mys- 
 tery in London and the suburbs, {oi four miles in extent. 
 
 £ 
 
66 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The Leafhersellers, under their charter from James the 
 First (24th July, 2 James I.), have control over all persons 
 carrying on the trade of leathersellers in the City of 
 London or the liberties and precincts thereof. 
 
 The ancient mystery of the Pewterers, established as a 
 guild, in honour of the Virgin Mary, by~ King Edward the 
 Fourth (26th January, 13 Edw. lY.), may consist of all 
 pewterers dwelling or thereafter to dwell in London or the 
 suburbs thereof, and of others who of their own pleasure were 
 willing to be of the same fraternity or guild. 
 
 The governing charter of the Cutlers' Company (granted 
 by James the First) empowers the Governing Body to make 
 rules as to the management of the Company and as to the 
 manner in wliich all cutlers in the City of London, and the 
 suburbs within three miles of the City, shall demean and be- 
 have themselves ; and to rules so made the consent of the 
 Lord High Treasurer and the Chief Justices of the King's 
 Bench and Common Pleas appears to have been requisite, 
 and was duly given. 
 
 The Hmit of the "Wax Chandlers, by their governing 
 charter (Nov. 15th, 23 Car. II.), was somewhat more ex- 
 tensive, including the City and ten miles round it. 
 
 Those who make vessels or wares of brass or copper, 
 wrought with the hammer, in the City of London, or without 
 the City for ^'fve miles next adjunct the same," are incor- 
 porated with the Armourers and Braziers' Company. 
 
 The Butchers' Company control the City and two miles 
 round it. 
 
 The Saddlers may make searches and destroy defective 
 wares in London and suburbs, in the Borough of Southwark, 
 the City of Westminster, and all places within two miles of 
 the City or suburbs. 
 
 The Carpenters' Company have a limit of two miles from 
 the City; the Cordwainers three miles; the Curriers ^Aree 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : RIGHTS OF LONDON TRADESMEN. 67 
 
 miles ; the Masons seven miles ; the Inn-holders three miles ; 
 the Bakers twelve miles ; the Founders three miles ; the 
 Coopers two miles ; Weavers ten miles ; the Scriveners three 
 miles : Fruiterers three miles ; Farriers seven miles ; Horners 
 twenty-four miles ; Apothecaries seven miles (now regulated 
 by statute) ; Comb-makers ^e/i miles ; Felt-makers/owr m/es; 
 Silk Throwers twenty miles; Needle-makers ten miles; 
 Gardeners six miles ; Wheelwrights/ve miles ; Coach-makers 
 twenty miles ; Gun-makers four miles ; and so on with the 
 other Companies. 
 
 It is thus sujB&ciently proven that the scope of the 
 Companies' powers was not territorial, so far as to be con- 
 fined within the present City boundaries, but that it was 
 extended to include all who practised the respective trades, 
 either in London or the suburbs, and this area over which 
 the governing charters granted control is most important, as 
 showing that these Companies are not in any sense merely 
 City institutions, but that tradesmen living considerable dis- 
 tances outside were controlled ; and, if these are stiU the 
 governing charters, tradesmen within such distances have, 
 as we contend, still the right of admission if they choose to 
 claim it. As to the rights of all tradesmen to participate in 
 the management and the profits of these Companies, so 
 long as they exist, we cannot do better than quote Mr. 
 Serjeant Pulling's admirable work on London, where he 
 observes :* — " It may nevertheless, however, admit of con- 
 siderable doubt whether every tradesman within London 
 has not still an inchoate right to be admitted a member of 
 that particular Company having a superintendence over 
 his trade. These Companies are not voluntary societies 
 consisting of persons chosen by volmitary consent ; nor can 
 the admission of members, as in the Corporation at large, 
 be considered to be settled by prescription, and confined to 
 * "Laws of London," p. 7tf. 
 
68 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 persons possessed of particular qualifications, as apprentice- 
 ship or patrimony ; on the contrary, the charters of all 
 the incorporated Companies expressly state them to be 
 composed of the working members of the difierent trades or 
 mysteries which they represent ; and further, in many 
 instances, requiring all persons in such trades within 
 certain limits to become members thereof. In Wannel's 
 case it was expressly laid down that when an act of 
 Common Council required all joiners in London to take 
 up their freedom in the Joiners' Company, under a certain 
 penalty, a mandamus would lie to compel the Company to 
 admit them," 
 
 To sum up the matter, these various charters under 
 which the Livery Companies profess to act and to be 
 governed, and under which they hold their property, pro- 
 vide, therefore, that workmen practising a given craft in or 
 near London must become members of the Company 
 bearing the name of their craft. They may be imprisoned 
 if they decline to do so, and imprisonments have taken 
 place for that reason. They provide that no one shall 
 practise the craft unless he be a member of the Company ; 
 but the Companies are much too wise to draw attention 
 upon themselves now by interfering with the trade when 
 they are not interested in it. They also provide that the 
 Companies shall, subject to the control of the Corporation 
 and of the Crown (of which more hereafter), rule and 
 control the trade for ' ' the greater good and common profit 
 of the people : " shall teach it to all who come to learn : 
 shall provide for those who are infirm or decayed, out of the 
 proceeds of lands which they are allowed to hold free of 
 succession, duty, and contrary to the Mortmain Acts; the 
 permission to hold such lands being given on the under- 
 taking that the trade shall be so ruled, the poor so pro- 
 vided for, and the interests of City commerce advanced by 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : ABANDONMENT OF TRADE CONTROL. 69 
 
 provision being made against the production of any inferior 
 manufactures. The money amassed by the trustees of these 
 objects is now diverted from them. A vast majority of the 
 Companies, including the Mercers, Drapers, Grocers, Iron- 
 mongers, Pewterers, "Wax Chandlers, Cutlers, Poulterers, 
 Fruiterers, Loriners, and others, do not in any way interfere 
 with the trades they represent ; some, as the Butchers, 
 Bakers, Coopers, Weavers, and Felt-makers, have only 
 recently ceased to exercise such control. Others, as the 
 Bowyers, Fletchers, Framework Knitters, Needle-makers, 
 and Patten-makers, have no trade to control, even if they 
 wished to be useful ; and other Companies have died out 
 altogether, probably from want of funds. Of such are the 
 Silkmen, the Pin-makers, Long Bowstring-makers, Soap- 
 makers, Woodmongers, Starch-makers, Hatband-makers, 
 Fishermen, and others. 
 
 The right of trading in the City, without taking out 
 freedom, has been recently conferred by the Common Coun- 
 cil ; but as a matter of law the charters of the different 
 Livery Companies of the City, still unrepealed and claimed 
 to be in force, give the completest possible control to the 
 different Companies over the trades whose names they 
 bear ; a control which, as we have seen, extends in many 
 cases to the subui-bs as well as to the City. And not 
 merely is there the power, but there is the machinery. The 
 old forms of Company Government, of Masters, Wardens, 
 and Court of Assistants, remain, and are perpetuated by 
 yearly elections, but there is little or nothing to govern. 
 As the advancing spirit of free trade broke iu upon the 
 City, the Companies retii'ed one after another from any 
 active control over or interference with trade. They had 
 been in many cases incorporated, and had special privileges 
 granted to them upon their own earnest suppHcation, as to 
 the bad manufactures with which the City was threatened. 
 
70 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 unless they were empowered to prevent it.''^ The work 
 seemed good to the monarchs of those days, and the power 
 of correction was given, and special privileges granted upon 
 condition of their carrying it out. But that which was 
 given might always be taken away, and the possession of 
 the property without the correlative of active work for the 
 benefit of the trade and so of the City was- never dreamed 
 of. But time has wrought a marvellous change, and we 
 see now a state of things which could not have existed for a 
 single year under any Tudor sovereign. The charters, so 
 far as regards many of their provisions, are treated as so 
 much waste paper, and there are very few of the Companies 
 who exercise any influence whatever, good, bad, or indif- 
 ferent, over trade. The Spectacle-makers and the Tallow 
 Chandlers are fine gentlemen, who have no idea of the trades 
 whose mystery they profess, and who indeed do not care to 
 meet with the very men whom the Company was estabHshed 
 to control and to benefit, and for more than 150 years the 
 " Cloth workers " have ceased to have any connection with 
 the control of the trade. 
 
 The charters remain unrepealed, and whilst they are 
 the very titles under which the Companies claim to hold 
 theii' exceptional rights, yet where they provide that all the 
 members then using or thereafter to use the mystery in 
 
 * Thus a charter of the Drapers' Company (3S Edw. III.) recites, 
 " that it had been shewn to the King and Council that great numbers of 
 persons belonging to divers mj'steries, who had never been apprentices, 
 or were sufficiently informed in the trade of drapery according to the 
 lawful custom of London, meddled and interfered therewith, so that there 
 was hardly a shop of any trade in the City in which draperj' was not 
 more or less exposed for sale, and that by their ignorance of the trade 
 the price of drapery was gi'eatly enhanced, and the quality thereof deteri- 
 oi'ated ;"* and, setting forth other evils complained of, the charter goes 
 on to declare that no one shall use the mystery of draperj- in London or 
 the suburbs thereof unless duly apprenticed or admitted to the same. 
 
 * See this charter quoted. " Report of Commissioners on Municipal Corporations, 
 1837. London Companies," p. 5. 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : RIGHTS AFFECTING THEM. 71 
 
 London or the suburbs shall be members, there the Gover- 
 ning Body quietly ignore them altogether, and deny to a 
 City or suburban tradesman the rights which ai'e as plainly 
 given to him by the charter as are the rights of holding 
 land and of perpetual succession. And so well is it known 
 that these charters, whilst useful as titles to property are 
 altogether disregarded so far as theu' correlative responsi- 
 bilities are concerned, that the poHcy is generally pursued 
 of declining to produce them at aU. They are alleged to be 
 the private property of the Governing Body, and to relate 
 to private property with which no one else has any more 
 right than he has with a man's title deeds. We conceive, 
 however, that if those title deeds disclosed, as the Companies' 
 charters do disclose, vested rights in a third person, that the 
 Court of Chancery would soon decree a discovery. The 
 long immunity from interference enjoyed by the City 
 Companies has resulted from negligence of their interests 
 by London tradesmen ; a negligence no doubt mainly due 
 to absolute ignorance of their right, an ignorance carefully 
 fostered by the Companies who keep all their financial and 
 proprietary arrangements impenetrably shrouded in the 
 breasts of a few in each Company, so that neither the 
 ordinary members nor the Livery are suffered to know them, 
 and those who do know them are probably bound by their 
 oaths not to reveal what they know. 
 
 When every practiser of a mystery was compelled to join 
 the Corporation, when every apprentice was compelled, under 
 pain of being sent to Newgate, to take up his freedom, a 
 compact body of reputable tradesmen was found, who were 
 responsible for the credit of their craft, and who, as the Wax 
 Chaundelers say in one of their petitions, bore their charges 
 towards " the grandeur of this honourable City." On con- 
 dition of their excellent government of the craft and benefit 
 to the City, they were allowed, in many cases by chai'ter, to 
 
72 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 purchase land for the ** sustentation of the poor, old, weak, 
 and decayed " persons of the mystery. If ever a Royal or 
 other Commission should investigate the finances of these 
 Companies, it will be found that the state of " decaie " in 
 some of them is a happy one, attended with a comfortable 
 pension, and that the people who enjoy it have not in the 
 large majority of cases any connection whatever with the 
 craft whose poor the lands were permitted to be held for the 
 support of Soon after the passing of the Statutes of Mort- 
 main it was customary for the kings to grant to Companies 
 power to purchase lands of a certain yearly value, and to 
 hold them for ever, for the benefit of the poor of the craft. 
 Richard the Second and Edward the Fourth made many 
 such grants. The present condition of these grants may be 
 estimated from a hypothetical illustration, but one which, 
 unless we are mistaken, has many counterparts in actual 
 fact. Richard the Second grants a charter, say, to the Guild 
 of Chifibnniers, empowering them and their successors to pur- 
 chase lands to the yearly value of £20, for the sustentation 
 of poor, old, weak, and decayed chifibnniers. The lands are 
 forthwith purchased, and the income devoted to the purpose 
 set out in the charter. "Exemplified," " confirmed," added 
 to, but never repealed, the lands are held to-day under that 
 charter. But what is their condition ? Probably they were 
 within the City, and instead of bringing in £20 a year they 
 bring in £2,000 a year. And the Worshipful Company of 
 Chifibnniers does not contain a single chifibnnier either on its 
 Court or its Livery. Probably the Court consider themselves 
 only bound to expend £20 a year, notwithstanding the in- 
 creased income, upon poor, but not upon poor or decayed 
 chifibnniers for whom it was given, but upon decayed gentle- 
 men whose fathers had the wit to make them when young 
 free of so useful a social organization. 
 
 Instances of these grants in mortmain occur constantly 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : LANDS IN MORTMAIN. 
 
 73 
 
 in the charters of the various Companies.* Thus by a 
 charter of 17 Henry the Sixth, the Diapers were incor- 
 porated into a community with perpetual succession and a 
 common seal, and a license was given by a subsequent con- 
 firmatory charter (6 Edw. IV.) to purchase lands to the 
 amount of £20 per annum for the maintenance of a chap- 
 lain and of the brothers of the guild. Now every di-aper in 
 London and its suburbs was bound to be a member of the 
 guild ; the guild was permitted to exist on condition of ad- 
 mitting and controlling them, and in return they had these 
 and similar rights of acquiring property and holding it as 
 trustees. Landed property, purchased under these and 
 similar licenses, brings in large revenues, and the perpetual 
 succession has prevented their being in any way depleted by 
 the claims of the Imperial Exchequer. The Crown con- 
 sented to forego its claims, in view of certain duties being 
 performed which were deemed to be of public advantage. 
 Those duties are no longer performed, but the privileged 
 possession still continues. 
 
 The Goldsmiths obtained a license from Edward the 
 Third, subsequently confirmed by Richard the Second 
 (16 Ric. II.), to purchase lands in mortmain to the extent 
 of £20 per annum for the maintenance of weak and blind 
 and infii-m goldsmiths. This license was originally granted 
 upon a representation made to the king of the effect of the 
 smoke of quicksilver in making members blind, and the work- 
 ing in other metals making them crazed and infirm. The 
 improved methods of working have removed these dangers 
 in modern times, but the lands in mortmain remain, and 
 the lands purchased under the various charters produce so 
 goodly an income, that it is commonly reported — with what 
 
 * See the Mercers' charter, for this pui-pose quoted ; Stow's " Sur- 
 vey of London," ed. 16:33, p. 599; also Maitland's " History of London," 
 ed. 1739, p. 598. 
 
74 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 truth we know not — that the pension of a " decayed " gold- 
 smith is in some cases as much as £300 a year. If this be 
 so we cannot wonder that the Corporation is a close one. 
 " Decay " means failure in business, or loss of income from 
 any cause ; something very far removed from the infirmities 
 which first stirred the generosity of King Edward the Third. 
 
 Some of the charters expressly exclude the Statutes of 
 Mortmain, as for example the charter of the Merchant 
 Taylors (18 Hy. YII.). In all of them, the lands held 
 under the grants have largely increased in value. 
 
 It is a matter of great public concern that the true 
 bearing of these holdings in mortmain by the City Com- 
 panies should be apprehended. 
 
 The same charters that grant to the Companies the right 
 to hold lands in mortmain specify the method in which the 
 guild should be ruled and in which the trade should be 
 controlled. The bargain made with the Crown was not in 
 those days an unfair one. Monopolous privileges in trading 
 and extremely beneficial tenure of land were granted, in 
 return for an undertaking that the particular trade should 
 be taught, that the money should be held for its advantage, 
 and that aU who practise it in London or the suburbs should 
 be admitted. These City lands have descended to the 
 present generation charged with these trusts ; but, as we 
 have shown, the trusts are no longer executed except in an 
 infinitesimal degree. The quantity of land held by the City 
 Companies in London is very large. It is estimated that 
 one-half of the best land in the City is in the hands of these 
 and other Corporations, who pay no succession duties and 
 who never sell. 
 
 The disadvantage of having the freehold of large areas 
 in a commercial centre held in mortmain is patent to every 
 one ; and this evil is increased by the custom of buying up 
 other land when it comes into the market, irrespective of its 
 
LIVERY companies: LANDS IN MORTMAIN, 75 
 
 present value. Price is a matter of small importance to a 
 corporate body bursting with funds. The land is then let 
 on lease ; but, as lease after lease falls in, the value of the 
 freeholders' interest goes on increasing.* It would be a 
 good thing for some member of Parliament to move for a 
 return of all lands held in mortmain in the country ; and 
 not the least part of the value of such a return would be 
 the flood of light we should get upon the condition of land 
 in the very heart of this great commercial City. It would 
 then be found that the soil upon which it stands is the least 
 commercial part of it. 
 
 The universities and colleges of Oxford and Cambridge 
 hold more than three hundred thousand acres of land in 
 mortmain ; and the City Companies, if we include their 
 Irish estates, probably hold still more. These lands do not 
 contribute their fair share to the revenue, even if the income 
 from them were rightly employed. Thus, upon land in the 
 hands of private owners succession duty is paid once every 
 twenty or thii'ty years, but upon these lands never. If it 
 were proposed that the tenure should continue, the remedy 
 might, no doubt, be found in revaluing the estates every 
 thirty years or so, and then charging a certain per-centage 
 by way of duty.f It is estimated that if all land in mort- 
 main were made to pay its fail- share of succession duty 
 upon the above principle, that this source of pubHc revenue 
 would be increased by something Hke two and a-half millions 
 per amuim,| 
 
 In addition to this ownership of mortmain lands, the 
 City C<nnpanies have other sources of large income, and 
 they are also the patrons of a considerable number of livings. 
 
 * As such lands are not sold, there is no exchange or distrihution of 
 the ownership. The hand of the Church is a " dead hand," but not more 
 so than that of a Citj' Company. 
 
 t See this theory discussed, 2'he Examiner, 1874:, p. 128tS, 
 
 X Ibid., p, 12'Jti. 
 
76 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 "We have no evidence before us as to the manner in which 
 this patronage is exercised ; but in the present day — what- 
 ever may be said of patronage upon the merits — it is quite 
 certain that no Corporation aggregate ought to exercise it ; 
 that no Corporation aggregate could be less fitted to do so 
 than the mixture of men of all possible professions, occu- 
 pations, and grades of belief or unbelief which constitutes an 
 ordinary City Company. 
 
 In some Companies — as, for example, the Merchant 
 Taylors — it is altogether denied that the fraternity, as such, 
 possesses any property ; but it is asserted that it is all owned 
 by the Master and Wardens. Probably, no such contention 
 could survive investigation, and may be taken merely as a 
 useful theory which may prevent recalcitrant liverymen 
 from advancing claims to participation in the funds, or, at 
 any rate, in the audit. 
 
 As a rule, however, the freemen, and frequently also the 
 liverymen of a Company, have no knowledge as to what the 
 total income of their Company amounts to, such information 
 being locked in the breasts of the Governing Body. Probably, 
 the disclosure by any of these of the financial condition of the 
 Company would be regarded as an act of high treason to the 
 City and to the Company. But, occasionally, facts are forth- 
 coming which are more or less useful as indicia. It can of course 
 scarcely be anticipated that when those who are immediately 
 interested are ignorant, people in the outside world should 
 know ; but from various data before us we may safely hazard 
 the opinion that the money annually received and dispensed 
 or invested by the self- elected and irresponsible Governing 
 Bodies of the City Companies is between three hundred 
 thousand and five hundred thousand pounds a year. We 
 believe it approaches the latter sum, and should be in no- 
 wise astonished to learn that it exceeded it. In this estimate 
 we charge the leased estates of the Companies at their full 
 
LIVERY companies: their income. 77 
 
 value. And the estates in Ireland are, necessarily, also 
 included, the aggregate value of which must be considerably 
 over a million sterling. 
 
 The income of the Drapers' Company was represented 
 to the Commissioners of 1837, at about £24,000 a year. 
 This amount, there is reason to believe, has more than 
 doubled since that date, and amongst other methods of dis- 
 posing of the surplus, a great shrine of gluttony has been 
 erected in Throgmorton Street, at a cost of more than 
 £70,000. In 1837, they spent on entertainments and 
 dinners £5,000 a year, on salaries £4,000 a year, and on 
 pensions and gratuities more than £5,000 a year. It would 
 be edifying to have a public audit of their accounts now. 
 Five hundred years ago aU the members of a Company knew 
 what the funds were, and how they were spent. This very 
 Company obtained its anomalous privileges in 1365, on the 
 ground that meddlers in drapery by their ignorance of the 
 trade, greatly enhanced the price, and the quality was 
 deteriorated. To-day a London draper would have small 
 chance of getting much information from the Company, if 
 indeed he could get admitted at aU, 
 
 And small Companies pursue the same policy as larger 
 ones, only at a respectful distance. The " Carpenters," for 
 example, supplied the Commissioners with their accounts, 
 from which it appeared that the major part of their income 
 of £2,000 a year (now largely increased, as much of their 
 property is in the City) was expended in dinners ; the next 
 item was for the poor of the Companies ; and the next, 
 salaries and fees for the attendance of the " Gentlemen of 
 the Court." 
 
 We believe there are few Companies, and probably not one 
 of the larger Companies, that ever present to their members 
 a statement of their income and expenditure. Attempts 
 have been made more than once in several of the Companies 
 
78^ MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 to obtain such accounts, but unsuccessfully.'^ We thus find 
 a state of things unique in a corporate body, dispensing vast 
 sums of money, namely, that the people who own the money 
 know neither its extent nor its appropriation. When by 
 seniority or otherwise they come within the arcana of the 
 Governing Body they are bound to secrecy by the double 
 bond of their personal undertaking and strong personal 
 interest. If our contention is correct, every draper in the 
 Metropolis has a vested interest in the funds of the Drapers* 
 Company ; but not merely is he denied all benefit from them, 
 but even those who are admitted within the charmed circle 
 of membership are denied the knowledge of the nature or 
 extent of their own property. 
 
 Although nothing can well be more clear than that a 
 large part of the property of these Companies is in the fullest 
 sense of the word trust property, yet this view of the case 
 is sedulously kept in the background, and the Governors of 
 the richer Companies go so far as to maintain that they owe 
 no account even to their own members, far less to the public. 
 The Corporation itself has made the same mistake more than 
 once in meeting the assaults made upon it. In a somewhat 
 arrogant " Statement" of the Court of Ablermen, submitted 
 to Members of both Houses after the introduction of the Bill 
 of 1856, the Aldermen say that they exposed their title deeds 
 and the accounts of their revenue to the Royal Commissioners 
 with feelings of honest pride and generous confidence, but that 
 " they little expected to see from the pen of British statesmen 
 a report applying laws of meum and tutim to a Corporation 
 upon difi'erent principles to those which at least at present 
 prevail in regard to private individuals."! It is clear 
 that the view held in the City of the position and respon- 
 
 * See hereon ineffectual attempt by a liveryman of the Dyers' Company. 
 " Report of Municipal Commissioners," p. 65. 
 
 t " Statement of the Court of Aldermen," p. 18. 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : THEIR PROPERTY. 79 
 
 sibiKties of public Corporations is not so correct as it 
 ought to be. 
 
 The natui'c and extent of the property of the Companies 
 being thus known as a rule only to the Governing Bodies, 
 we cannot be astonished to find that the immediate cestnis 
 que &iisfs are in many cases denied the inspection, not 
 merely of books and accounts, but of important charters 
 and of the muniments of the Companies' titles. 
 
 The Royal Commissioners of 1833 were permitted by 
 some of the Companies to inspect some of theii' charters, 
 but notwithstanding the power they possessed to examine 
 upon oath, their authority was often denied ; their cii'cular 
 of queries unanswered, and some of the Companies declined 
 to appear and give any account of their stewardship. 
 Surely no Royal Commission was ever treated so scurvily or 
 bore its snubbing with equal composure. The independence 
 and opposition of the Companies was especially noticeable 
 in the case of those that had large funds, and whose control 
 was irresponsible, whilst small Companies, who had very 
 little to lose, were frequently willing to tell the Commis- 
 sioners anything they wished to know. The Grocers, for 
 example, decHned to give any account of themselves to the 
 Commissioners, and probably they were wise in their gene- 
 ration. It is not, however, without a certain aptitude that 
 one recognizes the motto of the Company — ''God grant 
 grace." It would have been interesting to know how the 
 graceless grocers do dispense their vast trust property. For 
 example, in 1636 one William Pennefather, by his will, 
 gave £233 6s. 8c?. to buy land of the yearly value of 
 £11 13s. 4c?., such sum to be divided amongst seven poor 
 almspeople. How much does the land bring in, and how 
 much is paid over ? So a house is given to the same Com- 
 pany to provide £4 a year for an iron and glass lantern to 
 be fixed in Billingsgate, and £6 10s. to the poor. If the 
 
80 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 house brings in (as it probably does), £300 a year, how 
 much is given to the poor ? 
 
 Whilst the ordinary funds at the command of the 
 Companies are mainly spent in salaries, pensions, and 
 dinners, those that are expressly left for purposes of charity 
 are so bestowed mth a more or less literal adhesion to the 
 terms of the bequest. When a testator three hundred years 
 ago left a house or land to the intent that the income should 
 be employed to pay a certain sum yearly to a schoolmaster 
 who should teach all the poor children of the craft, he was 
 of the opinion that the value of money which for two hun- 
 dred years had remained stationary would so continue, and 
 had not in contemplation that his land would increase in 
 value twenty -fold. A large amount of land has been left 
 or given to the City Companies upon these and similar 
 educational trusts. Sometimes the whole improved income 
 is devoted to educational uses, which are however, as a rule, 
 widely different from what the donor intended ; sometimes 
 only the literal terms of the gift are attended to, and the 
 balance of income is appropriated by the Companies for 
 their own private purposes. There is no doubt that where 
 the land or property is given with the intention that the 
 Company should be merely trustees and not beneficiaries, 
 there the balance is misappropriated. We cannot estimate 
 the amount of such misappropriated balance ; but the 
 Examiner (a paper which has given considerable consi- 
 deration to the question) estimates it at not less than one 
 hundred thousand pounds per annum. 
 
 The returns made by the City Companies of charities 
 vested in them, contain these bequests entered as a fixed 
 charge upon the property, and the value of the property 
 itself is not set out. Yet upon the tables made out on this 
 system the Companies admit themselves to be the distri- 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : THEIR PROPERTY. 81 
 
 butors of more than ninety-nine thousand pounds per annum* 
 in the form of charity. Of this sum £19,008 is available 
 for education ; £5,646 for apprenticing and advancement ; 
 £903 for endowment of lecturers, preachers, &c. ; £53,912 
 for the support of almshouses and pensioners ; £1,368 for 
 the distribution of clothing, bread, &c. ; £112 for distribu- 
 tion in money; £181 for general uses of the poor; and 
 £17,983 for payments to parishes, schools, &c. 
 
 It is therefore exceedingly probable that the land or 
 money left or given to the City Companies for educational 
 purposes, is far outweighed in amount by the property 
 available for charitable purposes generally ; " almshouses," 
 " poor men and women," " decaied " members of the trade, 
 and so forth. The almshouses were intended for working 
 members of the craft Avho had become unfortunate ; they 
 are not, however, appropriated to this class as a rule. The 
 "decaie" that is benefited is that of members of the 
 Company, frequently irrespective of the business which 
 they have followed, and the other specific charitable 
 bequests are often carried out literally, and the balance of 
 income, contrary to the donor's apparent wish, is appro- 
 priated by the Company. 
 
 Some years ago, Stuart Mill wrote that we had " well 
 nigh seen the last of the superstition which allowed a man 
 who owned a piece of land or a sum of money 500 years 
 ago to make a binding disposition of it so long as the British 
 nation should last." A large proportion of the property of 
 
 * See copy of " Digest of Endowed Charities," mentioned in the 14th 
 Keport of the Charity Commissioners, presented to the House of Commons 
 on motion of Lord Robert Montagu, 1668. The total income returned to 
 the Commissioners appointed in 1H18 and 1819 (under the provisions of 
 the 58 Geo. HI., c. 91, and 59 Geo- III., c. 81) was i'85,t)65. See " Digest 
 of Report of Commissioners," p. 723. The difference is supposed to 
 represent fifty years' improved value ! ! 
 
 F 
 
82 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the City Companies is held upon these trusts some hundreds 
 of years old. But whilst the presumable wish of the ancient 
 donors was that the whole of the property left should be de- 
 voted to the purpose indicated, the Companies frequently 
 effectuate merely the Hteral terms of his bequest, even 
 although they are aware that they are bound in equity to 
 appropriate the whole. 
 
 When £20,000 is left to the Clothworkers' Company for 
 the produce to be appHed in " making themselves comfort- 
 able,"^ no one doubts that, however much the fund has 
 increased, the produce will be faithfully applied. But it is 
 in bequests for the benefit of the poor that the malversation 
 chiefly exists. The legal bearings of these bequests have 
 been clearly ascertained in a recent decision ; f and as it 
 seems probable that not less than one hundred thousand 
 pounds per annum is, upon the ruling in that case, taken 
 from the pockets of the London poor and misappropriated, 
 its importance cannot well be over-estimated. 
 
 The facts were these. In 1570, one Robert Donkyn, 
 formerly a member of the Merchant Taylors', devised certain 
 house property in Bishopsgate J to the Master, Wardens, and 
 Commonalty of the Merchant Taylors' Company, to the in- 
 tent and upon the condition that they should every year 
 out of the rents provide for twelve poor men twelve gowns 
 of Welsh frieze of the price of sixteen-pence the yard, 
 twelve shirts of the value of two shillings each shirt, twelve 
 pairs of shoes of the value of twelve-pence the paii- ; and 
 he then provided in a similar manner for twelve poor women. 
 
 * Vide note of this well-known bequest. "Pearson, on •Corporation 
 Eefoi-m," p. 88. 
 
 f The Merchant Taylors' Company v. The Attorney -General, decided by 
 Hatherley, L.C., and Mellish and James, L.J. J., on appeal from Romilly, 
 M.R. Vide 11 L.R., Ch. 39 ; 40 L.J., Ch. 545 ; decided in 1871. 
 
 % This charity is entered in the return above quoted as a " fixed 
 charge" of £38 Is., thus illustrating what we stated as to the fallacious- 
 ness of the return. Vide " Digest of Endowed Charities, &c.," pp. 44-5, 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : THEIR CHARTERS. 83 
 
 The produce of the house property at the death of the tes- 
 tator was somewhat more than was requisite for the purpose ; 
 but since that time it has enormously increased, and until 
 the Charity Commissioners heard of the case the Company 
 pocketed the balance, taking, of course, due care to clothe 
 the twelve poor men and the twelve poor women. 
 
 It was held both by the Master of the Rolls and the 
 Court of Appeal that the Company were not entitled to appro- 
 priate the surplus to their own purposes. Of course the inten- 
 tion of the testator is the basis upon which the decision rests. 
 If he had given estates to a Company with their undertaking 
 and upon condition that they should make certain pajrments 
 as in the case of the Attorney -Greneral v. The Wax Chan- 
 delers' Company,* the decision would have been different, but 
 there was in this case as is the case in hundreds of others, 
 no manifest intention to give the property to other than 
 charitable uses. 
 
 Robert Donk}Ti apparently never supposed that the 
 value of money and the price of frieze would change, still 
 less did he suppose that the twelve or fifteen cottages and 
 gardens bringing in their thirty shillings a year each, and 
 requiring constant repair, would in the course of years be 
 replaced by magnificent warehouses yielding a princely 
 income. What would have been his bequest if such a 
 prospect had been unrolled before him it is impossible to say, 
 and the case is a striking illustration of the absurdity of 
 allowing a testator to control the direction of land for hun- 
 dreds of years.f The Merchant Taylors are now bound to 
 
 * 8 L.R., Ch. 452. 
 
 f In the Report made lo the Charity Commissioners of 1819, we find 
 that the Merchant Taylors quote the prices fixed hy Robert Donkyn for 
 the articles to be supplied (shoes I'M. and so forth), and add these prices 
 fixed -when money was only a tithe of its present value up to £22 \Qs., 
 and then go on to say that they expend about double the amount "so as 
 to carry into full effect the intentions of the testator." " Report of Com- 
 missioners on Charities. " Vol. XVII., p. 432, printed 1827. 
 
84 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 expend the revenue in charitable purposes, under the ^y 
 pres doctrine of the Court of Chancery.* 
 
 In addition to trusts of this kind there are also many 
 others where valuable landed estate has been left for 
 purposes which have altogether failed. The payment of 
 preachers in churches which have been pulled down; at 
 Paul's Cross, and at other places, are of this class. A sum 
 left for the marriage portioning of maidens brought in to the 
 Drapers' Company more than £2,000 a year forty years 
 ago, but most of it was applied to " corporate purposes." 
 
 And when the objects are carried out, they are sometimes 
 carried out at extravagant expense. Thus, in 1812, the Gold- 
 smiths' Company built almshouses for twenty people at a cost 
 of £12,000, or £600 for each inmate, and recently the pay- 
 ment of an apprentice premium of £10 was in one Company 
 made the excuse for a dinner that cost £100. 
 
 The salaries paid by the City Companies are on the most 
 liberal scale, as may well be expected from masters who have 
 more funds than they know how to appropriate. The 
 onerous duty of governing the Company and of managing 
 its funds is also frequently weU remunerated. 
 
 A venerable member of one of the City Companies, 
 being asked to account for their tenacity of life, answered, 
 " The dinners have done it," and probably he was, in no 
 small degree, right. The feasts of the olden time, for which 
 every member paid out of his own pocket, have in the course 
 of events come to be represented by the most extravagant 
 and expensive entertainments, costing many thousands a 
 year, and which are defrayed out of the funds of the Com- 
 
 * The charitable purpose for which the money has been used is the 
 erection of a Convalescent Home at Boguor, in pursuance of a " scheme " 
 prepared in lb69. The funds had been accumulating six years, and 
 amounted to over i'-iO.OOO. The Company are the " Governors " of the 
 Home. A pleasant institution for sick friends. See f uU details of scheme 
 in " Memorials of Merchant Taylors' Company," by C M. Clode, pp. y89, 
 et seq. Harrisons, London, 1876, 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : RIGHTS OF THE CITY. 85 
 
 pany, this being one of the great, if not the great " cor- 
 porate purpose."^ 
 
 Sometimes dinners are given to the whole of the members 
 of the Company, and those who are on the Livery are en- 
 titled to a certain number every year where the funds are 
 adequate. The Court and the officers of some Companies 
 dine very frequently, and have the advantage of being paid 
 for doing so. 
 
 Some Companies have funds specially left for the phy- 
 sical recreation of the guild ; and in one Company a fund 
 exists for the purpose of providing each member with a glass 
 of a drink known as " Lady Cowper," said to have the effect 
 of taking away the unpleasant sensations caused by over- 
 dining. So grateful was the donor of this fund for a glass 
 of the magic Hquor after a heavy City dinner, that he deter- 
 mined to confer a similar benefit on his successors. But, 
 probably, those who left even these funds intended them for 
 tradesmen hke themselves, and not for the omnium gatherum 
 which constitutes a modern City Company. 
 
 The Livery Companies, although they are at present 
 free from active oversight and control at the hands of any 
 alien body, are nevertheless subject to it at the hands both 
 of the City Corporation and of the Crown. It is desirable 
 to estabHsh this proposition, as it may help us to the best 
 basis on which to deal with them. Notwithstanding the 
 influence which the united trading Companies obtained in 
 City government and in the election of corporate officers, it 
 does not appear that the supremacy of the City Corporation 
 over the Companies and over their internal management, 
 which was so prominent in the early part of their history, 
 has ever been lost. 
 
 * II is said that the Goldsmiths expend more than £30,000 per annum 
 in dining, and the Fishmongers, Ironmongers, Clothworkers, Skinners, 
 and Grocers are not far in the background. , Many of the City dinners 
 cost from three to five guineas per head. 
 
86 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Appointments of the rulers of the Companies, and con- 
 firmation of those who were selected hy the Companies, were 
 of constant occurrence during the reigns of the later Plan- 
 tagenet kings.* The rulers of the Companies were always 
 sworn in before the Court of Aldermen, and fines were im- 
 posed upon refractory members. The rules of the Com- 
 panies were approved by the Court, and the Masters were 
 sworn to defend them as so approved and allowed, f 
 
 And so, when the various Companies applied for incor- 
 porating charters, the Court of Aldermen gave their adhesion 
 to their terms before the Company was definitely recognized 
 as a corporate body within the City ; and these charters 
 were duly enrolled on the books of the Court of Aldennen. 
 In some cases they had power to abrogate the charter itself, 
 when they thought right, and the Corporation seems to 
 have claimed and exercised the power of creating a new 
 Company whenever they thought fit. And as with the 
 constituting charter so with the bye-laws and internal regu- 
 lations, the Mayor and Aldermen seem to have claimed 
 power to deal with them. It would appear, therefore, that 
 a right of appeal wiU He from the decision of a Livery Com- 
 pany, as to a matter within its internal regulation, to the 
 Mayor and Aldermen. J 
 
 The statute 15 Hy. YI., c. 6, enacts that the Master and 
 Wardens of all guilds, fraternities, &c., shall bring in their 
 charters to be enrolled before the governors of the cities in 
 which they exist, and that no such Master or Wardens 
 should make any ordinance to the disinheritance or diminu- 
 tion of the king's franchise, or of others ; nor against the 
 
 * " Report of Municipal Commissioners." Vol. II., p. 13. 
 
 f On the other hand, we find that the Major must be chosen from the 
 members of one of the Twelve great Companies, as those of " inferiour 
 rancke are not capable of such dignitie." — Stow's " Survey," ed. 1633, 
 p. 599. 
 
 1 See Stationers' Company v. Salisbury, Raymond 222. See also 
 appeal by members of Merchant Taylors' Company. — Clode's " Memorials 
 of the Merchant Taylors," p. 249. 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : CONTROI, BY THE CITY. 87 
 
 common profit of the people, nor other ordinance of charge, 
 unless approved hy such chief governors, and entered of 
 record. 
 
 This comprehensive statute is recited by the 19 Hy. VII., 
 c. 7, and that numerous ordinances had been made by private 
 corporate bodies in contravention of it, and it is re-enacted, 
 and the ordinances against the common profit of the people 
 are declared unlawful, except with the assent of the Chan- 
 cellor, Treasurer, or Chief Justice of the King's Bench or 
 Common Pleas, or any three of them, &c. 
 
 More than one of the charters of the City of London 
 grants that the customs of the City shall remain intact, 
 whether used or not, and this jurisdiction over the Com- 
 panies, and the power in the City, and in the Crown, to deal 
 with and abrogate all laws made by their Governing Bodies 
 which have not .been entered on the City Records, or 
 assented to by the Crown as above provided, seems to be 
 quite unimpaired. 
 
 The 38 Edw. III., in granting exclusive rights over 
 drapery to the Drapers' Company, provides for the elected 
 Wardens being sworn in before the Mayor, and being assisted 
 in their government by the Mayor and Sheriffs. It is 
 doubtful whether this internal control was not lessened by 
 the subsequent charters, but it sufficiently shows that in its 
 origin the government of the Company was provided for as 
 being a public matter, and on the same level as the govern- 
 ment of the City. 
 
 A charter of Henry the Sixth (22 Feb., 16 Hy. YI.) 
 provides that the officers of the Skinners' Company annually 
 elected shall be presented to the Lord Mayor, and be sworn 
 before him ; and this, though subsequently confirmed, would 
 appear to have gradually fallen into desuetude. It is appre- 
 hended, however, that it might be enforced ; and, if so, 
 there must be some reciprocal power inherent in the Mayor 
 
88 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 to ascertain the duties of the officers, so that he may judge 
 how far the oath is kept. 
 
 In 1752, five liverymen of the Merchant Taylors' 
 Company, being refused a copy of the Company's bye-laws 
 by the Master and Wardens, apphed for redi-ess to the Lord 
 Mayor and Aldermen. The officers of the Company do not 
 appear to have denied the jurisdiction, but they were appre- 
 hensive of it, and produced the book to the liverymen. 
 This is material, and the more so as the Court of Mayor and 
 Aldermen passed a resolution that the several Companies of 
 the City " are under the government of the Court of Mayor 
 and Aldermen." 
 
 The Court of Aldermen, sitting on the 5th of Septem- 
 ber, 1533, appears to have had before its consideration the 
 book of ordinances of the Clothworkers' Company, and to 
 have approved of the same with the exception of three ar- 
 ticles, which they specify. The exception taken to these 
 three articles would seem to indicate an active control by the 
 Mayor and Aldermen of the internal arrangements of the 
 Company. 
 
 So the Common Council of the City, in March 1551, de- 
 clined to confirm, and finally rejected, an article presented 
 by the Clothworkers' Company as to the bindmg of appren- 
 tices, it being declared to be contrary to the customs, 
 liberties, and franchises of the City. 
 
 In 1657, the Common Council passed an Act giving to 
 the "Wardens of the Dyers' Company control over the trade. 
 
 In 1488, the Wax Chandlers presented to the Mayor 
 and Aldermen a prayer for their assent to the new bye-laws, 
 and after reading and approving the said bye-laws they duly 
 allowed them. In a former petition, under date 45 Edw. 
 III., the " Waxchaundelers " make complaint as to their 
 craft being " gretely slaundered " in the " Citie," and that 
 they have not "Maisters chosen of the saide crafte and 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : CONTROL BY THE CITY. 89 
 
 sworn afore you Maire and Aldremen as other crafts have, 
 to ovrse the defaultes which ben in their said craftes," 
 clearly indicating the custom of the Companies at this time ; 
 and it was provided that all defective manufactures should 
 be proved before the Mayor and Aldermen, and all fines levied 
 in consequence should go into the Chamber of the City. 
 
 Some of the bye-laws allowed upon the petition of 
 " the Maister, Wardeyns, and hole Felaushippe" are remark- 
 able, and illustrate the jealousy of foreign intervention in 
 trade, and also the vigorous measures which were thought 
 justifiable by our ancestors in order to rule the citizens.''*' 
 
 By an Act of the Qommon Council, in 1754, persons 
 exercising the trade of Butchers within a certain district are 
 compelled to become free of the Butchers' Company. 
 
 In the same year, another Act was passed, enacting that 
 any one carrying on the trade of a plumber in London or 
 the Hberties thereof must take upon himself the freedom of 
 the Plumbers' Company. In default he may be sued for a 
 penalty. So by Acts of the Council, under date 26th 
 October, .1763, and 22nd September, 1820, it was provided 
 that a penalty of £5 should be recoverable for every sale of 
 poultry made by any one not a member of the Poulters. 
 
 * " It is, therefore, ordeigned and establesshed that no man, psone, nor 
 psones occupying the said craft within the Cite and fraunchise aforesaide 
 take any foreyn or aliantinto his svice. to work in the said crafle, nor eny 
 poynt thereof, uppon peyn of forfeiture of xiij^. irijd. for evy foreyn or 
 aliant so taken and sett aworke, as often as he or they be found gilty in 
 the same. ***** 
 
 " AJso where as diysc and many young men of the said craft gevyng 
 theym selfe to idleuesse and unlawfulle games, wandryng as vagabunds 
 within the said Cite and the fraunchise thereof, and will not applye theym 
 selfe to worke in the saide craft for reasonable wages, that if eny suche 
 psone or psones so wandryng be desired and required to worke within his 
 crafte for reasonable hire or wages, and hit refuse and wille not wyrke, 
 that then the Maister ond Wardeyns of the same crafte for the tyme 
 beyng take and bryng theym afore the Maire of the said Cite or th' 
 Aldremen, to be punnyshed as a vagabunde tille he be reconsiled and offre 
 hym selfe to worke." See this quoted in " Rep. of M. C, 1837," div. 2. 
 p. 108. 
 
90 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 And the control exercised by the Mayor and Aldermen 
 over the Companies was not confined to the acceptance of 
 the Master and allowance of bye-laws, but extended to the 
 enforcement of the bye-laws. Thus, in 1630, a citizen was 
 committed to Newgate for not obeying a bye-law of the 
 Poulterers' Company. 
 
 In the reign of William and Mary, the Mayor and 
 Aldermen, upon the petition of the members of the Farriers' 
 Company, granted and established them as a Liver}' Com- 
 pany of the City, it appearing that the books of the 
 Company had been lost in the Great Fire. 
 
 By an Act of the Common Council, dated July 1st, 1 658, 
 " all persons using the trade of a spectacle-maker within 
 this City or liberties thereof, are required to become free 
 of this Company." 
 
 The Court of Aldermen did not grant a Livery to the 
 Clockniakers' Company till July 1766, and seem to have at 
 that time and several times subsequently regulated the 
 number of the Livery and the fines payable on admission. 
 
 Previously to this grant the Common Council, by an Act 
 (loth Oct. 1765), decreed that all persons carrying on the 
 business of clock or watchmaker, and mathematical in- 
 strument maker must be free of the Company. A dispute 
 appears to have arisen as to an optical instrument maker 
 whom the Clockmakers summoned to take up his freedom 
 with them, but the Spectacle-makers opposed and the 
 Court of Aldermen decided that he must take up his 
 freedom as a spectacle-maker. 
 
 People using mysteries within the Kmits are in several 
 other cases required by the Acts of the Common Council to 
 take up their freedom in the Company whose trade they prac- 
 tise. In 1759, such an Act was passed as to Felt-makers. 
 
 It is even open to question whether the City control 
 does not extend to the extinction of a Company in some 
 
LIVERY companies: control by the crown. 91 
 
 cases, for example, the governing charter of the Gardeners 
 (18 Sep. 3, Jac. I.), contains a proviso whereby the Lord 
 Mayor and Aldermen may certify into Chancery their 
 voidance of the charter if it be found convenient. 
 
 But the Corporation of the City has long ceased 
 actively to interfere with the management of the Companies. 
 As every Alderman is a member of a Company he is not 
 likely to take any action on the one side that might imperil 
 or lessen his privileges on the other, and so things remain, 
 and will remain, as long as they can be kept in statu quo. 
 The fierce opposition which has been again and again ofiered 
 by the Corporation to reform, is grounded in the fear that a 
 Corporation elected from a wider area, and whose members 
 were not personally interested in these guilds, might lay rude 
 hands upon them or perchance call them to account. To 
 allow any parvenu Corporation to find out their power, or to 
 begin to exercise control over the Companies, would, as they 
 well know, be the beginning of the end. 
 
 The control of the Qrown over the Companies has been 
 manifested in several ways. This control, although now 
 vigorously contested, was not in former days a matter of any 
 dispute whatever. It extended to the whole existence of the 
 Company, which was admitted to rest upon the pleasure of 
 the sovereign, and it descended into minor details connected 
 with the method of governing the Companies. The rules 
 and bye-laws suggested by the Companies generally 
 required the consent of the Crown or its representatives. 
 Thus the rules of the Cutlers' Company received the consent 
 of the Lord High Treasurer, and the Chief Justices of the 
 King's Bench and Common Pleas (20 March, 1703). The 
 governing charter of the Bakers' Company (2 James II.) 
 contains a power enabling the king, by order of the Privy 
 Council, to amove the Master, Wardens, Assistants, or 
 Clerk of the Company. And this was no new claim ; for 
 
92 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 we find, in 1507 (13 July, 22 Hy. VII.), that the bye-laws 
 of the Company were rectified by the Lord Chancellor, 
 the Lord Treasurer, and the Chief Justice of the King's 
 Bench, and in 1622 (22 Feb., 19 Jac. I.) the bye-laws of the 
 mystery of Brown Bread Bakers (who are united with the 
 White Bread Bakers in the governing charter of Jac. II.) 
 were settled under the hands oi' the Lord Keeper and the 
 Chief Justices of the Court of King's Bench and Common 
 Pleas. 
 
 In 1664 (28 June) the bye-laws of the Wax Chandlers' 
 Company were allowed by the Lord Chancellor and Chief 
 Justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, upon the 
 prayer of the Governing Body. 
 
 In 1710 the bye-laws of the Armourers and Braziers 
 were allowed by the Lord Keeper and the Lord Chief 
 Justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas. 
 
 And so with many others of the Companies. The bye- 
 laws would appear to have been generally approved of 
 by the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, and the Chief 
 Justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, or by the 
 Mayor and Court of Aldermen. They were brought before 
 them by petition of the Company. The latest example of 
 this, so far as we know, was the approval given by Lord 
 Hardwicke as Lord Chancellor, and by the Chief Justices 
 of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, to the rules and 
 constitutions of the Mystery of Butchers, such rules having 
 been compiled in accordance with the terms of the charter of 
 23 Geo. II. 
 
 In 1684 the Stationers petitioned the king for a new 
 charter, which was duly granted, and therein they pray for 
 a Governing Body to be confirmed to them, to be composed of 
 such persons as the king should deem good and faithful 
 subjects of the king and his successors, and that upon just 
 complaint the person so elected should be Liable to be amoved 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : CONTROL BY THE CROWN, 93 
 
 by Order in Council. And, in the charter itself, it is 
 declared that the election of Clerk to the Company is to 
 be approved under the Privy Signet (22 May, <^6 Car. II.) 
 and that in case of an election of Master or Wardens con- 
 trary to the statute, that the king may expel them. 
 
 But the interference of the Crown has gone very far 
 beyond the mere provisions for ov ersight of rules and control 
 of management. There is abundance of precedent for the 
 most complete investigation or alteration ; not precedent 
 confined to one or two acts of tyrannous kings, but to acts 
 of successive kings continued through centuries, and the 
 constitutional justice of which the Companies themselves 
 acknowledged. 
 
 In the twelfth year of Richard the Second, the Livery 
 Companies of the City were commanded, under penalty of 
 forfeiture, to dehver to the King and Council a full account 
 of their origin, foundations, rules, oaths, liberties, privileges, 
 statutes, ordinances, and usages of all kinds, together with a 
 complete statement of their property, its investment, and 
 the income derived from it. There does not appear to have 
 been any question in this case as to the power and right of 
 the Crown, nor any Companies who asserted that it was no 
 business of the king's, and who declined to answer his requi- 
 sitions. The position of these Companies and of their property 
 was better understood in 1389 than in 1837. Unfortunately the 
 return does not appear to be now in existence. The control 
 thus asserted by Richard the Second and his predecessors 
 was continued by every monarch down to William the Third. 
 Possessed of monopolous rights, the members of the Com- 
 panies were well aware how entirely these rights, and the 
 corporate property amassed through their possession, rested 
 'upon the pleasure of the Crown. When a new sovereign 
 ascends the throne now, the City Companies make no 
 endeavour to conciliate the royal favour or the continuance 
 
94 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of their possessions. They have divorced the trade from 
 the property, and, keeping the latter, care little for the 
 former. But their conduct was very different three hundred 
 years ago, and their privileges and property suffered constant 
 revision, and were only confirmed by succeeding sovereigns 
 for good consideration. Henry the Eighth made them pay 
 large sums of money. In 1545 they paid him more than 
 £20,000 towards the expenses of the Scotch war. In 1521 
 he ordered the Drapers' Company to supply a vessel for 
 foreign enterprise, and they forthwith did so. In 1546 took 
 place a visitation on the suppression of chantries, and a 
 Commission was empowered to make a full disclosure of all 
 the property, &c., of the Livery Companies. King Edward 
 the Sixth received £18,700 under this Commission. 
 
 Queen Mary obtained £65,000 from the Livery Com- 
 panies towards the expenses of the French war. Queen 
 Ehzabeth is said to have extracted £140,000 from them, 
 and then compelled them to borrow it back upon the 
 security of their own gold plate, and to pay the Crown 
 seven per cent, for the loan ! James the First, who incor- 
 porated no less than fifteen new monopolous Companies, took 
 care to be well paid for all the charters he granted. Nine 
 of the twelve great Companies had new charters from this 
 monarch, making their powers over their trades more 
 absolute than ever. 
 
 Charles the First exacted large payments for his favour 
 from the Companies. At one assembly of the Common 
 Hall no less a sum than £100,000 was voted, and precepts 
 issued to the Companies for its collection. They were still 
 further impoverished under the Commonwealth ; but so 
 great was their recuperative power that they welcomed 
 Charles the Second at the Restoration with the most 
 magnificent presents. 
 
 And the submission which they were in the habit of 
 
LIVERY companies: control by the crown. 
 
 95 
 
 Differing to different sovereigns was not wanting to Charles 
 the Second. The Companies well knew in those days that 
 the very continuance of their monopolies depended upon 
 royal favour: that the property they had amassed was 
 held hy them as trustees, and that if the king chose to take 
 away the opportunity of performing the trust he would also 
 in all probability take away the funds also. 
 
 This it was that led them to consider their position, 
 when in 1684 the City charters were declared forfeited to 
 the king. They at once saw that the same hand might be 
 laid upon their own charters, and they therefore hastened to 
 make new submission to the king. They offered their 
 humble submission "to the sacred majesty" of the king, 
 and asked him in " his princely wisdom " to regulate their 
 government. He did so, by the grant of new charters re- 
 incorporating the Companies under such restrictions as he 
 thought proper ; continuing their right of perpetual succes- 
 sion, but making the officers of any Company removeable by 
 the king, and the whole body of the Company to be subject 
 to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. 
 
 Very different was the conduct of the Companies when 
 the Commissioners of 1835 received the royal command to 
 inquire into the Corporation of London. Upon this occa- 
 sion the Merchant Taylors distinguished themselves amongst 
 the Companies by their opposition. They told the Commis- 
 sioners that they would meet them with "unqualified resis- 
 tance." King WilHam the Fourth had commanded his 
 loving subjects to give their best assistance to his trusty and 
 well-beloved Commission, but the Merchant Taylors admin- 
 istering a vast income, amassed under public auspices, and 
 held by them as trustees for public purposes, that is to say, 
 for the training and supervision of tailors and breeches 
 makers, arrogantly set both King and Commission at defiance. 
 It would be amusing, if it were not so lamentable, to contrast 
 
96 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 this with their conduct in 1684. They were foremost then 
 in craven submission. They begged the king in their most 
 servile language, to take back their charter ; and when he 
 granted them a new one, which he did in the same year, 
 they voted that all the Company should wait upon the king 
 to thank him. Judge Jefferies, however, informed them 
 that the king " accepted their thanks, but would excuse 
 their attendance ;" whereupon the Company voted a present 
 in plate for the " great and extraordinary honour he had 
 conferred on them." It is exactly what might be antici- 
 pated, that the abject cowardice of 1684 would develop into 
 the confident assumption of 1837, and that the title deeds 
 which the men of 1684 offered to the king, their descendants 
 150 years later should claim as their " private property." 
 James the Second endeavoured to corrupt the electoral body of 
 the Companies so as to use them for his own purposes, and 
 still the Merchant Taylors were to the fore and proposed to 
 set up his statue in the Royal Exchange.''^ 
 
 * We are anxious to do every justice to this Company in judging of its 
 conduct in 1837, and therefore we append a copy of the resglutions passed 
 at a Court of Assistants of the Merchant Taylors of the Fraternity of 
 John the Baptist, held on the 24th of October and the lith of November, 
 1883 ; and we do this the more readily, as these resolutions illustrate the 
 grounds of defence on which the Companies will probably again rest their 
 case. It is ajso fair to add that these resolutions are founded more or less 
 upon the answers given by Sir James Scarlett, Mr. W. W. Follett, and 
 Mr. W. E. Eennall to the two foDowing queries : — 1. " Whether Muni- 
 cipal Corporations are legally bound and compellable to furnish the 
 information sought for by the Municipal Corporation Commission and by 
 the first list of queries propounded by the Commissioners ; and if so, to 
 what extent." 2. " Whether or not (assuming the preceding question to 
 be answered in the affirmative) the Merchant Taylors' Company is a 
 Municipal Corporation, or a Corporation of that character, nature, and 
 description as to be legally wthin the scope and power of such Com- 
 mission." 
 
 Kesolved unanimously — 
 
 " That this Court are ready and willing to disclose everything relating 
 to the affairs of this Company before a competent tribunal. 
 
 *' That, deeply impressed with sentiments of the most profound respect 
 and loyalty to their sovereign, they are prompted no less by inclination 
 
LIVERY companies: control by the crown. 
 
 97 
 
 The Companies had by this time pretty much cast aside 
 the " common profit of the people," which was the ground- 
 work of the old grants and charters ; and when William of 
 Orange was invited over, they concluded that an excellent 
 
 than by a sense of duty to yield implicit obedience to all authority con- 
 stituted according to law. 
 
 " That, entertaining doubts how far the Commission for inquiring into 
 Municipal Corpoi'ations is in accordance with law, and whether, if it be 
 so, it extends to Corporations of the nature of the Merchant Tailors' 
 Company, they have thought it right to submit those doubts to the con- 
 sideration of counsel learned in the law. 
 
 " That, upon mature deliberation, aided by the legal advice they have 
 received, they entertain a strong conviction — 
 
 " That the Crown cannot, by virtue of the prerogative alone, compel 
 any subject to make communications or disclosures, upon oath or other- 
 wise, except in a due course of the administration of justice, 
 
 " That a roving Commission, to inquire for grievances and to compel 
 answers, is clearly contrary to law. 
 
 " That the members of the Corporations can in no respect be com- 
 pelled to make any answer to the Commissioners appointed by the Crown 
 touching any of the matters propounded in their queries, or within the 
 scope of the Commission. 
 
 " That the method prescribed for executing the Commission in 
 question by summoning the officers of the diiferent bodies whom the in- 
 vestigation aflects ; forcing disclosures of title or of defects of title by 
 an extra-judicial oath ; looking for abuses, without a specific accusation in 
 legal form; and by causing the production on oath, without any cause de- 
 pending, at the suit of a party interested, of the muniments and other 
 writings of Corporations, is not only a wide departure from the ordinary 
 course of law, but a grievous violation of the liberty of the subject, and 
 of highly dangerous example to the security of property. 
 
 " That the addi'ess or concurrence of one House of the Legislature 
 only, as the law now stands, can add nothing to the validity of the Com- 
 mission in question. 
 
 " That although the House of Commons claims a power to enforce, 
 by means of its own privilege, the attendance of witnesses and the pro- 
 duction of papers and records before its own Committee of Inquiry, yet it 
 cannot communicate such a power to the Crown ; and the pri\ilege of the 
 House of Commons is not, like the prerogative of the king, reducible to 
 any controul of a court of justice, nor perhaps to any strict definition; so 
 that it must ever depend entirely on the discretion and moderation of that 
 assembly whether that privilege shaU be exercised for the real benefit of 
 the people, or in a manner wholly inconsistent with justice or liberty, as 
 it certainly must be whenever the House of Commons shall assume a 
 jurisdiction which properly belongs to the legal tribunals. 
 
 " That the known and lawful manner of inquiry into the misconduct 
 
 G 
 
98 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 opportumty offered for advancing their interests. And 
 they were right. It was essential to the stability of 
 "William's throne that he should conciliate his subjects, and 
 when he found that by simply repealing the new charters 
 
 of a Corporation, or into the imjaroper exercise of its franchises, is by in- 
 formation in the Court of King's Bench, whicli can only be granted upon 
 some specific charge, or to redress some specific grievance. 
 
 " That a Commission from the Crown (and the same may be said of a 
 Committee of either House of Parliament), for the purpose of finding 
 out matters of comjilaint against every Cori)oration in the Idngdom, if it 
 wei-e armed with comjiulsoi-y powers, would be liable to all the objections 
 which were justly urged against the Quo Warrantos of Charles the Second, 
 without even regarding, as they did, the forms of justice. 
 
 " That even assuming the Commission in question to be legal and 
 effectual as regards Municipal Corporations, the Merchant Tailors' Com- 
 pany is not a Municipal Corporation, and does not, therefore, come 
 within the scope of its inquiries. 
 
 " That the term Municipal Corporations seems to refer to those Cor- 
 porations only which embrace cities or towns, as contra-distinguished 
 from such as jjossess no local jurisdiction whatever, but merely relate to 
 persons, professions, trades, mysteries, or commercial adventures having 
 no concern with the administration of justice, or the maintenance and 
 regulation of the police, or the fireservation of the peace. 
 
 " That if this be not the sense of the words ' Municipal Corporations,' 
 it is diflScult to conceive why they should not comprehend the colleges in 
 the two Universities, the Universities themselves, which do by their char- 
 ters invest the Vice-Chancellor with the office of Consenator of the 
 Peace, the Dean and Chapter in every cathedral town, the Bank of 
 England, the East India Company, the CoUege of Physicians, and many 
 others of the like kind, as well as the trading corporations and frater- 
 nities of particular mysteries. 
 
 " That this Court, moreover, being for these reasons satisfied that any 
 information given by their authority to the Municipal Corporation Com- 
 missioners would be purely voluntary, feel that they cannot consistently 
 with the ancient and lawful oath taken by each individual on his ad- 
 mission to the Court of Assistants, disclose any matter which in their 
 knowledge or judgment w^as not intended to be published. 
 
 " That this Court in declining to give any information to the Com- 
 missioners appointed under and by virtue of the Commission aforesaid, 
 are desirous of assuring the Commissioners most respectfully that there 
 is nothing in the history, constitution, or administration of the Merchant 
 Tailors' Company that the members of this Court have collectively or 
 individually, any wish or interest to withhold from inquiry. 
 
 " That, on the contrary, it would be a source of gratification to them 
 to have the o^jportunity of demonstrating the increased and increasing 
 extent and utihty of the charities, which, as well by a due economy of 
 
LIVERY companies: control by the crown. 99 
 
 granted in 1684, he could gain the goodwill of so influential 
 a body as the City Companies, he did not hesitate to take 
 the step. The voluntary cession of their old charters was noiv 
 supposed to have been in reality a tyrannous act of the late 
 
 their revenues, as by the munificence of several of their predecessors, 
 members of this Court, they have been able to establish and enlarge; but 
 they are actuated exclusively by two considerations — first, the oath of 
 office, which they think precludes them from voluntary disclosures; and 
 secondly, the persuasion that the universal though reluctant submission 
 of all the Corporations in the kingdom to a Commission so manifestly 
 unlawful, and in their judgment so inconsistent with the security of 
 the property and rights of the subject, could not fail to be treated as a 
 sanction to such an exercise of the prerogative, and to become a precedent 
 full of danger to future times. "Wherefore they conceive it to be the more 
 especial duty of such of these bodies as have no favour to expect and no 
 danger to fear to meet this unlawful encroachment of power with 
 unqualified resistance. 
 
 " Resolved that a copy of these resolutions and of the opinions of 
 counsel be transmitted to Sir Fras. Palgrave. 
 
 " By order, 
 (Signed) "John de Mole, 
 
 " Clerk and Solicitor to the Company." 
 
 This extraordinary document, as every lawyer would sunnise, goes 
 considerably beyond what the opinions of the counsel justify, strong as 
 that opinion undoubtedly is. The Tailors have added a good deal of 
 their own. There is no e^■idence as to how far the learned counsel were 
 instructed in the past history of the Companies, and certainly their 
 opinions show no knowledge of certain portions of it. As a rule, however, 
 they are general in their expressions of opinion, and wisely refrain from 
 padding it with reasons. No one of the counsel, for example, alludes to 
 the Commission under the Great Seal, which was issued in 1392, to 
 "inquii-e into the errors, defects, and misprisions committed in the City 
 of London, through the bad conduct of the magistrates," nor the indict- 
 ment of aldermen and others before it, with their punishment by heavy 
 fines and the seizure of the liberties of the City to the king's use. It 
 would seem to have been wise to prove the illegality of this Commission 
 and the others ah-eady set out, before laying down in such dogmatic terms 
 the law of the question ; the only authority for which is given in the 
 opinion of Mr. Rennall, and refers to a statute passed in 1345. Al- 
 together, the document— considering the facts in theii- own archives— is 
 about as audacious as it could be. 
 
 As to their point that they are not Municipal Corporations, we have 
 sufficiently shown that they are an actual essential part of the Corpora- 
 tion of London. They are incorporated by their charters as of the City 
 of London : every freeman of London was compelled to be first free 
 of a Company; every corporate official was compelled to be free of a Com- 
 
100 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 king, and tlie old cliarters were forthwith re-estabhshed in 
 their former vaHdity and force. 
 
 No subsequent investigation into the affairs of the 
 Companies, or serious interference with them, took place 
 until 1833, when a Royal Commission was appointed to 
 inquire into the Municipal Corporations of England and 
 Wales. They inquired into the state of the Corporation of 
 London, and presented a lengthy report upon it and upon 
 the City Companies, as being part of the electoral body and 
 depositories of funds and estates which had been originally 
 given for the purposes of the various London trades. The 
 privileges of the freemen and the management of corporate 
 funds were specially set forth amongst the objects to be 
 attained, and the Commissioners were empowered to call 
 before them such officers of corporations and such others as 
 they judged necessary, and if the same should be requisite, 
 to administer an oath to the persons so called. 
 
 The powers given appeared ample enough, but when the 
 Commissioners came to inquire into the Livery Companies, 
 they met, especially in the cases of some of the larger 
 Companies, with the most resolute opposition. Their 
 authority was called in question and denied : their circular 
 of questions was unanswered, and but a very small propor- 
 tion of the Companies gave any satisfactory account of their 
 income and expenditure. The Commissioners did not ad- 
 minister the oath to any of the officers of the Companies, 
 and when large Companies as the Ironmongers, the Yint- 
 
 pany; every voter before the Reform Act was bound to be a liverj-man; and 
 the Corporation had the oversight and control of the Companies. If they 
 are not Municipal Corporations words must have ceased to have a mean- 
 ing. Compare, hereon, " Speech of Mr. Hume in House of Commons, Feb. 
 21st, 1833." They are no more trading Corporations now than they are 
 guilds in the mediaeval understanding of that term. [Guild is a brother- 
 hood or company of men incorporate in one combination, supporting 
 their common charge by mutual composition. — Shepherd: " Epitome of 
 Laws of this Nation, 1656," p. 1124.] 
 
LIVERY COMPANIES : THEIR POLICY. 101 
 
 ners, or the Grocers, declined to assist thein in any way 
 whatever, they simply registered the discourtesy and 
 passed on. 
 
 Under these circumstances no one can wonder that no 
 information was forthcoming, which it was thought unde- 
 sirable that the Commissioners should possess, and the 
 inquiry was in large measure nugatory. From that day to 
 this the Companies have slumbered on — not in peace, but 
 practically unmolested. London was excepted from the 
 Municipal Corporations Act, on the understanding that a 
 Municipal scheme should be framed at once. It has 
 been taken in hand again and again, sometimes by 
 private members, and sometimes by the Government, but 
 always without practical result. The reason of this has 
 puzzled many people, but it is a very clear one. Behind 
 the City Corporation are the Livery Companies. These 
 latter are fearful that in case of reformation of the former, 
 there may come inquiry into, and reformation of themselves, 
 and so they use every possible means of blocking the wheels 
 of City reform. And — considering their position — they are 
 wise in their day and generation. The methods they adopt 
 in blocking legislation which may lead to any overhauling 
 of their misused funds, are the best that could possibly be 
 devised, and this is evidenced by their signal success. 
 
 Firstly. The members and governors of the Companies 
 are powerful in the Corporation, and, practically, guide its 
 destinies. It is, as they know, against the Corporation that 
 the assault will come, if at all, and so they use every effort 
 to make it, within its cramped Umits, an enlightened and 
 creditable government. Being practical and able men, they 
 succeed in this ; and so within its own area, and regarding 
 its administration, the government of the City of London 
 is, in many respects, wise, humane, and public- spirited. We 
 will go further, and say that we believe if those who rule the 
 
102 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 City could have a guarantee of non-intervention in the case 
 of their vested interests in the Companies, that they would 
 wilHngly open their arms and let in surrounding areas, so 
 as to diffuse the benefits of good government as widely as 
 possible. But they are restrained in this by the fear that 
 when outsiders came to participate in City government, they 
 would get to know too much about their, rights in the 
 Companies, and so their own privileges be lost. 
 
 Secondly. Having made the Corporation government 
 so good, they extol it far beyond its merits ; and whenever 
 a dangerous measure is advanced against it they denounce 
 it, ridicule it, and by the agency of all tbe members in the 
 House, who are either in the " swim " or under their con- 
 trol,* they meet it with the fiercest opposition.f The City 
 
 * We are informed that more than 160 members of the present House 
 of Commons are also members of City Companies. 
 
 f The Government Bill of 1856 for the reform of the Corporation of 
 London was a very mild railk-and- water measure, in fact scarcely arefonn 
 at all. ("A Bill of the mildest possible character," the Trm^s styles it; 
 April 2nd, 185G.) But it signally illustrates this. We shall discuss the 
 Bill and its perfunctory provisions elsewhere, but its interference with the 
 property and control of the Companies was simply nil. It did interfere 
 ■with the election of Coi-porate Otficers. The Companies at once rose to 
 resist the first attempt to touch their sacred privileges. They were col- 
 lected by advertisements, in which they were told, " if the present atrocious 
 Bill is carried, you are done for ever;" and a mass-meeting of the Livery- 
 men whose electoral rights were threatened, was held in the Guildhall, 
 April I5th, 1856. The meeting well illustrated the character of the oppo- 
 sition of the Companies to all City reform. James Clark Lawx'ence, the 
 nominee of the Livery Committee, thus expressed the view of the 
 Companies on the measure. It is useful to quote, not as edifying in itself 
 feut as what any government projecting London reform may anticipate 
 from the Livery Companies. " This is an April fools' BUI. Its modera- 
 tion is the moderation of the border plunderer, who took away as much 
 as he could in one foray, leaving the ]-emaiuder for a future occasion ; it 
 is the moderation of the pickpocket who stole a man's purse, and then 
 thought him well off that he left him his hat and coat ; it is the modera- 
 tion of the housebreaker, who after taking away plate and money, thout^ht 
 the owner of it had no reason to complain so long as his life was spared. 
 * * * * It is a Bill of the vilest character." — Times, April 16th, 1856. 
 This meeting was a fit sequel to the meeting of the Master and Wardens 
 
LIVERY companies: their policy. 
 
 103 
 
 is at once aroused, and the smallest invasion of what the 
 liverymen call their " rights " is anathematized as rohhery 
 and confiscation. Their demeanour has marvellously changed 
 since the Tudors and Stuarts ruled them. 
 
 Thirdly. They are careful to be on the best possible 
 terms with the powers that be. Officers of the Government 
 and dignitaries of the law are regularly invited to partake of 
 their "noble hospitaUty." No one who has partaken of 
 those gorgeous banquets could find in his heart to treat his 
 hosts harshly. The source of the funds and their misap- 
 propriation seem matters of small moment after a dinner 
 representing the perfected skill of four hundred years of con- 
 tinuous dining. No one who has quaffed rich wines from 
 the chased goblets of the Skinners' Company is -inclined to 
 be over inquisitive as to their charters ; and no one who has 
 sat at table with the Merchant Taylors troubles himself to 
 ask how many tailors there are on the Livery. So, by the 
 most dehcate and graceful suasion in time of quiet, the 
 Companies prepare for themselves friends in time of need. 
 One of Our Lord's parables thus receives excellent exem- 
 plification. 
 
 In recent days, however, the Companies have been full 
 of alarms. There are portents in the air that they do not 
 Hke, but they will show a warlike front to the last. In 
 1870 a return was moved for of the various particulars re- 
 lating to the present state and constitution of the Livery 
 Companies, and the method in which their funds are ad- 
 ministered. To this request the reply was given that a full 
 return had been made to the Eoyal Commission in 1837, 
 and that no essential changes have since occurred. As we 
 
 of the difierent Companies at the Mansion House a few days before {vide 
 Times, April 1 1th, 1856) where it was unanimously resolved that the 
 " Bill was unconstitutional and unjust and ought to be opposed, and that 
 measures be accordingly taken at once by the Companies to oppose it." 
 
104 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 have shown, no statement could be further from the truth. 
 It was made apparently to throw dust in the eyes of people 
 who did not know anything about it. 
 
 The notice given by Mr. Morrison was also given too 
 late in the session. Its terms, however, were so compre- 
 hensive that they are worth transcription, and might with 
 shght alteration be transformed into a precedent, " For a 
 return from the 89 Companies in the City of London, named 
 in the second Report of the Commissioners appointed to 
 inquire into the Municipal Corporations in England and 
 Wales, 1837, of the style of each Company, summary of 
 charters and bye-laws, whether a Livery Company, 
 number of Livery, total cost of admission, rules as to 
 admission -by patrimony, apprenticeship, gift and redemp- 
 tion, or otherwise, whether females are admitted, number 
 of Livery admitted during last ten years, present total 
 number, -description of the ruling body of each, mode of 
 election, Est of officers, and of all salaries and emoluments, 
 fines, statement of the property of each, of the income 
 derived therefrom,' of all charities vested in the Company, 
 and of the income aud expenditure thereof, of all funded 
 property, and of the income derived from all sources, and 
 statement of expenditure during the last financial year, 
 and of aU contributions and dues paid to the Corporation 
 of the City (if any)." 
 
 In a succeeding chapter we shall endeavour to indicate 
 the best method of deahng with the Livery Companies, 
 regard being had to the vested interests of the Companies, 
 the vested but unavailable interests of London tradesmen, 
 the undoubted rights of the Crown and of the Corporation, 
 and the doctrines of the Court of Chancery as appHed to 
 cases where trusts have failed, or can no longer be carried 
 into effect. 
 
105 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 
 THE CORPORATION OF LONDON. 
 
 Method of Grovernmeiit. — The Ootirt of Aldermen and its 
 Committees, and herein of The Qity Prisons. — The Court 
 of Common Council. — Division of Representation. — 
 Occupation and Status of Members. — Committees and 
 Commissions of the Common Council, and herein of The 
 Irish Society. — Of certain City Officers, Courts, Markets, 
 and Schools. — Of Government by Committees generally. 
 
 The Court of Common Council is the great Legislative 
 body of tlie Corporation of London ; but there are still, as 
 we have noted in a previous chapter, certain elective, magis- 
 terial, judicial, and legislative functions possessed by the 
 Court of Aldermen. These functions are frequently dele- 
 gated to Committees of the Court. There are six of such 
 Committees, each of which is a Committee of the whole 
 Court, with a quorum of three. The most important of 
 these is the Gaol Committee, to which is entrusted the 
 management of the two City prisons, and the appointment 
 of all the inferior prison officers. 
 
 The Corporation are the owners of two prisons, the 
 management of which is in the hands of the Court of Alder- 
 men, viz., Newgate, and the City prison, HoUoway. New- 
 gate was rebuilt after the riots in 1780, at a time when 
 prison architecture was m its infancy. It is, consequently, 
 devoid of what are now regarded as the essential require- 
 ments of a good prison — plenty of fresh air, ready oversight 
 and inspection, and efficient direct control. It has, how- 
 ever, the useful character of being safe inside and repellent 
 
106 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 outside, and is, moreover, kept remarkably clean. The 
 amount paid in salaries in respect of this prison is consider- 
 ably less than was formerly the case, being somewhat over 
 £1,000 a year, whilst £2,279 was paid in 1874 for wages. 
 It is probable that but for its useful proximity to the Central 
 Criminal Court the prison would have been pulled down 
 long ago. Prisoners awaiting trial at the Central Criminal 
 Court are confined in this prison, and prisoners sentenced to 
 death return to Newgate, and are executed within its walls. 
 
 The City prison at Holloway was constructed in the 
 year 1851, at a cost of nearly £100,000. It is in all 
 respects an excellent institution. It is well fitted for its 
 purpose, and acts as the House of Correction for City 
 prisoners. The charge in 1874 upon the City Estate for 
 this prison was £10,972, a fairp roportion of which was 
 reimbursed by the sale of the prisoners' work. 
 
 The control of both the City prisons is vested in the 
 Court of Aldermen.* All the payments out of the City's 
 cash with respect to them are ordered by this Court ; and 
 in addition to the current expenses of maintenance, the 
 Court of Aldermen are in the habit of voting pensions to 
 retired prison officials ; the amount expended in this manner 
 in 1874 exceeded £1,000. 
 
 The Aldermen are the visiting magistrates of the prisons. 
 Two are deputed to this service each month, the rota being 
 settled by the Court of Aldermen. By the 42nd standing 
 order of that Court the visiting magistrates are requested to 
 report in writing to the Court upon the condition of the 
 prisons. The Committee of the Court prepares an annual 
 report upon the condition of these prisons and other matters 
 connected with their control and management. The action 
 
 * This jurisdiction is now supposed to be regulated by the statute i 
 Geo. IV., c. 04, s. 13. 
 
COURT OF ALDERMEN : COMMITTEES. 107 
 
 of the Gaols' Committee is necessarily much more largely 
 individual than collective. 
 
 The Finance Committee of the Court of Aldermen 
 examines and passes all bills with respect to work done by 
 its order, or in connection with the magistracy or with the 
 maintenance of the prisons. 
 
 The Committee on Privileges have confided to their care 
 all matters connected with pri\alege, ceremonial, or public 
 display. 
 
 To the General Purposes' Committee is confided the 
 consideration of all cases of charity, and all special matters 
 not delegated to any other Committee. 
 
 The Brokers' Committee has the management of every- 
 thing relative to the jurisdiction exercised by the Court over 
 brokers. 
 
 The Livery-Cloth Committee attends to the due provision 
 and supply of " livery-cloth" to the various dignitaries of 
 state and others, 'according to ancient custom. The pre- 
 servation and perpetuation of old customs is very well in 
 its place, but the expenditure of £120 a year in bribing 
 Ministers of State, &c., with presents of cloth, is a relic of 
 the worst days of civic history ; its continuance is abso- 
 lutely without excuse, and it is most astonishing that neither 
 the self-respect of the City nor that of the Ministers of 
 State has long ere now put an end to the system. 
 
 The Court of Aldermen voted in pensions in 1874 the 
 sum of £1,731, of which sum £700 was paid as a year's 
 retiring allowance to the late Clerk to the Lord Mayor, and 
 the first instalment was paid of the salary of £450 a year 
 upon which the Governor of Newgate has retired. The 
 Court also authorized the payment of £487 to the Sheriffs' 
 Yeomen for attending the Courts, and of large sums for 
 printing. They further authorized the payment of more 
 
108 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 than £1,300, with respect to special police services, the ex- 
 penses of the Police Committee ; newspapers ; and yeomen 
 and doorkeepers at the Sessions. 
 
 This Court of Aldermen is also responsible for an expen- 
 diture of £8,925 in connection with the magistracy, about 
 three-fourths of which was paid on account of the Justice 
 Room at the Mansion House and the Justice Room at the 
 Guildhall ; — two most expensive institutions. The Alder- 
 men preside as magistrates at the GuUdhall according to an 
 arrangement made amongst themselves, whilst the Lord 
 Mayor presides at the Mansion House. Practically, however, 
 the Chief Clerks at each of these Courts both decide the law 
 and advise on the conduct of cases. As the Lord Mayor 
 and Aldermen are also technically judges at the Central 
 Criminal Court, it would seem that they have the power of 
 sitting to try their own commitments. The perpetuation of 
 the ex-officio magistracy of Aldermen ia a great commercial 
 city like London is impossible, and whatever be the fate of 
 the Corporation, its removal is merely a question of time. 
 
 Each of the wards within the City is represented in the 
 Corporation by an Alderman and a certain number of Com- 
 mon Councillors. The Ward of Bridge Without is repre- 
 sented by an Alderman alone. The population of the 
 various wards in 1631 and 1871 respectively, the number 
 of inhabited houses in 1871, and the present division of the 
 Common Councillors amongst the wards, is set out in the 
 following table. The total 1631 population does not, 
 however, include the Wards of St. Bartholomew the Great, 
 and St. Bartholomew the Less, with populations of 1,388 
 and 506 respectively, but which are now extinguished. 
 Neither does it include the Ward of Bridge Without, not 
 now reckoned in the City, but which in 1631 had a citizen 
 population of 18,666. The total population was thus 
 130,274. 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL: NUMBER OF CONSTITUENCY. 109 
 
 Aldersgate 
 
 Conn- 
 oillors. 
 
 8 
 
 Inhabited 
 
 Houses, 
 
 1871. 
 
 454 
 
 Censua 
 
 Population, 
 
 1871.* 
 
 4,163 
 
 Popula- 
 tion in 
 1631.t 
 
 3,594 
 
 Aldgate . 
 
 8 
 
 440 
 
 3,000 
 
 4,763 
 
 Bassishaw 
 
 4 
 
 71 
 
 402 
 
 1,006 
 
 Billingsgate 
 
 8 
 
 167 
 
 1,053 
 
 2,597 
 
 Bishopsgate 
 
 14 
 
 916 
 
 7,286 
 
 7,788 
 
 Bread Street 
 
 8 
 
 61 
 
 517 
 
 2,568 
 
 Bridge 
 
 8 
 
 130 
 
 824 
 
 2,392 
 
 Broad Street 
 
 8 
 
 290 
 
 1,507 
 
 3,503 
 
 Candlewick 
 
 6 
 
 93 
 
 449 
 
 1,696 
 
 Castle-Baynard. 
 
 8 
 
 213 
 
 1,761 
 
 4,793 
 
 Cheap 
 
 8 
 
 136 
 
 780 
 
 2,500 
 
 Coleman Street . 
 
 8 
 
 432 
 
 2,819 
 
 2,634 
 
 Cordwainer 
 
 6 
 
 62 
 
 382 
 
 2,238 
 
 Cornhill . 
 
 6 
 
 69 
 
 309 
 
 1,439 
 
 Cripplegate Withir 
 and "Without . 
 
 . 16 
 
 1,150 
 
 9,818 
 
 10,676 
 
 Dowgate . 
 
 6 
 
 83 
 
 488 
 
 3,516 
 
 Farringdon Within 
 
 . 14 
 
 464 
 
 4,932 
 
 8,770 
 
 Farringdon Without 
 
 16 
 
 2,006 
 
 19,828 
 
 20,846 
 
 Langbourn 
 
 8 
 
 266 
 
 1,295 
 
 3,168 
 
 Lime Street 
 
 4 
 
 100 
 
 562 
 
 1,107 
 
 Portsoken 
 
 8 
 
 1,073 
 
 8,566 
 
 5,703 
 
 Queenhithe 
 
 6 
 
 107 
 
 1,003 
 
 3,358 
 
 Tower 
 
 8 
 
 314 
 
 1,942 
 
 4,248 
 
 Vintry 
 
 6 
 
 87 
 
 607 
 
 2,742 
 
 Walbrook 
 
 6 
 
 121 
 
 604 
 
 2,069 
 
 
 206 
 
 9,305 
 
 74,897 
 
 109,714 
 
 * These figures cannot be taken as representing the ■whole constituency, 
 but merely the sleeping population. The number of males in some 
 wards was very small : thus Cornhill had 130 ; Bassishaw, 187 ; Cord- 
 wainer, 201; Candlewick, 208; Dowgate, 233; Walbrook, 240; Lime 
 Street, 247 ; Vintry, 272 ; &c., &c. 
 
 t This remarkable return is useful as showing that London has now 
 actually a less resident population than it had 240 years ago. The return 
 was made by Sir Robert Ducie, the Lord Mayor, in 1631, at the request of 
 the Privy Council, who were in fear of approaching famine, and wished to 
 know the number of mouths. It is taken from " Observations on the 
 Bills of Mortality," by John Graunt, 1676, and is quoted by the 1871 
 Census Commissioners, Vol. IT., p. 45. 
 
110 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The twenty-six Aldermen and two hundred and six 
 Common Councillors are all free of the City, and nearly the 
 whole of them are liverymen of Companies. Their division 
 in respect of these quaKfications is as follows (those members 
 who are in two Companies being only reckoned in the most 
 important of the two) : — Spectacle-makers, 37 ; Loriners, 
 23 ; Stationers, 10 ; Butchers and Bakers, each 7 ; Inn- 
 holders and Haberdashers, each 6 ; Leather-sellers, Coopers, 
 Cooks, and Saddlers, each 5 ; Plasterers, Barbers, Wheel- 
 wrights, Merchant Taylors, Goldsmiths, Pewterers, and 
 Clock-makers, each 4 ; Painter Stainers, Drapers, Glaziers, 
 Carpenters, Blacksmiths, Salters, Vintners, Curriers, and 
 Fishmongers, each 3 ; Founders, Felt-makers, Broderers, 
 Fruiterers, Needle-makers, Farriers, Grocers, and Fan- 
 makers, each 2. The Companies represented by one member 
 only were the Skinners, Gii'dlers, Woolmen, Braziers, 
 Cutlers, Masons, Tallow Chandlers, Clothworkers, Plumbers, 
 Joiners, Glass-sellers, Cordwainers, Paviors, "Wax Chandlers, 
 Musicians, and Bowyers. Twenty-four members of the 
 Common Comicil were free of the City without being mem- 
 bers of any Company. 
 
 The above list represents an amazingly different state of 
 things so far as respects the share borne by liverymen in 
 corporate government, to that which existed 400 years ago. 
 At that time the twelve great Companies controlled the 
 whole of the government of the City. It would seem as if 
 in 1875 they were divorcing themselves as much as possible 
 from it. Two of the wealthiest of these, the Mercers and 
 the Ironmongers, have not a single member in the Corpora- 
 tion. The Clothworkers and the Skinners have only one, 
 the Grocers only two, and amongst the whole twelve there 
 are only thirty or about one-eighth part of the whole ; and 
 less than the representatives of the Spectacle-makers, a 
 Company which has largely increased iis numbers by 
 
TILE COMMON COUNCIL : STATUS OF MEMBERS, 111 
 
 redemption, during the past few years. It would appear 
 that the members of the twelve great Companies do not now 
 care to mix in corporate matters, and that they regard them- 
 selves as perfectly safe fi'om all exercise of the power of 
 control possessed by the Aldermen and Common Council. 
 
 It would be a somewhat difficult matter to form any 
 reliable opinion as to whether the component members of 
 the Corporation are of a different class from that which was 
 formerly the case. The best method perhaps of ascertaining 
 this, would be to set out the occupations followed by Alder- 
 men and Councillors in the reign of James the First, and 
 those which are followed to-day. There is no extant record, 
 so far as we know, separating and classifying the members 
 of the Corporation at the former period ; but it is a matter 
 of common knowledge that from the framing of the City 
 Constitution under the later Plantagenet Kings, down to the 
 days when under the Stuarts the capital City burst through 
 the restrictions of the Building Acts and spread over the 
 fields outside the walls, the members of the Corporation were 
 chosen from people of the very first rank amongst the in- 
 habitants of the City. 
 
 It would be an arduous and a scarcely practicable task, 
 to frame, without assistance from the members themselves, 
 any rehable Hst of the occupations pursued by the rulers of 
 the City in 1875. Fortunately, however, for the purpose of 
 this inquiry, Mr. Ayrton, who though sitting in the House 
 of Commons as member for the Tower Hamlets, might also 
 have been regarded as the member for the Board of Works, 
 moved the House in 1865 for a return of the number of 
 electors in each ward of the City, and of the number and 
 occupations of the Aldermen and Councillors respectively. 
 A seat in the Common Council is regarded in the City as a 
 permanent possession, and, except in rare cases, contested 
 elections are discouraged ; we may, therefore, take it as pro- 
 
112 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 bable that this return very fairly represents the constitution 
 of the Common Council to-day, and that where vacancies 
 have arisen in the course of the last ten years, they have 
 been filled up from the same class of persons. 
 
 According to that return^ the number of electors within 
 the City was 7,163, ranging from 103 in Lime Street Ward 
 to 1,020 in Farringdon Without, the average being some- 
 what under 300. The residences of the twenty-six Alder- 
 men varied from Stoke-upon-Trent in the north, to Tun- 
 bridge Wells and Brighton in the south, hut not one of them 
 had a private address within the City. The return made by 
 the Aldermen to the question of occupation was most peculiar. 
 Alderman Challis and the two Aldermen Lawrence de- 
 clined to answer the question ; Alderman Salomons returned 
 his occupation as "Alderman;" Alderman Sidney as a 
 "Magistrate;" and Alderman Wilson as a "Colonel of 
 Militia." Three Aldermen described themselves as " of no 
 occupation;" six others took refuge under the ambiguous 
 definition of "Manufacturers" or "Merchants;" of the 
 rest, one was a Solicitor, one a Tea Dealer, one a Druggist, 
 one a Hop Merchant, one a Publisher, one a Chronometer- 
 maker, one a Stockbroker, one a Printer, one a Cutler, one 
 a Provision Merchant and Shipowner, and one a Timber 
 Merchant. 
 
 Of the 206 members of the Common Council, only 
 twenty-eight returned residential addresses within the City, 
 and it is doubtful whether even this number ought not to 
 have been lessened. 
 
 As for the occupations, they were well nigh as varied as 
 they possibly could be. Out of the whole 206, there were 
 eight that returned themselves as " gentleman," ten as 
 "of no occupation," and three as having "retired from 
 business." Twenty-three gave a general return as " Mer- 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL: STATUS OF MEMBERS. 113 
 
 chants." Of the professional classes, there were Barristers, 
 2 ; Solicitors and Accountants, 21 ; Medical men, 3 ; Sur- 
 veyors, 3 ; Actuaries, 1. Of Auctioneers there were 9 ; of 
 Booksellers, and Oilmen, each 8 ; Ironmongers, 7 ; Wine 
 Merchants, Builders, Warehousemen, and Tailors and 
 Woollen Merchants, each 6 ; of Grocers and Tea Dealers, 
 and of Chemists and Druggists, there were each 5; of Bakers, 
 Brokers, Butchers, and Watch-makers, each 4. Wharfin- 
 gers, Opticians, and Saddlers, each 3. The trades of Prin- 
 ters, Fishmongers, Contractors, Decorators, Drapers, Corn 
 Factors, Timber Merchants, Salesmen, and Confectioners, 
 each furnished 2. The occupations represented by a single 
 member were those of Publican, • Provision Merchant, 
 Tobacconist, Trimk-maker, Brass Founder, Undertaker, 
 Pawnbroker, Sugar Merchant, Artist, Hatter, Cement- 
 maker, Joiner, Coal Merchant, Engineer, Pin-maker, Im- 
 porter, Livery Stable Keeper (now an Alderman), Cork 
 Merchant, Fruit Merchant, Factor, Silkman, Scale-maker, 
 Paper-maker, and Looking-glass-maker. 
 
 From this Hst it wiU be seen that the highest rank of 
 City men was scarcely represented at aU. There is not one 
 banker, and Sir Robert Carden is the only sharebroker. If 
 we couple this fact with the absence of representatives of the 
 wealthy and select Livery Companies who are especially con- 
 nected with the City, we shall, without any wish to be 
 imcharitable, be scarcely wrong in the conclusion that the 
 Corporation of London is not a body fairly representing all 
 classes of citizens. It is, indeed, surpassed as regards the 
 social status of its members by some of the Vestries. Ken- 
 sington Vestry, for example, contains one baronet, two 
 Queen's counsel, one county court judge, two clergymen, 
 twelve barristers (including a former Attorney- General in 
 one of the colonies), eleven solicitors, and five officers in the 
 
114 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 army (including a major-general, two lieutenant-colonels, 
 and a major), and medical men, leading tradesmen, owners 
 of property, and other men of position in the district. 
 
 It is quite true that social position does not of necessity 
 involve high capacity ; but a Corporation dealing with 
 hundreds of thousands of pounds, and imposing heavy tax- 
 ation, ought to be a body representing the various classes 
 affected by its action, and it is here that, as we think, the 
 Corporation of London is far from occupying its true position. 
 That representative and able men can be induced to serve 
 on public bodies in London, the example of the Vestry we 
 have quoted sufficiently proves. 
 
 As in the case of the Court of Aldermen, so also in the 
 Common Council, nearly the whole detail of corporate work 
 is delegated to Committees. These are chosen from the 
 representatives of the several wards, and are appointed 
 annually at the first Court after the election on St. Thomas's 
 Day. The various arrangements with respect to them are 
 controlled by the Standing Orders of the Court of Common 
 Council, 29 — 37. There are about twenty Standing Com- 
 mittees of the Common Council, and there are some five or 
 six Special Committees or Commissions appointed for certain 
 purposes. The total number of Committees and Com- 
 missions in the year 1873-4 was twenty-five, — in addition 
 to which a Special Committee appears to have been ap- 
 pointed with respect to Epping Forest, the disbursements of 
 which are charged against the City Estate to the amount of 
 £255 195. The composition of the twenty-five Standing 
 and Special Committees and Commissions was as follows : — 
 
 1. Irish Society : Aldermen, 6 ; Liverymen, 16 ; 
 Freemen of the City, 3 ; Recorder, 1 . . .26 
 
 2. City Lands' Committee : Aldermen, 6 ; Coun- 
 cillors, 29 35 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : SYSTEM OF COMMITTEES. 115 
 
 3. Bridge House : Aldermen, 7 ; Councillors, 29 36 
 
 4. Gresham : Lord Mayor ; Aldermen, 2 ; Coun- 
 cillors, 8 .11 
 
 5. Coal and Corn and Finance : Aldermen, 6 ; 
 Councillors, 31 . . . . . . . .37 
 
 6. G-eneral Purposes : Aldermen, 6; Councillors, 29 35 
 
 7. Markets : Lord Mayor ; Aldermen, 6 ; Coun- 
 cillors, 31 ; with Chairmen of City Lands,. Markets' 
 Improvement, and Cattle Markets' Committees . .41 
 
 8. Library : Aldermen, 6 ; Councillors, 30 . .36 
 
 9. Oity of London School : Lord Mayor ; Alder- 
 men, 6 ; Councillors, 29 . . . . . .36 
 
 10. Officers and OlerJcs : Aldermen, 6 ; Coun- 
 cillors, 30 36 
 
 11. Improvement: Lord Mayor; Aldermen, 7; 
 Councillors, 30 ; and Chairmen of City Lands, Bridge 
 House, Markets' Improvement, and Sewers . . 42 
 
 12. Markets' Improvement : Lord Mayor ; Alder- 
 men, 5 ; Councillors, 29 ; with Chairmen of City Lands, 
 Bridge House, and Markets' Improvement . . .38 
 
 13. Freemen* s School: Lord Mayor; Aldermen, 
 
 6 ; Councillors, 30 . . . . . . .37 
 
 14. Law and Parliamentary and City Courts : 
 Aldermen, 6 ; Councillors, 29 ; and Members of Metro- 
 poKtan Board, and Chairmen of Committees . .56 
 
 15. G-as and Water : Aldermen, 6 ; Councillors, 
 32 ; and Members at MetropoHtan Board of Works ; 
 Chairmen of City Lands and Law . . . .43 
 
 16. Local Grovernment and Taxation : Aldermen, 
 12 ; Councillors, 33 ; and Members at Metropolitan 
 Board of Works 48 
 
 17. Cominissioners of Sewers : Lord Mayor ; Al- 
 dermen, 6 ; Councillors, 83 ; and Recorder, Common 
 Serjeant, and Members at Metropolitan Board of Works 95 
 
116 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 18. Police: Aldermen, 26 ; Councillors, 68 . 84 
 
 19. Special Tithes: AldiervaQTi, 4:-, Councillors, 10 ; 
 and Chairmen of City Lands and Bridge House . 16 
 
 20. New Library and Museum : Aldermen, 2 ; 
 Councillors, 11 . . . . . . .13 
 
 21. Metage on Grain : Councillors, 12 . . 12 
 
 22. Oattle Markets : Aldermen, 6 ; Councillors, 29 ; 
 and Chairmen of Markets and Markets' Improvement 37 
 
 23. Royal Reception : Aldermen, 8 ; Councillors, 29 37 
 
 24. Sanitary : Lord Mayor ; Aldermen, 5 ; Coun- 
 ciUors, 29 35 
 
 25. Bridges' Joint Committee : Alderman, 1 ; 
 Councillors, 4 ; and Lord Mayor ; in conjunction with 
 6 Members of Metropolitan Board of Works, under 
 
 the Bridges Act of 1869 6 
 
 The quorum of all the larger Committees is seven, and 
 the days of Committee meeting are once a month, except in 
 the Commission of Sewers, which meets twice a month. 
 Nearly all these Committees are again sub -divided into Sub- 
 Committees and special and select Committees, so that the 
 total number of various Committee meetings within the year 
 will be nearly one thousand. The Commission of Sewers, 
 for example, has three Sub- Committees, viz., the Finance 
 and Improvement Committee, the Streets' Committee, and 
 the Sanitary Committee. Each of these meets twice in the 
 month, and, as the General Commission meets twice also, 
 we have an aggregate yearly meeting of this Commission of 
 ninety-six. 
 
 The members are, as a rule, elected for four years, if 
 they shall so long continue members of the Common 
 Council ; but, under the 34th standing order of the Court 
 no members of the Court, except Aldermen, shall be on more 
 than one of the following Committees, viz. : — (1) City 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL: IRISH SOCIETY. 117 
 
 Lands ; (2) Bridge House Estate ; (3) Coal and Corn and 
 Finance; (4) General Purposes (except in the smallest 
 wards). There are other arrangements as to time of 
 serving, whereby those who have served a certain time are 
 ineligible for four years, apparently so that the other mem- 
 bers may taste of the Committee dinners, rather than that 
 the Corporation should be advantaged by the continued 
 service of men of experience. 
 
 The origin of the Irish Society dates back to the reign 
 of James the First. This monarch conceived the design o£^ 
 colonizing the north of Ireland with English and Scottish 
 Protestants. More than 500,000 acres of land had been 
 confiscated to the Crown, and the king thought that the 
 best way to remove the disaffection and weakness of this 
 part of his empire was to introduce a new and sturdy 
 Protestant colony. In pursuance of this design he entered 
 into certain negotiations with the Corporation of London, 
 under which the Corporation undertook the colonization 
 and settlement of a large tract of country. The Irish 
 Society, to whom the work was entrusted, was incorporated 
 by the king in 1613. The charter recites the kingly desire 
 to improve the land, to spread true rehgion, and to cvJtivate 
 industry in the province of Ulster, which had "grossly 
 erred fi'om Divine Grace," and also recites that the ^layor, 
 Commonalty, and citizens of London, " burning with a 
 flagrant zeal to promote such intention," had undertaken 
 the plantation of a considerable part of it. 
 
 Considerable sums of money, amounting in the year 
 1613 to £60,000, were raised by the Corporation for the 
 purpose of carrjdng out this scheme. These moneys were 
 assessed upon the citizens of London through the agency of 
 fifty-five of the Livery Companies. It would appear that 
 the plantation was shortly subsequent to this, sub-divided, so 
 far as practicable, into twelve equal parts, and apportioned 
 
118 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 by lot amongst the Companies, in proportion to the money 
 raised by them. Each lot included one of the twelve great 
 Companies. The results of this sub-division still remain in 
 the vast Irish estates possessed and managed by some of the 
 Livery Companies. The grant was made, as will be seen, 
 to the Corporation, and the subsequent sub-division of the 
 property amongst the members of that Corporation was a 
 measure which, in the days when the Companies and the 
 Corporation were composed of the same persons with the 
 same interests, met with no opposition, but the legality of 
 which is matter of grave question. 
 
 The division, however, was not complete, otherwise the 
 Irish Society, which was incorporated to manage the whole 
 estate, would have necessarily dissolved. There remained, 
 under the control of this Governing Committee, and undivi- 
 ded, certain lands, fisheries, and so forth, and these have 
 since formed the area of the Irish Society's jurisdiction. 
 The Society's charter was taken away by Charles the First, 
 but restored by Charles the Second. Their property is now 
 held under this re- grant. 
 
 When the Irish Society was first constituted, its object 
 was clearly the plantation and settlement of a wild district 
 in the north of Ireland. This original object has long since 
 been performed. The Irish Society at its commencement 
 was composed of members chosen solely from the twelve 
 great Companies : the members are now elected by the 
 Common Council from amongst the freemen of the City. 
 The Society appears, however, to regard itself as perfectly 
 independent of the control or regulation of the Corporation. 
 Its income is about £12,000 a year, and the surplus, after 
 paying the costs of management, including the visit of the 
 Committee to Ireland, is devoted to the benefit of the 
 district in various ways. 
 
 If it be true that the nominees of the Corporation are 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : IRISH SOCIETY. 119 
 
 simply the trustees of an endowment, there does not appear 
 any good reason for the longer existence of the Society ; and 
 the best method of dealing with it would probably be that 
 proposed by- the Commissioners of 1854,* viz. : "We re- 
 commend that the Irish Society be dissolved, and its charter 
 repealed by Act of Parliament, and that its property be 
 vested in a new set of trustees, whose number and character 
 should be defined in the Act : we recommend further that 
 the trustees be appointed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, 
 and that he have power to fill up vacancies as they occur 
 from time to time. A general scheme for the guidance of 
 the trustees in the management of the property ought, as we 
 have already stated, to be laid down in the Act. But as it 
 may be difficult to define once for all every portion of a 
 scheme of this kind, and as it may be desirable, as circum- 
 stances alter, to alter the provisions of the scheme to meet 
 them, power should be given to the Lord Chancellor of 
 Ireland to modify or vary the provisions of the scheme 
 within certain limits." 
 
 The rest of the estates granted by King James to the 
 Corporation have been dealt with by the Livery Companies. 
 Some of them have been sold, and some are still in the 
 possession of the Companies. Whether we regard the 
 Livery Companies at the time of the sub -division as 
 flourishing trade organizations, or as inseparable parts of the 
 Corporation, in either point of view these lands and the 
 mone5^s they have produced are impressed in the hands of 
 the present holders with the character of trust property. 
 Formerly, it was the custom to divide the surplus income of 
 the Society amongst the twelve great Companies, and upon 
 the discontinuance of this practice, the Skinners' Company 
 brought an action with respect to their share of the undi- 
 
 * " Report of Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of 
 the Corporation of London, 1864," p. 24. 
 
120 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 vided estate ; but after much litigation, the House of Lords 
 decided, eoniirming the decision of Lord Langdale, that the 
 Irish Society were simply trustees for public purposes. The 
 legal position occupied by the Companies is in many respects 
 the same, but the question as to what their rights and 
 duties are in respect to their Irish property, has never been 
 Htigated, and they have used the produce of their shares as 
 their own private property. 
 
 The Governing Body in 1874 consisted of 6 Aldermen, 
 19 other persons, and the Recorder of London — total 26. 
 
 Of the 25 members besides the Recorder, there were 
 Freemen of London, not free of any Company, 3. Of mem- 
 bers of the Companies there were. Spectacle-makers, 5 ; 
 Coopers and Bakers, each 3 ; and one member from the 
 Leather-sellers, Stationers, Felt-makers, Joiners, Saddlers, 
 Barbers, Blacksmiths, Loriners, Plasterers, Butchers, and 
 Founders. 
 
 The election of Governors takes place in February in 
 every year, and the Society meets monthly, except in Feb- 
 ruary, August, and September. The visit paid by the mem- 
 bers of the Society to the estates in the north of Ireland is 
 perhaps the pleasantest of the excursions, which the good 
 fortune of the Corporation enables it to oiFer to its members. 
 The members who go are well cared for by the Corporation 
 that sends them ; every expense is defrayed, and when they 
 arrive in Ireland they are in the position of wealthy land- 
 lords, dispensing good things right and left ; endowing 
 churches, laying foundation stones, improving the bed of 
 rivers, and so forth. The next best thing to appropriating 
 money oneself is to be able to choose the method of dispen- 
 sing it amongst others. The London office of the Society 
 costs, we believe, something under £1,000 a year, and the 
 balance of the income is spent on the estate as the " Gover- 
 nors" think best. 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : CITY LANDS' COMMITTEE. 121 
 
 The most important of the Standing Committees of the 
 Common Council is the " Oily Lands' Committee." To 
 this Committee is entrusted the superintendence and man- 
 agement of the City Estates, including the direction of 
 repairs and of minor lettings, whilst upon larger questions 
 affecting the City property, it dehberates and reports 
 to the Common Council. The action of this Committee, as 
 well as of all the other Committees of the Corporation, is 
 limited by the 22nd standing order of the Common Coun- 
 cil, which provides that no expenditure exceeding £100 
 shall be incurred without the consent of the Court, and no 
 bill to a larger amount paid without its express direction. 
 The City Lands' Committee has in its gift nine of the 
 salaried offices of the City, including those of Keeper of 
 the Guildhall, the Keeper of the Monument, the Collector 
 of Rents, &c. 
 
 The " Bridge House JEstates' Committee " performs the 
 same duties with respect to the Bridge House Estates, 
 superintending also the management and repairs of the 
 bridges. The accounts of both the City Lands' Committee 
 and the iJridge House Estates' Committee are audited by 
 the City auditors appointed by the Common Hall. Upon 
 both these estates, as well as elsewhere in the City, large 
 public works are constantly undertaken. The execution of 
 these is, however, controlled by the 23rd standing order of 
 the Common Council, which j)rovides that no street im- 
 provement or other public work shall be undertaken, or any 
 grant for any pubhc or charitable purpose made, whereby 
 the funds of the Corporation may be charged or affected to 
 a larger amount than £100, until such expenditure or an 
 estimate of it shall have been first submitted to the Coal 
 and Corn and Finance Committee for consideration and 
 report, as to the means of carrying out the same, and subse- 
 quent sanction by the Court itself. The number of members 
 
122 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 on these two Estate Committees is 71, and the selection 
 appears to be made rather with the object of giving every 
 member in turn an opportunity of sharing in the good things 
 of the Committee, than of performing the work in the most 
 efficient and least expensive manner. Something like 
 £1,000 is expended in dinners by these two Committees in 
 the course of the year. There can be no question that the 
 work is efficiently done ; but it might be done equally well 
 by one-sixth of the number, with the addition of professional 
 assistance, at the cost of less than one-half of the sum now 
 expended in dinners alone. 
 
 The "G-resham Committee" controls the management of 
 the City's half of the Gresham Estate. The facts with 
 respect to this estate are fully detailed in the chapter on City 
 Expenditure, infra. The Lord Mayor is the ex-officio 
 chairman of the Committee, and of the seven professors of 
 Gresham College, four — namely, those of divinity, astronomy, 
 geometry, and music, — are in the appointment of the City. 
 The professor of astronomy has held the appointment for 
 more than forty years. The Committee appears to have no 
 fix.ed time for meeting. 
 
 The " Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee " superintend 
 the working of the Coal and Wine Duty Acts. They also 
 have under theii' control the London Almshouses. They 
 examine and report to the Common Council upon the collec- 
 tion and payment of moneys, upon the income, expenditure, 
 and Habilities of the Corporation, and it is within their duty 
 to consider and report upon all schemes whereby expense is 
 incurred to the City's Estate, and to consider references 
 made to them by the Common Council in cases of applica- 
 tions for pecuniary assistance. They have ten of the 
 salaried offices of the City in theii' gift, including the 
 inspectorships of the coal traffic and collectorships of the 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : GENERAL PURPOSES* COMMITTEE. 123 
 
 dues. Twelve men would be an ample number for the 
 work of this Committee. 
 
 The '•' G-eneral Purposes' Oommittee" superintends such 
 works as may be required at the Mansion House, and also 
 undertakes the direction of such special matters as may be 
 referred to it by the Corporation. With respect to the 
 works at the Mansion House, it may be observed that by 
 the 24th standing order of the Common Council, the 
 architect and surveyor must present to the Court an esti- 
 mate of the repairs required for the pubHc buildings of the 
 City within the current half-year. There seems no reason 
 to doubt that the work of the General Purposes' Committee 
 could be equally well performed by twelve members as by 
 thirty-six. The only appointment within the gift of this 
 Committee is that of the City Tinman and Brazier, 
 
 The *' Metage on Crrain Committee'' consists of twelve 
 members. The work of the Committee is, however, very 
 slight, and might easily be undertaken by the Coal, Corn, 
 and Finance Committee. 
 
 A Sub- Committee of the Greneral Purposes' Committee 
 might well undertake the services performed by the "Epping 
 Forest Qommittee " and by the thirty-seven members of the 
 ^' JRoyal Reception Qommittee." So, also, the ^'Special 
 Tithes' Qommittee" seems to have had referred to it a subject 
 that might very well have been undertaken by the General 
 Purposes' Committee. 
 
 The work of the " Officers and Qlerks' Qommittee," now 
 supposed to employ the time of thirty-six men, might also 
 be added to this. The duties of this Committee are in con- 
 nection with the filling up of vacant offices, and the con- 
 sideration of the salaries and duties attached to such offices, 
 when referred to them by the Common Council for report. 
 
 In addition to the ordinary officers and servants of the 
 
124 MUNICIPAL LONDOK. 
 
 Corporation, there are some whose office merits more than 
 a passing notice. These may be most conveniently con- 
 sidered here in connection with this Committee. 
 
 Formerly nearly the whole of these offices, together with 
 many others of an inferior order, were purchaseable, and 
 were either put up to auction, and sold to the highest bidder, 
 or were kept as the especial perquisites of members of the 
 Corporation, thus leading to endless jobbery. In no way has 
 the power of internal regulation possessed by the Corpora- 
 tion been productive of better results than in the abolition 
 of this system. 
 
 In our chapter upon the charters of the City we have 
 detailed the history of the grant and re-grant of the 
 Sheriffwick of Middlesex, and of that of London. Of the 
 two Sheriffs annually elected by the freemen of the City in 
 the Common Hall assembled, it is usual for one to under- 
 take the duties of Sheriff of London, and the other of 
 Sheriff of Middlesex. There is a fine for non-acceptance 
 of the office upon election ; but the pernicious custom of 
 electing numbers of men for the simple purpose of obtaining 
 the fine seems now to have come to an end. The allowance 
 made to the Sheriffs out of the City's cash, in the year 1874, 
 amounted to between £1,100 and £1,200. This customary 
 allowance, however, by no means defrays the expense of the 
 office. The further expenses, however, are mainly in con- 
 nection with duties purely ceremonial. The Sheriffs appoint 
 their own Under-Sheriffs. This office is one of considerable 
 profit. The Under-Sheriffs also perform much of the material 
 work attaching to the office of Sheriff ; such as attending 
 the poll, on the occasion of contested elections, at the Com- 
 mon Hall ; attending the Central Criminal Court ; preparing 
 Hsts of voters ; the execution of writs ; summoning of 
 jurors, &c. There are certain duties, however, which the 
 Sheriff is expected to perform in person. Amongst these 
 
THE COMMON COTJNCIL: CORPORATION OFFICERS. 125 
 
 are included the attendance on the Lord Mayor on State 
 occasions ; the presentment of petitions at the har of the 
 House of Commons ; the return of Memhers of ParHament 
 for the City and for the county of Middlesex ; attendance 
 at executions, &c., &c. 
 
 The Recorder is elected by the Court of Aldermen. The 
 post is tenable for life. The Recorder is a Judge of Oyer 
 and Terminer and a Justice of the Peace in the City. He 
 is one of the Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court, 
 and generally sits as Judge to try civil causes in the Mayor's 
 Court. He attends the Lord Mayor on State occasions, and 
 is present at the sittings of the Court of Aldermen and the 
 Court of Common Council. The office is one of considerable 
 antiquity ; and by a charter of Edward the Fourth (Nov. 
 9th, 1462), the " ancient custom" of certifying and recording 
 the customs of tbe City by the mouth of the Recorder is con- 
 firmed to the citizens. Geoffrey de Hartillpoll is the first 
 Recorder of whom we have any clear knowledge, and he 
 seems to have filled the office in 1304. In the Liher Alhus, 
 written in 1419, the Recorder is described as one of the most 
 " expert and able apprentices of the law in the whole City, 
 whose business it is to sit on the right hand of the Mayor, 
 and by whose mouth all pleas and judgments given before 
 the Mayor and Aldermen are to be recorded or certified 
 before the justices in error. A man imbued with know- 
 ledge, and distinguished for his learning, shown and declared 
 in all matters touching the City, as well before the king 
 and his council, as in all other the king's Courts." 
 
 An unsuccessful attempt was made by Queen Elizabeth 
 in 1595 to control the election of this officer. He still 
 remains the chief adviser of the Corporation and its most 
 distinguished legal officer. The men selected for this office 
 have almost invariably reflected great honour on the judg- 
 ment and discretion of the Court of Aldermen. The present 
 
126 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 holder of the office was one of the City Pleaders from 1830 
 to 1845, and in 1850 was elected Judge of the Sheriffs' 
 Court. He was, subsequently, Common Serjeant. 
 
 The Common Serjeant is elected by the Common Council 
 and sworn in before the Court of Aldermen. He is one of 
 the legal advisers of the Corporation, and attends at the 
 various meetings of the Courts of Aldermen and Common 
 Council, and at the meetings of Common Hall. He may 
 be called upon to act as the advocate of the Corporation, or 
 to assist the City as such advocate. He had formerly ex- 
 tensive duties in the Court of Orphans. He acts as Deputy 
 Recorder on occasion, sitting in the Mayor's Court as Judge, 
 and presenting the newly-elected Mayor to the Judges at 
 Westminster. He attends the Lord Mayor on ceremonial oc- 
 casions, and he sits to try prisoners at the Central Criminal 
 Court. 
 
 The Ohamherlaiii is elected by the Livery in Common 
 Hall ; and, by an act of the Common Council in 1404, 
 such election must be annual. As a rule, however, the occu- 
 pant of the office is re-elected, and the present holder has 
 been Chamberlain for several years. The election takes 
 place on Midsummer Day. The Chamberlain was formerly 
 the king's treasurer in the City, and the moneys received 
 by him on account of forfeitures, tolls, &c., were duly paid 
 into the royal treasury. He has, however, for more than 
 four centuries been exclusively the servant of the Corpo- 
 ration. He is practically the Treasui-er of the Corporation, 
 receiving and accounting for the rents and revenues of the 
 City. He pays the moneys out upon the warrants cf the 
 different City bodies that have power to issue them. 
 
 Another department of the duties of Chamberlain con- 
 sists in the admission of freemen and in the exercise of 
 control over masters and apprentices within the City. He 
 gives security in the sum of £40,000. This appears to be 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : CORPORATION OFFICERS. 127 
 
 necessary not only because of tlic large sums constantly 
 passing ttrougli his hands, but also because of the extra- 
 ordinary method in which he is permitted to deal with the 
 floating balances in the Chamber; generally over £100,000. 
 Instead of these being paid into a bank, he invests them as 
 he thinks fit, and his own salary is dependent upon the 
 profit so made. 
 
 The OomptroUer is practically the Deputy Chamberlain. 
 He controls and examines the accounts of the Chamber, and 
 is the custodian of the leases and title deeds of the landed 
 property of the Corporation. He has also the management 
 of the City property ; advises the City Lands' Committee ; 
 prepares and examines leases, and acts generally as City 
 Steward. He examines the condition of the City property, 
 and sees that all the rights incident to its possession are 
 duly regarded. He is ex-officio Clerk of the City liands' 
 Committee. 
 
 In addition to these officers, it may be remarked that 
 the Town Clerk — or, as he was formerly caUed, the "Com- 
 mon Clerk " — has always been elected by the Common 
 Council. He is practically the Secretary and Registrar of 
 the Corporation ; the Clerk of the Court of Common Coun-, 
 cil, the Court of Aldermen, and the Court of Common Hall. 
 He has the duty of advising the City as to its laws and 
 rights generally. He is also the keeper of its charters, 
 deeds, and journals. He issues precepts for the election of 
 Ward Officers, and for the meeting of the Companies in 
 Common Hall. He has a considerable stafi" of assistants. 
 
 The Qity Solicitor represents the City in all litigant 
 matters. Formerly, the conduct of legal proceedings on be- 
 half of the City was in the hands of the Town Clerk, but 
 now a special functionary is detailed for this service, and 
 the Commissioners of Sewers appoint an additional Solicitor 
 of their own. 
 
128 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The " Library Committee " is appointed to superintend 
 the Corporation Library. Tt might be supposed that thirty- 
 six members would have been sufficient for this work, but a 
 Select Committee of thirteen more was appointed for the 
 purpose of superintending the erection of the new Library 
 and Museum. That work is now complete, and probably 
 the direction of the institution could be adequately per- 
 formed by six members, assisted of course by the professional 
 aid of the librarian and his assistant. The appointment 
 of these two officials rests with the Committee. 
 
 There are no less than three Committees in connection 
 with the Markets, with an aggregate membership of 117. 
 Under the 34th standing order, no member may sit upon 
 more than two of these Committees. There can be no 
 doubt that the superintendence of the eight City Markets 
 is a matter requiring considerable technical knowledge, and 
 involving considerable responsibility ; but when we remem- 
 ber that the Corporation has in its service a number of 
 trained and highly-paid servants in connection with each of 
 them, it certainly does seem that a Committee of fifteen 
 ought to be adequate for every purpose. The question of 
 the City Markets is one of much interest and some com- 
 plexity, — we shall consider it more at length in the chapter 
 on City Expenditure, — but there ought to be ground for ex- 
 pectation that with the completion of the new Poultry and 
 Vegetable Market, and with the extension of BilHngsgate, 
 the erection of new markets within the confined City area 
 will come to an end. If the Markets' Improvement Com- 
 mittee be still in existence when these works are completed, 
 they win no doubt succeed in projecting some new ones. 
 Such work, however, finds no approval outside the Corpora- 
 tion, and it is difficult to understand how a body of intelli- 
 gent men, acting independently for the public good, could 
 arrive at the conclusion that it was desirable to perpetuate 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL: MARKETS* COMMITTEES. 129 
 
 on a still larger scale the gigantic nuisance of the Billings- 
 gate Fish Market. It certainly does seem as if the action 
 of these Markets' Committees was most perverse. If, 
 instead of spending between £100,000 and £200,000 in 
 making the streets near the Thames still more impassable, 
 the Common Council had made a hond-fide effort to put 
 Columbia Market to its best use, or had for once so far 
 subdued their constant jealousy of Londoners without the 
 walls, as to allow of the establishment of a fish market in 
 some place of public convenience, they would have deserved 
 far better of the metropolitan public than they do now. In 
 this, as in most other matters, the great ambition of the 
 Common Council of London has been to tax Londoners 
 without the walls as much as possible without giving them 
 any control whatever over the money so raised. 
 
 The concentration of so many markets within the con- 
 fined City area is not merely productive of very great pubHc 
 disadvantages, but it causes manifest injustice in compelling 
 suburban London to travel many miles in order to obtain 
 the necessaries of life, and to pay upon them such octroi 
 duties as an alien Corporation is enabled to impose. The 
 suburban Londoner must either pay this tax or starve, be- 
 cause the Corporation, relying upon a charter granted five 
 hundred years ago, and confirmed three hundred years later 
 by a needy king for a money consideration, is permitted to 
 deny to him his common law right of estabHshing a market 
 within a reasonable distance. And when, as in the case of 
 Covent Garden, a market of acknowledged utiHty exists, the 
 Corporation proposes to expend a lavish amount of public 
 money in erecting a new one of the same class, in its own 
 borders, so as if possible to divert the custom of the other, 
 and this notwithstanding the fact that the experience of 
 Farringdon Market has proved to demonstration that there 
 is no such public requirement in that district. 
 
 I 
 
130 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The three " Blarhet Committees " of the City have in 
 their gift thirteen of the salaried offices of the Corporation ; 
 viz., the Market Clerks, Collectors, Superintendents, and so 
 forth. The appointment of the highest of these officials is, 
 however, in the Common Council itself. 
 
 The Corporation of the City of London are the pro- 
 prietors of two educational establishments, the City of 
 London School, and the Freemen's Orphan School. 
 
 The Qity of London School was constituted by a private 
 Act of ParKament (4 & 5 Wm. IV., c. 35.) This Act 
 recites that the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the 
 City of London are desirous of establishing a school in the 
 City of London for the instruction of boys in the higher 
 branches of Hterature. It further recites that under the 
 will of one John Carpenter, formerly Town Clerk of the 
 City, the Corporation were possessed of certain estates, 
 charged with the yearly payment of £19 10s., towards the 
 education and clothing of four sons of freemen. This money 
 appears to have been regularly paid, but the will itself was 
 lost. The lands and houses left by John Carpenter were 
 treated as part of the ordinary City Estate ; but in the view 
 of establishing this school, the Corporation agreed to charge 
 them with £900 a year towards its support. This amount 
 is accordingly charged upon them by the Act, and is regu- 
 larly transferred every year from the City's cash to the 
 credit of the City of London School Account. The school 
 was built by the Corporation upon the site of Honey Lane 
 Market, which was dismarketed for the purpose. The 
 Corporation are bound to maintain this school in perpetuity, 
 and to make pro\4sion for the instruction therein of children 
 in " religious and virtuous education, in the higher branches 
 of literature, and in other useful learning." The Common 
 Council of the City are empowered (sec. 5) to make needful 
 regulations for the management of the school, and for the 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL: CITY OF LONDON SCHOOL. 131 
 
 instruction of the children in the authorized version of the 
 Holy Scriptures. It is also enacted that prayers shall be 
 publicly read in the school morning and evening. The re- 
 ceipts and expenditure of the school are considered in the 
 chapter on City Expenditure : they reach to nearly £10,000 
 per annum, and the institution appears to be in a highly 
 prosperous condition. The income derived from the Car- 
 penter estates is not shown as a separate item iu the City 
 accounts, but the corpus of the estate consisted, in 1850, of 
 2 houses in Lower Thames Street ; 2 in Houndsditch ; 
 1 in Cheapside ; 39 in Tottenham Court Road ; 28 in 
 North Crescent and South Crescent, Alfred Place; 41 in 
 Alfred Place itself, and 4 in Store Street, making a total 
 of 117 houses, of which 5 were in the City, and 112 in 
 the neighbourhood of Tottenham Court Road. There are 
 sixteen scholarships attached to the school. 
 
 This school is managed by a Committee of thirty-six, in 
 whose hands rests the appointment of twenty-five out of the 
 twenty-seven masters. The Head Master and the Second 
 Master are appointed by the Common Council. 
 
 The Freemen's Orphan School was founded under the 
 provisions of the 13 & 14 Vict., c. 10. By the Act 13 and 
 14 Car. II., c. 12, the President and Governors of the Poor 
 for the City of London were incorporated, with power to 
 purchase, or to receive by gift or devise, lands to the yearly 
 value of £3,000. Under the provisions of 10 Geo. TV., 
 0. 43, the powers of the former Act are extended, and the 
 Governors are authorized to sell lands and to pay the 
 purchase-money into the Bank of England to the credit of 
 the " Charity Estates of the London Workhouse." Power 
 is also given to purchase other lands. The iaterest accruing 
 from these estates was available for the purpose of appren- 
 ticing freemen's children, and of maintaining a school for 
 the support and education of poor and destitute children in 
 
132 
 
 MTJNICIPAL L0N3X)N. 
 
 accordance with the doctrine and discipline of the Church 
 of England. The Governors of the Corporation of the 
 London Workhouse consisted in 1850 of the Aldermen of 
 the City, sixty citizens, and twenty-five benefactors of £20 
 each. The sum of £6,450 was standing to the credit of 
 the account in the Bank of England. In that year a 
 petition was presented to the Lord Chancellor by the Cor- 
 poration, as to the appropriation of these funds, and it was 
 referred to a Master in Chancery to ascertain whether it was 
 desirable to apply to Parhament for power to estabhsh a 
 school for the orphan children of freemen with the moneys 
 and land at that time standing to the credit of the Work- 
 house Corporation. The Master's report was favourable ; 
 an application to Parhament was forthwith made, and by a 
 private Act (13 & 14 Vict., c. 10) the Freemen's Orphan 
 School was constituted. Power was given to the Corpo- 
 ration of London to purchase a freehold site for the school 
 in Brixton or elsewhere, and by section 2 the Mayor, Com- 
 monalty, and Citizens should for ever thereafter maintain a 
 school for the maintenance and religious and virtuous edu- 
 cation of orphans of freemen of the City of London. The 
 regulation and management of the school is placed under 
 the control of the Common Council, with the stipulation 
 that due provision should be made for the teaching of the 
 authorized version of the Bible, and for morning and 
 evening prayer. The income of the school is augmented 
 by the receipts from fines paid on freedoms and some other 
 sources ; but the yearly charge upon the City Estates is a 
 somewhat serious one. It amounted, in 1874, to £4,783. 
 This expenditure was mainly incurred for the maintenance 
 of the school and the children, whilst the salaries of the 
 teachers, including drawing and French masters, only 
 amounted to £885 155. It would appear that admission 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : FREEMEn's ORPHAN SCHOOL. 133 
 
 into this school is exclusively confined to the children of 
 those who were freemen of the City of London, irrespective 
 of where they Uved. On the other hand, the children of in- 
 habitants of the City who have lived and paid rates within 
 it during their whole lives, but have not passed through the 
 form of taking out their freedom, are denied admission. 
 
 This school is also managed by a Committee of the Cor- 
 poration consisting of thirty-seven members, and which has 
 in its appointment eight of the school ofBcials. There is no 
 apparent reason why both the City of London School and 
 the Freemen's School should not be under the control of one 
 Committee; and, probably, ten practical men would be 
 found suf&cient for the purpose. 
 
 The funds of the Freemen's School were formerly con- 
 siderably augmented by fines paid by those elected Sheriffs 
 who decKned to serve, and by fines on taking out freedoms. 
 The amount derived from the latter source only amounted 
 to £261 in 1874, and is likely to get smaller every year, 
 now that the Common Council have removed the iniquitous 
 tax they formerly levied upon citizens commencing business 
 in London, by compelling them to take up their freedom. 
 No money was received from the former source, and it may 
 be hoped that the system of making appointments simply to 
 exact the fine is now at an end. Like some other City 
 customs, it reflected great discredit on the Corporation that 
 
 permitted it. 
 
 The " Law, Parliamentary, and Qity Courts' Oommittee " 
 is composed of fifty-six members, including the three represen- 
 tatives of the City at the Metropolitan Board of Works. 
 One duty of this Committee is to consider the various BiUs 
 brought into Parliament which may interfere ^\^th the 
 interests of the City. Such Bills are referred to them by 
 the Common Council and the Committees whose interests 
 
134 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 they aflPect. That part of their jurisdiction which consists 
 m the supervision and examination of the management and 
 expenses of the City's legal accounts ought to be under the 
 control of the Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee. 
 
 The jurisdiction over the City Courts possessed by this 
 Committee may well continue to be exercised by it, so long 
 as the control of any such Courts and the appointment of 
 their officials remain in the hands of the Corporation. 
 Whatever be the fate of the Corporation of London, 
 whether it be extended, abolished, or remain, as regards 
 its constitution, in statu quo to the end of time, there can be 
 no doubt but that sooner or later the whole of the Courts 
 peculiar to the City, and specially under its control, will be 
 swept away. 
 
 The Report of the Municipal Commissioners in 1837 
 enumerated no less than fourteen different Courts peculiar 
 to the City of London and the Borough of Southwark, viz., 
 The Court of Hustings ; The Mayor's Court ; The Sheriffs' 
 Court ; The Court of the Borough of Southwark ; The 
 Court of Requests in London ; The Court of Requests in 
 Southwark ; Courts of Conservancy ; London Sessions ; 
 Southwark Sessions ; Court of St. Martin's-le- Grand ; Fins- 
 bury Court Leet and Court Baron ; Court of the Manor of 
 Duke's Place ; Court of Pie Poudre ; and the Old Bailey 
 Sessions. 
 
 The Court of St. Martin's-le-Grand, which was formerly a 
 Court of Appeal from the Court of Hustings and the Lord 
 Mayor's Court (and the Judges of which were specially 
 appointed by a Commission under the Great Seal), seems to 
 be now entirely obsolete. So, also, are the Finsbury Court 
 Leet and Court Baron, and the Court of the Manor of 
 Duke's Place, the special functions of these Courts being 
 now apparently delegated to the Commissioners of Sewers. 
 The Court of Pie Poudre was held in connection with Bar- 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL: CITY COURTS. 135 
 
 tholomew Fair, and passed away with the institution for 
 which it existed. The two Courts of Requests occupied, 
 until a recent period, a prominent place in the legal system 
 of the City and its dependent suburb. The facilities a£forded 
 in these Courts for the recoveiy of small debts, appear to 
 have been remarkable. They are now practically superseded 
 in the City by the City of London Court, and in Southwark 
 by the Southwark County Court. 
 
 The Courts of Southwark Sessions are still regularly 
 advertised to be held four times during the year, but it is 
 little more than an empty form. The Court of the Borough 
 of Southwark is an ancient prescriptive Court of Record, 
 and it has a system of procedure pecuHar to itself. The 
 City's Estate was charged in 1874 with £57 7s,, as the 
 salary of the High Steward of Southwark, who is the sole 
 Judge, and with £50 for the Prothouotary, whose duties are 
 connected -with the procedure in civil cases before they come 
 on for hearing, and with £105 as the salary of the High 
 Bailiff. This Court also appears to be dying of inanition, 
 and to serve no useful purpose in the district where it is 
 situate. 
 
 The Courts of Conservancy have necessarily come to an 
 end since the passing of the Thames Conservancy Act,"^ by 
 which the jurisdiction over the river formerly exercised by 
 the City, was transferred to a mixed body of Conservators. 
 The Sessions of the Peace for the City of London are still 
 advertised to be held eight times in the year. The Recorder 
 is the acting Judge, although both the Lord Mayor and the 
 Aldermen are ex-officio Judges of the Court, 
 
 The ''Qourt of Hustings" is technically the supreme 
 Court of Record in the City, If it can be regarded as still 
 in existence, it is without doubt the most venerable Court in 
 the British Empire, It has existed in unbroken continuance 
 
 * 21 & 22 Vict., c. U7. 
 
i36 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 for more than eight hundred years, and is the modern 
 representative of the Court, which in Saxon London was 
 presided over by the Bishop and the Head Magistrates. 
 Technically, it consists of two divisions, the Hustings of 
 Pleas of Land, with cognizance of real actions within the 
 City, and the Hustings of Common Pleas, which, as well as 
 its cognizance of mixed actions, had formerly a certain 
 appellate jurisdiction over the Sheriffs' Court. This latter 
 jurisdiction has now, however, passed away, and the whole 
 procedure of the Court has become so antiquated and obsolete 
 that the utility of perpetuating even its technical existence 
 has been open to serious question. The long and illustrious 
 history of the Court and the prominent position which it has 
 occupied in London annals, constitute its sole claim to pubHc 
 regard. In 1870 the Corporation published a notice of 
 their intention to apply for Parliamentary powers to abolish 
 the Court, and to transfer its jurisdiction to the Lord Mayor's 
 Court. They would appear, however, to have repented them- 
 selves of so revolutionary a measure, and no such powers 
 appear to have been granted. The Court of Hustings 
 remains an empty and a useless form, but still as a con- 
 necting link with a noble and historic past. If the City 
 rashly cuts itself loose from its anchorage in the past, the 
 Court of Hustings is by no means the only civic institution 
 which will have to undergo extensive change. In the 
 almanacs of the City, the Court in both its divisions is 
 advertised to meet several times in the course of each 
 month. As a matter of fact, when it was called together in 
 1874 for the purpose of registering a scholarship, founded 
 by Sir David Sassoon, in connection with the City of London 
 School, it was the first time during six years that the Court 
 had met. 
 
 The •' Lord Mayor's Court " is the only historic Court 
 peculiar to the City that retains at the present day much of 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL: CITY COURTS. 137 
 
 its old form, together with plenitude of work. Like the 
 Court of Hustings, it is an ancient Court of Record. It has 
 an original civil jurisdiction, and is nominally the Court of 
 the Mayor and Aldermen of the Outer Chamber. In 
 theory the Mayor and Aldermen preside, but, as a matter 
 of practice, the Recorder acts as Judge of the Court, the 
 Common Serjeant sitting as his deputy. The sum of £2,050 
 is charged against the City Estate for the salaries of these 
 two officials, in respect of work done in this Court. The 
 Court claims jurisdiction in civil cases up to any amount, 
 but the exercise of this jurisdiction is now closely confined 
 to cases where the whole cause of action arises within the 
 City. The sittings of the Court occur once a month, and 
 the number of causes entered is exceedingly large. In con- 
 sequence of its exercise of the custom of foreign attachment, 
 and from other causes, this Court has always been highly 
 favoui'ed by the citizens.'^ 
 
 The only appeal from the decisions in the Mayor's Court 
 would be to the Court of St. Martin's-le-Grand. A special 
 Commission of Error would have to be issued under the 
 Great Seal, for the purpose of constituting this Court ; and 
 no instance of its power as a Court of Appeal having been 
 invoked in modern times has come under our notice. 
 
 The " City of London Court " is the modern represen- 
 tative of the two Courts of the Sheriffs' Compter, which 
 formerly exercised a jurisdiction closely analogous to the 
 Mayor's Court. Each of the Sheriffs' Courts had a separate 
 judge, but the two were united by the simple process of not 
 filling up the appointment to one of the vacancies. Subse- 
 quently to the passing of the County Court Act in 1846 the 
 Corporation obtained a private Act, known as the City's 
 
 * The procedure of the Court is now regulated by the Mayors Court 
 Act, 21 & 22 Vict., c. 57. See, also, the origin and former pri\ileges of this 
 Court fully discussed in the case of Reg. v. the Mayor and Aldermen of 
 London, 16 L.J., y.B., 1»5. 
 
138 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Small Debts' Act,''^ whereby a Small Debts' Court was con- 
 stituted, of which the Judge of the Sheriffs' Court was the 
 judge.f The proceedings in the Sheriffs' Court, upon which 
 the City's Small Debts' Court was engrafted, were subse- 
 quently regulated by the provisions of the 15 & 16 Vict., 
 e. 77. The special jurisdiction of the old Sheriffs' Court 
 seems practically to have been merged in that of the Small 
 Debts' Court, and by the 28 & 29 Yict., c. 99, s. 4, it was 
 provided that the judges and officers of the Court, held 
 under the provisions of " The City's Small Debts' Extension 
 Act, 1852," should have and exercise the like jurisdiction, 
 powers, and authorities in all respects, except the power of 
 appointing officers, as should be at the time being possessed 
 and exercised by the judges and officers of a MetropoHtan 
 County Court. Provision is made for the payment of fees 
 of the same amount as in ordinary Metropolitan County 
 Courts, and for the payment to the judges and officers of the 
 said Court of such additional fees as the Mayor and Alder- 
 men and Commons of the City of London, in Common 
 Council assembled, from time to time shall think fit to direct. 
 By this Act, the salaries of ordinary County Court Judges 
 are increased by £300, in consequence of its conferring also a 
 certain Equitable Jurisdiction. Under this Act, therefore, 
 the Court became assimilated to an ordinary Metropolitan 
 County Court, and obtained an Equitable Jurisdiction. The 
 assimilation is made more complete by the 30 & 31 Vict., 
 c. 142, s. 35. 
 
 By the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 71, a jurisdiction in Admiralty 
 was conferred on the County Courts, in which, of course, 
 this Court was included. This was extended by the 32 and 
 33 Vict., c. 51 ; and a later private Act, the 34 & 35 
 Vict., c. 3, was passed for the purpose of making better pro- 
 
 * 10 & 11 Vict., c. 71. 
 f Altered and amended by the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 163. 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL: CITY COURTS. 139 
 
 vision as to the taking of fees, &c., in this Court. These 
 are the statutes by which its jurisdiction is at present regu- 
 lated, and the City of London Court is to all intents and 
 purposes a County Court. 
 
 The Central Criminal Court was estabhshed by the 4 & 5 
 Wm. IV., c. 36, for the trial of offences committed in 
 London, Middlesex, and certain parts of Essex, Kent, and 
 Surrey,* and also of offences . committed on the high seas 
 within the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty of 
 England. The whole of the metropoHtan district is for the 
 purpose of such trials regarded as one county. This Court 
 took the place of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, which 
 was held at the Old Bailey eight times a year prior to 
 1834. The Lord Mayor was always named in the former 
 Commission, and so in the present Court the Judges are to 
 consistf of the Lord Mayor for the time being, and of the 
 Lord Chancellor, the Judges of the Court at Westminster, 
 the Admiralty Judge, the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, 
 the Judge of the City of London Court, and such others as 
 the Crown shall appoint. The sessions are held twelve 
 times in the year, and the Judges in general attendance are 
 the Recorder, Common Serjeant, Judge of the Sheriffs' 
 Court, and two of the Superior Judges. The Lord Mayor 
 attends in his official capacity, and in his absence is repre- 
 sented by the sword suspended over his chair. 
 
 We have stated above, our conviction that before long 
 the peculiar jurisdiction exercised by the City as respects 
 the control of City Courts and the appointment of judicial 
 officers mil cease. The first Revision Bill brought in affect- 
 ing the question must include the technical aboHtion of 
 Courts which have long ceased to exist except in form. 
 It will also include the abolition of all jurisdiction of every 
 kind exercised by City officials within the Borough of South- 
 
 * Sec. 22. t Sjec. 1. 
 
140 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 wark. The assimilation of the City of London Court to a 
 County Court will be completed by no longer allowing its 
 officials to be amenable to, and appointed by, an elected 
 body. The knell of the Mayor's Court was tolled when the 
 Judicature Bill received royal assent. The magistracy of 
 Aldermen will be superseded by the appointment of properly 
 paid and properly quaUfied officials ; and the technical but 
 shadowy powers exercised by high Corporation officers at the 
 Central Criminal Court will come to an end, when it is re- 
 cognized that it rests on civic pride alone, and is productive 
 of neither private nor public good. 
 
 In addition to the Courts enumerated above, the Cham- 
 berlain exercises a somewhat remarkable jurisdiction over 
 the masters free of the City, and over their apprentices. In 
 some respects this jurisdiction is co-equal with that of a 
 Justice of the Peace ; in some respects it is superior to it. 
 The Chamberlain's Court is the place to which the City 
 master resorts when he has to complain of his apprentice, 
 and the City apprentice when he has to complain of his 
 master. The Court is useful mainly as a Court of concili- 
 ation where words in season fitly spoken, and sound advice 
 judiciously given, has frequently the effect of softening the 
 amenities of City apprentice life. Probably no man in the 
 service of the Corporation of London is better qualified for 
 this delicate and pacific duty than the present Chamberlain. 
 "Whilst, however, the Chamberlain's jurisdiction is mainly 
 distinguished by the suaviter in modo, there is not wanting 
 the fortiter in re, if and when harsh measures should be 
 required. He has the power of committing refractory 
 apprentices to Newgate, and also the power, with the con- 
 sent of both parties, of cancelling indentures. The power of 
 imprisonment is rarely, if ever, exercised. 
 
 The existence and the action of the Law, Parliamentary, 
 and City Courts' Committee, have been productive of great evil 
 
THE COMMON COTTNCTL : THE REMEMBRANCER. 141 
 
 and mischief, both to the City and to the MetropoKs. The 
 Common Council takes action upon the report of this Com- 
 mittee with respect to the Bills submitted to it. The recog- 
 nized agent of the Common Council, for the purpose of 
 carrying out its decisions upon these reports, is known as 
 the "Remembrancer." The salary and expenses of this 
 official in 1874 amounted to £2,969, and his " expenses" in 
 connection with various Bills in Parliament (the details of 
 which are kept carefully hidden from the public eye) have 
 averaged, as we shall show in the subsequent chapter, be- 
 tween three and four thousand a year. He is deputed by 
 the Common Council to attend daily at Westminster during 
 the sittings of the House of Commons ; and, except so far as 
 he is concerned in certain ceremonial arrangements with 
 respect to the presentation of the Mayor elect to the Lord 
 Chancellor and to the Judges at Westminster, and to some 
 other matters, his duties are confined to watching the inte- 
 rests of the City in ParHament. Whenever a Bill affecting 
 the government of the Metropolis is introduced, it is the 
 duty of the Pemembrancer to apprise the representatives of 
 the City; and it is only by the insertion of clauses reserving 
 the City rights that the promoters of the measure can buy 
 off the relentless opposition of the Corporation, acting 
 through its members and through such of its officials and 
 Aldermen as may have seats in the House of Commons.^ 
 
 * Nor does the evil by any means end here. When clauses reserving 
 City rights are inserted in Acts of Parliament, they may at any time be 
 quoted, and are quoted, as new contirmations of these rights ! See the 
 answers of the City Remembrancer before Select Committee on Local 
 Government, 1866, First Report, p. 56, qq. 1106-:3o. These answers 
 typify several peculiarities of the City Corporation, and, notwithstanding 
 the fact of the Remembrancer being a high legal officer, they are 
 characterized by the same broad assertion and curious inexactitude com- 
 mon to City witnesses, saving, perhaps, the Recorder and the Chamberlain. 
 Fortunately, the Committee were persistent in obtaining answers to their 
 questions, and so succeeded in demonstrating the naked weakness and 
 absurdity of the City's claim to the fourpenuy coal duty as their private 
 
142 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Whenever a measure is introduced providing for the better 
 management of the Metropolis, even in matters which affect 
 the capital as a whole, the City of London succeeds, hy its 
 persistent action, cai*ried on openly and in secret, by public 
 request and by private influence, in getting itself appointed 
 as the " local authority." And the 56th standing order 
 of the Common Council provides " that the Remembrancer 
 or other proper officer be instructed in future, where the 
 local authority of the City of London is cited in any Act of 
 Parliament or otherwise, such local authority should in all 
 cases be the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the 
 City of London in Common Council assembled." 
 
 Considerations of the public good or the pubUc conve- 
 nience have no weight whatever with the Corporation when 
 dealing with measures of this class. The Common Council 
 have not to this day recovered their chagrin at their inability 
 to execute their own main drainage, and would willingly 
 have drained the whole Metropolis rather than have lost the 
 authority in this matter, if Parhament had only been willing 
 to entrust them with the duty. They built Deptford Cattle 
 Market at great expense, and they carry it on at a loss of 
 more than £10,000 a year to the City's Estate, rather than 
 allow their cherished market jurisdiction to pass in a single 
 instance into the hands of another body.^ Probably, no Act 
 upon the Statute-book was more clearly necessary, and has 
 been more productive of manifest advantage to the com- 
 munity, than the County Courts' Act of 1846. Yet the 
 Corporation of London were not willing that even this 
 
 property, when even the control of the very port in which it was to be 
 collected had been taken from them. 
 
 * So, also, with respect to the Metropolitan Cattle Market at Copen- 
 hagen Fields. The City were under no compulsion whatever to erect it ; 
 but they had the opportunity, and eagerly seized it, as an alternative 
 " considered advantageous to them." See this admitted by the City 
 Chamberlain. " Evidence of Mr. Scott before Taxation Committee of 
 1661," q. 246. 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : TTS PARLIAMENTARY POLICY. 143 
 
 measure of national utility should become law, except upon 
 the condition that the City of London should not be in- 
 cluded. They were subsequently compelled to bring in a 
 measure to supply the deficiency they themselves had created, 
 and the only distinction which now remains between the 
 City of London Court and an ordinary County Court is in 
 the vicious system under which the officers of the former 
 are appoftited. 
 
 Nothing can be more lamentable than the effect upon 
 London generally of this mischievous policy of the Corpo- 
 ration, nor is its public result any better. The Corporation 
 practically spends from £6,000 to £10,000 a year in main- 
 taining its civic pride and its imagined but undefinable 
 privileges at the expense of the rest of the nation. No one 
 can fail to recognise the important services that the Corpo- 
 ration of London has rendered to civil and religious liberty 
 in the past ; — services that we should be unwilling to 
 depreciate, because they have often been prompted by the 
 dictates of worldly wisdom, — but it is as we think intolerable 
 that this Corporation, still great in name and in influence, if 
 not in glory, should be any longer permitted to mar the 
 beauty of statutes, and to destroy the uniformity of public 
 law at the instigation of civic pride, and under the torturing 
 fear of impending dissolution. 
 
 If the Law and Parliamentary Committee had its 
 duties contracted mthin their true limits, there is no reason 
 why the functions of the present ''Local Government and 
 Taxation Committee" should not be transferred to them, 
 and so far as the work of the " Gf-as and Water Oommittee " 
 consists in the consideration of Parliamentary measures 
 affecting these questions, that also would come within their 
 province. Where such work consists in the regulation of 
 the Gas and "Water Supply, it is within the class of duties 
 now undertaken by the Commissioners of Sewers, and the 
 
144 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 consideration of any other methods of supply would, as a 
 matter of course, be referred to the General Purposes' 
 Committee. 
 
 The three Committees above enumerated now consist of 
 147 members, but if remodelled on the above basis, the work 
 would probably be performed by a Committee of twenty. 
 
 The " Improvement Committee " of the City of London 
 undertakes the superintendence of all improvements. It is 
 not likely or probable that within so confined an area as that 
 of the City, proper structural improvements can be effected 
 to any considerable extent further, except at a cost so enor- 
 mous, that no public body would be justified in incurring it. 
 If, however, it were found after the completion of the 
 improvements now in progress, that others of a beneficial 
 character might be usefully effected, probably it would not 
 be difficult to add to the General Purposes' Committee the 
 work now allotted to the Improvements' Committee. Having 
 regard to the existence and functions of the Commissioners 
 of iSewers, and to the contracted area of the City, these 
 might be readily undertaken by one committee of fifteen 
 intelligent members. In case of such a division being made, 
 a Sub- Committee could easily fulfil the duties performed by 
 the six members of the " Bridges' Joint Committee." 
 
 The " Commissioners of Sewers" have a regulating Act 
 of Parliament. This body consists of the Lord Mayor, 
 the Pecorder, the Common Serjeant, the 3 representatives 
 of the City at the Metropolitan Board of Works, 6 Alder- 
 men, and 83 Commoners — total 95. 
 
 The following is a summary, condensed from a recent 
 Parliamentary return, of the powers and duties of the Com- 
 missioners of Sewers of the City of London, and the means 
 by wliicli such powers and duties are carried into effect.* 
 
 * " Third Eeport of Committee on Metropolis Local Government, 
 1867." Appendix, p. 199. 
 
145 
 
 General Powers. 
 
 1. Making, altering, repairing, and cleansing all com- 
 mon sewers, vaults, and drains. 
 
 2. Paving, cleansing, lighting, and improving streets, 
 with power to appoint Clerks, Surveyors, Collectors, Inspec- 
 tors of Pavements, Sewers, and Nuisances, Medical Officers 
 of Health, officers, servants, and persons generally. 
 
 I. — Sevters and Drainage. 
 
 The management and control of all sewers and puhlic 
 drains, except main sewers; also of aU drains within and 
 without houses. 
 
 II. N'UISANCES AND SaNITARY MaTTERS. 
 
 The Commissioners are empowered to appoint one or 
 more Medical Officer or Officers of Health. 
 
 The powers and duties of Medical Officers of Health so 
 appointed are : — 
 
 1. To inspect and report periodically on the sanitary 
 
 condition of the City. 
 
 2. To ascertain existence of diseases, especially 
 
 epidemics. 
 
 3. To point out nuisances and other local causes 
 
 affecting health. 
 
 4. To take cognizance of contagious diseases, and 
 
 point out remedy. 
 
 5. Modes of ventilation of chm-ches, schools, lodging- 
 
 houses, and pubhc buildings generally. 
 
 6. Other analogous duties. 
 
 The Commissioners can appoint or contract with sca- 
 vengers to — 
 
 1. Sweep, cleanse, and water streets. 
 
 K 
 
146 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 2. Collect dirt and refuse. 
 
 3. Cleanse sewers, drains, &c. 
 
 The Commissioners are required to appoint Inspectors 
 of Nuisances, whose duties are : — 
 
 1. To superintend scavengers' duties. 
 
 2. To report to the Commissioners all breaches of 
 
 their rules and regulations. 
 
 3. To point out nuisances. 
 
 The Commissioners are required to appoint Inspectors 
 of Slaughter-houses and Meat. 
 
 The general powers of the Commissioners under their 
 Acts, as to sanitary matters, are : — 
 
 1. To order cleansing and purifying- of houses and 
 
 abatement of nuisances. 
 
 2. Removal of dust and refuse, and cleansing drains. 
 
 3. Registration and inspection of common lodging- 
 
 houses. 
 
 4. License and registration of slaughter-houses ; to 
 
 make rules and regulations for preserving 
 cleanliness thereof, with penalties, inspec- 
 tion, &c. 
 
 5. Superintendence of all meat in slaughter-houses, 
 
 shops, and places : power to seize and dispose 
 of same, and proceed for penalties. 
 
 6. Power to enter all houses for purposes of Act. 
 
 7. Power to compel due provision of convenience to 
 
 private houses. 
 
 8. Power to erect and maintain all requisite pubhc 
 
 conveniences. 
 
 9. To compel due provision .as to water supply, 
 
 cisterns, &c., to private houses. 
 
 10. To abate nuisances arising from manufactories. 
 
 11. To compel consumption of smoke of manu- 
 
 factories. 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : SEWERs' COMMISSION. 147 
 
 III, — ^As TO Streets. 
 
 1. Lighting. — Vest all pubHc lamps in the Conunis- 
 sioners, and give them powers to contract with Gas Com- 
 panies and others to Kght the City. 
 
 2. Paving. — All paving and materials of carriage 
 and footways are vested in the Commissioners; they 
 have powers — 
 
 1. To pave and repair all streets, and to raise and 
 
 lower the soil thereof. 
 
 2. To compel owners of courts to pave. 
 
 3. To control all vaults under streets, which cannot 
 
 be constructed without their consent. 
 
 4. To control Gas and Water Companies and others 
 
 taking up paving, which they cannot do 
 without the consent of the Commissioners. 
 
 5. General management and control of pavements. 
 
 6. To water streets, provide public water supply and 
 
 dust bins, &c. 
 
 7. To compel cleansing of footways by occupiers of 
 
 houses. 
 
 3. As to projection of houses, &c. : — 
 
 1. To compel owners to set back projecting houses, 
 
 when taken down, to line of streets. 
 
 2. To remove projections. 
 
 3. To control dangerous structures. 
 
 (This they generally do pursuant to the powers expressly 
 given to them by the Metropolitan Buildings Act.) 
 
 4. To compel and license erection of hoards during 
 
 building or repair of houses. 
 
 4. As to the improvement of streets under the Act 57 
 Geo. III., c. 29, the Commissioners of Sewers, as the Com- 
 missioners having the control of the pavements of the City, 
 are empowered to alter, widen, turn, or extend the streets 
 
148 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 or other public places in the City, and to lengthen, continue, 
 or open the same from the sides or ends of any streets into 
 any other street or public place, and to pave the new parts, 
 and generally carry out the powers given by the Act for 
 compulsory taking of houses, buildings, and lands, projecting 
 into, obstructing, or preventing them from so altering or 
 widening such streets. The Consolidated Rate is expressly 
 made chargeable with the costs of such improvements. The 
 Commissioners can sell and dispose of or demise surplus 
 lands. 
 
 1. They can, with consent of Bishop of London, 
 
 arrange with parish authorities for appro- 
 priation of churchyards and burial grounds 
 for public improvements and enlargement 
 of streets. 
 
 2. They may, with consent of Bishop of London, 
 
 lower, plant, and pave burial grounds. 
 
 3. They have power to treat with trustees, and 
 
 Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral, 
 for appropriation of west area of churchyard.^ 
 
 lY. — Eating. 
 
 1. Powers to make sewers' rate, not exceeding 4c?. in the 
 pound in any one year, for constructing, repairing, and 
 cleansing sewers, and maintaining sewerage and drainage. 
 
 2. To make a consolidated rate, not exceeding Is. 6d. 
 in the pound in any one year, for forming, making, main- 
 taining, repairing, paving, lighting, sweeping, cleansing, and 
 watering streets in the City, making and carrj'lng out such 
 improvements as they are authorized to make for sewerage 
 purposes, o£6cers' salaries, and all expenses of Acts. 
 
 * This power has been now exercised. 
 
the common council : sewers' commission. 149 
 
 Dangerous Structures. 
 Under second part of " The Metropolitan Buildings Act, 
 1855" (18 & 19 Vict., c. 122), the Commissioners have 
 power in regard to dangerous structures and buildings 
 generally. 
 
 Burial Board. 
 By the Act 15 & 16 Yict., c. 85, s. 420, the Commis- 
 sioners have the powers of a Burial Board for the City. 
 
 Bakehouses. 
 
 And under "The Bakehouses Eegulation Act, 1863" 
 (26 & 27 Yict., c. 40), the Commissioners are entrusted with 
 the regulation of bakehouses within the City of London. 
 
 These functions of the Commissioners of Sewers are in 
 most respects analogous to those of the Yestries hereafter 
 set out; but whilst the latter are frequently under-officered, 
 the City certainly errs in the other direction. It has a 
 far larger staff than Yestries with two and three times its 
 area and street mileage. 
 
 There are within the City less than 700 acres of land, 
 and only 9,236 inhabited houses, and yet there are three 
 Inspectors of Pavements with salaries aggregating to £540 
 per annum ; one Inspector of Sewers at £200 ; two Inspec- 
 tors of Slaughter-houses at £450 ; three Inspectors of Sani- 
 tary Works at £540 ; one Superintendent of Cleansing at 
 £450; one Inspector of Gas Lighting, £117; one Inspector 
 of Animals, £25. As to the rest of the staff (including the 
 Engineer at £1,625, with £1,642 for expenses, and the 
 Sohcitor with £1,000) we say nothing now; but if we add 
 the two Medical Officers at £725, and the Food Analysts 
 at £75, we have a total of Inspectors and Medical Officers 
 of sixteen officers, and a yearly cost of £3,122! 
 
 Any independent person acquainted with the City of 
 
150 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 London will admit that tliis formidable array of officers is 
 out of all sort of proportion to the requirements of the case ; 
 and, having regard to the work done by some excellent 
 officers in the best-managed Yestries, we say that any Cor- 
 poration (for the Commissioners of Sewers claim to be a 
 " Corporation," a kind of imperium in imperio) that main- 
 tains so extravagant a staff, at the public cost, abdicates its 
 functions as a public board of trustees, and is unfit to be 
 entrusted with the expenditure of public money. The Com- 
 missioners pay their head clerk £900 a year, and other 
 officials on a similar scale, but we take their Inspectorships 
 as a test. How is it possible, for example, for three Inspec- 
 tors of Pavements to find employment ? Some of the City 
 streets are kept in order by contract, and all the others 
 would occupy about one-half the time of one man. So with 
 the two Inspectors of Slaughter-houses. One man could do 
 this work, unless we are much mistaken, in one day; there- 
 fore there are two men with nothing to do, except half- 
 a-day now and then, receiving £5 a week and £4 a week 
 each! And what can three Inspectors of Sanitary Works, 
 at £180 a year each, find to do ? To the ordinary observer 
 it seems a flagrant waste of public money. 
 
 The parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, covers an area more 
 than six thnes that of the City, and it has more than three 
 times the number of inhabited houses — and very different 
 houses to those in the City, which are buUt for aU time, 
 and require little inspection, — and the whole work per- 
 formed by the sixteen officers above mentioned is done 
 fairly well by Jive men, with aggregate salaries less than 
 those of two of the clerks to the Commissioners of Sewers. 
 Comment on this is needless; and yet the Commissioners 
 of Sewers are regarded as the most executive and business- 
 like body of men in the Corporation ! 
 
 Their expenditure in 1874 in paving was £43,074; 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : POLICE COMMITTEE. 
 
 151 
 
 in cleansing, £12,631 ; and in lighting, £16,357. Their 
 total expenditure in 1874, including the payment of £13,254 
 to the School Board, and about £15,000 on loan account, 
 together with £91,165 for the purchase of land, amounted 
 to £254,876. Their income is mainly derived from rates, 
 and being appointed under an Act of ParHament, they 
 claim to be independent of the Corporation, and do not 
 report their proceedings to the Common Council. They 
 have a complete staff of officers, independently of those 
 possessed by the Corporation ; twenty-two of these are 
 salaried officials. Twenty members would be an ample 
 allowance for this Committee. 
 
 The " Police Oommittee " consists of eighty-three mem- 
 bers, including the whole of the Aldermen. This Committee 
 exercises, in conjunction with the Common Council, the 
 control over the City Police given to the Corporation by the 
 2 & 3 Vict., c. 94. It deals with an expenditure of some 
 £80,000 a year, and appoints the Surgeon and the Receiver. 
 It is a matter for subsequent consideration how far a separate 
 poHce jurisdiction ought to be any longer continued ; but, 
 whilst it is in existence, ten members ought to do the work. 
 
 The Committees, as above remodelled, would stand 
 thus : — 
 
 City Lands and Gresham Estate 
 
 12 
 
 Finance ..... 
 
 12 
 
 General Purposes 
 
 15 
 
 Library ..... 
 
 6 
 
 Markets 
 
 15 
 
 Law and Parliamentary . 
 
 20 
 
 Schools 
 
 10 
 
 Paving and Lighting 
 
 20 
 
 Police 
 
 10 
 
 120 
 
152 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Probably those wbo are accustomed to attend the over- 
 grown City Committees would consider it impossible to carry 
 on civic government with only 120 Committee appoint- 
 ments, instead of more than 900 as at present; and no 
 doubt the possibility of doing so would largely depend upon 
 the public spirit of the members. At present, every 
 Common Councillor must, on an average, sit on four Com- 
 mittees; and when, in addition to the meetings of the 
 Committee itself, there are Sub-Committees and Select Com- 
 mittee meetings besides the regular meetings of the Common 
 Council, it becomes clearly impossible for any man in 
 business both to carry on his trade and do his full duty to 
 the Corporation. 
 
 In order to ensure regular attendance of members and 
 due efficiency in the work, two Committee appointments for 
 each member would be found quite sufficient. There would 
 thus, in the above project, require an aggregate of Alder- 
 men and Councillors of at least sixty. Such a number 
 would be ample for the work of the City as it now exists, 
 but of course not for a more extended area. 
 
 The number of meetings of the Common Council and its 
 Committees is, at present, somewhere near a thousand in the 
 course of the year. We shall, in the next chapter, deal 
 with the solatium of about £5,000 a year, which is granted 
 by the Corporation for the feeding of these Committees ; but 
 an examination of the City Committee system discloses the 
 remarkable and unprecedented fact that appointments on 
 many of these Committees are objects of ambition, in con- 
 sequence of their social advantages in dinners and so forth. 
 Not merely is this recognised in the City system, but the 
 Common Council, in its own Standing Orders, deHberately 
 excludes men of experience from being re-elected on Com- 
 mittees where they have served four years. Thus, men of 
 presumable special knowledge have constantly to make way 
 
THE COMMON OOTTNCEL : THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM. 153 
 
 for others with no experience at all, but whose turn has 
 come to share in the loaves and fishes. 
 
 Bad as this system is now, it was formerly much worse. 
 The Committees were fewer in number, but the "allow- 
 ances " were three or four times the amount. " Line 
 Money " was also allowed to those who were present before a 
 certain time, and wrote their names over the line. Under 
 the circumstances of these Committees' selection, it is cause 
 for wonder that they perform their work so well. Perhaps 
 the regulation champagne dinners make men fitter for good 
 work. That is, at any rate, the City theory.'^ 
 
 The Committee system, if remodelled, is excellently 
 well adapted for its pui-poses, but it could never be made 
 satisfactory in the City without such a revolutionary change 
 in the whole City system as will never come from within. 
 In indicating the number of men who could do the work of 
 the Corporation, and the possible remodelling of the Com- 
 mittees, we have neither wish nor expectation to see any- 
 thing of the kind come to pass. Our propositions go much 
 deeper and much farther than any such superficial change, 
 and the illustration of these unwieldy and unmanageable 
 Committees, meeting to dine at the public cost, is useful as 
 pourtraying the state of things which must be changed. It 
 is also necessary in any fair description of the City system. 
 There is no probabiHty of any important change coming 
 from within, and the present method will go on to the end. 
 If the members of the Common Council were compelled 
 somewhat oftener to breathe the healthy atmosphere of a 
 contested election, there might be hope for them ; but when 
 nearly every City ward is a pocket borough, there can be 
 none. 
 
 * See a skilful defence of the system. " E\'idence of Mr. James 
 Medwin before Select Committee ou Local Government and Taxation of 
 the Metropolis, 1867," p. 55. See, also, p. 60, q. 971. 
 
154 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 There are some Standing Orders of the Common Council, 
 in addition to those quoted above, which deserve to be set 
 out. Thus, it is provided that no members of the Common 
 Council who arc connected with public Companies or part- 
 nerships having deahngs with the Corporation, are to vote 
 when such deaUngs are under discussion. 
 
 It is also provided that no one holding any salaried office 
 may be appointed to any Commission or Committee. No 
 son of a Common Councillor is eligible for an appointment, 
 nor is any Common Councillor himself; but in a recent 
 instance this wholesome rule is understood to have been set 
 aside in favour of one of the present officials who was a 
 member of the Common Council, and resigned to become a 
 candidate. No member of the Court is to be surety for any 
 officer. 
 
 Under Standing Order No. 55, every member has a 
 right to inspect documents, books, and papers, and take 
 extracts; but no officer of the Court shall be at liberty to 
 show any of the books, papers, or records of the Corporation 
 to any one not a member of the Corporation, without the 
 license of the Court. No person is eligible for any place 
 or appointment of emolument in the gift of the Common 
 Council unless he is free of the City. 
 
 When petitions for grants in aid of benevolent, useful, 
 or charitable objects are made to the Court, they are to be 
 referred to the Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee for 
 report. The petition must set forth all moneys previously 
 received by the apphcants from the Corporation, and also 
 the amount of the income and expenditure of the institution, 
 together with the salaries of its officers and its property. 
 
 The Standing Orders of the Common Council illustrate 
 both the good and the bad side of the City system. Thus 
 there is most elaborate provision made for publishing to the 
 members every fact connected with City land proposed to be 
 
THE COMMON COUNCIL : STANDING ORDERS. 156 
 
 let on lease, so that the highest price may be obtained. On 
 the other hand, the provision that no one shall be employed 
 by the City unless he chooses to go through the farce of 
 being made free, is both antiquated and unjust. The fear 
 of publicity being given to corporate documents and pro- 
 ceedings must be considerable, when it is made the subject 
 of a formal order. If the proceedings are creditable and 
 worthy of a great and historic Corporation, what is there to 
 conceal ? How are inferior Municipalities to learn from her 
 if she decHnes to teach ? 
 
 The Corporation have the right, under the Thames 
 Conservancy Acts, which we shall discuss hereafter, of 
 nominating six members of the Corporation of London on 
 the Conservancy Board. The Lord Mayor is the ex-officio 
 Chairman of the Board, and the City is further represented 
 by two Aldermen and four Common Councillors. 
 
 The Corporation of London also appoint one member of 
 the Lee Conservancy Board. 
 
 The poor of London, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, 
 obtained relief from the ecclesiastical endowments within 
 the City. The nimiber of these was considerable, and the 
 property they held was extensive, covering a large pro- 
 portion of the City area. Some, as St. Bartholomew, 
 specially devoted themselves to the relief of the indigent and 
 sick. After the dissolution the Corporation of London 
 addressed a memorial to the king, in consequence of which 
 he granted to them St. Bartholomew's, Grey Friars, and 
 Bethlehem, endowing the former with 500 marks per 
 annum ; the City providing an equal amount. The hospital 
 of St. Thomas, in South wark, was purchased by the City at 
 the suppression. The charters of the Corporation under 
 which these grants were made, and the control of the City 
 regulated, were dated January 13, 38 Hy. VIII., and 
 June 26, 6 Edw. YI. Under these charters a governing 
 
156 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 body was appointed, consisting of a Comptroller-General, a 
 Surveyor-General and three Aldermen, a Treasurer, and 
 eight other citizens as Governors. These Governors were 
 elected yearly, and appear to have consisted exclusively 
 of persons comiected with the Corporation. The whole of 
 these hospitals were formerly used by the City as establish- 
 ments for dealing with the poor and diseased; but in the 
 present day St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas are hospitals 
 for the sick, Bethlehem is a Lunatic Asylum, and Grey 
 Friars is a School. The latter is, however, no longer a 
 school for fatherless and orphan boys and girls. Under the 
 careful fostering of the Corporation of London, who, as 
 Governors, have presentations to this "Charity," it has now 
 become a resort of the children of people in good condition. 
 Instead of the shoeless boys that King Edward desired to 
 benefit, the scholars of to-day ride about Ijondon, the 
 children often of parents who could well afford to pay three 
 times the cost. Under the charter of Edward the Sixth, 
 Grey Friars, or as it has been since called Christ's Hospital, 
 was designed for the education and apprenticing of children, 
 but since that time many legacies and gifts have been made 
 to the hospital for other purposes. Some donors have given 
 estates on condition that scholars shall be received from 
 certain of the City Companies or certain parishes. One 
 donor left a legacy conditional on the yearly presentation to 
 each boy of a pair of gloves, upon which should be inscribed 
 the words " Christ is risen." Another has left a yearly sum 
 for an annual dinner of boiled legs of pork. Others for the 
 provision of other meat dinners, and many bequests for 
 purposes equally out of date. The present gross income of 
 the hospital is £70,000 per annum, of which somewhat 
 more than £40,000 is expended in education. In addition 
 to the Corporation Governors, there are a number of 
 Governors elected in consequence of the payment of £500 
 
METHOD OF GOVERNMENT : CHRIST's HOSPITAL. 157 
 
 each to the charity. An investment of £500 so made in 
 this school is a good one provided the donor nominates his 
 own friends and relations, and is not troubled with any 
 qualms of conscience as to the fraud he is thus perpetrating 
 upon the poor. His nominees will receive benefits from the 
 charity to the extent of about £80 per annum. The num- 
 ber of boys is about 1,200, of whom about one-third — being 
 the youngest boys — are kept at Hertford. The cost of the 
 Hertford school, which the Schools' Inquiiy Commissioners 
 propose to aboHsh, is about £11,000 a year. There are a 
 number of scholarships of £80 and £100 each to Oxford 
 and Cambridge. Something Hke thirty masters are engaged 
 in the school. Like many other endowments connected 
 with the City, the carrying out of trusts for the benefit of 
 the poor is a thing entirely ignored, so long as an oppor- 
 tunity remains for appropriating the funds to their own 
 purposes. The poor have little chance of getting in, and as 
 for the girls who were intended to be equally benefited 
 with boys, there are very few on the foundation. For the 
 notorious misappropriation of the funds of this school the 
 Corporation Governors are largely responsible. 
 
 The City stOl exercises control over these establishments, 
 the present regulating statute being the 22 Geo. III., c. 77. 
 
 This Act recites that disputes had arisen between the 
 Corporation of London and the Presidents, Treasurers, and 
 Acting-Governors of certain hospitals, including the four 
 above mentioned, as to their respective rights, powers, and 
 privileges, and that certain terms of agreement had now 
 been come to between them. These terms are set out and 
 then enacted so that they are as binding as an Act of 
 ParHament. It may be observed that most of those who 
 acted on behalf of the hospitals were also at the time 
 members of the Corporation of London. 
 
 The Act provides for the continuance in office of the 
 
158 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Govemors then acting, for the custody of the seals of the 
 hospitals being with the City Chamberlain, for the use of 
 the full title of the Corporation as Grovemors in all actions, 
 &c., with the provision that all expenses in such actions 
 must be borne by the hospitals, and that if the Corporation 
 have to pay the costs, they may enter upon the property of 
 the hospitals to recoup themselves. All leases and deeds 
 belonging to the hospitals are to be deposited with the 
 Chamberlain, and to be sealed at the next meeting of the 
 Court of Aldermen and Common Council. 
 
 The Court of Common Council are empowered by the 4th 
 article to nominate forty-eight of their own members to be 
 Governors of the four hospitals above mentioned, twelve to 
 each, to act so long as they continue members of the Court, 
 and their places to be duly filled up as they become vacant, 
 so that there may be always twelve members for each 
 hospital. The present regulations of the Common Council 
 affecting the election of Governors were enacted February 24, 
 1870. 
 
 By this regulation the City wards are divided into 
 six classes, and arrangements are made for each ward 
 having its share in its turn of this piece of useful patronage. 
 The election is by open voting, and is regulated by the 45th 
 order of the Court of Aldermen. 
 
 In the same manner the patronage of the Corporation, in 
 the appointment to the London Almshouses, is carefully 
 divided, so that each ward may have its turn. Of course 
 the almshouses are confined to decayed freemen, their 
 widows, and daughters. 
 
169 
 
 Chapter Y. 
 
 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. 
 
 The Income and Expenditure of the Qity, and herein of The 
 City Estate : Qity Markets : Rates : Coal, Wine and 
 G-rain Duty : Metage and Brokers' Rents, ^c. — Expen- 
 diture on the Administration of Justice. — Police : Main- 
 tenance Accounts, cfc. ; Oity Loans : Salaries of 
 OJicials : Charitable Gf-ifts : Analysis of Expenditure. 
 
 In the year 1692, the Corporation of the City of London 
 were petitioners before the House of Commons for the grant 
 of certain powers of taxation to extend over the whole 
 metropoHtan area, the proceeds of such taxation to be appHed 
 in recouping the loss of moneys deposited in the Royal Ex- 
 chequer in the reign of Charles the Second. Before passing 
 the measure which resulted in the imposition of the Coal 
 and Wine Dues, the House of Commons, by order, requii'ed 
 the Corporation to produce to them an account of all their 
 revenues and of the value of the different offices in their 
 disposal. It was, undoubtedly, greatly to the interest of 
 the City to represent herself as being in a pauperized con- 
 dition, in consequence of the action of a former and now 
 unpopular king. "We do not intend to impeach these 
 accounts as being absolutely untrue ; but we find that the 
 Corporation returned, as of no annual value, certain 
 " rights " and " prescriptions," which at a very short time 
 subsequently brought in a goodly revenue to the City 
 Chamber.* 
 
 * See this return set out, House of Commons' Journals, 1692, Vol. X., 
 p. 713, and pp. 796-800. Quoted in Appendix to " Keport of Taxation Com- 
 mittee, 1861," p. 70. 
 
160 MUNICIPAI. LONDON. 
 
 For the purposes of contrast, as well as for its intrinsic 
 interest, this return has considerable value. It is, of course, 
 possible that it did not represent so large an income as that 
 which the City had previously enjoyed, and this " in conse- 
 quence of the late troubles and revolutions of Government." 
 The total yearly revenue was stated to be £11,658 ; the two 
 largest items consisting of Quit Rents, £3,480, and Markets, 
 £3,100. 
 
 The expenditure was on an equally modest scale : £739 
 was paid for rents ; £88 for tithes ; £65 for Poor's Rate ; 
 and £257 for legacies. The total cost of City government 
 is set down at £3,946. The salary of the Recorder was 
 £80; of the Remembrancer, £50; of the Common Ser- 
 jeant, £40 ; of the Comptroller, £40 ; of the City Solicitor, 
 £26 135. 4d. ; of the Town Clerk, £23 65. 8^. ; and of the 
 Chamberlain, £50. The whole expenditure of the Corpora- 
 tion of London in 1692 was considerably less than the single 
 item of " disbursement, before the Epping Forest Com- 
 missioners," in 1874. 
 
 The next published accounts of the Corporation were 
 printed in the year 1785, and they show an enormous ad- 
 vance upon the state of things in 1692, although, as we 
 shall hereafter show, this was not allowed to affect the 
 imposition of the Coal and "Wine Dues, even when the City 
 income was twentyfold greater than at the time when they 
 were first imposed. 
 
 The accounts of the Corporation have been tabulated 
 and printed since 1785. In that year the total receipts of 
 the City shown in two accounts, that of the City Estate 
 and of the Bridge House Estate, amounted to £59,356, or 
 about one-thirtieth of their present amount. The City 
 rents produced, in 1785, £19,199. Forty years later, in 
 1825, they had increased to £45,269. In 1874 they 
 amounted to £110,033. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : 1785 AND 1874. 161 
 
 The Bridge House Estate produced, in 1785, £7,465 ; in 
 1825, £34,168; in 1874, £50,099. 
 
 The City Markets, in 1785, produced £15,631 ; in 1825, 
 £58,958; in 1874, £115,015. The expenditure on the 
 markets in 1785 was £2,621, showing a profit of £13,010 ; 
 in 1825, £6,687, with a profit of £52,271. In 1874, the 
 expenditure, including the interest upon the vast sums ex- 
 pended in new erections, was £113,998, showing a profit of 
 £1,017. In this, as in many other respects, modern City 
 management sufiers by comparison with former management. 
 
 The character of the accounts has changed extremely 
 during the last ninety years. The income derived from the 
 fining of those who were elected Sheriff's and declined to 
 act, amounted sometimes to more than £10,000 a year, in 
 the days when men were elected purposely to be fined, as 
 in the case of Dissenters who were unable to take the 
 needful obligations ; but now the City Estate receives but 
 little benefit from this source. 
 
 So, on the other hand, the yearly charge of £11,500 on 
 account of the Orphans' Fund has ceased to appear in the 
 expenditure. 
 
 The number of Corporation servants and theii' salaries 
 have both been enormously augmented. In 1785 the 
 Recorder had been increased to £600 a year; in 1875 he 
 receives £3,000. In 1785 the Common Serjeant and the 
 Comptroller received £550 and £500 respectively. In 
 1875 the Common Serjeant has £2,550, and the Comptroller 
 £2,000. 
 
 The accounts of the City are now prepared in the 
 Chamber, and under the 20th standing order of the Com- 
 mon Council, are presented every year to the Corporation. 
 They are divided into two parts, the first part being devoted 
 to the account of the " City's cash " and accounts connected 
 with it, represented by eleven diff'erent accounts ; and the 
 
162 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 second part to what are called "public and trust funds," 
 represented by forty-six different accounts ; or if we treat the 
 several City of London School Scholarship accounts as one 
 account^by thirty-four separate tabulated statements. There 
 are, therefore, forty-five different statements prepared every 
 year, and possibly it is much more convenient for the pur- 
 poses of the City that they should be kept separate. They 
 comprise a considerable amount of detail, and having regard 
 to the end for which they are prepared — that is to say, the 
 satisfaction of the Common Council — they probably serve 
 their purpose. But if any stranger consults them with the 
 object of ascertaining the aggregate work or income or ex- 
 penditure of the City, he will be greatly puzzled, unless he 
 chooses to spend, as we have done, some days in mastering 
 them. The recommendations given by the Commissioners 
 of 1854 and by others, to render these accounts at once in- 
 telligible, have been apparently totally disregarded by the 
 Corporation. When, for example, the City's cash is in 1874 
 short by some £25,000, we find that sum supplied from the 
 Reserve Fund, and as that is exhausted in the process, we 
 find £15,360 155. transferred from the Clerkenwell Improve- 
 ment Fund, a fund which is drawn upon every year for this 
 purpose. This process is repeated in a variety of forms 
 through the forty-five accounts, and renders the ascertainment 
 of the true income or the true expenditure a task not easy 
 to perform, and one of which we have been unable to find 
 any useful precedent. We propose, in the first instance, to 
 deal with the accounts as they stand m the yearly report, 
 showing the method in which the items came under the 
 control of the Corporation, and afterwards analyse and 
 summarise them. 
 
 The forty-five difierent statements are entitled as 
 follows : — 
 
 The City's Cash. — City's Estate, receipts and expenditure ; 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE t TABULATED STATEMENTS. 163 
 
 Reserve Fund ; Felons' Groods, Fines, and Recognizances ; 
 Deptford Foreign Cattle Market; Billingsgate Tolls' Ac- 
 count ; Guildhall Library Account ; Widows of Freemen 
 Fund ; Town Clerk's Establishment Account ; Architect 
 and Surveyor's Establishment Account ; Corporation's 
 Assets and Liabilities ; Schedule of Corporation Bonds. 
 
 Public and Trust Funds. — The Bridge House Estates ; 
 Blackfriars Bridge Rebuilding Account ; the Gresham Es- 
 tate (City's moiety) ; Metropolitan Meat and Poultry 
 Market Site and Approaches ; Ditto Western Approach ; 
 Ditto Tolls' Account ; Newgate Market Fund ; Holborn 
 Valley Improvement ; Ditto Surplus Lands' Account ; 
 Holborn Valley and Farringdon Market Improvement ; Con- 
 solidated Rate Account ; Sewers' Rate ; Metropolitan Board 
 of Works Sewers' Rate ; Police Rate ; Ward Rate ; Police 
 Superannuation Account ; Coal {9d.) and Wine Duties ; 
 City Coal Duties (4tZ.) ; Drawback on Coal Duties' Account ; 
 Drawback on Coal Expenses' Fund ; Coal Duties' Expenses 
 Fund ; Coal Market ; City of London Grain Duty ; City 
 Meters' Provident Fund ; City of London School Account ; 
 Scholarship Accounts ; the Freemen's Orphan School 
 Account ; Clerkenwell Improvement ; Admiral Duff's 
 Legacy ; General Fund of the City of London Court ; 
 Account of the Fees arising from the Admiralty Jurisdiction 
 of the said Court; Account of Surplus Suitors' Cash of 
 ditto ; Account of the Profits of the Office of Chamberlain ; 
 Account of Revenue Officers' Salaries paid out of the profits 
 of the office of Chamberlain. 
 
 By far the largest tabulated statement contained in the 
 yearly report of the accounts of the City is that connected 
 with the produce and expenditure of what is termed " The 
 City's Estate." The receipts on this account include rents ; 
 interest on investments ; the produce of the various mar- 
 kets ; metage dues ; brokers' rents ; fees and reimbursements 
 
164 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 in connection with the administration oi justice ; receipts 
 from fines and forfeitures, &c. 
 
 The expenditure includes the payment of the cost of 
 managing the City Estate ; the payment of rates, taxes, and 
 other charges upon it ; of charges on the various markets ; 
 on the metage dues and brokers' rents ; the expenses of 
 magistrates, poHce, paupers, and prisons ; the cost of the ad- 
 ministration of justice and of the civil government of the 
 City ; pensions ; donations ; charges for the City schools ; 
 sanitary expenses ; Parliamentary costs ; the maintenance of 
 the library and museum ; the cost of public entertainments ; 
 and certain expenditure on capital account, in respect of the 
 erection of buildings and the enlargement of markets. 
 
 The income of the City's Estate from rents was, in 
 1874, £93,510. By far the larger part of these rents was 
 received from property in the City of London. JS[o details 
 are given as to the situation or character of this property, 
 and the manner in which much of the land came into the 
 possession of the City is shrouded in considerable doubt. 
 It is supposed to include the sites of the old City gates and 
 walls, of which the stewardship and care rested with the 
 Corporation ; the sites of former conduits, of which the 
 Corporation were trustees ; and of tracts of land, such as 
 Moorfields and Smithfield, originally granted to be held for 
 the public use and advantage of the citizens of London. 
 Moorfields, for example, remained an open space for the 
 benefit of the public until 1812, when by a private Act of 
 Parliament (52 Geo. III., c. 210) the Corporation ob- 
 tained power to build upon it. The income from Irish rents 
 was £428, and from the model dwellings in Farringdon 
 Road £3,222. The income from investments in Government 
 securities was £10,864, and the total income from realized 
 property £110,033. The capitalized value of this income 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : CITY MARKETS. 165 
 
 is between two and three millions sterling. The collection 
 of the rents and payment of the charges upon this property, 
 together with the charges of management, amounted, in 
 1874, to £8,303. 
 
 In our chapter on the City Charters we have set out the 
 first Inspeximus Charter of Charles the First, confirming 
 the charter granted March 6th, 1 Edw. III., whereby the 
 old privilege of the City, that no market should be allowed 
 within seven miles of the City, is expressly re-granted. It 
 is still in force, and has the vahdity of law. The object of 
 the City in purchasing from English sovereigns the exclusive 
 right of market was clearly their own aggrandizement, 
 through the concentration of suburban commerce within 
 their walls. In the present day it would be impossible for 
 any such claim to be originated ; but the Corporation has 
 always been particularly careful to insist upon its rights in 
 this regard. No market was allowed to be established 
 without the consent of the City under its corporate seal 
 being first obtained; and where, as in the case of the Isling- 
 ton Market Bill, there was danger of competition, the City 
 offered the strongest opposition, and insisted upon compensa- 
 tion in case of its establishment. So also, when a Bill was 
 introduced for the removal of Smithfield Cattle Market, an 
 object on which ParHament, the press, and the public were 
 all agreed, the Corporation met the proposal with the fiercest 
 resistance, and large sums were expended out of Municipal 
 funds for the purpose of retaining in the heart of the City a 
 profitable but most aggravated nuisance.* The markets of 
 
 * Serjeant Pulling estimates the cost to the City of this opposition at 
 £6,000, amongst the details of which was the employment of certain 
 literai-y gentlemen, at considerable cost, for the purpose of writing up the 
 united cause of the Coi-poration and the butchers. Vide " City of London 
 Corporation Inquiry," by Seijeant Pulling (Hatchard, Piccadilly), 1854, pp. 
 15, 16. Evidence was also given by a member of the Common Council 
 before the Commissioners of 1854 as to other details of this expenditure, 
 
166 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the City are now eight in number, viz., Smithfield Dead 
 Meat Market ; the Metropolitan Cattle Market, Copenhagen 
 Fields ; the Foreign Cattle Market, Deptford ; Billingsgate ; 
 Leadenhall ; Farringdon ; Columbia Market ; and Smithfield 
 Hay Market. Except where the rights of the City are 
 clearly ascertained by specific Acts of Parliament, the Cor- 
 poration claim to possess the tolls of these markets as their 
 own private property.* They are, however, a much less 
 profitable possession than formerly, and barely pay their own 
 expenses. 
 
 The receipts at the Metropolitan Cattle Market for 
 lairage, tolls, rents, licenses, &c., amounted in 1874 to 
 £37,351, whilst the total expenditure was £34,742, including 
 £19,120 for loan interest, £6,542 for forage, £2,675 for 
 salaries, and £2,180 for rates, taxes, and insurance. 
 
 The gross receipts from the Smithfield Meat and Poultry 
 Markets amounted to £60,247, Of this sum £23,906 is 
 charged to the Tolls' Account, and kept separate from the 
 City's estate. The income charged to the City Estate 
 Account is £34,275. The gross expenditure on both ac- 
 counts, including the payment of £43,832 for interest, is 
 £55,462. 
 
 Leadenhall Market produced £2,065, and cost £922. 
 Farringdon Market produced £1,714, and cost £1,220. 
 Smithfield Hay Market produced £155, and cost £89. 
 Billingsgate Market produced from rent £6,518 and from 
 tolls £1,301, making a total of £7,819. The ToUs' Account 
 is kept separate, under the provisions of an Act of ParHa- 
 ment. The total expenditure on the Market was £2,415. 
 
 including the tavern bills of certain Members of Parliament. Vide 
 " Evidence of F. Bennoch, Reyort of Commissioners," qq. 1221 , et seq. But 
 compare detailed statement of Mi'. Scott as to this expenditure. Ibid., 
 qq. 4660-77. 
 
 * Vide " Evidence of City Remembrancer before Commissioners ol 
 1854." Report, qq. 5417-5420. 
 
CITT EXPENDITURE .* CITY MARKETS. 167 
 
 Columbia Market produced £1,131, and cost £2,108. 
 The deficit upon this account is thus seen to be considerable, 
 but falls far short of the deficit upon the Foreign Cattle 
 Market Account, which is the subject of a separate state- 
 ment, and which, amounting to more than £10,000 a year, 
 goes far to lessen the favourable balances of the City Markets 
 proper. In addition to the market charges enumerated 
 above, there are general charges on these accounts amount- 
 ing to £576. 
 
 The compulsory metage of grain is now abolished ; but 
 the Corporation carry on a voluntary metage, which in 1874 
 produced £1,869, at a cost to the City's Estate of £1,452. 
 
 The Corporation still claim the right of fruit metage, 
 from which source they received £2,421, and in the col- 
 lection of which they expended £1,403. 
 
 The sum of £122 is credited to the Estate on account 
 of fees for stamping weights and measures. 
 
 Brokers' rents produced in 1874 £7,029, at a cost to the 
 Corporation of £353. Of this sum £334 was expended by 
 order of the Court of Aldermen in advertisements. 
 
 The receipts from fees and other matters at the Mansion 
 House Justice Eoom amounted to £2,025, and the expendi- 
 ture to £3,301. The receipts at the Guildhall Justice 
 Eoom were £864, and the expenditure £1,931. The other 
 items of expenditure charged against the Magistracy Account 
 amount to £3,690, including £1,440 on account of the 
 maintenance of City lunatics. The whole of these pay- 
 ments are made by order of the Court of Aldermen. 
 
 The amount charged against the City Estate, on accoimt 
 of Police, was £22,034. Of this sum £19,509 was paid by 
 order of the Common Council to the PoHce Fund, being 
 one-fourth of the net expenditure due from the City Estate 
 under the provisions of the Act 2 & 3 Vict., c. 94.* 
 * As to total cost of City Police, see p. 182. 
 
168 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The sum of £7,250 was expended in the enlargement 
 of the Pauper Lunatic Asylum, and £498 was charged for 
 repairs ; the former, being capital expenditure, was reim- 
 bursed from the Reserve Fund. 
 
 The City receipts on account of Newgate Prison were 
 chiefly made up of reimbursements from the Paymaster- 
 General and the Treasurers of other counties, on account of 
 the maintenance of prisoners. They amounted to £476. 
 The cost of maintaining the prison was £5,969. This sum 
 included £2,279 for wages and £1,297 for salaries. 
 
 The receipts on account of the City Prison at Holloway 
 were £3,236, including £1,571 on reimbursement account 
 and £1,343 on account of the prisoners' work, chiefly mat- 
 making. As an illustration of the remarkable sources from 
 which the Corporation income is derived, we may note that 
 £5 165, 8d. is credited to this account in respect of " money 
 found on vagrants." The expenditure at HoUoway was 
 £10,972, including £3,985 for wages and £1,306 as 
 salaries. 
 
 The general prison expenses — an item chiefly made up 
 of pensions to retired prison ofi&cers — amounted to £1,381. 
 
 The reimbursements on account of criminal prosecutions 
 amounted to £935, whilst a sum of £10,000 was credited 
 from a separate account kept of fines and forfeitures levied 
 by the Sheriffs. 
 
 The cost of keeping up the Sessions House at the Old 
 Bailey, and the cost of the Central Criminal Court, are 
 charged at £7,941. Of this sum £3,784 is expended in 
 salaries, £1,710 in the expenses of witnesses, and £800 in 
 the reporting of Old Bailey trials. 
 
 The cost of the City Coroner was £1,351, made up of 
 £885 salary and £466 expenses. 
 
 The total expenditure on account of the " Civil Govern- 
 ment of the City " was £49,304. Of this sum £10,000 was 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 169 
 
 paid to the Lord Mayor, " in lieu of all his ancient fees and 
 emoluments." The keeping up of the Mansion House cost 
 cf4,498, including the sum of £1,622 for repairs and £882 
 for new furniture ; £82 was paid for two robes for the Lord 
 Mayor, £97 10s. to the Chaplain, £60 to keep up the coach, 
 and £524 for decorating the Guildhall on Lord Mayor's 
 Day. The fees received from the Mayor's Court in 1874 
 amounted to £7,393, and the expenditure to £6,756. Of 
 this expenditure, £5,685 was in salaries and £962 for com- 
 pensation to one of the solicitors of the Court on account 
 of the purchase of his former exclusive right of practice. 
 The sum of £1,101 was paid to the Sheriffs on account of 
 their customary allowances. 
 
 The other expenses of Civil Government include the sum 
 of £9,270 for the salaries of the Comptroller, Remem- 
 brancer, City Solicitor, a proportion of the cost of the TowG;?-p>~r; 
 Clerk, and the salaries of the Sword-bearer, and some minor ' ' 
 ofl&cers. There is also a considerable sum, of which li^ 
 details are given, charged for the expenses of these officers. 
 
 The cost of keeping up the Guildhall and City Courts 
 amounted to no less a sum than £12,478, mainly composed 
 of tradesmen's bills, and including £3,181 for repairs to the 
 Guildhall alone, whilst painting and repairing the Law 
 Courts cost £1,325. 
 
 The cost of the Borough Court at Southwark is set down 
 at £217. 
 
 Against this total of £49,304 is credited as " officers' 
 surplus fees and profits," a sum of £5,399. Part of this 
 sum is transferred from the Chamberlain's Profit Account, 
 and part from the Bridge House Estates. The true receipts 
 comprise £400 for Sessions fees, and £609 for fees at the 
 Monument. This building costs £359 to keep up. 
 
 The pensions charged against the City Estate amount to 
 £3,566, of which amount about one-half is paid by order 
 
170 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of the Court of Aldermen. These pensions chiefly consist 
 of allowances made to old servants of the Corporation and 
 their widows. The late Clerk to the Lord Mayor has a 
 retiring allowance of £700. The other pensions range from 
 £300 a year to the late principal Clerk in the Architect's 
 office, down to £15 to the late doorkeeper at the Central 
 Criminal Court. 
 
 The London Almshouses are charged at £1,500, of 
 which £1,067 is put down as " allowances to inmates." 
 
 The charitable donations voted during the year amounted 
 to £3,497, and included £1,000 to the Indian Famine Relief 
 Fund, £710 to the widows of freemen, of which sum £500 
 is to be distributed by members of the Court of Common 
 Council, and £210 by Aldermen ; £315 was voted for a 
 pulpit for the City Temple on Holborn Viaduct. The other 
 amounts were voted for hospitals, orphanages, and so forth. 
 
 The honorary votes of the year cost £513, including a 
 sword to Sir Garnet Wolseley, and gold caskets for Sir 
 Albert Sassoon and Sir Bartle Frere. 
 
 The expenditure charged against the City's Estate for 
 educational purposes was £6,355 ; of this sum £1,572 is 
 charged for the contribution towards the City of London 
 School, and £4,783 for the Freemen's Orphan School. 
 
 The sum of £1,840 is charged for sanitary expenses at 
 the Port of London, under "The Public Health Act, 1872." 
 The chief items are for salaries of medical officers, inspectors, 
 and wages generally. The sum of £127 was received in 
 reimbursements. 
 
 The expenses charged to the City's Estate in respect of 
 West Ham Park were £1,056, of which £744 was con- 
 nected with the opening, the dejeuner costing £387. The 
 maintenance is charged at £312. The incidental receipts 
 are £221. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : CITY's ESTATE ACCOUNT. 171 
 
 Gas supply expenses are £204, of which £100 are the 
 " expenses " of the Special Gas Committee. 
 
 The expenses in relation to Epping Forest are £12,260, 
 of which sum £11,998 is charged for fees to counsel, and 
 other expenses hefore the Epping Forest Commissioners, but 
 no details are given. 
 
 In addition to the sum of £2,515 charged for the Re- 
 membrancer, and the expenses of his office, we have £1,158 
 charged in connection with the progress of Bills in ParHa- 
 ment ; but no details are given which enable us to judge of 
 the propriety of the expenditure. 
 
 The Incidental lleceipts arising from the sale of old 
 materials, and from other sources, amounted in 1874 to 
 £1,060 ; the " Incidental and Casual " expenditure to 
 £9,266. This expenditure includes £4,852 for interest, 
 (afterwards credited to the capital expenditure accounts of 
 Billingsgate and Smithfield Markets), and £1,750 for remu- 
 nerations and allowances to various Committees ; £750 for 
 summer excursions, and £120 for cloth delivered "according 
 to ancient custom," to Ministers of State and others, by 
 order of the Court of Aldermen. 
 
 The Guildhall Library and Museum cost in maintenance 
 £2,929, part of which is charged against a separate account. 
 Of this sum, £1,337 was paid in salaries and wages. 
 
 The scraps of the great feasts on Thanksgiving Day in 
 
 1872, and on the occasion of the reception of the Shah in 
 
 1873, are served up in the 1874 account. There are re- 
 ceipts fr'om the sale of decorative fittings on the first account 
 of £61, and on the second of £112,* and an expenditure on 
 the first account of £25, and on the second of £546, the 
 
 * The expenditure uu these entertaiuments was £29,034, of which 
 nearly one-half was in carpentery and upholsteiy, and with the exception 
 of a sale of surplus furniture in 1873, credited at £1,000, this is all that 
 results to the credit accoimt. 
 
172 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 chief item in the latter being a sum of £441 for commemo- 
 rative medals. 
 
 There are two entertainments in 1874, which appear in 
 the City accounts. The breakfast on the occasion of the 
 Prince of AVales unveiling the Prince Consort's statue cost 
 £1,821, of which sum the tavern bill was £925, The re- 
 ception of the Czar is set down at £13,362. On occasions 
 like this, the Guildhall has a wooden floor put down, and 
 some hideous erection of timber gaudily decorated with cloth 
 disfigures the entrance ; we are not therefore surprised to 
 find £6,713 set down for carpentery and upholstery work. 
 The tavern bills were £2,676. The other expenses were 
 for decorations of various kinds, interspersed with such 
 items as the "arranging of the plate" £98 I65. ; admis- 
 sion and menu cards, £290; bands, £170; gloves, £22; 
 gratuities to corporate officers, £263 ; wands, £25, and so 
 forth. 
 
 The sum of £6,570 was expended on capital account 
 in connection with the Library. This amount was advanced 
 from the Reserve Fund.* 
 
 The sum of £60,034 was spent on the enlargement of 
 Billingsgate Market. To meet this expenditure, a loan of 
 £50,000 was raised at 4 per cent., in addition to the balance 
 of £28,021 standing in the hands of the City on this 
 account at the beginning of the year. There were also 
 receipts on account of the rents of premises taken. The 
 sum of £47,755 was expended on the Western Extension 
 of Smithfield Market. There was a credit on this account 
 
 * If, instead of spending .£543 in chromo-lithograpbs, and hundreds of 
 pounds for decorative ornamental brass, and so forth, the Corporation 
 would provide a decent and intelligible catalogue, and offer greater 
 facilities for research, there would be more credit attaching to them in 
 the management of this splendid library, and its precious stores would 
 soon render it a favourite resort of the student. At present it is in- 
 undated with boys in their teens reading novels. July 1875. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : CITY'S ESTATE ACCOirNT. 173 
 
 in the hands of the City at the beginning of the year of 
 £63,000. 
 
 The sum of £9,575 was spent on the police stations at 
 Snow Hill and Tudor Street, to meet which cost, £10,500 
 was advanced to the City Estate from the Heserve Fund. 
 
 The Metropolitan Cattle Market Loan of £131,900 was 
 renewed, and a loan of £25,000 was raised, and paid in to 
 meet the deficiency on the Deptford Cattle Market Account. 
 
 The sum of £1,462 was invested in consols, and £613 
 -in the purchase of property ; £801 was paid on account of 
 designs for the proposed new Fruit and Vegetable Market. 
 
 The sale of property during the year produced £1,228, 
 and the sale of securities £462. £1,000 was received from 
 the executors of Sii- David Salomons, to be expended in a 
 memorial in connection with the Library, and a sum of 
 £24,682 was advanced from the Reserve Fund to meet 
 deficiencies in the City Estate Account. 
 
 The total income on the City Estate Account, as set out 
 in the Chamberlain's Report, is £577,789, and the expen- 
 diture £554,044, leaving a balance in hand of £23,745. 
 
 By a resolution of the Common Council passed in 1857, a 
 "Reserve Fund" was created, and is now kept separate. The 
 amount in reserve and in investment is £130,160, of which 
 £118,486 is invested in East India Government Securities. 
 This fund is also credited with £341,350 due from the 
 " Clerkenwell Improvement Fimd." The payment from 
 this fund to the Reserve Fund mainly resulted from the pro- 
 duce of rents and sales of land. The amount transferred in 
 liquidation of the above balance was in 1874, £15,360 ; in 
 1873, £22,675 ; in 1872, £15,675. The moneys realized 
 through the action of the Sherifi's are also kept separate ; 
 the reason for this is not clear. The amount realized from 
 fines, &c., during the Shrievalty of 1872-3 was £10,888. 
 
 Under the provisions of the 33 & 34 Vict., c. 70 (the 
 
174 MUNICrPAL LONDON. 
 
 Contagious Diseases Animals Act), the Corporation is the 
 " local authority " within the City, (sec. 10) but if they do 
 not open a market for public use for the purposes of the Act 
 before January 1st, 1872, they shall cease to be the local 
 authority (sec. 29), and anyone else may establish a market 
 for the purposes of the Act, section 15 of " The Metropolitan 
 Market Act, 1857," notwithstanding.* Hence arose Dept- 
 ford Foreign Cattle Market. The Corporation have power 
 under the Act (sec. 28) to borrow on credit of the same 
 property as in "The Metropolis Market Act, 1865." They 
 have power to take tolls, and the produce of the market 
 must be applied in papng the interest and repaying the 
 capital borrowed. For the purposes of the market, the 
 Corporation borrowed in 1870, £30,000 ; 1871, £180,000; 
 1872, £20,000; 1874, £25,000; total, £255,000. Of 
 this, £230,000 is at 4-|- per cent., and the rest at 4 per cent. 
 This market is not at present in a satisfactory condition, and 
 it would have been better for the City's Estate to have 
 allowed the Metropolitan Board to be the "local autho- 
 rity." The gross expenditure in 1874 on the market was 
 £15,112 ; if we deduct the loan interest of £9,805, we have 
 net £5,307, whilst the income from the market is only 
 £4,533. There is thus a deficit of more than £10,000 a 
 year, and the method adopted in 1874 of meeting the 
 difficulty by the issue of a new loan, is not one that can be 
 open to constant adoption. 
 
 The "Billingsgate Tolls' Account'^ is kept separately from 
 the general market account, presumably because by the 9 and 
 10 Vict., c. 346, s. 11, the tolls are to be applied towards 
 the maintenance of the market. This seems an insufficient 
 reason for dividing this market's accounts. Neither does 
 any adequate reason appear for separate balance sheets 
 
 * This Act provides that no new market for the sale of cattle or 
 horses shall be set up within seven miles of St. Paul's. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : VARIOUS ACCOUNTS. 175 
 
 being issued for the " Library Maintenance Account," or the 
 " Widows of Freemen Fund." If some information were given 
 as to whom the £500 voted for the latter by the Common 
 Council was given, and upon what basis it was appropriated, 
 it would be somewhat different ; but no doubt these are 
 points of inner corporate life familiar to those for whom the 
 accounts are prepared. 
 
 The accounts of the establishment of the Town Clerk 
 and the Architect are also each the subject of a separate 
 statement. They, however, deal only with the question of 
 salaries. The Town Clerk's office costs in this way £4,009, 
 and the Architect £2,407 ; but these sums very inade- 
 quately represent the cost of these functionaries to the City. 
 
 The ^'Bridge House Estates" are now chiefly in land and 
 houses. This is the fund derived from royal grant, devise, 
 and other sources, upon which the cost of building and 
 maintaining London Bridge was originally charged. The 
 cost of the other bridges are now charged upon it. It is a 
 very valuable property, which the City treats as a " Public 
 and Trust Account," on the ground presumably that it is 
 charged with the repair and maintenance of the bridges, and 
 that therefore the City are only trustees of the lands, &c. It 
 would seem from the contrast thus made of the City accounts, 
 that when some thirty-four of them are styled " public and 
 trust accounts," it is intended that the rest shall be regarded 
 as " private and peculiar," which it is only by special grace 
 that the public are allowed to know anything about. The 
 object in publishing them is apparently to allow the City to 
 pose as excellent stewards of their own land, and not for 
 one moment as responsible to any-one outside themselves for 
 what they may choose to do with it. This view is in accord 
 with the "statement" of the Aldermen in 1856, as to their 
 astonishment that the Government should attempt to apply 
 different principles to such property to those which were 
 
176 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 applicable to a man's private estate. On the contention of 
 the City, the Corporation might sell by auction all their 
 lands, markets, houses, library, &c., and pocket the proceeds, 
 and it would be a perfectly justifiable and hond-fide business 
 transaction. As a matter of law, the Corj)oration are just 
 as much trustees of their markets and their lands, as they 
 are of the City of London School, or the Police Fund, and 
 just as accountable to the public. It is time, therefore, that 
 in these reports there ceased to be this division into " public " 
 and "private," as it serves no useful object, although no doubt 
 it may please the untutored fancy of such Common Coun- 
 cillors as have inherited rather than earned their position in 
 the City. 
 
 The Bridge House Estate rents produced in 1874 
 £50,099, a sum which it cost more than £3,000 to collect 
 and manage. £4,952 was expended on London Bridge, 
 £2,493 on Blackfriars Bridge, and £1,472 on Southwark 
 Bridge. The Blackfriars Bridge and Southwark Bridge 
 Loans of £615,000 are charged against this account, and so 
 £30,115 was paid in loan interest. The Act 26 & 27 Vict., 
 c. 62, after reciting that the bridge over the Thames at 
 Blackfriars was in a dangerous condition, and was likely to 
 be seriously endangered by the proposed Embankment, goes 
 on to authorize the Corporation to erect a new one, and for 
 that purpose to borrow £300,000. By the Act 30 Yict., c. 
 3, a further borrowing power to the extent of £315,000 is 
 granted, to enable the Corporation to complete the building 
 of Blackfriars Bridge, and to purchase Southwark Bridge. 
 Under these Acts the money has been borrowed, and is 
 charged as above, but for some reason or other a separate 
 accourt of these Bridge Funds is kept, independent of the 
 interest account. The expenses on this separate account 
 during the year amounted to £480, being composed of 
 £350 law charges, and £130 shorthand notes and models, 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : GRESHAM ESTATE. 177 
 
 all in connection with an action by the contractors which it 
 may be therefore presumed the City lost. Probably when 
 the balance of £2,092 has been spent, the account will be 
 closed. 
 
 In the year 1575, Sir Thomas Gresham, a London mer- 
 chant, bequeathed his dwelling-house, after the death of his 
 wife, to the Corporation of London and to the Mercers' 
 Company in trust for the founding of a college. For the 
 purpose of endowing such college, the testator bequeathed 
 to the same parties the Royal Exchange that he had built, 
 together with the shops and cellars within and beneath it. 
 The number of professors to be appointed in pursuance of 
 the will was seven : they were to inhabit, and study in the 
 college; were required to be ceHbate; and for a salary of 
 £50 per annum to read daily lectures on divinity, astronomy, 
 music, geometry, law, physic, and rhetoric. Lady Gresham 
 died in 1596, and the joint trustees forthwith appointed the 
 professors and entered into possession of the property. Their 
 title was strengthened by the confirmation of the will by 
 ParHament which had taken place in 1581, and by a patent 
 to possess the property in perpetuity which was granted by 
 the Crown in 1641. The Committee were put to great ex- 
 pense in rebuilding the Poyal Exchange after the fii-e of 
 London, and towards the end of the centmy the proper 
 maintenance of the college seems to have been abandoned. 
 In 1767, Gresham College was sold to the Government, in 
 consideration of a ground rent of £500. By the Act 8 
 Geo. III., c. 32, confirming this transaction, it was pro- 
 vided that, in consequence of the loss of their house, the 
 professorial salaries should be doubled ; that the restraint on 
 marriage should be removed ; and that the trustees should 
 provide a new lecture hall. A long period of obscurity fol- 
 lowed, during which the lectures were relegated to a room 
 above the Exchange, but, in consequence of the destruction 
 
 M 
 
178 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of the building by fire in 1838, the lectures were transferred 
 to the recently-erected City of London School, and after- 
 wards to the new building erected in Gresham Street. For 
 the purpose of rebuilding the Royal Exchange, a sum of 
 £85,000 was borrowed in the year 1842, and a further sum 
 of £13,500 has been borrowed since; of this £3,500 has 
 been repaid. The lecture haU of Gresham College, situated 
 at the comer of Basinghall Street, was built during the years 
 1842-3-4, at a cost to the City's moiety of £6,955. 
 
 The whole estate was originally bequeathed as an edu- 
 cational trust, but in consequence of the improvident sale of 
 the coUege to the Government in 1767,"^ and of the burning 
 of the Royal Exchange on two occasions, there is now but a 
 small sum available for educational purposes. The income 
 of the City's moiety from rents amounted in 1874 to £7,087. 
 Of this sum £4,026 was expended in loan interest, and 
 £500 towards the repayment of the loans. The expenses 
 of the Eoyal Exchange amounted to £539 ; £242 was paid 
 towards almshouses and poor prisoners ; £504 was paid in 
 salaries to keepers and constables ; whilst each of the readers 
 in divinity, geometry, astronomy, and music still deHvered 
 their lectures at intervals during term-time for the statutory 
 salary of £100 a year. The charge for the readings in 
 law, physic, and rhetoric was defrayed by the Mercers' 
 Company. The lectures on music, partaking largely as they 
 do of the character of gratuitous concerts, have generally 
 been well attended ; but, as to the rest, they have long been 
 a bye- word amongst educational efforts. Poor Sir Thomas 
 Gresham never imagined to what contemptible results his 
 noble bequest would lead. The audience at some lectures 
 could be counted on the fingers of a single hand, and elabo- 
 
 * The Excise building, erected by the Government upon the site of 
 the college, together with the other purchased land, was sold in 1852 for 
 £108,000. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : MARKET ACCOUNTS. 179 
 
 rate discourses in Latin have been recited for the benefit 
 of half-a-dozen stray wanderers who had dropped in for 
 shelter. It is difficult to conceive of a great educational 
 establishment in a more lamentable case. 
 
 There are three separate accounts kept in connection 
 with " Smithfield Market,''^ and this besides the ordinary- 
 account, which is included in the City cash. The Smith- 
 field Market Tolls' Account is now in a satisfactory condition. 
 Not merely does it pay the interest upon the £325,000 
 loans charged upon it, but it is fast repaying the money 
 borrowed of the City, and may be expected soon to reduce 
 the ordinary loan capital. The Act by which the construc- 
 tion of this market was authorized, was the 23 & 24 Vict., 
 c. 193. The tolls were charged with the expense of con- 
 struction, and if at the end of five years they were in- 
 sufficient, then the Corporation were authorized to exact a 
 toll of one farthing for every 14 lbs. of meat taken to the 
 market instead of one farthing per 21 lbs. as then provided. 
 They also had a right to construct an underground station, 
 as well as the overground market. It is apparently with 
 respect to this station that an otherwise useless account is 
 kept open. The Act was extended and modified by the 
 25 & 26 Yict., c. 174, and a separate account is also kept 
 as to this. 
 
 Another small account is the " Newgate Market Fund." 
 By the Act 24 & 25 Yict., c. 52, Newgate Market was 
 abolished, and the site dismarketed. The power to sell the 
 land was given to the Corporation, and there is now on this 
 account a balance of £13,140. The year's expenditure 
 consists of £50 rent, and £212 10s. interest on a loan of 
 £5,000. Fortunately the loan falls in in 1877, and will 
 presumably be paid, otherwise the interest would gradually 
 eat away the balance which is credited with no interest. 
 All the interest on the various floating balances is credited 
 
180 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 to the Chamberlain's account, and as his salary is depen- 
 dent upon the profits reaKzed, he ought, if a wise man, to 
 keep good and productive balances. It would be unjust to 
 charge this system of keeping open accounts with large and 
 useless balances, to the desire of the Chamberlain to aug- 
 ment his profits. Of no man could such things be said with 
 less truth than of the present City Chamberlain, but the 
 system is none the less, as it seems to us, cumbrous and 
 indefensible. 
 
 The Act 27 & 28 Vict., c. 61, recites that it would 
 " conduce to the interest of the public " to raise Holborn 
 Yalley, and that for this purpose it was expedient to con- 
 tinue the Coal and Wine Dues from July 5, 1872 (to 
 which they had been extended by the Coal and Wine Duties 
 Continuance Act, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 42), to July 5, 1882, under 
 the terms of the Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Act, 26 and 
 27 Vict., c. 46. The proceeds of the wine duty, and of 9d. 
 part of the coal duty, are under that Act payable to the 
 Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Fund. 
 The proceeds of the 4d. coal duty should be applicable in 
 the first instance to pay the interest, and discharge the 
 principal of sums borrowed on the Holborn Valley Account, 
 and afterwards to such other City improvements as Parlia- 
 ment should sanction. Under the Holborn Valley Act 
 (27 & 28 Vict., c. 61) power is given to the City to take 
 lands and to borrow moneys on this account, which shall not 
 exceed £600,000 at any one time. By the Act 30 Vict, 
 c. 55, the above Act is modified and extended so far as re- 
 lates to the carrying out of the improvements. The total 
 amount borrowed on this account has been £2,381,400, 
 which was borrowed in seventeen distinct loans, of which 
 only one reached the maximum of £600,000. In this 
 aggregate we have included the sum of £15,000 raised 
 under " The Holborn Valley and Farringdon Market Im- 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : VARIOUS ACCOUNTS. 181 
 
 provement Act," 35 & 36 Vict., c. 81, which empowered the 
 Corporation to borrow further moneys for the general im- 
 provement, and also to keep open certain lands for the 
 public benefit, in the parish of St. Sepulchre. To this 
 latter improvement St. Sepulchre parish contributed 
 £10,723, being an item standing to its credit from another 
 account. The "Holborn Valley Account" proper is credited 
 with receipts from the sale of ground rents and premises to 
 the extent of £115,404, and from rents of £17,991, whilst 
 the expenditure on interest account was £29,049, and on 
 construction account £17,956. Under order of the Court 
 of Common Council, the Loan Liquidation Account is kept 
 separate. The sum of £10,691 has been expended on 
 construction account in connection with the Holborn Valley 
 and Farringdon Market Act, and the loan of £15,000 is 
 exhausted. There still remains imder the Act a borrowing 
 power to the extent of £76,000, which will probably be 
 forthwith exercised. 
 
 By the Acts 13 & 14 Vict., c. 103, and 14 & 15 Vict., 
 c. 120, power was given to the Corporation to borrow 
 £88,000, and complete certain improvements in Clerken- 
 well. These improvements have long been concluded, but 
 the fund is kept separate. The balance of about £15,000 
 standing to the credit of the account at the end of 1873 has 
 been transferred to make up the deficiencies of the Reserve 
 Fund, but there have been further receipts from rents and 
 land purchased by the Metropolitan Railway of about 
 £8,000. 
 
 There are three separate statements of account in con- 
 nection with the department of the ** Qommissioners of 
 Sewers." One of these is with respect to the Meti'opoKtan 
 Board of Works contribution, and during the past year 
 £37,743 was levied by rate to meet this claim. As, however, 
 only £21,931 was paid over, there remains in hand a large 
 
182 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 balance of £15,812 derived from surplus rating. On the 
 "Sewers' Rate Account" there is shown an expenditure 
 dui'ing the year of £9,338, and a further payment to the 
 Board of Works on .the same account of £12,978. This 
 amount was raised by rate, the floating balance being nearly 
 £20,000. The third account is with respect to receipts and 
 expenditure on account of the " Consolidated Rate." In this 
 account are included various items of receipt on account of 
 Gas Inspection Fees, City of London Cemetery Fees 
 (£8,510), fines, sale of old materials, &c., and £123,854, 
 the produce of the Consolidated Eate itself. The expendi- 
 ture during 1874 amounted to £254,876, of which £91,165 
 was expended in the purchase of ground for improvements, 
 &c., £16,048 in the repayment of loans and the payment of 
 loan interest, £14,129 on account of the London School 
 Board expenses, and the remainder in the ordinary charges 
 incident to paving, lighting, and cleansing the streets, main- 
 tenance of the London Cemetery, testing of gas, &c. Not- 
 withstanding the fact that £75,558 was reimbursed in 
 connection with the improvements, there remains on this 
 account, which is made up to September 29th, 1874, an 
 overpaid balance of £39,466. 
 
 We shall deal ■v\'ith the City of London PoHce in a sub- 
 sequent chapter. The total receipts on the Police account 
 during 1874 amounted to £87,440, of which sum £20,267 
 was contiibuted from the City and Bridge House Estates, 
 and of the remainder £62,021 was raised by rate. The 
 expenditure during the year was £83,508. 
 
 The payments made during 1874 to Ward Clerks, 
 Beadles, &c., in connection with the holding of wardmotes, 
 amounted to £4,163, and the receipts from a rate levied for 
 the purpose, to £3,295. The expenses of Aldersgate 
 Within were £58 65. 8d., while those of Farringdon With- 
 out, the largest of the City wards, were £750. These pay- 
 
CITY expenditure: coal and wine dues. 183 
 
 ments are made under the City of London Police Act (2 and 
 3 Vict,, c. 94, s. 85). The same Act (sec. 91) directs that 
 the accounts shall be kept by the City Chamberlain. 
 
 The City Police Act also provides (sec. 87) that the 
 Common Council may make such allowances to superannuated 
 watchmen as they think fit, such sums being chargeable upon 
 the Police Pate. The City "Police Superannuation Fund" is 
 kept as a separate account, and the disbursements in pensions 
 amounted in 1874 to £6,119. 
 
 In 1694 the House of Commons by resolution expelled 
 Sir John Trevor, the late Speaker of the House, he having 
 been guilty of the high crime and misdemeanour of receiving 
 fi'om the City of London a gratuity of £1,000 after the 
 passing of the Orphans' Fund Bill. It is to that measure 
 that the present "Qoal and Wine Dues," levied in the Metro- 
 politan District, owe their origin.* 
 
 The Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City had by 
 custom the custody and guardianship of orphan children, 
 and the management of the estates of deceased freemen. 
 They were also in the habit of receiving the money of free- 
 men in the Chamber of London, and allowing to investors 
 interest at four per cent. During the reign of Charles the 
 Second the Chamber of London invested more than £750,000 
 in Exchequer tallies, which was presumed to be a safe form 
 of investment, but which, by the financial expedient of 
 " closing" the Exchequer, became worthless. At length, by 
 the 5 & 6 Wm. & Mary, c. 10, relief was given to the City 
 creditors. An "Orphans' Fund" was estabhshed, and the 
 City Estates were charged wdth the yearly payment of 
 £8,000. The fund was also benefited by a sum of £2,000 
 per annum, levied on the City ; by an assignment of the 
 profits of the City aqueducts ; by fees on the binding of 
 
 * We here deal with these dues as a whole, and iiTespective of the 
 City's claim to be prescriptive measurers of coal cpmiBg^o the Port. 
 
184 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 apprentices and the admission of freemen ; and, lastly, by 
 a duty of 4s. per tun on wine imported into the City of 
 London, 4c?. per chaldron on coal or culm imported, for ever, 
 and 6d. per chaldron on importations during the succeeding 
 fifty years. ^ 
 
 In 1748, the duty of 6d. having expired, was continued 
 for thirty-five years longer, f and the City Estates charged 
 with a further sum of £2,000, making a total charge of 
 £10,000 per annum. In 1767 the City Estate was further 
 charged with £1,500 per annum for forty-six years, making 
 its total contribution £1 1,500. | The same Act continued 
 the 6d. duty on coals for forty-six years, the produce to be 
 expended in completing Blackfriars Bridge, redeeming the 
 Bridge tolls, rebuilding Newgate, repairing the Royal Ex- 
 change, and improving the banks of the Thames. In 1804 
 both the 6d, duty and the additional £1,500 yearly charge 
 were continued for five years and three-quarters longer, — 
 the duty being expended in improving Snow Hill and Temple 
 Bar.g In 1807 a further duty of Id. per chaldron or ton 
 was imposed, for the purpose of establishing a coal market. 1 1 
 In 1830 the duty of 6d. per chaldron was continued for 
 twentj'-one years longer, for the purpose of improving the 
 approaches to London Bridge. The duty of 4d. per ton 
 was also transferred to the same fund.^ In 1831 further 
 provision was made for the same object, and also for the 
 removal of Fleet Market by transferring the wine duty, the 
 
 * We have here accepted as true the version given by the City as to 
 the Orphans' Fund and the " closing " of the Exchequer. There is no 
 direct evidence available as to the facts, but a good deal of collateral evi- 
 dence exists. This was subjected to a thorough sifting by the Metropolis 
 Taxation Committee in 18G1, and, as we think, the City proved their case, 
 80 far as could be fairly expected in the absence of documents indisputably 
 showing it. See evidence of Mr. Scott before this Committee. Report, 
 qq. 286-9 and 430-53. 
 
 t By the Act 21 Geo. II., c. 29. J By the Act 7 Geo. III., c. 37. 
 
 § By the Act 44 Geo. III., c. 27. I! By the Act 47 Geo. III., c. 68. 
 
 H By the Act 10 Geo. IV., c. 136. 
 
Ciry EXPENDITURE : COAX AND WINE DUES. 185 
 
 apprentice and freedom fees, and the aqueduct profits at the 
 yearly charge of £11,500 on the City Estate, to the same 
 Improvement Fund.* By the Act 1 & 2 Wm. IV., c. 76, 
 the Id. per ton was continued, for the purpose of erecting a 
 coal market. This Act regulated the sale of coals for a 
 considerable distance round London. It remodelled the 
 other duties, commuting the two duties of 6d. and 4:d. to 
 8d., and reducing the fee allowed for weighing from 8c?. to 
 4:d. Coals were thenceforth to be sold by weight. Under 
 this Act, therefore, the coal dues were commuted to Sd., Ad., 
 and Id., making an aggregate of Is. Id. per ton, including 
 weighing. The seUing of coal by measure was aboHshed, 
 and the City undertook the compensation of the coal meters. 
 The charge on this account has now ceased. 
 
 By the 1 & 2 Yict., c. 101, the above Act was con- 
 tinued for seven years more, that is, to 1858. This was 
 extended by the 3 & 4 Vict., c. 131, to 1862. 
 
 Under the provisions of the 8 & 9 Vict., c. 101, the 
 duties were to be levied on all coal brought within twenty 
 miles of the Post Of&ce ; and by the Act 14 & 15 Vict, 
 c. 146, a drawback was allowed on all coals conveyed beyond 
 twenty miles in a direct line from the Post Office. 
 
 The scheme devised in 1694 had succeeded, and in 1834, 
 just 140 years later, the funds due to the creditors of the 
 City, in consequence of the closing of the Exchequer, were 
 finally paid off. The coal and wine duties, however, were 
 too useful to be dispensed with, and they still remain. 
 
 By " The Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 
 1861, "f the duties on coal and wine levied by the Corpora- 
 tion are continued another ten years, that is to say, until 
 July 5th, 1872. The proceeds of the wme duty, and of 9d, 
 part of the 13c?. coal duty, are to be paid to an account, 
 opened in the names of the Lords of the Treasury at the 
 
 * By the Act 11 Geo. IV., c. 64. f 2i and 'iS Vict., c. 43. 
 
186 MTJNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Bank of England, and entitled " The Thames Embankment 
 and Metropolis Improvement Fund," such fund being ap- 
 plicable to the improvement of the Metropolis ; the 4c?. coal 
 duty to be applied by the Corporation to City improvements. 
 
 By " The Continuance Act, 1863," 26 & 27 Yict., c. 
 46, the duties are continued ten years longer, the proceeds 
 of the 9d. duty being payable as before, and the proceeds of 
 the 4:d. duty being applicable to the raising of Holbom 
 Valley and other City impiovements. 
 
 By the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 17, the duties are continued 
 to 1889, to be applied as before. In 1889, the duties are 
 to be applied for the purpose of freeing Kew, Kingston, 
 Hampton Court, Walton, and Staines Bridges over the 
 Thames, and Chingford and Tottenham Mills Bridges over 
 the Lee. 
 
 In default of any further legislation, the 9d. duty will 
 then cease, but the 4:d. appears to be perennial.'^ It is not, 
 however, likel)'-, that so useful a tax will be allowed to slip, 
 although its incidence is somewhat hard in outlying districts 
 in Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, &c., that happen to be 
 within the radius. 
 
 It will be noted that all payments on the Coal and "Wine 
 Duties Account pass through the hands of the Corporation 
 of London, and the method in which they are dealt with is 
 set forth in six separate statements in the City accounts. 
 The 9d. coal duty and the wine duty, which, as we have 
 seen, are appKcable to the same purpose under the Con- 
 
 * This duty furnishes a curious example of City " prescriptive rights." 
 The Corporation claim, under a charter of James the First, the right of 
 measuring coal brought to the " Port of London." Measuring has now 
 been abolished, and the control of the port has been taken from them by 
 " The Thames Conservancy Act, 1857 ;" and yet they now claim, under this 
 old charter, a right to a duty on all coals brought within the radius. It 
 requires a special City training to understand such a claim. The Remem- 
 brancer floundered with it a good deal before the Committee of 1866. — 
 Report, p. 56. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : COAL AND WINE DUES. 187 
 
 tinuance Act of 1863, are dealt with in the first of these 
 accounts. The 9d. coal duty produced in 1874, £249,774, 
 and the wine duty produced £11,651 ; the sum of £36,139 
 was allowed as drawback on coals re-conveyed beyond the 
 limits, and the sum of £218,178 was paid into the Bank of 
 England to the credit of the Improvement Fund. The 4c?. 
 coal duty produced £111,010, with a drawback of £16,061, 
 This fund was charged mth loan interest to the extent of 
 about £80,000, and with repayment of loans to the extent 
 of £9,195. The sum charged by the City for managing 
 the Drawback Fund was £2,292, and in respect of the 
 collection of the duties themselves £5,364, making a total of 
 £7,656. This sum represents the toll taken by the City 
 upon the duties passing through their hands. It is mainly 
 expended in salaries, which range from £950 per annum, 
 downwards. 
 
 The cost of maintaining the Coal Market in 1874 was 
 £2,254, and the receipts for rent £2,215. 
 
 The year 1872 is important in City annals, as having 
 witnessed the abolition of the compulsory metage dues on 
 grain, the claim to which, resting as it did on prescription 
 and upon dubious charters, had been more than once con- 
 tested, with results by no means creditable to the City.'^ By 
 the Act 35 & 36 Vict., c. 100, the prescriptive rights of 
 the City to grain metage, lastage, and tillage were com- 
 muted into a fixed duty, chargeable by weight. From 
 the 1st of November, 1872, the Corporation were em- 
 powered to demand and receive for the term of thirty 
 years three-sixteenths of a penny per cwt., in respect 
 of all corn brought into the Port of London for sale. The 
 produce of the duty was to be applied to the preservation 
 of open spaces near the MetropoHs. Power is given to the 
 Common Council to decide on the pensions payable tc 
 * Vide supra, p. 21. 
 
188 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Deputy Com Meters, and a power is also given to borrow, 
 upon the security of the Grain Duty and of the City 
 revenues, a sum not exceeding £99,000. This latter 
 power does not appear to have been exercised. The Corpora- 
 tion still continue the metage of grain where requested. 
 This voluntary metage produced in 1"874, £1,869. The 
 produce of the G-rain Duty in 1874 was £17,429. The 
 sum of £5,335 was paid in pensions, and the cost of man- 
 agement was £3,619. The sum of £14,776 was spent in 
 connection with West Ham Park. The charge against the 
 duty on this account was, however, lessened by the sum of 
 £4,000, raised by public subscription.* The Corporation 
 are the trustees of the " City Meters' Provident Fund." This 
 fund has now a balance in hand of £1,285. 
 
 As we have already shown, the City Estate is chargeable 
 with £900 a year towards the support of the Oity of London 
 School. The other receipts of the school amounted in 
 1874 to £8,079. The cost of the school in salaries was 
 £6,374, and in general expenses £2,777. The Pupils' 
 Deposit Account is in the hands of the Chamberlain, with 
 a credit balance at the end of 1874 of £325. 
 
 There are sixteen scholarships in connection with the 
 City of London School, the account of each of which is kept 
 separate by the Chamberlain. The average income from 
 each scholarship is about £50. Most of these sums are 
 expended in the maintenance of children at Cambridge. 
 
 The cost of the Freemen's Orphan School to the City 
 Estate in 1874 was £4,783. The further receipts of the 
 school from rents and fees on taking out freedom were 
 £603. The expenditure in salaries was £885, and in main- 
 tenance £4,530. 
 
 * If the subscribing public had been awai'e of the extent of the City's 
 income, for the special purpose of purchasing open spaces, this sum 
 would probably have been less, 
 
CITY EXPENDITUKE : OFFICE OF CHAMBERLAIN. 189 
 
 A separate account is also kept for Admiral Duff's 
 Legacy. It produced £36 15s. 2d., which was paid over to 
 the Treasurer of the Church of England Scripture Readers' 
 Association. 
 
 The fees of the City of London Court in 1874 amounted 
 to £7,874 ; the interest on investments and unclaimed Suitors' 
 Cash to £893 ; the expenditure in salaries was £5,482 ; the 
 pensions, law and incidental expenses, £1,582. The fees 
 received on account of the Admiralty Jurisdiction were 
 £452 125. 
 
 The office of the Chamberlain is credited with the profit 
 at interest of the floating balances. These amounted in 
 1874 to £10,179. The account is also credited with an 
 item of fees, £61, and with one year's interest on the 
 surplus profit fund of £1,720. The salary of the Chamber- 
 lain ranges from £1,500 to £2,500, and is dependent upon 
 the profit realized in this department. The total salaries 
 paid in the Chamberlain's office are £5,582. The incidental 
 expenses amount to £350. The sum of £3,000 is paid to 
 the credit of the City Estate, and £3,052 is paid towards the 
 salaries of certain officers of the Corporation in pursuance 
 of a deed executed by the Chamberlain to that effect. 
 
 The Income of the City during the year 1874 may be 
 summarized as follows : — 
 
 From reahzed Property — £ £ 
 
 City Estate Rents, Quit Rents, 
 
 Interest, &c. . . . 110,033 
 
 Bridge House Estate ditto . 50,099 
 
 Gresham Estate — City's moiety 7,087 
 
 Interest on Investments . . 6,657 
 
 Coal Market Rents . . . 2,215 
 
 176,091 
 
 Carried forward . . 176,091 
 
9U MUNICIPAL 
 
 LONDON. 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 . 
 
 
 176,091 
 
 'rom Rates — 
 
 
 
 
 Consolidated Eate . 
 
 
 123,854 
 
 
 Police Rate 
 
 
 62,021 
 
 
 Board of "Works — Sewers' 
 
 Rate 
 
 37,743 
 
 
 Sewers' Rate . 
 
 . 
 
 -21,502 
 
 
 Ward Rates . 
 
 • 
 
 3,295 
 
 9ARA.-[n 
 
 Receipts credited to Rate Accounts — 
 
 Reimbursements for Improve- 
 ments on ConsoKdated Rate 
 Account .... 75,558 
 
 Miscellaneous Receipts, Inter- 
 ment Fees, &c., on ditto . 15,997 
 
 Reimbursements on PoKce Ac- 
 count .... 5,142 
 
 Ditto on Sewers' Account . . 623 
 
 Markets — 
 
 
 
 Smithfield Market Tolls 
 
 and 
 
 
 Rents .... 
 
 
 60,247 
 
 Metropolitan Cattle Market 
 
 
 37,351 
 
 Billingsgate Market — Rent and 
 
 
 ToUs .... 
 
 
 7,819 
 
 Foreign Cattle Market 
 
 
 4,533 
 
 Leadenhall Market . 
 
 
 2,065 
 
 Farringdon Market . 
 
 
 1,714 
 
 Columbia Market 
 
 
 1,131 
 
 Smithfield Hay Market . 
 
 
 155 
 
 Coal, "Wine, and Grain Duty — 
 
 
 Ninepenny Coal Duty 
 
 . 
 
 249,774 
 
 Fourpenny Coal Duty 
 
 
 111,010 
 
 97,320 
 
 115,015 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 360,784 636,841 
 
Cmr EXPENDITURE : SUMMARY OF INCOME. 191 
 
 £ £ 
 
 Brought forward . . 360,784 636,841 
 
 Duty on Wine . . . 11,651 
 
 City of London Grain Duty . 17,429 
 
 389,864 
 
 Administration of Justice- 
 
 
 Fines, Forfeitures, &c.,in Shriev- 
 
 
 alty, 1872-3 
 
 10,888 
 
 City of London Court Fees, &c. 
 
 8,768 
 
 Admiralty Jurisdiction of ditto . 
 
 462 
 
 Mayor's Court Fees 
 
 7,393 
 
 HoUoway Prison Reimbursements 
 
 3,236 
 
 Mansion House Justice Hoom , 
 
 2,025 
 
 Guildhall ditto . ... 
 
 864 
 
 Criminal Prosecution Reimburse- 
 
 
 ments 
 
 935 
 
 Newgate Prison ditto 
 
 476 
 
 Metage and other Fees, Brokers' 
 
 Rents, &c. — 
 Chamberlain's Office — Interest on 
 
 Balances, Fees, Dividends, &c. 11,962 
 Brokers' Rents . . . 7,029 
 Fruit Metage .... 2,421 
 Voluntary Grain Metage . . 1,869 
 Fees at Monument, Sessions 
 
 House, Green Yard, &c. . 1,337 
 Stamping Weights and Measures 122 
 
 Receipts on Account of City Schools, 
 Missions, &c.— - 
 City of London School . . 8,079 
 Pupils' Deposit Account . 216 
 
 Scholarships . . . 690 
 
 35,047 
 
 24,740 
 
 Carried forward . . 8,985 1,086,492 
 
192 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 £ £ 
 
 Brought forward . 
 
 8,985 1,086,492 
 
 Freemen's Orphan School . 
 
 683 
 
 Admiral Duff's Legacy for Scrip- 
 
 
 ture Readers 
 
 34 
 
 
 70^^ 
 
 
 «7, / \l,0 
 
 Miscellaneous Receipts — 
 
 
 Holborn Yalley Account Rents . 
 
 17,991 
 
 Miscellaneous . 
 
 1,808 
 
 From Investments 
 
 1,281 
 
 Smithfield Western Approach 
 
 
 Rents 
 
 5,156 
 
 Dividend and Interest 
 
 1,509 
 
 Bridge House Estate, Incidental 
 
 
 Receipts .... 
 
 1,496 
 
 West Ham Park PubHc Sub- 
 
 
 scription .... 
 
 4,000 
 
 Incidental Receipts . 
 
 221 
 
 Billingsgate Enlargement, Rents 
 
 
 and Interest on Amount in 
 
 
 hand 
 
 2,780 
 
 Smithfield Poultry Market, In- 
 
 
 terest on ditto 
 
 2,497 
 
 Casual Receipts in City Estate . 
 
 1,060 
 
 Blackfriars Bridge Fund Rents . 
 
 175 
 
 Sanitary Expenses, Reimburse- 
 
 
 ment 
 
 127 
 
 City Meters' Provident Fund 
 
 
 Dividend .... 
 
 44 
 
 Gifts on Admission to Freedom. 
 
 5 
 
 Legacy by Sir David Salomons . 
 
 1,000 
 
 Town Clerk's Fees . 
 
 31 
 
 Police Superannuation Fund, 
 
 
 Casual Receipts and Dividends 
 
 1,585 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 42,766 1,096,194 
 
CITY INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. 193 
 
 £ £ 
 
 Brought forward . . 42,766 1,096,194 
 
 Clerkenwell Improvement Fund, 
 
 Rents, Interest, &c. , . 7,311 
 
 Sale of Furniture and Decorations 173 
 
 50,250 
 
 Total Receipts on Current Account . 
 
 Receipts on Capital Account — 
 
 Billingsgate Market Enlargement 
 
 Loan ..... 
 Sale of City Estate . 
 Sale of City Securities 
 Foreign Cattle Market Loan 
 Renewal of Metropolitan Cattle 
 
 Market Loan 
 Sale of Oude and Rohilcund Rail- 
 way Stock in Reserve Fund 
 
 Account .... 
 Loan in Bridge House Account 
 
 to meet Bonds falling due 
 Smithfield Market Western 
 
 Approach, Sale of Securities 
 
 and Bonds paid off 
 Loan renewed. Surplus Lands 
 Holhorn YaUey Improvement 
 
 Account, Loans renewed, Sur 
 
 plus Lands . 
 Sale of Ground Rents, Premises, 
 
 and Interest . 
 City Police Superannuation Fund 
 
 Sale of Consols 
 Cannon Street Improvement 
 
 Loan renewed 
 
 Carried forward . 
 
 1,146,444 
 
 50,000 
 
 1,228 
 
 462 
 
 25,000 
 
 131,900 
 
 38,503 
 100,000 
 
 75,697 
 30,000 
 
 155,900 
 
 115,404 
 
 4,314 
 
 15,000 
 743,408 1,146,444 
 
 N 
 
194 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward . 
 
 743,408 
 
 1,146,444 
 
 Holborn Yalley Improvement 
 
 
 
 Loan renewed 
 
 35,000 
 
 
 City of London Court, City Bonds 
 
 
 
 paid off ... . 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 PajTuent by Smithfield Market 
 
 
 
 Account towards Money bor- 
 
 
 
 rowed ..... 
 
 5,885 
 
 
 
 
 794,293 
 
 Total City Income in 1874 
 
 £1,940,737 
 
 The Expenditure of the City during the year 1874 may 
 be summarized as follows : — 
 
 City EstabKshment Account — 
 
 £ 
 
 City Estate, Management and 
 
 
 Charges .... 
 
 8,303 
 
 Bridge House Estate ditto 
 
 6,861 
 
 Expenses in connection with 
 
 
 Bridges 
 
 9,449 
 
 Interest on Loans and In- 
 
 
 vestment on Bridge House 
 
 
 Account 
 
 31,129 
 
 Gresham Estate 
 
 6,475 
 
 Coal Market .... 
 
 2,254 
 
 Town Clerk's Establishment, Ex- 
 
 
 penses not charged to separate 
 
 
 Accounts .... 
 
 4,009 
 
 Architect and Surveyor's Estab- 
 
 
 lishment, ditto 
 
 2,407 
 
 The Lord Mayor 
 
 10,183 
 
 Carried forward . . 81,070 
 
CITY RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE. 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward . . 81,070 
 
 Keeping up the Mansion House . 4,580 
 
 Minor Mayoralty Expenses . 693 
 
 Expenses of various City Officers 13,289 
 
 Maintenance of Guildhall, Law 
 
 Courts, &c. . . . . 12,478 
 
 Library and Museum . . 3,431 
 Sanitary Expenses, under " Public 
 
 Health Act, 1872" . . 1,840 
 
 Expenses of Chamber of London 5,932 
 Salaries of Officers paid out of 
 
 Profits of ditto . . . 3,052 
 
 Ward Expenses . . . 4,163 
 
 195 
 
 Administration of Justice and Police 
 
 
 
 The Mayor's Court . 
 
 6,756 
 
 City of London Court 
 
 7,473 
 
 Borough Court, Southwark 
 
 217 
 
 Expenses of Sheriffs 
 
 1,101 
 
 Mansion House Justice Room 
 
 3,301 
 
 Guildhall ditto 
 
 1,931 
 
 Other Magistracy Expenses 
 
 3,690 
 
 Central Criminal Court 
 
 6,220 
 
 Sessions House 
 
 1,271 
 
 Coroner .... 
 
 1,351 
 
 City Prison, Holloway 
 
 10,972 
 
 Newgate Prison 
 
 5,969 
 
 General Prison Expenses . 
 
 1,318 
 
 Expenses of City Police Force . 
 
 86,033 
 
 Ditto Superannuation Payments 
 
 6,119 
 
 Pauper Lunatic Asylum, Repairs 
 
 498 
 
 £ 
 
 130,528 
 
 144,220 
 
 Carried forward . 
 
 274,748 
 
196 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Brought forward . 
 Expenditure on Markets' Account — 
 Smithfield Meat and Poultry 
 
 Market 
 Metropolitan Cattle Market 
 Foreign Cattle Market 
 Billingsgate Market . 
 Columbia Market 
 Farringdon Market . 
 Leadenhall Market . 
 Smithfield Hay Market 
 General Market Charges 
 Newgate Market Fund 
 
 £ 
 
 55,462 
 
 34,742 
 
 15,112 
 
 3,505 
 
 2,108 
 
 1,220 
 
 922 
 
 89 
 
 676 
 
 262 
 
 Metage, Grain Duty, Brokers' Eents, &c. — 
 
 Voluntary Grain Metage . . 1,452 
 
 Fruit Metage . . . . 1,403 
 
 City Meters' Provident Fund . 301 
 City of London Grain Duty 
 
 Expenses . . . . 9,959 
 
 Brokers' Rents' Expenses . . 353 
 
 Scholastic and Charitable — 
 
 Pensions and Almshouses . . 6,797 
 
 Charitable Donations . . 3,497 
 
 Honorary Votes . . . 513 
 
 "Widows of Freemen Fund . 499 
 Scripture Readers (Admiral 
 
 Duff's Legacy) ... 36 
 
 School Board Expenses . . 13,254 
 
 City of London School . . 8,823 
 
 Freemen's Orphan School . 5,665 
 
 £ 
 
 274,748 
 
 113,998 
 
 13,468 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 39,084 402,214 
 
CITY RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE. 197 
 
 £ £ 
 
 Brought forward . . 39,084 402,214 
 
 City of London Schools' Scholar- 
 ship Account . . . 691 
 Ditto Pupils' Deposit Account . 134 
 
 39,909 
 
 Coal and Wine Duty Payments — 
 Paid to Treasury on Thames 
 
 Embankment and Metro- 
 
 poHtan Improvement Account 218,178 
 Interest on Loans charged 
 
 against 4J. Coal Duty . . 81,767 
 Drawback and Expenses of 9d. 
 
 Coal Duty .... 43,747 
 Ditto of 4flf. Coal Duty . . 20,045 
 Interest on overdrawn Balances 146 
 
 Expenses of Entertainments, &c. — 
 
 Reception of Czar . . . 13,362 
 Bejtuner to the Prince of Wales 1,821 
 Shah Reception Expenses (un- 
 paid) 546 
 
 Incidental Expenses — 
 
 West Ham Park . . . 1,056 
 Expenses in relation to Epping 
 
 Forest .... 12,260 
 
 Parliamentary Expenses (extra) 1,158 
 Investment and Purchase of 
 
 Property .... 2,041 
 Designs for New Vegetable 
 
 Market .... 801 
 
 363,883 
 
 15,729 
 
 Carried forward . . 17,316 821,735 
 
198 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward . 
 
 17,316 
 
 Expenses in relation to Gas 
 
 
 Supply .... 
 
 204 
 
 Miscellaneous .... 
 
 9,291 
 
 Paving, Lighting, Sewerage, &c. — 
 
 Paving, Lighting, and Cleansing 
 Expenses — Expenses of Lon- 
 don Cemetery, &c., &c., 
 charged against Consolidated 
 Rate 137,252 
 
 Metropolitan Board — Main 
 
 Drainage Account . . 12,978 
 
 Further Contributions to Metro- 
 politan Board . . . 21,931 
 
 City Sewerage Expenses . . 9,338 
 
 Expenses on various Accounts — 
 
 Holborn Valley Improvement 
 
 Account .... 47,005 
 Smithfield Market, Western 
 
 Approach .... 30,420 
 Ditto, Site and Approaches . 2,530 
 Farringdon Market Improvement 1 0, 69 1 
 Blackfriars Bridge Fund Ex- 
 penses .... 481 
 Clerkenwell Improvement . 346 
 
 26,811 
 
 181,499 
 
 91,473 
 
 Total Current Expenditure . £1,121,518 
 
 Capital Expenditure — 
 
 Holborn Valley Improveinent 
 
 Account : Loan discharged . 155,900 
 
 Carried forward . . 155,900 1.121,518 
 
CITY RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE. 
 
 199 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward . 
 
 155,900 
 
 1,121,518 
 
 Bridge House Estate Loan paid 
 
 139,100 
 
 
 Metropolitan Cattle Market Ac- 
 
 
 
 count, ditto 
 
 131,900 
 
 
 Smitlifield Western Approach, 
 
 
 
 ditto, ditto .... 
 
 115,000 
 
 
 Cost of Ground, &c,, for Improve- 
 
 
 
 ments, charged against Consoli- 
 
 
 
 dated Eate .... 
 
 91,165 
 
 
 Payments on account of Billings- 
 
 
 
 gate Enlargement 
 
 60,034 
 
 
 Ditto ditto, Smithfield Western 
 
 
 
 Extension .... 
 
 47,755 
 
 
 Camion Street Improvement, 
 
 
 
 Loan discharged . 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 Holborn Yalley ditto ditto 
 
 35,000 
 
 
 Expenditure on West Ham Park 
 
 14,776 
 
 
 City of London Court, Bonds 
 
 
 
 purchased .... 
 
 10,129 
 
 
 Police Stations at Snow Hill and 
 
 
 
 Tudor Street 
 
 9,575 
 
 
 Enlargement of Pauper Lunatic 
 
 
 
 Asylum .... 
 
 7,250 
 
 
 Library Building Account 
 
 6,570 
 
 
 Smithfield Poultry Market Ac- 
 
 
 
 count ..... 
 
 2,695 
 
 856,849 
 
 
 
 Total Expenditure . 
 
 £1,978,367 
 
 The total Expenditure of 
 
 
 
 1874 was thus — . 
 
 
 £1,978,367 
 
 Income .... 
 
 
 1,940,737 
 
 Excess of Expenditure over 
 
 
 
 
 Income 
 
 
 £37,630 
 
200 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 This deficit merely lessens the floating balance in the 
 Chamber, nad as during the year a considerable amount of 
 borrowed money has been paid off, the balance sheet for 1874 
 is on the right side. The arrears due to the Corporation 
 at the end of the year were somewhat larger than in 1873, 
 amounting to £50,221, of which £36,648 was due on the 
 rent account. The profit upon the floating balances in the 
 Chamber during 1874 was, as above noted, £11,962. The 
 amount of such balances during the year is sometimes very 
 large. Of the forty-nine separate accounts kept in the 
 Chamber, and with floating balances, we find that the credit 
 balances on December 31st, 1874, amounted to £196,579, 
 and the overdrawn amounts to £52,100, leaving a credit 
 balance in the Chamber of £144,479. This is considerably 
 less than the credit balance on December 31st, 1873. 
 
 The capitalized value of the Corporation estate rents 
 (independently of market rents) we have estimated at be- 
 tween two and three millions sterling. In addition to this 
 they possess £367,994 invested in consols. This latter sum 
 is the produce of sales of freehold property, and is available 
 for the re-purchase of land. This property forms the final 
 security of those who lend money to the City. 
 
 The liabilities of the Corporation, in respect of loans 
 which are now outstanding, have been all incurred since 
 1842. The security given to the borrowers has generally 
 varied according to the object for which the loan was raised. 
 Where the object was the construction of markets and their 
 approaches, the payment of loan interest and repayment of 
 capital is charged in the first instance upon the produce of 
 the tolls and rents of the market, and on the produce of the 
 surplus land sold when the approaches are completed. 
 Behind these, in case the security proves in any year in- 
 sufiicient, is the whole City Estate, and so the security being 
 regarded as a high one, the rate of interest is small. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : LOAN ACCOUNTS. 201 
 
 The Holborn Valley Improvement is charged upon the 
 produce of the 4d. coal duty, and also of the surplus lands 
 taken ; with the City Estate when these prove insufficient. 
 The loans for the rebuilding of J31ackfriars Bridge and the 
 purchase of Southwark Bridge are charged on the Bridge 
 House Estates in the first instance, with an ultimate Hability 
 in the City. The Royal Exchange Loans are charged on the 
 City's moiety of the Gresham Estate, with the same ultimate 
 resource. 
 
 The contingent liability of the City is thus extremely 
 large, and on the Smithfield Market Tolls' Account a defi- 
 ciency of £75,222 was made good by the City's Estate in 
 the years 1869, '70, '71, and '72 ; but the tide has begun to 
 turn, and £12,021 of this sum was repaid in 1873-74. 
 This account is the one where the contingent liability has 
 been most largely called upon, and it seems likely soon to 
 be recouped. 
 
 There is, therefore, apparently some ground for the 
 anticipation that all the outstanding loans will be ultimately 
 discharged without any recourse being had to the City 
 Estate.'^ As the loans fall in, they are sometimes lessened 
 in amount, thus in 1874 the loan of £39,100 raised for the 
 repair of Blackfriars Bridge, and charged against the Bridge 
 House Estate, was finally discharged. So also, on the 
 renewal of the Cannon Street Improvement Loan, the 
 amount was reduced from £30,000 to £15,000. The loans 
 are also frequently re-issued at a lower rate of interest, as 
 the value of the security offered by the City becomes more 
 widely recognized. The rates of interest paid on existing 
 loans vary from 4 to 4| per cent. ; the average is about 4^. 
 The present rate at which loans are obtainable and are re- 
 newed is 4 per cent. 
 
 * This is, of course, contingent upon a continuance of City prosperity. 
 Practically, these loans are very heavy drafts upon the future. 
 
202 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 During the years 1842 and 1874, loans to the amount 
 of £647,100 have been discharged. This is a very small 
 proportion of the whole, and considering the length of time 
 that some of them have been outstanding, reflects no credit 
 on City management. Indeed it is difficult to believe that 
 any hona-fich effort has been made in this direction. 
 
 There now remain due upon the various City Loans the 
 following aggregate amounts — 
 
 ob 
 
 Holborn Yalley Improvement . 2,381,400 
 Metropolitan Meat and Poultry 
 
 Market, Site and Approaches 1,162,000 
 Metropolitan Cattle Market . 445,600 
 Blackfriars Bridge Repairing, 
 and Southwark Bridge Pur- 
 chase Account . . . 815,000 
 Blackfriars Bridge Building Ac- 
 count 300,000 
 
 Deptford Foreign Cattle Market 255,000 
 
 Billingsgate Market Enlargement 130,000 
 
 New Cannon Street . . . 125,000 
 
 Building Royal Exchange . . 94,500 
 
 Newgate Market Fund . . 5,000 
 
 Total City Loan Liability . £5,213,500 
 
 The Corporation, on the various accounts, paid in interest 
 on loans during the year 1874 more than £200,000.''^ 
 
 AVhilst the salaries and expenses of every department 
 are arranged upon a scale of liberality, which has probably 
 no parallel in any public institution in the world, the City 
 
 * The forms of various bonds given by the Cit^' to its creditors are set 
 out in tbe AjiiJendix to the •' Keport of the Local Taxation Committee, 
 1861,"' pp. 98-104. It maj' be noted that the Committee had to divide on 
 the question of their production, and the City members on the Committee 
 voted against it. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : COMMITTEE ALLOWANCES. 203 
 
 Committees also receive pay for their services. The "allow- 
 ances " and " exjjenses " of the Committees of the Corpo- 
 ration amount to some £5,000 a year. Of this sum, the 
 City Lands' Committee and the Commissioners of Sewers 
 receive £400 each. The Bridge House Estates' Committee 
 receives £300. The Cattle Markets' Committee, Police 
 Committee, Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee, General 
 Purposes' Committee, Library Committee, Coal Committee, 
 and Markets Improvements' Committee each receive £200. 
 The Local Government and Taxation Committee gets £150, 
 and the City of London School Committee, the Orphans of 
 Freemen School Committee, the Officers and Clerks' Com- 
 mittee, the Special Gas Committee, and Metage Duty on 
 Grain Committee, each £100. Thus, the labours of these 
 useful public bodies are soothed by refreshments of various 
 kinds. The Common Council spend £750 a year in summer 
 excursions, so as to revivify them after their toil. When the 
 Coal Committee desire to visit the boundaries of their juris- 
 diction, they make a nice excursion of it, expend £300 of 
 public money in ordinary expenses, and even indulge in the 
 luxury of a steam launch at an expenditure of £150 more. 
 When the Freemen's Orphan School Committee go down to 
 look at their proteges, and to distribute the prizes, they also 
 distribute £150 in refreshments amongst themselves. So 
 with other Committees. 
 
 It is alleged that the whole of the allowances and ex- 
 penses of these Committees are expended in food, drink, 
 and costs of travelling, and that no money is paid to the 
 members. And the proceeding is defended on the ground — 
 no doubt, a true one — that the attendance is much more 
 numerous and the work obtained from the members much 
 better than it would be if they were sent empty away. The 
 dinners are good ; but whilst we deeply sympathize with 
 the Poor Law Guardians in being surcharged by a ruthless 
 
204 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 auditor the cost of a cup of tea, we are not prepared to say 
 that the City is spending its money properly in feeding Com- 
 mittees of thirty or forty each at this rate. 
 
 The City Estate Accounts are examined by auditors 
 appointed by that remarkable body, the " Common Hall." 
 The audit of what the Corporation are pleased to term their 
 " public and trust accounts," is by the Committees of the 
 Corporation. Thus we see that although the Corporation 
 succeeds in levying heavy taxes upon the suburban Lon- 
 doner, it takes very good care that he shall have no part in 
 the expenditure, and moreover that he shall have no guar- 
 antee that his money is expended properly. A spending 
 body that is its own trustee, and its own auditor, must be of 
 remarkable composition if it does not now and then over- 
 look its own extravagance. The City seems to have 
 regarded any fair attempt at economy as useless, and so 
 the floodtide of extravagance sweeps through all these 
 accounts. If Mr. Lloyd Roberts, the excellent auditor of the 
 London School Board and of the Poor Law Board accounts, 
 were to be authorized to audit the accounts of the City 
 Chamber, he would probably surcharge these luxurious 
 trustees something like £60,000. 
 
 The expenditure of the City upon public improvements 
 during the last 115 years has been nearly £10,000,000 
 sterling. 
 
 The items of this account have been collected and set 
 
 out from 1767 to 1872. The amount will now be larger by 
 
 £200,000 to £300,000, on account of the expenditure in 
 
 1873, 1874, and 1875. 
 
 £ 
 Building, &c., first Blackfriars Bridge, 1760 and 
 
 following years 230,000 
 
 Removing Tolls on London Bridge, 1767 . 30,000 
 
 Carried forward .... 260,000 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 206 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward .... 260,000 
 
 Repairing Royal Exchange, 1768 . . . 10,000 
 
 Rebuilding Newgate and Sessions House, 1769 
 
 and 1785 90,000 
 
 Paving of Goswell Street, 1778 and 1784 . 5,000 
 Improvement of Moorfields and Bishopsgate, 
 
 1778 and 1815 16,500 
 
 Improvement of Temple Bar and Strand, 1795 
 
 and 1811 246,300 
 
 Repairing Common Sewer in Bridge Street, 
 
 1796 and 1800 9,000 
 
 Making Coal Exchange a Free Market, 1803-4 25,600 
 Whitecross Street Debtors' Prison for London 
 
 and Middlesex, 1812 and 1820 . . 95,000 
 
 Improvement in Moorfields, 1812 and 1820 . 5,000 
 
 Site of General Post Ofiice, 1815 and 1824 . 80,000 
 
 Rebuilding London Bridge, 1824 and 1833 . 680,232 
 
 London Bridge Approaches, 1824 and 1846 . 1,213,508 
 Formation of Farringdon Street and Removal 
 
 of Fleet Market, 1825 and 1831 . . 250,000 
 Formation of Farringdon New Street, 1839 and 
 
 1852 70,633 
 
 Enlarging Site of Royal Exchange, 1839 to 1844 228,578 
 Erection of Royal Exchange (City's moiety), 
 
 1839 to 1844 85,000 
 
 New Coal Market : Widening of Thames Street, 
 
 St. Mary-at-Hm, &c., 1847 to 1851 . . 111,518 
 
 Clerkenwell New Street, 1851 . . . 88,000 
 
 Holloway House of Correction, 1850-1851 . 92,700 
 Cannon Street, Uueen Street, Holborn Bridge, 
 
 Field Lane, Gracechurch Street, Finch 
 
 Lane, «S;c., 1850 to 1862 .... 540,000 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 4,202,569 
 
206 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Brought forward .... 
 Copenhagen Fields Cattle Market, 1852 and since 
 Holborn Viaduct and Approaches, 1864 and since 
 Holborn Viaduct and Farringdon Market 
 New Blackfriars Bridge, 1863 and since . 
 Pauper Lunatic Asylum, 1862 to 1866 , . 
 Newgate Prison Alterations, 1857 to 1862 
 New Meat and Poultry Market at Smithfield, 
 
 and Approaches, 1862 and since 
 Southwark Bridge, 1866 
 Deptford Foreign Cattle Market, 1870 to 1872 
 Billingsgate Enlargement, 1872 
 Widening Streets paid out of City cash 
 
 Total . 
 
 £ 
 
 4,202,569 
 
 445,600 
 
 2,432,384 
 
 15,000 
 
 396,131 
 76,880 
 25,646 
 
 1,247,000 
 
 218,868 
 
 230,000 
 
 80,000 
 
 183,831 
 
 £9,553,909 
 
 Although the Committees of the Corporation are not 
 supposed to receive any direct payment for theii' services, 
 there can be no doubt but that those services receive in 
 many ways a fuller equivalent in the London Corporation 
 than in any other Municipal body. The number of Common 
 Councillors is exceedingly large, and the various Committees 
 of the Corporation are proportionately unwieldy ; but there 
 exist within the City walls many of the subtle influences 
 that succeed in bringing and uniting men together, apart 
 from and beyond the performance in common of public duty. 
 Every member of the Corporation is entitled from his position 
 to participate personally, and through his friends, in those 
 sumptuous festivities for which London is so famous. He 
 is invited to the great Mansion House balls ; he is brought 
 into close contact with people of the highest rank in every 
 department of the public service, and has a voice in the 
 exercise of a patronage which in extent and value has rarely 
 been equalled by a public body. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. 207 
 
 A Common Councilman of the City of London is pro- 
 vided -^-ith many good dinners every year at the pubKc 
 expense ; he has a pocket book every year which costs more 
 than £1 per head to print ; he has excursions up the river 
 and down the river ; he may in his turn have an Irish trip, 
 with every expense paid and towns doing him homage ; he 
 has lithographs of the buildings that he debates in, and of 
 the carriage that he aspires to ride in ; he has his pocket 
 full of public gloves ; wands to carry on public occasion ; 
 heavy medals to transmit as heirlooms to generations un- 
 born ; almshouses and orphanages for all the poor he wishes 
 to benefit or to get rid of ; pensions to give away to people 
 he may consider "deserving ;" schools at which to educate 
 his own children, and rights of presentation at the City of 
 London and other schools for the children of his friends ; 
 surely he is a man to be envied ! 
 
 So far as regards the actual character of the work done, 
 it is probably true that the Corporation is in the main well 
 served, although the system of contested elections for various 
 City offices has in some cases been productive of anything 
 but edifying results, as is weU known. Such a system 
 ought not to exist another day. It is also true that the 
 City, either because it believes in the policy of highly 
 remunerating faithful service, or because those who perform 
 that service keep their claims well to the fore, pays its 
 servants exceedingly well. In addition to their salaries the 
 Corporation officials are also rewarded for any extra or 
 extraordinary service by an extensive system of gratuities. 
 
 We subjoin a list of the moneys received in the way of 
 salaries and gratuities by leading officials in the various 
 City departments in the year 1874, or which are now pay- 
 able. In these sums we do not include the large additional 
 amounts which are frequently allowed for " expenses," but 
 of which no details are given in the public report : — 
 
208 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 £ 
 
 The Lord Mayor 10,000 
 
 City Engineer (salary, £1,625 ; for other professional 
 
 services, £1,621) 3,246 
 
 The Recorder (as Judge at Central Criminal Court, 
 
 £2,000 ; at Mayor's Court, £1,000) . . 3,000 
 Registrar of Mayor's Court (salary, £1,250 ; as 
 
 Assistant Judge £1,385) .... 2,635 
 The Common Serjeant (as Judge at Central Criminal 
 
 Court, £1,500 ; at Mayor's Court, £1,050) . 2,550 
 Judge of the City of London Court, £2,205 (as 
 
 Commissioner at Central Criminal Court, £300) 2,505 
 
 Chamberlain ....... 2,500 
 
 Comptroller (salary, £2,000 ; as Prothonotary, £100) 2,100 
 
 Remembrancer ....... 2,000 
 
 City Solicitor 1,800 
 
 Chief Commissioner of Police . . . . 1,800 
 Architect and Surveyor . . . . .1,500 
 
 Town Clerk 1,500 
 
 Head Master of City of London School . . 1,023 
 Registrar of Coal Duties, £950 ; as Inspector of 
 
 Fruit Metage, £50 1,000 
 
 Solicitor to Commissioner of Sewers . . . 1,000 
 
 Coroner 942 
 
 Registrar of City of London Court . . . 923 
 
 Principal Clerk to Commissioners of Sewers . . 900 
 
 Ditto to Chamberlain .... 890 
 
 Ditto at Mansion House . . . 800 
 
 First Clerk in Town Clerk's Office ... 696 
 Cashier in the Chamber, £645 (as " Quickener of 
 
 the City Tenants," £50) .... 695 
 
 Keeper of the City Prison of Holloway . , 650 
 Superintendent of Police ; Surgeon of Police ; Medical 
 
 Officer to Commissioners of Sewers ; and Second 
 
 Master of City of London School ; each . , 600 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : SALARIES OF OFFICERS. 
 
 Assistant Clerk to Architect .... 
 
 Receiver of Grain Duty ..... 
 
 Reporter of Grain Delivery (salary, £400 ; for 
 copies of Wine Entries, £78 ; and List of 
 CoUiers, £60) 
 
 Chaplain of Newgate ...... 
 
 Deputy-Registrar of Mayor's Court ; Superintendent 
 of City of London Cemetery ; Collector of 
 Wine Duties ; Junior Clerk of the Mansion 
 House ; and Superintendent of Smithfield 
 Market ; each ..... 
 
 Third Committee Clerk .... 
 
 Surveyor of City Property .... 
 
 Librarian ....... 
 
 Officer in charge of Vacant Lands ; Superintendent 
 of Cleansing; Clerk to Commissioners of Sewers 
 and Keeper of Newgate ; each 
 
 Medical Officer of Health ; Rent Cashier ; Collector 
 of Coal Duty ; Gas Examiner ; Clerk in Library 
 Clerk to Surveyor ; Clerk in City of London 
 Court; Keeper of Guildhall; Inspector of Cattle 
 Collector at Cattle Market ; and Clerk at the 
 Mansion House ; each .... 
 
 Collector of Brokers' Rents .... 
 
 Clerk to Special Sessions .... 
 
 Inspector of Railway Coal Traffic (salary, £300 
 as Inspector of Fruit Metage, £53) 
 
 City Marshal ; Clerk at Guildhall ; Chaplain of Hol- 
 loway Prison ; and two Masters at City of 
 London School ; each ..... 
 
 Serjeant-at-Mace ; Sword Bearer ; two Architects' 
 Clerks; Master of Freemen's Orphan School 
 (three-quarters of a year) ; Collector of Billings- 
 gate ; and Clerk to Coal Collector ; each . 
 
 o 
 
 209 
 
 £ 
 575 
 
 550 
 
 638 
 525 
 
 500 
 497 
 475 
 462 
 
 450 
 
 400 
 381 
 375 
 
 353 
 
 350 
 
 300 
 
210 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 About fifty Clerks, Inspectors, Schoolmasters, 
 
 Bailiffs, &c £200 to 300 
 
 If we take the dividing line between the apphcation of 
 the term " salary" and the term "wages " at £200 a year, we 
 shall find that the Corporation pay- in salaries between 
 £60,000 and £70,000 per annum ; and in wages between 
 £110,000 and £120,000 per annum. 
 
 As an illustration of the observation previously made as 
 to gratuities, we may take the case of the City Engineer. 
 The Commissioners of Sewers pay him a salary of £1,625 
 a year; but in addition to the service rendered on this 
 account, he is allowed two separate sums of £1,550 and 
 £71 respectively, on account of professional services ren- 
 dered in respect of the improvements in Holborn Valley and 
 Farringdon Market. The same official received in 1873 
 gratuities for extra professional service to the extent of 
 £849; in 1872, £1,281 ; in 1871, £8,400; in 1870, £1,605; 
 in 1869, £800. It is certainly open to grave question 
 whether the Corporation, who, for all practical purposes, are 
 as much the trustees of the Holborn Yalley Funds as they 
 are of the Consolidated Rate — each account being managed 
 by a Committee of their own body, — are justified in giving 
 large gratuities of this kind merely because they allow the 
 servant of one Committee to render his assistance to another. 
 It is quite clear that the Commissioners of Sewers are 
 presumed to pay for the whole of the Engineer's time, and no 
 reduction is made in salary for the time given elsewhere. 
 As an illustration of another form in which these gratuities 
 are given, may be quoted the payments made on the occasion 
 of the visit of the Czar. On tbis occasion various clerks in 
 the offices of the Town Clerk, Architect, &c., received sums 
 varying in amount from fifty guineas downwards, on account 
 of their " extra services." 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : SALARIES OF OFFICERS. 211 
 
 When any office is altered in its character, or is abolished, 
 it is also customary to increase the salary or to bestow some 
 gratuity on the holder. As an illustration of the latter, 
 may be taken the aboHtion of Whitecross Street Prison in 
 1870, on which occasion the surgeon received a gratuity of 
 £400, and the other officials of the prison proportionate 
 amounts. As an illustration of the former, may be taken 
 the post of Judge of the City of London Court. In 1866, 
 this absorbent official received, as Judge of the Sheriffs' Court, 
 £900 ; in 1867, when the Court was assimilated to a 
 County Court, he received, in salary and compensation, 
 £1,799 ; in 1868 he received, as Judge of the City of 
 London Court, £900, and £300 more was added on account 
 of the newly assumed Equitable Jurisdiction ; in 1869, on 
 account of salary and compensation, with respect to the 
 Judgeship of this Court, he appears to have received 
 £2,495. The salary of the office was subsequently ad- 
 vanced to £1,800 a year, and in 1871, £105 was allowed 
 in addition to enable him to pay a deputy ; in 1875, in con- 
 sequence of the Admiralty Jmisdiction conferred on the 
 Court some years before, the Judge of this Court was voted 
 by the Common Council a further salary of £300 per 
 annum, and compensation to the extent of £1,000, on 
 account of the discharge of this special duty during pre- 
 ceding years. 
 
 Nor are these the only advantages accruing to faithful 
 service. In 1873, the sum of £5,000 was voted as a 
 gratuity to the City Architect, " in recognition of the satis- 
 factory manner in which he had carried out the large works 
 entrusted to him during the preceding ten years." So, in 
 1869, £2,500 was voted to the City Chamberlain for his 
 successful management of the City accounts. 
 
 If it be an advantage to be on the roll of Corporation 
 officials, it is not less so to be on that of " City tradesmen." 
 
212 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Perhaps ^e are not justified in counting builders and con- 
 tractors as within this category. They received from the 
 Corporation funds, in the year 1874, more than £83,000. 
 But the ordinary City tradesmen were paid bills on various 
 accounts (exclusive of repairs) amounting to more than 
 £40,000. The printing and stationery account of nearly 
 £4,000 is not included in the above. Neither have we in- 
 cluded expenses in relation to the maintenance of the roads 
 and sewers of the City, which, exclusive of the item of 
 wages, amounted in 1874 to about £80,000. The year's 
 payment for gas was more than £20,000, and the various 
 legal expenses of the Corporation, exclusive of salaries, 
 reached nearly the same amount. 
 
 We have included in the above estimate of legal ex- 
 penses those incurred in connection with the inquiry before 
 the Epping Forest Commissioners, but have not included 
 those incurred by the E-emembrancer with respect to bills in 
 Parliament. Of this expenditure no details are given 
 beyond the particular bills with respect to which they were 
 incurred. Sometimes the items are very heavy; thus 
 £1,250 was expended with respect to the Metage of Grain 
 Duty in 1873, and during the last ten years the expenditure 
 on this account has been about £35,000, or an average of 
 between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. The reasons for and 
 method of expending this sum require careful examination. 
 Perhaps the most remarkable item of expenditure in the 
 City account is that of repairs. The simple repairs of the 
 various buildings belonging to the City, exclusive of the 
 costs of construction or the supply of new furniture, &c., 
 amounted in 1874 to more than £15,000. And the analysis 
 of this expenditure is equally extraordinary. If we take the 
 two most important buildings within the City — the Mansion 
 House and the Guildhall, — they will illustrate our meaning. 
 During the year 1874 there was expended in the repair of 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : REPAIRS. 213 
 
 the Mansion House £1,772, and £812 was expended in 
 decoration. The ordinary inference from this expenditure 
 would be that the building had been neglected for a con- 
 siderable length of time. So far, however, is this from 
 being the case, that in the previous year more than £3,000 
 was expended upon its repair, decoration, and furniture. 
 The Mansion House is by no means a large building ; it is a 
 substantial, comely, and well- finished edifice ; and it is im- 
 possible to understand how such large sums can be spent in 
 its repair and decoration year after year. The actual repairs 
 of this building charged against the City's Estate during the 
 last ten years amount to more than £20,000, whilst the cost 
 of furniture and decorations during the same period has 
 been nearly £15,000 more. The total cost of keeping up 
 the building since 1865, exclusive of salaries, has been about 
 £53,000. And yet the very steps of the building are in 
 quite a dilapidated condition. 
 
 The expenditure at the Mansion House may be deemed 
 excessive, but it is far outstripped by the expenditure at the 
 Guildhall. This building, with the Courts and offices behind 
 it, is a heavy charge on the Corporation Estate. During 
 1874 the cost of maintaining the buildings was no less than 
 £12,478. Of this sum, the salaries of the hall-keeper and 
 his assistants absorb somewhat less than £1,000, whilst the 
 cost of printing for the City offices and Courts is somewhat 
 more. Nearly the whole of the rest is made up of main- 
 tenance expenses. It includes the enormous sum of £3,375 
 for " repairing " the Guildhall, and £1,325 for repairing and 
 painting the Courts behind it. Nor is this extravagant ex- 
 penditure in any way exceptional, for we find that during 
 the ten years ending 1874 there was expended upon the 
 Guildhall, in ordinary repairs, more than £24,000. If we 
 add to this £23,729 as the cost of the new roof put up in 
 1865 and 1866, we have a total of more than £48,000. In 
 
214 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 addition to this, other tradesmen's bills with respect to the 
 building have been sent in during the same period to the 
 extent of between £17,000 and £18,000. The money ex- 
 pended in connection with the Guildhall, during the ten 
 years ending December 31st, 1874, reached the enormous 
 total of £117,476. It is probable that an ancient edifice 
 Kke the Guildhall may need a good deal of attention ; and 
 no doubt the atmosphere conduces somewhat to its decay. 
 Even the pictures seem to suffer from the general ailment ; 
 they have required cleaning three times in the course of the 
 last five years, and this at a cost of £245. Can it be that 
 City tradesmen devise work, whether it be required or not ? 
 Except on some such hypothesis, this expenditure is utterly 
 inexplicable. 
 
 This extravagance with respect to repairs runs through 
 the whole of the City accounts. Even the Monument has 
 undergone repair to the extent of £53, whilst Temple Bar 
 has cost £242.* As for that huge monstrosity, the state 
 coach, it is constantly out of repair. More than £1,000 has 
 been spent upon it during the last ten years. f Among the 
 minor items of City expenditure, it may be noted that in 
 addition to the payment made to the Lord Mayor on 
 account of the expenses of his office, the City are accus- 
 tomed to provide him with reception robes. More than 
 
 * The fair expenditure of anything like one-half of these sums seems 
 to the ordiiiaiy intelligence inexplicable. But there are other things 
 more inexplicable still. Take the wretched condition, in 1875, of the 
 room in which the City of London Court performs its work — a room 
 without even the recommendation of clean whitewash walls, far less of 
 any decent accommodation — and ask where £169 has been expended in 
 repairs. Possibly in the cellar. 
 
 t There does not seem to have been much structural defect in this 
 machine, so probably the wheels are taken oif once a year to oil. What 
 else the yearly repairs can be we cannot tell. The whole journey it is 
 called on to perform is some six miles over very fair road, so that in ten 
 years it has only travelled sixty miles, and this at a cost of £16 a mile in 
 repairs alone ! 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : SALE OF OFFICES. 215 
 
 £700 has been spent on tliis account since 1865, tlie Lord 
 Mayor in 1873 having three, at a cost of £197. 
 
 It is satisfactory to notice that the vicious system under 
 which the City Administration suffered for many years, 
 whereby various offices of profit were bought and sold in 
 the open market, is now practically at an end. One by one, 
 these offices have been bought up by the Common Council, 
 the last one purchased being the office of Yeoman of the 
 Waterside, with its right of aHenation, purchased in 1873 
 for £2,100. There was also an expenditure in 1874 on 
 account of compensation to Corn Meters of £5,335 ; to 
 an attorney of the Mayor's Court, on account of the 
 abolition of his exclusive rights of £962 and of compen- 
 sation to the Water Bailiff's second young man, probably 
 for rights existing before the Thames Conservancy Act, 
 of £130. 
 
 There are some items that ought to be expunged alto- 
 gether, and there are others which can only be retained as 
 ancient and peculiar customs. An illustration of the former 
 is the payment, now continued for many years, of £800 for 
 reporting the proceedings at the Central Criminal Court, an 
 expenditure wholly needless so long as there is no right of 
 appeal in criminal cases, except upon reserved points of 
 law. Illustrations of the latter may be found in the expen- 
 diture of £120 for cloth, to be delivered to Ministers of 
 State and others, and in the yearly payment of £40 to ale 
 conners, officers having the technical right of tasting and 
 reporting upon all malt liquors sold in the City; duties which, 
 if we mistake not, are likely to be discharged quite as much 
 to the conners' satisfaction as to the pubHc benefit. 
 
 The entertainments given by the City to visitors of note 
 and foreign potentates are always on a princely scale. The 
 last four of these festivals were — 
 
216 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The entertainment of the Sultan of Turkey, £ 
 
 and of the King of the Belgians, in 1872 . 30,525 
 
 Thanksgiving Day for the recovery of the 
 
 Prince of Wales 13,173 
 
 Reception of the Shah of Persia . . . 15,681 
 
 Reception of the Czar of Russia, 1874 . . 13,362 
 
 The entertainments present exactly the same features. By 
 far the largest portion of the expenditure is in carpentery 
 and upholstery. The tavern bills amount in the aggregate 
 to some thousands of pounds, and everything is suppHed 
 in the most lavish manner. At the reception of the Shah, 
 £58 was spent in gloves ; at the reception of the Sultan, 
 £627 was expended in flowers ; at the reception of the 
 Czar, £290 was expended in menu and admission cards. 
 From the £10,000 on upholstery and woodwork to the'£7 
 on corkscrews, everything is supplied with lavish complete- 
 ness. The representative body of the Capital of an Empire 
 ought to receive royally if it receives at all, and we do not 
 quarrel with a considerable expenditure on this account. 
 But those who take part in it are drawn from a contracted 
 area whilst the funds themselves come from a wide one, and 
 there is no proper economy and independent oversight, so 
 that reckless extravagance is found on every hand. The 
 money spent in erecting and pidling down hideous wooden 
 porches to the Guddhall would have defrayed the cost of a 
 handsome permanent one many times over And why the 
 fittings cannot be kept in stock and charged merely for use 
 is by no means clear. If the Guildhall must have a new 
 floor put down for a few days every year at enormous cost, 
 surely the City might acquire the materials. But we 
 shrewdly suspect that in this atmosphere of " prescription," 
 the City tradesmen have also their " prescriptive rights." 
 The Corporation of the City also dispense a considerab 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 
 
 217 
 
 sum every year in charities. If we allow the very fullest 
 latitude for the carrying out of the precept that " charity 
 begins at home," it may be said that they are given with 
 fair discrimination, and — if we set aside the payments to 
 the schools of the City and to the poor freemen and their 
 widows — with some public spirit. It is only what might be 
 anticipated, that the first care of the Corporation would be 
 for those of their own household ; and when these have 
 been adequately reHeved, the sorrows of those outside the 
 waUs have received due consideration. 
 
 In the years 1787-1874, inclusive, the Corporation have 
 voted for what may be termed " charitable purposes " the 
 princely sum of £345,579 125. 2c?., divided as follows : — 
 
 Infirmaries .... 
 Schools and Education 
 Almshouses .... 
 Asylums .... 
 
 Cathedrals, Chapels, and Churches 
 Dispensaries .... 
 Sufferers by Fire 
 Hospitals .... 
 Institutions .... 
 Naval, Military, and Foreign . 
 Societies .... 
 
 Miscellaneous, Home and Colonial 
 Personal Grants 
 
 Of the grants to infirmaries, the Royal Sea Bathing 
 Infirmary at Margate has received altogether £805 ; of the 
 grants to schools and education, the Freemen's Orphan 
 School has received £78,977, and the annual charge to the 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 2,582 10 
 
 
 
 . 155,549 11 
 
 4 
 
 . 35,174 2 
 
 10 
 
 2,743 15 
 
 
 
 4,775 
 
 
 
 3,877 10 
 
 
 
 4,465 
 
 
 
 . 17,800 
 
 
 
 5,357 10 
 
 
 
 . 21,028 
 
 
 
 . 16,831 
 
 
 
 . 74,115 15 
 
 
 
 1,279 18 
 
 
 
 £345,579 12 
 
 2 
 
218 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 City is now over £4,000 a year. The building fund of the 
 same institution has received grants to the extent of £24,276. 
 The City of London School received in the same period 
 £33,235, and the remainder was granted to various schools 
 and societies mainly within the limits of the City. 
 
 Of the grants to churches, &c., the grants of £1,052 lOs. 
 to the Bethnal Green Church Fund, in the years 1841-51, 
 may be quoted with commendation. 
 
 The gifts to dispensaries and asylums are fairly dis- 
 tributed, but the almshouses are mainly under City control. 
 The largest grants made in aid of sufferers by fire were £1,000 
 to Quebec in 1846, and £1,050 to Chicago in 1871. 
 
 Of the grants to hospitals, Bethlehem has received 
 £3,000; London, £2,325; Royal Free, £2,055; and 
 London Fever, £1,270. The rest are distributed over the 
 whole Metropolis. 
 
 The British and Foreign School Society has received 
 £1,700, The other institutions and societies seem well 
 chosen, and no less than eighty particular organizations 
 have received grants. 
 
 Of the Naval, Military, and Foreign charitable gifts, we 
 find £2,000 for the relief of Paris ; £1,000 for the sick and 
 wounded of 1870 ; £2,000 for the wounded and widows 
 after Waterloo ; £2,000 for the sufiering Russians in 1812 ; 
 £1,000 for the Portuguese in 1811 ; £1,000 for the Greeks 
 in 1823; £1,000 for the Spaniards in 1823; £500 for the 
 sufferers by the earthquake in Peru in 1868 ; £500 for the 
 sufferers by the Italian floods in 1872 ; £500 for the French 
 Inundation Fund in 1856 ; £500 for Polish refugees in 
 1836, &c., &c. 
 
 Of Home and Colonial Charities, we find £21,250 has 
 been given to widows of freemen by the Common Council, 
 and £7,440 by the Court of Aldermen ; other gifts to 
 widows of citizens, £3,450 ; for the City poor, £8,100 ; for 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : PUBLIC PURPOSES. 219 
 
 City kitchen, £2,000; Lancashire operatives, £1,262; 
 distress in 1847, £2,000 ; Patriotic Fund, 1854, £2,000 ; 
 Lloyd's Patriotic Fund, 1805, £2,000 ; defence of country 
 in 1798, £10,000; and £1,000 for the Indian Famine 
 Eehef Fund in 1874. 
 
 The gifts made by the Corporation for public purposes, 
 in the years 1786 to 1874, have amounted to £56,861 35. ; 
 thus summarized : — 
 
 Royalty and Nobility 
 Ministers of the Crown 
 Military, Naval, and Volunteers 
 Philanthropists 
 Other Public Men . 
 Miscellaneous .... 
 
 The gifts to royalty and nobility include £3,089 towards 
 the statue of George the Third and £1,600 towards the 
 statue of William the Fourth ; gold boxes to the Sultan of 
 Turkey, the Shah of Persia, the Viceroy of Egypt, the 
 Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Arthur, 
 the Duke of Cambridge, the Prince Consort, Prince 
 Frederick WilHam of Prussia, &c. ; a bust of the Prince 
 Consort ; a sword to the Duke of Cambridge, &c. 
 
 The Ministers of the Crown most largely honoured have 
 been the Earl of Chatham, whose monument in 1780 cost 
 £3,241, and his son, whose monument in 1807 cost £4,078. 
 
 The gifts to military and naval heroes have generally 
 consisted of swords and gold boxes. More than a hundred 
 of these persons have received recognition. 
 
 The list of the other public men honoured with gifts of 
 freedom, &c., includes nearly all the eminent men of each 
 period. The miscellaneous gifts include £10,000 for sculp- 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 . 7,093 8 
 
 
 
 . 8,344 11 
 
 3 
 
 . 22,553 3 
 
 4 
 
 965 
 
 
 
 . 4,618 13 
 
 3 
 
 . 13,286 7 
 
 2 
 
 £56,861 3 
 
 
 
220 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 ture at Mansion House, £1,543 6s. for the defence of 
 Gibraltar, and a considerable sum for tablets and benefac- 
 tions. 
 
 Except in the hour of danger the Corporation of London 
 are slow to take advice, and they have utterly disregarded 
 the recommendations of the London .Corporation Com- 
 missioners of 1854, as to the system of keeping balances in 
 the Chamber, and investing them instead of putting them 
 in a bank ; as to the consolidation of management and of 
 accounts ; as to revision of establishments ; as to audit and 
 other matters ; all of which were of imperative importance, 
 and commend themselves to every student of these accounts. 
 The Corporation in 1875 are a borrowing body ; they have 
 contracted enormous loans, and made some of the best 
 paying parts of their estates nearly worthless, as is the case 
 with the markets. Their ancestors were more thrifty, and the 
 time seems to have come when the City, in this as in many 
 other matters, ought to be saved from itself. The City has 
 spent millions in demolishing houses and buying land within 
 its o^ n borders, and this money has gone iato the pockets 
 of its citizens as compensation — sometimes into those of 
 members of the Corporation. But the limit of safety has 
 been reached, and reform is ui'gently required. 
 
 As to the accounts themselves, there is intrinsic evidence 
 that within their cumbrous framework of method they are 
 kept with as much lucidity and clearness as possible. We 
 have subjected them to an exhaustive analysis, and if the 
 Corporation were willing to adopt the recommendations of 
 the Commissioners of 1854, and alter the pubHc complexion 
 of their accounts, we believe they would, as far as regards 
 the method in which the larger details are kept, reflect credit 
 on the City Chamberlain and his officers. As to the 
 smaller details, they are kept carefully hidden from the 
 public eye. They are aggregated together under one 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : EXTRAVAGANCE. 221 
 
 head, and no explanations given. There are scattered 
 through the accounts large items charged under different 
 names, such as expenses of " Mr. Comptroller," " Mr. Hall- 
 keeper," " Mr. Architect," " Mr. Solicitor," and so forth, 
 which it would be well to submit to a public audit. And 
 probably the most remarkable result that would accrue from 
 such an audit would be an explanation of the manner in 
 which the Kemembrancer dissipates the large sums of money 
 placed to his credit in the City accounts. If they are, as it 
 is alleged, mainly spent in feasting, is it not desirable that 
 the pubHc should know who are the people that honour this 
 City official with their presence at dinner, and they wiU 
 then find themselves able to understand why the City 
 authorizes the expenditure of public money in this fashion ? 
 It is alleged that when the date of a great City banquet 
 has been fixed, preparations are at once made for extracting 
 as much benefit out of it as possible. The stewards have 
 costly badges, which afterwards serve as lockets and heir- 
 looms ; and it is said that there are Common Councilmen 
 who, after making good their claim to seats at a civic ban- 
 quet, do not scruple to seU them, and that the market price 
 for such seats in 1875 was £10. Sometimes, again, the 
 whole Common Council insists upon presenting an address 
 at Windsor or Marlborough House, greatly to the annoy- 
 ance of the personages addressed, who in vain request 
 smaller deputations. This modern rudeness is supposed to 
 be necessary to the due vindication of an " ancient right ; " 
 but there is no ancient charter which permits them to charge 
 and individually to appropriate sums out of the City cash 
 for " expenses " which are never expended. If the City 
 cash is " private property," this may be justifiable. If it be 
 public trust money, such proceedings can only be truly de- 
 fined by a very ugly word. 
 
222 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 As with the whole, so with the individuals. If a City 
 officer, for example, is requested to verify the sureties of a 
 proposed City tenant — a matter which might cost a private 
 landlord a few pence in postage stamps, — he has been known 
 to take a three weeks' tour in the country, charging all 
 expenses to the Corporation. One Corporation servant helps 
 on another in this appropriation of public money. The 
 relations of some City tradesmen with those who have in- 
 fluence in their appointment, is not always such as ought 
 to exist between trustees of pubhc money and those whom 
 they employ, and how many City servants are there who, 
 being entitled to a coat, take many other things also ? 
 
 It is alleged that more than one recent mayoralty has re- 
 sulted in a gain of something like £5,000 to the Lord Mayor, 
 and one of the most lavish mayoralties of modern times, only 
 cost the occupant of the office some £3,000 more than his 
 allowance. Possibly, this was in consequence of his shrewd 
 and business-like system of doing everything by contract. 
 
 The bills of the City tradesmen are supposed to be passed 
 by the Architect, and his certificate is accepted as the 
 authority for their payment : whether this is a sufficient 
 guarantee for the due value of work being received by the 
 Corporation, those who are most intimate with the City can 
 form the best opinion. 
 
 The stafi" of the City seems to be about three times as 
 large as is necessary, and four times as expensive as it would 
 be in the hands of a private firm undertaking the work. 
 The consequence is that there are numbers of highly-paid 
 officials whose time is not fully occupied, and some of whom 
 are by no means constant in attendance at their offices, and 
 even those who do attend regularly, do not always employ 
 their time for the benefit of the public who pay them. It 
 would be easy to illustrate this, and if it were necessary the 
 
CITY expenditure: extravagance. 223 
 
 illustration might be taken from a City office, which those 
 who know its chief might suppose was the cleanest in con- 
 nection with the Corporation. There is no need, however, 
 to visit upon the head of one man, faults which are common 
 to the offices of the Corporation ; and therefore, it is suffi- 
 cient to say, that those who serve the Corporation of the 
 City serve a lenient master. Whilst paid for their full time, 
 full service is not exacted from them, and the relations 
 between the City and its officers is not such as could exist 
 in any English Corporation save the Corporation of London. 
 Possibly, the City doctrine that the property of the Corpora- 
 tion is private property, and not charged with any public 
 trust may have something to do with this. 
 
 A study of the inner life of the City and of its pubHc 
 expenditure, with the aid of a little authentic information, 
 points to the melancholy conclusion that personal advance- 
 ment is the great object with which many persons connect 
 themselves with the Corporation of London. No vote passed 
 in the Common Council for the construction of any pubhc 
 work, no loud profession of the purest patriotism, but is 
 open to the very gravest suspicion. It has recently been 
 openly suggested in a pubhc paper, and not contradicted, that 
 the present seat in ParKament of a well-known City mag- 
 nate is the result of successfully conducting an election to a 
 lucrative City office ; and on every hand we find that the 
 vast expenditure of money, which is paraded as a proof of 
 the " hospitality " or " enterprise " of the Corporation, is 
 really simply a carefully-matured device for " convejing " 
 a large amount of City cash into private pockets. Those 
 who are competent to judge of the matter express the 
 opinion that more than one-third of the Common Council 
 are amenable to pecuniary considerations ; and when the 
 secret history of some of its recent acts comes to be written. 
 
224 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 men will be astonished at what has existed so long in their 
 midst, and succeeded in attracting such remarkable homage. 
 
 From the day when as candidate he brings up his voters 
 from the ends of the earth,* to the day when having 
 resigned the Lord Mayor's gown, he badgers the poor 
 Recorder into begging a title for him as a reward for his 
 fideHty — to himself, — the career of the City " Corporator " 
 is an undeviating pursuit of the main chance. 
 
 But yet within themselves the City are not entirely a 
 happy family. It is true that they have to a large extent 
 succeeded through the numerous agencies which they com- 
 mand, and because of the value of the power that they 
 wield, in keeping back or staving o£F a successful attack 
 from without ; but within there are sometimes bitter dis- 
 putes about the division of the spoil. These, however, are 
 generally prudently hid from the public eye, and fortunately 
 for the parties concerned, do not become matters of general 
 discussion. 
 
 And on every hand the assaults upon the City's exche- 
 quer are going on. Notwithstanding the condition of City 
 finance the members of the Common Council are constantly 
 petitioned to make " improvements," The result of these 
 has been already shown, and to such a point has City 
 morality grown that inhabitants of a street will petition for 
 its widening on account of its inconvenience, although if the 
 requested improvement he carried out these inhabitants will he 
 improved and compensated out of it ! f 
 
 The Common Council is besieged with applications from 
 City of&cers for increase of salary. In 1870 the Remem- 
 
 * At a notable election in 1875, they came from outlying districts in 
 England, and from Germany, Switzerland, &c., — " all expenses paid." 
 
 t See an example of this in petition presented to Commissioners of 
 Sewers, Feb, 1, 1876. 
 
CITY EXPENDITURE : EXTRAVAGANCE. 225 
 
 brancer, whose work was then enormously overpaid at 
 £1,500 a year, writes to the Common Council for an 
 increase of salary, and mournfully adds : — " I have not 
 received, directly or indirectly, any emoluments except my 
 salary, whilst other officers have been more fortunate.'^ He 
 has now got increased to £2,000 a year. And so on every 
 hand, there is this fighting for the spoil, and scheming for 
 fresh assaults on the City's exchequer. 
 
 The honest citizens of London must decide how long 
 this remarkable " Corporation " is to continue to exist. 
 
226 
 
 Chapter VI. 
 
 METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. 
 
 The Origin of the Board. — Constitution and Powers under 
 "Metropolis Management Act, 1855." — The Work of 
 the Board for nineteen Years. — Present Work and 
 Jurisdiction of the Board. — Revenue and Expenditure 
 of the Board. — Metropolitan Board Loans. — Work of 
 Oommittees, — Constitution and Character of the Board 
 generally. 
 
 The Metropolitan Board of Works owes its origin to 
 the legislation on the question of metropolitan sewers. A 
 conviction of the necessity of creating some single central 
 authority to deal with Metropolitan Drainage forced itself 
 upon the House of Commons, and so came into existence a 
 body which has succeeded in the course of time in aggre- 
 gating to itself powers over other questions common to the 
 whole MetropoKs, which were not within the conception of 
 its founders : a body which, from a proportionately modest 
 expenditure, now aspires to the dispensation of somewhere 
 near a milHon a year. 
 
 In connection with the City proper, the existence of 
 Commissions of Sewers may be traced back for a long 
 period. In 1307 we find one directed to the Mayor and 
 Sheriffs, commanding them to purify the river Fleet.^ By 
 the 19 Car. II., c. 3, passed soon after the Great Fire, pro- 
 vision was made for the designing and laying out of sewers 
 within the City, and several Acts affecting the same question 
 were passed in the following century. 
 
 * Cited in Woolrych's "Law of Sewers," 2n(i ed., p. 2. 
 

 iKKTi^mXvro' 
 
 
 
 Pcpu/ali\i>^/:i. 77Sm 
 
 Pcpi, In ttoij^ I /?4. 35 i 
 
 
 showing; boiiiui:ii'y oP 
 
 METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS 
 
 wit.h the division into 
 
 VESTRIES & DISTRICT BOARDS; 
 
 to^etliei" with Oie 
 ACREAGE & CENSUS POPIIIJ^TION OF EACH. 
 
 ;;3?J^ 
 
 
 ^A'^i^^^fei 
 
 
 :^j 
 
 I m \j n u J ^ ' l_. \V ^ 
 
 > Irt J r ) 
 
 .BERMONDSEY 
 
 
 WOOLWICH/ ~^v^ ^ 
 
 'epulatwnl ^s^^^^ v 
 
 /PLUMS 
 
 / 
 
 &-^ 
 
 4-''-* 
 
 ^, 
 
 f-''V' 
 
 hpii/alionMjAW^C tp- \ ' ■// ^ I 
 
 
 
 IMKI.KDON 
 
 ^ fZ:i 
 
 I CaLford lirUUje 
 
 i9. 7'J7 ' 
 
 "\ 
 
 \ V> \^ 
 
 X 
 
 C.Moodv.LiQu'.Zy Hith Holtc.r i^w . 
 
226 
 
 Chapter VI. 
 
 METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. 
 
 The Origin of the Board. — Constitution and Powers under 
 " Metropolis Management Act, 1855." — The Work of 
 the Board for nineteen Years. — Present Work and 
 Jurisdiction of the Board. — Revenue and Expenditure 
 of the Board. — Metropolitan Board Loans. — Work of 
 Oommittees. — Oonstitution and Character of the Board 
 generally. 
 
 The Metropolitan Board of "Works owes its origin to 
 the legislation on the question of metropolitan sewers. A 
 conviction of the necessity of creating some single central 
 authority to deal with Metropolitan Drainage forced itself 
 upon the House of Commons, and so came into existence a 
 body which has succeeded in the course of time in aggre- 
 gating to itself powers over other questions common to the 
 whole Metropolis, which were not within the conception of 
 its founders : a body which, from a proportionately modest 
 expenditure, now aspires to the dispensation of somewhere 
 near a million a year. 
 
 In connection with the City proper, the existence of 
 Commissions of Sewers may be traced back for a long 
 period. In 1307 we find one directed to the Mayor and 
 Sherijffs, commanding them to purify the river Fleet. "^ By 
 the 19 Car. II., c. 3, passed soon after the Great Fire, pro- 
 vision was made for the designing and laying out of sewers 
 within the City, and several Acts affecting the same question 
 were passed in the following century. 
 
 * Cited in Woolrych's "Law of Sewers," 2nd ed., p. 2. 
 
/24 
 
 Uoi 
 
 At 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : DRAINAGE. 227 
 
 The provisions of various preceding Acts affecting thie 
 sewerage of the City were consolidated in 1848 by a local 
 Act, providing for the sanitary improvement of the City 
 and its liberties.^ This Act was still further extended by 
 the 14 & 15 Vict., c. 91, under which the City Com- 
 missioners of Sewers were appointed. 
 
 The control exercised by the City Commission has been 
 already considered. It is complete, save in so far as it has 
 been modified by the Main Drainage jurisdiction given to the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works by the 18 & 19 Yict., c. 120. 
 Its jurisdiction is coterminous with the City. 
 
 Outside the City walls the drainage of the Metropolis 
 was, prior to 1856, under the control of Commissioners. 
 The first Drainage Commission for any district outside the 
 City was, probably, the one nominated in 1532, under the 
 provisions of an Act passed in that year ;f and every suc- 
 ceeding reign furnished illustrations either of the appoint- 
 ment of other Commissions or of the extension, alteration, 
 or confirmation of the powers of those that already existed. 
 Some districts obtained special and local Acts for their 
 benefit, which were enforced by the local Commission. The 
 Commissions of Westminster and of Finsbury repeatedly 
 did this. 
 
 In 1847 there were seven separate Commissions en- 
 trusted with the care of as many difierent districts in the 
 MetropoHs. In that year the Commissioners appointed to 
 inquire into the means of improving the health of the 
 MetropoHs presented their report ; and in the session of 
 1848 an Act was passed, consequent upon this report, by 
 which the Crown was enabled to issue a single Commission 
 to the whole of the metropoHtan districts,;}; Tlius arose the 
 " Metropolitan Commission of Sewers." The property 
 
 * 11 & 12 Vict., c. 16:^. j 23 Hy. VIII., c. 
 
 X 11 & 12 Vict., c. 112. 
 
228 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 rights, and liabilities of the former Commissions were trans- 
 ferred to the new body, which included the Lord Mayor and 
 four members of the Common Council. Considerable 
 powers were given to the new Commissioners for the making 
 and repair of sewers, and for the levying of rates and bor- 
 rowing of money. The first Commission under the Act sat 
 in January 1849, and the area of its jurisdiction was 
 extended in a short period to more than 100 square miles. 
 The Metropolitan Commission of Sewers was renewed from 
 year to year. Its work also showed a progressive increase 
 in importance and magnitude, until the Commission was 
 finally put an end to by the "Act for the better Local 
 Management of the Metropolis,"* introduced in 1855 by 
 Sir Benjamin Hall. 
 
 The three Commissioners, appointed in 1853 to inquire 
 into the condition of the Corporation of London, recommen- 
 ded " That the Metropolis be divided into districts " for 
 Municipal purposes ;f also, " That in the event of such 
 division being made, a MetropoHtan Board of "Works be 
 created, composed of members deputed to it from the council 
 of each Metropolitan Municipal Body, including the Common 
 Council of the City,| and further that the Board be em- 
 powered to levy a rate limited to a fixed poundage for public 
 works of general metropoHtan utility over the metropolitan 
 district."^ In 1855 Sir Benjamin Hall, the President of 
 the Board of Health, introduced the measure which has 
 since been the basis of metropolitan local government. 
 Under this Act and the amending statutes, the Metropolis 
 has for the last twenty years been governed. 1 1 The preamble 
 to the Act states that " it is expedient that provision should 
 
 * 18 & 19 Vict., c. 120. X Ibid., sec. 29. 
 
 f Report of Commissioners, sec. 28. § Ihid., sec. 31. 
 
 II Metropolis Management Act, 18 & 19 Vict., c. 120. The amending 
 Acts are 19 & 20 Vict., c. 112 ; 25 & 26 Vict., c. 102 ; and 37 & 38 Vict, 
 c. 97. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD ; CONSTITUTING ACT. 229 
 
 be made for the better local management of tbe Metropolis, 
 in respect of the sewerage and drainage, and the paving, 
 cleansing, lighting, and improvements thereof," and it is the 
 Constituting Act of the Metropolitan Board of Works. We 
 shaU in a subsequent chapter deal with its provisions as to 
 Vestries. 
 
 By the 45th section of the Metropolis Management 
 Act, the MetropoHtan Board of Works is constituted a 
 body corporate with perpetual succession, with a common 
 seal, and with power to hold land for the purposes of the 
 Act. 
 
 It is to be composed of forty-six members. These are 
 elected as foUows : — Three from the Common Council of the 
 City ; two by each of the six larger Yestries, viz, : Mary- 
 lebone, St. Pancras, Lambeth, St. George's Hanover Square, 
 Islington, and Shoreditch ; and one member by each of 
 seventeen smaller Vestries, viz. : — Paddington, Bethnal 
 Green, Newington, CamberweU, St, James' Westminster, 
 St, James and St, John Clerkenwell, Chelsea, Kensington, 
 St. Luke Middlesex, St. George Southwark, Bermondsey, 
 St. George's-in-the-East, St. Martin-in-the-Fields, Mile End 
 Old Town, Woolwich, Rotherhithe, and St, John Hamp- 
 stead, and one by each of the following fourteen District 
 Boards,* viz, : Whitechapel, Westminster, Greenwich, Wands- 
 worth, Hackney, St. Giles, Holborn, Strand, Fulham, Lime- 
 house, Poplar, St, Saviour's, Plumstead imited with Lewis- 
 ham, and St, Clave, f 
 
 When it is remembered that under the Act the mem- 
 bers of the Board are dependent for their seats upon the 
 votes of Vestries and District Boards, and that the composi- 
 tion of Vestries and District Boards can only be changed 
 
 * A District Board is made by the union of two or more small Vestries, 
 as hereinafter explained, vide chap. 7, infra. 
 
 t For the purpose of electing one member, Plumstead District is united 
 •with Lewisham, and St. Olave includes the parish of Eotherhithe. 
 
230 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 through a number of years, it will be seen that in no fair 
 sense can the Metropohtan Board be regarded as a popular 
 or representative body. Responsibility to ratepayers there 
 is practically none, and the power of ratepayers to affect the 
 action or personal constitution of the Board is very limited 
 indeed.* 
 
 The members are elected for three years, one-third 
 leaving in each year. They elect their own Chairman, and 
 decide upon his salary, such salary not to be less than 
 £1,500, and not to exceed £2,000 a year. Such Chairman 
 has recently been elected from the Board itself, although 
 this is by no means necessary; and so the elected of the 
 Yestries are generally vestr}Tnen, although this was not 
 provided by the Act as needful. The quorum is nine. By 
 section 54, the seat of any member at the Board is vacated 
 by bankruptcy or insolvency, or by personal interest in any 
 
 * An illustration of the anomaly of this system is given in an excellent 
 pamphlet on the government of London, by J T. Dexter, published in 
 1875. The District Board of Plumstead and Lewisham is composed of 
 seven Vestries, of which five are in Plumstead, and two in Lewisham. 
 The united Board elect one member to the Board of Works. •' The 
 Metropolitan Board is elected one-third annually. Where only one mem- 
 ber is returned, the voice of a constituency is dead for three years. 
 Plumstead district might take five years to revolutionize its Board, after 
 three years of agitation to change its Vestries, another year must elajise 
 ere Lewisham can be certainly outvoted by the joint Board, and three 
 years more may pass ere the opportunity occurs for ousting one member 
 from the Metropolitan Board, or twelve years to change a forty-fifth share 
 in the representation ! Twelve years is long enough to enable any man in 
 such a position to amass a handsome fortune by arrangement with con- 
 tractors, and enough beside to silence the complaining of every one of his 
 constituents with golden salve." — " llie Government of London," by J. T. 
 Dexter: Stanford, Charing Cross, 1875, pp. 12, 13- 
 
 The constitution of the Board early showed its inherent defect. 
 The Times, Dec. 1, 1859, says — "The fact is, the constitution of this 
 Board has turned out a failure. The Government has shuffled off its own 
 responsibility upon a body which is at once incompetent and irrespon. 
 sible. The system of double election has never yet produced anything 
 but cliques and jobbing. Unhappily the Board spends our money and 
 rates our property, and we cannot afiord to let them alone to their 
 devices." 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : MAIN DRAINAGE, 231 
 
 contract, except as member of a Company contracting (in 
 which case the shareholder is not allowed to vote on the 
 matter of the contract). Penalty £50, recoverable in the 
 superior Courts for acting on the Board when the member's 
 seat is vacated as above ; or voting when interested in a 
 Company whose contract is under consideration. Members 
 whose term of service is concluded are eligible for re-election. 
 The Board is to appoint and control its of&cers ; appoint 
 Committees ; make entries of proceedings ; keep its books 
 open to inspection, &c. 
 
 The main sewers throughout the Metropolis are vested 
 in the Board (sec. 135). This includes as well those at 
 that time vested in the Commissioners of Sewers of the City 
 of London, as in the MetropoHtan Commissioners of Sewers. 
 Power is also given to construct new ones, subject to the 
 approval of the Commissioner of "Works. The Board may 
 also control the sewerage constructions of the Vestries. 
 They have also fuU control over the numbering and naming 
 of houses and streets, a register being kept of all alterations 
 (ss. 141-2). They are the regulating authority as to the 
 street line and the prevention of irregularity in building 
 (sec. 143). They have also power to make, widen, and im- 
 prove streets and roads in the Metropolis, and for this 
 purpose to buy land or deal with it in such manner as they 
 think fit, and to apply to Parliament wherever further 
 powers are requisite for the carrying out of any work which 
 they deem to be of public utility (sec. 144). Where any 
 improvement is carried out under this clause exceeding in 
 amount £50,000, the approval of the Commissioner of 
 Works was necessary under the Act. 
 
 The Board have power to enter into all requisite con- 
 tracts for carrying out the Act, and to compound for penal- 
 ties in respect of its breach : to purchase any lands requisite 
 for the purposes of the Act, and with the consent of the 
 
232 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Secretary of State to take them compulsorily ; also to dispose 
 of surplus lands. 
 
 The Metropolitan Board is empowered to assess upon 
 the various parts of the MetropoHs the sums which they 
 think ought to be charged upon them for the purpose of 
 defraying the expenses of the Board in carrying out the Act. 
 The Board then issues to the different authorities, Yestries, 
 and District Boards, precepts under its seal for payment of 
 the amounts assessed (sections 170-179). Power is given to 
 the Board to borrow moneys requisite for carrying out the 
 Act, and to mortgage the rates for their repayment. 
 
 Various other Acts have been subsequently passed, by 
 which fhe jurisdiction of the Board has been extended in 
 many directions. Perhaps the best way to estimate the 
 position in metropoHtan government, now filled by the 
 Board of Works, will be to consider the duties which have 
 devolved upon it since its formation, and those which 
 devolve upon it now, and to estimate the amount of work 
 performed by the Board in connection with these various 
 matters. Under the provisions of the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, section 200, the Metropolitan Board of Works 
 is required in every year to make a report of their proceed- 
 ings in the execution of the work entrusted to them. These 
 reports must be sent to various 0£B.cers of State, to the 
 Vestries, District Boards, &c. They enable us to estimate 
 from the point of view of the Board itself, what are the 
 advantages we derive from the supervision of this body. 
 They suffer, however, from the bias and colour given to 
 them in the desire to represent everything in the brightest 
 possible Hght; this is especially noticeable, as we show 
 hereafter on the gas question, and there are other actions of 
 the Board as to which, in its authorized reports, it main- 
 tains a discreet silence. 
 
 The consideration of the work of the Board since its 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : MAIN DRAINAGE. 233 
 
 foundation, may well commence with the subject of Main 
 Drainage, which was, in fact, the reason of its birth. 
 
 Under the Metropolis Local Management Act the 
 Board of Works have power to make such sewers and 
 works as they think necessary to prevent the sewage of 
 London or the neighbourhood from flowing into the 
 Thames.* The sewers formerly vested in the Metropolitan 
 and City Commissioners of Sewers, extending to 166 miles 
 in length, are vested in them. The Board may declare 
 which sewers are main sewers, make orders for the guidance 
 of Vestries, and have the general control of the sewerage.f 
 The Vestries must obtain the order of the Board before con- 
 structing new sewers, I 
 
 When the MetropoHtan Board began their work under 
 the above Act, the condition of the London sewerage was 
 very different from what it is now. The whole of the main 
 sewers discharged into the Thames opposite to the districts 
 they drained, and, as such discharge was only possible at 
 low water, the sewage matter remained stagnant during 
 much of the twenty-four hours, and in flood time the high 
 tides forced it up into low-lying streets and houses. The 
 sewage, when discharged, was frequently carried by the 
 rising tide up the river, and then brought down to the City 
 again at the ebb. No state of things in a metropoUtan 
 city could well be worse ; and when, in addition to this, we 
 have the constantly-increasing number of houses with no 
 sewer accommodation whatever, but only a multiplication of 
 stagnant and unhealthy cesspools, the gravity of the situation 
 may be understood. 
 
 Almost immediately upon its formation the Board had 
 plans prepared and submitted to the First Commissioner of 
 Works ; but these plans did not prove satisfactory ; and it 
 
 * 18 <fc 19 Vict., c. 120, 8. 135. f I^i^-t ss. 137-8. 
 
 % Ibid., BB. 69, 303-11. 
 
234 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 was not until the particularly pestilential condition of the 
 river in 1858 re-awakened public attention, that effective 
 action was taken. A measure was introduced, and passed 
 through Parliament in that year, enabling the Board to 
 finally decide upon the best system of Main Drainage, and to 
 raise £3,000,000 (afterwards extended- to £4,200,000) for 
 the work, the repayment of the money being guaranteed by 
 the Treasury. The Board approved of a scheme within a 
 fortnight of the Royal Assent being given to the Bill, and 
 specifications were at once made out. 
 
 The general scope of the scheme comprised the con- 
 struction of sewers parallel to the river, and lower than the 
 cross sewers ; thus intercepting and receiving their contents, 
 and preventing the discharge of sewage into the river. By 
 these main intercepting sewers the sewage north of the 
 Thames is conveyed to the Abbey Mills Outfall, more than 
 11 miles below London Bridge, and the southern sewage 
 to Crossness, some 14 miles below bridge. The discharge 
 of the sewage takes place at high water, and so the matter 
 is carried by the ebb tide a considerable distance down 
 the river, and all pollution within the London area is 
 impossible. 
 
 In the selection of the place for discharge, and the 
 method of pumping, the fall of the sewers, the method of 
 dealing with the rain water, the size of the sewers, and 
 various other matters, the Board seem to have exercised a 
 wise discretion. Three Hues of intercepting sewers were 
 constructed on the north side of the river. The High Level 
 and Middle Level discharge by gravitation, the Low Level by 
 pumping. There are also three intercepting sewers on the 
 south side of the river. 
 
 The High Level sewer, north of the river, cost £190,633. 
 It intercepts the drainage of Hampstead, Kentish Town, 
 and North London generally — an area some 10 miles in 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : MAIN DRAINAGE. 235 
 
 extent. This sewer varies in diameter from 4 feet to 9 feet 
 6 inches by 12 feet. The sewer is connected with the 
 Middle Level at Bow, where there is an elaborate arrange- 
 ment for emptying the surplus water in storm time into the 
 river Lee. 
 
 The Middle Level sewer cost £318,334, and drains an 
 area of 17^ square miles, being carried on as low a level as 
 possible, consistently with the operation of gravitation. 
 
 The Low Level sewer drains the whole of the lowest area, 
 some of the sewage having to be raised twice in its course 
 first at Chelsea, and again at Abbey Mills. 
 
 The Outfall sewer, carrying the sewage from London to 
 Barking, was the most expensive of the constructions, costing 
 £649,760. 
 
 The reservoir, of 9| acres, cost £172,800. 
 
 The Southern High Level sewer drains an area of 20 
 miles, including Clapham, Brixton, Peckham, Sydenham, . 
 &c. The original cost was £234,670. The sewer has a 
 branch commencing at Dulwich, analagous to the Middle 
 Level sewer on the north side. The Low Level drains 
 an area of 20 miles, from Putney to Rotherhithe ; cost 
 £209,000. The Southern OutfaU sewer cost £310,648. 
 It carries the aggregate of the southern sewers, being some 
 12,000,000 gallons daily. The Crossness works and reser- 
 voir cost £295,000. 
 
 The works were commenced in January 1859, and prac- 
 tically completed in 1865. They swallowed up between 300 
 and 400 nulhon bricks, about a million yards of concrete, 
 and some four million cubic yards of earth were excavated. 
 The total quantity of sewage intercepted daily is supposed to 
 be about 60,000,000 gallons, some four times the bulk of the 
 Serpentine, and in case of a flood the sewers could accom- 
 modate several times the quantity. They were formally 
 opened by the Prince of Wales, April 4th, 1865, and in the 
 
236 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 same month the Chaii'man of the Board received the honour 
 of knighthood. 
 
 The Main Drainage system is now a finished work. The 
 last of the pumping stations was delayed long after the rest 
 were in full work, in consequence of the necessity of first 
 completing the Chelsea Embankment. JBut August 1875 
 saw this last station opened ; and now this system of 
 drainage, which has cost not less than £4,600,000, which 
 has been seventeen years in construction, and which accom- 
 modates 117 square miles of area, and 4,000,000 of people, 
 is complete. The Main Drainage system of London is now 
 — having regard to its situation — the best of any large city 
 on the face of the globe. The length of its main sewers 
 exceeds 82 miles, and through them the sewage is dis- 
 charged far below London Bridge. The large acreage of 
 setthng reservoirs, and the pumping engines, with an 
 aggregate horse-power of between 2,000 and 3,000, and 
 constructed to raise some 50,000 gallons of sewage per 
 minute to heights varying from 10 to 36 feet, render the 
 metropolitan drainage system unapproached in magnitude. 
 
 Gradually the noble river on which London stands is 
 being purified. There only remain two towns in the 
 whole Thames basin which have not adopted some method 
 for purifying and disposing of their sewage, and both of 
 these have commenced works for the purpose. 
 
 There is no doubt that the citizens of London do owe 
 something to the body of men who have devised and carried 
 out plans whereby the capital has been freed from the evils 
 under which it was suffering. The work is done, and done 
 it is hoped for all time ; but whether the public money has 
 been wisely expended, and fuU value received for it, is a 
 different question. Very grave charges have been made 
 against the Board, with respect to their proceedings in con- 
 nection with the great pubHc works entrusted to them; 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : MAIN DRAINAGE. 237 
 
 charges which it will be impossible to pass over minoticed 
 when we come to discuss its qualification or fitness for its 
 position. At present, we record the fact that through its 
 agency a system of Main Drainage has been perfected, which 
 is excellently well adapted for its object. We may go 
 farther, and confidently anticipate the time when the intake 
 of the Water Companies shall be free from the germs of 
 typhoid, and when the capital of the empire — standing on 
 the healthiest site, and enjoying the lowest death-rate 
 amongst its compeers — may also see its greatness reflected in 
 the Hmpid bosom of a stream untainted by the effluent of a 
 single drain. Who knows but the time may come when the 
 Spanish Ambassador shall, in this century, follow the 
 example of his predecessor at the Court of EHzabeth, and, 
 when despatching to Madrid the news afiecting his mission, 
 take the opportunity of praising our capital, and of dilating 
 on the "nobihty of the river and the beauty of its hundreds 
 of swans ?"* 
 
 The next great work of the Board was the embankment 
 of the Thames. The subject was one that had engaged the 
 attention of more than one Royal Commission before 1856, 
 but the only embankment actually executed was a piece 
 between YauxhaU Bridge and Chelsea Hospital ; and it was 
 chiefly because of the necessity of finding a site for the Low 
 Level sewer that the question was again brought prominently 
 forward in the years 1860-1-2. 
 
 The Victoria Emhanhment, 1^ miles in length, and ex- 
 tending from Blackfriars to Westminster Bridge, was com- 
 menced in 1864, and opened in 1870, Thirty-seven acres 
 of land were reclaimed ; and, in addition to the Low Level 
 sewer, the embankment carries the Metropolitan District 
 
 * The Acts of Parliament under which the system of Main Drainage 
 has been carried out are the following, -vdz. : — 21 & 22 Vict., c. lOi ; 26 & 
 37 Vict., c. 68 ; 28 Vict., c. 19 ; 28 &• 29 Vict., c. 121 ; 29 & 30 Vict, 
 c. 280 ; 33 & 84 Vict., c. U9 ; 34 & 35 Vict., c. 129 ; 36 & 37 Vict., c. 218. 
 
238 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Railway, and also an extensive subway for pipes. Nineteen 
 acres are occupied by road and footpath ; some have been 
 conveyed to the Crown and to adjacent proprietors, including 
 the Societies of the Middle and Inner Temples, and the 
 remainder is sot apart for public recreation. The river wall 
 of this embankment is carried down to a depth of 32J feet 
 below Trinity high- water mark, and 14 feet below low- water 
 mark. In the construction of the northern embankment 
 there were employed 650,000 cubic feet of granite, 80,000 
 cubic yards of brickwork, 140,000 cubic yards of concrete, 
 1,000,000 cubic yards of earth filling, 125,000 superficial 
 feet of York paving, &c. The cost was £1,455,672, of 
 which the sum of £236,672 has been recouped by sales. 
 Since that time more than £600,000 has been paid for the 
 Charing Cross approach, — so that the total cost of the Vic- 
 toria Embankment is considerably over £2,000,000. 
 
 The Albert Embanhment, 4,300 feet in length, was 
 commenced in 1865 and opened in 1868. The contract 
 price for its construction was £309,000, and more than 
 £700,000 more was paid in compensation for claims by 
 holders of property. The cost of this embankment has been 
 £1,150,813, of which sum £130,298 has been recouped 
 by sales. 
 
 The Chelsea Emhanhment project practically rose out of 
 the Western Drainage scheme ; and, when the original 
 intention of discharging the Fulham drainage into the river 
 near Cremorne was abandoned, it became necessary to find 
 a site for the Low Level sewers. This embankment is 4,219 
 feet in length. It was commenced in August 1871, and 
 opened in May 1874. The total cost was £321,126. The 
 work has narrowed the river here to 700 feet, and has 
 reclaimed some 9^ acres of land from the mud. 
 
 The total length of these embankments is about 3J 
 miles, and about 52 acres of land have been reclaimed from 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : THAMES EMBANKMENT. 239 
 
 the foreshore. The result has been to give London a mag- 
 nificent bouleyard, to improve the current of the river, to 
 ease the traffic of some crowded streets, and to purify the 
 air from the effluvia of the mud banks. The total cost, ex- 
 clusive of the Charing Cross approach, is about £3,000,000 ; 
 inclusive of that, it will probably ultimately approach closely 
 to £4,000,000.* 
 
 This work also is done, and done well. A work of 
 Roman grandeur and solidity, it will stand as a monument 
 of the engineering skill of those who constructed it as long 
 as London shall last. The Metropolitan Board deserve the 
 credit due to any body of men acting as pubHc servants, 
 through whose agency such a work has been eflFected ; but 
 here also, as in the case of the Main Drainage scheme, they 
 have suffered from very serious charges, affecting the honour 
 of some of their members. 
 
 By the Act 20 & 21 Vict., c. 115, the Metropolitan 
 Board were authorized to make a new street in the parish 
 of St. Martin-in-the Fields, and a new street in Southwark. 
 
 The first of these, GrarricJc Street as it is now called, was | 
 opened to the public in March 1861. It is 420 feet in length 
 and 50 feet in breadth. It connects King Street, Covent j 
 Garden, with St. Martin's Lane. The cost was £123,215 ; \ 
 nearly one-half of this sum was recouped by the sale of the 
 ground rents. / 
 
 Southwark Street cost £585,093. It is about three- 
 quarters of a mile in length, and 70 feet in width, and was 
 opened in 1864. It extends from the Borough to Black- 
 friars Road, and completes a most important link in the line 
 
 * The Acts of Parliament under which the works. were executed and 
 the money raised were the following : — 
 
 25 & 26 Vict., c, 93. 26 & 27 Vict., c. 75. 27 & 28 Vict., c. 61. 
 27 & 28 Vict., c. 135. 31 & 32 Vict., c. 43. 31 & 32 Vict., c. 111. 
 31 & 32 Vict., c. 135. 33 & 34 Vict, c. 92. 35 & 36 Vict., c. 66. 
 36 Vict., c. 7. 36 & 37 Vict,, c. 100. 36 & 37 Vict, , c, 40, 
 
240 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of transpontine communication. The total amount realized 
 by the sale of the sites, &c., in the street, has been £335,508. 
 
 The Victoria Park Approach Act (21 Vict., c. 38) 
 authorized the construction of what is now known as the 
 Burdett Road. It extends from Mile End Road to East 
 India Dock Road, is 3,486 feet long, and 70 feet wide. It 
 was opened in 1862, and the total cost was £48,149. 
 
 Middle Row, Holborn, was cleared away in 1867, at a 
 cost of £77,106, being about two-thirds of the compensation 
 claimed. The improvement was effected under " The 
 Whitechapel and Holborn Improvement Act, 1865" (28 
 Yict., c. 3). 
 
 The Whitechapel Improvement consisted in the formation 
 of a new street from Back Church Lane to Leman Street, 
 thus improving the communication between Whitechapel 
 and the Commercial Road. The new street was opened in 
 1870. The cost was £243,075. 
 
 The Kensington Improvement Act (29 & 30 Yict., c. 
 150), authorized the widening of High Street, Kensington. 
 The cost of acquiring the requisite properties, &c., was 
 £186,955. The work was completed in 1869. 
 
 The Stingo Lane Improvement was carried out under the 
 provisions of the 31 Yict., c. 7. It is a continuation of 
 Seymour Place from Upper York Street to Marylebone 
 Road. The new street is 450 feet in length, and was made 
 at the joint expense of the Board, and the borough of Mary- 
 lebone. The work was completed in 1872 at a cost, for the 
 share of the Board, of between £40,000 and £50,000. 
 
 Under " The Park Lane Improvement Act, 1869" (32 & 
 33 Yict., c. 134), the Board were empowered to widen 
 Hamilton Place, and improve Park Lane. The work was 
 completed in 1871. The total cost was £144,294. 
 
 Under an Act passed in 1872 (35 & 36 Yict., c. 163) 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 241 
 
 the Board are empowered to make certain tliorouglifares 
 between Oxford Street, Old Street, Shoreditcli, and Bethnal 
 Green ; to improve the entrance to the London Docks ; to 
 widen Edgeware and Harrow Roads ; to widen Newington 
 Butts. For these purposes the Board is by the Act em- 
 powered to borrow £2,500,000. The expenditure on these 
 improvements so far has been, in 1872, £8,667 ; 1873, 
 £336,137; 1874, £534,689; total, £879,393. None of 
 the above improvements are yet complete. 
 
 The largest street improvement hitherto carried out by 
 the Board is the construction of Queen Victoria Street. 
 This street was constructed under the provisions of the 26 
 and 27 Vict., c. 45. The total cost of this improvement 
 was £2,292,550. It is, however, anticipated that a 
 large sum will be recouped by the sale and letting of 
 building sites. In 1874 the Board reported that £232,996 
 had been received from the sale of ground, and that the 
 ground rents now received by the Board amount to £39,221. 
 If we take this item at twenty-eight years' purchase we have 
 £1,098,188, to which add £232,996, and we have the pre- 
 sent total of £1,331,184. The street was opened in 1871. 
 This street has been handed over to the control of the 
 Commissioners of Sewers, and the other improvements to 
 the authorities in whose jurisdiction they lie. 
 
 There are also certain liabilities undertaken by the 
 Board in respect to improvements not yet carried out. 
 Under the 34 & 35 Vict., c. 202, they undertake to con- 
 tribute to the London Central Railway Company the sum 
 of £200,000 towards the formation of a new street from 
 Tottenham Court Road, to Castle Street, Leicester Square, 
 and under the Inner Circle Completion Act (37 & 38 Vict., 
 c. 199), they are empowered to contribute £370,000 towards 
 the cost of new streets in connection with the scheme. 
 
242 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 In the following table no deductions are made on account 
 of interest. The expenditure under the Improvement Acts 
 has been as follows : — 
 
 Name. 
 
 Total 
 Outlay. 
 
 £ 
 
 Garrick Street .... 123,215 
 
 Southwark Street . . . 585,093 
 
 Burdett Road 4H,U9 
 
 Queen Victoria Street . . 2,292,550 
 
 Wliitechapel Improvement 24-3,075 
 
 Middle Row, Holborn . . 77,106 
 
 Kensington High Street . 186,955 
 
 Park Lane 144,294 
 
 Stingo Lane 48,000 
 
 Amount 
 Realized b' 
 
 Sales. 
 £ 
 
 Total Cost 
 r to Dec. Slst, 
 1874. 
 £ 
 
 Estimated 
 
 Value still 
 
 Unrealized. 
 
 £ 
 
 78,273 
 
 44,942 
 
 
 335,508 
 
 249,585 
 
 
 9,945 
 
 38,204 
 
 
 232,996 
 
 2,059,554 
 
 922,685 
 
 8,e63 
 
 234,412 
 
 32,974 
 
 691 
 
 76,415 
 
 
 60,520 
 
 126,435 
 
 3,112 
 
 31,172 
 
 113,122 
 
 500 
 
 4,401 
 
 43,599 
 
 
 £'762,169 
 
 £2,986,268 
 
 £959,271 
 
 The above are completed improvements. The estimated 
 expenditure on uncompleted improvements was, at the end 
 of 1874, as shown above, £879,393, making a gross ex- 
 penditure of £4,627,830 ; of which somewhat more than 
 one-third may be returned by sales. 
 
 The Board of Works has power, under the Acts of 1855 
 and 1862 (18 & 19 Vict., c. 120, and 25 & 26 Yict., c. 102), 
 to contribute towards street improvements carried on by 
 Vestries and District Boards. The contribution so made 
 generally amounts to about one half of the cost. The esti- 
 mated total cost of improvements made by subordinate 
 bodies, and to which contributions were made, was 
 £839,703, whilst the actual contribution was £394,850. 
 There has been a great difference in the extent to which 
 local bodies have availed themselves of this power. It 
 would, of course, be expected that the City of London would 
 manifest the greatest avidity in the matter ; she received 
 no less than £197,826, being more than one-half of the 
 total sum advanced ; whilst St. Marylebone only received 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. 243 
 
 £47,502, Limehouse £34,058, and St. George the Martyr, 
 the lowest on the list, only got £66 13s. 4fZ.* 
 
 Under various Acts of Parliament the Board have taken 
 in hand the formation of Parks, and the control of Commons 
 and Open Spaces. 
 
 The question of providing more parks for the people was 
 brought under the consideration of the Board in the first 
 year of its existence by memorials, deputations from Yestries, 
 and in other ways. The first issue from this was the Fins- 
 bury Park Act (20 & 21 Vict., c. 150), which empowered 
 the Board to provide a park in the district of Islington and 
 Hackney. They were authorized to acquire all or any part 
 of certain specified lands up to 250 acres, of which 20 acres 
 might he reserved for building purposes. They actually 
 took only 116 acres. The average cost of this was £472 
 per acre, and the total cost of the park, up to December 1871, 
 was £111,000. It was opened in 1869. The cost of keeping 
 up the park averages £900 a year, but this includes the 
 making of certain new roads. The reservation of 20 acres 
 for building purposes has now been abandoned. 
 
 The Southwark Park Act (27 Vict., c. 4) authorized 
 the formation of a park in the parish of E-otherhithe. The 
 area of the park constructed under this Act is 63 acres. It 
 was originally intended to devote 16 acres to building pur- 
 poses, but as in the case of Finsbury Park, tbis has now 
 been abandoned. It was opened to the public in 1869. 
 The total cost up to 1871 was £111,000, and the average 
 cost of keeping it up has been about £450 per annum. 
 
 Victoria Park was formed under an Act of Parliament 
 passed in 1842. This Act authorized the purchase of 290 
 
 * The precepts of the Board upon the City in 1874 were ^'43,862, but 
 she asked for i;78,040 towards improvements in the first six months ! ! 
 In the years 1871, 2, 3, the City paid to the Board £7t(,793, and received 
 i9107,2()7 ! Thus the selfish Corporation has discovered another way to 
 the suburban Londoner's pocket. 
 
244 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 acres of land, one-fourth of which was to be set apart for 
 building purposes. Only 265 acres were, however, purchased, 
 and by an Act passed in 1852 the amount set apart for 
 building was reduced to 45 acres. In the year 1872 there 
 remained unlet of this building land 23| acres. This was 
 purchased by the Board of the Crown for £20,450. The 
 money was duly paid to the Commissioners of Woods and 
 Forests ; and by the 35 & 36 Yict., c. 53, the arrangement 
 was confirmed, and the portion thus bought put under the 
 management of the Commissioner of Works, as was the 
 rest of the park. 
 
 The Metropolitan Board have a control over commons 
 and open spaces in or near the MetropoUs. They have also 
 a power to deal with ornamental grounds set apart for the 
 benefit of the public, and not kept in proper order, under the 
 26 Yict., c. 13, Their power over commons was first given 
 by the Metropolitan Commons' Act, 29 & 30 Vict., c. 122, 
 passed for the purpose of enabling the Enclosure Commis- 
 ' sioners to make inquiry, and to prepare schemes (to be 
 confirmed by Parhament) for the control and management 
 of commons and open spaces near the Metropolis. The 
 action of the Enclosure Commissioners may be invoked by 
 the local authority, which for the Metropolis is the Metro- 
 poHtan Board of AYorks. 
 
 Subsequent Acts have been passed, confirming schemes 
 as to Blackheath (34 & 35 Vict., c. 57), Hampstead Heath, 
 (34 & 35 Vict., c. 77), Wandsworth Common (34 & 35 
 Vict., c. 181), Shepherd's Bush (34 & 35 Vict., c. 63), 
 Hackney Commons (35 & 36 Vict., c. 43), Tooting Beck, 
 (36 & 37 Vict., c. 86), Leicester Square (37 Vict., c. 10). 
 
 Blackheath was put under the control of the Board by 
 the Act quoted above, and has been much improved in its 
 character. It has been planted, improved, and fenced. The 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. 245 
 
 total cost since 1871, when the Board assumed control, to 
 the close of 1874, has been £3,960. 
 
 Eampstead Heath has been under the control of the 
 Board for the same length of time, and has also been con- 
 siderably improved. £45,000 was paid for the interest of 
 the lord of the manor, a sum which it is more than probable 
 might have been saved, but which is considerably less than 
 the original demand of Sir T. M. Wilson of £5,000 per acre, 
 or a total of £1,200,000 for the 240 acres ! The total cost 
 of this heath up to December 1874 was £53,045. 
 
 Shepherd's Bush Common was put under the control of 
 the Board by the Act of 1871. It has been much im- 
 proved in character and appearance, being drained, inclosed, 
 and planted. The sum of £505 was paid for the rights of 
 the lord of the manor. 
 
 Hackney Commons came under the Board's control in 
 1873. These " Commons " comprise some eight different 
 pieces of land, including London Fields, Hackney Downs, 
 Clapton Common, &c. The total area is about 180 acres. 
 They have been drained, fenced, and planted, and about 
 £1,000 spent upon them, but no purchase of manorial rights 
 appears to have been made, and the character and extent of 
 these rights seem to be still unascertained. 
 
 The rights of the lord of the manor in Tooting Beck 
 Common were bought under the Act of 1873 for the sum 
 of £13,798, and the common is now being put into good 
 condition. 
 
 The area and cost of the parks and open spaces under 
 the control of the Board of Works is now as follows : — 
 
 Acres. £ 
 
 Blackheath . . . .267 3,960 
 Hampstead Heath . . .240 53,045 
 
 Carried forward . 507 57,005 
 
 Q 
 
246 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 Acres. 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 507 
 
 57,005 
 
 Shepherd's Bush CoTrnnon . 
 
 8 
 
 505 
 
 London Fields . 
 
 27 ^ 
 
 
 Hackney Downs 
 
 60 
 
 
 Well Street Common . 
 
 30 
 
 
 North and South Mill Fields 
 
 ^ 57 
 
 ) 1,000 
 
 Clapton Common 
 
 ■ H 
 
 
 Stoke Newington 
 
 5i 
 
 
 Waste land, Dalston Lane, &c. 
 
 1 
 
 
 Tooting Beck . 
 
 144 
 
 838|£ 
 
 13,798 
 
 Total 
 
 72,308 
 
 If we add to this, Finsbury Park, 115 acres, Southwark 
 Park, 63 acres, and the 14 acres of the Embankments and 
 Leicester Square, we have a total of 1,030| acres. 
 
 The Board are also negotiating for the acquirement of 
 Clapham Common, 220 acres ; Bostal Heath, 55 acres ; 
 and Tooting Graveney Common, 63 acres — total 338 acres. 
 It is proposed to pay £18,000 for manorial rights over 
 Clapham Common. It is also proposed to acquire Stockwell 
 Green as an open space for the public, at a cost of some 
 £2,000. 
 
 The total expenditure of the Board on parks and open 
 
 spaces would thus appear to be — 
 
 £ 
 
 Finsbury Park .... 111,000 
 
 Southwark Park . . . 111,000 
 
 Victoria Park .... 20,450 
 
 Commons and Open Spaces . 73,308 
 
 £315,758 
 
 The estimated expenditure for keeping in order Finsbury 
 Park, Southwark Park, the Victoria Embankment, and 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : OPEN SPACES. 247 
 
 Leicester Square, for 1875, is £5,855, thus divided — Fins- 
 bury, £2,705; Southwark, £1,620; Victoria, £980; Leices- 
 ter Square, £550. The largest items are wages, gravel, 
 manure, and repairs. Leicester Square is charged £300 
 for water, a most exorbitant sum to pay for so puny a 
 result. The cost of managing the commons and open 
 spaces in 1874, was £1,519. 
 
 In 1866 a return was made to the House of Commons 
 of the various commons and open spaces within a radius 
 of 15 miles from Charing Cross, with their acreage, and 
 other matters affecting the same. According to this return, 
 it appears that there are about 12,650 acres of land coming 
 within this definition. The rights of the public with respect 
 to them are of the most varied character, — in some cases, 
 existing only in those of the pubHc living within the same 
 manor, and in others extending to the public generally. 
 Some of the lands are manor waste, others have been left 
 open under Enclosure Acts, and over others full common 
 rights have been enjoyed from time immemorial. In some 
 cases, copyholders have the right of cutting furze and of 
 digging gravel ; in others they may depasture their cattle, 
 and over some commons they have almost complete pro- 
 prietary rights. 
 
 It will, therefore, be seen that the exercise of the Open 
 Spaces' jurisdiction of the MetropoKtan Board of "Works is 
 but in its infancy ; and that if the Board were a repre- 
 sentative body, into whose hands the inhabitants of the 
 Metropolitan District were willing to confide their interests, 
 there might be in this direction a great future before it. 
 
 The Corporation of the City of London, ever on the 
 alert to curb the ambition and to supplant the jurisdiction 
 of the Metropolitan Board, have watched its progress in this 
 matter with uneasiness. In a previous chapter we set out 
 the provisions of the Act whereby the metage of grain in 
 
248 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the Port of London was commuted to a fixed duty charge- 
 able by weight. The Corporation had wisely concluded that 
 their asserted privilege of compulsory corn metage was 
 untenable ; and so, with the real object of obtaining Par- 
 liamentary sanction to an impost which it was believed 
 could not be defended in law, but with an ostensible object 
 of a very different character, they introduced and succeeded 
 in passing the measure. The produce of the compulsory 
 metage of grain amounted, on an average of the three 
 years ending 1871, to something like £33,000 a year. It 
 was proposed by the Act to commute this for a duty pay- 
 able on weight instead of measure, and estimated to produce 
 only £22,000 a year, but which as a matter of fact produced, 
 in 1874, £17,429. The City Remembrancer — who is, as 
 we have seen, a highly-paid ofl6.cial employed for the pur- 
 pose of manipulating the Corporation Bills through Par- 
 liament, and of exciting opposition to all alien measures in 
 any way affecting the City — pubhshed for the benefit of the 
 members of Parliament a statement of the objects and 
 advantages of this measure ; a statement characterized by 
 the hardihood of assertion and the arrogance of tone which 
 are common to these documents. If we credit this author- 
 ized statement of the City, we shall find that the objects of 
 the Corporation in introducing the Bill were : — 1. To sur- 
 render the "right" of compulsory grain metage, which, "in 
 consequence of grain being now sold by weight instead of 
 measure, was liable to promote litigation,'" and tended to en- 
 hance the price of food. 2. The substitution of a fixed 
 charge, — such charge to be expended in the acquisition of 
 open spaces, — notably, Epping Forest. 3. The preservation 
 of " a noble recreation ground at the East End of London." 
 4. " The conservation of the Forest, when acquired." 5. 
 Prevention of nuisances, protection of tui'f, shrubs, wild 
 birds, &c. Amongst the "reasons" in favour of the Bill, 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD: EPPING FOREST. 
 
 249 
 
 besides the preservation of the Forest, we find a good deal 
 of the usual common-place about " wise statesmanship en- 
 couraging the acquisition of open spaces," and about the 
 necessity of the "toiling masses of the population and their 
 children breathing fresh air, exercising their limbs, and 
 viewing some of the refining and civilizing scenes of nature." 
 This is illustrated by a statement about the density of 
 the population of London within the Metropolitan Police 
 District ; as if, forsooth, that were a matter for which the 
 Corporation of London had any care, or with which they 
 had any right to interfere. In addition to this it is stated 
 in large type that, if the proposal of the Corporation is 
 declined, there will only remain the alternatives of either 
 inclosing the Forest, or "imposing the cost of its acquisition 
 on the already overburthened taxpayers of the Metropolis." 
 When it is remembered that a rate of Id. in the pound will 
 produce in the Metropolis an amount equal to 5 years' 
 income of the grain duty, and that, while such rate is fair 
 in its incidence, the grain duty is practically a tax upon food 
 of the most vicious kind, the ingenuousness of this argument 
 will be apparent. No one who understands the Corporation 
 of London can be such a dolt as to suppose that, without 
 some very much more cogent reason than mere consider- 
 ations of public advantage, it would be willing to abandon 
 £16,000 a year.-^ The real objects undoubtedly were to 
 
 * We do not propose to set out all the misrepresentations and untrue 
 inferences of this remarkable but representative " statement" of the Cor- 
 poration ; but, amongst the arguments used thus to influence the judgment 
 of members, it is urged that the measure is exactly analogous to what 
 took place wlien the coal duty ceased to be collected by measure ; with 
 respect to which, we are told " the Corporation subsequently placed the 
 proceeds of this duty (previously applied to theii- own expencUture) at the 
 disposal of Tarliainent for public improvements * * * an arrange- 
 ment which has given entire satisfaction to the coal trade." It will be 
 noted that the Corporation say nothing as to the opinion of the coal con- 
 sumers, and with respect to the id. coal duty (granted to them before 
 William III. had been long on the throne, and whUst the remembrance 
 
250 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 continue an iniquitous tax upon food, — the authority for 
 which they dared not produce,* — and to circumvent their 
 rivals at Spring Gardens, by acquiring authority to deal 
 with open spaces around the Metropolis. They could not 
 erpect to carry their measure unless some such useful object 
 were proposed for the application of the tax ; and, after all, 
 it mattered very Httle to them what was the diversion of 
 the money, so long as they controlled its expenditure. Both 
 the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board 
 have had to suffer from allegations made against the purity 
 of their contracts ; but at any rate, so far as management 
 is concerned, it is far better that the direction of open spaces 
 should be in the hands of the Metropohtan Board than of 
 the Corporation of London ; and this, if for no other reason, 
 because they would do it at about one-fourth the cost. 
 
 The only Act of Parhament dealing with the question 
 of Preservation of Life from Fire, prior to the year 1865, was 
 the 14 Geo. III., c. 78, a statute that provides for each 
 parish within the Bills of Mortality keeping a hand engine, 
 with pipes, ladders, and other appliances. Before 1832 
 some of the Fire Insurance societies kept up fire engines at 
 their own expense- These different brigades were in that 
 year consolidated into one, thenceforth known as the London 
 Fire Brigade. The cost to the associated Companies in the 
 first of the years of the new brigade was about £8,000, and 
 the number of men employed was about eighty. Both 
 these items, however, increased, until in 1862 the number 
 of men was 127, the number of stations 20, and the annual 
 cost about £25,000. f It is to be remarked that, whilst 
 
 of their support was fresh), for the purpose of paying the claims of 
 the Orphan Fund, they actually represent it as having been by them 
 graciously placed at the disposal of Parliament, when, as a matter of fact, 
 the object for which it had been given was attained ! 
 
 * Vide supra, p. 22. 
 
 ■f This sum was about seven per cent, on the premiums at that time 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : FIRE BRIGADE. 251 
 
 at this time it was estimated that there was insurable pro- 
 perty within six miles of Charing Cross to the amount 
 of £900,000,000, the actual amount insured was about 
 £266,000,000 ; so that nearly seventy per cent, of the pro- 
 perty in London was uninsured, and yet receiving the benefit 
 of this voluntary association. 
 
 There was also in existence a " Society for the Protection 
 of Life fi'om Fire," which cost in maintenance some £7,000 
 a year, and some other Fire Brigades in connection with the 
 Dock Companies. 
 
 The Select Committee appointed to consider the question 
 of London Fires had reported in 1862 in favour of the for- 
 mation of a Fii'e Brigade, under the direction of the 
 MetropoKtan Police ;* but after conference and negotiation 
 with the representatives of the Insurance Companies and of 
 the MetropoHtan Board, the Home Secretary framed and 
 passed through Parhament a measure, whereby the Board 
 undertook the management and control of the Fire Brigade 
 on and after the 1st day of January, 1866. The Board are 
 bound to maintain an efl&cient force of firemen, and to pro- 
 vide them with engines, stations, and all needful apparatus. 
 The Treasury may pay towards the expenses such sum, not 
 exceeding £10,000 in any one year, as Parliament may grant. 
 The Insurance Companies contribute a sum calculated at the 
 rate of £35 for every £1,000,000 sterling insured by them, 
 and the remainder is defrayed out of the current income of 
 the Board. The contributions of the Insui'ance Offices have 
 been in the last three years, 1872; £16,267; 1873, £16,334 ; 
 and 1874, £17,123. The Treasury contributed £7,500 in 
 1871, and £10,000 in each of three succeeding years. The 
 total current income in each of the said years was £67,519, 
 
 received by the associated offices. — Vide Evidence given before Select 
 Committee on Fires in the Metropolis. Answer 287. 
 * Vide Report, p. 7. 
 
 -p' 
 
 "^^^/FnoK, 
 
 NIA 
 
252 MUNIClPAIi LONDON. 
 
 £73,913, and £75,912. This income is mainly made up of 
 the contributions of the Treasury, the Insurance Companies, 
 and by precepts of the Board. There are other items of 
 income for watching premises, and penalties for chimney 
 fires, &c. The expenditure has been commensurate with the 
 income, a balance of some £10,000 being generally kept. 
 
 When the late London Fire Establishment was trans- 
 ferred to the Board, there were 4 foremen, 13 engineers, 15 
 sub -engineers, 49 senior firemen, and 49 junior firemen ; 
 total, 130. The number of stations transferred was nine- 
 teen ; two of them being on the river. The engines consisted 
 of one floating steam engine, four land steamers, and twenty- 
 seven manual engines. The establishment has been largely 
 increased and improved in every way since it came into the 
 hands of the Board. The number of engines was nearly 
 doubled in the first year. 
 
 From that date the organization of the system has gone 
 on improving in ef&ciency and completeness. The men are 
 carefully chosen and well drilled. Seafaring men are pre- 
 ferred ; and rigid examination is made into their physical 
 and other capacity. The Metropolis, for the purpose of 
 the Fire Brigade, is divided into four districts. Of these 
 three are north of the Thames, and the fourth comprises 
 the whole of London south of the river. Each district is 
 presided over by a superintendent or foreman, and the whole 
 are under the direction of a chief officer. The employes 
 are divided into classes — first-class engineers, second-class 
 engineers; firemen of the first, second, third, and fourth 
 classes respectively. The rate of wages was advanced by 
 the Board in 1872. The superintendents are paid £200 a 
 year ; first-class engineers, 7s. per day ; second-class engi- 
 neers, 65. per day ; ordinary firemen, 55., 45. 6d., 4s., and 
 35. Qd. There are certain other advantages to the officers 
 in free quarters, coals, gas, &c. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : FIRE BRIGADE. 253 
 
 The day -watch of the Metropolis consists of 108 men, 
 the night watch 181 ; the remainder are available for 
 general fires ;* under instruction, &c. The total number of 
 men is 396. The Brigade now controls 129 fire escapes, 
 106 fire escape stations, 49 fire engine stations, 4 floating 
 stations, 3 floating steam fire engines, 1 iron barge, 5 large 
 and 21 small land steam fire engines, 14 seven-inch and 59 
 six-inch manual fire engines, 12 smaller manual fire engines, 
 54 telegraph lines, and 86 miles of telegraph lines. This, 
 it will be seen, is an enormous increase on* the strength 
 in 1866. 
 
 The number of fires attended in the nine years of the 
 Board's control is 14,378, of which number 1,948 were 
 " serious ; " but it is satisfactory to note that the propor- 
 tion of "slight" to "serious" fires has lessened from seventy- 
 five per cent, in 1866, to ninety-two per cent, in 1872, and 
 ninety per cent, in 1874. The above totals do not include 
 chimney fires. These in 1874 numbered between 2,000 and 
 3,000 per annum. About 74,000 tons, or 16,500,000 gallons 
 of water, were thrown by the fire engines in 1874. Of this, 
 three-fourths was taken from the street pipes : the remainder 
 fi'om canals, docks, and the river. Twenty-three persons 
 lost their lives at fires in 1874, and 134 were saved through 
 the exertions of the Brigade. In forty-seven cases the water 
 supply was either inef&cient, or altogether wanting. 
 
 The expenditure on the Fire Brigade is not detailed as 
 in the various City accounts. But in 1874, the Stafi" 
 charges were £40,389. These include £36,810 for salaries 
 and wages ; £2,666 for clothing, and the remainder for 
 medical officers and pensions. The establishment charges 
 were £3,707 ; maintenance of stations, £8,278 ; main- 
 tenance of engines, fuel, horse hire, &c., £20,997 ; miscella- 
 neous, £2,538. Total, £75,912. 
 
 There has been borrowed for Fire Brigade purposes the 
 
254 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 sum of £115,000, which has been mainly expended in the 
 purchase of sites, and erection of stations. The current ex- 
 penditure of the Board in addition to this cannot be accu- 
 rately ascertained, in consequence of the method of keeping 
 the earHer accounts ; but in the nine years it has exceeded 
 £500,000. Probably, the capital and current expenditure of 
 the Board on Fire Brigade account may be put down at 
 £650,000. 
 
 The Metropolitan Board is entrusted with the regula- 
 tion and oversight of buildings under the Building Act of 
 1855 (18 & 19 Vict., c. 122), and its amending Acts (23 
 and 24 Yict., c. 52, and 24 & 25 Vict., c. 87). It has 
 also now, since 1869, discharged the duties in respect to 
 dangerous structures, which formerly devolved on the police. 
 The jurisdiction is given by the Dangerous Structures Act, 
 32 & 33 Vict., c. 82. 
 
 The work of the Board under these various Acts has 
 been considerable. For the purposes of the Acts, the Metro- 
 polis is divided into fifty-nine districts, each with its appro- 
 priate Surveyor, and a deputy, empowered to act where the 
 Surveyor is personally engaged upon any erection within 
 the district. The duties of the Surveyors consist in en- 
 forcing the provisions of the Acts as to solidity, materials, 
 and method of construction, &c. Certain fees are payable 
 for the oversight given. In 1874 the building transactions 
 were not so large as in some former years ; but something 
 like 13,000 distinct building operations were dealt with, and, 
 including the arrears of former years paid during the year, 
 the sum of £28,487 was received for 18,268 operations. 
 
 Under section 56 of the Act of 1855, the consent of the 
 Board is requisite to the erection of iron buildings, furnace 
 chimney shafts, sheds, concrete houses, &c. A number of 
 applications are received every year for this permission. 
 Overhanging eaves are also certified by the Board Surveyor. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : REGULATION OF BUILDINGS. 255 
 
 During the year 1874, proceedings were taken in reference 
 to no less than 1,689 structures. Of these, 1,456 were 
 certified as dangerous by the District Surveyors. In the 
 large majority of cases the information as to the dangerous 
 condition of the buildings was given by the Surveyors them- 
 selves. On the whole, it would seem that the Board has 
 discharged the duties imposed on it by these Acts with 
 credit. The District Surveyors seem to be carefully chosen, 
 and their vigilance is stimulated by a good system of promo- 
 tion, whereby the claims of deserving Surveyors of inferior 
 districts are regarded as paramount when vacancies occur 
 in more lucrative ones. 
 
 Several attempts have been made in recent years to pass 
 a consolidating building Act, containing a number of stringent 
 provisions as to the cubical contents and height of buildings, 
 &c. But a Committee of the House reported against these 
 in 1874, and it is not Kkely that any measure conceived in 
 so narrow a spirit will receive public sanction. 
 
 The control of the MetropoHtan Board over streets is 
 exercised by virtue of certain provisions in the Management 
 Acts, and is confined to the regulation of lines of frontage, 
 the formation and closing of streets, and to the naming of 
 streets and numbering of houses. 
 
 Under 25 & 26 Yict., c. 102, s. 75, the consent in 
 writing of the Board is a pre-requisite to the erection of any 
 building beyond the general line of frontage in any street or 
 row of houses within 50 feet of the highway ; and for the 
 construction of verandahs, porticos, balconies, and other pro- 
 jections the like consent is required under the provisions of 
 the 18 & 19 Vict., c. 122, s. 26. In 1874 there were 388 
 appHcations under these Acts, and about seventy per cent, of 
 them were granted. 
 
 The 25 & 26 Yict., c. 102, ss. 98, 99, and 112, cast upon 
 the Board the duty of regulating the width of roads, streets. 
 
266 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 passages, &c. In 1874 there were 141 applications for the 
 sanction of the Board to the construction of new streets. 
 Of these, 88 were granted. The minimum width of a street 
 is 40 feet for carriage traffic, and 20 feet for footways. 
 
 The same Act, in section 87, confers on the Board juris- 
 diction in the naming of streets and the numbering of houses 
 throughout the metropolitan area. Copies of the orders and 
 plans, under the seal of the Board, are sent to the respective 
 Yestries in whose district the proposed alterations are, and 
 then the Vestry is to give the requisite notices, renew the 
 defaced names, &c. During 1874 alterations were made in 
 nearly all the districts of London, and including the abolition 
 of 544 names, the re -numbering of 10,507 houses, and the 
 naming of 137 new streets. Prior to 1862 the Board had 
 exercised a certain jurisdiction in the naming and numbeiing 
 of streets, but were, up to the latter year, the executors of 
 their own orders. This duty now devolves on the Yestries. 
 During the years 1856 to 1874, inclusive, the Board have 
 named 2,550 new streets, aboHshed 5,944 subsidiary names, 
 and re-numbered 129,547 houses. This jurisdiction appears 
 to have been exercised in a manner beneficial to the general 
 public. 
 
 The closing of a thoroughfare, for the purpose of carrying 
 on works of any kind, requires the preliminary consent of 
 the Board, under 25 & 26 Yict., c. 102, s. 84. During the 
 year 1874, permission was given to close partially or entirely 
 120 streets under the power thus conferred. 
 
 Acts of Parliament authorizing the construction of rail- 
 ways in London now contain provisions whereby the plans 
 of bridges over metropolitan roads, &c., must receive the 
 sanction of the Board. A large amount of work has been 
 thrown on the Board by these clauses, and its attention is 
 mainly directed to securing such conditions as to headway, 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : MINOR POWERS. 257 
 
 method of construction, &c., as may be most beneficial to 
 the public. 
 
 Where Gas, Water, Railway, or other Companies propose 
 to interfere with the sewers vested in the Board, its preli- 
 minary consent is also requisite. 
 
 "The Infant Life Protection Act, 1872" (35 & 36 
 Vict., c. 38), was passed in order to remedy certain grave 
 evils in connection with what was commonly known as baby 
 farming. The MetropoHtan Board is the " local authority " 
 for the Metropolis ; and a register is to be kept of all houses 
 where more than one child (or two, if twins) is (or are) re- 
 ceived, under the age of one year, to be nursed for hire. 
 The Board only grant registration where the premises are 
 approved for the purpose, and a certificate of character 
 signed by a minister of reHgion and two inhabitant rate- 
 payers is forthcoming. The number of houses registered 
 have been, in 1872, five, with ten infants ; in 1873, ten, 
 with twenty-three infants ; in 1874, two, with four infants. 
 The fact of registration is commimicated to the poHce. The 
 numbers given are ludicrously incommensurate with the evil 
 as it exisied prior to 1872. Whether farming is now 
 carried on more secretly, or whether it is the Board's 
 machinery that is at fault, does not appear. 
 
 The fifty-fifth section of the Metropolitan Building Act 
 of 1844 provided for the removal, within thirty years, of 
 certain businesses then carried on in the Metropolis. If no 
 measure had been passed to repeal it, the businesses of 
 fellmonger, tallow-melter, cattle, sheep, or horse slaughterer, 
 soap-boiler, tripe-boiler, blood or bone boiler, could not have 
 been carried on within the Metropolis after the year 1874. 
 In that year, however, was passed the Act, 37 & 38 Vict., 
 c. 37, by which the businesses of blood and bone boiler, 
 manure manufacturer, soap-boiler, tallow-melter and horse 
 
258 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 slaughterer are prohibited from being established within the 
 limits of the Metropolis. The businesses of fellmonger, 
 tripe-boiler, and cattle and sheep slaughterer may be estab- 
 lished with the sanction of the Board. Slaughter-houses 
 require a license, which is granted by the justices at special 
 sessions ; but notice of intention to apply for renewal must 
 be given at least fourteen days before to the Metropolitan 
 Board and to the Vestry. The Board has power, under the 
 Act, to make bye-laws for the regulation of offensive businesses. 
 The Board may also, with the confirmation of the Local 
 Government Board, declare any business to be " offensive," 
 and so bring it within this provision. 
 
 By "The Storage of Petroleum Act, 1862," it was 
 rendered illegal to keep more than 40 gallons of petroleum 
 within 50 yards of any house where goods were stored, ex- 
 cept with a Hcense from the Metropolitan Board or the Cor- 
 poration of the City. Only one firm, however, applied for 
 a license under this Act, and so in 1868 another Act was 
 passed, containing more stringent regulations as to the testing 
 of petroleum and the granting of licenses. This measure 
 was much more effective, and numerous Heenses were applied 
 for. The storage and sale of petroleum is now regulated by 
 an Act passed in 1871 (34 & 35 Vict., c. 105). The local 
 authority, under the Act, is the same as in the Act of 1862. 
 Regulations are made as to carriage and storage. The 
 storage or sale of petroleum, or its products, is declared 
 illegal, without the consent of the local authority, when such 
 oil gives off an inflammable vapour at a lower temperature 
 than 100 degrees. The fee for a license is five shillings. 
 The premises, where it is proposed to store it, are carefully 
 inspected before the license is granted; and the sale may 
 only take place during daylight. The number of licenses in 
 force, in 1874, was 1,755. 
 
 The "Tramways Act" of 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., c. 178) was 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : CONTROL OF TRAMWAYS. 259 
 
 passed to facilitate the construction of tramways generally, 
 and to regulate their working. The Act provides that any 
 body of persons, with the consent of the local authority, or 
 the local authority itself, may apply to the Board of Trade 
 for a provisional order for the construction of a tramway. 
 The Board of "Works is the local authority for the Metro- 
 polis. The Act regulates the width of rails, maintenance 
 of roads and so forth ; and it provides that where the tram- 
 ways are constructed by other bodies than the local 
 authorities, the local authorities shall have power at the 
 end of twenty-one years, or of any subsequent seven, to 
 purchase the tramway at the value of the materials and 
 works alone. The consent of the Vestries through which 
 the tramway passes is also requisite. 
 
 The Board of Works have never acted on the power of 
 construction given them by this Act, they being of opinion 
 that the advantages of a comprehensive system could be secured 
 without it, and that the clause as to purchase in twenty- 
 one years was sufficient for the protection of the public if it 
 should prove that tramways were advantageous to metro- 
 pohtan traffic. They have, however, given their consent to 
 numerous schemes for the formation of tramways within the 
 MetropoHs. Some of these were subsequently lost in con- 
 sequence of being opposed by the Vestries, and some from other 
 causes. But the majority of those that received the Board's 
 consent are now in full work. The Board appears to have en- 
 deavoured to frame a tramway system for the Metropolis, and 
 its consent or opposition depended upon any proposed scheme 
 fitting in with this system ; but the opposition of the Ves- 
 tries in some cases have frustrated the complete develop- 
 ment of it. The continuance of a veto power in the 
 Vestries would be in any case undesirable. The Board has 
 framed the bye-laws for the working of the Companies, and 
 these are now under the direction of the police. 
 
260 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 A Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, in- 
 quiring into the question of Metropolitan Tramways, in 
 1872, was in favour of the utmost caution being exercised 
 before any extension of the tramway system was allowed in 
 the Metropolis. 
 
 The outbreak of Rinderpest in the early part of 1866 
 called the energies of the Board into play, and by inspection, 
 communications to the Government, and in other ways, they 
 rendered good service in its suppression. The highest sum 
 paid in any one year, for compensation and expenses, was in 
 1867-8, when £7,705 was expended. 
 
 In 1869, the "Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act" (32 & 
 33 Vict,, c. 70) was passed, and is still in force. This Act 
 consolidated and amended the previous Acts for the preven- 
 tion of the introduction and spread of contagious diseases 
 amongst cattle. It provides for the examination and 
 slaughter of infected cattle, the isolation of premises, the 
 appointment of inspectors, &c. Under this Act, the Cor- 
 poration of London are empowered to construct a Foreign 
 Cattle Market. Power is given to the Privy Council to take 
 such measures for repression, as may be necessary, in con- 
 nection with the importation of foreign animals. Local 
 authorities are empowered to declare places infected ; to 
 slaughter infected animals, and pay compensation to the 
 owners ; and to appoint inspectors. The Board of Works 
 is the local authority for the MetropoHs outside the City. 
 Information of every outbreak of disease is sent by the 
 Board to the Privy Council, and reported on until it is ex- 
 terminated. The diseases inspected and reported on are 
 farcy, cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, foot and mouth 
 disease, sheep pox, sheep scab, and glanders. During the 
 year 1874, 1,088 "cases of disease were reported, of which 
 448 were foot and mouth disease, 332 pleuro-pneumonia, 
 232 glanders, and 76 farcy. The cost incurred by the 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : VARIOUS POWERS. 261 
 
 Board in carr3dng out the Act was £2,297 ; of which sum 
 £1,496 was paid for compensation, £784 for inspectors' 
 fees, and £16 costs. 
 
 There are certain other Acts of Parhament which either 
 confer a jurisdiction upon the Board or require its consent in 
 certain cases. 
 
 Thus the Board must, under the 28 & 29 Vict., c. 83, 
 determine the hours and speed at which Locomotives may 
 traverse the metropoHtan area. By the provisions of the 
 31 & 32 Yict., c. 80, the Board may require Gas and Water 
 Companies to place their pipes in subways, and make bye- 
 laws in reference to their management. Under the 29 Vict., 
 c. 31, the Board may grant superannuation allowances to 
 its of&cers. 
 
 They have also certain powers under the "Metropolis 
 Eoads Act," 26 & 27 Vict., c. 78. Under the 27 & 28 
 Vict., c. 121, particulars of projected railways in London 
 are to be deposited at the office of the Board, and the 
 Board may state their objections to the schemes to the 
 Board of Trade. One of the Board of thirteen members in- 
 corporated under the Lee Conservancy Act, 31 & 32 Vict., 
 c. 154, must be nominated by the MetropoHtan Board. 
 
 Under the 24 & 25 Vict., c. 70, the Metropolitan 
 Board are empowered to appoint Inspectors to test gas 
 meters in the Metropolis. In the carrying out of this Act, 
 the Board have two testing places on the north, and one on 
 the south side of the river. During the year 1874 no less 
 than 73,315 meters were tested, the fees received being 
 £2,566, and the cost more than £2,000. 
 
 The MetropoHtan Board have the duty imposed upon 
 them of testing the quality and power of gas suppHed by 
 some of the Companies in the metropoHtan area, exclusive 
 of the City. The Acts of ParHament controUing this are — 
 31 & 32 Vict., c. 125; 31 & 32 Vict, c. 106; 32 and 
 
 B 
 
262 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 33 Vict., c. 128 ; 32 & 33 Yict., c. 130. The maximum 
 quantity of sulphur now permissible in the gas supplied by 
 the Companies concerned is 25 grains per 100 cubical feet, 
 and of ammonia 2 J grains per 100 feet. The testing is 
 constantly made, and is said to be made with satisfactory 
 results. 
 
 The Board is the metropolitan authority (save in the 
 City) under the "Metropolis Water Act," 34 & 35 Yict., 
 c. 113. 
 
 The powers of the Board in respect of the Gas and 
 "Water Supply, the maimer in which such powers are exer- 
 cised, and the conduct of the Board in reference to each 
 question, are discussed in the chapters devoted to those 
 subjects. 
 
 The Board of Works is the local authority under " The 
 Explosive Substances Act, 1875 " (38 Yict., c. 17) for the 
 metropolitan district outside the City. Licenses to es- 
 tablish new factories or magazines under this Act (sec. 6) 
 are granted in the first instance by the Secretary of State, 
 and are then subject to confirmation by the local authority. 
 Under section 15 the Board has power to grant to applicants 
 the right to store explosive substances on payment of a fine 
 not exceeding five shillings ; the premises must also be re- 
 gistered (sec. 21). Licenses for the manufacture of fiire- 
 works are in the discretion of the Board (sec. 49). They 
 may also, in certain cases, provide storage magazines 
 (sec. 72). 
 
 The Board is also the local authority (outside the City, 
 where it is in the Commissioners of Sewers) for the Ai'ti- 
 zans' Dwellings Act (38 & 39 Yict., c. 36). Under 
 this Act, where a representation is made by the Medical 
 Officer of any district to the Board that any metropolitan 
 area is imfit for human habitation, the Board may, upon 
 being satisfied that this can only be remedied by recon- 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD: ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS. 263 
 
 struction, prepare a scheme for that purpose. Advertise- 
 ments of such scheme, and notices to the proprietors affected, 
 are to be followed by a petition to the Secretary of State for 
 an order con&'ming the scheme. An official investigation 
 then follows, and the Secretary of State may confirm the 
 scheme. It will then remain with the local authority to 
 carry it into execution. 
 
 This beneficial measure, passed in 1875, soon produced 
 fruit. The Medical Officer of the Holborn District Board 
 reported a district comprising some 10 acres, and bounded 
 by Gray's Inn Road, Leather Lane, Portpool Lane, and 
 Greville Street. This district containing 5,515 persons 
 living in 335 houses, averaging six rooms per house, seems 
 to have been left alone by the Holborn District Board, 
 although many of the houses were quite unfit for human 
 habitation. However, the Metropolitan Board took the 
 matter in hand with commendable rapidity, and framed a 
 scheme whereby the ground could be cleared and new 
 buildings erected, to be let to the old inhabitants at about 
 the rents they paid in the old houses. The scheme reflects 
 credit upon its designers. The estimated cost as framed by 
 the Board was for purchase of property, £187,500; new 
 streets and drainage, £17,000 ; new dwellings, £170,000 ; 
 total £374,500. These are moderate estimates when we 
 remember that the rental of the old buildings was some 
 £16,000. Whether this estimate will approximate to the 
 cost, time will show. Representations have also been made 
 as to other districts, so that those members of the Board 
 who have hitherto lived aU day at Spring Gardens, will 
 soon have to enlarge their building by the addition of 
 sleeping accommodation, if they are to perform all the work. 
 But work has some mysterious atti'action for the Board. 
 Never was a public body so greedy of new employment. 
 
 There is a probability that improvements of a most ex- 
 
264 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 tensive character will be carried out in the Metropolis under 
 the provisions of this Act. The Board have power under 
 section 13 to appoint a Medical Officer of their own, upon 
 whose representations they are empowered to act — a kind 
 of roving Commissioner, who will take very good care that 
 powers so extensive and patronage so sweet shall not remain 
 long dormant. 
 
 The Loans Act, 1875, 38 & 39 Yict., c. 65, gives power 
 to the Board to expend (in 1875-6) for certain Street Improve- 
 ments a sum not exceeding £120,000 ; upon Fire Brigade 
 purposes £15,000 ; to lend to Vestries for Improvements a 
 sum not exceeding £100,000 ; to Boards of Guardians 
 £100,000 ; to Burial Boards and other Land Commissioners 
 in London £50,000 ; to Metropolitan Asylums' District 
 £100,000 (making an aggregate loan power to this body 
 of £700,000). All these sums are to be expended beyond 
 the limitation to £10,000,000 in the Act of 1869, and 
 this would seem to be the reason of the Act. Pro- 
 visions are made for the repayment of loans to other bodies 
 within thirty years. The Act contains two useful provisions 
 — (sec. 13) that the Board shall dehver every year to the 
 Treasury returns of moneys raised under various Acts ; and 
 (sec. 14) that before lending to any minor body, the Board 
 may require a full statement of its financial condition. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works is, 
 with respect to most of the subjects under its control, exer- 
 cised throughout the metropolitan area, with the exception 
 of the 650 acres under the control of the Corporation of 
 the City. Whether the Board of Works is or is not the 
 best body to exercise the various functions conferred with 
 respect to these matters may be a question, but there can be 
 no question whatever that they are such as ought to be 
 under one control for the whole Metropolis, and that the 
 exception made with respect to the Corporation of London 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD: JURISDICTION. 265 
 
 is one productive of no public advantage, and, but for the 
 powerful influence exercised by that body, would never have 
 been permitted to exist. 
 
 The matters under the control of the Metropolitan 
 Board may now be set out as follows : — 
 
 Main Drainage. 
 
 Street Improvements. 
 
 Commons and Open Spaces. 
 
 Control of Buildings. 
 
 Baby Farming. 
 
 Offensive Trades. 
 
 Tramways. 
 
 Koad Locomotives. 
 
 Testing of Gas and Gas Meters. 
 
 Artizans' Dwellings. 
 
 River Embankment. 
 
 Creation and Control of Parks. 
 
 Fire Brigade. 
 
 Control of Streets. 
 
 Consent to Bills. 
 
 Petroleum, Storage and Sale. 
 
 Contagious Diseases (Animals). 
 
 Gas and "Water Pipes. 
 
 MetropoHs Water Act. 
 
 Explosive Substances. 
 
 The nineteen years which have elapsed since the Board 
 came into active operation, have witnessed a steady advance 
 in the expenditure in nearly all the current departments, 
 although, as one great work after another leaves its hands, 
 there is a variation in what might be called its capital ex- 
 penditure, which makes the totals somewhat irregular. It 
 may be desirable here to set out the expenditure of the 
 Board in each year of its existence. It will be noted that 
 
266 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the accounts were formerly made up to the 25th of March 
 in each year, but since 1871, have been made up from 
 January 1st to December 31st in each year. 
 
 Total current and capital expenditure from January 1st, 
 1856, to December 31st, 1874 :— 
 
 
 
 
 
 Expenditure 
 
 January 1st, 1856, to March 25th 
 
 £ 
 
 1857 (15 mo 
 
 nths) 
 
 . 
 
 174,366 
 
 To March 25th 
 
 ,1858 
 
 (12 months) 
 
 92,567 
 
 » 
 
 1859 
 
 
 
 260,952 
 
 » 
 
 1860 
 
 
 
 594,032 
 
 » 
 
 1861 
 
 
 
 762,317 
 
 » 
 
 1862 
 
 
 
 927,662 
 
 » 
 
 1863 
 
 
 
 1,004,329 
 
 » 
 
 1864 
 
 
 
 1,159,339 
 
 » 
 
 1865 
 
 
 
 1,351,061 
 
 » 
 
 1866 
 
 
 
 1,742,098 
 
 >» 
 
 1867 
 
 
 
 1,970,134 
 
 » 
 
 1868 
 
 
 
 2,388,923 
 
 >» 
 
 1869 
 
 
 
 1,498,140 
 
 »> 
 
 1870 
 
 
 
 1,002,215 
 
 >f 
 
 1871 
 
 
 
 1,067,051 
 
 To December, 
 
 1871 
 
 (9 months] 
 
 582,001 
 
 » 
 
 1872 
 
 (12 months; 
 
 802,197 
 
 }> 
 
 1873 
 
 >) 
 
 1,189,850 
 
 j> 
 
 1874 
 expenditure 
 
 1,926,823 
 
 Total 
 
 £20,496,057 
 
 These amounts include the contributions to local improve- 
 ments, but do not include the repayment of loans, or loans 
 made to the Metropolitan Asylums' District, or to Vestries 
 and District Boards. These items are as follows : — 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : TOTAL EXPENDITURE. 267 
 
 £ 
 Total loans repaid . . . 3,384,087 
 
 Total loans to Vestries and District 
 
 Boards, School Boards, &c. . 923,245 
 
 Nett expenditure as above 
 
 Gross expenditure 
 Of this there was raised by loans 
 
 4,307,332 
 20,496,057 
 
 24,803,389 
 15,430,800 
 
 Raised by precepts and in other ways £9,373,089 
 
 The above estimates of yearly expenditure may be regarded 
 as closely approximate to the truth. A return made to an 
 order of the House of Commons, dated March 26th, 1867, 
 is our authority for the expenditure of the first eleven years, 
 but there are sometimes considerable discrepancies between 
 these amounts and those stated in the yearly reports of the 
 Board, the reason for which is by no means clear. The 
 Parliamentary return is generally the smaller of the two, 
 therefore the above estimates may be regarded as quite 
 within the mark. 
 
 The money raised by loans was raised for the following 
 specific objects : — 
 
 Loans of former Sewers' Commission 
 
 transferred to the Board . 
 
 275,000 
 
 Southwark Street . 
 
 400,000 
 
 Burdett Road Approach 
 
 46,300 
 
 Middle Row, Holborn . 
 
 76,000 
 
 High Street, Kensington 
 
 183,696 
 
 Stingo Lane, Marylebone 
 
 46,092 
 
 Whitechapel Improvement . 
 
 232,500 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 1,259,588 
 
268 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 £ 
 1,259,588 
 
 Higli Street Shoreditcli, High Streei 
 
 
 Wapping, Harrow Road, 01c 
 
 I 
 
 Street St. Luke's, &c. 
 
 1,716,980 
 
 Local and minor Improvements 
 
 278,392 
 
 Finsbury Park . . . , 
 
 114,519 
 
 Southwark Park . . . . 
 
 111,415 
 
 Hampstead Heath 
 
 55,000 
 
 Victoria Park . . . . 
 
 20,550 
 
 Blackheath, Shepherd's Bush, 
 
 
 Hackney Commons . 
 
 6,706 
 
 Tooting Beck Common . 
 
 15,485 
 
 Leicester Square . 
 
 225 
 
 Main Drainage and Main Sewers 
 
 5,312,000 
 
 Victoria Embankment . 
 
 656,000 
 
 Albert Embankment 
 
 1,015,000 
 
 Queen Victoria Street . 
 
 2,251,000 
 
 Chelsea Embankment . 
 
 346,000 
 
 Park Lane Improvement 
 
 140,000 
 
 Charing Cross and Victoria Em- 
 
 
 bankment Approach . 
 
 616,750 
 
 Land on Victoria Embankment 
 
 3,270 
 
 Fire Brigade Stations and Plant 
 
 115,000 
 
 Loans to Managers of Metropolitar 
 
 
 Asylums' District 
 
 561,070 
 
 Loans to School Board for Londor 
 
 I 90,000 
 
 „ Vestries,DistrictBoards,&c 
 
 306,533 
 
 Costs of raising Loans . 
 
 33,627 
 
 Purposes under Loans Acts . 
 
 405,190 
 
 
 £15,430,300 
 
 Of this sum £3,384,087 has been repaid, leaving the in- 
 debtedness of the Board of Works on its loan account, at the 
 close of 1874, no less than £12,046,213. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD: LOAN ACCOUNT. 
 
 269 
 
 There are certain assets with which the Board credits 
 itself, viz. : — 
 
 
 £ 
 
 Loans to Local Authorities . 
 
 866,574 
 
 Govemment Stock 
 
 139,577 
 
 Surplus Lands unsold . 
 
 1,580,569 
 
 Forfeited by Essex Reclamation 
 
 
 Company 
 
 25,000 
 
 
 £2,611,720 
 
 These, if admitted, would reduce the amount now due to 
 £9,434,493. But as the bulk of these reductions are as yet 
 unreaHzed, and the Board remains primarily liable on the 
 whole, it is safest to put the present liability of the Metro- 
 poHtan Board of Works on its loan account at £12,046,213. 
 This amount is one which has steadily increased ever 
 since the facilities for borrowing were ready to the hand of 
 the Board. On March 25th, 1868, the amount of the 
 Board's indebtedness was 
 
 u. o xi-iu.cui/CUJ-icoo wao . 
 
 March 25th, 1869 . 
 
 7,798,692 
 
 1870 . . 
 
 8,195,545 
 
 1871 . . 
 
 8,650,517 
 
 Dec. 31st, 1871 
 
 9,052,813 
 
 1872 . . 
 
 8,967,464 
 
 1873 . 
 
 10,049,746 
 
 1874 . . 
 
 12,046,213 
 
 By " The Metropolitan Loans Act, 1869 " (32 & 33 Vict., 
 c. 102), the MetropoHtan Board was authorized to borrow 
 a total sum not exceeding £10,000,000, and to create a 
 ConsoHdated Stock charged on all the securities of the 
 Board, and redeemable within sixty years. The rates 
 which, prior to that date, had been apportioned to the 
 respective works, were in future to be levied as one, and to 
 
270 MtlNIClPAL LONDON. 
 
 be known as the Metropolitan Consolidated Rate. In pur- 
 suance of these powers, the Board created a 3^ per cent. 
 Stock, and £8,056,010 of this stock has been issued. The 
 average issue price was £94 145. lOd., or about 3| per 
 cent. The stock was issued in the years 1869-71-73-74, 
 and realized £7,657,000. Of the total nominal sum of 
 £8,056,010, £45,000 was redeemed in 1870, so that the 
 total nominal amount of this stock now existing is 
 £8,011,010. 
 
 The Act of 1869 was extended by the 34 & 35 Yict., c. 
 47, enabling the Board to create stock to pay off the Main 
 Drainage instalments as they become due ; to lend money 
 to Yestries and District Boards, &c. ; and to lend £100,000 
 to the Metropolitan Asylums' Board, in addition to £500,000 
 authorized by the Act of 1869.* 
 
 Under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870" (33 & 34 
 Vict., c. 75, s. 58), the Board is authorized to lend to the 
 London School Board, with the consent of the Education 
 Department. The money so raised is to be expended in the 
 erection of schools ; but by the 35 & 36 Yict., c. 27, it is 
 extended to the erection of offices. 
 
 The Board is now authorized to lend money to the 
 Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums' District ; the London 
 School Board ; the Yestries and District Boards ; the Hom- 
 sey Local Board ; and the Guardians of the Bromley 
 Union. 
 
 The outstanding amounts due on account of such 
 advances have been as follows : — 
 
 * The Act of 1875 enabling the Board to borrow, during the current 
 year, certain sums for certain specific purposes, established the principle 
 that the Board must come to Parliament eveiy year with an estimate of 
 its loan requirements. The correspondence between the Treasury and 
 the Metropolitan Board, which preceded the Act, has been pubHshed, and 
 it enunciates the future policy of the Government in sanctioning the 
 loans. Parliamentary Keturns, 1875, No. 327. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD: LOAN ACCOUNT. 
 
 271 
 
 
 £ 
 
 To March 25tli, 1870 . 
 
 303,000 
 
 1871 . . 
 
 459,883 
 
 To Dec. 31st, 1871 . 
 
 500,689 
 
 1872 . . 
 
 648,206 
 
 1873 . 
 
 907,770 
 
 1874 . . 
 
 923,245 
 
 All these sums are raised by the creation of the 3^ per 
 cent. Stock, and are lent at a rate of interest sHghtly above 
 that paid by the Board, but infinitely better than the par- 
 ticular bodies could borrow it at themselves.* The money 
 is lent for purposes of permanent improvement, and is re- 
 payable at times varying from ten to sixty years. 
 
 The estimated interest payable by the Board in loans, in 
 the year 1875, is — £ 
 
 On Loans generally . . . 172,888 
 
 On Consolidated Stock . . . 280,385 
 
 £453,273 
 
 This sum, therefore, represents the present yearly in- 
 cidence of the loans of the Board. But under the Act of 
 1869 it is provided that the Board debt shaU be redeemable 
 within sixty years. This appears to be reckoned from the 
 date of the Act, and not from the issue of each particular 
 loan, and so we have one fifty-fifth of the total indebtedness 
 of the Board charged in the estimates for 1875, viz., 
 £181,014. In interest and redemption the MetropoHs, 
 therefore, will pay on the loan account in 1875, £634,287. 
 If we take the rateable value of the Metropolis at 
 £20,884,560, a penny rate will produce £87,019, and the 
 incidence of the total loans' account is therefore equivalent 
 
 * This observatiou is, however, subject to the special terms upon 
 which the London School Board have succeeded in borrowing money 
 from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, mentioned hereafter. 
 
272 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 to a rate of 7^d., and of tlie interest account alone to some- 
 thing over 5d. 
 
 The Thames Embankment Loans were contracted on 
 the security of the Coal and Wine Duties, as set out in the 
 chapter on City Expenditure, and the guarantee of the 
 Treasury was added to the security of the Board. Before 
 1869, the whole produce of this fund was apphed by the 
 Lords of the Treasury in paying the interest and in re- 
 demption of debt, but in that year the new Loans Act came 
 into force, and the Board transferred the whole debt so 
 secured into Consohdated Stock, with the exception of 
 £928,100. The produce of the Coal and Wine Duties is 
 more than is required for the interest and sinking fund of 
 this remnant of debt, and so it has been the custom since 
 1869 for the Lords of the Treasury to pay the balance to 
 the Board in each year. The total produce of the 9d. Coal 
 Duty and the Wine Duty to the Board has been as follows : — 
 
 £ 
 
 193,855 
 217,640 
 219,073 
 227,193 
 261,740 
 
 1869 
 1870 
 1871 
 1872 
 1873 
 1874 
 
 255,565 
 
 The income of the Board, which has to be raised by 
 rates, represents the difference between the estimated receipts 
 from all sources, and the estimated expenditure. The rate- 
 able value of the Metropolis, at the same time, has 
 enormously increased since 1856. 
 
 In 1856 it was 
 „ 1857 „ 
 ., 1858 „ 
 
 £ 
 11,283,633 
 11,290,869 
 12,031,151 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD: INCOME. 
 
 273 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 In 1859 it was . . . . 12,045,476 
 
 „ I860 „ . 
 
 
 • 
 
 12,057,455 
 
 „ 1861 „ . 
 
 
 
 12,450,416 
 
 „ 1862 „ . 
 
 
 
 
 12,514,053 
 
 „ 1863 „ . 
 
 
 
 
 12,569,969 
 
 „ 1864 „ . 
 
 
 
 
 12,588,661 
 
 „ 1865 „ . 
 
 
 
 
 14,419,823 
 
 „ 1866 „ 
 
 
 
 
 15,252,767 
 
 „ 1867 „ 
 
 
 
 
 16,196,547 
 
 „ 1868 „ 
 
 
 
 
 16,257,643 
 
 „ 1869 „ 
 
 
 
 
 18,719,237 
 
 „ 1870 „ 
 
 
 
 
 18,683,288 
 
 „ 1871 „ 
 
 
 
 
 20,049,742 
 
 „ 1872 „ 
 
 
 
 
 20,367,298 
 
 „ 1873 „ 
 
 
 
 
 20,644,010 
 
 „ 1874 „ 
 
 
 
 
 20,671,440 
 
 „ 1875 „ 
 
 
 
 
 20,884,550 
 
 „ 1876 estimate 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 24,000,000 
 
 It will thus be seen that the value is now, in 1875, 
 nearly double what it was in 1856 ; and in 1876 it is ex- 
 pected that, under the new rating, it will be considerably 
 more than double. In 1856, a rate of one penny produced 
 £47,015; in 1868, it produced £67,486; in 1875, £87,019; 
 and, with a rateable value of £24,000,000, it would produce 
 exactly £100,000. 
 
 The deficiency in the Board's accounts, which has been 
 made up by rates, has been, in the last eight years, as 
 follows : — 
 
 
 £ 
 
 Bate in the £. 
 d. 
 
 1868 
 
 442,292 
 
 6-5 
 
 1869 
 
 427,399 
 
 6-3 
 
 1870 
 
 288,196 
 
 3-7 
 
 1871 
 
 285,431 
 
 3-6 
 
 1872 
 
 298,091 
 
 3-5 
 
274 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 1873 
 
 290,932 
 
 Rate in the £. 
 d. 
 
 3-4 
 
 1874 
 
 364,335 
 
 4-2 
 
 1875 
 
 456,851 
 
 6-2 
 
 The estimates of the Metropolitan Board are sometimes 
 very wide indeed of the result ; but the estimates for 1875 
 may be thus summarized : — 
 
 Interest on debt, and redemption of 
 
 £ 
 
 same ...... 
 
 634,287 
 
 Maintenance of Sewerage and Drainage 
 
 
 Works, and of Parks and Open 
 
 
 Spaces 
 
 78,099 
 
 Fire Brigade ..... 
 
 74,108 
 
 Expenses under various Acts 
 
 9,685 
 
 Establishment, Law, and Parliamentary 
 
 21,450 
 
 Minor charges ..... 
 
 9,564 
 
 £827,193 
 
 The income to meet this is estimated thus ; — 
 
 £ 
 Coal and Wine Duties . . . 233,000 
 Contributions of Government and In- 
 surance Offices to Fire Brigade . 28,094 
 Interest, Rent, Fees, &c., &c. . . 105,439 
 Balance due 2,179 
 
 368,712 
 Leaving a Deficit to be raised by Rate of 458,481 
 
 £827,193 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE. 275 
 
 Brought forward . 
 The estimated capital expenditure was 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 827,193 
 
 Fire Brigade Stations and Plant 
 
 9,000 
 
 
 Main Drainage and Main Sewers 
 
 16,000 
 
 
 Thames Embankments 
 
 20,000 
 
 
 Street Improvements 
 Charing Cross Approach . 
 Miscellaneous .... 
 
 800,000 
 80,000 
 10,000 
 
 QSfi C\(\(\ 
 
 Total Capital and Current . £1,762,193 
 
 This is the estimated expenditure as set out in a return 
 made to Parliament.* The terms " capital" and "current" 
 in this account, as well as in the 1874 accounts which follow, 
 are so used by the Board. But it is very doubtful whether 
 the terms "capital" and "current" are correctly applied to 
 the accounts of the Metropolitan Board. Its " capital " 
 expenditure consists in improvements, &c., which, in some 
 instances, bring absolutely no return, and which, in most 
 cases, pass away from the Board as soon as completed. 
 Therefore, so far from the capital of the Board increasing 
 with its vast expenditure on capital account, it is practically 
 stationary, and the hability alone progresses, f 
 
 The income and expenditure of the Board during the 
 year 1874 may be summarized as follows : — 
 
 * Parliamentary Papers, 1875, No. 301. 
 f In these various estimates and amounts we are compelled to rely 
 upon the figures given by the Board itself. How unreliable these are may 
 be surmised from an incident which recently occurred at the Board. A 
 member for St. George's, Hanover Square, brought forward a motion im- 
 peaching the accuracy of the Board's accounts, when the members rose 
 en masse and left, so that no quorum remained. — Vide Times, October 
 33rd, 1875. 
 
276 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Income — 
 
 J& 
 
 From Rates .... 
 
 345,817 
 
 Coal and Wine Dues* . 
 
 97,406 
 
 Fire Brigade contributions 
 
 27,124 
 
 Interest on Loans to other 
 
 
 Bodies, &c. ... 
 
 - 71,586 
 
 Rents on Property . 
 
 33,193 
 
 Fees and Licenses 
 
 5,561 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 6,226 
 
 Current Income . 
 
 
 586,913 
 
 Metropolitan ConsoKdated Stock 2,605,000 
 
 Sales of Ground Rents, Pro- 
 perty, &c 208,623 
 
 RepajTuent of Loans . . 46,676 
 
 Contributions for Improvements 3,557 
 
 Waterloo and Whitehall Rail- 
 way .... 3,000 
 
 Miscellaneous . . . 8,414 
 
 Capital Income 
 
 
 Total Income, Capital and Current . 
 
 Expenditure — 
 
 
 Interest on Debt . 
 
 362,714 
 
 Drainage Expenses 
 
 59,314 
 
 Fire Brigade 
 
 75,912 
 
 Establishmentf (two-fifths) . 
 
 21,001 
 
 2,870,270 
 £3,457,183 
 
 Carried forward . . 518,941 
 
 * This is exclusive of the ^150,160 devoted hy the Treasury to pay- 
 ment of the principal and interest of the Thames Embankment Loan, 
 guaranteed by Government, a payment which the Board erroneously 
 omit from the current expenditure account. 
 
 t The other establishment charges are not separated from the capital 
 account. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : EXPENDITURE. 
 
 277 
 
 Brought forward 
 Thames Embankment . 
 Parks and Open Spaces . 
 Minor Expenses under various 
 
 Current Expenditure . 
 
 The " capital " expenditure of 
 1874, was as follows: — 
 
 Main Drainage and Main Sewers 
 Thames Embankments & Queen 
 
 Yictoria Street 
 Expenses on completed Street 
 
 Improvements 
 Wapping, Shoreditch, Old Street, 
 
 Newington Butts, and Harrow 
 
 Eoad Improvements 
 Charing Cross Approach . 
 Contributions to Vestry and Dis' 
 
 trict Board Improvements, &c 
 Fire Brigade Stations, &c. 
 Expenses on 1874 Loan . 
 Firemen's Savings' Fund . 
 Loans repaid . 
 
 Loans advanced to Vestries, &c 
 Miscellaneous . 
 
 Capital Expenditure 
 
 £ 
 518,941 
 
 8,147 
 
 6,502 
 
 9,647 
 
 148,459 
 
 61,180 
 
 9,565 
 
 534,589 
 530,780 
 
 73,654 
 
 13,902 
 
 10,851 
 
 601 
 
 516,533 
 
 93,491 
 
 1,420 
 
 543,237 
 
 1,995,025 
 
 Total Expenditure, Capital and Current £2,538,262 
 
 This is a large sum to entrust yearly to the control 
 of a body of men so practically irresponsible as is the 
 Metropohtan Board of Works. 
 
278 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The establishment, law, and Parliamentary expenses, are 
 estimated for 1875 at £21,450; but these figures are per- 
 fectly illusory as tending to show the true cost. In 1874, 
 this item was £52,629, but as £31,628 of the sum was 
 charged to capital account, it was reduced nominally to 
 £21,001, which is the sum analogous to the £21,450 
 estimated for this year. No details of this item are given, 
 but we may take it that the cost of the office in Spring 
 Gardens is some £50,000 a year. 
 
 The accounts of the Metropolitan Board do not compare 
 in clearness with those of the City, but the yearly Reports 
 supplied to the Yestries never excite any public interest, 
 and except in so far as the auditors are reliable men, the 
 Board has practically no external control exercised over its 
 expenditure, or over the method in which it may choose 
 to set it out in its Reports, 
 
 As in the case of the Common Council of the City, so 
 also in the Metropolitan Board of Works, a great deal of the 
 detail of the work is done by Committees. But whilst there 
 are 232 members of the Common Council, the Metropolitan 
 Board of "Works consists (excepting the Chairman) of 45, a 
 number which is only about one-half of that of the largest 
 City Committees. There can be no doubt that the number is 
 totally inadequate for the amount of the work now de- 
 volving on the Board. It is true that the number of 
 Committees is not so large as in the City, and that most 
 of such Committees include something like one-third of the 
 whole number of the Board; but the frequency of their 
 absolutely necessary meetings, and the enormous importance 
 of the work which they undertake, far outweigh the advan- 
 tages derivable from these facts. 
 
 During the year 1874, there were 44 meetings of the 
 whole Board, with an average attendance of 37 members. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : COMMITTEES. 279 
 
 being a per-centage of about 82, or an actual attendance of 
 1,628, out of a possible attendance of 1,980. 
 
 The General Committees of the Board are nine in num- 
 ber. " The Works and General Purposes Committee " is a 
 Committee of the whole Board, and to its care are entrusted 
 the Street Improvements, and other great undertakings of 
 the Board. This Committee, in the year 1874, met 59 times. 
 
 The " Appeal Committee " is concerned with appeals to 
 the Board from subordinate bodies. It is a Committee of 
 the whole Board, and met four times during the year 1874. 
 
 As the " "Works and General Purposes' Committee " and 
 the Appeal Committee are both Committees of the whole 
 Board, it will be seen that the Board itself met during the 
 year 1874, 107 times, being an average of more than twice 
 a week, or more than four times as often as the Common 
 Council of the City. 
 
 The " Finance Committee," dealing with the receipts 
 and expenditure of the Board, met 23 times. The "Fire 
 Brigade Committee," 24 times ; the " Building Act Com- 
 mittee," 23 times ; the " Parks, Commons, and Open Spaces' 
 Committee," 26 times; the "Parliamentary Committee," 23 
 times ; the " Cattle Diseases' Act Committee," 18 times ; the 
 " YentUation of Sewers' Committee," twice ; and various 
 Special and Sub-Committees, 85 times. The number of 
 Committee meetings, besides those of Committees of the 
 whole Board, was therefore 224. 
 
 If each of the smaller Committees average 15 members, 
 and the average attendance of each member be the same as 
 his attendance at the General Meetings of the Board, he 
 must have been at Spring Gardens something like 60 times 
 in attendance on the smaller Committees ; or a total average 
 yearly attendance of each member of about 150, or nearly 
 three times a week. 
 
280 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 When we remember that the various representatives at 
 the Metropolitan Board have to travel from forty different 
 and widely separated points in the Metropolis, and that the 
 object for which they come together is simply the perform- 
 ance of pubhc duty, this result is indeed most remarkable. 
 Many of the members of the Board are engaged in businesses 
 with which frequent attendance at Spring Gardens must, 
 most materially, interfere, and yet the flame of Municipal 
 patriotism burns so brightly within them that they are 
 content to bestow something like one-half of their time in 
 performing duties which receive but little public recognition. 
 And not merely are they content to do this for a single term 
 of three years in the discharge of one of the duties of citizen- 
 ship, but they constantly seek and obtain re-election when 
 their term of office has expired, so that the continuance of 
 their public service may receive no interruption. 
 
 These facts are in themselves sufficiently marvellous, but 
 when in addition we come to consider the peculiar circum- 
 stances under which this public work is performed, our 
 amazement at the result is increased. So far, at any rate, 
 as is within public knowledge, the work performed by the 
 Board is entirely unremunerated. It receives small recognition 
 in the form of testimonials or addresses, or votes of thanks to 
 the people who discharge it ; and even the serious loss which 
 must ensue to individual members, through their neglect of 
 their own businesses, is not recouped to them. Fame, that 
 idol before whom, as says a great writer, " more men have 
 bowed than before Baal or Jupiter, Brahmah or Buddha, or 
 the most extensively worshipped of the gods of heathenism," 
 has no attractions for them. Their debates are scarcely 
 reported at all ; their constituencies never bring them to 
 account ; their very names are unknown to those amongst 
 whom and for whom they work. The proceedings in Spring 
 Gardens are shaded by their very obscurity from the broad 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : OBSCURITY OF THEIR ACTION. 281 
 
 glare of public opinion. Public criticism seldom lights 
 upon them, and stiU more seldom in any effective form. 
 It is true that their debates are open to the pubKc, 
 but they are rarely favoured with many auditors besides 
 the local reporters and occasional Yestry deputations.* 
 The action of most public bodies exercising Municipal func- 
 tions is subjected to vigilant censorship and criticism. The 
 close Corporation of the City of London possesses a con- 
 siderable equivalent safeguard in its extraordinary number 
 of members, but the Metropolitan Board of Works, exercis- 
 ing the widest Municipal functions in the British Empire, 
 receives no effective criticism at all. The conduct of some of 
 the members and officers of the Board has been impeached 
 in the very gravest manner, when at rare intervals light has 
 been thrown upon its actions ; but the Yestries are not apt 
 to dispossess a member once elected, or prone to beHeve in 
 the possibility of any error being committed by a body that 
 may be regarded as the very apotheosis of Yestry dom.f 
 
 In a former part of this chapter we have illustrated the 
 extraordinary method in which the election of members of 
 the Board is conducted. | There is no instance on record 
 in which ratepayers objecting to the action of a member of 
 the Board have succeeded in displacing him. Even if the 
 
 * It is true that the ypring Gardens debates are not of a character to 
 attract ordinary mortals. When the constitution of the Board was under 
 discussion in the House of Commons, considerable objection was raised 
 on the ground that the members of the Board were likely to discuss 
 politics instead of sewerage, and perhaps to overshadow the authority of 
 the Speaker, and that of the Imperial Parliament ! If Earl Fortescue 
 ever attended a debate of the Board of Works, he would not be likely to 
 receive much encouragement towards the fulfilment of his prophecy. — 
 Vide Speech of Viscount Ebrington (now Earl Fortescue) reported 
 Hansard, vol. 137, p. 726. 
 
 t The Board of Works is merely a Vestry, vestrified to the Jith power. 
 — The Examiner, June 17 th, 1875. 
 
 X See a return of Vestrymen voting at election of representatives at 
 the Board of W^orks, method of election, &c., moved for by Mr. Locke. 
 Ordered to be printed, May Uth, 1862. 
 
282 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 ratepayers knew what was the method of procedure adopted 
 by their so-called representative at the Board, they would 
 find it practically impossible to dislodge him within any 
 reasonable time; but, as we have seen, London ratepayers 
 as a body know nothing whatever of the proceedings at 
 Spring Gardens. The average Londoner is no more repre- 
 sented in the Board of Works than he is in the Spanish 
 Cortes, and the chances are that he knows more of what 
 passes in the latter than in the former. And yet each 
 Metropolitan Board member represented in 1874 no less 
 than 84,000 people, with a ratal of £460,000, and 
 expended £50,000 of public money. It would be in- 
 credible, if it were not a matter of common knowledge, 
 that the largest City in the British Empire would suffer 
 itself to be thus ruled and taxed by a body of men, the 
 very names of whom are unknown, and who are elected 
 upon a system that renders them practically irresponsible 
 to public opinion. 
 
 In our chapter on the Common Council, we set out the 
 various occupations of the members of that body for the 
 purpose of enforcing our argument, that it could not be 
 regarded as representative of the citizens. 
 
 It may be urged, with respect to the Metropolitan Board, 
 that no such argument can have any application to it, inas- 
 much as the very form of its election precludes its being 
 considered, at any rate, so far as London ratepayers are 
 concerned, as in any sense a representative institution. 
 But as the idea of the sponsors of the Metropolitan Board 
 was that this system of election would result in the bringing 
 together of the very salt of the public men of London, we 
 will apply to them the same useful, if somewhat delusive, 
 test. 
 
 Stuart Mill, in his work on " Representative Govern- 
 ment," says, " A mere Board of Works, though it compre- 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : STATUS OF MEMBERS. 283 
 
 hend the entire Metropolis, is sure to be composed of the 
 same class of persons as the Vestries of the London parishes ; 
 nor is it practicable, nor even desirable, that such should not 
 form the majority; but it is important for every purpose 
 which local bodies are designed to serve, whether it be the 
 enlightened and honest performance of their special duties, 
 or the cultivation of the political intelligence of the nation, 
 that every such body should contain a portion of the very 
 best minds of the locality, who are thus brought into per- 
 petual contact of the most useful kind with minds of a 
 lower grade, receiving from them what local or professional 
 knowledge they have to give, and in return inspiring them 
 with a portion of their own more enlarged ideas, and higher 
 and more enhghtened purposes." 
 
 The composition of the Metropolitan Board of Works, 
 so far as regards the occupation of its members, stood 
 respectively in 1861 and 1875, as foUows, viz. — In 1861, 
 Tradesmen, 14; Retired Tradesmen, 8; Solicitors, 5; Bar- 
 risters, Engineers, Booksellers and Stationers, each 3 ; 
 Builders and Retired Civil Servants, each 2; and of the 
 following occupations, each 1, viz., Architect, Stockbroker, 
 Manufacturer, Wharfinger, Surgeon.* 
 
 In 1875, the occupations followed, or which had been 
 followed, by the members were,f Builders Architects and 
 Surveyors, 7 ; Booksellers PubHshers and Stationers, 5 ; 
 Tea Dealers and Solicitors, each 3 ; Retail Tradesmen, 2 ; 
 and of the following occupations, each 1, viz. : — Stove 
 Manufacturer, Coach Builder, Tailor, Upholsterer, General 
 in the Army, Gas Engineer, Dealer in Berlin Wool, Archi- 
 tect's Clerk, Auctioneer, Trimming Seller, Watchmaker, 
 
 * This list is taken from the Appendix to the " Second Report of 
 Select Committee on Metropolis Local Taxation, 1861," p. 227. 
 
 f In this list we have quoted ahout one-sixth of the Board, as of the 
 occupations from which they have now retired. This seemed useful, as 
 enabling an opinion to be formed of their previous training for the work. 
 
284 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Chemist, Butcher, Brewer, Publican, Surgeon, Barrister, 
 Owner of House Property, Bootmaker, Schoohnaster, Hos- 
 pital Treasurer, Conveyancer, Soap Dealer, and Pawnbroker. 
 
 How far this list fulfils the requirements of such a body, 
 as laid down by Mr. Mill, we leave our readers to judge. 
 
 No long time had elapsed, after the Board of Works 
 had taken in hand the carrying out of its various contracts, 
 before pubKc allegations were made seriously affecting the 
 honour of the Board. It was charged that, in the letting of 
 the various contracts, members of the Board themselves 
 were interested, and that those members took care that cer- 
 tain contracts should be given to certain persons. It was 
 further alleged that those contracts, when so given, were not 
 performed according to their specifications; that penalties 
 were not enforced ; and that the engineer and members of 
 the Board had relations with one of the contractors of a 
 character quite incompatible with their efficient discharge of 
 a pubHc duty. Eventually the pubHc dissatisfaction took 
 the form of a petition to Parliament, presented by Mr. 
 James Beal, then a vestryman of St. James, Westminster. 
 The petition was presented in June 1865 ; and it alleged, 
 with respect to the contract of £625,000 for the construction 
 of the Northern Outfall sewer, that it was not completed 
 until three years from the date when it ought to have been 
 finished ; that certain embankments, required by the speci- 
 fications to be made of brick, were only made of earth ; 
 that the construction was not of the solidity set out in the 
 specifications ; and that large sums beyond the amount of 
 the contract had been paid to the contractor. It was further 
 alleged that two of the tenders for this contract for a much 
 less amount had been passed over, in order to give it to the 
 favoured contractor of the Board, and that, in the carrying 
 out of that contract, the foundations of the sewer had not 
 been carried down to the depth set out in the specifications. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : CHARACTER OF THE BOARD. 285 
 
 These were the charges contained in the petition, so far 
 as it affected the Main Drainage Works ; and more serious 
 charges could not readily be made against any public body. 
 If they had been made against a body of men acting in the 
 public interest alone, and jealous of their own honour, they 
 would at once have insisted upon ha^dng a pubHc inquiry, 
 conducted under circumstances that could leave the question 
 in no doubt. But the Board of Works adopted a very dif- 
 ferent course. They referred the matter to their Main 
 Drainage Committee, who prepared an answer to the 
 allegations of the petition. Before that answer, however, 
 was published, the Board of Works received certain infor- 
 mation as to the evidence which could be adduced in favour 
 of the allegations in the petitions.* Upon receiving this 
 information, the answer already prepared was suppressed, 
 and a new answer written and pubhshed. This second reply 
 took the form of a report by the Main Drainage Committee 
 to the Board. This report is a somewhat remarkable docu- 
 ment. With respect to the allegation as to depths of 
 foundations, they simply deny it, stating that it is clearly 
 disproved by the certificate of their own resident engineer, 
 and that the depth of the foundations could always be ascer- 
 tained by digging down to them. It is quite clear that no 
 report of the Board's resident engineer could be satisfactory, 
 as he was alleged to be implicated in the fraud. Nor could 
 it be expected that the public would personally investigate 
 the depths of the foundations, especially considering the im- 
 probability of theii' being admitted to the works. 
 
 * This statement as well as most of those atfecting the misconduct of 
 the Board, is given on the authority of Mr. Beal, who has published 
 various documents with respect to them. There are, however, certain of 
 the documents which speak for themselves. The petition to Parliament; 
 the suppressed Board of Works report; the published report; the debates 
 at the Board; the minutes of the Board; the cross-eiamination of the 
 contractor on his bankruptcy; prospectuses of which Board members 
 were directors, &c., are of this class, and have all been referred to. 
 
286 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 If the allegations in the petition were true, they pointed 
 to a malversation in respect to this particular contract of 
 something Kke £100,000. They, moreover, impHcated cer- 
 tain members of the Board as well as its engineers. The 
 only way in which, if untrue, these allegations could have been 
 met would have been by a full examination and report by 
 competent and independent engineers. The fact that the 
 Board made no effort to exculpate themselves by unimpeach- 
 able evidence and examination, constitutes of itself the very 
 gravest possible presumption of the truth of the charges. 
 Nor is it easy to understand how those members of the 
 Board who were" disconnected with the whole transaction, 
 could continue to hold their seats at the Board, without 
 demanding an official examination.^ 
 
 * The members of the Board had not all approved its conduct. In a 
 letter to the Clerkenwell Neivs, under date November I7th, 1863, Mr. 
 Nicholay, one of the most honoured members of the Board, and sitting 
 for Marylebone, had written in answer to a letter inquiring if the extra- 
 ordinary allegations against the Board could be true, — "With feelings of 
 pain, regret, and sorrow, coupled with deep humiliation, I inform you 
 that the statement made therein is unfortunately too true, and I fully 
 endorse the remarks therein made, that it is a farce, nay more, an 
 imposition, to adrertise and solicit tenders, when those who are the 
 lowest, whose capabilities and securities are undoubted, are so treated. 
 I voted for Mr. Kidley (the lowest tenderer) from first to last, and I have 
 every reason to suppose after he was accepted, his security being satis- 
 factory, he having ofiered to place down i,'20,000 additional, that he would 
 not have been refused, but from the circumstance of our engineer empha- 
 tically stating he should place more reliance on Mr. Furness (the 
 accepted tenderer), whose knowledge, experience, and capabilities were 
 far superior. I have evei'y reason to believe that such result would not 
 have been obtained had the members known at the time that our 
 engineer was about to receive from i*12,000 and upwards, as commission, 
 from Mr. Furness, for works to be carried out by him at Odessa. In my 
 ignorance I fancied that our engineer's time, talents, and services were 
 exclusively at the disposal of the Board. This awkward and untoward 
 affair has been referred to a Committee, to avoid too much publicity, but 
 the inquiries of a 'Ratepayer' have removed the veil. * * * * 
 Enough has been shown by your intelligent correspondent to cause 
 inquiries to be made by every Metropolitan Vestry and District Board, 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD: CHARACTER OF THE BOARD. 287 
 
 A visit was subsequently paid by some of the London 
 Vestrymen to the Northern Outfall sewer, for the purpose 
 of investigating the truth of these charges. They were accom- 
 panied by the resident engineer of the Board, without whose 
 cognizance the grave departure from the terms of the specifi- 
 cations could not have been made. The report of this visit 
 was subsequently made public, and from this it would appear 
 that the charges were substantiated in several important 
 particulars. 
 
 The specifications had been departed from in the con- 
 struction of four important roads, in a manner greatly to the 
 advantage of the contractor ; only about one-half of the 
 accommodation roads set out in the specifications were actually 
 constructed, and the requisite puddKng on the crown of the 
 sewer had not been executed. All these important de- 
 partures appear to have been admitted by the resident 
 engineer, and the only defence ofiered was that' the con- 
 tractor would be debited with the difierence in cost, and 
 that " more roads could be made if required." 
 
 The period of this visit was some years after the date 
 upon which the contract was to be completed, but it does 
 not appear that the Boayd of Works enforced any penalties, 
 neither does it appear that they debited the contractor in 
 the manner promised by the resident engineer, or that any 
 other occupation roads had been made. On the contrary an 
 enormous sum was paid in addition to the contract price on 
 account of extras, and the decision as to the acceptance or 
 rejection of large items on this account seems to have rested 
 with the engineer of the Board alone. This in itself was a 
 
 that the matter may be thoroughly investigated, or else the so-called 
 independent Metropolitan Board will be under a cloud and stigma, and 
 the odium of Government jobs will most assuredly attach to them." This 
 letter was written, be it remembered, by the representative of the most 
 important London Vestry. 
 
288 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 most unjustifiable discretion to confide to one single indi- 
 vidual, and still more unjustifiable "wben there were other 
 pecuniary relations existing between the parties.* 
 
 The gravity of the position will be understood when it 
 is remembered that the carrying out of these enormous works, 
 involving the expenditure of millions of pubKc money, was 
 entrusted to a body of men who had no practical knowledge 
 whatever, except in two or three instances, of that class of 
 work, and who, although possibly excellent men in their own 
 way as ordinary tradesmen, were entirely unfitted to 
 undertake such responsibility or du^ection, and who there- 
 fore, must delegate it to their officials. It could not be 
 expected that within the details of work of which they had 
 no practical knowledge, the Board of Works — even if they 
 were willing — could have exercised any efficient control 
 over their subordinates. Such subordinates were, therefore, 
 practically irresponsible. 
 
 The second series of charges brought against the Board 
 were made with respect to the Thames Embankment. It 
 was alleged that one member of the Board, who was also 
 a member of the House of Commons, acted as the agent of 
 the contractor, whose contract was afterwards accepted, for 
 the purpose of ascertaining the price of granite, and that 
 when such tender was subsequently accepted he had ^ large 
 personal interest in it ; that the lowest contract was not 
 accepted ; that one member of the Board, nevertheless, whilst 
 the contracts were under consideration, requested to know 
 from the lowest tenderer what sum would be paid in case 
 he obtamed it ; that a prominent officer of the Board 
 was interested with the contractor in a certain contract 
 abroad ; that the filling in of the embankment was done 
 
 * See another allegation of culpable misappropriation of funds in con- 
 nection with the Thames Embankment contracts, fully set out in 
 Standard January 26th, 1865. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD : CHARACTER OF THE BOARD. 289 
 
 with different material, causing a loss of several thousand 
 pounds ; that the contractor was paid ninety per cent, in cash 
 on the work done and the materials in hand, and seventy-five 
 per cent, on the value of his plant ; and that contracts to the 
 amount of £2,372,000 had been given to two contractors 
 alone, although in several instances they were not the lowest 
 tenderers. 
 
 We have said that the whole of these charges, both with 
 respect to the Main Drainage and to the Thames Embank- 
 ment, ultimately took the form of a petition to ParHament. 
 As, however, the petition contained charges again&t a 
 member of the House (who was also an influential member 
 of the Board of Works), it was required by the forms of Ihe 
 House to be presented in his presence. Notice was given 
 him to appear in order that this might be done, but he 
 carefully absented himself from all future sittings of the 
 House dui'ing that session, and as a dissolution followed, and 
 he was not again returned, he thus escaped being called 
 upon to give a public answer to the charge. 
 
 It might have been thought that this strangely culpable 
 conduct of one of their members would have induced every 
 member of the Board, with any regard for its honour, to in- 
 sist upon a searching investigation ; but they contented them- 
 selves with a discussion at the Board in which the imphcated 
 member took part, and with replying as before through the 
 medium of a report of the Main Drainage Committee. This 
 report altogether omits any allusion to the charges made 
 against that member of the Board who was also a Member of 
 Parhament, and therefore the grave charge of endeavouring 
 to obtain money from a person making the lowest tender in 
 consideration of liis receiving the contract, and when such 
 money was refused of inventing excuse for superseding him 
 and giving the contract to another individual, whose tender 
 was £25,000 more, but with whom he had certain pecuniary 
 
290 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 relations, remains to fJiis moment totally unanswered. As to 
 the allegation that the officer of the Board, under whose 
 superintendence the work would necessarily he done, was 
 concerned with the contractor, whose contract had heen thus 
 accepted, in certain contracts abroad; the defence set up 
 by the Board is not that such contract is not existent, but 
 that the engineer did not use his influence to have the 
 contractor's contract accepted, a matter of no importance and 
 as to which the assertion of the Committee of the Board is 
 not evidence of a satisfactory kind.* It may therefore be 
 taken to be true that the interests of the contractor and of 
 the officer were the same. It is only necessary to add 
 that the Board made no change in consequence of this, and 
 that he stiU held his position under the Board. The 
 charge with respect to the employment of difi'erent material 
 for filling in the Thames Embankment — a matter of some 
 £80,000 — is met by the assertion that the nature of the 
 contract has been misunderstood. If this were so, it appears 
 to have been also misimderstood by the other parlies who 
 tendered, and certainly its terms can only bear one fair 
 construction. 
 
 With respect to several of the other charges, they are 
 simply ignored by the Committee ; and in order to prevent, 
 if possible, any further disturbance of the mud, the Com- 
 mittee, in conclusion, "strongly urge upon the Board the 
 propriety of closing the controversy." They say that they 
 have felt the importance of replying to all the allegations 
 made, but do not consider any further reply " would conduce 
 to the public service."f The report contains an appendix, 
 
 * This, liowever, was distinctly denied by several members of the Board, 
 who alleged that it was obtained by such influence alone. Vide statement 
 of Mr. Nicholay, quoted ante. 
 
 f It will he noted that Mr. Nicholay says it was referred to this Com- 
 mittee "to avoid too much T^nhliaiiy," vide supra, ^.2S&. It will thus he 
 seen that the Committee endeavoured to fulfil the objects of their 
 appointment. 
 
METROPOLITAN BOARD: CHARACTER OF THE BOARD. 291 
 
 intended to support its terms, and containing a testimonial, 
 signed by about half the members of the Board, as to the 
 excellence of their impeached ofi&cer. 
 
 When it is remembered that the petition presented to 
 the House of Commons pointed to a possible malversation of 
 something Hke a quarter of a million of pubHc money, 
 in which both the Board, its contractors, and its officers were 
 implicated, the miserable inadequacy of the defence set up 
 by the Board of Works is manifest. 
 
 At first sight it may seem a somewhat invidious matter 
 when, discussing the competence of the Board of Works in 
 1875, to introduce matters affecting their conduct ten 
 years pre\dously. It may be objected on the one hand 
 that there ought to be a locus penitentim even for the most 
 hardened criminals, and on the other that probably the 
 men who disgraced the Board in 1864, have ceased to be 
 members in 1875. It is, no doubt, a prerogative of mercy to 
 allow a place of repentance for the penitent offender ; but if 
 that offender deny his guilt, and succeed through the apathy 
 of those against whom he has sinned in escaping, the 
 doctrine can no longer apply. Still less can it ever apply to 
 the conduct of a representative body, acting as trustees of 
 public money, proving themselves unworthy of that trust, 
 and yet succeeding in retaining their seats. There is no 
 evidence whatever of any greater sense of regret than that 
 which always attends the detection of misconduct, and 
 unless the Board of Works are monstrously maligned, their 
 repentance has consisted, not in an honester fulfilment of 
 their pubhc trust, but in the care exercised that multiplied 
 breaches of that trust shall be difficult and well nigh im- 
 possible to detect. If the second objection were true, there 
 is no doubt but that it would be harsh to visit on the 
 shoulders of the present members the faults of their pre- 
 decessors in office. But as a matter of fact, in pursuance of 
 
292 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the extraordinary policy previously mentioned, members 
 constantly seek re-election, and a large number of tbose who 
 were responsible in 1864 sit and thrive at the Board in 1875. 
 Those members cannot shirk the responsibility of their con- 
 duct by fixing it upon particular scapegoats, and sending 
 them forth into the wilderness of public opprobrium, because 
 apart from individual responsibiHties, the Board itself, as a 
 constituent whole, made no fair endeavour to free itself 
 from suspicion. 
 
 Indeed, it advanced in the opposite direction. When 
 giving evidence before Lord Montagu's Committee, the 
 member for the leading London Vestry was asked this 
 question :* "If I understand you rightly, you mean that 
 the Board in reporting that they did not give the contract 
 to Mr. Ridley because he had not conducted operations of 
 sufficient magnitude ; and that they did give it to Mr. 
 Furness because he had conducted such operations, were 
 putting it upon false grounds?" To this question Mr. 
 Nicholay gave an answer which ought to have disentitled 
 the Board to any sort of public confidence. ^^ It was an 
 aftertJwught. I consider, as your lordship states in very 
 forcible language, that it was on false grounds.^' Thus 
 showing that the public statement of the Board, as to the 
 reason for not accepting a contract lower than the one 
 accepted by £25,000, was distinctly and knowingly false. 
 Even the Chairman of the Board admitted that there were 
 other reasons besides want of experience and want of proper 
 securities, which caused the Board to refuse the lowest 
 tender, f 
 
 There were members of the Board at the time who 
 sided with Mr. Mcholay, and strongly deprecated the pro- 
 ceedings of their fellow members. They did not, however, 
 as it seems to us, take the best method of vindicating their 
 
 * " Evddence of Mr. Nicholay," q. 5757. f See q. 5929. 
 
METKOPOLITAN BOARD : CHARACTER OF THE BOARD. 293 
 
 own honour. On the 7th of February, 1868, a motion was 
 submitted to the Board to the effect that the connection of a 
 member with the contractor was improper, and that " it is 
 highly blameable for any member of this Board to interfere 
 in his private capacity in the management of the affairs of 
 this Board ; and that such interference is calculated in- 
 juriously to affect the Board in the estimation of the public." 
 This resolution ivas lost, but their membership continued. 
 
 Such was the type of the Board then, and there is only 
 too much ground for the opinion that as respects some of 
 its members, such is its type now. It is not needful that we 
 should, at present, set out the facts upon which this opinion is 
 based. They are quite as unpleasant as those already con- 
 sidered, although their authentication has not been so public. 
 
 The system under which men can be placed in such a 
 focus of temptation, and with so little outward responsibihty 
 to keep them straight, is a most vicious one. It is, we 
 beheve, true that there are, and always have been, some — 
 perhaps we might say many — members of the Board, who 
 have done their duty according to their ability, and kept 
 their hands clean. To such men, all honour is due, and 
 although they have not always been the most influential at 
 the Board, they have done much to earn for it the credit 
 which it undoubtedly deserves for some of its work. 
 
 As an institution, however, the days of the Board are 
 numbered. No body of pubHc men can long survive the 
 esteem and regard of those amongst whom they work. 
 It is well known that the Board of Works have long since 
 done this, and even those citizens of London, who have 
 been led to believe that they have repented of the error of 
 their former ways and made vows as to future good conduct, 
 also believe that it is scarcely wise to tempt them whilst 
 such resolutions are still weak, by giving them the irre- 
 sponsible dispensation of more than a million a year. 
 
 T 
 
294 
 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 THE LONDON VESTRIES. 
 
 London Local Crovernment before 1856. — Establishment of 
 •- Vestries. — Inequality of Division. — Functions of Ves- 
 tries under Metropolis Management Act, Nuisances 
 Removal Acts, Free Libraries, Baths and Wash Houses, 
 Workshops^ Artizans' Divellings, and other Acts. — 
 Method in which Vestries perform their work. — Income 
 and JSxpenditure. — Loans, ^c, ^-c. 
 
 Prior to the passing of " The Metropolis Local Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855," whereby the Metropolitan Board of Works 
 and the Vestries were constituted, there was but little 
 methodical government in the metropolitan area outside the 
 City of London. 
 
 Down to the reign of James the First, the most stringent 
 legislative efforts were made to confine the capital within 
 the walls. When this was found to be no longer possible, the 
 City authorities endeavoui'ed to meet the requirements of 
 the increasing population by the creation of " Wards with- 
 out," and by the exercise of certain governing powers over 
 the aggregation of houses which had sprung up at the 
 other end of London Bridge in Southwark. 
 
 But the City of London soon withdrew from any serious 
 attempt to govern the fast spreading suburbs, and, retiring 
 within its own area, contented itself with the enforcement of 
 its franchises as to Markets and City Tolls, and the col- 
 lection of the Coal and other dues ; all of which amoxmted 
 to a taxation of the suburban Londoner by a wealthy body 
 in which he was entirely unrepresented. 
 
LONDON vestries: bills of mortality. 295 
 
 The effect of the action of the City in retiring from any 
 attempt to supply Municipal institutions to the inhabited 
 areas around it, was practically to deliver over these districts 
 to such government and care as the parochial organizations 
 could supply. Between the various districts of suburban 
 London there was at that time no sort of agreement, and 
 the only question with respect to which they seem to have 
 been brought into intercommunication was in the account 
 annually rendered of the returns of births and burials 
 within the particular parishes. This united return was 
 first made in the year 1562 ; and in succeeding years, as 
 the City increased in population and in area, one parish 
 after another was added, until there were ultimately found 
 within the range of the " BiUs of Mortality " no less than 
 148 parishes. 
 
 An Act passed in 14 Car. II. appears to have recognized 
 this area, but for a purpose which had no practical effect 
 upon the Metropolis. The only other conjoint action of the 
 outljdng districts of London prior to 1856 was with respect 
 to the sewerage, a subject we have already considered. 
 
 The Company of Parish Clerks do not appear to have 
 had any authority by means of which they could compel 
 parishes furnishing returns to continue to do so. Thus, in 
 1823, the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, ceased to 
 make retui-ns ; in 1832, the parishes of All Saints', Poplar, 
 and St. John's, Wapping, did likewise ; and they were fol- 
 lowed, in 1834, by St. Bartholomew the Less, and St. 
 George Queen's Square.* "Weekly tables of mortality 
 are now compiled from returns of the Registrars ; the area 
 with respect to which such returns are made being sKghtly 
 less than that under the direction of the Metropohtan Board 
 of Works. 
 
 Vide " Insurance Cyclopsedia," by Cornelius Walford, quoted, " Census 
 Table," 1871. Vol. 2. 
 
296 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The result of the separate action of parochial districts, 
 prior to 1856, was to produce a state of chaos which we 
 cannot now readily imagine. Some of the districts obtained 
 local Acts, and governed themselves without any regard to 
 the interests of their neighbours, and quite independently of 
 any metropoHtan considerations ; whilst thirty parishes, com- 
 prising nearly one-half of the outlying area, were governed 
 by Commissioners or Trustees, who were irresponsible to the 
 ratepayers. In addition to the general public statutes af- 
 fecting the MetropoHs, there were something like 250 local 
 Acts in force. These were carried out by 300 different 
 bodies, composed, in the aggregate, of more than 10,000 
 persons. Some of the parishes were well managed by 
 elected representatives, but most of the governing bodies 
 were self-elected and irresponsible. In some districts, con- 
 siderable debts had been incurred, and in very few was there 
 any ef&cient discharge of ordinary Municipal functions. 
 The greatest possible diversities were found to exist. The 
 Vestry of the Liberty of the EoUs, was composed of those 
 who had served in the office of Overseer, technically known 
 as the " Ancient Inhabitants." The title of the governing 
 bodies of Norton Folgate, Spitalfields, St. Botolph's 
 Bishopsgate, and other places rested on immemorial custom. 
 In some districts the governing Vestries were elected, the 
 qualification of voters varying from a rateable value of £40 
 in St. John's Hackney, to £10 a year in St. Paul's Shad- 
 well. The paving of the Strand was controlled by no less 
 than seven Paving Boards ; and the boundaries of many 
 districts were most inconvenient, running as they did down 
 the middle of the street. The actual condition of some of 
 the districts was most deplorable. The Vestry of St. 
 Pancras has not been without a certain distinguishing fame 
 of its own in late years ; but, in 1855, a large portion of the 
 parish was without any sort of government whatever, and 
 
LONDON vestries: suburban government. 297 
 
 tliat which did exist in the rest of the parish was charac- 
 terized by Sir Benjamin Hall as " the most extraordinary 
 state of local management that ever existed in any 
 country." ^ 
 
 There were no less than eighteen distinct Boards of 
 Commissioners exercising jurisdiction over the streets and 
 houses. Each of these Boards had an Act of Parliament 
 of its own, and the provisions of these Acts were by no 
 means similar. There were two large districts within the 
 parish, over which no public body exercised any control. 
 These districts were without lamps, or proper household 
 conveniences, and the roads were in a wretched condition. 
 In another district of the parish, the powers given under an 
 Act of Parliament were not exercised, and its condition was 
 no better, and a still larger district was being fast built up 
 on the outskirts of the parish, entirely devoid of all street 
 and house accommodation. 
 
 Under the Metropolitan Buildings Act of 1844, 
 officers were appointed in the Metropolis, over whom the 
 ratepayers had no possible control. They were paid salaries 
 partly out of the County Rate and partly out of the Con- 
 solidated Fund. 
 
 The Magistrates in Quarter Sessions also had the appoint- 
 ment of fifty-two Surveyors, with salaries amounting to some 
 £25,000 a year. The organization, however, was very 
 ineffective, and the officers neglectful of their duty.f 
 
 The Metropolitan Local Management Act was therefore 
 the first measure by which any serious attempt had been 
 made to rescue Metropolitan London from chaos, and to 
 confer upon it anything approaching to those Municipal 
 institutions which the selfishness of the City had withheld 
 during the early growth of the suburbs, and had succeeded 
 
 * Vide " Hansard's Debates." Vol. 137, p. 709. 
 
 t Vide " Speech of Sir Benjamin Hall," Hansard. Vol. 137, p. 713, 
 
298 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 in defeating at the time of the passing of the Municipal Cor- 
 poration Act. The Act is essentially a parochial measure. 
 It is based upon parochial organization, and was an endea- 
 vour to reconcile the various metropoHtan governments 
 existing at the time with as Kttle change as might be. 
 
 The Act therefore provides that each of the twenty- 
 three larger parishes shall constitute an unit in the new 
 system of government, under the name of a " Yestry." It 
 also provides that the smaller parishes shall be grouped 
 together into separate districts, such districts being managed 
 by District Boards, chosen from each parish. Of these 
 bodies there are fourteen, each of which returns a member to 
 the Metropohtan Board of Works. They contain amongst 
 them fifty-five different parishes. Of these — 
 
 Whitechapel . 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 contains 
 
 8 
 
 "Westminster . 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Greenwich 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 2 
 
 W an ds worth 
 Hackney 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Giles 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Holbom 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 Strand 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 Fulham 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Limehouse 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Poplar 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 St. Saviour's 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 2 
 
 Plumstead and Lewisham 
 
 >5 
 
 7 
 
 Rotherhithe a 
 
 ndSt 
 
 . Ola^ 
 
 '■e 
 
 
 3 
 
 For the purposes of electing such member, the two 
 District Boards of Plumstead and Lewisham respectively 
 are united. The parish of Rotherhithe and the district of 
 St. Olave are also united for the same purpose. The total 
 
LONDON vestries: divisional irregularities. 299 
 
 number of Vestries and District Boards, independently of 
 the City, is thirty-eight. 
 
 The want of all uniformity either in principle or effect, 
 in the divisions which were made of the several parishes 
 and District Boards, is weE illustrated by the map of 
 the divisions as they now exist. A recent writer who has 
 devoted much attention, and brought much special know- 
 ledge to bear upon this question, shows the anomaly of the 
 existing divisions by many examples.* We quote one or 
 two. " Plumstead is partly in the borough of Greenwich, 
 partly in the county of Kent. The village of Charlton lies 
 between the towns of Greenwich and Woolwich, as a sort 
 of suburb to both. But instead of being affiliated to either, 
 it is grouped with the villages of Eltham, Kidbrooke, Lee, 
 and Plumstead, in what is termed the Plumstead District, 
 which thus as a horse-shoe belt completely environs Wool- 
 wich, except on Thames-side. The Greenwich District is 
 in two counties; Hatcham being in Surrey, Deptford and 
 Greenwich in Kent. Lewisham (Kent) and Wandsworth 
 (Surrey) Districts, and Hampstead (Middlesex) Parish 
 are whoUy outside borough boundaries. The Lewisham 
 District falls under separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction; the 
 hamlet of Penge being a chapelry of Battersea (one of six 
 constituent parishes of the Wandsworth District), although 
 it is divorced from Battersea by an intervening space of 
 some miles, with not so much as a hair-line to connect them, 
 while notwithstanding its inclusion in the Lewisham Dis- 
 trict, Penge is geographically separated from Lewisham by 
 an intervening tongue of land (now filling with houses) 
 belonging to the rural parish of Beckenham, which in its 
 turn is under the far-away jurisdiction of the Bromley 
 Guardians. A part of Chelsea Parish Hes two miles away 
 
 * " The Government of London," by J. T. Dexter, p. 13, Stanford, 1875. 
 
300 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 from all the rest, with Hyde Park and the parishes of 
 Kensington and of Paddington between. Kensal, moreover, 
 is most charmingly included in the Hans Town Ward of 
 Chelsea, where the place of election for Vestrymen is three 
 miles distant. The "Westminster District is interlaced most 
 skilfuUy with Kensington Parish in the High Street of the 
 latter, and takes in one side (except one mansion) of Palace 
 Gardens by a tongue jutting up between Kensington and 
 St. George's, Hanover Square. Kensington owns houses 
 and part of the sidewalk at Kensington Gore, where the 
 roadway belongs to "Westminster, and the greater portion 
 of the Crown park which it bounds is in St, George's 
 Hanover Square." 
 
 From these illustrations which might be multipKed, and 
 even from the very contour of the districts themselves, it is 
 abundantly clear that Sir Benjamin Hall's Act did not effect 
 a division of the MetropoKs which can prefer any claim to 
 permanence on the ground either of uniformity or of con- 
 venience. 
 
 The Metropolis Management Act schedules the following 
 places within the Metropolis as extra-parochial, viz. : — 
 
 *The Close of the Church of 
 
 St. Peter .... Lincoln's Inn. 
 
 The Charter House . . Gray's Inn. 
 
 The Inner Temple . . Staple Inn. 
 
 The Middle Temple . . Furnival's Inn. 
 
 At the time of the passing of the Act these places were 
 not rateable to the poor, and the only rates which could be 
 levied upon them under the Act are those for Main Drainage 
 purposes; but by the Act 25 & 26 Yict., c. 102, this provision 
 is practically repealed, and they are now assessed to the poor, 
 and precepts are issued to the bodies having authority in them. 
 
 * This appears to be now included in St. Margaret's, Westminster. 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : CONSTITUTION. 301 
 
 In the various estimates given where these extra- 
 parochial districts are not alluded to, the Charter House, 
 Gray's Inn, Staple Inn, and Lincoln's Inn are included in 
 the Holborn District, and the Middle Temple in the Strand 
 District, whilst the Inner Temple is regarded as belonging 
 to the City of London. 
 
 Each of the districts is governed by a Yestry elected by 
 the ratepayers. The provisions of the Act with respect to 
 the constitution and management of these bodies still remain 
 in force. The governing body consists of 18 elected mem- 
 bers, where the number of rated householders does not 
 exceed 1,000, 
 
 24 where over 1,000, but not over 2,000, 
 36 „ 2,000 „ 3,000, 
 
 48 „ 3,000 „ 4,000, 
 
 and so on in the proportion of twelve additional members 
 for every 1,000 rated householders, with the limitation that 
 in no case is the number to exceed 120. The Incumbent 
 and Churchwardens of the parish are ex-officio members of 
 the Yestry. Parishes with more than 2,000 rated house- 
 holders are to be divided into wards. The quahfication of 
 Yestrymen is fixed by the proportion of assessments in the 
 given parish of £40 a year and upwards. If one-sixth of 
 the total number of assessments within the parish exceed 
 £40 a year, the quahfication of a Yestiyman consists in the 
 occupation of a house within the parish rated to the poor at 
 not less than £40 a year. If there is not one-sixth, then 
 £25 a year. 
 
 The members of the Yestry are under the Act elected 
 for three years, one-third going out every year. A ludi- 
 crously complete set of arrangements exist in the Act for the 
 control and regulation of proceedings at elections (sees. 13- 
 27). If the promoters of the measure ever anticipated a 
 
302 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 series of exciting election contests similar to those wHcli 
 animate the English Municipal world once a year, they very 
 soon found out their error. If there is a quiet unobtrusive 
 election on the face of the earth, it is that for a Metropolitan 
 Vestry. Every district in London could furnish examples of 
 this. It is not long ago since a populous Metropolitan 
 Vestry issued 3,000 notices to as many ratepayers, convening 
 them to the election of the Vestry. When the election day 
 came round, there were present one Vestry Clerk, one 
 Churchwarden, one Rate Collector, and three Vestrymen. 
 They duly elected the Vestry. 
 
 Members of District Boards are elected from the members 
 of each Parish Vestry composing the district, in numbers 
 varjdng according to the population and as specified in the 
 Act. 
 
 Each Vestry and District Board is by the Act constituted 
 a Body Corporate with perpetual succession and a common 
 seal, with power to take and hold land for the purposes of 
 the Act. The quorum is nine. 
 
 The seat of a Vestryman is vacated by bankruptcy, 
 liquidation, or composition with creditors, or by being per- 
 sonally interested in any contract with the Vestry otherwise 
 than as a shareholder in any contracting joint-stock company 
 (in which case, however, he is not allowed to vote in the 
 matter of such company's contracts). The penalty for 
 breach of this latter provision is £50, which may be re- 
 covered by any one who chooses to sue for the same in any 
 of the superior courts of law (sec. 54). Members are 
 eligible for re-election. Due provision is made for the 
 appointment and control of needful officers. 
 
 The powers and jurisdiction of the Vestries are clearly 
 defined in the Constituting Act. All sewers which were at 
 the time of the passing of the Act vested in any Commissions 
 of Sewers (save and except main sewers), are by the Act 
 
LONDON vestries: sewerage. 303 
 
 forthwith transferred to the "Vestry or District Board m 
 whose district they respectively lie, and full powers are given 
 for the repair, construction, or control of all subordinate 
 drains. Adequate powers are also given for. investigating 
 and, if needful, rectifying the sanitary condition of houses in 
 the district, and also the power of compelling the owners of 
 houses to construct drains into the common sewer, and 
 builders to provide new buildings with proper drainage. 
 Under the powers conferred by this Act, the Metropolitan 
 Vestries have constructed between the years 1856 and 1874, 
 more than 635 miles of new sewers.* The greatest length 
 of such new sewerage was, as might have been expected, 
 in the district of "Wandsworth, viz., 155 miles ; whilst St. 
 Martia-in-the-Fields constructed only 1,000 yards. The 
 total cost of the sewers so constructed was £1,731,474. The 
 cost per mile varied enormously, ranging from about £1,300 
 in Mile End Old Town to more than £11,000 in Limehouse. 
 The average cost was about £2,700 a mile. Wandsworth 
 constructed its 155 miles for £259,383. Camberwell ex- 
 pended on 60 miles £120,000, whilst Lambeth expended 
 on 61 miles £206,000. There probably are considerable 
 differences in the construction in the various Vestries, but 
 the discrepancies are most remarkable. The diflference 
 between the mileage is maialy traceable to the different 
 conditions in which the districts were when taken over by 
 the Vestries. Thus, Camberwell and "Wandsworth were 
 scarcely draiaed at all, except into open and offensive sewers, 
 whereas their drainage system is now in excellent order. 
 Lambeth is also now well sewered. The open Effra Sewer, 
 running from Norwood to Vauxhall, has been covered in, 
 and many of the old sewers reconstructed. 
 
 * This is exclusive of five Vestries that made no return, and which 
 would probably swell the total to somewhere near 650 miles. The five 
 Vestries made returns, however, as to the cost, and this is included in that 
 total. 
 
304 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The sum of £82,260 was expended in drainage works 
 in the year 1872-3. The large items of expenditure under 
 this head are, as might be anticipated, to be found during 
 the earlier years of Yestry rule, when the system of London 
 drainage was being perfected ; and the chief expenditure in 
 future will be in new streets, and in repairs and renewals. 
 
 All the duties, powers, and authorities as to paving, 
 watering, cleansing, and lighting, which previously to the 
 passing of the Act were vested in Commissioners or other 
 bodies on behalf of the public (excluding, of course, such 
 as relate to the church or the relief of the poor), are now 
 vested in the Vestries and District Boards respectively. 
 Provision is made to ensure the validity of contracts existing 
 at the time of the Act. Further powers are given as to 
 the paving of streets, the control and surveyorship of high- 
 ways, and other matters. The Yestry are empowered to 
 compel the owners of courts and passages to pave and drain 
 the same to their satisfaction ; they have full control over 
 the construction of vaults, arches, or cellars under the street, 
 which can only be made with their consent. 
 
 The fullest provision is made for the regulation of all 
 underground dwelHngs, which must be of a certain size and 
 possessing certain accommodation. In default of possessing 
 these requisites, the Yestries may impose considerable 
 penalties in case of occupation. For the purpose of due 
 examination powers of entry are given, enforceable, if need 
 be, by an order from a justice of the peace. But no such 
 orders are applied for. Probably, the number of under- 
 ground dwellings has considerably lessened since the passing 
 of the Act, but they continue to exist. The central mis- 
 conception of the Act is that it would create Municipal 
 Councils composed of men of good position, who would 
 appreciate their responsibility to the ratepayers and to the 
 Metropolis. This is very far from being the case ; and thxis, 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : CONTROL OF STREETS. 305 
 
 •when the foundation idea is unfulfilled, the inferences and 
 expectations fail also. So that the excellent provisions of 
 this and other Acts are only enforced when and how irre- 
 sponsible bodies choose. Thus Clerkenwell, which is not as 
 a whole an ill-managed Vestry, ignores this most essential 
 provision as to underground dwellings, on the ground that, 
 if it were carried out, " there would not be really sufficient 
 accommodation for the people ! " * St. Martin's-in-the- 
 Fields cleared out twenty-one in the year 1873-4, but the 
 number still remaining in this parish is supposed to be very 
 large. 
 
 Provision is made for the paving of new streets, at the 
 request and at the expense of the owners of the property. 
 Where it is necessary for any purpose to break up or open 
 the soil of a street, notice must be given to the Yestries, 
 and it must also be done under their superintendence. Pro- 
 vision is made for the proper execution of such work, and 
 also for notice being given to the various Companies in case 
 of injury to a street from the rupture of the pipes beneath it. 
 
 The Yestries and District Boards have full power to 
 water the streets, to sink wells in public places and to fix 
 pumps, drinking fountains, &c. They are also empowered 
 to cleanse footways, and to appoint sweepers for the purpose 
 of keeping the parish crossings clean. They have also 
 power to compel the removal of all projections which are 
 annoying or dangerous to passengers in the street. They 
 may also compel the erection of hoardings and of convenient 
 footpaths, in case of repair to or alteration of houses. The 
 license of the Yestry is requisite to the erection of such 
 hoardings, and, when erected contrary to the satisfaction of 
 the Yestry, they may be removed. The Yestries may also 
 enforce due precautions against accident in any public place 
 where building operations are being carried on. 
 * Returns of Vestries to M. B. W., 1870, p. 36. 
 
306 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The duties imposed by the Act as to these matters are 
 discharged variously in various parishes. The cost of water- 
 ing the streets we shall mention hereafter. Rotherhithe 
 draws its water from wells ; but we have never heard of the 
 power of sinking new wells being put into force, or any 
 pumps being fixed elsewhere. Several of the Yestries, in- 
 cluding Wandsworth, St. George-in-the-East, Clerkenwell, 
 Bermondsey, and St. Pancras, have either put up new 
 fountains or subscribe to the maintenance of those already 
 existing ; but these are isolated instances, and in no case 
 has the work been extensively or systematically done. The 
 cleansing of footways is sometimes done by Vestries ; but in 
 winter, when the service is most required, the Vestries are 
 in the constant habit of disregarding this duty, and of 
 throwing it on each householder, under an old statute of 
 George the Third. This method of proceeding is productive 
 of great pubHc annoyance, but is supposed to save the rates. 
 So much for permissive legislation, when the permission to 
 adopt it or ignore it rests with the Vestry. As for appoint- 
 ing " sweepers to keep the parish crossings clean," it may 
 be safely referred to the experience of Londoners as to how 
 many they have ever seen.* Sir Benjamin Hall's Act is 
 most extensive and careful as regards the provisions it makes 
 for matters of Municipal control ; but London suffers from 
 an absolute apathy which the framers of the measure never 
 adequately reaHzed, and is governed by bodies of men who 
 are often elected^ not to carry out either this or any other 
 Act, but for certain personal reasons, and subject to no 
 restriction save one, and that is that they shall undertake 
 to keep down the rates. 
 
 The Vestries are required to appoint a sufficient number 
 of persons for the purpose of sweeping and cleansing the 
 
 * Westminster District Board appears to have paid i£60 in 1873-4 in 
 crossing-sweepers' wages. 
 
LONDON vestries: medical officers. 307 
 
 streets, and removing ashes, &c. All the materials so 
 collected become the property of the Yestry. In the case of 
 trade refuse, a charge may be made for the removal. 
 
 Every Vestry and District Board is required to cause 
 the streets withui the parish or district to be sufficiently 
 lighted, and so to continue during such time as they shaU 
 think fit. They are empowered for this purpose to erect 
 public lamps. 
 
 Every Yestry and District Board is required to appoint 
 one or more legally quahfied medical practitioners to in- 
 spect and report upon the sanitary condition of the parish or 
 district, and " they shaU pay to these Medical Officers of 
 health such salary as they think fit." 
 
 Under the provisions of this clause Medical Officers have 
 been appointed for the various Yestries and District Boards, 
 but with very unequal results. In 1857 and 1866 returns 
 of the officers of the various Yestries were made, from 
 which it appeared that whilst some of the larger Yestries 
 had made good appointments and paid their Medical Officers 
 £400 and £350 per annum, there were others that clearly 
 made no fair attempt to carry out the Act ; another illus- 
 tration of the misfortune attendant upon irresponsible and 
 practically self-elective bodies. Thus the whole parish of 
 St. John Hampstead, only provided £50 a year for a 
 Medical Officer.'^ Wandsworth, -with an enormous area, 
 
 * The salary of this officer has been since raised to £100 a year. He 
 presents to the Vestry a most amusing report, in which he takes occasion 
 to dilate on the " laws which bear upon health of mind and body ; " 
 the " instinct of man ; " the " mellowness " of the parishioners when they 
 "passed away;" " £etal dates;" "contagium;" Tallerman's Austrahan 
 meat; Hampstead topography in 1811; "mortuary returns;" natural 
 selection; bank holidays; early closing; "my partner, Dr. Gwynn;" 
 " Cremation Societies claiming the right of speedy and decorous des- 
 truction of corpses by fire, and with limited liability;" "early funerals," 
 illustrated by examples from the East and from France; " gj'mnasia," 
 providing healthy amusements for " our folk" (as he tenderly terms the 
 ratepayers) ; Professor Huxley on " healthy play " for women; "the state 
 
■M 
 
 308 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 provided seven, at salaries varying from £25 to £85, and in 
 the current year this district has six at £50 a year each. It 
 cannot be expected that the work will be properly done, or 
 capable men obtained at such a price. The conduct of a 
 large number of the Vestries indicates a wish to keep within 
 the letter of the Act, but altogether to ignore its spirit. 
 St. Marylebone is a parish that sets an example to the other 
 
 of gristle not bone," &c., &o. Besides all the above interesting questions 
 we have the usual reports germane to his duty as Medical Officer, but the 
 dull monotony of statistics is lit up with unwonted fire of comment. 
 Before telling us the proportion of deaths at given ages, he says " Holding 
 the view that if any human being is produced it should be worth while 
 for it to live, mature, and in due course proceed to death, we may be 
 pardoned for pausing to notice the following table." The table of 
 diseases causing death is followed by this observation, " The preceding 
 table headed * diseases causing death,' furnishes ground for deep thought 
 and earnest endeavour to all who do not adopt the fallacies of ' Kismet' 
 or ' Fatalism.'" 
 
 He seems to be anxious to induce the Vestry to commence cremation, 
 " a process harmful to none, rather than allowing it — the late mere shell 
 or tabernacle of the soul and spirit we knew and loved— to meet a slow, 
 sure, putrid, polluting decay in the grave, a process injurious to many among 
 the living." This is followed by a page of disquisition on corpses and their 
 "bones." How elevated, too, is the estimate he forms of his duties 1 
 •' The duties, the legitimate influence of the Medical Officer of Healtii, 
 range over all matters which relate to the laws of nature connecting man 
 with the world around him, and with his well-being in it. With this 
 view," he says, " besides the hackneyed talk of house room, i^ure air, food, 
 and water, baths and wash-houses, I thought it right, as long ago as 1864, 
 to direct your attention to the expediency of providing places for healthy 
 recreation for our people, where the body may be invigorated, and the 
 mind with its moral workings expanded." He tells the Vestry that he 
 will renew his prayer for the baths and wash-houses, gymnasia, <feo., 
 •' when you shall have built your stately hall for accommodating the in- 
 creased number of your full-grown Vestry." But even then he seems 
 somewhat to despair of complete " sanitation " — as he calls it — for 
 " when the powers that be shall have done their possible, there will still 
 remain a host of physical evils beyond their control, but not beyond the 
 reach of an enlightened and well-discipUned community. Hereditary 
 diseases, and organizations feeble from birth, are prominent among this 
 lot." This excellent officer seems to find poetry in a cow house, and 
 takes all the noxious odour away from sewer leakage, slaughter houses, 
 and decaying coi-pses. And it is all done for thirty-eight shillings per 
 week. He would certainly be worth ^1,000 a year in the City, if indeed 
 the Common Council did not elect him a Judge. 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : MEDICAL OFFICERS. 309 
 
 Vestries in many things, and it pays its Medical Officer 
 £500 a year. 
 
 Some of the reports of these officers are exceedingly able 
 and to the point, others are verbose and needlessly technical, 
 whilst a third class are scarcely longer than a prescription. 
 Dr. Conway Evans, the officer appointed for the Strand 
 District, is an excellent illustration of the former, and the 
 difficulty of dealing with the sale of unsound fruit at Covent 
 Garden is very well discussed in his report. The Medical 
 Officer of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, claims in his 
 1875 report that the district has " been lifted a stage higher 
 in civilization." He launches out into much praise of the 
 body that appoints him, and is somewhat despondent as he 
 regards the " overhanging threat that the Vestries as now 
 estabhshed shall be abolished." The work they have done 
 is, however, " too deeply written to be effaced by the ebb 
 and flow of events. The name of Vestries may perish, 
 their work never. "^ The report of this officer is scarcely 
 less excursive and amusing than the one quoted above. It 
 is full of odd anecdotes, advocates cremation, and occupies 
 more than one-half of the whole report of the district upon 
 every question ! The Medical Officer of St. Marylebone is 
 the best paid in the Metropolis, and he presents his report in 
 a most excellent book of some forty pages. The report of 
 the officer of St. Mary, Islington, is nearly sixty pages in 
 length. He sets out for the benefit of his patrons the story 
 of " The Visions of Mirzah," and other interesting matter, 
 the Hghter dishes in a really excellent repast. We shall 
 unfortunately, have no more of the excellent reports of 
 Dr. Lankester, models of clearness and thought. They were 
 lost upon the desert air of the St. James's Vestry, who set 
 his sanitary recommendations at nought ; and the doctor 
 might turn in his grave' if he knew that his successor was 
 
 ♦ " Report of the Parish of St, George the Martyr, 1874.5," p, 9. 
 
 U 
 
310 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 actually opposed to the Vaccination Acts. To appoint an 
 anti-vaccinator to carry out these Acts is perversity indeed. 
 As a rule, however, the Medical Officers do a very credit- 
 able amount of work for a small remuneration. Kensington 
 has a good officer in Dr. Dudfield. 
 
 The Management Act provides that the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works, as well as every Vestry and District 
 Board, shall in the month of April in every year prepare 
 a statement of aU contracts entered into, moneys received 
 and expended, rates levied, and debts and liabilities then 
 existing, &c. The accounts of the Metropohtan Board are 
 audited by a nominee of the Home Secretary. Those of the 
 Vestries and District Boards by three persons elected by 
 ballot, and not members of such Vestry or District Board. 
 Provision is made for a complete audit and for the prepara- 
 tion of an abstract of the accounts. 
 
 It is also provided that every Vestry and District Board 
 shaU, in the month of June in every year, issue a printed 
 account of the proceedings of the preceding year, setting 
 forth the work done by the Vestry under each particular 
 head of jurisdiction. This report is also to be delivered, 
 during the month of June, to the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works. The report of the Metropohtan Board of Works, 
 which is to be presented to the Home Secretary and to 
 Parliament, is generally ready about the month of June, but 
 the proportion of the Vestries whose reports are ready at the 
 time specified in the Act, is exceedingly small. In fact, it 
 would be difficult to conceive a greater variety of practice in 
 this matter, than exists in the London Vestries. A very 
 few of the reports are ready within two months of the time 
 specified in the Act : others are not published the same 
 year. Some of the reports, as for example Marylebone, are 
 constructed on an excellent and inteUigible principle ; others 
 are confused and intricate to the last degree. Some publish 
 
LONDON vestries: yearly reports. 311 
 
 a large volume of their proceedings, as for example St. 
 George's, Hanover Square, which contains 142 pages, but 
 is by no means a business-Hke production ; others are of the 
 meagrest possible character : the report of Fulham for ex- 
 ample, is complete in two pages ; the report of the Medical 
 Officer occupying five pages more, and a small sheet setting 
 out the accounts. Probably no pubHc body in existence, 
 responsible to its constituents for the right expenditure of 
 more than £60,000, renders an account of its stewardship in 
 such a slovenly and inefficient way. 
 
 As for the appointment of auditors, the method adopted 
 by the Act is not a satisfactory one, and ought not to have 
 been suffered to remain so long ; but the provision, such as 
 it is, ought to be fairly carried out, and no auditor could be 
 relied upon to carefully examine the parish accounts, unless 
 he could either read or write, but there are instances on 
 record of the appointment of ratepaying auditors who 
 possessed neither qualification ! 
 
 The accounts of St. Pancras are amongst the best of any 
 of the Yestries ; but, in addition to certain charities which 
 they dispense, they are burdened with no less than sixteen 
 paving trust accounts, with seventeen garden accounts, and 
 with minor special accounts. There does not appear to be 
 any salient reason why the squares and gardens should not 
 be relegated to the surrounding houses, notwithstanding the 
 Act of Parliament providing for Vestries taking them over. 
 If it is then found that they are not properly kept, the 
 Yestry or local authority might take them in hand and 
 dedicate them to the public. To keep them as stewards for 
 the householders merely of the particular district, is not as 
 it seems to us the proper function of the local authority. 
 The payments on the paving trust accoimts in 1874-5 were 
 £6,903, and on the gardens' account £1,078. 
 
 St. Marylebone publishes, for the benefit of its ratepayers. 
 
312 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 an excellent pamphlet, containing the names and addresses 
 of the various officers, clubs, surveyors, collectors, beadles, 
 guardians, relieving officers, medical officers, registration 
 rules, and registrars' addresses, vaccinators, dust contractors, 
 analyst, inspector of weights and measures, &c. It also 
 contains a description of the mortuary and the post-mortem 
 house, of the Burial Board regulations, public bath and 
 wash-house regulations, water supply, gas supply, fire brigade 
 and engine stations, fire escape stations, and almshouses. A 
 more useful manual could not be issued, although we are 
 sorry to see it finishes up with quoting the provisions of the 
 35 Geo. III., c. 73, and the 57 Geo. III., c. 29, as to 
 occupiers being liable under a penalty to cleanse the foot- 
 paths. Surely, so weU-managed a Yestry ought to do this 
 under the provision for the purpose, in the Management 
 Act. 
 
 The Vestries and District Boards are bound, under the 
 Act, to nominate Inspectors of Nuisances, to superintend the 
 work of the scavengers, and to receive and investigate 
 pubHc complaints. This clause was treated much in the 
 same way as that which provided for the appointment of 
 Medical Officers. The parish of St. Pancras, covering more 
 than four square miles, appointed one, and gave him the 
 munificent salary of 385. per week ! The number has been 
 since increased, but the best of the Vestries seem to think 
 £2 a week an ample salary, and some parishes only pay 255. 
 It may be readily imagined what a farce the inspection of 
 nuisances is under this system, and how widely different 
 from what Sir Benjamin Hall anticipated. 
 
 Evidence was given before Mr. Ayrton's Committee from 
 Whitechapel, that " each vestryman was an unpaid sanitary 
 inspector." The most forcible comment upon this evidence 
 was afforded in the following year by the outbreak of cholera 
 in the district. The Inspector of Nuisances for Chelsea 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : SANITARY INSPECTION. 313 
 
 reports that one-third of the houses visited require notices 
 in consequence of some infringement of sanitary regulations. 
 Each of these notices requires to be made out in duplicate, 
 and served on owner and occupier, and other visits are 
 necessary before the work is completed. He " endeavours " 
 to take each street in succession, but is obliged to deviate on 
 receiving calls to other parts of the parish. His time is 
 " greatly engrossed by superintending the dust carts, and 
 nuisances occur much more rapidly " than the time in which 
 they can be met, and " it often becomes necessary to post- 
 pone a visit to some street where it has been long due, to 
 visit another at an earher period, where experience has 
 taught him that neglect is more certain to occur." With 
 all these disadvantages we are not surprised to learn that 
 "it takes two years to make a complete survey of the 
 registered lodging-houses throughout the parish." It is 
 quite clear that, let the poor man work as hard as he may, 
 he cannot properly inspect the district. The City of London 
 with a less acreage, employs eleven inspectors, at a cost of 
 about £2,000 a year, to do the work performed by this one I 
 An d the inference drawn by the Yestry in their report from 
 the acknowledged hopeless state of affairs, is not as might 
 be expected to appoint another inspector, but that " sanitary 
 requirements are not imderstood, as it is hoped that in time 
 they will be ! " Chelsea is by no means the worst of the 
 Vestries, and it has, we beheve, an excellent clerk ; but this 
 single matter indicates clearly how utterly unfit the average 
 London Vestry is to govern, and what small guarantee we 
 have that even the most vital parts of Sir Benjamin Hall's 
 Act will be carried out. 
 
 Each District Board and Vestry may enter into aU such 
 contracts as they may think necessary, for the carrying out 
 of the Act, so nevertheless that where the contract for work 
 or materials exceeds in amount £10, it shall be put in 
 
314 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 writing. Power is also given to purchase lands, &c., for 
 the purposes of the Act. 
 
 Every Vestry and District Board shall from time to 
 time by order under their common seal, require the overseers 
 of the several parishes to levy upon such parishes, and to 
 pay over to the Treasurer of such Yestry or Board such sum 
 as they may require, for defraying the expenses of the 
 execution of the Act, distinguishing in such order the various 
 amounts required under each head of expenditure. This 
 rate is to be collected by the overseers in the same manner 
 and with the same powers as the poors' rate, with the 
 exception that it is distinguished into the separate heads 
 of expenditure with respect to which it is payable. 
 
 Under the Local Management Amendment Act (19 & 
 20 Vict., c. 112), the Vestry may be convened by notice sent 
 by post to each member, three days before the time of such 
 meeting ; such notice being also fixed on or near the door of 
 the building where the meeting is held. 
 
 By the 134th section of the principal Act, the Vestries 
 and District Boards are constituted the local authorities 
 under the Nuisance Removal Acts.^ An Act was passed 
 immediately after the passing of the Management Act, which 
 repealed the Nuisance Removal Acts of 1848 and 1849, 
 and provided more complete regulations as to sanitary in- 
 spection, &c. The 9th section provided for the compulsory 
 appointment of sanitary inspectors with suitable salaries, but 
 for some reason which is not apparent — unless it be the 
 total neglect of the former provision by the Vestries — this 
 useful clause was repealed by the 23 & 24 Vict., c. 77, s. 1 ; 
 and sec. 9, which is the substitutionary clause, provides that 
 the local authorities may appoint Inspectors of Nuisances, 
 &c. The action of the Vestries in this matter is, therefore, 
 
 * The Acts now in force appear to be the 18 & 10 Vict., c. 121, and 
 23 & 24 Vict., c. 77. 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : SANITARY INSPECTION. 315 
 
 now only controlled by sec. 133 of the principal Act, the 
 effect of which we have already considered. 
 
 The provisions of the Nuisances Removal Acts are ample 
 for their purpose, but they are disregarded in the same 
 manner as those of the prmcipal Act. Thus, the provisions 
 of the 18 & 19 Yict., c. 121, s. 26, as to the inspection by the 
 Sanitary Inspector of all food, and the imposition of a 
 penalty where unfit for human consumption, is an excellent 
 provision in itself, but the results are absurdly incommen- 
 surate with the provision and its requirements. It would 
 seem, indeed, a matter of grave doubt whether some of the 
 Vestries have really any knowledge of the existence of these 
 powers, so completely do they ignore them. A considerable 
 destruction of food, unfit for consumption, was made in the 
 Holborn District in the year 1874-5. 
 
 The 27th section contains an excellent provision for the 
 removal of noxious trades, where certified as such by the 
 Medical Officer, or by two duly qualified practitioners. This 
 has been largely utihzed in Poplar, but most Vestries have 
 given but little practical effect to it. So with the 29th section 
 as to overcrowding, a provision notoriously disregarded.* 
 
 Under the amending Act, 23 & 24 Vict., c. 77, s. 12, 
 the local authorities may provide carriages for the convey- 
 ance of infected persons. This is done in one or two 
 Vestries, but more than nine-tenths of them take advantage 
 of the permissive character of the legislation, and disregard 
 it.f Paddington and St. Marylebone are amongst the 
 parishes who have provided this accommodation. 
 
 * In an amusing report by the Sanitary Inspector for Mile End Old 
 Town (Report for 1874, p. 11.), we read "The shocking overcrowding in 
 West End houses during the season, greatly exceeds anything of the kind 
 in the East Eud, and would be quite as pi'obable a cause of fever as in- 
 fected milk from the country ; the train of other evdls resulting from such 
 a state is proverbial ! ! " 
 
 t The idea of Vestries as to Municipal functions is illustrated by the 
 following paragraph from the 1873-4 Eeport of the Strand District, p. 22. 
 
316 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The Vestries and the Metropolitan Board have a power 
 under the provisions of the principal Act, of making bye- 
 laws for their internal regulation, and for the carrying out 
 of the purposes of the Act. 
 
 There are also due provisions in the Act for the control 
 of erections over the sewers ; for the prevention of the 
 choking of such sewers ; for protecting the lamps and other 
 property of the Vestries from damage ; and for other 
 purposes. 
 
 An appeal lies from the orders of the Vestries and 
 Districts Boards to the Metropolitan Board of Works ; and 
 from any order made by Justices of the Peace, under the 
 Act, to the Court of Quarter Sessions. 
 
 The provisions of the Act may, by Order in Council, be 
 extended to parishes adjoining the Metropolis, with not less 
 than 750 inhabitants rated to the poor. This power does 
 not, however, appear to have been ever exercised. 
 
 An inspection of the table* will show the extraordinary 
 disparity existing between the area, population, and repre- 
 sentation of the various Vestries and District Boards. The 
 number of Vestrymen at the present time is apparently 
 about 2,200, but even this simple statistic is difficult to 
 obtain, inasmuch as some of the Vestries do not report the 
 number of their members at all, and the statistics of the 
 Board of "Works are quite unreliable.! In stating the acreage 
 
 " The occasion of the visit of the Shah of Persia to the Metropolis, and 
 his purposed passing through the district, gave the Board an opportunity 
 of exercising its Municipal functions in a demonstrative form; it, there- 
 fore, addressed a memorial of congratulation to the Shah on his visit to 
 England, but no answer was returned till many months had elapsed, when 
 the delay was explained by the Legation to have arisen from an oversight 
 under the pressure of engagements." This vigorous Municipal body rules 
 over 166 acres. 
 
 * See pp. 318-319. 
 
 f As an illustration of this, we may note that a map of the Metro, 
 politan Board District, published under the authority of the Board in 
 March 1875, states the number of Kensington Vestrymen at 84, whereas 
 for a considerable period there have been 120. 
 
LONDON VESTKIES: REPRESENTATION AT BOARD OF WORKS. 317 
 
 of the several districts we have preferred to take the area 
 stated in the official census of 1871, as being probably the most 
 correct. It is, however, 3,000 acres less than the area set 
 out by the Local Taxation Committee, which includes the por- 
 tions of various parishes now covered by the river Thames. 
 
 Taking the representation of the Board of "Works as it 
 relates to the census population we find that each of the 
 members for St. Pancras, St. Mary Islington, and Lambeth, 
 represents at the Board of Works the interests of more than 
 100,000 people. The single member for Greenwich re- 
 presents 100,600 ; Camberwell, 111,306 ; Poplar, 116,376 ; 
 Bethnal Green, 120,104 ; Kensington, 120,299 ; Hackney, 
 124,951 ; and Wandsworth, 125,060. On the other hand, 
 the single member for St. Martin-in-the-Fields represents 
 only 21,238 ; each of the three City members, 24,896 ; 
 St. Saviour's, 30,250 ; St. John, Hampstead, 32,281 ; St. 
 James's, Westminster, 33,619 ; Woolwich, 35,557 ; Strand, 
 37,570; St. Clave, with Rotherhithe, 41,969; Holborn, 
 43,520 ; one of the members for St. George, Hanover Square, 
 44,838; and St. George-in-the-East, 48,052. Thus the 
 first thirteen members quoted represent a population of 
 1,462,281, whilst the last thirteen only represent 443,582. 
 Each of the former, therefore, represents 112,483, and each 
 of the latter 34,121. 
 
 If representation is based upon population which, after 
 weighing the various arguments for and against it, seems to 
 be the fairest method, it will be thus seen that the repre- 
 sentation of the Vestries at the Metropolitan Board would 
 require considerable alteration, even if the present divisions 
 were permitted to remain. The advocates of the City 
 contend that the representation at the Metropolitan Board 
 should be based upon rateable value. Applying this test to 
 the statistics before us, we find that the member for Ken- 
 sington represents a rateable value of £994,559 ; Paddington, 
 
318 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The following Table, compiled from various sources, supplies a mass of 
 
 has never been collectively 
 
 City of London 
 
 Mem- 
 bers. 
 
 street 
 Mileage. 
 
 Area in 
 Statute 
 Acres, 
 1871. 
 
 Inhabited 
 
 Houses, 
 
 1871. 
 
 Census 
 
 Population, 
 
 1871. 
 
 Rated 
 House- 
 holders, 
 1871. 
 
 Rateable 
 Value, 
 1856. 
 
 
 232 
 
 
 650 
 
 9,236 
 
 74,688 
 
 22,233 
 
 £ 
 1,223,217 
 
 
 St. Marylebone 
 
 120 
 
 60^ 
 
 1,506 
 
 16,340 
 
 159,254 
 
 13,441 
 
 999,372 
 
 
 St. Pancras 
 
 120 
 
 80 
 
 2,672 
 
 24,103 
 
 221,465 
 
 23,739 
 
 706,384 
 
 
 Lambeth . . 
 
 120 
 
 86 
 
 3,941 
 
 29,129 
 
 208,342 
 
 29,247 
 
 490,255 
 
 
 St. George, Hanover Sq. 
 
 108 
 
 41i 
 
 1,119 
 
 10,566 
 
 89,677 
 
 9,191 
 
 893,976 
 
 
 St. Mary, Islington . 
 
 120 
 
 87 
 
 3,107 
 
 27,079 
 
 213,778 
 
 28,952 
 
 437,000 
 
 
 Shoreditch .... 
 
 120 
 
 51 
 
 648 
 
 15,569 
 
 127,167 
 
 15,599 
 
 251,548 
 
 
 Paddington 
 
 72 
 
 42 
 
 1,251 
 
 11,847 
 
 90,813 
 
 10,141 
 
 430,000 
 
 
 Bethnal Green 
 
 60 
 
 43 
 
 755 
 
 15,899 
 
 120,104 
 
 15,449 
 
 104,420 
 
 
 Newington . . . . 
 
 72 
 
 34 
 
 632 
 
 12,678 
 
 88,722 
 
 12,772 
 
 190,000 
 
 
 Camberwell 
 
 84 
 
 52 
 
 4,450 
 
 17,772 
 
 111,306 
 
 17,928 
 
 210,000 
 
 
 St. James.Westminster 
 
 48 
 
 ^^ 
 
 162 
 
 3,217 
 
 33,619 
 
 3,515 
 
 411,396 
 
 
 Clerkenwell 
 
 72 
 
 20 
 
 380 
 
 6.834 
 
 65,380 
 
 7,668 
 
 215,168 
 
 
 Chelsea . . . . 
 
 60 
 
 24 
 
 796 
 
 8;987 
 
 71,089 
 
 8,858 
 
 21^,692 
 
 
 Kensington 
 
 120 
 
 57^ 
 
 2,190 
 
 15,735 
 
 120,299 
 
 13,798 
 
 242,284 
 
 
 St. Luke, Middlesex . 
 
 48 
 
 15| 
 
 239 
 
 5,856 
 
 54,995 
 
 6,632 
 
 163,300 
 
 
 St. George, Southwark 
 
 52 
 
 23 
 
 284 
 
 6,910 
 
 56,077 
 
 7,251 
 
 124,660 
 
 
 Bermondsey 
 
 36 
 
 81^ 
 
 626 
 
 10,629 
 
 80,429 
 
 10,611 
 
 131,660 
 
 
 St.George-in-the-East . 
 
 36 
 
 17^ 
 
 24:^ 
 
 5,9.32 
 
 48,052 
 
 5,687 
 
 166,001 
 
 
 St.Martin-in-the-Fields 
 
 36 
 
 H 
 
 28fi 
 
 2,083 
 
 21,238 
 
 1.811 
 
 250,000 
 
 
 Mile End Old Town . 
 
 90 
 
 27 
 
 679 
 
 13,036 
 
 93,152 
 
 12,812 
 
 150,348 
 
 
 Woolwich . . . . 
 
 24 
 
 13i 
 
 1,126 
 
 4,651 
 
 35,557 
 
 3,879 
 
 93,000 
 
 
 Rotherhitbe 
 
 24 
 
 11 
 
 753 
 
 3,932 
 
 27,096 
 
 3,954 
 
 64,000 
 
 
 St. John. Hampstead . 
 
 60 
 
 32 
 
 2,248 
 
 4,348 
 
 32,281 
 
 4,208 
 
 77,024 
 
 
 Whitechapel 
 
 58 
 
 21 
 
 378 
 
 8,264 
 
 76,520 
 
 7,251 
 
 239,6'J7 
 
 
 Westminster . 
 
 57 
 
 27 
 
 815 
 
 6,491 
 
 66.050 
 
 6,227 
 
 256,061 
 
 
 Greenwich . . . . 
 
 84 
 
 62 
 
 3,426 
 
 16,171 
 
 100,600 
 
 16,153 
 
 239,170 
 
 
 Wandsworth . 
 
 86 
 
 100 
 
 11,488 
 
 19,154 
 
 125,060 
 
 13,640 
 
 299,019 
 
 
 Hackney . . . . 
 
 57 
 
 70^ 
 
 3,935 
 
 19,347 
 
 124 951 
 
 19,209 
 
 258,704 
 
 
 St. Giles . . . . 
 
 48 
 
 17 
 
 245 
 
 4,568 
 
 53,556 
 
 3,534 
 
 262,272 
 
 
 Holborn . . . . 
 
 49 
 
 11 
 
 167 
 
 3,8-20 
 
 43,520 
 
 3,072 
 
 215,987 
 
 
 Strand 
 
 49 
 
 10 
 
 167 
 
 3,240 
 
 37,570 
 
 3,288 
 
 271,524 
 
 
 Fulham 
 
 39 
 
 37 
 
 4,003 
 
 10,188 
 
 66,041 
 
 8,543 
 
 114,992 
 
 
 Limehouse . . . . 
 
 36 
 
 25 
 
 462 
 
 7,816 
 
 57,690 
 
 6,943 
 
 165,500 
 
 
 Poplar ... 
 
 48 
 
 47 
 
 2,335 
 
 16,262 
 
 116,376 
 
 16,479 
 
 218,256 
 
 
 St. Saviour's . . 
 
 49 
 
 8 
 
 203 
 
 3,726 
 
 30,250 
 
 3,310 
 
 161,000 
 
 
 Plumstead . . . . 
 
 37 
 
 53 
 
 10,394 
 
 8,202 
 
 52,380 
 
 8,440 
 
 104,930 
 
 
 Lewisham , 
 
 27 
 
 45 
 
 6,544 
 
 8,074 
 
 49,727 
 
 7,888 
 
 138,100 
 
 
 St. Olave . . . . 
 
 28 
 
 6 
 
 124 
 
 1,768 
 
 14,873 
 
 1,933 
 
 96,746 
 
 
 Extra-Parochial Dis- ' 
 tricts . . . .J 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 61 
 
 186 
 
 1,240 
 
 1,225 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 2,444 
 
 1,410 
 
 75,490 
 
 419,642* 
 
 3,266,987 
 
 416,511 
 
 11,283,663 
 
 
 • The Metropolitan Board of Works is responsible for the correctness or otherwise of this Return. 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : STATISTICS. 
 
 816 
 
 useful information relative and particular ^ as to London Vestries which 
 published before. 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total Sewrrs, 
 
 
 Rateable 
 Value, 
 1873. 
 
 Total 
 
 Keceipts from 
 
 Bates, 
 
 TOTAL 
 Receipts. 
 
 Salaries 
 
 and 
 Collectors' 
 
 TOTAI, 
 EXPENDITCEE 
 
 1872-3. 
 
 Loans 
 outstanding, 
 June 1873. 
 
 Total 
 
 Paving 
 
 Expenditure, 
 
 Sanitary, 
 
 Paving, &c., 
 
 Improve- 
 
 
 except Poor. 
 
 
 Poundage. 
 
 
 
 1856-1875. 
 
 ments, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1856-1875. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 2,530,868 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 1,165,020 
 
 79,024 
 
 128,297 
 
 3,239 
 
 122,474 
 
 110,177 
 
 412,312 
 
 644,792 
 
 
 1,164,123 
 
 85,457 
 
 95,761 
 
 5,714 
 
 103 
 
 578t 
 
 170,338 
 
 127,U69 
 
 394,731 
 
 
 982,953 
 
 83,617 
 
 100,467 
 
 2,709 
 
 111 
 
 311 
 
 89,834 
 
 119,260 
 
 338,490 
 
 
 1,376,602 
 
 69,431 
 
 75,162 
 
 2,349 
 
 74 
 
 363 
 
 36,107 
 
 253,785 
 
 307,735 
 
 
 1,038,727 
 
 71,298 
 
 86,560 
 
 5,100 
 
 95 
 
 920 
 
 20,988 
 
 105,278 
 
 198,155 
 
 
 445,490 
 
 36,557 
 
 44,160 
 
 2,458 
 
 41 
 
 394 
 
 62,217 
 
 119,094 
 
 140,533 
 
 
 968,340 
 
 59,586 
 
 63,727 
 
 3,730 
 
 63 
 
 744 
 
 — 
 
 32,010 
 
 187,559 
 
 
 277,349 
 
 28,114 
 
 30,221 
 
 2,083 
 
 31 
 
 234 
 
 60,400 
 
 104,300 
 
 131,455 
 
 
 325,368 
 
 31,975 
 
 46,138 
 
 1,671 
 
 47 
 
 584 
 
 29,617 
 
 44,241 
 
 122,574 
 
 
 508,368 
 
 54,863 
 
 71,562 
 
 3,384 
 
 60 
 
 689 
 
 67,950 
 
 45,000 
 
 254,611 
 
 
 526,670 
 
 29,487 
 
 30,011 
 
 2,038 
 
 34 
 
 855 
 
 5,605 
 
 118,510 
 
 136,597 
 
 
 256,004 
 
 16,694 
 
 20,603 
 
 1,938 
 
 21 
 
 618 
 
 10,174 
 
 46,180 
 
 96,109 
 
 
 344,357 
 
 27,325 
 
 37,119 
 
 1,800 
 
 37 
 
 106 
 
 13,987 
 
 93,314 
 
 116,295 
 
 
 994,559 
 
 69,080 
 
 73,400 
 
 3,166 
 
 75 
 
 465 
 
 20,311 
 
 113,963 
 
 222,456 
 
 
 239,704 
 
 14,702 
 
 27,238 
 
 1,515 
 
 26 
 
 878 
 
 28,549 
 
 49,386 
 
 83,406 
 
 
 187,368 
 
 21,737 
 
 27,820 
 
 1,792 
 
 27 
 
 301 
 
 22,500 
 
 71,575 
 
 79,888 
 
 
 207,184 
 
 20,825 
 
 39,678 
 
 ],0.-.6 
 
 41 
 
 523 
 
 34,091 
 
 43,034 
 
 74,948 
 
 
 184,224 
 
 13,639 
 
 17,424 
 
 1,149 
 
 15 
 
 046 
 
 17,633 
 
 20,204 
 
 66,302 
 
 
 329,835 
 
 14,884 
 
 14,906 
 
 1,061 
 
 14 
 
 620 
 
 — 
 
 57,059 
 
 69,223 
 
 
 275,205 
 
 24,744 
 
 25,534 
 
 1,093 
 
 23 
 
 490 
 
 4,905 
 
 60,641 
 
 96,608 
 
 
 90,505 
 
 13,108 
 
 16,679 
 
 1,015 
 
 15 
 
 380 
 
 23,233 
 
 21,415 
 
 29,051 
 
 
 138,709 
 
 11,572 
 
 22,621 
 
 1,388 
 
 22 
 
 082 
 
 21, '••70 
 
 41,562 
 
 66,676 
 
 
 268,778 
 
 23,919 
 
 25,565 
 
 1,376 
 
 27 
 
 723 
 
 26,8i0 
 
 20,255 
 
 64,444 
 
 
 324,122 
 
 30,541 
 
 68,404 
 
 1,755 
 
 81 
 
 519 
 
 52,096 
 
 78,484 
 
 179,792 
 
 
 506,237 
 
 33,001 
 
 39,143 
 
 1,300 
 
 39 
 
 240 
 
 1,000 
 
 127,050 
 
 220,414 
 
 
 413,116 
 
 41,964 
 
 63,719 
 
 2,859 
 
 66 
 
 5 8 
 
 126,2:i3 
 
 69,762 
 
 180,238 
 
 
 737,052 
 
 87,748 
 
 91,862 
 
 2,979 
 
 87 
 
 796 
 
 176,383 
 
 67,000 
 
 343,758 
 
 
 620,724 
 
 19,350 
 
 48,439 
 
 2,903 
 
 49 
 
 032 
 
 43,707 
 
 31,875 
 
 66.851 
 
 
 307,225 
 
 21,235 
 
 22,423 
 
 1,461 
 
 21 
 
 860 
 
 6,746 
 
 92,848 
 
 211,915 
 
 
 245,981 
 
 13,527 
 
 14,813 
 
 1,155 
 
 15 
 
 470 
 
 1,000 
 
 43,364 
 
 65,803 
 
 
 326,250 
 
 18,261 
 
 19,008 
 
 733 
 
 19 
 
 396 
 
 1,000 
 
 65,405 
 
 84,353 
 
 
 306,446 
 
 35,698 
 
 48,572 
 
 975 
 
 44 
 
 712 
 
 66,769 
 
 22,000 
 
 95,600 
 
 
 261,983 
 
 21,337 
 
 67,601 
 
 1,241 
 
 40 
 
 743 
 
 63,897 
 
 97,988 
 
 245,057 
 
 
 465,655 
 
 39,679 
 
 46,534 
 
 3,165 
 
 45 
 
 844 
 
 40,416 
 
 79,103 
 
 120,447 
 
 
 250,200 
 
 17,503 
 
 18,871 
 
 1,395 
 
 17 
 
 330 
 
 1,800 
 
 54,516 
 
 50,766 
 
 
 260,696 
 
 26,215 
 
 40,390 
 
 1,657 
 
 40 
 
 486 
 
 57,841 
 
 32,007 
 
 101,765 
 
 
 407,639 
 
 33,041 
 
 46,864 
 
 1,437 
 
 42 
 
 872 
 
 25,048 
 
 26,398 
 
 71,608 
 
 
 159,432 
 
 10,415 
 
 14,419 
 
 1,187 
 
 11 
 
 674 
 
 1,500 
 
 35,149 
 
 82,122 
 
 
 20,509,437 
 
 1,342,159 
 
 1,772,714 
 
 79,116 
 
 1,769,020 
 
 1,560,942 
 
 3,038,406 
 
 6,067,228 
 
 + This amount appears to be exclusive of a sum of £114,200, due Lady-day 1875, on the Estates and 
 Enclosed Gardens Account, and borrowed under the authority of Acts prior to the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act. 
 
320 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 £968,340 ; each of the City representatives, £843,622 ; and 
 the member for "Wandsworth, £737,052, On the other 
 hand, the member for Woolwich represents £90,595 ; 
 St. George-in-the-East, £184,224 ; St. George, Southwark, 
 £187,368 ; St. Luke, Middlesex, £239,794 ; Holbom, 
 £245,981 ; and ClerkenweU, £256,004; The first six mem- 
 bers represent an aggregate rateable value of £5,230,819, 
 and the last six of £1,203,966 ; each member representing 
 respectively £871,803 and £200,661. 
 
 Power is given in the Act for the Vestries and District 
 Boards to borrow money on the credit of the rates, for the 
 purpose of defraying expenses incurred by them in the 
 execution of the Act. They have power for such purpose 
 to mortgage the rates, but the consent of the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works is requisite before such loan can be made. 
 We have previously set out the extensive powers now 
 possessed by the Metropohtan Board of lending money to 
 the local bodies, and the extent to which this power has 
 been exercised. This method of borrowing money has now 
 superseded in large measure that contemplated by the Act. 
 
 The loans raised during the year 1872-3* on the security 
 of the rates, amounted to £220,000. This sum was bor- 
 rowed by sixteen Vestries. Marylebone borrowed £45,000 ; 
 Limehouse, £44,500 ; Whitechapel, £36,000 ; Bermondsey, 
 £15,700 ; Fulham and Eotherhithe, each £10,000 ; Lewis- 
 ham, £9,500 ; Greenwich and Camberwell, each £8,000 ; 
 Newington and St. Luke's, each £7,000 ; Plumstead, 
 
 * The returns of the Local Government Board of the receipts, ex- 
 penditure, and liabilities of various public bodies throughout the country, 
 are not published till two and a half years after the period to which they 
 relate ; but in some of the statements here made we have taken these 
 authorized figures, as it is next to impossible to obtain reliable statistics 
 that shall also be complete, from the various Vestry repoi'ts. It is a 
 thousand pities that so complete a measure as the Act of 1855, did not 
 also include a system of tabulated returns, which the Vestries might have 
 been bound to make under a penalty. 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : LOAN ACCOUNTS. 321 
 
 £6,900 ; St. George's, Southwark, £5,500 ; St. George- 
 in-the-East, £3,500; St. Olave, £2,200; and Hackney, 
 £2,000. 
 
 The total outstanding loan account in June 1873 is 
 shown above as £1,560,942, an amount that has been since 
 considerably increased ; but very creditable efforts are made 
 by the different Vestries to repay the money they borrow. 
 No less than thirty-three Vestries paid various sums in 
 liquidation of loans in 1872-3. The total amount paid in 
 loan liquidation and interest was £188,146, so that the net 
 increase on the year's loans was but little over £30,000. 
 Probably it would be correct to estimate the loan liability of 
 the Vestries in 1875 at £1,800,000. 
 
 Between the years 1856 and 1875 the various Vestries 
 and District Boards have borrowed, from sources other than 
 the Metropolitan Board of Works, the sum of £1,834,297, 
 of which sum £764,523 was borrowed for sewerage works, 
 £802,672 for paving, and £267,102 for street and other 
 improvements. A considerable portion of the sum thus 
 borrowed has been repaid ; but the power before alluded to, 
 which has been possessed by the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works since 1869, of lending money to these bodies from 
 their own ConsoHdated Stock, has been largely exercised, and 
 the amount now due from the Vestries to the MetropoKtan 
 Board, under these powers so exercised, is about equivalent 
 to the amount of loans repaid by the Vestries. 
 
 The total income of the Vestries and District Boards 
 from ordinary rates amounted during the year 1872-3, as 
 shown in the foregoing table, to £1,342,159. In addition 
 to this, special rates were levied in several cases to the 
 amount of £36,514, making the total income from rates 
 £1,378,673. During the years 1874 and 1875, the rates 
 have been increased in the majority of the Vestries, whilst 
 in one or two they are sHghtly less. 
 
322 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The income derived by these bodies from sources inde- 
 pendent of rates, in the year under consideration, amounted 
 to £393,524 ; of this sum £3,432 was derived from realized 
 property. This is only possessed by eight Vestries, and St. 
 George's, Hanover Square is credited with £2,166, or about 
 two-thirds of the whole amount. The sum of £115,193 was 
 received as payment on account of private works executed 
 by the local authorities. No less than six of the Vestries 
 derived no income whatever from this source. The largest 
 items in this branch of the account are Greenwich £13,324, 
 Lambeth £13,112, and Islington £12,558. Miscellaneous 
 sources of income produced £54,099. Several of the 
 parishes received no benefit under this head. The largest 
 receipts are Hackney £6,989, Shoreditch £6,773, and 
 Chelsea £6,765. The total income is swelled by the loans 
 with which we have already dealt. 
 
 The total income of the Vestries will be seen to have 
 been, in the year 1872-3, £1,772,714, and the expenditure 
 £1,769,020, showing a credit balance on the whole account 
 of £3,694. The very small proportion of the Vestry ex- 
 penditure defrayed by loans, notwithstanding the works 
 constantly executed on what might fairly be called capital 
 account, are a very creditable feature, and present a maiked 
 contrast to the proceedings in the City. For example St. 
 Pancras borrowed £23,000 for the purpose of erecting baths 
 and wash-houses, and the sum is now repaid or nearly so; 
 whilst the City, in 1842, borrowed £85,000 for the purpose 
 of building the Royal Exchange, and in thirty-five years has 
 only succeeded in pa5dng ofi* £3,500 ! 
 
 The amount expended in lighting and works connected 
 therewith was £209,519. The various amounts under this 
 head necessarily varied in a ratio, approximating to the 
 street mileage of the various districts. In some of the 
 outlying Vestries, the charges under this head have ma- 
 
LONDON %'ESTIIIES : PUBLIC LAMPS. 323 
 
 terially increased with, tlie increase of population. Thus, 
 whilst in the years 1856-74 the Strand, St. Martin-in-the- 
 Fields, and St. Luke's, Middlesex, have not added a single 
 public lamp to the streets ; and whilst St. Giles' Holbom, 
 St. Olave, Whitechapel, Rotherhithe, St. George-in the- 
 East, St. George South wark, Clerkenwell, St. James's West- 
 minster, Shoreditch, and St. George's Hanover Square have 
 each added, in the nineteen years, less than 100 lamps ; 
 we find that Kensington has added no less than 2,275 ; 
 St. Pancras, 1,867 ; Wandsworth, 1,459 ; Lambeth, 1,311 ; 
 Islington, 1,246 ; and Lewisham, 1,175. 
 
 The amounts paid by different Yestries for the same gas 
 vary extremely ; but perhaps the Gas Companies are more 
 directly responsible than the Vestries, as the former are by 
 far the more powerful bodies of the two. 
 
 The total expenditure of the Yestries and District Boards 
 of the Metropolis was, as we have seen, £1,769,020, Of 
 this, the sum of £781,811 was expended in making and 
 maintaining roads, streets, and paths, and for scavenging 
 and watering the same. The various amounts expended by 
 different Yestries under this head bore no sort of proportion 
 either to the street mileage or to the rateable value of the 
 district. Thus, Mile End Old Town, with a rateable value 
 of £275,295 and 27 miles of streets, expended £9,842, or 
 rather more than £364 per mile; whilst its neighbour, 
 Limehouse, with only 25 miles of streets and a rateable 
 value of £261,983, expended no less than £26,573, or an 
 average of more than £1,000 per mile. The heaviest 
 expenditure on this account, both in aggregate amount and 
 in rate per mile, was in Marjdebone. This parish expended 
 £71,120, being at the rate of nearly £1,200 per mile ; whilst 
 Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, and some others expended about 
 the same mileage rate as Mile End Old Town. 
 
 St. Marylebone is probably the best-managed Yestry in 
 
324 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the Metropolis, It had the advantage of the direct personal 
 assistance of Sir Benjamin Hall, and although defective and 
 behindhand in some things, it appears never to have lost 
 the prestige and the influence which he gave it. It would, 
 therefore, he extremely unjust to suppose that the heavy 
 expenditure of this parish upon its roads, represents a sum 
 which could he fairly saved to the ratepayers ; and if we 
 concede this, we shall be able to understand how inadequate 
 the roadmaking of some of the Vestries is. Probably, 
 London roads generally are now better made than they were 
 twenty years ago, and they will bear comparison with some 
 towns abroad.^ But hke everything else they illustrate by 
 their excellence and by their deformity the lack of unity in 
 government, and in many cases the absence of adequate 
 scientific knowledge on the part of the surveyors. A few of 
 the Vestries have adopted steam rollers, but most of the 
 others still continue the old and expensive system. Some- 
 times, however, but less frequently than formerly, they do 
 not roll the streets at all, but have rough granite blocks to 
 be consolidated by the passing traffic, in the honest belief 
 that it is the best and cheapest method. 
 
 The precepts of the Metropolitan Board in 1873 absorbed 
 £196,289, leaving the net expenditure of the Vestries for 
 that year £1,572,731. 
 
 The salaries and collectors' poundage paid by the whole 
 thirty-nine Vestries was only £79,116, or an average of 
 about £2,000 a year for each Vestry. The current expendi- 
 ture of the Vestries being taken at £1,600,000, we find that 
 this is about five per cent, on the expenditure. The current 
 expenditure of the City is £767,000, and the amount paid 
 
 * •' In comparison with the streets of American cities taken through the 
 year, the general condition of those of London and its suburbs is excellent. 
 They are infinitely better attended to as regards paving : they are better 
 swept and better looked after in every way."- Chas. E. Pascoe in Apple- 
 ton'i Journal, New York, 1873, p. 234. 
 
LONDON vestries; officers. 325 
 
 in salaries is about the same, so that the City per-centage is 
 at least double that of the Yestries. 
 
 At the present time the number of officers employed 
 varies to a considerable extent according to the size of the 
 parish, but the proportion is by no means constant, and some 
 of the Vestries are under-officered. St. Marylebone pays its 
 Yestry Clerk £700 a year ; St. Mary, Islington, pays £600 
 a year. The salary varies in other Yestries down to £200 
 a year. The other officers differ widely, according to the 
 parish in which they are employed. 
 
 We are not able to set out the establishment cost of the 
 Yestries and District Boards. Some Yestries charge items 
 to this account which others do not include. Many Yestries 
 make no return of it whatever, nor of any particulars from 
 which it can be truly estimated. It is not, however, 
 probable that there is much waste of money on this account. 
 As a rule the Yestries are under-officered, and the officers 
 are imderpaid. If we estimated the fair establishment 
 charges of the Yestries at £120,000, we should probably be 
 about the mark. This sum would represent about eight per 
 cent, of the total expenditure, which is nearly as much under 
 a fair establishment charge as the enormous cost of the City 
 is over it. 
 
 The total stationery bills of the parish of St. Pancras 
 appear to have been in 1874-5 some £326. The City ex- 
 pended a larger sum than this, in providing the Aldermen 
 and Common Councillors with pocket almanacs ! 
 
 In the year 1872 the Board of Works published certain 
 returns from the various Yestries and District Boards of the 
 Metropolis, with respect to the works executed by them 
 during the first fifteen years of their existence. 
 
 The returns were made in answer to thirteen compre- 
 hensive questions, and some of them are exceedingly valuable 
 and creditable statements. Like everything else, through 
 
826 MTJNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the agency of whicli a comparison between the workings of 
 the different Vestries is obtained, this return clearly indi- 
 cates the wide difference in management existing between 
 them. Some of the Vestries, as St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, 
 ClerkenwcU, Poplar, Plumstead, and some others, answered 
 the questions in a full and intelligible manner, and gave an 
 account of their work, creditable in itself, and indicating in 
 one or two cases the existence of governing authorities of 
 high excellence. Some of the other Vestries sent replies of 
 the most meagre and unsatisfactory character. The worst 
 example of this was the Vestry of Fulham, which returned 
 no answer whatever to five of the questions, and with respect 
 to the other eight, answered them in fewer words than those 
 used in the questions themselves. 
 
 The fijst of these questions was as to the extent of 
 sewerage works executed by the different Vestries, and 
 their cost. The sixth question was as to the total amount 
 expended in sewerage and paving, and the method in which 
 it had been raised. We have set out in the accompanying 
 table, returns with respect to these matters made up to 
 1874 ; and also returns with respect to the matters included 
 in the fourth and fifth questions, as to the amount of paving 
 executed, and the cost of other improvements. The seventh 
 and eighth questions deal with the mileage of the several 
 districts, which we have also tabulated according to a later 
 return. 
 
 The ninth question stands thus : " How many miles of 
 streets are watered in your district, and what is the cost per 
 mile for water and cartage respectively ? " About one-half 
 of the Vestries returned a categorical answer. Of the re- 
 mainder, some did not answer the question at all ; others 
 stated that it was done by contract, but did not set out the 
 amount of the contract, nor work out the cost per mile. 
 
 When it is remembered that these returns were called 
 
LONDON vestries: street watering. 327 
 
 for by the Metropolitan Board, whicli may be regarded as 
 the controlling influence of the Yestries, — if, indeed, such 
 influence anywhere exists, — and that, moreover, they were 
 called for with the express object of defending the Board 
 and the Vestries from the attacks of those who pronounced 
 them incapable and ineflicient ; and for the purpose of justify- 
 ing their longer continuance by the excellence of their govern- 
 ment, the way in which this and some other questions are 
 answered is, indeed, remarkable. In many cases, those who 
 prepare the answers appear either to have misunderstood 
 the simplest question, or to have been too lazy or unwilHng 
 to ascertain facts which must have been within their own 
 knowledge. The answers to some of the questions reflect 
 but little credit on the intelligence of the Yestry Clerks. 
 
 The twenty-one Yestries that gave clear answers to this 
 question as to the cost of street watering, enable us once 
 again to estimate how widely difierent are the methods of 
 procedure adopted, and the rates of expenditure which are 
 to be found in the difierent Yestries. The cost per mile of 
 the water itself was £55 in Lewisham ; £50 in Greenwich ; 
 Plumstead, £45 ; and Wandsworth, £39. These were the 
 highest reported amounts. The large parishes ranged be- 
 tween £20 and £40 ; but in Hackney the cost was £16 ; 
 Mile End, £15; St. Luke's, £14; Limehouse, £13; White- 
 chapel, £11 ; and Rotherhithe (where it was obtained from 
 wells within the parish), £8 14s. 
 
 Nor was the difference in the amount charged per mile 
 for cartage less remarkable. The cost per mile was, in St. 
 Martin's-in-the-Fields, £70 ; Paddington, £67 ; Greenwich, 
 £65 ; Marylebone, £59 ; and Hampstead, £54 ; whilst the 
 same item was charged in Limehouse, £23 ; Rotherhithe, 
 £22; St. Luke's, £20; and Mile End, £19. The total 
 yearly cost per mile was in Greenwich, £115; Plumstead, 
 £98; Paddington, £97; and St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, £90; 
 
328 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 whilst in Hackney it was only £42 ; in Whitectiapel, £36 ; 
 in St. Luke's and Mile End, £34 ; and in Rotherliithe, £30. 
 The other districts that give returns at all, range between 
 these extremes. 
 
 There are no existing data which enable us to judge how 
 far these enormous differences may be set down to the 
 efficiency or inefl&ciency of the work done, and how far to 
 wise and unwise contracts. The example of Rotherhithe in 
 using springs within its own borders might be well followed, 
 as such water, though unfit for domestic purposes, is well 
 fitted for street watering. Whatever be the explanation of 
 the great discrepancies existing, they point forcibly to the 
 absence of any general system or method in the perform- 
 ance by different Yestries of even the simplest Municipal 
 functions. 
 
 In the performance of these Municipal duties, there is 
 frequently a double neglect. A neglect in the Yestry to 
 superintend it themselves, and a neglect in the contractors 
 to do the work at all, if they can help it. When the fining 
 of neghgent contractors for dust removal, or for watering, or 
 for street cleansing, is proposed at a Yestry, the offenders 
 are sure to find some friends at court, and often get off scot 
 free, pocketing the profit of their wrong doing.* 
 
 The answers to the tenth question, as to the number of 
 lamps added since 1856, were on the lines of the increased 
 street accommodation, and the most lamps had been put up, 
 as we have seen, in the districts which have most extensively 
 increased in population ; but in some districts the Hghting 
 accommodation appears to have been quite inadequate to 
 such requirements as did exist. Thus, of the five parishes 
 comprising the Plumstead District, there were four, viz., 
 
 * Bethnal Green fined five contractors for neglect in the year 1874-5. 
 The total amount of these fines was only j£32 10s., which would soon be 
 recouped by further neglect, the smallness of the amount acting as a 
 direct incentive to negligence. 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : PRICE OF PUBLIC GAS. 329 
 
 Plumstead, Kidbrooke, Eltham, and Charlton, that had no 
 lamps whatever, and one of the earliest works of the new 
 Yestry was to supply such deficiency, Wandsworth District 
 was also almost in total darkness in 1856. 
 
 The twelfth question was as to the price charged for the 
 lighting and cleansing of the public lamps. Twenty-seven 
 of the Yestries gave the price per lamp. The remainder 
 either shirked the question or merely gave the aggregate 
 lighting charge of the parish. The answers that were given 
 served to bring into strong relief the diflerent prices charged 
 by various Gas Companies for the same gas, a subject with 
 which we shall deal more at length in the next chapter. 
 We find the same company charging different Yestries 
 different prices for the same gas, and sometimes, as in the 
 case of Greenwich, a Yestry supplied by three companies 
 pays a different price to each for the same commodity. The 
 price is regulated apparently not so much by the value of 
 the article as by the strength or weakness of particular 
 Yestries in th«r dealings with powerful and grasping Cor- 
 porations. No less than eighteen different prices are charged 
 for the same quantity of the same thing ! These prices 
 range from £3 10s. to £5. The prices are now probably 
 somewhat less, but the difference and anomaHes still exist. 
 
 The remaining questions are as to the condition of the 
 various districts as to drainage, inspection, and sanitary im- 
 provements prior to 1856, and the condition in 1870, with 
 the alterations which have been made in the interval. After 
 making due allowance for the opportunity these questions 
 afford for the self-laudation of the various Yestries, we find 
 from the substantial facts set out in the various answers 
 that the improvements have been most extensive. The 
 chaotic condition of London government before the passing 
 of Sir Benjamin Hall's Act has been already illustrated, and 
 these questions enable the Yestries to show the great advars- 
 
330 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 tages that have been conferred upon some districts by the 
 passing of that measure, and of those which have succeeded 
 it. But the Act of 1855, whilst establishing a complete 
 system with many merits, provided no means of compelling 
 the carrying of it out. 
 
 Perhaps the most satisfactory alteration, and the one 
 which has had the most marked effect in lowering the death- 
 rate of the Metropolis, is in the condition of local drainage. 
 The carrying out of sewer drainage has only been rendered 
 possible on a complete scale, by the perfection of the Main 
 Drainage system. But whilst there is not now one-tenth of 
 the London houses which are not drained into the Main 
 Sewer, there probably was not in 1856 one-tenth that had 
 the advantage of sewer drainage. In Rotherhithe, the 
 Surveyor reported in 1856 the existence of some fifteen miles 
 of open sewers and ditches. According to the first report of 
 the Medical Officer in the same year, the very boundary of 
 the parish " consisted of a long, black, filthy, open sewer." 
 As the ditches discharged into the Thames, and as the 
 district was a low-lying one, the sewage contained in them 
 would be deposited, at a high tide, in the streets and houses. 
 The low situation of Rotherhithe made its condition perhaps 
 the most deplorable of any district, but Bermondsey, Chelsea, 
 and Camberwell were not far behind. 
 
 Nearly the whole of London was drained into cesspools, 
 and one of the most useful works performed by these Yes- 
 tries has been the entire abolition and filling up of these 
 nests of typhoid. The number of them was probably, in 
 many cases, nearly equal to the number of the houses in the 
 district. Hackney has filled up something like 6,000 ; 
 Whitechapel, 4,000; Camberwell, 5,000; Poplar, 6,000; and 
 other districts in like proportion. Neither, in 1856, were there 
 in three districts out of four any regulations whatever as to 
 the inspection and improvement of courts and dwellings. Most 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : INSPECTION OF HOUSES. 331 
 
 of the parishes now provide for such inspection and improve- 
 ment. Some of them do this by the appointment of in- 
 spectors paid for the purpose, in other parishes it is done 
 through the action of the Works' Committee visiting the 
 different districts. The excellence of this work is by no 
 means confined to the large Vestries. For example, St. 
 Olave, in the year 1873-4, provided for the quarterly 
 lime-washing of every slaughter-house within its district, 
 and for the half-yearly washing of the various cow-houses 
 and bake-houses. Many houses were cleansed and disin- 
 fected, new drains constructed, repaired, and trapped, yards 
 paved, trade accumulations and pigsties removed, &c., &c. ; 
 making a total of somewhere near 2,000 nuisances abated, 
 or improvements effected, in that year alone. And several 
 other Vestries present an equally creditable report. Pop- 
 lar has drained under the direction of the Vestry something 
 like 150 streets. Hackney has improved the ventilation of 
 1,396 houses, by making the top window-sashes moveable. 
 It has also abated more than 35,000 nuisances. St. James's, 
 Westminster, reported up to 1870 the removal of 24,373 
 nuisances. St. Pancras has carried out an equal number of 
 improvements, and has completely renovated the districts of 
 the parish which were so much in want of Municipal accom- 
 modation in 1856. Altogether this parish has expended 
 more than a milHon sterHng in sewerage, paving, and other 
 improvements. St. Marylebone and Westminster have gone 
 to the point of providing local hospital accommodation for 
 inhabitants suffering from contagious diseases ; and the 
 former Vestry has carried its regard for the pubHc con- 
 venience to the extent of expending £600 in the construction 
 of street rests. 
 
 Westminster District Board, under the able direction of 
 Mr. Barnard Holt, abated 3,192 nuisances in the year 
 1873-4, and other Vestries make similar report. 
 
332 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The questions put by the Metropolitan Board to the 
 Vestries are good in themselves, but are far from exhaustive. 
 It is possible that the master who put his questions for the 
 purpose of showing off his pupils, only put such questions 
 as he knew might receive some respectable answer. Be 
 that as it may, there are many things omitted about which 
 it would have been desirable to know something. 
 
 For example, by " The Public Libraries Act, 1855," local 
 authorities are empowered, with the sanction of a majority 
 of the ratepayers, to erect free libraries and museums, and 
 to rate the inhabitants for the same. It would have been 
 well to know how far the capital had carried out this ex- 
 cellent, provision ; and if it should be found that there was 
 but one example (Westminster), then surely with the 
 noble examples of provincial towns before our eyes, we 
 should recognise the failure of our local governing insti- 
 tutions, and the result of attempts to enforce the Act in St. 
 Pancras and in Bethnal Green would lead us to despair of 
 our future. 
 
 Then, again, what about the " Baths and "Wash-houses 
 Act?" We beHeve that about one in six of the London 
 Vestries have availed themselves of the powers given by 
 this most beneficial Act. They have thus conferred an 
 enormous boon upon the inhabitants of their districts. 
 Paddington has recently opened an excellent establishment 
 for the purposes of this Act. In the return under con- 
 sideration, St. Pancras reported an expenditure under this 
 head of £23,000, and in the year before the report was 
 made, no less than 149,474 persons availed themselves of 
 the baths, and 19,620 of the wash-houses. These figures 
 enable some estimate to be formed of the usefulness and 
 benefit of these institutions. It has also been shown that 
 they can be worked at a profit. 
 
 The other Vestries who have put this Act in force in- 
 
LONDON vestries: various powers. 333 
 
 elude St. George's Hanover Square, St. Marylebone, St. 
 James's Westminster, and St, Martin's-in-the-Fields. 
 
 Then, again, the "Workshops Regulation Act" is en- 
 forced by a few of the Vestries, but neglected by the many. 
 In the former category are included St. Pancras, St. George's 
 Hanover Square, Clerkenwell, Rotherhithe, Bethnal Green, 
 Camberwell, Newington, and the Strand. 
 
 The regulation of lodging-houses is attended to by a 
 few of the Vestries. Chelsea, Camberwell, Clerkenwell, and 
 St. George's Hanover Square, report having paid attention 
 to this. 
 
 " The Metropolis Local Management Amendment Act, 
 1862," provides* that Vestries shall have power to give 
 notice to persons feeding or keeping swine in improper situa- 
 tions to remove them. This power has been availed of by 
 several of the Vestries, and most of the London parishes are 
 now completely free from this description of nuisance. 
 
 The same Act provides for the licensingf of cow-houses 
 by Justices of the Peace, but with a discretion in the Vestry, 
 to whom notice of their estabhshment must be given, to 
 oppose them. Under this provision the number of cow- 
 houses existing in some districts of the Metropolis has been 
 largely lessened. Nineteen premises in Westminster were 
 licensed as cow-houses in .1873-4 ; in Clerkenwell, 27 ; Lam- 
 beth, 99 ; Chelsea, 28 ; &c., &c. 
 
 The Artizans' Dwellings Act has led to inspection being 
 made in St. Pancras, Clerkenwell, St. Luke's, and other 
 districts. St. Marylebone has demolished some thirty houses 
 under the powers given by this Act, as being unfit for 
 human habitation, whilst many others have been put in 
 repair. Holborn has applied it in twenty-six cases, and is anti- 
 cipating a still larger benefit from the new Act of the session 
 of 1875, through the agency of which it is expected that 
 * 35 & 26 Vict., c. 102, s. 91. f Sec. 93. 
 
334 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the rookeries surrounding Gray's Inn Lane will be swept 
 away. It has been repeatedly asserted that the due opera- 
 tion of this excellent Act has been much retarded in some 
 districts, especially in the East End, by the proprietors of 
 the wretched dwellings getting elected on the Yestries and 
 preventing its enforcement. However this may be, there 
 are certainly the facts that the Act is a dead letter in much 
 of East London, and that the owners of the property are 
 sometimes vestrymen. 
 
 The establishment of mortuaries and of houses for post- 
 mortem examinations, is a most necessary matter in crowded 
 cities where corpses are kept for some days before inter- 
 ment, and that frequently in the same room where survivors 
 eat and sleep. These essential establishments are, however, 
 only to be found in very few of the districts of the Metropolis. 
 St. Marylebone, Newington, Camberwell, Islington, Clerken- 
 well, Strand, St. George's-in-the-East, St. Martin's-in-the- 
 Fields, Kensington, and St. Luke's, reported their erection, 
 and it is believed one or two other Yestries intend to follow 
 in the wake, but their existence in connection with London 
 Yestries is still the exception. About the same number of 
 Yestries have provided disinfecting chambers, and one or 
 two provide vehicles for the conveyance of persons suffering 
 from contagious diseases. 
 
 All the better-managed Yestries regularly disinfect the 
 public places, and the courts, alleys, and sewers of the 
 district, by flushing them in hot weather with carbolic 
 at frequent intervals. They also enforce the cleansing and 
 whitewashing of houses, and have weekly returns of 
 nuisances."^ 
 
 Burial grounds over which parishes have any control, 
 have, in several cases, been put into healthy condition. 
 
 * Poplar, in 1873-4, supplied disinfectants free of cost in ninety-seven 
 instances. 
 
LONDON VESTRIES : VARIOUS POWERS. 835 
 
 Thus Marylebone has had the vaults under seven churches 
 filled up, and something like 2,000 cofi&ns there, and in 
 vaults under Paddington Street, imbedded in charcoal and 
 earth, whilst the burial grounds themselves have been 
 covered with fresh earth and planted. 
 
 Some of the Vestries regularly test the gas and water 
 supphed to the parish. In St. Marylebone this is done 
 daily. In some other Vestries it is done weekly, mouthy, 
 or at longer intervals, whilst in many it does not appear to 
 be done at all. One London Vestry has the reputation of 
 having appointed a Gas Inspector who was absolutely 
 ignorant of Chemistry ! 
 
 The conditions of the water supply have necessarily 
 very much improved. Dr. Sutherland made a report to the 
 General Board of Health, in 1852, with respect to part of 
 the district now included under the jurisdiction of St. 
 George's-in-the-East, that the crowding was excessive ; the 
 ventilation bad ; the rooms and furniture dirty ; the water 
 supply in courts was from stand pipes, and was only given 
 on intermittent days ; that it was " muddy, yellow, re- 
 pulsive, and unfit for domestic purposes." Some improve- 
 ment has been effected in the other matters, but the water 
 supply is now a daily one (except Sunday), and the water 
 itself is good. There is much room left for improvement, 
 and not the least step towards such improvement wiU be the 
 concession of a constant water supply. 
 
 " The Adulteration Act, 1872," has been put in force by 
 some Vestries, but not by all. The result is, however, much 
 better than that of preceding Acts, and probably the cha- 
 racter of much of the milk and bread in London has im- 
 proved since the measure came into force. Greenwich has 
 a pubHc Analyst who in the year 1873-4 analyzed 211 
 articles, divided amongst water, milk, skim milk, coffee, 
 butter, lard, arrowroot, tea, bread, mustard, pickles, vinegar, 
 
336 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 soda-water, jam, pepper, spirits, sweetmeats, capers, sugar. 
 "Westminster reported the analysis of 170. The report 
 from Poplar for 1875 contains two reports from its public 
 Analyst. They are satisfactory in the main, and not the 
 least so, as he says " the of&ce of Analyst has many respon- 
 sibilities," and a rigid examination '* is more than ever 
 imperative from the very searching cross-examination of the 
 Analyst by some skilled counsel, which I find in my ex- 
 perience now nearly always occurs over (sic) a prosecution."* 
 Analysts have also done more or less work in Bethnal Green 
 and Clerkenwell, where 179 separate articles were analyzed, 
 and elaborate rules for their guidance have been drawn up. 
 Some of the Vestries appoint a special Analyst, who is in most 
 instances only empowered to analyze substances brought to 
 him on the payment of fees. Other Vestries, as St. Olave, 
 join on the office of Analyst to that of Medical OfBcer.f The 
 Rotherhithe Analyst appears to be paid by fees alone, but 
 the Vestry have appointed an Inspector under the Act to 
 whom they pay £30 per annum. How much he is ex- 
 pected to do for this heavy salary does not appear. 
 
 Chelsea, after a good deal of delay, has initiated a system 
 under which samples for analysis are procured from each 
 dealer in given articles, and then those found to be adul- 
 terated will be marked, and second samples taken from the 
 same tradesmen. Under this system it is impossible to say 
 how long a time will be taken in the work, but if it be at 
 all analogous to lodging-house and sanitary inspection which 
 takes two years to get round, the tradesmen of the district 
 need not be disturbed by any anxiety. 
 
 The Act passed in 1863 for the regulation of Bakehouses, 
 ought to be enforced by the Vestries. This Act provides 
 
 * "Report of Poplar Vestry, 187^-5," p. 48. 
 
 f In tbis district the Medical OfiBcer receives ^150 a jear as Medical 
 Officer; ^50 a year as Analyst; and £30 as Gas Examiner. 
 
LONDON vestries: inspection of bakehouses. 337 
 
 that no person under 18 years of age shall be employed in 
 a bakehouse between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. ; for Hme-washing 
 the passages, walls, &c. ; for due ventilation ; and for the 
 prevention of persons sleeping on the same level as the 
 bakehouse, except under certain conditions. The inspection 
 of these establishments is duly made by the Medical Officers 
 of about one-half of the Vestries. It does not, however, 
 appear to be an agreeable duty.* 
 
 Under " The Sanitary Laws Amendment Act, 1874," 
 power is given to the local authority to direct the destruction 
 of infected articles of clothing or bedding, and to give com- 
 pensation for the same. Greenwich reports having done 
 this in two cases ; Poplar, in twenty-two ; and some other 
 Vestries have taken action in the matter. 
 
 The reports of a certain number of the Vestries, whose 
 districts are co-terminous with the boundaries of the parish, 
 contain in addition to the ordinary matters of Vestry govern- 
 ment, an account of the receipts and expenditure with 
 respect to church estabhshment. St. Marylebone deals with 
 an income and expenditure affecting seven churches, and 
 amounting, during the year 1873-4, to £6,271. Other 
 Vestries set out the Churchwardens' accounts, but deal with 
 them as separate items. No sufiicient reason appears to 
 exist for this continued connection between the regulation 
 of parochial matters and the discharge of the Municipal 
 functions of the Vestry. 
 
 The various charities, the accounts of which are set forth 
 in the reports of St. Pancras, Rotherhithe, St. George's 
 Hanover Square, Camberwell, St. Martin's -in-the-Fields, St. 
 Luke's Middlesex, St. George's-in-the-East, and St. Matthew 
 Bethnal Green, seem also to belong to the parochial organi- 
 zation rather than to Vestries, as established under the 
 Metropohtan Management Act. 
 
 * See " Report of Rotherhithe 1873.4," p. 23. 
 
338 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The present functions of the London Vestries are, there- 
 fore, as follows, viz. : — 
 
 Local Sewerage, Street Paving, Street Watering, Street 
 Cleansing, Street Lighting, Control of Courts and Alleys, 
 Underground Dwellings, of Cow-houses, of Slaughter- 
 houses, of Bake-houses, of Hoardings, of Noxious Trades, 
 Removal of Dust, Sanitary Inspection, Mortuaries, Baths 
 and Washhouses, Public Libraries, Adulteration of Food 
 and Drugs, Workshops' Regulation, "Water and Gas Supply, 
 Artizans' Dwellings, Lodging-houses, &c. 
 
 The Vestry jurisdiction as to lodging-houses is more or 
 less concurrent with that of the police, and so in the control 
 of Artizans' dwellings and slaughter-houses, it is not easy to 
 say where the Vestry jurisdiction begins and the Board of 
 Works jurisdiction ends. 
 
 With all their faults and defects — and they are many — 
 the Vestries have done much for London. Any comparison 
 drawn between our condition to-day and our condition 
 twenty years ago in any single matter, under Vestry control, 
 abundantly proves this. But the benefits have been very 
 unequal. No Vestry has carried out all its powers as fully 
 as they might be carried out, but some have done more than 
 others, and even the Vestries chargeable with the most 
 culpable neglect of many important powers and duties, have 
 often selected one or two channels of improvement and 
 carried them out thoroughly. 
 
 The marked and noticeable want of the London Vestries 
 is a direct central control ; not the control of an incapable 
 and overworked Board, but of a body of intelligent men of 
 broad conception and administrative power. Even as they 
 exist now in their shapeless and disintegrate forms, the 
 London Vestries with their accounts audited and their work 
 reported on by the responsible inspectors of a responsible 
 council, might be drilled into harmony, and such laws as 
 
LONDON vestries: summary of work. 339 
 
 exist be tmiformly enforced. Still more might we expect, 
 that with the constitution of a central elective Municipal 
 body, to which would be subordinated local bodies of which 
 these Vestries have formed the germ, London might be 
 governed on an uniform and effective basis ; on a system 
 which whilst never losing sight of the broad requirements of 
 the whole metropolis, should also be able, through their aid, 
 to regard the requirements of every locality. 
 
340 
 
 Chapter YIII. 
 
 THE GAS SUPPLY OF LONDON. 
 
 History of London Gas Supply before 1860, ivilh (he Estab- 
 lishment of the Companies. — Effects of their Competition 
 and Amalgamation. — The Gas Act of 1860. — Gas Bills 
 of 1866 and \mi.—The City of London Gas Act, 
 1868,— (5^a5 Bills of 1869, 1872, and 1^1 b.— Inaction 
 of the Metropolitan Board of Works. — Gas Committee 
 in 1875. — Gas Statistics. 
 
 At the time when the threatened approach of the Spanish 
 Armada was rousing every English town to measures of pre- 
 caution and defence, an Order of Council was promulgated 
 whereby every London householder was enjoined, ^^ under 
 penalty of death at the hands of the common hangman," to sus- 
 pend a lighted lamp before his door after sundown. The 
 measure was as temporary as severe, and probably passed 
 away with the danger. Before the days of Elizabeth the 
 only Hghts in London streets on moonless nights were sup- 
 plied by the cressets and lanterns hung from the long poles 
 carried by the night-watch ; and after the spasmodic legis- 
 lation of the Armada period, the city relapsed into its old 
 condition of darkness and danger. 
 
 Various more or less successful efforts at improvements 
 in lighting were made by the Common Council in the course 
 of the seventeenth century ; but the first measure attended 
 with even moderate results was an enactment under date 
 1716, whereby every London householder was requii-ed to 
 suspend a light before his door from six to eleven p.m., on 
 
CHARTERED 
 
 GAS Lf"€t^tt;t & COK E C° 
 
 "^ 
 
 KTHNALttlilil'.KN 
 
 MAP SHEWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE 
 VARIOUS LONDON GAS COMPANIES 
 
 Tlie audio rizc^d sJua-e capitals up to 
 December 1874 wei'e as follows; 
 
 aiarleredj t/i- "Oua- Liyht &. Cvhe Compcun/'^ jf^'i-, I50.000 
 
 IrnpeT-iaL. 2 ,S6C .COO 
 
 Phamia: I.O-H.OCC 
 
 Lcndatv S7-'i . 3CC 
 
 Suixth. Afetrcpc'Ujean SCO, 000 
 
 Comrrterciat 460.000 
 
 TnxLepcrxxLznJL' 'iOo ,0C0 
 
 Siu-rey Gant!.luru-r;s' 2-S0,000 
 
 liaJxCCrF ICC.OOC 
 
 ■rhr rcrT,r„rrc<;i7 S HiLlddTF were eimxilx/arnxUed, tn 1S7S if- 
 ocLdTtiyonah ,,,/ji/,,l 1 1 1 , H, arasred to ifiey e^ctent cf t660,000. 
 'SbwandA' ihc r/cvr at' Iji^ ye^xn ijt'tveLS a/^o fznrtoiuic^^ f/lrtj^ ajL' 
 arranjjrrtLeJLt /laxJ dcai- niade^ /or- f/ie^ amaZgiamation, o/" the/ 
 "^hfirCeree/ " einxL TrriperCodfj. 
 
 \ "-^^^^^fT^S. s^'C 'O M M E R|C\I A L 
 
 CHARTERED 
 
 Laivh rAR«\ 
 
 PHOENIX \^^ft n^-^^^/Pt}^ 
 
 |f?-^ 
 
 NoDlh Woolwi<l\\ 
 
 SI « RHJSINGTON ' 
 
 
 W. 
 
 1AMB%) 
 
 p,.A^«^ '^ It'-i ^i 
 
 
 ^ Ti r.KtVT.NH'H II 
 
 ^i>..,,.ii„-d/ // c;,, 
 
 •^^ 
 
 liirkt I 
 
 C. Muojy, Lithe SyHith Hjltonx'WC I 
 
340 
 
 Chapter YIII. 
 
 THE GAS SUPPLY OF LONDON. 
 
 History of London Gas Supply before 1860, wilh the Estab- 
 lishment of the Companies. — Effects of their Competition 
 and Amalgamation. — The Gas Act of 1860. — Gas Bills 
 of 1866 and 1867. — The City of London Gas Act, 
 1868.— Gas Bills of 1869, 1872, and 1875.— Inaction 
 of the Metropolitan Board of Works. — Gas Committee 
 in 1875. — Gas Statistics. 
 
 At the time when the threatened approach of the Spanish 
 Armada was rousing every English town to measures of pre- 
 caution and defence, an Order of Council was promulgated 
 whereby every London householder was enjoined, ^^ under 
 penalty of death at the hands of the common hangman" to sus- 
 pend a lighted lamp before his door after sundown. The 
 measure was as temporary as severe, and probably passed 
 away with the danger. Before the days of Elizabeth the 
 only hghts in London streets on moonless nights were sup- 
 pKed by the cressets and lanterns hung from the long poles 
 carried by the night-watch ; and after the spasmodic legis- 
 lation of the Armada period, the city relapsed into its old 
 condition of darkness and danger. 
 
 Various more or less successful efforts at improvements 
 in lighting were made by the Common Council in the course 
 of the seventeenth century ; but the fii'st measure attended 
 with even moderate results was an enactment under date 
 1716, whereby every London householder was required to 
 suspend a light before his door from six to eleven p.m., on 
 
lo 
 
 VI, 
 
ni 
 
GAS supply: establishment of the COMP^ 'IES. 341 
 
 all moonless nights, with sufficient cotton wick to bum five 
 hours. A penalty of one shilKng was imposed for neglect. 
 There appears to have been no provision for artificia light 
 after eleven p.m. Soon after this date a Company i der- 
 took, in consideration of a tax of six shillings per annum, 
 levied upon every inhabited house within the City, to pro- 
 vide sufficient light in the streets from six p.m. till midnight. 
 They appear to have paid £600 a year to the Corporation 
 for this monopoly, and to have been permitted to extinguish 
 the lamps when the moon was shining. 
 
 None of these measures, however, gave complete satis- 
 faction to the citizens ; and so, in 1736, an Act of Parliament 
 was passed, authorizing the Corporation to erect lamps, and 
 to keep them Hghted every night from sundown to sunrise 
 next morning. The funds were provided by a special tax, 
 levied upon the ratepayers. Those rented at £10 per an- 
 num paid seven shillings a year; over £10 and under £20, 
 twelve shillings ; over £20 and under £30, fourteen shillings; 
 over £30 and under £40, sixteen shillings ; over £40 and 
 under £50, eighteen shillings ; over £50, twenty shillings. 
 The result was an immense improvement on everything 
 that had gone before, and London had for many years the 
 reputation of being the best-lighted capital in Europe. 
 
 So matters continued until the application of Gas changed 
 the whole character of street lighting. 
 
 The new production was first brought into general public 
 use in London by an Act passed in 1810.'^ The preamble 
 of this Act set out the object of the measure to be "the 
 manufacture and distribution of inflammable air ;" and the 
 "Gas Light and Coke Company" was afterwards incor- 
 porated by charter. Power was given to the Company to 
 contract with any parishes or other persons, willing or de- 
 sirous to contract with them for the supply of inflammable 
 « 60 Qeo. m. 0. 163. 
 
 Y 
 
342 MtTNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 air, and its operation was confined to the " Cities of London 
 and "Westminster, and the Borough of Sotithwark." The 
 capital of this Company was at that time £200,000. It 
 was subsequently known as the " Chartered," and may be 
 taken as the parent of the " Gas Light and Coke Company" 
 of to-day. 
 
 In 1817 the "City of London Gas Company" appeared 
 in the field, and the " Cities of London and "Westminster, 
 and the Borough of Southwark " were assigned as the dis- 
 trict of its operation also ; thus establishing the principle of 
 competition at the very inception of London Gas supply. 
 
 In 1821 the ''Imperial Gas Company" obtained the 
 exclusive, right of supply to certain specified districts. After 
 this date other Companies were established in rapid suc- 
 cession — the "Eatclifi',"the "Phoenix," the "Independent," 
 the " Equitable," the " Great Central," the " South Metro- 
 politan," and others. The " Surrey Consumers' Company " 
 and the ""Western" were not estabHshed till many years 
 later, and the ""Victoria Docks Company" obtained its Act 
 in 1857. 
 
 As we have noted, the Act of the " Imperial Company," 
 in 1821, was the first in which any concession of exclusive 
 supply is made to a Gas Company, and, as we shall hereafter 
 see, it was not of long duration. Two years later, in 1823, 
 a report on the question of London Gas supply was made by 
 Sir William Congreve to the then Home Secretary, Sir 
 Robert Peel, and we find that by the limited light of the 
 Gas legislation and experience then available, he had arrived 
 at the very sensible conclusion that it would be well to limit 
 particular Companies to the supply of particular districts. 
 The Companies had already made some attempts to this end 
 amongst themselves, and the conflict of the "City of London" 
 and the " Chartered," in the streets of the City of London, 
 of Westminster, and of Southwark, added emphasis to the 
 
GAS SUPPLY : PROPOSAL OP DISTRICTING. 343 
 
 conviction. The suggestion came, in the first instance, from 
 the Gas Companies themselves ;* but Sir William Congreve 
 did not adopt it without a controlling condition. He did 
 not propose to deliver over the London Gas consumers bound 
 hand and foot to the Gas Companies, but went on to add in 
 his report a suggestion for the regulation of the prices of 
 the Companies, and for the control of the whole being in the 
 hands of the Government, 
 
 The Companies strongly objected to the latter part of 
 the report. The first was acceptable enough, and was no 
 doubt very palatable to them ; but Government control over 
 a rich monopoly is a thing they have always fought against, 
 and their opposition to this just condition wrecked the whole 
 measure, and the report was never carried into practical 
 effect. 
 
 It therefore remained with Parliament to give London 
 the only alternative assistance that lay in its power, and 
 throw the Gas supply open to public competition. This was 
 done most effectually. The " Equitable Company," which 
 had commenced operations in West London in 1830, ob- 
 tained Parliamentary powers to light the City of Westminster 
 and the parish of Marylebone. The inhabitants of West- 
 minster had thus three Companies willing and able to tender 
 for their Gas supply ; and Marylebone, which had hitherto 
 been the special and exclusive child of the " Imperial," was 
 forthwith wooed by another competitor. 
 
 Throughout London there was a great Gas War, Streets 
 were torn up in all directions, and as many as twelve mains 
 sometimes laid down in a single thoroughfare. The leakage 
 from so many pipes was most serious, and the capital wasted 
 enormous. Apart from these inherent disadvantages, the 
 system, no doubt, gave the consumer benefits in price which 
 
 * Evidence of Mr. Qeo. Lane before Committee of House of Commons, 
 1823. 
 
344 MTTNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 he has not since enjoyed. The " Equitable," in Westmin- 
 ster, laid down its pipes, and supplied Gas 15 per cent, 
 cheaper than the "Chartered" had done. The "Chartered" 
 reduced their prices in the face of this competition, but else- 
 where maintained them at the old rates. In 1834 the 
 "Equitable" tendered to supply the lamps of the rich 
 parish of St. James's Westminster. The contract of the 
 " Chartered " with this parish to light the lamps was just 
 expiring. The old price paid to the " Chartered " was 
 £•5 5s. pey lamp ; but to continue the monopoly, and to 
 exclude the " Equitable," they offered to supply it at 
 £3 10s., and this offer was accepted. Competition here 
 saved a large sum to the parish. So in Marylebone, in 
 1832, an offer by the " Equitable " to supply the parish at 
 a reduction of 15 per cent, on the " Chartered " prices, 
 brought the " Chartered " down 25 per cent. 
 
 In 1833 the parish of St. Bride's petitioned the Com- 
 missioners of Sewers to let the " Equitable " come into the 
 City and supply Gas at 15 per cent, reduction upon the City 
 price ; but the " City of London Company " forestalled them 
 by at once reducing their price 20 per cent., and an agita- 
 tion in the East of the City caused the "Chartered" to 
 reduce its prices there also. 
 
 Westminster and Marylebone were again wooed by the 
 "London" Company, which obtained powers for the pur- 
 pose in 1844, and the City of London was encroached on by 
 the " Great Central." On the south side of the river the 
 competition was equally severe. The "Phoenix," the 
 " South MetropoHtan," and the " City of London," all laid 
 their pipes down in the same streets, and fought for the 
 custom of the district with an energy and a recklessness 
 worthy of the Railway Companies of a later date. And, 
 when in 1848, the " Surrey Consumers " came and threw 
 
GAS SUPPLY : THE WAK OF THE COMPANIES. 345 
 
 down the gage to the tired combatants in transpontine 
 London, it might be said that the subterranean disorder 
 reached its climax. It was in this strife the late Sir John 
 Thwaites rendered his first great public service, always 
 gratefully remembered by the people of Southwark. 
 
 The consumers, apart from the nuisance of the street 
 interference, could watch the Gas War with a certain amount 
 of philosophy. But a change came over the scene when the 
 Companies had done their worst to each other, and when 
 they began to see that, after all, their interests were coinci- 
 dent, and that if they could only come to agreement between 
 themselves they might fleece their common victim, the con- 
 Bumer, instead of each other. The more this idea was 
 considered by them the more they liked it ; so, in 1850, the 
 " Chartered," the " London," and the " Equitable " applied 
 to Parliament for an Act, enabling them to divide their 
 districts. This application was unsuccessful. 
 
 In a letter to Lord Palmerston, in 1854, Viscount Ebring- 
 ton observes : " Eival Companies will always be found to coalesce 
 for the plunder, rather than compete for the cheap supply." 
 So grand a conspiracy could not be defeated merely because 
 it lacked the supporting smile of the Legislature ; and in 
 the next year, 1851, the "Phoenix," the "London," the 
 " South Metropolitan," and the " Surrey Consumers " di- 
 vided their jurisdiction, and agreed to confine themselves to 
 allotted districts, and at the time asked no Parliamentary 
 sanction. 
 
 It is instructive to notice the result. Before the estab- 
 lishment of the " Surrey Consumers," the price of Gas 
 supplied by other Companies in South London was six 
 shillings per 1,000 feet. The very shadow of the coming 
 of that Company lowered it to four shillings. 
 
 After the districting was completed, and the new Com- 
 
346 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 pany admitted to the spoliation, the price ivas raised to 
 45. Qd.^ Surely this was the strongest possible commentary 
 upon the necessity for Government supervision and control 
 over monopoly, which had been recommended in Sir William 
 Congreve's report. 
 
 But the Legislature refused to recognise the districting 
 system, in the absence of due control ; so an Act, applied 
 for in 1855 by these Companies, to sanction the proceedings 
 of 1851, failed. 
 
 In 1857 the Companies to the north of the Thames, 
 however, came to the same conclusion which had been 
 already acted upon in the south — that union was desirable 
 even if Parliamentary sanction could not be obtained. Such 
 an union, and the allotment of districts to each Company, 
 was forthwith made, and the effect was soon manifest. We 
 have already noted how the coalition in 1851 of the Com- 
 panies south of the Thames produced its natural result in 
 the raising of the price of Gas, and the same result soon 
 followed the coalition of the Companies north of the Thames 
 in 1857. We have noted, too, that Parliament, first in 
 1850, and again in 1855, distinctly refused to recognise 
 arrangements, which, however beneficial they might be to 
 the Companies, were so clearly fraught with prejudice to 
 the pubHc. 
 
 But the condition of London in 1857 brought matters 
 to a crisis. The parish of Marylebone asked for tenders to 
 light its public lamps, and instead of three tenders being 
 sent in as usual, received only one, and that one at an 
 advance on the old rate. The "Equitable" declined to 
 tender at all, and in a similar manner, and from a similar 
 cause, the " London " Company declined to tender for the 
 lighting of Westminster. So the districting by the Com- 
 
 • See Evidence of Dr. Chalice b efore the House of CommonB' Com. 
 mittee, June 17th, 1858. 
 
GAS SUPPLY ; INEQUALITY OF PRICES. 347 
 
 panies was accompanied, in the north of the Thames, also by 
 a rise in price. A Gas convention had sate in judgment on 
 London, and issued its decrees. No matter how many pipes 
 filled the street opposite to a tradesman's door, he would 
 only in future obtain his supply from those of one Company. 
 Companies differed widely in their prices. The same Com- 
 pany would charge one parish 20 per cent, more than 
 another for the same Gas, and with equal facihty for supply 
 And so it fell out, that parishes subdivided by the Gasarchy 
 paid different prices to different Companies for the same 
 quaHty of Gas. Thus the Westminster Board of Works, 
 with three available Companies within its limits, was com- 
 pelled to recognise the arbitrary divisions they established^ 
 and to pay three different prices for the same ten-candle 
 Gas. The "Chartered" charged Westminster, where its 
 works were situate, £4 14s. for each public lamp, and 
 Marylebone only £4. In like manner the illuminating 
 power of the article supplied became a cause of constant 
 complaint, and the amount supplied to public lamps was 
 in many cases far less, and in some not one-half, of the 
 amount contracted and paid for; whilst arbitrary clauses 
 were inserted in parish contracts, so that detection was 
 difficult. 
 
 Being, therefore, without competition, the London Gas 
 Companies were free. Few of them were under the con- 
 trolling powers of " The Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847,** 
 and neither in price, quaHty, nor anything else, were they 
 effectively controlled. 
 
 The Yestries were at this time the only bodies through 
 which the ratepayers had a direct voice, and at the sugges- 
 tion of the suflering parishes, delegates from these bodies 
 were appointed to consider the Gas question. They met re- 
 peatedly during the later months of 1857 and the beginning 
 of 1858. They had conferences with the authorities of 
 
348 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the G.as Companies, with the metropolitan members, and 
 the Home Secretary, and presented petitions to Parliament. 
 Eventually a Parliamentary committee was appointed, on 
 the motion of the Hon. Mr. Byng (since Lord Enfield), one 
 of the members for Middlesex. This -committee consisted 
 of five metropoHtan members, five members nominated by 
 the Gas Companies, and five members nominated by the 
 Government. The committee began its sittings on the 10th 
 of June, 1858, and heard evidence during that and the 
 succeeding month, when they adjourned their proceedings 
 and declared their intention of recommending to the House 
 of Commons a re- appointment of the committee in 1859. 
 The delegates of the vestries, meantime, had been endeavour- 
 ing to find some common basis upon which the Companies 
 and themselves could agree. In the report of the managers 
 to the delegates, at the close of the 1858 campaign, they 
 say (see p. 47 of the Report) : — 
 
 "Numerous suggestions for a compromise were made, 
 but the managers regret to have to report that on behalf 
 of the Gas Companies every effort was made to exact an ex- 
 orhitant maximum, and to paralyze the future efforts of con- 
 sumers in dealing with this necessity of life, and that every 
 endeavour honourably to terminate this strife ivas met by a 
 series of attempted exactions, deeply to be regretted. 
 
 How efiectually they have paralyzed the efforts of the 
 consumers, we shall hereafter show. 
 
 The delegates did some good work in the ascertainment 
 of the actual condition of things, and the preparation of 
 evidence. It appeared that the price of the Gas supplied in 
 different parishes varied from £3 Is. Qd. up to £6 16s. for 
 each public lamp ; and that, whilst the amount actually 
 subscribed for was more than 20,000 feet per lamp per 
 annum, there was very much less actually supplied, and in 
 one case only about half. 
 
GAS SUPPLY : COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 1859. 349 
 
 The vials of the Companies' wrath were poured out 
 upon the delegates. Current pamphlets of the period, 
 written by those interested in the Companies, denounce 
 them in no measured terms. We are asked whether the 
 " Imperial Parliament is going to be led by the nose by the 
 parochial Bumbles of the metropoHs ? " A proposition to 
 reduce the price of the Gas when 8 per cent, had been 
 earned, is "simple robbery;" and all interference with 
 " private property," " most audacious." 
 
 A committee of the House was appointed in March 
 1859, pursuant to the recommendation of the committee of 
 1858. This committee, with the Hon. Mr. Byng as chair- 
 man, had many meetings with respect to the question. 
 They agreed upon certain propositions as the basis of a new 
 Act. 
 
 On the 30th of June a " Metropolis Gas Regulation 
 Bill" was introduced, on the motion of the delegates. Sir 
 John Shelley, the Hon. Mr. Byng, Mr. Locke, and Mr. 
 Ayrton were its sponsors. It embodied the very moderate 
 propositions of the committee, but for technical reasons 
 connected with the forms of the House, had to be abandoned 
 during this session. 
 
 The needful notices were, however, given in the month 
 of November in this year ; and so, with the same members' 
 names behind it, a Bill was introduced in 1860. This Bill 
 represented the result of more than two years' unwearied 
 labour on the part of the delegates, and efforts had been 
 made in it to meet the more moderate of the demands of 
 the Companies. Mr. Sotheron-Estcourt was the chairman 
 of the committee on the Bill. Twenty-six petitions had 
 been presented against it. 
 
 As introduced, the Bill 
 
 Incorporated " The Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847," 
 Legalized districting, 
 
800 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Regulated the price (45. being a maximum for 18- 
 candle Gas), 
 and made other regulating provisions. 
 
 After hearing evidence, the committee announced some 
 conclusions at which they had arrived :^- 
 
 That there ought to be permanent inspectors ap- 
 pointed to see the Act carried into effect ; 
 
 That there should be districting, subject to triennial 
 revision by the Home Office ; 
 
 Also various other matters as to price, distribution, 
 &c., somewhat indefinite. 
 
 A considerable amount of evidence as to price and illu- 
 minating power was given, and very moderate resolutions 
 were arrived at by the committee, but as the exorbitant 
 claims of the Companies were not admitted, these bodies 
 withdrew from appearance, hoping, as their counsel, Serjeant 
 Wrangham said, " that before another tribunal more correct 
 judgment would be exercised than by the present com- 
 mittee." The committee, however, went on with their 
 work, and reported in favour of clauses whereby a reduction 
 should take place in the price, when upon the report of the 
 Inspectors appointed by the Home Secretary, 8 per cent, 
 had been paid, and an advance when only 6 per cent. 
 
 The committee passed the Bill, June 25th. An enor- 
 mous number of petitions were presented against it, and 
 eventually it was recommitted. Recommittal under such 
 circumstances could have but one result. The provision for 
 the appointment of permanent Inspectors to investigate and 
 report upon the working of the Companies was the great 
 safeguard of the public. The Companies saw in it a control 
 to which they were unwilling to submit, and they got the 
 clause altered so that they should only be appointed when 
 
OA8 SUPPLY : GAS WOKKS CLAUSES ACT, 1847. 351 
 
 complaints arose.* The difficulties connected with this 
 method of redress have made what was a valuable provi- 
 sion in the public interest a mere nullity, and the penalty, 
 if recovered, would practically be paid by the ratepayers. 
 The committee also allowed their own very reasonable pro- 
 positions as to dividend to go, and the very ineffectual 
 provisions of " The Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847," were 
 substituted. 
 
 As we shall have cause hereafter to deal with the 
 dividend clauses of this Act as incorporated, and the argu- 
 ments based upon them, we shall here set them out at 
 length. It may be premised that the Act was passed " to 
 consolidate into one Act the provisions usually contained in 
 Gas Acts, and to ensure uniformity in such provisions." f 
 Its adoption was to be optional in any Gas Act passed after 
 1847, and the incorporation of it by the Metropolis Gas Act 
 of 1860, except where inconsistent, put the metropolis under 
 its provisions as to dividends, most of the Companies having 
 been established prior to 1847, and being under no legisla- 
 tive control in that respect. 
 
 The dividend clauses are the following : — 
 " 30. The profits of the undertaking to be divided 
 amongst the undertakers in any year shall not exceed the 
 prescribed rate, or where no rate is prescribed, they shall 
 not exceed the rate of ten pounds in the hundred by the 
 year, on the paid up capital in the undertaking, which in 
 such case shall be deemed the prescribed rate, unless a 
 larger dividend be at any time necessary to make up the 
 
 * They were then to be appointed by the Home Secretary. If their 
 complaint, which is limited to " quantity " or " quality," prove good, the 
 Home Secretary is to order the Companies " to remove the grounds of 
 complaint," and in default a penalty not exceeding £50. Vide 23 «fe 
 94 Vict. c. 125, ss. 7—13. 
 
 t See preamble, 10 Vict. c. 15. 
 
352 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 deficiency of any previous dividend which shall have fallen 
 short of the said yearly rate. 
 
 31. " If the clear profits of the undertaking in any year 
 amount to no larger sum than is sufficient, after making up 
 the deficiency in any previous year, as aforesaid, to make a 
 dividend at the prescribed rate, the excess beyond the sum 
 necessary for such purposes shall from time to time be in- 
 vested in the same or like securities, in order that the same 
 may accumulate at compound interest, until the fund so 
 formed amount to the prescribed sum ; or if no sum be 
 prescribed, a sum equal to one-tenth of the nominal capital 
 of the undertakers, which sum shall form a reserved fund, 
 to answer any deficiency that may at any time happen in 
 the amount of divisible profits, or to meet any extraordinary 
 claim or demand, which may at any time arise against the 
 undertakers, and if such fund be at any time reduced it 
 may hereafter be again restored to the said sum, and so 
 from time to time as often as such reduction shall happen. 
 
 " 32. Provided always that no sum of money shall be 
 taken from the said fand for the purpose of meeting any 
 extraordinary claim, unless it be first certified in England 
 or Ireland by the justices, and in Scotland by the sheriff, 
 that the sum so proposed to be taken is required for the 
 purpose of meeting an extraordinary claim within the 
 meaning of this or the special Act. 
 
 " 33. When such fund shall, by accumulation or other- 
 wise, amount to the prescribed sum, or one-tenth of the 
 nominal capital of the Company, as the case may be, the 
 interests and the dividends thereon shall be no longer in- 
 vested, but applied to any of the general purposes of the 
 undertaking to which the profits thereof are applicable. 
 
 " 34. If profits be less than the prescribed rate, a sum 
 may be taken from the reserved fund to supply deficiency. 
 
GAS STTPPLY : THE METROPOLIS GAS ACT, 1860. 353 
 
 " 36. If profits be more than the amount prescribed, a 
 rateable reduction to be made in the supply of Gas." 
 
 This is incorporated in the Act of 1860, except that 
 clause 31 is controlled by section 2 of the Act, whereby a 
 Company is debarred from making up deficient back revenues 
 for more than six years. 
 
 As we think, and subsequent experience endorses the 
 conclusion, it was unwise on the part of the promoters not 
 to withdraw their emasculated Bill. 
 
 Nobody questioned that the committee was fairly chosen; 
 that they were in a position to form competent opinions, 
 and that they had done their duty. When the Bill was 
 re-committed, it was a very unusual course ; no counsel were 
 heard before the committee, and very soon it was remodelled 
 on the basis of the Companies' proposals. Although in 
 some respects an improvement upon the status quo ante, yet 
 it represented neither the conclusions of the delegates, nor 
 the matured judgment of the committee themselves. 
 
 Something was, however, gained for the public. Certain 
 forms of accounts were prescribed to be annually rendered 
 by the Companies, and open to public inspection ; but as 
 we shall hereafter see, when we come to deal with the ques- 
 tion of share capital, no investigation was made of past 
 accounts, or verification of capital upon which dividend was 
 payable. 
 
 Districting was recognised, and thus Parliamentary 
 sanction was given to monopoly, as a citizen must either 
 take the Gas of one particular Company, at its then price, 
 or obtain light some other way. The ratification by Par- 
 liament of the districting system was an immense boon to 
 the Companies. It amounted to a practical guarantee of a 
 monopoly ; and as the Bill ultimately left the House, there 
 is no doubt (as the committee of 1866 afterwards reported) 
 
354 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 that the equivalent extracted from the Companies was 
 inadequate. 
 
 The only controlling provision is in clause 6 of the Act 
 of 1860. This clause specifies, by reference to maps, the 
 districts of the various Companies. It gives a power to the 
 Home Secretary to alter the boundaries of the districts 
 triennially, either on the application of the Companies con- 
 cerned, or on the application of the local authority, or on 
 the requisition of twenty consumers within the particular 
 district ; but in either of the last two cases, proof must be 
 given to his satisfaction of the inability or failure of the 
 Company concerned to fulfil the conditions of the Act; in 
 this case he may also, if he think fit, empower some other 
 Company to supply the district. It limits each Company to 
 its prescribed district, and forbids the supply of Gas for sale 
 within such Hmits, by other person or Company, " U7iless 
 authorized by Parliament so to do." 
 
 It. would, of course, be at any time in the power of 
 Parliament to reverse one Act by another ; but the distinct 
 option thus left may be taken as a notice to the Companies, 
 and will efi'ectually answer much of the claim now made for 
 vested rights, as we shall see hereafter. 
 
 There are also compulsory powers of supply for places 
 within the Companies' districts, and arrangements for meter 
 rent, in which, as in the rest, the Company gets a good deal 
 the better of the public* 
 
 They are also bound to light all public lamps, but not 
 any street where the lamps are at a greater distance than 
 seventy-fivef yards. This is a hard provision in suburban 
 districts, and Local Boards are allowed no power to 
 manufacture their own. 
 
 It provides for a certain supply of Gas,| but makes no 
 provision as to the pressure. 
 
 • S3 <fe 84 Vict. 0. 125, b. U. f ■• 29. % Sec. 21. 
 
GAS supply: the metropolis gas act, 1860. 355 
 
 Section 25 limits the illuminating power of common Gas to 
 twelve sperm candles, and cannel Gas to twenty candles, and 
 has important provisions for testing the purity of the Gas. 
 
 The payment of the debts of outgoing by incoming 
 tenants, as a condition of Gas supply, was also abolished.* 
 
 Section 40 prescribes the price of Gas which is to 
 remain at its then price, if at or above 4s. 6d, per 1,000 feet, 
 unless there are circumstances warranting an advance. In 
 case of an advance notice was to be given to the authorities, 
 and in case they dissent from it, arbitration may take place. 
 But no Company to charge more than 5s. Qd. for common 
 Gas, and 7s. 6d. for cannel Gas. 
 
 The Metropolitan Board of Works had to pay the cost 
 of the Act. Perhaps this was immaterial, as in either case 
 it would practically be paid by the ratepayers. 
 
 One or two reductions in price followed the passing of 
 the Act, and the raising of the illuminating standard to 
 twelve candles, which was two higher than had previously 
 been deemed sufficient, was a considerable gain. 
 
 And how did this Act, professedly passed in the Con- 
 sumers' interests, affect the Companies ? 
 
 The net profits of the Companies supplying the City, 
 after payment of all charges, including management, 
 manufacture, and distribution, were — 
 
 " The Chartered " in 1861 
 1862 
 1863 
 
 " City of London " in 1861 
 1862 
 1863 
 
 " Great Central " in 1861 
 
 1862 
 
 „ „ 1863 
 
 * S«o. 80, 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 50,186 
 
 16 
 
 3 
 
 71,613 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 78,661 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 21,950 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 28,418 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 28,878 
 
 12 
 
 5 
 
 15,494 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 31,025 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 42,275 
 
 2 
 
 
 
356 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Or nearly £150,000 in 1863 in these three Companies 
 alone. 
 
 Let us take four other Companies as an illustration of 
 the vast bonus which that Act conferred upon the 
 Companies. 
 
 "London" £50 shares were worth £30 in 1859 ; £80 
 in 1865. 
 
 " Commercial " £25 shares were worth £27 in 1859 ; 
 £42 in 1865. 
 
 "Independent" £40 shares were worth £50 in 1859; 
 £70 in 1865. 
 
 " Phoenix " £60 shares were worth £63 in 1859 ; £85 
 in 1865. 
 
 The six years which followed the passing of the Metro- 
 polis Gas Act, were a period of peace and prosperity to 
 the Companies. Some minor Gas Bills were introduced, 
 notably one in 1863 by the Government, at the instance of 
 the Board of Works, to remedy some of the defects of the 
 Act of 1860, but it excited a good deal of opposition and 
 was ultimately withdrawn. The Companies were benefiting 
 in every way, and the manner in which they took advantage 
 of their position, is well set forth in a pamphlet by a well- 
 known citizen, under date 1864.* 
 
 " The Gas Companies are now paying 10 per cent, on 
 the declared capital, and also paying dividends to their 
 shareholders for past years, when the dividends have not 
 amounted to 10 per cent. They are appropriating the sur- 
 plus profit by way of extravagant outlay in building, increase 
 of salaries, and in every way possible, but the way which 
 would be in accordance with the spirit of the Act of Parlia- 
 ment, and conduce to the interests of the ratepayers and 
 consumers, viz., a reduction in price." 
 
 • " Address to the Consumers of Gas in the City of London." By E. 
 Dresser Rogers, 1864. 
 
GAS SUPPLY : EFFECT OF ACT OF 1860. 357 
 
 Thus the Act of 1860 worked well for the Companies. 
 Their higher prices were justified by higher dividends. In 
 1866 the nominal capital of the Companies was £5,863,130, 
 and, upon this, in that year no less than £530,357 was dis- 
 tributed in the form of dividend. In the year 1859 no 
 Company had been able to declare a 10 per cent, dividend. 
 In 1866 every one of the thirteen Companies had either 
 reached or were close upon it. There was neither unity in 
 price, nor were the old inequalities removed. For example, 
 the " Imperial " charged to its private consumers 4s., to the 
 parish of Marylebone, 25. \l\d., and to the parish of Clerk- 
 enwell, 3*, 7d., all for the same Gas. The back dividend 
 clause soon got into good working order ; for example, it 
 was said that the " Phoenix Company "* divided 40 per 
 cent, and had a good balance over, in 1864. 
 
 The Companies' defence of their monopoly had been 
 conducted regardless of expense. It was calculated that in 
 the ten years ending 1866, they spent £80,000 in the con- 
 test, f We say they spent, as they actually distributed it, 
 but in reality much of the money ought to have been 
 employed in lowering the price of Gas, and so may be said 
 to have been ratepayers* money. 
 
 The City of London considered itself especially hardly 
 used by the Companies. In 1849 the " Great Central " 
 had offered to execute a deed, binding themselves to supply 
 Gas at 45., and to reduce it to 35. 6c?., and 35. when they 
 had reaHzed 10 per cent. But on the passing of the Act of 
 1860 they raised their price to 45. 6c?. 
 
 It could not therefore be wondered at that the Corpora- 
 tion of London introduced a Bill in 1866 for the purpose of 
 raising £500,000, and for obtaining the necessary powers to 
 
 • "Spencer on Gas Pipe Leakage and Metropolitan Subways.'* 
 Napier, 1865. 
 
 t " Municipal Finance and the Gae and Water Supply of London." 
 B- H. Patterson. Blackwood. 
 
 2 
 
358 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 enable them to provide suitable works " for the manufacture 
 and supply of Gas for the City of London, and the liberties 
 thereof," so as to meet the increased demand which had 
 arisen ; to secure its being supplied, and to ensure proper 
 quality and illuminating power. The Bill proposed 3.9. per 
 1,000 feet as the maximum price, and, as might be expected, 
 the Companies were terrified. If it were shown to be feasible 
 to manufacture Gas at that price, where would the other 
 Companies be ? In the Companies' organ the Bill was 
 denounced as " a violation of the principles of fair dealing, 
 which regulate the conduct of citizens generally, and an 
 attempt to destroy vested interests bestowed on the 
 Companies by Act of Parliament, without compensation." 
 The Bill was referred to a select committee, with power to 
 enquire into the operation and results of "The Gas Metropolis 
 Act, 1860." 
 
 A committee of thirteen members, with Sir John Trollope 
 as chairman, conducted the investigation, the whole expense 
 of which was borne by the Corporation of London. And 
 certainly credit is due to the Corporation for its public spirit. 
 Mr. Crawford moved the second reading of the Bill in a 
 studiously moderate speech, in which he demonstrated clearly 
 that by the manipulation of the accounts of the Companies, 
 the provisions for the reduction of price were often inopera- 
 tive, and that the Corporation had failed to bring the 
 Companies to reason. A debate followed, in which Mr. 
 Ayrton congratulated the City on having "passed from 
 gastronomy to Gas," and eventually the second reading of 
 the Bill passed by 219 against 193. The committee re- 
 ported that the result of their examination of witnesses 
 from other towns was, that the illuminating power and 
 quality of the Gas supplied to them was higher, and the 
 price cheaper, than in London. That the light varied from 
 
GAS SUPPLY : REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF 1866. 359 
 
 fourteen to thirty candles ; whereas in London it was fixed 
 at twelve for common Gas, and twenty for cannel. 
 
 They reported the efi'ect of the Act of 1860 to have 
 been, that every Company paid 10 per cent, now, whereas 
 none did in the year pending the passing of the Act, and 
 that many had, in addition, paid back dividends and accu- 
 mulated reserves. 
 
 They reported that, in their opinion, the minimum illu- 
 minating power should be increased, and the maximum price 
 reduced; and in favour of an elected board, to test the 
 quality — the Companies to provide a place and materials. 
 
 They reported in favour of reducing the back dividend 
 clauses to three years. 
 
 They reported in favour of a continuance of districting, 
 but that all facilities should be afforded by Parhament for 
 amalgamation, or the disposal of the Companies' property 
 to some body representing the consumers, on such terms 
 as may be agreed on, and as Parliament may see fit to 
 impose. 
 
 They reported that the mode of recovering penalties 
 against Gas Companies was inoperative. 
 
 That " The Gas Act, 1860," should be amended to carry 
 out these ideas. 
 
 The evidence given to the committee most fully bore out 
 their report. 
 
 A Bill had also been introduced for the purpose of 
 amending "TheGas Act, 1860," and empowering the Metro- 
 pohtan Board and other local authorities to levy rates, and 
 purchase Gas works and plant. The measure would, of 
 course, have been inoperative, except upon the action of 
 ratepayers then being fleeced by the Companies ; but it is 
 desirable to put upon record that the Board of Works 
 "could not, on behalf of the ratepayers, assent to this mode 
 
360 MITNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of dealing with the question, and therefore petitioned against 
 it." * 
 
 They also 'petitioned against the Corporation Bill. 
 
 In November 1866, a deputation waited upon Sir Staf- 
 ford Northcote, the President of the Board of Trade, to ask 
 him to introduce a Bill in pursuance of the recommendations 
 of Sir John Trollope's committee. Sir Stafford Northcote 
 acceded to the proposition, and such a Bill was promoted by 
 him in 1867, and a projected Bill, in the interests of the 
 City, was withdrawn. This bill of the Board of Trade 
 provided for the repeal of the dividend clauses of the Act 
 of 1860, and the formation of a Metropolitan Gas Board, 
 to test the quahty. The highest price was to be 35. 6c?. per 
 thousand feet for fourteen-candle Gas, and the dividend was 
 to be limited to 7 per cent, where this maximum was charged, 
 and a sliding scale for increase of dividend when there was 
 a lessening of price. The Metropolitan Board of Works 
 and the Commissioners of Sewers had also a power to enter 
 into agreement for purchase. 
 
 The most strenuous opposition was offered to the measure. 
 It was styled a " confiscation of property," and a " Repub- 
 lican Bill brought in by a Conservative Government." One 
 of the Gas Company pamphleteers says : " The first act of 
 the RepubHcan Government of France was the confiscation, 
 to a great extent, of the property of the nobility and other 
 landed proprietors. Is it wise for the Government of this 
 country to be guided by the French RepubHc ? Are they 
 prepared for the consequences ? " " The grossest ignorance" 
 was one of the smallest offences of the Government. 
 " Landed proprietors will be called upon to submit their 
 title deeds to the inspection of a select committee ; " and 
 even the Times gave some support to the cry.* In a letter 
 
 * Report of the Metropolitan Board of Works, p. 64. 
 t Article, April 13th, 1867, 
 
GAS SUPPLY : BOARD OF TRADE BILL, 1867. 361 
 
 from Mr. Beck, the chairman of the " Chartered Company," 
 under date 29th of April, 1867, to the Board of Trade, the 
 same wide allegations as to " breaking faith with all share- 
 holders, representing more than 500 millions of capital," 
 invested in joint-stock undertakings, is repeated. But in 
 his reply. Sir Stafford Northcote refuses to admit that the 
 Bill involves any breach of faith ; still less, that " it affects 
 any other class of Companies. If the Companies," he goes 
 on to say, "refuse to accede to the conditions which, upon 
 full inquiry, may be thought necessary, in order to mitigate 
 the inconvenience of their monopoly, it may become a ques- 
 tion for Parliament, whether it is right that they should be 
 left in possession of it, but that is a question for the future." 
 When people, who assure us they know, assert a thing very 
 strongly, they over-persuade people who are not quite sure ; 
 and so, when the Bill was sent to Mr. Cardwell's select 
 committee, it was robbed of its fair proportions ; the clause 
 affecting dividends was struck out, the maximum price and 
 illuminating power were both left blank, and the clauses for 
 optional purchase were omitted. 
 
 As to the power of interfering with price and illuminat- 
 ing power, which was now the only important point left, 
 the committee say, " a compulsory and unconditional inter- 
 ference with the prices already conceded to the producer is 
 not the weapon by which Parliament is accustomed to 
 secure the rights of the consumer. The legitimate weapon 
 to he resorted to for that purpose is the enactment of an inde- 
 pendent supply.''' 
 
 This sentence of Mr. Cardwell's committee contains the 
 affirmance of an undoubted truth, and if ever a truly repre- 
 sentative body of men should succeed in acquiring power to 
 manufacture Gas in London, the ratepayers will for the 
 first time be able to estimate how much they have been 
 overtaxed in this commodity. 
 
362 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The Comniittee go on to report that the Act of 1860 
 had "been very favourable to the producer," and that in 
 its provisions the " consumer was practically unrepre- 
 sented :" that no one connected with the Companies had 
 any interest in reducing the expenditure, and that amalga- 
 mation might take place with advantage. The Companies 
 had insisted before the committee upon 10 per cent, as 
 their maximum dividend, and offered to have 4s. per 1,000 
 feet as their maximum price, and fourteen candles the illu- 
 minating power. The Committee were not satisfied with 
 this offer, but expressed themselves willing to yield a con- 
 siderable dividend if due opportunity were given for 
 inspection and revision of price : otherwise they would 
 "report to the House their opinion that powers for the 
 supply of Gas ought to be conceded to the local authorities 
 of the metropolis." Finally, after the intervention of the 
 Board of Trade they did report in favour of periodical 
 arbitration, under which a price should be fixed, calculated 
 to yield to the Companies, with due care and management, 
 a dividend attaining as near as may be, to 10 per cent, per 
 annum. This scheme which was so large a concession, and 
 which has since proved so lucrative to the Companies, they at 
 that time rejected. 
 
 If the Bill of 1867 had passed even in its emasculated 
 condition, London would still have been the gainer in 
 several ways. Back dividends would be no longer payable ; 
 amalgamation would have been provided for ; there would 
 have been a good audit of accounts, and we should have 
 had purity of Gas ensured. It can scarcely be said that the 
 committee go too far when they say — " To these advantages 
 the consumer is entitled, and we recommend that nothing 
 less should be required as the conditions of any settlement 
 that shall leave in the hands of the Companies exclusively 
 the future supply of the metropolis. They very justly 
 
GAS SUPPLY : MISCONDUCT OF THE METROPOLITAN BOARD. 363 
 
 charge the Companies with having rejected reasonable 
 terms, and say that it would be unjust to the consumer 
 that he should continue subject to monopoly without a due 
 control of it." They further add, that "unless terms 
 satisfactory for the consumers can be arranged with the 
 Companies, the Board of Trade should abstain from the 
 introduction of any other measure like ' The Metropolis Gas 
 Bill, 1867.' Unless the Companies are prepared during 
 the recess to consent to such an arrangement, your com- 
 mittee think that every facility should be afforded to the 
 local authorities for the introduction of an independent 
 supply." 
 
 The committee *' recommended " and " invited " the 
 Corporation of the City and the MetropoHtan Board of 
 Works to present competing schemes before the session of 
 1868. They had already in their report clearly indicated 
 the rights of the consumer, and were anxious to see them 
 enforced. The action of the two metropolitan authorities 
 was widely different. The City Corporation forthwith 
 appointed a committee, gave the requisite notices in 
 November, and appeared with the London Corporation 
 Gas Bill, before the House in the session of 1868. The 
 MetropoHtan Board also " considered " the question. 
 Deputation after deputation waited upon them in the 
 autumn from the delegates of vestries, and ratepayers 
 urging them to seize this golden opportunity for settling a 
 vexed question. But incredible to relate, after seven weeks 
 of vacillation and delay, they rejected the invitation of the 
 House of Commons ; they ignored the wish of the vestries 
 who had sent them, and of the ratepayers that by a figure 
 of speech they were supposed to represent, and decided that 
 they would not introduce a Bill. To emphasize their invita- 
 tion, the Committee of the House had signified their 
 intention of considering the Gas Companies' Bills favourably, 
 
364 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 if no opposing ones were sent in. The action of the 
 MetropoHtan Board of Works was therefore a flagrant 
 betrayal of the pubHc trust. Probably, as the Parochial 
 Critic at that time observed, " a more wanton neglect of 
 their interests was never charged or proved against any 
 body presuming to protect them. The- Board has delibe- 
 rately, apparently by preconcerted design, helped the Gas 
 Companies to maintain their monopoly against the express 
 wish of Parliament."'^ It was alleged at the time that there 
 were large Gas interests at the Board restraining its action, 
 but we prefer to regard their conduct, or rather miscon- 
 duct, as in aU probability due rather to incompetence than 
 to venality. 
 
 Meantime, a pubHc-spirited citizen essayed to do the 
 needful work, and Mr. Beal gave the November notices. 
 The Metropohs Gas Bill was drafted, and another oppor- 
 tunity was afforded to the Board of Works to prove whether 
 they had any sense of the responsibilities of their position. 
 The Bill was offered to them to take up in the beginning of 
 December 1867. They referred it to the Gas committee 
 to "consider." This consideration went on, and finally, 
 after five months, on the 25th of April, 1868, the Board 
 reported against it ! Meantime, the Bill had been intro- 
 duced. Mr. Morrison, Mr. Locke, and Mr. Gorst had put 
 their names on the back, and it was read a second time, and 
 referred to a committee, along with the Corporation Gas 
 Bill, and the Gas Light and Coke Company's Bill. This 
 committee expressed their intention of passing the Cor- 
 
 • The deluded ratepayer can readily excuse the more vigorous 
 language of the eame paper, when it goes on to say — "It is time we 
 stirred ourselves to overturn this dumb idol, and establish an effective 
 real municipality in its place, elected direct from the ratepayers, instead 
 of being filtered through the vestries— the prey or dupe apparently by 
 turns of every class of jobbers who thrive on their ignorance, their neglect, 
 or theix ludicrous vanity." 
 
GAS SUPPLY : COMMITTEE OF 1868. 366 
 
 poration Gas Bill, unless the Companies agreed to settle the 
 Metropolis Gas Bill clauses on the basis of the recommenda- 
 tions of the committee of 1867. After some delay, the 
 Companies supplying the area covered by the Corporation 
 Gas Bill agreed to do so. The others were not called upon 
 to do so ; the reason for this being clearly set forth in the 
 statement of the committee : "The Corporation of the City, 
 by coming before us with their Bill, have enabled us to give 
 effect to our views with respect to the City. The Metro- 
 politan Board of Works are not before us with any Bill of 
 their own. The scope of the Metropolis Gas Act Amend- 
 ment Bill is now limited to the supply of the City, and we 
 do not think it will be expedient to prejudice in any way 
 the future proceedings of Parliament with respect to other 
 metropolitan districts." The counsel of the Metropolitan 
 Board were therefore sent about their business, and it is 
 owing to the grave laches of the authorities at Spring 
 Gardens that a golden opportunity was lost.^ At the in- 
 stance, however, of the Board, the provisions of the Act 
 were extended to the whole area supplied by the Gas Light 
 and Coke Company, which body had, as we have seen, a 
 measure of its own before the House. 
 
 " The City of London Gas Act, 1868," is based, there- 
 fore, upon the Bill of Mr. Beal and the delegates of the 
 vestries ; the City Corporation Gas Bill having been with- 
 
 * It is somewhat edifying to read what the Metropolitan Board say 
 about the matter in their report : " The proceedings in Parliament in the 
 session of 1868 resulted in the passing of the City of London Gas Act, 
 a measure which conferred important advantages on the consumers of 
 Gas within the City, by providing for a reduction of the price, and an im- 
 provement of the quality of the Gas, and placing the Companies under 
 certain conditions and restrictions which were deemed just and necessary 
 in the interests of the consumers." A complaint is made that these ad- 
 vantages were not conceded to the suburbs ! And this is the Board's 
 account of the measure they reported against I ! See Report M.B.W., 
 1868-9, pp. 39, 40, et $eq. 
 
MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 drawn on the announcement of the resolution of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 The provisions of this Act, which only affected Com- 
 panies supplying the City, were shortly as follows : — 
 
 The illuminating power of Gas supplied was to be sixteen 
 candles, and the maximum price 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet ; 
 where cannel Gas of twenty candles was supplied, a propor- 
 tionate increase of price. But these prices may be modified 
 by application to the Board of Trade ; no such application 
 to be made before January 1871. If such application be 
 made, then the Board of Trade may appoint Commissioners 
 in the month of January in any year, who shall have power 
 to fix such an illuminating power, and such a price, as shall 
 be calculated to yield to the Company, with due care and 
 management, a dividend as near as may be, but in no case 
 exceeding, 10 per cent, per annum. They shall take into 
 account any saving which, in their opinion, might have 
 been effected by amalgamation ; and they shall not, in any 
 case, fix an illuminating power lower, or a price higher, 
 than the minimum power and maximum price prescribed by 
 Act of 1860. (See sec. 68.) 
 
 A right of purchase of the works of the Companies sup- 
 plying the City was given to the Corporation, to be exercised 
 at any time within three years. 
 
 Back dividends were no longer to be payable. 
 
 Arrangements are made for amalgamation ; and schemes 
 for the purpose, confirmed by Her Majesty in Council, to 
 have the force of an Act of Parliament. 
 
 The old " reserve fund " to be replaced by an " insu- 
 rance fund " of half the amount created by contributions of 
 1 per cent., when a 10 per cent, dividend was declared." 
 
 Board of Trade referees to test the quality, and auditor 
 of the Board of Trade to investigate the accounts. 
 
 Penalties were to be defrayed out of divisible profits. 
 
GAS SUPPLY : CITY OF LONDON GAS ACT, 1868, 367 
 
 Such is " The City of London Gas Act, 1868." As we 
 have seen, the provision for purchase is only available during 
 three years, and as it was farther fettered with the condition 
 of obtaining the consent of all other London Gas Companies 
 " or purchasing their works" it was never carried out. The 
 Companies insisting on this limitation, is the strongest 
 possible proof of their fear of public competition with 
 " unwatered " capital. The Corporation of the City, how- 
 ever, made an attempt to purchase the works of the 
 Company supplying them, but it was unsuccessful. The 
 City offered to guarantee to the shareholders a 6 per cent, 
 dividend. The 6 per cent, guarantee of the Corporation 
 would have been worth in the market 25 per cent, premium 
 upon the value of their shares,* yet the Company refused the 
 offer, and talked loudly of " confiscation." Probably the 
 shareholders who — when the Companies make one of their 
 ad misericordiam appeals — we are told are chiefly trustees, 
 clergymen, and women, never had an opportunity of voting 
 upon the question with a knowledge of the facts. 
 
 It was computed that in 1870, the first year of the new 
 scale, the saving to the City of London alone was £82,500, 
 and in the outlying district of the " Gas Light and Coke 
 Company," £60,000 more. But what was the effect en the 
 Companies concerned ? After the passing of the Act the 
 "Gas Light and Coke Company's" shares rose from £47 to 
 £56; the "City of London," £22 to £25; the "Great 
 Central," from £13 to £15. 
 
 The Referees appointed by the Board of Trade to fix the 
 method of testing the quality of Gas, and to represent the 
 consumers' interest, were : Mr. Evans (the engineer of the 
 " Gas Light and Coke Company " ) Mr. Patterson, and Mr. 
 Pierce. In 1872 the two latter gentlemen published a 
 
 * Speech of Mr. Bontems, in Court of Common Council, November 
 26th, 1868. 
 
368 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 report, reflecting upon the method of purification employed 
 by the " Gas Light and Coke Company," but this seems to 
 have aroused the ire of their co-Eeferee, Mr. Evans, who 
 had resigned his post as Referee ; and it would seem from 
 his published reply that the appointment of Referees had not 
 been conducive to the public advantage anticipated.* 
 
 Bills were introduced into Parliament in 1869, asking 
 for an enormous increase of capital for three Companies. 
 The " Imperial," with a capital of £2,139,250, proposed to 
 increase it to £3,358,000. The " South Metropolitan " to 
 advance from £250,000 to £625,000, and the "Great 
 Central " from £266,000 to £391,000. The " Imperial " 
 were put upon terms, and eventually many of the clauses 
 of the City of London Gas Act were applied to this 
 Company, and the price was fixed at 3s. 9d., with an illumi- 
 nating power of fourteen candles. The " South Metropo- 
 litan " gave up the right to back dividends, and fixed a 
 maximum price lower than 3s. 9c?. 
 
 The provision of the Act of 1868 as to the amalgamation 
 of the Gas Companies soon bore fruit. The first scheme 
 sanctioned was one for the amalgamation of the " City of 
 London Gas Company " with the "Gas Light and Coke 
 Company." Then the "Great Central " amalgamated with 
 the " United Company ;" so that at the end of 1870 the 
 City was supplied only by one Company, the " Gas Light 
 and Coke Company," with an aggregate capital of 
 £2,150,000, and a large area outside the Corporation 
 limits. The " Victoria Docks Company" was purchased by 
 
 * The public had been hoodwinked into the belief that the Gas Eeferee 
 clauses of the Act of 1868 were likely to prove a protection to thera. Mr. 
 Evans writes — " Sly colleagues, Messrs. Patterson and Fierce, were abso- 
 lutel}' ignorant of all matters connected with the purification, testing, and 
 supply of Gas in any shape :" and we are then told how these ungrateful 
 gentlemen who now call his method of purification in question, owe all 
 their knowledge of the subject to his instruction, and to the courtesy of 
 Gas Directors I —Journai of Gas Lighting, September 24th, 1873, p. 801. 
 
GAS supply: amalgamation of companies. 369 
 
 the same Company, so that the number of Companies 
 supplying London was reduced from fourteen to eleven. 
 When the " Great Central " consented to end its separate 
 existence, it took care to provide a good thing for its share- 
 holders on account of the Higgs' defalcations. The loss to 
 the Company had been £56,290 19s. 5d. Of this the 
 " United Company " were to pay £15,000 in the first year, 
 and £5,000 a year afterwards. We believe that in conse- 
 quence of the view of this transaction taken by the Commis- 
 sioners, and of the Order in Council approving the scheme, 
 the London ratepayers have been paying these defalcations 
 in addition to the customary dividend ! ! 
 
 The "Equitable" and the "Western" amalgamated 
 with the " Gas Light and Coke Company " next, and so 
 the London Companies were reduced to nine. It is some- 
 what edifying to read the terms of these amalgamations. 
 Whatever the object may have been, the result was clear 
 to fill the directorial pocket. Let us take an example from 
 the scheme amalgamating the " Western." For the first 
 year the fees of the directors of the " United Company " 
 are not to exceed £10,000, and by gradual yearly reduc- 
 tions to arrive at their minimum of £6,000 a year in 1882 ! 
 By clause 26 any director within three months giving 
 notice of his intention to retire from the direction, shall 
 receive a sum equal to the amount of fees received by him 
 during the three preceding years, so that if he has enjoyed 
 say, £750 a year for his attendance at the Board, he may 
 receive £2,250 on condition of retiring ! And this is part 
 of the " current expenditure," and so is saddled on the 
 ratepayer. 
 
 In November 1870, negotiations for the introduction 
 of a comprehensive Gas measure for London were initiated 
 by the Board of Trade, in conferences with a deputation 
 from the ratepayers, and one from the Metropolitan Board 
 
370 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of Works ; but the Metropolitan Board, though promised 
 the support of Government, again declined to " undertake the 
 responsibility of introducing a measure/' and so the Board of 
 Trade gave the notices in November. No Bill was, however, 
 introduced in 1871 in pursuance of them. Here, again, 
 we see a Government office asking the Metropolitan Board 
 to act as a representative London body in a matter concern- 
 ing the whole Metropolis, and we find it declining to do so. 
 
 In 1872 an unsuccessful attempt was made to amalga- 
 mate the "Phoenix," supplying Gas at 35. 9c?., and with a 
 large amount of useless capital, with the "South Metro- 
 politan Company," supplying Gas at 3s. 2d. The Bill was 
 thrown out, being opposed by the Board of "Works and by 
 ratepayers, as contrary to the consumers' interest. The 
 result of this failure was that the " South Metropolitan " 
 lowered its price to 35. In the same year the "Gas Light 
 and Coke Company " brought in a Bill to raise additional 
 share capital to the extent of a million sterKng, and to in- 
 crease their power of borrowing. 
 
 A somewhat feeble opposition to the measure was offered 
 by the Metropolitan Board of "Works, on the ground that 
 the amount asked for was nearly twice as much as was 
 wanted, and they also endeavoured to persuade the com- 
 mittee that any new capital should only bear 7 per cent, 
 interest, as it would easily be raised at par at that rate. 
 But Mr. Denison opposed these measures on behalf of the 
 Company, admitting that a million was asked for in order 
 that the Company " might not have to come again so soon ;" 
 and as to the 10 per cent., Mr. Browne, the deputy- 
 governor of the Company, told the committee that they 
 "were entitled to the same dividend on this as on the 
 other." 
 
 "When the Council for the MetropoHtan Board of "Works 
 showed that, at present prices, this would be practically 
 
GASSTJPPLY : " GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY'S ACT," 1870. 371 
 
 giving the Company £600,000 of ratepayers' money ; tliat 
 the " Imperial " had been limited in this way, and asking 
 " what is the claim to more than par ? " the answer is, 
 "Because we loant the 10 per cent. We have raised the 
 other capital upon these terms, with the consent of Par- 
 liament, and we now object to that Act of Parliament being 
 changed. We also gave the consumers the prospect of a 
 very great reduction by-and-by, which we hope to give ! ! " 
 Subsequently to this, they raised the price for common Gas 
 form 35. 9d. to 6s. per 1,000 feet. So the BLU. passed. 
 Londoners are charged with £30,000 a year more, simply 
 because the Companies " want " it ; and they have got so 
 much money now that the public will probably have no 
 opportunity of putting any more safe restrictions on them 
 unless they obtain the extensions to be asked for in 
 subsequent Sessions. 
 
 The authorized capital of the "Chartered" was thus 
 raised to £4,150,000, and its borrowing power to £913,000. 
 The Company also obtained power to apply the proceeds of 
 the sale of surplus land to the erection of new works ; 
 repeahng clause 59 of the Act of 1868, whereby they 
 would have been compelled to apply it to the reduction of 
 capital. This Company shares, with all London Gas Com- 
 panies, a strong dislike to the reduction of capital that pays 
 so well. 
 
 In 1873 the " Gas Light and Coke Company " brought 
 forward a bill enabling them to purchase collieries and ships, 
 and for other matters. This was ultimately confined to an 
 expenditure of £150,000 on ships ; and when the Company 
 is charging higher for Gas than 35. 9d. per 1,000 feet, 
 it may only declare 7 per cent, on this capital. A Bill 
 of the " Imperial " Company, asking for leave to amalga- 
 mate, was thrown out, probably in consequence of the 
 opposition of the ** Gas Light and Coke Company," whose 
 
372 MTTNICIPAT, LONDON. 
 
 extensive works at Beckton are made, as they say, on a 
 scale to accommodate future amalgamation. 
 
 We have seen that in consequence of the inertia of the 
 Metropolitan Board, only three Companies — the " Gas Light 
 and Coke Company," the "Imperial," and the "South 
 Metropolitan " — are under the provisions of the Act of 1868 ; 
 the remaining six — the " Commercial," the " Independent," 
 the "Ratcliff," the "London," the "Phoenix," and the 
 "Surrey Consumers'" — being only subject to the Act of 
 1860. The "Gas Light and Coke," the "Imperial," and 
 the "South Metropolitan," supply Gas under the Acts of 
 1868 and 1869, at maximum prices of 35. 9c?., 3s. 9c?., and 
 35. 6c?. per 1,000 feet respectively, and illuminating powers 
 of sixteen, fourteen, and fourteen candles respectively. But 
 as we have seen, if the Companies are unable to declare a 
 dividend of 10 per cent., at these prices, they may apply to the 
 Board of Trade, at the beginning of any year, for a revision 
 of price, and the Board of Trade must, upon each requisi- 
 tion, appoint Commissioners to investigate the affairs of the 
 Companies, and fix such price and illuminating power as 
 may be calculated, " with due care and management," to 
 yield 10 per cent, to the Company. The price is not, how- 
 ever, to be higher, or the illuminating power lower, than 
 the limit of 1860 (55. 6c?. for common Gas and twelve 
 candles). 
 
 This clause first came into operation, upon the applica- 
 tion of the " Gas Light and Coke Company," in January 
 1873. In the appHcation, they state that the price of coal 
 has been such that they could not declare 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. F. S. Reilly, Dr. Wm. Odhng, and Wm. P. Pattison, 
 were appointed Commissioners to act under this clause.* 
 
 * On the 22nd of May, 1873, Sir Charles Dilke asked, in the House of 
 Commons, whether the legal Commissioners appointed by the Board of 
 Trade to report upon the increased price of Gas demanded by the " Gas 
 
GAS SUPPLY : THE BOARD OF TRADE COMMISSIONERS. 373 
 
 The Corporation of London and the MetropoHtan Board of 
 "Works were represented before them. The Company asked 
 an increase of Is. per 1,000 feet ; and after hearing both 
 sides, the Commissioners advanced the price of common 
 Gas from 3s. 9d. to 45, 4d. per 1,000 feet, cannel Gas being 
 advanced proportionately. In 1873, therefore, there was 
 a difference of Is. 4:d. per 1,000 feet between the prices 
 charged for sixteen-candle Gas by the "Gas Light and 
 Coke Company," and fourteen-candle Gas by the "South 
 Metropolitan." The former Company was applying to 
 advance beyond its maximum price ; the latter was con- 
 siderably under it. But the year 1874 was to see this 
 difference greatly increased. 
 
 In November 1873, the MetropoHtan Board again re- 
 ceived notice of the intention of the " Gas Light and Coke 
 Company " and the " Imperial," to apply for an advance in 
 price. For six days, commencing March 12th, 1874, the 
 same three Commissioners conducted the enquiry, under the 
 Act of 1868, and the result of it was that the price of 
 cannel Gas as supplied by the " Gas Light and Coke Com- 
 pany," was fixed at 6s. 3d. per 1,000 feet, and the price of 
 common Gas, at 55. per 1,000 feet, and so it remained 
 during 1873, the rate being 3|c?. a candle. 
 
 In the latter part of the year an important letter was 
 written from the Board of Trade, by Mr. T. H. Farrer to 
 Mr. James Beal, upon the Gas Question. The writer, 
 
 Light and Coke Company " had been, in several Parliamentary sessions, 
 Parliamentary draughtsmen and counsel to the " Gas Light and Coke 
 Company ? " To this most important question, Mr. Chichester Fortescue 
 replied, that he had " not enquired" whether Mr. Reilly was so. He said 
 his character stood " too high to be impugned, and that he had been also 
 employed by the Corporation of the City, the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works, and Her Majesty's Governmeut." Nobody pretends that Mr. 
 Reilly would act corruptly, but the public would prefer not having an ex- 
 couusel of the Gas Companies sitting as a judge over their interests. 
 Another of the Commissioners was, if we mistake not, a witness on behalf 
 of the Companies before Mr. Cardwell's Committee. 
 
 2a 
 
374 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 speaking presumably from inspiration, says — " There can 
 be no doubt that the present condition of the Gas supply in 
 London calls for the serious consideration of those concerned 
 in its management. It is obvious that the legislation of 
 1868 and of subsequent years has not produced satisfaction." 
 The writer goes on to say, that " probably the only solution 
 of the long-pending disputes between the Companies and 
 the consumers is to be found in a fair purchase on the part 
 of the latter of the property and works of the former." 
 There is no doubt that this is the true basis of action, and 
 as we hereafter show, the Companies have distinctly 
 challenged us to adopt it. The present system of districting 
 produces " absurd extravagance," is " without any plan," 
 and the places of manufacture too numerous, " situate at 
 random," and without reference to the places they have to 
 supply. Amalgamation is strongly recommended on the 
 ground of economy in both manufacture, direction, and dis- 
 tribution. It is somewhat doubtful from the past, whether 
 it has produced these results, and it has the disadvantage 
 of rendering rectification of capital almost impossible. 
 Seeing the creation of a municipality able to deal with the 
 whole is " imminent," we can endure our troubles a little 
 longer, especially as in 1875 the price was reduced by 
 Companies gorged with the high rate of 1874. To compel 
 citizens to take over the " property " of a Company by 
 adopting its capital — probably double in amount to its assets 
 — and swelled by numerous sums that are wrongly charged 
 to capital account, would be an act of very doubtful justice. 
 
 We shall hereafter deal with the methods of Gas control 
 that are possible to us, and likely to be possible in the future, 
 and sweep away a few of the fallacies as to the "vested 
 rights " of the Companies which are hurled at the heads 
 of all Gas reformers. 
 
 The session of 1875 witnessed the unwonted spectacle 
 
GAS supply: parliamentary proceedings in 1875. 375 
 
 of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corpf)ration of 
 London acting together upon the gas question. Early in 
 the session, three Bills were submitted to Parliament with 
 the authority of these bodies. The first Bill provided for 
 the purchase of the undertakings of the Gas Companies 
 upon certain terms therein contained. The second measure, 
 if carried, would have given to the Corporation and the 
 Board of Works power to manufacture and supply gas 
 independently of the Gas Companies. This measure was 
 professedly introduced in pursuance of the recommendation 
 of the Committee of 1867. The length of its gestation at 
 Spring Gardens was therefore in theory eight years, but in 
 practice was probably not as many weeks. Both these Bills 
 were withdrawn before the session was far advanced ; that 
 for the purchase because it was conceived that it would 
 not have the support of the Government, and that for the 
 manufacture because it appears to have been introduced 
 only to frighten the Companies. We do not propose to 
 discuss the policy which dictated the introduction of these 
 Bills, but content ourselves with observing that the cost 
 incurred in such introduction falls upon the long-suffering 
 Metropolitan ratepayer. This obvious result was, however, 
 emphasized on the pubKc mind by the question being put in 
 the House of Commons to the Chairman of the Board.* 
 
 The third Bill contained the conditions which the 
 Metropolitan Board and the Corporation were desirous of im- 
 posing upon the Companies, if their monopoly were allowed 
 to continue. The measure provided for the fixing of a 
 
 * Colonel Makyns asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works, whether it was the fact that the costs of a private Bill, the 
 Metropolis Gas (New Works), introduced by the Board and withdrawn 
 before the second reading, amounted to several thousand pounds: and if 
 he would state the amount, and out of what funds the costs were to be 
 defrayed. Colonel Hogg said it was impossible to give the amount of the 
 costs. They would be "charged as Law and Parliamentary expenses in 
 the usual manner." 
 
376 MUNICIPAX LONDON. 
 
 certain price, viz., 35. 9d. per 1,000 feet, as that at wliich a 
 well-managed Gas Company ought to supply gas and still 
 be able to pay its highest dividend. Provision was made 
 for a reduction of dividend in case of an increase of price; 
 the illuminating power to be sixteen candles. There were 
 also provisions for testing the gas at any time, and in any 
 place, and the audit of the Companies was made more 
 complete. 
 
 The Bill was read a second time, and referred to a Select 
 Committee. This Committee continued its sittings during 
 twenty days, and had the advantage of the written suggestions 
 of the Board of Trade. In consequence of these suggestions, 
 and as a result of the consideration of the question, the 
 Committee arrived at the conclusion that if the Company's 
 dividends were reduced at a rate proportionate to the 
 increase of price over the initial amount, they should also 
 be permitted to declare an increased dividend in case of 
 reduction of price. The promoters of the Bill therefore 
 agreed to modify it in this respect, and the Committee 
 subsequently declared the preamble of the Bill proved, the 
 illuminating power remaining at sixteen candles, and the 
 initial price at 35. 9d. 
 
 All the Gas Companies of the Metropolis petitioned 
 against the Bill, and upon the Committee declaring the 
 preamble proved, withdrew from further appearance before 
 it. But they were by no means united in their opposition, 
 for whilst the officials of the South Metropolitan gave evi- 
 dence in favour of the sliding scale, the Commercial Gas 
 Company actually adopted the provisions of the Bill in a 
 measure introduced for amalgamation with the RatcliflF. 
 After the Gas Bill had passed the Select Committee, it was 
 reported to the House of Commons ; but notwithstanding 
 every attempt being made by the promoters of the measure 
 to bring it forward, it never arrived at the stage of dis- 
 
GAS SUPPLY : AMALGAMATION IN 1875. 377 
 
 cussion in Committee. Thus another investigation by a 
 Committee of the House of Commons must be regarded as 
 having been futile, unless the Government in the session of 
 1876 accept its conclusions. 
 
 An Amalgamation Bill was introduced in the same 
 session by the Phoenix Gas Company, authorizing it to 
 imite its undertaking with those of other Companies south 
 of the river. The progress of this Bill was stopped for 
 want of compHance with standing orders. A Bill of the 
 Gas Light and Coke Company, providing for the sale of its. 
 undertaking, failed before the House of Lords on similar 
 grounds. A Bill for the increase of the share capital of 
 the Imperial Gas Company by £1,300,000, and the loan 
 capital by £538,000, was withdrawn when the Committee 
 intimated that they would require the Company to adopt 
 the new regulations just settled. 
 
 The Bill introduced by the Commercial Gas Company 
 provided for amalgamation with the Ratcliff Company, and 
 for the raising of additional share capital to the amount 
 of £450,000, and the loan capital to the amount of 
 £112,500. When the Bill ultimately passed the Com- 
 mittee, it embodied the resolutions at which the Select 
 Committee had arrived, including the sliding scale of divi- 
 dend, and authorized the raising of £560,000, one-half in 
 shares, with a maximum dividend of 7 per cent., and one- 
 half by way of loan, bearing interest not exceeding 5 per 
 cent. It was edifying to notice the opposition of the Com- 
 panies to this measure, which they saw might be drawn into 
 a very unsatisfactory precedent. It has, however, now 
 become law. It enunciates a new principle in London Gas 
 legislation, and for the first time it becomes the interest of a 
 large Company to supply gas at the lowest possible rate. 
 The capital of the two Companies was only £550,000, and 
 as it will now be nearly doubled, the proportion of watered 
 
378 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 capital cannot be large, and if the Company be well managed, 
 we may perhaps learn at what rate gas can be profitably 
 made in the Metropolis. 
 
 The annexed tables set forth a number of particulars 
 with respect to the various Gas Companies, made up to 
 September 29th, 1874. They point to one or two remark- 
 able differences in the management and working of the 
 Companies. They are also useful as enabhng us to form an 
 idea as to the money which must be paid in case of any 
 Municipal purchase, and as to the costs of management, 
 which would not be likely, under any ordinary circumstances, 
 to exceed those which are now charged. The enormous pro- 
 portion of the capital which carries the highest rate of divi- 
 dend will be noticed, for whilst £7,246,800 belong to this 
 class, there is not a single million borrowed at the ordinary 
 market rate of interest, at which it might be obtained. The 
 reserve fund has been very largely depleted for the purpose 
 of making the 1873 dividends up to seven per cent. The 
 Gas Light and Coke Company keep open, what they are 
 pleased to style, a " Defalcation Account," which is credited 
 with £5,000 a year for the purpose of recouping it under its 
 amalgamation arrangement with the Central Gas Company 
 for the appropriations of Mr. Higgs. As London gas con- 
 sumers are called upon to pay for the defalcations of servants 
 chosen by gas directors, it is only equitable that such con- 
 sumers should be furnished with some guarantee, either of 
 the honesty of the servants, or of the intelligence of the 
 directors. At present, the public has no assurance of either. 
 
 An idea of the gross anomalies existing, so far as the 
 gas districts are concerned, will be obtained from the map 
 set out. It speaks for itself, and shows the monstrous waste 
 and absurdity of the present system better than any words 
 could do. 
 
GAS supply: loan and share capital statistics. 379 
 
 P So 
 eH = 3 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o -* 
 
 C .go o! 
 
 
 O t- o o o 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 ; lo" — o o o" 
 
 Oi 05 O « 5C> 
 
 
 ^ : : 
 
 ° a .2 
 
 0.2 O ? 
 3,37 b 
 
 O a. ^ 03 
 
 ■=4? 
 
 -J3 » J3 
 
 ° te 2 S 
 g 1> P. p. 
 
 o si 
 
 ^ J -^ ,a 
 B " =* 
 
 ° fc 2 S 
 
 g tP ft P* 
 
 < 2-S 
 
 Saw 
 
 • o -o 
 ' o ■ d" 
 
 oooooooco 
 
 OOOOCOOO— 
 OOOOOOOOOO 
 
 C0_0 to -)< .-I CO lO rH « 
 
 co".-r 
 
 OO^OOOOOO 
 OOiOOOOCOOO 
 
 0_ C5_ c-_^ o_ o_ lO^ o^ o, o_ 
 
 itj o* cT T* o co" cj c* o* o 
 
 oojacico?coooO«i 
 
 ooooooooo 
 ooooooooo 
 
 0_0_0_0_0^C3^0 o o 
 
 ^ in CO ( — 1 iO t.-^ /^ -^-w ^— N lr^ 
 
 =♦< 
 
 
 tc 
 
 a X 
 
 to 
 
 
 "^ '-'<"S a -rt i> « « fc< 
 
 ;=" a o o c-^a Jja 3 
 HmmomHHHco 
 
 o-a . 
 
 oo 
 
 
 oo o 
 
 iC 
 
 
 O O 
 
 
 t- O CO 
 
 
 
 c S 9 
 s s g 
 
 ^o-::- 
 
 
 . . X o ?i . 
 
 • • x' o -# • 
 
 ■^_ 
 
 |5^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 "* o? 
 
 Oi 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ■s 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p< 
 
 * 
 
 
 eo_ 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 0" 
 
 s 
 
 • 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 o? 
 
 
 
 c* 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 rl O 
 
 
 
 
 
 r—t 
 
 
 
 I-H 
 
 Til 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 o o 
 
 
 o o o 
 
 »o 
 
 © 
 
 05 O 
 
 
 O «J5 O 
 
 
 
 
 =1?^.=?- 
 
 
 • CO ■* . . o 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C* t~ l-H 
 
 
 
 p< 
 
 00 O) 
 
 
 1-1 «J5 
 
 
 
 
 -* ,-1 
 
 
 
 c~ 
 
 Til 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 TJl 
 
 
 
 
 
 "S 
 
 o o 
 
 
 O C9 O O O 
 
 t~ 
 
 « 
 
 lO lO 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^^.-^ 
 
 
 • « o:> o o o 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -* 
 
 
 CO O O lO CT> 
 
 0?" 
 
 pi 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 -H t- £- « O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0" 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1— I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •w "^ 
 
 o o 
 
 
 o c« o o o 
 
 o? 
 
 o § 
 
 o o 
 
 
 O <rv O ^- O 
 
 
 o t- 
 
 
 O c- O IC O 
 
 « 
 
 
 i+> CO ^s 
 
 
 * o o?' o o o" 
 
 cs 
 
 H 2 S 
 P d 
 
 
 
 « T^ t- r-l O 
 
 a 
 
 CB Tjl 
 
 
 1— .-1 
 
 Cr~ 
 
 < o 
 
 
 
 
 
 ►:! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 (O 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 a 
 
 „ 
 
 
 t 
 
 a 
 
 
 0) 
 
 a 
 
 S S = aS g 
 
 p T3 '« a o ° 
 t- Q 2 *i '>-' 
 <u 5 o J=i ^ . 
 
 a c,j^« S" 
 
 
 
 C5 S3 
 
 o 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 <D Oi 
 
 
 a-§ s_§ s ^ 
 
 
 
 •^ a 
 
 
 
 
 Hm 
 
 mOMHHHdo 
 
 
380 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 
 »- „ to 
 
 I2| 
 
 WOO>Ot>Ol't--^-' 
 
 t^ 
 
 COc-O^ODOOOOCO 
 
 CD 
 
 « t-_ ■^_ -* c:_ o<_ c:_ — t- -*^ 
 
 O? 
 
 i s-S. 
 
 of -jT « o"«o — o CO CO 
 
 00 
 
 nft<-^ 
 
 l^ as r-( ^ « C* r-i 
 
 CO 
 
 o Hi 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 (J 
 
 
 
 «3 
 
 CO-^1— l-H— lO'^'O^ 
 
 o 
 
 «3 
 
 OC OOWt-CJOOJ 
 
 to 
 
 ^c:-^ t-OicC'CtOJco 
 
 Oi 
 
 ■S'2 
 
 ^ CO «D O CO" oJ Oi — 1-" -^ 
 
 c~ 
 
 H 
 
 lOt^COC^rtCOiiDCOOO 
 
 
 Ci L^ rl 1-1 r-( « OJ 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 •"^C^C^CJlOOOOOCOCC 
 
 o 
 
 1— lOl- H— I tiooc- 
 
 CO 
 
 ll 
 
 « t-_ rH ~il O^ 00 C* OJ_ OJ_ Q0_ 
 
 (X) 
 
 
 Co' 1> lO O CO Cs' 03 l^r « 
 
 o 
 
 w o» 
 
 00 
 
 £ 
 
 ooooooooo 
 
 o 
 
 
 oorooooooo 
 
 Oi 
 
 ^S 
 
 li*J O 0_ ^__ C. l-~ X' 0_ 00 o 
 
 05 
 
 .SiS 
 
 OTHr-ICOi-HrHC* ^ 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 «j 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 -->nTHC«r-l'rt(05C?t~ 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 ■— iO:^.-'C<!OCOOCJ 
 
 
 q, w^ «c t-^ »^'-<, «^. o^ c>j^ « 
 
 ^ 
 
 s* 
 
 
 OG I- o' to o' O Ol of ■^'" 
 
 CO 
 
 
 (N « ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ..§ 
 
 iCi-IOCOXl-O— 00 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 '-HtHOSi-HX-^-HCOO 
 
 X 
 
 m 
 
 jj -rj* TO 1— C2 -rfl CO «C 0_ t-^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 -n' «£j c: o o' o' o oT -^ 
 
 
 u-s 
 
 «> CO i-i 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 m oj 
 
 — .oc?o— '<^c:coo? 
 
 t^ 
 
 "S S 
 
 OCJXO— 'CJ^C-'-'O 
 
 CO 
 
 S -3 
 
 O-^'X'OCIOJOOO 
 
 
 "■sl 
 
 ctj o" ^^ T-T c* to" Hh" c: o" O 
 
 _r 
 
 •3°s 
 
 Ot^r-lOCSXi— icot- 
 
 
 t^ O 1— 1 i-H i-i OJ 
 
 
 H 1 
 
 
 <N 
 
 <s 
 
 
 
 £ g 
 
 OOt-l.~C0OC^t-5© 
 
 '^ 
 
 qi ic o ro i-H « -|H_ -J o_ t-__ 
 
 T-l 
 
 a'S fl 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 §*«■§ 
 
 U5 O T^"" of C» ci" C9 of O" 
 
 CO 
 
 « 1 
 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 o:t^OiOX-*<C?t— O 
 
 I— 1 
 
 el 
 
 >CC— C2~-H-f>oC5 
 
 o 
 
 
 t-.— OC:cflXrHCt~ 
 
 i- 
 
 
 '^t-^irio'"o?«£!00rr'oooi 
 
 CO 
 
 
 o-^cOrti.~co5ro{->j< 
 
 l^ 
 
 
 to O r-l .— ^ 
 
 t~ 
 
 o 
 
 
 P-H 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 o ^ 
 
 
 S 
 
 'a • § M 
 
 
 p< 
 
 fl -S ii 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^ • o a 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 a 
 
 S 9^ ^ B 
 
 
 
 M aS •r! is -5 H -7! O 
 
 
 i 
 
 ea.S'^<ugc^o3^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 <c P^s S-S <u aj <D a 
 E-iMaiOMHHHW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OC050tOt-^t~OC5 
 
 05 
 
 
 c: t~ O c: O CO C5 t- -H 
 
 
 
 Ooscot^oxTjiooei 
 
 1-1 
 
 g^J 
 
 i0:dc0C0i-i->*O ^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 e-^ 
 
 c~ O n o -* t- t- 
 
 C5 
 
 ,, .i-OOOi-O;* . 
 
 
 g§ 
 
 =4J . O: O_ai_X_^i-(_rH_0. . 
 
 C5 
 
 Sfe 
 
 O t 00 Oi l~ o 
 
 00 
 
 M 
 
 OJ i-H 1-H iH •<* 
 
 rH 
 
 o" "d 
 
 Oul-Hi^OOOJOO 
 
 X 
 
 
 . X o o I- x ■-; £- oq =5 
 
 
 a (=< 5 ^ 
 
 ■g o c:__ o 'ii o_ co_ CO 'it^ ct^ 
 
 o 
 
 ■u Ot-O-rioOrtOco 
 
 to 
 
 2 2°"" 
 
 6h or:o3:-n".-iC5-H-.ji 
 
 CO 
 
 c5 0) 
 
 -* CO ^ 
 
 ot^ 
 
 
 XOO*OC050CJ'4<-^< 
 
 -* 
 
 
 OtO^^HiOttOXO 
 
 o 
 
 
 . Ot^tCOCCOOCOCO 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 ■Sec 
 
 » r Hto-H'iiojtoo^ 
 
 
 
 ^ OOOO^rH— ItOCSX 
 
 f^ i-i;3i.^oooo<Nt-ico 
 
 
 H § 
 
 
 c5 
 
 ■^ CO rH rH 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 OOOOCO^-fO^l) 
 
 C5 
 
 2-i . 
 
 ■r)^OOC35-^^OXr-^£-^- 
 
 o 
 
 "o 2 m 
 
 . t-O^.-iTj(XC0C>Jt~ 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 co-C^ 
 
 JJ c:t^T-<C3>ocnc;oco 
 
 X 
 
 tofM.bJ) 
 
 r" CT lO 00 CO X rH -J( t^ ^-1 
 "^ 0<^Oi>Ti(05l-<_^rHCO 
 coco" rH 
 
 -* 
 
 Og^ 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 OOSiOTOCOXXO 
 
 o 
 
 
 . C3 1-C0;=O^-tiO00 
 
 o 
 
 M 3:3 
 
 •g CT tC -)4_ X_ O O -X T-H O 
 
 lO 
 
 ml^ &£ 
 
 « t- t- lO -f 05 Oi w CV l- 
 
 -»< 
 
 O o'*3 
 
 m co-*t>xcic:o?T-ico 
 
 c^ 
 
 W CO T-H 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 •a 
 
 o-riicoccoscocrooo 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^i-HtCC?00«OCO 
 
 Ci 
 
 ° rt 
 
 ■^xt->r5co-^(o>no/ 
 
 o 
 
 p^ 9 
 
 r-l'TOCOCOXOCSOCO 
 
 Tt* 
 
 H«.P 
 
 £^c«coc:>Or-^coc<-^ 
 
 -(< 
 
 ° 5 
 
 ^ rH .-1 rt 
 
 ■5j< 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^~ 
 
 
 xooi-~oc;t-<^o« 
 
 00 
 
 O 
 
 OO^OXtOCOJXCJ 
 
 o 
 
 M a 
 
 oxcoc?cor- oirotc 
 
 1—1 
 
 o 8 
 
 ■"♦i o' to" CO cs" 00 ci -)h' cT cT 
 
 CO 
 
 B a 
 
 -t(K0t0OC}O-t<rtlO 
 
 o 
 
 
 COOi-IC^t-^COCO iH 
 
 t- 
 
 
 r-l ^H 
 
 co" 
 
 
 r^^ifOtOCS(00<?C?ri<CO 
 
 o 
 
 a 2 
 
 OtOOi-HOJOOO-tlOJ 
 
 05 
 
 ,s a 
 
 o?>nuOt~oio-)<r-ioo 
 
 
 S5 
 
 ■^ co" -f" t-" CO ~f ~n o of oj" 
 
 X 
 
 o 2 
 
 cox -^TjICOtOtO^O* 
 
 o 
 
 Wi-H 
 
 t- 
 
 m 
 
 to— 'C5ioxcocJ:oO 
 
 o 
 
 
 OtOCOCi — Or-l^UZO 
 
 o 
 
 "3 73 
 
 oo-^-fcoooxo 
 
 
 ■gm 
 
 ■^ ,-;' co' o »ra — r cT "io to' -ti 
 
 -f 
 
 ^ S 
 
 — Oi— itOOSCO-tlCOOO 
 
 
 O 
 
 C CO 1-1 T-H CJ c* 
 
 o 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 =4J 
 
 <D 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 9 
 
 "TJ ■ 03 * ■ ■ ' £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 •■■B i 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 1 -l-alg-afel 
 
 
 cl 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 H ►S CO O M H H H CQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
381 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 
 THE WATEE SUPPLY OF LONDON. 
 
 Supply to Old London.— London Bridge Waterworks. — 
 Origin of New River Company and oilier Companies. — 
 Character of Supply hefore 1862.— The Metropolis 
 Wafer Act, 1852.— The Metropolis Water Act, 1871.— 
 Sources, Nature, and Extent of Supply. — System of 
 Constant Supply. — Capital Revenue and Expenditure of 
 London Water Companies. 
 
 Surface wells and conduits provided the water supply 
 of old London. The latter have been long since dried up, 
 and the very springs that supplied them seem to have ceased 
 to flow. The former have continued their existence to the 
 present day, but with constantly lessening numbers, as the 
 unwholesome character of their waters has become more 
 manifest with the perfection of the underground drainage 
 system.* 
 
 In the thirteenth century the City authorities completed 
 
 * In 1866 the number of these surface wells and of public pumps was 
 thirty-five. In 1875 only four of such pumps remain, viz., Aldgate, Bar- 
 tholomew Lane, Crutched Friars, and Fann Street. A careful analysis of 
 the water was made by the City Medical Officer of Health, and it showed 
 in aU cases the presence of various solids, of chlorine, and of free am- 
 monia — in something like ten times the quantity found in the water 
 supplied by the Water Companies. Probably, therefore, the days of these 
 institutions are numbered. Even the enemies of the City were wont to 
 regard Aldgate Pump with somewhat of reverent affection, as a public 
 servant incorruptible and beyond reproach. Can it be that surrounding 
 influences have at last proved too much for it? And where shall truth be 
 found in the City now that it has departed even fi-qm the bottom of its 
 oldest well ? For particulars of the analysis, see Report of Dr. Sedgwick 
 Saunders to the Commissioners of Sewers, October 1875. 
 
5^ 
 
381 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 
 THE WATER SUPPLY OF LONDON. 
 
 Supply to Old London.— London Bridge Waterworks. — 
 Origin of New River Company and other Companies. — 
 Character of Supply hefore 1852.— The Metropolis 
 Water Act, l8o2.— The Metropolis Water Act, 1871.— 
 Sources, Nature, and Extent of Supply. — System of 
 Constant Supply. — Capital Revenue and Expenditure of 
 London Water Companies. 
 
 Surface wells and conduits provided the water supply 
 of old London. The latter have heen long since dried up, 
 and the very springs that supplied them seem to have ceased 
 to flow. The former have continued their existence to the 
 present day, but with constantly lessening numbers, as the 
 unwholesome character of their waters has become more 
 manifest with the perfection of the underground drainage 
 system.'^ 
 
 In the thirteenth century the City authorities completed 
 
 • In 1866 the number of these exirface wells and of public pumps was 
 thirty-five. In 1875 only four of such pumps remain, \iz., Aldgate, Bar- 
 tholomew Lane, Crutched Friars, and Fann Street. A careful analysis of 
 the water was made by the City Medical Officer of Health, and it showed 
 in all cases the presence of various solids, of chlorine, and of free am- 
 monia — in something like ten times the quantity found in the water 
 supplied by the Water Companies. Probably, therefore, the days of these 
 institutions are numbered. Even the enemies of the City were wont to 
 regard Aldgate Pump with somewhat of reverent afiection, as a public 
 servant incorruptible and beyond reproach. Can it be that surrounding 
 influences have at last proved too much for it? And where shall truth be 
 found in the City now that it has departed even from the bottom of its 
 oldest well ? For particulars of the analysis, see Report of Dr. Sedgwick 
 Saunders to the Commissioners of Sewers, October 1875. 
 
382 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 an important conduit, conveying water from a number of 
 springs in the neighbourhood of what is now known as 
 Regent's Circus. These springs appear, previously to this 
 time, to have discharged themselves into a streamlet, known 
 as the Tye-bourne, which ran from St. John's Wood to the 
 river. Some of the reservoirs in which the waters were 
 collected were recently discovered, in the course of certain 
 building operations, near Oxford Street. 
 
 Other conduits were subsequently constructed from other 
 parts of the suburbs, but in the year 1581 a far more ambi- 
 tious attempt at water supply was made by one Peter Morroys, 
 a Dutchman, whose name has been handed down as the 
 founder of the London Bridge Waterworks. Morroys util- 
 ized the tide as it rushed tmder old London Bridge, and by 
 an ingenious arrangement of water-wheels and pumps forced 
 the water of the river into the adjoining houses. For not 
 less^han 200 years did this device remain in use, and through 
 its agency many of the citizens received their only supply. 
 
 But from the very year of the erection of the London 
 Bridge Waterworks it was obvious that however useful it 
 might prove for adjacent owners it would be quite insufiB.- 
 cient for the supply of the whole City, and a notable 
 attempt to grapple with this deficiency was made some 
 twenty-five years later, in 1606. By an Act of Parhament, 
 passed in that year, the Corporation of the City were em- 
 powered to take water for the supply of the citizens, from the 
 neighbourhood of Ware. But the days of corporate enter- 
 prise were not yet, and the power was accordingly assigned 
 in 1609, to Hugh Myddleton. The work proved laborious 
 and difficult, and the City, for whose benefit it would enure, 
 declined to afford any pecuniary aid to the enterprise. In 
 Myddleton's extremity, however, the king proved a good 
 friend, and gave him both money and patronage, receiving in 
 return one half interest in the concern. Under these 
 
WATER SUPPLY : THE NEW RIVER COMPANY. 383 
 
 auspices the work prospered, and in 1613 it was completed, 
 and the Clerkenwell reservoirs full. The only agency em- 
 ployed was gravitation, and the stream was not inaptly 
 known as the " New River." The supply was larger in 
 amount and better in quality than anything which had pre- 
 ceded it, and it continued for one hundred years as the only 
 satisfactory water supply. It is true that the wheels of 
 Morroys still continued to revolve, and that another pump- 
 ing station had been established at Charing Cross, but neither 
 of them could be regarded as in any sense rivalling the 
 New River. 
 
 The '^Chelsea Waterworks'' were established in 1723. 
 The water supplied by them was pumped from the river 
 near to Chelsea. 
 
 South London, besides wells and other minor con- 
 trivances, had been mainly supplied by water-wheels working 
 under London Bridge, on the south side, but in 1783 this 
 supply was largely augmented by the establishment of the 
 "Lambeth Waterworks,''^ a Company that commenced to 
 pump its supplies from the Thames, opposite to Charing 
 Cross. 
 
 In 1805 the " Vauxhall Waterworks" Company was 
 established, with a pumping station near Vauxhall Bridge. 
 
 In 1806 the " West Middlesex " Company established a 
 station near Hammersmith, for the supply of the western 
 districts of London, and, in the same year, the " East Lon- 
 don Waterworks " set up a pumping station on the river 
 Lee, at Bow. 
 
 The *' Kent Waterworks " Company was incorporated in 
 1810. The original source of supply was the river Ravens- 
 bourne, at Beptford. But this was abandoned in 1862, 
 and the supply from wells sunk into the chalk, first begun 
 in 1857, forms now the only one of this Company. 
 
 In 1811 the ''Grand Junction Waterworks" Company 
 
884 MUNICIPAL L0N1X)N. 
 
 began to supply the north-western districts with water from 
 the Grand Junction Canal, but, nine years later, had to 
 supplement this by water taken from the Thames, near 
 Chelsea Hospital. 
 
 The " Southwarh Waterworks^' Company came into exist- 
 ence in 1822, and the various works at the southern end of 
 Loudon Bridge were combined in this undertaking. 
 
 As Company after Company received their charter of in- 
 corporation no step was taken either by Parliament or by 
 the City to protect the interests of the public. The Corpo- 
 ration of the City neither applied for any measure them- 
 selves nor endeavoured to regulate the terms on which 
 charters were granted to others. Both the rate to be 
 charged and the district to be supplied were l«3ft in large 
 measure to the discretion of the Companies, If they pumped 
 their supplies from a sewer outfall, there was no one to say 
 them nay ; if they supplied no water at all, there was no 
 power to compel them to do so. In a certain way, and in 
 some districts, these evils were met — as far as the public 
 were concerned — by competition. People who lived in Lon- 
 don sixty years ago tell us how fierce that competition was. 
 New companies invaded the districts of old ones, and 
 streets were torn up from end to end, upon the grant of 
 every fresh charter. And the rivalry extended even to the 
 workmen employed, and the fighting in the trenches, some- 
 times, almost assumed the proportions of a riot. The 
 discomfiture of their rivals and not the payment of divi- 
 dends, engrossed the attention of those who directed these 
 Companies. In the early years of the Companies the 
 rivalry was confined to the north of the Thames, but as in 
 gas, so in water, the lessons of Companies north of the 
 river were quite lost upon those on the south, and so from 
 1834 to 1842 the same disastrous state of things which had 
 afflicted North London twenty years previously, was trans- 
 
WATER SUPPLY : WAR OF THE COMPANIES. 385 
 
 ferred to the South. Three sets of pipes in the same street, 
 with their enormous waste, soon brought the competitors to 
 the verge of bankruptcy. In a memorial from two of these 
 Companies to the Sanitary Commissioners, they, themselves, 
 admit the result to be " inconvenient to the public, and 
 disastrous to the Companies." 
 
 These water wars were very inconvenient to the travel- 
 ling pubHc ; but, Kke many other evils, they had their 
 compensations, and probably the consumers generally had 
 more Thames water for their money than they have ever 
 got since. But whether in gas or in water the history is 
 invariably the same, and the precedent set by the "Water 
 Companies north of the Thames before 1820 has been 
 exactly followed by Water Companies south of the Thames, 
 and by Gas Companies north and south. After a great 
 war of supremacy then comes exhaustion, then agreement to 
 confine themselves to separate districts, and then combina- 
 tion against public interest. So in 1820, with monopoly 
 and combination, came an immediate advance in price, in 
 some instances as much as twenty-five per cent. This was 
 followed by complaint on the part of the public, and in 1821 
 a Select Committee of the House of Commons considered 
 the question, and reported in favour of a Parliamentary 
 control of the rates, but nothing satisfactory resulted. 
 
 In 1828 a Royal Commission, consisting of Mr. Telford, 
 Professor Brande, and Dr. Roget, was appointed to inquire 
 into the " description, quality, and salubrity " of the water 
 supplied by the London Water Companies. Fro]n the 
 report of the Commissioners it appeared that Thames water 
 pure and simple was a fairly good article ; but that Thames 
 water, with the refuse of a city superadded, was very much 
 otherwise. Sand-filtration was advocated for the removal 
 of extraneous matter, and the Companies were recommended 
 to seek other sources of supply than the metropolitan river. 
 
386 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 This latter proposition seems seriously to have alarmed the 
 Companies, as indicating possible competition from some 
 new source, and they accordingly addressed themselves to 
 improving existing methods of supply. The Chelsea Com- 
 pany also adopted the suggestion as to filtration, and the 
 others quickly followed. The Grand Junction removed 
 their intake to Brentford ; the East London went higher up 
 the Lee ; the Southwark and Vauxhall Companies united, 
 and removed their pumping station to Battersea. These 
 measures, no doubt, tended greatly to the general improve- 
 ment of the supply ; but they were not deemed sufficiently 
 satisfactory to render the recommendation of the Commission 
 nugatory, and upon the question of supply Mr. Telford 
 reported to the House of Commons in favour of the utihza- 
 tion of the rivers Verulam and. Wandle ; but this report 
 was not acted on. In other respects, too, it was clear that 
 the supply was not all that could be desired. Notwith- 
 standing the removal of the intakes and the employment of 
 filtration, it was found that the water supplied by the 
 Thames Companies was rapidly becoming worse. Sub- 
 stances were being poured into the stream that no filtration 
 could deal with. Mechanical impurities were removeable, 
 but chemical impurities remained unaffected by sand or 
 gravel. Moreover, the habits of the riparian population 
 were changing, and a regular system of drainage was fast 
 supplanting the old cesspools. The increase of sewage 
 discharge was very great, and as the flux and reflux of the 
 tide circulated the sewage deposits, and the introduction of 
 steam traffic still further disturbed them, the result was 
 found to be a condition of the water totally unfit for any 
 kind of domestic use. The Lambeth Company were espe- 
 cially affected by this state of things, and in 1848 they 
 began the construction of new works at Kingston above the 
 tidal limit, and ten miles from their Brixton reservoirs. 
 
WATER SUPPLY : SOURCE OF SUPPLY. 387 
 
 But it did not affect the Lambeth Company alone. In 1850, 
 six of the Companies, viz., the Chelsea, Grand Junction, 
 Southwark, Lambeth, "West Middlesex, and South London, 
 were supplied exclusively from the Thames. From esti- 
 mates made at the time it was supposed that " a mass of 
 impurity equal to 48,000 tons, condensed and increased by 
 tidal agitation," was taken daily from the Thames and 
 suppHed to the inhabitants.* The surveying officers who 
 reported upon the Lambeth supply in 1848, at the time of 
 their application to take water at Thames Ditton, say : 
 " The river at this point " — the point of the Company's 
 Lambeth intake — " holds in suspension, or in suspension 
 and solution, all the drainage of the Metropolis. . . . 
 When we visited the works of the Company we found a 
 heap of filth had that day been taken from the suction-pipe, 
 and the superintendent said it required a daily cleansing to 
 the same extent." But the establishment of the new works 
 did not mean the abandonment of the old, and the old 
 pumping station continued in use for some years. 
 
 In 1851 another Commission investigated the quality of 
 London water as supplied from the Thames. In their 
 report they affirmed the wholesome quality of this water if 
 unadulterated with extraneous matter. They recommended 
 that the Companies' supply should, however, be taken from 
 the river above Teddington Lock. 
 
 In the same year a Government Bill was introduced, 
 providing for the amalgamation of the Companies ; but it 
 was not carried through. 
 
 But the question was put into a practical shape by the 
 Water Act of 1852,f which, whilst leaving to the Com- 
 panies their jurisdiction and their constitution, provided that 
 
 * Supply of Water to the Metropolis. Executive Committee of the 
 Parochial Water Supply Association, p. 9. London: Renshaw, 1850, 
 t 15 & 16 Vict,, c, 84, 
 
388 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 no Company should take from the Thames or its tributaries 
 at any point within the tidal limit. * Provision was made 
 for the covering of storage reservoirs and aqueducts where 
 within the metropolitan area.f There are also additional 
 stipulations as to filtration, J and for a constant supply 
 where demanded by four-fifths of the inhabitants, and 
 where certain conditions had been fulfilled. § These sti- 
 pulations and provisions were enforced by cumulative 
 penalties. 
 
 It is estimated that not less than half a million sterling 
 was expended by the Companies in the execution of works 
 necessitated by this Act. The good effect of the Act was 
 manifest, and in a chemical report upon the quaHty of the 
 water, made to the Government by Professor Hofmann and 
 Mr. Lindley Blyth in 1856,- it is stated that the organic 
 matter in solution in the water was considerably less than 
 at any former period. 
 
 The efforts which have been made to purify the sources 
 of London water supply have been constant. Royal Com- 
 missions reported in favour of it in 1810, 1821, 1827, 1828, 
 1834, 1840, and 1845. The legislation of 1852 was most 
 effective to this end. But besides restrictions imposed upon 
 the Companies themselves, efforts have been made in other 
 ways. By an Act of Parliament passed in 1866 1| the 
 jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy Board was extended 
 to Cricklade in Wiltshire, and the Board were empowered 
 to give notice to parties fouling the river with sewage or 
 other matter to discontinue such acts. Penal remedies 
 were provided in case of disobedience, and power was also 
 given to clear the surface of the river from all offensive 
 matter.^ 
 
 • 15 & 16 Vict., c. 84, sec. 1. t Sees. 2, 3. J Sec. 4. $ Sees. 15, 22. 
 II 29 & 30 Vict., c. 89. 
 T| See infra, chap. 10, tit. " Thames Conservancy Board," 
 
WATER SUPPLY : RIVER POLLUTION. 389 
 
 Another Act, passed in 1867,* was for the purpose of 
 aiding localities affected by the former measure in the land 
 distribution of their sewage product. 
 
 In the same year the E,oyal Commission on River 
 Pollution recommended measures for the improvement of 
 the river Lee. A Committee of the House of Commons in 
 this year made valuable recommendations as to purification. 
 They had before them the Bill of the East London Company, 
 whereby that Company proposed to tap the Thames at 
 Sunbury. Evidence had been given which was nearly con- 
 clusive, to the effect that the disastrous outbreak of cholera 
 in 1866 was due to the bad quahty of the Avater supplied to 
 the infected districts, and the Committee reported upon the 
 quahty of the London supply generally. They reported in 
 favour of the sound qualities of both Thames and Lee 
 water when pure; and they proposed certain measures for the 
 purification of both rivers. They reported in favour of con- 
 solidation of the Companies, and of a constant supply under 
 certain conditions. The water suppHed by the Kent 
 Company from the chalk was declared to be good. 
 
 An Act, passed in 1868,f enacted similar provisions for 
 the Lee to those that had been made for the Thames by the 
 Act of 1866, and penal remedies were provided for pollution 
 by sewage or other foreign matter. 
 
 How far these Acts have resulted, or how far any Acts 
 of Parhament are likely to result, in the absolute purification 
 of the metropolitan rivers, so as to make them wholesome 
 and fit for domestic consumption, is a moot point, and one 
 upon which analytical " doctors" are by no means agreed. 
 In the debate on " The MetropoHs Water Act, 1871," a 
 resolution was moved by Mr. Kay Shuttleworth, and 
 
 * 30 & 31 Vict., c. 113. 
 
 t 31 & 32 Vict., c. 164. See infra, chap. 10, tit. " Lee Conservancy 
 Board." 
 
 2b 
 
390 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 seconded by Dr. Lyon Playfair, to the effect " That in the 
 opinion of this House the water supplied to householders in 
 London should be derived from pure sources, and should be 
 dehvered on the constant system." - In the able speeches 
 by which this resolution was supported a most pronounced 
 attack was made upon what were regarded as the inherent 
 evils of the waters, both of the Thames and the Lee. The 
 close connection between cholera outbreaks and the supply 
 of sewage-tainted water was strongly urged, and the 
 facts of the cholera outbreak of 1866, which was mainly 
 confined to districts suppHed with tainted water, strongly 
 dwelt upon. Mr. Shuttleworth argued with much force 
 against the theory that, either by the action of the air or by 
 any other process, water with which sewage has once come 
 into contact can be pui'ified. And certainly the Eeport of 
 the Royal Commission on the Pollution of Rivers is strongly 
 in favour of the view of the question taken by Mr. Shuttle- 
 worth. They say : " No process has yet been devised of 
 cleansing surface water once contaminated with sewage, so 
 as to make it fit for di'inking ;" and again : " The use for 
 domestic purposes of river water to which sewage (even 
 after deodorisation or employment in irrigation) gains access 
 ought to be avoided . . . . for we have proved in our 
 first report that no possible length of flow in any British 
 river affords any guarantee that such sewage or organic 
 matters have been oxidised and destroyed."! With this 
 opinion both Dr. Frankland and Sir Benjamin Brodie 
 entirely concurred. It is estimated that not less than one 
 million persons live on the Thames basin and di-ain into the 
 river, to say nothing of the vast quantity of organic matter, 
 swept from the surface in flood-time, suppUed to the public 
 
 * " House of Commons Debates," May 23, 1871. 
 t See Reports of Comniissionere. Fii-st Eeport, p. 106 ; Third 
 Report, p. 54, 
 
WATER SUPPLY : CHARACTER OF SUPPLY. 391 
 
 often after very imperfect filtration, as in the case of the 
 Chelsea ComjDany in November and December 1874.^ 
 
 The question is a most important one, and will form an 
 important ingredient in future legislation on the supply. 
 Whether any measures taken will be effective may depend 
 more upon the question whether the supply is in the hands 
 of trading Companies, or of a Central Body, than upon any 
 other. No public body would be permitted for any length 
 of time to distribute water in which the germs of cholera 
 and of typhoid fever were proved to be constantly present.t 
 What sources will have to be utihzed it is no part of our 
 present province to discuss. There can be no question that 
 the chalk formations supplying the Kent Company provide 
 an excellent water, and if they are softened by the well- 
 known process of Dr. Clark (the patent for which has now 
 expired), seem to fulfil every due requisite. | There is 
 authority for the opinion that a supply sufficient for the 
 whole Metropolis can be obtained from this source ; but the 
 whole question will have to be deferred till some body comes 
 into existence with power to act fully upon any conclusions 
 at which it may arrive. It is not to be expected that 
 trading Companies will display more patriotism or pubHc 
 spirit than is consonant with their own interests ; but the 
 London Water Companies are by no means the worst of the 
 private associations who supply our wants to their own 
 profit, and we have no grave scandal amongst us to-day 
 
 * This Company was the only one whose water was reported as having 
 heen -very tiir hid" during 1874. Vide Report of Analysis, by Professor 
 Frankland. of Water of Metropolitan Companies, printed in Appendix to 
 "Local Government Board Report, 1874:-5," p. 267. 
 
 f During 1874 Living organisms were found in the water supply of every 
 Company, except that of the Kent Company and the West ^Middlesex. See 
 Report of Professor Frankland, quoted above. 
 
 + The degrees of hardness of the various supplies vary from 19-3 parts 
 (of carbonate of lime or its equivalent), in 100,000, in the Chelsea and 
 East London Companies, to 28-1 in the Kent Company's supply. 
 
392 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 analogous to that set out in a Parliamentary paper of 1856, 
 and quoted by Dr. Playfair, where the medical officer of the 
 Privy Council reported of a Company in 1854 as " purvejdng 
 the filthiest stuiff ever drunk by a civilized community . . 
 contaminated with the outscourings of the Metropolis, and 
 containing unmistakeable molecules of excrement." * The 
 Chelsea Company did not supply their constituents with 
 nectar during the Autumn floods of 1874 ; but at any rate 
 it was better than this. 
 
 The temperature of the water supplied from the rivers 
 Thames and Lee varied extremely in 1874. The lowest 
 temperature of the Thames water delivered was 36^ Fah- 
 renheit, and the highest 70" Fahrenheit. The lowest tem- 
 perature of the Lee water delivered was 38^' Fahrenheit, 
 and the highest 68° Fahrenheit. On the other hand, the 
 Kent Company's water preserved a nearly equable tempe- 
 rature, — the lowest being 51° Fahrenheit, and the highest 
 59° Fahrenheit. The obvious advantages of this equality 
 of temperature need no iUustratiou. 
 
 The weight of solid impurity calculated on the mean of 
 the twelve months of 1874 varied from 26 parts per 100,000 
 in the New Piver to 40 parts in the Kent Company ; but 
 the nature of the impmities differed widely. Thus the 
 organic carbon in the Kent supply was '057, and organic 
 nitrogen "012, being less than any other Company. The 
 Chelsea Company, on the other hand, supplied '211 of 
 organic carbon and '039 of organic nitrogen for every 
 100,000 parts. This Company was the M'orst of all, and 
 in the month of December 1874, it " supplied foul water 
 in an unfiltered condition, and contaminated with faecal 
 matter."! At one time during the year this Company was 
 supplying more than seven times as much organic matter 
 
 • " Hansard's Debates," vol. 206, p. 1222. 
 
 t Report of Dr. Frankland quoted above, p. 265. 
 
WATER SUPPLY : QUANTITY OF SUPPLY. 393 
 
 as the Kent Company. The fact that both the Thames and 
 the Lee are at their source as pure as the Kent water points 
 to the remedy for the evil. The animal and vegetable life 
 which pollute the river supply is absolutely non-existent in 
 that taken from the chalk. It is satisfactory to notice that 
 the character of the Lee water is still improving. 
 
 As far as quantity is concerned, there seems no doubt 
 that existing sources fulfil actual requirements. It is esti- 
 mated that the daily flow past Teddington Lock is never 
 less than 350,000,000 gallons, and rarely below 400,000,000 
 gallons.^ This is more than four times the quantity now 
 taken from the river at that point, and probably as the river 
 is tidal, double the present quantity" might be taken without 
 in any way interfering with the navigation. In flood-time 
 the flow sometimes reaches 20,000 to 25,000 million gallons 
 a day, and this raised the average daily flow to something 
 like 900,000,000 gallons.f The Royal Commission were of 
 the opinion that if needful there might be taken daily from 
 present sources, without prejudicially afiecting them — from 
 the Thames, 220,000,000 gallons ; from the Lee, 50,000,000 
 gallons; from the chalk, 30,000,000 gallons; making a total 
 of 300,000,000 gallons, or three times the present supply ; 
 and the Companies need expend comparatively little upon 
 further appliances, in order to send 180,000,000 gallons 
 through their pipes daily. The opinion of the Commission 
 upon quahty may be worth quoting. They say : " When 
 efficient measures are adopted for excluding sewage and 
 other pollutions from the Thames and the Lee and their 
 tributaries, and for ensuring perfect filtration, water taken 
 from the present sources will be perfectly wholesome, and of 
 suitable quahty for the supply of the MetropoHs."^; 
 
 The amount of water which the several Companies may 
 
 * " Eeport of Royal Commission on Water Supply, 1869," p. 54. 
 t Ihid., p. 55. Evidence of Mr. Hawksley. 
 X Eeport, p. 102. 
 
394 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 take from the Thames is restricted ; but no restrictions exist 
 upon the amount which may be taken from the Lee, or the 
 other sources of metropolitan supply. The actual limit as 
 regards the Thames is 110,000,000 gallons. 
 
 The Waterworks Clauses Act* endorses the system of a 
 constant supply, but as its adoption was optional, this Act 
 has never been incorporated by any of the London Com- 
 panies. As we have seen, the Act of 1852 made some 
 stipulations on the hnes of this previous measure, in making 
 provision for a constant supply, when four-fifths of the in- 
 habitants of a given district have the requisite appliances, and 
 make due application for it. And even amongst the Com- 
 panies themselves the benefits were not entirely ignored. 
 Two of them had for many years benefited extensively in 
 their management, by the guidance of Sir Wilham Clay, 
 and in an excellent pamphlet upon this question published 
 in 1847, he says, " I am satisfied of the great superiority of 
 the continuous system as applicable to London .... 
 I have within the last few years considerably changed my 
 opinion as to the application of the continuous system in 
 London. I am more favourable now than formerly to such 
 an experiment."! In 1850 the Board of Health investigated 
 the matter, so far as it afiected the Metropolis, and reported 
 strongly in favour of a constant supply. They support their 
 opinion by a good deal of experience collected from other towns , 
 conclusively showing less waste and less expense in storage 
 appliances, than existed in London. 
 
 The provision in the Act of 1852, as to four-fifths of the 
 inhabitants, was of no use, except as endorsing the principle 
 of constant supply. In practice its efiect was simply nil. 
 No written requisition for such supply was ever sent in, and 
 no section of the inhabitants ofi"ered to open their houses to 
 the inspection of any of the Company's servants, " any day 
 
 • 10 Vict., c. 17, s. 35. t I'age 4:7. 
 
WATER SUPPLY ; METROPOLIS WATER ACT, 1871. 395 
 
 between 9 and 4, " so that the condition of their cisterns and 
 ball taps might be verified. The old intei-mittent system 
 ■with its supply of an hour or two on week-days, and nothing 
 on Sundays, went on the same as ever. 
 
 The Committee of the House of Commons, which sat 
 upon the East London Water Bill in 1867, also, as we have 
 seen, reported generally upon the working of "The Metropolis 
 Water Act, 1852." They reported against the existing 
 storage system and in favour of a constant supply, with due 
 precautions against waste.* 
 
 An effort was made in 1871 to carry the recommenda- 
 tions of this Committee into actual practice. The first Bill . 
 that was introduced provided for "a constant supply of 
 water at high pressure ; the placing of the Companies under 
 the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, with 
 power to the latter to make regulations, &c., and also power 
 to purchase and acquire the interests of the Companies, 
 compulsorily or by agreement, and to undertake the supply 
 of water themselves." The measure did not pass, and we 
 may dismiss it with the statement that it provided, in case 
 of purchase, that the estimate of value should be based 
 upon the net profits declared during the six years, imme- 
 diately preceding such purchase. The Bill was withdrawn 
 in May 1871, and another Bill introduced. The object of 
 the new measure, as set forth in the preamble, was to 
 " amend ' The MetropoKs Water Act, 1852,' and to make 
 further provision to secure for the Metropolis, and to certain 
 places in the neighbourhood thereof, a constant supply of 
 pure and wholesome water, "f The reason of the old 
 measure being withdrawn is stated by the Board of Works, 
 to "be in consequence of representations made to the Home 
 Ofiice by the Water Companies."! 
 
 * Eeport ou East London Watei- Bill, p. 67. See also Eeport of Board 
 of Health under provisions of Act of 1852, pp. 96-97. 
 
 t 34 & 35 Vict., c. 113. J Report for 1871, p. 38. 
 
396 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 "The Metropolis Water Act, 1871," and "The Metropolis 
 "Water Act, 1852," are now the two Acts which control 
 the London water supply. Clause 6 of the Act of 1871 
 provides that every Company shall deliver a supply of water 
 on Sundays, and this is the chief benefit the Act has con- 
 ferred. 
 
 Clause 7 provides that every Company may^ after the ex- 
 piration of eight months from the passing of the Act, and 
 if required, shall keep a constant supply in the whole, or 
 part of their district, subject, however, to certain limita- 
 tions. It is upon these " limitations " that the Act has 
 been wrecked. 
 
 Under clause 8 the Board of Works or the Corporation 
 of the City, may apply to any Company for a constant 
 supply in a given district, or any Company may propose to 
 either of these bodies to give it. Reference may be made 
 to the Board of Trade in case of difficulty. 
 
 But under clause 10 no Company can be compelled to 
 give a constant supply, if it can show that one-fifth of the 
 houses, in the district applied for, are deficient in the 
 requisite fittings. But the metropolitan authority may 
 give notice to every householder, in any district, to provide 
 fittings, and, in case of default, may provide them at his 
 expense. 
 
 By clause 11 the Board of Trade may require a con- 
 stant supply to be given, in cases where the metropolitan 
 authority refuses. 
 
 Clauses 17-25 deal with the regulations to be made by 
 the Companies, and which are to be subject to confirmation 
 or alteration by the Board of Trade. Power is given 
 (clause 30) to the agents of any Company giving a constant 
 supply, to enter any premises within the district, and 
 examine the fittings, and there are further provisions as to 
 penalties on Companies or consumers. 
 
WATER SUPPLY *. METROPOLIS WATER ACT, 1871. 397 
 
 In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Com- 
 panies framed " Regulations," and, in February 1872, 
 forwarded copies of them to the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works and to the Corporation of the City. The Metro- 
 politan Board of Works deliberated upon them, and came 
 to the conclusion that their enforcement " was calculated to 
 cause so much expense, trouble, and vexation to consumers 
 as practically to render the constant supply subject to such 
 regulations worse than the present system."^ 
 
 The "Regulations" were then referred to the Board of 
 Trade, and an Act being passed enabling that body to dele- 
 gate its authority to Commissioners, Lord Methuen, Mr. 
 Rawlinson, and Captain Tyler were appointed to investigate 
 the question. The Metropohtan Board, the City Corpora- 
 tion, and the Water Companies were represented before 
 them by counsel. The result was seen in the amended regu- 
 lations of August 1872. These new regulations are far less 
 stringent than those prepared by the Companies ; but the 
 Metropolitan Board — the reason of whose action is often 
 difficult to fathom — say in their report that they are so 
 "stringent as to render it extremely improbable that the 
 system of constant supply provided for by the Act of ParHa- 
 ment can ever be brought into general operation whilst such 
 regulations are in force. "f Thus all the efforts of the 
 Legislature and of the Board of Trade are rendered nugatory 
 by this petulant body at Spring Gardens, who seem never to 
 have forgiven the withdrawal of the former measure. So 
 far as we have been able to ascertain, the Board have never 
 given a single company notice to provide a constant supply. 
 
 So high-handed a proceeding at the hands of a body 
 assuming in any sense to protect public interests clearly 
 required confirmation, and the Board appear to have been 
 
 * "Report M. B. W.," 1872, p. 69. 
 t "KeportM. B. W.," 1872, p. 63. 
 
398 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 especially anxious to obtain such confirmation, in case their 
 remarkable policy should be called in question. For this 
 purpose they revert to the bodies that elected them, and 
 send copies of the " regulations " to all the metropohtan 
 vestries, with a request for their opinion upon them. The 
 cue of the Board was too manifest for the vestries not to 
 know it, and so " many of them adopt the riew of the Board 
 as to the restrictive character of the regulations ;" and 
 many — sublime confidence — " are disposed to leave it to the 
 Board to take whatever course may appear to it best in the 
 interests of the inhabitants of the Metropolis generally." ^ 
 The magnanimity of the vestries was quite superfluous, as 
 they had no option of interference in the matter, for the 
 Metropohtan Board was by the Act constituted the " Metro- 
 politan Authority." What by a figure of speech is called 
 the " judgment " of the Metropohtan Board was then 
 exercised upon the question, and they came to the conclusion 
 that it was " desirable at present to refi-ain from exercising 
 the power given by the Act of caUing upon the Companies 
 to give a constant supply."t 
 
 But, strange to say, the patriotism which was so notably 
 wanting in Spring Gardens has been developed by some of 
 the Companies. First, the East London Company tried the 
 experiment of constant supply in Bethnal Green, and so well 
 satisfied were they with it that it has been since extended to 
 Spitalfields, Shoreditch, Whitechapel, and elsewhere. The 
 Kent Company have also tried it in Rotherhithe, Deptford, 
 Plumstead, "Woolwich, and Charlton. 
 
 Meantime, the Board of Works, or rather the Board of 
 Inaction, were " instituting inquiries as to the inconvenience 
 and cost " of this system. Not inquiries as to the advantages 
 and benefits, but " inconvenience" and " cost." The words 
 
 * "Report M. B. W.," 1872, pp. 63, 64. 
 t " Report M. B. W.," 1873, p. 67. 
 
WATER SUPPLY : EXTENT OF CONSTANT SUPPLY. 399 
 
 thus used in their report for 1873 sufficiently indicate how 
 the Board of "Works regard this pubHc requirement which 
 has been advocated by Commissions and Committees for the 
 last 50 years, and the benefits of which are illustrated by 
 towns all over the kingdom. The consumer here is abso- 
 lutely helpless. He may hope something from the pubHc 
 spirit of the Companies, but nothing from the " metropolitan 
 authority.""^ 
 
 The Report of the Metropolitan "Water Examiner for 
 1874 gives the number of houses in the Kent Company's 
 district with constant supply, on December 31st, 1874, at 
 5,450. The New River Company have afibrded constant 
 supply in certain poor districts. The East London Company, 
 foremost in the good work, are gradually bringing the whole 
 of their district under the system. The Southwark and 
 Vauxhall Company are reported as increasing their engine 
 power, with the ultimate object of providing constant supply. 
 The West Middlesex give it to some houses, and wiU extend 
 it as called upon. The Grand Junction Company has also 
 taken it in hand. The Lambeth Company give constant 
 supply in certain poor districts. There are between 3,000 
 and 4,000 miles of mains laid down in London, and on 
 December 31st, 1874, there were 666 miles of these con- 
 stantly charged. AU this time the Board of "Works are 
 " considering " the question. When the day of reckoning 
 comes, we are sure that the supineness and crassa negligentia 
 of this remarkable body will not be forgotten. It also seems 
 to us that Londoners ought not to forget in that day that it 
 is solely to the enterprise of some of the "Water Companies 
 
 * The Report of the Board for 1874 states (p. 59) that a Committee of 
 the Board have had before it the results of a careful house to house 
 inquiry in the distiicts where a constant supply existed. The object of 
 the inquiry was to ascertain whether the new method of supply was more 
 satisfactory than the old. and what amount of inconvenience and burden 
 the regulations caused. But we are mt told the result of the inquiry. 
 
400 MUNICIPAI, LONDON. 
 
 that the boon of constant supply has been so largely granted. 
 The virtues of these trading Companies are not their strongest 
 points, and, therefore, when we do find them, they ought to 
 receive the fullest acknowledgment. 
 
 The use of hydrants instead of fire plugs, is a natural 
 sequence from a system of pipes constantly charged. At the 
 close of 1874 there were 2,531 such hydrants in existence, 
 or about four to every mile of fully charged mains. Under 
 section 32 of the Water Act of 1871, it is provided that any 
 Company giving a constant supply in any part of its district, 
 may give notice to the Board of "Works to specify what 
 hydrants or fire plugs it requires, and if the Board do not 
 supply such information within two months, the Company 
 may provide them, and charge the Board with the cost. The 
 Kent Company notified the Board in September 1873, and the 
 Board required in the district thirty plugs, and four hydrants. 
 These latter have been tested ; but, notwithstanding the 
 various reports of competent people in their favour (including 
 the Water Examiner's reports for 1873 and for 1874^), the 
 Board, in 1875, report themselves as being still considering 
 the matter. The East London Company, as far back as 
 1873, pointed out to the Board the desirability of providing 
 hydrants over the 70 miles of their mains which were con- 
 stantly charged, but still the " consideration " goes on. It 
 is difficult to see how any benefit can accrue to the members 
 of the Board from this constant delay, otherwise we might 
 be tempted to suppose, from the relations stated to exist be- 
 tween some of the Board and some of the Companies, that 
 there was some jobbery afoot. The probable reason seems 
 to be the petulance and ill-temper of the Board, who, 
 because they have not been allowed to have their own way, 
 
 * See also Report of City Gas and Water Committee, presented July 
 30th, 1874, p. 12. 
 
WATER SUPPLY : AREA OF SUPPLY. 401 
 
 are determined, just like naughty cliildren, to be as obstinate 
 and obstructive as possible.^ 
 
 The present water supply of London is provided by 
 eight Companies, viz. : — The New River Company, the 
 Chelsea Company, the West Middlesex Company, the 
 Grand Junction Company, the East London Company, 
 on the North side of the Thames; and on the South — The 
 Lambeth Company, the Southwark and Vauxhall Com- 
 pany, and the Kent Company. The districts differ very 
 widely in conformation and in area, and are intermingled 
 in some cases in such a manner as considerably to increase 
 the necessary cost of distribution as will be readily seen in 
 the accompanying plan of the Companies' areas. 
 
 The New River Company suppHes Central London Its 
 district is bounded by Charing Cross, the Haymarket, 
 Tottenham Court Road, and Hampstead Road on the west; 
 by the Thames on the south ; and the Tower and Stamford 
 Hill on the east. 
 
 The Chelsea Company supplies Chelsea, Knightsbridge, 
 PimHco, Belgravia, and some parts of Westminster. 
 
 The West Middlesex suppHes part of Fulham, Hammer- 
 smith, Kensington, and Brompton, and also a large territory, 
 north of Oxford Street, between Tottenham Court Road and 
 Edgware Road. 
 
 * The whole question of Metropolitan Water Supply, in its relation to 
 Fire Prevention, is thoroughly and exhaustively discussed in a Return to 
 an Order of the House of Commons, moved for by Colonel Beresford 
 (House of Commons Papers, No. 408). — " Copy of a letter dated l-ith 
 May, 1874, from the Secretary of the Society of Arts to the President of 
 the Local Government Board, with a Report from a Special Committee of 
 that Society on the best means of preventing tires, and of obtaining a 
 constant supply of water in the Metropolis, and the evidence thereon : of 
 letters from the Secretary of the Society of Arts, dated 23rd May, and 3rd 
 June, 1874, relative thereto." The supply of water for tire extinguishment 
 does not present difficulties as to quantity, inasmuch as the total amount 
 of water thrown by the engines in 1874 was only about one-seventh of a 
 single day's supply. 
 
402 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The East London Company supply all the district 
 north of the Thames and east of the New River Company's 
 line. 
 
 The Grand Junction Company supplies a very irregularly 
 shaped district, including portions of the parish of St. George 
 north of Piccadilly, parts of Marylebone, most of Paddington, 
 and a small portion of Westminster. 
 
 The Lambeth Company supplies a district reaching fi^om 
 the Thames on the north to Croydon on the south. 
 
 The Southwark and Vauxhall Company supply the 
 borough of Southwark, and as far as Potherhithe on the 
 east side of the Lambeth Company ; and Clapham, Batter- 
 sea, and parts of Lambeth on the west side of the Lambeth 
 Company. 
 
 The Kent Company supply the south-eastern district, 
 including Dartford, Greenwich, "Woolwich, and southward 
 as far as Bromley and Chiselhurst. 
 
 The New River Company take their supplies from 
 springs in Hertfordshire, near Hertford and Ware, and from 
 the river Lea in the same district. 
 
 The Chelsea Company take their water from the 
 Thames, at Ditton. 
 
 The West Middlesex from the Thames above Hampton. 
 
 The East London from the Lee, near Walthamstow, and 
 from the Thames at Sunbury. 
 
 The Grand Junction from the Thames above Hampton. 
 
 The Lambeth Company from the Thames, at Molesey. 
 
 The Southwark and Vauxhall from the Thames above 
 Hampton. 
 
 The Kent Company from wells sunk into the chalk. Of 
 these there are three at Deptford ; two at Charlton ; one at 
 Plumstead ; one at Bromley ; one at Crayford ; the depths 
 varying from 120 feet at Crayford to 420 feet at Plumstead. 
 
 The Government offices and some other places in West- 
 
WATER SUPPLY : STOREAGE RESERVOIRS. 403 
 
 minster, and the fountains in Trafalgar Square are supplied 
 from Government wells near Charing Cross. 
 
 In 1874 there were forty- three subsiding and storage 
 reservoirs for unfiltered water, covering 367 acres, with a 
 capacity of 916,550,000 gallons, and thirty-two covered 
 reservoirs for storing filtered water, with a capacity of 
 99,687,000 gallons. The highest reservoii^ is at Hampstead, 
 447 feet above the river level, and the lowest at Old Ford, 
 12 J feet above high- water mark. The Kent Company, in 
 1875, are reported as constructing a new covered reservoir 
 at New Cross, with a capacity of 1,750,000 gallons. The 
 New River Company have completed another reservoir at 
 Southgate. The Southwark and Yauxhall reservoirs at 
 Nunhead, with a capacity of 18,000,000 gallons, are reported 
 as completed ; also the Grand Junction reservoir at Kilburn, 
 with a capacity of 6,000,000 gallons. The subsiding reser- 
 voirs of the Lambeth Company, with a capacity of 
 125,000,000 gallons, are also completed. The Chelsea 
 Company are also improving their filter system. The East 
 London Company have more than half the total reservoir 
 area ; their subsiding reservoirs having a capacity of 
 605,000,000 gallons. The consequence is, that the water 
 is stored from two to three weeks before being filtered ; and 
 we find Professor Frankland reporting that in August 1874 
 " the evidence of previous sewage contamination had been 
 entirely removed :" a most notable fact, when we remember 
 that the Lee is the most highly charged with organic 
 impurity of any metropolitan supply. The utmost credit in 
 this, as in other ways, is due to the East London Company. 
 They have more than redeemed their faults in 1866, and in 
 1875 they deserve well of the London pubHc. 
 
 The total actual daily supply is somewhere about 
 120,000,000 gallons, of which more than one-half is taken 
 from the Thames. The number of houses supplied in 1874 
 
404 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 was 506,985, of which 52,265 (since increased) were on 
 constant supply. The estimated population within the 
 Water Companies' districts was 3,621,538. It appears from 
 the investigation conducted in 1874 hy the Society of Arts, 
 that the daily water waste amounts to some 36,000,000 
 gallons, involving an annual money loss of more than 
 £100,000. 
 
 By section 37 of the Water Act of 1871, the Board of 
 Trade were required to prescribe a form of account for the 
 various "Water Companies. This duty was transferred to 
 the Local Government Board by the 35 and 36 Yict., 
 c. 79. The accounts of the Companies are to be audited as 
 provided in the Act, and such auditor is required, as soon 
 as may be, to ascertain and certify the amount of share 
 and loan capital respectively. The amount of the capital of 
 the various Companies, taken from the duly certified 
 accounts issued by the Local Government Board in 1875, 
 are set out in the accompanying table. 
 
 The auditor appointed under the Act duly examined the 
 accounts of the various Companies, and reported that 
 although exhibiting great diversity in method, they were 
 in the main correct. The method of dealing with various 
 items of capital account, and the final principles upon wliich 
 they have been settled, are set out in the able report of the 
 auditor to the Local Government Board, under date 
 January 1874."^ This report is useful, as indicating one 
 way of settling the vexed question of Gas Companies' 
 capital. 
 
 It wiU be seen from the annexed table that the total 
 amount of authorized share capital of the London Water 
 Companies is £10,123,024, and of loan capital £2,838,750, 
 making a total authorized share and loan capital of 
 
 * Printed in Report of Local Government Board, 1873-4 (Appendix, 
 p. 4V2-4). 
 
WATER SUPPLY : INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. 
 
 405 
 
 
 
 H 
 (—1 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 o 
 !2; 
 
 
 Pm 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 (^ 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 p 
 
 O 
 
 — 
 
 1 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■~— 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 » C' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^"S g 
 
 o 
 
 QO 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 eo 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 eo 
 
 •* 
 
 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 rH 
 
 l-H 
 
 i-H 
 
 (M 
 
 i-H 
 
 (M 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 «4J 5 
 
 1— 1 
 
 00 
 
 r-T 
 
 r-T 
 
 o 
 
 i-h" 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 lo "^ a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 .tl § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 (M 
 
 £> 
 
 CO 
 
 -* 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 tH 
 
 eo 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 £- 
 
 ^. 
 
 eo 
 
 t- 
 
 o 
 
 -t< 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 bo 
 
 ^ 'H 
 
 CO^ 
 
 ■O 
 
 eo__ 
 
 co 
 
 05_ 
 
 X 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 t» 
 
 eo' 
 
 oo" 
 
 o" 
 
 co' 
 
 o" 
 
 os" 
 
 os" 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 § 
 
 
 —' 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 M 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 H 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 eo 
 
 t^ 
 
 t- 
 
 O 
 
 t~ 
 
 o 
 
 
 a -u 
 
 t> 
 
 (N 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 N 
 
 ^ N 
 
 CO 
 
 x" 
 
 co" 
 
 
 t-h' 
 
 o 
 ■^' 
 
 o' 
 
 C5 
 
 n" 
 
 ■^" 
 
 
 II 
 
 N 
 
 lO 
 
 eo 
 
 C<l 
 
 '^ 
 
 05 
 
 tX 
 
 eo 
 
 o 
 eo 
 
 
 E-l 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (6 
 
 
 ?C 
 
 .« 
 
 o 
 
 a> 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 05 
 
 jO 
 
 eo 
 
 
 ividend 
 and 
 aterest 
 coount, 
 
 05 
 
 "* 
 
 cq 
 
 CO 
 
 I-H 
 
 ^ 
 
 to 
 
 (M 
 
 X 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 « 
 ^-'" 
 
 oo' 
 
 
 (M 
 
 0^^ 
 
 eo" 
 
 x" 
 
 <m" 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 3; 
 
 CO 
 
 eo 
 
 CO 
 
 oo 
 
 t- 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Q M< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 ^1 j 
 
 (M 
 
 l-H 
 
 00 
 
 ta 
 
 (M 
 
 lO 
 
 ■^ 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 eo 
 
 3 
 
 <M 
 
 (M 
 
 OJ 
 
 t- 
 
 t- 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 o .a"-! 
 
 00 
 «« 00- 
 
 
 eo 
 
 o 
 
 TO 
 
 x_ 
 
 
 '*! 
 
 CO 
 
 x' 
 
 
 
 H S b 
 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 eo 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 P< ca 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 eo 
 
 I-H 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 
 
 H !M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 «-l'^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o S2 2 
 
 t~ 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 eo 
 
 ,_, 
 
 O 
 
 ,_^ 
 
 C5 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 
 g'C g 
 
 o 
 
 t^ 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 t~ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 (M 
 
 o 
 
 
 H 
 
 s 
 
 ^^ ,, ® 1- 
 
 
 r-T 
 
 x" 
 
 x' 
 
 
 i-j_ 
 x" 
 
 o 
 I*' 
 
 CO__ 
 
 o 
 
 «3" 
 
 
 o s « 
 
 CO 
 
 t- 
 
 l-H 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 eo 
 
 eo 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 '"' 
 
 ■"* 
 
 
 '-' 
 
 eo 
 
 
 i-H 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i-h" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;s 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |2] 
 
 g 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 la 
 
 1-H 
 
 O 
 
 l^ 
 
 f^ 
 
 O 
 
 ,_, 
 
 
 C3 
 
 
 o 
 
 eo 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 
 ,1 Ino 
 
 in 
 Year 
 
 873-4 
 
 '^ s- 
 
 
 eo 
 oo" 
 
 o 
 o" 
 
 o" 
 
 i-H 
 X* 
 
 5* 
 
 -n" 
 
 co" 
 
 O 
 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 t> 
 
 l-H 
 
 t^ 
 
 (M 
 
 (M 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 -2 '~* 
 
 
 f-H 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 I— 1 
 
 eo 
 
 l-H 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '■^' 
 
 
 
 >i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 =3 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 -a 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ■ 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 g 
 
 'd 
 
 
 
 s; 
 
 ca 
 S 
 
 OQ 
 
 a 
 
 m 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 g 
 
 0) 
 
 > 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 -3 
 
 oo 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 H 
 
 5 
 
 CO 
 
 J 
 
 :2; 
 
 ® 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 2c 
 
406 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 en 
 
 I 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 <1 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 1^ 
 
 p^ 
 to 
 
 OQ 
 OQ 
 
 l-H 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 P^ 
 
 o 
 p 
 ^ 
 o 
 
 a .J 
 
 o o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S •="?, 
 
 -^ O 
 
 o 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO IM 
 
 CO 
 
 
 rHCOCOOi— i-*a>co 
 
 CO 
 
 
 '^oi \ 1 1 I 1 T-T 
 
 .-rT 
 
 
 •&^ 
 
 ^HCONSqOqOcDIM 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 Prefe 
 
 Stc 
 
 carr 
 
 5 per 
 
 Oi ' ' ' ' ' CO ' 
 
 O 
 
 
 Si°i 
 
 ccrHcr>oc~coxco 
 ^ co' eo' r4 ctT -+.' c>f co' co' 
 
 00* 
 
 
 
 
 
 oxoiOc;ocD05 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 II " 
 
 X)OOOiOOt-COOO 
 
 t-Ti-h' TH'(M',-r 
 
 
 
 -3_ 
 
 
 
 
 o o o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 
 icribe 
 Capi 
 ted tc 
 r cen 
 
 o o o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O (M »0 
 
 co" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■§ 2 a P. 
 
 1 ' O ' O ' (M 1 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ CO i-H 
 
 >o 
 
 
 « 60,« 
 
 o o c t- o 
 
 t» 
 
 
 
 
 
 fl «.g g 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 O 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 o'S.'& 
 
 qj CO 1 o_ 1 <M o o 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 -oSs M 
 
 o o o o o o -t< 
 
 as 
 
 
 J a C S 
 
 o" 
 
 
 
 O l-H t~ '.C 00 CO t- 
 
 o 
 
 
 w ^ ^ 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 ■° S'-5 -"■ — 
 
 CD «-__!— 1 J5 CO '=2 O 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 Sabscri 
 hare C; 
 an whic 
 per cen 
 payab 
 
 '-tj »o" -n" t-.' iC lo 1 in' cT 
 
 rH 5<1 lO C5 'X' ' O O 
 
 to" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ca CO t- cq o t^ o 
 
 -* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r— ( 
 
 ITS 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 
 
 cc - 
 
 
 
 
 -.tog 
 
 fl5.S S 
 
 o o o o 
 o , o , o , o , 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t3 
 
 o o o O O f~ o 
 
 1> 
 
 
 o 'p. b t< 
 
 lilJ co__ o co_ >o_ 
 
 "t. 
 
 
 '3 
 
 O O O O in O -H 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 3|Sl. 
 
 ■*' ' eo ' ■^" ' r-T 1 
 
 -*" 
 
 
 5^ • 
 
 O O c- O O c: O 
 
 
 
 NO sq 
 
 o 
 
 
 Ss f^ 
 
 '^ o" o' c^f 5<f o' o (^c^' 
 
 iO 
 
 
 -+♦ 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 
 c- .ra (M -^ CO t- t- ' 
 
 c~ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 '-^ <N (M (M OJ eo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •g3 ^ 
 
 o o o o o o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TS 
 
 OOOOOOOOtH 
 
 t~ 
 
 
 _g-g^SDO 
 
 O O O O O '^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 'S 
 
 ^COt^CD00O(Mt^ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ■esf^ 
 
 — 4 O IM O 05 O 
 
 «q. 
 
 
 Q Pi 
 
 03 UI l-H aa_ O ItJ -^_^ 05 
 
 .-( 
 
 
 '^oo'^'im'o" I oT 1 
 
 CO* 
 
 
 "t< t-' o' r-T I—' T-T c; co" ctT 
 
 t-' 
 
 
 •Sgil: 
 
 Tti O -t< -^ CO ' CO ' 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 O(N^-^C00iC0O 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ (N »H <M C3 
 
 o_ 
 
 
 t~ co_ 05 o 00 CO c<i ro 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 l-H* 
 
 
 u 
 
 ^ 1-1 rH 
 
 oo' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^-« 
 
 oooooooo 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 rized 
 apita 
 
 took. 
 
 oooooooo 
 t- o o o o_o o_o 
 
 ^ rf lO o'o"oo"o~(m'"o" 
 
 00* 
 
 
 ••g g-.a § 
 sofa's 
 
 o o 
 
 =« 1 1 S 1 1 1 S 1 
 
 e-i CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 o!j optn 
 
 CO 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 5 a-9 » 
 
 .g 
 
 (M oq cq ^ (M O^ 1* «q 
 
 CO 
 (M* 
 
 
 •2 S « o< 
 
 
 
 
 
 " 2 . 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 tal, 
 're- 
 res. 
 
 OOOOOOOOCC 
 
 o o o o o '.": o CO 
 
 C-1 
 
 
 O .«• 
 
 O 00 
 
 o o 
 
 O lO 
 
 S 
 
 
 gO.gM 
 
 o o o^o^o^a5^o_o 
 
 o_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 , lO' lO O" O" O' CD CO o 
 
 co" 
 
 
 Oq CD 
 
 
 
 itiiOS-lOOO^i-IO 
 
 ■X t~__ o. CO cq^ o_ o_ r- 
 
 oq 
 
 
 "o5 g 
 "§ 2'S-'S 
 
 Ob 
 C5 
 
 
 ^111 
 
 i-Ti-T r-f Cqi-Ti-i' 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 i-T 
 
 I-T 
 
 
 ra.cl3 
 
 OOOOOODOCO 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 lOOOOOOOCD 
 
 t~ 
 
 
 1 '^'S 
 p pirf o S 
 
 
 
 
 * O'- 
 
 t-ooooooo 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 i5 *- ^, C3 
 
 „ , x'o o'o" x" cT c i6 
 
 i-T 
 
 
 £ c '>^ " 
 
 "=+? 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ■S O PcD 
 
 ltJco(N>ooc5^00 
 
 CO 
 
 
 .2 -2 fc M 
 
 ^ 1 g 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 
 T( 
 
 Auth 
 
 Shai 
 
 Loan ( 
 
 0^<M_t v'^.'^.'™- 
 
 ^'"s<fi-r i-Tco'cqi-T 
 
 i-( 
 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 :;;::..: 
 
 
 
 2 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 • -a • • • — >^ 
 .3 fl S 
 
 
 
 ft) 
 o 
 
 g '^3 ca 0) 
 
 
 
 
 O CJ '" r-H 
 
 11 2 § i III 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 03 !^ <a o3« oti 
 
 
 
WATER SUPPLY : CAPITAL OF THE COMPANIES, 407 
 
 £12,961,774. The amount paid up is somewhat less, being 
 of share capital £8,557,167, and of loan capital £2,273,147, 
 
 making a total of £10,830,314. 
 
 Notwithstanding the accounts of the Companies being 
 sent in on a specified method, there is room for considerable 
 improvement in the form adopted. The capital accounts are 
 by no means clearly set out by all the Companies. The 
 various items in the preceding Tables are calculated from the 
 statistics set out in the accounts published by the Local 
 Government Board in 1875.* 
 
 • Return to order of House of Commons, 1876, No. 69. 
 
408 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Chapter X. 
 VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 The Corporation op Westminster. 
 
 History and Constitution of the Corporation. — Its present 
 Functions and Powers. 
 
 The London Police. 
 
 The Constitution and Powers of the Metropolitan and City 
 Police. — Their Duties, and the Method in which they 
 are performed. — Income and Expenditure. — Statis- 
 tics of the Force. — Metropolitan Police Courts. 
 
 The London School Board. 
 
 Constitution and Powers of the Board. — Method of Work. 
 — The Work of the Board for five Years. — Income 
 and Expenditure of the Board. — Educational Sta- 
 tistics. 
 
 The Thames Conservancy Board. 
 
 Constitution of the Board. — Income and Expenditure. — 
 Work for seventeen Years. 
 
 The Lee Conservancy Board. 
 
 Constitution. — Income and Expenditure. — Work for five 
 Years. 
 
 The "Corporation of Westminster." 
 
 The " Corporation of Westminster" (as it is inaccurately 
 termed) dates back its origin to the days of King Edward 
 the Confessor. When a refugee in Normandy, Edward 
 registered a vow that if God would free him from his 
 distress he would make a pilgrimage to Rome, and there 
 
CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER : HISTORY. 409 
 
 visit the relics of Saint Peter. But, after ascending the 
 throne of England, he was dissuaded from his intention, and 
 the Pope relieved him from his vow on condition of his 
 expending as much money as the pilgrimage would have 
 cost, in works of charity, or in raising a shiiae to St. Peter, 
 in England. At this time there existed on the banks of the 
 Thames a monastery, which had suffered much at the hands 
 of the Danes, and, whilst the king was in doubt as to the 
 best method of fulfilling the papal conditions, one of the 
 monks of the ruined monastery had an opportune vision, in 
 which St. Peter appeared to him and revealed his wish that 
 the king should repair the ravages of the Danes, rebuild the 
 edifice, and endow it with revenues adequate to its main- 
 tenance, so that it might become the House of God and the 
 Gate of Heaven. 
 
 The enterprise of the monk received its reward, and the 
 king, accepting the vision as a direct revelation from St. 
 Peter, rebuilt the monastery, endowed it with various lands, 
 and provided that the lands so given should be free for 
 ever from the jurisdiction of the bishop, and from every 
 other jurisdiction but its own.* 
 
 The first charter granted by King Edward is set forth 
 by Stow in the following terms.f " Edward, king, greets 
 William, Bishop, and Leofstane and ^liffe, Portreeves, and 
 all my Burgesses of London friendly, and I teU you that I 
 have thus given and granted to Christ and St. Peter, the 
 holy Apostle at Westminster, full freedom over all the land 
 that belongeth to that holy place, &c." 
 
 From the date of this charter down to 1539, the abbot 
 and monks of the revived monastery appear to have exer- 
 cised complete direct personal control over much of the 
 
 * Maitland's History of London, folio edition 1739, p. 687, and Cf. 
 Neal's Historj' of Westminster Abbey, vol. i. p. 19, et teq. 
 f Survey of London. 
 
410 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 surrounding district. King Edward granted other charters, 
 including a Charter of Sanctuary. In consequence of this 
 latter grant, Maitland says that Westminster " became not 
 only an asylum for bankrupts, &c., but likewise a refuge for 
 traitors, murderers, and thieves, and the most abandoned 
 miscreants, who were suffered to live there in impunity and 
 open defiance of justice, to the great reproach of the pre- 
 tended confessor."* The king appears to have exhausted 
 his munificence upon the endowment of the church, but the 
 whole of these grants were made to the church as a religious 
 organization, and the temporal jurisdiction was only an 
 additional honour.f 
 
 * Maitland's History of London, p. 687. The Charter of Sanctuary 
 tmder which these evils arose, is sufficiently interesting to quote. " Edward, 
 by the grace of God, King of EngHshmen, I make it to be known to all 
 generations of the world after me, that, by special commandment of our 
 holy Father, Pope Leo, I have renewed and honoured the holy church of 
 the blessed Apostle St. Peter of Westminster ; and I order and establish 
 for ever, that what person of what condition or estate soever he may be, 
 from whencever he come, or for what offence or cause it be, either for his 
 refuge into the said holy place, be assured of his life, liberty, and limbs. 
 And over this I forbid, under pain of everlasting damnation, that no 
 minister of mine or of my successors intermeddle them with any the goods, 
 lands, or possessions of the said persons taking the said Sanctuary. For 
 I have taken their goods and hvelode into my special protection. And, 
 therefore, I grant to every and each of them, inasmuch as my ten-estrial 
 power may suffice, all manner of freedom of joyous liberty. And whoever 
 presumes or doth contrary to this my grant, I will he lose his name, wor- 
 ship, dignity, and powers, and that with the great ti'aitor Judas, that 
 betrayed our Saviour, he be in the everlasting fire of heU. And I will and 
 ordain that this my grant endure as long as there remaineth in England 
 either love or dread of Christian name." 
 
 t Had this been othenvise we might have been interested to enquire 
 what has become of the valuable relics bequeathed by the king to this 
 church, a collection probably larger in number and more varied in charac- 
 ter than were ever given to any English church before or since. We might 
 be pardoned for ^vishing to know the fate of the parts of the sacred man- 
 ger ; of the holy table ; of our Lord's seat in the temple ; of the wilderness 
 where he fasted ; of the sponge, lance, and scourge ; of part of the Cross 
 and one of its nails ; of the vestments of the Virgin Mary, of her hair, 
 shoes, and bed ; of her girdle ; and of the window where she stood when 
 the angel saluted her ; of the bones, beard, and fingers of St. Paul, St. 
 Philip, and of a host of other saints ; and of half the jaw and three teeth 
 of St. Anastasia. — See Dart's Westmonasterium, vol. i. p. 37. 
 
CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER: HISTORY. 411 
 
 William the Conqueror was crowned in the chnrcli, and 
 he granted to it sixteen confirmatory charters. 
 
 Nothing further in any way afiecting the secular govern- 
 ment of the monastery appears to have taken place till 1257, 
 when Henry the Second granted to the abbot and convent 
 of Westminster a market and fair. This charter provides 
 for the holding of one market at Touthull every Monday, 
 and one fair on the eve following St. Mary Magdalen. 
 
 Henry the Third granted two fairs to the abbot and 
 convent, of sixteen days each. This was altered by Edward 
 the First to one fair of thirty-two days, and Maitland says 
 this was afterwards abolished " by the potent and irresistible 
 arguments of the citizens of London, which never failed 
 when their kings wanted money." 
 
 Under the " Ordiaance of the Staples " passed in 1353, 
 Westminster is included in the list of towns where the 
 staple or market of wool, leather, &c., should be perpetually 
 held. 
 
 In the year 1756, a claim was made by the Dean and 
 Chapter of the Collegiate Church of the Blessed Peter at 
 Westminster to certain sums of sums of money, hberties, 
 and franchises arising out of the county of Middlesex. The 
 claim is fully set out in a document found amongst the 
 records of the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer's office in the 
 Exchequer, amongst the common business of Hilary Term 
 in the 29th year of the reign of King George the Second. 
 This claim sets out the title of the Dean and Chapter to the 
 various matters claimed, and it recites a charter, granted 
 17 Rich. II., whereby that king confirmed to the abbot and 
 convent of the church of Westminster and their successors 
 all manner of Hberties for ever : the goods and chattels of 
 outlawed tenants : all fines levied for trespasses, extortions, 
 maintenance, and other crimes ; and all forfeitures and 
 treasure trove upon their lands or against their tenants. 
 
412 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 It also recites a charter, 21 Rich. II., granting and 
 confirming the duties of sheriff to the high hailiff of the 
 convent within its jurisdiction. 
 
 In 1447, we find Henry the Sixth granting to the " in- 
 hahitants and community of the town of Westminster," the 
 waste water from the Eoyal Conduit. 
 
 At the suppression of the monasteries, Westminster was 
 found to be by far the richest reHgious foundation in the 
 kingdom. Henry the Eighth appears to have changed the 
 monastery into a college of secular canons, under the govern- 
 ment of a dean. But in 1541, the king converted it into a 
 bishopric, with a bishop, a dean, and twelve prebendaries, 
 and for a diocese the whole county of Middlesex except 
 Fulham. From that time Westminster has been known as 
 a City. The bishopric was dissolved by Edward the Sixth, 
 but the title of " City " (which seems to follow the appoint- 
 ment of a bishop) remained, and has ever since that time 
 attached, although it is in the case of Westminster, a pure 
 title of courtesy. On the accession of Elizabeth, West- 
 minster, which had been put under a dean by King Edward 
 and restored to the monks by Queen Mary, was, by letters 
 patent, erected into a college, under the government of a 
 dean, canons, and prebendaries. The queen confirmed to 
 the college so constituted, all privileges and customs of the 
 old convent or monastery as fully as they existed before the 
 suppression. 
 
 These letters patent were confirmed Aug. 3rd, 2 James I., 
 upon the supplication of the dean of the collegiate church, 
 and " considering that in the said church divine service and 
 the true worship of God were continually celebrated and 
 administered to the glory and honour of Almighty God, and 
 to the sincere instruction and comfort of his people," and 
 also recollecting the many monuments in the abbey, includ- 
 ing that of his " most dear great grandfather. King Henry 
 
CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER : HISTORY. 413 
 
 the Seventh, most powerful and most prudent amongst the 
 kings of his time." All the privileges and customs and 
 liberties of the old monastery were fully confirmed, and the 
 rights of the Dean and Chapter, over nearly aU the present 
 City of Westminster except the precinct of the Savoy. 
 Full power is given to appoint a coroner and a clerk of the 
 market, and to have a prison for offenders, and this in 
 addition to their rights in respect of the full return of all 
 manner of writs, the levying of fines, and the exercise of 
 general manorial rights over the whole district. The 
 powers granted under this charter, if ever exercised, appear 
 to have fallen largely into desuetude. The arms at present 
 borne by the City of "Westminster seem to have been granted 
 in 1601. 
 
 As has been noted, Westminster appears to have re- 
 mained under the direct personal government of the Abbots 
 and Monks of Westminster, from the time of Edward the 
 Confessor to the date of the dissolution of the monasteries. 
 After the control had been re- vested in the Dean and Chapter 
 of the Collegiate Church by the letters patent of Elizabeth, 
 a private Act of Parliament was passed with respect to the 
 government of the City, which may be regarded as the 
 foundation of such part of Westminster Civic Government 
 as has survived to our day. 
 
 This Act passed in 1585 (27 Eliz., cap. 31), recites that 
 " forasmoche as by erection and newe buyldynge of djrvers 
 houses, &c., and by the partinge and dyvidynge of dyvers 
 Tenements within the Cyttie or Boroughe of Westmynster 
 and the Kberties of the same, The people thereof are greatelie 
 encreased and being for the most parte withowte Trade or 
 mysterie are become poore, and many of them gyven wholHe 
 to Yyce and Idlenes, lyvinge in contempte of all maner of 
 officers within the saide Cyttie for that their power to cor- 
 recte and reforme them is not so sufficient in Lawe as in 
 
414 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 that behalfe weare meete and requysite : Be it therefore 
 ordejrned by the Quene's moaste excellent Ma*^®' the Lords 
 Spirituall and Temporall, and the Commons in this present 
 Parliament assembled, and by the Authoritie of the same. 
 That the said Cittie or Boroughe of Westminster, the Liber- 
 ties, Territories, and Precincts of the same shall be and for 
 ever thereafter contynewe severed and divided as yt hathe 
 been accustomed into xij severall Dyvisions to be called or 
 known by the name of Wardes." 
 
 After this provision for the continuance of a Ward 
 division, which was apparently pre-existent, the Act goes on 
 to provide that, " for the better ordering and governing of 
 the people inhabiting and being within the said Wards, and 
 for repressinge and rootinge out of Vice theare used," the 
 Dean of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, or 
 the High Steward or his deputy, should, upon every Thursday 
 in Easter week, nominate and elect twelve sufficient persons 
 being " Merchaunts, Artificers, or persons usinge any Trade 
 of buyeing or sellinge within the saide Cyttie or Boroughe," 
 or such other inhabitants as shall be " willinge thereunto," 
 to be called by the name of " Burgeses ;" and each of the 
 twelve Wards is to be under the government of one of these 
 officers. The Burgesses appear to have continued in office 
 from year to year, and not to have been removed " excepte 
 for some offence or mysgovernement by them or any of them 
 comytted, and unlesse for cawse reasonable proved." The 
 penalty on a nominated Burgess refusing to accept the 
 " saide Rome," was a fine of £10 to the use of the poor. 
 
 Provision is made for the appointment of twelve other 
 similar persons as Assistant Burgesses, for the purpose of 
 aiding the Burgesses in their government. The penalty 
 for non-acceptance of the office was £6. 
 
 The twelve Burgesses and twelve assistants were em- 
 powered to rule over the several Wards, and each Burgess 
 
CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER: CONSTITUTION. 415 
 
 and his assistant might by virtue of the Act, " doe and deale 
 in everie thinge and things as Aldermens Deputies in the 
 Cittie of London lawfullie doe or maye doe." Two of the 
 Burgesses were to be nominated as Chief Burgesses. 
 
 The power of the body so constituted, is provided for in 
 sec. 5 as follows, viz. : — " And for due Reformation of the 
 Inconvenyences and Disordres whiche shall or maye happen 
 within the said Cyttie, Boroughe, or Libertie. Be it ordeyned 
 by the authoritie of this present ParHament, That, as 
 well the saide Deane or his Successors, the Highe Stewarde 
 aforesaide or his Deputie, as also the saide twoe Chief 
 Burgeses, the other Tenne Burgeses, or any fowre or three 
 of them whereof the saide Deane, Highe Stewarde, or his 
 Deputie, or one of the saide twoe Chief Burgeses, to be one 
 from tyme to tyme for ever hereafter to be appoynted during 
 theire said office, shall and maye by vertue of this Acte 
 within the saide Cyttie or Boroughe, and the Liberties 
 thereof, heare, examyne, determyne, and punyshe, accord- 
 inge to the Lawes of this Realme, or the lawdable and 
 lawfull Custome of the Cyttie of London, all matters of In- 
 contynences, Common Scolds, and of Inmates and Common 
 Annoyances, and likewise that they shall have authoritie to 
 commytt to prison suche persons as within the saide Cyttie 
 shall oifende against the Peace. And thereof shall gyve 
 notice within xxiiij"® howres after to somme Justice of the 
 Peace within the Countie of Middlesex." 
 
 Power is given to the Dean and Burgesses to make 
 orders for the good government of the inhabitants ; and, in 
 case there be default made in the nomination of Burgesses, 
 power is given to two Justices of the Peace to make such 
 nomination. Due reservation is made of the rights of the 
 Collegiate Church of Westminster and its precincts, of the 
 Duchy of Lancaster, and of certain persons exercising special 
 jurisdictions within the City, as the Mayor, Society, and 
 
416 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Clerk of the Staple ; the Bailiff of the Liberties, the Town 
 Clerk ; the Clerk of the Market, the Searcher of the Sanc- 
 tuary, &c. 
 
 There is very little available information with regard to 
 the effect of this measure, or as to the nature, extent, or 
 character of Westminster government which succeeded its 
 enactment, and no further Act of Parliament appears to 
 have been passed with respect to it for more than 1 50 years. 
 At length, by the 29 Geo. II., c. 25, passed in 1756, the 
 existence of the City was recognised, and provision made 
 for the appointment of a sufficient number of constables for 
 the service of the City and Liberty of Westminster, and 
 for the compelling of proper persons to take upon them- 
 selves the offices of jurymen, and to present nuisances and 
 other offences within the City and Liberty. 
 
 This Act distinctly recites the statute of Elizabeth, and 
 states that certain defects have attended its working ; that 
 the public ways and passages are greatly obstructed, and 
 that many other annoyances and offences are daily com- 
 mitted within the said City and Borough. It also declares 
 that, in consequence of a great increase of the buildings in 
 the City, and of some irregularity in the appointment of 
 City constables, there was not a sufficient number of such 
 officers for the service of the City. 
 
 It would, therefore, seem that the provisions of the 
 statute of Elizabeth, with respect to the government of the 
 different wards of the City by duly nominated burgesses, 
 had not proved completely satisfactory ; and, by the Act 
 now under consideration, it is provided that the Dean of the 
 Collegiate Church of Westminster, or the High Steward of 
 the City and Liberty or his lawful deputy, should at a 
 Court Leet, to be held once every year, appoint eighty able 
 and fit persons, being artificers or using the trade of buying 
 or selling within the City, but not being ale-house-keepers, 
 
CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER : FORMER POWERS. 417 
 
 to be constables of the City of Westminster. The con- 
 stables so appointed were to be chosen from the various 
 parishes in the manner set forth in the Act. Provision was 
 made for the empannelling of a Leet Jury by the High 
 Bailiff, in pursuance of the precept of the Dean, the High 
 Steward, or his Deputy. The Jury so empanneUed were 
 empowered to present proper persons to serve the office of 
 constable. Any one refusing to serve on the Leet Jury 
 might be fined forty shillings ; and any one presented as a 
 constable was bound either to serve or find a deputy, under 
 a penalty of £8. The appointment of High Constable 
 rested with the Dean, High Steward, or his Deputy, and 
 the penalty of non-acceptance was ,£20. 
 
 By the MetropoHtan PoHce Act, 2 & 3 Vict., c. 47, that 
 part of this Act which relates to the appointment of con- 
 stables was repealed, and the City of Westminster is brought 
 within the general poHce arrangements of the metropolis. 
 
 The nuisances within the City are dealt with by section 
 10 of the Act of 1756, which provides for the empannelling 
 of an Annoyance Jury. The oath of the jurors sufficiently 
 indicates the character of the work they were expected to 
 perform, — " I do swear that I will dihgently enquire and 
 make true presentment to this court of all such pubhc annoy- 
 ances and offences as shall be committed within Westminster 
 during the time of my continuance in the office whereunto 
 I am now appointed, and that I will present no person or 
 thing through hatred or maHce, nor leave any unpresented 
 through love, favour, or affection." The jurors so appointed 
 were bound to accept the office imder a penalty of forty 
 shillings, and a fine of similar amount was imposed on those 
 who subjected them during the discharge of their duties to 
 insult or annoyance. In the execution of this duty they 
 were authorized to enter any house, shop, or warehouse 
 within the City or Liberty, in the occupation of any one 
 
418 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 dealing by weight or measure ; to examine the weights, 
 balances, or measures, and, if defective, to destroy the same, 
 and fine the proprietors in any sum not exceeding forty 
 shillings. A power of distress and imprisonment was given 
 for the recovery of these fines. Some of the fines were 
 payable within fourteen days to the overseers of the poor, 
 and applicable for the same purposes as the Poors' Rate ; 
 but those fines which were imposed by the Annoyance Jury 
 were divisible in equal proportions to the High BaLlifi" and 
 Court of Burgesses. 
 
 This Act is again explained and amended by the 
 31 Geo. III., c. 17. This statute deals specially with the 
 repair of pavements. These are to be repaired by the 
 churchwardens of parishes when opposite certain public 
 buildings, and private owners are required to repair those 
 opposite to their own houses. The oversight of pavements 
 is vested in the Annoyance Jury, who have also power to 
 give notice to remove obstructions, and in default to inflict 
 fines. The license of the Court of Bm'gesses is requisite to 
 the erection of hoardings and other obstructions. Power is 
 given to seal and stamp weights and measures, and to 
 destroy those found unsealed. The fines are payable partly 
 to the ofiicers of the Corporation. 
 
 A number of amending and explaining Acts were passed 
 in the same reign, aflfecting the cleaning, paving, and 
 Hghting of various districts within the extended area of the 
 City.* 
 
 The provisions already set out for the appointment of 
 Annoyance Jurors were repealed by the 24 & 25 Yict., c. 78, 
 and from and after the 29th of September, 1861, they ceased 
 
 * See the Statutes, 3 Geo. III., c. 23 ; 4 Geo. III., c. 39 ; 6 Geo. III., 
 c. 13 ; 11 Geo. III., c. 22 ; 11 Geo. III., c. 51 ; 22 Geo. III., c. 84 ; 23 
 Geo. III., c. 42 ; 23 Geo. III., c. 43 ; 23 Geo. III., c. 89 ; 23 Geo. III., c. 
 90 ; 29 Geo. III., c. 75 ; 30 Geo. III., c. 53. ; 47 Geo. III., c, 38 ; 60 
 Geo. III., c. 84. 
 
CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER : COURT OF BURGESSES. 419 
 
 to exist. By section 3, the Dean, or the High Steward, or 
 his Deputy, may, as circumstances require, call a meeting of 
 Burgesses of the City of "Westminster, at which must he 
 present one chief Burgess, foui- minor Burgesses, and either 
 the Dean, the High Steward, or his Deputy. 
 
 The Court so convened is empowered to appoint one or 
 more Inspector of Measures. These officers are to receive 
 reasonable remuneration for the discharge of their duties, 
 and to hold office during the pleasure of the court. The 
 Inspectors take an oath of office, and are empowered to 
 enter shops and houses, seize defective scales, weights, and 
 measures, and bring the same before the Court of Burgesses. 
 The Court has power to fine offenders, and the fines so 
 inflicted were formerly divided between the High Bailiff and 
 the Court. The present Inspector receives one-half the fees. 
 The last authentic information with respect to the 
 " Corporation " was furnished by an unpubhshed return from 
 the Dean and Chapter of "Westminster, and from the Court 
 of Bui'gesses, in pursuance of a resolution of the House of 
 Commons, dated March 8th, 1869. 
 
 From this return, it appears that the "Corporation" 
 consists of the following officers : — the Dean of "Westminster 
 " without a salary," the High Steward " without a salaiy," 
 the Deputy High Steward £200, the Town Clerk £100, the 
 High Constable £80, the Inspector £100, the Crier and 
 Mace-bearer £25, the Summoning Officer £10. In addition 
 to these officers there are 16 Burgesses, and 16 Assistant 
 Burgesses, appointed annually in Easter "Week ; two of the 
 Burgesses being nominated as Chief Burgesses. The office 
 of High Steward is generally held by some distinguished 
 noble. The appointment is made by the Dean and Chapter 
 of Westminster, and in the reign of EHzabeth was held by 
 Lord Burleigh. There is no salary attached to the office, 
 but there is an ancient yearly payment of £5 fi'om the Dean 
 
420 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 and Chapter. This is granted by the High Steward to his 
 Deputy. 
 
 As has been noted, the Dean, or the High Steward, or 
 the Deputy High Steward is empowered to nominate the 
 Burgesses and Assistant Burgesses for the year, and to preside 
 at the meetings of the Burgess Court. As a matter of fact 
 such nomination and such presidency appears to rest in the 
 Deputy High Steward, the offices of the two higher officials 
 being purely honorary. The Deputy High Steward is 
 appointed by the High Steward, and performs the duties of 
 his office in his absence. In addition to his salary of £200 
 per annum, he receives one-half of the sums received for 
 the inspection and marking of weights and measures, under 
 the 29 Geo. II., c. 25. 
 
 The appointment of the Coroner is now regulated by 
 the 23 & 24 Yict., c. 116. 
 
 In addition to the offices already mentioned, there is a 
 High BaLliff and a Deputy Bailiff. The former officer is 
 appointed by the Dean and Chapter. He has, practically, 
 the functions of a Sheriff of a county, including the execu- 
 tion of writs, the return of Members of Parhament, the 
 summoning of juries, and the trial of compensation cases. 
 He receives one -half of the fines imposed by the Court of 
 Burgesses, has a stall in Westminster Abbey, and certain 
 functional duties on Coronation days. He has the appoint- 
 ment of a Deputy, subject to the consent of the Dean and 
 Chapter, The stipend paid by the Dean and Chapter ap- 
 pears to be £6 13s. 4c?. The other emoluments of the office 
 are made up of various items ; of fees on the preparation of 
 the vote register, fees as judge in compensation cases, and 
 fines. The total income of the office will, probably, average 
 under £500. The Deputy Bailift' performs the functions of 
 the Bailiff in his absence. Under the County Court Act 
 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, sec. 32) the High Bailiff of the City of 
 
CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER : DUTY OF OFFICERS. 421 
 
 Westminster was to be the High Bailiff of the County 
 Court established within the District ; but this provision 
 was repealed by the 22nd Vict. c. 8, as his whole time was 
 not available for the work. 
 
 The office of Town Clerk is in the appointment of the 
 High Steward. This officer is expected to attend the 
 Burgess Courts, enter the minutes of proceedings, and keep 
 the records. He prepares the summonses issued in respect 
 of weights and measures, and issues warrants to the High 
 BaiHff for the levy of unpaid fines. In addition to the 
 salary of £100 per annum, as provided above, he receives 
 certain fees on the swearing in of the Burgesses and the 
 officers of the Court. 
 
 The High Constable is also expected to attend all the 
 meetings of the Court of Burgesses. In addition to this 
 function, he has certain other ceremonial duties in connection 
 with attendance upon the Lord Chancellor, at Westminster 
 and elsewhere. For some of these services he receives addi- 
 tional payments from the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. 
 
 The Inspector of Weights and Measures, appointed 
 under the 24th & 25th Yict., c. 78, receives, in addition to 
 his salary of £100 per annum, one-half of the moneys re- 
 ceived from fines, and for the sizing, seahng, and marking 
 weights, &c. He has a right to visit the shops and ware- 
 houses of persons dealing by weight or measure within the 
 City, and of examining weights, balances, weighing-machines, 
 measures, &c. Where these are found unlawful, fraudulent, 
 or defective, he lays information against the offenders, and 
 they are summoned before the Court of Burgesses. This 
 Court generally sits once a month for the purpose of hearing 
 and deciding in the cases of parties summoned. The amount 
 of the fines are in the discretion of the Court, and they have 
 been recently considerably increased. 
 
 The offices of Crier, Mace Bearer, and Summoning 
 
 2d 
 
422 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Officer are in the gift of the Deputy High Steward. They 
 are now held by the same person. The Coroner is appointed 
 by the Dean and Chapter, and may appoint his own Deputy 
 with their sanction. The duties of this office do not differ 
 from other Coronerships in the Metropolis. 
 
 In addition to these officers, there is supposed to be a 
 Clerk of the Markets, and a Searcher of the Sanctuary; 
 but, as there has long ceased to be any market to attend to, 
 and as the searching of the Sanctuary is an absurdity, if 
 possible, still greater, the duties of these officers are not 
 onerous. The appointment of the officers of the " Corpora- 
 tion " is made by virtue of a number of technical deeds of 
 great length and elaboration. 
 
 It is probable that Admiral Duff, whose legacy to the 
 Corporation of London, for the purpose of providing Scrip- 
 ture readers, has been already considered, knew very little 
 of the Corporation of Westminster. He has, however, left 
 the interest of a legacy of £1,000, to be devoted by the 
 authorities of Westminster to the same purpose. This Corpo- 
 ration therefore, like its haughty sister further east, is the 
 depository of trust funds. It also possesses verified copies 
 of the standard weights and measures, and a mace, — an 
 article which may be regarded as the most indubitable 
 evidence of its corporate dignity. In the third year of its 
 existence, one Maurice Pickering seems to have presented to 
 the Court a loving cup, — and there is also a silver snuff- box 
 for the use of such as love rappee. The Court does but little 
 in the way of " festivities ;" we believe that it never exceeds 
 two well-earned dinners a year, there being few available 
 funds. Faulty measures are broken up and sold, and the 
 produce may be used for the purposes of the Court. The 
 £500 paid by the Treasury is by no means certain to be 
 paid for ever, and its withdrawal has been recently 
 discussed. In such a case, it would seem that the Cor- 
 
POLICE FORCE : ESTABLISHMENT. 423 
 
 poration would quietly collapse and disappear ; for however 
 willing the Burgesses might be to carry out the Act, 
 they could not secure efficient servants unless there were 
 salaries attached to their offices. The only recently recorded 
 instance of the Corporation appearing in public was upon 
 the entry of the Princess of Wales into London when they 
 met her at the Marble Arch, where she entered the bounds 
 of the City. 
 
 If we test the various organizations which have existed 
 under the control of the Dean and Chapter for the govern- 
 ment of Westminster, we shall find that they have at no time 
 possessed the essentials of a Corporation. Neither has it 
 any title to be called a City. But there is much of interest 
 in connection with its history, and having the available 
 materials, it seemed well to set out that history once for all, 
 and this the more especially, as it was deemed to be of far 
 more weight and importance than is really the case. 
 
 The London Police. 
 
 The constituting Statute of the London Police Force was 
 passed under the auspices of Sir Robert Peel, in 1830.* It 
 includes within the limit of its operation only the district 
 outside the City of London ; another illustration being thus 
 afibrded of the exclusive and unpatriotic policy of the City. 
 The preamble to this Act recites, " that the nightly watch 
 and nightly police had been found inadequate to the detec- 
 tion of crime, by reason of the unfitness of the individuals 
 employed, the insufficiency of their number, &c." The Act 
 then provides for the establishment of a police force within 
 the district set out in the schedule to the Act, and for the 
 appointment of a Receiver with power to purchase lands 
 and buildings, and in whom the property of the police 
 
 * 10 Geo. IV., c. 44. 
 
424 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 organization should be vested. The appointment of the 
 Receiver was vested in the Crown, and the districts set out 
 in the schedule might by Order in Council be extended, by 
 the addition of other parishes or districts ; so that no such 
 parish or district should be situated at a greater distance 
 than twelve miles from Charing Cross. By section 19, 
 provision is made for the transfer of all the property of the 
 old watch, and for the levying of police rates by the 
 overseers of the various parishes. 
 
 The Statute contains other provisions for the regulation 
 and management of the force. It was forthwith put in 
 operation mth 1,200 men. This number was increased in 
 the course of a few months to 3,000 and at the time of the 
 passing of the Statute by which the management of the 
 poHce force is now regulated, the Metropolitan PoKce were 
 something Like 4,000 in number. 
 
 In the year 1839 were passed two Statutes which may be 
 regarded as the governing statutes of the MetropoKtan and 
 City PoHce forces respectively. Allusion has already been 
 made to the fact that the City was excluded from the action of 
 the 10 Geo. lY., c. 44. Tliis fact was brought to the notice and 
 was under the careful consideration of the Municipal Com- 
 missioners, who reported in 1837 as follows : — " In one 
 particular, and that a most important and practical one, the 
 opinion of Parliament has been already declared by the 
 establishment of a Metropolitan PoHce, under the orders 
 of Commissioners appointed by and immediately dependent 
 upon your Majesty's Executive Government. We scarcely 
 anticipate that any argument can be brought forward to 
 show that the system can be partially right. "We can see 
 no middle course for the establishment of an efficient poHce 
 through the Metropolis between placing the whole under a 
 Metropolitan Municipality, and entrusting the whole to 
 Commissioners or other similar officers under the immediate 
 control of your Majesty's Government." 
 
POLICE FORCE : REASON OF SEPARATE CITY FORCE. 425 
 
 Shortly after the publication of this report, an attempt 
 was made by Lord Melbourne to include the City in the 
 Metropolitan system. From the selfish and exclusive Cor- 
 poration came strong opposition. The unity of the Metro- 
 polis even in a matter that concerned its actual safety was 
 to them of no importance whatever when weighed in the 
 balance with their own privileges. The government, how- 
 ever, disregarded both petitions and addresses to the Crown, 
 and when the City found these were unavailing they set to 
 work to raise the jealousy of country Corporations, and, un- 
 fortunately for the public credit of the latter, they succeeded 
 Finding they could do nothing with the government, " they 
 then acted on the French maxim, ' Help thyself, and heaven 
 will help thee ! ' They immediately fixed their Town Clerk 
 in New Palace Yard ; they gave him a large body of 
 assistants, and instructed him to communicate with every 
 Corporation in the United Kingdom. The consequence was, 
 by the influence of these country Corporations, the minister 
 found that his support feU like a rope of sand. He gave up 
 his measure."* 
 
 It therefore became necessary to pass a separate mea- 
 sure for the City, which up to this time had not adopted 
 the new police system. In old London ever}' inhabitant was 
 liable to serve as watchman for his district. He might 
 perform his office by deputy ; but in the days when every 
 resident in a ward was personally known to the rest, and 
 when every stranger coming within it was carefully watched, 
 the duty was not onerous. After the dissolution of the 
 monasteries, however, the nimiber of beggars and vagrants 
 seriously increased, and at an early period in the reign of 
 EHzabeth, beadles were appointed to clear the streets of these 
 classes. They found the work too much for them, and then 
 were appointed the " City Marshals," under whose direction 
 
 * Evidence of Thomas Rogers, Esq., before CommisBioners of 1854. 
 Ans. 2682. 
 
426 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the work was effectively done. The system thus established 
 was continued, with modifications, down to the year 1839. 
 
 In that year were passed the Acts 2 & 3 Vict., c. 47, and 
 2 & 3 Vict., c. 94. These Acts regulating the poHce force 
 within the Metropolis and the City respectively, contain 
 many similar provisions. But the essential pomt contested 
 and gained by the City was, that under the latter measure 
 the management of the City police was confided to a Com- 
 missioner elected and controlled by the Common Council, 
 whilst the appointment and control of the MetropoHtan 
 Commissioner rests with the Home Secretary. Under the 
 MetropoHtan Act, the Treasury undertake to defray out of 
 the Consolidated Fund one-fourth of the cost of the Metro- 
 poHtan poHce, but the City, rather than forego its useless 
 supremacy, undertook to defray this fourth out of their 
 "revenues and possessions" (2 & 3 Vict., c. 94, sec. 57). 
 The other three-fourths in each case to be defrayed by rate. 
 The proportion contributed by the Treasury to the poHce 
 rate of the MetropoHs (and to the County police rate of the 
 country generally) was, in 1874, fixed at an equivalent sum 
 to the amount raised by rate.* No alteration was however 
 made in the City arrangement so that the City ratepayer has 
 to pay three-fourths where every other Londoner only pays 
 one-half Practically, the Corporation paid in 1874 more 
 than £40,000, which would have been recouped by the 
 Treasury if the City would have consented to come into the 
 system adopted everywhere else throughout England. Some 
 idea may be formed of the perversity of the City mind, and 
 of the narrow conceptions of its rulers, by the fact of its 
 being willing to pay a fine of £40,000 a year in this one 
 matter, rather than form part of a system of acknowledged 
 national utiHty. Those who dwell Avithin the City and 
 
 * This arrangement however was purely temporary, and the final 
 amount does rot appear to be settled. 
 
POLICE FORCE : THE CITY POLICE. 427 
 
 who have a vested interest in its " estate," ought to look 
 to this. 
 
 The City Police Commissioner receives £1,800 a year* 
 the Superintendent £600, the Surgeon £600, the Receiver 
 £450. There are 787 men. They are in six divisions, and 
 the total sum paid for wages in 1874 was £64,331. The 
 cost of the offices and stations was £9,921, and of clothing 
 £1,879. The sum of £300 is charged for " Parliamentary 
 expenses." Thus the City rulers make the poor City rate- 
 payer pay for opposing any measure which may lessen his 
 police rate contribution. The total cost of the City PoHce 
 in 1874 was £83,508. The sum of £62,021 was raised by 
 rate, and £19,504 was paid out of the City estate. The 
 rest was received from reimbursements for extra services, 
 and other sources. 
 
 Both of the recited Acts provide for the establishment 
 of a superannuation fund. The direct charge on this fund 
 from the City police account in 1874 was £1,850. The total 
 amount paid was £6,119, the balance being largely made up 
 by the sale of securities. The Metropolitan Police Super- 
 annuation Fund received in the year ending March 31st, 
 1875, from the police themselves £19,822, and from the 
 General Police Fund £80,648, The total receipts were 
 £112,707. The sum of £110,152 was paid in superannuation 
 allowances to 2,807 constables, and £2,555 was given in 
 gratuities to 54 constables. 
 
 The Acts contain a number of regulating provisions as to 
 public-houses, theatres, public buildings, streets, vagrancy, 
 gambling, &c. The Metropolitan Act includes the control 
 of the Thames, and it also empowers the Privy Council to 
 extend the police district, so as to include any place within 
 fifteen miles of Charing Cross. 
 
 The City Act provides in section 94, that the " ancient 
 rights " of electing ward constables in the City of London 
 
428 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 shall be suspended." But section 95 provides that in case 
 the Act be repealed, then the right of electing ward con- 
 stables shall revive. If the City fondly suppose that this 
 clause will override any statute for the unification of the 
 London Police, they will probably find they have cherished 
 a delusion. 
 
 Some of the provisions in the Metropolitan Act have 
 been varied by subsequent statutes. The Statute 19 & 20 
 Vict., c. 3, provides for the appointment by Her Majesty 
 under the Sign Manual, of one Commissioner and two 
 Assistant Commissioners, at maximum salaries of £1,500 
 and £800 a year each respectively. 
 
 The Statute 30 & 31 Vict., c. 39, fixes the salary of the 
 Receiver at not more than £1,200, and provides for the 
 police accounts being laid before Parliament, made up to 
 the end of March in every year. The Police Rate Act, 
 31 & 32 Vict., c. 67, increases the rate leviable for the police 
 force to 9d. in the pound, of which sum one-fourth was 
 payable by the Treasury, and three-fourths raiseable by rate. 
 Previously to the passing of this Act, the rate had been 
 limited to 8d. in the pound. As has been noted, the Treasury 
 contribution has been since increased. 
 
 The powers and duties of the police were extended in 
 various ways, by the Habitual Criminals' Act, 32 & 33 Vict., 
 c. 39 ; and by "The PoHce Expenses Act, 1874," 37 & 38 
 Vict., c. 58, the limitation of the Treasury contribution to one- 
 fourth was repealed. From the 1st of April, 1874, the rate 
 of such contribution was raised to 4^d. in the pound, or one- 
 half of the amount raiseable under the Police Acts ; but 
 how long this ratio may continue is uncertain. 
 
 The annexed tables set out the authorized strength of the 
 MetropoKtan Police Force of the various ranks at the close 
 of the year 1874, also the summonses issued on police appli- 
 cation and the total number of apprehensions, together with 
 the number of convictions in each case. 
 
POLICE FORCE : DIVISION OF THE FORCE. 429 
 
 Return showing the authorized streivjth of Divisions on December Slst, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o§ 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Division. 
 
 OB -r-. 
 
 
 p. -a 
 a 
 
 p. 
 
 a 
 
 ^ S3 
 
 a 5 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 <! 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 Whitehall . . . 
 
 A 
 
 1-43 
 
 2 
 
 40 
 
 92 
 
 426 
 
 560 
 
 Westminster 
 
 
 B 
 
 2-32 
 
 
 12 
 
 42 
 
 468 
 
 523 
 
 St. James's . 
 
 
 G 
 
 0-79 
 
 
 7 
 
 81 
 
 316 
 
 355 
 
 Marylebone . 
 
 
 D 
 
 1-56 
 
 
 6 
 
 28 
 
 314 
 
 349 
 
 Holborn . . 
 
 
 E 
 
 1-35 
 
 
 9 
 
 47 
 
 500 
 
 557 
 
 Finsbury . . 
 
 
 G 
 
 MO 
 
 
 6 
 
 28 
 
 337 
 
 372 
 
 Whitechapel 
 
 
 H 
 
 1-08 
 
 
 6 
 
 24 
 
 276 
 
 307 
 
 Stepney . . 
 
 
 K 
 
 50-40 
 
 
 13 
 
 83 
 
 660 
 
 75T 
 
 Lambeth . . 
 
 
 L 
 
 1-16 
 
 
 5 
 
 26 
 
 201 
 
 293 
 
 Southwark . 
 
 
 M 
 
 1-91 
 
 
 7 
 
 31 
 
 343 
 
 382 
 
 Islington 
 
 
 N 
 
 69-37 
 
 
 12 
 
 56 
 
 605 
 
 674 
 
 Camberwell . 
 
 
 P 
 
 50-47 
 
 
 9 
 
 61 
 
 490 
 
 561 
 
 Greenwich . 
 
 
 R 
 
 61-77 
 
 
 11 
 
 50 
 
 36!) 
 
 431 
 
 Hampstead . 
 
 
 S 
 
 84-09 
 
 
 9 
 
 47 
 
 43H 
 
 495 
 
 Kensington . 
 
 
 T 
 
 75-39 
 
 
 12 
 
 62 
 
 517 
 
 592 
 
 VVandswoi'th 
 
 
 V 
 
 64-09 
 
 
 7 
 
 43 
 
 342 
 
 393 
 
 Clapbam . . 
 
 
 W 
 
 76-10 
 
 
 9 
 
 46 
 
 373 
 
 429 
 
 Paddington . 
 
 
 X 
 
 74-06 
 
 
 10 
 
 52 
 
 444 
 
 507 
 
 Highgate 
 
 
 Y 
 
 70-02 
 
 
 14 
 
 57 
 
 526 
 
 598 
 
 Thames . . . 
 
 
 
 9-25 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 123 
 
 157 
 
 Totals . 
 
 
 688-31 
 
 21 
 
 237 
 
 !106 
 
 8,128 
 
 9,292 
 
 Metropolitan Police (Dockyard Divisions included). 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ■u 
 
 •S-o 
 
 § 
 
 >• 
 
 u g 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 a 
 
 ¥ 
 
 1 
 
 EH 
 
 Summon 
 
 issued 
 
 n applica 
 
 of Folic 
 
 Numbe 
 Convicte 
 
 iital Nnni 
 pprehen 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8,401 1 70,224 
 
 E-i 
 
 1865 
 
 27 
 
 223 
 
 828 
 
 6,491 
 
 7,569 9,069 
 
 38.263 
 
 1866 
 
 27 
 
 221 
 
 818 
 
 6,4^2 
 
 7,548 
 
 10,414 
 
 9,073 : 05 yoo 
 
 26,371 
 
 1867 
 
 27 
 
 232 
 
 843 
 
 6,690 
 
 7,792 
 
 9.744 
 
 7,823! 63,042 
 
 34.716 
 
 1808 
 
 27 
 
 261 
 
 953 
 
 7,722 
 
 8,903 
 
 9,058 
 
 7,6s4 
 
 66,«70 
 
 38,024 
 
 1869 
 
 2(5 
 
 253 
 
 944 
 
 7,660 
 
 8,883 
 
 11,631 
 
 9,950 
 
 72,9-,l 
 
 4:^699 
 
 1870 
 
 26 
 
 257 
 
 955 
 
 7,922 
 
 9,160 
 
 11.079 
 
 9,450 
 
 71,269 
 
 46,193 
 
 1871 
 
 26 
 
 259 
 
 963 
 
 8,407 
 
 9,655 
 
 13,471 
 
 11,732 
 
 71,961 
 
 48,205 
 
 1872 
 
 26 
 
 262 
 
 t'84 
 
 8,489 
 
 9,761 
 
 12,684 
 
 10,746 
 
 78,203 
 
 54,!i28 
 
 1873 
 
 2G 
 
 272 
 
 992 
 
 8.593 
 
 9,883 
 
 9,936 
 
 8,762 
 
 73,.s57 i 52.851 
 
 1874 
 
 25 
 
 277 
 
 994 
 
 8,002 
 
 9,958 10.604 
 
 8,993 
 
 67,703 1 48,192 
 
 The weekly rates of pay are as follows : — Third class 
 ordinary constable £1 4s.; second class ordinary constable 
 
430 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 £1 7s. ; second class reserve constable £1 85. 6d. ; first class 
 ordinary constable £1 IO5. ; first class reserve constable 
 £1 lis. 6d. ; divisional detective £1 125. ; second class 
 ordinary Serjeant £1 14s. ; first class ordinary serjeant 
 £1 16s.; second class reserve serjeant £1 17s.; first class 
 reserve serjeant £1 IQs. ; station, divisional detective and 
 clerk Serjeants £2 ; second class detective Serjeants at 
 office £2 7s. 4d.; first class detective serjeant £3 2s, 8d.; 
 second class ordinary inspector £2 15s. 6c?.; second class 
 reserve inspector £2 19s. 6d. ; first class ordinary inspector 
 £3 2s. 6d.; first class reserve inspector £3 6s. 6d.; chief 
 inspector £3 13s. ; detective inspectors at chief office 
 £4 6s. lie?, ; chief detective inspectors £5 6s, 2d. ; superinten- 
 dent first year £5 15s, 5d.; superintendent second year 
 £5 19s, 3d. ; superintendent third year £6 3s. Id. ; super- 
 intendent fourth year £6 7s,; superintendent fifth year 
 £6 10s. 10c?,; superintendent sixth year £6 14s, 8d.; 
 superintendent seventh year £6 18s, 6c?,; superintendent 
 eighth year £7 2s. 4c?. ; superintendent ninth year £7 6s. Ic?, ; 
 superintendent tenth year £7 10s.; superintendent eleventh 
 year £7 13s, lie?. 
 
 The actual wages paid at the beginning of the year 1875 
 were as follows : one Commissioner at £1,500, with house 
 rent, &c, ; two Assistant -Commissioners at £800 each; four 
 District Superintendents, receiving £800, £725, £725, and 
 £725 respectively ; twenty-five Superintendents, paid as 
 follows : one at £475, two at £425, one at £415, four at 
 £400, one at £390, two at £380, five at £370, three at 
 £360, four at £320, and two at £300, Each of these also 
 received £11 per annum extra to pay for clothing. 
 
 Two hundred and seventy-six Inspectors, of which three 
 received £276 each, one £256, four £247 135., seven £226, 
 two £201 Is. 4f?., nineteen £189 16s., three £187 10s., five 
 £175 18s. 8d., one hundred and fifteen £162 10s,, ninety- 
 
POLICE FORCE : PAY OF OFFICERS AND MEN. 431 
 
 four £144 65., two £93 125., twenty-one £88 85. Each of 
 these received clothing or £10 a year in Heu thereof 
 
 Ninehundred and eighty-six Serjeants, sixat£162 I85. 8c?., 
 eleven at £122 45., three hundred and two at £104, three 
 at £100 25., one hundred and seventy at £93 12s., four 
 hundred and ninety-four at £88 85. 
 
 And, lastly, 8,649 Constables, one at £88 8s., one hun- 
 dred and ninety-seven at £83 4s., two thousand six hundred 
 and ninety-seven at £78, two thousand six hundred and 
 seventy-one at £70 4s., three thousand and eighty-three at 
 £62 8s. 
 
 The Serjeants and the rank and file receive either 
 clothing or a money allowance. Married men and those 
 living out of stations receive id. per week in lieu of coals, 
 single men in stations receive 40 lbs. of coal weekly in 
 winter, and 20 lbs. in summer. 
 
 It is satisfactory to notice that crime in the Metropolis 
 is on the decrease, not merely proportionately to the popula- 
 tion, but actually, Taking indictable offences as the 
 test, it is found that the number of such offences in 1874 
 was 10,185, being the smallest number for ten years. The 
 facts as to this diminution are fully elaborated in the report 
 of the Chief Commissioner, and were quoted with great 
 satisfaction by Lord Aberdare at the Social Science Congress 
 in October, 1875.* There have been in past years very 
 many complaints of various kinds levelled against the Police 
 Force, but there is reason to believe that it is now an insti- 
 tution largely deserving public confidence and support. 
 
 The annexed Table shows a steady increase in the 
 numbers of the force during the last ten years ;f but there is 
 reason to doubt whether this increase — marked as it is — has 
 at all kept pace with the rapid increase of houses and streets 
 within the Metropolitan Police district. In 1874 seventy- 
 
 * Vide Timet. October 7tb. 187o. f See p. 429, ante. 
 
432 ' MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 five men were added to the force, and, in the same year, 
 London was increased by the addition of 7,764 new houses, 
 and the completion of 145 new streets, with an aggregate 
 length of 22|- miles. In the years 1865-75 (inclusive), there 
 has been added to the metropolis 129,331 houses, and 507 
 miles of new streets and squares. 
 
 The diminution in Metropolitan crime may fairly be 
 ascribed to increased efficiency of the police, but in other 
 respects beyond police control, the condition of London 
 streets seems to be as dangerous as ever. In 1874 there 
 were 124 persons killed, and 2,568 injured, in street acci- 
 dents. Many of these occur in consequence of the danger 
 attending street crossings. Many of these crossings are so 
 many death-traps, where the life and limbs of the pedes- 
 trian are at the mercy of every drunken cab-driver, or youth 
 in charge of a railway- van. If the day should ever come 
 when men uniting grasp of detail to broadness of conception, 
 shall govern London, the number of these preventible acci- 
 dents will be lessened, and light bridges or subways will 
 provide an accommodation long and sorely needed. Possibly 
 as much has been done towards their prevention as could be 
 well expected at the hands of the police authorities. 
 Intelligent members of the force are now stationed at every 
 dangerous point, and much good service is performed in 
 the regulation of traffic. In addition to this, the system of 
 establishing a certain number of fixed points where policemen 
 may always be found, has been extended. The system 
 originated in a strongly-expressed popular demand, and it 
 has proved of much value. The number of such fixed 
 points is 263. 
 
 The efficient working of the whole system has been 
 largely aided by the perfection of telegraphic communication 
 between the divisional and sub-divisional stations. In 1874 
 no less than 87,771 messages passed through Scotland Yard. 
 
POLICE FORCE : MISCELLANEOUS DUTIES. 433 
 
 In addition to the various duties detailed in their Regulating 
 Act, the Metropolitan Police perform many others of great 
 advantage to the community. In 1874 they report that 
 13,446 doors and 6,207 windows were found open, and the 
 report of the Commissioners contains the constant but 
 scarcely heeded warning as to the slender character of house 
 fastenings and the carelessness of householders. 
 
 The inspection of cabs, omnibuses, and other public car- 
 riages and horses is also in the hands of the police. The 
 number of Hcenses issued in 1874 was to proprietors 9,669, 
 and to drivers and conductors 16,364. In the same year 
 89 omnibuses and 927 hackney carriages were rejected as 
 unfit for use, whilst, \vith respect to 333 horses and 3,062 
 carriages, reports were made and notice served upon pro- 
 prietors. The regulations for the return of lost articles seem 
 to work well, as the number of such articles returned has 
 largely increased, and 14,076 were left at the Lost Property 
 Of&ce in the year under consideration. The class of men 
 employed in the business seems to be impro\'ing, and the 
 convictions for drunkenness and furious driving have dimi- 
 nished to 1,010. On the whole, the police seem to discharge 
 this part of their duty with great advantage to the public 
 service. 
 
 The abatement of the Smoke Nuisance is now placed 
 under the pohce control ; 1,968 cases were reported by the 
 police in 1874. Some of the nuisances were abated after a 
 caution ; but 380 were investigated before magistrates, and 
 the offenders fined. The expenses of the engineer for in- 
 spection and police-court attendance were £569. 
 
 The police have also certain duties with respect to the 
 inspection of Lodging-Houses. The number of houses 
 under inspection is very large, and includes no less than 
 3,633 unregistered houses in occasional use. The average 
 number of lodgers m those houses is about 27,000 ; and, if 
 
434 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the London Vestries performed their duties in respect to the 
 houses with the same thoroughness as the London Police, 
 the position of the lodgers would be by no means a bad one. 
 As it is, the advantages of police investigation are very con- 
 siderable, as may be surmised from the fact that, amongst 
 the duties of the Inspecting Officer, he is expected to " en- 
 force a good and sufficient quantity of clothing to insure 
 warmth during the inclement season of the year ; well ven- 
 tilated and lime- washed sleeping-rooms, clean and capacious 
 kitchens, washing accommodation, cooking utensils, and a 
 plentiful supply of water," &c. Every house is inspected 
 once a week, and many of them daily. The Lodging-House 
 Act is reported to work well and easily, and it is most bene- 
 ficial " in securing clean and healthy lodgings for the poorer 
 classes, which would otherwise be entirely out of their 
 reach." The number of visits reported as having been paid 
 to Lodging-Houses during the year 1874 was 128,000, and 
 the total number of such visits since the institution of regis- 
 tration and pohce inspection was 3,755,640. 
 
 We learn from the report of the Commissioner of Police 
 for the year 1874, that " the widest authority is given to the 
 officers in charge of stations to send for medical aid in 
 every case in which there is the least ground for doubt " as 
 to whether a person arrested is drunk or iU. It is satis- 
 factory to find such a regulation in force, as grave scandals 
 have arisen from the conduct of the police in arresting per- 
 sons who were ill and charging them with drunkenness. 
 The virtues which are expected to be combined in the 
 London policeman are very numerous,* but it is too much 
 
 * " A thoroughly efficient policeman must be active, entei-prising, vigi- 
 lant, shrewd, industrious, jiunctual. sober, intelligent, faithful, obedient, 
 courageous, patient, forbearing, and incorruptible. He must have an ii-ou 
 constitution, no small powers of endurance, the faculty of going without 
 his natui-al rest at stated periods, the eyes of Argus, and the stoicism of 
 an ancient philosopher." — Daily Telegraph, February 23rd, 1805. 
 
POLICE FORCE : INCOME. 485 
 
 to anticipate that we shall he ahle to find a sufficient num- 
 ber of otherwise satisfactory men who shall be able to 
 diagnose the medical condition of people found in the gutter. 
 In the year 1874 medical assistance was given to 7,611 
 persons, of whom 976 were found insensible from drun- 
 kenness, and 1,343 insensible from other causes. The sum 
 of £2,115 was paid from the Police funds to various surgeons 
 for their services in these cases. 
 
 The Metropolitan PoHce are authorized to take into 
 custody, dogs found straying in the streets. In 1874 no less 
 than 19,409 of these animals were apprehended ; some were 
 restored to their owners, and 17,354 were sent to that ex- 
 cellent institution, " The Home for Lost and Starving Dogs," 
 in York Road, Battersea.* 
 
 The income of the Metropolitan Police, during the year 
 ending March 3 1st, 1875, was as follows : — £ 
 
 Voted by Parliament . . . 389,004t 
 From London Parishes, on Rate 
 
 Warrants 482,785 
 
 For Special Police Services at various 
 
 places 111,956 
 
 From Proprietors, Drivers, &c., of 
 
 Public Carriages .... 22,522 
 
 Carried forward . . . 1,006,267 
 
 * It has been rei^orted that, in default of further funds being forth- 
 coming, this institution must close its doors. In view of the enormous 
 service which it renders to the dumb creation, it may be hoped that this 
 report is incorrect. 
 
 t This sum is made up of the receipts from the Parliamentan- vote 
 of i'20,000 contributed to the Horse Patrol and Thames Police ; of the 
 salaries of the Commissioner, Receiver, and Assistant-Commissioners, pay- 
 able by statute ; of certain charges in respect of the Habitual Criminals' 
 Register : and some superannuation allowances. The receipt from the 
 Parliamentary vote was at the rate of i^d. in the pound on a ratal of 
 i'21,996,370, on and after the 1st of Apiil. Before that date it was at a 
 lower rate. 
 
436 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Brought forward . . . 1,006,267 
 Stoppages from Pay of Police for 
 
 Lodging ..... 10,131 
 
 Reimbursements for Special Expenses 6,093 
 
 Received for Conveyance of Prisoners 1,854 
 
 Sale of Old Houses and Old Stores 865 
 Reimbursements for conveying Naval 
 
 Prisoners, &c. .... 1,409 
 
 Miscellaneous ..... 58 
 
 Net Income . . . £1,026,677 
 
 The expenditure in connection with 
 
 the force was as 
 
 foUows : — 
 
 
 Office expenses — 
 
 
 Salaries and Allowances, Com- 
 
 £ 
 
 misioner's Office . 
 
 13,168 
 
 Ditto, Receiver's Office 
 
 6,832 
 
 Books and Stationery 
 
 4,007 
 
 Office Rent, Taxes, Repairs, &c. 
 
 3,458 
 
 Miscellaneous .... 
 
 1,833 
 
 Pay, Clothing, and Equipment — 
 
 Salaries of Superintendents . 12,246 
 Pay of Inspectors, Serjeants, and 
 
 Constables .... 759,149 
 
 Extra Duty Pay . . . 1,277 
 
 Clothing of all kinds . . 55,397 
 
 Truncheons, &c. . . . 404 
 
 Retired Allowances, &c. — 
 
 To Police Superannuation Fund 80,648 
 Pensions to Widows and others . 2,755 
 
 828,473 
 
 83,403 
 
 Carried forward . . 941,174 
 
POLICE FORCE : EXPENDITURE. 
 
 437 
 
 Brought forward . . 941,174 
 Police Stations, &c. — 
 
 New Station at Shoreditch, part 
 
 of cost 6,274 
 
 Repairs and Alterations of Stations 10,249 
 
 Rents of Stations 
 Rates and Taxes 
 Cleaning Stations, &c. 
 Furniture and Fixtures 
 Telegraph Expenses . 
 Incidentals 
 
 Medical and Funeral Expenses — 
 
 Salaries of 99 District Surgeons 
 
 and 1 Superintendent . 
 Medical Attendance and Medi- 
 cine for Police, and Poor 
 suffering accident . 
 Funeral Expenses of 58 Officers 
 
 Law and Miscellaneous — 
 
 Law Expenses .... 
 Conveyance of Naval Prisoners . 
 Register of Habitual Criminals . 
 
 Carried forward . 
 
 8,283 
 6,023 
 4,529 
 1,993 
 2,643 
 2,110 
 
 Fuel, Light, &c. — 
 
 
 Coals .... 
 
 . 11,400 
 
 Gas and Fittings 
 
 7,377 
 
 Oil and Police Lanterns . 
 
 5,170 
 
 Horses, Vans, &c. — 
 
 
 Horses purchased 
 
 2,297 
 
 Forage — for 323 horses . 
 
 8,526 
 
 Saddlery, Carts, &c. . 
 
 3,055 
 
 3,504 
 
 2,694 
 303 
 
 782 
 1,299 
 1,035 
 
 42,104 
 
 23,947 
 
 13,878 
 
 6,501 
 
 3,116 1,027,604 
 2e 
 
438 MUNICIPAL LONDON, 
 
 £ £ 
 
 Brought forward . . 3,116 1,027,604 
 Extra Expenses in pursuit and 
 
 conveyance of Prisoners . 7,997 
 
 Expenses on duties out of Dis- 
 
 trict 
 
 Education of Police . 
 Minor Expenses 
 
 , 7,126 
 
 427 
 
 1,171 
 
 19,837 
 62,410 
 
 Repayments — 
 
 Ovei-paid by Overseers, Treasury 
 Contribution being increased . 
 Paid for Lodgings . 
 Minor E-epajrments . 
 
 51,050* 
 1,340 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 £1,099,851 
 
 If from this total of £1,099,851 we deduct the £51,u50 
 repayment which is unlikely to occur again, and deal with 
 the rest as recumng expenses, we have the net cost of the 
 Metropolitan PoHce, £1,048,800. If we deduct from this 
 £83,403 for retiring allowances, we have the current expendi- 
 ture £965,397, or £103 per man. The 787 men in the 
 City cost £83,508. The Corporation charge the stoppages 
 and fines as a payment of £1,850, which goes to the Super- 
 annuation Fund ; but the Metropolitan PoHce Accounts, kept 
 on a truer principle, do not include this in the General Fund 
 Account at all, but treat it in the Superannuation Fund 
 Account as a separate receipt. There is no ti*ue payment 
 therefore from the City Account, and tbe cost of the 787 
 men in the City may be set down at £83,508. The cost of 
 the Metropolitan Police per man was £103, and of the City 
 
 * This is the amount overpaid by the parishes in the three months 
 ending June, 1874, when the Treasury contribution was increased. The 
 sum was repaid tn the overseers. 
 
POLICE FORCE : CITY AND METROPOLITAN. 439 
 
 Police £106. The competition which has existed between 
 these two forces has been in one way productive of good, 
 and the City Police Account, of all City Accounts, is least 
 hampered with heavy sinecure payments. 
 
 About one-twentieth of the Metropolitan Police Rate is 
 levied in the district outside the limits of the Local Manage- 
 ment Acts. If we therefore take that as our basis, we should 
 be justified in treating the receipts and expenditure applicable 
 to the Metropolitan District as less by that proportion. This 
 would give the total income due to the Metropolitan District 
 Account in 1874 at about £975,000, and expenditure some- 
 what more, being nearly, if not quite, one million sterling. 
 
 A brisk argument took place some years ago, between 
 Sir Richard Mayne and Mr. Scott, as to the relative value 
 of the City and Metropolitan Police. The former was 
 responsible for the opening of the discussion, which was done 
 in a letter to Sir George Grey under date June 1st, 1863, 
 charging that the City Police Force was relatively the more 
 expensive of the two, and this both as to the cost per man 
 and the cost per house. It was also alleged that the pro- 
 portion of crime was greater in the City than in the Metro- 
 poHs. The letter concluded with the following sentence : — 
 " I bog leave, in conclusion, to state that the existence of a 
 detached Police Force in the heart of the Metropolis is at 
 variance with the principle on which the Police is established 
 in every other town in the kingdom. The continuance of 
 such an extraordinary exception in the Metropolis has, after 
 lengthened inquiry and careful consideration been condemned 
 by two Select Committees of the House of Commons and 
 by two Royal Commissions to inquire into the state of the 
 Corporation of the City of London." 
 
 The latter part of this letter is true, and Sir Richard 
 might have added that these Committees and Commissions 
 had come to their conclusions after hearing aU available 
 
440 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 evidence upon both sides of the question. Their conclusions 
 were the only conclusions consistent with common sense. 
 This is really the only important part of the letter, but the 
 former part in which the excellence of the Metropolitan 
 Police is vaunted over the City Police, excited the especial 
 ire of the City Chamberlain, who, four years later, came to 
 the surface with a " Statistical Vindication of the City of 
 London,"* proving that the 650 acres of the City are really 
 the only part of London where any business is done, and 
 where people can be regarded as living ; that Kensington 
 and Brixton are only " dormitories," and that it has the 
 most virtuous population, and the best Police Force extant. 
 In fact, Mr. Scott's figures may be used to prove anything 
 whatever. He takes the census population or the day 
 population as each suits his purpose best, and claiming for 
 the City every man who spends an hour a day there, suc- 
 ceeds in magnifying its size greatly. The day population 
 was taken in 1866, and is quoted at 283,520. But Mr. 
 Scott adds to this all those who are said to " resort to the 
 City," that is to say every poor suburban compelled to come 
 to City markets, cabmen (probably estimated for every 
 journey), beggars, bus drivers, and so forth. In this way 
 the day population is swelled to 728,986, and great credit 
 is claimed for managing so many people with so small a 
 force. The quarrel is a very pretty one, and imparts an 
 unwonted relish to poHce statistics of the time. Of course, 
 Mr. Scott, as a highly paid officer of the Corporation, is 
 expected to find some excellent reason for the continuance 
 of any City anomaly, and so we find him defending a 
 separate City Police Force. We are sorry that the best 
 champion the City ever had, or ever will have, should under- 
 take so hopeless a task. The City might be welcome to a 
 separate Police Force, and a separate cesspool, if it did not 
 
 * Longmans, 1867. 
 
POLICE COURTS : REGULATION. 441 
 
 thereby injure or incommode its neighbours, but the con- 
 tinuance of a separate organization for the maintenance of 
 pubhc order acting independently of that which surrounds 
 it, cannot last very long, even though supported by all the 
 influence of the Corporation, or the arguments of its hired 
 defenders. 
 
 The 3fetropoHtan Police Courts are eleven in number, 
 and include the same number of districts. They are known 
 as Bow Street, Clerkenwell. Great Marlborough Street, 
 Greenwich and Woolwich, Hammersmith and Wandsworth, 
 Lambeth, Marylebone, South wark, Thames, Westminster, 
 and Worship Street. 
 
 These courts are now regulated by the provisions of the 
 Statute 2 & 3 Vict., c. 71. That Statute provides for the 
 limitation of the number of MetropoHtan Police Magistrates 
 to 27, according to the discretion of the Crown. The actual 
 number in 1874 was 23. There were in addition 23 clerks 
 and 50 ushers. The total cost of the Police Court establish- 
 ment daring the year amounted to £41,462. The income 
 is payable out of the Consolidated Fund, under section 11 
 of the above Act. The fees, penalties, and forfeitures levied 
 at these Courts during the year amounted to £15,914, and 
 these are credited to the receipt account. The receipts and 
 payments on the Metropolitan Police Court account are in 
 the hands of a Receiver. The same official performs this 
 duty with respect to the poHce. His salary is fixed at 
 £1,000 a year, and the amount payable by the ConsoHdated 
 Fund is hmited to £50,000. 
 
 The Statute contains full provision for the carrying on 
 of the business of the Courts, and power is given to tbe 
 Secretary of State to make further regulations with respect 
 to the same as occasion may require. 
 
 The income and expenditure of the MetropoHtan Police 
 Courts during 1874-5 was as follows : — 
 
442 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Income. ^ 
 
 From Consolidated Fund . . . 27,831 
 
 Voted by Parliament . . . . 13,500 
 Fees, Penalties, and Forfeitures at the 
 
 eleven Courts . . , . . 15,914 
 
 Net Income . . . £57,245 
 
 Expenditure. 
 
 Salaries — £ £> 
 
 One Chief Magistrate . . 1,500 
 
 Twenty-two Magistrates . 26,331 
 
 Twenty-three Clerks . . 7,559 
 
 Fifty Ushers, Gaolers, and 
 
 Messengers . . 5,121 
 
 Fees to Medical Witnesses, Interpreters, &c 
 
 Travelling Expenses 
 
 Clothing and Incidentals 
 
 Fees, Penalties, &c., paid to Exchequer 
 
 Net Expenditure . 
 
 40,511 
 485 
 165 
 301 
 
 15,891 
 
 £57,353 
 
 The London School Board. 
 
 " The Elementary Education Act, 1870," provided for 
 the election of a London School Board, and directed that 
 Board at once to proceed to supply the Metropolis with 
 sufficient school accommodation. It is material to notice 
 that, in this respect, London was specially legislated for dif- 
 ferently from the rest of the country. No option was given 
 to the Metropolis on the question of choosing a School 
 Board at all, as the enormous educational defects under which 
 it suffered were too well known to admit of doubt. The 
 Metropolis was divided into ten districts, as set out in the 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : EARLY WORK. 443 
 
 annexed table (p. 464), and in the autumn of 1870 an 
 election of members took place, — an election in whicb, 
 probably, more interest was taken by London, as a whole, 
 than in any other election of a municipal character that has 
 ever taken place within it. 
 
 It is clear that the Act contemplated the immediate 
 erection by the School Board so elected, of new schools, and 
 the Board were acting directly in the spirit of this measure 
 when they made it their first duty to ascertain — 
 
 1. The number of children in the Metropolis receiving 
 sufficient elementary education. 
 
 2. The number for whom such education was requisite. 
 The difference between these two numbers represented 
 
 the educational requirements of the Metropolis, which they 
 at once set to work with great ardour to meet, 
 
 According to the annexed table, the number of children 
 between the ages of three and thirteen is about 680,000. The 
 ascertainment of the amount of education available for these 
 children was no easy matter : no list of elementary schools 
 was in existence, and the results which were arrived at by 
 the Board at the end of the first four months of its working 
 were largely based upon actual smwey and inspection. The 
 number of efficient elementary schools in the Metropolis, 
 December 31st, 1874, amounted to about 920. These 
 schools provide accommodation for 283,868 children. There 
 were at that time in actual work 206 schools of the Board, 
 with accommodation for 98,625; making the total efficient 
 elementary school accommodation of London, at the beginning 
 of 1875, 382,493. At the end of June, 1875, the Board 
 school accommodation had been increased to 112,901, and 
 the other efficient school accommodation to 285,135. The 
 amount of accommodation to be provided in the schools 
 which remained uncompleted in March, 1875, was 62,895, 
 and after calculating for the lessening of attendance in other 
 
444 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 efficient schools by the opening of these new ones, we may 
 consider the efficient school accommodation of the Metropolis, 
 now existing, or nearly ready, at 450,000 places. As we 
 have already estimated the number of children between three 
 and thirteen at 680,000, there would remain unaccounted for 
 230,000. Of this number it is estimated that about 106,000 
 either belong to the upper and higher middle classes, and 
 receive efficient independent instruction, or are iu the 
 various institutions and district and other pauper schools 
 of the MetropoHs. This would leave 124,000 children 
 whose absence from school must be accounted for, or for 
 whom adequate school accommodation must be provided. 
 Many parents object to children going to school at three 
 years of age, and as the Board cannot compel attendance 
 before the child is five, a large number are absent for this 
 reason. There are many others who are either necessarily 
 at work, or from other reasons cannot attend school. 
 
 The Education Department appears to have elaborated 
 a theory as to the proportion which the required accom- 
 modation for children bears to the number of children 
 actually living. In a population of 1,000 for example, 
 the proportion of children between the ages of three and 
 thirteen is stated to be 23'4 per cent., that is to say, 
 234. From this number thirty-three or one-seventh 
 are deducted as belonging to the upper or middle classes. 
 From the residue of 201 is to be deducted 17-5 per cent, or 
 thirty-five for the various causes of absences. There will 
 then remain 166 children requiring accommodation in ele- 
 mentary schools; that is to say, one-sixth of the whole popu- 
 lation. The figures of the London School Board are very 
 much larger so far as respects the causes of absence ; having 
 in some cases reached as high as 29 per cent. If, how- 
 ever, we accept the figures of the Education Department as 
 correct, it will be seen that the accommodation provided 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : ACCOMMODATION. 445 
 
 is likely before long to approach the requirements of the 
 Metropolis."^ 
 
 The accommodation provided by " efficient " schools will 
 be seen to be more than double that provided by the Board, 
 although in nearly every respect these schools are inferior. 
 The number of what are called " adventure " or " inefficient " 
 schools in the Metropolis was in June 1875 something like 
 2,000, with an attendance of children of 53,623, There 
 can be no doubt that with the perfection of the Board's 
 system will come the extinction of these small and inefficient 
 establishments. It is impossible not to regard the condition 
 of the teachers of these institutions with a considerable 
 amount of sympathy ; but it is quite clear that, after having 
 undertaken the responsibility of metropolitan education, the 
 Board is bound to take care that all children within the 
 limits of its jurisdiction do receive sound instruction.! 
 
 A good deal of argument and discussion has taken 
 place at the Board as to what constitutes an " efficient " 
 school. The question is not by any means settled ; nor can 
 it be regarded as satisfactory until these schools approach 
 much more nearly to the efficiency of the Board schools, and 
 until they undergo stricter examinations, and there is a fuller 
 guarantee for the ability of the teachers. There can be no 
 doubt that the eiSect of the estabHshment throughout the 
 metropolis of large numbers of well-directed schools in 
 
 * We do not, however, accept either the 29 per cent, of the School 
 Board or the 17-5 per cent, of the Education Department as the true 
 proportion of children who ought to be excused from school. Only three 
 per cent, of Swedish children are uninstructed, and in one year Prussia 
 out of 3,000,000 children, it is alleged, that less than 5 per cent, were 
 absent from school. 
 
 f The character of the education given in some of these " inefficient " 
 schools is exceedingly unsatisfactory, and is often actually misleading, 
 inasmuch as the ignorance of the teacher makes the instruction unreliable, 
 and often positively incoi-rect. In one school i-eceutly inspected, for 
 example, all the children upon being asked to spell " upon." spelled it 
 " apone." clearly showing that they had been wrongly taught. 
 
446 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 wliicli instruction is efficiently given is a boon the magni- 
 tude of which no language can measure, and, in addition to 
 the great advantages they confer upon the children they 
 educate, they are of immense value as setting up a high 
 standard of education to the other schools around them. It 
 cannot, however, be expected that schools conducted and 
 supported by private enterprise can fairly enter the lists 
 with those directed by so able and intelligent a body of men 
 as the London School Board, when acting collectively, has 
 proved itself to be. 
 
 As soon as the London School Board had ascertained 
 the requirements of the Metropolis, they set about pur- 
 chasing sites and erecting schools. It seemed desirable 
 to set out what has been done by the Board in a tabu- 
 lated form. From this it will be seen that, up to the 25th 
 of March, 1875, the Board had actually completed 53 
 schools of its own, containing accommodation for 50,360 
 children, at a total cost of £660,701, whilst 80 schools were 
 in course of erection, with accommodation for 62,895 chil- 
 dren, and upon the construction and fittings of which there 
 had been already expended £546,265, Of the total of 133 
 schools, no less than twenty-four, with an accommodation for 
 21,843 children, were within the district of the Tower 
 Hamlets, whilst Chelsea possessed only nine schools, with 
 accommodation for 6,033 children, and Westminster did not 
 possess a single Board school. There can be no question 
 that, for the completeness or incompleteness of the Board 
 school accommodation of any district, the representatives of 
 that district at the School Board are personally responsible. 
 Any one who has followed the discussions at the School 
 Board with respect to the school requirements of any dis- 
 trict will have noticed the endeavours which have been 
 made to exclude the efficient action of Board schools from 
 some of the districts which require them, either on the 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : WORK IN VARIOUS DISTRICTS. 447 
 
 ground of sufficient existing accommodation, available cha- 
 rities, or upon other grounds. This course of procedure has 
 not even the merit of local patriotism to support it, as the 
 School Board rate is charged upon the districts according to 
 rateable value only ; and the pre-eminence of Westminster, 
 without a single Board school, and of Chelsea, with only 
 one school completed at the date of the report, is one that it 
 is high time those districts took to heart. Their educational 
 requirements are ascertained, and are undeniable, and for 
 their absence of adequate accommodation the members of 
 those districts are as responsible as are the members for 
 the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Lambeth, and Hackney for 
 the excellent educational advantages they now possess. 
 Fortunately, it cannot be doubted but that the anomaly will 
 be rectified now that the School Board has cleared oj6F the 
 most pressing part of its work, and can, with full infor- 
 mation, perfect the completeness of its system. The efiect of 
 this may be noticed in the increased number of schools in 
 the course of erection in one of these districts, and in the 
 fact that Westminster is not likely to appear in future 
 schedules as being entirely without Board school accommo- 
 dation. 
 
 The earlier plans of the school buildings were chosen 
 from competing architects, so that the Board had all the 
 advantages of the various ideas of a number of minds. 
 Subsequently, they appointed an architect on their staff, 
 thus reducing the commission on the erections as low as 
 possible. The system has worked well, and to every detail 
 of construction great care has been devoted. They have 
 provided in the most crowded districts of the metropolis nine 
 square feet of flooring for each child,* and, in most cases, 
 have added playgrounds. The estimtited cost in the 
 earlier part of the work was £7 IO5. per head for the 
 
 * This is one more than that required by the Code in Grade Schools. 
 
448 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 buildings, and £3 IO5. per head for the sites. It will be 
 seen from the list of completed schools that the actual result 
 so far, has been somewhat in excess of this, viz., £4 IO5. 
 for land, and £8 for buildings, — the total cost per child, 
 including fittings, being about £13. When we consider the 
 price of land, labour, and materials in London, and the 
 amount of playground which has in some cases been ob- 
 tained, there can be no doubt that the Board deserves great 
 credit for the economy as well as the excellence of its 
 work. 
 
 In addition to the schools which the Board have them- 
 selves erected, they have utilized many temporary buildings 
 in the various districts for school purposes. This practice, 
 which dates from the very commencement of the work of 
 the Board, stiU continues, but with the completion of Board 
 schools the use of hired buildings will necessarily cease. 
 
 A considerable number of the schools now ranked as 
 Board schools, have been transferred to the Board from 
 their original voluntary managers under the provisions of 
 the Education Act. Some of the buildings so transferred 
 will remain permanently attached to the Board. 
 
 There are thus under the control of the Board three 
 classes of school buildings, viz. : new and permanent erec- 
 tions, hired temporary buildings, and transferred schools, 
 some of which are not fitted for permanence. 
 
 In the first year of its existence the School Board 
 adopted certain regulations for the management of their 
 schools and for the guidance of their teachers. They ap- 
 pointed examining inspectors and, in addition to the ordi- 
 nary subjects of education have made the practice of music, 
 drill, and needlework " essential." Classes for some of the 
 teachers have been organized, and amongst the infants the 
 " Kinder- Garten " system has been introduced. 
 
 Every school built or transferred has a Board of 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : STAFF. 449 
 
 Managers, generally selected from people in the neighbour- 
 hood, who assist the Central Board in its regulation and 
 control. Where the schools have been transferred, it has 
 been customary for the original trustees to nominate these 
 managers for acceptance at the Board. 
 
 The staff of the London School Board, according to a 
 return presented to the House of Commons in May 1875, 
 consists of 1,409 persons. Of these 57 were on the Head 
 Office StaflF, 459 Local and Out-door Officers, 869 teachers 
 of day schools, and 24 teachers of evening schools. 
 
 The Head Office Staff consists of the Clerk of the Board 
 with a salary of £1,000 a year ; three Statistical Clerks, 
 with salaries of £415, £140, and £110 respectively; ten 
 clerks in the Finance Department, with salaries ranging 
 from £365 down to £60 ; six clerks in the School Manage- 
 ment Department, with salaries ranging from £300 to 
 £87 10s.; three clerks in the Works' Department ; three 
 in the Bye-laws and Industrial Schools Department ; a 
 Minuting Clerk, with £315 a year ; eight other clerks in 
 the General Office ; a Secretary to the Chairman at £300 ; 
 an Architect at £1,000 a year ; an Assistant Architect and 
 a Sites' Clerk at £300 a year each, and 19 other clerks in 
 the Architect's office. 
 
 The Local and Out-door Officers include an Inspector of 
 Voluntary Schools at £250 ; two Board School Inspectors at 
 £400 ; various instructors, superintendents, and visitors, at 
 salaries ranging from £240 downwards, and 20 Clerks of 
 the Works in connection with the Architect's Department. 
 There are 176 care-takers and cleaners of Board schools. 
 Of the 893 teachers, the majority, or something like 550, 
 are females. Of the male teachers two are paid a salary of 
 £200 a year; 41, £170 ; 21, £150; 13, £130 ; 20, £120 ; 
 and so downwards to £50. Of the female teachers, 64 are 
 paid £100 a year; 61, £90; 19, £85; 65, £80; 44, 
 
450 MUNICIPAL • LONDON. 
 
 £75 ; and so on downwards to £40. In addition to the 
 teachers so paid, there are 1,082 pupil teachers, of whom 
 •362 are male and 720 female. The male pupil teachers 
 are paid in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth 3'ears 
 of their apprenticeship, 6s., 7s., 85., IO5., and 125. per week 
 respectively ; the female pupil teachers, 4s., 6s., 6s., 8s., 
 and 10s. per week. 
 
 There is no feature of the management of London Board 
 schools more satisfactory in itself and more satisfactory in 
 its results than this extensive employment of female 
 teachers ; not merely does it conduce to the efficiency of 
 school work, especially amongst the younger children, but it 
 affords a sphere of useful and well-remunerated labour for a 
 class of people well-qualified to render such service to the 
 community. 
 
 The code of regulations, prepared by the Board, provide 
 that, in addition to the fixed salaries already set out, the 
 teachers shall receive a share in the amount of the Govern- 
 ment grants, which are dependent upon examination. The 
 teachers have thus a direct interest in promoting the efficiency 
 of the work. According to the regulations at present in 
 force, one-half of the Government grant is given to the 
 head teacher in each school, and the remaining half divided 
 amongst the assistant-teachers where more than one. The 
 head teachers also receive payment for special instruction 
 given during six hours weekly to pupil teachers and candi- 
 date pupil teachers. The teachers of infant schools receive 
 a share in the presentation grant. 
 
 The general regulations of the London School Board 
 provide that, in the infant schools, instruction shall be given 
 in the following subjects : — 
 
 " (a) The Bible and the principles of religion and 
 moraHty, in accordance with the terms of the Resolution of 
 the Board passed March 8th, 1871 ; (b) reading, writing, 
 
SCHOOL BOARD " CURKICULUM OF BOARD SCHOOLS. 451 
 
 and arithmetic ; (c) object lessons of a simple character 
 with some such exercise of the hands and eyes as is given in 
 the Kinder-Garten system ; (d) music and drill." 
 
 The regulations for junior and senior schools give a cer- 
 tain discretion with respect to the instruction in certain 
 subjects. This discretion is vested in the managers of the 
 schools, except where controlled by direction of the Board, 
 The essential subjects are : — 
 
 (a) The Bible and the principles of religion and 
 morality, in accordance with the terms of the resolution 
 quoted above. 
 
 (b) Reading, writing, and arithmetic ; English grammar 
 and composition, with mensuration and the principles of 
 book-keeping, in the senior schools. 
 
 (c) Systematized object lessons, embracing in the six 
 school years a course of elementary instruction in physical 
 science, and serving as an introduction to the science exami- 
 nations, which are conducted by the Science and Art 
 Department. 
 
 (d) The history of England. 
 
 (e) Elementary geography. 
 
 (f) Elementary social economy. 
 
 (g) Elementary drawing. 
 (h) Music and drill. 
 
 (i) In girls' schools, plain needlework and cutting out. 
 
 The discretionary subjects are domestic economy, algebra, 
 and geometry. 
 
 The evening schools have the same character of instruc- 
 tion as the senior and day schools ; the sexes are kept 
 separate ; the religious instruction is permissive ; and the 
 formation of science and art classes is encouraged. 
 
 The general regulations of the Board provide that, in 
 infant schools, the sexes should be mixed, but that in senior 
 schools they shall be separate. 
 
452 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The Board have laid down the rule to employ female 
 teachers in the infant and girls' schools ; and in the huilding 
 of schools the plans are generally arranged, if possible, so 
 that they may be of large capacity. The period of school 
 instruction is twenty-five hours a week, extending equally 
 over five days. 
 
 The resolution of the Board, quoted above, relative to 
 religious instruction is in these terms : — " That in the 
 schools provided by the Board the Bible shall be read, and 
 there shall be given such explanations, and such instruction 
 therefrom in the principles of morality and rehgion, as are 
 suited to the capacity of children." But it is provided that 
 in such explanation and instruction no attempt shall be 
 made to attach children to any particular denomination. 
 Application is to be made to the Board where managers, 
 parents, or ratepayers desire to except any school from the 
 operation of this rule. The Board have also made arrange- 
 ments for the permissive ofiering of prayer, or use of hymns, 
 subject to the above regulations. 
 
 With respect to the fees payable, the resolutions of the 
 Board direct that all children in the same infant (junior or 
 senior) school shall pay the same fee. The minimum 
 weekly fee in any school is Id., and the maximum 9d. 
 Half-time children pay half the fees in schools where the 
 weekly payment is 2d. or over. 
 
 The adoption of the Compulsory System by the London 
 School Board was a matter requiring time and much care. 
 Ultimately, a scheme was adopted which included the 
 appointment of ten Divisional Committees, with a super- 
 intendent and visitor for each. The number of such 
 visitors is 191, and the whole metropolis is sub-divided into 
 blocks for the proper inspection of each, for which a dis- 
 trict visitor is responsible. Their duties have been per- 
 formed with various degrees of efficiency, and in some 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : " VISITORS." 453 
 
 instances the choice of the Board seems to have fallen upon 
 men scarcely fitted to perform a duty requiring much tact 
 and forbearance. A great deal also depends upon the 
 amount of assistance or discouragement which visitors may 
 receive from the controlling Divisional Committee. The 
 district visitors are presumed to visit every house within 
 their district, to ascertain the number of children within the 
 limits of age, and what provision is being made for their 
 instruction. They are also expected to ascertain the facts 
 from independent sources, and as the number of children 
 within the required ages can be very accurately estimated, 
 and the number attending school is known, these ofiicers are 
 subjected by the simple logic of statistical tables to a very 
 efficient control. In some districts inhabited by the higher 
 and middle classes, it would seem that the inspectors are 
 not in the habit of making the rigid house to house visita- 
 tion which they do to those inhabited by the lower classes 
 of the population. This abstention is mainly consequent 
 upon the manner in which these classes of the metropolis 
 repel what they deem to be intrusive inquiries into their 
 private affairs. This result is infinitely to be regretted, 
 inasmuch as it destroys the accuracy, the completeness, the 
 reliability, and the uniformity of the work of the Board, 
 and a very little reflection should teach the objectors that in 
 the working out of a great system, the co-operation of all 
 members of society is needful, and that their example would 
 not be without its effect upon those poorer classes who are 
 apt to think the School Board needlessly harsh. 
 
 A singular result of the work of these district visitors 
 has been the enormous increase that has taken place since 
 their appointment in the attendance at voluntary schools. 
 This fact dissipates for the present the apprehension that 
 the action of the Board would prove injurious to such 
 schools, but there can be but little doubt that when the 
 
 2f 
 
454 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Board system is complete, the tendency will be to increase 
 the numbers of tj'pical schools at the expense of those that 
 fall below the standard. 
 
 The number of notices issued by the London School 
 Board, with respect to the attendance of~children at school, 
 during the year ending September 29th, 1874, was 77,985. 
 Of these, 36,288 were notices in the form of a caution, and 
 41,697 were notices requiring the parent to attend and 
 explain the absence of his children. 
 
 In the same year, 6,018 persons were summoned, of 
 whom 4,681 were convicted and sentenced to pay either the 
 costs of the summons only, or with a small fine in addition, 
 rarely exceeding Is. ; 13,010 summonses were withdi-awn, 
 for various reasons, and 27 were dismissed. 
 
 The question of the payment and remission of school 
 fees is controlled by a rule, adopted by the Board in October 
 1872, to the following effect : — " That the Board will con- 
 sider on the merits of each case any application for gratuitous 
 instruction which may be sent up by the Divisional Com- 
 mittees, and approved by the Bye-Laws Committee." The 
 amount, of remissions and payments before the passing of 
 the new Elementary Education Act was smah ; it is now 
 reduced to a minimum, for in the half-year ending March, 
 1875, the fees paid by the Board only amounted to £11 55. 5d. 
 The opinion of the Board, that any extensive system of 
 payment or remission was both unnecessary and demora- 
 lizing, seems to be justified by common sense as weU as by 
 experience. 
 
 The Board have employed a number of officers for the 
 express purpose of dealing with the destitute children of the 
 metropolis. In an address dehvered in April, 1875, the 
 Chairman of the Board claimed for it the great credit of 
 having rescued no less than 3,000 children from destitution, 
 and " put them upon an honest course of life." The lessen- 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : DESTITUTE CHILDREN. 455 
 
 ing of the average of juvenile crime in the metropolis thus 
 produced, has been most remarkable. The children so 
 rescued, have been sent to various industrial schools in the 
 metropolis and in the country. Several of these schools 
 have been enlarged through grants in aid made by the 
 Board. The Board appear also to pay part of the expenses 
 of the child at these schools, and these payments form a not 
 inconsiderable item in the Board's expenditure. In the 
 year ending March, 1875, the sum of £11,620 was paid on 
 account of the maintenance of these children, and the sum 
 of £1,758 was granted for the alteration and enlargement 
 of Brentwood School, in order to provide increased accom- 
 modation for their reception. We venture to say that no 
 trustees of public money deserve better of the public as to 
 any item of expenditure, than do the London School Board 
 for this appropriation. Unless all experience is at fault, 
 the results of such a system will be written in the diminished 
 statistics of crime in the future, as well as in the depopula- 
 tion of the enormous workhouses which stud our metropoKs. 
 The total liabiKty of the London School Board on its 
 Loan Account on March 25th, 1875, was £1,340,442 Is. id. 
 Of this sum £1,198,042 Is. 4d. was due on account of 
 thirteen specific Loans to the Public Works Loan Com- 
 missioners. The sum of £87,400 was due to the Metropo- 
 litan Board of Works, and £55,000 to the Treasurers of 
 the Board, for temporary purposes. The whole of the above 
 sums, with the exception of £40,000 borrowed for the 
 erection of the offices, was expended in the erection of schools. 
 The Habilities of the Board on the same date for unpaid 
 purchase-money upon forty-eight difi'erent pieces of land 
 was £70,464 6s. The liabilities upon forty-nine different 
 contracts for building or altering Schools amounted to 
 £122,293 8s. lie?. There was due by Divisional Committees 
 £734 Is. 5d., making the total liabilities of the Board at 
 
456 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Lady Day, 1875, £1,533,933 17s. 8d. This sum represents 
 an increase of Kabilities in the year of £482,780. 
 
 The money borrowed from the Public Works Loan Com- 
 missioners is only charged 3|- per cent, per annum, and is 
 repayable over a term of fifty years. The Board anticipate 
 that they will be able to pay ofi" the whole of the money 
 they intend to borrow by a rate of one halfpenny in the 
 pound, but we think this will prove to be an under-estimate 
 judging from the amount already borrowed and the amount 
 required to complete the system. It is not improbable that 
 a penny rate may shortly produce £100,000, and this sum 
 will more than suffice for the purpose. It will probably be 
 necessary to raise the amount borrowed to something hke 
 £2,000,000 sterling, and upon this sum the yearly liabihty 
 or interest alone wiU be £70,000, but as both interest and 
 capital may be extended over the term it would seem that a 
 three-farthing rate ought to liquidate the amount in fifty 
 years. 
 
 The income of the,School Board from rates in the year 
 ending March, 1875, was £149,819, being at the rate of 
 about If c?. in the pound on the present rating. When the 
 whole of the School system is at work it is probable that 
 this expenditure wiD be increased by at least £25,000. If 
 we take this as a maximum the expense would be met by If c?, 
 under the new assessment. We may therefore anticipate 
 that a rate of 2\d. in the pound over the whole metropolis 
 ought to defray the current cost, and to repay the loans in- 
 curred in respect of the enforcements of a complete and 
 efficient elementary education for the metropohs. 
 
 Not the least of the advantages which result from the 
 method of action of the London School Board is the fact 
 that, as its precepts are based upon rateable value and not 
 upon school requirements, the richer districts of the metro- 
 polis whose population is to a large extent educated indepen- 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : INCOME. 457 
 
 dently of Board schools, contribute towards the cost of 
 educating the large districts of poor. There is thus established 
 a community of interest in the work of metropolitan educa- 
 tion which will not be without its effect in drawing together 
 the separate and sometimes discordant elements of the 
 capital. 
 
 The income of the London School Board from all 
 sources for the year ending March 25, 1875, was £796,022. 
 Of this total the income on capital account may be set down 
 at £593,925, and on current account at £202,097. 
 
 The income was made up as follows : — 
 
 
 £ 
 
 From Loans 
 
 593,925 
 
 From Rating Authorities . 
 
 149,819 
 
 School Fees 
 
 26,053 
 
 Grants from Committee of Council on 
 
 
 Education ..... 
 
 24,047 
 
 Miscellaneous Income 
 
 2,178 
 
 « 
 
 £796,022 
 
 The total expenditure of the London School Board in 
 the year ending March 25, 1875, was £821,201. Of this 
 the capital expenditure was £581,317, and the current 
 expenditure £239,884. 
 
 This expenditure was appropriated as follows : — 
 
 £ 
 School Buildings Account . . 323,806 
 Purchase of land for Schools, and ex- 
 penses 186,565 
 
 Salaries of Teachers in Schools . . 102,499 
 Furniture and Fittings, with repairs 
 
 of same 45,157 
 
 Carried forward . . . 658,027 
 
458 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Brouglit forward . 
 
 £ 
 658,027 
 
 Interest Account . . . . 
 
 31,947 
 
 On Account of Permanent Offices 
 
 25,789 
 
 Books, Apparatus, and Stationery- 
 
 20,741 
 
 Officers for enforcing compulsory Bye- 
 
 
 laws ..... 
 
 16,360 
 
 Industrial Schools Account 
 
 12,480 
 
 Rent, Rates, Taxes, and Insurance 
 
 11,380 
 
 Printing, Postage, Advertising, anc 
 
 
 Office Charges 
 
 9,895 
 
 Officers of the Staff . 
 
 9,665 
 
 Repayment of Loans 
 
 7,867 
 
 Fuel and Light 
 
 5,990 
 
 Repairs to Buildings 
 
 5,908 
 
 Legal Expenses 
 
 3,107 
 
 Other Expenses 
 
 2,028 
 
 Children's Fees paid by the Board 
 
 17 
 
 £821,201 
 
 The following tables set out in detail various matters 
 connected with the London School Board, its constitution, 
 expenditure, work, attendance of scholars, &c., which are of 
 gi-eat use as data upon which to found useful opinion as to 
 the action of this public body. It is matter of regret and 
 of disadvantage that they have hitherto been so Httle known 
 amongst the pubHc affected by them. 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : COMPLETED SCHOOLS. 
 
 459 
 
 The Expenditure of the Board upon Completed and Uncompleted 
 Schools up to March 25th, 1875, was as follows : — 
 
 COMPLETED 
 
 SCHOOLS. 
 
 -«.■ 
 
 
 
 Accommo- 
 
 Purchase 
 
 
 Furni- 
 
 
 NAME OF SCHOOL. 
 
 dation 
 for 
 
 ol Land 
 and 
 
 Cost of 
 Buildings. 
 
 ture 
 and 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 Children. 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 
 Fittings. 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 CHELSEA. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Harwood Koad, Fulham 
 
 722 
 
 1,749 
 
 6,350 
 
 424 
 
 8,523 
 
 FINSBUBY. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Blundell Street, Isliugton . 
 
 836 
 
 2,9-51 
 
 6,992 
 
 502 
 
 10,445 
 
 Cottenham Road, Holloway 
 
 066 
 
 1.3:30 
 
 7,528 
 
 595 
 
 9.453 
 
 Central Street, St. Luke's . 
 
 841 
 
 4.897 
 
 6.576 
 
 493 
 
 11.966 
 
 Hornsey Eoad .... 
 
 486 
 
 2.159 
 
 2,645 
 
 143 
 
 4,947 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Winchester Street, Pentonville . 
 
 1,212 
 
 12.237 
 
 11,154 
 
 888 
 
 24,279 
 
 York Road, King's Cross . 
 
 1,407 
 
 153 
 
 10,788 
 
 985 
 
 11,926 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GREENWICH. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Creek Road, Deptford 
 
 768 
 
 1.032 
 
 6.182 
 
 420 
 
 7.634 
 
 Grove Road, Brockley Road 
 
 585 
 
 846 
 
 6.077 
 
 389 
 
 7.312 
 
 Hughes' Fields and French's do. 
 
 775 
 
 1.779 
 
 6.545 
 
 428 
 
 8,752 
 
 Powis Street, Woolwich 
 
 665 
 
 2.944 
 
 3,982 
 
 397 
 
 7,328 
 
 HACKNEY. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Claremont Street, Bethnal Green 
 
 819 
 
 4,171 
 
 1,985 
 
 643 
 
 6,799 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Globe Terrace .... 
 
 1,105 
 
 4,138 
 
 8,107 
 
 728 
 
 12,978 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hamond Square, Hoxton . 
 
 1.139 
 
 4.049 
 
 6,408 
 
 649 
 
 11,101 
 
 Lamb Lane, South Hackney 
 
 240 
 
 3.202 
 
 59 
 
 127 
 
 3,388 
 
 Loudon Fields, South Hackney . 
 
 1,122 
 
 1,581 
 
 7,657 
 
 665 
 
 9,903 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Maidstone Street 
 
 1.190 
 
 6.178 
 
 9.079 
 
 802 
 
 15,059 
 
 New Castle Street 
 
 587 
 
 4,190 
 
 5,810 
 
 342 
 
 10,342 
 
 (X'lOO due to Contractors) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Olga Street, Roman Road . 
 
 1.100 
 
 2.112 
 
 0.282 
 
 757 
 
 12.151 
 
 Wilmot Street, Bethnal Green . 
 
 1,700 
 
 2.892 
 
 11,621 
 
 1,120 
 
 15,633 
 
 LAMBETH. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Canterfeurj' Koad, Camberwell . 
 
 959 
 
 1.492 
 
 8.404 
 
 577 
 
 10.473 
 
 Harper Street, New Kent Road . 
 
 1.164 
 
 5.062 
 
 8.052 
 
 738 
 
 13.852 
 
 Johanna Street .... 
 Carried foi-ward 
 
 794 
 
 9,948 
 
 8,247 
 
 514 
 
 1?,709 
 
 21,183 
 
 80,092 
 
 222,437 
 
 18,326 
 
 252.948 
 
460 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Completed Schools — continued. 
 
 
 Accommo- 
 
 Purchase 
 
 
 Furni- 
 
 
 NAME OF SCHOOL. 
 
 dation 
 for 
 
 of Land 
 and 
 
 Cost of 
 Buildings. 
 
 ture 
 and 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 Children. 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 
 Fittings. 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 21,l!-:2 
 
 80,092 
 
 222,437 
 
 13,326 
 
 252,943 
 
 James Street, Camberwell ■ 
 
 690 
 
 2,494 
 
 5,989 
 
 379 
 
 8,862 
 
 Lo<ver Wandsworth Road . 
 
 1,0.55 
 
 2,518 
 
 8,400 
 
 746 
 
 11,664 
 
 New Road, Wandsworth 
 
 1,087 
 
 2,089 
 
 7.130 
 
 664 
 
 9,883 
 
 (£100 due to Contractors) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vanzhall Street .... 
 
 567 
 
 5,945 
 
 6,083 
 
 378 
 
 12,406 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Westmoreland Road . 
 
 1,086 
 
 4,503 
 
 10,001 
 
 652 
 
 15,156 
 
 MARYLEBONE. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oldenham Street 
 
 1,016 
 
 9,468 
 
 7,728' 
 
 660 
 
 17,856 
 
 Bell Street, Edgware Road 
 
 816 
 
 10,282 
 
 6,881 
 
 403 
 
 17,566 
 
 Haverstock Hill .... 
 
 1,059 
 
 5,463 
 
 12,147 
 
 852 
 
 18,462 
 
 (£100 due to Contractors) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hawley Crescent 
 
 758 
 
 8,684 
 
 8,057 
 
 511 
 
 17,252 
 
 Henrj^ Street, Hampstead Road . 
 
 758 
 
 12,521 
 
 7,758 
 
 320 
 
 20,599 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mansfield Place, Kentish Town . 
 
 1.129 
 
 3,105 
 
 10,489 
 
 761 
 
 14,355 
 
 Stephen Street, Lisson Grove 
 
 534 
 
 6,811 
 
 5,306 
 
 317 
 
 12,434 
 
 SOUTHWARK. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hunter Street .... 
 
 1,178 
 
 4,642 
 
 8,877 
 
 870 
 
 14,389 
 
 Jamaica r.evel .... 
 
 1,07M 
 
 2,742 
 
 8.138 
 
 680 
 
 11,560 
 
 Saxon Street, Bermoudsey 
 
 782 
 
 5,519 
 
 8,622 
 
 466 
 
 14,607 
 
 Monnuw Road do. 
 
 1,183 
 
 1,988 
 
 8,715 
 
 929 
 
 11,632 
 
 Orange Street, Borough 
 
 809 
 
 4,229 
 
 6.712 
 
 340 
 
 11,281 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EoUs' Road .... 
 
 1,067 
 
 1,968 
 
 11,642 
 
 609 
 
 14,219 
 
 (£100 due to Contractors) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Russell Street .... 
 
 768 
 
 4,812 
 
 6,722 
 
 459 
 
 11,993 
 
 TOWER HAMLETS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 British Street .... 
 
 933 
 
 1,144 
 
 7,122 
 
 518 
 
 8,784 
 
 Broad Street .... 
 
 1.136 
 
 6,201 
 
 3,593 
 
 657 
 
 10,451 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Essex Street, Stepney 
 
 1,145 
 
 4,958 
 
 7,711 
 
 656 
 
 13,325 
 
 Gloucester Street 
 
 1,051 
 
 6,897 
 
 9,842 
 
 818 
 
 17,557 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 High Street, Shadwell 
 
 758 
 
 5,609 
 
 2,262 
 
 359 
 
 8,230 
 
 (Purchase of site not completed) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jonson Street .... 
 
 1,675 
 
 3,227 
 
 13,253 
 
 1,257 
 
 17,737 
 
 Marv Street, Bromley 
 
 1,011 
 
 1,045 
 
 7.863 
 
 696 
 
 9,604 
 
 Old Castle Street 
 
 1,272 
 
 11,680 
 
 9,258 
 
 849 
 
 21,787 
 
 Richard Street .... 
 
 741 
 
 4,747 
 
 6,136 
 
 421 
 
 11,004 
 
 (Pi^rchase of site not completed) 
 Carried forward 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 48,224 
 
 225,383 
 
 381,962 
 
 30,553 
 
 637,898 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : UNCOMPLETED SCHOOLS. 
 
 461 
 
 Completed Schools — continued. 
 
 NAME OF SCHOOL. 
 
 Brought forward 
 St. Paul's Road . 
 South Grove, Mile End Road 
 
 Accommo- 1 Purchase 
 dation j of Land 
 for and 
 
 Children. Expenses. 
 
 48,224 
 
 1,203 
 
 933 
 
 50,360 
 
 £ 
 225,383 
 2,501 
 2,093 
 
 229,977 
 
 Cost of 
 Bnildings. 
 
 £ 
 381,962 
 9,062 
 
 7,843 
 
 398,867 
 
 Furni- 
 ture 
 and 
 Fittings. 
 
 £ 
 30,553 
 790 
 513 
 
 31.856 
 
 £ 
 
 637,898 
 
 12,355 
 
 10,448 
 
 660.701 
 
 UNCOMPLETED SCHOOLS. 
 
 CHELSEA. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cook's Ground, Chelsea 
 
 619 
 
 2,401 
 
 5,078 
 
 380 
 
 7,859 
 
 Portobello Road 
 
 1,000 
 
 94 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 94 
 
 Queen's Gardens 
 
 250 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 43 
 
 Saunder's Road, Notting Hill 
 
 804 
 
 2,561 
 
 5,483 
 
 475 
 
 8,519 
 
 Victoria Road, Starch Green 
 
 495 
 
 1,085 
 
 64 
 
 — 
 
 1,149 
 
 Waterloo Street, Hammersmith . 
 
 545 
 
 2,269 
 
 46 
 
 — 
 
 2,315 
 
 William Street, Hammersmith . 
 
 482 
 
 40 
 
 2,439 
 
 — 
 
 2,479 
 
 Worniugtou Road 
 
 1,116 
 
 2,996 
 
 7,713 
 
 666 
 
 11,375 
 
 FINSBURY. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Anglers' Gardens, Islington 
 
 1.090 
 
 7,062 
 
 8.918 
 
 596 
 
 16,576 
 
 Bowling Green Lane, Clerken well 
 
 778 
 
 9,181 
 
 5,865 
 
 321 
 
 15,367 
 
 Gifford Street .... 
 
 1,000 
 
 27 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 I-agstaU Street .... 
 
 500 
 
 6,602 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 6,602 
 
 Penton Grove, Pentonville . 
 
 604 
 
 5,129 
 
 4,871 
 
 321 
 
 10,321 
 
 Prince's Street .... 
 
 500 
 
 52 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 52 
 
 Poole's Park .... 
 
 716 
 
 2,586 
 
 788 
 
 — 
 
 3,374 
 
 St. John's Lane, Clerkenwell 
 
 818 
 
 8,128 
 
 4,242 
 
 498 
 
 12,868 
 
 Tower Street and Lumber Street 
 
 779 
 
 14,353 
 
 9,359 
 
 343 
 
 24,055 
 
 GREENWICH. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Burrage Road, Plumstead . 
 
 817 
 
 3,124 
 
 6,817 
 
 401 
 
 10,342 
 
 Catherine Place, Blackheath 
 
 767 
 
 3,519 
 
 4.931 
 
 — 
 
 8,450 
 
 Clifton Road, New Cross . 
 
 1.099 
 
 1,091 
 
 7,569 
 
 463 
 
 9,123 
 
 (Complete but enlarged") 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Creed Place .... 
 
 785 
 
 1,900 
 
 89 
 
 37 
 
 2,116 
 
 Duke Street, Deptford 
 
 783 
 
 1.068 
 
 5.860 
 
 376 
 
 7,304 
 
 Render Street, Hatcham . 
 
 931 
 
 1,530 
 
 5,869 
 
 538 
 
 7.937 
 
 Lewis ham Bridge 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 569 
 17,847 
 
 2,923 
 
 2,907 
 
 211 
 
 6,041 
 
 79,854 
 
 88,908 
 
 5,626 
 
 174,388 
 
462 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDOW. 
 
 Uncompleted Schools — continued. 
 
 
 Accommo- 
 
 Purchase 
 
 
 Furni- 
 
 
 NAME OF SCHOOL. 
 
 dation 
 for 
 
 of Land 
 and 
 
 Cost of 
 Buildings. 
 
 ture 
 and 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 Children. 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 
 Fittings. 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 17,847 
 
 79.854 
 
 88,908 
 
 5.626 
 
 174,388 
 
 Sydenham Hill Road . 
 
 552 
 
 3.588 
 
 — 
 
 237 
 
 3,825 
 
 Upper Earl Street 
 
 787 
 
 697 
 
 6,062 
 
 — 
 
 6,759 
 
 HACKNEY. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Burnet Street, Bethnal Green . 
 
 748 
 
 2,896 
 
 4,197 
 
 — 
 
 7,093 
 
 Bonner Street, Bethnal Green . 
 
 814 
 
 3.985 
 
 84 
 
 2 
 
 4.071 
 
 Chatham Gardens, Hoxton 
 
 813 
 
 3.984 
 
 3,910 
 
 — 
 
 7,894 
 
 Gainsborough Ed., Hackney Wick 
 
 730 
 
 1.363 
 
 2,267 
 
 — 
 
 3,630 
 
 High Street, Stoke Newington . 
 
 745 
 
 4.329 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 4.329 
 
 New North Street, Shoreditch . 
 
 580 
 
 10.475 
 
 4,671 
 
 232 
 
 15.378 
 
 Orchard Street .... 
 
 792 
 
 
 
 1.168 
 
 — 
 
 1,168 
 
 Pritehard's Pioad, Hackney 
 
 581 
 
 3.909 
 
 2,989 
 
 — 
 
 6,898 
 
 Snap Street, Kingsland 
 
 1,079 
 
 4.386 
 
 5.910 
 
 — 
 
 10.296 
 
 Tottenham Road, Kingsland 
 
 726 
 
 3.310 
 
 6.437 
 
 495 
 
 10.242 
 
 Turin Street, Bethnal Green 
 
 1,631 
 
 4,779 
 
 11,826 
 
 1,035 
 
 17,640 
 
 Wolverley Street . ' . 
 
 1,000 
 
 58 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 58 
 
 LAMBETH. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Albany Row, Camberwell . 
 
 785 
 
 1,024 
 
 6,018 
 
 175 
 
 7,217 
 
 Battersea Park .... 
 
 1.285 
 
 2.327 
 
 8,085 
 
 470 
 
 10,882 
 
 (Complete, but enlarged) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bolingbroke Road, Battersea 
 
 792 
 
 743 
 
 6,510 
 
 459 
 
 7,712 
 
 (Complete, but enlarged) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Flint Street. Walworth 
 
 1.072 
 
 2,404 
 
 2,300 
 
 — 
 
 4,704 
 
 Gan-ett Lane .... 
 
 572 
 
 15 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 15 
 
 Gideon Road .... 
 
 750 
 
 1,396 
 
 97 
 
 — 
 
 1,493 
 
 Gipsy Hill Road, Upper Norwood 
 
 493 
 
 813 
 
 3,446 
 
 205 
 
 4,464 
 
 Gloucester Road, Camberwell 
 
 1.013 
 
 3,268 
 
 8,365 
 
 — 
 
 11,633 
 
 Holden Street, Battersea . 
 
 1,104 
 
 13 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 13 
 
 Lower Park Road, Peckham 
 
 552 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 18 
 
 New Park Road .... 
 
 500 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 23 
 
 Penrose Street, "Walworth . 
 
 783 
 
 4,321 
 
 5,709 
 
 — 
 
 10,030 
 
 Sumner Road, Peckham 
 
 913 
 
 2.335 
 
 3,232 
 
 — 
 
 5,567 
 
 Victory Place, Walworth . 
 
 1.036 
 
 4.036 
 
 10.039 
 
 595 
 
 15,270 
 
 Walmit Tree Walk, Lambeth 
 
 779 
 
 7,365 
 
 5.154 
 
 
 
 12,519 
 
 Winstanley Road 
 
 1,127 
 
 2,895 
 
 8,060 
 
 423 
 
 11,378 
 
 (Complete, but enlarged) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Westow Hill, Upper Norwood 
 
 200 
 
 70 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 70 
 
 MARYLEBONE. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Camden Street, St. Panoras 
 
 1.090 
 
 4,138 
 
 10,043 
 
 656 
 
 14,837 
 
 Fitzroy Market .... 
 
 500 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 16 
 
 Great College St., Camden Town 
 Carried forward 
 
 800 
 
 3,397 
 
 6,092 
 
 279 
 
 9,768 
 
 45,571 
 
 168,830 
 
 221,579 
 
 10,889 
 
 401,198 
 
SCHOOL BOARD : UNCOMPLETED SCHOOLS. 
 
 463 
 
 Uncompleted Schools — continued. 
 
 
 Accommo- 
 
 Purchase 
 
 
 Furni- 
 
 
 
 dation 
 
 of Land 
 
 Cost of 
 
 ture 
 
 
 NAME OF SCHOOL. 
 
 for 
 
 and 
 
 Buildings. 
 
 and 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 Children. 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 
 Fittings. 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 45,571 
 
 168.880 
 
 221,579 
 
 10,889 
 
 401,108 
 
 Nightingale St., Portraan Market 
 
 720 
 
 6,465 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 6,465 
 
 SOUTHWAEK. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Albion Street .... 
 
 720 
 
 574 
 
 
 
 
 
 574 
 
 Borough Koad .... 
 
 1,073 
 
 4,019 
 
 7,127 
 
 405 
 
 12,451 
 
 Charles Street .... 
 
 611 
 
 386 
 
 
 
 
 
 386 
 
 Cottage Kow, Bermondsey . 
 
 1.115 
 
 2.101 
 
 7,968 
 
 619 
 
 10,688 
 
 Manor Road .... 
 
 750 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 Marlborough St., Blackfriai-'s Ed. 
 
 1,000 
 
 4,963 
 
 7,310 
 
 113 
 
 12,3n6 
 
 Neckinger Road .... 
 
 b48 
 
 11,417 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 11,417 
 
 Webber Row .... 
 
 500 
 
 1,981 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 19H4 
 
 TOWER HAMLETS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Baker Street .... 
 
 592 
 
 699 
 
 
 
 
 
 699 
 
 Berner Street, Whitechapel 
 
 918 
 
 6,840 
 
 2,827 
 
 216 
 
 9,883 
 
 Brewhouse Lane, VVapping 
 
 39G 
 
 1,575 
 
 4,302 
 
 188 
 
 6,065 
 
 Brunswick Road 
 
 525 
 
 1,693 
 
 1,194 
 
 
 
 2,bS7 
 
 Bucks Row, Whitechapel . 
 
 750 
 
 78 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 78 
 
 Cayley Street, Limehouse . 
 
 767 
 
 8,374 
 
 5,423 
 
 389 
 
 14,185 
 
 Chicksand Street 
 
 750 
 
 39 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 High Street, Bromley 
 
 75(i 
 
 2,819 
 
 1.779 
 
 — 
 
 4,.598 
 
 Lower Chapman St., St. George's- 
 
 1,101 
 
 7,392 
 
 7,191 
 
 605 
 
 15,188 
 
 in-the-East (cotnplete.but being 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 enlarged) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 North Row, Beazly Crescent, 
 
 1,422 
 
 2,905 
 
 9,681 
 
 531 
 
 13,118 
 
 St. George's in the-East 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Northev Street, Limehouse 
 
 576 
 
 5.906 
 
 3,489 
 
 305 
 
 9,700 
 
 Old Ford, Atiey Road 
 
 1,269 
 
 2.168 
 
 7,855 
 
 725 
 
 10,748 
 
 (Complete, but being enlarged) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Orchard House Place 
 
 Total Payments for Complete " 
 and Uncompleted Schools 
 
 . 165 
 
 62,895 
 
 671 
 
 745 
 
 
 1.416 
 
 242,?s09 
 
 288.470 
 
 14,986 
 
 546,265 
 
 113,255 
 
 412.786 
 
 687,338 
 
 46,842 
 
 1,206,967 
 
464 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 CO 
 
 l>.CO-^'Xi-HOOOq-*CO-i(-HOC<lTHrHCCO 
 
 05 
 
 O rH 
 
 CO 
 
 •3 
 
 
 rHt~i0-^OOC3C0OS<l«0C0O0:O(^O 
 
 o 
 
 in rH 
 
 o 
 
 cs 
 
 (M 
 
 t~i-(0SC?C<lrHOaCO-*r-<Ti<t-Cq05aCTi( 1 
 
 CD 
 
 O X 
 
 ■nl 
 
 1 
 
 
 iC eo' o' -' -jT £-' iCi rT od" ?f >c' <:c o' t-" oi" -* eo' ' 
 
 t-^ 
 
 O"o" 
 
 o' 
 
 
 rH Oq rH ^rHCO CO r-lr-IOfl 
 
 >-( 
 
 t-o 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1— 1 
 
 (M 
 
 ■4 
 
 ID 
 
 (M 
 
 -*r-l-K— ICO-*OrH«JOOOD^aOinr-IOi 
 
 i-H 
 
 I-H -^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ■<Hcrio«Dcoco— liXooDOooari— iiMcooo 
 
 X 
 
 CO o 
 
 « 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 -:J<^ OD i£0 00^ m_^ C-\ lO r-i^ t-_^ t)<_ uT M O^ OD « CO_ rH 
 
 CD 
 
 o.o_ 
 
 
 §1 
 
 s 
 
 
 — T >c" e<r i>" s<r TjT co' o' co" o' <m' o' in eo' o' t-" ' 
 
 o" 
 
 co'(m" 
 
 o' 
 
 
 p-l <-H 
 
 
 so CD 
 
 X 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 COCI5^CO(MCOOC<li-l.-IOXCl'H-^(t^O 
 
 o 
 
 lO r-l 
 
 CO 
 
 <Q 
 
 m 
 
 XSqCO-il'— lOOi— it^OCTii— (00«OTO-t(0 
 
 c; 
 
 X -H 
 
 (M 
 
 — 60 1 "h 
 C8 -^ 
 
 
 K_^ r-j^ 05^ 03 «D (?q "il '--', t~„ ^, -^, 1^ ''^.,^_'^_''^„"^. 
 
 eo 
 
 o; o 
 
 CD 
 
 
 ^ rn" '^r ocT t-' (m' o co' o' -^i' rH i-T ©' uq' ^jT -^ o" ' 
 
 >c" 
 
 r-"oq" 
 
 -*" 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 ■N CO 
 
 X 
 
 60 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 tr~?oc5Ti(ooot~r-icoxcioo5aqc<iOefl 
 
 X 
 
 » CD 
 
 o 
 
 eS « 
 
 ■ 
 
 osOoo^t-OcociO-lfOtOOCJOoaDTil 
 
 CO 
 
 CO l^ 
 
 tH 
 
 fc. 6^ 
 
 fe» 
 
 
 CO_^ rH -tH^ O CD^ *:\0_ lO VO !>•__ -^ ■<* rH^ ■* TlJ^ 05 l-_^ 1 
 
 (M 
 
 eo O 
 
 t~ 
 
 (» !5 
 
 O 
 
 
 (m' i-T ecT co' «' (m' o' co' o' ■^' co' oq' rn' «' o' tjT oT ' 
 
 co' 
 
 in" in 
 
 o* 
 
 ■^w 
 
 
 rH iH 
 
 
 (M t- 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-< 
 
 t. 
 
 C5 
 
 >rO-t(C^«Dt:~C!3i>.HCiXXC;C5lCXTf<X 
 
 eo 
 
 O rH 
 
 eo 
 
 Actua 
 Numbe 
 
 in 
 Attend 
 
 ance. 
 
 o 
 
 i.--i<XXi>t-(MO'1<^0JC0O(.^O'-IO 
 
 o 
 
 -* -rjt 
 
 X 
 
 (M 
 
 -* O. CO_ lO_ 9C| CO CD CO CC -*( O t^ CO rH ^ X rH 1 
 
 » ■*' o' rn' ctT ca' t-' <m' 'H o' oq' t-' t-" 05* o' x' x' ' 
 
 o" 
 
 t~ CO 
 
 x' C5 
 
 o 
 x" 
 
 
 cq 
 
 X CO 
 
 oq 
 
 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 CO 
 
 ? !s^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^--0--*<MOCT54<lXOC<00Ot~ir5rHC0C0 
 
 o 
 
 o -* 
 
 'J* 
 
 60 gra 
 
 c; 
 
 OtCCOOOCO-HCOCOCOt-XOXOt-X 
 
 eo 
 
 t~ oq 
 
 Oi 
 
 e<^(^^'*T-l--I-(c^loo^o^cqoo■^^co':^r^^ i 
 
 o 
 
 i-O 
 
 £^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > s ^ 
 
 
 i>'«*cocococ:Oco»oi~xx--HO£-^(M 
 
 CO 
 
 X <M 
 
 o 
 
 ■<«§ 
 
 
 (HrHCO !MTH(MrH-)H -t(rH,-l(MCO 
 
 (M 
 
 C5 t- 
 
 
 1 , 
 
 O 
 
 50.COC;(MOXrH(MX-^t:~"0C0(M(Mt~ 
 
 o 
 
 lO X 
 
 CO 
 
 a a ,-; Si -"■ 
 
 CO 
 
 OCi-^XXX^^(.^002<I<^0CDXrH 
 
 X 
 
 (M O 
 
 c: 
 
 Total 
 School ; 
 commocl 
 tion. 
 6 Boar( 
 e Oth( 
 EfBcien 
 
 f 
 
 X_ Tt(_ t~ sq 1-H ic T^_^ x^ l-_^ (M_ 'il X^ O, (N^ CD i--^ (jq 
 
 t- 
 
 CO X 
 
 "* 
 
 <i 
 
 X' -rif co' co' oo' Os' rn' scf lO* lO" x' »' -*' i— T t-' ^ «£ 1 
 
 -*" 
 
 x'co' 
 
 (m" 
 
 
 <».OOqrHCO^Kl— (MrHTjH.O-^rHi-HSqco' 
 
 C^T 
 
 O X 
 
 X 
 
 
 <a 
 
 ^ <M 
 
 CO 
 
 
 oooooooo 
 
 ■= 
 
 o 
 
 
 •BJ0}I8r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P-tBog 
 
 CO 
 
 -((COrjHCO'ilOCOCSO 
 
 
 
 r-t 
 
 
 rHoqi-(»qcoc«»H(Mi-H 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 JO jgqton^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 I-H 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 i-coxtxoo-*-^->* 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 (M 
 
 Ot-iOrH-((aq05l— lOS 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 iC 
 
 ^^ eo_ eo_^ O^ 0_^ co__ •>*^ t-^ co_^ 
 
 
 
 eo 
 
 
 x' co" o' co' oT *i' o' i-" co' 
 
 
 
 -*" 
 
 ^^coga g 
 
 '^ 
 
 C0t--^1.^05t--^XC0 
 
 
 
 
 ° S o-« 
 
 t- 
 
 O(Mi-HC0C:i-ITj(O'M 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 1- g 01 o ii 
 
 (M 
 
 OCO(MO«DT*Ot-0 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 Numb{ 
 Child 
 betwe 
 Ages 
 Sand 
 
 o. 
 
 COOCO-^*OCO(MX-5t<_ 
 
 3i' C5 oq co' cT -^ x' (m' a? 
 
 
 
 th" 
 
 '"' 
 
 ^XOXrH05'*C5CO 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 eo 
 
 S 1 " 
 
 o 
 
 OS^XOSCOXlOO-^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 005c;ococo;orHco 
 
 
 
 ■S-3 a 
 
 co_^ 
 
 csojooqt-cocoeo-* 
 
 
 
 CD__ 
 
 a o a s 
 1 ^w 
 
 Os" 
 
 T^r oT !>' os' x" «r eo" fh' o' 
 
 
 
 Oj" 
 
 
 co-^eo-^t-oogiOfM 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 0:Orl<XOC0OOO 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 a> 
 
 (MO«Dt~COrH(}qOO 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 00 
 
 •^ CD oj co__ ■>#_ x^ t-_ t-__ eq^ 
 
 
 
 05_ 
 
 
 -f 
 
 !>' co" x' oq" eo" cs" x" rn" co" 
 
 
 
 eo" 
 
 32 
 
 t^ 
 
 OTj<cocDOOOo:-f 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 p.*^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 <M-ri((jqCO«qCO(MeO(M 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 
 eo 
 
 ■fiSl-'31™^!"<I 
 
 -H-HCq-HO^CTse0C0rHOC?-*<--OO'-IO 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 eo 
 
 'lou|gi(i 
 
 
 Tti-HXC005(MX(MXC0r-lcq,-((jqcDe0t- 
 
 CD 
 
 
 <M 
 
 qSBa nx siooqog 
 
 
 sq ^ 1 
 
 
 
 ""1, 
 
 JO jaqraiiM 
 
 
 
 
 
 T— 4 
 
 •pjisoa 
 
 -* 
 
 -)<C0TltOOt-'*O"* 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 JO jaqnraj,! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 * • • • IB ' 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 ^ ■ 1 s 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 H 
 K 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 « fa" 1 ^ 5 1 i ^ -i 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Q 
 
 >. 
 o 
 
 
 
 
THAMES CONSERVANCY : CONSTITUTION OF BOARD. 465 
 
 The educational system of the comitry has received a 
 great impetus by the passing of the Elementary Education 
 Act,'^ but it is still such as no one who loves his country 
 can contemplate with satisfaction. Our highest standard 
 (the sixth) is, Mr. Mundella tells us, below the lowest 
 Saxon, Prussian, or Swiss standard. The City of Chicago 
 alone passed more than half as many children in standards 
 above the sixth as were passed in that standard in the 
 whole of England in 1873, and every one who works against 
 the introduction of effective schools, and in favour of the 
 continuance of ineffective schools, lax in discipline or low in 
 standard, or both, is in fact using his sti'ength and energy to 
 continue the crime and pauperism of the country. Above 
 all districts in England is this applicable to the metropoKs 
 where these evils reach their maximum ; and when every 
 metropoKtan member of the School Board recognises his 
 responsibility in this regard, we shall see nearly the whole 
 of the schools in the metropolis working on one system and 
 from one centre. 
 
 The Thames Conservancy Board. 
 
 The Thames Conservancy Board was constituted by the 
 Act 20 & 21 Vict., c. 147. 
 
 This Act recites the immemorial conservancy by the 
 Corporation of such portion of the river as extends between 
 Staines and Yantlet Creek, and also that a suit had been 
 instituted by the Attorney-General against the Corporation 
 for the purpose of determining the respective rights of Her 
 Majesty and of the Corporation in the soil and shores of the 
 river up to high tide mark. It also recites an agreement 
 
 • In ISti'J the Education Department reported of four-fifths of the 
 scholars about to leave school that either no account or an unsatisfactory 
 one was given by an examination of the most strictly elementary kind I 
 
466 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 between the Commissioner of Woods and Forests and the 
 Corporation for the settling of the said suit. In this agree- 
 ment it is set out that the Corporation claim the right of 
 ownership in the bed of the river, but that they are willing 
 to recognise the title of the Crown to the same, and the 
 claim of the Crown is forthwith conceded, and the City 
 agree to pay £5,000 in satisfaction of the claims of the 
 Crown up to date. The Crown agree to grant to the Cor- 
 poration, as Conservators of the Thames, the soil and shores 
 of the river, on condition that the Corporation render a full 
 account of their receipts and expenditure therein, and that 
 one-third of the net receipts are to go to the Crown, and 
 two-thirds to constitute a fund for the improvement of the 
 navigation. The agreement contained other provisions for 
 the management of the river. It is dated December, 1856, 
 and the conveyance was dated February, 1857. The Act 
 also recites the rights of lastage and ballastage in the Trinity 
 House, and also the necessity for improving the condition of 
 the river. 
 
 By section 2 twelve Conservators are appointed as a body 
 corporate, with perpetual succession, and a Common Seal. 
 These are (by section 3) to consist of the Lord Mayor, two 
 Aldermen, and four members of the Common Council, the 
 Deputy Master of the Trinity House, two members nomi- 
 nated by the Lord High Admiral, one by the Privy Council, 
 and one by the Trinity House. 
 
 The members of the Common Council continue on the 
 Board so long as they are members of the Common Council, 
 so with the Aldermen members. But all the members of 
 the Corporation are subject to re-election every five years. 
 The other members are subject to similar regulations. 
 
 The quorum at the meetings of the Conservators was 
 five, and the Lord Mayor presided by virtue of his office. 
 
 Powers of contracting are controlled as set out in the 
 
THAMES CONSERVANCY : POWERS OF BOARD. 467 
 
 Act, and the various acts of the Board in the Conservancy 
 of the river are provided for. The Conservators have also 
 power to make bye-laws for its regulation (sect. 44), and 
 they are required to report annually to Parliament. 
 
 By section 50 the bed, soil, and shores of the river are 
 vested in the Conservators, and also all the powers of the Queen 
 and of the Corporation. They may grant licenses to embank 
 or to make docks or jetties, upon such terms as they think 
 fit. They may also erect landing-stages and piers, and 
 charge for the use of them. They may also (sect. 78) 
 appoint harbour masters and deputy harbour masters for 
 the control of vessels entering or mooring in the river or 
 taking in or discharging cargo or ballast. The fullest 
 powers of detention and punishment are given to the Con- 
 servators, as also in cases of obstruction and damage. Power 
 is given (section 97) to dredge and scour the river, and to deal 
 with it and its banks in such manner as should be best for 
 the navigation. 
 
 One-third of the proceeds of the working of the Act is 
 payable to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and 
 the remainder is applicable for the purposes of the Act. The 
 sanction of the Admiralty must be given to works executed 
 by the Conservators that affect the soil and banks of the 
 river. The Conservators have also power (section 109) to 
 require the Corporation of Trinity House to remove shoals 
 in the river. 
 
 By section 120, the Corporation have power to raise a 
 sum not exceeding £100,000, for the purposes of the Act, 
 and for such purposes to mortgage their fines, rents, and 
 toUs. A sinking fund is to be provided (section 134) for 
 the payment ofi" of the money borrowed. 
 
 The Act was amended in 1864 by 27 & 28 Yict., c. 113. 
 This statute provides for the election of six more Conser- 
 vators, making the total number eighteen. These are to be 
 
468 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 elected as follows, viz., — two by registered ship-owners ; two 
 by owners of lighters and steam-tugs employed on the river ; 
 one by the owners of river-steamers ; and one by dock- 
 ovmers and wharfingers. The method of their election and 
 re-election are duly set out in the Act Power is also 
 given (section 40) to divide a sum not exceeding £1,200 in 
 any one year, by way of remuneration amongst the Conser- 
 vators, subject to the approval of the Treasury. 
 
 The rights of the Trinity House to ballastage are put an 
 end to, and the supply of ballast in the Thames is declared 
 free. The Act provides for certain amendments of the 
 Watermen's Company's Act, and it also consolidates and 
 extends the jurisdiction of the Conservators. 
 
 The Thames Conservators were duly appointed and 
 commenced work, holding their first meeting on the 7th of 
 October, 1857. They appointed an engineer and secretary; 
 and the Corporation of London, in pursuance of the Act, 
 transferred to the Conservators the land and property which 
 they possessed, and which was applicable for the main- 
 tenance and improvement of the river Thames and the port 
 of London. The Conservators purchased a freehold house 
 in Trinity Square, Tower Hill, for the purpose of holding 
 their meetings and transacting their business. This building 
 cost £3,000, and contains adequate accommodation for the 
 various officers of the Board. 
 
 The Conservators at once commenced an efiective control 
 over the river from Staines to Yantlet Creek, and recon- 
 structed Teddington Lock at a cost of £13,265. They 
 purchased a steam- vessel for the service of the Conservancy, 
 executed a number of repairs to locks and weirs ; and, in the 
 first year, dredged more than 70,000 cubic yards of material 
 from the bed of the river. They also raised, or caused to be 
 raised in the same period, twelve wrecks sunk in the river, 
 and constructed two landing-places for the convenience of the 
 
THAMES conservancy: UPPER NAVIGATION. 469 
 
 public, and made regulations for the preservation of the 
 fishery. 
 
 In 1860, the Conservators constructed two steamboat 
 piers at Wapping and Lambeth respectively. In 1861, 
 Cherry Garden Pier was erected and Greenhithe Pier 
 purchased. In 1862, All Hallows Pier was erected, and a 
 steamboat landing placed at Mill Wall. In this year 55 
 vessels sunk in the river were raised and removed ; in 1863, 
 no less than 80 wrecks were similarly dealt with ; and in 
 1864, 84 vessels. In this year the Conservators applied to 
 the Court of Chancery for an injunction against the Corpora- 
 tion of Kingston-on-Thames to restrain them from draining 
 into the river. 
 
 By the Thames Navigation Act, 29 & 30 Vict., c. 89, 
 the Conservancy of the Thames and Isis, from Staines to 
 Cricklade, was vested in Conservators, of whom the Con- 
 servators of the Lower Navigation formed the majority, 
 The control of this part of the river prior to 1866, was in 
 the hands of Conservators appointed under an Act passed 
 in 1795. These consisted of Members of Parliament. 
 Heads of Colleges, Incumbents, Aldermen of London, and 
 so forth, " an ill-constituted body," as the preamble to the 
 Act justly styles them. 
 
 The Act provides for the appointment of five new Con- 
 servators to be added to and incorporated with the Conser- 
 vators of the Lower Navigation. Of these one is to be 
 elected by the Board of Trade, and the otber four by the 
 persons who are quaHfied to be Commissioners under the old 
 Act. The new Act makes full provision for such election, 
 and for the discontinuance of the work and transfer of the 
 plant of the old Commissioners. It also provides for the 
 freeing of the river from toUs levied by owners of weirs, and 
 for the purchase of all exclusive rights, including rights of 
 fishing, and for the clearing of the water from sewage and 
 
 2o 
 
470 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 pollution. The Water Companies taking water from the 
 river agree to pay £1,000 each. The Conservators have a 
 further borrowing power in respect of the Upper Navigation 
 to the extent of £130,000, and the mortgage debt of 
 £88,400 contracted by the old Commissioners is postponed. 
 
 Upon the election of the new Conservators, the whole 
 Board took measures to survey this part of the river, with a 
 view to putting it into proper navigable condition. They 
 also obtained in this year seventy-seven convictions against 
 persons defiling the river by mud or by the refuse of gas and 
 chemical works, and they caused notices to be served on the 
 authorities of Oxford, Abingdon, Waliingford, Reading, 
 Henley, Mario w, Cookham, Windsor, and Eton, requiring 
 them to discontinue the flow or passage of sewage or other 
 offensive matter into the river ; under the 7th and 8th 
 sections of the above Act four additional Conservators were 
 elected at Oxford in December, 1866. 
 
 The report of the Conservators for the year 1867, con- 
 tains an account of the work done throughout the whole 
 length of river now under their control. The extent of the 
 dredging operations had been gradually increasing, and 
 twenty-two distinct parts of the river bed were improved in 
 this method during that year. More than forty mooring 
 stations were repaired, four new moorings were constructed, 
 four large lighters for use in the raising of wrecks and the 
 conveyance of dredged material were purchased, ten locks 
 were repaired, eighteen new lock-gates supplied, twenty- 
 three rebuilt, and a new lock constructed at Bell Weir, at ? 
 cost of £4,700. Twenty- six weirs were repaired, and notict 
 was given to all paper makers near the river to cease dis- 
 charging offensive matter into it. 
 
 The same excellent class of work was carried on in the 
 following years, and, in 1870, Parliament granted additional 
 powers to the Conservators, enabling them to raise sunken 
 
THAMES CONSERVANCY : EXPENDITURE. 471 
 
 vessels without formal notices, and otherwise extending their 
 powers. Teddington Lock was rebuilt in 187.1 at a cost of 
 £8000, and, so far as their funds have permitted, the Con- 
 servators have put the upper navigation into good order. But 
 the funds available for this purpose seem to fall far short of 
 what are required. The lower navigation, on the other 
 hand, is kept in a complete and satisfactory condition. 
 
 The accounts of the Board of Conservators are kept in 
 two parts, one including the upper navigation accounts, 
 being those affecting the part of the river between Staines 
 and Cricklade, the control of which was assumed in 1867, 
 and the other the part between Staines and Yantlet Creek. 
 Constant complaint is made by the Conservators as to the 
 deposit of sewage matter at the Crossness and Barking 
 Outfalls. The shoal of such deposit seems to be yearly 
 extending, and the question is likely soon to assume grave 
 importance. 
 
 In the annexed tables we have set out the income and 
 expenditure of the Board since its formation. The items of 
 expenditure are mainly made up of works of construction, 
 scavenging, di'edging, and so forth, and as far as the 
 accounts and reports of this body can be accepted as indicia, 
 we should say it was one of the most useful and well 
 managed organizations that take part in the government of 
 the metropohs, or of any place within its hmits. The Con- 
 servators meet for business two or three times every week. 
 
 It will be noticed that the accounts of the upper navi- 
 gation are as unsatisfactory as those of the lower navigation 
 are satisfactory. Of the total income more than £30,000 
 was received in loans from the Public Works Loans Com- 
 missioners from the Thames Conservancy Fund, and in 
 contributions by the Department of Woods and Forests to 
 the repair of certain locks and weirs. There was a deficit 
 at the close of 1874 of more than £14,000, and there does 
 
472 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 not seem to be much probability of the income of this part 
 of the river, at any early period, overtaking its expenditure, 
 nor is it easy to see how the loans can be repaid. Parlia- 
 ment has imposed certain onerous and useful duties on a 
 body of proved executive ability, but it has failed to supply 
 it with requisite funds. Is there any reason why the dis- 
 tricts benefited by a clean navigable river should not 
 provide this ? 
 
 Independently of the £88,400 and interest provided for 
 in the Thames Navigation Act, the loan liabilities of the 
 Conservators in 1858 were £130,900. This sum was 
 secured upon the tolls of the navigation west of London 
 Bridge, and carried interest at the rate of 3J per cent, per 
 cent, per annum. There was outstanding on this account in 
 December, 1874, £105,600; but as there was also a credit 
 of £41,000, 3 Per Cent. Reduced, the loan liability must be 
 lessened by that amount. The total loan liability of the 
 Board on both upper and lower navigation, unrepresented by 
 available assets, may be set down at £100,000. 
 
 Taken as a whole, the work of the Thames Conservancy 
 Board seems to deserve commendation at the hands of the 
 public. It cannot be anticipated that their utmost efforts 
 would ever be successful in making the water of a river 
 which drains so vast an area fit for dietetic purposes ; but, 
 until the day when a supreme council shall have decided 
 upon new and pure sources of water supply, Londoners will 
 owe them a debt for such approach to purity as may be 
 found in it. 
 
THAMES conservancy: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. 473 
 
 o 
 
 xn 
 
 C 
 o 
 
 rjl 
 
 < 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 I— I 
 
 o 
 
 COOtCCO — OCOO 
 O 05 O^ TO <M_^ to I—*. "^_ 
 t-' (TT o' -f W* CO o' X* 
 
 I I 
 
 CS I- >ft w t-H '." M O 
 Ci O (M l- X — < O X 
 O r^ '■': C5 — O; -O 'M 
 
 oooooooo o 
 
 ocoooooo o 
 
 O O^ CD o_ o_ o o o, I o_ 
 
 o lo o o' cT tt o '-£ I -t* 
 
 sl h I I I I I I I 
 
 (M -^ t- -O I- C^ fM ifX 
 
 -M ;r c-l — r: tc X o 
 
 'f cc -*' ■^' -/ ^' rs -jT 
 
 « 2 
 - a 
 
 
 7tr^OI-~C:Xi~^^~CC'-<Oi-Ot-X 
 
 SJ O X rH -(( -O, » C_ tt O^ -H C: C (-- -I, -)<. ri X^ 
 
 t^" — ' T-T oq' -?<' (~' (m" x' .— I c^ O — -► '-H O t~ f ~ 
 
 l2l30Cq-Sxci-^rHC:r^^-M=5XC:0 
 
 id X c<i X >o (M o (^ (M ^ ^ t- -*; 03^ c~ 0_ en o^^ 
 ' -4^ to « -4 ■»* CO 10 Tt<" -f' -* ■*" -x' -^ -* o ^ -f 
 
 
 Oi!io-i<ox^o^(MOOot~t-c:j2 
 
 il) O c 1* -i< O I- Ol — O; C-l t-_^ c:^ t-^ X^ O "-H t-_^ 
 
 ■ O' O 5Q X -H 3:' O -^' O (M' x' O o' --IT "O iN O 
 
 ccco^coo-noooo-*oo>r5iooo 
 
 0000 i-o 000000 
 
 10 c:^ '_j ^^ '^j N^ '— '■ — ' *— ' — ^ ^-^ ^ ^ ^5 S 
 ii a 1 ■" I c^ t^ o u-t O (M o o o o o o o o o o 
 
 ■SSbs Im-^ |to-ft--*iMc~ocoio-t<— i-i- t-:^, -^. 
 
 "5 5 c S 
 
 55-^=5^:^ — '^^t-xc::=!^^xxooxc- 
 o'corsq'co'co'o" o'tt'o O ^ O (M X X o 
 
 05 
 
 O C: CC X • 
 
 «4J 
 
 Sc^ooixr-.. t-05t~coo20;;3(00 
 rH o 1—i o -f CO TO », cc_^oq,'~L®^-n-^. - 
 
 C^Toi' CO' CO' lO' lo' 10' o' o' ffl O » 50 CO c- 
 
 ^1 o - ^' - X o ^ >ft -^ !■- -^. -. -y>. == =1 I <=". 
 
 S S § S £0 -^ to ^ o -^ -^ o (~ 5r ^ 5 g 
 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 
474 municipal london. 
 
 The Lee Conservancy Board. 
 
 The Lee Conservancy Board was establislied for the 
 purpose of superintending the purification of the river Lee, 
 from which, as we have seen, both the New River Company 
 and the East London Water Works Company receive large 
 supplies, and also for the purpose of improving the bed and 
 banks of the stream, repairing the locks and weirs, and 
 adapting the river to the purposes of navigation. The con- 
 stituting Act of the Board was passed in 1868.* This 
 statute was by no means the first legislative effort which had 
 been made to improve this stream. No less than five 
 different Acts of Parliament known as the " Lee Navigation 
 Improvement Acts " were in force prior to the passing of 
 this measure, and a body of Trustees appointed in accordance 
 with their provisions exercised certain functions over the 
 river. But, as in the case of the Trustees of the Upper 
 Thames Navigation, the control of this independent body 
 does not seem to have been productive of much good. 
 
 The Conservators appointed by the Act of 1868 are 
 thirteen in number, and they are duly incorporated with 
 perpetual succession and a Common Seal, and with power to 
 acquire lands for the purposes of the Act. Five of the 
 Conservators at the first Board were appointed by the late 
 Trustees, and after they had held of&ce two years, the 
 appointment of their successors vested in the riparian land- 
 owners, acting in conjunction with such Trustees. Of the 
 remaining eight Conservators two were to be nominated by 
 the New River Company, two by the East London Water 
 Works Company, one by the Corporation of London, one by 
 the Metropolitan Board of Works, one by the Barge Owners 
 on the river, and one by the Head Officers of the various 
 " Local Authorities " on the banks of the river, which at 
 
 * 31 & 32 Vict. c. 154. (A private Act.) 
 
LEE CONSEKVANCY : JtTRISDICTlON. 475 
 
 the time of the passing of the Act included those of Luton, 
 Bishop Stortford, Ware, Cheshunt, Waltham, Holy Cross, 
 Tottenham, West Ham, Enfield, and Edmonton. The con- 
 stitution of the various electoral bodies, the compilation and 
 publication of the list of electors, and other matters con- 
 nected with the appointment of the Conservators, are duly 
 provided for in the Act. The tenure of the office appears to 
 be limited in all cases to two years, but the members are 
 eligible for re-election. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Conservators is commensurate 
 with the object of their appointment in the purification of 
 the water supply. It extends over the whole of the river 
 Lee from its source in the county of Bedford, to the 
 boundary stones 200 feet below Barking Bridge, where the 
 jurisdiction of the Thames Conservators begins. It also 
 includes the whole of the tributaries of the river; power 
 being given (section 26) to acquire the rights of navigation m 
 the Stort, and to purchase if necessary all the various ripa- 
 rian rights detrimental to the purity of the water. The 
 money for such purposes may be borrowed from the Pubhc 
 Works Loan Commissioners. 
 
 All the works and powers and plant of the old Lee 
 Trustees are transferred to the Board. Sections P9 to 100 
 contain ample provisions and powers for the purification and 
 cleansing of the river by the Board of Conservators ; m de- 
 fault certain alternative powers are given to the Water Com- 
 panies. The drainage of Luton is only admissible after it 
 has passed through such process of purification as shall be 
 from time to time required by the Secretary of State ; and 
 Hertford, Tottenham, West Ham, and other adjommg towns 
 are put under equally stringent regulations. The Board 
 have power to make bye-laws for the regulation of the 
 traffic, for the control of bridges, piers, foot-paths, cranes, 
 bathing, fishing, pleasure-boats, &c., and for the prevention 
 
476 
 
 MITNTCTP/VL LONDON 
 
 of all manner of river poUution. These bye-laws are subject 
 to the sanction of the Privy Council. 
 
 The rights of the former Lee Trustees to levj' certain 
 tolls are, by section 129, transferred to the Conservancy 
 Board, in addition to which the Board are by the Act 
 authorized to levy a toll of Is. for every pleasure-boat, and 
 3s. for every barge, going through any lock upon the river, 
 even where such vessels are exempt under previous schedules. 
 Provision is made for the payment of a certain yearly sum 
 by the East London Waterworks Company and the New 
 River Company. This sum is to be sufficient for certain 
 special purposes, with the maximum limit of £1,500 in one 
 year. The amount is payable by the two Companies, in 
 the proportion of two-thirds by the East London and one- 
 third by the New River. 
 
 The Act makes no provision analogous to that in the 
 Thames Conservancy Act, for the preparation and presenta- 
 tion to Parliament of any report of the proceedings of the 
 income or expenditure of the Board. The facts with respect 
 to these matters can only be ascertained by appHcation at 
 the offices of the Board 
 
 An Act of Parliament was passed in the year 1874 to 
 amend the powers of the Lee Conservancy Board, for the 
 purchase of the Stort navigation (which, it appears, had not 
 been agreed upon), and for other purposes. The Act also 
 provides for the compulsory purchase of land by the Board, 
 where it shall be deemed necessary, for making cuts and 
 otherwise improving the navigation. 
 
 The Act provides that the term of office of the Con- 
 servators shall be four years instead of two, as provided 
 by the Act of 1868. Provision is also made for certain 
 of the members voting by proxy. 
 
 The traffic on the River Lee has always been consider- 
 able. As far back as 1847, the yearly tonnage was 313,304, 
 
LEE CONSERVANCY : INCOME. 477 
 
 in respect of whicti tolls were paid to the amount of 
 £8,455. In 1870 the tonnage was 616,595, and the tolls 
 £14,647. The income of the Board for the year ending 1875 
 was £19,681. This was derived exclusively from toUs, 
 water-rents, sale of ballast, and so forth. The expenditure 
 was £19,593, made up as follows : — Interest, £7,864 ; works 
 in connection with the river, £5,367 ; salaries, wages, and 
 pensions, £2,909 ; office and general expenses, £1,245 ; law, 
 £488 ; parliamentary, £671. 
 
 The capital income of the Board during the same period 
 was £11,605, of which £10,105 was derived from the 
 issuing of debentures. The capital expenditure was £5,695, 
 of which £5,350 was expended in paying off debentures, and 
 £345 in the purchase of property. 
 
 A separate account is kept with respect to the control 
 exercised by the Board over the purity of the river, and the 
 receipts upon this account are made up by contributions of 
 the Water Companies, as provided by the Act of 1868. 
 Thus, in the year under consideration, the New River 
 Company contributed £283, and the East London Company 
 £567. The expenditure is about the same in amount, and 
 is mainly composed of salaries. The total expenditure on 
 this account, during the last 6 years, as been £4,566. The 
 Board value their stores and plant at £5,469. 
 
 The income and expenditure of the Board seem to have 
 varied remarkably little. Its total income during the last 
 six years has been £117,595, and its expenditure £115,451, 
 in addition to which £3,500 has been paid off the capital 
 account. The main items of expenditure have also varied 
 very slightly. The expenditure on " works " is necessarily 
 somewhat less, as the condition of the river becomes im- 
 proved, and all the other items are somewhat less than they 
 were six years ago. 
 
 The capital receipts during the six years have been 
 
478 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 mainly made up of receipts from the issue of new Deben- 
 tures, and the capital expenditure from the pajing off of 
 old ones, the new ones being issued at a less rate of in- 
 terest. The sum of £10,433 has also been received from 
 sales of property, and £2,520 expended in its purchase. 
 
 The total debt amounted in 1875 to £176,756, of which 
 £34,300 was borrowed at 5 per cent, £135,856, at 4|- per 
 cent, £6,000 at 4 per cent, and £600 at 4|- per cent. In 
 1871, the total debt was £179,821, of which £110,369 was 
 borrowed at 5 per cent., and £69,452 at 4^ per cent. The 
 change made by the Board wiU thus be seen to be very 
 beneficial, and their powers of borrowing are better than 
 those of the old trustees. The navigation does little more 
 than pay its cost, so the chance of liquidating this debt 
 seems very remote. For that we should imagine that the 
 present Conservators are not responsible. The traffic upon 
 the river does not appear to have much tendency to increase, 
 but it is impossible to predicate how far it may do so in 
 future. The expenses of the Board seem to be kept down, 
 and even the establishment expenses show a reduction. 
 There appears but little doubt that the Act of 1868 has 
 worked well, and the benefit conferred upon the river has 
 been very great. The banks, locks, and weirs are now in 
 good order, the fishery and bathing are put under due regu- 
 tion, and in the higher parts of the river, bailiffs are em- 
 ployed to preserve it from pollution. A benefit is thus 
 conferred upon the population that drink it, which is pro- 
 bably the greatest of those that result from the action of 
 this Board. 
 
479 
 
 Chapter XI. 
 VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 
 
 Poor Relief. 
 
 Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867. — Sich Asijlums.— Infirm- 
 aries. — District Schools. — Metropolitan Common 
 Poor Fund. — Metropolitan Asylums' Board. — 
 Registration Districts. — Statistics of Pauperism. 
 — Poor Rate Receipts and Expenditure. — County 
 Expenditure charged on Poor Rate. 
 
 The Tower of London. 
 
 Burial Boards. 
 
 Parliamentary Boroughs. 
 
 London Charities. 
 
 " The Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act, 1864,"* and 
 "The Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act, 1865"t), appear 
 to have constituted the ^st effort made to combine the 
 whole Metropolis for any purpose of poor relief J The 
 administration of the Poor Law, previously to this time, 
 was conducted by the various metropolitan parishes on the 
 same principles as those which obtained in the rest of the 
 country, and subject in the same way to the Poor Law 
 Board, but without any interdependent relations with each 
 other. Since 1864 London has been the subject of certain 
 
 * 27 & 28 Vict., c. 116. t 28 Vict., c. 3J=. 
 
 % These Acts provided for the cost of a certain class of Poor Relief 
 being chargeable upon the whole Metropolis. The expenditure of the 
 Guardians on the casual poor was to be recouped by the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works. This provision was repealed by the 30 Vict., c. 6, sec. 
 60, establishing the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. 
 
480 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 special Poor Law legislation, both statutory and by Orders of 
 the Local Government Board — the body which has now 
 succeeded to the functions and powers of the Poor Law 
 Board. Subject, however, to such special legislation (which 
 we shall hereafter consider), the Metropolis remains, so far 
 as this branch of public work is concerned, on the same 
 level as the rest of the country, and no attempt has yet been 
 made to establish any representative central Metropolitan 
 Poor Law authority which should have power to weld the 
 various systems and centres of metropoKtan poor relief into 
 one harmonious and united whole. 
 
 It is no part of our present intention to discuss the his- 
 tory of the Poor Law, nor do we intend to investigate very 
 closely the method in which metropolitan relief is ad- 
 ministered. We shaU content ourselves with a sketch, 
 mainly statistical, of the present condition of London in 
 respect to its poor. This will be of use when we come to 
 deal with a new system, and for the present we may safely 
 leave the criticism of London Guardians to the authorities 
 of the Local Government Board. As for the details of poor 
 relief generally, inasmuch as they coincide with those of 
 general adoption throughout the country, they would be out 
 of place in a volume devoted to purposes peculiarly metro- 
 politan. 
 
 The second attempt to deal with the Metropolis as a 
 whole for any Poor Law purpose was by the passing of "The 
 Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867."^ The operation of this 
 measure is confined to unions and parishes which are wholly 
 or chiefly included in the Metropolis Management Act 
 District. The subjects dealt with in the Act are District 
 Asylums ; Medical Out- door Relief; District and separate 
 Schools ; Workhouses for classes of Poor ; Lands ; Con- 
 tributions of Unions and Parishes ; Houseless Poor ; Metro- 
 * 30 Vict., c. 6. 
 
POOR relief: boards of guardians. 481 
 
 politan Common Poor Fund ; Poor Relief under local Acts; 
 Boards of Guardians ; Officers ; Borrowing Powers. 
 
 The Act provides, in section 73, that the relief of the 
 poor of every union or parish in the Metropolis, governed by 
 a local Act, shaD, from and after a given date, be administered 
 by a Board of Guardians elected by the Poor Law Acts, and in 
 conformity with an Order of the Poor Law Board. The 
 Guardians so elected have the same powers and authorities, 
 and are subject to the same orders, regulations, and restric- 
 tions as other Guardians elected under the Poor Law Acts. 
 Provision is made for the transfer of the workhouses, goods, 
 and other property in the possession of unions or parishes at 
 the time of the passing of this Act, and held by them for 
 the relief of the poor, to the Guardians constituted under 
 the Act, such new Guardians to assume the debts and 
 liabilities of their predecessors. 
 
 But it is provided by section 77 that nothing in the Act 
 shall deprive any body constituted under a local Act of any 
 power thereby vested in them of making and levjing poor 
 rates, and that, in relation to the Guardians constituted 
 under the Act, every such body should be deemed Overseers 
 so far as liability to the pajnnent of contributions to the 
 Guardians for poor relief was concerned. 
 
 These saving clauses are productive of much disunity 
 in the method of levying rates within the Metropolitan 
 District, and as to the rating authority ; and there are to be 
 found in various parts of the Metropolis "Boards of Dii'ec- 
 tors," " Governors," or bodies of " Trustees," exercising 
 powers which clearly ought to be under the control of a well 
 defined and responsible authority. 
 
482 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 i °-c 
 
 r-l O? r-t r-< CO OJ 
 
 -J rH r-H ,-1 C^ 
 
 O? « c^ C« 
 
 -- r.^ C5 r- Tjl ^ CO 
 
 ■ri(OrHCDi-(eO'*-<f 
 
 35 
 
 
 £ "s 
 
 
 
 r-l 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 04 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JJ- 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 -\ 
 
 
 •m 
 
 • 
 
 ►So 
 
 cr i-H X ® 
 
 r-l t> r-l C5 » 
 
 ?5 « 1 
 
 CO CO >Cl C« iH CO — 
 
 rH « 1- « IC C« CO >0 
 
 ic 
 
 
 
 
 se 
 
 •H i-l 
 
 rjt i-( 
 
 r-l 1 
 
 
 a ci i-t 
 
 c 
 
 
 1- _rt 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '•'• 
 
 « '■ 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 ^3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «i 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 X t- X ^ 00 
 
 X — ' X X 
 
 X 0?0 <N 
 
 X -+I t^ X »o X 10 
 
 co-tiocoxomo 
 
 0? 
 
 
 
 
 i-t rH r-l 0{ C< ,-1 
 
 r-i rH r-( r-i C« 
 
 i-< CO CO r; 
 
 -' C« « rH -^ rH — 
 
 CiCiOiCir-IOli-tOl 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 coj 
 
 
 
 cS^ 
 
 ~ 0( -* — ' t~ 0* a2 
 
 rijffq-w-W-iiej 
 
 HnwHi -**-«< 
 
 mW. -he- l<c.-s.3'rtiN-+r 
 
 KJ^ro^HtNHC^ r+JlHlN 
 
 
 
 •-■"•5 
 
 -r)i '^ ca 
 
 CO Tjl rt rjl 
 
 05 rl X ■* CO 
 
 rHXXOOOCirH 
 
 l> 
 
 
 o=rta 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 rH 
 
 1—1 —1 
 
 T-t y-t 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^^^^„ 
 
 
 r-l i-H rH ^ 
 
 r-H rH T-H « <N r-l O? 
 
 ^ r-< r^ 7-1 ^ C<i r-{ CO 
 
 rH 
 
 
 <s 
 
 o 
 
 "St)! 
 
 05 ^ 1-1 X ;= c- 
 
 ^ to lO c; CO 
 
 c; CO X 
 
 C* rH X O? C^ « 
 
 o-^xt^xocoo-* 
 
 
 
 
 c<? -f CO c- 
 
 CO t-. -1( t It 
 
 "* CO ro CO 
 
 t- CO « -t( CO 
 
 OOJ-fOC-.t-rHC* 
 
 CO 
 
 
 r-H _ -" l.~ 
 
 X •-- c- X 
 
 r-l r- CO X 
 
 W r- i:~ r.^ L-~ t^ 
 
 CDi#C05C0COO 
 
 3: 
 
 
 
 "^ 1—1 X 0" — --T 
 
 t^ CO >o 
 
 £- X -(1 X 
 
 00 CO co' = t' ^ 
 
 CO-ttt-OXCOOX 
 
 -t 
 
 
 •SS 
 
 cc -H (^ -* C5 eo 
 
 X X cr. -i< CO 
 
 C OCO — 1 
 
 tH X r- ^^ CO t- t- 
 
 CO 1- C C? I< C? 
 
 •-t 
 
 
 1-9 
 
 CO a: CO X to 
 
 r-l OJ -- C CD 
 
 CO t- CO 
 
 tH ej CO ;i; oj c* -* 
 
 I- CO 05 l^ Tjl Tj( « 
 
 c— 
 
 
 ,-j rt 
 
 1— 1 rH T-H 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C5 
 
 
 
 tJ( X O? X l^ 
 
 CT CO (~ »0 1— 1 
 
 ■r*l t~ t- CO 
 
 — ' -T* -H X X « 
 
 eOrHOt^lOt-l^CO 
 
 
 
 
 5o 
 
 o* >o ci 
 
 CO X X CO 
 
 CO « CO X 
 
 -* CO CO 05 
 
 ocof-OrHC5o:io 
 
 
 
 
 itjO =c a o> ^ 
 
 C- -H w t- 
 
 CO OJ X X 
 
 — -* -H =: CO' CO 
 
 COCOt:1<OCO — t~>0 
 
 rt" 
 
 
 CO i-H -H X X 
 
 1-H •-' 
 
 CO c^ 
 
 CO X CO CO 1— rH t~ 
 
 »0«COXCDC?-M0 
 
 CO 
 
 
 «D « OJ i-H -* 
 
 X — I-H t- 
 
 0? CO C- X 
 
 CO C« « 0< CO Oi 
 
 t-iOXO-^TtlOJCO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 — t~ ■* c» 
 
 eo »o rH -)* 
 
 X -* X CO 
 
 t~ CO CD t~ 
 
 CSXCOO-HlraCOrH 
 
 •^1 
 
 
 >f 
 
 
 CO c; 10 X (.- eo 
 
 CO 
 
 CO CO C» CO 
 
 « CO t- rd 
 
 oocoxocococo 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 'C 
 
 13 
 
 CO rH X C5 -f X 
 
 — 1 CJ a CO = 
 
 05 X 
 
 t- Ci t- I- CO CO 
 
 OC*-^Xtj(005CD 
 
 X 
 
 
 3 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 
 v. 
 
 s 
 
 
 I— 1 I— 1 r-l CO 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 -* 
 
 —tr-, rH r-l « 
 
 eo o! «eo 0* 
 
 
 
 i. 
 
 
 O? (M CO r-l C~ r-l 
 
 X X OT t^ 
 
 -H CO Oi 
 
 —1 CO rH 
 
 (T. UiCiClOCCi-'il'ril 
 
 -f 
 
 taj 
 
 
 
 0> t^ '-3 C5 
 
 t- t~ CO 
 
 « t- 
 
 CO c; CD CO CO 
 
 o?xco:orHTli-fco 
 
 CO 
 
 -H 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 1— 1 -i< «a X 05 05 
 
 -* i-H X Oi Ci 
 
 0x00 
 
 CO CJ rH C5 X 
 
 -"JI'UXOIrHCOCyl^ 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 l-H ^H 
 
 C« CJ rH 
 
 r-( C« C« 
 
 — 1 rH — 1 rH r-l 
 
 O? rH rH rH rH 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ■Si 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ..J 
 
 
 
 .S 
 
 05 --I CO 01 as .-t 
 
 -+ 1-1 X T-H 
 
 CO CO 05 t- 
 
 -f 'f OJ c? <?? 
 
 05XC<?OCDOIr~0 
 
 X 
 
 
 13 
 
 C5 -* — X CO X 
 
 X CO t~ 
 
 -* — CO 
 
 CO »n) ic c? 10 t>- 
 
 -f05^C0OOOX 
 
 «i 
 
 
 . 
 
 02 X C5 -^ 
 
 OJ 0» -* t^ 05 
 
 « X X 
 
 rH rH C^ CO rH CO 
 
 ococoococooco 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 0' CO -^ O 1-4' 
 
 c: c<j 1-1 CO -+■ 
 
 eO r-l o? 10 
 
 t~ X C- CO CD 
 
 iCC«XO— lO^HCO 
 
 (N 
 
 
 
 oj «o 05 c~ >n 
 
 CO O? tH <M 
 
 IC ■># CD t- 
 
 C? C< C- -^ 35 rH 
 
 l.~OJOC<rJOOt~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 i-< tH 
 
 r-l « OJ i-H 
 
 1—1 
 
 rH rH rH 
 
 rH rH O? rH rH rH 
 
 CO" 
 
 
 ro 
 
 CO r-^ CO CO 
 
 CO X Ci? t~ m 
 
 en -H 
 
 X UO X CO 0? 35 
 
 CSCOrJXOOCOO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 OS S 
 
 C; C5 -K rH 
 
 -H I- CO 
 
 "* C^ X 
 
 -* iro c h CO i^ CO 
 
 r-O-HXuOOCOO 
 
 
 
 
 ^ (M (:~ O; (M 
 
 « -O i-H CD 
 
 « CO i^ CO 
 
 CD t- CO C» ■^ CO CO 
 
 rHOC5-#-r*lrtlTflO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 •S< 
 
 (M "^ T-l rH 
 
 1-1 (?? C^ CO CO 
 
 
 o? 
 
 rHrHCO-^^COrHCD 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-1 rH 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 
 &■■■ 
 
 •o . . . 
 
 . a 
 
 i_,pq . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >—t 
 
 Ph - 
 
 
 
 TH DISTRI 
 
 Southwark 
 do. 
 
 and Clapham 
 
 
 
 
 
 1— 1 
 P5 
 H 
 
 M 
 
 Q 
 
 Ph 
 
 H 
 
 1— I 
 ft 
 
 OS 
 ^0 . . . 
 
 r. • • • CO • • • 
 
 ft ■ • • 2 • 1 • 
 
 1 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 NORTH 
 St. Marylebone 
 Hampstead . 
 St. Pancras . 
 Islington 
 Hackiiey 
 
 CENTRA 
 St. Giles' and St. 
 Strand . 
 Holbom 
 City of London 
 
 (/5 C fl rc3 
 
 
 
 
 WE 
 Kensington . 
 Fulham 
 Paddington . 
 Chelsea 
 St. George's 
 Westminster 
 
 EA 
 Shoreditch . 
 Bethnal Gree 
 Whitechapel 
 St. George's-i 
 Stepney 
 Mile End, 01 
 Poplar 
 
 SOU 
 St. Saviour's, 
 St. Olave's 
 Lambeth 
 Wandsworth 
 Camberwell . 
 Greenwich . 
 Lewisham . 
 Woolwich 
 
 
POOR relief: boards or guardians. 483 
 
 There are now in the Metropolis thirty Boards of 
 Guardians exercising jurisdiction in thirty parishes or unions; 
 the number into which, for Poor Law purposes, London is 
 divided. There are thus nine fewer divisions than there 
 are Vestries and District Boards, including the City. New 
 complications are thus introduced into the divisions of 
 London.* We have set out in the annexed table the names 
 of the various Unions, together with their acreage, the 
 number of Guardians, the amount of the poor rate levied, 
 and various other useful data. They are mainly taken from 
 the Local Government Board reports, and since the date to 
 which they are carried out, London pauperism has lessened 
 about one-third and its rateable value has considerably 
 increased. The number of Guardians, &c., is taken from 
 the Local Government Directory for 1874. 
 
 The election of Guardians in the Metropolis is now 
 controlled, as regards its details, by a General Order of the 
 Local Government Board, dated February 14th, 1874. But, 
 independently of this, the system of election is regulated by 
 the 4 & 5 Wm. lY., c. 76, amended as regards part by the 
 7 & 8 Vict., c. 101, s. 14. The elections take place in 
 March in every year. The qualification for Guardian is a 
 rateable value varying from £29 to £40. The votes are 
 taken in writing, and owners of property as well as rate- 
 payers have a right to vote. Where the property in respect 
 of which the vote is given has a rateable value of less than 
 £50, the owner or householder has one vote; where between 
 £50 and £100, two votes ; under £150, three votes ; under 
 £200, four votes ; under £250, five votes ; and over £250, 
 six votes, which is the largest number which can be cast by 
 any single individual. In addition to the elected Guardians 
 
 * These divisions and the anomalies attendant upon them are ex- 
 hauetively dealt with in Mr. Dexter's able pamphlet on the " Government 
 of London," already quoted. 
 
484 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 there are certain ex- officio or nominated Guardians, generally 
 about one-third of the whole. All the Justices of the Peace 
 acting for the division of the county within a Poor Law 
 TTnion are ex-officio Guardians, and this accounts for the 
 ex-officio in some places exceeding in number the elected 
 Guardians, Where there are not the adequate proportion 
 of ex-officio Guardians, such number may be made up by the 
 nomination of others by the Local Government Board. 
 Care is taken that the nominees hold sound views on Poor 
 Law questions. Under section 79 of the Act of 1867, such 
 nominees must be either Justices of the Peace or assessed 
 to the poor rate of some parish within the union, on an 
 annual rateable value of £40 or upwards. The Boards 
 generally meet weekly, and the quorum is three. The 
 Guardians of the various Unions so elected and nominated 
 form the local authorities in London for the administration 
 of relief to the poor. 
 
 It wiD be noted in the annexed table that some of the 
 larger parishes constitute an Union to themselves, and that 
 the 112 parishes of the City are united into one Union. 
 Many of these City parishes are exceedingly smaU, and some, 
 like St. Christopher-le-Stocks, have scarcely any population. 
 And the discrepancies between the size and population of 
 the different Poor Law districts is only less considerable than 
 the differences already pointed out in connection with the 
 Vestries. 
 
 Section 38 of the Act of 1867 provides for the estab- 
 lishment, by the Guardians of any Union or Parish, of Dis- 
 pensaries, and for the purchase or hire and furnishing of 
 suitable buildings for the purpose ; the whole to be done 
 under the direction of the Poor Law Board, and with power 
 in the Guardians, under like direction, to borrow money for 
 the purpose. The Dispensary is to be managed by a Com- 
 mittee elected by the Guardians from themselves or from 
 
POOR relief: dispensaries. 
 
 485 
 
 resident ratepayers assessed on an annual value of £40 a 
 year. The Guardians shall also provide proper places for 
 the sick poor to attend at for medical advice, shall appoint 
 dispensers of medicines and provide proper medicines and 
 appliances for the care and surgical treatment of the sick 
 poor. With the Dispensary Committee rests the appoint- 
 ment of the District Medical Officers, subject to the rules 
 and orders of the Poor Law Board. 
 
 Under this provision of the Act, Dispensaries have now 
 been established in nearly every part of the Metropolitan 
 District. 
 
 Provision is also made in the Act for the interchange of 
 paupers between different parishes, where the workhouses 
 are fitted for different classes. This section has been very 
 little used ; and, except the arrangements made for the 
 reception of able-bodied paupers in Poplar "Workhouse, and 
 of aged and infirm paupers in Stepney, may be regarded as 
 a dead letter. It is provided by section 55 that the sums 
 of money to be contributed by the unions and parishes 
 respectively for the purposes of the Act shall be assessed 
 upon them in proportion to their annual rateable value. 
 
 Section 61 provides for the establishment of a Metro- 
 politan Common Poor Fund, to be made up by contributions 
 from the various unions and parishes. Provision is made 
 for the appointment of a Receiver, and for the opening of an 
 account at the Bank of England. The moneys are to be 
 raised by precepts of the Poor Law Board directed to the 
 various Boards of Guardians, and to other authorities where 
 no Poor Law Union exists. 
 
 The Metropolitan Common Poor Fund is to be available 
 for the following purposes : — 1. The maintenance of lunatics 
 and insane poor in asylums, hospitals, and licensed houses, 
 &c. ; 2. The maintenance in hospitals of patients suffering 
 from contagious disease ; 3. The provision of medicine and 
 
 2h 
 
486 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 medical and surgical appliances for the poor ; 4. Salaries 
 payable by guardians, by managers of asylums and. of dis- 
 trict schools, and those of dispensers and other persons 
 appointed under the Act ; 5. Compensation to officers when 
 directed by the Poor Law Board ; 6. Registration fees ; 7. 
 Vaccination fees and expenses ; 8. Maintenance of pauper 
 children at school ; 9. Relief of casual paupers, with due 
 provision of temporary wards.* 
 
 The payments on these accounts are primarily made by 
 the unions and parishes themselves, and at each half-yearly 
 audit the Poor Law Board, by precept under its seal, directs 
 the Receiver to repay to the Guardians the sums so ex- 
 pended. The constitution of this fund, distributing certain 
 expenditure over the whole metropolitan area, is a forcible 
 recognition of the unity of the district for Poor Law purposes. 
 We annex a table of the income and expenditure on this 
 account for the half-year ending Michaelmas 1874, and also 
 of the incidence of the fund. From this it will be seen 
 that something like £150,000 a year is contributed by the 
 wealthier unions for the purposes of the Common Poor Fund 
 in excess of their own requirement. To this extent, there- 
 fore, are the wealthy districts of London aiding the poorer. 
 The various amounts may be doubled in order to obtain an 
 estimate of the cost for a year. 
 
 Each of the London Poor Law Districts has one or more 
 workhouses, and arrangements have been made in most of 
 the London districts for the establishment of separate infir- 
 maries for the treatment of the sick poor. Powers are given 
 under the Act of 1867 to combine for the purposes of pro- 
 viding asylums for the sick and insane. All such provision 
 
 *" The Metropolitan Poor Amendment Act, 1870 "(HS & 34 Vict., 
 c. 18), charges upon this fund the maintenance of indoor poor, at the rate 
 of five pence a day, and also the cost of the rations of the officers whose 
 salaries are repaid. 
 
POOR RELIEF: SICK ASYLUM DISTRICTS. 487 
 
 ii to te made with the authority of the Poor Law Board. 
 The power of combination, so far as the sick are concerned, 
 has not been largely availed of. The four districts of St. 
 Giles and St. George Bloomsbury, St. Pancras, Strand, and 
 Westminster, form what is known as the " Central London 
 Sick Asylum District." This district is governed by a 
 Board of twenty-five managers, of whom six are nominated. 
 They have two asylums, one at Highgate and one in Cleve- 
 land Street, W. At the former of these they can accommo- 
 date 523 sick paupers, at the latter 28 L The unions of 
 Poplar and Stepney have also combined into a Sick Asylum 
 District, with a Board of twelve managers (of whom three 
 are nominated), and an asylum capable of holding 586. 
 
 Of the remainder of the London unions, eleven, viz : — 
 Camberwell, Chelsea, Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, City of 
 London, Woolwich, St, George's in the East, Shoreditch, 
 Kensington, and Wandsworth and Clapham, have separate 
 infirmaries now open, and managed under regulations issued 
 by the authority of the Local Government Board. Two, 
 viz., St. Olave's and Greenwich have infirmaries in course 
 of erection. Three, viz., St. Saviour's, St. George's South- 
 wark, and Holborn, have separate infirmaries under work- 
 house management. Two, viz., Marylebone and White- 
 chapel, had the question recently under consideration, and 
 the remaining six, viz., Bethnal Green, Fulham, Lewisham, 
 Paddington, Hampstead, and Mile End Old Town, still 
 retained, at the time of the issuing of the last report, the 
 old and pernicious system of treating the sick in mixed 
 workhouses. 
 
 By the Statute 7 & 8 Vict., c. 101, sec. 40, the Poor 
 Law Commissioners were empowered, as they should see 
 fit, to combine unions and parishes into school districts for 
 the management of the infant poor under the age of sixteen. 
 Section 42 provided for the constitution of a Board for every 
 
488 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Statement 
 
 METROPOLITAN 
 
 Summary sJwiomg the Expenses incurred hy the Guardians of the several 
 at Michaelmas 1874, /or the Under-mentioned purposes, and 
 
 UNIONS AND PARISHES. 
 
 I Mainte- 
 
 Mainte- I nance of 
 
 nance of j Paup rs 
 
 Lunatics i suffering 
 
 and Insane from Fever 
 
 Poor. I or binall 
 
 Pox. 
 
 Bethnal Green . 
 Camberwell 
 
 Chelsea 
 
 Fulham 
 
 George's, St. 
 
 George, St., in-the-East 
 
 Giles, St., in-the- Fields, and 
 
 St. George, lilcom&bury 
 Gieeuv.ich 
 Hackney . 
 JHampstead 
 Hoiboin . 
 Islington . 
 Kensington 
 Lambeth . 
 Lewisham 
 London, City of 
 IMarylebone, St. . 
 Mile End Old Town 
 Glave's, St. 
 PaddingLon 
 Pancras, St. 
 Poplar 
 
 Sa\ioui's, St. 
 Shore.) itcli 
 Stepney 
 Strand 
 
 Wandsworth and Clapl 
 Westminster 
 Whitecliapel 
 Woolwich , 
 
 Totals 
 
 5,744 
 2,G81 
 2,400 
 ],()04 
 4, SOS 
 1,770 
 1,014 
 
 3,012 
 3,55!) 
 a(i;3 
 7,40.3 
 4,!)28 
 1,H40 
 
 .7,h;38 
 
 890 
 6,701 
 5,224 
 1,:509 
 3,745 
 l,8ii9 
 7,26:3 
 1,44:1 
 7,102 
 -I, 27 
 2,7>3 
 2,iib' 
 3,1 39 
 
 i,h:8 
 
 1,901- 
 2,3u2 
 
 104,227 
 
 350 
 20 
 IS 
 22 
 04 
 
 112 
 97 
 
 190 
 217 
 
 18 
 409 
 
 71 
 
 29 
 
 249 
 
 2 
 
 58 
 123 
 109 
 
 57 
 
 8 
 
 127 
 
 104 
 
 84 
 109 
 
 6; 
 
 24 
 38 
 45 
 27G 
 26 
 
 3,179 
 
 Medicine 
 
 and 
 Medical 
 
 and 
 Surgical 
 Appli- 
 ances. 
 
 £ 
 
 171 
 2:iO 
 253 
 118 
 
 495 
 72 
 84 
 
 177 
 100 
 
 20 
 451 
 331 
 140 
 
 37 
 
 34 
 424 
 301 
 233 
 
 52 
 182 
 520 
 271 
 
 93 
 
 40 
 222 
 214 
 
 03 
 209 
 
 72 
 243 
 
 6,924 
 
 Salaries 
 
 of 
 O&cers. 
 
 3,108 
 2,172 
 2,.3r)8 
 1,021 
 4,089 
 1,948 
 1,206 
 
 2,208 
 2,918 
 
 459 
 8,985 
 2,024 
 2,f;20 
 2,439 
 
 979 
 5,218 
 3,798 
 1,509 
 1,748 
 1,407 
 4,347 
 4,lr0 
 2,7 74 
 ;?,'.13:! 
 2,117 
 2,014 
 1,087 
 1,7.)2 
 2,255 
 2,053 
 
 Eations 
 
 of 
 Officers. 
 
 73,963 
 
 438 
 502 
 444 
 173 
 671 
 554 
 200 
 
 280 
 449 
 80 
 078 
 492 
 461 
 793 
 115 
 733 
 654 
 215 
 379 
 247 
 885 
 718 
 452 
 7:il 
 3!I4 
 5:i(i 
 29:i 
 472 
 272 
 330 
 
 13,647 
 
 Com- 
 pensation 
 for Loss 
 of Office, 
 
 &o. 
 
 176 
 
 62 
 
 15S 
 313 
 
 464 
 195 
 
 377 
 
 317 
 
 87 
 18 
 40 
 
 2,253 
 
 NozB.— Fraotioni of a Pound are o mltted. 
 
POOR belief: metropolitan common poor fund. 489 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 COMMON POOR FUND. 
 
 Unions and separate Parishes in iJie Metropolis during the Half-year ended 
 repayable from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. 
 
 
 Eegls- 
 
 Vaccina- 
 tion Fees 
 
 Mainte- 
 nance 
 
 Expenses 
 
 under 
 
 Mainte- 
 tenanre 
 
 Education 
 of 
 
 
 
 
 trntion 
 
 of 
 
 HouBiless 
 
 of 
 
 Out-di'or 
 
 Total. 
 
 UNIONS AND PARISHES, 
 
 
 Fees. 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 Pauper 
 
 Poor 
 
 In-door 
 
 Pauper 
 
 
 
 
 
 Children. 
 
 Acts. 
 
 Paupers. 
 
 Children. 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 203 
 
 231 
 
 2,174 
 
 
 
 3,708 
 
 11 
 
 16,138 
 
 Bethnal Green 
 
 
 175 
 
 187 
 
 2,108 
 
 146 
 
 1,957 
 
 76 
 
 10,254 
 
 Camberwell 
 
 
 104 
 
 l(i7 
 
 l,:i00 
 
 
 
 2,087 
 
 7 
 
 9,310 
 
 Chelsea 
 
 
 ion 
 
 181 
 
 (06 
 
 02 
 
 908 
 
 — 
 
 4,M4 
 
 Fulhara 
 
 
 l'J5 
 
 170 
 
 1,701 
 
 133 
 
 5,318 
 
 22 
 
 17,843 
 
 George's, St. 
 
 
 02 
 
 78 
 
 1,01>4 
 
 98 
 
 2,(iol 
 
 — 
 
 8,9'i5 
 
 George, St., in-the-East 
 
 
 74 
 
 69 
 
 1,6J7 
 
 141 
 
 2,539 
 
 — 
 
 7,721 
 
 Giles, St.,iii.the.Field';,and 
 t^t. George, Eloomsbuiy 
 
 
 108 
 
 186 
 
 2,271 
 
 69 
 
 2,910 
 
 — 
 
 12,469 
 
 Greenwich 
 
 
 190 
 
 107 
 
 1,072 
 
 8li 
 
 1,!)91 
 
 42 
 
 11.3!)1 
 
 Hackney 
 
 
 35 
 
 12 
 
 94 
 
 — 
 
 427 
 
 — 
 
 1,408 
 
 Hani])siead 
 
 
 255 
 
 212 
 
 2,922 
 
 476 
 
 6,031 
 
 
 
 23,700 
 
 Holboi-n 
 
 
 327 
 
 2fil 
 
 1,733 
 
 183 
 
 2,889 
 
 
 
 14,152 
 
 Islington 
 
 
 180 
 
 204 
 
 2,677 
 
 93 
 
 2,868 
 
 — 
 
 10,618 
 
 Kensington 
 
 
 327 
 
 281 
 
 2, IBS 
 
 109 
 
 3,971 
 
 39 
 
 18,248 
 
 Lambeth 
 
 
 65 
 
 87 
 
 503 
 
 30 
 
 521 
 
 22 
 
 3,254 
 
 Lewisham 
 
 
 99 
 
 93 
 
 4,250 
 
 330 
 
 5,917 
 
 — 
 
 24,293 
 
 London, City of 
 
 
 228 
 
 204 
 
 3,019 
 
 195 
 
 6,525 
 
 — 
 
 20,271 
 
 MaiTlebone, St. 
 
 
 72 
 
 114 
 
 1,192 
 
 139 
 
 1,714 
 
 25 
 
 0,631 
 
 Mile End Old Town 
 
 
 205 
 
 169 
 
 1,952 
 
 103 
 
 3,234 
 
 7 
 
 11,846 
 
 Olave's, St. 
 
 
 120 
 
 173 
 
 971 
 
 104 
 
 1,561 
 
 26 
 
 6,704 
 
 Paddington 
 
 
 3'-i3 
 
 323 
 
 3,2.30 
 
 99 
 
 0,804 
 
 '^ 
 
 23,929 
 
 Pancras, St. 
 
 
 96 
 
 167 
 
 1,899 
 
 — 
 
 2,198 
 
 40 
 
 11,086 
 
 Poplar 
 
 
 285 
 
 284 
 
 4,002 
 
 128 
 
 6,537 
 
 — 
 
 21,238 
 
 Saviour's, St. 
 
 
 201 
 
 152 
 
 1,J22 
 
 
 
 2,877 
 
 4 
 
 12,602 
 
 Shoreditch 
 
 
 103 
 
 97 
 
 1,307 
 
 — 
 
 1,939 
 
 9 
 
 9,094 
 
 Stepney 
 
 
 52 
 
 67 
 
 1,528 
 
 — 
 
 2,217 
 
 — 
 
 8,979 
 
 Strand 
 
 
 194 
 
 242 
 
 2,208 
 
 134 
 
 1,058 
 
 50 
 
 9,960 
 
 Wandsworth and Clapham 
 
 
 5!) 
 
 50 
 
 1,343 
 
 — 
 
 2,328 
 
 — 
 
 8,109 
 
 Westminster 
 
 
 130 
 
 92 
 
 l,;i28 
 
 174 
 
 2,493 
 
 — 
 
 9,671 
 
 Whitechapel 
 
 
 112 
 
 124 
 
 1,582 
 
 184 
 
 1,150 
 
 43 
 
 8,249 
 
 Woolwich 
 Totals 
 
 
 4,784 
 
 4,796 
 
 57,240 
 
 3,228 
 
 89,328 
 
 425 
 
 362,993 
 
490 
 
 AfDNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Statement No. 2. 
 
 THE METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND. 
 
 Half-year ended Michaelmas 1874 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 Amount of 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Contribution 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 assessed on 
 
 
 Amount 
 
 Amount to 
 
 
 
 each Union, 
 
 
 payable to 
 
 he paid by 
 
 
 Annual Rate- 
 
 Parish, and 
 
 
 Receiver, 
 
 Receiver, 
 
 
 able Value 
 
 Place, being 
 
 Expendi- 
 
 1 where the 
 
 where the 
 
 Unions, Parishes, and Places. 
 
 of each 
 Union, 
 
 at the rate of 
 Fourpence 
 
 ture 
 repayable. 
 
 Amount of 
 Contribution 
 
 Expenditure 
 repayable ^s 
 
 
 Parish, and 
 
 and 
 
 (See State- 
 
 is in excess 
 
 in exce^B of 
 
 
 Place. 
 
 one-eighth of 
 
 mentNo.l. 
 
 of the 
 
 the Amount 
 
 
 
 a penny in 
 
 
 Expenditure 
 
 of 
 
 
 
 the Pound cvn 
 the Annual 
 
 
 repayable. 
 
 Contribution. 
 
 
 
 Rateable 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 r 
 
 £ 
 
 Bethnal Green, St. Matthew . 
 
 289,040 
 
 4,983 
 
 16,138 
 
 — 
 
 11,1.55 
 
 Caiiiberwell, St. Giles . 
 
 520,300 
 
 8,944 
 
 10,254 
 
 
 
 1,310 
 
 Chelsea, St. Luke 
 
 351,081 
 
 0,045 
 
 9,310 
 
 
 
 3,265 
 
 Fulham .... 
 
 323,304 
 
 5,557 
 
 4,804 
 
 753 
 
 
 
 George's, St. ... 
 
 1,911,205 
 
 32,849 
 
 17,843 
 
 15,000 
 
 
 
 George, St., iu-the-East 
 
 1H5,533 
 
 3,189 
 
 8,955 
 
 __ 
 
 5,706 
 
 Giles, St., in-the-Fields, and 
 
 300,880 
 
 5,-^75 
 
 7.721 
 
 
 
 2,446 
 
 St. George, bloomsbury 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Greenwich .... 
 
 435,040 
 
 7,488 
 
 12,409 
 
 
 
 4,981 
 
 Hackney .... 
 
 054,482 
 
 11,249 
 
 11,391 
 
 
 
 142 
 
 Hampstead, St. John . 
 
 2'.H),«00 
 
 5,149 
 
 1,408 
 
 3,741 
 
 
 
 Holborn .... 
 
 745,374 
 
 12,811 
 
 2.3,700 
 
 
 
 10,889 
 
 Islington, St. Mary 
 
 1,06."),HH8 
 
 18,320 
 
 14,152 
 
 4,168 
 
 
 
 Kensington, St. Mary Abbotts 
 
 1,11 7,0.(0 
 
 19,199 
 
 10,618 
 
 8,581 
 
 
 
 Lambeth, St. Mary 
 
 994,327 
 
 17,090 
 
 18,248 
 
 
 
 1,158 
 
 Lewisham .... 
 
 428,042 
 
 7,307 
 
 3,2.54 
 
 4,113 
 
 
 
 London, City of . 
 
 2,681,235 
 
 46,083 
 
 24,2!I3 
 
 21,790 
 
 
 
 Marylebone, St. . 
 
 l,195,()i)2 
 
 20,540 
 
 20,271 
 
 209 
 
 
 
 Mile End Old Town 
 
 285,002 
 
 4, 1^00 
 
 0,631 
 
 
 
 1,731 
 
 Olave's, St. . 
 
 024,492 
 
 10,733 
 
 11,840 
 
 
 
 1,113 
 
 I'addington .... 
 
 990,470 
 
 17,023 
 
 G,704 
 
 10,319 
 
 
 
 Pancras, St. ... 
 
 1,214,121 
 
 20,h67 
 
 23,92!) 
 
 
 
 3,062 
 
 Poplar .... 
 
 481,900 
 
 8,335 
 
 11,C86 
 
 
 
 2,751 
 
 Saviour's, St. . . . 
 
 776,778 
 
 13,351 
 
 21,238 
 
 — 7^887 1 
 
 Shoreditch, St. Leonard 
 
 441,020 
 
 7,580 
 
 12 002 
 
 
 
 5,022 
 
 Stepney .... 
 
 271, 7S4 
 
 4,071 
 
 9,U94 
 
 
 
 4,423 
 
 Strand" .... 
 
 502,580 
 
 9,670 
 
 8,979 
 
 091 
 
 
 
 Wandsworth and Claphara 
 
 783,741 
 
 13,471 
 
 9,960 
 
 3,505 
 
 
 
 Westminster 
 
 633,858 
 
 10,895 
 
 8,109 
 
 2,720 
 
 
 
 Whitechapel 
 
 810,894 
 
 5,447 
 
 9,071 
 
 
 
 4,224 
 
 Woolwich .... 
 
 232,182 
 
 3,991 
 
 8,249 
 
 
 
 4,258 
 
 The Charter House 
 
 1,948 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 Gray's Inn .... 
 
 13,927 
 
 239 
 
 
 
 239 
 
 
 
 The Close of the Collegiate 
 
 2,012 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 Church of St. Peter, West- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 minster 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Inner Temple 
 
 19,963 
 
 843 
 
 __ 
 
 343 
 
 __ 
 
 Middle Temple . 
 
 13,000 
 
 223 
 
 — 
 
 223 
 
 
 
 Lincoln's Inn 
 
 Totals 
 
 17,731 
 
 305 
 
 — 
 
 305 
 
 — 
 
 21,192,760 
 
 364,250 
 
 362, e93 
 
 76,840 
 
 75,683 
 
 Note. — Fractions of a Pound are omitted. 
 
POOR RELIEF : PAUPER CHILDREN. 491 
 
 such district, to consist of members elected from ratepayers 
 within the district, by the Guardians or Overseers of the 
 parishes or unions, together with the Chairman of each Board 
 of Guardians within the district. The regulations with respect 
 to their election are to be made by the Poor Law Commis- 
 sioners, whose consent is also requisite to the appointment 
 and payment of the officers of such district Boards. Power 
 is given to build or furnish schools for the purposes of the 
 Act, in such manner and to such extent as the Poor Law 
 Commissioners may, with the consent of the District Board, 
 determine. Provision is made for the religious education of 
 the children. By section 44 the District Boards may borrow 
 money upon the poor rates of the combined parishes, for the 
 purpose of establishing such schools, to the extent of one- 
 fifth of the aggregate annual expenditure. This power is 
 now extended by 35 Yict., c. 2, sec. 1, to two-thirds. The 
 District Boards may from time to time call upon the combined 
 parishes or unions for requisite contributions. Arrangement 
 is made by section 51 for the reception in the Board schools 
 of children from other districts upon such terms as may be 
 agreed upon. 
 
 The provisions of this Act were modified and extended 
 by the 13 & 14 Yict., c. 11, the 14 & 15 Vict., c. 105, and the 
 18 & 19 Vict., c. 34. The latter statute provides (section 1) 
 for the granting of relief by guardians for the purpose of 
 enabling any poor person relieved out of the workhouse, to 
 provide education for any child between the ages of four and 
 sixteen, subject to such conditions as may be approved of. 
 
 The Act 25 & 26 Vict., c. 43, gives power to the 
 guardians to send poor children to certified schools, the 
 managers of which shall be willing to receive them, and to 
 pay the expense of the maintenance, clothing, and education 
 of such children. Upon the application of the managers of 
 any school, the Poor Law Board may certify them as fit for 
 
492 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the reception of such children. The school shall be open to 
 the visitation and inspection of a Poor Law Inspector, and 
 the whole of such education shall be subject to the direction 
 and control of the Guardians and of the Poor Law Board, 
 acting with the consent of the child's parents, if living, or of 
 the child if more than fourteen years of age. 
 
 The 48th section of the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867, 
 provides that all expenses incurred by District Boards, con- 
 stituted under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1844, in the 
 maintenance of district schools or the purchase and hiring 
 of lands and buildings, and all the charges of such schools, 
 shall be defrayed by contributions from the unions and 
 parishes forming the district, and a certain power as to the 
 nomination of members of the District Board is given to the 
 Poor Law Board. 
 
 The district and separate schools of the Metropolis, and the 
 Poor Law districts, whose wants they serve, are as follows, 
 viz.: — 
 
 District Schools. — Central London, at Hanwell, com- 
 prising the City of London and St. Saviour's Unions, 
 
 North Surrey, at Anerley ; comprising the Croydon, 
 Lewisham, Richmond, and Wandsworth and Clapham 
 Unions, and the parishes of Chelsea and Kensington. 
 
 Smith 3Ietropolitan, at Sutton ; comprising the Greenwich, 
 St. Olave's and Woolwich Unions, and the parish of Cam- 
 berwell. 
 
 West London, at Ashford ; comprising the Fulham and 
 St. George's Unions, and the parish of Paddington. 
 
 Forest Gate, at Forest Gate ; comprising the Hackney, 
 Poplar, and Whitechapel Unions. 
 
 Union Schools. — Bethnal Green, at Leytonstone. 
 
 St. George-in-the-East, at Plasket. 
 
 Holhorn, at Mitcham. 
 
 St. Mary, Islington, at Hornsey Koad. 
 
POOB RELIEF: DISTRICT SCHOOLS. 493 
 
 Lambeth, at Lower Norwood. 
 
 St. Marylehone, at Southall. 
 
 iS'^. Pancras, at Leavesden. 
 
 St. Leonard, Shoreditch, at Brentwood. 
 
 Strand, at Edmonton. 
 
 Westminster, at Wandsworth Common. 
 
 In addition to these, Mile End Old Town has School 
 buildings upon the same plot of ground as that on which its 
 workhouse stands ; and there is a training ship (the Goliath) 
 attached to the Forest Gate School. This ship which has 
 been lent to the district by the Lords of the Admiralty, 
 accommodates 500 boys, and is managed by ten elected and 
 three nominated managers.* 
 
 It is not our present intention to criticize the manage- 
 ment of these institutions. There is room for improvement 
 in many respects, but as a whole they are doing a good 
 work and doing it well. The fullest information with 
 respect to each of them may be found in the excellent 
 report of Mr. Courtenay, the Sub-Inspector, set out in the 
 the Local Government Board Report for 1874.f 
 
 In addition to the unpaid workers in the field of London 
 poor relief, there were, at the close of the year 1874, in the 
 Metropolis, 1,952 paid officers whose appointment had re- 
 ceived the sanction of the Local Government Board, and 
 who were entrusted with the working of the system of 
 Metropolitan Poor relief. There were Clerks, 38 ; Assistant 
 Clerks, 72 ; Treasurers, 38 ; Chaplains to Workhouses, 64 ; 
 Workhouse Medical Ofl&cers, 81 ; Workhouse Dispensers, 
 14 ; Masters, 58 ; School Superintendents, 16 ; Matrons, 63; 
 School Matrons, 16 ; Schoolmasters, 51 ; Schoolmistresses, 
 41 ; Porters, 90 ; Male Nurses, 15 ; Female Nurses, 540 ; 
 
 * The ship was destroyed by fire Dec 22, 1875. but, probably, another 
 will be substituted by the Admiralty, 
 t See Eeport, pp. 283-310. 
 
494 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Industrial Trainers, 106; Labour Superintendents, 50; Va 
 grants' Superintendents, 36 ; District Medical Officers, 156 
 Dispensers, 43 ; Vaccination Officers, 34 ; Analysts, 39 
 Relieving Officers, 137; Assistant Relieving Officers, 44 
 Collectors of Guardians, 27 ; Pay Clerks, 6 ; Vestry Clerks, 
 21 ; Poor Rate Collectors, 56. 
 
 Under the Act of 1867, the fees and other expenses of 
 Vaccination in the Metropolis are payable out of the 
 Common Poor Fund. In the thirty London Unions there 
 are 98 Public Vaccinators. During the year ending Sep- 
 tember, 1874, they successfully vaccinated for the first time 
 49,067 persons, of whom 47,347 were under one year of age. 
 They revaccinated 534. The number of registered births 
 was 120,803, showing that less than one-third undergo 
 the operation at the hands of these public servants. 
 
 The expenses of the relief of destitute wayfarers and 
 vagrants, and the provision of temporary wards and other 
 places for their reception, are also chargeable upon the 
 Common Poor Fund. 
 
 The number of casual paupers relieved in the Vagrant 
 Wards of the Metropolis in 1874 was, men, 21,319; women, 
 8,057; children, 1,966 : total 31,342. The number in 1871 
 was 58,442. As the whole cost of this class of paupers is 
 borne by the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, it seems 
 that, for the purposes of the Casual Poor, the Metropolitan 
 District is one united organization. But the Inspectors of 
 the Board complain of the jealousy of the Guardians in 
 their policy of extending the areas served by special wards. 
 
 The number of paupers in the Metropolis has been 
 gradually lessening during the past two or tlii^ee years, and 
 on the 1st of November, 1875, the number of indoor 
 paupers was 34,956, and of outdoor paupers 48,322, making 
 a total of 83,278, or about 2^ per cent, of the population, a 
 
POOR RELIEF : OBJECTIONS TO SYSTEM. 495 
 
 Qumber considerably less than those set out for the year 
 1873-4, and less than the number for several years past. 
 
 The action of the various London Boards of Guardians 
 upon any question is very unequal, and would be much more 
 so if the Local Government Board did not keep a tolerably 
 tight rein. The difficulty encountered in dealing with these 
 bodies is a striking illustration of the trouble frequently 
 experienced in adequately controlling communities exercising 
 independent original functions, and a strong argument, as it 
 would seem, for estabHshing a system under which, as in 
 the case of the School Board, local bodies, although allowed 
 to express opinions, shall be compelled to make them sub- 
 servient to well settled lines of general Metropolitan poUcy. 
 The present function fulfilled by the Local Government 
 Board is well set forth in the report of the Government In- 
 spector in 1874.^ " It is, I conceive, one of the highest 
 functions of the Central Authority not merely to collect and 
 to redistribute for general use, the concentrated experience of 
 Poor Law administrators throughout the country, but by its 
 orders to preserve sound principles, once adopted, from the 
 danger of disuse and perversion, to which the necessarily fluc- 
 tuating constitution of Boards of Guardians must necessarily 
 expose them, and whore, as in London, individual Boards of 
 Guardians have not only recognised the principles enun- 
 ciated by ihe Board, but have proved that they may be 
 effectually carried into practice, the Board seems specially 
 called upon to interfere, to secure, for the benefit of the 
 whole district, the adoption of the sounder system of 
 administration thus indicated." 
 
 The Local Government Board has an excellent Staff- 
 Inspector, and also an Auditor of unflinching purpose : and 
 through their agency, in large measure, the grave scandals 
 * lleport of Local Government Board, 1873-4, p. 147. 
 
496 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 which were long attendant upon London Poor relief, are 
 gradually yielding to a more enlightened system. 
 
 Yet we still find Inspectors of the Board complaining 
 of the inadequate conception as yet possessed by London 
 Guardians, as to the true deterrent discipline which ought 
 to be enforced in a workhouse. The London workhouses 
 are too much in the nature of almshouses. Nothing is 
 more clear than the necessity of classification being com- 
 pletely carried out, so that the proper amount and character 
 of discipline shall be applied to each class of pauper. The 
 system of mixed workhouses, where the young and the old, 
 the sick, the infirm, and the able-bodied, are all united under 
 the same roof, may be a necessity in country districts, but is 
 absolutely indefensible in a large and populous area, which 
 is treated for many purposes as one. 
 
 The Metropolis afi'ords a full opportunity for the develop- 
 ment of the system of separate buildings for the different 
 kinds of paupers. Already in some districts the children are 
 drafted off" to school, the sick to infirmaries, the lunatic and 
 idiotic to asylums, and the aged and infirm and the able- 
 bodied to separate workhouses, and this should be the 
 principle throughout. 
 
 The carrying out of the system of classification was 
 retarded by the great access of pauperism just after the 
 passing of the Act, and when this had subsided, still greater 
 difficulty was found from the persistent opposition of the 
 London Guardians.* 
 
 So also the method in which relief is given ; the practice 
 of the various Relieving Officers ; the method of dealing with 
 applications for medical aid ; for loans ; for relief to deserted 
 wives ; for payment of school fees, &c. ; all are found to difi'er 
 in the various Boards, and the authorities and Whitehall 
 
 * Report of Local Goverment Board, 1874-5, p. 45. Report of Mr. 
 Langley. 
 
POOR relief: metropolitan asylums board. 497 
 
 are almost powerless, except where definite orders are in- 
 fringed. These things all point to the necessity of a central 
 administrative authority. 
 
 A further illustration of the necessity of a central body 
 will probably shortly be afforded by the proposed acquisition, 
 either at the cost of the Common Poor Fund or of some other 
 generalfundofthedisusedworkhousebuildingsandsites, which 
 
 Boards of Guardians are now desirous of disposing of. The 
 necessity of acquiring these, in order to complete the classifi 
 cation ;rrangements, or to prepare against a sudden influx 
 is imperative, but hardly sufficient to justify the cost bemg 
 imposed on individual Boards of Guardians. The acquire- 
 ment of sites bv the Metropolitan Asylums' Board hereafter 
 mentioned, is 'an illustration of the same thing m another 
 
 case. , . , 
 
 The cost of the Infirmaries and Sick Asylums is now 
 borne by the respective districts which they serve. Here, 
 too it seems undeniable that the cost might very fairly 
 be chargeable on the whole fund, and so, in this matter as m 
 the case of Asylums, a central administration with p enary 
 powers would as well systematize the method of rehef as 
 insure the excellence and economy of its character 
 
 There is one institution dating back its origm to " ihe 
 Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867," which it is proposed to con- 
 sider somewhat at length,-as it is one of the bes if not 
 the very best organization ruling the whole of London for 
 any purpose. This is the MetropolUan Asylums Board. ^ 
 The Metropolitan Poor Act provides for the erection, 
 ■ support, and management of Asylums for the relief of the 
 sicl" insane, or infirm within the Metropolis. Power is 
 given to the Poor Law Board to construct Asylum Distncts 
 by the combination of Unions and Parishes as they shaU 
 think fit. The managers of the Asylums so erected are 
 respectively incorporated with perpetual succession, and a 
 
498 MT7NICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 CoTnmon Seal, and the power of holding lands. These 
 managers are to be partly elected by the Guardians of the 
 Poor within the Asylum District, and partly nominated by 
 the Poor Law Board from amongst Justices of the Peace 
 resident within the District, or from ratepayers assessed to 
 the poor of a parish within the district at not less than £40 
 per annum. 
 
 The number of managers is regulated by the Poor Law 
 Board, and provision is made for the purchase of lands, and 
 the building of Asylums under the same authority. The 
 powers of borrowing money for these purposes are duly set 
 out, in section 17, and — as we have seen in the chapter on the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works — have been extensively exer- 
 cised. The inmates shall be under the direction of the 
 managers, who shall have equivalent powers to those 
 possessed by Poor Law Guardians, but subject in all par- 
 ticulars to the orders of the Poor Law Board. The Parish 
 or Union from which the various inmates come, remains 
 chargeable for the costs of burial and other incidents. The 
 ordinary costs of managing the Asylums are to be defrayed 
 rateably by contributions from the Unions and Parishes 
 forming the District, but the individual expenses of the 
 inmates are chargeable separately to the Unions or Parishes 
 from whence they came. 
 
 Shortly after the passing of this Act, the Poor Law 
 Board issued an order directing that the " several Unions 
 and parishes in the Metropolis should be combined into a 
 district, to be termed ' The Metropolitan Asylum District,* 
 for the reception and relief of the classes of poor persons 
 chargeable to some Union or parish in the same district 
 respectively, who may be infected with or suffering from 
 fevcT, or the disease of smaU-pox, or may be insane." A 
 Board of Management was constituted consisting of sixty 
 members, fifteen nominated by the Poor Law Board (now 
 
POOR belief: metropolitan asylums board. 499 
 
 the Local Government Board), and forty-five elected by the 
 Unions and parishes in the district. The office of manager 
 was made tenable for three years. 
 
 The Board of Management soon after its nomination and 
 election proceeded to ascertain the number of fever, small- 
 pox, and insane patients, for whom they would have to 
 provide. As the whole supreme control of the asylums 
 rested, under the Act, with the Poor Law Board, we find 
 the latter directing its action from the commencment in 
 many important particulars. The managers were reminded 
 that the asylums could not " fulfil efiectively their special 
 purposes" unless they were readily accessible, and therefore 
 they must be erected in the immediate vicinity of the 
 Metropolis. The undesirability of subjecting patients sufier- 
 ing from insanity or contagious disease to long journeys was 
 very clear. 
 
 On the 26th of October, 1867, a committee of the Board 
 reported in favour of the purchase of three sites, one in the 
 north-east district near to Victoria Park, a second in the 
 north-west district near to Regent's Park, and a third in the 
 south district near to the " Elephant and Castle." Early in 
 the following year an eligible site, consisting of about eight 
 acres, was obtained at Hampstead ; the price paid was 
 £1,900 an acre. A site for the north-eastern hospital was 
 soon afterwards found at Homertom, where £12,000 was 
 paid for eight acres of land. Subsequently, a site for the 
 southern hospital was found at Stockwell, and £15,000 was 
 paid for seven and a half acres. In all these cases deputa- 
 tions were received by the Board from the inhabitants of 
 the districts surrounding the proposed hospitals, and, in the 
 case of Stockwell the Lambeth Yestry opposed its erection 
 in their parish, although, as a matter of fact, the number of 
 patients sent to the fever hospital from Lambeth was con- 
 siderably in excess of the number sent by any other parish 
 
500 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 south of the Thames, and, indeed, formed 25 per cent, of 
 the whole number. In the case of each of the three sites 
 the necessary consent of the Local Government Board was 
 given, and, having regard to the directions of the Poor Law 
 Board in 1867, on the question of site ; and to the terms of 
 the Metropolitan Poor Act, it is clear that the Asylum 
 Board were only discharging their simple duty in the selec- 
 tion of the best available sites in the metropolitan area, and, 
 judging from the very careful attention which was given for 
 several months to the question, they deserve high praise for 
 the manner in which that duty was performed. Plans for 
 the erection of the hospitals at Homerton and Stockwell 
 were obtained and the buildings proceeded with, but the 
 erection of a hospital upon the Hampstead site was deferred 
 until experience should show how far the one at Homerton 
 was calculated to supply the north-western as well as the 
 north-eastern part of the Metropolis. The final estimate 
 for the Stockwell asylum was £75,000, and Homerton 
 £65,000. The Hampstead site was utilized in the following 
 year by the erection of a temporary building, containing 180 
 beds, for the reception of patients suffering from the relaps- 
 ing fever which was at that time epidemic. The same site 
 was utiKzed for the reception of patients during the small- 
 pox epidemic, during the years 1870-1-2. No less than 
 7,352 small-pox patients received treatment there. 
 
 In 1874, the temporary buildings at Hampstead became 
 somewhat dilapidated, and the Local Government Board 
 agreed with the Asylum Board in the desirability of erecting 
 permanent Hospital buildings on the site. The Local 
 Government Board, however, distinctly stipulated for the 
 buildings so erected being of a character to accommodate 
 patients suffering from epidemic, contagious, or infectious 
 diseases. 
 
 This proposal was met with strong local opposition, which 
 
POOR RELIEF : METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD. 501 
 
 eventually succeeded in making itself felt within the walls 
 of Parliament, and, in the spring of the year 1875, a Select 
 Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to 
 inquire into and report upon the action of the INIetropolitan 
 Asylums Board, in respect of the establishment of a fever 
 Hospital at Hampstead. This Committee received a good 
 deal of evidence with respect to the effect of constructing 
 the Hampstead Hospital on a permanent basis, adverse to 
 such construction, and also the counter-evidence tendered by 
 the MetropoHtan Asylums Board to show that the complaints 
 were exaggerated and unreliable. In their Report, the 
 Committee of the House of Commons say that they are of 
 opinion : — 
 
 1. That the action of the Asylums Board has been 
 strictly in accordance with their duties and responsibilities 
 under the Poor Act of 1857; 
 
 2. That the risk of contagion is not incident to tho 
 existence of the Hospital ; 
 
 3. That on the whole there was no reason why Hamp- 
 stead should claim the interference of ParHament to remove 
 " an inconvenience to which it has become subject,- by reason 
 of the due execution of the provisions of a wise and 
 beneficent law." 
 
 The Select Committee declined to recommend the 
 suggested alternative site in view of the opinion and 
 experience of the managers against it, and this very Com- 
 mittee, convened for the purpose of impeaching the action 
 of the Asylums Board, awarded the very highest praise to 
 the conduct of that Board, which, so far as we know, has 
 ever been awarded by a Committee of the House of Commons 
 to any public body exercising administration in London. 
 
 The evidence adduced before this Committee convinced 
 them that the ordinary requirements of the Metropolis in 
 regard to infectious disease, were sufficiently met by the 
 
 2i 
 
502 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Hospitals at Homerton and Stockwell. They did not, there- 
 fore, recommend the erection of large permanent buildings 
 at Hampstead at present, but merely the completion 
 in a permanent form, of administrative offices, while the 
 temporary erection should continue to be used for the accom- 
 modation of imbecile paupers until such time as the presence 
 of an epidemic should necessitate their removal. 
 
 A forcible proof of the confidence with which the con- 
 duct of the Metropolitan Asylums Board had inspired the 
 Select Committee, is affi)rded by the fact of its recommending 
 an extension of the powers of the Board, so as to include 
 the power of compulsory purchase and compensation in 
 accordance with the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts. 
 
 The managers of the Asylums Board also took steps in 
 1867 to ascertain the number of insane and imbecile patients 
 for whom it would be necessary for them to provide accom- 
 modation. The number was found to be about 2,550, of 
 whom 2,200 were in metropoHtan workhouses, 200 in county 
 asylums, and 150 at large, or under the care of their friends. 
 The number of small -pox cases for which it would be need- 
 ful to find accommodation, was estimated at from 2,600 to 
 3,200, and the number of fever cases from 4,200 to 4,500. 
 The hospitals erected at Homerton and Stockwell were in- 
 tended to meet the requirements of these. For the imbecile 
 paupers the Board determined to erect two asylums, calcu- 
 lated to hold 1,500 patients each. 
 
 After a long search for proper sites two were found, 
 which the Board in their report of 1868 describe as 
 " peculiarly eligible." These were situated at Leavesden 
 and at Caterham. Plans were invited and received from 
 various arcliitects, and the Board were authorized to raise 
 the sum of £128,000 for the erection of the Leavesden 
 Asylum, and £129,000 for the Caterham Asylum. These 
 estimates proved closely approximate to the actual cost, 
 
POOR RKLIEF : METROPOIJTAN ASYLUMS BOARD. 503 
 
 notwithstanding the bankruptcy of one of the contractors : a 
 notable example for the Metropolitan Board of Works, if 
 only there were any chance of its following it. The accom- 
 modation in each building was, moreover, extended from 
 1,500 to 1,620. 
 
 Notwithstanding the large size of the asylums at Leaves- 
 den and Caterham, they have proved quite insufficient to 
 hold all the imbecile poor. It is of course understood that 
 cases of acute insanity are not admissible, and the class 
 received must in the terms of the Order be confined to such 
 '• as could be lawfully retained in a workhouse," but the 
 tendency of the unions seems largely to have been to send 
 aged paupers who have become imbecile simply through age, 
 and if these are to be admitted, it cannot be wondered at 
 that the accommodation should prove insufficient. Each 
 asylum is now in the process of enlargement so as to hold 
 2,000 patients. The Local Government Board have not 
 assented to the erection of another large hospital for the 
 imbecile, but have agreed to the purchase of a site to be in 
 readiness, and such site covering nearly 90 acres, has been 
 purchased at Darenth near Dartford. 
 
 In addition to this the Asylum Board have two sites 
 within the Metropolis itself, as spare sites for utiHzation 
 in case of the breaking out of an epidemic or other ne- 
 cessity. One of tbese at Hatcham, in the Old Kent 
 Road, cost some £10,000, and the other at West Brompton, 
 cost about the same sum. 
 
 The Managers have also recently adopted the poHcy of 
 withdrawing the imbecile children from Leavesden and 
 Caterham, and they are now, to the number of about 300, 
 housed at the old premises of the London Orphan Asylum in 
 Lower Clapton, preparatory to the erection of a school for 
 them on the Darenth site. 
 
 Caterham Asylum was opened in the autumn of 1870, 
 
504 MUNICIPAL LONDON, 
 
 and in the course of the first year received 1,444 patients. 
 Most of these were sufiering from paralysis, decay, debility 
 or deformity, and included cases of chronic mania, epilepsy, 
 melancholia, dementia, imbeciHty, and idiocy. These appear 
 to be the class of complaints for which- the Asylum is 
 established. Many of the patients have shown a constant 
 improvement since their admission, and a fair proportion of 
 those whose ailments were merely mental have been dis- 
 charged as cured. The establishment is complete within 
 itself. The farm account shows a considerable profit, and 
 gas is produced at a cost of less than half what is charged 
 to the public outside. The average number of resident 
 patients in 1874, in this hospital, reached 1,796 ; 61 patients 
 were discharged as recovered, and 192 died. Nearly one- 
 half of the patients were employed in some kind of occupa- 
 tion and, in connection with tailoring, shoe-making, and 
 upholstery, the profit on such labour was about £600. The 
 farm produced £360. 
 
 The total number of patients admitted into Stockwell 
 Fever Hospital, from the opening to December 1874, was 
 1,530 ; Homerton, 2,357 ; Stockwell Small-pox Hospital, 
 3,047. As an illustration of the value of vaccination, it may 
 be remarked that the number of those admitted who were 
 vaccinated was 2,458 ; and unvaccinated, 589. The number 
 of deaths amongst the vaccinated was 281, and, amongst the 
 unvaccinated, 284 ; thus showing that, under the best treat- 
 ment, the proportion of those who died being unvaccinated 
 was about one-half, and those who were vaccinated less 
 than one- eighth. 
 
 The cost of each patient per head, for provision, clothing, 
 gas, and all necessaries, averaged something under 9d. per 
 day, and the other Asylum charges, including salaries, 
 maintenance, and medicine, dd. more., making the total 
 cost. Is. Notwithstanding this small rate, the dietary is an 
 
POOR RELIEF : METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD. 506 
 
 exceedingly good one, including one pint of tea, one pint of 
 cocoa, and about thirty ounces of solid food per diem. 
 
 Leavesden Asylum was opened for the reception of 
 patients in October 1870, and the character of patients 
 admitted appears to be the same as those admitted at Cater- 
 ham. The average daily number in residence during the 
 year 1874 was 1,782, the number discharged 49, and the 
 deaths 89. 
 
 The managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District have 
 suffered a great deal of animadversion in consequence of the 
 manner in which their duties have been carried out. Those 
 who have thus criticized their conduct were either ignorant 
 of or did not sufficiently remember the conditions under 
 which the Asylums Board performs its functions. In the 
 first place the Legislature itself, through the medium of 
 Gathorne Hardy's Act, has distinctly contemplated the 
 removal of the infected poor from their crowded and ill- 
 ventilated dwellings, and their transport through the streets 
 to asylums fit for their reception and treatment ; and, in 
 the next place, no important step has been taken or can be 
 taken by the Metropohtan Asylums Board without the 
 direct authority and sanction of the Local Government 
 Board. In a letter written under the authority of Mr. 
 Goschen in 1871, the Poor Law Board bore willing evidence 
 to the excellent manner in which the Asylums Board had up 
 to that date performed its functions, and assumed for itself 
 full responsibility for all the important steps taken by the 
 managers. The danger supposed to arise from the convey- 
 ance through the streets of infected persons, of which we have 
 heard recently so much, is stated to be without the smallest 
 foundation in fact. But even if such danger were proved in 
 some cases to exist, we should still hold that the poHcy enun- 
 ciated by the legislature in 1867 was the true one, and that 
 any possible evil which could arise from the conveyance of in- 
 
506 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 fected patients through the open air would be less than the 
 evil which results from their presence in densely crowded 
 districts of the poor, where large numbers of persons must 
 of necessity remain constantly within the area of contagion. 
 
 The Metropolitan Asylums Board has, upon the occasion 
 of the various epidemics that have broken out in London 
 during the past few years, proved itself fully equal to the 
 large demands made upon its energy and competence. 
 "Where the permanent accommodation has been insufficient 
 it has been supplemented with the utmost despatch by tem- 
 porary adaptations, and, through the agency of this Board, 
 the Metropolitan Poor Act of 1867 has worked most 
 effectually in lessening the amount and mitigating the 
 character of metropolitan contagious disease. 
 
 It is not our desire needlessly to introduce personal con- 
 siderations into the discussions of public matters, but it 
 is the simplest justice to say that, when the Visiting Com- 
 mittees of the Board determined to undertake, and did 
 undertake, the regular personal inspection and supervision of 
 the infected wards m their hospitals, they displayed an 
 amount of personal heroism in the public service which the 
 people of London ought never to forget. 
 
 The cost of the sites and the erection of the various hos- 
 pitals, has been mainly defrayed by loans. In the first 
 instance, the moneys were borrowed from the Public Works 
 Loan Commissioners, who appear to have charged the Board 
 5 per cent, interest; the whole amount to be repayable over 
 thirty years. It will thus be seen that the terms exacted 
 by the Commissioners from the Asylums Board were very 
 different from those exacted from the London School Board, 
 who can borrow their money from the same source at 3;^ per 
 cent., together with the most favourable terms for repaying 
 capital and interest, over a period of fift}' years. It was, 
 therefore, satisfactory to the Asylums Board when the 
 
POOR relief: metropolitan asylums board. 507 
 
 borrowing powers of tte Metropolitan Board of "Works 
 were extended, so as to include loans to the amount of 
 £500,000 to the Asylums Board. The amount of money 
 which the Metropolitan Board of Works may now advance 
 to the Asylums Board is, as we have already shown in our 
 consideration of Board loans, £600,000. The loans were 
 negotiated at £3 17s. 6d. per cent., thus showing a saving 
 in interest alone of £1 25. 6d., while the period of repay- 
 ment was extended to sixty years. The loans of the Public 
 "Works Commissioners were promptly paid off, and now the 
 only money due from the Board on capital account is due to 
 the Metropolitan Board of Works. The amount of principal 
 standing to the credit of the Metropohtan Board of Works 
 on the 25th of March, 1875, was £517,510. 
 
 Distributed amongst the various asylums it is found that, 
 in the year ending Lady-day, 1875, there were expended 
 at : — 
 
 Leavesden Asylum 
 Caterham „ 
 Hampstead „ 
 Homerton Fever Asylum 
 
 ,, Small Pox Asylum 
 Stockwell Fever ,, 
 
 Small Pox 
 
 £ 
 
 38,026 
 
 41,268 
 
 15,740 
 
 11,778 
 
 5,149 
 
 7,372 
 
 3,626 
 
 £122,959 
 
 The office expenses were £3,330. Loans to the extent 
 of £9,425 were repaid, and the payments on loan interest 
 account amounted to £20,257. 
 
 The annexed table sets out the receipts and expenditure 
 of the Board in the year ending March 25th, 1875, the 
 maintenance of the patients sent being charged to each 
 union, and the common charges rateably distributed. 
 
608 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 00 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 t3 
 
 te; 
 
 « « 
 h|5 
 
 «.o' of ci ■^' ctT of 00 ci r-' cj CJ ■<f' ^' of »c~ c:" cT as" 0' eo r-T 0' c-" so* eo* •** eo" r-^' ■*" 
 
 CO* 
 
 1-^ 
 
 » 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 M CO 1 
 
 a a 1 
 
 =0C0C;t~CTr-iO>n)O(Ma20SCi»>ri»O<Xi07t>O,-iOOWOOO-HQ005 
 
 
 
 stationery 
 
 and 
 
 Office 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 
 HI 
 
 
 Medicines, 
 Medical 
 
 and 
 Surgical 
 Appli- 
 ances. 
 
 
 eo 
 
 ill 
 
 s * 
 a OS 
 
 or;-'*ic;o>c/^t-CT';235cc05O^<:c<^>-tCO-*i~OC0r-<e0t^00-HCs 
 OrH«rcoc-ooo?-^-(<or^t^cicco:oc:x>_t-~i^O^-*OT>r-ioco 
 C4j -i< -H c» CO eo cj -^ « CO -t< e>i IS) (?3 cc CO CO X t- CO ■<ii eo X 
 co' oT ^^^^^ _' ^' 
 
 eo 
 
 CO 
 
 0^ 
 
 2 i. 
 
 oJC-it-i<xc«C;t~c<»-HOOOcO'-j^-*'-*u'tcfeo(Ne3ocoe»i~CBC<»co»a 
 
 'i|JCO~(NX-^OJt~COOOC5-*COCOOX-t<XOOX-fl.~<N«50t".-IOJOOO 
 
 eo 
 
 Loan 
 
 Repayment 
 
 and 
 
 Interest 
 
 Account. 
 
 oc•?0■;^■a2~^-XO:f-u-r^x^cO'^JOO^-lx-^Oer^o-«^cccocOT-- 
 qj t- -^ ^ 05 CO «c t- o? "* i — n CO -f t- x_ -!<_ T?_ -^ t- X f— X eo -^ CO C5 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 ' 
 
 0" 
 eo 
 
 Salaries 
 
 and 
 
 Maino- 
 
 nance of 
 
 Officers 
 
 and 
 
 Seryants 
 
 {^■^it~(:,Of-oc:-j<c:co— 'XCOrH--((c<?i-OXcacoO-HOX05eo-t<r-'0 
 
 I4J 0_-* •■£> C-. —1^0 -*t-X0Q-)<l-'*OO ^^l> t."^, "V"^ '^.. ~ — . 3C CO i-H^-** eo 03 
 
 
 
 0. 
 
 CO 
 
 H 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 s 
 
 H 
 
 2 
 
 ■fl 
 § 
 
 xtoecc: t^ecioxot>o;t-t-t^c«i~XrHeoTji->*0<Mo:r-teco(N>-oc« 
 
 ^T-i OJ— C5 « — i-OCOOJC* C«« -ilC-CO^^OCOTjl^<Nrt(M ^ 
 
 C5 
 HI 
 X 
 
 c 
 IS 
 
 5 
 
 iio-HiOX3:co-Hcr(MOC*t^t~(0?c;-^c;crocooeoc50<r?U5X-fcoo5 
 
 iJCC^COO— lC5tClOOeOC5-t<XOt~C3iOOC:>-Ot^X80-*C:ir5000» 
 ^CO -HCiO rt,_ic>J^^^ COi-- CO-tlC^ OJCOO*^— ^'-'d^-^ 
 
 r-t 
 
 eo" 
 
 III 
 
 tio^-fi-ox— i>c— l«oco■H'x:oc^c:^c?>ooo<*05>cc^o=:^ — HO 
 
 ' csf — r.rjr _r^'— T-j" -- csTi-''" co'co'--" c»oc?cc— '-Hr^'cj 
 
 
 1 « 
 
 ^1 
 
 ^-JC^r>?c'?t^C;rit^C<iCC0?O<:CXC0OOrHOeCOC0OXXC0XC^C0'^ 
 
 -i<o:c— 'crt--HOO^cooo— "^00 — csxeofKOOt-t-Ococvot-o 
 
 C4J CO CO -H CO t- t^ 05 0? C5 0: «D 00 00 CO_^ >C 0_ "-H^ <^, '^ t^, *-. ^^^ ""t "- ~. 
 
 t-'r-'co'Tj^cf-j'c* co'o r^^eo'co'i-^'ifs oT'^'oo'ci'to'io^O ot-c:'0«'>*eoo<?eo 
 
 
 
 eo" 
 ,-1 
 
 PABISH OB UNION. 
 
 
 
 y of Loudon Union 
 
 iham do. 
 
 eenwich do. 
 
 ickney do. 
 
 )lborn do. 
 
 wisham do. 
 
 le End Old Town, Hamlet of . 
 
 plar Union .... 
 
 George's do. . 
 
 George-in-the-East, Parish 
 
 Giles and St. George, Bloomsbury, do 
 
 Giles, Camberwell do. 
 
 John, Hampstead do. 
 
 Leonard, Shoreditch do, 
 
 Luke, Chelsea do. 
 
 Mary, Paddington do. 
 
 Marylebone do. 
 
 Mary, Lambeth do. 
 
 Mai7, Islington do. 
 
 Mary Abbotts, Kensington, do. 
 
 Matthew, Bethnal Green do. 
 
 Pancras do. 
 
 Olave's do. 
 
 Saviour's do. 
 rand do. 
 epney do. 
 andsworth and Clapham do. 
 tiitechapel do. 
 oolwich do. 
 ostminster do. 
 
 ufiOBW>3Sf^M50O0^MMM3?^30MQDO2OTMMMW^^^^ 
 
POOR RELIEF : POOR RATE. 509 
 
 It has been said that the Poor Rate is the milch cow of 
 Parliament, and certainly judging from the number of 
 expenses charged upon it, the observation is not without a 
 certain amount of truth, for the rate includes a number of 
 charges which have no connection whatever with the relief 
 of the poor. 
 
 The total income and expenditure of the rate levied as 
 Poor Rate in the Metropolis during the year ending Lady- 
 day, 1874, was as follows : — 
 Income — £ 
 
 From Poor Rates .... 2,326,608 
 Receipts from the Treasury and in aid 
 
 of Poor Rates .... 107,159 
 
 Total Receipts 
 
 . 2,433,767 
 
 Expenditure — 
 
 
 In-Maintenance 
 
 488,798 
 
 Out-Relief . . . 
 
 309,441 
 
 Maintenance of Lunatics . 
 
 162,932 
 
 Workhouse Loans Repaid, and 
 
 
 Interest .... 
 
 92,097 
 
 Salaries and Rations of Ofl&cers . 
 
 174,438 
 
 Other Expenses of Relief . 
 
 404,056 
 
 Legal Proceedings . 
 
 3,359 
 
 Balance of Contribution to Com- 
 
 
 mon Poor Fund . 
 
 1,420 
 
 Total Expenditure in connection 
 
 
 with Metropolitan Poor Relief 
 
 1 «Q^ 
 
 Payments on accoimt of Police 
 
 Rate, County Rates, &c. . 713,117 
 
 Payments on Account of Regis- 
 tration Act .... 10,940 
 
 Carried forward . . 724,057 1,636,541 
 
510 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward . 
 
 724,057 
 
 1,636,541 
 
 Vaccination Fees 
 
 8,593 
 
 
 Municipal and Parliamentary 
 
 
 
 Registration, and cost of Jury 
 
 
 
 Lists 
 
 16,741 
 
 
 Minor Payments 
 
 290 
 
 
 Total Expenditure for purposes 
 
 
 
 unconnected with Pelief to the 
 
 
 
 w^nrw 
 
 
 749,681 
 
 J. \j\ji • • • • • 
 
 Payments under Assessment Acts 
 
 2,883 
 
 Money expended for other pur- 
 
 
 
 poses 
 
 108,531 
 
 
 Expenditure partly connected 
 
 
 
 and partly unconnected with 
 
 
 
 T^nnT r?on/:iT 
 
 
 111,414 
 
 X UUl ivcilUl • • • 
 
 
 Total Expenditure . 
 
 2,497,636 
 
 The expenditure fairly chargeable to the Poor Rate 
 seems to be found by the addition of the first and third of 
 the items of expenditure giving a total of £1,747,955. 
 (This amount was somewhat less in the year ending Lady- 
 day, 1875.) If we add to this the miscellaneous expen- 
 diture, exclusive of the county and poHce expenditure which 
 we have separately considered, we have a total expenditure 
 on poor relief, vaccination, registration, &o., of £1,784,519. 
 The expenses of the Metropolitan Asylums District are 
 included in the item, " Other expenses of relief." 
 
 Under section 81 of the Act of 1867, the borrowing 
 powers of Poor Law Guardians within the Metropolis are 
 extended to any sum not exceeding one-half of the aggre- 
 gate amount of the Poor Rate raised in the preceding three 
 years. The balance of loans remaining due by the various 
 London Poor Law Unions and parishes on Lady-day, 1874, 
 
POOR relief: loans or poor law authorities. 511 
 
 was £957,201, being an increase over the preceding year 
 of some £38,000. The six districts with the largest loan 
 debt were— City of London, £86,770 ; Lambeth, £80,608 ; 
 Islington, £77,493; Kensington, £69,916; Holborn, 
 £63,957; and Woolwich, £61,419. The six smallest (ex- 
 cluding, of course, the extra-parochial districts which do 
 not appear to have levied any Poor Rate, and have no 
 debt), are — Greenwich, £3,703 ; Fulham, £4,845 ; St. 
 Giles and St. George, Bloomsbury, £5,880 ; Hampstead, 
 £8,894 ; Paddington, £8,983 ; and Mile End Old Town, 
 £9,410. 
 
 These loans have been eflfected by the Poor Law Autho- 
 rities under the authority of the Local Government Board, 
 and the proportion which they bear to the amount of the 
 Poor Rate is more than double the average of the rest of 
 the country. They do not, however, include the whole of 
 the Poor Law Authorities' loan liability. The loans of the 
 Asylums District Board on Lady-day, 1875, were £517,510, 
 an amount £9,425 less than the previous year. The District 
 Pauper Schools owed £189,070 ; the Central London Sick 
 Asylum, £53,015 ; and the Poplar and Stepney Sick 
 Asylum, £5,324. 
 
 In the expenditure just set out, the cost of the Regis- 
 tration Act and other cognate matters was set down at 
 £10,940. This sum includes the salaries of the various 
 registration officers within the metropolitan district, and 
 other local registration costs, but does not include the cost 
 of the central establishment in Somerset House. The total 
 cost of the latter is defrayed by the Imperial Treasury, and 
 the department is placed under the control of the Local 
 Government Board.* The officials at the Central Office are 
 in the appointment of the Government : all the Local 
 
 * These powers were transfeired from the Home Secretary by the 
 34 &. 35 Vict., c. 70. 
 
512 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Registrars are in the appointment of the various Boards of 
 Guardians, but a power of dismissal is given to the central 
 authority. 
 
 As we showed in our chapter on Vestries, the union of 
 the parish clerks for the purpose of supplying statistics of 
 mortality, gradually broke up in the early part of the 
 present century. The Registration Acts have supplied the 
 deficiency thus created, and the information now ob- 
 tained is much fuller than could be obtained under the old 
 system. The area over which the investigation extends is 
 also much larger. In 1592-3 when the prevalence of the 
 plague first led to the introduction of weekly bills of mor- 
 tality, the area was about 1,700 acres. This was increased 
 in 1606 to 5,579 acres; in 1626 to 6,406; in 1636 to 
 21,528 ; in 1726 to 21,543 ; in 1801 to 30,002 ; in the new 
 tables of mortality of 1840, 44,816 acres; in 1844 to 
 56,304 ; and in 1846 to the present area of 75,362 acres ; 
 the census population in 1871 being 3,254,260. 
 
 The " MetropoHs" of the Registrar-General is nearly co- 
 terminous with the district of the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works. 
 
 The difference appears to be that the hamlet of Penge 
 is within the district of the Metropolitan Board, but 
 not within the Registrar-General's limit ; while the hamlet 
 of Mottingham is included in the latter and not in the 
 former. The Registrar- General, for the purposes of registra- 
 tion, divides that part of the Metropolis which is within the 
 county of Middlesex into four general divisions, entitled 
 respectively, East, Central, North, and West, whilst that 
 part of which is situate in the counties of Surrey and Kent 
 is styled the South District. The Superintendent Registrar's 
 sub-districts are to a large extent co-extensive with Poor 
 Law Unions, and these divisions are therefore simply the 
 
POOR RELIEF : REGISTRATION DISTRICTS. 
 
 513 
 
 grouping together of such sub-districts for the purpose of 
 convenience. 
 
 The grouping of the several sub-districts and their 
 population is as follows : — 
 
 1. Kensington 
 
 2. Chelsea 
 
 3. St. George, Hanover Square 
 
 4. Westminster 
 
 5. Marylebone 
 
 6. Hampstead 
 
 7. Pancras 
 
 8. Islington . 
 
 9. Hackney . 
 
 10. St. Giles . 
 
 11. Strand 
 
 12. Holborn 
 
 13. City of Loudon . 
 
 14. Shoreditch 
 
 15. Bethnal Green . 
 
 16. Whitechapel 
 
 17. St. George-in-the-East 
 IS. Stepnev 
 
 19. Mile End Old Town . 
 
 20. Poplar 
 
 21. St. Saviour, Southwark 
 
 22. St. Olave . 
 
 23. Lambeth . 
 
 24. Wandsworth 
 
 25. Camberwell 
 
 26. Greenwich 
 
 27. Lewisham 
 
 28. Woolwich . 
 
 District. 
 
 West District 
 
 North District . 
 
 Central District 
 
 East District 
 
 Inhabited Population, 
 HeuseB. 1871. 
 
 68,390 
 
 91,217 
 
 34,453 
 
 82,786 
 
 South District . 140,921 
 
 417,767 
 
 561,369 
 
 751,729 
 
 334,369 
 
 639,111 
 
 9fi7,692 
 
 3,254, '6( 
 
 Each of the twenty-eight Registration Districts has a 
 Superintendent Registrar ; generally also a Deputy Superin- 
 
514 MTTNICIPAL LONTX>N. 
 
 tendent Registrar; and a number of Registrars and 
 Assistants varying from two to nine in each District, and 
 numbering altogether 163, The whole staff, exclusive of 
 the Central Office, is 206. Probably the system of Regis- 
 tration of Births, Marriages, and Deaths now existing in 
 the Metropolis, is as near perfection as it can ever be expected 
 to approach. The data supplied weekly with respect to 
 these matters is of very great importance to the community, 
 and would enable its rulers to measure and combat disease 
 with a precision unknown before the statistics were so care- 
 fully given. It is a pity that the data when obtained are 
 so difficult to act upon, through the character of the agencies 
 which must be invoked. 
 
 As the County Rate is levied as part of the Poor Rate, 
 it is desirable to allude to the method in which the money 
 so raised is expended, and also to consider the general 
 character of County jurisdiction within the Metropolis. 
 
 The Metropolis is situated within the Counties of 
 Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey. The City of London is a 
 County to itself, and, as we have seen, it manages its own 
 prisons, bridges, &c. It has also its own Lieutenancy. Even 
 the contribution paid by the Imperial Government to the 
 PoHce in various Counties, is paid by the City Estate to the 
 rates, so that no Government may interfere in this little 
 County of 650 acres. But whereas the contribution from 
 the Consolidated Fund to County Police rates has recently 
 been doubled and now amounts to one-half of the total 
 amount, the contribution from the City's Estate has remained 
 at one-quarter. It is really of no importance in what way 
 the County of the City of London defrays this expenditure ; 
 so long as the City exists it will be able to transfer and 
 arrange its accounts so as to make it satisfactory to itself, 
 and as for the public they are politely requested to mind 
 their own business. 
 
COUNTY JURISDICTION : MIDDLESEX. 515 
 
 The Government of the Counties of Middlesex, Kent, 
 and Surrey, remains in many matters exactly similar to 
 County government generally, and takes no cognizance of 
 the fact that large areas of their jurisdiction lie within the 
 Metropolitan area. Each County has its Lord Lieutenant, 
 its High Sheriff, its Justices of the Peace, and its Clerk of 
 the Peace. The High Sheriff of Middlesex is nominated 
 and elected by the City in Common Hall, that is to say, a 
 noisy assembly of LiverNTnen claim to exercise and do exer- 
 cise the right of selecting who shall receive the custody of 
 the County of Middlesex. This privilege is exercised by the 
 Crown elsewhere throughout the country, and there is no 
 reason in the world why the right to appoint the principal 
 civil representative of the sovereign should any longer 
 remain in so remarkable a body. It is a "privilege" 
 purchased from needy sovereigns for money, and which every 
 sovereign considered he had a right to resume if he thought 
 fit. It should be at once resumed. The people of Middlesex 
 do not regard the appointments of the Common Hall with any 
 satisfaction, and whatever may be their opinion as to the men 
 selected, they have no respect whatever for the selecting body. 
 
 The Quarter Sessions jurisdiction of the magistrates in 
 Middlesex is, however, modified by special Acts to meet 
 the requii'ements of the case. By the statute, 7 and 8 Vict., 
 c. 71, amended by 22 and 23 Vict., c. 4, it is provided 
 that there shall be holden for Middlesex two sessions or 
 adjourned sessions of the peace in every month, and that it 
 shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint an Assistant 
 Judge to preside at the hearing of appeals, and the trial 
 of all felonies and misdemeanours. Provision is also made 
 for the appointment of a deputy. The first sessions in the 
 months of January, April, July, and October are the General 
 Sessions of the county, and these sessions have the power 
 of a General Quarter Sessions of the county. 
 
516 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Crimes of the character dealt with at assizes when 
 committed within the metropolitan area are triable at the 
 Central Criminal Court, under the Act previously set out.* 
 
 The accounts for the county of Middlesex are made up 
 quarterly, and are calculated under three separate heads, 
 viz., "County Rate Accounts," "Lunatic Asylum Rate 
 Accounts," and "Contagious Diseases (Animals) Rate 
 Accounts." 
 
 The receipts upon each of the above accounts for the 
 four quarters, ending July 11th, 1875, were as follows : — 
 
 County Rate Accounts — 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 From the County Rate . 
 
 109,608 
 
 
 House of Correction, Coldbath 
 
 
 
 Fields! .... 
 
 25,261 
 
 
 Industrial School, Feltham 
 
 9,379 
 
 
 House of Correction, Westminstei 
 
 r 6,678 
 
 
 Criminal Prosecutions 
 
 5,222 
 
 
 Sundries ..... 
 
 1,646 
 
 
 Weights and Measures . 
 
 636 
 
 
 House of Detention . 
 
 130 
 
 158,560 
 
 Lunatic Asylums Rate Accounts — 
 
 
 From Asylum Rate . 
 
 46,764 
 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 3,560 
 
 50,324 
 
 Contagious Diseases (Animals) 
 
 
 
 Act, 1869, from rate 
 
 
 1,592 
 
 Total receipt . 
 
 £210,476 
 
 The expenditure under these various heads was, during 
 the same period of time as follows, viz. : — 
 
 * Supra, p. 139. 
 
 t This item includes contribution by Treasury to maintenance of 
 convicted prisoners. 
 
COUNTY JURISDICTION : MIDDLESEX. 
 
 517 
 
 County Rate Account — £ 
 
 House of Correction, Coldbath Fields 57,041 
 
 County Industrial School for Boys 22,830 
 
 House of CorrectionjWestminster 1 7, 1 24 
 
 Coroners — Salaries and Expenses 15,124 
 
 House of Detention, ClerkenweU 13,707 
 
 Prosecutors and Witnesses . 10,566 
 
 Militia Storehouses . . . 2,872 
 
 Reformatory Schools for Boys . 2,693 
 
 Law and Miscellaneous . . 1,915 
 
 Sessions House, ClerkenweU . 1,544 
 
 Clerk of the Peace . . . 1,240 
 
 Bridges 1,228 
 
 Treasurer of the County . . 1,036 
 
 Reformatory Schools for Girls . 968 
 
 "Weights and Measures . . 847 
 
 Assistant Judge, Extra Salary . 818 
 
 Printing and Stationery . . 497 
 
 Guildhall, Westminster . . 340 
 
 Advertisements . . . 299 
 
 Hanwell Lunatic Asylum . 212 
 
 Expenses under Adulteration Act 173 
 
 Conveyance of Prisoners . . 77 
 
 Lunatic Asylum Rate Account — 
 
 
 Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum . 
 
 26,096 
 
 Maintenance of County Lunatics 
 
 16,298 
 
 Hanwell Lunatic Asylum 
 
 14,205 
 
 Banstead Asylum . 
 
 4,395 
 
 Law Charges .... 
 
 585 
 
 " Contagious Diseases Animals Act, 
 1869"— 
 Expenses hereunder 
 
 Total Expenditure . 
 
 1,374 
 
 153,151 
 
 61,579 
 
 1,374 
 £216,104 
 
 2k 
 
518 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The valuation of the whole county of Middlesex in the 
 year 1874 was £14,965,792, and, in 1875, £15,199,608. 
 Taking this last estimate, we find that £1,529,104 was the 
 rateable value of the unions of Brentford, Edmonton, Bar- 
 net, Hendon, Uxbridge, Staines and Kingston, all of which 
 were outside the Metropohtan District. No proportion or 
 separation is set out in the accounts for the unions in the 
 Metropolitan District so far as regards the total income or 
 expenditure. Probably for the purpose of ascertaining the 
 amount of income and expenditure applicable to the metro- 
 politan area, the best method wiU be to take rateable value 
 as the basis, and deduct from the whole the proportion re- 
 presented by the rateable value of £1,529,104 as compared 
 with £15,199,608. This will give us the income and 
 expenditure levied and expended in respect of the metropolis 
 as follows : — £ 
 
 Income . . . 189,307 
 Expenditure . . 194,363 
 and the income from rates of the three classes wiU be found 
 to be £143,832. 
 
 The county authorities do not pubHsh any account of 
 the amount and condition of their loans in a tabulated form. 
 From the estimates for 1875, as to interest payments, it 
 would seem that there now remain due the following 
 amounts in respect of the various buildings belonging to 
 the county, viz. : — 
 
 Colney Hatch Asylum 
 House of Correction 
 Han well Asylum . 
 Banstead Asylum . 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 Amount now Amonut of 
 
 due. original loan. 
 
 £ £ 
 
 125,340 454,300 
 
 135,085 186,800 
 
 55,699 122,000 
 
 47,833 110,000 
 
 363,957 873,100 
 
COUNTY JURISDICTION : MIDDLESEX. 
 
 519 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 363,957 
 
 873,100 
 
 
 House of Detention 
 
 46,234 
 
 86,500 
 
 
 Industrial School . 
 
 36,283 
 
 75,200 
 
 
 Militia Storehouses 
 
 15,520 
 
 42,800- 
 
 
 "Westminster Bridewell 
 
 11,100 
 
 20,500\ 
 
 ^. 
 
 £473,094 £1,098,100 
 
 %> 
 
 There is a steady system of repajTnent in force, under 
 which the loans are being rapidly reduced. Most of the 
 money is borrowed from Insurance Associations, and the 
 rate of interest varies from 4J to 5 per cent. If we apply 
 the former calculation here, we shall find the share of this 
 debt of £473,094, which would be charged against the 
 Metropolitan District, to be £425,501. 
 
 The county of Surrey covers an area of 478,792 acres, 
 of which 476,191 are extra metropolitan. 
 
 The county gaol is in Horsemonger Lane, and the House 
 of Correction on Wandsworth Common. The county asylum 
 is at Tooting, and the county hospital at Guildford. 
 
 The receipts and expenditure during the year ending 
 November 30th, 1875, were as follows: — 
 Receipts — £ 
 
 County Rate 80,326 
 
 Prosecution of Criminals . . . 6,121 
 Maintenance of Prisoners . . . 5,476 
 Fees and Fines . . . . . 3,626 
 Wandsworth House of Correction . 3,441 
 
 Interest 1,182 
 
 Maintenance of Lunatics . . . 764 
 
 MiHtia ...... 408 
 
 Weights and Measures . . . 149 
 
 Various 150 
 
 101,643 
 
520 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Expenditure — 
 
 £ 
 
 Wandsworth House of Correction 
 
 30,492 
 
 Lunatic Asylum, Brookwood 
 
 . 14,461 
 
 „ Wandsworth 
 
 . 10,006 
 
 Other Lunatic Expenses . . - 
 
 4,942 
 
 County Gaol .... 
 
 6,307 
 
 Coroners ..... 
 
 4,486 
 
 Sessions House .... 
 
 4,113 
 
 Prosecutions of Criminals . 
 
 4,074 
 
 Salaries 
 
 3,475 
 
 Reformatories .... 
 
 3,360 
 
 Superannuation Allowances 
 
 2,367 
 
 Bridges 
 
 2,352 
 
 Militia 
 
 2,035 
 
 Conveyance, &c., of Prisoners 
 
 1,368 
 
 Clerk of the Peace 
 
 1,350 
 
 Contagious Diseases (Animals) 
 
 1,013 
 
 Weights and Measures 
 
 1,006 
 
 Registration of Voters . 
 
 681 
 
 Printing 
 
 638 
 
 Food Adulteration 
 
 458 
 
 Petty Sessions 
 
 235 
 
 Petroleum Lispection . . . . 
 
 132 
 
 Various 
 
 279 
 
 
 99,630 
 
 Of this total expenditure rather more than £16,000 was 
 paid in instalments and interest on loans. The County Deht 
 on November 30th, 1875, was as follows : — 
 
 Lunatic Asylum, Wandsworth 
 Brookwood 
 
 £ 
 42,400 
 132,736 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 175,136 
 
COUNTY JURISDICTION : KENT. 
 
 621 
 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 . 175,136 
 
 House of Correction . 
 
 . 36,633 
 
 Police 
 
 2,200 
 
 Militia 
 
 . 12,380 
 
 County Gaol .... 
 
 5,266 
 
 Sessions House .... 
 
 . 18,000 
 
 
 249,615 
 
 The proportion of these loans chargeable to the Metro- 
 politan area is £205,822. The proportion of total income is 
 about £83,000, and expenditure about £81,000. The total 
 valuation of the County in 1873 was £5,767,420, and of 
 this £4,758,770 was within the Metropolitan area. 
 
 The receipts and expenditure of the county of Kent 
 during the year ending September 29th, 1874, for purposes 
 other than the police, were as follows, viz. : — 
 Receipts — 
 
 County Rate Account — 
 
 £ 
 
 County Rates . 
 
 . 22,181 
 
 Prisons . 
 
 . 10,461 
 
 Sale of Stores . 
 
 4,000 
 
 Prosecutions 
 
 3,126 
 
 Penalties and Fees . 
 
 1,044 
 
 Rents 
 
 135 
 
 
 £40,947 
 
 Asylum Rate Account — 
 
 £ 
 
 Asyhim Rates . 
 
 . 16,735 
 
 Interest . 
 
 252 
 
 
 £16,987 
 
 Total current recei 
 
 pts 
 
 Carried forward . 
 
 . 
 
 57,934 
 57,934 
 
522 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Brought forward . 
 
 
 57,934 
 
 By Loans, Kent Office 
 
 15,000 
 
 
 „ London Assurance 
 
 
 
 Corporation . 
 
 50,000 
 
 65.000 
 
 
 id current . 
 £ 
 
 Total receipts, capital ar 
 
 £122,934 
 
 jnditure — 
 
 County Bate Account — 
 
 £ 
 
 Prisons . 
 
 18,686 
 
 
 Prosecutions, &c. 
 
 4,438 
 
 
 Coroners . 
 
 2,328 
 
 
 Registration 
 
 1,029 
 
 
 Bridges . 
 
 977 
 
 
 Industrial Schools 
 
 7,067 
 
 
 Contagious Diseases, Animt 
 
 ds 2,061 
 
 
 Miscellaneous . 
 
 5,966 
 
 42,552 
 
 Asylums Eate Account — 
 
 
 Asylum at B arming . 
 
 15,218 
 
 
 Asylum at Chartham 
 
 69,308 
 
 
 Repayment of Rate . 
 
 125 
 
 84,651 
 
 
 t Police 
 
 Total expenditure, excep 
 
 £127,203 
 
 The expenditure is swelled by loans to the extent of 
 £65,000, so that the ordinary expenditure would probably 
 he about £60,000. The rateable value of Kent, without 
 the metropolitan area, is £3,245,626, and within the limit, 
 £1,050,433, so that the ordinary county expenditure of 
 Kent, within the Metropolitan District, may be estimated at 
 about £15,000. 
 
 The principal money remaining due on loans by way 
 
VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS : THE TOWER OF LONDON. 623 
 
 of mortgage of the county rates for asylum purposes was, 
 on September 29tli, 1874, £189,541, of which about 
 £46,000 would represent the proportionate share of the 
 Metropolitan District. 
 
 The Tower of London. 
 
 In addition to the Corporation of the City of London, 
 there is another imperium in imperio within the Metropo- 
 litan District. We allude to the Tower of London. As a 
 Royal Palace and Fortress, the Tower is under the govern- 
 ment of a Field Marshal, as Gustos Rotulorum and 
 Constable of the Tower, assisted by the Deputy-Lieutenant 
 of the Tower and a Major of the Tower, with a full official 
 staff. There are, moreover, about fifty magistrates. There 
 is also also a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, a Clerk of the 
 Peace, an Assistant Clerk, a Steward and Coroner, a 
 Deputy Gaoler, a High Bailiff and Clerk of Lieutenancy, 
 a Deputy Bailiff, and an Inspector of Weights ajid 
 
 Measures, 
 
 The Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas were 
 formerly held in the Tower, and it was during their session 
 here that the City, under the Plantagenets, especially bene- 
 fited by the Courts, instead of being compelled to foUow the 
 person of the king. The sovereigns of England lived here 
 either at intervals or constantly, down to the reign of James 
 the Second. The conflicting claims and privileges of the 
 Tower and the City were the subject of an elaborate " Cer- 
 tificate," issued by the Chief Justices of the Queen's Bench 
 and Common Pleas, and the Master of the Rolls, to whom 
 they had been referred for decision. The hberties and 
 franchises of the Tower were again the subject of inquiry 
 under James the Second, and letters patent, setting out and 
 confirming the privileges and Hberties of the Tower, were 
 
624 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 duly granted by the king. Under this Charter, all the places 
 mentioned in the schedule were to be part of the liberty of 
 the Tower, and free from all City control, and also from all 
 government or correction of the Justices of the Peace, or 
 Coroners for the County of Middlesex, It provides for the 
 government of the district vdthin the liberty, for the estab- 
 lishment of sessions to be held four times in the year, for 
 the maintenance and powers of a Court of Record for all 
 matters arising within the liberty, and for various other 
 matters of internal government. 
 
 Various subsequent statutes have enlarged the powers of 
 the Justices of the Peace within the liberties, but the area 
 of their jurisdiction was curtailed by the Police Act. The 
 Central Criminal Court Act also includes the liberty of the 
 Tower, and the County Court Act makes no exception as to 
 the liberty. These Acts have taken away the Tower juris- 
 diction in nearly all cases, and, except in so far as exceptional 
 powers may be desirable for the governing of a Eoyal 
 Fortress, there seems no reason for the longer maintenance 
 of its shadowy authority outside the moat. 
 
 Burial Boards. 
 
 The Metropolitan Burial Boards are constituted under 
 the Statute 15 & 16 Vict., c. 85. This Act provides for 
 the discontinuance of burials in any part of the Metropolis, 
 by Order in Council upon representation made by one of the 
 Secretaries of State. The burial grounds of the Society of 
 Friends and of Jews are (by section 3) excluded from the 
 operation of this power, presumably on the ground that 
 these two classes of Dissenters were not accustomed to dis- 
 turb those who were dead by burying several in the same 
 grave. Certain other private rights are excepted, including 
 burials in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral, 
 
VARIOUS JTJKISDICTIONS : BURIAL BOARDS. 525 
 
 when the order for such interment is under the Sign 
 Manual. 
 
 No new burial grounds are to be provided within two 
 miles of the Metropolis without the approval of the Secretary 
 of State. Section 10 provides that, upon requisition of the 
 ratepayers, the churchwardens of any metropolitan parish 
 shall convene a meeting of their Vestry* to determine 
 whether a burial ground shall be provided. In case the 
 Vestry determine to provide one, then they shall appoint a 
 Burial Board of not less than three, or more than nine 
 persons ; one-third to go out of office annually, but to be 
 eligible for re-election. The Board are to meet at least 
 once a month, and are to keep accounts duly open to public 
 inspection. 
 
 The expenses of the Board in purchasing ground, con- 
 structing chapels, &c., is to be paid out of the Poor Rate 
 (section 19), and the amount to be expended is controlled by 
 the Vestry. They have also power, with the consent of the 
 Vestry and the Treasury, to borrow money ; such money to 
 be repayable with interest within twenty years. The Public 
 Works Loan Commissioners are authorized to lend money 
 for such purposes. 
 
 Several Vestries are empowered to join in providing one 
 burial ground for their united use. Section 24 provides for 
 the incorporation of the Burial Boards, and section 25 deals 
 with the situation of the ground taken for the purposes of 
 the Act ; such ground not to be within 200 yards of any 
 dwelling-house, without the consent of the owner, lessee, 
 and occupier. The Board may contract either for the pur- 
 chase of cemeteries or for interment in such cemeteries. 
 They may also fix the rate of fees for interments. The 
 Vestry may fix the fees of the officiating minister, the 
 
 • This was of course the Parish Vestry, for as yet Vestries in the 
 modern meaning of the word were not. 
 
526 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 right to officiate being vested in the incumbent of the parish, 
 or, if more than one, in the several incumbents ; any case of 
 difference being controlled by the Bishop (section 39). 
 
 The Board may make arrangements for the conveyance 
 of bodies to the cemetery, and may also provide a house fit 
 for the reception of bodies until interment. The Secretary 
 of State may make general regulations for the control of the 
 burial grounds provided by the parishes.* 
 
 The Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London are 
 constituted a Burial Board for the parishes within the City. 
 They have constructed a cemetery at Ilford in Essex, and 
 this is controlled and regulated by the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 35. 
 It covers an area of 91 acres 
 
 The Act 15 & 16 Vict., c. 85, was extended by the 16 & 
 17 Yict., c. 134, to districts beyond the metropolis, and by 
 section 8, Registers of Burials are to be duly kept in every 
 burial ground provided under the Act.f Additional powers 
 as to Orders in Council, &c., are given by Act 18 & 19 Yict., 
 c. 128. The Acts are again amended by the 20 & 21 Vict., 
 c. 81, empowering Burial Boards appointed under the former 
 Acts to provide more than one burial ground (section 3) . Orders 
 in Council may be made regulating burial groimds and con- 
 taining other regulations as to fees, the exemption of funerals 
 from tolls, &c. Power is given to Boards to borrow on 
 terminable annuities for a life or lives, or for a term not 
 exceeding 30 yeaxs (section 21). 
 
 The 44th section of the Act of 1852 gave the Secretary 
 of State power to make regulations as to interments. 
 Copious instructions have been issued in pursuance of this 
 power. They deal with the position of the cemetery, its 
 
 * The " Inscription Difficulty " is expressly provided for in sec. 37, 
 whereby the determination of any question afifecting the fitness of any 
 inscription in consecrated ground is to be decided by the Bishop of the 
 diocese. 
 
 t See further as to Registration of Burials. Act 27 & 28 Vict., c. 97. 
 
VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS : BURIAL BOARDS. 
 
 52: 
 
 distance from town, drainage, nature of soil, quantity of 
 ground, roads, fencing, planting, area of grave space, depth 
 of graves, only one body in each grave,* vaults, the opening 
 of graves, size of graves, registration of graves, filling up of 
 graves, wood used for colB&ns, character of monuments, 
 conveyance to burial grounds, necessity of dead houses, 
 character of such houses, &c., &c. A more excellent and 
 instructive set of regulations with respect to any subject, 
 was probably never issued from any government office. 
 
 Name of Bosu'd. 
 
 Income. 
 
 ErPENDITDKE. 
 
 Outetand- 
 ing 
 
 From 
 
 
 
 Loans 
 
 
 
 
 sources 
 
 Total 
 
 Bm-ial 
 
 repaid, 
 
 Sala- 
 
 
 Loans. 
 
 
 other than 
 
 Income. 
 
 Fees. 
 
 and 
 
 ries. 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 
 Poor Rate. 
 
 
 
 Interest. 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 =£■ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 X' 
 
 Kensington . 
 
 681 
 
 3,031 
 
 232 
 
 717 
 
 301 
 
 2,288 
 
 2,050 
 
 Fulham . 
 
 360 
 
 988 
 
 61 
 
 578 
 
 200 
 
 1,115 
 
 4,200 
 
 Hammersmith 
 
 533 
 
 1,533 
 
 120 
 
 1,003 
 
 60 
 
 1,560 
 
 14,081 
 
 Paddington . 
 
 4,446 
 
 4,446 
 
 824 
 
 
 
 972 
 
 4,390 
 
 
 
 Westminster 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 128 
 
 
 
 Marvlebone . 
 
 1,640 
 
 3,140 
 
 345 
 
 1,174 
 
 266 
 
 2,702 
 
 1,800 
 
 St. Pancras . 
 
 3,303 
 
 3,303 
 
 595 
 
 1,788 
 
 911 
 
 3,743 
 
 4,717 
 
 Islington 
 
 2,610 
 
 3,961 
 
 585 
 
 1,351 
 
 811 
 
 4,405 
 
 2,326 
 
 Shoreclitch 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Southwark . 
 
 460 
 
 498 
 
 466 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 504 
 
 
 
 Lambeth . 
 
 2,750 
 
 2,750 
 
 615 
 
 500 
 
 190 
 
 3,275 
 
 1,700 
 
 Batter sea . 
 
 679 
 
 l,18ti 
 
 — 
 
 520 
 
 107 
 
 1,173 
 
 4,800 
 
 Clapham . 
 
 201 
 
 701 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 53 
 
 659 
 
 
 
 Putney . 
 
 335 
 
 585 
 
 288 
 
 192 
 
 75 
 
 570 
 
 480 
 
 Camberwell . 
 
 2,229 
 
 2,629 
 
 684 
 
 1,067 
 
 150 
 
 2,615 
 
 2,647 
 
 Deptford . . 
 
 1,953 
 
 1,953 
 
 70 
 
 1,862 
 
 221 
 
 2,619 
 
 1,500 
 
 Greenwich 
 
 1,370 
 
 1,370 
 
 186 
 
 813 
 
 318 
 
 1,379 
 
 2,835 
 
 Lee 
 
 10,500 
 
 10,735 
 
 — 
 
 235 
 
 — 
 
 7,762t 
 
 13,100 
 
 Le wish am 
 
 785 
 
 1,285 
 
 104 
 
 848 
 
 250 
 
 1,394 
 
 2,500 
 
 Charlton . 
 
 520 
 
 620 
 
 — 
 
 364 
 
 170 
 
 632 
 
 975 
 
 Woolwich 
 
 431 
 
 793 
 
 — 
 
 362 
 
 313 
 
 781 
 
 990 
 60,701 
 
 35,786 
 
 45,635 
 
 5,175 
 
 13,374 
 
 5,413 
 
 43,694 
 
 * The Secretary of State lays this down as a "fundamental principle." 
 A coarse contrast was recently afforded by one of the London Cemetery 
 Companies boasting of their capacity to inter more than a million paupers, 
 " with the usual complement of ten in each grave ! " 
 
 t This lai-ge expenditure is accounted for by the expenditure of i£7,00Q 
 in laying out a new burial ground. Lee also boiTowed £10,000 in this 
 year, and Greenwich increased her loan account by £784. 
 
628 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 There are twenty-one Burial Boards in the Metropolis, 
 and the preceding table sets forth their income and expen- 
 diture during the last year with respect to which it 
 is published. The returns are complete with the excep- 
 tion of Shoreditch, which does not seem- to have made 
 any return. 
 
 In addition to the various divisions of London already 
 mentioned, there remains the division into eight Parliamen- 
 tary Boroughs, with an aggregate population of 3,008,101, 
 according to the census of 1871. It will thus be seen that 
 the Parliamentary district does not include the whole of the 
 district under the MetropoHs Management Act. The actual 
 divisions are ten, the City of London, with a population of 
 74,732, sends four Members ; each of the remaining seven 
 Boroughs sends two Members, and their census population 
 is — Westminster, 246,413; Marylebone, 477,555; Finsbury, 
 443,316; Tower Hamlets, 391,568; Southwark, 207,335; 
 Lambeth, 379,112; Greenwich, 167,632; Hackney, 362,427; 
 and Chelsea, 258,011. 
 
 London Charities. 
 
 London is especially favoured in the extent and variety 
 of its charities. The City Companies returned in 1868 
 their gross income available for charitable purposes at 
 £99,027 Os. M* Of this sum the Drapers returned 
 £15,181 155., and the Mercers £13,147 175. 4d. The re- 
 mainder was divided in various sums amongst the different 
 Companies, down to the £4 per annum available for the 
 support of the almshouses, &c., of the Tilers and Bricklayers, 
 Company. The total amount available for almshouses, 
 pensioners, &c., is returned at £53,912 95. 10c?. per annum, 
 
 * Return to House of Commons, 1868, No. 433. 
 
VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS : LONDON CHARITIES. 529 
 
 and for education, &c., £36,991 Os. 2d. We have no in- 
 tention to dilate at present upon the way in which this 
 money is expended, or the utter nnreliabihty of the whole 
 return as an estimate of what is legally available for the 
 several purposes indicated. A very large proportion of the 
 amount is returned as " Rentcharges and fixed annual pay- 
 ments." In this list is of course included the case of Robert 
 Donkin, abeady set out, and how many more are within the 
 same category nobody knows : probably most of them. So 
 the true income may be two or three, or four times the 
 amount at which it is returned. Forty years ago when the 
 Charity Commissioners first reported, the Companies re- 
 turned this class of their income at £67,735 12s. dd. As it 
 is notoriously charged upon real property in the City, and 
 consists mainly of such property, it is very easy to judge 
 how far an increase of 50 per cent, in iacome, as returned in 
 1838, is likely to be in any sense a fair return. Of course 
 if many of the estates left to the poor are treated as fixed 
 charges of the same amount as their value when given, no 
 one can wonder at the income remaining stationary. 
 
 A return of the Parochial Charities of the Cities of 
 London and "Westminster was made in 1865 upon the 
 motion of the Lord Bishop of London.* It is a most in- 
 structive return. The total income from Parochial Charities 
 in the City of London is returned at £64,560 I85. lie?., 
 being nearly double the amount of the income returned 
 forty years previously. Of the total sum £26,480 is avail- 
 able for purposes of church rate; £11,674 for education; 
 £8,010 for the poor generally ; £5,324 for distribution of 
 money ; £3,988 for the endowment of clergy ; £2,865 for 
 distribution of articles in kind ; £6,096 for support of alms- 
 houses, &c. The parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate, has the 
 largest income from Charities, viz., £6,607, and the re- 
 * House of Lords' Papers, 1865, No. 243. 
 
530 MUNICIPAL IX)NDON. 
 
 inainder is distributed over all the parishes. How these 
 sums are expended was ventilated a few years ago in a 
 series of able letters to the Times, from the pen of Sir Charles 
 Trevelyan. The material point to recollect about them, 
 however, is that the poor for whom they were given, and the 
 congregations whose religious advancement they contem- 
 plated are now, by the force of events, extruded fi'om the 
 City altogether. 
 
 The Parocliial Charities of the City of Westminster 
 produced, at the date of the return, an income of 
 £26,555 17s. \d. These were divided amongst the parishes 
 of St. Anne Soho, St. Clement Danes, St. George Hanover 
 Square, St. James, St. John, St. Margaret (Dean and 
 Chapter Charities), St. Martin-in-the-Fields, St. Mary-le- 
 Strand, and St. Paul's, Covent Garden. There was avail- 
 able for almshouses and pensioners, £11,762 ; for education, 
 £7,097 ; for apprenticing and advancement of children, 
 £2,299 ; for medical charities, £1,200 ; and so on. 
 
 As to the remainder of the Parishes within the Metro- 
 poHtan district, no exact return is available. Under section 
 199 of the Management Act, the Vestries are required to 
 make out every year a list of estates, charities, and bequests 
 under their control, with a full account of the same, and the 
 condition and appHcation of the funds. This is to be open 
 to the inspection of the ratepayers. This clause, however, 
 only appears to concern the Vestries that are also Parishes 
 sole. Where a Vestry consists of an aggregation of Parishes, 
 the charities are not under its control. A certain number of 
 the Vestries (about ten) pubhsh an account of their charities 
 with their annual reports, but any estimate formed of the 
 extent of Parochial and other chai'ities coming within the 
 classes included in the quoted returns, must be an estimate 
 simply. They, however, certainly amount to at least 
 £15,000 a year. 
 
VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS : LONDON CHARITIES. 531 
 
 We should, therefore, estimate the yearly income of the 
 Charities of the Metropolis, on the above basis, as follows : — 
 
 £ 
 City of London Parochial Charities 64,560 
 City of Westminster ditto . . 26,555 
 Other metropolitan parishes . . 15,000 
 Livery Companies . . . 99,027 
 
 Total . . . £205,142 
 
 Independently of the delusive character of this return, 
 already pointed out, it falls far short of the funds available 
 for charitable purposes now in the hands of ecclesiastical or 
 municipal bodies which ought to be included within it. 
 
 According to Sir John Bennett, the City Ward Schools 
 possess, in addition to freehold and leasehold estates, invested 
 funds to the extent of £50,000. The answer to this state- 
 ment, as given by the City, is an exactly typical one. Firstly, 
 that the amount is untruly stated ; and, secondly, that its 
 pubHcation was a breach of confidence. We have already 
 shown that no statement of any city authority as to the 
 nature, extent, or appropriation of its funds, is worth, or, at 
 the hands of thinking men, will receive, one moment's consi- 
 deration, unless it is supported by reHable data, showing 
 what is the true state of affairs. Then, again, there are 
 large sums which are in the disposal of the Corporation of 
 London for charitable purposes. These are duly set forth in 
 the City accounts. Different principles will probably be 
 found to apply to some of these charities as compared with 
 others ; and until we have an examination and analysis of 
 them undertaken by a competent authority, it is by no 
 means easy to say to what objects they can be most equitably 
 applied, or how many of them may be fairly dealt with at 
 all by any municipal authority. 
 
532 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Chapter XII. 
 
 Summary of Divisions of Metropolis for various Purposes. — 
 Income and Expenditure of the Metropolis. — Metropolitan 
 Loan Liability. 
 
 In the preceding chapters an endeavour has been made 
 to ascertain and set forth the functions of the various bodies 
 now exercising municipal or quasi-municipal powers within 
 the Metropolitan area. It is not probable that there exists 
 in any other large city on the face of the civilized earth, 
 laying any claim whatever to municipal institutions, so 
 extraordinary and incongruous a state of things as that 
 which is here to be found. 
 
 From whatever point of view the conditions of London 
 government be regarded, the results are equally anomalous, 
 and present a conflicting and interlacing variety of jurisdic- 
 tions, which have rendered their disentanglement a matter 
 of serious difl&culty. 
 
 Regarded from the point of view of territorial divisions, 
 it is found that the areas of districts are rarely coterminous 
 for any two purposes. If the dividing lines of the various 
 authorities, whose jurisdiction has been considered, were 
 printed upon the same map of London, it would present a 
 confused network without a single square inch of vacant 
 space. 
 
 And even the area of the MetropoHs itself is different 
 for different purposes, excluding the areas of gas and water 
 supply ; this is shown by the following table : — 
 
Area In 
 Acres. 
 
 Inhabited 
 Houses, 1871. 
 
 Population, 
 1871. 
 
 441,587 
 268,419 
 
 528,794 
 487,587 
 
 3,8S5,641 
 3,657.078 
 
 75,490 
 
 419.642 
 
 3,266.987 
 
 75,362 
 
 41T.767 
 
 8,254.260 
 
 45,841 
 
 882,126 
 
 3,022,080 
 
 DIVISIONS OF THE METROPOLIS. 633 
 
 London as divided for certain Purposes. 
 
 Metropolitan and City Police Dis- 
 tricts ..... 
 
 Central Criminal Court District . 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works Dis- 
 trict and London School Board 
 District ..... 
 
 London within Registrar-General's 
 Tables of Mortality . 
 
 ParUaraentary Boroughs, including 
 the City of London . 
 
 City of London within Municipal 
 and Parliamentary limits (in- 
 cluded in all above tables) . 650 9,236 74,688 
 
 There are 56 separate divisions of the Metropolis for the 
 purposes of the Building Acts ; 39 for the purposes of local 
 government ; 37 for the purposes of Metropolitan Board 
 representation ; 30, Poor Law Unions and Parishes ; 28, 
 districts of the Superintendent Registrar; 21, Burial Boards; 
 20. divisions of the Police Force ; 16, District Schools ; 15, 
 divisions for MiKtia purposes ; 15, Police Court Districts ; 
 13, County Court Districts ; 10, School Board Divisions ; 
 10, Boroughs ; 10, Gas Companies ; 10, Postal Divisions ; 
 8, "Water Companies ; and 3 separate County Jurisdictions. 
 
 The organizations that we have considered cover the 
 whole ground of municipal work — giving to those words 
 their most extended signification — and we are now in a 
 position to strike the municipal balance of the Metropolis. 
 
 The municipal income and expenditure of the Metropolis 
 as set forth in the following table docs not represent any 
 single year, but the amounts are collected from the last 
 year to which they have been made up. This is a matter 
 of necessity as no complete year is available since 1872. 
 There is not, however, anything sufficiently exceptional in 
 the income or expenditure of the various bodies to make the 
 estimate seriously in error. The accounts represent the fair 
 
 2l 
 
634 
 
 THE MUNICIPAL BALANCE 
 Income. 
 
 CURRENT INCOME. 
 
 Total Income of Gas Companies 
 
 Income on Poor Rate Account, in 
 plndin? it'l()7,159 from tlie Treasury 
 (this Rate includes County and Po 
 lice Rates) .... 
 
 London Vestries (exclusive of Sub 
 Bcription to Metropolitan Board) 
 
 Water Companies' total Income 
 
 City of London 
 
 London Police, from Treasury and 
 other sources (in addition to 
 4^4.82,785 included in Poor Rate) 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works (not 
 including ^'247,506 received from 
 Coal Dues, &c.) . 
 
 School Board .... 
 
 County Income, Metropolitan propor 
 tion (not including County Rate, 
 which is included in Poor Rate) — 
 
 Middlesex 
 
 Surrey 
 
 Kent (including Loans) 
 
 Thames Conservancy — 
 
 Lower Na^'igation 
 Upper „ 
 
 Metropolitan Police Courts 
 
 Burial Boards 
 
 Lee Conservancy Board . 
 
 Corporation of Westminster (exclu 
 Bive of Fines, &c.) 
 
 Total Current Income 
 
 CAPITAL INCOME. 
 Metropolitan Board of Works 
 Corporation of London 
 School Board 
 
 Total Capital Income 
 
 Total Income . 
 
 53,239 
 
 17,577 
 20,563 
 
 60,734 
 10,280 
 
 £ 
 3,703,198 
 
 2,433,767 
 
 1,576,425 
 1,165,391 
 1,146,444 
 
 543,892 
 
 489,507 
 202,097 
 
 91,379 
 
 71,014 
 69,245 
 
 45,635 
 
 19,681 
 
 500 
 
 11.548,175 
 
 2,870,270 
 794,293 
 593,925 
 
 4,258,488 
 
 11,548,175 
 
 4,258,488 
 
 £15,806,663 
 
SHEET OF LONDON. 
 
 ExPENDITXniB. 
 
 636 
 
 CURRENT EXPENDITURE. 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Total Expenditure of Gas Companies 
 (exclusive of Dividend) 
 
 2,707,266 
 
 
 
 Dividend and Interest Account 
 
 981,176 
 
 3,748,442 
 1,784,519 
 
 
 Poor Rate, Payments out of, for Poor 
 Relief and other Purposes, but not 
 including County and Police Ex- 
 penditure . . . ' . 
 
 
 
 London Vestries .... 
 
 
 1,572,731 
 
 
 City of London .... 
 
 
 1,121,518 
 
 
 Water Companies .... 
 
 
 1,108,676 
 
 
 London Police, less £51,050 repay- 
 ment by Treasury 
 
 
 1,048,800 
 
 
 Metropolitan Board of "Works (exclu- 
 sive of Coal Dues) 
 
 
 543,237 
 
 
 London School Board 
 
 
 810,860 
 
 
 Counties — 
 
 Metropolitan Proportion in — 
 Middlesex .... 
 Surrey .... 
 Kent .... 
 
 194,363 
 80,396 
 31,134 
 
 305,893 
 
 76,489 
 57,353 
 
 
 Thames Conservancy — 
 
 Lower Navigation 
 
 Upper „ . . 
 
 57,885 
 18,604 
 
 
 Metropolitan Police Courts 
 
 
 
 Burial Boards .... 
 
 
 56,904 
 
 
 Lee Conservancy Board . 
 
 
 19,593 
 
 
 Corporation of Westminster (exclusive 
 of Fees 
 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 11,755,505 
 
 11,768,605 
 
 
 
 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 
 
 
 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works . 
 
 
 1,995,024 
 
 
 City of London .... 
 
 
 856,849 
 
 
 School Board .... 
 
 
 510,371 
 
 
 
 3,362,244 
 
 3,362,244 
 
 
 
 Total Expekditubb . 
 
 £16,117,749 
 
536 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 current capital income and expenditure, and may be taken 
 as approximately correct for the given year. The only 
 material changes arise from the assumption by the Imperial 
 Treasury of one-half of the Metropolitan Police expenditure, 
 and the heavy Board of "Works' loan. The details of the 
 various amounts and the years to which they refer will be 
 found in their places under the respective titles affecting 
 them. The Loan liabiHty of the Metropolis is as follows : — 
 
 OUTSTANDING LOANS. 
 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works (less Loans to 
 Local Authorities) ..... 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 11,179,639 
 
 City of London ...... 
 
 
 5,213,600 
 
 Water Companies ...... 
 
 
 2,273,147 
 
 London Gas Companies 
 
 
 1,729,213 
 
 London Vestries ...... 
 
 
 1,660,943 
 
 London School Board 
 
 
 1,340,443 
 
 Poor Law Unions 
 
 
 957,201 
 
 Metropolitan Asylums Board .... 
 
 
 617,510 
 
 Counties : 
 
 
 
 Metropolitan Proportion in — 
 
 
 
 Middlesex 
 
 425,501 
 
 
 Surrey 
 
 205,822 
 
 
 Kent 
 
 40,415 
 
 
 
 
 677,738 
 
 District Schools ...... 
 
 
 189,070 
 
 Lee Conservancy Board ..... 
 
 
 176,766 
 
 Sick Asylum Boards ..... 
 
 
 110,339 
 
 Thames Conservancy Board .... 
 
 
 100,000 
 
 Burial Boards ... . . 
 
 
 60.701 
 
 TOTAL LOAN LIABILITY OF LONDON . 
 
 £26,086,197 
 
LONDON UNDEK A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. 
 
539 
 
 LONDON UNDER A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. 
 
 Chapter XIII. 
 
 CORPORATION REFORM. 
 
 The Municipal Corporation Act, l%2,b.— Special Report of 
 the 3Iunicipal Commissioners as to the City. — Recom- 
 mendations of the Commissioners.— Reform tJmarted by 
 the City.-— Condition of the Question of City Reform from 
 1837 to 1853. — Appointment of Corporation Commis- 
 sioners in 1853. — Report and Recommendations. 
 
 In the course of the debate on the Municipal Corporation 
 Bill, 1835, Lord John Russell, answering Mr. Hume, stated 
 that a separate measure would he introduced with respect to 
 London.* Twice in the course of the succeeding session, he 
 was interrogated as to the time when this pledge would be 
 redeemed,! and upon each occasion represented the Govern- 
 ment as only waiting for the special Report of the Municipal 
 Commissioners. 
 
 No more excellent measure exists on the English Statute 
 Book than the Municipal Corporations Act. After the pas- 
 sing of the Reform Bill, it had become manifest, that if the 
 inhabitants of a given town were fit to elect members of 
 ParHament, they ^ere also fit to elect members of Local 
 Corporations, and when the Report of the Municipal Com- 
 
 * Hansard, vol. xxviii., p. 671. 
 t By Mr. Williams, April 22nd, and Mr. Wilkes, August 19tb. 
 
640 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 missioners disclosed the enormous scandals which existed in 
 the 183 Corporations, whose condition had been investi- 
 gated, it was evident that reformation was a matter of 
 urgent necessity. The measure for the purpose was intro- 
 duced by Lord John Eussell, then Home Secretary and 
 member for Stroud, and was pushed through the Lower 
 House with but little alteration. The House of Lords 
 " amend(>d " it by striking out a clause constituting the 
 various town councils licensing authorities, and also altering 
 the town population which should be divided into wards 
 from 9,000 to 6,000. The dying Corporations made a 
 defence of their " chartered privileges," which compensated 
 in vigour for what it lacked in weight. They were allowed 
 to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House of Lords, 
 but their case was too weak to avail them much, and the 
 recommendations of the Municipal Commissioners as con- 
 tained in their report (that mass of "garrulous trash and 
 ribaldry and gipsy jargon," as Sir Charles Wetherell, the 
 Corporations' counsel, elegantly termed it), became, in the 
 main, the law of the land. 
 
 The report of the Commissioners, with respect to London, 
 was not ready so soon as the others, and to that reason alone 
 may be ascribed the fact that no attempt was made to deal 
 with the reform of the capital in 1835 or 1836. It was 
 not pretended or suggested that London should receive any 
 exceptional treatment, or that its charters were more sacred, 
 or its freemen more pure than those of other Corporations. 
 The address of the House of Commons moved at the com- 
 mencement of the session of 1835, affirmed the policy of 
 placing Municipal Corporations under "vigilant popular 
 control," and the principle was of universal acceptation. 
 Nor is it likely that the capital would have been able 
 effectually to oppose any useful measure. They would, 
 moreover, have had to fight any measure of reform alone. 
 
COEPORATION REFOBM — C!OMMISSIONERS OF 1837. 541 
 
 They rendered practically no help to the other Corporations 
 in their extremity, and they would have got none in return. 
 The powers of the Municipal Commissioners appointed 
 in 1834 were of the fullest kind. They were instructed to 
 collect information as to the existing state of the Municipal 
 Corporations in England and Wales ; as to their constitu- 
 tions and their defects ; their jurisdictions and powers ; 
 mode of electing officers and members; the privileges of 
 freemen ; nature and management of income, revenues and 
 funds, &c. Full power and authority was given to caU 
 before them and to examine upon oath, such officers of the 
 Corporations or other persons as they should judge neces- 
 sary, and to cause the various Corporation officers to produce 
 upon oath, aU their charters, records, books, rolls, orders, &c. 
 And finally, all Justices of the Peace, Mayors, Constables, 
 &c., and all "our loving subjects," were commanded to 
 assist them in the execution of their commission. 
 
 We have shown in a previous chapter the disloyal 
 manner in which the Livery Companies of the City — whose 
 wont it is to prate of their loyalty whenever they congregate 
 to dine — received the Commission.* The officers of the 
 City Corporation proper were more courteous than those of 
 the several bodies which composed it, but even they ex- 
 pressed their unwillingness to give evidence upon oath, and 
 so no oath was administered in any case. Why this excep- 
 tion should have been made is not clear. It certainly could 
 not have been on conscientious grounds, for it is in the City 
 that the art of official swearing has been most elaborated, 
 and has reached its fullest luxuriance. 
 
 The Coi-poration of London, including of course the 
 Livery Companies, is made by the Commissioners the sub- 
 ject of a special supplemental report, which having regard to 
 the obstructions placed in their way, is a marvel of com- 
 • Vide ante, p. 95. 
 
542 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 pleteness and interest. The evils existing within the Corpo- 
 ration are, many of them, clearly pointed out, and their 
 continued existence is especially commented upon, inasmuch 
 as the Common Council claim to possess the power of 
 internal reform. 
 
 Quoting the precedent established by the Municipal 
 Corporation Act, in bringing all adjacent distiicts which 
 could properly be deemed part of a town under the same 
 municipal authority, the Commissioners say, " We do not 
 find any argument on which the course pursued with regard 
 to other towns could be justified, which would not apply 
 with the same force to London, unless the magnitude of the 
 change in this case should be considered as converting that 
 which would otherwise be only a practical difficulty into an 
 objection of principle." * 
 
 "With respect to the small portion of the Metropolis 
 comprehended within the Municipal Boundary, they say : 
 " We are unable to discover any circumstance justifying the 
 present distinction of this particular district from the rest, 
 except that, in fact, it is and has long been so distinguished. 
 It is evident that any reasoning, founded on the assumption 
 that questions respecting the Corporation relate to the whole 
 town of London, will be entirely fallacious ; and this, necessa- 
 rily, introduces much perplexity into all discussions on the 
 corporate system, owing to the great difficulty which there is 
 in preventing such an assumption being made.f 
 
 * Eeport, p. 4. 
 
 f The fallaciousness, and indeed falsity of this assumption do not, 
 however, prevent the City making it, and allowing it to be made by those 
 who are not better informed. Although they arrogantly deny to London 
 without the walls any share in their government or in the expenditure of 
 funds extracted from aU, yet they quietly assume to be their representa- 
 tives whenever an opportunity offers. Instances of this are of constant 
 occurrence. They are not by any means confined to what is done on 
 English soil. The visit of the Lord Mayor to Paris in 1875, and the 
 remarkable circumstances which were attendant upon it, are best left 
 
CORPORATION REFORM COMMISSIONERS OF 1837. 543 
 
 The " Municipal Boroughs' scheme " of later days seems 
 to have been considered by the Commissioners ; for they 
 say, — " we hardly anticipate that it will be suggested for the 
 purpose of removing the appearance of singularity that the 
 other quarters of the town should be formed into indepen- 
 dent and isolated communities, if indeed the multifarious 
 relations to which their proximity compels them would 
 permit them to be isolated and independent. This plan 
 would, as it seems to us, in getting rid of an anomaly, tend 
 to multiply and perpetuate an evil." 
 
 They add, — " a new and very important question, as it 
 appears to us, must necessarily arise in a town which is the 
 seat of the Legislative and Supreme Executive Power of the 
 State, with respect to the proper division of Municipal 
 authority between the officers of the Government, and a 
 Municipal body which might be established in the 
 Metropolis." 
 
 With respect to the Police Force they say, — "in one 
 particular, and that a most important and practical one, the 
 opinion of Parliament has been abeady declared by the 
 estabhshment of a Metropolitan Police under the orders of 
 Commissioners appointed by, and immediately dependent 
 upon, your Majesty's Executive Government. We can 
 scarcely anticipate that any argument can be brought forward 
 to show that this system can be partially right. We can see 
 no middle course for the establishment of an efficient Police 
 throughout the Metropolis, between placing the whole under 
 a Metropolitan Municipality, and entrusting the whole to 
 Commissioners under the immediate control of your Majesty's 
 Government." 
 
 The Commissioners had in view the constitution of a 
 
 to pass into oblivion ; but it may be hoped that, for the common honour 
 of our City, no repetition of them under any future Lord Mayor vrUi be 
 permitted. 
 
644 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 nobler body than the Metropolitan Board of Works, when 
 they pointed out some of the many questions as to which 
 the controlling influence of a central authority is desirable. 
 " Other topics suggest similar conclusions [to the question of 
 the PoHce], as the paving, sewage, and lighting of the 
 streets, which as it seems to us, can never be so economically 
 and efficiently performed in one town as when superintended 
 by an undivided authority : and the only real point for con- 
 sideration is, how far these duties for the whole Metropolis 
 could be placed in the hands of a Metropolitan Municipality, 
 or how far they should be entrusted to the officers of your 
 Majesty's Government." The absurdity of separate sewage 
 direction is pointed out, and the Commissioners also point to 
 the necessity of altering the constitution of the Thames 
 Conservancy Board, an object effected about twenty years 
 subsequently. 
 
 The criticisms of the Commissioners upon the various 
 peculiarities of the City Corporation and its government, are 
 marked by their same force and wisdom as those we have 
 quoted. We have abeady, in a former part of this work, 
 sufficiently dealt with the present constitution and work of 
 the Corporation, and it is therefore not necessary to recapi- 
 tulate the Report of the Commissioners in these particulars. 
 There are a number of questions which present a different 
 phase now to what they did then, and probably much of this 
 improvement from within is to be ascribed to the terms of 
 this Report. 
 
 But the Corporation only adopted such of the resolutions 
 as suited them. The Commissioners for example, had spoken 
 in strong terms of the system of compelHng retail traders to 
 become free and to join a Livery Company, on pain of 
 expulsion from the City and heavy fines. They say that the 
 Companies "possess no one feature from which we can 
 discover any advantage in compelling the freemen to belong 
 
CORPORATION REFORM — COMMISSIONERS OF 1637. 545 
 
 to them. This part of the system is in fact no more than a 
 troublesome and capricious method of taxing the inhabitants 
 of London for the emolument of the Companies." And, as 
 to the freedom of the City, they say — " As to the acquisition 
 of freedom by purchase, it is practically a tax upon the 
 retail traders of the City who are compelled to take up their 
 freedom," a circuitous and inequitable process. 
 
 The Commissioners say what is tolerably clear, that the 
 possession of the rights of freemen by non-residents appears 
 to be " at variance with the true principles of Municipal 
 Constitutions." 
 
 The Court of Aldermen is condemned as an instance of 
 "that union of magisterial, judicial, and legislative authority 
 which Parliament has recently condemned and dissolved in 
 other Corporations." 
 
 In 1836 we find the same complaint as to the class of 
 men in the Corporation as is now made. "The highest 
 classes of commercial men do not ordinarily take a share in 
 the management of the Corporation. Many causes have 
 been assigned for this, no one completely satisfactory in 
 itself. The fact unquestionably is that a large proportion of 
 the highest classes of those who might if they pleased take 
 an important part in the Corporation, feel a repugnance to 
 doing so," and they suggest that an extension of the Corpo- 
 ration might cause this defect to disappear. 
 
 The Commissioners, as might have been expected, 
 considered that "no good end is answered by the power 
 possessed by the Aldermen of selecting as mayor one of two 
 nominees of the Common Hall ;" nor did they regard with 
 favour the constitution and functions of the Common Hall 
 itself. 
 
 The methods of electing City officers in the Court of 
 Aldermen and in the Common Council is styled very objec- 
 tionable, and with respect to the indefensible method still 
 
646 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 pursued of remunerating the City Chamberlain from the 
 profits of balances in his hands, they strongly condemn it, 
 and say that, in their opinion, it is "nearly the worst 
 manner of remunerating such an officer." 
 
 The powers of the City Aldermen to try prisoners at the 
 Central Criminal Court are strongly condemned, and the 
 Commissioners say, and very justly, that it is " anomalous 
 and unreasonable " for such authority to be entrusted to any 
 judges but those nominated by the Crown. And as to the 
 answer which has often been given, and is still given to the 
 objection, that in practice the Corporate Judges seldom try 
 a prisoner for a capital offence or a serious felony, they 
 reply, that " in a matter of such serious import, there should 
 be nothing fictitious or unreal, but that every one concerned 
 in the performance of such awful duties should undisguisedly 
 assume the full and real responsibility." The Commissioners 
 also point out the impolicy and disadvantage of having 
 the large majority of the most serious criminal offences 
 committed in the whole Metropolis tried before Corporate 
 Judges appointed by the City : " Appointments which, in 
 many instances, have been either matters of routine, or have 
 been obtained by personal interest and solicitation," 
 
 As to the authority exercised by the Corporation of 
 London through the Irish Society, the Commissioners say 
 that they do not know of any " pretext of argument " for its 
 continuance. 
 
 Other recommendations of equal weight and importance 
 are made by the Commissioners in their report. Some of 
 them have been adopted in a greater or less degree, but 
 most of them have been wholly disregarded. 
 
 This Report of the Commissioners was supplemental to 
 that upon the Corporations generally, and was not presented 
 until 1837. In that year the strength of the Government 
 was less than in 1835, and they concluded that, with their 
 
CORPORATION REFORM THE POLICE BILL. 547 
 
 small majority in tlie House of Commons, it was unsafe to 
 introduce a measure which might alienate the City Members. 
 The power of the City was soon afterwards remarkably 
 exemplified with respect to the Police Bill. When first 
 introduced, this Bill proposed to establish for the whole 
 MetropoHs one complete system of police. Every committee 
 of the House of Commons, which had considered the question 
 from 1792 to 1837, had advocated such a measui-e. The 
 last of these committees, representing all shades of opinion, 
 was unanimous upon the questaon.* They had even said, 
 with respect to the City Police, that " if a scheme could be 
 contrived for the purpose of increasing vice and crime, 
 nothing could have been better calculated than the system 
 of police in the City of London." It is of this severe criti- 
 cism that Lord Brougham, speaking four years later, says : 
 " In my whole experience I have never seen so strong a 
 censure, so unsparing a condemnation, passed upon any 
 system whatever ; above all, upon any system venerable from 
 its antiquity, and, most of all, upon any system touching 
 nearly upon the attributes of justice." And yet the City, in 
 the teeth of the Report of the House of Commons Com- 
 mittee, and contrary to the expressed convictions of Lord 
 John Russell, Sir Robert Peel,f and all the leading men of 
 the time, in Parliament and out of it, succeeded in per- 
 suading the Select Committee to whom the Police Bill was 
 referred, to exclude the City from its action. The methods 
 by which they accomplished this are set forth in a scathing 
 denunciation of the City, delivered by Lord Brougham in 
 the House of Lords in 1843 :| " It was found that the City 
 did not approve of the BiU ; that the citizens did not extend 
 to it the favour which it found everywhere else among the 
 
 * Speech of Mr. Hawes on the second reading of the City Police Bill. 
 Hansard, vol. xlvii., p. 1061. 
 t Hansard, vol. xlvii., p. 1290. 
 X Hansard, vol. Ixvii., p. 216. 
 
548 MTTNICrPAL LONDON. 
 
 lovers of good government, and of systematic and efficient 
 police ; the greatest benefit that men living in a social state 
 could enjoy." ..." Taking an accurate observation of the 
 state of the Government in the other House ; discerning 
 that their majorities were exceedingly ~ small, varying from 
 two and three to five — five was a great majority — the City 
 gentlemen discovered that they had no small weight with 
 the Government, and came to a common understanding as 
 to the result of the Committee appointed to examine the 
 Bill." 
 
 Thus it is to an advantage secretly taken by the City,* 
 of the political exigencies of the government, that we now 
 owe the existence of the present absurdity of separate 
 Police authorities.! It is to the same discreditable cause, 
 that Lord Brougham attributed the fact, that no Govern- 
 ment Bill was brought in for the reform of the Corporation. 
 
 In March, 1843, Lord Brougham moved in the House 
 of Lords that an address be presented to the Queen, praying 
 her to take into consideration the Report of the Commis- 
 sioners, with a view to some legislative measure for extending 
 Municipal Reform to the City of London. Upon that 
 occasion Lord Brougham delivered an oration of surpassing 
 power, pointing out the scandals which abounded in the 
 Corporation of London, and expressing his conviction that 
 many of them could not survive another day. He was 
 specially qualified to speak upon the question, being a free- 
 man of the City, as well as a member of one of the chief 
 Livery Companies, and he gave fall weight to the " influence 
 derived from the City's ancient fame, and the immortal 
 services it had rendered to the state." But he did not 
 
 • Their underhand conduct in this matter does not appear to have 
 been generally known until some time subsequently. 
 
 t Lord John RusseD himself apologized for his change of policy on 
 account of the " very great outcry raised in the City," and Sir Robert Peel 
 described it as an " incongruity and absurdity." 
 
CORPORATION REFORM : LORD BROUGHAM IN 1843. 549 
 
 allow his " gratitude for past sendees to blind him to the 
 existence of present abuses." Strangely enough, notwith- 
 standing his convictions of their early downfall, many of 
 the abuses he so vigorously denounced stiU live and 
 ilourish. 
 
 He recalled the professions of Lord John Russell (who 
 had been meantime elected for the City of London), and 
 showed that it was not the intention of the Government 
 in 1835 "to stop short at Temple Bar, and confine the 
 benefits of reform to the lesser Corporations," and he called 
 upon Lord John Russell to redeem his promise. After 
 quoting the language of that minister when, in 1835, he 
 stated that " existing Municipal Corporations neither possess 
 nor deserve the confidence of Her Majesty's subjects," he 
 says: ^^ If the smaller Corporations throughout the country 
 needed reform Iiuill maintain that the Metropolitan Corporation 
 requires it a great deal more, and is in its various departments 
 entirely deserving of the name heretofore given it, of the Giant 
 Abuse of that class." 
 
 With respect to the conduct of City Aldermen as 
 Magistrates, he says : "I complain of the administration of 
 justice in the City of London, and I bring it before A'our 
 lordships that you may pronounce sentence against it, and 
 that that grievous abuse, which by a perversion often is 
 called the * Administration of Justice ' in the City, may 
 cease." He concluded his speech with the observation that 
 he had " made it utterly impossible that many months 
 should elapse before Municipal Reform should be extended 
 to the City of London." 
 
 Lord Brougham was seriously mistaken. Thirty years 
 later " the administration of justice " flourishes in the City 
 on the old principle ; * the enormous gratuities to City 
 
 * Lord Brougham again brought the subject before the House of 
 Lords, July 24, 18 i6. 
 
 2 M 
 
550 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 officials (which seem to have excited his especial ire), are 
 still given as lavishly as ever ; the unjust taxation of Metro- 
 politan London still exists ; the most important members of 
 " the community " still decline to join the Corporation, and 
 the indecency of the election of judicial- ofiicers by personal 
 canvas is as patent and as scandalous in 1875 as it was in 
 1843."* 
 
 No immediate result was produced by Lord Brougham's 
 motion, and two years later we find the Corporation setting to 
 work to enforce one of the worst of their franchises, by an effort 
 to re-establish freedom fines upon every tradesman in the City. 
 Section 14 of the Municipal Corporation Act abolishes all 
 exclusive rights of trading, and puts an end to the farce, 
 whereby it was necessary for tradesmen to take out their 
 freedom and pay certain fines before they were allowed to 
 commence business was abolished. The City Corporation, 
 by dint of the most unscrupulous use of its patronage and 
 money, had succeeded in preventing the hand of reformation 
 passing over it, and now, when the danger was thought to 
 be over, commenced the persecution of the tradesmen, who, 
 having their establishments in the City, had declined to 
 become members of its Livery Companies. So it came 
 about that, in the early part of the year 1845, 3,000 sum- 
 monses were issued to recalcitrant tradesmen and journeymen, 
 and the Corporation actually claimed to try the causes in its 
 own Courts ! It was bad enough to bring actions of a kind 
 which the legislature had openly condemned as immoral, but 
 to bring them in its own Courts, before a Judge dependent 
 on its pleasure, and with no counsel available for the 
 
 * " Where is the decency of a Judge, who is to take his seat on the 
 Bench of Justice, who is to be clothed with the ermine of the law, and 
 who is to administer justice in the capital of the country to two millions 
 of Her Majesty's subjects; only think of such a Judge being chosen by 
 election after a canvas ! " Speech of Lord Brougham in the House of 
 Lords, Hansard, vol. Ixvii., p. 231. 
 
CORPORATION REFORM : CITY TYRANNY IN 1845. 551 
 
 defendants but its own paid pleaders, was more worthy of 
 the Spanish Inquisition than an English Corporation. 
 
 It is by no means clear how far the Corporation had a 
 legal right to the privilege they claimed: they certainly 
 were very far outside any moral right. But with a strong 
 body of officers and unlimited resources they soon compelled 
 traders to pay. The Ward Readle, and the Beadle of the 
 Company whose trade the poor retailer practised, had either 
 to be bribed to omit his name, or he was compelled to pay 
 the fines, which sometimes well-nigh ruined him. Watt, 
 the engineer, had been thus driven from the City, and so was 
 many another journeyman and artizan. 
 
 To what a level had the freedom of the City of London 
 descended when its tradesmen were summoned and then fled 
 the City rather than take it up. And of what value is it to- 
 day ? How many of the tradesmen in the City, who are 
 not impelled by circumstances of interest, or family relation- 
 ship, ever think of taking out their freedom ? Not one per 
 cent. The freedom of the City of London had a very high 
 value in the days of the Plantagenets, in the privileges it 
 conferred, and in its exemptions from certain taxes, and from 
 personal service under feudal chiefs. The freedom of the 
 City of London, in 1875, is something which not one in ten 
 of its inhabitants would walk to the Guildhall to accept as a 
 free gift. 
 
 Lord Brougham denounced the iniquitous system of the 
 City trade prosecutions when presenting a petition against it 
 to the House of Lords, March 13th, 1845, and he subse- 
 quently introduced a Bill to extend to the City of London 
 the section of the Municipal Corporation Act, which abolished 
 exclusive trading. This Bill does not appear ever to have 
 reached its second reading, but its introduction caused great 
 alarm in the City, and the Remembrancer was directed to 
 write to Lord Brougham to the effect that the Lord Mayor 
 
552 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 was "concerned that Lord Brougham had thought fit to 
 introduce such a Bill into Parliament without communicating 
 with the Corporation on the subject ! " "^ 
 
 For several years after this the question slumbered. 
 The nation was occupied with other concerns, and so far as 
 regarded the Legislature, the question of Civic Reform was 
 never approached. The City itself kept introducing various 
 private bills aflfectuig City matters, and these generally 
 passed without discussion. The most notable of these was 
 the Act of 1852, whereby the area of the City constituency 
 was increased from 6,000 to 20,000, and whereby the toll 
 up to that time levied upon aU alien vehicles entering the 
 City was abolished, f The measure was not without a 
 certain merit, but being made an occasion for lavish self- 
 laudation by the City, it did not go far to appease the desire 
 for reform. This desire resulted, in 1 853, in the appoint- 
 ment of a Commission. 
 
 In the month of June, 1853, a Commission, consisting of 
 Mr. Labouchere, Sir John Patteson, and Mr. Cornewall 
 Lewis, was accordingly appointed to inquire into the state 
 of the Corporation of London. The powers of this Com- 
 mission were quite as full as those which had been granted 
 to their predecessors eighteen years previously. They had 
 power to examine upon oath ; to compel the production of 
 all charters and writings belonging to the Corporation ; and 
 were enjoined to collect information as to the action and 
 condition of the City in every respect. 
 
 They issued, in due course, a lengthy report, in which 
 they deal with the questions submitted to them, and express 
 
 * When narrating this incident to the House, Lord Brougham said : — 
 " Although this House is reduced very low, we are not yet reduced to so 
 low an ebb as not to have the power of introducing into Parliament any 
 Bill, without communication with and without the approbation of any 
 Corporation whatever." 
 
 I This toll produced at the time about ^£6,000 a year. 
 
CORPORATION REFORM : THE COMMISSIONERS OF 1854. 553 
 
 the conclusions at which they have arrived. They allude 
 to the passing of Acts affecting the City PoHce, elections, 
 and sanitary improvements ; but add, that no systematic 
 reform has been attempted, either by Parhament or by the 
 Common Council, since the pubHcation of the Eeport of the 
 Municipal Commissioners. With the experience of nearly 
 twenty years to guide them, they speak in laudatory terms 
 of the effect of the Municipal Corporation Act in the towns 
 which it affected, and express themselves of the opinion that 
 it is advisable to apply the main provisions of that Statute 
 to the Corporation of the City. 
 
 They do not, however, consider the provisions of the Act 
 with respect to boundary extension applicable to the City of 
 London, and this mainly, as it would appear, because of the 
 magnitude of the change ; the absence of common interests 
 between the extremities ; the greatness of the area ; the 
 absence of minute local knowledge ; and the difficulty of 
 administering its government. The bisection of the Metro- 
 polis by the river Thames, ^vith the consequent breach in 
 the continuity of operations affecting streets, sewage, gas 
 and water, is also noted as a difficulty. With respect to 
 these objections, upon which the Commissioners base their 
 preference for separate municipal organizations in the Metro- 
 polis, it is to be observed that many other questions besides 
 sewage, and streets, and buildings are now under one 
 control ; that the difficulty of administration does not exceed 
 that of governing a colony ; that community of interests and 
 of action exists upon a constantly increasing number of 
 questions, and that the requisite local knowledge will be 
 forthcoming if the system of administration be fixed upon 
 a widely representative basis. 
 
 The chief part of the report is taken up with a careful 
 examination into the actual condition of the Corporation ; — 
 a subject which we have already sufficiently considered. We 
 
664 
 
 MTJNICIPAI. LONDON. 
 
 have also quoted the views of the Commissioners upon the 
 unsatisfactory condition of the City Charters.* Their 
 existence, and the action of the Corporation in dealing with 
 them, are indicated as productive of much hardship to 
 litigants, and the Commissioners naturally observe, that if 
 the present state of these Charters be such that their pub- 
 licity would be dangerous to the Corporation, whilst their 
 secretion is unjust to litigants, it is time some remedy were 
 devised, and they recommend the issuing of one comprehen- 
 sive public Charter. 
 
 They comment unfavourably upon the power of electing 
 the Lord Mayor being vested in members of trading Com- 
 panies " who are not necessarily connected with the City by 
 property, residence, or occupation." They also see much 
 objection to the i-estriction of candidates to aldermen who 
 have served the office of Sheriff. They recommend that 
 the election of the Lord Mayor be vested in the Common 
 Council, and that the range of candidates shall include all 
 who are qualified for a seat in the Common Council. They 
 point out the advantage which might thus arise in the 
 election of the highest class of merchants with the con- 
 sequent result of " a greater degree of sympathy between 
 the higher classes of the merchants of London and the 
 Corporation than now exists." The Lord Mayor would, of 
 course, be a magistrate during his year of office, and also 
 for the year succeeding it. 
 
 They propose that the office of alderman shall no longer 
 be tenable for Kfe, but only for six years ; half the number 
 going out in every third year, with eligibility for re-election. 
 The Commissioners recommend that the Court of Aldermen 
 be abolished, and its powers transferred to the Common 
 Council. To this latter body they would still entrust the 
 election of judicial officers. The Commissioners recommend 
 
 • See ante. jip. ^ti iuul 21. 
 
COKPORATION REFORM : REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS IN 1854. 555 
 
 an equalization of the City wards, their numher being 
 lessened by one-half, and each of them sending one alder- 
 man and five councillors to the governing body. The 
 number of the Common Council would thus be reduced to 
 one-third of what it is at present : a number " abundantly 
 sufficient " for the work to be performed. The number of 
 members of the various Committees is also regarded as 
 "inconveniently large," and "the practice of making a 
 pecuniary allowance to the Members of the Committees 
 ought to be discontinued." The constitution of the electoral 
 body is, through recent legislation, now practically in accord 
 with the recommendations in the Report. 
 
 The qualification of freedom for a Common Councilman 
 was considered no longer applicable, and the suggested 
 qualification was the possession of real or personal estate of 
 the value of £1,000, or a ratal value of £30. All the electoral 
 powers of the Common Hall are to be transferred to the 
 Common Council ; the heavy expense of the Common Hall 
 elections being illustrated by that for the office of Chamberlain 
 in the preceding year, when the two candidates— one of whom 
 is the present tenant of the office— expended £8,000 to gain 
 the sufi'rages of this enlightened and incorruptible body. 
 The Commissioners consider that the Lord Mayor and 
 Aldermen should no longer form portions of the Central 
 Criminal Court. Recommendations are also made with 
 respect to the consolidation of the City Courts, and the 
 formal abolition of those which have fallen into disuse. 
 The Commissioners propose to extend the section of the 
 Municipal Corporation Act directed against exclusive trading 
 so as to include the Metropolis, They also doubt the 
 expediency of maintaining any system of Metage, except in 
 a voluntary form. The inspection of Brokers exercised by 
 the Court of Aldermen did not appear to the Commissioners 
 " to be productive of any public benefit," and they accord- 
 
556 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 ingly recommended the repeal of the Statutes under which 
 it exists. 
 
 As to the City right of Markets, they say that it seems 
 to them " unsuited to the state of things which has grown 
 up since the reign of Charles the First, and that any 
 restrictive privilege possessed by the Corporation beyond the 
 City Hmits should be repealed." As to the system of 
 separate City Police, the Commissioners are opposed to its 
 continuance, and consider the incorporation of the City with 
 the larger district around, is a measure " recommended aJike 
 by considerations of efficiency and economy." 
 
 With respect also to the Coal Duties, the Commissioners 
 consider that the system under which the Corporation levies 
 taxation over a large area, and " applies a portion of its 
 proceeds to the exclusive purposes of the small area within 
 the City proper, should not be continued permanently." 
 The Commissioners condemn the system of keeping balances 
 in the Chamber, not less strongly than their predecessors in 
 1837, and they also regard a revision of the estabHshments 
 of the Corporation with a view to a more economical 
 arrangement as imperatively requisite. The system of Audit 
 is also condemned, but — as the former part of this work 
 abundantly proves — these and most of the other useful 
 recommendations of the Commissioners have been treated 
 by the Corporation with the utmost contempt. A still more 
 important recommendation in the Report is, that the terms 
 of the 94th Section of the Municipal Corporations Act 
 (restricting the power of Borough authorities to mortgage 
 their land A\ithout the consent of the Treasury), should be 
 extended to the Corporation of London. The extent of the 
 Kabihties of the Corporation at the date of the Report was 
 about as much as the City Estates could comfortably have 
 borne, if the recommendations of the Commissioners as to 
 the abolition of indefensible and unjust " privileges " had 
 
CORPORATION REFORM : REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS IN 1864. 557 
 
 been adopted. JSiuce the date of the Report the Corporation 
 have increased their Loan Hability by several milHons, 
 and it is high time that theii' abused jurisdiction was 
 terminated. 
 
 The Commissioners avow themselves favourable to the 
 extension of Municipal Institutions to the MetropoKs, for 
 "if it were held that Mimicipal Institutions were not suited 
 to a Metropolitan City, no reason could be found except its 
 antiquity and existence for maintaining the Corporation of 
 London, even with its present Kmited area." The Commis- 
 sioners therefore recommend the severance of the Municipal 
 connection existing between the City and the borough of 
 South wark, and the creation of separate municipal districts 
 withii: the Metropohs, and they recommend the creation of 
 a Metropohtan Board of Works composed of a limited 
 number of representatives elected by the various Metropolitan 
 Councils, and controlling the management of public works 
 in which the different parts of the Metropolis have a 
 common interest. If such Board should be constituted, he 
 Commissioners recommend the transfer to its administration 
 of the entii-e proceeds of the Coal Tax, includmg the 4c?. 
 duty claimed by the City as its especial property. They 
 further proposed that the Board should have the power of 
 levying a rate upon the Metropolis for puqooses of general 
 utiHty ; the construction of bridges ; the opening and 
 widening of streets, &c. 
 
558 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Chapter XIV. 
 
 BILLS IN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 Bill of Sir Creorge Grey, 1856. — City Opinion and Action upon 
 it. — BUI of 1858. — Reference to a Select Committee and 
 Withdrawal. — Crovernment Bills of 1859-60 and their 
 withdrawal. — Reports of Taxation Committees, 1861-7. — 
 Police Bill, 1863.— Mr. Mill's Bills, 1867-8; their 
 Provisions. — Mr. Buxton's Bills, 1869-70 — LordElcho's 
 Bill, 1875. — Summary of Corporation Reform Bills, and 
 what became of them. 
 
 Although the recommendations of the Commissioners 
 were considerably less extensive than those of theii' prede- 
 cessors in 1837, inasmuch as they proposed to continue the 
 existence of the City as a separate independent municipahty, 
 yet they were sufficiently serious to alarm the members of 
 the Corporation. This alarm manifested itself in various 
 ways, and the Commissioners had undoubtedly the honour, 
 after the publication of their report, of being the best hated 
 men in the whole City. 
 
 The Court of Aldermen specially considered the report 
 and recommendations of the Commissioners, and came to 
 certain " Resolutions " upon them. These Resolutions, 
 although probably put into shape by some experienced City 
 officer, are still sufficiently amusing to quote. In answer to 
 the recommendation of the Commissioners that Aldermen 
 should be subject to periodical election, they resolve that 
 such a change would be " greatly injurious to the impartial 
 administration of justice." We do not, of course, question 
 their knowledge of themselves, but their bitterest enemy 
 
RESOLUTIONS OF THK COURT OK ALDERMEN, 1854. 559 
 
 could not have written a graver reiiectiou on theii* honour 
 and character. 
 
 The abolition of the Court of Aldermen, and the transfer 
 of its functions to the Common Council, is " contrary to the 
 principles of its constitution," and " constitutionally imprac- 
 ticable." H(jw this would be so, or what are the principles 
 of its constitution, it would puzzle a City alderman to tell. 
 
 They also resolved that no one was fit to be Lord Mayor 
 who had not been Sheriff or Alderman. The appointment 
 of Recorder they defended on the ground that they had 
 elected to the post "a long list of distinguished individuals." 
 The proposition to exclude them from the Central Criminal 
 Court seems to have cut them to the quick. They referred 
 to the judges the question whether their attendance was 
 " merely nominal," as the Commissioners alleged, and they 
 *' wilHngly acknowledged the advantage they all received 
 from being present at trials by the learned judges." It is 
 clear from this that they regard the Criminal Court as a 
 kind of university in which City tradesmen may complete 
 their education. No more striking commentary than this 
 resolution could have been given on the absurdity of giving 
 judicial functions to people whose legal education has not 
 begun. 
 
 The Court of Aldermen did not object to an alteration 
 of the City wards, " provided the number of Aldermen 
 remained the same." It would, indeed, have been too much 
 to expect that any of this patriotic body would forego their 
 turtle for the public good. 
 
 The other resolutions are of the same type. The City 
 hoped that by this and other methods they might stifle any 
 projected action upon the Commissioners' Report ; but the 
 public mind was ripe for reform, and Sir George Grey, being 
 questioned in the House as to the intentions of the Goveni- 
 ment, stated that a measure would be introduced as soon as 
 
560 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 possible. The promised Bill was introduced April 1, 1856. 
 It was based upon the Report of the Commissioners of 1854, 
 but did not adopt the whole of their recommendations. It 
 proposed to deal exclusively with the City, and to introduce 
 certain constitutional changes, to which some people might 
 have thought that the most conservative Corporator could 
 have offered but little objection. 
 
 The City was to be re-divided into sixteen wards, more 
 equal in area than those then existing, and each ward was 
 to be represented in the governing body by one Alderman 
 and five Common Councillors. The qualification for a 
 Common Councillor was to be the possession of £1,000 in 
 real or personal property, or a £30 ratal. Aldermen were 
 no longer to be appointed for life, but the tenure of the office 
 was to be shortened to six years; one half of the number 
 going out every three years. The Lord Mayor was to be 
 elected by the Common Council, and all persons possessing 
 the requisite qualification for the Common Council were also 
 eligible for this office. The same qualification was adopted 
 for the Sherift's. The City Auditors were to be elected from 
 amongst the same class of people, not being members of the 
 Common Council, under a provision analogous to that in the 
 Municipal Corporation Act. 
 
 The Court of Aldermen was abolished, and the election 
 of all the great City officers was vested in the Common 
 Council, with the exception of the Recorder. The election 
 of this officer was left in the hands of the Aldermen. The 
 custom of the admission of Brokers with its yearly payment 
 was abolished, and the market jurisdiction of the City was 
 taken away. The exclusive rights of trading, metage dues, 
 street tolls, and the exclusive rights of fellowship-porters, 
 were also taken away. The Court of Hustings, the Court of 
 St. Martin's-le-Grand, and some other old City courts, were 
 abolished, and it was provided that the Recorder should in 
 
BILLS IN PAKLIAMENT : BILL OF SIR GEORGE GREY, 1856. 561 
 
 future be the judge of the Lord Mayor's Court, and not 
 merely the Lord Mayor's assessor. The fourpenny coal duty 
 was taken away fi'om the City. The Aldermen were placed 
 on the same footing as justices of a county, and the City 
 brought within the Metropolis Police Court District. It 
 was also proposed to apply to the City the restrictions of the 
 Municipal Corporation Act, as to the chargiug or the 
 alienation of property. 
 
 No practical eifect, however, was given to the recom- 
 mendation of the Commissioners as to the Irish Society ; 
 neither was any interference proposed with the duplicate 
 system of the City and the Metropolitan Police. The 
 reasons given by Sir George Grey for declining to interfere 
 with so notable an anomaly were singularly weak, and rested 
 mainly upon the ground that ParHament had, in 1839, given 
 its deliberate sanction and approval to the existing system : 
 a statement the value of which can be estimated from the 
 disgraceful history of the passing of the Police Acts already 
 detailed. Introduced April 1, 1856, the second reading of 
 the Bill was fixed for April 22. Before, however, that day 
 arrived, the City authorities gained their first point towards 
 the failure of the measure. What we may term their 
 " Backstairs Organization " became immediately active, and 
 the " strongest representations " were made to Sir George 
 Grey as to the necessity of delay. It was alleged that this 
 delay was essential in order to enable the "City authorities" 
 to study the measure. The pressure, as Sir George Grey 
 subsequently admitted, was so severe that he was compelled 
 to yield to it. As a matter of fact, however, the Bill being 
 exactly on the lines of the Report of the Commissioners, 
 before whom the City had been amply represented, and 
 which Report they had had many months to consider, the 
 claim for fui'ther time was the baldest subterfuge. It was 
 simply part of the settled City policy, enacted with the single 
 
562 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 object of defeating the Bill, by fair means or by foul, and 
 the necessity for the further time " to study it" was simply 
 the false excuse invented to carry it out. 
 
 To the great delight, however, of the City, their nefarious 
 device was successful, and, on June 20th, the Minister 
 announced his opinion that there was no reasonable prospect 
 of being able to pass the Bill during the session. It was, 
 therefore, withdrawn, " with the intention " of reintroducing 
 it in the following session. 
 
 The pressure put upon Sir George Grey was not, how- 
 ever, confined to pressure in the House of Commons. There 
 was considerable pressure from outside also, by what was 
 sedulously represented as the " public opinion " of the City. 
 Once again the redoubtable Court of Aldermen met in con- 
 clave, and on April 8th, or seven days after the introduction 
 of the Bill, they brought it up for discussion. 
 
 They took credit to themselves for some important 
 distinction between the City and other municipal bodies as 
 they existed before the Municipal Corporations Act, inas- 
 much as whilst the}- in many cases existed independently of 
 the surrounding communities, the Corporation of London 
 had an identity of interests between themselves and the 
 municipal community : and they expressed much surprise, 
 that a measure should have been brought in "injuriously 
 and unnecessarily affecting the ancient rights and privileges 
 of the citizens of London : " and they referred the Bill to a 
 Committee to take such measures in opposing it as they 
 should be advised. 
 
 The various Wards in the City met in conclave during 
 the same month and expressed the opinions of such of the 
 citizens as attended them in unmistakeable terms. The 
 Livery Companies denounced the measure as " uncon- 
 stitutional and unjust : " the Common Council described it 
 as a Bill of pains and penalties, and that in the opinion of 
 
BILLS IX PARLIAMENT : CITI DENUNCIATION OF BILL OF 1856. 563 
 
 the Court the " honours, privileges and properties of cor- 
 porations ought to be as inviolable aud secure under the law 
 as the rights of peasant or peer, or even of the Crown 
 itself," and that otherwise "the pillars upon which the 
 rights of property stand will be shaken to the foundation," 
 The "Wards, under the careful tuition of the Aldermen, who 
 presided, were equally vigorous in their terms. " Walbrook " 
 called the measure unconstitutional, unjust, and unnecessary, 
 and used the same terms as the Common Council had used 
 as to the taking " without compensation, of rights and 
 revenues secured by Charters and Acts of Parliament, and 
 purchased for valuable consideration." This resolution was 
 moved by Mr. James Clark Lawrence, who appears also to 
 have moved a resolution of even greater vigour in the 
 Bread Street Ward. The other Wards all concurred. The 
 xildermen who presided gave the cue to the resolutions, 
 while all rung the changes upon the same terms, 
 
 Mr. Norton, the talented author of the '*' History of 
 London and its Franchises," and formerly a servant of the 
 Corporation, entered the lists in its defence. In a pamphlet,* 
 published at this time, he assailed the Bill and its promoters 
 in terms very far removed from the historical calmness 
 which distinguished Lis book. The Bill portended the 
 " ovevthi-ow of the Corporation : " the honest opinions of the 
 promoters of the measure that the dignity of the City 
 would be fully maintained, are termed " whiffling inanities,"! 
 and •' specious verbiage appropriate to an after dinner 
 speech." 
 
 The Bill " violates the fundamental laws of England," 
 and is foimded on the reports of "irresponsible Commissioners, 
 inquiring by means unsanctioned by the law, into the causes 
 of forfeitures of rights, &c." We are then treated to an 
 
 ♦ An Address to the Citizens of London, 1«56. 
 t Ibid, p. 4. 
 
564 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 elaborate disquisition on political liberty being mainly 
 dependent on the preservation of independent corporate 
 institutions, which, by the way, may be fairly prayed in aid 
 of any new municipality if independent of Government 
 control. When, however, we are further told that " no 
 parish club, parish vestry, cathedral chapter, charitable 
 institution, borough meeting, sessions of justices, or body of 
 law-benchers, would endure any meddling of the supreme 
 government with its constitutional essence, any tampering 
 with the internal administration of its affairs," we think 
 Mr. Norton's ardour must have run away with his discretion, 
 and if mb had merely to prove our rights to deal with the 
 Corporation of London, through the disproof of this pro- 
 position, our task would not be a difficult one. Still more 
 terrible, however, is the threatened penalty than the 
 denunciation of the crime. " If the principles of this Bill 
 shall now prevail, and should they be allowed to run their 
 regular course, it is possible, that even the liberties of 
 England may have, hereafter, to be recovered through 
 anarchy and bloodshed — liberties which other nations have 
 failed to regain in passing through so terrible an ordeal ! " 
 
 Mr. Norton objects to the " odious measure " on the 
 gi'ound that, if it had been really designed to increase the 
 influence and efficiency of the Corporation, it might have 
 been expected to " enlarge the civic bounds," and, so far, we 
 think the measure was lamentably weak and inadequate to 
 its purpose. But after the fearful and indiscriminate cursing 
 to which the City treated Sir George Grey's banthng, who 
 could measure the might of the anathemas that would have 
 been hurled against any measure on so patriotic and just 
 a basis ? 
 
 Nothing but the conspicuous position which Mr. Norton 
 occupied as a defender of the City, and the thoroughly 
 representative character of his opinions, together with the 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : BILL OF 1858. 665 
 
 probability of any exhaustive measure in the future meeting 
 with the same class of opposition, justifies our dwelling upon 
 it. Yet we would fain hope that, since the danger has 
 passed away, Mr. Norton has taken a broader and more 
 patriotic view of this question. In the latest edition of his 
 work, he speaks of the exercise of the elective franchise in 
 the Common Hall by liverymen, " as adverse to the char- 
 tered rights and ancient customs of the City ;"* whilst in 
 the intemperate pamphlet which represented the views of 
 the City in 1856, he says that "the total aboHtion of the 
 Common Halls, whereby 15,000 men are at once disfran- 
 chised of their corporate privileges ... is a stab that will 
 prove fatal to the Corporation : from this wound its very 
 life-blood will flow."t 
 
 When, after being publicly denounced and privately 
 threatened, Sir George Grey withdrew his measure, he pro- 
 mised to introduce it in 1857. But the Corporation of 
 London has many arrows in its quiver, and it determined to 
 thwart this intention. So it came to pass that, the intention 
 notwithstanding, Sir George Grey did not reintroduce the 
 measure in 1857, and neither Sir John Shelley nor Mr. 
 Laurie could obtain a good reason for this. 
 
 In 1858, however, the Home Secretary plucked up heart 
 of grace once more, and early in the session introduced a 
 Bin for "the better regulation of the Corporation of 
 London." 
 
 The provisions of this measure were in the main similar 
 to those contained in the Bill of 1856, and where it differed 
 from that measure, it differed for the worse. 
 
 Contrary to his own better judgment, Sir George Grey 
 
 had been " induced " to increase his proposed Common 
 
 Council from 96 to 112, by allowing each of the sixteen 
 
 proposed wards to send six Councillors and one Alderman to 
 
 * Commentaries, ed. 1869, p. 248. t See "An Address," &c., p. 10. 
 
 2n 
 
566 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the Common Council.* Under the new measure, the City 
 Aldermen were to hold office for life, according to former 
 custom, instead of being subject to election as proposed by 
 the Commissioners ; but a power of removal upon repre- 
 sentations from the wards was vested in the Common 
 Council. Sir George Grey gave as the reason for this 
 reactional change, that there was no example of the magis- 
 terial office being elective. As it had been already amply 
 proved that the tenure of the magisterial office by City 
 Aldermen was a gross abuse, we thus have the existence of 
 one scandal quoted as the reason for the perpetuation of 
 another. 
 
 During the interval between the two measures the Home 
 Secretary had also been " persuaded " that the question of 
 the id. Coal Duty need not be dealt with . at the present 
 time, inasmuch as the £600,000 which the City had 
 borrowed upon it could not be repaid for some years. 
 
 Speaking in the House of Commons, in 1860, Mr. 
 Ayrton dilated in scathing language upon the poHcy suc- 
 cessfully adopted by the City, in arresting the progress of 
 reform by electing the great Corporation Reformer as their 
 representative in the House of Commons. Now, one of the 
 best methods of defeating an obnoxious measure is by 
 getting it referred to a Select Committee. It was clear that 
 Sir George Grey's measure, which had been read a second 
 time on February 12, would pass unless some great eSort 
 were made to stop it, and it was upon the motion of Lord 
 John Russell himself, that the measure was referred. Such 
 reference brought with it the coveted delay, and it was not 
 until more than a month afterwards that the Committee 
 was nominated. 
 
 The next step was to make the Committee as favourable 
 
 * The largest number of Common Councillors allowed by the Muni- 
 cipal Corporations Act was 64. 
 
BILLS IN parliament: COMMITl'EE ON BILL OK I808. 567 
 
 as possible to City interests, and, upon their nomination on 
 March 19th, Mr. Ayrton protested against the names of 
 the Committee as " not being Hkely to deal fairly with the 
 question of the extension of corporate jurisdiction to the 
 Metropolitan districts," including as they did, two City 
 Members, two City Alderman and " several Hon. Members 
 connected with the City," with only one representative of 
 the other part of the Metropolis. 
 
 The next step in the concerted delay took place in April, 
 when the Corporation asked leave to be heard by Counsel, 
 before the Committee, against one of the clauses of the BiU. 
 Eventually, however, the Committee reported, and it became 
 necessary to devise some fui'ther excuse for delay. 
 
 The City, therefore, presented a petition to the House of 
 Commons, praying to be heard by counsel against the whole 
 of the Bill. The prayer of this petition was enforced in a 
 partizan speech of great length by an eminent counsel, who 
 moved that the Bill should be referred back to the Select 
 Committee, and that the City should be heard before it. 
 
 Sir George Grey appears to have been justly angered by 
 this mendacious proceeding on behalf the City, and in a 
 speech of remarkable abihty exposed the object of the 
 application. He alleged that, notwithstanding the assertion 
 of City Members to the contrary, the motion was simply one 
 made for the purpose of postponing the measure, and as 
 such he offered it the most strenuous opposition, although 
 he was willing to admit that in the then condition of the 
 Thames, " of which the City had so long been the Con- 
 servators," much might be said for delay. He pointed out 
 that many concessions had been made to the City on the 
 understanding that certain questions should be regarded as 
 settled. An attempt was now made to re-open them. The 
 City alleged in their petition that an understanding had 
 been come to with him that the Corporation should be 
 
568 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 heard by counsel on all the clauses before the Select Com- 
 mittee. He denounced this allegation as deliberately false, 
 and pointed out that when this very question was debated 
 before the Select Committee, nearly all the City representa- 
 tives had voted against it, thus showing that it was an 
 afterthought, and a pure fiction invented for the purpose of 
 delay. On the merits of the application it was quite clear 
 that counsel could do nothing more before the Committee 
 than had been done before the Commissioners. The debate, 
 however, was adjourned, and again there was triumph in 
 the City, when in answer to Mr. Labouchere, the Govern- 
 ment announced some few days later that they saw hardly 
 any prospect of the Bill passing that Session. 
 
 In the Session of 1859, in answer to questions, the 
 Government announced their intention of introducing a Bill 
 similar to the one reported by the Select Committee in the 
 previous year. But the measure was not introduced till 
 July. The second Bill of Sir George Grey was a very small 
 instalment of reform ; and the emendations of the select 
 Committee made it still smaller, so that the bantling of Sir 
 George Cornewall Lewis was a Bill of very Kttle value. 
 But it also proposed to leave aU questions of coal dues or 
 metage dues untouched. 
 
 Such a measure was not merely not worth fighting for, but 
 its passing would be a positive misfortune, as the Corporation 
 would then have regarded the question of Reform as finally 
 settled. They even pressed Sir George Lewis to be allowed 
 to introduce it as a private Bill ! The measure was, how- 
 ever, introduced too late, and had to be withdrawn. On 
 January 30th, 1860, Sir George Lewis obtained leave to 
 reintroduce the Bill. In its new guise, the measure dealt 
 only with a few changes in the City constitution, and 
 excluded every question affecting City finance. 
 
 Mr. Ayrton on this occasion rendered a public service by 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : BILL OF 1860. 569 
 
 his vigorous denunciation of this pusillanimous policy of 
 truckling to the City Corporation ; and Mr. "WiUiams, the 
 member for Lambeth, was probably not far from the truth 
 when he said that the influence of the Corporation of London, 
 through their convivial meetings at the Mansion House, had 
 enabled it to triumph over the good intentions of the 
 Government. 
 
 The second reading of the measure was fixed for April 
 24th, and Mr. Ayrton moved that it be referred to a Select 
 Committee, with instruction "to inquire into the charges 
 and taxes on the Metropolis, and the expediency of consti- 
 tuting the Metropolis a county of itself, for the purposes of 
 local management and the administration of justice." The 
 speech in which Mr. Ayrton moved this was probably his 
 ablest effort in the House of Commons, and although marred 
 here and there by some extravagancies of diction and loose- 
 ness of historical illustration, was scarcely second to the 
 speech of Lord Brougham in 1843. The debate stood 
 adjourned till July 30th, and on that day the measure was 
 withdrawn. A more unsatisfactory measure was never 
 submitted to the House of Commons. 
 
 The Committee of Mr. Ayrton was appointed in 1861, 
 the object being " to inquire iuto the local government and 
 taxation of the Metropolis." We have had occasion more 
 then once to refer to the proceedings and report of this 
 Committee. 
 
 They reported in the same year, but although diligent 
 in the collection of evidence, do not venture to recommend 
 any specific line of action. Their report is mainly made up 
 of a useful summary of certain parts of London Government 
 at the time. In the draft Report submitted to the Com- 
 mittee there were some excellent clauses, pointing out the 
 desirability of the establishment of a central municipal body. 
 But these were struck out, and the City members on the 
 
570 MTTNTCIVAI, LONDON. 
 
 Committee are reported as having steadily voted against 
 anything in the Report except simple narrative. 
 
 At this time, both in Parliament and out of it, the 
 question of Corporation Reform had got into a sickly con- 
 dition, and no one was surprised to hear Sir George Lewis 
 state— in answer to a question — that he had no intention of 
 introducing a measure for the purpose during the Session 
 of 1861. 
 
 In the Session of 1862, nothing was done in Parliament 
 in the direction of Corporation Reform. 
 
 In 1863 came a Coal and Wine Dues Bill, but no 
 measure of Reform. Sir George Grey, however, introduced 
 a Bill to deal with the very question he had previously 
 neglected, viz., the amalgamation of the City and Metro- 
 politan Police. When introducing the measure he gave 
 utterance to- some of his discouragement on the question of 
 City Reform, and of his opinion as to the cause of its 
 failure, and he says, "Whenever I touched any question 
 which affected the alleged rights and privileges of the City, 
 a power of resistance was shown which it is difficult to 
 estimate too highly;"* and, he might have added, a method 
 of resistance which it would be difficult to estimate too 
 meanly. 
 
 The introduction of this measure had been precipitated 
 by the debates on the inefficiency of the City Pohce, which 
 had taken place in both Lords and Commons after the 
 entrance of the Princess of Wales. On the introduction of 
 the measure it was edifying — as being exactly on the line of 
 the usual City tactics — to see the City advocates quote the 
 City Police Act, obtained in the disgraceful method we have 
 detailed in the preceding chapter, as evidence that the 
 deliberate voice of Parliament was in favour of the systems 
 being separate, and that in the face of such a measure it 
 * Hansard, vol. clxx.. p. 491. 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : POLICE BILL OF 1863. 571 
 
 was idle to assert that Sir Robert Peel held a contrary 
 opinion.''^ There was also the usual meaningless declama- 
 tion — " This measure is not only unconstitutional, but also 
 likely in every way to prove eminently mischievous, and if 
 carried, will strike more deeply at the independence of the 
 middle classes of the country than any measure which had 
 been introduced or passed into law in modern times."t 
 
 But the Lord Mayor and Alderman Sidney were some- 
 what too hasty. Another method of stopping the measure 
 was found, and these ardent champions were released from 
 further unconscientious service in that Session by the 
 remarkable discovery that, as the City Police Act was a 
 private Act, this Bill ought to have been advertised in 
 November, under the Standing Orders of the House ! 
 Possibly, as the City has used this subterfuge more than 
 once, it may afford the reason why City Bills are always 
 introduced as " private Acts."| 
 
 During the years 1864 and 1865 no measure was 
 introduced into Parhament for the Reform of the Cor- 
 poration, and, except for the introduction of an abortive 
 measure, abolishing the jurisdiction of Aldermen over 
 
 * Speech of Mr. Alderman Sidney. Hansard, vol. clxx., p. 495. 
 
 t /6id, p. 501. 
 
 X The advocates of the City have, no doubt, had much to trj- the 
 temper in the constant onslaughts that have been made upon their 
 " cherished institutions." and during this, and the preceding sessions, they 
 had to endure the savage assaults and the caustic wit of Mr. Ayrton. In 
 the discussion of the measure just alluded to. we find him drawing the 
 distinction between Metropolitan and City Members, gi'eatly to the dis- 
 advantage of the latter. " The City lias always pai-aded the phantoms of 
 the past before the people of the Metropolis, and employed their stipendiary 
 corps of agitators to mislead the public, and to withdraw its mind from 
 the consideration of really important questions ; while the Metropolitan 
 Members endeavoured to bring before the House questions of real per- 
 manent and practical advantage to the inhabitants, and did not trouble 
 themselves about these mere parades of otfice. the gaberdines, gold-chains, 
 and gew-gaws of municipal authority and institutions, the realities of 
 which had been long since dead and buried ! " 
 
572 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 brokers, they and their privileges were allowed to rest in 
 peace. 
 
 In 1866 Lord Robert Montagu called the attention of 
 the House to the conflicting jurisdictions of the Metropolis 
 and their effect on its government. In this year, also, Mr. 
 Ayrton moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the 
 Local Government and Local Taxation of the MetropoKs. 
 This Committee was re-appointed in the following year and 
 we have already quoted from its report. 
 
 The only recommendation in their report germane to the 
 present purpose is, that in any arrangement made with 
 respect to the financial resources of the Metropolitan Board, 
 a portion of the charge should be borne by owners of 
 propert3\ They did not finish their work during the year 
 and were re-appointed in 1867. The Committee finally 
 reported a number of resolutions,'^ recommending the issue 
 of a new Commission of the Peace for the whole Metropolis. 
 That some members of such Commission should sit as repre- 
 sentatives of property owners at the Metropolitan Board. 
 That the Board should also have members elected directly 
 by the ratepayers, and that its members and representation 
 should be more in accord with the population and rateable 
 value of the represented districts. Its name was to be 
 changed to the " Municipal Council of London ; " that 
 certain general functions over the whole Metropolis, including 
 its gas and water supply, should be assumed by the Council ; 
 that the area of districts should be re-adjusted and their 
 government remodelled ; that the elections should be con- 
 ducted in the same manner as those for the Poor Law 
 Guardians ; that there should be but one Pohce Force for 
 the whole Metropolis : except this resolution, affecting the 
 PoHce Force, the Committee made no recommendation 
 affecting the City. 
 
 * House of Commons' Papers, 1867. No. 268. 
 
BILLS IN parliament: MTJNTCIPAL boroughs' bill, 186V. 673 
 
 The question of Corporation Reform, abandoned for the 
 time by the Governments of the day, was now taken in 
 hand by a private member, and, after availing himself of the 
 assistance and advice of Mr. Beal, a measure was introduced 
 into the House of Commons by Mr. Mill, on May 21st, 
 1867, for the purpose of establishing, in the several dis- 
 tricts of the Metropolis, separate Municipal Corporations. 
 
 This measure provided for the division of the Metropolis, 
 as divided by the Management Act of 1855, into ten boroughs 
 besides the City. These were named respectively "West- 
 minster, Kensington, Marylebone, Bloomsbury, Finsbury, 
 Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Southwark, and Green- 
 wich. The names of the proposed boroughs sufficiently 
 indicate the districts they embraced. The divisions were 
 upon a parochial basis, and each parish was divided into 
 wards. 
 
 Each borough was constituted into a body corporate, 
 with mayor, aldermen, and burgesses, Westminster alone 
 enjoying the title of (^ity. The provisions of the Municipal 
 Corporation Act were applied to each borough so created. 
 The voters at the first election were to be those who had a 
 right to vote for vestiymen, and notice of the election was to 
 be given by the churchwardens of the various parishes. 
 Subsequently, a burgess roll was to be created, and all the 
 terms of the Municipal Corporation Act were to apply. 
 The Justices of the Peace within every borough were to 
 have the ordinary powers of Borough Justices as to licensing, 
 &c. Each borough was to have a salaried PoHce Magistrate, 
 and the various metropolitan Pohce Courts were divided 
 amongst the boroughs, as set forth in the schedule to the 
 Bill. The right of appeal from the com-iction of Police 
 Magistrates to the County Justices (given by the 2 & 3 Yict., 
 c. 71, sec 50) was transferred to the Recorders established 
 in each borough under the Bill. 
 
574 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The rating power given by the Municipal Corporations 
 Act to the council of a borough was adopted for the new 
 boroughs. The Council of each borough was authorized to 
 provide a town hall and other necessary offices. Power was 
 given to the churchwardens and overseers of any parish to 
 transfer to the Council, with the consent of the Charity 
 Commissioners, the land or funds held by them in trust for 
 charitable purposes. The certificate of the Commissioners, 
 given under seal, and entered on the minutes of the Council, 
 was to be sufficient to vest the property in the borough. 
 
 The functions and powers of vestries were vested in the 
 Council of the borough immediately after the first election, 
 and all the jurisdiction of the former at once ceased. The 
 Metropolitan Board of Works was retained with the same 
 number of members divided amongst the boroughs, in the 
 proportion set out in the schedule. The jurisdiction of local 
 " Commissioners," &c., was aboHshed and transferred, and 
 all the property of the vestries was transferred to the 
 Councils ; and, where necessary, a power of apportionment 
 was given to the Metropolitan Board of Works. 
 
 Provision was made for the preservation and continuance 
 of existing contracts, and the discharge of existing debts, 
 also for compensation to existing officers, under the pro%dsions 
 of the Municipal Corporations Act. In two lines the Bill 
 provided for the preservation of all the " powers, privileges, 
 and jurisdiction " of the City of London, The J^etropoUtan 
 Board of Works was also preserved intact. The Inns of 
 Court were in the same category. Local Acts which were 
 inconsistent were to be repealed. Any difi'erence of opinion 
 between any bodies as to the construction of the Act were to 
 be referred to arbitration. 
 
 Finally, it was provided that the Queen might, by the 
 advice of the Privy Council, constitute adjoining parishes 
 into boroughs where there was adequate population, and 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : MtTNICIPAL BOROITGHs' BILL, 1867. 576 
 
 where a wish for such constitution had heen expressed by a 
 certain proportion of the inhabitant householders. 
 
 The names of Mr. Hughes and Mr Tomline were 
 endorsed upon the Bill, in addition to that of Mr. Mill, but 
 the measure did not progress so far as the second reading. 
 Later on in the session — in August — a further draft Bill 
 was introduced for the establishment of a central Municipal 
 Government. Mr. Mill did not expect either of these 
 measures to become law during that session, or to be carried 
 by a private member at all, but introduced them so that the 
 pubHc might have an opportunity of considering the scheme. 
 
 The Bills were re-introduced by Mr. Mill in practically 
 the same form on May 5th, 1868. The additional names 
 on the back of the Bill were Mr. Hughes, Mr. Tomline, Mr. 
 Buxton, and Mr. Layard. But the Bill, dealing with the 
 constitution of a central corporation, was stopped upon the 
 Standing Orders, in consequence of due notice of its intro- 
 duction not having been advertised for the benefit of the 
 City in the preceding November. A strong protest was 
 entered by Mr. Mill against spending several hundreds of 
 pounds in advertising for the benefit of the City the intro- 
 duction of a measure, with the terms of which they were 
 perfectly familiar 
 
 Once again, however, this remarkable City manoeuvre 
 was successful : and as it was undesirable to prosecute one 
 half of the scheme alone, the measure was abandoned on the 
 30th of June, on the occasion of the adjourned debate on 
 the second reading. 
 
 The cause of Municipal Reform now suffered a loss in 
 the exclusion of Mr. Mill from Parliament. Bui the Bills 
 which he had promoted were re-introduced by Mr. Buxton 
 in 1869, and, on June 16th, he moved the second reading in 
 a speech of much ability. Considerable discussion followed 
 of the usual character, but the generally expressed opinion 
 
676 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of the speakers was clearly hi favour of the measure being 
 taken in hand by the Government. "When, therefore, Mr, 
 Bruce assured the House that the subject " would receive 
 the attentive consideration of the Government," Mr. Buxton 
 accepted his assurance and withdrew the Bills. 
 
 The assurance thus given did not, however, lead to the 
 introduction of any measure by the Government during the 
 ensuing Session, and therefore Mr. Buxton, upon whose 
 shoulders rested the responsibility of proceeding in the 
 matter, introduced the question again to the consideration of 
 the House of Commons in 1870. The Bills now brought 
 before the House were entitled respectively, the " Municipal 
 Boroughs Bill," the " Corporation of London Bill/' and the 
 " County of London Bill." 
 
 The Municipal Boroughs Bill proposed to divide London 
 into nine Municipal Boroughs, besides the City proper. The 
 Yestries were abolished and their powers transferred to the 
 Boroughs so constituted. The former proposal of separate 
 mayors and aldermen did not, however, re-appear in this mea- 
 sure. They were replaced by wardens, one in each Borough, 
 The number of councillors varied : Marylebone having 40 ; 
 Finsbury, 35 ; and most of the rest, 20. The Boroughs, 
 thus constituted, were then formally put under the provi- 
 sions cf the Municipal Corporation Act, 1835 ; with the 
 exception of the provisions in that Act as to the appoint- 
 ment of a Watch Committee and the levying of Watch 
 Rates. The various Boroughs were di\ided into wards, 
 which were, in most cases, coterminous with parishes. 
 Adequate provision was made for the continuance of all 
 contracts, agreements, &c., then pending, the transfer of all 
 rights, and the discharge of existing liabilities. Westminster 
 was to preserve the title of City, a title to which, as we 
 have seen, it has no manner of claim, and all cases of 
 difference arising in connection with the establishment of 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : BILLS OF 1870. 577 
 
 the boroughs were to be referred to arbitration. An 
 examination of the Schedule to the Bill shows that the 
 divisions of the boroughs were somewhat unequal. Mary- 
 lebone, for example, comprised an area of twelve square 
 miles, with a population of more than half a million, whilst 
 other boroughs are very much less ; but, as it would appear 
 that the lines of the parliamentarj^ boroughs are mainly 
 followed, the reasons of this are not far to seek. The 
 division of the boroughs into wards, and the apportionment 
 of councillors amongst them, was to be effected by a com- 
 mittee of four, appointed by the Secretary of State. The 
 aggregate number of wards in the nine boroughs was 92, 
 and of councillors, 245. 
 
 The Corporation of London Bill had for its object the 
 creation of a MetropoHtan Corporation of London, and the 
 continuance of the Municipal Government of the City of 
 London. The government of the City of London, with its 
 Corporation and officers, is preserved intact, with the 
 exception that its chief officer is to be called "Warden, 
 instead of Mayor. The Court of Aldermen, as such, is to 
 be abolished, but all the functions, rights, and authorities of 
 the two governing bodies of the City are specifically preserved. 
 Even the control of the City PoHce is to remain in their 
 hands. The jurisdiction of the G\ty over South wark is 
 abolished. The rights of the Commissioners of Sewers, of 
 the Commissioners of Lieutenancy, and of Freemen and 
 Citizens, are left untouched, and the chaotic, undefinable 
 franchises, customs, usages, and prescriptions of the Cor- 
 poration are also expressly preserved. 
 
 A central Corporation is constituted, the governing body 
 of which is to consist of Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and 
 Metropolitan Councillors. The first Lord Mayor to be the 
 Lord Mayor of the City for the time being, and every 
 subsequent Lord Mayor is to be elected by the MetropoHtan 
 
578 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Council from among the Aldermen. The provision which 
 foUows for such election being conducted in all respects like 
 the ordinary mayoralty election in the City, would be found 
 impossible in its practical working. The Warden of the 
 City of London is to be the Deput}' Lord -Mayor. The fii'st 
 body of Aldermen is to be composed of the Chairman of the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, three from each Metropohtan 
 Borough, and the whole of the Aldermen of the City. 
 This would make the total number of Aldermen 54, but as 
 provision is made for gradually reducing the number of City 
 representatives to 8, the ultimate number would be only 35. 
 
 The Metropolitan Council is to consist of the members 
 of the Metropolitan Board of Works, '62 members of the 
 Common Council of the City, and 135 representatives of the 
 boroughs, making a total of 212 ; but as the members of the 
 Metropolitan Board were to cease theii' membership at the 
 expiration of the term for which they were elected, the ulti- 
 mate number of members would be 167. The final repre- 
 sentation of the City would consist of 8 aldermen and 32 
 councillors, or about one-fifth of the whole body — a share in 
 the representation to which it is not entitled upon any 
 possible theory, and which failed in its object of appeasing 
 the opposition of the City, while at the same time it dis- 
 credited the measure. The central Corporation is to exercise 
 certain powers transferred from the City, the extent of which 
 it is not easy to measure, and is also to take over the whole 
 of the powers and authority of the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works. The realized property of both these bodies appears 
 to be transferred to the new Corporation ; but there are so 
 many saving clauses in the measure, that it is difficult to say 
 what would be its exact efiect. 
 
 The Metropolitan Council are to have power to appoint 
 committees, and the proceedings both of council and com- 
 mittees are to be regulated by the " charters and customs of 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : BILLS OF 1870. 579 
 
 the City of London." If such a council had ever been con- 
 stituted, we fancy the execution of this clause would have 
 given them no little trouble. The quorum of the Council 
 was to be 30, and powers are reserved for the making of 
 byelaws subject to the certificate of the Recorder. The 
 power of internal regulation possessed by the Common 
 Council of the City is also granted to the MetropoHtan 
 Council. The Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the 
 Recorder, Common Serjeant, Chamberlain, and other officers 
 of the City are to become servants of the new Corporation. 
 So also are the officers and servants of the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works, The Recorder and Common Serjeant are 
 to be elected by the Metropohtan Council. Such Council is 
 also to have power to fix the salary of the Lord Mayor, 
 chairman of committees, and other officers. The Act con- 
 tains other provisions for the purpose of putting the Council 
 into working order. 
 
 The idea of this measure appears to have been the 
 extension, in some measure not very easy to comprehend, of 
 the Corporation of the City over the whole of London. If 
 the measure had passed into law in the form in which it was 
 introduced into the House, it would have been well nigh 
 impossible as to part of it to construe its meaning. When 
 the draughtsman of the Bill introduces in every point in the 
 constitution and working of his Metropolitan Council the 
 charters and customs of the present Corporation, he deals 
 with an unknown quantity ; and when the existing heritors 
 of these "privileges" cannot construe them themselves, it is 
 the refinement of absurdity to pass on their construction to 
 a new body established to initiate a better system. 
 
 The Oounty of London Bill, introduced in connection 
 with the other two, was for the purpose of constituting the 
 metropolitan area into one county. It provided that acting 
 Justices of the Peace should reside within twenty-five miles 
 
680 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of the Guildhall ; and for the transfer of the jurisdiction 
 and power of existing county justices to those of the new 
 county. The prisons within the three metropolitan counties 
 are to pass under the control of the new county ; the prison 
 authorities to be justices of the county in Quarter Sessions. 
 The Chamberlain of London was to be the County Trea- 
 surer. Provision is also made for the transfer of the authority 
 over lunatic asylums. Appeals under the Licensing Acts 
 and as to county rates were to be to the new justices. The 
 power of levying county rates is to be transferred from the 
 County Justices to the Metropolitan Council, The appor- 
 tionment of the property and liabilities of the various counties 
 between the parts transferred to the new county, and the 
 parts which are left is to be made by the Secretary of 
 State. 
 
 The second reading of the Bills was moved on May 18th, 
 and for the third time Mr. Bentinck claimed the privilege 
 of moving the rejection of a measure for Corporation reform. 
 It was clear from the tenor of the debate that the question 
 was one with which no private member could successfully 
 grapple ; but notwithstanding the opposition to which the 
 Bills were subjected, they were read a second time, and 
 referred to a Select Committee. As in so many other cases, 
 so in this, reference to a Select Committee proved to be 
 merely a courteous method of shelving the measure, and so 
 ended the work of reform in the Session of 1870. 
 
 On February 20th, 1871, Mr. Bruce stated, in answer 
 to Mr. Buxton, that the Government had decided, with the 
 " greatest reluctance," that they would be unable to intro- 
 duce a Bill during the session, and from that date until 
 1875, no further attempt was made in Parliament to deal 
 with the abuses and anomalies of London Government. 
 
 Outside the walls of the House the question was not 
 allowed to sleep, but in the press and on the platform, as 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : BILL OF 1875. 581 
 
 well as by deputation to tlie Home Office, tlie subject was 
 thoroughly discussed. An important deputation, repre- 
 senting large interests in the Metropolis, and every shade of 
 political opinion, waited upon the Home Secretary, October 
 28th, 1874, to urge him to introduce a Bill in the ensuing 
 session. No pledge, however, to that effect was given. 
 
 It therefore became necessary, if any effect was to be 
 given to the discussion of the year, that the matter should 
 be taken in hand by private members. A Bill embodying 
 the provisions of previous measures, and extending the Cor- 
 poration over the whole of the metropolitan area, was 
 accordingly prepared under the auspices of the Metropolitan 
 Municipal Association. 
 
 It was duly introduced in the Session of 1875, by Lord 
 Elcho and Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth. The measure aimed at 
 the construction of one united Municipal Government for 
 the MetropoHs, based on an intelligible principle. That 
 principle, however, was not so much the absolute creation 
 of an original constitution, as the extension throughout the 
 Metropolis of a modified constitution of the City Corporation ; 
 such new Corporation to absorb all the powers now vested 
 in the Corporation of the City, the MetropoHtan Board of 
 Works, and the London Vestries. The area proposed to be 
 dealt with was the Metropolis of the Local Management 
 Act, and it was provided that this area should be constituted 
 a county, by the name of the County of London. 
 
 The government of the new area was to be vested in 
 one municipal body, to be incorporated as the " Municipality 
 of London," with the usual powers. For the purposes of 
 representation at this central council the Metropolis outside 
 the City was di\'ided into nine municipal districts, bearing 
 the names, and in the main including the areas of the 
 present parliamentary boroughs ; each of these districts to 
 be divided into four wards. The City was to be divided 
 
 2o 
 
582 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 into eight wards, of which it would appear that the Livery- 
 men should constitute one. The boundaries of the whole 
 to be determined under the direction of the Secretary of 
 State. The smallest local sub-division would therefore be a 
 ward, which, in the Tower Hamlets "would have nearly 
 90,000 inhabitants, and in no district outside the City less 
 than 50,000. The City wards, however, would not average 
 more than 9,000 inhabitants. 
 
 Provision is made for the merger of the Corporation of 
 the City ; of the Corporation of Westminster ; for the 
 cesser of the Common Council of the City, and the London 
 Vestries. Certain saving clauses, however, would preserve to 
 the future Municipality the warlike body of City Lieu- 
 tenants, and also the customs, usages, and privileges of the 
 City Corporation, and the bye-laws of the Metropohtan 
 Board, and of the Common Council, except where such are 
 inconsistent with the provisions of the Municipal Corpora- 
 tion Act, which is incorporated with the measure, except in 
 cases of express separate provision. 
 
 The electoral body of the new municipaHty is to be 
 composed of the present city electors, and those at present 
 qualified to vote in the election of vestrymen. The 
 governing body is to consist of the Mayor, Aldermen, and 
 Coancillors. 
 
 The first Lord Mayor would be the Lord Mayor of the 
 City at the passing of the Act. Subsequent Mayors were to 
 be elected by the Municipal Council, Any one quahfied to 
 vote for a councillor might be selected for the office. The 
 ratification of the appointment by the Crown through the 
 Lord Chancellor is retained. Tenants of the post are 
 elio-ible for re-appointment. Provision is also made for the 
 appointment of a Deputy. 
 
 The first Aldermen are to be the existing Aldermen of 
 the City, the Chairman of the Metropohtan Board, and 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : BILL OF 1876. 583 
 
 three to be elected from each of the Metropolitan Districts. 
 The number in the first Council would thus be 54, of whom 
 the City would nominate 26. No vacancy occurring amongst 
 the City Aldermen should be filled up until the number 
 be reduced to 8, at which it is proposed to rest, being thus 
 a representation nearly three times as large as that of any 
 other municipal district. As, however, one other Alderman 
 is to be regularly elected by the Liverymen, as representing 
 them, the real number of the City would seem to be nine. 
 It is provided that one-third of the Aldermen retire every 
 year, being a variation from the Municipal Corporation 
 Act, under which one-half retire every three years. The 
 final number of Aldermen in the Council would be 36 ; one- 
 fourth of whom would be elected by the City and the 
 Liverymen. 
 
 The Municipal Councillors are to be elected by the 
 present electoral body with the cumulative system of voting. 
 As five members are to be elected by each ward, the total 
 number would appear to be 220 ; of which number the City 
 would send 40, and each of the other Municipal Districts 
 20. 
 
 The powers and functions of the Municipal Council 
 include all those now possessed and discharged by either of 
 the governing bodies of the Corporation of the City ; by 
 the Corporation of Westminster ; by the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works ; by Vestries and District Boards ; and 
 by the various bodies of Commissioners and Trustees dis- 
 charging municipal functions in various parts of the Me- 
 tropolis. The Council is further to have the appointment 
 of Coroners; Commissioners of Sewers; Clerks of Works; 
 and various other officers as now appointed by the Common 
 Council of the City, The powers of the City Corporation 
 over the City PoKce are also transferred to the new Council. 
 By section 35 the real and personal property, and the right 
 
584 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 to tolls and duties, noM^ in the hands of the various govern- 
 ing bodies of the Metropolis, and held in connection with 
 any function transferred to the Council, are transferred to 
 the new Municipality for the public benefit of the Metro- 
 polis. But an important reservation is made with respect 
 to the City, viz. : that except by consent of its representa- 
 tives, the Council shall not expend the proceeds of the 
 present City property otherwise than for the benefit of the 
 City municipal district. 
 
 The Council is empowered to appoint Committees, and 
 to distribute amongst them such of its duties as it may think 
 fit. It is also proposed to elect a permanent salaried Chair- 
 man of Standing Committees. A general provision is also 
 contained for the adoption by the Council of existing 
 charters and customs of the City. The Lord Mayor's 
 Court is unafi'ected by the Act, and the " privileges " of 
 freemen and liverymen of the City are especially reserved. 
 The Bill contains formal clauses, providing for the con- 
 tinuance and validity of contracts, agreements, actions, &c., 
 made or commenced by the bodies whose authorities are 
 transferred, and also for the application of money due to, 
 and settlements of the liabilities incurred by, the several 
 existing authorities. 
 
 The Recorder, Common Serjeant, Chamberlain, Sheriffs, 
 and all other officers and servants of the City Corporation, 
 are to become officers of the new municipality. The same 
 provision is also retained with respect to the servants of the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, and all the officials thus 
 transferred are to continue to act in similar capacities to 
 those in which they act at present. The functions of the 
 Sheriffs are unaffected, and are to be elected in future from 
 amongst the Aldermen. The offices of Recorder and 
 Common Serjeant are to be in the appointment of the 
 
BILLS IN PAKI.IAMENT : BILL OF 1875. 585 
 
 Municipal Council, subject to ratification by the Crown 
 through the Lord Chancellor. 
 
 The Council are to fix the salary of the Lord Mayor, 
 which, however, is not to be less than that of the Mayor of 
 the present Corporation, that is to say, £10,000 a-year. 
 They are also to fix the salary of the Chairman of Standing 
 Committees. This is not to be less than that of the present 
 Chairman of the Metropolitan Board (who is to be the first 
 Chairman), that is to say £2,000 a-year. It shall also be 
 competent to them to make allowances to the Committees of 
 the Council for " reasonable expenses." 
 
 The provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act as to 
 compensation to officers of existing bodies, are adapted to 
 the measure. 
 
 The powers of the present County Justices are to be 
 transferred to justices to be appointed under a new com- 
 mission, and it would appear that aldermen are to be ex officio 
 magistrates. The new county is to have a separate prison 
 jurisdiction, and all the prisons in the three home counties 
 are to be transferred to it. The prison authority, so far as 
 administration is concerned, is to be in the County Magistrates 
 assembled at Quarter Sessions. The same body is constituted 
 the authority for the Lunatic Asylums Act, 1853, except 
 that in this case as in that of prisons, the powers of levying 
 rates and raising money are in the Municipal Council. The 
 power of hearing licensing appeals is given to the Quarter 
 Sessions, as in other counties. The Clerk of the Peace, 
 acting for the Corporation of the City, is to be the first Clerk 
 of the Peace for the county, and the office shall subsequently 
 be in the appointment of the Justices. The Chamberlain of 
 London is to be the County Treasurer. County Rates may 
 be levied over the Metropohs by the Municipal Council. 
 
 The apportionment of county property and liabilities 
 
586 MTTNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 between the metropolitan and extra metropolitan districts 
 of tlie counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent is to be 
 carried out under the direction of the Secretary of State. 
 There are also other formal clauses providing for the adjust- 
 ment of the relations of the old counticB and the new one, 
 including the continuance of contracts, actions, administra- 
 tions, &c., and the payment of compensation to officers. 
 
 The new Municipal Council is to have power to make 
 bye-laws for the better administration of the Act. They are 
 to be certified by the Recorder as not being inconsistent with 
 the Act, and are to be passed by such a majority in the 
 Council as the Recorder may decide. Provision is made for 
 the appointment of three stipendiary magistrates for the 
 district now known as the City. Power is also given to the 
 Secretary of State upon the application of interested rate- 
 payers to enlarge the Metropolitan boundary by the 
 inclusion of new parishes. The Bill does not in any way 
 affect either the parliamentary boroughs or the electoral 
 franchise, and the peculiar powers of the governments of the 
 Tower and of the Inns of Court are also unaffected. There 
 are useful schedules to the Bill, setting out the parishes and 
 districts to be included in each Municipal district ; the 
 method of fixing the boundary of Municipal wards, and the 
 arrangements proposed for the conduct of Municipal elections. 
 
 The Bill was withdrawn before it reached the second 
 reading, and Lord Elcho announced his intention of pro- 
 ceeding by resolution. No suitable day was however 
 available, and so ended the parliamentary discussion of the 
 question in 1875. 
 
 The data available to those who framed this measure 
 were necessarily incomplete, and there are thus a number of 
 things for which no provision is made, but which would have 
 to be dealt with in some form by the new Municipality. In 
 view of the enormous trouble of collating and arranging the 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : BILL OF 1875. 587 
 
 requisite material, there is very high credit due to those who 
 have been concerned in the drafting and introduction of this 
 measure. It is probably mainly due to the indefatigable 
 perseverance and tireless energy of Mr. Beal that the ques- 
 tion has assumed so complete a form as it presents in this 
 measure. 
 
 But without descending into criticism of detail, there is, 
 as it seems to us, one cardinal vice existing in this Bill as 
 introduced, which disfigures its fair proportions, and lays 
 the scheme open at the hands of independent critics to 
 severe animadversion. We are • convinced that this vice is 
 not inherent in the framers of the measure, but that it has 
 been imported into the scheme from a conviction that it was 
 a good tactical policy. We allude, of course, to the utter 
 disproportion of representation given to the present city area, 
 and to the exceptional method in which the present Corpo- 
 ration is dealt with throughout. For example, we find that 
 the liverymen are constituted a Municipal ward for electoral 
 purposes. These men would therefore have double voting 
 power, first as citizens, next as liverymen. As the last 
 thing that an ordinary liveryman cares about doing is about 
 voting, this clause can have no effect in pacifying the class. 
 The number of City wards is to be eight, whilst Municipal 
 districts with five times the population have only four. The 
 number of councillors (independent of the elect of the Livery), 
 will be 40, and of aldermen, 8, whilst other districts have 
 only 20 and 3. This has also been done to pacify them. 
 The deputy Mayor is to be from the Municipal district of the 
 present City, Why this limit of choice ? Then again, as 
 we have clearly shown, the City revenues are in large 
 measure the common property of the MetropoHs, and yet 
 section 35 appropriates them for the purposes of the smaller 
 district, except with consent that would never be given. 
 This is a clear perpetuation of a great wrong. Then the 
 
6SS MT7NICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 City police jurisdiction is transferred to the Council, but 
 nothing is said of the large sum paid out of City funds 
 towards the cost. The proceedings of the Council are to be 
 regulated by the charters and customs of the present City, 
 and generally these are preserved to the new Municipality. 
 This is intended as a compliment to the City ; but it would 
 render the Act unworkable, inasmuch as a decision would 
 have to be arrived at otherwise than by the ipse dixit of the 
 Recorder as to what the customs were, and the difficulty of 
 doing that we have already discussed. The privileges of the 
 freemen and liverymen are preserved, except where in- 
 consistent with the Act. But they are all inconsistent. 
 
 And so all through the Bill the indefinable customs of 
 the City are to prevail, except where inconsistent with the 
 measure. No Hving man could say authoritatively, upon the 
 data now in existence, what would be the efiect of these 
 clauses in a number of matters. Even the Lord Mayor's 
 salary and the Committee allowances are to be stereotyped. 
 And why ? For no other reason than a wish to conciliate 
 the City. 
 
 Now, if the history of attempted Corporation Reform 
 teaches anything at all it teaches this, that for the fullest 
 concessions that any minister dare make, the City care not 
 one iota : that they denounce the very mildest measure in 
 the most revolutionary language, and that there are no 
 means fair or foul within the compass of a soulless Corpora- 
 tion to which they wiU not stoop to defeat it. What has 
 been the fate of the various measures introduced and 
 promised for City Reform ? 
 
 1. Bill promised hy Lord John Russell in 1837. City 
 take advantage of balance of parties and threaten the 
 Government. Elect Lord John Russell as member for the 
 City. 
 
BILLS IN PARLIAMENT : THEIR FATE. 
 
 589 
 
 2. Police Bill of 1839. Coerce the Government by 
 threatening to withdraw all available support. 
 
 3. G-overnment Bill of 1856. City make strong repre- 
 sentations as to necessity of delay. Sir George Grey yields 
 to pressure, and the Bill is shelved. 
 
 4. G-overnment Bill of 1858. Referred to a Select 
 Committee on motion of member for City. Motion made on 
 behalf of City, after Committee's report, that Bill should be 
 referred back to same Committee, so that City might be 
 heard by counsel, although Committee had already heard 
 all that City wished to say. Consequent delay and with- 
 drawal of Bill. 
 
 5. G-overnment Bill of 1859. Introduced too late and 
 
 withdrawn. 
 
 6. Government Bill of 1860. Withdrawn. 
 
 7. Police Bill of 1863. Defeated on Standing Orders, 
 as the City had not had notice in November. 
 
 8. Mr. Mill's Bills in 1867. Withdrawn. 
 
 9. Mr. Mill's Bills in 1868. One defeated by City on 
 Standing Orders ; the other withdrawn. 
 
 10. Mr. Buxton's Bills in 1869. Withdrawn on assur- 
 ance that the Government would " consider " the question. 
 
 11. Mr. Buxton's Bills in 1870. Read a second time, 
 and referred to a Select Committee. 
 
 12. Lord Mcho's Bill in 1875. Withdrawn in order to 
 proceed by resolution, for which, however, no suitable day 
 was available. 
 
 Every one of these measures is largely founded upon the 
 reports and recommendations of Royal Commissions. The 
 subject-matter of them all has had all along the approval of 
 a large majority of the House of Commons irrespective of 
 party. The matter is one of imminent importance to the 
 welfare, interest, and comfort of three milHons of people. 
 
590 ' MrNiciPAL LONDorr. 
 
 Can it be that, in this year of Grace, there is no honest states- 
 man who dare enter the lists with the Corporation of Lon- 
 don, and give form and substance to the opinion of the 
 House of Commons and to the aspirations of the capital 
 City? 
 
 But if the supineness of governments still leave the 
 work and the responsibility upon private shoulders, we hope 
 that the scheme may be made more complete year by year, 
 and that its promoters will remove from it the concessions to 
 injustice and to chaos which disfigure the Bill of 1875. 
 
591 
 
 Chapter XV. 
 
 METHODS OF REFORM DISCUSSED. 
 
 Opinions of Puhlic Men.— Opinion and Action of the Cor- 
 poration of the Oity.—Necessittj for a Central Municipal 
 Authority. — Community of Interest. — Necessity for 
 Purposes of Protection. — Functions of the Central 
 Authority.— Source of Reform.— Conclusion of Argu- 
 ment. 
 
 The necessity of reforming the Corporation of London, 
 and of conceding Municipal institutions to the districts 
 around it, has been widely recognised outside the walls of 
 ParHament as well as within them. An association, known 
 as the " Metropolitan Municipal Association," has been 
 in existence since the year 1867, and has rendered valuable 
 aid in the pubHc discussion of both questions. This has been 
 done in various ways, including the preparation of two of the 
 Bills whose provisions we have quoted, and also including 
 several influential deputations to Home Secretaries. 
 
 Many pubHc men of repute have given their sanction 
 and support to the agitation for reform, and more than once 
 the Chancellors and Barons, to whom newly-fledged Lord 
 Mayors have been presented, have availed themselves of the 
 opportunity aff'orded by such presentation to extend advice 
 and counsel to the Corporation. As Lord Chebnsford well 
 expressed it, when addressing the Lord Mayor in 1866, 
 " With regard to the rights and privileges of the Corpo- 
 ration, this is an age in which nothing can be expected 
 to stand on foundations of mere custom and antiquity. 
 
592 
 
 MUNICIPAI- LONDON. 
 
 Everything is now fully canvassed and examined, and if it 
 be found unsound, the title of prescription is pleaded in 
 vain. Besides, institutions which may have been well- 
 suited to earher periods of our history, and to a different 
 state of things, often become in the march of time — the great 
 innovator — but ill-adapted to the changes which take place 
 in the national life." 
 
 And, in the same year, Lord Chief Baron Kelly, 
 whose former connection with the Corporation as " City 
 Pleader," gave his words peculiar weight — was equally 
 outspoken. "The Metropolis of this country has now 
 become so great and extensive that it numbers no less than 
 three million inhabitants, and it is therefore not to be 
 wondered at that the inhabitants of the different portions 
 and districts of the capital should lay claim before the 
 Legislature of the country either to participate in the 
 honours and distinctions enjoyed by the Corporation of 
 London, or to secure to themselves the appointments of 
 subordinate and independent Municipal Corporations in 
 each of these districts, and, considering the amount of the 
 population, the great, the increasing, and the increased 
 wealth of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, it is impossible 
 to deny that the claim which they have made is well- 
 founded, and is well-entitled to the consideration of the 
 Legislature." 
 
 The claim thus alluded to was that enunciated in 
 Mr. Mill's Bill providing for Municipal boroughs. This 
 is a scheme which has always had a certain quasi support 
 from the advisers of the City ; but they were always some- 
 what apprehensive of the Central Council, which was to be 
 constituted as supreme. In addressing the Lord Mayor in 
 1869, after Mr. Buxton's Bill had been introduced in the 
 House of Commons, Chief Baron Kelly spoke in terms of 
 strong approval of the Bills as " worthy of the attention of 
 
METHODS OF REFORM : OPINIONS OF PUBLIC MEN. 593 
 
 the Corporation." The Bills were "introduced hy a 
 gentleman and a scholar intimately and largely connected 
 with the commerce of the Metropolis," and they were " such 
 as the Corporation would do well to consider, and, if 
 possible, to encourage and promote." In the same year the 
 Home Secretary promised to support the second reading of 
 these Bills in the ensuing session ; and, when speaking at 
 the Mansion House dinner, expressed the hope that it might 
 be given to Parliament to complete " the formation of a 
 great Municipal system in harmony with and with the full 
 support " of the Corporation, 
 
 But neither Chief Baron Kelly, though an old familiar, 
 nor Home Secretary Bruce, understood or duly gauged the 
 secret moving " principles " of the Corporation of London. 
 Mr. Bruce had told a deputation from the City that it would 
 be useless for the City to " attend to oppose other plans " 
 unless they had one of their own, and invited them to bring 
 one in. In his innocence he supposed they would do so, 
 just as the Lord Chief Baron imagined they would take his 
 fatherly counsel. Not a bit of it. In pubHc there was an 
 apparent quasi consent to the Municipal boroughs part of 
 the scheme, and a determined hostility to the Municipal 
 Council — part of it ; but the true policy was shown in the 
 persistent opposition of Aldeiman Lawrence, Alderman 
 Lush, and Lord Enfield to the whole scheme when it was 
 brought forward in 1870, and in the refusal of any City 
 member to serve on the Select Committee. 
 
 The true opinion of the Corporation was also found in 
 the document with which the City Remembrancer came to 
 the surface. Now, if the City has any single man of ability 
 in high official position, prepared to defend its prescriptions 
 and privileges, it is Chief Baron Kelly. We have already 
 quoted the terms in which he recommended the Bills of 
 1869 to his old friends. The City Remembrancer, in a 
 
594 MtTNlClPAL LONDON. 
 
 document entitled of, and purporting to deal with, these 
 measures, but really criticizing the Report of the Select 
 Committee of 1867, says : — 
 
 " It is not necessary that we should point out that the 
 recommendations alluded to tend to undermine Municipal 
 and Representative government in the Metropolis and else- 
 where throughout the kingdom. To reconstruct the local 
 government of London on such a principle would not only 
 be inexpedient and unjust as it regards the ancient City of 
 London, but would disappoint the expectation of the inha- 
 bitants of other districts of the MetropoHs, who naturally 
 look for free Mmiicipal institutions similar to those accorded 
 to towns which have been recently incorporated under the 
 Corporations Act of 1835, as weU as to those 208 ancient 
 Corporations under which the said Act was extended and 
 regulated." * 
 
 How far this commentary is justifiable every one can 
 judge by reference to the previous chapter. It will be 
 noted that the City mind does not descend to reason. 
 Therein it is wise ; for when the City begins to reason, it 
 will be lost. 
 
 An eminent ofiicer of the Corporation also gave in his 
 adhesion at this time to a Municipal Boroughs' scheme. 
 The reasons which Mr. Scott, the City Chamberlain, gives 
 for the absence of Municipal institutions in the Metropolis 
 are, however, so remarkable that we charitably hope that 
 the due manipulation of City balances, upon which his 
 salary depends, has prevented his devoting time to the inner 
 history of City intrigue. It appears from the " Statistical 
 
 * The way the rulers of other districts of the Metropolis looked for 
 free " Municipal institutions," &c., was remarkably shown in the turbu- 
 lent meetings of vestrymen debating Mr. Mill's Bills in St. James's Hall, 
 November 1867. 
 
METHODS OF REFORM : SCHEME OF CITY CHAMBERLAIN. 696 
 
 Vindication of London,'^* that " it is to the evident indis- 
 position of the ruling party to bring their own principles to 
 the test of experiment that we must attribute the reluctance 
 which has been displayed to confer Municipal institutions 
 on the unenfranchised districts of the Metropolis." This is 
 particularly unkind to the Whigs, when we recollect that 
 the City moved heaven and earth to prevent a measure 
 being introduced, and threatened the withdrawal of their 
 support from the party at a critical time, and then, as a 
 coup de grace to the whole thing, elected the Chief Reformer 
 as their representative in Parliament. Nor does the City 
 champion stop here. "It is painful to one professing Liberal 
 sentiments to put upon record that, while the, Whigs have 
 been in power no efficient step has been taken towards con- 
 ferring or improving Municipal institutions in the Metro- 
 polis ; whilst no opportunity has been neglected to destroy, 
 injure, or lower in public estimation the only MunicipaUty 
 in the capital of the empire based upon the tried and 
 efficient system of our Saxon ancestors." This is in the 
 best City style. Leave no stone unturned to defeat and 
 burke a measure, and then rail at your friends for not 
 passing it. The rest is presimied to be another stab at 
 poor Sir George Grey. It is he also, probably, who is 
 mainly responsible for the " persistent effijrts to extinguish 
 popular rights." By these, it is presumed are meant City 
 rights; probably the last place in Great Britain where 
 popular rights are recognised. 
 
 Mr. Scott quotes Sir Robert Peel, to the effect that the 
 reason of the City Police not being extinguished was 
 because of their efficiency ! f Indeed it appears to have 
 been a model force. We have also a pitiful complaint about 
 the City not being permitted to embank the Thames. For 
 
 * Page 148. t As to this see ante, pp. 547 and 54Hn. 
 
596 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 this also the Whigs are responsible. If they are, then, 
 outer London owes them a debt of gratitude for keeping back 
 the corrupt hand of the City.* 
 
 Our business with Mr. Scott, however, was to quote him 
 as representing the views of the foremost City men upon 
 the question of Municipal reform. We do not intend at 
 present to deal with his remarkable theories on the question 
 of police, or his still more remarkable method of quoting the 
 larger or smaller statistics of the City as may best suit the 
 "Vindication." Writing upon a Municipal Boroughs' 
 scheme, he says much in which we can unite. " Any one 
 provided with a pair of scissors can cut up the map of 
 London into portions, but the test of statesmanship will be, 
 who shall provide for and secure the harmonious and efficient 
 co-operation of the whole?" There will be occasions in 
 which London " will be expected to speak in the name of 
 London. The absurdity of having, say, eleven voices for 
 London on occasions of royal entries, public entertainments, 
 and so forth, is clearly indicated. There must, therefore, be 
 a Central Body. The question is, how is it to be constituted ? 
 We seek eagerly the answer to this question, and find — will 
 
 • The fact, however, that the City did not embank the Thames does 
 not prevent it from gaining credit for this work whenever it can. At 
 what were called the " Inter-Municipal festivities in 1«75," the Prefect 
 of the Seine was allowed to behave — what this empirical body carefully 
 impresses upon foreigners — that the Lord Mayor ruled all London, 
 and was entitled to all the glory attendant upon such sovereignty. 
 The whole tenor of IjIs address is based on this false, but carefully 
 fostered, supposition. He even praises the Municipality for the " quais 
 magnifiques " and the " grands voies de communication ; " and the few 
 City guests who had any knowledge of the French language, joyfully 
 appropriated the best works of their quondam rival at Spring Gardens. 
 But strangest irony of all, he says, " Vous, Messieurs, qui comprenez et 
 pratiquez si bien le 'self-government'" ! — and this to the Corporation of 
 London 1 — to the greatest burlesque on Municipal institutions at this 
 moment in existence on EngUsh soil ! It may be hoped that when 
 another Prefect of the Seine comes to visit us he may find a Corporation 
 worthy of the name. 
 
METHODS OF REFORM : SCHEME OF CITY CHAMBERLAIN. 597 
 
 it be believed ? — tbat it is to be no other than the present 
 City Corporation reinforced by representatives from the other 
 Municipalities. This is to be "the creme de la crime of 
 Municipal representation." Men of " sufficient social posi- 
 tion," "Members of Parliament," and so forth, will then 
 vie with each other for posts in the Local Municipalities, 
 which might lead them to seats in the Federated Corpora- 
 tion ! Mr. Scott has had a severe parturition, and this is 
 the ridiculus mus. To sit down cheek by jowl with the 
 present rulers of the City — what a glorious ambition ! But 
 the plan has one great virtue ; it would preserve City 
 privileges and property intact for all time. This might 
 render it palatable to a few, but there are great risks to the 
 City in creating any powerful Central Body. The true 
 " Corporator " knows this instinctively, and if the City 
 Chamberlain were to initiate any reform that should 
 lessen a single City privilege, he would probably find that 
 the £3,000 which he spent on the London livery for his 
 election twenty-two years ago* would be forgotten, and after 
 the next succeeding election day some unaccustomed hand 
 would finger the balances. 
 
 It is admitted on every hand — by the ruthless Municipal 
 Reformer equally with the champion of the City — that there 
 must be a Central Body of some kind. Those who fear the 
 City and those who wish to retain its powers, propose to 
 establish separate independent bodies, so that questions of 
 City property and privileges may not be raised. And so the 
 powers of the Central Body are to be as small as possible, 
 and the independence of the subordinate bodies as complete 
 as possible. Lord Elcho's Bill of 1875 was an efibrt to weld 
 the whole together, and therefore it excited much opposition. 
 
 * Report of Commissioners of 1854. Examination of Mr. Scott, 
 Q. No. 4,639. 
 
 2p 
 
598 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The independence of the subordinate districts was taken 
 away. 
 
 The present existence and functions of the Board of 
 Works, with its constant increase of powers, is a concession 
 to the principle. It is absolutely necessary that there should 
 be a central authority for various purposes. The number of 
 these objects is very considerable, and, as to nearly all 
 Municipal purposes, they can be admittedly better performed 
 for the whole than a section of an aggregated population. 
 
 If then there must be a Central Council with large 
 powers, what would be the functions of separate Munici- 
 palities ? Could they be such as would attract the best men ? 
 We think not. Stuart Mill writes in his work on " Repre- 
 sentative Government " : — " It is quite hopeless to induce 
 persons of a high class, either socially or intellectually, to take 
 a share of local administration in a corner by piecemeal, as 
 members of a Paving Board or of a Drainage Commission. 
 The entire local business of their town is not more than a 
 sufficient object to induce men whose tastes incline them and 
 whose knowledge qualifies them for national affairs, to become 
 members of a mere local body, and devote to it the time and 
 study which are necessary to render their presence anything 
 more than a screen for the jobbing of inferior persons under 
 the shelter of their responsibility." And no language could 
 well be more true. But it does not follow from this argu- 
 ment that no sort of local Council could usefully exist. The 
 whole scope of the argument embraces the supposition of 
 local independent authorities. The London School Board 
 have District Committees performing a work of exceeding 
 usefulness, but they are not independent and irresponsible. 
 Very much otherwise. They extend to the School Board 
 valuable assistance in arriving at a conclusion as to the 
 educational wants of any locality, but they have no sort of 
 direct control over the action of the Board. Practically, for 
 
METHODS OF REFORM : " COMMUNITY OF INTEREST." 599 
 
 educational purposes, the London School Board is a Central 
 Council aided by District Councils. No Municipal function 
 affects so closely the actual personal life and status of every 
 citizen of London as this. The inspectors of the School 
 Board know far more about the inhabitants than the Nuisance 
 Inspectors and the Sanitary Inspectors know about the houses, 
 and yet the former information is infinitely more difficult to 
 obtain than the latter. 
 
 Great objection to any unified system is constantly raised 
 upon the ground of the absence of what is called " community 
 of interest." The argument is put in its most forcible 
 manner in a speech by Mr. Newton, addressed to the Metro- 
 poUtan Board of Works, March 19th, 1875, criticising the 
 Bill of Lord Elcho. "In provincial towns you have a 
 complete community of interest, the manufacturers in the 
 town are mainly of one class. Everybody knows everybody 
 else within the town and the district, and there is a complete 
 community of interest. There is no such thing in London. 
 One man scarcely knows his next door neighbour, and one 
 manufacturer has little to do with another. Will you tell 
 me what community of interest there is between Bow 
 Common and Belgravia : what feeling of joint interest there 
 is between Hampstead and Bermondsey ? Why, the prin- 
 ciple which governs one of these Districts would be out of 
 place in the other. The same sanitary regulations cannot 
 obtain. What would be poison in Belgravia must be borne 
 on Bow Common, or the people could not Kve for want of 
 industry, and you could not with any degree of reason 
 commit to a single central authority the entire management 
 of this Metropolis." 
 
 This question of " community of interest " is a modern 
 invention. No such argument was raised with respect to 
 the incorporation of the large towns affected by the Act of 
 1835. Nobody ventured to suggest that the button and pen 
 
600 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 factories of working Birmingliam had no community of 
 interest "with aristocratic Edgbaston, or that the difference of 
 occupation and habits of different sections of the inhabitants 
 was any objection to their united government. Nobody 
 suggests that the Mohammedans, Hindoos, and Enghsh 
 in an Indian town should each have a separate Govern- 
 ment because they inhabit separate quarters of the town. 
 And yet the difference between the sanitary requirements, 
 the occupations, the habits, and the tastes of all of them 
 are immeasurably greater than any that exist in London. 
 The reason is simply one invented for the purpose of helping 
 to clog the wheels of Reform. 
 
 Municipal government exists for the united benefit of 
 aggregations of people, not for the cultivation of their tastes, 
 or their acquaintanceship. It exists because there are many 
 requirements born of proximity which may be best met by 
 united action. The Main Drainage system is a strong 
 illustration of this, and in the very year when these observa- 
 tions are made about different " sanitary regulations " this 
 very Board of Works issued a circular to aU the London 
 Yestrics upon the question of Slaughter-house Regulation. 
 The same regulations are made for slaughter-houses on 
 "Bow Common" as in "Belgravia," and no latitude is 
 allowed to the Bow Common people on account of their 
 habituation to "poison." It so happens that certain noxious 
 trades have established vested rights in Bow, but if they 
 had done so in Belgravia they would be subject to precisely 
 the same rules, and could only be removed upon the same 
 conditions. And, unless we are mistaken, the Act 37 & 38 
 Vict., c. 37 (see p. 257 supra), deahng with offensive trades 
 and enabhng the Board of Works to make bye-laws for 
 their regulation, was introduced by Dr. Brewer, a member 
 of the MetropoHtan Board ! So that the very body of men 
 that applaud Mr. Newton when he alleges the absence of 
 
METHODS OP REFORM : " COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.'* 601 
 
 community of interest as the strongest reason against 
 unification of government, is itself at the time exercising a 
 central control, and this over the very matters which he quotes as 
 illustrating the separation of interest ! Surely absurdity could 
 go no farther. It would seem that the Board — for Mr. 
 Newton's friends says of him that " He is the Board " — are 
 attempting to vie in unreason with the City. 
 
 The " community of interest " between a retired 
 Bermondsey bone-boiler and a retired Major-General is 
 absolutely nil from a personal point of view, but when they 
 live in the same street in Tyburnia, their community of 
 interest from a municipal point of view is absolute, and it is 
 the municipal interest with which alone we have anything 
 to do. The Board of "Works itself illustrates the number of 
 things which Londoners must have in common. But if this 
 infantine theory were carried out its functions would end, 
 and every householder would have his own fire-engine, 
 sewer, dust-heap, water-cart, and so forth, unless he 
 happened to have a neighbour with the same religious 
 views and carrying on the same trade, in which case they 
 would join at the contrivances. 
 
 The community of interest is really very great. Mr. 
 Scott talks of half a million people marching on the City 
 every day. They come from east and west, north and 
 south. Mr. Scott says that the City is where they " live," 
 and that Kensington and Camberwell are only " bedrooms." 
 Thus, on his own showing London, is like a vast house, but 
 it has this peculiarity, that whilst the housekeeper takes 
 wages from both bedroom .and counting-house she only really 
 looks after the latter ; the lodgers have to clean out their 
 own " bedrooms." Is it not time that the housekeeper was 
 dismissed ? We are told that " there are 38 non-municipal 
 districts, offshoots from the parent stem, places of refuge for 
 a commercial population which cannot find convenient space 
 
602 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 for their families within the restricted area of the municipal 
 City." If they are "offshoots" surely the parent stem 
 ought to supply Municipal sap. And this the more certainly 
 as it is admitted that our present condition is due to the 
 " short-sighted and perhaps selfish " policy of the City of 
 London in not dealing with the question " piecemeal."''^ 
 
 Formerly the City added ward to ward as its size 
 increased. This method of increase is the constitutional 
 one, and if the City had carried it out, methods would have 
 been devised to meet the increasing wants of an increasing 
 City. But the City disregarded its duty, and its obligation 
 to the suburbs, stereotyped its ward boundaries, and with 
 small alteration continued their unwieldy representation. 
 The old method of extension is now impossible. If a Com- 
 mon Council were constituted for the whole of London, with 
 a representation proportionate to that now existing in the 
 City, it would have about 10,000 members, more than 1,000 
 of whom would be aldermen. 
 
 And there are many ways in which Londoners are 
 practically unprotected. If a Bill is introduced for the 
 better government of the Metropolis, the Board of Works 
 will oppose it with ratepayers' money, but although it 
 appears to be able to protect us from fancied dangers it 
 cannot deal with real ones. Suppose, for example, a dozen 
 competing railway schemes are presented to ParHament, 
 each of them proposing to drive its way through the 
 Metropohs and to break up the homes of thousands of 
 people. The matter is relegated to a Committee of the 
 House of Commons. It is brought more or less before the 
 Vestries and the Metropolitan Board, f but unless the scheme 
 proposes to trench on the sacred ground of the City it is 
 
 * " Statistical Vindication of the City of London," p. 171. 
 f By virtue of a Standing Order of House of Commons, 1860. There 
 is no Statutory authority. 
 
METHODS OF REFORM : PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION. 603 
 
 well known that there is no guarantee whatever for the 
 interests of the citizens being duly regarded. It is quite 
 impossible for a Parliamentary Committee, no matter what 
 be the amount of care taken in its selection, to be able to 
 grasp the requirements of London or measure the merits of 
 a scheme of the kind so well as a Committee of a Municipal 
 Council appointed for the purpose, and advised by men of 
 experience and ability, acting upon recognised principles. 
 
 Every ratepayer has a right to have his property 
 defended against schemes affecting him prejudicially in his 
 business or person, and offering no corresponding amount of 
 pubHc advantage. And yet, unless he is prepared to go to 
 the trouble of associating those who are in like case with 
 himself, and of expending enormous sums of money in 
 protecting his interests, it may and does constantly occur 
 that they suffer. 
 
 Speaking of Private Bill legislation generally, Mr. Serjeant 
 PuUing says.:* " The Committee of the House without any 
 trustworthy information of the requirements of the locality 
 or the effect of the undertaking on the public interest, is 
 dependent on the interested representations of the promoters 
 or of opponents rich enough to interpose — no witnesses of 
 the naked truth are in request; no one professionally or 
 otherwise is prepared to advocate the interest of the public 
 or the locaHty, and persons indirectly but most deeply inter- 
 ested are unheard." These strictures are not without their 
 bearing on the present proceedings in Bills affecting the 
 Metropolis and the interest of its inhabitants. 
 
 Had London possessed a Municipal Representative 
 Council — as contrasted with an overworked and non-repre- 
 sentative body of doubtful authority — the great railway 
 companies that have obtained powers to make of some parts 
 of London a desert and call it improvement, would have 
 
 * " Transactiona of the Social Science Association," 1862, p. 129. 
 
604 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 never obtained such power except on the' condition of 
 making full provision for the dispossessed thousands of 
 poor. 
 
 Under a Municipal Council every measure affecting 
 London; every Private Bill proposing to take by process of 
 law the property of any of the citizens, would necessarily first 
 pass through the ordeal of the Committee of the Council. 
 This Committee, in the exercise of its duties, would avail itself 
 of the assistance and knowledge of local authorities and of 
 the representatives of the district affected ; and every private 
 citizen would have a right of personal audience before the 
 Committee. When a proposed measure had passed such a 
 Committee, the labours of the Parhamentary Committee 
 would be greatly lightened, and there would be the best 
 possible guarantee that the scheme was beneficial; but, on 
 the other hand, if the Standing Committee of the Municipal 
 Council reported against it, the Council itself would endorse 
 such a report, and would appear before the Parliamentary 
 Committee to justify their opposition. No body of pro- 
 moters, no railway company, nor any other great corpora- 
 tion, would be able to sway the Committee when such 
 opposition was united and intelligent."^ 
 
 The necessity for a central authority for many purposes 
 is therefore clear ; we shall hereafter discuss the constitution 
 and functions of such a body. It is patent to every one 
 that, if the Board had been a strong representative body, it 
 would long since have had many other powers in addition 
 to those it now possesses. The functions of the Vestries 
 
 * The present position of the Metropolis between the Corporation of 
 the City and the Board of Works, compelled as it has been to pay the 
 expenses of both sides when they fight each other, is not unlike the 
 condition of the City in 1820, when the Court of Aldermen ordered the 
 prosecution of Alderman Waiteman and others, and the Common Council 
 disagreed. The two bodies fought each other for some time and incurred 
 very heavy costs on both sides. When they came to terms, the Court of 
 Aldermen ordered all the costs to be paid out of the City funds. 
 
METHODS OF KEFORM : UNITY OF SYSTEM. 605 
 
 over streets and roads are surely such as could be fairly- 
 discharged upon a central principle appKcable throughout 
 London. Commercial Road East is quite as essential to 
 the traffic of London as Bays water Road West, and street 
 paving ought to be carried out over the whole of London on 
 certain well-defined principles. The heavier traffic of one 
 street may require granite where macadam would do for 
 others ; but a Central Road Authority with adequate local 
 inspection and engineering, and under intelligent control 
 would vastly improve our present condition. There are 
 very few scientific road surveyors in London, and even that 
 over-grown and much belauded body, the City Commis- 
 sioners of Sewers, with its monstrous staff of officers, does 
 not by any means deserve unmixed praise. For example, 
 it has been shown to demonstration that asphalt paving is 
 fairly safe when either very wet or very diy, but that in the 
 " greasy " state it is particularly dangerous, and yet these 
 ninety-five Commissioners never dream of watering the 
 streets when in this condition. 
 
 And again, with a Central Council we should get rid of 
 the constant pipe-la)dng nuisance. Southwark Street was 
 constructed at great expense and with an ample subway, 
 and forthwith a gas company tear it up from end to end, 
 because they dare not lay their defective pipes in the subway, 
 where their defects would be at once apparent. It is the 
 same all over London every day. In the autumn of 1875, 
 Kensington Vestry laid down Earl's Court Road with maca- 
 dam. The road was steam-rolled and well made. Forthwith 
 came an independent company and tore it up to lay down 
 pipes. The crown of the road was broken, and in two months 
 the whole was worse than before the repair. The Vestries 
 are powerless. The Board of Works cannot control the 
 companies. So also with Nuisance Inspection, and Sanitary 
 Inspection ; properly paid and quahfied inspectors and 
 
600 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 officers would be better insured by a Central Authority, than 
 by the single authorities now appointing them. The serious 
 inequalities of the present street-watering system are fully 
 set out in the chapter on Yestries. Here, also, one uniform 
 system upon an intelligible basis, would be a saving every 
 way. Another great difficulty of the London Yestries is the 
 question of " Dust." It is alleged to be the custom of Dust 
 Contractors to agree as to who shall tender, and to divide 
 the spoil. Dust must be disposed of, and all kinds of devices 
 are resorted to to get rid of it. A Central Body, with a 
 proper staff of officers, would solve this problem. Artizans' 
 dwellings und lodging-house inspection; baths and wash- 
 houses ; public libraries and mortuaries, are all questions 
 neglected in many of the Yestries, which a Central Body 
 could well undertake. 
 
 The constitution of separate independent Municipalities, 
 was regarded by the Commissioners of 1837, as a plan that 
 would " in getting rid of an anomaly, tend to multiply and 
 perpetuate an evil." And one great question to be solved is, 
 whether to constitute local bodies at all, and if so, upon 
 what basis, and what powers must be given to the Central 
 Council ? Practically, the main difference between all the 
 proposed plans, is in the powers and functions of the Central 
 Body. We have as we think shown clearly that such 
 powers ought to be absolute. 
 
 The London Yestries and their method of working have 
 been fully treated of in a previous chapter. The greatest 
 defect in their constitution is their practical irresponsibility. 
 The same defects would exist, and the same unsatisfactory 
 results would ensue, if the Yestries were simply enlarged, un- 
 less London could obtain for the larger bodies the best type 
 of men, and this there is no prospect of doing. The really 
 powerful parts of the Municipal Government would be 
 absorbed by a Central Body, and the independence and 
 
METHODS OF REFORM : SEPARATE MUNICIPALITIES. 607 
 
 irresponsibility of the Local Body, whatever might be its 
 name, would be as bad in its effect as at present. 
 
 Several years ago the Quarterly Review forcibly de- 
 lineated the evils attendant upon bodies of this kind. 
 " Owners of ill-conditioned tenements take local office 
 expressly to defeat measures within whose scope their own 
 neglected property would fall. It is a matter of course for 
 tradesmen to get themselves elected, or to procure the nomi- 
 nation of their friends, with a view to lucrative parish 
 contracts, or to secure clerkships, &c., for their children. 
 And each, as scon as his private ends are gained, shakes off 
 by resignation his share of pubKc responsibiUty for extrava- 
 gant or defective works. Fluctuating thus, and unpaid, so 
 as to be practically as irresponsible as they are interested 
 and ignorant, these little knots of men nevertheless despatch 
 offhand, at occasional meetings held in snatched intervals of 
 private business, sanitary problems involving the health of 
 vast populations, and almost baffling by their extreme com- 
 plexity the unintermittent study of the ablest engineers." 
 
 Men acquainted with the inner life of London Local 
 Grovernment could readily name more than one London 
 parish to which these sentences have a startling applica- 
 tion. And if the establishment of a number of separate 
 Municipalities would be simply the reproduction of these 
 evils on a larger scale, it would furnish a strong argument 
 against such a course. How far it would be an object of 
 ambition to be an Islington Common Councillor, or a 
 Mayor of Bethnal Green, where it is not now an object to 
 become a Vestryman of Islington or Bethnal Green, it is 
 difficult to say. But the experiment would not be worth 
 the risk even if this were the only reason against it. 
 
 The constitution of a powerful and representative Central 
 Body being thus an immediate necessity, it becomes 
 necessary to consider in what method it may best be brought 
 
608 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 about. This can only be through the direct action of the 
 Legislature. 
 
 The Corporation of the City have more than once 
 succeeded in beguiling advocates of London Reform, by the 
 assertion that the Common Council will exercise its power of 
 internal reform. Probably that delusion has now run its 
 course. Even if they were inclined so to do, it is no longer 
 a matter of interest or concern to the inhabitants of outer 
 London. It is a matter of concern that we have to support 
 the poor who are extruded from the limits of the City 
 Charities founded for them ; it is a matter of concern that 
 we are taxed without representation : but as to what may 
 be the number of City Wards, or the numbers of the 
 Common Council, it does not in any way affect us. Poor 
 Sir George Grey once interfered with these things, and was, 
 in consequence, abused worse than a pickpocket. The men 
 who abused him have now risen to honour in the City. 
 
 There are those who have thought that the Corporation 
 might introduce a measure to extend London upon the old 
 constitutional principle. If there were any chance of this, 
 we might — recollecting the ancient honour of the Corpora- 
 tion — give it consideration. No such possibility exists. 
 Again and again has the ojQFer been made to the City. They 
 have repeatedly been requested to introduce a measure which 
 would give them the government — the representative govern- 
 ment — of London. 
 
 As a rule, men do not rudely thrust away the hand that 
 tenders them power and influence, and yet the offer of the 
 control of the millions of London, which has been made — 
 foolishly made — to the City has been spurned. Why ? The 
 reason is simple enough. They know that neither their 
 sources of income, their method of expenditure, their 
 government, their privileges, nor their rights would ever 
 
METHODS OF REFORM : SOURCE OF REFORM. 609 
 
 survive the investigation which an enlarged constituency 
 would demand. 
 
 There is much of reverence and much of respect due to 
 the traditions of the City of London. Those traditions 
 must be preserved, and will be preserved, and will be 
 succeeded by greater. But we owe none of those traditions 
 to the rulers of the City to day. They have been careful of 
 this. Their own connection with the City is in many cases 
 merely that of a man with his club, as the residential 
 statistics set forth in the fourth chapter clearly indicate. 
 There is nothing due to the men who technically inherit the 
 greatness of mediasval London. There is, on the other 
 hand, much due /rom them. 
 
 To expect reform or any useful municipal scheme from 
 within the City is idle. Who is there that dare initiate it ? 
 No candidate for the Common Council accused of reforming 
 tendencies would have much chance of success. No can- 
 didate alderman who was known to advocate the regulation 
 of the Livery Companies would ever be elected. The 
 pecuniary value of the aldermanry of London, with a seat 
 in the Court of a good Company, was recently valued by 
 a candidate at some thousands a year. This must be for- 
 feited if he talks of "reform." And if any Corporator cast 
 aside these considerations and determined to propose reform, 
 he would find the task very arduous, with its sundering of 
 old friendships and severance of life-long ties, and with the 
 " hospitable " doors of the City Companies closed upon him. 
 No ! Reform cannot come from within. Outer London 
 must undertake the task. 
 
 A Central Council wiU also be able to relieve the 
 Imperial Legislature of much that now incommodes it. The 
 questions of PoHce and of Poor Kelief we shall discuss in 
 their place, but with a Council there would be no longer any 
 
eid 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 necessity for Scotch and Irish members to waste public time 
 in discussing the terms on which Londoners might hire 
 their cabs, and the questions of London Gas and Water 
 Supply would not occupy the time of half-a-dozen Com- 
 mittees every year. The centralization which people profess 
 to deprecate so much would be lessened, and the whole 
 scheme would be a distinct gain to the cause of popular 
 government. 
 
 Our argument is now complete. If it be true that a 
 central governing authority is in London, an urgent and 
 supreme necessity ; if it be true that there are vast muni- 
 cipal powers now in the hands of a body unfit to exercise 
 them ; if it be true that other municipal functions are in 
 private hands, because there is no pubHc body to whom they 
 may be safely assigned ; if it be true that the relief of the 
 poor and the education of the people are undertaken by 
 separate bodies constituted for the purpose ; if it be true 
 that the Imperial Legislature is hampered with local ques- 
 tions, because there is no Council to consider them ; if it be 
 true that statutory provisions made for the pubHc benefit are 
 systematically disregarded, because the local enforcing au- 
 thority is utterly irresponsible ; if it be true that three 
 millions of people are unjustly taxed, because the taxing 
 authority is strong in influence though weak in principle ; 
 if it be true that vast sums of money are misappropriated 
 every year, because there is no body in existence with the 
 strength and the will to enforce justice ; it it be true that 
 antiquated charters, purchased for money, are now enforced 
 over densely populated areas which were uninhabited when 
 the charters were granted, and this in violation of free 
 trade, of the opinion of Parliament, and of public right ; 
 if it be true that the first City in the world — the centre 
 from whence are governed larger areas and greater popula- 
 tions than ever were ruled from any city since the world 
 
METHODS OF REFORM : NECESSITY. 611 
 
 began — is itself without any method, or system, or order in 
 its government ; if it be true that this disorder, injustice, 
 and chaos are mainly due to the interested opposition of the 
 rulers of the one hundredth part of the area : if these things 
 are true, surely the time has come when, for the common 
 honour of our common citizenship, the stigma should be 
 removed. 
 
 Let us now consider how this may be done. 
 
612 
 
 Chapter XVI. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Desirability of establishing Local Councils considered. — 
 Division of the Metropolis into Electoral Districts. — 
 Divisions of Representation. — Numbers of the Supreme 
 Council. — Election of Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors. 
 — Qualification of Members of Supreme Council. — Ex- 
 tent of Suffrage. — Time of Election. — Voting Papers. — 
 Cumulative Voting. 
 
 In a previous chapter wo reviewed the various proposals 
 which have been made in Parliament, and by Royal 
 Commissioners, for dealing with the government of the 
 Metropolis. Those measures and recommendations all show 
 a gradual advance in one direction. The Commissioners of 
 1837 reported that they saw no valid reason for not 
 extending a Municipality over the whole of London, unless 
 its size raised some new principle. But they do not say 
 that it does. The Commissioners of 1854, reporting 
 especially upon the Corporation of London, express an opinion 
 that the concentration of Municipal functions would be 
 attended with serious difficulty ; but the outcome of their 
 report was the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works, a body which has gradually increased its powers 
 until it possesses nearly one-half of all the Municipal 
 functions which would belong to a central IMunicipaHty if 
 created, and which now exists as the strongest possible 
 practical argument for a central representative Municipal 
 Council. The Committee of 1867 went still further, and 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : DIRECTION OF PUBLIC OPINION. 613 
 
 proposed the constitution of a Municipal Representative 
 Council with the widest possible functions. 
 
 In the same manner the Bills in Parliament indicate 
 the direction which public opinion has taken when the 
 question has been thoroughly considered. Sir George Lewis 
 proposed to alter the City only. Sir Benjamin Hall con- 
 stituted a central body, which, within its jurisdiction, con- 
 trolled all London, but created also a number of irresponsible 
 bodies exercising Municipal functions. Mr. Mill's Bills 
 enlarged the local bodies and strengthened the Central 
 Council. Mr. Buxton's Bills went still further in the same 
 direction, and lastly. Lord Elcho's Bill in 1875, brought 
 down a chorus of approval from the whole MetropoKs, 
 because it proposed to sweep away the local governments 
 altogether, and to direct everything from one centre. This 
 remarkable progression of opinion cannot be regarded as the 
 result of mere chance. Every new Royal Commission had 
 the labours of previous Commissions to guide it, and every 
 new Parliamentary measure was brought in after careful 
 consideration of all that had gone before it. 
 
 Whether, therefore, we take the reports of Royal Com- 
 missions or Parliamentary Bills, we have the same goal 
 indicated, namely, the direction of the Government of 
 London from one recognised centre, so far as regards nearly 
 the whole of its Municipal work.* 
 
 The Bill of 1875 contemplated the entire abolition of 
 Local Governing Bodies, and the transfer of their functions 
 to a central organization. And the fii'st problem to be 
 solved in this question of London Municipal Government 
 is, whether it is desirable to supersede all local organizations, 
 or whether there is any form in which they can be usefully 
 continued ? 
 
 * See hereon Times Article, Oct. 7th, 1874, and others during same 
 month. 
 
 2q 
 
614 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the highest type of Munici- 
 pal Government is that which succeeds in uniting effective 
 central with adequate local control. The provisions of the 
 " Municipal Corporation Act, 1835," have worked well to 
 this end in all the English towns to which it has been 
 applied. How far a similar system could be made 
 effective in a city of nearly four millions of inhabitants is 
 the question to be considered. 
 
 It would no doubt be perfectly possible to construct 
 Local Councils which should govern areas analogous to the 
 present Yestry Districts, and to make such Councils respon- 
 sible to a Central Body. But having constructed them, 
 the question of the apportionment of duties would arise, 
 and if no functions were conceded to a District Council, 
 and no administrative work given to it, except such as could 
 be better performed by a Local than a Central Body, it 
 would probably be found that its functions would be exceed- 
 ingly limited. If this be demonstrated, then the question 
 of the desirability of establishing District Councils becomes 
 a very narrow one, because we may safely lay down as 
 the first principle which ought to regulate the construction of 
 any government for London, that we must obtain the most 
 effective and economical discharge of Municipal work, and 
 that irrespective of how the constitution of the Governing 
 Body through which it is attained, may affect existing 
 personal interests or systems. 
 
 The best method of arriving at a conclusive decision as 
 to the necessity or otherwise of Local Councils, would seem 
 to be, to consider the leading subjects of Municipal work in 
 London, and see in which of them local bodies could render 
 useful assistance. "We may then consider what class of local 
 body is best fitted to undertake such functions — if any — as 
 may seem to call for local aid. 
 
 The first Municipal work to which this test may be 
 
StJPREME council: FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL BODIES. 6l5 
 
 applied is Main Drainage. This is now managed by the 
 Metropolitan Board, and no one would propose to consult 
 any local authorities upon the question. 
 
 In the same category come the Fire Brigade, Control of 
 Buildings, and Public Improvements. 
 
 The direction of the Police could not in any form be 
 entrusted to a local body. Nor has it ever been proposed 
 that each local authority should have separate local control 
 over Gas or Water, or over Public Parks, Markets, or 
 property of the kind, common to the whole of London. 
 
 The direction of Public Justice, the control of Prisons, 
 and so forth — ^if exercised by a Municipal Body at all — 
 would necessarily be so exercised by a single body represent- 
 ing all the districts interested, and so also with any control 
 of Hospitals or Asylums, or of Rivers or Bridges. 
 
 At present a large amount of Municipal work in London 
 is done by Inspectors and Medical OflEicers. Some of these 
 are appointed by the Yestries, and in a few cases by the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works. The matters so regulated 
 and controlled include Nuisances, Noxious Trades, Under- 
 ground Dwellings, Lodging-Houses, Cow-Houses, Pigsties, 
 Bakehouses, Workshops, Slaughter-Houses, Baby Farming, 
 Contagious Diseases (Animals), Food and Drug Adultera- 
 tion, Sale and Carriage of Petroleum and of Explosive 
 Substances. The control which any District Council could 
 exercise over these questions may be regarded as fairly 
 illustrated by the control now exercised by the Yestries in 
 such of the matters as are under their direction, and which 
 seems to consist simply in the appointment of Inspectors, 
 and the issuing of bye-laws and orders which differ infinitely 
 in their terms. The disorganized way in which these mat- 
 ters are now directed, is sufficiently set out in the chapter 
 on London Yestries, and the lesson of such disorganization 
 seems clearly to point to the appointment of Inspectors by 
 
616 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 a single authority, and the direction and oversight of their 
 work from one intelligent centre. 
 
 There are other matters connected with Public Health 
 which ought to be directed in the whole Metropolis on an 
 uniform and intelligible basis. Such questions are, Mor- 
 tuaries, Baths and Wash-houses, Burial Grounds, Abattoirs, 
 and the Removal of Dust. 
 
 The direction and control of Public Traffic ; of cabs, 
 omnibuses, tram cars, road locomotives, steam-boats, and of 
 street arrangements generally, must also be in the hands of 
 a body making — and able to enforce — bye-laws for the whole 
 Metropolis. 
 
 The paving, watering, and cleansing of Streets, are Muni- 
 cipal functions of the greatest importance. The chapter on 
 London Vestries sets forth the extraordinary differences 
 which exist in method and in cost, in districts under practi- 
 cally the same Municipal conditions. Where the given 
 Municipal conditions are the same, it is clear that some of the 
 systems now pursued must be very far wrong. If we were 
 to confer upon new District Councils the functions of existing 
 Yestries in these matters, what guarantee should we have 
 for any different result ? None whatever, if they were to 
 be irresponsible. And if they were to be made responsible 
 to a Central Council, which should decide for them how to 
 pave, and to water, and to cleanse, and so forth, their own 
 original functions would be infinitesimal. It is as clear that 
 certain methods of paving are best suited to certain streets, 
 as that different kinds of pavement require different methods 
 of cleaning, and a different quantity of water in dusty 
 weather. These differing requirements can be best settled 
 by a staff of responsible officers acting upon recognised 
 principles ; and best carried out by an efficient body of work- 
 men constantly engaged in the work, and able to despatch it 
 in the shortest possible time. In the matter then of Street 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : SELECTED DISTRICT COMMITTEES. 617 
 
 Control there seems everj^hing to gain, and notliing to lose, 
 by placing it entirely in the hands of a Central Authority. 
 
 The subject of Poor Relief presents a somewhat different 
 aspect. The Local Government Board exercise, as set forth 
 in Chapter XI., a considerable central control, but the 
 Boards of Guardians retain much of administrative and 
 financial power in their hands. The Local Government 
 Board have taken in hand the question of salaries, and 
 classification, and so forth, but the Boards of Guardians are 
 still a rating and spending authority. It is contended that 
 great saving, results from having the control of the money 
 expended in relief in the hands of the people who have to 
 pay, and that the larger the area, the less the impulse 
 towards economy. This is in a measure true, but the 
 economy of some Boards of Guardians is an economy of 
 inefficiency and of neglect of duty to the Poor. The con- 
 struction of workhouse buildings, the payment of officers, 
 and the raising of money, are aU better in the hands of a 
 Central Authority; but a question may arise, whether, in 
 addition to the Committee of the Central Council, there 
 could not be efficient service rendered in the administration 
 of relief by a locally selected body ? There is but little doubt 
 that investigation into the infinitely varying circumstances 
 of applicants for relief, may usefuUy be undertaken by men 
 who do not otherwise mix in Municipal work. To this 
 extent, and for this purpose, therefore, a Selected District 
 Committee would be useful. Such a Committee could only 
 usefully exist on condition that its spending power was 
 clearly defined, and its action would be subject to the recog- 
 nised and adopted principles upon which Metropolitan Poor 
 Relief would proceed. 
 
 The question of Education presents a similar necessity. 
 The regulations of the London School Board provide for the 
 division of the Board into ten Divisional Committees, These 
 
618 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Committees are to consist of the Board Members for that 
 Division, and of " such other persons, if any, as the Board 
 may from time to time appoint, upon the written nomination 
 of the said Members, or a majority of them." These 
 Divisional Committees are again sub-divided into Sub-Com- 
 mittees, reporting only to the Divisional Committee. The 
 Divisional Committees so appointed and nominated, are 
 entrusted with the carrying out of the bye-laws, the recom- 
 mendation and control of Visitors, and the consideration of 
 applications for the payment or remission of School Fees. 
 They report to the Board, and the Board reserves full 
 powers of control and decision in every way. 
 
 Under these provisions. Committees have been nominated 
 in various parts of the MetropoHs, and an adequate number 
 of men have been found willing to be put in nomination, and 
 to undertake the somewhat limited but useful functions of 
 the Divisional Committees. If the numerous applications, 
 constantly arising in connection with the working of the 
 Education Act, could in London only be heard before the 
 Members of the Board, these useful officers would have no 
 time for any other work. 
 
 In considering what form the District or Divisional 
 Committees, for matters connected with Education and Poor 
 Relief, should take, we find so good and so successful an 
 example in the London School Board — already covering half 
 the ground — that the safest course would seem to be to follow 
 it, and in each of the districts constituted, as hereinafter set 
 out, let the elected Councillors nominate in writing, for the 
 approval of the Central Council, persons to serve on both 
 these Committees ; the Central Council preserving the fullest 
 and most absolute controlling powers. AH elected Coun- 
 cillors would be ex-officio members of the District, Poor, and 
 Education Committees, and these Committees would report 
 to the Central Council. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : ELECTORAL DISTRICTS. 619 
 
 The net result of these considerations seems to be that, 
 ranging over the whole field of Metropolitan Municipal 
 work, there are not more than two questions which may not 
 he better managed by a single Central Body than by Local 
 Bodies or Local Bodies with a controlling Central Council. 
 If this be so, we have the strongest possible argument against 
 the estabHshment of Local Councils for any other than these 
 two purposes. The object of Municipal institutions, like 
 other forms of government, is the greatest good of the 
 greatest number ; and, if that be best attained in nearly 
 every branch of Metropolitan Municipal work, by a Central 
 Council managing the whole, then clearly the citizens have 
 a right to demand the constitution of such a Council. 
 
 Although the consideration of the question seems to 
 lead to the conclusion that the formation of Local Councils 
 is eminently undesirable, except for the purposes set out, 
 yet it will clearly be necessary to have local divisions for 
 electoral purposes, and for the convenience of Municipal 
 administration. 
 
 London as it at present exists, is divided for the purposes 
 of the Local Management Act, into thirty-nine districts. A 
 reference to the map of the Metropolitan Board of Works 
 Districts will show what a hetererogeneous division it is. 
 There is no approach to agreement either in area, popula- 
 tion, rateable value, or anything else. The sole recommen- 
 dation that these divisions possess is, that they proceed upon 
 the boundaries of parishes. They are essentially parochial 
 divisions. We are therefore confronted in limine with the 
 question : " is there any good reason for the continuance 
 for any purpose of the parochial boundaries as boundaries 
 of districts for ordinary Municipal Grovernment ?" 
 
 No such good reason has yet been advanced, and it is not 
 easy to conceive of one that would not be immediately and 
 altogether outweighed by the public benefit attendant upon 
 
620 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 their abolition, and ujjon the substitution of lines selected for 
 their adaptation to Municipal uses. An exact subdivision 
 of the present population of London amongst the thirty- 
 nine divisions according to number, would give each about 
 90,000 inhabitants. But, as is shown in the table of Vestry- 
 Statistics (pp. 318-9), no approach to equality is made in 
 any respect. 
 
 When the subdivision of the Metropolis is only made 
 for the purpose of the more convenient working of a Muni- 
 cipal system, the only object sought after will be that of 
 having the requisite number of people in as compact an area 
 as possible The abnormal shape and size of the districts 
 must therefore be changed, and they may be made nearly 
 uniform in population, with the lines of separation clear and 
 well-defined. When the executive control of the roads is 
 in a Supreme Council, there will be an end of the disputes 
 as to what part of any given road any particular Vestry is 
 bound to repair, and so the natural boundary Hues of pubHc 
 roads are in nearly all respects the most useful to select. 
 
 Taking the prospective population of London at 
 4,000,000, a division into 40 districts would give each 
 100,000 inhabitants. But as the population is at present 
 only about 3,600,000, it would seem well to give the outer 
 districts the smaller numbers. In a short time these 
 districts — in which alone the increase of population is going 
 on — will come up to the maximum. The annexed map 
 shows this theory worked out for a population of 3,600,000, 
 and room for prospective mcrease on the outer lines. The 
 City boundary is preserved intact in the plan. It will thus 
 be possible for the members for the City District to represent 
 at the Supreme Council the same inhabitants as are now 
 under the immediate government of the Corporation of the 
 City. 
 
 The districts as set out in the plan, would bear the 
 names and populations following : 
 
SUPREME 
 
 COUNCIL : ELECTORAL DISTRICTS. 
 
 621 
 
 Strand . . 
 
 100,000 
 
 Newington 
 
 100,000 
 
 Westminster . . 
 
 100,000 
 
 Kensington 
 
 100,000 
 
 Chelsea 
 
 100,000 
 
 Poplar . . 
 
 90,000 
 
 Kensington 
 
 100,000 
 
 Clapton 
 
 80,000 
 
 Paiidington 
 
 100.000 
 
 Stoke Newington 
 
 80,000 
 
 Portmanbuiy . . 
 
 100,000 
 
 Hackney 
 
 80,000 
 
 Marylebone . . 
 
 100,000 
 
 Highbury 
 
 80,000 
 
 Holbom 
 
 100,000 
 
 Canonbury 
 
 80,000 
 
 Camden Town 
 
 100,000 
 
 Kentish Town . . 
 
 80,000 
 
 Islington 
 
 100,000 
 
 Hampstead 
 
 80,000 
 
 Clerkenwell 
 
 100,000 
 
 Hammersmith 
 
 80,000 
 
 Shoreditch 
 
 100,000 
 
 Fulham 
 
 80,000 
 
 Bethnal Green 
 
 100,000 
 
 Wandsworth . . 
 
 80,000 
 
 Whitechapel . . 
 
 100,000 
 
 Lambeth 
 
 80,000 
 
 Bow 
 
 100,000 
 
 Brixton 
 
 80,000 
 
 Stepney 
 
 100,000 
 
 Camberwell . . 
 
 S0,000 
 
 Limehouse 
 
 100,000 
 
 Streatham 
 
 H0,000 
 
 Berraondsey . . 
 
 100,000 
 
 Greenwich 
 
 80,000 
 
 Deptford 
 
 100,000 
 
 Woolwich 
 
 80,000 
 
 Southwark 
 
 100,000 
 
 The City District 
 
 75,000 
 
 There are thus twenty-two districts with a population of 
 100,000, one district with 90,000, sixteen with 80,000, and 
 the City with 75,000, making a total population of 
 3,645,000, a number closely approximate to the estimated 
 population of London in 1876. The Central Districts 
 are made up to the full quota because they are fully 
 built up, and there is no prospect of any material 
 increase or decrease in theii' population. All the districts 
 (excepting the City) whose number is less than 100,000, are 
 increasing, and som^ of them exceedingly rapidly. And in 
 these smaller districts the work to be performed by any 
 representative Supreme Councillors would be probably 
 greater, owing to the necessity of making original Municipal 
 provisions for a growing population, in the way of local 
 sewerage, paving, lighting, laying out of new streets, and so 
 forth. In the settled and fully populated districts these 
 Municipal requirements would be, in a large measure, already 
 provided. The exceptional circumstances of the City would 
 also justify the retention of the stereotyped boundary, even 
 with a failing population. 
 
622 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The fewer numbers of the outlying districts would be 
 rapidly replenished by new populations, and if the number 
 of the representatives from each of the forty districts, at a 
 Supreme Council were made the same, there would be no 
 just cause of complaint. The number of representatives 
 would be allotted upon a basis of uniform population, and 
 the districts which departed from it would be those that 
 were burdened with the heaviest share of Municipal work. 
 
 The number of members of the Central Governing 
 Body, or as it may be called, the " Supreme Council," is 
 a matter of some difficulty. There are reasons for 
 thinking that somewhere between 200 and 300 would 
 be the most useful number. A larger number, if elected 
 to work, and not for personal reasons, would be found too 
 many, and a smaller number would not admit of the requi- 
 site division into Committees for detail working. The 
 present number of the Common Council of the City is 232. 
 It is very much too many for the purposes of the work it has 
 to do ; but this would probably be found somewhere about 
 the most workable number for a body upon whose shoulders 
 would rest the Municipal responsibility of London. Taking 
 the initial divisions upon the basis of population at forty, 
 an assembly might be usefully elected, consisting of six 
 members from each district, five councillors and one alder- 
 man. This would give a total for the Supreme Council of 
 240. 
 
 If, however, a system be devised by which every group 
 of 100,000 people in London has six representatives in the 
 Supreme Council, and yet the work of that Council be 
 so arranged as to be got through without difficulty, we 
 have advanced far towards giving direct representation to 
 every district. 
 
 No system of Municipal Government has yet been 
 devised better suited to English tastes or adapted to English 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : NUMBERS OF COUNCIL. 623 
 
 requirements, than that of Mayor, Aldermen, and Council : 
 and this system would be retained for the Metropolis. 
 
 Taking the number of the Supreme Council at 240, 
 it would be made up of 40 Aldermen, and 200 Supreme 
 Councillors. The Lord Mayor would also be an ex-officio 
 member of the Council, making a total of 241. This 
 number has many recommendations besides those that belong 
 under this scheme, to its facility for electoral purposes. It 
 is a number only nine in excess of the present Common 
 Council of the City : it is a number which has been closely 
 approximated in more than one well-considered proposition 
 for London Government ; it would be ample for the purposes 
 of adequate Committee sub-division, and would, probably, be 
 found the most workable number for purposes of Central 
 Municipal action- If the work of the Supreme Council were 
 circumscribed and defined in the manner hereafter detailed, 
 it would also be found amply sufficient for its performance. 
 
 The Supreme Councillors ought to be elected directly 
 from the ratepayers. The system of double election is bad 
 in every way, and it has proved in the case of the Metro- 
 poHtan Board so egregious a failure, that it is not needful to 
 expend much time in arguing against it. Let every 
 Member of the Council owe his seat to the votes of a large 
 constituency, and he is much more Hkely to feel his respon- 
 sibihty and to discharge his duty, than when elected by a 
 number of personal friends in some subordinate body. 
 
 Under the Municipal Corporation Act, the Mayor is 
 elected yearly by the Council, out of the Aldermen and 
 Councillors. This system has a good deal to recommend it, 
 and is much better than the remarkable system which obtains 
 in the City. The 121 and 163 voters who, in two City 
 wards elected Aldermen in 1875, practically also elected the 
 future Lord Mayor, because although there is some show of 
 choice between two Aldermen selected by the Common HaU, 
 
624 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 yet practically, it is nothing more than a sham. The next 
 Alderman on the rota for 1876-7, has filled a useful sphere 
 as a Livery Stable Keeper. He is, it is believed, a most 
 amiable and respectable man, but an effort is, it is said, 
 being made in the City, to induce him to forego what is 
 plainly regarded as his " right," and not take the Mayoralty.'^ 
 
 Clearly the post of Lord Mayor of London ought not to 
 be a matter of right, but a special honour. Nor ought it to 
 be as a matter of necessity confined to Members of the 
 Supreme Council. Municipal training is an excellent and 
 useful thing in its way, but there are men of high position 
 who would leflect great honour upon the office, who might 
 be wilHng to accept it, but who would not care to go through 
 the excitement of a district contest for Alderman or 
 Councillor. With a well-organized permanent staff, there 
 ought to be no more difficulty in this than there is in taking 
 some innocent man from his farm and putting him over the 
 Admiralty — nor indeed so much. 
 
 The Lord Mayor of Municipal London ought to be 
 elected by the Supreme Council from amongst any of the 
 citizens who are qualified to be Aldermen. This proposition 
 is closely analogous to that of the Commissioners of 1854, 
 and seems to be the best. 
 
 As to the mode of election, nothing could well be worse 
 than the present system. When the Liverymen of the 
 Companies were admitted to the franchise in 1475 they were 
 all of them traders carrying on business within the City : 
 living there and paying their share of City taxes. Prac- 
 tically, every trader in the City had the franchise, and all 
 
 * We should think the honour need not overpower the worthy Alder- 
 man, for as we write, the goods of a recent Lord Mayor are adyertised for 
 sale. Two shillings in the £ is the amount of this City Baronet's 
 dividend , 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : ELECTION OF LORD MAYOR. 625 
 
 the leading men possessed the needful qualifications. But 
 a widely different state of things obtains to-day. Any one 
 who chooses to purchase it may obtain the freedom of a 
 Company and be entitled to vote. Residence within the 
 City limits is of no importance, and many of the electors 
 have no house or office within the corporate limits. The 
 Companies which confer the franchise have long ceased to 
 possess any of the ordinary constituent elements of an 
 electoral body. Probably the electoral franchise of the 
 Liverymen of the City of London is the most anachronous 
 and absurd franchise existing in any corporate city in the 
 world. ■^ No reform can therefore be even temporarily 
 acceptable that perpetuates it. The Lord Mayor may 
 usefully be elected by the Common Council in each year, 
 and be eHgible for re-election. Such election to take place 
 at the same time as other corporate elections throughout 
 the country. 
 
 Although the procession on Lord Mayor's Day will 
 probably be abolished, unless -it be retained for the purpose 
 of the visit to the Chancellor, there will still be considerable 
 expense attendant in vai-ious ways upon the due main- 
 tenance of the dignity of the office. The chief magistrate of 
 the English capital will be expected to play the host in 
 a manner not inferior to his predecessors. Kings and 
 princes have been wont to honour the Lord Mayor of 
 London with their gracious presence, and when from the 
 great Municipal London of the future a Lord Mayor shall 
 arise representing and embodying still greater interests and 
 
 * The Commissioners of 1837, dealing with this question, say — "We 
 " cannot discover in the constitution or practice of the governing bodies 
 " of these Companies any single circumstance which shows, or even pro- 
 " bably suggests, the propriety of their being fixed upon for the respon- 
 " sible office of selecting the electors to the high offices of the Corpora- 
 " tion." — Report p. 37. 
 
626 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 a more extended area, it will be his pride and his duty to 
 take care that the capital city shall not lose in the future 
 the renown it has won in the past. 
 
 Provision will be made for the election from amongst the 
 Aldermen of a Deputy Mayor in case of necessity. 
 
 Under the Mimicipal Corporation Act, Aldermen are 
 elected by the Council from Councillors or from those 
 qualified to be Councillors. One-half go out of of&ce every 
 three years, and are qualified for re-election. Under the 
 custom of the present Corporation of London, Aldermen are 
 elected for life by particular wards. The two Aldermen 
 elected in 1875, were elected by 121 and 163 votes respec- 
 tively. Neither of these systems are fitted for a renovated 
 system in London. Life elections are quite unsuited to 
 modern institutions. The system of election by the Council 
 is well suited to towns of ordinary size where citizens are 
 known and appreciated in the whole town, but it would 
 lead in London to the election of men as Aldermen of 
 districts with which they had no connection. 
 
 The post of Alderman of London would be one of great 
 honour. Probably there would come into competition for it 
 in London men to whom Municipal questions have hitherto 
 been merely a name. As the recognised Head of a 
 district of 100,000 people, and as a possible candidate for 
 the Mayoralty, the office would be sought after by men of 
 position and influence. Such a post ought to be secured by 
 the direct vote of the constituency. 
 
 In the "Report of the Municipal Corporation Com- 
 missioners on London " in 1837, they say, " The Aldermen 
 chosen do not appear to be in general taken from the 
 higher classes of the merchants or bankers of the City. 
 There is a disinclination to serve in civic offices which 
 appears to be a very prevalent feeling in these classes, and 
 
StJPREME COUNCIL : ELECTION OV COUNCILLORS. 627 
 
 which has latterly much increased." * Whilst testifying to 
 this fact the Commissioners seem to have heen greatly 
 puzzled to account for it. The expensive incidents of the 
 Mayoralty and Sheriffwick did not seem to them sufficient 
 to account for it, as the apathy was amongst the wealthier 
 classes. The unpopularity of the Court of Aldermen and 
 its secrecy of procedure was a reason which was lessening 
 every day and seemed of Httle weight. But the most re- 
 markable reason of all, and the one which seems to have con- 
 veyed to the Commissioners the idea that it was the true 
 one, was that the higher classes connected with the City and 
 the monied interest, finding that the line of demarcation 
 between themselves and the aristocracy is becoming less and 
 less definite, object to assume those civic honours which they 
 regard as typical of the trading class, which they suppose 
 themselves to be escaped from. Such were the conclusions to 
 which that important Commission came. The same results 
 are as noticeable now as they were then, and every one 
 must form his own ideas as to the cause. Whatever that 
 cause be, a strenuous effort ought to be made in the consti- 
 tution of the new Municipality to remove it. 
 
 The 200 Supreme Councillors ought to be elected directly 
 by the ratepayers throughout London, and the forty divisions 
 will be readily available as separate electoral centres. Each 
 of such divisions will elect one Alderman and five Coun- 
 cillors. 
 
 Under section 28 of the Municipal Corporation Act, the 
 qualification of Councillors and Aldermen in the larger 
 towns is that they either are, or are qualified to be on the 
 burgess roll, and that they either possess £1,000, or are 
 rated to the relief of the poor at £30. The quaHfication for 
 London Vestrymen varies according to the rateable pro- 
 * " Report of Municipal Corporation Commissioners on London" p. 33. 
 
628 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 portions of the district, being either £40 or £25, whilst that 
 of the Poor Law Guardians is fixed at £40 rateable value. 
 
 Rateable value is probably the best possible basis of 
 qualification. In order, however, to provide for the cases in 
 which non-householders are candidates, an alternative pro- 
 perty qualification may be admitted. It is, probably, a 
 mistake to fix that qualification too high, as it is desirable 
 that all classes should have their share in both voting and 
 in representation, and with a popular Municipality there is 
 no danger of the representatives being all of one class. Nor 
 does there seem to be any valid reason for continuing the 
 distinction between districts. The qualification of Members 
 of Parliament is abolished, and although, perhaps, having 
 regard to the character of their work, it is desirable to 
 retain a qualification in a Municipality, it should simply 
 serve the purpose of insuring that those who are elected, are 
 either ratepayers or persons of some means. The require- 
 ments would, therefore, be fully met by making the qualifi- 
 cation for Councillors the possession of £1,000, and being on 
 the Hst of voters for Members of Parliament,''^ or being rated 
 to the reHef of the poor on an annual value of not less 
 than £30. 
 
 Aldermen are in a somewhat difi'erent position, and the 
 qualifiation should here, probably, be higher, say £5,000, 
 or rateable value of £60. 
 
 The other qualification provisions of the Act may be 
 adopted.! 
 
 Every householder rated to the relief of the poor, 
 irrespective of sex, ought to have a vote in the election of 
 
 * The " Burgess Roll" qualification in section 2b of M. C. Act has 
 given rise to much controversy and doubt, so it is not here reproduced. 
 
 t The balance of arguments seems somewhat in favour of the con- 
 tinuance of a qualification in Candidates for Municipal honours ; but 
 there is much to be urged on both sides of the question. There is no 
 present qualification in case of the London School Board. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : TIME OF ELECTIONS. 629 
 
 Councillors, and there seems no reason why the lodger 
 franchise should not be introduced, and the burgess list and 
 the list of voters for Members of Parliament be made the 
 same. 
 
 A more difficult question arises in considering the time 
 at which elections may take place. Under the system in 
 general adoption, one-third of the Councillors retire every 
 year, thus necessitating a yearly election, but taking three 
 years to change the whole Council. This method is sup- 
 posed to guarantee the constant presence of a number of 
 practised and experienced Councillors, so that public work 
 may suffer no interruption. But this system is by no means of 
 universal adoption. The London School Board recognises 
 the term of three years as a desirable one, but the whole 
 Board go out of office simultaneously. It is found in such 
 cases that a sufficient number of the old members are 
 re-elected to prevent any interruption of the continuity and 
 routine of official life. A stiU better illustration is given 
 by the Imperial Government itself where the defeat of a 
 party brings with it a change in the whole governing body. 
 But many of the new rulers have had previous experience, 
 and the permanent staff of officials is as complete as possible. 
 
 Applying these considerations to the matters before us, 
 there seems no valid reason for disturbing the Metropohs 
 with an election every year, unless one year should be 
 deemed as the longest time which a Municipal Councillor 
 ought to be allowed to stay in office, without coming to his 
 constituents for re-election. Three years has been, however, 
 generally adopted as the tenure of office of a Municipal 
 Councillor, except where the re-election was, as in the City 
 of London, a matter of course. The life of a Member of 
 Parliament may extend to seven years, and surely it is 
 safe to trust a Municipal Councillor for three. 
 
 The best method of election would therefore seem to be 
 
 2b 
 
630 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 to elect the whole of the Supreme Councillors once in three 
 years. 
 
 Nor does there upon consideration, and with the ex- 
 perience of the Municipal Corporation Act available, seem to 
 be any sufficient reason for giving Aldermen a six years' 
 tenure of office, and electing one-half every three years. 
 With a direct election by each district the electors ought to 
 have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon the 
 conduct of the Municipal Head of each district at least once 
 in three years. It would, therefore, seem desirable to have 
 an election for Aldermen at the same time as that for 
 Supreme Councillors, and at each such election the whole of 
 the Municipal Governors of the City would come down to 
 their constituents for re-election. 
 
 As to the method of voting the choice seems to be 
 between personal voting and voting by voting papers, and as 
 we have examples in London of the working of each system, 
 we are enabled to form a fairly conclusive idea as to which 
 is best. The voting for the School Board has been numeri- 
 cally the best by far that has ever taken place in London 
 for any Municipal purpose by open voting. But there have 
 been certain religious and social questions introduced into 
 School Board contests which have given them an especial 
 colour and force. Yet even here the apathy of the 
 Metropolis is beginning to show itself, and there is a very 
 great falling off in the numbers going to the poll. There 
 remains then the voting for Poor Guardians and for 
 Yestrymen. The former is conducted by a system of voting 
 papers abeady described, the latter by open voting. The 
 latter has been shown to be a miserable failure, and the 
 former has been a comparative success. The occupations of 
 the people of London ; the long distances to be traversed ; 
 and the difficulty of obtaining any fair expression of public 
 opinion seem to point to the voting paper system as the best. 
 
SUPREME fOUNCIL : METHOD OF VOTING. 631 
 
 A voting paper ought to be left at the house of every rate- 
 payer, as is now the case in voting for Poor Law Guardians, 
 and it may be subsequently called for. This work would be 
 performed by the Police. 
 
 In the system of voting now adopted in the election of 
 Guardians, a number of votes "up to six is given to each 
 ratepayer, according to the rateable value of his house, &c. 
 To a certain extent, this may have succeeded in protecting 
 the interests of the large proprietors against the poorer 
 voters. But such a method, whatever might be its effect in 
 limited communities, would be out of place in a system 
 where every interest would receive due recognition, and by 
 the establishment of which the interests of property and of 
 order would have guarantees hitherto unknown in London. 
 Every voter would therefore have au equal voting power. 
 
 Mr. Hare has advocated before the Social Science 
 Congress,^ and elsewhere, a method of election as adapted 
 to London, which may be fairly represented in the following 
 quotation : — 
 
 "Suppose there were 4,000 electors on a Municipal 
 register, and 40 town councillors to be chosen, the names of 
 all the candidates might be placed separately on desks in 
 the Town Hall, with a paper ruled to contain 100 names of 
 voters placed below that of every candidate, and when any 
 paper had been subscribed by 100 voters, the candidate at 
 its head declared to be elected. To give further effect to all 
 the active and thoughtful elements of the constituency, 
 suppose no more than 3,000 of the voters had taken the 
 trouble to poll, giving a quotient of 75, then the first 25 on the 
 lists of the candidates who had received 100 votes, may, on a 
 subsequent day, be allowed to withdraw their names, and 
 add them to the lists of any of the candidates who had less 
 than 75, which has become the quotient of actual voters, 
 
 * Sessional Proceedings, 1869-70, p. 457. 
 
632 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 and thus the most complete expression of the public opinion 
 would be obtained by the election." 
 
 Upon the intrinsic merits of this proposal, it is not 
 necessary now to offer an opinion, as although easily in- 
 telligible, and probably easy in its working, it is desirable to 
 have the details of any new system in its inception so 
 simple that no objection can be raised on any minor issue of 
 procedure which shall divert public attention from the main 
 object of the scheme. 
 
 The School Board are elected on the cumulative system 
 of voting. If we judge of a system by its fruits, we may 
 say that it has worked well in London. To extend it to the 
 whole Municipal system is a wide proposal. It is a system, 
 however, that enables voters who have a clear opinion of the 
 suitability of a given candidate for a given office, to enforce 
 it, as against those who vote hap-hazard, and it also 
 effectually provides for the representation of minorities. 
 
 The polling-booths ought to be kept open upon the day 
 of election till eight o'clock in the evening, and the provision 
 of booths and clerks ought to be made entirely at the cost of 
 the Municipality, so that no barrier should be raised against 
 the admission into the Council of some of the intelligent 
 working men with whom London abounds. 
 
 At the close of the election, the candidate who headed 
 the list would be the Alderman of the District, and the next 
 five names those of the Supreme Councillors representing 
 the District. It would be readily possible, if it were con- 
 sidered desirable, to divide each District into five wards, of 
 20,000 inhabitants each, and allow each one to elect one 
 Councillor, the united whole voting for the Alderman ; but 
 the other method seems to present the most advantages. 
 
 The Constitution of the Supreme Council, and the 
 election and qualification of its Members, would then stand 
 thus — 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : SUMMARY. 633 
 
 Lord Mayor. — Qualification, same as Alderman; tenure 
 of office, one year ; elected by Supreme Council from whole 
 body of citizens ; method of election, by eHmination of lowest. 
 
 Aldermen. — QuaHfication, possession of £5,000 in real 
 or personal property, with a vote in London for a Member 
 of ParKament, or the occupation of a house of a rateable 
 value of £60 a year ; tenure of office, three years ; parlia- 
 mentary suffrage ; voting cumulative, and by voting papers. 
 
 Supreme Councillors. — Qualification, possession of £1,000 
 in real or personal property, with a vote in London for a 
 Member of Parliament, or the occupation of a house of a 
 rateable value of £30 a year ; tenure of office, suffrage, and 
 method of voting the same as that for Aldermen. 
 
634 
 
 Chapter XYII. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 The Livery Companies in the future. — Transfer to Supreme 
 Council of powers of City Corporation over Livery 
 Companies. — Appointment of a Royal Commission. — 
 Probable result. 
 
 The position, character, and work of the Livery Com- 
 panies of London has been so exhaustively considered in a 
 preceding chapter, that it is not needful to add much to 
 it here. It will be seen that, although the information 
 possessed by the outside public with respect to these Bodies 
 is considerable, yet that in consequence of their conduct in 
 1837 as well as of their general policy, it is necessary that 
 more should be known before an accurate judgment can be 
 formed as to what is the best course to pursue with respect 
 to them. 
 
 Whilst, therefore, the consideration of the method of 
 dealing with them, and the property which they claim to 
 administer, is somewhat premature, there are two measures 
 which may be recommended as preliminary to any decisive 
 action. 
 
 The first of these is to formally transfer to the Supreme 
 Council the power over the Livery Companies now possessed 
 by the Lord Mayor, the Court of Aldermen, the Court of 
 Common Council, or any of them. 
 
 The second is to grant a Royal Commission with the 
 fullest powers of ascertaining everything with respect to the 
 property, income, expenditure, and management of these 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : LIVERY COMPANIES. 635 
 
 Companies, together with the objects for which the various 
 funds possessed by the Companies were given, and every- 
 thing about them. There is nothing to which the right is 
 more clear. It is true that it will excite the strongest 
 opposition, but this has its limits, and probably the Com- 
 panies will have exhausted their vocabulary in defending 
 the Corporation. The appointment of this Commission is a 
 matter of immediate and most urgent necessity. 
 
 These two measures will put the matter in train for 
 equitable settlement, and prevent the constituting Act from 
 being burdened with any special provisions for deahng with 
 these bodies. IJpon the report of the Commission the 
 Supreme Council would be in a position to initiate a measure 
 which would have the merit of resting upon reHable data. 
 The sooner such a commission is appointed the better. 
 
 Taking the maxim of the Fruiterers' Company, "Frudu 
 nonfoUis arhorem mstima,^' as the principle applicable to the 
 Livery Companies, it is not possible to deny that their 
 day of practical usefulness is now over. 
 
 In a preceding chapter certain propositions have been 
 laid down which the report of a Eoyal Commission would 
 probably emphasize. 
 
 1. The London Livery Companies are an integral part 
 of the Corporation. 
 
 2. The property of the Companies is pubHc trust 
 property, and much of it is available for Municipal 
 purposes. 
 
 3. The Companies are trustees of vast estates of which 
 London tradesmen and artizans ought to be the beneficiaries, 
 but such trusts are disregarded. 
 
 4. The Companies are also trustees of estates appHcable 
 to charitable uses : they fail to apply to such uses the whole 
 of the funds fairly appHcable to them. 
 
 5. The Companies were incorporated to benefit trade, to 
 
636 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 train artizans, and to repress bad workmanship : they per- 
 form none of these functions. 
 
 6. The Companies are, by Charter, to be composed of 
 members of a given trade in many cases, and are legally 
 compellable to admit members of it. They admit members 
 irrespective of trade, and impose restrictions on those who 
 are admissible. 
 
 7 The Companies are subject to the control of the Cor- 
 poration, but as the members of that body are members of 
 the Companies also, and are promoted in the latter con- 
 currently with their advancement in the former, such control 
 is never enforced. 
 
 8. The Companies are subject to the control of the Crown, 
 and their lands and monopolous privileges were only granted 
 on condition that they performed certain duties : they have 
 ceased to perform the duties, but they continue to hold the 
 lands. 
 
 9. The continuance of a large amount of land in the 
 heart of the City, and in the north of Ireland, in the hands 
 of corporate and unproductive bodies, is a hindrance to 
 commerce and a loss to the pubHc revenue. 
 
 If these propositions are established by the Report of 
 such a Commission, there will not be much doubt as to what 
 ought to be done with the Livery Companies. But at 
 present it is submitted that prima facie evidence has been 
 given of their truth, and it is difficult to conceive stronger 
 reasons existing in any possible case for investigation than 
 exist here. If in any way the immediate appointment of 
 such a Commission is thwarted, it will be needful for the 
 citizens of the Metropohs to consider the other remedies 
 open to them. 
 
 It is not therefore, needful to intimate further the 
 method of dealing with those bodies. It may suffice to say 
 that, when a Royal Commission has reported, the pubhc will 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : LIVERY COMPANIES. 637 
 
 be in a fit condition to grapple with the question. It is 
 not unlikely that intricate questions, as to the method of 
 dealing with vested interests, will arise in connection with 
 some of the Companies. What is the exact pecuniary 
 interest of a Liveryman with a prospect of getting on the 
 Court some ten years hence, or of having a pension in case 
 he should fall into a state of " decaie," is a matter not easy 
 to estimate. And still more difficult will it be to measure 
 the value of the social benefits, in the way of periodical 
 dinners and so forth. 
 
638 
 
 Chapter XYIII. 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Origin of Qharters. — Subject to change by Crown. — Custom of 
 yearly re-grant and consent of Parliament. — Present 
 character of Charters. — Classification of same. — Method 
 of dealing with them. 
 
 The establishment of a new system must mean also to a 
 greater or less degree the supersession of the old. The 
 object to be arrived at is not the destruction or removal of 
 anything old merely because it is antique, or even because 
 it is useless. But where existing institutions are calculated 
 to interfere with the successful working of a scheme designed 
 for the general good, then it will be necessary to modify 
 them so that they may coincide with it. 
 
 So also where property is held or administered by small 
 bodies to which larger bodies have an equal legal or moral 
 claim, and where property is held in trust for certain 
 public purposes, which may be usefuUy modified and 
 extended, it will become needful to consider in what way 
 such property and such trust funds may be most usefully 
 dealt with. 
 
 With respect to existing officials and existing organiza- 
 tions, it will have been noted that, in more than one of the 
 Bills introduced into Parliament, provision has been made 
 for the transfer of their functions to some new body. Where 
 these functions are in connection with the management of 
 the private property of private companies, as in the case of 
 the companies dealing with gas and water supply, the best 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CITY CHARTERS. 639 
 
 methods of acquisition, and the rights of the pubHc in 
 respect of the matter of supply generally, present more 
 serious difficulties. When the property and the Municipal 
 functions are in the hands of public bodies, performing 
 public duties, with means provided directly or indirectly by 
 the public, it will ouly be needful here to indicate generally 
 the method of modiiication or transfer. 
 
 The first of the various questions requiring considera- 
 tion, is how to deal with the City Charters. 
 
 Whenever an exhaustive measure for London Reforrn is 
 next presented to ParHament, it may be hoped that this 
 question will be dealt with in a broad and statesmanHke 
 manner. There is a theory held by some interested 
 City people, as well as by some who ought to know better, 
 that Royal Charters are superior to Acts of Parliament, and 
 that they cannot be weakened or abrogated except by other 
 Royal Charters. It is simply necessary to recall to mind 
 that the Municipal Corporation Act, 1835, was the clearest 
 possible assertion by ParHament of an opposite and true 
 principle. As Sir Robert Peel said at the time, the Act 
 " suspended all prerogatives of the Crown, and assumed for 
 ParHament a right to supersede Charters,"''^ In the face of 
 that single measure — to say nothing of some stiU more 
 forcible ones which have succeeded it — it is superfluous to 
 discuss the question. Of course the Corporation of London 
 may be expected to claim some special virtue for the Charters 
 they bought of various Sovereigns, but any attempt to set 
 up a theory that they are better, or more sacred than the 
 Charters of the various towns that were affected by the 
 Act of 1835, wiU never convince intelHgent and independent 
 men. Whether their having been confirmed by Act of 
 ParHament does not necessitate an express enactment to 
 repeal them, is a different position entirely. The terms of 
 
 * Hansartl, vul. xxviii. p. 1020. 
 
640 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 the Act of William the Third are, that the City should have 
 again what it lawfully had before the Quo Warranto, and so 
 we are simply relegated to the legality of the Charters 
 themselves. 
 
 Independently of the powers of Parliament as illustrated 
 by the Municipal Corporation Act, the history of the City 
 furnishes fruitful illustrations of the exercise of control over 
 the City by the Crown and by Parliament. In the argument 
 in the Quo Warranto case in 1 682, great stress was laid by 
 the City upon Magna Charta, and its exception of the 
 ** antiquas lihertates et liheras consuetudines " of London. 
 But most of the " privileges " of London have taken their 
 rise at dates subsequent to Magna Charta, and the other 
 cities alluded to in Magna Charta have long since lost their 
 " privileges." 
 
 The history of the City during the various reigns from 
 the date of Magna Charta down to the reign of William 
 the Third, is a history of a constant regrant of Charters. 
 These Charters which, with rare audacity, the City has for 
 the last 180 years asserted to have been final and conclusive 
 for all time, were not so regarded when they were granted. 
 And it is quite outside the purpose for Mr. Scott and other 
 City writers to talk about every immunity having been 
 forfeited and confiscated by " arbitrary power," and then 
 reconferred or " wrested from unwilling hands by the happy 
 conjuncture of events, by tender of political support, or by 
 payments in hard cash." Neither can the position of the City 
 be strengthened by showing that it successfully took advantage 
 of the necessity of monarchs, and bribed them by money or 
 support to grant these Charters. No claim to exercise large 
 rights over others in England rests at this moment on so 
 rotten or immoral a basis. 
 
 Possibly, if it had not been for the exigencies of the 
 Government the decision in the Quo Warranto case would 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CITY CHARTERS. 641 
 
 to this day have been unrepealed. But when these City 
 Charters were granted and regranted, they were confined 
 to the reign of the granting monarch. Hence it was for 
 centuries the custom for the City authorities to prostrate 
 themselves before every newly-crowned monarch, and to 
 pray humbly for a confirmation of the privileges and the 
 monopolous rights which they had previously enjoyed. This 
 prayer was generally well-recommended by heavy bribes in 
 money. When the City saw that any claimant for the 
 Crown was likely to succeed, they deserted the sovereign de 
 jure, and took to the aspirant bribes in the way of promises 
 of support. 
 
 The political history of the City is one of great worldly 
 wisdom, and one that shows that she never stooped at any 
 measure to attain her ends, from the days of the Plantagenet 
 Kings to the days of "William the Third, when, as already 
 noted (p. 183), she succeeded in bribing the Speaker of the 
 House of Commons. 
 
 It is since the reign of this latter monarch that a com- 
 plete change has taken place in the conduct and pretensions 
 of the City. Having succeeded, by avaihng herself of the 
 " happy conjunction of events," in getting her pri\-ileges con- 
 firmed by an Act of ParHament, which did not define them, 
 but, practically, put her in the status quo ante, she has now 
 ceased to tender submission to new Sovereigns, and has even 
 developed a capacity for denying that such was ever any- 
 thing else than the exercise of arbitrary power. Much may 
 be forgiven to the gross ignorance of their own history 
 and constitution which distinguishes even professed City 
 advocates,* but it is not the less needful that the truth should 
 occasionally be contrasted with it. In that complete settle- 
 ment of the customary and written law of the City which 
 
 * See examination of Mr. Medwin, before Committee of 1867, Q. 1020, 
 et seq. 
 
642 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 was made in 12 Edward the Second (see ante p. 9), certain 
 articles were presented to the King for him to accept and 
 confirm. But some of these articles were rejected and others 
 were modified. Dealing as they do with much of what was 
 included in Magna Charta under the term " antiquas 
 lihertatesj" the conduct of the City in thus submitting the 
 articles to the King and accepting his alterations, clearly 
 showed their acceptance of his prerogative power, even as 
 against Magna Charta itself. Again, the first Charter of King 
 Edward the Third, after settmg out a number of City privileges 
 which had already been the subject of repeated Charters, adds, 
 " the King grants that for the allowance of their Charters 
 one writ shall suffice in each reign." The inference from 
 this is not merely that it was needful to have such writ from 
 every sovereign, but that in default of it the Charters would 
 lapse. And such writs were never granted ^vithout good 
 reason. This very Charter was, "in consideration of the 
 good services which the citizens had rendered to the King 
 and his progenitors," and, what is not less important, was 
 granted " by the assent of the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and 
 all the communitas of the realm then assembled in Par- 
 liament at Westminster." The statute of William the 
 Third simply restored the condition of things as they existed 
 before the Quo Warranto, and the City Charters to be of 
 binding validity at all would seem, constitutionally, to require 
 a special writ in each reign, and also the consent of ParHament. 
 This the City has now carefidly ignored. No remonstrance 
 was made to King Edward by the City on account of the 
 ephemeral title upon which their Charters and privileges 
 were thus shown to rest, and in succeeding reigns, the City 
 proceeded on a full recognition of its character. Thus in 
 1 Bichard the Second, a Charter setting out and confirming 
 pre\ious Charters, was granted by the King, mth the assent of 
 Parliament, upon the petition of the citizens of London. Hemy 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CITY CHARTERS. 643 
 
 the Fourth and Henry the Fifth followed suit, and Henry 
 the Sixth, after granting the City's Charter, seems to have 
 subsequently resumed, upon the prayer of the Commons, all 
 the rights, townships, honours, fees, &c,, previously granted 
 by him during his reign, and this was deemed to have revoked 
 the City Charter among the rest. 
 
 Henry the Seventh only granted the City a Charter con- 
 firming their privileges, upon the payment of a large sum of 
 money. This money was not paid for any new privileges, 
 but merely for the confirmation of old. Nor did any 
 succeeding kings in any way change the principle. Charles 
 the First threatened the withdrawal of the privileges, and 
 Charles the Second did actually withdraw them, but in both 
 cases after a previous grant of a confirmatory Charter. But 
 since 1690, the City have asked neither consent of King, 
 nor consent of Parliament, although these were necessary 
 in every previous reign to the exercise of the privileges at 
 all. And yet they are in exactly the same position before 
 the law now, as they were before the Quo Warranto case. 
 In that notable case, which was argued twice at the bar by 
 Mr. Finch, and afterwards by the Attorney-General for the 
 King, and by Sir George Treby and Henry PoUexfen for the 
 City, the impeached privileges of the City were the claim to 
 be a body corporate, by the name of the " Mayor, and Com- 
 monalty, and citizens ; " to have Sherifis and nominate 
 them ; and that Mayor and Aldermen should be Justices of 
 the Peace. The City pleaded in its defence. Magna Charta 
 and other Royal Charters ; and the Attorney- General repHed 
 by taking issue on this plea, and then adding that if they 
 were a Corporation, they had, in view of private gain alone, 
 assumed unjust authority in the levying of toUs upon people 
 coming to the markets, in sending seditious petitions, &c.* 
 
 * See " The pleadings, arguments, and other proceedings in Queen's 
 Bench, in Quo Warranto." — London, 1696. 
 
644 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 It is not needful to consider the questions of the legality 
 of that decision, which, as far as regards its forfeiture, was 
 reversed by the Statute of "William the Third, but the unjust 
 market authority has become tenfold more unjust in these 
 latter days. The terms of the 2 Wm. and M., c. 8, are, 
 that " the citizens of London should have and enjoy all their 
 rights, gifts, charters, grants, liberties, privileges, franchises, 
 customs, usages, constitutions, prescriptions, immunities, 
 market duties, tolls, lands, tenements, estates, and heredita- 
 ments whatsoever, which they lawfully had at the time of the 
 recording or giving of the said judgment." The City has 
 accepted the Act -^nth gratitude — though how many Members 
 of Parliament besides the Speaker were bribed in this reign 
 by them is not known — and have neglected the conditions 
 upon which their Charters were previously held, pretending 
 that this Statute gave them some new one, but still taking 
 great care to procure the insertion in every Act of Parliament 
 affecting them, of indefeasible and indefinable reservation 
 clauses. 
 
 A review of the constitutional position of the Corporation 
 of London, shows to how large an extent its claim rests 
 upon simple assumption and daring assertion. Taken upon 
 their legal merits, the privileges of the Corporation would 
 not be easy to defend : of morality there is nothing about 
 them so long as they decline to admit the suburbs to pro- 
 perty and privileges which were intended for both.* And, 
 although exception could not be taken to any Parliamentary 
 measure upon the ground that it did not go on the lines of 
 old Charters, yet it is not the less satisfactory to know that 
 they are morally and probably legally indefensible. 
 
 There are other charters besides those to which the City 
 
 * Many of the old City Charters contain the word suburbs, and it may 
 be noted that the articles set forth ante p. 9, are for the government of 
 City and Suburbs. 
 
SUPREME council: CITY CHARTERS. 645 
 
 still clings, that rest upon precisely the same title, but which 
 are not enforced, either because the City is fearful of the 
 hubbub such enforcement would create, or because the 
 advantage formerly conferred is now seriously lessened. But 
 where there is anything to be gained in the way of money 
 or prestige, a custom is often stoutly maintained, except 
 when as in the case of compulsory freedoms, popular indig- 
 nation proves too much for them. 
 
 The passing of some measure dealing with the customs 
 and franchises and privileges of London is an urgent neces- 
 sity. They are, as has been abundantly shown, undefinable 
 either in their character or their extent. They are especially 
 harsh in their action, for one of them declares that none of 
 the rest lose their power either by abuse or non use. 
 Thousands of men have been ruined by the action of the 
 City in enforcing them during the present century, and if 
 the Corporation were to put in force to-day the laws and 
 customs which it claims to be unrepealed and valid, it 
 would be in its power to depopulate the City. This power 
 ought long since to have been taken away. 
 
 Many City customs as that of free testamentary dis- 
 position have become the law of the land, but the number 
 and extent of those charters that absolutely conflict with 
 our statute law is very considerable, and one great obstacle 
 to the systematization of the latter is the existence of the 
 City, whose opposition can only be brought off by the 
 insertion of saving clauses in statutes. 
 
 In dealing with these charters as with the Corporation 
 itself, there is one other \TLew of the case which must never 
 be lost sight of, and which puts the absolute justice of any 
 measure proposing in the name of the Metropolis to control 
 or extend City charters, customs, or property beyond ques- 
 tion, and that is, that these charters were granted to the 
 entire capital : the customs arose as customs of the entire 
 
 2s 
 
646 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 capital, and the right of holding lands in mortmain and 
 the possession of property was the right and possession of 
 the whole capital as such and not of a confined area. In 
 the charters granted before the beginning of the seventeenth 
 century there was no need to specify the area benefited, as 
 it was compact and mainly within the walls. But the 
 Charters both of Corporation and Companies included the 
 suburbs. When the City had burst its bounds, the idea of 
 the wJwIe capital was always the central idea in the grant 
 or perpetuation of any privilege. Thus, the great Inspeximus 
 Charter of Charles the First, confirmed by Charles the 
 Second — the charter and confirmation still referred to by 
 the City as indicating their rights — clearly contemplates the 
 government of the whole of London. It restricts trade 
 carried on from the port of London or within ten miles by 
 non-citizens, and requires that citizens shall not take any 
 apprentice in the City or within ten miles for less than 
 seven years' service, and provides for enrolment. 
 
 And it is upon this very Inspeximus Charter that much 
 of the title to City property rests. It grants to the Com- 
 monalty certain lands, &c., within the City, and on the 
 shores of the Thames, which have increased enormously in 
 value, and much of which are now covered with valuable 
 houses, bringing in a large revenue. This is a material fact 
 in considering the appropriation of City property. 
 
 As to the City Charters — that is to say, the titles to the 
 rights, privileges, franchises, &c. — of which we hear so 
 much, the facts, therefore, seem to stand thus : 
 
 1. They are to a large extent obsolete, and not adapted 
 to the present day. 
 
 2. They are mostly undefinable in their terms. 
 
 3. It is matter of much doubt whether they have not all 
 lapsed. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CITY CHARTERS. 
 
 647 
 
 4. They were purchased of needy monarchs, for money 
 or promises of assistance. 
 
 5. They were, when granted, intended for the benefit of 
 the whole Capital, and have been appropriated by part to 
 the prejudice of the rest. 
 
 In considering how to deal with the rights, privileges, 
 franchises, &c., granted or confirmed by City Charters, the 
 subject-matter may be safely divided into three classes : 
 
 a. Those which may be adopted by a new Municipality, 
 with benefit or advantage. These include the rights of the 
 City over property held by Royal grant, or in trust ; the 
 power of internal regulation possessed by the Common 
 Council ; coal and wine dues, &c. 
 
 h. Those which do no injustice and have their antiquity 
 to recommend them ; and those which, though unjust now, 
 when confined to the City, would not be so when extended 
 to the whole Municipality. Of this class are the title of 
 Lord Mayor, the appointment of Sherifis, the Chief Butler- 
 ship of the Lord Mayor, his annual presentation to the Lord 
 Chancellor, for the Royal Assent to his appointment, the 
 right to carry gold maces, &c. ; and also over the extended 
 area the control of markets, but this only within Municipal 
 limits. 
 
 c. Those that are obsolete or mischievous. The number 
 of these is very large, and as one of the Charters provides 
 that abuse or non-use in no way affects the validity of a 
 Charter, they are still in force. Of this class are all the 
 numerous Charters in restraint of trade ; many of those 
 affecting the enforcement of justice; the metage of corn and 
 fruits; the certification of customs by the mouth of the 
 Recorder ; the Magistracy of Aldermen ; penalty on all who 
 trade in the City not being freemen, &c. 
 
 Subject to these considerations, the Constituting Act 
 
648 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 ought formally to repeal every existing or claimed City 
 Charter, and all confirmatory Acts of Parliament, and 
 then to re-enact those of them which belong to the first 
 two of the above three classes. It is better to do this than 
 simply to transfer the rights of the present Corporation as 
 to any matter where such rights rest upon Charters that 
 are not easily defined. 
 
 The rights of the Common Council over the Livery 
 Companies would be transferred as before suggested, and as 
 to the property of the Corporation this would be formerly 
 transferred, subject to considerations hereafter stated. Such 
 property mainly consists of land over which there is now 
 a good title ripened by prescription but as to which in its 
 relation to the rest of London the character of trust property 
 attaches. 
 
 The simple proposal as to City Charters then is to 
 formally repeal them all ; to re-enact in a new Constituting 
 Act those that are not obsolete and mischievous ; to 
 transfer to the new Municipality the City's title to property 
 held under Charters or Royal or other grants made to the 
 capital as such, and to transfer also the control over the 
 Livery Companies, in default of those bodies being effec- 
 tively dealt with in the same Act, or previously. 
 
649 
 
 Chapter XIX. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Method of dealing with the Corporation of the City and City 
 Property. — Appointment of a Commission to settle Boun- 
 daries, ascertain rights, c^c. — Adaptation of City Insti- 
 tutions and Oncers, and the work of City Committees, to 
 the neiv System. 
 
 The Supreme Council must of necessity delegate to 
 Committees most of the detail of Municipal work, and some 
 of these Committees in their turn would divide their work 
 amongst Sub-Committees. The duties of these subordinate 
 bodies would be mainly directory, and they would have the 
 assistance of a well-organized permanent staif. 
 
 The method of work of the Supreme Council, the 
 appointment of the Committees, Sub-Committees, and per- 
 manent staff, and the division of Municipal work amongst 
 them, are fully detailed in a succeeding chapter and set 
 forth in the Tabulated Summary. 
 
 It will be there seen that the Municipal work of 
 London, whilst under the final direction and control of 
 the Supreme Council, might be usefully placed under the 
 immediate control of fourteen chief Committees, viz. : — 
 
 1. Drainage. 2. Water Supply. 3. Gas Supply. 4. 
 Public Justice, Police, Prisons, and Licensing. 5. Public 
 Education. 6. Poor Relief. 7. Public Works. 8. Public 
 Property. 9. Fire Brigade. 10. Public Property. 11. 
 Taxation, Assessment, and Finance. 12. Law and ParHa- 
 mentary. 13. Audit. 14. Special Purposes. 
 
660 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 As the consideration of the work of the new Municipal 
 body will cover a more extended area than is now occupied 
 by existing Municipal institutions, it may be most conve- 
 nient here to indicate the method in which all existing 
 Municipal or quasi-Municipal bodies would be absorbed by ^ 
 a new system ; how the work they now perform would be 
 divided amongst the Committees of the Supreme Council ; 
 and in what manner and to what extent the property they 
 possess ought to be utilized or dealt with under a Municipal 
 Council established for the government of London. 
 
 The real property administered by the City Corporation 
 has been claimed by some defenders of the City as the 
 private property of the members of the Corporation. The 
 absurdity of such a claim needs no further discussion here, 
 but it is quite possible that, as respects part of that property, 
 there are objects to which it ought equitably to be applied ; 
 and as respects other parts of it, a good case might be made 
 out for its appropriation for the benefit of the hmited City 
 area. The onus of proof in such cases ought, however, to 
 rest on the Corporation ; the general ruling principle being 
 that, in default of such proof, the property should be trans- 
 ferred to the Supreme Council, as trustees for the whole 
 Municipahty. 
 
 The appointment of a Commission for the settlement of 
 boundaries, and the ascertainment of rights between various 
 parties affected by the establishment of a Municipality, seems 
 •a matter of necessity. To this Commission the question of 
 title to City Property would be referred, and the Corporation 
 would have to prove, with respect to any particular property, 
 or class of property, any good ground for its exclusion from 
 the effect of the general principle above stated. 
 
 The Bridge House Estate would be transferred, together 
 with the liabilities charged upon it. Probably, however, 
 the Supreme Council would assume the City liabihties as a 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CITY PROPERTY. 651 
 
 whole, and this estate would then be relieved from the lien 
 existing upon it from bridge repair, &c., and the general 
 control of the bridges would be in the hands of the Public 
 Works Committee. The management of the Bridge 
 House Estate would pass into the hands of the Public 
 Property Committee. 
 
 The Gresham Estate would be subject to the same con- 
 siderations. The Public Education Committee would under- 
 take educational work of the character contemplated by the 
 founder of this fund, and in such case there would be no 
 need of specific appropriation of the income of the estate to 
 such purpose. It would pass into the hands of the PubHc 
 Property Committee. 
 
 The investments of personal property which now appear 
 as assets in the City's Estate Account, would be transferred 
 to the Supreme Council by a clause in the Constituting Act 
 of a similar character to section 92 of the Municipal Cor- 
 poration Act. 
 
 The City Markets would be transferred to the Supreme 
 Council; so also would be the Coal Exchange, and the 
 Mansion House and Guildhall ; a right of meeting in the 
 latter being reserved to the City District Committee. 
 
 The 4:cl coal and wine duty appropriated by the City 
 would cease to have an unjustifiable local application merely, 
 but would be available for the. purposes of the Supreme 
 Council. 
 
 The grain duty and the fruit metage would be formally 
 transferred to the Supreme Council, which should have 
 power to decide on the desirability of their continuance, and 
 the method of their extinction. 
 
 The income from brokers' rents and the control over 
 brokers, would also, pro forma, be transferred to the Supreme 
 Council, not for the purpose of continuance, but in order to 
 prevent a needless burdening of the principal Act, and in 
 
662 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 order to give the question of the desirability of Municipal 
 Control over brokers a fair opportunity of being discussed 
 and decided upon. 
 
 The income derived by the City from its prison jurisdic- 
 tion, and from fees in connection with the administration of 
 justice, would be simply transferred subject to the observations 
 hereafter contained as to City Courts. 
 
 The method of dealing with City schools would be left for 
 the Commission to report upon, as to whether there were any 
 equities affecting particular classes of persons that prevented 
 their being handed over to the Supreme Council ; and how 
 such equities, if existent, could be best provided for. When 
 handed over, the real estate would necessarily be under the 
 control of the Public Property Committee, and the schools 
 themselves would pass into the hands of the Public Educa- 
 tion Committee. 
 
 The various " Improvement " Estates in Holborn Valley, 
 Smithfield, and elsewhere, would be transferred as they 
 stand. 
 
 So also with respect to West Ham Park, the control of 
 which would be in the Public Property Committee. 
 
 The City prisons would be transferred to the Supreme 
 Council, and their control placed in the hands of the Public 
 Justice, Police, Prisons, and Licensing Committee. 
 
 The rating authority of the City would of course come 
 to an end. In the Constituting Act it would also be needful 
 to have a clause similar to section 97 of the Municipal Cor- 
 porations Act, for the purpose of preventing collusive 
 purchases or sales of Corporate property by the City Council, 
 or any one else, before the Act came into force. 
 
 The loan liability of the City in 1875 was £5,213,500. 
 The property of the City is the final security for a large part 
 of this, and in case the Commission reported in favour of the 
 retention of any of the present City property by its present 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CITY LOAN LIABILITY. 653 
 
 holders, the question as to its proportion of loan liability 
 would have to be considered. Pi-actically, the City property 
 is managed on so extravagant a scale and is so burdened 
 with debt, that if its monopolous privileges were removed, 
 say, for example, in the matter of markets, it would at once 
 turn the balance the wrong way. 
 
 The Supreme Council would be compelled to assume the 
 City loan liability as well as the City property, and the 
 balance on the transaction would be infinitesimal, unless, 
 indeed, the City is soon delivered from itself, it is hkely to 
 follow some of its leaders into financial difiiculty. 
 
 One of the clauses in the Constituting Act will undo the 
 work of the Remembrancer, and formally repeal such sections 
 in various Acts of Parliament as have interposed reservations 
 in favour of the City. 
 
 The Court of Aldermen of the City would necessarily 
 cease to exist, nor is there any good reason for the re-estab- 
 lishment of such a Court in comiection with the Aldermen 
 of the Supreme Council. So also with the functions of the 
 Court. The Gaol Committee would give place to the 
 Public Justice, PoKce, Prisons, and Licensing Committee of 
 the Supreme Council, and the prison control would pass 
 to the same body, together with Newgate and Holloway 
 Prisons. 
 
 The work of the Finance Committee of Aldermen would 
 cease when both Aldermen and money came to an end. 
 The Committee on Privileges would not be needful in a new 
 Corporation, whose position and powers were clearly defined 
 by the Constituting Act. The question of Brokers and 
 their control would be transferred to the Supreme Council, 
 with fuU power to deal with the subject. 
 
 A Livery Cloth Committee would not be needful in a 
 Corporation with nobler ambitions than to clothe officers 
 of the Crown. The power of voting pensions so largely 
 
654 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 exercised by the Court of Aldermen at the present time, 
 would be under the control of the Taxation, Assessment, 
 and Finance Committee of the Supreme Council, and the 
 Constituting Act ought to provide that no pension voted 
 within one year of the assumption of power by the Supreme 
 Council should be valid ^vithout confirmation. No attempt 
 would be made to grant to the new Aldermen of London 
 any powers analogous to those now possessed in the matter 
 of the City Magistracy. 
 
 The ward divisions of the City as they now exist are 
 absurd to a degree, and have not even the poor merit of 
 coincidence in boundary with parishes to recommend them. 
 After the establishment of the new Municipahty, ♦there will 
 probably be no object of any kind to be attained by theii- 
 perpetuation. Many antique things have special interest 
 because of their antiquity, but the boundary line of a City 
 ward as it exists now and has existed for 500 years, is 
 surely of the least possible interest. Such boundaries are a 
 matter of painful recollection to many who were compelled 
 to mark them, and by all means let them be perpetuated on 
 a vellum map and hung in that murky vault ycleped the 
 " Guildhall Museum." The appropriation and method of 
 dealing with the property of the several Wards is a matter 
 for the Commission to report upon. 
 
 The representatives of the City at the Central Council 
 will be elected directly from the ratepayers as in the rest of 
 London, and membership or otherwise in a Livery Company, 
 if such still exist, will no longer have influence as a 
 qualification. 
 
 The Committee system of the City would disappear 
 and come forth in a purified and practical form under the 
 Supreme Council. It mil, however, be not unlikely that 
 one or two of the best features of the City system may be 
 usefully introduced. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : IRISH SOCIETY. 655 
 
 The Irish Society would probably be dissolved, and no 
 better method of dealing with it has ever been proposed 
 than that advocated by the London Corporation Commis- 
 sioners of 1854, set out ante p. 119. 
 
 The functions of the City Lands Committee would be 
 transferred to the Public Property Committee of the 
 Supreme Council, and the Bridge House and Gresham 
 Estates have been already considered. 
 
 The duties of the General Purposes Committee in 
 connection with City buildings, would be transferred to 
 the PubHc Works Committee of the Supreme Council. 
 
 The duties of the Epping Forest Committee would be 
 transferred to the Public Property Committee. 
 
 The duties of the Poyal Reception Committee and 
 everything connected with the extension of civic hospitality 
 to public or private individuals, would be undertaken by 
 the Special Purposes Committee. 
 
 The control and appointment of the servants of the 
 Municipality would be in the hands of the Supreme Council. 
 
 The appointment of Sheriffs has already been included 
 in the list of City privileges, which might be transferred to 
 the Supreme Council without mischief. When London is 
 all formed into one county it might be well to have two 
 Sheriffs, one for each side of the river. 
 
 There is no advantage in preserving the title of Comp- 
 troller, the duties of his office would be performed by other 
 officers under the direction of the Town Clerk. 
 
 The new Municipality will probably have a Recorder. 
 The privilege of appointing this officer ought to be in the 
 Crown. 
 
 His functions wiU be considerably different from those of 
 the present Recorder. So long as the Mayor's Court exists 
 he would be nominally as well as really the Judge ; and 
 until some alteration in the constitution of the Central 
 
656 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Criminal Court, he would remain a Judge there also. 
 Officially, he ought to be present at the meetings of the 
 Supreme Council, and also to present the new Lord Mayor 
 to the Lord Chamberlain. 
 
 The Common Serjeant would remain as Deputy- 
 Recorder, and sit at the Mayor's Court and Central Criminal 
 Court as at present. The office ought to be in the appoint- 
 ment of the Crown. Probably the present excellent tenant 
 of the office would be willing to transfer his service to the 
 Supreme Court upon its constitution. 
 
 The Town Clerk would be preserved as the chief per- 
 manent officer of the Law department, under the control of 
 the Law and Parliamentary Committee. The office of City 
 SoKcitor, as such, would cease to exist. 
 
 The Library of the Corporation would be under the 
 control of the Public Education Committee. 
 
 The City Markets would pass into the hands of the 
 Public Property Committee, and their immediate control 
 would be under the direction of the Taxation, Assessment, 
 and Finance Committee. 
 
 The City of London School, and Freemen's Orphan 
 School would pass, so far as regards their buildings, into the 
 hands of the Public Property Committee, and, so far as 
 regards their control, into the hands of the Public Education 
 Committee, but the action of the Supreme Council in relation 
 to these schools, would be regulated by the report of the 
 Commission, as to equitable interests affecting them. 
 
 It is not probable that any attempt to deal with the 
 whole of the City Courts would be made by the Constituting 
 Act. There are certain of them whose extinction ought 
 however to be formally notified. These are the Court of 
 Hustings, the Court of St. Martin's-le-Grand, the Courts of 
 Southwark Sessions and the Borough of Southwark, and 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CITY COURTS. 
 
 657 
 
 the other minor Courts detailed on pp. 134 and 135 ante. 
 The control over the Lord Mayor's Court exercised by the 
 City might be formally transferred to the new Supreme 
 Council, with the exception of the jurisdiction of the Mayor 
 and Aldermen. The Court and its constitution would then 
 probably be dealt with in some general Government measure, 
 or in some measure initiated by the Supreme Council. The 
 Recorder and Common Serjeant would remain the Judges 
 so long as it continued to exist. 
 
 The City of London Court ought to be constituted a 
 County Court pure and simple, and put under the same 
 regulations as to appointment of Judges as the rest of the 
 Metropolitan County Courts. The jurisdiction of the present 
 Judge at the Central Criminal Court ought to be aboHshed. 
 The Central Criminal Court would remain untouched as 
 respects its jurisdiction, but no Act purporting to confer any 
 reform on London Government ought to be passed which 
 did not at once put an end to the participation in the 
 judicial functions of this Court by any of the City officers. 
 The Law and Parliamentary Committee of the Supreme 
 Council would have this Court within their province, and 
 would recommend to the Supreme Council such reforms as 
 might be from time to time needed. 
 
 The Treasurer or Chamberlain of the new Corporation 
 would cease to exercise the remarkable master and appren- 
 tice jurisdiction now exercised by the City Chamberlain, 
 and the two classes would be left to their ordinary remedies 
 before the law. The office of Chamberlain would, however, 
 be retained under the control of the Taxation, Assessment, 
 and Finance Committee. 
 
 The Remembrancer would be aboUshed alike in name 
 and office. A new Corporation would not need to bribe 
 Members of Parliament, and no City officer would be parted 
 
658 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 from with less regret. The functions of examining the 
 contents of various Parliamentary Bills, would devolve upon 
 the Law and Parliamentary Committee. 
 
 The duties of the Local Government and Taxation 
 Committee would be adopted by the Taxation, Assessment, 
 and Finance Committee. 
 
 The functions of the Gas and Water Committee would 
 be transferred to the respective Supreme Council Gas Com- 
 mittee and Water Committee. The work of the Improve- 
 ment Committee would go to the Public Works Committee. 
 
 The Commission of Sewers of the City would divide its 
 functions amongst the Drainage Committee, the Public 
 Works Committee, the Public Health Committee, and the 
 Taxation, Assessment, and Finance Committee. 
 
 The functions of the City PoHce Committee would be 
 transferred to the Public Justice, Police, Prisons, and 
 Licensing Committee of the Supreme Council, who would 
 control the whole Metropolitan Police Force. 
 
 The above paragraphs indicate the method in which 
 existing City institutions would fall without much friction 
 into the new groove. 
 
 Some of the standing orders of the City Common Council 
 are so good that they might be adopted by the Supreme 
 Council. 
 
 The constitution of the Thames and Lee Conservancy 
 Boards will be considered in their place, but the appointment 
 of City and Metropolitan Board representatives would be 
 replaced by members of the Public Works Committee of 
 the Supreme Council. 
 
 The hospital control exercised by the City may be 
 referred to a commission to ascertain what are the equities 
 affecting it, and to recommend the best course to be pursued. 
 The London Almshouses and the Ward Charities would be 
 referred to the same commission. The provisions of the 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CITY JURISDICTION. 659 
 
 Municipal Corporation Act, sec. 71-72, as to the method of 
 deahng with Corporation Trust Estates appHes here. In 
 1835, Mr. Spring Rice proposed that the Ecclesiastical 
 patronage of the Corporations should be sold, and the price 
 be invested so as to be appHed to the public good of 
 the Boroughs. Without endorsing the desirability of sales 
 of patronage, this seems the best method now available for 
 deahng with this class of question. 
 
 It would be as impossible as it would be unjust to con- 
 struct a MunicipaHty round the City of which it should 
 form no integral part, but which it should be permitted to 
 interfere with as it now interferes in various ways with the 
 Metropolis ; which should break the continuity of London 
 Municipal government without any corresponding advantage ; 
 which should constitute an imperium in imperio ; and which 
 should still hold property and exercise rights to both of 
 which the outside Londoner could advance substantial claim. 
 When it has been shown how readily City institutions can 
 be adapted to a new system, the last argument in favour of 
 such a state of things is removed. 
 
 If it is useful and just that the roads and buildings, the 
 gas and water, the police and fire brigade, should, for the 
 purposes of Kensington in its relation to the rest of London, 
 be directed from one centre, there is no exception to the 
 argument that can be urged in favour of the City area. It 
 may be necessary to station the poHce closer together and to 
 expend more money on the streets, but the conditions of life 
 are in no way so materially different as even to require a 
 different character of staff. Some of the work which would 
 be heavy elsewhere would be light in the City area, from 
 which the force of circumstances has extruded some classes 
 of houses and people.* 
 
 * One of Mr. Scott'8 strongest arguments in favour of the excessive 
 goodness of the people of the City, is derived from the fact of the absence 
 
660 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 After the adjustment of th6 various equitable interests 
 affecting the Corporation, it would be found that the City 
 District would not differ from any other district except in 
 the changing character of its population , requiring special 
 conditions of control. It would be represented by the same 
 number of members at the Supreme Council as any other 
 district, and probably its Selected District Committees would 
 not be larger. 
 
 In Educational and Poor Relief matters the City District 
 would have the same control as any other district, but there 
 is no absolute necessity that it should be exercised by a 
 nominated District Committee if the City area prefer to 
 have an elective one. It is likely, when a measure is 
 enacted of any kind similar in principle to the one now 
 proposed, the City will care very little for a District Council 
 rather than a Committee, but the choice may fairly be 
 given them, and even the functions of such Council might 
 be larger than those of ordinary Metropolitan Districts if 
 the Supreme Council think that such additional powers may 
 be safely conferred, but the discretion ought only to be 
 granted on the vote of the whole Supreme Council. 
 
 But the whole of the City organization as it exists would 
 have been extinguished or transferred, and as it would not 
 be desirable to have two kings of Brentford on one throne, 
 the Lord Mayor would also have gone. 
 
 of certain classes of people and houses that have been actually driven 
 out hy the increase of property value. — See "Statistical Vindication of 
 th« City of London," pasiim. 
 
661 
 
 Chapter XX. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Rights of Londoners with respect to Gras Supply. — Necessity of 
 Supply being in Municipal Hands. — Methods of Acquire- 
 ment considered and illustrated by Example of other Towns. 
 
 The London Gas supply being in the hands of private 
 and independent companies, it is necessary to devote special 
 consideration to the method in which it can be acquired by 
 the Supreme Council. 
 
 It is in the first place desirable to deal with certain 
 assertions constantly made on behalf of the Gas Companies, 
 and then having cleared the ground, to indicate the basis 
 upon which action in the matter of supply may best be 
 taken. 
 
 There are four leading propositions which seem to be 
 generally enumerated by the defenders of the Gas Com- 
 panies, and which it is desirable to deal with. These are: 
 
 1. That the Act of 1860 was a ParKamentary contract 
 accepted by the Companies and the pubHo, as a solution of 
 the question. 
 
 2. That the Companies have, or ever have had, a 
 statutory right to a dividend of 10 per cent, payable by 
 consumers. 
 
 3. That in any scheme for purchase, the Companies' 
 capital must be taken at its present rate. 
 
 4. That Londoners are precluded by legislation from 
 supplying themselves. 
 
 2 T 
 
662 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 The points may be taken seriatim — 
 
 1. Before the Parliamentary Committee of 1868, Mr. 
 Denison, the leading counsel for the Companies, said : " The 
 Act of 1860 was a Parliamentary contract, and you cannot 
 depart from it ;" and throughout his address it was repre- 
 sented as a fair settled agreement from which the Companies 
 had never departed. Again : " It is no longer open to the 
 public of London, and therefore no longer open to Parlia- 
 ment, to consider whether that bargain was reasonable or 
 unreasonable, because it was an agreed matter between the 
 pubHc and the Companies."^ 
 
 And in the " objections" suppHed by the Gas Companies 
 to members of the House, when the Bill of 1867 was before 
 them, we find the statement that "the Act of 1860 was re- 
 garded on all hands as a Parliamentary settlement of the 
 rights and obligations of the Gas Companies." 
 
 These statements are remarkable, and have been fre- 
 quently reiterated since ; but it is not less remarkable that 
 if they were true, a Parliamentary Committee should have 
 reported that " no monopoly has been granted ivhich the House 
 of Commons is hound to respect :" and the Act of 1868, as 
 well as other measures, have materially interfered with the 
 provisions of that statute. As a matter of fact — as may be 
 seen by reference to the history of the Act of 1860 — no 
 statement could be more distinctly untrue than to say it was 
 " accepted on all hands." The Companies, by their con- 
 spiracy against public interests, brought on the opposition 
 which resulted in the introduction of the Bill in 1860. 
 They utterly failed before Mr. Sotheron-Estcourt's Com- 
 mittee to depreciate the evidence of their misconduct, but 
 by bringing the whole joint-stock interest to bear, got the 
 Bill re-committed by the House, and, as has been seen, from 
 that moment it became their own creature. Probably no 
 * Minutes of Proceedings, May 1st, 1868. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY, 663 
 
 pubKc body other than a London Gas Company, trading on 
 the forgiveness and forgetfulness of London consumers, 
 would have the audacity to foist a measure framed as was 
 that Act upon them as their " voluntary " agreement. 
 Even if in any sense the Act could have been regarded as a 
 bargain, it is not a bargain in perpetuity. The same Parlia- 
 ment that made it can repeal it, and the people of London 
 were not represented in any fair way before the Committee 
 of 1860. Bad as Gas legislation has been for the interests 
 of Londoners, it is not quite so bad that we are delivered 
 over bound hand and foot to these monopolists. Acts of 
 Parliament from 1810 to 1860, and since 1860, all affirm 
 the clear right of the Legislature to deal with the question, 
 and Committees of the House of Commons treat the matter 
 as one admitting of no doubt whatever. 
 
 2. It has been constantly asserted since 1860 that the 
 London Gas Companies had a " right " to a dividend of 
 10 per cent., payable by the consumers. The claim is so 
 beneficial a one for Gas shareholders, that one cannot wonder 
 at their doing their best endeavour to persuade the public 
 that it is their vested right. If it were in Magna Charta 
 it could not be more vigorously insisted on. The minutes 
 of proceedings before the Parliamentary Committees are 
 fairly redolent of " statutory dividends," " authorized divi- 
 dends," " Parliamentary 10 per cent.," and similarly mis- 
 leading terms. In the speeches of Companies' counsel, and 
 in the pages of their pamphleteers, any measure tending to 
 imperil this 10 per cent, is called "confiscation," and in 
 the present day they have actually beguiled innocent 
 Londoners into an arrangement whereby the Board of 
 Trade may appoint Commissioners who can raise the price 
 if they are of opinion that the Companies cannot with " due 
 care and management " make this 10 per cent. The 
 absurd futiKty of this arrangement as any protection of 
 
664 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 public interests, has been sufficiently shown by the pro- 
 ceedings before the Commissioners in 1873 and 1874. But 
 an intelligent consumer will ask, " Where and when, and 
 how, did I agree to pay any public body supplying me with 
 an article of necessity, 10 per cent, upon whatever sum it 
 might be pleased to call its 'capital'?" And to that 
 question the answer is simple, " You have made no such 
 agreement." 
 
 As has been noted, when the Act of 1860 was passed, 
 no London Gas Company was paying a 10 per cent, dividend, 
 and only two Companies had ever done so ; but that Act 
 soon immensely improved their condition, and enabled them 
 to increase their profits by stereotyping their district 
 monopoly. As to dividends, they were expressly placed 
 under the Act of 1847, the provisions of which in this 
 regard have been already enumerated, and which, as will be 
 seen, merely provide that no Company under the Act may 
 divide "more than 10 per cent." 
 
 In 1867, Mr. Cardwell's Committee gave the most 
 laborious consideration to the "dividend" question, and as 
 to it they report : — " Your Committee do not recognise as 
 just the construction which the Companies appear to place 
 upon the combined operation of the two Acts of 1 847 and 
 1860. When the Act of 1847 was passed, it was intended 
 for the regulation, not of thirteen Companies in London 
 acting upon an exclusive system, but for the regulation of 
 all the Companies which might be established throughout 
 the country, and which in general would be subject, not 
 only to the limits of the Act in respect of dividend, but also 
 to the competition of other Companies in the same districts. 
 When the Act of 1860 was passed, the Metropolitan Com- 
 panies had not generally attained the limit of 10 per cent., 
 and the possibility of that limitation being imputed to con- 
 vey a right to a statutory dividend of 10 per cent., may 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 665 
 
 not have been as clearly understood as from recent 
 experience and discussion is now the case." 
 
 There is thus the highest Parliamentary sanction for the 
 opinion that there is no statutory right to a dividend of 10 
 per cent.; and yet even as late as 1872, the "Gas Light 
 and Coke Company," was allowed to earn this rate upon 
 its million of new capital to be issued to shareholders at par 
 and soon afterwards at 80 per cent, premium. 
 
 Nothing but the very strongest and clearest proof would 
 lead us to believe that Londoners, so shrewd in their ordinary 
 business transactions, would be such arrant dullards as 
 voluntarily to deprive themselves of the* benefits of com- 
 petition, — to concede their own right of self-supply, and then 
 to undertake to give the supplying Company a dividend of 
 10 per cent. But all the demonstration is — as we should 
 expect to find it — in the contrary direction. 
 
 The simple effect of the Act of 1860 was to provide that 
 the Companies should not declare more than ten per cent., 
 and that, after paying back dividends and other expenses, 
 they should give the pubhc the benefit of extra profit. This 
 restrictive provision is now treated as though it provided 
 that they must in any case have 10 per cent. What have 
 the Gas Companies ever done for London, that such ab- 
 normal privileges should be conceded them ? 
 
 3. And the enormity of the position is greatly increased 
 when we consider what it is upon which this 10 per cent, 
 is declared. The Gas Companies have funds, which they 
 call " capital," and upon which this dividend is payable. 
 Now, this capital has never been investigated. It has never 
 been verified. And there are vast sums which are now 
 entered as capital in the books of the Gas Companies, and 
 upon which the London consumer is compelled to pay this 
 abnormal dividend, which were never, in any true sense, 
 capital at all. The capital of the various Water Companies 
 
666 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 was thoroughly overhauled in 1852, and was reduced by 
 the abstraction of sums, improperly charged to this account, 
 amounting in some cases above 40 per cent.* If precedent 
 were wanting, there is therefore here an excellent one. 
 
 AppHcations have been made to have these capital 
 accounts investigated, in nearly every year when Gas legis- 
 lation has been recently before Parliament, but they have 
 been always successfully resisted. An attempt was also made 
 before the Commissioners in 1873, but it was held to be 
 without the scope of their powers. 
 
 London consumers have wondered how it happened 
 that the provisions for reducing the price of Gas when 
 dividends reached 10 per cent., was so seldom productive of 
 any good, even Avhen nearly every Company paid this 
 maximum dividend. It probably never occurred to the in- 
 nocent citizens that the more money the Gas Companies 
 could spread the dividend over, the greater would be the 
 benefit to these monopolies, and that when all existing 
 capital was paying ten per cent., the next best thing would 
 be to pull down their old works, and issue fresh capital to 
 build new ones. Money could, of course, be borrowed at 
 6 per cent. ; but why borrow at 6, when you can issue 
 shares to yourselves, and make ■ the London ratepayers give 
 you 10 ? 
 
 The Companies have been wise in their day and gene- 
 ration, and have lost no good opportunity of increasing a 
 capital that bore so good a rate of interest. But this only 
 
 * The accounts of the Water Companies were investigated by an able 
 accountant, with result of reducing the nominal capital by which term 
 would appear to have been meant the original issue price plug the pre- 
 mium value of the West Middlesex Company from i:830,000 to ^'506,300 ; 
 that of the Chelsea Works, from £428,348 to £300,000 ; Grand Junction, 
 X'523,735 to £354,000; Southwark and Vauxhall, £439,662 to £303,600, 
 &c., vide pamphlet of Mr. Hughes. And since this time the Gas Com- 
 panies have had twenty years of freedom ! 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 667 
 
 applies to recent years. Prior to 1860 there was, as we 
 have seen, the most ruinous competition. Money was spent 
 recklessly in pipes and works, and all the incidents of an 
 expensive Gas War. Atid yet, upon all that money, the 
 London consumer is noiv paying 10 per cent. 
 
 Before 1860, the capital of the Companies was entirely 
 uncontrolled, and manipulated nobody knows how. Since 
 1860, when some sort of control in the public interest was 
 supposed to have been obtained, it has been immensely to 
 the interest of the Companies to enlarge their capital as 
 much as possible. If ever the Gas capitals should be verified, 
 it will be found how well they have availed themselves of 
 this power. 
 
 There is one other aspect of this Capital question, which 
 perhaps may best be introduced here. The price of Gas 
 shares has, of course, varied largely in the market, but 
 during long periods of time they have ranged about 50 per 
 cent, premium. When, therefore, a Gas Company obtains 
 power to increase its capital (say, by such a measure as that 
 of the "Gas Light and Coke Company," in 1872), it goes 
 on to the market for a certain sum which is really worth a 
 good deal more. At present prices, the million which the 
 " Gas Light and Coke Company " obtained powers to issue 
 in 1872 would be worth, if issued, £1,800,000. What 
 becomes of the £800,000? A million sterling could be 
 raised in the market by a loan of the nominal value of a 
 little over £600,000, taking the £10 shares as worth £18. 
 But is this thrown on to the open market ? It has been 
 so done by the Company supplying Liverpool for years, and 
 the result is a saving of more than 40 per cent., as each 
 nominal £100 fetches £160 to £180. But in London this 
 capital is taken up, and has always been taken up, by share- 
 holders at par. So that if the shareholders choose to sell 
 
668 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 their shares as soon as allotted, they realize £800,000 net 
 profit upon each million that Parliament permits the Oompany 
 to raise. 
 
 This is sufficiently startling ; and there is one conclusion 
 that may be very safely deduced from it, and that is, that 
 any system of purchase based either upon nominal capital, or 
 upon the price of Cras shares in the market, would be grossly 
 unjust to the London consumer. 
 
 The "South Metropolitan Company" has probably a 
 smaller proportionate amount of fictitious capital than any 
 other London Company. What is the result ? The Com- 
 pany paid in 1874 10 per cent., and supplied fourteen- 
 candle Gas at 35. per 1,000 feet. The " Gas Light and Coke 
 Company," burdened with a vast amount of fictitious, lost, or 
 wasted capital, required 55. per 1,000 feet to pay 10 per cent., 
 supplying sixteen- candle Gas : that is to say, at the rate of 
 45. 4^i. for fourteen-candle Gas. A large portion of London 
 was therefore paying I5. 4^c?. per 1,000 feet more that 
 another portion, simply because it is decreed that we shall 
 pay 10 per cent, on all moneys that two generations of Gas 
 directors have put in capital account. If London had a 
 really representative central authority, such a monoply could 
 not exist for a single year. 
 
 Existing legislation is bad enough, and indefensible 
 enough, on any fair principle of justice to consumers ; but it 
 must be remembered that every day that the capitals of the 
 Gas Companies remain unexamined, we are paying a vast 
 sum for which, even under that legislation, we are not 
 liable. 
 
 4. As to the last question — our right to an independent 
 supply. This, although constantly denied, is hardly worthy 
 of serious discussion. The principle was constantly affirmed 
 by the creation of new Companies, prior to 1860 ; and when 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 669 
 
 these Companies coalesced against us, we have it again 
 affirmed in the Act of 1860 (Section 6, Sub-sec. d), whereby 
 no Company or person shall supply Gas in the districts 
 " unless authorized by Parliament so to do." The Committee 
 of 1866 reported in favour of facilities for Gas acquisition 
 by the consumers. The Committee of 1867 say, " a com- 
 pulsory and unconditional interference with the prices 
 already conceded to the producer is not the weapon by 
 which ParHament is accustomed to secure the rights of the 
 consumer. The legitimate weapon to be resorted to for that 
 purpose is the enactment of an independent supply." 
 
 Having thus dealt with a few of the leading fallacies so 
 persistently urged by interested parties, we may consider the 
 remedy, if one can be found, for the evils under which the 
 Metropolis labours in its Gas supply. If we had no lessons 
 in Gas history to warn us, we might probably be beguiled 
 by some small measure of reform, which the Companies 
 would make much of as a concession, but which would, in 
 the end, turn out to be as disastrous as all remedial measures 
 have hitherto been. Thus, we might obtain the appoint- 
 ment of permanent Inspectors, as provided by the original 
 Act of 1860, but expunged at the instance of the Companies, 
 or we might have elected representatives of the public on the 
 Boards of Gas Companies, as Sheffield has ; or a sliding 
 scale of prices, as adopted in the case of some Companies in 
 1875, so that the cheaper the Gas, the higher the permitted 
 dividend, or a lowering of the maximum dividend rate, &c. 
 All these are good in their way, but, with the lesson of the 
 past before us, we think the day for their adoption as panaceas 
 is gone by. Probably no system of regulation that could 
 be devised would give justice to the consumer, as between 
 him and the manufacturing and distributing Gas authority. 
 And the propositions may be abandoned the more readily, as 
 
670 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 they are all denounced as " confiscatory " by the Companies, 
 who always seem carefully to ignore the fact that their 
 organizations are simply " regulated monopohes." 
 
 The case of the Gas Companies supplying London differs 
 widely from that of ordinary trading Companies. They are 
 indeed not Hable to the ordinary incidents of trade. If coals 
 rise in price, they simply go to the Board of Trade and raise 
 the price of Gas. Their clientele, too, is constant and as- 
 sured : Gas is now a necessity of life, and we must have it. 
 
 The broad question, then, is simply this. Have the 
 London Gas Companies, by their conduct, justified the 
 policy of the legislative exemption from competition, and 
 from the ordinary incidents of trading Companies which we 
 have given them ? It may be certainly answered that they 
 have not. And an appeal to the history of the supply 
 will amply justify the answer. The time has therefore 
 come to repeal the special legislation in their favour, and 
 to initiate a new state of things. 
 
 The first proposition which may be laid down is, that 
 a monopoly to supply the public with an article of necessity 
 should belong to the public. If there is, therefore, to be a 
 restriction upon the ordinary law of supply and demand, 
 the resulting monopoly should be in the hands of the Lon- 
 don consumer. Gas is one of those necessities of life which 
 it is clearly within the function of a Corporation to supply 
 to citizens. The citizen of London being without a Cor- 
 poration, is compelled to take his Gas from the Company in 
 whose dominion he may happen to live ; and if he lives on 
 the confines of one Gas territory, paying possibly more than 
 his neighbour across the street for the same article. He has 
 no control over the "capital" upon which he pays 10 per cent., 
 nor upon the management, which he disapproves. There is 
 no inducement to improved machinery or plant, or methods 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 671 
 
 of manufacture, where the dividend is secure, and so he 
 has to content himself with such Gas as he can get. 
 
 Is there any reason in history, in justice, or in common 
 sense, why three millions of sentient beings should any 
 longer remain under the galling domination of this Gasarchy ? 
 All efforts made to establish mutually satisfactory relations 
 with it have failed. So far as we know, there is no 
 instance where a local authority in England, having once 
 obtained the possession and control of its Gas supply, has 
 ever relinquished it. When the first 14,000-feet gasometer 
 raised its puny head in Westminster, men had Httle con- 
 ception of the giant proportions which this "supply of 
 inflammable air" would assume. But as the century has 
 grown older, the question has increased in importance 
 rapidly. And this not the less because it was soon found 
 that the interests of the Gas Companies and of the public 
 were antagonistic. As Mr. Joseph Fletcher clearly demon- 
 strated so far back as 1846, in a paper read before the 
 Statistical Society, it was impossible to have the interests of 
 the public and of the Companies coterminous. If competi- 
 tion is encouraged, the public streets are impassable : if 
 the Companies are allowed to district, then the public 
 are fleeced by monopoKsts. So in London it was found 
 that, one by one, the Companies estabHshed to overthrow 
 monopohes became monopolies themselves. In 1842 the 
 "Equitable" was permitted to oppose the "Chartered:" 
 the " London " had been established for a similar purpose ; 
 and yet both applied to Parliament in 1850 to be allowed 
 to amalgamate with it ! Later still, the " Western " was 
 allowed to invade the districts of all these three Companies ; 
 and yet in 1857-8 the " Western " was the leader in the 
 scheme for uncontrolled monopoly ! 
 
 If it be conceded that this monopoly to supply an article 
 
672 MITNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 of necessity should belong to the public, then the time has 
 come to devise the method in which London consumers can 
 obtain this right. "Whatever method may be adopted, it 
 will be sure to evoke strong opposition. Those who direct 
 Gas Companies to their own great profit, 'will fight hard to 
 maintain their position. It was recently soberly contended 
 in a legal journal, by a solicitor, that his class ought to be 
 compensated if Lord Cairns' Bill for facilitating the transfer 
 of land became law, on account of the loss of profit on the 
 drawing of windy conveyances, if a short method of transfer 
 were adopted, and that the training and pupilage through 
 which those who aspired to this art were compelled by law 
 to pass, amounted to an undertaking by Government that in 
 case they should pass this ordeal there should always be 
 long and profitable deeds ! So the London Gas director 
 thinks that he has a vested right in the London consumer. 
 He is as much an appanage of his district as were the 
 adscripti glebce, in the days of Justinian, bound to the soil, 
 and he has the right to levy on him what tax he pleases. 
 Both pretensions are equally absurd. 
 
 There would seem to be four methods in which the evils 
 under which the London Gas consumer labours may be met ; 
 and excellent illustrations of each method are available, so 
 as to enable us to estimate their relative advantages, 
 
 1. By payment of perpetual annuities for purchase. 
 
 2. By paying a certain number of years' purchase on 
 
 the nominal capital. 
 
 3. By purchasing the plant at a valuation. 
 
 4. By providing an independent supply. 
 
 We shall take four of the largest towns now supplying 
 their own Gas, viz., Glasgow, Leeds, Bradford, and Man- 
 chester, as illustrations of these various methods. 
 
 1. Glasgow purchased its Gasworks by payment of 
 annuities. In 1869 the two Companies supplying the town 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 673 
 
 had Bills, for increase of capital, before the House of Coin- 
 mons, and the town presented a measure for the purchase 
 of both of them. A compromise was eventually effected in 
 Committee, on these terms : " That the whole heritages, 
 plant, stock-in-trade, outstanding accounts, reserve and con- 
 tingent funds of the Company he vested in the Corporation, 
 from a day named, the Corporation relieving the Companies 
 respectively from their mortgage debts, and paying them in 
 perpetuity an annuity of 9 per cent, on the capital 
 created prior to 1847, and 6| per cent, on the 7 J per cent, 
 stock." The first year's gross profit under the Corporation 
 regime was £61,745 55. lOd. Out of this, £13,908 85. was 
 written off for depreciation, and the balance permitted the 
 pajTuent of annuities ; of interest on borrowed capital ; of 
 the whole expense of the Act in Parliament and out of it 
 (more than £14,000) ; and of the transfer of the property 
 from the Companies to the Corporation, and of the payment 
 of £5,000 to the Corporation for its general purposes. This 
 sum was, however, not paid over, but the consumers had 
 the full benefit of it. At the end of the first year there 
 was a reduction made of 5d. per 1,000 feet within the 
 municipality. Notwithstanding this reduction, however, 
 the gross profit of the year 1870-1 was £68,203 4s. id., 
 after all payments. A considerable net profit was again the 
 result, and again the price of Gas was reduced. 
 
 In the following year the price still remained at the low 
 rate of the previous year, notwithstanding the great rise in 
 the price of coals and labour, and the fact that, according 
 to the Act, a considerable sum must be set apart in that 
 year as a sinking fund. 
 
 The last account before us is for the year 1872-3. The 
 increase in the cost of coal for this year was £37,000 ; so 
 that whilst practically the same excellent ratio of profit had 
 been maintained, this increase of price necessitated the 
 
674 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 resumption of an increased rate of charge. The cost of the 
 year 1873-4 was estimated at an advance of £70,000, or 
 Is. 2d. per 1,000 feet in the cost of the Gas ; and to meet 
 this the price was advanced from -less than 2d. to 2^d. per 
 candle. It stood in 1874 at 2^d., with a prospect of a great 
 reduction during the succeeding year. 
 
 The terms upon which Glasgow acquired her Gasworks 
 were by no means favourable to the Corporation, and the 
 Gas fund is burdened with large sums for annuities and 
 interest ; yet still we find it paying its own way successfully, 
 until stopped by the high price of coal, and even then 
 supplying Gas at 2^d. a candle, whilst London paid the "Gas 
 Light and Coke Company " 6*. 3d. for cannel Gas, and 5s. 
 for common Gas, that is, 3|c?. a candle. Even, therefore, 
 if we could make no better bargain than Glasgow did, and 
 taking the pripe of coal at about the same, we should have 
 cannel Gas at 45. 2c?., and common Gas at 35. 4:d. ])er 1,000 
 feet ; and when the normal price is reverted to, cannel Gas 
 at 3s. 4c?., and common Gas at 25. 8d., which are prices 
 at which Gas may be fau'ly supplied in London. 
 
 2. On the 1st of September, 1870, the works of the 
 "Leeds Gas Company" and the "New Leeds Gas Light 
 Company" were transferred to the Corporation. The 
 agreement as to terms of purchase was arrived at before 
 the Committee of the House of Commons. The two Com- 
 panies, whose works were purchased, were Hmited to a 6 
 per cent, dividend, and it was ultimately agreed to give 
 them £140 for each £100 of 6 per cent, stock. The 
 aggregate sum thus paid for stock was £696,443.* The 
 terms were, however, onerous to the Corporation, as may 
 be well surmised from the fact that the value of the stock 
 
 * The stock of the two Companies amounted to this sum, but the 
 debenture and mortgage debts were £116,785, thus aggregating the whole 
 to £813,228. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 675 
 
 advanced from 10 to 15 per cent, upon the conclusion of 
 the negotiation, and so the shareholders received a bonus of 
 some £50,000. 
 
 The net profit for the year ending June 30th, 1871, was 
 £13,803 3s. 6c?. ; and, in the year 1871-2, £12,758 Os. lOd. 
 In 1872-3 the price of coal affected it, and there was a loss 
 of £6,924 12s. 4id. ; and it was likely that, from the same 
 cause, there would be a loss in the succeeding year. 
 
 But it is to be remarked that, in the year 1872-3, a sum 
 exceeding the loss by £1,700 (£8,616 75.) was set apart for 
 the sinking fund. It is also to be remarked that no com- 
 pensating raising of the price of the Gas took place. When 
 taken over, the price of the Gas was 3s. 6d. per 1,000 feet, 
 and the illuminating power, seventeen and a-half candles, or 
 about 2^d. per candle. It was afterwards raised to 3s. 9d., so 
 that it was still considerably under 2^d. Leeds is, however, 
 quoted, not as an illustration of successful working, but of 
 the great advantages accruing to the public from acquisition 
 under the worst conditions. In 1874 the difference between 
 Leeds and London was Is. 8c?. per 1,000 feet. 
 
 3. On June 30th, 1871, the Corporation of Bradford 
 purchased the Gasworks of that town. The original 
 capital of the Company was £55,000, but considerable sums 
 out of revenue had been expended on works, so that the 
 total expenditure had been £236,563. The amount of 
 purchase-money asked by the Company was £325,000, but 
 eventually the sale was negotiated for £210,000, which 
 would appear to be the estimated value of the works and 
 plant, and of the Parliamentary expenses. Under section 57 
 of " The Bradford Gas and Improvement Act, 1871," the 
 Corporation obtained power to borrow £260,000. The net 
 profit on the working of the first eighteen months (June 30, 
 1871, to December 31, 1872) was £22,818 8s. 9d., which, 
 by a resolution of the Council, was appropriated this way : — 
 
676 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 In aid of rates — 
 
 Borough Fund - - - £8,000 
 General District Rate Fund 4,500 
 
 £12,500 
 
 Balance carried forward - 10,318 8 9 
 
 £22,818 8 9 
 
 The cost of each public lamp for lighting, cleaning, and 
 extinguishing, was £2 per annum ; and in 1872, £2,126 
 was paid towards a sinking fund. 
 
 In 1873 the accounts showed a profit of £4,808 Os. 6d., 
 notwithstanding the price of coal, and the price of pubhc 
 lamps was still retained at £2 each. Up to July 1872 the 
 price of Gas was 3s. per 1,000 feet of eighteen-candle Gas, 
 or 2d. per candle ; but in that month, for the exceptional 
 causes affecting all Gas Companies, it was raised to 35. 6d. 
 per 1,000 feet, or 2|fZ. per candle. There is, however, a 
 liberal scale of discounts, amounting, upon a half-yearly con- 
 sumption of £100, to 20 per cent.; so that large consumers 
 payed in 1874 less than 2d. per candle, and consumers to the 
 extent of £60 per half-year pay about 2d. per candle. 
 
 The works and plant taken over are estimated in the 
 stock account at the value given for them, and more are 
 added each year. The sinking fund is in full operation. 
 The 1874 rate in Bradford would, therefore, in London, 
 have amounted to about 35. 4d. per 1,000 feet for cannel 
 Gas, and 25. 8d. per 1,000 feet for common Gas. 
 
 Bradford, as we have seen, aifords an excellent illustra- 
 tion of a large town purchasing the plant of a Gas Company 
 at a fair valuation, and achieving immense pecuniary 
 advantages in several ways, both to the consumer and to 
 the Corporation. 
 
 4. We shall now take an illustration of the possible 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 677 
 
 effect of good Gas management by a Corporation — the City 
 of Manchester. It is the largest town that has been a 
 manufacturer of Gas for a lengthened period, and may fairly 
 be taken as showing the possibiHties of Corporate Gas 
 management, in a case where no exorbitant price has been 
 paid for pre-existent and defective systems, and where the 
 capital account is not clogged by heavy payments to retired 
 proprietors. 
 
 "We have been favoured by Alderman King, the Chair- 
 man of the Manchester Gas Committee, and lately Mayor of 
 the borough, with the Gas accounts of the Corporation of 
 Manchester for the twelve years ending December 31, 1873, 
 and they are worth quoting, not merely as models in every 
 way of Gas management, but as showing how fallacious it 
 is to suppose that a Corporation is unable to manage Gas 
 supply as well as a private body, whose interests are in 
 constant opposition to the interests of the ratepayers. 
 
 In the twelve years, 1862 — 1873, the gross declared 
 profit has been £688,135 19s. 3^^., or an average of 
 £57,344 135. 3d 
 
 Of this sum, £186,659 195. lie?, has been appropriated 
 in payment of interest upon borrowed money ; £263,887 85. 
 has been employed in Liquidating the mortgage debt ; and 
 no less than £237,508 lis. 4d. has been paid over to the 
 Improvement Committee of the Corporation, for municipal 
 purposes. 
 
 The aim of the Gas Committee of the Corporation is to 
 make 10 per cent, gross profit on the full capital sunk in 
 the works. This would then be appropriated — 5 per 
 cent, to the sinking fund, 4 per cent, to the interest 
 account, and 1 per cent, paid over to the Improvement 
 Committee. But in the course of years a large amount of 
 the debt has been paid off, and so the 4 per cent, upon 
 this is saved, and also the 5 per cent, sinking fund ; so 
 
 2u 
 
678 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 that, upon the amount of fund in excess of liabilities, there 
 ought to be for the Improvement Commissioners 10 per 
 cent, clear, and upon the rest 1 per cent. The Common 
 Council have decided that 10 per cent, is a fair rate of gross 
 profit, and the price is now raised to bring about this result. 
 Contrary to the custom of many Gas Companies, the 
 Manchester Corporation deduct every year for depreciation — 
 
 4 per cent, on buUding account, 
 
 5 „ on apparatus, 
 2 J „ on main pipes, 
 
 10 „ on meters let out for hire ; 
 and instead of charging all new service pipes to capital, 50 
 per cent, of their cost is charged to revenue account. 
 
 Thus, in the twelve years we are noting, no less than 
 £191,727 135. 9d. has been charged to revenue account in 
 depreciation of works and mains ; whilst the gradual paying 
 off of the debt, the excess of assets over liabilities had risen 
 from £126,591 45. 6d. in 1862, to £370,307 7s. 2d. in 
 1873 ; and this represents a nice little property owned by 
 the Corporation. 
 
 From 1865 to the first quarter of 1873 the price of Gas 
 was 3«. 2d. per 1,000 feet. In that year, in consequence of 
 the price of coal, it was raised to 3s. 4 c?., and in 1874 to 
 3s. 8d. This is twenty-candle Gas. 
 
 Thus, for many years the price has ranged under 2d. a 
 candle, and for the last two quarters of 1874 was less 
 than 2^d. ; being, therefore, even then, with the new rate of 
 prices charged June 30, l^d. per candle less than London, 
 and supplying the same Gas for 3s. 8d. for which Londoners 
 paid 6s. 3d., or a saving of 2s. 7d. per 1,000 feet ; and this 
 after paying off a sinking fund at the rate of 5 per cent., 
 and large sums on depreciation account. 
 
 Liverpool, a neighbouring town, with about the same 
 rate of consumption, and the same facility for supply of the 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 679 
 
 raw material, charged at the same time lOd. per 1,000 
 feet more than Manchester. But Liverpool was supplied by 
 a Company. 
 
 We enumerated four methods of acquisition, of which 
 the four towns we have instanced afford illustrations. There 
 are many others, some worse, some better, but those we 
 have quoted are sufficient for our purpose, and the magni- 
 tude of the several illustrative undertakings enable us to 
 form some estimate of the result of similar measures here. 
 
 "We will now consider how far they are adapted for our 
 adoption. 
 
 1. By payment of perpetual annuities, or by payment 
 of a guaranteed rate of dividend upon capital. 
 
 There are many objections to this method being adopted 
 in London, The first step to be taken towards it would be 
 the rectification of capital accounts. We have already 
 shown how entirely fictitious large amounts of the capital of 
 London Gas Companies are, and the difficulty of rectifying 
 them is greatly enhanced by the number of years that they 
 have existed, the immense number of complex accounts to 
 be overhauled, and the complications introduced by recent 
 amalgamations. The task, which was difficult enough in 
 the case of the Water Companies in 1852, would be well 
 nigh impossible with these larger bodies in 1874. 
 
 In Glasgow, as we have seen, the capital, limited to 10 
 per cent., was brought out at a guarantee of 9 per cent., 
 and the capital limited to 7^ per cent., was brought out at a 
 guarantee of Gf per cent. And London Gas Companies 
 have claimed to be guaranteed 10 per cent, on their nominal 
 capital in case of purchase ! Taking the example of the 
 "Gas Light and Coke Company's" £10 shares, say at £18, 
 and taking the rate at which the money could be borrowed 
 as 4 per cent, (as a matter of fact it would be some- 
 what less) a 10 per cent, guarantee on a £10 share would 
 
680 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 raise its value to £25, and would be giving a bonus to share- 
 holders of £7 per share, that is to say, £700,000 on each 
 million of capital now limited to 10 per cent. ! A guarantee 
 of 7^ per cent, would about meet the market value in this 
 case, and that would of course be only paid upon the recti- 
 fied capital. But the rectification of capital seems almost 
 insuperable ; yet supposing it to be overcome, and a 7^ per 
 cent, guarantee given, it would still be unfair to the con- 
 sumer, as the present premium on the price represents a 
 sum given to the shareholders by the system of issuing the 
 shares to the shareholders alone. If they had been thrown 
 on the open market, as we have already shown, the premium 
 would, as respects large amounts of the capital, have been 
 saved to the public. 
 
 If a body representing the ratepayers took over the Gas- 
 works, there would be a great saving in salaries and in 
 many other ways ; but supposing a 7 per cent, guarantee 
 were given, there would in the interest account alone be a 
 gain to the ratepayers of £30,000 a year in each million 
 now paying 10 per cent. 
 
 2. As to the system of purchase by payment of so 
 many years' purchase upon the rate of dividend, adopted 
 in Leeds, it is still less fitted to the requirements of London. 
 It is quite certain that to pay a large number of years' 
 purchase, which would have the effect of largely increasing 
 the value of Gras shares, would be most unfair to the rate- 
 payer, and conferring a boon on Companies, whose conduct 
 since 1860 has remained just the same as the Gas delegates 
 declared it to be in their 1859 report when they had re- 
 peatedly tried to bring about a compromise with them. 
 " On behalf of the Gas Companies, every effort has been 
 made to exact an exorbitant maximum, and to paralyze the 
 future efforts of consumers in dealing with this necessity of 
 life, and every endeavour, honourably to terminate this 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 681 
 
 strife, has been met by a series of attempted exactions 
 deeply to be regretted." But it would be preferable to pay 
 the shareholders of these Companies a premium even upon 
 the present prices of their shares to continuing the existing 
 system. The difference between the rate at which a central 
 authority could borrow money, and the rate of interest paid 
 upon the present price, would soon cause a great saving to 
 the public. Unless enforced by Act of ParHament, such 
 sales could not be effected. In 1868, as we have seen, the 
 Companies succeeded in nullifying the clauses empowering 
 the City to purchase the Gas Companies by the provision 
 that, if one were purchased aU the rest must be purchased — 
 and, presumably, at their own price. A price, equivalent to 
 twenty-five 'per cent, on their market value, was offered for the 
 shares of the " Great Central " and refused. Such a method 
 of purchase is unjustifiable except in a last resort. 
 
 3. By purchasing the plant at a valuation. By 50 
 Geo. III., c 163, s. 32, the first London Gas Act, it was 
 provided that commissioners or trustees of districts might 
 purchase the pipes within their respective districts, at prices 
 to be settled by arbitration. This useful clause was re- 
 pealed by the 4 Geo. TY., c. 19, s. 36, and the Gas Com- 
 panies have succeeded in preventing its re-enactment in 
 London. The principle indicated is, however, as we think, 
 the true one, and should be held conclusive in questions of 
 Gas and Water supply, and that is, that the control of 
 thoroughfares by local authorities ought to extend below the 
 surface. We say that it ought not to be possible for any 
 trading Company to destroy the symmetry and obstruct the 
 traffic of public thoroughfares at will. Londoners have not 
 yet forgotten the making of Southwark Street — a work of 
 more than Roman excellence — and how, directly it was com- 
 pleted, a Gas Company came, and ignoring the subway 
 specially constructed for it, began to tear up the street 
 
682 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 from end to end. If this miscliief was charged, as no 
 doubt it was, to costs of maintenance, payable in addition 
 to 10 per cent, dividend, then the poor London consumer 
 was taxed to make the street, and then taxed to destroy it ! ! 
 Nothing could better illustrate his anomalous position. 
 The London Gas Companies opposed the Bill for the utili- 
 zation of subways introduced in 1864, drawing such a 
 ghastly picture of the danger of explosion as frightened the 
 Committee of the House out of their common sense. They 
 said that the method of joining pipes in use in London was 
 less perfect than in many other towns, and the leakage 
 was so great that subways would be dangerous ! That is 
 to say, the Gas Companies opposed an excellent measure, 
 and actually quoted as the most powerful reason against 
 it, their own culpable neglect in using ineffective pipe 
 joints. The system in vogue elsewhere would, however, 
 have so much lessened their expenditure in pipe laying, 
 that they might have been still further troubled with 
 surplus profit, a commodity of which, at this time, they had 
 a surfeit, being diligently engaged in paying not merely a 
 dividend of 10 per cent., but making up the last six years' 
 back dividends to that amount ! 
 
 The precedent laid down in the first Gas Act may be, 
 perhaps, regarded as worn out by this time, so we will 
 supplement our case here by excellent authority for the 
 purchase of plant and works at an appraised value. In 
 1872, as we have seen, the " Gas Light and Coke Com- 
 pany " applied for power to raise another million of capital. 
 Before the Committee of the House of Commons, Mr. Evans, 
 the engineer of that Company, and ex-Gas Referee of the 
 Board of Trade, gave evidence, and admitted that the 
 position of the Company was better than it had ever been 
 before, but he claimed for the Company the privilege to 
 earn 10 per cent, upon this new capital, upon the ground 
 
SUPREME COUNCII, : GAS SUPPLY. 
 
 that the Company had submitted itself to the provisions of 
 Mr. Cardwell's Committee in 1868. Very little credit was 
 due to this argument, as the Committee, in that year, had 
 determined, in default of such submission, to grant the 
 Corporation power to compete, a result of which they were 
 seriously afraid. But it seems to have weighed with the 
 Committee of 1872, and the concession was made. It had, 
 in the course of the argument, been objected by the Metro- 
 politan Board, that the concession of a power to earn 10 
 per cent, would be contrary to the precedent set in the case 
 of the " Imperial ;" would be giving a great bonus to the 
 shareholders, and would complicate matters, if ever the 
 Metropohs should wish to purchase the interests of the 
 Companies. It was in his reply to this argument, and 
 upon the whole case, that Serjeant Sargood, the counsel of 
 the " Gas Light and Coke Company " laid down the very 
 principle which, as we think, is the true one in purchase. 
 Replying on the whole case, March 13th, 1872, he said 
 " Mr. Philbrick spoke of the future purchase of the Com- 
 pany's undertaking being embarrassed, if their dividends 
 were only limited to 10 per cent. It would seem from what 
 he said that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not 
 enough to do, that they had not enough irons in the fire 
 already, but must be contemplating in the future the pur- 
 chase of the Gasworks of the MetropoHa. But even 
 supposing it were so, and Parliament would ever give them 
 the power to purchase, he did not think it would much 
 affect their position. If they ivished to become Gas makers, 
 they would have to pay a fair price only for the existing works, 
 and therefore this was not an ingredient to be introduced 
 into a question of this description." 
 
 So we say that the best and fairest system of purchase, 
 having regard to the circumstances of the Companies, is a 
 "fair price only for the existing works." None of the 
 
684 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Companies have hitherto challenged Serjeant Sargood's 
 reasoning urged on behalf of the "Gas Light and Coke 
 Company," at a time when it was greatly to their interest 
 to appear fair and reasonable in their pretensions. It is 
 of course not unlikely that these words may be officially 
 disclaimed if any attempt be made to adopt them. 
 
 It may be a question whether any measure passed 
 through ParHament in future ought not to contain provisions 
 whereby the principle of giving to the Corporate authority 
 power to purchase the pipes and plant imder the streets at 
 a fair valuation should be endorsed. As to the larger 
 measure of purchasing the places of manufacture it is a 
 different question, and not controlled by the same prin- 
 ciple, inasmuch as when the authorities are once in possession 
 of the pipes they may put the supply to tender, and if they 
 dislike the prices tendered, estabHsh manufactories for 
 themselves. 
 
 4. It is in this latter contingency that London would 
 be justified in establishing independent sources of supply. 
 The right to compel Gas Companies to sell their works is 
 not clear, and independent supply would only be attempted 
 in case they declined a fair price for them. But it is very 
 probable that the Companies would denounce in the 
 strongest terms the donation of power to a local authority to 
 purchase the pipes in any street, and if it should happen, 
 as it has happened before, that the Companies fighting 
 with the Consumers' money prove too strong for the Con- 
 sumer whose interests may be only half represented in such 
 a contingency, it is difficult to see how any House of 
 Commons legislating in a fair spirit to Londoners, and 
 having before it a mass of precedent, and of ascertained 
 rights, such as have been set out in the chapter on the 
 history of Gas Supply, it is difficult to see how they can 
 deny to existing local authorities in London now, or to any 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 686 
 
 central authority in the future, the right to supply themselves 
 with Gas. It is not easy to conceive a position of greater 
 injustice than that occupied by a London local authority 
 compelled to obtain Gas to light its public lamps from a 
 given private manufacturer, and compelled to pay nearly 
 twice as much as they could themselves manufacture it for, 
 in order that the private Company may declare an abnormal 
 dividend on a watered and unrectified capital. All 
 other contracts may be put up to tender save the one 
 where it is so important ; and, strangest injustice of all, the 
 local authority is absolutely denied by Parliament the right 
 to manufacture this article for itself. When the proposition 
 to manufacture, made by the City, was before the Com- 
 mittee of the House, we were told that it was unfair to 
 allow the Corporation to manufacture Gas, and bring the 
 Companies into competition with a body using ratepayers* 
 money. We confess we quite fail to see why these Com- 
 panies should be absolved in London from the common 
 incidents of their existence. If a better lighting material 
 than Gas were discovered, can anybody for a moment pre- 
 tend either that the inventors should not be allowed to light 
 our streets, or that, in case of their doing so, the existing 
 Companies could have a right of compensation ? It is true 
 that if the Companies carried their opposition to extremes 
 there would be an immense trouble in relaying streets with 
 pipes. But that trouble would have two compensations : 
 first, that it was being done finally ; and second, that the 
 pipes would be made on the best principle, and not open to 
 the complaints made of the present ones. There is Kttle 
 doubt that we could manufacture for 25. 6 J., the same 
 quahty of Gas as that suppHed by the various London Com- 
 panies. It is no part of our province to enter here into the 
 calculations which demonstrate this. The concession of 
 powers to purchase collieries, which would be unsafe in the 
 
686 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 hands of a Company, would be granted to the Supreme 
 Council, and London would receive benefits in every way. 
 Residual products would fetch a higher and an uniform 
 price : the quality of the gas would be higher, its price less, 
 and its supply more regular.''^ 
 
 No body is now in existence to whom it would be 
 justifiable or even safe to entrust this question. The 
 Metropolitan Board have had an ambition to get it, but 
 their conduct in the question has been already detailed. 
 The scandals in connection with their dealings with the Gas 
 Companies need not be added to those enumerated in other 
 matters. It would, however, be interesting to know how 
 far the members of the Board are themselves personally 
 interested in the Companies. It is not necessary that the 
 question should be put in any obnoxious form, or that they 
 should be required to say how many were given or how 
 many were bought, but as a body spending public money, it 
 would have been useful to know whether, when they recently 
 proposed to vote an expenditure of millions upon gas pur- 
 chase, they had any ulterior or personal objects in view. 
 Surely, large Gas Shareholders are not people who can 
 fairly vote upon the question of purchase in the name of 
 Londoners-! 
 
 Immediately upon the constitution of the Supreme 
 
 * At present it is the custom of the Companies to lessen the pressure 
 soon after midnight, on the theory that as public houses are then shut up 
 the same pressure is not required. It amounts to something very like a 
 fraud upon public bodies, burning gas otherwise than on the meter 
 system. 
 
 f An eminent member of the Board dying in 1875, left behind him 
 for sale by public auction, inter alia, the lollowiiig shares and stocks, viz. — 
 i£9,030 10s. stock. Commercial Gas Company; 2!)4 shares, Gas Light and 
 Coke Companj ; 81 shares. Crystal Palace District Gas Company; X'700 
 stock. East London Waterworks Company ; i;500 capital stock and four 
 X'lO shares, Kent Waterworks Company ; 27 shares, Katcliff Gas Company ; 
 372 shares, Lambeth Waterworks Company ; £250 lirst prelereuce 6 per 
 cent, stock, London Gas Light Company; 103 shares, Surrey Commercial 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY. 687 
 
 Council, a Gas Committee would be appointed. To this 
 Committee would be entrusted the consideration of the ques- 
 tion of Gas purchase, and probably the Supreme Council 
 would soon become the manufacturers on behalf of the 
 public of this matter of supreme necessity. 
 
 GaB Company : 40 shares, Independent Gas Company, <frc., &c. Nil mortuis 
 nisi bonum. Probably they were fair investments; shares bought for 
 hard cash, but the holder of such shares ought not to vote in questions 
 affecting the Companies. 
 
688 
 
 Chapter XXI. 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Method of dealing with Metropolitan Board of Works ; 
 with Vestries ; tvith Water Companies ; with the Cor- 
 poration of Westminster ; with Police Force ; with 
 School Board; luith Thames Conservancy Board and 
 Lee Conservancy Board; with Boards of Cruardians, 
 Metropolitan Asylums Board, and Poor Relief System ; 
 with County Jurisdictions within the Metropolis; with 
 the Tower of London, ^c, Sj-c. 
 
 The absorption of the Metropolitan Board of Works 
 would be attended with even less dif&culty than would 
 be experienced in the case of the City. That body exists 
 as a central controlling authority, dealing with a con- 
 siderable number of questions which aifects London as a 
 whole. Its jurisdiction and — subject to certain limitations 
 — its establishments, would be transferred to the Central 
 Council in their entirety. 
 
 The main drainage jurisdiction of the MetropoHtan 
 Board would be undertaken by the Drainage Committee of 
 the Supreme Council. 
 
 The Embankments — present and future — would be under 
 the immediate direction of the Public Property Committee. 
 
 Street improvements would be under the control of the 
 Public Works Committees. Parks and open spaces, under 
 the Pubhc Property Committee. 
 
 The protection of life from fire, and control of the Fire 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : METROPOLITAN BOARD, 
 
 689 
 
 Brigade, would be transferred to the Fire Brigade Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 The control exercised by the Board, under the Building 
 Act, and that over street construction would be transferred 
 to the Public Works Committee. 
 
 Infant life protection, noxious trades, storage of 
 petroleum, and of explosive substances, cattle disease, 
 and slaughter-houses, would be under the general control of 
 the Public Health Committee. 
 
 Tramway control and construction would be within the 
 province of the Public Works Committee. This Committee 
 would also deal with control of Road Locomotives. 
 
 The gas and water testing would, when these mat- 
 ters of public necessity were supplied by the Municipality 
 itself, necessarily take place at the particular depots of 
 supply. All matters in connection with either would be 
 under the direction of the Gas and Water Committees 
 respectively. 
 
 After the Supreme Council had in any case decided to 
 put the Artizans' Dwellings Act in force, the carrying out 
 of the resolution would fall within the province of the 
 Public Works Committee. 
 
 All the buildings, parks, and pubHc property now vested 
 in the Board, would be transferred to the Supreme Council. 
 
 It would also be necessary for the Supreme Council to 
 assume the £11,179,639 loan Hability of the Board, and to 
 adopt and carry out all pending contracts. 
 
 The method in which the various subjects now under 
 the control of the Board may be best dealt with by the 
 Supreme Council is hereafter considered. The loan powers 
 of the Board will be found to resolve themselves into a very 
 simple form, when a single body undertakes the borrowing 
 and the spending in relation to all the subjects to which 
 those loan powers extend. 
 
690 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 With the absorption and transfer of the powers, 
 property, and jurisdiction of the Board, this body would, 
 after the date of the constitution of the Supreme Council, 
 simply cease to exist. Created avowedly for a temporary 
 purpose, it has succeeded in extending its dominion in all 
 directions, simply because of the absolute necessity of a 
 central power, and perhaps when it is dead and gone men 
 may come to think of it in its better Ught, and applying the 
 City test of judgment by the fruits, think kindly of a body 
 that has left its mark on the face of the Metropolis, and 
 that has executed works which will be strong and durable 
 when centuries have passed over a renovated London. 
 
 The effect upon London Vestries of the establishment of 
 a Central Municipal Body may be readily surmised from 
 what has been already written. As independent, irrespon- 
 sible, executive, elected bodies, they would cease to exist, and 
 although for the purposes of municipal election it would 
 be found most useful to divide the Metropolis into districts, 
 approximating in number and position to those at present 
 existing as separate governments, yet this division would be 
 purely for the purpose of convenience, and, with the exception 
 of the dependent and minor jurisdiction of the Divisional 
 Education and Poor Committees, no Local Council would 
 replace those with which London has for twenty years been 
 familiar. 
 
 Each question mider Yestry control has been considered, 
 and the merits of the system of directing it from a central 
 body or by a Local Council discussed. The ventilation of 
 this has pointed so strongly to the superiority of central 
 administration and direction, that it wiU be sufficient here 
 to indicate in what manner each would faU into a central 
 system, reserving the question of method of control and 
 direction to the time when the functions and work of the 
 Supreme Council are under review. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : METROPOLITAN BOARD, 691 
 
 The Drainage Committee of the Supreme Council would 
 undertake the question of Local Sewerage. 
 
 The paving, watering, cleansing and lighting of streets, 
 would be under the control of the Public Works Committee. 
 The control of hoardings and footpaths and crossings would 
 be under the same Committee ; the gas lamps under the Gas 
 Committee. 
 
 The inspection of underground dwellings, the removal 
 of dust, the inspection of nuisances, of slaughter-houses, 
 cow-sheds, piggeries, &c., and of courts, bake-houses, lodging- 
 houses, noxious trades, workshops, &c., the adulteration of 
 food, the provision of mortuaries, baths and wash-houses, 
 disinfecting chambers and carriages for infected persons, &c., 
 would be in the hands of the PubHc Health Department. 
 
 The Education Department would undertake the ques- 
 tion of Public Libraries. 
 
 The appointment and work of Medical Officers of districts 
 will be considered in their place, and a method of action 
 proposed which shall put an end to the irregularity now 
 existing, both as regards the performance of the work, and 
 the power of obtaining really needful work executed. These 
 officers also would be in the department of the Pubhc Health 
 Committee. 
 
 Probably the control exercised by some Vestries over 
 gardens in squares may be usefully given to the inhabitants 
 of the squares themselves, and where interference has taken 
 place with the ecclesiastical functions of parishes by these 
 secular bodies, the parishes would probably be relegated to 
 their former rights. But where possible it ought to be 
 stipulated that in the case of gardens in squares, such 
 gardens should be open to the public. 
 
 Provision would be made for the assumption by the 
 Supreme Coxmcil of the £1,560,942 due by these bodies 
 upon loans and for the adoption of existing contracts. 
 
692 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 Upon the election of the Supreme Council the London 
 Vestries would cease to exist, and the property held by 
 Vestries in public halls and other ways would be trans- 
 ferred to the Council, and probably the places where the 
 Vestries now meet would be utilized "as meeting-places 
 for the Divisional Education and Poor Relief Committees, 
 and as the head-quarters of the Municipality in the given 
 division. 
 
 The supply of Water is essentially a municipal function. 
 Not merely is it an article of absolute necessity, but it is 
 an article upon the regular and sufficient supply of which 
 depends, perhaps, in a greater degree than upon anything 
 else, the health and the comfort of those who dwell in 
 towns. Cleanliness is impossible without water, whether 
 it be regarded as it alffects roads, buildings, or persons. 
 Sobriety is promoted by abundance of water of pure 
 quality. Health is imperilled by its absence, and still 
 more by a tainted supply. The ravages of cholera in Lon- 
 don have been distinctly traced to a tainted supply, both in 
 1866, as we noted in a former chapter, and also in 1849.''^ 
 
 It would seem, then, having regard to its enormous con- 
 sumption by the authorities of a town, and its absolute 
 necessity to the inhabitants, that under no circumstances 
 ought its supply to be left, as it is in London, entirely under 
 private control, and made a matter of private profit. It is 
 the interest of every one that the supply of water should be 
 equal to every requirement ; should be absolutely pure in 
 quality, and should be charged only the simple cost of dis- 
 tribution. 
 
 The London water supply, as has been fully pointed out 
 in a previous chapter, is entirely controlled by private Com- 
 panies, who charge rates to the consumer sufficiently high 
 to enable them to divide a satisfactory profit to their share- 
 * See Report of Registrar-Geueral for this year. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : WATER SUPPLY. 693 
 
 holders. Taken as a whole, it cannot be said that the 
 London Water Companies have deserved ill of their 
 customers, but their very existence as private organizations, 
 for the supply of an article of prime necessity, is a defect in 
 metropolitan arrangements. When an aggregation dt 
 people delegates to private Companies the supply of its^\, 
 water, it puts in the hands of such Companies the health 
 and well-being of the people ; and this truth has been fully 
 recognised in many English towns, now supplying them- 
 selves through their corporate agencies. 
 
 In 1850 a proposal was made for the formation of an 
 Elective Committee to buy out the different Water Companies 
 and to consoKdate the whole, but it was not carried out. 
 The Royal Commission of 1869 reported in favour of con- 
 soHdating the water supply of London in the hands of some 
 public body,* and this has been constantly recommended. 
 Sir William Clay says, " There is no doubt, I think, that 
 the water supply should be, whenever practicable, vested in 
 the hands, not of individuals, but of some authorities, muni- 
 cipal or other, acting on behalf of the public." 
 
 The rates paid for water might be readily collected 
 along with other rates, and, certainly, the procurement from 
 the cheapest source, of water, for cleansing roads, is as much 
 within municipal cognizance as the roads themselves. 
 The saving, in many ways, that would result, we cannot now 
 accurately estimate. An eminent statistician, basing his 
 estimate upon a wide experience upon Commissions, came to 
 the conclusion some years ago that fully £100,000 per 
 annum might be saved to the ratepayers by consoHdation of 
 the offices.f It is clear that one efficient engineer could, 
 without difficulty, superintend the whole of the works of an 
 
 * Keport, p. 122. 
 
 t Economic Eesults of Different Principles of Administration and - 
 Legislation in Europe. Edwin Chadwick, C.B., London, Harrison, 1859. 
 Journal of Statistical Society, 1859, p. 387. 
 
 2x 
 
694 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 united metropolitan supply. The same staff of of&cials would do 
 the work, now distributed amongst several ; the cost of rate 
 collection would be taken away altogether if it were included 
 in the ordinary rates. Such rates would have the advan- 
 tage of being intelligible and uniform, and based upon the 
 simple cost of distribution, without any profit being payable 
 to the distributing authority. Moreover, the ratepayer 
 would then be able to exercise a control over expenditure, 
 which he is perfectly helpless to interfere with in any shape 
 at present. He would also be able, directly, to exert his 
 influence on a corporate body in order to obtain perfectly 
 pure water, good in kind and ample in quantity. 
 
 Whenever the supply of water is delegated to a public 
 representative body, there will at once be established a 
 system of constant supply. More than 30 years ago Notting- 
 ham, Preston, Glasgow, and Newcastle in Great Britain, 
 and Philadelphia and New York in the United States of 
 America, adopted this system, and many towns have since 
 followed in their wake. In some of these towns it has been 
 proved to demonstration that the substitution of a constant 
 for an intermittent supply has been productive of actual 
 saving in the amount of water used or wasted. Where the 
 supply is always at hand, there is, no doubt, much less 
 waste in the hoarding of it up ; but whether this is the 
 reason of the diflerence, it is not easy to say. It is, however, 
 clear that such a saving has taken place in the experience 
 of other towns, and may be fairly expected here. In the 
 year 1860 a committee of the Westminster Board of Works 
 reported upon the question of constant supply. Before pre- 
 senting their report they obtained data as to its actual 
 working from 25 towns, and the unanimity of the opinion 
 borne in its favour by those who had tried it, was most 
 remarkable. There is thus ample experience available 
 whenever a constant supply shall be conceded to London. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : WATER SUPPLY. 695 
 
 At present most of the houses in London have it turned on 
 for an hour or two every day, and are compelled to store 
 such stock as they may require. The effect of this in the 
 poorer districts, where the receptacles for storage are fre- 
 quently of the most unsatisfactory character, is very delete- 
 rious to the public health. The arguments advanced by some 
 Companies against a constant supply are well known, and 
 would appear more weighty if they had not been so 
 remarkably dispelled by the experience of other towns. It 
 cannot be pretended that Londoners are less careful or less 
 trustworthy than provincials, and therefore the same results 
 may be anticipated here that have accrued elsewhere. If 
 the actual result has been found to be that in many cases 
 less water has been required under the constant system, we 
 cannot give much heed to the fear of the Companies that 
 present appliances would be found totally inadequate for the 
 new requu'ements. There is, no doubt, more force in the 
 objection as to the difficulty of forcing water to the highest 
 levels when drawing is going on at lower levels ; but that 
 difficulty is merely mechanical, and may be adjusted by a 
 new arrangement of pipes. 
 
 In case of fire the advantage is patent, as many fires 
 would never obtain headway if water at full pressure were 
 immediately to be obtained. 
 
 Mr. Edwin Chadwick — no mean authority — thus esti- 
 mates the difference in cost between the existing system and 
 one that might be established. " If the whole field of the 
 Metropolis were clear of Water Companies, and were put up 
 for competition upon this question, ' at what rate per house 
 will you undertake to provide a supply of pure, soft, fresh, and 
 well aerated spring water for each house ? ' The answer on 
 
 ascertained data might be * We will do it 
 
 and keep the distributing apparatus in good order for little 
 more than 2d. per week, one house with another, and for 
 
696 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 that sum we will maintain a constant supply at high pressure, 
 night as well as day, and afford the means of reducing, cer- 
 tainly more than one-half, the destruction of life and property 
 by fire."* 
 
 It is needful, in order to the carrying out of a system of 
 constant supply, that stringent conditions should be enforced 
 as to waste, and as to appliances for user. We have 
 already dealt with the remarkable proceedings of the 
 Metropolitan Board ; but we note this necessity here for the 
 purpose of an argument in favour of the consoHdation of the 
 supply, and the transfer of it to some public body. When 
 an article of absolute necessity to the public health is to be 
 supplied, it ought to be supplied at its minimum cost, and 
 not be taxed with a profit to the distributing agency. And 
 still less is it desirable that regulations interfering with 
 domestic privacy and convenience should be under the 
 direction of private and irresponsible bodies. The resent- 
 ment which naturally arises upon the exercise of inquisi- 
 torial powers by a private Company would be non-existent 
 when wielded by a public representative body. 
 
 The incidental advantages of consolidation in the saving 
 of ofiice and controlling expenses are capable of estimate ; 
 but who can estimate the enormous boon to a poor district 
 of an unrestricted and pure supply of water? Who can 
 estimate the hundreds of lives saved yearly, and the thou- 
 sands made happier by such a concession ? 
 
 And whenever a central organization comes into 
 existence, and assumes the public duty of supply and distribu- 
 tion, Londoners will wonder how they could have remained 
 apathetic so long. One centre of management will displace 
 eight, and one system supersede the varying and sometimes 
 dissonant ones that now exist. PubKc inspectors will 
 test the quality of the public supply, and whenever the 
 * " Journal of Statistical Society," quoted supra. 
 
SUPREME COUi!<CIL : WATER SUPPLY. 697 
 
 source of such supply is deemed unsatisfactory, an organiza- 
 tion able to grapple with the whole question will take it in 
 hand with a prospect of satisfactory result. The public who 
 control the supply of fountains and the watering of streets 
 will then control the material employed, and greatly to the 
 advantage of the Municipal Exchequer. 
 
 It would be possible to levy two water rates, as is now 
 done in Manchester : a pubhc rate for that used for public 
 purposes, and a dweUing-house rate for the water consumed 
 for domestic purposes. Possibly too the difficulty of supply 
 might be met by two sets of pipes, one supplying water for 
 the streets and ordinary domestic uses, and a different quaht}' 
 for drinking purposes. As to the methods of purchase we 
 have already indicated these in dealing with the question of 
 gas. But there is a great difference between the two. The 
 capitals of the Water Companies were thorouglily over- 
 hauled in 1852, and tbe harassing absurdity of a ten per 
 cent, statutory dividend has no place here. Probably but 
 little trouble would be experienced in ascertaining their 
 proper capitals, in case the system of purchase was based 
 upon capital, and there is no prospect of serious difficulty in 
 coming to a fair settlement as to the terms of purchase 
 ■whenever we have a body to whom we should care to 
 entrust the task of purchase. 
 
 A Bill introduced by Colonel Beresford, Sir Charles 
 Russell, and Mr. Forsyth, during the session of 1874, pro- 
 vided for the purchase of the Water Companies by pajonent 
 of annuities, equal in amount to the average of the dividends 
 paid during the five years previous. We have already shown, 
 when deaHng with Gas, how fallacious this principle is, and 
 the same reasoning will apply here. 
 
 A question as to the effect of the new assessments upon 
 the water rate has recently given lise to considerable dis- 
 cussion. It seems that the Companies increase theii' price 
 
698 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 with the increase of assessment, irrespective of the con- 
 sumption. But, as they decrease the charge simultaneously 
 with the decrease of assessment, the system works both ways, 
 although as assessments are mostly rising, its general effect 
 is of course beneficial to the companies. Probably some 
 effort at legislation with respect to this may be made in the 
 Session of 1876. 
 
 A remedy for overcharge would of course be found in 
 the employment of a meter, but the establishment of a 
 general meter system would be an unfortunate thing for 
 London, The more water is consumed in the cleansing of 
 houses, and in bath-rooms, gardens, and so forth, the better 
 is it for the public health and sanitary condition. 
 
 If it were asked what was the best step to be taken 
 for our present advantage in the matter of the water 
 supply, we should find it not easy to answer. ConsoHdation, 
 unification, and constant supply are our great wants; but 
 to what public representative body could the supply be 
 confided with any prospect of our interests being duly re- 
 garded? Certainly, not to the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works ; a body created for a different, and almost tempo- 
 rary purpose, and who, both upon this, and the Gas 
 question, have shown themselves unable to rise to the level 
 of any patriotic action in Metropolitan interests. E-e- 
 preeenting no one but themselves the pubhc prefer the Com- 
 panies. The Corporation of the City can advance no fair 
 claim to legislate and direct such a question for the whole Me- 
 tropolis, so long as it denies common citizenship to those who 
 live outside its boundaries. The Bill of Colonel Beresford, 
 provided for the incorporation of a Metropolitan Water 
 Commission, with a Common Seal, and so forth, and with 
 power to serve notices on the Companies that, after a 
 certain date, their property would be taken over. No doubt, 
 the appointment of such a Commission is one solution of 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : CORPORATION OF WESTMINSTER. 699 
 
 the difficulty, and they could control the supply until such 
 time as a metropolitan corporation should be ready to take 
 it over. But the proposition does not merit strong 
 advocacy. 
 
 There is a wide difference between gas and water supply 
 in London, and whilst, in the case of one, the loss to the 
 public by delay is enormous, it is not nearly so much so in 
 the other, and, although manifest improvements are wanted 
 on every hand, we are content to wait and digest the filtered 
 Ecourings of the whole Thames Basin as best we may, until 
 such day as the Fates give us a Corporation worthy of our 
 confidence and worthy of the name. 
 
 When the £500 a year, paid by the Treasury to the 
 " Corporation of Westminster" is withdrawn, and the ex- 
 amination of weights and measures within the " City " is 
 under the control of Inspectors appointed by the Supreme 
 Council, the " Corporation " itself will probably pass away. 
 Its functions, such as they are, ought to be formally taken 
 away, and the statutes under which it exists, repealed. 
 The vested interests of its officers mU receive due consider- 
 ation. It is an organization that has excited no ill-^vall, 
 and has humbly and honestly performed its work, without 
 treading on the toes of its more powerful neighbours. It 
 will, probably, have more true mourners than some of them, 
 but no argument can be advanced which would justify its 
 retention, when such retention must tend to mar the 
 uniformity of a new Municipal system. 
 
 Speaking upon the Municipal Corporation Act, Lord 
 John Russell asserted that the watching of a town " ought 
 to be completely under the control of the Council, as re- 
 sponsible for the government of- the town." This seems to 
 be the true principle, but with respect to the PoHce Force 
 of the Capital, grave apprehensions have been felt, or at 
 any rate professed to have been felt, that a measure which 
 
700 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 would entrust so large a force to the rulers of the Capital, 
 might be fraught with serious danger to the State ! This 
 doctrine has found newspaper editors ready to open their 
 columns to its discussion, and the danger of coercion being 
 used towards members of Parliament has been regarded as 
 one of the strongest arguments against the measure. Ex- 
 cellent reasons have hitherto existed for the Police Force of 
 the Metropolis remaining in the hands of the Government, 
 for no body was in existence to which such control could be 
 entrusted. With the creation of the new MunicipaHty this 
 difficulty will be removed, and no one who knows much of 
 Londoners personally, can doubt that they are quite as fit 
 as other English constituencies to be trusted with the 
 direction of their own police. 
 
 The City system would be absorbed into the whole, and 
 the property in buildings and materiel of the Force would be 
 transferred to the Supreme Council. There could be no 
 objection to giving the Goverimient a veto power upon the 
 nomination of Chief Commissioner. The immediate direc- 
 tion of the Force would be in the hands of the Public Justice, 
 Police, Prisons, and Licensing Committee. 
 
 In case of such transfer of the police force to the Muni- 
 cipal Body, a question of some nicety would arise as to the 
 control of the police in the extra-metropolitan district now 
 under police supervision. Whether under any circumstances 
 these districts could be represented in the PoHce and Prisons 
 Committee, or whether with respect to such disti'icts the 
 Government control should remain, would be one of the 
 most important of the questions which would engage the 
 attention of the Supreme Council. 
 
 The London School Board with its offices, staff, and 
 organization, would be adopted into the new system with 
 very little modification. Probably several of the present 
 members of the Board would become candidates at the first 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : LONDON SCHOOL BOARD. 701 
 
 Supreme Council election, and as a passport to success 
 would announce themselves as candidates in the educational 
 interest. Thus, it would fall out that the first Supreme 
 Council Education Committee would contain several of the 
 present members of the School Board, and probably the 
 alteration fi'om the old system to the new would be produc- 
 tive of Httle sensible change. 
 
 The Education Committee of the Supreme Council would 
 perform practically the work now performed by the School 
 Board, except as to selection of sites and construction of 
 buildings. The Committee would report upon the educa- 
 tional wants of a given district, recommending the construc- 
 tion of a school of a certain capacit}' in the district. The 
 selection of the site and the actual construction of- the 
 building would be undertaken by departments under the 
 direction of the Public Works Committee. 
 
 The Council would have to assume the debt of the 
 Board £1,340,422, and carry out the pending contracts at 
 the time of transfer. 
 
 The Thames Conservancy Board would continue to exist 
 and carry on its present work. The only immediate change 
 would be in the constitution of the Board. Seven members 
 of the Public Property Committee would replace the 
 seven members of the Cit}^ Corporation who now sit at the 
 Board. 
 
 At the Lee Conservancy Board the single member from 
 the (]ity and the member representing the MetropoHtan 
 Board, would in like manner be replaced by two members 
 of the Pubhc Works Committee of the Supreme Council. 
 
 The liability of these two Boards has been incurred in 
 large measure for purposes extra-metropoHtan, and the 
 method in which such liability shall be dealt with, and the 
 proportion (if any) to be assumed by the Supreme Council, 
 would be one of the earliest subjects to engage the atteu- 
 
702 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 tion of the Public Works Committee. The conclusions of 
 such Committee would then he reported to the Supreme 
 Council, and if any step were taken towards such appropria- 
 tion or by way of altering the constitution of the Boards, it 
 would necessarily be brought before the House of Commons, 
 and the Thames Conservancy Act and the Lee (conservancy 
 Act could only be amended after full public discussion. 
 
 The constituting Act of the Municipal Corporation would 
 contain provisions for the transfer to the Supreme Council 
 of the "Workhouses, Dispensaries, Infirmaries, Union and 
 District Schools, Land, Buildings, and property generally 
 now held and administered by the various Boards of 
 Guardians. 
 
 The performance of the various duties now devolving 
 upon the Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis would be 
 undertaken by the Poor Relief Committee, aided by the 
 Selected District Committees. The expenditure upon the 
 whole work of Poor Relief would be under the control of 
 this Committee, with, of course, the Supreme Council as 
 the final authority sanctioning such expenditure. 
 
 The debts of the various Unions would be undertaken by 
 the Supreme Council, and arrangements would be made for 
 the completion of pending contracts and the continuance of 
 existing systems until their merits were considered. 
 
 The control exercised by the Local Government Board 
 would also, in the first instance, be continued ; and that 
 most efficient branch of the public service would probably 
 be willing to aid, as far as lay in its power, the efibrts of the 
 Supreme Council and its Poor Relief Committee to establish 
 uniformity and system throughout the Metropolis in all 
 matters of Poor Law administration. 
 
 The policy of the Local Government Board has been so 
 generally excellent that it is not unlikely that a power of 
 vetoing the orders of the Supreme Council might be use- 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : POOR RELIEF. 
 
 703 
 
 fully continued, and would be exercised wH^thout producing 
 much friction. If this were so, the system of Metropolitan 
 Poor Relief might soon be the model of its kind. The 
 extent and nature of the ultimate Local Government Board 
 control would be fit matter for subsequent discussion and 
 settlement. 
 
 The Metropolitan Asylums Board would fall into the 
 new arrangement with great facility. The Poor Relief 
 Committee would take the Asylums under their charge, 
 and would lay down general directions for their management. 
 
 The Local Registrars would be appointed by the Supreme 
 Council instead of by the Boards of Guardians at present, 
 and whilst the superiors would remain nominees of the Local 
 Government Board, it would probably be found convenient 
 to arrange the work on the basis of the Electoral Divisions, 
 and the whole system and work would come at an early date 
 under the consideration of the Supreme Council. 
 
 The Poor Rehef Committee would also undertake the 
 control of such of the County Asylums as in the partition 
 were appropriated by the Metropolis. 
 
 The Metropolis being a county of itself, would not 
 require, nor would it be useful for it to have, any separate 
 authority apart from the Supreme Council, to which should 
 be confided the direction of Lunatic Asylums, Industrial 
 Schools, and Prisons. The latter would pass into the hands 
 of the Public Justice, Pohce, Prisons, and Licensing Com- 
 mittee ; and if prisoners from districts outside the Metro- 
 polis were lodged in Metropolitan prisons to await trial or 
 sufler sentence, the counties from which they came would of 
 necessity contribute the cost of their maintenance. 
 
 The same payment of cost would be made in case of 
 lunatics received into Metropolitan Asylums. 
 
 The Bill of 1875 contained elaborate provisions for the 
 division of county property, and the ascertainment of the 
 
704 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 relative rights of the Metropolis, and the severed parts of the 
 several counties. Similar provisions would be introduced 
 into the Constituting Act, so that London might be a com- 
 plete organization within itself, not sharing its jurisdiction 
 with surrounding areas. 
 
 "When this end was attained, the necessity for separate 
 Lunatic Asylum Rates or County Rates would be removed, 
 and the expenditure would be defrayed out of the ordinary 
 income of the Municipality. 
 
 All the bridges within the Metropolis, would pass into the 
 hands of the Public Works Committee ; the Inspectors of 
 Weights and Measures would be appointed as other inspectors 
 by the Supreme Council. Coroners would be paid out of 
 the corporate funds, and probably nominated instead of 
 being elected as at present. The Lord Mayor might be 
 Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the county, and 
 as to Deputy Lieutenant, if the office should be still regarded 
 as an useful one, the nomination might rest with the 
 Crown 
 
 With the work of the County of London divided amongst 
 the Committees of the Municipality; with the judges of 
 Quarter Sessions appointed as such, and the magistracy of 
 Aldermen gone ; with stipendiary magistrates, exercising 
 jurisdiction over the whole area, there would be no longer 
 any necessity or use for a Commission of the Peace. 
 
 The Supreme Council would, as in other cases, adopt the 
 proportionate Hability, and continue the contracts of the 
 ceded authorities. 
 
 The Tower of London, as a Royal Fortress, would not be 
 brought within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Council. It 
 would remain as at present, self-governed, but its jurisdic- 
 tion must, in all matters, be limited to the area inclosed by 
 the moat. 
 
 The money owing by Burial Boards in the MetropoHs 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : BURIAL BOARDS. 706 
 
 has been in most cases borrowed upon the security of the 
 poor rate, and the moneys expended in purchase of ground, 
 &c., has been expended from the same source. Subject 
 therefore to any special equities existing in particular cases, 
 and which might be settled by the Commission, there seems 
 no reason why the property, rights, and liabilities of these 
 Boards should not be transferred intact to the Supreme 
 Council. 
 
 The management of the public cemeteries would be in 
 the hands of the Public Property Committee. 
 
 The Constituting Act would not deal in any way with 
 the boundaries of the electoral districts in London. These 
 districts are in great need of revision, but such revision 
 would be a matter for the Imperial Legislature rather than 
 the Supreme Council. 
 
 Neither does it seem that any clause attempting to deal 
 with the various charities of London which ought to come 
 under Municipal control, or which might fairly be used in 
 the lessening of the public rate, could be usefully introduced 
 into the Constituting Act. The whole question would be 
 considered by the Supreme Council, and if it was found 
 that they had not within their reach adequate means of 
 knowledge as to the extent and nature of these charities, 
 they would probably move Parliament for the appointment 
 of a Royal Commission, and would promote a measure upon 
 its report. 
 
706 
 
 Chapter XXII. 
 
 WORK OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 Greneral Regulations of the Council. — Appointment of Per- 
 manent Staff. — Delegation of Powers to Committees. — ' 
 The Municipal Work of London, and the Method of its 
 Performance considered with respect to the various 
 Committees of the Supreme Council. 
 
 The Supreme Council being elected and constituted, it 
 becomes needful to consider in what way the work of the 
 Metropolis, and the responsibility for its performance may 
 be best divided amongst its members, and amongst a per- 
 manent staff of paid officials. Certain definite leading 
 principles seem to present themselves as appHcable to the 
 Metropolis, and such as may be safely laid down for guidance 
 in working out this problem. These are : — 
 
 1. That each district shall have a direct representation 
 upon certain leading questions of Municipal government. 
 Such representation would be not merely confined to the 
 Council itself, but in the Committees of forty, nominated as 
 hereafter set out, it is desirable that one member should be 
 nominated from each electoral district. In matters of Poor 
 Relief and Pubhc Education, this is especially necessary, as 
 local interests will be best secured by a member from the 
 district who has devoted special attention to the specific 
 subject. 
 
 2. That the amount of work to be done by each member 
 shall be such as can be undertaken by men engaged in 
 business. This provision is needful, as it will enable the 
 Municipality to receive the practical assistance of the com- 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 
 
 707 
 
 mercial classes. This end will be attained by such a 
 division of work amongst Committees, and Supreme Council 
 Meetings, as is hereafter suggested. 
 
 3. That there should be an efficient permanent staff 
 attached to every branch of Municipal work, and that the 
 system of direct personal responsibility be adopted, so that 
 the hability for any negligence may be immediately fixed. 
 It will be found that a very large proportion of Municipal 
 work can be satisfactorily performed by a permanent staff. 
 And where this is the case it is infinitely better, firom every 
 point of view, to confide its performance to such permanent 
 staff, than to leave it to the intermittent, and, often, un- 
 scientific control of volunteers. Over every department of 
 Municipal work ought to be placed a highly paid, and thoroughly 
 competent official. The Chief Engineer of London, with a 
 a salary of £2,500 a year, ought to undertake — and with a 
 competent staff of subordinates would undertake — the entire 
 responsibility of underground London, drains, main sewers, 
 gas and water pipes, &c. The Architect and Survey or-in- 
 Chief, with the same salary, would be responsible for the 
 streets and buildings. The Chief Poor Law Officer would 
 be responsible for the management of the entire system of 
 poor rehef. The Chief of the Works Bureau would direct 
 the executive work, and control the supply department. 
 The Chamberlain or Treasurer would assume responsibihty 
 for the receipts and payments of the Municipahty. Each of 
 these chiefs would receive efficient aid from an adequate and 
 well-trained body of assistants, and would be appointed 
 " quamdiu se bene gesserint." London requires — and must 
 liave — the best available men, and she must make it worth 
 the while of the best men in every department to enter her 
 service. If a capable and responsible head is thus placed 
 over every department, the subdivision of the work amongst 
 subordinate officers, and the division of responsibility 
 
708 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 amongst them can be as readily arranged for the work of 
 the whole Municipality as they are for the work of large 
 commercial firms. 
 
 4. That the immediate superintendence of different 
 branches of Municipal work shall be entrusted to Com- 
 mittees. The constitution and functions of these Committees 
 will require careful consideration.''^ They ought not to be 
 entrusted with any spending power, but ought simply to 
 exercise directory power over particular branches of work. 
 The Committees of the Metropolitan Board of Works are 
 as much undermanned and overworked as those of the 
 Corporation of the City are underworked and overmanned. 
 With a competent permanent staff it is possible in a Council 
 of 240 members to avoid both these evils. 
 
 5. That the Committees report at regular intervals to 
 the Supreme Council. In the case of nearly all of the 
 Committees such reports may be presented monthly, and 
 ought to be printed. These reports will contam all the 
 recommendations of the Committee upon the questions 
 within their province, and will embody the report of the 
 chief officer of the particular department of the permanent 
 staff that is under its cognizance. The report will be 
 received at the next meeting of the Supreme Council, and if 
 adopted, measures will be at once taken for the purpose of 
 carrying out its suggestions. Where these involve the 
 execution of any work, the Chief Precept Clerk of the 
 Supreme Council will make out precepts to the executive 
 department in accordance with the suggestions, and where 
 they involve the granting of supplies or the pajTnent of 
 money, receipts will be made out for such supplies and for 
 
 * Bj^ " constitution " is here meant legal constitution, not the appoint- 
 ment of members. There will, it is to be hoped, be no danger of " packed 
 Committees." As to examples of packed Committees on Metropolitan 
 Board, Vide evidence of Major Lyon. — Covimittee on Metropolitan Local 
 Taxation, 1861, Q. 2557, et $eq. 
 
StJPREME COtlNCtL : GENERAI. PRINCIPLES. 709 
 
 the payment of such money. A future report of the Com- 
 mittee will certify the execution of the work or the pa5Tnent 
 of the money, as the case may be. 
 
 6. That each Committee make bye-laws for the depart- 
 ment over which it has control, and that when such bye-laws 
 have received the sanction of the Supreme Council, it shall 
 be responsible for their enforcement. Each Committee 
 would also have authority to appoint Sub-Committees to 
 facilitate the performance of its work. 
 
 7. That the Lord Mayor be the Chairman of the 
 Supreme Council, and ex-officio Chairman of all the Com- 
 mittees, and that in addition to this there be appointed a 
 permanent Chairman of Committees with a deputy. 
 
 The late Sir John Thwaites, a man of remarkable energy 
 and force of character, held the opinion that it would be 
 within the power of a single man to act as Chairman of 
 every Committee that would be appointed for the carrjdng out 
 of the Municipal work of London. And certainly, if he had 
 the occasional assistance of a Deputy, it seems possible so to 
 arrange the times of meeting and the work of the fourteen 
 important Chief Committees, proposed to be estabhshed in 
 connection with the Municipality, as to permit of one man 
 undertaking the chairmanship of them all. It would be 
 needful to have a man of great ability and grasp of mind, and 
 one who should devote his whole time to the purpose. The 
 salary attached to the oflB.ce, ought to be at least £2,500 a 
 year, and the Deputy Chairman might receive £1,500 a 
 year. The benefit of thus having competent men, who 
 were thoroughly au courant with the work, to preside over 
 the deliberations of each Committee, cannot be overestimated, 
 and its advantages will be readily appreciated by those who 
 have been accustomed to the vagaries of some casuaUy- 
 appointed Chairmen, who are, as a rule, helplessly dependent 
 on the clerk. 
 
 2t 
 
710 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 8. That where the functions of Committees overlap 
 each other, there should be conferences held quarterly, or at 
 shorter intervals, for the discussion of business. Thus the 
 "Water Supply Committee would confer - with the PubHc 
 Works Committee as to the method in which water pipes 
 should be laid down a new street, or as to the time when an 
 old street might be taken up for the purpose of relaying 
 pipes. Before coming to such conference, the Water Supply 
 Committee would have received its report from the Chief 
 Engineer as to the matter, and the Public Works Committee 
 from the Architect and Surveyor-in-Chief. The same 
 system appHes in many other cases. Its advantages are 
 obvious. In the particular instance given for example, care 
 should be taken that all operations affecting the same street — 
 pipe-laying and road-making — should be done at the same 
 time. 
 
 9. That the meetings of the Supreme Council be so 
 arranged that most of the Committees might report once a 
 month. Probably the Supreme Council would meet weekly ; 
 and, with fourteen Committees as proposed, three might 
 report each week, leaving the Special Purposes to report 
 when necessary, whilst the report of the Audit Committee 
 would be generally purely formal. Every Committee would 
 report immediately any matter of urgency. One of the 
 earliest works of the Supreme Council would be the enact- 
 ment of Standing Orders and Bye-Laws for its own guidance. 
 The appointment of Committees would also probably precede 
 other business. 
 
 10. That, when practicable, the divisions of the work 
 of the permanent staff shall coincide with the electoral 
 divisions of the MetropoUs. There are few of the branches 
 of Municipal work that will require as many as forty 
 divisions ; but where a fewer number are required, several 
 districts may be united. It would, however, seem likely 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : DRAINAGE COMMITTEE. 711 
 
 that an exception may be made to this in matters of water 
 supply and drainage where the divisions might usefully be 
 made according to surface levels. Each electoral district 
 ought to have a local Municipal office. This, however, 
 would be mainly for the convenience of the citizens. It 
 would constitute the centre where the selected District Poor 
 and Education Committees would meet, and the place where 
 the inhabitants of the district might obtain information or 
 send any complaints, as for example in the case of the 
 non-removal of dust. These would be at once forwarded to 
 the responsible authority. Every inhabitant would receive 
 with his tax papers a notice setting forth the place where 
 complaints should be made, and where information might be 
 obtained. 
 
 Practically, these principles cover the main ground of the 
 work of the Supreme Council. It remains to consider the 
 work of the Council and its Committees more in detail. 
 And, first, as to the — 
 
 Drainage Committee. 
 
 The work of this Committee will include the superin- 
 tendence and general control of the Main Drainage and 
 Local Sewerage system of the Metropolis. 
 
 As to Main Drainage, it is probable that the method of 
 management now adopted by the Metropolitan Board, the 
 works, and to a large extent, the stafi", would be in the 
 first instance, adopted by the Supreme Council, and after- 
 wards put imder the direction of this Committee. 
 
 Local sewerage works would be vested in the Supreme 
 Council, and the necessity of reference from the Yestry 
 Surveyor to the Metropolitan Board will be taken away, 
 when the whole is under one united and uniform system. 
 The Constituting Act will contain provisions on the lines of 
 sections 68-80 of "The Local Management Act, 1855," 
 
712 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 save that much of the work there entrusted to Yestries and 
 District Boards will be performed by the permanent staff. 
 
 The carrying out and perfection of the system of London 
 drainage is very largely the work of a permanent staff. 
 Yestry Surveyors, with little knowledge of engineering, and 
 no appropriate ti'aining, have produced nearly as much 
 disorder and diversity underground as they have on the 
 surface. Barrel drains, oval drains, brick drains, drains 
 that are level, and drains that undulate like the sea, are to 
 be found all over London, in cases where the conditions are 
 the same. Nay, they may be found in the same street, and, 
 unless we are mistaken. Regent Street and Oxford Street 
 could each furnish samples of all of them. One parish 
 considers that a given drain ought to be four feet in 
 diameter, whilst a neighbouring parish carries it forward 
 with a diameter of two feet. When the sewerage of 
 London is taken in hand by a permanent staff, these 
 monstrous anomalies may be expected to disappear. 
 
 The work of sewer making is the work of engineers, 
 and not of surveyors, and therefore the local and main 
 drainage system will be under the direction of the Chief 
 Engineer and his staff. 
 
 Plans are already in existence showing every drain in 
 the Metropolis. These will be deposited in the office of the 
 Chief Engineer, and so the work of renovation and systema- 
 tization can go on all over London under the same direction. 
 Certain rules will be laid down as to the nature of drain 
 requii'ed in given places, and these rules will be embodied 
 in the printed monthly report of the Drainage Committee 
 to the Supreme Council, and upon the acceptance of such 
 report by the Council, they will become the law of the 
 Metropohs. In the same manner the suggestions as to 
 construction of new sewers will be embodied in the Chief 
 Engineer's report to the Drainage Committee, and included 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : DRAINAGE COMMITTEE. 713 
 
 in the report of the latter to the Supreme Council. Imme- 
 diately upon the ratification of the report of the Drainage 
 Committee hy the Supreme Council, the Council would 
 issue precepts to the Works Bureau for the execution of 
 the work. 
 
 The principle of quarterly consultation between Depart- 
 ments and Committees whose functions overlap, would be 
 illustrated here in the matter of renovation of drains. The 
 Drainage Committee and the Public Works Committee 
 would agree with respect to the date at which a street 
 might be disturbed before either would be able to move in 
 the matter. The Engineers' Department would, in case 
 they wished to renew the sewerage of any street, consult 
 with the Architect and Surveyor's Department as to the 
 time when such street would be up for repairs, so that the 
 two renovations might be simultaneously made, and needless 
 interruptions of traf&c be prevented. The report of the 
 Chief Engineer to the Drainage Committee and of the 
 Architect and Survevor-iu-Chief to the Works Committee 
 would guide those Committees in their judgment as to the 
 time for renewal of the sewerage and for repair of the street. 
 So with respect to the flushing of the sewers. This would 
 have to be done after consultation with the Water Supply 
 Committee. 
 
 The Chief Engineer and his deputies would have the 
 entire " sewerage of London under their control. With a 
 properly planned system gradually approaching perfection, 
 it is estimated that five deputy engineers would be sufficient 
 for the direction of the whole of the underground work of 
 London. The areas controlled by each of such deputies 
 would probably be dependent upon the levels of the surface, 
 and might be arranged by the Chief Engineer. 
 
 The salary of the Chief Engineer ought not to be less — 
 if a man of the proper capacity is to be obtained — than 
 
714 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 £2,500 a-year. The salaries of tlie deputies would probably 
 range from £500 to £1,200. There would be the necessary 
 complement of draughtsmen, clerks, and assistants in the 
 Chief Engineer's office. 
 
 Arrangements would be made whereby every householder 
 in London should be supplied at least once a year, along with 
 his tax papers, with a printed notice of the place and person 
 to which complaints as to defective sewerage should be sent. 
 If the Deputy Engineers had each separate offices in their 
 districts, they would be visited by the Chief Engineer once 
 a week. They would also report to him in writing once a 
 month, and he would report to the Drainage Committee at 
 a similar interval. The Chief Engineer and the Deputy 
 Engineers would be appointed by the Supreme Council. 
 
 Although with respect to much of its work, the Drainage 
 Committee will do little more than register the conclusions 
 of the Permanent Staff, yet the latter will always be under- 
 stood to be the subordinate body. 
 
 In addition to sewer construction and repair, there will 
 be other questions that will properly come under the 
 cognizance of the Committee. The results upon Thames 
 navigation of the outfall deposits at Barking Creek is a 
 matter requiring most careful consideration. So also the 
 problem as to how best to utilize and make profitable, the 
 300,000,000 tons of sewage, which the capital city pours 
 into its river. The utilization of this sewage has been more 
 than once before the Metropolitan Board, but hitherto the 
 opinion of the Board's Engineer has been permitted to prevail 
 against that of the first chemists in Europe, and nothing 
 has been done.* 
 
 A Committee of twenty members will be sufficient for the 
 work of superintending London Drainage, and there is no 
 
 * See Letter of Baron Liebig to Thomas Ellis, 22 Juue 1863. Ward, 
 Brothers, Bartholomew Close. 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : WATER SUPPLY COMMITTEE. 715 
 
 need for the members to be chosen on account of the 
 localities they represent. 
 
 The Committee would report to the Supreme Council 
 monthly, and would have power to appoint Sub-Committees, 
 convene special meetings, and make special reports as 
 occasion might arise. 
 
 Water Supply Committee. 
 
 The acquirement of the Water Supply of the Metropolis 
 has been already the subject of considerable discussion in 
 these pages. Upon the completion of the purchase, the 
 works and plant of the present Companies would vest in the 
 Supreme Council, and the Water Supply Committee would 
 take the place of the present Directors of the various 
 Companies. 
 
 The first work of the Committee would be to reduce all 
 the existing separate systems into one uniform whole. In 
 this work they would require the assistance of the Engineers' 
 Department, so that the arrangements for supplying water 
 to difi'erent levels should be made as far as possible to 
 coincide with a constant supply. The Committee would 
 direct the provision of proper conveniences for a constant 
 supply, and probably it would be desirable to consult with 
 the Head Officer of the Fire Brigade, as to the supply of 
 water in case of fire. 
 
 The Committee would fix the rate to be charged for the 
 water suppHed to houses, and if such rate were proportionate 
 to the rental, it would (after being included in the Com- 
 mittee's report to the Supreme Council and there confirmed), 
 be passed on to the Taxation, Assessment, and Finance 
 Committee for collection. 
 
 The Water Supply Committee would receive reports 
 from the Chief Engineer monthly as to the condition of the 
 
716 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 pipes, and of cases where they required relaying : and as in 
 the case of drainage, consultation with the Architect and 
 Surveyor-in- Chief and with the Works Committee would be 
 requisite before any street was disturbed ,for the purpose. 
 It is probable that, when streets were renovated, subways 
 would be constructed, and the pipes conveying gas and water 
 would both be put into it and the street made complete for 
 many years. 
 
 The whole question of sources, quahty and quantity of 
 supply would come under the direction of this Committee, 
 and would require most careful consideration. Probably it 
 would be desirable to appoint a Chemist for the purpose of 
 testing the quahty of the supply at various places and under 
 various conditions. 
 
 The number of this Committee would be twenty-five, 
 meeting at regular periods. It would report monthly to the 
 Supreme Council (matters of emergency excepted), and as 
 in the case of drainage, whenever any work was recom- 
 mended in the printed report to the Supreme Council and 
 such report was adopted, the Council would issue precepts 
 to the Works Bureau, and the Committee would in a sub- 
 sequent report certify the work upon completion. 
 
 Gas Supply Committee. 
 
 In a previous chapter the various methods of acquiring 
 the right of gas supply for the Supreme Council have been 
 discussed at length. If the Council is constituted whilst the 
 private trading companies are still in existence, the method 
 of acquirement will be probably finally settled by the Council 
 itself. Londoners will be content to leave to that body 
 the solution of the question which has taxed and bored 
 Parliaments and Parliamentary Committees for nigh twenty 
 years past 
 
SUPKEME COUKCIL : GAS SUPPLY COMMITTEE. 717 
 
 And Parliament itself would experience an enormous 
 relief when a representative Council possessing and deserving 
 the confidence of the whole Metropolis took charge of the 
 Gas Question. No such Council could permit the continuance 
 of the nuisance of the Companies' gas-pipe system for a 
 single year. No such Council would allow its streets to be 
 torn up by any private body whatever, under any circum- 
 stances or for any purpose. 
 
 It is therefore Kkely — indeed certain — that in some form 
 or other the Supreme Council will assume a gas control 
 during the first year of its existence. The Gas Supply 
 Committee will therefore be appointed to perform, with 
 respect to the gas supply, the same character of functions 
 as those of the Water Committee in respect to the water 
 supply. The strength of the Committee will depend upon 
 the extent to which existing works are taken over, but if 
 the whole supply were in the hands of the Council, a 
 Committee of the thirty ought to be able to direct — with 
 the aid of the permanent stafi" — the manufacture. The 
 number would be less if and so long as the distributory 
 powers only were acquired, and not the power of manu- 
 facture. 
 
 In any case, and under any circumstances, the Supreme 
 Council would acquire for itself the pipes under the streets, 
 the gas lamps and standards, and all buildings and gasome- 
 ters within the Metropolitan area. In case the supply 
 was, in the first instance, tendered for by the companies 
 having manufactories at Barking, Kensal Green, and else- 
 where, one of the functions of the Gas Committee would 
 be to fix the price to the consumer, and to measure the 
 quantity burnt. The sum due from each consumer in 
 respect of gas would then be regularly certified to the 
 Taxation and Finance Committee, who would collect it 
 along with the other Corporation rates. Under no circum- 
 
718 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 stances could the personal connection of the Gas Companies 
 with the consumers be allowed- to continue. If the Com- 
 panies existed at all, it would be purely as manufacturing 
 bodies. The Council would contract for the quantity re- 
 quired for public and private consumption at a certain 
 •rate per thousand feet. The distribution of the total cost 
 amongst the consumers, the Municipality for public light- 
 ing, and the Municipality for cost of distribution, would be 
 part of the work of the Gas Supply Committee. 
 
 It is likely that the Council would ultimately become 
 themselves manufacturers. If, however, this were not so in 
 the first instance, the Council would have to make a deduc- 
 tion of some 20 per cent, from the amount of gas passing 
 through the pipes into London, as, owing to the defective 
 pipes in use, somewhere near this proportion seems to be 
 absolutely wasted. When the pipes were renewed and 
 properly joined, the amount of waste ought to be reduced 
 to three or four per cent. 
 
 The various Gas Companies would give their plane of 
 pipes to the Central Council, and whenever the Gas Com- 
 mittee recommended renovation of pipes in a given street, 
 the same previous agreement would be made with the 
 Works Committee, as to the disturbing of the street. 
 Where the complete renovation of a street was needed — its 
 paving, drainage, and gas and water pipes — the Works 
 Bureau would probably direct the work to proceed con- 
 tinuously to completion, by the treble shift system, working 
 without intermission night and day. 
 
 When the Council became manufacturers of Gas they 
 would require the services of a Gas Engineer in-Chief, with 
 an adequate staff, and also of a Chemist. It would be 
 perfectly within the power of the former to direct the manu- 
 facture and supply of gas for the whole of London. He 
 would report to the Gas Committee, both as to the manu- 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : GAS SUPPLY COMMITTEE. 719 
 
 facture, as to the buildings required, and as to the proposed 
 adoption of any new methods of manufacture, as well as 
 upon the whole system of distribution. These reports 
 would be received by the Committee, and— if approved — 
 embodied in its report to the Supreme Council. The report, 
 when adopted, would, on the same system as that already 
 considered, be followed by precepts to the Works Bureau to 
 carry out the constructions therein proposed. 
 
 The Gas Inspectors testing the quahty and pressure of 
 the gas ; the Lamp Inspectors examining the condition of 
 the pubHc lamps ; and the Meter Inspectors examining and 
 testing the meters, and reporting upon the amount of private 
 consumption, would all be under the dii-ection of the Gas 
 Supply Committee. These inspectors would all report 
 monthly (or oftener, if requisite) to the chief of the per- 
 manent staff. Until the Council became manufacturers, this 
 chief would be subordinate to the Chief Engineer of the 
 MunicipaHty, and after the Council became manufacturers, 
 the whole of the distributing work of the Gas Supply, 
 although under the immediate control of the Gas Engineer- 
 in-Chief, ought to receive the formal sanction of the Chief 
 Engineer of the Municipality, upon whose shoulders would 
 rest the whole responsibihty of London, below the surface. 
 
 The Gas Committee would meet fortnightly at first, and 
 report monthly to the Supreme Council, and oftener in 
 matters of exigency. Ultimately, it would be found that the 
 system would almost work of itself; and in the course of 
 years, when the present gas pipes of London had been recast 
 and the manufacture of gas was upon the best principles, the 
 illuminating power would rise, and the sulphurous product 
 would diminish until London became, as she readily might 
 be, the best lighted capital in the world. 
 
720 municipal london. 
 
 Public Justice, Police, Prisons, and Licensing 
 Committee. 
 
 This Cominittee would undertake some of the most 
 important duties in connection with the new Municipality. 
 It ought to consist of at least forty members, so as to 
 allow of the appointment of Sub-Committees with adequate 
 numbers, and also in order that each of the forty electoral 
 districts may have one representative upon it in matters 
 which may have special local importance. 
 
 The control over Public Justice, as such, would be 
 mainly confined to the supervision and consideration of the 
 manner and method in which justice was administered in 
 the Metropolis. Such consideration would be generally in 
 conference with the Law and Parliamentary Committee, and 
 would be in connection with the constitution of the Central 
 Criminal Court, the PoHce, and Sessional Courts of minor 
 jurisdiction. Upon the report of the conjoint Committees 
 the Supreme Council would debate any proposed alteration, 
 and, if approved, direct the Law and Parliamentary Com- 
 mittee to draft a Bill for introduction into Parliament. 
 
 The control over the Police exercised by the Supreme 
 Council ought undoubtedly, in accordance with the doctrine 
 of Lord John Russell already quoted, to be in the hands of 
 the body responsible for the peace of the town. It is quite 
 true (as the excellent writer in the "Westminster Review" 
 for January 1876 states) that he who controls the guns at 
 "Woolwich will have the town in his hands, and therefore 
 the interposition of any Government authority is not abso- 
 lutely necessary for any purpose. But the Treasury pay a 
 considerable part of the cost of the Police, and it would 
 tend to the strengthening of the hands of the Government, 
 and in no way weaken the just influence of the Supreme 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : PUBLIC JUSTICE AND POLICE. 721 
 
 Council, to allow to the Supreme Executive a certain power. 
 The Chief Commissioner should he elected hy the Supreme 
 Council, hut the Home Secretary ought to have a veto power 
 over the appointment. It is also desirable to go somewhat 
 further, and give the Home Office a power of giving orders 
 in certain cases which should he enforced by the Chief 
 Commissioner. If this were not deemed sufficient control, 
 there seems no reason to apprehend danger from going still 
 further, and giving the Home Secretary veto power upon the 
 general regulations made by the Supreme Council for the 
 management and division of the force. 
 
 The Committee would have under its direction, all the 
 ordinary work of police arrangements and control, without, 
 however, lessening the powers now possessed by the Chief 
 Commissioner. They would in their report to the Supreme 
 Council, state the estimated requirements of the Police 
 Force for everything connected with it — horses, carriages, 
 forage, fuel, clothing, medicine, pay of men, and equipment 
 generally, for the ensuing month. The Chief Commissioner 
 would report to the Committee monthly as to these and other 
 matters. The report of the Committee to the Supreme 
 Council would embody the Chief Commissioner's report so 
 far as approved, and immediately upon the adoption of the 
 Committee's report by the Supreme Council, precepts would 
 be made out to the Works Bureaus for the supply of the 
 articles required. These would be supplied from the Store 
 Department of the Bureau and delivered as and when 
 required. Precepts upon the Chamberlain would be made 
 out for the money required to pay salaries and wages. 
 
 The Supreme Council would have the appointment of the 
 two Assistant Commissioners in its hands, and also of 
 Inspectors of Weights and Measures. These Inspectors 
 would report to the Committee. The areas of their inspec- 
 
722 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 tion and the method of their work would be settled by the 
 Committee, and ratified upon the acceptance by the Supreme 
 Council of the Committee's report thereupon. 
 
 All other matters in connection with the present jurisdic- 
 tion of the PoHce, would be under the control of this 
 Committee. The jurisdiction over cabs and hackney carriages, 
 over omnibuses, road locomotives, and tramways, over the 
 direction of street traffic, of bridges for crossings, and so 
 forth, would practically be in this Committee, but the 
 bye-laws regulating these matters, would be settled by a 
 joint meeting of this Committee and the Public Works 
 Committee, under whose control the streets are placed. 
 Upon the Supreme Council ratifying the bye-laws made by 
 the Joint Committee, they would be passed on to the Police 
 Committee for enforcement through the Police. The same 
 process of Joint Conference vnth. the Public Health Com- 
 mittee, would be needful to settle the bye-laws guiding the 
 Police in Lodging-house inspection, and the control of the 
 Smoke Nuisance. 
 
 The whole of the prisons of London transferred from the 
 county and from the City Corporation, would be under the 
 control of this Committee. The Supreme Council would 
 appoint the Governors, Medical Officers, and Chaplains of 
 the Prisons, and the Committee would superintend and 
 report upon their management. A General Prison Super- 
 intendent would be appointed by the Supreme Council, to 
 whom all the Governors should report monthly, and who 
 should personally inspect the prisons weekly. The Com- 
 mittee would also have the power of personal inspection. 
 The Prison Superintendent would report to the Committee 
 once a month. This report would include the estimates 
 of the various stores required by the prisons during the 
 year; recommendations as to change of bye-laws, or of 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : PUBLIC JUSTICE AND POLICE. 723 
 
 system of general or particular management; erection or 
 enlargement of prisons, &c. It would also certify the 
 amount of work done by the prisoners, and the estimated 
 amount of raw material required for the ensuing month's 
 work. The same system would then apply of Committee's 
 report and recommendations ; adoption by Supreme Council ; 
 precepts to Works Bureau for supplies and instruction to 
 Works Committee, to receive and certify reception of the 
 finished work of the prisoners, &c.* 
 
 This Committee in full session would form the licensing 
 authority for London. Probably no one would be found to 
 recommend the continuance of a Commission of the Peace 
 in London for this sole purpose, and without derogating 
 from the respect due to Justices of the Peace, it may be 
 safely affirmed that this Committee would command infi- 
 nitely more of public confidence. The House of Commons, in 
 1835, made Town Councils the licensing authority in the 
 Municipal Corporation Act, but the provision was struck 
 out in the Lords, because it was considered that it might 
 be regarded as a sHght upon the Magistrates. This reason 
 was hardly sufficiently strong to have justified the abroga- 
 tion of an excellent clause; but as no Justices of the Peace 
 will exist in Municipal London, even that reason cannot 
 be urged here. 
 
 The licensing will of course not be confined to public 
 houses ; but include music and dancing licenses. The Com- 
 mittee ought to settle and determine certain principles upon 
 which the licensing shall proceed, and these principles 
 ought to receive the sanction of the Supreme Council. 
 The Chief Commissioner of Police would report specially 
 
 * The whole question of employment of prisoners and its method 
 would be debated in this Committee. Probably the Howard Society and 
 its indefatigable Secretary, Mr. William Tallack, would place their 
 stores of information at its semce. 
 
724 MUNICIPAL LONt)ON. 
 
 to the Committee upon matters affecting this branch of 
 their jurisdiction. There might usefully be an appeal to 
 the Supreme Council. 
 
 The number of the PubHc Justice, Police, Prisons, and 
 Licensing Committee is large and, probably, Sub-Committees 
 would be appointed, meeting more or less frequently as the 
 matters under their control might require. The whole Com- 
 mittee would report monthly to the Supreme Council, and 
 in any urgent case — as, for example, one affecting the life of 
 the City — would report specially. 
 
 Public Education Committee. 
 
 The work of the London School Board has been so 
 excellent in its character, and its arrangements for the public 
 education of the Metropolis with some exceptions so com- 
 plete, that this Committee, when appointed, would find its 
 work ready marked out ; and if it contained amongst its 
 members — as in aU probability it would — some of the pre- 
 sent members of that Board, the adaptation of the existing 
 system to the new one would be a work of very slight difficulty. 
 
 The same principles of dependence upon the Supreme 
 Council, as the final authority, which have been illustrated 
 in other departments of Municipal work, would also obtain 
 here. The Committee would arrive at certain conclusions 
 with respect to the educational wants of the Metropolis, or 
 of some part of it — as to the desirability of erecting schools 
 in a given district ; as to the fairness of a certain scale of 
 school fees ; as to the principles which ought to guide the 
 teaching in Board schools ; and generally as to the action to 
 be taken upon the reports of Visitors, &c., but these con- 
 clusions must be embodied in a monthly report to the 
 Supreme Council, and would come back to the Committee 
 for enforcement after receiving its sanction. In the same 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL ; PUBLIC EDUCATION. 725 
 
 manner, where such report recommended the purchase of 
 sites or erection of schools, the Supreme Council would 
 issue their precepts to the Public Property Committee to 
 purchase such sites, or to the "Works Bureau to erect such 
 schools. The report would, probably, recommend the 
 appointment of certain teachers, and these appointments 
 would require the ratification of the Supreme Council. The 
 estimates for stores and for wages and salaries would, in Hke 
 manner, come up month by month, and precepts for the 
 supply of the same be made out to the Works Bureau 
 and the Chamberlain, respectively. 
 
 The Committee would consist of forty members, one 
 from each electoral district in London. This is especially 
 requisite in this matter of education, in order that every 
 local interest may receive representation. 
 
 The system of Selected District Committees to whom is 
 confided certain jurisdiction with respect to the enforcement 
 of bye-laws ; the control of Visitors ; the appKcations for 
 remission of fees ; and the general question of local school 
 attendance is now, as has been noted, in full and efficient 
 ■working order. The arrangement ought to be continued 
 under the new system. These Selected District Committees 
 would report to the Public Education Committee. 
 
 The Public Education Committee would, however, have 
 a more extended jurisdiction than that of the London School 
 Board. The whole question of the provision of PubHc 
 Libraries, in accordance Avith the terms of the PubHc 
 Libraries' Act, would be within the province of this Com- 
 mittee, and they would report with respect to the erection 
 and furnishing of such buildings for the public benefit. The 
 property in the Guildhall Library passes to the Supreme 
 Council, and its control would be in the hands of this 
 Committee. 
 
 The Union and District Schools described in the chapter 
 
 2 z 
 
726 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 on Poor Relief, would pass under the control of this Com- 
 mittee, and be harmonized with the general system. So 
 also with the Industrial Schools now controlled by county 
 authorities. 
 
 The City of London School and the Freemen's Orphan 
 School would also probably be brought within the area of 
 their jurisdiction, and possibly also the City Ward Schools. 
 
 The report of the Commission on the City Companies 
 would probably open a very wide field of work for this 
 Committee, and also help to fill the public coffers. In 
 January, 1876, the Common Council of the City of London 
 have agreed to a proposition made by the Charity Commis- 
 sioners, that the Gresham Committee should confer with 
 them as to the settlement of a scheme for the utilization of 
 that trust. Whether, therefore, this may come under the 
 control of the Education Committee largely depends on the 
 issue of such projected conference. 
 
 The Charter House School and many other Charity 
 Schools would soon after the constitution of the Council, be 
 brought within the grasp of a powerful system, directed on 
 intelligent principles. 
 
 Poor Relief Committee. 
 
 This Committee would have the control, subject to the 
 Supreme Council (and, as to part, possibly also to the Local 
 Government Board), of every kind of eleemosynary aid given 
 in the Municipality. 
 
 The control and management of Workhouses, Dispen- 
 saries, and Infirmaries would be the work naturally assigned 
 to it ; but it would also include the control of the Lunatic 
 Asylums made over from the counties, and the Asylums for 
 Infirm Poor from the MetropoHtan Asylums Board, The 
 Public Hospitals of the Metropolis are, perhaps, its greatest 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : POOR RELIEF, 727 
 
 pride. Where these are for contagious disease, and now 
 under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, they 
 would be transferred as a matter of course. Where, however, 
 they are subject to no pubUc control except that of the 
 Corporation of London, the conditions are somewhat different. 
 Yet, even as to these and others supported by charitable 
 contributions, it cannot be doubted but that they would pass 
 into the hands of,* and their support be undertaken, by the 
 Supreme Council. This would be a matter of time and give 
 rise to animated debate at the Council Board ; but the more 
 the matter was discussed the more absolutely unassailable 
 would prove to be the underlying principle that all public 
 elemosynary aid given to the poor of a city ought to be 
 given on defined principles, and through the agency of its 
 rulers. 
 
 In the chapter upon Poor Relief it has been pointed out 
 in how many ways great positive gain will accrue to the 
 Metropolis from the centralization and unification of its final 
 Poor Law authority. As to supplies of every kind for 
 "Workhouse, Asylum, Infirmary, Hospital, or Dispensary, 
 the system of monthly estimates included in the report of 
 Committee to the Central Council and then authorized by 
 precepts upon the Works Bureau, would be adopted. The 
 enormous gain of this system would be most apparent in 
 this matter of Poor Relief To have a single purchasing 
 authority and supplies only granted upon certificates signed 
 by responsible officers, is an end for which the best men 
 connected with Poor Relief have long sighed and hoped in 
 vain. The stories of vile butter, of putrid meat, of rotten 
 tea, of sanded sugar, would cease to nauseate our population 
 and disgrace our age ; the still worse scandals in the mal- 
 versation of supphes, so well exposed by Mr, Dexter,* 
 would disappear also. The advantage of a single supplying 
 * Pamphlet on Government of London, quoted ante. 
 
728 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 authority, under responsible control, is so undoubted that it 
 cannot be long delayed. 
 
 Over the whole system of Poor Relief must be placed a 
 single responsible and weU-paid officer. He would be known 
 as the Chief Poor Law Officer, and the best man for the 
 post would deserve a salary of £1,500 a year. He would 
 have, at least, three assistants, and every Asylum,'Workhouse, 
 Infirmaiy, Hospital, and Dispensary, ought to be visited by 
 the Chief Officer once a month, and by one of the assistants 
 every week. The assistants would report to the Chief 
 Officer, and the Chief Officer to the Committee every 
 month. 
 
 The classification of the poor in separate workhouses ; 
 the establishment of casual wards; the principle and 
 character of the labour test; the extent and nature of 
 gratuitous medical relief ; the general principles of out-door 
 relief and of in-door reHef ; the method of dealing with the 
 houseless poor ; the classification of lunatics, insane, and 
 infirm poor ; the treatment of the sick poor and of poor 
 suSering from contagious disease, with arrangements for 
 their conveyance to hospitals ; public vaccination ; the 
 utilization of existing charities and charitable foundations, 
 are the subjects which would occupy the reports of the 
 Chief Officer and the deliberations of the Committee. 
 
 To harmonize and systematize the arrangements which 
 exist, would be the work of many months, and this Com- 
 mittee ought to hold weekly session until some of these 
 questions are settled. The Local Government Board having 
 under its direction the whole Poor Law system of the country, 
 ought to be allowed a veto upon the enactments of the 
 Supreme Council, whenever they could have other than a 
 local application. There is small danger of the jurisdictions 
 clashing, having regard to the general action of this most 
 intelligent public department, lu case, however, of serious 
 
StJPREME COUNCIL : PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE. 729 
 
 disagreement, the Supreme Council would be compelled to 
 
 seek a Parliamentary remedy. 
 
 The appointment of Medical Officers, of Masters of 
 
 Workhouses, and Infirmaries, and of Governors of Hospitals, 
 
 as well as of the Chief Officer and his assistants, would be 
 
 in the Supreme Council. 
 
 The system of Selected District Committees entrusted 
 
 with jurisdiction in the granting of out-door relief and 
 in-door relief, and the admissibility of applicants for such 
 relief, would be admitted here. Such Committees would be 
 nommated by the Supreme Council, upon the recommenda- 
 tion of the Poor Eelief Committee, and the limits of their 
 jurisdiction and the principles guiding their action, would be 
 most strictly defined. 
 
 Every Electoral District in London ought to be repre- 
 sented on the Poor Relief Committee. It would, therefore, 
 number Forty Members. Probably, Sub- Committees would 
 be appointed to devote special attention to the various 
 branches of poor relief. 
 
 Public Works Committee. 
 
 The Public Works Committee will be one of the most 
 important in the whole Municipal System. It will have the 
 immediate control of the great permanent stafi* of the 
 Metropolis. 
 
 The Chief Engineer of the Municipality, although report- 
 ing to other Committees upon various questions affecting 
 their separate jurisdictions, will be primarily responsible to 
 this one; and the constitution and perfection of the 
 Engineering Staff of the Metropolis, will be under the 
 especial care of the Public Works Committee. 
 
 The Architect and Surveyor-in-Chief, with the same 
 salary of £2,500 a year, and with ten assistants at salaries 
 
730 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 ranging from £500 to £1,200 a year, and the whole 
 attendant staff, will likewise be under the immediate control 
 of this Committee. 
 
 The superintendence of the Works Bureau will, however, 
 probably tax the energy and attention of the Committee to 
 the utmost, until it is reduced into system and order. This 
 department — " Bureau " is the most comprehensive appHc- 
 able term — will be divided into several departments. It 
 will have, as its general object, the supply of all the stores 
 used in any Municipal work in London, and the performance 
 of nearly all the actual mechanical work connected with the 
 Municipality. 
 
 First, as to stores. The Public "Works Committee, by 
 itself or by its Sub-Committee (subject here and always to 
 the ratification of its acts monthly by the Supreme Council), 
 would invite tenders and decide upon the acceptance or 
 otherwise of such tenders. Every article used in Municipal 
 work — the food, clothes, and furniture required by the whole 
 Poor Law system ; the clothes and equipment of the Police 
 Force ; the pipes required for gas and water supply ; the 
 books, desks, and furniture required for schools and libraries ; 
 the stone, bricks, flags, timber, granite cubing, broken 
 granite, pitch, gravel, &c., required in the making of streets 
 and the erection of buildings ; the steam rollers, water carts, 
 fire engines, fire escapes, engines, pumps, lamps, lamp posts, 
 chemicals, gas meters, &c., for other departments of Munici- 
 pal work : all these would be put up by advertisement for 
 public tenders, and those accepted woidd be pubHshed 
 in the printed monthly report of the Public Works Com- 
 mittee to the Supreme Council. Of course it would be open 
 to any dissatisfied tenderer to bring his complaint by petition 
 or through the agency of his representative before the 
 Supreme Council. The date of inviting tenders and the 
 extent of the stores asked for would be dependent upon the 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE. 731 
 
 judgment of the Chief of the Store Department, who would 
 report to the Chief of the Works Bureau. The Chief of the 
 Works Bureau ought to have a salary of £1,500 a year. 
 It would he his duty to ascertain the condition of the stores 
 and to include in his monthly report recommendations to 
 invite tenders for certain things. This system would soon 
 work into excellent form, and the quantity of any article 
 required could soon be calculated with great nicety. The 
 Chief of the Store Department would report in writing to 
 the Chief of the Works Bureau at least twice a month. 
 Such report would be upon a printed form, and would set 
 out the stock in hand of every article and the estimated 
 requirements during some fixed ensuing period. Where the 
 article was one not usefully kept in stock — as, for example, 
 horses for the pohce — they would be bought as required 
 upon receipt of the precept. 
 
 Unless in case of urgent necessity (and then only on the 
 written order of the Chief of the Works Bureau) nothing 
 would be permitted to leave the Store Department except 
 upon the precept of the Supreme Council. Such precept 
 would set forth the amount and kind of the article required, 
 and the place and time of delivery. It would be signed by 
 the Chief Officer of the Department to which it related and 
 countersigned by the Chief Precept Clerk of the Supreme 
 Council. It is not needful here to say anything as to 
 the enormous saving to the pubHc service attendant upon the 
 adoption of a new system, nor is it desirable to be deterred 
 from its adoption by the opposition of those interested in the 
 present system, notably by those who profit by the transactions 
 of that giant impersonation of an Unjust Steward — the 
 Corporation of the City of London. It will not be necessary 
 for a representative Municipality to strengthen its position 
 by scattering its orders amongst tradesmen all over London 
 iiTespective of charges. 
 
732 MUNICIPAL IXDNDON. 
 
 The Works Department of the Works Bureau, will be 
 the great executive body of the Permanent Municipal Staff. 
 It will only be put in motion by a Supreme Council precept 
 of the kind already considered. Where such precept directs 
 the construction of certain work, say, for example, 100 yards 
 of brick sewer, the bricks and lime will have to be supplied 
 by the Store Department. If the quantities are known at 
 the time the precept is sent, then a precept to the Store 
 Department would come down at the same time. If not, 
 then they would be taken out by the clerks in the office of 
 the Architect and Surveyor-in- Chief, and included in the 
 monthly report to the Committee, and by the Committee to 
 the Council, who would then order the precept. This need 
 occasion no practical delay. The several departments of 
 Municipal Work, will each have a Chief, who will report 
 the requirements of his department to the Chief of the Works 
 Bureau. 
 
 For example, the Drainage division would be under the 
 control of one Chief Ganger, who would have headmen 
 under him responsible for the tools and also for the work 
 of the gangs under their control. So the Pipe Laying 
 division would be under the control of a chief, and so on 
 through all the departments of Municipal work. 
 
 In the erection of buildings the office of the Architect 
 and Surveyor-in-Chief would furnish Clerks of the Works. 
 In road making, the same office would furnish the road 
 Surveyor, who would superintend the making or repair, and 
 a headman or foreman would superintend its carrying out. 
 The making of roads would be conducted on an intelHgible 
 principle. They would be steam rolled when made of 
 macadam, and would in all cases be constructed by men 
 whose attention was confined to the same class of work. 
 Where any interruption to traffic ensued from the repair or 
 construction of a road, such construction or repair would be 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE. 733 
 
 entrusted to three headmen, directing three different gangs, 
 each working eight hours, so that the work would proceed 
 night and day. 
 
 The cleansing of streets would be also a department of 
 the Works Bureau, and the men engaged upon the work 
 would perform it between 12 at night and 8 in the morning. 
 Every street in London ought to be perfectly clean at the 
 latter hour. In case of a fall of snow the Chief of the 
 Works Bureau would direct men to be drafted from other 
 departments to assist. The vile condition of the streets of 
 London during some parts of the winter of 1875-6, has been 
 an utter disgrace to every one connected with them. When 
 the streets are slippery, the Store Department would furnish 
 gravel upon the order of the Chief of the Works Bureau 
 (such order being one of the matters of urgent necessity 
 excepted from the general rule as to precepts). Such gravel 
 would be put down in a single night by the road making 
 division. The street cleansing division would take care that 
 every asphalte street was thoroughly washed every morning, 
 and when every householder knew where to carry his 
 complaint, the division would be kept well up to their work. 
 
 Roads would be constructed or repaired upon the report 
 of an Assistant-Surveyor, of whom there would be ten. The 
 character of the repair or construction would then be 
 ordered by the chief of the ten assistants. The quantity of 
 material would be estimated and the suggestion for repair 
 and the amount of material requisite would be included in 
 the report of the Architect and Surveyor-in-Chief to the 
 Works Committee; would be passed on by them to the 
 Supreme Council; and, on ratification, precepts would be 
 issued for the work to be done and the materials provided. 
 
 Street watering would be reduced to a system, and 
 would also be under a single head. For this purpose it 
 would be needful to have an inteUigent man, and everj- man 
 
734 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 in charge of a van would be required to work on a definite 
 system, under whicli the amount of his work could be 
 readily ascertained. 
 
 The removal of dust is a subject which has rocked more 
 than one London Yestry to its centre, but nowhere in 
 London is it properly done. The American and Scotch 
 system of dust barrels or tubs, and the French system of 
 dust heaps have each something to recommend them. But 
 so long as dust bins continue, the dust ought to be removed 
 from every house once every two weeks. Two-horse vans 
 would probably replace the present clumsy carts. The 
 disposal of the dust would require careful consideration at 
 the hands of the Works Committee. If deposited on 
 wharves it is probable that people might pay to barge it 
 away ; if not, then the Corporation might do it. The days 
 when a London dust-heap could sell for £20,000 appear to 
 have gone, never to return. Dust removal would thus be 
 worked on an intelligible system, including ever}'- house in 
 the MunicipaHty. 
 
 A Department of the Works Bureau would undertake 
 the enforcement of the Building Acts. The Surveyors 
 upon whom these duties would devolve would be much fewer 
 in number than those employed by the Metropolitan Board, 
 and would give their whole time to the work. The con- 
 struction of all public and private buildings, the regulation of 
 frontage, the naming and numbering of streets, and the control 
 of dangerous structures, would be under the direction of this 
 Department. They would report to the Architect and 
 Surveyor -in- Chief. The erection of public buildings would 
 be undertaken by the Works Bureau : the plans and 
 quantities being made out in the Architect's office, the 
 materials being suppHed by the Store Department. 
 
 The Architect and Surveyor-in-Chief would include in 
 his monthly report recommendations as to public traffic. 
 
SUPREME CaUNCIL : PUBLIC PROPERTY COMMITTEE. 735 
 
 The regulation of cabs, omnibuses, road locomotives, and 
 tramways are within this Department. The rules would 
 ultimately be made after conference between the Public 
 "Works Committee and the Public Justice Committee, and 
 would be enforced by the Police. Regulations as to steam- 
 boats would be made after consultation with the Thames 
 Conservancy Board. 
 
 The Works Committee would nominate seven of their 
 number to represent the Municipality at the Thames Con- 
 servancy Board, and two at the Lee Conservancy Board. 
 
 The construction of new bridges over the Thames or 
 over streets would be undertaken by the Works Bureau. 
 
 Recommendations as to the enforcement of the Artizans' 
 Dwellings Act, 1875, would be made by the Architect and 
 Surveyor-in-Chief, endorsed by the Public Works Committee, 
 ratified by the Supreme Council, and carried out by the 
 Works Bureau. 
 
 All buildings required for the various Municipal Depart- 
 ments would be put up by the Works Bureau. 
 
 The Works Committee would have the entire control of 
 the Works Bureau and of the Architect's and Engineer's 
 Departments ; but responsible and well-paid men would be 
 at the head of each Department and Division. Under these 
 circumstances thirty men ought to be an adequate number 
 on this Committee and for Sub-Committees when needed. 
 
 Public Property Committee. 
 
 The whole of the real property vested in the Supreme 
 Council, and not immediately under the direction of any 
 other Committee, would be under the direction and control 
 of the Public Property Committee. 
 
 The care of the pubHc buildings of the Metropolis, the 
 Guildhall, Mansion House, and local and other offices, 
 
736 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 would be part of its work. The consideration of the 
 erection of new buildings, including a Municipal Hall 
 worthy of the capital, would come in the first instance 
 before this Committee. The purchase of lands for sites, 
 and the sale of surplus land, would be transacted under 
 its direction. 
 
 If the City house property were transferred to the 
 Supreme Council, this Committee would have its manage- 
 ment so long as it remained in the ownership of the 
 Municipality. Where, however, the property was not of 
 itself — apart from the income it produced — either of a 
 Municipal character, or of immediate benefit to the Munici- 
 pality, it is probable that the Council would dispose of it, as 
 no good object could be served by making the Municipality 
 the landlord of ordinary house and warehouse property, 
 and the loss to the public revenue from the non-accrual of 
 succession or legacy duty, makes such tenure unjustifiable. 
 There are, however, some classes of property which the 
 Municipality would continue to hold. And foremost amongst 
 these are the Public Markets. The management of the 
 Municipal markets would be under the direction of this 
 Committee. They would also be responsible for recom- 
 mendations to establish new public markets, and in case of 
 the Supreme Council adopting such recommendations, for 
 the selection and purchase of sites. New markets would 
 of course be erected by the Works Bureau. The manage- 
 ment of the markets would include the fixing and collection 
 of market tolls. These would be paid into the Chamberlain's 
 office ; such payment being certified to the Supreme Council 
 in the monthly report of the Committee. 
 
 For the collection of the rents of the property under the 
 control of this Committee, and the market tolls, &c., one 
 permanent officer, reporting monthly, ought to be primarily 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : PUBLIC PROPERTY COMMITTEE. 737 
 
 responsible. This officer might be known as the Chief 
 Renter. 
 
 The Committee would have to consider the question of 
 the erection of artizans' dwellings, upon sites cleared under 
 the provisions of the Act of 1875 ; and, under certain 
 restrictions, the MunicipaHty might undertake the erection 
 of dwellings for its poor. 
 
 To the Public Property Committee would be confided 
 the control of the Parks, Commons, and open spaces 
 of the Metropolis, now controlled by the Metropolitan 
 Board ; and the entire jurisdiction of the Board and of the 
 City Corporation, in these matters, would be transferred to 
 the Supreme Council, together with the Parks and open 
 spaces now under the control of either Body. It is probable 
 that, before many years had elapsed from the constitution of 
 a Municipal Council, the Royal Parks of London would be 
 either handed over to the Council, or would be purchased 
 and finally dedicated to the pubHc as places of recreation 
 for ever. 
 
 The Yestry jurisdiction over Gardens in squares would, 
 probably, be handed back to the owners of the surrounding 
 property, but this ought, where possible, to be done only on 
 condition of their being open to the public ; and the Public 
 Property Committee would have, as one of its aims, the 
 acquirement for the public, of these gardens, to be beautified 
 and kept in order by the MunicipaHty, for the citizens. 
 
 The various burial grounds and cemeteries under the 
 control of Burial Boards, and of the Corporation of the City, 
 would be vested in the Supreme Council, and their direction 
 confided to this Committee. The Committee would also 
 have to consider the propriety of estabhshing new cemeteries, 
 and to select sites for the same. A further and most im- 
 portant question in connection with this class of public 
 
738 MUNICIPAL LOMDON. 
 
 property, would, probably, be raised within no long period 
 after the estabKshment of a Municipality, and that is, 
 whether it is not the duty a well-organized civic government 
 to provide the citizens over whom it rules, not merely with 
 facilities for healthy existence, but also with the benefits of 
 rapid and economical burial. It is not intended, at present, 
 to discuss this question, but, in view of the many evils 
 resulting from the existing system of interment, it is fit 
 that the Capital of the Empire should consider whether 
 this is not a duty owed to its citizens, and this the more 
 certainly as such duty has been recognised and efficiently 
 performed elsewhere.* 
 
 A Chief Ranger ought to be responsible for the order of 
 all Parks, Gardens, and Open Spaces under the direction of 
 this Committee. The Cemeteries might also be usefully 
 put under his control. 
 
 The Chief Renter and Chief Ranger would each report 
 monthly to the Committee, and the Committee would report 
 monthly to the Central Council, with the same provisions 
 for the payment of wages and the grant of supplies, as in 
 
 * Mr. Chadwick, in his excellent essay on " Competition in the Field 
 of Sendee" (Journal of Statistical Society, 1859, p. 389), says that, in 
 Paris and some other cities, " at intervals of terms of years sufficient for 
 the renewal of carriages, establishments, itc, the entire field of service 
 for the interment of the dead is put up to competition for contracts, to 
 render the funeral service at scales of material, decoration, and attendance 
 conformable to the habits and wishes of different classes of society, 
 divided into nine classes, and the range of expense is from 15s. to .i'l-l5." 
 The character of the funeral is said to be twice as good as that supplied 
 here, notwithstanding a tax of 60 per cent, for the support of public 
 worship. " The grandest service of the Roman Church, including bearers 
 of crosses, plumes, eighteen mourning coaches and attendants; the 
 attendance of two vicars, besides the cure and twenty-six priests, six 
 singers and ten chorister boys, two instrumental performers, grand Mass 
 at Church, and 120 lbs. of wax tapers, besides an anniversary service and 
 mourning cloth, is supplied for i'145, more than one-half of which is 
 paid as a tax." The absolute cost of 2h,000 interments in Paris, in- 
 eluding tax, was £'80,000. The estimated cost of 45,000 in London, 
 £'626,000. 
 
SUPKEME COUNCIL : FIRE BRIGADE. 739 
 
 the case of other Committees. Twenty-five members will 
 be an adequate number for the work of this Committee. 
 
 Fire Brigade Committee. 
 
 To this Committee will be entrusted the control of the 
 Fire Brigade, now exercised by the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works. That jurisdiction, including as it does both the 
 extinction of fires and the protection of life from fire, being 
 transferred in its entirety, would leave London in practically 
 the same condition, after the establishment of a Supreme 
 Council, as that in which it exists at present. 
 
 But it cannot be supposed that an intelKgent Municipal 
 Corporation, possessed of plenary power, would rest satisfied 
 with the present condition of things. The great safeguard 
 from fire is a constant supply of water at high pressure in 
 the mains, and one of the first duties of the Council would 
 be to provide this over the whole Metropolis. Neither is it 
 likely that the Municipality would consent to have the cost 
 of the support of the Brigade partly met by small subscrip- 
 tions from the Insurance Offices and from the Treasury. 
 In consideration of a reduced rate of Insurance the first of 
 these would probably be remitted. 
 
 A much more difficult question wiU arise, as to whether 
 those owners of property who are directly benefited by the 
 existence of the Brigade, ought not o be compelled to con- 
 tribute materially towards its support. When the cost of 
 the Fii*e Brigade was defrayed by the Insurance Offices, it 
 was clear that the non-insurers were protected at the expense 
 of the insurers, or to put it more clearly, the provident at 
 the expense of the improvident ; and so long as the contri- 
 butions of the Insurance Companies continue, the practical 
 result is the same. Taking the value of the insurable 
 property within the MetropoHtan area at £1,000,000,000 
 
740 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 sterling, and estimating the cost of the Fire Brigade at 
 £100,000 a year, an insurance rate of 25, per 1,000, or 
 about 2|c?. per cent., would cover its cost. It would, 
 therefore, be a question for the consideration of this Com- 
 mittee and of the Supreme Council, whether those who 
 benefit by this Municipal provision, ought not to contribute 
 towards it to an extent proportionate to the amount of their 
 interest in the same manner as in the case of Municipal 
 provision for gas. An able writer in the "Westminster 
 Review " for January 1876, discusses the question of com- 
 pulsory Fire Insurance, and a system of contribution from 
 owners of property has been for some time in existence in 
 the city of Manchester. 
 
 And great benefit would accrue from an unified system 
 here also. At present the turncocks acknowledge one 
 authority, the Fire Brigade another, the Salvage Corps 
 another, and the PoHcc a fourth. The Water Companies 
 have ofibred to lodge a turncock in the Fire Engine stations, 
 but that remarkable body, the Board of Works, have 
 declined the offer. 
 
 The Chief of the Fire Brigade would report to this 
 Committee, and the Committee to the Central Council as in 
 other cases. Twenty members woiild be sufficient to perform 
 the work. 
 
 London has about 400 Firemen, whilst Paris has 1,500; 
 St. Petersburgh, 1,149; Berlin, 1,090; Hamburgh, 790; 
 therefore, whatever may be said as to its efficiency, the 
 question of its strength is one requiring careful consideration. 
 
 Public Health Committee. 
 
 The Department of Municipal work which would be 
 entrusted to this Committee is closely connected with the 
 health and well-being of the citizens ; and it is also one, the 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : PUBLIC HKALTH COMMITl'EE. 741 
 
 work in connection with which, will be almost entirely 
 performed by the permanent staff. 
 
 At the head of this permanent staff will be the Chief 
 Officer of Health. With a competent and adequate staff of 
 Medical Officers and Inspectors he will be the officer finally 
 responsible for the health of the City, and ought to receive 
 a salary of not less than £2,000 a year. It will be the duty 
 of this officer, in conjunction with his subordinate Medical 
 Assistants, to suggest to the Public Health Committee from 
 time to time such regulations as may, in his judgment, be 
 desirable to be made for the preservation of the health of 
 the City. Such regulations, if adopted by the Committee, 
 would be reported by them in ordinary course to the 
 Supreme Council, and after receiving its sanction would be 
 sent back to the Chief Officer of Health for enforcement. 
 
 Very great difference of opinion exists as to the amount 
 of work, in the way of house inspection, which can be properly 
 performed by Sanitary Inspectors. A report of the Sanitary 
 and Public Health Committee of the Yestry of Paddington, 
 under date October 26th, 1870, gives forty as the number 
 of houses which can be properly inspected, and of which 
 inspection due registration can be made in a single day by one 
 Inspector. Other Vestries give very different estimates, and 
 some complain that nearly the whole time of their Inspectors 
 is taken up with attending to complaints of the inhabitants, 
 so that no systematic inspection can be made. A well- 
 trained and intelligent Inspector ought to be able to deal 
 with a considerable number of the matters coming within 
 the province of the Health Department. The area of the 
 district for which he would be responsible would necessarily 
 depend upon the character of its inhabitants, and would 
 have to be finally settled by the PubHc Health Committee 
 in conjunction with the Chief Officer; but within that 
 district, whatever was its area, the Inspector ought to 
 
 3 A 
 
742 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 undertake to inspect and report upon everything included 
 under the term " Nuisances." Ho ought to report monthly 
 with respect to every noxious trade, every underground 
 dwelling, every public lodging-house, every cow-house, every 
 pigsty, every workshop, every slaughter-house, and every 
 baby-farm within his district. 
 
 The monthly reports rendered by the various Inspectors 
 throughout London would be received and collated in the 
 office of the Chief Officer of Health, and, under the regula- 
 tions already considered, printed notices in the several forms 
 adapted to each case would be sent to those persons infring- 
 ing the laws made for the preservation of pubHc health. If, 
 upon the receipt of the next monthly report, the same 
 breaches of the law were reported as still continuing, penal 
 measures would be taken against the offenders. 
 
 Under this system the condition of every noxious trade, 
 Slaughter-house, &c., throughout the whole of London could 
 be ascertained without any difficulty, and the monthly 
 report of the Chief Officer of Health to the Public Health 
 Committee, would contain a tabular statement as to every 
 one of them, as well as such recommendations as the cir- 
 cumstances seemed to call for. The extent of inspection 
 which ought to be made of houses generally; of canal barges, 
 &c., could only be accurately defined when the circumstances 
 and the data of the several cases are available. 
 
 It would probably be found necessary to appoint a 
 special staff of Inspectors for the enforcement of the Adul- 
 teration Acts. No penal proceedings ought to be taken 
 under these Acts, except upon the clearest possible evidence, 
 and after at least two independent analyses under the direc- 
 tion of the Chemist, whose appointment was considered in 
 connection with the Gas Supply Committee. The respon- 
 sibility of promoting such proceedings must rest with the 
 Public Health Committee. It seems desirable that this 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE. 743 
 
 Committee should also have jurisdiction for the granting 
 of licenses for the storing of petroleum and explosive 
 substances. 
 
 The Coroners for the Municipality, although appointed 
 by the Supremo Council, would be subordinate to the Chief 
 Officer of Health. 
 
 When necessary, the Public Health Committee would 
 make regulations with respect to Cattle Disease. 
 
 It is doubtful, having regard to the excellent organiza- 
 tion now in existence, how far the new Municipality could 
 usefully interfere with the Registration system. If the 
 present system remained intact, the weekly returns would 
 be suppHed to the Public Health Committee, and to the 
 Chief Officer of Health. 
 
 To this Committee would also be entrusted the question 
 of providing disinfecting chambers and carriages for the 
 free use of the public, at convenient points throughout the 
 Metropolis. The present utterly inadequate supply of Baths 
 and Washhouses might be expected to find its remedy in the 
 work of this Committee. So also with Mortuaries. It is 
 not too much to say that there ought to be a disinfecting 
 room, a Mortuary, a Bath and Washhouse, and a Carriage 
 for infected persons, provided by the Supreme Council in 
 each of the forty electoral districts of London. 
 
 Although one of the duties of the staff of Inspectors will 
 be to report upon the condition of London Slaughter-houses, 
 there can be no doubt but that the Supreme Council will 
 sooner or later be called upon to sanction the provision of 
 public Slaughter-houses or Abattoirs, conducted under the 
 immediate direction of Health Officers.'^ It is exceedingly 
 Hkely that, when the reports on London Slaughter-houses 
 
 * Measures for Slaughter-house regulation may be traced back through 
 the history of the City to the provisions of the ii Edward III., iu 1371, 
 under which butchers were forbidden to slaughter cattle in London, or to 
 pour oifal into the Thames. 
 
744 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 are submitted to intelligent examination, they will point to 
 the absolute necessity of Municipal provision being made 
 for the slaughtering of beasts. 
 
 Taxation, Assessment, and Finance Committee. 
 
 The name of this Committee clearly indicates the duties 
 that will fall to its share. It may be hoped that, in reno- 
 vated Municipal London, the Supreme Council will succeed 
 in attracting to itself the highest type of commercial men. 
 If this most desirable end can be attained, it will be found 
 that in no department of corporate work will their services 
 be of more extensive utility than in that under the control 
 of this Committee. 
 
 And first as to assessment. The assessments made in 
 1875 had the effect of increasing the rateable value of 
 London something like two millions sterHng. But this 
 process called forth much protestation from the householders, 
 and in the district of Kensington alone there were something 
 like 2,000 appeals. If the reassessment of London were 
 made every five years, as at present, there would thus be 
 likely to be very heavy work falling on this Committee at 
 those periods, although this would be seriously lessened if 
 the Committee, in sending in the assessment papers, pointed 
 out the provisions of the Act under which the assessment 
 was made. It would probably be necessary, therefore, at 
 the periods of assessment, either to strengthen the Com- 
 mittee or to call in the aid of Selected District Committees 
 to hear the appeals. This latter course seems open to but 
 little objection. 
 
 The Supreme Council would, of course, be the final 
 rating authority of the Metropolis, but the recommendations 
 as to rates, would go up from this Committee. Of course 
 Gas would have a special rate, according to consumption, 
 
SUPREME council: TAXATION, ASSESSMENT, AND FINANCE. 745 
 
 and, possibly. Water also, but as to all the rest of the cost 
 of the Municipal system, it would be defrayed by one single 
 Consolidated Rate. This would cover all Municipal ex- 
 penditure for Drainage, Police, Education, Poor Relief, Fire 
 Brigade, Public Works, &c. The saving attendant upon 
 such a system would be simply enormous. Rates would be 
 levied half-yearly as at present. 
 
 The Chamberlain of London would be the Treasurer, 
 and the chief officer of the Permanent Staff connected with 
 this Committee. The rates would be paid by the Rate 
 Collectors into his office, within one week from collection, 
 and the collectors would report monthly, upon printed forms, 
 the date of payment of rates and those still outstanding. 
 The Chamberlain would certify to the Taxation, Assessment, 
 and Finance Committee the monthly receipts and expen- 
 diture. If the accounts were systematically kept, there 
 would be no difficulty in this, and if the present City 
 Chamberlain could be persuaded to accept the office, he 
 might be relied upon to initiate a system which would 
 abundantly meet every requirement. But the money must 
 be paid into a Bank immediately on receipt. Considering 
 that the receipts of the MunicipaHty might be expected to 
 range between twelve and fifteen millions sterling per 
 annum, the desirability of establishing a Municipal Bank 
 would, no doubt, present itself to the consideration of the 
 Supreme Council. 
 
 Payments out would be authorized in all cases by the 
 Supreme Council Precepts, specifying to whom the payments 
 should be made. These, when countersigned by the 
 Chamberlain, would be honoured by the Bank, and the 
 money would then be remitted according to the terms of 
 the precept. The Chamberlain's monthly report would set 
 out the precepts honoured, and tabulate the receipts, showing 
 the balance which would be duly checked at the Bank. 
 
746 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 But, in addition to rates and to the rents and tolls paid 
 in by the Public Property and other Committees, the income 
 of the Municipality would, in the first instance, be augmented 
 by the Grain Duty, Brokers, Bents, and Fruit Metage. 
 These would probably all be ultimately abolished by the 
 Supreme Council. But for the present it is likely that the 
 Coal and Wine Dues would remain, and their collection 
 would devolve upon the permanent staff under the Chamber- 
 lain. The unfairness of taxing areas beyond the Munici- 
 pality is clear, but until the present liability charged upon 
 these dues was cleared off — or rather would have been 
 cleared off if they had been left so charged — the taxation 
 would continue. For the imposition of these liabilities Par- 
 liament is responsible. 
 
 The Supreme CouncU would assume the Municipal Loan 
 Ijiability of about Twenty-six Millions Sterling. All exist- 
 ing loans would be taken up, and a Municipal Stock issued. 
 This might probably be issued at about £3 IO5., which 
 would leave a yearly liability of about £900,000, of which 
 sum perhaps one-half would be supplied by receipts from 
 sources in respect of which the loans were contracted. The 
 saving in interest and costs would be more than £300,000 
 a year. T''he purchase of the Gras and "Water Companies 
 (the loan liability of which is included in the above, although 
 really paid by the consumer) would necessitate a considerable 
 further outlay; but the saving there effected would pay all 
 the interest, and easily carry a sinking fund which would 
 clear off that part of the liability in twenty years, whilst 
 supplying better and cheaper gas to the consumers than 
 they have at present. 
 
 The whole question of Municipal Finance would be 
 under the consideration of the Taxation, Assessment, and 
 Finance Committee, and if twenty men of the right sort 
 could be got together, they could do the work with ease. 
 
supreme council : law and parliamentary. 747 
 
 Law and Parliamentary Committee. 
 
 The Town Clerk of London would be tlie head of the 
 Permanent Staff in connection with this Committee, and he 
 would have the assistance of a competent staff. He would 
 be the Custodian of all the Title Deeds of the Corporation. 
 He will also be responsible for the correctness of the citizen- 
 roll, which ought to be verified once every six months. 
 The other ordinary duties of this officer (except in so far as 
 they are controlled by different provisions here) would attach 
 to him under the new Municipality. Practically, the 
 Recorder and Common Serjeant would be the legal advisers 
 of the Corporation, but such advice would be generally given 
 through the Town Clerk's Office. The Town Clerk will 
 make arrangements for the triennial elections. He will also 
 be nominally the Clejk and Registrar of the Supreme 
 Council. In his office all the legal work of the Corporation 
 will be transacted, including the investigation of titles and 
 the conduct of suits to which the Corporation is a party. 
 
 To this Committee will be confided the consideration of 
 all Bills in ParHament which may affect the Metropolis, 
 and the monthly report of the Committee to the Supreme 
 Council will contain the recommendations of the Committee 
 thereupon. It is probable that these recommendations will 
 generally be made by a Joint Committee of the Law and 
 Parliamentary Committee and the other Committee whose 
 special province is invaded by the Bill in question. If the 
 Supreme Council decide to oppose the measure, the matter 
 will be referred to the Law and Parliamentary Committee 
 for the purpose. 
 
 So, if the Supreme Council propose to introduce a Bill 
 for any matter connected mth the Municipality, the pre- 
 paration of it win be entrusted to this Committee, and it 
 will afterwards be submitted to the Supreme Council, at 
 
748 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 which meeting the Recorder or Common Serjeant will attend 
 to explain its provisions. 
 
 The consideration of the duties and functions of the 
 Recorder and Common Serjeant would rest with this Com- 
 mittee, and these officers would be ordinarily expected to 
 attend the meetings of this Committee as well as the sittings 
 of the Supreme Council. 
 
 AU legal questions affecting the Corporation, will be 
 referred to this Committee for consideration and report. 
 The number of members would be twenty-five. 
 
 Audit Committee. 
 
 The best audit at the present time existing in the 
 Metropolis is that conducted under the auspices of the 
 Local Government Board. ' The other audits vary in value 
 doAvnwards. The elected Auditors of Vestries are often 
 incompetent, and there is room for much improvement in 
 others ; but, as to the City Audit, which is of the least value 
 of all, the less said about it the better. An independent 
 Auditor going through the City Accounts would soon expose 
 its hollow absurdity. Only one thing would astonish Lon- 
 doners more than a correct and full audit of the City 
 Accounts proper, and that would be a correct and full audit 
 of the Livery Companies' Accounts. This audit is, how- 
 ever, probably coming, and it wiU amply repay watching and 
 waiting for. 
 
 The audit of the accounts of the Municipality of London 
 would be under the final control of an Auditor-General. 
 This officer, with three or four competent assistants and a 
 clerk or two, ought to be able to perfect a system of audit 
 for the Municipal Accounts. Vouchers would be forth- 
 coming for every expenditure, and the checks on all 
 spending Departments ought to carefuUy devised. A 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : SPECIAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE. 749 
 
 montlily account would be presented checking the report of 
 the Chamberlain, and this would be the substance of the 
 Committee's report to the Supreme Council. 
 
 The times and method of the audit can be most satis- 
 factorily settled when the system is fairly established. The 
 number of the Committee would be twelve. 
 
 Special Purposes Committee. 
 
 It is a matter of some doubt whether it is desirable or 
 necessary to have a final standing Special Purposes Com- 
 mittee in connection with a proper system of Municipal 
 government. Very few questions are likely to arise that 
 M'iU not fall within the pro"vance of one or other of the 
 Committees, whose functions we have considered ; and, when 
 they do, it would seem to be the truer principle to appoint 
 a Committee for the purpose of their consideration at the 
 time. 
 
 These objections, however, only apply in cases where a 
 Municipal system has got into full and easy working order. 
 In the establishment of a new system there will be many 
 subjects that will require consideration and settlement once 
 for all. For example, it will be needful to frame standing 
 orders for the guidance of the Supreme Council in its 
 deHberations and practice, and these may be very properly 
 referred to a Special Purposes Committee. Again, if the 
 Supreme Council is to extend civic hospitaHty to strangers 
 and others, it will be desii'able to have a Committee to settle 
 the method of reception. There is quite sufficient plate at 
 the Mansion House to supply the new Corporation. But 
 the hospitality of the future will probably be defrayed out 
 of the Consolidated Rate, and provided for by public tender. 
 It is an utilitarian age, and the days when £4,890* or 
 
 * Feast to Royal Family by City, 1727. 
 
750 MUNICIPAL LONDON, 
 
 £6,898* could be spent in single banquets are gone for 
 ever. 
 
 To the Special Purposes Committee would also be 
 entrusted the consideration of the difficult question arising 
 in connection with the transfer of jurisdictions, as to the 
 fate of officers whose posts are either abolished or trans- 
 ferred. There would be serious danger in re- appointing old 
 officers unless they were well affected to the new system, 
 and, as Lord John Russell said, in introducing the Municipal 
 CoqDoration Act, 1835, a new Council ought to have the 
 power of appointing new officers.f Provision would be 
 made for the due satisfaction of the vested interests of old 
 officers. 
 
 No special provisions have been introduced with respect 
 to the duties of Aldermen as contrasted with Supreme 
 Councillors. It is probable that when the settlement of the 
 Committees came to be made, the special position of the 
 Alderman would ensure their having due precedence ; and 
 in some, as for example the Licensing Committee, they 
 would constitute the actual working authority. 
 
 * Feast to George III. and Queen Charlotte. 
 ■j- Hansard, vol. xxviii. p. 553. 
 
751 
 
 Chapter XXIII. 
 
 WORK OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 
 
 A Tabulated Summary of the Method in which the Municipal 
 Work of London would he performed under a Supreme 
 Council, arranged so as to shoio the Work and Jurisdiction 
 of the Permanent Staff, the Supreme Council Committee^ 
 and of the Supreme Council. 
 
 The preceding chapter sets forth the functions of the Per- 
 manent Staff, of the various Committees, and of the Supreme 
 Council in respect to the different matters of Municipal 
 work, in case the whole Metropolis were placed under the 
 direction of one Central Council. 
 
 For the purpose of convenient reference it may be useful 
 to set these out in a tabulated form. It is to be noted that 
 this is not put forward as more than the simple framework 
 of a new system ; and, consequently, whilst endeavouring to 
 point out clearly the principles upon which the Municipal 
 Government of London should proceed, and to indicate the 
 position which different Municipal functions will occupy, it 
 makes no claim to have finally disposed of every head of 
 Municipal Jurisdiction. Neither has it been deemed 
 necessary to set out the numbers and the emoluments of the 
 various branches and members of the permanent staff. Such 
 matters can only be properly settled when a new system 
 has got into good working order, and its requirements can 
 be accurately gauged. There can, however, be no doubt 
 as to the necessity for the Heads of Departments, and the 
 number of these will in any case be limited. 
 
752 
 
 s S 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 HW 
 
 <D 
 
 o * «> 
 
 CD -.^ i^ 
 
 P3 a ° 
 
 
 ■3 P< 
 
 T fH ^ d ^ ' 
 
 << <u 0) a tu ; 
 
 .rt m aj )K| ri 
 
 ■2«.jSa 
 o $ • 3 ^ ^ 
 
 ^ V g O 03 
 
 ■^ 03 j; to .2 
 krH O CO +^ 
 
 a o't3 
 
 J3 «4-l +J 
 
 2fe 
 
 >> a 
 
 m D 
 
 O res O •'rt 
 
 fc. a a-a 
 ^ ,. -^ a" 
 
 gpHpq o 
 
 " ■^ a 13 ^ ° <i^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ':^. 
 
 
 
 o) s a 
 
 ag d) 3 
 
 1:3 03 iH .-^ 
 
 ;! ^ ^ .3 -^ 
 «« m ^ 2 * 
 
 ■2 a t^ a — 
 
 
 p 1; 
 
 -^ O ,^ '^ 
 TT >^ Tt n» 
 
 
 a> 
 
 .O) " 
 
 O S r* c3 !7^ " iJ 
 
 '^ '^ tca3a3> zn y, 
 
 " Ph SO '' 03 * ■£ 
 
 • '^ S ^ ^ 
 
 S -^3 
 
 A a 
 
 3.2 
 
 O &l 03 3 
 
 a a 
 
 O O -rt 
 
 ^ '3 a '^ 
 
 Sr? o 03 
 
 " " o a ■ 
 
 > " r3 o 
 
 ' °* 3 a a 
 
 I 03 S- 9 03 _ 
 
 "^ to a '3 
 
 ' -9, .s 3 a 
 
 P5 3 
 
 3 _a a o ^ 
 
 ' 03 o >^ 
 
 ."in O -^ O 
 
 d <D to '^3 
 
 a S 2 08 
 
 2 3 3 N 
 
 o c3 cr-J 
 
 , S Ml 3 
 
 '&'"£ 9 
 
 M T;^ 2, 
 
 t^ O CS 03 
 
 « - 2^ 
 
 s oj a ;:q 
 
 tS- ^ ^ o3 
 
 a -3 
 
 2i a 
 
 o- S 
 3 o 
 
 SD S d ^ - - 
 a-a«3 p^ti a 
 
 ■S a 3 5^ o o o 
 
 ■>1 ^ ,^ " g>^ 03 
 
 03 ,_^ (_) .^ a oj to ' 
 
 03 0) oj a 'pi "2 ?? 
 
 M '3 a c3 H ? 
 
 a S to 3 -r; a 
 
 •3 5 c2 •'§ s ^ 
 
 ^ r/T P ai T:! -^ 
 
 cS c„ 
 
 '^ HH a ^ 
 
 
 £2,500 
 s Com- 
 onthly. 
 3yor-in- 
 u:s and 
 
 £1,200 
 Works 
 areas : 
 report 
 3er. 
 
 ipality, 
 Report 
 
 £500 a 
 
 
 ■*«;> 
 
 a^"^ a c 3. 2 -.3 03 ^.3 
 
 the Munic 
 Monthly 
 Committee, 
 ality, ifcc, 
 
 
 8 
 
 •'^ ^ n, 3 03 r^. -a -tl 3 t^ 
 
 
 
 iaa^'ljg^ s:3 
 
 
 
 by I 
 Co 
 litec 
 or m 
 
 wor 
 gine 
 rtme 
 itrol 
 ngin 
 
 to C 
 
 "^^2 S* 
 ^ « 
 
 
 1 
 •a 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 Chief Engineer 
 a year, controlled 
 mittee. Report t 
 Consult with Arc] 
 Chief as to time f 
 as to necessity foi 
 
 Five Deputy Ell 
 a year each, depa 
 Committee. Coi 
 visited by Chief E 
 in writing weekly 
 
 Chief Enginee 
 and Deputy Engii 
 of Chief Engiuee 
 
 Chemist, to tes 
 year. 
 
 
 G 
 "::> 
 
1^^ 
 
 SUPREME COUNCIL : TABULAR STATEMENT. 
 
 fjj-fjjsaacpoi 
 
 Q o o OI 
 
 
 f-l S i< ^ 
 
 O 6D^ 
 
 
 V3 >> 
 
 S2 OQ CO 
 
 . « bD^ >-( 
 
 =ij tcW OS 
 
 , tn 00 ^^ 
 
 '2 S rt O 
 
 ti o^a- 
 
 o --3 t- 
 
 d '-' ? 
 
 sis 
 
 t« ,—1 
 
 £ &.! 
 
 §^0;= 
 
 S-( Cj J, 
 
 753 
 
 Qj )::} 
 
 tc 
 
 to ^ CD 
 
 oa go ;=■. 
 > O 1 ~i 
 
 o n, a fS > g ^ 
 
 oj 2 o g <3 0-g 
 
 CO 03 to g^'> 
 
 E ^ O .jT 
 
 Qj CO *j ^ 
 
 g "^ CO 1) ■ 
 
 O tU 
 
 .50^ 3 a 
 
 c3 ^^ .'^ 
 p- H OJ S 
 
 ! -- a fl 
 
 p. 3 ^ S .S 
 
 -^ .eS 
 
 
 S tO' 
 
 u a CO 
 
 r; _ <u w 
 
 a A! 
 
 
 
 O (D (D 
 
 CO §"2 O 
 
 fco a 
 
 c3 cj OJ 
 
 =~ ^:;3 -5 
 
 5'« 
 ■" a 
 
 2 £.0 
 a s 3 
 
 CO O fc, "i 
 (J ; 
 
 O) 
 
 OJ 
 
 ?^§ ?^ s 
 
 CO 
 
 n.a. 
 
 fl s 
 
 fl.S a 
 '" to g 
 ■ - a ^ ' 
 
 Sa <» 
 
 2 a> CO <i> 
 
 M -a a w O e 
 
 ^ -a a •-> o *^ S 
 o g-ra g-e a 
 
 G ~ bt o . -a 
 , ft, *^ c r ■" e 
 
 a ,K s c o 
 c3 o 00 a o 
 
 =j 3 
 
 1—1 as 
 
 ■r; 
 
 a >5 
 
 
754 
 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 '^ o S 
 "42 =1 ,9 
 
 n=s S 
 
 ^ a z3 
 
 •u S S 
 
 l-i r5 *-l 
 
 59 o -^ 5 
 
 ■+3 .fcj 
 
 § « 
 
 o s 
 
 ■^ S a is o 
 
 » '5 *f to 
 
 60 
 
 S .S ^ '^ -t" 
 
 C3 (D 
 
 
 3 - ca (D 
 
 ^ g<* o 
 
 •73 g M 
 
 3. 
 
 a«y 
 
 a a ^°3 ~ 
 
 S; cS 
 
 
 s •?; g t;' s £ s 
 
 ^■g'g § S-g a 
 
 S (U rH 
 
 o o 
 
 C be S =« 
 3 cs " o 
 
 ' 2 'S -I 
 : 5 03 ft 
 
 Ci qj 2 ' 
 
 , g S^ p. 
 
 o ^ 
 
 03 _ a o 
 
 ^ ft Oj -^ 
 
 ^ S ft tn 
 - o P ^S 
 
 o .^ jj a 
 
 •:5 5 -^ c p 
 
 ■r^ en . _H ( 
 
 ^ « § £ 2 
 
 g -rH p a; „ . 
 
 s a s '-I -^ 
 
 s o^ a- 
 
 ^ s » a.a■ 
 ■;s ^ i2 p; o 
 t^ *^ ^ ° 
 a * CD - t< 
 
 ^^ as °' 
 
 ^^ S ft . -rf 
 
 -^ > ,;£ .2 ^ 
 1-^ a ^ 03 
 
 3 5 S 
 
 si;-^ o 
 
 (Si 
 
 C8Q J^^ 
 
 ft ft 
 
 CO g o 
 IS O -►^ 
 c3 '^ 03 
 
 "";* c3 03 
 
 2 § •" 
 -^ " S 
 
 "3 a"' 
 
 3 "^ ?^^ 
 3.2 ^ O 
 
 ft|3 ;a 
 
 : "S 3^ 
 :^ SI 
 
 0) o 
 
 o ^ 
 
 S = 
 a; P-i 
 
 ffi i 
 
 •r* o3 -y 
 
 bD^cc -^ 
 
 a< 3-^ 
 
 1< ^ ^ 
 
 -s^rs-y s 
 
 a« a 
 
 a 32 13 
 •r <s ^ 
 
 S a> o 
 ft Sh 2 
 
 ■^ •— S 13 
 £ ^ <ii 'o 
 
 S "^ t£ a 
 
 o g rt s 
 
 <u 03 g o 
 
 Ph ^- SO 
 
 g S ij 
 
 c a, O ij; 
 
 O Jh OT t< 
 
 ^ 'r* ft 
 > ■« ft 
 
 
 ,co k:| 
 
 e> r-" ^-^ c^ t^-t Vl3 «C n* S: _. <-4 
 
 ^LllSalS-Sg"! 
 
 ft 5 a Si 03 o .g o " 
 
 &S a' 
 
 >% 
 
 *4i ^ j_; TO 
 
 S"" 2 a "3 
 
 
 O o! 
 
 |W § ";! 
 
 g "o a 
 I ft- 
 
 ■ ■-' ft^ •; " 
 
 g a 
 
 <o g. 
 
 e 03 
 
 rsi o 
 
 Os ft 
 
 °^ a 
 •u .ri 
 
 
 ftri O 
 
 ^ 03 
 
 02 *o 5 ^ O 
 
 .2 g tj »-i g 
 
 a o u 
 
 t»i ? R O CO OS ^ ^-o ,5 
 
 ,a' 
 
 O" 03 
 03 
 
 2o a 
 kT: o a 
 
 cc 5 
 
 is 
 
 
 CD ^ 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 c'> 
 
 rn 
 
 
 o 
 
 _03 
 
 "03 
 
 Q 
 
 . , 
 
 -* 
 
 <u ,a 
 
 7^ 
 
 -M 
 
 
 a 
 
 CJ 
 
 h 
 
 
 o 03 q">-. 
 
 
 C3 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 03 
 
 t-5 
 
 rfi 
 
 
 
 PL, 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 h-l 
 
 1^ 
 
 ij 
 
 A 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 H^ 
 
 ■<U 
 
 P^ 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : TABULAR STATEMENT. 
 
 755 
 
 
 0050 >, fc; 
 
 « ft"* ^. 
 
 <D g fl 
 
 fl I— I iH 
 
 >, fc; tJO ' bo 
 
 ^ =2 .9 ^'.S 
 
 2 » S S 
 o M l> O 
 
 Ph a S g o 
 
 3J _I to O) P lU 
 
 rt S <u (D *J -ri 1-^ 
 
 .^ 5 03 a a, S 
 
 23 ij 3 O o) 
 
 ;», ;2 ^ <L> O 
 
 P,^ 
 
 2 » A 
 §11 
 
 >>J2 CD 
 
 ■^.2 o 
 C > 
 
 o't;— 's 
 
 :2 a^^ 
 
 O CD ij 
 
 g " rt 
 
 .0 
 
 P4 
 
 a S 
 
 J5 CD :S 
 c3 <=> 
 
 a -^ ° a 
 
 o 53 a 
 
 CO S 3- " 
 
 * -p a. '-' 
 
 »— H a "-^ (23 
 
 
 CD ' — ' h 
 
 [^ o _o 
 (D C/3 CD 
 
 ^1 
 
 S O 5 5 r^ 
 
 ?H ^ O 1-q M 
 
 
 ^ >H a o CD 
 
 H >.§«<^ $ 
 
 •^ g a +j <p 5 
 
 O) CO " TT 
 
 2 c3 cu M ^^ 
 
 S -= 3 3 = 
 
 (I *-* c^' -^ 11 2 
 
 p2 CD -a >i o 
 
 S-o S "^ g^ 
 c»^ "Saw 3 
 
 03 P. S c3 :3 
 
 23 
 
 
 fa "tS ^ 
 ^_, Ol CO 
 
 ■S 
 
 Sp 
 
 i;t-^ 
 
 CO _ ^ o 
 
 § g3 
 
 -a o'a 
 
 o C 
 
 O CD ti 
 
 1-/1 1^ 
 
 <u - 
 
 S^-1 
 
 5-^ ?f 
 
 a 43 'H • M 
 
 -bo's 
 o o 
 
 &i2 o 
 
 CD --H 
 
 Ch CO 
 
 5S _; P 
 
 o .-^ 5 
 
 W CI --H 
 
 [/) O! O ^ 
 
 -^ >i a o3 
 
 ^H CD 03 
 
 o <! Si fl 
 
 ■"■^ - 5 <=^ 
 
 CD (Z5 a 
 
 fl a u p, 
 
 O C ® 03 
 
 o«c;5'ph 
 
 fl s 
 
 -3 So a 
 o *.o 
 
 -g co'a 
 
 C/3 h2 
 
 p) to "tS 
 
 o ^ fl • 
 
 "9 fl ^ 
 
 fl ^ =* ,Sh 
 CD'S S § 
 
 W c CO 
 
 .ij 
 
 ^ S o h-i 
 
 C c3 » ^ 
 
 V> fl o 
 
 ^<=' S o 
 
 S^ CD O 
 
 g=^ 03 -S 
 
 S "" a 
 
 I 
 
 a o ra 
 
 o ti: 03 '-' ^-v 
 c =3 o S 
 
 — ' 03 4^ 4J 
 
 
 Hoot 
 ° — S 
 
 -* 03 J "3 -w 
 a « S .S 
 o ^ c S 
 
 v_ 03 *J *J 
 
756 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 +J to 
 
 <L) jii § to to ^ 
 
 2 § oS S S ^^ 
 
 P^ c^^ § i 2 «' 
 
 
 fl 'Vi to' 
 
 =" 1 00 »H 
 
 0.2 a 
 
 -^ CO 
 
 E, a 5* 'o "* 2 '*2 
 
 ■U =<-< rr- 
 
 ^ ° 1 
 
 t! .S cS •« to 
 
 ■li cs^ ^ a^-j 
 
 03 t^ a 
 
 53 in' 
 
 ^o 
 
 .2 " 
 
 to 03 " 
 _ i' K 
 
 fL, ft £ S-a 
 
 ■^^■^'X-^ o 3 
 
 to 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 Ph S 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 cS 
 
 Cm 
 
 a 
 
 cu 
 
 <D 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 'J: 
 
 
 
 
 til 
 
 'O < 
 
 S E 
 
 3 a 
 
 •2 « £ 
 
 1-^^ C CD 
 
 ■^g 
 
 ^S^^TS^^*-^ 0)0) ZJ o 
 -H .O rZI ni O O CJ CJ ■'-1 c:_, 
 
 q3 
 
 a - 
 
 >i a CD 
 
 <D ^^ Sh 
 
 o iJ 
 
 t„ g 03 
 
 ° g 2 
 « i^ a 
 S CO pq 
 
 a a g 
 -co 
 i^ '—i 
 
 o .to 
 
 <D a i) 
 
 >H eg O 
 
 toH ;: 
 
 a> o Ph 
 
 ft to^ 
 
 ^^ a3 
 
 V. a 
 
 Ph j3 
 
 £ -^ -^3 i^ S o ' 
 o 'S ^ ii >< '13 
 
 " <^ bo's ^ S 
 o tJ" S ''-' •'-' t^ 
 
 <^ (D 
 
 i^.M «3 ,; to 
 
 ft c3 a jg a tS» 
 p^ & S rt 2 '-C 
 S !2 f^ is 2 j> • 
 
 73 tH to 3 ft > 
 " '3 ^ '^ ■ 
 
 
 ;C5 
 
 •?5^ 
 
 o ft 
 
 S a 10 
 o o p o a 
 
 t« «l-l 
 
 
 > ^ -a -'-I 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ § 2 g S J.S 
 >> =^ M ftO^ ^ 
 
 C8 +j to I— ' ^ _ -M 
 
 •g^.^ 
 
 Co *^ -r; to j:r 
 
 a 
 
 C3 a- r3 WJ 
 
 I; 's S o o y 
 S-g^Sa-^ 
 
 ft a3 
 
 !-. JZI 
 
 o a 
 
 fcD O 
 
 - - a^ 
 
 ?; a to .-- 
 ft 03 ^ SL 
 
 Cl 
 
 o 
 o - 
 
 "^^ CD 
 
 s B > c '^■^ 
 « a'53 -g o-^a 
 
 s- o o) 53 '^ S 
 -£±^2 to S a ^ 
 
 CD --f 
 
 <y 
 
 O g, 
 
 . 'O 
 
 O •- -2 ^ " '§ 
 
 J2 r^ -^ a o 
 
 ^ O c:S O S 
 
 a S 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 Qm 
 
 yj -J 
 
 2 5 a vh cs 
 
 O ft-2 .2 > 
 
 2 . - -a ^ 
 
 K TS O o 
 
 « to 
 . a 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 
 a-^ 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 03 
 
 3 
 
 a r^ 
 
 ft 
 
 I 
 
1^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 "^ 
 
 SUPREME COUNCIL : TABULAR STATEMENT. 
 
 757 
 
 o.S q 
 
 
 ° -^ .s s i. s « = .s •§ 
 
 
 03 < 
 
 hM O 
 
 a, 
 
 
 i: CD *^ 
 
 ^ '3 P « ? 
 
 O m C 
 
 
 3^3 n 2 =^ 
 rz^ S « S a • 
 
 3 S, u -S ." CO 
 
 -= S CIS " 
 
 "w CD S — "^ 
 
 sa 
 
 >> 0) 
 
 o a Sh 
 
 S c5 .2 -< .S?.S 
 
 
 — . .2 -'^ o o 
 
 (3 ji? ^ u o '"' 
 
 2 M I 5 .& i 
 
 
 2, o 
 
 " 2 - 
 
 3 > O O :3 
 
 moo 
 
 a S rt 
 
 .71 -r^ 
 5 u-^ 
 
 .s^-S 
 
 ■ r3 a 03 
 
 a -^ cc" 
 
 8 ^ g 
 
 - g 5 a -^ .2 
 
 CC CO > 
 
 Jl a 
 
 a o o 
 
 CO 
 
 = 1 a 
 
 "—I 2 a 5 ti to +j 
 
 tcr3 t, •■' -< "3 ■ 
 a a a 
 
 
 a _^ c.g 5 ;^ 
 
 2 3-^ 
 
 ^ ^ a 
 
 is CO 
 
 > — I c3 
 
 9"? o 
 
 a - 
 
 =S u tn 
 
 St P 
 
 53 <D QJ 
 
 S 00 i^ 
 
 <S CD 
 
 ^ - - s ^^ 
 
 Q CSD CD 9 o ,3 
 
 ^ t„ -^ a c3 s; 
 
 3 O V- ® a =S 
 
 CD a -1^ ^ 
 
 5 "=T3.-3 
 
 =^= a 
 
 .-3 O 
 
 *t) a a 
 
 a 3-g tc 2 
 
 '^ a tti 5 '^ 
 ^ S a^ 
 
 9 
 
 1-9 SI'S 
 
 1? § a s cs 
 
 §2 53 -a* a 
 
 •^ s ri §a 
 
 .^ fl ^ a o -s 
 
 i;;)-;.^'^ a o 
 
 SS P a o 
 c3 'o to a S 
 
 5fi a 
 
 o « 
 rO m 
 
 03 OQ 
 
 V ■•-( 
 
 •5 CD "3 
 ^CD *^ 
 
 is * fe 
 1*; o 
 
 ^22 
 
 .2 a I 
 a « 
 
 al g=y 
 
 <»^ t-i o 
 
 C F=q a 
 
 ID w 2 5 Ir' '^ 
 § CD OJ -S S "S 
 
 '-' a a M -»j in 
 
 •" *i .-' M 
 
 
 T. 
 
 
 'ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rn 
 
 3 A! 
 
 V 
 
 
 ..^ 
 
 >- 
 
 2 S 
 
 2 
 
 -9 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 ft 
 
 -D 
 
 s 
 
 C3 
 
 ^ ^ V3 L>- """^ 
 
 - C 3 H 
 
 
 - ai s2 co' 
 I*: CO o <u 
 
 ttj CO te^H^ 
 
 V 
 
 2 bT 
 
 SJ C 
 
 ^.m a <D 
 
 o =-g g 
 
 O -^ CO rj Sh 
 
 •t-K^ ^ u _' a 
 
 "S 'S - " 2 
 
 « H 
 DO 
 
 S 
 
 Bo 
 
 3 B 
 
758 
 
 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 _C3 -g -^ 
 
 o 
 ft 
 
 
 
 cti 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 CC O <D 
 
 o o) 
 
 S O 
 
 ■-So 
 
 M CD 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 PI'S 
 
 S o 
 
 CD O -S OJ p 
 
 "D r1 ri •'H ^H -*-! 
 
 E.^^ 
 ^S-^' 
 
 o s 
 
 r° 5 £ <B 
 
 fS ¥ ■►^ s jr! 
 
 a a 
 
 lO S' 
 
 C3 CD 
 
 ce g 
 
 •iH 
 
 =".22,3 
 
 a^ 
 
 a 
 
 ^fi^ 
 
 
 ('1 +j vi 
 
 a CO 1^:, 
 
 2i 2 1=1 
 a --^ ^ 
 
 ^T3-5 a a 
 
 
 •^ i| In ^ 
 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 a a^ 
 
 •- a 
 
 "a 'B'^ 
 ■d '^ a 
 
 £ a g !>,« 
 
 ;i^ O •-" r= ^ ^. 
 
 00 O ^ 
 
 a a.g^a 2 § 
 
 a> tu n3 -^ ^ O 
 a ^ OJ c3 Si '^ 
 
 2 ^ oj fH a 
 5 a o o <i> 
 rfi c/3 o «« o a 
 
 S >5 ft'"' -g 2 
 
 1 ^ ft 
 
 ■- 1 Id "* '-^ ^ 
 
 ^ M a sii ^ m 
 
 ^ S CD O m 
 
 a ^ a -3 "i> =w 
 
 c i« o a a ■■« 
 
 ^a S 2 2 53 
 
 pqpH a ftO 
 
 a 03 '3 
 
 •Sag 
 
 ^ CB o 
 S ffi CD 
 
 - 3 a 
 
 g aM 
 
 a o 
 
 2Hi' 
 
 JH CD cS ^ 
 
 O a i> to 
 
 a Si ^, 
 
 a & a CD 
 
 •^ ^ o a 
 
 (^ o 
 
 cc 53 
 
 % > 
 
 CD ^ a 
 
 o a :^ 
 
 o 5^ 4; 
 
 .a- 
 H a 
 
 TS ?H 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 Oh 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 ■s . cs a t^ 
 cc p3 a u 
 
 -2S6^ 
 S3 s - '^ 
 
 OJ 'fH O 
 
 O 
 
 ,y i 2 $ 
 
 i^-g ftS 
 
 ' CO I ' ^" 
 
 rS'S S'a ° 
 
 03 CD N S g 
 
 ^ ft .-s S ^ 
 
 *3 o s^ to 
 
 2 . -^ a d 
 
 - ^ '^ V. a ^ 
 
 §^_^^a 
 
 '° s a § 
 
 a CD 
 
 <n r-i; a 
 "' " rS ^ a 
 
 ^ Cfl I 
 
 =+j 53 g 
 
 •« ^ CD pj ^ O 
 
 -l^ § ra o 
 
 ^ s a s §:: 
 
 'S (H .s o '-I ft 
 
 c^ c a;) o <D 
 
 C) -^ O >i ft f^ 
 
 a <ij « ■I' ^ 
 
 "^ g § ?D^ 
 
 08 ■£ " 03 . 
 
 ■^ =! -co .^, 
 
 .Oi?Si S a 
 -ii ^S'S g a 
 
 s "= a Sw s 
 1^^ ..^ S 
 ^ S?^P) ftg^ 
 
 CTI o si o tn 
 
 ft * 
 
 CD ,a 
 
 <= a 
 H o 
 
 '« 2 
 
 s a 
 
 s s 3 
 
 1> Q O 
 
 ch a o 
 
 ^ o 2 
 
 '§'3 .S 
 
 s a cs 
 
 O OJ 
 
 
 
 02 Pt 
 
SUPREME COUNCIL : COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE. 759 
 
 The aggregate number of members in the fourteen Com- 
 mittees is thus 367, and if each Committee met monthly, 
 there would be a total number of possible Committee 
 attendances of 4,404. If we add to this a total Supreme 
 Council attendance upon the fifty days of its meetings in 
 the year at 12,000, we have an aggregate possibility of 
 attendance of 16,404, which, being equally divided, would 
 give a personal attendance of 68, which is a number well 
 within the capacity of business men. It is, however, not 
 unHkely that, during the first year of the Council, many of 
 the Committees would meet fortnightly, and some oftener, 
 and this in addition to Sub- Committees. The number of 
 Committee attendances being doubled would make the 
 personal average 86, which is some 64 per annum less than 
 that of the Board of Works (see ante, 279). 
 
760 
 
 Chapter XXIV. 
 
 LONDON IN THE FUTUEE. 
 
 Consideration of the Position of London under a Municipal 
 Council. — Various Matters of Municipal G-overnment 
 passed in Review. — Improvement in the Condition of the 
 Metropolis. — Character of the Supreme Council and of 
 the future Lord Mayor. — Conclusion. 
 
 London under a Supreme Municipal Council ought to 
 be a city worth living in. 
 
 It may well be that its narrow streets and its murky 
 atmosphere will still remain. We cannot anticipate with 
 Dr. Richardson* that, with the imposition of a smoke rate, 
 might come the connection of all chimneys with central 
 shafts into which the smoke should be drawn after being 
 passed through a furnace to destroy the free carbon, and 
 that so passing into the air colourless the smoke nuisance 
 should be for ever abated. Neither can we expect that the 
 exertions of any possible Municipal body will succeed in 
 raising our fogs or changing our climate. But short of these 
 blessings there is much that it may very fairly be expected 
 that such a Municipality will do. 
 
 The system of drainage, of which London boasts itself so 
 much, is a system containing rather the elements of 
 perfection, than being perfection itself. When eveiy local 
 drain shall be constructed of the proper materials, with the 
 proper fall, and of the right size ; when its connection with 
 
 • Address before Social Science Congress, 1876. 
 
LONDON IN THE FUTURE, 
 
 761 
 
 every house shall be trapped upon the best principle ; when 
 the sewer shall be ventilated at a proper height above the 
 ground, and mechanical arrangements made whereby the 
 whole may be regularly flushed at the will of the Chief 
 Engineer, we shall be in a much better position than we 
 are now. 
 
 Our supply of drinking water will be drawn from 
 S(jurces free from possibility of contagion. Either we shall 
 tap some mountain stream near its source or utilize the 
 natural reservoir of a Welsh or Cumberland lake, or else we 
 shall draw clear filtered water from the deep strata below 
 the chalk. Our supply of water for pubHc uses, for the 
 watering of streets and of gardens, and the flushing of 
 drains will be drawn from the Thames at the nearest 
 available point. The supply of both kinds of water will be 
 without stint. Its entire cost will be defrayed by the 
 Municipality. Hydrants and fire plugs will be found in 
 every street, and every fire engine will carry the means of 
 turning on the water. The water mains of both supplies 
 will be constantly at high pressure 
 
 The water pipes and the gas pipes will be laid in sub- 
 ways down the middle of every street. These subways will 
 be built exactly over the drains, and the drain connection 
 and the gas and water pipe connections with each house will 
 be so constructed that they may be examined or renovated 
 without disturbing the surface of the street. Where an 
 underground rail or tramway passes beneath a street, a sub- 
 way will pass on each side of it, the extra cost thus incurred 
 having been defrayed by the constructor of the underground 
 road. 
 
 Every gas main in London being laid in a subway, the 
 pipes will be constructed on the best principle; wiU no 
 longer permit of enormous leakage, and wall be readily and 
 constantly accessible. The London consumer will be supplied 
 
762 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 with twenty-five candle gas, clear from, all sulphurous pro- 
 ducts, at 3s. per thousand feet. 
 
 The arrangements for putting out fires in the City will be 
 of the most complete kind. The PoHce Force and the Fire 
 Brigade will work together. In every district will be a 
 number of stations where a poHce ofiicer may be found day 
 and night. Each of these stations will be connected by 
 telegraph along the street subways, with the head-quarters 
 of the force and with the nearest fire brigade station. Every 
 householder in the district will know, in case of need, the 
 situation of the nearest of such stations. 
 
 Public Markets scattered over the whole MetropoHtan 
 area will be built by the Municipality, and remaining under 
 Municipal direction will bring wholesome food within the 
 compass of all. 
 
 Every road in London will be constructed upon the best 
 principles by workmen skilled in the work, and will be 
 convenient for traffic both in summer and winter. 
 
 In the construction of buildings the duty which every 
 citizen owes to the public, will be rigidly enforced. Not 
 merely will the buildings be made of proper strength and of 
 pure and lasting materials, but conditions of internal venti- 
 lation and sewerage, conducive to the health of the 
 iahabitants, will be insisted on. 
 
 In every district of London, within easy reach of the 
 inhabitants, will be baths and washhouses constructed upon 
 the best principles, and the price charged for the use of 
 which ought simply to cover the cost of maintenance. The 
 washhouses would have mangle-rooms and drying closets, 
 and the baths both hot water and cold. 
 
 Every district would Ukewise have a disinfecting room 
 for the purpose of freeing from contagious matter the 
 clothes of the sick. This would probably be attached to 
 the public washhouse. The use of it and of disinfectants 
 
LONDON IN THE FUTURE. 763 
 
 would be absolutely free to every one. The pubKc mortuary 
 and the disinfecting carriage for the conveyance of the sick 
 would both of them be at the service of the pubHc, also 
 free of charge. 
 
 The enormous piles of buildings now used as workhouses 
 would probably serve a different purpose id Mimicipal 
 London, and the inhabitants be allowed to end their days in 
 the country where out-door work of a light kind might be 
 readily found for them. Every pauper will be registered in 
 the books of the Municipality, and whilst the inhumanity 
 of separating old couples wiU come to an end, the classifica- 
 tion of the poor will be thoroughly carried out. 
 
 The sanitary arrangements of the MetropoHs will be of 
 the most complete and effective kind. London stands upon 
 one of the healthiest sites of any English town, and the 
 exact progress of disease would be accurately measm-ed at 
 the head-quarters of the Chief Oilicer of Health, and means 
 adopted to stay its course. Certain diseases would probably 
 cease to exist at all when conditions of ventilation, water 
 supply, and good drainage were rigidly enforced in every 
 district. The inhabitants compelled to Hve in clean houses, 
 and surrounded by all the elementary conveniences of 
 civilized life, would be found to be themselves raised in 
 the social scale. No underground dweUing would exist in 
 London, and where any trade was noxious in the sense of 
 injuriously affecting Hfe, it would be removed. The physique 
 of the people would improve under the new conditions of 
 life. 
 
 Under the direction of an elected Licensing Authority, 
 public opinion brought to bear upon the Supreme Council, 
 would have its effect. A city careful of the health and 
 well-being of its citizens, and recognising in such care the 
 truest economy, would endeavour to remove everything 
 prejudicially affecting it. A man who pours his wages 
 
764 MUNICIPAL LONDON. 
 
 down his throat, rarely makes a good citizen, and whilst 
 studiously careful to avoid interference with personal liberty, 
 an enlightened civic government would take care that the 
 facilities for demoralization were lessened ' and those for 
 improvement increased. 
 
 In every district of the town would be a pubKc library 
 and reading-room. The admission would be free, and every 
 rate-paying householder would be entitled to borrow books. 
 Public Parks, Commons, and Open Spaces would be carefully 
 tended, and gardens with seats and fountains would be found 
 in nearly every large square in the City. The public 
 cemeteries would be laid out in an attractive form at the 
 cost of the municipality, and the poor would enjoy equal 
 advantages with the rich in the allotment of the ground. 
 
 The whole Municipal System would have the advantage 
 of being readily understood by the citizens. Every rate- 
 payer would have a constitutional right to any information 
 with respect to its income, its expenditure, or its detail 
 working ; and the public hall attached to the local Municipal 
 offices in each district, would enable the inhabitants to meet 
 for the pubHc discussion of Municipal or public Affairs. 
 
 Men of position might be reasonably expected to allow 
 themselves to be put in nomination for civic honours. The 
 number of wealthy men with available leisure time, is 
 probably larger in London than anywhere else in the world, 
 and such men would be found to take their share in the 
 working out of a truly representative Municipal System. 
 
 Represented by one single central authority, London 
 would no longer speak in uncertain or divided tones, but its 
 expressed opinion upon any question would carry with it a 
 force to which it has long been a stranger, and the theory 
 which is held on the Continent, as to the position of Lord 
 Mayor, would more nearly approximate the truth. Practi- 
 cally, the mayoralty of the City of London has been a 
 
LONDON IN THE FUTURE. 765 
 
 nursery for the peerage. Many noble families trace back 
 their ancestry to a City tradesman, and in the Municipal 
 London of the future, the precedents of the past will, 
 probably, be followed, if, indeed, titled men do not seek the 
 honour of the civic Chair. 
 
 Surely this will be an object worthy of the highest 
 ambition. It will no longer be the reproach of the Capital 
 that her wealthiest sons, that those of her citizens whose 
 names are synonymous with commercial honour, and in- 
 tegrity, and enterprise in every part of the globe, decline to 
 take part in her government. 
 
 And when in the future the emblems of the Lord Mayor 
 of London — the sword to destroy his enemies and the cap 
 of maintenance to cover his head in the day of battle — are 
 borne in procession to the Chancellery, they will symboHze 
 an ofiice carrying with it high responsibilities and acknow- 
 ledged position; and one which must be sought at the 
 hands of the representatives of the grandest civic consti- 
 tuency that the world has ever known. 
 
 The improved Municipal conditions just considered, are 
 in no sense chimerical, but are within the easy attainment 
 of Londoners whenever they finally resolve to possess them 
 Under an enlightened despotism they would all have been 
 now within our reach. And when the citizens of the capital 
 awake to an understanding of their present condition, and of 
 the noble possibilities of their future, it cannot be doubted 
 but that this City, upon whose stage have been enacted 
 some of the grandest dramas in history, and whose fame 
 has spread to the ends of the earth, will assume its true 
 position, and become the best governed, as it is now, the 
 most influential of the cities of the world. 
 
 THE END. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abattoirs — 
 
 provision of, under Supreme Coun- 
 cil 74.S 
 
 Adulteration of Food — 
 
 control of, by Vestries . . 3.S5 
 
 control under Supreme Council . 742 
 
 Aldermen — 
 
 amoveable by the citizens . . 
 
 justices of the peace . . .13 
 
 judges of oyer and terminer . . 13 
 
 origin of the term . . .31 
 
 importance of the office . . 3l7i 
 
 present method of election . . 32 
 
 former powers of . . . . 33 
 
 present functions, and number of . 33 
 resolutions of 185-4 . . . 559 
 
 under Supreme Council 626, 630, 750 
 
 Articles of City Government — 
 
 confirmed by Edward the Second . 9 
 
 Artizans' Dwellings — 
 
 control of, by Metropolitan Board 737 
 
 of Works . . . ,262 
 
 controlled by Vestries . . . 333 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 689 
 
 Attachment — 
 
 foreign ; commencement of . .6 
 
 none but by City Officers . . 10 
 
 modern j)ractice in Mayor's Court . 137 
 
 Auditors — 
 
 appointment of, by Vestries . .310 
 
 audit under Supreme Council . 74H 
 
 Ayrton, a. S., M.P.— 
 
 speech on the gas question . . 358 
 
 committee on Local Government, 
 
 1861 569 
 
 denunciation of the City . 57ln 
 
 committee on local taxation, 1800 . 572 
 
 Bakehouses — 
 
 control of by vestries . . . 336 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 691 
 
 Baths and Washhouses — 
 
 conti'ol of by Vestries . . . 332 
 
 under Supreme Council . 743, 762 
 
 Beal, Mr. James — 
 
 petition against Metropolitan Board 284 
 Gas Bill of 1868 . . , .364 
 
 Beal, Mr. James, continued — 
 
 letter to, from Board of Trade . 373 
 
 Parliamentary Bills, 1867 . . 573 
 
 Bills in Parliament . . 558-90 
 
 Bill of Sir George Grey, 1H56 . 560 
 
 1858 . 566 
 
 Bill of 1859 . . . .568 
 
 BiU of Sir George C. Lewis, 1860 . 568 
 
 Police Bill of 1863 . . .671 
 
 Municipal Boroughs' Bill, 1867 . 573 
 
 Bill of 1868 . . . .575 
 
 Bills of Mr. Buxton, 1869 . . 575 
 
 1870 . . 676 
 
 Bill of Lord Elcho, 1875 . . 581 
 
 summary of results . . . 689 
 
 Bridge Without — 
 
 ward of, constituted . , .15 
 
 Brokers — 
 
 elected by the Court of Aldermen . 35 
 
 qualification of . . . . 35ji 
 
 receipts from . . . .191 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 651 
 
 Brougham, Lord — 
 
 criticism on the city . . 547-9 
 
 petition to House of Lords, 1845 . 551 
 Buildings — 
 
 regulation of, by the Metropolitan 
 
 Board of Works . . . 254 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 734 
 
 Burial Boaeds . . . 524-8 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 737 
 
 Burial Grounds — 
 
 control of by vestries . . . 334 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 705 
 
 Buxton, Mr., M.P. — 
 
 Bills of 1869 . . . .575 
 
 1^"0 , . . .676 
 
 Cabs — 
 
 control of, by police . . . 433 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 735 
 
 Cattle Disease — 
 
 control of, by Metropolitan Board 
 
 of Works . . . .260 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 743 
 Chamberlain — 
 
 Court of 140 
 
768 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Chamberlain, continued — 
 income and expenditure of City, 159 — 220 
 scheme of reform . . . 594; 
 
 " community of interest " . . 601 
 
 under Supreme Council . 7-45 
 
 Charities — 
 
 of City Companies . . .53 
 
 in connection with vestries . . 337 
 
 generally .... 528-31 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 705 
 
 Chaeters — see City Companies — 
 
 City Charters . . . 1-23 
 
 character of ... . 1-2 
 
 of "William the Conqueror . . 3 
 
 eftect of this Charter . . .3-4 
 
 of Henry the First ... 5 
 of Heniy the Second ... 7 
 of Richard the First ... 7 
 of John, Magna Charta . . 7-8 
 
 of Henry the Third ... 8 
 of Edward the First ... 9 
 of Edward the Second . . .10 
 
 of Edward the Third . . 10-11 
 
 of Eichard the Second . . .12 
 
 of Henry the Fourth . . .12 
 
 of Henry the Fifth . . .12 
 
 of Henry the Sixth . . .12 
 
 of Edward the Fourth . . .13 
 
 of Henry the Seventh . . .14 
 
 of Henry the Eighth . . .14 
 
 of Edward the Sixth . . .15 
 
 of Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth 15 
 of James the Fii-st . . .16 
 
 threatened withdrawal of . . 17 
 
 of Charles the Fu-st 
 Inspeximus Charter of Charles the 
 
 Second . . . . .18 
 
 forfeiture of Charters . . .18 
 
 regrant ottered by James the Second 19 
 full restoration of ... 19 
 
 undetinable character of . .20 
 
 objection of City to disclose . 21 
 
 under Supreme Council . 638-48 
 regrant by Crown every yeai- . . 642 
 
 effect of Quo Warranto . . 644 
 
 present condition of . . . 646 
 
 method of dealing with . . 647 
 
 Chelmsford, Lord — 
 
 address to Lord Mayor, 1H66 . 591 
 
 City Companies — 
 
 taxation of " Mysteries " . .10 
 control of granted to Mayor, Com- 
 monalty, and Citizens . . 14 
 Homiuate the Lord Mayor . . 28 
 controlled by Court of Aldermen . 35 
 grant of Charter to Needle-makers' 35 
 
 City Companies, continued — 
 
 recent increase of Needle-makers' 
 Company, and cause of 
 
 opponents to reform 
 
 part of the Corporation 
 
 reason for opposition . 
 
 former character and functions of . 
 
 former electoral powers of 
 
 origin of Grocers' Company . 
 
 origin of livery .... 
 
 selection of livery 
 
 former grandeur of . . . 
 
 membership, and method of ad- 
 mission ..... 
 
 freedom, how obtained . 
 
 freedom formerly confined to mem- 
 bers of trade .... 
 
 government of . 
 
 constitution of Court of Assistants 
 
 method of appropriating funds 
 
 control of trade by Grocers' and 
 Merchant Taylors' 
 
 control of trade by Goldsmiths', 
 Skinners', and Merchant Taylors' 
 
 control of trade by D}'ers',Pewterers', 
 and Bakers' .... 
 
 control of trade by Stationers', Tal- 
 low Chandlers', and other Com- 
 panies ..... 
 
 monopoly of ... . 
 
 rights of suburbs .... 
 
 provision of Charters . 
 
 Charters of, at present disregai'ded 
 
 grant of lands in mortmain by 
 Charter .... 
 
 tenure of land in the City 
 
 source and extent of income. 
 
 methods of expenditure 
 
 treatment of Commissioners . 
 
 method of executing trusts . 
 
 control of, by the Corporation and 
 the Crown 
 
 control of, by the Crown 
 
 cession of Charters 
 
 examination liy Royal Commission 100 
 
 present opposition to reform, and 
 cause of it . . . 101-4 
 
 motion in House of Commons, by 
 Mr. MoiTison .... 104 
 
 future of, under Supreme Council 634-7 
 Cloth Workers — gee City Com- 
 panies — 
 
 control of trade .... 
 
 fund left "to make themselves com- 
 fortable " . 
 Commissioners Royal — 
 
 of 1837, treatment of by City Com- 
 panies . . . . 79, 95 
 
 86 
 44 
 
 44 
 44 
 45-6 
 47 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 51 
 
 52 
 52-3 
 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 
 58 
 
 59 
 
 60 
 
 61-3 
 63 
 
 64-7 
 68 
 70 
 
 72 
 74 
 
 75-7 
 
 77-8 
 
 79 
 
 80-2 
 
 85-7 
 
 91-5 
 
 95 
 
 59 
 
 82 
 
INDEX. 
 
 769 
 
 PAOB 
 
 Commissioners, Royal, continued — 
 
 appointment of . . . . 100 
 
 report of in 1837 . . . 539 
 
 report of 1854 . . . .552 
 
 CoMisnssioN OF Sewers — 
 
 constitution and functions of 144-150 
 
 Committees — see Couet of Aldermen 
 AND CoiTRT OF Common Council — 
 of the Metropolitan Board of Works 278 
 of Supreme Council . . 711,759 
 
 Common Council — 
 
 rise and history of . . 37-3!) 
 former method of election . . 37 
 present number of . . . 38 
 present method of election . . 38 
 functions and powers of . 39-41 
 meeting of the Court of . . 41 
 present composition of . .110 
 character and occupation of mem- 
 bers .... 111-13 
 absence of influential citizens 113-14 
 number of committees and com- 
 missions . . . 114-16 
 constitution of . . . .110 
 Irish Society . . . 117-20 
 City Lands Committee . . .121 
 Bridge-House Estates Committee . 121 
 Gresham Committee . . . 122 
 Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee 122 
 General Purposes Committee . 123 
 Metage on Grain Committee . 123 
 Officers' and Clerks' Committee . 123 
 Library Committee . . . 128 
 Markets' Committee . . .128 
 City of London School . . . 130 
 Freemen's Orphan School . . 131 
 Law and Parliamentary Committee 133 
 Improvement Committee . . 144 
 character of committee system . 151 
 standing orders of . . .154 
 Common Hall — 
 
 electoral powers of . . . 26 
 
 representative of old Folkmote . 42 
 
 present electoral power . . 43 
 
 Commons — see Metropolitan Board 
 
 OF Works. 
 Common Seal — 
 
 first mention of . . . .23 
 
 Common Serjeant — 
 
 former salary of . . . . 160 
 present salary of . . . . 20S 
 under Supreme Council . 65G-748 
 Conservancy — see Thames Conser- 
 vancy Board — see Lee Conser- 
 vancy BOAJID. 
 
 Corn Metage — 
 
 income of, applied to open spaces . 248 
 
 Coroners ..... 517 
 under Supreme Council . . 743 
 
 Corporation of London — see Ex- 
 penditure, Common Council, 
 City Companies, Bills in Par- 
 liament, &c. — 
 resistance to Charles the Fii'st . 17 
 origin of . . . . .23 
 
 interference of Government with 
 
 constitution of . . . .40 
 
 control of City Companies . 85-91 
 
 method of Government by . 105-159 
 committee system — see Common 
 Council ..... 
 privileges of members of . 206-7 
 
 salaries of officers . . 208-10 
 
 extravagance in salaries . 210-11 
 repairs of buildings . . 212-14 
 
 entertainments . . . 214-16 
 
 charitable votes . . . .217 
 
 extravagance . . . 220-25 
 
 claim to to control of open spaces . 248 
 conduct of in relation to police 425 
 
 indictment of by Lord Brougham . 549 
 reasons against internal reform . 608 
 
 Corporation of Westminster — see 
 
 Westminstek. 
 
 County Jurisdiction . . ;"il5.523 
 government of county of Middlesex 515 
 income and expenditure of Middle- 
 sex ..... 516 17 
 income and expenditure of county 
 
 of Surrey . . . 519-20 
 
 ditto of Kent . . . 521-2 
 
 abolished under Supreme Council 703 
 
 Courts, City — 
 
 present number and powers of 134-40 
 
 Court of Hustings . . . 135 
 
 Lord Mayor's Court . . . 186 
 
 City of London Court . . .137 
 
 Central Criminal Court . .139 
 
 Court of Aldermen — 
 
 functions of .... 34-7 
 
 control over City Companies . 35, 50 
 claim of right to increase electoral 
 
 body 35 
 
 control of Clock Makers' Company 90 
 functions and government of. 105-8 
 
 control of prisons . . . 105 
 
 government by committees . 106-7 
 
 expenditure of . . . . 108 
 
 resolutions of ... . 559 
 
 abolition of, under Supreme Council 653 
 
770 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Crown — 
 
 control of City Companies by . 85-6, 91-5 
 
 Dogs — 
 
 control of, by police . . . 435 
 
 Drainage — 
 
 control of, by Commissioners of 
 
 Sewers . . . . .145 
 
 control by Metropolitan Board . 231 
 
 control by Vestries . . . 302 
 
 control by Supreme Council . .711 
 
 Drapers' Company — see City Com- 
 panies — 
 income of . . . . .77 
 
 control of, by City . . .87 
 
 Dyers' Company — see City Com- 
 panies — 
 control of trade . . . .60 
 
 Edward the Confessor — 
 confirmation of City usages and 
 
 customs ..... 3 
 grant of Charter to Westminster . 409 
 
 Elcho, Lord — 
 BiU of 1875 , . . .581 
 
 public opinion on Bill . . . 613 
 
 Election — 
 magistrates, portreeve, bishop, and 
 ealdermeu, privilege of electing 
 preserved by William the Con- 
 queror to London ... 4 
 of City officers . . . .25 
 
 of aldermen and common councillors 26 
 of members of parliament . 25-26 
 
 powers of the Common Hall . . 20 
 
 of Lord Mayor . . . .29 
 
 of aldermen . . . .32 
 
 of common councillors . . 38 
 
 by Common Hall of various officers 43 
 of governing body of City companies 55 
 of members of Metropolitan Board 230 
 of vestrymen .... 302 
 of Thames conservators . 466-67 
 
 of Boards of Guardians . . 483 
 
 division of into electoral districts . 619 
 of Lord Mayor .... (525 
 of aldermen under Supreme Council 626 
 of Supreme Councillors . .627 
 
 Expenditure — 
 
 of City Commission of Sewers . 151 
 of the City of London . . 159-222 
 
 heads of City ... 165 
 
 City's estate, character of . . 104 
 
 details of accounts . . 100 — 189 
 
 tabulatedincorae and expenditure 189-99 
 salaries of officers . . 208.10 
 
 Expenditure, continued — 
 
 repairs of buildings 
 
 212-14 
 
 entertainments . 
 
 214-16 
 
 charitable votes . 
 
 . 217 
 
 extravagance 
 
 220-25 
 
 of Metropolitan Board 
 
 . 206-278 
 
 of London Vestries 
 
 318-93 
 
 of London Police . 
 
 435-8 
 
 of School Board . 
 
 457-8 
 
 Thames Conservancy 
 
 . 473 
 
 Lee Conservancj- 
 
 . 477 
 
 poor relief . 
 
 . 509 
 
 county 
 
 510-22 
 
 burial boards 
 
 . 527 
 
 summary for metropolis . ■ 535 
 
 Fire Brigade — 
 
 
 control of by Metropolitan Board . 250 
 
 under Supreme Counci 
 
 . 739 
 
 Foreigners — see Strangers. 
 
 Freedom — 
 
 residential qualification for . . 24 
 qualification changed to mercantile 25 
 
 in a city company . . .52 
 
 by ser\itude and patrimony . . 52 
 
 by redemption . . . .53 
 
 illegality of present admission in 
 
 City Companies . . .54 
 
 City, value of ... . 551 
 
 Gas— 
 
 appointment of inspectors by Metro- 
 politan Board of Works . . 261 
 present London supfdy . 340-80 
 lighting, before establishment of 
 
 companies . . . 340-41 
 
 competition and coalition . 343-46 
 provisions and effect of Act of 
 
 1860 .... 349-56 
 Corporation of London Bill, 1S66 . 357 
 Mr. Beal's Bill of 1866 . . 359 
 
 Mr. Cardwell's Committee . 361-62 
 City of London Gas Act, 1868 364-67 
 effect of the Act . . . 368-70 
 
 misconduct of Metro2'>olitan Board 
 
 359-03-05-70 
 proceedings in Parliament . 370-72 
 proceedings before commissioners , 373 
 gas question in 1875 . . 374-78 
 
 statistics of supply . . 379-80 
 
 under a Supreme Council . 661-87 
 rights of Londoners with respect to 668 
 methods of acquu-ement . . 672 
 
 Act of 1H72, and its effect . . 682 
 
 control of, by Supreme Council . 716 
 
 Goldsmiths' Company — 
 control of trade . . . .59 
 
INDEX. 
 
 771 
 
 Grain Metage — 
 right to, contested 
 Committee . 
 
 21;t 
 123 
 
 Gresham Estate — 
 
 Committee of Common Council . 122 
 
 present condition of trust . 177-9 
 
 under Supreme Council . . C51 
 
 Grocers' Company — 
 
 origin of . . . . .47 
 
 trade controlled by . . . 58 
 
 Guilds — see City Companies. 
 
 Hare, Mr. — 
 
 scheme of voting. . . . 631 
 
 HOSPIT.ULS — 
 
 control of, by City . . 155-8 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 726 
 
 Hustings — 
 
 privilege of meeting in, confirmed 
 
 by Edward the Confessor . . 3 
 
 right of suing and being sued in 
 
 Hustings Court ... 4 
 
 Court of, in early London . . 6 
 
 Court of, at ijresent . . .135 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 650 
 
 Income — see Expenditure. 
 
 Infant Life — 
 
 protection of ... . 257 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 689 
 
 Irish Society — 
 
 history, constitution, and present 
 
 powers of . . . 117-20 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 655 
 
 Justiciar — 
 
 right of appointing given to the 
 City 5 
 
 Kay-Shuttleworth — 
 
 speech on Metropolis Water Act, 
 
 1871 389 
 
 BiUofl875 581 
 
 Kelly, Chief Baron — 
 
 address to Lord Mayor, . . 592 
 
 Kent, 521 — see County Jurisdiction. 
 
 Lee Conservancy Board . . 474 
 
 jurisdiction. .... 475 
 
 income and expenditure . 477-8 
 
 under Supreme Council . 701, 735 
 
 Licensing — 
 
 control of 720 
 
 Livery Companies — see City Com- 
 panies. 
 
 Liverymen — 
 
 constituted the electoral body of 
 
 the City .... 25 
 
 origin of the term . . .48 
 selection of .... 49 
 
 Loan Liability — 
 
 of whole metropolis . . . 536 
 
 assumption of by Supreme Council 746 
 
 LODGING-HOUSES — 
 
 control of by Vestries . . . 333 
 
 control of by Police . . . 433 
 
 under Supreme Council . .691 
 
 Lord Mayor — 
 
 history of the office . . .27 
 
 presentation of, before the Barons 
 
 of the Exchequer . . . 27n 
 
 method of election . . . 27-9 
 
 jiresentation to Lord Chancellor, 27 n, 30 
 present functions and powers of . 30-1 
 under Supreme Council . 624, 709 
 
 . 130 
 . 655 
 
 Lord Mayors Court 
 under Supreme Council 
 
 Markets — 
 
 none to be held within 7 miles of 
 
 the city 10 
 
 rights of market regranted . . 17 
 
 Committees of Common CouncU . 128 
 unpatriotic policy of city . . 129 
 
 opposition of city to establishment 165 
 expenditure and income — see Ex- 
 penditure . . . 188-99 
 income from . . . 190 
 under Supreme Council . 651, 736 
 
 Medical Officers — 
 
 control of by Vestries . . 307-10 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 741 
 
 Medway — 
 
 control of, granted by John . . 7 
 
 conservancy of, confirmed by the 
 
 city . . . . .16 
 
 Merchant Taylors — see City 
 
 Companies — 
 control of trade . . , .59 
 
 opposition to commissioners of 
 
 1837 95-6 
 
 defence of the Company . 96-100« 
 
 Metage — 
 
 of coal, grain, salt, and fiiiit con- 
 firmed . . . . 16 
 of com, rights to contested . . 21n 
 present application of grain duty . 247 
 under Supreme Council . .651 
 
772 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 METBOrOTJS — 
 
 divisions of, for vfiiious purposes . 533 
 balance sheet of . . . 534 
 
 loan liability .... 536 
 
 Meteopolis Local Management Act 
 — see Metropolitan Board of 
 Works and London Vestries. 
 
 Metropolitan Asyliims Board, 497-508 
 under Supreme Council . . 726 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, 226,293 
 origin of . . . . . 226 
 
 control of London drainage before 
 
 1856 .... 226-8 
 
 constitution of the Board . . 228 
 
 jurisdiction of the Board . 230-2 
 
 work in connection with the main 
 
 drainage .... 233-7 
 
 embankment of the Thames 237-9 
 
 construction of new streets . 239-43 
 parks, commons, and open spaces, 243-50 
 control of fire biigade . . 250-54 
 
 regulation of buildings . . 254 
 
 control of sti'eets . . . 255 
 
 control of noxious trades . .257 
 
 control of petroleum . . . 258 
 
 direction of tramways . . . 259 
 
 control of cattle disease . . 260 
 
 powers in respect of gas, water, 
 explosive substances, artizans' 
 dwellings, &c. . , 261-64 
 
 Loans Act, 1875 . . 264, 267-71 
 
 summary of jurisdiction . . 265 
 
 income and expenditui'e . 272-78 
 Committees of the Board . .278 
 
 inadequacy of members . 278-81 
 
 non-representative character of 
 
 ditto .... 281-82 
 occupations of ditto . . . 283 
 
 charges against the Board, and 
 
 characters of ditto . . 284-93 
 
 misconduct of ditto on the gas 
 
 question. . . 359-63-65-70 
 
 misconduct of ditto on water ques- 
 tion .... 397-99 
 under Supreme Council . . 688 
 
 Middlesex — see County Jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 
 Mill, John Stuart — 
 
 qualifications of local rulers . 
 Municipal Boroughs' Bill 
 Bills of 1868 
 character of local bodies 
 
 Monopoly — 
 
 of City Companies 
 
 282 
 573 
 575 
 
 598 
 
 63 
 
 Mortmain — 
 
 liberty given to the City to pur- 
 chase lands in . . . .13 
 
 gi-ant of land to City Companies in 
 reason of- . . .57 
 
 methods of grants to City Com- 
 panies . . . . .72 
 
 Mortuaries — 
 
 control of by Vestries . . . 334 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 743 
 
 Municipal Corporation Act . . 539 
 
 Mysteries— sfe City Companies — 
 
 Dr. Johnson's definition of . . 57n 
 
 Needle-Makers' Company — 
 
 grant of charter . . . .35 
 
 recent increase of livery and cause 36 
 
 Newton, William — 
 
 address to MetropoUtau Board, 
 1875 599 
 
 Non-Freemen — 
 
 goods of, liable to forfeiture, when 
 trading in the City . .12 
 
 Noxious Trades — 
 
 control of, bv Metropolitan Board 
 
 of Works" . . . .257 
 
 control of by Vestries . . . 315 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 742 
 
 Nuisances — 
 
 control of by Vestries . . 312-13 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 742 
 
 Parks and Open Spaces — 
 
 under Metropolitan Board . , 244 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 737 
 
 Parliament, Acts of — 
 effect on City Charters . . .21 
 
 Petroleum — 
 
 control of, by Metropolitan Board . 258 
 under Supreme Council . , 743 
 
 Pewterers' Company — see City Com- 
 panies — 
 control of trade . . , .60 
 
 Pleaders — 
 
 City Pleaders .... 5 
 
 Police 423-442 
 
 constituting and regulating Acts 423-25 
 reason of separate City force. . 425 
 
 treasury contribution . . . 426 
 
 number of City Police . . . 427 
 
 strength and division of force . 429 
 pay of officers and men . 430-31 
 
 diminution of crime . . . 432 
 
 control of cabs, and lodging-houses 433 
 
INDEX. 
 
 773 
 
 Police, continued — 
 
 control of smoke nuisances . . 433 
 income and expenditure . 435-38 
 PoKce BiU of ls39 . . .547 
 PoUce BiU of 1863 . . .571 
 direction of, under Supreme Coun- 
 cil 720 
 
 Police Courts — 
 
 regulation of . . . 
 
 . 441 
 
 income and expenditure of . 
 
 . 442 
 
 Pooh Eelief .... 
 
 . 479 
 
 Boards of Guardians . 
 
 . 481 
 
 rates in separate unions 
 
 . 482 
 
 dispensaries 
 
 . 485 
 
 Sick Asylums Disti'icts 
 
 . 487 
 
 common Poor Fund 
 
 488-9 
 
 district and union schools 
 
 . 492 
 
 general system 
 
 . 495 
 
 Metropolitan Asylmns Board 497-508 
 Poor rate income and expentliture . 509 
 loans of Poor Law authorities . 511 
 under Supreme Council . 702, 726 
 
 Pkisons — 
 
 control of, by Court of Aldermen . 105 
 control of, by Supreme Council . 720 
 
 Privileges, City — 
 
 undefinable character of . .20 
 
 Property — 
 of City Companies . . . 76-9 
 
 of City (see Expenditure) 
 of City, under Supreme Council 649-735 
 
 Public Works Committee . . 729 
 store department. . . . 730 
 
 Works Bureau . . . .732 
 
 Pulling Serjeant — 
 
 illegality of action of City Com- 
 panies . . . . .54 
 
 right of tradesmen to admission 
 into City Companies. . ; 67 
 
 character of (]ity opposition . . 165« 
 
 private Bill legislation . . . 603 
 
 Qualification of Aldermen . . 33 
 of Aldermen under Supreme Coun- 
 cil 628 
 
 of Supreme Councillors . . 628 
 
 Quo Warranto — 
 
 case against the City . . .18 
 
 judgment in annulled . . .19 
 
 argument in . . . 643-4 
 
 Recorder — 
 
 Justice of the Peace . . .13 
 
 history and functions of office 125 
 
 under a Supreme Council . . 655 
 
 Registration Districts. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . 513 
 
 Eemembrancee — 
 
 character and functions of office . 141 
 fonner salarj' of . . . . 160 
 
 present salary of . . . . 208 
 
 Epping Forest legislation . . 248 
 
 report on Committee of 1867 . 594 
 
 under Supreme Council . . 657 
 
 Schools — 
 
 City of London . 130, 652, 724 
 
 Freemen's Orphan . 181, 652, 724 
 District and Union . . 492, 724 
 
 Industrial .... 516, 724 
 
 School Board . . . 442-65 
 early work of Board . . 443-44 
 
 school accommodation . . 445-46 
 
 work in various districts . 447-48 
 number and salaries of officers 449-50 
 ciu'riculum of study . . . 452 
 
 work of " visitors "... 453 
 enforced attendance . . . 454 
 
 destitute children . . . 455 
 
 loans ...... 456 
 
 income and expenditure . 457-SH 
 cost and accommodation of com- 
 pleted schools . . . 459-61 
 ditto schools in progress . 461-63 
 statistics of schools, children, and 
 attendance .... 464 
 
 Public Education Committee under 
 Supreme Council . . 700, 724 
 
 Scott, Benjamin — see CHAMBEBL.iiN — 
 Selected District Committees, 
 
 617, 725, 729 
 
 Seejeants-at-Mace — 
 right of carrj-ing gold maces . .11 
 
 Sheriffs — 
 
 grant of sheriffwick by Henry I. . 5 
 regrant of sheriffwick by John . 7 
 election of . . . . .9 
 
 duties of in City .... 124 
 under Supreme Council . . 655 
 
 Skinners' Company — see City Com- 
 panies — 
 rulers of guild to be professed 
 
 skinners . . . .57 
 
 control of trade . . . .59 
 
 control of, by City . . .87 
 
 SOUTHWARK — 
 
 granted to City . . . .13 
 
 regranted to City . . .15 
 
 government of, assimilated to City 15 
 
 courts of . . . . .134 
 
 Stationers' Company — see City 
 Companies — 
 
 control of trade by . . .61 
 
 3c 
 
774 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Strangers — 
 
 
 excluded from settlement in tlu 
 
 
 City .... 
 
 12 
 
 restrictions upon 
 
 12 
 
 forfeiture against 
 
 U 
 
 City, jealousy of . 
 
 14 
 
 exportation of goods forbidden 
 
 15 
 
 dangerous riots against 
 
 15 
 
 Streets — 
 
 
 first paved and lighted . 
 
 12 
 
 control of by Commissioners of 
 
 Sewers . . . . 
 
 147 
 
 improvements of, by Metropolitan 
 
 
 Board of Works 
 
 239 
 
 control of by Vestries . . 305 
 
 , 326 
 
 paving expenditure 
 
 319 
 
 under Sujireme Council 
 
 691 
 
 Suburbs — 
 
 
 included in government of City 
 
 9 
 
 rights in City Companies 
 
 64-7 
 
 rights of 
 
 644 
 
 included in Inspeximus Charter ol 
 
 
 Charles I. . . . . 
 
 646 
 
 Supreme Council — 
 
 
 representation of districts at 
 
 621 
 
 number of members 
 
 622 
 
 method of election 
 
 623 
 
 election of Lord Mayor 
 
 625 
 
 election of Aldermen . 
 
 626 
 
 election of Councillors . 
 
 627 
 
 qualification of Aldermen and Coun- 
 
 
 cillors .... 
 
 628 
 
 time of election .... 
 
 629 
 
 method of voting 
 
 630 
 
 cumulative voting 
 
 632 
 
 City property, method of dealing 
 
 
 with ..... 
 
 651 
 
 City loan liability 
 
 653 
 
 Irish Society .... 
 
 655 
 
 City court and schools . 
 
 656 
 
 City officers .... 
 
 656 
 
 City hospital control . 
 
 658 
 
 gas supply . . 661-87 
 
 716 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, adap- 
 
 
 tation of . 
 
 688 
 
 water supjily . . . 692 
 
 715 
 
 Corporation of Westminster 
 
 699 
 
 police force . . . 699, 
 
 720 
 
 School Boards . . . 700, 
 
 724 
 
 Thames Conservancy Boai'd . 
 
 701 
 
 Lee ConseiTancy Board 
 
 701 
 
 poor relief ..... 
 
 702 
 
 county jurisdiction 
 
 704 
 
 general regulations of . 
 
 706 
 
 Drainage Committee, work of 
 
 711 
 
 Water Supply Committee, work of. 
 
 715 
 
 Gas Supply Committee, work of 
 
 716 
 
 Supreme Council, continued — 
 
 Public .Justice, Police, Prisons, and 
 
 Licensing Committee . . 720 
 
 Public Education Committee . 724 
 
 Poor Relief Committee . . 726 
 
 Public Works Committee . . 729 
 
 Public Proper tv Committee . .735 
 
 fire brigade. " . . .739 
 
 Public Health Committee . . 740 
 Taxation, Assessment, and Finance 744 
 
 Law and Parliamentary . . 747 
 
 Audit Committee . . . 748 
 
 Special Pur^ioses Committee . 749 
 
 tabular statement of work of . 751 
 
 Surrey — see County Jurisdiction. 
 
 Tabular Statejient . . . 751 
 
 Taxes— 
 
 London free from Scot, Danegeld, &c. 6 
 jiower of Lord Mayor and Council 
 
 to levy 10 
 
 collection of, under Supreme Coun- 
 cil 744 
 
 Thajhes — 
 
 rights once gi'anted by Richai'd I. . 7 
 
 regi'ant of rights by King John . 7 
 
 Conservancy confirmed to City . 16 
 
 Thames Conservancy Board — 
 
 Constituting Act . . . 465-7 
 
 Amending Act . . . 467-8 
 
 upper navigation .... 469 
 income and expenditure . 471-3 
 
 under Supreme Council . 701, 735 
 
 Thames Embankment — see Metropo- 
 litan Board of Works. 
 
 ToMLiNE, Colonel — 
 
 BiUofl868 . . . .575 
 
 Tower of London. . . 523, 704 
 
 Town Clerk — 
 
 functions of in City . . . 127 
 
 salary of . . . .160, 208 
 
 under Supreme Council . 656, 747 
 
 Traders — see City Companies — 
 
 sureties for. .... 9 
 
 enactment in favour of . .10 
 
 exclusion of City traders . .11 
 
 prosecution of by City in 1845 . 550 
 
 Tramways — 
 
 powers of Metropolitan Board . 258 
 control under Supreme Council . 722 
 
 Vestries. London . . . 294-339 
 
 local government before 1856 294-7 
 
 constitution of . . 298-301 
 
 want of uniformity . . . 299 
 
INDEX. 
 
 775 
 
 Vestries, London, continued 
 election of . 
 control of sewers 
 paving, watering, cleansing 
 
 lighting . 
 underground dwellings 
 irregular action of 
 medical olficers . 
 appointment of auditors 
 nature of accounts 
 control of nuisances 
 appeal to Metropolitan Board 
 representation at 
 
 Board 
 statistics of 
 loans . 
 
 . 302 
 
 302-3 
 
 and 
 
 . 304 
 
 . 304 
 
 . 306 
 
 807-10 
 
 . 310 
 
 310-12 
 
 312-13 
 
 316 
 
 Metropolitan 
 
 . 317 
 318-19 
 320-21 
 
 income and expenditure, 
 
 318-19-20-24, 534-5 
 street watering . . . .327 
 public lamps .... 328 
 sanitary inspection . . 329-31-33 
 
 baths and wash houses. . . 332 
 
 workshops, lodging-houses, and 
 
 artizans' dwellings . . 333 
 
 mortuaries and burial grounds . 334 
 adulteration of food . . . 335 
 
 control of bake-houses . . 336 
 
 charities ..... 337 
 summary of functions . . . 338 
 
 under a Supreme Council . 690-2 
 Waeds — 
 
 division of City into . . .24 
 
 origin of term . . . .31 
 
 Wards, continued. 
 present size ijnd representation of 
 
 City 109 
 
 proposed alteration by Sir George .> 
 
 Grey 560 
 
 districts under Supreme Council . 621 
 Water Supply . . . 381-407 
 conduit pipes first laid down . 12 
 
 supply before establishment of 
 
 companies . . . 381-82 
 
 establishment of companies . 383-84 
 supply prior to 1852 . . 384-87 
 
 Metropolis Water Act, 1852 . 387-88 
 river pollution . . . 389-91 
 
 temperature and character of . 392 
 
 quantity 393 
 
 constant supply . . . 394-96 
 
 Metropolis Water Act, 1871 . 396-97 
 area of supply .... 401 
 storeage ..... 403 
 income and expenditure . 405, 534-5 
 capital account .... 406 
 under the Supreme Council . . 692 
 
 Bill of Colonel Beresford, 1874 . 697 
 work of Water Supply Committee . 715 
 tabular statement . . . 751 
 
 Westminster, Corporation of 408-23 
 origin and early liistory of . 408-12 
 constitution iinder Elizabeth 413-16 
 Act of 1756 . . . 416-17 
 
 explaining and amending Acts . 418 
 present constitution . . 419-23 
 
 under a Supreme Council . . 699 
 
LOKDON ; 
 
 PBIMTED BT OBO. FEIPPS, TOTHILL SIBKKT, 
 
 WESTMINSTER. 
 

 yJlta. k. 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 ^nqr'f;2/\F 
 
 OCT 1 2 1994 
 
 Q i-P AUDPISCCIRC StP 04^1 
 
 JAN 3 1963 
 
 MAY 4- - 1333 7 9 
 
 -HEXI!0— 
 
 Wk 20^bH -i( 
 
 ■^ 1974 8 g 
 
 i^V^ 
 
 
 4-^ >•* 
 
 ^■v^hi^ 
 
 ^^1 NRP !-!»« :sftjn9 ©.:^{^^ 
 
 -5m-6 '37l 
 
 UJL 
 
;f 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 • ' Ml 1 
 
 UNIV'ERSrTY OF CAUFORNIA L1RR--\RY 
 
 W^ww 
 
 . ( 
 
 i w§^ 
 
 / 
 
 r foh 
 
 
 w *'^/9 
 
 f 
 
 W 7 **/5i 
 
 ^: ,^ 
 
 mu/'ik^ 
 
 ^ *'' 
 
 WmJ ■ ^7 21 
 
 L^ ^ 
 
 fjf ik^i 
 
 y ^ 
 
 AJm/ ff jj 
 
 \J ir 
 
 V¥/^A 
 
 %/Ai 
 
 W^jjri 
 
 Bl//' 
 
 '^jtL 
 
 
 ► V 
 
 V >