SIR GEORGE LEWIS—Sir, the House are doubtless aware that when the Municipal Corporation Bill passed, an exception was made of the Corporation of the City of London. That exception was mainly founded upon the generally popular character of the municipal government of that body. Before the Municipal Act was introduced a very large number of the corporations of England were practically close; the governing body was confined and limited in its character, and frequently the vacancies which occurred were filled up by self-election. The main object of the Municipal Act was to popularize the constitution of the corporations of the country; but the Common-council of the City of London being already a popular body, and having in former times exercised a great influence for strengthening the popular party in this country, it was not thought necessary to include that corporation in the general Municipal Act. A separate Report was afterwards made with respect to the institutions of the City of London; and a few years ago it was found, after the reform which the other corporations had undergone, that that which had at one time been regarded as the model corporation of the country would not bear a favourable comparison with the bodies included in the Municipal Act. Accordingly a Commission, of which I had the honour to be a member, was issued to inquire into the Corporation of the City of London. 283 That Commission made a Report, and a Bill was subsequently introduced into this House, founded on the Report of the Commissioners. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, who went through all its clauses, and reported it to the House with Amendments. The measure which I now seek to submit to the notice of the House is substantially the measure which was reported by that Select Committee, and may, therefore, be deemed the result of the recommendations of the Commission, revised by a Select Committee of this House. The Bill so framed is limited to the constitution of the Corporation and to certain duties of its officers. It does not include the financial part of the question—namely, the coal duties, the metage dues, or the fees on brokers, which are all omitted from the operation of the measure. I think it not improbable that in the course of the Session I may have to call the attention of the House to the subject of the coal duties—which will expire, or at least a portion of them, at a not very distant date—as well as to other points connected with them which require consideration by this House. That question I however reserve to a future opportunity, and at present I merely ask for leave to introduce the Bill the object of which I have generally described. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better Regulation of the Corporation of the City of London.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not intend to oppose the Motion, but must express his regret that the Government, having had ample time to consider that important subject, should have arrived at so feeble a result. The question of the City Corporation had engaged the attention of the House and of the metropolis for many years past, and he did not complain of the extreme candour of the right hon. Gentleman in giving the true reason for the maintenance of that particular municipality. No doubt it had for a long period strenuously supported Liberal principles. When reform began to be applied to the other corporations of England, it saw the necessity of allying itself strictly with the Liberal party in the House of Commons; and from that time to this it had pursued that exceedingly wise policy to which it owed its immunity from real reform. It was to be doubted, however, whether the service it had rendered to the Liberal party was a sufficient ground for keeping up an institution which had not only ceased to be of 284 practical utility, but was of very serious inconvenience to the metropolis. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced a measure which contained provisions of a very curious character. The House would remember that in the last Session of the late Parliament a memorable discussion took place to determine what should be the proper basis for the elective franchise. The late Government thought it wise and politic to maintain a £10 franchise. The Whig leaders solemnly condemned that as too high a qualification for voters for Members of Parliament; and by a concerted movement—in which they were supported by the entire Liberal party—they contrived on that very question to turn their opponents out of office. Now, however, after a year's deliberation, the Whig Government came down to the House and proposed a £10 franchise for the constituency of this great municipality. One was at a loss to know how to deal with such a Government. When he assisted the present Government last year in ousting their predecessors, he never imagined that they would adhere to a limit for the franchise which they had so solemnly condemned. Surely it would not be said that a higher qualification was required from those who chose the members of a municipal corporation than from those who returned representatives to Parliament. He could discover no reason for retaining such an anomaly, except that that Corporation had attached itself so affectionately to the Whig party that it was absolutely necessary for those who directed the politics of the Liberals to look more to the combinations of City corporators in elections than to the great political principles which they had professed. They must either maintain the Corporation of the City of London as a curiosity and a thing of the past, or place it on a footing consonant with all other municipalities. In its origin it was not, as it had now become, a mere local institution, confined within the ancient walls of London. It was formerly a very remarkable combination of all the freemen engaged in trade in the city in its widest sense, namely, as the whole metropolis. The Corporation was based on the freedom of the City, and that freedom was connected with the freedom of the Livery companies, bodies representing every branch of trade then carried on in the metropolis. No man had a light to take his place in the municipality unless he was free not only of the City but of one of the Livery companies, which were not limited to the City bound- 285 aries. These companies were all united into one Corporation, which was therefore not a mere municipal but a trading institution. The Mayor—an integral part of the Corporation, without whom nothing could be done—was elected entirely by the Livery, and was supposed to represent every branch of trade. It was now proposed, however, to divest the City Corporation of its trading character, and to reduce it within the limits of an ordinary municipal corporation, such as was to be found in any other part of the country. If it was dealt with in that way, it must abandon all its pretensions to represent the trading and commercial classes of the whole metropolis. If maintained, then, at all, its privileges ought to be extended to the entire metropolitan community. They last Session heard a good deal about the inconvenience resulting from the Government not possessing the confidence of the House of Commons; but in this case a Government which professed to enjoy that confidence was bringing forward a measure which was quite unworthy of the attention of the House. The same Government had recently entered into negotiations and concluded a treaty to relieve the manufacturers of Paris from a tax upon coal; but by this measure they proposed to continue a similar tax upon the manufacturers of London and about twenty-one miles round. Was it possible that a mere territorial municipality should be allowed to levy a tax upon the whole metropolis? The right hon. Gentle man, from his experience as a Commissioner appointed to inquire into this subject, knew perfectly well that the Corporation of London had at present no right to levy the smallest tax upon coal, or to levy any other tax whatever upon the metropolis. The coal tax was granted in times past, without any restriction, hut for specific purposes and objects. Those purposes and objects had been fulfilled, and more than fulfilled; and it was now continued for the benefit of the City, at the expense of the rest of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Yet, because the Government did not like to quarrel with the Corporation of the city of London, who were all-influential in the city elections, the interests of the inhabitants of the rest of the metropolis were to he sacrificed, and this tax was to continue to he levied. He hoped that the House would not sanction any such feeble and unsatisfactory legislation. No doubt they would be appealed to to maintain the corporation because it was antiquated, and had in times past been 286 associated with the triumphs of liberalism. Probably the noble Lord the Member for London would tell them that the Corporation was mentioned in Magna Charta, and that when the Barons had signed that document they were so frightened that they ran into the city of London and made themselves secure behind its walls. This, like the story of the 40s. freeholder who said that he had held his freehold since the days of William the Conqueror, was no doubt a very interesting historical fact, but it ought not to be allowed to influence the decision of an important practical question. Some years ago the Legislature established a really useful and practical municipality to conduct the affairs of the inhabitants of the metropolis; and how could it now re-establish by the side of that, a crude and imperfect corporation elected upon quite a different principle? In former days, the Lord Mayor of Loudon was a person of considerable importance; but since the time of Beckford the municipality had been going down in public opinion, its chief offices were no longer sought for as distinctions, and it had become the mere plaything of people of no political importance, and served no useful purpose whatever. There were evils and inconveniences enough with which the right hon. Gentleman might have dealt; and which, if he refused to notice them, would, he hoped, be dealt with by a measure introduced by some independent Member. For instance, great loss and inconvenience arose from different parts of the metropolis being in different counties. For all municipal and legal purposes the metropolis ought to be formed into a single county, having one Recorder, with deputy Recorders for different districts, one nisi prius court, one jury system, and one sheriff; and thereby to secure uniformity of administration, a great relief to the inhabitants, and an impartial administration of justice. To effect such an arrangement would be worthy the exertions of a Secretary of State; but the measure now introduced was so incomplete and imperfect, that he trusted that the House would either send it to a Committee for improvement, or altogether refuse to proceed with it.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the Bill so objectionable be should much prefer the postponement of all legislation on the subject to accepting it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), some time ago promised 287 them a Bill on this subject. Now he (Mr. Williams) wished that that right hon. Gentleman would frame a measure, for he confessed he would feel greater confidence in the manner in which he would deal with it than in the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject that evening. It was perfectly well known that if a Lord Mayor did not treat the Common Council well, they held out a direct threat to him that they would not vote him thanks unless he mended his manners. Why should the Aldermen of London be elected for life in contradistinction to those of Manchester, Liverpool, and the other important cities and towns in England, who were elected for only six years. He should not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but if it were the same as that of last Session be hoped it would be dropped by the Government, or very materially altered. Such was the influence of the Corporation of London, arising from their convivial meetings at the Mansion House, that they had evidently triumphed over the good intentions of the Government. It remained for the House of Commons, however, to resist their attractions, and to hand over the municipal affairs of the metropolis to a governing body worthy of the name.
§ MR. ALDERMAN CUBITTwished to say a few words on behalf of an important portion of the citizens of London. The Livery consisted of from 10,000 to 15,000 persons, a large proportion of whom were men of great influence and of the highest respectability. In the Bill of last Session their existence was entirely ignored, much to the dissatisfaction of the Corporation itself. He hoped the same error would not be committed in the measure about to be introduced. The Livery ought to be retained in their present position.
§ MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he perfectly agreed with the last speaker that the Livery of London ought not to be forgotten. They were not confined within the walls of the city of London, but were spread throughout the whole metropolis, and his principal objection to the measure proposed to be introduced by the Home Secretary was that it dealt with a comparatively small portion of the metropolis. The Corporation of the City of London had already extended its limits; for a number of wards in the City were composed of districts which from time to time had been taken into and incorporated with the City of London. The Metropolitan Board of Works was intended to be some thing like a corporation for the whole of 288 London, controlling its municipal Government in an essential respect, having the power of levying rates for improvements—a body, too, which he felt bound to say almost everybody disliked. By the fusion of the Metropolitan Board of Works with the Corporation of London an effective body might be constituted. This would be much better than having a second Guildhall in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross, where on the site of Berkeley House they were building a Palace for the Metropolitan Board of Works. If this Bill of the Government passed we should have two kings—the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the Board of Works, with two grand establishments, the expense of which would fall on the inhabitants of the metropolis. Was this expedient? Why not, instead of passing this Bill, pursue the course formerly adopted, and extend and enlarge the Corporation—dividing the metropolis into wards, and making the Lord Mayor and Common Council the body which should govern the whole. To a body thus constituted the affairs of the entire metropolis might fairly be entrusted, and a great deal of unnecessary expense spared to the rate payers; for the funds and machinery of the Corporation were quite sufficient for a largely extended jurisdiction. But it had been said that by so doing we should create an imperium in imperio, and that even the Houses of Parliament and the Queen upon her throne would be obliged to succumb to the Corporation of London—but for these apprehensions there could be no grounds. The exisiting Corporation was powerful because it possessed large funds of its own, amounting to £60,000 a year, with which they could do as they pleased, derived not from rates but from property which it had inherited. But let the Corporation have a taxing power over the whole metropolis, and it would soon be unpopular enough. Devolve upon it the duties which were now performed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, convert it into a taxing body, and while its means of usefulness would be largely increased it would speedily find itself deprived of all that was improper in its influence. The Bill now brought in by the Government was, so far as he knew, totally inconsistent with its professed object, and was unworthy of the consideration of the House of Commons. He hoped to see before long a suitable measure laid before them.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARhoped that the Home Secretary would not object to 289 state whether it was intended to legislate in reference to a point of considerable importance, affecting towns in the neighbourhood of London. Certain towns within a radius of twenty miles round London, suffered materially from the coal-tax, and the inhabitants of those towns thought it a hardship to he taxed for metropolitan purposes. The town he represented (Hertford) was involved in this hardship, and a great stretch of authority seemed to be allowed to the Corporation of London, when it was permitted them not only to impose a coal-tax on the metropolitan district, but also to extend the tax to a radius of twenty miles round, thus compelling towns within that distance to subscribe to metropolitan objects. He hoped that the Home Secretary would not afford the Corporation of London any reason for believing that they might continue to impose so unjust a tax.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was quite true that Hertford was interested in the coal-tax, inasmuch as that town was included within the area where the coal duties were levied. The House was aware that the coal duties were made up of three different amounts, which were each disposed of in a different way. The total of these three amounts was 13d. per ton. The 4d. tax which was levied for the benefit of the City of London, the City claimed as its property, putting it on the same footing as the town duties of Liverpool and other municipal taxes, which, as the House would remember, were made the subject of discussion two or three Sessions ago. Whatever opinion might be formed by hon. Members on the matter, the City claimed that portion of the coal duties as part of the income of the City, which it had a right to appropriate to its own uses, and that portion was charged with the repayment of certain capital sums raised for metropolitan improvements and other purposes, which would not be satisfied for some years to come. With respect to the two other portions of the coal-tax, the 8d. and 1d. duties, these were applied not to the purposes of the City. They were collected by the officers of the City, but were paid over to the officers of the Board of Works, and were made applicable to the redemption of certain debts created for general metropolitan improvements. The purpose to which the 1d. duty was applicable was satisfied, and the sums receivable under the 1d. duty were now accumulating at the Bank of England, under the control of the Commis- 290 sioners of Works. The 8d. duty would expire about April in next year. Such was the state of the coal duties, and it would probably be his duty to bring the subject under the attention of the House in the course of the present Session. He should not express any opinion of his own as to the propriety of that tax being levied over a radius of twenty miles; but he might observe that the ground upon which the levy of the coal duties in towns within that radius was vindicated was, that those towns were virtually within the metropolitan district; that their communications with the metropolis were frequent; that the value of the land was greatly enhanced by the vicinity of the metropolis, and that they were interested in the improvement of the roads and streets and other communications of London. He now merely stated the ground on which it was contended that there was an equitable right to levy the coal duties in those towns, but did not offer any opinion of his own as to the sufficiency of that ground.
§ MR. EDWIN JAMESdeprecated this sort of piecemeal legislation, and would much prefer seeing the whole question of civic rights and civic finance placed on a broad and intelligible footing, and dealt with in one comprehensive measure. The present state of things was most anomalous. One day the Court of Common Council sat at Guildhall, another day the Board of Works, both possessing large powers. It would surely be better to have one measure which should deal at the same time with the municipal and electoral Questions. Here was the Government proposing to make the electoral franchise for the Common Council a £10 rating, which at one time, at least, the noble Lord at the head of the Government thought a £5 rating a sufficient qualification to vote for a Member of Parliament. He must designate the Bill of the Government as a paltry Bill, and one unworthy of the subject with which it proposed to deal and of the sanction of the House of Commons.
§ Leave given.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS and Mr. CLIVE.
§ Bill presented, and read 1°.