The Express.
London, England, 1854-01-14 00:00:00

CITY CORPORATION INQUIRY.

Yesterday the commissioners met in the Privy
Council Chamber, Mr. Labiuchere in the chair.
Mr. fierjeant Itereweather, in continuation of his evi-
dence yesterday, said the quorum necessary to constitute a
committee of the Common Council is forty, and I have
known less than that number to be present at the
first meeting of the committee. I stated yesterday that
there was a charter which would enable the corporation to
modify the customs of the City. I have now brought with
me the extract of the charter which enables them to
That charter is dated May 28, 1341 [lsth Edward 111 j •
(The witness read the extract.) I think under that charter
the corporation could make changes within their own hod,
but they could not interfere with an act of parliament. }'or
instance, the corporation could augment the number of
aldermen if they thought it czpedieat, but they could not
create a new ward. They tried to do that but foiled. It by
been said that Southwark constitutes what is called the
ward without. But that Is a total misapprehension of the
fact. It is not a ward at all. At one time as alderman
(Sir J. Ayliffe) was elected for a ward of that name, and
there was an attempt to elect common councilmen, but it
proved quite abortive. I em not aware that of the 120
charters of the city of London there is a single one which
is not in force. None of them has been surrendered. They
were seized under the celebrated Quo Warranto of
Charles 11., hut were subsequently restored. Tee City
have property in Southwark ; they derive that under
charter of Edward VI. The gift of the property was
coincident with the larger jurisdiction then given to the
City in Southwark. I don't think any distinction can be
drawn between the tenure on which the corporation hold
this property, and that which they hold is the city of Lon-
don. The citizens of London undoubtedly paid a money
coasideration to the crown for that property end the juris-
diction which went with it. The charter of William the
Conqueror made the citizens of London " law-worthy;" the
effect of that was to recognise their freedom and to enable
the sons to inherit the property of the father. That
charter was written in Saxon and translated as follows:
" William the King greets William the Bishop, and God-
frey the Portreeve, and all the burgesses within Landon,
French and Eaglish, friendly. And I make-known to you
that I will that ye be lawworthy as ye were in the days of
Ming Edward. And I will that each child be his father's
heir after his father dye. And I will not suffer that man
eommand you any wrong. God keep you." The witness
referred to several subsequent charters granted by the
Kings of England to the corporation of London, all of
which recognised and confirmed the rights and moms of
the City. With regard to the Common Hell elections, a
man must be a member of the livery of a company as well
as a freewill of the City to entitle him to vote. In ward
elections an elector need only be free of the City. I
see no objection to the establishment of one uniform fran-
chise for the whole city ; and in saying that I speak the
voice of the corporation itself. Indeed they promoted a
bill in 1852 for that purpose. I conceive that the different
existing franchises in the City arose Irom circumstances.
The poll for the Common Hall elections is kept open for seven
days by a strange misconception of the act of parliament
in my opinion, which merely says that the poll may be aept
op. n for seven days. That has been deemed to mean that
it shall be kept open for seven day". My opinion is that
the sheriffs and secondaries could close tho poll before the
end of seven days, if they had reason to believe that no
other voters were coming up, and if they gave due notice of
their intention. There eau be no doubt that it would be
desirable to shorten the time of polling.
The Chairman—lt has been stated that corruetim to
a great West prevails at the Common Hall election', and
that this is owing to a great extent to the fact that the acts
of parliament against bribery are confined to parliamentary
elections.
Witness—l believe that is a true view of the case ; but
bribery is still punishable at common law. There can be
no doubt that the keeping open of the poll inert ascii the
expense of elections. When a man came to poll at the
Common Hall, the polling clerks had no list of the livery-
men by which they could identify him. If the bill of 184
were carried there would, in point of fact, be but one fran-
chise for the city—a 10/. household franchise. tinder that
bill occupation would not be necessary. That clause was
drawn to meet the peculiar nature of the holding in Lon-
don. The object of the bill was to extend the franchise.
It was vigorously opposed by the livery. I wee present •
during the evidence given in support of the preamble. I
certainly thought the preamble had been proved, but
when the committee of the house opened their doors
we were told, to my surprise certainly, and I be-
lieve that of all who were present, that the preamble
was not proved. This was before a committee of the House of
Commons. Mr. Bramston was the chairman. Mr. Smollett,
a Scotch member, and Mr. Cottony, an Irish member, were
members of that committee. When that bill was lost
notices were sent from the chamberlain's office to compel
the inhabiunts to take up their freedom. These notices
were seat in great number. The object was not to make
money by this proceeding, but to increase the constituency,
which had been decreasing for some time to a great extent.
The Chairman—When these threats were cent from the
chamberlain's office, was any distinction made as to persons.
Witnees—They were not threats.
The Chairman—Well, hints then.
Witness—l apprehend not. They were sent to those who
were supposed to be in a position to take up their freedom.
The Chairman—Would it not seem somewhat arbitrary
to assume the power of judging who were end who were
not able to take up their freedom ?
Witness—But, as I said, the real object was to increase
the number of electors, and not to raise money. A consi-
derable number of the livery would be disfranchised if the
bill passed. The non-resident liver; men, and those who
had not kept up their connexion with the City, would be
disfranchised. If that bill passed, the bye laws which now
affected noa•freemen would be abolished. No butcher or
other tradesman could then be harassed for the non-em-
ployornt of freemen. With regard to the metage dues
charged by the City of London, they were levied by pre-
scriptive right confirmed by charter and act of parliament.
Mr. Lewis—Arethe dues so levied reasonable in amount?
Witness—The question of amount is now under con-
sideration between the corporation on the one hand
and the corn factors on the other. They. are now
of very different amount on different articles; and
the desire of the corporation is, that they should
be simplified, and, if possible, one uniform duty charged,
to be paid by the seller, and not partly by the setter and
partly by the buyer, as is now the case. I have no doubt
that primarily these dues were given, not for the purpose
of meow a revenue, but for purposes of convenience, for
which the corporation, who were the instrument', were to
be moderately remunerated for the trouble.
Mr. Lewis—How can it be reconciled with that view of
the case that the corporation insist on the right of meting
the corn of persons who bring their own corn to London,
and wish to have it measured by their own tempts ?
Witness—That is a question now before a court of law, on
which I ought perhaps not to express an opinion. This
trade is a new one in its present form, and the fifth* of the
corporation is derived from ancient times. I ought to say
that the matter is now under the consideration of the cor-
poration, and I have no doubt that they will be disposed to
meet modern wants.
The Chairman—But the maintenance of these rights
has already led to considerable expense.
Witness—No doubt. The maintenance of rights, when
resisted, always leads to considerable expense.
The Chairman—But as these rights were given, not for
the purpose of raising a revenue, but for the general inte-
rests of trade, and the public, should not the corporation be
ready to " make provisions" and alterations from time to
time, to meet the wants of modern times ?
Witness—l am sure the corporation, when a fair case is
made out, will be ready to listen to it. But when the cor-
poration are possessed of a right, and have continued to en-
emies it, I think they are justified in not allowing any par-
healer individual to set those rights at nought. The cor-
poration have a right to look for compensation in cases
where they are called on to abandon rights which they have
exercised up to the present time.
The Chairman—But would you place the cave of a cor-
poration who exercise rights for the public benefit on the
same footing as that of a private individual, as regards
compensation ?
Witness—l confess I can see no distinction. I sever
looked upon the corporation in the light of trustees. With
regard to the metago on corn, I believe the corn merchants
desired that it should be still obligatory on foreign corn,.
and that it should be optional in such cases as that of
Combs and Delafield. As I have said, the subject is
ander consideration. A great deal of evidence has been
taken by a committee of the Common Council, They
took evidence 24 days. and examined 67 witnesses in-
terested in the trade. The result, I believe, will be
that a bill will be introduced into parliament with
the consent of all parties for the settlement of this question.
The duties of the meters were very prejudicial to health,
and I believe that their remuneration, if anything,
ought to be increased rather than diminished. Tee right
of porterage is also a prescriptive right, and is traced back
las far as the City documents extend. It is a prescriptive
MOO depending upon usage.
Mr. Lewis—Then ought it not to be confined within the
)its of the City proper ?
Witness—That would also depend on usage. I believe
thrigehrigt
of
ft
metage, which
wrahgiech isextenlddstofrboemeogiustires.ivteo
I I believe it is very important for a considerable part of the
I trade of London that there should be persons under. regu-
lation and oath, who would be ready at all times for the
unloading of ships.
The Chairman—Don't you think that there would be at
all titres in the port of London a sufficient number of men
to discharge the duty of porters ?
Witness—l believe there a considerable difference of
opinion on Oast point amongst the corn merchants. I
don't know precisely hoW this is managed in other lugs
ports of the kingdom ; but I don't think you can draw any
analogy between any of these ports and the port of London.
anithtlethtte.
In the port of London there are three classes of porters:
those who go with the meters, the tackle porters, and the
ticket porters. The metage is in proportion to the size of
the ship. Generally one meter and four porters are em-
ployed; but in the case of large ships one meter and sit
porters are employed.
Mr. Lewis—lt is quite conceivable that there may by a
classof services which should be performed in connexion
with the meters, 'out it does not follow that the corporation
should have t:os monopoly.
Witnet.:a—The fellowship of porters are a distinct body.
and ..orm no part of the corporation. 1 apprehend it e