The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-02 00:00:00

LONDON CORPORATION INQUIRY
COMMIS JOY.

--0--

Yesterday the Right Hon. H. Labonehere, the
Right Hon. Sir J. Paulsen, and Mr. Cornewall Lewis—
the commissioners appointed to conduct the inquiry into
the Corporation of London—assembled at 12 o'clock, at the
official resideuce of the Prime Minister, for the purpose of
hearing evidence on the subject. The only persons pre-
sent besides the commissioners were their secretary, Mr.
Coleridge, sad the representatives of the public press.
Mr. Ackland, (secretary to the City Corporation Reform
Society, was the first witness examined.
On Mr. Labouchcre, the chairman, putting the first
question,
Mr. Ackland asked to be sworn, on the ground that at the
last inquiry several of the witnesses refused to give evi-
dence on oath ; and, as be anticipated the possibility of
asking that oaths might be administered to witnesses on
the present occasion, he thought it would be less objection-
able to ask to be sworn himself in the first instance.
The Chairman said that without expressing any opinie•
on the point as to the administering of oaths to witnesses,
Mr. Ackland could, if he so desired it, be sworn.
The oath was then administered, and Mr. Ackland me-
resiled to give his evidence, which lasted from 12 till 4
o'clock. The evidence, as fsr as it went, embraced three
heads of inquiry, via , the relation of the City to the me-
tropolis, the constitution of the freemen, sad of the govern.
ing body of the corporation. Mr. Ackland said that the
association of which he was secretary consisted of 1,200
members, and was composed of small shopkeepers in the
City of London who were not able to pay the 61. ss. 4d.
fee demanded for the freedom of the City ; of Manchester
warehouseinea, and of others who felt the necessity of cor.
porate reform. The object of the society was to secure to
all rateable occupiers of the City of London full and equal
participation in all the rights and privileges now possessed
by freemen, and also to protect parties whom the corpora-
tion proceeded against fur the purpose of compelling them to
pay the fine of 61. ss. 4il. for carrying on business In the
city. Their object was rather to expose abases which
existed in the corporation in the first instance, than to
suggest specific remedies for their correction. The com-
plaints of the society had reference to the constitution of
the corporation, and not to its individual members, whom
they regarded rather as victims of the system, in common
with the general public.
The Chairman—You are aware of the report of the
Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry for England and
Wales in 1834. Will you go through the heads of inquiry
there stated, and in the first place state your views with
respect to the limits of the corporation ?
Mr. Ackland—The commissioners of 1834 seemed to
have been impressed with the idea that the arta of the City
of London might advantageously be extended over a con-
siderable portion, if not the whole of the metropolis. But,
with regard to municipal privileges and duties, he (Mr.
Ackland) thought .the advantage very much depended on
whether they were conceded to or imposed on a constituency.
The parliamentary boroughs of the metropolis had
always the opportunity of applying for municipal
charters, if they were so minded, but he believed
there was no instance of their having done so.
It did not follow that because the inhabitants of the
metropolis numbered two-and-a-half millions, that they
obeli be included in one menicipslity. That was not done
k the mane of Manchester and Salford, which was far less
pipulome boss themetzopolis. He was opposed to the a-
lleles MIMI moleopelis to the City of London, because he
doonght that the municipality of the City of London had a
specialty which mould be overlaid and destroyed by so
vast and incongruous an addition as that of the metropolis.
The specialty he alluded to was that of commerce. The in-
habitants of Southwark frequently petitioned the corpora-
tion of London to be admitted to the privileges of citizens,
but their prayer was always rejected. The ward of Bridge
Without comprised five of the eight parishes which consti-
tuted the parliamentary borough of Southwark ; and they
stood in this peculiar position, that whilst they were de-
nted the rights of freemen, they were called on to discharge
several of the duties of freemen. It was not denied that
the ward of Bridge Without belonged to the City of Lon-
don, and in ancient times the resident inhabitants elected
four citizens, out of whom the corporation of London
selected one to serve the office of alderman. There was so
doubt therefore that the Bridge Without formed • ward
and aldermanry, though it did not appear that its alder-
men exercised the same rights as the other aldermen, or
that it ever elected a common council.
Mr. Lewis directed' the attention of the witness to page
82 of the Report of the Municipal Commission of 1834, in
which it was stated that the act of Edward VI. in reference
I to Southwark was carried into effect.
Mr. Ackland said he referred to Southwark for the pur-
pose of showing the anomalous position in which it was
placed, being in this position, that it could not apply for a
charter of incorporation as it constituted a part of the City
of London, whilst it had none of the privileges of citizens.
The Chairman—Can; you state whether there is • strong
desire on the part of the inhabitants of Southwark to be
joined with the City of London?
Mr. Ackland could not state what the feeling was; but
the inhabitants petitioned in 1788 and 1814, and several
times since. The high bailiff of Southwark was appointed
by the Common Council of London. His jurisdiction ex-
tended only over the five parishes constituting the ward of
Bridge Without, and not over the other three parishes
which west to form the parliamentary borough of Swath-
week. He was decidedly of opinion that the borough of
Southwark should be dissevered from the City of London
es that ground particularly. The borough of Lam-
beth might be constituted into another municipa-
lity, and both might co-operate together
Wi for the
perms. of drainage and water supply. With
meet to to the feelings of the inhabitants of Southwuk,
there were a great many citizens of London living there
who desired that it might be united to the City of London.
DM by far the larger and more important portion of the
inhabitants were, he believed, of opinion that it was not
imitable that it should form part of the Corporation of
Maim as it existed at present, but part of the corporation
se it skald be and might be mods The iahabitants on
the meth of the Thames were ash the mese.
Mr 1. Pattison—Would it set he asawnery, in order to
gime Southwark the same rights as the City of London, to
lobe It out of the county of Surrey altogether, for no other-
Mr timid it have the same rights as the City of London.
Hr. Ackland—The City sever snorted its right' for
limethwark as it should have doss. The oonnexion of
Southwark to the corporation of the City of London was
Miler disgraceful to the letter. mere pralarly as related
to the conservancy of the Thnmest kr they took all the
MI" mays sad water ball=to south side, sad yet
flaraa their duty to the
llawle—Sappeelag it was ikeeht advisable to agn-
ate Ilselbwork from the simily et Nervy. add rhea he
=mon Gramma et the emit d ememlaa woods.
MWellsarliatm4?
Ms Adding aid that he did not know whether any
beg leaboimaliss might Mod in the way ; bat for all
ponstkel poopomess esl as he es the enjoyment of eivie
rights wee sessersed, the eerpooottin of the City of Lon-
don had the peeper of giving to the inhabitants of the ward
of Bridge Wilhelm that which they had been asked to give,
but which they refused to give.
Mr. Lewitipposing the City of London to be left with
110 pesesst touraderies, and Southwark and Lambeth cow
dime. =lit;el, would you leave the rest of the me-
lie any municipal organisation ?
rsAcklend would grant municipal orgemleatiss wher-
ever it was desired, but he would force it sewhaes Ho I
would concede it, not impose it. Speaking is the public
interest, be had no doubt that not only aseli all the me-
tropolitan boroughs be constituted into aunialpol humenghs,
but that there should be a kind of general logislathe seism
for the metropolis, where general objects, sunk as water
supply and drainage, should be attended to.
The Chairman—Wauld you give to each a separate po-
Bee and a separate magisterial jarkillotion ?
Mr. Ackland—Not a separate police, but a separate ma-
Material jurisdiction, if properly constituted, they might
have. With regard to sewage, that could not be properly
and efficiently attended to under separate jurisdiction.
Paving and lighting should be in the ;same hands as the
sewage, and the water supply ought to be under one and
not under several jurisdictions.
Mr. Lewie—Taking away all these, what functions would
remain for a municil body ?
Mr. Ackland—Wardmote functions would, he thought,
convey the idea he entertained on the subject. He also
thought that the appointment of magistrates might be left
to the different corporations.
The Chairman—Do you think that the administration of
justice by the aldermen is mere satisfactory than that of the
magistrates appointed by the crown ?
Mr. Ackland—No ; because the appointment of aldermen
took place in a way that opened a way for the suspicion of
partiality.
The Chairman—You would assimilate the practice to that
which prevailed in other large cities ?
Mr. Ackland—Yes.
Mr. Lewis—Do you know if the system works harmo-
niously where there are two municipalities ?
Mr. Ackland could speak personally of only Mambeersirt
and Salford, and there he was not aware of there bag may
antagonism or conflict of duties. He thought if equal
representation were given to all parts of the metropolis that
the representatives of Marylebone and Clerkenwell would
so overlay the representatives of the City of London that it
would lose its commercial character. In fact, he thought
the City of London was in itself too large for one munici-
pality.
The Chairman—Will you now turn to the next head of
inquiry—the constitution of the corporate body—and state
any observations you have to make on it.
Mr. Ackland—The corporation of the city as at present
constituted was in very bad odour with the inhabitants.
The freemen of the city of London were till the year 1835
necessarily members of a company. It was decided at that
period that persons might empire the freeman's character
without being primarily a member of any of the guilds or
liveries. The being a freeman of a municipal corporation
lbdi be I privilege, and it It were a privily is would be