The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-16 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

. . . --, • .
The royal. commissioners met again on Friday at the
Privy,Connell Chamber, Downing-street, and continued
their higuiry. , - Conifnissioners present :.The Right
Hon. H. Labbeichere (the' Chairman), Sir John Pat-
tescinS and Mr. Corne*ail Lewis. The sitting was com-
menced by the-further examination of •
Mr. Sergeant Merewether, the town clerk, Who stated
--a-Forty. mei:abet:9 constitute a 4piorum of the Common
eciniiill hied seven eldnberalconatitate a quorum of 'corn-
eliatec : I haYe never known a failure to occur in Waking
up a.. qUOLIII7II at:a Committee meeting during the whole
twelve 'yeaaleof:my connectitter with the corporation.
[Witnesg`lf4ef pet in eopiereot the notice-papers summon-
lug, Courts o' Common Council and Courts of Aldermen,
and setting. forth the business to, be transacted.] T stated
, .
yesterday that there' was a charter enabling the, corpo-
ration to modify the customs of the city of London. I
have brought with me au extract from the charter
which enables them to do so. It is dated May 26,
1341, and is the 15th of Edward 111. This charter
has often been acted upon. I think it would be im-
possible under that charter to deal with the number of
the aldermen, or with the wards, and matters of that
kind, as they are affected by acts of the Legislature, and
they could only be interfered with by further legislation
of Parliament. The experiment of setting up a ward
in Southwark has been tried, but it failed. The corpo-
ration has endeavoured to do all that it could in behalf
of Southwark, but it was prevented by circumstances.
It has been said that Southwark once formed the ward
of Bridge Without, but that I believe is a misconcep-
tion. An alderman (Sir J. Ayliffe) was once elected for
a ward to which that name was given, and I believe the
inhabitants tried to elect a common councilman also.
This was shortly after the charter of Edward VI. was
granted, but these proceedings proved abortive. I be-
lieve,the reason;wll9
thename of Bridge Ward Without
was
given
was itaeauee. there was a tdte. du pont in South-
wark ;}t it Was
clearly without the walls and boundaries
ofetiltieciea,e,,' Biltrthwark -never could' and. neier did ap-
point k vixen:lolAV and amass:lever a ward at all. The
charteroi 444 City :weire seized under the celebrated
Quo warranto in the reign of Charles II.; but they were
• 111406i-del in 'the 'strongest werds" by William 111.
Beim, of therchatters might have been given for a tem-
porary purpose; but I have no doubt that the whole of
. the, 420
or no
the City aesea,44.l ',in , force , toe . one
ose or
purp enother. ' The -City, possesses considerable
property IA Bouth+eark. ''fl' appeare' to hisie been a
bedeficialgrant to the corporation for a money consid-
eration. There; s a .grant of Edyearel VI, giving the
City jurisdiction over Southwark,. and assigning certain
mesStragee 'and 'tenement's 'and ' certain fee 'farm rents to
theeeity of London, for :the sum' 0f:46471..25. 2d., paid
to. tile. Crewel.. i Should Scuithalark be constituted here-
after into, a distinct, corporation, the.. inhabitants of
that borough would have no claim upon the City pro-
perty eituatecKherei There Was a charter of William the
Congitetor recognising the'priVileges; of the citizens of
London; IfSisiwritten. in' the ancient Saxon language,
and declares that the''eltizens 'are 'new-worthy," the
. meaning of which term is that everyeitiZen is recognised
to be legcstis horn"); .having,the, statist of :a freeman, and
that his children are: dePalele of inheriting his property."
The translation of that Charter is ae follows :—" William
the King „greets William the riiSlsop andeGodfrey the
Portreeve and all the burgesses within London, French
and Engliele,
;hi endly ; ' iii. 4 I iaake kekeyeiS to ' you
that`l. will that ye, be lawworthy'ae ye 'were in the days
of .King" Edward. - And I will' that each child' be his
fathWeiselraftbrhis father dye:.;' And I WillitiOt suffer
that an)iliiiin command you wrong.':` GO'd 'keep you."
All the' subsequent charters confirmed the City's privi-
leges, and'recognisedits'eustOms. A•charter of Richard
Is gave the City power to reinoee- all weirs tin:the river
Thames: The conservancy cifAthe ,river 'had previously
been entrusted to o;ie. 'City... :The votersewlie elect in the
common hall are a specialAasie Of the freeneen, viz., the
livery of the companies.,, Ine tsbee ward elections, as far.
as thefranchise, is, Ceeceraigd, the freedom ofthe. City is
safficient' to entitlea perseu to, vote. . .
;The ChairmanYchat.evil . would, arise if . there was
. . .
one single Municipal frauctuae In the City?,
, ;Mr., Xereewether.eil, see •no dififieulty, in that, and in
fact that: es what he ethe corporation have been endeavour-
ing to. effect all' the means in:..thcir power. . The act
of"lBs9'Veas' brought into Tarliainent by the corporation
td &instittite Oho uniform franchise, and the act was
paSSed ; IStitiri the nOtise Of Lord4'Snch alteratiOns were
made in the bill 'as totally defeated its object; and in some
inetanoes reduced the number' of ioters instead of
increasing it, according to the wish of the corporation.
The poll for the election of Chamberlain is kept open for
7 day,sehy what I consider a strange construction of the
staitsetaie hick
,in my opinion, merely declares that it
may tbfi open for - seven days. My opinion is that
the sber,i and secondaries could lawfully close the poll
at any time. liefAre,the expiration of the seven days if
they hav,e_reaSpri to believe that no further voters will
come up to' the poll, and if they give due notice of their
intentlen'Soie close it. `Nearly the whole of the votes
are taken on the first days of the polling.
The Chairman—lt has been said that corruption is
practised to a considerable extent at the City municipal
elections, and that it is owing in a great extent to the
fact ttiat the acts of Parliament 'for the prevention of
bribery apply only to the parliamentary elections, and
not to thelnunioipal elections. •
• Mr. Mereweather---I believe it is quite true that the
acts of Parliament levelled against bribery and corrup-
tion are confined to the parliamentary elections ; yet I
apprehend that under the common law the receiving of
a bribe at an election of a public nature is a punishable
offence. No doubt the keeping open of the poll so long
increases the expense to the candidate. Persons are
induced to hold back in order to obtain a higher price
for their votes, and the.protracted poll affords them faci-
lities for pursuing that course; bat on the whole my
opinion is that the keeping open of the poll for seven
deys rather tends to check corruption than to increase it.
Bribery, I believe, has prevailed to a considerable extent
et the City elections ; but I consider that it can be
reached by the common law, without any very expensive
process. The Courts of Common Council and of Alder-
men have endeavoured to check bribery and persecution
by all the means in their power, but the difficulty of obtain-
ing proof against the guilty parties is very great. A great
many persons hold up their hands at the common-hall
elections who have no legal right to vote. There was a
bill broug,hti'into Parliament by the corporation in 1852,
whichveas framed expressly for the purpose of establish-
ing; one uniform constituent body in the City for all civic
purposeseand it extended the franchise to every occu-
pier or joint occupier for a year and a day of a house,
ediinting-honse, warehouse, office, chamber, or shop,
who' was rated at' 101. per annum. The provisions of
this' bill•were framed! by a committee of the Court of
CpromowConneil, assisted, I believe, by. a committee of
the Court of A.klerneen, and after lull deliberation. The
franchise under that bill would have created a larger
constituency than exists, in other boroughs under the
Municipal Reform Act. This bill was, however, unsuc-
cessful-; it was opposed strenuously by the livery ; and,
to my astonishment, the.select committee to whom the
bill was eeferred, came to the unexpected conclusion
that the preamble was not proved. The bill would have
destroyed the monopoly of the livery 'to elect at the
common-hall ;it would not have taken away any exist-
ing right'of the' livery, but would simply have allowed
the votes of a: larger body to mingle with the livery's
vetes. The select committee of the House of Corn-
monEi which threw out the bill had Mr. Bratieston for its
chairman, and Mr. Conolly (an Irish member), and Mr.
Smollett (a Scotch member) also acted upon it. After
• the loss of this bill the constittiencyhad dwindled away
very much, and the corporation thought fit to proceed
rigainst,a.,number of parties residing in the City to re-
quire. t,l3eu,tp take up their freedom. This step was not
taken in order to obtain money, but in order to increase
the constituency. It could not have been to obtain
money, because all- the fines and fees had been greatly
reducedi and what they realised was devoted to the pur-
poses of charity.: . •
The Chairman—When these threats were made with
regard to .compulsion to take up the freedoni of the City,
was any distinction made as to persons I' '
Mr. Merewether--They were not threats, 'they were
rather hints ; ;Ind they were made to a class of persons
who were considered to be in a position to pay for the
taking up of their freedom. The corporation merely
wished to assert its undoubted right to compel parties to
take.up their freedom, and it therefore proceeded against
4,.fevr•
The
,airman'-Would it not seem to be an arbitrary
mode Of ti'dbe6ding for the corporation to assume to
itself theJpower of judging who were and who were not
able to take upitheir freedom 2
-
Mr. Merewether--Poor. persons were excused, and
there
,was only one case in which a man's furniture was
sold, and be was a peraon' who Could afford to pay, but
he' wished to be a martyr. 'With regard to the prohibi-
tion to employ non-freemen in the City, a vexatious
pro-
ceeding having' been instituted againstea tradesman who '
had infringed this custom, the Court' of Common Coun-
cil took up the matter, and 'a bye-lavi was' introduced,
which now only remains to be read a third time, and
which will have the effect of preventing batchere and
otheettaders from being harassed by such -vexatious
proceedings hereafter, and to shelter him from the pen- ,
alties to which he is now subject.
The CbairmeneeAfter that bye-law is passed, will any
~
tradesman heVe the power of employing anybody whom
he thinka :fit, whether free of the City or free of the com-
paniee or not •1 .. .
Mr. -Merewethereff,That is the, object of it ; but it will
depend to someextent upon the ,charters of the corn-
..paniee, . These,charters are, however, not often putt in.
force in this reapect:" With regard to the' tax on coals,
the 'tax' of ld. per ton levied by the City. was imposed by'
tlieslist and 2d Will. IV. for: the purpose of building the
New Coal Exchange ; but the corporation abandoned
thedaathefore the expenses of the Coal Eichange were
paid, and the Government of the day resolved to con-
tinue the impost for public improvements.
The Chairman—What is the origin of the metage and
porterage dues ? .
Mr. Merewether—The metage dues aro levied by
virtue of an act of James 1., which confirmed the pre-
scriptive rights of the corporation to measure all coals,
corn, fruit, and all measureable merchandise coming into
the port of London. The question of the metage is at
present under the consideration of the corn trade on the
one hand, and of the corporation on the other, with the
view of ascertaining whether some arrangement may not
be devised for collecting the metage
_dues more conveni-
ently and more simply than they are collected at pre-
sent. Of course, the rnetage being a prescriptive right
of the corporation, it is exercised in a 'peculiar manner
by the corporation ; the corporation being adVised that' ..
it cannot make an alteration ' in that prescriptive right,
and be at the same time secure of that which is due to it
without the aid of an act of Parliament. The corpora.
tion is-desirous of relieving the trade of any unnecessary
embarrasameat, and of reducing the fifteen diffdrent
modes of levying the duties to one simple eliarge. The
metage is not regarded by the corporatiop, as a means of
. - ~.. .

41We:A

I EsGu

obtaining revenue, but as being for the convenience of
trade.
o..j.Jewis—dlow de yep.,reeoncile that assertion
with the fact thatparties importing their own corn are`com-
pelled to pay for metage 'whether they wish to have it
measured or net ? • ,
• Mr: Meres-ether—The general rule is that the. duty
attaches to the execution of an office whenever the officer
( attends to perform the metage, and has with him the
proper instruments, viz., his bushel measure and his
shovel, and tenders his services. That is the general
rule, which is not tied down to particular cases.
Mr. C. Lewis—ln certain cases the importer-wishes
his goods to be measured, and they have to be measured
for the purpose of levying'the duties imposed on imports
by the Crown ; but where the goods are not subject to
import,duties, and the owner is aware of the quantity of
his own goods from his own measurement, and does not
wish them to
-be remeasured, is that a case in which the
general rule you speak of ought to apply ?
Mr. Merewether—l would observe, first, that that
question is now pending in a court of law, and it would
not become me to express an opinion upon a question so
raised and still undecided.
Mr. C. Lewis—But the question is raised by the City.
Mr. Merewether—The City has demanded what it has
been accustomed to receive, and the question has been
thus raised. I believe that the mode of carrying on
trade in this case is one of, comparatively speaking,
modern date. Almost all goods which come into the
port are goods on which the Crown levies a duty, or
goods which the interest of the buyer and seller requires
to be measured ; but of late years persons have acquired
facilities for carrying on their own trade in a diffe-
rent mode, and the manner in which this altered state
of circumstances shall be met is one of the subjects
which the corporation has now under its consideration ;
and if a new trade springs up, and the old law seems in-
applicable to it, the corporation, I am sure, are quite
ready to consider the question, and I believe they will
make such arrangements as will be altogether satisfac-
tory,
The Chairman—But, in the meantime, this case
against the. Messrs. Combe and Loelafield has led to a
long and expensive litigation. •
Mr. iNlerewether—lt has ; and almost all questions
do lead to along and expensive consideration.
The Chairman—l)o-yon think that the special privi-
leges 'of the elty in this matter can be maintained upon
any ground than that of the convenience of trade ?
' Mr:(Merewether—l have no doubt that, if you consi-
-der them only on the- principle of expediency, a vast
amount of partici:lJ.. riAts would be imperilled. But I
am sure the corporation are perfectly ready to consider
such a matter, and that they have, no disposition to in-
sist on anything that is injurious to trade, or to any
general public. interest.
The Chairman—But do you not think that these pri-
vileges ought not to be considered as being the private
property of the corporation, but rather as existing simply
for the convenience of trade, and to be exercised or nul-
lified as the interests of trade demand ?
Mr. 'Merewether—l feel that that question opens a
very wide field .Of inquiry, and introduces many conside-
rations, and, would lead to practical injustice towards
those who' have titles to things. The first step is for a
person who has a right to be appealed to, to ascertain whe-
therhe will consent to abandon what is said to be inapplic-
able to the present state of things. On no other terms would
corporation be justified in abandoning, *nor ought it to
lb? expected: to aba.ndon rights which it has exercised.
And I aiii.suie that in this case ,the corporation will be
willing to do: that which equity and justice, and I may
also add reason, require of theta. '
The Chairman----But you do not mean to maintain
that the right of the corporation. to 'this privilege re-
mains the same whether it operate injuriously or bene-
ficially on the trade of the port ?
Mr. Mereweather—l am not justified, as an officer of
the corporation, in admitting, that the riht of the cor-
poration can be taken away frOm it without compensa-
tion being made to it. If the Sovereign at any time has
granted an office to individuals, and the execution of that
office is found to 'be. practically injurious to the public,
and Parlianient in its wisdom thinks fit to interfere, it
is the invariable practice to grant compensation for the
'loss of vested rights. At the same time I aiu_so far
aware of the feeling of the corporation to knoW that
compensation, would not be insisted upon by it as a
matter.of right,' but that it would be disposed to yield
to the public convenience.
The Chairman—Are you disposed to put the privilege
of the corporation to exercise a function of this kind,
given for the benefit of trade, upon the same footing as
you would put its right to any estate which it might
possess?_