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

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

The royal commissioners met again on Friday at the
Privy Council Chamber, Downing-street, and continued
their inquiry. Commissioners present :—The Right
Hon. H. Labouchere (the chairman), Sir John Pat-
teson, and Mr. Cornewall Lewis. The sitting was com-
menced by the further examination of
Mr. Sergeant Merewether, the town clerk, who stated
—Forty members constitute a quorum of the Common
Council, and seven members constitute a quorum of com-
mittee. I have never known a failure to occur in making
up a quorum at a committee meeting during the whole
twelve years of my connection with the corporation.
[Witness here put in copies of the notice-papers summon-
ing Courts of Common Council and Courts of Aldermen,
and setting forth the business to be transacted.] I 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 an 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 why the name of Bridge Ward Without
was given was because there was a tete du pont in South-
wark ; but it was clearly without the walls and boundaries
of the City. Southwark never could and never did ap-
point a wardraote, and it was never a ward at all. The
charters of the City were seized under the celebrated
quo warranto in the reign of Charles II.; but they were
all restored in the strongest words by William 111.
Some of the charters might have been given for a tem-
porary purpose, but I have no doubt that the whole of
the 120 charters of the City are still in force for one
purpose or another. The City possesses considerable
property in Southwark. It appears to have been a
beneficial grant to the corporation for a money consid-
eration. There is a grant of Edward VI., giving the
City jurisdiction over Southwark, and assigning certain
messuages and tenements and certain fee farm rents to
the city of London, for the sum of 6471. 2s. 2d., paid
to the Crown. Should Southwark be constituted here-
after into a distinct corporation, the inhabitants of
that borough would have no claim upon the City pro-
perty situated here. There was a charter of William the
Conqueror recognising the privileges of the citizens of
London. It is written in the ancient Saxon language,
and declares that the citizens are " lawworthy," the
meaning of which term is that every citizen is recognised
to be legatis ham, having the status of a freeman, and
that his children are capable of inheriting his property."
The translation of that charter is as follows :—" William
the King greets William the Bishop and Godfrey the
Portreeve, and all the burgesses within London, French
and English, friendly; and I make known to you
that I will that ye be lawworthy as ye were in the days
of King Edward. And I will that each child be his
father's heir after his father dye. And I will not suffer
that any man command you wrong. God keep you."
All the subsequent charters confirmed the City's privi-
leges, and recognised its customs. A charter of Richard
I. gave the City power to remove all weirs in the river
Thames. The conservancy of the river had previously
been entrusted to the City. The voters who elect in the
common hall are a special class of the freemen, viz., the
livery of the companies. In the ward elections, as far
as the franchise is concerned, the freedom of the City is
sufficient to entitle a person to vote.
The Chairman—What evil would arise if there was
one single municipal franchise in the City ?
Mr. Merewether—l see no difficulty in that, and in
fact that is what the corporation have been endeavour-
ing to effect by all the means in their power. The act
of 1850 was brought into Parliament by the corporation
to constitute one uniform franchise, and the act was
passed ; but in the House of Lords such alterations were
made in the bill as totally defeated its object, and in some
instances reduced the number of voters instead of
increasing it, according to the wish of the corporation.
The poll for the election of Chamberlain is kept open for
7 days, by what I consider a strange construction of the
statute, which, in my opinion, merely declares that it
may be kept open for seven days. My opinion is that
the sheriffs and secondaries could lawfully close the poll
at any time before the expiration of the seven days if
they have reason to believe that no further voters will
come up to the poll, and if they give due notice of their
intention so to 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 that the acts of Parliament for the prevention of
bribery apply only to the parliamentary elections, and
not to the municipal elections.
Mr. Mereweather—l 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 ; but on the whole my
opinion is that the keeping open of the poll for seven
days 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 brought into Parliament by the corporation in 1852,
which was framed expressly for the purpose of establish-
ing one uniform constituent body in the City for all civic
purposes, and it extended the franchise to every occu-
pier or joint occupier for a year and a day of a house,
counting-house, 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
Common Council, assisted, I believe, by a committee of
the Court of Aldermen, and after full 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 referred, 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
votes. The select committee of the House of Com-
mons which threw out the bill had Mr. Bramston for its
chairman, and Mr. Con olly (an Irish member), and Mr.
Smollett (a Scotch member) also acted upon it. After
the loss of this bill the constituency had dwindled away
very much, and the corporation thought fit to proceed
against a number of parties residing in the City to re-
quire them to 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
reduced,- 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 freedom of the City,
was any distinction made as to persons ?
Mr. Merewether—They were not threats, they were
rather hints ; and 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
a few.

The Chairman—Would it not seem to be an arbitrary
mode of proceeding for the corporation to assume to
itself the power of judging who were and who were not
able to take up their freedom ?
Mr. Merewether—Poor persons were excased, and
there was only one case in which a man's furniture was
sold, and he was a person who could afford to pay, but
he wished to be a martyr. With regard to i.he prohibi-
tion to employ non-freemen in the City, a vexatious pro-
ceeding having been instituted against a tradesman who
had infringed this custom, the Court of Common Coun-
cil took up the matter, and a bye-law was introduced,
which now only remains to be read a third time, and
which will have the effect of preventing butchers and
other traders from being harassed by such vexatious
proceedings hereafter, and to shelter him from the pen-
alties to which he is now subject.

The Chairman—After that-bye-law is passed, will any
tradesman have the power of employing anybody whom
he thinks fit, whether free of the City or free of the com-
panies or not ?
Mr. Merewether—That is the object of it ; but it will
depend to some extent upon the charters of the com-
panies. These charters are, however, not often put in
force in this respect. With regard to the tax on coals,
the tax of ld. per ton levied by the City was imposed by
the Ist and 2d Will. IV. for the purpose of building the
New Coal Exchange ; but the corporation abandoned
the tax before the expenses of the Coal Exchange 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 are 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 metage 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
embalrassment, and of reducing the fifteen different
modes of levying the duties to one simple charge. The
metage is not regarded by the corporation as a Mans of 1

obtaining revenue, but as being for the convenience of
trade.
Mr. C. Lewis —How do you reconcile that assertion
with the fact that parties importing their own corn are com-
pelled to pay for metage whether they wish to have it
measured or not ?
Mr. Merewether—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. Combo and Delafield has led to a
long and expensive litigation.
Mr. Merewether—lt has ; and almost all questions
do lead to a long and expensive consideration.
The Chairman—Do you think that the special privi-
leges of the City in this matter can be maintained upon
any other 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 particular rights 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 consiiered 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 bas a right to be appealed to, to ascertain whe-
ther he 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
be expected to abandon, rights which it has exercised.
And I am sure that in this case the corporation will be
willing to do that which equity and justice, and I may
also add reason, require of them.
The Chairman—But you do not mean to maintain
that the right of the corporation to this privilege re-
mains the same whether it operates 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 right 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 Parliament 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 lam 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?_ _ _

Mr. Mereweather—l confess that I can see no pos-
sible distinction between the two. A right is as much a
right in the hands of the corporation as in the hands of
anybody else. There are certain functions (among
others, those connected with the weighing and measur-
ing) belonging to the Crown, and the Crown sometimes
entrusts the exercise of them to individuals, who per-
form the services required of them, and charge dues
from the public to defray the necessary expenses attend-
ant upon the performance of those services. There are
many other privileges besides this one.
The Chairman—Are not such privileges in the nature
of public trusts ?

kr. Merewether—l confess, that I have never so re-
garded
them,
The Chairman—Proceed with your evidence.
Mr. Merewether—l believe that the sound judgment
of the corn trade, if it were put to them, would be that
the sworn meters should be continued ; and the sworn
porters, I believe, are also considered by the public to
be useful. I think the corn trade generally consider
that the metage should be obligatory on all foreign corn
imported ; but that in cases like that of Messrs. Combe
and Delafield, where the party imports corn for his own
granary, the metage should be made optional with the
importer to accept or to refuse it. A committee of the
Common Council has sat and taken a vast body of evi-
dence on the subject, and the resolutions they have
come to are to the effect that the various metage charges
should be made one and simple, and be levied from the
seller, and not from the buyer ; that the metage should
be compulsory on foreign corn imported, but that in
other cases it should be optional ; and I have no doubt
that the result will be that an act of Parliament
will be that an act of Parliament will be intro-
duced by the corporation to carry out this altera-
tion, which act will be satisfactory to all parties
concerned. The labour of the meters is of a kind
very trying to their health. Their remuneration
ought, if anything, to be increased rather than reduced,
and it would be necessary to establish a superannuation
fund for their benefit. The right of porterage claimed
by the fellowship porters is held to be, and I think is,
co-extensive with the rights of metage, and ranges be-
tween Yarmouth and Staines. It is true it is not speci-
fied in the charter of James, conferring the metage
rights, but it is a prescriptive right depending on usage,
and can be traced as far back as the documents of the
corporation extend. The trade of the port of London is
peculiar; and it is the invariable practice of shipowners
and the masters of vessels to discharge the crews on the
arrival of their vessels in the river, and to employ the
City porters to unload the cargo. It would be con-
sidered a very great expense to retain the services of the
crew in order to discharge the cargo without the assist-
ance of the privileged porters.

The Chairman—Don't you think that the masters of
vessels ought to be able to employ their own crews, or to
employ the City porters for the discharge of their car-
goes, as they may think fit.
Mr. Merewether— If that were the case I do not think
you could have a body of regular sworn porters continu-
ing in existence, and ready to do the necessary work, and
not likely to desert their duty by strikes or combination.
There is no close analogy between the port of London
and that of the other ports of the kingdom. There are
classes of porters in the City, viz., the fellowship
porters,. the tackle porters, and the ticket porters. In
ordinary cases, one meter and four porters are employed
to discharge a ship ; but in the case of large ships, a
meter and six or seven porters are sometimes necessary.
The arrival of a ship to be discharged is communicated
to the meters' office. The porters and meters are neces-
sarily connected together by the nature of their duties.
Mr. C. Lewis—The two may have to act in concert,
but it does not follow that the City is to have a mono-
poly of the porterage.
Mr. Merewether—The fellowship porters are a dis-
tinct body, which is separately incorporated, and forms
no part of the corporations of London. They have their
own rulers and •other'officers, although the Lord Mayor
is ex officio the governor of the-body. The suit instituted
against Messrs. Combo and Delafield was commenced
by the fellowship of porters acting independently of the
corporation, but other witnesses are better able to speck
as to that. The corporation commenced the suit for
the recovery of its metage dues. If the privileges of
the fellowship porters were abolished, I believe the effect
would be to render the supply of labour in the port of
London very precarious and insufficient. I believe that
the feeling of the trade of London is, that there should
be a sworn body like the fellowship porters acting under
proper regulations. The porters raise a fund among
themselves, which is in the nature of a benefit fund, and
it is considerable in amount. Reverting to the mode of
enforcing the taking up of the freedom of the City, I
believe the great merchants and bankers of the City often
object to devote what they consider their valuable
time to the performance of corporate duties, but this I
regard as a great dereliction of public duty on the part
of that class.
Mr. C. Lewis—But the taking up of their freedom
would not engross much of their time /
Mr. Merewether—No but they are afraid that if
they were freemen they would be required to fill corpo-
rate offices, such as that of sheriff, and others. The
corporation has not obstained from prosecuting the
large merchants because they are more powerful than
the retail traders. The privileges of the City, with
regard to the brokers, have been handed down 'from
timeimmemorial. The City admits the brokers to
carry n
and superintends them as a body.
o their business,.
On their admission they are required to enter into a bond,
and find sureties for their good behaviour. The Court
of Aldermen have jurisdiction over the brokers—they
hear complaints against particular brokers who are
charged with misconduct, summon the party complained
of to make his answer to the charge made against him,
and require him to produce a book, in which he is re-
quired to enter the nature of the transaction between
him and the complainant. The matter is then discussed,
and if it is thought necessary, the Court orders the bond
to be enforced against the broker himself and against his
sureties, or they even strike the party off the roll of
sworn brokers altogether, if the gravity of the case de-
mand such a step. Complaints against the brokers are
not of a very frequent occurrenef! ; but they sometimes .
arise, and the control of the City is beneficial prevent.
ing misconduct on the part of the brokers in time of
great speculation. The jurisdiction of the Court of Al-
dermen over the brokers is an effectual security to the
public, but I do not say that it mightnot be made more
effectual than it is if parties were oftener to prefer corn-