The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-25 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 25, 1854.

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

The Royal Commission sat again in the Privy Council
Chamber yesterday. Present : The Right Hon. H.
Labouchere (chairman), Sir John Patteson, and Mr.
Cornewall Lewis. At the opening of the sitting,
The Right Hon. J. Stuart Wortley, the City Recorder,
stated that he wished to explain, with reference to the
instance he had adduced in his previous evidence of the
danger arising to public bodies like the City corporation
from exposing its title to litigants unless upon compul-
sion, that he had thought the case in question was that
of the corporation of Hull, but he had since ascertained
that it was the corporation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
The case was reported in the Bth vol. of Vesey, jun.,
page 140, and the suit involved an analogous point to
that involved in the action against the corporation of
London to compel it to produce its titles in the metage
suit with Messrs. Combe and Delafield. The effect of
the exhibition of the charters of the corporation of New-
castle was, that an objection purely technical was taken
to its title ; and the consequence was, that it lost a re-
venue of 7,0001. a-year.
Mr. Lewis—Was that 7,0001. in property or in tolls?
Mr. Wortley—l believe it was in dues.
_ _ _

The right hon. and learned gentleman then said that
he wished also to explain, with regard to the negotia-
tions between the corporation and the Crown in refer-
ence to the suit respecting the right to the soil and bed
of the river, that in the bill which was introduced into
Parliament in 1847 for effecting a compromise between
the corporation and the Crown on the subject in dispute
between them, a power was given to the Crown in the
bill to exercise a veto upon the election of five members
who were to be chosen by the corporation to sit upon
the proposed new conservancy board. The Court of
Common Council agreed to this part of the bill ; but,
unfortunately, owing to the session being near its close,
and the proceedings in the suit instituted by the Crown
having been revived, the negotiations were interrupted,
and the bill failed in passing. The right hon. gentleman
then proceeded to give evidence with regard to the City
courts of judicature. He said the Central Criminal Court
was not properly a city court, although the City, out of
Its own funds, paid the judicial salaries connected with
it. He agreed with Mr. Pulling in thinking that recent
legislation with regard to the Middlesex Sessions had
proceeded in the wrong direction. The effect had been
injurious, and he thought it would be desirable that the
whole of the criminal jurisdiction of the metropolis
should be concentrated in one court, sitting almost
permanently at the Old Bailey, her .Majesty's judges
only presiding there occasionally, as they do at pre-
sent. Great inconvenience arose at present from the
Central Criminal 'Joint sessions and the Clerkenwell
sessions being held at the same time, as the attendance
of witnesses and counsel was often required in both
courts simultaneously. There was only one bar for both
courts, and briefs had often to be handed over from one
barrister to another, and they often fell into the hands
of counsel who were not informed about the nature of
the cases they had to conduct. He would, also, give the
criminal jurisdiction of the Courts of Quarter Sessions
for London and Southwark to the Central Criminal
Court. The Lord Mayor's Court was ? very cheap and
useful court, and since his appointment as recorder he
had done his best with the assistance of the deputy-re-
gistrar, to effect all the improvements in that court which
it was possible to carry out without the aid of Parlia-
ment. The Lord Mayor's Court had been thrown open
to counsel, but there had been some difficulty in admit-
ting attorneys to practise in it. In 1841 there were four
privileged attorneys who held their offices by purchase,
with the right of alienation. Since that time two of
the attorneys had died, and their successors had been
appointed by an arrangement which left them without the
power of alienation ; and the third attorney had also
sol I his right of alienation to the corporation. The
object of the corporation was to throw open the court
entirely to solicitors as well as to barristers, and
the secondaries committee had been in negotiation with
the privileged attorneys, to induce them, for a considera-
tion, to surrender their exclusive claims. Some difficulty
occurred in fixing the amount of compensation to be
awarded them; but the corporation hid thrown the court
open in the meantime, in order to determine, by the re-
sult of the measure, what would be the probable amount
of the loss which it would entail on the privileged attor-
neys, and then deal with them afterwards. The period
of that experiment had not yet quite expired ; but 131
attorneys had been admitted to practise in the court,
and the number would no doubt have been much greater,
but an action was brought by one of the privileged at-
torneys against one of the new attorneys admitted for
disturbance in his office. Lord Chief Justice Campbell,
on the trial, expressed the opinion that the privileged
attorneys were entitled to compensation, and the ques-
tion had since been raised, whether the statute admitting
attorneys to practise in inferior courts applied to the
Mayor's Court of London. If that statute do so apply to
the Mayor's Court, it was of course not only in the power
but the duty of the Court of Aldermen to throw the court
open to the whole profession ; but tie question was still
pending ; and that very day he (Mr. Wortley) had to at-
tend the secondaries' committee with the view of urging
forward the negotiations with the privileged attorneys,
in order to get rid of all difficulty. This and the other
improvements introduced into the Mayor's Court have
largely increased the business transacted in it. The entries
of actions, from 1846 to 1852, numbered 903 per an-
num. Since the opening of the court only eleven months
had elapsed, and in the course of that period the number
of entries had reached 1,506. He held the court once
a month ; its jurisdiction was confined to cases in the
its
practice The costs of the court had been reduced, and
practice simplified, and it was now as cheap and facile
a tribunal, he believed, as the county courts. The cus-
tom of foreign attachment prevailed in this court, which
he believed was a valuable custom, and one that might
advantageously be extended to all great commercial
communities. In the country districts it would not be
necessary, but would do no harm. The amount claimed
by attachment in the City, on an average of seventeen
years, was 171,0001. The Mayor's Court, he was sorry
to say, was liable to writ of habeas corpus in actions, to
writ of certiorari in attachments, and to a writ in the
nature of a certiom ari issuing out of Chancery in cases of
equity ; and the latter process might be issued at the
very last moment. There was no appeal from the judge
of the Mayor's Court, and no new trial could be ob-
tained except before the same judge who heard the first.
New legislation on these and other points would be ad-
vantageous, and if such improvements were effected, he
believed it would be very desirable to retain the Mayor's
Court, as being cheaper and less cumbrous in the admi-
nistration of justice than the superior courts.
Mr. D. W. Harvey, Commissioner of City Police, was
next examined. He stated—l was appointed under the
City Police Act of 1839. Under that act my salary was
fixed at not less than 8001. a-year, in addition to which
I was to be provided with a suitable residence. In 1846
my salary was raised by the police committee of the
corporation to 1,0001. per annum, with a promise of a
further allowance of 2001. a year for a house. Since
that period I have regularly received the 1,0001. a year,
hut have never been paid the 2001. for a residence. Be-
fore the salary was increased, an inquiry had been in-
stituted by the corporation into the duties of my office.
I had previously received 800/. a year salary, and 2001.
for a residence. lam allowed to live within a radius of
six miles from the City, for the benefit of my health.
My duties in superintending the City police occupy the
whole of my time. Since January last we have increased
the pay of the City police force. The qualifications of
the City police are higher than the qualifications of the
Metropolitan police. The City police have no men less
than 5 feet 8 inches in height, while the standard of the
Metropolitan police is 5 feet 7 inches. We require
strength and appearance in the men. The nature of the
duty from Temple-bar to Cornhill is so arduous, that men
of muscular power and great discretion are indispensable
for the proper discharge of it. To secure the services of an
efficient class of men, we must allure them by greater pay.
We recently lost between 70 and 80 men, who had either
emigrated to Australia, or taken situations in which
their circumstances were improved ; and therefore it
was necessary to raise the wages of our men, in order to
retain them in our service.

The Chairman—Before raising the pay of your men did
you not communicate with the Metropolitan Commis-
sioners ?

Mr. Harvey— We did not.

The ChairMan—Would it not be advisable, as a matter
of policy, that when you contemplate altering the remu-
neration of the police of your portion of the metropolis,
you should first communicate with those who have charge
of the police for the rest of the metropolis ?
Mr. Harvey—l have not considered it to be my duty
to do so. I have to look to the efficiency of the City
police, and when I have come to a resolution I carry it
out, and it would not affect my intention if the Metro-
politan Commissioners differed with me in opinion.
The Chairman—Then you look simply to what is ad-
vantageous for the City, and have no interest in what
concerns other parts of London ?
Mr. Harvey—l should have no objection, if the rise of
wages in the City made the Metropolitan Commissioners
of Police raise the wages of their men likewise. (A
laugh.)
The Chairman—Does your force work harmoniously
with the metropolitan police ?
Mr. Harvey—lt does ; but we do not very often have
to act in conjunction with them. We co-operated
however, together, in the case of the Chartist disturb.
ances some years ago, and again at the Duke of Wel-
lington's funeral.

The Chairman—Are you aware of the complaint of
Mr. Saward respecting the neglect of the police to watch
the strand of the river between high and low water-
marks ?

Mr. Harvey—I have seen Mr. Saward's evidence ;
and, first, I would say that he wrote to the authorities
of the City police, but received no answer to his com-
munication, because it is the invariable practice of my
office never to allow a letter to remain unanswered for
twenty-four hours. With respect to the coal-yard and
premises at the rear of Chatham-place, which 'it is
complained aro not watched, the fact is that they are
private property, which aro locked up at night, and the
police have nothing to do with them. Then as to the
strip of land at the edge of the river, formed by the re-
ceding of the tide, we do not consider it to tall within
our jurisdiction, and we have not thought it worth while
to have a man specially charged to patrol it night and
day when the tide is out ; but our men are instructed to
watch the foot of the bridges and the waterside con-