The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-23 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

CORPORATION REFOIIM

Yesterday, a numerously attended meeting of the gen-
tlemen connected with the above-named body, "in Com-
mon Council assembled," was held in their chamber al
the Guildhall. The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor pre.
sided.

The three motions upon the subject placed upon the
paper of business were as follows :

"By Mr. Henry Blake.—That it be referred to the free-
dom committee, to prepare a bill for extending the franchise
for the wardmote elections in the city of London to all per-
sons occupying premises rated at 101. per annum ; and to
confer with her Majesty's Government thereon."

" By Mr. Deputy Pew tress.—To take into consideration
the propriety of introducing ini o Parliament a bill to effect
suitable alterations in the Corporation of London, and to
obtain the support of Government to the measure."
" By Mr. Henry Lowman Taylor.—That it be referred
to a committee of the whole Court to consider what suit-
able reforms are required in the Court of Aldermen and
Common Council, for the purpose of introducing a bill into
Parliament, and to obtain the support of Government to
the measure." _ _ _

Mr. BLAKE, in introducing his motion, remarked that
the question of the freedom was intimately connected
with the franchise of the City. Many of the by-laws
and ancient customs of the Corporation had become
obsolete, but there were others which still lingered
amongst them. One of these was, the practice of requir-
ing all parties who wished to vote for their municipal
representatives to purchase the freedom of the City. The
principle was recognised some centuries ago in Magna
Charts, that no man should be taxed who had not the
right of voting for the party qualified to make the taxes.
Parliament, also, in later days, had carried out the same
principle in the 14th clause of the municipal Bill, which
provided, that the powers given to ancient corporations
in this respect should be altogether abolished. This had
been done in all cases except in the city of London.
(Hear.) He knew that some parties had hugged to
themselves the delusion that the Corporation of that
great city was so pure that such a stringent measure was
not required. This was not the fact, indeed it was quite
the reverse. If one party was compelled to take up the
freedom, no doubt all ought to be so compelled. (Hear.)
The public out of doors were anxious for this reform of
the Corporation as a first measure ; and he being satis-
fied of its necessity, and that if they did not reform
themselves, the Government would soon do so, most
willingly submitted his motion. (Cheers.)
Mr. ABRAHAM, in seconding the resolution, said he
felt confident that, if they did not reform themselves,
the Government would do so by legislative enactment
before long.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR remarked, that any one who had
heard the two previous speakers, would suppose that
that was the first time the subject had been mooted in
that Court. The Court had repudiated the idea ofgoing
to Parliament for an isolated part of a necessary whole.
Such a proposition again renewed, therefore, he could
not but regard as an insult to the Court. What use was
it for them to attempt to, go to Parliament for that which
never would be granted 'by the Government—namely,
merely an extension of the municipal franchise ? (Hear.)
All of them were agreed, that this was essential, but
was that all ? No ; they must go also for a Reform of
the Court of Aldermen. (Hear.) He for one would not
be a party to their entertaining any such an abstract
question, nor would he agree to go to Parliament for any
such a farce as this mere extension of the franchise.
Such a proposition would neither satisfy the city, the
public nor the Parliament. (Hear.) Besides the motion
was impracticable. They would not go to the house
this session without the sanction of the Government,
and they might depend upon it that such sanction never
would be obtained unless they desire much more exten-
sively to reform the Corporation. (Hear.) Believing
that it would be far better, therefore, to propose a plan
of reform upon a much larger scale, he would move the
" previous question."
Mr. BARKLEY seconded the amendment.
Mr. WM. JONES supported the enlarged proposition,
and hoped that a well-matured measure of reform would
be introduced, such as would be worthy of the Corpora-
tion and the time in which they lived. (Hear.)
Mr. ANDERTON reiterated his opinion that the Court
of Common Council would never reform itself. (Laughter.)
Upon many occasions they had attempted to do so, but
what had been the result ? Why the matter had turned
out to be nothing less than a bubble, which had soon
burst. (Hear, and laughter.) Every one of the propo-
sitions had been negatived. The Court would never re-
form itself. This " mushroom reform" was nonsense,
and Government, he was certain, would have to do the
necessary business. He should like to know, that day,
what the Court of Aldermen intended to do in thematter
of reform. What did they propose ? Did they desire to
give up the practice of putting their hands into the privy
purse of the Corporation, and recognise the right of the
whole of that body to deal with the funds ? Applications
had been made in past years by the Ward of Cripple-
gate, by Lord Brougham, by the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners, and others, for the reform of the Court of Al-
dermen, as well as the extension of the franchise. The
propositions in the Municipal Act were good for Liver-
pool, Manchester, Hull, and other places, why then
should they not work well in the city of London ?
(Hear.)
Sir JAMES DUKE suggested the amalgamation of the
motions on the paper.
Mr. NORRIS congratulated the Court upon the unani-
mity exhibited amongst its members upon the subject of
the extension of the franchise. So long as the prescrip
tive rights of the corporation could be preserved, they
might defy either Sir B. Hall, or any other person, but
it would be ruin to them- to resist something like a full
and effective, but at the same time gradual reform. To
pursue men as they were now pursuing them under an
ancient bye-law, was to obtain money under false pre-
tences. (Hear, and "No.") Men ought to be encou-
raged to trade in the City rather than be driven away
from it. It was the fact that they as a corporation were
compelled to turn common informers in order to effect
the object. (Hear, hear.) In this state they would be
perpetually kept if they did not reform themselves. He
knew that when the charter of Richard 11. was given,
in the consideration of the valour of Sir Wm. Walworth
for the defeat of \Vat Tyler, as depicted on the wall
above him, they had the right to make certain regula-
tions against aggression of foreigners. Some year ago
this might be necessary for such a purpose, but the prac-
tice ought not now to be followed. The operation of
this principle had des...royed one corporation, and over-
thrown the Church, and insulted the Throne, and if they
(the corporation) continued in their course of persecu-
tion, they would be overthrown also. (Cheers.) From
a return he had obtained from the Chamberlain's office,
it was clear that their fellow-citizens were against the
system. They had sent 1,240 summonses, 156 had paid
the fine, 293 had begged for mercy. (No.) Those who said
" no" might go, as he had done to the Chamberlain's-
office and inquire. 492 had taken no notice of the sum-
monses. These were gallant men, and he hoped they
would succeed. (Hear.) 299 had pleaded that they
were wholesale dealers, but surely they would not permit
these men to escape while the poor were thus persecuted
and driven to destitution. (Hear.) It had been said by
some of the antiquated men in the corporation, that if
they went to Parliament, they would be ruined. No such
thing. So it was said as to the building of Putney-
bridge in 1671, when a bill was promoted for that pur-
pose in the House of Commons. He could not help
saying that if they had determined-to early out these
matters, they ought to do so against all parties, not
merely those who are poor and destitute. lie was pre-
pared to vote for periodical election of aldermen, and
many other extensive reforms, but he thought the first
and honest mode of dealing with the subject was, to ob-
tain the sanction of Parliament to a bill largely increasing
the municipal franchise of the city of London. (Loud
cheers.)
Mr. 'P. H. HALL thought it very inexpedient for the
court to go into one question only. If they were to go
to Parliament for one thing only, might not Sir B. Hail
obtain more power than he could if it was a larger mea-
sure ? No doubt of it. Sir Benjamin would say, "This
meagre 'measure will not do ;;it's all nonsense."
Alderman SIDNEY considered that the reference of the
subject again to a committee to report what were suita-
ble reforms, would be to lose a golden opportunity of
doing themselves what, if they failed or hesitated to do,
would be attempted by other and less experienced hands.
(Hear, hear.) The time thus consumed would prevent
the court from approaching Parliament during the pre-
sent session, and afford to the opponents of the munici-
pal institutions of the City the opportunity of dealing
with the question in a manner the least beneficial to the
citizens generally, while it must be admitted by all that
preliminary to all other reforms must be the extension
of the constituency. Hence he regretted that the mo-
tion of Mr. Blake should be met by an amendment of
the previous question. He trusted the court would nega-
tive that amendment, and thus allow his friend, Sir
James Duke, to bring in, as a substantive amendment,
a resolution which should meet with the unanimous con-
currence of those around him. He strenuously advised
the corporation not to encumber their bill to Parliament
by asking the Legislature to do that which they Could
better do themselves. He must remind the court that
before Parliament itself was in existence, the representa-
tive principle was acted upon in the city of London. The
corporation had existed for centuries, and for centuries
had represented, and properly so, public opinion. It was
not until the year 1725, that an act obtained in the
reign of George I. interfered with the properly consti-
tuted representative principle, which for ages had worked
most advantageously ; and it was the fact, that the in-
terference of Parliament by the Act of the 2d George 1.,
and the further tinkering of that statute within the last
few years, made it necessary now to• apply(,ientl,i hear.'
Now, place, for a repeal of those obnoxious acts. Hsi
Now, those statutes limited the extension of the tranchise ,
and if they were repealed, and a measure founded upon a.
residency of a year and a day—the old and popular
franchise, under which the city flourished for many cen-
tu
ries—then such other reforms as time might have made
necessary would follow as a matter of course.
had been said that Parliament would not tolerate But,it
an ap-
plication of so limited a nature. 'lie could only replythat the Government of Lord Jobti Russell sanctioned
such a bill, which received the approval of the House of
Commons, by being read a second time •, and there could
be no doubt that if such a bill were again introduced, it
would be again approved of. (Hear.) But there had
escaped the lips of several speakers a charge that the
Court of Aldermen had hitherto stood in the way of all
reform, and that the crying evil of the day wits the want
of aldermanicreform. (Laughter.) Much fallacy prevailed
upon that subject. It was perfectly clear that any extended
constituency must necessarily affeet both the Court of Al-
dermen and the Court of Common Council. Each member
of either court must, in the event ofhis continuing a member
of the corporate body, be subject to there-electionon the body
oftheemnbeewr
constituency ; but there had been heaped I)
of which he was an unworthy member, a
calumny, and it was left to be inferred that greatth ea nci oo uu nr
tt oo ff
Aldermen must be the corrupt part of the Corporation,
and that, failing to represent
tut xedaltYh,fito intell
in need
igence,
and poptaatioll 9i the (Ws
.111 d
___