The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-13 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 13, '1*854.

CITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.

within the City, such charter could only be considered as
an acknowledgment of the pre-existing rights of the citi-
zens, which had been secured t,. them, with their other
rights, bythe charter of William the Conqueror, which had
been recognised by similar instruments in subsequent reigns,
and which, though abrogated by King Charles 11., were
restored and confirmed by Act of Parliament as soon as
the Revolution of 1688 had restored law and order within
this realm.
" Having regard to the principles by which property is
acquired and protected in this country, we apprehend that
the possession of I,2ooJyears would confer an adequate title,
even if we could produce neither charters nor Acts of Par-
liament to vouch our rights. The title of the corporation
to the Conduit Mead estate, though of much later origin,
is secured by the pos ession of centuries, and the property
which has for ages been held by the corporatien from the
prebend of Finsbury is vested in them by Act of Parlia-
ment until the year 1867.
"A great portion of the rental of the corporation is said
by some of the witnesses to be derived from embankments
of the Thames, and the pending suit with the Crown is re-
ferred to as if that suit-had been intended to put an end to
such encroachments.
" This statement is founded on a total misapprehension
of the facts. The entire amount of rental derived from
embanknaents made, not for the sake of revenue, but for
the improvement of the river and the convenience of com-
merce, does not exceed 1,1001. per annum. It is not mixed
with the corporation rental, and forms no part of it. It is,
and has been for many years, kept a separate fund, and is
applied to the purposes of conservancy and improving the
river only. This sum of 1,1001. formed only a portion of
the amount expended by the corporation under this head,
the remainder being paid out of the corporate funds.
" The history of the impending suit with the Crown
may be very shortly stated.
" From time immemorial, probably from the period
when the Thames was first embanked, in very ancient times
the corporation of London have possessed the conservancy
and soil and bed of the river. They have claimed and
exercised the right from time to time of granting licenses
to embank in cases where it has been considered
beneficial to the river, applying the proceeds to the remo-
val of shoals and other purposes of improvement on the
river.
" In 1842 the corporation contemplated a large expenditure
of money for the purpose of carrying into execution an im-
provement of the river upon a more extended scale than had
before been attempted, but in order that they might re-
ceive the best advice before they commenced the under-
taking, they applied to the Admiralty for the assistance of
Capt. Bullock, who had been engaged in surveys for that
board for many years, and Mr. alker, the engineer,
Captain Bullock, and the officers of the coporation in the
harbour and conservancy service made a survey of the
Thames within the limits of the city jurisdiction, and pre-
sented a most able and elaborate report, recommending a
definite system for the future management of the river and
its branches, for the purpose of removing shoals, securing
the banks, and erecting steam-boat piers where requisite.
" As this project contemplated the expenditure of a very
large sum of money, the opinion of the most eminent
counsel was taken as to the legal power of the corporation
to carry it intoiexecution' and to apply the fines or rents
which might be received from the owners of wharf pro-
perty wishing to embank, in defraying the great charges of
the improvement.
" Counsel were unanimously of opinion that the corpo-
ration were fully justified in taking this course. The re-
port was printed and extensively circulated, and the re-
moval of the shoals was about to be commenced, when the
solicitor of the Woods and Forests filed an information against
the corporation, which had the effect of restraining them
from executing their design. The ground alleged for this
step was, that by the prerogative right of the Crown, the
soil and bed of all rivers within the flux and reflux of the
tide formed a part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown,
and that when the state of the river justified its embank-
ment, the ground reclaimed from the river should be let
or sold for the benefit of the Sovereign.
" The corporation, under the advice of most distin-
guished counsel, unconnected with them, controverted this
doctrine, and they have taken such proceedings in resist-
ing the claim of the Crown as counsel have from time to
time advised, always professing their readiness to be bound
by act of Parliament to apply the revenue which might be
derived from this source as they had previously done,
not to corporate uses, but for the benefit of the river.
The corporation have been in negotiation with the
Government during almost the whole time the suit has
been pending for a settlement of all differences con-
nected with the river in a manner that would be just to the
Crown and to the corporation ; and at the same time
beneficial to the public. These negotiations are still pend-
ing ; and, as ancillary to this object, the corporation have
each year placed themselves in a position before Par-
liament to enable them, in case the proposed arrangement
with the Crown could be accomplished, to carry it into
effect by means of a bill.
" Complaint has been made that the corporation, in con-
ducting this case, have resisted by all the means in their
power the proceedings of the Crown ; to which we reply,
that we were advised by counsel that the proceedings them-
selves were unusual, and ought to be resisted at every step.
When any of the subjects of the Crown are in the actual
possession of property, they can be ousted only by some
one who, in a court of law, can show a better right.
In ancient times the Crown claimed by its prerogative to
be exempt from this rule of law, and asserted a right to
the possession of a disputed property, unless the person in
actual possession could prove his own title. To redress
this grievance a remedial act of Parliament was passed in
the reign of James 1., and the Crown by writ of intrusion
ought now to seek to enforce its claims to property by the
strength of its own title, and by means similar to those
which a subject must adopt. The present suit is said to
be an unconstitutional evasion of this statute, by which
the Crown seeks to oust the corporation of the soil of the
river, of which they are in actual possession, by question-
ing their title, instead of asserting its own. The corpora-
tion have repeatedly offered to the Ministers and officers
of the Crown that, if they would proceed by writ of intru-
sion or otherwise in the common law courts, they would
afford every facility for a cheap and speedy trial of
the case.
" 2. The corporation contend that their title to the tolls,
offices, and duos which constitute the remaining portion of
their income is alike unobjectionable; they are held by
prescription or recognised legal title of the highest order ;
but the Common Council, as representing the citizens,
have expressed their willingness to concede such modifica-
tions and reductions of some of these dues as the interests
of trade and commerce may require. The corporation,
however, confidently believe that no violence will be done
to the rights of property by interfering with any of these
revenues, except with the full and free consent of
the representatives of those to whom they lawfully
belong.
" The first of these revenues to which objection has been
made is the charge upon admissions to freedom. This
charge, which until within the last 20 years was 271. 6s. Bd.,
and produced some thousands a year, is now reduced to the
ancient fee of 21. 6s. Bd., and yields now very little more
than one-tenth of its previous amount, and is obviously too
small to deserve a single ..omment, except from the mis-
representations which have been made as to the proceed-
ings
taken within the last few years to compel persons to
become free, not for the purpose of increasing the amount
of the funds of the7corporation, but to increase the number
of the municipal constituency.
" One of the witnesses stated that in 1845 he was elected

The royal commissioners appointed to inquire into the
state of the corporation of the city of London, re-assembled
in the Privy Council Chamber on Wednesday, after a long
adjournment, for the purpose of resuming their investiga-
tion by examining the officers of the corporation, in answer
to the various allegations which the previous witnesses
have preferred against that body. Commissioners present:
the Right Hon. H. Labouchere (the chairman), Sir John
Patteson, and Mr. Cornewall Lewis.
The Right Hon. J. Stuart Wortley (the City Recorder),
Mr. Charles Pearson (City Solicitor), Mr. Sergeant Mere-
wether (Town Clerk), Sir J. Key (City Chamberlain), Mr.
Tyrrell (City Remembrancer), Mr. Alderman Wilson, Mr.
Deputy Harrison, Mr. Dakin, and other gentlemen con-
nected with the corporation, were in attendance. At the
commencement of the sitting,
The Chairman said—We now propose to take the evidence
of the officers connected with the corporation. We thought
it advisable to begin by hearing parties who had paid at-
tention to City affairs, and who were disposed to suggest
alterations in the management or constitution of the cor-
poration. We thought this course would be the one most
convenient to pursue, and the authorities of the corpora-
tion acquiesced in this proceeding. We are now desirous
of hearing the evidence of the corporate officers; but at
the same time we do not preclude ourselves, ii.' we shall
deem it necessary, after their evidence has been received,
from reverting to such points as we may think have not
been sufficiently considered, or from taking the evidence of
other parties whom it may be desirable to examine. Yet
we have thought it for the convenience of the public that
a sort of prinui facie case should be made out upon those
points with regard to which some persons hold that there
ought to be alterations made in the system of the corpo-
ration.
Mr. Sergeant Merewether said—lt certainly has been the
apprehension of the corporation that their case and their
witnesses would be heard last.; but lam sure that the com-
missioners will clearly understand by that that it is not at
all the desire of the corporation that an opportunity should
not be offered for examining further witnesses should the
commissioners deem it necessary.
The Chairman—ln all our communications with the City
authorities from the beginning we have stated that we would
first examine parties who opposed the corporation, and then
hear the officers of the corporation themselves ; but that at
the same time a e still retained to ourselves an unfettered
discretion to call further evidence afterwards upon other
points which might not appear to have been sufficiently
cleared up, or which might require further elucidation.
There is one point—viz., the management of the Irish
estates of the corporation— upon which no evidence
whatever has been adduced; and upon that subject it may
be desirable to examine a, ditional witnesses. Of course,
I need hardly add, that if anything should arise in the
course of the new evidence which the corporation may wish
to answer, we will consider it only just that the officers of
the corporation should be heard with regard t o it.
The Right Hon. J. Stuart Wortley, Recorder of the city
of Loudon, then presented himself to the commissioners,
and said—l appear before you as the chief officer of tho
corporation, in no sense as an advocate, but in my official
capacity ; and, in the first place, I must ask permission
to read, as the most convenient course, a written
statement which has been drawn up by way of general
refutation of the main charges which have been made
against the corporation, and by way of vindication of
their general administration. It has been thought con-
venient to adopt this course, in order to concentrate in this
form all that might otherwise be dispersed at greater
length over the evidence of the various witnesses who
will be called before you ; and if this statement, so read,
is placed upon the records of the commission, you will only
have to refer to the facts contained in it to see whether or
not the evidence of the witnesses supports its allegations.
The statement is drawn up within the smallest possible
compass ; and although I read it on the part of the corpora.
tion, I do not at all shrink from taking upon myself the
responsibility for its contents ; yet it is only right to say
that it is not my address, but the address of the corpora-
tion generally, which I am now about to read. The right
hon. gentleman then proceeded to read the following
" GENERAL DEFENCE OF THE CORPORATION.
"TO HER MAJESTY'S COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO
INQUIRE INTO THE STATE OF THE CORPORATION OF
LONDON.
" We, the consolidated committee, appear before you as
representatives of the corporation, in pursuance of a reso-
lution passed by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Com-
mons of the city of London, in Common Counciiassembled,
on the 30th of June last, after reading her Most Gracious
Majesty's commission under the Great Seal ; which resolu-
tion is in the following words :
" 'Resolved, and ordered, that it be referred to the con-
solidated committee to assist the inquiry before the Royal
Commission on behalf of the corporation of London, and
afford the fullest information on every subject connected
therewith.
" ' And that all the officers, clerks, and servants of the
corporation be authorised to attend before the commis-
sioners, and to give them the fullest information in their
power, both oral and documentary.'
" Since the receipt on the sth inst. of the official copy of
the evidence taken before the commission against the cor-
poration (up to the fourteenth day of the inquiry), we
have considered the same as fully and carefully as the
short into/ val would permit.
"If all persens examined before you had (as some of
them have done) cconfined their observations to a fair and
temperate review of the past history and present position
of this ancient corporation, and if they had accompanied
their statements by suggestions of such alterations and
amendments as they might consider necessary or expe-
dient, we should, without making any preliminary obser-
vations, have tendered the members and officers of the
corporation to the commissioners as witnesses to furnish
the most ample information in their power, both oral and
documentary; and we should have felt it our duty to seek
instructions from the various branches of the corporation,
to enable us to submit to your impartial consideration the
various projects for improving our corporate institutions,
which at different periods have been proposed in the cor-
poration, many of which would have been long since effected
ifethe governing body had had within itself the clear legal
power to carry them into execution.
" We observe with satisfaction that many of the wit-
nesses who have been examined bear testimony to the in-
tegrity and honourable character and conduct, both official
and personal, of the several members of the corporation ;
we, however, perceive that there are exceptions to this
rule, and that some of the persons who appear to be con-
ducting the case against the corporation, have constituted
themselves at once accusers, witnesses, and projectors, and
have in ther evidence on oath so intermingledoffensive mis-
representations and exaggerations of assumed facts with
specious arguments, groundless opinions, and speculative
projects, that it is difficult to deal with the multifarious
questions they have thus raised in any of the forms by
which truth is usually investigated.
" Being anxious, iu a question of so much importance,
to avoid this inconvenient intermixture of opinions, facts,
and proposals for alteration, we desire, with the permission
of the commissioners, to keep them distinct.
We propose, first, to furnish a written answer to the
accusations made against the corporation in as definite and
concise a form as their vague and irregular character will
admit ; we then propose to tender the officers of the corpo-
ration, and other witnesses, as well to substantiate on oath
the fads stated in answer, as to submit themselves to a gene-
ral examination upon all matters into which the commis-
sioners may think it right to inquire, asking leave to re-
serve the expression of either corporate or individual opi-
nions upon any proposed alterations either in the consti-
tution or administration of the corporation, until we shall
have concluded what we intend to be a full and perfect
refutation, either written or oral, of the various charges
that have been preferred against the constitution of the
corporation, or against the conduct of the members who
compose it.
" In the belief that this course of proceeding will be ac-
ceptable to the commissioners, we have prepared the fol-
lowing statement, in which we have collected and arranged
under distinct heads the several charges against the corpo-
ration, and we propose to answer them seriatim in that
order.

a common councilman to enable him to correct abuses, and
that an attempt was then being made by that body to com-
pel wholesale dealers who acted as retailers to become free.
If this had been the case it would have been a measure
perfectly unobjectionable, provided the means were as fair
as the abject was just. But the witnesses further stated
that the corporation had employed spies to lodge informa-
tions against wholesale dealers who, not in the regular
course of trade but to oblige a customer, might cut off a
few yards from a single piece or divide a dozen of stock
ings to accommodate a particular customer ; and stated
that the object of this proceeding was to get money. The
facts connected with the freedom question are as
follows :
"In the year 1729, when, as will be hereafter explained,
the corporation was under a different management from
that which now prevails, a redemption fine of 251., in ad-
dition to the ancient payment of 21. 6s. Bd., was imposed
upon freedoms, some of which were sold to pay the debts
of the corporation, and others were distributed amongst
certain members and officers, who soldd them for their own
benefit.

"First. It is charged that the income of the corporation
is excessive in amount.
" Secondly. It is said to be derived from objectionable
sources, viz.:—
"1. From rentals of property including encroachments
on the Thames.
2. From tolls, offices, and dues, including charges on
freedoms, coal dues, metage of corn.'
" Thirdly. It is charged against the corporation that
their expenditure is excessive in its amount and useless in
its objects, namely
:-
1. As respects the costs of the mayoralty, including
the costs of the banquet and pageant on the inauguration
day.
2. As regards the expenses of the committees.
3. The salaries of the corporate officers.
Fourthly. It is said that the police and sewerage of the
City, instead of being under the management of the corpo-
ration, should be amalgamated with the establishments for
the rest of the metropolis.
Fifthly. It is charged that the accounts of the cm pora-
tionally so kept.
tion are in an unintelligible form, and that they are inten-
Sixthly. That the lord mayors, aldermen, and common
council, during the present century, have been, and are,
greatly inferior to the corporators of former times both in
rank, respectability, intelligence, and public spirit ; that
they are unfit for the stations they occupy, and are, and
have been, regarded with disrespect by the citizens.
" To these charges we submit the following answers :
" First. In answer to the charge that the revenue of the
corporation is excessive, we say that, considering the spe-
cial circumstances which affect the City, this is not the case.
The proper income of the corporation averages about
200,0001. per annum, of which a little less than one-half is
derived from freehold and leasehold rents, and a little more
than the other half is derived from tolls, offices, and casual
sources of revenue. This sum represents the gross receipts
of the corporation in respect
large cleduefrions for collection
and management, as well as charges for rebuildin and
all of whichnecessarily
repairing the property, become
augmented as the properties increase in number and
extent. The aggregate amount is likewise liable to
large fixed charges, which cannot b. diminished., thus
leaving the sum upon which economicalre trenchments can
operate very much less than the magnitude of the entire sum
would to a superficial observer appear to imply. Besides the
proper revenue of the corporation, the police committee of
the Common Council, and the Commissioners of Sewers,
consisting of members of that body, have the raising and
expenditure of an average amount of about 111,000/. per
annum by rates upon property in. the City, naively,
84,0001.
for paving, lighting, sewers, and about 27,000/. for police.
" It should be remarked that inasmuch as the foregoing
particulars of receipt and expenditure are annually pub-
lished, it was impossible for the witnesses to misrepresent
their actual amount; but they obtained for the exaggerated
statemen `..s given to the commissioners, and through the
commissioners to the world by means of the public press, all
the effect of misrepresentation, by _
mixing up these sums,
which are avowedly received and accounted for by the
corporation, with tithes, poor rates, charity funds, and
other sums with which they have no connection. Having
thus mixed up these sums together, the annual revenue of
the City is by one witness said to be 350,0001. ; by another,
450,000/. ; and a third represents the amount to be upwards
of a million.
" Secondly. It is said that the sources of the corporate
income are objectionable. We will examine them sepa-
rately. The rental, amounting to nearly 100,0001. per
annum, is chiefly derived from houses in the City, from
the perpetuity leases and occasional fines of the Conduit
Mead estate, and from the rents of the Finsbury property,
which is held on lease.
"1. A large portion of this property is built upon the
site of the old walls, gates, and fortifications of the City,
which existed when London was a flourishing free city un-
der the Romans ; and on their departure from the island
the property devolved upon the citizens, and has been pos-
sessed by them during the twelve centuries that have
elapsed since that event ; for although one of the witnesses
has deposed that this site was part of the common soil of
the City, and although King Henry VI. did by charter
pram* to grant to the citizen* of London the common

" The practice of exacting this fine continued until with-
in the last 20 years. Complaints having at length been
made that the weight of the redemption fine and
the charges of the livery companies upon an ad-
mission to the freedom pressed heavily upon trade,
and tended to reduce the municipal constituency,
the Common Council, before the appointment of
the former Royal Commission, referred it to a committee
to consider whether it was expedient gradually, and to
what extent, to reduce, and ultimately to remit, the fine
upon the admission of all householders paying their scot
and bearing their lot to the freedom of the city.
" The Common Council had it also in contemplation at
the 83M0 time to admit non-freemen without the interven-
tion of the livery companies.

The former Royal Commissioners were apprised of the
contemplated alterations in the mode of admitting non-
freemen, and having investigated the subject themselves,
they reported that the then existing method by which
persons became free appeared to them highly objection-
able, and that the livery companies possessed no one fea-
ture from which they could discover any advantage in
compelling freemen to belong to them, and that that part
of the system was, in fact, no more than a troublesome
and a capricious method of taxing the inhabitants of Lon-
don for the emolument of the companies. The commis-
sioners also objected to the acquisition of fri edom by pur-
chase, as being practically a tax upon the retail traders of
the City who were compelled to take up their freedom.
The commissioners, at the same time, stated that if re-
demptioners were to be admitted to the freedom of the
City without the livery of a company, they could not,
without the alteration of the 11th Geo. 1., be enabled to
vote for a corporate officer in the common-hall elections.
" Being thus justified in these contemplated changes
by the opinion of the Royal Commissioners, the Common
Council, in 1835, under the advice of their law officers,
passed resolutions to admit householders and persons carry-
ing on business in the City to the freedom without the in-
tervention of the livery companies, and then commenced a
reduction of the redemption fine by remitting 101. out of
the 251. imposed in 1729, and they have since proceeded in
further reductions until that payment is extinct ; and there
remains now only a nominal fine of2l. 6s. Bd., together with
official fees not yet abolished, amounting to 15s. Bd. ; and
the Government duty of 31., the principal portion of the
fees with which the admission was formerly encumbered
having been abolished from time to time as vested interests
ceased.

" Whilst these reductions in the cost of freedoms were
being effected, the Common Council directed their serious
attention to other alterations is their constitution which
had received the approval of the commissioners. And in
1843 a committee had matured a proposal for repealing the
City Election Act of the 11th Geo. I. • and for extending
the right of voting, both in wardmote and common-hall
elections, to the ratepayers within the City. It was also
proposed to render the wards more equal iu size and popu-
lation. One of the main arguments for extending the
franchise was that, notwithstanding the reduction that had
been made in the cost of freedoms, the number of freemen
was still diminishing, and the merchants, bankers, and
wholesale dealers still refused to become free, whereby
colour was given to the popular complaint that the corpo-
rators, both representatives and electors, were principally
confined to the retail class ; a body which, although large,
respectable, and well qualified independently to exercise
their various functions, v ere much less numerous than
householders, who were governed by the same authority
and contributed to the same rate.
" When the report of the committee was brought before
the Common Council, recommending an application to Par-
liament to effect these objects, it was violently opposed
by the livery companies. This opposition might, however,
have proved fruitless, had it not been for an opinion then
expressed that, under the customs and bylaws of the City
merchants, bankers, and all other persons occupying pre-
mises within the City were liable to the penalty of 51.,
imposed by the by the by-law, as Occupiers, without re.

ferfence to any trade they might not carry on therein.
From a mixed motive, partly from an apprehension of op-
position in Parliament from the livery companies, and
partly from a desire to effect their object by their own
powers, the Common Council referred it to a committee to
endeavour to enforce the law against merchants and whole-
sale dealers in the manner that had been suggested.
" For this purpose actions were threatened or com-
menced against twenty persons, including in the list
foreign and English merchants and wholesale dealers, not
as wholesale dealers occasionally retailing goods (in the
manner suggested by the witness before referred to), but
as merchants and wholesale dealers acting in that capacity
alone. The defendants contributed funds for a joint de-
fence, and for the purpose of trying the case in an ami-
cable manner as an abstract question of law. The twenty
actions were consolidated in one, and by the directions of
the committee that action was tried upon admissions
agreed upon by the counsel on both sides, so that the pos-
sibility of raising the fact of retail dealing may be exclu-
ded, and it was arranged that, whatever might be the
ruling of the judge, either party should be at liberty to
put the matter at issue on the record, to be tried before a
superior court. The cause was tried upon the admissions
in the Lord Mayor's Court, before the then Recorder, who
was of opinion that the action could not then be sustained.
A bill of exceptions to his ruling was prepared, but the
committee and the Common Council determined not to
carry the case further. It is to be regretted that a wit-
ness in a matter with which he represents he was per-
sonally connected should have permitted himself to charge
his colleagues with having employed spies to entrap the
unwary, with the object of obtaining money, when he
might have known the contrary. The action was against
Mr. Stuart, and not against Messrs. Ward and Co. It
was commenced and carried on in a spirit of frankness and
fairness on all sides, without the slightest reference to pe-
cuniary objects, solely to determine the question whether
the franchise of the City was to be confined to retail
dealers, or whether the obligation of citizenship could be
enforced upon the merchant and wholesale dealer.
" After the decision in Mr. Stuart's action had been pro-
nounced, the Common Council determined to apply to Par-
liament to accomplish some of the objects recommended
by the commissioners, but, being unwilling to provoke the
opposition of the livery companies, they obtained, in 1849,
a partial measure, which was impaired in its efficiency oy
alterations forced upon its promoters in its progress
through Parliament, and in 1852 they introduced a bill to
extent the elective franchise to the ratepayers, and to ad-
mit them to the right of voting in common halls. This
measure met with a strenuous opposition from the livery
companies, and was finally rejected at their instance.
" If it had not been for the City Election Act (the 11th
George I.) an ancient prescriptive power (confirmed by
charter and act of Parliament) to amend any of the old
usages that might from the change of times and circum-
stances might need amendment would have enabled the
corporation themselves to have made the requisite altera-
tion in the election law ; but, Parliament having refused
to amend the law, and being unable themselves to legis-
late against the express provisions of an act of Parliament,
the Common Council determined to make another effort to
induce or compel retail dealers to become free. For this
purpose, they referred it to a committee to cause all per-
sons returned by the wardinquests, merchants, bankers, or
wholesale dealers, to be summoned before the Chamberlain,
and against thirty of them actions were brought for the
penalties. In these cases, with few exceptions, the
parties took up their freedom. It has been represented by
some of the witnesses that these proceedings were
enforced with unnecessary harshness and severity.
If this were done, it was without the sanction of the
Common Council or the committee. The officers who
conducted the proceedings will be tendered for ex
amination ; they have reported that the fact was
the reverse, for that when the parties consented to
obey the law, the costs, which were very trifling, were re-
mitted in all cases except one, where a wealthy firm car-
ried on a very large wholesale trade, but being in the con-
stant habit of supplying customers by retail, it was not
thought right to remit the costs in that case. There is ne
pretext for saying that the corporation instituted these
proceedings either for the purpose of oppression or extor-
tion. By relinquishing the redemption fine of 251., which
their predecessors had received for upw. rds of a century,
it must be obvious that the present corporation cannot
have been influenced by any such motives as those which
have been imputed to them. The Common Council hove
suspended all further proceedings, but in doing so they
feel that the constituency already too limited, will be fur-
ther reduced, unless Parliament will assist the corporation
in applying a sufficient remedy I ,r this acknowledged evil.
" The next source of revenue enjoyed by the corporation
is a toll upon coals, yielding about 70,0001. per annum.
" The coal duties consists of an ancient duty, subse-
quently confirmed by Parliament, at 4d. per ton, belong-
ing to the corporation of London ; Bd. per ton applied to
metropolitan improvements not within the city of London :
and ld. per ton granted for the establishment of the coal
market, but now applied to metropolitan improvements
not within the city of Loudon ; making together the sum
of Is. ld per ton.
" Tho duty of 4d. per ton has been for some years past,
and is now, applied by the corporation of London to im-
provements within the city of London. The New Cannon-
street has lately been made out of that duty, at an expeasc
of upwards of 500,0001.
"The duty of Bd. per ton is applied in payment of the
principal and interest of sums raised by the Commissioners of
her Majesty's Woods, &c., for public improvements in the
metropolis not within the city of London. The New Ox-
ford-street and other important improvements have been
executed out of that duty. The corporation of London
pay 11,500 per annum and other sums towards this fund,
for improvements out of the city of London.
" The duty of Id. per ton was granted to establish a
coal market, with a provision that when a sufficient sum
was accumulated to defray the expenses of the coal market
the duty was to cease. In the year 1845 the corporation
of London relinquished this duty, in order that the public
might have the benefit ; but the Government of that day
immediately appropriated the duty to metropolitan im-
provements, under the direction of her Majesty's Commis-
sioners of Woods, &c.
"If public improvements are to be effected, it appears
difficult to devise means by which the amount required
can be raised in a manner so little injurious to the public,
and falling so equally upon the persons for whose use the
improvements are required.
" The avenues of the city of London are sufficient for
the inhabitants of the city of London, and the necessity
for their improvement and enlargement arises from the
immense concourse of people who daily frequent the City
from miles around it. What, therefore, can be snore equi-
table than that the persons residing within 20 miles round
tho metropolis should contribute to the improvements
required for their comfort and convenience ?
With respect to the alleged extension of the area of
the limits of taxation by the act 14th and 15th Vict., cap.
146, the opinion of the law officers of the Crown is con-
clusive that the area of taxation was not extended by that
act.
" The next source of revenue is derived from the
metage of corn ; it amounts to about 10,0001. a year, sub
ject to the cost of collection and management.
" The corporation are entitled by subscription to the
metage of all measureable articles brought into the port of
London ; this right has been constantly exercised, and wa,
confirmed by charter in the reign of James I. For tin
convenience of trade in very ancient times, the measuring
and delivery of corn was effected by the corporation meters
and the ancient fellowship of porters acting together. In
the year 1835 a complaint was made to the corporation by
the fellowship of porters that Messrs. Combe and Company
were in the habit of bringing malt into the port of London
and delivering it at the Savoy Wharf without emeloying
the meters or porters. At the request of the porters the
corporation allowed the fellowship to use their name xs
joint plaintiffs in a suit to enforce the ckini for porterage.
In the progress of this suit the City's claim for metage be-
came involved, and the proceeding has since been carried
on for the purpose of enforcing the claim to both rootage
and porterage.
" The corporation have for several years been impressed
with the opinion that the time was approaching when :le
interests of the commerce of the port would require a con•
siderable modification of the ancient customs of London,
as far as both metage and porterage were concerned. With
a view to the accomplishment of these objects with as little
detriment as possible to the interests of individuals, an act
of Common Council was passed, regulating the admission
of porters, which would have the effect, in the course of
years, of enabling the Common Council to accomplish the
proposed modifications of the existing customs, which
would, it was hoped, lead to an amicable arrangement 0:
the suit with Messrs. Combe and Co.
"During the last 18 months an investigation lies eeee
proceeding which has had for its object the removal of ail
disputed questions, as regards both porters and meters ;
and there is good reason for believing that it will result in
an arrangement satisfactory to the merchants, the corpora.
tion, and the fellowship. So solo as the proposed arrange-
ment shall be placed in a more definite form, it will be
submitted to the Common Council, in order that, if ap-
proved, it may be placed before Parliament in the shape
of a bill, as tho law officers of the corporation have ex-
pressed an opinion that, however desirable such arrange-
ments may be, they cannot be legally effected without the
authority of an act.
" Thirdly. We proceed to answer the third charge, that
the expenditure of the corporation is excessive in amount,
and useless in its objects.
"1. To support this statement it is said that the costs
of the mayora ty are excessive, and that the inauguration
banquet and its attendant pageantry are expensive, use-
less, and absurd.
" To this we reply that the allowance to the Lord Mayor
to maintain the state and hospitality of his offitcye)(indtusdninogt
his proportion of the banquet and 1-)
exceed a sum between 8,0001. and 9,oool.fiesor the ° for the
The
casual sources of income, such as the
etc.,
referred to
admis-
sion of Jew brokers, grants of freedoms,
by some of the witnesses, which were formerly perquisites
of office, have been for some years abolished or commuted
for money payments included in this sum.
" We contend that the inauguration banquet is not pro-
fuse either in its character or cost, and that is conducted
as becomes
a State banquet given to the Ministers
of the Crown,
the representatives of foreign powers, the
elite of the learned professions, and the great commercial
City,
monetary establishments of the by the corpora-
;iuthteheexwpeonrlsdes.
and .
tion of the first city of
atuheestsfirsetnteertouanintreyd
There are about I,
defray3d by the Lord Mayor and by the sheriffs, in-equal
moieties, amounts together to about 2,2001., of which sum
the cost of the pageant and procession by land and by
water does not, on an average, exceed 2001. Besides this
sum the corporation defray the cost of lighting and fitting
up the hall.
We likewise contend that, the pageant being in con-
tinuation of an ancient custom, it ought not to be abolished
without stronger reasons than have yet been assigned for
its abolition. Previous to the last 9th of November the
Lord Mayor took the opinion of the bankers in Lombard-
street,
the brokers in Mincing-lane, and of the market
traders in Thames-street. They did not feel that it would
occasion any such inconvenience to their pursuits as would
render it improper for the procession to pass along those
streets in its progress through his lordship's ward. A dif- I
ference of opinion upon this subject, however exists ; by
many it is contended that, in this age of competition, the
humbler classes of the people have but little respite from
their labours ; some hundreds of thousands of both sexes,
and all ages, amuse the passing hour by gazing on this
spectacle as a memorial of ancient times, which costs them
nothing, and adds so trifling a charge to the other ex-
_

pauses of the day. A further justification of the corpo-
ration in incurring the charges of the banquet may be
found in the fact that various sums have in past ages been
given by the citizens to the general fond to perpetuate
festivities on state days. In the time of our Saxon ances-
tors, out of the funds raised by the guilds of the City, a
portion was to be applied to festive purposes.
" In answer also to the assertion of two or three of the
witnesses, that the cost of the mayoralty is 2.1,000,. per
annum, it should be observed that this statement is fou mied
upon a report made by the committee in 1634. The atten-
tion of the commissioners is invited to the proceedings of
the Common Council, in which court in 1836 this report
was examined. As further evidence of the extravagant
expenditure of the corporation, it is said that the allow•