The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-23 00:00:00

measure. By this means have been saved and preserved
the customs of the City with regard to apprentices, dis-
tribution, orphans, the law of mortmain (for the citizens
of London can still devise under mortmain), and in
modern times the Municipal Reform Act, the County
Courts Act, the Health of Towns Act, the acts
with regard to ports and harbours, and, in fact,
all sweeping measures, effecting great changes in
all the rest of the kingdom, have contained
special reservations in favour of the city of London.
Sometimes the clauses introduced by the Remembrancer
prejudice the rights of the citizens ; for instance, when
Sturges Bourne's Act, regulating vestries was passed,
the clause inserted by the Remembrancer precluded the
measure from extending to the city of London and
Southwark. Again, the rights of the City are saved in
all metropolitan acts, as in the case of the metropolitan
police, aid the police rna,gistrates, the sewerage, and
the regulation of porters, in all of which respects the
City is excepted from the general system. In all acts
relating to the sale of wine, care is taken that the Vint-
ners' Company shall not be prejudiced in the City, and
so with regard to the sale of beer, and, in fact, in the
whole mass of acts of Parliament, relating to every
branch of trade, the City is excluded. The City, in
short, has special charters and privileges, which vest it
with the control over all trades, and which, although
they are rarely exercised in many cases, they are inva-
riably saved and excepted from the general legislation
of the country. Now, I would make it certain that all
these special laws and conflicting customs should be re-
pealed, and cause the general law of the land to prevail
in the city of London the same as elsewhere.
Mr. C. Lewis—Do you think that the customs of the
City can only be taken away by a special act of Parlia-
ment, and that the general words of an act cannot de-
stroy such a custom !

Mr. Pulling—l can hardly answer that question. I
have known cases in which it has been held that a spe-
cific custom is repealed by the general words of an act,
and other cases again where it has been held quite the
contrary. The point is one respecting which there exists
great doubt. Next, with regard to the conflicting juris-
diction in the metropolis generally in criminal cases, I
would observe that whilst the Central Criminal Court is
d
sittings, the Middlesex Sessions, the City of
the Surrey Sessions, the Sessions of
fact all the sessions of the various
hthoel
London
Tower,
holding w its
e r,
Sessions,
a nd i
metropolitan districts may be sitting simultaneously
with it. It would be advisable, I think, to take away
the whole of the metropolitan sessional jurisdictions, and
to transact the whole criminal business of the metropolis
at one court, say the Central Criminal Court, having the
assistant-judges sitting there to try the minor cases after
the higher class of business had been disposed of.
I would relieve the Lord Mayor and aldermen from their
duties at the Central Criminal Court, and make the
Recorder, the Common Sergeant, the superior judges of
the land, and the assistant-judges, the real judges of
that court.

Sir J. Patteson—There are generally three of the
Westminster judges standing on the rota for each court
of the Central Criminal Court, I believe—are so many
judges necessary there ?
Mr. Pulling—One judge sitting in each court, as is
the case on circuit, would, I think, be quite sufficient.
I think the grand juries are useless, and even inconve-
nient, and ought to be abolished. If the commitments
are made by competent stipendiary magistrates, the
functions of the grand juries are quite superfluous. Then
I consider there ought to be a public prosecutor.
Sir J. Patteson—That is a question which I am afraid
does not come within the scope of our inquiry.
Mr. Pulling—l apply my suggestion particularly to
the City. The cost of prosecutions conies out of the
City fends ; but London being a county has the power
of making a county rate if it thinks fit. I do not be-
lieve the expense of the court I propose would be greater
than that of the courts which now exists, each of which
have separate jurisdictions, and have also their own
staff of officers. Ido not see why a different practice
with respect to the magistracy should prevail in the
City from that which is followed in the rest of the me-
tropolis. I would, therefore, employ duly qualified paid
magistrates in the City, in lieu of the aldermen. The
aldermen who now act as magistrates in the City are
not qualified to discharge such duties, and they have
not only their own private affairs as merchants or trades-
men to attend to, but to exercise the functions of civic
senators in managing the various departments of muni-
cipal government.
Mr. C. Lewis—Do not the aldermen rely generally
upon the advice of their paid assessors ?
Mr. Pulling—l cannot say. The aldermen have only
acted as magistrates since the reign of George 11.
Another cause of great inconvenience in the City is the
number of conflicting local boards. There are no fewer
than 700 acts in force in the metropolis for the regula-
tion of local affairs, and it is absolutely necessary that
their provisions should be consolidated. More than
one-half of the 700 of these local acts are in force within
the City. There are 52 separate charters belonging to
the City which are in print, and besides these, I should
think, there are at least 20 more which are not in print.
Mr. C. Lewis—Are litigants, who call in question the
power of the City to enforce the rights against them
which it claims under charter, permitted to see the docu-
ment upon which the claims made upon them are based ?
Mr. Pulling—Most certainly not.
Mr. C. Lewis—Can you tell the reason why this is
refused ?
Mr. Pulling—The policy of the corporation of late
years has been to conceal its charters. It denies the
public access to them in order to prevent the discovery
of their contents, although it appears to me that every
citizen and every resident of London is clearly entitled
to inspect them. The officers of the corporation are en-
strusted to withhold the charters from the public. Mr.
Sergeant Merewether has the custody of them, and one
of the standing orders of the Court of Common Council
is that no officer shall show the charters without the
leave of the Court.
Mr. C. Lewis—Even after the charters were produced
it would be a question then, I suppose, whether they
applied to the case in dispute, just like the provisions of
any act of Parliament ?
Mr. Pulling—Of course.
Mr. C. Lewis—Do you see any reason, then, why,
while the charters are in force, the corporation should
refuse to allow them to be made public ?
Mr. Pulling—l can conceive a reason. I have never
been engaged professionally by the corporation, and
therefore in what I say I violate no confidence. My
information is derived from other sources. I have rea-
son to believe that the City has committed the forfeiture
of many of its rights, and if the City were to allow its
title to be looked into, it would expose the errors which
have caused a technical forfeiture. For instance, the cor-
poration claims the right to hold land in mortmain under
a charter of Edward IV.: and in the City accounts there
is a large revenue shown from rents and quit rents. Now,
the greater part of these rents and quit rents is derived
from property which I conceive the corporation merely
holds in trust, and if there is a trust, then it has com-
mitted a breach of that trust. Then, again, being the
conservators of the Thames, the corporation has allowed
encroachments to be made upon the bed and the soil of
the river, and it has derived, and still derives, a revenue
from giving licenses to parties to make these encroach-
ments. Again, under a charter of Charles 1., Smith-
field and Moorfields were granted to the City on the
condition that both places should be maintained as open
spaces unbuilt upon ; and it happened after the great
fire of London that pent-houses were erected in Smith-
field to accommodate the sufferers by that great cala-
mity ; yet in the act which was subsequently passed for
the rebuilding of the City, mention was made in the re-
cital that such pent-houses had been built, and the act
specially directed that they should be pulled down, and
that no houses should be built upon the open space of
Smithfield. Now, it is a great question whether the
corporation has not forfeited its right to Smithfield, be-
cause the present open space there is not one-tenth, or
one-twentieth of its ancient size, and the corporation has
not only allowed it to be built upon, but they have pro-
fited from the houses which have been erected there. In
the case also of the Finsbury estates the corporation has
contravened the original grant of Moorfields ; and under
these circumstances I conceive that there is good reason
why the City should withhold its charters from the
public eye.
Mr. C. Lewis —That may be a reason why the City
does not wish to lose its charters ; but is there any good
reason why they should be withheld when it is desire-
able for the public good that their contents should be
made known ?
Mr. Pulling—l see none.
Mr. C. Lewis—Have you anything else which you
wish to add to your evidence ?
Mr. Pulling—l would merely add that I think if,
throughout the metropolis, a general system of munici-
pal government were established, modelled upon the
Municipal Corporation Act, and separate municipalities
were constituted for each of the metropolitan boroughs
as well as for the City, great advantage would be gained.
At the same time I would reserve to the City any pro-
perty, tlittlhe,inokr btehneerfiecoiaulgrhitgltiots
bwehiachuint
ifnoormw lseygsatlelymenof-
joys.
police and police magistracy, as well as of sewerage,
throughout the entire metropolis. I would have the
whole of the local acts to which I have referred repealed,
and would substitute in their place a municipal system
for the whole metropolis, giving a separate corporation
to each parliamentary borough. In the city of London,
however, I would reserve to the livery a great deal of
their ancient rights, as they might be made a very valu-
able body. Whilst the householders might have a voice
in all general matters of local government, I would leave
to the livery alone the right of electing to the high
offices. I would have the livery reformed and the con-
stitution of the companies altered. I believe the trade
of London could not be efficiently represented in the
corporation without the livery companies. The freemen
householders would not represent the commerce of the
City so well as the livery. The original connection of
the companies with their respective trades does not now
exist, but that connection I would restore. In the sense
that the companies do not retain their original connec-
tion with the trades, they certainly do not represent the
trade of the City. I would not maintain the present
distinction between the Court of Aldermen and the
Court of Common Council. Originally, I believe, the
Court of Alderinefi had a veto upon the acts of the Court
of Common Council. This is not now the case ; but the
aldermen have the power of voting away the City funds
to a certain extent, and they possess a considerable
amount of patronage. I would not allow the livery to
elect the Recorder or any of the other judicial officers.
The aldermen should not hold office for life, but be
periodically elected.
Mr. C. Lewis—ln order to ascertain any cgbuoosttthohmrpor7linghthiechda
very exists in
laboriousthe C i tayn, is
antiquarian
otiannrenseeacreeshsariynttoo
and manuscript authorities ?
Mr. Pulling—Quite so.
The examination of this witness having at length been
concluded, the commissioners adjourned the inquiry till
Tuesday neat.