The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-27 00:00:00

to justice. He was aware that it would be alleged that the
wholesale dealers were entitled to be exempt from these
expenses. But the ground for such an allegation was
altogether untenable, and although he was not going
to make a parade of ancient learning, yet thus much he
might advance, that in the olden times, when the trade of
this City first arose, every individual enjoying the benefit
of its commerce, entered into what was called a " frank
pledge," by which they were bound to support each other
and bear their share of the expenses. Tha usages of that day
had passed away, but the thing itself remained; trade was
still carried on ; common advantages were enjoyed, and
common expenses had to be borne; and it was not because
there was now a class called wholesale dealers as well
as retail dealers, that the principle was in any way negatived.
New forms had arisen, upon which it would appear that by
the ancient law no foreigner, that was to say, a persox.inwtre
had not purchased the treedorn, could sell goods witlti
limits of the City, because it was supposed that thsoel_,wouldinterme-
diate
profit of the middle-man, who bought andv variety
of
prejudice the trade of the City.ef London.
'1 he
re-
solutionsof wereo City consequentlytrade . il imposed.e
couldto preventayte
sheer t -
juryod
sold to the
wordat w h a
wholesale"
ethose t
thatresolutions
roe were
meant created.
aman
who
citizens in the bulk ; who, in
brought his goods to thefactc,it
That word had been main-
parcel, without opening 1 syoldanhis bale, box, or
lzetoodss,uochndatgi diem.
Bradford,le m
&c.,as boroodugsholtdgohoidss
bales,from
opened their boxes or bales, and sold
con.o,e
cdehntetosi
tr
.e pr,
tashe
thecon tehnotslkin
was broken
wroekreensatihdotogboeodrestaiwl
were
eadeszd Atsosoohne
'Pbut such as .
sold by retail. The wholesale trader was compelled by the
bye-law to contribute two portions towards the preservation
of peace, &c., by purchasing his freedom. The object of such
a law ,was beyond all doubt that all who received
the benefit of the government of the City, and
whose interests were protected by that' bye-law, should
fairly contributeltheir proper share of the expense f carry-
ing on the government of the City. In ancient times these
corporations were of the greatest importance. They were
moat essential to the preservation of civil and political
liberty. To the existence of those corporate bodies
it was that we owed one of our most valuable
privileges. They constituted a bulwark for the pro-
tection of our liberties. The history of the Corporation of
London was lost in its antiquity. Nobody could tell when
the Corporation of London did not exist. It had
been found to exist in the earliest period to which
the mind could revert, and no doubt was cre-
ated either by the Crown or by the Parliament—
by whatever name, whether Wittena gemote, or by any other
name, or probably it existed even before the creation of the
Parliament, as it is at present constituted. Its antiquity
had been acknowledged and recognised from all
time immemorial ; it was admitted even by Acts
of Parliament. What was the date of the la) e-law
for the infringemnt of which the defendant had been now
brought before the Court nobody knew. If it were impeached,
they might as well impeach the most valuable rights passed
by these corporate bodies—they might, in fact, as well im-
peach the Parliament itself. They found the Corporation of
London had power to enact such bye-laws as were found ne-
cessary for the government of the City, and it would be per-
fectly useless to talk of their ancient customs if they had not
the power to make such bye-laws. The bye-law in. ques-
tion provided for several things—it prohibited the show-
ing and exhibiting of goods for sale, by retail, by a party who
was not a freeman of the City. The bye-law began by reeit-
ing, that whereas by ancient charters, customs, and frane
chises, and liberties of the City of London, and in
conformity with sundry Acts of Parliament, any
person not being a freeman of the city of London should
not be allowed to sell or put to sale, as wares or
merchandise within the City, by retail, under a penalty of 51.
for every day he should presume to carry on his trade. The
allegations were to the effect that the defendant,
not being a freeman, did use a certain trade
within the city of London, that was to say, the trade
of a warehouseman, dealer, or chapman. The defendant,
who was highly respectable, and carried on a most respect-
able trade, admitted the charge, and he (Sir Thomas
Wilde) had no idea as to the defence which would be set up
by his Learned Friend.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to know from his Learned
Friend whether he intended to proceed with all the counts ?
Sir T. WILDE said he did, but it was not intended to en-
force any more than one penalty.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he should like to have
the assurance set forth on the record.
Sir T. WILDE—I will do it, if the defendant is alarmed.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL—The defendant is not at all
alarmed.
Sir T. WILDE continued by reading all the various counts,
remarking that, as his Learned Friend would not be absent
if a loophole presented itself—(Laughter)—he was deter-
mined to proceed on all the counts, but there was no inten-
tion to enforce more than a single penalty of five pounds.
The fifth count stated that he occupied a warehouse in the
City of London, and there exposed goods for sale. These
were the several charges. It was agreed between the parties
that the defendant carried on the business of a warehouse-
man at No. 90 and 91, Wood-street, and that he sold cotton,
linen, woollen and other manufactured goods, which were
purchased from manufacturers in Manchester, Scotland, and
other places; that he received them in bales, which were
opened and exposed to parties wishing to purchase them ;
that these goods were purchased on the usual terms—
namely, a credit of two months, or a discount of two-and-a-
half per cent. for cash. These were the charges, and it was
specially provided by the bye-laws of the Common Council,
that persons eame within the category of " freemen," if they
carried on any "art, trade, occupation, handicraft, or mystery,'
in the City of London. Now, he maintained, that this was
clearly proved, because he exposed his bales for sale, and
employed clerks and others to assist him in his business.
These provisions were made in order that parties, who carried
on retail trades, such as he contended was carried on by the
defendant, might contribute their fair proportion of the
charges of the city. " Botchers. tailors, and cobblers,"
were excluded, because they did not purchase or
sell by retail ; for instance, a tailor sold yon a coat but did
not sell the bales from which it was made. This was done
that a certain class of persona, who at the passing of the
law were not, perhaps, in a fit condition to take up their
freedom might be excluded from the responsibility. Now
what was the difference between the dealings of a mercer in
Cheapside who sold a piece of cloth and a warehouseman
next door who sold cloth in a bulk and who would not
sell it in pieces ? Practically there was no difference.
Besides, their property was guarded by the police as well as
the property of the retail dealer; and why should they not
pay their share of the expense of supporting the police, and
to the other expenses of governing the City? There was no
reason why the retail dealer should contribute his share of
those expenses, and why the wholesole dealer should be
exempt, for the one just as much kept a shop as the other.
He therefore submitted to his Lordship and the jury that the
defendant came within the meaning of the clause, that he
could be compellod to take up his freedom, and take his
share in the various offices which freemen were called upon
to fill, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict on each
of the counts.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proceeded to address the
jury on behalf of the defendant. He agreed with his Lord-
ship that there were but two questions for the jury to decide
—first, whether the trade of warehouseman, as carried on by
Mr. Sturt, came within the definition in the bye law; and,
secondly, whether the trade or occupation of a warehouse-
man, as described in the admission handed in, was a
trade or occupation within the meaning of the 3d
bye law, which set forth that wholesale traders
should be exempted from taking up their freedom.
Before entering on those questions the should feel it neces-
sary to enter upon that topic, which had already occupied so
much time, and to which his Learned Friend had adverted.
It was scarcely necessary to say, that he had not the slightest
intention of imputing improper bias to the jury adjudicating
upon it, for the Learned Judge was aware, that
he believed that the jury was as little capable
of an improper bias in the Learned Judge himself. _ But he

must question the assertion of his Learned Friend that they
came here to try only whether a trader could carry on his
business in the City of London before taking up his freedom,
for they came there for another purpose—that of ascertain •
ing whether such a system as that which was sought to
be introduced into the adjudication of this cause,
was not recognised by any other portion of the
realm of England. It was the beast of this country—and
long might it be so—that no person was allowed to interfere
with the administration of justice who was in the slightest
degree interested in the result of any particular case; and he
did not hesitate to say that the bye-laws under which this
case was brought was a hlot upon thewhole administration of
the justice of the country. By the enactment of this rule, they
corporation of the City of London, levied without the
authority of any other law than that which they themselves
had instituted, should levy a penalty upon any of the Queen's
subjects who might come into this City to carry on the
business, and this penalty was to be levied fur their own
particular benefit. It was alien to the law of Eng-
land that any person should interfere in his ' own
case, and yet here did the Ccrporation of London
come into their own court to try this case before their own
judge, and by the instrumentality of a jury impanelled from
among their own body, for the purpose of putting money into
their own pockets. If such a principle were to be admitted,
there would at once be an end to the purity of trial by jury.
Supposing the case were to be their own—supposing it were
an exception to a bill of exchange, how would they
like to have the cause tried by a set of individuals who were
directly interested in a verdict against them. It mattered
little what might be the sum, for it was of no conse-
quence whether it were 5/. 5001., or 500,0001 ; for if
eh.taedry. c c
asion principleto of
observe t the lawthaotf
tEbiii,gland.
the principle were once admitted, it broke through
if London were placed in aCorporationl-1 hoafdthaelreCaidt;
with every sincerity, that tlipeculiar
Corporationposition,
mightnd he eo
nwgi wished,
teionluoangtoenpjoosyseessd. thmosuetimifintbuneieceen Privileges which it had
theeeelawtheenferniglainegde,ebwyesthtoe
infringe the grand principle of
ha trusted that
existence of ofnotsucbhe alonbaye
-1511Cfwore itth"' the game regulations as other parts was
placed "der
The corporation of the City of London of'
the
kingdom.
was placed in a
different position from eve ry other Corporation, inasmuch
as the Corporation was not compelled
to apply the funds,
into which it came into possession, as for instance, the im-
provement of the town, butmight
purpooe, whether of a dinner or oti be applied to any
ca-
price it might choose. In making therWise, which in its
anxious to show that he 'did not in the bservations he wag
impute partiality to them because he) slightest degree
that upon the record which would w"anxious to put
before a superior Court, and which was certainunquestionably arise
if it carne into consideration before the H to be raised
()use of Lords II would now turn to the questions of which he had s e
and the first was the charge of keeping a
Warettken ;
It should be remembered that in all acts involving
this clauses were to be constructed stritly, and this he ]beggede
particularly to put before his Lordship. The Learned Ge-
ntleman then went into a definition of the term "a retail
dealer," which he described as intimating a person who kept
a shop where goods in small quantities were sold, and stated
that the word from the Italian word rdallier, to sell by cut or
to sell and cut again, as was the case where a yard of muslin or
woollen cloth or any other small portion of goods. This was
expressly explained by the statutes themselaes, the differ-
ence between retail and wholesale dealers having been ex-
pressly la cognised, and cited the 2d Richard 11_
chapter 1, in which the difference was expressly explained.
That statute provided that all parties might freely sell in the
gross all sorts of goods in the City of London, as well as all
other :cities and towns in the realm of England, but not by
retail. The statute clearly said, " You may sell by the bale,
von may sell by the piece, but you shall not sell by retail."
Why, there were any distinctness in legislative language,
it was in the very state which he had quoted. If the Legis-
lature were called upon to declare in express and cle r
terms what was the line of demarcation between
dealing by the gross, and by retail it would be impossible for
them to use clearer and more distinct language than was
used in the statute of Richard 11. He had showed that the
defandant imported or received manufactured goods from
Manchester and other places, and sold them in bales entire.
There was no cutting or sub-division of his goods within the
terms of, the bye-law. They found by the statute of Richard
11., cap. 1, "that all parties without any let or hinderance
were permitted to sell goods by the entire piece. The bye-law
in question was said to be of very great :antiquity,
being made two hundred and forty years ago, it mast have
been founded on a custom, which custom, to be good for any