The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-28 00:00:00

pledge," by which they were bound to support each other
and bear their share of the expenses. The 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 negatitved
New forms had arisen, upon which it would appear thawr
the ancient law no foreigner, that was to say, a
person
the-o
had not purchased the freedom, could sell goods
limits of the City, because it was supposed that thwseelidn,tweremnied-
diate profit of the middle-man, who bought andvariety
of
-
prejudice the trade of the City
.of London. A
jury of the City trade. He
"'Were created. The
re-
solutions were consequently imposed told prietvetent
anstheertaininat what period those resolutions
meant a man who
word " wholesale" at that time
the
citizens in the bulk ; who, m
brought his goods to the City
eCt,
That word had been main-
parcel, without opening h ietsyold anhdis baoallde, btoox,
&c and sold his bales,
Leeds, and Bradford, ~
Manchester,
opened their boxes or bales, and sold
twined to apply to such at geemnileman as brought goods from
&c., entire, but such as
the goods
bulk was broken were said to be
the contents in parts, were said to be retail traders. As soon
as the
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 contribute their proper share of the expense of carry-
ing on the government of the City. In ancient times these
corporations were of the greatest importance. They were
most 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 bye-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 recit-
ing, that whereas by ancient charters, customs, and fran-
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 Sommon-GexErtat, 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 Soucafroa -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 al 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 t wo-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 came within the category of " freemen," if they
car carried on any " art, trade, occupation, handicraft, or mystery,"
io 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 you a coat, but did not
sell the bales of cloth from which it was made. This was done
that a certain class of persons' 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 lu pieces ? Practically there virns nn Alit:malice._
beside°, 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 compelled to take up his freedom, and take his
share in the various offices which freemen were called upon
to fill, and that the plaiatiff was entitled to a verdict on each
of the counts.

The Soucprott-GENEnAt. 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. Start, 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 he 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 as 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 boast 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 blot upon thewhole administration of
the justice of the country. By the enactment of this rule the
corporation of the City of London levied, without the
authority of any other law than that which they them-
selves had instituted, a penalty upon any of the Queen's
subjects who might come into this City to carry on their
business, and this penalty was to be levied for 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 Corporation 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 ease 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 51., 5001., or 500,0001 ; for if
the principle were once admitted, it broke through
every principle of the law of England. He had already
had occasion to observe that the Corporation of the City
of London were placed in a peculiar position, and he wished,
with every sincerity, that the Corporation might long con-
tinue to possess those immunities arid privileges which it had
so long enjoyed. But if the effect of those privileges was to
infringe the grand principle of the law of England, by the
existence of such a bye-law it would, not be
the same regulations
long- ..brfv
The Corporation of the Citi of parts
as. this, he trusted that
as
otheorre it was placed ander
different position from every otheeno °,no was
as the Corporation was not compefierf.
into, hich it came into possession, to, for° lanpity provement of the town, but might be
purpose, whether of a dinner or otherwise,
price it might choose. In making these of the kingdom.
placed in a
oratton, inasmuch
the funds,
rie, the im-
app.hedo any
which In its c
observations he a-
anxious to show that he did not in the • impute partiality to them,
that upon the record which
before a superior court, and
if it came into consideration before
would now turn to the question
and the first was the charge was
because
he was anxious to put
which
unquestionably arise
It should be remembered that in all Acts involving was certain to be raised
s thef House of Lords. lie
ofo which. he had spoken ;
a warehouse.
clauses were to be construed strictly,
pa: titularly to put before his Lordship.
tlemrse then went into a definition of the term vsoorng.penalties the
Thothir he begged
. ed Gen.-1
dsaler," which he described as intimating a person wtiorkteapit
a shop where goods in small quantities were sold, and stated
that the word came from the Italian word retainer, to sell by cut,
or to sel!and cut again, as was the case where ayard of muslin or
woollen doth or any other small portion of goods was sold. This
was expressly explained by the statutes themselves, the differ-
ence between retail and wholesale dealers having been ex-
pressly recognised, and cited the 2d Richard IL,
chap. 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, if there were any diatinctne,s in legislative language,
it was in the very statute which lie had quoted. If the Legis-
lature were called upon to declare in express and clear
terms what was the line of demarcation between
dealing
by the gross and by retail, it would , be imnossible fir
them to use clearer and snore language than was distinct
used Li the statute of Richard H. He had showed that the
manufactured goods from
defendant imported or received
her plaess, and sold them in bales en ti,.e.
Marchester and other
sub-division of his goods within the
There was no cutting oir,
They found by the statute of Richard
bye-law. . y
..,
terms 6 g the wish out let or hinderance,
that all parties, wi, ion any
11., cap. I.f •
were pern fitted to sell goods by the entire piece. The byelaw
in question was said .
i to be of very great
.antiquity,
:
being mad e two MnO(lred and forty years ago, it must have
h h custom, to be good for any
been founds el on a custom. -Ix .—ic
•
thing, must be from time immemorial. But we had the
1 that no such
statute of Richard, which declared expressly f
bye-law should have farce either in the City o London or
any other corporate town or city in England.
The isecoßiax T'are other statutes in reference to
a— nere
this question.
The Somcrr OR-GENERAL said there were, but none bearing
so directly Irma the questionlas that which he had quoted.
The case of N'z'
ngoner v. Fish, which was generally called