The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY E VENING, APRIL 25, 1860

lity to render the subject attractive. Notwithstv tiding
these circumstances, he felt that, having taken up this
question, and having received deputations from afferent
parts of the country in reference to this subject, he
was bound to bring it again before the attenti on of the
house. He had presented a petition from a pratleman of
_ _

property and a magistrate, residing in South W ales, named
Rees, and he would again draw attention to this docu-
ment. Mr. Rees stated that there were fisheries is Car-

marthen which bordered on his estatma, and that he had

been involved in serious litigation with the Commissioners

of the Woods and Forests with reference to cart: tin claims

hey had advanced of late years on behalf of t-he Crown,

with respect to these fisheries. He then proceeded to state
that great hardship, and, as he smoldered, injustice, had

been inflicted on the gentleman in question, -And that this
case was by no means singular. It was most desirable that
this matter should be satisfactorily settled, and the rights of the

Crown clearly defined. At the present time there was no
certainty in reference to the rights which. the Crown put
forward relative to its territorial possession as regarded this
_ _

description of property; and referring to an act, the 27th of
Elizabeth, he contended that the powers exercised by the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests were not legally con-
ferred. At all events, there could be no valid objection to the
_ _

appointment of the committee he proposed. He adverted
next to the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests having

disposed of several acres of land by virtue of the rights they
claimed in reference to these fisheries, to the detriment of

the public interest as well as individuals. He hoped tha
the question would on this occasion meet with more atten
tion than it had previously done, and he deprecated the
personal allusion made to hi ea previously by the Attorney-
General as having an interest in these fisheries.
The motion having been seconded,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the hon. gen-
tleman in stating that on the occasion of his bringing forward
this question before, the house was counted out by the
agency of the Government, hal done great injustice to the
Government, and to himself still greater. The house was
emptied on that. occasion by the unassisted efforts of the hon.
gentleman. (Laughter.) This question had unfortunately
been attended with some heartburnings which a considera-
tion of the question would entirely remove. It was founded
upon the petition of a gentleman of the name of Rees. The
claim of this gentleman had been heard and discussed before
the Master of the Rolls, and his judgment was now pend-
ing. It was therefore not a seemly thing that this house
should discuss a matter which was still sub judice. But
there was a most conclusive answer to the case of the hon.
gentleman. In the year 1845 Mr. Rees, for his own per.
sonal benefit, thought it right to lease the coal under the
seashore to a company who were desirous of working it. He
granted therefore to this company the means of raising coal
under property which he must have known belonged to the
Crown, for in 1843 Mr. Rees had addressed a letter to the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests, praying that they
would grant him a lease of the property which he had since
taken himself, stating that he was the owner of the adjoin-
ing lands, and wished to work a vein of coal which ex-
tonded under the sands in front of his property. The reply
to this application was that it was impossible to give Mr.
Rees a positive answer, as the right to the property was
still under litigation ; but an offer was made to him of a
lease of such part of the land as in the opinion of the law
officers the Crown was entitled to grant. This offer was
declined, and Mr. Rees had no one to thank but himself.
If he had accepted the offer of the Crown, he would have
been in possession of a valuable property. But he had taken
upon himself to deal with the question, he had failed, and
had the cause been tried before the passing of the late act,
Mr. Rees would probably have had to pay the costs of the
suit. This, therefore, was a claim which ought not to have
been brought before the house. It was a claim obstinately
and ignorantly brought forward, after the Crown had re-
covered judgment against him.
Mr. A. SMITH said that Mr. Rees only laid claim to the
land and the minerals under it as far as high water mark,
that is to say, not below high water mark.
The A.TTORNEY-GENERAL said that the question
in dispute was—what was high water mark. The shore in
that neighbourhood was extremely flat—for the Attorney-
General had been by the seaside—(laughter)—and in some
places the extent of land between the two lines was very
great. Mr. Rees claimed the high water work at neap tide ;
the Crown claimed the average of the lines of high water
mark throughout the year. Mr. Rees, having raised the
coal under the soil between these boundaries, was found to
have worked wrongfully. Then who were the commis-
sioners ? They were trustees of the Crown property for the
public benefit. This was not a question between the public
and commissioners who were seeking to admit their rights,
but a question between the public and an individual vho
was trespassing on their rights. The commissioners had
no other alternative than to act as they had done. There
was another ingredient in the matter—namely, the case of
the Submarine Telegraph Company. If the facts had been
stated, it would have appeared that in every case where the
public benefit was concerned the commissioners acted in
the most liberal manner, and made their rights subser-
vient to the good of the public. But besides this, a groat
principle was involved, in tke case of which the house
would not be unobservant. The house was asked to in-
quire into the rights of the Crown, as though the
title of the crown to this property was not perfectly ascer-
tained. The rights of the crown to this property involved
those of a large number of private persons to whom grants
had been made, and the House of Commons would not do
so unconstitutional a thing as to attempt to exercise judicial
functions upon such a question. The manner in which the
commissioners were dealing with the property was quite
another matter, and was a very proper subject of inquiry by
Parliament. But upon this part of the subject he thought
it would be apparent that the conduct of the cemmiesioners
had been most beneficial to the country. From a return
made to the House of Lords it appeared that during a period
of 27 years, from IS3O to 1857, 29 suits had been instituted
on the part of the commissioners to recover property be-
longing to the crown—this property being for the most part
mineral. Between the year 1830 and March, 1860, the re-
sults were these. Twenty-two of these suits terminated
successfully for the crown, three were still pending, two
were put an end to, and in two caees only were there ad-
verse decisions. By these means property to the amount of
£490,000 had been recovered to the public. Nor was this
sum alone an adequate measure of the benefits attained ;
for in consequence of the rights of the crown being estab-
lished grants of land had been made to the extent of
£134,000. This made a total of £224,000 up to the present
time. It must be remembered that the crown had to bear
' the whole cost of these proceedings, which were estimated
at £15,000. He thought, therefore, the house would be of
opinion that the commissioners had been faithful and suc-
cessful trustees for the public benefit. What was to come
of those proceedings ? The Commissioners of Woods and
Forests had acted under the directions of the law advisers
of the crown. The shore, by the ordinary law of the land,
was vested in the crown, but the nubile had rights over
that shore for embarking and disembarking. Consistent
with the enjoyment of those rights there remained the
right of digging under the shore by any railway com-
pany. The cases brought forward by the hon. gentle-
man were all cases in which the crown had asserted the
rights of the public. Tbis had been the law from the
earliest period, and it would so continue. Allis-ion had
been made by the hon. gentleman to oases where leases of
foreshore had been granted to private individuals. The
hon. gentleman, as one of those lessees, had claimed the
property in those foreshores, end had charged sixpence for
the deposit of a stick or umbrella. (Laughter.) It was
unfortunate that the hon. gentleman was not better in-
formed as to his rights to the foreshore ; he had nothing to
blame for what he complained of but his own obstinacy and
want of judgment.
THE PROCLAMATION AGAINST VICE AND
IMMORALITY.

Lord PROBY brought up her Majesty's answer to the
address. praying for a revision of the proclamation again.t
vice and immorality. Tier Majesty stated that the procla-
mation should be carefully considered, IN ith a view to its re-
vision.

THE FORESHORES.
Sir F. GOLDSMID denied the right of the crown to the
foreshores beyond the ordinary high water mark.
The house then divided—

For the motion
Against it

Majority l7
BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. GREGORY rose to move for a select committee to
inquire how far and in what way it might be desirable to
find increased space for the extension and arrangement of
the various collections of the British Museum, and the best
means of rendering them available for the promotion of
science an l art. Last year he made a motion very similar
toesshxi
sotghwtleeeed showed
for rueps
specimeneoi nnut gtuohni e, which was carried by a large majority,
and he could only say that the same necessity which then
eroyfetxh testimonyiestceodl
collection
ct
toti
florneppi
rnroehfseiessns
department
ermpoaor:t
meenne
ntt .ht Heetonnotthenid
bee
scientific
saipdur thatpo s es.
the
specimens The head otflit
hishe p ornitho-
logicaltegez hexhibited
e for
department
were hidden from the public, and were perishing from damp.
The magnificent collection of prints were also shut out from
the public eyes for want of space. The marbles from
Carthage and the antiquities from Cuidos remained in the
packages in which they were brcught to the Museum.
There was a more hopeless state of congestion in the Mu-'
scum at the present time than when he had proved these
facts. It was well known that valuable bequests would be
made to the Museum, but for the state in which it was.
(Hear.) Objection had been mado to his motion last year
on the ground that the terms of it were too large, and that
it might lead to an inquiry into the trust itself. What he
proposed
to effect by the committee was first of all that in-
quiry
should be made whether there should be a separation
what
proposedremoval
wasthato el
the
oftheyt
h b
ee seto shouldplace
collection
etei
from in-
quireoot
wh
of the collection in the Museum, and if so what that sepa-
ration should be. He then
ih is p
d be e removed.t
i at
st
tcoroeustlehnel'eimpe:edani 1 o
expediency
solv amt v
The second portion of the in-
oquirywoluuldroem.
relate toit
was absolutelythefuturestruetunreeeeanseard ayrrtaharrangementf the isee
should be an inquiry on this point, because there was a
difference of oliinion with regard to it between the trustees
and those who had the *superintendence of the collections,
and, as far as he could judge, between the trustees them-

selves. It appeared that Mr. Smirke's plan was made with-
out the slightest consultation with the heads of depart-
ments. Mr. Hawkins handed in a virtual protest, contra-
dicting almost every position of Mr. Smirke with regard to
tho structure of the building and the arrangement of the

collections. Professor Owen had proposed another plan,
which he sent to the trustees, but the trustees decided not
to send the report to the Government, although they knew
that the government were considering the question at
that very time.He trusted the Government would acquiesce
in the motion ; and he only hoped that by means

of this committee full justice would be done to the magni-
ficent collection which they possessed. (Cheers )
Mr. KINNAIRD seconded the motion, which he be-

leved the government did not intend to oppose.
Sir G. LEWIS had no objection to that portion of the mo-
ion which had been agreed to in a previous session, and which

was not carried into effect because of the dissolution of parlia-
ment. It was an appeal to vulgar prejudice to saythat the mem-
bers of the Government were not discharging their duty in
seeking to inform themselves on questions of this nature,
and attending and voting upon them as they did at the
meetings of the trustees. He (Sir G. Lewis) was not pre-
sent at the particular meeting to which the hon. member for
Galway had referred, but if he had been he should certainly

have voted in the majority. He believed it would be most

expedient for the interests and the management of tho Mu-

seum that there should be no attempt made to purchase
land in the immediate vicinity of the present building, but
that portions of the collection should be removed. He said

nothing as to the site to which such removal should take
place. If Kensington was thought to be too far west, let
the hon. gentleman point out some eligible situation to the
east or to the north, and it would be considered. But what-
ever the site, he had no doubt it could be procured at far
less cost than land could be purchased for enlarging the
building in the immediate neighbourhood of the Museum.
A plan had been suggested, and it was fully considered at
the meeting of the trustees, to enlarge the building by
adding to it another story ; but, upon inquiry, it was found
that the removal of the collection to an upper floor would
be so difficult and so inconvenient, seeing that it would
necessitate the closing of the collection altsgether for seve-
ral years, that though favourable to the plan generally
they decided against it. The honourable gentleman had
adverted to the question of duplicates, and proposed that
duplicate specimens should be removed to other places
indifferent parts of the country where branch museums
should be established. This was also a question of expense.
If the house was disposed to found a number of district
museums and send to them any duplicate specimens there
might be in the British Museum, that was a question for
the House of Commons to determine. But they would be
under a mistake if they supposed that any great advantage
would be derived from the duplicates The house already
voted £1,200,000 for science and art, independent of the
Museum vote, and if this suggestion were adopted a very
considerable increase would be necessary. So far as perso-
nal considerations went he should rejoice at such a deci-
sion, but the state of the public revenue and expenditure
rendered it necessary before incurring such a charge to con-
sider the matter in connexion with other questions of a
similar nature front which public benefit might be proved
to be obtainable.
Mr. A. TURNER observed that if five acres and a half
surrounding the present Museum were purchased, and the
building vs planned by the architect erected, the cost would
be £807,000, and if five acres and a half were taken at Ken-
sington, and the same plan was there carried out, the ex-
pense would be £591,500. Now, he held that the country
was not prepared under existing circumstances to spend
either the one or the other of these sums upon the proposed
object. Suppose they adopted the Kensington proposal, con-
sidering the experience they had of the estimate as compared
with the eventual cost in the case of public business, they
might expect that the sum that they would have to pay would
be very largely beyond the £600,000. He was informed
that the cost of removing the natural history collection
would not be less than £20,000, and that the fittings neces-
sary to receive it and make it presentable to the public
would cost at least £30,000 more. Then, if the building
were ready, the removal would take twelve months ; but if
it had to be erected, and all the fittings to be made and
fixed, the Museum must be closed to the public for two years,
or perhaps longer. Then, look at the risk of removing a
collection, many of the articles in which were of a very de-
licate nature, and perfectly unique, so that if broken and
destroyed, they could not be replaced. He believed that all
that was necessary might be accomplished by purchasing
the row of houses on the south aide of Montague-place,
which might be done at no very great expense, and, upon
the a Iditional ground so obtained a building might be
erected, on the ground floor of which all the heavy articles
of antiquity might be arranged, while the room &Clove might
be devoted to the lighter articles.
Colonel SYKES urged the house not to lose sight of the
immense advantage which belonged to the present central
situation of the Museum, and also to endeavour to come to
some arrangement to render the collections available to the
inspection of the public on week-day evenings.
Lord PALMERSTON remarked that the whole question
of expense was entertained by the trustees of the British
Museum, and he felt it to be his duty to attend one of their
meetings to consider that matter, on the part of the
tiovernment and the public. The trustees had no interest
but that of the public, neither had the Govern
meat. There were many additions made to the Museum
for which there was no room, and the qaestion arose as to
where those collections were to be placed, so that the public
could see them with advantage. After a careful considera-
tion of the whole subject it was considered, that if any part
of the additions were to be removed it should be the natural
history department. Then came another subject for inquiry,
namely, as to how additional space could be obtained in the
immediate contiguity of the building, and it was found on
inquiry, that such a place could not be obtained under
£200,000. Surely, no one responsible for the expenditure
of the public money could approve of such an outlay. He
therefore thought that it was the duty of the Government
to find adequate space elsewhere at less expense. He cer-
tainly could not approve of the suggestion of the hon, mem-
ber for Manchester, that a sum of £590,000 should be
expended for additional Brace. He hoped the committee
would go into the inquiry, with the view of providing ade-
quate accommodation for the public and the specimens,
and without incurring any unnecessary expenditure.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. JACKSON thought the ratepayers of the metro-
polis should bear all the necessary expenditure, as they
would derive all the advantages front the institution.
Mr, GLADSTONE differed from the doctrine that the
persons employed at the British Museum were underpaid.
The offices were of an exceedingly agreeable character, and,
according to the lam of supply and demand, the salaries
were at their natural level.
The motion was then agreed to.
DOCKYARDS.

Mr. JACKSON moved that a humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously
pleased to issue a Royal '2ommission to inquire into the sys-
tem of control and management of her Majesty's dockyards,
the purchase of materials and stores, the cost of building,
repairing, altering, fitting, and refitting her Majesty's ships.
The system was, in itself, most imperfect, and the time was
come for inquiry and alteration. The cost of building ships
differed in almost every yard, and in some yards there were
two officers to one ia other yards. In some places the man
who measured the work participated in the profits of the
work, and there was no one to overlook him. Then, in
order to reward captains and admirals they made them
superintendents of dockyards, and by the time they learned
something of their duties they were promoted. If private
establishments were conducted in the way these public esta-
blishments were, they would soon be in the Gazette. The
Government had given him every assistance, and, as the
members who were to compose the commission were already
settled, he should no longer take up the time of the house.
Mr. KINNAT RD seconded the motion.
Mr. CORRY had no- objection to the appointment of a
commission, and hoped it would be attended with public
benefit. lie hoped the motion was not brought forward in
any spirit of disrospect to the report of the committee.
(" No," from Mr. Jackson.) With many of the recommen-
dations of the committee he did not agree, and he thought
the system of shipbuilding followed in private yards could
not be introduced into the Government eoablishments. No
doubt the cost of building ships in her Majesty's dockyards
was more than the cost of building in private yards, but it
should be recollected that the work was heavier and better
done. However, the subject was well worthy of inquiry,
although he was not very sanguine as to results.
Mr. BENTINCK feared the hon. member was setting
about this inquiry in the wrong way. Tho best persons
to make an inquiry was a properlyconstituted Board of Ad-
miralty, and the best thing they could do was to recon-
struct that board with a view to this and other improve-
ments. He did not, however, think that the charge of
wastefulness would be substantiated against her Majesty's
dockyards so far as building ships was concerned, although
there might be waste in a thousand other ways. But the
root of this evil was in the constant changes that were going
on amongst the superior authorities, and until that system
was changed little good could be done.
Mr. LINDSAY asked what the hon. member would pro-
pose instead of the present system of having the Board of
Admiralty go out with every Administration. If he pro-
posed that the Board should be for life, he (Mr. Lindsay)
would decidedly object to it, although he concurred with
him that the First Lord should have a knowledge of nauti-
cal affairs. What he stated on a former occasion with respect
t 3 the cost of buil ing ships in her Majesty's dockyards
was not on his own authority, but on that of the committee
appointed by the late Government. He hoped the cOmmis-
sion would perform its duties efficiently, and especially in-
quire into the charges made against the dockyard authori-
ties of unnecessarily expending the public money. He
would suggest to his bon. friend who made the metier'
to extend it to the mode in whtch the accounts were
kept. The present Secretary of the Admiralty stated
last session that five millions of money were expended of
which no account was ever given ; and he should like that
to be inquired into, as well as the manner in which the
surveyor's duties were performed, and the mode in which
the men worked. He would move as an amendment, the
words he suggested to his hon. friend.
Lord C. PAGET believed a general feeling existed
throughout the country in favour of an inquiry, and he saw
no objection to the words proposed to be added to the nio-

tion of his hon. friend the member for Sunderland. Public 1
opinion had lately given its impressions in pretty strong
terms as to the manner in which money was spent in the
dockyards, and the Government he thought very properly
were ready to grant an inquiry into the subject. The only
difference now was, whether it should be a committee or a
commission, and as no inquiry could bo properly carried on
without visiting the dockyards and examining the accounts,
and bearing in mind that a considerable portion of the session
had already past—that report could be made by any commit-
-1 tee in the present year, he thought for all these reasons that

a Royal commission would be better. He did not complain
of the committee that sat last year on this subject, but
there was one part of the system, viz., that of ship-
building, which they entirely passed over. Now, he
believed that omission to bo ono of the best grounds for

granting that commission. One of the duties will be to
ascertain if the strength of the Comptroller's Office was
sufficient for the discharge of its enormous duties, and

he believed it would be found that some additional assist

mice was necessary. First of all, the Comptroller had the
entire management and control of the whole of the ship-
building in the dockyards, the repairing and fitting them
out, the superintendence of contracts, and the purchasing
of a great number of stores. In addition to this, he must
look to the promotion of officers in the various dockyards,
and a considerable portion of his time was taken up in the
consideration of new inventions, which had of late years

become considerable. So that he could not visit the dock

yards to see if the works were proporly carried on, but was
imprisoned in his office in London. Now that question was
never discussed by the committee, but so strong did the
Admiralty feel the necessity of procuring him assistance that
an assistant was about to be appointed. When, however,

his noble friend the Duke of Somerset saw the motion o
his hon. friend on the paper, he thought it better not to do
so until he saw the result of the commission. He himself
believed the present work at the Admiralty was only
exceptional, but it was better the inquiry should go into
ev•:ry point. Another part of it ought to be, whether it
was possible to give the House of Commons the cost of
every ship that was built, and of every ship repaired or
altered. He had himself, some years ago, brought this
subject forward, and urged it on the attention of that
house and the Admiralty, but without effect, and it passed
unheeded. In 1858, when he returned to the house, he ear-
nestly called its attention to it again. He stated that there
were two mysterious votes in the estimates, amount-
ing to £2,326,000, and defied any one to say how the
money was expended. He did the same thing last year,
and ho wished on the present occasion to say a few words
in reference to it. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Droitwich said the other night that he (Lord Clarence
Paget) ought to have expressed his regret at the statement lie
made respecting the five millions which he said could not be
accounted for. What he said was in answer to a question
put to him by the hon. and gallant admiral the member for
Southwark, who had acted in this matter ratherungenerously
towards him. The right hon. gentleman opposite did the
same thing in accusing him of making statements which
he was unable to substantiate. He had never for a moment
believed or stated that the money was not properly accounted
for by the proper authorities, but that it was not already ac-
counted for to the house, and put so clearly in the estimates
that it could be understood. He was willing to admit that
there were some sums in the account of which he had no
knowledge whatever. If he was asked his deliberate opinion
as to the economical management of these large funds, he
could not say that the money spent during a long series of
years had been expended with due economy in the ship-
building department of the navy. If the commissioners
should report that he was wrong in that opinion, and that
the department had been conducted with a due regard to tke
public service, no one would sejoico more than himself. He
had troubled the house with these fewpersonal remarks be •
cause he did not wish that night after night hon. members
should make observations on statements supposed to have
been made by him, but which be had never either made or
intended. On other subjects he would not trouble the house
with any lengthened remarks. The hon. member for New-
castle had objected to the practice of giving the men at the
dockyards a half-holiday when the Lords of the Admiralty
visited them. The fact was, that the Lords of the Admi-
ralty last year did net give the half-holiday, and though
it had been a rule from time immemorial to do so after
mustering the men, the rule had now become obsolete, and
the practice had been given up. 'With respect to the
motion; all he could say was that the Admiralty
would give every facility to the inquiries of the cora •
missioners in every department, and in acquiring in-
formation oil every subject embraced in the address. He
could not agree to the proposal of the hon. member for
Norfolk, that the inquiry should include the constitution of
the Board'of Admiralty. That was a very different ques-
tion; but on the part of the Government he would offer no
opposition to the motion of the hon. member for New--
castle. (Hear.)
After a few words in reply from Mr. JACKSON, the
motion was agreed to.
PAWNBROKERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill passed through" committee.
Several orders of the day were postponed.
LONDON CORPORATION BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this

bill,

Mr. Alderman SALOMONS appealed to the Home Se-
cretary to postpone it, because many hon. members who
intended to take part in the debate* had left the h,use in
the belief that other matters would occupy the whole of the
evening, and consequently that it would not come on.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said the bill had already been post.
poned some half dozen times, without any apparent cause,
and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would not yield to
the appeal that had been made to him.
•
Mr. AYRTON in rising to move, according to notice,
" That it be committed to a select committee, with instruc-
tion to inquire into and report upon the charges and taxes
on the metropolis, and the expediency of constituting the
metropolis a county of itself, for all purposes of local ma-
nanagement, and for the administration of justice," said
it was no doubt much to be regretted tha t the conduct
of the Government with respect to the postponement
of orders of the day should lead to so much misappre-
. hension on the part of members, who could never be cer-
tain what business would be brought on. The late Govern-
ment never acted in that way. When they resolved to
postpone a bill due notice was given ; but the present kept
their determination in their own breast till the last moment.
The present Homo Secretary especially seems ] to take a
delight in thus perplexing, confusing, and baffling hon.
members in this way. However, as he was there to watch
her Majesty's Government, he should feel it to be his duty
to proceed with his motion. He must say, at the outset,
that he could not understand the reason why the Govern-
ment should have devoted a single hour's labour to this
question —to the reform. of this municipality. The time
wis past when it could do any good'whatever, although,
unfortunately, the time had not passed when it could be an
obstruction and a nuisance to the rest of the metropolis.
lle saw no reason why the Government should trouble
themselves with an attempt to improve this petty munici-
pality. It occupied an area of 700 acres out of the 7,000
acres which constituted the area of the whole metropolis,
and had a population of only 113,000 in the midst of a me-
tropolitan population of at least two millions and a half, and
it was also certain that the population was diminishing in
proportion to the increase of business premises. An at-
tempt of a remarkable character was now made. That
municipality was really at one time metropolitan, but why
it should now receive so much respect from the right hon.
gentleman he could not possibly understand, when it had
long lost 'all claim founded upon its original character
as guardian of the trade of the metropolis and the seat
of the capital of the empire. In ancient times
the city of London had a double basis, arranged in a
double manner; for every trade was a guild, and each
guild was connected with a great corporation. It was
necessary, before any person could be admitted as a mem-
ber of the. general corporation, that he should be a mem-
ber of some guild, that he should be a freeman of a city
company, before he Could be a citizen of the general
municipality. At the time of the first Edward, the power
of electing the members of the common council of the cor-
poration was vested, not in the local inhabitants, but in the
trading companies of which the corporation was composed.
The City was divided 'into wards, and each ward was to
select a member of the governing body. That gave rise to
a feud between the inhabitants on one hand, and the guilds
on the other ; but the guilds continued, nevertheless, to be
the basis of municipality. But when the City had reached
its ancient limits, marked at the present day by the words
Ludgate, Newgate, and other places where the City gates
formerly stood, and which occupied the crests of the hill on
the other side of the Fleet, the City, with a degree of wis-
dom well worthy of imitation at the present day, expanded
itself to the wants of its population at the time. It then
extended to an outer ring, traces of the course of which
were still indicated by the words " bars," such as Temple-
bar," " Holborn-bars," " Smithfield-bars," kc. That trans-
action took place at a very remote period, but when the
bridge was built across the Thames, of which the City were
justly proud, the corporate limits were extended, and South-
wark became a part of the corporation. The citizens, how-
ever, never gave to Southwark a share of their municipal
privileges. There were other indications, also, of a desire
on the part of the Crown not to narrow the Metropolitan
Corporation to the limits of its walls. It obtained from the
Crown control over all the markets for seven miles round,
so as to include the whole body of traders whose produce
was sold in those markets. More than that., to show that it
regarded its position as being not merely local, but as en-
titled to the care anil control of the traffic of the Thames, it
conferred upon it the jurisdiction and guardianship of that
river from Staines to its mouth. (Hear.) The City was
deprived of that jurisdiction only two or three years ago
in the spirit of reform ; but he had said enough to show
that it was not a corporation of that narrow character
with which that bill sought to invest it, as a final
settlement of the question. In the course of time, how-
ever, the City came to be regarded as the seat of a malig-
nant body. It had become a place where those who had in-
curred displeasure fled, he would not say for protection, but
for consolation and support. That had been the easel from a
very remote period ; for after the Barons had signed, Magna
Charta, they proceeded to shelter themselves behind the
City walls, where they were splendidly feasted by the citi-
zens in safety. The last person who had availed himself of
the countenance of the City was Wilkes, a man by no means