The Sun.
London, England, 1826-03-25 00:00:00

PI2IVII.EGES•OP IzlttPlr.N UT THE CITY.

A question of very great interest came on before the Court
of Aldermen on Tuesday last. It arose in an argument before
the Vice-Chancellor upon the. subject of property left by the
celebrated Sir Francis Drake..

In the year 1782, Sir Francis Drake, Admiral of the Red,
was, in consequence of a victory gained over the enemy in
the West Indies, with other officers, under Lord Rodney,
presented with the freedom or the city of London, by a vote
of the Cdurt of Common Council, and was, in pursuance of
that vote, made a Liveryman of the Company of Grocers, and
sworn in a freeman. Sir Francis Drake took the several oaths
which are required to be taken by all persons who are honour-
ed with the freedtnn of the city. Ile was not free by birth,
or servitude, or purchase, or otherwise than aforesaid. Ile
married l'ooley Onslow some time afterwards, and made over
to her. the sum of 15,000/., in the 3 per cent. Consolidated
Bank Annuities in lieu of dOwer. In the year MID, he died
intestate, and without issue. The Reverend George Waleot
Onslow was constituted executor to the estate. Ills widow
some time afterwards married i'tlr. Sergeant Onslow. She had
received by the statute of distribution, the share of the property
to which she was entitled a s the widow of the Baronet, and for
some, years it was supposed that there was no further claim
upon the part of the Learned Sergeant. It however occurred
urhim that the privilege of a citizen of London, which he °be-
lieved extended to his wife, as the widow of a freeman, might
be made available in obtaining an Increased share in the pro-
perty bequeathed, and he accordingly claimed, in opposition
to Mrs. huller, a near relative, we believe, of Sir Francis
Drake.
The case came before the V
satioienell loofr,
thew hcoi
tayftoetr.
Lon-
donhav-
ing beard counsel, ordered that tine m e t.ord Alay and Aldermen
should
ontliileosetc
applied to to certify .
" Ist. tVhethet Sir Francis Drake, having been presented
with the freedom of the city under the above-mentioned cir-
cumstances, was a freeman of the city of London in the sense,
meaning, and ?potation of the custom. of the said city, relating
to the diatribution of the effects of I reemen who die intestate ;
and in ease the custom of the city of London as to the distri-
bution of personal estate applies to such a freeman as Sir F.
Drake was; then,
- ---- • '

idly, IVbether there is any custom of the city ,of London,
by virtue whereof the widow of a freeman, having the benefit
and provision of such settlement as the settlement in the plead-
ings in this tause, is debarred from her customary share of his
personal estate." -
These questions were fiest proposed by the Recorder of the
City of London, but were submitted, at his suggestion, to the
Court of Aldermen for their fertificate by the mouth of the Re-
corder.
Mr. WAKEFIELD, who appeared as Counsel for the execu-
tor, who has no interest in the decision, stated that his attend-
knee was merely complimentary.
Mr. SHADWELL, 10 Counsel for Mr. Serjeant Onslow, con.
tended that Sir Francis Drake had been a freeman of the city
of London in the most complete sense of the word, and had
been entitled to all the privileges of one of the body. The
conferring of the freedom of the city upon meritorious mdivi.
duals comprehended of course all the advantages to which
persons who obtained the • freedom in any other way,
were entitled, otherwise it would he a mere mockery to propose
such a mode of conveying the sense the Corporation entertained
of the great efforts of the naval and military heroes of the coon.
try. !VIT.. Shadwell- cited some authorities in support'of his
position ; after which . .
Mr:SR/41[1E addressed the Court for the other claimant
to the property. Ile argued that the freedom of the city,
conferred us it had been upon Sir Francis. Drake, was not
burthened with the inconveniences which necessarily attended
those who became freemen under different circumstances ; and
that it never could have been meant to impose upon it man
upon whom the freedom lout been bestowed as a Mark of ho-
nour and testimony of great merit, the performance of duties
incompatible with his situation. If an equal portion of the
duties were expected to be takers by the first of the nobility of
the laud .to whom the freedom of the city had been voted,
there would be but - few who would consent to accept' of the
, 'amour. Besides, what condition was the liability of honorary
freemen likely to place them in with regard to their childt,en
The custom at' the city of.Lontlon took away front parents the
right to leave their children under the guardianship of those
whom they might approve, and place them under the con-
troul of—whom ? Why, of the Chamberlain of London.
That regulation might be a wise one so far sus related to
the• orphans of those who were freemen by purchase,
,servi-
tude, or birth ; but how must the Duke of •
.Wellington he
surprised at being told that one of those rewards to which
his military exertions entitled him was, that his daughters
must at his death be placed under the care of the Chant.
berlain of the city of London,. and that all .attempts to in-
terfere with that regulation would be in vain. 'But the Cham-
berlain was to have • a still greater authority over those
who, happened to meet with the approbation of -the Lord
Mayor and Common Council of the City, and to be
presented with the freetiorn mew 'twin of the Corporation. If
the question were decided in favour 'of •the argument of his
Learned Friend, Mr. Shadwell, the-Duke of Wellington, in
that case, must resign his authority, with regard to the mar-
riage h into the hands of the Chamberlain, Oho,
i!tdleoervelis; dtoag
euatte
ilell' raee's death, could exercise a paternahru-
amity over them, uptil the age of maturity recognized by the
law.
Alderman WM-I'II74IAM asked whether Sir Francis Drake
had not, or could not have exercised his privileges as a freeman
Of the city ; and
Alderman Bathvar.asked whether, if a person werelo-be ad-
mitted to all the .privileges of a. freeman, it was not reasonable
to .expect that he should submit to any Inconveniences. which
might be inseparable from those privileges?
- Serjeant SPAN/ UK thought, that-.an honorary freeman
Might exercise his priVileges, but certainly did -not suppose
that he was to be subject to the inconveniences, :Aided • to,
much less to such a disposal of. his property as he might never
have conumplated. The law which it was argued was to be
applied with such unmitigated severity to the cases of honorary
members was, In Net, never known to hare been applied to cases
of this description : and ,he hoped that the Court wool& find in
the negative upon the prpositiorit submitted to them.
Mr. tin aloes: replied.--He contended that a person could
not become a member of a society without some obligations.
Some ruler might be beneficial, and others not, -hut the'free
man, if benefited by some, must run his chance of the-Mewl-
veniences attending the other regulations. What he under.
stood by honorary freedom was, the potatession of the privileges
withput being subject to the burdens which might he hncom.
patible with tit, situation of the person on whom the honour
was conferred.

The Cou UV, when the arguments were concluded, subMitted
the questions to the city law.officers, who will give their opinion,
before the next Court of Aldermen. The Recorder will then
go, down to the Viee.Chancellor's-Court, and certify in the name
of the Lord. Mayer and Aldermen.
It is stated in Ist Burrow's Reports. 3d .George It., that a
consultation was bad in the city concerning the sort of gown
which it was proper Air the Recorder to put on 'to make this
ore tenus. return; in which consultation it wtis determined that
it owght to be the purple cloth robe faced With black velvet,
and not his scarlet gown, his black silk one, for the common
bar gown. _

it is curious that the followlng quevion was not added to
those which - have been submitted,-*" whether the widow of a
freeman, having marritd a foreigner,. (as those who are not
freemen are designated), is not debarred from all the privileges
of a freeman ?" The Court will probably answer this tjuestvon
without being required, in order to prevent the necessity of a
second application.

A young Lady advertises ininn cotemporary
print for a husband, and states that she will
walk for ktlf an hour, on next Sunday, the
eath inst., at three o'clock P.it” on the North
side of Merrion-square, prepared to receive an!
written communication that may be handed to
her. In order that she may be easily distinguish.
ed from the many other ladies who will be walk.
it►g there, tt
everylostofhose ultimate views in walk.-
and where else are the same as
the advertiser's, although differently evinced, she
begs to describe her dress :=--Sh© will wear a
Leghorn bonnet, white lace veil, with a plume
of white feathers, and ri green silk opera cloak
lined with white sarsuet, a swansdown muff, and
a bhtek velvet reticule with a st,7l clasp, which
will!reopen to receive any bitiet tnat may, by
proper demerit-,
y be dropped into it."—(Free.
man's Journa4)