This right was transferred from them (an increase of salary being given) to the common council in 1749, and the common council for some time sold the offices, applying the proceeds to the corporate funds, and making an arrangement by which, through the instrumentality of an insurance, the party purchasing the office had the power of re-selling it to the corporation, or of nominating a successor, or of being entitled to the value at his death. By subsequent enactments, the system of sale and insurance by the officer has been done away with; the common council has in general ceased to sell the offices; and the officers take simply as appointees of the council, subject to the ordinary conditions of re-elections and dismissal. The greater number of offices, which were formerly purchased, have fallen into the hands of the common council, either by bargains with the parties interested, or by the officers having died without alienation. A very few still remain the subject of purchase; and the fruit meters purchase their office of the corporation itself, without the right of alienation. The common council, in the case of all the offices which have thus fallen into their hands, has obtained the power, on making the new appointments, of changing the system with respect to the emoluments which formerly constituted the consideration for the purchase; and they have generally substituted a fixed salary for these emoluments, which therefore have become the property, not of the officer, but of the corporation.

From what has already been said, it will be perceived that we consider it a defect that the common hall should have the election of any officers.

We think that no offices should be obtainable by purchase, except, perhaps, those entitling the holder to receive profits which are the property of the corporation or its grantees. Even in those cases it appears to us more eligible that the corporation should appoint officers of its own, in that character, to perform the duty and receive the profits. Cases may, however, occur in which the nature of the profits received (as where they consist of a small per-centage on goods passing through the hands of the officers) makes such a method difficult in the execution. These, however, appear to be questions which may be safely left to the corporation.

We are of opinion that no good end is answered by the power which the aldermen possess of selecting for mayor one of two nominees of the common hall. This power, of late years, has never been effectually exercised; but its nominal existence has created ill will on the few occasions on which the attempt has been made to give effect to it. If it could be made effectual, it appears to us that this result would not be desirable, and that no good end would be answered by lodging in the hands of the aldermen this very limited discretion. If it be necessary that the original electors, whoever they are to be, should be in anywise controlled in their choice, the sort of control which has been adopted appears to us neither well chosen in itself, nor lodged in the quarter where it might have the best chance of being beneficial.

The court of aldermen elects the highest judicial officer of the corporation; the common council others. We think each of these methods of election very objectionable, in the case of a functionary exercising judicial powers. Some of these judicial situations have been the object of direct personal canvass. The electors cannot be expected to be competent judges of the qualifications required, or sufficiently secured from influences and opinions which, without being corrupt or dishonest, are calculated to prevent a proper choice. The objection is strengthened by the circumstance that one of these functionaries often presides in cases in which the corporation is a party. An understanding appears to have prevailed, that the persons holding the lower legal situations have preferable claims, on vacancies, to the higher ones. These lower legal situations are, generally speaking, not sought for by lawyers aiming at the highest prizes in the profession. Thus the effect of the understanding seems to be, not merely to impede the freedom of choice, but to throw the judicial offices into the hands of lawyers who have early contented themselves with adopting a secondary course of practice.

The functions entrusted to the lord mayor appear to us to be much too numerous and heavy. They are not naturally connected one with another, and appear to have been accumulated upon a single officer merely on the general principle of placing the principal functionary of the corporation at the head of each department. The annual salary of the mayor appears at first sight to be enormous; but it is unequal to the demand which custom has imposed upon him. It seems that he is expected to maintain the state of his office by an expenditure much exceeding his salary; the effect of which is to deter persons of moderate incomes from undertaking the office, and to attach to it a character by no means conducive to its real respectability. The same remarks apply to the office of the sheriffs, who, however, receive a comparatively small salary.

A large proportion of the emoluments of the chamberlain arises from the interest

of the balances left in his hand. We think this nearly the worst manner of remunerating such an officer; and there can be no doubt that the facilities, as to command of cash, which are afforded to the corporation by the arrangement, might be obtained on easy terms from any London banker.

With respect to the salaries in general, we have to observe, that they are undoubtedly framed on a very liberal scale; but we are of opinion that the question of their amount is one which may safely be left to a civic legislature fairly chosen.

CIVIL COURTS.

The courts of civil jurisdiction attached to the corporation of London are:the Court of Hustings, the Lord Mayor's Court, the Sheriffs' Court. Of these courts the two last alone are of practical importance; the Court of Hustings, either as a tribunal of appeal, or as one of original jurisdiction, being now of little use. The Lord Mayor's Court is by far the most considerable, both for extent of jurisdiction and amount of business. It has cognizance of all personal and mixed actions at common law, without limitation as to amount. It is also a court of equity, and has criminal jurisdiction in matters relating to the customs of London. The local jurisdiction of the court is restricted to the City and liberties, and does not extend into Southwark. The recorder is in effect the sole judge. There is no appeal from this court except to a special commission of error, which has sometimes issued. The Sheriffs' Court is divided into two sections, with a judge for each section, appointed by the common council. The customary process of markment is peculiar to this court, by which, after the debt of a creditor has been sanctioned by a verdict, the defendant may have his case re-heard before the lord mayor, who may order that the plaintiff's claim be barred or reduced in amount, or the day of payment postponed. This process is very little used. The common law jurisdiction is the same as in the Lord Mayor's Court; but the Sheriffs' Court has no equitable or criminal jurisdiction. The process of this court, also, is restricted to the City and liberties.

There are certain customary proceedings common to the Lord Mayor's and Sheriffs' Courts, called foreign attachment and sequestration. The object and effect of these proceedings are to enable a creditor to secure the goods of a debtor in the custody of a third person, or in the debtor's constructive possession, until he appears to answer to an action, or until the debt is satisfied. The practical advantage of the process of foreign attachment, which prevails in some other corporate towns of England, and also on the Continent, is the subject of controversy among mercantile men as well as lawyers; but it cannot be expedient that the law on this subject, within a small district, should be different from that which is the general law of the land; and the inconvenience of such a difference must be greatly aggra vated when it exists between adjacent quarters of the same commercial town.

The juries, both in the Lord Mayor's and Sheriffs' Courts, are taken from the names annually returned from the court of aldermen on the wardmote indentures, and consist usually of substantial householders.

The four common pleaders have the privilege of being employed in every cause tried in the civil courts of the City.

There is an ancient court of record for civil pleas arising within the City jurisdic. tion of the borough of Southwark, of which the steward of Southwark is the sole judge. The juries are composed of the more substantial inhabitants of the borough, impannelled by the high bailiff. This court has cognizance of personal actions to any amount, but the business done is very small.

There are two courts of requests within the limits of the corporate jurisdiction; one for London, which is confined to the City and liberties, and the other for Southwark, and a large surrounding district. Both these courts are governed by the provisions of particular Acts of Parliament. These courts differ in constitution and practice from each other, and from other courts of request within the metropolitan district. We are not aware of any circumstances justifying such differences. The constitution and machinery of the Lord Mayor's Court are in general good, though the practice might be in some respects advantageously modified. The question of most interest and difficulty, with respect to this court, is the exclusive privilege possessed by the four attornies of the court, who obtain their places by purchase, and who must be employed, either as the principal attornies or as agents, in every cause in this court. We do not feel that we can offer a positive opinion upon this question, as the argument which appears to us entitled to most consideration, in defence of the exclusive practice, was one as to which the commissioners were unable to obtain satisfactory evidence of facts; we mean the argument, that the cheapness of the proceedings and lowness of the charges would, except for the inducements held out to respectable attornies by the exclusive privilege, throw the practice into the hands of an inferior class of practitioners. A like difficulty occurs

with respect to the privilege of the common pleaders, though that question is of much less practical importance. We have already expressed our doubt whether, in a court of such extensive and various jurisdiction, the appointment of a judge ought to belong to any municipal authority. Another important point for consideration is the propriety of continuing the limitation of the jurisdiction within the City boundary.

The division of the Sheriffs' Court into two sections appears to be a useless and inconvenient arrangement. The power of removal, by levetur querela, to the Lord Mayor's Court, is objectionable in principle, and operates as a great discouragement to suitors. The process of markment by the lord mayor in this court is liable to great objection. If it be desirable that an appeal of such a nature should exist at all, it should be to some professional tribunal capable of appreciating the legal merits of the proceedings to be reviewed. The observations above made as to the appointment of the judge in the Lord Mayor's Court, and also as to the extent of the local jurisdiction, apply equally to the Sheriffs' Courts.

There does not appear to be sufficient business to make it necessary that three courts should exist in the City with nearly concurrent jurisdiction.

CRIMINAL COURTS.

The sessions of the peace for London are holden eight times in the year. The recorder is the acting judge, though the lord mayor and aldermen are also judges of the court. The business is that of ordinary sessions of the peace; and the court has power to try felonies in the same manner as county sessions: but, as felonies and misdemeanours are tried at the Old Bailey, the criminal business of the London sessions is extremely small.

The Southwark sessions, also, are nothing more than an ordinary court of quarter sessions. They are holden four times in the year, before the lord mayor, the aldermen who have passed the chair, and the recorder, and have jurisdiction over offences committed within the City boundary in Southwark. The criminal business of these sessions has of late considerably increased.

Since the inquiry terminated, a great alteration in the criminal proceedings at the Old Bailey has been introduced by the Central Criminal Court Act, 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 36. Before the passing of that statute, the Old Bailey sessions were holden eight times in the year, under commissions for the city of London and the county of Middlesex, annually issued by the Crown; these comprehended the lord mayor, the lord chancellor, and other great officers of state, the judges of the superior courts of Westminster, the attorney and solicitor-general, the aldermen, the recorder, the common sergeant, and the judges of the sheriffs' courts. In practice, the more serious cases were usually tried by the judges of the superior courts; in other cases, the presiding judge was the recorder, the common sergeant, or the judge of the Sheriffs' Court. The recorder passed the sentences, and personally reported the capital cases to your Majesty in council.

Courts of conservancy of the river Thames, which are in the nature of courts of criminal judicature, are held periodically by the lord mayor, under a commission from the Crown. Eight courts are holden in every year, two for each of the following counties:-Middlesex, Essex, Kent, and Surrey. The ostensible objects of these courts are the removal of obstructions to the navigation of the Thames, and the preservation of the fish.

We have already expressed our objections to the present method of appointing the judicial functionaries of the corporation. When our attention is drawn to the important functions imposed upon them by the annual commission of oyer and terminer, the objections seem much strengthened. A much greater number of trials, we believe, took place annually at the Old Bailey than at any assize town in England. The power of trying capital felonies is now no longer entrusted to any corporate judge, except in London, and in a few small boroughs, the insignificance of which excluded them from the provisions of the Corporation Reform Act. The grant of authority to try capital felonies, which was frequent in the old borough charters, might possibly have been useful in early times; but in the modern state of society, it seems anomalous and unreasonable that any such authority should be entrusted to judges not nominated by your Majesty. If it be urged that, in practice, the corporate judges would seldom try a prisoner for a capital offence, or a very serious felony, without the assistance of the judges of the superior courts, the plain answer is, that, in a matter of such serious import, there should be nothing fictitious or unreal, but that every one concerned in the performance of such awful duties should undisguisedly assume the full and real responsibility. In the case of offences which are technically of a lower degree, it was a common practice for the corporate judges to preside at the trials. Thus persons indicted for perjury or conspiracy would, in the great majority of instances, be tried by the

recorder, the common sergeant, or the judge of the Sheriffs' Court. The results of such cases, involving character, property, and personal liberty, are frequently more important than those of prosecutions for any but capital felonies; and such cases frequently depend on the most subtle and intricate questions which can arise in the criminal law of England.

As the Central Criminal Court Act has passed since the termination of the inquiry, we abstain from discussing its effect at any length; but we must point out that the above objections, if well founded, are much strengthened by the passing of that Act. It names as judges the lord mayor, the lord chancellor, and the judges of the superior courts at Westminster, the judges in bankruptcy, the judge of the Admiralty, the dean of the Arches, the aldermen, the recorder, the common sergeant, the judges of the Sheriffs' Courts, any person who has been chancellor or judge of the superior courts, with such other persons as your Majesty may name in the commission. It also greatly extends the limits of the jurisdiction But the practical division of the business between the superior and the corporate judges has not been altered. The statute 5 and 6 Will. IV. c. 31, s. 1, has limited the power of removal by certiorari, so as to place all prosecutors, except your Majesty's attorney-general, on the same footing, in this respect, with defendants; putting an end certainly to a most unjust distinction, and making the leave of the Court of King's Bench, or one of its judges, necessary to a removal. The Court of

King's Bench is understood to be unwilling to grant the removal from the Central Criminal Court, on the mere ground of the difficulty of the legal questions likely to arise. If, therefore, on a charge of conspiracy, arising within the jurisdiction of the Central Court, no overt act could be established in the county of Middlesex, as distinguished from London (in which case the indictment might be preferred in the Court of King's Bench in the first instance), the indictment would almost certainly be tried before one of the corporate judges appointed by the court of aldermen or the court of common council; appointments which, in many instances, either have been matters of routine, or have been obtained by personal interest and solicitation.

We cannot discover any peculiar advantage in the practice of reporting the capital convictions at the Old Bailey to your Majesty in council, if such a practice is not thought necessary in respect of capital convictions in any other part of the kingdom.

The courts of conservancy appear to be of little practical use, and they involve an expensive and inconvenient machinery. The objects of the courts, viz. the proper regulation of the navigation of the river, and the preservation of the fish, are less defectively attained by the superintendence of the navigation committee. We do not mean, however, by this statement, to imply any opinion that the navigation committee is a proper body for exercising such authority.

WARDS.

There are twenty-six wards in the city of London, each of which is, in some respects, a separate community. The aldermen and common councilmen of the City, who are chosen from it, form a ward council; and they have the control of many of the local affairs of the ward. The wards in London without the walls were organized at a later period than the wards within; and the disproportion of size between them is very striking. In most of the wards there are subdivisions into precincts, existing chiefly for the purpose of elections, with more or less distinctions; they are sometimes conterminous with parishes, in other cases they take in parts only of one or more parishes.

An inquest jury is annually chosen in each ward, with power to make presentments of nuisances and such other articles as are within the province of a lect jury.

The establishment of local committees, with some of the functions of the ward councils and inquest juries, appears to us a most salutary regulation, and well calculated to secure a vigilant superintendence and care of the whole city. The ward authorities, however, should not be suffered to exercise independent powers, but should be rendered more subordinate to the central civic authority. The present disproportionate extent of the wards is a glaring inconvenience, owing to which the benefits of the ward system, even in its present form, have been much impaired. The confusion which prevails in some wards between the exercise of the functions of parochial and ward authority, is a striking instance of the inconveniences resulting from the manner in which ecclesiastical districts have more or less superseded civil divisions throughout the whole country.

POLICE.

The day police for the whole of the city of London is under the superintendence

of the court of aldermen, by which a body of men has been organised for day duty nearly on the model of the metropolitan police. The nightly watch is totally distinct; and separate establishments of watchmen exist in each ward, under the control of the aldermen and common council of the ward; the expense of which is defrayed by a ward-rate levied by authority of the common council, and collected by the common council of the ward, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Recently, some imperfect attempts have been made at consolidation of the nightly watch. The charge of the police in Southwark has been relinquished to the commissioners of metropolitan police. The police on the river is under the charge of the magistrates appointed by Act of Parliament for the police-offices in and near the metropolis, unconnected with the corporation. The City gaols are under the care of the court of aldermen.

The question of police has been already incidentally touched on in our remarks upon the connexion of the city of London with the rest of the metropolis. The present system of City police is burthensome, without possessing vigilance or unity; and we doubt whether any exertions of the civic authority could give the requisite vigour and efficiency to a police under their direction, while their operations must be confined to the limits of the City; certainly they could not, while the independent authority of the common councils of the several wards is suffered to remain. This, indeed, is a point which cannot be treated as exclusively concerning the City; for, by the exemption of its territory from the authority of the commissioners of metropolitan police, not only is its own security diminished, but great obstacles are thrown in the way of perfecting the improved system by which the City is on every side surrounded, There may be room for doubt which is the proper authority to which the superintendence of the police of the metropolis should be entrusted; we apprehend there can be none that the authority, whatever it be, should be supreme and undivided throughout the whole district. For the purpose of showing the comparative extents of the city of London and of the surrounding district already under the jurisdiction of the commissioners, we have annexed to this report a plan, on which are marked the boundaries of both, and also of the three divisions of the City on their present system of day police.

We have gone into no details on the state of the City gaols, considering our commission in this respect as virtually superseded by the recent Act of Parliament authorising the appointment of gaol inspectors. From their reports, a much more complete view of the state of these prisons will be obtained than we could have given.

PORT OF LONDON.

The regulation of the port of London is entrusted partly to the lord mayor, as conservator of the river; partly to a committee of the common council, styled the Navigation Committee; and certain rights upon the river are claimed by the corporation of the Trinity-house. This intricate subject has been fully examined and reported on by a special committee of the House of Commons, whose report was ordered to be printed 12th August, 1836.

BROKERS.

All persons acting as brokers in the city of London must be free, and must be licensed by the court of aldermen. Much evidence was given before the commissioners, both on the general question of the propriety of such a control existing at all, and on the propriety of the details of the system now prevailing. As to the first point, there was a difference of opinion; as to the second point, the evidence did not appear to go the length of showing that the control, supposing it necessary, is now properly lodged.

MARKETS.

The monopoly of the markets, by which, in the case of Smithfield, a nuisance of the worst description is retained in the heart of the metropolis, is a question to which the attention of the Legislature has been already frequently directed. The commissioners did not inquire into the various points connected with this monopoly, beyond ascertaining the corporate establishment provided for its maintenance, considering its existence to be a matter concerning the general police of the metropolis, and not sufficiently depending on the peculiar character of the corporation to make it advisable to devote much of their attention to it.

The superintendence of the wholesale provision markets, exercised by the corporation, seems to be vigilant, and to be attended with very beneficial results to the public.

PORTERS.

The corporation maintain a monopoly of labour in the trans-shipment and discharge of all measurable goods, and have established companies of licensed labourers