Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

nexion with the corporation of the city of London, refused to furnish any information to the commissioners, and others furnished it only under exceptions and restrictions. Although, therefore, sufficient information has been given to show the general and ordinary constitution of these bodies, the details as to many of the individual companies have not been obtained.

Since the inquiry terminated, several alterations have been made by the corporation in its own constitution. Statements of these changes have been forwarded from time to time to the commissioners by the corporation. More changes, as we believe, have been proposed and partly discussed. We abstain, however, in general, from including in the present report any thing which did not exist while the inquiry was going forward. The commissioners could not resume the public inquiry on the occasion of every successive measure taken by the corporation; and they were unwilling to offer an account of any matter which they had been unable to examine according to the method which they had pursued from the beginning. We were also aware that, even if we had incorporated in this report all that had occurred up to the time of drawing it, it was nearly certain that other changes would take place before it could be laid before your Majesty. And we believe that the officers of the corporation will easily and readily furnish a full account of all that has taken place since our public inquiry terminated.

As we are commanded, by the terms of your Majesty's commission, to collect information respecting the defects in the constitution of the municipal corporations, we shall point out what appear to us to be the principal defects in that of the corporation of London. It is to be recollected that, with respect to many of these, the powers possessed by the common council enable the corporation, if so disposed, to apply remedies, to a great extent, without the assistance of the Legislature. We mention this, not with the view of entering into a discussion, which we consider to be not within the authority of our commission, as to the remedies proper to be applied; but because the circumstance that the remedy is within the reach of the corporation itself gives a peculiar character to the continuance of the defect.

We consider, also, that we are bound to point out whatever appears to us to produce evil effects in the corporation, even in cases where it may appear doubtful whether the evil can be removed without introducing another, or destroying some advantage. We shall therefore lay before your Majesty our views of the evil effects of particular circumstances in the present corporate system of London, considering it not to be within our province to estimate the result, which, in the event of an alteration, might be produced by conflicting advantages and disadvantages.

RELATION OF THE CITY TO THE METROPOLIS.

One circumstance of primary importance and difficulty immediately presents itself.

In our first report, it was represented to your Majesty that, in most important towns, the suburbs had extended themselves far beyond the limits of the corporate authority. In London, the most important of all, this is most remarkably the case; so much so, indeed, that the word suburb can no longer be applied with its usual signification to the vast extent of uninterrupted town which forms the metropolis of the British empire. It appears by the reports laid before Parliament previously to the passing of the act commonly called the English Boundary Act (Stat. 2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 64), that the districts proposed by the framers of those reports, as the intended Parliamentary borough of the city of London and the adjacent metropolitan boroughs, were, according to the census of 1831, and the returns procured by them, circumstanced as follows, with respect to houses, population and taxation.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The municipal city of London contains rather a less population and a smaller number of houses than is shown by the above account, owing to the additions made to it in the report from which these data are taken; these additions, consisting principally of the inns of court locally within the City, are, however, insignificant. The municipal borough of Southwark, a dependency rather than a part of the municipal city of London, contains considerably more than half of the population and number of houses which are in the proposed Parliamentary borough as above A great part of the latter certainly cannot be considered as town. A considerable part also of Lambeth is not town. Finsbury, Marylebone, and the Tower Hamlets had finally larger Parliamentary boundaries assigned them by the Legislature than those proposed in the Boundary Reports. We believe that, after making all necessary deductions, it may be assumed that the limits of the city of London embrace less than a ninth of the population of what may be considered in a general sense the town of London.

It appears from the foregoing table that the inhabitants of the city of London contribute more to the assessed taxes, in proportion to their number, than those of any other part of the metropolis, and that they are rather more closely lodged than the average of the whole district.

If, for the sake of facility of comparison, we assign the same limits to the metropolis as those taken by Mr. Rickman in his preface to the account of the census of the population of Great Britain in 1831, we find that at the four periods of taking the census, since 1800, the population was as follows :-

London (within the walls)

1801.

1811.

1821.

1831.

Houses. Populat. Houses. Population Houses. Population Houses. Population

London (without the walls)

6,523 53,027 7,949

9,985 74,594 8,158 55,484 7.938 56,174 8,002 55,778 63,629 7,826 67,714 7,546

66,634

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Metropolis

75,017 514,597 94,962

121,150 864,845 141,732 1,009,546 164,6811,225,694 196,666 1,471,941 Some remarkable differences appear from a comparison of these numbers. While the population of the whole metropolitan district has increased between 1801 and 1831 from 864,845 to 1,471,941, or more than 70 per cent. of its former amount, the population of London without the walls has undergone only an increase of not quite 26 per cent.; and the population of London within the walls has, on the contrary, decreased by more than 25 per cent.; showing on the whole of London a decrease of more than 4 per cent. A comparison of the houses in London, at the two periods, shows 773 persons in 100 houses in 1801, and 787 in 1831; from which it is plain that the diminution is attributable to the removal of houses in consequence of new streets and improvements, much more than to any change in the habits of the population. There has been a slight tendency towards a spreading of the population in London within the walls, in which there were 747 persons inhabiting 100 houses in 1801, and only 697 in 1831. This has been more than counteracted by a condensation in London without the walls. The average number inhabiting 100 houses throughout the metropolis was 714 in 1801, and 748 in 1831.

It will be seen, further, that the principal diminution of the population in London within took place between 1801 and 1811. During this interval the number of houses was reduced by 1827, or rather more than 18 per cent.; but it has since remained nearly stationary.

We doubt much whether the comparative rates of increase and decrease furnish any satisfactory test of the relative importance of the districts. One objection to such a test is, that, under the particular circumstances of the city of London, it seems not difficult to suggest reasons why a rise in its prosperity may produce a diminution in its population. Thus, an advance in its prosperity might render land more valuable for warehouses, and therefore drive out the poorer population. It is also to be observed that much of the importance of the City arises from its being the daily resort of great numbers who, as they do not sleep in it, are not strictly a part of its population; and that the prevalence of this habit has been continually on the increase during the present century.

With respect to the nature of the population, it is well known that, on the one hand, the City contains by far the most active commercial district of the metropolis, and that it forms the northern bank of the highest part of the Thames accessible to large vessels; and, on the other, that it does not contain either the courts of law, the Houses of Parliament or Government offices, or, generally speaking, the residences of the higher or more opulent classes.

The course followed by the Legislature in the Statute 5 and 6 Will. IV. c. 76, (commonly called the Municipal Corporation Reform Act), so far as relates to those towns included within its provisions, was to bring all that would popularly be termed the town within the scope of the same municipal authority. In many of those towns the additions so made were inconsiderable; in others they bore a considerable proportion to the ancient borough; as, for instance, in the city of Bristol, where the population has been increased by such additions from 59,000 to 104,000; and in the borough of Liverpool, where it has been raised from 165,000 to 206,000. But in all these cases it was assumed, not only that the nucleus of the town, consisting of the old municipal borough, was the most important part of the whole united district, but also that the utmost extension thus given to the limits of the borough was still not sufficient to overpower and destroy its primary importance in the new community formed by the union of it with all its suburbs.

It appears, from the foregoing statements, that this assumption cannot be made in the case of the metropolis. Nevertheless, we do not find any argument on which the course pursued with regard to other towns could be justified, which would not apply with the same force to London, unless the magnitude of the change in this case should be considered as converting that which would otherwise be only a practical difficulty into an objection of principle.

We have pointed out how small a proportion of the metropolis is comprehended within the municipal boundary. We are unable to discover any circumstance justifying the present distinction of this particular district from the rest, except that in fact it is, and has long been, so distinguished. It is evident that any reasoning, founded on the assumption that questions respecting the corporation relate to the whole town of London, will be entirely fallacious; and this necessarily introduces much perplexity into all discussions on the corporate system, owing to the great difficulty which there is in preventing such an assumption from being made.

We hardly anticipate that it will be suggested, for the purpose of removing the appearance of singularity, that the other quarters of the town should be formed into independent and isolated communities, if indeed the multifarious relations to which their proximity compels them would permit them to be isolated and independent. This plan would, as it seems to us, in getting rid of an anomaly, tend to multiply and perpetuate an evil.

If we consider the several parts of the whole metropolis merely with regard to their population and extent, the city of Westminster is a most important quarter of the town. The circumstance that it is also the seat of your Majesty's Government, and the place where Parliament usually meets, gives a new and distinctive character to it, with reference to some of the foregoing circumstances.

By the Corporation Reform Act, the principal power over the details of local government has been entrusted, in a great number of the provincial towns of Great Britain, to bodies chosen by the inhabitants, reserving for the central government those means of communication, and of general superintendence, which are necessary to secure uniformity of action throughout your Majesty's dominions of Great Britain, and to maintain those local municipalities in a state of due subordination to your Majesty's supreme authority. A new and very important question, as it appears to us, must necessarily arise, in a town which is the seat of the Legislature and supreme executive power of the state, with respect to the proper division of munici pal authority between the officers of government and a municipal body which might be established in the metropolis for the same, or for some of the same, purposes as elsewhere. We do not take upon ourselves to give any opinion upon this question, conceiving that it will be sufficient thus to indicate it.

In one particular, and that a most important and practical one, the opinion of Parliament has been already declared by the establishment of a metropolitan police, under the orders of commissioners appointed by, and immediately dependent upon, your Majesty's executive Government. We scarcely anticipate that any argument can be brought forward to show that this system can be partially right. We can see no middle course for the establishment of an efficient police throughout the metropolis, between placing the whole under a metropolitan municipality, and entrusting the whole to commissioners, or other similar officers under the immediate control of your Majesty's Government.

Other topics suggest similar conclusions, as the paving, sewage and lighting of the streets, which, as it seems to us, can never be so economically and efficiently performed in one town as when superintended by an undivided authority; and the only real point for consideration is, how far these duties for the whole metropolis could be placed in the hands of a metropolitan municipality, or how far they should be entrusted to the officers of your Majesty's Government. With respect to sewage, indeed, there is an obvious absurdity in placing the City, and any large district which drains into it from a higher level, under different superintendence.

The navigation of the river Thames, to which the empire owes so much of its greatness, raises another most important question. In the first place, the inhabitants of every quarter of the town might reasonably require that the privileges of ownership and conservancy, as they are called, should not continue to be confined to one district, to which they were granted when it, in fact, constituted the whole metropolis; but, further, it is plain that the proper management of the port and river is not a matter which concerns solely the inhabitants of the metropolis. The inhabitants of other parts of your Majesty's dominions have a right to ask whether these functions, the due performance of which is of vital importance to all, are properly within the province of any local municipality, however extended; and why they should not be under the direct control of the general executive Government of the country.

Premising these observations on those points which naturally arise out of the consideration of the city of London viewed only as a part of the metropolis, we now proceed to the examination of matters relating to the constitution of London considered by itself, with subsidiary reference only to such questions as those to which we have thus cursorily alluded.

CORPORATE LIMITS.

A few small districts are locally within the corporate boundary, without participating in all the liabilities and privileges of the rest of the municipal territory. No good reason, we think, exists for continuing this inconsistency. Any other observation under this head would bring us back to the questions of which we have just treated.

CORPORATE BODY.

The franchises of the corporation of London are, by statute, not liable to forfeiture. There are 89 municipal companies or guilds in the corporation, of which, however, a few are practically extinct, or nearly so.

No one can become a freeman of the corporation but by previous admission into these companies, except in some cases in which the honorary freedom is presented by a formal vote of the corporation. When, by birth, apprenticeship, purchase or gift, a person has become a member of a company, he has acquired an inchoate right to the freedom of the corporation, and is admitted on proving his qualification, and on paying certain fees to the corporation, in addition to others which he has had to pay to the company.

The companies themselves have different classes: most of them possess what is called a livery; that is, a certain number of their body, under the name of liverymen, if they be freemen of the corporation, enjoy in the corporation privileges which other freemen do not possess. They also generally enjoy peculiar privileges in the companies themselves.

The freemen, therefore, may be considered as divided into two classes; the one comprehending such as are, and the other such as are not, liverymen in their respective companies.

Such resident freemen as are ten pound householders enjoy some peculiar rights; and this class again may be considered as divided into different bodies according to their residences. The municipal city of London is divided into twenty-six wards of very unequal size; and for certain purposes the freemen of each ward, being ten pound householders, form a body by themselves. For other purposes, all the inhabitant householders of each ward form also a body of themselves.

The freemen are unlimited in number, and are very numerous. They, however, comprehend but a part of the householders of London. The right is not confined to residents, though many of the privileges incident to the freedom are in abeyance during non-residence.

The average annual number of freemen created for the last forty years is about one thousand; but lately the number has fallen below that average.

The principal privileges of the freemen consist in their right to take part as electors in the concerns of the corporation, in their exemption from certain tolls in the City and elsewhere, in their exemption from impressment, and in their exclusive right to exercise retail trades, or act as brokers, within the City. This exclusive

right to exercise retail trades, which probably is the principal inducement for taking up the freedom, has of late not been strictly guarded.

The freemen of the corporation, though they constitute a much larger proportion of the householders here than elsewhere, still do not comprehend all the householders even of the limited district which constitutes the municipal city. On this point, however, we cannot offer any exact information, from our not having been able to obtain the precise number of the freemen. No list exists, by which the number of those who are dead can be ascertained. Of the actual number of freemen, very many are not resident; others are not householders, several inhabitants of the same house being in many instances free. Thus the comparison of the number of houses with the average annual number of admissions furnishes very insufficient means of estimating the number of houses of which the principal occupiers are not free.

The method by which persons become free appears to us highly objectionable. The corporation possesses a very slight, indeed hardly more than a nominal, control over the companies; and these latter, whatever may be, or may have been, their importance or value as independent corporate bodies (which we shall consider in another part of this report), possess no one feature from which we can discover any advantage in compelling the freemen to belong to them. This part of the system is, in fact, no more than a troublesome and capricious method of taxing the inhabitants of London for the emolument of the companies.

Still further, supposing the instrumentality of the companies were discontinued, we see no advantage, but much unnecessary complication, in continuing the present criteria of admissibility. Birth and apprenticeship have been supposed to raise a presumption of a permanent interest in the City; but inhabitancy for a definite period furnishes evidence much more simple and direct, and much less liable to fallacy. As to the acquisition of the freedom by purchase, it is practically a tax upon the retail traders of the City, who are compelled to take up their freedom; and whatever advantages may be attributed to such a tax, as a test of the competence of the party contributing, or a compensation for the convenience of a residence within the City, these, admitting them to be advantages, might surely be obtained by a much less circuitous and more equitable process, and upon a system more analogous to that which now prevails in other English corporate towns.

The possession of the rights of freemen by non-residents appears to us to be at variance with the true principles of municipal constitutions.

The privilege which the freemen enjoy of sharing in certain elections we shall discuss under other heads. We look upon the privilege from impressment as scarcely warranted by the principle of the exemption on which it is founded, and we know no reason why such a privilege should belong solely to the inhabitants of one town of your Majesty's dominions. With respect to their other privileges, it appears to us that the objections made to them rest, with little exception, ultimately on the distinction existing between the freemen and other householders.

GOVERNING BODIES.

The assemblies which take a share in the government of the corporation are the court of aldermen, the court of common council, and the court of common hall. The court of aldermen consists of twenty-six aldermen, including the lord mayor. Twenty-five of these are elected for life by such freemen as are householders of the wards, the house being of the annual value of 107., and the freeman paying certain local taxes to the amount of 30s., and bearing lot in the ward. In this way, twenty-four of the wards, into which the City is divided, send up one alderman each; the two remaining wards send up another. The twenty-sixth alderman belongs to a twenty-seventh nominal ward, which comprehends no part of the city of London, but only the dependency of Southwark. This alderman is not elected at all; but when the aldermanry is vacant, the other aldermen have, in seniority, the option of taking it; and the alderman who does take it holds it for life, creating a vacancy as to the ward for which he formerly sat.

The court of common council consists of the twenty-six aldermen and of two hundred and forty common councilmen, elected annually in different proportions by the several wards by the same electors as those electing the aldermen.

The court of common hall consists of such freemen of the corporation as are liverymen of the several companies. The aldermen also form a part; but it seems to be understood that, when the votes are taken at elections, they are not to speak or poll, at least not in the character of aldermen.

The lord mayor, or his locum tenens, is the president of each assembly, except that, on the occasion of elections in the common hall, the modern practice is for the sheriffs and the common sergeant to preside during a part of the proceedings; though perhaps, strictly speaking, the court is still under the presidency of the mayor, the other officers named being merely engaged in taking the votes.

« ForrigeFortsæt »