(Vol. iii., p. 496.)
This Query, and your answer, involve one or two important questions,
which are worth a fuller solution than you have given.
The Lord Mayor is no more a Privy Councillor than he is Archbishop of
Canterbury. The title of "Right Honourable," which has given rise to
that vulgar error, is in itself a mere courtesy appended to the title of
"Lord;" which is also, popularly, though not _legally_, given him: for
in all _his own_ acts, he is designated officially as "Mayor" only. The
courtesy-title of _Lord_ he shares with the Mayors of Dublin and York,
the Lord-Advocate of Scotland, the younger sons of Dukes and Marquises,
&c. &c., and all such _Lords_ are styled by courtesy "Right Honourable;"
and this style of _Right Honourable_ is also given to Privy Councillors
in virtue of their proper official title of "Lords of Her Majesty's Most
Honourable Privy Council." So, the "Right Honourable the Lords of the
Treasury and Admiralty." So much for the title. The fact stated in the
Editor's answer, of the admission of the Lord Mayor _to the Council
Chamber_ after some clamour, on the accession of William IV., is a
mistake arising out of the following circumstances. On the demise of the
crown, a London Gazette Extraordinary is immediately published, with a
proclamation announcing the death of one sovereign and the accession of
the other. This proclamation styles itself to be that of the--
"Peers Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm, _assisted_ by those of the
late Privy Council, with numbers of _others_, Gentlemen of Quality, with
the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London."
The proclamation is that of the _Peers_ alone, but _assisted_ by the
_others_. The cause of this form is, that the demise of the crown
dissolves the Privy Council, and used (till modern times) to dissolve
parliaments, and abrogate the commissions of the Judges, and all other
public officers; so that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal were the only
subsisting authority. Hence _they_, of necessity, undertook the duty of
proclaiming the new king, but they fortified themselves "_with the
assistance of_ the principal gentlemen of quality, and of the Lord
Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens." This paper is first signed by the Peers,
and then by all who happen to be present, promiscuously. At the
accession of William IV., there were about 180 names, of which "J.
Crowder, Mayor," stands the 106th. At the accession of Queen Victoria,
there were about 160 names, of which "Thomas Kelly, Mayor," is the
111th. And in both cases we find the names of the Aldermen, Sheriffs,
Town Clerk, City Remembrancer, and several others,--private citizens,
and many altogether private persons, who happened to come to the palace
at that time.
It is obvious that all this has nothing to do with the Privy Council,
for, in fact, at that moment, no Privy Council exists. But while these
things are going on in an outward room of the palace, where everybody is
admitted, the new sovereign commands the attendance of the late Privy
Council in the council chamber, where the old Privy Councillors are
generally (I suppose always) re-sworn of the new council; and _then_ and
_there_ are prepared and promulgated several acts of the new sovereign,
to which are prefixed the names of the Privy Councillors present. Now,
to this _council_ chamber the Lord Mayor is no more admitted than the
Town Clerk would be, and to these acts of the council _his name has
never appeared_.
All these facts appear in the _London Gazettes_ for the 27th June, 1830,
and the 30th June, 1837; and similar proceedings took place in Dublin;
though since the Union the practice is at least superfluous.
This establishes the _rationale_ of the case, but there is a precedent
that concludes it:--
"On the 27th May, 1768, Mr. Thomas Harley, then Lord Mayor of
London, was sworn of his Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council!"
--an honour never since conferred on any Mayor or Alderman, and which
could not have been conferred on him if he had already been of that
body.