THE CIVIC REFORM BILL.
The Commission of Inquiry
The New Wards
Aldermen and Common-Councilmen
City Expenditure
City Receipts
Removal of Restrictions
THE CORPORATION OF LONDON,
&c.
INTRODUCTORY SKETCH.
London under the Romans--Gilds--Burghs--Charter of William the
Conqueror--Reflections--Subsequent Charters--City divided into
Wards--Civic Hospitality--The Quo Warranto Case--Restoration of the
Charter.
The first historical notice of the City of London occurs in that
portion of the Annals of Tacitus which treats of the insurrection of
Boadicea. At that time it was a place much frequented by merchants,
attracted partly by the natural advantages of the site, and partly by
the vicinity of the Roman camp at Islington. It is stated that 70,000
persons, of both sexes and of all ages, were massacred by that fierce
heroine in London and at St. Albans; but it must not be supposed that
the ordinary population of those two towns could have formed so large
an aggregate. It is far more probable that numbers of old men, women,
and children flocked thither from the neighbourhood, in the hope of
escaping from the violence and rapine of the patriot army. Their
expectations, however, were disappointed, as the Roman general deemed
it more prudent to evacuate an untenable post, than to risk the
dominion of the entire island on the event of a battle fought under
adverse circumstances. At the same time the slaughter of the
inhabitants justifies the inference that they were foreigners rather
than natives, some being traders from Gaul, but the majority either
Roman colonists or the followers and hangers-on of the stationary
camp. Indeed, it may be gathered from the description of Tacitus, that
these traders were chiefly commissariat contractors and brokers or
money-changers. The Romans do not appear to have evinced a high order
of commercial instinct, nor to have looked upon the development of
trade as one of the chief objects of government. Their mission was to
overrun other nations, and to prevent them from indulging in
internecine warfare. To them mankind are therefore indebted for the
preservation of whatever civilization was then extant, and for
stopping the retrogressive course of the human race. This was
particularly observable in their conquest of Greece and the kingdoms
of Asia Minor, where incessant quarrels between rival cities and
principalities had checked the progress of the arts, sciences, and
literature. Content to conquer in battle, and, as the just reward of
their superior prowess, to impose tribute and a governor, they seldom
interfered with local customs and usages. Perhaps one great secret of
their marvellous success was this systematic abstinence from
intermeddling with the local administrations. The principle of
self-government was never more fully appreciated than by this
remarkable people, who, sending forth consuls, vice-consuls, and
prefects, yet left to the conquered the management of their own
affairs and the guardianship of their own interests. Not even in the
most corrupt days of the empire was it attempted to absorb the
patronage of every department and province for the benefit of a few,
under the pretext of imparting greater vigour to the administration of
public affairs by centralization. It was not deemed wise or necessary
to constitute central boards for the direction of matters with which
not a single member might, possibly, be acquainted. They did not aim
at an ideal perfection, but were satisfied with doing what was
practicable, and with a large average of general prosperity. To each
civitas--corresponding to our phrase of "city and county"--was
assigned the regulation of its own domestic policy, by means of annual
magistrates, a chosen senate, and the general assembly of the free
inhabitants. Through this wise policy of non-interference, the City of
London rapidly acquired wealth and importance, and before the
evacuation of the island by the Romans, had attained a position of
considerable grandeur. The civic institutions of the Saxons were,
indeed, admirably suited for the adaptation of the municipal customs
bequeathed to them by their predecessors, and which became developed
to their full proportions through the greater amount of individual
liberty that prevailed among the Germanic races.
Of the purely Teutonic institutions, one of the most characteristic
was that of Gilds. Originally, a gild was nothing more than an
association of ten families, for purposes of mutual protection and
security. By the custom of "frankpledge," every freeman at the age of
fourteen was called upon to give securities for his good behaviour.
Gilds were therefore formed, binding themselves to produce the
offender if any breach of the peace was committed by one of their
members, or to give redress to the injured party. To carry out these
objects a small fund was raised, to which every one contributed; and
thence was derived the name of the association: "gildan," in Saxon,
signifying to pay. With a view to becoming better acquainted with one
another, and to draw more closely the bands of friendship, convivial
meetings were held at fixed periods, when a vast quantity of beer was
quaffed in honour of the living, and to the memory of the dead. In
after-times this truly Saxon institution assumed greater proportions,
and embraced both ecclesiastical and secular gilds. Of the former it
is unnecessary to make further mention, but the latter formed the germ
of the present livery companies. The earlier secular or mercantile
gilds were associations of members of a particular trade or craft, for
the purpose of maintaining and advancing the privileges of their
peculiar calling. The term was also applied to a district or "soke,"
possessed of independent franchises, as in the case of the Portsoken
Ward, which was anciently known as the Cnighten Gild. A "soke," or
soca, it may be incidentally observed, was the territory in which was
exercised the soca, or the privilege of hearing causes and disputes,
levying fines, and administering justice within certain limits.
The practice of gildating or embodying the aggregate free population
of a town was of considerably later date. In France and in Flanders,
corporations and communes, or commonalties, appear to have existed in
the middle of the eleventh century, but the earliest mention of the
Corporation of London occurs in the second year of the reign of
Richard I. Availing himself of the king's absence in the Holy Land,
his brother John, Earl of Moreton, anxious to acquire the co-operation
of the city of London in his traitorous designs upon the crown,
convened a general assembly of the citizens, and confirmed their
ancient rights and privileges by a formal deed or charter. It was
then, for the first time, that the commonalty of the city was
regularly and officially recognized as a corporate body. The
distinctive rights of a town corporation were the election of a
council presided over by a mayor or bailiff, a common seal, a bell to
convoke the citizens, and local jurisdiction.
But although it was not before the reign of Richard I. that the
citizens of London were formed into a body corporate, they had
enjoyed, as the inhabitants of a free burgh, the immunities and many
essential privileges of a corporation, from the time of Edward the
Confessor, if not of Alfred. Without stopping to discuss the etymology
of the word "burgh," it may suffice to observe that at the period of
the Conquest by far the greater part of the cities and towns of
England were the private property of the king, or of some spiritual or
secular lord, on whom they had been conferred by royal grant. These
burghs, as they were called, were said to be held in demesne, and paid
to their superior certain tolls, duties, and customs, levied on goods
exposed for sale at markets and fairs. The inhabitants were actually
little better than villeins or serfs, and were entirely at the mercy
of their feudal lord. Immense, therefore, were the advantages
possessed by the free burghs, such as London, which governed
themselves, and compounded for all dues by the payment of a fixed
annual sum. These annual contributions were styled the "farm," and,
when perpetual, the burghs so compounding were said to be held at
fee-farm of the king in capite, as was the case with London. One of
the chief privileges implied by this tenure was that of exercising an
independent jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, administered by
magistrates chosen by the burgesses. It is supposed that criminal law
was originally dispensed in the free gilds into which the city was
divided, under the presidency of an alderman. These divisions were
afterwards called wards, and were analogous to the corresponding
division of the shire into hundreds. In each ward was held a
court-leet, or ward-mote, dating from the time of Alfred, though the
actual institution of wards by that name is no later than the reign of
Edward I. Civil causes, in London at least, were tried before a
peculiar tribunal, the president of which was probably the portreve,
or, in minor causes, an alderman.
The Norman Conquest naturally suspended for a time all these
privileges, and reduced all free towns to the level of burghs in
demesne. Desirous, however, to secure the good will of the citizens,
William hastened to assure them of his protection, and to confirm
their prescriptive rights and immunities. Thus ran the gracious
expression of the royal pleasure:--"William the king greets William
the bishop, and Godfrey the portreve, and all the burghers within
London, French and English, friendly. And I make known to you that I
will that ye be law-worthy, as ye were in the days of King Edward.
And I will, that each child be his father's heir after his father's
days. And I will not suffer that any man command you any wrong.
God keep you."
The import of this charter was to make the citizens "free tenants,"
reserving to the king the seigniory, or proprietary title. The epithet
"law-worthy" is equivalent to a declaration that they were freemen,
for in the feudal ages none other were entitled to the forms of law;
while the right of heirship apparently exempted them from the rule of
primogeniture which prevailed among the Norman conquerors;--it is
probable, however, that this exemption did not long hold good.
In other respects the citizens of London continued to be governed by
their own laws and usages, administered by their own magistrates after
the ancient and established forms. A nucleus of liberty was thus
preserved amidst the tyrannical usurpations of the Norman barons, and
the bold burgesses many a time stoutly resisted the encroachments that
were attempted to be made on their hereditary rights. At all periods
of English history, indeed, have the citizens of London stepped
forward as the champions of freedom, and shown themselves the
incorruptible guardians of the public interests. Never at any time,
however, was there greater necessity for a sturdy bulwark against the
growing power of the oligarchy than at the present moment. Little by
little--or, rather, by rapid strides--does the Government seek to get
within its grasp the control of every department of the commonwealth.
To-day, the East-India Company is abolished, for the sake of the
"better government of India;" to-morrow, the Corporation is to be
"reformed," for the "better government" of the City; the day after,
some other long-established institution will be swept away.
There is nothing so repugnant to a ministry as whatever savours of
self-government; for how. in that case can the "Dowbs" be provided
for? So long as the citizens manage their own affairs, there is no
patronage at the disposal of ministers to bestow on a faithful or a
wavering partisan. Young "honourables" and other needy scions of the
governing classes have little ambition to undertake civic duties,
while they are only onerous and expensive. Let the wedge be first
applied. Let "reform" worm its way into the constitution of the
Corporation, and then by degrees the whole edifice may gradually be
subverted. Stipendiary magistracies and paid offices of any kind,
if not too laborious, are always acceptable for sons, nephews, cousins,
and influential supporters. The danger from this quarter is in truth
greater than when Norman William had the island prostrate at his feet,
and when the liberties of the City hung upon his word. That word went
forth to save and to preserve. The stern warrior respected the rights
of the industrious burgesses, and by his wisdom paved the way for the
future greatness of the metropolis. But theoretical and doctrinaire
statesmen are willing to risk all for the sake of consistency to
certain arbitrary first principles, which do not apply to the spirit
of the British people.
The charter of William the Conqueror, the reader will have remarked,
alludes in a very general manner to the liberties and privileges
enjoyed by the City. The first detailed and specific notice of their
character occurs in the charter of Henry I. In the early part of his
reign, being anxious to fix himself securely in his seat, the usurper
conveyed, or confirmed, a grant to the citizens to hold Middlesex to
farm for the yearly rental of 300 pounds; to appoint their own sheriff
and their own justiciar; to be exempt from various burdensome and
vexatious taxes in force in other parts of the kingdom; to be free
from all denominations of tolls, customs, passage, and lestage,
throughout the kingdom and along the seaboard; and to possess many
other equally important privileges. This valuable charter was renewed
by King Stephen, during whose stormy and troubled reign the metropolis
enjoyed a degree of prosperity unknown to the rest of the kingdom.
The comparative peace and security which distinguished the happy lot of
the citizens of London, have been justly attributed to the maintenance
of their ancient institutions, which may be said to have grown out of
the habits, requirements, thoughts, and feelings characteristic of the
Anglo-Saxon race. Nor were the Londoners unconscious of their power,
or ungrateful to their benefactor. It was chiefly through their
influence and exertions that the empress was finally driven out of the
kingdom, and Stephen established on the throne. Henry II. confirmed
the purport of preceding charters, and added some further immunities,
concluding with the declaration that their ancient customs and
liberties were to be held as of inheritance from the king and his
heirs. They became, therefore, the property of the citizens, and were
bequeathed from father to son, as a cherished heirloom. It is true
that under Richard I. they were exposed to some extortion, for which
they received ample amends during the reign of his weak and inglorious
successor. Not only did they obtain five different charters
confirmatory of their ancient privileges, together with the
restoration of the sheriffwick, usurped by the last three monarchs,
but also the first formal recognition of the mayoralty. These favours,
however, did not render them untrue to the general interests of the
nation, or betray them into a corrupt acquiescence with the absolute
tendencies of the Crown. At that time, as at all others, while duly
reverencing the royal prerogatives, they resolutely opposed themselves
to the undue aggrandizement of the kingly power at the expense of the
other estates of the realm. It was within the precincts of the City,
at the metropolitan church of St. Paul's, that the articles of Magma
Charta were first proposed and accepted by acclamation, the citizens
binding themselves by oath to defend and enforce them with their
lives. Nor was it for themselves alone that they were prepared to shed
their blood. Their solicitude extended to all other cities and towns
throughout the kingdom, for the preservation of whose free customs and
immunities they expressly stipulated. During the long feeble reign of
Henry III., no fewer than ten charters were granted to the citizens of
London. In the thirty-first year of that monarch, the mayor and
commonalty of the City of London are mentioned for the first time as a
corporate body, possessing a common seal.
The reign of Edward I. was rendered memorable for the convocation of
the first parliament of the freely-elected representatives of the
people, for the purpose of voting the supplies necessary for the
conduct of public affairs. Previously to this, grants of money were
usually obtained through the personal influence of the barons over the
cities and towns held in demesne. The burgesses, however, did not sit
with the knights of shires, but apart by themselves, and, through
loyalty or obsequiousness, assessed themselves in a contribution
nearly one third greater than that granted by the barons and knights.
The convenient precedent was not overlooked, and it became henceforth
customary to expect the like liberality from subsequent parliaments.
At this period, also, the principal divisions of the city were first
denominated wards; these wards were presided over by an alderman,
assisted by a council chosen by the inhabitants of each division. In
the twelfth year of his reign, Edward, incensed by what he considered
the disrespectful conduct of the civic magistrates, disfranchised the
city, and governed it for twelve years through means of a custos.
The experiment, however, did not answer, and the king was glad to
restore the liberties of the City on payment of a heavy fine.
At a later period, the mayor and sheriffs successfully resisted a
second attempt to infringe on the privileges of the citizens.
Under the second Edward, London continued to maintain its ascendancy
over all the other cities in the kingdom, and it was now for the first
time authentically ordained, that no person should be held to enjoy
civic freedom unless he were a member of some trade or "mystery,"
or admitted by full assent of the commonalty assembled.
Two remarkable incidents marked the reign of Edward III. in connection
with the City of London; the Lord Mayor was now constituted, by royal
charter, one of the judges of oyer and terminer and gaol-delivery at
Newgate. The ancient trading gilds also became developed into the
present livery companies, so called, because a peculiar uniform was
chosen by each. They were then likewise denominated crafts or mysteries,
their president being styled a warden; the title of alderman being now
reserved for the chief magistrates of wards. It may, too, be worthy
of note that, in the 28th year of this reign the city serjeants
received permission, when engaged in their official duties, and on
great ceremonial occasions, to bear maces of gold or silver, with the
royal or other arms thereon. We are told that this was considered a
most flattering distinction, and that the mace-bearer, by virtue of
his office, was deemed an esquire.
So gladly did our valiant and victorious kings of the olden times
avail themselves of every opportunity to do honour to the liberality,
courage, and fidelity of the wealthy and intelligent burgesses of
London.
After various unsuccessful attempts to establish a representative form
of government, it was at length decided, in the seventh year of
Richard II., at a special convocation of the whole community of
citizens, that there should be both a deliberative and an elective
assembly. The latter, of course, consisted of the aggregate body of
citizens, anciently designated immensa communitas, or folkmote, who
were annually to elect four persons at the wardmote for each ward to
represent the commonalty on all occasions of a deliberative nature.
During the early part of this reign the City of London had no reason
to complain of any lack of royal favour. Afterwards, however, Richard
was guilty of many attempts at extortion, and even seized upon the
franchises of the City, on the pretext of a riot, notwithstanding that
the first charter of his grandfather, Edward III., had debarred such
forfeiture as the consequence of individual misconduct. These acts of
oppression very naturally and justly alienated the attachment of the
Londoners, and prepared them to give a hearty welcome to Bolingbroke.
This good-feeling was maintained throughout the reign of Henry IV., who
testified his gratitude by the grant of several valuable privileges.
A like cordial understanding between the citizens and their sovereign
existed under Henry V., and the City, in consequence, increased in
opulence, population, and influence. Guildhall was built, and the
streets were lighted at night by public lanterns. The halcyon days,
however, of the City of London must be referred to the reign of the
fourth Edward. The citizens never wavered in their attachment to his
fortunes, nor did that gay and gallant monarch ever exhibit any
coldness of feeling--at least, towards their fair dames. Of Richard III.
it is unnecessary to speak, and even of Henry VII there is little
to be said, save that he never omitted an opportunity of fleecing the
citizens and replenishing his exchequer.
Under Henry VIII. the City of London earned the honourable distinction
of being the only body of men in the realm who dared to resist the
king's systematic abuse of the royal power. Henry had revived the
unconstitutional practice of imposing taxes without the consent of the
Commons; but the citizens opposed his illegal demands with such
resolution that he was compelled to desist for the time and to proceed
with greater caution for the future. Another distinguishing feature of
this reign was the profuse extravagance of the citizens on ceremonial
occasions. The chronicles of the period teem with marvellous
descriptions of the pomp and pageantry displayed whenever a royal or
illustrious personage honoured the City with a visit. In modern times
this semi-barbarous love of ostentation has been superseded by a
genial and dignified hospitality, that has tended in no slight degree
to increase the fame and influence of that important quarter of the
metropolis. Each successive sovereign of this great empire has
accepted with grateful pride the magnificent demonstrations of loyalty
tendered by the faithful burgesses. Foreign potentates and ambassadors
have equally deemed it an honour to receive the congratulations of
these princely traders at their sumptuous banquets, celebrated
throughout the world. The ministers of the day feel their position to
be insecure until it has been ratified by the acclamations of the
citizens, and the hospitable attentions of the civic magistrates.
Statesmen and warriors, poets and historians, men of thought and men
of action, are all stimulated to exertion by the honourable hope of
being distinguished by the burgesses of London, and enrolled in the
lists of freemen. On such occasions the city magnates hold high
festival, and by their graceful hospitality inspire every breast with
generous sympathy. Formal and priggish persons are said to exist who
object to the cost of such entertainments, and, in the spirit of
Judas, ask why, instead of purchasing these dainty cates, the money is
not distributed among the poor. Is it possible that they do not
perceive that every farthing spent on these stately banquets finds its
way into general circulation, benefiting almost every branch of trade,
and giving employment to thousands of artisans? To hear them speak,
one would suppose that the cook and the butler alone profited by such
occasions, whereas it is strictly and literally true that not a single
gala takes place in the City without the circulating medium
percolating through every warehouse, magazine, shop, and stall within
the Bills of Mortality. Independently of this consideration, these
civic feasts are symbols of those great old Saxon institutions which
have made England the home and guardian of liberty. Our hearty and
large-souled ancestors never dreamed of weighing every miserable coin,
or of stinting the measure of their generous wines or foaming ale.
They gave not less to the poor because they delighted to honour the
brave and good, or to greet one another in the loving cup. Unlike the
coldly intellectual reformers and theorists of the present day, they
did not consider the gaol and the workhouse as the only asylums for
poverty. They were men of feeling and kindly impulse, not of abstract
principles. They gave their cheerful alms to the mendicants, and
spread a bounteous board for their neighbours. Fools that they were!
How is it that they did not recognize the mendicant to be an impostor
and a drone, or bethink them that the money with which they feasted
their neighbour might have purchased a field? It was because they were
warm-hearted, warm-blooded men, and not mere calculating machines.
They were glorious creatures, with thews and sinews, and they made
their country great and powerful among the nations of the world; but
they never paused to denounce the cost of a dinner, or to grudge a
flowing bowl to their kinsfolk and neighbours. Besides, our Pharisees
of reform conveniently forget that the copious banquets at which they
turn up their envious eyes are mostly defrayed from private funds.
The sheriffs, for instance, derive no aid from public moneys; their own
fortunes provide the means for handsomely entertaining friends and
strangers, and for dispensing open-handed charity. The Lord Mayor
himself almost invariably draws upon his own resources to a large
amount, in order to maintain the ancient reputation and actual present
influence of the City of London. Demolish Gog and Magog, put down the
civic banquets, break up and melt down the weighty and many-linked
chains of solid gold round the neck of my lord mayor and the sheriffs,
strip off the aldermen's gowns, make a bonfire of the gilded
carriages, wring, if you will, the necks of both swans and cygnets.
It is all vanity and vexation. Man is an intellectual animal: he wants
none of these gewgaws. Alas! Wisdom may cry aloud in the streets, but
no one will heed her words if she speaks beyond his comprehension.
In theory, these Pecksniffs of retrenchment might possibly be correct
if mankind had attained the same degree of marble indifference with
themselves. In the mean time, while we are honest and true, it is good
to be merry and wise.
Passing lightly over the intervening reigns, we now arrive at that of
James I., who granted three very valuable charters to the Corporation
of London. The first alludes to the immemorial right of the mayor and
commonalty to the conservancy of the Thames, and to the metage of all
coals, grain, salt, fruit, vegetables, and other merchandise sold by
measure, delivered at the port of London. Of the exact nature of these
privileges and of their beneficial operation, so far as public
interests are concerned, we shall have occasion to speak hereafter,
merely premising in this place that they have been enjoyed "from time
whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." The second
charter, after confirming former liberties, enlarges the limits of the
civic jurisdiction and ordains that the mayor, recorder, and two
aldermen, shall be justices of oyer and terminer. The third one is
simply an amplification of the preceding two, and clears up various
doubts as to the weighing and measuring of coals: both offices are
granted or confirmed.
The tyrannical and oppressive treatment of the citizens of London by
Charles I. is too well known to need more than a passing allusion.
Not only did he imprison the aldermen for refusing to act dishonourably
towards their fellow-citizens; not only did he make illegal demands
and impose arbitrary fines, but he even deprived them of the right of
petition and remonstrance. Such despotic conduct could not do
otherwise than alienate the affection of those who had previously
displayed many proofs of their loyalty to the Crown and attachment to
the royal person. The City consequently made common cause with the
Parliament, freely expending both blood and treasure in defence of the
national freedom. Who has mot read with kindling cheeks how the bold
'prentices, armed only with spears, withstood a furious charge of the
fiery Rupert at the head of his gallant cavaliers? But though prepared
to resist the abuse of the royal prerogative, the citizens were not
disposed to transfer their allegiance to a usurper, who, in the name
of liberty, trampled liberty under foot. Accordingly we find them
consistently opposed to the military absolutism of Cromwell, and among
the first to co-operate with Monk in effecting the restoration to the
throne of the royal line of Stuart.
The Stuarts, however, like the Bourbons, were incapable of benefiting
by the lessons of adversity. It was not long before "the merry
monarch" was involved in most unmirthful disputes with the citizens,
whom he endeavoured to deprive of their ancient right to elect their
own sheriffs. For the moment he partially succeeded, and, encouraged
by this success, formed the design of seizing the charters of every
corporate borough in the kingdom. The chief difficulty rested with
London: if that could be overcome, the smaller cities would fall an
easy prey. The law officers of the Crown were accordingly instructed
to make out a case to sanction the forfeiture of the city charters.
A double pretext was soon invented. It was stated that nine years
before, the Common Council had levied a new scale of tolls on the
public markets rebuilt after the great fire, and at a more recent
period had printed a libellous petition impugning the king's justice.
On these slender pleas a writ of quo warranto was taken out against
the City, and the judges, under the undoubted influence of the Court,
pronounced sentence of forfeiture, although a charter of the 7th
Richard II. expressly provides against any forfeiture of the City's
liberties notwithstanding any abuse of them whatsoever. This
exhibition of violence so terrified the other corporations of the
kingdom, that most of them at once tendered the surrender of their
franchises, with the ignominious hope of obtaining better terms for
themselves. James II. walked in the steps of his brother, and showed
even greater determination to destroy the liberties of the nation.
The disaffection of his subjects and the landing of the Prince of Orange
warned him, when too late, that he had gone too far. Anxious to make
friends in his hour of extremest peril, he despatched the infamous
Jefferies to Guildhall to announce the restoration of the ancient
privileges of the City. But the citizens were not thus to be cajoled.
No sooner had the king set out to join his forces, than the Court of
Aldermen declared themselves in favour of the Prince of Orange, as the
champion of civil and religious freedom. The Lord Mayor, the aldermen,
and fifty common councillors, had a seat and voice in the convention
which pronounced the deposition of James, and the elevation to the
throne of William and Mary. The first act of the nation was to
establish and perpetuate a constitutional form of government, and this
was accomplished by passing the famous statute known as the Bill of
Rights. Experience had proved the vital importance of placing the
privileges of the City of London beyond the caprice of the sovereign
and the possibility of a coup d'etat. It was therefore declared by
Parliament that the judgment passed on the quo warranto of Charles II.
was unjust and illegal, and that all the proceedings in the case were
informal and void. It was further enacted, "that the mayor,
commonalty, and citizens, should for ever thereafter remain a body
corporate and politic, without any seizure or forejudger, or being
thereof excluded or ousted, upon any pretence of forfeiture or
misdemeanour whatsoever, theretofore or thereafter to be done,
committed, or suffered." The constitution of the corporation was
nevertheless subsequently violated by the statute of 11 Geo. I., which
conferred on the livery the elective franchises exercised in common
hall. By a still more recent act, 12 & 13 Victoria, the right of
voting in the election of aldermen and common councilmen has been
further extended and enlarged. It was then enacted that that privilege
should belong to every freeman of the City rated at 10 pounds per annum
to the police or any other rate, and registered among the voters for the
city of London at elections of members to serve in Parliament. Still
greater innovations are now in contemplation, in violation of law and
usage, and in defiance of prescriptive right, royal charters, and
parliamentary statutes.
Audax omnia perpeti, Gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas.*
* The materials for this slight sketch have been gathered from
Norton's "History and Franchises of the City of London;" Dr. Brady's
learned dissertation on Boroughs; and Herbert's "History of the Twelve
Livery Companies."