Future local government in London. centralization and local authority reconciled in 1855. Treasury auditor the Board are called to account for every item of expenditure, however trifling, which does not in his judgment appear to have been properly incurred." In tracing some portion of the duties discharged by the Board we may well wonder that only thirty years ago the metropolis was without any central authority, and that its local government so long remained the bewildering chaos described in the last chapter. Responsibility by one governing body for great arterial works, with effective control over all questions affecting the general well-being, were essential reforms in 1855, too long delayed. But it would be easy to carry this centralizing influence too far, and, in the name of local self-government, to lose many of the safeguards without which local self-government throughout London would become Principles of a fiction. The Act of 1855 was carefully framed with a view to reconcile these opposing principles. Enough has been said of the chief governing body then constituted. Parliament, however, attached hardly less importance to the necessity of leaving each district in full possession of purely local functions. With this object thirty-six vestries and district boards (now thirty-nine) were created, care being taken that, in all matters not affecting the metropolis as a whole, these bodies should have substantial power, and not be mere puppets moved by a central authority. For example, they were to plan, construct, and pay for local sewers. It is true that these sewers must first be approved by the Metropolitan Board, but only to ascertain whether they would harmonize with the general system of drainage. In like manner, these local bodies were to be sole judges as to the expediency of making local improvements. They might ask for a contribution from the central Board, who then considered whether the improvement would be of such general benefit as to justify them in bearing a part of the cost. For paving footways, maintaining streets and roads, lighting, cleansing, and other usual municipal functions, the Board, in 1884, and again, but in- their fire brigade. 1 Report of Metropolitan Board for 1884, p. 27. vestries and local boards were made solely responsible. They still possess this independent jurisdiction, levy rates, control expenditure, are recognized as local authorities in the Tramways and other general statutes, and, in short, exercise, without undue subordination to the central Board, all necessary powers of self-government. authorities on local Thus, by the legislation of 1855, Parliament recognized Minor that analogies drawn from ordinary municipal institutions should be were misleading, and that London was too unwieldy to be independent governed as one municipality, with minor bodies possessing questions. no practical power over expenditure and having hardly any initiative. These considerations now apply much more strongly than in 1855. The metropolis is more than ever a "province of houses." It has become a congeries of cities, whose inhabitants are utterly ignorant of local wants and conditions elsewhere than in their own immediate surroundings. For all purposes of purely local government, Plumstead and St. Pancras, Bethnal Green and Marylebone, Clerkenwell and Chelsea, Greenwich and Shoreditch, have no community of interest, and might almost as well be associated with Liverpool or Bradford.1 It would seem indispensable, therefore, to the practical enjoyment of self-government by London, that, in any new scheme of this nature, each metropolitan district should continue, as now, independent of any central body upon all questions save those involving common interests. 1 Many people born and bred in London know far more of provincial towns than of outlying metropolitan districts represented on the Board. Here is the full list :-City of London; St. Marylebone; St. Pancras; Lambeth; St. George, Hanover Square; Islington; Shoreditch; Paddington; Bethnal Green; Newington; Camberwell; St. James, Westminster; Clerkenwell; Chelsea; Kensington; St. Luke, Middlesex; St. George the Martyr, Southwark; Bermondsey; CHAPTER XIV. Corporation of the City of London. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON: COAL DUTIES: CITY ORPHANS: ORPHANS' RELIEF ACT, A.D. 1694: CITY AND METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS CHARGED ON COAL AND PATRIOTIC GRANTS: EDUCATION: THE ROYAL HOSPITALS: ON the same principle by which, in other parts of the metropolis, local bodies were entrusted, in 1855, with full powers of self-government, the Corporation of the City of London retained their ancient privileges and jurisdiction. They could recall a municipal, though not perhaps a corporate, history more ancient by far than that of English parliaments, and indissolubly connected with the history of the English people. For eight hundred years, in the true municipal spirit, they had tenaciously asserted and preserved their privileges and charters,1 and so helped to keep alive muni 1 The citizens of London were permitted by virtue of this charter (of William the Conqueror) to hold their lands in a manner scarcely less free than in the days of Edward the Confessor. The galling incidents of aids, relief, wardship, marriage, livery, and so forth, which were incident to even the best form of feudal tenure, were unknown in London. So, too, the free right of transmitting property to a successor was to be found under the Norman kings in London alone. The good old customs were preserved nearly intact: the privilege of electing their own magistrates . . . the right of suing and being sued in their own cipal freedom in England at times when it was all but overborne by royal prerogative. Upon critical occasions of State, taking a wider view of their position and functions, they had rendered many and signal services in the cause of public liberty. They could point to an unstained record of administration within their own boundaries, even in the darkest days of municipal corruption; throughout the shameful period of close corporations elsewhere, their elections had always been ruled by the popular voice. From the earliest, also, to the latest of these many centuries, they had worthily represented a wealthy and generous nation by splendid hospitalities towards royal and distinguished visitors, by abundant charity, bestowed at home and abroad, and by civic honours and gifts, always of high esteem, to Englishmen who in peace or in war deserved well of their country. Parliament, in 1855, was not minded to break with these proud traditions and needlessly confuse or obliterate an ancient and memorable landmark. The Corporation, therefore, were left to govern the City as they had governed it for so many centuries, but were made, like other local bodies, subordinate to the Metropolitan Board on questions affecting the whole Metropolis.3 bodies of the It may be well here to sketch the outlines of a constitution Governing so venerable, and in essentials still unchanged. The govern- City. ing bodies of the City are three: the Courts of Aldermen, of hustings court; the right of trial by jury. . . . The position of London was a most enviable one, enshrining as it did all the freedom and independence of the laws of Alfred the Great and Edward the Confessor, amid the bondage of an enslaved nation." (Firth's "Municipal London," pp. 3-5.) 1 See the testimony borne by the Royal Commissioners on Municipal Corporations in 1830, quoted ante, p. 223, n. 2 Lord Palmerston was Prime C.P.-VOL. II. Minister in 1855; the Metropolis "It is to London that we should A A Court of Court of Common Council, and of Common Hall. The Court of Aldermen consists of the Lord Mayor and twenty-five Aldermen, of whom one-half form a quorum. Its functions are both judicial and executive. In its judicial capacity it is a Court of Record, and decides disputes respecting the validity of certain civic elections in the City and wards. This Court also appoints the Recorder and some other officers; admits brokers to the privilege of carrying on business within the City;1 and adjudicates upon complaints of misconduct against various functionaries. In its executive capacity it possesses certain powers of ordering payments out of the City's cash, superintends the police, and exercises powers under several Acts of Parliament.2 Aldermen act as magistrates for the City, and are appointed for life. The Court of Common Council consists of the Lord Mayor, the Aldermen, and 206 Common Councillors, of whom the Lord Mayor, or his locum tenens, at least two other Aldermen, and a sufficient number of Councillors to make up forty members (the quorum required in the House of Commons), constitute a Court. Since 1867, both Aldermen and Councillors have been elected by occupiers, who need not be freemen.3 Anciently, the franchise was exercised by liverymen, and afterwards by freemen, both being very numerous. comparatively few of the existing voters reside within the City, it follows that the Corporation represent no small part of the wealth and influence of the capital beyond City limits. The Common Council controls expenditure, appoints officers, and discharges the most important duties of the Corporation; it alters City customs and regulations without any As final Report), for making the Corporation Conservators of the Forest: -"The Corporation is more representative than the mere area of its jurisdiction would imply, inasmuch as there is an annual election of Councillors, and the electors reside in all parts of the Metropolis, and beyond." |