Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER X.

LONDON.

Old Charters.-Democracy.-Hustings.-Court of Conscience.-Corporation of the City.-Assize-Court of London.-Parliamentary Legislation.-Old London Police.

THE Roman city Londinium received, probably under the Saxons, the right of choosing its own magistrates.* Prior to the conquest, London was apportioned into "wards," which were allied to the city in the same way as hundreds to the county. The most ancient Norman magistrate of London, to our knowledge, was the "Port-reve." In 1180 the town received its first mayor, in the person of Henry Fitz-Alwyn, an ancestor of the Beaumont family; he received his nomination from the crown, and continued in office twenty-four years. In 1199 John allowed the town to choose its sheriffs, and by a charter in 1215 further permitted that it should freely choose its mayors annually.†

The town attained a specially democratic character despite its many Norman aristocratic names, the citizens achieving at an early period great opulence: it was the abode of prosperity and material comfort. In reference to this, Hallam opines that the nickname "Cockney," banteringly applied to Londoners, is not improbably derived from "Cocayne," the name of a fabled land, intended to imply a kind of Utopia.‡

Henry III. afforded fresh testimony to the importance of London, by allowing the town to choose the sheriff for the county of Middlesex.

The oldest local court in London is that of "The Hustings," apparently so called from its being held within a building at a time when other courts were held in the open air. The royal court-reve, or bailiff, formerly presided;§ later on, the mayor recorder, and sheriffs. The county court of the city of London. bears this name, and is held in the Guildhall. In the court of hustings, certain documents are enrolled, outlawries proclaimed, Hallam, M. A., ii. 224. § Lappenberg, i. 614.

* Hallam, M. A., ii. 219.

+ Maitland's Hist. of London, 71-76.

etc., and the elections of officers and parliamentary representatives take place.* Of late years all the polling-booths throughout the land have thence been called "hustings." The "Courts of Conscience," constituted by act of parliament in the city of London, for the recovery of small debts, examined in a summary way and without jury, by the oath of the parties or other witnesses, and made such order therein as is consonant to equity and good conscience. There was also a "Court of Requests" of the king in person, which was virtually abolished by 16 Char. I. c. 10; these were tribunals of a special jurisdiction for the recovery of small demands, and have been superseded by the county courts.

The Tudors, dreading the expanding growth of London, launched prohibitory enactments against building new houses within three miles of the town, on the plea that the town was already too large. Nothing however, not even the great fire (1666), availed to prevent its development. Thus gradually did the city become the nucleus of a colossal town-district or extensive social aggregation, having legally but little coherence. In 1725 (11 Geo. I. c. 18) the city received its present aristocratic corporation which gave to the citizens a prominent share in all the corporate functions, because the ruling class was not in a position otherwise to curb the democratic and refractory spirit of the population. The common council is chosen by the guilds as formerly, but the body of aldermen elected for life, and the Lord Mayor still elected annually, acquired a right of vetoing the resolutions passed by the common council. The jurisdiction of the city extends into Southwark; but in consequence of the absence of the "non-intromittant" clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of the county of Surrey. To the city pertains, likewise, the police control of the Thames.

The gigantic town of London, has gradually extended into four counties (Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, and Essex), and consists of the city of London, the city of Westminster, the parliamentary boroughs of Southwark, Finsbury, Marylebone, and the Tower Hamlets, and innumerable other small communities composing a parish, but having no town organization. The want of a legal coherence in this extensive agglomeration of houses, and the actual aggregation of so many localities, which, taken en bloc, pass by the name of "London," has necessitated the interference of parliament, and, from the absence of

* Bl. iii. 80.

local boards, frequent occasion has been afforded to legislate for the exigencies of the over-grown capital. At the close of the 18th century London possessed many organizations in common.

The institution of justice of the peace being no longer adapted for a vast communal district devoid of legal unity, London has received, exclusive of the city, a number of stipendiary magistrates. Local acts for paving and sewerage throughout the whole of London, have been granted by parliament. In the reign of Anne (9 Anne, c. 23) a general regulation concerning hackney coaches was issued, and a general order relative to fires and buildings has been in existence since the great fire.

At the beginning of the century London at large was in a deplorable condition in regard to its police administration. "If," says a report of the lower house, "a foreign jurist had examined the condition of the capital in relation to the crimes committed and the organization of its police, and, without portraying the circumstances which accounted for such organization, had described the purpose for which it seemed intended, he would probably have arrived at the conclusion that the system had been contrived by a corporation of professed thieves, in order to get by robbery a living out of the community." The capital was apportioned into small districts, having sub-divisions, each independent of the other, each with sufficient local interest to generate permanent petty jealousies and passions, yet so far liberated from any general control as to prevent all common improvement and unity of action. A parliamentary report of 1833, describing the condition of the old London police, proves that never had there been, previously, any properly devised system. The police was only called into action when great crimes had been perpetrated, and the main protection against the perpetration of crimes was sought to be attained by fulminating ruthless and extraordinary punishments. In 1816 a Middlesex magistrate, examined before a committee of the Commons, alleged that in the "flash-cribs," "shades," and "infernals," the police and the thieves might be seen carousing amicably together. When a crime had been committed, for the discovery of which a reward of some £40 had been offered, the police, allured by the reward, thought it worth while to bestir themselves. The mischief had, indeed, grown rampant, but its removal entailed the destruction of a goodly portion of old Saxon law, and led to the introduction of a police system fashioned on the continental model.

CHAPTER XI.

FRANCHISES.

Courts-Leet.-Liberties.-Courts-Baron.-Franchises.

THE right of having a court-leet was granted to lords of manors, and to monasteries, by way of franchise, to avoid the inconvenience entailed on such as were bound by the jurisdiction of following the sheriff's "tourn" through every district. The jurisdiction of the courts-leet began, from the Lancastrian period, to be mainly transferred to the quarter sessions,* and, by reason of the extended powers of the justice of the peace, fell into decay. At the present day they are only met with exceptionally, and now merely decide smaller offences by the common law, and exercise other petty jurisdiction. The lord of the manor, a town magistrate, or a leading man in the district conducts the business, but always under survey of the superior courts.

All the male inhabitants of the district, up to the age of sixty, with the exception of clergymen and peers, are bound to attend the court. The earlier franchises or liberties have mostly retained the mere right of summoning a bailiff for the transaction of subordinate legal business, such as writs, and summonses to the sheriff, nominating him to the office. A seignorial and patrimonial jurisdiction has long ceased to exist in England.†

The most striking difference between the franchise and the special district of the sheriff consists in this-the sheriff invites the bailiff of the franchise and does not order him directly to undertake specified official duties, but a well-known statute of Westminster allows the sheriff, in the event of the bailiff failing to obey, to have his orders carried out directly in the district of the franchise. Should a non-resident bailiff be appointed in a franchise the sheriff is empowered to dismiss him by writ.‡

The court-baron can only be regarded as an insignificant relic of seignorial jurisdiction;§ it existed in every manor-house

*Bowyer, p. 336.

+ Gneist, ii., 23.

Ibid., ii., 141. § Vincke, 74.

of the realm. The court-baron, of which the freeholders are the judges, differs from the customary court of the copyholders, though usually held at the same time. Formerly* the courtbaron was a court for litigious matters, and occupied itself with personal actions of trifling import, up to £2. Of the customary court the steward of the manor was the judge. The copyholders constituted the jury.† This jurisdiction is almost obsolete.‡

* Bowyer, 241.
+ Bl., iii., 33.

Bowyer, 241.

« AnteriorContinuar »