Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

just reasons they had to insist upon being heard by their counsel against it; and concluded with a motion for granting them leave to be heard by their counsel."

This revived the debates. The opposers of the motion urged, "that it had always been the custom of that house not to receive any petitions, and much less to admit counsel to be heard against any bill for imposing taxes upon the subject; for if such things were to be admitted, it would be impossible ever to pass such bill, because there would be so many different petitions presented against it by those who were to be subject thereto, that they could not hear counsel seperately upon every such petition within the usual time of the continuance of one session of parliament; and that, in refusing to admit counsel to be heard, there could be no inconvenience, because every man, and every body of men, had their representatives, who certainly would represent their case, if any particular hardship was to be put upon them by any bill then before the house."

To this it was answered, "that the house had never pretended to any general custom of refusing petitions, except against those bills which were called money bills; that is, such bills as were brought in for raising money for the current service of the year; and that, even as to them, there were many precedents where the house had admitted the parties, whom they thought to have a real interest therein, to be heard by their counsel against the passing of such bills; that the admitting of counsel even in such cases could never prevent the passing of such bills, because the house could always order all parties petitioning to be heard at one time, and could give such directions, that never as to take up many days in hearing every thing that might be objected by every one of the parties petitioning; that though every part of the nation had its representatives in that house, yet it was well known, that speaking in public was a talent that every man was not endued with, whence it might happen, that the particular persons, or part of the nation, which were then to be aggrieved by what was passing in the house, might not have any such members as were proper to

lay

[ocr errors]

lay their case fully and clearly before the house; and that therefore, even as to money bills, it was proper to admit parties to be heard against them, when it appeared that they were particularly interested therein. But as to the case then before them, there was not the least pretence for refusing the desire of the petition, because the bill against which it was presented was no money bill; it was a bill only for altering the method of collecting the taxes already imposed, and therefore it could never be pretended that there was any practice or custom of the house for refusing to admit parties interested to be heard against such a bill; that, if there had been such a custom introduced, it ought not to be observed, especially when such a considerable body as the lord mayor, aldermen and common council of the city of London, came with an humble petition to be heard against a bill, which they thought would not only be injurious to them in particular, but destructive to the trade and commerce of the nation in general.”

The question being put, for allowing the petitioners to be heard by their counsel against the bill, it was carried in the negative by two hundred and fourteen against one hundred and ninety-seven.

But the powerful opposition of the city, which was supported by several of the principal counties, soon convinced Sir Robert Walpole of the impossibility of carrying his point without endangering the peace of the nation, and his own safety. The consequence of which was, that this oppressive scheme, by the firm and steady interposition of the eitizens, proved entirely abortive *.

The

* In the course of these important debates, several members of the court party made complaint to the house, that a tumultuous crowd of people had assembled together several days during the session, and particularly while the debates on this bill were in agitation, in the Court of Requests, and other avenues to the house; and that they, and several other members, had been, in their return from the house, insulted and assaulted in the grossest manner. In consequence of this complaint, the house resolved, "That the assaulting, insulting, or menacing any member of that house, in his coming to, or going from the house, or on ac3 A 2

count

The miscarriage of the Excise Bill was celebrated by public rejoicings throughout the cities of London and Westminster; and the minister who projected it was burnt in effigy by the populace.

The bakers still continuing their fraudulent practices, the lord mayor and aldermen on the 25th of November 1734, resolved, "That, besides the fine, the names and places of abode of all bakers, detected and convicted of making bread under weight, shall be published; and that the assise of bread (instead of quartern loaves, wherein the poor were oftentimes defrauded of half a farthing) be penny, twopenny, and threepenny loaves, and to be marked accordingly; the penny loaf, fine, to weigh eight ounces seven drachms; wheaten, twelve ounces ten drachms; household, sixteen ounces four drachms; the others in proportion.

The inhabitants of Blackfriars having claimed privilege of exemption from the jurisdiction of the city of London, in right of the ancient monastery dissolved by King Henry the Eighth, in the year 1539. The lord mayor and citizens in the year 1735 ascertained their right to the Precinct, and

count of his behaviour in parliament, was a high infringement on the privilege of that house, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of parliament, and an high crime and misdemeanor. Secondly, that the assembling and coming of any number of persons in a riotous and disorderly manner to that house, in order either to hinder or promote the passing of any bill, or other matter depending before the house, was an high infringement of the privilege of that house, destructive of the freedom and constitution of parliament, and an high crime and misdemeanor. Thirdly, that the inciting and encouraging any number of persons to come in a riotous and disorderly manner to that house, in order either to hinder or promote the passing of any bill, or other matter depending before the house, was also destructive of the freedom and constitution of parliament, and an high crime and misdemeanor."

It was then ordered, first, that the members of that house, who served for the city of London, should signify the said resolutions to the lord mayor of London. Secondly, that those who served for the county of Middlesex, should signify the same to the sheriff of Middlesex; and, lastly, those who served for the city of Westminster, should signify the same to the high bailiff thereof.

obtained

obtained a verdict in their favour by a jury of non-freemen in the court of King's Bench on the 10th of July. In consequence of this decision, Blackfriars became a precinct of the ward of Farringdon Within, and sends two representatives to the city common council. The cause and issue are thus detailed by Entick:

"On Thursday July 3, 1735, a great cause was tried in the court of King's Bench, Guildhall, between John Bosworth, Esq. chamberlain of London, plaintiff for the city of London; and Daniel Watson, shalloon and drugget seller, defendant, who was sued for opening a shop in Blackfriars and retailing his goods, without being a freeman of the city."

The council for the plaintiff alledged, "that Blackfriars actually belonged to the city of London when it was a monastery, and before trades were ever occupied there; to prove which they produced several ancient records, viz. a charter of King Edward I. and a record of Richard II. calling it the Friary of London; and another 21 Henry VIII, mentioning a parliament held at the Friars, preachers of the city of London, November 3, 1530, and other records of this kind. They likewise cited a paralel case to this, 15 Car. I. when an action was brought against one Philpot, a shoemaker of Blackfriars, for opening a shop and vending shoes there without being free of the city; and after a fair trial by an equal and indifferent jury of the county of Hertford, a verdict was given for the city. They then called two or three officers of the city to prove that they had executed writs and other processes in Blackfriars.

"The defendants council pleaded custom, time out of mind; and called eleven witnesses, who declared they had known Blackfriars, some of them, upwards of forty years; and that several persons had kept open shops there unmolested, though not freemen: some of them however could not deny but that there had been people sued, particularly about a year before, when a person suffered judgment to go against him by default." The jury, who were all chosen out of Middlesex, brought in a verdict for the plaintiff with five shillings damages.

In

In 1736, the city was very much annoyed by burglaries, street robberies, and other nocturnal disorders, which were imputed to the badness of the lights by night under the old contract; the lord mayor and common council applied to parliament to enable them to light the streets, &c. in a more effectual manner. And it was accordingly enacted by parliament," that the lord mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of London, be empowered to erect a sufficient number of such sort of glass lamps as they shall judge proper, to be fixed in such places as they shall think fit, to be lighted and kept burning from the sitting to the rising of the sun throughout the year. Every house under 10l. per annum charged to the poor, to pay 7s. ; from 10l. to 20l. per annum 12s.; from 20l. to 30l. per annum 14s. ; from 30l. to 40%. per annum 16s.; from 50l. and upwards, 20s. per annum at most; including all parish churches, semeteries, chapels, meeting houses, schools, markets, warehouses, and other public edifices (except hospitals) pieces of void ground and spacious places to be assessed in due proportion by the aldermen, deputy, and common councilmen of the respective wards; to be paid by the dean and chapter of St. Paul's, for the fence round the cathedral, if not lighted at their own. expence; by the church and chapel wardens and chief officers, masters, wardens, or governors belonging to public buildings; and by the chamberlain of London for Moorfields, and other void and spacious places. They who think themselves aggrieved by the assessment, have a right to appeal to the court of lord mayor and aldermen, whose decision shall be conclusive. The rates to be collected half yearly, without any expence, and to be paid in such manner into the chamberlain of London. That no collector shall at any time have in his hands for the space of ten days the sum of 501.; and all embezzlements to be made good by a re-assessment of the ward in which it shall happen."

By this method the city of London is better lighted than any city in Europe, whether we consider the goodness of the lights, the number of the lamps, or the hours of lighting. It must be observed also that, in this computation,

there

« НазадПродовжити »