SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY, PRESENTED
TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO THE CITY OF LONDON
LIVERY COMPANIES.
Fishmongers' Company
In replying to the invitation of Her Majesty's Commissioners to offer any remarks or further explanations
which may appear to arise on the evidence that has
been given before the Commission, the Fishmongers'
Company and its governing body desire to avoid anything that might appear to be recriminatory or to bear
the aspect of harsh or personal comment; especially as
it is sufficiently obvious, without detailed criticism, that
some of the witnesses have been misled by prejudice in
many of the statements made, and have not been guided
solely by a regard to public considerations.
It is alleged that the companies, in their returns,
have not disclosed the full value of their respective
properties. To this the Company reply that, while
they have rendered a full return of their income, they
consider that any endeavour to fix a hypothetical value
on their property, apart from a statement of the income
derived from it, and of the outgoings and mode of
expenditure of the net proceeds, would have involved
special, needless, and very costly valuations, and would
not have aided the inquiries of the Commissioners.
The rated value of the properties for occupation
obviously bears no relation to the Company's interests
therein, which in many cases are those of ground landlords only. They have desired to give every information in reference to the whole of their property, as on
every other subject of the Commissioners' inquiries.
On the general question of the Company's right to
the absolute and plenary possession and uncontrolled
disposal of its corporate property, it is sufficient simply
to recall attention to the second paragraph of their
return already made, in which it is stated, with perfect
accuracy, that no part of it has been derived directly or
indirectly from any public source, but the whole from
its own members or from other private sources. What
has been purchased has been paid for out of the Company's own moneys. Where it has been acquired
subject to any condition, the condition has been fully
and loyally performed.
On this subject a passing reference may be made to
the clear opinion expressed by the Lord Chancellor,
when he appeared before the Commissioners as representing the City and Guilds Technical Institute; also
to the series of decisions in the Court of Chancery in
the cases relating to the Company mentioned in page 3
of the Company's return; to the decisions in AttorneyGeneral v. Wax Chandlers' Company (House of Lords,
1873, L. R. 6, App. 1), and Brown v. Dale (9 Ch. D. 78),
and to the numerons cases in which, even where trusts,
and not merely conditions, were attached to the ownership, any surplus of property or income has been held
(where such trusts were limited), to belong to the Company absolutely.
As respects many of the trusts confided to the Fishmongers' Company, the objects of which are of a
beneficial character, the Company have made large
additions to the trust property from their own funds.
In the case of Sir John Gresham's Grammar School
at Holt, in Norfolk, the Company have from time to
time supplemented the trust funds, especially for the
purposes of rebuilding and repairs, the amount in which
the trust was indebted to the Company, at a not very
distant date, having been over 10,000l., and this notwithstanding the constant warnings of the Charity
Commissioners that the Company were doing this at
their own risk, and that they could in no case be
permitted to apply any part of the capital of the trust
funds in repayment of their advances; nor any part of
the trust income, except within a period of 30 years.
In the case of Quested's Trust and the other trusts for
the almshouses at Harrietsham, the income of which is
only 108l. 10s. 4d., the Company, from their own funds,
supplement the income of the charity to the extent of
300l. a year.
In the case of St. Peter's Hospital, Wandsworth, the
Company, in the year 1849, from their own funds,
rebuilt the almshouses at a cost of 26,840l.; and they
spend annually in the support of this benefaction for
their own poor members 3,800l. a year, although the
yearly income of the trust property is only 377l. 7s. 8d.
As an instance of the Company's desire to contribute
largely for useful public objects, it may be mentioned
that in 1875 and the two following years, they laid out
above 15,000l. in erecting industrial dwellings for
artizans on a portion of their property in Walworth.
The Company having been in its origin a trade guild,
one of the main objects of which was the government
and protection of the members of the mistery or
industry, the hereditary right to membership (which
could not be and cannot be abrogated short of direct
spoliation of private interests), and the gradual, if slow,
growth of the property of the Company, have by
degrees, and in the course of many centuries, given
increased prominence to its character as a benefit society.
Its income has, from time immemorial, been applied
for the following objects:—In furtherance of objects of
interest to the trade, in the comparatively few instances
in which this has been practicable; in supervision of
the markets and other places where fish is sold, and the
seizure, condemnation, and destruction of bad and ununwholesome fish; in the support or temporary aid of
its poorer members; in pensions for the support and
education of the children of its members, if destitute or
insufficiently provided for; in aid of the sick, helpless,
and aged; in support of the Company's almshouses at
Wandsworth, Bray, and Harrietsham (not in doles of
bread or money); in educational work and exhibitions;
for objects of public charity and utility; and in hospitality and entertainments; and more recently in the
prosecution of offenders against the various Acts of
Parliament relating to the taking and sale of fish, passed
during the last few years; and in promoting technical
education.
No further explanation is probably needed, unless in
reference to the expenditure on hospitality and entertainments, and this, it is believed, can be fully justified,
although it has been the subject of some hostile criticism.
It is in accordance with the usage and practice of the
city companies generally, as well as of the Corporation
of London, and, being sanctioned by the immemorial
usage and traditions of the Company, is, by strict presumption of law, in accordance with its charters and a
proper exercise of the powers of the governing body.
It is further matter of fair comment that all the
members of the Company are interested in the benefits
derivable from the corporate property; that every
freeman of good character is eligible to the livery on
payment of the required fee; and that, dividing the
members roughly into two classes, namely, those who
need and those who do not need and would not accept
any pecuniary aid from the Company's funds—the
former (the needy) are by far the smaller body. Almost
the only mode in which the latter can derive any benefit
or gratification from their membership (apart from
the possession of the municipal and parliamentary
franchises) is by partaking of the Company's hospitalities. The funds thus employed for the benefit of
the larger are less than one-third of those applied in
assisting the smaller body. It may fairly be noticed, in
addition, that in a country where public hospitality to
persons of distinction, native or foreign, hardly exists,
except in the cases of the London Corporation and the
City Guilds, this is not without public benefit, while
strictly in accordance with ancient usage and tradition,
and at the same time affording frequent opportunities
to statesmen and politicians of eminence for an informal
exposition of their political views and intentions, often
of great public interest and importance.
It has been alleged that the expenses of management
are very large; but they are not excessive. The income
of the Company is considerable, derived from many
sources, and its application distributed over a multitude of objects, requiring great and minute care, and
a large amount of labour on the part of a skilled and
capable staff. Every account and payment is submitted
to a strict audit. The attendance fees of members of
the court (the whole pecuniary benefit which they
derive from the Company) are less than the attendance
fees of the directors of many, if not of most, public
companies of anything like equal importance, and only
represent time and work honestly bestowed. The
average amount of the fees paid to the members of the
court during the 10 years, 1870 to 1879, has already
been stated in the Company's Return (p. 41). From
this it appears that the average annual amount of each
member's fees, including the wardens, during that
period, was 56l. 14s. 10d.
A question has been raised as to the principle of
selection adopted for members of the court, and it has
been stated that this is "quite a mystery." It is
susceptible of very easy explanation. The members of
the court must be persons possessing qualifications as
men of business; and when they become wardens, and
especially when they succeed, in rotation, to the office
of prime warden of the Company, should be qualified,
socially, to conduct the public business of the Company, and to receive and entertain guests of distinction.
These considerations render some selection, apart from
mere seniority, essential, or at any rate highly desirable. Great weight is attached to the claims of old
family association with the Company. In the instance
of the elections on the court of which complaint has
been made (answer to question 1,218), the gentlemen
selected were born free of the Company, and their
families have been long associated with it, several of
them having been members of the court, three, at least,
prime wardens, and some of them men of high public
and social position.
The statement that any compulsion has ever in
modern times been exercised on any person to become
a member of the Company is destitute of any foundation; so is the statement that anyone has ever been
threatened, on the part of the Company or its governing body, with being turned out of the guild.
No clause against persons sleeping on the premises
has ever been inserted in any lease granted by the
Company.
The Company's Irish Estate.
The title of the Company to their Irish estate is
derived under a deed of grant of the 24th of October
1618, referred to in page 4 of the Company's former
return.
By that deed the Irish Society, "for and in consideration of a certain competent some of monie to
them in hand paid," granted to the wardens and
commonalty of the Mistery of Fishmongers the manor
of Walworth, with its appurtenances (being the Company's Irish estate), "to hold to the said wardens and
commonalty, their successors and assigns, for ever,
to the only use and behoof of the said wardens and
commonalty, their successors and assigns, for ever,"
with a covenant by the society for the wardens and
commonalty peaceably and quietly to possess and enjoy
the same " to their own use and uses for ever."
Prior to the date of this deed of grant, namely, on
the 29th of March 1613, King James I. had granted
the Irish plantation, of which the manor referred to
formed a part, to the Irish Society thereby incorporated, subject to the performance by the Irish Society
of certain conditions necessary for the protection and
advancement of the plantation. The objects and intentions of the grant were expressed in certain articles
published by the Privy Council (already referred to
before the Commissioners), which, among other things,
provided against any part of the lands being "demised
at will only, but for years, for life, in tail, or in fee
simple," against the grantees selling or demising
their lands "to the mere Irish," or at all during five
years from the date of the intended grant, but declared
that, after such five years, they should be entitled to
alien the same to all persons "except the mere Irish "
—obviously now an obsolete condition, although the
only one that can now by any possibility be deemed to
subsist. All the other conditions determined at the
expiration of five years from the date of the Irish
Society's charter, and therefore prior to the date of the
conveyance to the Fishmongers' Company.
It is, therefore, indisputable that no trust nor even
condition attaches to the Irish estate of the Fishmongers' Company, as held by them since the 24th
October 1618, unless it were the obsolete condition
before referred to.
The Company, for many years after the purchase of
the Irish estate, from time to time let the whole on
lease to successive single tenants. The last of these
leases is the only one to which it is now necessary to
refer. It was granted in 1747 for sixty-one years and
three lives; the survivor of these lives was His Majesty
King George III., on whose death, in 1820, the Company entered into the direct management of their
estate.
The Company sent over to Ireland in that year a
deputation of members of the court, who spent many
weeks in investigating the condition of the estate and
the circumstances of the tenants.
The deputation obtained the advice of the most competent authorities in the neighbourhood, and made a
full report, now in possession of the Company.
The estate was re-let on leases for 21 years in
accordance with the valuations which the deputation
had obtained, and on the recommendations contained
in their report, at a total rental of 7,418l. 4s.
It is impossible to compare the new rents thus fixed
with those which the tenants had been previously
paying, as it appears from the report referred to that
the Earl of Tyrone (the Company's lessee) had granted
leases to his Protestant tenants for the same term of
years and the same lives as he held the estate, but at
large premiums.
The result of an examination of the documents in
the possession of the Company shows that the statement that the rents were quadrupled is grossly exaggerated, and that the statement that they were
arbitrarily fixed without a valuation is misleading.
So far from the rents having been arbitrarily fixed
without valuation, a temporary letting for a year took
place in order that the rental might be fairly adjusted,
and in 1822 leases for 21 years were granted and
accepted by the tenants at substantially the same
rents; these leases continued until 1843.
In April 1843, prior to the expiration of these leases,
the Company engaged the services of Messrs. Nolan
and Co., surveyors of known eminence in Londonderry,
to re-value the estate.
In 1844 they reported on the letting value of
each holding, and the total of their valuations was
7,637l. 14s. 11d., but, owing to the depressed state of
agriculture at the time, and the famine and distress in
Ireland, which rendered necessary the grant of assistance to the tenants in remission of rents and otherwise,
no systematic re-letting of the estate took place, but
the tenants continued to hold their farms on the basis
of the expired leases until 1852, when a deputation was
appointed to proceed to Ireland to make arrangements
for the re-letting of the estate.
In pursuance of their report new leases for 21 years
were granted from 1851. At this re-letting, in view of
the circumstances above referred to, a considerable
reduction was made from Messrs. Nolan's valuation,
and, notwithstanding that a large amount had been
laid out by the Company on the estate, the net rental
reserved by the new leases, after deducting the value
of lands in hand and half the poor rate paid by the
Company, was about 7,000l. per annum only.
The last-mentioned leases expired in November 1872,
when Messrs. Nolan again valued the estate, with a
view to new leases being granted.
The gross amount of such valuation was 9,507l. 5s. 9d.,
but this amount included 5s. per acre allowed by the
Company to the tenants for all lands which they had
brought into cultivation during the previous leases,
and also an amount in respect of lands held in hand,
woods, mountains, town-parks, &c. not leased to
tenants. It was also subject to deduction in respect
to half the county cess, formerly paid by the tenants,
but then first assumed by the Company, as well as half
the poor rate. After making these allowances, which
amount to about 2,040l., the actual increase in the
present rental under the new leases is estimated to be
less than 500l. a year, and this increase is in a great
measure due to the large expenditure made by the
Company on the estate since the previous leases were
granted, the interest on which is included in the rental.
On a careful comparison of the present net rental of
the estate with the net rental fixed at the time when
the estate fell into the Company's hands in 1820, it
appears that there is but little actual difference between the amounts.
As further evidence that the estate has been leased
on moderate rents, the Company append a statement
showing the premiums for which leasehold interests of
their tenants have from time to time been sold since
1857:—
|
| Year. | Tenant. | Acreage. | Rent, including County Cess and Poor Rate. | Premium paid by Assignee. | Time the Lease had to run. | Number of Years' Purchase. |
| | A. | R. | P. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. |
| 1857 | Cresswell | 11 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 145 | 0 | 15 | 241/6 |
| 1859 | Cherry | 133 | 1 | 26 | 89 | 0 | 0 | 1,190 | 0 | 13 | 13⅓ |
| Patchell | 68 | 3 | 32 | 13 | 10 | 0 | 550 | 0 | 13 | 40¾ |
| 1860 | Hill | 22 | 3 | 14 | 83 | 16 | 0 | 400 | 0 | 12 | 4¾ |
| Collins | 52 | 2 | 13 | 25 | 6 | 0 | 285 | 0 | 12 | 11¾ |
| 1862 | Eakin | 30 | 3 | 29 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 300 | 0 | 10 | 17¾ |
| McLarry | 12 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 125 | 0 | 10 | 25 |
| 1863 | Parkhill | 26 | 2 | 34 | 6 | 10 | 0 | 160 | 0 | 9 | 24½ |
| 1864 | Breeson | 41 | 0 | 13 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 290 | 0 | 8 | 26⅓ |
| Irwin | 20 | 1 | 7 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 200 | 0 | 8 | 18 |
| 1865 | Rosborough | 55 | 1 | 21 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 200 | 0 | 7 | 141/5 |
| Leslie | 91 | 1 | 35 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 600 | 0 | 7 | 23 |
| McCormick | 30 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 15 | 0 | 280 | 0 | 7 | 20⅓ |
| Loughery | 113 | 2 | 29 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 600 | 0 | 7 | 172/5 |
| 1866 | McLaughlin | 24 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 105 | 0 | 6 | 14 |
| Wilson | 40 | 1 | 26 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 710 | 0 | 6 | 27⅓ |
| Eakia | 22 | 3 | 30 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 270 | 0 | 6 | 291/5 |
| 1867 | McGrath | 33 | 2 | 7 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 500 | 0 | 5 | 14 |
| Blair | 25 | 0 | 6 | 14 | 10 | 0 | 400 | 0 | 5 | 27½ |
| 1868 | Semple | 597 | 3 | 31 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 280 | 0 | 4 | 9⅓ |
| Mullan | 41 | 0 | 12 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 450 | 0 | 4 | 342/3 |
| 1869 | Thom | 65 | 3 | 17 | 12 | 10 | 0 | 575 | 0 | 3 | 46 |
| 1870 | Eakin | 79 | 3 | 21 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 650 | 0 | 2 | 23¼ |
| Cochrane | 35 | 2 | 7 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 650 | 0 | 2 | 24 |
| Shannon | 39 | 2 | 16 | 37 | 10 | 0 | 730 | 0 | 2 | 19½ |
| 1872 | Brizzle | 47 | 2 | 27 | 14 | 3 | 0 | 467 | 0 | exp. | 33 |
| Christy | 40 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 150 | 0 | do. | 12¼ |
| 1873 | Patchell | 24 | 1 | 24 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 650 | 0 | 20 | 29½ |
| Patchell | 66 | 1 | 35 | 26 | 5 | 0 | 830 | 0 | 20 | 32½ |
| McClosky | 57 | 1 | 21 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 327 | 0 | 20 | 19¼ |
| Craig | 8 | 2 | 29 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 280 | 0 | 20 | 14 |
| 1874 | Reid | 8 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 310 | 0 | 19¾ | 22½ |
| McClosky | 21 | 2 | 26 | 11 | 15 | 0 | 310 | 0 | 19¾ | 27 |
| Millar | 45 | 0 | 29 | 16 | 10 | 0 | 410 | 0 | 19½ | 25 |
| Loughery | 20 | 3 | 13 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 370 | 0 | 19 | 24 |
| 1875 | McClelland | 18 | 0 | 34 | 26 | 5 | 0 | 577 | 10 | 18¾ | 22 |
| Ross | 27 | 0 | 8 | 17 | 5 | 0 | 425 | 0 | 18½ | 25 |
| 1876 | McKeisack | 16 | 3 | 31 | 12 | 10 | 0 | 440 | 0 | 17½ | 351/5 |
| Green | 16 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 15 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 17¼ | 21⅓ |
| Hamilton | 12 | 1 | 11 | 6 | 10 | 0 | 450 | 0 | 17 | 69¼ |
| 1878 | Brizzle | 119 | 1 | 10 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 0 | 16¾ | 29½ |
| Smyth | 28 | 0 | 32 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 540 | 0 | 16¾ | 45. |
| Atkinson | 33 | 1 | 34 | 41 | 5 | 0 | 880 | 0 | 15 | 21½ |
| 1879 | Rosborough | 45 | 2 | 24 | 25 | 10 | 0 | 360 | 0 | 14¾ | 14½ |
| Gormley | 26 | 0 | 7 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 415 | 0 | 14¾ | 291/5 |
| Kane | 66 | 0 | 16 | 6 | 15 | 0 | 200 | 0 | 14¾ | 29½ |
| Williams | 22 | 3 | 22 | 8 | 10 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 14½ | 27 |
| Toner | 24 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 15 | 0 | 775 | 0 | 14½ | 52½ |
| Miller | 34 | 1 | 28 | 18 | 10 | 0 | 500 | 0 | 14½ | 27 |
| Henry | 47 | 3 | 26 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 1,130 | 0 | 14 | 28½ |
| Miller | 37 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 15 | 0 | 400 | 0 | 14 | 23¾ |
| McDonagh | 24 | 2 | 31 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 0 | 14 | 33⅓ |
| 1880 | Walker | 16 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 162 | 0 | 13¾ | 28 |
| Stewart | 22 | 0 | 22 | 18 | 10 | 0 | 540 | 0 | 13¾ | 291/5 |
| Cochrane | 34 | 3 | 10 | 16 | 10 | 0 | 450 | 0 | 13¾ | 27¼ |
| Clarke | 18 | 1 | 21 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 820 | 0 | 13½ | 41 |
| Ross | 51 | 1 | 28 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 805 | 0 | 13¾ | 19½ |
| Craig | 203 | 0 | 5 | 24 | 13 | 3 | 600 | 0 | 13½ | 24⅓ |
| Sloane | 19 | 1 | 20 | 24 | 10 | 0 | 500 | 0 | 13½ | 20½ |
| Brizzle | 169 | 2 | 5 | 29 | 10 | 0 | 510 | 0 | 13½ | 17⅓ |
| McGreelis | 8 | 1 | 37 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 200 | 0 | 13 | 531/5 |
| Ferguson | 28 | 2 | 26 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 600 | 0 | 13 | 42¾ |
| 1881 | Fleming | 90 | 0 | 13 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 815 | 0 | 12 | 24 |
| 1882 | Coyle | 23 | 2 | 19 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 295 | 0 | 11½ | 17⅓ |
| Whiteside | 111 | 0 | 38 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 130 | 0 | 11½ | 8 |
| Bryson | 18 | 3 | 28 | 17 | 15 | 0 | 505 | 0 | 11½ | 28½ |
The above Statement contains particulars of all the sales of which
full details have been furnished to the Company on applications for
licenses to assign.
The foregoing statement shows that no less a sum
than 30,473l. 10s. has been paid by incoming tenants in
purchasing leases under the Company, of which, on an
average, only 12 years were unexpired—the amounts so
paid being, on an average, 25½ years' purchase.
The evidence of two of the witnesses would convey
the impression that the Company have done little for
the benefit of their Irish estate, and, with some quite
unimportant exceptions, nothing for their tenants.
A careful examination of the Company's books leads
to an opposite conclusion.
They show that from the year 1820, when the estate
fell into the Company's hands, down to the year 1881,
the Company have expended large sums in road-making,
irrigation, the construction of river and canal banks,
the supply of building and other materials, labour,
grants and allowances to tenants, planting, the building
of cottages, mills, and dispensaries, the maintenance
and support of seven schools, wherein excellent practical
education is given to more than 500 children of the
tenantry and labourers on the estate, towards the erection and maintenance of places of worship, Episcopalian,
Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic, in grants towards the
support of their ministers, and in casual relief and
pensions.
Without entering into needless detail, the following
may be taken as a perfectly fair approximate statement
of the amounts expended under the several heads since
1820:—
|
| £ |
| For roads, irrigation, river, and canal banks about | 28,558 |
| For building materials supplied, labour thereon, grants and allowances to tenants about | 26,443 |
| For cottages, dispensaries, mills, reclamations, town parks, farming
societies about | 33,722 |
| For trees, woods, and plantations
about | 20,632 |
| For schools about | 33, 528 |
| For places of religious worship and
donations to ministers about | 21,292 |
| For relief, pensions, and donations to
the sick, aged, and destitute on the
Company's estate about | 24,849 |
| 189,024 |
Frequent references have been made in the evidence
given before the Commission to the alleged desire of
the Irish tenantry to buy their holdings.
This is a subject which has engaged the careful
attention of the court, who have, without pledging the
Company to any particular course of action, passed the
following resolution:—
"That, having regard to the course of recent legislation relating to land in Ireland, this court is of
opinion that it would be desirable that the Company
should, at the proper time, sell their Irish estate to
the occupying tenants, so that each tenant may have
the opportunity of purchasing the freehold of his
own holding on reasonable terms."
As respects any reforms that might be suggested, the
Company would refer to what appears in their return
already submitted. They are willing and desirous to
adopt any proved reform consistent with the duty to
preserve the rights of the Company confided to the
guardianship of its managing body. As to the suggestions of witnesses, everything coming from the Senior
Inspector of Charities under the Charity Commissioners
is, of course, entitled to respectful consideration. But
the scheme set forth by him appears far too wide, and,
if it may respectfully be said, too vague, to be practically
susceptible of adoption; while the proposals as to
giving wider scope or greater control to the Company
over the conduct of the trade would require the most
careful handling to avoid exciting the jealousy or
opposition of the very persons whom it might be desired
to benefit. At the same time the court of the Company
are quite prepared to give effect to any practicable
suggestions for establishing relations closer than those
at present existing between the Company and the
trade.
As respects the number of the governing body, which
is fixed by the charters, if this were reduced, it would
be disadvantageous to the livery, the persons from whom
the court is selected; and if seniority were made the
qualification for membership of the court, the efficiency
of that body for the government of the Company would
be certainly reduced, from the extreme age of its
members; the youngest member of the court at this
moment, had the rule of seniority prevailed, would be
over sixty-five years of age. The management of the
Company's affairs would, under such a rule, fall to an
undue extent into the hands of its officers, with little, if
any, effective control; and there would immediately
arise a tendency to make the livery far more exclusive,
to the serious prejudice of the body of freemen, while
the inducement which mainly influences the most
desirable of its members to join the livery would no
longer exist.