Thursday 3 April 2014
Wednesday 19 March 2014
Ward Meeting Resolutions in the City of London
This page will be updated as more information on the annual ward meetings is located:
I believe it is useful to see how our fellow wards do business,and how they interact with the Common Council.
Ward Meeting Resolutions 2011
Minutes of all ward meetings, City of London 2011
Bassisshaw Ward minutes of annual meeting 2012
Ward Meeting Resolutions 2012
Grand Court of Wardmote 2012
Sunday 16 March 2014
The Form of Ward Meetings - an investigation.
What kind of resolutions were put at Ward Meetings? Here is a selection:
PUBLICATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE MEETING
As the Ward Meetings and Wardmotes were invariably published, we have good records: Almost every ward meeting I have seen, up until as recently as 1891, ends with a resolution along these lines:
"That these resolutions be signed by the Chairman, and published in [named paper]."
Thanks to this, we have a wonderful repository of highly instructive material.
REQUISITION OF THE MEETING
A vote of thanks was given for convening the meeting in response to its being requisitioned.
"That the thanks of this meeting is given to the Chairman for his ready compliance with the requisition of this ward, and for his impartial conduct at this meeting".
Here is a requisition notice from 1832:
On Monday, a Meeting of the Inhabitants of Vintry Ward took place at Cutlers' Hall, in consequence of a Requisition, signed by the most wealthy and influential gentlemen of the Ward.
December 27, 1814 Ward of Farringdon Without
"At a numerous and respectable Meeting of the inhabitants of this ward, pursuant to a requisition, "to consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament against the continuance or the renewal of that partial, oppressive and inquisitorial tax upon income, commonly called the property tax"
How many people are needed to requisition a meeting of a ward common council meeting (wardmote)?
One assumes, the same number as required to requisition the Court of Common Council at Guildhall.
John William Abbott, 'A History of London'.
VOTE OF THANKS TO THE CHAIR
It was usually customary to thank the chair.
"That the thanks of this Wardmote/ Ward Meeting be given to Alderman X / the chairman for his impartial conduct of the business of the day."
VOTE OF THANKS TO THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES
It was customary to thank the owner of the premises where the meeting was held:
"That the thanks of this meeting be given to So-and-so, for his ready compliance in allowing the use of these premises to the inhabitants of the Ward."
The Ward of Farringdon-Without had six large Precincts. Each precinct was virtually an autonomous sub-ward: Each Precinct had its own Precinct-Clerk. Four precincts had their own precinct-beadles. Five precincts had their own inquest juries, with 12 to 15 people on each jury. There was one wardmote, and one ward inquest,which made formal presentments, and these met monthly right up to the mid 1800s. Each precinct had its own precinct inquest, which perambulated the precinct weekly. Indeed, one of the precincts even had sub-precincts. All of these division were customary.
In 1799 there is a curious resolution from Farringdon-Without
The content of the resolution from the wardmote is not so interesting: What is odd, is the reference to
"The Common Council of each Precinct".
In other words, the ward precinct committee (presumably?) is here referred to a Common Council.
Farringdon Without. At a meeting of the alderman and common council of this ward, at the inquest room in Saint Andrew's church-yard, on Wednesday, December 11, 1799: ... Resolved, that the common council of each precinct do give such directions to the watch and constables to attend their duty, in order to clear the streets of prostitutes.
What is clear from the wide variations across the City from ward to ward, in the way the local government was set up in each ward, is that these were matters that lay in the power of the inhabitants to dispose of as they saw fit - and not for directives from Common Council.
Thus I maintain that the residents of our ward, if they wish, are free to set up once again representative committees within the ward for local self government.
PUBLICATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE MEETING
As the Ward Meetings and Wardmotes were invariably published, we have good records: Almost every ward meeting I have seen, up until as recently as 1891, ends with a resolution along these lines:
"That these resolutions be signed by the Chairman, and published in [named paper]."
Thanks to this, we have a wonderful repository of highly instructive material.
REQUISITION OF THE MEETING
A vote of thanks was given for convening the meeting in response to its being requisitioned.
"That the thanks of this meeting is given to the Chairman for his ready compliance with the requisition of this ward, and for his impartial conduct at this meeting".
Here is a requisition notice from 1832:
On Monday, a Meeting of the Inhabitants of Vintry Ward took place at Cutlers' Hall, in consequence of a Requisition, signed by the most wealthy and influential gentlemen of the Ward.
December 27, 1814 Ward of Farringdon Without
"At a numerous and respectable Meeting of the inhabitants of this ward, pursuant to a requisition, "to consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament against the continuance or the renewal of that partial, oppressive and inquisitorial tax upon income, commonly called the property tax"
How many people are needed to requisition a meeting of a ward common council meeting (wardmote)?
One assumes, the same number as required to requisition the Court of Common Council at Guildhall.
John William Abbott, 'A History of London'.
VOTE OF THANKS TO THE CHAIR
It was usually customary to thank the chair.
"That the thanks of this Wardmote/ Ward Meeting be given to Alderman X / the chairman for his impartial conduct of the business of the day."
VOTE OF THANKS TO THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES
It was customary to thank the owner of the premises where the meeting was held:
"That the thanks of this meeting be given to So-and-so, for his ready compliance in allowing the use of these premises to the inhabitants of the Ward."
The Ward of Farringdon-Without had six large Precincts. Each precinct was virtually an autonomous sub-ward: Each Precinct had its own Precinct-Clerk. Four precincts had their own precinct-beadles. Five precincts had their own inquest juries, with 12 to 15 people on each jury. There was one wardmote, and one ward inquest,which made formal presentments, and these met monthly right up to the mid 1800s. Each precinct had its own precinct inquest, which perambulated the precinct weekly. Indeed, one of the precincts even had sub-precincts. All of these division were customary.
In 1799 there is a curious resolution from Farringdon-Without
The content of the resolution from the wardmote is not so interesting: What is odd, is the reference to
"The Common Council of each Precinct".
In other words, the ward precinct committee (presumably?) is here referred to a Common Council.
Farringdon Without. At a meeting of the alderman and common council of this ward, at the inquest room in Saint Andrew's church-yard, on Wednesday, December 11, 1799: ... Resolved, that the common council of each precinct do give such directions to the watch and constables to attend their duty, in order to clear the streets of prostitutes.
What is clear from the wide variations across the City from ward to ward, in the way the local government was set up in each ward, is that these were matters that lay in the power of the inhabitants to dispose of as they saw fit - and not for directives from Common Council.
Thus I maintain that the residents of our ward, if they wish, are free to set up once again representative committees within the ward for local self government.
Minutes of a Ward Meeting from Dowgate 1792
It is instructive to look at how Ward Business was conducted in previous times. I have found a large amount of material related to Ward Meetings,right through to 1900. More recent examples can also be found.
The historical examples are helpful: they tell us things like
1. The usual size of a quorum for a committee appointed at a Ward Meeting. (usually, the working is "at least three are empowered to act"
2. The wording of the Notice of Meeting.
3. The wording of resolutions.
4. That resolutions may be published.
Here is an example from 1792, Dowgate Ward:
The historical examples are helpful: they tell us things like
1. The usual size of a quorum for a committee appointed at a Ward Meeting. (usually, the working is "at least three are empowered to act"
2. The wording of the Notice of Meeting.
3. The wording of resolutions.
4. That resolutions may be published.
Here is an example from 1792, Dowgate Ward:
Thursday 13 March 2014
Investigations into the residual functions and powers of the Court of Wardmote
There is no one place to look, to find out the various powers that yet reside in the Court of Wardmote.
Some aspects of the wardmote are covered by the City of London Police Act
Power of a Ward Meeting to resolve that the proceedings be publicised:
I had thought that this power had been removed in the mid 1880's, but I see it in force in a resolution dated 1891 from Castle Baynard Ward,
"The proceedings of the meeting were ordered to be advertised in the 'City Press'"
That was for a general Ward Meeting.
This appointed a committee, which in turn appointed sub-committees.
At the following wardmote in Castle Baynard 1891, there was also a resolution put that the proceedings of the wardmote were ordered to be advertised in the 'City Press'.
I presume that was some kind of fore-runner to our modern "City A.M."
Here is the source document containing the full wording of the resolution
Some aspects of the wardmote are covered by the City of London Police Act
Power of a Ward Meeting to resolve that the proceedings be publicised:
I had thought that this power had been removed in the mid 1880's, but I see it in force in a resolution dated 1891 from Castle Baynard Ward,
"The proceedings of the meeting were ordered to be advertised in the 'City Press'"
That was for a general Ward Meeting.
This appointed a committee, which in turn appointed sub-committees.
At the following wardmote in Castle Baynard 1891, there was also a resolution put that the proceedings of the wardmote were ordered to be advertised in the 'City Press'.
I presume that was some kind of fore-runner to our modern "City A.M."
Here is the source document containing the full wording of the resolution
An interesting Wardmote Resolution
An interesting wardmote resolution, that relates to the constitution of the City of London, was passed by a Court of Wardmote in the Ward of Farringdon Without on December 14th 1849:
"That the Corporation of the City of London embraces, according to law and ancient right, all the commonality of the said City who have been occupiers within the said City for the space of a year and a day; and it is the duty of all the said commonality to take part in all that relates to the welfare of the said City, and to discharge actively,of and within themselves, the functions which belong to them as members of that Corporation."
"That the Corporation of the City of London embraces, according to law and ancient right, all the commonality of the said City who have been occupiers within the said City for the space of a year and a day; and it is the duty of all the said commonality to take part in all that relates to the welfare of the said City, and to discharge actively,of and within themselves, the functions which belong to them as members of that Corporation."
Wednesday 12 March 2014
Ward Policing in Portsoken
As there have been a number of problems in the Ward of Portsoken recently, what with rough sleepers, attempts at entry into residential property, break-ins into parking garages, and a spate of broken shed doors.
Policing of the ward has become an issue.
Residents might be interested to know that they can apparently leave direct feedback on ward-based police matters at the
WARD POLICING FOLLOW-UP PAGE
This is what the page looks like: please visit the link above to complete the feedback form:
Policing of the ward has become an issue.
Residents might be interested to know that they can apparently leave direct feedback on ward-based police matters at the
WARD POLICING FOLLOW-UP PAGE
This is what the page looks like: please visit the link above to complete the feedback form:
| *
Slightly concerned
Moderately concerned
Very concerned
| |
| * | |
| *
None
Moderate amount
High amount
| |
| *
Very Safe
Neither safe or unsafe
Very unsafe
| |
| *
Very Safe
Neither safe or unsafe
Very unsafe
| |
| *
Satisfied
Neither satisfied or unsatisfied
Very unsatisfied
| |
| *
Satisfied
Neither satisfied or unsatisfied
Very unsatisfied
| |
Monday 10 March 2014
Of Citizens and Freemen
While nowadays any freeman of the City of London who is on a ward list can stand for election in any ward, an important point has to be considered:
Is a freeman automatically a FULL CITIZEN of this great City of ours?
The answer is, in legal terms, no, he or she is not, in a complete sense, a full citizen.
A Citizen also needs to be ordinarily a resident inhabitant of the City.
The Court of Common Council is filled with Freemen. Only a small minority are resident inhabitants - full citizens.
We here live in a residential ward, where we have three bona fide citizens of the City standing for election.
I say to the residents of Portsoken: the Common Council already has enough freemen non-resident councilmen. Whatever you do in this election, I urge you to vote for a Citizen, not someone foreign to the ward, who just happens to have possession of the freedom of London.
Is a freeman automatically a FULL CITIZEN of this great City of ours?
The answer is, in legal terms, no, he or she is not, in a complete sense, a full citizen.
A Citizen also needs to be ordinarily a resident inhabitant of the City.
The Court of Common Council is filled with Freemen. Only a small minority are resident inhabitants - full citizens.
We here live in a residential ward, where we have three bona fide citizens of the City standing for election.
I say to the residents of Portsoken: the Common Council already has enough freemen non-resident councilmen. Whatever you do in this election, I urge you to vote for a Citizen, not someone foreign to the ward, who just happens to have possession of the freedom of London.
Friday 7 March 2014
Ward Committees - Establishing Precedent
It apparently lies within the power of the Court of Wardmote to appoint sub-committees. This matter is currently being investigated.
Historically, our ward had 5 such permanently sitting sub-committees, called Ward Precinct Committees.
It just so happens that the two main population centres in the ward fall conveniently into two of these precincts: The precincts themselves were never abolished, and the committees simply stopped being appointed.
For Portsoken Ward, the following two precincts are of interest:
Covent Garden Precinct - Middlesex Street
Tower Hill Precinct - Mansell Street.
Both of these precincts are currently served by committees, which represent the inhabitants.
I propose that these committees be formally recognised by the court of wardmote as being the representative precinct committees for the ward.
I have found evidence of wardmotes appointing subcommittees right up until the late 1800's (Which was when most wardmotes in the City became dormant, apart from serving as an election court - even wardmote resolutions fell out of use, until revived in our ward in 2001). There may be examples from more recent times, but I have not yet dug one out of the records - what I have listed here is merely a selection of references to this apparent power of the wardmote that I have found using Google Books - more must be readily accessible, and of course,we have the existence of the Ward Precinct Committees.
A description of what happened to them is found in detail in Webb, Sidney, 'English Local Government', volume 2. In the chapter that discusses the Ward Precinct Committees,he shows that the power to appoint these committees,or let them slip into disuse, was a power of the wardmote. Sometime after the 1830s the wardmotes stopped appointing these committees, or amalgamated them into general ward-wide committees.
However, the power of the wardmote to appoint committees seems clear.
Here is a link to the English Local Government. The relevant section on Ward Precincts is found on page 586.
Regarding wardmote committees: one other thing to consider - the City Police Act (Clause 85) refers to the expenses of holding 'wardmotes or other ward meetings or for other local purposes connected therewith'. It is not unreasonable to assume that this refers to the precinct meetings and other ward committee meetings.
Here is a reference to a committee appointed at a wardmote/ward meeting from Castle Baynard Ward, 1891:
This link is the source document containing the full wording of the resolution, and the minutes of the subsequent committee meetings and sub-committee meetings that resulted from this resolution.
Here is the actual resolution passed at that Wardmote: "and that a committee be formed to give effect to this resolution"
Here is a reference to the Portsoken Wardmote appointing a sub-committee as recently as 1862
"On Wednesday a respectably attended wardmote of the inhabitants residing in the ward of Portsoken was held.for the purpose of taking into consideration what steps should be adopted with reference to the munificent gift of George Peabody, Esq. After a vote of thanks to Mr Peabody, Mr Good proposed the following resolution: "That this meeting,representing as it does one of the poorest districts of London, desires to express its opinion that the improvement of the dwellings of the labouring classes is the great necessity of the day, and likely topromote the happiness and well-being of the metropolis. The motion was seconded and carried, and a committee was appointed to confer with the gentleman appointed to administer the funds"
Link to the source: The Illustrated Times
Here is another example from 1859, from the Ward of Farringdon-Without:
This resolution of the Wardmote is interesting,as it contains two elements:
1. The appointment of the committee for a specific purpose.
2. The report back to the wardmote of the committee.
Here is a link to the full source: 'Proceedings at a Public Meeting etc' Appendix C.
Another precedent for the appointment of a committee at Wardmote can be found from Farringdon Within.(1740)
Here is a link to the full source
Here is another precedent, from 1789, again from Farringdon-Without:
Here is a link to the full document
Here is a reference to Ward Committees from 1803:
The following minutes from a wardmote from 1789,relating to the committee mentioned above, that shows in more detail how a wardmote committee was set up with resolutions of the wardmote.: (Cripplegate Ward)
Link to the full source online
Although not in the City, one of the Cinque Ports , Faversham, had a wardmote that appointed a general purposes committee annually. See item 36, page pg 965, "Report of the Commisioners etc"
Historically, our ward had 5 such permanently sitting sub-committees, called Ward Precinct Committees.
It just so happens that the two main population centres in the ward fall conveniently into two of these precincts: The precincts themselves were never abolished, and the committees simply stopped being appointed.
For Portsoken Ward, the following two precincts are of interest:
Covent Garden Precinct - Middlesex Street
Tower Hill Precinct - Mansell Street.
Both of these precincts are currently served by committees, which represent the inhabitants.
I propose that these committees be formally recognised by the court of wardmote as being the representative precinct committees for the ward.
I have found evidence of wardmotes appointing subcommittees right up until the late 1800's (Which was when most wardmotes in the City became dormant, apart from serving as an election court - even wardmote resolutions fell out of use, until revived in our ward in 2001). There may be examples from more recent times, but I have not yet dug one out of the records - what I have listed here is merely a selection of references to this apparent power of the wardmote that I have found using Google Books - more must be readily accessible, and of course,we have the existence of the Ward Precinct Committees.
A description of what happened to them is found in detail in Webb, Sidney, 'English Local Government', volume 2. In the chapter that discusses the Ward Precinct Committees,he shows that the power to appoint these committees,or let them slip into disuse, was a power of the wardmote. Sometime after the 1830s the wardmotes stopped appointing these committees, or amalgamated them into general ward-wide committees.
However, the power of the wardmote to appoint committees seems clear.
Here is a link to the English Local Government. The relevant section on Ward Precincts is found on page 586.
Regarding wardmote committees: one other thing to consider - the City Police Act (Clause 85) refers to the expenses of holding 'wardmotes or other ward meetings or for other local purposes connected therewith'. It is not unreasonable to assume that this refers to the precinct meetings and other ward committee meetings.
Here is a reference to a committee appointed at a wardmote/ward meeting from Castle Baynard Ward, 1891:
This link is the source document containing the full wording of the resolution, and the minutes of the subsequent committee meetings and sub-committee meetings that resulted from this resolution.
Here is the actual resolution passed at that Wardmote: "and that a committee be formed to give effect to this resolution"
Here is a reference to the Portsoken Wardmote appointing a sub-committee as recently as 1862
"On Wednesday a respectably attended wardmote of the inhabitants residing in the ward of Portsoken was held.for the purpose of taking into consideration what steps should be adopted with reference to the munificent gift of George Peabody, Esq. After a vote of thanks to Mr Peabody, Mr Good proposed the following resolution: "That this meeting,representing as it does one of the poorest districts of London, desires to express its opinion that the improvement of the dwellings of the labouring classes is the great necessity of the day, and likely topromote the happiness and well-being of the metropolis. The motion was seconded and carried, and a committee was appointed to confer with the gentleman appointed to administer the funds"
Link to the source: The Illustrated Times
Here is another example from 1859, from the Ward of Farringdon-Without:
This resolution of the Wardmote is interesting,as it contains two elements:
1. The appointment of the committee for a specific purpose.
2. The report back to the wardmote of the committee.
Here is a link to the full source: 'Proceedings at a Public Meeting etc' Appendix C.
Another precedent for the appointment of a committee at Wardmote can be found from Farringdon Within.(1740)
Here is a link to the full source
Here is another precedent, from 1789, again from Farringdon-Without:
Here is a reference to Ward Committees from 1803:
Here is Joshua Toulmin Smith on the Constitutional position of the Wardmote committees:
Link to the full source online
Although not in the City, one of the Cinque Ports , Faversham, had a wardmote that appointed a general purposes committee annually. See item 36, page pg 965, "Report of the Commisioners etc"
Tuesday 25 February 2014
Open Government in the Ward
There is a long tradition of the Common Councilmen in each ward meeting secretly behind closed doors, and making decisions on behalf of the ward.
Our ward has been no different - for a number of years (apart from the annual wardmote) the sitting Common Councilmen, to the best of my knowledge, have held no, or few public open meetings within the ward in their capacity as Common Councilmen, do not appear to have notified residents of their actions in writing, (the monthly ward newsletter technically fulfils this function), published attendance of meetings, etc at Guildhall in an easily accessible manner, and in general, do not engage in what might be called open government.
Ten years ago, when I was last a Common Councilman in this ward, this was how the Portsoken Ward Common Council met.
That might have been acceptable in 1614. It is no longer acceptable in 2014.
(Our local Common Council of Portsoken consists of the sitting Common Councilmen, and Alderman)
My view is that all council meetings of elected officials in the ward should by default be open to the public. When the local Portsoken Common Council meets to discuss ward business among themselves, the public should be allowed to attend as observers.
This is the case for committees at Guildhall. It should also be the case locally within the ward.
If elected, I will hold open public meetings, where residents can bring ward problems directly to their Common Councilmen, and if need be, pass resolutions on matters concerning the ward, which would then be passed on to the Town Clerk, for distribution to the relevant officers at Guildhall. We would then be in a position to follow up the response.
I will also hold women-only ward meetings. This is a matter of particular concern, as we have a significant number of female residents in the ward who will not attend a mixed sex meeting. Their voice is, as a result, not heard. I believe that there is also a need for public ward meetings at the Mansell Street Estate to have a Bengali translator present.
Our ward has been no different - for a number of years (apart from the annual wardmote) the sitting Common Councilmen, to the best of my knowledge, have held no, or few public open meetings within the ward in their capacity as Common Councilmen, do not appear to have notified residents of their actions in writing, (the monthly ward newsletter technically fulfils this function), published attendance of meetings, etc at Guildhall in an easily accessible manner, and in general, do not engage in what might be called open government.
Ten years ago, when I was last a Common Councilman in this ward, this was how the Portsoken Ward Common Council met.
That might have been acceptable in 1614. It is no longer acceptable in 2014.
(Our local Common Council of Portsoken consists of the sitting Common Councilmen, and Alderman)
My view is that all council meetings of elected officials in the ward should by default be open to the public. When the local Portsoken Common Council meets to discuss ward business among themselves, the public should be allowed to attend as observers.
This is the case for committees at Guildhall. It should also be the case locally within the ward.
If elected, I will hold open public meetings, where residents can bring ward problems directly to their Common Councilmen, and if need be, pass resolutions on matters concerning the ward, which would then be passed on to the Town Clerk, for distribution to the relevant officers at Guildhall. We would then be in a position to follow up the response.
I will also hold women-only ward meetings. This is a matter of particular concern, as we have a significant number of female residents in the ward who will not attend a mixed sex meeting. Their voice is, as a result, not heard. I believe that there is also a need for public ward meetings at the Mansell Street Estate to have a Bengali translator present.
Monday 24 February 2014
City Constitution and Local Municipal Committees
In 1850, the City's population stood at about the present level - close to 10,000 resident inhabitants. The population dipped down to somewhere around 8,000, before climbing back up to levels not seen in 150 years.
Over this time, due to building works and population movement, the historical memory of local city governance was lost.
The Aldermen and Common Councilmen of the Ward constitute the Common Council of Portsoken Ward.
Over time, the powers of this local Common Council have been taken over by the centralised Court of Common Council and its committees.
Here in Portsoken, and across the City, local municipal democracy disappeared almost in its entirety, legislated out of existence by various Acts of Common Council. The local wardmote council met, but only as an election court and debating forum, all its other functions as a local municipal body had become dormant.
The last record I have of a committee appointed by a Court of Wardmote for local municipal purposes, is 1859.
In Portsoken, no wardmote resolutions had been put for over 150 years, when I first appeared at a wardmote in 2000, armed with some resolutions related to matters affecting the Guinness Estate. Neither the Alderman or Ward Clerk were sure of how to proceed.
Since that date, this dormant aspect of our local municipal government has been revived - not only in our wardmote, but at other wardmotes across the City of London.
The next step to take, in my view, is to revive the formation of local precinct committees of inhabitant householders, which have also become dormant.
Only three of the precincts in the ward still retain inhabitants:
Tower Hill Precinct - where the Mansell Street Estate and Marlyn Lodge are located.
Barrs Precinct - the area south of Aldgate High Street and north of Little Somerset Street,where there are a number of private flats.
Covent Garden Precinct - where Middlesex Street Estate is located.
These local precinct committees function as mini wardmotes. Their minimum quorum was usually 3. They can pass resolutions, present petitions (memorials) directly to Common Council (which then get referred to committees at Guildhall). Most local precinct committees stopped being elected by wardmotes sometime in the 1830's.
What could a local precinct committee do?
What is needed:
1. Annual scrutiny of the Ward List by a wardmote committee, to ensure it is up to date, and that as many people as possible have the right to vote, who are eligible.
2. To look into nuisances and annoyances in each precinct, and report on these to Common Council, or request the Common Councilmen to act on them.
3. To scrutinise the work of the Common Councilmen and hold them to account.
4. To look carefully at Common Council agendas and minutes, so that the residents of the ward can take a proactive approach to their government, and not a reactive one.
5. To work for better local policing.
Who can vote on wardmote resolutions, or sit on wardmote committees?
While it is clear that anyone who is on the Ward List and a Freeman can stand for election to Common Council at wardmote, it is not as clear that these same people have the right to propose motions at wardmote, or vote on them: the wardmote is a meeting of the resident householders of the ward. Legislation governing the electoral franchise, to my knowledge, does not, and has not, reframed the terms of function of the wardmote as a branch of the municipal government of the City of London for the resident inhabitants of the ward.
Anyone can attend a wardmote nowadays, even non-residents of the ward. In the past, this was forbidden by law and custom.
I am not convinced, however, that any non-resident, even if they are a Common Councilman with their name on the Ward List, has the right to propose a motion in the wardmote, or vote on it. I am of the opinion that this right is reserved for resident inhabitants. This matter will need clarification from the Town Clerk.
Over this time, due to building works and population movement, the historical memory of local city governance was lost.
The Aldermen and Common Councilmen of the Ward constitute the Common Council of Portsoken Ward.
Over time, the powers of this local Common Council have been taken over by the centralised Court of Common Council and its committees.
Here in Portsoken, and across the City, local municipal democracy disappeared almost in its entirety, legislated out of existence by various Acts of Common Council. The local wardmote council met, but only as an election court and debating forum, all its other functions as a local municipal body had become dormant.
The last record I have of a committee appointed by a Court of Wardmote for local municipal purposes, is 1859.
In Portsoken, no wardmote resolutions had been put for over 150 years, when I first appeared at a wardmote in 2000, armed with some resolutions related to matters affecting the Guinness Estate. Neither the Alderman or Ward Clerk were sure of how to proceed.
Since that date, this dormant aspect of our local municipal government has been revived - not only in our wardmote, but at other wardmotes across the City of London.
The next step to take, in my view, is to revive the formation of local precinct committees of inhabitant householders, which have also become dormant.
Only three of the precincts in the ward still retain inhabitants:
Tower Hill Precinct - where the Mansell Street Estate and Marlyn Lodge are located.
Barrs Precinct - the area south of Aldgate High Street and north of Little Somerset Street,where there are a number of private flats.
Covent Garden Precinct - where Middlesex Street Estate is located.
These local precinct committees function as mini wardmotes. Their minimum quorum was usually 3. They can pass resolutions, present petitions (memorials) directly to Common Council (which then get referred to committees at Guildhall). Most local precinct committees stopped being elected by wardmotes sometime in the 1830's.
What could a local precinct committee do?
What is needed:
1. Annual scrutiny of the Ward List by a wardmote committee, to ensure it is up to date, and that as many people as possible have the right to vote, who are eligible.
2. To look into nuisances and annoyances in each precinct, and report on these to Common Council, or request the Common Councilmen to act on them.
3. To scrutinise the work of the Common Councilmen and hold them to account.
4. To look carefully at Common Council agendas and minutes, so that the residents of the ward can take a proactive approach to their government, and not a reactive one.
5. To work for better local policing.
Who can vote on wardmote resolutions, or sit on wardmote committees?
While it is clear that anyone who is on the Ward List and a Freeman can stand for election to Common Council at wardmote, it is not as clear that these same people have the right to propose motions at wardmote, or vote on them: the wardmote is a meeting of the resident householders of the ward. Legislation governing the electoral franchise, to my knowledge, does not, and has not, reframed the terms of function of the wardmote as a branch of the municipal government of the City of London for the resident inhabitants of the ward.
Anyone can attend a wardmote nowadays, even non-residents of the ward. In the past, this was forbidden by law and custom.
I am not convinced, however, that any non-resident, even if they are a Common Councilman with their name on the Ward List, has the right to propose a motion in the wardmote, or vote on it. I am of the opinion that this right is reserved for resident inhabitants. This matter will need clarification from the Town Clerk.
Saturday 22 February 2014
Freedom of the City of London
By Law, all inhabitants of the City of London with residence of over 12 months, who are on the Ward List (i.e. the City's electoral register) are entitled to become registered Free Citizens of the City.
Unlike non-inhabitants, the Freedom application of a resident is automatic by right of law, and does not need the approval of the Court of Common Council. The application is processed directly by the Chamberlain's Court. There is no fee.
For further information on the Freedom of the City email chamberlains.court@cityoflondon.gov.uk or call the Chamberlain’s Court on 020 7332 3055.
Unlike non-inhabitants, the Freedom application of a resident is automatic by right of law, and does not need the approval of the Court of Common Council. The application is processed directly by the Chamberlain's Court. There is no fee.
For further information on the Freedom of the City email chamberlains.court@cityoflondon.gov.uk or call the Chamberlain’s Court on 020 7332 3055.
Thursday 20 February 2014
Effective Local Governance in the Ward
I am a great believer in effective municipal government.
Many of the shortcomings and defects of Portsoken ward governance have come about because of general complacency by our elected officers,who have, I believe, not fully used the instruments of governance available to them on behalf of the inhabitants of the ward.
Here are some questions:
1. When was the last time a Common Councilman in Portsoken called a General Ward Meeting, (apart from the annual wardmote, which is called by the Lord Mayor) to discuss what he or she is doing with the inhabitants, or to openly discuss policy decisions about to be voted on in Guildhall that might impact the residents of the Ward? I am not referring to a surgery, but a ward meeting, where the inhabitants can vote on resolutions, which can then be referred to the relevant committees and officers at Guildhall to which they may relate?
2. When was the last time Common Councilmen in our ward informed the residents in writing about their activities on their behalf at Guildhall, or within the ward? I do not count the Ward Newsletter, which is too general to be of much use as an instrument of local governance, in its present format.
3. When was the last time a committee of inhabitant residents met together with their Common Councilmen, in a publicly announced meeting, to scrutinise Common Council agendas to look for business that might impact the ward's inhabitants?
4. When is the last time the Ward List was properly scrutinised, to ensure the maximum number of residents are enfranchised, by the Common Councilmen and inhabitants of the Ward? Officers at Guildhall do not have the minute local knowledge to do this. It is a local municipal responsibility, and it has, to the best of my knowledge, not been carried out.
I think there is a distinct lack of communication in our ward, and a lack of willingness by the sitting Common Councilmen to use the available ward-level mechanisms of local governance.
Should the inhabitants chose to elect me, I will work tirelessly to reinvigorate democracy at a local level within Portsoken.
________________________________________________________________________________
Many of the shortcomings and defects of Portsoken ward governance have come about because of general complacency by our elected officers,who have, I believe, not fully used the instruments of governance available to them on behalf of the inhabitants of the ward.
Here are some questions:
1. When was the last time a Common Councilman in Portsoken called a General Ward Meeting, (apart from the annual wardmote, which is called by the Lord Mayor) to discuss what he or she is doing with the inhabitants, or to openly discuss policy decisions about to be voted on in Guildhall that might impact the residents of the Ward? I am not referring to a surgery, but a ward meeting, where the inhabitants can vote on resolutions, which can then be referred to the relevant committees and officers at Guildhall to which they may relate?
2. When was the last time Common Councilmen in our ward informed the residents in writing about their activities on their behalf at Guildhall, or within the ward? I do not count the Ward Newsletter, which is too general to be of much use as an instrument of local governance, in its present format.
3. When was the last time a committee of inhabitant residents met together with their Common Councilmen, in a publicly announced meeting, to scrutinise Common Council agendas to look for business that might impact the ward's inhabitants?
4. When is the last time the Ward List was properly scrutinised, to ensure the maximum number of residents are enfranchised, by the Common Councilmen and inhabitants of the Ward? Officers at Guildhall do not have the minute local knowledge to do this. It is a local municipal responsibility, and it has, to the best of my knowledge, not been carried out.
I think there is a distinct lack of communication in our ward, and a lack of willingness by the sitting Common Councilmen to use the available ward-level mechanisms of local governance.
Should the inhabitants chose to elect me, I will work tirelessly to reinvigorate democracy at a local level within Portsoken.
________________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday 19 February 2014
Page views of this blog
I am gratified that my little blog about the March 20 Portsoken Election in the City of London has been getting high page views:
Pageviews last month
|
717
|
Pageviews yesterday
|
68
|
On another topic: One of my political heroes is Benjamin Disraeli - who in his childhood was a congregant at my local synagogue, Bevis Marks. He also was known for his personal sartorial style, which tended to the flamboyant.
If he were to walk into a Saturday service at Bevis Marks in 2014, he would find little has changed from his time there in the early 1800s: Congregants still wear top hats at services, and the music and traditions of the service have not changed an iota.
Residents will doubtless have seen me making my way to services at Bevis Marks on Friday nights, and early on Saturday mornings, wearing my topper. I don't like leaving it in my seat-box, as it is an expensive bit of kit.
I attend the daily morning prayer service at Bevis Marks every day of the week, pretty much without fail.
Full Steam Ahead with local representation on Middlesex Street
The committee of the Middlesex Street Residents' Association has been hard at work, and a newsletter is about to hit the press, informing residents of the past meetings of the Association, and what is upcoming. I have recently attended meetings where we re-worked the wording and content of the newsletter. The Association still needs to hold an AGM, to elect properly constituted officers.
I am a member of this committee. I am also an associate (non-voting) member of the Tenants' Association, which is currently forming. Tonight a productive meeting was held at the Artizan Street Community Centre, where a gathering of long leaseholders went over a final draft of the new Association's constitution.
There were a few small creases to iron out,and a couple of matters that need further clarification - hopefully a final draft of the new constitution will be available soon: all interim documentation can be inspected on the Association's website.
I am a member of this committee. I am also an associate (non-voting) member of the Tenants' Association, which is currently forming. Tonight a productive meeting was held at the Artizan Street Community Centre, where a gathering of long leaseholders went over a final draft of the new Association's constitution.
There were a few small creases to iron out,and a couple of matters that need further clarification - hopefully a final draft of the new constitution will be available soon: all interim documentation can be inspected on the Association's website.
The Ward List
The Ward List is a list of electors in the Ward, that is published annually by the Corporation of London. Only people on the Ward List are entitled to vote at the annual Wardmote, or at local precinct meetings convened by Common Councilmen, which in sum constitute our local mini-council, where resolutions can be passed at Wardmote or at precint-level that have to do with the governance of the ward.
The provisional Ward List is published by Guildhall, and a notice posted on the official Ward Noticeboard - which is outside St Botolph's Without Aldgate Church.
The Common Councilmen for the ward should then meet, to scrutinise the list to see if it is accurate, and to see who has not returned their forms. Residents of the Ward also have a right to view the provisional Ward List, for this purpose.
This year there appear to be a number of problems with the Ward list - they may or may not be - but what is certainly the case, is that prior to today, no Common Councilman or resident from our ward brought these queries to the attention of the Guildhall.
Some problems seem to arise from duplicated entries. One business had two names that seemed unfamiliar - I contacted that particular business, and the owner did not know who the people were, whose names were recorded as voters on the Ward list for his business. Thus, this particular business has lost its franchise in this election.
I doubt indeed that any residents in our ward even knew that the provisional list had been promulgated, or that there was a right of scrutiny.
I propose that we need a committee, to meet annually soon after the date the provisional Ward List is published, to scrutinise the provisional ward List.
The committee could perhaps be chaired by the Ward Beadle, as it is his historic role (now pro forma, as the work is done by other officers at Guildhall) to compile a complete and accurate list of inhabitants of the ward. (Not voters mind you, but inhabitants, including children).
Also on this committee would be at least one serving Common Councilman, a representative from each residents' or tenants' association, a representative of the Ward Club, and representative from any other group in the ward, for example, the Bengali Ladies' Group.
In this way, proper scrutiny of the Ward List can take place, at ward level. It is important for our local democracy that the Ward List should be accurate, and that as many residents as possible who have the franchise, register, so that they can exercise it.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
The provisional Ward List is published by Guildhall, and a notice posted on the official Ward Noticeboard - which is outside St Botolph's Without Aldgate Church.
The Common Councilmen for the ward should then meet, to scrutinise the list to see if it is accurate, and to see who has not returned their forms. Residents of the Ward also have a right to view the provisional Ward List, for this purpose.
This year there appear to be a number of problems with the Ward list - they may or may not be - but what is certainly the case, is that prior to today, no Common Councilman or resident from our ward brought these queries to the attention of the Guildhall.
Some problems seem to arise from duplicated entries. One business had two names that seemed unfamiliar - I contacted that particular business, and the owner did not know who the people were, whose names were recorded as voters on the Ward list for his business. Thus, this particular business has lost its franchise in this election.
I doubt indeed that any residents in our ward even knew that the provisional list had been promulgated, or that there was a right of scrutiny.
I propose that we need a committee, to meet annually soon after the date the provisional Ward List is published, to scrutinise the provisional ward List.
The committee could perhaps be chaired by the Ward Beadle, as it is his historic role (now pro forma, as the work is done by other officers at Guildhall) to compile a complete and accurate list of inhabitants of the ward. (Not voters mind you, but inhabitants, including children).
Also on this committee would be at least one serving Common Councilman, a representative from each residents' or tenants' association, a representative of the Ward Club, and representative from any other group in the ward, for example, the Bengali Ladies' Group.
In this way, proper scrutiny of the Ward List can take place, at ward level. It is important for our local democracy that the Ward List should be accurate, and that as many residents as possible who have the franchise, register, so that they can exercise it.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Tuesday 18 February 2014
Lord Glasman and the Secret City
Lord Glasman has had an interest in the City of London Corporation for some years. I first met him back in 2001, along with Ayesha Azad and William Taylor. This was at the time of my first entry in City politics.
The only prior elected position I had held, was as Cultural Affairs Officer of the University of Canterbury Students' Association. I also was appointed Orientation Controller for the University for Orientation '87, one of the only Orientation Festivals held at Canterbury on record that was within budget. But I digress....
Lord Glasman encouraged residents to stand in our ward. For this he must be thanked. He was against outsiders muscling their way in, and thought that local residents should be standing for election - yet in Portsoken no local residents had stood for election for a number of years. Iris Samuel ruled the ward.
William Taylor and Maurice Glasman have remained closely associated, and frequently co-operate on projects. Their names often crop up together in articles and discussions about the City of London Corporation.
As an example of this, the anti City of London film by Michael Chanan and Lee Salter comes to mind. This short film features both Taylor and Glasman, as can be seen from the transcript, which can be read here.
As you can see, Taylor has, as Facebook would put it, a complicated relationship with the City Corporation. Now, the way I see it is this: Portsoken is already a thorn in the Corporation's side. We are a 'difficult ward' purely as a result of our demographics. We do not want to see that thorn mutate into a stake, thrust into the heart of the body politic of the Corporation of London.
Yes, the City needs reform. I agree with that as a general proposition. However, the paramount needs of the residents of this ward cannot be sacrificed to that greater good. Should hypothetically Taylor be elected as our Common Councilman, he would have a massive hurdle of opposition from the sitting Councilmen to clamber over, before he could even contemplate effective lobbying on our behalf at Guildhall. That is apart from his putting himself forward as a Party Political candidate in this election, which brings its own difficulties along with it, given the non party political nature of the City of London.
William Taylor was previously a Member of Common Council for our ward, from 2001 to 2003, and again from 2005 to 2008. As such, he swore the oaths required of a Common Councilman. In my view, that oath remains morally binding even after the end of the Councilman's period of office. My question is, is gaining access to the City's private accounts, and then publishing them online, an action taken in accord with the spirit of the oath of a Common Councilman? I don't know the answer to that question, but upon it hinges more than a fine point of moral philosophy.
Here is the Occupy London page that talks about this action of Father Taylor's: Father William Taylor claims to have no interest in Occupy. Occupy on the other hand, appears to have considerable interest in him.
Now whether you agree with Father Taylor or not in this action of publishing private City documents online, we here in PortsokenWard need to ask a narrower question: Is any of this going to do us any good up at Guildhall?
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The only prior elected position I had held, was as Cultural Affairs Officer of the University of Canterbury Students' Association. I also was appointed Orientation Controller for the University for Orientation '87, one of the only Orientation Festivals held at Canterbury on record that was within budget. But I digress....
Lord Glasman encouraged residents to stand in our ward. For this he must be thanked. He was against outsiders muscling their way in, and thought that local residents should be standing for election - yet in Portsoken no local residents had stood for election for a number of years. Iris Samuel ruled the ward.
William Taylor and Maurice Glasman have remained closely associated, and frequently co-operate on projects. Their names often crop up together in articles and discussions about the City of London Corporation.
As an example of this, the anti City of London film by Michael Chanan and Lee Salter comes to mind. This short film features both Taylor and Glasman, as can be seen from the transcript, which can be read here.
As you can see, Taylor has, as Facebook would put it, a complicated relationship with the City Corporation. Now, the way I see it is this: Portsoken is already a thorn in the Corporation's side. We are a 'difficult ward' purely as a result of our demographics. We do not want to see that thorn mutate into a stake, thrust into the heart of the body politic of the Corporation of London.
Yes, the City needs reform. I agree with that as a general proposition. However, the paramount needs of the residents of this ward cannot be sacrificed to that greater good. Should hypothetically Taylor be elected as our Common Councilman, he would have a massive hurdle of opposition from the sitting Councilmen to clamber over, before he could even contemplate effective lobbying on our behalf at Guildhall. That is apart from his putting himself forward as a Party Political candidate in this election, which brings its own difficulties along with it, given the non party political nature of the City of London.
William Taylor was previously a Member of Common Council for our ward, from 2001 to 2003, and again from 2005 to 2008. As such, he swore the oaths required of a Common Councilman. In my view, that oath remains morally binding even after the end of the Councilman's period of office. My question is, is gaining access to the City's private accounts, and then publishing them online, an action taken in accord with the spirit of the oath of a Common Councilman? I don't know the answer to that question, but upon it hinges more than a fine point of moral philosophy.
Here is the Occupy London page that talks about this action of Father Taylor's: Father William Taylor claims to have no interest in Occupy. Occupy on the other hand, appears to have considerable interest in him.
Now whether you agree with Father Taylor or not in this action of publishing private City documents online, we here in PortsokenWard need to ask a narrower question: Is any of this going to do us any good up at Guildhall?
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Monday 17 February 2014
Falling Between the Cracks
The City and Hackney form a joint NHS Trust. Patients in the City need to access services in Hackney, and this includes additional travel costs for City residents if they are dealing with a specialist unit that is only based in Hackney.
In this particular instance, the Hackney based service issued a request for a discretionary (disabled) Freedom Pass, which would have been granted pro forma by Hackney Council in this case.
The patient was sent the Hackney paperwork, as that is the default setting for City and Hackney NHS - only a handful of City residents would need this type of discretionary travel pass in any particular year, the majority of patients live in Hackney.
The paperwork was rejected, as the patient is a City resident. A City form was then requested, and submitted to Guildhall. It was not processed, as the City does not issue such 'discretionary' passes anymore. It used to, but about three or so years ago, a committee in Guildhall decided to no longer issue such passes.
This is a clear case of City policy discriminating against residents with additional needs, where a similar vulnerable resident, using the same NHS services just across the municipal boundary, would have access to better quality support.
The City is unable to provide the specialist NHS services required by its residents within the City boundary. That is why we have a joint NHS service. If a patient needs to travel to Hackney access specialist NHS services, and the nature of their treatment is such as to qualify them for a disabled FreedomPass in the Hackney part of the NHS Trust, then it should also qualify them in the City..
This is a typical example of the lack of joined-up governance that affects City residents. Due to the demographic profile of Portsoken residents, with our high percentage of young families,unemployed and elderly, we tend to suffer more from this than other wards.
I hear this complaint over and over again from residents in Portsoken - that in many respects they would be better served living in Hackney, or in Tower Hamlets. The so-called 'benefits' of living in the City ring hollow to many of our local residents.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Sunday 16 February 2014
Middlesex Street Enhancement Strategy
The White Paper for Middlesex Street Enhancement can be seen here:
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Friday 14 February 2014
Residents United
News on the ground is that possibly three locally resident citizens of London may be stepping forward in this coming election in Portsoken Ward.
There are also people from outside the ward, non-resident freemen, who are seeking election for their own political agenda.
My strong view is that Portsoken needs local representation.
I urge you to vote in this upcoming election for a locally resident citizen. This is what Portsoken needs.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
There are also people from outside the ward, non-resident freemen, who are seeking election for their own political agenda.
My strong view is that Portsoken needs local representation.
I urge you to vote in this upcoming election for a locally resident citizen. This is what Portsoken needs.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
And the Turkeys will vote for Christmas?
William Taylor has in the past been associated in some way with the 'Occupy' movement, although the movement had other ideas about that.
William works closely with Lord Glasman, who is no friend of the City of London. It was Glasman who got Campbell Taylor to stand in Portsoken the first time ten years ago, through his involvement in campaigning against the redevelopment of Spitalfields by Mike Bear.
I believe most residents in Portsoken are generally proud of our local authority, and think that it runs quite well - though it could be improved, and that is what effective Councilmen are for - to make it work better on behalf of the residents and citizens.
The Fifth Column
"Campbell-Taylor - a handsome and articulate Oxbridge-educated priest - probably felt more at home than Glasman in front of the assorted City scriveners, aldermen and barristers. Glasman has thick, tousled black hair, horn-rimmed glasses and an easy, slightly dishevelled charm. Born in 1961, a grandchild of eastern European refugees from the Holocaust, he was educated at a rough north London comprehensive but won an exhibition to read history at Cambridge. He bunked off lectures, took up the trumpet and joined a band, the Ashtrays, though the big break never came. "I had to do a reckoning with who I was," he told me. "I thought for a long time that it was women I was interested in. But I was having a lot of anxiety: I thought it was because I was with the wrong women. Eventually I realised it was political work and academic engagement that made me happy. I had made a simple category error."
Here is a typical article from 2013
"Revolt against the City of London Mediaeval Elders"
Here are the Occupy Movement's Demands:
• An end to business and corporate block-votes in all council elections, which can be used to outvote local residents.
• Abolition of existing "secrecy practices" within the City, and total and transparent reform of its institutions to end corporate tax evasion.
• The decommissioning of the City of London police with officers being brought under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan police force.
• Abolition of the offices of Lord Mayor of London, the Sheriffs and the Aldermen.
• And a truth and reconciliation commission to examine corruption within the City and its institutions.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
William works closely with Lord Glasman, who is no friend of the City of London. It was Glasman who got Campbell Taylor to stand in Portsoken the first time ten years ago, through his involvement in campaigning against the redevelopment of Spitalfields by Mike Bear.
I believe most residents in Portsoken are generally proud of our local authority, and think that it runs quite well - though it could be improved, and that is what effective Councilmen are for - to make it work better on behalf of the residents and citizens.
The Fifth Column
"Campbell-Taylor - a handsome and articulate Oxbridge-educated priest - probably felt more at home than Glasman in front of the assorted City scriveners, aldermen and barristers. Glasman has thick, tousled black hair, horn-rimmed glasses and an easy, slightly dishevelled charm. Born in 1961, a grandchild of eastern European refugees from the Holocaust, he was educated at a rough north London comprehensive but won an exhibition to read history at Cambridge. He bunked off lectures, took up the trumpet and joined a band, the Ashtrays, though the big break never came. "I had to do a reckoning with who I was," he told me. "I thought for a long time that it was women I was interested in. But I was having a lot of anxiety: I thought it was because I was with the wrong women. Eventually I realised it was political work and academic engagement that made me happy. I had made a simple category error."
He took on various academic posts and wrote a book called Unnecessary Suffering, about the Solidarity movement in Poland. In 1995, he took a job at Guildhall University, where he made friends with Campbell-Taylor, the chaplain. Campbell-Taylor first properly encountered the corporation through a campaign called Spitalfields Market Under Threat (Smut), confronting a property development on the fringes of the City. They were astonished to find that the corporation was a big shareholder in the development - a public authority acting as a private company, outside its jurisdiction. They resolved to find out more. Campbell-Taylor got himself elected as a City ward councillor, running on a campaign to save a school. Once inside, he discovered the matter that would take him to the law lords."
source for the above quoteHere is a typical article from 2013
"Revolt against the City of London Mediaeval Elders"
Here are the Occupy Movement's Demands:
• An end to business and corporate block-votes in all council elections, which can be used to outvote local residents.
• Abolition of existing "secrecy practices" within the City, and total and transparent reform of its institutions to end corporate tax evasion.
• The decommissioning of the City of London police with officers being brought under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan police force.
• Abolition of the offices of Lord Mayor of London, the Sheriffs and the Aldermen.
• And a truth and reconciliation commission to examine corruption within the City and its institutions.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Monday 10 February 2014
Portsoken All-Age Early Intervention Review
The document for the March 2013 Portsoken All-Age early Intervention Review can be read here.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Committee at Middlesex Street
The Committee at Middlesex Street is still up and running and working on behalf of the residents.
I recently attended a meeting, and found the atmosphere amicable, efficient, constructive and fully transparent.
In due course, a general meeting will be held so that a new constitution can be adopted.
At this time of change on the Estate, with the next phase of building works in the pipeline, it is particularly important that the residents are represented by a strong committee.
The residents'committees on Mansell Street Estate and Middlesex Street Estate are important parts of our local democracy here in Portsoken Ward.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
I recently attended a meeting, and found the atmosphere amicable, efficient, constructive and fully transparent.
In due course, a general meeting will be held so that a new constitution can be adopted.
At this time of change on the Estate, with the next phase of building works in the pipeline, it is particularly important that the residents are represented by a strong committee.
The residents'committees on Mansell Street Estate and Middlesex Street Estate are important parts of our local democracy here in Portsoken Ward.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Sunday 9 February 2014
The History of our Ward is Fascinating.
Printed and promoted by Evan Philip Millner of 19b Petticoat Tower, Petticoat Square, City of London E1 7EF
Portsoken Ward was sold to the City of London during the reign of Elizabeth the First.
It has its own charters, unlike any other ward in the City of London, as it was originally an independent borough, and is mentioned separately in various of the City's Charters.
This excerpt is from Gurdon, "The History of the High Court of Parliament", pg230.
What was the original 'constitution' of Portsoken, before it became part of the City?
Ballard - British Borough Charters:
Madox, Firma Burgi, pg 30
What we now call the ward-mote is the surviving remnant of this ancient constitution.
4 Feb 1531 - The Soke was surrendered to King Henry VIII by Nicholas Hancock, Alderman and last Prior of Holy Trinity.
Did this terminate the franchise? (Jacon and Tomlins, Law Dictionary, 1809, vide 'Franchise".
The Franchise of the Cnighten Gild had been created 'de novo'. it did not become extinct when it was surrendered to the King. As we can see, it was subsequently gifted to Sir Thomas Audley, who became Alderman.
Henry gave it to Sir Thomas Audley.
While most of the City’s attempts to undermine the liberties’ franchises were
fruitless, it met with notable success in the precinct of Christ Church (or Holy Trinity
Priory) at Aldgate. In February 1532 Holy Trinity became the first London religious
house to meet its end under Henry VIII.107 For centuries Holy Trinity’s prior had been ex
officio alderman of the City’s Portsoken Ward.108 When the site passed to Lord Chancellor
Thomas Audley in April 1534, the City encountered the stubbornness of post-monastic
owners for the first time. Audley claimed the rights of the prior both within the precinct
and in the civic government.
The aldermen finally paid Audley two hundred marks in
1537 to relinquish his claim to the aldermanship.
After Audley’s 1544 death, the precinct passed to his daughter Margaret, who in 1558 married Thomas Howard, fourth duke of Norfolk.
Norfolk made the precinct his London home for a period, from which it earned a third name, Duke’s Place. Norfolk also purchased the London Charterhouse from Lord North in 1565 and renamed it Howard House.
After Norfolk’s conviction for treason in 1572, his sons were allowed to keep much of the
estate. Philip (later earl of Arundel) took Howard House while his brother Thomas (later
earl of Suffolk) inherited Duke’s Place. Philip was convicted of treason and attainted in
April 1589, but Thomas survived to become ‘one of the most extravagant courtiers at
the extravagant Jacobean court.’1
In January 1586 several aldermen met with him ‘towchinge the sale of Christe Churche within Allgate’,which finally occurred in July 1592. Afterwards, the Corporation of London governed Duke’s Place as landlord and as holder of the precincts’ franchises, but it had to wait until 1608 for its jurisdiction there
to be regularised. (5 CLRO Let Bk AB, fo 106)
Audley died April 30 1554, and his daughter Margaret inherited the Soke, which passed to her husband, Thomas Duke of Norfolk.
He was beheaded June 2, 15th Elizabeth.
His eldest son, Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk, inherited the Soke.
On July 21st, 34th Elizabeth, he sold the Soke (Franchise) to the Mayor, Commonality and Citizens of London.
On the question of whether any liberties remain for Citizens of London, see McBain,2013, International Law Research, Volume 2, number 1, 2013. The answer is, essentially, "no".
Items collected that throw light on wardmote powers:
The Power of Wardmote to Appoint Committees:
The wardmote appears to have had the power to appoint a committee, for carrying out a particular function within the ward. Here is an example from Farringdon Without, from 1789:
Here is another, explicit request that committees be appointed at the wardmote, dated 1803: These committees were to comprise common councilmen and inhabitants, jointly.
Here is yet another reference to a local ward based committee involved in local governance of the ward (1771)
A more recent example comes from the Wardmote of Farringdon Without, 1859, where a committee appointed by the wardmote in the previous year delivered its findings to the wardmote:
Portsoken Ward was sold to the City of London during the reign of Elizabeth the First.
It has its own charters, unlike any other ward in the City of London, as it was originally an independent borough, and is mentioned separately in various of the City's Charters.
This excerpt is from Gurdon, "The History of the High Court of Parliament", pg230.
What was the original 'constitution' of Portsoken, before it became part of the City?
Ballard - British Borough Charters:
Madox, Firma Burgi, pg 30
What we now call the ward-mote is the surviving remnant of this ancient constitution.
4 Feb 1531 - The Soke was surrendered to King Henry VIII by Nicholas Hancock, Alderman and last Prior of Holy Trinity.
Did this terminate the franchise? (Jacon and Tomlins, Law Dictionary, 1809, vide 'Franchise".
The Franchise of the Cnighten Gild had been created 'de novo'. it did not become extinct when it was surrendered to the King. As we can see, it was subsequently gifted to Sir Thomas Audley, who became Alderman.
Henry gave it to Sir Thomas Audley.
While most of the City’s attempts to undermine the liberties’ franchises were
fruitless, it met with notable success in the precinct of Christ Church (or Holy Trinity
Priory) at Aldgate. In February 1532 Holy Trinity became the first London religious
house to meet its end under Henry VIII.107 For centuries Holy Trinity’s prior had been ex
officio alderman of the City’s Portsoken Ward.108 When the site passed to Lord Chancellor
Thomas Audley in April 1534, the City encountered the stubbornness of post-monastic
owners for the first time. Audley claimed the rights of the prior both within the precinct
and in the civic government.
The aldermen finally paid Audley two hundred marks in
1537 to relinquish his claim to the aldermanship.
After Audley’s 1544 death, the precinct passed to his daughter Margaret, who in 1558 married Thomas Howard, fourth duke of Norfolk.
Norfolk made the precinct his London home for a period, from which it earned a third name, Duke’s Place. Norfolk also purchased the London Charterhouse from Lord North in 1565 and renamed it Howard House.
After Norfolk’s conviction for treason in 1572, his sons were allowed to keep much of the
estate. Philip (later earl of Arundel) took Howard House while his brother Thomas (later
earl of Suffolk) inherited Duke’s Place. Philip was convicted of treason and attainted in
April 1589, but Thomas survived to become ‘one of the most extravagant courtiers at
the extravagant Jacobean court.’1
In January 1586 several aldermen met with him ‘towchinge the sale of Christe Churche within Allgate’,which finally occurred in July 1592. Afterwards, the Corporation of London governed Duke’s Place as landlord and as holder of the precincts’ franchises, but it had to wait until 1608 for its jurisdiction there
to be regularised. (5 CLRO Let Bk AB, fo 106)
Audley died April 30 1554, and his daughter Margaret inherited the Soke, which passed to her husband, Thomas Duke of Norfolk.
He was beheaded June 2, 15th Elizabeth.
His eldest son, Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk, inherited the Soke.
On July 21st, 34th Elizabeth, he sold the Soke (Franchise) to the Mayor, Commonality and Citizens of London.
On the question of whether any liberties remain for Citizens of London, see McBain,2013, International Law Research, Volume 2, number 1, 2013. The answer is, essentially, "no".
Items collected that throw light on wardmote powers:
The Power of Wardmote to Appoint Committees:
The wardmote appears to have had the power to appoint a committee, for carrying out a particular function within the ward. Here is an example from Farringdon Without, from 1789:
Here is another, explicit request that committees be appointed at the wardmote, dated 1803: These committees were to comprise common councilmen and inhabitants, jointly.
The two excerpts below are from an article by Toulmin Smith, mid 1800'
Note: From the article quoted above, there appear to be Acts of Common Council that allow the occupiers to requisition the wardmote to meet.
Yet another precedent for a wardmote to appoint a committee, is found in the 1792 wardmote of Cripplegate Without.
Ward Precincts:
Municipal Ward Precincts have administrative function in the ward.
All the wards of the
City are divided into administrative areas, which are known
as Precincts. These are small areas, and among other things, the
residents of each precinct originally elected the men of the Wardmote Inquest
every year, according to their ancient Custom. This was a local government committee that investigated nuisances and annoyances in the ward, and reported to the Court of Wardmote.
The names of our
Precinct areas are:
The Barrs Precinct, (The cluster of buildings south of Aldgate High street, up to the edge of the Guinness Estate, comprises this precinct)
Covent Garden Precinct, (Modern Middlesex Street Estate is located here)
High
Street Precinct, (The Central traffic island containing the church, tube station, etc is located here)
Hounsditch Precinct, (John Cass School is all that remains of this precinct)
and Tower Hill Precinct. (Mansell Street Estate is located here)
Each Precinct can have a committee for local governance of the Ward, headed up by a Common Councilman.
Due to
adjustments in the Ward Boundaries, some of these Precincts no longer
fall inside the Ward. Professor Derek Keene, the Leverhulme Professor
at the Centre for Metropolitan history, has reconstructed the
boundaries of the precincts, using old tax records.
These ward precinct meetings were more regular occurences than the annual warmote: They could, apparently, directly petition Common Council, as we see from the Court of Common Council minutes from December 4 1794:
These ward precinct meetings were more regular occurences than the annual warmote: They could, apparently, directly petition Common Council, as we see from the Court of Common Council minutes from December 4 1794:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)