their neighbours, and care no more for one ward than for another, all
being equally indifferent to them. They are bound together by no
common ties, nor have they any local or traditional sympathies. It is,
therefore, very doubtful that their presence among the aldermen, or in
the Court of Common Council, would prove at all beneficial to the
City, or likely to enhance their own personal reputation. And if, as
they themselves allege, they have hitherto been deterred from
undertaking civic duties by the pressure of private affairs, there is
no ground for the hypothesis that they will henceforth have more
leisure to devote themselves to promoting the welfare of their
neighbours. In truth, the office of alderman is no sinecure. He is not
merely a very stout gentleman, wearing a blue gown, and guzzling
enormous quantities of turtle-soup. That caricature is of a piece with
the old fable of the lean Frenchman, starving upon frogs, and capable
only of dancing and grimacing. An alderman of the City of London has
most onerous duties to discharge, for which he expects no other
remuneration than the approval of his own conscience and the respect
of his fellow-citizens.

It is matter of public notoriety, that in the year 1834 the
Corporation cheerfully complied with the requisitions of the
Government with regard to the business of the Central Criminal Court.
The number of sessions and of courts was increased, prison
accommodation considerably enlarged, and other arrangements made with
the utmost liberality in order to facilitate the administration of
justice. By the Act passed in that year, it was specially provided
that the aldermen of London should be members of the commission, which
should be presided over by the Lord Mayor. The local knowledge
possessed by these magistrates has enabled them on very many occasions
to render important service to the judges in apportioning the