Definition
The Customs of London are a body of particular local usages historically recognized as having legal force within the City of London, operating as an exception to or supplement of the general common law of England. These customs governed a wide range of subjects including trade regulation, the rights and obligations of apprentices, the succession rights of widows, and the protection and distribution of orphans' estates.
The Customs of London occupied a distinct jurisprudential position: they were not statutes, nor were they universal common law rules, but they were acknowledged by courts as forming a recognized part of English law applicable within the City's jurisdiction. Their authority rested on long usage and judicial recognition, not parliamentary enactment.
Two subject areas deserve particular note:
1. INTESTATE SUCCESSION: Under the custom, a deceased Londoner's personal estate was divided among the widow, children, and the "dead man's part" according to local usage, departing from the general common law rule that gave executors and administrators broader control. This custom was formally abolished by statute (19 & 20 Vict. c. 94).
2. FOREIGN ATTACHMENT: The custom of foreign attachment allowed creditors to attach debts owed to a non-resident defendant by garnishing a third party within the City. This procedural device predated general attachment law and was eventually extended by statute to all of England.
---
Common Confusion
The Customs of London should not be confused with customs law (import duties and tariff regulation administered by customs authorities), nor with the broader concept of local custom as a general category of jurisprudence. The Customs of London are a historically specific body of usages belonging to one municipality. They are also distinct from the law merchant, though the two occasionally overlapped in commercial matters within the City.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost exclusively encountered in historical legal sources — English common law treatises, equity cases involving London estates, and probate or succession disputes predating the mid-nineteenth century. Researchers should be alert to several traps:
STATUTORY ABOLITION: The most practically significant branch — the succession custom — was abolished by 19 & 20 Vict. c. 94 (1856). Any source discussing the custom without noting this abolition is either pre-1856 or incomplete. Bouvier's is one of the few dictionary sources to flag this change directly.
PARTIAL SURVIVAL AND EXTENSION: Not all customs were abolished simultaneously. The foreign attachment custom, rather than being abolished, was extended by statute to the rest of England — meaning its procedural logic persisted and influenced later attachment doctrine. Researchers tracing the history of garnishment or third-party attachment should follow this thread.
ORPHANS' COURT JURISDICTION: The Customs of London gave rise to a specialized jurisdiction over the estates of freemen's orphans within the City. References to the "Court of Orphans" or "orphans' part" in historical London probate materials connect directly to this body of custom.
BLACKSTONE AND STEPHEN AS PRIMARY GUIDES: Both Blackstone (1 Bl. Comm. 75) and Stephen (1 Steph. Comm. 54–55; 8 Steph. Comm. 588) are the foundational secondary sources on this topic. Researchers encountering the term in older cases will almost always find the relevant explanatory authority in one of these two treatises.
CORPUS CONNECTIONS: The Customs of London appear in materials touching on commercial law history, apprenticeship, guild regulation, widows' dower rights, and intestate succession. They sit at the intersection of local government law, equity, and early commercial practice.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries are in close agreement on the core definition: all describe the Customs of London as particular local usages within the City governing trade, apprentices, widows, and orphans, citing Blackstone and Stephen as authority. The entries are largely derivative of one another on the basic point.
Bouvier's stands apart in substantive value. It is the only source among the four to note the statutory abolition of the succession custom and to flag the extension of the foreign attachment custom — both developments essential to understanding the term's practical legal history. Bouvier's cross-reference to "Dead Man's Part" is also useful, directing researchers to the specific succession terminology embedded in these customs.
Rapalje & Lawrence's entry is unhelpful — the relevant content appears garbled in the source, conflated with entries on customary court baron and charter-party dispatch. Researchers should not rely on Rapalje & Lawrence for this term.
Burrill's entry mirrors Black's almost exactly, adding nothing beyond the shared Blackstone and Stephen citations.
None of the historical dictionaries engage with the foreign attachment doctrine in any depth, and none trace the post-abolition doctrinal legacy. For those questions, researchers must go to the treatises directly.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The Customs of London are a feature of English legal history with no direct American equivalent. American courts occasionally encountered the customs in the context of colonial-era inheritance disputes or English law questions, but the customs never took root as operative law in any American jurisdiction. U.S. researchers will encounter the term only in historical or comparative contexts.
---