fostered.1 Townsmen viewed with distrust the proceedings of councils, over whom they had no control, whose constitution was oligarchical, and whose political sentiments were often obnoxious to the majority. In some towns the middle classes found themselves ruled by a close council alone: in others by the council and a rabble of freemen,-its creatures,-drawn mainly from the lower classes, and having no title to represent the general interests of the community. Hence important municipal powers were often intrusted, under Local Acts, to independent commissioners, in whom the inhabitants had confidence.2 Even the administration of justice was tainted by suspicions of political partiality. Borough magistrates were at once incompetent, and exclusively of one party; and juries were composed of freemen, of the same close connexion. This favoured class also enjoyed trading privileges, which provoked jealousy and fettered commerce.4 of electoral But the worst abuse of these corrupt bodies, was Monopoly that which too long secured their impunity. rights. They were the strongholds of Parliamentary interest and corruption. The electoral privileges which they had usurped, or had acquired by charter, were convenient instruments in the hands of both the political parties, who were contending for power. In many of the corporate towns the representation was as much at the disposal of particular families, as that of nomination boroughs: in 1 Rep. of Commissioners, 31, 46, 47, 48. 2 Ibid., 43. 4 Ibid., 40. - others it was purchased by opulent partisans, whom both parties welcomed to their ranks. In others, again, where freemen enjoyed the franchise, it was secured by bribery, in which the corporations too often became the most active agents, not scrupling even to apply their trust funds to the corruption of electors. The freemen were generally needy and corrupt, and inferior, as well in numbers as in respectability, to the other inhabitants: 2 but they often had an exclusive right to the franchise; and whenever a general election was anticipated, large additions were made to their numbers.3 The freedom of a city was valued according to the length of the candidate's purse. Corporations were safe so long as society was content to tolerate the notorious abuses of Parliamentary representation. The municipal and Parliamentary organisations were inseparable: both were the instruments by which the crown, the aristocracy, and political parties had dispossessed the people of their constitutional rights; and they stood and fell together. The Munici tions Bill, 1835. The Reform Act wrested from the corporations their exclusive electoral privileges, and restored them to the people. This tardy act pal Corporaof retribution was followed by the appointment of a commission of inquiry, which roughly exposed the manifold abuses of irresponsible power, wherever it had been suffered to prevail. And in 1835, Parliament was called upon to overthrow these municipal oligarchies. The measure was fitly intro1 Rep. of Comm., 45. 2 Ibid., 33. 3 Ibid., 34, 35. (See table of freemen created.) duced by Lord John Russell, who had been foremost in the cause of Parliamentary reform.' It proposed to vest the municipal franchise in rated inhabitants who had paid poor-rates within the borough for three years. By them the governing body, consisting of a mayor and common council, were to be elected. The ancient order of aldermen was to be no longer maintained. The pecuniary rights of existing freemen were preserved during their lives: but their municipal franchise was superseded; and as no new freemen were to be created, the class would be eventually extinguished. Exclusive rights of trading were to be discontinued. To the councils, constituted so as to secure public confidence, more extended powers were intrusted, for the police and local government of the town, and the administration of justice; while provision was made for the publicity of their proceedings, the proper administration of their funds, and the publication and audit of their accounts. No effective opposition could be offered to the Amended by the Lords. general principles of this measure. The propriety of restoring the rights of selfgovernment to the people, and sweeping away the corruptions of ages, was generally admitted: but strenuous efforts were made to give further protection to existing rights, and to modify the popular character of the measure. These efforts, ineffectual in the Commons, were successful in the Lords Counsel was heard, and witnesses examined, on behalf of several of the corporations: but the main principles of the bill were not contested. Important 1 June 5th, 1835.-Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxviii. 541. amendments, however, were inserted. The pecuniary rights and parliamentary franchise of freemen received more ample protection. With a view to modify the democratic constitution of the councils, a property qualification was required for town councillors; and aldermen were introduced into the council, to be elected for life; the first aldermen being chosen from the existing body of aldermen.' Those amendments were considered by ministers and the Commons, in a spirit of concession and compromise. The more zealous advocates of popular rights urged their unconditional rejection, even at the sacrifice of the bill: but more temperate councils prevailed, and the amendments were accepted with modifications. A qualification for councillors was agreed to, but in a less invidious form: aldermen were to be elected for six years, instead of for life; and the exclusive eligibility of existing aldermen was not insisted on. And thus was passed a popular measure, second in importance to the Reform Act alone. The municipal bodies which it created, if less popular than under the original scheme, were yet founded upon a wide basis of representation, which has since been further extended.1 Local selfgovernment was effectually restored. Elected rulers have since generally secured the confidence of their constituents: municipal office has become an object of honourable ambition to public-spirited townsmen; and local administration,-if not free from 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxx. 426, 480, 579, &c. 3 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76. Municipal Corporations Act, 1859, 22 Vict. c. 35. abuses, has been exercised under responsibility and popular control. And further, the enjoyment of municipal franchises has encouraged and kept alive a spirit of political freedom, in the inhabitants of towns. Corpora tion of London. One ancient institution alone was omitted from this general measure of reform,-the corporation of the City of London. It was a municipal principality,—of great antiquity, of wide jurisdiction, of ample property and revenues,—and of composite organisation. Distinguished for its public spirit, its independent influence had often been the bulwark of popular rights. Its magistrates had braved the resentment of kings and Parliaments: its citizens had been foremost in the cause of civil and religious liberty. Its traditions were associated with the history and glories of England. Its civic potentates had entertained, with princely splendour, kings, conquerors, ambassadors and statesmen. Its wealth and stateliness, its noble old Guildhall and antique pageantry, were famous throughout Europe. It united, like an ancient monarchy, the memories of a past age, with the pride and powers of a living institution. Efforts to reform it. Such a corporation as this could not be lightly touched. The constitution of its governing body its powerful companies or guilds: its courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction: its varied municipal functions: its peculiar customs: its extended powers of local taxation,-all these See Reports of Lords' Committees on Rates and Municipal Franchise, 1859, and Elective Franchise, 1860. |