492 CHAP. XV. Local government the basis of constitutional freedom. LOCAL GOVERNMENT THE BASIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM : — VES- IRELAND-LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AND POLICE ACTS: —LOCAL BOARDS THAT Englishmen have been qualified for the enjoyment of political freedom, is mainly due to those ancient local institutions by which they have been trained to self-government. The affairs of the people have been administered, not in Parliament only, but in the vestry, the town-council, the board-meeting, and the Court of Quarter Sessions. England alone among the nations of the earth has maintained for centuries a constitutional polity; and her liberties may be ascribed, above all things, to her free local institutions. Since the days of their Saxon ancestors', her sons have learned, at their own gates, the duties and responsibilities of citizens. Associating, for the common good, they have become exercised in public affairs. Thousands of small communities have enjoyed the privileges of selfgovernment taxing themselves, through their representatives, for local objects: meeting for discussion and business; and animated by local rivalries and ambitions. The history of local government affords a striking parallel to the general political history of the country. While the aristocracy was encroaching upon popular power in the government of the state, it was making 1 Palgrave's English Commonwealth, i. 628; Allen's Prerog., 128. advances, no less sure, in local institutions. The few were gradually appropriating the franchises which were the birthright of the many; and again, as political liberties were enlarged, the rights of self-government were recovered. Every parish is the image and reflection of the state. The parish. The land, the church, and the commonalty share in its government: the aristocratic and democratic elements are combined in its society. The common law,-in its The vestry. grand simplicity,-recognised the right of all the rated parishioners to assemble in vestry, and administer parochial affairs. But in many parishes this popular principle gradually fell into disuse; and a few inhabitants,— self-elected and irresponsible,-claimed the right of im- The select posing taxes, administering the parochial funds, and vestry. exercising all local authority. This usurpation, long acquiesced in, grew into a custom, which the courts recognised as a legal exception from the common law. The people had forfeited their rights; and select vestries ruled in their behalf. So absolute was their power, that they could assemble without notice, and bind all the inhabitants of the parish by their vote.2 Bourne's This single abuse was corrected by Mr. Sturges Mr. Bourne's Act in 18183: but this same act, while it left Sturges select vestries otherwise unreformed, made a further Act, 1818. inroad upon the popular constitution of open vestries. Hitherto every person entitled to attend, had enjoyed an equal right of voting: but this act multiplied the votes of vestrymen, according to the value of their rated 1 Shaw's Par. Law, c. 17; Steer's Par. Law, 253; Toulmin Smith's Parish, 2nd edn., 15-23, 46-52, 288-330. 2 Gibson's Codex, 219; Burn's Eccl. Law, iv. 10, &c.; Steer, 251. 3 58 Geo. III. c. 69, amended by 59 Geo. III. c. 85, 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 35; Report on Poor Laws, 1818.-Hans. Deb., 1st Ser. xxxviii. 573. Sir John Hobhouse's property one man could give six votes: others no more than one. An important breach, however, was made in the exclusive system of local government, by Sir John HobAct, 1831. house's Vestry Act, passed during the agitation for par Municipal corporations, England. liamentary reform. The majority of ratepayers, in any The history of municipal corporations affords another example of encroachments upon popular rights. The government of towns, under the Saxons, was no less popular than the other local institutions of that race1; and the constitution of corporations, at a later period, was founded upon the same principles. All the settled inhabitants and traders of corporate towns, who contributed to the local taxes, had a voice in the management of their own municipal affairs. The community, en 11 & 2 Will. IV. c. 60; Oct. 20th, 1831; Toulmin Smith's Parish, 240. 2 In the metropolis, or in any parish having more than 3,000 inhabitants, a 407. qualification was required. In the metropolis, however, the act was superseded by the metropolis local management act, 1855.-Infra, 511. 3 In 1842, nine parishes only had adopted it.-Parl. Paper, 1842, No. 564. 4 Palgrave's English Commonwealth, i. 629; Merewether and Stephens' Hist. of Boroughs, Introd. viii.; Kemble's Hist., ii. 262; Lappenberg's England, App.; Hallam's Middle Ages, ii. 153. 5 Report of Commissioners on joying corporate rights and privileges, was continually enlarged by the admission of men connected with the town by birth, marriage, apprenticeship, or servitude, and of others, not so connected, by gift or purchase. For some centuries after the conquest, the burgesses assembled in person, for the transaction of business. They elected a mayor, or other chief magistrate: but no governing body, or town-council, to whom their authority was delegated. The burgesses only were known to the law. But as towns and trade increased, the more convenient practice of representation was introduced for municipal as well as for parliamentary government. The most wealthy and influential inhabitants being chosen, gradually encroached upon the privileges of the inferior townsmen, assumed all municipal authority, and substituted self-election for the suffrages of burgesses and freemen. This encroachment upon popular rights was not submitted to without many struggles: but at the close of the fifteenth century, it had been successfully accomplished in a large proportion of the corporations of England. from Henry VII. to the Re volution. Until the reign of Henry VII., these encroachments Charters had been local and spontaneous. The people had submitted to them: but the law had not enforced them. From this time, however, popular rights were set aside in a new form. The crown began to grant charters to boroughs, generally conferring or reviving the privilege of returning members to Parliament; and most of these charters vested all the powers of municipal government in the mayor and town-council,-nominated in the first instance by the crown itself, and afterwards selfelected. Nor did the contempt of the Tudors for Municipal Corporations, 1835, p. Hist., Introd., v. 1, 10, &c.; Hal16; Merewether and Stephens' lam's Middle Ages, ii. 155. Corpora- volution to popular rights stop here. By many of their charters, the same governing body was entrusted with the exclusive right of returning members to Parliament. For national as well as local government, the burgesses were put beyond the pale of the constitution. And in order to bring municipalities under the direct influence of the crown and the nobility, the office of high steward was often created: when the nobleman holding that office became the patron of the borough, and returned its members to Parliament. The power of the crown and aristocracy was increased, at the expense of the liberties of the people. The same policy was pursued by the Stuarts; and the two last of that race violated the liberties of the few corporations which still retained a popular constitution, after the encroachments of centuries.1 A After the Revolution, corporations were free from the intrusion of prerogative: but the policy of municipal freedom was as little respected as in former times. corporation had come to be regarded as a close governing body, with peculiar privileges. The old model was followed; and the charters of George III. favoured the municipal rights of burgesses no more than the charters of Elizabeth or James I.2 Even where they did not expressly limit the local authority to a small body of persons,-custom and usurpation restricted it either to the town-council, or to that body and its own nominees, the freemen. And while this close form of municipal government was maintained, towns were growing in wealth and population, whose inhabitants had no voice in the management of their own affairs. 1 Case of Quo Warranto, 1683; St. Tr., viii. 1039; Hume's Hist., vi. 201; remodelling the corporations, 1687; Hallam's Const. Hist., ii. 238. 2 Report of Commissioners, p. 17. |