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 splendor, 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 power of a living institution. It Such a corporation as this could not be lightly touched. The constitution of its governing body: its power- Efforts to ful companies, or guilds: its courts of civil and reform it. criminal jurisdiction: its varied municipal functions: its peculiar customs: its extended powers of local taxation; all these demanded careful inquiry and consideration. was not until 1837 that the commissioners were able to prepare their report; and it was long before any scheme for the reconstitution of the municipality was proposed. However superior to the close corporations which Parliament had recently condemned, many defects and abuses needed correction. Some of these the corporation itself proceeded to correct; and others it sought to remedy, in 1852, by means of a private bill. In 1853, another commission of eminent men was appointed, whose able report formed the basis of a government measure in 1856.1 This bill, however, was not proceeded with; nor have later measures, for the same purpose, hitherto been accepted by Parliament. Yet it cannot be doubted that this great institution will be eventually brought into harmony with the recognized principles of free municipal government. The history of municipal corporations in Scotland re 1 Sir George Grey, April 1st, 1856.- Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxli. 314. 2 Sir George Grey, 1858.- Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxlviii. 738; Sir George Lewis, 1859 and 1860. Ibid., cliv. 946; clvi. 282. in Scotland. sembles that of England, in its leading characteristics. The Corporations royal burghs, being the property of the crown, were the first to receive corporate privileges. Royal burghs. The earlier burgesses were tenants of the crown, with whom were afterwards associated the trades or crafts of the place, which comprised the main body of inhabitants. In the fourteenth century, the constitution of these municipalities appears to have become popular; and the growing influence and activity of the commonalty excited the jealousy of more powerful interests. The latter, without waiting for the tedious expedient of usurpation, obtained an Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1469, which deprived the burgesses of their electoral rights, and established a close principle of self-election. The old council of every burgh was to choose the new council for the year; and the two councils together, with one person representing each craft, were to elect the burgh officers.2 Municipal privileges were also granted to other burghs, Other burghs. under the patronage of territorial nobles or the church. The rights of burgesses varied in different places; but they were generally dependent upon their patrons. ter of these munici stitution. Neither of these two classes of municipalities had enjoyed Close charac- for centuries the least pretence of a popular conTheir property and revenues, their palities. rights of local taxation, their patronage, their judicature, and the election of representatives in Parliament, were all vested in small self-elected bodies. The administration of these important trusts was characterized by the same abuses as those of English corporations. The property was corruptly alienated and despoiled: sold to nobles and other favored persons, sometimes even to the provost himself, at inadequate prices: leased at nominal rents to members of the council; and improvidently charged 1 Report of Commrs., 1835, p. 18. 2 Scots Acts, 1469, c. 5. with debts.1 The revenues were wasted by extravagant salaries, jobbing contracts, public works executed at an exorbitant cost, and civic entertainments.2 By such maladministration several burghs were reduced to insolvency. Charitable funds were wasted and misapplied: the patronage, distributed among the ruling families, was grossly abused. Incompetent persons, and even boys, were appointed to offices of trust. At Forfar, an idiot performed for twenty years the responsible duties of town clerk. Lucrative offices were sold by the councils. Judicature was exercised without fitness or responsibility. The representation formed part of the narrow parliamentary organization by which Scotland, like her sister-kingdoms, was then governed. Many of these abuses were notorious at an early period; and the Scottish Parliament frequently interposed Municipal to restrain them. They continued, however, to reform, Scotland, 1833. flourish; and were exposed by parliamentary inquiries in 1793, and again in 1819, and the two following years. The latter were followed by an Act in 1822, regulating the accounts and administration of the royal burghs, checking the expenditure, and restraining abuses in the sale and leasing of property and the contracting of debts. But it was reserved for the first reformed Parliament to deal with the greatest evil, and the first cause of all other abuses, the close constitution of these burghs. The Scotch Reform Act had already swept away the electoral monopoly which had placed the entire representation of the country in the hands of the government and a few individuals; and in the following year, the ten-pound fran 8 1 Rep., 1835, p. 30. 2 Rep., 1821, p. 14; Ibid., 1835, p. 34. 8 Rep., 1819, p. 15, 23; lbid., 1835, p. 36. 4 Rep., 1819, p. 23; Ibid., 1835, p. 38. 5 Rep., 1820, p. 4; Ibid., 1835, p. 67. 6 Scots Acts, 1491, c. 19; 1503, c. 36, 37; 1535, c. 35; 1593, c. 39; 1693, c. 45; Rep. of 1835, p. 22-28. 7 Rep. of Comm. Committees, 1819, 1820, and 1821. 8 3 Geo. IV. c. 91. chise was introduced as the basis of new municipal constitutions. The system of self-election was overthrown, and popular government restored. The people of Scotland were impatient for this remedial measure; and, the abuses of the old corporate bodies being notorious, Parliament did not even wait for the reports of commissioners appointed to inquire into them, but proceeded at once to provide a remedy. The old fabric of municipal administration fell without resistance, and almost in silence: its only defence being found in the protest of a solitary peer.1 2 In the corporations of Ireland, popular rights had been recognized, at least in form, though the peCorporations, Ireland. culiar condition of that country had never been favorable to their exercise. Even the charters of James I., designed to narrow the foundations of corporate authority, usually incorporated the inhabitants, or commonalty of boroughs. The ruling bodies, however, having the power of admitting freemen, whether resident or not, readily appropriated all the power and patronage of local administration. In the greater number of boroughs, the council, or other ruling body, was practically self-elected. The freemen either had no rights, or were debarred, by usurpation, from asserting them. In other boroughs, where the rights of freemen were acknowledged, the council were able to overrule the inhabitants by the voices of nonresident freemen, their own nominees and creatures. Close self-election, and irresponsible power, were the basis of nearly all the corporations of Ireland. In many boroughs, patrons filled the council with their own dependents, and exercised uncontrolled authority over the property, revenues, and government of the municipality. It were tedious to recount the more vulgar abuses of this Their abuses. system. Corporate estates appropriated, or irreg 1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xx. 563-576; 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 76, 77. 2 Rep. of Commrs., 1835, p. 7. 8 lbid., p. 13-18. ularly acquired, by patrons and others in authority: leases corruptly granted: debts recklessly contracted: exclusive tolls levied, to the injury of trade and the oppression of the poor: exclusive trading privileges enjoyed by freemen, to the detriment of other inhabitants: the monopoly of patronage by a few families the sacrifice of the general welfare of the community to the particular interests of individuals; such were 2 : the natural results of close government in Ireland, as elsewhere. The proper duties of local government were neglected or abused; and the inhabitants of the principal towns were obliged to seek more efficient powers for paving, lighting, and police, under separate boards constituted by local Acts or by a general measure of 1828, enacted for that purpose. But there were constitutional evils greater than these. Corporate towns returned members to Parliament; and the patrons, usurping the franchises of the people, reduced them to nomination boroughs. But, above all, Catholics were everywhere excluded from the privileges of municipal Exclusion of government. The remedial law of 1793, which Catholics. restored their rights, was illusory. Not only were they still denied a voice in the council, but even admission to the freedom of their own birthplaces. A narrow and exclusive interest prevailed, in politics, in local administration, and in trade, over Catholic communities, however numerous and important. Catholics could have no confidence either in the management of municipal trusts or in the administration of justice. Among their own townsmen their faith had made them outlaws. The Reform Act established a new elective franchise on a wider basis; and the legislature soon afterwards Irish Cor addressed itself to the consideration of the evils porations of municipal misgovernment. But the Irish 1 Rep. of Commrs. p. 17-38. 29 Geo. IV. c. 82; Rep. of Commrs., p. 21. Bills. |