THE

Central Literary Magazine.

It must be borne in mind that this Magazine is neutral in Politics and Religion; its pages are open to a free expression of all shades of opinion without leaning to any.

No. 6.

APRIL, 1882.

VOL. V.

OUR MUNICIPAL LIFE-ITS CHARACTER AND USES.*

No form of local government attains so high a position in popular esteem as that of a municipality, and in spite of the unworthy jeers of many who have been unable or unwilling to take part in the work, none commands so large a share of respect as does an honestly administered corporation under the laws now in force in our country. In saying this I do not commit myself to the opinion that none of those laws are capable of improvement, rather on the contrary, experience has proved that many require amendment and enlargement to enable them to cover the greatly increased work which now has to be performed under them. If rightly conducted, it enables all matters of detail and of local interest to be discussed and enacted in a way to obtain the confidence of the people most interested, a result which would be impossible if the work had to be performed through some central influence from the metropolis, and it serves also to promote a genuine interest in local obligations by which alone a healthy state of things among communities can be obtained.

* Being the Presidential Address delivered to the Members of the Association, October 7th, 1881.

Mr. Gladstone in one of his great speeches said-" Our municipalities produce qualities which are the best safeguards of England's greatness;" and he might have added, as indeed was added in the article I saw on the speech, that "they play no secondary part in stimulating that proverbial love of regulated independence which characterizes the faithful type of an English citizen."

"Local institutions alone generate and foster the conviction among the people that government is a matter in which everyone ought to take an interest; it is not a machine which the people at large are to put away from them as not their concern, but one to which they must all bring an active and a helping hand-they are taught by such institutions to work out and to value their freedom and independence at home, or they need never expect to find either of those blessings abroad."

In the town of Birmingham, then, I am sure I need not apologise for my subject, for when we remember (or rather when we read) what our town was before our era of municipal government, mark its gradual rise since its establishment, and contemplate what we all wish to see it ultimately attain to, we shall, I hope, be amply repaid for the time we are giving to it to-night.

Municipal government of a kind has existed in England since 1439, and I believe there is little doubt that such a system of local government may be traced back to the Roman occupation of Britain, and the organisation seems to have been in part adopted by the AngloSaxons. It is at all events beyond dispute that at that time the counties were under the jurisdiction of Shire-reeves (whence Sheriff), while the boroughs were under the control of the Borough-reeve or Port-reeves. The counties had their Shire-gemotes or Sheriffs-towns where their local affairs were discussed, and the boroughs had their Burgh-mote or Courtleet where their affairs also were regulated. The one assembly was composed of the Freeholders of the county, and the other of the Freemen resident in the borough.

At the time of the Norman Conquest the County Sheriff was supplanted by the Vice-comes, while the Borough-reeve or Port-reeve gave place to the Bailiff (or Mayor), the new officers being appointed by the King instead of by the Freeholders or Freemen as the case might be.

William the Conqueror did not alter the local institutions of the country to the extent which might be imagined by some. The records which established this fact are the Domesday Book and the laws compiled by this Sovereign. In the latter the same features are observable as in the old Saxon laws. The payment of scot and lot or local rates is mentioned, and the words borough and burgesses are also frequently used, and it is clear from the way this is done that the local government of the town was separate from that of the counties, and that it was vested in the Burgesses presided over by a Bailiff.

There are entries in Domesday in almost every county which establish the fact that burgess-ship did not depend upon tenure, but that those only who paid scot and bore lot were entitled to the privilege; those who

from poverty or other causes did not pay the charges were rigidly excluded. No one could be a burgess who was not resident.

It is perfectly clear that at the time of the compilation of Domesday Book no municipal corporations were in existence, though ecclesiastical corporations are there mentioned. Henry I. granted charters to several boroughs, but they were not charters of incorporation; they were simply an enlargement of the powers of local government possessed by the burgesses of the places to which they were related.

It was at this period that an important change took place, the consequences of which could not by any possibility have been foreseen by the King who caused it to be made. The Bailiff appointed by the King was charged, in addition to his other duties, with that of collecting the King's taxes due from his borough. As may be anticipated this was often made the pretext for great oppression, and in order to get rid of it, many towns offered to pay much larger sums than had been hitherto exacted of them, on condition that they might elect their own chief magistrate and assess themselves. Of course a needy King could not resist such an offer, and very many towns repurchased the right they had possessed in Saxon times, that of appointing their own Bailiff or Mayor. The elected officer was now generally known as the Mayor. Down to the time of Henry VI. the right of burgess-ship and of voting for Parliamentary representatives continued to be vested in the whole of the resident householders paying scot and bearing lot, and also doing suit and service in the Court-leet of the town or city.

In the reign of Henry VI. a process commenced which gradually transferred the power from the hands of the burgesses generally to various exclusive bodies within the boroughs, and ultimately produced those grave and most intolerable abuses which were not swept away till 1835.

The first charter of incorporation to any municipal body was granted in 1439 to Kingston-upon-Hull. The old boroughs were not quick in applying for similar charters, and proof is existent that the burgesses were very jealous lest the new corporations might usurp their rights, and abuse the power given to them; and already, out of the few cases where charters had been given, the people were asking Parliament to interfere for their protection, and it was only by a decision of the Court of Common Pleas in 1466 that powers of local self-government of the new municipal form were forced upon boroughs, and the charters of the early Kings which gave simply the right of local self-government were construed as charters of incorporation. The mischievous consequences

of this decision were afterwards fully proved.

I need not occupy the time of the meeting by telling you how the Tudors attempted to use the new corporations for their own purposes, and how charters were issued to what were merely nomination boroughs where the right of burgess-ship was limited to a select and self-electing body, or was extended to those who, although not possessing the requisite qualification, were called to be freemen of the boroughs, a plan equally mischievous.

In the time of James I. an effort was made to put a stop to this abuse, but nothing came of it, and it continued in all its force until the happy downfall of James II., and indeed during the reign of William III. and his successors the abuse was in some sense retained.

The general result of the innovations and abuses introduced-such as the substitution of freemen, as voters, for burgesses, and companies and liveries being interwoven with the right of burgess-ship, was the laying of all municipal privileges at the feet of the party strong enough to procure the admission of their friends into these liveries or companies, and to still further aid this plan, often a sufficient number of non-resident freemen were created, thus making the important function of local government but the tool of party violence and private intrigue, all the power being in the hands of narrow and self-elected cliques, who administered local affairs rather for their own advantage than for that of the borough. The inhabitants being practically deprived of the power of local selfgovernment were ruled by those they had not chosen and in whom they had no confidence; money was wasted, improvements of the town were uncared for, and up to this time municipal institutions instead of strengthening and supporting the political framework of the country were a source of weakness, and a constant and fertile cause of discontent. Such was the condition of things until, in 1835, Parliament restored to the inhabitants of the boroughs those rights which their remote ancestors had enjoyed, but of which by a long series of usurpations they had been deprived.

The Municipal Commission passed a scathing condemnation on the old methods in the following terms :-"So far from the councils being the representatives of either the population or the property of the towns they do not even now represent the privileged class of the freemen, and their proceedings are unchecked by any feeling of responsibility."

The passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 it may be said presaged the necessary change in the municipal institutions which shortly followed; it was scarcely possible for it to be otherwise, for under the new arrangements the old form of municipal government was found in practice to be the most convenient machinery for Parliamentary corruption which could possibly be devised. A Commission was appointed to enquire into these existing corporations and to report the defects in their constitution. 285 places were enquired into, and it was found that only 39 had municipal functions worthy of the name.

Their report was followed by an Act which swept away at a stroke all previous charters, usages or special privileges inconsistent with itself, and placed the constitution of all corporations upon a simple uniform and popular basis. London, and a few other places were omitted in order that special legislation might follow, a hope even now after more than forty-five years of waiting still to be realised.

In this Act very specific rules were laid down for the election of Mayor, Aldermen, Councillors, and the Stipendiary Officers, and it imposed penalties to deter any member of a corporation being

pecuniarily interested in any of its works. Towns were divided into wards according to population, so that one-third of the council in each year should retire, thus giving the voters complete control over the Councillors by refusing to re-elect them if they had not enjoyed their confidence, or fulfilled the expectations of those by whom they were chosen.

Parliament having paved the way for large towns such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, and many other similar places to become really municipal corporations, it was felt by a considerable number of the inhabitants of our own town that more time ought not to be allowed to go by without an effort being made to relieve Birmingham of the incubus of the various kinds of government from which she suffered, being then subject to more than half a dozen different authorities, all elected on different principles, and all apparently pulling against each other, only one of them claiming any pretence to popular election, the rest being self-elected, self-delegated and irresponsible-having neither real authority nor respect in the town.

It was felt by these forefathers of ours that the name of Birmingham ought no longer to be a bye-word, and that it ought to assume its rightful position in the country. The intelligent and thoughtful among its people felt that it was quite time that advantage was taken of the reforms which had been made legal, and that if Birmingham was ever to hold its proper place, and participate in the progress of the country which was now beginning to be very marked in its history, our citizens should be entrusted with the management and control of their own affairs; and that in fact our town should assume its rightful place and conduct its own purely local affairs.

Of course there was, then as now the usual opposition whenever any really useful reform is proposed, or anything is done or suggested giving more power to and showing more confidence in the people; there are always prophets of evils and sticklers for the continuance of the old ways, however stupid and obsolete they may have become. The privileged classes preferred the old ways, they had arranged their own methods and elected their own colleagues, electing here and excluding there for their own reasons, and no doubt they brought themselves honestly to believe that a change to a more popular form of government would be prejudicial to the interests of the town they so much governed, and apparently so much loved.

The old battle had to be waged-privilege and irresponsibility 7. popular right—it promised to be very furious, but is there any doubt as to which side ultimately triumphs in such cases? As usual this was no exception to the rule, and right won all round- -no thanks to what at that time appeared to be a Liberal Administration, which was in its principles not unlike some of our professed Liberals of to-day as much opposed to any real progress as if they belonged to the other side.

At last the hopes of the party of progress were realised, and Birmingham, to quote from the speech of one of its disappointed inhabitants," suffered the infliction of a bitter curse on its social happiness