Corporations of Cities and Towns.

A reform of municipal institutions is an undertaking only second in importance to that of the general government. The power of the barons against which corporations were directed, has yielded to that of the state, and the remnants of these confederacies, by the assertion of ancient immunities, tend to disturb the peace and order of the realm. They are too insulated amidst the general wealth and population to strengthen the executive power. They represent no great social interest; the real aristocracy of cities and towns keeps aloof from them, either from disgust at their petty cabals, or contempt for their paltry duties. Instead of being the enlightened governors within their respective limits, they are only oppressors; instead of being faithful trustees, they are notorious plunderers of the widow and orphan; instead of being the centres of local government, of police and judicial administration, they are the sources of disorder, tumult, and prosecution. Wherever we find a corporation, we may generally rely on finding a town ill-governed—the inhabitants divided into rancorous parties—the prisons dilapidated and without discipline—the quarter and petty sessions of the peace ill-conducted—and every office of dignity or authority, from the worshipful recorder to the turnkey, filled up, not from the fitness of the individuals selected, but from personal connexion or influence. All these evils have mostly their origin in one source—the absence of popular control: with hardly an exception the members of all corporations are self-elected; hence their interests are partial, not public; hence every office is made a job of, every magisterial function, whether the granting of a license or the adjudication of an assault, is made a favour or an offence.

That these prefatory criminations have some foundation, we shall endeavour to show by briefly glancing at the constitution and management of some of the principal corporations. Our notice will necessarily be very brief, and not at all proportioned to the magnitude of the subject; but perhaps we shall be able, aided by our previous representations, to give a general idea of the existing state of municipal institutions, which may lead to more perfect and comprehensive inquiries. We shall commence with the corporation of the city of London, not only because it is under our more immediate observance, but because it is the first in rank, antiquity, and importance.

The corporation of London, we believe, is more popular in its constitution than any other in the empire. It is formed, as is well known, on the model of that of the state, consisting of three orders; but it is superior to the state, in the absence of those gross incongruities in its constituent bodies which impair the excellence of parliamentary representation. We may also observe respecting the city corporation, that it is more pure and perfect in its practical administration than any other municipal body of the kingdom. We are well aware what we are now stating; we make the assertion with a full knowledge of city jobbing—of the London Bridge committee—of the Gresham Lectures—of Mansion House dinners—and of the well known fact that from £4,000 to £5,000 per annum is expended by the committees of the Common Council alone; still we affirm that in no other corporation, nor in the general government, nor in the Colonies, is so much work performed at so small a cost. The duties of the corporation are very great, not only in matters relative to the magistracy, police, and local improvements of the city, but also in those which relate to the commerce, navigation, and shipping of the port of London; and in the due discharge of many of which the kingdom at large, as well as the metropolis, is deeply interested. That these functions should be all executed without expense, without remuneration direct or indirect, is what no reasonable person can expect.

Notwithstanding these excellences, the metropolitan corporation is full of anomalies, or, if the reader pleases, defects. We cannot stop to enumerate all these, nor to comment upon them, but we will mention the two principal.

First, as regards the local boundary or civil jurisdiction of the corporation. This comprehends only the nucleus or inner circle of this vast metropolis; all the living portion, the great mass of the opulence, respectability, and population of the capital, is placed without the curtilage of corporate authority, which includes within its legislative cognizance little more than an assemblage of shops, counting-houses, offices, wharfs and warehouses. The evils that result from this cause, whether as respects the conflicting powers of the county and city magistrate, the police, or the composition of the elective bodies of the city, are too well known to require description.

The second great anomaly we shall notice, is that which respects the qualification of the city constituency. As this is now regulated by the statute of the 11th George I. neither residence nor householdership confers the right of suffrage either for a member of the corporation or of the House of Commons. Freemen and liverymen constitute the only two classes of electors, the former of the aldermen and common council; the latter of members of parliament, lord-mayor, and chief city officers. Now it certainly appears indefensible that a householder should not share equally in the local government with the freemen and liverymen. The rights of both freemen and liverymen may be obtained without any direct or permanent interest in the weal of the city. Freedoms are acquired by purchase or gift, as well as by birth or apprenticeship. The rights of the livery or badgemen depend on still less valid qualifications; they are conferred or not at the pleasure of the courts of assistants; or the franchises of the livery may be acquired by purchasing a certain dress, in some companies at an exorbitant price, and in others no money will purchase it, unless the party be known to have imbibed a certain political or religious faith.

If there be injustice in withholding elective rights from householders, the civic disfranchisement of resident freemen is still less defensible. Several of the livery companies were only made such within the last century. None of the companies form a part of the corporation; nor is it necessary the liverymen should be resident in the city; yet in them is exclusively vested the power of choosing the city officers and the members of parliament. Such an anomaly exists in no other city in England. Of the twenty-four cities represented in parliament, there is not one, with the exception of London, where the freemen are disqualified by statute from choosing their representatives.

The utility of the existence of many civic immunities at all is very questionable; they are often an obstacle to the general prosperity and the free exercise of industry. According to the present law of the corporation respecting resident housekeepers carrying on trade in the city of London, they are called on to pay £34: 11; they cannot continue without being also free of a company, which increases the amount of money paid to £50. The Reform Bill, by conferring the parliamentary franchise on householders, will correct some portion of the injustice we have represented.

Corporation of Bristol.—This corporation ranks the second in the kingdom, and its defective constitution has been practically exemplified during the late tragical proceedings. The civil government of the city is vested in the corporation, consisting of a high steward, the mayor, recorder, aldermen, sheriffs, common council, town-clerk, chamberlain, and subordinate functionaries. The mayor and sheriffs are chosen annually on the 15th of September. The sheriffs are elected from the members of the common council, which body is limited, by the charter of Queen Anne, to forty-two. There are twelve aldermen chosen by the twelve wards into which the city is divided. They are constituted preservers of the public tranquillity, with the power of justices of the peace, and enjoy all the privileges and authority of the aldermen of London.

In point of opulence, the Corporation of Bristol is supposed to rank among the most wealthy bodies corporate of the kingdom. In 1778, Mr. Barrett estimated the annual income of the Corporation at £14,000, arising from the several estates they possess, from those for which they act in trust, with the rents of the several markets, the profits arising from town duties, and other sources of income. It has subsequently increased, Mr. Evans conjectures, in his History of Bristol, to £18,000. There is little doubt it is a great deal more from the augmented value of property, and the Corporation having abandoned, without the city, the former practice of letting their estates on lives, with merely fines for renewals. A considerable portion of the city estate is derived from the charter of John, and claimed by them under the title of “lords of the waste,” and including what is now Queen-square, Princes-street, King-street, and part of St. Augustine’s Back, the Key, Grove, and the Back. Out of the Corporation income £1,500 is annually given to the mayor for the better support of the dignity of his office, and £500 to each of the sheriffs. Between £3,000 and £4,000 is expended in salaries and other expenses incidental to the municipal government of the city. The finances of the Corporation are managed by the chamberlain of the city, which office is one of considerable trust and importance. He gives a bond of £3,000 for the execution of his duties with care and fidelity, and is obliged, by the statute, to render an account of the revenues of the Corporation, together with their application, in one month after the feast of St. Luke.

Bristol is a county corporate; that is, besides the city properly so called, certain lands and districts adjacent are comprised within its jurisdiction. The freedom of the city is obtained by hereditary right, by serving an apprenticeship of seven years if the indenture be registered at the council-house, by marrying a freeman’s daughter, and by purchase. The last charter granted to the city of Bristol is dated the 24th of July, 1710, by which the former grants and privileges are confirmed, and the mayor and other officers of the Corporation allowed to execute their respective offices without the approval of the Lord Chancellor, which by the charter of Charles II. was ordered to be first obtained. Had the constitution of the Corporation been popular enough to conciliate the confidence of the citizens, it is impossible the civic authorities should have been so void of resources as they appear to have been during the late riots. Beside, the Corporation is accused of not administering their numerous charitable trusts either wisely or faithfully. The Free Grammar School in Unity-street is a monstrous abuse. It was endowed by Robert Thorne, for the “better education and bringing up” of the youth of the city. Under the auspices of the Corporation it has been perverted into a splendid boarding-school establishment, to the great emolument of the Rev. Dr. Goodenough, and accommodation of the children of the magnates of Bristol.

Corporation of Liverpool.—Liverpool is an ancient borough by prescription, but incorporated by a series of charters granted from the reign of King John in 1208, to the reign of George II. By the latest charter it is provided that the body corporate shall consist of forty-one persons, composing the common council, out of whom shall be annually chosen a mayor, recorder, and two bailiffs. All who have passed the chair are styled aldermen. The mayor, recorder, and aldermen are magistrates for Liverpool, and the four senior aldermen are coroners.

Previously to the reign of Charles II. the freemen at large exercised the right of choosing their own corporate officers; but since that period, here, as in many other places, the corporate body assumed the power of filling up all vacancies within themselves. The free burgesses have, however, reclaimed part of their rights. Members of parliament are chosen by the free burgesses not receiving alms. All persons who are born free, who have served an apprenticeship under freemen, or who have obtained their freedom by grant or purchase from the corporation, have the right of voting. A freeman of Liverpool is also a freeman of Bristol, and of Waterford and Wexford in Ireland.

The principal points that have, from time to time, been in dispute between the burgesses and corporation are these:—1. The right of making by-laws by the common council, without the assent or participation of the burgesses. 2. The plan adopted by the common council of electing their own members, or filling up vacancies in their own body. 3. The balancing of the corporation accounts without public audit by the burgesses at large. These points have been the subject of expensive litigation; the right of making by-laws was decided in favour of the burgesses by the verdicts of two juries at Lancaster; on which occasion Mr. Erskine was their counsel. A third trial was moved for by the corporation, which the Court of King’s Bench, on what grounds does not appear, thought proper to grant. But the expenses incurred in these proceedings, which were sustained by individual burgesses, added to the consideration that the law has prescribed no limit to the authority of a court in remanding a cause for trial whenever it is not satisfied with the verdict, deterred the burgesses from further prosecution of their claim; and the common council, notwithstanding the opinion of the two juries, still continue to exercise the exclusive power of the corporation in the same manner as before these proceedings were instituted.

Annual accounts, however, of the corporation receipts and expenditure are now regularly published. The income of the corporation amounts to £60,000, chiefly from fines for renewal of leases, rents, town dues, anchorage, weighing machine, &c. The mayor, the recorder, and the aldermen are magistrates for Liverpool, and the four senior aldermen are coroners for the time being.

Corporation of Bath.—The civil constitution of this city as now administered was established by the charter of Queen Elizabeth, dated the 4th of September, 1590, by which the municipal government is vested in a mayor and four aldermen at the least, and not exceeding ten at the most, assisted with twenty of the chief citizens, to be called a common council, and a majority of these (whereof the mayor for the time being is to be always one) may make laws, let the city lands, impose fines, and create, from among the inhabitants, free citizens and burgesses, whom they may bind with an oath to obey all lawful commands. On Monday before the feast of St. Michael, the mayor, aldermen, and common council, are to choose from among themselves the mayor for the ensuing year, and also elect a recorder, common clerk, chamberlain, constables, and other inferior officers, with two sergeants of the mace. Persons refusing to take these offices (except those of recorder and town-clerk) may be fined. The mayor is constituted coroner of the city and clerk of the market.

Previous to this charter all preceding grants to Bath were vested in the whole of the citizens, who enjoyed the privilege of attending all meetings for making regulations for the internal government of the city, of being consulted in the formation of local institutions, of assenting to the appointment of parliamentary representatives, and of investing strangers with the rights and privileges of citizenship. These powers, for greater convenience, were usually delegated to a chosen body of themselves, the mayor always presiding at their head. But, in the course of time, the body so chosen to represent the citizens assumed a prescriptive right to the exercise of their delegated powers, independent of the suffrages of their fellow-townsmen, and, in order effectually to fortify their usurpation, they obtained the charter of Elizabeth, by which the popular constitution of Bath was subverted, and instead of it was substituted a perpetual oligarchy of self-elected individuals.

From this time the freemen of Bath were divided into two classes; the smaller one, which included only those who were of the community, (after Elizabeth’s charter denominated the Corporation,) and the more numerous class, distinguished from the stranger or inhabitant of other places by the grant of some trifling local privileges; of these the chief seems to have been a certain interest or privilege of pasture in the grange of Barton or Bath-common.

The freedom of the city is obtained either by servitude or purchase, or both. The term of servitude must be seven years, under a freeman, residing in the city, who is to cause the indenture to be registered within one month after the sealing of the same, in default whereof the apprentice does not gain his citizenship at the conclusion of the term. The freedom by purchase can be granted by the corporation, on the payment of a sum not less than £5 (£70 is, we believe, generally paid) into the coffers of that body; of this, however, the resident freemen do not participate.

The income of the corporation arises from several sources; such as the private baths in Stall-street; the rent of the pump amounting to £840, (Warner’s History, p. 337;) assessments for supplying the inhabitants with water from the adjoining hills: fines on the renewal of leases; and the profits of the weighing machine in the Saw-close.

The ecclesiastical patronage is confined to the rectorship of Bath, with Widcombe annexed, and the mastership of St. John’s Hospital, both valuable benefices.

The mayor is allowed the sum of 400 guineas to defray the expenses of his mayoralty, chiefly incurred in support of ancient hospitality.

The inhabitants of Bath are not represented in parliament, but the corporation, whose members are usually kept below the number to which they are restricted by their charter, returns two representatives.

About the middle of last century, the different trades exercised in Bath were in the hands of distinct fraternities, the members of which wore gowns, had their processions and feast-days, and claimed exclusive privileges in the pursuit of their respective vocations. These societies had all sprung up about the year 1600, without charter or act of parliament. In 1765, they were all extinguished by the firmness of one Glazeby, a tailor, who persisted in following his calling within the prohibited jurisdiction. A trial ensued in a court of law, when it was determined these mushroom companies had no legal existence.

There have been some royal grants to Bath subsequent to the charter of Elizabeth, but their provisions do not materially affect the constitution of the city as then established. In 1794, the number of city justices was augmented from two to nine, and power was granted to two aldermen, during the sickness, absence, or inability of the mayor, to appoint another alderman to act in that capacity.

Corporation of Preston.—Preston is a market town, borough, and parish. It was incorporated by Henry II. in 1160, and the privileges and free customs granted by this and subsequent royal grants were confirmed by charter of 36th of Charles II.

The body corporate consists of a mayor, recorder, seven aldermen, and seventeen capital burgesses, who, together, form the common council of the borough. The mayor, and two town-bailiffs, and two sergeants are elected annually, upon the Friday preceding the festival of St. Wilfrid, who was formerly lord of this town, and they are invested, on the 12th of October following, by a jury of twenty-four guild burgesses. The members of the council, with the exception of the mayor, retain their seats for life, or during the pleasure of a majority, and vacancies are supplied by the remaining members. The town sends two representatives to parliament, and affords the nearest practical example of universal suffrage in the kingdom; every male inhabitant, whether housekeeper or lodger, who has resided six months in the town, and who has not, during the last twelvemonth, been chargeable to any township as a pauper, having a right to vote for two candidates at elections. This principle was established by a decision of the House of Commons, on an appeal, in the year 1766, and has ever since been acted upon.

The burgesses are entitled by the charter of Henry II. to have a Guild Merchant, with the usual franchises annexed, of safe transit through the kingdom, exemption from toll, pontage, and stallage; liberty to buy and sell peaceably; and power to hold a guild for the renewal of freedom to the burgesses, the confirming of by-laws, and other purposes. This privilege is still made the occasion of great festivity. For a long time after their first institution, the guilds were held at irregular periods, but they have now for more than a century been celebrated every twentieth year; the last was held in 1822. The several trades of Preston are incorporated. Twenty-five chartered companies go in procession on the guild festival.

Corporation of Lichfield.—The city of Lichfield was anciently governed by a guild and guild-master, which had their first establishment in the reign of Richard II. in the year 1387. Soon after the dissolution of the guild, by act of parliament, 2 Edward VI. a charter of incorporation was granted to this city by the same king; which was to consist of two bailiffs and twenty-four burgesses; twelve of whom had been masters of the guild. Several other charters were granted by succeeding sovereigns, the provisions of which were confirmed by that of Charles II. and the constitution of the city as now existing determined.

This charter, dated November 5, 1664, directs that two bailiffs shall be annually elected by the brethren on St. James’s day; that the senior bailiff shall be nominated by the bishop, keep a part of the seal and be escheator; that the bailiffs, at the expiration of their offices, shall be justices the succeeding year, and shall, together with the then bailiffs, hold courts of record, &c. have the use of fines and dues; that there shall be twenty-one brethren elected from among the citizens, and so called to aid and assist the bailiffs, as the common-council of the city; that the bailiff, or any of the brethren, shall be liable to be removed by a majority of the body; and upon the death or removal of any, others shall be elected by the like authority. It empowers the bailiffs and brethren to hold courts of gaol delivery; to award judgment of death or other punishment; and also to elect a recorder, steward, and common clerk: but none of these officers are to act without having first obtained the approbation of the Crown. They may also annually elect a sheriff, and any one refusing to serve may be fined or imprisoned, and excluded from all the privileges of the city.

Under the authority of the charters granted to this city, the several fraternities and Companies were formed of saddlers, glovers, whittawers, tanners, smiths, bakers, coopers, cutlers, &c. A list of these and their by-laws may be found in Harwood’s History of the “City and Antiquities of Lichfield.”

Corporation of Stafford.—The earliest incorporation of this borough was by charter of King John, in 1208. This charter was confirmed, and new privileges granted, by that of Edward VI. under which the government is constituted of a mayor, recorder, ten aldermen, ten common-councilmen, a town-clerk, and two sergeants-at-mace. The borough sends two members to Parliament, and has done so since the 23d of Edward I. The right of election is in the mayor, aldermen, and resident burgesses, not receiving parochial relief. The sons of burgesses, and those who have served apprentice seven years in the borough, have a right (upon the demand thereof) to be made burgesses. Though the electors claim to be independent of the personal influence of a patron, it appears, from the declarations of a lately elected member, they are accessible to an influence of a not less undignified description. The ancient custom of Borough English, by which the youngest son succeeds to property, in preference to the elder children, prevails in Stafford.

Corporation of Northampton.—Northampton is both a town incorporate and a borough. It was first incorporated by Henry II. and since confirmed by several successive charters under different reigns, and the privileges of the town much enlarged. By a charter granted in the first of King John, the burgesses were freed from all toll, lastage, and murage throughout England, with the privilege of enjoying these and other liberties in as ample a manner as the citizens of London, paying into the king’s exchequer £120 at Michaelmas, in every year. These liberties were continued and enlarged by further grants of Henry III. and Edward I. By charter of Henry VII. the mayor and his brethren, late mayors, are to name and choose forty-eight persons of the inhabitants, which forty-eight persons, together with the mayor and his brethren, and such as have been mayors and bailiffs, should hereafter yearly elect all the succeeding mayors and bailiffs. Before this period, it is stated, in Whalley’s History of Northamptonshire, vol. i. p. 433, that the mayor and bailiffs were elected by all the freemen in St. Giles’s church-yard, the election being often attended with tumults and quarrels. By charter, bearing date 3d August, 15th Charles II. the government of Northampton is committed to the mayor and two bailiffs, and such as have been mayors and bailiffs, and a common council of forty-eight burgesses, usually called the company of forty-eight; and of these, together with the recorder, chamberlain, and town-clerk, the corporation now consists. Those who have served the office of mayor are called aldermen. The recorder and town clerk are usually continued for life, but are re-chosen every year, and at their first appointment must be approved by the king. The mayor for the time being, with the last mayor, and one other member of the corporation, elected by the mayor, aldermen, and bailiffs, are justices of the peace within the town for that year. Freemen not resident may be elected to offices in the corporation, and must pay a fine if they refuse to serve.

Northampton sends two representatives to parliament. The electors, by prescription, are every freeman of the town, whether resident or not, and every inhabitant householder not receiving alms. By a resolution of the House of Commons, persons receiving an annual donation at Christmas are disqualified from voting. This, Oldfield remarks, in his History of Boroughs, vol. ii. p. 329, is not only repugnant to what may be called the common law of committees, but expressly contrary to the decisions on the Bedford petitions in 1755 and 1792; when it was determined that persons receiving charity were not thereby disqualified from voting, but that receiving alms was a disqualification.

Corporation of Gloucester.—The town of Gloucester was erected into a city and bishopric, in 1542, by charter of Henry the Eighth. The inhabitants obtained several other charters before and subsequently to this period; but that by which the city is now governed was granted by Charles the Second, in 1672, and cost the citizens upwards of £600. By this charter, the corporation must consist of thirty members at the least, but not to exceed forty, of which the mayor and aldermen are twelve, and the rest form the common council. Vacancies are to be filled up by the remaining corporators; and this principle of self-election seems to have been generally introduced into the charters of municipal bodies granted in this and the three preceding reigns, and was intended, as the charters allege, to avoid the tumults which had heretofore accompanied elections on more popular principles. The mayor, bailiffs, and chamberlain, are chosen by twenty electors, consisting of the mayor, aldermen, senior sheriff, and senior members of the common council. The other principal officers of the city, either by charter or prescription, are the high steward, the recorder, the two members of parliament, the town-clerk, and the twelve aldermen, out of whom the mayor is chosen. That alderman who was last elected is generally coroner, and president of the hospitals.

Every soon of a burgess is free-born, and, as such, is entitled to his freedom. Each burgess has free common all the year in the Townham and in Portham, after the hay is carried away, which franchise was purchased of the abbey of St. Peter, a.d. 1237: also in Oxclose, Meanham, and Little Meadow, after the first vesture is taken off. The freemen had also, anciently, certain exclusive privileges of fishing in the Severn.

Corporation of Leeds.—Leeds was first incorporated by Charles I. in 1626. A second charter was given to it by Charles II. in 1661, and a third by James II. in 1684. But, in 1689, the second charter was restored by William III. under which the town is at present governed. The corporation consists of a mayor, twelve aldermen, and twenty-four common-councilmen, who fill up the vacancies in their body, and annually elect the mayor from the aldermen by a majority of votes; but the election is merely pro formâ, as the senior alderman is always chosen. There are also a recorder and town-clerk. The mayor and aldermen are justices of peace within the borough, which is co-extensive with the parish, and divided into ten chapelries or townships, including the town properly so called.

The character of the Corporation of Leeds does not form an exception to that of municipal bodies throughout the kingdom; it is exclusive and intolerant: latterly it has received a slight infusion of Whiggism; still we believe the great and influential body of Dissenters have failed to derive any advantage from the abrogation of the sacramental test, and continue excluded from all part and parcel in its councils and proceedings. The relation indeed in which the Corporation stands to the inhabitants at large, precisely corresponds to that of the general government to the people of the empire. It is placed in the midst of a numerous, intelligent, and opulent population, of whose interests and sentiments it has long ceased to be the organ or representative; the same want of reciprocity between the governors and the governed is the pervading characteristic of the sway of the Oligarchy. We need not add that both require to be adjusted.

It is unnecessary, we apprehend, to extend our enquiries to other corporate bodies; those of which we have given an account will be sufficient to afford an insight into the general state of municipal franchises and institutions. Our preceding exposition may not be strictly correct in every particular, but we have had access to and availed ourselves of the best information open to the public. There is one circumstance indeed peculiar to all these privileged confederacies—and it is a very suspicious one, to say the least of it—they are all apprehensive of investigation into their chartered immunities. We had an instance of this in the treatment the Rev. Mr. Seyer received from the Bristol Corporation. This gentleman was desirous of publishing a correct version of the charters of that city, apparently for no other purpose than as a literary or antiquarian curiosity. He applied to the corporation for permission to inspect the originals in their possession; the question was debated in common-council, and the application refused. Who could tell what might be the result? The citizens might claim some obsolete franchises, or the worshipful body lose part of their revenues. The example of Newcastle-upon-Tyne was relied upon. After Mr. Brande had published the history of that place, the corporation lost a large portion of the town-duties. It is true the Corporation of Newcastle had wrongfully levied these duties—but what of that? They had always been received, and paid without grumbling, till they incautiously permitted the historian to look into their archives, and expose their injustice.

We shall conclude with submitting two propositions for the reform—for we would not have them abolished—of Corporate Bodies.

First, we would apply to corporations the same talisman of publicity, both as respects their proceedings and finances, which has contributed so much to improve the administration of national affairs. An act of parliament for this purpose, we are convinced, would be attended with the most beneficial consequences. We are aware of no good reason why corporate bodies should be exempt from the obligation imposed on the king’s ministers. The corporation of a city or town stands in the same relation to the inhabitants as the imperial government to the people of England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brings forward his annual statements of debts and credits, of income and expenditure, and lays them before the nation, and the same duty ought to be discharged by every chamberlain, or other equivalent officer, to the whole city, borough, guild, or fraternity, by which he is appointed. Such a reform would check negligence and abuse, and maintain a spirit of inquiry into the administration of all corporation funds.

Secondly, we would abolish the system of self-election, and render corporations responsible to the intelligence and proprietary of the communities of which they have assumed the control and government. The practice of breeding-in is as unfavourable to the growth and improvement of public bodies as of animals and vegetables. A mutuality of feeling, a reciprocration of favour and obligation, are necessary between the different classes of every society, from that of a city or town to the entire kingdom. As it is, corporations form so many petty oligarchies, scattered through the country—the mere cess-pools of all that is corrupt, servile, and intolerant—and the exercise of whose sway, within their respective local jurisdictions, is more insulting and oppressive than that of the feudal lords, whose domination they have supplanted.

These changes may be considered by the apostles of an expiring faction as a violation of chartered rights, or “corporation robbery,” but happily we have reached a crisis when eloquent declamation on these topics can no longer command a numerous audience.