The Evening Star MONDAY, JULY 25, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2251, 25 July 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, JULY 25, 1870.

Prior to the election for Mayor, just determined, we were several times asked how Mayors and Corporations are chosen in England. As the question really had reference to the disputed point—“ should the Mayor be “ chosen from the Council ” —although it has no analogy to the arrangements in this country, we did not at the time deem it consistent with fairness to the candidates to answer it. It must be remembered that all our institutions are essentially democratic, and that those of Great Britain are variations of the aristocratic form of Government handed down from feudal times. The history of municipalities is very curious. They are intimately connected with the borough system, and before passing the Eeform Bill had more of a political than of a local character. Originally popular in their constitution, time, indifference, and family influences operated to bring about monopolies of power. Those most interested were frequently excluded from all participa-

tion in Municipal Government. They had not even a vote for a Common Council Man. Not unfrequently men only sought to be admitted members of the Coporation—that is to become a freeman of a borough—in order to the lucrative exercise of the franchise. Consequently the years in which elections took place, or perhaps the year before, were generally remarkable for the number of admissions. It is said, for in stance, that in one election year at Maldon 1,870 freemen were admitted, although the average afterwards was only 17. At Bristol one year 1,720 were admitted, the average being about 50. One of the first effects of the Reform Bill of William the Fourth was a revision of the Municipal system. All the old, cumbrous, useless institutions were swept away, excepting in London, which still remains unreformed, with its old-fashioned trades-guilds, liverymen, Aldermen, and Lord Mayor. The House of Commons designed to make the Municipalities democratic and very nearly identical with our own system. They proposed and sent up a Bill to the House of Lords enacting that all householders within the borough who were rated for poor rates and City rates at XIO per annum, should bo burgesses of the borough. This of course conferred upon them all the privileges from which they had been up to that time excluded The necessity for this change may be judged of by the fact that Corporations were previously regarded as privileged bodies —not merely so far as the franchise was concerned, but also as to the disposal of the Civic revenues. An able writer tells us “ that few Corpora- “ tiona admitted any positive obligation “ to spend the surplus of their income “ for objects of public advantage. “ They regarded such expenditure as “ a spontaneous act of private gener- “ osity, rather than a well-considered “ application of the public revenue.” There was a vested opinion that Corporate property was held in trust for the Corporate body only, and it is not therefore surprising that at Cambridge the practice of appropriating it to members of the Corporation was actually avowed and defended before the Parliamentary Commissioners. But the change proposed was not to the mind of the House of Lords, Perhaps they feared that the experience of being able to govern by one Chamber only might prove the destruction of their own order. So instead of Municipal Corporations being formed of Mayor and burgesses, from whom a Council should be chosen, as with us, the House of Lords introduced clauses into the Act, by which the Corporations of England are made to consist of Mayor, Aldermen, and burgesses. The governing Council of each borough, therefore, now consists of a Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors, and is called “ The “ Council of the borough,” The borough is divided into wards, and the whole number of Councillors must be divisible by three, as one-third go out of office every year. The particulars of the number assigned to each ward is to be submitted to the Sovereign in Council and approved. The number of Aldermen in eveiy borough is fixed at one-third of the number of Councillors. They are to be elected every third year, by the Council for the time being, “ from the Councillors, or from “ the burgesses qualified to be Council- “ lors.” That is, in boroughs of four wards or more, from persons in “ the “ clear possession of XIOOO in real or “ personal estate," or rated at not less than X3O annually, In less boroughs, from persons possessing XSOO, or rated at XIS per year. Half the number of Aldermen go out every three years. The Mayor is to be annually elected by the Council, out of the Aldermen or Councillors, The Mayor, therefore, by this arrangement docs not necessarily cease to be a member of the Municipal Legislature on being superseded by another, hut only retires into the niche left vacant. In unreformed London, the Lord Mayor is elected' from Aldermen who have “ served the “ office of Sheriff.” The twenty-five Aldermen are elected for life at a “ ward mote,” the electors being householders who are freemen of the Oity, and pay 30s, a year local taxes. The two hundred and forty Councilmen are elected annually at a ward mote. The two Sheriffs are annually chosen by those freemen of the City who are Liverymen—that is, members of any of the eiglity-nine companies or trade guilds. Persons possessing this privilege have also the privilege of voting for Mayor, Sheriffs, Chamberlain, and other officers. This slight sketch of Municipal arrangements at Home gives the chief features of the system, and from it, it is plain that no analogy can be drawn between our own institutions and the quasi-ariatocratic Corporations of Great Britain,