at the time of the union, every borough that
might have been admitted to elective right,
would have been an emancipation of the en-
flaved. The act of union, therefore, in this par-
ticular, is to be lamented, as having deprived the
king of that best part of his prerogative, which
might be exerted in restoring his disfranchised
fubjects to their inherited freedom. As the
power
which firft wounded liberty was the only
power that could, in this inftance, be its cure,
the king should have retained this part of his
prerogative.

THERE being a radical danger in representative charters of the members of the House of Cammons being decreased, which the act of Union has not provided for, the crown fhould have had the power of making up the deficiency. For fhould a corporation become extinct by the death of every member, the right of fending reprefentatives for the faid place, would be irrecoverably loft, and, thus, would the proportion of members in the British parliament, as determined by the Union, be neceffarily destroyed. Thus, even the act which precludes all towns and boroughs, unreprefented, from the poffibility

of

of our being restored to this inherent privilege, in order to preserve the number of reprefentatives inviolate, has undermined its own principles. Divefting the crown of admitting towns, &c. to reprefentation, has left the lofs of number, to which the parliament, as above noticed, is liable, without remedy.

BUT to what purpofe is it to limit the number of the Houfe of Commons, when the number of the House of Peers is left to the difcretion of the crown? Surely, if the prerogative is to be limited, it ought to be in that inftance in which it may be exerted most against the interefts of the people. The power of extending the number of the peers, may be fo exerted, as to destroy the balance of the conftitution. But the power of admitting cities, towns, and boroughs to representation, is now the only means of restoring the people to their long fufpended privileges.

HAVING, thus, obferved, that all boroughs originally poffeffed a legiflative power, and that it is contrary to the principles of our ancient conftitution, to preclude those towns, &c. that are now unrepresented, from the poffibility of being admitted

VOL. I.

I

admitted to their original rights, it is next meant to trace the fource of this infringement on the general liberties of the people. From thus tracing the fource, the impolicy and injustice of this reftrictive principle will be ascertained..

WHEN any tythings or boroughs became poffeffed of that confequence, by trade, as to be worth the acceptance of royalty or nobility, they were then taken under the patronage of the king, or his nobles And in order that the advantages to the refpective owners might be as great as poffible, the trade of fuch boroughs had exclusive privileges granted them to the detriment of every town, &c. that was not fo fortunate as to be under the fame fpecies of encouragement and protection. Thus were boroughs incorporated and poffeffed of particular immunities. They were fuffered to rent the tolls, have fairs, markets, &c. to choose their wn municipal officers, make bye-laws, purchase lands &c. while every other town was difpoffeffed of all their ancient privileges, and left to that ruin, which has reduced feveral towns of confequence in the kingdom to the state of the moft obfcure infignificant villages.

THE

As

THE Saxon legislation, that was exercised by every tything-man or borfholder, being fufpended, all the favoured boroughs, with fome few exceptions, were incorporated, before they had the privilege restored to them of fending members to parliament. But when, under this encouragement, they became opulent, their wealth purchafed them the right of reprefentation. foon as they were rich enough to be assessed, those boroughs that were immediately in the poffef fion of the king, were fummoned to parliament. And when a borough, in the poffeffion of a lord, rose to this permanent confequence, the nobleman caused it to be admitted to a fhare in the legislature; his boroughs being competent to be taxed, furnished him with the beft plea to obtain for them the right of being reprefented. In this manner, the nobility first established that ariftocratical influence, which has ever fince existed in the house of commons. To this may be attributed the cause of fo many boroughs being in the poffeffion of the nobility. So great, indeed, was the authority of fome of the earls, that they exercised their jura regalia, in granting charters at pleasure to what boroughs were in their poffeffion. Thus, the earls, of Cornwall, Devon, Moreton,

I 2

Moreton, and Lancaster, lord of Richmond, &c. chartered several boroughs throughout the kingdom. But, to prevent the authority of the king over his fubjects being diminished by this power granted to the nobility, fuch earls, &c. were not permitted to talliate their burgeffes without the king's precept.

ALTHOUGH many boroughs were, thus, chartered by their refpective lords, yet the greater part were ancient demefnes of the crown, and, thus, under fovereign controul. Wherever the mayor, bailiffs, and burgeffes are chofen by the jury, in a court baron, or at the leet, they were towns in an'cient demefne: as in Agmondefham. Or where the returns of parliament have been, or are now made by the lord or lady of the manor, or their steward; as by dame Packington at Aylesbury, they were ancient demefnes (e). Many towns, manors, and places, now reputed burghs, might have come to the crown fince Doomsday-book, by efcheat or forfeiture, but before there were any fummons if fucd for the choice of citizens and burgeffes in parliment. And, thus, were they particularly privileged to fend members. Whether they were real burghs or not, according to charter, yet the fheriff

5