1689-1702. the "mayor and burgesses:" and the effect of such decision WILLIAM III. was this, that the next return which was made from "Poole' assumes to have been made by the incorporated body,emphatically so describing themselves,-as if the determination of the House had been understood to give the right of election to the corporation. wich. The burgesses of Dunwich were as effectually deprived of Case of Duntheir constitutional rights by the Convention Parliament allowing the rights of the "non-residents," as they could have been by any of the Stuart charters. Thus, in 1670, no less than five hundred non-resident freemen were made,-fortytwo of them at an ale-house,—at a period when there were not above forty residents; so that the responsible inhabitants of the borough had no essential voice in the election of those who called themselves their representatives. the decision of the committee. In 1695 the question for the decision of the committee was, The question for whether the elective franchise was exclusively vested in the burgesses inhabiting, or was likewise in the freemen who lived out of the borough, commonly called "out-sitters?" But the committee, against evidence and common sense, admitted the rights of the freemen,-that is, recognizing a class of persons who were not the grantees of the charters, because they were "burgesses," that is, freemen inhabiting within, and respon 10 This system of political depravity was almost universally exercised by the corporations at subsequent periods of our history :-thus, in 1711, one hundred and fifty-five voters were made for Carlisle, forty-one of whom had received their freedom after the teste of the writ, and thirty-two others immediately previous to the election, (M. & S. Hist. Boroughs, 2132):-in 1716 many persons were admitted in Haverfordwest to their freedom, a short time before the election, at clandestine times, and in unusual places, the mayor declaring at a public-house, he would "make as many new burgesses as would serve his turn," (ibid. 1763):-in 1788 the mayor of Colchester corruptly adjourned the poll, for the purpose of granting the freedom to several persons, whom he afterwards suffered to vote, (ibid. 1964):-and in Launceston the corporation agreed not to admit any freeman except of their own party, and to swear those they admitted, never to be against the mayor and aldermen, (ibid. 2007,) et etiam 1879, 1886, 1960, 2231. As to the purity of burgage tenure, East Grinstead, in 1803, will afford an illustration; it appearing in evidence, that none of the voters had ever paid any quit-rents for their burgages, nor the land-tax, and that the houses were assessed in the names of the persons from whom the titles were derived, and who were also at the expense of maintaining and repairing the buildings. No consideration was paid for the deeds, but the grantees, when they accepted the conveyances, signed a declaration of trust, as trustees for the grantor. None of the voters had possession of these deeds, but they were brought in a bag to the place of election by the agents of the grantors, and carried back by them in the same manner, (ibid. 1865). 1689-1702. WILLIAM III. sible for the burdens of the borough,—but the freemen were persons residing without or within the borough, but not contributing to its burdens; in fact, being a freeman was only a qualification precedent for burgess-ship. Origin of con rights. But the confusion respecting these terms has arisen from Blicting corporate the agreements of the contending parties: thus, in Dunwich, in 1691, on an election petition, the term " burgess burgess" was omitted; and it was agreed on both sides that the question was, whether the right was " in the freemen resident only, or in the freemen generally, whether resident or out-sitters?" and in other boroughs such agreements have been held by committees of the House of Commons, after a very short interval of time, to vest an absolute and exclusive right in such acknowledged class:—thus, in 1690, in the case of Thetford, the right was taken to be in the "select body," upon the agreement of the parties; and so likewise in Salisbury and other places. Municipal abuse, occasioned by committees of the House of Commons. The nearer we vidual reponsibi lity, the nearer will be its ap These abuses in our municipal institutions may be chiefly ascribed to those most incompetent and expensive of all tribunals," Committees of the House of Commons,"-from their supposing that the privileges and liberties of boroughs differed from each other; their permitting the grossest usurpations to be respected as prescriptive rights, as in the cases of "select bodies" and "non-residents;" their putting a construction on particular words in charters, without regarding their spirit; their assuming that boroughs were created for any other purpose than for municipal police; and lastly, their allowing their decisions to be actuated by the profligacy of faction and selfish interests, united with an utter destitution of every principle founded upon equity, law, or common sense. The nearer we approach to individual responsibility in the approach to indi- executive or administrative, the nearer will be its approach to perfection: hence these constitutional defects arose from proach to perfec- the want of individual responsibility,-for bodies of men, in their aggregate capacities, invariably perpetrate acts of which they would have scorned or trembled to be guilty in their individual characters. tion. The cause of justice being so purely administered. The reason that justice is so impartially administered in the superior courts of common law, arises from the individual and paid responsibility of the judges, and the public delivery of their judgments; if, for instance, instead of fifteen judges, 1689-1702. divided into three different courts, there was only one court WILLIAM III. composed of fifty judges, it would instantly become a mere party tribunal, and its judgments would be tainted with the basest alloy, in fact, it would be a prototype of a committee of the House of Commons, which although composed of men of the highest honour as individuals, yet were their judgments always received with universal dissatisfaction; and no litigant party ever considered their redress or punishment of his wrongs as founded on the pure principles of justice. 5. Act of Toleration. When a political junto is so much broken and reduced as to be no longer formidable, prudence seems to require that its members should not be pointed out by invidious distinctions, but that by gentle treatment they should be induced to lay aside their peculiar principles and opinions. But when the individuals of an unsuccessful party are still possessed of so much power, as to afford the prospect of rising to superiority' in the state, it is vain to expect that their attachment will be secured by marks of confidence and favour. Hope co-operates with resentment, to keep alive the spirit of opposition, and the participation of honours and emoluments is only furnishing them with weapons for the destruction of their political enemies :—and it was upon these principles that the Act of Uniformity had been enacted, and that the Act of Toleration was now framed. When the Test Law was enacted, it was the intention of the House of Commons to relax the severities of the "Act of Uniformity," in favour of such ministers as might be induced to conform, by granting an indulgence of worship to those who should persist in their separation. Upon the completion of the new settlement, it was determined, with the apparent concurrence of the church, to grant an indulgence to separate conventicles, and at the same time, by enlarging the terms of conformity, to bring back those whose differences were not irreconcileable, within the pale of the Anglican communion'. Necessity for the enactment of where the oppo midable. severe laws, sition is for Principles em bodied in the Test Law. To effectuate such views, the "Act of Toleration" was Provisions in the passed, which exempts from the penalties of existing statutes Act of Toleraagainst separate conventicles, or absence from the established. 1 3 Hallam's Const. Hist. 231. 5 Parl. Hist. 184, 196, 212, 216. Kennet's Compl. Hist. 557, 558. tion. 1689-1702. WILLIAM III. Worship, such as should take the oath of allegiance, and subscribe the declaration against popery, and such ministers of separate congregations as should subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, except three, and part of a fourth. It gives also indulgence to Quakers without this condition. Meeting-houses are required to be registered, and are protected from insult by a penalty. No part of this toleration is extended to papists, or to such as deny the Trinity. Stat. 11 & 12 The members of the Anglican church having ascertained William III. c. 2. that William had made promises to some of his allies, that he would relax the penal laws, was one of the causes which rendered him unpopular. After the peace of Ryswick, many priests came over for the dissemination of treason, and thus induced the enactment of 11 & 12 William III. c. 23, which, after offering a reward of 100%. to any informer against a priest exercising his functions, enacts and adjudges, for such an offence, the penalty of perpetual imprisonment. It requires every person educated in the popish religion, or professing the same, within six months after he shall attain the age of eighteen years, to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribe the declaration set down in the act of Charles II. against transubstantiation, and the worship of saints; in default of which he is incapacitated, not only from purchasing, but from inheriting or taking lands under any devise or limitation; and the next of kin, being a Protestant, was to enjoy such lands during his life'. The object of this statute defeated. Although the object of this statute was to expel the Roman Catholic proprietors of land, by rendering it necessary for them to sell their estate; its unjust severity was itself an antidote. The Roman Catholic landholders neither renounced their religion, nor abandoned their inheritances:-the judges put such a construction upon the clause of forfeiture as eluded its efficacy; so that there were scarce any instances of a loss of property under this law. But the Roman Catholics, from their religion and their treasonable designs against the state, were, during the greater part of the eighteenth century, considered as a proscribed caste". This statute was repealed in 1779. 5 3 Hallam's Const. Hist. 242, 243. 2 Butler's Mem. of Catholics, 64. 3 Butler's Hist. Roman Catholics, 137. 6. Settlement of the Revenue. WILLIAM III. 1689-1702. supplies, the best There was no circumstance, which has contributed so Appropriation of much to the power of the House of Commons, as their "ap-corrective of propriation of the supplies," by which no administration can abuse. possibly subsist without its concurrence; nor can the session of parliament be intermitted for an entire year, without leaving both the naval and military force of the kingdom unprovided for. It had been generally adopted in the reign of Charles II.; but, from the Revolution, it has been invariably practised, and which prevents the revenue from being embezzled and misapplied. The principle adopted was, that the king's regular and domestic expenses should be determined by a fixed annual sum, distinct from the other departments of the public service, and all to terminate with his life'; accordingly, since this period, the Commons have appropriated the yearly supplies to certain specified services; and an account of the application has been constantly submitted to both Houses, at the next session. Domestic exking determined by a fixed annual penses of the sum. treasury. The lords of the treasury, by a clause annually repeated in Restrictions on the Appropriation Act of every session, are forbidden, under the lords of the severe penalties, to order, by their warrant, any moneys in the exchequer, so appropriated, to be issued for any other service, and the officers of the exchequer to obey any such warrant. In time of war, or in circumstances that may induce war, it Vote of credit. has not been very uncommon to deviate a little from the rule of appropriation, by a grant of considerable sums on a vote of credit, which the crown is thus enabled to apply at its discretion, during the recess of parliament, but the ministers of the crown are responsible to parliament for its due application'. civil list. The commons also voted that a constant revenue of Settlement of the 1,200,000l. should be established for the support of the crown in time of peace, 600,000l. of which was to be appropriated to the king's civil list, the remainder to the public service of government. The principle of these enactments being that they divided and separated from the crown, not the control 15 Parl. Hist. 193. 3 Hallam's Const. 158 et seq. 1 Hargrave's Juridical Arguments, 394. 3 Hatsell's Preced. 80 et alibi. |