Skip to main content

Full text of "English local government, from the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations Act"

See other formats 


A7    THE 

i^^n tRs,rv  OF 

^°«0^'T0  PRESS 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


Iittp://www.arcliive.org/details/englislilocalgove05webbuoft 


^oy 


ENGLISH  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

STATUTORY  AUTHORITIES  FOR 
SPECIAL  PURPOSES 


ENGLISH  LOCAL  GOVERN- 
MENT: STATUTORY  AU- 
THORITIES FOR  SPECIAL 
PURPOSES.  BY  SIDNEY  AND 
BEATRICE  WEBB. 


\q.q    sz 


LONGMANS,  GREEN  AND  CO.,  LONDON, 
NEW  YORK,  BOMBAY,  CALCUTTA  AND 
MADRAS.     1922. 


3o2S 
V.5 


PEEFACE 

To  most  people,  if  not  to  all,  the  chief  interest  of  this  book  will 
lie  in  the  last  two  chapters,  which  analyse  the  development  of 
English  Local  Government  from  the  Eevolution  to  the  Muni- 
cipal Corporations  Act.  This  description  of  how  the  "  Old 
Principles"  were,  between  1689  and  1835,  gradually  super- 
seded by  the  "  New  Principles  "  summarises  the  contents,  not 
merely  of  the  present  volume  on  Statutory  Authorities  for 
Special  Purposes,  but  also  of  our  two  preceding  works,  The 
Parish  and  the  County  (1907),  and  The  Manor  and  the  Borough 
(1908).  The  three  together  complete  our  accovmt  of  the 
structure  of  English  Local  Government.^ 

The  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes — the  Com- 
missioners of  Sewers,  the  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor, 
the  Turnpike  Trusts  and  the  Improvement  Commissioners — 
have  not  previously  been  made  the  subject  of  historical  study. 
We  do  not  know  whether  our  taste  is  peculiar,  but  we  have 
found  it  interesting,  and  even  exciting,  to  trace  the  origin  and 
explore  the  development  of  the  "  Lords  of  the  Level  of  Eomney 
Marsh,"  and  the  other  hitherto  undescribed  organisations  for 
land  drainage,  which  present,  to  the  historian,  some  novel 
constitutional  features.  We  have  lingered  willingly  among 
the  records  of  the  "  Corporations  of  the  Poor,"  and  the  various 
other  Boards  of  Guardians,  Trustees  or  Directors,  by  which, 
from  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  onwards,  both  rural  and 
urban  parishes  repeatedly  experimented  in  Poor  Law  adminis- 

*  We  may  refer  also  to  our  studies  of  particular  functions  of  Local  Govern- 
ment, such  as  English  Prisons  under  Local  Government  (1922),  The  Story  of  the 
King's  Highway  (1913),  The  History  of  Liquor  Licensing  in  England  (1903), 
The  State  and  the  Doctor  (1910),  The  Prevention  of  Destitution  (1911  and  1920), 
English  Poor  Law  Policy  (1910),  and  Grants  in  Aid  (1911  and  1920). 
V 


vi  PREFACE 

tration.  The  vast  network  of  Turnpike  Trusts,  by  which  all 
England  and  Wales  was  once  covered,  seemed  to  us  well  to 
deserve  some  record.  And  we  were  interested  to  find,  in  the 
entirely  unstudied  archives  of  the  hundreds  of  bodies  of 
Commissioners  for  Paving,  Cleaning,  Lighting,  Watching  and 
Improving  the  streets  of  the  various  English  towns — and  not 
in  the  un reformed  Municipal  Corporations — the  beginnings  of 
the  most  important  functions  of  our  nineteenth  century  muni- 
cipalities. But  whether  or  not  these  annals  of  the  less  well- 
known  parts  of  Local  Government  are  found  of  popular 
interest,  we  enter  a  plea,  not  only  for  a  more  systematic 
preservation  by  Town  and  County  Councils  of  the  records  of 
those  who  were  their  predecessors  in  local  administration,  but 
also  for  the  more  frequent  study  of  these  neglected  sources  by 
historians  of  the  English  people. 

Much  of  the  work  of  investigation  of  these  records  was 
done  between  1899  and  1908  ;  and  we  owe  thanks,  not  only 
to  their  custodians,  by  whom  we  were  always  courteously 
received,  but  also  to  our  helpers  in  what  proved  an  extensive 
as  well  as  a  protracted  task.  Among  those  whose  work  is 
embodied  in  the  present  volume,  we  must  mention  Mr.  F.  H. 
Spencer,  LL.D.,  author  of  Mmiici'pat  Origins,  now  in  the 
Ministry  of  Education  ;  Mrs.  Spencer,  D.Sc.  (Ecoii.) ;  Miss  M. 
Bulkley,  B.Sc.  (Econ.) ;  and  Miss  Hadley,  archivist  to  the 
London  County  Council.  For  criticisms  and  suggestions,  none 
the  less  valuable  because  we  have  not  always  implicitly  incor- 
porated them,  we  thank  especially  Professor  Graham  Wallas 
and  Mr.  Harold  Laski,  of  the  London  School  of  Economics  and 
Political  Science.  To  Miss  Ivy  Schmidt,  now  ]\Irs.  Bolton,  we 
arc  indebted  for  much  laborious  co-operation,  and  for  the  full 
index. 

SIDNEY  AND  BEATRICE  WEBB. 


41  Gro.'^venor  Koap,  Wf.stminstek, 
September  1922. 


CONTENTS 


Preface  .......  v 

Introduction    .......  1 

CHAPTER   I 
The  Court  of  Sewers  .  .  .  •  .13 

CHAPTER   n 

The  Incorporated  Guardians  op  the  Poor.  .  .        107 

CHAPTER    III 

The  Turnpike  Trusts  .  .  .  .  .152 

CHAPTER   IV 
The  Improvement  Commissioners       ....       235 

CHAPTER  V 

A  Century    and    a   Half  of  English   Local   Government  : 

The  Old  Principles  .....       350 

CHAPTER   VI 

The  Emergence  op  the  Nkw  Principles       .  .  .397 

Index  op  Persons        ......       487 

Index  of  Places  .  .  .  .  .  ,493 

Index  of  Subjects       ......       505 


INTRODUCTION 

In  our  former  volumes  on  English  Local  Government  ^  we 
described  the  organisation  and  development,  between  1689  and 
1835,  both  of  the  Parish  and  the  County,  which  professedly 
covered  all  England  and  Wales,  and  of  the  various  types  of 
Manor  and  Borough,  which  stood  out  as  islands  of  franchises, 
immunities  or  exceptions  to  the  common  rule  and  jurisdiction. 
But  these  local  governing  bodies  do  not  exhaust  the  list.  There 
existed  also,  up  and  down  the  country,  a  number  of  other 
authorities,  unconnected  with  the  older  bodies,  which  had  been, 
in  particular  areas,  for  particular  functions,  by  Royal  Commission 
and  Parliamentary  enactment,  superposed  mdifferently  upon 
Parish  and  Manor,  Borough  and  County.  These,  in  a  special 
sense  statutory  administrations,  have  now  to  be  described.  They 
fall,  as  we  shall  see,  into  four  main  classes,  which  have  severally 
little  or  no  connection  with  each  other.  We  shall  deal  first 
with  the  archaic  Courts  of  Sewers,  which,  over  extensive  areas 
of  England,  administered  the  sluices,  the  embankments  and  the 
drainage  that  alone  made  the  land  habitable.  The  second  class 
comprises  the  peculiar  bodies  of  Incorporated  Guardians  to 
whom  was  transferred,  at  the  expense  of  the  Parish,  a  large  part 
of  the  administration  of  Poor  Relief.  We  shall  then  describe 
the  network  of  Turnpike  Trusts,  which,  in  the  course  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  transformed  our  main  roads.  The  last  class 
is  that  of  the  Lighting,  Watching,  Paving,  Cleansing,  Street  or 
Improvement  Commissioners,  in  whom,  from  the  middle  of  the 

^  The  Parish  and  the  County,  1907  ;  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  2  vols., 
1908.  We  may  refer  also  to  other  volumes  of  our  work  on  English  Local 
Government,  dealing  with  separate  functions,  namely,  The  Story  of  the  King''s 
Highway,  1913  ;  and  English  Prisons  under  Local  Government,  1922  ;  together 
with  an  incomplete  sketch  entitled  The  History  of  Liquor  Licensing  in  England, 
1903.  A  volume  on  the  evolution  of  the  Relief  of  the  Poor  and  the  Repression 
of  Vagrancy  is  in  preparation. 

i  B 


2  INTRODUCTION 

eighteenth  century,  the  bulk  of  what  we  now  call  municipal 
government  came  gradually  to  be  vested. 

These  Statutory  Authorities,  which  have  not  hitherto  en- 
gaged the  attention  of  historians,^  comprised,  in  the  aggregate, 
something  like  eighteen  hundred  separate  Local  Governing 
Bodies.  They  were,  accordingly,  more  than  eight  times  as 
numerous  as  the  Municipal  Corporations,  about  which,  because 
of  the  Parliamentary  importance  of  many  of  them,  so  much 
has  been  said  ;  and  thirty  times  as  numerous  as  the  Courts  of 
Justices  in  Quarter  Sessions  that  governed  the  Counties.  The 
jurisdiction  of  these  eighteen  hundred  Statutory  Authorities 
extended,  in  the  aggregate,  over  a  much  larger  area,  and  over 
a  considerably  greater  population,  than  the  jurisdiction  of  all 
the  Municipal  Corporations  put  together  ;  and,  as  it  may  be 
suggested,  affected  much  more  closely  the  lives  of  the  people. 
Even  in  respect  of  their  pecuniary  transactions,  these  Statutory 
Authorities  hold  an  important  place.  By  1835  their  aggregate 
annual  receipts  had  risen  to  nearly  three  millions  sterling,  being 
(until  the  dramatic  rise  of  the  Poor  Eate  in  the  nineteenth 
century)  not  far  short  of  the  contemporary  annual  revenue  of 
all  the  other  Local  Governing  Authorities  in  the  Kingdom  put 
together.  And  if  we  measure  our  interest  in  past  experiments 
in  social  organisation  by  the  extent  to  which  they  have  severally 
contributed  to  the  Local  Government  of  our  own  time,  the 
Statutory  Authorities,  as  we  shall  see,  may  claim  our  attention 

^  Reference  to  the  various  books  dealing  with  these  Statutory  Authorities 
will  be  found  at  the  beginnings  of  the  following  chapters. 

It  may  be  added  that  we  do  not  deal  with  the  bodies  of  Enclosure  Commis- 
sions formed  in  pursuance  of  some  four  tliousand  separate  Enclosure  Acts. 
These  Commissions,  transient  in  their  existence  and  in  their  functions,  power- 
less to  levy  a  tax  on  the  public,  and  dealing  only  with  indi\'idual  property 
rights,  cannot  be  deemed  Local  Governing  Bodies.  For  the  Enclosure  Acts 
and  the  proceedings  taken  under  them,  see  An  Enquiry  into  the  Influence  which 
Enclosures  have  had  iipon  the  Population  of  Englaml,  by  John  Howlett,  1786  ; 
The  Case  of  Labourers  in  Husbandry  Stated,  by  Da\id  Davies,  1795  ;  Commons 
and  Common  Fields,  by  T.  E.  Scrutton,  1887  ;  The  Domesday  of  Inclosures, 
1517-18,  by  I.  S.  Leadam  (Royal  II istoriral  Society,  1897);  Comnumsnnd  Common 
Fields,  by  0.  Slater,  1907  ;  History  of  the  English  Agricultural  iMbourcr,  by 
W.  Hasbach,  1908;  The  Disappairancc  of  the  Smtdl  Landowner,  by  A.  H. 
Johnson,  1909  ;  Commons,  For>\'<ts  and  Footpaths,  by  Viscount  Eversley,  1910  ; 
The  Village  labourer,  17H0-1832,  by  J.  L.  and  jiarbara  Hammond,  1911; 
Common  Land  and  Enclosures,  by  Sir  E.  C.  K.  Conner,  1912  ;  The  Agrarian 
Problem  in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  by  11.  H.  Tawney,  1912  ;  The  Great  Enclosures 
of  Common  Lands  in  Wales,  by  1.  Bowen,  1914  ;  English  Field  Systems,  by  H.  L. 
Cray,  1915;  Enclosure  and  Redistribution  of  Land,  by  W.  H.  R.  Curtler,  1920. 


"AD  HOC"   BODIES  3 

as  the  direct  ancestors,  more  truly  than  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion or  the  Manor,  of  a  large  part  of  the  powers  and  functions, 
not  only  of  our  Borough  Councils,  as  of  our  Urban  and  Rural 
District  Councils,  but  also  of  the  greatest  of  all  our  local  govern- 
ing authorities,  the  London  County  Council  itself. 

We  can  find  no  better  general  designation  for  these  four 
classes  of  bodies  established  one  by  one  to  perform  specifically 
prescribed  functions — as  we  should  now  say,  "  ad  hoc  bodies  " — 
than  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes.     They  differed 
essentially  from  the  immemorial  Parish,  Manor  and  County,  and 
even  from  the  Manorial  Borough  and  Municipal  Corporation, 
which,  in  some  cases,  lawfully  existed  by  prescription,  in  each 
of  them  taking  its  origin  from   some  special   legislative  act, 
establishing,   not  a   class   of  local  governing  bodies,   but  one 
jparticular  Local  Governing  Authority  to  discharge  one  designated 
function,  for  one  prescribed  locality.     Each  of  them  enjoyed 
its  powers  and  incurred  its  obligations,  not  by  Common  Law, 
but   exclusively   by  virtue   of   that   particular  legislative  act. 
It  is  true  that,  conformably  to  the  general  rule  that  there  are, 
in  Nature,  no  absolutely  sharp  lines  of  division  between  classes 
of  any  kind,  we  may  detect  a  certain  approximation  between  the 
Manorial   Boroughs   and   Municipal   Corporations,   on   the   one 
hand,  some  of  which  were  established  by  particular  legislative 
acts,  whether  charter  or  statute,  and,  on  the  other,  the  Courts 
of  Sewers,  which  were  actually  constituted  by  commission  from 
the  King,  though  from  1532  onwards,  always  imder  the  authority 
of  the  Statute  of  Sewers  ;  and  which  (at  least  in  the  exceptional 
case  of  the  Lords  of  the  Level  of  Romney  Marsh)  could  claim  that 
some  of  their  powers,  obligations  and  procedure  were  rooted  in 
immemorial  custom,  prescription  and  Common  Law.     But  apart 
from  this  anomalous  approximation  of  marginal  instances,  the 
Statutory  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes  introduce  us  to  a 
characteristic   development   of   English   Local   Government   in 
what  is  now  known  as  the  Local  Act. 

The  Local  Act,  of  which  we  find  exceptional  instances  as 
early  as  the  fourteenth  century,  but  which  is  specially  character- 
istic of  the  period  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions Act  with  which  we  are  concerned,  is,  we  believe,  in  many 
of  its  features,  peculiar  to  this  country.  It  is,  of  course,  not  an 
enactment  of  the  inhabitants,  or  of  the  governing  body,  of  the 


4  INTRODUCTION 

locality  to  which  it  refers,  but  an  Act  of  Parliament,  an  enact- 
ment of  the  National  Legislature  itself.  But  unlike  the  better- 
known  Public  General  Acts  of  the  National  Legislature  the 
Local  Act  does  not  apply  to  the  whole  Kingdom,  but  only  to 
the  district  or  governing  body  to  which  its  terms  relate.  Thus, 
in  1384,  the  Act  8  Richard  IL  authorises  "  pavage  "  in  the 
Borough  of  Southampton  ;  in  1488  the  statute  4  Henry  VIL  c.  21 
is  entitled  "  An  Act  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  Town  of  South- 
wold  "  ;  in  1542,  the  Act  33  Henry  VIII.  c.  35  empowers  the 
Mayor  and  the  Dean  of  Gloucester  to  provide  a  water  supply  ; 
in  1647  an  Ordinance  of  the  Commonwealth  establishes  the 
Corporation  of  the  Poor  of  the  City  of  London  in  order  that 
the  indigent  may  be  more  effectually  provided  for.  From  the 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  these  Local  Acts  increased 
steadily  in  number,  and  after  the  middle  of  that  century  they 
were  every  year  passed  in  crowds.  And  although  what  were 
in  effect  Local  Acts  were  kno^vn,  as  we  have  seen,  before  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  have  been  continuously 
employed  down  to  our  own  day,  those  of  the  particular  century 
and  a  half  that  we  have  here  under  review  did,  for  the  most 
part,  what  was  almost  unkno^vn  before  1647  and  came  speedil}'' 
to  an  end  after  1835,  namely  establish  (or  at  least  grant  a  renewed 
term  of  existence  to)  particular  local  governing  bodies  for  the 
performance  of  local  government  functions.  It  is,  in  fact, 
mainly  as  an  instrument  not  merely  conferring  powers  but 
actually  creating  local  government  structure  of  a  peculiar  kind — 
in  Turnpike  Trust  or  Incorporation  of  Guardians  of  the  Poor, 
Paving  or  Improvement  Commission — that  the  Local  Act  finds 
for  us  its  greatest  interest.^ 

The  Local  Act  (along  with  "  Private,"  "  Personal  "  and  other 
statutes  not  classed  as  "  Public  General  Acts  ")  is  a  Parliamentary 

^  For  this  rcason  we  do  not  deal  with  the  statutes,  often  called  Private  or 
Personal,  which  merely  afifect  the  status  of  individuals,  or  their  property 
rights.  Such  Acta  concerning  individual  cases  of  legitimacy,  naturalisation, 
marriage  or  divorce,  the  autliorisation  of  private  luttt-rie.s  or  the  settlement  of 
estates,  not  to  mention  also  the  reallotment  in  severalty  of  lands  held  in  common 
(Enclosure  Acts),  were  exceedingly  numerous  down  to  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  but  have  since  become  rare.  On  the  other  hand,  statutes 
incorporating  companies  for  business  enterprises,  of  which  the  New  River 
Ciimpany  of  1(117  was  an  exceptionally  early  example,  became,  in  the  eighteenth 
and  nineteenth  centuries,  down  to  tlie  passing  of  the  Companies  Act  of  1862, 
exceedingly  common  for  canals,  railways,  banks,  waterworks,  gasworks,  etc. 


THE  LOCAL  ACT  5 

statute  enacted,  like  any  other,  by  the  King  "  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent "  of  the  House  of  Lords  and  House  of 
Commons  ;  and  going  through  the  same  stages  of  first,  second 
and  third  reading,  committee  and  report  in  both  Houses  of 
Parliament.  Originally,  as  it  seems,  it  was  dealt  with  in  all 
respects  as  if  it  were  what  is  now  called  a  Public  General  Act. 
Gradually,  however,  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament  evolved  (but 
scarcely  before  the  nineteenth  century,  and  not  effectively  until 
after  1832)  ^  additional  safeguards  and  precautions  in  the  conces- 
sion of  statutory  authority  to  private  individuals,  local  authorities 
or  groups  of  persons.^    Thus,   special  notice  of  the  proposed 

^  How  careless  was  the  practice  in  the  eighteenth  century  may  be  judged 
from  the  following  example.  In  1772  we  leam  from  the  Parliamentary  Register 
that  "  Sir  William  Meredith  moved,  That  it  might  be  a  general  order,  that  no 
Bill,  or  clause  in  a  Bill,  making  any  offence  capital,  should  be  agreed  to  but  in 
a  Committee  of  the  whole  House.  He  observed  that  at  present  the  facility 
of  passing  such  clauses  was  shameful :  that  he  was  once  passing  a  Committee 
room,  when  only  one  Member  was  holding  a  Committee,  with  a  clerk's  boy ; 
he  happened  to  hear  something  of  hanging ;  he  immediately  had  the  curiosity 
to  ask  what  was  going  forward  in  that  small  Committee  that  could  merit  such  a 
punishment  ?  He  was  answered  that  it  was  an  Enclosing  Bill,  in  which  a 
great  many  poor  people  were  concerned,  who  opposed  the  Bill ;  that  they 
feared  those  people  would  obstruct  the  execution  of  the  Act,  and  therefore  this 
clause  was  to  make  it  capital  felony  in  anj'  one  who  did  so.  This  resolu- 
tion was  unanimously  agreed  to."  {Parliamentary  Register,  Jan.  21,  1772  ;  The 
Village  Labourer,  by  J.  L.  and  Barbara  Hammond,  1911,  p.  64.) 

2  For  the  gradual  evolution  of  Parliamentary  procedure  in  respect  to 
statutes  other  than  Public  General  Acts  (whether  "  private,"  "  local  and 
personal,"  estate,  divorce,  nationaUsation,  enclosure,  road,  etc.)  the  student 
will  consult  the  various  Reports  of  Select  Committees  of  the  House  of  Commons 
on  Private  Bills  (or  Private  Business)  in  1810,  1821,  1824,  1825,  1831,  1837, 
1838,  1841,  1846  and  1847  ;  and  the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons  and 
House  of  Lords  respectively,  as  cited  in  the  undermentioned  works.  The 
ordinary  enquirer  will  find  sufficient  information  in  the  last  named  of  them, 
which  (although  not  indicated  by  the  title)  is  an  interesting  and  valuable 
monograph  on  the  subject  of  Local  Acts,  deserving  more  attention  than  it  has 
yet  received. 

The  Solicitor's  Instructor  in  Parliament  concerning  Estate  and  Inclosure 
Bills,  by  Charles  Thomas  Ellis,  1799  ;  this  extended  and  republished  as  Practical 
Rem,arks  and  Precedents  of  Proceedings  in  Parliament  relative  to  Bills  for  Inclos- 
ing and  Draining  Lands,  making  Turnpike  Roads,  etc.,  1802  (and  subsequent 
editions  down  to  1813)  ;  The  Manner  of  Proceeding  upon  Bills  in  the  Commons, 
by  Sir  George  Bramwell,  1 809  ;  Practical  Instructions  on  the  Passing  of  Private 
Bills  through  Both  Houses  of  Parliament,  by  a  Parliamentary  Agent,  1827  ; 
Proceedings  in  Private  Bills,  by  Thomas  M.  Sherwood,  1829-1831  ;  On  Passing 
Private  Bills,  by  John  Halcomb,  1836  ;  The  Practice  of  the  Court  of  Referees 
on  Private  Bills  in  Parliament,  by  Frederick  Clifford  and  A.  G.  Rickards,  2  vols.  ; 
Cases  decided  during  the  Sessions  [from  1867  onwards]  by  the  Court  of  Referees 
on  Private  Bills  in  Parliament,  by  the  same  ;  and  The  History  of  Private  Bill 
Legislation,  by  Frederick  Clifford,  2  vols.  1885  ;  Parliamentary  Costs,  by  E. 
Wheeler,  1881  ;   Private  Bill  Legislation  and  Provisional  Orders,  by  L.  Macassej', 


6  INTRODUCTION 

legislation  had  to  be  given  to  all  persons  whose  interests  would 
be  affected  by  it,  and  the  service  of  such  notice  had  to  be  formally 
proved  before  the  Bill  was  allowed  to  proceed.  Fees  had  to  be 
paid  to  various  ofhcials  of  each  House.  A  whole  code  of  prece- 
dents became  established,  which  had  to  be  followed  under  penalty 
of  grave  risk  of  the  Bill  failing  to  become  law.  From  1800 
(when  a  salary  was  assigned  to  the  office),  if  not,  indeed,  from 
1778  or  earlier,!  the  Chairman  of  Committees  of  the  House  of 
Lords  gradually  assumed  authority,  for  the  protection  of  the 
public  interest,  to  scrutinise  closely  the  provisions  of  each  Bill, 
prior  to  its  formal  introduction  into  either  House  ;  and  the 
veto  of  the  "  Lords'  Chairman  "  upon  any  novel  encroachment 
on  public  interests  or  private  rights — meaning  that  this  trusted 
representative  would  advise  the  House  summarily  to  throw  out 
any  Bill  which  contained  anything  to  which  he  had  formally 
objected — seriously  limited  the  demands  of  promoters  of  this 
legislation.  And  when  all  these  preliminaries  had  been  gone 
through,  every  Bill  not  classed  as  "  Public  "—whether  "  Private," 
"  Personal  "  or  "  Local  " — had  to  rim  the  gauntlet  of  special 
consideration  by  a  conimittee  of  each  House  in  succession, 
before  which,  in  public  session,  witnesses  had  to  prove  the 
necessity  and  desirability  of  granting  the  proposed  statutory 
powers,  and  other  witnesses  could  demonstrate  the  inconvenience 
or  the  midesirability  of  such  a  course.  Before  these  Parlia- 
mentary connnittees  all  the  parties  could  be,  and  from  1832 
onwards,  almost  invariably  were,  represented  by  learned  counsel, 
who  not  only  examined  and  cross-examined  the  witnesses,  but 
also  addressed  the  tribunal  in  support  of  the  evidence  of  their 
respective  clients.  The  final  stage  in  this  evolution  of  procedure 
was  reached  in  the  decision  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  not 
arrived  at  until  the  third  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
to  appoint    their    "  Private    Bill    Committees "   in    all    cases 

1887;  StaTiding  Orders  of  the  Lords  and  Commons  relative  to  Private  Bills,  by  J. 
Bigg,  1889  ;  Private  Bill  Procedure,  by  C.  Dodd  and  H.  W.  W.  Wilbcrforco,  1898  ; 
The  Practice  of  Private  Bills,  by  G.  J.  Whcclcr,  1900  ;  together  with  sueh  general 
works  as  A  Treatise  on  the  Lair,  Privileges,  Proceedings  and  Usage  of  Parliament, 
by  Sir  T.  Ei-skine  May,  1900  ;  Legislative  Methods  and  Forms,  by  Sir  C.  P. 
Ilbert,  1901  ;  and  Recht  und  Tcchnik  des  englischcn  Parliamentarismm,  by  Josef 
llcdlich,  190.'3,  translated  as  The  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  1908  ; 
the  whole  examined  and  siunmarised,  as  regards  Local  Acts,  in  Municipal 
Origins,  by  F.  II.  Spencer,  1911. 

»   Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  325-329. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  OUTPUT  7 

from  among  members  without  pecmiiary  interest  in  or  local 
association  with  the  projects  of  the  promoters  of  the  Bills  ;  ^ 
and  to  adopt,  as  the  guiding  principle  for  the  action  of  these 
committees,  the  assumption  that  they  should  act  strictly  as 
judicial  tribunals,  eliminating  all  personal  predilection  and 
party  bias. 

These  Local  Acts  constituted,  during  the  century  and  a  half 
with  which  we  are  here  dealing,  actually  the  greater  part,  so  far 
as  bulk  is  concerned,  of  the  legislative  output  of  ParUament. 
"  If  any  contemplative  person,"  says  Mr.  Spencer,  "  will  go  to 
one  of  our  great  libraries  and  stand  for  a  moment  before  the 
ponderous  mass  of  volumes  containing  the  Acts  of  our  Parlia- 
ment from  the  beginnings  of  its  history  until  to-day,  he  will 
notice  a  curious  phenomenon.  He  will  observe  that  the  space 
occupied  by  legislation  for  the  century  from  about  1745  to  1845 
is  immensely  greater  than  that  needed  for  any  other  century  of 
our  Parliamentary  history.  As  might  be  expected,  a  single 
volume  will  contain  the  legislation  of  a  whole  reign,  or  some- 
times several  reigns,  from  the  time  of  the  Plantagenets  almost 
until  the  departure  of  the  Stuarts.  From  about  1700  onwards, 
however,  the  bulk  of  the  annual  output  increases,  until  a  year's 
legislative  work  begins  to  fill  a  stout  volume  ;  and  as  soon  as  we 
get  beyond  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  two,  three  or  even 
four  volumes  begin  to  be  required.  .  .  .  The  greater  part  of  the 
tremendous  bulk  of  legislation  of  this  period  consisted  ...  of 
.  .  .  Local  Aqts."  ^  Even  omitting  the  four  thousand  Enclosure 
Acts,  and  all  the  "  Private  "  and  "  Personal  "  legislation,  the 
statutes  specifically  establishing  or  continuing  one  or  other  of 
the  eighteen  hundred  Local  Authorities  described  in  the  present 
volume,  or  altering  their  powers  or  obligations,  must  number  in 
the  aggregate  something  Uke  ten  thousand.  This  enormous 
array  of  legislation  has,  so  far,  scarcely  been  explored,  or  even 

^  Even  as  late  as  1825  it  was  the  practice,  as  reported  by  the  House  of 
Commons  Committee  of  that  year,  for  each  Bill  to  be  "  committed  to  the 
member  who  is  charged  with  its  management,  and  such  other  members  as  he 
may  choose  to  name  in  the  House,  and  the  members  serving  for  a  particular 
County  (usually  the  County  immediately  connected  with  the  object  of  the 
Bill,  and  the  adjoining  Counties)  ;  and  consequently  it  has  been  practically 
fomid  that  the  members  to  whom  Bills  have  been  committed  have  been  gener- 
ally those  who  have  been  most  interested  in  the  result."  (Quoted  in  Tlie  Village 
Labourer,  by  J.  L.  and  Barbara  Hammond,  1911,  pp.  45-46.) 

^  Municifol  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  p.  1. 


8  INTRODUCTION 

surveyed  by  historians,^  whether  what  they  were  writing  about 
was  the  evolution  of  law,  of  local  government,  of  public  adminis- 
tration, of  manners  and  morals,  or  of  Parliament  itself.  We 
were  ourselves  daunted  by  the  portentous  magnitude  and  the 
repulsive  aridity  of  the  mass  of  sources  that  stood  before  us. 
But  it  was  plain  that  the  history  of  English  Local  Government 
was  not  to  be  understood  without  an  analysis  of  the  statutes 
upon  which  it  so  largely  depended,  even  if  they  were  styled 
Local  Acts  ;  and  great  and  wearisome  as  was  the  work,  it  yielded 
much  of  interest  and  value. 

What  adds  to  the  difficulty  of  consulting  these  Local  Acts 
of  the  eighteenth  century  is  the  great  length  and  pedantically 

^  Thus  Fitzjames  Stephen,  writing  a  learned  history  of  English  criminal 
law,  could  content  himself  with  the  following  reference  to  the  masses  of  Parlia- 
mentary- statutes  which  created  innumerable  novel  crimes,  substituted  for  the 
Manorial  Courts  the  authority  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  and  practically 
revolutionised  criminal  procedure  for  the  bulk  of  offences  by  introducing 
summary  jurisdiction.  "  At  a  time  tvhich  I  am  not  able  to  give  with  precision" 
wrote  this  historian  of  1853,  "  but  which  from  expressions  in  the  Report  of  the 
Municipal  Corijorations  Commission  I  think  must  have  been  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  last  century,  it  became  customary  to  pass  Local  Improvement  Acts  by 
which  the  management  of  matters  connected  with  the  police  of  towns  was 
usually  vested  in  a  body  of  Trustees  or  Commissioners  distinct  from  the 
Corporation  itself.  There  were  great  differences  in  the  manner  in  which  these 
powers  were  allotted."  {History  of  the  Criminal  Law  of  England,  by  Sir  J. 
Fitzjames  Stephen,  1853,  vol.  i.  p]).  195-196.)  Other  historians  have  been 
equally  neglectful.  W.  E.  H.  Lecky  wrote  his  eight  volumes  on  the  eighteenth 
century  with  scarcely  a  reference  to  these  Local  Acts.  Spencer  Walpole,  who 
seems  to  have  compiled  his  History  of  Englaiul  from  the  Conclusion  of  the  Great 
War  in  1815  almost  exclusively  from  a  file  of  the  Times  and  a  set  of  the  Blue- 
books,  devotes  only  three  pages  out  of  his  five  volumes  to  Private  iJill  legislation 
(vol.  iv.  pp.  15-18).  Sir  George  Nicholls,  for  his  History  of  the  English  Poor  Law, 
1854,  quotes  abundantly  from  every  Public  General  Act  that  comes  anywhere 
near  poor  relief,  but  absolutely  ignores  all  the  enactments  that  were  not  classed 
as  Public  General  Acts,  even  when  they  dealt  explicitly  with  poor  relief  itself. 

How  illogical  is  this  ignoring  of  Local  Acts  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that 
the  classification  of  Acts  of  Parliament  has  varied  from  time  to  time.  Thus, 
prior  to  1702  "  Turnpike  Acts  "  were  "  public  "  ;  from  1702  to  1720  they  were 
"  private  "  ;  from  1720  to  1753  they  were  printed  and  bound  with  the  ordinary 
Public  General  Acts  ;  from  1753  to  1790  they  were  bound  separately,  and  are 
described  as  "  Public  Acts  not  printed  in  the  collection,"  or  more  succinctly, 
as  "  Road  Acts,"  whilst  from  1798  to  1868  they  were  included  among  "  Acts 
Local  and  Personal."  From  1798  to  1868  all  the  statutes  were  divided  among 
three  classes,  namely,  (1)  I>ublic  General  Acts,  (2)  Local  and  Personal  Acts 
declared  public  and  to  be  judicially  noticed  ;  and  (3)  Private  and  Personal 
Acts.  Since  1868  the  three  divisions  have  been  (1)  Public  General  Acts;  ■ 
(2)  Local  Acts,  and  (3)  Private  Acts.  (House  of  Commons  Journals,  vol.  lii. 
p.  413  ;  History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation,  by  F.  Clifford,  1887-89,  vol.  i.  p.  269  ; 
Legislative  Methods  and  Forms,  by  Sir  C.  P.  Ilbcrt,  1901,  pp.  26-27  ;  Municipal 
Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp  45-46;  The  Story  of  the  King's  Highway, 
by  S.  and  P.  W(  bb,  1913,  p.  US.)  J         J       !f 


CUMBROUS  PHRASEOLOGY  9 

involved  phraseology  of  their  clauses.  This  was  due  to  the 
necessity  of  repeating  and  re-enacting  in  each  statute  all  the 
general  provisions  as  to  the  procedure  for  acquiring  land  and  other 
matters  of  common  form,  which  are  now  embodied  for  general 
application  in  the  Lands  Clauses  Acts,  and  other  statutes  of  like 
character.  In  the  typical  Local  Act  of  the  eighteenth  century 
all  this  essentially  "  common  form  "  had  to  be  set  out  in  the 
cumbrous  and  elaborate  phraseology  of  the  legal  draughtsman 
of  the  time.  Only  sparingly  and  occasionally  could  the  eighteenth- 
century  Parliament,  deprived  of  the  assistance  of  the  Ministers 
(who  remained  absolutely  indifferent  to  the  requirements  and 
the  troubles  of  Local  Government),  bring  itself  to  enact  any 
general  statute  giving  powers  to  all  Parish  officers,  to  all  Turn- 
pike Trusts,  to  all  Municipal  Corporations,  or  to  all  County 
authorities  to  carry  out  their  respective  functions.  Accordingly, 
the  successive  changes  in  structure  and  function,  the  gradual 
alteration  in  the  idea  of  what  the  various  kinds  of  local  governing 
bodies  should  be  and  do,  the  evolution  in  the  very  conception 
of  government  itself,  have  to  be  traced  in  the  variations,  from 
one  decade  to  another,  in  the  contents  of  the  thousands  of  Local 
Acts,  whilst  the  results  of  these  variations  may  be  verified  in 
the  archives  reveahng  the  development  of  the  various  Local 
Authorities  themselves. 

In  the  following  chapters  we  shall  describe,  first,  the  ancient 
Courts  of  Sewers,  with  their  archaic  and  partly  traditional 
organisation  of  juries  and  presentments  ;  next  the  Incorporated 
Guardians  of  the  Poor  ;  then  the  growing  multitude  of  Turnpike 
Trusts  ;  and  finally  the  bodies  of  Paving,  Cleansing,  Lighting, 
Watching,  Street  or  Improvement  Commissioners,  and  their 
work  in  the  crowded  urban  districts.  And  we  shall  find,  not 
only  that  the  life-histories  of  these  eighteen  hundred  Statutory 
Authorities  for  Special  Purposes  afford  us  a  new  vision  of  v/hat 
the  fife  of  the  people  of  England  in  the  eighteenth  century 
actually  was,  but  also  that  the  evolution  of  structure  and  func- 
tion of  these  little-studied  Local  Authorities  led  to  results  im- 
portant in  subsequent  developments.  These  Local  Authorities 
jit  was,  far  more  than  the  Parish,  the  Borough  and  the  County, 
that  brought  in  the  paid  professional  staffs  of  voluntarily  serving 
officials  out  of  which  has  sprung  our  modern  municipal  Civil 
Service.     It  was  among  these  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special 


lo  INTRODUCTION 

Puqioses  that  first  developed  the  essentially  English  system  of 
administration  by  committees  of  representatives  of  the  electorat-e 
of  ratepayers,  directing  and  controlling  the  staff  of  professional 
officers.  It  is  in  the  long  succession  of  Local  Acts  establishing 
or  continuing  these  Statutory  Authorities  that  we  watch  the 
earlier  stages  of  that  creation  of  new  misdemeanours  and  that 
multiplication  of  merely  police  offences,  together  with  the 
almost  limitless  extension  of  summary  jurisdiction,  which  has 
become  so  characteristic  of  modern  civilisation.  And  above  all, 
it  is  in  these  Local  Acts,  and  particularly  in  the  practice  of  the 
latest  of  the  four  classes  of  Local  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes 
which  they  set  up,  namely  the  Street  Commissioners,  that  we 
find  the  direct  lineal  ancestors,  alike  of  the  multiplicity  of 
functions  relating  to  sanitation,  police  and  all  the  amenities  of 
iu:ban  life  now  characterising  our  municipalities,  and  of  the 
rates,  or  ever-growing  municipal  taxes  which,  whilst  grumbling, 
we  nevertheless  willingly  contribute  in  return  for  the  literally 
inestimable  services  rendered.^ 

^  This  vast  and  chaotic  mass  of  legislation  remained  almost  unnoticed 
by  contemporary  jurists  and  reformers.  It  is  remarkable  how  little  it  engaged 
the  attention,  to  name  three  very  different  observers,  either  of  Jeremy  Bentham, 
or  of  William  Cobbett  or  of  Francis  Place.  Sir  Samuel  Romilly's  attention 
was  called  to  the  savage  punishments  authorised  by  some  of  the  Local  Acts  ; 
and  his  intervention  led  to  the  passing  of  Public  General  Acts  in  1814-16  (54 
George  III.  c.  170  ;  56  George  III.  c.  129  ;  )  repealing  such  clauses  wherever 
they  occurred.  But  nothing  was  done  to  restrain  the  authority  over  the 
helpless  poor  carelessly  given  by  many  of  these  statutes.  When,  in  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  Toulmin  Smith  was  vainly  striving  to  re-establish 
what  ho  fondly  imagined  to  be  the  "  self-determination  "  of  the  ancient  Parish 
or  Manor,  and  the  inviolable  supremacy  of  the  Common  Law,  it  was  the  Local 
Acts  (which  he  chose  to  consider  a  quite  recent  innovation)  that  excited  his 
greatest  animadversion.  "  There  is,"  he  wrote  in  1852,  "  one  form  which 
modem  law-making  takes  which  needs  reform.  It  is  a  form  at  once  probably 
the  most  burdensome  of  any  to  members  of  Parliament,  and  one  of  the  most 
pernicious  in  itself ;  while  it  is  a  wholly  illegitimate  field  of  Parliamentary 
labour.  It  is  the  system  of  Local  Acts.  .  .  .  There  are  a  mass  of  Local  Acts 
which  never  ought  to  come  near  Parliament  at  all.  All  Borough  Acts,  and 
others  of  that  class,  come  under  this  head.  .  .  .  Under  cover  of  these  Local 
Acts,  infringements  are  made  upon  the  constitutional  rights  and  liberties  of 
freemen  which  arc  truly  astounding  ;  and  that  without  any  possibility  of 
redress.  Wide  powers  of  summary  jurisdiction  are  often  given  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  spirit  and  principles  of  the  Common  Law.  ...  A  man  in 
the  pursuit  of  his  lawful  calling  or  in  the  course  of  needful  self-protection,  finds 
the  all-essential  rights  which  he  enjoys  at  Common  Law,  and  which  no  charter 
of  the  Crown  can  invade,  nor  even  his  own  consent  take  away,  cut  from  under 
him  by  some  hidden  section  of  a  Local  Act  of  Parliament  he  never  heard  of." 
lA}cal  SdJ-Covirnmrnt,  by  J.  T.uilmin  Smith,  1852.  pp.  147-150  ;  see  also  Minute 
on  Public  Health  legislation  prepared  at  the  Request  of  Sir  William  Molesworth,  by 
the  same,  1853  ;  and  Local  Self-Government  Un mystified,  by  the  same,  1857,  p.  92.) 


THE  CHANGING  ENVIRONMENT  ii 

With  the  present  vokime  we  complete  our  account  of  the 
structure  of  English  Local  Government  from  1689  to  1835. 
It  seems,  accordingly,  convenient  to  close  the  volume  with  an 
analysis  of  the  ideas  and  conceptions,  or  as  we  may  say,  the 
principles,  in  which  this  structure  was  rooted  at  the  beginning 
of  the  period,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  were  affected  by 
the  social  evolution  of  this  century  and  a  half.  The  period,  as 
it  is  unnecessary  to  remind  the  reader,  was  one  of  exceptional 
change.  At  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  although  the 
old  order  was  already  in  an  advanced  stage  of  decay,  England 
was  still  predominantly  an  agricultural  community,  with  the 
greater  part  of  the  land  in  common  fields,  cultivated  by  small 
working  farmers  closely  bound  together  by  social  ties  and  family 
relationships  with  the  cottagers,  the  bulk  of  them  having  certain 
property  rights  or  customary  privileges  as  tenants  of  the  manor, 
copyholders  or  freeholders,  or  at  least  enjoying  rights  of  common. 
In  the  urban  centres,  even  in  the  ports  and  the  then  rapidly 
growing  Metropolis,  the  greater  part  of  the  manufacturing 
industry  and  the  internal  trading  was  still  carried  on  by  small 
master-craftsmen,  each  employing  only  a  few  journeymen  and 
apprentices  who  lived  in  the  families  of  their  employers,  and 
often  married  their  masters'  daughters ;  or  by  independent 
handicraftsmen  who  directly  served  their  own  customers.  By 
the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  economic  organisa- 
tion of  society  had  almost  entirely  changed.  The  landowners 
had  come  to  let  the  soil  on  commercial  contracts  for  steadily 
increasing  rents  to  farmers  who  could  invest,  in  what  became 
essentially  a  business  enterprise,  capitals  of  from  a  few  hundred 
to  some  thousands  of  pounds  each.  The  men,  women  and  children, 
who  worked  on  the  land  and  constituted  at  that  time  four-fifths 
of  the  entire  population  of  the  rural  parishes,  had,  by  the  opera- 
tion of  the  enclosures,  the  absorption  of  the  little  copyholds 
and  freeholds,  and  the  disappearance  of  the  manorial  system, 
for  the  most  part,  lost  whatever  property  rights  they  had 
possessed,  and  had  sunk  to  be  merely  a  wage-earning  proletariate, 
to  be  ultimately  deeply  pauperised  by  the  "  parish  pay."  In 
the  rapidly  developing  urban  districts,  in  the  mining  areas,  in 
the  growing  ports,  in  the  greatly  swollen  Metropolis  and  even 
in  the  relatively  stagnant  county  towns,  the  growth  of  the  new 
machine  industries,  the  vast  capitalist  enterprises  in  mining, 


12  INTRODUCTION 

in  shipping,  and  in  commerce  as  well  as  in  manufactures,  and 
the  enormous  development  of  both  internal  and  international 
trade  had  brought  the  town  populations  to  a  like  "  cash  nexus  " 
between  a  constantly  shifting  body  of  capitalist  employers,  many 
of  them  amassing  great  fortunes,  taking  on  and  dismissing, 
according  to  the  fluctuations  of  speculative  demand,  armies  of 
unorganised  manual  workers  whom  they  knew  only  as  the 
"  hands  "  to  whom  they  paid  an  inadequate  and  inconstant  wage. 
Such  an  economic  revolution,  coincident  with  the  gradual 
emergence  of  the  idea  of  political  Democracy,  and  with  the 
spread  of  Nonconformity  in  religion,  could  not  fail  to  make  its 
mark  on  the  local  institutions.  In  the  present  volume,  taken  in 
conjunction  with  those  on  The  Parish  and  the  County,  and 
The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  we  have  sought  to  describe  the 
myriad  changes  in  the  structure  of  Local  Government  that  did, 
in  fact,  occur  between  1689  and  1835.  What  remains  to  be 
done,  and  what  the  reader  will  find  attempted  in  the  last  two 
chapters  of  the  present  volume,  is  to  analyse  and  summarise 
what  we  may  call  the  intellectual  features  that  these  myriad 
and  apparently  disconnected  changes  had  in  common.  We 
shall  seek  to  show  how  it  was  that  an  unorganised  congeries  of 
very  varied  Local  Authorities — rooted  mainly  in  immemorial 
local  custom  and  the  Common  Law  ;  arising  out  of  an  ancient 
vocational  organisation  of  society  ;  dependent  on  the  imiversal 
obligation  to  serve  in  turn  gratuitously  in  the  various  public 
offices  ;  with  authority  confined  to  the  owners  of  property, 
meaning  originally  property  in  land — developed  into  another 
congeries  of  no  less  varied  Local  Authorities  ;  deriving  their 
power  mainly  from  constantly  amended  Parliamentary  statutes  ; 
increasingly  getting  their  functions  performed  by  hired  labourers 
and  profitmaking  contractors  ;  and  progressively  shedding  the 
remnants  of  vocational  organisation  in  favour  of  control  by  the 
"  consumers  "  of  the  services,  as  property  owners  or  rate-payers 
— the  resulting  chaos  leading,  finally,  in  the  Poor  Law  Amend- 
ment Act  of  1834  and  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835, 
to  the  initiation  of  what  has,  in  the  course  of  another  century, 
proved  to  be  a  systematic  reorganisation  of  Local  Government 
on  the  basis  of  a  universal  Democracy. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE    COURT    OF    SEWERS 

It  is  difficult,  in  the  twentieth  century,  to  form  any  adequate 
conception  of  the  extent  to  which  the  England  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  or  even  down  to  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  was 
made  up,  to  use  the  picturesque  words  of  "  the  famous  and 
learned  Robert  Callis,"  himself  a  Lincolnshire  Sewer  Commis- 
sioner, of  "  huge,  great  and  vast  fens  and  marishes."  ^ 

^  No  satisfactory  account  of  the  work  and  proceedings  of  the  various  Courts 
of  Sewers  has  been  written.  The  student  will  consult  the  well-known  Reading 
of  the  Famous  and  Learned  Robert  Callis,  Esquire,  wpon  the  Statute  of  Sewers, 
first  published  in  1647,  the  latest  edition  being  that  of  1824  ;  also  The  Learned 
Reading  of  John  Heme  .  .  .  concerning  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  1659  ;  and 
The  Laws  of  Sewers,  or  the  Office  and  Authority  of  Commissioners  of  Servers,  1726 
and  1732.  The  Justice  of  the  Peace,  by  Theodore  Barlow,  1745,  gives  (pp.  484- 
494)  a  clear  account  of  what  was  then  taken  as  law  on  the  subject ;  whilst 
The  Law  of  Waters  and  Sewers,  by  Humphry  W.  Woolrych,  1830,  conveniently 
supplies  a  later  picture.  The  present  law  is  most  easily  consulted  in  The  Law 
of  Land  Drainage  and  Sewers,  by  G.  G.  Kennedy  and  J.  S.  Saunders,  1884  ; 
The  Land  Drainage  Act  of  1861,  by  T.  Thring,  1862  ;  or  The  Land  Drainage 
Act,  1861,  by  R.  B.  Grantham,  1865.  The  Laws  and  Customs  of  Rom.ney  Marsh 
have  been  many  times  printed,  the  last  separate  edition  being  that  of  1840. 
For  the  early  history,  the  great  storehouse  of  materials  is  The  History  of 
Imbanking  and  Draining  of  Divers  Fens  and  Marshes,  by  (Sir)  WiUiam  Dugdale, 
1652,  reprinted  1772,  together  with  the  works  subsequently  cited  in  con- 
nection with  the  Fenland,  the  Bedford  Level,  Romney  Marsh,  and  Lincoln- 
shire respectively.  A  useful  collection  of  documents  is  given  in  Pxiblic 
Works  in  Mediaeval  Law,  by  C.  T.  Flower  (Selden  Society,  1915).  Some 
idea  of  the  engineering  problems  involved  may  be  gained  from  such 
books  as  that  On  the  Drainage  of  Lands,  Towns  and  Buildings,  by  G.  D. 
Dempsey,  1890  and  1894  ;  The  Drainage  of  Fens  and  Lowlands,  by  W.  H. 
Wheeler,  1888  ;  History  of  the  Fetis  of  South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler. 
1894,  with  a  useful  bibliography  ;  Fens  and  Floods  of  Mid  Lincolnshire,  by 
J.  S.  Padley,  1882  ;  or  the  papers  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Institute  of  Civil 
Engineers.  The  best  brief  accounts  are  those  in  The  Lives  of  the  Engineers,  by 
Samuel  Smiles,  1861,  vol.  i.  part  i.,  and  Descriptive  and  Statistical  Account  of 
the  British  Empire,  by  J.  R.  MacCulloch,  chap.  i.  sec.  4.  We  have,  however, 
been  able  to  draw  our  information  mostly  from  the  MS.  minutes  of  the  Com- 

13 


14  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

In  the  eastern  counties,  what  is  now  the  great  level  plain 
of  the  Fenland  was,  every  flood-time,  for  Hterally  hundreds  of 
square  miles,  one  broad  waste  of  water,  and  of  water,  as  Defoe 
says,  "  the  colour  of  brewed  ale  "  ;  ^  in  some  parts  deep  pools 
and  river  channels,  elsewhere  merely  beds  of  waving  rushes,  bog 
myrtle  and  flowering  grasses,  the  home  of  innumerable  wildfowl, 
and,  in  autumn,  of  flocks  of  starlings,  which,  when  disturbed, 
rose  in  thick  clouds.  Here  and  there,  on  a  patch  of  higher  land, 
would  be  a  hamlet  clustering  roimd  the  church,  or  the  hall  of 
the  squire,  whilst,  when  the  day  happened  to  be  free  from  fog,^ 
the  towers  and  spires  of  Ely  and  Peterborough,  Boston  and  Lynn, 
Whittlesey  and  Croyland  caught  the  eye  for  miles.  But  besides 
these  larger  patches,  where  for  a  few  acres  there  existed  "  winter 
lands,"  the  whole  district  was  studded  with  islets,  having  only  a 
few  square  yards  above  the  flood-time  water  level,  each  with  its 
little  homestead  among  the  willows  and  poplars,  its  tiny  field 
behind  the  banks,  and  its  pasturage  on  the  "  summerlands  "  of 
green  grass  flat,  and  of  browner  peat  where  the  fen  lay  deeper ; 
with  here  and  there  the  darker  velvet  green  of  alders  amid  wind- 
ing streams  and  shining  meres,  and  rich  sedge-grass  so  slightly 
uncovered  by  the  summer  droughts  that,  as  noticed  by  a  lady 
traveller  in  1695,  the  "  many  swans'  nests  on  little  hillocks  of 
earth  in  the  wet  ground  "  looked  "as  if  swimming  "  amid  the 
broods  of  cygnets.^  This  "  vast  morass,"  as  Camden  calls  it, 
where,  to  use  the  words  of  Dugdale,  '^  there  is  no  element  good, 
the  air  being  for  the  most  part  cloudy,  gross  and  full  of  rotten 
harrs  ;  the  water  putrid  and  muddy,  yea,  full  of  loathsome 
vermin  ;   and  the  fire  noisome  by  the  stink  of  smoky  hassocks," 

missioners  of  Sewers  for  Somerset,  East  Kent,  Greenwich,  Surrey  and  Kent, 
Poplar,  St.  Katherine's,  Tower  Hamlets,  Holbom  and  Finsbury  and  West- 
minster ;  together  with  those  of  the  Governors  of  the  Bedford  Level  (North 
Level),  and  those  of  the  unique  "  Lords  of  the  Level  "  of  Roinney  Marsh. 

^  A  Tour  through  the  Whole  Island  of  Great  Britain,  by  Daniel  Defoe,  vol.  iii. 
p.  28  of  1748  edition. 

*  The  "  fogs  and  stagnant  air  "  of  the  Fens,  mentioned  by  Dugdale  as 
prevalent,  were  execrated  by  Defoe,  who  tells  us  that,  early  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  the  whole  district  was,  in  autumn,  "  generally  .  .  .  covered  with 
fi>gs.  so  that  when  the  downs  and  higher  grounds  of  the  adjacent  country 
glisU'rod  with  the  beams  of  the  sun,  the  Isle  of  Ely  seemed  wrapped  up 
in  mist  and  darkness,  so  that  nothing  could  be  discerned  but  now  and  then 
the  cupola  of  Kly  Minster  "  (ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  91,  vol.  iii.  pp.  19-28,  of  edition 
of  1748). 

'  Through  England  with  a  Side  Saddle  in  tlie  Reign  of  William  and  Mary, 
being  the  Diartj  of  Celia  Fienncs,  edited  by  the  Hon.  Mrs.  Griffiths,  1888,  p.  131. 


THE  "INNINGS"  15 

afforded  "  overmuch  harbour  to  a  rude  and  almost  barbarous 
sort  of  lazy  and  beggarly  people."  ^ 

On  the  other  side  of  England,  many  miles  of  Somersetshire, 
in  the  broad  flats  through  which  the  Parrott  and  the  Axe 
wandered  sluggishly  to  the  sea,  presented  an  almost  similar 
aspect.  In  Kent  and  Sussex  the  well-known  Romney  Marsh, 
a  hundred  square  miles  of  green  flat,  intersected  by  dykes  of 
stagnant  water,  had  been  gradually  abandoned  by  the  sea,  and 
"  inned  "  by  successive  embankments  of  Roman  or  Saxon  times. 
Here  the  marshmen  of  the  seventeenth  century,  like  those  of  the 

^  History  of  Imbanhing  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William  Dugdale,  1652,  p.  171 
of  edition  of  1772.  "  Hassocks  "  seems  to  have  been  a  fen  word  for  the  upper- 
most tufts  of  grass,  which  had  to  be  removed  before  the  land  could  be  cultivated. 
A  distinguished  traveller  through  the  Fens  in  1833  notices  the  perpetual  smell  of 
burning  dried  "  wreck  "  and  weeds  {Memoirs  of  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers,  by  W. 
Hanna,  1851,  vol.  ii.  p.  411).  A  more  disagreeable  stench  constantly  pervaded 
the  Fenland.  "  Upon  the  walls  of  the  ordinary  people's  houses,"  noticed  a 
lady  in  1695,  "  the  cowdung  [is]  plastered  up  to  dry  in  cakes,  which  they  use 
for  firing  ;  'tis  a  very  offensive  fuel,  but  the  common  people  use  little  else  " 
{Through  England  on  a  Side  Saddle  in  the  Reign  of  William  and  Mary  .  .  . 
Diary  of  Celia  Fiennes,  edited  by  Hon.  Mrs.  Griffiths,  1888,  p.  132).  "  The 
natives  dry  the  cowdung  for  firing  in  the  winter,  so  'tis  kept  in  heaps  about 
the  fields,  as  is  also  the  dung  of  their  yards,  so  when  you  walk  the  stink  is 
inconceivable  "  (Mrs.  Harris  to  her  son,  afterwards  Lord  Malmesbury,  19th  June 
1763  ;  in  A  Series  of  Letters  of  the  First  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  1870,  vol.  i.  p.  91). 
Of  Louth  (Lincolnshire)  in  1795,  it  was  said  (in  The  State  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir 
F.  M.  Eden,  vol.  ii.  p.  394)  "it  is  hoped  that  the  introduction  of  coal  will 
induce  the  inhabitants  to  desist  from  their  ancient  practice,  not  yet  entirely 
disused,  of  using  the  dung  of  their  cattle  for  fuel."  The  custom,  which  is,  of 
course,  common  tiiroughout  mo.<rti  of  Asia,  still  existed  in  1830,  though  such  a 
fuel  had,  it  was  admitted,  "  a  strong  disagreeable  smell  in  burning  "  {History  of 

I  the  Drainage  of  the  Great  Level  of  the  Fens,  by  Samuel  Wells,  1830,"vol.  i.  p.  790). 
Even  for  the  rich  the  life  of  the  Fens  had  many  drawbacks.  "  All  the 
summer  long,"  writes  a  traveller  about  1690,  "  there  are  continually  such 
swarms  of  stinging  gnats  and  other  troublesome  flies  throughout  all  these 
quarters  that  a  stranger  can  find  but  a  very  unhospitable  lodging  and  recep- 
tion "  (Three  Years'  Travels  in  England,  Scotland  and  Wales,  by  Rev.  James 
Brome,  1700,  p.  143).  Here  is  a  description  of  Cottenham  in  Cambridgeshire, 
in  the  leafy  June  of  1763 :  "  The  country  about  here  is  the  most  disagreeable 
I  ever  saw.  .  .  .  The  parsonage  ...  is  surrounded  by  fens,  and  you  are  teased 
beyond  expression  by  the  gnats.  When  we  got  here,  about  nine  on  Saturday, 
the  Dean's  butler  came  to  your  father  with  a  pair  of  leathern  stockings  to 
draw  on  so  as  to  protect  his  legs,  which  in  hot  weather  is  dreadful.  Besides 
this  the  beds  have  a  machine  covered  with  a  silk  net  which  lets  down  after 

1  you  are  in  bed  and  covers  you  all  over.  Without  this,  there  could  be  no  sleep- 
ing ;  for  notwithstanding  all  these  precautions  we  were  most  miserably  stung. 
There  are  fourteen  hundred  cows  kept  in  the  parish  of  Cottenham,  which  feed 
on  the  fens  in  the  summer.  The  water  is  in  this  dry  season  up  to  their  bellies. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Harris  took  a  ride  to  survey  these  fens,  and  he  says  nothing  can  be 
so  detestable.  He  talked  witli  the  natives,  who  told  him  that,  during  the 
winter,  the  water  was  constantly  above  their  ankles  in  their  houses  "  {A  Series 
of  Letters  of  the  First  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  1870,  vol.  i.  p.  91). 


1 6  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

Middle  Ages,  found  their  very  existence  dependent  on  their 
watchful  maintenance  of  the  great  wall,  fourteen  miles  long,  that 
protected  their  sheep  and  their  homesteads  from  the  winter 
storms.  The  whole  estuary  of  the  Thames,  from  the  Mole  to  the 
Medway,  from  Millbank  in  AVestminster  to  the  Maplin  Sands,  had 
its  broad  marsh  lands,  habitable  only  by  the  maintenance  of 
interminable  stretches  of  river  wall  and  the  construction  of  in- 
numerable dykes  and  sluices,  many  of  them  of  unknown  antiquity. 
In  the  interior  of  England  nearly  every  county  had  its  hundreds 
or  its  thousands  of  acres  of  "  moss  "  or  swamp,  along  the  valley 
bottoms  or  on  the  boggy  uplands.  To  render  these  acres  serviceable 
involved  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  miles  of  "  ditches, 
gutters,  gates  and  sewers."  ^  Moreover,  at  many  points  along 
the  low-lying  coasts,  there  went  on  a  perpetual  struggle  between 
"  the  power  of  man's  hand  "  and  "  the  swallowing  and  devouring 
surges  of  the  seas  and  waters."  The  salt  marsh,  graduall}'-  un- 
covered by  a  receding  sea,  had  to  be  protected  against  storms 
and  exceptional  tides.  Elsewhere,  fields  and  homesteads — even 
flourishing  ports  like  Dunwich  and  Ravenspur — had  to  be  de- 
fended, sometimes  in  vain,  against  the  advancing  ocean.  The 
"  great  fresh  rivers  and  streams  "  Calhs  tells  us,^  had  also  to  have 
"  their  passages  made  clear  and  that  their  walls,  banks  and  other 
defences  be  repaired,  kept  and  maintained,  whereby  the  fair, 
delightful,  pleasant,  and  fruitful  meadows  and  pasture  grounds 
which  lie  in  the  greatest  abundance'  upon  or  near  the  rivers, 
brooks  and  streams,  may  be  preserved  from  the  inundation  of  fresh 
waters,  which  many  times  annoy  them." 

The  bulk  of  this  work  of  reclamation,  from  the  time  when 
most  of  England  formed  practically  one  continuous  forest  and 
swamp  and  moorland  moss,  down  to  the  Enclosure  Acts  of  the 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries,  was  doubtless  the  result  of 
individual  enterprise,  great  or  small.  Here  the  great  lord  em- 
banked from  tlie  floods  the  meadows  at  the  foot  of  his  castle  ; 
there  the  toiling  cottager  laboriously  built  up  his  plot  of  garden- 
ground  against  the  marsh.  But  when  each  man  had  raised  his 
bank,  or  built  the  bit  of  river  wall  that  protected  his  own  land, 
he  was  often  still  liable  to  be  flooded  out  by  a  high  tide  or  a  spring 
freshet,  owing  to  the  neglect  of  his  neighbour  to  keep  the  bank 

1  23  Henry  VIII.  c.  5(1532). 
-  The  Reading  of  .  .  .  Robert  CalUs  upon  the  Statute  of  Sewers,  1647. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS  17 

in  repair,  or  to  the  want  of  uniformity  in  their  defences  against 
the  common  enemy.  A  small  breach  at  any  one  point  might, 
any  winter,  flood  not  the  land  of  the  negligent  owner  alone  but 
the  whole  of  the  neighbouring  lowlands.  Individual  enterprise 
brought,  moreover,  its  own  additions  to  the  perils  of  the  waters  in 
the  multitude  of  "  fishgarths,  milldams,  locks,  hebbing  wears, 
hecks,  floodgates  and  other  like  annoyances,"  which  served  as 
hindrances  "  to  navigation,  or  stops  whereby  the  abundant  waters 
cannot  have  their  free  passage  to  the  sea."  1  To  cope  with  these 
difficulties  we  see,  first  the  primitive  forms  of  communal  co- 
operation for  land  drainage — as  yet  scarcely  investigated  and 
deserving  further  study — and  then,  as  these  were  found  lacking  in 
authority,  amid  the  growing  centralisation  of  the  judicial  power, 
the  establishment  of  Courts  of  Sewers,  wielding  the  might  of  the 
King. 

The  Origin  of  the  Court  of  Sewers 

We  know  nothing  of  the  collective  regulation  of  the  sewers 
and  banks  of  British,  Roman,  Anglo-Saxon  or  Norman  times. 
From  the  provision  in  Magna  Carta  -  forbidding  assessments  to 
maintain  embankments  except  where  customary,  we  may  infer 
the  existence,  and  even  the  increase,  of  some  local  organisation 
of  such  services.  In  thirteenth-  and  fourteenth-century  documents 
we  get  glimpses,  as  for  instance  in  the  marshes  of  Kent  and 
Sussex,  of  an  interesting  form  of  local  self-government,  sometimes 
avowedly  based  on  the  agreement  of  those  concerned,  sometimes 
asserting  a  compulsory  authority  exercised  "  time  out  of  mind." 
Thus,  in  1250,  as  we  learn  from  a  contemporary  document,  it  could 
be  asserted  that  it  had,  from  time  immemorial,  been  the  custom  in 
Romney  Marsh  for  the  Twenty-Four  Jurats,  chosen  by  the  land- 
owners of  the  marsh,  to  watch  over  the  sea  wall  and  watercourses, 
compelling  each  owner  to  maintain  in  repair  a  certain  length  of 
wall  and  of  "  watergangs."  These  Jurats  had  a  Bailiff,  who 
summoned  their  meetings  and  enforced,  by  distraint  on  recal- 
citrant owners,  the  payment  of  damages  assessed  by  the  Jurats 
for  any  neglect  of  duty.  There  seem  to  have  been  also  one  or 
more  collectors  and  an  "  Expend  itor,"  in  case  the  owners  pre- 
ferred, in  any  particular  work,  to  have  the  repairs  executed  as  a 

1  23  Henry  VIII.  c.  5  (1532). 
-  Sec.  23  ;  see  Stubbs'  Select  Ckirters,  p.  300. 


1 8  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

collective  service  out  of  a  primitive  "  acre  rate."  But  these 
ancient  local  distraints  and  assessments  were  sometimes  resisted 
by  powerful  landowners.  At  Romney  this  resistance  went  so 
far  that  "  the  walls  and  watergangs  lay  waste  and  ruinated,  by 
reason  whereof  the  inundations  of  the  sea  and  other  waters  over- 
flow a  great  part  thereof,  to  the  great  detriment  of  our  Lord  the 
King  and  the  men  of  the  same  Marsh."  Whereupon  the  King 
gave  a  special  charter  to  the  Four  and  Twenty  "  Lawful  Men," 
forbidding  the  Sheriff  of  the  County  to  interfere  with  their  dis- 
traints. When  this  proved  inefficacious,  six  years  later,  he  sent 
down  Sir  Henry  de  Bathe,  one  of  the  principal  judges,  to  determine 
the  differences  and  record  the  customs  of  Romney  Marsh.  For 
the  next  two  hundred  years  we  read,  in  the  pages  of  Dugdale,  of 
a  succession  of  visits  of  specially  commissioned  King's  Justices, 
to  adjudicate,  with  the  aid  of  a  Jury  of  indifferent  men,  summoned 
by  the  Sheriff  of  the  County,  in  disputes  between  the  Twenty- 
Four  Jurats  of  the  Marsh  on  the  one  hand,  attended  by  their 
Bailiff,  Expenditor,  collectors  and  the  commonalty,  and  this  or 
that  powerful  landowner  having  fields  within  the  Marsh,  who  had 
defied  their  ordinances  and  assessments.^  The  same  kind  of 
local  organisation  for  the  protection  and  drainage  of  land  was 
imitated  in  other  marshes  in  Kent  and  Sussex,  where  previously 
there  had  been  "  no  certain  law  of  the  said  marsh  ordained  or  used 
before  that  time,  but  at  the  will  of  those  lords  who  had  lands 
within  the  same  "  ;  and  "  wherein  the  Marsh  Law  "  was  hence- 
forth to  be  "  established  and  used."  ^  Much  the  same  organisa- 
tion seems  also  to  have  existed  in  some  other  marshy  districts, 
notably,  as  we  shall  describe,  in  Somersetshire,  and  along  the 
banks  of  the  Thames  ;  and  to  have  persisted,  in  spite  of  the  im- 
position of  a  newer  constitution,  down  to  the  nineteenth  century, 
possibly  even  to  the  present  day. 

Meanwhile,  in  all  the  low-lying  parts  of  England,  the  need  for 
some  organisation  of  the  works  of  embanking  and  land  drainage 
had  led  monarch  after  monarch,  on  the  emergency  of  some  flood 
or  inroad  of  the  sea,  or  because  of  the  importunity  of  some 
particular  suitor,  to  issue  temporary  Commissions,  appointing 

1  llislory  of  h)ihnnl-ing  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William  Dugdale,  1G52,  pp. 
lC-35  of  edition  of  1772  ;  History  of  liomney  Marsh,  by  W.  Holloway,  1849  ; 
The  Cinque  Ports,  by  Montagu  Burrows,  1889  ;  The  Manor  and  the  Bormigh, 
by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1908,  vol.  i.  pp.  372-380. 

2  History  of  Ivibanking  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William  Dugdale,  pp.  25,  95. 


"JUSTICES  OF  SEWERS"  19 

Justices  to  survey  and  enquire,  by  Juries,  into  the  needs  of 
different  districts  ;  to  discover  what  particular  persons  were 
liable,  according  to  ancient  custom,  to  execute  repairs  or  to  con- 
tribute to  the  common  charges  ;  and  to  settle  the  innumerable 
disputes  that  arose.  We  are  not  concerned  to  unravel,  from  the 
archives  themselves  or  from  the  involved  account  given  by 
Dugdale,  all  the  complications  and  diversities  of  these  casual 
judicial  authorities  —  sometimes  the  King's  Assize  Judges, 
listening  to  the  presentments  of  the  ordinary  Hundred  Juries, 
and  trying  indictments  on  traverse  by  the  common  Petty 
Juries  ;  sometimes  special  "  Justices  of  Sewers,"  issuing  precepts 
to  the  Sheriff  to  call  "  Juries  of  Sewers,"  composed  of  indifferent 
persons,  who  found  particular  landowners  liable  for  works  of 
repair ;  sometimes,  again,  standing  Sewers  Juries,  like  the  Twenty- 
Four  sworn  men  of  Romney  Marsh  ;  apparently  permanent 
bodies  of  representatives  of  the  local  owners  whose  presentments 
to  the  King's  Justices,  if  traversed,  were  tried  before  a  Jury  of 
indifferent  persons  summoned  by  the  Sheriff.  These  local 
organisations  and  customs,  spasmodically  interfered  with  and 
controlled  by  casual  Justices  depending  only  on  the  fiat  of  the 
King,  with  their  uncertainties  of  law  and  diversities  of  procedure, 
were  partly  fortified  and  partly  superseded  by  a  series  of  Parlia- 
mentary enactments  ^  culminating  in  the  celebrated  Statute  of 
Sewers  of  1532,  which  definitely  established  the  authority  of  the 
King's  Commissions  of  Sewers,  and  of  the  Courts  of  Sewers  held 
by  them ;  and  formulated  "  for  all  parts  within  this  Realm,"  a 
fixed  constitution  and  procedure  for  what  now  became  practically 
permanent  local  governing  bodies.^ 

1  6  Henry  VI.  c.  5  (1427)  ;  8  Henry  VI.  c.  3  (1429)  ;  18  Henry  VI.  c.  10 
(1439) ;  23  Henry  VI.  c.  9  (1499) ;  12  Edward  IV.  c.  6  (1472) ;  4  Henry  VII. 
c.  1  (1488) ;  6  Henry  VIII.  c.  10  (1514).  The  Public  Record  Office  contains 
masses  of  records  relating  to  the  proceedings  of  these  Courts  of  Sewers  in 
the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries.  See  Public  Vt'orJcs  in  Mediaeval 
Law,  by  C.  T.  Flower  (Selden  Society,  1915),  p.  xxvii ;  and  the  fuller 
"  Note  on  the  Constitution  and  Records  of  Commissions  of  Sewers,"  by  H.  G. 
Richardson,  in  Report  of  Royal  Commission  on  Public  Records,  vol.  ii.  part 
ii.  pp.  98-100. 

2  23  Henry  VIII.  c.  5  (1532).  It  is  needless  to  remind  the  student  that  the 
King's  right  to  issue  a  Commission  of  Sewers  in  no  way  depended  on  these 
statutes.  The  very  learned  Nouvelle  Nature  Brevium  of  Sir  Anthony  Fitz- 
Iierbert,  in  editions  from  1534  to  1794,  is  authority  for  the  issue  of  writs  to 
Justices  of  Sewers,  irrespective  of  statute  law,  touching  "  sea-walls,  ditches, 
gutters,  sewers,  arches,  banks,  wears  and  trenches  "  [Local  Self -Government,  by 
J.   Toulmin  Smith,   1851,   p.   342).     The  records   show  that  "the   King  in 


THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 


The  Legal  Framework  of  the  Court  of  Sewers 

Under  the  great  Statute  of  Sewers  of  1532,  as  slightly  amended 
in  subsequent  years,^  the  body  of  persons  to  whom  the  King 
issued  his  Commission  to  govern  the  sewers  of  a  particular 
district  resembled  in  many  respects  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  of 
the  county.  Like  the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  the  Commissioners 
of  Sewers  had,  unless  they  were  barristers,  to  possess  a  qualifica- 
tion in  freehold  land,^  though  provision  was  made  from  the  first 
for  allowing  Commissioners  free  of  any  corporate  Borough  to 
qualify  merely  by  the  possession  of  personalty.  They  had,  like 
the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  to  take  elaborate  oaths,  under  a  similar 

Chancery  issued  a  continuous  series  of  Commissions  of  Inquiry  during  the 
three  centuries  preceding  the  Statute  of  23  Henry  VIII.,  which  created  a 
machinery  which  soon  led  to  a  quasi-permanent  Commission  of  Sewers " 
{Public  Works  in  Mediaeval  Law,  by  C.  T.  Flower  (Selden  Society,  1915),  p. 
xxvii).  "  The  Kings  of  England  "  granted  Commissions  of  Sewers  "  for  the 
surveying  and  repairing  sea  banks,  walls,  etc.,  long  before  any  statute  was 
enacted  in  Parliament  for  it  "  (The  Law  of  Servers,  1732).  "  All  statutes  of 
sewers,"  had  said  a  lawyer,  lecturing  in  1638,  "  are  made  in  aid  of  the  ancient 
prerogative  of  the  King  "  [The  Learned  Beading  of  John  Heme  .  .  .  concerning 
Commissioners  of  Sewers,  1659).  It  may  bo  added  that  the  Bishop  of  Durham 
issued  a  Commission  of  Sewers  in  1353,  on  his  own  authority  (History  and  An- 
tiquities of  the  Parish  of  Hemingbrough,  Yorkshire,  1886) ;  and  the  Bishop  of 
Ely,  though  never  actually  in  a  position  of  so  much  independence,  issued  many 
such  Commissions  (MS.  records  of  Ely  diocese  ;  see  12th  Report  of  Historical 
MSS.  Commission  for  1889  (Appendix,  part  ix.) ;  Ely  Episcopal  Records,  1891). 
The  palatine  earls  and  other  potentates  exercising  quasi -roj'al  authority  within 
their  respective  territories,  ap])arently  did  the  same.  "The  interest  of  the  Duchy 
of  Lancaster  in  the  Fens  on  account  of  the  Soke  of  Bolingbroke  was  so  great 
that  in  1549  an  elaborate  code  of  Fen  laws  was  dra'svn  ui>  at  a  Duchy  Court, 
and  was  maintained  from  time  to  time  until  the  later  systematic  enclosure  of 
the  Fens  "  (Public  Works  in  Mediaeval  Law,  by  C.  T.  Flower,  Selden  Society, 
1915,  p.  282 ;  see  also  infra,  p.  55).  The  Duchy  of  Lancaster  issued  a 
Commission  of  its  own  to  the  Westminster  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  so  as  to 
enable  them  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  Precinct  of  the  Savoy  (Report 
of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Sewers  in  the  Metropolis,  1823,  p.  38). 
Many  others  are  among  the  Duchy  records  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  for 
marshlands  on  the  Duchy's  estates  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  See 
The  Parish  and  the  County,  book  ii.  chap.  i.  Appendix,  "  On  some  Anomalous 
County  Jurisdictions,  including  the  Counties  Palatine,"  pp.  310-318. 

1  25  Henry  VIII.  c.  10  (1534)  ;  3  &  4  Edward  VL  c.  8  (1549)  ;  13  Elizabeth, 
c.  9  (1571);  7  Anne,  c.  10  (1709);  House  of  Lords  Journals,  25th  March, 
8th  and  11th  April,  1709.  The  "  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  the  Sewers,"  1602- 
1831,  among  the  Chancery  Petty  Bag  records,  in  the  Public  Record  Office, 
relating  chiefly  to  the  Bedford  Level,  deserve  to  be  further  studied. 

*  Of  "40  marks  "  annual  value.  By  13  Eliz.  c.  9  (1571)  the  qualification 
(for  farmers)  is  stated  as  "  forty  pounds  sterling."  By  3  &  4  William  IV.  e.  22 
(1833)  it  was  raised  to  £100  a  year  freehold,  or  £200  a  year  leasehold,  within 
the  county.  Unlike  the  Justice  of  the  Peace,  the  Commissioner  of  Sewers  had 
expressly  to  be  "  resident  within  the  county  "  (25  Henry  VIII.  c.  10,  1534). 


1 


LEGAL  FRAMEWORK  OF  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS    21 

"  dedimiis  potestatem."  Each  Commission,  too,  specified  some 
of  them  as  being  what  was  termed  "  of  the  quorum."  ^  They 
had  allowed  to  them,  like  the  Justices,  their  four  shillings  a  day, 
with  two  shillings  for  their  Clerk.  More  significant  to  the 
constitutional  student  is  the  fact  that,  like  the  Justices  of  the 
Peace,  they  combined  in  themselves,  judicial,  executive  and 
even  legislative  powers,^  all  exercised  under  the  forms  of  a  Court 
of  justice.  On  the  other  hand,  the  authority  of  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Sewers,  unlike  that  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  was 
limited  alike  in  time  and  in  extent.  In  both  cases  the  Com- 
mission came  automatically  to  an  end  on  the  demise  of  the 
Crown,  and  might  be  earlier  terminated  by  writ  of  supersedeas. 
But  each  Commission  of  Sewers  purported  to  be  a  strictly 
temporary  one,  enduring  at  first  only  for  three  years  in  each 
case,  though  this  term  was  afterwards  made  ten  years.^  And 
their  jurisdiction  was  at  all  times  confined  to  matters  concerning 
land  drainage  and  embankments,  or,  as  the  statute  expresses  it, 
to  the  "  walls,  streams,  ditches,  banks,  gutters,  sewers,  gates, 
calcies,  bridges,  trenches,  mills,  mill-dams,  floodgates,  ponds, 
locks,  hebbingwears,  and  other  impediments,  lets  and  annoy- 
ances ...  in  the  rivers,  streams  and  other  floods  "  *  within 
the  defined  area.  Thus  the  Courts  of  Sewers  differed  funda- 
mentally from  the  Parish,  the  County,  the  Lord's  Court  or  the 
Municipal  Corporation  that  we  have  described  in  the  preceding 

1  See  TJie  Parish  and  the  County,  pp.  302-303. 

*  Digest  of  the  Statutes  relating  to  the  Metropolitan  Commission  of  SewerSy 
1847,  p.  76.  The  oath  that  continued  to  the  last  to  be  administered  in  the 
Metropolis  distinctly  expresses  the  legislative  as  well  as  the  judicial  function. 
"  Ye  shall  swear  that  you  to  your  cunning,  wit  and  power  shall  truly  and 
indifferently  execute  the  authority  to  you  given  by  this  Commission  of  Sewers, 
without  any  favor,  affection,  corruption,  dread  or  malice,  to  be  borne  to  any 
kind  or  manner  of  persons  ;  and  as  the  case  shall  require,  ye  shall  consent 
and  endeavour  yourself,  for  your  part,  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge  and 
power,  to  the  making  of  such  wholesome,  just,  equal  and  indifferent  laws  and 
ordinances  as  shall  be  made  and  devised  by  the  most  discreet  and  indifferent 
of  your  fellows,  being  in  commission  with  you,  for  the  due  redress,  reformation 
and  amendment  of  all  and  every  such  things  as  are  contained  and  specified  in 
the  said  commission  ;  and  the  same  laws  and  ordinances,  to  your  cunning  wit 
and  power,  cause  to  be  put  in  due  execution,  without  favor,  meed,  dread, 
malice  or  affection,  as  God  you  help  and  all  saints  "  (23  Henry  VIII.  c.  5,  1532  ; 
Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Sewers  in  the  Metropolis,  1823, 
p.  4). 

^  13  Ellz.  c.  9  (1571).  A  minor  point  of  difference  was  that  the  quorum  of 
the  Sewer  Commissioness  was  fixed  by  statute  at  six,  three  of  whom  had  to  be 
among  those  named  in  the  Commission  as  of  the  quorum. 

*  23  Henry  VIII.  c.  23  (1532). 


22  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

volumes,  all  of  which  dealt  generally  with  all  the  affairs  of  their 
particular  localities.  The  Courts  of  Sewers  belonged  essentially 
to  the  class  of  "  ad  hoc  "  bodies,  created  for  some  special  function, 
which  became,  as  we  shall  see,  a  characteristic  feature  of  the 
local  government  of  the  eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth  centuries. 

The  Commissioners  or  "  Justices  "  of  Sewers  were  empowered 
to  hold,  when  and  where  they  chose,  within  the  area  prescribed 
by  their  Commission,  the  so-called  Court  of  Sewers  ;  ^  a  Court 
of  Record,  to  which  the  Sheriff  was  required  on  their  precept  to 
return  Juries  of  "  honest  and  lawful  "  men.  This  Court  deter- 
mined, by  the  verdict  of  the  Jury,  both  the  obligations  of  par- 
ticular persons  to  do  or  abstain  from  doing  certain  things,  and 
the  extent  to  which  they  had  failed  to  fulfil  such  obhgations. 
If  the  offence  was  wilful,  and  done  "  vi  et  armis,"  it  was  punish- 
able by  fine  or  imprisonment  at  the  Commissioners'  discretion.^ 
Mere  neglect  or  default  in  any  person,  imder  obligation  "  by 
frontage,  tenure,  custom  or  covenant,"  or  merely  by  owTiership 
of  the  bank,  to  maintain  any  work,  led  to  his  amercement  by 
the  Jury  in  the  amount  of  the  damage.  Upon  this  verdict 
the  Commissioners  gave  judgment,  which  they  enforced 
through  their  own  officers  by  distraint.  Any  fines  that  they 
imposed  as  punishments  were  "  estreated  "  into  the  Court  of 
Exchequer,  there  to  be  enforced  by  the  Sheriff  as  debts  due 
to  the  Crown. 

The  Commissioners  of  Sewers  were,  however,  more  than  a 
judicial  authority.  They  were  authorised  and  required  by  their 
Commission,  as  well  as  by  the  statutes,^  "  to  survey  the  said 
walls,  streams,  ditches,  banks,  gutters,  sewers,  gates,  calcies, 
bridges,  trenches,  mills,  milldams,  floodgates,  ponds,  locks, 
hebbing  wears  and  other  impediments,  lets  and  annoyances  "  ; 
to  cause  them  "to  be  made,  corrected,  repaired,  amended, 
put  down  or  reformed  as  the  case  shall  require,"  according  to 
their  own  "  wisdoms  and  discretions  "  ;  to  appoint  their  own 
"  Keepers,  Bailiffs,  Surveyors,  Collectors,  Expenditors  and 
other  ministers  and  officers  "  ;  to  impress  into  their  service  as 
many  "  carts,  horses,  oxen,  beasts  and  other  instruments,"  and 

1  The  Reading  of  .  .  .  Robert  Callis,  etc.,  pp.  195-198  of  edition  of  1824. 

*  It  should  be  said  that  we  do  not  find  Courts  of  Sewers  in  the  eighteenth 
century  actually  imprisoning  any  one  ;  though  they  would  occasionally  threaten 
to  do  so  for  contempt  of  court. 

3  23  Henry  VIII.  c.  5(15.12). 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS  23 

also  as  many  "workmen  and  labourers"  as  tliey  deemed  necessary; 
and  to  appropriate  compulsorily  as  much.  "  timber  and  other 
necessaries  "  as  they  required.  For,  beyond  the  usual  works 
of  maintenance,  if  the  violence  of  waters  was  exceptionally 
great,"  says  the  learned  Callis,  "  either  by  breaking  in  of  the 
sea  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  or  by  a  sudden  flood  or  in- 
undation of  fresh  waters  after  rain  ...  no  man  is  amerciable 
therefor."  ^  In  that  case,  the  Jury  had  to  apportion  the  esti- 
mated cost  of  the  work  among  all  those  whose  lands  benefited. 
Meanwhile  the  Commissioners,  as  a  merely  administrative  body, 
were  empowered  to  execute  "  according  to  their  wisdoms  and 
discretions  "  the  needful  works. 

The  authority  of  the  Commissioners  had  even  its  legislative 
side.  They  were  expressly  empowered  "  to  make  and  ordain 
statutes,  ordinances  and  provisions  from  time  to  time,  as  the 
case  shall  require,  for  the  safeguard,  conservation,  redress, 
correction  and  reformation  of  the  premises,"  either  "  after  the 

^  The  Reading  of  .  .  .  Robert  Callis,  p.  211  of  1824  edition.  It  was  always 
a  matter  of  doubt  whether  the  Courts  of  Sewers  could,  even  on  presentment 
of  a  Jury,  in  the  greatest  emergency,  decide  to  construct  an  entirely  new  work, 
by  a  rate  upon  the  owners  of  the  land  benefited.  Sir  Edward  Coke  decided,  in 
the  great  case  concerning  the  Isle  of  Ely,  that  no  such  power  to  rate  for  new 
works  was  given  by  the  Commission.  Callis,  on  the  other  hand,  argued  that 
in  reason  they  must  have  such  a  power,  and  that  the  Statute  of  Sewers  might 
be  interpreted  as  implying  it,  the  terms  "  to  make  new  "  being  extended  to 
"  new  making,"  as  well  as  to  renev/ing,  the  defences  (p.  119).  This  view  had, 
in  fact,  been  held  by  Chief  Justice  Popham,  and  was  implicitly  taken  by  the 
Privy  Council  in  1615,  when  it  refused  to  restrain  certain  Commissioners  of 
Sewers  who  had  made  new  banks,  drains  and  sluices  about  the  Isle  of  Ely. 
(The  order  is  given  in  full  in  The  Law  of  Sewers,  1726,  pp.  36-41.)  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  Commissioners  (except  under  special  statutes)  usually  restricted 
themselves  to  what  could,  by  a  wide  interpretation,  be  deemed  the  renewal  of 
old  v/orks,  unless  they  secured  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  owners  rated. 
Even  in  Westminster  in  1832  and  1845,  Sewers  Rates  were  levied  only  "  for 
upholding,  maintaining  and  improving  existing  lines  of  sewers  " — not  for 
building  new  lines  of  sewers,  and  eminent  counsel  advised  that  "  the  general 
powers  do  not  extend  to  making  new  sewers  "  {Substance  of  an  02nnion  delivered 
at  a  Court  of  Sewers  for  the  City  and  Liberty  of  Westminster,  by  T.  L.  Donaldson, 
1835,  pp.  12-13  ;  House  of  Commons  Return  No.  686  of  1847,  p.  19).  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Tower  Hamlets  Commissioners  held,  in  1834,  that  they  had 
power  under  the  Statute  of  Sewers  to  make  entirely  new  sewers  by  a  special 
district  rate — a  claim  which  was  upheld  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  in  a  case 
in  1822  (Report  and  Evidence  of  Select  Committee  on  Metropolitan  Sewers, 
1834,  p.  65  of  Appendix  D  ;  see  also  The  Law  of  Land  Drainage  and  Sewers, 
by  G.  G.  Kennedy  and  J.  S.  Saunders,  1884,  p.  60).  Explicit  authority  to  make 
new  works  was  given  in  the  Sewers  Act  of  1833  (3  &  4  William  IV.  c.  22,  sec.  19), 
subject  to  the  consent  of  the  owners  and  occupiers  of  three-fourths  in  value 
of  the  lands  to  be  charged  ;  but  this  statute  was  made  not  to  apply  to  the 
Middlesex  Commissions  (sec.  61)  which  Parliament  did  not  trust. 


24  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

laws  and  customs  of  Komney  Marsh,"  ^  or  "  otherwise  by  any 
ways  and  means  "  according  to  their  own  "  wisdoms  and  dis- 
cretions." The  Commissioners  were  expressly  empowered  to 
compel  obedience  to  their  commands  and  regulations,  either  "  by 
distress,  fines  and  amerciaments  "  or  by  such  other  "  punish- 
ments, ways  and  means  "  as  seemed  expedient  to  them.  Finally, 
by  a  remarkable  provision,  the  "  laws  and  ordinances  "  so  made 
by  the  Commissioners,  which  would  otherwise  have  expired  on 
the  termination  of  their  authority,  might  be  made  permanently 
binding  on  all  men,  by  being  "  ingrossed  on  parchment  and 
certified  imder  the  seals  of  the  said  Commissioners  into  the 
King's  Court  of  Chancery,  and  then  the  King's  Royal  Assent 
be  had  to  the  same."  ^  Forty  years  later  this  peculiar  use  of 
the  Royal  Assent  was  dispensed  with,  and  the  "  laws,  ordinances 
and  constitutions  "  of  the  Commissioners,  on  the  mere  authority 
of  the  seals  of  any  six  of  them,  were  made  permanently  binding 
(until  expressly  abrogated  by  other  Commissioners)  even  after 
the  term  of  the  Commission  had  expired,  or  had  been  summarily 
brought  to  an  end  by  writ  of  supersedeas.^  Truly,  the  Parlia- 
ments of  Henry  the  Eighth  and  Elizabeth  weighed  out  powers 
to  the  King's  Commissioners  with  no  niggard  hand  !  * 

Thus,  the  Court  of  Sewers  was,  in  structure  and  formal 
procedure,  closely  analogous  to  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions 
in  its  dealings  with  such  matters  of  civil  administration  as  the 
county  bridges.  But  in  the  "  laws  and  customs  of  Romney 
Marsh,"  to  which  the  great  Statute  of  Sewers  makes  pointed 
reference,  there  survived,  as  the  student  will  have  noticed,  in  the 

^  Tlie  Laws  and  Customs  of  Romney  Marsh,  thus  made  the  authoritative 
model  for  all  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  were  accordingly  many  times  reprinted, 
often  as  an  appendix  to  anv  legal  treatise  on  the  law  of  sewers. 

2  23  Henry  VIII.  c.  5  (1532). 

3  13  Eliz.  c.  9  (1571). 

*  Throughout  all  their  proceedings  the  somewhat  mysterious  powers  of  the 
Commissioners  of  Sewers  added  to  their  authority.  As  a  Court  of  Record, 
they  could  fine  and  imprison  without  limit.  Any  kind  of  "  contempt  "  of 
their  authority,  any  disobedience  of  their  decrees,  and  even  any  dissuading 
"  persons  assessed  "  not  to  pay  the  rate  or  obey  the  law,  was  summarily 
punishable.  They  could  issue  their  own  distress  warrants,  and  their  oflieera 
could  thereupon  distrain  for  all  fines  or  amerciaments  due  (including  Sewers 
Rates).  They  could  ajjpoint  any  local  resident  as  one  of  their  subordinate 
officers,  and  enforce  service  by  fines.  Tliey  could  fine  their  own  officers  for 
breach  of  duty.  When  tliey  abandoned  the  acre  rate  for  a  rate  in  the  pound, 
they  could  make  their  own  valuation  and  assessment  of  property,  though  in 
practice  they  latterly  accepted  that  of  tlio  Poor  Rat«  {The  Local  Taxes  of  the 
United  Kingdom,  by  Dan  by  P.  Fry,  1846). 


JURIES  OF  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS  25 

Four  and  Twenty  Jurats  representing  the  landowners  of  the 
Marsh,  something  very  like  the  "  Gentlemen  of  the  Four  and 
Twenty,"  who  governed  the  little  community  of  Braintree  in 
Essex,  or  a  typical  Northumberland  parish.^  Moreover,  the 
Court  of  Sewers  had  a  good  deal  of  the  spirit  which  animated  the 
Court  Leet.  To  the  eminent  Justice  who  in  1258  enquired  into 
the  customs  of  Komney  Marsh,  local  government  meant  primarily, 
not  the  collective  administration  of  services  by  a  select  body, 
but  the  decisions  of  a  judicial  Court,  empowered  to  compel  each 
man  to  abstain  from  committing  nuisances  and  to  fulfil  his 
own  particular  obligations  to  the  community.  With  this  com- 
mingling of  ideas,  it  is  not  unnatural  that  we  should  find  it 
difficult  to  discover  what  exactly  was  the  sphere  and  function  of 
the  Jury  in  the  Court  of  Sewers.  In  the  course  of  our  preceding 
volumes  we  have  described  (apart  from  the  procedure  in  civil 
suits  between  parties)  four  different  types  of  Jury.  The  CourtV 
Leet  Jury  was  a  Jury  of  neighbours,  who  acted  on  their  own 
view  and  knowledge,  and  who  presented  offenders,  found  them 
guilty  and  declared  their  amercements.  The  members  of  the 
Hundred  Jury,  on  the  other  hand,  as  they  appeared  at  the  Court  '^ 
of  Quarter  Sessions,  acting  on  their  own  view  and  knowledge, 
only  determined  facts  and  presented  offenders.  The  Grand  Jury  / 
at  Quarter  Sessions  or  at  the  Assizes  did  no  more,  but  its  members 
combined  with  their  own  view  and  knowledge  the  advantage  of 
hearing  witnesses  in  support  of  the  complaint.  The  present-  ^ 
ments  of  the  Grand  Jury  were,  equally  with  those  of  the  Hundred 
Jury,2  of  no  effect  or  avail  unless  they  were,  at  somebody's  risk 
and  expense,  formulated  into  definite  indictments,  which  could 
be  "  traversed "  by  the  defendants.  Finally  we  have  the 
Traverse  Jury  (or  "  Felon's  Jury  "  or  simply  "  Petty  Jury  "), 
composed,  not  of  neighbours,  but  of  indifferent  persons  from  the 
body  of  the  County  ;   acting,  not  on  their  own  view  and  know- 

1  See  The  Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  book  i.  chap.  v.  pp.  173-246  ;  The 
Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  pp.  15G,  172,  etc.  "  It  is  abundantly  clear  that, 
at  least  in  a  considerable  number  of  districts,  Commissioners  found  the  local 
community  already  organised  for  the  purpose  of  defending  the  marshland ;  in 
some  districts  the  Commissioners  set  up  a  form  of  local  administration  on  the 
lines  of  that  already  existing  in  other  places ;  in  either  case  it  was  upon  the 
local  community  that  the  continuous  duty,  year  in  year  out,  of  protecting  and 
draining  the  marshes  devolved."  ("  Note  on  the  Constitution  and  Records  of 
Commissions  of  Sewers,"  by  H.  A.  Richardson,  in  Report  of  Royal  Com- 
mission on  PubUc  Records,  vol.  ii.  part  ii.  pp.  98-100.) 

^  And,  we  maj'  add,  those  of  the  Coroner's  Jury. 


.26  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

ledge,  but  exclusively  on  the  evidence-  produced  in  Court;  not 
presenting  offenders  or  otlicrwise  initiating  any  proceedings,  but 
confining  themselves  strictly  to  the  trial  of  an  issue  placed  before 
them  ;  and  finding  only  a  verdict  of  fact,  without  presuming  to 
assess  the  punishment  or  pronounce  the  sentence.  To  which  of 
these  types  did  the  Jury  of  the  Court  of  Sewers  legally  belong  1 
We  might  imagine  from  the  words  of  the  Statute  of  Sewers  that 
the  Jury  was  one  of  indifferent  persons,  to  be  summoned  by  the 
Sheriff  of  the  County  for  each  case,  or  at  any  rate  for  each  session 
of  the  Court ;  whose  duty  was  to  confine  themselves,  like  the 
members  of  the  Traverse  Jury,  to  returning  a  verdict  of  fact,  on 
the  evidence  produced  before  them.  Yet  the  Jury  which  formed 
part  of  the  Court  of  Sewers  had  also,  it  seems  clear,  the  duty  of  pre- 
senting offenders  and  initiating  proceedings  ;  and  had,  moreover, 
to  find,  not  only  the  individuals  "  through  w^hose  default  the  said 
hurts  and  damages  have  happened  "  ;  but  also  "  who  hath  or 
holdeth  any  land  or  tenements  or  common  of  pasture  or  profit 
of  fishing,  or  hath  or  may  have  any  hurt,  loss  or  disadvantage 
by  any  manner  of  means  in  the  said  places  "  ;  a  duty  which 
could  best  be  discharged  by  such  a  standing  committee  of 
resident  neighbours  as  w^e  know  to  have  existed  in  Romney 
Marsh,  and  as  we  find,  in  fact,  continuing,  under  the  name  and 
style  of  the  Jury,  in  connection  with  some  Courts  of  Sewers. 
Whether  the  presentments  of  such  a  standing  Sewers  Jury  were, 
like  those  of  the  Grand  Jury  and  Hundred  Juries  at  the  Court 
of  Quarter  Sessions,  legally  liable  to  be  traversed  by  the  person 
presented,^  and  whether  such  person  could,  in  that  event,  claim 
to  "  put  himself  on  his  country,"  and  have  the  issue  tried  by  a 
Traverse  Jury  of  indifferent  persons  chosen  from  the  body  of 
the  County — whether,  on  the  contrary,  the  Sewers  Jury,  like 
the  Court  Leet  Jury,  had  ever  been  legally  empowered  (to  use 
the  words  of  the  Bedford  Level  Act  of  1663)  "  to  inquire  of, 
present  and  try  "  ^ — that  is,  discover  the  default,  present  the 

^  In  the  nineteenth  century  the  Jurj'  of  Sewers  was  so  described  by  lawyers, 
admittedly  in  contradiction  of  the  practice.  Its  presentment,  said  the  Clerk 
to  the  Tower  Hamlets  Court  in  1821?,  "  may  be  traversed  and  in  that  case  we 
must  issue  a  new  precept  to  the  SherifE  to  impanel  twenty-four  persons  from 
the  body  of  the  County."  But  it  was  admitted  that,  in  all  the  centuries  of 
ex])erience  of  the  Tower  Hamlets  Court,  tliere  had  never  been  a  traverse  ;  nor 
within  living  memory,  at  any  rate,  in  that  of  Holbom  and  Finsbury  (Report 
of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Sewers  in  the  Metropolis,  1823,  pp.  9,  15). 

«  15  Chas.  II.  c.  13,  sec.  5. 


THE  CORPORATION  OF  THE  BEDFORD  LEVEL       27 

offender,  find  him  guilty  and  assess  the  fine,  as  certainly  often 
happened — remains  to  us,  after  much  study  of  Callis  and  other 
authorities,  in  comparison  with  what  we  know  to  have  been  the 
practice,  more  than  ever  doubtful.^ 


The  Corporation  of  the  Bedford  Level 

We  shall  presently  describe  the  evolution,  between  1689  and 
1835,  of  the  local  authorities  formed  under  the  statutes  and  Com- 
missions of  Sewers.  We  may  beheve  that  the  extensive  powers 
and  authorities  wielded  by  them  during  the  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centuries  sufficed  to  provide  the  local  government  necessary 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  numerous  embankments  and  walls, 
sewers  and  dykes  that  had  already  been  constructed  in  the  low- 
lying  lands  of  Surrey  and  Kent,  Middlesex  and  Essex,  Somerset- 
shire and  Gloucestershire  and  generally  along  many  of  the  sea- 
coasts  of  the  kingdom.     But  the  great  district  of  the  Fenland  ^ 

^  On  one  occasion  Lord  Ellenborough  reprobated  the  practice  of  Courts  of 
Sewers  having  a  standing  Jury  (Dore  v.  Gray,  2  T.R.  ;  Report  of  House  of 
Commons  Committee  on  Sewers  in  the  Metropolis,  1823,  p.  9)  ;  see  report  of 
a  meeting  of  the  Tower  Hamlets  Court  of  Sewers  in  1828,  where  a  ratepayer 
argued  the  point,  Times,  16th  February  1828.  The  changes  in  practice  in  the 
East  Kent  Court  of  Sewers  are  instructive  on  this  point.  It  was  held  in  a 
Somersetshire  case  that  a  presentment  by  a  standing  Jury,  consisting  of  local 
landowners,  and  serving  normally  for  life,  was  not  valid,  though  such  a  Jury 
was  according  to  ancient  custom  in  that  Court  of  Sewers.  The  presentment 
was  held  to  be  so  far  void  as  even  not  to  be  properly  traversable,  the  traverse 
being  tried  by  a  Jury  of  indifferent  persons.  It  was  held  that  the  presenting 
Jury  must  itself  hear  evidence  in  court  (R.  v.  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for 
Somerset,  in  Reports  of  Cases,  etc.,  by  Sir  E.  H.  East,  vol.  vii.  p.  71).  This  case 
of  1823  evidently  caused  much  perturbation,  and  upset  old  customs.  The 
Sewers  Act  of  1833  (3  &  4  William  IV.  c.  22,  sec.  11)  decided  the  matter  by 
prescribing  elaborately  (sec.  1 1 )  that  the  Jury  of  the  Court  of  Sewers  should  be 
empanelled  by  the  Sheriff  from  "  substantial  and  indifferent  persons  .  .  . 
qualified  and  usually  summoned  to  serve  on  Grand  Juries,"  who  were,  like  the 
Grand  Jurjr,  to  hear  witnesses,  and  to  invite  complaints  by  public  notice  ; 
upon  which  they  were  to  make  their  presentments,  which  could  (as  is  clear 
from  sec.  46)  be  traversed,  when  the  issue  had  presumably  to  be  tried  by  a 
Traverse  Jury.  But  even  then  the  Act  carefully  preserved  the  right  of 
Courts  of  Sewers  to  continue  any  "  ancient  custom  or  usage  "  in  the  way  of 
enquiry  and  presentment  by  Jury  (sec.  17). 

The  different  kinds  of  Juries  deserve  further  examination  by  historians. 
See  the  many  references  in  The  Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  index,  pp.  625-627  ; 
and  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  index,  pp.  803-805. 

^  For  the  strangely  interesting  life  and  history  of  the  Fenland,  see  (in 
addition  to  the  works  cited  at  p.  13)  The  Fenland  Past  and  Present,  by  S.  H. 
Miller  and  S.  B.  Skertchley,  1878,  and  Fenland  Notes  and  Queries,  from  1889 
onward.  We  append  a  list  of  the  principal  books  containing  information  on 
the  subject.     For  mediaeval  times,  see  Victoria  County  History  of  Lincolnshire, 


28  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

presented  a  different  problem.  This  area  of  thirteen  hundred 
square  miles,  the  largest  plain  of  Britain,  extending  from  Lincoln 
on  the  North  to  Newmarket  on  the  South,  from  Stamford  on  the 
West  to  King's  Lynn  on  the  East,  and  comprising  a  great  part  of 
the  Counties  of  Lincolnshire,  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  Cambridgeshire, 
Northamptonshire  and  Huntingdonshire,  was,  at  the  end  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  probably  at  its  worst.  To  the  enterprising 
statesmen  of  Elizabeth  and  James  the  First  it  seemed  intolerable 
that  so  large  a  portion  of  the  kingdom  should  remain  little  more 
than  "  vast  spreadings  of  water "  ;  forming,  during  three- 
quarters  of  each  year,  an  almost  continuous  level  of  "  drowned 
lands,"  infested  with  malarious  vapours  and  clouds  of  insects  ; 
good  for  nothing  but  fish  and  wildfowl ;  its  half  -  submerged 
islets  and  bordering  lands  inhabited  by  an  enfeebled  and 
brutalised  amphibious  race  of  "  breedlings  "  or  "  fen  slodgers  "  ; 


vol.  ii.,  article  on  "  Social  and  Economic  History,"  by  W.  O.  Massingbird,  and 
the  authorities  there  cited,  especially  Court  Rolls  of  the  Manor  of  Ingoldtnells, 
1902,  and  History  of  the  Parish  of  Ormsby,  by  W.  0.  Massingbird,  1899.  For  the 
seventeenth,  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries,  see  History  of  the  Great  Level 
of  the  Fens,  by  Sir  Jonas  Moore,  1685  ?  History  of  the  Ancient  and  Present  State 
of  the  Navigation  of  King's  Lynn,  by  T.  Badeslade,  1725 ;  An  Essay  on  Drain- 
age, more  jmrticularly  with  regard  to  the  North  Division  of  the  .  .  .  Bedford  Level, 
1729  ;  Reasons  offered  to  the  Proprietors  .  .  .  in  the  North  Level  against  .  .  . 
any  New  Tax,  by  G.  Maxwell,  1788  (and  over  a  hundred  other  pamphlets  in 
B.M.  vols.  8775  bb.  1,  816  m.  8,  725  g.  34,  etc.) ;  An  Historical  Account  of 
the  Great  Level  of  the  Fens,  by  William  Elstobb,  1793  ;  General  View  of  the 
Agriculture  of  the  County  of  Hunts,  by  GeorgeMaxwell,  1793  ;  A  Collection  of 
Laws  .  .  .  of  the  Bedford  Level  Corporation,  by  C.  N.  Cole,  1761  and  1803  ; 
Historical  Account  of  the  Ancient  Town  of  Wisbech,  by  W.  Watson,  1827,  pp. 
1-84  ;  History  of  the  Drainage  of  the  Great  Level  of  the  Fens  called  Bedford  Level, 
by  Samuel  Wells,  1828-1830;  Regulations  and  Orders  .  .  .  of  the  Bedford  Level 
Corporation,  by  Samuel  Wells,  1840  ;  Sir  J.  Rennie's  address  to  the  Institute 
of  Civil  Engineers,  in  its  Proceedings,  1846,  vol.  v.  pp.  43-50  ;  papers  by  R.  B. 
Grantham  in  the  same,  1800,  vol.  xix.  pp.  65-75,  91-98  ;  Fen  Sketches,  by  J.  A. 
Clarke,  1852;  "The  Fens,"  in  Prose  Idylls,  by  Rev.  C.  Kingsley,  1873  ;  Remi- 
niscences of  Fen  and  Mere,  by  J.  M.  Heathcote,  1876  ;  Fenland,  by  L.  Gibbs, 
1888  ;  The  Story  of  a  Great  Agricultural  Estate,  by  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  1897. 
The  Ely  Cathedral  Library  appears  to  contain  60  works  on  the  Fenland  between 
1745  and  1810  (see  list  in  Fenland  Notes  and  Queries,  vol.  iii.  pp.  28-29).  In 
the  realm  of  fiction,  see  Hereward  the  Wake,  by  Rev.  C.  Kingsley,  1866  ;  Dick 
o'  the  Fens,  by  G.  M.  Fenn,  1888  ;  Cheap  JackZita,  by  S.  Baring-Gould,  1893 ; 
A  Daughter  of  the  Fen,  by  J.  T.  Bealby,  1893  ;  The  Camp  of  Refuge,  by 
C.  Macfarlane,  edited  by  G.  L.  Gomme,  1897  ;  and  The  MS.  in  a  Red  Box, 
anon.,  1903. 

The  Public  Record  Office  has  a  volume  of  "  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  the 
Sewers."  1602-1831,  among  the  Chancery  Petty  Bag  Records;  a  series  of 
"Bedford  Level  Decrees,"  166.3-1683,  and  other  records  relating  to  the  Fen- 
land ;  and  the  Ely  MS.  archives  contain  many  more  {Ely  Dioceaan  Records, 
1891). 


THE  "ADVENTURERS"  29 

half  fishermen  and  fowlers  and  half  "  commoners,"  keeping 
geese  and  cutting  reeds  in  the  "  summerlands "  of  the  fen. 
Tradition  had  it  that  in  past  centuries  the  Fenland  had  been 
forest  and  meadow,  defended  against  the  waters  by  the  skill  and 
industry  of  the  religious  houses,  to  whom  much  of  it  had  be- 
longed.^ It  was  plain  that  neglect  of  the  old  works  of  drainage, 
and  the  silting  up  of  the  river  estuaries,  were  at  least  partly 
responsible  for  the  evil  state  to  which  the  district  had  been 
reduced.  Yet  experience  showed  that  all  the  powers  of  Com- 
missioners of  Sewers,  of  whom  the  area  had  had  many,  were  in- 
adequate to  the  task  of  reclamation.  Meanwhile,  the  example 
of  the  Dutch  Netherlands,  where  an  even  greater  area  had  been 
won  from  the  waters,  inspired  the  statesmen  of  the  time  to  new 
expedients.  It  was  an  age  of  "  adventurers,"  encouraged  by 
monopolies  and  grants.  Under  the  patronage,  first  of  King 
James  and  then  of  King  Charles,  successive  bodies  of  "  under- 
takers "  were  authorised  to  attempt  the  reclamation  of  the 
"  surrounded  "  or  "  drowned  "  lands  of  the  Fens,  and  were 
stimulated  by  the  grant  in  fee  simple  of  a  large  share  of  them. 
Over  these  enterprises  we  see  the  King,  the  local  Commissioners 
of  Sewers,  the  Lords  of  Manors  and  the  commoners  becoming 
involved,  during  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  a 
compHcated  tangle  of  bargains  and  agreements  concerning  princi- 
pally the  central  "  Great  Level  "  of  the  Fens,  concluded  with 
different  groups  of  undertakers,  whose  successive  engineering 
failures,  interspersed  with  rebellions  of  the  Fenmen,^  the  breaking 

^  It  seems  clear  that  the  monks  had  been  famous  embankers  and  drainers  ; 
see  Ely  Diocesan  Records,  1891 ;  The  Ramsey  Cartulary  (Rolls  Series),  1884-1893  ; 
and  Economic  Conditions  of  the  Manors  of  Ramsey  Abbey,  by  N.  Neilson,  1899. 
"There  is  a  tradition  that  this  district  [the  Great  Level  of  the  Fens]  was 
overflown  by  the  sea  in  the  year  a.d.  368,  and  it  is  beyond  doubt  that  constant 
efifort  was  needed  and  is  still  needed  to  keep  back  the  incursions  of  the  sea 
and  to  prevent  the  district  from  becoming  waterlogged  in  winter  and  insanitary 
in  summer.  With  this  object  the  Romans  built  great  dykes,  such  as  Carsdyke 
and  Fossedyke ;  and  actuated  as  they  always  were  to  plant  their  settlements 
where  abundance  of  hard  work  would  purify  the  celibate  life,  the  religious 
orders  made  the  low-lying  parts  of  Lincolnshire  their  special  province. 
Bardney,  Barlings,  Spalding,  Kirkstead,  Torksey,  Crowland,  Semperingham, 
and  many  other  abbeys  and  priories  continued  the  work  of  draining  this 
diflacult  district "  {Public  Works  in  Mediaeval  Law,  by  C.  T.  Flower  (Selden 
Society,  1915),  Litroduction,  p.  xxvii). 

^  A  great  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Fens  were  "  utterly  hostile 
to  a  general  drainage  of  the  Great  Level.  .  .  .  The  proceedings  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  Sewers,  basking  in  and  flourishing  under  the  sunbeams  of  royalty, 
were  exceedingly  arbitrary  "  {History  of  the  Drainage  of  the  Great  Level  of  the 


30  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

down  of  the  newly  established  works  and  the  bankruptcy  of  the 
contractors,!  ended  at  last  in  the  patriotic  Earl  of  Bedford  taking 
up  the  work  for  the  good  of  the  country.  In  1663,  after  various 
earlier  attempts,  he  and  his  fellow-adventurers  were  incorporated 
by  Act  of  Parliament  ^  into  a  new  governing  authority,  the 
"  Corporation  of  the  Governors,  Bailiffs  and  Commonalty  of  the 
Company  of  Conservators  of  the  Great  Level  of  the  Fens  "  ;  a 
Company  which  combined,  with  the  ordinary  powers  of  Com- 
missioners of  Sewers,  those  of  a  group  of  owners  in  severalty 
of  95,000  acres  of  "  Adventurers'  Lands,"  subject  to  onerous 
common  responsibilities  for  maintaining  the  drainage  of  the 
whole  307,000  acres  of  the  central  Level  of  the  Fenland,  hence- 
forth known  as  the  Bedford  Level.  We  cannot  here  relate  the 
long  and  complicated  story  of  the  reclamation  of  the  "  Great 
Level "  by  the  engineers  whom  the  Earl  and  his  fellow-ad- 
venturers employed  ;  of  the  prolonged  struggle  between  the  wild 
and  lawless  life  of  the  fennien,  and  the  utilitarian  but  public- 
spirited  aims  of  the  local  landlords  ;  of  the  gigantic  engineering 
experiments,  started  with  little  science  and  less  method,  aban- 
doned from  lack  of  funds,  hotly  discussed  and  criticised  at 
meetings  of  county  magnates,  begun  anew  on  fresh  plans,  and  only 
finally  completed  in  our  own  day.  Down  to  the  early  years  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  various  parts  of  the  Great  Level  were 
repeatedly  "  drowned  "  by  exceptional,  floods.^  Since  that  date, 
as  was  prematurely  observed  eighty  years  ago,  an  "  alteration 
has  taken  place  which  may  appear  the  effect  of  magic.  .  .  . 
A  forlorn  waste  has  been  converted  into  pleasant  and  fertile 
pastures.  .  .  .  Drainage,  embankment,  engines  and  enclosures 
have  given  stability  to  the  soil  ...  as  well  as  salubrity  to  the 
air.  .  .  .  Where  sedge  and  rushes  [grew]  but  a  few  years  since 

Fens  called  Bedford  Level,  by  Samuel  Wells,  vol.  i.  p.  105 ;  see  the  Calendar  of 
State  Papers  Domestic,  especially  for  1653-1656 ;  and  History  of  England,  by 
S.  R.  Gardiner,  vol.  i.). 

*  For  further  details  as  to  these  "  undertakers "  for  reclaiming  "  sur- 
rounded "  lands  in  different  parts  of  England,  esi)ecially  cliaracteristic  of  tlie 
period  lCOO-1650,  see  the  History  of  Imbanking  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William 
Dugdale,  1()52  ;    Lires  of  the  Engineers,  by  Samuel  Smiles,  1861,  vol.  i.  part  i. 

2   15  Charles  U.  c.  13(1663). 

'  Such  drownings  have  now  ceased,  though  there  was  an  exceptional 
temporary  inundation  in  18G2  (see  The  Story  of  a  Great  Agricultural  Estate,  by 
the  Duke  of  Bedford,  1897,  pp.  38-48  ;  Reminiscences  of  Fen  and  Mere,  by 
J.  1\I.  Heathcote,  1876,  pp.  97-98) ;  and  mucli  land  was  under  water  for  months 
in  the  exceptional  rainfall  of  1912. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  CORPORATION  31 

we  now  have  fields  of  waving  oats  and  even  vmeat."  ^  To-day, 
though  only  because  steam-power  and  centrifugal  pumps  have 
replaced  both  the  old  windmills  and  the  older  horse-mills  that 
were  brought  to  the  aid  of  drainage  by  gravitation,^  the  Fenland 
has  at  last  been  made  permanently  dry,  and  though  much  of  its 
ancient  charm  has  fled,  "  the  long  lines  of  pollards  with  an 
occasional  windmill,  stretching  along  the  horizon  as  in  a  Dutch 
landscape  ;  the  wide  extended  flats  of  dark  peaty  soil  intersected 
by  dykes  and  drains,  with  here  and  there  a  green  tract  covered 
with  sleek  cattle,  have  an  air  of  vastness,  and  even  grandeur 
which  is  sometimes  very  striking."  ^  The  anomalous  Corporation 
of  the  Bedford  Level,  under  which,  with  the  multitudinous  Local 
Boards,  Trusts  and  Commissions,  executing  hundreds  of  separate 
Acts  of  Parliament,  most  of  the  work  has  been  done,  still  con- 
tinues in  vigorous  existence.*    But  its  constitution  has  remained 

1  Report  of  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the 
Labouring  Classes,  1842,  p.  80. 

2  History  of  the  Drainage  of  the  Great  Level  of  the  Fens,  by  S.  Wells,  1830,  vol.  i. 
p.  426  ;  The  Drainage  of  Fens  and  Loio  Lands,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1888.  Wind- 
mills did  not  become  numerous  until  after  1726  ;  steam  engines  not  for  a 
century  afterwards  ;  and  centrifugal  pumps  not  until  after  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century  (the  Victoria  County  History  of  Lincolnshire,  vol.  ii.  p.  351, 
says  not  until  1867). 

3  Lives  of  the  Engineers,  by  Samuel  Smiles,  1861,  vol.  ii.  part  vii.  p.  169. 

*  The  Corporation  of  the  Bedford  Level,  established  by  15  Charles  II.  c.  13 
(1663),  consists  of  a  Governor,  six  Bailiffs,  twenty  Conservators,  who  form 
"  the  Board "  or  governing  body,  and  the  commonalty,  made  up  of  the 
registered  owners  of  the  95,000  acres  of  "  Adventurers'  Lands."  All  such 
owners  can  attend  the  public  meetings  of  the  Corporation,  but  only  those 
possessing  100  acres  or  more  can  vote  for  the  officers  or  the  members  of  the 
governing  body,  who  (together  with  the  Surveyor-General,  the  Register,  the 
Receiver  and  Expenditor-General,  an  Auditor,  the  Serjeant-at-Mace,  four 
Superintendents  and  numerous  sluice-keepers)  are  elected  annually,  at  a 
meeting  held,  until  1809,  at  the  "  Fen  Office  "  in  London,  but  since  that  date 
at  Ely.  The  Conservators  and  the  Bailiffs  and  Governor  must  be  chosen  from 
owners  of  200  and  400  acres  respectively  of  Adventurers'  Lands.  The  Governor 
has  always  been  the  Earl  (or  Duke)  of  Bedford  for  the  time  being.  The  Cor- 
poration, as  such,  owns  none  of  the  land,  except  its  embankments  and  other 
works,  with  the  score  or  so  of  public -houses,  the  cottages,  and  the  other  erections 
upon  these  embankments.  Its  corporate  revenue  (apart  from  the  rents  of 
these  houses  and  the  privilege  of  fishing,  and  the  tolls  levied  on  traffic  along 
the  banks  and  channels)  is  derived  from  taxation  of  the  owners  of  the  95,000 
acres  of  Adventurers'  Lands.  These  have,  since  the  Act  of  20  Charles  II. 
(1668),  been  divided  into  eleven  grades,  paying  from  4d.  to  3s.  8d.  per  acre  for 
each  single  "  tax."  One  or  more  such  taxes  are  annually  levied  by  the  Board. 
Payment  can  be  enforced  by  distraint,  or  by  sale  by  auction  of  the  land  in 
default.  In  former  years  much  was  so  forfeited,  20,000  acres  being  sometimes 
on  the  "  arrear  roll."  The  method  of  sale  was  peculiar,  the  amount  due  being 
stated,  and  offers  being  invited  from  those  willing  to  pay  the  exact  sum  in 
return  for  a  certain  acreage,  the  lov/est  bid  in  area  being  accepted,  and  that 


32  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

absolutely  unique  ;  ^  and  though  it  (and  with  it  the  Fenland 
generally)  amply  deserves  a  constitutional  historian  of  its  own, 
its  story  has  little  or  no  significance  in  the  general  course  of 
English  Local  Government.  In  particular,  as  it  was  not  primarily 
a  Court  of  Sewers,  as  it  has  made  practically  no  use  of  its  powers 
as  such  a  Court,  and  as  the  innumerable  statutory  bodies  working 
under  it,  or  alongside  of  it  in  the  rest  of  the  Fenland,^  were  them- 
selves not  Courts  of  Sewers,  it  can  claim  no  further  place  in  the 
present  chapter. 

acreage  being  alone  transferred.  Its  corporate  expenditure  is  incurred  in  the 
maintenance  and  repair  of  the  various  works  under  its  charge  throughout  the 
whole  307,000  acres  of  the  Level.  The  different  jiarts  of  the  Level  have  also 
separate  organisations  and  taxations  of  their  own  ;  partly  due  to  the  division 
into  the  North,  Middle,  and  South  Levels,  and  the  respective  districts  of  each, 
for  which  the  Corporation  keeps  distinct  accounts  and  levies  differential  taxes, 
expended  by  local  committees  ;  partly  due  to  the  formation  of  District  Boards, 
Commissions  and  Trusts  imder  imiumerable  Acts  of  Parliament,  for  the  special 
improvement  of  particular  parts  of  the  Level,  or  particular  river  channels, 
under  which  taxes  are  levied  on  all  the  owners  of  the  districts,  and  spent  by 
the  different  local  governing  bodies.  So  numerous  were  the  Local  Acts  that 
Parliament  passed  a  Standing  Order  requiring  special  notice  to  be  given  to  the 
Corporation  of  the  Bedford  Level  in  each  case  (House  of  Commons  Journals, 
17th  March  1813).  It  may  be  added  that  the  members  of  the  governing  body 
of  the  Corporation  were,  by  the  Act  of  1663,  constituted  Commissioners  of 
Sewers  in  and  for  the  entire  Level,  as  well  as  for  the  works  executed  outside 
it.  The  latter  provision  was  taken  advantage  of  in  1816  and  1822,  in  order 
to  enable  the  Corporation  to  take  land  compulsorily  outside  the  Level,  in  order 
to  get  puddling  clay.  A  Jury  was  summoned  by  the  Serjcant-at-Mace,  and  a 
Court  of  Sewers  held.  Such  a  court  was  thenceforth  regularly  held  as  a 
matter  of  form.  A  glimpse  of  the  organisation  and  procedure  of  the  Corpora- 
tion in  1822  is  afforded  by  the  Autobiographic  Becollections  of  George  Pryme, 
1870,  pp.  144-148.  Apart  from  the  works  cited  ante,  p.  28,  we  linow  of  no 
statistical  or  other  exact  account  of  the  complicated  local  government  set  up 
by  all  this  machinery  ;  or  of  its  state  at  the  present  day.  By  permission  of 
Mr.  Rowland  Prothero  (now  Lord  Ernie),  we  have  looked  through  the  MS. 
Minutes  of  the  North  Level  Commissioners,  under  an  Act  of  1754,  from  that 
date  down  to  1818,  and  we  find  thom  no  different  from  those  of  Improvement 
Commissioners  of  tiie  ordinary  type,  which  we  subsequently  describe. 

^  In  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  a  Bill  is  said  to  have  passed  the  House  of  Lords, 
but  to  have  been  rejected  by  the  House  of  Commons,  for  establishing,  for 
Hatfield  Chase  in  Lincolnshire,  a  Corporation  exactly  like  that  of  the  Bedford 
Level  {History  and  Topography  of  the  Isle  of  Axholme,  by  Rev.  W.  B.  Stonehouse, 
1839,  p.  103). 

*  It  is  said  of  South  Lincolnshire  alone  that  "  upwards  of  a  hundred  and 
sixty  Acts  have  been  passed  relating  to  the  drainage,  reclamation  and  enclosure  " 
of  tills  part  of  the  Fenland  (History  of  the  Fens  of  So^ith  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H. 
Wheeler,  1894,  preface).  There  were,  for  instance,  "seventeen  sets  of  Com- 
missioners or  other  authorities  having  jurisdiction  over  the  VVithara  between 
Grantham  and  the  Sea  "  (The  Rainfall,  Water  Siipply  and  Drainage  of  Lincoln- 
shire, by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1879,  pp.  17,  26). 


ROMNEY  MARSH  33 


Romney  Marsh 

Turning  from  the  unique  Corporation  of  the  Bedford  Level  to 
the  Courts  of  Sewers  in  rural  districts,  we  are  confronted  with 
the  remarkable  jurisdiction  of  the  Lords  of  the  Level  of  Romney 
Marsh. ^  We  have  already  described  the  emerging  into  history 
in  the  thirteenth  century  of  the  ancient  local  organisation  for  the 
management  of  the  sluices  and  embankments  of  this  part  of  the 
Kentish  coast.  Without  attempting  to  trace  its  career  for  the 
next  four  centuries,  we  find  it  in  1689  in  full  operation  as  a  Court 
of  Sewers,  existing  by  prescription  fortified  by  ancient  decrees 
and  charters,  without  any  Commission  from  the  Crown  under  the 
Statute  of  Sewers.  This  organisation  has  continued,  with  the 
very  minimum  of  alteration,  down  to  the  present  day — an  im- 
mobility and  persistence  which  is  in  itself  remarkable.  We  can 
therefore  combine  in  a  single  description  both  its  condition  in 
1689  and  its  slight  development  down  to  1835. 

The  government  of  Romney  Marsh  remains,  as  it  has  apparently 
been  from  the  earliest  historic  times,  in  the  hands  of  the  principal 
landed  proprietors.  The  "  Lords  of  the  Level,"  as  they  have 
always  been  called,  consist  of  the  owners  for  the  time  being  of 

^  For  "  the  Lords  of  the  Level  of  Romney  Marsh  " — to  be  distinguished 
from  the  entirely  distinct  Chartered  Corporation  of  the  Bailiff,  Jurats  and 
Commonalty  of  Romney  Marsh,  a  Municipal  Corporation  which  we  have  in- 
cidentallv  described  in  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  vol.  ii.  pp.  262,  281, 
298,  299,"  325,  327,  329,  333,  361,  3G7,  492,  791— we  have  had  the  privilege  of 
access  to  the  MS.  archives  from  1602  onward,  preserved  in  the  fine  Elizabethan 
hall  of  the  Lords,  behind  their  great  embankment  at  Dymchurch.  We  have 
found  no  adequate  printed  description  of  their  organisation  or  functions. 
Beyond  the  great  work  of  Sir  William  Dugdale,  and  the  so-called  History  of 
Romney  Marsh,  by  William  Holloway,  1849,  pp.  174-175,  which  contains 
singularly  little  on  this  point,  we  can  only  refer  the  student  to  the  often  re- 
printed Laws  and  Customs  of  Romney  Marsh,  dating  from  the  thirteenth  century, 
of  which  the  last  separate  edition  seems  to  have  been  that  of  1840  ;  and  to 
such  incidental  references  as  are  contained  in  papers  in  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Institute  of  Civil  Engineers,  especially  "  An  Account  of  the  Dymchurch  Wall  " 
by  James  Elliot,  jun.  (vol.  vi.  pp.  466-484,  1847),  and  another  by  Green  and 
Borthwick  (vol.  vii.  pp.  194-196,  1848) ;  The  Report  of  .  .  .  British  Archaeo- 
logical Association  .  .  .  meeting  at  Canterbury,  1844 ;  the  Report  of  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Tidal  Harbours,  1845  ;  the  Report  on  Excavations  at  Lymne,  by 
Charles  Roach  Smith,  1852  ;  the  papers  by  Thomas  Lewin  and  W.  H.  Black 
on  "  The  Portus  Lemanis  of  the  Romans,"  in  Archaeologia,  vol.  xl.  pp.  361,  380  ; 
the  various  papers  in  vol.  xiii.  of  Archaeologia  Cantiana,  1880  ;  History  of  the 
Weald  of  Kent,  by  Robert  Furley,  1871-1874  ;  The  Cinque  Ports,  by  Montagu 
Burrows,  1888  ;   and  A  Quiet  Corner  of  England,  by  Basil  Champneys,  1875. 

D 


34  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

twenty-three  particular  estates  in  the  Marsh/  together  with  the 
Bailiff  for  the  time  being  of  the  chartered  Municipal  Corj)oration 
into  which  the  commonalty  of  the  Marsh  had,  in  1461,  been 
formed.  The  Lords  have  the  right  of  nominating  deputies  to 
represent  them  ;  and  we  find,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  1689  and 
1835  as  in  1922,  most  of  them  using  this  privilege.  Once  a  year, 
in  Whit  week,2  the  Lords  or  their  deputies  met,  as  a  "  General 
Lath  "  or  "  Grand  Lath,"  to  appoint  the  officers  of  the  Level,  to 
decide  upon  the  "  scot  "  or  general  Marsh  Rate  to  be  levied,  and 
to  order  any  considerable  works  of  repair.  At  other  meetings, 
often  held  monthly  and  known  as  Special  Laths,  or  Petty  Laths, 
the  current  routine  business  was  despatched  and  any  urgent 
matter  required  for  the  welfare  of  "  the  Country,"  as  the  Level 
seems  often  to  have  been  called.  The  officers  of  the  Level  were 
an  Expenditor, — originally,  perhaps,  one  of  the  Lords,  but  by 
1689  a  salaried  executive  officer  ^  in  whom  some  engineering 
knowledge  came  gradually  to  be  expected — two  Surveyors, 
taken  in  turn  from  among  the  Lords  or  deputies  themselves  ;  the 
Bailiff  of  the  Marsh,  w^ho  was  also  the  head  of  the  Municipal 
Corporation  of  the  Commonalty  ;  an  Expenditor  of  the  Water- 
ings, who  apparently  disbursed  the  proceeds  of  the  separate 
differential  "  scots  "  levied  upon  the  sixteen  different  districts 
into  which  the  Marsh  was  divided  ;  and  the  Common  Clerk,  who 
wrote  the  letters  and  recorded  the  proceedings  of  the  Lords.*  The 
Bailiff  of  the  Marsh,  annually  appointed,  as  we  have  mentioned, 
by  the  twenty-three  Lords  of  the  Level,  but  nevertheless  entitled 
to  sit  and  vote  as  one  of  them,  was  the  common  head  of  two 
distinct  organisations,  both  subordinate  to  the  Lords  of  the  Level. 
LTnder  the  Charter  of  1461  he  was  the  head  of  the  Corporation  of 
the  Bailiff,  Jurats  and  Commonalty  of  Romney  Marsh,  renewing 
itself  by  co-option,  which  exercised  over  the  whole  area  the 
magisterial  and  other  functions  of  a  Municipal  Corporation,  and 

*  No  documentary  warrant,  by  Charter  or  statute,  can  be  produced  for  this 
hereditary  descent  of  a  local  governing  authority — a  unique  instance,  so  far  as 
we  know,  in  the  Britain  of  the  twentieth  century,  of  government  by  t-enure, 
resting  merely  on  prescription. 

*  "  The  Lords,  Bailiffs,  Jurats  and  other  officers  of  Roraney  Marsh  .  .  . 
keep  ...  a  General  Court  called  the  Lath  every  Whitsun  week,  for  the  dis- 
patch of  all  affairs  which  depend  hereon  "  {Travels  over  England,  Scotland  and 
Wales,  by  Rev.  James  Brome,  1700,  p.  268). 

'  Already  in  1670  he  was  paid  £20  a  year  for  "extraordinary  services" 
(MS.  Minutes,  Lords  of  Romney  Marsh,  1670). 

*  Ibid,  passim. 


THE  JURATS  OF  THE  MARSH  35 

which  has  already  been  described  by  us  as  such.^  But  the 
Bailiff  had  under  him  also  the  Jurats  of  the  Level — sometimes 
designated  Jurats  of  the  Walls,  or  even  Jurats  of  the  Marsh — 
who  might  by  tradition  be  twenty-four  in  number,  but  who  seem 
usually  not  to  have  exceeded  half  a  dozen.  These  were  appointed 
for  life  by  the  Lords  of  the  Level  from  time  to  time  ;  and  they 
were  not  necessarily,  or  even  usually,  the  same  as  the  Jurats  of 
the  Municipal  Corporation  of  Romney  Marsh.  These  Jurats  of 
the  Level  were  chosen  from  among  the  principal  tenant  farmers 
of  the  Marsh,  and  their  function  was  to  serve,  under  the  Bailiff, 
as  local  advisers  and  superintendents.^  They  acted  as  a  Jury 
when  any  land  was  required,  either  for  the  enlargement  of  the 
defences,  or  "to  be  carted,"  as  the  phrase  ran,  for  strengthening 
the  great  sea-wall.^  There  was,  moreover,  yet  another  sub- 
ordinate organisation  of  the  Marsh,  by  its  immemorial  division 
into  sixteen  "  Waterings,"  each  under  the  Expenditor  of  Water- 
ings, having  its  own  "  Quilor,"  or  collector  appointed  for  life 
at  the  General  Lath  ;  sometimes  its  own  Expenditor,  levying 
and  expending,  under  the  general  authority  of  the  Lords  of  the 
Level,  a  separate  Watering  Scot,  or  differential  rate ;  and 
apparently  also  its  own  subordinate  officers,  who  could  be 
ordered,  as  in  1670,  to  "  brush  "  the  common  sewers  of  their 
Watering  at  least  once  a  year.* 

^  This  peculiar  Municipal  Corporation  (as  to  which  see  The  Manor  and  the 
Borough,  pp.  272,  281,  298,  309,  325,  327,  329,  333,  361,  367,  492,  721)  still 
(1922)  continues  to  exist  in  its  unreformed  state,  its  members  annually  electing, 
from  among  its  twenty-four  Jurats,  four  of  them  to  act  as  Justices  of  the  Peace. 
These,  with  the  Aldermen  of  the  City  of  London,  the  Mayors  of  Boroughs 
and  the  Chairmen  of  the  Urban  District  Councils,  are  (1922)  probably  the 
only  popularly  elected  magistrates  in  England.  The  Corporation  of  Romney 
Marsh  was  omitted  from  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835,  and  was 
specially  excepted  from  the  operation  of  that  of  1883. 

^  Thus,  in  1611,  the  BailifE  and  Jurats  are  instructed  "to  be  assisting  to 
the  Expenditor  to  look  after  the  workmen  "  ;  being  allowed  eighteen  pence 
each  per  day  employed  (MS.  Minutes,  Lords  of  Romney  Marsh,  1611). 

^  "  It  is  ordered  that  a  survey  be  taken  by  the  Bailiff  and  Jurats  on  the 
land  of  Mr.  B.  in  the  occupation  of  T.  A.,  and  now  fenced  off  to  the  Country ; 
and  to  report  the  quantity,  quality  and  value  of  the  said  lands  at  the  next 
General  Lath  ;  and  that  the  same  be  discharged  and  discontinued  from  paying 
any  further  scots  for  the  future  from  this  present  Lath  "  [ibid.  1707).  "  Ordered 
that  the  Bailiff  and  Jurats  do  before  the  next  monthly  meeting  survey  the  lands 
of  the  said  A.  B.  where  the  Country  shall  have  occasion  to  set  a  wall,  and  at 
the  said  monthly  meeting  to  report  the  quantity  and  quality  and  value  of  the 
said  lands  "  {ibid.  1707). 

*  Ibid.  1670.  The  officers  of  the  Waterings  had  to  be  m  attendance  at 
every  Lath.  "  It  is  ordered  that  the  Surveyors  do  give  to  the  Marsh  six  days 
notice  of  every  monthly  account,  and  that  they  forthwith  give  notice  to  the 


36  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

Under  this  somewhat  complicated  organisation — which  re- 
mained, notwithstanding  its  elaboration,  essentially  of  the  most 
primitive  type  —  the  proprietors,  tenant  farmers  and  wage 
labourers  of  Romney  Marsh  seem  to  have  jogged  along  in  peace 
with  the  very  minimum  of  history.  Most  of  the  Lords  habitually 
left  it  to  their  agents  or  stewards  to  attend  the  Laths,  and 
to  serve  in  turn  as  Surveyors.  The  two  Surveyors,  usually 
appointed  in  alphabetical  order,  indiscriminately  from  among 
Lords  or  deputies,  acted  for  their  year  of  service  as  a  sort  of 
executive  committee,  with  whom  the  Common  Clerk  or  the 
Expenditor  would  confer.  The  Expenditor  carried  out  all  the 
works.  The  Bailiff  and  his  four  or  six  Jurats  served  as  a  kind  of 
Standing  Jury,  either  reporting  "  on  their  own  view  and  know- 
ledge "  minor  repairs  that  were  required,  or  superintending  the 
different  works :  occasionally,  as  we  have  seen,  assessing  the 
compensation  due  to  particular  owners  and  occupiers.  We  do 
not  find  that  the  vague  authority  of  the  Lath  to  levy  "  scots  "  ; 
to  appropriate  the  "  Marsh  thorns  "  ;  ^  to  occupy  particular 
lands  for  new  defences,  sluices  or  roads  ;  or  to  order  the  valuable 
top  soil  of  other  lands,  as  the  phrase  ran,  "  to  be  carted  "  to  the 
wall,  was  ever  disputed.^ 

Sergeant,  and  the  Sergeant  give  four  days  notice  to  the  Bailiff,  Jurats  and 
Quilors  of  the  several  Waterings,  that  they  may  give  their  attendance  at  tlie 
said  account ;  and  that  the  said  Quilors  give  in  their  said  accounts  at  every 
monthly  meeting  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Lords  of  Romney  Slarsh,  1G89).  There  was 
sometimes  also  an  "  Expenditor  of  the  Outlands,"  and  we  hear  of  a  Woodreeve, 
a  Sergeant  of  the  Walls,  and  other  officers. 

^  This  relates  to  the  stunted  wliitethom  trees  which  once  existed  on  the 
Marsh.  Down  to  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  timber  was  extensively 
used  in  strengthening  the  sea-wall ;  and  the  Lords  of  the  Level  enforced  a 
right  of  felling,  for  the  use  of  "  the  Country,"  such  trees  as  were  needed.  With 
this  view,  all  clumps  of  trees  on  the  Marsh — called  "  bush  " — were  held  sacred 
and  reserved,  the  owner  having  no  power  to  destroy  them  for  his  own  purposes. 
When  a  "  bush  "  was  deemed  unsuitable,  or  not  likely  to  be  required,  it  might 
be  "  discharged,"  and  thus  placed  fully  within  the  power  of  the  landowner. 
Hence  we  read,  in  the  first  volume  of  the  existing  minutes  (1602-1G71),  many 
entries  such  as  "  Mr.  A.'s  bush  discharged  "  ;  "  all  bushes  to  be  discharged 
which  shall  be  reported  not  worth  keeping  "  ;  and  "  all  bushes  to  be  surveyed 
after  the  fellings  [to  see]  if  felled  according  to  order."  The  owners  were  paid 
so  much  a  load  for  these  "  Marsli  thorns  "  (ibid.  1C02-1671).  All  such  "  bush  " 
had,  we  learn,  disappeared  from  the  Marsh  by  1700.  ("  Account  of  the 
D^'mchurch  Wall,"  by  James  Elliott,  jun.,  in  Proceedings  of  Institute  of  Civil 
Engineers,  1847,  vol.  vi.  pp.  46(i-484.) 

-  Arrears  sometimes  accumulated,  chiefly  through  the  neglect  of  the  Bailiff, 
who  delayed  to  enforce  ]mymcnt  "  by  the  usual  return  of  a  Bill  of  Wains,  accord- 
ing to  the  Laws  and  Customs  of  Romney  Marsh  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Lords  of 
Romney  Marsh,  1820). 


THE  "WATERING  SCOTS 


37 


The  thousand  years  of  warfare  with  the  waves,  by  which 
alone  the  Marsh  had  been  won,  had  evidently  produced  an 
abiding  sense  of  the  need  for  a  strong  government.^  Along 
with  this  goes  perhaps  the  fact  that  the  compensation  which  "  the 
Country  "  made  to  the  individual  was  assessed  on  a  liberal  scale. 
If  he  had  to  cede  his  thorns  to  repair  the  wall,  he  secured  a  good 
market  for  every  load.  If  his  land  was  taken,  both  he  and  his 
tenant  farmer  got  generous  terms.^  Even  if  it  was  merely  the 
surface  of  two  or  three  acres  that  was  "  carted  "  to  the  wall,  he 
might  be  paid  "  twenty  years'  purchase  at  the  rate  of  twenty-two 
shillings  per  acre  per  annum,"  whilst  his  tenants  would  receive 
compensation  in  addition  "  for  the  damage  in  their  herbage  and 
grass."  3  The  cost  of  the  works,  as  of  the  current  administration, 
was  defrayed  by  substantial  rates  or  scots  levied  according  to 
acreage,  either  uniformly  throughout  the  Marsh,  or  upon  one  or 
more  Waterings,  and  collected  from  the  tenant  farmers.  These 
rates  sometimes  ran  up  to  six  or  seven  shillings  per  acre,  but  it 
was  customary  for  the  landlords  to  allow  their  tenants  to  deduct 
from  their  rents  any  exceptional  levies.  Such  allowances  have 
always  been  recommended  by  the  Lath  ;  *  and  it  has  long  been 
the  practice  of  the  owners  voluntarily  to  allow  the  tenants  any 
excess  in  the  rate  over  half-a-crown  per  acre.  At  the  very  end 
of  our  survey,  it  was  suggested  by  the  Expenditor  of  Waterings, 
in  1833,  that  the  difierential  "  Watering  Scots  "  might  be  done 
away  with,  and  merged  in  the  general  scot  levied  on  all  ahke  ^ 
— a  suggestion  that  was  presently  adopted. 

^  Only  once  do  we  find  the  authority  of  the  Lords  seriously  questioned,  and 
that  was  subsequent  to  1835.  In  1854  some  discontented  persons  obtained  a 
Mandamus  against  them,  ordering  them  to  show  cause  why  they  did  not  appoint 
the  full  number  of  24  Jurats  of  the  Marsh.  The  Lords  resisted,  claiming  full 
discretion,  and  the  case  came  to  trial  at  the  Assizes  in  July  1856.  No  decision 
was  arrived  at,  as  it  was  agreed  by  the  parties  to  state  a  special  case  for  the 
Court  of  Iving's  Bench  ;  and  before  this  was  done  the  claimants  abandoned  the 
case  (MS.  Minutes,  Lords  of  Romney  Marsh,  1854-1856). 

^-  In  1732  an  owner  was  paid  thirty  years'  purchase  at  thirty  shillings  per 
acre  per  annum,  for  land  taken  for  the  wall  {ibid.  17th  May  1732). 

3  Ibid.  1707. 

*  "  At  this  Lath,"  we  read  in  1706,  "  it  is  declared  that  (considering  the 
expensive  and  extraordinary  scots  to  be  raised  for  the  defence  of  this  Level) 
it  is  very  reasonable  that  the  landlords  and  owners  of  land  in  this  Level  do 
allow  proportionate  part  of  the  scots  paid  by  their  tenants,  forasmuch  as  their 
inheritance  is  in  danger  "  {ibid.  1706). 

*  Ibid.  23rd  May  1833.  These  differential  rates  had  begun  to  be  complained 
of.  In  1829  the  Lath  imposed  (1)  a  general  "  scot "  of  sixpence  per  acre  ; 
(2)  an  additional  sixpence  "  on  the  Wall  "  ;    (3)  half-a-crown  "  on  Willop  and 


38  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

We  need  not  follow  the  chequered  engineering  experiences 
of  the  Lords  of  the  Level ;  the  successive  stages  by  which  their 
Expenditor  became  an  expert  civil  engineer,  commanding  a 
permanent  staff  of  skilled  workmen  ;  ^  the  calling  in  of  the  great 
Rennie  in  1803  to  organise  their  defences  on  a  scientific  basis  ; 
the  multiplication  and  elaboration  of  their  sewers  and  sluices  ; 
and  the  gradual  transformation  of  their  great  dam,  from  a  shingle 
bank  strengthened  by  a  long  perpendicular  earthwork,  "  armed  " 
by  a  facing  of  brushwood,  held  doA\Ti  by  oak  stakes  and  lathes," 
into  the  present  massive  front  of  stone  and  concrete,  guarded 
by  projecting  steps  and  breakwaters.^  More  interesting  may 
be  the  ghmpse  that  we  catch,  in  1804,  of  the  visit  of  "  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and  Lord  Warden  of  the  Cinque 
Ports "  (William  Pitt),  accompanied  by  three  Generals,  to 
arrange  for  the  instant  flooding  of  the  whole  Marsh  in  the 
expected  event  of  the  French  landing.  Four  of  the  Lords  of 
the  Level  were  got  together  to  meet  the  Great  Commoner,  and 
these  took  upon  themselves  to  order  the  Common  Clerk,  if  he 
received  the  word  from  the  General  in  command,  to  direct  the 
Expenditor  instantly  to  open  the  sluices  and  admit  the  sea — 
a  patriotic  order  confirmed  nine  days  later  at  a  Special  Lath.* 

It  is  one  of  the  minor  paradoxes  of  English  Local  Government 
that  the  Lords  of  the  Level  of  Romney  Marsh,  whose  reorganisa- 
tion in  1258  by  Sir  Henry  de  Bathe  became  a  starting-point  for 
subsequent  reorganisations  of  local  Courts  of  Sewers  all  over 

Home's  Watcringa  "  ;  and  (4)  one  and  fivepence  "  on  the  Waterings  sewing 
at  Clobsdon."  The  occupiers  of  Willop  and  Home's  Waterings  protested  that 
this  charge  ought  to  be  met  by  a  general  scot ;  and  the  Lath  adopted  their 
view  (MS.  Minutes,  Lords  of  Romney  Marsh,  May,  July  and  August.  1829). 

^  In  1814  tlic  Lords  put  the  office  up  to  auction,  inviting  by  advertisement 
"  tenders  for  the  place  of  Expenditor  .  .  .  from  persons  undertaking  the 
management  of  the  Walls  and  Sewers  "  {ibid.  1814). 

"  See  paper  by  Green  and  Borthwick  in  Proceedings  of  Institute  of  Civil 
Engineers,  1848,  vol.  vii.  pp.  194-196. 

'  In  1700  much  of  the  Marsh  was  under  water,  and  the  defences  had  to  bo 
strengthened.  Between  176G  and  180G  great  timber  groins  were  constructed 
to  prevent  tlie  shingle  shifting.  Not  until  1803  was  any  professional  engineer 
consulted  ;  and  then  about  £50,000  was  spent  on  Rennie's  advice,  in  trans- 
forming the  Wall  from  a  perpendicular  to  a  sloping  dam.  Stone  did  not  begin 
to  be  used  until  1825,  and  the  present  systematic  walling  of  stone  and  concrete 
was  begun  in  18.37  on  the  advice  of  Walker  ("  An  Account  of  the  Dymchurch 
Wall,"  by  James  Elliott,  jun.,  in  Proceedings  of  the  Institute  of  Civil  Engineers, 
1847,  vol.  vi.  i)p.  400-484). 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Lords  of  Romney  Marsh,  5th  September  1804  ;  see  footnote 
on  p.  100. 


THE  RURAL  COMMISSIONS 


39 


the  country  ;  whose  "  Laws  and  Customs  "  were  specifically 
adopted  as  the  model  for  all  other  Courts,  and  were  eventually 
made  the  basis  of  the  celebrated  Statute  of  Sewers,  should  never 
themselves  have  come  under  that  statute,  or  been  included  in 
any  Commission  of  Sewers  from  the  Lord  Chancellor.  The 
Lords  of  the  Level  continue  to-day  (1922),  as  they  were  in 
1689-1835,  an  ancient  relic  of  pre-statutory  local  government, 
which  we  have  had  perforce  to  describe  as  a  Court  of /Sewers — 
indeed,  as  the  very  arch-type  of  all  Courts  of  Sewers — but  which 
nevertheless  is  not,  and  never  has  been,  as  other  Courts  of 
Sewers  are. 

Somersetshire 

We  return  to  our  description  of  the  constitutional  evolution 
of  the  ordinary  Courts  of  Sewers  acting  vmder  periodically 
renewed  Commissions  from  the  Crown.  Exactly  how  many 
Commissions  of  Sewers  were  in  force  at  each  period  between 
1689  and  1835  is  not  now  to  be  discovered,  though  we  gather 
that  it  never  exceeded  a  hundred.^  They  were,  we  infer, 
occasionally  initiated  during  the  eighteenth  century  among  the 
Justices  in  Quarter  Sessions,  who  directed  the  Clerk  of  the  Peace 
to  petition  for  a  Commission  of  Sewers  for  a  particular  district, 
where  some  authoritative  intervention  was  required ;  wlien 
the  Justices  ordered  him  to  pay  the  fees  out  of  the  county  fund.^ 
Excluding  the  authorities  of  the  Fenland,  and  those  which  we 
shall  presently  describe  as  acting  for  the  Metropolitan  area,  the 
proceedings  of  these  Courts  of  Sewers  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  either  important  or  exciting.     Their  organisation  appears 

^  The  number  is  given  as  80  in  the  First  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on 
the  Health  of  Large  Towns,  1845.  A  list  of  42  will  be  found  in  the  Report  of 
the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  Local  Taxation,  1844,  which  is  there  stated  to 
comprise  all  the  commissions  then  in  force  (p.  71).  But  this  includes  only  two 
or  three  of  the  Fenland  authorities.  The  42  Courts  had  5809  members,  varying 
from  16  (Fobbing  in  Essex)  and  18  (Narberth  and  Tenby),  up  to  290  for 
Nottingham  District,  and  no  fewer  than  593  for  Somersetshire.  We  note  the 
statement,  without  verifying  it,  that  these  rural  commissions  of  sewers  present 
striking  resemblances  to  the  "  associations  polderiennes  "  or  (the  very  word 
used  for  a  district  and  rating  unit  in  Romney  Marsh)  "  wateringen  "  existing 
in  Belgium  {Le  Gouvernment  Local  de  V Angleterre,  by  Maurice  Vauthier,  1895, 
p.  342). 

2  So  in  Suffolk  in  1745  for  the  Hundreds  of  Blything,  Wangford,  Mutford 
and  Lothingland  (MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Suffolk,  7th  October  1745) ; 
and  in  Cambridgeshire  in  1795  for  30  parishes  about  Trumpington  and  Grant- 
chester  (MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Cambridgeshire,  16th  January  and 
13th  February  1795). 


40  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

to  have  been  of  the  most  primitive  character.^  It  is,  however, 
fair  to  warn  the  student  that  this  is  the  most  obscure  corner  in 
the  whole  of  English  Local  Government.  We  know  of  no 
detailed  description  of  the  actual  working  of  these  Courts  in 
the  rural  districts,^  and  only  in  two  cases  have  we  been  able 
to  consult  their  manuscript  records.  What  seems  interesting, 
from  such  scanty  information  as  we  possess,  is  the  unexpected 
part  that,  during  the  eighteenth  century,  we  find  played  by  the 
Jury. 

To  take,  for  instance,  the  county  of  Somerset,  which  had 
many  square  miles  of  marsh,  including  the  ancient  "  Isle  of 
Avalon  "  and  the  historic  Athelney,  to  be  protected  from  floods.^ 

^  "  In  the  rural  districts  the  men  appointed  as  surveyors  by  the  local  Com- 
missioners [of  Sewers]  are  very  little  better  than  common  labourers.  .  .  .  Thej' 
are  commonly  a  sort  of  foreman  of  the  labourers,  called  ditchcasters  "  (Poor 
Law  Commissioners'  General  Report  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labour ing 
Population,  1842,  p.  316). 

^  Brief  and  unilluminating  accounts  of  such  rural  Commissions  may  occa- 
sionally be  found  in  local  histories :  see,  for  instance,  that  of  tlie  Tendring 
Hundred  Level  (Essex)  in  Tendring  Hundred  in  the  Olden  Time,  by  J.  Yellowby 
Watson,  1878,  p.  70  ;  and  those  of  thq  two  separate  "  Levels  "  of  Gloucester- 
shire, in  New  History  of  Gloucestershire,  by  S.  Rudder,  1779,  p.  26.  A  paper 
on  the  Commissioners  for  the  Lewes  Levels  by  Sir  Henry  Ellis  will  be  found 
in  Siissex  Archaeological  Collections,  vol.  x.,  1858,  pp.  95-99,  giving  documents  of 
1421-1538  only.  More  information  as  to  their  working  may  be  gained  from 
occasional  cases,  such  as  R.  v.  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  Essex,  1820,  in 
Rcjmrls  of  Cases,  etc.,  by  J.  Dowling  and  A.  Ryland,  vol.  ii.,  1823,  pp.  700-706  ; 
or  from  the  very  infrequent  controversial  pamphlets. 

An  "  Order  of  the  Court  of  Sewers  for  Berks  and  Oxon,"  held  at  Abingdon, 
20th  May  1681,  is  given  in  House  of  Lords  Manuscripts,  vol.  i.  (N.S.),  1900, 
pp.  547-548.  Some  Municipal  Corporations  (among  which  we  may  mention 
Norwich,  Southampton  and  Oxford)  got  established  Courts  of  Sewers  to  help 
them  to  deal  with  their  river  conservancy  and  navigation  ;  and  we  have  been 
able  to  consult  the  records  of  these  Courts,  which  often  became  practically  com- 
mittees of  the  Corporation,  among  the  municipal  archives  (see  The  Manor  and 
the  Borough,  1908,  pp.  556,  677,  etc.). 

^  For  the  Somerset  Courts  of  Sewers,  we  have  been  able  to  consult  the  MS. 
Minutes  from  1789  to  1835  ;  see  also  the  incidental  references  and  descriptions 
in  The  History  of  Imbanking  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William  Dugdale,  1052, 
pp.  104-110  of  edition  of  1772  ;  General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  the  County 
of  Somerset,  by  John  Billingsley,  1794,  pp.  123-126,  2nd  edition,  1798,  pp.  160- 
198  ;  Observations  on  the  Great  31arshes  and  Turbaries  of  .  .  .  Somerset,  by 
Rev.  W.  Phelps,  1835 ;  "  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Marshlands  of  Somerset," 
by  Richard  Locke,  in  Bath  and  West  of  England  Agricultural  Society's  Letters 
and  Papers,  vol.  viii.  pp.  259-284  ;  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on 
the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labouring  Poindation,  1842,  ])p.  80-87  ;  Lives  of 
the  Engineers,  by  S.  Smiles,  1861,  vol.  i.  p.  15;  A  General  Account  of  West 
Somerset,  by  Edward  .Teboult,  1873,  ])p.  85-86  ;  The  Seaboard  of  Mendip,  by 
F.  A.  Knight,  1902  ;  History  of  a  Part  of  West  Soinerset,  by  Sir  C.  E.  H.  Chad- 
wick  Healey,  1901  ;  and  Victoria  County  History  of  Somerset,  vol.  ii.  chapter 
on  "  Social  and  Economic  Historj',"  by  Gladys  Bradford.     Something  may  be 


SOMERSETSHIRE  41 

Here,  as  in  the  Fenland,  the  "  drownings  "  were  "  caused,  not 
so  much  by  high  tides  from  the  sea,  as  by  the  banks  of  the  main 
rivers  not  being  sufficiently  strong  or  elevated,  and  from  the 
bridges  not  being  capacious  enough  to  carry  the  immense  body 
of  water  brought  down  from  the  neighbouring  hills  and  country 
higher  up,  which,  in  heavy  rains,  sometimes  takes  place  so 
rapidly  as  to  completely  overflow  the  banks  in  twenty-four 
hours."  But,  in  addition  to  the  inundations  due  to  this  cause, 
or  to  the  "  casual  or  accidental  giving  way  of  the  banks  of  the 
rivers,"  minor  floodings  were  sometimes  caused,  we  are  told, 
"  by  interested  persons  for  the  purpose  of  warding  off  the  mischief 
from  themselves  by  throwing  it  on  their  neighbours."  ^  The 
casual  interventions  of  the  King's  Justices  to  settle  the  disputes 
that  arose  as  to  drainage  seem  to  have  been  succeeded,  long 
before  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,^  by  a  single  and 
virtually  permanent  Commission  of  Sewers  for  the  whole  county, 
which  included,  as  we  gather,  practically  all  the  important 
landowners.  But  it  is  significant  that  we  do  not  find  this  body, 
as  might  have  been  expected  from  the  tenor  of  its  Commission, 
holding  a  single  Court  of  Sewers,  using  a  Jury  of  indifferent 
persons  summoned  by  the  Sheriff  ^  to  try  issues  of  fact,  issuing 
its  decrees  by  its  own  officers,  executing  the  works  decided  on 
by  its  own  ordinances,  and  levying  its  Sewers  Rate  upon  the 
whole  of  the  marsh  lands  within  its  jurisdiction.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  see,  right  down  to  the  nineteenth  century,  the  daily 
administration  of  the  banks  and  sluices  of  the  Somerset  marshes 
performed — as  we  imagine,  quite  extra-legally — by  a  couple  of 
thousand  of  the  marsh-dwelling  commonalty,  divided  into  about 
a  hundred  separate  bodies  called  Juries.     Each  marsh  had,  in 

gathered  from  the  important  case,  R.  v.  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  Somerset, 
in  Reports  of  Cases,  etc.,  by  Sir  E.  H.  East,  vol.  vii.  p.  71;  the  Sedge- 
moor  and  other  Inclosure  Acts  ;  the  "  Drainage  Awards  "  for  the  Axe  and  the 
Brue,  and  for  Congresbury,  1806,  1810  and  1826,  in  Seventh  Report  of  Hist. 
MSS.  Commission  ;  and  from  various  papers  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Somerset 
Archaeological  and  Natural  History  Society,  from  1849  onwards. 

^  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the 
Labouring  Population,  1842,  p.  86. 

2  Commissions  of  Sewers  for  different  parts  of  Somerset  have  been  traced 
from  1304  {A  General  Account  of  West  Somerset,  by  E.  Jeboult,  1873,  p.  85). 

3  So  little  had  the  High  Sheriff  to  do  with  constituting  or  attending  the 
Somerset  Courts  of  Sewers  as  a  county  official  that  we  find  him,  on  one  occasion, 
presiding  over  the  Court  as  a  Commissioner  during  his  year  of  office  as  Sheriff 
(MS.  Minutes,  Court  of  Sewers,  Somerset,  Bridgwater,  18th  March  1801). 


42  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

fact,  its  o\\Ti  Standing  Jury,  composed,  not  of  indifferent  persons 
summoned  by  the  Sherifi  from  the  body  of  the  county,  but  of 
the  occupiers  of  the  lands  and  tenements  actually  concerned 
impanelled  by  the  Foremen  of  the  Juries  themselves  ;  serving 
apparently  in  rotation  or  on  the  nomination  of  the  other  jury- 
men ;  1  presided  over  by  a  Foreman  on  whom  great  responsibility 
was  cast,  and  who  was  compelled  to  act  continuously  for  at  least 
ten  years,2  making  their  own  regular  perambulations  of  their 
respective  marshes  to  scrutinise  all  the  banks  and  walls,  "  clys  " 
and  "  rhines,"  gates  and  sluices ;  formulating  their  decisions 
in  "  presentments  "  on  their  own  view  and  knowledge  ;  amercing 
individuals  for  neglect  to  fulfil  their  customary  obligations  ; 
deciding  whether  the  necessary  repairs  fell  to  the  charge  of 
particular  landholders  or  should  be  paid  for  by  a  "  Moor  Rate  " 
on  the  marsh  as  a  whole  ;  and,  through  their  Foremen,  both 
collecting  and  expending  the  rate  so  assessed.^ 

It  is  impossible  not  to  see  in  these  Standing  Juries  the  sur- 
viving remnants  of  some  primitive  organisation,  under  which 

^  "  Chcdzoy  Jury,  W.  H.  and  J.  E.  to  be  discharged  next  Sessions  on  pro- 
viding two  men  to  be  sworn  in  their  stead  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners, 
Somerset,  Bridgwater,  11th  June  1790).  "  Any  two  jurj^men  .  .  .  are  allowed 
to  exchange  places  on  their  respective  Juries  on  application  to  the  Court  " 
{ibid.  Langport,  29th  September  1790).  "  Whereas,"  runs  a  decree  of  the 
Langport  Court  in  1790,  "  several  improper  persons  are  compelled  to  8er\'e, 
and  others  are  drawn  to  attend  the  duty  of  sewers  at  a  great  distance  from 
their  homes ;  a  number  of  Juries  are  composed  of  23  persons,  while  others 
have  scarce  enough  to  perform  their  duty  properly  ;  and  a  quick  succession 
takes  place  in  some  Juries,  the  persons  thereon  sometimes  serving  no  more 
than  two  years,  while  others  are  compelled  to  serve  twenty  years,  it  is  hereby 
ordered  that  .  .  .  the  Clerk  issue  no  summons  for  a  juror  or  jurors  till  he  or 
they  shall  be  presented  to  this  Court  as  proper  persons  to  serve  on  Juries  at 
the  Sessions  of  Sewers  ;  and  the  Foremen  of  all  and  every  Jury  are  ordered 
to  make  a  list  of  persons  so  to  be  presented  at  the  following  sessions  "  {ibid. 
Langport,  29th  September  1790). 

*  "  Ashcote  Jury,  Mr.  J.  M.  Foreman,  to  go  out  of  the  Jury  next  Sessions  " 
{ibid.  Bridgwater,  Uth  Juno  1790).  "That  no  person  who  shall  have  been 
discharged  as  Foreman  of  a  Jury  of  Sewers  shall  at  any  future  time  be  subject 
to  be  called  upon  to  serve  on  a  Jury  but  as  Foreman  ;  and  that  no  Foreman 
shall  be  discharged  under  service  of  ten  years,  unless  sufficient  cause  shall  be 
shown  to  tlie  contrary  "  {ibid.  Langport,  1st  June  1803). 

*  "  A  rate  granted  at  fourpence  per  acre  for  the  repair  of  the  clys,  bridge 
and  rhines  within  the  parish  of  Weston  Zoyland,  and  Mr.  T.  H.  and  Mr.  T.  are 
appointed  Collectors ;  sura  raised  £35  :  15  :  5  "  {ibid.  Bridgwater,  8th  May 
1789).  "  A  rate  was  granted  at  ten  shillings  per  leaze  on  74  leazes  for  re- 
pairing Ham  Wall:  sum  raised  £37"  {ibid.  Bridgwater,  11th  June  1790). 
"  Upon  the  petition  of  the  Foreman  and  Jurors  ...  it  is  ordei-od  that  a  rate 
be  granted  on  the  proprietors  of  lands  in  the  Salt  Marsh  at  threepence  in  the 
pound  for  repairing  and  amending  certain  walls,  old  clys  and  other  works  " 
ibid.  Bridgwater,  8th  October  1790). 


MULTIPLICATION  BY  FISSION  43 

the  peasant  owners  or  occupiers  of  each  marsh  looked  after  their 
little  defences.  In  the  nineteenth  century — perhaps  because 
of  the  animadversions  of  the  Judges,  who  could  not  understand 
how  there  came  to  be  a  Standing  Jury  of  neighbours  instead  of 
a  Jury  of  indifferent  persons  summoned  by  the  Sheriff  from  the 
body  of  the  Coimty  ;  or  perhaps  in  direct  consequence  of  the 
1833  Act — we  see  these  ancient  Juries  fading  away,  and  being 
replaced  in  their  administrative  functions,  after  1833,  by  Dyke- 
reeves  acting  under  the  instructions  of  the  Commissioners 
themselves.! 

As  we  have  already  mentioned,  the  Somerset  marshes  came 
very  early  to  enjoy,  instead  of  the  occasional  intervention  of 
specially  commissioned  Justices  of  Sewers,  the  superintendence 
of  a  virtually  permanent  body  of  the  principal  landowners.  It 
is  interesting  to  see  that,  as  the  Court  of  Sewers  for  the  County 
of  Somerset,  this  body  itself  assumed  an  extra-legal  form,  possibly 
in  conformity  with  ancient  local  custom.  The  Commissioners, 
instead  of  holding  one  Court,  divided  themselves  habitually  into 
four  groups,  according  to  the  locahty  of  their  lands,  each  district 
having  its  own  Court,  distinct  from  the  rest  of  the  county. 
Each  Court  had  the  superintendence  of  the  two  or  three  dozen 
Juries  of  its  neighbourhood. ^  The  scanty  minutes  of  what  were 
virtually  four,  and  presently  five,  separate  Courts,  which  sat 
respectively  at  Bridgwater,  Axbridge,  Langport,  Glastonbury 
and  Wells,  with  occasional  adjournments  to  smaller  places,  show 
how  formal  or  spasmodic  was  the  intervention  which  the  half 
a  dozen  Commissioners  who  deigned  to  attend  the  annual  or 
six-monthly  Court  of  their  district  exercised  in  the  administration 
of  its  drainage  works.  A  large  proportion  of  the  decrees  of  the 
Courts  relate,  indeed,  not  to  the  works,  but  to  the  Juries— fining 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Court  of  Sewers,  Somerset,  1833-1834 ;  R.  v.  Commissioners 
of  Sewers  for  Somerset,  in  Reports  of  Cases,  etc.,  by  Sir  E.  H.  East,  vol.  vii. 
p.  71 ;  Observations  on  the  Great  Marshes  and  Turbaries  of  .  .  .  Somerset,  by- 
Rev.  W.  Phelps,  1835,  pp.  6-8. 

2  These  Courts  even  multiplied  themselves  by  fission.  In  1827,  in  response 
to  petitions  from  several  of  the  Juries,  the  Court  held  at  Wells  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  "  the  holding  of  a  Session  at  Glastonbury  twice  a  year,  as  well 
as  Wells,  would  tend  greatly  to  the  expediting  the  public  business  and  be  a 
great  convenience  to  several  of  the  Juries,  who  are  obliged  to  take  a  long 
journey  to  Wells."  Accordingly,  16  of  the  Juries  are  ordered  henceforth  to 
attend  at  Glastonbury  only,  the  Commissioners  similarly  divide  themselves  in 
their  attendance  as  their  propinquity  dictates,  and  what  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  is  a  separate  Court  is  thenceforth  constituted  (MS.  Minutes,  Court 
of  Sewers,  Somerset,  Wells,  8th  August  1827). 


44  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

persons  who  refuse  the  onerous  office,  or  fail  to  put  in  an  appear- 
ance ;  ^  discharging  those  who  are  unfit  for  service  or  who  under- 
take to  provide  a  substitute  ;  transferring  particular  banks  and 
sluices  from  the  purview  of  one  Jury  to  that  of  another  ;  auditing 
the  accounts  of  the  Foremen  as  Collectors  and  Expenditors,  and 
so  on.  Beyond  this  general  work  of  supervising  the  action  of 
the  Juries,  the  chief  fimction  of  the  Somerset  Courts  seems  to 
have  been  that  of  formally  confirming  and  legalising  the  various 
small  "  Moor  Rates  "  imposed  for  the  works  ordered  by  the 
several  Juries  ;  and  that  of  arbitrating  between  the  Juries  and 
particular  owners  or  occupiers  on  whom  the  duty  of  repair  had 
been  cast.  On  complaint  from  one  or  other  party,  the  Court 
would  depute  some  of  its  members  to  hold  a  special  "  view,"  ^ 
and  on  report  made  to  the  next  Court  would  pronounce  a  final 
decree.  In  an  exceptional  case  we  see  a  Court  requiring  or 
permitting  a  joint  meeting  of  all  the  Juries  within  its  Division 
(which  may,  however,  have  been  only  a  meeting  of  their  Fore- 
men), to  "  present  that  from  the  imperfect  drainage  .  .  .  through 
the  whole  of  the  said  Division  the  same  is  continually  flooded  .  .  . 
and  .  .  ,  that  it  appears  necessary  that  some  new  drains  should 
be  made."  The  Court  thereupon  points  out  that  such  works 
would  necessitate  an  Act  of  Parliament,  for  which  the  Com- 
missioners decide  to  apply. ^  But  so  little  did  tlie  Commissioners 
deal  with  executive  business  that  the  minutes  hardly  ever  show 
them  as  entering  into  contracts  either  for  works  or  supplies.  It 
is  clear  that  each  Expenditor  bought  his  own  supplies  and  hired 
his  own  labour.  When,  however,  unusually  important  works 
were  specified  in  any  Jury  presentment,  as,  for  instance,  the 
rebuilding  of  a  sea-wall,  it  is  occasionally  suggested  in  the  latter 
years  that  the  advice  of  a  competent  engineer  should  be  obtained  ; 
and  then  we  see  the  Commissioners  employing  such  an  officer, 
discussing  his  report,  and  apparently  ordering  the  work,  at  the 
expense,  be  it  noted,  of  the  landholders  of  the  particular  marsh, 
who  in  one  case  are  expressly  requested  "  to  advance  necessary 
sums  of  money,"  to  be  adjusted  when  the  rate  on  all  those 

^  "  H.  J.  F.  of  Taunton,  silversmith,  fined  £5  for  not  attending  his  Foreman 
and  Jury  on  their  view.  Absolutely  having  been  duly  summoned.  Estreated  " 
(MS.  Minutes,  Court  of  Sewers,  Bridgwater,  7th  October  1791).  Generally,  the 
fines  were  remitted,  on  the  juror  attending,  subject  to  his  paying  a  small  fee  for 
Ilia  discharge. 

-  Ibid.  Bridgwater,  Sth  May  1780.  »  Ibid.  Langport,  4tli  .Time  1800. 


EAST  KENT  45 

interested  has  been  levied. ^  When  extensive  new  works  were 
required  for  the  drainage  of  the  River  Axe  district,  the  Court  of 
Sewers  exercising  jurisdiction  over  that  district  sanctioned  an 
Act  of  ParHament  being  obtained.  But  that  Act  conferred  the 
necessary  powers  on  a  separate  body  of  Commissioners,  who 
carried  out  the  work,  brought  their  business  to  a  close  within 
the  ten  years  allowed  to  them  by  the  Act,  and  then  handed  the 
district  back  to  the  Court  of  Sewers  to  be  administered  for  the 
future  under  its  ordinary  powers.^ 

East  Kent 

The  owners  and  occupiers  of  lands  in  East  Kent  ^  had  an  easier, 
if  a  more  varied  problem  to  deal  with  than  those  of  Somerset. 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Court  of  Sewers,  Bridgwater,  22nd  January  and  6th  February 
1799.  In  another  case,  where  a  proprietor  had  himself  repaired  Huntspill 
sea-wall,  he  compelled  the  Commissioners  by  mandamus  to  levy  a  rate  for  his 
reimbursement,  after  they  had  formally  refused  to  do  so,  on  all  the  proprietors 
of  lands  within  that  particular  Level  {ibid.  Bridgwater,  11th  January  and  28th 
September  1802,  10th  and  27th  June  1803). 

'  Ibid.  Axbridge,  20th  November  1800,  26th  January,  11th  February, 
18th  March,  18th  May,  6th  and  20th  January,  and  20th  October  1801,  1st 
October  1811.  River  Axe  Drainage  Act,  1802;  Observations  on  the  Great 
Marshes  and  Turbaries  of  .  .  .  Somerset,  by  Rev.  W.  Phelps,  1835,  p.  13  ; 
The  Seaboard  of  Mendip,  by  F.  A.  Knight,  1902,  pp.  350-351.  This  precedent 
was  not  always  followed.  The  Brue  Drainage  Act  of  1801  (41  George  III.  c.  72) 
seems  to  have  been  administered  by  the  Commissioners  who  acted  in  the  Mid- 
land Division  of  the  County,  meeting  at  Wells  ;  but  their  proceedings  under 
it  seem,  from  the  exiguous  MS.  Minutes,  1801-1880,  to  have  been  unimportant, 
involving  only  one  meeting  a  year.  The  Sedgemoor  Drainage  Act  (10  &  11 
William  III.  c.  26  (1699)  was  similarly  administered  by  those  for  the  Western 
Division,  meeting  at  Bridgwater.  Sedgemoor  was  enclosed  under  Act  of  1791 
(31  George  III.  c.  91).  There  is  now  a  Drainage  Board  under  the  Acts  of  1865 
and  1877  (28  &  29  Vic.  c.  23,  and  40  &  41  Vic.  c.  36). 

*  We  know  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  East  Kent  practically  only 
through  their  MS.  IVIinutes,  which  we  have  read  from  1681  to  1829.  There  were 
other  Courts  of  Sewers  within  the  County,  one  of  them  mentioned  as  existing 
in  1290  in  Sir  William  Dugdale's  History  of  Imbanking  and  Draining,  edition 
of  1772,  p.  37.  Some  correspondence  of  1747-1759  as  to  various  Courts  of  Sewers 
in  Kent  is  catalogued  in  the  Archives  of  All  Souls  College,  by  C.  Trice  Martin, 
1877,  pp.  226-227  ;  whilst  incidental  references  to  these  Courts  will  be  found 
in  the  House  of  Lords  Journals  for  16th  May  1776,  and  in  such  works  as 
Collections  for  a  History  of  Sandwich,  by  W.  Boys,  1792,  p.  724,  and  History  of 
Romney  Marsh,  by  W.  Holloway,  1849.  We  have  not  fathomed  the  relations 
between  these  several  Courts  of  Sewei's,  including  that  mentioned  in  the  old 
pamphlets  about  the  Rother  Levels  in  South- West  Kent,  entitled  A  Remon- 
strance of  some  Decrees  and  other  Proceedings  of  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers, 
1659  ;  An  Objection  made  against  the  Abatement  of  the  Scots  of  those  lands,  formerly 
deep  drowned  lands  and  now  called  summer  lands,  1650  ;  and  The  Animadverter 
Animadverted,  1663 — all  by  Sir  Nathaniel  Powell,  Bart.  Nor  do  we  know  what 
relations,  if  any,  they  had  with  the  Lords  of  the  Level  of  Romney  Marsh. 


46  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

Here  and  there  along  the  coast,  from  Wliitstable  to  Deal,  we  read 
of  the  occasional  inroads  of  the  sea.  More  troublesome  than 
these  winter  storms  seem  to  have  been  the  sluggish  streams  of 
the  Stour  and  its  tributaries,  which  were  always  getting  choked 
with  weeds,  and  causing,  at  every  rainy  season,  floodings  of  the 
adjacent  lands.  Even  in  the  ancient  "  County  Corporate  "  of 
the  City  of  Canterbury,  the  houses  along  the  river  were  in  such 
continual  peril  of  inundation  that  we  find  their  owners  specially 
charged  at  a  double  rate  for  the  maintenance  of  the  river  banks.  ^ 
And  in  this  County,  more  than  in  any  other,  \ve  hear  of  the  misdeeds 
of  the  millers,  who  will  not  open  their  sluices  so  as  to  let  down 
the  water  which  is  "  drowning  "  the  lands  above  them  ;  or  who 
do  not  stop  the  weeds  from  passing  down  the  stream  to  the 
annoyance  of  those  below  them.^  To  remedy  all  these  evils,  we 
find  existing  in  1689,  a  single  body  of  Commissioners,  over  one 
hundred  in  number,  whose  jurisdiction  apparently  extended 
from  Whitstable  on  the  north,  right  away  to  Wye  on  the  south- 
west, and  covered  all  the  eastern  portion  of  the  County  of 
Kent,  including  the  City  of  Canterbury,  and,  at  Sandwich, 
even  a  small  part  of  the  territory  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Cinque 
Ports. 

The  hundred  or  more  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  East  Kent, 
unlike  those  for  the  County  of  Somerset,  exhibit  no  sign  of 
multiplication  by  fission.  We  see  them  meeting,  ten  or  twenty 
in  number,  always  as  a  single  Court,  regularly  at  Canterbury  in 
"  General  Sessions  "  ;  at  first  in  the  Archbishop's  Palace,  and 
afterwards  at  the  municipal  Guildhall,  three  times  a  year ;  and 
in  "  Special  Sessions  "  occasionally  at  the  principal  taverns  of 
the  city.  As  in  Somerset,  there  are  Standing  Juries,  who  were, 
for  a  long  time,  not  summoned  by  the  Sheriff  "  from  the  body  of 
the  County,"  but  served  practically  for  life,  appointed  by  the 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Commissioners  of  Sewers  of  East  Kent,  8th  June  1710.  This 
foil  into  abeyance  in  1732,  when  the  inhabitants  opposed  the  tax  ;  and  the 
Court  let  it  drop.  In  1828  the  question  was  again  raised,  and  the  Corporation 
agreed  to  do  the  necessary  work,  if  the  Commissioners  would  contribute  some- 
thing (ibid.  22nd  May,  and  2nd  and  4th  June  1828). 

-  As  to  .)j)oning  the  sluices,  ibid.  24th  April  1707  ;  as  to  the  weeds,  ibid. 
1st  May  11)90,  3rd  June  1708.  "  Upon  complaint  made  to  this  Court  of  the 
several  millers  of  ...  in  suffering  the  weeds  to  pass  through  their  several 
mills,  whereby  it  becomes  very  prejudicial  to  the  valleys  below,  it  is  ordered 
that  the  said  several  millers  do  cause  the  said  weeds  to  be  drawn  out  before 
they  do  pass  through  their  respective  mills,  upon  penalty  of  forty  shillings,  etc." 
(ibid.  Ist  May  1690). 


THE  STANDING  JURIES  47 

Court  "  during  the  Court's  pleasure  "  one  by  one,  as  vacancies 
occurred  by  death  or  otherwise  ;  and  periodically  resworn  in  a 
body,  at  the  session  at  which  the  new  Commission  was  read.^ 
These  Standing  Juries,  evidently  composed  of  local  farmers,  went 
about  in  twos  and  threes,  "  viewing  "  streams  and  sluices,  and 
making  presentments  to  the  Court. ^  We  may  suspect  them  of 
being,  like  other  similar  Sewers  Juries,  older  than  the  Commis- 
sioners to  whom  they  came  to  be  subordinate,  but  of  this,  in 
East  Kent,  we  have  no  actual  evidence.  At  the  end  of  the 
seventeenth  century  we  find  existing  one  such  "  Jury  of  the 
General  Valleys,"  whatever  these  may  have  been,  and  between 
twenty  and  thirty  other  Juries  for  particular  "  Valleys,"  as  the 
local  districts  or  "  levels  "  seem  to  have  been  called. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  one  juryman  from  each  Jury, 
and  only  one,  was  required  or  allowed  to  be  in  attendance  at  the 
sessions  of  the  Court,^  a  fact  which  reminds  us  of  the  representa- 
tion by  the  "  Chief  Pledge  "  of  the  other  members  of  his  tithing.^ 
Presently,  in  1713,  some  one  raises  the  question  as  to  the  status 
of  these  Juries  ;  and  when  the  Commissioners  take  counsel's 
opinion,  they  are  advised  to  get  the  Sheriff  to  summon  the  Juries. 
From  1713,  accordingly,  the  SherifE  of  the  County  of  Kent  has  to 
be  requested  every  decade,  when  a  new  Commission  is  obtained, 
by  means  of  a  special  journey  of  the  Clerk  which  costs  thirty 
shillings,  to  go  through  the  form  of  summoning  a  Jury  from  the 
body  of  the  County.  He  does  this  for  a  guinea  fee  ;  ^  and  the 
Sheriff  of  the  City  of  Canterbury  does  the  same  for  the  Jury  for 
that  "  County  Corporate."  But  it  is  a  matter  of  form  only.  The 
old  jurymen  are  nominated  to  the  SherifE,  as  each  Commission 
comes  to  the  end  of  its  term,  for  him  to  summon  the  same  person 
to  serve  for  another  decade,^  The  Juries  thus  remain  Standing 
Juries,  not  of  "  indifferent  persons  "  charged  to  return  a  verdict 
on  a  particular  case,  but  permanently  composed  of  the  very 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Commissioners  of  Sewers  of  East  Kent,  12th  October  1699, 
13th  October  1715,  Slst  May  1716,  20th  June  1717. 

2  Usually  only  signed  by  two  Jurymen  (ibid.  24th  April  1718). 

^  Ibid.  27th  April  1693.  There  was,  it  should  be  explained,  an  allowance 
for  dinner.  The  Expenditor  designated  the  Juryman  who  was  to  appear,  and 
the  duty  was  not  to  be  imposed  on  a  man  more  than  once  in  a  twelvemonth. 

*  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  pp.  22,  23. 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  East  Kent,  15th  October  1713, 
6th  October  1739. 

«  Ibid.  28th  AprU  1715,  8th  April  1725,  8th  October  1757,  8th  April 
1758. 


48  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

persons  whose  lands  and  interests  are  concerned  ;    really  local 
bodies  of  subordinate  administrators. ^ 

There  was  evidently  an  extensive  and  well-understood  series 
of  obligations  on  particular  lands,  probably  of  immemorial 
usage,  to  keep  in  good  order  the  portions  of  the  sluices,  walls  and 
embankments  on  the  several  holdings,  and  to  "  repair  their 
several  defects."  ^  Sometimes  the  owners  and  occupiers  them- 
selves were  ordered  to  restore  particular  embankments  and 
sea-walls,  each  apparently  being  responsible  for  the  portion  on  his 
own  land.^  We  see  the  Mimicipal  Corporation  of  Sandwich 
held  responsible  for  keeping  in  repair  the  walls  and  embankments 
within  that  Borough  ;  and  the  Mayor  and  Jurats  are  hauled  over 
the  coals  by  the  Commissioners  for  also  neglecting  to  cleanse  the 
stream  by  "  coffining,"  ^  But  the  main  instruments  for  executing 
works  were  the  Expenditors.  The  Court  appointed,  not  only  a 
Bailiff  and  "  General  Expenditor,"  as  well  as  a  Clerk  to  the 
Commissioners,  but  also  an  Expenditor  for  each  of  the  Valleys  ; 
choosing  apparently  from  among  two  names  submitted  every 
second  year  by  the  jurymen  of  each  Valley  at  the  Easter  session 
of  the  Court.^  It  was  the  Expenditors,  who  seem  to  have  been 
paid  about  thirty  shillings  a  year  each,  who  were  blamed  for 
"  not  looking  after  the  sluice  and  for  not  cleansing  .  .  .  the 
stream."^  It  was  usually  the  Expenditors  who  were  ordered 
to  execute  works— to  cleanse  away  "  the  foulness  of  Blackwell 
Dyke  "  ;  to  "  cause  the  weeds  of  the  Little  River  to  be  drawn  out 
betwixt  this  and  Midsummer  next  "  ;    to  drag  the  Great  Stour 

'  In  1738  counsel's  opinion  was  again  taken,  the  advice  being  that  there 
should  be  a  Jury  of  at  least  24  persons  summoned  by  the  Sheriff,  for  continuous 
service  during  the  whole  decade  ;  and  that  their  presentments  should  be  made 
by  at  least  twelve  of  them  (MS.  Minutes,  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  East  Kent, 
7th  October  1738).  This  advice  was  acted  upon  until  1823,  wlicn  the  decision 
in  R.  V.  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  the  County  of  Somerset  u]>sct  the  practice 
(ibid.  14th  June  1823  ;  22nd  May  1828).  The  "  views  "  and  presentments  of 
the  Juries,  with  the  attendances  of  the  Expenditors,  and  their  dining  together, 
and  the  engrossing  of  the  "  inquisitions  "  became  expensive — in  one  case  running 
up  to  £178  :  5  :  4  (H)id.  6th  October  1759). 

2  Ibid.  29th  April  1693,  24th  April  1707,  15th  October  1719.  The  occupiers 
in  one  case  arc  ordered  to  "  make  up  the  Lowes  on  each  side  of  the  Barreways  " 
(ibid.  23rd  May  1G95). 

*  "  Upon  complaint,  this  day  made  ...  for  the  not  repairing  of  a  certain 
wall  in  Hackling's  Land  .  .  .  which  if  not  speedily  done  will  endanger  the 
overflowing  of  several  lands  there  .  .  .  ordered  that  the  owners  or  occupiers 
...  do  sufficiently  amend  the  said  wall,"  etc.  (ibid.  11th  June  1691). 

«  Ibid.  12th  October  1699,  28th  April  and  11th  June  1750. 

6  Ibid.  Ist  May  1701.  s  Ibid.  7th  April  1692. 


LANDS  DOUBLE-SCOTTED 


49 


with,  an  iron  harrow  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of  weeds  ;  ^  to 
erect  a  new  penstock  in  a  sewer  ;  ^  to  repair  immediately  any 
breaches  in  the  sea-wall,  even  to  the  extent  of  advancing  "  fifty 
or  sixty  pounds  towards  the  said  work  "  ;  ^  to  "  lay  a  gut  "  or 
"  set  down  a  new  sluice  "  ;  *  or  to  clear  away  the  weeds  in  the 
"  Canterbury  River  "  ^  The  accoimts  of  all  the  Expenditors 
were  annually  allowed  by  the  Court.  The  Court  granted  to  the 
Expenditors,  and  thereby  imposed  on  the  owners  and  occupiers, 
not  only  an  annual  general  "  scot  "  or  rate,  usually  at  sixpence 
or  a  shilling  per  acre,  but  also  special  or  extra  "  scots,"  and,  in 
addition,  local  "  scots  "  or  "  half  scots  "  of  from  twopence  to 
two  shilKngs  per  acre,  on  particular  "  valleys  "  or  districts.^ 
We  find  the  Court  deciding,  in  1689,  that  of  these  "  scots  "  the 
occupiers  shall  pay  two-thirds  and  the  landowners  one-third.'^ 
Occasionally  two-thirds  of  the  expense  would  be  charged  on  the 
occupiers  of  particular  lands,  and  one- third  put  to  "  the  general 
charge  of  the  Valley,"^ 

We  gather  from  the  records  that  the  Commissioners  and  the 
jurymen  jogged  along  year  after  year,  all  on  the  best  of  terms 
with  themselves  and  the  rest  of  the  owners  and  occupiers,  taking 
their  fees,  levying  their  scots,  and  amicably  dining  together, 
with  the  very  minimum  of  compulsion,  on  the  basis  of  common 
consent.  The  Court  occasionally  legislated  for  the  common  good 
in  the  form  of  prohibiting  novel  nuisances.^ 

It  was  usual  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the  landowners  and 
farmers  concerned  before  ordering  any  new  works.  In  1775, 
however,  an  unusual  emergency  arose.  An  expert  surveyor 
from  the  Bedford  Level  was  called  in  to  advise  how  to  remedy 
the  steadily  worsening  condition  of  the  Stour  Valley,  which  was 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  East  Kent,  1st  May  1690. 
2  Ibid.  19th  June  1690.  ^  /^j^^,  13^^  December  1690. 

4  Ibid.  23r(i  April  1691,  19th  April  and  7th  June  1694. 

*  Ibid.  12th  October  1693,  "  Ordered  that  none  are  to  empty  tubs  or  houses 
of  office  into  Canterbury  River  upon  penalty  of  forty  shillings"  {ibid.  11th 
October  1694,  11th  June  1696). 

*  "  A  scot  of  fifteen  pence  per  acre  on  the  lands  single  scotted,  and  half 
a  crown  on  the  lands  double-scotted,  to  T.  S.,  Expenditor,  by  special  order  " 
(ibid.  30th  October  1690).  These  occasional  impositions  were  transformed,  in 
1827,  into  a  regular  annual  tax,  for  the  general  expenses  of  the  Court,  of  two- 
pence per  acre  and  twopence  in  the  pound  on  the  rent  {ibid.  31st  May  1827). 

'  Ibid.  30th  October  1689.  «  /^^^^  26th  May  1692,  6th  June  1757. 

'  "  Ordered  that  if  any  person  shall  water  any  flax  in  any  heading,  dike, 
sewer  or  stream,  he  shall  for  every  such  offence  forfeit  the  sum  of  five  pounds  " 
{ibid.  15th  October  1713). 

E 


50  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

getting  annually  more  water-logged.  The  expert  recommended 
"  a  new  cut,"  for  which  statutory  authority  was  required.^ 
There  was  (as  usual  with  river  drainage  works)  vehement  argu- 
ment for  and  against  "  the  new  cut  "  ;  but  in  the  end  it  is 
resolved  upon.^  Accordingly,  in  1776,  the  Commissioners,  having 
obtained  general  consent  from  the  landowners,  fortified  them- 
selves by  a  Local  Act,  passed  "  after  a  very  strong  and  tedious 
opposition  from  the  inhabitants  of  Sandwich  "  ;  upon  which 
they  borrowed  £2400,  with  which  to  pay  the  costs  of  the  Act,  and 
to  execute  the  necessary  works  of  improvement  of  the  River 
Stour.3  The  operation  seems  to  have  been  a  somewhat  primitive 
one.  The  "  Expenditor  of  the  General  Valleys  "  was  authorised 
to  take  on  as  many  men  as  he  required  for  the  work,  at  Is.  9d. 
each  per  day  ;  the  day's  work,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  was 
expressly  ordered  to  be  eight  hours  ;  and  the  "  proper  person 
to  superintend  "  was  to  get  2s.  6d.  per  day.*  How  "  the  new 
cut "  acted  we  know  not,  but  there  are  for  over  fifty  years  no 
more  complaints. 

We  need  not  follow  the  Commissioners  further  in  their  har- 
monious proceedings.  The  only  point  of  interest  is  the  report 
by  a  committee  of  themselves  in  1823,  evidently  acting  on  legal 
advice,  that  there  was  now  reason  to  believe,  from  the  recent 
decision  against  the  Somerset  Court  of  Sewers,  that  the  very 
"  foundation  and  proceedings  "  of  their  Jury  system  were  illegal, 
and  accordingly  that  the  whole  action  of  the  Court  was,  strictly 
speaking,  null  and  void.  It  was  deemed  necessary  to  give  up 
the  immemorial  Standing  Jury,  and  to  ask  the  Sheriff  to  summon 
a  Jury  each  time  that  a  presentment  was  required,  or  at  any  rate, 
one  for  each  session  of  the  Court.  The  Jury  so  sworn  had  hence- 
forth to  decide,  not  upon  their  own  view  and  knowledge,  but 
solely  upon  the  evidence  of  witnesses  in  open  Court.  There 
could  no  longer  be  a  separate  Jury  for  each  Valley  ;  and  the  same 
formal  procedure  had  to  be  followed  by  the  Jury  even  for  the 
granting  of  a  "scot."^     The  "constant  service  of  the  antique 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  East  Kent,  29th  April  and  25th 
May  177.-). 

'«  Ibid.  26th  August,  28th  September  and  26th  October  1775. 

=>  Ibid.  8th  February  and  3rd  June  1776.  *  Ibid.  5th  July  1776. 

"  Ibid.  25th  October  1823,  and  22nd  January  1825.  A  separate  Jury  had 
to  bo  summoned  by  the  Lord  Warden  of  the  Cinque  Ports  for  the  area  within 
his  jurisdiction,  as  well  as  one  by  the  Sheriff  of  the  City  of  Canterbury  for  that 
city. 


LINCOLNSHIRE  51 

world,"  which  the  Courts  of  Sewers  had  continued  so  long,  was 
now  passing  away.  Once  scrutinised  by  critical  eyes,  there  was 
revealed  much  in  the  procedure — as  we  suspect,  of  immemorial 
antiquity — for  which  no  warrant  could  be  found  in  the  compara- 
tively modern  Statutes  of  Sewers  or  King's  Commissions.  In 
East  Kent,  however,  the  work  itself  was  now  passing  from  the 
Commissioners'  hands.  A  joint  stock  company,  empowered  to 
levy  tolls  on  the  navigation,  took  up  the  task  of  rehandling 
the  whole  course  of  the  Stour  and  improving  Sandwich  Harbour. 
The  Commissioners  strongly  opposed  the  Bill,  but  came  at  last 
to  terms,  on  protective  clauses  being  inserted.^  The  Act  was 
passed  in  1825,  and  we  leave  the  Court  of  Sewers  at  this  date 
steadily  dwindling  in  importance. 

Lincolnshire 

How  far  there  existed  in  other  Counties  any  primitive  com- 
munal organisation  for  land  drainage  such  as  that  we  have  de- 
scribed in  Romney  Marsh  and  Somerset,  and  to  what  extent  any 
such  organisation  continued  in  existence  under  the  practically 
permanent  Courts  of  Sewers  established  from  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries  onward,  we  have  but  the  scantiest  informa- 
tion. In  the  great  County  of  Lincoln,  with  fens  and  marshes 
needing  protection  on  almost  every  side  of  it,  we  find  existing 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  after  many  specially  commissioned 
Justices  of  Sewers  for  the  disputes  of  particular  localities,  a 
single  Commission  of  Sewers  for  the  county  as  a  whole,^  which 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  East  Kent,  1st  and  8th  May  and 
nth  December  1824,  8th  January  and  19th  March  1825. 

2  For  the  Lincolnshire  Court  of  Sewers  we  have  to  rely  entirely  on  the 
material  afforded  by  secondary  sources  such  as  The  History  of  Imbanking  and 
Draining,  by  Sir  William  Dugdale,  1652,  edition  of  1772  ;  General  View  of  the 
Agriculture  of  the  County  of  Lincoln,  by  Arthur  Young,  1799  ;  The  Rainfall, 
Water  Supply  and  Drainage  of  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1879  ;  History 
of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1894  and  1896  ;  Fe7is  and 
Floods  of  Mid-Lincolnshire,  by  J.  S.  Padley,  1882  ;  History  and  Antiquities  of 
Boston,  by  P.  Thompson,  1856  ;  History  and  Antiquities  of  the  Isle  of  Axholme, 
by  Rev.  W.  B.  Stonehouse,  1839  ;  History  and  Topography  of  the  Deanery  of 
Doncaster,  by  J.  Hunter,  1828-1832  ;  History  of  the  County  of  Lincoln,  by  T.  Allen, 
1834  ;  Lives  of  the  Engineers,  by  Samuel  Smiles,  1861  ;  Victoria  County  History 
of  Lincolnshire  ;  Memorials  of  Old  Lincolnshire,  by  E.  M.  Sympson,  1910  ; 
Glossary  of  Words,  etc.  .  .  .  East  Lincolnshire,  hy  J.  Good,  1911  ;  Highways  and 
Byeways  in  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  F.  Rawnsley,  1914  ;  and  others  mentioned  in 
Bibliotheca  Lincolniensis,  by  A.  R.  Corns,  1904  ;  and  such  pamphlets  as  South 
Holland   Drainage   Acts  of  Parliament,    1846  ;     Proceedings  of  the   Committee 


52  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

has  continued  down  to  the  present  day,  though  from  its  juris- 
diction the  areas  administered  under  Local  Acts  by  special 
bodies  have  always  been  regarded  as  excluded,  either  implicitly 
or  by  express  provision  in  their  Acts.i  But,  as  in  Somerset- 
shire, the  Lincolnshire  Court  of  Sewers  has,  time  out  of  mind, 
taken  what  we  must  call  an  extra-legal  form.  We  see  the 
Commissioners  dividing  themselves  into  groups,  according  to  the 
locality  of  their  properties,  and  holding  regularly  several  separate 
Courts,  at  Boston,  Spalding  and  other  places,  each  exercising 
jurisdiction  only  over  a  particular  district,  comprising  one  or 
more  Wapentakes  or  Hundreds,  and  each  attended,  in  practice, 
only  by  its  own  set  of  Commissioners.^  Judging  simply  from  the 
legal  documents,  it  might  be  assumed  that  these  Courts  of  Sewers, 
with  the  assistance  of  a  Jury  summoned  by  the  SherifE  of  the 
County,  did  the  whole  of  the  work.  We  gather,  however,  that 
there  were  during  the  eighteenth  century,  as  at  the  present  day, 
many  local  Juries,  with  diverse  local  customs,  though  how 
far  these  resembled  the  Standing  Juries  of  Somersetshire,  or 
the  Juries  for  particular  "  Valleys  "  in  East  Kent,  we  have 
not  ascertained.^  More  prominent  in  Lincolnshire  —  perhaps 
specially  characteristic  of  that  county — were  the  Dykereeves, 
evidently  ancient  officers  of  the  Parish  or  Manor,  upon  whom, 
during  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries,  fell  the  daily 
work  of  administration  of  the  banks  and  sluices.     Of  these  local 

Appointed  to  confer  with  the  lessees  of  the  Fossdyke  Navigation,  etc.,  1827; 
Statement  of  the  Proceedings  .  .  .  to  protnote  the  Improvement  of  the  .  .  .  Drain- 
age of  the  Lowlands  .  .  .  bordering  upon  the  Louth  Navigation,  1830,  etc.  Public 
Works  in  Mediaeval  Law,  by  C.  T.  Flower,  Scldcn  Society,  1915,  contains 
(pp.  218-316)  98  pages  of  ancient  records  relating  to  the  maintenance  of  sewers, 
bridges  and  roads  in  South  Lincolnshire. 

1  History  of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896,  p.  66. 

"  "  The  members  have  the  right  of  attending  and  voting  at  any  of  the  Courts, 
a  privilege  which  is  sometimes  taken  advantage  of  on  important  occasions,  or 
when  the  appointment  of  a  clerk  or  other  officer  is  made.  As  a  rule,  however, 
the  members  confine  their  attendances  to  the  Court  which  has  jurisdiction 
over  the  neighbourhood  in  which  they  reside  "  {ibid.  p.  56). 

3  We  read  of  "  a  Dykereeve's  Inquest,"  near  Spalding,  in  1571,  when  the 
Foreman  of  the  Jury  delivered  a  memorable  verdict  "  setting  out  the  various 
sewers  and  banks  maintainable  by  the  parishes,  and  .  .  .  that  the  sea  bank 
.  .  .  ought  to  be  amended  by  the  landholders  by  '  acre  silver,'  and  that  the 
inhabitants  for  their  passage  thereon  should  make  common  '  menework  '  "  (or 
compulsors'  day  labour)  (ibid.  p.  103).  "A  couple  of  centuries  lat-er,  in  the 
Kirton  and  Skirbeck  Wapentakes  a  Riding  Jury  used  annually  to  make  an 
inspection  of  the  neabanks  and  works  of  drainage,  and  report  to  the  Court  as 
to  any  defects.  They  were  allowed  10/-  per  day  for  horse  hire  and  expenses  in 
their  Wapentake,  and  14/-  if  they  attended  out  of  ic  "  {ibid.  p.  48). 


DYKEREEVES 


53 


officers,  and  of  the  local  customs  that  they  enforced,  we  hear 
incidentally  already  in  the  thirteenth  century.  In  1297,  as 
Dugdale  records,  "  upon  a  suit  concerning  the  repair  of  the 
ditches  and  sewers  of  Waynflete  the  jurors  found  that  the  custom 
of  that  town  was  such  that  the  ditches  there  ought  to  be  cleansed 
once  a  year  .  .  .  and  that  every  inhabitant  thereof,  having 
lands  there,  ought  to  be  assessed  and  taxed  according  to  the 
quantity  of  his  lands,  to  contribute  to  the  charge  of  such  cleansing 
and  scouring  of  them.  And  .  .  .  that  the  money  .  .  .  ought, 
according  to  the  said  custom,  to  be  levied  and  collected  by  certain 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  town  called  Dykereeves,  and  not 
by  any  others."  ^  "  As  often  as  the  sewers  there  made  for  the 
draining  of  their  lands  did  want  repair,"  as  appears  from  another 
record,  "  they  ought  to  be  viewed  by  the  commonalty  of  that 
place  ;  and  .  .  ,  thereupon  every  person  having  lands  and 
tenements  there  ought  to  be  assessed  for  the  repair  of  those 
sewers  according  to  the  proportion  of  his  said  lands."  ^  In  the 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries,  it  is  clear,  such  obligations 
of  the  landholders  of  each  little  community  were  enforced  in  the 
Lord's  Court,  "  Such  was  the  custom,"  we  are  told,  "  in  that 
town  of  North  Waynflete  that  certain  of  the  inhabitants  thereof 
were  assigned  to  view  the  marsh  ditches,  therein,  every  year  on 

1  History  of  ImbanHng  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William  Dugdale,  1652,  p.  154 
of  edition  of  1772.  Edmund  Oldfield,  in  his  Account  of  Wainjieet  and  the 
Wapentake  of  Candleshoe,  1829,  "  quotes  from  Dugdale's  work  on  embankments 
an  account  of  a  .  .  .  suit  ...  in  which  the  defendant  set  out  the  custom 
prevalent  in  North  Wainfleet  as  to  the  repair  of  the  sewers,  which  was  to  be 
regulated  by  the  view  and  assessment  of  the  commonalty,  and  that  it  was  also 
the  custom  to  view  the  marsh-ditches  yearly  on  the  feast  of  St.  Andrew,  and  to 
present  defaults  to  the  Court  of  the  Earl  of  Lincoln,  who  could  impose  a  fine 
of  sixteen  pence  "  {Public  Works  in  Mediaeval  Law,  by  C.  T.  Flower,  Selden 
Society,  1915,  p.  287). 

^  History  of  Imbanking  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William  Dugdale,  1652, 
p.  155.  We  may  perhaps  identify  with  the  Dykereeves  the  "  two  lawful 
persons  "  assigned  to  levy  the  Marsh  Rate  for  Kentish  marshes  in  a  Com- 
mission of  1290.  They  are  specially  mentioned  by  name  in  various  Com- 
missions of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  preserved  in  Sir  William 
Dugdale's  History  of  Imbanking  and  Draining,  for  places  in  Kent  (p.  37), 
Norfolk  (pp.  275,  290),  and  Cambridgeshire  (pp.  316,  344) ;  whilst  in  Essex  we 
hear  of  Wallreeves  as  manorial  officers.  In  1824  we  find  the  Somerset  Court 
of  Sewers  apparently  adopting  the  same  officers  for  certain  parishes.  "  At 
this  sessions "  certain  "  Standing  Juries  were  discharged,  and  Dykereeves 
appointed  and  sworn  to  inspect,  oversee  and  take  care  of  the  several  works 
heretofore  within  the  view  of  such  Juries  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners, 
Somerset,  Bridgwater,  8th  October  1824).  We  have  found  in  East  Kent  no 
trace  of  Dykereeves,  or  of  any  other  parochial  or  manorial  officers  connected 
with  the  sewers. 


54  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

the  Feast  Day  of  St.  Andrew,  and  to  present  the  defaults  which 
they  should  find  in  them  at  the  next  Court  of  Henry  de  Lacy, 
Earl  of  Lincoln,  then  Lord  of  that  to\vn  ;  and  that  every  tenant 
of  that  Lordship  who  ought  to  make  any  repairs  thereto  be 
amerced  in  16d.  at  the  said  Court."  ^  Such  scanty  information  as 
we  possess  of  the  actual  administration  in  the  eighteenth  century 
of  the  Lincolnshire  works  of  local  drainage  points  to  the  con- 
tinuance, practically  unchanged,  of  these  thirteenth  -  century 
customs.  Though  by  the  wording  of  the  Commission  and  of  the 
Statute  of  Sewers  it  was  for  the  Commissioners  to  appoint  all  the 
officers,  and  assess  all  the  rates,  "  the  ordinary  course  of  pro- 
ceeding in  this  district,"  we  are  told,  "  is  for  each  parish  to 
appoint  two  officers  called  Dykereeves  to  lay  and  collect  the 
necessary  rates  and  maintain  the  banks  and  sewers  ;  and  these 
appointments,  and  all  that  relates  to  them,  are  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  Court."  ^  Whether  this  approval  of  the  Com- 
missioners was  more  than  a  form  we  have  not  ascertained.  What 
is  clear  is  that  the  inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled  not  only 
appointed  the  Dykereeves,  but  a,lso  controlled  their  expenditure. 
"  The  Dykereeves,"  we  learn,  "  present  their  accounts  to  the 
Vestry  of  the  parish  at  Easter."  ^ 

^  For  information  as  to  Wainflcet,  see  History  of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire, 
by  VV.  H.  Wheeler,  189G,  pp.  7G,  77.  In  Marsliland  in  Norfolk  we  hear,  in  1337, 
of  "  the  penalty  of  Bylaw,  which  is  for  every  jx'rch  sixpence,"  for  those  who 
neglect  to  repair  the  banks  on  the  days  assigned  by  the  Dykereeves.  "  All  the 
tenants  and  commoners  in  Watlington  should  meet  twice  in  the  year,  and  hold 
the  customs  of  Marshland  "  (History  of  Imbanking  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William 
Dugdale,  1652,  p.  290  of  edition  of  1772).  In  many  other  places  the  obligation 
to  keep  in  repair  a  definite  piece  of  river  wall  or  length  of  sewer,  usually  that 
abuttuig  on  or  traversing  the  land  held,  was  enforced  on  the  tenants  of  a  Manor 
by  the  ordinary  procedure  of  the  Court  Leet ;  see,  for  instance,  a  Lincolnshire 
case  of  1410  in  History  of  the  Parish  of  Ormsby,  by  W.  O.  Massingbird,  1899, 
p.  275  ;  Growth  of  the  Manor,  by  P.  Vinogradoff,  1905,  p.  269.  We  are  told,  in 
1324,  of  the  origin  of  such  a  custom  in  the  marsii  of  Stepney  or  Pojjlar.  It  was 
found  by  an  inquisition  of  18  Edward  II.  that  a  previous  Lord  of  the  Manor  had 
demised  over  one  hundred  acres  of  reclaimed  land  to  tenants,  each  under  the 
obligation  to  maintain  his  own  bit  of  river  wall.  Two  Wallreeves  were  annually 
appointed  at  tlie  Manorial  Court,  whose  duty  was  to  warn  the  tenants  to  repair, 
and  to  present  defaults.  No  rate  was  levied  until  1401,  wlien  the  Court  of 
King's  Bench  held  that  every  tenant  in  the  marsli  was  liable,  in  addition  to  his 
individual  obligation,  to  contribute  towards  the  works  rendered  necessary  by  a 
great  inroad  of  the  tide  (History  of  Imbanking  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William 
Dugdale,  1652,  p.  69  of  edition  of  1772). 

-  History  of  the  Fens  of  /South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896,  p.  48. 

■*  Ibid.  ]).  48.  During  tiie  greater  part  of  the  eighteenth  century — in  some 
places  right  down  to  the  nineteenth  century — where  the  marshes  remained 
unenclosed,  and  unallotted  in  severalty,  their  use  as  eomnum  pasture  neces- 


ACRE  SHOT  55 

The  Lincolnsliire  sewers  were  divided  into  two  classes, 
possibly  according  to  tiieir  antiquity  :  those  which  were  main- 
tained by  the  frontagers  or  other  owners,  and  those  which  were 
a  charge  on  the  "  Dykereeves'  Rate  "  or  "  acreshot,"  assessed 
according  to  the  "  acrebook  "  of  the  parish.^  We  infer  that, 
as  in  Somersetshire,  the  function  of  the  Courts  of  Sewers  in 
Lincolnshire  was  principally  the  exercise  of  a  general  super- 
intendence over  some  such  local  communal  organisation  ^  as 
Juries  and  Dykereeves  ;  to  maintain  it  in  efficiency  by  compel- 
ling service  ;  to  arbitrate  between  it  and  recalcitrant  owners  or 
occupiers,  and  to  confer  legal  authority  upon  its  ordainments 
and   amercements,   in   substitution  for  the   Manorial   Courts.^ 

sarily  led  to  communal  regulation.  Most  of  this  was  parochial  or  manorial. 
"  Before  being  sent  into  the  common  fen,  the  live  stock  were  collected  at 
certain  defined  places  and  marked,  and  again,  on  being  taken  off  in  the  autumn 
they  were  brought  to  the  same  place  to  be  claimed  by  their  owners.  Thus  in 
Pinchbeck  the  stock  was  collected  at  the  Market  Cross  and  a  due  called  Hoven 
was  paid.  Bailiffs  were  appointed  to  look  after  the  stock.  On  the  marshes 
in  South  Holland  a  '  Marsh  Reeve  '  v/as  also  appointed,  and  a  '  Marsh  Shepherd,' 
their  wages  being  paid  by  a  rate  of  Is.  6d.  for  each  horse  and  neat  beast,  and  3d. 
for  each  sheep  grazed  on  the  common  "  {History  of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire, 
by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896,  p.  38,  and  Appendix  I.  p.  30).  These  appointments 
were  continued  to  be  made  by  the  Vestry  until  the  enclosure  in  1793  (p.  122). 
There  was  necessarily  a  great  deal  of  "  intercommoning,"  and  the  Council  of  the 
Duchy  of  Lancaster,  as  lords  of  most  of  the  district,  drew  up  an  elaborate  code 
of  72  articles,  which  was  settled  at  the  Great  Inquest  of  the  Soke  of  Bolingbroke 
in  1549,  and  confirmed  in  1573.  This  Fen  Code,  relating  to  the  marking  and 
commoning  of  cattle,  the  taking  of  fish,  fowl,  eggs,  turf  and  fodder,  the  dates 
on  which  reeds  might  be  cut,  etc.,  remained  in  force  until,  in  our  own  day,  the 
last  of  the  common  lands  were  enclosed  and  allotted  in  severalty.  See  History 
and  Antiquities  of  Boston,  by  P.  Thompson,  1856,  pp.  642-64-i  ;  History  of  the 
Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896,  pp.  36-38 ;  Public  Works 
in  Mediaeval  Law,  by  C.  T.  Flower  (Selden  Society,  1915),  p.  282. 

1  History  of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896,  pp.  61, 
141.  At  Fishtoft,  for  instance,  "  acrebooks  "  were  made  in  1662,  1709  and 
1733  (History  and  Antiquities  of  Boston,  by  P.  Thompson,  1856,  p.  40'.':,).  For 
"  acreshot "  see  History  of  Imbanking  and  Draining,  by  Sir  WiUiam  Dugdale, 
p.  348  of  edition  of  1772. 

*  It  is  perhaps  of  some  importance  in  this  connection  to  note  that  the 
Lincolnshire  Fenland  "  has  never  been  dominated  by  any  large  territorial 
owners  "  (History  of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896, 
p.  421).  "  In  the  Fen  parishes,"  in  1799,  "  half  "  the  land  belonged  to  small 
peasant  freeholders  (General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  the  County  of  Lincoln, 
by  Arthur  Young,  1799). 

'  Occasionally  (as  at  Frampton  in  1754)  the  Court  would  order  lands  lying 
in  one  parish,  but  draining  into  another,  to  pay  the  Dykereeves'  Rate  to  the 
latter  parish,  instead  of  to  their  own  (History  of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire, 
by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896,  pp.  69,  82).  We  notice  a  persistent  tendency  for 
the  charge  of  maintaining  particular  works  to  be  transferred,  by  order  of  the 
Court,  from  particular  o^vncrs  to  the  Dykereeves'  Pi,ate  (for  instance,  see  ibid. 
p.  73). 


56  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

When  any  works  of  magnitude  were  undertaken,  a  surveyor  was 
apparently  employed  by  the  Court  and  charged  as  part  of  the 
cost  of  the  work,  which  was  levied  by  the  Court  as  a  Sewers 
Rate.  In  1810,  when  an  exceptionally  high  tide  flooded  the 
whole  of  one  great  "  level  "  the  Court  of  Sewers  sitting  at  Boston, 
acting  on  the  opinion  of  eminent  counsel,  "  spread  the  charge 
over  the  whole  level  of  the  Wapentakes  of  Skirbeck  and  Kirton," 
and  in  that  case  the  Court  proceeded  strictly  according  to  the 
Statute  of  Sewers,  not  calling  upon  the  Dykereeves  or  the  stand- 
ing local  Juries,  but  getting  the  Sheriff  of  the  county  to  summon 
a  Jury  of  indifferent  persons  for  each  Wapentake,  by  whom 
"  the  extent  of  land  liable,  and  the  proportion  in  which  the 
money  required  should  be  paid  "  were  judicially  assessed,  at 
rates  per  acre  varying  from  Is.  2d.  to  lOs.^  For  the  most  part 
the  cost  of  repairs  and  works  were,  throughout  the  eighteenth 
century,  borne  by  particular  owners  or  frontagers,  and  only  the 
minor  expenses  of  cleaning  the  ditches,  maintaining  the  sluices 
and  keeping  down  the  vermin  were  paid  by  the  Dykereeves  out 
of  the  "  acreshot."  Occasionally,  with  the  consent  of  the  local 
Vestries  and  usually  of  all  parties  concerned,  we  see  the  Court 
accepting  and  endorsing  a  presentment,  by  which  an  exceptional 
work  is  made  a  charge  over  the  whole  parish,  and  the  Dykereeves 
are  ordered  to  collect  Sewers  Rate  accordingly,  sometimes  at 
differential  rates  for  lands  more  or  less  benefited.^  "  For  the 
general  expenses  of  the  Court,"  which  were,  throughout  the 
eighteenth  century,  inconsiderable,  the  Court  made  an  order 
"  on  the  Dykereeves  of  the  several  parishes,"  in  some  customary 
proportion.3 

We  may  add  here  that  the  rural  Courts  of  Sewers,  together 
with  the  Lords  of  the  Level  of  Romney  Marsh  and  the  Corpora- 
tion of  the  Bedford  Level,  and  unlike  the  Courts  of  Sewers  of 
the  Metropolitan  area,  about  to  be  described,  continue  in  existence 
down  to  the  present  day  (1922).  No  revolution  like  that  of  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835,  or  the  Poor  Law  Amend- 
ment Act  of  1834,  has  swept  them  away ;  nor  have  they,  like 

1  History  of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896,  pp.  49, 
()2-66.  The  Court  sat  on  the  Sunday  following  the  catastrophe  (Boston  Gazette, 
1.3th  November  1810). 

2  History  of  the  Fens  of  South  Lincolnshire,  by  W.  H.  Wheeler,  1896,  p.  GO. 
In  1715,  on  presentment  by  a  Jurj',  the  Court  directed  a  new  outfall  sluice  to 
be  made  into  tlie  Welland  (ibid.  j).  84). 

»  Ibid.  p.  48. 


COURTS  WITHIN  THE  METROPOLITAN  AREA       57 

the  Turnpike  Trustees  or  the  Improvement  Commissioners,  been 
absorbed  by  newer  authorities.^ 


Metropolitan  Courts  of  Sewers 

For  one  long  stretch  of  marsh  and  low-lying  lands — as  it 
happens  the  most  important  district  of  all — we  are  fortunate 
enough  to  have  had  access  to  nearly  complete  records  for  the 
last  three  centuries.  The  118  square  miles  along  the  banks  of 
the  Thames,  which  are  now  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  London 
County  Council,  were  formerly  divided  among  eight  separate 
Courts  of  Sewers,  the  minutes  of  the  proceedings  of  which  exist, 
in  some  cases,  from  1569.^    It  fortunately  happens  that  these 

^  At  the  present  time,  we  understand  that  Commissions  of  Sewers  are  issued 
by  the  Crown  on  the  advice  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  which 
has  succeeded  to  the  Enclosure  Commissioners.  The  procedure  is  that  a 
petition  is  presented  to  the  Board,  and,  after  approval,  it  is  communicated  to 
the  Home  Office.  The  Home  Secretary,  with  the  approval  of  the  Crown,  then 
instructs  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown  to  prepare  a  warrant  for  the  issue  of  Letters 
Patent  under  the  Land  Drainage  Act  of  1861.  Once  appointed,  the  Com- 
missioners of  Sewers  are  not  subject  to  the  control  of  any  Government  Depart- 
ment, except  that  they  have  to  obtain  the  sanction  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture 
for  raising  loans,  the  compulsory  acquisition  of  land  and  the  commutation  of 
any  liabilities.  They  have,  however,  to  forward  their  accounts  to  the  Local 
Government  Board  (now  Ministry  of  Health).  The  Crown,  acting  through  the 
Home  Secretary,  could  probably  supersede  or  suppress  any  Commission  of 
Sewers  by  writ  of  supersedeas  in  accordance  with  the  Statute  of  Sewers  of  1532  ; 
and  it  was,  in  fact,  in  this  way  that  (as  mentioned  below)  the  Metropolitan 
Commissions  of  Sewers  were  brought  to  an  end.  In  effect,  however,  a  Com- 
mission of  Sewers  can,  in  its  ordinary  administration,  be  controlled  by  pro- 
ceedings upon  the  motion  of  private  individuals  in  the  High  Court  of  Justice, 
which  would  act  by  certiorari  and  mandamus,  prohibition  and  injunction,  as 
with  other  public  officers  or  bodies  (see  "  Notes  on  the  Constitution  and  Records 
of  Commissioners  of  Sewers,"  by  H.  G.  Richardson,  in  Report  of  Royal  Com- 
mission on  Public  Records,  vol.  ii.  part  ii.  pp.  98-100). 

^  These  records,  amounting  to  "about  4250  separate  volumes,  sheets  or 
rolls,"  extending  from  1569  to  1855,  are  now  preserved  by  the  London  County 
Council,  which  at  one  time  intended  to  publish  some  of  the  earlier  volumes  and 
should  certainly  do  so.  One  volume  only  appears  to  have  been  published,  entitled 
Court  Minutes  of  the  Surrey  and  Kent  Sewer  Commission,  London  County  Council, 
1909,  vol.  i.  Minutes,  1569-1579,  352  pp.  Apart  from  this  full  material,  sources 
of  information  for  the  Metropolitan  Commissions  of  Sewers  are  exceptionally 
few.  The  student  will  consult  the  Acts,  and  also  the  Digest  of  the  Statutes 
relating  to  the  Metropolitan  Commission  of  Sewers ;  The  Law  of  Waters  and  of 
Sewers,  by  Humphrey  W.  Woolrych,  1830  ;  the  reports  and  evidence  of  the 
House  of  Commons  Committees  of  1823  and  1834  ;  the  House  of  Commons 
Returns  of  1831  and  1847  (No.  686) ;  the  first  report  and  evidence  of  the 
Metropolitan  Sanitary  Commission,  1847  ;  a  valuable  paper  "  On  the  Main 
Drainage  of  London,"  by  (Sir)  J.  W.  Bazalgette,  in  Proceedings  of  the  Institute 
of  Civil  Engineers,  vol.  xxiv.,  1865 ;    with  the  incidental  references  in  the  Poor 


58  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

eight  Courts  of  Sewers  include,  as  we  believe,  representatives  of 
every  type  presented  by  these  authorities  outside  the  Fenland. 
The  long  succession  of  marshes  that  once  stretched  from  the 
Mole  to  the  Medway  exhibit,  in  fact,  the  most  diverse  conditions, 
and  have  had  the  most  varied  history.  The  Commissioners  of 
Sewers  who  acted  for  these  miles  of  riparian  marshland  had  to 
deal  with  the  storms  of  the  sea  and  exceptional  tides  ;  they  had 
also  to  cope  with  the  morasses  created  by  stagnant  accumulations 
of  the  rain-water  from  the  uplands  ;  they  had  in  many  places 
to  administer  the  earthen  embankments  and  sluices  of  wholly 
uninhabited  marshes ;  and  in  others  the  sewers  of  densely 
crowded  streets  of  houses  and  the  walls  and  camp-shedding  of 
river  landing-places  and  commercial  wharves. 

Greenwich 

We  begin  with  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  the  marshes 
extending  on  the  Kentish  bank  of  the  Thames  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Ravensbourne  (including  the  site  of  the  ancient  village 
of  Greenwich)  down  to  as  far  as  the  Borough  of  Gravesend.  In 
the  constitution  and  procedure  of  the  rulers  of  these  marshes  we 
find  surviving,  right  dowTi  to  Victorian  times,  much  of  the 
ancient  organisation  of  Romney  Marsh.  "  Before  the  23rd  of 
Henry  the  Eighth,"  we  are  told,  "  the  government  of  this  Level 
was  entirely  in  the  owners  of  the  land,  who  acted  under  the 
ancient  customs  of  the  town  of  Greenwich."  ^  We  gather  that 
the  owners  of  the  marsh  elected  a  body  of  Jurats,  a  Bailifi,  and 
one  or  more  Collectors,  whilst  the  larger  proprietors  were  deputed 

Law  Commissioners'  Report  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  oftJie  Labouring  Population, 
1842  ;  Old  Sotithwark,  by  W.  Rendle,  1878  ;  English  Sanitary  Institutions,  by 
Sir  John  Simon,  1890  ;  History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation,  by  F.  Clifford,  1887  ; 
The  Sanitary  Evolution  of  London,  by  H.  Jephson,  1907  ;  and  Municipal  Origins, 
by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  242-263.  A  few  local  pamphlets  and  other  sources 
will  be  found  mentioned  in  connection  witli  the  several  C'onnnissions.  We  dn 
not  include  amcmg  Courts  of  Sewers  the  so-called  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for 
the  City  of  London,  established  under  various  Statutes,  which  was,  down  tn 
1897,  annually  appointed  by  the  Common  Council.  This  body  did  not  act 
under  the  Statutes  of  Sewers  and  had  no  judicial  authority  ;  it  was,  in  fact, 
virtually  a  Committee  of  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  London,  and  has  already 
been  described  as  such  (The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  pp.  577-040)  ;  whilst 
it  exercised  tiie  usual  powers  of  a  body  of  lin])rovement  or  Street  Commissionei-s, 
includint,'  drainage  (see  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  p.  577,  and  post,  pp. 
347-348). 

'  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  24th  March  1744. 


GREENWICH 


59 


in  rotation  to  serve  the  office  of  Expenditor.i  We  need  not 
attempt  to  unravel  the  changes  brought  about  by  the  issue  of 
successive  Commissions  of  Sewers  in  the  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centuries,  except  to  notice  that  even  after  the  issue  of 
these  Commissions  the  landowners  of  the  marsh  continued,  as 
we  are  expressly  informed,  to  assess  "  the  wallscot  themselves 
and  acted  by  the  virtue  of  their  local  customs  "  ;  and  that  in 
1624  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  o£  East 
Greenwich,  with  whom  we  are  now  concerned,  was  limited  to 
the  portion  of  the  marsh  that  lay  between  the  Ravensbourne 
and  the  Lombard  Wall.^  ,  In  1689,  when  we  take  up  the  story, 
the  Commissioners  were  the  leading  landed  proprietors  of  the 
neighbourhood,  who,  once  a  year,  met  ceremoniously  as  a  Court 
of  Sewers,  with  all  the  forms  and  paraphernalia  of  a  judicial 
tribunal.  If  we  were  to  judge  by  the  wording  of  the  Commission 
itself,  or  by  that  of  the  Statute  of  Sewers  under  which  the  Court 
acted,  we  should  infer  that  the  whole  work  was  done,  and  the 
whole  power  wielded,  by  the  Commissioners  themselves.  But 
the  records  make  it  clear  that  the  ancient  organisation  had  never 
ceased  to  exist,  and  we  find  it,  with  only  the  slightest  of  changes, 
continuing  to  function  under  the  aegis  of  the  relatively  modern 
Court  of  Sewers.3  The  practical  work  was  done  by  the  Jurats, 
now  called  the  Jury  ;  and  by  the  Expenditor,  combining  in 
himself,  since  1657,  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  three  ancient 
offices  of  "  Bailiff,  Collector  and  Expenditor."  *    In  the  volumes 

^  See  the  incidental  references  to  these  Thames  marshes  in  the  History  of 
Imbanking  and  Draining,  by  Sir  William  Dugdale,  1652,  pp.  59-65  of  edition 
of  1772. 

2  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  27th  March  1744. 

3  Even  the  oath  taken  by  the  Expenditor  continued,  down  to  1738,  to  run 
in  the  archaic  form,  alluding  to  the  "  wallscot  "  as  being  assessed  by  the  owners 
of  the  marsh,  instead  of  by  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  {ibid.  24th  March 
1744).  It  is  significant  that,  as  late  as  1690,  the  summons  to  this  Court  was 
issued  by  the  "  Bailiff,  Collector  and  Expenditor  ...  by  virtue  of  his  office 
and  according  to  the  ancient  custom,  and  by  the  consent  of  their  Majesties' 
Commissioners  of  Sewers  "  ;  that  it  is  not  called  a  Court  but  "  the  General 
Lathe  "  ;  and  that  it  is  not  summoned  to  try  pleas  or  offenders,  but  "...  to 
do  and  perform  what  shall  be  thought  fit  for  the  weal  and  good  of  the  said 
Marshes  "  (ibid.  4th  September  1690).  The  ancient  "  books,  rolls  and  other 
papers  relating  to  the  Marshes  "  were,  in  1696,  not  in  the  custody  of  the  Com- 
missioners but  in  the  "  church  chest,"  whence  they  were  then  reclaimed  {ibid. 
20th  November  1696). 

*  Ibid.  6th  January  1698.  Not  until  1699  was  this  officer  appointed  by 
any  "  warrant,  commission  or  some  such  like  instrument  as  is  the  custom 
amongst  Commissioners  ...  in  other  Levels  "  {ibid.  2nd  October  1699). 


6o  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

of  manuscript  minutes  in  which  the  proceedings  have  been,  since 
1625,  elaborately  recorded,  the  daily  working  of  this  constitution 
may  easily  be  followed  down  to  1835,  at  which  point  we  leave 
the  story.  The  Expenditor  remains  throughout  nominally 
unpaid,  the  office  devolving  in  turn  upon  the  principal  land- 
owners of  the  Marsh,  whether  these  are  men  or  women,  adults 
or  minors,  residents  or  absentees,  individuals  or  corporations.^ 
But  the  office  was  habitually  served  by  the  appointment  of  a 
paid  deputy,  at  a  salary  of  no  more  than  £4  a  year,^  whose  main 
business  was  to  collect  from  the  fifty  or  sixty  freeholders  of  the 
marsh  the  amount  per  acre  assessed  by  the  Jury  on  their  respect- 
ive holdings — making,  if  need  be,  distraint  on  any  goods  belong- 
ing to  them  or  any  of  their  tenants  ^ — and  to  pay,  after  a  certifi- 
cate of  completion  by  the  Jury,  for  the  work  that  had  been 
ordered  to  be  done.  But  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth,  as 
in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries,  it  was  the  body  of 
jurats  or  jurors  that  constituted  the  mainspring  of  the  whole 
machinery.  They  were  now  returned  by  the  High  Sheriff  of  the 
County  at  the  opening  of  each  new  Commission,  instead  of 
holding  office  by  election  or  in  virtue  of  their  tenure  of  certain 
lands  or  Manors  ;  and  they  served,  not  for  life,  but  continuously 
for  at  least  ten  years.  They  were,  however,  always  composed 
not  of  indifferent  persons  from  the  body  of  the  county,  but  of 
forty-eight  of  the  peasant  freeholders  and  tenant  farmers  of 
lands  within  the  Marsh,  and  we  gather  that  many  of  them  acted 
decade  after  decade  ;  whilst  their  Foreman,  whose  presence  was 
necessary  to  give  validity  to  their  proceedings,  in  one  instance 
at  any  rate  filled  that  office  for  a  whole  generation.  In  any 
emergency  the  Foreman  could  himself  call  together  the  Jury — 
perhaps  he  always  did  so — and  we  see  him  collecting  some  of 

^  So  strict  was  the  rotation,  and  so  compulsory  the  service,  that  we  find 
the  Board  of  Ordnance  (MS.  Minutes,  SeAver  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  26th 
November  1708)  and  the  Commissioners  of  Customs  required  to  accept  the  office 
when  it  fell  to  tiie  turn  of  the  lands  held  by  their  departments ;  and  when  in 
1704,  the  obligation  came  to  some  land  which  had  come  to  be  possessed  by  Queen 
Anne  herself  (having  been  seized  for  a  debt  to  the  Crown),  no  exception  was 
made  in  her  favour  (ibid.  28th  September  1704).  This  compulsion  to  serve  the 
ofiice  of  Expenditor  was  not  peculiar  to  tlie  Greenwich  Court  of  Sewers.  But 
wo  find  it  determined  in  Chamber's  case  (Andrew  335)  and  in  the  Vicar  of 
Dartford's  case  in  1739,  that  the  incumbent  of  a  parish  was  not  liable  to  serve 
in  respect  of  his  benefice  (Report  of  Adjudged  Cases,  by  Sir  John  Strange,  3rd 
edition,  1795,  vol.  ii.  p.  1107  ;  and  tlic  other  authorities  there  cited). 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  tireenwich,  20th  November  1095. 

»  Ibid.  Gth  January  1698. 


THE  JURY  6i 

the  members  to  aid  him  with  their  counsel.  Twice  a  year,  in 
spring  and  autumn,  the  whole  body  gathered  at  daybreak  at 
some  appointed  place,  whence  the  members  dispersed  in  separate 
detachments,  attended  by  the  Wallreeve  and  the  Sluice-keepers, 
to  walk  the  whole  length  of  the  embankments  and  river  walls, 
in  order  to  scrutinise  their  soundness,  and  the  amount  of  nettles 
and  brambles  by  which  they  were  overgrown.  We  see  them,  in 
the  grey  morning  mists  characteristic  of  the  Thames  estuary, 
following  up  the  sluices  and  dykes  that  extended  for  miles 
towards  the  higher  lands,  in  order  to  discover  which  needed 
scouring  or  repairing.  Towards  the  afternoon  they  assemble 
at  one  of  the  taverns  of  the  village  of  Greenwich,  to  discuss  over 
their  dinner  "  the  due  execution  of  last  year's  ordainments,  as 
also  what  is  necessary  to  be  done  for  the  weal  and  good  of  the 
Level  for  the  year  next  ensuing."  ^  At  this  convivial  meeting, 
under  the  presidency  of  the  Foreman,  they  decided  the  number 
and  tenor  of  their  presentments  ;  whether  these  were  to  be 
"  public  "  or  "  private  "  ;  and  in  the  latter  case,  upon  which 
owners  lay  the  obligation  to  execute  the  necessary  works  ;  the 
date  before  which  such  repairs  must  be  completed,  and  the  fine 
to  be  levied  by  the  Court  in  case  of  default.  Where  the  pre- 
sentment was  "  public,"  that  is  when  no  particular  owner  could, 
according  to  custom,  be  saddled  with  the  necessary  work,  the 
Jury  proceeded  to  define  precisely  what  was  to  be  done,^  together 
with  the  estimated  cost,  to  be  formally  levied  as  "  wallscot " — ■ 
the  lawyers  would  have  said  by  the  Court  of  Sewers  when  next 
it  should  be  held,  but  to  the  jurymen  it  seemed  as  if  they  levied 
it  themselves,  at  the  customary  differential  rates  between 
"  single  "  and  "  double  "  lands,  exactly  as  their  predecessors 
had  done  for  three  or  four  centuries.^    Their  presentments — 

1  Charge  to  Jury,  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  27th 
October  1694. 

2  Imprimis  we  do  ordain  8  rods  to  be  filled  up  against  the  "  Great  Meadow  ; 
charge  8s. ;  we  ordain  the  top  of  Bendiss  sluice  to  be  opened  and  the  defects 
thereof  to  be  repaired  and  amended ;  charge  thereof  £5  ;  we  ordain  4  rods  to 
be  timbered  there  ;  charge  £5  ;  ...  we  also  ordain  5000  bavins,  ethers  and 
stakes  against  the  Pits,  £3  ;  100  tons  of  chalk  to  be  laid  against  Mr.  Snap's 
land,  £8  :  15s.  ;  ...  we  ordain  100  load  of  gravel  to  be  laid  in  the  marsh 
land ;  charge  £7  :  10s. ;  we  ordain  the  wall  to  be  strewed  with  reeds ;  charge  £1 " 
{ibid.  4th  September  1690). 

*  In  1690-1693  the  average  total  expenditure  per  annum  was  about  £200 ;  and 
the  "  wallscot  "  was  ten  shillings  per  acre  on  "  Land  Marsh  "  and  five  shillings 
per  acre  on  "Combe  Marsh."     In  1726,  when  the  expenditure  was  £650,  an  extra 


62  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

called  in  fact,  "  ordainments  " — were  usually  obeyed  and  the 
works  done,  long  before  the  next  Court  of  Sewers  was  held,  at 
which  they  could  be  formally  recorded.  Once  in  a  generation 
we  find  them  spending  some  days,  or  even  weeks,  in  making,  on 
the  model  of  such  "  tax-books  or  other  ancient  precedents  "  ^ 
as  they  could  obtain,  an  elaborate  new  "  assessment "  of  the 
marsh,  which  here  meant  not  a  valuation,  but,  as  in  Lincolnshire, 
an  "  acrebook "  ;  a  detailed  record  and  map  of  the  exact 
acreage,  ownership  and  occupancy  of  each  of  the  four  or  five 
hundred  separate  holdings.  For  all  this  work  the  members  of 
the  Jury  received  no  pay,  beyond  an  allowance  for  the  customary 
dinner.  Throughout  the  whole  period  it  is  this  convivial  dinner 
that  binds  the  Jury  together  into  an  efficiently  working  body  ; 
and  the  Commissioners  themselves,  whom  we  find  occasionally 
grumbling  at  "  the  great  or  rather  uncontrollable  expense  which 
the  Jury  put  this  Commission  into  for  their  eating  and  drinking,"  ^ 
are  inclined,  on  the  whole,  to  take  a  generous  view  of  the  enter- 
tainment. Amid  the  high  prices  of  1811,  the  jurymen  success- 
fully plead  for  a  larger  sum.  They  had  already  got  the  allowance 
up  successively  from  Is.  6d.  to  4s.  per  head,  but  now  found  even 
this  insufficient.  "  We,  the  Jury  of  Sewers  for  the  said  Level," 
so  runs  their  presentment  to  the  Court,  "  beg  leave  to  represent 
that  owing  to  the  increased  charge  for  every  necessary  of  life, 
the  allowance  now  made  by  the  Court  of  four  shillings  to  each  of 
the  jurymen  per  day  on  account  of  expenses  is  very  inadequate 
to  the  expenses  unavoidably  incurred,  as  the  charge  for  a  bare 
plain  dinner  alone  exceeds  the  allowance,  without  considering 
anything  for  wine  or  other  liquors  usually  drunk  upon  such 
occasions,  so  that  every  juryman,  besides  giving  up  his  time  to 
the  benefit  of  the  Level  is,  on  every  day  of  duty,  put  to  a  con- 
siderable private  cost."  The  Commissioners  thereupon  graciously 
allowed  eight  shillings  "  for  every  day  of  walk  or  attendance  on 

levy  of  twenty  shillings  per  acre  had  to  be  made.  The  levy  was  announced 
immediately  after  service  one  Sunday  at  the  Chapel  of  the  Royal  Hospital, 
Greenwich  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  27th  August  1710). 
On  the  opposite  side  of  the  Thames,  in  the  Marshes  of  tlie  Isle  of  Dogs  the 
rate  annually  levied  during  the  eighteenth  centurj'  v^as  never  less  than  four 
shillings  and  sometimes  as  much  as  eight  shillings  and  sixpence  per  acre  (ibid. 
Poplar,  1690-1835). 

1  Ibid.  Greenwich,  7th  November  1695  ;  24th  March  and  20th  October 
1744,  19th  October  1745  and  5th  April  1746. 

«  Ibid.  2nd  June  1729. 


THE  DINNER  OF  THE  JURY  63 

the  Court."  ^  Later  on,  in  a  tit  of  economy,  the  Court  cut  down 
the  number  of  the  Jury  to  fifteen,  allowing  them  each  ten  shillings 
a  day. 2  But  the  jurymen  resented  this  diminution  of  their 
company.  "  The  Foreman  of  the  Jury  represented  that  under 
the  arrangement  made  by  the  Court  in  May  last  he  found  great 
difficulty  in  assembling  a  Jury,  as  the  division  thereby  created 
rendered  them  generally  uncomfortable  by  breaking  up  the 
society  they  had  been  accustomed  to  from  the  commencement 
of  the  Commission  ;  and  he  thereupon  submitted  the  propriety 
of  summoning  the  whole  of  the  Jury  in  future,  with  an  allowance 
for  expenses  to  such  an  expense  as  the  Court  should  think  itself 
warranted  in  granting."  The  Commissioners  acceded  to  this 
request  and  permitted  the  whole  Jury  to  be  summoned,  but 
restricted  the  total  allowance  to  £10  per  day.^  The  minor  paid 
officers — the  Sluice-keepers,  the  Wall-reeve,^  and  the  Mole- 
catcher  (whose  salaries  remained  each  at  forty  shillings  a  year 
throughout  the  whole  century  and  a  half),  as  well  as  the  gangs 
of  casual  labourers  who  were  from  time  to  time  employed — 
worked  under  the  joint  superintendence  of  the  Foreman  of  the 
Jury  and  the  Expenditor.  But  it  is  clear  that  in  the  eighteenth 
and  nineteenth  centuries  it  was  the  Foreman  of  the  Jury,  without 
whose  presence  the  Jury  could  not  proceed  to  business,  who  had 
the  effective  responsibility  for  action  in  any  emergency.  What 
sort  of  service  it  was  that  he  rendered  may  be  seen  by  the  follow- 
ing example  that  we  take  from  the  minutes.  "  Whereas  on 
Friday  last,  13th  November,  there  happened  a  very  high  tide 
between  3  and  4  p.m.,  which,  with  the  extraordinary  winds 
attending  it,  occasioned  a  great  slip  in  the  wall  against  Sir 
Edward  Betenson's  two  acres  ;  which  the  Wall-reeve,  perceiving, 


1  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  30th  May  1811  ;  see  also 
13th  April  1793. 

*  Ibid.  29th  May  1824.  The  Commissioners  had  apparently  attempted  to 
make  a  similar  reduction  in  the  number  of  jurymen  in  1699,  but  no  notice  was 
taken  of  their  order  [ibid.  1699). 

'  Ibid.  14th  October  1824.  We  see  similar  attempts  to  limit  the  cost  of 
the  jurymen's  dinner  in  the  Isle  of  Dogs  and  Tower  Hamlets  Courts  (ibid. 
Poplar,  7th  April  1669,  5th  May  1702  ;  ibid.  Tower  Hamlets,  7th  October  1709). 
Latterly,  the  jurymen  for  the  Isle  of  Dogs,  still  governing  a  thinly  inhabited 
tract  of  marsh  land,  received  a  pound  for  each  day's  attendance  and  served 
about  four  days  a  year  (Report  and  Evidence  of  House  of  Commons  Com- 
mittee on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis,  1834). 

*  In  the  Isle  of  Dogs,  the  corresponding  officer  was  called  the  Marsh  Bailiff 
(MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Poplar). 


64  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

immediately  repaired  to  the  Foreman  of  the  Jury,  and  acquainted 
him  thereof.  Whereupon  the  said  Foreman  immediately  sent 
a  messenger  to  the  Expenditor  to  inform  him  also  of  the  same, 
but  to  prevent  any  ill  consequence  that  might  happen  till  the 
return  of  that  messenger,  the  said  Foreman  desired  the  Wall- 
reeve  to  proceed  in  what  was  necessary  to  be  done  for  securing 
any  further  hurt  that  might  happen  by  any  delay  whatever  ; 
and  upon  the  return  of  the  said  messenger,  the  Foreman  received 
a  letter  from  the  Expenditor  that  he  was  ill  and  not  able  to  come 
out,  and  desired  the  Foreman  would  take  such  care  he  could  of 
it,  but  the  Wall-reeve  being  at  work  by  such  directions  as  the 
Foreman  had  before  given  him  with  six  men  which  he  had  got 
together,  they  worked  upon  the  same  all  that  night  and  till  after 
high- water  next  morning  tide."  The  Wall-reeve  and  Foreman 
imagined  that  their  hasty  action  would  suffice,  but  three  days 
later  strong  winds  and  a  high  tide  brought  the  work  down  again. 
The  Wall-reeve,  who  had  been  keeping  watch  continuously, 
reported  at  once  to  the  Foreman,  wh.o  hastily  got  together  what 
jurors  he  could  to  survey  the  breach.  The  jurors  viewed  the 
damaged  wall,  and  ordered  repairs  to  be  instantly  executed  to 
the  value  of  £33.^  It  is  noteworthy  that  though  the  Jury 
doubtless  consisted,  from  generation  to  generation,  of  nearly 
the  same  persons,  we  do  not  find  that  they  excited  any  jealousy 
among  their  fellow  denizens  of  the  Marsh,  nor  do  we  discover 
that  their  presentments  were  ever  disputed  or  hostilely  received. 
Individual  owners,  nervous  about  the  stability  of  the  embank- 
ment, were  willing  to  pay  the  expenses  of  special  views  by  the 
Jury  ;  and  as  the  village  of  Greenwich  increased  in  population, 
we  find  groups  of  respectable  householders  using  the  Sewers  Jury 
to  get  remedied  the  common  urban  nuisances  for  which  there 
might  otherwise  have  been  no  redress. ^  The  same  confidence 
was  shown  by  the  Commissioners  and  the  inhabitants  in  the 
Foreman  of  the  Jury.  It  was  he  who  sometimes  bought,  as 
opportunities  presented  themselves,  the  loads  of  earth  or  chalk 
with  wliich  the  embankments  were  repaired.  It  was,  as  a  rule, 
upon  him  that  fell  the  responsibility  of  devising  the  works  of 
repair  to  be  executed.     We  find  in  1827  a  special  expression  of 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  17th  November  1741. 

^  In  1761,  three  of  the  jurymen  were  carpenters  ;  and  the  Commissioners 
gave  them  the  carpentering  work  to  do,  each  having  six  months  of  it  in  rotation 
[ibid.  18th  October  1761). 


RENEWAL  BY  CO-OPTION  65 

the  thanks  of  the  Court  to  the  then  Foreman,  for  "  the  ability, 
skill  and  assiduity  exercised  for  a  long  series  of  years  ...  in 
superintending  the  works  of  the  level,  and  particularly  the  late 
new  embankment,"  as  well  as  for  "  the  constant  promptitude 
evinced  by  him  as  immediate  occasions  have  arisen  from  high 
tides  and  other  emergencies  (thereby  protecting  the  property  of 
the  landowners  from  injury  and  devastation)."  As  an  excep- 
tional mark  of  esteem  and  acknowledgment  the  Commissioners 
thereupon  voted  fifty  guineas  to  this  aged  and  long-serving 
officer,  which  he  laid  out  in  a  piece  of  plate.i 

It  is,  indeed,  not  easy  to  discover  what  function  was  fulfilled 
in  the  Greenwich  marshes  by  the  Commissioners  themselves. 
Whatever  they  may  have  been  at  the  outset,  they  became,  it  is 
clear,  a  body  renewing  itself  virtually  by  co-option.^  Though 
the  total  number  on  the  Commission  was  fifty  or  sixty,  including 
several  peers  and  ecclesiastical  dignitaries,^  the  usual  attendance 
was  confined  to  fewer  than  a  dozen  of  the  resident  gentry  ;  and 
these  intimate  friends  and  neighbours  used  their  "  wages  "  to 
provide  themselves  with  a  dinner  on  every  Court  day.*  The 
Court  of  Sewers — which  they  solemnly  held  once,  and  latterly 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  12th  April  and  18th 
October  1827. 

2  As  each  term  of  ten  years  came  near  its  expiration  the  Clerk  was  told  to 
"  take  care  to  get  a  new  Commission  of  Sewers  against  the  sitting  of  the  next 
general  court,  and  to  insert  therein  such  other  gentlemen  to  be  Commissioners 
(with  them  already  so  nominated  and  appointed)  as  shall  be  directed  him  by 
the  present  Commissioners  or  any  of  them  "  (ibid.  29th  September  1692). 

3  See,  for  instance,  the  list  in  ibid.  1712.  In  1810  it  had  grown  to  98,  but 
only  45  had  qualified  within  the  first  year  [ibid.  9th  November  1810,  13th  April 
1811).  The  Poplar  Commissioners  were  49  in  number  in  1689,  114  in  1757,  but 
only  66  in  1800.  Of  these  between  one-third  and  one-half  usually  qualified 
{ibid.  Poplar,  1689,  1757,  1800).  Those  for  the  Tower  Hamlets  in  1714 
were  129,  of  whom  58  qualified ;  in  1725,  195,  of  whom  70  qualified ; 
in  1737,  150,  of  whom  81  qualified;  in  1821,  140,  of  whom  88  qualified; 
and  in  1831,  173,  of  whom  107  qualified  (ibid.  Tower  Hamlets,  1714,  1725, 
1737,  1821,  1831).  The  Westminster  Commission  of  1837  (the  last)  mcluded 
240  persons. 

*  This  dinner  was,  we  believe,  taken  in  lieu  of  the  4s.  a  day  allowed  by 
statute  which  (as  in  the  case  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace)  was,  as  we  have  seen  {The 
Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  pp.  305,  409,  413,  423,  428),  latterly  seldom  drawn 
in  cash.  The  Tower  Hamlets  Commissioners,  after  dining  together  for  many 
years,  decided  in  1779,  "  that  in  future  the  Commissioners  attending  the  whole 
business  of  the  Commission  do  receive  4s.  apiece  pursuant  to  Act  of  Parliament, 
and  that  no  dinners  in  future  be  provided  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners, 
Tower  Hamlets,  16th  December  1779).  This  evidently  did  not  continue.  In 
1822  they  are  again  dining  together,  and  direct  that  "  no  other  wines  be  ordered 
than  port,  sherry,  Lisbon  or  Bucellas  "  {ibid.  15th  May  and  17th  July  1822). 

F 


66  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

twice,  a  year,  at  which  all  "  owners,  tenants  and  jurats  "  of  the 
Marsh  were  required  to  "  answer  to  their  names  "  ^ — seems  to 
have  done  little  more  than  receive  the  presentments  made  by  the 
Jury  since  the  last  Court,  to  record  them  as  decrees  of  the  Court, 
and  formally  to  levy  the  sums  recommended  by  the  Jury.  We 
find  no  trace  of  any  dispute  or  divergence  of  interest  between 
the  Commissioners  and  the  Jury.  The  Court  occasionally  made 
byelaws,  doubtless  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Jury,  for  the 
future  regulation  of  the  Marsh  :  as  to  the  date  after  which  reeds 
might  be  cut ;  ^  as  to  the  prohibition  of  particular  nuisances,  and 
as  to  the  use  of  the  river  wall  and  embankment  as  a  wharf  or 
landing-place,  especially  for  the  landing  of  manure  from  London.^ 
The  Commissioners  themselves  directed  some  of  the  more  im- 
portant contracts  to  be  entered  into  for  chalk  and  other  materials 
needed  by  the  Jury  ;  *  but  they  did  not  mind  making  use  of  one 
of  the  jurymen  who  mentioned  that  he  was  going  to  Maidstone 
in  the  following  week,  and  would  be  able  to  arrange  for  a  supply 
of  stone,^  In  1826,  when  they  were  building  a  new  river  wall, 
they  gladly  adopted  the  suggestion  of  the  Foreman  of  the  Jury 
that  he  should  get  earth,  as  opportunity  offered,  by  "  merely 
giving  some  beer  to  the  bargemen  "  bringing  do^^•n  the  stuff  ex- 
cavated from  the  dock  and  other  works  about  London.^  They 
permitted  the  building  of  a  wooden  bridge  over  the  Ravensbourne 
by  a  particular  landowner,  for  his  private  use  only.'  It  was  the 
Court,  too,  which  gave  permission  for  the  erection  of  windmills 
or  other  buildings  on  the  banks ;  ^  and  it  was  in  its  name  that 
the  Clerk  made  any  commmiications  to  outside  authorities  and 
dignitaries.  The  Court  appointed  its  own  "  Clerk  of  Sewers,"  a 
local  solicitor  remunerated  by  small  fees  and  perquisites,  with 
whom  the  Commissioners  were  perpetually  having  difficulties  ;  ^ 

^  See  "  methodus  tenendi  curiam  de  Sowers,"  on  the  last  page  of  vol.  ii.  of 
MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich.  "  This  lx>ing  a  Court  of 
Record,  three  proclamations  must  be  made,"  is  a  memorandum  in  the  MS. 
Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Poplar,  1802. 

2  Ibid.  Greenwich,  10th  December  1702,  28th  September  1704. 

3  Ibid.  10th  December  1702,  8th  May  and  I8th  September  1703,  28th 
September  1704. 

*  Ibid.  4th  April  1761,  26th  May  1775. 

»  Ibid.  21.st  April  and  2nd  June  1781.  «  Ibid.  12th  October  1826. 

'  Ibid.  31st  July  1729.  «  Ibid.  6th  January  1698. 

"  Not  till  1795  was  the  salary  made  £21  a  year  (ibid.  lOtli  October  1795). 
But  the  salaries  paid  to  the  Clerks,  Baiiififs,  Wall-reevcs  and  Surveyors  of  the 
Courts  of  Sewers  were  not  the  whole  of  their  authorised  remuneration.     There 


THE  EXPENDITOR  67 

and  they  filled  vacancies  in  the  minor  offices  of  Sluice-keeper, 
Wall-reeve  and  Mole-catcher.  But  we  see  no  attempt  on  their 
part  to  develop  any  executive  staf?  other  than  that  of  the  Stand- 
ing Jury.  Down  to  1729,  indeed,  they  do  not  seem  even  to  have 
appointed  committees,  except  on  rare  occasions,  and  then  they 
only  made  use  of  this  administrative  device  for  obtaining  further 
information  and  for  audit.  Their  principal  pre  -  occupation 
seems,  in  fact,  to  have  been  with  the  accounts  of  the  money 
raised  and  expended  under  the  direction  of  the  Jury.  They  had 
constant  difficulties  with  the  Expenditor  for  the  time  being, 
who  could  not  be  got  to  render  accounts,  and  who  was  perpetually 
trying  to  throw  on  the  Commission  the  payment  of  his  deputy.^ 
Once,  at  least,  they  had  to  get  the  Sheriff  to  pursue  a  recalcitrant 
Deputy  Expenditor,  arrest  him,  and  bring  him  up  in  custody.^ 
Once  only  in  the  course  of  the  century  and  a  half  do  we  find  the 
Commissioners  really  troubling  their  heads  about  the  means  of 
protecting  the  Marsh  from  the  waters ;  ^  and  then,  in  the  need 
that  became  manifest  about  1825— whether  owing  to  the  long- 
continued  dredging  for  ballast  near  the  embankment,*  or  to  the 

were  customary  fees  payable  by  individuals  for  every  act  performed  for  their 
benefit,  including  every  order,  permit,  respite,  discharge  or  view.  Tables  of 
these  authorised  fees  were  occasionally  fixed  by  the  Court  {e.g.  MS.  Minutes, 
Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  27th  March  1700).  Fees  were  abolished 
in  Holborn  and  Finsbury  by  the  Act  of  1814  ;  and  in  the  Tower  Hamlets,  by 
Sir  Daniel  Williams'  reforms  of  1821  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Com- 
mittee on  Sewers  in  the  Metropolis,  1823,  pp.  5,  25) ;  but  they  survived 
elsewhere. 

^  In  this  he  was  at  last  successful.  The  salary  of  £4  a  year  was  raised  in 
1809  to  £10  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Greenwich,  14th  October  1809). 

2  Ibid.  29th  November  1729,  8th  February  and  28th  March  1730.  The 
women  owners  were,  we  grieve  to  record,  particularly  troublesome.  In  1699 
the  Court  had  to  meet  no  fewer  than  seven  times,  partly  because  Dame  Margaret 
Boreman  (whose  name  is  preserved  in  the  parish  by  her  charitable  endowments) 
would  not  pay  her  "  marsh  tax  "  (ibid.  6th  January  1698,  22nd  February  1699) ; 
partly  because  Mrs.  Gransdell,  the  Expenditor  for  the  previous  year,  would  not 
render  any  accounts  (ibid.  2nd  October,  9th  and  28th  November  and  7th 
December  1699),  whereupon  she  was  eventually  fined  £4  (leviable  hj  distraint 
by  the  Sheriff),  and  threatened  with  a  further  fine  of  £40.  It  is  pathetically 
noted  that  "  Mr.  Day,  one  of  the  Commissioners,  did  concur  in  the  same  order, 
but  desired  he  might  be  excused  from  signing  the  same,  the  Expenditrix  being 
his  daughter  "  (ibid.  7th  December  1699). 

3  In  1699  it  was  specially  provided  that  the  Commissioners  should  "  have 
notice  given  them  by  a  written  ticket  when  the  Jury  walk  that  they  may  (if 
they  please)  walk  with  them  and  inspect  the  condition  of  the  Level  "  {ibid. 
10th  January  1699). 

*  Ibid.  16th  June  1711,  19th  May  1715,  14th  August  1716.  We  see  similar 
complaints  of  the  ballast  lighters  "  digging  ballast  near  the  walls,"  in  the  MS. 
Minutes  of  the  Sewer  Commissioners,  Poplar,  7th  August  1727,  13th  October 


68  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

wash  of  the  new  steamboats  ^ — for  a  new  sea-wall  to  be  "  built 
further  inland,"  they  were  wise  enough  to  call  in  both  Rennie  and 
Telford  ;  to  take  the  advice  of  these  engineers  ;  and  to  arrange 
among  themselves  and  their  fellow-proprietors  for  the  cession  of 
the  necessary  land  and  the  raising  of  the  requisite  funds  by  a 
special  rate  of  fifty  shilUngs  per  acre — all  by  the  unanimous 
consent  of  all  concerned — in  order  to  avoid  the  expensive  luxury 
of  an  Act  of  Parliament.^  The  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for 
East  Greenwich  were,  indeed,  for  all  the  legal  phraseology  of  their 
Royal  Commission,  not  so  much  a  judicial  tribunal  superseding 
the  primitive  organisation  of  the  denizens  of  the  Marsh,  as  a 
standing  committee  of  the  principal  among  these,  tacitly  per- 
mitting the  ancient  customs  to  continue,  and  exercising  as  a 
Court  Uttle  more  than  an  occasional  friendly  superintendence 
over  the  work  done  by  the  Jury  of  their  less  wealthy  tenants  and 
neighbours,  to  whose  proceedings  they  lent  the  requisite  legal 
authority.^ 

Westminster 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  extreme  flexibility  of  EngHsh  Local 
Government  between  1689  and  1835,  and  of  the  anarchic  diversity 
resulting  from  its  complete  local  autonomy,  that  identical  legal 
instruments,  under  the  same  statute,  should  have  produced  two 
such  utterly  different  governing  bodies  as  the  Courts  of  Sewers 
for  Greenwich  and  Westminster*  respectively.     This  diversity 

1736,  10th  December  1737,  etc.  ;  and  as  early  as  1575  the  Jury  for  East  Surrey 
presents  various  "  ballast  men  and  their  servants  for  that  they  dig  ballast  and 
gravel  within  fifty  feet  of  the  Thames  wall  at  Rotherhithe  .  .  .  which  is  like  to 
bo  a  great  decay  both  to  the  banks  and  walls  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Com- 
missioners, Surrey  and  Kent,  14th  February  1575). 

^  "  We  present  that  owing  to  the  constant  action  of  the  wave  caused  by 
steamboats  upon  the  banks  and  walls  of  the  river  .  .  .  the  foreland  has  been 
washed  away  within  a  few  years  to  the  extent  of  47  feet  in  depth  on  an  average  " 
{ibid.  Greenwich,  11th  April  1833). 

2  Ibid.  13th  and  29th  October  and  22nd  December  1825,  5th,  11th  and  23rd 
January,  9th  February,  12th  October  1826,  10th  April  1828,  7th  May  1829. 

*  From  1690,  for  at  least  sixty  or  seventy  years,  the  Commissioners  evidently 
owned  "  reed  lands,"  which  they  let  to  various  tenants  who  cut  the  reeds.  In 
1745  these  lands  were  marked  on  the  majj  then  made,  and  in  1755  the  Com- 
missioners paid  tithe,  Poor  Rate  and  Highway  Rate  upon  them.  After  1800 
there  is  no  trace  of  tliese  lands — tlio  reeds  had  perhaps  become  valueless — and 
when  in  1834  a  committee  attomi)ted  to  trace  them  it  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  Commissioners  had  never  any  k^gal  ownership  in  them,  and  that  lapse 
of  time  had  made  it  hopeless  to  discover  them  {ibid.). 

*  For  this  body,  see  its  MS.  Minutes,  1659-1847,  and  voluminous  printed 
l)apers  (now  with  tiie  London  County  Council) ;   Statutes  relating  to  the  Sewera 


WESTMINSTER  69 

was,  of  course,  partly  due  to  the  difference  between  both  the 
work  and  the  environment  of  the  two  bodies.  Instead  of  a 
uniform  stretch  of  marsh-land,  sparsely  inhabited  by  man  or 
beast,  the  Commissioners  who  were,  just  before  the  Restoration, 
appointed  to  govern  the  drainage  of  Westminster  and  its  western 
environs,  found  themselves  in  charge  of  a  district  extraordinarily 
heterogeneous  in  its  character — on  one  side,  houses  densely  packed 
in  narrow  streets  and  alleys,  crowding  up  against  the  Royal 
palaces  and  parks.  Parliament  and  the  Courts  of  Justice,  the 
Abbey  and  its  foul  "  sanctuary  "  precincts,  hemmed  in  by  the 
wharves  and  landing-places  of  the  Strand  and  the  morass  of  Mill- 
bank  ;  on  the  other  side,  low-lying  fields  extending  indefinitely 
to  the  westward,  submerged  at  every  high  tide,  where  the  little 
towns  of  Chelsea  and  Kensington  stretched  out  their  scattered 
houses  towards  the  rural  villages  of  Fulham  and  Hammersmith. 
The  whole  territory  was,  in  fact,  either  already  built  on  or  in 
process  of  becoming  so.  We  may  well  believe  that,  by  the  time 
that  the  King  and  his  Court  had  returned  to  Whitehall,  the  need 
had  become  patent  and  urgent  for  instant  action,  both  to  remove 
the  accumulated  nuisances  of  the  older  parts  of  the  City  and 
Liberties  and  to  prevent  the  growth  of  even  worse  conditions  in 
the  streets  of  mean  houses  that  were  arising  all  around. 

We  note  at  once  that  the  Commission  for  Westminster  was 
issued,  not  to  the  principal  owners  of  the  land,  but  to  a  group 
of  official  dignitaries — great  officers  of  the   King's  household, 

within  Westminster  and  part  of  Middlesex,  editions  of  1796  and  1813  ;  An 
Historical  Account  of  the  Svbways  in  the  British  Metropolis,  by  J.  Williams,  1828  ; 
Home  Office  Domestic  State  Papers  in  Public  Record  Office,  Misc.  1831,  pp.  20-24  ; 
The  Vestryman,  26tli  July  1834  ;  Substance  of  an  Oj)inion  delivered  at  a  Court 
of  Sewers  for  the  City  and  Liberty  of  Westminster,  by  T.  L.  Donaldson,  Chairman, 
1835  ;  House  of  Commons  Committee  Reports  and  Evidence  on  Metropolitan 
Sewers,  1823  and  1834  ;  An  Historical  and  Topographical  Description  of  Chelsea, 
by  Thomas  Faulkner,  1829  ;  The  Local  Government  of  the  Metropolis  (Anon.), 
1S35  ;  "  The  Sewage  of  the  City  of  Westminster,"  by  John  E.  Jones,  a  brief 
abstract  only,  in  Proceedings  of  Institute  of  Civil  Engineers,  vol.  i.  1839,  pp.  63- 
65  ;  A  Charge  delivered  to  a  Jury  summoned  to  make  a  Presentment  on  the  District 
of  the  Western  Division  of  the  Westminster  Sewers,  by  the  Chairman,  T.  L. 
Donaldson,  1841  ;  A  Short  Address  to  the  Representative  Vestries  under  Sir  John 
Hobhouse's  Vestry  Act,  bj^  John  Leslie,  1845  ;  House  of  Commons  Return, 
No.  686  of  1847  ;  First  Report  and  Evidence  of  Metropolitan  Sanitary  Com- 
mission, 1847  ;  Selections  from  the  General,  Local  and  Personal  Statutes  relative 
to  Sewers  within  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Commissions  for  the  City  and  Liberty  of 
Westminster,  etc.,  1847.  For  the  general  local  government  of  Westminster, 
and  the  works  relating  to  it,  see  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  chap.  iv. 
pp.  212-241. 


70  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

trusted  courtiers  of  experience  alike  in  war  and  in  council,  and 
judges  of  the  Courts  at  Westminster,  together  with  some  useful 
imderlings  of  the  Ministry,  of  whom  the  most  active  was  the 
contemporary  "  Court  Justice,"  charged  with  the  local  adminis- 
tration of  the  poUce.i  This  group  of  officials  established,  from 
the  first,  a  form  of  government  the  exact  opposite  of  that  of  the 
rural  Courts  of  Sewers  that  we  have  been  describing.  In  the 
detailed  minutes  of  their  proceedings,  we  see  them  meeting  from 
the  outset  every  week,  themselves  doing  all  the  business,  and 
getting  through  it  with  the  high-handed  despatch  characteristic 
of  men  versed  in  great  affairs,  if  not  also  with  that  disregard  of 
legal  technicalities  which  seems  to  mark  in  administration  the 
lawyer  outside  his  own  domain.  At  these  Saturday  or  Thursday 
afternoon  meetings— sometimes  held  actually  in  the  Courts  of 
Chancery  or  King's  Bench  ^ — the  Westminster  Court  of  Sewers 
appointed  salaried  executive  ofiicers  ;  received  their  reports  ; 
called  for  special  surveys  by  outside  experts  ;  ordered  sewers 
to  be  new-bottomed,  drains  to  be  enlarged,  ditches  to  be  scoured, 
and  sluices  to  be  repaired  ;  commanded  owners  and  occupiers 
to  be  assessed,  rates  to  be  levied  and  goods  to  be  distrained  ;  all, 
apparently,  without  troubling  itself  much  with  the  paraphernalia 

^  Among  the  principal  lando^vners  of  Westminster,  in  the  seventeenth  as  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  were — not  to  mention  the  Grosvenors,  whose  Belgravian 
fields  were  not  yet  generally  of  building  value, — the  great  families  of  the  Russells, 
Cecils,  Howards  and  Percies,  together  with  the  ecclesiastical  dignitaries.  None 
of  these  seem  to  have  been  represented  among  the  active  Commissioners  of 
Sewers,  though  the  Dean  and  Chapter,  at  any  rate,  were  presumably  formally 
named  in  the  Commission.  The  members  most  frequent  in  attendance  in- 
cluded the  veteran  Earl  of  Craven,  the  Earl  of  Newport,  Sir  Charles  Berkeley, 
Treasurer  of  the  King's  Household,  Sir  William  Playter,  Bart.,  Sir  John 
Denham,  Knight  of  the  Bath,  "  Surveyor  of  His  Majesty's  Works,"  General 
Sir  William  Pulteney,  Sir  Charles  Harbord,  Sir  Hugh  Cartwright,  Sir  George 
Barker,  Sir  Richard  Everard,  Sir  John  Baker  and  Sir  Edmondbury  Godfrey, 
whose  contemporary  work  as  Court  Justice  we  have  already  described  {The 
Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  pp.  236,  338).  He  acted  as  Treasurer,  and  was 
apparently  the  most  active  Commissioner.  In  the  Minutes  for  12th  October 
1678,  it  is  noted  in  the  margin,  "  Sir  Edmondbury  Godfrey  missing  to-day  " — 
an  entry  reminding  us  of  the  sensation  caused  by  his  unexplained  murder  (]Vho 
Killed  Sir  Edmund  Bury  Godfrey  ?,  by  Alfred  Marks,  1905). 

^  It  used  to  be  an  "  oflice  tradition  that  formerly  the  business  of  the  Com- 
mission was  transacted  in  tlie  Court  of  Queen's  Bench,  that  the  Chief  Justice 
occupied  the  chair,  a  few  Commissioners  only  surrounding  him  "  (Minutes  of 
Evidence  to  First  Report  of  Metropolitan  Sanitary  Commission,  1846,  p.  38). 
The  MS.  Minutes  show  tlie  C'ommissioners  to  have  sat  "  in  the  Court  of  King's 
Bench,  Westminster  Hall  "  on  20th  Juno  1662,  and  many  other  daj's  at  this 
period.  On  1st  August  1662,  they  met  "  in  the  Chancery  Court  in  Westminster 
Hall."     No  chairman  is  named. 


SIR  CHRISTOPHER   WREN 


71 


of  a  Court  of  Justice  or  necessarily  waiting  for  the  dilatory  ex- 
pedient of  a  presenting  Jury.i  Nor  do  the  Commissioners  content 
themselves  with  issuing  orders  to  their  little  staff  of  executive 
ofl&cers.  Between  the  weekly  meetings,  one  or  two  of  the 
members  imdertake  themselves  to  view  a  broken  drain  or  noisome 
ditch,  or  to  survey,  as  a  whole,  the  drainage  of  a  particular  street. 
Another  of  them,  the  ever  -  busy  Sir  Edmondbury  Godfrey, 
himself  acts  as  Treasurer  and  Accountant,  receiving  the  money 
from  all  the  parochial  rate  collectors,  and  paying  the  numerous 
small  bills.2  Presently,  Sir  Christopher  Wren,  appointed  a 
Commissioner  but  too  busy  rebuilding  churches  after  the  Great 
Fire  to  attend  every  week,  is  specially  summoned  to  be  present, 
and  is  set  to  solve  a  particular  problem.^  In  1667,  the  whole 
administration  is  reorganised  by  a  committee  of  nine  Com- 
missioners, imder  Sir  John  Denham,  "  His  Majesty's  Surveyor," 
with  the  result  that  the  Court  becomes  even  more  of  an  executive 
and  less  of  a  judicial  authority  than  before.*  A  permanent  chair- 
man is  appointed  with  a  Standing  Committee  of  accounts.  Both 
the  revenue  and  the  expenditure  of  the  Commission,  heretofore 
professedly  divided  among  the  innumerable  separate  vforks  done, 
are  apparently  to  a  great  extent  consolidated,  and  a  regular  ex- 
penditure is  budgeted  for,  including  a  large  item  for  "  emer- 
gencies." It  is,  in  fact,  impossible  not  to  see,  in  the  archives  of 
this  Commission  during  its  opening  years,  the  records,  not  of  a 
judicial  Court,  but  of  an  active  executive  authority,  impelled — 
probably  under  Royal  mandate — by  a  determination  to  get  the 
Westminster  land  drainage  into  something  like  order.  Nor  were 
the  Commissioners  forgetful,  in  their  zeal  for  efficiency,  of  the  need 
of  securing  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the  inhabitants  at 

^  The  officers  appear  to  have  included  a  Clerk,  a  Cryer,  a  "  Bailiff  of  the 
Sewers,"  and  several  "  sworn  surveyors  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners, 
Westminster,  15th  August  1662).  But  others  are  gradually  added.  It  is  for 
instance  "  ordered  that  Mr.  A.  P.  be  appointed  to  look  after  the  cleansing 
of  the  new  Sewers  and  to  have  £20  yearly  for  his  salary  "  {ibid.  22nd  August 
1GG2). 

^  It  is  ordered  that  a  fine  of  10s.  be  imposed  on  the  nine  collectors  appointed 
for  the  new  sewer  at  Charing  Cross,  "  who  were  legally  summoned  to  attend 
Mr.  Godfrey,  Treasurer,  for  the  perfecting  of  their  accounts,  and  failed  "  (ibid. 
29th  August  1662). 

*  Ibid.  13th  April  and  16th  November  1678,  29th  January  and  17th  June 
1680.  Wren's  proposal  for  a  new  sewer  in  Westminster  is  referred  to  in  the 
paper  by  (Sir)  J.  W.  Bazalgette,  "  On  the  Main  Drainage  of  London,"  in 
Proceedings  of  the  Institute  of  Civil  Engineers,  vol.  xxiv.,  1865,  p.  281. 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  17th  August  1G67. 


72  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

large.  They  leave  each,  parish  to  assess  and  collect  all  the  sums 
that  they  levy  upon  its  inhabitants  ;  though  they  peremptorily 
require  this  service  to  be  regularly  performed,  by  Assessors  and 
Collectors  whom  the  parish  officers — sometimes  the  Surveyors 
of  Highways,  sometimes  the  Constable  and  Churchwardens — have 
to  present  for  their  approval. ^  These  Assessors  and  Collectors, 
who  received  apparently  no  remuneration,  had  to  account  to  the 
Treasurer  of  the  Court,  and  were  liable  to  be  fined  for  any  neglect 
of  their  duty.  At  every  weekly  meeting  the  Commissioners  were 
open  to  receive  any  complaints  from  individuals  or  groups  of 
individuals, 2  and  they  even  ordered  that,  whenever  any  work 
was  done  in  any  parish,  a  committee  of  the  inhabitants  was 
to  join  with  the  Commissioners  in  signing  the  orders  for  the 
expenditure  of  the  rate. 

What  is  remarkable  is  the  small  part  that  the  Jury  plays  in 
this  "  Court  "'  of  Sewers.  The  entries  in  the  minutes  relating  to 
Juries  are  few  and  far  betw^een.  Every  two  years  the  Sheriff 
is  called  upon  to  empanel  two  new  Juries,  one  for  the  City  of 
Westminster  and  the  other  for  the  remaining  part  of  Middlesex 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  20tli  and  27th  April, 
4th  and  18th  May  1667.  A  nearly  contemporary  record  in  a  neighbouring 
Court  of  Sewers  gives  us  the  whole  procedure.  On  receipt  of  a  complaint 
or  a  petition  for  a  work  of  repair,  the  Commissioners  ordered  the  Jury 
to  view  and  had  an  estimate  of  the  probable  expense  of  the  work  prepared 
by  the  Surveyor.  A  notice  was  then  sent  to  the  Churchwardens  and 
Constable  of  the  parish  to  return  the  namca  of  fit  persons  to  assess  the 
necessary  sum.  When  the  names  were  furnished  the  Commissioners  signed  a 
warrant  authorising  these  persons,  eight  in  number,  to  assess  the  amount. 
When  they  returned  the  "  book  of  rates  "  so  made,  they  gave  in  the  names  of 
two  persons  fit  and  able  to  serve  as  Collectors.  These  persons  were  thereupon 
empowered  by  the  Commissioners  to  collect  the  rates  {ibid.  Tower  Hamlets, 
12th  October  and  2nd  November  1703). 

^  "  Upon  a  petition  exhibited  to  this  Court  by  several  mhabitants  of  the 
Great  Ambrey,  complaining  of  the  great  nuisance  and  annoj'ance  they  suffer 
by  means  of  a  branch  of  the  sewer  issuing  and  running  into  the  Thames  sluice 
sewer  ;  ordered  that  a  view  thereof  be  taken  by  any  three  of  the  Commissioners, 
who  are  to  meet  on  Saturday,  21st  June,  to  take  the  view  and  to  report  their 
opinion  on  the  next  Court  day"  (ibid.  Westminster,  16th  June  1662).  They 
report  that  it  is  a  serious  nuisance  and  recommend,  as  "  the  only  way  to 
remove  the  annoyance,"  that  steps  be  taken  "to  stop  up  the  said  ditch, 
the  street  to  be  levelled  and  paved  .  .  .  with  a  channel  to  run  in  the 
middle  thereof  "  {ibid.  20th  June  1662).  This  is  decided  on,  and  the  Court 
orders  "  that  an  assessment  be  brought  into  tliis  Court  equally  laid  and 
imposed  upon  the  .several  .  .  .  inhabitants  concerned,  that  is  to  say,  upon  all 
such  who  have  any  gutter,  drain,  sink  or  spout  running  into  the  same,  .  .  . 
and  that  Sir  Hugh  Cartwright,  one  of  the  Commissioners  of  this  Court,  be 
waited  on  by  the  inhabitants  and  desired  to  see  the  said  work  done  accord- 
ingly "  {ibid.  11th  July  1662). 


THE  PRESENTING  JURY  73 

that  lay  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Commissioners.  1  These 
Juries  are  now  and  again  directed  to  view  particular  sewers  and 
drains  which  had  been  complained  of  as  offensive,  and  to  report 
who  was  in  default.^  Occasionally  an  inhabitant  is  fined  for 
non-attendance  or  discharged  for  some  good  reason.  It  is 
apparently  their  business  spontaneously  to  present  anything 
that  is  wrong  with  the  sewers.  We  have  even  cases  in  which 
the  Jury  is  reproached  for  not  making  presentments,  and  given 
a  month's  grace  to  discover  some  nuisances.^  In  one  case,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Jury  is  ordered  not  to  present  any  nuisances 
in  a  certain  place,  as  the  Commissioners  have  it  in  mind  to  deal 
otherwise  with  the  district.  Only  very  occasionally  do  we  find 
any  one  being  "  amerced  "  by  the  Jury,  and  the  fine  estreated 
into  the  Court  of  Exchequer.^  For  the  first  ten  years  of  the  Com- 
mission, we  see  the  Jury  ousted  from  its  task  of  assessing  the 
persons  who  are  liable  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  several  works,  this 
work  being  done  by  the  Parish  Assessors.  In  no  case  has  the 
Jury  anything  to  do  with  the  execution  of  any  work,  and  it  is 
not  even  called  upon  to  certify  that  it  has  been  completed.  In 
short,  the  Jury  of  Sewers  of  the  Westminster  Court  was,  from  the 
beginning,  utterly  unlike  the  Standing  Juries  of  Sewers  of  the 
Court  Leet  type,  which  governed  the  marshes  of  Greenwich  and 
Somersetshire  and  may  be  traced  in  East  Kent  and  Lincolnshire. 
It  resembled  rather  the  Hundred  Jury  which  during  these  very 
years  was  presenting  nuisances  to  the  Courts  of  Quarter  Sessions 
of  Essex,  Dorset  and  Devon.^  This  resemblance  is  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that,  from  the  outset,  the  Westminster  Commissioners 
permitted  the  presentments  of  their  Jury  of  Sewers  to  be  traversed 
by  defendants  as  a  matter  of  course,  on  a  recognisance  in  the  sum 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  6th  Julj'  1667.  Neither 
Westminster  nor  the  Tower  Hamlets,  though  otherwise  important  "  Liberties," 
were  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Sheriffs  of  London  and  Middlesex  (as  to 
whom  see  The  Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  pp.  288,  312;  and  The  Manor  and  the 
Borough,  1908,  pp.  670-673).  On  the  other  hand,  for  the  Court  of  Sewers  of  St. 
Katharine,  near  the  Tower  of  London,  the  persons  to  serve  on  the  Juries 
were  returned  by  the  High  Bailiff  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Hospital  and  Precinct 
of  St.  Katharine  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  St.  Katharine).  For 
the  Tower  Hamlets  Court,  however,  the  duty  was  performed  by  the  Sheriffs 
of  London  and  Middlesex. 

2  Ibid.  Westminster,  18th  May  and  27th  July  1667. 

»  Ibid.  11th  October  1662. 

*  See  a  case,  ibid.  11th  October  1662. 

s  The  Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  pp.  456-480. 


74  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

of  40s.  being  entered  into  ;  and  they  arranged  for  a  trial  of  these 
traverses  at  a  subsequent  sessions  of  the  court,  we  presume  by  a 
separate  "  Traverse  Jury."  ^  Like  the  Hundred  Jury  itself,  the 
Jury  of  Sewers  was,  in  Westminster,  an  insignificant  part  of  the 
judicial  machinery  ; — in  short,  a  mere  "  Annoyance  Jury  "  only 
spasmodically  made  use  of  and  persisting  only  as  an  atrophied 
traditional  remnant. 

The  high-handed  efficiency  and  extra-legal  methods  of  the 
Commissioners  whom  Charles  the  Second  had  appointed  did  not 
go  wholly  undisputed.  The  Statute  of  Sewers  enabled  the  Court 
to  charge  the  cost  of  particular  works  on  the  owners  of  lands 
benefited,  but  it  gave  no  authority  to  tax  the  community  at  large 
for  such  general  expenses  of  a  permanent  establishment  as  were 
not  met  by  the  usual  fees  of  office.  Hence  we  see  the  West- 
minster Commissioners  casting  about  for  some  source  of  general 
revenue.  In  1667  they  appHed  for  a  "  privy  seal  "  which  should 
authorise  them  to  retain  for  the  purposes  of  the  Commission 
the  fines  and  forfeitures  which  they  were  required  to  estreat  unto 
the  Court  of  Exchequer,^  a  request  to  which  the  Court  of 
Exchequer  (or  the  contemporary  Treasury  officials)  seem  to  have 
demurred.  The  Commissioners  take  upon  themselves,  on  their 
own  authority,  to  make  a  general  sewers  rate  of  a  penny  in  the 
pound  "  upon  all  houses,  lands,  tenements  and  hereditaments  " 
throughout  the  whole  jurisdiction,  on  an  assessment  of  not  less 
than  one  half  the  rack  rent,  leaseholders  being  authorised  to 
deduct  the  amount  from  their  rents.^  The  general  penny  rate 
was,  from  the  outset,  intended  as  an  annual  impost  to  meet  the 
cost  of  the  general  works  and  standing  charges,  and  it  was  re- 
peated in  the  same  form  in  the  following  year.^  But  this  led  to 
revolt.  The  Parishes  more  than  two  miles  distant  from  the  City 
of  London  denied  the  Commissioners'  jurisdiction  ;  ^  whilst  these 
and  others  also  raised  the  question  whether  the  Commissioners 
could  lawfully  levy  any  money  except  for  particular  purposes, 
from  the  particular  persons  declared  liable,  by  formal  present- 
ment of  a  Jury  of  Sewers.     The  Assessors  appointed  for  the 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  19tli  January  1G67. 

2   Ibid.  17th  August  1067. 

^  Ibid.  17th  August  1607.  *  Ibid.  22nd  August  1668. 

■*  The  Statute  of  Sewers,  3  James  I.  c.  14  (1005),  liad  oxpressh'  given  juris- 
diction over  streams,  whether  tidal  or  not,  within  two  miles  of  the  City  of 
London. 


A   GENERAL  RATE  75 

Parish  of  Kensington  refused  to  collect  the  general  Sewers  Rate, 
and  were  eventually  upheld  in  their  refusal  by  the  King's  Judges.^ 
It  is  probably  owing  to  this  legal  decision  that  we  find  the  Com- 
missioners now  nominally  calling  in  for  rating  purposes,  instead 
of  the  Parish  Assessors,  its  own  Jury  of  Sewers,  and  levying  its 
rates  on  long  lists  of  persons — including,  we  believe,  the  owners 
of  all  the  lands  and  houses  within  the  district — in  the  form  of 
presentments  by  that  Jury.  The  use  of  this  judicial  form  did 
not,  in  fact,  prevent  the  continued  levy  of  a  general  rate  "  for 
emergencies,"  at  least  on  all  the  Parishes  within  the  ancient  City 
of  Westminster,  and  in  1690  the  Commissioners  got  a  clause  in- 
serted in  the  London  and  Westminster  Paving  Act  of  that  year,^ 
definitely  extending  the  authority  of  the  various  Metropolitan 
Commissions  of  Sewers  to  all  the  Parishes  within  the  Bills  of 
Mortality,  together  with  the  "  town  of  Kensington." 

After  the  Revolution  we  note  a  rapid  deterioration  both  in 
the  social  status  and  in  the  initiative  and  efficiency  of  the  Court. 
The  great  personages  gradually  withdraw  themselves  from 
regular  attendance.  The  names  of  noblemen  and  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  dignitaries  are  duly  enrolled  in  every  new  Com- 
mission issued,  decade  after  decade,  by  the  successive  Lord 
Chancellors  right  down  to  1837,  but  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century  it  seems  to  have  been  the  custom  for  these 
to  have  been  supplemented  by  batches  of  new  names  of  humbler 
folk,  which  were,  in  fact,  suggested  on  the  occasion  of  each  new 
Commission,  by  the  more  active  members  of  the  expiring  body.^ 
Thus,  whilst  the  total  number  of  Commissioners  increased,  the 
actual  attendance  became  restricted  to  a  score  or  so  of  the 
smaller  folk,  who  thus  came,  in  effect,  to  recruit  themselves  by 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  26th  September,  31st 
October  1G68,  27tli  November,  11th  and  18th  December  1669,  22nd  January, 
19th  February,  5th  and  12th  March,  18th  June  1670. 

^  2  William  and  Mary,  session  2,  cap.  8,  sec.  14 ;  see  post,  pp.  239-240. 

^  This  is  described  in  detail  in  the  "  Statement  of  Proceedings  usually 
adopted  upon  Applications  for  the  Renewal  of  Commissions,"  printed  for 
the  Westminster  Sewer  Commissioners  in  1837,  and  included  in  House  of 
Commons  Return,  No.  686,  of  1847.  In  1837,  when  the  Commissioners  applied  as 
usual  for  a  new  Commission,  submitting  the  names  of  all  the  surviving  existing 
Commissioners,  Lord  Cottenham,  then  Lord  Chancellor,  took  the  unprecedented 
course  of  asking  which  of  the  Commissioners  had  ever  attended  ;  struck  oS 
most  of  those  who  had  not  even  qualified,  and  added  some  reformers,  notably 
John  Leslie,  a  local  master  tailor,  through  whose  pertinacity  the  maladminis- 
tration was  eventually  exposed  {ibid.). 


76  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

co-option.  The  formal  organisation  of  the  Court  remained 
unaltered,  but  we  see  certain  significant  changes  occur  in  pro- 
cedure, in  the  character  of  the  work  done,  and  in  the  methods 
of  administration.  Whether  or  not  by  reason  of  some  legal 
decision,  for  three-quarters  of  a  century  no  extended  or  expensive 
new  sewers  are  undertaken.  The  Commissioners  confine  them- 
selves to  clearing  the  existing  sewers,  repairing  the  iron  gates 
by  which  their  orifices  were  protected,  and  peremptorily  ordering 
the  removal  of  the  "  houses  of  office  "  which  were  everywhere 
being  stealthily  connected  with  the  underground  channels.  The 
employment  of  outside  experts  to  survey  the  drainage  of  a 
particular  district  as  a  whole  is  silently  abandoned.  Committees 
of  inhabitants  to  help  the  Court  with  their  local  supervision  are 
no  longer  summoned.  Parish  Assessors  and  Collectors  are 
dispensed  with.  The  Jury  retires  into  the  background,  almost 
ceasing  even  to  present  nuisances,  and  finds  its  function  limited 
to  a  formal  adoption  of  presentments  as  to  the  owners,  occupiers 
and  rental  value  of  lists  of  tenements  drawn  up  by  the  Clerk. 
There  are  no  Standing  Committees.  The  Court  itself,  except 
for  a  somewhat  fuller  attendance  at  the  formal  opening  of  each 
new  Commission,  becomes  a  shifting  dozen  or  so  of  unknown 
persons,  varying  from  meeting  to  meeting  according  to  chance 
or  to  the  "  interest  "  which  this  or  that  member  has  in  particular 
properties.  For  the  most  part  the  actual  administration  devolves 
upon  little  committees  of  the  Commissioners,  the  members 
resident  in  each  locality  being  supposed  themselves  to  view  and 
report  nuisances,  and  to  supervise  any  works  undertaken.  The 
one  or  two  ill-paid  "  sworn  surveyors  "  are  reinforced,  and  partly 
superseded,  by  a  set  of  master  workmen,  or  incipient  contractors 
— a  bricklayer,  a  digger,  a  pavior — who  are  formally  appointed 
to  undertake  all  the  work  of  the  Commission,  supplying  the 
labour  at  standing  prices.  We  see  signs  of  repeated  petty 
jobbery,  against  which  the  superior  folk  who  attend  the  opening 
meetings  of  each  new  Commission  spasmodically  struggle.  Now 
and  again  a  special  committee  of  investigation  discovers  continued 
frauds  in  the  use  of  the  Commissioners'  material  by  the  "  work- 
man in  trust."  It  becomes  necessary  to  pass  resolutions  pro- 
hibiting Commissioners  from  acting  as  such  "  workmen  "  imder 
the  Court :  resolutions  which  are  apparently  soon  forgotten. 
Yet  with  all  this,  down  to  about  17G0  our  vision  of  the  Court, 


CORRUPTION 


77 


taken  as  a  whole,  is  that  of  a  naive  and  candid  Authority  ; 
muddling  through  its  internal  and  external  difficulties  in  fairly 
straightforward  fashion ;  accurately  recording  its  doings  in 
its  records,  including  its  own  delinquencies  ;  and  maintaining 
the  extremely  low  level  of  efficiency  at  which  alone  it  aimed, 
without  malversations  more  serious  than  a  constant  mean 
jobbery.  Presently  a  new  development  becomes  apparent.  In 
the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century  we  are  conscious  of  the 
same  sort  of  change  in  the  Westminster  Commission  of  Sewers 
as  we  have  described  in  the  Middlesex  Quarter  Sessions.^  In 
both  cases  there  is  on  the  surface  a  new  kind  of  efficiency  and 
an  increased  breadth  of  view.  The  Court  of  Sewers  now  meets 
regularly  every  month  or  six  weeks  by  public  notice.  It  is 
presided  over  by  a  standing  chairman,  elected  for  a  year.  It  is, 
from  1776  onwards,  served  by  standing  Committees  on  Accounts, 
Works  and  Rates  respectively,  which  are  annually  appointed. ^ 
The  staff  of  permanent  officials  is  increased,  and  the  scale  of 
salaries  is  raised.  The  demand  for  an  improvement  in  the 
amenity  of  the  streets,  which  led,  in  1760-1780,  to  the  establish- 
ment of  Paving  Commissioners,  and  the  repaving  of  the  whole 
of  the  West  End  of  London  with  flat  stones  for  the  side-walks 
and  squared  granite  blocks  for  the  roadways,  was,  we  may 
believe,  not  without  its  effect  on  the  Westminster  Commissioners 
of  Sewers.  The  Paving  Acts  required  them  to  make  good  their 
iron  grates  in  each  street  as  it  was  repaved,  and  a  special  officer 
was  appointed  to  attend  to  this  work.^  New  sewers  were  under- 
taken for  the  benefit  of  the  new  houses  about  Park  Lane,  and 
on  the  Western  side  of  the  Green  Park.*  On  the  issue  of  a  new 
Commission  in  1769  the  Court  attempted  to  take  the  Western 
parts  of  its  district  ^  seriously  in  hand,  and  appointed  a  separate 
set  of  officers  to  cope  with  the  work.  But  it  was  baffled  in  this 
ambition  by  renewed  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  outlying 
Parishes,  a  recalcitrant  owner  at  Hammersmith  successfully 
repelling,  in  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  its  claim  to  exercise  any 

^  The  Parish  and  the  County,  1907. 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  14tli  June  1776. 
3  Ibid.  5th  July  1765. 

*  Ibid.  13th  October  1769. 

^  Defined  as  Chelsea,  Kensington,  Hammersmith,  Chiswick,  Ealing,  Acton, 
Brentford,  Hanwell,  Isleworth,  Twickenham,  Teddington  and  Hampton  {ibid. 
25th  February  1769). 


78  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

jurisdiction  beyond  Chelsea  and  Kensington. ^  Even  in  the 
densely  peopled  part  of  its  district  the  Court  of  Sewers  evidently 
lagged  behind  the  energetic  Paving  Commissioners — not  even 
troubling  to  communicate  with  them  as  to  their  intention  to 
tear  up  the  pavement  for  sewer  repairs  ^ — and  in  1773  a  proposal 
was  made  by  the  latter  that,  for  greater  convenience  of  street 
administration,  the  two  bodies  should,  by  a  new  Paving  Act, 
be  completely  amalgamated.^  This  proposal  was  indignantly 
rejected  by  the  little  knot  of  active  Commissioners  running  the 
Court  of  Sewers,  whom  we  see  jealously  guarding  their  own 
powers  against  encroachment.'*  Meanwhile  the  volume  of 
business  was  steadily  increasing,  and  the  financial  transactions, 
which  were  always  met  out  of  the  current  rates,  amounted,  in 
the  aggregate,  to  large  sums.  The  collection  of  the  general 
Sewers  Rate,  and  of  the  special  rates  levied  for  particular 
benefits,^  is  now  in  the  hands  of  permanent  collectors  appointed 
by  the  Court.  The  Jury  practically  disappears,  except  as  a  mere 
formality.  The  little  master- workmen  at  "  standing  prices  " 
are  replaced  by  capitalist  contractors,  who  are  assumed  to  tender 
for  the  whole  work  of  each  year  at  competitive  rates.  The 
administration  is  now  done  behind  the  closed  doors  of  the  stand- 
ing committees,  whose  reports  (which  were,  of  course,  not 
printed),  are  always  adopted  by  the  Court,  the  so-called  open 
sessions  of  which  are  merely  formal.  .  Unfortunately  neither 
these  reports  nor  the  decisions  of  the  Court  upon  them  are 
reproduced  in  the  minutes,  which  become  decorous,  and  even 
elaborate  in  their  formality,  but  at  the  same  time  unenlightening. 
Judging  not  only  from  these  formal  minutes,  but  also  from  what 
is  revealed  in  the  course  of  Parliamentary  enquiries  in  1823  and 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  2nd  Februarj',  20th 
July,  26th  November  1770.  An  attempt  to  remedy  this  lack  of  jurisdiction 
by  a  Local  Act  failed  (see  House  of  Commons  Journals,  21st  December  1770, 
22nd  January  1771). 

"  Ibid.  30th  August  1776.  »  Ibid.  3rd  and  17th  December  1773. 

*  Ibid.  7th  February  1783,  loth  May  1789. 

''  In  1776  we  see  the  tendency  to  defray  everytliing  from  a  uniform 
general  Sewers  Rate  in  the  order  *'  that  all  persons  who  receive  benefit  from 
the  sowers  by  means  of  a  communication  either  above  or  under  ground  arc  to 
pay  the  whole  of  the  rate  assessed  as  being  equally  benefited  "  (ibid.  29th 
November  1776).  It  is  of  some  interest  to  find  the  surveyor  reporting  in  1790, 
"  tliat  he  examined  tlie  premises  of  Jeremiah  Bentham,  Esq.,  who  appealed 
by  letter  .  .  .  and  that  they  do  not  receive  any  benefit  from  the  sewer. 
Ordered  that  he  be  excused  paying  tlie  rate  assessed  on  him  "  (ibid.  2fith 
November  1790). 


JOBBERY  79 

1834  respectively,  and  in  the  hostile  criticism  that  gradually 
made  itself  heard,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  outward  show  of  vigour 
and  efficiency  which  marks  the  Westminster  Commission  from 
1760  onward,  was  not  accompanied  by  any  improvement  in 
administrative  purity.  What  happened  was  that  the  character 
of  the  corruption  changed.  The  naive  and  petty  jobbery  of  the 
earlier  years  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  replaced  by  collusion 
between  some  of  the  Commissioners  and  the  contractors,  who 
were  allowed  to  go  on  charging  the  same  prices  year  after  year, 
without  competitive  tendering.^  The  organisation  of  the  Court, 
even  after  a  century  of  development,  was,  in  fact,  not  strong 
enough  to  stand  the  strain  of  the  enormous  increase  of  business 
that  poured  in  upon  it  towards  the  end  of  the  century,  when  the 
fields  of  Pimlico  and  Paddington,  Marylebone  and  St.  Pancras 
were  being  rapidly  covered  with  houses,  and  when  every  specula- 
tive builder  was  seeking  to  connect  his  new  erections  with  the 
public  sewers. 

If  we  attempt  to  visualise  the  Westminster  Commission  of 
Sewers  as  it  was  in  the  nineteenth  century,  we  shall  reahse  how 
far  it  had  departed  both  from  the  legal  framework  of  a  Court  of 
Sewers,  as  set  forth  in  the  statute  of  1532  and  in  its  own  Com- 
mission, and  from  the  practical  administration  of  the  little  group 
of  courtiers  and  ofiicials  whom  we  saw,  in  the  early  days  of  the 
Kestoration,  despatching  business  in  the  Court  of  King's  Bench. 
By  1800  the  Westminster  Commission  seems  to  have  included 
nominally  about  two  hundred  members,  among  them  being  some 

^  We  see  one  of  the  Commissioners  named  Holland  bringing  in  his  son  as 
a  contractor  for  making  the  new  sewers,  at  first  as  the  lowest  of  five  tenderers 
for  brickwork  and  digging  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster, 
13th  October  1769)  ;  then,  when  a  carpentering  job  has  been  tendered  for,  the 
father,  as  a  Commissioner,  suggests  that  his  son  would  do  it  for  less  {ibid. 
24th  November  1769)  ;  presently,  when  the  father  is  again  present,  the  general 
digging  work  is  given  to  the  son,  in  spite  of  the  protest  of  the  person  already 
appointed  (ibid.  2nd  November  1770)  ;  the  same  thing  happens  with  the  general 
bricklaying  work  {ibid.  30th  October  and  11th  December  1772),  by  which  time 
it  appears  that  all  sorts  of  extra  allowances  and  jirivileges  are  accorded  to  him 
over  other  contractors  ;  seven  years  later  we  find  him  regularlj'  installed  as 
the  general  contractor  for  digging,  bricklajing,  carpenters'  and  smiths'  work 
for  a  term  of  years  {ibid.  14th  January  1780) ;  and  this  contract  is  periodically 
renewed  at  the  same  prices  without  other  tenders  bemg  invited  {ibid.  4th 
October  1782).  Twenty  years  later  he  and  another  man  have  the  whole  of 
the  work  between  them,  and  their  prices  are  repeatedlj^  increased  at  their 
request,  without  any  tendering  {ibid.  2Gth  August  1803,  31st  May  1805,  15th 
December  1809).  At  last  they  relinquish  the  business,  which  a  new  pair  of 
contractors  monopolise  for  another  generation  {ibid.  2nd  March  1810). 


8o  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

fifty  peers  and  privy  councillors,  many  of  the  landowners  of  the 
district,  great  and  small,  and  a  miscellaneous  collection  of 
ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  members  of  Parliament,  private  gentle- 
men, architects,  surveyors  and  builders,  all  purporting  to  be 
qualified  by  the  ownership  of  freehold  property.  Meetings  were 
held  at  the  Westminster  Guildhall  about  eight  times  a  year — 
presently  at  the  Sewers  Office  nearly  every  week — nominally 
"  in  Open  Court,"  but  no  provision  was  made  for  admitting  the 
public,  and  no  spectator  seems  ever  to  have  attended.  Every 
ten  years,  at  the  first  meeting  of  a  new  Commission,  there  would 
be  a  gathering  of  some  size,  when  two  or  three  of  the  dignitaries 
might  be  present.  But  half  the  persons  included  in  the  Com- 
mission never  took  the  trouble  to  qualify  for  the  office  by  attend- 
ing even  once  to  take  the  oath,  and  not  more  than  thirty  or  forty 
attended  more  than  a  few  times  throughout  the  whole  decade. 
Six  Commissioners  formed  a  quorum,  and  the  usual  attendance 
seems  to  have  varied  from  that  number  up  to  a  score.  A  Jury 
was  still  empanelled  by  the  Sheriff  from  time  to  time,  but  its 
presentments  had  become  mere  formalities,  and  the  jurymen 
were  such  as  attended  only  to  oblige  the  Commissioners  or  for 
the  sake  of  the  fees.^  From  the  very  beginning  of  the  century,^ 
we  see  the  Commission  falling  more  and  more  into  the  hands  of 

^  When  they  wanted  a  Jury,  the  Commissioners  themselves  suggested  to 
the  SherifiE  which  jurymen  to  summon,  and  they  took  care  to  include  tradesmen 
supplying  the  Commission  and  other  subservient  persons  (Evidence  to  First 
Report  of  Metropolitan  Sanitary  Commission,  1847,  p.  39).  But  the  Jury  had, 
even  in  1823,  long  since  ceased  to  "  view,"  and  did  nothing  but  formally  make 
the  assessments  in  the  office  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on 
Sewers  in  the  Metropolis,  1823,  p.  35). 

*  In  1807  the  Commission  for  the  first  time  succeeded  in  getting  an  Act  of 
Parliament  of  its  own,  definitely  declaring  the  district  subject  to  its  nUe 
(47  George  III.  sess.  1,  c.  7).  This  was  to  include  Westminster,  St.  Giles-in- 
the-Fields,  St.  George's,  Bloomsbury,  St.  Pancras,  Marylobone,  Hampstead, 
Paddington,  Kensington,  Chelsea,  and  even  part  of  Willcsden,  but  nothing 
beyond  the  brook  which  bounded  Chelsea  on  the  west.  It  was,  however, 
claimed  that  the  Act  left  untouched  the  jurisdiction  over  the  tidal  or  navigable 
waters  of  Middlesex  west  of  that  brook  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Com- 
mittee on  Sewers,  1834,  p.  1).  The  Act  also  authorised  the  Commissioners  to 
require  notice  of  the  making  of  any  new  sewer  by  a  private  person,  and  even 
gave  them  express  power  "  to  order  and  direct  the  making  of  any  now  vaults, 
sewers,  drains  and  water-courses,"  though  (as  was  afterwards  contended)  not 
to  pay  for  them  at  the  expense  of  the  general  rate.  Another  Act  in  1812 
enabled  them  to  buy  a  house  for  a  public  Sewers  Office,  at  wliicii  their  meetings 
wore  subsequently  held  ;  and  gave  tliem  power  to  take  copies  of  the  Poor 
Rate  assessment  for  use  as  the  basis  of  their  own  rate  (52  George  III.  c.  48 ; 
House  of  Commons  Journals,  20th  January  and  20th  April  1812). 


THE  BOSS  8i 

one  George  Saunders,  an  architect  and  surveyor  in  active  local 
practice,  who  was  chairman  continuously  from  1808  to  1835. 
Under  his  rule  every  kind  of  regularity  and  order  seems  to  have 
disappeared.  From  the  Court  itself,  which  now  met  nearly 
every  week,  every  trace  of  judicial  procedure  had  vanished.^ 
Any  person  desiring  to  connect  his  drain  with  the  sewer,  or 
attending  to  make  any  complaint,  found  himself  before  an 
arbitrary  gentleman  seated  at  the  head  of  a  long  table,  assiduously 
waited  on  by  the  clerk  and  the  surveyor,  with  half  a  dozen  other 
Commissioners  coming  and  going,  or  sitting  at  the  table  engaged 
in  desultory  conversation.  This  was  the  Authority  which  was 
supposed  to  manage  the  drainage  of  nearly  the  whole  of  West 
London,  and  which  contrived  to  spend  on  an  average  thirty 
thousand  pounds  a  year  on  its  work.  There  was  no  systematic 
survey,  no  use  of  the  printing  press,  no  careful  consideration  or 
examination  of  the  reports  of  professional  officers,  not  even  any 
fixed  agenda,  the  chairman  being  left  to  bring  on  any  item  when 
and  where  he  thought  fit.^  The  whole  of  the  work  was,  in  fact, 
done  by  the  chairman  and  three  or  four  other  Commissioners  of 
the  humbler  sort  who  chose  to  attend  with  some  regularity.^ 

^  Reports  of  House  of  Commons  Committees  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis, 
1823  and  1834  ;  the  numerous  MS.  and  printed  papers  now  in  possession  of 
the  London  County  Council ;  The  Local  Government  of  the  Metrojjolis,  Anon., 
1835  ;  The  Vestryman  for  26th  July  1834  ;  and  A  Short  Address  to  the  Repre- 
sentative Vestries  under  Sir  John  Hobhouse^ s  Vestry  Act,  by  John  Leslie,  1845. 
Leslie  was  himself  a  Commissioner,  and  gives  us  vivid  pictures,  both  of  the 
procedure  of  the  Court  and  of  its  negligence. 

2  Report  of  the  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metro- 
polis, 1834,  pp.  130,  134. 

*  How  shifting  was  the  composition  of  successive  Courts  may  be  shown  by 
one  example.  The  House  of  Commons  Return,  No.  686  of  1847,  gives  the 
attendances  at  three  successive  meetings  in  May  and  June  1822,  when  (as  was 
alleged)  a  gross  job  was  perpetrated.  The  attendances  at  these  meetings, 
besides  the  chairman,  was  17,  13,  13.  But  only  four  Commissioners  attended 
all  three  meetings  (pp.  14-15).  At  three  other  meetings  in  1826,  when  gross 
partiality  to  a  particular  contractor  was  shown,  the  attendances  were  19,  15, 
11.  But  only  two  Commissioners  were  present  at  all  three  meetings  (pp.  16-17). 
Commissioners,  in  fact,  attended  only  when  they  were  interested  in  a  particular 
case.  It  was  significantly  computed  a  few  years  later  that  the  attendances  of 
the  Commissioners  who  were  architects  or  agents  for  estates,  or  past  or  present 
building  speculators,  amounted  to  47  per  cent  of  the  total  attendances.  The 
Commissioners  were  not  paid,  the  allowance  of  four  shilUngs  a  day  made  by 
23  Henry  VIII.  having  long  before  ceased  to  be  drawn  in  cash.  But  at  West- 
minster as  elsewhere  it  was  customary  for  the  active  Commissioners  to  dine  at 
the  expense  of  the  rates,  "  and  on  dinner  days,"  we  are  told  in  1847,  "  the 
attendances  are  more  numerous,"  and  mainly  of  the  professional  men  and 
builders  (Evidence  to  First  Report  of  Metropolitan  Sanitary  Commission,  1847, 
p.  36). 

G 


82  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

When  we  add  that  most  of  the  property  owners  had  their  estate 
agents  on  the  Commission  to  look  after  their  interests  ;  that 
the  chairman  himself  was  one  of  these,  and  was,  moreover,  pro- 
fessionally interested  in  many  of  the  houses  affected  ;  that  some, 
if  not  all  the  other  members,  of  the  little  group  were  directly  inter- 
ested in  local  building  speculations;  that  there  was  absolutely 
no  publicity  ;  that  costly  works  were  sometimes  decided  on 
without  notice,  on  mere  oral  statements  by  the  chairman  and 
officers  ;  that  there  was  no  public  advertisement  for  tenders,  and 
no  professional  or  independent  or  even  public  audit  of  the  accounts 
— it  will  readily  be  understood  how  easily  jobs  were  perpetrated 
and  how  extravagantly  the  ratepayers'  money  was  spent.  Apart 
from  the  favouritism  shown  to  particular  lando\\Tiers  and  par- 
ticular builders,  in  providing  their  estates  with  access  to  the  public 
sewers  on  easy  terms,  there  was,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  corruption 
in  the  execution  of  the  work.  For  the  first  forty  years  of  the 
nineteenth  century  the  Westminster  Commission,  as  can  now 
plainly  be  seen,  was  in  the  hands  of  a  couple  of  families  of  con- 
tractors to  whom— just  as  to  their  fortunate  predecessors  during 
the  previous  thirty  years — practically  all  the  contracts  for  sewer 
work  were  given,  without  publicity,  without  competitive  tender- 
ing, and  without  any  sort  of  check  upon  the  prices  charged.  The 
salaried  surveyor  to  the  Commission  was  himself  secretly  engaged 
as  a  builder  within  the  area  which  he  had  to  supervise  ;  and  when 
this  fact  became  known  to  the  Commissioners  by  his  becoming 
a  bankrupt,  it  did  not  prevent  their  reappointing  him,  after  a 
brief  interval,  to  his  responsible  office.^  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  quality  of  the  sewer  work 
executed  was  as  unsatisfactory  as  the  price  charged  for  it.  Many 
years  afterwards  heavy  damages  were  recovered  from  one  of 
these  contractors  on  its  being  discovered  that  he  had,  during 
these  years,  deliberately  omitted  rings  of  brickwork  from  the 
sewer  arches. ^  There  is,  indeed,  reason  to  tliink  that  the  West- 
minster Commission  was  run  by  the  same  corrupt  clique  of 
Justices  of  the  Peace  as  we  have  described  contemporaneously 
dominating  the  Middlesex  Quarter  Sessions.  The  Mainwarings 
and  the  IMercerons  were  prominent  members.     The  profitable 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  7th  July  182G  and 
30th  September  1830. 

*  The  case  oceurrcd  in  1846  (Westminster  Commissioners  of  Sewers  v.  George 
Bird)  ;  see  the  archives  of  London  County  CounciL 


I 


NEGLECT  83 

current  account  of  the  Commission  was,  in  1806,  suddenly  trans- 
ferred to  the  bank  of  William  Mainwaring,  then  Chairman  of 
Quarter  Sessions,  though  no  reason  is  given  for  taking  it  away 
from  Drummond's  bank,  where  it  had  been  for  nearly  a  century.^ 
But  though  we  do  not  know  how  to  apportion  among  particular 
persons  the  disgrace  of  the  corrupt  inefficiency  of  the  Commission 
in  these  years,  their  record  is,  indeed,  a  bad  one.  It  was,  perhaps, 
not  altogether  their  fault,  seeing  that  the  Statute  of  Sewers  had 
not  contemplated  the  construction  of  new  works,  that,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  many  of  the  streets  in  West- 
minster had  absolutely  no  sewers  of  any  kind,  or  that  thousands  of 
houses  were  still  unconnected  with  such  sewers  as  existed.  But 
what  is  inexcusable  is  that  the  Commissioners  should  have  gone 
on  for  generations  without  any  accurate  plan  of  their  sewers, 
or  any  systematic  scheme  for  dealing  with  their  district ;  that 
they  should  have  suffered  such  sewers  as  existed  to  get  into  a 
terrible  state  of  disrepair  ;  2  that,  even  after  their  Act  of  1807 
had  given  them  power  to  compel  new  sewers  to  be  made  by  the 
landowners  at  their  unfettered  discretion,  they  should  have 
neglected  to  use  this  power  to  any  but  the  smallest  extent ;  ^ 
that,  in  spite  of  the  professional  knowledge  at  their  command, 
they  should  have  climg  desperately  to  the  oldest  and  worst  shapes 
and  sizes  of  sewers,  and  should  have  allowed  their  contractors  to 
construct  them  of  faulty  material  in  the  cheapest  and  worst 
possible  way  ;  that  they  should  have  been  grossly  partial  in  their 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Westminster,  16th  May  1806.  After 
the  failure  of  Mainwaring's  Bank  in  1814,  when  the  Westminster  Court  of 
Sewers,  with  others,  lost  heavily,  the  account  was  restored  to  Drummond's 
(Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis, 
1823,  pp.  8,  36  ;  ibid.  1834,  p.  5). 

2  In  1791  a  "lottery  inspector"  writes  to  the  surveyor  that  "yesterday 
while  I  was  searching  a  house  in  Orange  Court  .  .  .  where  I  was  informed  a 
private  lottery  was  carrying  on,  I  discovered  a  large  hole  cut  through  the 
briclcwork  in  the  cellar  into  the  sewer,  seemingly  for  the  purpose  of  escape 
.  .  .  enabling  the  offenders  to  avoid  my  pursuing  them  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer 
Commissioners,  Westminster,  20th  September  1791). 

*  We  never  find  them  compelling  owners  or  builders  to  make  sewers  ; 
though  they  issue  notices  insisting  on  being  informed  whenever  a  sewer  is 
about  to  be  made,  and  they  demur  to  its  being  made  at  too  great  a  depth  for  their 
convenience.  Their  only  remedy  for  the  building  on  low-lying  land — destined 
hereafter  to  be  a  cause  of  great  public  expense  and  private  inconvenience — 
was  to  "  give  notice  that  whenever  the  lower  floors  or  pavements  of  buildings 
shall  have  been  laid  so  low  as  not  to  admit  of  their  being  drained  with  a  proper 
current,  they  will  not  allow  any  .sewers,  or  drains  into  sewers,  to  be  made  for 
the  service  of  such  buildings  "  {Morning  Advertiser,  3rd  March  1818). 


84  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

benefits  to  the  lands  of  particular  owners  and  in  their  dealings 
with  particular  builders  ;  ^  and,  finally,  that  they  should  have 
made  no  effort  to  prevent  the  poorer  streets  and  alleys  of  their 
district  getting  into  the  awful  sanitary  state  to  which  attention 
was  called  by  the  ravages  of  cholera  in  1832  and  1848.^ 

Other  Metropolitan  Courts  of  Sewers 

The  two  Courts  of  Sewers  of  Greenwich  and  Westminster, 
remaining  in  their  different  ways  essentially  unchanged  in  con- 
stitution for  the  whole  century  and  a  half,  may  be  taken  as  the 
two  leading  types  from  which  the  half  a  dozen  other  Courts  of 
Sewers  of  the  Metropolitan  area  more  or  less  diverge  in  one 
direction  or  another.  So  long  as  a  district  remained  essentially 
rural,  its  Court  of  Sewers  approximated  to  the  Greenwich  type. 
Wherever  it  becomes  urban  in  character,  its  Court  of  Sewers 
developed  the  constitutional  features  of  that  of  Westminster. 
The  dykes  and  sluices  of  the  great  stretch  of  Surrey  Marshes 

^  As  examples  of  the  constant  complaints  about  the  inequality  and  careless 
partiality  of  the  assessments  to  the  sewers  rates,  see  MS.  Vestry  Minutes, 
Marylebone,  7th  March  1807.  By  1834  the  complaints  were  getting  voiced 
in  the  Court  itself.  At  an  excited  meeting  in  that  year,  when  some  newly 
appointed  Commissioners  attended,  one  of  them  said  that  "  immense  sums  of 
money  had  been  levied  for  sewers  rate,  and  it  was  a  well-hnown  fact  that  a 
certain  Commissioner  possessing  property  at  Notting  Hill,  and  another  at 
College  Street,  Westminster,  could  have  new  sewers  erected  without  the  slightest 
difficulty,  and  that  the  pickaxe  had  been  set  to  work  to  create  damage,  merely 
as  an  apology  for  rebuilding."  The  Chairman  (Saunders)  refused  to  submit  a 
resolution  in  favour  of  a  certain  new  sewer,  alleging  that  its  construction  would 
be  illegal  {The  Vestryman,  26th  July  1834). 

2  A  fearful  description  of  the  accumulation  of  filth  in  the  poor  parts  of 
Westminster  was  given  to  the  Home  Secretary  in  1831  (Domestic  State  Papers 
in  PubHc  Record  Office,  Misc.,  1831,  pp.  20-24).  Even  of  the  wealthy  district  of 
Marylebone  it  could  be  said  in  1848  that  "  the  sewers  were  put  in  piecemeal  as  the 
streets  were  formed,  without  system,  and  irrespective  of  the  requirements  of 
adjoining  streets  and  surrounding  districts.  Their  bottoms  are  flat  and  wide  ;  the 
levels  are  very  irregular  ;  many  of  the  sewers  have  little  or  no  fall  whatever, 
while  a  few  have  a  considerable  fall,  and  the  bottoms  of  others  run  up  and  down, 
forming  a  scries  of  ridges  and  hollows.  Hence  in  general  they  retain  most  of 
the  soil  drainage  of  the  parish,  instead  of  affording  the  means  of  conveying  it 
away  as  fast  as  it  is  produced.  .  .  .  Depth  and  regularity  of  fall  were  not 
taken  into  account.  The  cfliciency  of  the  system  was  never  thought  of.  So 
long  as  a  sewer  was  put  down  in  front  of  the  houses  into  which  it  was  possible 
to  carry  a  drain  that  was  deemed  sufficient ;  and  is  likely  to  continue  to  be 
so  until  a  combined  authority  be  strictl}'  exercised  over  all  speculative  building 
operations  "  (Report  of  Mr.  John  Pliillips,  Survej'or  to  the  Metropolitan  Sewers 
Commission,  on  the  Report  of  the  Vestry  of  St.  Marylebone  on  the  Sanitary 
Condition  of  the  Parish,  1st  March  1848).  And  see  Sanitary  EvohUion  of 
London,  by  H.  Jephson,  1907. 


OTHER  METROPOLITAN  COURTS  OF  SEWERS        85 

from  Wandsworth  to  Deptford  Creek,  which,  except  for  the 
Borough  of  Southwark  and  a  few  scattered  groups  of  houses,  were 
at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  only  sparsely  inhabited ; 
and  the  great  river  wall  surrounding  the  practically  uninhabited 
Isle  of  Dogs,  were,  at  the  Revolution,  administered  almost  wholly 
by  Standing  Juries,  made  up  of  the  local  occupiers  of  farms.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Tower  Hamlets,  and  Holborn  and  Finsbury, 
districts  already  covered  with  suburban  streets,  were  governed, 
like  Westminster,  by  Courts  of  Sewers,  in  which  the  principal 
part  was  played  by  the  Commissioners  themselves.  ^  Moreover, 
as  the  whole  area  governed  by  these  Courts  of  Sewers  became 
(with  the  exception  of  the  marshes  below  Greenwich)  more 
densely  populated,  we  find  them  all  slipping  more  or  less  into  the 
habits  of  the  Westminster  Court — reaching,  too,  at  one  period 
or  another,  much  the  same  depth  of  inefl&ciency,  if  not  of  cor- 
ruption. This  development  from  administration  by  judicial 
process,  through  the  presentments  of  Standing  Juries  of  neigh- 
bours in  Open  Court,  to  administration  by  executive  orders  of  a 
little  clique  of  Commissioners  working  through  secret  committees 
and  salaried  servants,  without  publishing  reports  or  enjoying 
public  discussion,  can  be  discerned  even  in  the  records  of  the 
Commissions  of  Poplar,  St.  Katharine  and  the  Tower  Hamlets.^ 

^  See  The  Law  of  Waters  and  of  Sewers,  by  Humphrey  W.  Woolrych,  1830  ; 
Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  242-263. 

*  The  MS.  Minutes  of  the  Tower  Hamlets  Commissioners  of  Sewers  exist 
from  1702 ;  those  of  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  "  for  the  Hospital  and  Precinct 
of  St.  Katharine  "  (adjoining  the  Tower  of  London)  only  from  1782,  though 
this  little  Commission  is  mentioned  from  at  least  1720  ;  and  those  of  the  Poplar 
Commissioners  for  the  "  limits  between  Limehouse  and  Blackwall  in  the  parish 
of  Stepney  .  .  .  commonly  called  Stebunheath  Marsh  or  Poplar  Marsh,"  from 
1629.  These  Minutes,  now  in  the  custody  of  the  London  County  Council, 
afford  a  rich  mine  of  information.  The  Blackwall  and  Poplar  and  Stebunheath 
Marsh  Commissioners  continued  to  deal  with  marshes,  and  retained  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  Greenwich  Court  of  Sewers.  The  Tower  Hamlets  Commis- 
sioners, who  met  at  the  "  Whitechapel  Court  House,"  seem  to  have  been  slack 
and  ineflScient  (except  for  the  maldng  of  one  great  new  sewer),  but  not  obviously 
corrupt.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  their  procedure  and  organisation  were 
remodelled  after  1820,  by  Sir  Daniel  Williams,  on  the  hnes  of  the  Holborn  and 
Finsbury  Commission.  The  St.  Katharine's  Commissioners,  of  whom  the 
"  Master  of  the  Chapter  "  was  ex-officio  chairman,  dealt  only  with  a  small  area 
(the  old  precinct  of  St.  Katharine's  Hospital),  and  found  themselves,  after  1824, 
without  work,  owing  to  the  practical  absorption  of  their  district  by  the  St. 
Katharine's  Dock.  There  seems  but  little  information  as  to  these  Commissions, 
outside  the  Minutes  and  the  Parliamentary  Papers  of  1823,  1834  and  1847. 
See,  however,  the  House  of  Commons  Journals,  23rd  February  1797,  for  two 
petitions  from  the  Tower  Hamlets  Commissioners ;  the  evidence  of  Peeke, 
Surveyor  to  the  Tower  Hamlets  Commission,  in  Report  of  Select  Committee 


86  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

But  these  Commissions  dealt  with  relatively  small  populations, 
which,  down  to  1835,  exhibited  no  such  tremendous  increase  as 
was  seen  to  the  West  and  the  South.  They  show,  accordingly, 
only  slight  changes  in  constitution  and  procedure,  interesting 
chiefly  as  illustrations  and  supplementary  examples  of  the  more 
marked  developments  elsewhere.  We  shall,  therefore,  not  trouble 
the  reader  with  our  elaborate  notes  of  these  Courts,  but  confine 
ourselves  to  brief  accounts  of  the  course  of  development  of  the 
Commissioners  of  Sewers  of  Holborn  and  Finsbury  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  those  of  Surrey  and  Kent  on  the  other. 


Holborn  and  Finsbury 

What  sort  of  authority  it  was  that,  during  the  seventeenth 
century,  looked  after  the  drainage  of  the  fenny  districts  North 
of  the  City  walls,  periodically  inundated  as  these  were  by  the 
rainstorms  from  the  Hampstead  and  Highgate  Hills,  we  have  no 
information.  The  Minutes  of  the  Court  of  Sewers  "  held  for  the 
limits  of  the  Holborn  and  Finsbury  Divisions  of  the  County  of 
Middlesex  "  exist  only  from  1716,^  when  the  Court  had  been  long  in 
existence,  and  when  most  of  its  district  had  already  become  urban 
in  character.  During  the  whole  of  the  eighteenth  century  the 
constitution  and  procedure  of  this  Court,  though  approximating 
on  the  whole  to  those  of  the  Westminster  Court,  embodied  some 
interesting  remnants  of  the  earlier  type.     Like  the  Westminster 

on  the  State  of  Large  Towns,  1840  ;  the  Report  of  tJie  Committee  (of  the  Tower 
Hamlets  Commissioners)  on  some  of  the  Statements  in  the  .  .  .  Report  of  the  Poor 
Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labouring  Population,  1843  ; 
and  a  stray  report  in  Times,  Kith  February  1828. 

It  should  perhaps  be  mentioned  here  that  the  Act  providing  for  the  building 
of  Regent  Street  under  the  Office  of  Woods  and  Forests  (53  George  III.  c.  121) 
in  1813  contained  clauses  establishing  a  separate  Commission  of  Sewers  for  the 
new  district.  The  Regent's  Park  and  Regent  Street  Commission  appears  to 
have  consisted  of  about  fifty  persons  representing  principally  various  Govern- 
ment departments  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of 
tiie  Metropolis,  1834,  p.  128  ;  the  Crown  Estate  Paving  Act,  1824,  5  George  1\'. 
c.  100). 

^  Beyond  these  minutes,  and  .4  Collection  of  the  Public  Statutes  relating  to 
Sewers  ami  tlie  Local  Acts  for  Holborn  and  Finsbury  Divisions,  Middlesex,  1830, 
we  know  this  Court  of  Sewers  only  from  the  Parliamentary  Papers  of  1823, 
1831,  1834  and  1847,  and  the  somewhat  frequent  references  to  its  later  work, 
and  to  its  energetic  surveyor,  John  Roe,  in  the  writings  of  Sir  Edwin  Cliadwick. 
See,  for  instance.  Report  of  tJie  Poor  Imw  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition 
of  the  Labouring  Popvlation,  1843. 


I 


HOLBORN  AND  FINSBURY  87 

Commissioners  of  the  eighteenth  century,  those  of  Holborn  and 
Finsbury  were  not  important  landowners,  nor  yet  Court  officials, 
but  men  of  milmown  names  and  (as  we  soon  discover)  parsi- 
monious ideas.  As  in  Westminster,  they  had  supplied  them- 
selves with  one  or  two  ill-paid  officers,  but  they  relied  mainly 
on  the  little  master-workmen  whom  they  appointed  for  Holborn 
and  Finsbury  respectively — local  bricklayers,  paviors,  carpenters 
and  smiths.  They  were  even  behind  the  Westminster  Com- 
missioners in  that  they  could  not  bring  themselves,  until  1775,^  to 
incur  the  expense  of  a  surveyor,  preferring  to  exact  from  their 
leading  bricklayer,  without  remuneration,  such  plans  and  surveys 
of  the  work  to  be  done  by  himself  or  his  fellow-craftsmen,  or  of  the 
position  of  the  existing  sewers,  as  were  absolutely  indispensable.^ 
As  at  Westminster,  the  locally  resident  Commissioners  themselves 
ordered  the  various  works,  saw  to  their  execution,  sent  the  work- 
men's bills  to  their  colleague,  the  Treasurer,^  by  whom  they  were 
paid,  the  necessary  rates — levied  separately  for  each  Common 
Sewer  equally  upon  all  those  who  benefited  by  it  ■* — being  col- 
lected by  little  officials  of  the  Court  itself.  But  unlike  the  West- 
minster Commissioners,  those  of  Holborn  and  Finsbury  by  no 
means  did  the  whole  of  the  government.  Their  Court  met  only 
four  times  a  year,  and  its  proceedings  maintain,  throughout  the 
century,  a  distinctly  judicial  character.  The  Commissioners  did 
little  or  nothing  on  their  own  initiative  ;  they  merely  listened  to 

^  Tliey  had  some  sort  of  a  surveyor  in  1720,  but  when  he  died,  they  resolved 
to  make  shift  with  the  brickla.yer  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Holborn 
and  Finsbury,  4th  May  1720,  28th  October  1728),  and  then  with  the  "  Summoner 
to  the  Court  "  {ibid.  18th  July  1729).  They  api^ointed  a  surveyor  at  £30  a 
year  in  1775  {ibid.  3rd  January  1775). 

^  These  bricldaj'^ers,  who  were  paid  for  their  brickwork  at  per  rod,  were 
required  "  to  do  the  business  of  a  surveyor  to  the  Court  without  any  gratuity 
or  reward  whatsoever,  and  that  they  do  not  presume  to  charge  more  for  their 
prices  and  rates  .  .  .  than  they  do  to  private  gentlemen  "  {ibid.  26th  January 
1728).     For  the  result  on  the  bricldayers'  bills,  see  ibid.  ISth  July  1729. 

'  In  1756  the  Clerk  was  appointed  Treasurer,  the  "  bricklayer  to  the  Court  " 
and  one  of  the  Commissioners  serving  as  his  sureties  {ibid.  15th  April  1756). 
Not  until  1792  did  the  Court  have  a  banker,  when  Child  &  Co.  were  appointed 
(ibid.  23rd  February  1792).  The  Tower  Hamlets  Commissioners  did  not 
employ  a  banker  till  1759,  when  they  opened  an  account  with  Sir  Charles  Asgill 
&  Co.\ibid.  Tower  Hamlets,  8th  March  1759). 

*  In  1718  "  persons  who  have  cesspools  in  their  respective  yards  and 
gardens  "  give  trouble  "  by  pretending  they  were  not  liable  to  pay  the  full 
tax  to  any  common  sewer,  but  half  the  said  tax."  The  Court  decides  that  "  all 
such  persons  that  are  liable  to  be  taxed  but  to  one  common  sewer  and  no 
more,  shall  be  charged  with  the  full  tax  to  the  said  common  sewer  "  {ibid. 
Holborn  and  Finsbury,  21st  October  1718). 


88  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

complaints  by  inhabitants  and  to  the  long  detailed  presentments 
of  their  two  Juries,  relating  to  all  sorts  of  nuisances.^  These 
Juries  were,  down  to  1778,  an  important  and  very  effective  part 
of  the  organisation.  Keturned  originally  by  the  Sheriff  of  the 
County,  they  served  continuously  for  five  or  seven  years — until, 
in  fact,  they  were  discharged  by  the  Court  at  their  own  request.^ 
Every  quarter  they  made  a  complete  inspection  of  their  respective 
districts,  apparently  as  systematic  as  that  made  by  the  Standing 
Jury  of  Greenwich,  not  only  presenting  nuisances,  but  recom- 
mending what  works,  new  as  well  as  old,  should  be  undertaken  ; 
and  determining  by  whom  the  cost  should  be  borne.  Unlike 
the  two  local  Juries  of  Westminster,  those  of  Holborn  and  Fins- 
bury  do  not  seem  ever  to  have  had  their  presentments  traversed  ; 
and  we  even  see  them  used,  not  infrequently,  for  the  purpose  of 
enquiring,  like  a  Traverse  Jury,  "  into  the  truth  of  the  premises," 
when  individuals  complained  of  the  annoyances  committed  by 
other  persons,  or  disputed  the  assessments  imposed  by  the  Com- 
missioners. On  the  other  hand,  differing  from  the  Juries  of 
Sewers  of  Greenwich  and  Somerset,  those  of  Holborn  and  Fins- 
bury  took  no  part  in  the  execution  of  any  works  or  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  any  sluices  or  gates.  At  the  close  of  each  Court, 
when  they  had  made  their  presentments,  their  function  was  at 
an  end  until  their  next  periodical  survey.  They  seem,  in  fact, 
to  have  been  a  cross  between  the  merely  presenting  Jury  of  the 
Hundred  composed  of  local  neighbours,  and  the  Traverse  Jury 
of  indifferent  persons  summoned  to  try  indictments. 

^  These  nuisances  comprised  not  only  foul  ditches,  filthy  drains  and  ob- 
structed sewers,  but  also  "  houses  of  office,"  pigsties,  and  slaughterhouses. 
In  1719  the  jury  presented  a  group  of  persons  in  "  Hog  Island,"  Gray's  Inn 
Lane,  for  keeping  large  numbers  of  pigs,  to  the  defiling  and  obstructing  of  the 
sewers.  On  failing  to  remove  their  pigs,  they  were  fined  £5  each,  duly  estreated 
into  the  Court  of  Exchequer  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Holborn 
and  Finsbury,  1st  May  1719).  One  Jeremy  Jummins  of  Shorcditch  kept 
"  between  two  and  three  hundred  hogs,"  whereby  the  common  sewer  was 
"  filled  up  with  dirt,  dung  and  soil  occasioned  by  the  said  hogs."  He  was 
fined  £20  [ibid.  21st  October  1719).  As  a  contemporaneous  example  wo 
may  cite  that,  in  the  Tower  Hamlets  Court  of  Sewers,  we  have  the  Jury,  in 
170(5,  ordered  to  go  to  Spitalfields  "and  return  such  nuisances  as  they  shall 
find,  and  that  the  surveyor  attend  the  same  time,  and  tliat  the  Jury  present 
the  houses  of  oftice,  and  also  view  of  the  intended  sowers  in  Church  Lane  bo 
annoyed  by  the  hog-house  in  Whitechapel  Field,  thereby  adjoining "  {ibid. 
Tower  Hamlets,  8th  May  1706). 

-  "  Ordered  that  the  old  Juries  be  discharged  .  .  .  according  to  the  prayer 
of  their  petition,  they  having  done  good  service  for  the  Court  between  six 
and  seven  years  last  past  "  (ibid.  Holborn  and  Finsbury,  19th  October  1753). 


NEW  SEWERS  89 

In  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century  we  see  the  con- 
stitution and  procedure  of  this  Court  of  Sewers  undergoing  rapid 
changes.  In  1778  the  Commissioners,  who  were  always  at  issue 
with  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  London  (through  whose  sewers 
all  their  drainage  had  to  pass  on  its  way  to  the  Thames),  took 
advantage  of  the  Bill  which  the  Corporation  promoted  for  the 
benefit  of  its  own  estates  in  Finsbury  to  secure  a  great  increase 
of  their  own  powers.^  The  Commissioners  were  for  the  first  time 
expressly  empowered  to  build  new  sewers,  at  any  rate  where  any 
trace  of  an  old  sewer  existed,  and  to  raise  a  general  pound  rate 
on  all  occupiers  or  owners,  both  without  the  intervention  of  a 
Jury.  These  powers  had  reference,  it  is  true,  only  to  the  Fins- 
bury  Division,  but  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  the  funds  raised 
in  Finsbury  being  used  for  the  general  expenses  of  the  Commis- 
sion. From  this  date  the  Commissioners  felt  relieved  from  any 
necessity  for  summoning  a  Jury  for  Finsbury,  whilst  that  for 
Holborn  rapidly  became  a  merely  formal  adjunct  of  the  quarterly 
Court,  signing  the  presentments  put  before  them  by  the  clerk, 
and  (in  pursuance  of  the  precedent  set  by  the  1778  Act  for  Fins- 
bury) finding  liable  to  pay  the  Sewers  Rate  indiscriminately  all 
the  occupiers  or  owners  within  the  district.^    Along  with  this 

^  The  Corporation  was  lessee  for  99  years  of  "  the  prebendal  estate  of 
Halliwell  and  Finsbury,"  which  was  being  laid  out  for  building,  and  sought 
power  to  make  new  sewers  (by  the  City  Commissioners  of  Sewers)  at  its  own 
expense,  subject  to  the  payment  by  the  Holborn  and  Finsbury  Commissioners 
of  Sewers  of  a  contribution  of  £150  a  year.  It  was  professedly  to  enable  the 
Commissioners  to  raise  that  sum  that  they  were  given  power  to  levy  a  general 
rate,  with  other  incidental  powers.  See  18  George  III.  c.  66  (1778)  ;  MS. 
Minutes,  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  Holborn  and  Finsbury,  2nd  April  and  2nd 
May  1777;  and  (for  the  quarrels  and  fights  with  the  Corporation  workmen) 
16th  April  and  9th  July  1778. 

2  No  rate  was,  however,  collected  in  respect  of  hereditaments  on  the  high 
ground  towards  Hampstead,  on  the  plea,  upheld  in  a  case  taken  to  the  Court 
of  King's  Bench  in  1814,  that  these  lands  received  no  benefit,  and  were  not 
protected  against  any  damage  by  the  sewers  (Report  of  House  of  Commons 
Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis,  1834,  p.  12).  The  Commission 
restricted  itself,  moreover,  to  such  parts  of  the  Holborn  and  Finsbury  Divisions 
as  were  within  two  miles  of  the  City  of  London  {ibid.  pp.  12,  158).  The  judges 
seem  to  have  always  felt  unable  to  construe  the  various  Acts  of  Parliament, 
by  which  the  different  Metropolitan  Sewer  Commissions  sought  to  define  their 
jurisdiction,  as  giving  any  power  of  taxation  beyond  the  limits  implied  by  the 
old  law  of  sewers — that  is,  beyond  the  area  that  actually  received  benefit  or 
avoided  injury  by  some  pre-existing  sewer.  The  high  grounds  of  Surrey  got 
exemption  from  the  imposts  of  the  Surrey  and  Kent  Commissioners.  Nor  was 
it  the  high  grounds  only  that  claimed  exemption.  The  Tower  Hamlets  Com- 
mission purported  to  include  Hackney,  but  the  Court  could  seldom  get  its 
rates  paid  there,  both  because  much  of  it  was  beyond  two  miles  from  the  City 


go  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

shrinking  up  of  the  Jury,  we  see  the  Commissioners  themselves 
developing  in  the  course  of  the  next  two  decades  an  exclusively 
executive  organisation.  The  casual  committees  of  local  Com- 
missioners are  replaced  in  1795  by  a  single  standing  committee 
elected  at  the  opening  of  each  new  Commission  for  the  whole 
ten  years.  This  standing  (or  as  it  is  sometimes  termed  "  select  ") 
committee  quickly  became  the  real  governing  authority.  It 
met  and  adjourned  whenever  it  thought  fit,  engaged  officers, 
decided  on  new  sewers,  entered  into  contracts,  assessed  rates, 
supervised  work  and  paid  the  workmen's  bills — transacted,  in 
fact,  the  whole  business  of  the  Commission,  merely  reporting  its 
acts  for  ratification  to  its  own  members  when,  with  one  or  two 
more  Commissioners,  they  assembled  at  Hicks  Hall  each  quarter 
as  a  formal  Court  of  Sewers.  These  reports  (which,  unUke  those 
of  Westminster,  are  entered  in  full  in  the  minute  books)  are 
interesting  to  the  technical  student  in  the  detailed  examples  they 
present  of  the  contemporary  problems  of  drainage,  but  they  yield 
little  information  as  to  the  character  and  administrative  pro- 
cedure of  this  all-powerful  executive.  From  other  sources  we 
learn  that  the  eight  or  ten  members  met  frequently  at  the 
Crown  Tavern  in  Clerkenwell,  and  spent  about  £500  a  year  on 
their  entertainments  ;  that  their  total  disbursements  amounted 
to  man}^  thousands  of  pounds  a  year  ;  that  they  published 
no  record  of  their  proceedings,  and  did  not  even  print  a 
statement  of  accounts  ;  and  that  they  entered  into  contracts 
for  extensive  works  without  advertisement  or  competitive 
tendering.  To  this  we  may  add  that  even  the  formal  minutes 
reveal  a  suspicious  identity  between  the  surnames  of  Commis- 
sioners, contractors  and  officials,^  When  in  1812  a  Standing 
Committee  of  Accounts  was  appointed,  which  might  have  served 
as  a  check  on  their  proceedings,  we  see  this  manned  exclusively 


of  London,  and  because  it  drained  into  the  Lea,  and  not  into  the  sewers  leading 
to  the  Thames.  A  sturdy  resistance  by  the  inhabitants  began  in  1788,  which 
led  to  interminable  litigation,  that  seems  to  have  gone  on  spasmodically  from 
1800  to  1835  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Tower  Hamlets,  3rd  and 
22nd  July,  28th  August  1788,  5th  March,  19th  May,  15th  September  1824, 
28th  November  1827). 

1  In  1774  a  vacancy  in  the  office  of  Clerk  and  Treasurer  was  filled  by 
tlio  appointment  of  one  of  the  Commissioners  {ibid.  Holbom  and  Finsbury, 
7th  April  1774).  In  1775,  when  at  last  the  Court  appoints  a  Surveyor,  he 
has  the  same  surname  as  one  of  the  active  Commissioners  (ibid.  3rd  Janunrj' 
1775). 


MAINWARING'S  DEFAULT  91 

by  members  of  the  General  Purposes  Committee.  It  remains 
to  be  said  that  this  all-powerful  little  group  included  the  principal 
members  of  the  corrupt  clique  of  Justices  of  the  Peace  who  were, 
in  the  same  years,  dominating  the  Middlesex  Quarter  Sessions, 
and  several  other  local  governing  bodies  in  the  Metropolitan  area. 
From  1795  to  1808  the  Chairman  of  the  Court  was  the  sancti- 
monious banker,  William  Mainwaring,  who  was  Chairman  of 
Quarter  Sessions.  From  1800  the  Chairman  of  the  Standing 
Committee  was  his  chief  henchman.  Colonel  (afterwards  Sir) 
Daniel  Williams,  then  newly  appointed  one  of  the  new  stipendiary 
magistrates,  who  followed  Mainwaring  in  the  chairmanship  of 
the  Court,  whilst  retaining  his  chairmanship  of  the  Standing 
Committee.  During  these  years  the  most  regular  attender  of 
its  meetings  was  their  friend,  Joseph  Merceron,  the  notorious 
"  boss  "  of  the  parish  of  Bethnal  Green,  whom  we  find  invariably 
present  from  1795  onward,  when  accounts  are  to  be  audited, 
privileges  granted  or  contracts  made.  The  Holborn  and  Fins- 
bury  Commissioners  of  Sewers  were,  in  fact,  travelling  fast  in  the 
same  direction  as  the  Westminster  body.  Fortunately  they 
were  pulled  up  by  a  catastrophe.  In  1812  Mainwaring  got 
himself  elected  as  Treasurer,  and,  repeating  what  he  had  already 
done  in  the  Tower  Hamlets  and  Westminster,  immediately  trans- 
ferred the  large  current  balance  kept  by  the  Commissioners  from 
Child's  Bank  to  his  own,  which  was  already  on  the  very  brink  of 
bankruptcy.  Within  a  couple  of  years  the  Commissioners  found 
themselves  short  of  several  thousands  of  pounds  which  he  was 
unable  to  pay  ;  ^  and  were  compelled  to  levy  a  "  double  rate  " 
on  their  district.  A  great  uproar  arose,  and  an  effective  agitation, 
headed  by  Serjeant  Wilde,  afterwards  Lord  Truro,  and  John  Wilks, 
a  leading  Finsbury  resident.  The  various  Parish  Vestries  insisted 
on  the  promotion  of  a  Bill  to  reform  the  practice  and  procedure  of 
the  Commissioners,  and,  in  spite  of  the  vigorous  protests  of  the 
latter,  this  Bill  became  law  in  1814.^  The  main  interest  of  the 
reformers  who  obtained  the  Act  was  to  provide  against  corrupt 
dealings.     All  work  over  £50  in  value  was  to  be  executed  by 

^  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis, 
1834,  p.  17. 

2  54  George  III.  c.  219  ;  Hansard,  10th  May  1814  ;  House  of  Commons 
Journals,  19th  November  1813  and  10th  May  1814  ;  MS.  Minutes,  Holbom 
and  Finsbury  Sewers  Commissioners,  29th  July  1814  ;  Report  of  House  of 
Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis,  1823,  p.  25. 


92  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

contract,  entered  into  after  public  advertisement ;  the  accounts 
were  to  be  published  and  communicated  to  the  Parishes  con- 
cerned ;  all  fees  of  office  were  abolished ;  any  Commissioner 
personally  interested  in  any  case  was  to  withdraw  during  its  con- 
sideration ;  and  the  dinner  expenses  of  the  Commissioners  were 
limited  to  £450  per  annum.  But  the  Act  is,  perhaps,  of  wider 
interest,  as  marking  the  final  step  in  the  transition  from  the 
old  procedure  of  the  Court  of  Sewers  to  that  of  a  modern  ad- 
ministrative body.  The  powers  of  rating  given  in  the  1778  Act 
were  extended  to  the  whole  area  under  the  Commissioners.  The 
antiquated  system  of  Jury  presentments  was  definitely  abandoned 
and  all  power  of  deciding  what  works  should  be  undertaken  and 
who  should  be  taxed  was  expressly  vested  in  the  Commissioners, 
subject  to  appeal  to  Quarter  Sessions.  And  though  no  authority 
to  construct  new  sewers,  when  no  pretence  at  a  sewer  had  pre- 
viously existed,  was  expressly  given,  the  wording  was  so  wide, 
and  the  Commissioners  put  so  liberal  a  construction  on  this 
wording,  that  new  sewers  were,  in  fact,  constructed  under  this 
Act  wherever  they  were  deemed  necessary. 

The  changes  in  the  legal  procedure  and  powers  of  the  Holborn 
and  Finsbury  Commissioners  appear  to  have  resulted  in  a  remark- 
able rise  in  their  standards  of  administrative  efficiency  and 
integrity.  The  formal  structure  remained  almost  unchanged, 
many  of  the  150  or  so  persons  named  in  the  Commission  never 
troubling  to  qualify,  still  less  to  attend.^  The  working  con- 
stitution was  only  slightly  modified.  Instead  of  one  standing 
committee,  there  are  henceforth  nominally  two  —  the  Commis- 
sioners for  General  Purposes  and  the  Commissioners  for  Audit  and 
Assessment.  But  this  change  was  only  nominal,  as  the  two 
committees  were  composed  of  practically  the  same  members, 
and  had  a  common  chairman,  who  was  also  chairman  of  the 
Court.  What  was  revolutionised  was  the  administrative  pro- 
cedure. The  Bank  of  England  became  the  Treasurer,  and  full 
publicity  was  given  to  the  accounts,  which  were  printed  and 
circulated  not  only  to  the  Commissioners,  but  also  to  the  local 
Vestries.  An  elaborate  code  of  standing  orders  was  adopted, 
and  apparently  adhered  to.  A  staff  of  four  salaried  surveyors 
and  inspectors  was  definitely  ordered  to  keep  an  exact  account, 

^  About  half  of  them  would,  however,  qualify,  which  was  above  the  average. 
Wo  do  not  gather  that  more  than  a  score  or  ao  ever  attended. 


SIR  DANIEL  WILLIAMS 


93 


and  to  maintain  a  minute  supervision  of  all  the  work  executed. 
All  contracts  were  entered  into  "  in  Open  Court,"  after  public 
advertisement ;  and  the  express  statutory  prohibition  of  Com- 
missioners or  officers  being  in  any  way  concerned  in  them  seems 
to  have  been  obeyed.  It  is  only  fair  to  the  memory  of  Sir  Daniel 
Williams,  whom  we  have  reported  as  in  suspicious  company,  to 
record  that  these  internal  reforms  seem  to  have  been  carried 
out  by  him  ;  that  a  few  years  later  he  reorganised  the  Tower 
Hamlets  Court  of  Sewers  on  almost  identical  lines  ;  ^  that  he 
remained  down  to  1830  chairman  of  the  Court,  and  of  both  its 
committees,  being  until  1828  at  least  the  responsible  person  for 
what  was  done  ;  and  that  we  discover  nothing  during  these 
years  that  is  otherwise  than  creditable  to  him.  Finally,  we  have 
to  note  that  the  Commission  was  fortunate  enough  to  secure, 
about  1820,  first  as  inspector  and  then  as  surveyor,  the  services 
of  John  Roe,  a  man  of  exceptional  inventiveness  and  ability, 
who  made  a  real  study  of  the  problems  of  drainage,  and  who  set 
himself,  between  1825  and  1835,  to  transform  the  shapes  and 
sizes  of  the  Holborn  and  Finsbury  sewers,  in  accordance  with 
his  own  discoveries,  getting  the  Commissioners  in  1829-1835  to 
adjust  the  levels,  build  new  sewers,  contribute  up  to  a  third  of 
the  cost  of  new  sewers  made  by  others,  and  systematically  arch 
over  the  remaining  open  drains.^  Thus,  we  leave  the  Holborn 
and  Finsbury  Court  of  Sewers  in  1835  in  vigorous  activity  ; 
praised  by  such  reformers  as  Edwin  Chadwick ;  and  cited  to 
contemporary  Parliamentary  Committees  as  the  pattern  local 
governing  body  in  the  Metropolis — though  it  is  not  clear  to  us 
whether  this  position  was  due  to  its  own  excellence  or  merely 
to  the  contrast  that  it  presented  to  the  nadir  of  inefficiency  and 
corruption  into  which  other  Courts  of  Sewers,  notably  that  of 
Surrey  and  Kent,  had  meanwhile  sunk. 

Surrey  and  Kent 

The  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  Surrey  and  Kent  had  under 
their  jurisdiction  the  whole  of  the  low-lying  marshland  on  the 
southern  shore  of  the  Thames,  between  the  River  Ravensbourne 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Tower  Hamlets,  1820-1830  ;  Report  of 
House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis,  1823. 

2  Ibid.  Holborn  and  Finsbury,  23rd  April  1830 ;  25th  October  1833 ; 
Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  of  1834,  pp.  13-14,  17. 


94  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

in  Kent  and  the  Ember  Branch  of  the  Kiver  Mole  in  Surrey. 
We  are  not  concerned  here  to  enquire  how  it  was  that  this 
particular  area,  extending  into  two  Counties,  and  comprising 
numerous  Manors  and  Parishes,  came  to  be  governed  as  a  single 
unit.i  Nor  need  we  do  more  than  call  attention  to  the  fact  that, 
when  the  earliest  minutes  begin  in  1569,  they  show  us  a  body  of 
Commissioners,  made  up  apparently  of  the  principal  resident 
proprietors  of  land,  superintending  and  controlling  what  seem 
to  be  the  remnants  of  older  local  organisations  for  the  mainten- 
ance of  sluices  and  stretches  of  river  wall.  There  were,  as  in 
Somerset,  standing  bodies  of  "  Jurats  "  ^  for  different  localities, 
with  baihffs  and  collectors  ;  all  sworn  to  perform  the  duties  of 
their  offices  ;  all  unpaid  and  compulsorily  serving.  The  periodi- 
cal meetings  of  the  Commissioners,  held  with  all  formality  as  a 
Court  of  Record,  and  attended,  it  appears,  by  the  Under  Sherilf 
for  Surrey ,3  served  practically  only  to  give  ratification  and  legal 
vaHdity  to  the  presentments  of  the  Juries,  and  opportunities  for 
appeal. 

In  1689,  when  we  take  up  the  story,  fittle  had  yet  been 
changed.  The  district  —  but  for  the  steadily  increasing 
"  Borough  "  of  South wark  and  the  slowly  growing  hamlets  and 
villages  that  dotted  the  levels  from  Deptford  to  Molesey — was 
still  essentially  common  and  marsh.  The  "  Court  of  Sewers  " 
was  still  composed  of  the  principal  landowners,*  under  whose 
superintendence   three  or   four   Standing   Juries,   in   as   many 

^  In  the  earliest  minutes  the  jurisdiction  of  tlic  Court  is  stated  as  '"  from 
the  Ravensbournc  in  the  County  of  Kent  to  the  Church  of  Putney  in  the 
County  of  Surrey  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent, 
3rd  January  1569).  One  volume,  Court  Minutes  of  the  Surrey  and  Kent  Sewer 
Commission,  1569-1579,  has  been  published  by  the  London  County  Council  (1909, 
352  pp.).  Beyond  the  MS.  Minutes,  which  extend  over  nearly  three  centuries, 
we  have  no  sources  of  information  for  this  Court  of  Sewers  other  than  the 
Parliamentary  papers  of  1823,  1831,  1834  and  1847  ;  a  pamphlet  entitled 
Reports  relating  to  Sewage  with  reference  to  Observations  of  the  Poor  Law  Com- 
missioners, printed  by  order  of  the  Court  (of  Sewers  for  Surrey  and  Kent), 
1843  ;  and  incidental  references  in  the  works  alrcad}'  cited,  especially  Old 
Southwark,  by  W.  Rendle,  1878,  whicli  gives  various  extracts  from  the  Minutes. 

*  So  called,  for  instance,  in  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and 
Kent,  11th  December  1573. 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  9th  January  1G91. 

*  The  new  Commission  issued  on  the  accession  of  William  and  Mary  com- 
prised 56  persons,  of  wliom  43  werc  of  the  quorum.  They  included  one  carl, 
five  baronets,  ten  knights,  27  "  esquires  "  and  13  "  gentlomcn  "  (MS.  Minutes, 
Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  29th  August  1689).  Among  them 
were  John  Evelyn  and  his  eldest  son,  of  Deptford  and  Wotton  [ibid.  9i,h  June 


SURREY  AND  KENT  95 

different  districts,^  were  periodically  viewing  all  the  ditches, 
sluices  and  embankments,  presenting  defects,  amercing  de- 
faulters, and  through  their  respective  Foremen,  not  infrequently 
superintending  the  sluice-keepers  and  supervising  the  execution 
of  the  work  done  by  the  various  "  Scavelmen."  2  We  watch 
these  jurymen,  who  served  for  about  four  years  each,  individually 
bringing  "  their  several  and  respective  presentments  "  to  their 
Foreman,  three  days  at  least  before  the  Court  Day,  in  order  that 
he  may  prepare  them  and  combine  them  with  his  own,  for  their 
joint  signature.^  We  see  the  several  Juries  assessing  the  par- 
ticular lands  benefited  by  each  specific  work,  and  also  levying 
a  general  rate  on  a  particular  marsh  or  a  particular  "  level  "  for 
works  performed  for  its  own  common  advantage.  These  rates 
were  payable  to  special  local  Expenditors.*  But  the  Com- 
missioners were  already  taking  some  matters  into  their  own 
hands.  They  would  periodically  of  their  own  authority  order 
the  levy  of  a  "  General  Tax  "  on  all  the  lands  and  houses  through- 
out the  whole  district  of  the  Commission,  directing  "  that  the 
several  Juries  do  against  the  next  Court  bring  in  lists  of  all  the 
owners  and  occupiers  .  .  .  within  their  respective  limits."  ^ 
This  General  Tax  was  paid  to  their  own  "  Expenditor-General," 


1691  ;  "  To  Greenv/ich  being  put  into  the  new  Commission  of  Sewers,"  is  an 
entry  of  1685  in  Diary  and  Correspondence  of  John  Evelyn,  1862,  vol.  ii.  p.  255) ; 
and  as  we  incidentally  learn  elsewhere,  Elias  Ashmole,  the  antiquary  (Memoirs 
of  the  Life  of  Elias  Ashmole,  edited  by  Charles  Burman,  1717,  pp.  53,  76). 

^  Apparently  the  extension  of  the  district  of  this  Court  of  Sewers  into  two 
Counties  made  necessary  two  panels  of  jurymen,  returned  by  the  Sheriffs  of 
Kent  and  Surrey  respectively.  The  Surrey  panel  was,  time  out  of  mind,  in 
two  parts,  one  for  the  Eastern  and  the  other  for  the  Western  division  of  the 
marshes  within  that  county.  Between  1695  and  1G9S  a  fourth  Jury  seems  to 
have  formed  for  "  the  Level  of  Earl  Sluice." 

^  Scavelmen  were  men  employed  to  "  cast  "  or  cleanse  the  ditches. 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  20th  March  1694. 

*  In  1701  Isaac  Loader  of  Deptford,  a  local  freeholder,  is  appointed  "  Ex- 
penditor  of  the  Level  of  Church  Marsh,"  and  also  to  take  charge  of  the  Church 
Marsh  Sluice  (ibid.  23rd  May  1701). 

*  "  Ordered  that  all  the  Commissioners  in  this  Commission  be  summoned 
to  the  next  Court  of  Sewers  in  order  to  lay  a  tax  upon  all  the  levels  within  the 
limits  of  this  Commission  "  (ibid.  9th  September  1691,  also  24th  September 
1708).  Tills  "  General  Tax  "  was  disputed  between  1703  and  1712,  especially 
by  the  parish  of  Christchurch,  but  precedents  back  to  Elizabeth's  reign  were 
produced,  and  the  tax  was  maintained  and  enforced  by  distress  of  double  the 
amount  due,  at  so  much  per  acre  on  land,  and  so  much  in  the  pound  on  the 
annual  value  of  messuages  and  tenements  (ibid.  3rd  March,  16th  and  23rd 
September,  and  26th  November  1703,  6th  March  and  28th  September  1704, 
27th  September  1711,  and  12th  October  1712). 


96  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

who  was  a  member  of  the  Court.  They  had,  in  their  own  em- 
ployment, besides  the  staff  of  Sluice-keepers,  Wall-reeves  and 
"  Scavelmen,"  a  Clerk,  two  Bailiffs  and  Cryers,  and  various 
collectors.  In  case  of  any  serious  breach  in  the  river  wall,  or  an 
important  sluice,  the  Commissioners  sent  their  Committee  to 
view  the  damage  and  contract  for  its  immediate  repair.  On 
complaint  of  any  presentment  of  a  Jury,  they  would  depute 
some  of  their  number  to  join  with  the  Jury  in  a  new  view  ;  ^  or, 
less  frequently,  they  would  permit  the  complainant  to  traverse 
the  presentment,  and  have  it  tried  by  a  specially  summoned 
Jury.2  Moreover,  the  Jury  for  the  Western  District,  or  Wands- 
worth, as  it  was  called,  was  habitually  so  dilatory  in  its  action, 
and  so  partial  in  its  presentments,  that  the  Commissioners  were 
coming  more  and  more  to  supersede  it,  by  the  executive  pro- 
ceedings of  their  own  members  and  their  own  local  ofl&cers.  Yet, 
for  a  whole  generation  after  the  Revolution,  the  large  land- 
owners who  constituted  the  Court  seemed  always  anxious  to 
stimulate  the  initiative,  maintain  the  vitality  and  secure  the 
co-operation  of  the  local  Juries  of  their  tenants,  and  to  continue 
their  reputation  as  an  open  Court  of  Justice,  in  which  any  one 
could  obtain  redress  against  partiality  or  remedy  for  misunder- 
standing.3  During  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  we 
note  a  gradual  change  in  the  working  constitution.  The  local 
Juries  increase  in  number,  but  sink  in  importance  ;  any  parish 
that  presses  for  a  Jury  of  its  own  is  apparently  allowed  to  have 
one,  until,  eventually,  there  are  about  a  dozen  separate  Juries. 
Their  presentments  become  perfunctory  and  superfluous.  Their 
chief  function  comes  to  be  that  of  assessing  the  owners  and 
occupiers  liable  to  pay  the  general  and  special  rates,  level  by 

^  Upon  information  of  a  defective  sluice  in  1690,  four  named  Commissioners 
are  deputed  "  to  meet  to-morrow  morning  at  nine  of  the  clock  at  Mr.  Cave's 
at  the  Bunch  of  Grapes,  near  the  said  sluice  and  from  there  to  take  a  \'iew  of 
the  said  sluice  with  six  or  more  of  the  East  Jury  of  Sewers  "  (MS.  Minutes, 
Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrej'  and  Kent,  21st  January  1690). 

*  We  gather  that  the  Traverse  Jury,  unlike  the  ordinary  Jury  of  Sewers, 
received  the  customary  common  jurjmian's  fee  for  each  day's  attendance. 
Persons  presented  took  advantage  of  the  privilege  of  traversing,  by  getting 
their  cases  removed  by  certiorari  to  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  when  neither 
party  troubled  to  take  further  proceedings.  The  Court,  therefore",  engaged  an 
attorney  to  take  the  necessary  steps  {ibid.  9th  June  1691  and  8th  April  1692). 

'  In  1704  it  is  "ordered  that  no  motion  be  made  whereby  anything  is 
granted  by  this  Court  to  any  i>articular  person  (other  than  a  view),  unless 
whilst  the  Jury  are  present,  and  therefore  that  the  same  be  done  before  dinner  " 
(ibid.  19th  December  1704). 


I 


DETERIORA  TION  97 

level,  and  eventually  parish  by  parish.^  The  number  of  Com- 
missioners meanwhile  increases,  and  we  become  aware  of  a 
certain  jostling  of  the  smaller  folk  to  obtain  the  privilege  of 
acting  as  Commissioners.  The  noblemen,  baronets  and  knights 
cease  to  attend  the  meetings,  and  presently  cease  even  to  qualify 
by  taking  the  oaths.  The  open  Court  of  Sewers  held  periodically 
with  the  paraphernalia  of  a  Court  of  Justice,  is  supplemented, 
if  not  practically  superseded,  by  munerous  adjournments, 
"  Special  Courts,"  "  Audit  Courts,"  and  committee  meetings, 
held  at  various  taverns  in  different  parts  of  the  district,  at  which 
the  attendance  of  the  Jury  is  dispensed  with,  and  at  which  all 
sorts  of  business  may  be  transacted.^  When  a  particular  indi- 
vidual wants  a  "  view,"  this  is  now  made  by  a  small  committee 
of  the  Commissioners  without  any  members  of  the  Jury,  Even 
general  inspections  are  so  made.^  Gradually  the  characteristic 
feature  of  "  assessment  according  to  benefit "  is  abandoned  ; 
particular  works  are  done  at  the  common  expense  ;  from  1758 
onwards  even  the  levels  cease  to  have  their  own  rates  ;  and 
everything  becomes  chargeable  to  the  General  Tax,  levied  by 
order  of  the  Court  itself,  collected  by  a  single  collector  over  the 
whole  area  and  received  and  disbursed  by  the  Expenditor- 
General.^  Coincidently  with  these  changes  of  procedure,  there 
are  unmistakable  signs  of  the  petty  jobbery  usual  at  the  period  : 
the  Chairman  himself  supplies  chalk  to  the  Court ;  ^  another 
active  Commissioner  fills  the  post  of  "  carpenter  in  chief  to  the 
Court  "  ;  6  persons  amerced  by  the  Jury  for  defaults  frequently 
qualify  as  Commissioners  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Court,  when 
they  invariably  have  their  amercements  discharged  ;  '  persons 

^  For  a  short  time  they  were  even  paid  a  percentage  on  the  amount  of  their 
assessments;  being,  in  1757,  expressly  "allowed  after  the  rate  of  4d.  in  the 
pound  on  the  gross  amount  of  such  rate  for  their  expenses  "  (MS.  Minutes, 
Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  22nd  September  1757). 

2  Already  in  1704  we  see  an  "  Audit  Court  "  taking  executive  action  in  an 
emergency.  "  The  Foreman  of  the  Eastern  Jury  reporting  that  the  flap  of 
Duffield  Sluice  being  blown  off,  and  the  Level  in  danger  of  drowning,  he  went 
down  upon  the  information  of  the  sluice-keeper  at  12  o'clock  at  night  and 
secured  the  same  for  that  time  ;  but  being  still  in  great  danger,  ordered  that 
the  Foreman  direct  the  further  securing  of  the  same  and  employ  proper  work- 
men ;  the  Expenditor  to  disburse  the  money  and  the  Clerk  to  charge  upon 
Duffield  Shiice  account  "  {ibid.  2nd  February  1704). 

»  Ibid.  11th  October  1715.  *  Ibid.  22nd  June  1758. 

5  Ibid.  7th  January  and  3rd  February  1740. 

«  Ibid.  27th  May  and  18th  June  1747. 

'  Ibid.  19th  January  1749  and  19th  July  1750. 

H 


98  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

who  are  not  Commissioners,  but  who  commit  nuisances  annoying 
tenants  of  Commissioners,  are  so  severely  and  partially  dealt  with 
that  they  get  redress  from  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  ;i  whilst 
we  see  other  Commissioners  obtaining  from  complacent  colleagues 
special  views  of  this  or  that  bank  or  sewer,  the  repair  of  which 
they  get  cast  upon  the  general  rate  of  the  level.^  Whenever  one 
of  the  little  paid  offices  falls  vacant,  there  is  an  unseemly  scramble 
to  appoint  a  successor  before  the  other  Commissioners,  who  do 
not  happen  to  be  present,  can  even  become  aware  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  serving  their  own  friends.^  It  would,  indeed,  be 
hardly  an  exaggeration  to  say  that,  between  1727  and  1771, 
the  minutes  themselves  reveal  that  appointments,  contracts, 
exemptions  and  privileges  are  habitually  influenced  by  the 
presence  at  the  meeting  of  some  interested  party.  But,  do\Mi 
to  1771  at  any  rate,  all  these  mean  dealings  amounted  to  very 
small  sums,  and  were  of  little  concern  to  the  public  at  large. 
From  the  standpoint  of  the  common  good  the  most  serious 
indictment  against  the  Commissioners  during  this  period  is  the 
short-sighted  parsimony  in  the  expenditure  of  rates,  and  dislike 
for  regulation,  which  was  permitting  the  ditches  to  become  foul 
by  unrestricted  houses  of  office  ;  clusters  of  squalid  cottages  to 
be  run  up  destitute  of  any  drains  whatsoever  ;  and  whole  areas  to 
be  infested  by  unregulated  tan-yards  and  slaughter-houses,  and  the 
keeping  of  hundreds  of  swine  ;  whilst  streets  and  streets  of  miser- 
able houses  were  being  built  actually  below  the  level  of  the  river. 
By  1771,  however,  the  pressure  of  new  buildings  and  the 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  9th  June  and 
11th  August  1763. 

2  Ibid.  25th  September  1707.  In  this  the  Surrey  and  Kent  Commissioners 
surreptitiously  anticipated,  by  more  than  a  century,  a  general  movement.  In 
the  Isle  of  Dogs  the  whole  of  the  repairs,  works  and  maintenance  "  requisite 
for  the  protection  of  the  level  "  were,  by  common  agreement,  in  1828,  thrown 
upon  the  general  rate,  and  "  the  repair  of  works  by  reason  of  tenure  "  was 
abolished  (ibid.  Poplar,  22nd  March  1828).  During  the  nineteenth  century 
all  such  sewers  rates  were,  throughout  the  Metropolis,  increasingly  thrown 
on  the  tenant,  by  the  landlord's  conditions  of  occupancy.  And,  in  1899, 
without  any  provision  for  adjustment  of  rent  or  other  compensation.  Parlia- 
ment, incidentally,  and  without  notice  or  discussion,  transferK-d  the  burden 
from  the  landlord  to  the  occupier,  even  where,  by  the  agreement  of  tenancy, 
the  landlord  had  hitherto  paid  tiio  rate  (London  Government  Act,  1899,  62  & 
63  Vic.  c.  14,  sec.  10) — a  curiously  arbitraiy  interference  with  existing  con- 
tracts which  may  one  day  be  cited  as  a  precedent ! 

'  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  4th  September  1771, 
20th  March  1778.  For  late  cases  of  the  same  scrambling,  sec  ibid.  20th  December 
1804  and  27th  October  1808. 


II 


REORGA  NISA  TION  99 

terrible  character  of  the  nuisances  that  were  being  produced, 
forced  the  Commissioners  into  greater  activity  over  a  small  part 
of  their  immense  district.  An  Act  of  Parliament  obtained  for 
the  Borough  of  Southwark,  which  established  a  body  of  Street 
Commissioners,  incidentally  gave  power  to  the  Surrey  and  Kent 
Commissioners  of  Sewers  to  make  new  sewers,  and  to  levy  a 
uniform  rate,  without  the  intervention  of  a  Jury.i  From  this 
time  forward  we  see  a  rapid  development  of  executive  structure 
and  function.  A  standing  committee  is  appointed,  four  sur- 
veyors are  engaged  and  contracts  for  new  works  are  entered  into.^ 
A  public  office  is  opened  for  the  transaction  of  the  rapidly  growing 
work,  which  was  increased,  not  only  by  the  increasing  demands 
of  builders  for  permission  to  connect  with  the  sewers,  but  also  by 
the  undertaking,  in  1793,  by  the  Commissioners  themselves  of  the 
cleansing  and  scouring  of  their  own  sewers.^  The  peculiar  feature 
is  the  growth  in  importance,  in  all  this  development,  of  the  office 
of  Expenditor-General.  The  Commissioner  who  fills  this  unpaid 
post  gradually  becomes  the  chief  executive  officer  of  the  Court. 
He  not  only  received  and  expended  all  the  income,  now  amounting 
to  several  thousands  of  pounds,  and  advanced  money  at  four  per 
cent  when  the  revenue  was  behindhand  ;  but  he  ordered  works, 
supervised  their  execution  by  direct  employment  of  labour,  and 
was  apparently  regarded  as  the  person  responsible  for  the  proper 
maintenance  of  all  banks  and  sluices.*    By  the  time  we  come  to  the 

^11  George  III.  c.  17  (1771).  The  Commissioners  of  Sewers  had  to  content 
themselves  until  1809  with  this  power,  though  they  sought  in  1787  to  get  a 
Local  Act  of  their  own,  which  the  opposition  of  the  Vestries  prevented  (MS. 
Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  23rd  May  1787  ;  MS.  Vestry 
Minutes,  Deptford,  Kent,  1788). 

2  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  13th  June  1771. 
It  did  not  seem  objectionable  to  the  Court  that  its  surveyors  should,  for  repair 
work,  have  a  standing  general  authority  to  employ  such  local  tradesmen  as 
they  thought  fit  {ibid.  30th  May  1823). 

3  Ibid.  7th  March  1793. 

*  In  1771,  possibly  in  consequence  of  some  legal  decision,  the  Juries  were 
directed  to  omit  from  their  assessments  all  "  high  ground  on  an  ascent,"  as 
tills  could  not  derive  any  benefit,  or  be  protected  from  any  injury,  from  the 
sewers  (ibid.  13th  June  1771).  In  practice  the  Court,  in  the  eighteenth  and 
nineteenth  centuries,  restricted  its  area  of  jurisdiction  for  all  purposes  to  the 
low-lying  marsh  lands  at  about  the  Thames  level  (Report  of  House  of  Commons 
Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis,  1834,  p.  90).  In  the  sixteenth 
century  there  was  no  such  limitation  of  the  Court's  jurisdiction,  at  any  rate 
as  regards  its  regulative  and  judicial  functions.  In  1573,  for  instance,  the 
inhabitants  of  Streatham  were  amerced  for  not  scouring  a  sewer,  and  even  the 
inhabitants  of  Croydon  for  not  repairing  a  local  bridge  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer 
Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  11th  December  1573). 


loo  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

nineteenth  century,  the  work  was  increasing  by  leaps  and  bounds. 
The  whole  low-lying  area  between  the  river  bank  and  the  rising 
ground  of  Brixton  was  being  rapidly  covered  with  houses.  In  the 
years  1809,  1810  and  1813,  the  flooding  of  the  low-lying  houses 
was  felt  to  be  so  intolerable  that  a  conference  representing  no 
fewer  than  sixteen  of  the  Parish  Vestries  pressed  the  Commis- 
sioners to  undertake  the  systematic  construction  of  main  sewers, 
at  the  expense  of  a  common  rate.  The  Commissioners  thereupon 
obtained  power  to  borrow  up  to  £100,000,  execute  the  works  and 
levy  a  shilling  rate.^  With  the  advent  of  these  new  powers  the 
last  remnant  of  a  judicial  character  departs  from  the  Commis- 
sioners. All  pretence  at  holding  an  open  Court  of  Record  is 
abandoned.  The  Juries  cease  to  be  summoned,  their  present- 
ments being  replaced  by  reports  of  the  different  sm'veyors 
appointed  by  the  Commissioners,  which  retain  the  old  name.^ 
There  is  appointed,  perhaps  in  imitation  of  the  Holborn  and  Fins- 
bury  Commission,  a  Standing  Committee  for  General  Purposes, 
on  whom  complete  executive  power  is  cast.^  But  all  the  real 
power  and  authority  is  now  concentrated  in  the  Expenditor- 
General,  who  actually  combines  with  this  post  those  of  Chairman 
of  the  Court,  Chairman  of  the  General  Purposes  Committee  and 
Chairman  of  all  other  Committees,*  He  orders  the  works.  It  is 
expressly  provided  that  he  may  sue  and  be  sued  on  behalf  of  the 
Court,^  and  we  find  him  presented  for  defects  in  the  sewers.  It 
becomes  plain  that  corruption  on  a  large  scale  sets  in.  Particular 
landowners  and  particular  builders  on  the  Commission  get  made 
what  drains  they  need.  The  work  is  done  by  contract  without 
publicity,  without  tendering  and  without  any  real  check  on  prices 
or  on  quality.  No  sort  of  regulation  is  enforced  as  to  the 
provision  of  drainage  for  houses,  new  or  old.     Moreover,  when 

1  49  George  III.  c.  183  (1809)  ;  50  George  III.  c.  144  (1810) ;  and  53 
George  III.  c.  79  (1813)  ;  as  to  which  see  House  of  Lords  Journals,  12th  Juno 
1809  ;  House  of  Commons  Journals,  9th  December  1812  and  21st  May  1813  ; 
and  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  13th  July,  3rd  and 
22nd  August,  21st  September  and  20th  December  1809,  22nd  February,  26th 
April,  21st  June  and  5th  July  1810.  These  Acts  applied  only  to  the  Eastern 
part  of  the  Commissioners'  district,  from  Deptford  to  Clapham  inclusive. 

-  After  1811,  the  Commissioners  ceased  to  give  the  formal  instructions  to 
the  Under-SherifE  to  return  jurors.  Juries  were,  however,  summoned  in 
exceptional  cases  in  1824  and  1830  (MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey 
and  Kent,  16th  November  1824,  8th  November  1830). 

^  Ibid.  6th  May  1813. 

«  Ibid.  25th  August  1820.  5  49  George  III.  c.  183,  sec.  59. 


PROFLIGATE  EXPENDITURE  loi 

any  particular  site  was  ready  to  be  built  upon,  the  landowner 
or  speculative  builder  would  offer  to  construct  the  necessary 
sewers  at  his  own  expense,  provided  that  the  Commissioners  would 
make  him  a  grant ;  and  the  Commissioners,  at  a  hole  and  corner 
meeting,  without  notice,  without  previous  report,  without  expert 
examination,  without  system  or  rule,  would  make  him  a  grant 
of  public  money  to  improve  his  own  building  estate,  of  whatever 
amount  might  please  the  all-powerful  Chairman  or  the  particular 
knot  of  Commissioners  who  happened  to  be  present.^  Exactly 
the  same  course  was  followed  in  voting  compensation  to  persons 
who  alleged  that  they  had  suffered  by  the  Commissioners'  action 
— compensation  to  persons  who  had  fallen  into  sewer  excavations, 
or  for  damage  caused  by  the  falling  in  of  sewers  ;  compensation 
to  tradesmen  because  the  road  was  blocked  by  sewer  works ;  com- 
pensation for  injury  caused  by  floods. ^  The  funds  necessary  for 
this  profligate  expenditure  were  borrowed  by  the  Commissioners 
from  their  officers,  from  their  friends,  and  from  themselves  indi- 
vidually, at  such  rates  of  interest  or  upon  such  annuity  payments 
as  they  were  pleased  to  allow  to  each  other.^  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that,  by  1825,  the  Surrey  and 
Kent  Commissioners— in  this  respect  unique  among  Courts  of 
Sewers— had  piled  up  a  debt  of  £33,691,  by  1833  one  of  £67,722, 
and  by  1834  one  of  no  less  than  £81,722  ;  *  and  that  they  were 
levying  at  the  latter  date  a  revenue  of  more  than  £12,000  a  year  ; 
whilst  still  leaving  the  crowded  slums  of  Southwark,  the  squalid 
cottages  of  Walworth  Common,  the  mean  streets  of  Lambeth 
and  the  vile  purlieus  of  Vauxhall  without  any  effective  system 
of  underground  drainage  whatsoever.  "  In  all  that  thickly 
peopled  area,"  it  was  said  in  1832,  "  the  channels  and  ditches 

^  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the 
Metropolis,  1834,  p.  96.  "  I  found,"  reports  a  zealous  member  of  Parlia- 
ment in  1834,  "  that  this  Court  was  composed  of  a  number  of  gentlemen 
sitting  at  a  long  table  and  gossiping  .  .  .  instead  of  attending  to  business. 
.  .  .  The  only  person  who  really  took  the  matter  into  consideration  was  the 
Surveyor"  (ibid.). 

2  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  24th  July  1806. 

5  Ibid.  5th  August  1813,  23rd  December  1814,  13th  October  1815,  etc. 
The  rule  was  to  borrow  two-thirds  of  the  cost  of  new  works,  charging  the 
balance  to  the  current  rate  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the 
Sewers  of  the  Metropolis,  1834,  p.  93). 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Sewer  Commissioners,  Surrey  and  Kent,  end  of  volume  for 
1818-1825  ;  25th  January  1833  ;  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee 
on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis,  1834,  pp.  87,  92. 


102  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

for  carrying  off  the  water  remaiu  in  their  natural  state,  overflow- 
ing with  filth  and  impurity."  ^ 

The  Court  of  Sewers  in  ISoo 

At  this  point  we  have  to  break  off  the  story  of  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Sewers,  though  in  their  case  the  years  1832-1835  do 
not  constitute  any  particular  era,  of  reform  or  otherwise.  The 
reader  of  the  preceding  pages — remembering  perhaps  fierce  out- 
breaks of  revolt  and  agitations  for  reform  that  we  have  described 
with  regard  to  the  Close  Vestries  and  the  Municipal  Corporations 
— will  ask  why  no  corresponding  movement  arose  against  the 
Commissioners  of  Sewers. 

It  must,  in  the  first  place,  be  remembered  that  the  vast 
majority  of  the  Courts  of  Sewers — practically  all  those  outside 
the  Metropolitan  area — excited,  in  1835,  no  animadversion  ; 
their  very  existence  being,  indeed,  then  as  now,  unknown  to 
any  one  not  immediately  concerned  with  the  drainage  of  the 
particular  lands.  To  no  one  in  1835  did  they  seem  a  class,  or  to 
belong  to  Local  Government  at  all.  The  works  and  the  levies 
of  each  of  them  had  become  matters  of  routine,  consented  to  by 
every  one  aware  of  them.  The  service  was,  in  fact,  in  each  case, 
still  in  the  hands  of  those  who  paid  for  it,  who  could  thus  spend 
as  much  or  as  little  on  it  as  seemed  to  suit  their  interests.  But 
in  the  Metropolitan  area,  where  the  eight  Courts  of  Sewers  (ex- 
clusive of  the  City  of  London)  were,  by  1835,  expending  nearly 
£100,000  a  year,2  and  where,  as  we  have  seen,  glaring  abuses 
were  rife,  we  are  ourselves  somewhat  surprised  that  there  should, 
in  these  years,  have  been  so  little  protest  against  the  proceedings 
of  such  "  arbitrary,  irresponsible  and  unconstitutional  "  bodies, 
violating,  as  was  said,  "  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  law 
that  a  man  shall  not  be  taxed  without  the  consent  of  himself 
or  his  representatives."  ^  There  were,  indeed,  many  obvious 
resemblances  between  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  and  the 
Justices  of  the  Peace,  about  whom  exactly  the  same  constitu- 
tional objections  could  be  made,  and  who  were,  in  these  very 

1   Tlie  Extraordinary  Black  Book,  1832  edition,  p.  670. 

^  Sec  the  figures  given  for  five  of  tlicse  Courts,  in  Local  Government  in  the 
Metropolis,  1835,  p.  19. 

'  Evidence  of  a  witness,  in  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on 
the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis,  1834,  pp.  83-84. 


THE  COURT  IN  1S35  103 

years,  being  stripped  of  some  of  their  powers.^  Both,  in  form 
appointed  by  the  Crown,  had  become,  in  efEect,  close  bodies, 
homogeneous  in  class,  renewing  themselves  by  co-option.  Under 
the  pressmre  of  new  duties,  both  had  practically  given  up  ad- 
ministration by  judicial  process,  thereby  losing  the  popular 
element  implied  by  the  use  of  the  Jury  and  the  transaction  of 
business  "  in  Open  Court."  In  both  cases  the  machinery  of  a 
Court  of  Justice  had  been  replaced  by  standing  administrative 
committees,  meeting  behind  closed  doors,  unchecked  by  public 
reports  or  open  discussions,  and  acting  through  salaried  officials. 
And  to  complete  the  resemblance,  both  constitutions  had  broken 
down  in  the  Metropolitan  area,  which  had,  as  regards  both  the 
Commission  of  the  Peace  and  the  Commission  of  Sewers,  become 
the  happy  hunting-ground  of  similar,  if  not  identical,  gangs  of 
self-seeking  building  speculators,  architects,  surveyors  and  others 
who  could  make  a  profit  out  of  them,  whilst  the  agents  of  the 
great  estates,  keen  only  on  getting  for  their  owners  the  maximum 
benefit  from  the  sewers  and  on  contributing  as  little  as  possible  to 
their  cost,  had  every  motive  for  not  making  themselves  objection- 
able to  the  other  Commissioners  by  resenting  their  minor  par- 
tiaUties  and  corrupt  bargains.^ 

To  whatever  cause  we  may  attribute  it,  there  was,  in  1835, 
as  yet  no  general  feeling  and  no  pubhc  agitation  for  the  reform  of 
the  Commissioners  of  Sewers.  Various  Bills  had  been  from  time 
to  time  introduced  for  enlarging  their  powers  ;  and  a  Committee 
of  the  House  of  Commons  was  appointed  in  1823,  which  heard 
the  evidence  only  of  representatives  of  the  Commissioners  them- 

^  As  to  the  feeling  against  the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  and  "  why  the  Justices 
survived,"  see  The,  Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  Book  ii.  chap.  vi.  pp.  556-607. 

^  Even  a  superficial  comparison  of  the  lists  reveals  many  persons  serving 
on  several  of  the  Metropohtan  Commissions.  Local  propinquity  may  explain 
the  fact  that  a  great  many  of  the  Commissioners  for  Poplar  and  St.  Katharine's 
were  also  Commissioners  for  the  Tower  Hamlets.  But  we  fear  that  the  presence 
of  the  Mainwarings  and  the  Mercerons  on  the  Commissions  for  Westminster, 
Holborn  and  Finsbury  and  Tower  Hamlets,  if  not  also  on  others,  was  more 
equivocal ;  whilst  it  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  suspicious  to  find  so  many  persons 
interested  in  building  estates,  like  the  Rhodes  family,  and  so  many  architects 
and  estate  agents,  like  the  Donaldsons  and  Cocke rells,  on  several  Commissions. 
We  have  already  referred  to  the  simultaneous  Chairmanship  of  Sir  Daniel 
Williams  in  both  the  Tower  Hamlets  and  the  Holbom  and  Finsbury  Com- 
missions. The  clerks  and  surveyors  of  one  body  were  often  themselves  members 
of  others.  Other  persons  on  several  Commissions  whose  interests  we  do  not  know 
were  George  Byng,  M.P.,  and  Luke  Thomas  Flood.  Lists  of  the  above-named 
Commissions  (but  not  of  that  of  Surrey  and  Kent)  are  printed  in  the  reports 
of  the  House  of  Commons  Committees  of  1823  and  1834. 


104  THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 

selves,  and  had  not  time  to  make  any  recommendations.^  In 
1833  a  general  Bill  promoted  by  the  friends  of  the  Commissioners 
actually  became  law,  which  did  not  in  any  way  reform  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  peccant  Courts  of  Sewers  in  the  Metropolis, 
and  by  which  many  of  the  archaic  formalities  of  these  Courts 
throughout  the  country  were  dispensed  with,  whilst  their  powers 
of  direct  administration,  and  of  assessment  and  enforcement  of 
rates,  were  greatly  increased.  No  opposition  seems  to  have  been 
made  to  conferring  these  new  powers  on  the  Surrey  and  Kent 
Commissioners,  any  more  than  on  those  for  Greenwich,  though, 
significantly  enough,  we  do  find  the  various  Middlesex  Commis- 
sioners expressly  excluded  from  its  scope.^  In  the  following  year 
a  strong  House  of  Commons  Committee  for  the  first  time  dragged 
to  light  the  ineptitudes  and  malpractices  of  the  Westminster 
Commissioners,  and  with  them  those  of  the  Surrey  and  Kent,  and 
other  Metropolitan  Courts  of  Sewers.  Even  then  the  Committee 
could  not  see  its  way  even  to  suggest  disturbing  the  existing 
Courts  as  the  sewer  authorities,  though  it  did  propose  that  tbe 
Commissioners  should  for  the  future  cease  to  be  appointed,  in 
form,  by  the  Crown  ;  which  the  Committee  saw  to  mean,  in 
practice,  a  close  body  co-opting  its  successors.  Tbe  only  alter- 
native that  could  be  found  was,  as  vacancies  occurred,  to  let  the 
Vestries  of  the  several  parishes  in  rotation  appoint  members  in 
proportion  to  their  respective  populati9ns  and  rentals.^  The 
reputation  of  the  Metropolitan  Vestries,  open  or  close,  was, 
however,  at  that  moment  so  bad  that  this  proposal  evoked  no 
enthusiasm.  The  importance  to  the  health  of  a  city  of  a  complete 
system  of  underground  drainage  was,  in  spite  of  the  cholera  of 
1831-1832,  still  undiscovered.  The  Members  of  Parliament,  like 
the  reformers  outside,  were,  moreover,  staggered  by  the  magni- 
tude of  the  engineering  problem  presented  by  the  drainage  of  so 
huge  an  area  as  London,  and  bewildered  by  the  technicalities  and 
conflicting  opinions  of  the  budding  experts  on  the  sizes  and  shapes 
of  drains,  the  respective  values  of  gulley-holes,  grates  and  traps, 

^  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis, 
No.  542  of  1823. 

2  3  &  4  William  IV.  c.  22  (1833).  There  were,  however,  separate  Local  Acts 
for  the  Westminster  Commission  in  1834  (4  &  6  William  IV.  c.  96)  and  1847 
(10  &  11  Vic.  c.  70). 

3  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Sewers  of  the  Metropolis, 
No.  584  of  1834. 


THE  "HOUSE  OF  OFFICE"  105 

and  the  mysteries  of  hydraulics,  whilst  they  were  terrified  at  the 
newly  discovered  insinuating  ways  and  explosive  vagaries  of 
sewer  gas.  It  must  be  remembered,  in  extenuation  of  this  help- 
lessness— and  indeed,  in  partial  excuse  for  the  inefficiency  of  the 
Sewer  Commissioners — that  what  was  being  required  of  them 
was,  not  the  work  of  land  drainage  for  which  they  had  been 
established,  but  an  entirely  new  service  demanding  for  its  efficient 
performance  both  a  science  and  a  technique  not  then  in  existence. 
In  addition  to  keeping  out  the  high  tides  and  facilitating  by  open 
ditches  the  flow  of  the  storm  water  from  the  hills,  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Sewers,  in  the  course  of  a  century  and  a  half,  had  found 
themselves  tacitly  required  to  transport  by  underground  chanmels, 
not  only  the  rapid  flow  of  surface  water  from  many  miles  of  paved 
streets,  but,  what  was  still  more  unprecedented,  the  whole  excreta 
of  a  densely  populated  city.^  In  other  parts  of  England  other 
Local  Authorities  were  beginning  to  grapple  with  the  same  problem, 
if  on  a  smaller  scale.  Close  Corporations  like  that  of  Liverpool, 
Street  Commissioners  elected  by  rate-payers  as  at  Leeds  and 
Manchester,  special  bodies  recruited  by  co-option  as  at  Plymouth 
were  at  work,  in  no  case  making  much  headway  in  their  course. 
In  the  Metropolitan  area  the  problem  was  not  only  intensified 
by  its  magnitude,  but  was  seemingly  all  the  more  insoluble 
because  of  the  inability  of  any  particular  parish  or  district 
to  manage  its  drainage  by  itself.  No  authority  could  be  ex- 
pected to  make  a  good  job  of  London  main  drainage  so  long 
as  it  was  divided  among  half-a-dozen  separate  bodies,  differing 
among  themselves  about  the  sizes,  shapes  and  levels  of  the 
sewers  and  maintaining  altogether  different  standards  of  efficiency. 
It  is  therefore  not  so  surprising  as  it  at  first  sight  appears  that 
even  to  the  reformers  of  the  Close  Vestries  and  Municipal 
Corporations  it  was  impossible  to  get  up  any  enthusiasm  over 

1  The  connection  of  "  houses  of  office  "  with  the  sewers  continued  in  London 
to  be  nominally  forbidden  and  spasmodically  prevented,  down  to  about  1811. 
The  assumption  long  continued  that  none  but  liquid  matter  should  pass  from 
the  cesspools  into  the  sewers.  The  change  of  policy  came  with  the  general 
adoption,  between  1800  and  1840,  of  water-closets,  in  all  but  the  poorer  houses 
of  the  Metropolis.  It  was  only  in  these  years  that  the  word  "  sewer  "  obtained 
ijs  present  malodorous  meaning.  "A  Sewer,"  had  said  the  old  authorities, 
"  h  a  fresh  Water  Trench  or  little  River,  encompass'd  with  Banks  on  both 
sides  "  {The  Laws  of  Sewers  or  the  Office  and  Authority  of  Commissioners  of 
Sewers,  1726,  pp.  25,  26  ;  also  Tomlms'  Law  Dictionary,  1820,  and  Municipal 
Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  242-263.  For  the  history,  see  Water 
Closets,  a  Historical,  Mechanical  and  Sanitary  Treatise,  by  Glenn  Brown,  1884). 


io6 


THE  COURT  OF  SEWERS 


a  proposal  to  change  the  constitution  of  particular  Courts  of 
Sewers.  Ten  years  later  public  feeling  became  almost  suddenly 
intense,  and  we  see  the  Metropolitan  Courts  of  Sewers,  sunk 
still  deeper  into  inefficiency  —  we  fear,  with  partiality  and 
corruption  added — summarily  swept  away  in  1848  by  a  brand- 
new  Commission  of  Sewers  for  the  whole  Metropolis  ;  we  watch 
this  gentlemanly  but  futile  body  of  Crown  nominees,  constantly 
changing  in  constitution  and  membership,  driven  hither  and 
thither  by  the  rival  projects  for  dealing  with  the  Metropolitan 
sewage,^  and  in  1855  abruptly  superseded  by  the  indirectly  elected 
Metropolitan  Board  of  Works  ;  itself  destined,  in  another  genera- 
tion, to  be  condemned  for  corruption,  and  replaced,  in  1889,  by 
the  directly  elected  London  County  Council.  It  is  one  more 
example  of  the  complicated  evolution  of  English  Local  Govern- 
ment that  we  should  have  to  recognise,  as  the  ancestors  of  the 
largest,  the  most  democratic  in  form  and  the  most  powerful  of  the 
world's  great  city  governments,  both  the  little  knot  of  Court 
officials  who  after  the  Restoration  met  in  Westminster  Hall, 
and  the  groups  of  peasant  farmers  who,  in  the  grey  morning  mists, 
had,  time  out  of  mind,  walked  the  marshes  of  Wandsworth  and 
Greenwich. 


^  "  Within  nine  years  after  its  formation,  the  Metropolitan  Commission  of 
Sewers  was  six  times  superseded,  and  six  new  and  differently  constituted  Com- 
missions were  successively  appointed  "  ("  On  the  Main  Drainage  of  London," 
by  (Sir)  J.  W.  Bazalgctte,  in  Proceedings  of  the  Institute  of  Civil  Engineers, 
vol.  xxiv.,  1865,  p.  284.  See  Sanitary  Evolution  of  London,  by  H.  Jephson, 
1907  ;  Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911). 

We  may  add  here  a  belated  reference  to  an  incident  described  on  p.  38. 
A  few  days  before  William  Pitt  hurried  to  Romney  Marsh  in  1804  to  arrange 
for  its  instant  flooding  on  the  French  invasion.  Sir  John  Moore,-  then  at  Sand- 
gate,  close  by,  was  writing  in  the  following  terms  to  Crcevey :  "  We  under- 
stand that  Government  have  positive  information  that  we  are  to  be  invaded, 
and  I  am  told  that  Pitt  believes  it.  The  experience  of  the  last  twelve  months 
has  taught  me  to  place  little  confidence  in  the  information  or  belief  of  Ministers, 
and  as  the  undertaking  seems  to  me  so  arduous,  and  offering  so  little  prospect 
of  success,  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  Bonaparte  will  be  mad  enough  to 
attempt  it.  He  will  continue  to  threaten,  by  which  means  alone  he  can  do 
us  harm.  The  invasion  would,  I  am  confident,  end  in  our  glory  and  in  his 
disgrace  "  (General  Sir  John  Moore,  August  27,  1804,  in  The  Creemy  Papers, 
1904,  vol.  i.  p.  29). 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   INCORPORATED    GUARDIANS    OF   THE   POOR 

The  seventeenth  century  saw  the  inauguration  of  a  new  series 
of  Local  Authorities,  established  in  particular  places  by  separate 
Acts  of  Parliament  for  a  specific  purpose,  namely,  the  local 
administration  of  the  Poor  Law.  These  Local  Authorities, 
which  came  to  number  in  all  about  125,  bore  slightly  differing 
titles  (such  as  Guardians,  Trustees,  Governors,  Directors  or 
Corporation  of  the  Poor)  ;  but  we  may  include  them  all  under 
the  common  designation  of  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor. 
Local  governing  bodies  of  this  kind,  deUberately  formed  for 
permanence,  exercising  new  powers  under  their  own  Local  Acts, 
having  their  own  officers  and  their  own  revenues,  and  forming 
thus  distinct  corporations,  require  a  chapter  to  themselves — - 
the  more  so  as  they  exhibit,  both  in  their  legal  constitutions  and 
in  their  working  procedure,  peculiar  characteristics  of  their  own, 
and  mark  an  important  stage  in  the  development  of  English 
Local  Government.  But  their  study  presents  difficulties.  The 
Courts  of  Sewers,  which  we  have  already  described,  like  the 
Turnpike  Trusts  with  which  we  shall  subsequently  deal,  were 
bodies  unconnected  with  the  then  existing  Local  Government 
structure  ;  assumed  to  be  temporary  in  character  ;  thrust  by 
Parliament  in  between  the  Parish  and  the  County,  and  capable 
therefore  of  being  easily  studied  as  separate  entities.  On  the 
other  hand  we  find  the  new  bodies  of  Incorporated  Guardians 
of  the  Poor  invariably  structurally  connected  with  existing 
Local  Government  authorities.  They  were,  in  most  cases, 
practically  autonomous  federations  of  parish  authorities, 
urban  or  rural ;  in  a  few  instances  they  were  little  more  than 
statutory  committees  of  the  Municipal  Corporation ;  in  others 
107 


io8        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

again,  mere  outgrowtlis  of  the  Close  or  Open  Vestry  of  a  single 
parish.  Further,  unlike  the  Court  of  Sewers  and  the  Turnpike 
Trust,  the  Incorporated  Guardians  were  not  merely  endowed 
with  newly  devised  powers  ;  they  always  had  transferred  to 
them  some  of  the  powers  and  obligations  that  had  previously 
belonged  to  the  Parish  ;  and,  occasionally,  some  of  those  of  the 
County.  Their  story,  moreover,  much  more  than  that  of  the 
Court  of  Sewers,  or  that  of  the  Turnpike  Trust,  is  inextricably 
interwoven  with  the  history  of  the  function  to  which  they  were 
devoted.  1  It  is  impossible  to  give  any  clear  vision  of  the  origin 
of  the  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor,  of  their  legal  con- 
stitutions and  actual  working,  or  of  the  success  and  failure  of 
their  Organisation,  without  trenching  upon  an  important  episode 
in  the  history  of  the  Belief  of  Destitution,  namely,  the  attempt 
to  establish  self-supporting  institutions  for  the  employment  of 
the  able-bodied  poor,  the  industrial  education  of  children  and 
the  correction  of  idle  and  disorderly  persons.     We  hope,  in  a 

^  "  We  would  further  remark  that  the  nature  and  extent  of  a  Local  Act 
for  the  relief  of  the  poor  appear  to  be  often  misunderstood.  It  is  not  infre- 
quently assumed  that  the  existence  of  a  Local  Act  places  a  parish  under  a 
separate  system  of  law  with  respect  to  the  relief  of  the  poor.  This  assumption, 
however,  is  thoroughly  erroneous,  and  is  repugnant  to  the  entire  spirit  and 
effect  of  the  local  legislation  of  this  country.  Like  other  Local  Acts,  a  Local 
Act  for  the  relief  of  the  poor  presupposes  the  general  law  on  the  subject,  and 
only  modifies  or  adds  to  it  in  certain  specified  particulars.  The  legal  pre- 
sumption is  that  the  general  law  prevails  everywhere  ;  and  this  presumption 
can  only  be  repelled  by  the  existence  of  a  provision  in  a  Special  Act  clearly 
derogating  from  the  general  law  with  respect  to  the  district.  Thus  the  general 
law  of  rating,  settlement,  removal  and  the  like  prevails  over  the  whole  country  ; 
but  Local  Acts  have  established  varieties  in  the  constitution  of  the  body  which 
administers  relief,  the  mode  of  its  appointment,  the  authorities  by  which  the 
rate  is  collected,  and  other  such  matters.  A  Local  Act,  therefore,  is  not  (as 
the  expressions  used  on  the  subject  sometimes  seem  to  imply)  an  entire  poor- 
law  code  for  a  certain  district ;  but  it  is  merely  a  fragment  of  legislation, 
modifying  and  supplying  the  general  law  in  a  few  specified  heads,  for  the  most 
part  relating  to  the  mode  of  its  administration.  Thus  the  local  poor-law 
legislation  for  Leeds  consists  only  of  a  clause  in  an  Act  for  lighting  and  cleans- 
ing, which  directs  that,  in  the  Borough  of  Leeds,  the  number  of  Overseers  of 
the  Poor  appointed  under  the  43  Elizabeth  shall  not  be  limited  to  four,  as 
under  that  statute.  In  like  manner  the  Local  Act  for  Salisbury  only  vests 
the  management  of  the  united  parishes  in  a  body  of  Churchwardens  and  Over- 
seers appointed  for  the  several  parishes  according  to  the  4.3  Elizabeth.  A 
scale  might  be  formed,  commencing  with  such  simple  and  meagre  provisions 
as  these,  and  rising  to  the  more  complex  and  elaborate  legislation  of  Maryle- 
bone,  in  which  latter  parish  there  are  several  Local  Acts  in  force,  regulating 
the  poor-law  administration.  Even,  however,  where  the  local  legislation  is 
most  voluminous  it  is  a  mere  fragment  as  compared  with  the  mass  of  tlie 
general  poor-law  statutes  which  affect  the  parish  "  (Ninth  Annual  Report  of 
Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1843,  p.  22). 


"SETTING  THE  POOR  TO   WORK"  109 

future  volume  on  English  Local  Government  in  relation  to 
Poverty  and  Vagrancy,  to  describe  these  interesting  experiments 
as  part  of  the  history  of  the  Poor  Law.  In  the  present  chapter 
we  can  do  no  more  than  allude  to  them  in  so  far  as  they  bear  on 
the  origin,  the  varieties  of  constitution,  and  the  success  and 
failure  of  the  bodies  of  Incorporated  Guardians  themselves. 

The  125  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor  were  established 
not  by  any  general  statute,  but  by  separate  Acts  of  Parliament — 
numbering,  with  amending  statutes,  over  two  himdred — which, 
because  they  were  classed  as  Local  Acts,  have  been  almost 
ignored  by  historians. ^  These  statutes  extend  over  nearly  two 
centuries,  beginning  with  the  Commonwealth  Ordinance  of  1647, 
for  establishing  the  "  Corporation  of  the  Poor  of  the  City  of 
London,"  and  ending  with  Acts  of  1831-1833  reorganising  the 
Unions  of  city  parishes  in  Birmingham,  Leicester,  Norwich  and 
Gloucester. 

The  new  Local  Authorities  thus  established  tried,  as  we  shall 
see,  a  whole  series  of  experiments  in  dealing  with  the  destitute, 
from  which  much  was  gradually  learnt.  Their  experience  in 
workhouse  management  was  the  means  by  which  the  idea  of 
"  setting  the  poor  to  work,"  as  a  possible  way  of  providing  their 
own  maintenance,  was  finally  disposed  of.  Moreover,  their 
constitutional  structure  was  found,  as  one  of  the  Poor  Law 
reformers  of  1834  remarked,  to  embody  "  principles  of  organisa- 
tion which,  with  some  modifications,  may  be  made  both  bene- 
ficially and  generally  applicable."  ^  It  was  from  these  statutory 
Poor  Law  Authorities  that  was  derived  the  machinery  of  adminis- 
tration by  committees,  for  unions  of  parishes,  through  salaried 
ofiicials,  with  the  workhouse  in  the  background,  out  of  which 
was  constructed  the  Poor  Law  reform  of  1834.  Indeed,  it  is 
scarcely  too  much  to  say  that  their  peculiar  "  principle  of  com- 
bining an  elective  controlling  power  with  a  paid  executive  "  ^ 

^  They  are,  for  instance,  not  dealt  with  in  the  voluminous  History  of  the 
English  Poor  Law,  by  Sir  George  Nicholls.  Praetically  the  only  study  of  these 
Local  Acts  relating  to  the  Poor  Law  is  that  of  Mr.  F.  H.  Spencer  in  his  Municipal 
Origins,  1911  (chap.  vii.  pp.  281-308)  ;  but  the  Second,  Ninth  and  Tenth 
Annual  Reports  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1836,  1843  and  1844,  inci- 
dentally afford  much  information. 

*  Captain  Chapman's  report  on  Statutory  Poor  Law  Authorities  in  Appen- 
dix A  of  First  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834,  pp. 
522-523. 

3  Ibid. 


no        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

has  become  the  dominant  feature  of  the  constitutional  structure 
of  English  as  distinguished  from  American  and  from  Continental 
forms  of  Local  Government. 

We  shall  find  that  these  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor, 
varied  as  they  were  in  constitutional  structure  and  in  the  organisa- 
tion of  their  activities,  fall  into  four  classes,  which  we  designate 
respectively  the  Union  of  Urban  Parishes,  the  Union  of  Kural 
Parishes,  the  Vestry  Executive  and  the  Reorganised  Vestry. 


The  Union  of  Urban  Parishes 

We  take,  as  the  type-specimen  of  the  Unions  of  Urban 
Parishes,  not  the  first  to  be  established,  with  regard  to  the 
actual  worldng  of  which  little  is  known,  and  which  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  influential  as  an  example  ;  ^  but  the  most 

^  The  first  statutory  authority  of  this  kind  was  the  Corporation  of  the  Poor 
of  the  City  of  London,  established  by  Parliament  in  1647,  under  a  president 
and  governors,  for  "  the  constant  relief  and  employment  of  the  poor  and  the 
punishment  of  vagrants  and  other  disorderly  persons  in  the  City  of  London." 
This  body  set  up  a  workhouse  in  which  orphan  children  were  maintained,  gave 
out  materials  to  be  worked  on  at  home,  and  even  sent  some  able-bodied  men 
to  sea  in  fishing  smacks  captured  from  the  Dutch  and  granted  to  the  Corporation 
for  this  purpose  ( The  Early  History  of  English  Poor  Relief,  by  E.  M.  Leonard, 
1900,  pp.  272-273  ;  and  the  authorities  there  quoted).  This  premier  Poor  Law 
authority,  of  which  the  records  could  probably  be  found  among  the  City  arch- 
ives, seems  to  deserve  a  monograph.  Some  description  of  its  constitution  and 
work  is  given  in  old  editions  of  Shaw's  Parish  Jjatv.  The  Ordinance  of  1647 
was  confirmed  in  1662  by  the  Act,  13  &  14  Charles  II.  c.  12  (made  perpetual 
by  12  Anne,  St.  1,  c.  18,  in  1714),  which  defined  the  constitution  of  the  Cor- 
poration to  be  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  and  fifty-two  other  citizens 
chosen  by  the  Common  Council ;  and  which  enabled  like  Corporations  of  the 
Poor  to  be  established  in  the  City  of  Westminster,  on  the  nomination  of  the 
Lord  Chancellor,  and  for  other  parishes  within  the  Bills  of  Mortality  on  the 
nomination  of  the  County  Justices  {A  Practical  Treatise  on  the  Laws,  Customs, 
Usages  and  Regulations  of  the  City  and  Port  of  London,  by  Alexander  Pulling, 
first  edition,  1842,  third  edition,  1854,  pp.  242-243).  We  are  not  aware  that 
any  such  Corporations  were  formed,  either  in  Westminster  or  elsewhere,  under 
this  statute.  It  could  even  be  said  officially  in  1843  that  '"  no  Corporation 
was  formed  under  this  Act  of  Parliament  imtil  the  year  1698,  and  no  steps 
were  taken  for  hiring  a  workliouse  in  the  City  of  London  until  the  following 
year  "  (Ninth  Annual  Report  of  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1843,  p.  94).  This, 
however,  was  plainly  incorrect,  as  "  reports  of  the  Governors  of  the  Corpora- 
tion were  published  in  1655  "  (History  of  English  Philanthropy,  by  B.  Kirkman 
Gray,  1905,  pp.  72-74).  The  Corporation  of  the  Poor  of  the  City  of  London 
continued  in  existence,  and  its  workhouses  to  be  used,  throughout  the  eighteenth 
century  ;  but  this  did  not  prevent  various  City  parishes  from  obtaining  their 
own  Local  Acts  and,  in  some  cases,  establisliing  their  own  workliouscs.  Thus, 
St.  Botolph,  Aldgate,  did  so  in  1765,  by  6  George  III.  c.  64  ;  St.  Botolph, 
Bishopsgate,  in  1795,  by  35  George  III.  c.  61  ;    and  St.  Bride's,  Fleet  Street, 


I 


THE  CORPORATION  OF  THE  POOR  iii 

noteworthy  and  most  widely  imitated  of  them  all,  the  Corporation 
of  the  Poor  of  the  City  of  Bristol,  established  by  the  Act,  7  and  8 
William  III.  c.  32,  in  what  was  then  the  second  city  of  the 
kingdom.  It  had  its  origin,  we  may  say,  in  a  combination  of 
reason  and  philanthropy  curiously  analogous  to  nineteenth- 
century  movements.  A  century  of  experience  of  the  Elizabethan 
Poor  Law  had  revealed  serious  evils  in  its  practical  administra- 
tion, especially  in  the  crowded  cities.  The  Overseers  had  found 
it  difficult  and  troublesome  to  "  set  the  poor  to  work."  They 
had  been  directed  by  the  Act  of  1601  to  provide  a  sufficient  stock 
of  flax,  hemp,  wool,  thread,  iron  and  other  necessary  stuff  for 
the  poor  to  work  on,  the  assumption  being,  apparently,  that 
these  materials  should  be  given  out  to  destitute  persons  to  be 
worked  up  into  valuable  commodities  in  their  own  homes.  At 
any  rate  the  Overseers  were  given  no  powers  of  acquiring  land, 
or  of  borrowing  money  to  build  or  purchase  premises  ;  and  they 
had  no  express  authority  to  establish  and  maintain  a  workhouse, 
even  if  the  premises  were  provided.  How  far  the  directions  of 
the  Elizabethan  statute  with  regard  to  the  provision  of  material 
were  ever  acted  upon  we  do  not  know.  There  is  evidence  of 
considerable  but  not  ubiquitous  activity  for  the  first  three 
decades  of  the  seventeenth  century,  under  the  influence  of  the 
Privy  Council,  the  Assize  Judges  and  the  Justices  of  the  Peace.  ^ 
But  this  organised  supervision  from  the  centre  came  to  an  end. 
It  is  plain  that  by  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  after 
the  dislocations  of  the  Civil  War,  the  Overseers  had  fallen  into 


in  1799,  by  39  George  III.  c.  4,  and  7  George  IV.  session  1,  c.  14.  What  happened 
to  the  administration  of  the  Corporation  of  the  Poor,  and  what  were  its  relations 
to  the  City  parishes,  we  have  not  ascertained.  We  gather  that  it  was  dissolved, 
and  its  workhouse  was  sold,  by  authority  of  the  Acts  5  George  IV.  c.  83,  and 
10  George  IV.  c.  43,  in  the  decade  preceding  the  passing  of  the  Poor  Law 
Amendment  Act,  1834.  On  the  passing  of  that  Act  it  was  remarked  that 
none  of  the  ninety-six  parishes  within  the  City  walls  possessed  a  workhouse 
either  singly  or  in  combination.  These  parishes  were  formed  into  the  City  of 
London  Union  in  1837,  whilst  the  twelve  others  were  divided  between  two 
other  new  Unions,  the  East  and  West  London  respectively,  in  1838  (Third  and 
Fourth  Annual  Reports  of  Poor  Law  Commissioners ;  Pulling's  Practical 
Treatise,  etc.,  1842,  pp.  248-249). 

1  See  the  Calendars  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  State  Papers,  and  Privy 
Council  Registers  for  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  the  contem- 
porary municipal  records  (such  as  those  of  the  City  of  London,  Shrewsbury, 
Plymouth,  Norwich,  St.  Albans,  Windsor)  ;  Quarter  Sessions  from  Elizabeth  to 
Anne,  by  A.  H.  Hamilton,  1889  ;  The  Country  Justice,  by  Michael  Dalton,  1655  ; 
The  Early  History  of  English  Poor  Belief,  by  E.  M,  Leonard,  1900. 


112         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

the  habit  of  distributing  what  we  should  now  term  out-relief  to 
all  whom  they  considered  destitute,^  The  resulting  rise  in  the 
rates,  2  if  not  the  other  evils  that  ensued,  was  sufficient  to  attract 
the  attention  both  of  philanthropists  and  of  statesmen.  No 
less  a  person  than  John  Locke,  then  newly  appointed  one  of  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  drew  up  in  1697  an  elaborate 
report  in  which  he  attributed  "  the  multiplying  of  the  poor  and 
the  increase  of  the  tax  for  their  maintenance  "  to  the  relaxation 
"  of  discipline  and  corruption  of  manners."  ^  It  seemed,  he 
said,  nowadays  to  be  taken  for  granted  by  Overseers  that 
"  every  one  must  have  meat,  drink,  clothing  and  firing,"  the 
result  being  that  "  so  much  goes  out  of  the  stock  of  the  kingdom 
whether  they  (the  recipients)  work  or  no."  The  dominant  idea 
of  the  reformers  of  the  time  was  "  the  setting  of  the  poor  to 
work "  ;  and  this  was  inculcated  by  William  III.  in  several 
successive  speeches  from  the  throne,*  These  speeches,  like 
others  nearer  to  our  own  time,  failed  to  get  embodied  in  any 
general  legislation.  Meanwhile  a  merchant  of  Bristol,  John 
Gary,  seriously  concerned  at  the  growing  demoralisation  of  the 
poor,  had  written  a  powerful  pamphlet,  and  called  meetings  of 
the  inhabitants  ;  finally  inducing  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of 
the  city  and  other  principal  inhabitants  to  apply  to  Parliament 
for  a  Local  Act.  The  reasons  for  the  application,  as  is  stated 
in  the  preamble,  were  that  "it  is  found  by  experience  that  the 


^  "  It  is  rare  to  see  any  provision  of  a  stock  in  any  parish  for  the  relief  of 
the  poor  "  (^  Discourse  torching  provision  for  the  Poor,  by  Sir  Matthew  Hale  ; 
published  in  1683  after  his  death,  but  written  probably  before  1660)  ;  see 
History  of  the  Poor  Law,  by  R.  Bum,  1764  ;  History  of  the  English  Poor  Law, 
by  Sir  George  Nicholls,  1854,  vol.  i.  pp.  287-290. 

*  "  Thus  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  Bread  for  the  Poor,  printed  at  Exeter  in 
1698,  quoted  by  Mr.  Ruggles  and  attributed  to  Mr.  Dunning,  it  is  stated  that 
the  charge  of  maintaining  the  poor  in  some  parishes  in  Devonshire  had,  within 
sixty  years,  advanced  from  foriy  shillings  to  fortj'  pounds  a  year  ;  in  others 
twice  that  sum,  and  most  wheres  double  within  twenty  years,  and  like  to  double 
again  in  a  short  time  "  {History  of  the  English  Poor  Law,  by  Sir  George  Nicholls, 
1854,  vol.  i.  p.  329). 

'  Report  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Lords  Justices  in  the  year  1G97  respecting 
the  Relief  and  Employment  of  the  Poor,  drawn  up  by  Mr.  John  Locke,  one  of 
the  original  Commissioners  of  that  Board,  1787,  p.  110;  see  State  of  the  Poor, 
by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  i.  pp.  244-245  ;  Pauperis)n  and  Poor  Laws,  by 
Robert  Pashley,  1852,  pp.  235-236  ;  History  of  the  English  Poor  Law,  by  Sir 
George  Nicholls,  1854,  vol.  i.  p.  352. 

*  History  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Commons,  1660-1743,  by  Richard 
Chandler,  1742-1744  ;  State  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  i.  p.  247  ; 
History  of  tfie  English  Poor  Law,  by  Sir  George  Nicholls,  1854,  vol.  i.  p.  351. 


THE  BRISTOL  CORPORATION  113 

poor  in  the  City  of  Bristol  do  daily  multiply,  and  idleness  and 
debauchery  amongst  the  meaner  sort  doth  greatly  increase,  for 
want  of  workhouses  to  set  them  to  work,  and  a  sufficient  authority 
to  compel  them  thereto,  as  well  to  the  charge  of  the  inhabitants 
and  grief  of  the  charitable  and  honest  citizens  of  the  said  city, 
as  the  great  distress  of  the  poor  themselves  for  which  sufficient 
redress  hath  not  yet  been  provided."  An  attempt  in  1681  to 
cope  with  the  situation  by  getting  a  contractor  to  employ  the 
poor  at  spinning  yarn  at  piecework  wages  had  brought  no 
lasting  improvement.^  Gary's  proposals,  which  were  destined  to 
be  copied  up  and  down  the  kingdom  for  a  whole  century,  were 
summarised  as  follows  : 

1.  That  a  spacious  workhouse  be  erected  at  a  general  charge, 
large  enough  for  the  poor  to  be  employed  therein  ;  and  also  for 
room  for  such  as,  being  unable  to  work,  are  to  be  relieved  by 
charity. 

2.  That  the  rules  of  the  house  may  force  all  persons  to  work 
that  are  able,  and  encourage  manufacturers  to  furnish  them  with 
materials  to  work  upon, 

3.  That  persons  not  able  to  maintaiu  their  children  may  put 
them  into  this  workhouse  or  hospital  at  what  ages  they  will, 
so  that  these  children  may  be  bred  up  to  labour,  principles  of 
virtue  implanted  in  them  at  an  early  age,  and  laziness  be  dis- 
couraged. 

4.  That  the  ancient  shall  be  provided  for  according  to  their 
wants. 

5.  That  the  rates  of  the  city  being  united  into  one  common 
fund,  the  magistrates  will  be  freed  from  the  daily  trouble  which 
they  have  about  settlement  of  the  poor,  the  parish  officers  will 
be  eased,  the  poor's  stock  will  not  be  spent  in  law,  but  they  will 
be  provided  for  without  being  sent  from  parish  to  parish,  and 
their  children  will  be  settled  in  a  way  serviceable  to  the  public 
good,  and  not  be  bred  up  in  all  manner  of  vice  as  they  now  are. 

6.  That  the  governor  be  empowered  to  force  all  poor  people 
to  work  who  do  not  betake  themselves  to  some  lawful  employ- 
ment elsewhere,  but  spend  their  time  lazily  and  idly, 

7.  That  the  governor  have  power  to  settle  out  the  young 
people  at  such  ages  as  may  be  thought  fit,  the  boys  to  navigation 

^  Some  Proposals  for  the  Employment  of  the  Poor,  by  Thomas  Firmin,  1681  ; 
The  Stale  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1697,  vol.  il.  p.  184. 

I 


V- 


114         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

and  the  maids  in  service  ;  and  to  bind  them  apprentices  for  a 
certain  number  of  years  ;  that  this  will  prevent  children  froiri 
being  starved  by  the  poverty  of  their  parents  and  the  neglect 
of  parish  officers,  which  is  now  a  great  loss  to  the  nation,  in- 
asmuch as  every  person  would  by  his  labour  add  to  the  wealth 
of  the  public. 

Parliament  passed  the  Bill  on  the  18th  January  1696,  and 
allowed  the  City  of  Bristol  to  try  its  experiment.  The  Act  took 
the  whole  management  and  relief  of  the  poor  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  Overseers  of  the  nineteen  crowded  city  parishes,  and 
established  a  new  "  Corporation  of  the  Poor  "  for  the  whole 
city,  consisting  of  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  the  city  and  the 
Churchwardens  of  the  parishes,  together  with  four  persons  elected 
by  a  public  meeting  of  the  inhabitants  of  each  ward.^  The 
Corporation  of  the  Poor  of  the  City  of  Bristol  was — if  we  leave 
aside  the  immemorial  traditional  usages  of  the  Corporations  of 
London,  Norwich,  and  a  few  other  ancient  municipal  bodies  ^ — 

^  The  principal  source  for  the  history  of  this  celebrated  "  Corporation  of 
the  Poor  of  the  City  of  Bristol  "  must  always  be  its  own  well-kept  and  volum- 
inous MS.  Minutes,  which  we  have  found  of  great  use  ;  see  also  the  Acts, 
7  &  8  William  III.  c.  32  ;  12  Anne,  st.  *2,  c.  15  ;  4  George  I.  c.  3  ;  18  George  II. 
c.  30  ;  31  George  II.  c.  50  ;  3  George  IV.  c.  24  ;  1  William  IV.  c.  4  ;  An  Account 
of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Corporation  of  the  Poor  of  Bristol,  by  John  Cary,  1700  ; 
The  State  of  the  Poor,  by\Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  ii.  pp.  182-203,  vol.  i. 
pp.  275-278  ;  Transactions  of  the  Corporation  of  the  Poor  in  the  City  of  Bristol 
during  a  period  of  120  years,  by  James  Johnson  (Bristol,  1826);  An  Address 
to  the  Inhabitants  of  Bristol  on  the  subject  of  the  Poor  Bates,  by  James  Johnson 
(Bristol,  1820) ;  Observations  on  the  Bill  about  to  be  introduced  iiitn  Parliament 
by  the  Corporation  of  the  City  and  the  Poor,  by  Thomas  Stocking  (Bristol,  1822)  ; 
Letters,  essays,  etc.,  illustrative  of  the  Municipal  History  of  Bristol,  and  of  the 
trade  of  its  port,  written  and  collected  by  a  burgess  (Bristol,  1836) ;  Appendix  A 
to  First  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834  (Chapman's  Report), 
p.  510  :   Ninth  Annual  Report  of  Poor  I^aw  Commissioners,  1843,  pj).  138-181. 

2  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1907.  It  will  be  re- 
membered that  the  Corporation  of  the  Poor  of  the  City  of  Ixindon  was  to 
consist  of  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  ex  officio,  with  52  other  citizens 
nominated  by  the  Common  Council.  The  elective  element  was  thus  indirectly 
chosen.  Of  the  Bristol  body,  we  may  say  that  its  manuscript  minutes  show 
it  to  have  been,  from  the  outset,  a  dignified  and  well-organised  body,  presided 
over  by  a  "  governor  "  who  habitually  continued  in  office  for  a  term  of  years  ; 
acting  under  well-framed  standing  orders  ;  working  through  a  permanent 
executive  of  fifteen  membei's,  who  were  di\nded  into  four  or  five  standing 
committees  ;  and  served  by  a  relatively  large  staff  of  salaried  officials,  including 
latterly  even  an  "  investigator  "  to  detect  impostor.s.  "  The  services  of  the 
Guardians,"  writes  the  able  governor  in  1820,  "  are  gratuitous.  No  member 
of  the  Corporation  of  the  Poor  can  even  supply  the  Hospital  with  goods  ;  nor 
does  the  whole  body  of  Guardians  put  the  City  to  any,  the  most  trifling 
expense  ;  for  when  upon  Committ<>es,  etc.,  any  refreshment  is  wanted,  it  is 
sent  for  to  a  neighbouring  inn  and  paid  by  the  respective  individuals  "  (Address 


UNIONS  OF  URBAN  PARISHES  I  115 

the  first  local  governing  body  directed  by  Parliamentary  statute 
to  be  based  mainly  upon  popular  election  in  all  the  wards  of  a 
great  city. 

The  Bristol  Workhouse  quickly  became  widely  known  as  a 
promising  experiment ;  and  within  the  next  fifteen  years  thirteen 
towns— Crediton  (1698),  Tiverton  (1698),  Exeter  (1698),  Hereford 
(1698),  Colchester  (1698),  Hull  (1698),  Shaftesbury  (1698),  King's 
Lynn  (1700),  Sudbury  (1700),  Gloucester  (1702),  Worcester  (1704), 
Plymouth  (1708),  and  Norwich  (1712) — successfully  applied  to 
Parliament  for  Local  Acts  which  superseded  the  authority  of 
the  Overseers  and  incorporated  a  body  of  "  Guardians  of  the 
Poor, ' '  to  act  for  the  whole  city.  The  idea  underlying  all  these 
Acts  was  the  desirability  of  organising  the  labour  of  the  un- 
employed, with  the  double  object  of  maintaining  them  without 
disorder  and  of  increasing  the  national  wealth.  It  was  im- 
possible to  do  this  without  pro\ading  a  large  and  costly  workhouse, 
for  which  no  powers  were  given  by  the  general  law,  and  which 
could  hardly  be  established  separately  in  each  of  the  small  and 
densely  crowded  parishes  of  an  old  walled  town.  Incidentally 
the  union  of  these  parishes  brought  the  great  advantage  of  avoid- 
ing much  of  the  complication  of  the  law  as  to  settlement,  and  of 
equalising  the  poor  rate  throughout  the  city. 

The  sanguine  projects  of  so  organising  the  labour  of  the  poor 
as  to  produce  at  least  the  cost  of  their  maintenance  were  soon 
proved  to  be  delusive.  At  Bristol,  for  instance,  the  plan  of 
employing  the  poor  at  wages  in  the  workhouse  was  quickly 
discovered  to  involve  not  less,  but  greater  expense  per  head  than 
their  maintenance  by  doles  of  outdoor  relief.  ^  But  the  new  work- 
houses were  incidentally  found  of  use  in  providing  an  alternative 
to  the  indiscriminate  distribution  of  money  by  the  Overseers. 

to  the  Inhabitants  of  Bristol  on  the  subject  of  the  Poor  Rates,  by  James  Johnson, 
1820,  p.  7).  St.  Peter's  Hospital,  as  the  Bristol  Workhouse  was  styled,  was 
incidentally  referred  to  in  1835  by  an  Assistant  Poor  Law  Commissioner  as 
"  one  of  the  most  cleanly  and  well  regulated  establishments  in  England  " 
(Mr.  Mott's  Report  in  First  Annual  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners, 
1835,  p.  177).  There  was  even  a  "  whole-time  "  medical  officer  (Ninth  Annual 
Report  of  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1843,  p.  161). 

1  When  it  was  abandoned,  the  plan  of  farming  out  the  poor  to  a  contractor 
was  reverted  to.  "A  malt  and  corn  dealer  .  .  .  was  to  bear  all  the  costs  and 
take  all  the  profits  of  the  sack-maldng  business  carried  on  by  the  city  poor. 
He  was  to  give  each  worker  a  small  gratuity  as  he  thought  fit.  .  .  .  Thus  the 
scheme  initiated  by  Cary  in  the  hope  of  raising  wages  was  used  to  depress 
them  "  (History  of  English  Philanthropy,  by  B.  Kirkman  Gray,  1905,  p.  212). 


ii6        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

These  early  reformers  had,  in  fact,  accidentally  stumbled  on  the 
discovery  of  the  "  workhouse  test."  It  became  possible  to  offer 
maintenance  to  the  able-bodied  applicant  in  a  form  that  he  did 
not  like,  with  the  result  that  the  demand  for  relief  immediately 
fell  off,  to  the  great  saving  of  the  ratepayers.  And  so  in  1723, 
Sir  Edward  Knatchbull  induced  the  House  of  Commons  to 
pass  a  general  Act  enabling  the  officers  of  separate  parishes  to 
hire  premises  and  maintain  them  as  workhouses  for  the  poor. 
Within  a  decade  over  a  hundred  workhouses  were  set  up  by 
parishes  under  this  Act.  The  demand  for  Local  Acts  establish- 
ing new  bodies  of  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor  was  for  a 
time  checked.  But  the  general  Act  of  1723  merely  enabled  the 
Churchwardens  and  Overseers  of  particular  parishes  to  hire  or 
purchase  premises  for  a  workhouse  ;  and  gave  no  power  to 
parishes  to  combine  for  the  purpose.  Accordingly,  we  find  pre- 
sently beginning  again  the  demand  for  Local  Acts  incorporating 
a  body  of  Guardians  for  a  union  of  parishes.  Such  new  statutory 
authorities  were  established  at  Canterbury  (1727),  Bury  St. 
Edmunds  (1748),  Chichester  (1753),  Chester  (1762),  Salisbury 
(1770),  Oxford  (1771),i  Southampton  (1773),  and  Maidstone 
(1780). 

We  make  no  attempt  to  describe  the  results  of  the  experi- 
ments in  "  setting  the  poor  to  work  "  by  the  Incorporated 
Guardians  of  Bristol  and  the  score  of  towns  which  followed  its 
example  in  the  first  eighty  years  of  the  eighteenth  century.^ 
Some  of  them  quickly  abandoned  the  experiment.  Others  dis- 
continued it  and  resumed  it  at  a  later  date,  when  the  memory 
of  the  earlier  failure  had  been  lost.     It  will  be  more  convenient 

1  As  to  the  Incorporated  Guardians  of  Oxford,  see  Oxford  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century,  by  J.  R.  Green  and  G.  Roberson  (vol.  xli.  of  Oxford  Historical  Society 
Publications,  1901,  p.  318).  Coventry  (1801)  and  Lincoln  (1812)  were  belated 
imitators,  probably  influenced  by  the  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry,  if  not 
also  by  the  Suffolk  and  Norfolk  Hundreds  about  to  be  described. 

-  Besides  those  of  the  C()r{)oration  of  the  Poor  of  the  Citj'  of  Bristol,  we 
have  been  able  to  consult  the  MS.  Minutes  of  the  corresponding  bodies  at 
Norwich,  Plymouth  and  Gloucester ;  which  are,  however  (unlike  Bristol  and 
Shrewsbury),  not  illuminated  by  any  considerable  pamphlet  literature,  or  the 
records  of  contemporary  controversy.  See,  however,  Report  of  the  Special 
Provisional  Committee  appointed  by  the  Court  of  Guardians  in  the  City  of  Norwich, 
with  an  account  of  the  savings  which  hare  been  produced  by  the  lute  regulations  in 
the  diet  of  the  WorkJtouse,  etc.,  by  Edward  Rigby  (Norwich,  1788).  Later 
information  is  s\ipplied  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden  in  his  Stale  of  the  Poor,  1797  ;  and 
in  the  Ninth  and  Tenth  Annual  Reports  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  184;i 
and  1844. 


A 


THE  SHREWSBURY  EXPERIMENT  117 

to  see  what  happened  in  the  subsequent  case  of  Shrewsbury, 
which  was  widely  and  persistently  advertised  throughout  the 
kingdom.^  In  1783,  some  of  the  principal  inhabitants  of  what 
was  still  the  Metropolis  of  the  Welsh  Border,  tired  of  the  mal- 
administration of  the  Overseers  and  Vestries  of  the  six  little 
parishes  crowded  within  the  walls  and  liberties  of  that  ancient 
city,  obtained  a  Local  Act  for  the  incorporation  of  a  body  of 
Guardians  of  the  Poor,  with  power  to  borrow  £10,000  for  the 
erection  of  a  House  of  Industry.  The  Guardians  consisted  of 
all  owners  of  freehold  or  copyhold  property  within  the  city 
worth  £30  a  year,  and  all  inhabitant  occupiers  rated  at  £15  a 
year.  This  body  itself  appointed  the  Clerk,  Treasurer,  Governor, 
Steward,  Matron  and  Chaplain,  but  also  elected  twelve  Directors 
of  the  Poor  in  whom  the  whole  administration  was  vested.  They 
were  fortunate  in  finding  ready  to  hand  premises  admirably 
suited  for  their  objects,  on  a  magnificent  site  at  a  high  clifi  in 
a  bend  of  the  Severn,  adjacent  to  the  city.  This  building  had 
been  erected  in  1759-1765  at  a  cost  of  £14,000  by  the  Foundling 
Hospital  of  London  for  the  accommodation  of  children  drafted 
from  its  principal  establishment,  but  had  been  disused  in  1774 
on  such  provincial  homes  being  discontinued.     The  Shrewsbury 

^  The  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry  was  greatly  "  boomed  "  about  1791- 
1800  by  its  enthusiastic  promoter,  Isaac  Wood.  We  have  not  seen  the  MS. 
Minutes,  which  possibly  stiU  exist :  but  abundant  information  is  afforded  by 
the  Acts  24  George  III.  c.  15  (1784),  and  7  George  IV.  c.  141  (1826) ;  Directions 
for  the  Conduct  of  the  Overseers  of  the  Poor  for  the  Six  United  Parishes  in  the 
Town  and  Liberties  of  Shrewsbury,  1800  ;  Some  Account  of  the  Shrewsbury  House 
of  Industry,  by  Isaac  Wood,  1791,  which  ran  through  five  editions  ;  An  Intro- 
duction to  the  Fifth  Edition  of  Some  Account,  etc.,  by  the  same,  1800  ;  Observa- 
tions on  the  Accounts  of  the  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry,  by  the  same,  1799  ; 
Letter  to  Sir  William  PuUeney,  Bart.,  by  the  same,  1797  ;  General  Observations 
on  the  Year's  Account  of  the  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry,  by  the  same,  1800  ; 
An  Address  to  the  Parochial  Committees  at  Bath  .  .  .  for  the  establishment  of  a 
House  of  Industry,  by  J.  (really  Isaac)  Wood,  1798  ;  An  Address  to  the  Poor 
.  .  .  within  the  Town  of  Shrewsbury  .  .  .  delivered  at  the  House  of  Industry,  by 
Rev.  Thomas  Stedman,  1786  ;  Apjiendix  to  some  Account  of  the  Shrewsbury 
House  of  Industry,  containing  a  correspondence  with  the  Rev.  J.  Howlett,  1791  ; 
The  State  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  ii.  pp.  622-643  ;  Annals  of 
Agriculture,  vol.  xxxv.,  1800,  pp.  157-163,  608-621  ;  General  View  of  the  Agri- 
culture of  Shropshire,  by  Joseph  Plymley,  1803,  p.  131  ;  Some  Account  of  .  .  . 
Shrewsbury,  by  Hugh  Owen,  1808,  pp.  333-346  ;  General  View  of  the  Agriculture 
of  North  Wales,  by  Walter  Davies,  1813,  p.  434  ;  Aris's  Birmingham  Gazette, 
15th  November  1824  ;  Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  collect  information 
and  documents  as  to  the  inexpediency  of  repealing  the  .  .  .  Shrewsbury  hicor- 
porated  House  of  Industry  Act,  1824  ;  First  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry 
Commissioners,  1834,  Appendix  A,  Lewis's  Report,  p.  659 ;  Ninth  Annual 
Report  of  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1843. 


ii8         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

Guardians  purchased  this  building  (which  had  been  used  by  the 
Government  during  the  American  war  for  the  confinement  of 
prisoners  of  war)  for  £5500,  and  rapidly  equipped  it  for  its  new 
purpose.  The  House  of  Industry  which  they  established,  with 
its  farm,  its  corn-mill  and  its  woollen  manufactory,  had  the  good 
fortune  to  enlist  the  devotion  of  Isaac  Wood,  an  indefatigable 
local  citizen,  who  evidently  lavished  upon  its  administration  an 
incessant  personal  attention.  His  enthusiastic  descriptions  of  its 
success  were  widely  circulated,  and  did  much  to  revive  the  faith 
in  the  profitable  employment  of  the  poor.i 

The  object  of  the  Shrewsbury  Directors  was,  primarily  and 
avowedly,  "  to  furnish  employment  for  the  poor  and  compel  them 
to  earn  their  own  support,"  which  had  "  been  found  impracticable 
in  parish  workhouses,  under  the  direction  and  management  of 
those  officers  who  are  annually  chosen  and  annually  removed. 
.  .  .  Nor  could  the  still  more  important  object  of  training  up  the 
children  of  the  poor  to  habits  of  industry  and  virtue  be  here 
obtained.  In  these  workhouses,  as  well  as  in  their  private 
dwellings,  they  are  incorporated  with  the  abandoned  and  de- 
praved."^ For  ten  years  the  experiment  had  no  small  measure 
of  success.  The  erection  of  a  well-planned  institution,  ad- 
ministered by  a  standing  committee  and  salaried  officers,  evi- 
dently brought  about  a  great  improvement  in  the  condition  of 
the  paupers,  whilst  diminishing  the  Poor  Rates  by  one-third.^ 

^  The  example  of  Shrewsbury  was  in  1 791-1792  followed  by  five  neighbouring 
districts  of  rural  character,  viz.  Oswestry  district  (31  George  III.  c.  24,  1791)  ; 
Ellesraere  and  other  parishes  (31  George  III.  c.  78,  1791)  ;  Whitchurch  (32 
George  III.  c.  85,  1792)  ;  Atcham  and  other  parishes  (32  George  III.  c.  95, 
1792)  ;  Montgomery  and  Pool  district  of  Montgomeryshire  and  Shropshire 
(32  George  III.  c.  96,  1792,  36  George  III.  c.  38,  1796,  and  6  George  IV.  c.  123, 
1825 ;  House  of  Industry  at  Forden).  As  to  these  Shropshire  experiments  in 
rural  districts,  which  in  various  respects  resemble  those  of  the  Suffolk  and 
Norfolk  Hundreds  to  be  described  subsequently,  and  which  deserve  a  local 
monograph,  see  the  references  given  as  to  the  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry. 
Two  parishes  at  Bath  also  started  a  House  of  Industry  ;  see  the  i)rinted  broad- 
sheet of  Rules,  Orders  and  Regulations  for  .  .  .  the  Hoiise  of  Industry  as  agreed 
vpon  by  the  .  .  .  Vestries  of  the  Parishes  of  iSt.  Peter  and  Paul  and  St.  James, 
1800.  An  attempt  was  made  at  Sheffield  in  1791  to  establish  a  House  of 
Industry  on  the  Shrewsbury  model  ;  see  ?'Ae  Substance  of  Mr.  Ward's  Speech 
at  the  Town  Hall  in  Sheffield  .  .  .  at  a  meeting  .  .  .  to  give  assent  or  dissent  to 
the  Bill  for  the  proposed  new  u-orkhouse  (Sheffield,  1791) ;  Municipal  Origins,  by 
F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  39-40. 

2  Some  Account  of  the  Shrewsbury  Hoiise  of  Industry,  by  Isaac  Wood,  1791, 
p.  4. 

^  Ibid.  p.  13.  The  out-relief,  including  "  nurses'  pay,"  went  down  from 
£834  in  1784-1785  to  £322  in  1789-1790 ;  whilst  the  sums  recovered  from  fathers 


THE  HOUSE  OF  INDUSTRY  ifg 

Between  two  and  three  hundred  men,  women  and  children  were 
brought  into  the  House  of  Industry.  Systematic  arrangements 
were  made  for  bathing  and  medically  examining  them  on  ad- 
mission ;  and  for  the  treatment  in  a  separate  infirmary  of  such 
of  them  as  were  sick.^  Most  of  them  were  set  to  work  at  preparing, 
spiiming  and  weaving  wool,  whilst  "  at  the  same  time  working 
rooms  or  shops  were  set  apart  for  the  shoemakers,  tailors,  car- 
penters, etc.,  where  those  paupers  who  had  been  brought  up  to 
these  occupations  were  immediately  employed,  the  most  in- 
telHgent  and  trusty  being  appointed  to  cut  out  the  work  and 
superintend  the  rest."  ^  But  the  Shrewsbury  Directors  never 
contemplated  refusing  all  outdoor  reUef.  What  they  believed,  as 
Wood  later  expressed  it,  was  that  "  Indiscriminate  allowances 
and  indiscriminate  confinement  to  a  Poor  House  are  equally 
absurd  and  injurious.  .  .  .  We  discriminate.  This  is  the  grand 
hinge  upon  which  every  plan  of  parochial  reform  ought  to  turn."^ 
"  To  compel  all  claimants  to  come  into  the  House,"  he  explained, 
"  never  made  any  part  of  their  plan,  and  is  an  idea  that  has  never 
been  acted  upon  in  any  period  of  their  practice.  In  cases  of  real 
distress  the  poor  are  more  liberally  relieved  at  their  own  dwellings 
than  they  ever  were  before  this  establishment  took  place.  Never- 
theless, by  the  proper  examination  of  each  respective  case  before 
a  weekly  board  of  respectable  Directors,  and  the  regular  modes  of 
enquiry  instituted  by  the  byelaws  of  the  House,  such  a  check  has 
been  given  to  fraud  and  imposition  that  the  amount  of  the  Poor 
Kate  is  one  third  less  than  when  the  House  was  opened  in  1 784,  .  .  , 
Such  a  result  could  never  have  been  obtained  without  employ- 
ment had  been  provided  for  the  poor  in  the  House  of  Industry.  .  .  . 
At  the  same  time  our  experience  has  demonstrated,  and  it  is  a  fact 
of  the  utmost  moment,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  furnish  the 
employment  for  the  great  body  of  the  poor  at  large  ;  it  is  sufficient 
that  you  have  it  to  offer  to  such  applicants  as  allege  the  want  of 

of  illegitimate  children  or  from  other  parishes  rose  from  £142  in  1784-1785  to 
£286  in  1789-1190  {Appendix  to  Some  Account  oftfie  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry, 
containing  a  correspondence  with  the  Rev.  J.  Howlett,  1791,  p.  106).  Yet  where 
occasional  relief  was  needed  it  was  liberally  given  {Letter  to  Sir  William  Pul- 
teney,  Bart.,  by  Isaac  Wood,  1797,  p.  39). 

1  Some  Account  of  the  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry,  by  I.  Wood,  1791, 
p.  39. 

2  Ibid.  p.  21. 

3  An  Introduction  to  the  Fifth  Edition  of  Some  Accomit  of  the  Shrewsbury 
House  of  Industry,  by  Isaac  Wood,  1800,  p.  xxxix. 


120        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

workin  justification  of  their  demands  upon  the  parochial  fund.  .  .  . 
Out  of  7000  poor  we  have  never  had  occasion,  at  one  and  the  same 
time,  to  furnish  employment  for  half  seven  hundred."  ^  At  first 
all  was  done  according  to  rule.  Every  case  was  strictly  enquired 
into.  The  payment  of  rent  was  peremptorily  stopped.  Those 
who  pleaded  sickness  were  visited  and  examined  by  the  doctor. 
Gifts  of  clothing  were  discontinued.  All  constant  doles  were 
stopped,  relief  being  only  given  to  tide  over  temporary  emer- 
gencies. And  where  destitution  was  plainly  caused  by  a  large 
family  of  young  children,  the  Directors  preferred  to  take  some  of 
the  children  into  the  House  of  Industry,  rather  than  relieve  the 
family  by  a  dole.^  Such  a  system,  it  is  clear,  depended  for  any 
success  on  a  strict  and  continuous  policy.  After  Wood's  death — 
which  took  place  in  1801  from  fever  caught  whilst  inspecting  the 
House — the  results  were  less  successful.  Within  a  few  years  we 
note  a  complete  revulsion  of  feeling  in  Shrewsbury  itself.^  The 
once  belauded  House  of  Industry  is  seen  to  be  a  centre  of 
demoralisation  rather  than  of  reform.*  In  1824-1826  we  have 
a  successful  agitation  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Incorporation, 
and  a  reversion  to  parish  management.     "  It  is  curious  to  find," 

^  Isaac  Wood,  in  Annals  of  Agriculture,  vol.  xxxv.,  1800,  p.  158  ;  he  had 
exjiressed  the  same  view  in  1791  (Some  Account  of  the  Shrewsbury  House  of 
Industry,  by  Isaac  Wood,  1791,  pp.  5-7). 

2  Ibid.  pp.  14-19. 

3  In  1803  the  Shrewsbury  institution  could  still  be  referred  to  as  "un- 
rivalled "  [General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  Shropshire,  by  Joseph  Plymley, 
1803,  p.  131).  But  by  1808  we  learn  that  public  opinion  in  the  to%\'n  had 
"  experienced  a  great  revolution  "  ;  and  the  system  inaugurated  by  Wood  has 
been  given  up  (Some  Account  of  .  .  .  Shrewsbury,  Anon.,  1808,  p.  553). 

*  Within  a  very  few  ycnTH  Sir  F.  M.  Eden  could  report  of  the  Ellesmere 
House  of  Industry  that  "  notwithstanding  the  promised  advantages  of  this 
institution,  it  is  said  that  the  incorporated  parishes  are,  in  general,  heartily 
sorry  that  they  ever  engaged  in  the  erection  "  {State  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M. 
Eden,  1797,  vol.  ii.  pp.  019-620).  Here  is  a  description  of  the  Houses  of  Industry 
at  Oswestry  and  Ellesmere  in  1834.  Their  industries,  it  was  remarked,  are 
"  worked  by  the  able-bodied  inmates  in  such  a  feeble  and  languid  manner  that 
the  occupation  is  anything  but  calculated  to  preserve,  much  less  generate,  habits 
of  industry.  .  .  .  With  the  exception  that  their  dormitories  are  separate,  men, 
women  and  children  associate  as  they  please.  .  .  .  Women  of  notoriously  bad 
characters  are  admitted  and  poriuittcd  to  communicate  freely  with  the  other 
female  inmates.  .  .  .  Children  of  both  sexes,  from  the  sad  examples  of  con- 
versation they  daily  see  and  hear,  are  exposed  to  the  pollution  of  vice  at  the 
very  dawn  of  life.  .  .  .  Such  an  indiscriminate  mixture  of  persons  of  all  ages, 
sexes  and  characters,  it  is  almost  needless  to  remark,  is  a  sj'stem  ill  calculated 
to  promote  the  comfort  or  improvement  of  paupers  who  are  aggregated  together 
in  Houses  of  Industry  "  (First  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners, 
1834,  Appendix  A,  Lewis's  Report,  p.  660). 


THE  UNION  OF  RURAL  PARISHES  121 

reports  the  Assistant  Poor  Law  Commissioner  of  1842,  "  that  the 
Act  .  .  .  which  was  anxiously  watched  over  in  its  infancy,  and 
matured  into  vigour  under  the  eye  of  its  enthusiastic  parent, 
was  doomed  to  live  through  not  half  a  century  ;  and  that  almost 
before  the  generation  in  which  it  had  sprung  up  had  passed 
away  we  find  it  avowed  [by  the  Shrewsbury  Committee  of  1824] 
that  the  objects  stated  in  the  preamble  had  never  been  attained, 
and  that  the  mere  recital  of  them  in  the  present  day  was  sufficient 
to  expose  their  absurdity."  ^ 

The  Union  of  Rural  Parishes 

The  desirability  of  combining  for  the  administration  of  poor 
relief  was  even  more  obvious  in  the  case  of  thinly  inhabited  rural 
parishes,  each  containing  an  average  of  only  a  few  dozen  or  a  few 
score  families,  than  in  that  of  crowded  urban  communities.  The 
results  of  the  general  Act  of  1723,  which  authorised  the  establish- 
ment of  workhouses  by  one  or  more  parishes,  had,  after  the  first 
flush  of  apparent  success,  not  been  such  as  to  lead  to  its  adoption 
in  rural  districts,  where  the  defects  of  management  imder  parish 
officers,  or  the  horrors  of  the  farming  system,  soon  outweighed 
the  advantages  of  the  workhouse  itself.  In  the  country  parishes, 
at  any  rate,  something  more  efficient  than  parochial  management 
was  required.  Yet  not  for  more  than  sixty  years  was  the 
example  of  Bristol  followed  in  any  rural  area. 

John  Cary  had  pointed  out  that  the  only  way  to  get  work- 
houses in  the  country  districts  was  to  incorporate  a  larger  area 
than  the  parish.  The  difficulty  was  to  decide  upon  this  larger 
area,  and  upon  the  constitution  of  the  governing  body.  Cary's 
suggestion  was  that  all  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  and  all  the  free- 
holders of  each  County  should  be  constituted  the  Poor  Law 
authority  for  the  entire  County.^     John  Locke  had  proposed  the 

^  Ninth  Annual  Report  of  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1843,  p.  281.  The 
magnificently  placed  site  of  the  House  of  Industry,  affording  one  of  the  finest 
views  in  Europe,  together  with  the  substantial  building  overlooking  the  Severn, 
eventually  became  the  property  of  Shrewsbury  School,  which  was  transferred 
to  the  premises  of  the  old  workhouse,  suitably  converted  for  its  new  uses,  in  1882. 

2  Essay  towards  Regulating  the  Trade  and  Employing  the  Poor  of  this  Kingdom, 
by  John  Cary,  1700  ;  The  State  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  i. 
pp.  253-257.  Ruggles,  himself  a  Suffolk  Magistrate,  thought  that  Cary's  plan 
"  may  probably  have  given  the  hint  to  those  gentlemen  who  applied  to  Parlia- 
ment .  .  .  for  the  Act  for  .  .  .  Colneis  and  CarKord  "  (History  of  the  Poor, 
by  Thomas  Ruggles,  1794,  vol.  i.  p.  177). 


122         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

establisliment  of  workhouses  in  the  several  Hundreds  of  each 
County. 1  Both  these  suggestions  were,  between  1750  and  1755, 
more  than  once  embodied  in  general  Bills,  which  failed  to  become 
law.2  The  Bill  for  the  establishment  of  "  general  County  work- 
houses "  struck  the  average  country  gentleman  as  "  a  huge  un- 
wieldy scheme,  attended  with  such  an  amazing  certain  expense, 
and  liable  to  so  many  reasonable  objections  that  the  Parliament 
rejected  it.  Then  it  was  proposed  to  have  County  workhouses  to 
take  in  children  only.  But  this,  though  it  considerably  reduced 
the  other  proposal,  was  subject  to  very  many  of  the  same  objections 
which  attended  that,  and  therefore  this  likewise  was  rejected."  ^ 
William  Hay's  project  for  a  worldiouse  in  each  Hundred  seemed 
more  feasible,  but  the  Hundred  varied  enormously  in  size  and 
character  in  different  Counties,  and  no  member  succeeded  in  pro- 
ducing a  scheme  that  commended  itself  to  the  County  repre- 
sentatives generally.*  At  last,  in  1756,  the  energy  and  per- 
sistence of  the  gentlemen  of  two  smaU  Hundreds  in  the  South  of 
Suffolk,  headed  by  Admiral  Vernon,  the  victor  of  Portobello, 
resulted  in  the  passing  of  a  Local  Act,  which  set  up,  for  these  two 
Hundreds  of  Carlford  and  Colneis,  a  new  local  governing  body, 
empowered  to  erect  a  workhouse,  and  practically  to  take  over, 
from  the  officers  of  the  28  parishes  concerned,  the  whole  adminis- 
tration of  the  Poor  Law.^ 

^  Report  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Lords  Justices  in  the  year  1697  respecting 
the  Relief  and  Employment  of  the  Poor  (reprinted,  1787). 

*  The  chief  advocate  in  the  House  of  Commons  was  the  zealous  William 
Hay,  M.P.,  who,  as  early  as  1735,  actually  got  passed  a  scries  of  resolutions  for 
the  division  of  each  County  into  suitable  areas,  each  to  have  a  workliouse, 
under  twelve  Guardians.  On  the  revival  of  interest.  Hay  published  his  plan 
as  Remarks  on  the  Laws  relating  to  the  poor,  with  Proposals  for  their  belter  Relief 
and  Employment,  1751.  This  was  commented  on  in  Observations  on  the  Defects 
of  the  Poor  Laws,  by  Rev.  T.  Alcock,  1752.  Alcock  agreed  that  there  should 
bo  a  single  workhouse  for  the  whole  Hundred,  but  thought  that  the  Overseers 
and  clergyman  of  each  parish  should  manage  it  for  a  year,  in  rotation  !  There 
were  also  pamphlets  by  the  Earl  of  Hillsborough  (1753),  Henry  Fielding  (1753) 
and  William  Bailey  (1758),  as  well  as  a  Select  Committee  of  the  House  of 
Commons  in  1759,  all  advocating  workhouses  for  extensive  combinations  of 
parishes  (see  Sir  Francis  Eden's  tState  of  the  Poor,  1794,  vol.  i.). 

'  Rev.  R.  Canning,  in  The  Christian  s  Magazine,  vol.  iii.,  1763,  p.  28. 

*  It  is  characteristic  of  Sir  George  Nicholls  that,  deriving  his  information 
almost  exclusively  from  the  collection  of  Public  General  Statutes,  he  should 
declare  that  "  nothing  further  was  done  "  (History  of  tht  English  Poor  Law,  by 
Sir  George  Nicholls,  1854,  vol.  ii.  p.  55)  ;  entirely  omitting  the  episode  now  to 
be  described  ;  and,  indeed,  scarcely  mentioning  any  of  the  constitutional 
experiments  described  in  this  chapter. 

*  29  George  II.  c.  79  (1756).     In  the  promotion  of  this  Act,  Admiral  Vernon 


COLNEIS  AND  CARLFORD  123 

The  objects  of  the  promoters  of  this  Act  are  well  set  out  in 
a  nearly  contemporaneous  document.  "  We  propose  to  incor- 
porate," says  this  writer,  in  order  "  to  administer  proper  comfort 
and  assistance  to  the  sick,  infirm  and  aged,  introduce  sobriety 
and  virtue  among  them,  and  in  an  especial  manner,  to  render 
their  children  useful  to  society  by  acquainting  them  with  their 
duty  towards  God  and  man,  whence  many  are  saved  from  un- 
timely end,  and  all  of  them  enabled  to  acquire  an  honest  liveli- 
hood, and  so  not  remain  any  longer  a  burden  and  reproach  to 
our  county.  We  incorporate  too,  to  ease  the  respective  parishes 
in  their  rates,  a  grievance  very  loudly  and  very  commonly  com- 
plained of  by  all  sorts  of  occupiers ;  and  also  to  feed  and  clothe  the 
objects  of  their  care  with  that  plenty  and  decency  that  their  wants 
and  situation  can  reasonably  require.  ,  .  .  Our  design,  too,  is  to 
invite  gentlemen  to  attend  to  the  state  and  conduct  of  the  poor — 
a  concern  which,  however  weighty  and  important  in  itself,  it  must 
be  confessed,  is  not,  nor  is  it  likely  it  ever  will  be,  regarded  by 
them  in  the  separate  parishes,  seeing  that  but  very  few  owners  of 
any  fashion  live  where  their  estates  are  situated,  and  whenever  it 
happens  that  they  do  reside  there,  the  indehcacy  and  rudeness  of 
parish  meetings  oblige  them  never  to  come  into  such  assembhes."  ^ 
With  such  high  hopes  we  see  some  fifty  of  the  squires  and  clergy 
of  these  South  Suffolk  parishes  meeting,  in  Jime  1756,  at  an 
Ipswich  tavern.  One  of  them,  the  Eev.  R.  Canning,  advances 
twenty  pounds  towards  the  initial  expenses.  ^  Admiral  Vernon, 
whom  they  make  chairman,  gives  a  site  on  Nacton  Heath  on 
which  to  build  the  workhouse,  and  lends  £1000  at  3|-  per  cent 
towards  its  erection.^  For  a  couple  of  years  we  watch  the  little 
group   of  reformers   planning  their  new  institution,   carefully 

and  the  Rev.  R.  Canning  had  the  assistance  of  Sir  Richard  Lloyd,  a  leading 
lawyer  of  the  time  {Observations  on  the  Poor  Laws,  by  R.  Potter,  1775,  p.  33) ; 
and  himself  interested  in  Poor  Law  reform. 

^  A  Letter  to  J.  W.,  Esquire,  relating  to  Mr.  G y's  Pamphlet  upon  the  Poor 

Laws,  with  some  reflections  in  favour  of  the  House  of  Industry  at  Nacton,  in  tlie 
County  of  Suffolk,  and  on  the  Utility  of  such  designs,  1756,  24  pp.  No  copy  of 
this  is  known  to  us,  but  voluminous  extracts  from  it  are  given  in  a  letter  signed 
XX  in  the  Ipswich  Journal,  23rd  July  and  10th  September  1825.  The  in- 
scription on  the  House  of  Industry  at  Melton  was  as  follows  :  "  Erected  in  the 
year  1768  for  the  Instruction  of  Youth,  the  Encouragement  of  Industry,  the 
Relief  of  Want,  the  Support  of  Age  and  the  comfort  of  Infirmity  and  Pain  " 
(MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Loes  and  Wilford,  1768). 

2  Ibid.  Colneis  and  Carlford,  25th  June  1756. 

3  Ibid.  28th  June  and  29th  December  1756. 


124        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

ordering  the  various  items  of  furniture  and  equipment,  and  de- 
ciding all  the  details  of  its  organisation.^  By  March  1758,  the 
"  Nacton  House  of  Industry  "  is  completed  according  to  the  best 
science  of  the  time  ;  and  we  see  transferred  to  it  ^  the  paupers, 
male  and  female,  young  and  old,  well  and  sick,  who  had  pre- 
viously been  lodging  in  the  dilapidated  village  poor-houses,  or 
eking  out  by  begging  and  pilfering  their  weekly  doles  of  out-relief. 
In  the  Nacton  House  of  Industry  they  were  apparently  well  pro- 
vided for  and  kindly  treated,  but  set  to  work  at  weaving  corn- 
sacks  out  of  hemp,3  making  cordage  of  various  sorts,  especially 
ploughlines,  and  spinning  wool  for  the  weavers  of  Norwich.* 
"  This  institution,"  it  was  said,  "  puts  an  end  to  the  usual  custom 
of  pecuniary  payments  to  the  poor,  which  are  generally  abused 
by  them,  and,  as  generally,  given  without  discretion.  .  .  . 
Many  children  are  rendered  useful  v/ho  otherwise  w;ould  have 
figured  nowhere  but  in  a  landscape  of  Gainsborough's,  the  spawn 
of  gipsies,  lying  upon  a  sunny  bank  half  naked,  with  their  bundles 
of  stolen  wood  by  their  sides — a  daily  task  which  those  who  pre- 
tend to  have  the  care  of  them  never  fail  to  exact."  ^  "  By  means 
of  the  Act,"  wrote  one  enthusiast  in  1764,  "  the  poor  in  these 
Hundreds  are  much  better  maintained,  are  happier  in  themselves, 
and  more  useful  to  the  public  than  in  any  other  part  of  the 
kingdom  ;  and  by  the  account  which  has  been  published,  it 
appears  that  this  scheme  will  considerably  lessen  the  present 
expense,  for,  from  Easter  1758  to  Michaelmas  1762,  notwith- 
standing some  very  extraordinary  expenses  attending  the  first 
institution  of  it  in  these  Hundreds,  a  saving  has  been  already 
made  of  above  £2000  ;  and  in  a  few  years  the  debt  contracted 
for  its  first  institution  will  be  cleared,  and  the  rates  will  not  be 
above  half  of  what  they  are  at  present."  ^    So  successful  did  the 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Colneis  and  Carlford,  1757-1768. 
"  Ibid.  20th  and  23rd  March  1758. 

3  Ibid.  26th  Juno  1758. 

*  History  of  the  Poor,  by  Thomas  Ruggles,  1794.  Other  industrial  occupa- 
tions carried  on  in  these  Houses  of  Industry  (besides  the  cultivation  of  their 
few  acres)  were  the  making  of  linen  clothes,  shoes  and  stockings  for  their  own 
use  ;  6j)inning  worsted  yarn  ;  maldng  fishing  nets  ;  handknitting,  and  the 
weaving  of  coarse  woollen  cloth. 

'  A  Letter  to  J.   W.,  Esquire,  relating  to  Q y'a  Pamphlet  vpon  the  Poor 

Laws,  with  some  reflections  in  favour  of  the  House  of  Industry  at  Nacton,  by  XX, 
1766  ;  see  Ipswich  Journal,  10th  September  1825. 

*  Definitions  and  Axioms  relating  to  Cliarity,  Charitable  Institutions  and  the 
Poor  Laws,  by  Samuel  Cooper,  1764. 


SUFFOLK  HOUSES  OF  INDUSTRY  125 

experiment  appear,  both  in  the  reduction  of  the  Poor  Rate  and 
the  better  maintenance  of  the  poor,  that  in  1763-1764  no  fewer 
than  seven  other  Hundreds  or  pairs  of  Hundreds,  of  Suffolk  and 
Norfolk,  obtained  Local  Acts  of  a  similar  Idnd,^  to  be  followed,  a 
few  years  later,  by  half-a-dozen  more  ;  ^  so  that,  by  1785,  over 
the  greater  part  of  the  area  of  these  two  large  Counties  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Poor  Law  had  been  withdrawn  from  the  parish 
officers  and  vested  in  fourteen  new  bodies  of  Incorporated 
Guardians  of  the  Poor.^ 

1  These  were  the  Hundreds  of  Blything  (4  George  III.  c.  56  ;  House  of  In- 
dustry at  Bulcamp) ;  Bosmere  and  Clayton  (4  George  III.  c.  57  ;  House  of 
Industry  at  Barham) ;  Lodden  and  Clavering  (4  George  III.  c.  90  ;  House  of 
Industry  at  Heckingham) ;  Loes  and  WiKord  (5  George  III.  c.  97  ;  House  of 
Industry  at  Melton)  ;  Mutford  and  Lothingland  (5  George  III.  c.  89  ;  House 
of  Industry  at  Oulton) ;  Samford  (4  George  III.  c.  59  ;  House  of  Industry  at 
Tattingstone) ;  and  Wangford  (4  George  III.  c.  91  ;  House  of  Industry  at 
Shipmeadow). 

The  statistical  returns  presented  to  the  House  of  Commons  in  1776  include 
8  of  these  "  Hundred  Houses,"  which  had  each  cost  from  £4000  to  £12,000  to 
build,  and  contained  each  from  150  to  350  inmates,  who  were  employed  in 
spinning,  weaving,  and  knitting  hemp  and  wool  into  sacking,  twine,  cloth  and 
stockings  ;  making  fishing  nets,  and  farming  the  land.  Some  of  the  labour 
was  let  out  to  farmers.  Most  of  the  Houses  kept  a  tailor,  a  shoemaker  and  a 
"  mantuamaker  "  at  wages  (Second  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee, 
21st  May  1776). 

2  East  and  West  Flegg  (15  George  III.  c.  13) ;  Mitford  and  Launditch 
(15  George  III.  c.  59;  House  of  Industry  at  Gressinghall) ;  Forehoe  (16 
George  III.  c.  9;  House  of  Industry  at  Forehoe)  ;  Cosford  and  Foisted  (19 
George  III.  c.  30  ;  House  of  Industry  at  Semer) ;  Hartismere,  Hoxne  and 
Thredling  (19  George  III.  c.  30) ;  Stow  (18  George  III.  c.  35  ;  House  of  Industry 
at  One-House) ;  and  Timstead  and  Happing  (25  George  III.  c.  27  ;  House  of 
Industry  at  Smallburgh).  There  was  a  belated  incorporation  of  nine  Nor- 
folk parishes  (Buxton,  Everingham,  etc.)  in  1806,  bj'  46  George  III.  c.  44; 
and  another  in  1816,  when  by  56  George  III.  c.  66,  a  number  of  parishes 
(Shardlow,  Milne,  etc.)  in  Derbyshire,  Leicestershire  and  Nottinghamshire  were 
similarly  combined.  Neither  of  these  we  have  explored.  More  directly 
imitative  may  have  been  the  five  Unions  of  Shropshire  parishes,  arising  in 
1791-1792  from  the  early  success  of  the  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry,  which 
we  have  already  described. 

3  These  Suffolk  and  Norfolk  Incorporated  Guardians  were  frequently  made 
the  subject  of  particular  references  and  brief  descriptions,  though  we  have 
found  nothing  in  the  nature  of  a  monograph  on  the  subject.  We  have  had 
access  to  the  MS.  Minutes  of  those  of  Colneis  and  CarKord,  Loes  and  Wilford, 
and  Samford.  Besides  the  minutes,  the  chief  sources  of  information  are  the 
various  Acts  ;  the  House  of  Commons  Returns  as  to  Poor  Laws,  1776  ;  the 
numerous  sets  of  "  Rules  and  Orders  "  and  other  printed  documents,  and  the 
reports  of  sundry  local  committees  of  investigation  hereafter  cited.  Various 
printed  documents  of  these  Incorporations  are  accidentally  preserved  in  the 
British  Museum,  volumes  10351  i.  10  and  10351  i.  24.  Much  may  be  gathered  from 
the  files  of  the  Ipswich  Journal,  especially  between  1815  and  1830.  The  chief 
description  of  the  Houses  of  Industry  at  different  dates  are  those  in  The 
Farmer's  Tour  Through  the  East  of  England,  by  Arthur  Young,  1771,  vol.  ii. 


126  INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

These  "Incorporations"  of  Guardians  of  the  Poor  were,  with 
insignificant  variation,  all  constituted  upon  a  practically  identical 
plan.  All  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  resident  within  the  district,  or 
sometimes  within  five  miles  of  it ;  all  the  owners  of  freeholds 
worth  £30  or  £60  a  year  and  upwards  ;  all  the  Rectors  or  Vicars 
of  the  respective  parishes  ;  sometimes  all  their  curates  also  ;  and 
all  the  leaseholders  of  lands  or  tenements  worth  £60,  or  £100,  or 
£120  a  year  and  upwards,  were  constituted  "  Guardians  of  the 
Poor."  ^  This  indeterminate  and  unwieldy  body,  which  was 
directed  to  meet  quarterly,  became  the  ultimate  governing 
authority.  At  its  first  meeting  it  was  required  to  appoint  twenty- 
four  from  among  its  own  number  to  be  "  Directors  of  the  Poor," 
serving  for  life,  and  also  to  elect  a  President  of  the  Incorporation. 
There  had  also  to  be  chosen,  out  of  the  Guardians,  sometimes  by 
the  whole  meeting,  sometimes  by  the  Directors  only,  twenty-four 
or  thirty-six  "Acting  Guardians,"  one-half  or  one-third  of  whom 
retired  annually.  It  was  in  the  hands  of  these  two  bodies  of 
Directors  and  Acting  Guardians  that  the  whole  executive 
authority,  and  practically  the  entire  government,  of  the  Incor- 


pp.  178-190  ;  Observations  on  the  Poor  Laws,  by  R.  Potter,  1775,  pp.  33-49  ; 
A  dialogue  in  two  conversations  .  .  .  in  answer  to  Observations  on  the  Poor 
Laios,  by  Thomas  Mendham,  1775 ;  Thoughts  on  the  Construction  and  Polity 
of  Prisons,  by  Rev.  John  Jebb,  1786,  pp.  11  ;  History  of  the  Poor,  by  Thomas 
Ruggles,  1794,  vol.  ii.  (this  account  was  reproduced  as  appendix  to  General 
View  of  the  Agriculture  of  Suffolk,  by  Artliur  Young,  1794) ;  Charitable  Institu- 
tions and  the  Poor  Laws,  1763;  a  pamphlet  entitled  Definitions  and  Axioms 
relative  to  Charity,  Charitable  Institutions  and  tJie  Poor  Laws,  1764,  by  Samuel 
Cooper,  of  which  we  have  found  no  copy,  but  which  is  described  by  Sir  Francis 
Eden  and  quoted  in  the  Ninth  Annual  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners, 
1843  ;  The  Insufficiency  of  the  Causes  to  which  the  increase  of  our  Poor  and  of  the 
Poor's  Pates  have  been  commonly  ascribed,  the  True  One  stated,  with  an  Inquiry 
into  the  Mortality  of  Country  Houses  of  Industry,  etc.,  by  Rev.  J.  Howlett,  1788  ; 
The  State  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  ii.  ;  History  of  the  Poor,  by 
Thomas  Ruggles,  1794  ;  General  View  of  tJie  Agriculture  of  Norfolk,  by  Arthur 
Young,  1804  ;  Letters  on  the  Kind  and  Economic  Management  of  the  Poor, 
chiefly  as  regards  Incorporated  Poor  Houses,  by  Edward  Moon,  1825.  See  also 
the  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834,  Appendix  A,  Stuart's 
Report,  p.  355,  and  pp.  187-198,  203-294;  and  the  First  and  Second  Annual 
Reports  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1835  and  1836,  the  lattt^r  containing 
a  valuable  "  Report  on  the  administration  of  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act 
in  Suffolk  and  Norfolk,"  by  James  Phillips  Kay  ;  tlie  Ninth  Annual  Report, 
1843  ;  tf)gether  with  The  Christian's  Magazine,  1762-1763,  vol.  ii.  pp.  524,  578, 
vol.  iii.  p.  24  ;   and  The  Annals  of  Agriculture,  especially  about  1800. 

*  Women  freeholders  or  leaselioldors  were  not  excluded,  but  they  were 
required  to  vote  by  proxy.  At  the  first  meeting  five  Guardians  "  delivered 
proxies  from  the  women  undermentioned "  (MS.  Minutes,  Incori)oratod 
Guardians,  Colneis  and  Carlford,  25th  June  1756). 


I 


INCORPORATION  ADMINISTRATION  127 

poration  was  legally  placed.  The  exact  relation  between  these 
two  executive  bodies,  and  the  precise  distribution  of  duties 
between  them,  varied  slightly  in  the  difierent  Local  Acts.  The 
general  principle  seems  to  have  been  that  the  Directors  were  to 
appoint  the  Treasurer,  the  Clerk  and  other  chief  officers,  and  to 
decide  from  time  to  time  such  large  issues  of  financial  policy  as 
borrowing  money,  acquiring  land,  and  erecting  workhouses ; 
whilst  the  Acting  Guardians  were  to  undertake  the  routine  duties 
of  workhouse  management.  But  in  many  of  the  Acts  it  is  the 
Directors  and  Acting  Guardians  together  who  are  authorised  to 
perform  most  of  the  duties  that  are  recited,  and  we  do  not  find  it 
easy  to  make  out  the  line  of  demarcation.  Between  them  they 
were  always  authorised  to  borrow  a  substantial  capital  sum,  to 
erect  and  maintain  a  workhouse  ;  to  receive  in  it  such  poor 
persons  as  the  parishes  chose  to  send  to  them  ;  to  set  the  inmates 
to  work  ;  to  make  byelaws  for  their  government,  and  to  punish 
the  refractory  ;  to  bind  children  apprentices  to  any  person  legally 
liable  to  take  them  within  the  district ;  apparently  to  relieve  the 
destitute  in  any  other  way  they  thought  fit ;  ^  and  to  levy  the 
cost  upon  all  the  parishes  within  the  district,  in  proportion  to  the 
average  Poor  Rates  paid  by  each  during  the  seven  years  preceding 
the  Act,  which  were  not  to  be  exceeded. 

The  relation  in  which  these  Incorporations  stood  to  the 
authorities  of  the  County  and  the  Parish  was  one  of  some  intricacy 
and  obscurity.  The  Local  Acts,  under  which  they  were  estab- 
lished, did  not  professedly  relieve  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  from 
their  responsibiHty  for  the  supervision  of  the  Poor  Law  adminis- 
tration ;  and  did  not  in  any  way  exempt  the  new  Directors  and 
Guardians  of  the  Poor  from  magisterial  control.  They  were 
even  expressly  required  to  submit  their  accounts  for  allowance 
at  each  Quarter  Sessions,  \vhen  an  opportunity  was  afforded  for 
any  person  to  make  objection  to  their  proceedings,  and  for  the 

^  They  were  even  given  powers  of  comptilsorily  placing  within  the  House 
of  Industry  persons  who  were  not  paupers.  The  Incorporated  Guardians  of 
Colneis  and  Carlford  petition  the  House  of  Commons  in  1763,  "  That  they  con- 
ceive it  would  very  much  tend  to  the  better  government  of  the  said  poor  if 
your  petitioners  were  authorised  to  apprehend  any  idle,  lazy  or  disorderly 
persons  found  within  the  Hundred  begging  or  refusing  to  work,  and  to  carry 
them  to  some  Justice  of  the  Peace  ;  and  if  such  Justice  was  authorised  to 
commit  such  offenders  to  the  House  of  Industry,  there  to  be  dealt  with  according 
to  law  under  the  direction  of  the  said  Justice  of  the  Peace  "  (MS.  Minutes, 
Incorporated  Guardians,  Colneis  and  Carlford,  3rd  October  1763).  The  desired 
power  was  given  in  the  Local  Act,  4  George  III.  c.  58. 


128         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

Court  to  give  such  orders  as  it  thought  fit.  It  is,  however,  easy 
to  see  that,  as  with  all  the  new  Authorities  estabhshed  under 
Local  Acts,  this  subjection  of  the  Suffolk  and  Norfolk  Incorpora- 
tions to  the  Justices  was  entirely  illusory.  Their  ver}^  creation 
was  taken  to  imply,  and  was  probably  intended  to  imply,  that 
they  were  themselves  to  exercise  whatever  discretion  had  previ- 
ously been  exercised  in  Poor  Law  administration  by  the  Single 
or  the  Double  Justice,  or  in  Petty  or  Special  Sessions.  We  see 
this  supersession  of  the  Justices  forcibly  described  by  a  fervent 
admirer  of  the  new  system.  "  When  you  are  incorporated," 
he  declares  to  the  parishes,  "  the  Directors  and  Guardians  are 
judges  of  the  measure  of  relief.  When  you  are  disincorporated 
it  will  be  fixed  by  the  Justices.  And  do  you  really  believe  that 
these  gentlemen  are  better  judges  of  the  real  wants  of  the  poor, 
than  a  committee  of  the  House,  composed  of  a  mixture  of  gentle- 
men and  men  of  business  ?  Or  do  you  suppose  that  smaller 
allowances  will  be  made  in  the  Sessions  Hall  at  Woodbridge, 
than  in  the  committee-room  of  the  House  of  Industry.  .  .  .  The 
pauper  makes  his  complaint  to  the  Overseer  and  the  Overseer 
takes  it  to  the  Committee.  If  the  complaint  is  unreasonable  or 
experimental  .  .  .  the  Committee  refuses  relief,  and  there  is  an 
end  of  the  business  ;  the  pauper  grumbles  perhaps,  but  submits, 
because  he  knows  there  is  no  remedy.  Not  so  in  an  un- 
incorporated parish.  The  pauper  who  is  refused  relief  to-day 
comes  again  to-morrow  ;  frequently  with  abusive  language ; 
not  infrequently  with  threats.  However  often  repulsed,  he 
returns  again  to  the  charge  ;  drags  the  Overseer  to  half  the 
Justices  in  the  County,  and  at  last  by  importunity  and  worrying 
obtains  an  allowance  that  he  ill-deserves,  and  which  is  given 
rather  to  purchase  quiet  and  forbearance  than  because  it  is 
wanted."  ^ 

This  quasi-judicial  authority  of  the  Directors  and  Acting 
Guardians  of  the  new  Incorporations  comes  out  in  their  relations 
with  the  parish  authorities.  The  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians 
took  over  from  the  Overseers  the  whole  administration  of  Poor 
Law  relief  ;  but  the  Local  Acts  in  no  way  relieved  the  parishioners 
from  their  statutory  obligation  to  serve  as  Overseers,  and  in  no 
way  exempted  the  Overseers  from  any  of  their  duties  or  obliga- 
tions. AVhat  happened  was  that  the  parish  officer  acquired,  in 
^  Ipswich  Journal,  22nd  May  1825. 


i 


POWERS  OF  THE  INCORPORATIONS  129 

place  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  a  new  set  of  masters,  from 
whom  he  received  peremptory  orders.  He  had  to  attend  the 
meetings  of  the  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians  whenever 
required  ;  to  produce  Hsts  of  the  poor  in  his  parish,  Hsts  of 
children,  lists  of  persons  liable  to  take  apprentices,  and  any  other 
information  required.^  Whenever  it  was  desired  that  outdoor 
rehef  should  be  given  in  any  case,  the  parish  officers  had  to 
attend  the  "  Weekly  Meeting  "  of  the  committee  and  support 
the  application.^  The  parish  officers  might  even  be  required 
to  attend  regularly  at  the  House  of  Industry  every  week  as  a 
matter  of  course,  the  journey  probably  sacrificing  nearly  a  whole 
day  of  their  time,^  All  the  outdoor  relief  that  the  Directors  and 
Acting  Guardians  allowed  in  particular  cases  was  paid  weekly 
under  their  orders  by  the  Overseers  ;  *  and  this  had  to  be  done, 
as  one  order  directs,  "  in  specie  personally  by  themselves."  ^ 
Any  failure  to  discharge  these  duties,  or  to  obey  any  of  the 
directions  of  the  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians,  might  be 
visited  by  the  penalty  of  a  fuie,  infhcted  not  by  the  Justices  but 
by  the  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians  themselves.^  In  case 
any  parish  failed  to  pay  its  quota,  the  Directors  and  Acting 
Guardians  could  themselves  inflict  a  fine  on  the  Overseer.'^     The 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Colneis  and  CarKord,  30th  March 
1778.  "  That  the  Churchwardens  within  the  several  parishes  do  make  lists 
of  the  number  of  poor  with  their  families  .  .  .  and  do  attend  the  committee 
.  .  .  with  such  lists  in  order  that  the  committee  may  judge  of  the  necessitous 
poor,  and  give  them  such  relief  as  their  present  necessary  occasions  may  require  " 
(MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Samford,  14th  July  1795). 

2  Ibid.  Loes  and  WiKord,  1st  April  1811.  "That  no  pauper  shall  be 
relieved  by  a  weekly  committee  or  quarterly  meeting  unless  accompanied  by 
the  Churchwarden  or  Overseer  of  the  Parish  where  they  live"  (Byelaws,  Rules, 
Orders  and  Instruction  for  the  Better  Government  and  Support  of  the  Poor  in  the 
Hundred  of  Bosmere  and  Claydon  in  Suffolk,  1813,  p.  20). 

3  "  Ordered  that  the  Overseers  ...  do  regularly  attend  at  the  Poor  House 
every  Wednesday.  ...  In  case  of  their  non-attendance  ,  .  .  they  will  be 
subject  to  the  penalty  under  the  44  section  of  the  last  Act  "  (MS.  Minutes, 
Incorporated  Guardians,  Samford,  1st  October  1799). 

*  "  Ordered  that  Mary  B.  and  her  son  Thomas  B.  of  Bradfield,  an  idiot, 
and  she  old  and  infirm,  be  allowed  2/6  a  week  to  be  paid  by  the  Overseer 
until  further  orders"  {ibid.  Loes  and  Wilford,  18th  July  1768). 

«  Ibid.  Samford,  25th  June  1833. 

®  Two  Overseers  were  summoned  to  appear  before  the  Directors  and 
Guardians  in  1768  and  fined  a  shilling  each  "  for  neglect  of  duty  "  (ibid.  Loes 
and  Wilford,  26th  December  1768).  Two  more  in  1778  were  fined  half  a 
guinea  each  [ibid.  29th  June  1778). 

'  In  1762  we  see  an  Overseer,  who  had  not  paid  the  contribution  due  from 
his  parish,  after  repeated  formalities,  summarily  sentenced  by  the  Directors 
and  Acting  Guardians  themselves,  to  pay  a  fine  of  forty  sliillings  (MS.  Minutes, 

K 


I30        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

SufEolk  and  Norfolk  Incorporations  were  thus,  in  effect,  a  com- 
bination of  the  Justices  and  the  parish  officers,  exercising  many 
of  the  supervising  and  judicial  functions  of  the  one,  and  most 
of  the  administrative  duties  of  the  other  ;  forcibly  interpolated 
between  the  two  ;  and  yet  nominally  leaving  unimpaired  the 
legal  powers  and  obligations  of  both  of  them. 

Let  us  now  enquire  how  the  elaborate  statutory  constitutions 
of  these  bodies  of  Incorporated  Guardians  actually  worked  in 
practice.  To  the  first  rulers  of  these  incorporations  their  organisa- 
tion seemed  devised  upon  the  most  perfect  principles  of  adminis- 
tration, "  To  guard  against  frauds  and  jobs,"  reports  the  most 
enthusiastic  of  their  founders,  "  all  considerable  contracts  are 
made  at  the  quarterly  meetings,  in  the  most  public  manner. 
No  money  is  paid  by  the  Treasurer  but  by  order  of  a  quarterly 
meeting,  or  by  warrant  under  the  hands  of  the  Directors  and 
Acting  Guardians,  in  a  quarterly  meeting,  or  in  a  weekly  com- 
mittee assembled.  And  at  these  general  quarterly  meetings, 
all  the  vouchers  of  the  preceding  quarter  are  stated  and  settled, 
and  the  vouchers  examined  and  compared  with  them.  And 
forasmuch  as  many  persons  pay  to  the  rates,  who  are  not  con- 
cerned in  the  management  of  the  poor,  these  accounts,  so  stated 
and  signed  by  the  members  of  the  general  quarterly  meetings, 
are  referred  to  His  Majesty's  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  there  to 
be  finally  allowed  and  confirmed.^  And  here  if  any  man  can 
suggest  fraud  or  mismanagement  before  such  final  allowance 
and  confirmation,  he  may  be  heard.  What  better  care  could 
be  taken  to  prevent  jobs  ?  "  ^  "A  committee  room,"  as  another 
enthusiast  tells  us,  "  spacious,  commodious  and  pleasantly 
situated,  is  set  apart  for  the  weekly  meetings  of  the  Directors 
and  Guardians.  .  .  .  They  consist  of  the  principal  gentry,  clergy 
and  tenantry  in  the  County.     They  visit  in  rotation,  each  taking 


Incorporated  Guardians,  Colnois  and  Carlford,  27tli  December  1762).  The 
penalty  on  parish  officers  neglecting  to  raise  and  pass  over  the  assessments 
due  was  raised  from  £5  to  £50  by  the  Blything  Act  of  1793  (33  George  III. 
c.  126). 

^  So  entirely  was  Quarter  Sessions  still  regarded  as  a  Court  that  this  sub- 
mission of  accounts  had  apparently  to  be  made  by  counsel,  no  one  else  being 
allowed  to  appear  on  belialf  of  the  Incorporation  ;  and  the  Directors  and 
Acting  Guardians  of  the  Colneis  and  Carlford  Hundreds  complained  that  the 
solicitor's  and  counsel's  fees,  at  five  guineas  each  time,  had  cost  them  £73  in 
five  years. 

*  Rev.  R.  Canning,  in  The  Christian's  Magazine,  1763,  vol.  iii.  pp.  29,  30. 


FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTRY  131 

a  month.  Two  Directors  from  the  gentry,  three  Acting  Guardians 
from  the  yeomanry,  with  the  Clerk,  form  the  weekly  meeting. 
The  governor  of  the  House  attends  to  answer  enquiries  and 
complaints.  He  brings  up  his  report  of  the  material  events  of 
the  preceding  week.  All  business  respecting  the  economy  of 
the  House  and  current  expenses  is  then  settled.  The  stores  and 
provisions  are  inspected,  the  apothecary  who  attends  for  a  yearly 
stipend,  is  examined  with  respect  to  the  sick.  In  this  whole 
afEair  no  person  complains  of  the  fatigue  of  attendance,  but 
rather  takes  pleasure  in  the  discharge  of  so  useful  an  employ- 
ment." ^  It  was,  in  fact,  assumed  that  the  compulsory  in- 
corporation of  all  the  substantial  gentry  and  the  leading  tenantry 
of  the  district  as  Guardians  would  ensure  the  exercise  of  a  constant 
oversight,  by  those  on  whom  fell  the  main  burden  of  the  rates, 
over  the  administration  carried  on  at  their  joint  expense.  When 
it  was  objected  to  the  Incorporation  that  no  one  would  take  the 
trouble  to  look  after  them,  their  sanguine  promoters  rejoined  as 
a  conclusive  answer  that,  "  As  the  attendance  is  so  easy,  we  may 
reasonably  expect  that  it  will  be  complied  with,  especially  as 
it  will  always  be  the  interest  of  the  persons  whose  attendance  is 
wanted  that  this  affair  should  succeed  well."  2  It  is  needless  to 
say  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  squires  and  clergy  neglected,  from 
the  outset,  to  attend  even  the  quarterly  meetings,  or  to  pay  any 
attention  to  the  House  of  Industry.  There  was,  indeed,  nothing 
for  the  Guardians — as  distinguished  from  the  Directors  and 
Acting  Guardians — to  do  at  their  meetings,  after  they  had  once 
elected  the  President,  the  other  officers,  and  the  two  executive 
bodies.^    Even  at  the  first  meeting  of  a  new  Incorporation  only 

1  Thoughts  on  the  Construction  and  Polity  of  Prisons,  by  Rev.  John  Jebb, 
1786,  p.  11.  He  had  resigned  a  Suffolk  living  in  1775,  and  thus  probably  wrote 
from  memory  of  the  early  years  of  the  Houses  of  Industry. 

2  Rev.  R.  Canning,  in  The  Christian's  Magazine,  1763,  vol.  iii.  p.  29. 

3  In  some  of  the  Acts  the  apprenticing  of  children  and  the  letting  out  of 
tlic  poor  for  liire  was  apparently  reserved  to  the  Guardians  as  a  whole  (Mitford 
and  Launditch  Act  of  1775  ;  Blything  Act  of  1793  ;  also  the  letting  out  of  the 
poor  to  work  in  harvest  time,  in  the  East  and  West  Flegg  Act  of  1775).  The 
process  in  1797  is  described  for  us  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden.  The  boys  and  girls  at 
14  are  "  drafted  out  to  the  parishes  to  which  they  belong.  If  a  person  to 
whose  lot  a  child  falls  should  refuse  to  take  him  or  her  for  a  year  (which  is  the 
stated  term)  ho  forfeits  20s.,  which  goes  to  the  master  who  accepts  his  allot- 
ment ;  if  he  should  likewise  refuse,  he  also  forfeits  the  same  sum,  which  is 
then  paid  to  the  third  person  on  his  accepting  the  child  ;  when  the  year  is 
expired,  the  child  is  again  put  by  lot  to  another  master,  in  case  his  old  master 
docs  not  wish  to  keep  him,  and  he  is  not  able  to  provide  for  himself  "  (The 


132         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

a  few  score  persons  would  deign  to  put  in  an  appearance  ;  and 
these  had  perforce  to  elect  themselves  as  the  24  Directors  and 
the  24  or  36  Acting  Guardians  that  the  Act  required.^  The 
two  executive  bodies  were,  therefore,  in  effect,  self-elected, 
renewing  themselves  on  the  occurrence  of  vacancies  by  simple 
co-option.  Vacancies  remained,  however,  long  unfilled,  owing 
to  the  difficulty  of  finding  persons  willing  even  to  promise  to 
serve.2 

Though  no  such  distinction  is  expressed  in  the  Acts,  both 
the  intention  and  the  practice  seems  to  have  been  for  the  Directors 
to  be  chosen  from  among  the  clergy  and  gentry,  and  the  Acting 
Guardians  from  among  such  substantial  farmers  and  tradesmen 
as  possessed  the  statutory  qualification.^  The  Directors  assumed 
as  their  sphere  the  decision  of  important  matters,  such  as  the 
erection  of  a  building  or  the  borrowing  of  money,  whilst  the 
current  administration  of  relief,  and  the  daily  management  of 
the  House  of  Industry  was  left  principally  to  the  Acting  Guardians, 
though  Parliament  had  striven  to  secure  that  some,  at  least,  of 
the  Directors  should  also  be  present.  What  happened  in  practice 
was  that  the  separate  meetings  of  the  two  bodies  were  dropped, 
as  was  that  of  the  Guardians  at  large.  Only  one  kind  of  meeting 
was  held,  both  quarterly  and  annually,  this  being  attended 
indiscriminately  by  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians,  at  which 
formal  resolutions  were  passed,  and  various  kinds  of  relief  were 
administered.  For  the  actual  management  of  the  House  of 
Industry  the  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians  divided  themselves 
up  into  small  committees  of  about  five,  each  being  supposed  to 
attend  to  the  management  for  one  month,  and  to  be  absolved 

Slate  of  tlie  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  ii.  p.  455).  The  Colncis  and 
Carlford  amending  Act  of  1763  transferred  all  the  powers  of  the  Guardians  to 
the  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians. 

^  At  the  first  meetings  of  the  new  Incorporations,  the  following  attendances 
were  recorded  :  50  (MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guaixlians,  Colneis  and  Carlford) ; 
31  {ibid.  Loes  and  Wilford,  1st  July  1705). 

^  "  Notwithstanding  the  Act  of  incorporation  requires  all  vacancies  to  be 
filled  at  each  quarterly  meeting  after  they  respectively  hapjien,  there  are  at 
this  time  three,  two  of  them  of  about  a  year's  standing,  and  the  third  of  more 
than  two  years  and  a  half  "  (Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  inquire  into 
the  Actual  State  of  the  House  of  Industry  at  Melton,  1791,  p.  13). 

^  In  the  Loes  and  Wilford  Incorporation  in  1825-1S2(!,  out  of  the  24  Directors 
11  wen;  clergynKMi  and  3  esquires  ;  wJiilst  the  Acting  (Juarciians  were  all  styled 
"  Mr."  (Ijisl  of  the  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians  in  thv  Hundreds  of  Loes  and 
Wilford,  with  their  months  of  attendance  at  the  House  of  Industry  for  the  years 
1825-1S26). 


NON-A  TTENDA  NCE  1 33 

from  meetings  all  tlie  rest  of  the  year.^  In  actual  practice  we 
find,  in  case  after  case,  most  of  the  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians 
not  attending  meetings  of  any  sort,  and  hardly  any  of  them  ever 
going  to  the  House  of  Industry  ;  the  whole  management  being 
left,  practically  for  years  together,  in  the  hands  of  the  paid 
officials.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  Act  of  Parliament  prescribed 
penalties  for  non-attendance,  and  that  resolutions  were  passed 
threatening  to  put  the  penalties  in  force.  In  the  Loes  and 
Wilford  Incorporation,  when  the  grave  financial  position  had 
led,  in  1791,  to  a  committee  of  enquiry,  it  was  reported  that 
within  the  preceding  ten  years  there  had  been  forty-five  meetings 
at  which  there  had  been  no  quorum  ;  that  the  prescribed  weekly 
committees  had  not  been  held  ;  and  that  in  no  one  case  had  any 
Director  or  Acting  Guardian  obeyed  the  bj^elaw  which  required 
each  of  them  individually  to  visit  the  House  at  least  once  in  the 
course  of  the  particular  month  assigned  to  him.^  Within  five 
years  after  the  reorganisation  that  followed  this  investigation, 
the  system  had  again  broken  down.  The  Directors  and  Acting 
Guardians  then  tried  the  experiment  of  dividing  themselves, 
not  by  months  in  the  year,  but  into  nine  continuous  subject- 
committees  ;  for  religion  and  morality,  industry,  maintenance, 
clothing,  medicines,  building  and  repairs,  finance,  law  and 
apprenticeship  respectively  ;  each  being  instructed  to  meet  at 
least  once  a  quarter  as  a  minimum.^  We  gather  that  this  proved 
no  more  successful  than  the  preceding  arrangement.  When  the 
meetings  were  called  at  the  House  of  Industry  no  members 
whatever  attended.*  When  they  were  held  in  the  more  comfort- 
able surroundings  of  the  White  Hart  Tavern  at  Wickham  Market 
the  record  was  not  much  better.^  In  some  Incorporations  the 
device  was  invented  of  permitting  the  Acting  Guardians  to 
appoint  deputies  to  attend  in  their  stead  ;  with  the  result,  as 
might  be  imagined,  that  the  privilege  was  "  scandalously  " 
abused  ;  "  the  person  chosen  to  discharge  "  the  delegated  office 
being  often  "  so  far  from  equal  to  its  duties  that  he  could  not 
sign  his  name  to  the  accounts  he  admitted,  nor  read  even  what 

1  R,cv.  R.  Canning,  in  The  Christian'' s  Magazine,  17G3,  vol.  iii.  p.  29. 
^  Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  Actual  Stale  of  the 
House  of  l7ich(stry  at  Melton,  1791,  p.  13. 

*  MS.  jVIinutcs,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Loes  and  Wilford,  2nd  July  1796. 

*  Ibid.  5th  July  (as  regards  three  meetings),  and  11th  October  1798. 
5  Ibid.  11th  April  1805 ;  6th  January  1806  (2  present). 


134         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

he  allowed."  ^  In  despair  of  securing  a  better  attendance  for 
any  length  of  time  the  more  active  and  zealous  Directors  and 
Acting  Guardians  of  these  Incorporations  put  their  trust  in  the 
formulation  of  elaborate  "  Rules  and  Orders."  "  When  general 
laws  are  once  established/'  fondly  remark  the  compilers  of  one 
such  code,  "  the  public  is  in  no  danger  of  losing  at  any  future 
time  any  of  the  advantages  which  a  former  zeal  had  promised, 
or  a  past  vigilance  had  procured.  For  should  that  zeal  here- 
after abate,  or  that  vigilance  relax,  the  institution  by  means  of 
its  General  Rules,  remains  like  a  machine,  which,  having  its 
springs  of  motion  within  itself,  will,  with  but  an  ordinary  atten- 
tion, and  only  common  application,  go  on  to  perform  without 
interruption  its  accustomed  functions,  and  to  produce  without 
variation  its  usual  benefits.  Nothing  therefore  can  be  more 
unjust  than  the  common  objection  to  Houses  of  Industry  and 
similar  institutions  that,  however  well  they  may  be  administered 
at  first,  they  will  at  length  fall  into  neglect.  For  do  but  establish 
General  Rules  and  the  objection  is  at  once  obviated."  ^ 

^  The  Suffolk  and  Norfolk  Houses  of  Industry  were  thus  practi- 
cally handed  over,  sooner  or  later,  to  the  management  of  the 
officers,  under  such  "  Rules  and  Orders  "  as  the  zeal  and  wisdom 
of  the  squires  and  clergy  had  provided.  These  officers  consisted, 
as  a  rule,  of  a  Clerk  to  the  Incorporation,  usually  a  local  attorney, 
paid  a  small  salary  ^  for  the  formal  business  of  the  Annual 
Meeting  and  the  preparation  of  the  necessary  documents  ;  a 
Treasurer,  one  of  the  Directors  or  Acting  Guardians,  who  kept 
the  current  balances  for  his  own  profit,  but  sometimes  received 
also  a  small  stipend.*  More  important  than  these,  who  seem 
seldom  or  never  to  have  visited  the  institution  itself,  was  the 
Steward  or  Master  or  Governor  of  the  House  of  Industry,  who 
ran  the  whole  establishment,  managed  its  few  acres  of  land, 
directed  its  little  manufactures,  governed  the  pauper  inmates, 

*  Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  Actual  Sl^ite  of  the  House 
of  Industry  at  Melton,  1791,  p.  13. 

*  Rules  and  Orders  for  .  .  .  the  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians  of  the 
Poor  of  the  Hundreds  of  Loes  and  Wilford. 

'  Ten  guineas  a  year  (MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Loes  and 
Wilford,  1st  July  1765) ;  twenty  pounds  a  year  {ibid.  Loes  and  Wilford,  27th 
June  1768)  ;  thirty  pounds  a  year  {An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Special 
Committee  .  .  .  to  enquire  into  the  Expenditure  in  the  House  of  Industry  at 
Heckingham,  1793). 

*  Six  guineas  a  year  (MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Loes  and 
Wilford,  Ist  July  1765) ;   twenty  pounds  a  year  {ibid.  14th  October  1802). 


THE  OFFICIALS  135 

and  was  evidently  the  mainspring  of  the  administration.  For 
this  responsible  position  the  Guardians  seem  nearly  always  to  have 
allowed  a  salary  of  £40  a  year  with  board  and  lodging/  sometimes 
with  a  trifling  bonus  on  the  amount  of  wool  spun,  or  other  pro- 
duction of  the  paupers  2  ...  a  remuneration  which  did  not 
permit  them  to  find  anybody  of  greater  administrative  ability 
than  a  bankrupt  farmer,  a  village  shopkeeper  or  a  promoted 
servant  or  labourer.  The  Governor  was  assisted  by  a  Chaplain,  at 
£25  a  year,  who  was  for  this  sum  to  "  read  prayers  daily  and 
preach  one  part  of  the  day  every  Sunday,  catechise  the  children 
once  a  week  every  Wednesday,  christen  the  children,  visit  the 
sick  and  bury  the  dead."  ^  There  were  also  usually  several 
doctors  appointed,  at  from  £21  to  £40  a  year,  one  to  physic  the 
inmates  of  the  House,  and  the  others  to  look  after  the  outdoor 
poor  in  particular  districts.*  Presently  the  larger  Houses  have 
also  a  Matron,  a  Schoolmaster,  and  a  Schoolmistress.^  The 
reader  will  be  prepared  to  learn  that  the  officers  so  appointed  and 
left  practically  uninspected  to  manage  their  several  institutions 
were  seldom  found  satisfactory  for  any  length  of  time.  Not- 
withstanding all  the  elaborate  rules,  it  was  impossible  to  prevent 
the  Governor  of  the  House  from  embezzKng  the  material,  the 
stores  and  the  cash.^  The  quantity  of  food  consumed  could  not 
be  made  to  bear  any  constant  relation  to  the  number  of  inmates, 
and  was  always  going  up.' 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Colneis  and  Carlford,  22nd  Nov- 
ember 1757  ;  ibid.  Loes  and  Wilford,  27th  June  1768  ;  ibid.  Loddon  and  Claver- 
ing  (An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Special  Committee  .  .  .  to  enquire  into 
the  Expenditure  in  the  House  of  Industry  at  Heckingham,  1793). 

*  At  the  Tattingstone  House  of  Industry  the  Guardians  presented  the 
Governor  annually  with  a  "  gratuity  "  of  £50,  together  with  £10  for  his  daughter, 
who  taught  the  knitting  school,  in  lieu  of  salary  (MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated 
Guardians,  Samford,  26th  March  1833,  1st  April  1834). 

^  Ibid.  Colneis  and  Carlford,  2nd  October  1758  ;  elsewhere  it  was  £35  (ibid. 
Loes  and  Wilford,  27th  June  1768)  or  £30  (An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  of 
the  Special  Committee  .  .  .  to  enquire  into  the  Expenditure  in  the  House  of 
Industry  at  Heckingham,  1793). 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Samford,  26th  June  1780.  Pres- 
ently this  Incorporation  tried  the  experiment  of  having  one  Resident  Doctor 
to  do  all  the  work,  giving  his  whole  time  for  a  salary  of  £85  a  year,  with  board 
and  lodging  (ibid.  5th  July  1791).  The  Loddon  and  Clavering  Guardians  gave 
as  much  as  £105  (An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Special  Committee  .  .  .  to 
enquire  into  the  Expenditure  in  the  House  of  Industry  at  Heckingham,  1793). 

5  MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Loes  and  Wilford,  11th  April  1811. 
«  Ibid.  29th  June  1789. 

'  In  one  Incorporation  it  was  found  that  the  aggregate  weight  of  food  per 
head  had  risen  by  33  per  cent  in  fifteen  years  (An  Account  of  the  Proceedings 


136        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

There  were,  however,  apart  from  mere  shortcomings  of 
management,  two  developments  in  the  working  of  these  institu- 
tions which,  in  their  unforeseen  effects,  must,  in  any  case,  have 
gone  far  to  destroy  whatever  chance  they  may  have  had  of 
successful  administration.  The  Directors  and  Acting  Guardians 
could  not  refrain,  in  spite  of  their  rigid  theories,  from  granting 
practically  indiscriminate  outdoor  relief.  Before  the  first  House 
of  Industry  had  been  open  a  year,  we  see  the  grant  of  weekly  doles 
beginning,  at  first  to  "  a  bedridden  man,"  then  to  widows,  and 
presently  to  families  of  good  character.  There  was  at  first  some 
discrimination  between  those  who  were  forced  to  enter  the  House 
of  Industry  and  those  who  were  not.  During  the  famine  years 
between  1795  and  1800,  relief  was  given  indiscriminately  to  all 
the  labourers,  "  head  money  "  being  often  paid  for  each  child 
where  there  were  more  than  one  in  the  family.^  In  the  final 
stages  of  these  Incorporations  there  came  to  be  more  outdoor 
relief  than  indoor  maintenance.  For  the  ten  years  1800-1810, 
the  figures  in  the  Loes  and  Wilford  Hundreds  were  £20,208  out- 
door and  £32,477  indoor  ;  in  1810-1820,  £51,908  and  £37,466  ; 
and  in  1820-1824,  £23,917  and  £15,037  respectively. ^ 

This  result  was  partly  caused  by  the  change  in  the  method  of 
apportioning  the  expenses  of  the  Incorporation  among  the  con- 
stituent parishes,  which  was  gradually  adopted  between  1801  and 
1820.  The  original  intention  had  been  to  relieve  each  parish  of  the 
administration  of  its  own  Poor  Law,  charging  it  exactly  what  it 
has  previously  paid  as  Poor  Rate,  and  undertaking  not  to  exceed 
that  sum.  When  the  new  Houses  of  Industry  had  paid  off  their 
capital  debt,  it  was  contemplated  that  the  charge  upon  the 
parishes  should  be  rateably  reduced.  In  the  Blything  Incorpora- 
tion a  reduction  of  one-eighth  was  actually  made  from  1780  on- 

oj  tlie  Special  Committee  .  .  .  to  enquire  into  tJie  Expenditure  in  the  House  of 
Industry  at  Heckinglmm,  1793).  The  Governor's  explanation  was  that  "  he 
was  obliged  to  give  the  paupers  more  food  than  they  wanted,  or  could  eat,  to 
preserve  order  in  the  House  "  (ibid.  p.  2). 

^  "  That  there  bo  a  general  relief  to  the  poor  families  in  each  parish  in 
the  following  ratio,  viz.  a  family  with  2  children,  (id.  each  ;  with  3  children, 
8d.  each  ;  with  4  children,  9d.  each.  No  children  above  tlic  age  of  12  years 
to  be  allowed  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Samford,  19th  January 
179(5). 

-  Report  nf  the  Committee  appointed  .  .  .  to  investigate  the  Receipts  and 
Expenditure  for  the  Support  of  the  Poor,  1825.  A  stirring  protest  was  made  in 
1823  against  the  outdoor  n-liif  of  tlie  IMything  Incorporation  by  Rev.  Richard 
Whateley  ;  see  his  broadside  of  that  date. 


THE  FINANCIAL  RESULT  137 

wards,  the  whole  debt  of  £12,000  having  been  discharged.^  The 
Cosford  Hundred,  too,  is  reported  by  1800  to  have  reduced  its 
debt  of  £8000  to  £180,  and  to  have  reduced  its  Poor  Kate  by 
three-eighths."  Generally  speaking,  however,  the  parishes  con- 
tinued to  pay  the  same  Poor  E,ates  as  they  had  previously  done  ; 
and  sometimes  these  were  even  increased.^  In  the  course  of  a 
few  years  the  numbers  of  paupers  belonging  to  the  several  parishes 
inevitably  underwent  changes,  whilst  the  parishes  continued  to 
contribute  in  a  fixed  ratio.  This  led  to  complaints  from  those 
parishes  which  found  themselves  paying  in  a  higher  ratio  than 
that  of  their  current  pauperism.  To  satisfy  these  complaints, 
and  arrange  what  seemed  a  fairer  basis  of  contribution,  it  was 
provided  by  various  amending  Acts,  first  that  the  parishes  should 
contribute  according  to  a  new  triennial  or  decennial  average  ;  * 
and  eventually  that  each  parish  should  bear  the  cost  of  the  out- 
relief  of  its  own  poor,  and  should  contribute  to  the  cost  of  the 
House  of  Industry  in  strict  proportion  to  the  number  of  inmates 
that  it  sent  thither.  This  change  in  system  had  a  disastrous 
consequence.  The  amending  Acts,  in  fact,  unwittingly  "  offered 
a  direct  premium  for  keeping  paupers  out  of  the  House."  ^  As 
the  expense  per  head  in  the  House  of  Industry  was  high,  each 
parish  saw  its  way  to  save  money  by  giving  small  doles  of  outdoor 
relief,  rather  than  augment  its  numbers  in  the  House.  Finally,  the 
quondam  "  House  of  Industry  "  became  for  the  parishes,  only  a 
sort  of  co-operative  hosj^ital  for  the  sick,  an  orphan  asylum  for 
the  deserted  children,  and  a  place  to  which  the  Overseers  could 
send  any  able-bodied  poor  to  whom  they  did  not  choose  to  allow 
the  weekly  dole.  ^ 

For  a  generation,  however,  it  was  apparently  still  possible 
to  believe  in  the  success  of  these  Incorporations.     We  see  them 

1  History  of  the  Poor,  by  Thomas  Ruggles,  1794. 

^  An  Introduction  to  the  Fifth  Edition  of  Some  Account  of  the  Shrewsbury 
House  of  Industry,  by  Isaac  Wood,  1800,  p.  Iviii. 

^  In  the  Stow  Incorporation  they  were  increased  by  one  quarter  for  three 
years  by  common  consent  (ibid.).  The  Colneis  and  Carlford  Act  of  1790 
authorised  a  maximum  of  double  the  former  rate. 

*  Mitford  and  Launditch  Act  of  1801  (41  George  III.  c.  63) ;  Loes  and 
WiKord  Act  of  1810  (50  George  III.  c.  119) ;  Blything  Act  of  1820  (1  George  IV. 
0.  6) ;  First  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834,  Appendix  C, 
pp.  187,  2G4  ;  General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  Norfolk,  by  A.  Young,  1804, 
pp.  494-496. 

^  First  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834,  Appendix  C, 
p.  194. 


138        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

repeatedly  belauded  by  Poor  Law  reformers ;  and  even  imitated  in 
various  localities.  Of  these  imitations  we  have  already  described 
the  most  important,  the  Shrewsbury  House  of  Industry.  Of  the 
others  we  need  describe  only  that  established  in  the  Isle  of  Wight. 

The  Isle  of  Wight,  with  its  few  thousand  inhabitants  scattered 
among  30  parishes,  all  within  a  walk,  and  none  containing  any 
considerable  town,  formed,  it  would  seem,  an  obviously  con- 
venient unit  of  administration.  The  County  Justices  of  the 
Island,  as  we  have  elsewhere  described,^  effected  an  extra-legal 
separation  between  themselves  and  their  colleagues  on  the  mainland 
of  the  County  ;  held  their  owti  Quarter  Sessions,  and  made  their 
own  County  Rate,  virtually  as  if  the  Island  were  a  distinct  shire. 
Yet  so  strong  was  the  influence  of  the  immemorial  division  into 
parishes  that,  not  mi  til  1770,  do  we  find  on  the  Island  any 
common  action  as  to  Poor  Law  ;  ^  and  not  for  forty  years  after- 
wards any  common  action  as  to  road  maintenance.^ 

The  thirty  Island  parishes,  having  an  average  popidation 
during  the  first  three  quarters  of  the  eighteenth  century  of  a 
few  score  families,  were  plainly  incapable  of  organising  separately 
any  sort  of  Poor  Law  institution  (though  Newport  had  some  sort 
of  workhouse  in  1732)  ;  and  their  Poor  Law  administration 
had  evidently  remained  of  the  most  primitive  rural  type.  In 
1770,  when  the  Suft'olk  and  Norfolk  Houses  of  Industry  were 
still  in  the  first  flush  of  reputed  success,  the  principal  gentry 
and  clergy  of  the  Island  met  and  decided  to  promote  a  bill 
to  enable  them  to  follow  so  promising  an  example.  Under 
the  Local  Act  of  that  session  an  Incorporation  was  formed 
exactly  on  the  model  of  those  of  the  Suffolk  Hundreds.  Eighty 
acres  of  Parkhurst  Forest  were  acquired  from  the  Crown,  and 

1  The  Parish  and  the  County,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1907,  p.  429. 

^  For  the  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor  of  the  Isle  of  Wight,  see  the 
Acts  11  George  III.  c.  43  (1771),  and  16  George  III.  c.  53  (177G) ;  General  View 
of  the  Agriculture  of  the  Count)/  of  Hants,  by  Abraham  and  William  Driver, 
1794  (containing  a  special  section  on  the  Isle  of  Wight  by  Rev.  R.  Warner)  ; 
a  long  description  in  TJie  Stale  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  233-206  ;  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Poor  Laws,  1817 
(Sewell'a  evidence) ;  First  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834, 
Appendix  A,  Pringle's  Report,  p.  305  ;  The  Isle  of  Wight  System  of  Roods,  and 
System  of  Guardians  of  the  Poor,  not  a  Model,  but  a  Warning  to  the  Legislature, 
1845. 

»  In  1813  the  Isle  of  Wight  Turnpike  Trust  was  formed,  by  53  George  III. 
c.  92  ;  and  did  not  come  to  an  end  until  suix^rsedcd  by  the  County  Council 
instituted  for  the  Island  under  the  Local  Government  Act  of  1888  (The  Story 
of  the  King's  Ilighivay,  by  S.  and  li.  Webb,  1913,  j).  230). 


THE  UNION  OF  RURAL  PARISHES  139 

a  spacious  House  of  Industry  was  erected  to  accommodate  no 
fewer  than  700  paupers,  who  were  employed  in  agriculture,  making 
corn  sacks,  weaving  linsey  woolsey,  knitting  stockings,  embroidery 
and  lacemaking.  Notwithstanding  a  lengthy  description  by  Sir 
F.  M.  Eden,  we  know  little  of  the  actual  working  of  this  constitu- 
tion. The  House  of  Industry  long  continued  to  enjoy  a  reputa- 
tion for  moderate  success,  though  the  industrial  enterprises 
yielded  a  very  doubtful  profit,  and  the  Poor  Rates  were  appar- 
ently not  reduced.  We  hear,  at  any  rate,  of  no  desire  to  revert 
to  parochial  management,^ 

There  is  something  pathetic  in  the  dismal  uniformity  of  the 
stories  of  the  actual  working  of  the  carefully  organised  adminis- 
trations of  all  these  bodies  of  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the 
Suffolk  type.  The  substitution  of  the  enlightened  and  public- 
spirited  squires  and  incumbents  for  the  selfish  and  ignorant  parish 
officers,  and  the  organisation  of  the  labour  of  the  paupers  in  a 
House  of  Industry,  were  everywhere  going  to  reduce  the  Poor 
Rates,  and  at  the  same  time  to  afford  a  better  provision  for  the 
children,  the  sick  and  the  aged.  And  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that,  for  a  few  years  in  each  case,  the  new  bodies  not  only  made 
better  institutional  provision  for  the  aged,  the  sick  and  the  infirm, 
but  also  effected  some  considerable  reduction  of  actual  pauperism. 
As  the  parishes  had  to  contribute  rateably  to  the  common  charge, 
whether  or  not  they  made  use  of  the  new  institution,  they 
promptly  disburdened  themselves  of  all  their  poor,  directing  them 
all  to  go  to  the  House  of  Industry,  and  refusing  all  outdoor  relief ,2 
So  drastically  was  the  reform  effected  in  Suffolk  during  the  first 
few  years  that  the  common  people  rose  in  revolt ;  and  we  hope, 
in  a  future  volume  on  Poverty  and  Crime,  to  describe  the 
picturesque  little  Suffolk  rebellion  of  1765,  when  a  formidable 
mob,  armed  with  cudgels  and  scythes,  perambulated  the  County 
for  a  week,  demolishing  the  new  workhouses  and  compelling 
Directors  and  Acting  Guardians  to  sign  written  promises  to  desist 

^  Another  union  of  rural  parishes  was  established  in  Sussex  in  1812  (West- 
firle,  etc..  Act), 

2  The  efficacy  of  this  "  test "  in  reducing  the  number  of  paupers  was  every- 
where seen.  Its  drawbacks  were  not  at  first  noticed.  "  This  was  an  important 
point  gamed,"  says  a  writer  of  1813,  "  but  many  were  unable  to  maintain 
themselves,  and  unhappily  were  too  refractory  to  accept  of  their  maintenance 
in  the  House.  These  necessarily  commenced  itinerant  beggars,  and  got  a 
miserable  livelihood  by  wandering  through  the  neighbouring  parishes  "  (General 
View  of  the  Agriculture  of  North  Wales,  by  Walter  Davies,  1813,  p.  433). 


I40        INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

from  erecting  such  places  in  which  to  imprison  the  poor — de- 
manding, on  the  contrary,  "  that  the  poor  should  be  maintained 
as  usual ;  that  they  should  range  at  liberty  and  be  their  own 
masters."  ^  When  this  miniature  rebellion  had  been  put  down 
by  a  troop  of  dragoons,  the  erection  of  the  Houses  of  Industry 
was  continued,  and  the  poor  were  swept  into  them.  The  new 
buildings  were,  relatively  to  anything  that  had  previously  existed 
in  the  separate  parishes,  spacious  and  well  planned.^  The  arrange- 
ments were  carefully  considered  and  humanely  designed.^  In 
their  provision  for  the  education  of  the  children  and  for  the 
medical  attendance  and  nursing  of  the  sick  *  they  seemed  to  con- 

1  A  Letter  to  J.  W.,  Esq.,  relating  to  Mr.  0 y's  Pamphlet  upon  the  Poor 

Laws,  etc.,  by  XX,  176G. 

-  "  I  generally  found,"  said  an  Assistant  Poor  Law  Commissioner  in  1835, 
"  the  House  of  Industry  a  substantially  built  and  sometimes  a  handsome 
structure.  The  Stow  Hundred  House  had  so  palatial  a  character  that  I  was 
tempted  to  enquire  whether  any  peculiar  concurrence  of  circumstances  had 
occasioned  the  erection  of  an  edifice,  the  appearance  of  which  seemed  to  me  so 
little  in  unison  with  the  wants  of  the  houseless  and  necessitous  poor.  .  .  . 
My  enquiry  soon  elicited  information  that  the  character  of  the  structure  had 
been  usually  attributed  to  the  circumstance  that  it  was  situated  in  the  imme- 
diate vicinity  of  the  country-seats  of  the  Directors,  who  were  naturally  inclined 
to  adorn  rather  than  disfigure  the  landscape.  The  future  subject  of  chagrin 
had  not  been  anticipated :  the  Hundred  House  eclipsed  some  of  the  neigh- 
bouring mansions  !  "  (Second  Annual  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners, 
183(),  }).  15o). 

^  In  the  Suffolk  Houses  of  Industry  it  was  said,  in  1775,  "  of  the  aged  no 
labour  is  required  ;  their  silver  cord  is  loosed,  and  their  golden  bowl  broken  ; 
the  evening  of  their  days  is  here  made  comfortable  ;  they  are  rescued  from 
want,  and  consigned  to  respect  and  tranquillity  ;  to  them  the  doors  arc  always 
open,  and  whenever  inclination  and  the  weather  tempts  them  abroad  and  their 
strength  permits,  all  proper  indulgence  is  allowed  ;  or  in  the  House  they  have 
the  liberty  of  decent  rooms,  where  they  form  their  little  parties  of  conversation, 
sit  around  the  fire,  and  tell  their  tales  of  ancient  times.  Every  married  couple 
has  a  bed  and  a  room  distinct  and  appropriated  to  themselves,  which  they 
have  the  liberty  to  lock  up  if  they  please,  to  retire  to  it  when  they  please, 
undisturbed,  unintruded  upon  by  others  ;  and  their  children,  if  young,  are 
lodged  in  the  same  or  the  adjoining  apartments,  under  the  immediate  care  of 
their  jjarents.  And  indeed,  these  decent  lodgings  for  Ihe  married  constitute 
one  of  the  most  striking  beauties  and  conveniences  of  each  House  "  {Observatiojis 
on  tlie  Poor  Laws,  by  R.  Potter,  1775,  p.  41). 

*  "  Infirmaries  are  provided  at  a  proper  distance,  that  the  disea.se  may  not 
be  communicated  to  others.  ...  At  Bulcamp  there  is  also  an  Airing  House 
to  receive  them  for  a  time  after  their  recovery,  that  no  remains  of  the  disease 
may  annoy  others  ;  a  caution  worthy  of  imitation  "  {Observations  on  the  Poor 
Laivs,  by  11.  Potter,  1775,  p.  39).  Nevertiieleas,  there  was  a  terrible  *'  putrid 
fever"  at  the  Bulcamp  House  in  1781  {History  of  tlie  Poor  Laws,  by  Thomas 
Ruggles,  1704,  vol.  ii.  p.  2GG).  "  Ordered  that  seven  handbarrows  be  pro- 
vided for  the  more  safe  and  easy  conveyance  of  persons  to  the  House  of  Industry 
with  broken  limbs  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Colneis  and  Carl- 
ford,  31st  January  17(50). 


INSTITUTIONAL  ADVANTAGES  141 

gtitiite  an  advance  on  anything  tliat  had  hitherto  been  done  for 
the  rural  poor.  "  The  poor  came  to  us,"  says  the  worthy 
originator  of  the  first  of  these  Incorporations,  "  in  a  most  miser- 
able and  filthy  condition  ;  they  were  clothed  in  rags,  and  some 
of  them,  the  children  especially,  almost  literally  naked.  We 
expected  and  were  prepared  for  this,  so  that  to  prevent  the  in- 
troduction of  vermin,  before  they  were  admitted  they  were  shaved 
and  cleansed  thoroughly  by  washing  in  warm  water,  and  then  all 
new  clothed  throughout  from  head  to  foot."  ^  It  was  impossible, 
as  a  later  critic  observed,  to  refuse  approval  to  "institutions  that 
forced  cleanliness  upon  those  who  are  dirty,  and  wholesome  food 
upon  those  of  depraved  appetites."  ^  Yet,  within  a  very  few  years 
in  each  case  we  see  the  eulogistic  descriptions  of  the  first  period 
succeeded  by  grave  complaints.^  The  cost  of  maintenance 
rises  ;  the  industrial  enterprises  invariably  become  unprofitable  ; 
the  Houses  of  Industry  are  decimated  by  epidemics,  and  plainly 
have  an  excessive  death-rate ;  they  even  become  places  of  horrible 
demoralisation  and  disorder.  A  critic  of  1813  observes  that 
"  In  whatever  light  these  institutions  are  viewed  .  .  .  there  is 
scarcely  anything  to  be  perceived  but  degeneracy  and  ultimate 
disappointment.  Persons  of  judgment  and  deliberate  reflection, 
who  once  thought  favourably  of  them,  now  produce  reasons  for 
their  apostasy  .  .  .  both  in  point  of  expense,  and  the  morals 
of  the  poor  youth  brought  up  there  ;  as  well  as  the  unnatural 
state  the  old  and  infirm  are  confined  to,  among  strangers  who 
cannot  be  supposed  capable  of  much  sympathy.  Experience 
also  teaches  us  that  the  children  brought  up  in  such  places,  when 
grown  up  are  fit  only  for  a  manufactory  .  .  .  not  for  outdoor 
employments,  except,  indeed,  the  men  become  soldiers  (such  as 
they  be)  and  the  females  .  .  ,  often  have  recourse  to  prostitu- 

^  Rev.  R.  Canning,  in  The  Christian's  Magazine,  vol.  iii.  1763,  p.  30. 

2  General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  Shropshire,  by  Joseph  Plymley,  1803, 
p.  131. 

3  For  the  complaints  against  the  Houses  of  Industry  of  Suffolk  and  Norfolk, 
and  the  management  of  the  Incorporated  Guardians,  see  The  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee appointed  to  inquire  into  the  Actual  State  of  the  House  of  Industry  at 
Melton,  1791  ;  An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Special  Committee  .  .  .  to 
enquire  into  the  Expenditure  in  the  House  of  Industry  at  Heckingham,  1793 ; 
Report  of  the  Committee  .  .  .  Loes  and  Wilford  .  .  .  to  investigate  the  Receipts 
and  Expenditure,  etc.,  1825  ;  Ipswich  Journal,  22nd  October  1825  ;  First  Report 
of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834,  Appendix  C,  pp.  187-198,  203-204  ; 
First,  Second  and  Ninth  Annual  Reports  of  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1835, 
1836  and  1843. 


142         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

tion."  1  Presently  the  constituent  parishes,  not  finding  their 
Poor  Rates  reduced,  and  gradually  discovering  both  the  un- 
profitableness of  the  enterprise  and  the  demoralisation  of  the 
inmates,  themselves  revolt  against  the  system  ;  eagerly  revert 
to  the  grant  of  doles,  and  strive  to  reassume  the  management  of 
their  own  poor.  In  case  after  case,  they  obtain  new  Local  Acts  ; 
sometimes  according  new  powers  and  removing  restrictions  found 
to  be  inconvenient ;  sometimes  fundamentally  changing  the 
constitution,  sweeping  away  the  gentry  and  clergy,  and  replacing 
them  by  a  board  elected  by  the  parish  Vestries  ;  2  sometimes, 
again,  dissolving  the  Incorporation,  selling  or  demolishing  the 
workhouse,  and  reverting  to  the  parochial  administration  of  the 
Poor  Law.3  Already  in  1813  it  could  be  confidently  predicted 
that  "  These  elegant  structures  wUl  become  deserted  fabrics."  ^ 
For  this  uniform  failure,  there  were,  as  the  student  will  have  seen, 
abundant  causes  in  the  nature  of  the  legal  constitutions  with  which 
these  Incorporated  Guardians  were  equipped,  and  in  the  absence 
both  of  any  continuous  administration  by  devoted  amateurs  and 
of  any  class  of  salaried  officials  competent  for  such  a  task.  But  it 
would  be  to  miss  the  most  important  results  of  their  experience 
if  we  did  not  here  mention,  what  we  hope  hereafter  to  demon- 
strate in  a  subsequent  volume  on  Poverty  and  Vagrancy,  that  the 
principal  object  of  all  of  them — that  of  so  organising  the  labour 
of  the  paupers  as  to  make  them  a  self-supporting  community — 
was,  from  the  outset,  a  wholly  impracticable  one.  Though  this 
golden  dream  did  not  finally  fade  out  of  the  imagination,  even  of 
competent  Poor  Law  experts,  until  the  reign  of  Victoria — though 
it  still  periodically  captivates  the  unwary — it  was,  we  think,  the 

*  General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  Sorth  Wales,  by  Walter  Davies,  1813, 
p.  434.  "  The  twenty-five  parishes  incorporated  "  [in  the  Saraford  Hundred], 
we  are  told  in  1797,  "  are  almost  unanimous  in  wishing  to  have  the  Incorpora- 
tion dissolved  ;  as  they  think  they  can  maintain  their  poor  at  less  expense, 
and  with  more  comfort,  at  home  ;  but  this  measure  is  strenuously  resisted 
by  a  neighbouring  gentleman  "  (The  State  of  the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797, 
vol.  ii.  p.  692). 

*  As  in  the  case  of  Forehoe  (3  &  4  William  IV.  c.  107,  1833). 

3  As  in  the  cases  of  Cosford  and  Polsted  (47  George  111.  scss.  2,  c.  73,  1807) ; 
Loes  and  Wilford  (7  George  IV.  c.  1,  1826) ;  and  Shre-wsburj-  (7  George  IV.  c. 
141,  1826). 

*  It  is  characteristic  of  the  time  that  the  writer  remarks  that  "it  is  to 
be  regretted  they  were  not  erected  on  some  powerful  streams,  that  in  case 
they  failed  of  their  primary  object,  they  might  be  converted  into  woollen  or 
cloth  manufactories  "  {General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  North  Wales,  by 
Walter  Davies,  1813,  p.  433). 


THE  "  MIXED  GENERAL  WORKHOUSE  "  143 

experience  of  the  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Suffolk  and 
Norfolk  Hundreds,  together  with  that  of  the  Shrewsbury  House 
of  Industry  and  the  Bristol  Hospital  of  St.  Peter,  that  actually 
caused  it  to  be  abandoned  by  all  competent  Poor  Law  students. 
The  factors  at  Norwich,  through  whom  the  woollen  yarn  was 
disposed  of,  were,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  neither  zealous  nor 
scrupulously  honest.^  At  House  after  House  the  various  manu- 
facturing industries  that  were  tried  had  eventually  to  be  given  up, 
owing  to  the  impossibility  of  so  buying  and  selling,  and  so  organis- 
ing the  labour,  as  to  make  a  profit.  The  Houses  of  Industry 
became  then  mere  places  to  which  the  sick  and  impotent  poor 
were  driven,  and  to  which  resorted  such  dissolute  and  worthless 
persons  as  found  the  lax  promiscuity  not  unpleasant.^  "  It  has 
.  .  .  been  long  a  practice,"  said  the  Loes  and  Wilford  Com- 
mittee in  1791,  "  to  receive  into  your  House  at  the  approach  of 
winter  a  number  of  lazy,  notorious  and  abandoned  prostitutes 
who,  tainted  with  the  foulest  of  diseases,  resort  thither  for  cure  ; 
and  when  the  summer  advances  then  quit  their  retreat  .  .  .  often 
leaving  as  a  pledge  an  unafiiliated  child :  and  this,  all,  with  im- 
punity. Nay,  instead  of  being  kept  apart,  and  fed  on  the 
meanest  viands,  and  compelled  to  a  severe  species  of  toil,  the  most 
profligate  of  them  are  permitted  in  habits  of  familiar  intercourse, 
and  even  to  board  and  to  bed,  not  only  with  each  other,  but  with 
others  of  better  character,  and  especially  the  young."  ^  Nor  did 
their  character  improve.  "  Everybody  concerned,"  wrote  a 
correspondent  of  the  Ipswich  Journal  in  1825,  "  knows  that  this 

1  Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  Actual  State  of  the 
House  of  Industry  at  Melton,  1791. 

2  It  was  at  this  stage  that  the  Suffolk  Houses  of  Industry  were  scathingly 
described  by  Crabbe  ;  see  The  Borough,  1808  (Letter  XVIII.,  "  The  Poor  and 
their  Dwellings  ").  In  footnotes  to  this  eloquent  poem,  in  the  collected  edition 
of  his  Works  (by  his  son,  1810),  it  is  said,  of  systems  of  Poor  Relief,  "  Of  one 
method  only  I  venture  to  give  my  sentiments — that  of  collecting  the  poor  of 
a  Hundred  into  one  building.  This  admission  of  a  vast  number  of  persons, 
of  all  ages  and  both  sexes,  of  very  different  inclinations,  habits  and  capacities, 
into  a  society,  must,  at  a  first  view,  I  conceive,  be  looked  upon  as  a  cause  of 
both  vice  and  misery  ;  nor  does  anything  which  I  have  heard  or  read  invalidate 
the  opinion  :  happily  the  method  is  not  a  prevailing  one,  as  these  Houses  are 
I  believe  still  confined  to  that  part  of  the  kingdom  where  they  originated 
(p.  242).  .  .  .  These  odious  Houses  of  Industry  seem,  thank  God,  to  exist  only 
in  Suffolk,  near  the  first  founder's  residence  (one  proof  they  are  not  very  bene- 
ficial), in  which  the  poor  of  a  whole  Hundred  are  collected  in  one  building — 
well  fed  and  clothed  I  grant — but  imprisoned  for  life  "  (p.  234). 

^  Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  Actual  State  of  the 
House  of  Industry  at  Melton,  1791,  p.  10. 


144         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

House  has  been  made  use  of  as  a  kind  of  second-hand  prison  for 
all  the  incorrigible,  pilfering  rogues  and  vagabonds  among  the 
men,  and  all  the  worthless  strumpets  and  vilest  among  women — 
in  short  the  very  scum  of  the  Hundreds."  ^ 


The  Vestry  Executive 

We  need  not  dwell  at  any  great  length  upon  the  remaining 
types  of  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor.  WTiere  the  parish 
was  large  and  populous,  there  seemed  no  need  for  miion  with 
other  parishes  ;  but  the  lack  of  adequate  authority  to  buy  and 
build  and  manage  an  extensive  institution,  and  the  vagueness 
of  the  powers  of  the  parish  officers,  sometimes  led  to  the  creation 
of  a  statutory  executive,  nevertheless  retaining  some  connection 
with  the  "  inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled."  Thus,  the  growing 
parish  of  Manchester,  which  had  tried  to  get  a  statutory  Corpora- 
tion of  the  Poor  in  1731,  but  had  failed  through  sectarian  jeal- 
ousies,2  obtained  an  Act  in  1790,  by  which  the  Churchwardens 
and  Overseers  for  the  time  being  were  themselves  created  a 
corporate  body,  expressly  empowered  to  borrow  money,  and  to 
maintain  the  workhouse,  whilst  remaining  individually  in  the 
old  relation  to  the  Vestry. 

We  may  note  a  few  other  examples  of  this  creation  of  a 
statutory  body  to  serve  as  an  executive  for  the  Parish  Vestry.^ 
In  the  important  parish  of  Birmingham  an  exceptionally  demo- 
cratic Local  Act  of  1783  (23  George  III.  c.  54)  established  a 
body  of  108  "  fit  and  substantial  persons  "  as  Guardians  of  the 
Poor,  to  be  elected  every  three  years  by  all  the  ten-pound  rate- 
payers. Power  to  appoint  Assistant  Overseers  and  to  pay  them 
by  poundage  had  to  be  obtained  by  a  second  Act  in  180G  (46 
George  III.  c.  44).  Additional  powers  were  given  by  another 
Local  Act  in  1831  (1  &  2  William  IV.  c.  67) ;  but  it  is  signi- 
ficant that  the  franchise  was  then  raised  from  a  £10  to  a  £12  rating 
occupancy,  whilst  the  qualification  for  a  Guardian  was  fixed  at 

^  Ipswich  Journal,  12th  March  1825. 

^  Hislorij  of  the  County  Palatine  of  Lancaster,  by  Edward  Baincs,  183G, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  293,  306;    Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  S])enccr,  1911,  p.  14. 

^  See  the  Act  30  George  III.  c.  81  ;  Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer, 
1911,  17,  305  ;  A  Bcport  of  the  Committee  of  tfie  Associated  Ley  payers  of  the 
Tmimship  of  Manchester,  1794  ;  and  other  local  sources  cited  in  The  Parish  and 
the  County,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1907. 


THE  VESTRY  EXECUTIVE  145 

occupancy  of  a  £20  tenement.  This  last  Act  is  interesting  chiefly 
as  giving  the  first  statutory  authority  for  the  estabhshment  of  a 
creche,  as  a  means  not  so  much  of  educating  the  children  as  of 
preventing  juvenile  crime  ;  and  perhaps  also  of  facilitating  the 
industrial  employment  of  women  by  manufacturers  eager  for 
cheaper  labour.  The  Guardians  were  empowered  to  rent  rooms 
for  the  reception  of  any  children  of  the  "  poor  of  the  parish," 
whose  parents  were  willing  to  place  them  during  working  hours 
in  the  Guardians'  care,  for  employment  in  such  manner  as  the 
Guardians  might  decide  under  the  supervision  of  a  salaried 
caretaker.  1  Unfortunately,  as  we  learn  in  1843,  this  interesting 
experiment  was  never  put  in  operation. 

But  it  was  in  the  densely  populated  parishes  of  the  Metro- 
politan area  that  we  find  the  largest  number  of  statutory  bodies 
formed,  virtually,  as  executives  for  the  ancient  Vestry.  In  the 
eighty  years  between  1750  and  1830  there  were  established  more 
than  filty  such  bodies,  usually  for  single  parishes,  large  or  small ; 
but  occasionally  (as  in  the  case  of  St.  Nicholas  and  St.  Paul, 
Deptford)  for  combinations  of  adjacent  parishes.  The  Church- 
wardens and  Overseers  are  nearly  always  ex-officio  members, 
and  frequently  also  the  Rector  or  Vicar,  together  with  a  pre- 
scribed number  of  "  substantial  and  discreet  persons,"  elected  by 
the  inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled,  or  by  the  Close  Vestry 
itself.  The  variety  of  these  constitutions  in  detail  is,  however, 
almost  endless  ;  ^  and  there  is  noticeable  a  tendency  to  replace 

1  Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  295-296.  The  preamble 
of  the  Act  (1  &  2  William  IV.  c.  67)  is  worth  quotation  :  "  And  whereas  many 
persons  in  the  said  town  of  Birmingham,  who  receive  parochial  relief,  would 
be  enabled  to  jjrovide  for  their  families  by  their  industry  if  their  children  under 
seven  years  of  age  could  be  taken  care  of  during  the  hours  of  labour,  and  it 
would  greatly  tend  to  diminish  crime  and  the  number  of  juvenile  offenders 
and  pauperism  if  such  children  were  placed  during  such  period  in  some  room 
or  place  for  their  protection  ;  and  whereas  it  would  be  beneficial  if  the  Guardians 
had  authority  to  apply  for  the  purposes  aforesaid  a  jjortion  of  the  relief  which 
such  persons  would  otherwise  receive  for  their  children."  For  the  contemporary 
evolution  of  local  government  in  Birmingham,  see  The  Manor  and  the  Borough, 
by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1908,  pp.  157-160. 

2  See  the  analysis  given  m  Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911, 
pp.  116-126,  and  Ninth  Annual  Pvcport  of  Poor  La^w  Commissioners,  1843, 
pp.  230-251. 

Among  the  bodies  thus  established  may  be  mentioned  the  Guardians  (or 
Trustees,  or  Governors  and  Directors)  of  the  Poor  of  East  Greenwich  (26 
George  II.  c.  100  ;  9  George  IV.  c.  43)  ;  Christchurch  (26  George  II.  c.  98 ; 
37  George  III.  c.  79) ;  St.  Nicholas  and  St.  Paul,  Deptford  (27  George  II,  c.  38) ; 
St.  Luke's  (30  George  II.  c.  42) ;  Bermondsey  (31  George  II.  c.  45 ;  31  George  III. 

L 


146  INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

the  elective  element  by  persons  named  in  the  Act,  renewable  by 
co-option.  Their  statutory  functions  were  more  nearly  identical. 
They  were  empowered  to  acquire  or  erect  a  workhouse,  and  to 
provide  within  for  the  poor,  either  by  employment  or  otherwise  ; 
to  teach  or  apprentice  the  children  ;  to  apprehend  vagrants, 
beggars,  wandering  persons  or  deserted  children,  and  to  send 
them  to  the  workhouse  ;  to  call  upon  the  Vestry  to  levy  rates 
for  all  the  expenses,  and  in  default,  to  levy  the  necessary  rate 
directly  upon  the  inhabitants.^ 


TJie  Reorganised  Vestry 

In  a  small  number  of  cases,  nearly  all  in  the  Metropolitan 
area,  we  find  the  Parish  Vestry  itself  superseded,  either  at  once, 
or  by  a  subsequent  Act,  by  transformation  into  a  new  statutory 
body,  on  which  the  desired  additional  powers  are  conferred. 
We  have,  in  our  book  on  The  Parish  and  the  County,  sufficiently 
described  the  evolution  of  these  parish  constitutions.     In  some 

c.  19) ;  St.  James,  Westminster  (2  George  III.  c.  58)  ;  St.  Matthew,  Bcthnal 
Green  (3  George  III.  c.  40) ;  St.  Mary,  Whitcchapcl  (3  George  III.  c.  53) ; 
St.  Andrew,  Holborn,  and  St.  George  the  Martyr  (6  George  III.  c.  100  ;  6 
George  IV.  c.  175) ;  St.  Botolph,  Aldgate  (G  George  III.  c.  04) ;  Liberty  of 
Saffron  Hill,  Hatton  Garden,  and  Ely  Rents  (10  George  III.  c.  80) ;  St.  Martin's 
in  the  Fields  (10  George  III.  c.  75)  ;  St.  B(jtolph,  Bishopsgate  (12  George  III, 
c.  79)  ;  St.  Sepulchre  (12  George  III.  c.  G8) ;  OJd  Artillery  Ground  (14  George 
III.  0.  30) ;  St.  Saviour's,  Southwark  (14  George  III.  c.  75)  ;  St.  Leonard, 
Shoreditch  (14  George  IIL  c.  29;  53  George  IIL  c.  112);  St.  Giles  in  the 
Fields  and  St.  George,  Bloomsbury  (14  George  III.  c.  108)  ;  St.  Marylcbone  (15 
George  III.  c.  21) ;  St.  Mary,  Islington  (17  George  III.  c.  5) ;  St.  James  and 
St.  John,  Clerkenwell  (15  George  III.  c.  23) ;  Jlile  End  (20  George  III.  c.  66 ; 
53  George  III.  c.  37) ;  St.  John,  Wapping  (22  George  III.  c.  35  ;  23  George  III. 
c.  32;  59  George  IIL  c.  15);  St.  John,  Southwark  (26  George  IIL  c.  114) 
St.  George's,  Hanover  Square  (29  George  III.  c.  75) ;  Hamp.stcad  (39  &  40 
George  III.  c.  35) ;  St.  Pancras  (44  George  IIL  c.  47  ;  45  George  III.  c.  99) ; 
Woolwich  (47  George  IIL  c.  3) ;  St.  George's  in  the  East  (46  George  III. 
c.  46) ;  Ratcliffe  (50  George  IIL  c.  83)  ;  St.  John,  Hackney  (50  George  IIL 
0.  190)  ;  Poplar  (53  George  III.  c.  84)  ;  Liberty  of  the  Rolls  (50  George  IIL 
c.  84) ;  Paddington  (5  George  IV.  c.  126)  ;  Lemsham  (54  George  III.  c.  43) 
St.  Bride's,  Fleet  Street  (7  George  IV.  c.  114). 

^  The  Metropolitan  statutory  Poor  Law  bodies  have  been  oven  less  studied 
than  those  of  provmcial  cities  or  rural  Hundreds.  They  are  usually  quite 
ignored  by  the  parish  historians.  We  have  been  able  to  consult  the  MS. 
Minutes  of  those  of  Paddington,  St.  Pancras,  Islington,  Marylebone,  Woolwich 
and  various  parishes  in  the  City  of  London  ;  see  the  index  references  in  The 
Parish  and  the  Coxmly  and  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb. 
Much  useful  information  is  afforded  by  Miinicipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer, 
1911. 


EXPERIENCE  AND  OUTCOME  OF  GUARDIANS     147 

cases — as  at  Woolwich  in  1807,^  at  Chelsea  in  1821,  at  Islington 
and  Paddington  in  1825,  and  at  Kensington  in  1826 — we  have 
the  transformation  of  the  Open  Vestry,  which  might  be  attended 
by  all  the  adult  inhabitants,  into  a  more  or  less  representative 
body,  of  which  at  least  a  substantial  portion  was  annually  elected 
by  the  more  substantial  householders.  In  a  few  instances,  as 
we  have  described  in  Marylebone  in  1768  and  St.  Pancras  in  1819,^ 
we  see  the  peremptory  supersession  of  the  Open  Vestry  by  a  body 
of  persons  designated  in  the  Act,  and  renewing  themselves  by 
co-option. 

The  Experience  and  the  Outcome  of  the  Incorporated  Guardians 

The  long  drawn-out  experiments  in  the  establishment  of  in- 
corporated bodies  for  Poor  Law  administration — extending  as 
they  do  over  a  century  and  three-quarters,  and  relating  to  both 
rural  and  urban  conditions  in  all  parts  of  the  country — make  up 
a  confused  medley  which  it  is  difficult  to  analyse  or  to  classify. 
With  regard  to  constitutional  structure,  we  have  to  note  that, 
whilst  invariably  including  in  their  membership  a  strong  ex- 
officio  element,  the  new  Poor  Law  bodies  introduced  what  was 
then  a  novel  feature,  in  that  they  nearly  always  depended,  to 
some  extent  at  least,  upon  popular  choice,  either  by  nomination 
by  the  Vestry,  or  by  actual  election  by  the  inhabitants,  with  or 
without  a  definite  qualification  for  the  franchise.  In  this  respect 
they  differed  essentially  in  form  from  the  Court  of  Sewers  that 
we  described  in  our  last  chapter,  and  even  from  the  Turnpike 
Trusts  and  the  Improvement  Commissions,  which  stand,  on  the 
whole,  subsequently  to  them  in  date,  and  will  be  described  in 
the  chapters  that  follow.  The  rehef  of  the  poor,  at  that  time 
wholly  defrayed  from  the  proceeds  of  the  local  rates,  was 
apparently  regarded,  even  by  the  Parliaments  of  the  period,  as 
rightly  involving  at  any  rate  some  degree  of  democratic  control. 
To  pass  from  the  constitution  of  these  statutory  Poor  Law 
bodies  to  their  working— that  is,  to  the  practical  effect  for  good 
or  evil  of  all  this  organisation — we  must  confess  to  having  neither 
the  information  nor  the  time  needful  for  any  accurate  estimate 

1  As  to  this,  see  the  graphic  vision  of  "parish  i^olitics  "  given  in  Municipal 
Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  22-32. 

2  The  Parish  and  the  County,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1907  ;  for  Marylebone, 
see  also  Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  15-19. 


148         INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

of  the  total  result ;  and  this,  in  any  case,  would  be  more  appro- 
priately dealt  with  in  connection  with  the  history  of  Poor  Law 
administration  in  general.  But  from  such  evidence  as  we  have 
been  able  to  study,  we  have  formed  a  few  general  impressions, 
which  may  here  be  given,  as  to  the  peculiar  advantages  and 
disadvantages  of  these  statutory  Poor  Law  authorities,  as  com- 
pared with  the  ordinary  parish  government  of  the  time.  The 
statutory  authorities  had,  in  general,  the  advantage  of  sub- 
stituting for  annually  changing,  and  often  unwilling  individual 
administrators,  a  continuously  existing  and  deliberately  selected 
coimcil,  acting  through  salaried  officials.  Hence  we  watch,  in 
the  Incorporated  Guardians,  the  initiation  of  something  like 
Poor  Law  policy  ;  always  crudely  empirical  and  usually  ill- 
adapted  to  attain  its  end,  but  superior,  by  the  mere  fact  of  being 
a  policy,  to  the  variable  and  haphazard  action  of  individual 
Overseers.  It  was,  perhaps,  an  accident  that  all  the  Incorporated 
Guardians  made  the  workhouse  an  essential  part  of  Poor  Law 
administration.  They  wanted  the  workhouse  for  an  impractic- 
able end,  namely  to  organise  profitably  the  labour  of  the  paupers. 
Incidentally,  however,  they  introduced  what  was  at  the  time 
the  only  practicable  "  test "  of  the  genuineness  of  able-bodied 
destitution— the  "  offer  of  the  House,"  ^  with  the  usual  result 
of  greatly  diminishing  pauperism  in  the  earlier  years  of  their 
existence.  This  advantage  they  usually. lost  after  a  short  time, 
owing  to  their  failure  to  recognise  the  device  which  they  began 
by  unconsciously  adopting.  A  more  equivocal  expedient,  at 
any  rate  under  the  imscientific  administration  of  the  period, 
was  the  institutional  treatment  of  the  children,^  the  infirm  and 
the  aged.  Finally,  it  must  be  remembered  that  more  than  a 
third  of  the  statutory  Poor  Law  authorities  had  the  undoubted 
advantage  of  combining  a  number  of  small  or  thinly  populated 

^  "  It  is  probable  that  at  the  passing  of  Sir  Edward  Knatclibuirs  Act  in 
1722,  the  actual  effects  of  the  Local  Acts  had  suggested  sounder  views  as  to 
the  specific  utility  of  workhouse  management,  for  .  .  .  workhouses  were  .  .  . 
used,  with  the  greatest  effect,  strictly  as  tests  of  destitution.  .  .  .  The  effect 
of  these  workhouses  in  reducing  the  poor  rates  in  many  of  the  parishes  appears 
to  have  been  immediate,  and  the  reduction  varied  from  25  to  65  per  cent  on 
the  previous  expenditure  "  (Mr.  Twistleton's  Report  on  Local  Acts,  in  Ninth 
Annual  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1843,  pp.  96-97). 

"  The  Bristol  Corporation  of  the  Poor  started  by  collecting  over  two  hundred 
children  in  their  workhouse  (Transactions  of  the  Corporation  of  the  Poor  in  the 
City  of  Bristol  during  a  period  of  126  years,  by  James  Johnson  (Bristol,  1826), 
p.  21). 


LACK  OF  SUPERVISION  149 

parishes  into  a  union  large  enough  to  escape  the  greater  part 
of  the  difficulties  presented  by  the  Law  of  Settlement,  as  well 
as  to  admit  of  some  sort  of  classification  of  paupers,  and  the 
employment  of  permanent  salaried  officials.^  On  the  other 
hand,  it  was  a  grave  drawback  that  these  statutory  Poor  Law 
authorities  escaped  all  outside  control.  Such  authoritative 
criticism,  audit  and  control  as  were  elsewhere  given  to  the  Over- 
seers by  Petty  Sessions,  individual  Justices  of  the  Peace  and  the 
Open  Vestry  were,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  non-existent  for 
the  statutory  body  ;  and  there  was,  as  yet,  no  central  authority 
to  take  their  place.  This  independence  was  the  more  dangerous 
in  that  the  Incorporated  Guardians  sat  always  in  secret,  pub- 
lished no  accounts  or  regular  reports  and  were  subject  to  no 
outside  inspection.2  They  were  moreover  endowed,  by  the 
careless  apathy  of  Parliament,  with  extensive  powers  of  appre- 
hending, detaining,  controlling  and  punishing,  entirely  at  their 
own  discretion  and  without  appeal,  not  only  the  inmates  of  their 
institutions,  but  also  such  "  idlers  and  vagrants  "  as  they  chose 
to  arrest.  These  unpleasant  characteristics  were  seen  at  their 
worst  in  those  cases  in  which  the  statutory  authority  was  entirely 
independent  of  popular  election.     The  greatest  failures  of  all 


^  In  Bristol,  and  most  of  the  city  Incorporations  formed  upon  its  model, 
there  was  the  further  advantage  of  a  common  system  of  assessment  and  rate 
collection  for  the  whole  city.  "  The  whole  city,"  writes  the  enthusiastic 
annalist  of  the  Bristol  Corporation  of  the  Poor,  "  became,  after  1696,  as  one 
parish,  and  one  law  officer  did  the  business  in  which  nineteen  had  been  em- 
ployed before.  Another  great  advantage  arose  in  having  one  general  rate  or 
assessment  made  upon  the  whole  city,  and  not  on  each  parish  separately,  the 
magistrates  having  the  power  to  apportion  out  the  sum  required  for  each  year's 
service  of  the  poor,  amongst  the  different  parishes  according  to  their  ability  to 
pay  it  "  (Transactions  of  the  Corporation  of  the  Poor  in  the  City  of  Bristol  during 
a  period  of  126  years,  by  James  Johnson,  p.  7).  Stress  had  been  laid  on  this 
advantage  in  Jolui  Locke's  report  of  1697,  "  that  in  all  cities  and  towns  corporate 
the  poor's  rate  be  not  levied  by  distinct  parishes  but  by  one  equal  tax  throughout 
the  whole  corporation  "  {Report  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Lord  Justices  in  the 
year  161)7,  reprint  of  1787,  p.  112). 

2  The  Plymouth  Incorjiorated  Guardians  expressly  refused,  in  1813,  a  re- 
quest that  the  Mayor  should  bo  empowered  to  inspect  their  "  ill-arranged  mass 
of  buildings  in  the  centre  of  the  town."  "(That  this  Court,  after  due  considera- 
tion, cannot  consistently  accede  to  the  proposition  that  a  clause  be  inserted  in 
the  bill,  or  that  the  bill  be  so  altered  and  amended  to  allow  the  Chief  Magistrate 
or  other  acting  magistrate  of  the  Borough  free  admission  mto  the  House  of 
Correction  within  the  worldiouse  and  to  visit  all  the  prisoners  confined  therein  " 
(MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians  of  Plymouth,  28th  April  1813) ;  Ninth 
Annual  Report  of  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  1843,  pp.  83-123  ;  The  State  of 
the  Poor,  by  Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  i.  p.  257. 


I50  INCORPORATED  GUARDIANS  OF  THE  POOR 

were  the  Suffolk  and  Norfolk  Unions  where  the  governing  council 
was  nominally  composed  of  the  whole  body  of  wealthy  residents. 

We  do  not  pretend  to  be  able  to  balance  these  advantages 
and  disadvantages.  Perhaps  more  important  than  any  of  them 
was  the  fact  that'Hhese  statutory  bodies  made  experiments, 
which,  unlike  the  casual  expedients  of  the  annually  changing 
Overseer,  were  systematically  recorded  and  could  be  subse- 
quently investigated.  Their  experience  in  workhouse  manage- 
ment was  the  means  by  which  the  idea  of  obtaining  profit,  or 
even  maintenance,  by  "  setting  the  poor  "  to  work,  was  finally 
disposed  of.  Even  more  important  in  the  evolution  of  English 
Local  Government  was  the  fact,  to  which  we  have  already 
referred,  that  it  was  the  statutory  Poor  Law  authorities  that — - 
in  contrast  with  the  County  Justices,  the  Manorial  Courts,  the 
Municipal  Corporations  and  the  Parish  Vestries  of  the  time, 
and  also  with  the  Courts  of  Sewers  described  in  the  preceding 
chapter— based  their  administration  on  appointed  and  per- 
manently serving  salaried  officers,  who  were  merely  directed 
and  supervised  by  committees  of  the  governing  body.  In  their 
"  principle  of  combining  an  elective  controlling  power  with  a 
paid  executive,"  ^  or  as  we  should  nowadays  say,  in  their  organisa- 
tion of  a  primitive  Civil  Service  under  administrative  committees, 
they  stood  in  marked  contrast  both  with  the  practice  of  previous 
English  Local  Authorities  (and  also  with  that  of  the  contemporary 
New  England  townships),  and  they  may  almost  be  said  to  have 
originated  the  typical  constitutional  machinery  of  the  English 
Local  Government  of  to-day. 

With  the  passing  of  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act  of  1834 
and  the  adoption  of  a  policy  of  national  uniformity  in  Poor  Law 
administration,  we  may  for  the  present  leave  the  Incorporated 
Guardians.2  The  1834  Act  contemplated  the  prompt  dissolution 
of  these  special  bodies,  and  the  merging  of  their  areas  in  the  new 
Unions  to  be  formed.  The  Poor  Law  Commissioners  were 
expressly  empowered  to  issue  their  rules,  orders  and  regulations 

^  First  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834,  Appendix  A, 
Chapman's  Report,  pp.  522-523. 

*  Their  subsequent  history  is  to  be  traced,  apart  from  their  own  voluminous 
MS.  records,  usually  in  the  possession  of  the  existing  Board  of  Guardians  for 
the  locality,  in  the  successive  Annual  Reports  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners 
(especially  the  Ninth  and  Tenth) ;  of  the  Poor  Law  Board  (especially  the 
Twentieth),  and  of  the  Local  Government  Board.  See  also  History  of  the 
English  Poor  Law,  by  Thomas  Mackay,  1899,  pp.  331-340. 


SUBSEQUENT  HISTORY  151 

to  all  Unions  and  parishes  under  Local  Acts  ;  to  change  the 
areas  of  the  Unions  to  which  these  Acts  applied ;  to  alter  the 
method  of  election  of  their  governing  bodies,  and  even  to  dissolve 
any  Union  formed  mider  Local  Act.  But  in  order  to  avoid 
opposition  to  the  passing  of  the  Bill  from  the  Incorporated 
Guardians,  who  might  have  claimed  to  be  heard  by  counsel, 
and  who  could  have  fomented  considerable  opposition,  the  power 
to  alter  the  method  of  election  was  made  subject  to  the  consent 
of  a  majority  of  the  local  ratepayers  and  property  owners, 
whilst  the  power  to  dissolve  the  Unions  was  made  dependent  on 
the  prior  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the  Guardians  themselves. 
Without  power  to  dissolve,  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  were 
afraid  peremptorily  to  command.  The  result  was  to  delay  for 
half  a  century  the  complete  uniformity  of  Poor  Law  administra- 
tion at  which  the  Somerset  House  administrators  persistently 
aimed.  In  1843  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  directed  their 
Assistant  Commissioners  to  make  a  special  enquiry  into  the 
administration  of  all  the  Poor  Law  bodies  claiming  to  exist  under 
Local  Acts,  the  results  of  which  were  published  in  the  Ninth  and 
Tenth  Annual  Reports  of  the  Commissioners.  In  1844,  by  7  &  8 
Victoria  c.  101,  the  requirement  that  two-thirds  of  the  Guardians 
must  approve  before  the  Incorporation  could  be  dissolved  was 
dispensed  with  as  regards  parishes  of  less  than  20,000  population  ; 
and  the  smaller  bodies  were  successively  dissolved  and  their 
parishes  absorbed  into  the  new  Unions.  The  Incorporated 
Guardians  in  the  Metropolis  and  the  large  towns,  dealing  with 
populations  exceeding  20,000,  could  still  stand  out,  and  they 
long  continued  to  do  so.  Nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  later, 
those  in  the  London  area  were  brought  into  line  in  1867  by  the 
operation  of  the  Metropolitan  Poor  Act,  1867  (30  Victoria  c.  6) ; 
which,  with  its  establishment  of  a  Common  Poor  Fimd,  permitted 
the  Poor  Law  Board  to  assimilate  all  the  Metropolitan  parishes 
to  a  uniform  system.  Only  very  slowly  and  gradually  were  the 
remainder  of  the  larger  Local  Act  Incorporations,  by  successive 
slight  acts  of  administrative  pressure  and  encroachment  by  the 
Local  Government  Board,  assimilated  to  the  ordinary  Unions 
created  by  administrative  order,  and  brought  into  line  with  the 
rest  of  the  Poor  Law  administration  of  the  country. 


CMIAIM'K.R   111 

THK   Tl'UNriKK    lUl'STS 

Among  all  the  Statutory  Authoritios.  as  wo  have  called  theiu — 
the  Local  Governing  Bodies  establisheil  t\>r  partieular  places  by 
Special  Acts  of  rarlianient  or  Koyal  (\Mnniissions  -the  most 
niunero\is  were  the  Turnpike  Trusts.  0(  Courts  of  Sewers  in 
lCuu;land  and  Wales  there  may  have  been,  at  one  time  or  another 
iluriuij;  the  eighteenth  I'entury.  a  huntlred  or  so.  Of  Incorpor- 
ated (^uanlians  of  the  Voor  we  have  particulai-s  of  about  125. 
Of  separate  bodies  of  Police  or  Improvement  rommissioners,  large 
or  small,  presently  to  be  describtnl,  nearly  three  hundretl  n\ay  be 
enumerated.  Hut  of  Turnpike  'l\usts,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  steatlily  increasing  in  nund>er  throughout  a 
century  and  a  ipiarter,  there  can\e  to  be,  by  1835,  over  lUX) 
simultantM.>usly  in  existence  ;  or  twice  as  many  as  all  the  other 
kinds  of  Statutory  Authorities  put  together.  The  Turnpike 
'IHiists  were,  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  about 
five  tinu>s  as  numerous  as  the  Municipal  (\>rporations,  and  netvrly 
twenty  times  as  nun\erous  as  the  Courts  of  Quarter  Sessions  that 
govermnl  the  Counties.^  ChUy  the  immemorially  iibiquitoUv^ 
Parish  anil  Mani>r,  for  which  no  statutory  or  other  forn\al  t^rigin 
can  be  assigneil,  exceeded  then\  in  number.  In  the  rtvorvls  of 
Knglish  Local  dnernment  of  the  eighttvnth  century,  these  T\irn- 
pike  Trusts  which  eventually  levii\l  an  annual  revenue  of  more 
than  one  and  a  half  millions  sterling,  accmnulated  a  debt  of  seven 
millions,  and  administered  twenty-thuH^  thoiWiind  miles  of  nvul 
— cut  no  mean  tigurt\  But  their  principal  imiu^rtance  lies  not  in 
their  constitution  but  in  their  function.  They  art^  of  iutertvit 
chiefly  for  the  part  they  played,  during  a  periotl  of  a  contury  and 

The  Farigh  and  the  County.  IIK>:  ;   V'A*;  i/iiMinr  amJ  the  Biwv»</h^  190S. 


S()lJh'Cl-:S  OF  INI'DUMATION  153 

H  Jiiilf,  ill  tli(!  cvoliifioii  ol  IIm'  iiiiiiiciiioriiil  public;  HCM'vicc  of  roud 
maintenance.  Tiieir  lej^al  conHtitutions,  lor  whatever  place  or  in 
whatever  decade  they  were  established,  were  of  one  unilonn 
pattern  ;  and  the  type  whowed  little  ca])acity  for  diversity  of 
administrative  procedure  or  extra-legal  developments.  The 
origin  of  these  bodies  ;  their  complicated  relations  to  the  J^arish, 
to  the  County  and  to  the  whole  community  of  road  users  ;  and 
the  intervention  in  their  affairs,  between  1800  and  J8.S5,  not  only 
of  ]*arliam(mt  but  also  of  two  government  de[)artments,  all 
present  features  of  interest  to  tlie  student  of  the  constitutional 
development  of  English  Local  (j|(jvernment  as  a  whole.^ 

W(5  need  not  n^pciat  the  account  given  elsewliere  ^  of  the 

'  Of  tho  'J'urn])ikc  TruHtn  nci  HyHtomatic  liiHtory — apart  from  chap.  vii.  of 
our  Slory  of  the,  KiiKjn  Hujhway,  lUl.'J,  pp.  11. 5-1^0,  and  vol.  i.  of  The  De.velop- 
vient  of  Trun.ijjorUUion  in  Modern  KnylunU,  by  VV.  T.  Jaokniaii,  lUKi,  pj).  (il- 
2K3 — IwiH  been  vvrittitn,  and  the  HtudtMit  iioodiii^  more  detail  than  Ih  Hiipplitd 
in  the.se  two  bookH  can  only  be  referred  to  8uch  f{(!n<<ral  ref(in'ti(!((H  and  dcHcrip 
tioiiH  an  are  to  be  found  in  the  Jlintury  of  I'rivate  liill  LeyMation,  by  F.  ClilTord, 
liS85  1 887,  V(jl.  ii.  chap.  vii.  ;  A  Trealitie  on  lioudu,  by  Sir  litsnry  rarneli,  afl.cr- 
wardw  Lord  (Jongleton,  Int  edition,  1833,  2nd  edition,  1838  ;  JAfe  of  Thoinus 
Telford,  Civil  Emjineer,  iVriUen  by  JltuiMtlf,  edited  by  .lohn  Kicikman,  1838; 
Voyayen  dunit  la  (Irarule  Jiretwjne,  by  IJarcjii  (^liarleB  Dupin,  1824,  troiHitkne 
j)aitie,  "  l'\)rce  f'ommtinjialt!,"  vol.  i.  p.  33  ;  DescripHve  and  SUUinticul  Account 
of  the  Jlriti.ik  Empire,  by  J.  K.  M'( -ulloeh,  184(},  vol.  ii.  chap.  v.  hoc.  3;  and 
to  the  almost  iimumerable  Parliamentary  RejiortH  on  IligliwayH  and  TurnpikcH 
throuf^hout  the  eighU^entli  and  ninet(!enth  centuricH.  A  ^{ood  vi.sion  of  th(^ 
working  of  a  'i'urnpike  TruMt  m  allorded  by  the  two  RopcjrtH  (jf  a  Select  I'om- 
mittee  on  varicjUH  Mt»tropolitan  'rurnjakeM,  one*  jirinted  at  length  in  tlie  Houne 
of  (j(jmmonH  Journals  for  17(J3  (vol.  xxi.K.  pp.  04r)-(U5'1),  the  other  pn^Hentcd  in 
17().'>  ;  in  th(i  brief  a(;(M)nnt  of  the  "  Whetstone  'rurnpike  TruHt,  1754-1803, " 
in  Middlesex  and  llntford.^hin-  Notes  and  QuirieH,  vol.  iv.  jjp.  91-04  ;  in  A  Turn- 
pike  Key,  or  an  Anount  of  tin:  I'roncdiiKj.i  of  the  Kxeter  Turnpike  TrusteeH,  iir>'i- 
1884,  by  VV.  l>u(kin).diatn,  ISSr»  ;  and  in  the  int«ireHting  volume  entitled  Minutes 
of  the  Epping  and  Omjar  liiykway  TruHt,  17(ili  1870,  by  Jienjamin  Winstone, 
1801.  Mu(;h  incidental  infoimation  (jf  all  Hcjrts  is  allorded  in  the  oxciclhint 
manual,  Digents  of  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott, 
1778.  Hebecca  and  her  Daughters,  by  Henry  Tobit  Kvans  (Cardill,  I!)  10), 
HUi)plieH  (hitailed  information  of  the  moHt  not(m(JUH  of  'rurajjike  riots.  The  MS. 
MinutoH  of  the  ehiven  hundred  '^urnpik(^  Trusts,  where  they  are  j)reserv(!d  at 
all,  ani  mostly  hidden  away  in  soli(;it(jrs'  ollices,  but  they  ar<j  (iccasionally  U> 
be  found  among  municipal  or  county  anihives.  County  (JoumilH  would  bo  well 
advistid  to  invito  the  local  Hcjlicutors  to  place  these  records  in  safety  at  tho 
(bounty  Hall.  We  have  had  access  to  the  MS.  Minutes  of  the  Oldham  Turnj)ike 
Trust,  1800  1880;  the  Dursley  and  Uerkoley  Tumjiike  Trust,  177'J  1874,  and 
a  few  oth(irs ;  biit  we  have  found  most  information  in  the  (literally)  tens  of 
thouHands  of  bills,  {letitions,  reports  of  committeciS  and  jiroceedings  in  Parlia- 
ment relating  to  roads  during  the  past  two  centuries,  and  in  the  innumerable 
i-<fereiic(!S  to  the  roads  in  the  books  and  jiamphlets  cited  in  our  Story  of  the 
King's  Jlighwiry  and  in  tlui  jtrewjnt  chapter.  A  fuller  list  will  b«5  found  in  the 
JHbliography  of  lioadmaking  and  liouds  in  tfts  United  Kiwjdom,  by  Dor<jthy 
Uallen,  11114.  "  The  Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  1913,  chaps,  i.-iv. 


154  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

manner  in  which  the  English  highways  were  constructed  and 
maintained  prior  to  the  seventeenth  century.  At  the  accession 
of  Queen  EUzabeth,  when  EngUsh  highways  were  perhaps  at  their 
worst,  and  even  during  most  of  the  ensuing  century,  it  is  hardly 
an  exaggeration  to  state,  there  was,  from  one  end  of  England  and 
Wales  to  the  other,  no  such  thing  as  a  road  in  the  modern  meaning 
of  the  term.  To  the  citizen  of  to-day  the  "  King's  Highway  " 
appears  as  an  endless  strip  of  land,  with  definite  boundaries, 
permanently  and  exclusively  appropriated  to  the  purpose  of 
passage,  and  having  a  surface  artificially  prepared  for  its  peculiar 
function.  To  the  citizen  of  the  twelfth,  the  fifteenth  or  even  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  "  King's  Highway  "  was  a  more  abstract 
conception.  It  was  not  a  strip  of  land,  or  any  corporeal  thing, 
but  a  legal  and  customary  right — as  the  lawyers  said,  "  a  perpetual 
right  of  passage  in  the  Sovereign  for  himself  and  his  subjects  over 
another's  land."  ^  What  existed  was,  in  fact,  nothing  but  a  right 
of  way,  from  village  to  village,  along  a  certain  customary  course, 
which,  if  much  frequented,  became  a  beaten  track.  And  we  must 
add  to  this  understanding  of  the  immemorial  highways  that  they 
were  used,  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  locality,  almost  exclusively 
for  foot  traffic,  of  man  or  beast.  That  the  ways  must  in  winter 
be  impassable  for  wheeled  traffic  was  liabitually  taken  for  granted. 
This  primitive  conception  of  locomotive  needs  lasted,  in  remote 
corners  of  England,  right  down  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 

1  See,  for  instance,  RoUe's  Abridgement,  title  "  Chimin,"  p.  392,  where  it 
is  laid  do^vn  that  "  the  King  has  nothing  but  a  perpetual  right  of  passage  for 
himself  and  his  people  "  ;    or  The  Law  Relating  to  Highways,  by  W.  C.  and 

A.  Glen,  1897.  Thus,  to  this  day,  "  the  right  of  the  public  in  a  highway  is 
an  casement  of  passage  only — a  right  of  passing  and  repassing.  In  the  language 
of  pleading,  a  party  can  only  justify  passing  ahmg,  not  being  in,  a  highway  " 
{Pratt  and  Mackenzie's  Law  of  Highivays,  by  William  W.  JIackenzic,  16th  edition, 
1911,  p.  2).  Hence  it  has  been  expressly  held  that  there  is  no  right  to  use 
a  highway  for  racing,  or  for  a  public  meeting  {ibid.)  ;  nor  may  a  man  stand 
still  on  the  road  to  shoot  pheasants  flying  over  it  (R.  v.  Pratt,  1855,  4  E.  and 

B.  8(K»).  He  may  not  even  walk  up  and  doA^Ti  so  as  maliciously  to  interfere 
with  others'  rights  (Harrison  v.  Duke  of  Rutland,  1893,  1  Q.B.  142)— see  The 
Common  Law  of  England,  by  Blake  Odgcrs,  1911,  vol.  i.  pp.  7-10.  It  is  only 
infercntially  that  it  has  quite  recently  been  suggested  that  a  passenger  along 
a  highway  may  lawfully  stop  to  rest  on  it  for  a  short  time,  or  to  take  a  sketch 
(per  A.  L.  Smith,  L.J.  in  Hickman  i'.  Matsey,  1900,  1  Q.B.  756).  Any  other 
use  of  a  highway  is  a  trespass. 

But  in  legal  definitions,  as  in  common  parlance,  the  term  highway  is  now 
used  to  denote  the  land  as  well  as  the  easement.  "  The  term  highway  in  its 
widest  sense  comjirises  all  portions  of  land  over  which  every  subject  of  the 
Crown  may  lawfully  l>ass  "  (Pratt  and  Mackenzie's  Law  of  Highways,  by  W.  W. 
Mackenzie,  16th  edition,  1911,  p.  l)j 


THE  PRIMITIVE  HIGHWAY  155 

century.  In  Cumberland,  we  are  told,  "in  the  Spring  of  the  year 
the  Surveyor  used  to  call  on  the  people  to  go  with  him  to  open 
the  tracks  over  the  common,  from  which  the  old  tumble-wheel 
carts  of  the  country  had  been  excluded  during  the  winter  ;  for, 
in  1792,  the  principal  part  of  the  corn  was  conveyed  to  market 
on  the  backs  of  horses."  ^  The  ideal  of  road  maintenance  which 
the  old-fashioned  Enghshman  set  before  himself  was,  in  fact,  no 
more  than  "  removing  every  kind  of  impediment  that  incommodes 
or  molests  the  traveller,  such  as  want  of  proper  drains,  overhang- 
ing trees  and  hedges,  timber-logs,  etc."  ;  in  short,  everything 
"  that  prevents  the  roads  from  growing  better  of  themselves."  ^ 

It  was  the  obligation  to  maintain  a  highway  of  this  kind — 
that  is,  a  free  passage  from  village  to  village — that  had  been,  at 
common  law,  and  by  the  statute  of  1555,^  cast  upon  the  Parish  ; 
and  it  was  this  obhgation  that  was  assumed  to  be  fulfilled,  down 
to  1835,  by  the  system  of  six  days  forced  "  Statute  Labour,"  to  be 
rendered  by  all  householders,  under  the  superintendence  of  one  of 
them,  compulsorily  serving  his  year  as  Surveyor  of  Highways  ; 
the  whole  under  the  authority  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace.  If 
the  Parish  failed  to  fulfil  this  obligation  of  road  maintenance,  it 
could,  as  we  have  described  in  The  Story  of  the  King's  Highivay, 
be  indicted  and  fined  in  the  Courts  of  Justice.  It  was  a  com- 
paratively late  development  when  the  Parish  was  allowed,  with 
the  sanction  of  Quarter  Sessions,  to  levy  a  limited  Highway  Rate, 
in  those  cases  in  which  the  "  Statute  Labour  "  had  proved  to  be 
msufficient  to  keep  up  the  free  passage.  * 

^  Speech  by  W.  Blamire,  Cumberland  Pacquet,  2nd  February  1830. 

2  A  General  Plan  of  Parochial  Police,  by  W.  M.  Godschall,  1787,  p.  60. 

3  2  &  3  Philip  and  Mary  c.  8,  1555. 

*  So  far  as  we  are  aware,  the  cariiest  rates  levied  by  Parislies  or  Counties 
for  road  maintenance  occurred  under  the  Commonwealth  (see  our  Story  of  the 
King's  Highway,  1913,  pp.  20-23,  25  ;  A  Proposal  for  Maintaining  and  Repairing 
the  Highways,  by  E.  Littleton,  1692,  p.  10  ;  Three  Centuries  of  Derbyshire 
Annals,  by  J.  C.  Cox,  1890,  vol.  ii.  p.  227  ;  The  Interregnum,  by  F.  C.  Inderwick, 
1891,  p.  107).  Such  rates,  as  we  have  described,  were  authorised  temporarily 
by  statutes  of  1662  and  1670  (13  &  14  Car.  II.  c.  6,  and  22  Car.  II.  c.  12) ; 
and  we  find  them,  though  very  exceptionally,  actually  levied  {e.g.  MS.  Church- 
wardens' Accounts,  St.  Mary's,  Reading,  Berkshire,  22nd  May  1670,  24th  April 
and  15th  September  1671,  31st  March  1673,  12th  April  1680) ;  in  one  case, 
even  as  early  as  1063,  when  the  Manorial  Court  of  Spittal  and  Tweedmouth 
mentions  "  the  assessment  that  was  gathered  for  repairing  the  highways  " 
(see  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1908,  vol.  i.  p.  95).  But 
not  until  after  1691  (3  William  and  Mary,  c.  12)  do  they  become  frequent ; 
and  not  until  1835  could  they  be  levied  by  the  Parish,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
without  the  special  sanction  of  the  Justices  in  each  case. 


156  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

During  the  seventeenth,  and  still  more  during  the  eighteenth 
century,  we  see  constantly  increasing  what  was  practically  a  new 
use  of  the  roads,  namely  the  through  traffic  of  wheeled  vehicles 
of  every  kind.  The  soft  tracks,  with  which  the  local  agricultur- 
ists had  contented  themselves,  proved  quite  insufficient  to  bear 
the  waggons,  carts,  post-chaises  and  coaches  by  which  they  were 
now  coming  to  be  thronged.  In  1694 — to  trouble  the  reader 
with  only  one  quotation — "  the  highways  .  .  ,  were  grown  so 
foundrous  (as  the  law  terms  it)  and  so  extremely  bad,  that  the 
owners  and  occupiers  of  lands  in  most  places  have  been  neces- 
sitated to  suffer  their  fences  to  lie  down,  and  to  permit  people  to 
travel  over  their  enclosed  ground  ...  by  reason  of  the  impass- 
ableness  of  the  highways."  ^  Meanwhile,  the  parishes  through 
which  the  main  thoroughfares  of  the  nation  passed,  were  com- 
plaining that,  owing  to  this  new  use  of  the  King's  Highway, 
it  had  "  become  so  ruinous  and  almost  impassable  that  the 
ordinary  course  appointed  by  all  former  laws  and  statutes  of  this 
realm  is  not  sufficient  for  the  effectual  repairing  of  the  same."  ^ 
To  cope  with  this  difficulty,  one  locaUty  after  another  petitioned 
Parhament  to  permit  the  taxation  of  the  users  of  the  road.  We 
find  the  suggestion  in  Littleton's  pamphlet  of  1692.  "  Every 
person,"  it  was  urged,  as  came  to  be  taken  for  granted  for  the 
ensuing  century  and  a  half,^  "  ought  to  contribute  to  the  repair 
of  roads  in  proportion  to  the  use  they  make  of,  or  the  convenience 
that  they  derive  from  them."  Moreover,  the  increasing  traffic 
called,  in  some  places,  actually  for  new  roads,  or  for  the  re-making 
of  bits  of  road.  Neither  the  Parish,  nor  any  other  authority, 
had  power  to  make  a  new  road ;  a  power  which  could  be  given 
only  by  special  statute,  for  which  the  principal  inhabitants  of  this 
or  that  locality  would  petition.     From  the  Restoration  onwards, 

^  A  Otdde  to  Surveyors  of  the  Highways,  by  G.  Meriton,  1694.  Already  in 
IGIO  wo  hear  of  "  great  hurt  and  spoil  of  fences  and  grounds,  with  riding  and 
going  over  the  corn,  and  such  like,  by  shifting  and  seeking  the  best  way 
diversely  "  {A  Profitable  Work  to  this  Whole  Kingdom  concerning  the  Mending 
of  the  Highways,  by  Thomas  Procter,  IGIO).  It  had  long  before  been  held  by 
the  judges  that  if  the  beaten  track  became  foundrous  the  King's  subjects 
might  diverge  from  it,  in  their  right  of  passage,  oven  to  the  ext<^nt  of  "  going 
up(m  the  corn  "  (.1  Treatise  of  the  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  by  W.  Hawkins,  edited 
by  T.  Leach,  1795,  vol.  i.  p.  153). 

■■*  15  Car.  II.  c.  1,  1G63. 

3  A  Proposal  for  Maintaining  and  Repairing  the  Highways,  by  E.  Littleton, 
1G92,  p.  11  ;  An  Inquiry  into  the  Means  of  Preserving  the  Public  Roads,  by 
Rev.  Henry  Homer,  17G5,  p.  18. 


THE  COMING  OF  THE  TURNPIKE  157 

successive  Parliaments,  falling  back  on  certain  mediaeval  pre- 
cedents/ acceded  to  these  requests.  Hence  the  turnpike  ^  and 
its  toll. 

The  power  of  taking  toll  of  passengers,  and  expending  its 
proceeds  on  the  maintenance  of  the  road,  was,  however,  first 
granted,  not  to  special  bodies  established  for  the  purpose,  but  to 
the  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  Quarter  Sessions. 

In  1656,  the  Vestry  of  the  little  parish  of  Kadwell,  in  Hertford- 
shire, petitioned  Quarter  Sessions  for  help  with  its  roads.  In  vain 
had  the  inhabitants  tried  to  keep  them  in  order  ;  these  highways 
still  "  stand  in  much  need  of  repair,  which  they  are  no  ways  able 
to  perform  (though  the  whole  revenue  of  the  parish  should  be 
employed),  the  Great  North  Road  lying  for  two  miles  together  in 
the  said  parish,  and  the  nature  of  the  soil  being  such  as  the  winter 
devours  whatsoever  they  are  able  to  lay  on  in  the  summer,  and 
the  parish  is  so  small  that  it  hath  in  it  all  but  two  teams."  In 
1663,  perhaps  as  a  tardy  outcome  of  this  petition,  it  was  repre- 
sented to  ParUament  by  the  Justices  of  the  Counties  of  Hertford, 
Cambridge  and  Huntingdon  that  "  the  ancient  highway  and  post 
road  leading  from  London  to  York,  and  so  into  Scotland  ...  by 
reason  of  the  great  and  many  loads  which  are  weekly  drawn  in 
waggons  "  to  Ware  (whence  there  was  water  carriage  to  London), 

^  Road  tolls  seem  to  have  been  unknown  in  England  in  1650,  as  they  had 
been  for  a  century  or  more,  except  where  a  munici^Dal  corporation  charged  a 
Through  Toll,  or  other  octroi,  and  possibly  in  the  ease  of  a  few  private  franchises 
as  to  bridges.  Various  isolated  i)recedents  for  their  levy  by  royal  licence  on 
particular  stretches  of  road  can  be  found  in  the  records  of  the  thirteenth  and 
fourteenth  centuries.  Authority  seems  to  have  been  given  in  1267  to  levy  a 
toU  in  a  Gloucestershire  manor  ;  "  capiat  in  feod  unum  dener,  le  quilibet 
caracte  transeunte  per  manerie  qua  de  Thormerton  et  Littleton  "  ;  see  Index 
of  the  Patent  Rolls,  Henry  VII.,  and  Notes  and  Queries,  27th  December  1851. 
"  In  1346  a  toll  for  pavage  was  levied  by  the  City  authorities  on  vehicles  passing 
from  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields  to  Temple  Bar  "  {History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation, 
by  F.  CHfford,  1885-1887,  vol.  i.  pp.  4-5,  vol.  ii.  pp.  3-8). 

^  The  name  "  turnpike  "  was  given  from  the  adoption  of  "  horizontal 
tapering  bars  of  iron  or  wood  suspended  upon  a  rigid  perpendicular  pillar, 
around  which,  as  an  axis,  they  revolved.  They  corresponded,"  says  an  author 
of  1845,  "  with  those  modern  cross  wickets  or  sidegates,  which  may  be  seen  in 
the  vicinity  of  certain  towns,  with  this  difference  that,  until  the  dues  or  toU 
was  paid,  these  pikes  or  styles  could  not  be  made  to  turn  either  to  right  or 
left "  {Road  Eefortn,  by  William  Pagan,  1st  edition,  1845,  3rd  edition,  1857, 
p.  1).  "  A  turnpike  road,"  said  a  learned  judge  in  1840,  "  means  a  road 
having  toll-gates  or  bars  on  it,  which  were  originally  called  '  turns.'  .  .  .  The 
distinctive  mark  of  a  turnpike  road  is  the  right  of  turning  back  any  one  who 
refuses  to  pay  toll  "  (Lord  Abinger,  C.B.,  in  Northam  Bridge  Co.  v.  London 
and  Southampton  Railway  Co.,  1840,  6  M.  &  W.  428).  "  Pike  "  came  popularly 
to  be  used  for  the  toll-bar  or  toll-gate  ;  and  also  for  the  toll  itself. 


158  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

and  "  the  great  trade  of  barley  and  malt ...  is  become  so  ruinous 
and  almost  impassable  that  the  ordinary  course  appointed  by  all 
former  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm  is  not  sufficient  for  the 
effectual  repairing  of  the  same."  On  this  petition  Parhament 
fell  back  on  various  ancient  precedents,  and  authorised,  by  a 
special  statute,  each  of  these  three  Quarter  Sessions  to  erect  gates 
and  levy  tolls  at  "Wadesmill  (Herts),  Caxton  (Cambridgeshire) 
and  Stilton  (Huntingdonshire)  respectively,  for  the  next  eleven 
years,  and  to  devote  this  revenue  to  specially  repairing  the  parts 
of  the  Great  North  Road  within  their  respective  jurisdictions.^ 
Only  one  of  these  three  gates  was  successful.  That  at  Stilton  ex- 
cited so  much  local  opposition  that  it  was  never  erected.  That 
at  Caxton  was  put  up,  but  was  so  easily  evaded  that  practically 
nothing  was  collected.  The  third,  at  Wadesmill,  was  thus  the 
first  effective  toll-gate  in  England.  For  over  thirty  years  it  seems 
to  have  remained  unique.  A  generation  later,  when  the  state  of 
the  roads  was  exciting  much  attention,  Parhament  gave  similar 
powers  by  special  statutes,  in  respect  of  other  pieces  of  road,  to  the 
Justices  of  Essex,  Norfolk,  Surrey,  Gloucestershire,  Somerset, 
Cheshire,  Bedfordshire,  AVilts,  Hampshire  and  Kent ;  sometimes 
to  the  Justices  of  a  particular  Division  of  the  County  in  special 
Highway  Sessions,  sometimes  to  a  certain  number  of  Justices 
representing  different  Counties,  but  more  usually  to  the  Justices 
of  the  whole  County  in  Quarter  Sessions  assembled.'^    For  j&fteen 

1  15  Car.  II.  c.  1  (1663)  renewed  by  26  Car.  II.  (1674),  4  &  5  William  and 
Mary  (1692),  and  again  by  6  Anne  (1707),  as  to  which  see  House  of  Commons 
Journals,  8th,  21st,  27th  January  and  6th  March  1707.  The  1603  Act  is 
described  in  the  Story  of  Ihe  King's  Highway,  pp.  1 15,  148  ;  History  of  Commerce, 
by  A.  Anderson,  vol.  v.  p.  44  ;  A  Treatise  on  Roads,  by  Sir  Henry  Pamell, 
afterwards  Lord  Congleton,  1833,  p.  17  ;  History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation,  by 
F.  Clifford,  1885-1887,  vol.  ii.  pp.  12-14  ;  in  "  The  Old  North  Road,"  by  J.  H. 
Hinde,  in  Archaeologia  Aeliana,  part  ix.,  1858,  pp.  237-255  ;  Notes  from  tlie 
Hertfordshire  County  Records,  p.  6  ;  and  Byegone  Hertfordshire,  by  W.  Andrews, 
1898,  p.  264.  But  most  of  these  Acts  have  remained  unnoticed,  and  the  whole 
episode  deserves  further  study. 

*  The  Harwich  road,  Essex  (7  &  8  William  III.  c.  9,  1095,  containing  the 
first  statutory  mention  of  the  word  "  Turnpike  ")  ;  the  Wymondham  and 
Attlcborough  road,  Norfolk  (7  &  8  William  III.  c.  26,  1695  ;  renewed  by  7  Anno 
c.  4,  1708,  12  George  I.  c.  22,  1729,  and  20  George  IIj  c.  10,  1740) ;  the  Reigate 
and  Crawley  road,  Surrey  (8  &  9  William  III.  c.  15,  1097) ;  the  Birdlip  and 
Gloucester  road,  Gloucestershire  (9  &  10  William  III.  c.  18,  1698,  renewed  by 

9  George  I.  c.  31,  1723,  and  16  George  II.  c.  21,  1742)  ;  tlie  Minehead  roads, 
Somerset  (12  &  13  William  III.  c.  9,  1701) ;  the  Woodiord  road,  Essex  (1  Anno 
8.  2.  c.  10,  see  House  of  Commons  Journals,  19th  November  1702,  n-newcd  by 

10  George  I.  c.  9,  1723,  and  17  George  II.  e.  9,  1743) ;  the  Bariiliill  to  Hatton 
Heath  road,  Cheshire  (4  &  5  Anne  c.  9,  1705) ;   the  Hockley  and  Wobum  road. 


TURNPIKE  TRUSTEES 


159 


years  it  looked  as  if  the  maintenance  of  the  high  roads  was  to 
become  a  function  of  the  County  Justices,  either  in  Quarter 
Sessions  or  in  special  Highway  Sessions.  Suddenly  the  course 
of  legislation  changes.  After  1711,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to 
ascertain,  Parhament  no  longer  resorted  to  the  County  Justices 
for  its  new  road  authorities.  In  1706,i  in  the  case  of  the  highway 
between  Fornhill  in  Bedfordshire  and  Stony  Stratford  in  Bucking- 
hamshire ;  in  1709,  in  the  case  of  the  Sevenoaks  and  Woodsgate 
Road  ;  and  again  in  1710,  for  certain  highways  leading  from 
Hertfordshire  into  Huntingdonshire,  forming  part  of  the  Great 
North  Road,  we  have  the  creation  of  new  statutory  bodies,  con- 
sisting of  so  many  named  persons,  not  necessarily  or  exclusively 
Justices  of  the  Peace,  who  were  empowered  to  levy  tolls  and  to 
fill  vacancies  by  co-option.  These  Acts  appear  to  have  been 
the  first  of  what  proved  to  be  a  long  series  of  statutes  creating 
special  bodies  of  Turnpike  Trustees,  which  came,  eventually,  to 
exist  in  every  county  of  England  and  Wales,  administering  all 
the  more  important  highways,  and  raising  and  spending  an  annual 
revenue  exceeding  that  collected  by  any  other  kind  of  Local 
Authority  of  the  period. 

These  Turnpike  Trusts,  established  or  renewed  by,  hterally, 
thousands  of  separate  Acts  of  Parliament,  ^  were  given  almost 

Bedfordsliire  (5  Anne  c.  10,  see  House  of  Commons  Journals,  22nd  February 
1707) ;  the  Sheppard's  Sliord  and  Devizes  road  (5  Anne  c.  26,  see  House  of 
Commons  Journals,  13th,  26th  and  31st  March  1707)  ;  the  Bath  roads  (6  Anne 
c.  1,  1707,  renewed  by  7  George  I.  c.  19,  1721) ;  the  Portsmouth  road  (9  Anne 
c.  8,  1710)  ;  the  Gravesend  and  Rochester  road  (10  Anne  c.  34,  1711).  Almost 
the  only  mention  of  tliese  Acts,  and  then  only  of  one  or  two  of  them,  down  to 
our  Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  1913,  pp.  115,  148,  and  The  Development  of 
Transportation  in,  Modern  England,  by  W.  T.  Jackman,  1916,  is  that  in  the 
History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation,  by  F.  Clifford,  1885-1887,  vol.  ii.  pp.  15-16. 

1  5  Anne  (1706),  not  printed,  but  mentioned  in  House  of  Commons  Journals, 
3rd  and  27th  March  1707,  15th  and  24t]i  February  1710,  and  in  preamble  of 
3  George  I.  c.  15  (1710);  8  Anno  c.  15  (1709);  renewed  by  11  George  I.  c.  15 
(1725),  9  Anne  c.  7  (1710),  of  which  we  may  quote  the  quaint  preamble  : 
"  Whereas  by  the  happy  union  of  this  kingdom  the  great  post  road  from 
London  to  North  Britain  is  become  much  more  frequented  than  the  same 
formerly  hath  been,  and  a  great  part  of  that  road  ...  is  become  very  ruinous, 
insomuch  as  without  very  great  hazard  and  danger  members  coming  up  to 
Parliament  and  other  persons  cannot  pass  that  way  .  .  .  for  remedy  whereof, 
etc." 

^  The  arrangement  of  the  statute  law  is  so  defective  that  it  is  difficult  to 
state  with  certainty  what  Acts  were  passed.  Dowia  to  1702  turnpike  statutes 
were  "  public,"  and  printed  in  ordinary  form  ;  from  1702  to  1720  they  were 
all  classified  as  "  private  "  and  were  not  always  printed,  so  that  our  iniorma- 
tion  may  be  incomplete  ;    from  1720  to  1753  they  were  printed  and  bound 


i6o  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

identical  constitutions  and  functions.  The  Trustees  were  always 
empowered  to  construct  and  maintain  a  specified  piece  of  road, 
to  which  their  powers  were  especially  confined,  and  to  levy  tolls 
on  that  piece  of  road  upon  certain  kinds  of  traffic.  The  powers 
were  invariably  given  only  for  a  limited  term  of  years,  usually 
twenty-one  ;  but  every  Trust,  in  due  course,  applied  for  a  new 
Act  containing  its  existence  for  another  term,  so  that  they  became 
virtually  permanent  Local  Authorities,  entirely  unconnected  with 
cither  County  or  Parish,  Manor  or  Borough. 

The  Turnpike  Trusts  were  distinguished  from  the  Municipal 
Corporations  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  the  Incorporated 
Guardians  and  Improvement  Commissioners  on  the  other,  by 
the  uniformity  and  rigidity  of  the  constitutional  structure  which 
Parhament  imposed  upon  them.  In  all  the  thousands  of  Turn- 
pike Trusts  established  or  renewed  between  1710  and  1864  ^ 
the  governing  body  consisted  of  a  number  of  persons  named  in 
the  Act  as  Trustees,  who  were  supposed  to  be  qualified  by  the 
possession  of  a  definite  amount  of  property,  and  who  were  re- 
inforced occasionally  by  a  certain  ex-officio  element,  such  as 
the  Mayor  of  a  neighbouring  Municipal  Corporation,^  or  even 
occasionally  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Recorder  of  an  important 
Borough  through  which  the  road  passed.^ 

After  1820  it  becomes  usual  in  the  Acts  to  add,  as  ex-officio 
members,  all  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  for  the  particular  County 
or  Division.  In  all  cases  the  Trustees  were  permitted,  but  were 
not  required,  to  fill  vacancies  arising  in  their  membership  by  the 
co-option  of  duly  quahfied  persons.    All  such  bodies  had  their 

with  the  ordinary  public  general  statutes  ;  from  1753  to  1798  they  were  bound 
separately,  and  are  described  as  "  Public  Acts  not  printed  in  the  collection," 
or,  more  succinctly,  as  "  Road  Acts  "  ;  whilst  from  1798  to  1868  they  were 
included  among  "  Acts  Local  and  Personal."  After  1868  there  are  three 
divisions,  viz.  Public  General  Acts,  Local  Acts  and  Private  Acts  (see  House  of 
Oorainons  Journals,  vol.  lii.  p.  413  ;  History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation,  by 
F.  Clifford,  1887-1889,  vol.  i.  p.  269  ;  Legislative  Methods  and  Forms,  by  Sir  C.  P. 
Ilbert,  1901,  pp.  26-27  ;   Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  i)p.  46-48). 

^  This  applies  to  all  Turnpike  Trusts  formed  after  1710.  In  the  few  earlier 
Acts,  as  we  have  mentioned,  the  new  powers  were  usually  entrusted  to  all  the 
Justices  of  the  County,  or  of  one  of  its  Divisions,  or  (as  in  the  exceptional  Act 
of  1707  for  the  road  from  Bath  to  Kingsdown  Hill,  6  Anne  c.  1)  to  selected 
Justices,  representing  throe  Counties  and  the  City  of  Bath  respectively. 

^  As  at  St.  Albans  (1  George  I.  c.  12,  1714). 

3  As  at  York  (23  George  II.  c.  38,  1750)  ;  and  Durham  (50  George  III. 
c.  3,  1810)  ;  or  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  only,  as  at  Launceston  (33  Grcorge  III. 
c.  59,  1760). 


THEIR  TEMPORARY  CHARACTER  i6i 

jurisdiction  confined  to  the  one  subject  of  road  maintenance/ 
and  geographically  hmited  to  a  particular  stretch  of  road, 
defined  in  the  Act  itself.  In  no  case  that  we  have  found  were 
the  Turnpike  Trustees  entitled  to  levy  a  rate,  or  even  to  claim 
a  share  of  the  various  Highway  Rates  made  by  the  Justices  in 
particular  parishes.  This  incapacity  to  levy  a  rate  distinguishes 
the  Turnpike  Trust,  along  with  the  Manorial  Courts,  from  all 
other  local  governing  bodies.  Another  marked  feature  of  the 
Turnpike  Trusts  which  they  share  with  the  Courts  of  Sewers, 
but  which  distinguishes  them  from  the  Incorporated  Guardians 
and  the  Police  or  Improvement  Commissioners,  as  well  as  from 
the  Manorial  Courts,  was  the  provision  for  their  automatic 
extinction  at  a  certain  date.  The  earher  Acts  confined  the 
existence  of  the  Turnpike  Trusts  which  they  created  to  varying 
periods  such  as  eleven,  fifteen  or  twenty  years.^ 

From  1702  onwards  the  term  was  uniformly  twenty-one 
years,  at  which  they  all  remained  till  1833,  when  it  was  enlarged 
to  thirty-one  years.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  as  in  the  analogous 
case  of  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  every  Trust  applied  for 
and  obtained  successive  extensions  of  its  term,  so  as  to  become 
virtually  a  permanent  body.  It  was  perhaps  for  this  reason 
that  the  Courts  of  Quarter  Sessions  made  no  demur  to  the 
estabhshment  of  these  new  authorities,  on  which  the  Justices 
individually  found  themselves  placed.^ 

^  Very  occasionally  indeed  a  Turnpike  Act  may  contain  a  clause  giving 
power  to  pave,  light  and  cleanse  certain  streets  ;  but  in  such  cases  the  special 
power  is  always  given  to  some  authority  other  than  Turnpike  Trustees  of  the 
ordinary  type  (e.g.  in  6  Anne,  c.  1,  1708,  to  the  Mayor,  Recorder  and  Justices 
of  the  City  of  Bath  in  conjunction  with  County  Justices).  The  only  instance 
that  we  have  found  of  a  Turnpike  Trust  having  statutory  power  to  watch  and 
light  is  that  of  the  Shoreditch  to  Enfield  Trust  (1790).  Conversely,  we  find 
occasionally  a  body  of  Police  or  Improvement  Commissioners  obtaining  power 
to  construct  or  maintain  roads  in  an  urban  area,  or  to  exercise  over  their  roads 
some  of  the  powers  of  Turnpike  Trusts  (see,  for  instance,  the  Beverley  Act, 
13  George  I.  c.  4  ;  the  Leeds  Act,  49  George  III.  c.  122  ;  the  Sudbury  Act, 
6  George  IV.  c.  70;  the  Yeovil  Act,  \\  George  IV.  c.  116;  the  Exeter  Act, 
2  &  3  William  IV.  c.  106  ;   Mimicipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  p.  274). 

*  Thus  the  earliest  Act  of  15  Charles  II.  c.  1,  prescribed  11  years  ;  one  of 
4  &  5  William  and  Mary,  15  years  ;  one  of  8  &  9  WiUiam  III.  c.  15,  20  years  ; 
and  one  of  1  Anne,  sess.  2.  c.  10,  21  years. 

*  Where,  as  frequently  happened,  the  road  lay  in  more  than  one  County, 
there  was  an  additional  reason  for  constituting  a  special  body.  The  earlier 
Acts  entrusting  the  powers  to  Quarter  Sessions  had  broken  down  in  such  cases. 
A  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  1714  found  the  Great  North  Road 
from  Royston  in  Cambridgeshire  to  Watemewton  in  Huntingdonshire  very 
bad,  ".notwithstanding  that  three  turnpikes  had  been  erected  on  the  said  road  " 

M 


1 62  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

For  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  in  fact,  every  one 
took  it  for  granted  that  the  Turnpike  Trust,  with  the  toll  that 
it  levied,  was  only  a  temporary  device,  designed  to  cope  with 
the  exceptionally  ruinous  state  into  which  a  bit  of  road  had 
fallen.  It  was  not  foreseen  that  this  assumed  temporary  nature 
of  the  new  body  would  be  practically  inconsistent  with  its  power 
to  borrow  money  without  Hmit  on  the  security  of  its  income 
from  tolls,  which  it  was  able  formally  to  mortgage  to  the  lender, 
though  it  could,  of  course,  give  legal  security  only  for  the  un- 
expired portion  of  the  term  which  Parliament  had  granted. 

The  powers  of  these  separate  bodies  of  Turnpike  Trustees, 
conferred  upon  them  as  they  were  in  the  first  instance  by  these 
separate  local  Acts,  varied  indefinitely  in  detail,  but  showed  in 
the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century  certain  general  hnes  of 
development.  ;  The  main  purpose  of  these  Acts  was,  as  regards 
the  particular  piece  of  road  dealt  with,  to  bring  additional 
revenues  and  additional  powers  to  the  reinforcement  of  the 
general  highway  law.  The  body  of  Trustees,  who  were,  so  to 
speak,  "  incorporated  "  by  a  Turnpike  Act,  were  entrusted  with 
the  exclusive  management  of  the  designated  piece  of  road,  and 
authorised  to  engage  officers  and  servants,  and  to  purchase 
material  and  plant  for  its  amendment  and  maintenance.  They 
were  empowered  to  erect  "  toll-houses,"  "  tollbars,"  "  turn- 
pikes," "  crates  "  or  "  gates  "  on  any  part  of  the  road  under  their 
jurisdiction,  and  to  exact,  as  a  condition  of  passage,  a  toll  on 
all  vehicles,  horsemen  and  cattle  passing  through.^    This  novel 


since  June  1710.  It  appeared  "  that  upon  the  first  erecting  of  the  toll  gates 
on  that  road  some  of  the  most  ruinous  parts  thereof  were  tolerably  repaired, 
but  that  the  Commissioners  appointed  to  put  the  Act  in  execution  seldom  met 
though  obliged  to  it  four  times  at  least  in  the  year ;  they  being  not  able  to 
constitute  a  board  without  three  Commissioners  of  the  County  of  Cambridge 
and  three  of  the  County  of  Huntingdon,  which  was  found  difficult  to  assemble  ; 
that  this  discontinuance  of  meetings  caused  a  stop  to  be  put  to  the  working 
on  the  said  road  "  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Management 
of  money  collected  for  repairing  highways  ;  see  House  of  Commons  Journals, 
15th  April  1714). 

1  The  usual  toll  was  from  one  to  six  pence.  Thus,  wliilst  a  horse  was 
charged  a  penny,  every  stage  coach,  hackney  coach,  carriage,  waggon  or  cart 
was  charged  sixpence,  every  score  of  sheep  a  penny,  every  score  of  calves  or 
hogs  twopence,  and  every  score  of  cattle  sixpence  (8  &  9  William  III.  c.  15, 
Reigate  and  Crawley  Turnpike  Act,  1697).  Double  tolls  were  usually  charged 
on  Sundays.  A  later  specimen  makes  the  toll  on  a  carriage  drawn  by  six  or 
more  horses  one  sliilling,  by  four  sixpence,  by  two  or  tlirce  threepence,  by  one 
three  halfpence  ;   a  one-horse  cart  or  waggon  paid  a  penny  ;   a  two-horse  ditto. 


TOLLS  AND   TICKETS  163 

impost  differed  radically  from  the  ancient  due,  custom  or  toll 
which  some  manorial  or  corporate  authorities  levied  under  royal 
grant,  in  that  it  was  strictly  limited  in  duration,  minutely  specified 
in  amount,  and  legally  apphcable  to  a  given  pubUc  service.  Thus, 
as  we  have  already  stated,  all  Turnpike  Acts  were  temporary 
only,  the  usual  period  of  their  validity  being  twenty-one  years, 
after  which,  it  was  fondly  assumed,  the  special  need  for  extra- 
ordinary repairs  would  have  passed  away,  and  the  road  might 
be  maintained  free  of  toll  by  the  ordinary  highway  revenue.  For 
over  half  a  century  it  was  even  enacted,  in  most  of  the  Turnpike 
Acts,  that  if  the  roads  were  sufficiently  repaired,  and  all  debts 
paid,  before  the  end  of  the  term,  the  Justices  should  order  the 
toU-gates  to  be  removed,  and  bring  the  tolls  to  an  end.^  The 
number  and  position  of  the  toll-gates  was  usually  left  to  the 
discretion  of  the  Trustees.  But  every  Turnpike  Act  specified 
the  maximum  toll  that  might  be  levied  on  vehicles,  horsemen 
or  cattle  (usually  doubled  on  Sundays),  and  many  of  the  Acts 
included  provisions  against  the  exaction  of  repeated  tolls  on  the 
same  day ,2  or  in  respect  of  passage  along  the  same  stretch  of 
road,  whilst  others  contained  elaborate  exemptions  in  favour 

three  haKpence  ;  a  horse,  mule  or  ass,  a  halfpenny ;  a  drove  of  meat  cattle, 
fivepence  a  score  ;  a  drove  of  calves,  hogs,  sheep  or  lambs,  twopence  halfpenny 
a  score  (11  George  II.  c.  33,  Loughborough  and  Derby  Turnpike  Act,  1737). 

We  do  not  find  in  England  the  ordinary  French  provision  for  exacting 
double  tolls  at  the  entrance  to  the  Metropolis,  or  any  place  at  which  the  liJng 
or  Queen  is  stajdng  (see,  for  instance,  Liste  gemrale  des  pastes  de  France  dressee 
'par  ordre  de  .  .  .  Comte  Dargenson,  1751). 

^  For  power  to  bring  the  Turnpike  Trust  prematurely  to  an  end,  see,  for 
instance,  15  Car.  II.  c.  1  (1663),  8  &  9  William  III.  c.  15  (1697).  A  similar 
power  is  given  to  Quarter  Sessions  m  many  Turnpike  Acts  down  to  the  middle^ 
of  the  eighteenth  century  ;  but  wo  have  not  noticed  it  in  any  later  Act. 

2  The  regulations  as  to  tickets  were  varied.  A  ticket  was  given  on  each 
payment  of  toll,  and  this  freed  the  payer  from  any  further  payment  for  the 
same  animal  or  vehicle  during  the  same  day,  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
particular  Local  Act  and  the  orders  of  the  particular  Trustees,  either  at  that 
gate,  or  at  that  gate  or  some  others,  or  at  all  gates  on  a  particular  section  of 
road,  or  at  all  the  gates  of  the  Trust.  The  "  day  "  usually  ended  at  midnight 
(sometimes  at  midnight  in  summer  and  10  f.m.  in  winter  ;  see  3  George  I.  c.  4, 
Hampstead  and  Highgate  Turnpike  Act,  1716).  A  more  complicated  arrange- 
ment prevailed  on  the  Kensington  road,  where  it  was  expressly  ordained  "  that 
for  all  droves  of  cattle  passing  through  the  turnpike  gates,  the  tickets  that 
shall  be  deUvered  on  Saturday  shall  be  in  force  till  Monday  noon  following  ; 
and  the  tickets  that  shall  be  delivered  for  droves  of  cattle  every  other  day 
besides  Saturday  shall  be  in  force  till  the  day  following  at  noon  "  (House  of 
Commons  Committee  on  the  Management  and  Apphcation  of  money  collected 
during  the  last  eleven  years  for  reiJairing  any  particular  highway  ;  see  House 
of  Commons  Journals,  19th  April  1763,  vol.  xxix.  p.  646). 


1 64  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

of  persons  who  used  only  minute  portions  of  the  road  (as,  for 
instance,  in  crossing  from  one  field  to  another),  or  who  were 
engaged  in  particular  occupations,  or,  in  some  cases,  who  owned, 
occupied  or  inhabited  particular  premises.^  It  was  always  the 
intention  of  Parliament  that  the  payers  of  the  toll  should  get 
quid  2)ro  quo  in  useful  improvements.  The  tolls  were,  in  some 
cases,  not  to  be  levied  until  Quarter  Sessions  had  bound  some 
"  able  and  sufficient  persons  "  in  sureties  to  put  the  road  in 
sufficient  repair  within  five  years.^  In  most  of  the  early  Acts 
it  is  expressly  provided  that  the  Justices  in  Quarter  Sessions  may 
appoint  fit  persons  to  "  survey  the  highways  and  enquire  of  the 
toll,  and  in  case  of  misapplication  .  .  .  they  are  to  certify  the 
same  to  the  Judges  of  Assize." 

From  the  standpoint  of  modern  administration,  there  were, 
however,  glaring  shortcomings  in  the  provisions  of  these  Acts, 
which,  as  we  shall  see,  went  far  to  frustrate  the  good  intentions 
of  Parhament.  The  equitable  incidence  of  the  toll  was  under- 
mined by  clauses  enabhng  the  Trustees  to  grant  preferential 
rates  to  particular  individuals  or  classes.  There  was  no  limit 
to  the  amount  of  borrowed  capital  for  which  the  Trustees  could 
mortgage  the  tolls,  so  that  the  mere  interest  on  the  mortgage 
debt  might  easily  absorb  the  whole  revenue  destined  for  current 
repairs.  Each  generation  of  Trustees  succeeded  in  obtaining  a 
greater  measure  of  freedom  from  legal  Hmitation  or  executive 
supervision  in  the  expenditure  of  their  income  :  they  could  spend 
what  they  pleased,  borrow  what  they  pleased  and  manage  the 
business  as  they  pleased.  They  might,  at  their  option,  have 
their  own  official  establishment  of  collectors  and  surveyors,  or 
farm  out  both  toll  collection  and  road  repair  for  lump  sums. 

^  Thus,  an  Act  of  174G  contained  a  section  exempting  "  the  owners,  occupiers 
and  inhabitants  of  Coloy  House,  and  of  the  farm  adjoining  thereunto  .  .  . 
tiieir  several  workmen,  servants  and  agents  .  .  .  with  horses,  cattle,  coaches, 
carts  and  carriages  "  (20  George  II.  c.  6,  Reading  and  Puntfield  Turnpike  Act, 
1746). 

'  For  the  provision  making  the  levying  of  the  tolla  contingent  on  sureties 
for  the  repair  of  the  road,  see  9  &  10  William  III.  c.  18  (1698).  In  an  early 
Bedfordsliire  Act  it  was  provided  that  "  No  turnpike  is  to  bo  eri-cted  nor  toll 
demanded  .  .  .  nor  shall  tlic  said  causey,  without  the  consent  of  the  lord 
...  of  the  .  .  .  manor  ...  be  laid  open  for  .  .  .  carriages,  until  sufficient 
security  bo  given  by  able  and  sufficient  persons  to  the  Justices  of  the  Peaco 
.  .  .  that  the  said  way  .  .  .  shall  within  three  years  be  sufficiently  repaired 
and  amended"  (5  Anne,  c.  10,  Hockley  and  Wobum  Turnpike  Act,  1706). 
The  Justices'  power  to  investigate  the  state  of  the  road  and  the  amount  of  the 
toll  was  given  generally  in  9  dcorge  I.  e.  11  (1722). 


I 


INCREASING  POWERS  165 

And  whilst  the  control  given  in  the  early  Acts  to  the  County 
Justices  over  turnpike  roads,  and  over  the  Trustees  who  managed 
them,  was,  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  gradually 
removed,  no  new  provisions  were  inserted  requiring  the  Trustees 
to  account  for  their  receipts  and  expenditure  to  any  pubHc 
authority.  Not  less  important  were  the  powers  gradually  con- 
ceded to  these  new  authorities  to  alter,  at  their  own  discretion, 
the  means  of  communication  between  one  place  and  another. 
In  the  course  of  half  a  century  they  not  only  accumulated,  in 
their  successive  statutes,  all  the  powers  of  the  Justices  under 
the  General  Highway  Acts  but  even  added  new  ones.  They 
could  buy  land  compulsorily  in  order  to  widen  narrow  ways  and 
improve  gradients.  They  could  erect  bars  against  bye-lanes, 
close  up  ancient  highways,  divert  others  at  their  pleasure  and 
compel  every  one  to  travel  by  the  new  road  they  had  constructed. 
In  this  way  an  ancient  hamlet  might  find  itself  suddenly  deprived 
of  a  pubhc  road,  in  order  that  the  journey  from  one  town  to 
another  might  be  shortened  or  straightened,  or  even  so  that  a 
particular  mansion  or  farmhouse  might  be  favoured  with  easy 
access  to  the  market  town. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  slovenly  ways  of  the  eighteenth- 
century  Parhament,  and  of  the  incapacity  of  the  early  Hanoverian 
administrations,  in  all  that  concerned  internal  affairs  that  the 
new  bodies  of  Turnpike  Trustees,  exercising  special  powers  over 
small  areas,  were  intruded  into  the  comphcated  hierarchy  of 
Enghsh  Local  Government  without  any  consideration  of  what 
should  be  their  relations  io  the  older  organisations  of  the  Parish 
and  the  County.^  For  the  grant  to  the  Turnpike  Trust  of  power 
to  tax  the  users  of  the  road  was  never  intended  by  Parhament 
to  exempt  the  parishes  through  which  the  road  passed  from  their 
obligation  of  maintaining  it,  or  to  excuse  any  person  from  the 
performance  of  Statute  Labour  or  Team  Duty.  It  seems  to  have 
been  assumed  at  the  beginning  that  the  modicum  of  repair  to  be 
rendered  by  the  Parish  Surveyors  of  Highways  and  the  unpaid 
Statute  Labour  and  Team  Duty  of  the  inhabitants  would  have 

^  The  state  of  the  highway  organisation  of  the  Parish  in  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  may  be  well  seen  in  the  excellent  work  by  John  Shapleigh, 
entitled  Highways :  a  Treatise  showing  the  Hardships  and  Inconveniences  of 
Presenting  or  Indicting  Parishes  and  Towns,  etc.,  for  not  repairing  the  Highways, 
1749.  Compare  the  earlier  pamphlet  by  an  anonymous  Justice,  For  Mending 
the  Roads  of  England,  by  J.  P.,  1715. 


i66  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

been  completed  before  the  special  Surveyors  appointed  to  lay  out 
the  proceeds  of  the  new  revenue  came  on  the  scene.  These 
Surveyors  were  authorised  to  require  the  performance  of  such 
additional  labour  as  they  thought  necessary,  "  for  which  the  said 
Surveyors,"  declared  Parliament,  "  shall  pay  unto  such  labourers 
and  to  the  owners  of  such  teams,  carts  and  wains  according  to  the 
usual  rate  of  the  country,"  ^  Presently  the  situation  is  simpli- 
fied. The  power  to  exact  extra  labour  compulsorily  is  dropped, 
and  whatever  additional  service  is  required  has  to  be  hired  in  the 
open  market.  On  the  other  hand,  in  all  that  concerned  the  main- 
tenance of  the  special  length  of  road^the  "  turnpike  road  " — 
the  Surveyor  appointed  by  the  new  road  authority  is  gradually 
invested  with  nearly  all  the  powers  of  the  Parish  Surveyor  of 
Highways  appointed  from  among  the  inhabitants.  He  is 
authorised  summarily  to  suppress  nuisances,  and  enabled  to  take 
compulsorily  without  compensation  from  the  common  or  wastes, 
within  the  parish  or  without,  or  out  of  any  river  or  brook,  what- 
ever "  gravel,  chalk,  sand  or  stones  "  are  needed  for  the  mending 
of  his  road  ;  and  to  resort  for  this  purpose  also  to  private  grounds, 
on  payment  merely  of  the  actual  damage  done.^    More  important 

1  So  by  the  Act  of  15  Car.  II.  c.  1  (1663) ;  but  no  one  was  to  be  compellable 
to  travel  above  three,  four  or  five  miles  from  home,  nor  to  work  more  than 
two  days  in  any  one  week,  nor  on  any  day  in  seed-time,  hay -time  or  com  harvest 
(7  &  8  WiUiam  III.  c.  9,  1695  ;  so  also  7  &  8  William  III.  c.  20,  1095).  The 
power  of  the  Surveyor  to  require  this  extra  labour  is  given  without  limit  in 
9  &  10  William  III.  c.  18  (1698).  In  the  Kent  County  records  in  1729  wc 
read  that  "  it  is  ordered  by  this  Court  that  it  be  referred  to  Thomas  Marsh,  Esq., 
one  of  His  Majesty's  Justices  of  the  Peace  for  this  County,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Justices  of  the  Division  wherein  Longport  lies,  to  settle  and  set  the  price  of 
labourers  employed  in  and  about  the  repairing,  surveying  and  looking  after 
Boughton  highways,  in  this  County,  on  the  Londim  road,"  the  amount  so  set 
to  bo  paid  by  tiie  County  Treasurer  (MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  East  Kent, 
10th  October  1729). 

2  As  regards  these  powers,  see,  for  instance,  the  nuisance  and  obstruction 
clauses  in  7  George  II.  c.  13  (1733) ;  1  George  II.  c.  33  (1727) ;  17  Geoi^e  II. 
c.  29  (1743);  and  especially  the  very  comprehensive  powers  given  in  20 
George  III.  c.  71  (1780).  As  regards  powers  over  private  property,  see,  for 
instance,  15  Car.  11.  c.  1  (Gi-cat  North  Road  Turnpike  Act,  1063) ;  7  &  8 
William  III.  c.  9  (London  and  Harwich  Turnpike  Act,  1095) ;  6  Anne,  c.  1 
(Bath  and  Kingsdown  Hill  Tvimjiike  Act,  1708).  Subsequently,  private  in- 
terests are  better  safeguarded.  The  Surveyor  has  to  pa^'  reasonable  rates  for 
the  material  so  taken  from  private  land  (6  George  I.  c.  25,  Stevenage  and 
Biggleswade  Turnpike  Act,  1720)  ;  later  on,  express  notice  must  be  given  to 
the  owner,  and  specific  order  made  by  Justices,  after  hearing  objections  (.39  &  40 
George  III.  c.  3,  Ix-iccster  and  Hinckley  Turnpike  Act,  1800).  The  1063  Act 
had  requinvl  pits  from  which  materials  were  dug  to  be  filled  up  and  levelled, 
"  or  else  railed  about  ...   so  as  that  tlie  .same  mny  not  be  deemed  danf;erous 


ri 


THE  SURVEYOR'S  POWERS  167 

still,  from  1714  onwards,  he  is  given  express  power  to  require  the 
performance  under  his  own  direction  of  a  specific  proportion  of 
the  ordinary  Statute  Labour  and  Team  Duty  of  the  parishioners. 
The  proportion  of  the  six  days  Statute  Labour  to  which  the  turn- 
pike road  was  entitled  was  sometimes  specified  in  the  Act  at  two, 
three  or  four  days  ;  or  was  left  to  be  fixed  by  the  Turnpike 
Trustees  or  their  Surveyor,  with  an  appeal,  in  case  of  difference, 
to  the  Justices  in  Petty  or  Special  Sessions.  Gradually  the 
apportionment  comes  normally  to  be  settled  by  two  Justices,  on 
the  apphcation  of  the  Parish  Surveyor  of  Highways.  Sometimes 
the  Justices  were  empowered  to  allot  particular  parishioners,  as 
many  as  they  thought  fit,  to  labour  on  the  turnpike  road  ;  or 
otherwise  to  settle  what  proportion  of  the  whole  six  days  due  from 
all  the  inhabitants  should  be  so  directed.^  From  1716  onward 
the  Turnpike  Surveyor  was,  in  many  cases,  even  given  power  to 
agree  with  the  parish  for  an  annual  amount  to  be  raised  by  the 
Parish  Surveyor  by  a  rate,  and  to  be  paid  in  a  lump  sum  to  the 
Turnpike  Surveyor,  in  lieu  of  this  specific  share  of  the  Statute 
Labour.2    Hence   the   new  turnpike  authority  found  itself  in 

or  prejudicial  to  man  or  beast"  (15  Car.  II.  c.  1)  ;  an  obligation  not  made 
usual  until  the  Public  General  Act  of  1753  (26  George  II.  c.  28),  which  required 
any  holes  or  pits  made  in  commons  or  wastes  for  this  purpose  to  be  fenced  ; 
and  specific  clauses  to  this  eiiect  again  appear  in  many  subsequent  Turnpike 
Acts,  "  so  that  "  these  pits  "  may  not  be  dangerous  to  passengers  or  cattle  " 
(see  10  George  III.  c.  54,  Norwich  and  Block  Hill  Turnpike  Act,  1770). 

^  The  relations  between  the  Parish  Surveyor  and  the  Turnpike  Surveyor 
thus  became  complicated.  The  Parish  Surveyor  of  Highways  was  to  deliver 
a  list  of  persons  liable  ;  the  Turnpike  Surveyor  was  to  give  him  notice  of  the 
time  and  place  for  them  to  come  ;  he  was  then  to  summon  all  persons  liable  ; 
and  they  were  to  put  in  three  days'  work  on  the  turnpike  road  ;  see  1  George  I. 
sess.  2,  c.  25  (Tybura  and  Uxbridge  Turnpike  Act,  1714,  for  what  is  now  the 
Bayswater  Road,  Notting  Hill  and  Uxbridge  Road) ;  see  also  the  detailed 
clause  in  13  George  II.  c.  9  (HocklifEe  and  Stony  Stratford  Turnpike  Act,  1739). 
As  late  as  1800  there  was  an  appeal  by  a  Parish  Surveyor  of  Highways  against 
a  conviction  by  Petty  Sessions  for  not  having  summoned,  in  response  to  a 
demand  from  the  Turnpike  Surveyor,  certain  inhabitants  "  to  jjerform  their 
statute  work  upon  part  of  the  said  road  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions, 
Lancashire,  15th  July  1800). 

For  cases  in  which  the  justices  were  left  to  fix  the  number  of  days'  labour 
to  be  given  to  the  turnpike  road  or  by  whom  it  should  be  given,  see  7  George  I. 
c.  18  (Highgate  and  Barnet  Turnpike  Act,  1720)  ;  16  George  II.  c.  21  (Birdlip 
and  Gloucester  Turnpike  Act,  1742);  13  George  II.  c.  9  (HocklifEe  and  Stony 
Stratford  Turnpike  Act,  1739) ;  17  George  II.  c.  9  (Harlow  and  Stump  Cross 
Turnpike  Act,  1743). 

^  For  power  to  require  a  money  composition,  see  3  George  I.  c.  4  (Highgate 
and  Hampstead  Turnpike  Act,  1716) ;  4  George  I.  c.  4  (London  and  East 
Grinstead  Turnpike  Act,  1717) ;   4  George  I.  c.  5  (Southwark  and  East  Green- 


168  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

possession  of  a  money  income  derived,  not  only  from  its  own  tolls, 
but  also  from  the  parish  rates  on  occupiers.  This  income  from 
rates  was,  however,  at  no  time  anything  but  a  lump  sum  com- 
position of  the  Statute  Labour  and  Team  Duty.  In  no  case  that 
we  have  found  were  the  Turnpike  Trustees  entitled  themselves 
to  levy  a  rate  upon  the  owners  or  occupiers  of  property,  or  upon 
the  inhabitants  as  such. 

Meanwhile  nothing  was  done  to  relieve  the  Parish  from  the 
risk  of  indictment  and  fine  for  the  non-fulfilment  of  its  obhgation 
to  maintain  all  the  highways  within  its  area,  including  therefore 
the  turnpike  road.  With  the  rise  in  the  standard  of  road  main- 
tenance that  occurred  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
there  came  a  corresponding  change  in  the  opinion  of  Assize 
Judges,  Justices  of  the  Peace  and  Juries  as  to  what  constituted  a 

wich  Turnpike  Act,  1717)  ;  and  many  subsequent  Acts.  In  19  George  II. 
c.  19  (Liverpool  and  Prcscot  Turnpike  Act,  1745),  the  power  to  raise  the  com- 
position money  by  rate  is  oxpres.sly  given  to  the  Parish  Surveyor  of  Highways. 
These  compositions  naturally  cd  to  embittered  negotiations  between  the 
Parish  and  the  Trust.  Hackney,  for  instance,  was  made  to  pay  £100  a  year 
towards  the  Kingsland  Road  Turnpike  Trust,  and  this  arrangement  was  em- 
bodied in  12  Anne,  st.  1,  c.  1  (1714).  In  1741-1744  jmyment  was,  on  some 
pretext,  withheld  by  the  parish,  and  to  compel  tlie  parish  officers  to  collect 
the  necessary  rate  required  a  special  Act  (17  George  II.  c.  41,  1743),  which 
changed  the  composition  for  tiie  future  to  200  days'  work  of  eight  hours,  bj' 
teams  of  three  good  horses,  able  to  carry  24  bushels  each  load,  each  to  be 
attended  by  two  able  men.  Twenty-three  years  later,  the  Vestry  Minutes 
show  the  parties  to  be  again  at  issue.  "  The  parishioners  present  were 
acquainted  that  the  Trustees  of  the  Kingsland  Turnpike  Road  were  making 
an  application  to  Parliament  to  enlarge  the  term  and  powers  of  the  Acts  re- 
lating to  that  Trust,  and  that  by  the  said  Acts  the  Parish  of  Hackney  are  to 
do  yearly  200  days'  statute  work  with  teams  on  that  road,  or  pay  to  the  Trust 
the  sum  of  £100  in  lieu  thereof,  and  that  by  an  Act  of  the  last  session  of  Parlia- 
ment relating  to  the  public  highways,  and  the  determination  of  His  Majestj's 
Justices  of  the  Peace  in  consequence  of  it,  every  person  liable  to  do  statute 
work  with  a  t«am  might  compound  for  the  same  for  43.  (id.  a  day  instead  of 
the  former  penalty  of  10s.  ;  and  that  if  the  said  Trustees  should  obtain  a  clau.se 
in  the  said  intended  Act  for  this  Parish  to  pay  the  Trust  £100  per  annum  in 
lieu  of  statute  work,  it  would  be  a  net  loss  to  the  Parish,  as  the  Parish  must 
by  composition  lose  58.  Gd.  in  every  ten  shillings."  The  Vestry  thereupon 
appointed  a  committee  to  watch  the  Bill  (MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  Hackney  (Middle- 
sex), 12th  December  1767).  Twelve  years  later  the  Vestry  opposes  another 
Bill  of  the  same  Trust,  because  it  was  proposed  to  fix  the  rate  of  composition 
for  the  parish  contribution  of  statute  labour  at  too  high  a  figure  (ibid.  23rd  March 
1789).  The  sum  of  £100  seems  to  have  been  a  favourite  one  for  the  annual 
composition  of  a  largo  parish.  The  Surveyor  of  Highways  of  the  Township 
of  Manchester  had,  down  to  1812,  for  many  years  paid  to  the  Trustees  of  the 
Oldham  Turnpike  Roads  a  lump  sum  of  £100  a  year  by  agn^ement  in  "  lieu  of 
statute  labour  and  liability,  by  indictment  or  otherwise  "  (.MS.  Minutes,  Oldham 
Turnpike  Trust,  29th  August  180<),  11th  September  1812). 


INJUSTICE  TO  THE  PARISH  169 

state  of  good  repair  ;  and  Parishes  found  themselves  fined  for 
highways  in  no  worse  condition  than  would,  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  have  been  regarded  as  quite  adequate  to  all  legitimate 
needs.  Thus,  when  a  Parish  had  to  endure  an  inefficient  or 
impecunious  Turnpike  Trust,  it  was  placed  in  an  impracticable 
position.  It  had  lost  all  control  over  the  repair  of  the  turnpike 
road,  without  having  liberated  itself  from  any  of  its  respon- 
sibiUties,  "  As  the  law  now  stands,"  wrote  Sir  J.  C,  Hippisley  in 
1808  to  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  "  if  any  part 
of  a  turnpike  road  be  out  of  repair,  remedy  is  given  by  present- 
ment or  indictment  of  the  parish,  in  which  such  road  is  situate, 
subjecting  the  Parish  to  great  expense  and  inconvenience, 
although  the  nuisance  be  wholly  imputable  to  the  Trustees  of  the 
turnpike."  ^ 

This  injustice  moved  even  the  Yorkshire  antiquary  Whitaker 
to  an  outburst  of  indignation  amid  his  genealogies  and  Church 
annals.  "  It  is  a  great  iniquity,"  he  writes  in  1816,  "  as  well  as 
absurdity  that  parishes  and  townships  should  be  indictable  or 
presentable  for  the  neglect  or  passive  defaults  of  others  over  whom 
they  have  no  control,  while  they  are  condemned  to  be  passive  in 
the  introduction  of  expensive  and  burdensome  roads  through 
their  respective  districts,  and  at  the  same  time  actively  re- 
sponsible for  all  the  consequences  occasioned  by  the  fraud  or 
negligence  of  strangers,^ 

The  relation  of  the  Turnpike  Trust  to  the  Eulers  of  the  County 
was  less  ambiguous  than  that  to  the  parishes  through  which  its 
road  passed  ;  but  owing  to  the  constant  slight  changes  in  the 
law,  difficult  to  express  with  accuracy.  For  the  first  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  Parliament  seems  to  have  regarded  the  Turn- 
pike Trusts  as  bodies  to  be  superintended  and  controlled  by  the 
Court  of  Quarter  Sessions.  Right  down  to  1835,  indeed,  Quarter 
Sessions  continued  to  be  the  tribunal  of  arbitration  between  the 
Trusts  and  the  various  parishes  with  which  they  had  dealings, 
determining  which  parishes  were  hable  to  contribute  Statute 
Labour,  and  in  what  proportion,  and  how  the  Statute  Labour  was  to 
be  distributed  between  the  turnpike  road  and  the  other  highways 

1  Sir  J.  C.  Hippisley,  Bart.,  M.P.,  to  Sir  John  Sinclair,  4th  April  1808  ;  in 
Second  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Highways,  Appendix  A, 
p.  136. 

2  Loidis  and  Elmete,  by  T.  D.  Whitaker,  1816,  p.  82. 


lyo  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

of  each  parish.  Quarter  Sessions  could  require  the  Trust  to 
erect  "  weighing  engines."  ^  If  the  Trustees  chose  to  allow  more 
than  the  statutory  maximum  number  of  horses  to  be  used  on 
steep  hills,  their  order  was  subject  to  the  confirmation  of  Quarter 
Sessions  ;  ^  if  they  put  up  any  toll-gates  not  authorised  by  their 
Act,  the  Justices  in  Quarter  Sessions  were  summarily  to  order 
the  Sheriff  to  remove  them.^  But  from  about  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  we  see  the  Turnpike  Trusts  shaking  them- 
selves gradually  free  from  any  control  by  the  Rulers  of  the 
County  over  their  administration,  or  over  the  expenditure  of 
their  funds.  Their  powers  are  from  decade  to  decade  con- 
stantly increased.  They  are  authorised  to  exact  additional 
tolls  for  heavy  weights,  to  erect  weighing  machines,  to  seize 
horses  in  excess  of  the  lawful  number,  to  charge  double  rates 
for  narrow  wheels  and  altogether  to  exempt  from  toll  the  broadest 
wheels.  It  was  by  successive  statutory  provisions  of  this  kind, 
obtained  first  by  one  Turnpike  Trust  and  then  by  another, 
increasing  at  each  renewal  of  the  term,  rather  than  by  any 
deliberate  policy  of  Parliament,  that  the  Trusts  and  their 
officers  obtained,  as  the  century  wore  on,  such  far-reaching  and 
uncontrolled  powers.  What  is  remarkable  is  the  long-continued 
failure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  unaided  by  any  intervention 
of  the  Cabinet  or  any  Government  Department,  to  view  the 
problem  as  a  whole. 

Across  this  mass  of  Local  Acts,  each  applicable  only  to  a  few 
miles  of  road,  there  came,  between  1727  and  1766,  half  a  score 
of  general  statutes  for  the  "  more  effectual  preservation  "  of 
the  turnpike  roads.'*     Two  of  the  earliest  of  these  were  directed 

1  13  George  III.  c.  84,  sec.  7. 

2  Ibid.  sec.  18.  3  7j,-^  see_  51, 

*  The  general  statutes  relating  to  turnpike  roads,  prior  to  the  consolidating 
Acts  of  1706  and  1773,  were  1  George  II.  c.  19  (1727);  5  George  II.  c.  33 
(1731)  ;  8  George  II.  c.  20  (1734) ;  14  George  II.  e.  42  (1740)  ;  21  Geoi^e  II. 
c.  28(1747);  24  George  II.  c.  43  (1750);  26  George  II.  c.  30  (1753);  28  George  II. 
c.  17  (1755)  ;  30  George  II.  c.  27  (1757)  ;  30  George  II.  c.  43  (1757).  The 
Act  imposing  the  penalty  of  deatii  for  destruction  of  turnpike  property  was 
that  of  1734.  These  statutes,  together  with  the  consolidating  Acts  of  1760 
and  1773,  were  made  the  subject  of  an  able  and  instructive  commentary  by 
John  Scott,  in  his  Digests  of  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike.  Imws,  1778, 
from  wiiicii  the  quotations  in  tlie  text  arc  taken  (pp.  277.  205  and  259) ;  see 
also  Observations  on  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Acts  passed  in  the 
Seventh  Year  of  His  Present  Majesty,  by  Thomas  Buttenvorth  Bayley,  1773. 
Among  other  manuals  we  may  cite  The  Imws  respecting  Highways  and  Turnpike 
lioads,  by  James  Barry  Bird,  ISOl.     TIio  1773  Act,  togetlier  with  fifteen  sub- 


THE  REGULATION  OF  WHEELS  171 

against  the  "  ill-designing  and  disorderly  persons  [who]  associated 
themselves  together  both  by  day  and  night,  and  cut  down, 
pulled  down,  burnt  and  otherwise  destroyed  several  turnpike 
gates  and  houses  " — the  alarming  frequency  of  this  offence 
between  1726  and  1734  inducing  an  eighteenth-century  legislature 
to  raise  the  sentence,  from  three  months  hard  labour  and  a  public 
whipping,  to  death  without  benefit  of  clergy.  But  the  County 
Justices  and  Turnpike  Trustees  who  swarmed  on  the  benches  of 
the  House  of  Commons  discovered  more  insidious  enemies  of 
their  turnpikes  than  mere  rioters  ;  and  from  1741  onward  we  see 
them  passing  Act  after  Act  to  protect  their  roads  against  the 
wear  and  tear  of  heavy  weights  and  narrow  wheels.  These  Acts 
gave  all  bodies  of  Turnpike  Trustees  power  to  erect  weighing 
machines,  to  exact  prohibitive  tolls  for  extraordinary  weights,  to 
seize  horses  in  excess  of  the  lawful  number,  to  charge  double 
rates  for  narrow  wheels,  and  altogether  to  exempt  the  broadest 
wheels  from  their  tolls.  To  quote  the  words  of  an  able  com- 
mentator, the  users  of  wheeled  vehicles  were  to  be  "  in  some 
instances  compelled  to  obedience,  like  slaves,  by  severe  penalties  ; 
and  in  others  enticed  to  it  like  children  with  a  sugar  plum."  Un- 
fortunately for  all  concerned  these  amateur  "  Act-constructors," 
as  John  Scott  terms  them,  were  as  unskilful  as  they  were  irresolute. 
"  Sometimes  one  is  at  a  loss  to  conceive  the  end  at  which  they 
were  aiming,"  continues  Scott ;  "  and  sometimes  when  their 
end  is  obvious  one  can  find  no  reason  for  their  choice  of  the 
means  that  are  designed  to  accomplish  it."  "If  the  Parliament 
would  but  fix  on  any  one  reasonable  plan,"  the  farmers  remarked 
to  Scott,  "  and  keep  to  it,  let  it  be  what  it  might,  they  should  be 
satisfied  ;  but  that  such  perpetual  alterations  as  they  had  for 
some  time  experienced,  were  inconvenient  beyond  expression, 
for  they  never  knew  what  they  had  to  do  for  two  years  together." 
At  the  conclusion  of  peace  in  1763,  after  the  Seven  Years'  War, 

sequent  statutes  of  1774  (4),  1776  (2),  1777,  1778  (2),  1781,  1785,  1812,  1813, 
1815  and  1817,  were  repealed  and  re-enacted  by  3  George  IV.  c.  126  (1822)  ; 
see  The  General  Turnpike  Road  Act,  by  Joseph  Bateman,"l822  ;  A  Supplement 
to  the  General  Turnpike  Road  Act  of  3  George  IV.  c.  126,  by  the  same,  1823  ; 
and  A  Second  Suj)plement,  by  the  same,  1827  ;  The  Law  of  Turnpikes,  by 
William  Cobbett,  junior,  1824  ;  The  General  Turnpike  Act,  by  William  Knight 
Dehany,  1823  ;  The  Law  relating  to  Highways,  Turnpike  Roads,  Public  Bridges 
and  Navigable  Rivers,  by  John  Egremont,  vol.  i.  only,  1830  ;  and,  as  to  the 
muddle,  An  Argument  for  more  of  the  Division  of  Labour  in  Civil  Life  in  this 
Country,  by  William  Wickens,  1829,  pp.  67-73. 


172  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

the  chaos  of  statutes  had  become  so  intolerable  that  a  public- 
spirited  knot  of  local  government  reformers,  headed  by  the  well- 
known  Thomas  Gilbert,  set  themselves  to  consolidate  the  whole 
of  the  general  law  relating  to  turnpikes — an  arduous  and  com- 
plicated enterprise  which,  after  an  unsatisfactory  essay  in  1766 
(7  George  III.  c.  40),  eventuated  in  the  comprehensive  General 
Turnpike  Act  of  1773  (13  George  III.  c.  84). 

This  Act,  which  was  made  to  apply  to  all  turnpike  roads, 
existing  or  thereafter  constructed,  was,  like  the  legislation  which 
it  superseded,  framed  rather  in  the  interest  of  the  Turnpike 
Trustees  and  the  mortgagees  of  their  tolls  than  in  that  of  the 
users  of  the  roads  or  the  public  at  large.  It  was,  indeed,  in  the 
main,  merely  a  consolidating  Act,  In  so  far  as  it  altered  the 
powers  of  Turnpike  Trustees,  it  strengthened  their  control  over 
their  own  officials,  and  enlarged  the  authority  of  these  officials 
over  the  community.  To  strengthen  the  position  of  the  Trusts — 
possibly  with  a  view  to  improving  their  credit  as  borrowers — it 
included  the  old  clauses  requiring  a  high  property  qualification 
for  Trustees,  and  disqualifying  publicans  from  serving  as  officials, 
whilst  incorporating  new  provisions  formalising  their  procedure, 
and  making  it  incumbent  on  them,  whenever  they  leased  the  tolls, 
to  lease  them  to  the  highest  bidder.  But  the  obvious  defects  in 
the  Local  Acts  that  we  have  already  pointed  out  were  not 
remedied.  No  provision  was  made  to  prevent  malversation  or 
extravagance  by  the  Turnpike  Trustees  ;  there  was  required  no 
audit  of  their  accounts  ;  no  check  was  imposed  on  the  amount  of 
their  borrowings,  or  the  rate  of  interest  to  be  paid  ;  and  no  curb 
was  placed  on  their  uncontrolled  power  to  divert,  alter  or  close 
the  ancient  highways  at  their  will.  The  bulk  of  this  wordy, 
complicated  and  badly  arranged  statute  consisted,  in  fact,  in  a 
mere  stringing  together  of  the  existing  clauses  relating  to  wheeled 
vehicles — prohibitions,  exemptions,  special  tolls,  fines  and  for- 
feitures, one  piled  on  top  of  another  until,  as  John  Scott  heard 
"  a  very  respectable  and  intelligent  gentleman  now  in  the  House 
[of  Commons]  observe,  .  .  .  the  Trustees  would  have  enough  to 
do  if  they  were  bound  to  reconcile  all  the  contradictions  of  the 
Act  and  make  sense  of  its  nonsense,"  It  was  this  statute  that, 
with  only  trifling  modifications,  remained  the  basis  of  turnpike 
administration  right  down  to  1822,  when  it  was  superseded  by 
another  hardly  less  complicated. 


THE  RENEWAL  BILLS  173 

The  optimistic  assumption  of  Parliament  that  the  turnpike 
and  its  toll  would  be  but  a  temporary  device  to  meet  an  excep- 
tionally ruinous  state  of  a  particular  bit  of  road  was,  we  need 
hardly  say,  everywhere  falsified.  Whenever  the  term  for  which 
Parhament  had  granted  a  toll  drew  near  to  expiry,  the  particular 
turnpike  authority  invariably  petitioned  for  a  renewal  of  its 
Act.  The  power  to  take  toU,  it  was  alleged,  had  "  been  of  great 
benefit  to  all  carriages  and  persons  travelling  those  roads ;  the 
said  roads  are  not  fully  repaired,  nor  all  the  moneys  borrowed 
by  virtue  of  the  said  Act  paid  "  ;  "  sometimes  the  deep  and  long 
commons  over  which  the  roads  went  were  so  impassable  "  as  to 
require  the  construction  of  a  causeway  or  other  new  work. 
After  a  while  the  appHcation  for  renewal  becomes  so  much  a 
matter  of  course  that  no  special  reason  is  alleged  for  it,  and  the 
new  bill  "  for  enlarging  and  continuing  "  the  powers  of  each 
Turnpike  Trust  appears  automatically  as  the  term  comes  to  an 
end.  And  these  renewal  bills  generally  included  new  powers, 
either  in  the  form  of  a  schedule  of  augmented  tolls,  or  by  extension 
to  additional  lengths  of  roads,  or  through  the  concession  of  more 
drastic  means  of  enforcing  payment.  In  the  first  half  of  the 
century,  these  steadily  extending  powers  of  taxation  did  not  fail 
to  arouse  complaints  from  those  who  had  hitherto  used  the  roads 
free  from  toll.  As  the  number  of  turnpike  bills  increases,  the 
applications  to  the  House  of  Commons  are  met  by  counter- 
petitions  from  groups  of  users  alleging,  as  in  the  case  of  the  fisher- 
men of  Hastings,  that  the  proposed  tolls  will  "  discourage  them 
from  following  their  employment,"  and  wiU  "  impoverish  the 
greatest  part  of  the  inhabitants,"  or,  as  in  the  case  of  inhabitants 
of  Gloucestershire,  declaring  that  the  highways  remain,  in  spite 
of  the  toll,  "  in  a  ruinous  and  almost  impassable  condition," 
so  that  they  see  no  benefit  in  a  renewal  of  the  impost.^  The  third 
decade  of  the  century,  which  is  noted  as  a  period  of  expansion 
and  active  experiment  in  the  administration  of  the  Poor  Law, 
was  marked  also  by  a  rapid  multiplication  of  Turnpike  Trusts. 
Between  1720  and  1730  no  fewer  than  71  new  Trusts  were  estab- 
lished, the  total  mileage  under  toll  being  thereby  more  than 
trebled.     This  great  extension  of  taxation  on  the  users  of  the 

^  The  quotations  from  petitions  for  and  against  Turnpike  Bills  are  from 
the  House  of  Commons  Journals  (8th  January  1707,  24th  January  1709, 
20th  December  1709,  and  3rd  February  1710). 


174  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

roads  did  not  fail  to  arouse  resistance,  especially  in  districts 
where  small  holdings  or  cottage  manufacturers  prevailed.  Serious 
riots  broke  out  in  Somerset,  Gloucestershire  and  Herefordshire 
in  1726,  and  continued  spasmodically  for  a  whole  decade,  in 
the  course  of  which  turnpikes  were  destroyed,  and  the  pike- 
keepers  ill-treated.  "  Great  numbers  of  riotous  and  rebeUious 
persons,"  we  read,  in  1732,  "  armed  with  firearms  and  other 
dangerous  weapons  have  .  .  .  frequently  assembled  themselves 
together  in  the  night-time,  and  marched  in  formidable  bodies 
into  that  City  [Hereford]  and  pulled  down  and  destroyed  the 
turnpikes  erected  on  the  roads  leading  thereto,  and  the  houses 
of  the  said  turnpike  keepers  ,  .  .  after  they  had  plundered  the 
same,  and  fired  their  guns  into  the  windows  of  several  other 
dwelhng  houses  and  in  the  pubhc  streets  .  .  .  threatened  and 
declared  that  they  would  not  only  destroy  the  turnpikes  but 
would  murder  the  keepers  thereof,  and  all  such  Trustees  who 
should  presume  to  act  under  the  Act  of  Parliament ;  and  at  the 
pubUc  market  place  .  .  .  have  given  notice  in  a  most  audacious 
manner  that  if  the  magistrates  or  any  other  persons  should 
interrupt  or  oppose  them,  they  would  set  the  said  City  on  fire." 
Similar  riots  broke  out  at  Bristol  in  1749,  in  which  turnpikes 
were  tumultuously  demolished.  The  rioters  were  "  armed  with 
rusty  swords,  pitchforks,  axes,  guns,  pistols,  clubs,  etc.,  and 
called  themselves  Sack  a  Lents.  .  .  .  They  ranged  themselves 
in  the  main  street  before  the  George  Inn,  by  beat  of  drum,  huzzas 
and  a  hunting  horn,  three  drums  attending  them.  Here  they 
drank  freely,  with  much  noise,  and  then  broke  the  windows  of 
one  Mr.  Durbin,  Tithingman  of  the  Hundred  who  had,  by  order 
of  the  [Turnpike]  Commissioners,  carried  persons  concerned  in 
destroying  the  turnpikes  before  two  Justices,  by  whom  they  were 
committed  to  Newgate."  After  the  disorder  had  lasted  a  fort- 
night, the  rioters  were  dispersed  by  the  arrival  of  the  soldiers. 
A  few  years  later  there  were  turnpike  riots  at  Leeds,  in 
which  the  military  had  to  fire  on  the  rioters,  with  some  loss  of 
life.i 

1  For  the  successful  turnpike  riots  at  Kiiigsvvood  in  1727,  see  the  letter 
from  the  Mayor  of  Bristol,  28tli  June  1727,  in  Home  OHice  archives  in  Public 
Record  Office  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic),  and  Oldniixon's  Hislory 
of  England,  1735,  p.  804  ;  for  those  at  Hereford,  see  Read's  ]\\ckl}j  Journal, 
2oth  November  1732,  and  House  of  Commons  Journals,  2nd  and  28th  March 
1732  ;  for  an  armed  attack  on  the  turnpike  at  Cainscross,  near  Stroud,  on 
9th  July  1733,  sec  Home  Office  archives  in  Public  Record  Office  (Calendar  of 


MULTIPLICATION  OF  THE  TRUSTS  175 

About  the  middle  of  the  century,  in  spite  of  the  annually 
increasing  mileage  of  road  subjected  to  toll,  and  the  automatic 
renewal  and  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  various  bodies  of 
Turnpike  Trustees,  opposition,  either  by  petition  or  riot,  dies 
away,  and  Turnpike  Acts  multiply  fast.^  After  the  Peace  of 
1748  a  perfect  mania  seems  to  set  in,  and  the  number  of  new 
Trusts  rises  suddenly  from  about  three  a  year  to  nearly  twenty 
a  year.  Between  1748  and  1770  the  number  of  separate  Trusts 
in  existence  rose  from  about  160  to  about  530,  whilst  the  mileage 
subject  to  toll  was  quadrupled.  When  we  remember  the 
eighteenth  century  impatience  of  new  taxation  and  hatred  of 
restraints  on  personal  freedom,  this  acquiescence  in  the  extension, 
all  over  England,  of  an  entirely  new  impost,  is,  we  think,  a  matter 
for  surprise.  We  attribute  it  less  to  a  conviction  in  the  payers 
of  the  toll  that  they  were  actually  getting  quid  pro  quo,  than  to 
certain  common  features  in  the  constitution  and  working  of  the 

State  Papers,  Domestic,  vol.  32,  No.  64)  ;  compare  also  the  account  of  those 
at  Ledbury  in  1735  in  petition  of  Ledbury  Turnpike  Trustees  (ibid.),  and  in 
Daily  Gazetteer  for  8th  October  and  9th  December  1735,  given  in  The  Law  of 
Highways,  by  W.  C.  Glen,  1865,  pp.  53-55.  A  letter  to  the  Duke  of  Chandos, 
8th  January  1737,  describes  the  forcible  demolition  of  the  turnpike  at  Wilton 
by  an  armed  band  disguised  by  white  smocks  over  their  clothes  (Home  Ofifice 
archives  in  Public -Record  Office  ;  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  vol.  40, 
No.  1).  For  the  riots  at  Bristol  in  1734  and  1749,  see  Annals  of  Bristol  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  by  J.  Latimer,  p.  157,  and  Gentleman's  Magazine,  August 
1749,  p.  276  ;  for  that  at  Leeds  in  1753,  Loidis  and  Elmete,  by  T.  D.  Whitaker, 
1816,  p.  77. 

^  From  the  earliest  three  Turnpike  Trusts  of  1706-1710,  the  number  rose  at 
first  slowly.  The  third  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century — noted  also,  as  we 
shaU  hereafter  show,  for  great  developments  in  Poor  Law  administration — 
saw  no  fewer  than  71  new  Trusts  established,  the  mileage  being  trebled.  By 
1748  the  number  had  grown  to  160.  After  the  Peace  of  Aix-la-Chapelle — still 
more  after  the  conclusion  of  the  Seven  Years'  War  in  1763 — when  the  nation 
advanced  rapidly  in  all  sorts  of  internal  improvement.  Turnpike  Trusts  multi- 
plied on  aU  sides,  the  number  rising,  between  1748  and  1770,  to  530,  and  the 
mileage  being  quadrupled.  The  remainder  of  the  century  saw  a  steady  in- 
crease, the  number  and  mileage  agaia  doubling  in  thirty  years  ;  reaching,  in 
1838,  1116,  having  22,000  miles  of  road.  As  each  Trust  had  to  get  a  new 
Act  every  fifteen  or  twenty-one  years,  the  number  of  Turnpike  Acts  reached 
more  than  three  times  these  figures.  Between  1760  and  1774  they  were  passed 
at  the  rate  of  thirty  a  year  ;  between  1785  and  1809  at  the  rate  of  forty  a  year. 
By  1838  no  fewer  than  3800  separate  Turnpike  Acts  had  been  put  on  the 
statute  book  (History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation,  by  F.  Clifford,  1885-1887,  vol.  ii. 
p.  18,  etc.  ;  Report  of  Royal  Commission  on  Roads,  1840  ;  Report  of  House 
of  Commons  Committee  on  Turnpike  Trusts,  1839  ;  Journal  of  the  Royal 
Statistical  Society,  1839).  In  The  Development  of  Traiisportation  in  Modern 
England,  by  W.  T.  Jackman,  1916,  p.  743,  a  table  is  given  showing  the  Road 
Acts  passed  in  1701-1750,  1751-1770,  1771-1790,  1791-1810,  and  1811-1830 
respectively. 


176  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

various  Turnpike  Trusts  themselves.  It  must,  in  the  first  place, 
be  remembered  that  the  tolls  were  never  levied  on  foot  passengers, 
and  were  thus  unfelt  by  the  labouring  poor.  The  projectors  of 
each  new  Turnpike  Trust  were  so  anxious  to  secure  local  support 
that  they  included  among  their  proposed  Trustees  every  one  of 
local  influence  or  authority — noblemen,  clergy,  squires,  farmers 
and  even  traders — a  constitution  of  the  governing  body  which, 
at  whatever  cost  of  efficiency,  at  any  rate  went  far  to  secure 
assent.  But  it  was  not  merely  the  principal  inhabitants  who 
were  placated.  The  new  source  of  road  revenue  promised  to 
relieve  the  parishioners  of  their  ancient  Statute  Labour.  The 
little  farmers  and  cottagers  looked  forward  to  the  cost  of  repairs 
being  henceforth  met  out  of  the  tolls  to  be  paid  by  the  carriage 
folk  and  the  London  carriers.  "  As  soon  as  a  turnpike  Act  is 
obtained,"  it  was  said  in  VIM}  "  all  the  parishes  through  which 
the  road  passes  consider  the  Act  as  a  benefit  ticket,  and  an 
exemption  from  their  usual  expenses,  and  elude  the  payment  of 
their  just  quota  towards  the  reparation  of  the  road,  by  com- 
pounding with  the  Trustees  for  a  less  sum,  or  by  doing  their 
Statute  Labour  in  a  fraudulent  manner  ;  and  in  both  these 
cases  they  are  generally  favoured  by  the  neighbouring  Justices  and 
gentlemen,  for  the  ease  of  their  own  estates."  Hence  the  very 
defects  in  structure  and  function  of  the  Turnpike  Trusts  served 
to  prevent  resistance  to  the  new  impost  which  they  levied. 

From  the  standpoint  of  a  national  system  of  road  communica- 
tion, the  Turnpike  Trusts  had,  from  first  to  last,  many  grave 
defects.  Foreign  critics  complained  that,  instead  of  the  main 
routes  of  through  traffic,  from  one  end  of  the  kingdom  to  another, 
being  systematically  dealt  with,  the  abandonment  of  the  subject 
by  the  Enghsh  Parhament  to  a  local  initiative  and  local  pubUc 
spirit  resulted,  at  best,  in  a  strange  patchwork.  Whether  or  not 
a  particular  bit  of  road  remained  in  the  ruinous  and  impassable 
condition  imphed  by  parish  management  depended,  not  on  the 
needs  of  the  users,  or  the  national  importance  of  this  particular 
link,  but  on  the  degree  of  enhghtened  self-interest  or  pubhc 
spirit  of  the  squires,  farmers,  and  traders  in  its  immediate  neigh- 
bourhood.=^     If,   during  the  eighteenth  century,   any  one  had 

'   Gentleman's  Magazine,  Septoinber  1754,  p.  395. 

-  "The  system,"  said  a  writer  of  1834,  "is  radically  bad,  being  based  on 
principles  in  the  highest  degree  objectionable  ehiefly  as  respects  the  manage- 


THE  TURNPIKE  PATCHWORK  177 

taken  the  trouble  to  make  a  turnpike  map  of  England,  this 
would  have  shown,  not  a  system  of  radiating  arteries  of  com- 
munication, but  scattered  cases  of  turnpike  administration, 
unconnected  with  each  other ;  appearing  at  first  as  mere  dots 
on  the  map,  then  gradually  increasing  in  number  and  size  so  as 
to  form  continuous  Hues  ;  and  only  by  the  end  of  the  century 
becoming,  as  John  Holt  somewhat  optimistically  declared  in 
1794,  "  so  multiplied  and  extended  as  to  form  almost  an  universal 
plan  of  communication  through  the  kingdom."  1  It  took,  in 
fact,  practically  a  whole  century  of  disconnected  effort  before 
even  such  national  arteries  of  communication  as  the  Great  North 
Road  from  London  to  Edinburgh,  the  Irish  road  from  London  to 
Holyhead,  or  the  Great  Western  Road  from  London  to  Exeter 
came,  for  the  whole  of  their  lengths,  under  the  administration 
of  Turnpike  Trusts.  The  travellers  from  Glasgow  to  London 
in  1739  found  "  no  turnpike  road  till  they  came  to  Grantham, 
within  1 10  miles  of  London."  A  foreign  visitor  in  1752,  travelling 
on  the  Great  Western  Road,  declares  that  "  after  the  first  47 
miles  from  London,  you  never  set  eye  on  a  turnpike  for  220 
miles.  .  .  .  What  fine  roads,"  he  exclaims  satirically,  "  from 
London  to  Land's  End,  or  even  to  Exeter,  Plymouth  or  Fal- 
mouth ;  you  have  such  roads  as  the  lazy  Italians  have  fruits, 
namely,  what  God  left  them  after  the  Flood."  2  And  yet,  as 
another  traveller  observes,  "  there  may  be  a  profusion  of  too 
many  turnpikes  round  a  single  city,  half  of  which  carried  on 

ment  and  superintendence  of  roads.  There  is  in  fact  no  general  system  of 
management  or  superintendence.  The  system  is  much  the  same  as  if  we  were 
in  a  great  town  to  put  the  management  of  each  street  under  the  sole  direction 
and  control  of  a  selection  of  persons  located  in  each  street,  irresponsible  to 
the  general  body  and  naturally  careful  of  their  own  private  local  uaterests 
alone,  without  regard  to  the  general  interests  of  the  township,  or  any  portion 
other  than  that  in  which  they  saw  and  felt  a  direct  personal  interest  "  {A 
Treatise  on  Internal  Intercourse  and  Communication  in  Civilized  States  and 
Particularly  in  Great  Britain,  by  Thomas  Grahame,  1834,  p.  19). 

^  This  optimistic  statement  of  John  Holt  is  in  his  General  View  of  the 
Agriculture  of  Lancashire,  1794.  It  was  quoted  in  Second  Report  of  House  of 
Commons  Committee  on  Highways,  1808,  Appendix  7a,  p.  183. 

*  For  the  condition  of  the  Glasgow  to  London  road  in  1739,  see  Dr.  Banna- 
tyne's  scrapbook,  quoted  from  in  Cleland's  Statistical  Account  of  Glasgow; 
Penny  Magazine,  16th  March  1833 ;  Place  MSS.  27828-10.  For  the  foreigner's 
account  of  the  road  from  London  to  Land's  End,  see  Gentleman\s  Magazine., 
November  1752.  Two  years  later,  another  correspondent  stated  that,  out 
of  the  172  miles  to  Exeter,  there  are  "  no  turnpilvcs  more  than  40  miles 
from  London,  except  .  .  .  people  go  round  by  Bath  or  Wells  "  {ibid.  August 
1754). 

N 


178  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

in  a  straight  line  would  have  proved  a  national  rather  than  a 
private  good."  ^  For  even  in  those  districts  in  which  Turnpike 
Trusts  had  been  established,  there  was  no  security,  or  even 
likehhood,  that  the  most  frequented,  the  most  direct  and  the 
easiest  right  of  way  v/ould  be  selected  for  improvement.  The 
Commissioners  employed  by  the  Board  of  Agriculture  in  1794 
are  continually  remarking  on  the  "  mahgnant  degree  of  in- 
genuity .  .  .  displayed  in  sending  them  [i.e.  the  turnpike  roads] 
up  hills,"  or  "  over  such  a  dreary,  dangerous  and  hilly  common."  ^ 
The  motives  for  this  inconsiderate  choice  of  routes  were  varied 
and  diverse.  The  old  pack-horse  track,  which  went  up  hill  and 
down  dale  wherever  the  surface  was  good  enough,  was  often 
converted  into  a  carriage  road  without  regard  for  the  fact  that 
its  gradients  made  it  a  quite  unsuitable  route  for  wheeled  traffic. 
The  first  waggon  highways  were,  moreover,  as  a  House  of 
Commons  Committee  was  informed  in  1806,  sometimes  dehber- 
ately  "  carried  up  steep  ascents  to  gain  the  open  country  and 
avoid  the  valleys,  because  the  roads  through  the  latter  could  not 
easily  be  made  passable  in  the  wet  seasons  of  the  year."  ^  jMore 
sinister  motives  were  found  in  the  "  partiality  "  and  "  selfish- 
ness "  of  individual  landowners,  who  sought,  it  was  complained 
in  the  Gentleman'' s  Magazine  in  August  1754,  "  to  make  turnpikes 
avenues,  more  or  less,  to  this  or  that  country  seat."  "  If  the 
great  man,"  it  was  said  in  1794,  "  who  generally  takes  the  lead 
in  laying  out  the  turnpike  road  has  no  immediate  interest  himself, 
he  has  often  a  friend  to  oblige,  or  an  enemy  to  mortify,  by  sending 
the  road  up  hill  to  save  the  land  of  one,  or  through  the  middle  of 
a  meadow  to  hurt  the  other.  A  tippling  house  on  the  top  of  a  hill, 
or  a  favourite  piece  of  land  at  the  bottom,  compels  the  husband- 
man at  this  day,  in  many  parts  of  this  kingdom,  to  keep  one-third 
more  cattle  in  his  team  than  there  would  otherwise  have  been 

^  (Icnlleman's  Magazine,  August  1752. 

-  For  the  opinion  of  the  Commissioners  employed  by  the  Board  of  Agri- 
culture in  1794,  see,  for  instance.  General  View  of  the  AgricvHurc  of  Hereford, 
by  John  Clark,  1794,  p.  51  ;  General  View  of  the  AyricuUure  of  Northumberland, 
by  John  Bailey  and  George  Culley,  1794,  p.  66  ;  General  View  of  the  Agriculture 
of  Durham,  by  John  Granger,  1794,  j).  20.  "  Had  .  .  .  plans  and  sections," 
suras  up  Thomas  Butterworth  Bayley,  "  been  sent  with  the  jietitions  for  Tum- 
l)ike  Acts  during  the  last  40  or  20  years.  Parliament  would  not  have  sanctioned 
the  enormous  waste  of  public  money  in  carrying  on  the  sdicmcs  of  ignorant 
projectors  or  interested  individuals." 

^  Second  lleport  from  the  House  of  Commons  Couiniittec  on  Broad  \\'hcel 
Acts,  180G,  J).  12. 


THE  LACK  OF  TURNPIKES  179 

occasion  for."  ^  Even  as  late  as  1828,  when  the  efficacy  of  pubhc 
opinion  had  enormously  increased,  we  see  no  less  a  personage 
than  Sir  Robert  Peel,  the  elder,  not  scrupling  to  attempt  to 
divert  the  new  turnpike  road  between  London  and  Liverpool 
out  of  its  way,  in  order  that  it  might  pass  close  to  his  own  residence 
and  cotton-mills,  to  the  ruin  of  the  town  of  Tamworth — an 
attempt  frustrated  by  counter-petitions  from  Tamworth  and, 
most  potent  of  all,  an  able  letter  to  the  Tunes?  Nor  was  it 
always  powerful  individuals  who  perverted  the  action  of  Turnpike 
Trustees.  The  whole  of  the  inhabitants  of  particular  towns 
frequently  asserted  their  separate  interests  to  the  detriment  of  a 
national  service.  "  Local  interest,"  said  John  Scott  in  1778, 
"  often  produces  strange  distortions.  A  few  years  ago  a  new 
turnpike  road  was  made  from  St.  Alban's  to  Reading  .  .  . 
designed  to  open  an  easy  communication  between  the  East  and 
West  of  England,  and  had  the  straight  line  been  preserved, 
\yould  have  been  many  miles  nearer  than  the  way  through 
London.  It  was,  however,  found  necessary  to  make  a  zigzag 
line  by  Watford,  Amersham,  High  Wycombe  and  Marlow,  solely 
to  obhge  the  inhabitants  of  those  towns,  by  which  means  the 
difference  between  the  two  roads  is  rendered  inconsiderable."  ^ 
In  other  cases  the  reverse  would  happen,  and  a  powerful  corpora- 
tion would  try  to  prevent  the  new  impost  being  levied  on  its 
own  inhabitants.  "  The  town  of  Liverpool,"  it  was  reported, 
"  is  a  great  enemy  to  turnpikes  :  there  are  only  three  toll-gates 
within  eight  miles  of  it,  none  within  four."  The  result  was  that 
the  road  revenue  was  so  much  lessened  that  the  Turnpike  Trustees 
found  themselves  unable  to  keep  any  part  of  the  roads  in  good 
repair,  "  Most  of  the  great  towns  "  of  Lancashire,  it  was  said 
in  1794,  "  have  had  sufficient  interest  to  place  the  toll-bars  at 
some  miles  distance  from  them  "  ;   and  this,  it  was  alleged,  was 


^  General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  Hereford,  by  John  Clark,  1794,  p.  53. 

^  As  to  the  Tamworth  case,  see  Times  of  31st  May  and  16th  June  1828, 
which  explains  that  "  It  so  happens  .  .  .  that  the  residence  of  Sir  Robert  Peel 
is  distant  from  Tamworth  about  2  miles  and  immediately  adjacent  to  his 
cotton  and  spinning  factories  at  Fazeley,  a  village  almost  exclusively  Sir  Robert's 
own  property,  with  a  population  consisting  of  his  artizans.  Under  these 
circumstances  Sir  Robert  has  been  using  his  powerful  mtercst  to  exclude 
Tamworth  in  order  to  brmg  the  road  through  Fazeley,  and  the  proposed  line 
is  now  changed  accordingly,  by  which  Tamworth  wUl  be  entirely  ruined." 

^  Digests  of  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778, 
p.  317. 


i8o  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

"  almost  the  sole  cause  of  the  wretched  condition  of  the  turnpike 
roads  "  in  that  county  as  late  as  1808.^ 

The  narrow  hmits  of  each  Trust,  and  the  pecuniary  interests 
involved,  not  only  mihtated  against  the  wisest  choice  of  a  route, 
but  also  obstructed  the  further  increase  of  lines  of  communica- 
tion. "  Instead  of  Turnpike  Acts  being  obtained  for  particular 
roads,"  wrote  an  able  critic  of  road  administration,  in  1765,^ 
"  they  ought  to  have  been  made  general  throughout  counties. 
As  things  are  at  present  conducted,  the  Commissioners  of  particu- 
lar roads,  in  order  to  enliance  their  revenues,  generally  take  the 
liberty  of  blocking  up  the  principal  avenues  of  every  other  road 
which  falls  into  or  leads  across  theirs  ...  so  that,  in  fact,  every 
Act  which  passes  for  the  repair  of  a  road,  with  the  usual  extensive 
powers  to  Commissioners  to  erect  gates,  is  an  Act  also  to  prevent 
any  of  the  roads  leading  into  or  across  it,  be  they  ever  so  bad, 
from  receiving  the  same  remedy."  The  Turnpike  Trustees 
went,  however,  further  in  their  obstructiveness.  Towards  the 
latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the  several  oases 
of  turnpike  administration  were  impinging  on  each  other,  the 
Trustees  of  every  existing  Trust,  in  conjunction  often  with  their 
mortgagees  or  other  creditors,  were  quick  to  petition  Parliament 
against  any  proposals  for  new  turnpike  roads  which  threatened 
to  compete  with  their  line  of  route.  Thus,  in  1780,  when  a  new 
road  was  projected  from  Horsley  to  Dudbridge  in  Gloucestershire, 
the  Trustees  of  the  Gloucester  and  Stroud  Turnpike  complained 
loudly  to  the  House  of  Commons  that  this  new  road  would  "  open 
up  a  communication  of  road  from  Gloucester  to  Dudbridge, 
and  through  the  parishes  of  Standish  and  Stonehouse,  by  which 

^  The  exempted  areas  of  Lancashire  are  described  in  the  General  Vieiv  of  the 
AfjricuUure  of  Lancashire,  by  John  Holt,  1794,  and  in  the  Second  Report  of 
House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Highways,  1808,  Appendix  A,  p.  182. 
Anotlier  case  may  be  cited  from  Yorkshire.  When  in  1802  the  trustees  of  a 
certain  twenty  miles  of  the  Great  North  Road  in  the  North  Riding  got  their 
Act,  the  inhabitants  of  the  two  little  villages  of  Thirsk  and  Yarm,  which  formed 
the  terminal  points,  secured  clauses  inserted  forbidding  the  erection  of  toll- 
gates  within  four  miles  of  each  place.  The  result  was  that  all  local  traffic 
was  able  to  use  eight  out  of  the  twenty  miles  free  of  toll,  and  cunning  travellers 
managed  even  to  get  free  of  the  toll  on  the  other  twelve,  by  using  slightly 
longer  parallel  bye-lanes  {Statement  concerning  the  Thirsk  and  Yarm  Road,  by 
the  Committee  of  Trustees,  etc.,  Stockton,  1823).  See  also  the  pamphlets  for 
and  against  the  establishment  of  a  Turnpike  Trust  for  the  road  between  Keighley 
and  Kendal,  in  the  British  Museum  volume,  213,  i.  2. 

-  An  Inquiry  into  tlie  Means  of  Preserving  and  Improving  the  Ptiblic  Roads, 
by  Rev.  Henry  Homer,  17G5,  pp.  21-22. 


RIVAL  LINES  OF  ROUTE  i8i 

means,"  it  was  said,  the  traveller  from  Gloucester  to  Bath  would 
be  able  to  go  more  quickly  and  easily,  "  as  by  the  intended  road 
several  steep  hills  would  be  avoided,"  If  the  bill  passes,  they 
ask  that  their  own  tolls  may  be  increased.  The  Trustees  of  the 
Cirencester  and  Stroud  Turnpike  go  further,  and  demand  the 
entire  rejection  of  the  project.^  So,  in  the  same  year,  the  Trustees 
of  Newcastle-under-Lyme  and  Macclesfield  Turnpike  petition 
vehemently  against  a  projected  extension  of  the  territory  of  the 
Macclesfield  and  Buxton  Trust,  as  the  proposed  improvement 
of  certain  branch  roads  "  will  materially  interfere  with  the 
petitioners'  trust,  as  they  will  be  a  means  of  lessening  the  tolls." 
In  the  very  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  seems  to  have 
been  a  pitched  battle  in  Parliament — reminding  us  of  similar 
railway  struggles  a  century  later — as  to  the  direction  to  be  taken 
by  the  main  hue  of  road  from  London  to  the  North-Western 
Counties.  We  see  Sheffield  and  Derby  petitioning  in  favour  of 
rival  projects,  via  Leicester  and  via  Bedford  respectively,  and 
enlisting,  each  of  them,  the  support  of  wayside  parishes.  Out 
of  many  similar  petitions  we  quote  the  following  in  1800.  The 
Trustees  of  the  Maidenhead  and  Eeading  Turnpike,  having  under 
their  charge  part  of  the  Great  Western  Eoad,  strongly  oppose  a 
projected  new  turnpike  road  from  New  Windsor  to  Longford 
in  Middlesex,  because  it  would  make  the  road  from  London  by 
that  way  considerably  shorter,  which  might  tempt  the  traveller 
to  avoid  Maidenhead  altogether.  If  we  remember  that  the 
Trustees,  mortgagees  and  creditors  of  an  existing  turnpike  road 
would  certainly  include  the  county  members,  the  resident  Justices 
of  the  Peace,  the  local  landowners,  and  the  more  substantial 
farmers  of  the  neighbourhood,  we  shall  be  able  to  estimate  how 
effective  was  the  obstruction  to  the  Parliamentary  sanction,  or 
even  to  the  initiation,  of  a  shorter  or  easier  line  of  communication 
than  that  to  which  the  inhabitants  were  accustomed. 

^  For  the  petitions  against  the  new  Horsley  to  Dudbridge  road,  see  House 
of  Commons  Journals,  25th  and  28th  January  1780.  A  new  road,  admittedly 
advantageous,  might  even  be  opposed  by  a  rival  trader.  In  1760  there  was 
a  petition  presented  against  a  new  Turnpike  Bill  by  an  individual  Derbyshire 
coalowner  on  the  plea  that  the  new  road  would  "  give  such  advantage  to  the 
proprietors  of  the  collieries  "  near  it  as  to  be  detrimental  to  his  trade  (House 
of  Commons  Journals,  22nd  February  1760).  For  the  petition  against  the 
Macclesfield  and  Buxton  Turnpike  Trust  Bill,  see  ibid.  21st  February  1780. 
For  the  struggles  between  the  rival  roads  between  London  and  the  North,  see 
ibid.  January  and  February  1750.  For  that  in  protection  of  Maidenhead,  see 
ibid.  9th  June  1800. 


i82  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

We  may  here  notice  the  somewhat  analogous  development  of 
toll  bridges.  The  privilege  of  levying  bridge  toll,  or  "  pontage," 
had  been  conceded  by  the  King  in  special  cases,  notably  during 
the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries,  by  way  of  indemnity 
for  erecting  particular  bridges  ;  but  such  a  grant  was,  we  under- 
stand, always  limited  in  duration  to  three,  five  or  eight  years. 
Except  for  such  cases,  the  bridges  that  existed  seem  to  have 
been  free  from  toll.  In  Lancashire  in  1621,  and  again  in  Essex 
in  1746,  we  hear  of  attempts  by  neighbouring  landowners  to 
exact  tolls,  which  are  repressed  by  Quarter  Sessions.  In  the 
eighteenth  century,  however,  under  the  influence  of  the  imperative 
demand  for  better  means  of  communication,  and  of  the  new  idea 
that  the  actual  users  of  the  highways  should  be  made  to  bear  the 
expense  of  their  maintenance,  we  see  erected,  from  1725  onward, 
a  whole  series  of  new  toll  bridges,  corresponding  with  the  new 
turnpike  tolls.  Such  a  levy  of  tolls  required  statutory  authority, 
which  was  granted  by  Local  Act,  sometimes  (as  in  the  cases  of  the 
City  of  London,  Bristol,  Norwich,  Windsor  and  other  corporate 
towns)  to  the  Municipal  Corporation ;  sometimes  (as  in  the 
cases  of  Westminster  and  Putney  Bridges,  Preston  Bridge, 
Deritend  Bridge  at  Birmingham  and  Bishopwearmouth  Bridge 
at  Sunderland)  to  public  bodies  of  Commissioners  incorporated 
for  the  purpose  ;  and  sometimes  (as  in  the  cases  of  the  bridges 
at  Walton  on  Thames,  Hampton  Court  and  several  of  those 
within  the  Metropolis)  to  individual  landowners  or  groups  of 
speculators.  These  Corporations,  Commissioners  or  Companies 
diiTered  from  the  Turnpike  Trusts  in  securing  powers  unlimited 
"  in  duration,  and  in  levying  tolls  on  pedestrians.  They  seem  to 
have  resembled  the  Turnpike  Trusts  in  the  general  inefficiency 
of  their  administration,  in  the  frequent  farming  of  their  toUs, 
in  the  comphcations  and  extortions  of  the  imposts  that  they 
levied  on  vehicular  and  animal  traffic,  and  in  the  delays  to 
which,  in  London  at  any  rate,  the  congestion  at  their  toll-gates 
eventually  gave  rise.^ 

1  As  to  bridges,  sec  chap.  vi.  of  The  Story  of  the  Ki)ig\-i  Ili'jhicay,  pp.  85-112. 
For  cases  of  tlio  grant  of  "], outage  "  during  the  fourteenth  century,  see  the 
references  to  tlie  Parliament  Rolls  in  Ilislory  of  Private  Bill  Jjegidlalion,  by 
F.  Clifford,  1887,  vol.  i.  pp.  25-35.  It  was  in  11)21  that  the  Lancashire  Quarter 
Sessions  was  seeking  to  8up])ress  the  exacrtion  of  tolls  on  County  Bridges. 
"  The  Justices  here  present  are  of  opinion  that  if  any  toll  or  stcllagc  be  taken 
for  the  carriage  over  Crosford  Bridge  or  any  other  bridge  repaired  by  the 
common  charge  of  the  County  the  same  is  extortion,  and  ought  not  to  be  taken 


TOLL  BRIDGES  183 

When  we  consider  the  administration  of  the  various  Turnpike 
Trusts  of  the  eighteenth  century,  from  the  narrower  standpoint 
of  the  repair  and  construction  of  particular  bits  of  road,  we  find 
ourselves  in  the  midst  of  the  haphazard  and  anarchic  diversities 
characteristic  of  an  age  lacking  ahke  in  technological  and  adminis- 
trative science.  The  County  Justices  in  Quarter  Sessions,  who, 
as  we  have  seen,  controlled  the  earliest  of  the  turnpike  roads, 
sometimes  appointed  an  officer  at  a  small  fee  to  lay  out  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  toll  as  he  thought  fit ;  or,  in  other  cases,  contented 
themselves  with  ordering  the  Treasurer  of  the  moneys  arising 
from  particular  turnpikes  to  pay  lump  sums  to  the  Parish  Sur- 
veyors of  Highways  "  after  the  said  Surveyors  have  made  it 
appear  .  .  .  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  parish  have  done 
their  full  six  days  work,  pursuant  to  the  statute,  of  teams  and 
labourers,  and  have  expended  a  sixpenny  rate  in  repairing  their 
highways."  Occasionally  Quarter  Sessions  would  request  the 
Justices  to  "  view  the  roads  in  their  several  Divisions  and  to 


or  paid,  and  that  the  takers  thereof  shall  be  dealt  with  withall  by  indictment 
of  extortion  quo  warranto  or  otherwise  as  the  law  wUI  warrant,  yet  nevertheless 
all  bridges  shall  be  repaired  by  the  charge  of  Counties  and  Hundreds  as  formerly 
they  have  been  accustomed  "  (Manchester  Sessions  Notes  of  Proceedings,  1616- 
1623,  edited  by  Ernest  Axon,  1901,  p.  142).  More  than  a  century  later,  the 
Essex  Quarter  Sessions  had  expressly  to  require  the  "  owners  of  any  bridge 
or  bridges  buUt  over  any  river  or  stream  running  across  any  highways  .  .  . 
immediately  (to)  take  or  cause  to  be  taken  the  chain  or  chains  from  off  the 
same  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Essex,  15th  July  1746). 

Among  the  Local  Acts  authorising  toll  bridges  to  be  buUt  by  Municipal 
Corporations  may  be  mentioned  those  of  Norwich  (1726),  Windsor  (1735), 
London  (1756,  1758,  1762,  1767,  etc.),  Maidenhead  (1772).  Special  bodies  of 
commissioners  were  incorporated  by  Local  Acts  for  the  purpose  of  building 
and  maintaining  Westminster  Bridge  (1741,  1744,  1745) ;  Putney  Bridge 
(1725);  Preston  Bridge  (1750);  Deritend  Bridge  at  Birmmgham  (1788,  1792, 
1813  and  1822  ;  see  Old  and  New  Birmingham,  by  R.  K.  Dent,  pp.  421-422; 
A  Century  0/  Birmingham  Life,  by  J.  A.  Langford,  pp.  68-71)  ;  Bishopwear- 
mouth  Bridge  at  Sunderland  (1792,  1814).  Sometimes  bodies  of  Police  or 
Improvement  Commissioners  received  such  powers,  as  for  the  bridge  over  the 
Thames  at  Windsor  (9  George  I.  c.  15)  ;  and  for  that  over  the  Severn  at  Evesham 
(5  George  IV.  c.  67).  To  these  must  be  added  the  Local  Acts  obtained  by 
landowners  or  private  speculators,  such  as  those  for  bridges  at  Walton-on- 
Thames  (20  George  IL  c.  22,  1746)  and  Hampton  Court  (23  George  IL  c.  37, 
1749),  and  those  relating  to  the  various  toll  bridges  built  by  joint-stock  com- 
panies in  the  Metropolis  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committees  on  Metro- 
politan Bridges,  1854,  1876,  1877  and  1881).  The  most  valuable  toll  bridge, 
still  existing  as  private  property,  is  probably  that  of  Lord  St.  Levan,  con- 
necting Plymouth  with  Devonport,  and  yielding  a  revenue  of  many  thousands 
a  year.  As  long  ago  as  1800  the  tolls  were  rented  from  year  to  year  at  the 
"  immense  sum  of  £2500  "  {The  Plymouth  Dock  Guide,  1800,  p.  28  ;  A  Vieiv  of 
Plymoxith  Dock,  1812,  p.  53). 


184  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

cause  the  Surveyor  to  measure  such  parts  of  the  roads  as  are  out 
of  repair,  and  to  report  at  the  next  Quarter  Sessions,"  ^  But  we 
do  not  gather  that,  for  the  first  half  of  the  century  at  any  rate, 
Quarter  Sessions,  where  it  was  responsible  for  a  turnpike  road, 
gave  any  directions,  either  to  its  own  officer  or  to  the  parish 
Surveyors  of  Highways,  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  work  was  to 
be  done.  Some  of  the  early  bodies  of  Turnpike  Trustees  seem 
to  have  shown  rather  more  activity,  if  less  discretion,  than  the 
County  Justices.  The  active  Trustees,  often,  as  we  gather,  the 
farmers  and  tradesmen  of  the  neighbourhood,  added  petty 
jobbery  and  a  foolish  officiousness  to  their  ignorance.  Nor  were 
the  proceedings  made  any  better  by  the  intervention  of  the 
ordinary  eighteenth-century  squire.  "  We  may  blame,"  says 
a  graphic  but  inelegant  critic  in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for 
August  1754,  "  the  ignorance  and  obstinacy  of  John  Trot,  and 
reflect  on  Tom  Buttertub,  the  grocer,  the  booby  Trustee  of  the 
next  parish ;  of  course  the  profile  of  the  road  is  injudiciously 
constructed.  .  .  .  John  Trot  is  not  so  much  the  object  of  con- 
tempt for  being  an  incorrigible  blockhead,  as  Squire  Satskull  and 
Sir  John  Shallow  are,  for  their  pride,  avarice,  insolence,  ignorance, 
petulancy  and  meanness,  .  .  .  This  meanness  in  our  gentry 
brings  it  about  that  a  tenant  shall  be  employed  in  repairing  the 
road  upon  his  own  terms,  and  the  more  he  cheats  tlie  [turn]pike, 
the  better  he  will  be  able  to  pay  his  rent.  The  squire  likes  his 
proposals,  and  the  rest  of  the  Commissioners  acquiesce,  being 
either  farmers  or  tradesmen.  .  .  .  We  cannot  justly  wonder  that 
turnpike  roads  should  be  in  such  bad  condition  as  they  are, 
when  we  find  such  meanness  amongst  those  who  ought  to  be 
examples  of  public  spirit  and  virtue."  "  At  the  first  erection 
of  turnpikes,"  reports  another  critic  in  the  same  journal  for 
September  1754,   "  the  road-makers  ex  professo,  who  perhaps 

^  The  examples  of  the  Justices'  action  arc  taken  from  tlic  minutes  of  Quarter 
Sessions,  Essex,  1704-1775.  In  1704  "it  is  ordered  that  Mr  L.  and  Mr.  E.  A. 
of  Coxford  in  this  County  are  hereby  appointed  Surveyors  for  the  road  lying 
between  Kelvedon  and  Strennaway,  commonly  called  Domsey  Road,  for  one 
whole  year,  and  .  .  .  that  all  the  moneys  now  in  the  hands  of  .  .  .  (the) 
Receivers  of  the  toll  at  the  turnpike  be  by  them  paid  unto  the  said  Surveyors 
and  by  them  ...  to  be  employed  and  laid  out  in  reiiaitinc  Dorasey  Road  " 
(MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Essex,  2r)th  April  1704).  For  15  Orders  for 
payments  to  as  many  jiarishes,  see  MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Essex, 
5th  October  1725.  For  the  order  to  the  Justices  to  view  the  roads  in  their 
Divisions,  ibid.  15th  January  1722. 


INEFFICIENT  LABOUR  185 

were  yeomen-like  farmers  and  gentlemen's  bailiffs,  made  a  very 
poor  figure  in  their  undertaking ;  witness,  amongst  others,  that 
great  road  from  London  to  Bath  ;  it  errs  and  blunders  in  all  the 
forms  ;  its  strata  of  materials  were  never  worth  a  straw ;  its 
surface  was  never  made  cycloidal ;  it  hath  neither  good  side 
ditches,  nor  footpaths  for  walkers  ;  no  outlets  were  made  for 
water  that  stagnates  in  the  body  of  the  road  ;  it  was  never 
sufficiently  widened,  nor  were  the  hedges  ever  cleared — of  course 
it  is  the  worst  public  road  in  Europe,  considering  what  vast  sums 
have  been  collected  from  it."  Other  Turnpike  Trusts  shifted 
the  whole  work  and  responsibility  to  their  Treasurer,  a  gentleman 
whose  custody  of  the  turnpike  moneys  brought  him  a  small 
profit,  and  who  was  therefore  considered  as  remunerated  for  his 
trouble. 

We  may  note  here  the  slowness  and  reluctance  with  which 
the  Turnpike  Trustees,  even  more  than  other  Local  Authorities 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  appointed  any  salaried  officers  or 
even  made  use  of  the  growing  banking  facilities.  The  Treasurer 
was,  almost  invariably,  one  of  the  Trustees  themselves,  usually 
a  country  gentleman,  without  any  special  knowledge  of  business, 
or  any  great  proficiency  in  bookkeeping.  The  Treasurer  had 
to  get  in  the  money  either  from  the  "  pikemen,"  as  they  collected 
it ;  and,  naturally,  it  was  found  easier  to  employ  a  contractor, 
or  toll-farmer,  who  could  be  required  to  pay  over  by  regular 
instalments  the  price  that  he  had  promised  to  pay  for  liis  privilege. 
The  Treasurer  seems  habitually  to  have  mixed  these  sums  of  a 
few  hundreds  up  to  a  few  thousands  of  pounds  with  his  own 
cash  ;  and  to  have  paid  out  such  expenditure  on  behalf  of  the 
Trust  as  had  been  authorised,  or  as  he  himself  decided.  Efficient 
audit  there  was  none  ;  but  periodically,  after  long  delay,  the 
Treasurer  would  produce  accounts  to  his  brother-Trustees — 
sometimes  only  on  the  occasion  of  a  change  of  Treasurer — when 
the  balance  in  hand  might  be  transferred.  In  the  meantime 
it  was  thought  quite  in  order  that  the  Treasurer  should  make 
for  himself  whatever  profit  he  could,  by  thrifty  investment  of 
the  floating  balance.  We  may  understand  the  reluctance  of 
the  Trustees,  in  their  corporate  capacity,  to  entrust  their  funds 
to  the  private  bankers  of  the  period.  It  is  less  easy  to  appreciate 
the  simplicity  with  which  they  allowed  their  Treasurer  to  play 
with   these   public   moneys    for   his    own    advantage.      Under 


i86  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

such  circumstances  it  was  almost  inevitable  that  many  bodies  of 
Turnpike  Trustees,  especially  in  the  latter  half  of  the  century, 
should  fall  back  on  the  common  administrative  expedient  of  the 
period,  that  of  "  farming,"  which  we  have  already  described. 

With  such  primitive  views  of  administration,  we  can  under- 
stand how  many  of  the  earlier  Turnpike  Trusts  hardly  conduced 
to  the  actual  improvement  of  the  roads.  Thus,  Robert  Phillips, 
in  his  dissertation  of  1737  to  the  Royal  Society ,i  "  concerning  the 
present  state  of  the  high  roads  of  England,"  complains  that  the 
"  turnpike  roads,  instead  of  being  mended,  have  been  made  bad 
by  art  ...  so  that  all  the  money  that  has  been  laid  out  in  such 
roads  .  .  .  has  been  rather  of  prejudice  than  service."  The 
people  who  have  had  the  care  of  the  roads,  he  explains,  have 
heaped  loamy  gravel  on  them,  deep  hard-baked  ruts  have  been 
formed,  which  are  constantly  filled  with  water,  "  If  the  turn- 
pikes were  taken  down,"  he  sums  up,  "  and  the  roads  not  touched 
for  seven  years,  they  would  be  a  great  deal  better  than  they  are 
now."  These  haphazard  methods  of  road  maintenance  con- 
tinued to  prevail  in  the  smaller  and  more  remote  Turnpike  Trusts 
right  into  the  nineteenth  century.  From  about  1750,  however, 
we  watch  the  larger  and  more  important  Trusts — those  admin- 
istered by  active  and  intelligent  Justices  or  by  the  principal 
inhabitants  of  populous  districts — enhsting  in  their  service 
permanent  salaried  officials  who  proceeded  to  experiment  in 
road  construction  and  repair,  without  engineering  knowledge, 
it  is  true,  but  at  any  rate  according  to  some  deliberate  policy, 
which  was  consistently  followed.  The  result  was  an  amazing 
variety  of  shapes  and  surfaces,  each  for  a  time  beheved  in  by  its 
inventor. 2    The  "  road  laid  wavy,"  or  "  trenched  road,"  with  a 

1  Dissertation  concerning  the  Present  State  of  the  High  Roads  oj  England, 
especially  those  near  London,  by  Robert  Phillips,  1737,  pp.  3,  4,  15. 

*  As  to  the  fantastic  shapes  of  roads,  see  Digests  of  the  General  Highway  and 
Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778,  p.  322.  "Some  roads  in  England  .  .  . 
are  laid  wavy,  or  rising  and  falling,  and  men  attend  .  .  .  after  rain,  to  let  out 
the  water  with  their  spades  "  (Gentleman's  Maqazine,  May  1749,  p.  21S).  "  In 
level  countries,  where  the  roads  are  cut,  these  waves  arc  absolutely  necessary. 
.  .  .  The  first  waving  of  the  roads  was  begun  in  Whitechapel  on  the  Essex 
Road,"  or  else  in  Leicestershire.  "  The  waves  were  then  short  and  high,  and 
soon  were  found  so  excessively  inconvenient  to  the  travellers,  both  on  foot 
and  horseback  and  in  carriages,  that  they  were  discarded.  .  .  .  The  Hackney 
road  .  .  .  followed  the  waving  method,  but  made  the  ascents  and  descents 
longer"  {ibid.  November  1759). 

"  The  angle  in  the  pantile  roof  road,"  observes  Scott,  "  is  often  so  great  as 
to  endanger  overturning  on  the  least  colhsion  of  carriages,  and  always  enough 


II 


FANTASTIC  SHAPES  187 

"  continuation  of  little  hills  and  valleys  "  ;  the  "  angular  road 
sloping  like  a  pantile  roof  from  one  hand  to  the  other  "  ;  the 
"  concave  road,"  or  "  hollow  way,"  into  which  a  stream  was 
periodically  turned  to  clean  its  surface  ;  the  built-up  "  horizontal 
road,"  flanked  by  deep  ditches,  sometimes  a  "  causeway  from 
20  to  30  feet  wide,  nearly  horizontal  on  the  top,  with  precipices 
on  each  side  of  four  or  five  feet  perpendicular  depth," — could  all 
be  seen  within  a  day's  journey  of  the  Metropolis.  Regarded  in 
the  light  of  the  modern  art  of  road  construction,  all  these  fantastic 
forms  and  surfaces  were  grotesquely  inconvenient  and  wasteful. 
But  we  may  well  believe  that  they  were  all  of  them  improvements 
on  the  deep  holes  and  inevitable  ruts  which  resulted  from  the 
careless  dumping  of  clay,  dirt  and  rubbish  by  the  httle  road- 
farmer  or  the  ignorant  workman  who  carried  out  the  orders  of 
the  local  Trustee.  And  the  constant  observation  and  comparison 
of  these  dehberately  shaped  roads  seems  to  have  produced,  by 
the  end  of  the  century,  something  like  a  consensus  of  opinion, 
among  the  more  intelligent  Trustees  and  Surveyors,  in  favour  of 
a  moderately  convex  surface,  artificially  constructed  of  small 
pebbles  and  gravel — an  immeasurable  improvement  on  both 
the  "  natural "  surface  and  the  heaped-up  dirt  which  it  super- 
seded.i 


to  occasion  anxiety  to  the  timorous  passenger  "  {Digests  of  ike  General  High- 
way and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  Jolm  Scott,  1778,  p.  320).  For  the  concave  road 
or  hollow  way,  sec  Dissertation  concerning  the  State  of  the  High  Roads  of  England, 
by  R.  Pliillips,  1737,  p.  15.  This  is,  we  imagine,  the  "  washway  "  referred  to 
in  the  Inquiry  into  the  Means  of  Preserving  and  Improving  the  Public  Roads, 
by  Rev.  Henry  Homer,  1765,  p.  30.  In  such  a  road,  "  instead  of  the  water 
being  thrown  off,  it  is  here  made  the  repairing  agent,  by  being  conducted  from 
the  sides  to  the  centre,  and  from  thence  to  the  lowest  part  of  the  road,  where 
a  side  outlet  is  made  for  it ;  in  its  course  the  water  washes  the  whole  surface, 
carries  off  the  mud,  and  leaves  the  road  firm  and  clean  "  (C.  M.  Ward  to  Sir  John 
Sinclair  in  Report  from  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Broad  Wheels  and 
Turnpike  Roads,  1809).  The  wilful  obstruction  of  any  "  water  which,  by 
order  of  the  Trustees  or  their  Surveyor,  shall  be  reserved  to  run  or  bo  let  in 
upon  any  part  of  the  said  road  "  was  often  made  punishable  by  fine  and  im- 
prisonment (see,  for  instance,  17  George  III.  c.  20). 

For  the  best  opinion  on  road-making  in  1778,  see  the  admirable  Appendix 
"  On  the  Construction  and  Preservation  of  Roads,"  in  the  Digests  of  the  General 
Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778,  pp.  313-352. 

^  It  may  be  here  noted  that  it  is  to  the  turnpike  roads  that  we  owe  the 
general  estabhshment  of  milestones,  which  (if  we  ignore  those  which  were 
placed  by  the  Romans  on  their  roads)  date  from  about  1720.  At  first  they 
were  put  up  voluntarily  on  a  few  roads.  "  At  every  mile  from  Grantham  to 
Stangate,"  says  Defoe,  "  are  stones  set  up  by  Mr.  Boulton  which  he  designed 
to  have  carried  on  to  London  for  the  general  benefit  "  {Tour  through  the  ivhole 


i88  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

But  the  richer  and  larger  turnpike  authorities  did  more  than 
merely  improve  the  surface  of  the  roads.  Here  and  there  we 
find  them  widening  and  straightening  the  narrow  and  crooked 
bits  of  their  thoroughfares  ;  bridging  the  numerous  "  water- 
splashes  "  through  which  generations  of  travellers  had  passed  ; 
improving  gradients  by  cutting  through  the  hilltops  and  raising 
the  valley  bottoms  ;  and,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  century,  con- 
structing entirely  new  roads  from  place  to  place.  Thus,  as 
early  as  1708,  we  find  an  order  made  at  the  Hertfordshire 
Quarter  Sessions  "  for  the  widening  by  eight  yards,  of  the  high- 
way from  Ware  to  Wadesmill  ...  for  the  length  of  25  poles, 
and  for  a  jury  to  be  empanelled  to  assess  reasonable  compensation 
not  exceeding  25  years  purchase."  ^  In  Essex,  in  1725,  the  parish 
of  Chelmsford  petitioned  Quarter  Sessions  "  to  grant  them  some 
supply  towards  the  charges  of  purchasing  and  pulling  down  the 
old  houses  in  a  row  called  Middle  Row,  and  lay  the  groimd  into 
the  highway  for  enlarging  thereof,  it  being  but  nine  feet  wide." 
It  was  thereupon  ordered  by  Quarter  Sessions  "  that  the  sum 
of  £50,  more  and  besides  the  sum  of  £100  given  them  last  Sessions, 
be  given  to  the  Churchwardens,  Overseers  and  Surveyors  of  the 
said  Parish  for  the  time  being,  after  they  have  purchased  and 

Island  of  Or  eat  Britain,  by  Daniel  Defoe,  vol.  iii.  p.  28,  edition  of  1748).  From 
about  1744  most  Turnpike  Acts  contain  a  clause  (see,  for  instance,  17  George  II. 
c.  4,  Chatham  and  Canterbury  Turnpike  Act,  1744)  requiring  the  Trustees  to 
measure  their  road  and  set  up  stones  or  posts  stating  the  distance.  In  1766 
this  requirement  (including  also  those  of  direction  posts  at  crossways  and 
"  graduated  posts  or  stones  "  where  the  road  was  subject  to  "  deep  or  dangerous 
floods  ")  was  made  universal  by  7  George  III.  c.  40,  sec.  30  (the  General  Turn- 
pike Act,  1766),  re-enacted  by  13  George  III.  c.  84,  sec.  41  (the  General  Turn- 
pike Act,  1773).  The  "  milestones "  were  sometimes  wooden  posts  ;  those 
of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Turnpike  Trust  in  1787  were  to  be  of  oak,  5  feet  high 
and  1 1  inches  wide  ;  angular,  with  letters  and  figures  on  each  side  denoting 
the  distance  from  Epping  and  Chelmsford  respectively  (Minutes  of  the  Epping 
and  Ongar  Highway  Trust,  1769-1870,  by  B.  Winstonc,  1891,  p.  138). 

The  signpost  is  earlier  than  the  milestone.  Paul  Hcntzner,  the  German 
traveller,  was  directed  by  a  signpost  in  Kent  in  1598  (Itinerarium  Oermaniap, 
Oalliae,  Angliae,  Italiae,  by  Paul  Itentzner,  1012).  In  1695  we  road  of  Lanca- 
shire, "  they  have  one  good  thing  the  most  parts  of  tiiis  County  .  .  .  that  at 
all  cross  ways  there  are  posts  with  hands  pointing  to  each  road  with  the  names 
of  the  great  town  or  market  towns  that  it  leads  to  "  [Through  England  on  a 
Side-Saddle  .  .  .  Diary  of  Celia  Fiennes,  edited  by  the  Hon.  Mrs.  Grifliths, 
1888,  p.  157).  As  early  as  1697  tlie  Justices  in  Special  Highway  Sessions  were 
authorised  to  require  Surveyors  of  Highways  to  put  up  a  "  direction  stone  or 
post  "  at  "  cross  highways  "  (8  &  9  William  III.  e.  16). 

^  Notes  from  the  Hertfordshire  County  Records,  p.  39  ;  and  MS.  ^Minutes, 
Quarter  Sessions,  Essex,  5th  October  1725;  and  Oeutlemau's  Magazine,  Mav 
1763. 


ROAD   WIDENINGS  189 

pulled  down  all  the  said  houses  and  made  a  highway  there." 
But,  as  might  have  been  expected,  it  was  the  Turnpike  Trusts 
in  the  distinctly  urban  districts  that  were  most  energetic  in  this 
work  of  road  improvement.  The  Trustees  of  the  main  road  from 
London  into  Kent  had,  about  the  middle  of  the  century,  "  widened 
several  places  in  the  road  to  Dartford,  being,"  says  the  Gentletnafis 
Magazine  for  May  1753,  "  perhaps  the  first  who  began  to  widen 
and  make  the  roads  straight."  They  "  Ukewise  widened  and 
mended  some  narrow  and  bad  ways  from  Lewisham  to  Bromley 
and  Beckenham  .  .  .  and  added  a  new  bridge."  Presently,  as 
we  learn,  the  local  Turnpike  Trustees  widened  the  road  "  going 
off  of  Clapham  Common  to  Mitcham."  "  The  gentleman  of 
Camberwell  "  did  the  same  for  "a  very  bad  hollow  way  leading 
by  the  Fox  &  Goose  near  that  town."  In  country  districts  this 
most  necessary  work  of  widening  and  straightening  the  roads 
was  often  obstructed  by  the  selfishness  of  landowners.  "If," 
it  was  said  in  the  same  journal  in  September  1754,  "  there  be 
necessity  of  a  small  strip  of  land  to  make  a  road  more  com- 
modious sometimes  it  is  peremptorily  refused ;  and  if  you 
would  obtain  it  legally  it  would  cost  twenty  times  as  much  as  it 
is  worth.  If  to  obtain  a  short  cut,  or  avoid  a  morass,  you  want 
to  pass  through  a  field,  you  are  generally  refused,  and  put  to 
three  times  as  much  expense  as  the  thing  is  worth."  But  the 
greatest  ohstacle  to  improvement  was  found  in  the  lack  of 
administrative  ability  among  the  Turnpike  Trustees  themselves. 
It  practically  never  occurred  to  such  Trustees  to  get  a  professional 
survey  made  of  the  road  to  be  improved  ;  they  never  saw  the 
importance  of  getting  competent  advice  as  to  the  engineering 
problems  to  be  solved  ;  and  when  they  did  have  some  person 
in  their  employment  who  was  called  a  Surveyor,  they  failed  to 
realise  that  it  would  not  do  to  let  him  at  the  same  time  act  as 
contractor  for  the  execution  of  the  work  which  he  was  required 
to  supervise. 

The  most  defective  side  of  turnpike  administration  was  that 
of  finance.  There  was,  to  begin  with,  in  nearly  all  Turnpike 
Trusts,  the  usual  eighteenth-century  jobbery  ^  in  the  purchase 

^  It  seems  to  have  been  quite  usual  for  a  Turnpike  Trust,  in  sjiite  of  an 
express  prohibition  by  Parliament,  to  give  orders  for  materials  or  work  to 
individual  Trustees.  Thus,  when  a  House  of  Commons  Committee  looked  into 
the  accounts  of  the  Kensington  Turnpike  Trust  for  1764,  it  was  found  that 
an  incredible  number  of  loads  of  gravel  were  entered  as  put  on  three-quarters 


I90  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

of  materials,  in  the  connivance  at  bad  work  by  contractors, 
and  in  the  appointment  of  the  officials  of  the  Trust  itself.  In 
these  respects,  however,  so  far  as  our  information  goes,  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Turnpike  Trustees  were  either 
better  or  worse  than  contemporary  local  authorities  generally. 
It  was  in  the  method  of  raising  their  resources  that  the  Trusts 
were  most  open  to  criticism.  Their  relation  with  the  com- 
pulsory Statute  Labour,  to  be  rendered  by  the  parishes  through 
which  the  road  passed,  v/as,  with  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  amount 
that  they  could  exact  and  the  method  of  obtaining  it,  in  the 
highest  degree  unsatisfactory.  But  the  special  source  of  revenue 
of  Turnpike  Trustees  was,  of  course,  the  toll,  the  collection  of 
which  led  to  endless  evasions,  inequalities  and  favouritisms  of 
all  kinds,  arbitrary  exactions,  and  systematic  petty  embezzle- 
ments. We  need  not  here  dwell  on  the  various  devices  by  which 
the  legislature  and  the  Trustees  tried  to  protect  themselves 
against  the  ingenuities  of  those  seeking  to  avoid  the  tolls — the 
vigilant  closing  up  of  bye-lanes  or  side  roads,  and  the  perpetual 
shifting  or  multiplication  of  the  gates  in  order  to  counteract 
the  inveterate  desire  to  go  round  ;  together  with  the  long  array 
of  penalties  on  such  dodges  as  taking  off  the  supernumerary 
horses,  or  lightening  the  load  where  going  through  the  turnpike 
gate,  dashing  through  without  payment,  or  fraudulently  pre- 
tending to  come  under  one  or  other  of  the  categories  of  exemption.^ 

of  a  milo  of  road  (Piccadilly)  between  Clarges  Street  and  I'uiightsbridge  ;  and 
further  enquiry  revealed  that  the  gravel  was  supplied  by  one  of  the  Trustees. 
AH  the  carpenter's  work  of  the  same  Trust  was  contracted  for  by  the  partner 
of  another  Trustee  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  appointed  to 
enquire  into  the  application  of  money  collected  within  the  last  twelve  years, 
by  virtue  of  any  Act  of  Parliament,  for  repairing  any  particular  highway,  1765  ; 
SCO  House  of  Commons  Journals,  vol.  xxix.).  Adam  Smith  had,  it  will  be 
reraerabercd,  tlie  meanest  opinion  of  the  financial  management  of  Turnpike 
Trustees.  "  The  money  levied  is  more  than  double  of  what  is  necessary  for 
executing,  in  tiie  completest  manner,  the  work,  wliich  is  often  executed  in  a 
very  slovenly  manner,  and  sometimes  not  at  all"  (Wealth  of  Nations,  177G). 
John  Scott,  who  loiew  them  at  first  hand,  remarks  that  "  the  Surveyors  of 
turuj)ike  roads  .  .  .  are  frequently  decayed  farmers  or  tradesmen,  recom- 
mended by  some  friend  or  relation  to  an  office  they  are  absolutely  unqualified 
to  execute."  .  .  .  [Some]  "  Trustees  .  .  .  are  most  earnest  to  provide  a  main- 
tenance for  their  poor  favourites  by  recommending  them  to  offices  they  are 
unfit  for  "  {Digests  of  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott, 
1778,  i)p.  255,  350). 

^  Evasion  by  taking  off  supplementary  horses  before  coming  to  the  turn- 
pike gate  was  specifically  forbidden  by  24  George  II.  (1750).  There  is  a  refer- 
ence to  this  practice  in  Gentleman'' s  Magazine,  Sei>t<'mber   1752.     Lightening 


EXEMPTIONS  FROM  TOLL  igi 

What  made  the  incidence  of  the  tolls  specially  inequitable,  and 
created  a  permanent  sense  of  injustice,  was  the  multiplicity 
of  exemptions  and  abatements  that  were  allowed  to  favoured 
trades  or  individuals.  There  were,  to  begin  with,  any  number 
of  exemptions  in  favour  of  agriculture  ;  ploughs  and  implements 
of  husbandry  of  every  kind,  carts  carrying  manure,  cattle  going 
to  pasture,  vv^aggons  bringing  home  the  harvest  were  all  privileged 
to  pass  and  repass  free  of  toll,  however  much  they  wore  out  the 
road.i  Sometimes  other  local  industries  would  be  specially 
favoured  ;  round  Evesham,  in  Warwickshire,  the  flour-millers 
were  secured  freedom  of  access  for  their  customers  and  for  the 
materials  needed  for  the  repairs  of  their  mills  ;  in  Berkshire,  in 
a  vain  attempt  to  resuscitate  a  decaying  local  manufacture,  it 
was  stipulated  that  "  any  cart  or  horse  carrying  or  bringing 
back  any  cloth,  drugget,  serge  or  other  woollen  manufacture, 

the  load  in  the  same  way  was  prohibited  by  13  George  III.  c.  84,  sec.  10 
(General  Turnpike  Act,  1773).  "Returning  by  way  of  frolic,"  relates  Sir 
Nathaniel  Wraxall,  "  very  late  at  night,  on  horseback,  to  Wimbledon  from 
Addiscombe,  the  seat  of  Mr.  Jenkinson,  near  Croydon,  where  the  party  had 
dined.  Lord  Thurlow  the  Chancellor,  Pitt  and  Dundas  found  the  turnpike  gate 
situate  between  Tooting  and  Streatham  thrown  open.  Being  elevated  above 
their  usual  prudence,  and  having  no  servant  near  them,  they  passed  through 
the  gate  at  a  brisk  pace,  without  stopping  to  pay  the  toll,  regardless  of  the 
remonstrances  and  threats  of  the  turnpike  man,  who  running  after  them  dis- 
charged the  contents  of  his  blunderbuss  at  their  backs.  Happily  he  did  no 
injury." 

1  The  exemption  found  most  serious  to  the  Turnpike  Trustees  seems  to 
have  been  that  in  favour  of  maiiure  carts,  perhaps  because  of  the  fact  that, 
with  the  increasing  use  of  town  manure  (which  Arthur  Young  found  still  un- 
usual in  most  parts  of  England),  this  exemption  became  greatly  stretched. 
"  It  would  undoubtedly  be  a  real  hardship  on  a  farmer,"  said  Scott  already 
in  1778,  "  to  pay  toll  for  bringing  dung  a  few  poles'  length  from  his  own  yard 
to  his  own  fields  .  .  .  but  the  matter  is  quite  dissimilar  when  old  rags,  chalk, 
lime,  bones,  etc.,  are  carried,  in  heavy  loads,  ten,  twelve  and  perhaps  twenty 
miles,  and  at  once  reap  the  benefit  of  the  road  and  contribute  to  damage  it  " 
{Dirjcsts  of  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778,  p.  276). 
It  was  just  these  "  narrow  wheeled  waggons  carrying  muck  from  Norwich  " 
that  were  complained  of  in  1808  as  perpetually  cutting  up  that  turnpike  road. 
"  The  damage  which  this  never-ceasing  wear  and  tear  does  to  the  road,"  it 
was  said,  "  is  much  greater  than  arises  from  all  the  other  traffic  upon  it  put 
together  "  {Second  Rej^rt  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Highways,  1808). 
Attempts  were  made  to  get  also  exempted  carts  and  waggons  going  empty 
to  town  in  order  to  bring  back  manure  ;  see  the  report  of  the  meeting  of 
"  gentlemen,  farmers,  gardeners,  and  landowners  "  held  in  London,  Morning 
Advertizer,  4th  April  1810.  This  was  conceded  by  Parliament  under  com- 
plicated restrictions.  The  toll  was  to  be  paid,  and  a  special  "  manure  ticket  " 
given  in  exchange,  on  production  of  which  on  the  return  journey  with  manure, 
the  money  was  to  be  repaid  by  the  toll-collector  (52  George  III.  c.  145,  53 
George  III.  c.  82). 


192  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

to  or  from  any  fulling  mill,"  should  be  free  from  toll.^  The 
conveyance  of  coal  was  specially  favoured  in  some  districts, 
and  that  of  "  peat,  peat  ashes,  or  turf  "  in  others.  A  particular 
town  would  insist  on  the  exemption  of  "  carriages  carrying  hay 
or  straw  to  be  used  within  the  said  borough."  More  general 
was  the  exemption — specially  useful  because  most  tolls  were 
doubled  on  Sundays — of  local  residents  riding  or  driving  to  and 
from  church,  or  attending  a  funeral.^  Most  Acts  forbade  the 
taking  of  toll  on  the  days  of  Parliamentary  elections  in  the 
district,  the  borough  and  county  elections  being  sometimes 
both  particularly  specified.  Post-horses  carrying  mails,  waggons 
transporting  the  baggage  of  soldiers  on  the  march,  and  carts 
used  for  the  passing  of  vagrants  were  almost  universally 
exempted.^    What  was,  however,  more  invidious  was  the  special 

1  Special  exemptiona  in  the  interests  of  particular  trades  included  the 
following  :  (a)  flour-milling  :  exempted  from  toll  were  "  all  persons  who  shall 
carry  any  grist  to  be  ground  for  their  own  private  use,  and  all  horses  (called 
tlio  load  horses)  employed  by  any  miller  to  carry  grist  belcjnging  to  any  private 
family  to  or  from  the  mill,"  as  well  as  "  horses  and  carriages  "  used  to  carry 
materials  for  "  building  and  repairing  mills,"  17  George  II.  c.  13  (Evesham 
Turnpike  Act,  1743)  ;  (6)  cloth  making  :  20  George  II.  c.  6  (Reading  and  Punt- 
field  Turnpike  Act,  1746);  (c)  coal-carrying:  24  George  II.  c.  II  (Lancaster 
and  Richmond  Turnpike  Act,  1750)  ;  (d)  peat-carrying  :  20  George  II.  c.  G, 
1746  ;  (c)  hay  and  straw  carrying  :  17  George  II.  c.  13  (Evesham  Turnpike 
Act,  1743). 

^  The  invariable  provision  as  to  doubled  tolls  on  Sundays  did  not  satisfy 
the  Sabbatarians,  and  it  was  frequently  urged  that  there  should  be  "  a  great 
additional  toll  at  each  turnpike  gate,"  on  carriages  passmg  througli  on  Sunday; 
see  for  such  a  recommendation  in  1800,  Anecdotes  of  the  Life  of  Ricluird  Watson, 
BisJwp  of  Llandaff,  by  his  son,  Richard  Watson,  1817,  p.  342. 

"  As  to  exemption  on  election  daj's,  see,  for  instance,  24  George  II.  c.  29 
(Ludlow  Turnpike  x\ct,  1750).  We  append  a  specimcn'excmption  clause  :  "  No 
toll  shall  be  taken  for  any  person  .  .  .  carrying  any  quantity  of  materials  for 
repairing  tlie  said  road  ;  or  for  carrying  dung,  mould,  soil  or  compost  of  any 
kijid  for  manuring  lands  or  gardens  ;  nor  for  carrying  hay  or  com  in  the  straw 
being  the  product  of  .  .  .  the  said  townships  ...  to  be  laid  up  in  the  houses, 
etc.,  of  the  .  .  .  inhabitants  .  .  .  nor  shall  toll  be  taken  for  any  ploughs  or 
other  instruments  of  husbandry  .  .  .  nor  for  any  person  rc^siding  in  the  town- 
ships .  .  .  passing  ...  to  and  from  church  ...  or  who  shall  attend  the 
funeral  of  any  persons  who  sliall  die  or  be  buried  in  cither  of  the  said  townships  ; 
or  for  post-horses  carrying  the  mail  or  packet ;  or  for  any  cattle  going  to  or 
from  water  or  pasture  ;  nor  for  tlie  horses  of  soldiers  on  tlic  march  or  carriages 
attending  them  ;  or  for  horses,  carts  or  waggons  travelhng  with  vagrants  sent 
by  legal  passes  "  (24  George  II.  c.  13,  Stretford  and  Hulme  Turnpike  Act, 
1750).  As  regards  soldiers,  "  in  early  Turnpike  Acts,  as  for  instance  local 
statutes  passed  in  Charles  II.'s  and  later  ix;igns,  the  army  upon  its  march 
was  exempted  from  the  tolls  tliereby  imposed.  In  1778  the  General  Turnpike 
Act  (18  George  III.  c.  03)  contained  tlie  first  general  excejjtion  in  favour  of 
the  Army,  wiiich  in  the  year  1799  was  inserted  in  the  JIutiny  Act  "  {Military 
Forces  of  the  Crown,  by  C.  M.  Clode,  1869,  vol.  i.  p.  214).     The  exemption  in 


I 


"  COMPOUNDERS  "  193 

privilege  of  exemption  which  inJ&uential  inhabitants  were  some- 
times able  to  secure,  for  themselves,  their  famiUes,  their  work- 
men, their  servants,  and  their  agents,  and  for  those  of  all  successive 
owners  and  occupiers  of  their  premises,  as  the  price  of  abstaining 
from  ParHamentary  opposition.  ^  These  specific  Parliamentary 
exemptions  by  no  means  exhausted  the  Hst  of  favours.  The 
Trustees  were  authorised,  both  by  general  statutes  and  by  their 
own  Local  Act,  to  compound  for  the  tolls  ;  and  this  power  was 
very  generally  exercised,  not  only  in  the  case  of  regular  and 
frequent  users  of  the  road,  but  also  in  favour  of  the  inhabitants 
of  particular  parishes,  and  even  of  individual  Trustees  them- 
selves. In  the  records  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Trust,  as  we 
have  already  mentioned,  we  find,  between  1769  and  1789,  from 
a  score  to  fifty  compounders,  paying  from  5s.  3d.  to  21s.  each  a 
year,  for  exemption  from  all  tolls  on  themselves,  their  horses, 
their  carriages,  their  famihes  and  their  servants.  But  the 
exemptions  and  compositions  accounted  only  for  a  small  part  of 
the  Trustees'  loss  of  revenue.  The  men  whom  they  appointed 
as  toll-collectors — turnpike  gate-keepers,  or  "  pikemen,"  as  they 
were  called — were  mere  labourers,  paid  a  wage  of  ten  or  twelve 
shilhngs  a  week,  often  unable  to  read  or  write,  and  usually 
incapable  of  keeping  accounts.  It  was  found  necessary  in  1763 
elaborately  to  forbid  them  to  absent  themselves  from  their 
posts  during  their  periods  of  duty,  and  to  require  them  to  remain 
until  they  were  actually  reheved.^     The  varying  rates  of  charge, 

favour  of  the  Post  Office  had  a  similar  history.  Practically  all  Turnpike  Acts 
contained  clauses  exempting  the  mails,  but  some  mentioned  only  post-horses, 
others  also  carriages  carrying  mails.  A  General  Act  of  1785  made  the  broader 
exemption  universal  (25  George  III.  c.  57). 

^  In  lieu  of  erecting  a  new  turnpike  gate  at  a  certain  point,  the  Trustees 
of  the  Lincoln  and  Peterborough  Road  were  authorised  to  agree  with  the 
inhabitants  of  fifteen  specified  parishes  for  an  annual  payment  of  not  more 
than  £40  each,  in  lieu  of  toll ;  so  long  as  this  sum  is  paid,  the  gate  is  not  to 
be  erected  (39  &  40  George  III.  c.  70,  Lincoln  and  Peterborough  Turnpike 
Act,  1800). 

In  1764  the  "  compositions  "  received  by  the  Kensington  Turnpike  Trust 
amounted  to  £326,  or  8  per  cent  of  the  total  receipts  from  toll ;  and  those  of 
the  Mary le bone  Turnpike  Trust  to  £308,  or  13  per  cent  (Report  of  House  of 
Commons  Committee  to  enquire  into  the  application  of  money,  etc.,  1765). 

For  the  Epping  and  Ongar  case,  see  Minutes  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  High- 
way Trust,  1760-1870,  by  Benjamin  Winstone,  1891,  pp.  103-104,  137-138,  154. 

2  For  the  prohibition  of  "  pikemen  "  to  leave  their  posts,  see  Report  of 
House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  management  and  ai^plication  of  money 
collected  during  the  last  eleven  years  for  repairing  any  particular  highway  ; 
House  of  Commons  Journals,  19th  April  1763,  vol.  xxix.  p.  646. 

0 


194  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

the  exemptions  and  compositions,  the  validity  of  tickets  for 
return  journeys  or  other  gates,  and  many  other  comphcations  of 
the  toll  made  it  impossible  to  devise  any  effective  check  on  their 
receipts.  It  was  notorious  that  they  habitually  kept  back  part 
of  each  day's  collection  for  themselves.  Kence,  from  the  very 
first,  many  Trusts  resorted  to  the  plan  of  "  farming,"  leasing  each 
gate  with  its  power  of  exacting  toll  for  a  definite  sum  per  annum.^ 
At  first  the  gates  were  let  by  private  contract  by  the  personal 
negotiations  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  or  Turnpike  Trustees 
themselves,  to  any  one  who  would  make  himself  responsible  for 
a  lump  sum, — sometimes  to  a  publican,  a  little  tradesman,  or 
even  a  labourer.  Presently  it  became  customary,  and  Parliament 
made  it  compulsory,  to  resort,  for  the  letting  of  the  tolls,  to 
pubUc  auction  and  to  accept  the  highest  bidder  as  lessee.  As  the 
mileage  of  turnpike  roads  increased,  there  grew  up  a  whole  class 
of  professional  toll-farmers,  often  men  of  large  capital,  farming 
tolls  amounting  to  many  tens  of  thousands  a  year,  and  employing 
under  them  small  armies  of  professional  "  pikemen."  Old  prints 
and  descriptions  enable  us  to  visuahse  these  men,  whom  Dickens 
loved  to  describe,  and  who  have  long  since  disappeared  from 
among  us.  "  A  pikeman  .  .  .  wore  a  tall  black  glazed  hat  and 
corderoy  breeches,  with  white  stockings.  But  the  most  distinc- 
tive part  of  his  costume  was  his  white  linen  apron."  ^  Both 
masters  and  men  quickly  became  notorious  for  every  kind  of 
sharp  practice,  ilUcit  collusion  and  embezzlement.  At  the 
periodical  auctions  at  which  the  tolls  were  let.  Parliament  had 

^  In  1709,  the  turnpike  on  the  "  Mountnessing  road  .  .  .  mth  its  profits 
and  tolls  "  was  let  by  the  Essex  justices  to  a  man  for  £400  per  annum  ;  and 
in  1710  the  lease  was  renev.cd  to  the  same  tenant  at  the  same  rent  for  three 
years  (MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Essex,  12th  July  1709,  11th  July  1710). 

"  Ordered  .  .  .  that  it  be  referrctl  to  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  of  Chelms- 
ford Division  or  to  any  two  of  them  at  their  Petty  Sessions  ...  to  treat  with 
the  present  tenants  of  the  j)rofits  of  the  Turnpike  arising  at  Mountnessing  or 
with  any  other  person  for  the  letting  the  same  for  a  term  of  years,  and  that 
they  endeavour  to  procure  the  best  rent  and  tenants  that  can  be  got  for  the 
same,  and  do  make  report  thereof  at  the  next  General  Quarter  Sessions  "  (ibid. 
7th  October  1718). 

The  West  Kent  Justices  in  Quarter  Sessions  let  the  "  profits  and  tolls  "  of 
the  turnpike  at  Chalk  in  1747  to  tlie  local  alehousckeeper  for  £260  a  year, 
and  in  1750  to  "  James  Pearson  of  Chalk,  Labourer,"  for  £300  for  a  year 
{ibid.  West  Kent,  6th  June  1747,  and  11th  January  1750).  In  1773  alehouse- 
keepers  were  prohibited  from  being  either  Turnpike  Trustees,  or  8urve5'ors  or 
toll-collectors  ;  but  they  might  become  toll-farmers,  if  they  employed  others 
as  collectors  (13  George  III.  c.  84,  sec.  40,  General  Turnpike  Act,  1773). 

*  The.  Exeter  Road,  by  C.  G.  Harper,  1899,  p.  4. 


I 


TOLL  AUCTIONS  195 

been  careful,  in  1773/  to  specify  with  minuteness  that  elaborate 
pubhc  notice  was  to  be  given,  that  the  highest  bidder  was  to  be 
accepted,  and  that  "  to  prevent  fraud  or  undue  preference  in 
letting  the  said  tolls,  the  Trustees  must  provide  a  glass,  with  so 
much  sand  in  it  as  will  run  from  one  end  to  the  other  in  one 
minute  ;  which  glass,  at  the  time  of  letting  the  tolls,  must  be 
set  upon  a  table  and  immediately  after  every  bidding  the  glass 
must  be  turned,  and  as  soon  as  the  sand  is  run  out,  it  must  be 
turned  again,  and  so  for  three  times  unless  some  other  bidding 
intervene."  Sometimes  the  Trustees  would  announce  a  definite 
reserve  price  as  the  lowest  that  they  would  accept.  But  what 
probably  neither  ParHament  nor  the  Trustees  contemplated,  and 
what  they  certainly  did  not  succeed  in  preventing,  was  the  series 
of  elaborate  combinations  and  private  "  knock-outs  "  among  the 
toll-farmers,  which  often  prevented  the  full  value  of  the  tolls 
being  obtained.^     "  The  tolls,"  it  was  said  in  1809,  "  are  annually 

1  The  statutory  requirement  of  a  minute-glass  at  toll  auctions  is  in  13 
George  III.  c.  84,  sec.  31.  For  specimen  advertisements  of  such  lettings,  see 
that  of  the  Trustees  of  tlie  Shrewsbury  roads,  Shrewsbury  Chronicle,  20tli  Feb- 
ruary 1773  ;  that  of  the  Trustees  of  the  Whetstone  Turnpike,  Morning  Ad- 
vertizer,  25th  January  1806  ;  the  Trustees  of  the  Marylebone  Turnpike,  for 
two  newly-erected  "  weighing  engines  or  bridges,"  ibid.  19th  May  1806  ;  the 
Trustees  of  the  Old  Street  Road  Turnpike,  ibid.  22nd  March  1810  ;  the  Trustees 
of  the  Surrey  New  Roads,  and  those  of  the  Old  District  of  Brentford  (including 
weighing  engine),  ibid.  13th  February  1818.  The  toll  auctions  were  frequently 
made  scenes  of  convivial  festivity,  in  order  to  attract  possible  bidders.  In 
one  case,  in  1814,  £10  was  granted  for  a  dinner  to  those  who  attended  the 
auction  {Minutes  of  the  Ep'ping  and  Ongar  Highway  Trust,  1769-1870,  by 
Benjamin  Winstone,  1891,  p.  172).  A  graphic  description  of  a  lettmg  of  tolls 
in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  given  in  Records  of  Old  Times, 
by  J.  K.  Fowler,  1898,  chap,  ii.,  which  is  largely  reproduced  in  The  Development 
of  Transportation  in  England,  by  W.  T.  Jackman,  1916,  vol.  i.  App.  4,  pp.  681- 
683,  where  other  particulars  are  given.  The  sums  involved  were  sometimes 
very  large.  One  gate  on  the  Brighton  road  was  said  to  take  £2400  a  year  in 
tolls.  Tongue,  of  Manchester,  was  said  to  be  responsible  for  the  collection  of 
over  £50,000  a  year  in  tolls  (Records  of  Old  Times,  by  J.  K.  Fowler,  1898,  p.  20). 
But  the  Napoleon  of  toll-farmers  was  Levy,  who  was  reported  to  have  con- 
tracted at  one  time  for  as  much  as  half  a  million  a  year,  being  a  third  of  the 
aggregate  toll  revenue  of  the  Kingdom  ;  as  well  as  for  £300,000  a  year  post- 
horse  duty  {Highways  and  Horses,  by  Athol  Maudslay,  18S8,  pp.  84-85  ;  Old 
Coaching  Daijs,  by  Stanley  Harris,  1882,  p.  188).  The  tolls  of  the  Whetstone 
Turnpike  Trust,  for  8  miles  in  Middlesex  of  the  London  and  Holyhead  road, 
were  let  by  auction  in  1831  for  no  less  than  £7530  per  annum  {Middlesex  and 
Hertfordshire  Notes  and  Queries,  vol.  iv.  jip.  91-94).  At  this  time  there  were 
daily  on  the  road  to  Barnet  "18  mails  and  176  other  coaches,  besides  road 
waggons,  postchaises  and  other  vehicles "  {The  Holyhead  Road,  by  C.  G. 
Harper,  1902,  vol.  i.  p.  27). 

2  It  was  definitely  said  in  1833,  upon  evidence  given  by  the  Macadams, 
father  and  son,  and  others,  that  "  combinations  have  been  .  .  .  successfully 


196  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

farmed  or  let  to  individuals  by  auction,  according  to  the  last 
year's  produce.  This  the  farmers  keep  as  secret  as  possible,  and 
the  amount  can  only  be  inferred  from  the  increase  of  the  terms 
he  proffers  for  the  ensuing  year.  It  is  then  his  interest  to  make 
the  tolls  as  productive  as  possible  ;  but  the  gate-keepers  he  must 
employ  are  more  exposed  to  temptation,  and  over  them  exists 
less  control,  than  perhaps  occurs  in  any  other  condition  of  men 
in  society.  The  only  check  their  masters  have  upon  them  is  by 
reserving,  upon  detached  days  in  the  year,  the  tolls  themselves, 
and  averaging  by  the  produce  the  annual  receipts,  by  changing 
their  stations  almost  daily,  and  by  arbitrarily  discharging  them 
if  their  returns  do  not  reach  the  estimated  amount.  This  be- 
comes equally  well-known  to  the  gatekeeper,  and  he  withholds 
all  beyond  that  amount.  Instead  of  preventing,  by  information, 
the  violations  of  the  laws  limiting  the  number  of  passengers, 
they  are  paid  by  the  coachman  to  connive  at  the  abuse  ;  and 
the  nature  of  their  office  renders  them  ready  and  constant 
channels  for  the  circulation  of  base  coin."  ^ 

To  the  student  of  public  administration,  it  is  interesting  to 
see  how  the  imperfection  of  the  financial  machinery  destroyed 
the  whole  efficacy  of  many  of  tlie  Parliamentary  devices  for 
preserving  the  roads.  When  the  simple  prohibition  of  narrow 
wheels,  heavy  loads  and  excessive  teams  had  been  proved  to  be 

organized  to  defeat  the  provisions  of  the  said  Act  .  .  .  with  regard  to  the 
letting  of  tolls  "  (Second  Report  of  House  of  Lords  Committee  on  Turnpike 
Trusts,  1833).  A  graphic  account  of  them,  and  of  the  so-called  "  Wliispcring 
Gallery  "  of  conspirators,  is  given  in  Records  of  Old  Times,  by  J.  K.  Fowler, 
1893,  pp.  18-20.  One  such  combination  or  "  knock-out  "  we  see  in  the  case 
of  the  letting  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Turnpike  tolls  in  1801,  when  the  two 
pretended  rivals  in  the  auction-room  afterwards  come  forward  jointly  to  take 
up  the  contract  which  had  been  knocked  down  to  one  of  them  for  £1055.  The 
Trustees  "  suspected  that  there  had  been  underhand  proceedings  .  .  .  collusion 
between  those  bidding  for  the  tolls."  This  was  eventually  admitted  by  the 
parties,  who  agreed  to  an  increase  m  the  price  to  £1201,  at  which  a  lease  was 
granted  to  them  {Minutes  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Hig/nvay  Trust,  1769-1S70, 
by  Benjamin  Winstone,  1891,  pp.  162-164).  See  also  Road  Reform,  by  William 
Pagan,  1845,  and  our  Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  1913. 

^  The  quotation  as  to  fraud  by  pikemen  is  from  a  letter  of  C.  M.  Ward  to 
Sir  John  Sinclair ;  see  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Broad 
Wheels  and  Turnpike  Roads,  1809,  Ap])endix  A.  There  are  frequent  complaints 
as  to  the  arbitrary  exactions  of  the  "  j)ikemen  "  from  inexperienced  or  timid 
travellers  ;  see  letter  to  Times,  18th  June  1824.  The  lessee  of  the  Epping  and 
Ongar  tolls  in  1816  was  found  persistently  "  taking  more  tolls  on  coaches, 
postchaises,  etc.,  than  he  was  entitled  to."  Criminal  proceedings  against  him 
were  begun,  but  subseqiiently  comjjromised  (Minutes  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar 
Ilighivay  Trust,  1709-1S70,  by  Benjamin  ^Vin3tone,  1891,  pp.  173-174). 


I 


THE  WIDTH  OF  WHEELS  197 

ineffective,^  the  country  gentlemen  who  drafted  the  various 
highway  and  turnpike  statutes  fondly  thought  to  achieve  their 
end  by  imposing  extra  rates  of  toll  for  every  narrow-wheeled 
vehicle  however  loaded,  and  for  every  hundredweight  of  loading 
on  any  vehicle,  over  and  above  a  legally  specified  amount, 
varying  according  to  a  complicated  scale  depending  on  the  kind 
of  vehicle,  the  breadth  of  its  wheels,  the  distance  between  them, 
and  even  the  season  of  the  year.     For  this  purpose  Turnpike 

^  We  cannot  here  enter  upon  the  elaborate  contrivances  for  regulating  the 
shape,  size  and  arrangement  of  wheels,  so  as  to  injure  a  soft  road  as  little 
as  possible,  which  lasted  for  more  than  half  a  century.  See  A  Treatise  upon 
Wheel  Carriages,  by  Daniel  Bourn,  1763  ;  Observations  on  the  Structure  and 
Draught  of  Wheel  Carriages,  an  Inquiry  into  the  Means  of  Preserving  and 
Improving  the  Public  Roads,  by  J.  Jacob,  1773  ;  Some  Brief  Remarks  upon 
Mr.  Jacob's  Treatise  on  Wheel  Carriages,  by  Daniel  Bourn,  1773  ;  Reynarks  on 
the  Comparative  Advantages  of  Wheel  Carriages  of  Different  Structure  and 
Draught,  by  Robert  Anstice,  1790  ;  Observations  on  the  Effects  which  Carriage 
Wheels  with  rims  of  different  shapes  have  on  the  Roads,  by  Alexander  Gumming, 
1797  ;  A  Supplement  to  the  Observations  on  the  contrary  effects  of  Cylindrical 
and  Conical  Carriage  Wheels,  by  the  same,  1809  ;  A  Treatise  on  Wheels  and 
Springs  for  Carriages,  by  Davies  Gilbert,  M.P.,  F.R.S.  ;  An  Essay  on  the  Con- 
struction of  Roads  and  Carriages,  by  R.  L.  Edgeworth,  1817  ;  Cursory  Remarks 
on  Wheeled  Carriages,  by  John  Cook  ;  and  An  Essay  on  the  Construction  of 
Wheel  Carriages  as  they  affect  both  the  roads  and  the  horses,  by  Joseph  Storrs 
Fry,  1820.  The  subject  engaged  most  of  the  attention  of  the  House  of  Commons 
Committee  on  the  Preservation  of  Roads,  etc.,  which  published  nine  reports 
between  1806  and  1811.  For  the  whole  subject  see  our  Story  of  the  King's 
Highway,  1913. 

One  inventor  went  so  far  as  to  supersede  wheels  altogether,  replacing  them 
by  two  or  four  broad  iron  rollers,  which  it  was  supposed  would  level  the  ruts, 
clear  away  the  mud  and  cement  the  gravel.  See  A  Treatise  upon  Wheel 
Carriages,  1763,  and  Some  Brief  Remarks  upon  Mr.  Jacob's  Treatise  on  Wheel 
Carriages,  1773,  both  by  Daniel  Bourn  ;  and  Digests  of  the  General  Highway 
and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778,  jjp.  269-270. 

Apart  from  the  difficulty  of  getting  the  law  enforced,  the  provisions  as  to 
width  of  wheels  were  largely  nullified  by  the  exception  always  made  in  favour 
of  carts  used  in  and  about  husbandry  and  manuring  of  land  (see,  for  instance, 
5  George  I.  c.  6,  1718),  and  by  the  use  of  "  dishing  "  or  "  conical  "  wheels, 
with  "  tapering  rims,"  by  which  the  "  tread  "  was  reduced.  "  We  have  lately 
seen,"  writes  a  practical  critic  in  1773,  "  the  broad  wheels  of  waggons  which, 
by  Act  of  Parliament,  should  press  a  surface  of  nine  inches,  in  reality  bear 
only  on  one  of  about  three  ;  some  of  them  by  means  of  bevelling  the  edges 
and  raising  the  middle  of  the  periphery  ;  and  others  by  bevelling  the  whole 
periphery  and  having  the  inner  edge  considerably  higher  than  the  other  " 
{Observations  on  the  Structure  and  Draught  of  Wheel  Carriages,  by  J.  Jacob, 
1773,  p.  89).  It  may  be  said,  in  excuse  of  these  regulations,  that  the  heavy 
waggons  were  demonstrably  so  destroying  the  soft  roads  of  the  time  as  to 
cause  the  cost  of  their  repair  to  become  an  intolerable  burden.  Certain 
Warwickshire  roads  in  1765  were  actually  costing  £84,  and  even  £121,  per  mile 
per  annum  {Inquiry  into  the  Means  of  Preserving  and  Improving  the  Public 
Roads,  by  Henry  Homer,  1765,  p.  78)  ;  or  more  than  double  the  average  cost 
of  the  far  superior  turnpike  roads  of  1815. 


198  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

Trustees  were,  from  1741  onwards,  authorised,  and  might  by 
Quarter  Sessions  be  required,  to  erect  "  a  crane,  machine  or 
weighing  engine  "  to  weigh  the  loads — not  the  convenient  modern 
weighbridge,  which  had  not  then  been  invented,  but  a  huge  and 
comphcated  structure,  rising  high  over  the  road,  and  actually 
lifting  the  vehicle  and  its  contents  from  the  ground.^  One  such 
machine  may  still  be  seen  in  situ  at  Woodbridge,  Suffolk,  and  a 
weird  and  incomprehensible  structure  it  is.  Its  erection  was 
costly,  and  the  expense  of  keeping  men  to  work  it  was  still 
greater.  It  was  never  very  accurate,  and  was  always  getting 
out  of  order.  "  It  is  a  very  common  case,"  it  was  said  in  1796, 
"  that  a  load  will  pass  at  one  engine,  when  the  same  load  at 
another  will  be  subject  to  an  increased  toll."  It  was,  moreover, 
hugely  inconvenient  to  the  users  of  the  road,  especially  as  it 
was  practically  impossible  to  be  always  sure  that  a  load  was 
under  a  given  weight.  There  was  thus  every  inducement  to 
evasion  and  neglect ;  and  the  Trusts  soon  found  that,  apart 
from  the  ordinary  charges,  the  weighing  machine  did  not  yield 
enough  in  extra  tolls  to  pay  for  the  necessary  attendance  and 
upkeep.  On  the  other  hand,  the  toll-farmer  was  willing  to  give 
a  considerable  additional  price  for  the  tolls  if  he  was  permitted 
to  rent  also  the  weighing  machine.  The  Trustees,  in  fact,  were 
in  a  dilemma.^    "If,"  it  was  acutely  pointed  out  to  a  House 

^  The  provision  as  to  a  weighing  machine  is  in  14  George  II.  c.  42  (1740)  ; 
the  power  was  often  specifically  repeated  in  Turnpike  Acts  ;  see,  for  instance, 
20  George  II.  c.  7,  Essex  Turnpike  Act,  1746  ;  it  was  afterwards  embodied  in 
the  General  Turnpike  Acts,  7  George  III.  c.  40,  sec.  1,  and  13  George  III.  c.  84, 
sec.  1.  For  the  uncertainty  of  such  weighings,  sec  Report  of  House  of  Commons 
Committee  on  the  General  Turnpike  Acts,  1796,  p.  749.  "  The  persons  con- 
cerned in  the  trade  of  market  gardeners  never  are  able  to  know  the  weight  of 
their  articles,  for  sometimes  it  happens  from  a  shower  of  rain  a  loading  of 
2  tons  5  cwt.  will  be  increased  three  or  four  hundredweights." 

^  As  to  the  dilemmas  presented  by  the  weighing  machine,  see  The  Case 
and  Reasons  for  DisuMng  Weighing  Machines  on  the  Turnpike  Roads,  1774  ; 
Observations  on  Stage-Waggons,  Stage-Coaches,  Turnpike  Roads,  Tollbars,  Weigh 
ing  Machines,  etc.,  by  William  Deacon,  1807  ;  and  the  letters  from  C.  M.  Ward 
and  F.  Dickins  to  Sir  John  Sinclair,  in  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Com- 
mittee on  Broad  Wheels  and  Turnpike  Roads,  1809,  Appendix  A.  The  Clerk 
to  the  Trustees  of  the  Stamford  Hill  roads  said  that  ho  was  satisfied  that  the 
lessees  of  the  weighing  machines  suffered  "  carriages  to  pass  through  ujxin  a 
certain  weekly  sum  without  weighing  them,"  though  he  could  not  prove  it. 
This  led  to  the  recommendation  :  "  that  ...  as  weighing  engines  are  intended  to 
prevent  excessive  weights,  and  not  to  increase  the  revenue  of  the  turnpikes,  the 
trustees  of  roads  should  be  restrained  from  leasing  or  otherwise  letting  the  same  " 
(Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  General  Turnpike  Acta,  1796). 

It  was  perhaps  in  consequence  of  this  dilemma  that  those  costly  wcighmg 


it 


THE  WEIGHING  MACHINE  199 

of  Commons  Committee  in  1808,  "  the  engine  continues  in  the 
hands  of  the  Trust,  its  purpose  is  completely  defeated  by  the 
corrupt  connivance  of  the  keeper  employed  ;  not  only  may  he 
allow  overweight  to  pass  for  a  small  reward,  but  he  may  share 
profits  with  the  driver  carrying  extra  weight  unknown  to  his 
employer,  and  thus  both  the  Trust  and  the  master  carrier  will 
be  defrauded.  If  the  weighing  machine  is  let  by  the  year  for 
a  certain  sum,  nearly  equal  to  its  supposed  receipts,  to  an  indi- 
vidual whose  own  interest  will  keep  him  vigilant,  that  very 
interest  will  lead  him  to  compound  with  the  carriers  of  over- 
weight ;  indeed  composition  is  the  only  way  by  which  he  can 
repay  himself  for  the  rent  of  the  engine.  Were  he  to  be  rigid  in 
the  exaction  of  every  penalty  he  would  put  a  stop  to  overweights 
and  to  his  own  profits  together.  If,  in  a  word,  the  weighing 
engine  constituted  an  effectual  check  to  overweighted  carriages, 
the  penalties  exacted  would  amount  to  a  very  trifling  sum. 

engines  were  sometimes  left,  lilte  one  at  Hammersmith  in  1800,  "  for  many 
years  disused  and  suffered  to  fall  into  decay  "  {Report  of  a  Committee  of  the 
Hammersmith  and  Brentford  Turnpike,  1800,  p.  7).  Already  in  1796  the 
Trustees  of  the  Surrey  Turnpike  had  removed  their  engine  seven  or  eight 
years  before  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  General  Turn- 
pike Acts,  1796).  A  Committee  in  1833  recommended  the  total  "  abolition  of 
the  use  of  weighing  engines  "  (Second  Report  of  House  of  Lords  Committee 
on  Tumpilve  Trusts,  1833). 

Among  other  heavy  vehicles  objected  to  came,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
century,  the  heavily  laden  stage  coaches,  which  were  exempt  from  subjection 
to  the  weighing  engines.  An  Act  of  1788  restricted  them  to  six  outside 
passengers,  in  addition  to  two  on  the  box  by  the  driver  (28  George  III.  c.  57). 
A  more  stringent  measure  in  1790,  known  as  "  Gammon's  Act,"  attempted  to 
reduce  this  to  four  and  one  respectively,  or  fewer  if  under  three  horses,  and 
did  its  best  to  prevent  drivers  allowing  more  by  imposing  a  toll  of  five  shillings 
on  every  passenger  in  excess  (30  George  III.  c.  36).  But,  as  ^vith  the  excess 
tolls  for  overweight,  it  was  soon  found  that  the  pilcemen  "  notoriously  com- 
pound with  the  drivers  of  coaches,"  and  the  practice  continued  unabated 
{Report  of  Committee  of  Hammersmith  and  Brentford  Turnpikes,  1800,  pp.  18, 
33).  "  Mr.  Gammon's  Act,"  it  was  pointed  out  in  1794,  "  is  now  openly  set 
at  defiance,  and  sometimes  20  persons  are  to  be  found  at  the  outside  of  a  stage 
coach  on  the  roof  which  by  law  is  limited  to  six  "  {Times,  19th  April  1794). 
"  The  salutary  regulations  provided  by  these  Acts,"  reported  a  Committee  of 
1806,  "  have  been  by  a  variety  of  contrivances  most  grossly  evaded,  insomuch 
that  instead  of  6  (the  number  limited  by  the  original  Act)  20  passengers  and 
more  are  often  carried  on  the  outside  of  stage  coaches  "  with  results  not  only 
"  extremely  destructive  "  to  the  roads,  but  also  dangerous,  as  "  scarce  a  week 
passes  without  some  of  these  carriages  breaking  down  "  (First  Report  from 
House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Broad  Wheels  and  Turnpike  Roads,  1806). 
A  further  Act  was  then  passed,  facilitating  the  enforcement  of  the  precedmg 
ones  (46  George  III.  c.  136).  See  The  Danger  of  Travelling  on  Stage  Coaches 
and  a  Remedy  Proposed,  by  Rev.  W.  Milton,  1810,  and  Brief  Considerations  on 
the  Present  State  of  the  Police  of  the  Metropolis,  by  L.  B.  Allen,  1821. 


200  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

But  they  are  let  or  farmed  out  for  considerable  sums,  which 
completely  proves  that,  instead  of  operating  as  a  prevention, 
they  only  become  an  additional  toll  for  extra  load."  Assuming 
that,  on  the  soft  surface  of  the  period,  it  was  desirable  to  dis- 
courage the  conveyance  of  heavy  weights,  especially  on  narrow 
wheels  in  winter,  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion,  drawn 
by  an  able  critic,  in  1808,  that,  as  actually  worked,  the  whole 
system  of  extra  tolls  and  weighing  machines  was  "  injurious  to 
the  roads  instead  of  tending  to  their  preservation,  because  being 
rented,  the  renters  compound  with  the  owners  of  waggons  to 
receive  double  tolls  going  and  returning,  on  permission  to  carry 
any  weight.  The  immense  rents  given  for  weighing  machines 
could  not  be  raised  by  any  other  means." 

The  most  serious  of  all  the  financial  defects  of  the  Turnpike 
Trusts  was,  however,  the  deficit  into  which  many  of  the  bodies 
of  Trustees  fell.  The  new  revenue  of  tolls  seemed,  at  first,  to 
promise  inexhaustible  annual  resources,  which  Parhament 
allowed  to  be  mortgaged  without  check  or  limit.  Already  by 
1773,  the  effect  of  reckless  finance  had  made  itself  apparent  in 
many  Trusts.  "  At  the  first  erection  of  turnpikes,"  wrote 
Thomas  Butter  worth  Bayley,  "  the  people  imagine  the  roads 
are  to  be  made  and  kept  in  repair  by  the  very  charm  of  the  word 
turnpike,  and  not  being  obhged  to  continue  their  statute  work 
with  so  much  attention  as  formerly,  depend  entirely  on  the  tolls, 
and  fall  into  a  state  of  neghgence  and  indifference  till  at  length 
the  first  materials  are  worn  out,  and  then  the  tolls  being  mort- 
gaged to  the  height,  the  whole  burden  of  renewing  and  supporting 
the  roads  again  is  laid  upon  them  with  the  additional  tax  of  the 
tolls."  1     By  the  end  of  the  century  the  mortgaging  of  tolls  had 

1  Observations  on  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Acts,  by  Thomas 
Buttcrworth  Bayley,  1773,  p.  52.  "  Cases  may  be  found,"  said  the  House 
of  Commons  Committee,  "  where  persons  taking  tiie  management  are  rather 
disposed  to  maintain  establishments  beneficial  to  themselves,  than  to  relieve 
.  .  .  the  public  burdens  "  (Second  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee 
on  Highways,  1808).  "  There  is  not  a  gentleman  in  the  Kingdom,"  writes 
one  who  was  himself  a  squire,  "  who  cannot  bear  testimony  to  the  lax  manner 
in  which  tiie  duties  of  turnpike  road  commissioners  are  discharged,  to  tJie  total 
absence  of  all  jx-rsonal  responsibility  .  .  .  and  to  the  general  imj^rovidence  of 
the  expenditure  "  (A  Letter  to  the  Rigid  Hon.  C.  B.  Bathurst,  31. P.,  on  the  subject 
of  the  Poor  Laws,  by  Richard  Blakemore,  1819,  p.  32). 

See  also  Observations  on  the  Formation,  Stale  and  Condition  of  Turnpike  Roads 
and  other  Highways,  with  Suggestions  for  their  Permanent  Improvement  on 
Scientific  Principles,  by  A.  H.  Chambers,  1820. 


THE  TURNPIKE  DEBT  201 

been  carried  to  a  great  height,  and  many  Trusts  made  default 
in  the  payment  of  interest  on  their  bond  debt.  Between  1830 
and  1838  no  fewer  than  84  separate  Trusts  were  thus  in  default. 
Sir  James  Macadam  stated  in  1839  that  he  knew  of  some  Trusts 
which  had  paid  no  interest  for  over  sixty  years.  "  In  some 
instances,"  reported  the  House  of  Commons  Committee  in  1808, 
"  they  have  contracted  debts  bearing  an  interest  nearly  equal  to 
the  amount  of  their  tolls,  and  when  those  have  been  increased 
fresh  debts  are  incurred  ;  so  that  the  contributions  levied  on 
individuals  using  the  road  become  directed  to  purposes  wholly 
different  from  their  repair."  In  some  instances  the  road  was 
seized  by  the  mortgagees,  who  levied  the  tolls  for  the  payment  of 
their  own  claims.  In  many  other  cases  the  arrears  of  interest 
were  habitually  added  to  the  bonded  debt,  which  came,  in  con- 
sequence, eventually  to  exceed  seven  miUions  sterhng  for  the 
whole  kingdom— a  considerable  part  of  which  was  never  repaid. ^ 
With  the  whole  or  the  greater  part  of  the  tolls  thus  alienated 
for  payment  of  interest  on  past  indebtedness — sometimes  even 
with  the  mortgagees  in  possession,  taking  the  whole  money 
revenue  for  their  arrears  of  interest  and  heavy  legal  expenses — 
the  expenditure  on  the  repair  of  the  road  was  naturally  reduced 
to  a  minimum,  and  it  may  well  be  that,  in  many  cases,  the  last 
state  of  such  turnpike  roads  was  worse  than  the  first.  Arthur 
Young,  in  his  travels  about  England,  clearly  impKes  that  the 
great  majority  of  the  turnpike  roads  were  far  better  than  the 
parish  highways,  but  occasionally  he  comes  across  one  in  Wales, 
in  Lancashire  or  in  Suffolk  which  he  cannot  beheve  to  be  a  turn- 
pike, so  vile  is  its  condition  of  disrepair.  It  was,  indeed,  as  was 
subsequently  perceived,  a  "  great  defect  in  the  system  of  turnpike 
laws  "  that  there  was  an  utter  lack  of  "  provision  to  compel  each 
Trust  to  account  before  some  competent  tribunal.  Road  Commis- 
sioners," said  the  Edinburgh  Review  in  October  1819,  "  are  the 
only  persons  entrusted  by  Parliament  to  levy  a  large  revenue 
from  the  pubhc  without  being  required  to  account  in  any  way 
for  what  they  receive.     A  still  greater  defect  is  the  want  of  any 

^  Analysis  of  the  Defective  State  of  Turnpike  Roads  and  Turnpike  Securities, 
with  Suggestions  for  their  Improvement,  by  Francis  Phillips,  1834  ;  House  of 
Commons  Committees  on  Turnpikes,  1833,  1836,  1838  ;  Royal  Commission  on 
Roads,  1840;  History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation,  by  F.  Clifford,  1885-1887,  vol. 
ii.  p.  18 ;  The  Development  of  Transportation  in  Modern  England,  by  W.  T. 
Jackman,  1916,  pp.  612-613. 


202  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

proper  remedy  when  a  set  of  Commissioners  abuse  their  trust. 
They  may  suffer  their  road  to  become  a  perfect  ruin  ;  they  may 
embezzle  funds  and  commit  every  sort  of  malpractice,  and  yet 
go  on  levying  tolls,  keeping  possession  of  the  road  and  defying 
all  complaints."  There  was,  in  fact,  no  practical  method  of 
bringing  a  defaulting,  hopelessly  incompetent  or  dishonest 
Turnpike  Trust  to  book.  Subject  to  no  official  superintendence 
or  central  control,  under  no  inspection,  rendering  no  accounts, 
it  could  use  or  neglect  its  powers  as  it  chose.  A  Turnpike  Trust 
could  not  even  be  indicted  for  letting  its  roads  become  impassable. 
The  only  legal  remedy  was  the  presentment  or  indictment  of  the 
parish  or  township  within  which  the  road  lay.^  The  creation  of 
a  special  statutory  Trust  had  left  unimpaired  the  liability  of  the 
parish  to  maintain  "  the  good  passage  "  on  all  parts  of  the  King's 
Highway,  whether  or  not  some  other  persons  had  received  a 
statutory  right  to  exact  tolls  from  those  who  travelled  on  it. 
Spasmodically  the  law  would  be  put  in  force.  Some  public- 
spirited  Justice  of  the  Peace  would  formally  present  an  exception- 
ally neglected  bit  of  turnpike  road,  or  the  parish  would  find  itself 
indicted  at  the  suit  of  some  aggrieved  user  of  the  road,  with  the 
result  of  a  fine,  a  special  highway  rate,  a  momentary  spurt  of 
activity  in  enforcing  Statute  Labour,  and  an  early  reversion  to 

^  When  the  Post  Ofiico  wanted  to  extend  its  mail  coacli  service  from 
Shrewsbury  to  Holyhead,  and  found  the  turniiike  road  actually  unsafe,  the 
Postmaster-Grcmeral  began  by  sending  letters  to  the  Treasurers  of  the  several 
Turnpike  Trusts  on  the  route,  asking  them  to  effect  improvements.  This 
producing  no  result,  he  had  21  parishes  indicted,  and  thus  compelled  them  to 
do  some  repairs,  though  they  proved  insufficient  to  bring  the  road  up  to  the 
requirements  of  a  fast  mail  coach  route  (Second  Report  of  House  of  Commons 
Committee  on  the  Holyhead  Road,  1810  ;  Her  Maje.tlj/s  Mails,  by  W.  Lowins, 
1864,  p.  142). 

The  provision  as  to  apportioning  tlie  fine  and  costs  is  in  13  George  III. 
c.  84,  sec.  33,  General  Turnpike  Act,  1773.  "As  the  law  now  stands,"  wrote 
Sir  J.  C.  Hippislcy  to  Sir  John  Sinclair  in  1808,  "  if  any  part  of  a  turnpike 
road  be  out  of  repair,  remedy  is  given  by  presentment  or  indictment  of  the 
parish  in  which  such  road  is  situate,  subjecting  the  parish  to  great  expense 
and  inconvenience,  although  the  nuisance  be  wholly  imputable  to  the  trustees 
of  the  turnpike.  ...  It  is  true  that  .  .  .  Quarter  Sessions  may  api)orti<m 
fines  and  costs  between  the  Parish  and  Turnpike  Trust,  yet  this  power  can 
afEord  very  inadequate  relief  or  compensation  in  many  cases,  where  the  parishes 
have  been  harassed  by  iirosccutions  for  nuisances  for  which  they  have  in  no 
respect  been  equitably  responsible ;  for  their  parish  oilicers,  travelling  thirty 
or  forty  miles  to  the  Quarter  Sessions ;  for  loss  of  time,  etc." 

(Sir  J.  C.  Hippisley,  Bart.,  M.P.,  to  Sir  John  Sinclair,  4th  April  1808; 
S(!Cond  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Higliways,  1808,  Appendix 

A.  p.  i:u;.) 


J 


A  SUBSTANTIAL  IMPROVEMENT  203 

the  former  neglect.  It  is  true  that,  from  1773  onward,  the 
Court  could  apportion  the  fine  and  costs  between  the  parish  and 
the  Trust,  but  only  "  in  case  it  shall  appear  to  the  Court  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  Turnpike  debts  and  revenues  that  the 
same  may  be  paid  without  endangering  the  security  of  the 
creditors  who  have  advanced  money  upon  the  credit  of  the  tolls  "  ; 
and  the  parish,  in  practice,  never  got  reimbursed  the  expense  to 
which  it  was  put.  So  flagrantly  unjust  was  it  to  punish  the  local 
parishioners,  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  administration  of 
the  Turnpike  Trust,  for  the  default  or  neglect  of  a  separate 
authority,  which  still  went  on  exacting  its  tolls,  that  this  pro- 
cedure of  presentment  and  indictment  was,  in  practice,  even  less 
effective  for  turnpike  roads  than  for  parish  highways.  The 
injustice  was  so  glaring  that  public  opinion  was  arrayed  against 
any  such  presentment  of  parishes,  and  in  1809  it  was  definitely 
discouraged  by  a  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons.^ 

The  foregoing  description  of  the  theory  and  practice  of  turn- 
pike administration,  and  our  analysis  of  its  defects,  might  lead 
the  student  to  assume  that  all  the  effort  and  money  lavished 
by  the  eighteenth-century  Turnpike  Trusts  resulted  in  no  net 
advantage  to  the  community.  This  would  be  a  false  conclusion. 
The  parish  highway  often  consisted,  as  we  have  described  in  our 
Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  of  a  mere  horse  track  across  a  miry 
common,  or  a  watery  hollow  lane  twisting  between  high  banks 
and  overhanging  hedges.  So  deep  and  narrow  were  these  ways 
that  "  the  stag,  the  hounds  and  the  huntsmen,"  Edgeworth 
tells  us,2  "  have  been  known  to  leap  over  a  loaded  waggon  in  a 
hollow  way  without  any  obstruction  from  the  vehicle."  Such 
a  highway  was  practically  impassable  for  wheeled  vehicles,  and 
sometimes  even  for  horsemen,  for  half  the  year.  With  the  coming 
of  the  Industrial  Revolution,  with  a  rapidly  increasing  population, 
with  manufactures  ready  to  leap  from  the  ground,  with  unprece- 
dented opportunities  for  home  and  foreign  trade,  improvement 
of  communication  between  different  parts  of  the  kingdom  became, 

^  "  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Committee  that,  in  the  case  of  any  present- 
ment or  indictment  of  any  highway  being  a  turnpike  road,  the  said  presentment 
or  indictment  should  bo  preferred  against  the  treasurer  of  such  Trust,  instead 
of  the  parish  through  which  such  roads  run  "  (Report  of  House  of  Commons 
Committee  on  Broad  Wheels  and  Turnpike  Roads,  1809). 

2  An  Essay  on  the  Construction  of  Roads,  by  R.  L.  Edgeworth,  2nd  edition, 
1817. 


204  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

from  the  standpoint  of  material  prosperity,  the  most  urgent  of 
national  requirements.  To-day,  the  railway  and  the  tramway, 
the  telegraph  and  the  telephone,  have  largely  superseded  roads 
as  the  arteries  of  national  circulation.  But,  barring  a  few 
lengths  of  canal  in  the  making,  and  a  few  miles  of  navigable 
river  estuaries,  it  was,  throughout  the  eighteenth  century,  on 
the  King's  Highway  alone  that  depended  the  manufacturer 
and  the  wholesale  dealer,  the  hawker  and  the  shopkeeper,  the 
farmer,  the  postal  contractor,  the  lawyer,  the  government 
official,  the  traveller,  the  miner,  the  craftsman  and  the  farm 
servant,  for  the  transport  of  themselves,  and  the  distribution 
of  their  products  and  their  purchases,  their  services  and  their 
ideas.  Hence,  to  open  up  even  some  of  the  ways  between  the 
Metropolis  and  the  rest  of  the  country,  between  the  ports  and 
the  landward  counties,  between  the  food-producing  districts 
and  the  new  manufacturing  centres,  was  worth  almost  any 
money  cost,  however  vexatiously  it  might  be  raised  or  however 
wastefully  it  might  be  spent.  And  all  contemporary  evidence 
indicates  that,  what  with  surface-making  and  embanking, 
widening  and  straightening,  levelling  and  bridging,  the  mileage 
of  usable  roads  was,  by  the  eighteenth-century  Turnpike  Trusts, 
very  greatly  extended.^     The  frequent  complaints  of  the  local 

^  "  The  Commissioners  of  the  road  from  Whitechapcl  into  Essex  very  well 
understand  and  perform  their  office.  .  .  .  Justice  ought  to  be  done  also  to  the 
Commissioners  of  the  Turnpikes  leading  into  Kent  over  Shooters  Hill,  who 
endeavour  to  make  the  road  straight,  by  cutting  off  all  angles,  and  widening 
it  "  {Gentleman's  Magazine,  May  1749).  Speaking  generally  of  the  roads  in 
England,  a  writer  declares  in  1754  that  "  amendments  made  of  late  years  .  .  . 
have  been  very  considerable.  .  .  .  The  turnpike  now  forming  Truro  to  Fal- 
mouth, on  the  West,  and  to  Grampound  on  the  East,  I  look  upon  as  a  very 
masterly  and  complete  piece  of  workmanship  ;  and  indeed,  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged that  the  new  turnpikes  are  better  than  the  old.  Thus,  the  Taunton 
Turnpikes  are  better  than  the  Bath  or  Bristol ;  the  Exeter  better  than  either  ; 
and  the  Truro  in  a  fair  way  to  exceed  them  all  "  {ibid.  October  1754).  The 
dithyrambic  quotation  is  from  An  Enquiry  into  the  Means  of  Preserving  and 
Imjyroving  the  Public  Roads,  by  Henry  Homer,  17(55,  p.  8. 

We  may  quote  a  few  of  these  statements  of  tlie  surveyors  employed  by  the 
Board  of  Agriculture  in  1794.  Of  Kent  we  read  that  "  the  tumi)ikc  n)ads,  and 
those  most  frequented,  are  kept  in  tolerably  good  order  ;  but  the  bye-roads  of 
West  Kent  are  frequently  impassable  for  postchaises  "  {General  Vieio  of  the 
Agrictdlure  of  Kent,  by  J.  Boyes,  1796,  p.  90).  Of  Wcatmorcland  it  is  .said 
that  "  the  great  roads  leading  througli  the  county  are  kept  in  excellent  repair 
by  the  sums  collected  at  the  turn])ike  gates  "  {General  View  of  the  Agriculture 
of  Westmoreland,  by  A.  Pringle,  1794,  p.  37).  Tlie  Nottinghamshire  rt^jiorli-r 
testifies  tiiat  "  the  roads  of  this  country  are  of  late  years  much  ini])r(ivcd, 
many  parishes  having  learnt  from  the  example  of  the  turnpikes  to  form  tiicm 
properly,  and  have  them  executed  under  an  understanding  surveyor  "  {General 


THE  "FACE  OF  DISPATCH"  205 

absence  of  turnpikes  indicate  in  themselves  how  completely 
the  new  system  had  commended  itself  to  the  ordinary  traveller. 
Before  the  middle  of  the  century  particular  roads  are  marked  out 
for  praise.  Between  1750  and  1770,  when  the  number  of  Turn- 
pike Trusts  was  actually  trebled,  the  contemporary  self-com- 
placency over  the  new  roads  rises  to  dithyrambic  heights. 
"  There  never  was  a  more  astonishing  revolution  accomplished 
in  the  internal  system  of  any  country,"  declares  an  able  and 
quite  trustworthy  writer  in  1767,  "  than  has  been  within  the 
compass  of  a  few  years  in  that  of  England.  The  carriage  of 
grain,  coals,  merchandise,  etc.,  is  in  general  conducted  with 
little  more  than  half  the  number  of  horses  with  which  it  formerly 
was.  Journeys  of  business  are  performed  with  more  than  double 
expedition.  .  .  .  Everything  wears  the  face  of  dispatch  .  .  .  and 
the  hinge  which  has  guided  all  these  movements  and  upon  which 
they  turn  is  the  reformation  which  has  been  made  in  our  public 
roads."  Thirty  years  later,  when  the  standard  of  efficiency  in 
roads  had  greatly  risen,  the  reports  by  the  critical  surveyors 
of  the  Board  of  Agriculture  are  more  grudging.  But  with  the 
exception  of  Wales,  they  everywhere  report  a  substantial  im- 
provement and  development,  by  the  agency  of  the  Turnpike 
Trusts,  of  the  means  of  communication  within  each  county. 
And  we  have  the  significant  fact  that  the  most  eminent  observers 
of,  and  participators  in,  the  local  government  of  the  latter  half 
of  the  century — Sir  Henry  Hawkins,  Dr.  Richard  Burn,  John 
Scott,  and  Arthur  Young — all  expressly  assert,  or  at  least  un- 
equivocably  imply,  the  expediency  of  the  Turnpike  Trust  and 
its  toll.  Our  own  conclusions  coincide  with  this  verdict.  The 
intense  jealousy  of  any  increase  of  the  national  executive  govern- 
ment, and  the  abhorrence  of  new  local  rates  would  have  made 
impracticable  any  project  for  a  centralised  road  administration, 
or  for  raising  the  necessary  income  by  direct  assessment.  "  If 
rates  on  land  had  been  resorted  to,"  said  Sir  Henry  Parnell, 
"  the  measure  would  inevitably  have  failed,  because  the  land- 

View  of  the  Agriculture  of  Nottingham,  by  R.  Lowe,  1794,  p.  53).  Of  North- 
umberland it  is  said  that  "  the  turnpike  roads  are  most  in  good  order,  but 
badly  designed "  (General  View  of  the  Agricidture  of  Northumberland,  bj'' 
J.  Bailey  and  G.  Culley,  1794,  p.  56).  As  to  Lancashire,  where  manufactures 
had  so  enormously  increased,  and  turnpikes  were  almost  universal,  we  are  told 
that  "  Great  exertions  have  been  of  late  years  at  very  considerable  expense 
to  improve  the  roads,  the  effects  of  which  are  very  apjaarent  "  {General  View 
of  the  Agriculture  of  Lancashire,  by  John  Holt,  1794,  p.  64). 


2o6  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

owners  would,  beyond  all  doubt,  have  preferred  bad  roads  and 
low  rates  to  good  ones  and  high  rates  ;  in  point  of  fact,  very 
indifferent  roads  would  have  answered  all  their  local  purposes. 
If  the  roads  had  been  vested  in  the  hands  of  government,  it  may 
safely  be  said  that  this  plan  would  also  have  failed,  for  govern- 
ment would  never  have  been  able  to  obtain  the  consent  of  Parlia- 
ment to  vote  upwards  of  a  million  and  a  half  a  year  for  those 
roads  only  which  now  are  turnpike  roads.  It  is  therefore  to  the 
turnpike  system  of  management  that  England  is  indebted  to  her 
superiority  over  other  countries  with  respect  to  roads.  .  .  . 
Nothing  but  leaving  the  management  of  the  roads  to  those 
people  who  live  in  their  neighbourhood  would  ever  have  induced 
the  people  of  England  to  pay,  as  they  now  do,  a  road  revenue, 
arising  from  turnpike  tolls,  to  the  amount  of  £1,500,000  a  year ; 
for,  though  tolls  are  in  every  respect  fair  and  proper  for  main- 
taining a  road  ;  and  although  Government  by  employing  scientific 
engineers,  might  have  expended  the  produce  of  them  with 
greater  skill  than  country  gentlemen ;  the  hostility  to  pay 
them,  if  they  had  been  wholly  at  the  disposal  of  government, 
would  no  doubt  have  prevented  the  making  of  useful  roads  so 
universally  over  the  v/hole  country  as  they  have  been  made  under 
the  estabhshed  system."  ^  The  Turnpike  Trust  and  its  toll  was, 
in  short,  the  only  way  open.  Without  the  local  initiative  and 
local  support  fostered  by  the  thousand  separate  Trusts  ;  without 
the  emulation  and  mutual  instruction  which  their  several  experi- 
ments promoted  ;  without  the  large  revenues  which  the  toll 
drew  from  the  multitudinous  but  pohtically  helpless  road  users, 
no  considerable  improvement  in  the  highways  of  England  would 
have  taken  place  for,  at  any  rate,  the  first  three-quarters  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  very  little  would  have  been  achieved 
before  the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill.^ 

^  A  Treatise  on  Roads,  by  iSir  Henry  Pamcll,  afterwards  Lord  Congleton, 
1833,  pp.  2G3-2G4,  288-289. 

^  As  late  as  1824  the  English  Turnpike  system  was  a  subject  of  envy  to  a 
French  traveller.  Baron  Dupin,  who  had  long  been  impressed  with  the  English 
administration  (see  his  Memoircs  sur  la  marine  ct  Ics  pouts  cl  cluiussee3  de 
France  ct  Anrjleterre,  1818),  observes  that  "  lu  Franco,  during  the  Revolution, 
the  government  wished  to  establish  turnpikes  on  our  main  roads,  as  in  England  ; 
and  as  in  England  the  people  at  first  rose  in  revolt  against  the  system.  But 
the  Directory  had  not  sufficient  firmness  for  maintaining  this  useful  innovation, 
which  ought  now  to  be  taken  up  again,  and  energetically  enforced  "  ( I'oyage^ 
dans  la  Grand  Bretagne,  Troisieme  Partie,  Force  Commerciale,  by  Baron  Charles 
Dupin,  1824,  vol.  i.  p.  33).     We  may  here  conveniently  give  some  statistical 


TURNPIKE  STATISTICS  207 

Passing  from  the  legal  constitution  and  powers  of  the  Turn- 
pike Trust,  we  may  get  from  the  descriptions  of  contemporaries 
some  glimpses  of  the  body  as  it  actually  existed.  In  order  to 
avoid  local  opposition,  those  who  were  promoting  a  Turnpike 
Bill  made  a  point  of  including  as  Trustees  every  one  of  influence 
in  the  neighbourhood— not  merely  the  squires  and  parsons  and 
their  agents  or  baihffs,  but  also  the  principal  tenant-farmers 
and  shopkeepers.  "  The  practice,"  said  Sir  Henry  Parnell, 
"  is  to  make  almost  every  opulent  farmer  or  tradesman  a  trustee, 
residing  in  the  vicinity  of  a  road,  as  well  as  all  the  nobility  and 
persons  of  large  landed  property  ;  so  that  a  Trust  seldom  consists 
of  fewer  than  100  persons,  even  if  the  length  of  the  road  to  be 
maintained  by  them  does  not  exceed  a  few  miles."  ^     Of  these 

conception  of  the  height  reached  in  England  and  Wales  by  this  system.  In 
1838  the  22,000  miles  of  turnpike  road,  representing  about  one-fifth  of  the 
total  highway  mileage  of  the  kingdom,  were  under  1116  Trusts,  employing  3555 
treasurers,  clerks  and  surveyors  (besides  some  20,000  toll-collectors,  etc.)  and 
levied  £1,458,000  at  their  7796  toll-gates  and  side  bars,  spending  in  all  about 
£51  a  year  on  each  mile  of  road,  and  having  over  £7,000,000  of  debt  {Journal 
of  the  Royal  Statistical  Society,  January  1839). 

For  a  vision  of  the  stage-coach  organisation  at  its  best,  sec  such  books  as 
Coaching,  with  Anecdotes  of  the  Road,  by  Lord  William  Lennox,  1876  ;  Annals 
of  the  Road,  or  Notes  on  Mail  and  Stage  Coaching  in  Great  Britain,  by  Nimrod 
(Captain  H.  E.  Malet),  1876  ;  Old  Coaching  Datjs,  1882  ;  and  The  Coaching 
Age,  1885,  by  Stanley  Harris  ;  Brighton  and  its  Coaches,  by  W.  C.  A.  Blew, 
1894  ;  Forty  Years  at  the  Post  Office,  1895,  and  On  the  Track  of  the  Mail  Coach, 
1895,  both  by  F.  E.  Baines  ;  Coaching  Days  and  Coaching  Ways,  by  W.  O. 
Tristram,  1901  ;  and  Stagecoach  and  Mail  in  Days  of  Yore,  by  C.  G.  Harper, 
1903.  "  A  passenger  could  coach  from  Portsmouth  to  Holyhead,  from  Barn- 
staple to  Berwick,  with  changes  and  stoppages  it  is  true,  but  by  a  continuous 
mailcoach  road,  without  passing  through  London.  The  country  resounded  with 
the  blast  of  the  horn  and  the  rattle  of  pole-chains  "  (Forty  Years  at  the  Post 
Office,  by  F.  E.  Baines,  1895,  pp.  37-38).  There  was  eventually  coaching 
communication,  with  changes,  from  Falmouth  to  Thurso.  Birmingham  was, 
in  effect,  the  centre  of  the  system,  at  which  most  coach  lines  crossed. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  stage-coaches,  rendered  possible  only  by  the 
turnpike  roads,  carried  inside  passengers  at  from  2|d.  to  4d.  per  mile,  and 
outside  passengers  at  from  2d.  to  3d.  per  mile.  The  new  railways  adopted  fares 
only  .slightly  lower  than  these  rates,  being  about  3d.  per  mile  first  class,  2d. 
second  class,  and  a  penny  to  three  halfpence  third  class.  But  they  carried 
passengers  at  about  24  miles  per  hour,  or  two  or  three  times  the  speed  of  the 
coaches  (The  Development  of  Transportation  in  Modern  England,  by  W.  T. 
Jaclunan,  1916,  p.  605).  Tlae  rate  at  which  the  coaches  travelled,  which,  in 
1 750,  had  been  only  five  or  six  miles  per  hour  and  50  to  70  miles  in  a  day,  had 
risen  by  1830  to  9,  10  and  even  12  or  13  miles  per  hour,  for  185  miles  (to 
Manchester),  259  miles  (to  Holyhead),  and  even  400  miles  (to  Edinburgh)  at 
a  stretch,  taking  19,  27  and  45J-  hours  respectively  (ibid.  pp.  684-700). 

1  A  Treatise  on  Roads,  by  Sir  H.  Parnell,  1833,  pp.  268-269  ;  there  were 
"  a  prodigious  number  of  Commissioners,  frequently  from  one  hundred  to  two 
hundred,  for  the  care  of  10  or  15  miles  of  road  "  {Edinburgh  Review,  October 
1819). 


2o8  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

two  or  three  hundred  persons,  all  belonging  to  the  ten  or  twelve 
square  miles  directly  served  by  the  road,  the  numerical  majority 
were,  in  social  status  and  education,  little  above  the  persons 
who  usually  served  the  parish  offices,  and  it  was  into  their  hands 
that  the  meetings  usually  feU.  Some  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace 
and  clergymen  who  were  on  an  important  Turnpike  Trust  in 
Middlesex  and  Essex  petitioned  Parliament  in  1740  about  this 
very  point.  "  There  are  many  persons  appointed "  to  their 
Trust,  they  explain,  "  who  have  very  little  or  no  freehold  in  either 
of  the  said  Counties,  and  consequently  are  not  so  much  con- 
cerned for  the  same  as  the  petitioners  ;  yet  the  said  persons, 
being  many  in  number,  and  dwelling  for  the  most  part  in  or  near 
the  parish  of  Whitechapel,  where  the  meetings  are  held  during 
the  six  winter  months  ...  by  reason  of  their  vicinity  are 
frequently  more  in  number  than  the  gentlemen  whose  freeholds 
lie  at  a  greater  distance  in  Essex,  from  whence  it  happens  that  the 
affairs  of  the  said  turnpike  are  chiefly  influenced  and  governed 
by  them,  who  do  sometimes  carry  questions  by  surprise,  particu- 
larly at  a  late  meeting  where  they  did,  in  a  most  extraordinary 
and  unjustifiable  manner  at  an  unreasonable  time  of  the  day, 
without  giving  any  notice,  take  upon  themselves  to  discharge 
one  of  the  principal  officers  of  the  said  Trust,  without  any  charge 
or  accusation  against  him,  or  giving  him  any  opportunity  to 
make  his  defence,  though  the  said  officer  was  at  that  very  time 
absent  with  their  privity  and  consent."  ^  The  inevitable 
tendency  that  the  numerical  majority  of  the  active  Commis- 
sioners should  make,  not  only  the  time  and  place,  but  also  the 
tone  and  manners  of  the  meetings  such  as  was  most  congenial 
to  them,  cannot  have  failed  to  discourage  the  attendance  of  the 
greater  folk.  The  filling  up  of  vacancies  by  co-option  worked, 
as  we  have  shown  in  our  work  on  The  Parish  and  the  County,  in 
the  cases  of  the  Close  Vestries  and  the  County  Justices,  and  we 
may  now  add  also,  in  that  of  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers, 

^  House  of  Commons  Journals,  IGth  January  1740.  In  this  case  the  gentry 
appeared  to  have  persisted  in  their  struggle,  with  the  result  that  this  Trust 
cams,  in  1749,  the  praise  of  the  Genlleman's  Magazine.  "  The  Commissioners 
of  the  road  from  Whitechapel  into  Essex,"  it  was  said,  "  very  well  under- 
stand and  perform  their  office  "  (Gentleman's  Magazine,  May  1749).  They 
were  the  first  to  adopt  what  seemed  then  an  improvement  in  road  construc- 
tion, viz.  "  the  waving  method,"  or  laj'ing  out  the  road  m  short  "  waves," 
alternately  rising  and  falling,  so  as  to  let  the  water  run  off  (ibid.  November 
1759). 


THE  MEETINGS  OF  THE  TRUSTS  209 

towards  an  homogeneity  of  membership,  which — especially  in 
the  Metropolitan  area — almost  inevitably  tended  downwards.^ 
Unlike  the  Incorporated  Guardians  the  majority  of  the  Turn- 
pike Trusts  do  not  appear  to  have  developed,  right  down  to  the 
end  of  their  being,  any  system  of  administration  by  executive 
committees  and  salaried  staffs.  The  whole  body  of  one  or  two 
hundred  Trustees  would  be  summoned — we  gather,  merely  by 
public  advertisement  and  notices  affixed  to  the  turnpike  gates — to 
meetings  held  at  the  principal  inn  of  the  market-town  ;  and  the 
number  and  character  of  those  who  actually  attended  varied 
enormously,  according  to  the  district,  and  also  according  to  the 
occasion.  In  the  absence  of  an  organised  and  responsible 
executive,  and  even  of  authoritative  standing  orders,  the  gather- 
ings often  went  anything  but  smoothly.  "  The  whole  time  of 
these  meetings,"  says  an  Edinburgh  Reviewer  of  1819,  "  is 
occupied  in  tumultuous  and  unprofitable  discussions,  and  in 
resolving  on  things  at  one  meeting  which  run  a  good  chance  of 
being  reversed  at  the  next ;  so  that  the  well-informed  and 
civilized  Commissioners  become  very  soon  disgusted  with  the 
disorderly  uproar,  or  the  want  of  sense,  temper  or  honesty  of 
some  of  their  companions  ;  and  that  the  management  finally 
falls  into  the  hands  of  a  few,  busy,  busthng  persons  of  low  con- 
dition, who  attend  the  meetings  with  no  idea  of  performing  a 
public  duty,  but  for  the  purpose  of  turning  their  powers,  by  some 
device  or  other,  to  the  profit  of  themselves  or  of  their  friends  and 
relations."  ^  At  first,  the  meetings  were  often  held,  to  suit  the 
ease  and  convivial  desires  of  the  majority,  late  in  the  afternoon, 
which  prevented  many  persons  of  the  best  class  from  attending. 
This  was  partly  stopped  by  a  section  of  the  General  Turnpike  Act 
of  1773,  which  required  all  such  meetings  to  begin  between  10  a.m. 
and  2  p.m.^  Even  then  it  was  complained  that  "  Such  meetings 
continue  sitting  in  many  parts  of  the  Kingdom  to  a  very  late 
hour,  and  in  some  instances,  commence  at  a  late  hour  in  the 

1  In  the  Kensington  Turnpike  Trust  in  1763  the  custom  as  to  fillmg  vacancies 
was  as  follows.  Two  vacancies  were  always  left  unfilled,  in  case  of  some 
special  need  for  the  appointment  of  a  particular  person.  The  others  were 
filled  on  the  nomination  of  single  Trustees,  each  nominating  for  a  vacancy  in 
turn,  as  their  names  stood  in  alphabetical  order  ;  subject,  however,  as  a  matter 
of  form,  to  the  nominee  in  each  case  receiving  the  approval  of  a  ballot  of  the 
Trustees  present  (House  of  Commons  Journals,  vol.  xxix.  p.  650,  19th  April 
1763). 

2  Edinburgh  Review,  October  1819.  »  13  George  III.  c.  84,  sec.  56. 

P 


2IO  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

afternoon,  to  the  great  inconvenience  of  those  trustees  and 
others  who  attend  from  a  distance."  ^  Where  the  meeting  was 
less  of  a  convivial  occasion,  it  was  often  found  impossible  to 
induce  any  one  to  come,  especially  during  the  winter  months. 
In  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Turnpike  Trust,  no  meeting  of  five 
Trustees  could  be  obtained  between  September  1780  and  May 
1781.2  The  Turnpike  Trust  responsible  for  the  important  road 
between  Manchester  and  Oldham  held  four  successive  meetings 
in  the  half  year  between  August  1806  and  March  1807  without 
being  able  to  get  a  quorum.^  "  I  have  known,"  writes  Dr.  Burn 
in  1764,  "  a  turnpike  meeting  advertised  from  three  weeks  to 
three  weeks,  and  never  a  competent  number  of  trustees  attended 
for  a  year  together."  *  It  was,  in  fact,  usually  impossible  to 
persuade  the  country  gentlemen  and  clergymen,  who  might  have 
been  expected  to  supply  the  best  element  on  the  Trusts,  to  devote 
any  zeal  or  public  spirit,  or  to  give  any  continuous  attention,  to 
the  monotonous  details  of  road  repair.  John  Scott,  the  ablest 
Turnpike  Trustee  of  his  time,  complains  bitterly  of  this  neglect 
among  the  Hertfordshire  gentry.  "If,"  he  says,  "  the  Trustees 
will  not  meet  above  two  or  three  times  a  year,  and  then  not  in 
a  sufficient  number  to  transact  the  affairs  of  their  Trusts,  or  in 
case  their  meetings  are  more  frequent  and  better  attended,  if 
those  who  attend  will  engage  in  common  conversation  instead 
of  attending  to  the  business  of  the  day.  (consulting  on  the  state 
of  their  roads  and  considering  how  to  remedy  defects  or  produce 
improvements)  it  is  easy  to  tell  what  must  be  the  consequence. 
An  adoption  of  that  absurd  maxim  that  everybody's  business  is 
nobody's  business,  the  parsimony  of  private  life  carried  into 
public  affairs,  an  habitual  retention  of  money  which  can  be  of  no 
service  to  the  retainers,  an  acquiescent  disposition  fearful  of 
offending  this  man  or  the  other  man  ;  and  an  interested  dis- 
position watching  every  opportunity  of  serving  self  or  a  relation 
or  a  tenant  or  a  descendant,  are  all,  more  or  less,  operative  to  the 
destruction  of  the  roads  of  the  nation."  ^ 

^  Sir  J.  C.  Hippisley,  Bart.,  M.P.,  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Agri- 
culture, in  Second  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Highways,  1808, 
Appendix,  p.  136. 

*  Mimitcs  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Highway  Trust,  1769-1870,  by  B. 
Winstone,  1891,  p.  122. 

»  MS.  Minutes,  Manchester  and  Oldham  Turnpike  Trust,  1806-1807. 

*  History  of  the  Poor  Laws,  by  Richard  Burn,  1764. 

*  Digests  of  the  General  Highicay  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778. 


JOHN  METCALFE  211 

It  was  characteristic  of  Turnpike  Trustees,  to  an  even  greater 
degree  than  other  Local  Authorities  of  the  period,  that  they  saw 
no  necessity  for  incurring  the  expense  of  a  quahfied  salaried  staff. 
The  clerk — often  called  "  Law  Clerk  "  ^ — was  habitually  a  small 
local  attorney,  paid  principally  for  the  legal  business,  and  con- 
cerning himself  not  at  all  with  the  executive  work.  The  nearest 
approach  to  a  salaried  officer  was  the  person  called  the  "  Sur- 
veyor " — frequently  only  a  superior  labourer,  a  little  master 
craftsman,  or  an  ex-butler  or  valet  jobbed  in  by  some  leading 
Trustee.  "  The  Surveyors  of  turnpike  roads,"  we  are  told  in 
1778,  "  are  frequently  decayed  farmers  or  tradesmen,  recom- 
mended by  some  friend  or  relation  to  an  office  they  are  absolutely 
unquaHfied  to  execute."  ^  During  the  eighteenth  century  the 
Surveyor  was  often  engaged  only  when  a  particular  piece  of  work 
had  to  be  done,  but  by  the  nineteenth  century  he  had  usually 
become  a  permanent  officer  at  a  low  wage,  eked  out  by  the  profits 
of  contracting  with  the  Trust  for  the  execution  of  the  very  work 
that  he  had  to  superintend.  "  The  art  of  taking  levels,"  we  are 
told,  "  was  at  first  above  the  capacity  "  of  the  persons  who  acted 
as  Surveyors  to  Turnpike  Trusts ;  their  "  contracted  ideas 
extended  no  further  than  to  the  surface  of  the  land  which  was 
the  scene  of  their  operations.  To  them  it  would  have  appeared 
a  chimerical  undertaking  to  have  attempted  to  execute  any  plan 
for  reducing  ground  to  a  regular  descent  where  it  was  to  be 
effected  by  raising  valleys  and  sinking  hills."  ^  What  the  best  of 
the  eighteenth-century  road  administrators  aimed  at  getting  was 
an  honest  and  diligent  manager  of  labour,  and  (when  a  new  piece 
of  work  had  to  be  done)  a  trustworthy  contractor.  Only  very 
occasionally — as  in  the  extraordinary  case  of  the  bUnd  fiddler, 
John  Metcalfe  (1717-1810),  who  made  many  of  the  Lancashire 
and  Yorkshire  roads  between  1760  and  1790^ — did  the  con- 

1  For  instance,  in  MS.  Minutes,  Manchester  and  Oldham  Turnpike  Trust, 
2nd  July  1806. 

2  Digests  of  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778, 
p.  255. 

^  An  Inquiry  into  the  Means  of  Preserving  the  Public  Roads,  by  Rev.  Henry 
Homer,  1765. 

*  Life  of  John  Metcalfe,  commonly  called  Blind  Jack  of  Knaresborough,  by 
himself,  1795  ;  Lives  of  the  Engineers,  by  Samuel  Smiles,  1861,  vol.  i.  ;  Three 
Lectures  on  Roads  and  Roadmakers,  by  H.  A.  Glass,  1864  ;  Old  Yorkshire,  by 
William  Smith,  1883,  pp.  170-174 ;  Roadmaking  and  Maintenance,  by  Thomas 
Aiken,  1900,  p.  11  ;  Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1913, 
p.  154. 


212  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

tractor  display  any  genius  for  road  engineering.  Even  John 
Scott  was  capable  of  saying  that,  when  the  Trustees  are  reason- 
ably educated,  "  and  will  condescend  to  give  their  attendance,  .  .  . 
the  best  Surveyor  they  can  employ  will  be  an  honest  industrious 
labourer,  who  has  docility  enough  to  understand  and  dexterity 
enough  to  perform  their  orders."  ^  Down  to  at  least  1820  the 
great  majority  of  Turnpike  Trustees  refused  to  beheve  that  the 
office  could  not  be  efficiently  filled  by  any  person  whatsoever. 
"Every  ignorant  peasant,"  declares  a  professional  writer  of  1818, 
"  considers  himself  competent  to  lay  out  and  execute  roads  in  all 
directions."  ^  "I  found  at  Epsom,"  said  the  younger  Macadam 
in  1819,  "  a  person  as  Surveyor  who  had  been  an  underwriter 
at  Lloyd's  Coffee  House,  at  a  salary,  as  I  am  informed  of  £60  per 
annum  ;  and  who  was  permitted  to  keep  the  carts  and  horses 
and  do  the  cartage  for  the  Trust,  At  Reading  I  found  an  elderly 
gentleman  as  the  Surveyor,  who  was  also  one  of  the  Commis- 
sioners, at  a  salary  of  twenty  or  thirty  pounds  per  annum.  I 
found  at  Cheshunt  three  Surveyors  the  Trust  being  divided  into 
three  districts.  One  of  the  Surveyors  was  an  infirm  old  man, 
another  a  carpenter,  and  another  a  coal  merchant.  I  found  on 
the  Wade's  Mill  Trust  three  Surveyors  also,  .  .  .  one  ,  .  .  was  a 
very  old  man,  another  a  publican  at  Buckland,  and  the  other  a 
baker  at  Backway,  with  a  salary  of  fourteen  shillings  a  week  each. 
I  found  on  the  Royston  road  a  publican  as  Surveyor  there ;  and 
I  found  at  Huntingdon  a  bedridden  old  man  who  had  not  been 
out  of  the  house  for  several  months."  ^  It  is  only  fair  to  say, 
in  justice  to  the  Trustees,  that  the  eighteenth-century  roads  had 
not  the  advantage  even  of  such  engineering  skill  as  then  existed, 
as  road-making  was  regarded  as  beneath  the  dignity  of  a  civil 
engineer  ;  and  right  down  to  the  nineteenth  century  "  this  pro- 
fession," says  Sir  Henry  Parnell,  "  has  been  too  commonly 
deemed  by  Turnpike  Trustees  as  something  rather  to  be  avoided 
than  as  useful  and  necessary  to  be  called  to  their  assistance." 
The  ordinary  run  of  Turnpike  Trustees  may  not  unreasonably 
have  objected,  in  fact,  to  a  trained  professional  civil  engineer  or 

^  Digests  of  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778, 
p.  255. 

2  Practical  Directions  for  Laying  Out  and  Making  Roads,  by  James  Clarke, 
1818,  p.  1. 

^  Evidence  of  James  Macadam  (son),  in  Report  of  House  of  Commons 
Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Highways,  1819. 


THE  TREASURER  213 

surveyor,  who  would  in  the  eighteenth  century  have  made  a 
parade  of  "  mathematics  and  mechanics  and  all  that  sort  of 
thing  "  to  very  Uttle  practical  purpose.  Such  persons,  it  was 
said  in  1778,  "  are  often  very  great  men,  and  assume  conse- 
quential airs  for  doing  little  matters."  1 

This  indisposition,  or  want  of  capacity,  to  organise  an  efl&cient 
executive,  served  by  a  professional  staff,  led — especially  during 
the  eighteenth  century — to  the  adoption  of  equivocal  methods  of 
administration,  which  were  open  to  grave  abuse.  In  many 
districts  the  whole  administration  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Treasurer,  who,  as  we  learn  in  1778,  was  "  generally  one  of  the 
most  opulent  and  intelhgent  of  the  Trustees,  and  .  .  .  chairman 
of  their  meetings."  ^  The  office  carried  with  it  no  salary,  but  as 
the  Treasurer  had  at  his  disposal  the  monies  received  from  tolls, 
practically  during  his  own  pleasure,  and  with  the  minimum  of 
audit,  it  was  often  one  of  considerable  advantage  ;  and  we  find 
the  Treasurer  in  many  places  assuming  a  position  of  authority 
equivalent  to  that  of  the  Expenditor  General  of  some  of  the 
contemporary  Courts  of  Sewers  described  in  our  first  chapter. 
Thus,  of  the  important  County  of  Surrey  we  are  told,  in  1794, 
that  "  for  several  years  past  the  turnpike  roads  have  been  under 
the  direction  of  Treasurers  who  are  Trustees  of  the  roads,  and 
are  appointed  by  the  Trust  at  large,  at  a  meeting  held  for  that 
purpose.  A  knowledge  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  making 
roads  is  not  deemed  at  all  necessary  to  the  erection  of  such 
Treasurers,  but  they  are  generally  some  respectable  gentlemen 
in  business,  if  near  town,  and  whither  perhaps  they  go  every 
day.  Each  appoints  some  inferior  tradesman  of  the  district  in 
which  he  lives  to  be  the  Surveyor,  and  who  may  be  a  carpenter, 
a  bricklayer  or  any  other  profession  as  it  may  happen,  so  that 
without  a  particle  of  knowledge  on  the  maintenance  and  principles 
of  roads  on  either  side,  is  the  expenditure  of  hundreds  of  pounds 
committed  to  the  day  labourers,  who  are  for  the  most  part  old 
and  decrepid,  and  who  being  generally  left  to  themselves  take 
every  advantage  ;  and  as  the  Surveyor  does  not  know  how  much 
should  be  done,  he  is  easily  imposed  upon  by  the  men  ;  and  as 
the  money  does  not  come  out  of  his  pocket  it  is  not  very  material 

1  A  Treatise  on  Roads,  by  Sir  Henry  Parnell,  1833,  p.  291  ;  Digests  of  the 
Oeneral  Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778,  p.  255. 

2  Ibid.  p.  254. 


214  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

for  him  to  give  himself  much  trouble  about  it.  Thus,  from  the 
want  of  experience  in  the  Surveyor,  and  the  want  of  leisure  in 
the  Treasurer,  these  roads,  which,  from  their  proximity  to  the 
gravel  on  all  sides,  might,  under  a  proper  system,  be  kept  sound 
and  in  a  good  condition  all  the  year  round,  are  found  to  be  daily 
diminishing,  and  the  public  will,  ere  a  few  years  longer,  find  it 
expedient  to  take  some  steps  to  remedy  so  great  a  defect."  ^ 

Careless  and  indolent  Turnpike  Trustees  hit  on  even  a  worse 
administrative  device  than  leaving  the  business  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  an  unpaid  and  unprofessional  Treasurer.  We  see  them 
putting  the  whole  w^ork  of  the  Trust  out  by  contract  to  the 
speculator  who  offered  the  most  advantageous  terms.  The 
practice  of  farming  the  revenue  of  the  Trust — the  letting  by 
auction  of  the  toll-gates  and  weighing  machines  to  a  "  piker  " 
or  toll-farmer,  who  paid  a  lump  sum  for  the  privilege  of  levying 
the  toll — quickly  became  universal,  though  the  Trustees  might 
occasionally  find  themselves  driven  to  take  the  collection  into 
their  own  hands  for  a  short  term,  when  for  some  reason  they  had 
failed  to  agree  with  a  contractor.  This  practice  of  farming  the 
tolls  led,  as  we  have  shown  in  our  Story  of  the  King's  Highway, 
to  many  frauds  and  exactions.  But  it  enabled  the  Trusts  to 
dispense  with  the  organisation  of  their  own  collecting  staff,  and 
considering  the  surpassing  difficulty  of  checking  the  collection 
of  tolls  at  many  different  gates  at  great  distances  apart,  there 
was,  under  eighteenth-century  conditions,  something  to  be  said 
for  the  practice.  But  many  Turnpike  Trusts  applied  the 
favourite  contemporary  device  of  contracting  for  the  execution 
of  their  service  as  well  as  for  the  collection  of  their  revenues. 
Some  local  tradesman  or  tenant  farmer  woidd  undertake,  for  a 
lump  sum,  to  keep  the  whole  stretch  of  road  in  repair.  The 
contemporary  writers  agree  that  this  device  proved  no  more 
satisfactory  in  the  maintenance  of  roads  than  in  the  maintenance 
of  workhouses  or  prisons.  It  was  merely  to  "  a  desire  in  Trustees 
to  be  exonerated  from  trouble,"  that  John  Scott  ascribed  "  that 
most  pernicious  practice  of  farming  roads,  which,  like  farming 
the  poor,  is  the  disgrace  of  our  country.  The  Trustees,  when 
once  a  road  is  farmed,  have  nothing  to  do  but  meet  once  a  year 
to  eat  venison  and  pay  the  farmer  his  annuity  ;   the  farmer  has 

*  General  View  of  the  Agriculture  of  Surrey,  by  W.  J.  and  Jacob  Malcolm, 
1794,  pp.  G2-63. 


"FARMING  THE  ROAD"  215 

nothing  to  do  but  to  do  as  little  work  and  pocket  as  much  money 
as  he  possibly  can ;  he  has  other  fish  to  fry,  other  matters  to 
mind,  than  road-mending.  Encroachment  after  encroachment 
takes  place  ;  the  hedges  and  trees  grow  till  they  meet  overhead  ; 
the  landholders  are  excused  from  their  Statute  Duty,  and  the 
water  and  the  narrow-wheeled  vehicles  complete  the  business. 
At  length,  perhaps,  the  universal  complaint  of  travellers,  or 
menaces  of  indictment,  rouse  the  Trustees  for  a  moment ;  a 
meeting  is  called  ;  the  farmer  sent  for  and  reprimanded,  and  a 
few  loads  of  gravel  buried  among  the  mud  serve  to  keep  the  way 
barely  passable.  .  .  .  These  practices  of  farming  roads  and 
farming  the  poor  ought  to  be  prohibited  by  law."  ^ 

The  foregoing  description  may  be  taken  to  represent  the 
working  constitution  of  the  numerical  majority  of  the  thousand 
Turnpike  Trusts  right  down  to  1835.  But  many  of  the  more 
important  and  wealthier  Trusts — such,  for  instance,  as  those 
administering  busy  lengths  of  road  near  the  Metropolis  or  other 
populous  centres,  and  taking  several  thousand  pounds  a  year  in 
tolls — were,  by  the  nineteenth  century,  driven,  in  one  way  or 
another,  to  develop  a  more  efficient  executive.  There  is  fortun- 
ately accessible  to  the  general  reader  a  complete  account  of  the 
internal  administration  of  one  such  Turnpike  Trust — that  of  the 
roads  about  Epping  and  Ongar  in  Essex  ^ — which,  in  its  good 
and  bad  features  alike,  is,  we  think,  fairly  typical  of  the  larger 
Turnpike  Trusts  of  the  reign  of  George  the  Third.  The  road 
between  Harlow  and  Woodford — the  principal  thoroughfare  in 
that  part  of  Essex — had  been  one  of  those  placed  under  the  care 
of  the  local  Justices  of  the  Peace  at  the  latter  part  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and  for  three-quarters  of  a  century  tolls  were 
levied,  special  surveyors  appointed  and  the  roads  repaired  under 
their  authority.     In  1768,  we  know  not  for  what  reason,  the 


^  Digests  of  the  General  Highway  and  Turnpike  Laws,  by  John  Scott,  1778, 
p.  345. 

2  Minutes  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Highway  Trust,  1769-1 870,  a  Contribu- 
tion to  Local  History,  by  Benjamin  Winstone,  privately  printed,  1891  ;  1  William 
and  Mary  (1690)  ;  1  Anne,  s.  2,  c.  10  (1702)  ;  House  of  Commons  Journals, 
19th  November  1702  ;  10  George  I.  c.  9  (1723)  ;  17  George  II.  c.  9  (1744)  ; 
9  George  III.  (1768);  30  George  III.  (1790);  51  George  III.  (1811);  3 
George  IV.  c.  44  (1822)  ;   6  WiUiam  IV,  (1836). 

Another  Trust  of  which  a  printed  record  is  available  is  that  of  the  roads 
about  Exeter ;  see  A  Turnpike  Key,  or  an  Account  of  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Exeter  Turnpike  Trustees,  1753-1784,  by  W.  Buckingham,  1885. 


2i6  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

powers  were,  by  a  new  Local  Act,  transferred  to  a  body  of  some 
three  hundred  Commissioners  or  Trustees,  whose  names — care- 
lessly recited  in  the  Act  in  approximately  alphabetical  order — 
appear  to  include,  besides  all  the  local  Justices  of  the  Peace, 
practically  all  the  clergy  and  resident  gentry,  and,  we  imagine, 
also  all  the  more  substantial  professional  men,  yeomen,  tenant 
farmers  and  tradesmen  of  the  district — in  fact,  everybody  who 
was  judged  worth  a  thousand  pounds,  which  was  then  the 
qualification.!  At  the  first  meeting  after  the  obtaining  of  the 
Act  about  fifty  Trustees  attended  ;  ^  one  baronet,  five  "  esquires," 
five  clergymen,  and  the  remainder  designated  in  the  minute-book 
either  by  the  humbler  prefix  of  "  Mr.,"  or  by  Christian  and 
surname  only,  without  any  prefix  whatever — a  fact  which  we 
translate  to  mean  that  the  majority  were  farmers,  tradespeople 
and  others  considered  by  the  clerk  as  being  below  the  gentry. 
The  Lord  of  the  Manor  was  appointed  Treasurer,^  and  we  find 
him  serving  in  this  capacity  for  a  whole  generation.  The  local 
firm  of  attorneys  were  appointed  "  joint  clerks,"  at  a  guinea 
per  meeting,  with  ten  shilHngs  for  their  expenses.  A  Surveyor 
was  retained  at  a  yearly  fee  of  £25.  For  the  next  thirty  years 
we  see  the  whole  body  of  Trustees  summoned  to  frequent  meetings 
— sometimes  one  a  fortnight — where  the  little  knot,  who  alone 
habitually  attend,  struggle  with  all  the  business  of  arranging 
where  the  toll-gates  are  to  be  placed,  appointing  their  own  toll- 
gatherers  (at  seven  shiUings  a  week  !),*  or  letting  the  tolls  to  the 
highest  bidder,  suppressing  such  nuisances  as  hogs  roaming  on 
the  roads,  ordering  repairs,  or  putting  the  maintenance  of  the 
road  out  to  contract  for  one  or  more  years.  For  a  whole  genera- 
tion there  is  no  committee  of  management,  and  the  executive 
authority  is  wielded  by  the  Treasurer,  sometimes  accompanied 
by  a  Trustee  living  in  the  neighbourhood.  One  of  the  constant 
difiiculties  was  the  loss  of  revenue  by  exemptions  and  composi- 
tions. Between  1769  and  1789  there  seem  to  have  been  always 
from  a  score  to  as  many  as  fifty  "  compounders,"  who  paid  from 
5s.  3d.  to  21s.  each  a  year,  for  exemption  from  all  tolls  on  them- 

'  The  list  includes  one  peer,  one  Knight  of  the  Bath,  eight  baronets,  several 
Knights  and  "  Honourables,"  about  forty  clergymen,  and  half  a  dozen  doctors 
of  medicine. 

"  Minutes  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Highway  Trust,  1760-1S70,  by  B. 
VVinstone,  1891,  p.  93. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  94-95.  *  Ibid.  p.  152. 


THE  EPPING  AND  ONGAR  TRUST  217 

selves,  their  horses,  their  carriages,  their  families  and  their 
servants.  The  Treasurer  himself  set  the  example  by  getting  all 
his  extensive  estabhshment  freed  for  a  guinea  a  year.^  The 
Surveyor,  who  had  his  residence  in  the  neighbourhood,  and 
appears  to  have  carried  on  some  sort  of  contractor's  business, 
assumed,  until  1775,  that  all  his  "  waggons,  carts,  and  carriages  " 
were  exempted  by  virtue  of  his  office,^  Not  until  1789  do  the 
Trustees  seem  to  have  realised  how  seriously  their  revenue  was 
being  curtailed  by  these  nominal  compositions,  and  they  then 
resolved  "  that  it  will  be  very  beneficial  to  the  Trust  not  to 
permit  any  persons  to  compound  for  their  tolls  in  future."  ^ 
The  list  of  compositions  thereupon  disappears  from  the  minutes. 
But  this  self-denying  ordinance  was  vehemently  objected  to  by 
some  of  the  Trustees  ;  and  thp  Treasurer  himself,  who  profited 
more  than  any  one  else  by  commuting,  insisted  on  the  resolution 
being  rescinded.  Within  a  year  he  carried  his  point,  subject 
only  to  the  composition  rates  being  doubled  ;  and  the  list  of 
compounders  reappears  in  the  minutes.*  During  these  first 
thirty  years,  the  active  Trustees,  evidently  a  little  knot  of  local 
residents,  displayed  a  continuous  small  activity  in  widening  the 
road,  levelhng  steep  ascents  and  making  better  connections  from 
point  to  point.  Sometimes  they  put  the  work  out  to  contract ; 
sometimes  they  did  it  themselves  by  direct  employment,  both 
systems  proving  equally  unsatisfactory.  What  was  constant 
was  their  rehance  on  the  surveys  and  reports  of  individual 
members  of  their  own  body,^  supplemented  by  no  better  advice 
than  they  could  get  from  the  person  whom  they  called  their 
Surveyor,  and  who  was  only  distinguished  by  the  stipend  of  £25 
a  year  from  being  what  we  should  now  regard  as  a  humble  sort 
of  contractor.  Very  frequently  he  undertook  to  carry  out  the 
specific  improvement  required  for  a  lump  sum.  At  other  times 
the  Trustees  gave  him  thirty  shillings  a  week  for  superintending 

1  Minutes  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Highway  Trust,  1769-1870,  by 
B.  Winstone,  1891,  p.  103. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  106-107.  3  Ibid.  p.  154. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  154-156.  We  learn  that,  in  1764,  the  "  compositions  "  of  the 
Marylebone,  Islington  and  Kensington  Turnpike  Trusts  made  up  nearly  7  per 
cent  of  the  revenue  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Applica- 
tion of  Money  .  .  .  for  repairing  particular  roads,  1765). 

^  As  late  as  1806,  on  so  important  a  road  as  that  between  Manchester  and 
Oldham,  we  see  the  Turnpike  Trustees  appointing  their  own  members,  by 
twos,  "  Surveyors  and  Superintendents  "  of  definite  portions  of  the  road  (MS. 
Minutes,  Manchester  and  Oldham  Turnpike  Trust,  2nd  July  1806). 


2i8  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

the  labourers  whom  they  themselves  paid.  AMien  the  work  was 
undertaken  for  a  lump  sum,  it  happens  more  than  once  that  it 
is  subsequently  complained  of  as  badly  done  or  left  altogether 
unfinished.  When  the  Trustees  had  their  own  labourers  under 
such  superintendence,  the  work  invariably  proved  to  cost  enorm- 
ously more  than  had  been  anticipated.  These  administrative 
failures  led,  first  to  repeated  changes  of  Surveyor,  and  presently, 
after  the  exhaustion  of  the  original  impetus,  to  an  abandonment 
of  the  task  in  despair,  practically  no  important  improvements 
being  undertaken  for  a  whole  generation.  At  length  in  1830, 
when  the  Trustees  nerved  themselves  to  renewed  activity,  they 
began  by  engaging  Macadam  as  consulting  surveyor,^  whose 
reputation  as  a  roadmender  was  then  at  its  height ;  and  we  may 
leave  them  in  his  hands,  at  last  making  a  scientific  survey  of 
their  whole  road,  borrowing  £22,000  on  the  security  of  the  tolls,^ 
expending  this  sum  freely  on  improvements  under  his  skilful 
guidance,  and  apparently  making  a  good  job  of  the  business. 

It  would  be  unfair  to  imply  that  the  Epping  and  Ongar 
Turnpike  Trust  represented  the  high-water  mark  of  turnpike 
administration.  We  have,  by  chance,  an  elaborate  printed 
report,  for  instance,  of  a  committee  of  the  Hammersmith  and 
Brentford  Turnpike  Trust  in  the  year  1800  ;  a  document  which 
reveals  no  small  amount  of  administrative  organisation,  an 
experienced  staff,  and  upright  and  thoughtful  Trustees.  This 
Trust  let  its  tolls,  with  due  precautions  against  fraud,  for  a  large 
annual  sum,  the  Trustees  devoting  all  their  attention  to  the 
maintenance  and^mprovement  of  their  highway,  which,  as  the 
first  stage  out  of  London  on  the  main  Great  Western  Road,  was, 
at  that  date,  one  of  the  busiest  thoroughfares  in  the  world,  along 
which,  it  was  said  later,  a  fully  laden  stage-coach  passed  every 
six  minutes  day  and  night,  throughout  the  year.^  We  gather 
that  the  Trustees  not  only  met  regularly  as  a  body,  but  also 
appointed  an  Administrative  Committee,  which  inspected  every 
inch  of  the  road.  Their  meetings  were  always  attended,  not  by 
their  Law  Clerk,  but  also  by  their  Surveyor,  from  whom  they 

*  Minutes  of  the  Epping  and  Ongar  Highway  Trust,  by  B.  Winstone,  1891, 
p.  199.  2  Ibid.  pp.  200,  202. 

^  In  1834  there  were  on  this  road  115  lines  of  coaches,  doing  over  800 
journeys  per  wceli  each  way  (The  Development  of  Transportation  in  Modern 
England,  by  W.  T.  Jacknian,  191 G,  vol.  ii.  p.  609  ;  The  Exeter  Road,  by  C.  G. 
Harjier,  1899  ;  The  Bath  Road,  by  the  same,  1899). 


THE  BRISTOL  TRUST  219 

received  detailed  reports.  They  executed  their  own  repairs, 
keeping  a  permanent  staff  of  labourers,  and  buying  their  materials 
by  competitive  tendering  after  public  advertisement.  In  1800 
we  find  them  proposing  to  straighten  the  road  at  a  certain 
dangerous  corner,  by  acquiring  houses  for  demolition ;  to  fill 
up  a  part  which  is  below  the  general  level ;  to  cart  away  the  road 
scrapings  from  those  parts  which  do  not  need  raising  ;  and  to 
contract  the  side-walks  where  the  roadway  is  unduly  narrow. 
We  see  them  even  deUberating  on  an  experimental  handing  over 
of  a  certain  length  of  road  to  a  professional  roadmaker,  in  order 
to  let  him  try  a  new  system  ;  the  Committee  suggesting  an 
arrangement  "  with  some  person  or  persons  scientifically  ac- 
quainted with,  and  practically  experienced  in,  the  formation  and 
management  of  turnpike  roads.  Without  hastily  abandoning 
the  present  system,"  they  suggest  that  "  a  trial  might  be  made 
by  the  mile  on  certain  parts  of  the  road.  Thus  the  Board  might 
be  enabled  to  form  a  correct  opinion  of  the  expediency  of  this 
mode,  and  of  the  ability  of  any  such  contractor  or  contractors 
as  might  be  engaged  to  make  the  experiment,  and  thus  your 
Surveyor  might  be  improved  in  theory  and  in  practice  and  a 
desirable  emulation  be  excited."  ^ 

The  best  example  of  enhghtened  administration  on  the  part 
of  a  Turnpike  Trust  is,  however,  that  presented  for  the  first 
twenty  years  of  the  nineteenth  century  by  the  Trustees  of  the 
roads  of  the  Bristol  District,  which,  with  no  less  than  148  miles 
of  much  frequented  thoroughfares,  had,  since  1799,  become  the 
largest  single  road  authority  in  the  kingdom.  This  important 
Turnpike  Trust  had  the  good  fortune  to  include  among  its 
members  John  Loudon  Macadam,  to  whose  career  as  Justice  of 
the  Peace  and  Turnpike  Trustee  we  have,  in  The  Parish  and  the 
County,  already  alluded.  We  have,  in  our  Story  of  the  King's 
Highway,  described  Macadam's  remarkable  career  as  a  road 
administrator,^  and  discussed  the  celebrated  new  technique  to 
which  he  gave  his  name.     Here  we  have  to  notice  the  readiness 

1  Report  of  Committee  of  Trustees  of  the  Hammersmith  and  Brentford  Turn- 
pikes, 1800,  p.  17. 

*  No  more  detailed  account  of  John  Loudon  Macadam  (1756-183G)  exists 
than  the  notices  in  the  Imperial  Dictionary  of  Biography  and  the  National 
Dictionary  of  Biography  ;  and  we  have  therefore  specified  m  our  Story  of  the 
King's  Highway,  both  the  chief  events  of  his  life,  and  some  of  the  materials 
for  the  biography  which  is  his  due  (pp.  135,  176,  184-185,  etc.). 


220  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

with  which  his  colleagues  on  the  Bristol  District  Turnpike  Trust 
welcomed  the  exjjerience  that  he  had  gained  in  Ayrshire  and 
on  his  travels  ;  and  the  ease  with  which  he  was  able  to  organise 
an  efficient  executive  under  that  large  and  unwieldy  Trust.  In 
1810  he  communicated  his  ideas  to  the  Board  of  Agriculture, 
which,  under  the  enlightened  leadership  of  Sir  John  Sinclair  and 
Arthur  Young,  was  then  energetically  striving  for  a  general 
improvement  of  the  roads.  Macadam's  proposals  were  in  this 
way  brought  to  the  notice  of  various  Parhamentary  Committees, 
and  extensively  advertised  throughout  the  kingdom.  In  1815 
his  fellow  Trustees  begged  him  to  take  over  the  entire  manage- 
ment of  their  roads,  and  he  became  their  surveyor  at  a  salary 
of  £400  a  year,  which  was  then  considered  an  extraordinary  sum 
for  the  office.  His  fame  now  spread  far  and  wide,  and  it  is,  we 
think,  to  the  credit  of  the  Turnpike  Trusts  that  his  services  were 
so  eagerly  competed  for.  He  quickly  became  a  general  consulting 
surveyor  to  many  of  the  more  important  Trusts,  and,  by  1819, 
was  acting,  with  the  assistance  of  his  son,  as  salaried  surveyor 
to  no  fewer  than  "  34  different  bodies  of  Commissioners,"  having 
simultaneously  "  328  miles  under  repair "  according  to  his 
system,  and  another  300  miles  under  survey  w4th  a  view  to  his 
advising  upon  it.^  We  need  not  here  pursue  the  story  of  the 
improvements  brought  about  by  Macadam.  What  concerns 
us  is  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  the  credit  of  recognising  and 
promoting  his  genius  for  road  repair  is  to  be  shared  between  the 
Bristol  District  Turnpike  Trustees  and  the  then  Board  of  Agri- 
culture, whilst  the  rapid  acceptance  and  apphcation  of  his  plans, 
once  they  were  announced,  must  be  counted  as  merit  to  the 
hundreds  of  Turnpike  Trusts,  including  practically  all  those  of 
any  importance,  by  whom  he  was,  between  1815  and  his  death 
in  183G,  so  eagerly  consulted. 

The  Commissioners  of  the  Hohjhead  Road 

It  was  not  so  much  the  imperfection  of  the  administration  of 
the  Turnpike  Trusts,  or  the  financial  insolvency  into  which  so 
many  of  them  had  fallen,  as  their  incapacity  to  provide  the  main 
lines  of  national  inter-communication,  that  led  to  the  intervention 
of  the  Government,  in  a  way  that  came  near  to  superseding  them 

*  Report  of  Houso  of  Commons  CVimmittce  on  Highways,  1819. 


THE  COMMISSIONERS  OF  THE  HOLYHEAD  ROAD  221 

altogether  by  a  national  system  of  road  administration.  From 
the  very  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  Postmaster- 
General  had  found  himself  driven  by  the  increasing  postal  traffic, 
at  a  time  when  all  mails  were  road-borne,  to  press  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  main  arteries  of  communication.  We  see  him  writing 
to  different  Turnpike  Trusts,  sending  his  "  riding  surveyors  " 
to  inspect  the  various  routes,  and  even  indicting  the  parishes 
where  the  Trusts  had  failed  to  provide  good  roads.  Especially 
in  the  valleys  of  North  Wales  did  these  efforts  prove  ineffectual, 
and  between  Shrewsbury  and  Holyhead  the  road  continued  so 
bad  as  to  make  it  in  some  places  positively  unsafe  to  use  a  mail- 
coach.  At  last,  spurred  on  by  the  Irish  Members  of  Parhament 
as  well  as  by  the  Post  Office,  the  Government  agreed  to  propose 
a  vote  of  £20,000  towards  the  improvement  of  the  Holyhead 
road,  as  an  enterprise  transcending  the  capacity  of  any  of  the 
existing  Trusts.  Thomas  Telford,  whom  we  have  elsewhere 
described  building  bridges  for  the  Shropshire  Quarter  Sessions, 
had  been,  since  1803,  making  roads  in  Scotland  for  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Highland  Roads,  and  in  1815  he  was  set  to  work  on 
the  Holyhead  road,  under  the  direction  of  a  special  body  of  ten 
Commissioners  established  by  Act  of  Parliament.^  These 
Commissioners  included  no  fewer  than  three  Ministers  of  the 
Crown,  but  the  principal  part  was  played  and  the  work  done  by 
an  able  and  energetic  Irish  baronet.  Sir  Henry  Parnell,  who 
for  twenty  years  devoted  most  of  his  energy  to  the  task.^ 

In  the  annual  reports  of  the  Holyhead  Road  Commissioners 
we  see  Parnell  and  TeKord  maintaining,  between  1817  and  1833, 
a  perpetual  struggle  with  the  twenty-three  separate  Turnpike 
Trusts,  among  whom  the  194  miles  of  road  were  divided.  The 
Commissioners  had  no  authority  to  supersede  these  Trusts. 
Each  of  them  had  to  be  separately  argued  with,  and  persuaded 
to  allow  TeKord  to  execute  the  works  necessary  to  improve 
its  few  miles  of  line.  The  seventeen  Enghsh  Trusts  were  left  un- 
disturbed in  their  nominal  authority.  In  nearly  all  of  them 
Telford  managed  to  get  a  free  hand  for  his  alterations,  and  when 

1  The  Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1913,  pp.  103, 
182-183  ;  55  George  III.  c.  152,  1815. 

-  Sir  Henry  Parnell  (1776-1842)  deserves  a  biography,  which,  apart  from 
the  entry  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  written.  We  give,  in  our  Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  1913,  pp.  184-187, 
a  summary  of  his  career,  with  a  Ust  of  his  works. 


222  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

the  work  was  completed  the  Trustees  were  required  to  add  50  per 
cent  to  their  tolls,  and  to  pay  the  amount  of  this  surtax  to  the 
Commissioners.  With  the  six  little  Welsh  Trusts,  controUing 
the  most  difficult  85  miles  of  the  hne,  more  drastic  measures  had 
to  be  taken.  By  one  means  or  another  Sir  Henry  Parnell,  who 
devoted  the  spring  of  1818  to  attending  their  meetings,  managed 
to  induce  them  to  allow  their  Trusts  to  be  merged  by  Act  of 
Parliament  in  a  single  new  body  of  fifteen  Commissioners,  who 
were  expressly  required  by  their  Act  to  employ  a  professional 
civil  engineer  as  their  surveyor.^  Under  Telford's  superintend- 
ence an  entirely  new  system  of  road  management  was  introduced. 
The  85  miles  of  road  were  divided  among  three  assistant  surveyors, 
each  having  under  him  about  half  a  dozen  foremen,  and  each  of 
these  again  being  made  definitely  and  permanently  responsible  for 
four  or  five  miles  of  road,  with  a  standing  gang  of  hired  labourers 
under  him.  All  this  work  took  both  time  and  money.  But  so 
successful  were  its  earlier  stages  that  Parliament  voted  larger 
and  larger  annual  grants  and  loans,  and  devolved  greater  and 
greater  powers  upon  the  Holyhead  Road  Commissioners,  until, 
by  1830,  more  than  three-quarters  of  a  million  had  been  thus 
allocated.  In  return  for  this  large  sum  the  Commissioners  of 
the  Holyhead  Road,  through  Telford's  engineering  skill  and 
Sir  Henry  Parnell' s  energy,  had  reconstructed  a  continuous  line 
of  194  miles  of  road  between  London,  and  Holyhead,  which, 
under  what  was  virtually  the  management  of  a  Government 
department,  could  be  claimed  as  a  model  of  the  most  "  perfect 
roadmaking  that  has  ever  been  attempted  in  any  country  "  ; 
and  was,  at  any  rate,  the  best  piece  of  land  travelling  in  the 
Britain  of  its  time.^ 

1  59  George  III.  c.  30  (Shrewsbury  and  Bangor  Turnpike  Act,  1819). 

^  For  the  Commissioners  of  the  Holyhead  Road,  see  the  account  in  our 
Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  1913,  jip.  167-171,  182.  The  principal  authorities 
arc  the  various  statutes,  the  numerous  reports  of  Pariianu-ntary  Committees 
and  the  occasional  discussions  in  Hansard  between  1810  and  1833  ;  the  series 
of  Reports  by  the  Commissioners  ;  Voyages  dans  la  Grande  Bretagne,  by  Baron 
Charles  Dupin,  1824,  vol.  v.  "  Voics  Publiques,"  pp.  41-47  ;  A  Treatise  on  Roads, 
by  Sir  Henry  Parnell,  1st  edition,  1833, 2nd  edition,  1838 ;  Life  of  Thomas  Telford, 
by  himself,  edited  by  John  Rickman,  1838  ;  Lives  of  the  Engineers,  by  Samuel 
Smiles,  1861,  vol.  ii.  ;  Roadmaking  and  Maintenance,  by  Thomas  Aitken,  1900, 
pp.  14-26  ;  77(6  Holyhead  Road,  by  C.  G.  Harper,  1902.  The  Commission  was 
merged  in  the  Office  of  Woods  and  Forests  by  an  Act  of  3  &  4  William  IV. 
(1833). 


THE  BOARD  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  MACADAM   223 


The  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Macadam 

Meanwhile  another  department  of  the  National  Government 
had  been  bestirring  itself  in  the  attempt  to  get  a  better  adminis- 
tration of  the  roads.  The  Board  of  Agriculture,  inspired  by 
the  practical  genius  of  Sir  John  Sinclair,  Bart.  (1754-1835)  and 
Arthur  Young,  had,  from  1794  onwards,  been  incidentally  re- 
porting on  the  unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  English  highways 
and  constantly  pressing  for  their  improvement.  Early  in  the 
Session  of  1806  Sir  John  Sinclair,  the  Chairman  of  the  Board, 
laid  before  the  House  of  Commons  a  Bill  for  reforming  highway 
administration  generally,  a  step  which  produced,  not  an  Act, 
but  the  first  of  the  series  of  Parliamentary  Committees  on  roads 
to  which  we  have  already  referred.  In  the  proceedings  of  the 
Committees  of  1806,  1808,  1809,  and  1811  we  see  Sir  John  Sinclair 
inviting  communications  from  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Turnpike 
Trustees,  County  Surveyors  and  all  sorts  of  cranks  and  en- 
thusiasts ;  and  getting  these,  with  other  materials,  sifted  by 
the  staff  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture  for  presentation  to  the 
committees.  Among  the  communications  addressed  to  the 
Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture  there  came,  in  1810,  a 
long  memorandum  from  a  fellow-Scotsman,  one  John  Loudon 
Macadam,  giving  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  whole  system  of 
roadmaking  was  fundamentally  erroneous,  and  begging  to  be 
allowed  to  bring  under  pubhc  notice  a  new  plan  which  he  "  had 
been  long  endeavouring  to  get  .  .  .  fairly  tried."  "  Sir  John," 
we  are  told  in  his  Memoirs,  "  being  pleased  with  the  suggestions 
in  his  letter,  resolved  to  bring  them  under  the  notice  of  a 
Parliamentary  Committee  on  Highways,  which  was  then  sitting, 
and  of  which  Sir  John  Sinclair  was  Chairman.  To  give  the  new 
method  a  better  chance  of  success  (he)  caused  the  information 
sent  by  Mr.  Macadam  to  be  arranged  and  condensed,  and  had 
it  printed  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Keport  of  the  Committee." 
From  this  time  onward,  until  his  death  in  1836,  Macadam 
occupied,  towards  successive  Parliamentary  Committees  on 
general  road  administration,  much  the  same  position  of  expert 
authority  as  did  Thomas  Telford  in  those  concerned  with  the 
Scottish  and  Holyhead  roads.  And  it  is  thus  to  Macadam,  rather 
than  to  Telford,  that  we  owe  such  modicum  of  reform  as  was 


224  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

effected  in  the  general  law  and  administration  of  roads  between 
1810  and  1835. 

We  need  not  describe  the  system  of  roadmaking  introduced 
by  Macadam,  nor  the  extraordinary  vogue  that  it  gained  between 
1820  and  1840,  which  we  have  sufficiently  dealt  with  in  another 
volume.^  But  besides  the  improvements  in  the  administration 
of  many  Turnpike  Trusts  that  he  and  his  son  set  going,  under 
the  fostering  influence  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  we  have  to 
record  the  movement  promoted  at  the  same  time  for  a  general 
consolidation  of  Turnpike  Trusts,  and  an  improvement  in  their 
professional  staffs.  Successive  House  of  Commons  Committees 
of  1819,  1820  and  1821,  besides  testifying  to  the  genius  of  Mac- 
adam, strongly  urged  the  appointment  by  Quarter  Sessions  of 
one  or  more  County  Surveyors,  who  should  superintend  and 

1  The  Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  1913,  pp.  171-175.  The  distinctive 
feature  of  Macadam's  system  was  to  abstain  from  the  use  of  clay,  dirt,  or  even 
pebbles,  but  "  to  put  broken  stone  on  a  road,  which  shall  unite  by  its  own 
angles,  so  as  to  form  a  solid  hard  surface  " — to  substitute  "  small  angular 
stones,  prepared  from  larger  pieces,  for  the  large  rounded  stones  then  generally 
made  use  of  in  road  construction  " — and  to  dispense  with  "  binding  material  " 
or  any  "  mixture  of  earth,  clay,  chalk  or  other  matter  that  will  imbibe  water 
and  be  affected  by  frost  "  {Roadmaking  and  Maintenance,  by  Thomas  Aitken, 
1907,  p.  12  ;  see  Cresy's  Encydopcedia  of  Civil  Engineering,  1847  ;  also  Report, 
of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Highways  of  the  Kingdom,  1819). 
R.  L.  Edge  worth,  on  the  contrary,  "  recommended  that  the  interstices  should 
be  filled  up  with  small  gravel  or  sharp  sand,"  a  practice  which,  though  it  was 
condemned  by  Macadam,  is  now  adopted  by  the  best  surveyors  {The  Construc- 
tion of  Roads  and  Streets,  by  Henry  Law  and  Dl  Kinnear  Clark,  1887,  p.  9). 
"  Telford's  name  is  associated  Avith  the  system  of  handset  stones  as  a  pave- 
ment foundation  on  which  the  top  metal  or  wearing  surface  is  placed.  .  .  . 
Macadam  was  satisfied  with  lajdng  the  metalling  directly  on  the  surface  of 
the  ground,  after  the  irregularities  had  been  levelled,  and  side  ditches  formed. 
...  A  system  of  bottoming  roads  combinmg  the  methods  practised  by  Telford 
and  Macadam  has  long  been  adopted,"  though  the  use  of  the  steam-roller  has 
permitted  the  application  of  water,  which  was  to  Macadam  anathema  {Road- 
making and  Maintenance,  by  T.  Aitken,  1900,  pp.  249,  251,  253  ;  see  also  The 
Municipal  and  Sanitary  Engineer's  Handbook,  by  H.  Percy  Boulnois,  1883); 
and  recently  the  use  of  tar,  to  both  bind  and  render  impervious  the  surface. 
Not  only  Telford,  but  also,  it  is  said,  "  Rennie  had  practised  the  same  method 
of  making  roads  over  his  bridges  long  before  "  Macadam's  publications  {Lives 
of  the  Engineers,  by  Samuel  Smiles,  1861,  vol.  ii.  p.  185).  So,  also,  it  is  said, 
did  Aborcromby,  who  constructed  admirable  roads  in  Scotland  ;  and  various 
French  roadraakers,  notably  the  great  Pierre  Tresaguet,  whom  Turgot  employed 
in  17(54  {The  King's  Highway,  the  Nature,  Purpose  and  Development  of  Roads 
and  Road  Systems,  by  Reginald  Ryves,  1911  ;  The  Art  of  Roadmaking,  by  Frost, 
pp.  159,  IGO;  Highways  and  Horses,  by  Athol  Maudslay,  1888,  p.  53).  But 
in  1830  the  French  Covcrnment  officially  adopted  Macadam's  system,  which 
received  the  highest  praise  in  1843  from  Dumas,  the  engineer  in  chief  of  the 
department  of  Fonts  et  Chaussees  {The  King's  Highway,  etc.,  by  Reginald 
Ryves,  1911,  p.  65). 


CONSOLIDATION  OF  ACTS  225 

manage  all  the  turnpike  roads  within  each  county,  under  the 
direction  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  several  Trusts.  The  Com- 
mittees recommended  also  both  the  consolidation  of  the  confused 
law  about  turnpikes  and  the  combination  of  the  Trusts  them- 
selves. 

It  must  be  said  that  the  legislative  results  with  regard  to 
Turnpike  Trusts  were  disappointingly  small.  It  was  not  found 
possible  even  to  remedy  the  more  important  defects  of  the  general 
turnpike  law.  The  various  Pubhc  General  Acts  on  the  subject 
were,  it  is  true,  strung  together  in  1822  into  mechanical  unity 
by  a  consoHdating  Act,  carried  through  Parhament  by  Sir 
Frankland  Lewis  ;  but  this  left  the  real  complications  practically 
unchanged,  and  was  itself  promptly  overlain  by  a  new  set  of 
little  amending  Acts.^  In  spite  of  repeated  recommendations 
Parhament  failed,  until  1831,  to  devise  any  remedy  for  the 
trouble  and  expense  annually  wasted  over  the  periodical  renewal 
of  the  Local  Acts  of  the  eleven  hundred  Turnpike  Trusts  ;  or  to 
protect  their  promoters  from  being  mulcted  in  absurdly  heavy 
fees  by  the  officials  of  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament ;   and  even 

^  The  general  legislation  about  Turnpike  Trusts  between  1822  and  1834 
comprised  the  3  George  IV.  c.  126  (General  Turnpike  Act  of  1822) ;  amended 
by  4  George  IV.  c.  16  (1823)  ;  5  George  IV.  c.  69  (1824)  ;  7  &  8  George  IV. 
c.  24  (1827)  ;  9  George  IV.  c.  77  (1828)  ;  1  &  2  William  IV.  c.  25  (1831)  ; 
3  &  4  William  IV.  c.  78  (1833)  ;  4  &  5  William  IV.  c.  81  (1834).  In  1824  a 
further  consolidation  was  attempted  by  J.  Cripps,  M.P.,  himseK  a  Justice  of 
the  Peace  and  Turnpike  Trustee,  who  brought  m  a  Bill  to  include  in  a  single 
statute  the  entire  law  relating  to  highways,  parochial  as  well  as  turnpike. 
This  was  deprecated  by  Sir  Frankland  Lewis  as  unwise,  and  was  not  pressed 
(Hansard,  25th  March  1824). 

On  the  vexed  question  of  Parliamentary  costs,  it  was  pointed  out  in  1827 
that  Bills  for  the  consolidation  of  Turnpike  Trusts  have  "  hitherto  been  visited 
.  .  .  with  the  heaviest  charges.  Turnpike  Bills  generally  have  been  always 
subjected  to  double  House  Fees,  on  some  principle  not  sufHciently  intelligible 
to  your  Committee  ;  but  when  Trusts  are  consolidated,  or  when  roads  are 
divided  into  two  or  more  districts  .  .  .  the  House  Fee  is  again  doubled  or 
trebled,  and  so  on,  as  the  case  may  be  ;  the  Committee  Fees  are  also  increased, 
though  not  in  the  same  proportion."  Yet,  as  was  vainly  urged,  Turnpike 
Bills,  being  really  measures  for  the  public  advantage,  not  for  individual  profit, 
might  properly  be  relieved  from  all  fees.  The  limitation  of  time  inserted  in 
them  was  "  a  precautionary  provision  of  the  Legislature,  not  at  all  requisite 
for  the  purposes  of  the  Trust,  but  on  the  contrary,  rather  injurious  to  its 
interests,  having  been  introduced  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  public,  with  a  view 
to  procure  a  periodical  revision  of  the  powers  and  proceedings  of  the  Trust." 
All  renewal  BiUs  should  therefore  be  exempt  from  the  charges  on  Private  Bills 
(Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  Turnpike  Trusts  Renewal  Bills, 
1827  ;  see  also  A  Second  Supplement  to  the  General  Turnpike  Road  Acts  for 
1827,  by  J.  Bateman,  1827,  p.  Ill  ;  Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer, 
1911,  pp.  77-84). 

Q 


226  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

in  1831  could  find  no  more  efficient  reform  than  the  inclusion, 
each  year,  of  all  the  expiring  Acts  in  one  annual  renewal  Bill.^ 
No  attempt  was  made  by  Parliament  to  efiect  any  general  reform 
in  the  administration  of  the  existing  Turnpike  Trusts,  It  was 
all  very  well  for  Committee  after  Committee  to  urge  the  desir- 
abiUty  of  "  consoUdation  of  areas,"  but  no  Committee  made  any 
practical  proposal  for  bringing  it  about.  The  great  difference 
in  financial  position  between  the  various  Trusts,  and  the  natural 
reluctance  of  every  solvent  body  to  take  over  the  habihties  of 
a  bankrupt  concern,  prevented  anything  of  the  kind  taking  place. 
The  obvious,  and  perhaps  the  only  possible,  way  of  surmounting 
the  financial  entanglement  of  the  thousands  of  separate  mortgages 
of  tolls  remaining  unpaid,  of  the  great  and  gro\ving  arrears  of 
interest  owing  by  some  of  the  Trusts,  and  of  the  pledging  of 
particular  tolls  for  separate  debts,  was  compulsorily  to  amal- 
gamate all  the  various  Trusts,  so  as  to  give  each  of  the  mortgagees 
and  other  creditors  a  superior  security,  and  so  as  to  bring  the 
total  expenditure  within  the  aggregate  income.  This  meant, 
in  efiect,  the  merging  of  them  all  into  a  national  department  of 
toll-supported  roads,  a  project  frequently  recommended  by 
outside  critics  and  irresponsible  advisers.  But  under  George  the 
Fourth,  as  under  George  the  Third,  no  Ministry  was  ever  found 
willing  to  undertake  such  a  reform,  and  no  Parliament  to  sanction 
such  an  increase  in  the  executive  power  and  Government  patron- 
age. As  an  alternative  to  any  scheme  of  consolidation  under  a 
national  department,  some  substantial  progress  might  have  been 
made  in  compulsorily  consolidating  the  Trusts  of  particular 
districts,  a  policy  which  had  been  strenuously  recommended  by 
the  Committee  of  1819,  and  its  successors,  A  certain  amount  of 
this  district  consolidation  presently  got  effected.  We  shall 
describe  the  successful  combination  in  1827  of  the  Metropolitan 
roads  north  of  the  Thames.  But  besides  this  great  consolidation, 
others  were  made  in  different  parts  of  the  Kingdom  to  the  great 
improvement  of  the  administration.  The  63  miles  of  the  Surrey 
and  Sussex  Turnpike  Trust — the  aggregation  second  in  import- 
ance in  revenue  (£19,000)  to  that  of  the  Metropolitan  roads — 

^  The  first  of  the  long  series  of  annual  Turnpike  Trust  Renewal  Acts  was 
1  &  2  William  IV.  c.  G,  1831,  entitled  "An  Act  for  continuing  until  the 
30th  day  of  June  1832  the  several  Acts  for  regulating  the  Turnpike  Roads 
in  Great  Britain  which  will  expire  at  the  end  of  the  present  session  of  Parlia- 
ment," 


AMALGAMATION  OF  TRUSTS  227 

were  steadily  improved  by  the  force  of  example.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  Middlesex  and  Essex  Trust  (£11,000)  with  its 
31  miles,  and  of  the  New  Cross  Trust  (£14,000)  with  its  49  miles, 
both  yielding  exceptionally  large  toll  receipts.  "  The  whole 
of  the  south  and  south-western  roads,"  as  we  learn  incidentally 
from  the  historian  of  our  taxes,  "  benefited  by  the  impulse  to 
locomotion  in  those  parts,  due  to  the  patronage  of  Brighton  " 
by  George  the  Fourth.  The  much  frequented  roads  about 
Bristol,  where,  already  by  1799,  the  consolidation  of  small 
Trusts  had  put  172  miles  under  one  management  (revenue 
£15,000),  were  brought  to  a  high  state  of  excellence  by  the 
Macadams,  and  vied  with  those  of  the  Bath  Turnpike  Trust 
(51  miles  of  very  remunerative  roads  yielding  £8000).  Other 
extensive  Trusts  were  those  of  Worcester  (160  miles,  £5000), 
Hereford  (156  miles,  £5000),  Exeter  (146  miles,  £6000),  and 
Alston  in  Cumberland  (130  miles,  £3000)  ;  whilst  the  Manchester 
and  Buxton  Trust,  with  only*  45  miles  of  road,  stood  sixth  in 
aggregate  receipts  (£8000).  These  eleven  great  Trusts  managed, 
in  the  aggregate,  1165  miles  of  road  (or  about  6  per  cent  of  the 
total  mileage),  but  collected  no  less  than  £166,000  in  revenue 
(or  about  12  per  cent  of  the  whole  turnpike  receipts).  Elsewhere, 
especially  in  the  more  remote  and  less  frequented  parts  of  the 
Kingdom,  the  thousand  and  odd  little  Trusts  remained  uncon- 
solidated,^ each  administering  its  10  or  20  miles  of  road, 
and  its  thousand  or  two  pounds  of  revenue,  by  its  miscellaneous 
fifty  or  a  hundred  Trustees  ;  gradually  executing,  it  is  true,  the 
most  elementary  improvements,  but  for  the  most  part  squander- 
ing their  tolls  in  extravagant  administrative  expenses,  and  piling 
up  their  debts  until  actual  insolvency  beset  them,  much  as  they 
had  done  for  the  previous  couple  of  generations. 

^  The  multiplicity  of  Trusts  was,  indeed,  carried  to  an  absurd  extreme. 
Within  the  municipal  boundaries  of  Leeds  there  were  46  miles  of  turnpike 
roads  and  30  tollgates,  belonging  to  no  fewer  than  18  different  Trusts,  and 
collecting,  in  1842,  £23,251  per  annum  (Suggestions  for  consolidating  the  funds 
and  management  of  turnpike  roads  within  the  Borough  of  Leeds,  by  Richard 
Bayldon,  1843,  p.  11).  Within  the  boundaries  of  the  Parliamentary  Borough 
of  Stroud  (Gloucestershire)  there  were  13  different  Trusts  (Rebecca  at  Stroud, 
or  a  few  words  about  the  Turnpike  Trusts,  by  David  Ricardo,  1847).  For  an 
early  advocacy  of  combination  see  the  pamphlet,  A  Letter  to  the  InJiabitants  of 
Hertford,  about  1771,  in  British  Museum  volume  8245,  bb.  14.  It  was,  more 
than  anything  else,  this  multiplicity  of  Trusts,  and  an  excessive  multiplication 
of  tollgates  that  produced,  in  1842-1843,  the  Rebecca  riots  in  South  Wales 
(Rebecca  a7id  Iter  Daughters,  by  Henry  Tobit  Evans,  1910). 


228  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 


The  Commissioners  of  Metropolitan  Turnpike  Roads 

It  was  in  London  that  the  inefficiency  of  the  Turnpike  Trust 
became  least  endurable.  The  working  constitution  of  the 
Turnpike  Trust,  like  that  of  the  Parish,  the  County  ^  and  the 
Court  of  Sewers,  had  completely  broken  down  under  the  excep- 
tional conditions  of  the  Metropolitan  area.  The  peculiar  con- 
stitutional characteristic  of  the  Turnpike  Trust  was,  as  we  have 
indicated,  its  large  and  indiscriminate  membership.  "Wlien,  as 
in  the  rural  districts,  this  meant  the  inclusion  within  the  Trust 
of  practically  every  resident  above  the  manual  working  and 
small  shop-keeping  classes,  it  provided,  at  any  rate,  a  kind  of 
popular  control  and  popular  assent  absent  from  the  more  ex- 
clusive administration  of  the  Close  Vestry,  the  Municipal 
Corporation  or  the  County.  In  the  wilderness  of  the  MetropoUs, 
however,  the  large  and  indiscriminate  membership  of  a  Turnpike 
Trust  secured  neither  popular  assent  nor  popular  control,  whilst 
it  served  to  accelerate  the  tendency,  which  marked  nearly  all 
the  London  governing  bodies  of  the  period,  for  the  social  status 
and  personal  character  of  the  members  steadily  to  sink  to  an 
ever  lower  level.  The  main  roads  in  Middlesex,  outside  the  City 
of  London,  were  under  the  care  of  fourteen  different  Turnpike 
Trusts.  Amid  the  many  tens  of  thousands  of  residents  of 
Marylebone  and  Paddington,  Chelsea  and  Kensington,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  few  hundreds  who  sat 
on  the  Turnpike  Trusts  were  but  an  unknown  handful.  As  in 
the  cases  of  the  Metropolitan  Close  Vestries,  the  Middlesex 
Commission  of  the  Peace  or  the  Westminster  Court  of  Sewers, 
the  great  people  who  figured  in  the  list  never  deigned  to  attend 
the  meetings,  and  the  administration  was,  without  publicity, 
without  practical  responsibihty  and  even  without  audit,  left  in 
the  hands  of  the  smaller  folk  to  whom  the  patronage,  the  per- 
quisites and  the  opportunities  for  profit  were  an  irresistible 
attraction.  Already,  in  1765,  we  see  the  Kensington  Turnpike 
Trust  squandering  an  almost  incredible  number  of  loads  of  gravel 
on  Piccadilly,  because  one  of  the  active  Trustees  himself  supplied 
this  material  at  a  non-competitive  price,  whilst  "  all  the  car- 
penter's work,"  whatever  this  included,  was  secured  at  profitable 

1  T/ie  Parish  and  Uie  County,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1907. 


THE  COMMISSIONERS  OF  METROPOLITAN  ROADS  229 

rates  by  the  partner  of  another  active  Trustee.^  With  the 
enormous  growth  of  the  wheeled  traffic  and  the  revenue  from 
tolls,  the  various  Turnpike  Trusts  to  which  had  been  committed 
the  roads  radiating  from  Charing  Cross  and  St.  Paul's,  evidently 
went  from  bad  to  worse.  It  was  given  in  evidence  by  such 
competent  witnesses  as  the  Postmaster-General's  Superintendent 
of  Mail-Coaches  and  the  leading  coach  proprietors,  that  the  high 
roads  just  outside  the  centre  of  the  city  were  far  worse  than  those 
elsewhere  ;  that  ten  horses  had  to  be  used  to  do  the  work  of 
eight ;  that  these  horses  lasted  only  three  or  four  years,  as  com- 
pared with  six  years  elsewhere  ;  and  that  the  mail-coaches 
occasionally  lost  twenty  minutes  in  labouring  through  a  few 
score  yards  of  soft  road.^  From  1819  onward  Committee  after 
Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  insisted  that  something 
must  be  done  to  remedy  the  evils  "  of  the  numerous  small  Trusts 
.  .  ,  most  inconveniently  divided  "  ;  the  "  frequency  of  turn- 
pike gates,"  and  the  consequent  "  great  interruption  of  the 
traffic,"  under  which  the  Metropolis  suffered.  An  energetic 
attempt  by  a  knot  of  private  members,  headed  by  Davies  Gilbert 
and  Sir  Henry  Parnell,  to  roll  up  into  a  single  body  all  the  various 
Trusts  surrounding  the  capital — a  reform  to  which  the  Com- 
mittees of  1819  and  1821  had  attached  particular  importance  in 
the  hope  of  rendering  "  the  roads  round  the  Metropohs,"  on 
which  an  "  immense  revenue  "  was  "  collected  from  the  public," 
a  "  pattern  for  the  kingdom,"  so  that  "  the  spirit  of  improvement 
radiating  from  this  centre  may  .  .  .  spread  with  rapidity 
throughout  the  country."  This  bill  was  an  extensive  proposal, 
which  would  have  wiped  out  more  than  fifty  separate  Trusts  in 
Essex,  Middlesex,  Surrey  and  Kent,  comprising  several  thousands 
of  Trustees,  who  were  to  be  permitted  to  select  a  small  body 
from  amongst  themselves  as  the  new  Trustees.  Though  the 
second  reading  was  carried  by  a  large  majority,  the  measure 
naturally  met  with  "  a  very  great  opposition  by  the  several 
Trusts  that  were  proposed  to  be  consohdated,  and  there  was  no 
party  possessing  the  means  to  forward  the  measure."  Left 
entirely  to  the  energy  of  a  few  private  members,  without  Govern- 
ment  support,   it  was   obstructed,   postponed   and   eventually 

^  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  appointed  to  enquire  into  the 
application  of  money  ...  for  repairing  any  particular  highway,  1765. 

^  See  also  the  facts  stated  in  an  article  on  road-making  in  London  Magazine, 
August  1828. 


230  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

defeated  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  72  votes  to  71.  But  the 
question  was  not  allowed  to  drop.  In  1825  Lord  Lowther 
brought  before  the  House  of  Commons  an  amazing  indictment  of 
the  Trustees  of  all  these  Metropohtan  Trusts,  which  collected, 
he  said,  over  £200,000  a  year  in  tolls,  and  were  honeycombed  by 
corruption  on  a  large  scale,  the  Trustees  giving  each  other 
profitable  contracts  and  appointments,  and  permitting  each 
other  to  lend  money  to  the  Trusts  at  10  per  cent  interest — an 
indictment,  supported  on  the  one  hand  by  the  speeches  of  Joseph 
Hume,  and  on  the  other  by  the  writings  of  WilUam  Cobbett, 
who  alleged  also  that  excessive  and  illegal  tolls  were  exacted.^ 
These  complaints  led  at  last,  in  1826,  to  the  supersession  of  the 
fourteen  Metropolitan  Trusts  North  of  the  Thames — governing 
131  miles  of  road  from  Uxbridge  to  the  River  Lea,  and  levying 
£75,000  a  year  in  tolls — by  a  new  body  of  Commissioners  of 
eminence  and  distinction,  carefully  selected  by  the  Ministry  of 
the  day,  and  presided  over  permanently  by  Lord  Lowther,  who, 
chosen  by  the  Government,  and  working  in  constant  communi- 
cation with  the  Postmaster-General,  applied  himself  assiduously 
for  no  less  than  thirty  years  to  the  management  of  this  new 
department.  Though  the  forms  of  a  Turnpike  Trust  were 
retained,  we  gather  that  the  "  gentlemen  of  eminence  and  dis- 
tinction "  left  the  whole  business  to  the  Chairman  and  the 
salaried  ofl&cers.  James  Macadam  (1786-1852),  the  son  and 
partner  of  the  celebrated  road-mender,  was  immediately 
appointed  "  Surveyor  General  of  the  Metropohtan  Roads,"  an 
adequate  official  staff  was  engaged,  the  main  thoroughfares  of 
traffic  were  put  into  good  order,  the  working  expenses  were 
greatly  reduced,  the  inconvenient  toll  gates  were  removed  to 
better  sites  and  diminished  in  number,  the  tolls  were  gradually 
reduced  in  amount  as  the  debt  was  paid  off,  and  the  whole 
service  was  run  on  Hues  of  bureaucratic  efficiency,  rendering  to 
Parliament  the  homage  of  the  publication  of  an  annual  report 
and  statement  of  accounts.^ 

^  This  was  a  subject  of  complaint  by  others.  One  writer  of  1834  declared 
that  "  the  gross  oppression  committed  by  Road  Trusts  in  the  mode  and  manner 
of  imposing  and  levying  the  road  tolls  greatly  surpasses  their  mismanagement  " 
{A  Treatise  on  Intfrncd  Intcrrnurse  and  Communication  in  Civilized  States,  and 
'particularly  in  Great  Britain,  hy  Thomas  Grahame,  18;?4,  p.  22). 

*  As  to  these  Commissioners  of  Metropolitan  Tunij)ike  Roads,  see  our  Story 
of  the  King's  Highway,  1913,  pp.  177-179, 190 ;  the  Reports  of  House  of  Commons 
Committees  on  Highways  and  Turni)ike  Roads,  1819.  1820,  1821  ;    Hansard, 


THE  COMING  OF  THE  RAILWAY  231 

The  Coming  of  the  Railway 
By  1827,  therefore,  in  two  most  important  cases,  the  Turnpike 
Trusts  had  been  superseded  by  newly  appointed  bodies  of  Crown 
nominees,  which  were  only  slightly  removed  from  being  depart- 
ments of  the  national  government,  working  in  close  connection 
with  the  General  Post  Office.  How  far  the  example  of  the 
Metropolitan  Roads  Commission  and  the  Holyhead  Road  Com- 
mission would  have  been  followed,  and  the  local  Turnpike  Trusts 
swallowed  up  in  a  national  system,  if  we  had  continued  to  rely 
on  the  King's  Highway  as  our  only  means  of  communication, 
affords  material  for  interesting  speculation.  Already,  by  1827, 
Telford  had  been  set  by  the  Postmaster-General  to  survey  the 
whole  line  of  the  Great  North  Road  from  London  to  Edinburgh, 
and  had  prepared  the  plan  of  a  new  route,  which  would  have 
saved  twenty  miles  in  distance,  and  substituted,  for  the  existing 
windings,  a  hundred  miles  of  road  between  York  and  Peter- 
borough as  straight  as  a  French  chaussee.  A  Committee  of  the 
House  of  Commons  recommended  the  Government  to  appoint  a 
Commission  to  make  this  road,  on  the  precedent  of  that  of 
Holyhead,  and  a  Bill  for  the  purpose  was  actually  introduced  in 
1830.  It  had,  however,  to  face  a  storm  of  opposition,  and  made 
no  progress.  1    The  reformers  along  this  line  would  have  had  to 

June  and  July  1820,  February  and  April  1821,  5th  May  1824,  17th  February 
1825,  31st  March  1829,  12th  March  1830;  the  statutes  7  George  IV.  c.  142 
(1826)  and  10  George  IV.  c.  59  (1829);  Morning  Chronicle,  6th  April  1825; 
Times,  10th  November  1826  and  12th  June  1828  ;  House  of  Commons  Journals, 
12th  March  1830  ;  evidence  of  Viscount  Lowther  and  James  Macadam  in 
Report  of  House  of  Lords  Committee  on  Turnpike  Trusts,  1833  ;  Treatise  on 
Road  Legislation  and  Maintenance,  by  Richard  Bayldon,  1857,  p.  23  ;  and, 
above  all,  the  46  annual  Reports  to  Parliament  of  the  Commissioners  them- 
selves (1827-1872). 

Notwithstanding  the  inroads  made  on  their  tolls  by  the  competition  of  the 
new  railways,  the  Commissioners  managed  to  pay  off  all  their  debt  by  1856, 
besides  executing  many  road  improvements.  In  1864,  at  the  instance  of  the 
Commissioners  themselves,  all  their  roads  within  the  district  of  the  Metro- 
politan Board  of  Works  were  freed  from  toll  and  transferred  to  the  respective 
parishes  (26  &  27  Vict.  c.  78,  Metropolitan  Turnpikes  Act,  1863).  The  Com- 
mission was  terminated,  and  its  remaming  roads  were  freed,  by  a  clause  in  the 
General  Turnpike  Acts  Continuance  Act,  1871.  It  thus  came  to  an  end  in 
1872,  a  few  weeks  after  the  death  of  its  assiduous  chairman,  whose  portrait 
was  given  in  the  Illustrated  London  News  for  16th  March  1872  (see  also  Bourke's 
History  of  White's,  1892,  vol.  ii.  p.  116). 

^  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Northern 
roads,  1830 ;  House  of  Commons  Journals,  May  and  June  1830  ;  Hansard, 
3rd  June  1830  ;  Lives  of  the  Engineers,  by  Samuel  Smiles,  1861,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
433-434. 


232  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

contend,  not  only  with  vested  interests  of  all  the  local  Trusts, 
but  also  with  the  current  objections  to  any  increase  in  Govern- 
ment expenditure,  Government  patronage,  and  Government 
control.  On  the  other  hand,  short  of  the  actual  transfer  of 
turnpike  administration  from  the  domain  of  local  to  that  of 
central  government,  there  seemed  no  possibility  of  effectually 
reforming  the  system.  This  was,  in  fact,  a  case  in  which  the 
favourite  panacea  of  the  Whigs  and  Radicals  appeared  not  to 
apply.  So  long  as  the  road  revenue  continued  to  be  raised  by 
tolls,  there  was  no  constitutional  argument  in  favour  of  substi- 
tuting election  by  the  local  inhabitants  for  any  other  system  of 
choosing  Turnpike  Trustees.  The  example  of  some  Welsh  and 
other  rural  Trusts  had  demonstrated  that  the  pecuniary  interests 
of  the  local  residents  were  often  quite  opposed  to  those  of  the 
through  travellers  who  paid  most  of  the  tolls.  As  the  payers  of 
tolls  did  not  constitute  a  possible  local  constituency,  the  only  way 
in  which  Taxation  and  Representation  could  be  made  to  go  hand 
in  hand  seemed  the  assumption  of  the  entire  service  by  the 
national  government,  representing  the  whole  body  of  road  users. 
For  such  a  supersession  of  local  government  pubhc  opinion  was 
in  no  way  prepared.  Even  national  superintendence  was 
refused.  In  vain  did  Sir  Henry  Parnell  propose,  in  1833,  that  all 
Turnpike  Trusts  should  be  placed  under  the  control  of  the 
Commissioners  of  Land  Revenue,  seeing  that  the  latter  were, 
under  an  Act  of  1833,  just  taking  over  the  duties  of  the  Ofi&ce  of 
Works  and  the  Commissioners  of  the  Holyhead  roads.  ^    Another 

^  The  alternative  of  a  national  department  of  roads,  acting  in  conjunction 
with  Local  Authorities,  had  been  suggested  long  before  by  two  able  writers, 
but  seems  to  have  been,  in  the  seventeenth  century  as  in  the  eighteenth  and 
nineteenth,  regarded  as  unworthy  of  serious  consideration.  Littleton,  in  1692, 
had  a  complicated  scheme  based  on  finance.  "  It  is  therefore  humbly  pro- 
posed (1)  that  a  constant  yearly  tax  be  laid  upon  land  of  4d.  in  the  £  ;  (2)  that 
tlie  collectors  of  it  in  each  jjarish  pay  the  one  moiety  to  the  parish  surveyor 
and  the  other  moiety  to  the  Surve3-or  of  the  Hundred ;  (3)  that  the  Surveyor 
of  the  Hundred  employ  the  one-half  of  his  moiety  upon  the  ways  •within  his 
limit  and  pay  over  the  other  half  to  the  Surveyor  for  the  County  ;  (4)  that  the 
County  Surveyor  remit  one-quarter  part  of  his  money  to  the  Surveyor-General 
of  f^ngland  ;  employing  the  residue  upon  the  bridges  and  great  roads  of  the 
county  ;  (5)  that  the  Surveyor-General  employ  his  whole  money  in  the  London 
roads,  the  whole  Kingdom  being  concerned  in  them  "  (-1  Proposal  for  Mainiain- 
ing  and  Repairing  Die  HigJnray.'^,  hy  E.  Littleton,  l()i)2,  j).  2).  A  national 
department  of  roads  was  proposed  by  Daniel  Defoe  in  1(397  ;  an  elaborate 
project  for  a  complete  sj'stem  of  road-making  and  maintenance  for  the  whole 
kingdom,  by  a  national  commission  of  fifteen  members,  to  be  aided  by  ten 
others  added  bj-  the  county  in  which  tiiey  were  for  the  time  being  at  work  ; 


THE  TRIALS  AT  RAINHILL  233 

way  out  lay  in  a  direction  as  yet  unthought  of.  It  did  not  occur  to 
any  one  in  1820-1830  that  the  splendid  Turnpike  Roads  along  the 
main  arteries  of  national  traffic  could  ever  be  merged  in  the  petty 
local  administration  of  the  miserable  bye-lanes  and  minor  high- 
ways through  which  they  ran  ;  ^  or  that  the  one  and  a  half 
millions  sterling  of  annual  toll  revenue  could  be  abandoned  and 
replaced  by  a  more  than  equivalent  addition  to  the  local  rates. 
Yet,  as  we  now  know,  that  was  the  solution  destined  within 
another  generation  to  be  adopted,  the  first  unconscious  step 
being  taken  in  these  very  years,  as  we  have  shown  in  our  Stonj 
of  the  King^s  Highway,  in  the  General  Highway  Act  of  1835, 
Meanwhile,  however,  the  success  of  the  new  railways,  and  the 
astonishing  results  of  the  trial  of  the  locomotive  engines  at  Eain- 
hiU  in  1829,  diverted  all  public  interest  from  the  Turnpike 
Trusts  ;  producing  even  so  strong  a  general  impression  that  road 
traffic  was  about  to  become  a  thing  of  the  past  that  all  projects 


the  construction  of  new  roads  being  done  under  Parliamentary  powers,  and 
executed,  partly  by  pressed  labour,  partly  by  convict  labour,  partly  out  of  the 
proceeds  of  surplus  lands  enclosed  and  sold,  and  partly  by  a  general  assessment 
{An  Essay  upon  Projects,  by  D(aniel  De)  F(oe),  1697,  pp.  68-112).  It  is 
interesting  to  see  the  turning  towards  nationalisation  of  some  early  Benthamite. 
In  an  article  in  the  Westminster  Review,  then  under  the  virtual  editorship  of 
John  Stuart  Mill,  in  commenting  on  Baron  Dupin's  praise  of  the  turnpikes, 
the  writer  proceeds  :  "  We  doubt  the  whole  system.  In  spite  of  our  natural 
or  acquired  fears  of  government  and  jobs  we  still  think  that  the  whole  system 
of  roads  ought  to  be  one.  .  .  .  It  is  a  national,  not  a  private  concern.  There 
is  no  reason  why  one  road  should  possess  superfluous  wealth,  while  another  is 
starved.  .  .  .  There  is  no  reason  why  enormous  balances  should  remain  in  the 
hands  of  treasurers  and  attorneys  for  the  purpose  of  jobbing  with  them  in  the 
funds.  It  is  not  a  cheap  administration  ;  it  is  not  an  effectual  administra- 
tion "  {Westminster  Review,  October  1825,  vol.  iv.  p.  344).  The  Edinburgh, 
Revieiv,  on  the  other  hand,  economically  more  orthodox,  was  recommending, 
in  1819,  giving  to  the  Commissioners  of  Turnpike  Trusts  the  stimulus  of  private 
profit.  "  Let  the  right  of  levying  certain  tolls  be  granted  to  the  subscribers  ; 
the  surplus,  after  paying  all  outgoings,  to  be  divided  as  profit  "  {Edinburgh 
Review,  October  1819). 

^  It  is  remarkable  how  little  attention  was  paid  at  this  period  to  the  four- 
fifths  of  highway  mileage  that  was  not  under  Turnpike  Trusts.  An  able  Berk- 
shire Justice  published  an  anonymous  pamphlet  in  1825,  entitled  Highways 
Improved.  The  Act  of  1835  (5  &  6  William  IV.  c.  50)  became  the  subject  of 
many  text-books,  such  as  The  General  Highway  Act,  1835,  by  Joseph  Bateman, 
1835  ;  The  Present  General  Laws  for  Regulating  Highways  in  England,  by 
W.  F.  A.  Delane,  1835  ;  The  General  Highway  Act  of  5  &  6  William  IV.  c.  50, 
by  Leonard  Shelf ord,  1835  ;  A  Familiar  Abridgement  of  the  General  Highways 
Act,  by  F.  A.  Fry,  1836  ;  The  Office  of  a  Surveyor  of  the  Highways,  by  a  Magis- 
trate, 1836.  Particulars  of  the  history  of  these  parish  highways  will  be  found 
in  The  Story  of  the  Kings  Highway,  1913. 


234  THE  TURNPIKE  TRUSTS 

of  reform  were  laid  aside.^  How  the  Turnpike  Trusts  lingered 
on  for  another  generation,  many  more  of  them  becoming  hope- 
lessly insolvent :  how  the  Government  neglected  to  deal  with 
them,  either  in  the  Highways  Act  of  1835  or  in  the  ensuing 
decades;  how,  in  1842-1843,  South  Wales  flared  up  in  a  genuine 
little  rebellion  against  the  turnpike  exactions,  which  compelled 
the  Government  to  take  the  South  Wales  roads  \drtually  under 
national  control ;  how  the  English  Trusts  were  allowed  to  go 
from  bad  to  worse,  to  the  ruin  of  innumerable  investors  ;  how 
the  House  of  Commons,  from  about  1862  onwards,  took  the 
matter  into  its  own  hands  in  the  absence  of  a  Ministerial  policy  ; 
how  a  Select  Committee  in  1864  denounced  the  whole  system  of 
tolls  as  "  unequal  in  pressure,  costly  in  collection,  inconvenient 
to  the  public,  and  injurious  as  causing  a  serious  impediment  to 
intercourse  and  traffic,"  and  advocated  at  least  the  union  of  the 
Trusts  into  larger  bodies  ;  how  from  that  time  forth  the  House 
successively  refused  to  renew  the  terms  of  many  of  the  Trusts  as 
they  expired  ;  how  step  by  step  the  management  of  the  highways 
was  transferred  to  new  district  and  county  authorities,  until,  in 
1895,  the  last  of  the  road  functions  of  the  Parish  and  the  last  of 
the  Turnpike  Trusts  alike  came  to  an  end,  we  have  told  in  our 
Story  of  the  King's  Highway. 

^  J.  L.  Macadam  was  not  the  only  person  who  regarded  the  popular  in- 
fatuation for  railways  as  a  "  calamity."  Alexander  Gordon,  who  published, 
in  1832,  An  Historical  and  Practical  Treatise  upon  Elemental  Locomotion  by 
Means  of  Steam  Carriages  on  Common  Roads,  continued  to  demonstrate  The 
Fitness  of  Turnpike  Road,s  and  Highways  for  the  Most  Expeditious,  Safe,  Con- 
venient  and  Economical  Internal  Communication  (1835)  ;  and  in  1837  published 
Observations  addressed  to  those  interested  in  either  Railways  or  Turnpike  Roads, 
showing  the  Comparative  Expedition,  Safety,  Convenience  and  Public  and  Private 
Economy  of  these  two  kinds  of  roads  for  Internal  Communication.  Another  pro- 
jector advocated  The  National  Waggon-Post,  to  travel  at  the  rate  of  twenty  miles 
per  hour,  carrying  One  Thousand  Tons  Weight,  all  over  the  Kingdom  of  England, 
with  Passengers,  Goods  and  Stock,  by  C.  M.  George,  1825. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   IMPROVEMENT   COMMISSIONERS 

We  come  to  another,  and  in  many  respects  a  more  interesting, 
series  of  Statutory  Local  Authorities  in  the  bodies  of  Trustees  or 
Commissioners  for  paving,  lighting,  cleansing,  watching  and 
otherwise  improving  the  streets  of  the  rapidly  developing  urban 
centres  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Although  they  have  never 
yet  engaged  the  attention  of  the  historian,  these  early  Local 
Authorities  for  coping  with  the  problems  connected  with  the 
police  and  pubUc  health  of  towns  were  of  greater  contemporary 
interest  than  the  Courts  of  Sewers  or  the  Incorporated  Guardians 
of  the  Poor,  or  even  than  the  Turnpike  Trustees.  In  the  ordinary 
inhabitant  the  routine  of  administration  of  the  sluices  and  em- 
bankments excited  no  attention,  and  whilst  he  might  grumble  at 
the  state  of  the  roads  or  the  turnpike  tolls,  in  only  a  minority  of 
places  was  he  occasionally  called  upon  to  pay  either  a  sewers  rate 
or  a  highway  rate.  To  the  average  householder  a  change  in  the 
method  of  "  governing  the  poor  "  made  practically  no  difference, 
except  in  so  far  as  it  might  work  out  in  a  reduction  or  increase  in 
the  poor-rate.  But  the  bodies  of  Police,  Paving,  Street,  Lamp 
or  Improvement  Trustees  or  Commissioners,  which  we  have  now 
to  describe,  dealt  with  matters  of  daily  life  which  came  home  to 
every  household  ;  they  set  going  public  services  of  an  altogether 
novel  kind  ;  they  introduced  a  new  regulation  of  individual  enter- 
prise and  personal  behaviour ;  above  all,  they  levied  on  every 
householder  new  and  extra  taxation  constantly  increasing  in 
amount.  The  estabHshment,  between  1748  and  1835,  in  nearly 
every  urban  centre,  under  one  designation  or  another,  of  a  new 
statutory  body — which  we  shall  term  always  Improvement  Com- 
missioners—was, in  fact,  the  starting-point  of  the  great  modern 

235 


236  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

development  of  town  government.  And  it  is  these  Improvement 
Commissioners,  not  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Councillors  of  the 
old  corporations,  who  were  the  progenitors  of  nearly  all  the 
activities  of  our  present  municipalities. 

The  State  of  the  Towns 

It  is  difficult  for  us  at  the  present  day  to  form  any  adequate 
idea  of  the  state  of  a  populous  and  rapidly  growing  town  at  a 
time  when  it  was  without  anything  in  the  nature  of  municipal 
government,  as  now  understood.  To  begin  with  the  houses — 
springing  up  on  all  sides  with  mushroom-hke  rapidity — there  were 
absolutely  no  building  regulations.  Each  man  put  up  his  house 
where  and  as  he  chose,  without  regard  for  building-line,  width  of 
street  or  access  of  light  and  air.  Every  householder  encroached 
on  the  thoroughfare  by  overhanging  windows,  swinging  signs, 
doors  opening  outwards,  cellar-flaps  habitually  open,  mounting 
blocks  and  flights  of  steps.  "  Streets  of  projecting  houses  nearly 
meeting  at  top  ;  rooms  with  small  windows  never  meant  to  open  ; 
and  dirt  in  all  its  glory,  excluded  every  possible  access  of  fresh 
air."  1  Rain-water  pipes  were  unknown,  and  projecting  spouts 
from  between  the  gutters  of  the  roofs  poured  the  rain  in  streams 
on  the  passers-by.  The  narrow  ways  left  to  foot  and  wheeled 
trafl&c  were  unpaved,  uneven,  and  full  of  holes  in  which  the  water 
and  garbage  accumulated.  Down  the  middle  of  the  street  ran  a 
series  of  dirty  puddles,  which  in  times  of  rain  became  a  stream 
of  decomposing  filth.  Public  provision  for  street  cleansing  or 
the  removal  of  refuse  there  was  none,  so  that  garbage  and  horse 
dung  accumulated,  in  places  even  a  yard  deep.^  There  were,  of 
course,  no  sewers  and  no  water-closets  ;  what  is  not  commonly 
realised  is  that,  except  in  the  better  parts  of  London  and  the 
wealthier  residential  cities,  there  were  neither  ashpits  nor  privies, 
nor  any  similar  conveniences — with  results  that  are  indescribable. 
Pigs  roamed  about  the  streets — the  only  scavengers.  Every 
yard  and  bhnd  alley  contained  pigeons  and  poultry.  Cowsheds 
and  slaughterhouses  occupied  a  large  portion  even  of  the  main 

*  A  Philosophical  Estimate  of  the  causes,  effects  and  cure  of  unu'holesovxe  air 
in  large  cities,  by  A.  Walker,  1777. 

2  Even  in  the  middle  (if  City  of  London,  "  in  and  about  St.  Panl's  Cluircli," 
V.C  road,  in  1G47,  that  the  "  horsednng  is  a  yard  deep  "  {The  Familiar  Letters 
of  James  Howell,  edited  by  J<isc|)h  Jacobs,  1892,  vol.  i    p.  542). 


i 


THE  STATE  OF  THE  TOWNS  237 

streets,  down  which  the  blood  periodically  ran  in  streams.  At 
night,  when  there  was  no  moon,  the  streets  were  in  pitch  dark- 
ness, except  for  an  occasional  lantern  swinging  over  the  door  of 
an  energetic  shopkeeper  or  rich  householder.  With  this  obstruc- 
tion, dirt  and  darkness,  it  was  perhaps  a  minor  matter  that  there 
was  no  sort  of  pohce ;  outside  the  City  of  London,  indeed,  seldom 
even  a  watchman  dosing  in  his  box  or  noisily  calling  the  hour  ;  so 
that,  as  the  Ishngton  Vestry  complains  in  1772,  "  the  inhabitants 
are  exposed  to  frequent  murders,  robberies,  burglaries  and  other 
outrages."  ^ 

Different  parishes  came,  of  course,  at  different  dates  into  this 
state,  according  to  the  period  at  which  they  felt  the  impulse  of 
the  new  industrial  conditions,  under  which  their  populations 
went  forward  with  a  bound.  The  City  of  London,  for  instance, 
had  put  its  streets  into  some  sort  of  order  after  the  Great  Fire 
of  1666,  but  Westminster  remained,  at  the  middle  of  the  eight- 
eenth century,  practically  as  we  have  described.  At  this  date, 
when  Jonas  Han  way  began  his  agitation  for  reform,  "  the 
carriage  ways  were  full  of  cavities  which  harboured  water  and 
filth.2  The  signs,  extending  on  both  sides  the  way  into  the 
streets  at  unequal  distance  from  the  houses  that  they  might  not 
intercept  each  other,  greatly  obstructed  the  view,  and,  which  is 
of  much  more  consequence  in  a  crowded  city,  prevented  the  free 
circulation  of  the  air,  .  .  .  How  comfortless  must  be  the  sensa- 
tions of  an  unfortunate  female,  stopped  in  the  street  on  a  windy 
day,  under  a  large  old  sign,  loaded  with  lead  and  iron,  in  full 
swing  over  her  head,  and  perhaps  a  torrent  of  dirty  water  falling 
near  her  from  a  projecting  spout  ornamented  with  the  mouth  and 
teeth  of  a  dragon.  .  .  .  The  footpaths  were  universally  incom- 
moded, even  where  they  were  so  narrow  as  only  to  admit  of  one 
person  passing  at  a  time,  by  a  row  of  posts,  set  on  the  edge  next 
the  carriage  way.  He  whose  urgent  business  would  not  admit  of 
his  keeping  pace  with  the  gentleman  of  leisure  before  him,  turned 
out  between  the  two  posts  before  the  door  of  some  large  house 
into   the   carriage   way.     When   he   perceived   danger   moving 

1  Islington  Local  Act  of  1772,  preamble. 

^  Another  writer  describes  the  rough  and  broken  pavements  of  the  West- 
minster streets  in  1756  as  "so  covered  by  filth  as  to  make  them  scarcely  visible 
to  the  most  cautious  passenger  by  day.  .  .  .  The  quantity  of  filth  in  our  streets 
is  so  great  that  man  and  beast  in  some  places  can  hardly  wade  through  it  " 
{A  Proposal  or  Plan  for  an  Act  of  Parliament  for  the  Better  Paving,  Cleansing 
and  Lighting,  etc.,  by  John  granger,  1756). 


238  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

towards  him  he  wished  to  return  within  the  protection  of  the  row 
of  posts  ;  but  there  was  commonly  a  rail  continued  from  the  top 
of  one  post  to  that  of  another,  sometimes  for  several  houses 
together,  in  which  case  he  was  obliged  to  run  back  to  the  first 
inlet,  or  climb  over,  or  creep  under  the  raiUng,  in  attempting 
which  he  might  think  himself  fortunate  if  he  escaped  with  no 
other  injury  than  what  proceeded  from  dirt.  If,  intimidated  by 
the  danger  he  escaped,  he  afterwards  kept  within  the  boundary 
of  the  posts  and  railing,  he  was  obhged  to  put  aside  the  travellers 
before  him,  whose  haste  was  less  urgent  than  his,  and  these 
resisting,  made  his  journey  truly  a  warfare."  ^  The  cellar-flaps 
long  continued  to  be  a  source  of  serious  danger.  "  A  consider- 
able proportion  of  tlie  London  poor  hid  themselves  at  nightfall 
in  cellars.  These  inhabitants  of  cellars  were  permitted  to  enjoy 
and  utilise  the  modicum  of  daylight  that  came  to  their  darksome 
rooms  from  the  streets,  and  even  to  keep  the  flaps  of  their  street 
doors  thrown  back  by  day,  for  the  more  free  admission  of  sun- 
light during  the  day,  provided  they  closed  the  flaps  at  nightfall 
with  proper  care  for  the  safety  of  pedestrians  in  the  street.  Old 
vestry  books  show  that,  from  time  to  time,  Vestries  republished, 
by  the  bellman,  the  old  standing  orders  for  closing  cellarflaps 
that  opened  into  public  ways,  on  the  approach  of  nightfall.  But 
the  orders  arc  never  rigidly  enforced  for  any  considerable  length 
of  time."  2  At  Birmingham,  which  between  1741  and  1791 
trebled  its  population,^  there  was,  prior  to  1769,  as  Hutton 
graphically  tells  us,  no  sort  of  regulation.  "  When  land  is  appro- 
priated for  a  street,  the  builders  are  under  no  control ;  every 
lessee  proceeds  according  to  his  interest  or  fancy  ;  there  is  no 
man  to  preserve  order  or  prescribe  bounds  :  hence  arise  evils 
without  a  cure,  such  as  a  narrowness  which  scarcely  admits  light, 
cleanliness,  pleasure,  health  or  use  ;  unnecessary  hills  like  that 
in  Bull  Street ;  sudden  falls,  owing  to  the  floor  of  one  house 
being  laid  three  feet  lower  than  the  next,  as  in  Coleshill  Street ; 
one  side  of  a  street,  like  the  deck  of  a  ship,  '  gunnel  to,'  several 
feet  higher  than  the  other,  as  in  Snow  Hill.  .  .  .  Hence  also  that 

^  Remarkable  Occurrencies  in  the  Life  of  Jonas  Ilanway,  by  John  Pugh, 
1787,  pp.  129-131. 

2  Middlesex  County  Records,  edited  by  J.  C.  Jeaffreson,  vol.  iv.  p.  liv. 

^  Hutton  gives  the  number  of  houses  as  follows  :  in  1700,  2504;  in  1731, 
3717  ;  in  1741,  4114  :  in  1781.  8382  ;  in  1791,  12,881  (History  of  Birmingliam, 
by  William  Hutton,  1781,  p.  77). 


THE  COMMISSIONERS  OE  SCOTLAND   YARD      239 

crowd  of  enormous  bulk  sashes,  steps  projecting  from  the  houses 
and  the  cellars  ;  buildings  which,  like  men  at  a  dogfight,  seem 
rudely  to  crowd  before  each  other  ;  penthouses,  rails,  palisades, 
etc.,  which  have  long  called  for  redress."  ^  The  picture  of 
Birmingham  at  this  period  may  be  completed  by  a  quotation  from 
its  modern  historian.  "  The  streets  .  .  .  were  narrow  and 
irregular  ;  the  pavements  were  wretchedly  imperfect ;  there  was 
no  drainage  ;  even  the  rainwater  plashed  off  the  house  roofs  and 
lay  there,  with  the  house  refuse,  until  it  dried  up.  The  removal 
of  refuse  was  unprovided  for  by  any  pubHc  organisation  ;  the 
streets  and  roads  were  unswept,  except  by  volunteers,  for  there 
were  no  scavengers  ;  at  night  all  was  pitch  dark,  save  for  the 
light  of  the  moon  or  the  rays  of  a  friendly  lantern,  for  there  were 
no  lamps.  Right  in  the  centre  of  the  town.  New  Street,  one  of 
the  principal  streets,  was  actually  entered  through  a  narrow 
gateway,  and  was  used  as  a  pig-market.  The  Bull  Ring,  the 
only  open  space,  was  blocked  by  shambles  and  slaughterhouses, 
and  other  offensive  buildings."  ^  Manchester,  at  the  middle  of 
the  century,  seems  to  have  excelled  in  filthiness.  "  A  general 
nastiness,"  declares  a  contemporary  witness,  "  is  become  even 
a  public  scandal  to  our  town.  We  cannot  walk  the  streets 
without  being  annoyed  with  such  filth  as  is  a  public  nuisance.  .  .  . 
We  are  grown  infamous  for  a  general  want  of  good  manners  in 
our  populace.  .  .  .  Our  streets  are  no  better  than  a  common 
dunghill,  and  more  sacred  places  are  most  shamefully  polluted. 
Our  very  churchyards  are  profaned  with  such  filth  as  was 
intended  to  create  a  detestation  and  abhorrence  even  of  idol 
temples.  I  mean  they  are  rendered  no  better  than  errant 
draught  houses."  ^ 

The  Commissioners  of  Scotland  Yard 

The  extensive  array  of  bodies  of  Improvement  Commissioners 
may  be  said  to  begin  with  the  public  Act  of  1662,  which  estabHshed 

1  History  of  Birmingham,  by  William  Hutton,  1781,  p.  91 ;  History  of  the 
Corporation  of  Birmingham,  by  J.  T.  Bunce,  1878-1885,  p.  46 ;  Old  and  New 
Birmingham,  by  R.  K.  Dent,  1819-1881,  p.  137. 

2  History  of  the  Corporation  of  Birmingham,  by  J.  T.  Bunce,  1878-1885,  p.  48. 
*  Friendly  advice  to  the  Poor,  written  and  published  at  the  request  of  the  late 

and  present  Officers  of  the  Town  of  Manchester,  by  John  Clayton,  M.A.  (Man- 
chester, 1755). 


240  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

a  new  Local  Authority  in  the  Cities  of  London  and  AVestminster.* 
Owing  to  the  multitude  of  houses  lately  built,  so  the  preamble 
declares,  and  the  stopping  and  filling  the  ditches  and  sewers, 
through  want  of  timely  reparation,  the  common  ways  had  become 
so  miry  and  foul  as  to  be  noisome  and  dangerous.  Powers  were 
accordingly  granted  to  a  body  of  Commissioners,  twenty-one 
in  number,  including  the  Dean,  the  High  Steward,  the  Deputy 
Steward  and  two  of  the  Chief  Burgesses  of  Westminster.  The 
Commissioners  were  empowered  to  make  new  sewers,  to  enlarge 
old  ones  and  to  remove  nuisances.  Householders  were  forbidden 
to  throw  dirt  or  refuse  of  any  kind  into  sewers  or  watercourses. 
The  Commissioners  were  authorised  to  appoint  public  rakers 
or  scavengers,  who  were  to  make  daily  rounds  with  "  carts, 
dungpots  or  other  fitting  carriages,"  heralded  "  by  beU,  horn, 
clapper  or  otherwise  "  making  "  distinct  noise,"  so  that  the  in- 
habitants might  bring  out  their  refuse.  The  Commissioners 
were  also  authorised  to  remove  "  encroachments  by  sheds,  stalls, 
balks,  shops,  posts  or  walls  "  projecting  into  the  streets,  and  to 
license  the  newly  introduced  hackney  coaches.  Householders 
were  forbidden  to  throw  their  coal-ashes  and  filth  into  the  streets  ; 
they  were  to  repair  and  maintain  the  surface  in  front  of  their 
premises  ;  and  they  were  required  to  hang  out  lighted  lanterns 
every  night  during  the  autumn  and  winter.  These  earliest 
Commissioners  were,  however,  not  given  any  general  rating 
powers.     Their  duties  related  to  regulation  rather  than  construc- 

^  Unfortunately  we  Imow  little  about  this  body  (historically  interesting  as 
being  the  only  case  in  which  the  Cities  of  London  and  Westminster  were  given 
a  common  governing  authority  prior  to  1855),  except  from  the  Acts  from  1662 
to  1697,  by  which  it  was  established  and  regulated,  namely,  13  &  14  Charles  II. 
c.  2  ;  22  Charles  II.  c.  12  ;  2  William  and  Mary,  sess.  2,  c.  8  ;  and  8  &  9 
William  III.  c.  27.  We  have  not  discovered  any  of  the  archives.  Evelyn 
notes  in  his  Diary  (edited  by  W.  Bray,  1850-1852)  that  he  was  chosen  one  of 
the  Commissioners  for  "  reforming  the  buildings,  ways,  streets  and  incum- 
brances, and  regulating  the  hackney  coaches  "  ;  and  he  mentions  that  he  went 
to  His  Majesty's  Surveyor's  office  in  Scotland  Yard.  There  are  incidental 
references  to  these  "  Commissioners  of  Scotland  Yard "  in  the  extensive 
literature  relating  to  Westminster  Local  Government,  for  which  see  The 
Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  pp.  212-231,  especially  p.  227  ;  and  Local 
Qovernment  in  WestminMer,  being  the  Special  Annual  Report  of  the  Vestry  of 
St.  Margaret  and  St.  John  on  its  supersession  in  1889,  ])p.  114-115,  135-137. 
We  do  not  know  to  what  date  these  Commissioners  for  Li)ndon  and  West- 
minster survived.  The  Act  of  1691  extended  the  scope  of  the  powers  of 
regulation  to  all  the  parishes  within  the  Bills  of  Mortality,  but  gave  the 
authority  to  the  Justices  in  Quarter  Sessions.  It  is  possible  that  the  Com- 
missioners then  ceased  to  exist  as  a  sei)arato  body. 


I 


THE  HARBOUR  COMMISSIONERS  241 

tiou.  Their  works  were  to  be  paid  for  by  contributions  levied 
on  the  particular  properties  benefited  in  proportion  to  their 
frontage,  and  the  office  of  "  chief  raker  "  was,  it  incidentally 
appears,  a  source  of  considerable  emolument,  from  the  payments 
made  to  him  by  the  more  substantial  householders  for  emptying 
their  cesspools,  and  by  certain  Vestries. 

The  Improvement  Commissioners 

But  the  "  Commissioners  of  Scotland  Yard,"  as  the  new 
London  and  Westminster  Local  Authority  was  commonly  called, 
afforded  an  exceptionally  early  example  of  statutory  Improve- 
ment Commissioners,  just  as  we  have  seen  that  the  Corporation 
of  the  Poor  of  the  City  of  London  did  of  Incorporated  Guardians. 
For  another  three-quarters  of  a  century  the  example  was  not 
followed.  We  find,  indeed,  that,  from  1696  onwards,  certain 
towns  on  the  sea-coast  sought  and  obtained  statutory  powers 
to  improve  their  harbours,  and  to  levy  port  or  shipping  dues  for 
this  purpose.  These  harbour  powers  were  sometimes  granted 
to  the  Municipal  Corporations,  but  in  other  cases  special  bodies 
of  Harbour  Commissioners  were  constituted,  and  in  a  few  in- 
stances the  Harbour  Commissioners  were  authorised  to  deal 
with  the  cleansing,  fighting  and  watching  of  the  streets.^  We 
have  even  one  or  two  instances,  such  as  those  of  Bristol  in  1701 
and  Beverley  in  1727,  in  which  a  Municipal  Corporation  was 
empowered  to  levy  a  regular  rate  for  cleansing  and  fighting. 
But  in  1736,  when  powers  were  obtained  by  the  inhabitants  of 

^  The  principal  bodies  of  Commissioners  established  for  harbour  purposes 
were,  in  the  "first  batch,"  those  of  Bridlington  (1696),  Dover  and  Rye  (1699), 
Colchester  (1699),  Minehead  (1700),  Whitby  (1702),  Parton  (1706)  and  White- 
haven (1709).  Then  we  have  a  pause  for  a  couple  of  decades,  the  march  of 
improvement  being  resumed  ia  Newhaven  (1730),  Scarborough  (1731),  Little- 
hampton  (1732),  Arundel  (1733),  Southwold  (1746),  Sunderland  (1747),  Rams- 
gate  (1748),  Great  Yarmouth  (1749),  Lancaster  (1749),  New  Shoreham  (1760), 
Mevagissey  (1775),  Boston  (1776),  Aberystwith  (1780),  Margate  (1787),  Swansea 
(1791),  Broadstairs  (1792),  Carnarvon  (1793),  Amlwch  (1793),  Barmouth  (1797), 
Sheemess  (1801),  Bridport  (1823),  and  Liverpool  (1825). 

These  bodies  were  almost  invariably  formed  on  the  type  of  the  named  list 
of  persons,  filling  vacancies  by  co-option,  with  a  certain  ex-officio  element. 
Only  in  Lancaster  (1749),  Swansea  (1791),  Liverpool  (1825)  and  Rye  (1830) 
do  we  find  the  elective  element  beginning  in  the  form  now  commonly  adopted 
for  modem  port  authorities,  the  electors  being  shipowners  and  merchants,  as 
payers  of  dock-dues  (in  Swansea,  the  burgesses  elected  bu^  had  to  choose  either 
colliery  or  ship  owners).  They  were  empowered  to  levy  dues  on  ships  and 
goods,  but  not  to  rate. 

R 


242  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

New  Sarum  (or  Salisbury)  for  paving,  lighting  and  watching  the 
city,  these  were  granted,  not  to  the  Municipal  Corporation,  but 
to  a  body  of  "  Trustees,"  consisting  of  the  Mayor,  Recorder  and 
Aldermen  ex  officio,  and  twelve  other  persons  to  be  elected 
annually  by  the  ratepayers  of  the  three  parishes  of  the  city. 
This,  too,  was  an  exceptional  instance,  and  it  is  not  until  1748, 
in  the  case  of  Liverpool,  that  we  find  the  real  start  of  an  almost 
continual  stream  of  Local  Acts  establishing  bodies  of  Improve- 
ment Commissioners,  which  steadily  increases  in  volume.  After 
the  peace  of  1763,  there  sets  in  everywhere  a  demand  for  im- 
provements of  one  kind  or  another,  among  which  the  betterment 
of  town  conditions  finds  a  place.  "  A  general  spirit  prevails," 
we  read  in  1771,  "  for  correcting  ancient  errors  and  establishing 
new  improvements.  .  .  .  Every  session  of  parliament  is  now 
marked  by  some  bill  for  the  inclosing  of  commons,  cutting  of 
canals,  constructing  of  bridges,  embanking  of  rivers,  making, 
mending  and  watering  of  highways,  and  for  the  paving  and 
lighting  of  streets."  ^  The  stream  of  Acts  establishing  new 
Local  Authorities,  or  amending  their  constitution  or  powers, 
continued  unabated  right  down  to  1835,  and  even  persisted, 
especially  for  unincorporated  towns,  down  to  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century. 

The  new  bodies  of  Improvement  Commissioners  created  by 
these  Acts  are  found  in  every  part  of  England,  from  Truro  to 
Berwick-on-Tweed,  and,  what  is  more  surprising,  in  munici- 
palities and  unincorporated  towns  ahke.  Where  a  Municipal 
Corporation  existed,  it  is  rare  to  find  the  new  powers  of  paving, 
cleansing,  lighting,  watching  and  regulating  the  town  being 
given  to  the  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Council,  though  these  and 
other  municipal  officers  would  invariably  be  included  in  the  new 
body  as  ex-officio  members.  In  practically  every  municipal 
borough  of  any  importance  ^  there  was  created,  between  1748 
and  1835,  a  separate  body  of  Improvement  Commissioners, 
with  its  own  funds  and  its  own  official  staff,  wielding  its  own 
distinct  powers  and  levying  its  own  rates.  Between  1800  and 
1835  these  two  hundred  or  more  bodies  of  Improvement  Com- 

^  Critical  Observations  on  the  Buildings  and  Improvements  of  London, 
1771,  p.  17. 

-  The  only  municipal  boroughs,  having  in  1831  11,000  inhabitants,  that 
had  never  any  separate  Ixjdy  of  Improvement  Commissioners  seem  to  have 
been  Leicester,  Nottingham,  Wenlock  and  Wigan. 


THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS  243 

missioners,  in  as  many  separate  boroughs  or  urban  parishes, 
together  with  nearly  a  hundred  similar  bodies  in  the  Metropolitan 
parishes,  far  outweighed  in  importance,  from  the  point  of  view 
of  activity  and  expenditure  in  local  government,  the  old  Municipal 
Corporations  that,  in  over  a  hundred  cases,  existed  alongside 
them.  And  as  these  three  hundred  statutory  police  and  sanitary 
authorities  have  never  yet  been  described  by  the  constitutional 
historian,  we  must  devote  a  few  pages  to  an  account  of  their 
structure  and  working.^ 

To  begin  with  the  constitution  of  these  bodies,  we  note  at 
once  how  much  more  uniform  they  are  in  type  than  the  statutory 
bodies  of  Incorporated  Guardians  that  we  have  described. 
There  is,  it  is  true,  the  same  endless  diversity  as  regards  the 
details  of  structure,  and  the  same  difficulty  in  finding  any  two 
precisely  ahke.  A  certain  ex-officio  element  is  frequent,  though 
not  universal ;  in  municipal  boroughs,  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  ; 
sometimes  the  lord  of  the  manor  or  occasionally  the  officers  of 
the  manorial  courts  ;  ^  less  frequently  the  members  of  Parliament, 
the  clergymen  or  the  resident  Justices  of  the  Peace.^  With  regard 
to  the  remainder  of  the  membership,  the  whole  of  the  three 
hundred  distinct  bodies  established  prior  to  1835  for  paving, 
cleansing,  lighting  and  watching  belong,  if  we  ignore  for  the 
moment  about  a  dozen  anomalies,*  to  one  or  other  of  three  types. 

1  For  any  study  of  these  Improvement  Commissioners  there  is  even  less 
printed  material  than  in  the  case  of  the  Incorporated  Guardians.  They  are 
seldom  described  in  town  histories — often,  indeed,  they  are  not  so  much  as 
mentioned.  Besides  the  Acts  themselves,  and  the  MS.  Minutes  of  the  bodies 
established  under  them,  we  must  refer  the  student  to  the  fragmentary  references 
scattered  through  the  many  volumes  of  reports  of  the  Municipal  Corporation 
Commission,  1835,  the  Commission  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Popula- 
tion, 1842,  the  Commission  on  the  State  of  Large  Towns,  1844-1845,  and  the 
Commissioners  who  investigated  particular  towns  under  the  Public  Health  Act, 
1848.  Practically  the  only  books  dealing  with  the  subject,  and  these  chiefly 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  Local  Acts,  are  The  History  of  Private  Bill  Legisla- 
tion, by  F.  Clifford,  1885-1887 — a  confused  medley  of  facts — and  the  systematic 
study  of  this  legislation  entitled  Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911. 
See  also  the  references  given  supra,  pp.  5,  6,  8,  and  The  Manor  and  the  Borovxjh, 
1908,  pp.  394-396. 

2  As  at  Manchester  and  Salford,  by  all  the  Acts  from  1765  to  1830. 

3  At  Nottingham,  by  the  Act  of  1762,  the  Improvement  Commissioners 
included  all  the  Commissioners  for  the  Land  Tax  as  ex-officio  members.  ^ 

*  Among  these  anomalies  we  may  mention  the  Hereford  Acts  of  1774  and 
1816,  by  which  the  Commissioners  were  to  consist  of  (a)  all  the  local  dignitaries 
from  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  the  County  and  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese  down 
to  the  Coroner  and  the  Bailiff  ;  (6)  two  householders  elected  triennially  by  each 
of  the  several  parish  Vestries  ;  and  (c)  ten  persons  co-opted  by  the  above  at  their 


244  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

Of  these,  by  far  the  most  frequent  and  the  most  characteristic 
is  that  of  the  list  of  persons  named  in  the  Act,  serving  for  Hfe, 
and  authorised  to  fill  vacancies  among  their  number  by  simple 
co-option.  To  this  type  belong  nearly  two  hundred  out  of  the 
total  of  three  hundred  separate  bodies  of  Improvement  Com- 
missioners, and  it  is  especially  dominant  among  the  Local  Acts 
between  1760  and  1820.1 

The  type  standing  next  in  favour  is  that  in  which  some,  at 
any  rate,  of  the  Commissioners  are  elected.  Of  this  there  are 
a  few  instances  in  each  decade  from  1748  onwards,  the  number 
rising  rapidly  from  1820  to  1835,  during  which  period  some  of 
the  bodies  originally  formed  in  other  ways  adopted  "  the  elective 
principle."  About  fifty  bodies  were  originally  estabhshed  on 
this  type,  and  about  twenty  more  subsequently  changed  to  it.^ 
The  election  was,  however,  frequently  httle  more  than  a  pretence 
of  democracy.  The  first  Commissioners  were  often  named  in 
the  Act,  their  "  successors  "  only  being  furnished  by  election, 
at  dates  often  undefined,  and  in  a  few  instances  only  septennially. 
There  was  always  not  only  a  relatively  high  qualification  for 
Commissioners,  but  almost  invariably  a  substantial  qualification 
for  voters.  Moreover,  the  elected  representatives  seldom  form 
more  than  a  small  proportion  of  the  whole  body  of  Commissioners. 

The  third  type  is  that  in  which  the  ex-o9icio  element,  and 

first  meeting,  and  renewed  by  co-option.  The  Charterhouse  Square  (London) 
Act  of  1742  established  a  body  of  Commissioners  consisting  of  the  officers  of 
the  Charterhouse  Charitable  Foundation  and  ten  persons  chosen  by  the  "  pro- 
prietors "  of  the  square.  The  Pembroke  Dock  Act  of  1819  incorporated,  aa 
Commissioners,  the  chief  naval  officers  at  that  station,  and  no  one  else.  At 
Monmouth,  in  1818,  the  Commissioners  were  to  consist  of  the  Municipal  Cor- 
poration and  eight  persons  selected  by  the  Mayor  and  Common  Council.  The 
Foundling  Hospital  Estate  (London)  was,  by  Act  of  1794,  governed  by  twenty- 
one  persons  annually  appointed  by  the  Governors  of  the  Hospital,  and  twenty- 
one  elected  by  the  freeholders.  All  these  bodies  had  extensive  taxing,  spending 
and  regulating  powers. 

^  Among  the  two  hundred  bodies  of  this  tjrpe  may  be  mentioned  the  Im- 
provement Commissioners  of  Birmingham,  Bradford,  Cardiff,  Cheltenham, 
Coventry,  Durham,  Folkestone,  Yarmouth,  Huddcrsfiold,  Manchester  and 
Salford  (between  1765  and  1792),  Northampton,  Southamjjton,  Winchester, 
Wolverhampton  and  three-fourths  of  those  established  in  parishes  or  districts 
in  the  Metropolitan  area. 

^  Among  those  originally  established  during  the  eighteenth  century  with 
some  elective  representation  were  Chester,  Leeds,  Liverpool,  Lincoln,  Oxford 
(for  which  see  Oxford  in  the  Eujhteenth  Cenhiry,  by  J.  R.  Green  and  G.  Robcrson, 
vol.  xli.  of  Oxford  Historical  Society.  1901,  pp. "333-337),  Poole  and  Salisbury, 
whilst  it  was  subsequently  ad()j)ted  by  such  places  as  Brighton,  Carlisle,  Dor- 
chester, Dover,  Gravesend,  Hastings,  Manchester,  Sheemess  and  Sheffield. 


THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  CO-OPTION  245 

frequently  also  the  named  list,  are  combined  with  all  the 
individuals,  belonging  to  a  specially  defined  class,  such  as  all 
substantial  freeholders  and  leaseholders,  all  residents  owning  a 
thousand  pounds'  worth  of  personalty,  and  all  occupiers  of 
premises  rated  at  thirty  pounds  a  year.^  The  bodies  of  this 
type  vary  from  small  oligarchies  of  the  wealthy  inhabitants 
to  what  are  practically  open  Vestries  with  a  definite  voting 
qualification.  We  reckon  that  there  were  altogether  about 
fifty  bodies  of  this  type,  nearly  all  in  provincial  towns,  and 
more  than  half  of  them  estabhshed  between  1820  and  1835.^ 

If,  however,  we  go  behind  the  formal  constitution  as  defined 
by  the  Act  of  Parliament,  and  trace  in  the  minutes  the  persons 
who  actually  attended  the  meetings  of  these  bodies,  we  find, 
amid  the  diversity,  an  even  greater  identity.  In  town  after 
town,  the  minutes  reveal  the  fact  that  the  local  dignitaries,  who 
were  members  ex  officio,  seldom  or  never  attended.  And  even 
where  the  Acts  provided  for  new  members  being  elected,  it  is 
clear  in  many  cases  that  no  election  took  place,  the  vacancy 
being  either  left  unfilled,  or  filled  by  simple  co-option.  Thus, 
in  the  vast  majority  of  instances,  the  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners were,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  self-elected  and  self- 
renewing  little  clique  of  "  principal  inhabitants."  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  some  cases,  notably  Leeds  and  Woolwich,  in 
which  the  Commissioners  were  essentially  an  elected  body,  in 
active  connection  with  a  numerous  and  energetic  constituency  ; 
whilst  in  others  again  they  were  practically  identical  with  an 
open  Vestry,  Hmited  by  a  high  voting  qualification. 

So  much  for  the  constitution  of  these  three  hundred  bodies 
of  Improvement  Commissioners.  To  understand  their  practical 
importance  in  the  sphere  of  local  government,  we  must  realise 

^  In  Preston,  by  Act  of  1815,  all  £50  leaseholders  were  Commissioners, 
except  publicans,  who  were  not  admitted  unless  their  premises  were  worth 
£100  a  year.  The  Act  of  1828,  which  reformed  the  Manchester  Police  Com- 
missioners, also  made  the  rating  qualification  for  publicans  twice  that  of  other 
ratepayers. 

^  The  most  important  instance  of  this  type  was  the  body  which  governed 
Manchester  and  Salford  (between  1792  and  1828).  Among  others  may  be 
cited  the  Improvement  Commissioners  for  Derby,  Dudley,  Godalming, 
Hanley,  Lancaster,  Lewes,  Lichfield,  Maidstone,  Oldham,  Preston,  Rochdale, 
Ryde,  Shrewsbury,  Stockport  and  Worcester.  Sometimes  (as  in  the  Bridg- 
water Act  of  1779  and  the  Market  Street,  Manchester,  Act  of  1776),  all  persons 
subscribing  £20  or  more  to  the  improvement  are  made  Commissioners  to 
execute  it. 


246  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

something  of  tlie  range  of  their  activities.  It  should  be  noted, 
in  the  first  place,  that  their  work,  besides  being  specifically  defined 
by  the  words  of  their  Act,  was  practically  always  limited  by 
their  borrow^ing  powers  being  confined  to  a  fixed  smn,  and  their 
rate  being  subject  to  a  prescribed  maximum.  In  the  simplest 
examples  these  bodies  were  nothing  more  than  little  committees 
of  the  residents  on  a  particular  landlord's  estate  in  London  or 
Brighton,  at  first  usually  nominated  by  the  freeholder,  but 
recruiting  their  numbers  by  co-option  ;  charged  with  the  paving, 
cleaning  and  lighting  of  the  streets  and  squares  in  which  they 
lived,  and  dividing  the  cost  of  the  service  among  all  the  house- 
holders. More  commonly  the  Improvement  Commissioners,  act- 
ing for  some  provincial  town,  begin  in  the  dull  routine  business 
of  paving,  lighting  and  cleansing  the  streets,  but  gradually  add 
new  municipal  services,  such  as  providing  a  night  watch,  pre- 
venting encroachments,  removing  obstructions,  regulating  the 
traffic,  licensing  sedan  chairs  and  hackney  coaches,  prohibiting 
the  wandering  of  pigs  in  the  thoroughfares,  naming  streets  and 
numbering  houses,  putting  down  nuisances  and  making  byelaws 
for  the  good  order  and  government  of  the  town.  The  minutes 
of  these  bodies  are  not  exciting  reading  and  furnish  but  few  points 
of  interest.  Their  services  of  paving,  cleansing  and  lighting 
were  almost  invariably  let  out  to  contractors  ;  and  the  one  or 
two  officials  who  made  up  their  staff  were  little  better  than  work- 
ing foremen.  But  as  the  towns  grew  in  population  some  enter- 
prising bodies  of  Improvement  Commissioners  launched  out, 
under  successive  Local  Acts,  into  municipal  enterprises  of  first- 
rate  importance.  They  constructed  sewers  to  carry  away  flood 
water  ;  they  levelled  and  widened  the  main  streets  of  their  town  ; 
they  bought  the  manorial  rights,  and  erected  markets  and 
slaughter-houses  ;  they  laid  on  a  new  water-supply  and  main- 
tained fire-engines,  and  in  one  case  they  even  carried  on  a  highly 
profitable  manufacture  and  supply  of  gas.^  This  widened  range 
of  activities  attracted  popular  interest,  and  gave  scope  for  the 
discussion  of  general  principles,  the  conflict  of  interests  and  all 
the  excitement  of  political  partisanship. 

^  Comparing  even  the  most  energetic  of  the  Improvement  Commissioners 
with  a  modem  municipality,  we  notice  the  absence,  from  the  list  of  services 
undertaken  by  tliem,  of  any  provision  of  parks  and  open  sjmces,  libraries  and 
museums,  picture  galleries,  baths  and  wash-houses,  the  means  of  transit  and 
housiufr,  and,  above  all,  the  various  grades  and  kinds  of  education. 


THE  TRUSTEES  OF  THE  CUBITT  ESTATE         247 

The  Trustees  of  the  Cubitt  Estate 

We  begin  with  a  specimen  of  the  simplest  type,  which  happens 
to  come  at  rather  a  late  date.  At  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  the  well-known  London  builder  Cubitt  was  laying  out 
in  streets  and  squares  and  covering  with  houses  the  Marquis  of 
Westminster's  fields  at  Belgravia  and  Pimlico,  In  1826  the 
agents  of  the  Marquis  obtained  a  Local  Act  ^  creating  a  body  of 
"  Trustees  for  paving,  lighting,  watching,  repairing  and  otherwise 
improving  Grosvenor  Place  "  and  certain  other  streets  in  the 
neighbourhood.  This  body,  consisting  of  some  of  the  wealthier 
inhabitants,  together  with  Cubitt  and  other  builders,  and  renew- 
ing itself  by  co-option, was  empowered  to  borrow  £30,000  and  to 
levy  a  rate  not  exceeding  2s.  9d.  in  the  pound.  The  minute- 
book  of  this  "  paving  board  "  reveals  to  us  the  fortnightly  meet- 
ings of  half-a-dozen  persons,  receiving  complaints  of  "  defective 
footways,"  cellars  and  basements  flooded  with  liquid  filth,  lamps 
unlit,  and  all  sorts  of  encroachments  and  nuisances.  The 
Trustees  order  their  one  and  only  paid  official  to  complain  to 
the  several  contractors  for  paving,  scavenging  and  lighting,  of 
the  non-fulfilment  of  their  contracts.  The  ratepayers  are  always 
grumbling  at  the  amount  and  inequality  of  the  assessments, 
which  are  arbitrarily  fixed  by  the  Trustees.  But  the  Trustees 
are  evidently  timid  and  afraid  to  act  on  their  statutory  powers. 
They  give  way  to  any  clamorous  ratepayer  and  satisfy  him  by 
reducing  his  assessment.  We  see  them  bargaining  with  a  whole 
street  as  to  extra  services  to  be  given  for  the  increased  rate.^ 
They  petition  against  being  upset  by  Hobhouse's  Bill.  But 
when,  in  1833,  the  great  personages  who  dwell  in  Grosvenor 
Place  insist  on  "  the  propriety  and  justice  of  adopting  the 
representative  system  in  the  Board  of  Trustees,  they  meekly 
reply,  that  they  have  no  power  to  change  their  constitution 
without  Parliamentary  leave,  and  request  that  if  they  have  been 
open  to  censure,"  the  great  personages  will  "  be  good  enough  to 
point  out  their  particular  defects."  ^    Finally,  the  democracy  of 

^  7  George  IV.  c.  58. 

2  "  Mr.  Edwards  attended  and  stated  that  he  thought  that  the  inhabitants 
of  houses  in  the  Vauxhall  Bridge  Road  would,  if  something  was  done  for  them, 
pay  the  rates  ;  and  was  informed  by  the  Trustees  that  they  will  light  and 
water  the  road  if  the  rates  are  paid  "  (MS.  Minutes  of  Trustees  of  the  Cubitt 
Estate,  London,  1st  March  1830). 

3  Ibid.  8th  July  1833. 


248  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

Belgravia  is  too  strong  for  tKem.  A  committee,  headed  by  Lord 
Fitzwilliam,  publishes  an  indignant  criticism  of  their  proceedings, 
exposing  their  apathy,  their  suspicious  compositions  with  building 
speculators,  their  extravagance  in  paving  and  lighting  contracts, 
and  their  neglect  of  the  pubhc  interest  in  faihng  to  charge  the 
cost  of  new  streets  on  the  freeholders.  Even  the  Marquis  of 
Westminster  "  unequivocally  declared  himself  in  favour  of  the 
representative  system."  ^  A  new  Local  Act  in  1834  amends 
their  constitution,  requiring  the  existing  Trustees  to  select  by 
lot  twenty-four  of  their  members,  to  whom  are  added  twelve 
persons  elected  by  the  ratepayers  of  the  district.  Through  the 
annual  retirement  of  one-third  of  the  whole  thirty-six  members, 
and  the  annual  election  of  their  successors,  the  whole  body 
(with  the  exception  of  three  persons  nominated  by  the  freeholder 
and  the  builders)  becomes  representative  of  the  ratepayers.^ 

Whole  districts  in  the  Metropolitan  area  were,  for  purposes 
of  cleansing,  lighting  and  paving,  a  mosaic  of  boards  like  the 
Cubitt  Trustees.  In  the  parish  of  St.  Pancras  alone  there  were 
no  fewer  than  nineteen  of  them,  whilst  the  total  for  the  whole 
Metropohtan  area  approached  one  hundred.^  About  these 
bodies  practically  nothing  is  known,  except  that  their  results 
were  thoroughly  unsatisfactory.  A  contemporary  London 
observer  explains  both  their  origin  and  their  degeneration. 
"  Nothing  can  be  more  proper  than  the  origin  of  a  modern 
Paving  Act,  which  is  always  founded  on  the  application  of  the 
parties  interested,  who  propose  to  pave  their  own  district  at  their 
own  expense.  From  among  the  inhabitants  are  selected  a  large 
number  of  Commissioners  whose  names  are  inserted  in  the  Act. 
The  attorney  who  has  been  employed  to  solicit  the  bill  in  Parlia- 

^  An  Address  to  tJie  Inlwbitani  Ratepayers  from  their  Committee,  Grosvenor 
Place  District,  1833,  p.  4. 

-  4  &  5  William  IV.  c.  58. 

3  "  The  number  of  independent  boards  for  these  objects  in  different  parts 
of  London,  exclusive  of  the  City  and  exclusive  of  those  parishes  in  which  the 
Vestries  have  power  to  regulate  their  o\\'n  paving,  liglitiiig  and  cleansing,  is 
nearly  one  hundred.  As  most  of  these  boards  are  practically  self-appointed 
and  irresponsible,  they  of  course  ijublish  no  accounts  of  their  receipts  and 
expenditure  "  (Local  Government  in  the  Metropolis,  1830,  p.  21).  "  Of  paving 
boards  alone,  it  is  said  that  about  the  middle  of  the  last  ccntuiy  there  were 
no  less  than  eighty-four  in  the  Metropolis — nineteen  of  them  being  in  one 
parish.  The  lighting  of  the  parish  of  Lambeth  was  under  the  charge  of  nine 
local  Trusts.  The  affairs  of  St.  Marj^  Newington,  wore  under  the  control  of 
thirteen  Boards  or  Trusts,  in  addition  to  two  Turnpike  Trusts  "  (The  Sanitary 
Evolution  of  London,  by  Henry  Jephson,  1907,  )).  12). 


THE  PLYMOUTH  COMMISSIONERS  249 

ment  usually  becomes  their  clerk,  and  until  the  new  pavement 
is  complete  the  attendance  of  the  Commissioners  is  full  and 
frequent.  By  degrees  zeal  for  the  new  undertaking  seems 
unnecessary,  or  according  to  the  nature  of  the  unresisted  zeal 
is  gradually  extinguished,  and  the  care  of  maintaining  the  pave- 
ment cannot  but  devolve  upon  those  whose  duty  binds  them  to 
continue  their  attendance.  These  are  usually  the  chairman  of 
the  Commissioners  and  their  clerk,  assisted  by  .the  pavior,, em- 
ployed, whose  advice  in  subordinate  details  is  indispensable."  ^ 
Notwithstanding  all  complaints  these  local  paving  boards  were 
in  full  vigour  in  1835,  and  they  continued,  indeed,  in  the  Metro- 
polis until  1855,  when  they  were  at  last  merged  in  the  reorganised 
Vestries  and  District  Boards,  established  by  Sir  Benjamin  Hall's 
Act,  which  sent  representatives  to  form  the  Metropohtan  Board 
of  Works  (itseK  destined,  in  1889,  to  be  transformed  into  the 
London  County  Council),  whilst  the  Vestries  and  District  Boards 
became,  under  the  London  Government  Act  of  1901,  the  Metro- 
pohtan Boroughs  of  to-day. 


Th£,  Plymouth  Commissioners 

The  borough  of  Plymouth,  incorporated  by  statute  as  early 
as  1439,  presents  us  with  an  example  of  the  ordinary  type  of 
Improvement  Commissioners  in  a  provincial  town.  The  borough 
was  governed  down  to  1835,  by  a  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Councillors 
under  a  charter  of  1697.  This  ancient  Municipal  Corporation 
owned  and  exercised  the  manorial  rights,  administered  a  lucrative 
water-supply  and  market,  enjoyed  valuable  property  and  ex- 
tensive patronage,  and  wielded,  by  its  senior  members,  the  sword 
of  justice  in  both  civil  and  criminal  cases.  It  remained  right 
down  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  an  opulent  and 
dignified  body,  and  in  1833  it  earned  the  rare  distinction  by 
being  praised  by  the  Municipal  Corporation  Commissioners  as  an 
active  and  honest  governing  authority.^  In  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  Mayor  and  Corporation  were  maintaining 
a  certain  number  of  watchmen,  hired  out  of  the  four  shilhngs  a 
year  which  most  householders  paid  as  composition  in  lieu  of 

^  Eight  Letters  concerning  the  Pavement  of  the  Metropolis  and  the  adjoining 
Turnpike  Roads,  by  X.  Y.,  1817. 

-  Municipal  Corporations  Commission  Report  (Appendix,  part  i.  p.  595), 


250  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

personal  service.  There  were  also  a  couple  of  town  scavengers. 
The  town  had  its  own  stone  quarries,  and  the  Corporation  had 
made  a  beginning  in  the  way  of  sewering  and  paving.  It  is 
therefore  all  the  more  interesting  to  find  that  when,  after  the 
conclusion  of  the  Seven  Years'  War  in  1763,  there  sprang  up  a 
demand  for  town  improvements,  these  were  not  undertaken  by 
the  Corporation.  In  1770,  "  a  considerable  movement  having 
been  set  on  foot  in  the  town  for  the  paving,  lighting,  and  watching 
of  Plymouth,  an  Act  of  Parliament  was  obtained,  and  a  Board  of 
Commissioners  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  its 
provisions."  ^  This  body  consisted  of  the  Mayor,  Recorder, 
Town  Clerk,  Coroner,  the  twelve  Aldermen  and  the  twenty-four 
Common  Councillors,  ex  officio,  together  with  thirty  named 
persons,  who  were  to  fill  vacancies  among  their  number  by 
co-option  of  persons  qualified  by  ownership  of  £40  a  year  free- 
hold, or  £1000  worth  of  personalty .^ 

The  minutes  of  this  body  for  the  first  twenty  years  of  its 
existence  have  unfortunately  not  been  preserved.  It  appears 
to  have  started  off  with  some  energy  in  the  matter  of  street 
lighting,  ordering  200  lamps,  with  wick  and  oil,  "  the  same  as 
that  used  in  London,"  to  be  erected  and  lit  by  contract.  With 
regard  to  the  watch,  it  established  a  force  of  twenty  men,  "  to 
be  armed  with  halberds  as  usual,"  carrying  bells,  and  calHng  out 
the  hour  and  the  weather.  The  householder's  obligation  to 
personal  service  of  watch  and  ward  was  merged  in  the  new  rate 
levied  by  the  Commissioners,  but  inhabitants  who  were  not  rated, 
including  therefore  all  occupiers  of  small  cottages,  continued 
liable  to  serve,  or  to  pay  the  composition.^  The  Commissioners 
were  apparently  least  successful  in  the  scavenging  of  the  town. 
At  first  they  were  made  the  sole  authority  for  this  service,  the 

^  See  History  of  Plymouth,  by  Llewellyn  Jewitt  (Plymouth,  1873),  pp.  343- 
347  ;  History  of  Phjmotith,  by  R.  N.  Worth,  1890,  p.  223.  Many  references 
to  the  local  government  of  Plymouth  will  be  found  in  T/ie  Manor  and  the  Borough, 
1908  (see  index).  The  well-kept  archives  are  described  in  the  Calendar  of  the 
Plymouth  Municipal  Records,  by  R.  N.  Worth  (Plymouth,  1893). 

2  10  George  III.  c.  14. 

'  "  Ordered  that  the  Clerk  do  call  upon  the  several  collectors  to  make  out 
lists  of  the  resiants  in  the  present  books,  distinguishing  such  as  are  willing  to 
pay  their  rates,  from  such  as  refuse  to  pay  ;  and  that  the  constable  and  cor- 
porals of  the  watch  do  afterwards  call  out  the  resiants  so  refusing,  to  watch 
in  rotation  ;  and  on  such  condition  they  be  excused  from  the  payment  of  the 
said  rates "  (MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Plymouth,  27th 
November  1792). 


NON-ATTENDANCE  251 

Corporation  having  to  contribute  £40  a  year  to  their  funds. 
Amending  Acts  of  1772  and  1774  ^  restored  the  work  to  the  Mayor 
and  Corporation,  who  continued  feebly  to  perform  this  function 
(often  contracting  with  the  Incorporated  Guardians  to  employ 
paupers)  right  down  to  the  reform  of  1835.  But  the  Commis- 
sioners were  given  powers  to  put  down  nuisances,  and  to  require 
owners  to  pave  and  sewer  streets — neither  of  which  powers  they 
appear  to  have  exercised.^ 

From  1789,  when  the  first  existing  minutes  begin,  down  to 
1824,  when  a  new  Act  was  obtained,  the  Commissioners  were  an 
apathetic  and  uninteresting  body.  They  met  nominally  every 
week,  but  though  the  quorum  was  two  only,  many  weeks  in 
succession  there  would  be  no  business  for  lack  of  one.^  They 
had  only  two  committees,  one  for  examining  accounts  and  one 
for  general  purposes,  and  we  infer  that  only  about  a  dozen  out 
of  the  sixty  or  seventy  members  ever  attended  at  all.  The 
Commissioners,  in  fact,  confined  themselves  to  levying  their 
maximum  annual  rate  of  sixpence  in  the  pound  on  owners  and 
sixpence  on  occupiers,  making  contracts  for  lamplighting,  and 
for  such  small  paving  works  as  could  be  done  out  of  their  scanty 
resources  ;  and  to  paying  the  wages  of  the  watchmen.  When 
in  1820  their  Surveyor  of  Pavement  died,  they  decided  (though 
he  was  their  only  executive  officer  other  than  the  old-fashioned 
firm  of  solicitors  who  acted  as  their  law  clerks)  not  to  appoint  a 
successor.* 

The  Act  of  1824  put  new  life  into  the  Commissioners.^  The 
attendance  at  meetings  rises  to  about  forty,  special  committees 
are  appointed,  the  watch  is  increased,  street  improvements  are 

1  12  George  III.  c.  8  and  14  George  III.  c.  8. 

2  We  may  cite,  as  the  sort  of  exception  that  proves  the  rule,  the  following 
resolution  of  1821,  which  was  probably  not  acted  upon.  "  That  the  Clerks 
and  Treasurers  be  directed  to  take  the  necessary  measures  for  prosecuting  any 
four  persons  for  making  obstructions  and  nuisances  in  the  public  streets,  for 
the  sake  of  public  example — selecting  such  instances  as  may  appear  to  be  the 
fittest  objects  for  such  jjrosecutions  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners, Plymouth,  13th  March  1821). 

'  In  1797-1798  there  was  no  quorum  for  48  successive  weeks,  m  1798- 
1799  for  36  successive  weeks,  and  in  1799-1800,  even  for  50  successive  weeks 
(ibid.  1797-1800).  *  Ibid.  25th  April  1820. 

^  An  Act  for  Better  Paving,  Cleansing,  Watching  and  Improving  the  Town 
and  Borough  of  Plymouth  in  the  County  of  Devon,  and  for  regulating  the  Police 
thereof,  and  for  removing  and  preventing  Nuisances  and  Annoyances  therein 
(Plymouth,  1824).  This  Act  made  no  change  in  the  composition  of  the  Com- 
missioners. 


252  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

undertaken,  and  certain  kinds  of  obstruction  in  the  thorough- 
fares and  nuisances  are  proceeded  against.  This  spurt  of 
activity  lasts  only  a  few  years,  and  the  body  soon  sinks  back  to 
its  former  level  of  scanty  attendance  ^  and  apathy.  In  1830, 
indeed,  it  is  moved  to  protest  against  Hobhouse's  bill,  and  the 
solicitor  is  despatched  to  London  in  order  to  obtain  the  exclusion 
of  Plymouth  from  the  scope  of  the  measure.^  In  the  following 
year  the  fear  of  cholera,  and  the  remonstrances  of  a  local  "  Board 
of  Health  "  that  had  been  formed,  induced  the  Commissioners 
to  give  notice  "  to  the  sub-surveyors  that  if  they  do  not  exert 
themselves  and  cause  the  difEerent  nuisances  to  be  removed 
from  all  parts  of  the  town  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of 
the  Improvement  Act,  at  the  expiration  of  one  month  from  this 
time  they  will  be  dismissed  from  their  appointments."  ^  But 
nothing  could  galvanise  the  Plymouth  Commissioners  into 
lasting  activity  or  any  sort  of  efficiency.  Early  in  1836,  without 
remonstrance  or  complaint,  they  ceded  to  the  newly  elected 
Town  Council  the  administration  of  the  watch  and  the  levying 
of  threepence  out  of  their  former  rate.  For  another  eighteen 
years  they  lingered  out  a  moribund  existence,  before  being  in 
1854  finally  merged  in  the  Municipal  Corporation  on  the  apphca- 
tion  to  the  borough  of  the  PubHc  Health  Act.^ 

The  "  Lamp  Commissioners  "  of-  Birmingham 

The  Improvement  Commissioners  in  some  other  places  were 
more  successful  than  those  of  Plymouth,  At  Birmingham,  for 
instance,  they  made  themselves,  after  thirty  years  of  comparative 
inactivity,  into  the  principal  governing  authority  of  that  im- 
portant town.*    The  "  Borough  and  Manor  of  Byrmyngham,"  as 

1  MS.  Minutes,  13th  April  and  8th  June  1830. 

^  Ibid.  8th  March,  1st  November  and  15th  November  1831. 

^  Their  minutes  end  11th  July  1854. 

*  For  the  local  government  history  of  Birmingham  (with  which  we  have 
already  dealt  in  The  Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  pp.  117-118,  582-583,  etc., 
and,  more  extensively,  in  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  vol.  ii.  i)p.  157-lGO, 
2G4-265,  etc.)  the  most  important  sources  are  the  MS.  Minutes  of  the  Improve- 
ment Commissioners  from  177G  to  1851,  and  those  of  the  Town  Council  from 
1838  onward.  The  MS.  Minutes  of  the  \'estry  of  St.  Martin's,  and  those  of 
the  Incorporated  Guardians  are  less  fruitful,  and  the  Court  Leet  records  con- 
tain practically  nothing  of  interest.  On  the  other  hand,  tlie  local  histories  are 
exceptionally  full  and  detailed,  and  much  is  to  be  gained  from  the  various 
editions  of  William  Mutton's  History  of  Birmingluim  (Birmingham,  1781  ;  latest 
edition,  1840) ;    TAe  History  of  the  Corporation  oj  Birmingham,  by  J.  T.  Bunce 


THE  "  LAMP  COMMISSIONERS  "  OF  BIRMINGHAM    253 

it  was  called  in  the  sixteenth  century,  was  already  in  Tudor 
times  a  thriving  industrial  centre,  which,  although  not  legally 
incorporated,  seems  long  to  have  enjoyed  a  certain  measure  of 
independent  communal  organisation.^  The  manorial  courts 
dwindled,  as  we  have  elsewhere  described,  into  little  more  than 
occasions  for  conviviality.  The  Vestry  seems,  for  some  reason, 
to  have  been  an  inert  body,  confining  itself  practically  to  church 
administration,^  and  when,  about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  the  population  took  to  doubling  itself  in  a  generation, 
the  need  for  some  governing  authority  became  imperative.  An 
attempt  to  get  a  Local  Act  was  made  in  1765,  but  failed  owing  to 
the  opposition  to  any  new  rate.  Four  years  later  a  renewed 
effort  was  more  successful,  and  a  body  of  "  Lamp,"  "  Streets  "  or 
Improvement  Commissioners  was  incorporated,  renewing  them- 
selves by  co-option,  but  with  narrowly  limited  rating  powers.^ 
A  subsequent  Act  of  1773  sUghtly  enlarged  the  Commissioners' 
functions,  but,  as  William  Hutton  remarks,  "  committed  to  the 
care  of  about  seventy-six  irresolute  Commissioners  .  .  .  who 
wisely  argue  against  the  annihilation  of  one  evil  because  another 
will  remain,"  the  new  authority  was  for  a  long  time  not  turned 
to  any  effective  use.  The  well-kept  but  brief  and  formal  minutes 
of  the  Commissioners,  which  exist  from  1776,  reveal  only  a  scanty 
attendance,  at  very  irregular  meetings.  The  Commissioners 
engaged  at  first  no  salaried  officers  whatsoever.     Dividing  the 


(Birmingham,  1878-1885),  with  a  third  volume  by  C.  A.  Vince  (Birmingham, 
1902) ;  A  Century  of  Birminghajn  Life  (1868)  and  Modern  Birmingham  and  its 
Institutions  (1873-1877),  both  by  J.  A.  Langford  ;  Old  and  New  Birmingham 
(1879-1880)  and  The  Making  of  Birmingham  (1894),  both  by  R.  K.  Dent ;  and 
"  Hints  for  a  History  of  Birmingham,"  by  James  Jaffray,  being  a  series  of 
articles  from  the  Birmingham  Journal  for  1855,  collected  into  a  volume  in  the 
Birmingham  Public  Library.  Further  references  will  be  found  in  our  book, 
The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  1908,  pp.  157-160. 

1  In  the  Survey  of  the  Borough  and  Manor  of  Birmingham,  by  Clement  K. 
Throkmorton  (Birmingham,  1891),  dating  from  1553,  we  find  "  the  Bailiff  and 
Commonalty  of  the  Borough  of  Byrmyngham  "  holding  stalls  and  standings 
in  the  market  place,  at  a  fixed  rent,  as  tenants  of  the  lord  of  the  manor  (pp. 
60-61). 

2  The  MS.  Minutes  of  the  Vestry  of  St.  Martin's,  Birmingham,  the  mother- 
parish,  between  1795  and  1842,  contain  hardly  any  entries  relating  to  local 
government. 

^  All  houses  under  £6  a  year  value,  all  gardens  and  arable  land,  all  stock-in- 
trade  and  personalty,  and  all  empty  premises  were  exempt ;  on  houses  between 
£6  and  £10  a  year  the  rate  was  never  to  exceed  twopence  ;  between  £10  and 
£15,  threepence  ;  between  £15  and  £20,  fourpence  ;  and  between  £20  and  £25, 
eightpence  in  the  pound — an  interesting  example  of  "  differential  rating." 


254  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

town  into  twelve  districts,  they  appointed  a  committee  for  each, 
it  being  assumed  that  the  Commissioners  themselves  would  report 
all  nuisances,  and  supervise  the  lamplighting  for  their  own 
neighbourhoods.!  Their  first  work  was  a  struggle,  which  lasted 
for  a  whole  decade,  against  the  "  bulksashes,"  or  bow  windows, 
obstructing  the  narrow  streets.^  Then  the  yawning  cellars  engage 
their  attention,  and  these  dangers  to  passengers  are  vigorously 
"  closed  down  "  or  "  filled  up  "  or  protected  by  iron  gratings. 
The  stone  steps  at  front  doors  are  declared  nuisances  and  ordered 
to  be  removed.  Fireworks  and  squibs  are  forbidden  ;  barrels  are 
not  to  be  left  about  the  streets,  nor  horses  allowed  to  wander  at 
large.  The  washing  of  "  brass  dirt "  and  metals  in  the  streets 
had  been  stopped.  The  heaps  of  broken  glass  and  crockery, 
casting-pots  and  brick-ends,  slack,  shop  sweepings  and  other 
rubbish,  had  been  carried  away.  Dog-fighting  and  bull-baiting 
in  the  public  streets  had  been  suppressed.  But  the  Commis- 
sioners had,  by  the  end  of  the  century,  not  made  much  headway 
with  the  street  improvements,  which  had  been  one  of  the  primary 
objects  of  their  establishment.  "  The  old  fingerposts  which  had 
stood  at  every  turning  and  had  become  shattered  and  crazy, 
they  swept  away.  The  ravines  .  .  .  had  been  filled  up.  The 
Shambles,  the  Round  House  and  the  Old  Cross,  which  nearly 
filled  the  whole  area  of  Bull  Ring,  they  cleared  away  in  178  i."  ^ 
As  at  Plymouth,  the  narrow  financial  limits  set  to  the  Commis- 
sioners' powers  soon  stopped  work  in  this  direction.  Meanwhile 
a  few  lamps  were  erected,  and  their  fighting  was  paid  for  by 
contract.  A  feeble  attempt  was  made  about  1791  to  pave  the 
footways  in  one  or  two  principal  streets  ;  and  a  small  sum  was 
from  time  to  time  expended  in  clearing  away  the  worst  of  the 
dirt  that  defiled  the  streets.*     Police  there  was  none.     Prior  to 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Birmingham,  10th  December 
1776. 

^  "  That  notice  be  given  to  the  owner  and  builder  of  the  houses  in  Ne\vton 
Street  that  they  will  not  bo  permitted  to  put  out  any  bulk-sash,  the  streets 
not  being  10  yards  wide,  and  to  take  those  down  that  arc  already  built,  or  the 
penalty  will  be  levied  according  to  the  Act  "  (ibid.  5th  August  1777). 

*  "  Hints  for  a  History  of  Birmingham,"  by  James  Jaffray. 

*  "  That  Hill  do  immediately  proceed  to  clean  the  several  streets  in  rotation, 
agreeable  to  the  printed  list ;  and  that  the  gentlemen  who  arc  mentioned  and 
appointed  in  the  said  list  for  overlooking  the  number  of  streets  therein  fixed 
be  requested  to  superintend  the  scavengers  during  the  time  of  cleaning  such 
several  stivets  and  sec  that  the  same  are  properly  done  "  (MS.  Minutes, 
Improvement  Commissioners,  Birmingham,  11th  November  1777). 


AN  ENERGETIC  GOVERNMENT  255 

1789,  there  were  no  night  watchmen  whatsoever,  and,  apart  from 
the  market,  practically  no  constables.  From  1789  to  1801  the 
provision  of  a  nightly  watch  was  left  entirely  to  the  private 
subscriptions  of  the  wealthier  quarters  of  the  town.^  Right 
down  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  Birmingham 
Commissioners  seem  fairly  to  have  merited  Hutton's  reproach.^ 

With  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century  comes  a  spurt 
of  activity.  A  new  Local  Act  is  obtained  in  1801,  bringing 
into  assessment  all  houses  over  one  pound  a  year  value,  and 
giving  additional  borrowing  powers.  New  byelaws  are  framed, 
greatly  enlarging  the  list  of  practices  forbidden  as  nuisances. 
The  duty  of  maintaining  a  nightly  watch,  hitherto  left  to  private 
subscription,  is  undertaken  by  the  Commissioners,  and  a  force 
of  sixty  men  is,  during  the  winter  months,  taken  into  public  pay.^ 
The  market  tolls,  and  with  them  the  management  of  the  market, 
are  taken  on  lease  from  the  lord  of  the  manor.*  In  1812  yet 
another  Local  Act  is  obtained,  bringing  all  houses  whatsoever 
into  assessment,  doubhng  the  rate,  and  giving  power  to  borrow 
£24,000.  With  this  new  authority,  the  Commissioners  transform 
themselves  into  a  regularly  organised  and  fairly  efficient  muni- 
cipal government.  Their  regular  monthly  meetings  secure  an 
attendance  of  between  forty  and  sixty.  All  the  executive  work 
is  now  practically  delegated  to  standing  committees,  of  which 
there  were  eventually  five,  dealing  respectively  with  finance, 

1  In  1789,  we  are  told,  "  A  meeting  was  held  in  the  suburban  district  of 
St.  Paul's,  and  a  committee  was  appointed  to  establish  a  night  patrol  in  that 
quarter.  The  example  was  contagious,  so  each  of  the  districts  of  the  town 
formed  committees  of  their  own  and  engaged  watchmen  on  their  own  respon- 
sibility. The  committee  in  their  turn  always  accompanied  the  patrol  in  their 
nocturnal  perambulations,  in  order  to  be  assured  that  they  did  their  duty. 
...  It  was  considered  excellent  sport  by  the  young  bloods  of  Birmingham  to 
have  command  of  the  patrol  and  many  of  their  companions  used  to  join  them 
on  duty,  the  result  being  a  jolly  night  of  it,  and  abundance  of  amusement  " 
("  Hints  for  a  History  of  Birmingham,"  by  James  JafEray). 

*  Their  total  annual  expenditure  did  not  reach  £1000  until  their  tenth  year 
of  existence  ;  and  had  not,  after  thirty  years,  attained  £2000  (Hutton's  History 
of  Birmingham,  pp.  224-225). 

3  Ibid.  5th  October  1801.  As  late  as  1829  the  watchmen  were  employed 
officially  only  during  the  seven  dark  months  of  the  year.  They  were  allowed 
to  "  collect  i^ay  on  their  rounds  during  the  summer  months  and  this  is  universally 
practised  "  (MS.  Report  of  Superintendent  of  Police,  Manchester,  of  his  Tour 
of  Inspection  to  Glasgow,  Edinburgh,  Birmingham,  etc.,  in  1829). 

*  For  21  years,  at  £60  a  year  ;  ibid.  6th  January  1806.  These  market 
rights  (without  the  manor  itself)  were  eventually  acquired  by  the  Corporation 
{The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1908,  p.  160). 


256  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

markets,  lamps  and  watching,  sweeping  and  paving.  The 
members  of  the  Paving  Committee  were  habitually  appointed 
by  the  magistrates  to  be  Surveyors  of  Highways  for  the  parish, 
and  as  such  levied  their  own  distinct  highway  rate,  and  main- 
tained their  own  separate  offices  and  clerical  estabUshment. 
Under  this  authority  the  streets  were  gradually  paved.  The 
Commissioners'  annual  revenue  and  expenditure  in  1830,  when 
the  population  had  risen  to  146,986  (1831  census),  amounted  to 
the  respectable  total  of  £17,000.  They  courted  pubhcity,  making 
their  books  and  even  the  proceedings  of  their  committee  meetings 
"  open  to  all  ratepayers  on  paying  a  smaU  sum  to  the  clerk,"  ^ 
In  1828  a  new  Local  Act  was  obtained,  authorising  the  borrowing 
of  no  less  than  £100,000,  including  £25,000  for  a  Town  HaU, 
and  the  levying  of  an  additional  rate  of  sixpence  in  the  pound 
for  this  purpose,  exclusively  on  premises  valued  at  £15  a  year 
and  upwards.  The  markets,  now  become  a  profitable  service, 
are  enlarged,  and  the  Commissioners  take  the  management 
and  toll-collecting  into  their  own  hands.^  Their  total  rate  rises 
to  the  considerable  sum  of  half-a-crown  in  the  pound.  A  Town 
Surveyor  is  appointed  at  a  salary  of  £150  a  year.  The  scavenger- 
ing  is  no  longer  contracted  for  or  left  to  amateur  supervision, 
but  is  done  in  1829  by  a  directly  employed  stafE  of  18  sweepers, 
13  scrapers  and  11  horses  and  carts,  at  a  net  cost  of  over  £1000  a 
year.  The  lamps  are  lit  by  gas,  and  106  watchmen  patrol  the 
town.  Altogether,  as  we  learn  from  a '  Manchester  official  in 
1829,  "  the  streets  of  Birmingham  have  an  air  of  cleanhness 
and  comfort  to  which  Manchester  is  an  entire  stranger."  ^  The 
Birmingham  Improvement  Commissioners  continued  in  full 
activity,  as  a  fairly  efficient  governing  body,  until  they  were,  in 
1851,  by  mutual  consent,  merged  in  the  Municipal  Corporation. 

The  "  Police  Commissioners  "  of  Manchester 

For  the  best  example  of  a  really  energetic  and  successful 
body   of   Improvement   Commissioners   we   must   turn   not   to 

^  This  is  the  only  instance  wo  know  of  in  which  a  charge  for  inspection  of 
the  minutes  has  been  formally  authorised. 

'  Birmingham  Neio  Market  Place  :  a  Letter  addressed  to  one  of  the  Com- 
missioners  of  the  Birmingham  Street  Act,  by  Charles  Fitldian  (Birminp;ham, 
1828)  ;  Observations  on  a  Letter  .  .  .,  by  Mr.  Charles  Fiddian,  etc.,  by  William 
Haines  (Birmingham,  1828). 

-  MS.  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Manchester,  of  his  Tour  of 
Inspection  to  Glasgow,  Edinburgh,  Birmingham,  etc.,  in  1829. 


THE  "  POLICE  COMMISSIONERS  "  OF  MANCHESTER  257 

Birmingliam,  but  to  the  greatest  of  the  new  manufacturing  centres, 
in  which  the  massing  of  population,  the  extension  of  enterprise 
and  the  growth  of  a  wealthy  class  were,  at  the  same  time,  creating 
the  need  for  increased  government  and  throwing  up  men  capable 
of  the  task.  The  Vestry  organisation  of  the  great  parish  of 
Manchester  had,  as  we  have  already  described,^  fallen  towards 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  into  a  state  of  indescribable 
disorder,  owing  to  the  impracticable  relations  between  the 
Churchwardens  and  Overseers,  the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  the 
inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled  and  the  officers  of  the  Court 
Leet.  But  these  separate  and  conflicting  authorities,  though 
they  managed  between  them  the  poor,  the  highways  and  the 
primitive  poHce  force,  had,  fortunately  for  the  town,  in  other 
matters  been  superseded  by  a  statutory  body  of  Commissioners. 
Perhaps,  owing  to  the  very  disorganisation  of  the  parish  govern- 
ment, the  Police  Commissioners,  as  they  were  always  called, 
had,  from  their  inception  in  1765  by  the  Act  5  George  III.  c.  81, 
down  to  their  absorption  in  the  Town  Council  in  1842,  at  no  time 
any  connection  whatsoever  with  the  Vestry  or  any  of  its  officers. 
The  first  thirty  years'  records  of  the  Manchester  and  Salford 
Pohce  Commissioners  have  disappeared,  but  we  learn  that  "  soon 
after  the  passing"  of  the  Act  of  1792  (32  George  III.  c.  69),  which 
repealed  the  1765  Act,  "  the  Commissioners  thereby  appointed 
divided  and  formed  two  distinct  bodies,"  2  one  consisting  of  the 
Commissioners  resident  in  Manchester,  and  the  other  of  those 
resident  in  Salford.  These  two  bodies,  appointing  separate  estab- 
lishments and  levying  separate  rates,  henceforth  confined  their 
activities  to  their  respective  towns.  This  voluntary  (and,  until 
1828,  entirely  extra-legal)  separation  probably  took  place  in  1797, 
from  which  date  the  records  in  the  Manchester  Town  Hall  begin.^ 

1  The  Parish  and  the  County,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1907. 

2  Preamble  to  Manchester  Local  Act  of  1828  (9  George  IV.  c.  117)  which 
ratified  this  separation.  Under  the  Act  of  1792,  "  the  Commissioners  for  better 
cleaning,  lighting  and  regulating  the  towns  of  Manchester  and  Salford  "  con- 
sisted of  the  Warden  and  Fellows  of  the  College  of  Christ  in  Manchester,  the 
Boroughreeve  and  Constables  and  all  owners  and  occupiers  of  premises  of  the 
yearly  rent  of  £30,  at  the  least,  who  took  the  prescribed  oath  (32  George  III. 
c.  69).  The  legal  establishment  of  the  Salford  Commissioners  as  a  separate 
body  was  by  the  Act  of  1828  (9  George  IV.  c.  17). 

3  For  the  Manchester  Police  Commissioners,  the  student  may  consult  the 
MS.  Miniites  which  exist  from  1797  only ;  the  successive  Acts,  32  George  III. 
c.  69  ;  49  George  III.  c.  192  ;  53  George  III.  c.  20  ;  56  George  III.  c.  12  ; 
1  &  2  George  IV.  c.  47  ;  1  &  2  George  IV.  c.  126  ;  4  George  IV.  c.  115  ;  5 
George  IV.  c.  133;  9  George  IV-  C  JI7;  11  George  IV.  c.  47 ;  1  William  IV. 

S 


258  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

The  Manchester  Police  Commissioners  have  for  us  a  special 
interest.  In  their  three-quarters  of  a  century  of  existence  they 
exemplify  all  the  three  representative  types  of  statutory  bodies 
of  Commissioners  ;  beginning  in  1765  as  a  hmited  number  of 
named  persons  co-opting  their  successors ;  then  transformed  in 
1792  into  a  body  consisting  of  the  whole  of  a  class  ;  and  finally, 
in  1828,  being  reconstituted  as  a  body  of  elected  representatives. 
No  less  interesting  is  the  fact  that,  especially  between  1808 
and  1835,  these  Commissioners  included  among  their  most  active 
members  most  of  the  men  who  were  then  making  Manchester 
famous  for  its  commercial  enterprise  and  aggressive  political 
opinion — the  Phillips,  Potters,  Taylors,  Garnetts,  Heywoods, 
Brookses,  and,  later  on,  Richard  Cobden  himself.  During  these 
years  the  Manchester  Police  Commissioners,  as  we  shall  presently 
describe,  initiated  in  their  municipal  gas-works  the  most  remark- 
able of  all  municipal  experiments  prior  to  1835,  and  thus  gave 
to  the  new  Town  Council  an  impetus  which  was  not  spent  for  a 
whole  generation,  and  which  secured  to  Manchester  the  premier 
place  in  English  municipal  development  until  the  rise  of  Birming- 
ham in  the  'seventies.  And  it  is  in  the  records  of  these  Commis- 
sioners that  we  discover  the  first  instance  of  that  marked  cleavage 
in  municipal  policy — neither  dependent  on,  nor  exactly  coinciding 
with,  the  contemporary  cleavage  in  national  politics — which  has 
since  accompanied  all  vigorous  municipal  life  in  this  country. 

The  first  volume  of  these  minutes  exhibits  the  new  body  of 
Commissioners  struggling  slowly  and  fitfully  to  establish  their 
authority  in  the  densely  crowded  streets  and  slums  of  the  Man- 
chester of  that  time.  The  meetings  recorded  from  1797  to  1807 
were  seldom  attended  by  more  than  a  dozen  persons  and  often 
failed  for  lack  of  a  quorum.  The  most  pressing  business  was 
apparently  the  establishment  of  a  Night  Watch,  beginning  in 
1797  with  a  force  of  14  men.  Then  1000  lamps  were  bought, 
which  were  frugally  lit  on  "  twenty  dark  nights  per  month  from 
the  1st  October  to  the  30  April."  ^     Twenty-two  firemen  were 

c.  16;  6  William  IV.  c.  16;  1  Vict.  c.  37  ;  2  Vict.  c.  2 ;  2  &  3  Vict.  c.  87  ; 
3  &  4  Vict.  c.  30 ;  4  Vict.  c.  8  ;  5  &  6  Vict.  c.  117  ;  6  Vict.  e.  17  ;  tlie  incidental 
references  in  the  varidua  forewords  and  footnot<'S  in  The  Manchester  Municipal 
Code,  6  vols.  1894-1901 ;  the  sources  cited  in  The  Pari.sh  and  (he  County  and 
T/w  Manor  and  the  Borough  (see  index)  ;  and  such  controversial  pamphlets  as 
those  cited  in  the  following  jjages,  most  of  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  Man^ 
che8t<?r  Public  Library. 

'  MS.  Minutes,  Police  Commissioners,  Manchester,  4tb  November  1797. 


ELEMENTARY  IMPROVEMENTS  259 

appointed  to  attend  when  required  to  work  the  public  fire- 
engine.i  In  1800  a  special  committee  was  directed  to  report 
what  nuisances  should  first  be  taken  in  hand.  In  a  vigorous 
report  the  Committee  map  out  a  scheme  of  work,^  which  occupied 
all  the  energy  of  the  Commissioners  for  several  years.  The 
manifold  encroachments  on  the  streets  by  projecting  steps  and 
cellar  entrances  were  to  be  removed  ;  war  was  declared  against 
the  stalls  that  obstructed  the  footways  and  the  signboards  that 
darkened  the  air  ;  the  lines  of  posts  that  divided  these  footways 
from  the  road  were  to  be  cleared  away  ;  dangerous  places  were 
to  be  fenced  ofE  from  the  highway  ;  the  excessive  smoke  from 
factory  chimneys  was  to  be  restrained ;  and  finally,  wandering 
pigs  were  to  be  excluded  from  the  streets.^  This  programme 
was  not  completely  carried  out  for  the  next  ten  years,  as  the 
Commissioners  found  the  mere  management  of  the  watching, 
lighting  and  scavenging  of  the  city  no  light  task,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  trouble  that  it  cost  to  assess  and  collect  the  rates.  This 
is  explained  by  the  reluctance  of  the  Commissioners  to  engage 
a  salaried  staff.  The  Commissioners  resident  in  each  ward  were 
required  personally  to  select  the  watchmen  for  that  ward,  to 
see  that  they  were  properly  on  duty,  to  give  orders  for  the  repair 
of  their  watch-boxes,  to  inspect  the  paving,  to  notice  whether 
the  contractor  lit  the  lamps  on  the  nights  and  at  the  hours 
stipulated  for,  to  take  care  that  the  contractor  cleaned  the  streets 
as  agreed  upon,  and  generally  to  act  as  amateur  superintendents 
of  police  and  inspectors  of  nuisances  for  their  several  neigh- 
bourhoods. It  was  not  until  after  seven  years'  experience  that 
the  Commissioners  could  bring  themselves  (in  1804)  to  appoint 
an  officer  at  £150  a  year,  to  combine  the  command  of  the  police 
with  the  superintendence  of  the  scavenging  and  aU  the  other 
manifold  work  of  the  town.*  After  1807,  when  the  accounts 
were  for  the  first  time  "  ordered  to  be  printed  for  the  information 
of  the  public,"  ^  we  notice  a  steady  development  in  organisation 
and  growth  in  activity.  The  committees  were  more  definitely 
organised  ;    and  the  ordinary  work  of  lighting  and  scavenging, 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Police  Commissioners,  Manchester,  27th  December  1799. 

2  Ibid.  5th  September  1800. 

'  "  That  Mr.  Braddock  give  notice  to  the  shoemaker  who  has  for  some 
time  been  in  the  habit  of  })ermitting  his  pigs  to  remain  and  be  fed  in  the  street 
at  the  bottom  of  Hunt's  Bank  that  unless  ho  discontinues  ihis  practice  he  will 
be  summoned  and  fined  "  (ibid.  7th  May  1802). 

*  Ibid.  16th  November  1804.  »  Ibid.  13th  November  1807, 


26o  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

together  with  the  management  of  the  watch,  ran  more  smoothly. 
All  the  houses  were  numbered,  and  sometimes  renumbered,  at 
the  pubhc  expense.  Pigsties  within  the  town  were  declared 
a  common  nuisance,  and  proceeded  against  at  the  Court  Leet. 
The  leading  inhabitants  were  eager  for  further  activity.  A 
Town's  Meeting  called  in  the  beginning  of  the  year  appointed  an 
influential  committee  to  consider  the  propriety  of  getting  a  new 
Local  Act,  giving  greatly  increased  powers  of  self-government. 
This  committee  gave  the  necessary  notices  for  a  new  Act.  They 
recommended  the  purchase  of  the  market  and  other  manorial 
rights  for  a  sum  which  they  had  provisionally  agreed  with  the 
Lord  of  the  Manor  at  £90,000  ;  a  large  scheme  of  street  improve- 
ment, including  widening  and  repaving,  with  the  purchase  of 
adjoining  land  for  recoupment ;  the  amalgamation  of  the  Sur- 
veyors of  Highways  and  the  Commissioners  for  the  Market 
Street  Widening  with  the  general  body  of  Commissioners  ;  and 
many  other  reforms  of  various  kinds,  ^  But  these  reforming 
spirits  were  too  bold  for  the  citizens  of  their  day.  They  had 
ventured  to  propose,  not  only  "  a  moderate  Sunday  Toll  to  be 
collected  from  horses,  cattle  and  carriages  at  the  different  avenues 
leading  from  the  town  " — those  conveying  persons  to  places  of 
worship  being  exempted — but  also  a  new  fourpcnny  rate  "  charged 
upon  and  made  payable  by  the  owner,"  though  "  assessed  with 
the  Police  Rate  upon  the  occupier  and  collected  from  him."  ^ 
This  led  to  a  storm  of  indignation,  and  a  whole  sheaf  of  pamphlets, 
under  the  influence  of  which  these  bold  projects  were  dropped.^ 

^  One  of  the  authors  takes  a  pleasure  in  recording  that  on  this  committee 
sat  her  great-uncle,  Thomas  (afterwards  Sir  T.)  Potter,  in  1838  first  Mayor  of 
Manchester. 

^  See  the  instructive  Reports  of  the  several  committees  appointed  in  con- 
sequence of  a  Public  Meeting  of  the  inhabitants  of  Manchester  for  taking  into 
consideration  the  following  subjects,  viz.  The  New  Police  Act,  Paving,  Flagging 
and  Soughing,  Sunday  Toll,  Local  Adininistration  of  Justice,  Purchase  of  the 
Manor  of  Manchester,  etc.  (Manchester,  1808). 

*  Among  them  were  the  following  :  An  Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Man- 
chester on  the  impolicy  of  their  purchasing  the  Manor,  by  Charles  M'Niven 
(Manchester,  1809)  ;  A  Reply  to  Mr.  M^Niven's  Address  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Manchester  on  tlie  impolicy  of  their  purchasing  the  Manor,  by  one  of  the  Ad- 
dressed (Manchester,  1809)  ;  Report  of  the  committee  appointed  at  a  Public 
Toivn's  Meeting  of  the  Inhabitants  of  Manchester  to  treat  conditionally  with 
Sir  Osioald  Mosley  for  the  purchase  of  the  Manor  (Manchester,  1809)  ;  The 
Murder  is  out,  or  Committeemen  fingering  Cash,  being  a  sequel  to  New  Taxes, 
Seventy  Thousand  Pounds,  addressed  to  every  householder  in  the  Manor  of  Man- 
chester, by  Francis  Philips  (Manchester,  1809)  ;  A  Letter  to  Francis  Philips,  Esq., 
on  his  pamphlet  entitled  "  Murder  is  Out,''  etc.,  by  a  Native  of  the  Parish  of 


I 


THE  WATER  SUPPLY  261 

Whilst  they  were  still  in  controversy  came  a  great  struggle  over 
the  water  question.  In  the  session  of  1809  two  sets  of  promoters 
had  rival  schemes  in  ParHament  for  improving  the  water  supply, 
both  of  them  being  vigorously  opposed  by  the  Commissioners  on 
behalf  of  the  citizens.  Crowded  town's  meetings  condemned 
the  bills,  and  enthusiastically  adopted  the  report  of  a  committee 
which  advocated  the  pohcy  of  municipalisation.i  The  Com- 
missioners spent  £1760  in  this  Parliamentary  campaign,  with 
little  success.  The  "  Stone  Pipe  Company  "  got  its  Act,^  con- 
ceding only  a  few  protective  clauses  ;  and  its  friends  form- 
ally objected  to  the  Commissioners'  expenditure,  which  Quarter 
Sessions  eventually  disallowed.  The  Commissioners,  it  was  held, 
"  had  no  power  to  apply  the  police  fund  in  a  Parliamentary 
defence  of  the  rights  of  the  inhabitants,  though  such  defence  be 
directed  and  carried  on  by  the  inhabitants  at  large."  ^  We  hear 
little  of  the  Commissioners  for  the  next  ten  years,  which  were, 

Manchester  (Manchester,  1809)  ;  Coke  upon  Lyttleton  ;  or  the  Rejoinder,  by- 
Francis  Philips  (Manchester,  1809)  ;  The  History  of  Johnny  Shuttle  and  his 
cottage  (Manchester,  1809).  Copies  of  these  are  rare,  but  they  are  described 
in  Manchester  Court  Leet  Records,  vol.  xii.  preface,  p.  xvii.  The  Manor,  which 
could  have  been  acquired  in  1808  for  £90,000,  was  bought  in  1846  for  £200,000 
(The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1908,  vol.  i.  p.  113  ;  Mediaeval 
Manchester  and  the  Beginnings  of  Lancashire,  by  James  Tait,  1904,  p.  37). 

^  "  Your  Committee  are  also  of  opinion  that  the  supply  of  the  town  of 
Manchester  with  water  ought  to  be  under  the  direction  of  its  own  inhabitants 
and  that  it  would  be  contrary  to  sound  policy  to  entrust  the  furnishing  and 
control  of  this  important  article  of  food  and  cleanliness  on  which  the  health 
and  comfort  of  the  inhabitants  depend,  to  persons  whose  sole  object  will  be 
the  promotion  of  their  own  private  interest,  and  who  are  induced  to  the  under- 
taking from  no  other  motive."  It  was  therefore  proposed  that  the  town  should 
have  its  own  water  supply,  under  the  management  of  the  Churchwardens  and 
Overseers,  acting  in  conjunction  with  the  Commissioners  and  the  Surveyors  of 
Highways  ;  that  the  capital  should  be  raised  by  the  issue  of  Manchester  Town 
notes  transferable  as  currency  but  bearing  interest ;  and  that  the  surplus 
profits  should  be  devoted  to  the  relief  of  the  rates  {History  of  the  Origin  and 
Progress  of  the  Water  Supply  of  Manchester,  1851,  an  excellent  volume  reprinted 
from  the  Manchester  Guardian).  Municipalisation  did  not  come  for  another 
forty  years.  The  company  acquired  the  primitive  waterworks  owned  by  the 
Lord  of  the  Manor  at  Holt  Town,  Beswick,  and  constructed  additional  works 
at  Gorton.  The  whole  undertaking  was  purchased  by  the  Town  Council  in 
1847,  when  extensive  new  works  were  constructed  in  the  Longdendale  Valley 
(^Manchester  Municipal  Code,  1896,  vol.  iii.  ;  History  and  Description  of  the 
Thirlmere  Water  Scheme,  by  Sir  J.  J.  Harwood,  1895). 

2  49  George  III.  c.  192. 

'  History  of  the  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  Water  Supply  in  Manchester, 
p.  28.  See  the  MS.  Minutes  of  the  Commissioners,  4th  May  and  29th  September 
1809  ;  and  those  of  the  Lancashire  Quarter  Sessions,  Salford,  10th  October 
1810,  where  the  total  disallowed  is  stated  as  £2500.  The  active  Commissioners 
presumably  had  personally  to  subscribe  the  sum  disallowed,  with  costs. 


262  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

in  Manchester  as  elsewhere,  "  a  time  of  transition  from  gloom  to 
apparent  prosperity."  ^  It  was,  however,  during  this  period  of 
political  repression  and  economic  distress  that  the  Commissioners 
started  their  boldest  and  most  important  experiment.  Already 
in  1807  they  had  begun  to  make  gas  in  a  small  way  in  order  to 
light  with  it  their  office,  and  presently  some  of  the  street  lamps. 
"  As  the  use  of  gas  thus  spread,  its  superiority  to  all  other  light 
made  the  public  anxious  to  obtain  it  for  private  consumption, 
and  several  pubhc  meetings  were  held  for  the  purpose  of  urging 
the  Commissioners  of  Police  to  extend  the  works  so  as  to  supply 
the  general  demand.  In  compliance  with  the  feehng  thus  mani- 
fested, the  Commissioners  made  a  formal  appeal  to  the  rate- 
payers at  large  by  calling  a  meeting  specially  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  an  express  sanction  for  that  object.  This  meeting 
took  place  on  the  30th  April  1817,  and  resolved  unanimously 
'  That  it  will  be  expedient  to  adopt  the  proposed  mode  of  lighting 
the  central  parts  of  the  town  with  gas,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
effecting  this  object  to  raise  the  police  rate  from  15d.  to  18d. 
in  the  pound.'  "  New  gas-works  were  accordingly  set  up  in  1817 
to  supply  the  public,  and  these  were  gradually  extended  year  by 
year  as  the  revenue  came  in.^  That  this  "  municipal  trading  " 
was  entirely  unauthorised  by  law  did  not  apparently  much 
trouble  the  Commissioners.  For  seven  years  they  conducted 
their  new  enterprise  without  any  specific  Parliamentary  powers, 
using  the  substantial  annual  profit  to  extend  the  works.^    In 

^  Reminiscences  of  Old  Manchester  and  Salford,  by  an  Octogenarian  (Man- 
chester, 1887). 

"  No  other  public  authority  undertook  the  gas  supply  for  many  yeara.  At 
Derby,  for  instance,  when  in  1819  the  inhabitants  held  meetings  to  obtain  a 
gas  supply,  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  only  way  was  to  form  a  joint 
stock  company  {Derby  Mercury,  27th  May  1819). 

3  Barnes  (History  of  the  County  Palatine  of  Lancaster,  vol.  ii.  p.  349)  says 
that  "  the  merit  of  originating  these  works  on  the  present  liberal  plan  is  prin- 
cipally due  to  George  William  Wood,"  afterwards  M.P.  for  South  Lancashire. 
But  their  success  was  due  in  no  small  degree  to  Thomas  Potter,  another  of  tlie 
Commissioners,  who,  though  at  the  head  of  a  large  business,  dcvot<>d  much 
time  to  their  management.  We  have  come  across  the  statement  as  a  current 
saying  of  the  time,  that  "  Tom  Potter  is  always  at  the  gasworks  :  he  even 
goes  there  every  Sunday  after  chapel,  just  to  see  how  tliey  were  getting  on." 
The  great  administrative  ability  of  Thomas  Wroe,  appointed  manager  in  1834, 
definitely  established  their  great  financial  success.  For  the  history  of  the 
Manchester  Gas  Works,  see  (besides  the  MS.  Minutes  of  the  Commissioners) 
the  able  account  given  in  the  Manchester  Municipal  Code  (Manchest<?r,  1896), 
vol.  iii.  pp.  357-400  ;  Some  Account  of  the  Manchester  Oas  Works,  by  John 
Shuttlcworth  (Manchester,  1861),  a  paper  read  at  the  British  Association  in 


THE  SUPPLY  OF  GAS  263 

1823  a  private  enterprise—"  The  Manchester  Imperial  Joint 
Stock  Oil  Gas  Company  " — entered  the  field,  and  appHed  for  an 
Act  to  enable  it  to  supply  gas  in  competition  with  the  Com- 
missioners, whose  memorial  in  defence  of  municipal  monopoly 
in  gas  supply  is  worth  quoting  as  showing  the  spirit  in  which 
these  Manchester  merchants  undertook  their  public  work.  They 
recite  "  that  during  the  last  seven  years  the  Commissioners  of 
Police  acting  on  behalf  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  have 
expended  upwards  of  £30,000  in  the  erection  of  gas-works,  which 
works  they  are  preparing  to  extend  as  rapidly  as  circumstances 
will  admit  of  ;  every  inhabitant  paying  police  rates  is  interested 
in  these  works  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  his  rate,  and  when 
owning  or  occupying  premises  of  the  yearly  value  of  £30  or 
upwards  has  a  direct  control  in  the  appointment  of  a  committee 
of  management,  in  the  choice  of  servants,  and  in  every  other 
matter  connected  therewith  ;  the  injury  to  the  streets  and  the 
loss  and  annoyance  to  the  inhabitants  inevitable  upon  the  laying 
down  of  gas  pipes  have  already  been  incurred  in  the  most  public 
and  important  parts  of  the  tovm  ;  that  every  repetition  of  the 
process  must  produce  a  recurrence  of  its  attendant  evils,  and  the 
permanent  inconveniences  necessarily  incident  to  works  of  this 
nature  must  be  ever  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  establish- 
ments formed.  That  in  this  great  and  rapidly  increasing  town 
there  exists  no  permanent  fund  whatever  for  its  general  improve- 
ment, and  the  pubHc,  no  less  than  the  Commissioners  of  Police, 
have  looked  forward  with  great  satisfaction  to  the  acquisition 
of  a  fund  applicable  to  that  purpose  ;  that  the  existing  gas- 
works are  productive  of  a  profit  which,  instead  of  being  apphed 
to  the  private  advantage  of  individuals,  is  available  for  general 
objects,  and  may  be  directed  either  to  a  reduction  of  the  public 
rates,  or  to  purposes  of  public  improvement,  according  to  the 
varying  wants  and  circumstances  of  the  times  as  may  appear 
best  to  the  inhabitants  at  large.  That  the  consumers  of  gas  are 
unquestionably  entitled  to  an  adequate  supply  of  a  quality  as 
good  as  can  be  manufactured  and  at  rates  which,  leaving  only  a 
fair  and  reasonable  profit  on  the  public  capital  invested,  shall 
not  exceed  the  prices  paid  in  neighbouring  towns  ;    and  that 

1861  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Gas  Committee  from  1843  to  1861 ;  and  a  critical 
reply  to  this,  entitled  Observations  on  the  Paper  read  by  John  Shuttleworth,  Esq., 
before  the  British  Association  on  the  Manchester  Gas  Works,  1861. 


264  THE  IMPROVEMEXT  COMMISSIONERS 

these  desirable  objects  are  more  likely  to  be  obtained  bv  a  general 
establishment  conducted  imder  an  effective  public  control  than 
by  any  private  association  founded  solely  for  immediate  gain."  ^ 
The  Commissioners  accordingly  promoted  a  biU  of  their  own,  to 
ratify  and  authorise  their  mimicipal  gas-works,  which  were  to  be 
managed  by  a  committee  of  thirty  Gas  Directors,  appointed  by 
the  Commissioners  for  three  years,  one-third  retiring  annually. 
AMiether  the  Parhament  of  1824  would  dehberately  have  approved 
of  this  "  mimicipal  trading  "  seems  doubtful,  but  the  Manchester 
Commissioners  were  fortimate  in  their  opponents.  The  pro- 
moters of  the  private  company  "  resorted  to  gross  frauds  in 
getting  up  petitions  in  support  of  their  bill,  which  proceeding 
excited  great  indignation,  and  produced  a  reactionary  influence 
in  favour  of  the  project  of  the  Commissioners,"  ^  which  thus 
became  law  (5  George  lY.  c.  133) — the  first  legislative  '"  recogni- 
tion of  the  principle  that  gas  estabhshments  might  be  created 
by  pubHc  funds  and  be  conducted  by  pubhc  bodies  for  the  pubUc 
benefit." 

This  vigorous  municipal  pohcy  of  the  Commissioners  did  not 
meet  with  imiversal  approval.  A  numerous  and  pertinacious 
section — the  owners  of  small  cottage  property,  the  shopkeepers 
and  small  masters,  the  beer  sellers  and  pubhcans — regarded 
much  of  the  acti\-ity  of  the  Commissioners  as  both  inimical  to 
their  pecuniary  interests  and  contrary  to  their  notions  of  political 
expediency.  "  It  was  forgotten,"  said  a  vigorous  local  critic, 
"  that,  whatever  right  the  Commissioners  might  have  to  hght 
the  streets  with  gas  .  .  .  they  had  no  more  right  to  monopoUse 
the  manufacture  of  gas  for  the  lighting  of  private  estabhshments 
than  they  have  to  monopohse  the  spinning  of  cotton  wicks 
because  cotton  wicks  are  spun  and  used  by  the  Conmiissioners  of 
Pohce  in  hghting  the  pubhc  streets.  ...  It  seems  as  manifestly 
unjust  to  excite  pubhc  feeling  and  raise  an  outcry  and  contend 
with  the  pubhc  purse  against  an  intended  partnership  in  the  sale 
of  gas,  as  it  would  be  were  the  same  means  used  to  oppose  a  set 

1  !MS.  Minutes,  Manchester  Police  Commissioners,  5th  November  1823. 

*  Some  Account  of  the  Municipal  Gas  Works,  by  John  Shuttleworth,  1861 ; 
Observations  on  the  Paper  read  by  John  Shuttleu-orth,  Esq.,  before  the  British 
Association  on  the  Manchester  Gas  Works,  1861,  p.  4.  The  Parliamentarj- 
struggle  is  -well  described  in  The  Recorder  of  Birmingham,  a  Memoir  of  Matthew 
Davenport  Hill,  1878,  pp.  93-95.  Hill  was  counsel  for  the  Commissioners,  and 
had  the  courage  to  put  forward  an  abstract  case  for  municipalisation  as  a 
matter  of  principle. 


II 


"  MUXICIPAL  POLITICS"  265 

of  men  about  to  establish  a  cotton  factorv.  How  loud  would 
have  been  the  lamentations  potired  into  the  pubhc  ear  had  the 
Commissioners  resolved  to  appropriate  the  Police  rate  to  the 
erection  of  a  factory  to  spin  lamp  wicks,  a  fotmdrr  to  cast  lamp 
columns,  or  even  a  printing  press  to  print  their  own  placards  and 
litr-notes.  But  the  exciters  of  pubHc  feeling  who  manage  the 
aziirs  of  the  town  ...  did  not  sell  gas.  The  spinners,  the 
iron  merchants,  the  founders  and  the  letterpres  printers  who 
are  their  admiring  auditors,  did  not  perc-eive  that  they  were  led 
to  make  a  false  step  in  police  and  political  economy.  ...  At 
great  expense  we  have  converted  the  Commi^oners  of  Police 
into  dealers  and  chapmen,  and  have  secured  to  them  the  ex- 
clusive sale  of  their  wares  at  such  price  as  they  shall  deem 
reasonable."  ^  As  the  principal  consumers  of  gas.  tie  shop- 
keepers and  pubhcans  objected  to  the  price  of  this  article  being 
deliberately  fixed  far  above  its  cost,  in  order  to  produce  funds  for 
town  improvements.  As  the  occupiers  of  small  workrooms,  shops 
and  stalls,  they  disKked  the  arowing  strinsency  with  which  trade 
signs,  obstructions  of  the  pavement  and  petty  street  nuisances 
were  being  prosecuted-  The  whole  class  saw  no  advantage  in 
the  increased  expenditure  on  sewers,  the  night  watch  and  paid 
officials.  Moreover,  as  Eadical  politicians  of  that  day,  they 
objected  on  principle  to  any  kind  of  monopoly,  municipal  or 
otherwise :  to  any  authoritative  interference  with  individual 
action  or  personal  behaviour  :  and  to  the  employment  of  salaried 
and  professional  services  in  place  of  those  rendered  by  impaid 
citizens.  In  our  account  of  the  parish  organisation  of  Man- 
chester we  described  how  this  X^^'^T?'--  followed  by  the  Badical  and 
nonconformist  factory  operatives,  were,  between  ISIIO  and  1^3. 
swarming  into  the  open  Vestry  meetings  at  the  Collegiate  Church, 
and  contesting,  with  turbulent  persistency,  the  expenditure  of 
the  Constables  and  Churchwardens.  About  the  same  time  the 
attention  of  the  leaders  of  this  new  democracy  was  attracted  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  PoHce  Commi^oners,  and  they  inter- 
vaied  in  a  manner,  and  with  results,  graphically  described  by 
one  of  their  prominent  spokesmen.  "  Considerable  dissatis- 
faction," writes  Archibald  Prentice.  "'  had  for  several  years  been 
manifested  by  a  portion  c:  z'z.~  izilabitanis  of  Manchester  with 

^  Imparti4d Bemuuha on  fie  y  -XaxMJ^ of  a»  ImmteJimte  Ckamge 

ta  lie  ComstibOiom  cf  Oe  Police  1  r.ei.  13^7). 


266  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

the  management  of  its  municipal  affairs.  There  was  no  elective 
authority  in  the  town.  The  Boroughreeve,  who  by  ancient 
custom  rather  than  of  right,  exercised  the  functions  of  a  mayor, 
and  the  Constables  who  were  at  the  head  of  the  day  police,  were 
elected  at  the  Lord  of  the  Manor's  Court  Leet,  by  a  jury  nominated 
by  the  Lord  of  the  Manor's  steward.  The  Police  Commissioners, 
whose  duties  were  to  superintend  the  night  watch  and  the  paving, 
sewering  and  lighting  of  the  town,  consisted  of  such  persons  as, 
being  assessed  on  a  £30  rental,  chose  to  come  forward  and  take 
the  oath  of  office.  The  inhabitants  had  no  control  over  the  first 
class  of  officers  ;  and  they  had  long  shewn  themselves  as  anxious 
to  apprehend  Radicals  and  put  down  reform  principles,  as  to 
detect  thieves  and  prevent  theft  and  robbery.  The  Pohce  Com- 
missioners, abetted  by  the  Court  Leet  Officers,  w^ere  in  like 
manner  apt  to  forget  municipal  duties  in  political,  and  there  was 
a  suspicion  that,  provided  their  servants  and  the  tradesmen 
they  employed  were  sufficiently  '  loyal,'  there  would  not  be  a 
very  sharp  inspection  of  their  accounts."  Prentice  proceeds  to 
say  that  an  additional  source  of  dissatisfaction  arose  when  gas 
became  a  necessary  to  the  shopkeepers.  "  At  that  time  the  con- 
sumption of  gas  was  confined  almost  to  the  shopkeepers  and 
publicans.  It  was  not  used  in  warehouses,  offices  or  dwelhng- 
houses  or  small  factories,  and  the  large  spinning  establishments 
made  their  own.  Probably  not  one-fourth  of  the  ratepayers 
were  gas  consumers.  The  small  trader,  -whose  shop,  situated  in 
some  dark  and  narrow  street,  required  much  artificial  light, 
complained  that  the  enormous  warehouses  of  the  Bridgwater 
Trust,  and  the  great  factories  of  the  Birleys,  the  McConnells, 
the  Murrays  and  the  Houldsworths  paid  nothing  towards  the 
supply  of  the  town's  lamps  with  gas,  while  the  whole  of  that  cost 
was  defrayed  out  of  the  profits  derived  from  excessively  high 
prices.  A  struggle  was  made  by  those  who  believed  them- 
selves to  be  unduly  taxed  to  have  a  reduction  of  the  burden. 
Those  who  escaped  from  this  fair  share  of  contribution,  and 
thought  that  the  gas  consumers  paid  only  a  reasonable  price  for 
their  light,  opposed  themselves  fiercely  to  any  reduction  of  the 
charge,  which  at  that  time  was  14s.  per  1000  cubic  feet.  The 
question  became  almost  one  of  politics,  and  was  discussed  with 
more  than  pohtical  rancour.  The  taxed  shopkeeper  was  the 
Radical ;    and  the  untaxed  warehouseman  was  the  Conserva- 


STORMY  MEETINGS  267 

tive.i  The  reformers,  beaten  on  every  division,  began  to  ask 
questions  as  to  their  numbers,  and  as  everybody  who  was  assessed 
upon  a  rental  of  £30  a  year  was  eligible,  it  was  not  difficult  to 
persuade  many  to  go  and  take  the  qualifying  oath  and  gain  the 
opportunity  of  putting  a  check  to  oppression.  The  same  facility 
was  presented  to  the  other  side,  and  great  numbers  quahfied  to 
protect  the  town's  funds  from  '  spoliation.'  ^  .  .  .  Thus  the 
meetings  of  Commissioners  were  constantly  becoming  more 
numerous  and  more  stormy,  till  it  was  no  uncommon  thing  to  see 
800  Commissioners  present  at  a  meeting  and  to  witness  proceed- 
ings as  little  dehberative  and  decorous  as  we  sometimes  see  in 
the  front  of  the  hustings  at  a  contested  election."  ^ 

These  stormy  meetings,  of  which  graphic  descriptions  exist,^ 

^  This  description  is  confirmed  by  other  contemporary  accounts,  of  which 
we  append  a  specimen  :  "  The  gas  is  supplied  by  the  Commissioners  who 
executed  the  works  out  of  public  funds  of  the  town — not  by  a  company  ;  and 
the  question  at  issue  is  whether  the  profits  of  the  gas  establishment  shall  be 
applied  in  aid  of  the  general  police  fund  for  improving  the  towTi,  or  whether 
these  profits  shall  go  to  reduce  the  price  of  gas  to  the  consumers.  There  are 
two  parties  in  the  town,  the  '  high  '  and  the  '  low.'  The  high  party  consists 
of  the  persons  who  are  favourable  to  the  gas  profits  being  applied  to  the  public 
improvements,  and  the  low  party  to  the  price  of  gas  being  reduced  to  the 
consumers.  The  existing  distinctions  in  general  politics  of  Whig  and  Tory  do 
not  apply  to  this  question  .  .  .  the  higher  classes  generally  favouring  the 
proposal  to  apply  the  profits  to  public  improvements,  and  the  shopkeepers,  or 
middle  classes,  who  are  great  gas  consumers,  contending  for  a  reduction  of  the 
price  "  (Leeds  Mercury,  9th  February  1827).  The  MS.  Minutes  and  contem- 
porary reports  show  that  besides  their  running  fight  for  the  reduction  of  the 
price  of  gas,  the  new  party  constantly  objected  to  the  delegation  of  executive 
power  to  committees,  and  especially  to  "  close  committees,"  sitting  in  private  ; 
they  wanted  the  resolutions  of  the  Commissioners  to  be  voted  on  by  secret 
ballot ;  they  disapproved  of  practically  all  prosecutions  for  nuisances  ;  they 
voted  against  any  provision  of  sewers  beyond  what  was  necessary  to  carry  off 
storm-water  ;  and  they  altogether  protested  against  the  maintenance  of  public 
fire-engines.  "  Let  the  fire-offices  keep  engines  for  the  use  of  those  who  insured 
with  them  ...  if  this  town  would  keep  none,  the  .  .  .  fire-offices  would  keep 
engines  for  themselves,  and  such  would  be  the  competition  that  the  town 
would  be  better  served  and  at  no  expense  "  [Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  a 
Meeting  of  Police  Commissioners,  by  William  Whitworth,  Manchester,  1827). 

^  In  the  year  1826  the  MS.  Minutes  show  that  more  than  a  thousand  new 
Commissioners  took  the  oath  of  office,  over  six  hundred  at  one  meeting.  In 
1827  the  total  number  qualified,  and,  acting  for  Manchester  alone,  is  said  to 
have  exceeded  1800,  and  "  the  numbers  attending  the  meetings  have  increased 
from  about  50  to  900,  thereby  infinitely  increasing  the  difficulties  "  (Impartial 
Remarks  on  the  Necessity  or  Non-Necessity  of  an  Immediate  Change  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Police  Body,  Manchester,  1827). 

3  Historical  Sketches  and  Personal  Recollections  of  Manchester,  by  Archibald 
Prentice  (Manchester,  1851),  chap.  xx. 

*  See,  for  instance,  the  Report  of  the  Proceedings  at  a  meeting  of  Police  Com- 
missioners, by  William  Whitworth  (Manchester,  1827). 


268  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

soon  made  government  impossible.  All  parties  were  agreed  as 
to  the  necessity  for  a  change  in  the  constitution.  The  Whigs 
and  Tories  coalesced  in  support  of  a  bill,  promoted  by  a  majority 
of  the  Commissioners,  to  enable  all  £25  householders  to  elect 
240  Commissioners  having  a  qualification  of  £25,  whilst  leaving 
the  price  of  gas  unfettered.  The  Radicals  furiously  resisted 
this  at  every  stage,  demanding  both  a  lower  franchise  and  a 
lower  qualification,  the  representation  of  wards  in  strict  pro- 
portion to  their  population,  and  the  limitation  of  gas  profits  to 
ten  per  cent  on  the  capital  outlay.  Both  parties  sent  deputa- 
tions to  London  and  spent  money  freely.  Eventually  the  fight 
ended  in  a  compromise,  concluded  at  the  very  last  moment,  after 
the  House  of  Lords  Committee  had  begun  to  decide  on  the  bill. 
The  Commissioners  conceded  a  £16  franchise  for  electors  and  a 
£28  qualification  for  candidates,  these  amounts  being  in  both 
cases  doubled  as  regards  publicans.  The  price  of  gas  was  left 
unfettered.  The  representation  of  the  several  wards  was  made 
proportionate  to  population  and  assessment  combined,  seats 
being  redistributed  every  fourteenth  year.i 

The  new  body,  which  carried  on  the  municipal  work  of 
Manchester  until  1842,  was  a  well-organised  and  efficient  repre- 
sentative council,  including  in  its  ranks  most  of  the  leading  men 
of  the  town.2  Its  administrative  procedure  was  definitely  pre- 
scribed by  the  Act,  so  far  as  its  two  main  committees  were  con- 
cerned, the  Gas  Directors  and  the  Improvement  Committee, 
which  were  each  to  consist  of  30  members  appointed  for  three 
years,  of  whom  one  -  third  retired  annually.  These  two  com- 
mittees exercised  a  good  deal  of  independent  authority,  merely 
reporting  to  the  general  body.  The  Commissioners  appointed 
four  other  committees,^  which  sat  weekly  or  fortnightly.  But 
the  Commissioners  were  not  completely  an  elective  body.  The 
Boroughreeve  and  the  two  Constables,  who  were,  as  we  have 

^  This  little  struggle  cost  the  majority  of  the  Commissioners  £1162  and 
their  opponents  £1145.  The  former  sum  was  naturally  voted  from  the  Police 
rate,  and  the  Commissioners  offered  to  do  the  same  for  their  opponents'  costs 
— an  offer  at  first  virtuously  declined  but  eventually  accepted. 

^  Among  these  we  may  name  such  commercial  and  manufacturing  magnates 
as  John  Edward  Taylor,  J.  E.  Brotherton,  W.  Nield,  Samuel  Brooks,  Mark 
Phillips,  Thomas  and  Richard  Potter,  J.  Gamett,  Thomas  Hopkins,  H.  H. 
Birloy,  R.  H.  Greg,  G.  W.  Wood. 

'  Accounts,  Finance,  Watch  (including  Nuisances  and  Hackney  Coaches) 
and  "  Lamp,  Scavenging,  Fire  Engine  and  Main  Sewers." 


ENERGETIC  ADMINISTRATION  269 

seen,  merely  the  nominees  of  the  Lord  of  the  Manor's  Court  Leet, 
were  Commissioners  ex  officio,  and  exercised  great  influence  in 
the  administration.  The  Boroughreeve  always  presided  over 
the  meetings,  and  was,  moreover,  both  Treasurer  and  Chairman 
of  the  Accounts  Committee,  whilst  one  Constable  was  always 
Chairman  of  the  Watch  Committee  and  the  other  of  the  Lamp, 
Scavenging,  Fire-Engine  and  Main  Sewers  Committee. 

The  Commissioners  went  energetically  to  work.  They  adopted 
formal  standing  orders  of  quite  modern  tjrpe,  and  directed 
that  there  should  be  a  printed  notice  and  agenda  circulated 
before  each  meeting.^  A  public  accountant  was  called  in  to 
audit  the  receipts  and  expenditure  and  prepare  a  statement  of 
accounts,  which  was  printed  and  pubhshed.  A  professional 
valuer  was  appointed  to  revise  the  assessment  of  the  town,  with 
instructions  to  include  every  kind  of  property.  The  collection 
of  rates  was  systematised  and  regularly  checked.  The  manage- 
ment of  the  Httle  force  of  night  poUce  was  overhauled,  and  the 
num^ber  of  men  increased  by  fifty  per  cent,  their  hours  of  duty 
being  reduced  and  the  old-fashioned  watch  boxes  being  discon- 
tinued, as  "  they  hinder  rather  than  promote  service."  ^  The 
paving  of  the  town  was  taken  seriously  in  hand,  a  separate  com- 
mittee being  appointed  for  "  Paving  and  Soughing."  ^  The 
main  sewers  were  extended  ;  two  paid  inspectors  were  appointed, 
and  nuisances  were  sternly  suppressed.  A  Town  Hall  was  built, 
and  certain  minor  street  improvements  were  undertaken.  The 
municipal  trade  in  gas  grew  apace,  and  the  abundant  profits 
were  the  mainstay  of  the  Commissioners'  finances.  Thus,  they 
still  continued  to  execute  improvements  out  of  current  revenue, 
often  having  temporarily  to  borrow  on  the  personal  security  of 

^  These  standing  orders  were  published  ten  years  later  in  Bye  Laws  made, 
ordained  and  constituted  by  the  Commissioners  for  Cleansing,  Lighting  and 
Regulating  the  Town  of  Manchester  for  the  regulation  of  their  own  proceedings 
(Manchester,  1838). 

2  MS.  Minutes,  Police  Commissioners,  Manchester,  25th  August  1830.  The 
Commissioners  were  enterprising  enough  to  send  their  principal  officer  to 
Birmingham,  Edinburgh  and  Glasgow  to  enquire  how  these  towns  managed 
their  watch,  scavenging,  fire  brigade,  lighting,  hackney  coaches,  and  assessment 
of  rates.  His  report,  a  volume  of  200  pages  of  closely  written  manuscript, 
preserved  in  the  Manchester  Town  Hall,  presents  a  unique  and  valuable  picture 
of  the  technical  details  of  municipal  organisation  in  1828-1829.  This  tour  re- 
sulted in  a  new  volume  of  Regulations  for  the  Government  of  the  Watch  Department 
of  the  Manchester  Police  (Manchester,  1830). 

3  MS.  Minutes,  Police  Commissioners,  Manchester,  31st  August  1831. 
"  Soughing  "  =  sewering. 


270  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

the  Commissioners  themselves.^  They  soon  found,  however, 
that  this  primitive  finance  was  inadequate  for  the  expanding 
needs,  and  on  this  and  other  grounds,  they  successfully  promoted 
new  bills  in  1830,  1831  and  1832,  greatly  extending  their  powers.^ 
Throughout  these  years  the  policy  of  the  majority  of  the  Com- 
missioners remained  what  would  now  be  termed  "  Progressive," 
that  is,  in  favour  of  increased  municipal  enterprise  and  extended 
municipal  regulation.  Thus  in  1834,  on  a  motion  by  the  Radical 
minority  that  the  gas-works  should  be  sold  to  the  highest  bidder, 
the  spokesman  of  the  majority  made  an  emphatic  declaration 
in  favour  of  municipalisation  which  might  be  to-day  repeated  by 
the  leader  of  the  Labour  Party  in  the  London  County  Council. 
"  It  was  highly  desirable,"  urged  Thomas  Hopkins  in  a  remark- 
able speech,  "  that  the  inhabitants  of  a  large  town  like  Manchester 
should  have  the  ownership  of  works  hke  the  gas-works,  and 
amongst  the  many  reasons  why  the  works  should  be  retained  a 

^  It  is  worth  recording  that  when  they  decided  to  build  a  Town  Hall,  180 
of  the  Commissioners  pledged  themselves  personally  to  the  bankers  in  a  bond 
for  £20,000  to  secure  the  necessary  advances.  This  bond  was  not  returned 
and  cancelled  until  1829  {ibid.  4th  November  1829).  The  Town  Hall,  until 
lately  used  as  the  Public  Reference  Library,  was  in  these  years  a  subject  of 
great  municipal  fondness  and  pride.  It  was  fearfully  and  woi^erfully  decorated 
inside,  during  1831-1834,  by  an  Italian  named  Aglio,  who  inveigled  the  leading 
Commissioners  into  granting  him  the  job.  These  decorations,  which  cost  £5000, 
were  simply  painted  out  by  a  subsequent  generation  having  a  different  taste. 
(British  Architect,  21st  July  1876.) 

^  See  report  of  Committee  appointed  to  consider  the  amendments  needed 
in  the  Police  Acts,  MS.  Minutes,  16th  December  1829.  Among  the  new  pro- 
visions in  the  1830  Act  may  be  mentioned  the  following.  Coffee  houses  and 
cookshops  are  to  close  at  11  p.m.  (on  Saturdays,  at  midnight),  and  not  to  open 
before  4  a.m.  in  summer  and  6  a.m.  in  winter.  Publicans  are  to  provide  urinals. 
All  doors  and  gates  on  the  road  are  to  be  made  to  open  inwards.  No  cranes 
are  to  be  allowed  above  the  first  story.  No  new  street  or  court  is  to  be  less 
than  24  feet  in  width.  When  half  a  street  is  built,  the  owners  may  be  required 
to  pavo  and  drain  it.  The  wandering  of  swine  in  the  streets  is  prohibited 
under  substantial  penalty.  Every  householder  is  required  to  cleanse  daily  the 
footway  in  front  of  his  house,  and  in  times  of  frost  to  lay  sand  down  before 
9  A.M.  The  Commissioners  arc  authorised  to  provide  a  public  weighing-machine, 
and  to  set  up  a  mounted  jiolice  force. 

In  1830  we  find  them,  at  the  instance  of  J.  E.  Taylor  and  Thomas  Hopkins, 
keenly  alive  to  the  danger  of  allowing  the  new  "  steam  locomotive  railway  " 
the  use  of  the  streets.  With  reference  to  the  proposals  of  the  Stockport  and 
Manchester  Railway  Company  to  cross  a  main  road  "  at  grade,"  they  resolve 
"  that  the  said  company  ought  to  be  prohibited  altogether  from  bringing 
locomotive  engines  into  the  town  of  Manchester,  whether  moved  by  steam  aid 
or  otherwise,  and  that  their  traflic  should  be  carried  on  through  the  said  town 
of  Miinclicster  by  means  of  horses  only,  whicii  siiould  not  in  any  case  move 
tiirough  any  of  the  streets  at  a  greater  speed  tiian  at  the  rate  of  three  miles 
an  hour  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Manchester  Police  Commissioners,  24th  February  1830). 


RADICAL  OPPOSITION  271 

very  important  one  was  breaking  up  the  streets.  .  .  ,  He  con- 
ceived also  that  water  works  and  markets  should  always  belong 
to  the  town,  and  some  progress  should  be  made  to  obtain  the 
ownership  of  these.  ...  It  was  of  importance  that  the  gas 
should  be  good,  but  what  security  would  there  be  for  its  being 
good  if  the  works  went  into  the  hands  of  a  joint  stock  company  ? 
Their  interest  would  be  to  make  as  much  money  as  they  could. 
.  .  .  For  these  reasons  he  considered  that  all  pubhc  works 
should  belong  to  the  town  or  be  under  the  control  of  the  public, 
for  they  generally  acted  under  the  influence  of  more  elevated 
feelings  than  those  whose  principal  aim  was  profit.  .  .  .  The 
absence  of  a  number  of  things  of  this  kind  in  a  town  constituted 
its  decline,  but  a  number  of  advantages  of  this  description  gave 
it  prosperity.  .  .  .  Instead  of  giving  up  what  the  town  at 
present  possessed,  a  plan  of  action  should  be  laid  down  which 
would  bring  under  the  control  of  the  town  everything  which 
ought  to  belong  to  it."  ^ 

But  the  change  in  the  Commissioners'  constitution,  which 
transformed  them  into  a  democratically  elected  body,  did  not 
abate  the  opposition  to  their  proceedings.  The  shopkeepers 
discovered  that  the  compromise  of  1828  had  resulted  in  retaining 
in  power  the  influential  Whigs  and  Tories  who  had  for  many 
years  dominated  the  counsels  of  the  Commissioners.  Against 
them  there  raged  during  the  whole  of  this  decade  a  noisy  and 
persistent  minority  of  Radicals  and  nonconformists,  among  whom 
we  may  name  Archibald  Prentice,^  J.  Wroe,  John  Hampson, 
P.  T.  Candelet,2  Wm.  Whitworth,  Thos.  Wheeler  2  and  G.  H. 
Winder,^  who  represented  the  shopkeepers  and  publicans.  This 
party  combined  the  advocacy  of  a  crude  and  simple  democracy 
with  objection  to  all  collective  regulation  or  municipal  enterprise, 
a  demand  for  a  reduction  of  the  price  of  gas,  and  the  defence  of 
the  small  property  owners.  We  see  them  demanding  that  no 
important  step  should  be  taken  without  a  poll  of  the  inhabitants, 
and  that  all  property  or  rating  qualification,  either  for  voters  or 
candidates,  should  be  swept  away.  They  objected  to  the  com- 
pulsory purchase  of  houses  for  improvements,  and  they  strongly 
denounced  as  confiscatory  the  levying  of  the  cost  of  main  sewers 
on  the  owners  of  the  property  benefited.     They  grumbled  inces- 

^  Manchester  Times,  25th  January  1834. 
2  These  were  subsequently  members  of  the  To-mi  Council. 


272  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

santly  at  the  increased  activity  in  the  way  of  regulation  of  the 
streets  and  prosecution  of  nuisances,  protesting  that  the  Com- 
missioners "  favoured  the  rich,  whilst  they  enforced  the  utmost 
rigour  of  the  law  against  shopkeepers  and  the  poor,  and  the 
reason  was  that  18  of  them  were  occupiers  of  warehouses."  ^ 
They  objected  to  any  increase  of  the  watchmen,  and  to  the 
"  excessive  salaries  "  which,  as  they  alleged,  the  Commissioners 
paid  to  their  officers.  They  "  saw  no  need  of  employing  profes- 
sional assessors  at  an  expense  of  5  to  10  guineas  per  day  each. 
.  .  .  Why  should  not  the  mode  of  making  a  new  assessment  be 
left  open  to  the  leypayers  in  general,  who  were  well  able  to  tell 
what  sort  of  assessment  they  wanted.  .  .  .  He  would  engage  to 
find  men  who  would  assess  more  equitably  than  any  professional 
man,  gratuitously,  and  upon  rack  rent.  ...  By  their  exclusion 
a  door  was  opened  to  the  employment  of  any  number  of  jobbing 
professional  valuers."  ^  It  was  considered  "  most  infamous  " 
that  the  Improvement  Committee  should  hold  "  secret  meet- 
ings," to  decide  which  properties  should  be  purchased,  as  "all 
public  proceedings  should  be  as  public  as  the  sun  at  noonday."  ^ 
It  was  alleged  "  that  the  Improvement  Committee  and  the  Gas 
Directors  consisted  each  of  30  members,  and  that  24  of  these  30 
were  members,  some  of  4,  some  of  3,  some  of  2  committees.  The 
Improvement  Committee  sat  in  a  comfortable  room  at  the  Town 
Hall,  determining  what  part  of  a  man's,  property  they  would  take, 
and  then  one  of  them  said,  '  Oh,  how  shall  we  get  the  money  for 
these  improvements  ?  '  another  would  say,  '  We  are  eighteen  of 
us  also  on  the  Gas  Committee,  we  are  sure  to  have  a  majority,' 
and  they  had  just  to  step  into  another  room,  and  then  decide  how 
much  the  consumers  should  pay  for  their  gas  in  order  to  raise  the 
money  for  carrying  these  cursed  improvements  into  effect."  * 

1  Manchester  Otiardian,  14th  April  1832. 

*  Speeches  by  Prentice  and  Wroe  at  meeting  of  Commissioners,  Mancliester 
Times,  11th  January  1834. 

'  Wheeler's  Manchester  Chronicle,  12th  January  1833.  The  Manchester 
Times,  2nd  April  1836,  gives  a  good  description  of  a  deputation  of  these  shop- 
keepers appearing  before  the  House  of  Commons  Committee  and  interviewing 
Lord  Shaftesbury,  as  Chairman  of  Committees  of  the  House  of  Lords,  in 
opposition  to  the  Police  Commissioners'  Bill  of  1836.  In  addition  to  the 
above  objections,  they  demanded  compensation  for  "  fixtures  and  goodwill  " 
of  tradesmen  expropriated.  Lord  Shaftesbury  allowed  the  insertion  of  a  clause 
giving  compensation  "  for  all  loss  and  damage,  instead  of  good  will."  He 
said,  "  I  do  not  like  the  words  '  good  will.'  " 

*  Meeting  of  property  owniers,  reported  in  Manchester  Guardian,  1832. 


WORK  OF  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS     273 

But  the  most  heinous  crime  of  the  Commissioners  was  their 
constant  attempt  to  increase  their  statutory  powers.  In  April 
1830  a  vigorous  handbill  was  issued  by  the  Kadicals  denouncing 
the  Commissioners,  not  only  for  preparing  a  bill  without  con- 
sulting the  inhabitants,  but  also  for  inserting  clauses  enabling 
them  to  borrow  a  capital  sum  of  £25,000  for  the  extension  of 
the  gas  works,  and  giving  them  powers  of  municipal  regulation 
"  too  vexatious  and  oppressive  to  be  safely  entrusted  to  any  body 
of  men."  1 

The  Eadicals  urged,  moreover,  that  the  election  of  the  Com- 
missioners should  be  annual ;  that  all  ratepayers  should  be 
entitled  to  vote  ;  and  that  the  quahfication  for  candidates  should 
be  reduced.  They  sent  a  deputation  to  London,  which  secured 
these  concessions.^ 

We  have  described  at  some  length  the  policy  and  proceedings 
of  both  the  majority  and  the  minority  of  the  Manchester  PoUce 
Commissioners,  not  only  because  it  was,  right  down  to  its  merger 
in  the  Town  Council  by  the  Act  of  1842  (6  &  7  Vict.  c.  17),  in 
many  ways  the  most  important  local  governing  body  of  the  time, 
but  also  because  their  respective  views  are  curiously  typical  of 
succeeding  generations  of  municipal  politicians.  We  now  leave 
them  to  consider  the  general  results  of  the  whole  three  hundred 
bodies  of  Improvement  Commissioners. 

The  WorJc  of  the  Improvement  Commissioners 

We  do  not  know  how  many  of  the  three  hundred  bodies  of 
Improvement  Commissioners  resembled,  in  their  working,  each 
of  the  four  examples  that  we  have  described.  We  imagine  that 
the  ninety  or  a  hundred  bodies  at  work  in  the  parishes  which 
now  make  up  the  Administrative  County  of  London  did  not 
differ  very  widely  from  the  "  Trustees  of  the  Cubitt  Estate," 
except,  perhaps,  in  being  usually  less  honest  and  even  more 
inefficient.  From  our  information  as  to  the  two  hundred  bodies 
in  provincial  towns,  we  infer  that  the  great  majority  approximated 
much  more  nearly  to  the  example  of  Plymouth  than  to  those 
iof  Birmingham  or  Manchester.  Judged  from  any  modern  stand- 
[  point,  we  imagine  that  their  actual  results  in  the  way  of  town 

^  Copy  in  MS.  Minutes  of  Police  Commissioners,  Manchester,  14th  April  1830. 
-  A  Statement  of  Facts,  being  a  History  of  the  Opposition  to  the  Police  Bill, 
\hj  Thomas  Walker,  Manchester,  1832. 

T 


274  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

improvement  were  not  great.  In  fact,  the  outstanding  achieve- 
ment of  the  Commissioners,  ahke  in  London  and  in  the  provincial 
towns,  and  certainly  the  most  durable,  was  the  new  stone  pave- 
ment which  was  provided  for  the  main  thoroughfares.  This 
was  not,  as  it  would  be  to-day,  regarded  as  a  work  of  sanitation. 
Indeed,  we  shall  fail  to  understand  the  efforts  of  the  Improvement 
Commissioners  unless  we  realise  the  limits  of  the  contemporary 
conception  of  their  functions.  Nowadays  the  dominant  idea  of 
municipal  government  is  the  improvement  of  the  public  health. 
This,  however,  never  occurred  to  any  of  the  Improvement  Com- 
missioners of  whom  we  are  speaking.  Right  down  to  the  cholera 
epidemic  of  1831-1832,  we  find  practically  no  suggestion  that  any 
work  of  town  improvement  should  be  undertaken  on  the  ground 
that  it  would  promote  the  pubhc  health.  From  1748  to  1832  the 
long  series  of  Local  Acts  were  obtained,  and  all  the  expenditure 
on  town  improvement  was  incurred,  not  from  any  motives  of 
sanitation,  but  in  order  to  secure,  incidentally,  greater  protection 
for  life  and  property,  and  primarily  and  invariably  greater  comfort 
and  convenience  in  passing  along  the  streets.  The  Commissioners 
were,  in  fact,  often  called  Street  Commissioners,  and  it  was 
principally  in  order  that  the  thoroughfares  of  the  towns  might 
be  better  regulated  that  the  Local  Acts  were  passed.  The 
statutory  bodies  arose  simply  because  neither  the  Court  Leet 
nor  the  Municipal  Corporation,  neither  the  Parish  nor  the  Justices 
of  the  Peace,  possessed  the  necessary  coercive  or  regulative  powers 
to  deal  with  the  town  streets. 

It  is  true  that,  as  we  have  already  explained,  all  public  streets 
were,  as  they  still  are,  legally  parts  of  the  King's  Highway,  and 
as  such  came  within  the  network  of  obligation  imposed  upon 
the  parish  by  the  general  law  of  highways  to  keep  open  a  free 
passage  for  the  King  and  his  subjects.  A  street  might,  and 
frequently  did,  form  part  also  of  a  turnpike  road,  and  as  such 
was  subject  to  the  general  turnpike  law  and  the  particular  turn- 
pike Act.  With  all  this  we  have  dealt  at  length  elsewhere. 
But  a  street  was,  in  fact,  if  not  in  law,  more  than  a  parish  highway 
or  turnpike  road.^    When  the  public  way  came  to  be  surrounded 

*  The  word  "  street,"  said  Lord  Chelmsford  in  a  judgment,  "  docs  not 
mean  the  roadway,  but  a  thoroughfare  with  houses  on  each  side  "  (Galloway 
V.  Corporation  of  the  City  of  London,  35  L.J.  Ch.  493).  But  it  need  not  neccs- 
Harily  be  paved,  nor  continuously  bordered  by  houses,  nor  even  a  thorough- 
faro.     See  The  Story  of  the  King's  Highway,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1913. 


THEIR  ACHIEVEMENTS  275 

by  a  mass  of  population,  walled  in  by  houses,  made  a  place  of 
resort  as  well  as  transit,  incessantly  traversed  by  men,  beasts 
and  vehicles,  and  used  by  night  as  well  as  by  day,  it  required  a 
higher  degree  and  greater  variety  of  collective  action  than  was 
necessary  on  even  the  most  frequented  thoroughfare  between 
one  town  and  another.  If  the  ordinary  turnpike  road  needed 
to  be  straightened  and  widened,  levelled  and  furnished  with  an 
artificial  surface,  the  street  required  all  this  in  a  higher  degree. 
But  there  were  also  new  requisites  peculiar  to  the  street,  and 
unprovided  for  in  highway  or  turnpike  law  and  administration. 
Channels  along  the  thoroughfare  itself  to  carry  off  the  pent-in 
rain-water,  special  accommodation  for  foot  passengers,  systematic 
removal  of  the  inevitable  mud  and  filth  which  impeded  free 
passage,  were  all  requirements  of  the  urban  thoroughfares. 
Hence  the  need  for  fresh  powers  and,  as  it  seemed,  for  new 
Local  Authorities,  to  make  passable  the  streets  of  the  growing 
towns.  We  now  seek  to  describe  the  way  in  which  these  statutory 
authorities  provided  the  higher  degree  and  new  kind  of  service 
required  for  free  passage  along  the  town  streets,  as  distinguished 
from  the  parish  highway  and  the  turnpike  road.  This  superior 
service — apart  from  the  regulation  of  personal  conduct  in  the 
suppression  of  nuisances,  and  the  beginnings  of  a  poHce  force, 
with  both  of  which  we  hope  to  deal  in  subsequent  volumes — 
consisted  mainly  in  providing  a  pavement  and  in  clearing  away 
the  dirt  and  refuse. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  we  find  the 
"  high  streets  "  and  market-places  of  many  of  the  ancient  towns 
already  paved  with  rounded  stones,  sloping  to  the  middle,  where 
there  was  a  kennel  or  "  denter  stone  "  to  carry  off  the  water  ; 
and  provided  in  some  cases  with  footways  on  each  side,  dis- 
tinguished from  the  carriage-way  by  elevation,  by  lines  of  posts 
or,  occasionally,  by  the  shape  of  the  stones.^    These  conveniences, 

^  The  administrative  history  of  street  paving  in  England  has  engaged  little 
attention,  so  that  we  can  cite  practically  no  authorities  beyond  the  incidental 
references  in  contemporary  newspapers  and  pamphlets,  the  MS.  Minutes  of 
Town  Councils,  Vestries  and  Improvement  Commissioners,  and  the  very  casual 
mention  of  the  subject  in  local  histories,  as  given  in  our  footnotes.  We  have 
unfortunately  been  unable  to  find  any  minutes  or  other  archives  of  the  "  Com- 
missioners of  Scotland  Yard,"  under  the  Act  of  1662.  The  History  of  London, 
by  William  Maitland,  1756,  embodies  brief  descriptions  of  the  Metropolitan 
streets  at  different  epochs.  The  Paper  read  before  the  Institution  of  Civil  En- 
gineers on  the  Construction  of  Carriage  Way  Pavements,  by  Bryan  Donkin,  1824, 


276  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

it  is  obvious,  were  beyond  the  resources  of  the  Statute  Labour 
and  Team  Duty  required  by  the  statute  of  1555,  even  if  supple- 
mented by  the  hmited  Highway  Rate  which  Quarter  Sessions, 
at  the  very  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  was  empowered  to 
authorise.  Moreover,  we  know  that,  in  the  City  of  London  and 
elsewhere,  these  street  pavements,  gutters  and  footways  had 
existed  long  before  any  statutory  obligation  to  repair  the  high- 
ways had  been  cast  on  the  parish  and  its  officers.  To  trace  the 
origin  of  these  ancient  pavements,  to  discover  how  far  they  had 
been  constructed  by  the  effort  and  at  the  expense  of  the  burgesses 
themselves  or  of  the  Municipal  Corporation,  the  lord  of  the  manor 
or  a  private  benefactor,  the  parish  or  the  frontagers,  is  outside 
our  province.  What  is  clear  is  that  there  was  no  general  pro- 
vision, at  common  law  or  by  statute,  either  for  their  construction 
or  for  their  maintenance.  It  is  in  the  Local  Acts,  which  we  have 
described  particular  towns  obtaining  from  Parhament,  first  in 
the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  and  then  from  the  latter 
part  of  the  seventeenth  century  onwards,  that  we  find  a  new  legal 
obligation  imposed  on  the  holder  of  a  tenement  abutting  on  a 
street,  to  pave  and  keep  in  repair  the  pavement  in  front  of  his 
tenement,  down  to  the  denter  stone  or  channel  which  marked 
the  middle  of  the  thoroughfare.  The  history  of  street  paving 
from  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  down  to  the 
present  day  largely  consists  in  the  evolution  of  this  personal 
obligation,  and  its  gradual  supersession  by  a  speciaUsed  organ 
of  collective  administration  acting  by  salaried  officials  and  hired 
labour,  and  maintained  by  uniform  poundage  rates  on  all 
occupiers. 

The  London  Pavements 

We  deal  first  with  the  Metropolitan  area.  The  history  of  the 
construction  of  the  London  street  pavements — the  immemorial 
pavement  of  the  ancient  City  ;  the  extension  of  this  to  the  great 
thoroughfares  leading  eastward  and  westward,  northward  and 

may  bo  cited  as  perhaps  the  firat  of  the  long  series  of  technological  writings 
on  the  subject,  which  are  mostly  to  be  sought  in  the  proceedings  of  the  technical 
institutions.  See,  for  the  modem  practice.  The  Municipal  and  Sanitary  En- 
gineer's Handbook;  by  H.  Percy  Boulnois,  1883  ;  or  (in  America)  Treatise  on 
Roads  and  Pavements,  by  I.  O.  Baker  (New  York,  1914),  and  Textbook  of  High- 
way Engineering,  by  A.  H.  Blanchard  and  H.  B.  Downe  (New  York,  1913), 
762  pp. 


THE  LONDON  PAVEMENTS  277 

southward ;  from  thence  to  the  "  high  streets  "  of  the  City  of 
Westminster  ;  the  gradual  paving  during  the  eighteenth  century 
of  such  outlying  parishes  as  St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  St. 
Marylebone  and  St.  Pancras,  and,  in  the  early  years  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  of  some  of  the  streets  of  Chelsea  and  Kensington 
— affords  an  example  of  the  origin  and  development  of  a  colossal 
public  service,  the  very  memory  of  which  has  now  passed  away. 
For  the  purpose  of  our  present  work  we  do  not  need  to  probe  the 
antiquity  of  the  pavements  within  the  City  walls,  or  to  discuss 
the  statutes  by  which  Tudor  Parliaments  compelled  the  front- 
agers between  Strand  Cross  and  Charing  Cross,i  between  Holborn 
Bridge  and  Holborn  Bars,  between  Aldgate  and  Whitechapel 
Church,  and  those  in  Chancery  Lane  and  Gray's  Inn  Lane, 
to  pave  these  much-frequented  highways.^  After  a  long  interval 
we  find,  immediately  after  the  Kestoration  of  Charles  the  Second, 
the  first  of  the  modern  Paving  Acts,  a  temporary  statute  of  1662. 
This  Act  set  up,  for  London  and  Westminster,  the  so-called 
"  Commissioners  of  Scotland  Yard  "  that  we  have  described. 
We  do  not  find  anything  about  the  activities  of  these  Com- 
missioners after  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  but  the 
Act  of  1662,  made  permanent  and  extended  to  the  whole  Metro- 
poHs  within  the  "  Bills  of  Mortahty  "  by  an  elaborate  Act  of 
1691,  governed  for  over  seventy  years  the  paving  activities  of 
the  inhabitants.^ 

1  Already  in  1320,  after  a  jjetition  to  Parliament,  two  commissioners  had 
been  appointed  by  the  King  to  insist  that  the  frontagers  of  the  Strand  should 
repair  the  pavement  in  front  of  their  houses  (1  Rot.  Pari.  pp.  302-303). 

2  24  Henry  VIII.  c.  11  (Strand  Paving  Act,  1532)  ;  25  Henry  VIII.  c.  8 
(Holborn  Paving  Act,  1533)  ;  32  Henry  VIII.  c.  17  (Whitechapel  Paving  Act, 
1541) ;  see  also  34  &  35  Henry  VIII.  c.  11  and  12  (1543)  ;  13  Eliz.  c.  23  (1571) ; 
23  Eliz.  c.  12  (1581)  ;  3  James  I.  c.  22  (1606). 

3  13  &  14  Car.  II.  c.  2  (1662);  2  William  and  Mary,  sess.  2,  c.  8  (1691). 
A  further  Act  of  1697  (8  &  9  William  III.  c.  37)  enabled  the  justices  to  extend 
their  orders  to  pave  to  the  whole  surface  of  streets  lying  partly  in  and  partly 
out  of  the  limits  of  the  Bills  of  Mortality.  The  City  of  London  had  its  own 
Acts,  19  Car.  II.  c.  3  (1668)  and  22  Car.  II.  c.  17  (1671). 

The  reconstruction  of  the  City  after  the  Great  Fire  of  1666  does  not  appear 
to  have  led  to  any  important  alteration  of  the  carriageway  pavement.  It  was 
in  vain  that  Evelyn  pleaded  for  a  flat  pavement,  and  wished  "  that  the  use  of 
sleds  were  introduced  and  as  few  heavy  carts  as  might  be  countenanced.  .  .  . 
Why  [should]  not  some  of  the  distorted  bricks  to  be  found  amongst  the  rubbish 
be  reserved  for  these  purposes,  especially  the  elevations  destmed  for  the  foot 
causeways  before  the  fronts  of  the  houses  ?  Unless  they  will  be  at  the  charge 
to  lay  it  with  Purbeck  and  flat  stones,  which  indeed  were  to  be  preferred. 
Yet  their  clinkers  ia  Holland  do  well ;  and,  as  I  remember,  the  Roman  streets 
are  so  joaved  "  {London  Restored,  not  to  its  pristine,  but  to  a  far  greater  Beauty, 


278  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

By  the  Act  of  1691  every  householder  abutting  on  one  of  the 
streets  already  paved  was  once  more  ^  definitely  required  to 
maintain  in  repair  the  pavement  in  front  of  his  tenement,  down 
to  the  "  denter-stone  "  or  channel  in  the  middle  of  the  roadway. 
Moreover,  the  Middlesex  or  Surrey  justices  in  Quarter  Sessions 
were  authorised,  on  the  motion  of  any  local  magistrate,  to  require 
the  householders  of  any  unpaved  street  to  pave  it  according  to 
their  directions.  Unfortunately  the  law  was,  so  far  as  concerned 
the  majority  of  streets,  neither  obeyed  nor  enforced.^  That 
even  the  primary  obligation  to  repair  existing  pavements  con- 
tinued to  be  very  imperfectly  fulfilled  we  may  infer  from  the 


Commodiousness  and  Magnificence,  by  Sir  John  Evelyn  {circa  1666) ;  quoted 
in  the  History  of  London,  by  William  Maitland,  1756,  pp.  449-450).  These 
suggestions  were,  as  regards  the  carriage  way,  not  adopted,  and  the  City 
Commissioners  of  Sewers  in  1671  directed  the  "  high  streets  "  to  be  "  paved 
round,  or  causeway  fashion."  The  provision  of  distinct  foot  pavements  may 
have  become  somewhat  more  general  in  the  rebuilt  streets,  together  with  the 
adoption  for  these  of  flat  stones.  The  Commissioners,  indeed,  order  that  "  the 
breadth  of  six  feet,  at  the  least,  from  the  foundation  of  the  houses,  in  such 
of  the  high  streets  which  shall  be  allowed  to  be  posted,  shall  be  paved  by  the 
inhabitants  or  owTiers  with  flat  or  broad  stone  for  a  foot  passage,"  under 
penalty  of  a  fine  of  five  shillings  for  every  week  that  they  remain  unpaved 
after  notice  given  (ibid.  p.  454  ;  see  the  Rules,  Orders  and  Directions  published 
by  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  pursuant  to  the  Act  of  the  Common  Council  of 
let  March  1G71).  But  it  is  plain  that  these  orders  were  not  generally  obeyed. 
In  1684  the  Grand  Jury  "  take  notice  of  the  great  defects  of  the  pavements, 
and  ill  passage  there bj%  in  and  about  this  City,  to  the  hindrance  and  danger 
of  His  Majesty's  subjects  passing  in  and  about  the  several  streets  as  well  by 
night  as  by  day."  They  present  twelve  householders  to  be  prosecuted  "  for 
not  repairing  the  same  "  {Presentment  by  the  Grand  Jury  .  .  .  atthe  Old  Bayley, 
1684). 

^  Besides  the  Act  of  1662,  and  those  relating  to  the  City  of  London  ex- 
clusively, that  of  1534  (25  Henry  VIII.  c.  8),  whilst  confining  its  injunctions 
for  the  making  of  a  pavement  to  the  frontagers  of  Holborn,  had  extended  its 
penalties  for  failure  to  maintain  pavement  in  repair  to  Southwark ;  and  the 
half-dozen  other  local  paving  Acts  had  already  covered  a  wide  extent  of  what 
was  then  the  Metropolitan  area. 

"  The  records  of  the  Middlesex  Quarter  Sessions  contain  a  certain  number 
of  these  justices'  orders  to  pave  particular  streets,  and,  after  1691,  even  to 
afford  them  such  light  as  might  be  furnished  by  the  lantern  that  each  house- 
holder was  directed  to  set  up,  from  dark  to  midnight ;  see  Calendar  of  the 
Sessions  Books,  16S9  to  170'J,  by  W.  J.  Hardy,  1905,  jjp.  xxii,  27,  38-39,  40, 
46,  48-50,  53,  56,  59-60,  etc.  (Further  volumes  have  been  prepared,  down  to 
1747,  and  may  be  consulted  in  typescript,  but  have  not  yet  been  printed  by 
Quarter  Sessions.  This  should  now  be  done.)  In  1744-1746  we  sec  the  Middle- 
sex Quarter  Sessions  in  some  cases  ordering  the  inhabitants  to  perform  their 
"Statute  work"  on  specified  highways;  in  others,  sanctioning  Highway  Rates  by 
particular  parishes,  the  proceeds  of  which  were  spent  by  the  parish  authori- 
ties ;  and  in  others,  again,  appointing  committees  of  justices  to  "  oversee  the 
work  "  of  paving  by  the  "  imviour  "  (MS.  Sessions  Books,  vols.  1020-30). 


PAVEMENT  BY  THE  HOUSEHOLDER  279 

complaint  of  the  Committee  on  Nuisances  appointed  by  the 
Middlesex  Quarter  Sessions  in  1721,  when  the  plague  was  raging 
at  Marseilles,  on  which  occasion  extracts  from  the  Act  of  1691, 
reciting  the  penalties  incurred  by  persons  "  not  paving  their 
doors,"  were  printed  for  general  circulation.^  But  even  where 
some  respect  was  paid  to  the  law,  this  method  of  obtaining  a 
pavement  proved  very  unsatisfactory.  In  an  able  pamphlet  of 
1745  this  system  of  paving  is  described  as  one  of  the  principal 
public  nuisances  of  the  Metropolis  :  "  By  the  statute  of  the 
2nd  and  3rd  William  and  Mary  the  inhabitants  are  at  their  own 
expense  directed  to  pave  with  stone  or  gravel,  or  otherwise 
amend  all  the  ground  in  the  front  of  their  houses  to  the  middle 
of  the  street,  as  the  justices  shall  order,  with  penalties  in  default 
of  paving  or  mending.  This  regards  new  pavements,  but  no 
power  is  given  by  that  statute  to  inspect  or  view  the  pavements 
when  made,  so  as  to  order  amendments  when  and  where  wanted, 
or  the  manner  of  paving  when  first  or  wholly  paved,  all  which 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  provide  for,  as  also  to  preserve  them 
against  inequahty  of  paving.  Now  one  housekeeper  mends  or 
paves  with  small  pebbles,  another  with  great,  a  third  with  rag- 
stones,  a  fourth  with  broken  flint,  a  fifth  is  poor,  a  sixth  is  able, 
but  backward  and  unwilling.  This  last  is  worst  of  all,  and  nothing 
but  law  can  force  them  ;  and  yet  for  the  sake  of  peace,  or  a  more 
sinister  end,  it  is  but  rare  that  the  law  is  put  in  execution.  Neigh- 
bours will  not  complain  of  one  another ;  it  may  be  their  own 
turn.  Thus  .  .  .  there  is  no  standard  for  paving,  the  subsisting 
laws  not  sufficient  and  even  those  we  have  neglected  to  be  carried 
into  any  execution."  2  We  may  indeed  afiirm,  on  the  authority 
of  Northouck,  that  right  down  to  the  accession  of  George  III., 
"  no  considerable  reformation  had  taken  place  in  the  pavement 
since  the  Fire  of  London."  In  many  of  the  City  streets,  and  a 
few  others,^  "  they  had  indeed  flat  pavements  on  each  side  for 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Middlesex,  12th  October  1721. 

^  Public  Nuisances  Considered,  1745,  an  able  and  instructive  anonymous 
pamphlet.  It  was  long  before  the  idea  of  individual  paving  could  be  got  rid 
of.  It  was  stUl  to  the  fore  in  1754,  when  John  Spranger,  the  first  advocate  of 
the  improvements  shortly  afterwards  carried  out  in  London,  made  it  the  basis 
of  his  project  that  notice  be  given  to  the  inhabitants  individually  to  put  in 
repair  the  pavement  in  front  of  their  several  houses,  as  far  as  the  "  denter 
stone,"  or  middle  of  the  street. 

^  Strype,  in  1720,  describes  "  the  fine  freestone  pavement  secured  from 
carts  and  coaches  by  handsome  posts  set  up  "  in  St.  Martin's  Lane,  then  newly 
improved  (Stow's  Survey  of  London,  book  vi.  p.  18  of  Strype's  edition  of  1720). 


28o  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

foot  passengers,  but  these  were  very  negligently  repaired,  .  .  . 
The  middle  of  the  streets  were  paved  with  large  pebbles  of  all 
sizes  and  shapes,  rough  to  the  horse  and  uneasy  to  the  rider, 
which,  continually  worn  by  carriages  into  dangerous  holes,  the 
mud  lay  in  too  great  quantities  to  suffer  the  streets  to  be  called 
clean,  except  in  extreme  dry  weather,  when  the  dust  was  as 
troublesome  as  the  dirt  while  wet."  ^  By  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  state  of  the  Westminster  streets  in 
particular  had  become  an  intolerable  scandal.  In  1754  two 
remarkable  pamphlets  called  attention  to  "  the  frequent  and 

But  Maitland,  in  his  History  of  London  (lldQ)  mentions  a  "  freestone  pavement  " 
for  foot  passengers  as  an  exceptional  advantage  of  particular  thoroughfares. 
And  Nollekens  gives  an  anecdote  proving  tliat  hackney  coaches  could  drive  so 
close  to  the  houses  as  to  enable  a  man  to  scramble  from  the  roof  of  the  coach 
into  a  first-floor  window  {Nollekens  and  his  Times,  by  John  T.  Smith,  1829  ; 
quoted  in  Place  MSS.  2782(5-123).  Old  prints  (see  the  magnificent  collection 
in  the  London  Library,  supplementuig  that  of  the  British  Museum),  for  the 
first  half  of  the  century,  show  the  round  pebble  pavement  to  have  usually 
extended,  at  any  rate  outside  the  principal  streets  of  the  city,  continuously 
from  house  to  house.  The  flagged  footways  did  not,  indeed,  at  once  commend 
themselves  to  everybody.  When  John  Spranger  proposed,  in  1754,  to  pave 
the  carriage-ways  of  Westminster  and  Marylebone  with  broad  Purbeck  stone, 
he  suggested  the  paving  of  the  footways  with  "  good  pebbles  "  {A  Proposal 
or  Plan  for  an  Act  for  the  Better  Paving,  etc.,  by  John  Spranger,  1754). 

^  Reports  on  the  Diseases  of  London  and  the  State  of  the  Weather  from  1S04 
to  1S16,  etc.,  by  Thomas  Bateman,  1819,  p.  15.  Even  Hanway,  in  1754,  assumed 
that  the  concave  form  of  the  roadway,  and  the  central  channel,  must  be  retained. 
He  describes  the  "  great  inconvenience  .  .  .  we  labour  under  in  respect  to  our 
kennels.  It  is  too  well  known  that  they  are  made  with  a  sudden  fall  of  four, 
five  and  six  inches,  and  some  yet  deeper,  like  a  broad-cut  cart  rut.  This  seems 
to  be  the  remains  of  those  days  when  these  cities  were  about  one-tenth  part 
so  big,  had  not  a  twentieth  jiart  so  much  trade,  nor  a  hundredth  part  so  many 
carriages  for  ease  and  luxury  as  at  present.  .  .  .  But  now  in  our  miles  of 
streets,  how  often  we  must  pass,  and  with  what  uneasiness  and  danger  !  This 
may  be  easily  remedied  when  the  streets  are  new  paved.  The  kennel  ought 
to  bo  constituted  by  the  easy  decline  of  the  street,  and  terminated  in  the 
division  of  two  equal  sides,  by  moderate-sized  denter  stones.  .  .  .  The  passing 
the  kennels,  or  lowest  part  of  the  streets  would  then  be  hardly  perceived  by 
the  rider  ;  horses  would  tread  true,  whereas  the  kennel  is  now  often  concealed 
with  dirt ;  they  would  consequently  be  in  less  danger  of  laming  themselves,  of 
falling,  or  being  otherwise  injured.  Carriages  would  no  longer  be  subject  to 
overturn  or  to  break  their  wheels  by  a  sudden  shock.  Upon  this  principle  the 
collection  of  dii't  would  be  a  little  more  divided,  j'ct  if  cleansed  twice  a  week, 
as  proposed,  the  quantity  would  never  be  great  "  (.1  Letter  to  Mr.  John  Spranger 
on  his  Excellent  Proposal  for  cleansing  and  lighting  the  Streets  of  Wcsttnijistcr,  by 
Jonas  Hanway,  1754,  p.  13).  As  late  as  1840  Cajit.  Vetoh,  R.E.,  in  an  able 
memorandum  on  the  structural  arrangements  of  new  buildings  and  protection 
of  the  public  health,  proposed  to  reintroduce  the  central  kennel  instead  of  side 
gutters,  as  likely  to  give  greater  cleanliness ;  see  General  Report  of  the  Poor 
Law  Commissioners  on  iJie  Sanitary  Condition  of  tlie  Labouring  Population,  1842, 
Api)cn(lix  V.  pp.  391-392. 


SIDEWALKS  FOR  PEDESTRIANS  281 

melancholy   distresses   and   disasters,"   the    "  fatal   mischiefs " 
and  "  dismal  accidents  "  caused  by  the  daily  "  struggle  with 
unequal,  rough  and  broken  pavements."  ^     "  All  the  pavements 
of  the  streets,"  said  a  discontented  citizen  to  Jonas  Hanway, 
"  are  made  according  to  every  man's  humour  ;    some  are  made 
high  and  some  low,  some  with  kennels  and  some  without,  some 
well  done  and  some  ill."     "  One  can  hardly  find,"  adds  Hanway 
himself,  "  five  yards  square  of  true  even  pavement  "  in  the  whole 
of  Westminster.     In  the  opinion  of  contemporaries  the  only 
redeeming  feature,  besides  the  use  of  flat  "  flagstones  "  in  a  few 
streets  to  mark  off  separate  footways,  was  the  erection  of  lines 
of  posts  to  protect  the  streams  of  pedestrians  from  the  carriage 
traffic,     "  The  use  of  posts,"  said  Hanway,  "  which  I  beheve 
is  peculiar  to  us,  is  an  excellent  security  to  the  foot  passenger, 
and  the  modern  method  of  making  them  short  and  stout  is  a 
great  improvement,"  2     That  the  carriage-way  should  be  rough 
'  and  irregular,  even  to  the  point  of  dislocating  wheels  and  breaking 
axle-trees,  was  commonly  accepted  as  inevitable.     "  Ever  since 
I  was  a  boy  of  two  feet  and  a  half  high,"  said  one  good  citizen 
to  Hanway,  "  I  have  known  people,  gentlemen  of  long  heads, 
talk  of  paving  streets  ;    but  it  can't  be  done,  Sir.  ...  In  the 
first  place,  all  the  pavements  of  the  streets  are  made  according 
to  every  man's  humour,  some  are  made  high,  and  some  low, 
some  with  kennels  and  some  without,  some  well  done  and  some 
ill.     But  this  is  not  all.  Sir  ;    'tis  the  waterworks  w^hich  destroy 
the  pavements,  and  do  you  think  that  ever  that  will  be  mended  ? 
Why,  Sir,  the  owners  of  the  waterworks  are  most  of  them  Parlia- 
ment men,  Sir,  all  great  men.     Do  you  think  that  any  one  will 
be  able  to  obhge  them  to  repair  the  pavements  they  breakup,  ,  .  . 

^  A  Proposal  or  Plan  for  an  Act  .  .  .  for  the  better  Paving,  Lighting  and 
Cleansing  the  Streets,  Lanes,  Courts,  Alleys  and  other  open  passages,  and  for 
Removing  of  Nuisances  .  .  .  within  the  several  parishes  of  .  .  .  Westminster 
.  .  .  Marylebone,  etc.,  by  John  Spranger,  1754 ;  A  Letter  to  Mr.  John  Spranger 
on  his  Excellent  Proposal  for  cleansing  and  lighting  the  Streets  of  Westminster,  etc., 
by  Jonas  Hanway,  1754. 

^  "  It  is  true,"  he  adds,  "  they  occupy  a  considerable  space  " — they  were, 
it  is  clear,  a  constant  cause  of  obstruction  in  the  crowded  streets — but  their 
utility  was  proved  to  Hanway  by  the  experience  of  the  French  towns,  where 
there  were  no  posts,  and  "the  gentleman  as  well  as  the  mechanic  who  walks 
the  streets  of  Paris  is  continually  in  danger  of  being  run  over  "  {A  Letter  to 
Mr.  John  Spranger,  etc.,  by  Jonas  Hanway,  1754,  p.  20).  Foreign  visitors 
admired  these  footways,  imperfect  as  they  were,  fcr  being  thus  "  defended  by 
posts  from  the  coaches  and  wheel  carriages  "  (Gonzales,  Voyage  to  Great  Britain, 
1730  ;   printed  in  Pinkerton's  Voyages,  vol.  ii.  of  1808  edition,  p.  90), 


282  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

I  am  sure  it  can't  be  done."  ^  But  Hanway  persevered  in  his 
practical  way,  until,  in  1762,  Sir  Charles  Whitworth  brought  the 
subject  before  the  House  of  Commons,  and  got  a  committee 
appointed  to  enquire  into  the  methods  to  be  adopted  for  the  better 
paving  of  the  streets  of  Westminster  and  the  adjoining  parishes — 
a  committee  which  reported,  to  use  the  summary  of  its  chairman, 
"  That  the  streets  in  general  were  very  ill  paved  and  cleansed  ; 
that  the  method  of  taking  care  thereof  by  the  Annoyance  Jury 
was  ineffectual ;  that  the  method  of  the  inhabitants  paving 
before  their  own  houses,  without  being  limited  either  in  time, 
materials  or  method  of  doing  it,  is  one  cause  of  the  bad  pavement 
of  the  streets  ;  that  the  squares,  streets,  lanes  and  allies  were 
not  properly  lighted ;  that  the  paving,  cleansing,  repairing 
and  lighting,  as  well  as  removing  nuisances,  and  making  the 
town  more  ornamental  and  commodious  should  be  put  under 
the  management  of  Commissioners  ;  that  in  most  places  a  new 
pavement  was  absolutely  necessary  instead  of  the  old  one  ;  but 
that  the  expense  would  be  too  great  to  be  borne  wholly  by  the 
inhabitants."  The  result  was  an  Act  of  Parhament  in  1762, 
which,  with  the  quickly  following  amending  Acts,  brought  about 
a  complete  change  in  the  situation.^ 

The  Westminster  Paving  Acts  of  1762,  1763,  1764,  1765 
and  1766  started  a  new  era.  Whilst  retaining  and  emphasising 
the  obligation  of  the  householder  to  maintain  existing  pavements 
in  repair,  these  Acts  empowered  an  influential  body  of  Com- 
missioners themselves  to  undertake  the  paving  of  new  streets 
or  the  repaving  of  old  ones,  according  to  a  systematic  plan  ; 

^  A  Letter  to  Mr.  John  Spranger,  etc.,  by  Jonas  Hanway,  1754. 

*  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  to  consider  proper  methods  for 
the  bettor  paving,  enlightening,  etc.,  the  streets  ...  of  Westminster,  Maryle- 
bone,  St.  Giles,  St.  George-the-Martyr,  St.  George,  Bloomsbury,  St.  Andrew's, 
Holbom,  Liberties  of  the  Rolls,  the  Savoy  and  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  in 
Journah,  vol.  xxix.  p.  233,  15th  March  1762  ;  2  George  'ill.  c.  21  (1762)  ; 
3  George  III.  c.  23  (1763) ;  4  George  IIL  c.  39  (1764)  ;  5  George  III.  c.  50 
(1765)  ;  5  George  III.  c.  13  (Sunday  Toll  Act,  1765)  ;  6  George  IIL  c.  54 
(1766) ;  7  George  III.  c.  101  (1767)  ;  11  George  III.  c.  50  (1771)  ;  Observations 
on  tlie  new  Westminster  Paving  Act,  by  Sir  Charles  Whitworth,  1771.  These 
Acts  were  amended  and  continued  by  26  George  III.  c.  102  (1786)  and  30 
George  IIL  c.  53  (1790). 

These  Acts  did  not  apply  to  the  small  areas  already  dealt  with  by  their 
own  Local  Acts,  such  as  St.  James's  Square  (under  12  George  I.  c.  25),  Lin- 
coln's Inn  Fields  (under  8  George  II.  c.  26),  and  Golden  Square  (under  24 
George  II.  c.  27),  nor  yet  to  Dean's  Yard  and  the  adjacent  area  dealt  with  by 
the  Dean  and  Cliaptcr  of  Westminster. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  PAVING  COMMISSIONERS    283 

and  to  expend  for  this  purpose,  not  only  a  special  Parliamentary 
grant  of  £5000  and  the  proceeds  of  an  extra  Sunday  toll  to  be 
collected  at  all  the  principal  turnpike  gates,  but  also  a  rate  up  to 
eighteenpence  in  the  pound  upon  all  the  occupiers  within  the 
area  benefited  by  the  improvement.  The  rate  could  not  be 
levied  on  the  householders  of  any  street  or  place  until  the  new 
pavement  had  been  completed  there ;  and  its  annual  payment 
exonerated  them  from  all  further  responsibihty  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  roadway.^  Hence  the  old  individual  system  of 
each  householder  repairing  his  own  bit  of  pavement,  at  his  own 
charges,  and  the  new  collectivist  system  of  the  service  being 
undertaken  by  a  pubhc  authority  and  paid  for  out  of  a  common 
rate,  went  on  side  by  side.  The  option  between  the  two  systems 
had  been,  by  the  original  Act  of  1762,  made  to  rest  exclusively 
with  the  Commissioners.  By  the  amending  Act  of  1765  this 
option  was  extended  to  the  owners  and  occupiers  of  any  street 
or  place,  who  could,  by  a  three-fourths  majority,  require  the 
Commissioners  to  begin  operations,  raising  the  necessary  capital 
by  a  special  loan  on  the  security  of  the  future  paving  rate  to  be 
levied  on  that  particular  street  or  place.  This  form  of  local 
option  seems  to  have  been  extensively  used  by  the  inhabitants 
of  the  better  streets  in  Westminster  (especially  as  it  was  provided 
that,  in  computing  the  three-fourths  majority  those  owners 
and  occupiers  who  did  not  attend  the  meeting  should  be  deemed 
to  have  consented  to  the  proposition),  and  it  appears  to  have 
greatly  expedited  the  work  of  the  Commissioners,  by  enabling 
the  borrowing  of  the  necessary  funds. 

The  Westminster  Paving  Commissioners  went  energetically 
to  work,  and  we  find  in  contemporary  writings  abundant  appre- 
ciation and  criticism  of  "  the  new  pavement."  The  old  rounded 
pebbles,  with  "  neither  tail  nor  foot "  so  that  "  they  roll  about 

^  These  reforms  had  been  proposed  a  couple  of  decades  before  by  the  author 
of  the  able  pamphlet  from  which  we  have  already  quoted.  "  If  the  care  and 
management  of  the  pavements  was  lodged  in  one  Trust,  with  a  sufficient  power 
not  attended  with  great  expense,  first  to  take  a  survey  of  the  streets,  lanes,  etc., 
then  to  break  up  the  present  pavements,  and  to  order  a  uniform  pavement  of 
all  the  streets  afterwards,  the  whole  to  be  paid  for  by  an  annual  small  levy 
upon  the  housekeepers  in  general  .  .  .  forbidding  afterwards  the  breaking  up 
any  pavement,  or  laying  any  pavement  anew,  but  by  the  order  or  consent  of 
such  trust  only,  or  by  those  paviors  who  should  have  power  under  the  Trust 
for  this  purpose,  the  streets  would  then  be  well  laid  with  one  equal  pavement 
at  first,  and  be  afterwards  kept  in  repair  at  a  small  charge,  and  all  this  done 
without  complaint  or  punishment  "  {Public  Nuisances  Considered,  1745,  pp.  5-6). 


284  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

and  hit  one  another  incessantly  upon  a  bottom  which  is  nothing 
else  but  a  heap  of  old  dirt,"  ^  were  replaced  by  squared  blocks 
of  "  whin-quarry  stone  or  rockstone  ...  of  a  flat  surface,"  ^ 
imported  from  Aberdeen,  and  set  continuously  in  parallel  hues 
from  curb  to  curb,  on  a  slightly  convex  surface.  For  the  channel 
or  denter  stone,  running  down  the  middle  of  the  old  concave 
street,  were  substituted  two  gutters,  one  on  each  side  of  the 
carriage-way.  The  footways,  now  universally  flagged,  were 
made  about  four  inches  higher  than  the  gutters,  thus  enabhng 
the  lines  of  protecting  posts  to  be  dispensed  with.^  "  The  new 
pavement  ,  .  .  goes  on  with  rapidity,"  reports  a  pamphleteer  in 
1771  4  Foreign  visitors  to  London  waxed  eloquent  over  the  new 
conveniences,  which  became  the  wonder  of  the  travelled  world. 
Archenholtz,  in  1787,  in  describing  the  transformation  which 
had  taken  place  within  a  generation,  especially  praises  this 
"  superb  pavement  .  .  .  which  cost  £400,000."  There  "  is  a 
footpath,"  he  adds  with  naive  admiration,  "  of  hewn  stone  for 
those  who  walk,  on  which  they  are  in  no  danger  from  carriages  or 
horses.  No  coachman  without  incurring  a  penalty  of  twenty 
shillings  dare  encroach  upon  that  footpath."  ^     "  L'on  ne  saurait 

1  A  Tour  to  London,  by  M.  Grosley,  1772,  vol.  i.  p.  33.  The  translator 
notes  that  this  observation  of  1765  would  not  be  accurate  in  1772. 

-  A  Tour  through  the  whole  Island  of  Great  Britain,  edition  of  1769,  vol.  ii. 
p.  121  ;  Birkbeck  Hill's  edition  of  Boswell's  Life  of  Johtison,  vol.  vi.  p.  Ixvii. 
Dr.  Johnson  noticed  in  1773  that  "  New  Aberdeen  is  built  of  that  granite 
which  is  used  for  the  new  pavement  in  London  "  {Piozzi  Letters,  i.  116  ;  Birk- 
beck Hill's  edition  of  Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson,  vol.  v.  p.  85).  A  visitor  in 
1802  relates  that  "  In  the  streets  you  admire  that  extraordinary'  neatness, 
which  is  to  be  met  witli  nowhere  else  but  in  Holland.  The  waj's  for  foot- 
passengers  are  paved  with  broad  flagstones  "  {A  Foreigner's  Opinion  of  England, 
by  C.  A.  G.  Goede,  translated  by  Thomas  Home,  1821,  vol.  i.  p.  192).  For  other 
references  to  the  new  pavement,  see  British  Chronicle,  13th-15th  February  1765 ; 
Qerdleman's  Magazine,  December  1773 ;  Metropolitan  Guide  and  Book  of 
Reference,  by  Pigot  &  Co.  (about  1820) ;  Travels  in  England,  by  C.  P.  Moritz, 
1797. 

*  The  lines  of  posts  protecting  the  footway  from  vehicles  seem  to  have 
boon  mostly  cleared  away  from  the  City  and  Westminster  about  1762-1780. 
They  remained  in  Lower  Thames  Street  in  1804  (Modern  London,  by  Richard 
Phillips,  18U4,  p.  107)  ;  and  in  1834  it  was  said  that  "  within  the  last  twenty 
years  there  were  posts  and  rails  to  divide  the  footway  from  the  road  on  Groom's 
Hill,"  Greenwich  (Greenwich  :  its  History,  ATiliquities,  Iniprovemenls  and  Pvblic 
Buildings,  by  H.  S.  Richardson,  1834,  p.  14). 

*  Critical  Observations  on  the  Public  Buildings  and  Improvements  in  London, 
1771,  p.  23. 

*  A  Picture  of  England,  by  Archenholtz,  1789,  p.  130.  Moritz  in  1782  had  re- 
marked that  "  the  footway  paved  with  large  stones  on  both  sides  of  the  street 
appears  to  a  foreigner  exceedingly  convenient  and  pleasant,  as  one  may  there 


THE  "GREATEST  MUNICIPAL  ENTERPRISE"     285 

inventer  rien,"  writes  a  still  more  enthusiastic  Frenchman,  "  de 
mieux  pour  circuler  dans  une  ville  que  les  trottoirs  de  Londres, 
trop  rarement  imites  ailleurs,  et  toujours  imparfaitement ;  ils 
sont  revetus  de  grandes  dalles  ...  si  unies  que  Ton  y  marche 
sans  fatigue,  ainsi  que  Ton  retrouve  avec  une  veritable  peine  les 
paves  raboteux  et  glissants  du  continent."  ^  To  slow-minded 
and  penurious  patriots,  the  "  new  pavement  "  seemed  a  fantastic 
extravagance,  rendered  more  objectionable  at  that  moment  by 
the  fact  that  the  stone  was  brought  from  Scotland.  "  We 
shall  not  have  a  foot  of  English  ground  to  walk  upon,"  writes  a 
satirical  denouncer  of  "  the  new  method  of  paving  streets  with 
Scotch  pebbles."  "  In  new  modelhng  our  streets,"  he  con- 
tinues, "  the  Scotch,  and  their  adherents,  Scotified  Englishmen, 
pretend  that  our  advantage,  and  the  improvement  of  the  place, 
are  their  sole  motives,  and  that  they  are  entirely  disinterested 
.  .  .  whereas  ...  I  affirm  .  .  .  that  the  Scots  are  the  only 
gainers  by  this  Quixotic  scheme."  ^  "I  had  not  been  long 
landed,"  writes,  in  1767,  "  An  Old  EngHshman  "  lately  returned 
from  America,  "  but  I  beheld  in  every  part  of  the  town  the 
streets  unpaved."  He  was  told  that  the  object  "  was  to  pave 
them  in  a  fashionable  manner  that  our  grandees  and  gentry  may 
ride  with  greater  ease  over  the  stones  ;  but,"  continued  he,  "  the 
poor  feel  httle  benefit  from  it,  for  they  think,  as  well  as  myself, 
that  the  money  that  is  expended  about  it  could  be  put  to  better 
use,  while  every  necessary  of  Mfe  bears  such  an  exorbitant  price 
as  it  does  at  present."  ^  But  in  spite  of  these  isolated  complaints 
from  "  the  meaner  sort,"  pubhc  opinion  agreed  with  Sir  James 
Steuart,  the  most  distinguished  economist  of  the  day,  in  regarding 
(already  in  1767)  "  the  new  pavement  of  London  " — by  far  the 
greatest  municipal  enterprise  that  had  then  been  undertaken  in 


walk  in  perfect  safety  in  no  more  danger  from  the  prodigious  crowd  of  carts 
and  coaches  than  if  one  was  in  one's  own  room,  for  no  wheel  dares  come  a 
finger's  breadth  upon  the  curbstone  "  (Travels  in  England,  by  C.  P.  Moritz, 
1797,  p.  498). 

1  U Angleterre  au  commencement  du  dix-neuvieme  siecle,  par  M.  de  Levis, 
1814,  p.  49. 

^  A  Seasonable  Alarm  to  the  City  of  London  on  the  present  Important  Crisis, 
showing  that  the  new  rnethod  of  paving  the  streets  with  Scotch  pebbles,  and  the 
pulling  down  of  the  signs  must  be  both  equally  pernicious  to  the  health  and  morals 
of  the  People  of  England,  by  Zachary  Zeal,  1764  ;  a  rare  pamphlet  in  the  Bodleian 
Library. 

3  British  Chronicle,  19th  and  2Ist  August  1767. 


286  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

Great  Britain — as  a  valuable  example  of  wise  public  expenditure 
on  improvements.! 

The  authority  of  the  Westminster  Paving  Commissioners 
stopped  at  Temple  Bar,  the  boundary  of  the  old  City  ;  but 
within  its  walls  the  pavement  of  the  principal  streets  had  become 
relatively  good  early  in  the  eighteenth  century.  Already  in  the 
seventeenth  century  we  find  the  householders  compelled  to 
employ  the  City  paviors — men  specially  appointed  for  this  work, 
who  were  sharply  reprimanded  by  the  Common  Council  when 
the  repairs  were  executed  in  an  unworkmanhke  fashion,  or  in 
disregard  of  the  convenience  of  passengers.  Hence  the  City  was 
distinguished  for  its  flagged  footways  in  the  principal  streets,  as 
well  as  for  its  uniformly  constructed  carriage-ways,  even  at  the 
opening  of  the  century.  But  the  improvement  of  the  City  pave- 
ments did  not,  after  1762,  keep  pace  with  that  of  Westminster. 
"  While  the  inhabitants  of  the  West  End  of  the  town,"  writes 
a  discontented  citizen  in  1765,  "  are  taking  every  expedient  to 
make  their  streets  commodious,  it  must  give  inhabitants  of 
other  parts  no  little  concern  to  see  the  palpable  inattention 
which  is  shown  to  theirs.  Among  a  variety  of  other  places 
which  are  to  the  last  degree  disagreeable  and  inconvenient,  the 
pavement  in  Fetter  Lane  is  in  so  wretched  a  condition  that 
there  is  scarce  a  possibihty  of  passing."  ^  In  the  last  decade  of 
the  century  the  Times  more  than  once  animadverts  on  the  im- 
perfections of  the  City  pavements,  which  it  attributes  partly  to 
quarrels  about  jurisdiction,  and  partly  to  the  neglect  and  lack 
of  supervision  of  the  City  paviors.^  Somewhere  about  this 
time,  however,  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  the  City,  in 
whose  hands  the  work  lay,  seem  to  have  adopted  a  systematic 
plan  for  paving  the  carriage-ways  with  the  same  stone  as  that 
used  in  Westminster.     From  the  interesting  report  of  the  Clerk 

^  Inquiry  into  the  Principles  of  Political  Economy,  1767,  by  Sir  James  Steuart, 
vol.  iv.  p.  317  of  1805  edition  of  his  Works. 

a  British  Critic,  13th-15th  February  17G5. 

*  Times,  4th  April  1794  ;  also,  five  years  later,  "  A  few  days  since  the  axle- 
tree  of  a  carriage  was  broken  in  descending  the  slope  of  Blackfriars  Bridge,  in 
conaequonco  of  the  very  large  hole  at  the  bottom  of  it  on  the  Surrey  side, 
which  is  in  the  highest  degree  dangerous.  We  are  not  certain  that  an  indict- 
ment would  not  lie  against  the  Trustees  of  the  Surrey  Roads  for  the  scandalous 
manner  in  which  they  are  kept.  They  vie  Avith  the  paviors  in  some  parts  of 
the  City,  and  wc  know  not  Mhich  are  the  most  inattentive,  not  to  say  worse 
of  them.  It  is  not  to  be  conceived  the  number  of  horses  that  are  foundered 
by  holes  in  the  streets  and  roads  '"  {ibid.  5th  October  1799). 


REVERSION  TO  PAROCHIALISM  287 

of  the  Bristol  Street  Commissioners,  wlio  went  to  London  in 
1806  to  see  how  the  paving  was  managed,  we  learn  that  the 
City  Commissioners  insisted  for  the  carriage-way  on  the  use  of 
Scotch  granite  from  Aberdeen,  and  for  the  footways  on  Purbeck 
flags  ;  that  they  employed  for  each  of  the  twenty-five  wards,  a 
single  responsible  pavior,  whose  labourers  set  the  stone  in 
screened  gravel,  according  to  a  carefully  drawn  specification  ; 
and  that  they  appointed  a  salaried  surveyor  and  no  fewer 
than  four  salaried  inspectors  to  supervise  the  work  in  their 
one  square  mile  of  streets.^  From  this  time  forward  we  hear 
no  complaints  of  the  City  pavements. 

Whilst  the  City  of  London  was  emulating  the  Westminster 
Paving  Commissioners  of  1762-1771,  the  pavement  outside  the 
walls  was  again  giving  rise  to  complaints.  The  Act  of  1771  had 
set  up,  under  the  Commissioners,  in  Westminster  and  some 
adjoining  parishes  parochial  committees,  to  which,  by  a  retro- 
grade step,  the  most  important  executive  work  was  transferred. 
The  householder's  obhgation  to  repair  the  pavement  having 
been  swept  away,  the  state  of  the  street  now  depended  entirely 
on  the  pubHc  authority.  The  dozen  separate  parochial  com- 
mittees, each  raising  its  own  rate,  making  its  own  paving  con- 
tracts and  appointing  its  own  inspector — composed,  in  fact,  of 
chques  of  the  notorious  "  Select  Vestrymen  "  of  the  time — 
proved  to  be  more  anxious  to  emancipate  their  parishes  from 
the  control  of  the  Commissioners  in  contracts  and  works,  and 
to  diminish  the  local  paving  rate,  than  to  keep  their  streets  in 
such  a  state  of  repair  as  would  serve  the  convenience  of  the 
whole  Metropolis.  One  by  one  these  Vestries  secured  from  a 
heedless  Parhament  separate  Local  Acts  withdrawing  their 
parishes  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Westminster  Paving  Com- 
missioners,2  until  that  body,  reduced  to  the  supervision  of  only 
a  few  streets,  ceased  to  function. 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Bristol,  17th  June  1806. 

2  22  George  III.  c.  44  (St.  Margaret  and  St.  John,  Westmmster,  1782) ; 
c.  84  (St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  1782)  ;  23  George  III.  c.  42  (St.  Paul, 
Covent  Garden,  1783)  ;  c.  43  (St.  Anne,  Soho,  etc.) ;  c.  89  (St.  Clement  Danes, 
1783) ;  c.  90  (St.  Martms  in  the  Fields,  1783) ;  29  George  III.  c.  75  (St.  George's, 
Hanover  Square,  1789) ;  30  George  III.  c.  53  (optional  streets  in  St.  James's, 
St.  Giles's,  St.  George's  and  St.  Andrew's,  1790) ;  34  George  III.  c.  96  (Foundling 
Estate,  in  St.  George  the  Martyr  and  St.  George's,  Bloomsbury,  1794).  The 
Paving  Committees  of  the  parishes  were  apparently  in  1798  still  submitting 
their  contracts  for  confirmation  to  the  Westminster  Paving  Commissioners 
(see  MS.  Minutes,  Paving  Committee,  St.  Margaret  and  St.  John,  4th  September 


288  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

Meanwhile  there  were  springing  up,  outside  the  area  both  of 
the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  Loudon  and  of  the  Westminster 
Paving  Commissioners,  miles  of  new  streets  and  squares,  extend- 
ing continuously  in  all  directions.^  Some  of  these  districts,  like 
the  extensive  parish  of  St.  Marylebone,  were  governed  by  power- 
ful Select  Vestries,  which,  under  their  o\vn  Local  Acts,  were 
compelling  the  householders  to  compound  for  their  obhgation 
to  pave,  and  were  themselves  carrying  on  extensive  paving 
operations  partly  by  contractors  and  partly  by  squads  of  work- 
men in  direct  employment.^  In  the  equally  important  parish  of 
St.  Pancras,  on  the  other  hand,  each  great  landowner,  or  the 
knot  of  new  householders  on  a  particular  estate,  had  obtained  a 
separate  Local  Act,  applicable  only  to  a  few  streets  and  squares, 
leaving  the  intermediate  parts  of  the  parish  without  any  kind  of 
pavement  or  paving  authority.  Many  of  the  main  arteries  of 
road  traffic  were  in  the  hands  of  the  different  Turnpike  Trusts, 
the  paving  powers  of  which  varied  according  to  their  several 
Local  Acts,  and  the  actual  extent  and  quality  of  the  pavements 
according  to  their  financial  resources.^     Such  open  Vestries  as 

1798).  The  Commissioners  must,  we  assume,  have  obtained  in  1807  a  renewal 
of  their  Acts  of  1765  and  1786  granting  them  the  Sunday  Toll  (47  George  III. 
c.  38),  and  must  have  continued  to  receive  its  proceeds,  doubtless  applying 
the  same  to  the  liquidation  of  their  debt.  But  we  hear  no  more  of  their  paving 
activity.  In  1817,  on  the  passing  of  Michael  Angclo  Taj'lor's  Act,  the  Com- 
missioners, whose  meetings  had  become  very  perfunctorj^  reduced  their  small 
establishment,  and  their  proceedings  became  more  formal  and  lifeless  than 
before.     Their  minutes  arc  among  the  archives  of  the  City  of  Westminster. 

1  "After  the  peace  of  1763,"  we  are  told,  "the  North  of  the  Metropolis, 
.  .  .  extended  with  surprising  rapidity,  St.  Marylebone  and  the  parish  of 
St.  Pancras  especially.  The  new  mode  of  paving  commenced  about  the  same 
time,  previous  to  which  few  of  the  streets  had  level  footpaths  for  passengers, 
but  were  formed  with  small  stones,  and  for  the  most  part  with  a  gutter  down 
the  middle  "  (Leigh's  New  Picture  of  London,  p.  19  of  ninth  edition,  1839). 

-  At  the  Marylebone  Vestry  in  1800  J.  A.  attended  and  prayed  "  the  Board 
to  order  Nottingham  Mews  in  this  parish  to  be  paved.  Resolved  that  a  Com- 
mittee of  Survey  be  requested  to  view  the  said  Mews,  and  report  their  opinion 
thereon  to  this  Board  at  .some  future  meeting."  Three  weeks  later,  it  is  "  Re- 
solved that  Nottingham  Mews  be  paved  according  to  the  application  of  J.  A. 
for  that  purpose,  as  soon  as  the  composition  money  shall  be  paid  for  such 
paving  "  (MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  Marylebone,  1st  and  22nd  February  1800). 

*  When  most  of  the  Turnpike  Trusts  north  of  the  Thames  were  consolidated 
in  1826,  as  wo  have  described  in  a  previous  chapter,  the  now  Metropolitan 
Turnpike  Trustees  received,  by  7  George  IV.  c.  14:},  full  power  to  pave,  repair 
and  repave  all  these  roads,  in  whatever  way  they  thought  lit,  as  well  as  to 
license  frontagers  to  put  down  such  footways,  etc.,  as  the  Trustees  might 
approve.  Under  this  authority  wo  gather  that  macadamised  surfaces  largely 
replaced  the  squared  stone  "  .setts." 


DECA  Y  OF  LONDON  PA  VEMENTS  289 

Chelsea  and  Kensington  contented  themselves,  either  with  the 
road  administration  of  particular  Turnpike  Trusts,  or  with  the 
results  they  could  obtain,  under  the  ordinary  parochial  powers, 
by  means  of  money  compositions  for  Statute  Labour  and  the 
limited  Highway  Rate.  "  Some  of  the  parishes,"  it  was  said 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  "  were  so  poor  that  they  could  not 
defray  the  expense  attending  the  proper  pavement  of  their 
streets,  and  others  were  so  divided  among  themselves  on  almost 
every  occasion  that  they  sat  debating  like  a  petty  House  of 
Commons,  and  neglected  their  most  important  duties."  ^  With 
such  a  chaos  of  authorities,  each  pursuing  its  own  policy,  or 
lack  of  poHcy,  the  new  pavement  laid  down  between  1762  and 
1780  by  the  Westminster  Paving  Commissioners  rapidly  deterior- 
ated under  the  heavy  traffic,  whilst,  especially  in  the  newer 
quarters  of  the  Metropolis,  many  streets,  and  even  whole  districts, 
remained  mere  muddy  receptacles  for  water  and  filth. 

The  increased  attention  paid  to  road  communication  at  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  presently  reflected  in 
a  growing  discontent  with  the  state  of  the  streets  of  the  Metro- 
polis. "  The  pavement  of  London,"  contemptuously  remarked 
a  distinguished  amateur  road  constructor,  "  is  utterly  unworthy 
of  a  great  metropolis."  ^  In  1811  the  Chairman  of  the  Grand 
Jury  at  the  Middlesex  Quarter  Sessions  called  their  special 
attention  to  the  state  of  the  highways.  "  I  mean  more  par- 
ticularly," he  said,  "  the  streets,  squares,  lanes  and  other 
thoroughfares  of  the  Metropolis ;  that  they  are  in  many  places 
in  such  a  state  of  decay  and  want  of  repair  as  to  be  not  only 
highly  inconvenient,  but  absolutely  unsafe  and  dangerous,  and 
that,  too,  in  many  of  the  most  populous  parts."  He  proceeded 
to  point  out  that  even  the  most  essentially  urban  thoroughfares 
"  are  highways  and  are  indictable  if  not  kept  in  repair  "  ;  whilst 
Local  Acts  for  the  better  management  of  streets,  etc.,  "will  not 
indemnify  any  .  .  .  parish  against  the  general  law,  if  highways 
are  suffered  to  fall  into  a  state  of  decay,  unless  some  particular 
body  of  men  or  individuals  are  specially  bound  to  repair  them. 
A  highway  continued  in  a  state  of  decay  for  a  length  of  time  is 
a  pubHc  nuisance,  whatever  private  jurisdiction  it  maybe  under."  ^ 

^  Hansard,  7th  March  1815,  vol.  xxxiii. 

"  Essay  on  the  Co?istruction  of  Roads,  by  R.  L.  Edgeworth,  1813,  p.  7. 
2  Address  to  the  Grand  Jury  at  the  Middlesex  Quarter  SessioTis,  2nd  December 
1811,  by  William  Mainwaring,  Chairman,  1811,  p.  4. 

U 


290  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

Acting  on  this  direction,  the  Grand  Jury  formally  presented 
Piccadilly,  one  of  the  streets  that  had  been  paved  by  the  West- 
minster Commissioners,  as  being  out  of  repair,  and  the  wealthy 
and  respectable  parish  of  St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  found 
itself  indicted  for  the  offence  of  failing  to  maintain  this  public 
highway.  The  Vestry's  "  Committee  of  Paving  "  could  not  deny 
the  bad  state  of  the  roadway,  and,  after  taking  the  opinion  of 
the  Attorney-General,  the  Vestry  decided  that  it  was  incumbent 
on  the  Vestry  "  and  not  on  any  other  body  to  answer  to  the  said 
indictment."  A  committee  of  nine  members  was  accordingly 
appointed  to  conduct  the  defence.  The  verdict  was  adverse, 
and  the  Paving  Committee  of  this  richest  and  best-governed 
parish  in  the  London  lying  outside  the  City  walls  was  driven 
reluctantly  to  put  its  most  frequented  thoroughfare  into  decent 
repair.^  But  the  method  of  indictment  was  "  found  too  dilatory 
and  expensive  to  punish  or  to  prevent "  ^  the  neglect  of  the  London 
parishes  ;  and  was,  moreover,  not  strictly  applicable  to  the  new 
service  of  paving,  as  distinguished  from  ordinary  road  repair.^ 
Nor  did  the  parishes  feel  that  they  were  entirely  to  blame. 
During  these  years  the  continuous  tearing  up  of  the  streets  for 
the  new  pipes  of  the  gas  and  water  companies  was  affording  the 
Paving  Committees  an  excellent  excuse  for  procrastination, 
whilst  rendering  the  nuisance  of  broken  pavements  and  dangerous 
holes  more  intolerable  than  ever.  At  last,  in  1814,  a  zealous 
and  public-spirited  Member  of  Parliament,  Michael  Angelo 
Taylor,  began  a  vigorous  agitation  for  reform.  In  an  opening 
speech  he  drew  the  attention  of  Parliament  to  the  wretched 
state  of  the  streets,  the  depredations  of  the  water  and  gas  com- 
panies, and  the  continuous  neglect  of  the  Local  Authorities.*  In 
the  following  session  he  introduced  a  Bill  to  establish  a  Metro- 
politan Board  of  Paving  Commissioners,  to  be  appointed  by  the 

^  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  14th  December  1811 
and  23rcl  May  1812. 

-  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Pavement 
in  the  Metropolis,  1816,  p.  c. 

'  At  Manchester,  the  Improvement  Commissioners  insisted  on  the  parish 
doing  its  duty  by  the  highway's  of  the  tovm,  though  these  liad  Iwcomo  streets. 
JJut  they  were  advised  bj'  counsel  that  they  had  no  jiower  "  to  compel  the 
landowners  or  the  Surveyors  of  the  Highways  to  keep  and  maintain  the  paving 
and  flagging  in  repair.  The  surveyors  by  the  Highway  Act  are  at  liberty 
[either]  to  pave  or  gravel  the  streets  and  footpaths  as  they  may  judge  neces- 
sary "  (MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Manchester,  1808). 

*  Hansard,  28th  June  1814. 


MICHAEL  ANGELO  TAYLOR  291 

Government,  from  among  persons  owning  at  least  £300  a  year 
in  freehold  property,  or  worth  £10,000  in  personalty,  and  to 
exercise  a  regulating,  inspecting  and  compelling  jm-isdiction  over 
all  the  various  local  bodies  within  a  radius  of  five  miles  from 
the  centre,  throughout  a  district  comprising,  as  was  noted  with 
alarm,  no  fewer  than  867,933  inhabitants,  living  in  122,366 
houses,  of  an  aggregate  annual  rental  of  more  than  three  millions 
sterling.!  This  Bill,  which  is  interesting  as  afiording  the  first 
known  outhne  of  anything  like  a  municipal  authority  for  the 
Metropolis  as  a  whole,  met  with  the  determined  opposition  of 
all  the  hundreds  of  separate  authorities  within  the  proposed  area, 
the  powerful  and  exclusive  Select  Vestries  of  St.  George's, 
Hanover  Square,  and  St.  Marylebone,  being  supported  by  such 
open  and  Radical  Vestries  as  Chelsea  and  Kensington,  and  by 
the  innumerable  smaller  bodies  of  Paving  Trustees  or  Com- 
missioners scattered  throughout  the  Metropolis.  Instigated  by 
the  Vestrymen  of  Marylebone,  frequent  conferences  of  "  de- 
puties "  organised  the  "  lobbying  "  of  Members,  and  even  set 
on  foot  a  house-to-house  agitation  by  the  parish  beadles,  whilst 
petitions  opposing  the  Bill  poured  into  Parliament.  Popular 
and  local  prejudices  were  excited  against  the  proposed  "  new 
Commissioners  and  Police  Magistrates,  with  discretional  power, 
at  the  pleasure  of  their  perambulating  hired  inspectors,  to 
summon  the  former  Commissioners  and  gentlemen,  as  well  as 
clerks,  hke  culprits  to  remote,  and  to  pohce  offices  .  .  .  and  to 
compel  the  parishes  and  districts  to  defray  the  charges  which 


1  Hansard,  21st  February  1815  ;  Report  of  a  meeting  of  the  Paving  Trustees 
of  St.  Luke,  Middlesex,  in  Times,  12th  April  1815. 

As  an  alternative  to  Michael  Angelo  Taylor's  proposal  of  a  superior 
Metropolitan  authority,  regulating  and  controlling  all  existing  local  bodies, 
an  able  correspondent  of  the  Times — said  to  have  been  John  Rickman — 
put  forward  in  January  1816  a  plan  of  dividing  the  Metropolitan  area  among 
about  half-a-dozen  separate  Paving  Boards,  acting  for  the  City,  Southwark, 
Westminster,  etc.,  superseding  all  existing  bodies,  and  each  independently 
appointing  its  own  paid  officers  to  execute  the  necessary  works — an  early 
suggestion  of  what  was,  eighty  years  later,  termed  the  "  tenificatiou  "  of 
London  instead  of  its  unification  {Times,  2nd  January  1816,  etc.,  republished 
as  Eight  Letters  concerning  the  Pavement  of  the  Metroj^olis  and  the  adjoining 
Turnjnke  Roads,  by  X.  Y.,  1817).  On  the  other  hand,  an  influential  witness 
in  1828  suggested,  as  the  only  effective  reform,  the  transfer  of  all  the  paving 
and  lighting  of  the  Metropolitan  parishes,  together  with  the  watching,  to  a 
central  office  under  the  Home  Secretary— the  system,  that  is,  of  the  Metro- 
politan Police  (Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Police  of  the 
Metropolis,  1828,  pp.  120-122). 


292  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

they  .  .  .  impose,  without  any  remedy  against  caprice,  extor- 
tion or  abuse,  and  even  without  appeal."  ^  The  Vestry  of 
Marylcbone  declared  that  its  pavements  were  both  in  excellent 
order,  and  efficiently  administered,  and  threw  itself  with  energy 
into  the  organisation  of  the  opposition  to  any  outside  interfer- 
ence.2  We  find  the  Paving  Trustees  for  St.  Luke's  Parish  assert- 
ing that  they  "  possess  and  exercise  under  the  Local  Act  all  the 
powers  which  are  necessary  to  pave,  repair  and  preserve  the 
pavement  of  the  streets  "  ;  that  but  for  "  the  temporary  evil  " 
of  "  the  useful  increase  of  water  companies,  and  the  establish- 
ments "  for  the  "  supply  of  gas,"  the  pavement  of  their  streets 
would  be  a  model  of  "  cleanliness,  durability  and  comfort "  ; 
and  that  "  no  causes  exist  within  their  jurisdiction  for  just 
complaint  or  for  the  introduction  of  any  other  interference  and 
control."  2  The  Chelsea  Vestry  vehemently  urges  that  "  it  has 
no  paved  carriageways "  within  its  whole  area,  and  that  a 
paving  rate  "  would  contribute  greatly  to  the  depopulation  of 
this  parish,"  *  whilst  St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  haughtily 
resolves  that  the  Bill  is  "  very  objectionable  in  most  of  its  parts, 
and  totally  unnecessary  for  this  parish."  ^  Baffled  by  this 
united  opposition,  Michael  Angelo  Taylor  had  to  withdraw  his 
Bill,  and  content  himself  with  a  Select  Committee  to  enquire  into 
the  State  of  the  Pavement  of  the  Metropohs.^  This  Committee 
proved  to  be  time-serving  and  timid.  .  Its  meagre  report  threw 
the  whole  blame  for  the  bad  pavements  on  the  then  unpopular 
gas  and  water  companies,  and  failed  to  grapple  with,  or  even  to 
set  forth,  the  difficulties  created  by  the  multiphcity  of  separate 
paving  authorities,  and  the  absence,  in  many  places,  of  adequate 
paving  powers.  Without  attempting  to  remedy  the  constitu- 
tional chaos  into  which  the  government  of  the  Metropolitan  area 
had  sunk,  the  Committee  fell  back,  practically  as  their  only 
proposal,   on  the  intervention  of  the  individual  householder. 

1  Times,  12th  April  1815. 

-  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  St.  Marylebone,  4th  April,  13th  I^Iaj',  11th  November, 
llith  and  3()th  December,  1815,  12th  March  1816. 

^  Report  of  meeting  of  the  Paving  Trustees  of  St.  Luke's,  Times,  12th  April 
1815. 

*  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  Chelsea,  Middlesex,  17th  April  1815. 

'-  I  hid.  St.  George's,  Hanover  Sqviare,  10th  Ajml  1815. 

«  Hansard,  25th  April  1815,  7th  March  181().  A  sliglitly  different  account 
of  these  proceedings  is  given  in  an  MS.  note  prefixed  to  the  British  Museum 
copy  vi  the  pamphlet  {Eight  Loiters,  etc.)  mentioned  above. 


M.  A.   TAYLOR'S  ACT  293 

They  did  not,  indeed,  revert  to  the  system  of  individual  responsi- 
bility for  the  pavement,  but  they  attempted  to  transform  every 
aggrieved  householder  into  a  common  informer.  "  The  first 
remedy,"  they  report,  "  should  be  afforded  by  the  establishment 
of  an  universal  power  for  every  housekeeper  to  compel  the 
speedy  and  effectual  reparation  of  any  pavements  dangerous  to 
persons  traversing  the  streets  of  the  Metropolis,  without  the 
trouble  and  changes  of  an  indictment.  And  that  for  that  pur- 
pose, Surveyors  of  Pavement  should  be  appointed  in  every 
district  by  the  different  local  Commissioners  ...  to  whom 
notices  of  any  dangerous  pavement  may  be  immediately  given, 
and  who  shall  be  compelled,  by  summary  proceedings  before 
magistrates,  under  heavy  penalties,  to  repair,  with  all  con- 
venient expedition,  every  dangerous  defect  of  which  such  notice 
may  be  given."  ^  Michael  Angelo  Taylor  made  the  best  of  the 
situation.  Finding  it  impossible  to  overcome  the  opposition  of 
the  existing  bodies  to  any  central  authority  for  the  Metropolis  as 
a  whole,  he  adopted  the  futile  proposal  of  the  Committee  as  the 
ostensible  basis  of  his  Bill.  But,  as  it  passed  into  law  in  the 
session  of  1817,  his  Act  contained  a  great  many  valuable  ena,ct- 
ments.  Its  147  clauses  included  provisions  enabling  minor 
street  improvements  to  be  effected  with  comparative  cheapness 
— provisions  which  have,  right  down  to  the  present  day,  con- 
tinued to  be  used  with  advantage.  It  added  cleansing,  street- 
watering  and  house-numbering  to  the  duties  of  paving  authorities. 
It  practically  consolidated  for  the  Metropolis  the  law  relating 
to  street  nuisances,  and  by  a  series  of  drastic  penal  clauses 
curbed  the  depredations  of  the  gas  and  VN^ater  companies.  And 
though  the  Act  did  nothing  to  compel  the  inefficient  or  apathetic 
Paving  Authorities  to  do  their  duty,  it  gave,  to  all  the  more 
energetic  and  ambitious  of  them,  wide  scope  for  improvement. 
By  sweeping  general  clavises  most  of  the  limitations  and  short- 
comings of  their  respective  Local  Acts  were  removed  ;  they 
were  authorised  to  extend  their  jurisdiction  over  neighbouring 
streets  destitute  of  any  paving  authorities  ;  their  powers  of 
repaving  were  widened  ;  their  potential  paving  rates  were  doubled 
or,  in  some  cases,  trebled,  and  the  assessment  and  collection  of 
these  were  facilitated  ;   whilst  by  various  administrative  clauses 

^  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Pavement 
in  the  Metropolis,  1816. 


294  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

each  separate  authority  was  enabled,  if  it  chose,  to  put  its  internal 
organisation  on  an  eflficient  basis.^ 

Unfortunately,  however,  it  was  soon  demonstrated  that  the 
failure  to  create  a  central  body  of  Commissioners  had,  as  regards 
paving,  taken  all  the  driving  force  out  of  Michael  Angelo  Taylor's 
reform.  In  how  many  districts  the  new  Surveyors  of  Pavements 
were  actually  appointed  we  have  been  unable  to  ascertain.  We 
have  found  absolutely  no  trace  of  their  activity,  and  we  imagine 
that  the  office  was  everywhere  conferred  upon  the  existing  clerk 
or  surveyor  or  superintendent  of  the  Paving  Authority,  who 
gained  thereby  only  one  empty  title  the  more.  The  aggrieved 
householder  certainly  did  not  become  a  common  informer, 
and  neither  the  Vestries  nor  the  multifarious  Paving  Boards 
showed  any  disposition  to  use  the  permissive  powers  of  widening 
their  jurisdiction  w^hich  the  Act  conferred  on  them.  Some  little 
improvement  did,  however,  take  place.  The  gas  and  water 
companies  were  gradually  brought  into  the  habit  of  making  good 
their  constant  devastations  as  quickly  as  possible.  One  or  two 
of  the  wealthier  and  more  progressive  of  the  Metropolitan  Vestries, 
alarmed  by  the  attack  on  their  autonomy  and  stimulated  by 
the  series  of  Parliamentary  enquiries  between  1819  and  1833  on 
the  means  of  communication,  seem,  during  the  next  twenty  years, 
to  have  made  good  use  of  their  powers.  We  see,  for  instance,  the 
energetic  Select  Vestry  of  Marylebone  making  extensive  purchases 
of  granite  in  Aberdeen,  and  permanently  employing  a  staff  of 
between  fifty  and  a  hundred  paviors  and  labourers,  divided 
into  twenty  companies,  some  of  whom,  dispersed  among  the 
nine  districts,  were  "  traversing  each  square  and  street  to  repair 
and  fill  in  the  holes  in  the  carriageways  of  the  parish,"  whilst 
others,  under  the  Parish  Surveyor  and  three  salaried  super- 
intendents, were  kept  at  work  paving  the  new  streets  that  were 

^  "  Michael  Angelo  Taylor's  Act,"  as  this  57  George  III.  c.  29  of  1817  has 
ever  since  been  called,  remained  for  nearly  forty  years  the  main  basis  of  London 
street  law,  and  is  still  in  operation  as  regards  some  of  its  sections.  Though 
applying  to  all  the  various  parishes  and  districts  in  the  Cities  of  London  and 
Westminster,  the  Borough  of  Southwark,  and  the  "  Bills  of  Mortality,"  together 
with  St.  Marylebone  and  St.  Pancras  (which  were  thus  for  the  first  time  made 
part  of  the  Metropolitan  area),  it  is  classed  and  printed  as  a  Local  Act,  and  is 
thereby  excluded  from  the  ordinary  editions  of  the  Statutes.  An  edition,  with 
notes,  was  published  in  IS.'J'J  imder  its  full  title.  An  Act  Jor  Belter  Paving, 
Improving  and  liegulaling  the  Streets  of  the  Metropolis,  and  removing  and  pre- 
venting Nuisaiices  and  Obstrxtctio7is  therein,  1839. 


SOME  ENERGETIC   VESTRIES  295 

being  continually  opened  on  its  northern  and  western  sides.i 
In  1828-1830  the  Paving  Committee  was  busily  occupied  in  the 
extensive  task  of  tearing  up  the  old  squared  stone  pavement 
of  the  carriage-ways — now  regarded  as  intolerably  noisy,  dusty 
and  destructive  to  horses  and  carriages  2 — and  replacing  it  by 
a  "  macadamised  "  road,  charging  the  householders  along  the 
route  one-third  more  rate,  and  executing  the  work  whenever 
requested  by  two-thirds  of  the  rated  occupiers.  The  Select 
Vestry  of  St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  was  enlightened  enough 
in  1824  to  engage  the  eminent  road  engineer,  Thomas  Telford, 
to  report  upon  the  whole  of  the  pavements  of  that  parish,  and 
largely  to  govern  itself  by  his  professional  experience.^  But 
this  progressive  policy  was,  we  fear,  characteristic  of  only  a  very 
few  of  the  Metropolitan  Vestries.  Over  the  greater  part  of  the 
rapidly  extending  range  of  streets,  the  pavement  evidently  con- 
tinued in  a  disgraceful  state.  Complaints  are  rife  of  "  sprained 
ankles  "  and  "  shoes  filled  with  mud,"  owing  to  "  the  wide, 
gaping  intersections  or  interstices  between  the  paving  stones  "  ; 
of  "  falhng  horses  "  and  smashed-up  vehicles,  due  to  the  un- 
evenness  of  the  surface  ;  and  of  "  deafening  noise  "  and  "  bhnding 
dust "  which  passers-by  and  inhabitants  had  alike  to  endure.* 
In  the  great  Parish  of  Lambeth,  on  the  south,  as  in  that  of 
Christchurch,  Spitalfields,  immediately  to  the  east,  it  is  reported 
by  Francis  Place  in  1824,  as  the  result  of  his  own  inspection, 

^  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  St.  Marylebone,  Middlesex,  30th  December  1815, 
12th  March  1816,  10th  February  1821,  11th  July  1829,  13th  November  1830. 

2  See,  for  instance.  Considerations  on  the  Defective  State  of  the  Pavements  of 
the  Metropolis,  by  William  Deykes,  1824,  p.  8  ;  Practical  Instructions  for  the 
Improvement  of  the  Carriage  Pavements  of  London,  by  J.  C.  Robertson,  1827  ; 
Practical  Treatise  on  Making  and  Repairing  Roads,  by  Edmund  Leahy,  1844, 
pp.  66-72  ;  the  latter  of  whom  tells  us  that  pavements  have  been  "generally 
superseded  by  broken  stones,  which  .  .  .  may  be  said  to  be  the  general  mode 
of  making  and  repairing  roads  "  (p.  66). 

^  "  Report  respecting  the  Street  Pavements,  etc.,  of  the  Parish  of  St.  George, 
Hanover  Square,"  by  Thomas  Telford,  June  1824,  printed  as  appendix  to 
A  Treatise  on  Roads,  by  Sir  John  Parnell,  1833,  pp.  348-361. 

*  See,  for  instance.  Considerations  on  the  Defective  State  of  the  Pavement  of 
the  Metropolis,  by  William  Deykes,  1824,  pp.  8-10.  In  contrast  with  the 
undoubted  superiority  of  the  whole  of  London  paving  in  1770,  in  1827  it  can 
be  claimed  only  that  London  excels  Paris  and  other  cities  in  its  footways 
{Practical  Instructions  for  the  Improvement  of  the  Carriage  Pavements  of  London, 
by  J.  C.  Robertson,  1827,  p.  15).  "  At  the  time  of  our  visit  to  Paris,"  writes 
a  traveller  of  1826,  "  the  Rue  de  la  Paix  was  the  only  street  which  was  provided 
with  a  footpath  "  {Frederic  Hill:  An  Autobiography  of  Fifty  Years  in  Times 
of  Reform,  edited  by  Constance  Hill,  1894,  p.  63). 


296  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

that  various  streets,  courts  and  alleys  were  "  still  paved  [only] 
with  pebbles  and  without  any  flagstone  footpath  ...  in  a  very 
dilapidated  state."  ^  Almost  under  the  shadow  of  the  Houses 
of  Parliament,  Horseferry  Road  was,  in  1825,  a  slough  of  mud  and 
filth,  which  the  Vestry  of  St.  Margaret's,  AVestminster,  was  then 
only  beginning  to  survey,"  whilst  the  outlying  Parish  of  St.  Paul, 
Deptford,  was,  in  1824,  actually  under  indictment  at  Quarter 
Sessions  for  the  non-repair  of  its  streets  as  common  highways.^ 
But  it  was  in  the  districts  of  the  four  or  five  score  of  independent 
Paving  Boards,  "  self-appointed  and  irresponsible,"  and  pubhsh- 
ing  "  no  accounts  of  their  receipts  and  expenditure,"  *  that 
"  the  evils  of  discontinuity,  variety  and  inequality  "  ^  of  pave- 
ment were  most  rampant.  In  the  Parish  of  Bermondsey,  for 
instance,  which  was,  by  1831,  becoming  covered  with  a  network 
of  densely  peopled  courts  and  alleys,  surrounding  the  wharves, 
tanneries  and  manufactories,  the  pavements  provided  by  the 
five  separate  Paving  Authorities  varied  from  street  to  street,  in 
every  degree  of  unevenness,  fracture  and  neglect.^  Even  in 
the  new  squares  of  Belgravia,  as  late  as  1835-1836,  innumerable 
complaints  are  brought  before  the  Cubitt  Estate  Trustees — the 
sole  Paving  Authority  for  that  area — of  dangerous  and  dilapidated 
footways,  pavements  so  much  lower  on  one  side  than  the  other 
that  kitchens  were  frequently  flooded  with  liquid  filth  and  storm 
water,  posts  so  placed  as  to  upset  carriages,  and  unprotected 
cellar  areas  amounting  to  dangerous  precipices.'  The  adminis- 
tration of  the  paving  of  the  great  Parish  of  St.  Pancras,  which 
in  1801  had  still  only  31,779,  and  by  1831  numbered  over 
a    hundred    thousand    inhabitants,    remained    for    the    whole 

1  riaco  MS.  27827-52/54. 

"  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  St.  Margaret,  Westminster,  7th  March  1S25. 

3  Ibid.  St.  Paul,  Deptford,  Kent,  11th  March  1824. 

'  Local  Government  in  the  Metrojwlis,  1835,  p.  21. 

""'  Report  of  House  of  Commons  Committee  on  the  Police  of  the  Metropolis, 
1828,  pp.  120-122. 

®  "  Thus  Bermondsey  Street  and  several  of  the  streets  issuina  out  of  it 
are  parts  of  the  East  Division  of  Southwark  as  rej^ards  pavinp.  .  .  .  Long 
Lane  forms  a  separate  district,  under  another  Act  of  Parliament  for  paving. 
.  .  .  The  waterside  division  of  the  parish  has  also  a  .separate  Act  of  Parliament 
for  their  purposes.  The  Grange  Road  and  parts  adjacent  has  also  a  sei)arate 
Act.  .  .  .  And  the  Bermondsey  New  Road  forms  i)art  of  the  Kent  Road 
(Turnpike)  Trust  for  these  ])urposes  "  {Illstori/  ami  Anliquilir.t  of  the  Parish  of 
Bermondsey,  by  G.  W.  Phillips,  1841,  pp.  110-111). 

'  MS.  Minutes,  Cubitt  Estate  Trustees  (now  among  the  archives  of  the 
We:^tminster  City  Council),  23rd  October  1835  et  seq. 


THE  CHAOS  OF  ST.  PA  NCR  AS  297 

of  that  generation  a  caricature  of  Local  Government.  For 
this  area  of  little  over  four  square  miles,  there  were  no  fewer 
than  nineteen  separate  paving  authorities,  the  Parish  Vestry 
being  responsible  only  for  about  one-twentieth  of  the  ground, 
and  eighteen  different  Paving  Boards  governing  as  many  scattered 
patches  belonging  to  the  several  landowners.  And  yet,  adds 
the  Parish  Surveyor  in  1834,  "  some  very  closely  inhabited  streets 
and  passages  in  the  parish  are  left  without  any  superintending 
care  in  regard  to  paving "  ;  including,  as  he  explains,  such 
populous  districts  "  as  the  upper  part  of  Grays  Inn  Lane  .  .  . 
the  back  road  from  King's  Cross  to  Bagnigge  Wells  Tavern 
...  all  the  cross  streets,  courts  and  alleys  between  the  two 
roads,  the  east  side  of  the  road  from  the  Small  Pox  Hospital  to 
St.  Pancras  Workhouse,  and  all  the  streets,  alleys  and  passages 
branching  therefrom."  These  densely  crowded  streets,  courts 
and  alleys,  amounting  to  two  miles  in  length,  which  no  public 
body  was  authorised  to  pave,  were  entirely  "  without  control, 
and  the  consequence  is,"  he  continues,  "  that  the  whole  district 
is  in  a  sad  state  of  filth  and  dirt."  Meanwhile,  as  the  crowning 
absurdity,  it  must  be  mentioned  that,  as  the  local  "  Church 
Paths  Rate,"  out  of  which  the  Vestry  defrayed  its  paving  ex- 
penses, was,  by  the  terms  of  the  Local  Act,  paid  out  of  the  Poor 
Rate,  and  as  this  was  naturally  levied  equally  on  the  whole 
parish,  the  occupiers  of  houses  in  the  districts  of  the  eighteen 
Paving  Boards  contributed  their  quota  to  the  paving  executed 
by  the  Vestry,  in  the  one-twentieth  of  the  parish  for  which 
alone  it  administered  this  service,  in  addition  to  paying  separate 
local  rates  for  their  own  paving  ;  whilst  the  unfortunate  dwellers 
in  "  the  uncontrolled  district  pay  the  same  rate  without  any  care 
being  bestowed  upon  them  " — contributing,  in  fact,  to  the  cost 
of  paving  the  rest  of  the  parish  whilst  getting  in  their  own  streets 
absolutely  no  paving  whatsoever.^  In  this  chaotic  condition 
the  administration  of  the  London  pavements  was  destined  to 
remain  for  another  couple  of  decades — in  fact,  until  the  Metro- 
polis Management  Act  of  1855  reorganised  the  whole  local 
government  of  the  Metropolis. 

^  Evidence  of  Surveyor  of  Highways  of  St.  Pancras,  in  First  Report  of 
Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  Appendix  A,  vol.  i.  (Codd's  Rejiort),  1834, 
pp.  54-55. 


298  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

The  Pavements  of  the  Provincial  Toivns 

Turning  now  to  the  hundreds  of  towns  outside  the  Metro- 
politan area,  we  see,  in  some  of  the  ancient  provincial  cities, 
street  pavements  as  immemorial  in  their  origin  as  those  within 
the  walls  of  the  City  of  London,  and  chartered  corporations 
resorting  to  Parliament  for  special  paving  powers  even  earlier 
than  that  of  the  capital  city.  The  special  privilege  of  levying  a 
toll  for  "  pavage,"  which  the  City  of  London  enjoyed,  was  granted 
in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  by  charter  or  statute 
to  various  boroughs,  notably  Coventry,  Warwick,  Huntingdon, 
Bristol  and  Southampton,  sometimes  only  for  a  hmited  term  of 
years,  apparently  on  the  assumption  that  stone  pavements 
could  be  laid  down,  as  walls  were  built,  once  for  all.  But  however 
the  street  pavement  came  into  existence,  there  grew  up  a  custom 
in  these  paved  towns  for  the  frontager  wholly  or  partially  to 
keep  in  repair  the  part  in  front  of  his  tenement,  down  to  the  middle 
of  the  roadway.  This  obhgation  was  embodied,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  in  the  various  paving  Acts  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth 
centuries,!  q;^^  -^yg^g  apparently  enforced  in  many  towns — often, 
we  imagine,  on  the  strength  of  mere  manorial  custom  or  muni- 
cipal byelaw — by  the  Court  Leet  or  other  tribunal  under  local 
control.2     Thus  we  are  told  in  1755  that,  in  the  borough  of  Hull, 

^  In  1320  the  University  of  Cambridge  had  induced  the  King  to  order  that 
the  householders  should  perform  their  customary  obligation  of  repairing  the 
pavement  in  front  of  their  ovvn  premises  (2  Rot.  Pari.  48).  See  the  Paving 
Acts  for  Northampton  (1431),  Gloucester  (1473),  Canterbury  (1477),  Taunton 
(1477),  Cirencester  (1477),  Southam])ton  (1477),  Bristol  (1487),  Ipswich  (1571) 
and  Chichester  (1570).  The  obligation  to  jjave  was  usually  restricted  to  the 
"  high  streets,"  or  to  specified  main  thoroughfares  ;  and  the  Acts  were  often 
limited  in  duration  to  a  short  term  of  years,  though  this  limitation  may  not 
have  affected  the  customary  obligation  to  repair.  The  Municipal  Corporation 
often  co-operated  with  the  inhabitants  ;  sometimes  (as  at  Northampton  and 
Chichester)  undertaking  the  charge  of  the  pavements  in  the  market-place  ; 
sometimes  (as  at  Chichester)  also  the  "  way.s  of  greatest  resort  "  ;  sometimes 
(as  at  Hull)  sujij^lying  the  stone  ;  and  sometimes  (as  at  Southampton  in  1482) 
appointing  a  Town  Pavior,  provided  with  free  lodging,  who  executed  the 
paving  work  for  the  householders  at  customary  charges  {History  of  Southampton, 
by  J.  S.  Davies,  18S3,  pp.  119-120).  See  History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation, 
by  F.  Clifford,  1887,  vol.  ii.  pp.  255-268  ;  and  Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H. 
Spencer,  1911,  pp.  178-180. 

^  We  see  this  at  Ipswich,  where  it  was  (perhaps  merely  in  pursuance  of  the 
Local  Act,  13  Eliz.  c.  24  of  1571),  in  1737,  "agreed  and  ordered"  by  the 
Town  Council  "  that  the  Sergeants  at  Mace  of  this  corporation  be  empowered 
to  demand  and  receive  the  several  amerciaments  that  shall  be  hereafter  assessed 
by  the  Hcadboroughs  of  this  borough  for  defaults  in  cleansing  and  paving  the 


THE  PAVEMENTS  OF  THE  PROVINCIAL  TOWNS  299 

"  for  the  more  regular  and  better  paving  and  repairing  of  the 
streets,  ...  it  hath  been  customary  for  the  Mayor  and  Alder- 
men ...  in  common  council  assembled,  from  time  to  time  as 
they  saw  occasion,  to  order  .  .  .  the  said  streets  ...  to  be 
new  paved  or  repaired  by  such  workmen  as  they,  the  said  Mayor 
and  Aldermen,  thought  fit ;  and  the  said  Mayor  and  Aldermen 
have  usually  provided  proper  materials  for  the  paving  and  re- 
pairing .  .  .  and  the  occupiers  of  messuages  .  .  .  fronting  to 
the  said  streets  .  .  .  have  usually  paid  the  said  workmen  for 
their  labour  ...  so  much  for  every  yard  square  .  .  .  unto 
the  middle  thereof,  as  hath  been  from  time  to  time  agreed  on 
and  thought  reasonable  by  and  between  the  said  Mayor  and 
Aldermen  and  the  said  workmen."  1  By  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  however,  the  citizens  of  Hull  demurred  to 
this  assumption  of  power,  and  the  Corporation  found  it  necessary 
in  1755  to  obtain  from  Parliament  a  Local  Act  crystallising  the 
ancient  custom  into  statute  law.  Similar  statutory  authority 
was  sought  at  one  time  or  another  by  nearly  every  town  in  the 
kingdom. 

In  the  numerous  Local  Acts  passed  by  Parliament  during  the 
last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  for  different  towns,  the  Hull 
arrangement  between  the  individual  householder  and  the  local 
authority  was  only  one  of  a  bewildering  variety.  The  limitation 
of  the  householder's  obligation  to  the  maintenance  of  the  foot- 
way,2  or  to  the  mere  repair  of  existing  pavements  ;  ^  the  new 
paving  to  be  undertaken  only  at  the  request  of  a  majority  of  the 
householders  in  each  particular  street,*  or  to  be  extended  to 
any  streets  where  such  request  is  made  ;  ^  the  extension  of 
the  frontager's  obhgation  to  new  works  and  old,  levelling  and 

streets  within  the  town  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Town  Council,  Ipswich,  12th  December 
1737).  And  at  Gloucester,  which  had  also  an  early  Local  Act  (1473),  and 
where  the  Court  Leet  continued  to  be  held  by  the  Municipal  Corporation  as 
lord  of  the  manor,  we  find  it,  between  1784  and  1819,  not  infrequently  amercing 
householders  for  allowing  the  pavement  in  front  of  their  houses  to  be  out  of 
repair  (MS.  Minutes,  Court  Leet,  Gloucester,  vol.  for  1784-1819). 

1  Preamble  to  28  George  11.  c.  27  (Hull  Paving,  etc..  Act,  1755). 

2  26  George  III.  c.  119  (Newport,  Isle  of  Wight,  Streets  Act,  178G)  ;  26 
George  III.  c.  116  (Cheltenham  Streets  Act,  1786).  See,  for  this  variety. 
Municipal  Origins,  by  P.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  pp.  178-186. 

3  23  George  II.  c.  19  (Colchester  Harbour  and  Streets  Act,  1748). 
*  11  George  III.  c.  9  (Winchester  Streets  Act,  1770). 

5  31  George  III.  c.  80  (Lmcoln  Streets  Act,  1791)  ;  31  George  IIL  c.  62 
(Maidstone  Streets  Act,  1791). 


300  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

guttering ;  ^  compulsion  on  hira  to  execute  his  share  of  the  work 
by  specified  workmen,^  or  in  a  specified  way ,2  or  under  the  direc- 
tion of  a  pubhc  officer  ;  *  compulsion  on  the  local  authority 
itself  to  pave  the  market-place  or  certain  "  high  streets "  ^ 
(all  others  being  left  to  the  householders)  ;  to  contribute  towards 
the  repair  of  specially  wide  streets  ;  to  pave  in  front  of  public 
buildings  or,  where  no  individual  can  be  made  to  pay,^  to  repair 
its  own  streets  in  a  definite  order  ; '  the  grant  of  an  option  to 
the  local  authority  either  to  compel  the  householder  to  perform 
the  work  or  exact  from  him  a  money  composition  ;  ^  the  further 
option  whether  future  repairs  should  be  charged  to  the  frontagers 
or  to  a  common  rate  ;  finally,  the  specific  exemptions  of  poor 
districts  from  both  advantages  and  cost  of  pavement  ^ — all 
these  represent  different  settlements  between  the  individual 
householder  and  the  local  authority  embodied  in  the  first  Local 
Acts  obtained  by  different  parishes  and  boroughs.  But  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  eighteenth-century  paving  statutes,  unlike 
Turnpike  Acts,  were  permanent  in  their  operation,  no  town 
contented  itself  with  a  single  application  to  Parliament.  In  the 
various  amending  Acts  that  each  body  of  Improvement  Com- 
missioners secured,  we  find  one  uniform  tendency — the  gradual 
supersession  of  the  householder's  obligation  to  pave  or  repair 
the  street  by  the  evolution  of  municipal  enterprise.  By  the 
nineteenth  century  it  was  rare  to  find,  whether  in  the  first  paving 
Acts  of  new  urban  districts  or  in  the  amending  Acts  of  older 
communities,  either  the  footway  or  the  carriage-way  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  householders.  In  one  direction,  however,  the 
obligation  on  the  individual  citizen  became  more  specific  and 

^  20  George  III.  c.  21  (Worcester  Paving,  etc..  Act,  1780)  ;  41  Oeorge  III. 
c.  30  (Sculcoates  Streets  Act,  1801) ;  6  George  IV.  c.  196  (Macclesfield  Streets 
Act,  182.5). 

-  9  George  III.  c.  21  (Gainsborough  Lighting  and  Paving  Act,  17G9). 

"  31  GeoVge  III.  c.  04  (Deal  Streets  Act,  1791). 

^  0  George  III.  c.  34  (Bristol  Improvement  Act,  lliMi). 

^  13  George  III.  c.  15  (Gravescnd  and  Milton  Streets  Act,  1772). 

*  23  George  II.  e.  19  (Colchester  Harbour  and  Streets  Act,  1748),  parish 
to  pay  for  liaving  adjoining  churches  and  churchyards,  and  for  places  "  where 
no  sufficient  distress  can  be  made  "  ;  20  George  III.  e.  119  (Newport,  Isle  of 
Wight,  Streets  Act,  178(5) ;  31  George  III.  c.  80  (Lincoln  Streets  Act.   1791). 

'  in  George  III.  e.  .17  (Weymouth  Paving,  etc.,  Act,  1775)  ;  16  George  III. 
c.  27  (Dorchester  Streets  Act,  1775). 

«  Hove  Paving  Act,  1830. 

»  12  George  III.  c.  18  (Chatham  Paving,  etc..  Act,  1771);  19  George  IH. 
c.  36  (Bridgwater  Market  and  Streets  Act.  1778). 


I 


"  PRIVATE  STREETS"  301 

more  stringently  enforced.  Prior  to  1800  there  was  seldom 
any  distinction  drawn,  as  regards  paving  law,  between  the  most 
ancient  thoroughfares  and  new  streets  in  process  of  construction. 
With  the  rapid  outgrowth  of  new  suburbs,  the  Improvement 
Commissioners  seem  to  have  become  tardily  aware  of  the  extrava- 
gance of  permitting  the  ov/ners  of  building  estates  to  saddle  the 
public  with  the  cost  of  completing  their  new  streets.  Hence 
some  specially  enlightened  Local  Authorities  began  to  insert 
clauses  in  their  amending  Acts,  by  which  new  streets  or  courts, 
"  over  which  a  dereliction  of  the  way  for  the  public  shall  have 
been  made  by  the  owner,"  were  required  to  be  properly  levelled, 
paved,  flagged  and  drained,  at  the  expense  of  the  proprietors, 
whenever  the  Local  Authority  thought  such  work  necessary.^ 
Moreover,  it  came  to  be  provided  that  no  such  new  streets  should 
become  repairable  out  of  the  common  rate  until  they  were 
certified  to  be  properly  paved  and  guttered.^  With  this  excep- 
tion, the  responsibility  of  the  private  citizen  for  the  state  of  the 
pavement  gradually  disappears ;  its  maintenance  becomes  a 
duty  of  the  Local  Authority  ;  and,  in  some  Acts,  the  individual 
householder  is  even  given  the  right  summarily  to  compel  the 
Local  Authority  promptly  to  put  any  particular  bit  of  defective 
pavement  into  good  repair.^ 

This  generahsed  analysis  of  the  paving  clauses  of  the  hundreds 
of  Local  Acts  passed  between  1700  and  1835  may  be  usefully 
supplemented  and  qualified  by  concrete  examples  of  the  paving 
history  of  particular  towns.     In  many  cases  the  inhabitants 

1  50  George  III.  c.  41,  sec.  55  (Hull  Lighting,  etc,.  Act,  1810) ;  11  George  IV. 
c.  15  (Liverpool  Improvement  Act,  1830).  But  this  all-important  power  v,'as, 
by  1835,  very  far  from  being  general.  Leeds,  for  instance,  was  seriously  feeling 
the  need  of  it ;  we  see  the  Improvement  Commissioners  resolving  "  that  it  is 
essentially  necessary  that  the  Commissioners  should  have  power  to  compel 
the  owners  or  occupiers  of  property  adjoining  the  present  and  future  streets 
and  public  passages  in  the  Township  of  Leeds,  and  within  one  mile  of  the 
boundary  of  the  town,  to  pave,  dram  and  make  all  necessary  levels  opposite 
their  respective  premises  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Leeds, 
1st  November  1837).  For  the  numerous  complicated  questions  that  arise  in 
connection  with  this  requirement,  see  The  Law  and  Practice  as  to  Paving  Private 
Streets,  by  William  Spinks,  1887  ;  The  Law  and  Practice  relating  to  Private 
Street  Works,  by  the  same,  1904,  256  pp.  ;  The  Private  Street  Works  Act,  1902, 
by  J.  Scholefield  and  G.  R.  Hill,  1902,  161  pp.  ;  and  Azotes  on  the  Law  of  Private 
Street  Works  under  the  Public  Health  Acts,  by  J.  B.  R.  Conder,  1911,  114  pp. 

2  41  George  III.  c.  30,  sec.  23  (Sculcoates  Improvement  Act,  1801);  50 
George  III.  c.  41,  sec.  57  (Hull  Lighting,  etc.,  Act,  ISIO). 

3  31  George  IIL  c.  64  (Deal  Streets  Act,  1791). 


i. 


302  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

paved  their  streets  without  obtaining  any  statutory  power  either 
to  enforce  an  obligation  to  repair,  or  to  levy  extra  taxation. 
Thus  in  1708  the  inhabitants  of  Maidenhead  represent  to  the 
Berkshire  Quarter  Sessions  "  that  the  said  town  was  about 
seven  years  since  paved  with  stone  at  the  great  charge  of  the 
inhabitants  and  the  voluntary  contributions  of  the  neighbouring 
gentry,"  ^  So,  at  Woolwich  in  1717,  the  Vestry  observes  that 
"  the  inhabitants  of  this  parish  have  been  at  very  great  expense 
in  paving  the  town  thereof,  in  doing  of  which  the  same  is  made 
more  commodious,  and  of  consequence  much  more  healthful  to 
the  inhabitants,"  who  are  therefore  enjoined  to  refrain  from 
sullying  the  new  pavement  with  refuse.^  In  the  little  borough 
of  Peterborough,  as  late  as  1790,  the  work  of  paving  was  accom- 
plished by  the  voluntary  subscription  of  £3000  by  the  ground 
landlords,  the  Parliamentary  representatives,  the  trustees  of  the 
local  charities  and  the  local  magistrates.^  In  1822  we  find  the 
inhabitants  of  Leicester  violently  objecting  to  the  grant  of  any 
new  rating  powers  either  for  paving  or  for  lighting  and  watching 
the  borough,  services  which  they  thought  "  ought  to  be  borne 
by  the  wealthier  part  of  the  inhabitants  exclusively."  The 
ancient  Municipal  Corporation,  itself  a  large  property  owner, 
opposed  the  project  for  a  rate,  on  the  ground  "  that  there  is 
public  spirit  enough  "  to  do  the  work  "  without  subjecting  the 
poorer  inhabitants  to  any  expense  whatspever,"  ^    The  proposed 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Berkshire,  January  1708. 
2  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  Woolwich,  25th  October  1717. 

*  "  On  Monday  last  a  very  respectable  meeting  was  held  at  the  Town  Hall 
in  the  City  of  Peterborougli  to  hear  and  determine  on  the  different  plans  of  the 
Committee  for  carrying  into  effect  the  paving  and  lighting  this  ancient  and 
long  neglected  city.  .  .  .  Earl  Fitzwilliam,  with  that  well-known  liberality 
which  the  inhabitants  have  on  all  occasions  experienced  .  .  .  subscribed  the 
sum  of  £1000,  and  .  .  .  the  worthy  members  £500  each,  the  Gentlemen  Feoffees, 
with  that  generosity  which  will  ever  rebound  to  their  honour,  £oOO  ;  with  many 
more  considerable  sums  by  the  respectable  magistracj',  gentlemen  and  others, 
amounting  to  the  sum  of  £3000  "  {Lincoln,  Eutland  and  Stamford  Mercury, 
26th  February  1790).  Other  instances  might  be  cited.  "  Ashford  (Kent) 
has  been  paved,  substantially  and  satisfactorily,  at  not  more  than  double  the 
expense  of  what  an  Act  of  Parliament  for  this  purpose  usually  costs.  The 
inhabitants,  fortunately,  were  unanimous  ;  and  the  sum  necessary  for  the 
work,  amounting  to  £300,  was  obtained,  partly  from  the  highway  cess,  and 
partly  raised  by  subscription.  .  .  .  The  cess  for  the  highways  has  never  been 
higher  than  ninepence  in  the  pound  ;  it  is  now  sixpence  ;  and  the  debt  incurred 
in  making  the  road  has  been  paid  off  within  £170  "  (The  State  of  the  Poor,  by 
Sir  F.  M.  Eden,  1797,  vol.  ii.  p.  278). 

*  MS,  Minutes,  Town  Council,  Leicester,  16th  January  1822. 


THE  PAVEMENT  OF  MANCHESTER  303 

Local  Act  was  therefore  abandoned.  But  unfortunately  neither 
the  Municipal  Corporation  nor  the  wealthy  inhabitants — not 
even  the  ground  landlords  of  the  new  building  estates,  which 
were  becoming  rapidly  covered  with  rows  of  workmen's  cottages 
— actually  carried  out  any  paving  works  ;  and  the  streets  of 
this  quickly  developing  manufacturing  town  remained  in  a 
terrible  condition.  In  1822,  the  parish  of  St.  Mary,  in  the  old 
part  of  the  borough,  found  itself  indicted  at  the  Assizes,  for 
neglect  to  maintain  in  good  repair  part  of  the  pavement  of  its 
public  highways.  The  Vestry,  after  seeking  to  find  some  other 
way  out,  decided  that  it  was  best  not  to  make  any  defence,  but 
immediately  to  put  the  streets  in  repair,  at  the  expense  of  a  rate. 
Similar  action  was  taken  in  1832  in  the  adjoining  parish  of  St. 
Margaret,  where  the  Surveyors  of  the  Highways  were  directed 
to  put  the  pavements  in  repair,  by  employing  the  necessary 
labourers  out  of  the  "  composition  rates,"  but  lest  their  zeal 
should  land  the  ratepayers  in  too  much  expense,  they  were 
reminded  that  "  no  street  [is  to]  be  repaired  or  repaved  without 
the  knowledge  and  sanction  of  the  Vestry."  ^  The  opposition 
to  the  paving  rate  did  not  always  come  from  the  mob  of  smaller 
ratepayers,  who  crowded  into  the  churches  at  Manchester,^  Leeds 
or  Leicester  when  a  Vestry  meeting  took  place.  At  Kingston- 
on-Thames,  we  read  in  1770,  "  the  tradesmen  are  stirring  Heaven 
and  earth  to  have  their  town  new  paved  .  .  .  but  met  with  so 

1  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  St.  Mary's,  Leicester,  17th  April  1822  ;  ibid.  St. 
Margaret's,  Leicester,  2nd  July  and  13th  August  1832. 

^  We  know  little  of  the  history  of  paving  at  Manchester.  As  already  stated, 
Improvement  Commissioners  were  appointed,  jointly  with  Salford,  as  early  as 
1765,  but  this  Local  Act  remained,  as  we  have  already  mentioned,  for  some 
unknown  reason,  a  dead  letter,  and  absolutely  nothing  seems  to  have  been 
done  until,  as  we  have  described  elsewhere,  the  passing  of  a  new  Local  Act 
in  1792,  and  the  extra-legal  separation  of  the  Commissioners  for  the  two  towns 
sometime  between  1792  and  1797,  when  the  existing  mmutes  for  the  Manchester 
body  begin.  Their  first  attention  was  paid  to  watching  and  lighting,  but  they 
presently  began  to  deal  with  the  pavement,  using  their  powers  of  removing 
obstructions  to  get  rid  of  the  posts  which  divided  the  footway  from  the  road. 
But  though  the  Commissioners  could  put  dowTi  nuisances,  remove  encroach- 
ments, and  prohibit  obstructions,  they  had,  at  first,  no  power  to  pave  or  comjjel 
the  householders  to  pave.  The  repair  of  the  roadways  rested  with  the  Sur- 
veyors of  Highways  of  the  to^vnsllip,  subject  to  the  liability  of  the  whole 
extensive  parish  to  be  indicted.  An  influential  committee,  which  reported  in 
1808,  accordingly  recommended  the  obtaining  of  further  powers,  the  union  of 
the  office  of  Surveyor  of  Highways  with  that  of  the  Commissioners,  and  the 
enactment  of  regulations  as  to  the  width  and  paving  of  new  streets.  This, 
however,  as  we  have  already  described,  led  to  violent  opposition,  and  the 
project  had  to  be  abandoned. 


304  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

much  opposition  from  the  gentry  that  the  session  of  Parliament 
is  over,  and  nothing  is  done."  ^  At  Greenwich,  on  the  other 
hand,  wlicre  the  example  of  the  new  pavement  of  Westminster 
had  its  influence,  it  was  "  the  gentry  "  who  wanted  "  to  new  pave 
the  town  with  regular  shaped  stones  like  the  streets  in  London," 
but  who,  we  read,  were  "  violently  opposed  by  the  townsmen  or 
tradesmen,"  ^ 

It  is  only  in  two  or  three  of  the  larger  provincial  towns  that 
we  have  anything  like  a  continuous  record  of  the  struggle  between 
the  Municipal  Corporation,  the  Parish  Vestry  and  the  frontagers 
as  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  obligation  and  the  provision  of  the 
cost  of  paving  the  town.  Thus,  at  Liverpool,  when  in  1560  a 
vigorous  effort  was  made  to  mend  the  streets,  we  are  told  that 
the  Mayor  "  in  his  own  proper  person  "  laboured  with  the  stones.^ 
The  Liverpool  Corporation  came  to  own  a  large  part  of  the  town, 
and  it  was  commonly  taken  for  granted  that  whatever  works  of 
paving  were  wanted  should  be  executed  at  its  expense.  Little 
attention  was,  however,  paid  to  this  requirement  during  the 
eighteenth  century.  The  footways  were  first  complained  of. 
"  The  streets,"  it  was  said  in  1797,  "  are  in  general  well,  but  not 
pleasantly  paved,  the  footpaths,  called  here  parapets,  are  dis- 
agreeable and  offensive  ;  they  are  all  laid  with  small  sharp 
pebbles  that  render  walking  in  the  town  very  disagreeable, 
particularly  to  ladies.  There  is  not  one  street  in  the  town  that 
is  regularly  flagged."  *  When  the  two  rival  water  companies 
began,  towards  the  end  of  the  century,  to  lay  their  pipes  all  over 

1  Middlesex  Journal,  22nd-2-lth  May  1770. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Selection-n  from  the  Municipal  Archives  and  Records  from  the  ICth  to  the 
17th  century,  by  (Sir)  J.  A.  Pic-ton,  1883,  p.  92. 

*  A  General  and  Descriptive  History  of  the  Ancient  and  Present  State  of  tlie 
Town  of  Liverpool,  1797,  p.  273,  i)artly  quoted  in  Memorials  of  Liverpool,  by 
(Sir)  J.  A.  Picton,  vol.  i.  The  writer  continues  as  follows  :  "  To  avoid  the 
sharpness  and  inconvenience  of  the  pavement,  that  foot  passenger  for  the 
most  part  walks  on  the  curb,  to  which  he  is  still  further  induced,  as  thereby 
he  avoids  the  danger  which  might  otherwise  arise  to  him  bj'  reason  of  the 
jirojccting  cellars.  This  comfortable  relief  to  the  feet  of  the  passenger  is, 
liowever,  in  time  rendered  less  pleasing,  by  frequent  use  the  friction  is  therebj' 
so  great  as  to  wear  them  into  deep  cavities  which  in  rainy  weather  become 
full  of  holes,  at  this  season  and  during  the  greater  ])art  of  the  winter  the  foot- 
paths are  generally  dirty,  the  pebbles  gathering  mud  in  their  interstices,  and 
as  the  custom  is  not  general  of  daily  sweeping  before  the  houses,  it  soon  becomes 
a  clammy  dirt,  which  adheres  to  the  feet  of  the  i)asseugcr"  (.4  General  and 
Descriptive  History  of  the  Aiicient  and  Present  Stale  of  the  Toum  of  Liverpool, 
1797,  p.  273,  partly  given  in  Picton,  i.  pp.  255-25G). 


THE  PAVEMENTS  OF  THE  PROVINCIAL  TOWNS  305 

the  city,  the  pavement  became  everywhere  intolerable.  In 
""1799  the  Corporation  promoted  a  Bill  to  authorise  extensive 
paving  works,  and  the  levy  of  a  rate  for  the  purpose.  The 
Parish  Vestry  immediately  opposed  this  Bill,  on  behalf  of  the 
inhabitants,  declaring  that  "  the  parishioners  are  not  bound  by 
law,  or  under  any  obligation  to  pave  or  keep  in  repair  the  streets, 
lanes  and  pubhc  passages  within  the  said  town,"  and  that  this 
obhgation  legally  devolved  upon  the  Municipal  Corporation. 
The  latter  body,  however,  persisted  in  its  purpose,  and  drafted 
a  new  Bill,  the  contents  of  which  were  kept  "  a  profound  secret," 
On  its  introduction  to  Parliament  in  the  session  of  1801,  it  was 
found  to  contain  clauses  enabling  the  Corporation  to  carry  on 
extensive  paving  and  repairing  operations,  at  the  cost,  so  far  as 
concerned  the  carriage-way,  of  a  neAV  rate,  and  so  far  as  concerned 
the  "  parapets,"  or  footways,  at  the  expense  of  the  frontagers. 
These  proposals  met  with  much  opposition.  "  According  to  this 
clause,"  indignantly  writes  a  local  pamphleteer,  "  it  should  be 
actually  supposed  that  the  inhabitant  adjoining  to  such  footpath 
had  the  sole  benefit  of  this  improvement."  ^  Meanwhile,  the 
issue  between  the  Corporation  and  the  Parish  Vestry  was  taken 
to  Quarter  Sessions,  where  it  was  decided,  in  August  1802,  that 
the  Corporation  was,  by  prescription,  bound  to  maintain  and 
keep  in  repair  the  "  ancient "  streets  of  the  town,  but  no  others. 
The  Parish  Committee  thereupon  promptly  got  six  of  its  members 
appointed  as  Surveyors  of  Highways,  and  took  steps  to  restore 
the  pavement  of  the  other  streets,  which  had  got  into  a  "  danger- 
ous and  ruinous  state  .  .  .  not  by  time  or  the  want  of  repair, 
but  by  the  laying  down  of  waterpipes  and  the  injudicious  and 
imperfect  manner  of  replacing  the  pavements  by  one  or  both  of 
the  companies  of  [waterworks]  proprietors."  This  was  to  be 
effected  at  "  the  cost  of  a  moderate  rate  to  be  applied  to  the  repair 
of  the  streets,"  though  it  was  hoped  that  some  contribution 
might  be  got  from  the  water  companies.^  The  division  of  liability 
between  the  corporation  and  the  parish,  the  absence  of  adequate 
control  over  the  destructive  operations  of  the  water  companies, 
and  the  lack  of  power  to  levy  a  special  paving  rate,  seem  to 

^  Observations  on  a  Bill  introduced  .  .  .  by  the  Corporation  of  Liverpool  for 
.  .  .  enlarging  the  powers  of  .  .  .  the  Liverpool  Improvement  Act  (26  George  III.). 
1802,  p.  18. 

'^  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  Liverpool,  1st  February  1799  and  12th  April  1803. 

X 


3o6  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

have  resulted  in  Liverpool  being,  in  1818,  "  one  of  the  worst 
paved  towns  in  the  Kingdom."  "  The  carriage-ways,"  we  are 
told,  "  were  pitched,  with  rough  boulders.  Many  of  the  narrow 
streets  had  no  footways,  and  were  paved  in  the  old  continental 
fashion  "  (once  universal  in  England,  as  we  have  seen),  "  with  a 
channel  along  the  middle.  Where  footways  existed,  they  were 
paved  with  small  angular  pebbles,  to  which  the  natives  had 
become  hardened  but  which  on  strangers  produced  the  most 
uncomfortable  effect.  A  few  cases  in  Avhich  flags  had  been  laid 
down  on  the  footways  were  exhibited  to  strangers  as  a  curiosity. 
The  Commissioners  of  the  Highways  at  last  took  heart  of  grace 
and  began  to  flag  the  footways  and  macadamize  some  of  the 
principal  streets.  ...  A  few  years  sufficed  to  render  the  town 
second  to  none  in  this  department."  ^ 

At  Bristol  the  story  of  the  pavement  is  an  even  more  com- 
plicated entanglement  of  personal  obhgation  and  pubhc  impost. 
How  the  ancient  pavement  in  some  of  the  streets  had  originally 
been  formed,  which  Defoe  at  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth 
century  found  worn  quite  smooth  and  slippery ,2  we  do  not  know. 
We  read  of  a  temporary  Act  of  1487,  compelling  the  frontagers 
to  put  "  the  decayed  broken,  hollowed  and  pitted  pavement  " 
into  repair  ;  and  also  of  the  permanent  toll  granted  to  the 
Municipal  Corporation  by  its  charters  for  the  pavements  of  the 
town,  as  well  as  for  its  walls.  The  obhgation  of  the  frontager  to 
keep  the  pavement  in  repair  "  unto  the  middle  of  the  street  " 
was  definitely  ena,cted  in  1700,^  but,  as  we  gather,  very  imper- 
fectly enforced.  In  1748  the  frontagers  were  let  off  some  of 
their  burden.  Some  of  the  streets^ — we  suspect  very  few — were 
more  than  thirty  feet  wide  ;  and  in  these  it  was  provided  that 
the  duty  of  repairing  the  pavement  should  be  shared  between 
the  frontagers  and  the  parishes,  the  borough  justices  in  Quarter 
Sessions  settling  how  far  in  each  case  the  frontagers'  obligation 

^  MemoriaU  of  Liverpool,  by  (Sir)  J.  A.  Picton,  1875,  vol.  i.  pp.  350-351. 

^  "  They  draw  all  their  heavy  goods  here  on  sleds  or  sledges  which  they 
call  geehoes,  without  wheels.  This  kills  a  multitude  of  horses,  and  the  pave- 
ment is  worn  so  smooth  by  them  that  in  wet  weather  the  streets  are  very 
slippery  and  in  frosty  weather,  'tis  dangerous  walking  "  (A  Tour  through  the 
whole  Islavd  of  Great  Britain,  by  Daniel  Defoe,  vol.  ii.  p.  314  of  1748  edition). 
A  diarist  noted  in  the  middle  of  the  century,  of  the  streets  of  Bristol,  "  that 
they  there  draw  all  their  goods  on  sledges  "  {Passages  from  the  Diaries  of  Philip 
Lybbe  Poivt/s,  1 899,  p.  49). 

'  11  &12  William  III.  c.  23. 


THE  PAVEMENTS  OF  THE  PROVINCIAL  TOWNS  307 

was  to  extend.i  This  new  division  of  responsibility,  added  to 
the  already  existing  divisions  between  the  frontagers,  could  not 
possibly  produce  a  satisfactory  pavement,  and  we  are  therefore 
not  surprised  to  find,  in  1766,  the  Act  of  1748  simply  repealed  ; 
and  the  whole  obligation  thrown  once  more  on  the  frontagers. 
They  are,  however,  now  put  under  the  direction  of  the  Surveyors 
of  Highways  of  the  respective  parishes,  and  it  is  enacted  that 
"  if  any  pavior,  pitcher  or  other  person  .  .  .  shall  pave  or  pitch 
...  in  an  uneven,  irregular  or  unworkmanlike  manner,  or  use 
any  bad  or  improper  materials,"  or  otherwise  act  "contrary  to  the 
order  and  direction  of  such  surveyors,"  he  is  to  be  liable  to  a  fine 
of  twenty  shilhngs.^  The  pavement,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say, 
remained  in  a  very  bad  state.^  The  advent  of  an  energetic  mayor 
in  1786,  and  the  enactment  of  further  powers  for  the  suppres- 
sion of  nuisances  in  1788,*  seem  to  have  WTOUght  some  temporary 
improvement,  in  the  course  of  which  separate  footways  appear  to 
have  been  constructed.  In  1794  we  even  read  that  "  the  streets 
are  well  paved  with  flat  stones  for  foot  passengers  and  smooth 
cross  ways  from  street  to  street  executed  very  neatly."  ^  But 
this  improvement  did  not  meet  the  growing  requirements  of  the 
town.  The  Municipal  Corporation  was  not  disposed  to  incur  any 
expenditure  from  its  corporate  funds,  and  in  1806  promoted  a 
Bill  to  establish  a  separate  body  of  Commissioners,  elected  by 
the  different  parishes  and  charged  with  repaving  the  whole  city, 
and  authorised  to  levy  a  rate  for  the  purpose.  As  at  Liverpool, 
the  inhabitants  protested  against  this  transfer  of  the  duty  of 
paving  and  repairing  from  individual  property  owners  or,  as 
some  contended,  from  the  Municipal  Corporation,  to  the  rate- 
payers at  large,  but  at  Bristol  their  protest  was  ineffectual.  The 
Town  Council  declared  in  reply  that  its  Bill  did  but  "  render  the 
usage  of  this  city  conformable  to  the  general  law  of  the  land,  to 
which  it  has  hitherto  been  an  exception  ;  that  the  powers  which 
it  gives  to  the  (Corporation)  magistrates  are,  in  all  material 

1  22  George  III.  c.  20  (Bristol  Paving,  etc.,  Act,  1748). 

2  6  George  III.  c.  34  (Bristol  Improvement  Act,  1766). 

*  "  Viator,"  in  Bristol  Gazette,  26th  October  1786,  complains  of  "  the 
wretched  paving  of  the  streets,"  which  "  no  man  will  offer  to  deny,  the  hazard 
of  limbs  and  life  in  riding  through  them  is  too  evident.  .  .  .  But  few  streets 
will  admit  of  a  pavement  of  flat  stones,"  for  foot  passengers,  "  from  their 
narro^vness."     He  promises  that  the  new  mayor  intends  to  change  all  this. 

«  28  George  II.  c.  32. 

^  The  New  History,  Survey  and  Description  of  .  .  .  Bristol,  1794,  p.  50. 


3o8  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

instances,  the  same  as  those  exercised  by  the  County  magistrates, 
and  that  the  mode  of  electing  Commissioners  ...  is  the  same 
as  is  directed  for  the  election  of  Sm-veyors  of  Highways  under  the 
General  Highway  Act."  ^  The  Bill  passed  into  law,^  and  the 
new  Bristol  Commissioners  went  vigorously  to  work,  without 
stinting  the  cost.  They  sent  their  clerk  to  London  and  Bath  to 
find  out  how  the  paving  was  done  in  those  places  ;  they  engaged 
a  professional  surveyor  at  a  salary,  and  even  imported  an  ex- 
perienced Londoner  for  the  post,  against  the  importunities  of 
Bristol  freemen  and  other  local  residents  ;  and  they  entered  into 
regular  contracts  for  repairing  the  pavement  of  the  whole  City. 
But  whilst,  on  the  one  hand,  their  plans  included,  from  the  out- 
set, a  universal  renovation  of  the  pavement  from  end  to  end, 
on  tha  other,  we  see  them  summoning  before  them,  street  by 
street,  the  owners  and  occupiers  of  the  houses  in  them,  "  to 
compound  for  the  paving  thereof  agreeable  to  the  directions 
contained  in  the  3ith  section."  ^  Under  this  vigorous  administra- 
tion, the  pavements  were,  in  the  course  of  the  next  few  years, 
got  into  decent  order.  We  hear  no  more  complaints  of  their 
condition,  though  the  inhabitants  sometimes  resented  the  Com- 
missioners' rates.  When,  in  1830,  the  Town  Dues  levied  bv  the 
Corporation  on  ships  and  wares  became  the  subject  of  criticism, 
and  the  whole  position  of  that  body  was  the  subject  of  Radical 
animadversion,  "  several  of  the  merchants  and  citizens  "  drew 
the  attention  of  the  Commissioners  to  the  fact  that  these  Town 
Dues  had  been  granted  by  charter,  not  for  the  general  corporate 
income,  but  "  in  aid  of  the  repairing  and  amending  as  well  the 
walls  of  the  Key  (quay)  as  of  other  walls  and  pavements  of  the 
town  of  Bristol,"  and  that  such  Town  Dues  were  at  that  date 
yielding  a  large  income  which  might  properly  be  applied  in  relief 
of  the  heavy  paving  rate.  The  Commissioners  were  not  unwilUng 
to  take  the  same  view,  and  addressed  a  friendly  memorial  on  the 
subject  to  the  Town  Council,^  by  whom  the  matter  was  shelved. 
The  question  of  whether  the  Municipal  Corporation  was  legally 
liable,  in  respect  of  its  charter  and  its  continued  exaction  of 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Town  Council,  Bristol,  30lli  Ai)iil  1806. 

2  4G  George  III.  c.  26. 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Ini|m)vemont  Commissioners,  Bristol,  lOtli,  17th  and  24th 
.liiu..  Sill  and  2<Mh  July,  ath  and  2()th  August,  2nd  and  2;5rd  September,  7th 
and  Mill  Ocloher,  -Ith  November  1800. 

*  MS.  ]\linutes,  Town  Council,  Bristol,  9lh  June  1830. 


THE  PAVEMENTS  OF  THE  PROVINCIAL  TOWNS  309 

Town  Dues,  to  maintain  in  repair  the  pavements  of  all  the  ancient 
streets  seems  to  have  never  been  formally  decided.^ 

The  foregoing  instances  will  suffice  to  give  the  student  some 
notion  of  the  variety,  complexity  and  development  of  the  arrange- 
ments made  for  the  paving  of  the  streets  of  provincial  cities  and 
boroughs.  Right  down  to  the  Public  Health  Act  of  1848  there 
was  no  general  statute  requiring  the  construction  of  pavements 
in  English  towns.  Each  town,  and  sometimes  each  parish  or 
township  Avithin  a  borough,  was,  in  this  respect,  a  law  unto 
itself.  The  surface  of  the  streets  might  be  left  to  be  mended  by 
the  Surveyor  of  Highways  out  of  Statute  Labour,  Team  Duty  and 
the  limited  Highway  Rate  ;  they  might  be  provided  with  a  rude 
pavement  by  voluntary  subscriptions,  with  or  without  a  contri- 
bution from  the  Municipal  Corporation  ;  ^  a  Local  Act  might  be 
obtained  to  compel  frontagers  to  pave  or  repair  the  pavement ; 
finally,  Parliament,  at  the  request  of  the  inhabitants,  might  set 
up  a  body  of  Improvement  Commissioners,  empowered  to  lay 
down  new  pavement,  or  repair  old,  at  the  expense  of  a  general 
rate.  By  1835,  as  we  have  described,  all  but  four  of  the  boroughs 
having  more  than  11,000  inhabitants  had  statutory  paving 
authorities  of  the  latter  sort.     The  Commissioners  sometimes 


^  The  example  of  Bristol  in  the  matter  of  paving  seems,  at  the  opening  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  to  have  greatly  influenced  the  neighbouring  town  of 
Bath,  of  which,  as  the  Municijial  Corporation  petitions  in  1707,  "  the  streets 
and  lanes  "  had  "  become  so  ruinous  by  the  great  concourse  of  people,  and 
horses  and  carriages,"  as  to  be  very  inconvenient,  both  to  the  inhabitants  and 
to  the  rapidly  increasing  number  of  visitors  to  this  fashionable  resort  {House 
of  Commons  Journals,  20th  November  1707).  An  Act  was  thereupon  passed 
(6  Anne,  c. — )  greatly  increasing  the  powers  of  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen,  and 
compelling  the  frontagers  to  pave  and  repair.  Under  a  subsequent  Act  (7 
George  I.  c.  19)  a  body  of  Commissioners  was  appointed,  with  power  to  rate 
and  pave.  At  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century  it  was  Bath  which  in- 
fluenced Bristol.  In  1806  the  new  Bristol  Commissioners  sent  their  clerk  to 
Bath  to  learn  how  their  leaving  work  was  done.  He  found  them  using  the  soft 
local  oolitic  stone  for  the  carriage-ways,  set  side  by  side  in  squared  blocks 
8  inches  deep,  12  inches  long  and  4  inches  broad,  forming  a  continuous  pave- 
ment which  needed  repairing  every  other  year.  The  footways  were  paved 
with  Pennant  flagstones.  The  whole  work  was  done  under  a  five  years' 
contract,  subject  to  specification  and  approval  by  a  salaried  surveyor  (MS. 
Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Bath,  24th  June  1806). 

2  It  was  not  unusual  for  the  Municipal  Corporation  to  make  a  voluntary 
contribution  out  of  its  corporate  funds  to  particular  works  of  paving  executed 
either  by  the  parish  or  the  local  Commissioners,  or  by  individual  inhabitants. 
Thus  the  Nottingham  Town  Council  in  1803  voted  £100  towards  the  cost  of 
certain  pavement  near  "  the  White  Lion  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Town  Council,  Notting- 
ham, 14th  September  1803). 


3IO  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

attempted  to  carry  out  their  paving  works  by  the  direct  employ- 
ment of  labour,  either  hired  in  the  open  market  or  borrowed  from 
the  workhouse.i  Sometimes,  as  at  Exeter  as  late  as  1834,  they 
engaged  a  surveyor,  but  allowed  him  also  to  undertake  the  work 
he  surveyed,  executing  it  for  a  quoted  price,  and  making  what- 
ever profit  he  could,  under  no  other  superintendence  than  his 
own.2  Sometimes,  again,  we  find  them  buying  their  own  stone, 
engaging  their  own  surveyor  at  a  fixed  salary,  and  putting  the 
work  out  to  contract  under  his  supervision — a  method  which,  as 
in  the  City  of  London  and  in  Bristol,  seems,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  in  the  then  state  of  administrative 
machinery,  to  have  proved  the  most  successful  of  all.^ 

So  little  record  is  made  of  the  day  by  day  changes  in  the 
common  accessories  of  life  that  we  do  not  find  it  easy  to  visualise 
the  pavements  of  the  various  provincial  towns,  and  their  gradual 
transformation,  during  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  first 
thirty  years  of  the  nineteenth.  In  many  of  the  smaller  places 
the  streets  evidently  remained,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
the  period,  in  the  same  intolerable  condition.  This  by  no  means 
imphes  an  absence  of  stone  pavements.  "  The  art  of  sticking 
the  streets  with  the  points  of  the  stones  upwards,"  says  a  diarist 

^  Thus,  in  1824,  we  see  the  Plymouth  Commissioners  asking  the  Incorporated 
Guardians  of  the  Poor  whether  they  would  supply  able-bodied  paupers  to 
break  stones  for  repairing  the  streets  at  the  same  rate  as  was  being  paid  by  the 
neighbouring  Turnpike  Trusts  for  this  work.  This  was  actually  done  five  years 
later  (MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Plymouth,  14tli  September 
1824,  10th  November  1829).  At  Leicester  in  1832,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Vestry  directed  the  Surveyor  of  Highways  to  engage  his  own  labourers  for 
paving  (MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  St.  Margaret's,  Leicester,  2nd  July  1832). 

*  Exeter  newspaper,  17th  July  1834. 

'  To  this  arrangement,  after  various  unsuccessful  experiments,  the  Plymoutli 
Commissioners  came  in  1828,  on  the  "  report  of  a  committee,  which  was  con- 
vinced from  the  information  it  has  collected  from  various  quarters  as  to  the 
comparative  advantage  of  having  the  town  paved  by  the  contract  with  the 
present  mode,  that  the  advantages  are  decided  by  and  greatly  in  favor  of 
paving  and  repaving  the  pavement  by  contract  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Plymouth  Im- 
provement Commissioners,  2Gth  February  1828).  So  also  did  tlie  Brighton 
Co?ninissioners,  who  found  in  1825  that  "  under  the  present  system  of  executing 
works  there  is  no  possibilitj'  of  checking  the  charges  made  In'  the  j)ersons 
employed,  neither  have  the  Commissioners  any  means  of  knowing  whether  the 
works  charged  for  have  been  actually  executed."  They  accordingly  got  rid  i)f 
their  existing  inferior  officer,  appointed  a  surveyor  at  a  salary  of  £200  a 
year,  and  decided  to  jmt  all  paving  work  out  to  contract  (MS.  Minut<>s,  Im- 
provement Commissioners,  Brighton,  2nd  and  Gth  September  1825).  The 
Faving  Committee  for  the  Vestry  of  St.  Martin's-m-the-Ficlds  advertise,  in 
18(tG,  for  tenders  for  a  three  years'  contract  for  paving  and  repairing  pavement 
(Morning  Adcertiscr,  24th  Ai)ril  180(5). 


THE  PAVEMENTS  OF  THE  PROVINCIAL  TOWNS  31 1 

of  1760,  "  greatly  flourishes  in  every  town  almost."  ^  "  Our 
main  streets,"  writes  a  Kendal  historian  of  the  period  between 
1763  and  1826,  "  were  paved  with  large  road  cobbles,  so  very 
slippery  that  the  inhabitants  acquired  a  catch  in  their  walk  as  if 
on  ice.  .  .  .  The  farmers  positively  refused  to  take  their  horses 
over  the  small  sharp  stones  lest  they  might  be  lamed  beyond 
recovery."  2  "  During  the  whole  of  the  time  that  Lancaster  was 
in  a  state  of  prosperity  "  (notably  during  the  first  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century),  we  are  told  that  "  no  care  appears  to  have 
been  taken  of  the  streets  which  were  in  a  deplorable  state.  .  .  . 
They  were  roughly  paved,  with  very  deep  channels  running  down 
the  middle  of  each  street  to  carry  off  the  rainfall."  ^  Even  in  so 
large  a  town  as  Birmingham  the  "  petrified  kidneys  "  remained 
the  only  paving,  of  foot-  and  carriage-ways  afike,  as  late  as  1830.* 

"  The  streets  are  pav'd,  'tis  true,  but  all  the  stones 
Are  set  the  wrong  way  up,  in  shapes  of  cones. 
And  strangers  limp  along  the  best  pav'd  street, 
As  if  parch'd  peas  were  strew'd  beneath  their  feet, 
Whilst  custom  makes  the  natives  scarcely  feel 
Sharp-pointed  pebbles  press  the  toe  or  heel."^ 

These  primitive  pavements  were,  in  fact,  nothing  more  than 
an  extension  to  the  whole  surface  of  the  highway  of  the  "  cawsey," 
provided  originally  for  the  packhorses  ;  with  "  an  open,  rather 
deep  gutter  in  the  centre  of  the  street  for  the  reception  of  all  the 
filth  imaginable."  ^  In  the  principal  streets  of  such  important 
centres  of  business  or  pleasure  as  Bristol  and  Bath,  this  mediaeval 

^  Passages  from  the  Diaries  of  Philip  Lybbe  Powys,  1899,  p.  61.  The  town 
immediately  referred  to  was  Arundel  (Sussex). 

-  Kirbie  Kendall  ;  fragments  .  .  .  relating  to  its  ancient  streets  and  yards, 
by  John  F.  Curwen,  1900,  p.  15. 

*  Lancaster  Records,  or  Leaves  from  Local  History,  1801-1S50,  1869,  p.  vi. 

*  Going  to  Markets  and  Grammar  Schools,  by  Geo.  Griffith,  1870,  p.  13. 

'  Birmingham  :  a  Poem,  by  J.  Bissefc,  1800 ;  A  Century  of  Birmingham  Life, 
by  J.  A.  Langford,  1868,  vol.  ii.  pp.  119-122. 

®  Records  of  ye  Antient  Borough  of  South  Molton  in  ye  County  of  Devon,  by 
John  Cock,  1893,  p.  65.  The  pavement  of  rounded  cobble-stones,  sometimes 
with  the  kennel  in  the  middle,  still  characterises  many  North  Country  villages 
— -we  may  instance  Knutsford  in  Cheshire  and  Reeth  in  Yorkshire  —  con- 
tributing hy  its  noisy  clatter,  uneasy  jolting,  and  arid  squalor  to  their  inferiority 
in  charm  and  comfort  to  those  of  the  South  of  England.  Similarly,  the  reten- 
tion by  Manchester  of  stone  "  setts  " — an  improvement  on  the  cobbles  in 
cleanliness  though  scarcely  in  noiselessness — instead  of  adopting,  like  London 
and  South  Country  towns,  the  relatively  quiet  macadamised  surface,  con- 
tributed not  a  little  to  drive  its  wealthier  residents  to  live  outside  its  boundaries 
— to  the  manifold  loss  of  the  city,  in  municipal  administration  and  much  else. 

/ 


312  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

type  of  pavement  was,  towards  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  or  in 
the  opening  years  of  the  nineteenth  century,  slowly  exchanged 
for  the  type  brought  into  vogue  by  the  Westminster  Paving  Com- 
missioners— a  level  or  slightly  concave  carriage-way,  laid  with 
squared  blocks  of  hard  stone  set  closely  side  by  side,  with  lateral 
gutters  and  elevated  footways,  marked  off  by  curb  stones,^  This 
access  of  care  in  shaping  and  laying  the  paving  stones  was,  how- 
ever, even  in  the  case  of  the  Westminster  Paving  Commissioners 
and  the  most  efficient  provincial  authorities,  largely  rendered 
nugatory  by  the  fact,  which  we  find  first  commented  on  in  1824, 
that  "  in  most  of  our  streets  the  pavement  lies  on  a  soft  and 
yielding  bed,  .  .  .  earth  reducible  to  a  semi-liquid  mass  by  every 
shower  of  rain."  It  was  an  engineering  novelty,  reserved  for 
such  road  constructors  as  Telford,  to  recommend  "  that  a  sub- 
stratum be  formed  of  more  unyielding  materials,"  ^  without 
which,  as  we  now  know,  the  best  laid  pavements,  either  for 
carriages  or  pedestrians,  wear  quickly  uneven,  and  into  holes. 
This  tendency  to  pave  the  carriage-way  with  "  setts  "  of  squared 
granite  was  interrupted  by  the  advent  of  IMacadam,  and  by  the 
preference,  especially  of  London  and  other  towns  of  the  south 
and  west  of  England,  for  the  relatively  noiseless  surface  which  he 
constructed  for  them. 

How  soon  the  "  flagged  footpaths "  which,  early  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  had  excited  the.  admiration  of  foreign 
visitors  to  the  Metropolis,  were  introduced  into  provincial  towns, 
we  are  unable  to  discover.  We  suspect  that  only  in  very  few 
cases  outside  the  Metropolis  did  there  exist,  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  any  continuous  lines  of  footway  paved  with 
broad  flagstones  ;  and  such  as  then  existed  had  only  lately  been 
constructed.  Among  these  exceptions  were  Bristol  and  Bath. 
It  was,  however,  already  noted,  in  1799-1800,  as  somewhat 
disgraceful  to  Liverpool  and  Birmingham  that  they  should  be 
without  flagged  footways,  and  it  seems  that  this  improvement 
was  introduced,  during  the  first  twenty  years  of  the  nineteenth 

*  Such  a  pavement  existed,  we  gather,  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  at  Plymouth  Dock,  now  Dcvonport,  where  we  read  "  the  streota 
.  .  .  arc  paved  with  a  species  of  marble  which  is  very  common  in  the  quarries 
of  Mount  Wise  and  Stonehouse.  In  the  more  public  streets  where  there  is 
any  descent  the  stones  arc  extremely  beautiful  after  heavj'  rains,  with  a  variety 
of  veins  "  (The  Plymouth  Dock  Guide,  about  1800). 

*  A  Paper  read  before  the  InMilulion  of  Civil  Engineers  on  the  Construction 
of  Carriage-]]' ay  Parcnienl-s,  by  Bryan  Donkin,  1824. 


THE  PAVEMENTS  OF  THE  PROVINCIAL  TOWNS  313 

century,  by  various  large  towns.  But  the  great  period  for  its 
adoption  was  the  decade  between  1820  and  1830  when  such 
records  as  we  have  gathered  show  dozens  of  towns,  great  and 
small,  to  have  abandoned  their  pebbled  ways.  It  was  during 
these  years  that  the  Liverpool  authorities,  we  are  told,  "  took 
heart  of  grace  and  began  to  flag  the  footways  and  macadamise 
some  of  the  principal  streets.  Church  Street  was  the  first  to 
have  the  benefit  of  this  improvement.  A  few  years  sufficed  to 
render  the  town  second  to  none  in  this  department.".,^  At 
Preston,  the  Improvement  Commissioners  began  to  flag  the  foot- 
ways in  1821.2  The  ancient  city  of  York  was  engaged  in  the 
same  work  in  1829,  still  charging  householders  half  the  cost,  as  a 
special  luxury,^  whereas  the  far  less  important  borough  of 
Bewdley  is  reported  to  have  completed  its  flagging  by  1830.^ 
Birmingham  seems  during  the  same  decade  to  have  begun  "  the 
gradual  substitution  of  stone-flagging  for  the  causeways,  instead 
of  the  sharp-pointed  pebbles  so  long  the  opprobrium  of  the  place."  ^ 
In  the  south  of  England,  we  learn  that  at  Penzance  "  in  1825 
nearly  all  the  footpaths  of  the  streets  were  pitchpaved ;  the 
flat  paving  was  begun  about  1826  or  1827."  ^  At  Devizes  in 
1825  "  hardly  a  square  yard  of  flagging  was  to  be  seen  from 
one  end  ...  to  the  other  ;  the  occasional  occurrence  of  posts 
and  pavements  before  some  solitary  door  rather  tending  to  trip 
up  the  public,  and  render  the  long  intervals  of  sharp  pebbles 
appear  all  the  more  toilsome."  Within  a  few  years  from  that 
date,  a  new  body  of  Improvement  Commissioners  had  flagged 
the  town.^  At  the  little  town  of  South  Molton  in  Devonshire, 
"  up  to  1825  the  principal  streets  appear  to  have  been  pitched 
with  large  stones,"  and  the  "  first  flagging  on  the  footpaths  " 
was  put  down  in  that  year.^  Even  in  the  little  town  of  Minchin- 
hampton  the  Vestry  called  for  tenders  in  1824  as  to  "  what  rate 

^  Memorials  oj  Liverpool,  by  (Sir)  J.  A.  Picton,  1875,  vol.  i.  pp.  350-351. 

-  History  of  Preston,  by  P.  A.  Whittle,  1837,  vol.  ii.  p.  109. 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  York,  2nd  November  1829. 

*  Going  to  Markets  and  Grammar  Schools,  by  George  Griffith,  1870,  p.  13. 
'"  The  Picture  of  Birminghayn,  by  James  Drake,  1825,  p.  30. 
0  Half  a  Century  of  Penzance,  1S25-1S75,  by  J.  S.  Courtney,  1878,  p.  43. 
'  Chronicles  of  the  Devizes,  by  James  Waylen,  1839,  p.  167. 

*  Records  of  ye  Antient  Borough  of  South  Molton  in  ye  County  of  Devon,  by 
John  Cock,  1893,  p.  65.  At  Plymouth,  in  1829,  granite  curb  was  laid  down 
free,  wherever  the  frontager  would  consent  to  repave  the  footway  "  with  the 
best  large  slate  stones  (sawn,  and  not  hewn  with  chisel)  from  Cann  Quarry  " 
(MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Plymouth,  8th  December  1829). 


314  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

per  yard  the  footpaths  and  the  water  course  of  the  town  can  be 
pitched  and  paved,"  and  appointed  a  committee  to  get  the  work 
done.i  By  1835,  though  some  places  of  importance  still  lagged 
behind,  we  infer  that  flagged  footways  had  become  the  rule 
instead  of  the  exception  in  the  principal  streets  of  nearly  all  the 
larger  towns.^ 

All  this  praiseworthy  enterprise  in  respect  of  street  pavement 
had,  from  a  modern  standpoint,  one  disastrous  limitation. 
"  The  pavement,"  it  was  observed  in  1842,  was  "  regarded  as 
requisite  solely  for  cart  or  carriage  conveyance  and  not  as  a 
means  of  cleanliness."  ^  The  one  and  only  thought  of  those  who 
paved  the  tow^n  was,  in  fact,  in  1830  as  in  1762  and  1662,  the 
safe,  speedy  and  pleasant  transit  of  vehicles  and  pedestrians — 
what  John  Spranger  himself  had  described  as  "  making  the 
passage  through  our  streets  and  lanes  safe,  easy  and  commodi- 
ous." *  It  was  to  secure  this  end  that  obstructions  had  been 
prohibited,  kennels  had  been  filled  in,  side  gutters  had  been  con- 
structed, footways  had  been  flagged,  and  carriage-ways  had  been 
levelled,  drained  and  provided  with  a  hard  surface.  These 
paving  improvements  had  been  effected  primarily  in  "  the 
principal  streets  in  which  the  carriage  traffic  is  considerable,"  to 
which,  in  many  towns,  they  were,  in  1835,  still  confined.^  They 
had  been  extended  from  thoroughfare  to  thoroughfare,  not 
according  to  its  population  but  according  to  the  amount  and 
importance  of  the  traffic,  poor  and  unfrequented  localities  being 
usually  excluded  from  the  advantages,  and  sometimes  exempted 
from  the  cost,  of  the  new  pavement.  It  never  occurred  to  the 
most  reforming  body  of  Improvement  Commissioners  in  a 
crowded  town  that  their  task  was  incomplete  so  long  as  any 

^  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  Mincliinhaiiipton,  Gloucestershire,  8tli  December 
1824. 

"  In  1841,  Sir  Robert  Peel  alluded  to  "the  man  who  found  a  i)iece  of 
smooth  ])aveinent  in  some  country  town  (Tamwortli  it  mi^'lit  be),  and  waikeil 
to  and  fro  for  the  ])urpose  of  enjoying  the  pleasure  of  contrast."  Sir  R.  IVel 
to  J.  W.  Crokcr,  8th  November  1841,  The  Croker  Papers,  by  L.  J.  Jennings,  1884, 
vol.  ii.  p.  410. 

*  General  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Cotidition 
of  the  Labouring  Population  of  Or  eat  Britain,  1842,  p.  .'ii). 

*  A  Proposal  or  Plan  for  an  Act  .  .  .  for  the  belter  jMving,  lighting  and 
cleansing  the  streets  .  .  .  of  Westminster  .  .  .  Marylebone,  etc.,  by  John 
Spranger,  1754,  preface. 

^  General  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition 
of  the  Lab  tiring  Population  of  Great  Britain,  1842,  j).  o9. 


THE  PAVEMENTS  OF  THE  PROVINCIAL  TOWNS  315 

square  yard  of  surface  lying  between  human  habitations  remained 
unprovided  with  an  artificial  covering,  impervious  to  wet,  and 
easily  cleaned  of  filth.  Hence,  even  in  the  best  regulated  towns, 
whole  streets — sometimes  whole  districts — remained  unpaved, 
whilst  the  thousands  of  densely  populated  courts  and  alleys,  not 
to  mention  the  backyards,  were  usually  entirely  outside  the 
jurisdiction  of  any  paving  authority.  These  unpaved  areas,  left 
in  a  barbarous  state  of  holes  and  heaps,  became  not  only  the 
receptacles  for  stagnant  water,  but  also  the  dumping  grounds  of 
every  kind  of  impurity,  which  spread,  in  poisonous  dust  or  liquid 
filth,  throughout  the  whole  district.  Thus  it  came  about,  in 
spite  of  all  the  work  of  the  paving  authorities,  that  when  in 
1831  the  Asiatic  cholera  reached  England,  it  found  actually  a 
larger  superficial  area  of  unpaved  surface  in  the  midst  of  crowded 
human  habitations  than  had  existed  at  any  previous  period.^ 
Nor  was  this  immediately,  or  even  promptly,  remedied.  It  was 
not  until  the  cholera  had,  in  1831-1833,  swept  away  thousands  of 
lives,  and  in  1848  and  1854  thousands  more,  that  town  paving 
ceased  to  be  regarded  merely  as  a  means  of  easy  transit,  and  the 
necessity,  on  grounds  of  pubhc  health,  of  imperviously  covering 
town  surfaces  became  an  axiom  of  municipal  administration. 

^  As  a  specimen  of  the  unpaved  state  of  the  manufacturing  towns  of  Lanca- 
shire and  Yorkshire  we  may  append  the  following  descriptions  of  Wigan, 
Manchester  and  Leeds  in  1839.  "  Many  of  the  streets  are  unpaved,  and  almost 
covered  with  stagnant  water,  which  lodges  in  numerous  large  holes  which  exist 
upon  their  surface,  and  into  which  the  inhabitants  throw  all  kinds  of  rejected 
animal  and  vegetable  matters,  which  there  undergo  decay  and  emit  the  most 
poisonous  emanations.  These  matters  are  often  allowed  ...  to  accumulate 
to  an  immense  extent,  and  thus  become  prolific  sources  of  malaria,  rendering 
the  atmosphere  an  active  poison.  .  .  .  The  waste  land  ...  is  one  complete 
pool  of  stagnant  water,  mixed  with  various  descriptions  of  putrifying  animal 
and  vegetable  matters  "  {General  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the 
Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labouring  Poptdation  of  Great  Britain,  1842,  p.  19). 
In  Manchester,  out  "  of  087  streets  inspected  by  a  voluntary  association  (in 
1832)  248  were  reported  as  undrained.  Many  .  .  .  are  so  deep  in  mire  or  so 
full  of  hollows  and  heaps  of  refuse  that  the  vehicle  .  .  .  cannot  be  driven 
along  them.  .  .  .  Whole  streets  in  these  quarters  are  unpaved  and  .  .  .  worn 
into  deep  ruts  and  holes,  in  which  water  constantly  stagnates,  and  are  so 
covered  with  refuse  and  excrementitious  matter  as  to  be  almost  impassable 
from  depth  of  mud  and  intolerable  from  stench.  In  the  narrow  lanes,  confined 
courts  and  alleys  leading  from  these  similar  nuisances  exist,  if  possible  to  a 
still  greater  extent  "  {ibid.  p.  38).  Leeds  was  in  an  equally  bad  condition. 
"  Of  the  586  streets  of  Leeds,  68  only  are  paved  by  the  .  .  .  local  authorities, 
the  remainder  are  either  jiaved  by  owners,  or  are  partly  paved,  or  are  totally 
unpaved,  with  the  surfaces  broken  in  every  direction,  and  ashes  and  filth  of 
every  description  accumulated  upon  many  of  them  "  {ibid.  p.  40). 


3i6  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

Street  Cleansing 

It  would,  however,  be  unfair  not  to  describe,  in  this  connec- 
tion, a  second  service  undertaken  by  practically  all  the  bodies  of 
Improvemeat  Commissioners,  namely,  the  organised  cleansing  of 
the  principal  thoroughfares  from  the  mud  and  filth  of  all  kinds  by 
which  they  were  constantly  becoming  encumbered.  So  far,  we 
have  been  able  to  ascertain,  the  systematic  cleansing  of  the 
streets  always  succeeded  and  never  preceded  their  paving.  In 
mediaeval  times  both  services  were  initiated  or  enforced  by  the 
same  authority,  using  the  same  customary  or  statutory  sanctions, 
and  practically  the  same  administrative  devices.  Throughout 
the  eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth  centuries  the  two  services 
continued  closely  intertwined.  The  same  series  of  Local  Acts 
which  established  new  bodies  of  Improvement  Commissioners 
with  power  to  pave  or  to  enforce  the  maintenance  of  paving, 
gave  these  also  the  power  to  cleanse,  and  to  enforce  cleansing. 
Moreover,  both  in  the  law  and  in  the  administration  of  these 
common  powers,  we  see  the  same  transition  from  the  enforce- 
ment on  each  householder  of  an  ancient  customary  obligation, 
to  the  provision  of  an  organised  department  of  municipal  enter- 
prise, maintained  out  of  the  proceeds  of  a  common  rate.  In  its 
main  lines  the  story  of  Street  Cleansing  from  1700  to  1835  is  a 
mere  duplication  of  that  of  Street  Paving.  But  it  has  certain 
distinctive  features  of  its  own  which  a  brief  survey  will  bring  to 
light. 

Municipal  enterprise  in  street  cleansing  ^  is,  even  more  than 
that  of  street  paving,  a  development  from  the  mediaeval  con- 
ception of  a  common  nuisance.  Failure  to  fulfil  the  twin  obliga- 
tion of  paving  in  front  of  a  town  tenement,  and  keeping  this 

^  We  know  of  no  history  of  town  cleansing  in  this  country.  Tlie  Cleansing 
of  Cities  and  Towns,  by  A.  May,  1911,  319  pp.,  seems  to  be  almost  the  only 
general  work  upon  the  subject  outside  the  essentially  modem  problem  of 
sewage  treatment.  How  complicated  is  now  the  organisation  of  street  cleansing 
and  the  disposal  of  urban  refuse  may  be  seen  in  the  American  works,  Street 
Cleansing,  bj'  Col.  Waring  ;  Modern  Methods  of  Street  Cleaning,  by  G.  A.  Soper, 
1909,  201  pp. ;  and  the  New  York  Public  Library  Bibliography  of  City  WaMcs 
and  Street  Hygiene,  1912,  55  pp.  In  the  period  with  which  wo  deal  the  service 
was  viewed  as  a  simple  one.  Beyond  contemporary  pamphlets  and  newspapers, 
the  minutes  of  local  authorities,  and  the  Local  Acts,  we  have  found  most 
information  in  the  General  Report  of  the  Poor  Laiv  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary 
Coiidliinn  iif  the  Labouring  J'opiilation  of  Great  Britain,  1842.  But  see  also 
The  S(tuit<iry  Krnlulinn  of  London,  by  H.  Jephson.  1907,  440  pp.,  and  The 
Health  Agitation,  hSoJ-lSIS,  by  Miss  B.  L.  Hutchins.  1909,  150  pp. 


STREET  CLEANSING  317 

pavement  clean,  could  be  prosecuted  as  a  passive  nuisance,  that 
is,  as  a  neglect  to  do  what  the  common  good  required.  But  the 
householders  adjoining  a  filthy  street,  unlike  those  abutting  on  a 
ruinous  pavement,  were  presumably  guilty  of  an  active  as  well 
as  of  a  passive  nuisance,  A  worn  or  broken  pavement  was  in  the 
main  caused  by  the  innocent  activity  of  the  whole  body  of 
citizens  and  strangers  who  used  the  thoroughfare  :  the  heaps  of 
soil,  dung,  dirt,  ashes,  garbage,  etc.,  which  disgraced  the  un- 
cleansed  street  were  almost  certainly  due  to  the  direct  and 
intentional  action  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  particular  street,  if 
not  of  some  particular  tenement.  If  streets  were  not  to  become 
impassable,  some  way  of  dealing  with  these  active  nuisances  had 
to  be  found.  The  first  move  was  to  treat  the  heaps  as  ordinary 
obstructions  of  the  King's  Highway,  and  to  prohibit  all  citizens 
from  casting,  laying  or  leaving  dirt,  refuse  or  ashes  on  the  surface 
of  the  street,  exactly  as  they  were  forbidden  to  stand  their  carts 
or  trade  implements,  or  to  display  their  goods,  to  the  detriment 
of  the  free  passage.  With  this  elaborate  series  of  prohibitions 
we  shall  deal  in  another  volume,  concerned  with  the  regulation 
of  personal  conduct  and  the  Suppression  of  Nuisances.  The 
massing  of  town  population  led,  however,  to  one  all-important 
exception  to  this  prohibitory  code.  In  the  course  of  each  day 
every  household  accumulated  a  certain  quantity  of  filth  and 
refuse  which  had,  somehow  or  other,  to  be  disposed  of.  So 
long  as  there  existed,  within  easy  reach  of  every  family,  gome 
waste  place  or  running  river,  some  backyard  or  vault,  where  this 
refuse  might  be  deposited,  it  was  open  to  the  local  authority 
rigorously  to  enforce  its  prohibition  of  deposit  in  the  street.  The 
enlargement  of  the  town  area,  the  filling  up  of  all  available  space 
by  tenements,  the  diversion  of  watercourses  from  the  streets, 
the  culverting  or  arching  over  of  their  channels,  the  extinction 
of  backyards  and  gardens,  the  growing  disproportion  between 
the  number  of  privies,  ashpits  and  middens  on  the  one  hand  and 
that  of  the  population  on  the  other — all  these  common  circum- 
stances of  the  seventeenth-  and  eighteenth-century  English  town 
rendered  the  simple  expedient  of  prohibition  a  mere  futility. 
It  became  inevitable  that  the  household  refuse  should  sooner  or 
later  be  placed  in  the  street.  Spasmodically,  when  there  was  a 
special  alarm  of  plague,  the  householder  was  even  admonished 
and  encouraged  to  oust  the  filth  from  his  house.     It  is  therefore 


3i8  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

not  surprising  to  find  the  "  great  heaps  and  quantities  of  rubbish, 
dirt  and  other  filth  "  ^  lying  about  the  streets  becoming  noted  as 
a  characteristic  feature  of  every  large  town  of  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries.  The  same  problem  was  arising  as  to 
the  disposal  of  the  mud  and  dust  created  or  brought  into  the 
street  by  the  multitudinous  traffic.  Each  householder  might 
conscientiously  sweep  in  front  of  his  tenement,  but  what  was  to 
happen  to  his  sweepings  ?  So  long  as  there  existed  a  running 
stream  of  water  in  the  street,  or  so  long  as  the  deposits  in  the 
kennel  were  no  more  than  could  be  washed  away  by  every  show  er 
of  rain,  the  problem  hardly  presented  itself.  But  with  the 
growth  of  population  and  the  accumulation  of  other  Idnds  of 
filth,  the  street  sweepings  of  the  householder  were  merely  added 
to  the  larger  heaps  of  household  refuse.  Confronted  by  these 
heaps,  steadily  growing  in  size  and  number,  for  which  prohibition 
and  injunction  had  proved  vain,  one  authority  after  another 
adopted  the  device,  not  merely,  as  in  paving,  of  enforcing  by 
statute  the  householder's  customary  obligation,  but  of  com- 
bining it  in  intimate  partnership  with  an  incipient  form  of 
municipal  enterprise. 

The  administration  of  the  City  of  London  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  seventeenth  century  affords  the  clearest  example  of  this 
combination  of  administrative  devices.  Each  householder  was 
under  an  ancient  obligation  to  cleanse  the  pavement  in  front  of 
his  tenement,  but  (in  a  city  in  which,  by  exception,  separate 
footways  for  pedestrians  had  long  existed)  this  obligation  was, 
at  any  rate  in  the  seventeenth  century,  restricted  in  practice  to 
keeping  clean  the  part  reserved  for  foot  passengers,  by  posts  or 
flagstones.  Certain  places,  "  as  far  as  may  be,  out  of  the  City 
and  common  passages,"  ^  were  set  apart  as  "  laystalls,"  where 
any  one  might  deposit  dirt  and  refuse  of  any  kind.  The  indis- 
criminate casting  of  filth  or  ashes  into  the  streets  was,  like  all 
other  hindrances  to  free  passage,  peremptorily  forbidden ;  but 
the  householder  was  permitted,  and  even  enjoined  to  rid  his 
house  of  its  filth,  "  either  by  setting  out  the  same  overnight  in 
tubs,  boxes,  baskets,  or  other  vessels  near  and  contiguous  to 

1  The  Presenlmenl  of  the  Grand  Jury  at  the  Old  Bayleij,  1G84. 

-  Orders  formally  conceived  and  agreed  to  be  publi.thed  by  the  Lord  Mayor  and 
Aldermen  of  the  City  of  London  .  .  ,  concerning  the  infection  of  the  Plague,  and 
now  reprinted  and  published  by  order  of  the  House  of  Commons,  1646. 


STREET  CLEANSING  319 

their  houses,  or  by  bringing  out  the  same  within  convenient 
time,"  during  the  prescribed  hours.i  Each  of  the  twenty-five 
wards  had  its  "  Scavenger,"  an  unpaid  officer  chosen  annually  at 
the  Ward-mote,  whose  duty  it  was  to  see  that  the  law  was  obeyed. 
The  actual  work  of  sweeping  the  carriage-ways  and  carrying  away 
all  deposits  was  entrusted  by  the  City  authorities  to  specially 
appointed  "  Eakers,"  whom  we  should  nowadays  term  dust  con- 
tractors. In  1762  we  find  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  of  the 
City  entering  into  an  elaborate  annual  contract  with  the  Fellow- 
ship of  Carmen,  which  then  exercised  the  monopoly  of  cartage 
within  the  City,  owned  by  Christ's  Hospital.  This  "  Fellow- 
ship "  undertook  to  send  carmen  with  "  tumbrils  or  carts  "  in 
the  early  hours  of  five  days,  and  the  afternoon  of  Saturday,  in 
each  week,  to  cleanse  the  streets,  scour  the  sewers,  and  carry 
away  "  all  the  dung,  soil,  filth,  seacoal,  ashes  and  other  dirt,  as 
well  from  all  the  streets  ...  as  from  all  the  houses."  Every 
household,  even  the  poorest  and  most  ignorant,  was  to  have  the 
advantage  of  this  service.  "  The  said  carmen,  undertakers, 
their  agents  or  servants,"  it  is  expressly  provided,  "  shall  give 
notice  of  their  being  in  the  streets  with  their  tumbrils  or  carts, 
by  loudly  knocking  a  wooden  clapper,  especially  in  courts,  alleys 
and  other  back  passages,  upon  pain  to  forfeit  3s.  4d.  upon  every 
complaint  duly  proved."  For  this  service  the  householders  paid 
them  "  the  customary  rates  by  the  Scavenger's  Book  "  ;  and 
those  who  had  what  we  should  now  call  "  trade  refuse  "  to  dis- 
pose of  (such  as  the  "  innkeeper,  hvery  stable  keeper,  brewer, 
dyer,  sugar  baker,  soap  maker  or  other  trader  ")  paid  an  extra 
quarterly  allowance  fixed  by  "  the  Assessors  of  each  ward 
according  to  their  best  discretion,  respect  being  had  to  the  trade 
or  other  occasions  in  the  making  of  more  or  less  dung  and  soil 

^  An  ancient  order,  reprinted  as  late  as  1677,  shows  that,  even  in  the  City 
of  London,  a  practice  prevailed  durmg  the  hours  of  night  which  was  the  oppro- 
brium of  the  Edinburgh  of  the  begmning  of  the  nineteenth  as  it  is  that  of 
Madrid  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century.  "  No  man  shall  cast  any 
urine  boles  or  ordure  boles  into  the  streets  by  day  or  night,  afore  the  hour 
of  nine  in  the  night ;  also  he  shall  not  cast  it  out,  but  bring  it  down,  and  lay 
it  in  the  channel,  under  the  pain  of  3s.  4d.,  and  if  he  do  cast  it  upon  any  jjerson'a 
head,  the  party  to  have  a  law  recompense  if  he  have  hurt  thereby  "  ("The 
Statutes  of  the  Streets  of  this  City  against  Nuisances,"  in  The  Laivs  of  the 
Market,  printed  by  Andrew  Clark,  printer  to  the  Honourable  City  of  London, 
1677  ;  quoted  in  Observations  on  Popular  Antiquities,  by  John  Brand,  vol.  i. 
pp.  126,  132  of  edition  of  1841,  and  in  the  General  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Com- 
missioners on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labouring  Population,  1842). 


320  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

by  sucli  traders."  To  inspect  this  elaborate  organisation  the 
Commissioners  of  Sewers  nominated  two  civic  dignitaries  as 
honorary  "  supervisors,"  authorising  them  to  appoint  their  own 
deputies  "  to  see  the  same  duly  executed  and  performed."  How 
long  this  particular  agreement  with  the  Fellowship  of  Carmen 
may  have  lasted,  and  how  efficiently  it  was  executed,  we  have 
not  ascertained.  In  1G84  we  have  the  Grand  Jury  at  the  Old 
Bailey  complaining  of  the  "  great  heaps  and  quantities  of  rubbish, 
dirt  and  other  filth  lying  about  the  streets  of  this  City,  to  the 
endangering  of  the  inhabitants  thereof  in  their  healths,  and 
breeding  of  manifold  diseases,  it  being  very  inconvenient  to 
passengers."  "  We  therefore  humbly  offer  and  think  it  reason- 
able," proceeds  the  Jury,  "  that  the  several  scavengers  in  and 
about  the  precincts  and  wards  of  this  City  be  forthwith  ordered 
to  take  some  speedy  course  for  the  removing  and  carrying  away 
the  said  soil  so  lying  in  the  several  streets  ;  and  that  such  as 
they  appoint  do  frequently  call  on  the  several  inhabitants  for 
the  carrying  away  of  such  soil  as  shall  be  made  in  their  several 
houses,  to  prevent  distempers  that  may  arise  by  reason  of  the 
stink  thereof  this  hot  weather,  according  to  the  duty  of  their 
several  offices  ;  and  that  such  persons  as  are  neglecting  therein 
be  forthwith  prosecuted  for  their  several  offences."  ^ 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  efficiency  of  this  organisation 
in  the  City  of  London — and  on  this  point  we  have  practically  no 
evidence,  and  not  even  any  complaints  to  quote — we  infer  that 
it  went  on,  throughout  the  whole  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and 
well  into  the  nineteenth,  with  but  one  important  change  in  the 
law  and  its  administration,  and  with  but  few  minor  variations. 
Instead  of  the  Raker  collecting  his  payment  from  each  individual 
householder,  he  became  the  paid  servant  or  contractor  of  the 
Commissioners  of  Sewers.  The  "  customary  rates  by  the 
Scavenger's  Book  "  were  thus  replaced  by  the  even  poundage 
rate  levied  by  the  Commissioners  for  their  various  purposes. 
By  a  statute  of  1765,  which  strengthened  the  power  of  enforce- 
ment, the  limitation  of  the  City  householder's  cleansing  obliga- 
tion merely  to  the  width  of  the  footway  was  implicitly  con- 
lirmed.2  The  laystalls,  for  which  it  grew  more  and  more  difficult 
to  discover  suitable  sites,  were  replaced  by  "  moveable  or  fixed 

^  The  Presentment  of  the  (Jrand  Junj  at  .  .  .  the  Old  Baylcy,  1684. 
-  ()  (Joorcc  III.  c.  2(5. 


THE  DIRT  OF  WESTMINSTER  321 

dust  boxes,  dust  holes  or  conveyances  wherein  dust  or  other 
filth  may  be  deposited  for  the  scavengers  or  rakers."  ^  Those 
who  contracted  to  remove  the  filth  and  refuse  were  allowed 
under  easy  conditions  the  temporary  use  of  vacant  sites  in  the 
streets,  as  places  of  deposit.  But  the  contractors  had  to  take 
away  all  the  "  ashes,  dirt  and  slop  .  .  .  twice  in  every  week,  in 
broad  wheeled  carts  with  flaps  to  cover  them,"  before  noon  or 
after  3  p.m.,  with  the  obligation  to  dispose  of  this  refuse  else- 
where how  they  could.^  At  this  point  we  leave  the  City  of 
London,  which  was  always  praised  by  foreign  visitors  for  the 
relative  cleanliness  of  its  crowded  streets  ;  and  we  proceed  to 
describe  the  gradual  introduction  of  some  kind  of  cleansing 
organisation  into  the  other  parts  of  the  Metropolis. 

The  state  even  of  the  best  thoroughfares  in  Westminster 
during  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  is  a  testimony  to 
the  low  standard  then  existing  among  the  wealthiest,  most 
luxurious  and  most  fastidious  classes  with  regard  to  their  own 
health  and  convenience  in  the  use  of  the  streets.  Within  this 
area  lay  the  palaces  of  the  King,  the  mansions  of  the  great,  the 
Houses  of  Parliament  and  the  Courts  of  Justice,  as  well  as  the 
daily  places  of  resort  of  the  officers,  lawyers  and  literary  men. 
Yet  we  find  practically  no  complaints  from  any  of  these  govern- 
ing classes  about  the  incredible  accumulations  of  horse  dung  in 
the  carriage-ways,  the  heaps  of  dirt  by  which  the  footways  were 
obstructed,  the  decaying  animal  and  vegetable  matter  which 
blocked  the  kennels,  and  the  pools  of  stagnant  filth  that  lay  amid 
the  broken  pavements.  Mandeville  was  perhaps  indulging  in 
facetious  humour  when  he  demonstrated,  in  1714,  that  "  dirty 
streets  are  a  necessary  evil  inseparable  from  the  felicity  of 
London.  .  .  .  There  are,  I  believe,"  he  said,  "  few  people  in 
London,  of  those  that  are  at  any  times  forced  to  go  afoot,  but 
what  could  wish  the  streets  of  it  much  cleaner  than  generally 
they  are,  whilst  they  regard  nothing  but  their  own  clothes  and 
private  conveniency.  But  when  once  they  come  to  consider 
that  what  offends  them  is  the  result  of  the  plenty,  great  trafiic 
and  opulency  of  that  mighty  city,  if  they  have  any  interest  in 
its  welfare,  they  will  hardly  ever  wish  to  see  the  streets  of  it  less 

1  6  George  III.  c.  26. 

2  Advertisement  of  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for  the  City  of  London  in  The 
Diary,  26th  May  1790. 

Y 


322  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

dirty.  For  if  wc  mind  the  materials  of  all  sorts  that  must  supply 
such  an  infinite  number  of  trades  and  handicrafts  as  are  always 
going  forward  .  .  .  the  multitudes  of  horses  and  other  cattle 
that  are  always  daubing  the  streets,  the  carts,  coaches  and  more 
heavy  carriages  that  are  perpetually  wearing  and  breaking  the 
pavement  of  them,  and  above  all  the  numberless  swarm  of  people 
that  are  constantly  harassing  and  tramphng  through  every  part 
of  them — if,  I  say,  we  mind  all  these,  we  shall  find  that  every 
moment  must  produce  new  filth,  and  considering  how  distant  the 
great  streets  are  from  the  river  side,  what  cost  and  care  soever 
be  bestowed  to  remove  the  nastiness  almost  as  fast  as  it  is  made, 
it  is  impossible  London  should  be  more  cleanly  before  it  is  less 
flourishing."  ^  But  however  we  may  discount  as  satirical 
Mandeville's  defence  of  dirty  streets,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of 
his  facts.  As  late  as  1756,  on  the  unimpeachable  authority  of 
the  sober  John  Spranger,  we  have  it  that  "  the  rough  and  broken 
pavements  were  so  covered  by  filth  as  to  make  them  scarcely 
visible  to  the  most  cautious  passenger  by  day."  The  "  quantity 
of  filth  in  our  streets,"  he  added,  is  "  so  great  that  man  and  beast 
in  some  places  can  hardly  wade  through  it."  ^ 

Some  effort  had  been  made  after  the  Restoration  to  mitigate 
this  evil.  Under  the  temporary  Paving  Act  of  1662  a  "  Chief 
Raker  "  had  been  appointed  for  the  Westminster  parishes,  who 
occupied  towards  the  Commissioners  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
individual  householders  on  the  other,  practically  the  same 
position  as  did  the  Fellowship  of  Carmen  in  the  City  of  London. 
At  the  end  of  the  century,  as  we  learn  incidentally  from  an 
mteresting  lawsuit  recorded  in  the  archives  of  the  Middlesex 
Quarter  Sessions,^  the  business  of  this  office  was  still  being  con- 
ducted by  the  widow  of  the  original  holder,  with  a  considerable 
capital  invested  in  horses,  carts  and  laystalls.  Besides  this  Chief 
Raker,  or  contractor,  we  gather  that  each  parish  appointed  one 
of  its  inhabitants  to  the  annual  and  unpaid  ofiice  of  Scavenger, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  present  householders  neglecting  their  duty 
of  cleansing  the  pavement  in  front  of  their  tenements,  and  to 
see  that  the  Chief  Raker  fulfilled  his  contract.     But  this  Act  of 

1  The  Fable  of  Ihe  Bees,  by  Bernard  de  Mandeville,  1714,  profaco. 

-  A  Proposal  or  Plan  for  an  Act  of  Parliament  for  the  Better  Paving,  Cleansing 
and  Lighting,  etc.  .  .  .  of  Westminster,  bj'  John  Spmngcr,  1750,  preface. 

"  Middlesex  County  Records,  by  J.  Cordy  Jefferson,  vol.  iv.  pp.  xxxiv, 
157-159. 


THE  RAKERS  AND  SCAVENGERS  323 

1662,  as  we  have  already  mentioned,  was  never  generally  en- 
forced, and  the  "  Commissioners  of  Scotland  Yard,"  as  they  were 
called,  presently  ceased  to  function,  whereupon  the  parish  organisa- 
tion, at  any  rate  in  many  places,  promptly  went  to  pieces. 
"  Many  persons,"  we  are  told  in  1691,  "in  the  outparishes  in 
Middlesex  and  other  parishes  in  the  hmits  aforesaid,  which  have 
been  chosen  to  serve  the  office  of  Scavenger  refuse  to  take  the 
execution  of  the  said  office  upon  them  ;  and  others  who  have 
been  rated  and  assessed  towards  the  cleansing  and  carrying  away 
the  dirt  and  soil  out  of  the  streets,  have  refused  to  pay  the  rates 
assessed  upon  them,  there  being  no  law  in  force  to  compel  them 
thereunto,  so  that  no  person  can  be  employed  to  be  Kaker,  to 
carry  the  dirt  out  of  the  said  streets,  for  want  of  some  provision 
for  payment  for  doing  that  service  :  And  the  poorer  sort  of 
people  daily  throw  into  the  said  streets  all  the  dirt,  filth  and  coal 
ashes  made  in  their  houses  :  By  reason  thereof  the  said  streets 
are  become  extremely  dirty  and  filthy,  so  that  Their  Majesties' 
subjects  cannot  conveniently  pass  through  the  same  about  their 
lawful  occasions."  ^  Hence,  in  the  permanent  Act  of  1691, 
which  extended  to  all  the  places  within  the  Bills  of  Mortality, 
we  find  clauses  re-enacted,  specifically  enforcing  the  obhgation 
of  the  householder,  and  providing  for  the  offices  of  Scavenger  and 
Raker.  In  1721,  when  London  was  in  fear  of  the  plague,  the 
committee  appointed  by  the  Middlesex  Quarter  Sessions  dis- 
tributed among  householders  printed  copies  of  these  clauses, 
imposing  penalties  for  "  not  .  .  .  sweeping  up  the  dirt,  as  well 
as  upon  the  Rakers  and  Scavengers  for  not  taking  it  away,  and 
also  for  not  cleaning  and  carrying  away  the  filth  and  soil  from 
the  several  markets.  Yet  experience  has  shewed,"  conclude  the 
justices  sadly,  "  that  all  these  steps  have  not  had  the  good  effect 
which  might  have  been  expected  of  them."  ^  Householders  con- 
tinued to  defile  the  streets  and  to  neglect  altogether  to  sweep 
their  pavements,  whilst  the  Rakers  not  only  left  whole  streets 
unvisited,  but,  by  their  use  of  common  carts  without  covers, 
often  made  matters  worse  than  before.  This,  declared  Jonas 
Hanway,  in  1754,  "  is  surely  one  of  the  greatest  absm'dities  that 
ever  prevailed  in  the  pohce  of  a  civifised  state  ;  for  the  Rakers 

1  2  William  and  Mary,  sess.  2,  c.  8  (1691). 

2  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Nuisances,  MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions, 
Middlesex,  12th  October  1721. 


324  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

not  only  drop  near  a  quarter  part  of  their  dirt,  and  render  a 
whole  street,  perhaps  already  cleansed,  in  many  spots  very 
filthy,  but  it  subjects  every  coach  and  every  passenger,  of  what 
quality  whatsoever,  to  be  overwhelmed  with  whole  cakes  of  dirt 
at  every  accidental  jolt  of  the  cart ;  of  which  many  have  had  a 
most  filthy  experience."  ^  In  despair  of  getting  any  improve- 
ment in  cleanhness  from  the  various  parochial  authorities,  it  was 
proposed,  in  1752,  "  that  the  cleansing  of  "  the  entire  Metro- 
politan area  "  should  be  put  under  one  uniform  public  manage- 
ment, and  all  the  filth  be  carried  into  lighters,  and  conveyed  by 
the  Thames  to  proper  distances  in  the  country."  ^  This  was, 
however,  far  too  large  a  piece  of  construction  for  the  amateur 
reformers  in  the  House  of  Commons,  to  whom  the  Ministry 
afforded  no  assistance  ;  and  nothing  more  was  accomplished 
than  the  insertion  of  the  word  "  cleansing  "  in  the  list  of  street 
functions  entrusted,  as  we  have  described,  in  1761  to  the  West- 
minster Paving  Commissioners.  These  Commissioners  were, 
however,  during  the  brief  period  of  their  activity,  wholly  absorbed 
in  the  primary  duty  of  equipping  the  Metropolis  with  the  new 
pavement  to  which  we  have  already  referred  ;  and  we  hear 
nothing  of  any  action  by  them  for  cleansing  the  streets.  Within 
a  few  years,  as  we  have  already  mentioned,  the  various  Vestries 
obtained  their  own  Local  Acts,  virtually  excepting  their  several 
parishes  from  the  executive  jurisdiction  of  the  Commissioners. 
It  was  therefore  to  the  Vestries,  and  to  the  other  bodies  of 
Trustees  or  Commissioners  under  Local  Acts  for  special  areas, 
and  to  these  alone,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Westminster,  as  of  the 
other  parts  of  the  Metropolitan  area  outside  the  City,  could, 
right  down  to  1855,  look  for  any  cleansing  of  their  streets. 

The  outlying  parishes  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Bills  of 
Mortality  had  even  less  organised  provision  for  cleansing  their 
streets  than  the  City  of  London  and  the  parishes  of  Westminster. 
In  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  such  incipient  urban 
districts  as  Kensington,  Marylebone,  and  Bethnal  Green  had  no 
other  organisation  for  the  management  of  their  streets  than  that 
of  a  rural  parish.  Except  where  a  road  was  under  a  Turnpike 
Trust,  it  was  left  to  the  direction  of  the  unpaid  Surveyor  of  High- 

^  A  Letter  to  Mr.  John  Spranger,  by  Jonas  Hanway,  17r)4,  p.  37. 
-  Observations  on  the  Past  Growth  and  Present  Slate  of  the  City  of  London, 
bv  Corbjni  Morris,  17.')2,  n.  24 


"BELL,  HORN  OR  CLAPPER"  325 

ways,  using  the  Statute  Labour  of  the  inhabitants.  Occasionally, 
as  we  infer,  there  would  arise  a  voluntary  combination  to  get 
the  household  refuse  removed.  "  Though  there  be  no  scaveng- 
ing," we  are  told  of  Marylebone  in  1756  (which  had  then  about 
5000  inhabitants  in  577  houses),  "  yet  the  person  that  carries 
away  the  ashes  receives  by  a  voluntary  contribution  about  £50 
per  annum."  ^  Gradually,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  various 
districts  of  the  Metropolis  outside  the  City  obtained  Local  Acts 
—sometimes  applying  to  whole  parishes,  sometimes  only  to 
particular  squares,  or  the  streets  on  a  particular  landowner's 
estate— giving  new  powers  of  government,  either  to  the  Vestries 
or  to  special  bodies  of  Trustees  or  Commissioners  ;  and  in  the 
matter  of  cleansing,  in  particular,  extending  to  these  areas 
practically  the  same  legal  machinery  as  that  prevailing  in  the 
City  of  London — expressly  enforcing,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
obhgation  of  the  householder  to  cleanse  the  footway  in  front  of 
his  tenement ;  ^  and  in  the  other,  enabling  the  Vestry  or  other 
body  to  appoint  or  contract  with  one  or  more  "rakers  or  cleansers  " 
to  sweep  the  carriage-ways  and  remove  both  dirt  and  household 
refuse,  by  carts  perambulating  the  streets,  with  "  bell,  horn  or 
clapper,  or  otherwise  by  a  loud  noise  or  cry,"  giving  notice  to 
the  householders  "  to  bring  forth  to  the  doors  of  their  respective 
houses  their  soil,  ashes,  rubbish,  dirt,  dust  and  filth."  ^ 

Under  this  system  powerful  Vestries  like  Marylebone  managed 
to  clear  their  streets  of  the  heaps  of  dung  and  refuse,  and  to 
keep  the  footways  in  a  tolerable  state  for  pedestrians.  But 
among  the  couple  of  hundred  separate  authorities  ^  to  whom  the 
cleansing  of  the  Metropohtan  streets  was  entrusted,  there  existed, 
it  is  clear,  every  variety  of  neglect  and  incompetence.     In  the 

^  History  of  London,  by  W.  Haitian d,  1756,  vol.  ii.  p.  1373. 

*  Thus,  by  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  parochial  Local  Acts  in  the  Metro- 
politan area,  the  inhabitants  of  Bethnal  Green  were,  in  1750,  expressly  required 
to  sweep  and  cleanse  the  pavement  in  front  of  their  tenements  every  Tuesday 
and  Friday,  between  the  hours  of  7  and  10  in  the  morning  or  2  and  5  in  the 
afternoon,  under  penalty  of  five  shillings  fine  (24  George  I.  c.  26  ;  Bethnal 
Green  Cleansing,  Lighting  and  Watching  Act,  1750).  The  inhabitants  of  New 
Gravel  Lane  and  Shadwell  were  required  to  sweep  and  clean  the  footpaths 
every  morning  (15  George  III.  c.  54  ;  New  Gravel  Lane  and  Shadwell  Act,  1774). 

3  15  George  III.  c.  15  ;  St.  George's  in  the  East  Poor,  etc.,  Act,  1774. 

*  Including  (a)  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers  and  the  25  Ward  Motes  and 
Ward  Councils  of  the  City  of  London,  (6)  the  Open  or  Select  Vestries  of  the  three 
or  four  score  parishes  outside  the  City,  (c)  the  four  or  five  score  of  Paving 
Boards  (already  described  by  us  as  Improvement  Commissioners)  established 
by  Local  Acts,  and  {d)  a  score  or  two  of  separate  Turnpike  Trusts. 


326  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

manuscript  minutes  of  these  Vestries  or  Commissioners  during 
the  ensuing  three-quarters  of  a  century,  we  watch  their  continual 
difficulties  over  this  service — the  inveterate  neglect  of  the  house- 
holders to  perform  their  share  of  the  duty  of  cleansing  and  the 
complete  failure  of  the  public  authority  to  enforce  this  obhgation, 
the  careless  and  unscientific  agreements  made  with  the  new  race 
of  contractors  who  came  forward  as  Scavengers  and  Rakers,  the 
constant  failure  of  these  to  carry  out  their  contracts  with  any 
strictness,  and  the  perpetual  conflict  in  the  minds  of  the  Vestry- 
men between  the  desirability  of  clean  streets  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  pecuniary  saving  to  the  parish  on  the  other,  of  accepting 
the  very  lowest  tender  at  which  they  could  get  some  one  to  agree 
to  make  any  pretence  at  performance  of  the  loosely  defined 
service.  The  general  standard  of  cleanhness  remained  scandal- 
ously low,  even  in  the  most  important  thoroughfares.  Between 
1798  and  1801,  for  instance,  when  the  Paving  Committee  of  St. 
Margaret  and  St.  John,  Westminster,  insisted  on  retaining  a 
certain  Scavenger  who  took  the  contract  cheaper  than  any  other, 
the  complaints  of  the  inhabitants  at  his  neglect  to  discharge  his 
duties  are  loud  and  incessant,  culminating,  perhaps,  in  April 
1799,  in  the  following  petition  from  the  combined  householders 
of  Parhament  Street,  at  the  very  entrance  of  the  House  of 
Commons.  "  The  inhabitants  of  the  said  street  would  be  obliged 
to  the  Committee  to  give  orders  to  the  Scavenger  to  immediately 
cleanse  the  said  street,  and  in  future  to  attend  thereto,  it  having 
been  most  shamefully  neglected,  and  was  become  one  of  the 
filthiest  streets  in  London  ;  that  it  had  not  been  cleaned  all  over 
since  S  Nov.  last,  except  the  kennels  cleared,  and  the  mud  then 
left  in  such  heaps  as  to  be  a  greater  nuisance  than  could  be 
submitted  to."  Even  the  requirements  of  the  local  authorities 
were  amazingly  small.  Thus,  the  Hans  Town  (Chelsea)  Street 
Commissioners  only  required  "  the  upper  end  of  Sloane  Street 
...  to  be  cleansed  at  least  eight  times,  Sloane  Street  and  the 
several  other  streets  and  places  ...  at  least  six  times  within  the 
year  "  ;  and  to  remove  the  dust  and  ashes  of  the  householders 
only  when  specifically  required  to  do  so.^  If  this  was  the  state 
of  things  in  such  thoroughfares  as  Parliament  Street  and  Sloane 
Street,  it  may  be  imagined  how  utterly  neglected  and  filthy 
remained  the  minor  streets,  lanes,  courts  and  alleys  in  which 

^  See  advertisement  in  Morning  Advertiser,  25th  February  180G. 


CLEANSING  THE  PROVINCIAL  TOWNS  327 

the  vast  majority  of  Londoners  resided.  "  The  dust  in  dry 
weather,"  writes  a  very  sober  critic  in  1824,  "  is  greatly  annoying 
and  highly  injurious  to  goods  and  furniture,  to  say  nothing  of 
personal  feeling  and  annoyance  in  having  the  eyes  blinded  and 
the  mouth  choked  therewith.  And  no  sooner  is  there  a  wet  day 
than  the  streets  become  ponds  of  mud.  By  the  time  the  accumu- 
lation is  almost  intolerable,  the  Scavenger  commences  the  annoy- 
ance of  sweeping  and  scraping  it  into  his  carts,  and  splashing  and 
bespattering  every  passer-by  not  prudent  enough  to  cross  out  of 
his  way,  and  content  to  be  covered  over  the  ankles  with  mud 
rather  than  over  neck  and  ears."  ^ 

The  story  of  street  cleansing  in  the  Enghsh  provincial  towns 
has  been  even  less  carefully  recorded  than  that  in  the  Metropolis, 
but  such  information  as  we  possess  indicates  that  the  various 
towns  went  through  much  the  same  development  as  that  we 
have  described,  marked  by  a  diversity  in  the  dates  of  the  several 
stages  at  least  equal  to  that  shown  by  the  different  districts  of 
the  Metropohs,  but  exhibiting  always  the  same  gradual  trans- 
formation of  the  householder's  individual  obhgation  into  a 
collective  service.  Thus  in  the  small  Municipal  Corporations  of 
Louth  and  Rochester  in  the  seventeenth  century,  as  in  that  of 
Coventry  in  the  fifteenth  century,  we  find  the  individual  house- 
holder expressly  obliged  by  municipal  byelaw,  enforced  by  sub- 
stantial fines,  not  merely  to  sweep  the  whole  width  of  the  street 
and  clear  out  the  kennels  every  week,  but  also  "  to  carry  the  dirt 
away  before  twelve  of  the  clock  at  night."  2    A  further  stage  had 

^  Observations  on  the  Defective  Slate  of  the  Pavement  of  the  Metropolis,  by 
William  Deykes,  1824,  p.  8.  Street  cleansing  was  not  omitted  from  Michael 
Angolo  Taylor's  Act  of  1817,  which  contained  clauses  giving  to  all  paving 
authorities  within  the  Metropolis,  irrespective  of  their  Local  Acts,  power  to 
cleanse  the  streets,  to  contract  with  "  scavengers,  rakers  or  cleansers,"  to 
appoint  inspectors  of  street  cleansing,  and  to  dispose  of  the  refuse.  The  con- 
tractors were  required  under  penalty  to  take  their  carts  through  every  street, 
and  to  give  notice  to  the  inhabitants  in  every  narrow  passage  ;  to  accept  and 
remove  all  soil,  ashes,  cinders,  rubbish,  dust,  dirt  and  filth  without  charge  to 
the  inhabitants  ;  and  to  accept  and  remove  at  the  householder's  cost  all  build- 
ing rubbish,  and  all  earth,  soil  or  rubbish  produced  by  cleansing  or  repairing 
sewers  or  drams.     But  the  Act  made  no  change  in  the  organisation. 

^  The  Corporation  of  Coventry,  in  1419  and  1423,  ordered  every  house- 
holder, not  only  to  repair  but  also  to  cleanse  the  pavement  in  front  of  his  tene- 
ment [History  of  Coventry,  by  B.  Poole,  1870;  p.  343).  The  "  Burrough  Lawes  " 
of  1640  of  Louth  in  Lincolnshire  include  the  following  clause  :  "  Item,  it  is 
ordered  that  every  person  or  persons  farming,  using  or  occupying  any  houses 
or  grounds  adjoining  to  any  street  or  common  way  within  the  said  town  shall 
weekly  upon  Saturday  cause  the  cawsey  or  pavement  of  the  said  street  or 


328  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

been  reached,  already  in  mediaeval  times,  by  such  towns  as 
Southampton,  which  had  supplemented  the  exertions  of  the 
individual  citizens  in  sweeping  the  streets,  by  the  appointment  of 
one  or  more  public  scavengers,  paid  either  by  the  several  house- 
holders or  out  of  corporate  funds,  to  carry  away  the  ashes  and 
refuse.!  Outside  the  range  of  the  byelaws  of  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions, we  do  not  find  that  any  provision  was  made  for  street 
cleansing  prior  to  the  eighteenth  century.  In  1716  one  of  the 
innumerable  Highway  Acts  empowered  Justices  of  the  Peace  in 
Quarter  Sessions  "  in  cities  and  market  towns,  not  having 
already  particular  provision  made  for  them  therein  by  any 
former  law,"  to  appoint  one  or  more  scavengers  for  cleansing 
the  streets,  to  give  directions  for  their  repair,  and  to  authorise  a 
sixpenny  rate  for  these  purposes.^  Whether  this  Act  was 
intended  to  apply  to  any  but  towns  having  their  own  Courts  of 
Quarter  Sessions  is  not  clear  ;  but  in  the  County  records  of  West 
Kent  and  Suffolk  we  come  across  isolated  instances  of  the  power 
being  exercised  by  the  County  Justices,  for  the  benefit  of  such 
unincorporated  market  towns  as  East  Greenwich,  Hadleigh  and 
Bungay,^  and  there  may  well  have  been  others.     It  was  probably 

common  way  against  his,  her  or  their  house,  houses  or  ground  to  be  well  and 
suflSciently  swept  and  made  clean,  and  the  filth  and  dung  carried  awa}-,  upon 
pain  of  every  one  offendmg  for  each  offence  sixpence  "  (Louth  Old  Corporation 
Records,  by  R.  W.  Goulding,  1891,  p.  30).  The  Byelaws  of  Rochester,  in  Kent, 
as  codified  in  1673,  require  that  "  the  inhabitants,  as  well  within  the  high 
streets  of  the  city  as  in  the  lanes  and  passages,'  shall  every  Saturday  in  the 
afternoon  and  at  any  other  time  when  required  by  the  Mayor  or  his  Deputy, 
or  by  hia  order,  clean  the  pavement  before  their  houses,  and  the  kennels  there- 
unto adjoining,  and  carry  the  dirt  away,  before  twelve  of  the  clock  at  night. 
Twelve  pence  forfeit  "  (An  Authentic  Copy  of  the  Charter  and  Byelaws  of  the 
City  of  Rochester,  1809,  p.  35). 

^  By  ancient  custom  at  Southampton  (Hampshire)  every  householder  paid 
"  scavage  money,"  a  fixed  due  collected  in  each  ward  by  two  persons  chosen 
at  the  Court  Leet,  who  also  directed  the  Town  Scavengers  in  their  work 
(History  of  Soulhampton,  by  J.  S.  Davies,  1883,  j).  124).  There  was  also  appointed 
in  1654  by  the  Court  Tx>et  a  Town  Chimney-sweep,  bound  and  entitled  to 
sweep  all  chimneys  at  fourpence  each,  but  also  paid  a  j)cnny  a  year  by  each 
householder  "  as  is  used  in  manj'^  other  cities  and  towns,  called  bj'  the  name  of 
a  Smoke  Penny  "  (Court  Leet  Minutes  of  1654  ;  ibid.). 

2  1  George  I.  c.  52.  (The  first  session  of  George  I.  lasted  from  1st  August 
1714  to  26th  Juno  1716,  and  this  was  one  of  its  latest  statutes.)  An  error  in 
drafting  was  corrected  by  9  George  II.  c.  18  (1735).  Exactly  similar  powers 
were  granted  to  the  justices  of  the  municipal  borough  of  Beverley  "  at  their 
general  Quarter  Sessions."  by  the  Local  Act,  13  George  I.  c.  4  (the  Beverlej' 
Beck  Act,  1726). 

*  Thus  we  have  found  an  order  of  the  West  Kent  Quarter  Sessions  of  1 738, 
reciting  a  petition  from  the  inhabitants  of  East  Greenwich  ;    appointing,  ex- 


WOOLWICH  329 

in  connection  with  an  appointment  under  this  Act  that  the 
energetic  Vestry  of  Woolwich  in  1717,  having  lately  paved  the 
streets  at  considerable  expense,  ordered  "  the  present  Scavenger 
and  the  Scavenger  for  the  time  being  .  .  .  twice  every  week 
throughout  the  whole  year  .  .  .  (to)  go  through  the  said  town 
and  streets  thereof  with  horse  and  cart,"  in  order  to  receive 
"  all  the  sand  and  ashes  "  "  brought  out  of  their  houses  by  the 
inhabitants  for  this  purpose."  ^ 

We  suspect,  however,  that  any  collective  organisation  for 
cleansing  the  streets  and  disposing  of  household  refuse  remained 
quite  exceptional,  either  in  the  ancient  corporate  towns  or  in 
the  growing  villages,  until  the  passing,  for  one  place  after  another, 
of  those  Local  Acts  to  which  we  have  so  often  had  to  refer,  and 
which  became  so  prominent  a  feature  of  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  The  cleansing  clauses  of  these  Acts  obtained 
by  provincial  towns  do  not  essentially  differ  from  those  granted 
to  the  Metropolitan  authorities.  They  show  the  same  three 
stages  of  development — the  enforcement  of  the  householder's 
obligation  to  "  scrape,  sweep  and  cleanse  "  the  pavement  and 
individually  remove  the  dirt  and  refuse  ;  ^   the  appointment  of 

pressly  in  pursuance  of  the  statutes  of  1716  and  1735,  a  local  brewer  and  a 
local  publican,  "  to  be  Scavengers  for  cleansing  and  repairing  all  the  streets 
within  the  said  town,"  for  a  year  ;  and  making  a  rate  of  three  half  pence  in 
the  pound  on  all  owners  of  houses,  etc.,  to  be  collected  by  three  named  shop- 
keepers who  are  to  account  to  any  two  Justices  (MS.  Order,  4th  October  1738, 
in  county  archives,  Kent  Quarter  Sessions).  In  the  Minutes  of  the  Suffolk 
Quarter  Sessions  we  find  other  cases.  In  1765  "  this  Court  doth  nominate 
and  appoint  R.  F.  and  R.  P.  of  Hadleigh  to  be  Scavengers  of  the  said  Parish  of 
Hadleigh  for  the  year  ensuing,  and  doth  direct  them  from  time  to  time  to 
remove  the  dirt  and  filth  out  of  the  streets,  and  to  sell  or  otherwise  dispose 
of  the  same  as  to  them  shall  seem  meet  "  (MS.  Minutes  Quarter  Sessions, 
Suffolk,  21st  January  1765).  So,  in  1767,  "  this  Court  doth  empower  the 
Scavengers  of  the  Divisions  of  Bungay,  Boyscot  and  Bungay-Burgh,  in  the 
town  of  Bungay,  to  make  a  rate  of  6d.  in  the  pound  for  .  .  .  repairing  and 
cleansing  the  streets  "  {ibid.  27th  April  1767). 

1  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  Woolwich,  25th  October  1717. 

*  When,  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century,  town  after  town  obtained 
statutory  powers  of  enforcing  the  householder's  customary  obligation  to  cleanse 
the  pavement,  this  was  (differing  from  the  City  of  London)  defined  as  extending 
to  the  middle  of  the  street,  and  often  also  as  to  frequency.  Thus  at  Beverley 
(East  Riding  of  Yorkshire),  where  the  need  for  keeping  clear  the  creek  or  haven 
of  the  town  had  led,  as  early  as  1726,  to  a  Local  Act,  the  obligation  on  the 
householders  to  "  clean  so  much  of  the  .  .  .  streets,  lanes  and  public  places 
...  as  lie  contiguous  to  and  fronting  their  respective  houses  .  .  .  between 
the  same  and  the  middle  of  the  streets,"  had  been,  by  that  statute,  still  left 
resting  only  on  "  the  ancient  usage  and  custom  of  the  said  town,"  and  it  was 
found  impossible  to  get  the  work  satisfactorily  done.     Hence;  in  1745,  the 


330  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

public  "  rakers,  scavengers  or  cleansers  "  to  carry  away  the  dirt 
and  refuse  which  had  been  "  conveniently  heaped  "  for  them  by 
the  householders  ;  and  the  final  hmitation  of  the  householder's 
obligation  to  sweep  only  the  footway.^  In  the  administration  of 
these  clauses  by  the  provincial  towns  w^e  find  exactly  the  same 
features  as  in  the  Metropolis — the  same  practical  inability  to 
enforce  the  performance  of  his  duty  to  the  individual  house- 
holder,2  consequently  the  same  unswept  streets  and  imcleared 

justices  of  the  peace  for  the  borough  obtained  power  in  a  new  Act  (18  George  II. 
c.  13)  to  require  the  inhabitants,  by  summons  of  the  public  bellman,  to  cleanse 
their  streets  clown  to  the  central  denter  stone,  under  penalty  of  having  the 
work  done  at  the  defaulter's  expense.  When  the  ncighbourmg  borough  of 
Hull,  ten  years  later,  found  it  necessary  to  enforce  by  Act  the  householder's 
jjaving  obligation,  a  similar  clause  to  that  of  Beverley  as  to  cleansing  was 
also  enacted  (28  George  II.  c.  27,  sec.  20,  of  Hull  Paving  Act,  1755).  Sub- 
sequently Local  Streets  Acts  for  different  towns  enacted  a  similar  obligation 
to  cleanse  the  pavement  with  various  degrees  of  particularity.  At  Nottingham 
in  1762,  by  a  Lighting  Act  copied  by  Coventry,  the  obligation  to  cleanse  down 
to  the  central  gutter  was  definitely  imposed,  but  the  frequency  left  undefined 
{History  of  Coventry,  by  B.  Poole,  1870,  pp.  343-345).  By  the  Manchester  and 
Salford  Act  of  1765  every  frontager  was  to  sweep  down  to  the  middle  of  the 
street  twice  a  week  (5  George  III.  c.  81  ;  see  the  contemporary  print.  An  Act 
for  demising  and  Lighting  .  .  .  Manchester  and  Salford,  etc.,  1765).  Birming- 
ham was  content  to  make  the  duty  a  weekly  one,  to  be  performed  every  Friday 
(9  George  III.  c.  83,  Birmingham  Lighting,  etc.,  Act,  1769  ;  History  of  Birming- 
ham, by  William  Hutton).  At  Plymouth,  too,  the  duty  was  a  weekly  one,  to 
be  discharged  every  Friday,  between  six  and  two  o'clock  (10  George  III.  c.  14, 
Plymouth  Paving,  Lighting  and  Vv^atching  Act,  1770).  At  Wakefield  the  day 
appointed  was  Saturday,  at  any  time  between  6  a.m.  and  6  p.m.  (11  George  III. 
c.  44,  Wakefield  Paving  and  Cleansing  Act,  1771). 

^  21  George  III.  c.  36,  Devizes  Streets  Act,  1780,  requires  persons  "  to 
sweep,  scrape  and  cleanse  the  footways  before  their  respective  houses  .  .  .  not 
less  than  eight  feet  from  the  same,"  on  Wednesday  and  Saturday  in  ever}' 
week.  At  Pontefract  in  1810  the  obligation  was  daily  to  sweep  the  foot 
pavements  and  also  the  gutter  or  channel  of  the  carriage-way  (50  George  111. 
c.  40,  Pontefract  Streets  Act,  1810).  At  Bishopwearmouth,  Sunderland  and 
many  other  places,  the  foot  ijavement  only  was  mentioned,  and  the  cleaning 
is  to  take  place  three  times  a  week  (50  George  III.  c.  25,  Bishop  Wearmouth 
Streets  Act,  1810  ;  ibid.  c.  27,  Sunderland  Streets  Act,  1810).  Hastings,  in 
1820,  required  the  occupier  to  sweep  the  footpath  or  pavement,  and  to  collect 
together  the  soil  and  dirt  therefrom,  so  as  not  to  obstruct  either  the  carriagc- 
or  footways,  or  the  channels  or  water  courses,  in  order  that  the  same  may  be 
removed  by  the  public  scavenger  (1  George  IV.  c.  12,  Hastings  Streets  Act, 
1820).  The  Leeds  Commissioners  in  1838  order  the  occupiers  to  sweep  the 
causeways  or  foot  pavements  daily  before  9  a.m.  (MS.  Minutes,  Improvement 
Commissioners,  Leeds,  5th  Decemlicr  1838). 

-  It  is  the  rarest  thing  to  find  any  mention  of  householders  being  actual!}- 
proceeded  against  for  neglect  to  sweej)  the  pavement.  "  Last  week  at  Man- 
cliester,"  says  a  Bristol  journal  of  1786,  "  seventy  persons  were  fined,  and 
paid  tlie  penalty  of  five  shillings  each,  for  neglecting  to  have  the  streets  swept 
daily  before  their  houses,  agreeably  to  an  Act  of  Parliament.  As  our  magis- 
trates (at  Bristol)  are  about  preparing  a  bill  for  regulating  the  police  of  this 


fl 


LIVERPOOL  331 

kennels,  the  same  interminable  series  of  difficulties  with  the 
contracting  rakers  or  cleansers,  and  the  same  resulting  condition 
of  disorder  and  neglect.  The  disastrous  division  of  responsi- 
biUty  between  the  householder  and  the  raker — the  separation  of 
the  task  of  sweeping  up  from  that  of  carrying  away — led  every- 
where to  the  continuous  presence  of  the  "  heaps  of  dirt "  which 
seemed  to  contemporaries  an  inevitable  incident  of  the  street. 
Sometimes  the  rakers,  who  were  now  often  known  as  public 
scavengers,  had  to  collect  twice  a  week,  sometimes  once  a  week, 
and  sometimes  only  when  required  to  do  so  by  the  local  authority. 
But  the  heaps  remained  a  constant  feature  of  the  street  long  after 
the  duty  of  sweeping  up  the  carriage-way  had  been  united  with 
that  of  carrying  away  the  dirt  and  refuse.  ^  Thus  at  Liverpool  in 
1797,  where  a  contemporary  critic  admits  that  the  carriage-Vi^ays 
were  "  generally  well  cleansed  "  by  the  Town  Scavengers,  "  who 
are  regular  and  dihgent  in  their  duty,  but  in  the  execution  of 
their  business  while  they  remove  one  evil  they  never  fail  to 
create  a  greater  ;  the  soil,  instead  of  being  immediately  carried 
away  as  in  London  and  other  places,  is  raked  into  heaps  about 
twelve  feet  by  eight,  and  two  feet  deep.  These  cloacinian 
repositories  are  common  in  every  part  of  the  town,  and  remain 
eight  or  ten  days,  and  sometimes  longer,  before  they  are  carted 
away,  whereby  passengers  in  a  dark  night,  and  often  in  the  day, 
tread  in  them  to  the  midleg,  and  children  are  sometimes  nearly 
suffocated  by  falhng  into  them."  ^     Thirty  years  later  the  same 

city,  a  correspondent  submits  it  to  their  consideration  whether  the  insertion 
of  a  clause  in  it,  for  enforcing  so  wholesome  and  decent  a  practice,  is  not  highly 
necessary  "  {Bristol  Gazette,  9th  November  1786).  Three  years  later  the  same 
journal  vamly  calls  on  the  Justices  to  enforce  the  new  Local  Act  in  this  respect. 
"  Were  the  magistrates  to  levy  the  fine  a  few  times  in  the  winter  months,  it 
would  awaken  the  attention  of  some  of  the  inhabitants  "  {ibid.  3rd  December 
1789).  At  Liverpool  in  1797,  in  spite  of  repeated  Local  Acts,  it  was  observed 
that  "  the  footpaths  are  generally  very  dirty,  the  pebbles  gathering  mud  in 
their  interstices,  and  as  the  custom  is  not  general  of  sweeping  daily  before  the 
houses,  it  soon  becomes  a  clammy  dirt,  which  adheres  to  the  feet  of  tlie  passenger 
and  is  carried  into  the  public  shops  "  {General  Description  of  the  History  of 
Liverpool,  1797,  p.  274). 

^  At  Plymouth  power  was  given  in  1772  to  compound  with  the  individual 
frontagers  for  their  obligation  to  cleanse  the  pavements  (12  George  III.  c.  8, 
Plymouth  Paving  Act,  1771).  So  at  Wakefield  it  was  provided  in  1770  that 
the  Street  Commissioners  might  compound  "for  the  sweeping  and  cleansing 
to  be  done  by  such  inhabitants  .  .  .  provided  such  composition  money  be  always 
paid  down  m  advance  "  (11  George  III.  c.  44,  Wakefield  Streets  Act,  1770). 

2  General  Description  of  the  History  of  Liverpool,  1797,  p.  274 ;  see  Memorials 
of  Liverpool,  by  Sir  J.  A.  Picton,  1875,  vol.  i.  pp.  275-276. 


332  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

practice  still  prevailed.  The  Scavengers,  complains  a  corre- 
spondent in  1828,  rake  up  the  mud  "  into  the  channels  in  great 
quantities,"  where  they  leave  it  for  several  days,  "  whereby  the 
water  courses  are  completely  stopped  up,  and  several  respectable 
persons  have,  during  the  last  week,  been  almost  up  to  their 
knees,  especially  in  the  night  time."  ^  But  Liverpool  was,  in 
respect  of  cleansing  its  streets,  not  worse  than  other  towns. 
Here  is  a  glimpse  of  Chester  in  1825.  "  For  weeks  past  not  a 
besom  has  been  employed  in  this  populous  thoroughfare  till 
Friday  last,  and  then,  forsooth,  an  old  invahded  man  and  a 
solitary  female  were  employed  on  that  long  Hne  of  road.  Nor 
is  this  all.  From  Friday  to  yesterday  the  accumulated  heaps  of 
mud  .  .  .  were  suffered  to  remain  without  being  carted  away, 
to  the  serious  annoyance  of  neighbours  and  passengers."  ^  We 
conclude  this  vision  of  the  heaps  of  dirt  and  filth  by  the  following 
satirical  complaint  to  the  Manchester  Times  of  1828.  "  I  shall 
be  glad  to  be  informed  .  .  .  what  course  I  must  pursue  to  find 
a  firkin  of  butter  which  my  carter  says  fell  off  his  cart  between 
Nos.  2  and  24  in  Neverswept  Street,  Manchester.  He  says  he 
saw  it  drop  on  the  sludge,  but  being  obliged  by  the  law  to 
attend  to  his  team  on  the  one  hand,  and  being  afraid  that,  if 
he  stopped,  his  cart  would  run  a  risk  of  sinking  in  the  mire 
on  the  other,  he  drove  to  the  end  of  the  street,  and,  on  his 
return,  found  to  his  great  grief  that  the  firkin  had  sunk  to 
rise  no  more  !  "  ^ 

This  account  of  practical  failures  in  street  cleansing  must  not, 
however,  be  allowed  to  obscure  the  fact  that,  alike  in  the  Metro- 

^  Liverpool  Mercury,  15th  February  1828.  These  contemporary  records 
hear  out  Picton's  subsequent  reminiscences  of  Liverpool  during  the  first  quarter 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  "There  were  Scavengers  to  clean  the  streets.  The 
way  in  which  they  worked  was  to  sweep  the  mud  into  long  j)arallelograms  here 
and  there,  about  a  foot  deep,  which  were  left  for  days  until  carts  cauld  be  got 
to  fetch  it  away.  These  heaps  were  called  Corporation  beds,  from  the  notion 
that  they  were  sometimes  used  as  places  of  repose  by  the  guests  returning 
from  the  Corporation  feasts  "  (Sir  J.  A.  Picton,  by  J.  Allanson  Picton,  1891, 
]).  19).  Nor  did  things  improve.  In  1835  the  local  newspaper  denounces  "  the 
filthy  state  of  the  streets  in  almost  every  quarter  of  the  town,"  which  are 
declared  to  be  "  in  a  far  more  filthy  and  dirty  state  this  winter  "  than  ever 
within  living  memory.  "  Why,"  asks  a  correspondent,  "  are  we  charged  for 
Scavengers  ?  They  do  little  or  nothing,  and  have  sinecures.  Sometimes  you 
see  a  great  number  in  one  spot  near  the  docks,  in  each  other's  way,  idle  and 
staring  about  them  "  {Liverpool  Mercury,  (>th  February  1835). 

"  Chester  Coiirant,  15th  March  1825. 

'  Quoted  in  Liverpool  Mercury,  26th  December  1828. 


I 


THE  PRACTICE  OF  MANURING  LAND  333 

poKs  and  in  the  larger  provincial  towns,  the  first  thirty  years  of 
the  nineteenth  century  witnessed  a  notable  advance  in  the 
freedom  from  obstructive  filth  of  the  principal  thoroughfares. 
This  advance  was  due,  in  part,  to  the  rise  to  power,  in  the  repre- 
sentative Vestries  and  in  the  new  bodies  of  Improvement  Com- 
missioners, of  the  well-to-do  shopkeeping  and  manufacturing 
class,  permanently  residing  in  the  towns,  and  constantly  travers- 
ing the  streets  on  foot.  It  was  brought  about  largely  by  the 
elaboration  of  a  detailed  municipal  code  for  the  Suppression  of 
Nuisances,  which  we  shall  describe  in  another  volume.  But 
part  of  the  progress  was  the  result  of  more  extensive  and  more 
efficient  municipal  enterprise  in  the  direction  of  scavenging.  To 
this  increased  activity  there  contributed  two  adventitious  con- 
temporary circumstances— the  growing  demand  for  and  increased 
value  of  ashes  and  manure  between  about  1790  and  1830,  and  the 
desire  to  find  some  employment  for  the  multitude  of  paupers 
which  the  Old  Poor  Law  in  these  years  was  producing. 

Until  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century,  both  the 
practice  of  manuring  land  and  the  value  of  animal  excreta  for 
this  purpose  appear  to  have  been  practically  unknown  to  many, 
and  perhaps  to  the  majority  of  EngUsh  farmers.  Arthur  Young, 
in  his  tours,  between  1767  and  1780,  records  his  amazement  at 
the  neglect  of  farmers  in  all  parts  of  the  country  to  take  advan- 
tage of  opportunities  already  known  to  every  agricultural  expert. 
"  There  is  no  town  in  the  kingdom  of  any  size,"  he  exclaims 
with  eager  enthusiasm,  "  but  what  yields  a  considerable  quantity 
of  manure  annually — ashes  of  wood  and  coal,  horse-dung,  the 
cleaning  of  streets,  the  riddance  of  privies,  poultry  and  hog 
dung,  shambles  offal,  foot  and  a  variety  of  other  manures."  ^ 
Yet  this  was  nearly  everywhere  going  to  waste.  At  Lynn,  in 
Norfolk,  for  instance,  within  easy  reach  of  the  Holkham  experi- 
ments, he  saw  the  town  dung,  in  1767,  simply  piled  in  a  heap  on 
the  seashore.2  Similar  heaps  were  to  be  seen  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  Metropohs  and  of  other  large  towns.     But  at  some 

1  A  Six  Weeks'  Tour  through  the  Southern  Counties,  by  Arthur  Young,  3rd 
edition,  1772,  p.  293. 

-  "At  one  place,  which  is  called  the  Fort,  is  a  heap  of  exceeding  rich 
manure" — the  accumulated  human  excreta  of  the  town — "which  suffers  no 
other  decrease  than  what  high  spring  tides  occasion  in  washing  part  of  it  away  ; 
and  it  is  all  brought  here  in  carts  at  the  expense  of  the  inhabitants  "  [ibid. 
pp.  32,  292). 


334  'J^iil^  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

date  between  1750  and  1780,  according  to  local  knowledge  and 
local  circumstances,  the  value  of  town  manure  began,  in  one 
place  after  another,  rapidly  to  rise.  Already  in  1770,  the 
facilities  for  water-carriage  and  the  enterprise  of  a  local  innovator 
had  made  the  excreta  of  Hull  into  a  valuable  property.  "  All 
sorts  of  manure,"  says  Arthur  Young,  "  are  bought  at  high 
prices  at  Hull,  and  carried  nine  or  ten  miles  round.  .  .  .  About 
fifty  years  ago  the  manuring  from  Hull  was  begun  by  a  poor  man 
who  hired  a  close  of  grass  ;  he  had  four  asses  which  he  employed 
constantly  in  carrying  away  ashes  and  dung,  and  spreading  them. 
upon  his  pasture  .  .  .  whoever  brought  away  manure,  for  many 
years  were  paid  for  taking  it.  Twenty-five  years  ago  it  was  to 
be  had  for  sixpence  to  a  shilling  a  load ;  by  the  country  around 
by  degrees  all  coming  into  the  practice,  the  price  has  arose  to 
its  present  height ;  extraordinary  good  stuff  will  sell  for  five 
shilhngs  a  load."  ^  "  Formerly,  not  half  a  century  ago,"  writes 
Marshall  in  1799,  of  the  Metropohs,  "  inns  and  livery  stables 
paid  the  farmers,  who  brought  them  in  hay  and  straw,  for  taking 
away  their  dung,  or  hired  carts  to  carry  it  away  to  the  outskirts 
of  the  town  ;  where  large  mounds  of  it  remained  but  a  few  years 
ago.  Twenty  years  ago  the  price  in  the  stable  yards  was  only 
a  shiUing  to  eighteen  pence  a  load  ;  and  even  at  this  time,  I 
understand  no  more  than  two  shillings  or  half  a  crown  is  given 
for  a  full  cart  load  of  horse  dung  produced  from  hay  and  corn  of 
the  first  quality."  ^  At  a  somewhat  later  date  other  Idnds  of 
town  refuse  acquired  an  exchange  value.  Means  were  found  to 
utihse  the  waste  products  of  various  manufacturing  industries, 
and  these  soon  ceased,  accordingly,  to  augment  the  town's 
rubbish  heaps.  But  the  most  important  of  these  changes  was 
the  enormous  extension  of  brickmaking,  especially  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  London,  and  the  discovery  that  coal-ashes,  cinders, 
and  generally  town  "  dust  "  were  valuable  ingredients  to  mix 
with  the  clay.  The  huge  "  dust  heaps  "  accunuilated  by  the 
contractors  all  round  the  Metropolis  became  possessions  of  great 
value,  for  which,  it  is  said,  the  demand  was  suddenly  increased 
in  1814—1815  by  their  being  eagerly  bought  up  for  shipment  to 

^  A  Six  Months^  Tour  through  the  North  of  England,  by  Arthur  Young,  2nd 
edition,  1770,  vol.  i.  p.  163. 

-  Minutes,  Exjjeriments,  Observations  and\  General  Remarks  on  Agriculture 
in  the  SoutJiern  Counties,  by  W.  Marshall  (edition  of  1799,  p.  31). 


THE  "GOLDEN  DUSTMAN"  335 

Kussia,  where  the  rebuilding  of  Moscow  was  caUing  for  more 
bricks  than  that  whole  country  could  then  supply.  Thus  it  was 
that  towards  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  pecuniary 
value  of  town  refuse  came  to  exceed  the  cost  of  its  collection  and 
removal,  and  it  looked  as  if  the  service  of  scavenging,  taken  as  a 
whole,  was  destined  to  become  actually  a  source  of  municipal 
revenue.  In  1798  and  1799,  when  the  Paving  Committee  of  St. 
Margaret  and  St.  John,  Westminster,  advertised  for  tenders  for 
cleansing  the  streets  and  removing  the  refuse  of  that  parish,  the 
lowest  tenderers  demanded  £135  and  £150  respectively  for  doing 
the  work.  But  in  1800  one  contractor  agreed  to  pay  the  Com- 
mittee £40  ;  in  1801  another  gave  £150,  and  in  1808  another  as 
much  as  £265  for  the  privilege.^  It  was  held  up  in  1796  as  an 
example  to  Bath,  which  still  paid  for  the  cleaning  of  its  streets, 
that  the  well-administered  parish  of  Marylebone  was  already 
dra\\ang  no  less  than  £1050  a  year  from  the  scavenging  con- 
tractors, who  wilhngly  paid  this  sum  for  the  privilege  of  sweeping 
the  streets  and  collecting  the  street  sweepings  and  household 
ashes.2  So  keen,  indeed,  was  the  competition  for  household 
refuse  in  London  that  Marylebone  in  1803  got  as  much  as  £2350 
from  its  dust  contractor,  who  undertook  to  send  his  carts  round 
all  the  streets,  either  weekly,  fortnightly,  or  monthly,  according 
to  specification,  to  keep  clean  all  the  footways  and  carriage-ways, 
and  even  to  prevent  snow  or  ice  from  blocking  the  drains.^  In 
the  little  town  of  Bradford,  in  Yorkshire,  which  had  got  a  body 
of  Commissioners  in  1803,  the  disposal  of  the  privilege  of  gathering 
up  the  muck  led  at  once  to  petty  jobbery,  the  new  Commissioners 
tumbhng  over  each  other  in  their  eagerness  to  make  a  little 
profit  out  of  the  body  to  which  they  belonged.  One,  we  are 
told,  offered  "  to  sweep  ...  for  the  manure  "  ;  only  to  be 
promptly  outbid  by  two  of  his  colleagues,  "  who  agreed  to  sweep 
.  .  .  twice  a  week  .  .  .  and  pay  the  Commissioners  thirty-six 
shiUings  per  annum  for  the  privilege."  *  In  London  the  united 
parishes  of  St.  Andrew,  Holborn,  and  St.  George  the  Mart3rr  were 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Paving  Committee,  Vestry  of  St.  Margaret  and  St.  John, 
Westminster,  6th  September  1798,  6th  June  1799,  6th  August  1800,  4th  August 
1801,  24th  May  1808. 

-  Letter  in  Gazetteer,  4th  March  1796. 

3  MS.  Vestry  Minutes,  Marylebone,  Ist  March  1800,  19th  February  1803. 

*  Historical  Notes  on  the  Bradford  Corporation,  by  William  Cudworth,  1881, 
p.  50. 


336  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

getting  £780  in  1808  ;  whilst  even  the  httle  Liberty  of  Saffron 
Hill  made  £250.^  From  the  "  street  muck,"  it  was  natural  to 
proceed  to  the  household  excreta  ;  and  Local  Authorities  sought, 
by  Local  Acts,  to  vest  in  themselves  the  ownership  of  all  the 
excreta  and  refuse  of  the  town,  in  order  that  they  might  sell  it 
for  a  high  price.  At  Brighton,  for  instance,  the  Commissioners 
"  let  the  town  soil "  to  contractors,  together  with  the  ashes,  for 
£350,  and  presently  for  £560  a  year,^ 

We  need  not  follow  the  fortunes  of  the  Local  Authorities  in 
their  several  deahngs  with  the  new  race  of  dust  contractors. 
The  greatest  diversity,  it  is  clear,  prevailed  in  the  terms  obtained 
between  place  and  place  and  even  from  year  to  year.^  Presently, 
from  economic  changes  which  we  cannot  here  investigate,  the 
market  value  of  town  refuse  fell  as  rapidly,  and  with  as  much 
diversity  between  place  and  place,  as  it  had  risen.  The  removal 
of  human  excreta  first  became  unprofitable,  then  the  sweeping 
up  of  the  "  street  muck,"  and  ultimately  also  the  emptying  of 
dust  bins.  Already  before  1835  we  see  the  tide  turning.  The 
Paving  Committee  of  St.  Margaret  and  St.  John,  Westminster, 
which  had  in  1825  received  as  much  as  £625  from  its  contractors, 
had,  in  1831,  to  pay  £150  for  the  same  service.*  The  Vestry  of 
Marylebone,  which  in  1803  was  receiving  £2350  a  year  out  of  its 
scavenging,  taken  as  a  whole,  was  in  1830  paying  its  contractors 
£2870  a  year  for  "  slopping  " — that  is,,  cleaning  the  streets — 
and  only  receiving  from  them  £1170  for  the  privilege  of  collecting 
the  "  breeze,"  or  household  dust  and  ashes.''    In  1842  the  Poor 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Westminster  Paving  Commissioners,  24th  May  1808. 

-  MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Brighton,  1820-1825.  In 
1798  we  see  the  Town  Council  of  Plymouth  ordering  "  that  the  dung  and  soil 
of  the  town  be  advertised  to  be  let  from  Ladyday  next  on  the  present  tenant 
giving  up  his  take  in  writing  "  (MS.  Minutes,  Town  Council,  Plymouth,  9th 
March  1799). 

3  Details  are  nearly  always  lacking,  but  the  pecuniary  value  of  the  con- 
tracts must  have  varied  enormously  according  to  (a)  the  extent  of  the  street 
sweeping  and  other  laborious  work  that  was  stii)ulated  for  ;  (6)  the  strictness 
with  which  the  conditions  were  enforced  ;  (r)  whether  the  contractor  obtained 
"  street  muck,"  household  aslies  and  "  dust,"  or  the  emptyings  of  stables  and 
privies,  or  only  some  of  these  classes  of  refuse,  and  in  what  proportions  ; 
(d)  the  local  facilities  for  water  carriage  or  other  circumstances  affecting  the 
cost  of  distribution  ;  (e)  the  local  demand  for  the  various  kinds  of  refuse  ;  and, 
finally,  (/)  the  administrative  capacity  of  the  Local  Authority  ui  obtaining  the 
best  possible  terms  and  defeating  the  rings  and  "  knock-outs." 

'  MS.  Minutes,  Paving  Committee,  St.  Margaret  and  St.  John,  Westminster, 
l.-jlh  March  1823,  December  18.31. 

^  MS.  Veatry  Minutes,  Marylebone,  27th  February  1830. 


THE  VALUE  OF  MUCK 


337 


Law  Commissioners  report,  with  regard  to  the  MetropoUs,  that 
"  with  the  exception  of  coal  ashes  (which  are  indispensable  for 
making  bricks),  some  descriptions  of  lees  (from  the  soap-boilers), 
and  a  few  other  inconsiderable  exceptions,  no  refuse  in  London 
pays  half  the  expense  of  removal  by  cartage.  ...  A  consider- 
able contractor  for  scavenging,  etc.,  .  .  .  states,  with  regard  to 
the  most  productive  manure,  '  I  have  given  away  thousands  of 
loads  of  night-soil ;  we  knew  not  what  to  do  with  it.'  "  ^  The 
dust  and  ashes  of  the  London  households,  though  still  retaining 
some  exchange  value,  ceased  about  the  same  time  to  yield  as 
much  as  would  pay  for  the  service  of  sweeping  the  streets  and 
removing  the  street  muck,  with  which  the  emptying  of  dust- 
bins was  usually  combined."     From  about  1840,  therefore,  the 


^  General  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition 
of  the  Labouring  Population,  1842,  p.  46.  "  The  great  difficulty  of  the  cleansing 
of  the  Metropolis  arises  from  the  want  of  proper  receptacles  for  the  filth.  There 
is  no  filth  in  the  Metropolis  now  that,  as  a  general  rule,  will  pay  the  expense  of 
collection  and  removal  by  cart,  except  the  ashes  from  the  houses  and  the  soap- 
lees  from  the  soap-boilers,  and  some  of  the  night  soil  from  the  East  End  of  the 
to-mi  where  there  happen  to  be  in  the  immediate  vicinity  some  market  gardens 
where  it  can  be  used  at  once  without  distant  or  expensive  carriage.  The 
charge  of  removing  night-soil  from  the  poorest  tenements  may  be  about  £1 
per  tenement — one  house  with  another  the  expense  may  be  said  to  be  in  London 
about  10s.  per  year,  as  the  cesspools  may  be  emptied  once  in  two  years.  One 
house  with  another  they  will  not  produce  more  than  a  load  of  refuse  from  the 
cesspools.  ...  I  have  given  away  thousands  of  loads  of  night-soil ;  as  we  have 
no  means  of  disposing  of  it.  We  know  not  what  to  do  with  it.  .  .  .  The 
sweepings  from  the  macadamized  roads  consist  of  so  much  of  granite  that  it  is 
of  very  little  use  indeed  "  (Evidence  of  a  great  dust  contractor ;  in  General 
Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labouring 
Pojmlation,  1842,  pp.  379-380). 

^  We  place  here  an  interesting  account  of  the  annual  proceeds  of  the 
ashes,  dust,  breeze,  etc.,  of  Camberwell  from  1815  to  1845,  put  up  for  sale  by 
auction : 


1815 
1816 
1817 
1818 
1819 
1820 
1821 
1822 
1823 
1824 
1825 


.  £68 

1826 

67 

1827 

.   62 

1828 

.  125 

1829 

.  180 

1830 

.  280 

1831 

.  148 

1832 

320 

1833 

.  520 

1834 

.  471 

1835 

437 

1836 

£200 

245 

62 

83 

15 

15 

No  bidders 

No  sale 

£70 

207 

90 


1837 
1838 
1839 
1840 
1841 
1842 
1843 
1844 
1845 


£127 
79 
217 
516 
137 
215 
275 
378 
410 


(  Ye  History  of  Camberwell,  by  W.  H.  Blanch,  p.  164.)  The  effect  of  the  depres- 
sion in  the  building  trade  in  South  London,  which  followed  on  the  panic  of 
1825,  is  very  marked. 

Z 


338  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

service  of  scavenging  gradually  became  once  more  a  somrce  of 
municipal  expense,  as  it  had  been  half  a  century  before.^ 

This  remarkable  rise  in  the  market  value  of  town  refuse, 
temporary  though  it  proved  to  be,  naturally  reacted  on  the 
organisation  for  its  removal  from  the  houses  and  streets.  The 
Rakers  or  contractors,  we  may  beUeve,  were  more  dihgent  in 
their  collection,  as  the  material  became  of  pecuniary  value. 
Vestrymen  and  Commissioners  were  more  wiUing  to  see  the 
service  of  scavenging  expand — to  make  it  co-extensive  with  the 
town,  with  more  frequent  collections — when  this  did  not  involve 
any  additional  burden  on  the  rates.  So  far  the  economic  revolu- 
tion may  be  presumed  to  have  promoted  the  greater  cleanhness 
of  the  town.  But  there  were,  from  the  point  of  view  of  public 
health,  grave  drawbacks.  When  filth  became  of  pecuniary 
value,  householders  were  not  so  wilhng  to  have  it  removed,  and 
preferred  to  let  it  accumulate,  in  order  to  dispose  of  it  to  greater 
advantage.  Already  in  1767  the  inhabitants  of  Portsmouth 
had  objected  to  a  proposal  of  the  new  Local  Act,  which  would 
have  given  the  Commissioners  the  right  to  collect  from  them  all 
their  "  cinders,  ashes,  dirt,  soil  or  rubbish,"  and  a  proviso  had 
been  inserted  allowing  them  to  "  keep  or  use  "  this  valuable 
material  within  their  own  gardens  or  yards.^  But  those  in- 
habitants who  had  not  gardens  or  yards,  where  they  could  use 
their  refuse,  did  not  see  why  they  should  not  make  money  out 
of  it,  so  an  amending  Act  of  1775  permitted  any  inhabitant  of 
Portsmouth  to  sell  or  dispose  of  his  refuse  if  he  chose.^  The 
householder's  property  in  his  refuse  was  further  protected  by 
its  being  made  a  punishable  offence  for  any  one,  other  than  the 
parish  officer  or  contractor,  to  take  away  the  dust  or  ashes  from 
any  house,  unless  with  the  owner's  consent.*  In  other  places, 
where  the  Local  Authorities  made  profitable  contracts  for  the 
disposal  of  the  dust  and  filth,  it  became  necessary  to  protect 

^  We  think  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  took  too  optimistic  a  view  in 
1842,  when  they  reported  that  the  receipts  from  dust  equalled  the  cost  of  street 
cleaning  :  "At  the  rate  of  expense  of  one  largo  parish,  the  present  cost  of 
cleansing  in  the  Metropolis  may  be  estimated  at  about  £40,000  per  annum. 
This  expense,  however,  is  generally  repaid  by  the  sale  of  the  coal  ashes,  which 
are  used  in  the  manufacture  of  bricks  "  {Oeneral  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Com- 
missioners on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  LabouritKj  Population,  1842,  ]).  J53). 

-  8  George  III.  c.  59,  Portsmouth  Lighting  and  \\'atching  Act  of  17G7. 

'^  16  George  IIL  c.  59,  Portsmouth  Lighting  and  Watching  Act  of  1775. 

*  13  George  III.  c.  48,  Marylebone  Watching,  Pa  vine  and  Lighting  Act  of 
1772. 


PLACES  OF  DEPOSIT  339 

the  contractor  in  his  bargain  by  giving  him  a  monopoly.^  All 
this  saving  and  storing  of  excreta,  and  the  wholesale  and  retail 
deaUng  in  it  that  went  on,  led,  it  is  clear,  to  very  unsavoury 
practices,  which  continued  right  down  to  the  end  of  the  period 
with  which  we  are  deaUng.  "  In  the  parts  of  some  towns,"  we 
read  in  1840,  "  adjacent  to  the  rural  districts  the  cesspools  are 
emptied  gratuitously  for  the  sake  of  the  manure  ;  but  they  only 
do  this  when  there  is  a  considerable  accumulation.  .  ,  ,  For  the 
saving  of  cartage  as  well  as  the  convenience  of  use,  accumulations 
of  refuse  are  frequently  allowed  to  remain  and  decompose  and 
dry  amidst  the  habitations  of  the  poorer  classes,"  2  At  Witham, 
in  Essex,  we  are  told  in  1842  that  "  a  great  number  of  the  in- 
habitants accumulate  filth  and  manure  for  the  purpose  of  sale."  ^ 
The  most  noisome  accumulations  continued  in  the  towns,  especi- 
ally in  the  poorest  and  most  crowded  districts.  At  Leeds,  for 
instance,  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  the  contractor,  or  his 
neglects,  created  the  greater  sanitary  nuisance.  From  one  small 
court  there  was  removed  at  the  time  of  the  cholera  (1832)  no 
less  than  75  cart-loads  of  manure  "  which  had  been  untouched 
for  years."  *  Meanwhile  "  the  contractor  for  the  street  sweep- 
ings .  .  .  rented  a  plot  of  vacant  land  in  the  centre  of  the 
.  ,  .  largest  ward  in  point  of  population  ...  as  a  depot  for 
the  sweepings  .  .  .  both  vegetable  and  general,  for  the  purpose 
of  exsiccation  and  accumulating  till  they  could  be  sold  as  manure 
and  carried  away.  .  ,  .  The  inhabitants  complained  of  .  .  .  the 
insufferable  stench."  ^    It  is,  we  think,  impossible  to  avoid  the 

^  Thus  the  Manchester  Commissioners  resolve  in  1809,  "  That  the  practice 
of  selling  or  otherwise  disposing  of  any  manure  from  the  streets  by  the  super- 
intendent of  the  sweepers  or  any  other  person,  except  Samuel  Foxcroft  as  the 
agent  of  the  Commissioners,  and  except  such  as  shall  be  expressly  authorised 
by  the  Commissioners,  is  highly  improper,  and  ought,  if  repeated,  to  be  severely 
punished"  (MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Manchester,  12th  April 


2  General  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition 
0/  the  Labouring  Population  of  Great  Britain,  1842,  p.  46. 

3  Ibid.  p.  13.  The  fall  in  value  led  to  still  further  evils  :  "  The  object  of 
the  nightmen  is  to  get  rid  of  the  soil  early,  and  return  with  the  cart  to  complete 
the  emptying  in  one  night.  Formerly,  before  the  new  police  were  so  much 
about,  the  men  would  empty  the  cart  in  any  bye-street  or  place  where  they 
could.  .  .  .  The  site  of  the  new  London  University  (College)  was  a  place  in 
which  the  refuse  was  deposited,  so  was  the  site  of  the  new  row  of  grand  houses 
in  Hyde  Park  Gardens  .  .  .  the  site  of  Belgrave  Square  was  another  place  of 
deposit  "  (Evidence  of  a  great  dust  contractor  ;  in  ibid.  p.  381). 

4  Ibid.  p.  41. 

^  Ibid.  p.  47.     The  climax  of  horrors  was  reached,  v/e  think,  in  some  of  the 


340  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

conclusion  that,  whilst  the  temporary  saleability  of  town  refuse 
may  have  quickened  the  movement  towards  a  complete  scaveng- 
ing system,  the  very  notion  of  deriving  profit  from  town  refuse 
was,  on  the  whole,  inimical  to  sanitary  progress.  The  organisa- 
tion and  methods  for  collection  and  disposal  which  yielded  the 
greatest  profit  were  not  necessarily  those  most  advantageous  to 
the  public  health  ;  whilst  the  phantasm  of  getting  a  municipal 
revenue,  or  at  any  rate  making  the  town  refuse  pay  for  its  own 
removal,  long  prejudiced  town  administrators  against  incurring 
the  expenditure  necessary  for  this  most  efficient  performance  of 
this  service.^ 

More  useful  to  sanitation  may  have  been  the  desire  to  find 
employment  for  the  large  numbers  of  able-bodied  labourers  who 
were,  between  1795  and  1835,  in  receipt  of  Poor  Law  rehef. 
This  policy  took  two  forms.  In  some  parishes  the  local  authority 
in  charge  of  the  streets  itself  directly  employed  the  paupers, 
supervising  their  operations  as  it  chose,  and  remunerating  them 
as  it  thought  fit.  In  others  the  Improvement  Commissioners 
merely  entered  into  contracts  with  the  local  Poor  Law  authority, 
under  which  the  latter  undertook  to  clean  the  streets  for  a  lump 
sum.  We  shall  deal  elsewhere  with  the  Poor  Law  aspect  of  this 
question,  depending  as  it  did  upon  such  considerations  as  the 
amount  of  the  pay  given  to  the  pauper  and  the  conditions  of  his 
employment,  whether  the  experiment  served  as  a  test  of  destitu- 
tion or  operated  as  a  reformatory  regimen.  Regarded  from  the 
standpoint  of  street  cleansing,  the  results  are  neither  so  con- 
clusive nor  so  w^ell  recorded. 

slums  of  the  Scottish  towns.  "  At  Greenock  in  1840,"  it  is  reported  that  "  in 
one  part  of  the  street  there  is  a  dunghill — yet  it  is  too  large  to  be  called  a  dung- 
hill. I  do  not  mistake  its  size  when  I  say  it  contains  a  hundred  cubic  yards 
of  impure  filth  collected  from  all  parts  of  the  town.  It  is  never  removed  ;  it 
is  the  stock-in-trade  of  a  person  who  deals  in  dung  ;  he  retails  it  by  cartful. 
To  please  his  customers,  he  always  keeps  a  nucleus,  as  the  older  the  filth  is 
the  higher  the  price."  The  Glasgow  courts  of  1840  contained  spaces  occupied 
entirely  by  dung-heaps.  "There  wore,"  we  are  told,  "no  privies  or  drains 
there,  and  the  dung-heajis  received  all  filth  which  the  swarm  of  wretched 
inhabitants  could  give."  The  reason  was  "  that  a  considerable  part  of  the 
rent  of  the  houses  was  paid  by  the  produce  of  the  dung-heaps.  .  .  .  The 
dwellers  of  these  courts  had  converted  their  shame  into  a  kind  of  money  by 
which  their  lodging  was  to  bo  paid  "  {General  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Com- 
missioners on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labouring  Population  ofOrcal  Britain, 
1842,  pp.  24,  47). 

^  The  dust  contractors  were  said  in  1842  to  be  hostile  to  improved  methods 
of  removing  refuse  which  would  diminish  its  eale&ble  value  {ibid.  p.  318). 


EMPLOYMENT  OF  PAUPERS  341 

In  those  cases  in  which  the  Commissioners  merely  put  the 
cleansing  of  the  streets  out  to  contract  with  the  local  Poor  Law 
authority,  they  seem  to  have  made,  if  anything,  a  worse  bargain 
than  they  did  when  they  entrusted  the  work  to  a  commercial 
contractor.  Thus,  the  Bradford  Commissioners,  who  entered 
into  such  a  contract  in  1805,  quickly  demurred  to  the  charge 
made  by  the  parish  authorities,  whilst  the  streets  got  into  such  a 
state  that  a  local  contemporary  declared  that  they  would  "  dis- 
grace a  Hottentot  settlement."  ^  The  Brighton  Commissioners, 
weary  of  the  perpetual  complaints  of  the  neglect  of  the  cleansing 
contractor,  and  alarmed  at  the  rise  in  the  Poor  Kate,  resolved  in 
1820  "  to  treat  with  the  Directors  and  Guardians  for  the  cleansing 
the  streets  by  contract,  as  it  would  afford  employment  for  the 
poor  "  ;  and  to  pay  them  £300  a  year.^  Eighteen  months  later 
we  see  them,  dissatisfied  with  the  results,  reverting  to  the 
ordinary  contractor.  And  when  in  1826  they  again  try  the 
experiment  of  contracting  with  the  Poor  Law  authority,  paying 
£400  a  year,  a  storm  of  complaints  of  the  filthy  state  of  the 
streets  burst  in  upon  the  Commissioners.  "  No  one  street  in 
the  town,"  it  was  said,  "  has  been  properly  cleansed  for  several 
months."  ^  In  1832,  when  cholera  was  at  hand,  the  Plymouth 
Town  Council  reahsed  how  badly  the  Incorporated  Guardians 
were  doing  the  work  of  removing  the  "  town  dung  and  soil," 
and  the  contract  between  the  two  bodies  was  promptly  annulled.* 
The  Leeds  Commissioners,  who  were  paying  £500  a  year  for 
pauper  labour,  found  in  1836  "  that  the  present  system  of  con- 
tracting with  the  Workhouse  Board  for  the  services  of  scavengers 
requires  improvement ;  and  that  the  advantages  resulting  to 
the  town  under  the  existing  arrangements  are  not  in  that  respect 
such  as  ought  reasonably  to  be  expected  from  so  large  an  ex- 
penditure out  of  the  Improvement  Rate."  In  1838  they  flatly 
refused  a  request  for  an  increase  in  the  charge  which  they  were 
paying  to  the  Workhouse  Board  for  the  men  supplied  for  scaveng- 
ing, "  the  men  so  sent  being  aged  and  infirm,  and  consequently 

^  Historical  Notes  on  the  Bradford  Corporation,  by  William  Cudworth,  1881, 
p.  50. 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Brighton,  28th  April  and  3rd 
May  1820. 

»  Ibid.  29th  June,  8th  September,  6th  October  1824  ;  1st  July  1825,  26th 
July  1826  ;  Brighton  Herald,  5th  August  1826. 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Incorporated  Guardians,  Plymouth,  4th  and  25th  July 
1832. 


342  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

not  able  to  do  the  work,  and  many  others  both  lame  and  lazy, 
over  whom  the  superintendent  has  no  control."  ^  The  local 
newspaper  gives  us  a  vivid  account  of  the  "  filthy  state  of  the 
streets,"  the  heaps  of  dirt  "  scraped  to  the  side  of  the  causeways 
in  many  of  our  streets  and  left  there  for  days  together,"  and  the 
"  large  quantities  of  ashes  and  rubbish  "  suffered  to  remain  on 
the  pavements.2 

When,  however,  the  local  authority  in  charge  of  the  streets 
was  either  itself  the  Poor  Law  authority,  or  else  itself  employed 
the  able-bodied  paupers  in  street  cleansing,  the  results  seem 
to  have  been  much  more  favourable,  "  We  have  found  the 
system,"  says  the  Vestry  Clerk  of  St,  Paul,  Co  vent  Garden,  in 
1833,  "  of  scavenging  and  watering  the  streets  by  means  of 
pauper  labour  very  useful ;  it  has  kept  many  off  our  books.  .  .  . 
Our  parishioners  say  that  the  streets  were  never  kept  so  clean 
as  they  have  been  since  our  new  system  prevailed  ;  the  fact  is 
that  it  is  the  interest  of  the  contractor  to  employ  as  few  labourers 
in  the  work  as  possible,  to  leave  the  streets  until  they  are  so 
dirty  that  large  portions  may  be  removed  at  once."  ^  "  The 
contractors,"  said  another  witness  in  1833,  "  generally  shuffle  off 
cleansing  the  alleys  as  they  cannot  get  the  cart  up  them  ;  but 
we  make  our  men  take  the  wheelbarrow  up  the  avenues.  The 
paupers  are  by  this  system  made  spies  to  prevent  any  nuisance 
that  may  occasion  them  trouble.  If  they  see  any  one  throwing 
down  filth  they  fetch  the  superintendent  and  the  party  is  made 
to  take  it  up  again."  *  In  the  panic  caused  by  the  approach  of 
cholera  in  1831-1832,  many  local  authorities  all  over  the  country 
found,  in  the  temporary  employment  of  paupers  in  removing 
nuisances  of  all  kinds,  a  way  of  palliating,  for  the  moment,  the 
effect  of  the  neglect  of  previous  years.  Thus,  at  Leeds,  where  a 
particular  district  of  the  town  had  been  left  utterly  neglected, 
"  when  the  cholera  was  prevalent  (in  1832)  the  wretched  state 
of  this  district  occasioned  great  apprehension,"  and  gangs  of 
paupers  were  employed  for  two  months  "  clearing  away  the 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Improvement  Commissioners,  Leeds,  6tli  April  183G,  19tli 
February  1838. 

*  Leeds  Mercury,  2nd  March  1839. 

^  First  RejK)rt  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1S34,  Appendix  A, 
Part  I.  (Ct)dd's  Pieport) ;   evidence  of  Vestry  Clerk  of  St.  P;iul,  Coveut  Garden. 

"•  i''irst  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiiy  Commissioners,  1834,  Appendix  A, 
Parti. 


FAILURE  OF  IMAGINATION  343 

immense  mass  of  filth  of  every  description  which  had  accumu- 
lated." It  was,  in  fact,  as  a  primitive  system  of  direct  employ- 
ment of  labour,  in  substitution  for  contracting,  that  pauper 
labour  was  most  useful.^  But  the  very  lavishness  with  which 
those  street  authorities,  which  were  also  Poor  Law  authorities, 
could  employ  the  incompetent  and  unsatisfactory  labour  of 
paupers  in  street  cleansing  had  a  bad  effect  in  deterring  such 
authorities  from  adopting  mechanical  or  more  highly  organised 
methods  of  accomplishing  their  task.  "  The  parish  officers," 
declared  Chadwick  in  1842,  "  frequently  oppose  improved  modes 
of  paving  and  efficient  cleansing  (as  they  generally  opposed  the 
new  poHce  on  the  ground  that  it  diminished  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence of  decrepit  old  men  as  watchmen)  for  the  avowed  reason 
that  it  is  expedient  to  keep  the  streets  in  their  present  state  of 
filth  in  order  to  keep  up  the  means  of  employing  indigent  persons 
as  street  sweepers  and  sweepers  of  crossings  in  removing  it."  ^ 

What  comes  out  most  vividly  from  our  survey  is,  however, 
not  this  or  that  detail  of  the  filthy  condition  of  the  town  streets, 
but  the  utter  inability  of  the  Local  Authorities,  even  after  the 
cholera  of  1832,  to  form  any  competent  idea  of  the  nature  or 
the  magnitude  of  their  task.  It  is  not  merely  that  the  comi- 
plicated  modern  problems  of  the  harmless  disposal  of  sewage 
and  the  infinitely  various  methods  of  handhng  all  the  different 
kinds  of  town  garbage  were  as  yet  undreamt  of.  To  a  Local 
Authority  of  1835,  urban  cleansing  was  still  closely  bound  up 
with  the  mere  convenience  of  passage  along  the  streets.  It  was 
for  this  that  the  streets  were  occasionally  swept,  and  the  heaps 
of  dirt  removed.  It  was  to  prevent  the  otherwise  inevitable 
deposit  in  the  thoroughfares  that  the  dustbins  or  ashpits  were 

^  That  it  was  far  less  effective,  and  even  more  costly  than  would  have  been 
the  hiring  of  labour  in  the  open  market,  we  may  well  believe.  But  hardly  any 
town  ventured,  at  this  date,  on  such  an  extension  of  municipal  enterprise  as 
would  have  been  involved  in  the  organisation  of  a  street  cleansing  department. 
At  York,  in  1825,  we  find  the  Commissioners  timidly  trying  the  experiment  of 
not  "  letting  the  sweeping  "  in  the  Micklegate  Ward,  and  instructing  their 
Surveyor  "  to  engage  weekly  such  men  as  he  may  think  necessary  to  sweep  and 
cleanse  the  streets  .  .  .  and  to  employ  carts  to  convey  the  manure  away  as  it 
is  collected  by  the  sweepers  ;  also  a  yard  or  place  to  deposit  it  in,  and  to 
report  .  .  .  the  expenses  incurred  and  the  probable  value  of  the  manure 
collected  and  to  dispose  of  the  same  as  opportunity  offers  "  (MS.  Minutes, 
Improvement  Commissioners,  York,  28th  August  1825). 

^  General  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of 
the  Labotirinrj  Population,  1842,  p.  96. 


344  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

emptied  and  the  accumulations  of  excreta  disposed  of.  Hence 
it  is  that  we  find  that  whatever  little  improvement  had  been 
brought  about  down  to  1835  was  confined  almost  entirely  to 
the  main  streets,  in  which  the  traffic  was  greatest,  and  to  which 
the  principal  inhabitants  commonly  resorted.  It  was  for  this 
reason  that,  in  every  town,  as  in  every  district  of  the  Metropolis, 
the  work  of  the  public  scavengers — inefficient  at  its  best — was 
restricted  to  sweeping  the  surface  of  the  recognised  public  streets, 
leaving  wholly  untouched  all  the  "  private  streets,"  or  those  not 
yet  taken  over  by  the  Local  Authority  (which  in  towns  lilce  Man- 
chester and  Leeds  included  all  the  new  workmen's  quarters),  and 
all  the  narrow  courts  and  alleys  in  which,  alike  in  London  and 
the  provincial  towns,  the  majority  of  the  poorer  classes  dwelt. ^ 
The  further  extension  of  the  municipal  service  of  cleansing  to 
the  backyards  or  inner  courtyards  of  blocks  of  buildings  was 
unthought  of — still  less  the  enforcement  of  a  healthy  minimum 
of  cleanliness  in  the  houses  themselves.  In  short,  it  never 
occurred,  even  to  the  most  energetic  and  enfightened  Local 
Authority  of  1835,  that  it  had  any  responsibifity  for  the  freedom 
from  noxious  filth  of  the  town  as  a  whole.  Not  for  another 
generation,  and  then  not  without  the  sharp  lesson  of  repeated 
visitations  of  Asiatic  cholera,  did  even  the  beginnings  of  muni- 
cipal sanitation  permeate  EngUsh  local  administration. 

1  The  scavenging  of  Mancliester  in  1830  was  "performed  on  those  streets 
which  have  been  declared  public  highways,  a  necessary  preliminary  to  which 
is  that  they  shall  have  been  finished,  with  respect  to  sewering  and  paving,  in  a 
manner  satisfactory  to  the  Surveyor.  The  number  of  private,  unpaved  and 
consequently  filthy  streets  is  lamentably  great  in  Manchester  ...  the  only 
scavengers  that  enter  them  are  dogs  and  swine,  allowed  to  roam  at  large  ; 
and  they  are  useful  in  their  way  by  consuming  some  of  the  offal  Mhich  is  indis- 
criminately cast  in  heaps  before  the  doors  .  .  .  the  offensive  and  disgraceful 
exhibitions  of  accumulated  filth  which  present  themselves  in  every  quarter  " 
("  Sketch  of  the  Medical  To])ography  and  Statistics  of  Manchester,"  by  Edmund 
Lyon,  M.D.,  in  North  of  England  Medical  and  Surgical  Jo^irnal,  August  1830, 
p.  17).  In  1842  it  was  said  that  "  The  expense  of  cleansing  the  streets  of  the 
township  of  Manchester  is  £5000  per  annum.  For  this  sum  the  first  class  of 
streets,  namely  the  most  opulent  and  the  large  tht)roughfares,  are  cleansed 
once  a  week,  the  second  class  once  a  fortnight  and  the  third  class  once  a  month. 
But  this  i)rovision  leaves  untouched  .  .  .  the  courts,  alleys  and  places  where 
the  poorest  classes  live,  and  where  the  cleansing  should  be  daily  "  {General 
Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labouring 
Population,  1842,  p.  53). 


PASSING  OF  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS  345 

The  Passing  of  the  Improvement  Coynmissioners 

It  is  remarkable  that  throughout  the  whole  period  with 
which  we  are  dealing  (1689-1835)  we  find,  with  respect  to  these 
Improvement  Commissioners,  practically  no  popular  criticism 
or  denunciation  of  their  dominant  type  of  constitution,  the  self- 
elected  and  self-renewing  body,  Umited  by  substantial  property 
qualifications.  In  the  last  decade  of  the  period  the  "  elective 
principle  "  was,  as  we  have  described,  generally  assumed  to  be 
desirable  in  any  new  constitution,  but  practically  no  accusation 
seems  to  have  been  made  that  the  existing  bodies  of  Improvement 
Commissioners  were  corrupt  or  inefficient.  This  popular  acquies- 
cence in  the  continuance  of  bodies  largely  controlled  by  ex-officio 
members — often,  indeed,  close  bodies,  in  no  way  dependent  on 
or  responsible  to  the  inhabitants  at  large — stands  in  contrast 
with  the  London  outcry  against  the  Select  Vestries  and  the  wide- 
spread provincial  objection  to  the  old  Municipal  Corporations. 
We  attribute  this  acquiescence  mainly  to  the  fact  that  the  Im- 
provement Commissioners  were  comparatively  new  bodies,  or  at 
any  rate  bodies  with  constitutions  recently  reformed  ;  that  they 
were  composed  of  the  principal  inhabitants  of  the  locaHty, 
generally  without  distinction  of  poHtical  party  or  rehgious 
denomination  ;  and  that  the  rate  which  they  levied  was  usually 
hmited  by  the  Act  of  Parhament,  and  was,  in  practice,  uniform 
from  year  to  year.  To  these  reasons,  for  the  lack  of  popular 
criticism,  must  be  added  the  fact  that,  in  most  of  the  towns,  the 
Improvement  Commissioners  refrained  from  obtruding  them- 
selves on  the  public  attention  by  any  great  display  of  activity 
or  any  serious  attempt  to  enforce  even  their  own  regulations. 
They  lacked,  in  fact,  not  only  the  unlimited  powers  of  the  open 
Vestry,  but  also  that  administrative  self-confidence  which  is 
enjoyed  by  a  popularly  elected  body. 

But  although  there  was,  even  in  1820-1833,  no  general  agita- 
tion against  the  Improvement  Commissioners,  there  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  at  Manchester  and  elsewhere,  widespread  criticism 
among  Radicals  and  Reformers  of  the  narrow  basis  of  their  con- 
stitution, the  extent  of  their  powers  of  regulation  and  expenditure 
and  the  absence  of  popular  control.  It  was  part  of  the  intention 
of  those  who  framed  the  Bill  of  1835  for  the  reform  of  the  Muni- 
cipal Corporations  that  the  newly  formed  Town  Councils  should 


346  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

take  over  all  the  powers  and  property  of  the  various  bodies 
established  under  Local  Acts  within  the  several  boroughs.  Un- 
fortunately, in  the  haste  with  which  the  Bill  was  prepared,  and 
under  the  influence  of  Lord  Melbourne's  desire  to  minimise  the 
opposition  to  the  measure  which  he  had  to  get  through  both 
Houses  of  Pariiament  within  a  few  weeks,  the  clause  relating  to 
the  bodies  of  Commissioners  were  drafted  in  permissive  terms. 
As  enacted,  it  merely  enabled  the  Commissioners  voluntarily  to 
merge  themselves  in  the  reformed  Corporations.  It  was  in  vain 
that  Francis  Place  pointed  out  that  such  a  clause  would  inevit- 
ably prove  quite  inoperative.  There  was  no  time  for  a  Parha- 
mentary  fight  with  three  hundred  bodies  of  Commissioners, 
which  might  all  have  claimed,  like  the  Municipal  Corporations, 
to  be  heard  in  defence  of  their  statutory  rights.  The  result  was 
that  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835,  Uke  the  General 
Highways  Act  of  that  year  and  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act 
of  1834,  left  untouched  the  Commissioners  under  Local  Acts, 
whether  for  town  improvements,  turnpike  roads  or  the  adminis- 
tration of  poor  rehef . 

The  position  of  the  Improvement  Commissioners  in  the 
Municipal  Boroughs  was,  however,  fatally  undermined  by  the 
sweeping  measure  of  1835.  When  it  was  reaUsed  that  the  new- 
Town  Council,  nominally  charged  with  the  "  good  government  " 
of  the  whole  borough,  was  elected  for  the  same  area  as  the  Com- 
missioners, on  what  was,  in  nearly  all  cases,  a  far  more  popular 
franchise,  the  movement  in  favour  of  the  union  of  the  two  or 
more  pubUc  authorities  within  the  same  borough  came  gradually 
to  be  irresistible.  When  the  new  Town  Council  set  up  its  new 
pohce  force,  there  was  no  longer  any  reason  for  the  maintenance 
by  the  Commissioners  of  a  separate  Night  Watch.  There  seemed 
no  reason  for  making  separate  assessments  and  levying  separate 
rates.  Year  by  year,  in  one  borough  after  another,  the  two 
bodies  were  induced  to  agree  to  an  amalgamation,  usually  under 
the  authority  of  the  new  Local  Act  which  one  or  other  consented 
to  seek.  The  process  was  accelerated  by  the  pressure  of  the 
Board  of  Health  between  1848  and  1854.  Whenever  the  Board 
made  an  order  making  the  PubHc  Health  Act  applicable  to  any 
town,  it  sought  always  to  amalgamate  the  Improvement  Com- 
missioners with  the  Town  Council.  Whenever  the  Privy 
Council  issued  a  charter  of  incorporation  to  a  new  borough 


END  OF  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS     347 

the  same  merger  was  provided  for.  Within  a  quarter  of  a 
century  of  the  passing  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  nearly 
all  the  bodies  of  Paving,  Cleansing,  Lighting,  Watching,  Street, 
Lamp,  Police  or  Improvement  Commissioners  in  the  municipal 
boroughs  to  which  the  1835  Act  had  apphed,  or  in  those  newly 
incorporated  under  it,  had  merged  in  the  Town  Council,^  to  which 
they  brought  their  own  extensive  statutory  powers,  in  supple- 
ment of  the  meagre  provisions  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act. 
It  was  in  this  way,  and  not  under  the  1835  Act,  that  many 
provincial  boroughs  started  their  Pubhc  Health  work ;  that 
many  more  found  themselves  managing  considerable  depart- 
ments of  paving  and  cleansing  the  streets  ;  that  the  Manchester 
Town  Council  became  (already  in  1842)  the  greatest  municipal 
purveyor  of  gas.  It  is,  accordingly,  the  Improvement  Com- 
missioners, rather  than  the  ancient  chartered  corporations,  that 
we  must  regard  as  the  immediate  predecessors  and  lineal  ances- 
tors, not  of  the  titles  and  dignities,  but  of  most  of  the  activities 
and  statutory  functions  of  the  modern  EngHsh  municipahty. 

The  hundred  or  so  "  Paving  Boards "  and  other  similar 
bodies  in  the  Metropolitan  Parishes  outside  the  City  of  London, 
which  we  have  included  in  the  common  designation  of  Improve- 
ment Commissioners,  came  to  an  end  in  a  similar  way.  We  find 
them  all  merged  either  in  the  reorganised  Vestries  or  in  the 
unions  of  parishes  under  District  Boards,  to  which  (in  conjunction 
with  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works)  the  municipal  govern- 
ment of  the  area  outside  the  City  was  confided  by  the  Metropolis 
Management  Act  of  1855  ;  to  be  transformed  by  the  Local 
Government  Act  of  1888  and  the  London  Government  Act  of 
1899,  respectively,  into  the  London  County  Council  and  the 
Metropolitan  Borough  Councils.^ 

1  Nevertheless,  there  were,  in  1884,  still  44  "  Improvement  Act  districts," 
under  bodies  of  Trustees  or  Commissioners  ;  and  even  in  1893,  31  such  districts, 
outside  municipal  boroughs.  {An  Outline  of  Local  Government  and  Local 
Taxation,  by  R.  S.  Wright  and  H.  Hobhouse,  second  edition,  1884,  p.  22,  and 
third  edition,  1906,  p.  20.)  They  were  then  merged  in  the  Urban  District 
Coimcils  created  under  the  PubUc  Health  Acts  and  the  Local  Government  Act, 
1894. 

*  Leaving  aside  the  analogous  Harbour  Commissioners,  to  which  we  have 
already  referred,  the  most  important  body  of  the  nature  of  what  we  have 
designated  Improvement  Commissioners  that  still  existed  in  1895  was  the 
Commissioners  of  Sewers  of  the  City  of  London,  which  was,  from  the  outset, 
and  has  always  continued  to  be,  under  Local  Acts  of  1GG7,  1671,  1691,  1708, 
1737,  1744,  1761  and  especially  1765,  substantially  nothing  but  a  statutory 


348  THE  IMPROVEMENT  COMMISSIONERS 

Viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  to-day,  we  cannot  rate 
very  highly  the  actual  achievements  of  the  Improvement  Com- 
missioners themselves  during  the  century  or  so  of  their  opera- 
tions. These  three  hundred  or  so  separate  authorities  must, 
indeed,  be  criticised  for  the  very  reasons  that  shielded  them 
from  the  denunciation  of  their  contemporaries.  The  powers  of 
municipal  government  which  they  sought  from  Parliament  were 
inadequate  to  the  task  that  lay  before  them  ;  and  they  usually 
came  to  the  end  of  their  borrowing  powers,  and  found  them- 
selves levying  their  maximum  rate,  before  they  had  done  more 
than  begin  the  "  paving,  cleansing,  lighting,  sewering,  watching 
and  generally  improving  "  of  their  town,  which  was  assumed  to 
be  their  task.  Of  the  magnitude  and  range  of  the  work  to  be 
done  no  contemporary  had  any  idea.  Such  criticism  of  the 
action  of  the  Improvement  Commissioners  as  we  do  find — notably 
that  which  we  have  described  at  Manchester  after  1824 — pro- 
ceeded from  a  state  of  mind  that  we  are  to-day  hardly  able  to 
imagine.  The  doctrinaire  Radical  shopkeepers  and  little 
property  owners  who  objected  on  principle  to  street  lighting,  a 
salaried  police  force,  and  the  suppression  of  nuisances,  had  even 
less  conception  of  the  gravity  of  the  new  problems  of  town  life 
than  the  Improvement  Commissioners  or  than  Parliament  itself. 
Their  objections  found  no  support  among  the  mass  of  wage- 
earners  who,  paying  no  rates,  remained,  stolidly  indifferent  to 
the    whole    business.     The    shopkeepers    and    publicans    were 

committee  of  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  London,  and  which  we  have 
already  referred  to  in  TJie  Manor  and  the  Borongh,  1908,  vol.  ii.  pp.  577,  582, 
010-612,  637,  640-641,  646.  See  ante,  p.  58  ;  A  Practical  Treatise  on  the  Laws, 
Customs,  Usages  and  Regulations  of  the  City  and  Port  of  London,  by  Alexander 
Pulling,  1842,  1844  and  1854,  ch.  xviii.  ;  the  interesting  Report  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  Sewers  of  15th  November  1765  ;  House  of  Commons  Journals, 
17th  and  27th  January  17G6  and  23rd  January  1771  ;  the  Reports  of  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Commission,  1837,  the  Royal  Commission  on  the 
Corporation  of  London,  1854,  and  that  upon  London  Government,  1899  ; 
and  the  Modern  History  of  the  City  of  London,  by  C.  Welch,  1896,  pp.  17-18. 
It  was  merged  in  the  Corporation  by  the  City  of  London  Sewers  Act,  61  and  62 
Victoria  c.  133  (1897). 

It  may  be  added  that  the  Crown  Estate  Paving  Commissioners,  established 
by  the  Acts  5  George  IV.  c.  100  and  14  and  15  Victoria  c.  95,  still  continue, 
and  still  levy  on  the  Crown  estate  about  Regent's  Park  a  separate  rate  for 
paving,  watering,  etc.  The  C'onservators  of  Wimbledon  and  Putney  Commons 
still  levy  a  "  Commons  Rate  "  under  their  Act  of  1871.  There  are  also  more 
than  60  "  Garden  Rates  "  levied  in  London  by  bodies  of  Trustees  or  Com- 
missioners, under  old  Acts  or  legally  authoritative  "  schemes  "  under  modem 
Acts,  or  under  the  Town  Gardens  Protection  Act,  1863. 


THEIR  SINS  OF  OMISSION  349 

equally  unsuccessful  in  appealing  to  the  wealthy  mauufacturers 
or  landowners,  who  saw  the  advantage  of  the  Commissioners' 
reforms,  and  continued  to  support  them  to  the  last,  even  against 
the  elected  Town  Councils.  We  must,  in  fact,  conclude  that 
such  work  as  was  done  by  the  Improvement  Commissioners  was 
a  clear  gain  to  the  community.  Their  sins  were  sins  of  omission. 
It  passes  human  imagination  to  conceive  the  state  into  which 
the  rapidly  growing  towns  would  have  got  if  no  such  bodies  had 
been  estabhshed.  But  it  is  sad  to  think  how  much  disease  and 
premature  death,  how  much  human  sorrow  and  demorahsation, 
or  even  how  much  unnecessary  expense,  has  resulted,  in  every 
city  of  the  land,  from  the  extremely  narrow  range  of  the  ideas  of 
those  who,  from  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  onward, 
were  responsible  for  providing  the  organisation  by  which  alone 
the  requirements  of  the  rapidly  increasing  urban  population 
could  be  met. 


CHAPTER  V 

A  CENTURY  AND   A  HALF  OF   ENGLISH   LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  : 
THE    OLD    PRmCIPLES 

With  the  present  volume  we  complete  our  survey  of  English 
Local  Government  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Municipal  Cor- 
porations Act — so  far,  at  least,  as  constitutional  structure  is 
concerned.  We  now  proceed  to  summarise  in  two  concluding 
chapters  the  outstanding  characteristics  of  this  period,  whether 
manifested  in  the  decay  of  the  old  or  in  the  evolution  of  new 
principles  of  government. 

We  may  first  explain  the  significance  of  these  particular 
years.  When  we  turned  to  the  subject  of  Local  Government, 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  our  object  was  to  describe  the 
organisation  and  working  of  the  existing  local  governing  authori- 
ties, with  a  view  to  discovering  how  they  could  be  improved. 
We  realised  from  the  outset  that  a  merely  statical  investigation 
of  what  was  going  on  around  us  would  reveal  Uttle  or  nothing 
of  the  lasting  conditions  of  disease  and  health  in  the  social 
organisations  that  we  were  considering.  We  knew  that,  in  order 
to  find  the  causes  of  their  imperfections  and  the  directions  in 
which  they  could  be  improved,  we  had  to  study,  not  only  their 
present  but  also  their  past ;  not  merely  what  they  were  doing 
but  also  how  they  had  come  to  be  doing  it.  Somewhat  naively, 
we  accepted  as  our  starting-point  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  But  after  a  year's  work  on  the  records,  it  became 
apparent  to  us  that  the  local  institutions  of  the  first  quarter  of 
that  century  were  either  in  the  last  stages  of  decay  or  in  the 
earliest  years  of  infancy.  We  saw  that  it  was  impossible  to 
appreciate  the  drastic  innovations  of  1834-183G,  and  their  sub- 
sequent developments,  without  going  much  further  back.     After 


POLICY  OF  NON-INTERVENTION  351 

some  reconnoitring  of  the  seventeenth  century,  we  decided  that 
the  Revolution  of  1689  ranked,  in  the  evolution  of  English  Local 
Government,  as  the  beginning  of  a  distinct  era  which  continued 
until  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832, 

The  best  way  of  recalling  to  the  reader  the  extensive  and 
multifarious  changes  described  in  our  volumes,  will  be  first  to 
discover  and  analyse  the  main  principles — the  ideas  that  governed 
men's  minds,  the  traditional  concepts  still  potent  in  constitutional 
organisation — inherited  in  1689  from  previous  centuries  and 
embodied  in  the  local  institutions  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
We  shall  therefore  describe  in  this  chapter  (i.)  the  "  Obligation 
to  Serve,"  and  to  serve  gratuitously  in  the  discharge  of  local 
public  duties  ;  (ii.)  Vocational  Organisation  as  the  very  basis  of 
government ;  (iii.)  the  principle  of  Self -Election  or  Co-option  ; 
(iv.)  the  Freehold  Tenure  of  profitable  office  ;  (v.)  the  conception 
of  property,  and  at  the  outset  landed  property,  as  an  indispensable 
qualification  for,  if  not  actually  a  title  to,  the  exercise  of  authority ; 
and,  as  explaining  the  absence  of  anything  that  could  be  called 
a  system  of  Local  Government,  and  the  utter  lack  of  uniformity 
or  consistency,  (vi.)  the  predominance  of  local  customs  and  the 
Common  Law  as  the  very  basis  of  the  whole.  In  the  next  chapter 
we  shall  set  forth  the  gradual  evolution  of  a  new  set  of  principles 
arising  out  of  the  circumstances  and  thought  of  the  new  age  : 
principles  destined  to  become  dominant  in  the  Local  Government 
of  the  nineteenth  century. 


A  Policy  of  Non-Intervention  by  the  Central  Government 

At  the  outset  of  our  analysis  appears,  not  any  ancient  prin- 
ciple, but  a  new  policy,  arising  with  dramatic  suddenness  out  of 
the  Revolution  of  1689.  A  summary  end  to  "  arbitrary  inter- 
ference "  with  "  local  Uberties  "  was  one  of  the  most  important 
results  of  the  dismissal  of  the  Stuart  dynasty.  For  more  than  a 
hundred  years  from  that  date,  King  and  Parhament  adopted  a 
policy  of  indifierence  as  to  what  the  various  local  governing 
authorities  did  or  abstained  from  doing.  The  interference  of 
the  Privy  Council,  and  even  that  of  the  Courts  of  Law  and  the 
Assize  Judges,  sank  to  a  minimum.  In  contrast  ahke  with  the 
centralised  administration  that  was  being  built  up,  especially 
as  regards  poor  relief,  between  1590  and  1640,  and  with  the 


352  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

arbitrary  "  regulating  "  of  Municipal  Corporations  of  1683-1688. 
the  King's  Ministers  after  1689,  it  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say, 
deliberately  abstained  from  any  consideration  of  the  Local 
Authorities  ;  and  hardly  ever  found  themselves  driven  to  come 
to  any  decision  on  the  subject  of  their  activities  or  their  powers. 
The  Justices  of  the  Peace,  between  the  Revolution  and  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act,  enjoyed,  in  their  regulations,  an 
almost  complete  and  unshackled  autonomy.  Unlike  a  modern 
County  Council  making  by elaws, -Quarter  Sessions  was  under  no 
obhgation  to  submit  its  orders  for  confirmation  to  the  Home 
Secretary  or  to  any  other  authority.  Moreover,  the  Justices 
were,  in  their  own  Counties,  not  only  law-makers,  but,  either 
collectively  or  individually,  themselves  also  the  tribunal  to  adjudi- 
cate on  any  breaches  of  their  own  regulations.  Again,  the  Juries 
of  the  Manor,  of  the  Court  of  Sewers,  of  the  Hundred  and  of 
the  County,  were  always  "  interpreting  "  the  local  customs,  and  ^ 
restricting  or  extending  the  conception  of  public  nuisances,  active 
or  passive,  according  to  contemporary  needs,  or  new  forms  of 
the  behaviour  of  individual  citizens  and  corporate  bodies  ;  whilst 
the  inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled,  or  the  little  oligarchy  of 
Parish  Officers,  were  incurring  (and  meeting  out  of  the  ancient 
Church  Rate)  expenditure  on  all  sorts  of  services  according  to 
local  decision,  without  any  one  having  any  practical  power  of 
disallowance.  As  for  the  Municipal  Corporations,  they  regarded 
their  corporate  property,  their  markets,  their  tolls,  their  fines 
and  fees,  as  well  as  their  exemptions  and  privileges,  as  outside 
any  jurisdiction  other  than  their  own.  When,  in  the  course  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  it  became  necessary  or  convenient  to 
invoke  Parliamentary  authority  for  the  enforcement  of  new 
regulations,  or  the  levying  of  new  imposts,  this  usually  took  the 
form,  not  of  a  statute  of  general  application,  but  (as  we  have 
described  in  the  present  volume)  of  literally  thousands  of  separate 
Local  Acts.  These  peculiar  and  little  studied  emanations  of 
national  law  were  not  devised  by  the  Government  or  by  its 
central  departments,  but  were  spontaneously  initiated  and 
contrived  by  little  groups  of  the  principal  inhabitants  of  parti- 
cular areas ;  they  were  debated  and  amended  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  not  by  committees  of  impartial  persons,  but  mainly 
by  the  representatives  of  the  Boroughs  and  Counties  concerned  ; 
and  as  we  have  described  in  the  Introduction  to  this  volume,  it 


THE  ABSENCE  OF  SYSTEM  353 

was  not  until  the  very  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  that  the 
"  Lords'  Chairman  "  began  to  insist  on  inserting  clauses  safe- 
guarding what  he  considered  to  be  the  interests  of  the  public  at 
large.  Thus,  the  special  epoch  dealt  with  in  our  description 
of  the  Parish  and  the  County,  the  Manor  and  the  Borough 
and  the  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes,  is  a 
definitely  bounded  period,  extending  over  more  than  a  century 
and  a  quarter,  of  something  very  like  an  anarchy  of  local 
autonomy. 

No  System  of  Local  Government 

During  the  eighteenth  century  the  anarchy  of  local  autonomy 
was  heightened  by  the  fact  that  there  was  nothing  that  could  be 
regarded,  either  in  theory  or  practice,  as  a  system  of  Local 
Government.  There  was,  as  we  have  described  in  the  foregoing 
volumes,  a  confused  network  of  local  customs  and  the  Common 
Law,  of  canon  law  and  royal  decrees  or  charters,  interspersed 
with  occasional  and  unsystematised  Parliamentary  statutes. 
Out  of  this  confused  and  largely  unexplored  network,  there  had 
emerged  four  distinct  organs  of  government :  the  Parish,  the 
County,  the  Manor  and  the  Municipal  Corporation — not  to 
mention  the  anomalous  Commission  of  Sewers — to  which  was 
added,  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a  new  type 
described  in  the  present  volume — the  Statutory  Authority  for 
Special  Purposes.  These  distinct  organs  of  government  are 
found  superimposed  one  on  the  top  of  the  other,  at  different 
periods  of  history,  for  different  purposes,  by  difierent  instruments 
and  with  different  sanctions.  Alike  in  origins  and  in  areas,  in 
structures  and  in  powers,  they  are  inextricably  entangled  one 
with  the  other.  What  is  common  to  them  all  is  that  not  one  of 
them  was,  or  claimed  to  be,  a  system  of  Local  Government.  If 
any  of  the  Dutch  gentlemen  who  landed  at  Torbay  with  WilUam 
the  Third  had  asked  a  Lord  Lieutenant,  a  High  Sheriff  or  a 
Justice  of  the  Peace  to  describe  "  the  Local  Government  of 
England,"  he  would  have  met  with  a  blank  ignorance  of  any 
such  order  of  things.  The  Rulers  of  the  County  would  have 
thought  of  themselves  not  as  Local  Authorities  at  all,  but  as 
the  deputies  of  the  King,  with  an  obligation  to  provide  what  was 
requisite  for  the  King's  soldiers,  to  hold  the  King's  Courts,  to 
maintain  the  King's  peace  ;    having  a  general  commission  to 

2  a 


354  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

govern  their  own  County  as  they  thought  right,  and  especially  to 
supervise  all  other  citizens  in  fulfilling  their  respective  obliga- 
tions. The  peers  and  country  gentlemen  who  consented  to 
spend  some  of  their  leisure,  in  and  out  of  Parliament,  in  perform- 
ing these  tasks,  would  have  been  aware  that  the  City  of  London 
was  wholly  exempt  from  their  control ;  and  that  up  and  down 
the  land  there  existed  many  Cities,  Boroughs,  Franchises  and 
Liberties  which  successfully  claimed  to  exclude  this  or  that 
particular  Court  or  official  jurisdiction.  But  these  were  mere 
exceptions  to  the  normal  government  exercised  by  the  landed 
gentry  of  the  Kingdom.  The  suggestion  that  there  existed  any 
kind  of  lawful  autonomy  in  the  fifteen  thousand  Parishes  and 
Townships  would  have  seemed  to  the  country  gentleman,  at  the 
end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  an  absurd  and  a  dangerous 
contention.  The  two  or  three  hundred  Municipal  Corporations 
would  have  accepted  their  status  of  exceptional  privilege  with 
complacency.  They  would  have  cited  in  proof  their  diverse 
Courts  exercising  jurisdiction  over  this  or  that  area,  entirely 
independent  of  the  County  ;  their  infinitely  varied  constitutions, 
derived  indifferently  from  charters,  statutes  or  immemorial 
custom,  and  frequently  amended  by  their  own  byelaws,  without 
intervention  on  the  part  of  Parliament  or  the  Government. 
The  Lord  of  the  Manor,  on  the  other  hand,  would  have  told  the 
curious  enquirer  that,  as  a  landowner,  he  had,  by  immemorial 
usage,  Courts  of  his  own  ;  that  in  these  Courts  his  tenants  were 
compelled  to  appear ;  and  that  he  himself,  or  his  steward,  was 
always  anxious  to  agree  with  them  on  any  matters  of  common 
concern.  He  might  have  added  that  there  were  such  things  as 
Juries  of  his  tenants,  with  certain  rights  to  give  verdicts,  to 
declare  the  local  customs  and  even  to  present  him  before  his  own 
steward  for  failing  to  conform  to  these  customs,  or  for  permitting 
the  continuance  on  his  property  of  any  public  nuisance.  The 
Parish  Constable,  Overseer  or  Surveyor  of  Highways,  far  from 
feeling  himself  a  member  of  a  Local  Authority,  would  have 
complained  that  he  was  compelled  to  serve  without  payment  in 
an  unpopular  office,  exacting  from  him  much  time  and  labour, 
at  the  beck  and  call  of  any  interfering 'Justice  of  the  Peace. 
Finally,  the  Churchwarden  would  have  been  puzzled  to  know 
whether  he  belonged  to  a  secular  or  to  an  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  ; 
and  how  far  he  was  compelled  to  obey,  on  the  one  hand  the 


THE  OBLIGATION  TO  SERVE  355 

archdeacon  and  "  the  Ordinary,"  or  on  the  other,  the  little  group 
of  "  principal  inhabitants  "  in  Vestry  assembled.  But  not  one 
of  these  personages  would  have  regarded  himself  as  forming 
part  of  anything  that  could  be  called  a  system  of  Local  Govern- 
ment. He  could  hardly  have  conceived  even  of  the  existence 
of  any  such  system.  The  very  term,  Local  Government,  was  not 
in  use  before  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.  ^  Through- 
out the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  and  right  into  the 
nineteenth  century,  the  greatest  county  personage  or  the  humblest 
parishioner  stood  on  his  personal  status,  whether  that  status  was, 
in  the  main,  one  of  authority  over  other  men,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  County  Justices,  the  Municipal  Magistrates  or  the  Lords  of 
Manors  ;  or,  in  the  main,  one  of  graduated  subservience  to 
superiors  within  an  hierarchy,  secular  or  ecclesiastical,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Parish  Constables,  Overseers,  Churchwardens,  the 
citizens  called  out  on  the  service  of  Watch  and  Ward  in  the  town 
streets  or  the  labourers  summoned  to  Statute  Duty  on  the 
coimtry  roads. 

The  Obligation  to  Serve 

It  was,  indeed,  this  principle  of  obligation  to  render  public 
service,  a  principle  coming  down  from  time  immemorial,  that 
was,  and  remained  far  into  the  eighteenth  century,  the  axle 
round  which  revolved  all  old-established  local  institutions, 
whether  manorial  or  parochial,  of  the  Borough  or  of  the  County. 
The  particular  obligations  might  rest  on  local  custom  or  on  the 
Common  Law  ;  they  might  be  embodied  in  grant  or  charter,  in 
general  statute  or,  in  later  times,  in  a  Local  Act ;  they  might 
attach  to  individuals  or  corporations,  or  be  appurtenant  to  the 
ownership  of  particular  estates.  But  however  these  obligations 
arose,  they  included,  not  merely  a  duty  to  obey,  but  also  a  direct 
charge  on  the  will  to  act.  They  involved  not  only  personal 
responsibility  to  a  superior,  but  also  such  power  over  other 
persons  as  was  incidental  to  the  due  performance  of  the  public 

^  We  find  the  phrase  "  local  self-govemment  "  becoming  current  in  the 
second  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  largely  through  its  use  by  Von 
Gneist  and  J.  Toulmin  Smith.  From  this,  in  the  third  quarter  of  the  century, 
seems  to  have  sprung  the  phrase  "  local  government."  It  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  this  cannot  be  found,  here  and  there,  at  an  earlier  date  ;  but  it  was  certainly 
not  until  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  that  it  came  into  common  use. 
>ye  riotice  it  in  a  leading  article  of  the  Times  on  15th  December  1856. 


356  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

service.  Thus,  however  men  might  differ  in  faculties  and  desires, 
or  in  status  and  fortune,  they  were  all  under  obligation  to  serve 
in  one  way  or  another.  It  was,  for  instance,  taken  for  granted 
that  every  respectable  male  resident  was  under  legal  obligation 
to  undertake,  without  salary  or  other  remuneration,  one  or  other 
of  the  customary  or  statutory  offices  of  Manor,  Parish  or  County.  ^ 
Though,  as  w^e  have  explained,  the  method  of  selection  varied, 
both  by  statute  and  at  Common  Law,  we  find  a  widespread  local 
custom  that  each  office  ought  to  be  served  in  rotation  by  all 
parishioners,  qualified  according  to  certain  traditional  require- 
ments. "  In  some  places,"  said  Chief  Justice  Holt  in  1698, 
"  people  are  to  be  Constables  by  house-row,"  or  rotation  among 
occupiers.  "  As  it  is  an  office  of  great  burden,"  WTote  Thomas 
Gilbert  in  1786-1787,  of  the  office  of  Overseer,  "  it  generally 
goes  by  house-row  in  rotation  through  the  parish."  "  In  fact," 
summed  up  Dr.  Burn  in  1764,  "  the  office  goes  by  rotation  from 
one  householder  to  another  " — in  "  indiscriminate  rotation," 
records  another  observer,  "  among  all  those  whose  occupations 
render  them  liable  to  the  office."  It  was,  in  fact,  at  the  end  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  still  no  part  of  the  conception  of  local 
administration  that  there  should  be  anything  of  the  nature  of 
what  we  should  now  call  official  staffs  ;  that  is  to  say,  the 
volimtary  and  whole-time  employment  of  persons  at  salaries 
and  wages,  to  perform  specified  functions.  Every  service 
requisite  for  the  simple  life  of  the  Manor  or  the  Parish  fell,  in 
ancient  times,  within  the  duty  imposed,  as  an  incident  of  tenure 
or  status,  upon  one  or  other  inhabitant,  either  permanently  or 
for  a  brief  term  in  rotation  with  his  neighbours.  Nor  was  this 
universal  obligation  to  render  public  service  limited  to  individual 
residents  or  property  owners.  It  was  inherent  in  the  very  right 
'^to  exist  of  corporate  bodies  of  every  kind.  To  the  mediaeval 
statesman  we  may  imagine  that  the  Municipal  Corporation,  like 
the  Manor  itself,  was  primarily  an  organ  of  obligation,  by  means 
of  which,  in  particular  localities,  the  services  required  by  the  King 
might  most  conveniently  be  performed  and  could  most  easily 
be  exacted.  Similarly,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  neither  Parish  nor 
County  was  an  organisation  for  local  self-government.  On  one 
plane  the  Parish,  on  another  the  County,  was  essentially  a  unit 
of  obligation.  It  was  the  Parish,  in  some  cases  in  succession  to 
^  Tilt  Pariah  and  the  County,  p.  16. 


UNITS  OF  OBLIGATION  357 

the  Manor,  and  not  any  of  its  officers,  that  was  liable  for  the 
upkeep  of  the  church  fabric,  as  well  as  of  the  churchyard ;  for 
compliance  with  this  and  that  statutory  obligation  ;  and  for 
the  maintenance  of  its  own  part  of  the  King's  Highway.  The 
officers  and  Courts  of  the  County  were,  on  their  own  plane,  merely 
devices  by  which  the  obligations  of  the  County  itself  were  per- 
formed, and  through  which  they  could  be  enforced,  whether 
these  obligations  related  to  the  furnishing  of  the  fOsse  comitatus 
to  put  down  any  resistance  to  the  maintenance  of  the  King's 
Peace,  or  in  later  times  to  the  militia  raised  for  national  defence  ; 
to  the  upkeep  of  the  County  Bridges  without  which  there  could 
be  no  free  passage  for  the  King  and  his  men  ;  to  the  keeping  of 
the  common  gaol  which  was  the  King's,  or  the  accommodation 
of  the  King's  Judges  when  they  came  to  hold  the  Assizes.  Far 
from  constituting  any  system  of  local  self-government,  the 
Courts  and  Sessions  of  the  County  Justices,  and  the  services  of 
the  County  officials  were,  from  the  standpoint  of  constitutional 
law,  only  instruments  within  the  County  for  the  proper  keeping 
of  the  King's  Peace,  for  the  due  execution  of  the  King's  writs, 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  decisions  of  the  King's  Judges,  for 
the  exact  and  punctual  payment  of  the  various  revenues  due  to 
the  King,  for  the  keeping  of  the  King's  prisons  and  the  King's 
Courts,  and  for  the  maintenance  of  the  great  bridges  without 
which  the  King's  Highway  could  afiord  no  convenient  passage 
through  the  KLingdom. 

It  is  this  principle  of  personal  obligation,  on  which  the  whole 
of  English  Local  Government  v/as  based,  that  affords  the  ex- 
planation of  the  great  bulk  of  the  administration  being,  even  so 
late  as  the  eighteenth  century,  cast  in  what  to-day  seems  the 
strange  form  of  presentment  and  indictment,  traverse  and  trial, 
sentence  and  fine  or  estreat.  In  the  Manor  and  the  County  we 
ffiid  innumerable  varieties  of  presentment  which  particular 
officers,  or  particular  Juries  of  various  kinds,  from  Sewers  and 
Leets  to  Franchises  and  Hundreds,  and  finally  the  Grand  Inquest 
for  the  County  as  a  whole,  were  always  being  charged  to  make. 
It  was  by  means  of  these  presentments,  and  the  cumbrous  legal 
proceedings  which  they  initiated,  that  all  derelictions  were  dealt 
with,  whether  the  ordinary  breaches  of  the  law  by  private 
individuals,  the  shortcomings  of  parochial  and  manorial  officers, 
the  failure  of  Parishes  to  maintain  their  highways,  their  pounds 


358  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

and  their  stocks  ;  the  neglect  of  Franchises  and  Hundreds  to 
keep  the  peace,  whereby  damage  had  been  done  ;  and  equally 
the  derelictions  of  duty  of  the  County  itself  in  failing  to  keep 
in  repair  the  County  Gaol  or  the  County  Bridges.  WTiat  to-day 
emerges  in  the  agendas  and  minutes  of  boards  and  councils  as 
reports  of  committees  and  resolutions  appeared,  two  or  three 
centuries  ago,  as  the  proceedings  of  courts  of  justice,  in  the  form 
of  presentments,  indictments,  traverses,  forfeitures  and  sen- 
tences.^ It  is,  indeed,  not  too  much  to  say  that,  at  the  close  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  in  the  Courts  of  the  Manor  or  in  the 
Court  of  Sewers,  the  inhabitants  of  every  surviving  Manor, 
and  of  nearly  every  area  liable  to  be  flooded,  including  all  the 
landowners  and  frequently  the  Lord  of  the  Manor  himself  ;  and, 
at  the  Quarter  Sessions  and  Assizes,  all  the  Parishes  and  Hun- 
dreds, and  at  the  Assizes  all  the  Franchises,  Liberties  and 
Municipal  Corporations,  and  even  the  County  itself,  represented 
by  their  unpaid  and  compulsorily  serving  officers,  were,  one  or 
other  of  them,  always  in  the  dock,  as  defendants  in  nominally 
criminal  proceedings,  on  which  they  were  perpetually  being 
amerced  or  fined.  This,  indeed,  was  the  customary  and  regular 
procedure  of  the  Local  Government  of  the  period. 

The  same  notion  of  obligation  elucidates  what  was  under- 
stood by  the  conception  of  nuisance,  which  swelled  into  so  large 
a  part  of  the  framework  of  law  in  which  the  ordinary  citizen  j 
found  himself.  A  nuisance  implied  a  breach  of  obligation.  If 
every  person  fulfilled  his  lawful  duty,  according  to  the  customs 
of  the  Manor  and  the  Common  Law,  no  one  would  do  or  sufier 
anything  to  be  done  to  the  annoyance  of  his  neighbours.  Any 
breach  of  this  fundamental  obligation  was  therefore  a  nuisance, 
active  or  passive.  Thus,  the  redress  of  nuisances  came  to 
include  the  remedying  of  every  conceivable  neglect  or  offence, 
from  eavesdropping  and  disorderly  drunkenness  to  the  use  of 

^  The  local  bodies,  says  Maitland,  were  not  "  the  rcpi-escntativcs  of  un- 
organised collections  of  men  :  they  are  the  representatives,  we  might  almost 
say,  of  corporations.  .  .  .  The  same  word  {comitatus)  serves  to  describe  both 
the  County,  the  geographical  district,  and  the  assembly.  .  .  .  The  King's 
itinerant  Justices  from  time  to  time  visiu  the  Coimties  ;  the  whole  County 
{tolus  comitatus),  i.e.  the  body  of  freeholders  stands  before  them  ;  it  declares 
what  the  County  has  been  doing  since  the  last  visitation  ;  the  County  can 
give  judgment ;  the  County  can  give  testimony  ;  the  County  can  be  punished 
by  finea  and  amercements  when  the  County  has  done  wrong  ;  if  the  County 
has  given  false  judgment,  the  County  can  be  summoned  to  Westminster  " 
(The  Conslitutional  History  of  England,  by  F.  W.  Maitland,  1919,  p.  43). 


THE  INEQUALITY  OF  OBLIGATION  S59 

false  weights  and  measures  or  the  sale  of  unwholesome  food ; 
from  filth  and  stench,  and  neglect  to  pave,  up  to  riot,  sedition 
and  recusancy.  "  Cows,  horses,  sheep,  pigs,  dogs,"  we  are  told, 
"  all  required  regulation,  and  had  it."  Pigs,  as  the  most  per- 
verse of  animals,  required  the  firmest  and  most  rigorous  handling  ; 
and  hundreds  of  foHo  pages  of  Jury  orders  and  presentments 
relate  to  swine  alone,  and  their  numerous  misdeeds  and  nuisances, 
their  "  eating  corn  in  the  market,"  and  their  nameless  desecra- 
tions of  the  churchyard.  But  the  worst  of  all  nuisances,  because 
it  cut  at  the  root  of  common  order,  was  the  refusal  to  serve  in 
any  of  the  customary  offices,  a  breach  of  obligation  which  was 
accordingly  visited  with  exemplary  fines. 


The  Inequality  in  the  Incidence  of  the  Obligation  to  Serve 

The  democratic  conception  of  the  equahty  of  all  men  in  the 
service  of  the  community  was,  it  is  needless  to  say,  entirely 
absent  from  the  general  obligation  to  undertake  public  office 
still  embodied  in  the  old-established  local  institutions  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  This  was  partly  due  to  the  intimate  associa- 
tion of  the  obligation  to  serve  with  the  traditionally  vocational 
basis  of  Enghsh  society,  pohtical  as  well  as  industrial — a  point 
we  shall  presently  elaborate.  But  apart  from  this  intimate 
association  of  public  duties  with  particular  vocations,  the  various 
obhgations  fell  only  Hghtly  on  men  of  property,  and  much  more 
heavily  on  the  humbler  ranks  of  society.  The  peer,  by  reason  of 
his  dignity  ;  the  Member  of  Parhament,  or  the  Justice  of  the 
Peace,  on  account  of  his  office  ;  the  practising  attorneys  and 
barristers  ;  the  ministers  of  reUgion  (originally  of  the  one  and 
only  Church,  and  later  also  those  of  recognised  nonconformist 
denominations),  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  three  powerful 
corporations  of  physicians,  of  surgeons  and  of  apothecaries, 
enjoyed  a  common,  although  not  exactly  uniform,  exemption 
from  service  in  such  onerous  and  unpleasant  offices  as  Parish 
Constable,  Overseer  of  the  Poor,  or  Surveyor  of  Highways.^ 
And  although  it  may  have  been  theoretically  doubtful  whether 
any  duly  qualified  person  could  lawfully  refuse  to  be  made  a 

^  For  the  detailed  qualifications  of  this  summary  statement  see  The  Justice 
o/  th£  Peace,  by  Richard  Bum  (first  edition,  1 754),  under  the  headings  of  the 
several  olHcers. 


36o  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

peer,  to  be  elected  to  the  House  of  Commons,  or  to  be  included  in 
the  Commission  of  the  Peace,  there  was  practically  no  obligation 
of  attendance  in  Parliament,  whilst  an  unwilling  Justice  might 
always  refrain  from  "  taking  out  his  dedimus,"  without  which 
he  could  not  act.  It  is  an  interesting  sidelight  that  the  only 
County  office  which  was  at  once  compulsory  and  expensive,  that 
of  the  High  Sheriff,  was  always  imposed,  unless  occasionally  a 
County  personage  deigned  to  accept  it,  on  one  of  the  minor 
gentry.  Moreover,  any  well-to-do  citizen,  even  if  he  could  not 
claim  exemption  by  status,  might  always  buy  exemption,  either 
through  the  purchase  of  a  "  Tyburn  Ticket,"  or  by  merely  paying 
a  fine.i  Finally,  however  onerous  and  unprofitable  may  have 
been  the  office  of  Constable,  Overseer,  Churchwarden  or  Sur- 
veyor, it  was  accompanied  by  a  little  brief  authority  over  fellow- 
citizens,  a  satisfaction  denied  to  the  still  humbler  inhabitants 
who  had  to  carry  out  the  orders  of  the  Parish  Officers  in  the  town 
streets  or  on  the  country  roads. 

The  Continually  Increasing  Inadequacy  of  the  Princi'ple  of 
Obligation  to  Serve 

Among  the  many  reasons  for  the  rapid  acceleration  of  the 
decay  of  the  Manor  and  the  Municipal  Corporation,  for  the 
distorted  growth  of  Parish  and  County  government,  for  the 
chaotic  multiplication  of  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special 
Purposes,  and  for  the  corruption  and  inefficiency  characteristic 
of  all  these  local  institutions  during  the  eighteenth  and  early 
nineteenth  centuries,  we  know  of  no  cause  more  miiversal  and 
significant  than  the  increasing  inadequacy  of  the  principle  of 
obhgation  to  serve  as  a  method  of  local  administration.  We  do 
not  suggest  that  this  principle  of  individual  responsibiUty,  and 
this  obligation  of  personal  service  for  the  common  good,  is  in 
itself  objectionable.  To  many  idealists  it  seems  not  only  an 
attractive  but  also  an  ennobling  social  doctrine.  As  we  shall 
indicate  later  on,  it  was  a  moral  disaster  that  the  public  duties 
and  obligations  of  citizens,  as  distinguished  from  their  private 
interests  and  needs,  should  have  been,  by  the  Utilitarian 
reformers  of  1832-1836,  so  entirely  ignored.  But  however  \drtuous 
or  wise  may  be  a  principle  of  public  or  private  action,  its  survival 
»  The  Parish  and  the  County,  pp.  19,  G3. 


INADEQUACY  OF  OBLIGATORY  SERVICE  361 

as  the  ostensible  method  of  achieving  a  desired  result,  after  that 
principle  has  ceased  to  be  applicable  or  adequate  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  time,  undermines  the  very  foundations  of  personal  conduct 
and  social  organisation. 

We  cannot  estimate  how  far,  in  previous  centuries,  the 
principle  of  obligatory  personal  service,  nearly  always  gratuitous, 
had  ever  proved  sufficient  for  contemporary  needs.  What  is 
clear  from  our  researches  into  eighteenth-century  Local  Govern- 
ment is  that,  when  certain  conditions  ceased  to  prevail,  the 
principle  became  ineffective.  In  order  to  be  fulfilled,  the  duties 
had  to  be  accepted,  as  a  matter  of  course,  by  the  great  majority 
of  those  on  whom  they  were  imposed  ;  and  supported  by  the 
public  opinion  of  the  community  in  which  they  lived.  The 
services  to  be  rendered  had  not  only  to  be  within  the  capacity 
of  the  ordinary  citizen,  but  also  consistent  with  his  earning  his 
livelihood  and  living  his  normal  fife.  In  short,  the  obligations 
had  to  be  customary,  limited  in  extent  and  unspeciahsed  in 
character.  In  many  a  rural  Manor  and  secluded  Parish  these 
conditions  were  maintained  right  down  to  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  The  Httle  group  of  freeholders  or  copy- 
holders, and  "  principal  inhabitants,"  continued  to  fill,  with 
integrity  and  sufficient  skill,  all  the  offices  requisite  for  the  life 
of  the  small  and  stationary  community.  Among  these  neigh- 
bours, each  cultivating  his  agricultural  holding  or  using  the 
common  land,  or  serving,  like  his  forefathers,  as  village  innkeeper 
or  blacksmith,  as  indoor  apprentice  or  farm-servant,  the  group- 
spirit  was  highly  developed.  The  official  relationships  among 
the  parties  concerned  were  inextricably  interwoven  with  the 
economic  relationships  among  the  same  individuals  in  their 
private  capacities.  The  Justice  of  the  Peace  was  probably  him- 
self the  Lord  of  the  Manor  ;  his  tenants  constituted  the  Leet 
Jury,  presenting  nuisances  and  declaring  the  customs  of  the 
Manor,  and  they  individually  served  in  rotation  in  all  the  Parish 
offices  ;  they  themselves  were  the  employers  of  the  labourers 
whose  poverty  they  from  time  to  time  relieved  out  of  the  Poor 
Kate  ;  and  even  the  clergyman,  who  was  in  many  respects  the 
most  independent  person  in  the  village,  often  owed  his  position 
to  the  squire,  let  his  glebe  to  the  Churchwarden,  bargained  with 
the  Overseer  as  to  the  rates  on  his  tithes,  and  drew  these  tithes 
from  every  occupier  of  land  in  the  Parish.     Hence,  though  there 


362  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

might  be  grumbling,  there  could  be  no  effective  resistance  to  the 
action  of  the  governing  group.  On  the  other  hand,  though  there 
were  frequently  no  minutes,  and  certainly  no  printed  accounts 
and  no  newspaper  reporters,  the  persons  who  did  the  work  and 
paid  the  exiguous  rates  themselves  controlled  every  item  of 
expenditure  and  knew  everything  that  was  going  on.  Flagrant 
acts  of  dishonesty  were  difficult,  and  the  public  approval  or 
blame  of  the  whole  village  was  a  real  power.  But  with  the 
increase  of  trade  and  population  from  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  with  the  dislocation  of  economic  ties,  with  the  rapid 
.  transformation  of  rural  districts  into  busy  urban  centres  entaihng 
I.new  technical  services,  all  the  conditions  that  had  made  practic- 
able the  principle  of  obligatory,  gratuitous  and  rotational  service 
were  swept  away,  to  be  replaced  by  conditions  transforming  the 
ancient  functions  of  the  old  offices  into  so  many  opportunities 
for  evasion,  peculation  and  oppression.  Round  about  the  City 
of  London,  in  the  unincorporated  mining  and  manufacturing 
districts  of  the  Northern  and  Midland  Counties,  and  even  within 
the  walls  of  some  of  the  old-world  Municipahties,  the  new  industry 
and  the  unaccustomed  development  of  trade  were  bringing  great 
aggregations  of  population  into  ancient  Parishes.  Here  the 
economic  and  social  relations,  which  built  up  the  Manor  and  the 
Parish,  as  organs  of  the  "government  by  consent"  of  stable 
j social  and  economic  groups,  either  had  never  existed  or  were  in 
process  of  rapid  disintegration.  The  powerful  tie  of  landlord 
and  tenant  or  employer  and  wage-earner ;  the  strong  but 
intangible  link  of  family  relationship  or  inherited  social  status, 
uniting  the  squire  with  the  clergyman,  the  farmer  with  the 
handicraftsman  and  labourer,  and  all  these  with  each  other,  no 
longer  supplemented  the  bare  legal  relationships  between  the 
Lord  of  the  Manor  and  his  tenants,  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  and 
the  Overseer,  the  Incumbent  and  the  People's  Churchwarden, 
the  Parish  Officers  and  the  Parish  ratepayers.  The  Manor 
Courts  were  ceasing  to  be  held,  their  functions  being  more  and 
more  assumed  by  the  Justices,  the  Parish  Officers  and  the 
Vestries.  The  clergyman  of  the  Parish,  often  assumed  to  be 
the  proper  chairman  of  the  Vestry,  was  frequently  an  absentee, 
having  no  other  secular  or  religious  connection  with  his 
parishioners  than  the  delegated  exaction  of  his  annual  tithes 
and  dues.     The  Justice  of  the  Peace,  whose  co-operation  was  the 


ESCAPING  SERVICE  363 

corner-stone  of  Parish  government,  without  whose  signature  no 
Overseer  could  be  appointed,  no  accomits  passed,  nor  any  Poor 
Rate  collected,  might  be  a  County  magnate,  living  far  away 
from  the  new  industrial  district ;  or  what  was  worse,  a  newly 
enriched  tradesman  with  merely  commercial  traditions,  who  had, 
for  personal  ends,  intrigued  himself  into  the  Commission  of  the 
Peace.  Nor  was  the  failure  of  supervision  of  Parish  government 
by  the  upper  classes  compensated  for,  in  the  vast  majority  of 
instances,  by  any  increased  watchfulness  on  the  part  of  the 
common  citizens.  The  inhabitants  of  these  new  industrial 
!  districts  were  unknown  to  each  other  ;  many,  as  newcomers, 
j  were  uninterested  in  the  local  afiairs  and  unacquainted  with  the 
local  customs.  The  time,  place  and  method  of  appointment  of 
the  Parish  Officers,  such  as  the  Overseers,  the  Constable  and  the 
Surveyor  of  Highways,  together  with  their  powers  and  fimctions, 
were,  as  far  as  these  iminstructed  and  indifferent  citizens  were 
concerned,  shrouded  in  mystery.  Respectable  householders 
might  find  themselves  compelled  to  undertake  an  onerous  duty 
against  their  will  by  the  fact  of  their  names  coming  next  on  some 
list  of  which  they  had  never  heard,  or  merely  because  they  had 
been  "  presented  "  by  the  Vestry  or  by  the  previous  occupant 
of  the  office,  either  to  the  Justices  or  to  a  surviving  Court  Leet. 
When  such  persons  foimd  themselves  appointed  to  act  as  Con- 
l  stable  or  Surveyor,  Overseer  or  Churchwarden,  they  usually  did 
/their  utmost  to  escape  service.  "  The  imposition  of  the  office  " 
'  of  Constable,  writes  Daniel  Defoe  in  1714,  "  is  an  insupportable 
hardship  ;  it  takes  up  so  much  of  a  man's  time  that  his  own 
affairs  are  frequently  totally  neglected,  too  often  to  his  ruin. 
Yet  there  is  neither  profit  nor  pleasure  therein."  ^  "  It  is  well 
known,"  reports  a  Poor  Law  Commissioner  in  1833,  "  that  when 
any  person  who  has  received  a  good  education,  and  whose  habits 
are  those  of  a  gentleman,  settles  in  a  Parish,  one  of  his  first 
objects  is  to  endeavour  to  exempt  himself  from  Parish  office."  ^ 
When  it  is  remembered  that  it  was  just  in  these  new  industrial 
districts,  or  in  the  still  denser  aggregations  of  the  Metropolitan 
area,  that  the  public  business  of  the  Parish  was  becoming  every 

^  Parochial  Tyranny,  by  Andrew  Moreton  (Daniel  Defoe),  p.  17 ;  The 
Parish  and  the  County,  p.  62. 

2  Commxinication  from  a  J.  P.  in  Codd's  Report,  p.  53  of  Appendix  A  of 
First  Report  of  Poor  Law  Inquiry  Commissioners,  1834 ;  The  Parish  and  the 
County,  p.  62. 


364  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

day  more  complicated  and  difficult ;  that  the  mere  number  of 
the  paupers  was  becoming  overwhelming  ;  that  new  buildings 
of  diverse  kinds  were  springing  up  on  all  sides  ;  that  paving, 
cleansing,  lighting  and  watching  were  ahke  wanting  ;  that  the 
crowding  together  of  tens  of  thousands  of  poverty-stricken  persons 
was  creating  unspeakable  nuisances  ;  and  that  the  amount  of 
the  rates  levied  on  the  inhabitants  was  at  the  same  time  doubling 
and  trebling,  it  will  be  easily  understood  why,  in  one  district  after 
another,  the  situation  became  intolerable. 

It  was  not  merely  that,  in  these  areas,  a  large  part  of  the 
public  revenue  came  to  be  levied  in  the  invidious  form  of  fines 
exacted  from  those  who  wished  to  buy  exemption  from  the 
performance  of  public  duties.  The  abandonment  of  the  offices 
of  the  Parish  and  Manor  by  all  the  inhabitants  of  education, 
social  position  or  independent  means,  left  these  offices  to  be 
filled  by  any  one  who  sought  them  as  opportunities  for  making 
illicit  gains.  There  came  to  be  an  almost  universal  prevalence 
of  perquisites,  which  might  extend  from  frequent  feasts  and  a 
total  exemption  from  the  payment  of  rates,  up  to  the  most 
extensive  jobbery  in  supplying  the  Parish  or  the  Borough  with 
goods  at  exorbitant  prices,  and  unlimited  peculation  at  the 
expense  either  of  terrified  inhabitants  or  of  the  public  funds. 
In  our  chapters  on  "  The  Uncontrolled  Parish  Officers  "  and 
"  The  Rule  of  the  Boss,"  we  have  given  detailed  examples, 
typical  of  a  large  part  of  the  new  England  that  was  growing  up 
in  the  Northern  and  Midland  Counties,  in  the  ports  and  the  great 
Metropolitan  area,  of  peculation,  extortion  and  corruption, 
carried  to  an  extent,  continued  over  terms  of  years  and  enjoying 
an  impunity  to-day  almost  incredible.^ 

But  even  if  men  of  integrity  and  public  spirit  had  continued 
to  come  forward  to  fill  the  old  offices  of  the  Manor  and  the  Parish  ; 
even  if  the  average  citizen  had  been  exact  and  punctihous  in  the 
fulfilment  of  his  accustomed  obligations,  in  the  avoidance  of 
nuisances  and  in  performance  of  Statute  Duty,  the  very  change 
in  environment  had  rendered  such  personal  services  wholly  un- 
equal to  the  tasks  by  which  they  were  faced.  Here  it  was  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  obligation  itself  that  was  inadequate. 
The  assumption  on  which  universal  and  gratuitous  personal 
service  had  always  rested  was  that  of  a  substantially  unaltered 
*  The  Parish  and  tJie  County,  pp.  61-90. 


THE   VOCATIONAL  BASIS  365 

'Obligation  year  after  year.  The  principle  was  devised  for  a 
stable  and  unchanging  community.  There  was  no  provision  for 
any  new  services  that  might  be  called  for  by  altered  circum- 
stances. The  common  obligation  of  the  landowners  to  maintain 
the  sewers  did  not  extend  to  making  a  new  sewer  ;  that  of  the 
County  to  maintain  a  bridge  carried  with  it  neither  duty  nor 
power  to  construct  a  new  bridge,  however  urgent  might  be  the 
need.  Whatever  might  be  the  growing  throng  or  traffic  on  the 
highways,  no  Parish  could  lawfully  make  a  new  thoroughfare, 
or  even  raise  a  footway  to  a  bridleway,  or  a  bridleway  to  a  cart- 
way. It  was  no  part  of  the  obhgation  of  the  Parish  or  of  the 
individual  parishioners  to  transform  a  muddy  country  lane,  along 
which  a  free  passage  was  just  possible,  into  the  widened  and 
straightened  and  artificially  prepared  road  surface  that  the  new 
traffic  required  ;  and  even  if  the  new  thoroughfare  got  con- 
structed, nothing  more  technically  skilled  or  scientifically  expert 
could  be  required  from  the  Parish  in  the  way  of  maintenance 
than  could  be  supplied  by  the  untrained  and  unspecialised  inn- 
keeper or  farmer  who  accepted  a  year's  unpaid  service  as  Surveyor 
of  Highways,  directing  the  temporarily  conscripted  labour  of  the 
crowd  of  farm-servants  and  other  cottagers  who  were  periodically 
called  out  to  do  Statute  Duty  on  the  roads.  Even  where  the 
character  of  the  required  service  remained  unchanged,  its  very 
growth  in  magnitude  took  it  outside  the  capacity  of  the  tempo- 
rarily serving  unpaid  Parish  officer.  It  was  one  thing  to  make 
the  assessment  and  collect  the  rates  in  a  Parish  of  only  a  few 
dozen  ratepayers,  all  of  whom  were  personal  acquaintances.  It 
became  quite  another  matter  to  make  the  assessment  in  a  crowded 
Lancashire  town,  filled  with  mills  and  warehouses,  shops  and 
foimdries  of  divers  kinds  ;  and  to  collect  the  rates  from  thousands 
of  occupiers,  many  of  them  merely  transient  residents. 

Vocational  Organisation  as  the  very  Basis  of 
Government 

There  was  another  principle  behind  the  local  institutions  of 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  one  which  had  become, 
through  senility,  a  factor  of  disorganisation  and  demoralisation, 
namely,  the  acceptance  of  vocational  or  occupational  organisa- 
tion as  a  basis  of  government.    At  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 


366  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

century  governmental  authority  was  frequently  vested  in  a 
group,  a  company  or  a  corporation  associated  for  some  produc- 
tion or  supply  of  services  or  commodities.  The  Church,  the 
Universities,  the  Inns  of  Court,  the  College  of  Physicians,  the 
Company  of  Surgeons  or  the  Society  of  Apothecaries  could,  it 
seemed,  each  exercise  far-extending  authority  in  connection  with 
the  service  that  its  members  rendered  to  the  community  as  a 
means  of  livelihood.  Such  chartered  incorporations  as  the  East 
India  Company,  the  New  River  Company,  the  Bank  of  England 
and  the  various  national  companies  for  colonial  and  foreign 
trade,  or  for  mining  or  manufacture,  could  receive  analogous 
powers.^  A  like  association  of  authority  over  non-members 
with  economic  function  and  vocational  organisation  can  be 
traced  in  some,  at  least,  of  the  local  institutions  to  which  we 
have  been  referring.  The  Manorial  Court,  in  its  aspect  of  Court 
Baron  (as  distinguished  from  that  of  Court  Leet,  which  was  a 
King's  Court)  was  essentially  the  organ,  not  of  the  citizens  as 
such,  or  of  the  inhabitants  as  a  w^hole,  but  of  the  particular  group 
of  owners  or  tenants  of  agricultural  land  within  the  Manor — that 
is  to  say,  notwithstanding  the  feudal  autocracy  that  formed 
its  other  side,  it  belonged,  like  the  colleges  and  companies,  to 
the  genus  of  Associations  of  Producers.  This  explains  why  the 
typical  officers  of  Local  Government  in  the  Manor  were  the 
Herdsman,  the  Common  Driver,  the  Pigringer,  the  Hayward, 
and  the  Pinder  or  Pound  Keeper.  This  it  was  that  inspired  the 
"  customs  "  of  the  Manor,  and  dictated  the  elaborate  regulation 
of  the  common  field  agriculture,  which,  as  we  have  shown  in  the 
example  of  the  Manor  of  Great  Tew,  occupied  so  much  of  the 
time  of  the  Lord's  Court.  The  same  spirit  is  seen  in  the  clinging 
of  the  Freemen  of  Alnwick  or  Berwick,  Coventry  or  Newcastle- 
on-Tyne,  to  their  chartered  monopoly  of  the  Town  Moor,  the 
Lammas  Lands,  or  the  "  Meadows  and  Stints."  The  student  of 
other  species  of  vocational  or  occupational  organisation  will  not 
be  surprised  to  find  the  "  Homage  "  resenting  both  the  intrusion 
of  "  foreigners  "  into  the  Manor,  and  the  invasion  of  the  commons 
by  "  landless  residents."     The  same  spirit  led,  in  many  a  Manor 

*  "  In  the  earlier  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,"  writes  Dr.  Cunningham, 
"  it  appeared  to  be  assumed  tliat  the  i)rganisation  of  trade  by  persons  who  were 
toncomod  in  it  was  essential  "  {Tke  Growth  of  English  Induslry  and  Commerce 
in  Modern  Times,  by  Dr.  W.  Cunningham,  1900,  p.  284). 


ASSOCIATIONS  OF  PRODUCERS  367 

or  Manorial  Borougli,  to  the  exaction  of  tolls  and  dues  in  the 
market  and  at  the  landing-stage  exclusively  from  those  who  had 
not  been  admitted  as  tenants  of  the  Manor  ;  and  sometimes, 
even  in  unincorporated  villages,  induced  the  Reeve,  as  repre- 
sentative of  the  Homage,  to  charge  a  fee  to  such  "  foreigners  " 
for  the  privilege  of  opening  a  shop.  It  was,  we  suggest,  the  fact 
that  the  Court  Baron  had  the  attributes  that  belong  to  an 
Association  of  Producers  which  caused  it,  as  is  apparent  in  our 
account  of  the  Manorial  Boroughs,  to  develop  into  a  close 
body,  renewing  itself  by  co-option,  from  which  the  unprivileged 
inhabitant  found  himself  automatically  excluded.  But  although 
nearly  every  Borough  retained,  even  as  late  as  the  seventeenth 
century,  at  least  a  remnant  of  interest  in  agriculture,  most  of 
these  urban  centres  had  become,  by  that  time,  predominantly 
communities  of  traders,  whether  master-craftsmen,  retail  shop- 
keepers or  dealers  of  one  sort  or  another,  together  with  their 
journeymen,  apprentices  or  other  wage  -  earning  assistants. 
Thus,  the  Association  of  Producers  in  agriculture  had,  in  the 
Manorial  Boroughs,  become  gradually  transformed  into  an 
Association  of  Producers  concerned  rather  with  trade  and  manu- 
facture. This  transformation  was  reflected  in  the  corporate 
officers  and  the  corporate  jurisdictions,  involving  the  appoint- 
ment of  Ale-conners,  Fish  and  Flesh  Tasters,  and  Leather 
Searchers  and  Sealers.  To  the  control  of  the  common  agriculture 
there  was  added  a  control  of  the  common  trading.  When  we 
pass  from  the  Manorial  Boroughs  to  the  couple  of  hundred 
Municipal  Corporations,  creating  their  own  Justices  of  the  Peace, 
holding  their  own  civil  and  criminal  Courts,  sometimes  appoint- 
ing their  own  Sheriffs,  and  in  one  case  even  having  its  own 
Lieutenancy,  independent  of  the  Kjng's  appointment,  we  find 
this  independence  frequently  intertwined  with  (and,  as  some 
have  suggested,  usually  rooted  in,  if  not  arising  from)  a  varying 
assortment  of  Merchant  or  Craft  Gilds  or  Companies,  all  of  them 
originally  Associations  of  Producers,  and  basing  their  member- 
ship, not,  as  in  the  Manor  and  the  Manorial  Borough,  on  their 
common  interest  as  agriculturists,  but  on  their  common  interest 
in  some  branch  of  trade  or  manufacture.  We  need  not  here  con- 
sider such  vexed  questions  as  the  exact  relation  of  the  Merchant 
Gild,  so  frequent  in  the  thirteenth  century,  on  the  one  hand  to 
the  Municipal  Corporation  itself,  and  on  the  other  to  the  Craft 


368  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

Gilds  of  the  fifteenth  century  ;  or  the  varying  degrees  of  inde- 
pendent authority  to  be  attributed,  respectively,  to  the  orders 
and  byelaws  made  by  the  Craft  Gilds  for  their  own  trades,  of  the 
regulations  respecting  artificers  made  by  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion itself,  and  of  the  provisions  of  the  Elizabethan  Statute  of 
Apprentices,  under  which,  in  fact,  the  eighteenth-century  Town 
Council  usually  preferred  to  take  proceedings  against  non- 
Freemen.  What  emerges  from  our  analysis  of  these  manorial 
and  municipal  exceptions  from  the  common  rule  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  County  by  the  King's  Lieutenant  and  the  King's 
Justices,  is  the  fact  that  practically  all  the  regulative  activities 
of  these  organs  of  independent  authority  seem  to  be  connected, 

^  at  least  by  traditional  origin,  not  with  the  common  interests  of 
all  men  as  citizens  and  consumers,  but  with  the  particular 
interests  of  the  members  as  locally  privileged  groups  of  agri- 

,  culturists,  traders  or  manufacturers.  It  is  to  this  primordial 
conception  of  an  organisation  based  on  common  interests  as 
producers,  not  wherever  they  resided  but  only  within  a 
delimited  area,  that  we  trace  the  various  forms  of  trade 
monopoly  which  characterise  alike  the  Craft  Gild  and  Trade 
Company,  the  Manorial  Borough  and  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion, from  the  prohibition  of  the  letting  of  crofts,  "  stints," 
boats,  market  -  stalls,  shops  or  houses  to  "  foreigners,"  up 
to  the  restriction  of  trades  to  Freemen,  or  to  the  sons  or 
apprentices  of  Freemen,  being  also  members  of  a  particular 
Gild  or  Company.  We  see  the  same  principle  in  the  habitual 
secrecy  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Municipal  Corporation  as  of 
the  Gild ;  the  same  notion  of  its  transactions  being  those  of  a 
voluntary  and  private  association  ;  the  same  abhorrence  of  any 
external  supervision  or  control ;  the  same  inability  to  recognise 
any  justification  for  the  demand  for  accounts,  let  alone  an  out- 
side audit.  We  see  the  same  idea  in  the  exemption  of  Freemen 
from  the  tolls  and  dues  levied  by  the  Municipal  Corporation 
(which  was  simply  themselves),  or  if  Freemen  paid  anything  at 
all,  the  mulcting  of  non-Freemen  in  higher  charges.  A  Muni- 
cipal Corporation,  feeling  itself  merely  a  group  of  privileged 
persons,  inevitably  considered  its  market  or  its  port,  like  its 
commons  or  its  charitable  endowments,  as  belonging  morally  as 
well  as  legally  to  its  members,  and  to  its  members  exclusively. 
And  this  Association  of  Producers  retained,  to  the  last,  certain 


UNDERMINING  THE  VOCATIONAL  BASIS  369 

characteristics  of  an  essentially  voluntary  fellowship.  Alike  in 
the  Municipal  Corporation  and  in  the  Gild  or  Company,  a  new 
member  could  enter  only  by  the  consent  of  the  existing  corporate 
body,  just  as  a  new  tenant  of  the  Manor  had  to  be  formally 
admitted  by  the  Homage  at  the  Lord's  Court.  Any  member 
could  be,  for  sufficient  reason  and  with  due  formalities,  expelled 
from  the  Corporation  at  its  discretion.  The  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion, like  the  Gild,  was  thus,  in  fact,  not  only  an  Association  of 
Producers,  but  also  an  association  voluntarily  recruited  at  the 
option  of  the  existing  members,  who  felt  that  they  had  a  privilege 
to  bestow.  It  was  therefore  at  all  times  an  association  falling 
far  short  of  universality  ;  and  in  no  way  identified  particularly 
with  mere  inhabitancy  or  residence,  or,  as  would  now  be  said, 
with  local  citizenship.! 


The  Undermining  of  the  Vocational  Basis  of  Local 
Institutions 

At  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  when  the  National 
Government,  as  we  have  explained,  ceased  to  give  any  attention 
to,  or  to  take  any  interest  in,  the  development  of  local  institu- 
tions,  the   Manor,  the   Manorial  Borough  and  the  Municipal 

^  It  would,  we  think,  be  far-fetched  to  emphasise  traces  of  vocational  organisa- 
tion in  the  County  or  Parish  government.  But  it  is  worth  noting  that  the 
Justices  belonged  originally  all  to  one  class,  that  of  owners  of  agricultural 
land,  with  which  their  connection  was  much  more  than  that  of  receivers  of  rent. 
They  were,  in  fact,  the  directors  of  agricultural  enterprise.  And  though  the 
Parish  organisation,  resting  as  it  did,  from  at  least  the  fourteenth  centuiy,  on 
the  meeting  of  the  "  principal  inhabitants  "  in  Vestry  assembled,  was  dis- 
tinctively communal  in  character,  the  members,  in  practice,  were  usually  all 
agriculturists.  It  is  perhaps  for  this  reason  that  we  find  some  of  the  statutory 
obligations  of  the  Parish  imposed  upon  groups  of  persons  in  their  character  as 
producers  of  a  particular  type.  "  Every  person,  for  every  plough-land  in 
tillage  or  pasture  "  that  he  occupied  in  the  Parish,  and  "  also  every  person 
keeping  a  draught  [of  horses]  or  plough  in  the  Parish,"  had  to  provide  and 
send  "  one  wain  or  cart  furnished  after  the  custom  of  the  country,  with  oxen, 
horses,  or  other  cattle,  and  all  other  necessaries  meet  to  carry  things  convenient 
for  that  purpose,  and  also  two  able  men  with  the  same."  Finally,  "  every 
other  householder,  cottager  and  labourer,  able  to  labour,  and  being  no  hired 
servant  by  the  year,"  was  either  to  go  himself  to  work  or  to  send  "  one  sufficient 
labourer  in  his  stead."  All  these  teams  and  labourers  had  annually  to  appear 
on  the  roads  on  the  date  and  at  the  hour  fixed  by  the  Surveyor,  there  to  work 
under  his  direction  for  eight  hours  on  four,  and  afterwards  on  six  consecutive 
days  (2  and  3  Philip  &  Mary,  c.  8).  The  drafting  of  this  statute,  it  has  been 
remarked,  makes  it  appear  as  if  it  was  the  Manorial  organisation  that  was 
thought  of  (The  Story  of  tJie  King's  Highway,  1913,  p.  15). 

2b 


370  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

Corporation  were  already  in  an  advanced  stage  of  constitutional 
decay.  Their  functions  in  their  character  of  Associations  of 
Producers  were  already,  for  the  most  part,  obsolescent,  owing 
to  the  upgrowth  of  new  and  rival  forms  of  organisation,  alike  in 
agriculture,  in  commerce  and  in  manufacture,  entailing  a  divorce 
continuously  more  complete  and  more  universal,  of  the  mass  of 
the  workers  from  all  participation  in  the  ownership  and  direction 
of  the  instruments  of  production.  With  the  rapidly  increasing 
statutory  enclosures,  and  the  still  more  revolutionary  introduc- 
tion of  the  factory,  the  machine-industry  and  the  steam  engine, 
and  the  universal  improvement  in  the  means  of  communication, 
this  continuous  retreat  of  the  independent  peasant  cultivator 
and  the  master  craftsman  became,  before  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  nearly  everywhere  a  disastrous  rout.  The 
Manorial  Courts,  dependent  on  the  continuance  of  groups  of 
freeholders  or  copy-holders  as  agricultural  producers,  were  one 
by  one  silently  discontinued  as  organs  of  local  administration. 
In  such  urban  areas  as  Birmingham  and  Manchester,  they 
lingered  in  distorted  form  as  the  framework  of  an  attenuated 
Local  Government,  based  on  customary  obligation,  but  divorced 
\from  all  contact  w^ith  the  bulk  of  the  residents,  and  becoming 
(increasingly  subordinated  to  the  meeting  of  the  inhabitants  in 
Westry  assembled,  or  to  the  County  Justices  of  the  Peace.  Much 
(  the  same  decay  fell  on  the  great  majority  of  the  Municipal  Cor- 
\  porations,  which  found  that  their  immemorial  connection  with 
jthe  privileges  of  the  Freemen,  or  with  the  Gilds  or  Companies, 
[inevitably  entailed  an  ever-increasing  separation  from  the  great 
body  of  the  inhabitants.  Only  in  a  few  cases,  where  the  Free- 
men continued  to  be  not  so  far  behind  the  whole  number  of  house- 
holders ;  and  notably  in  the  City  of  London,  where  the  Livery 
Companies,  though  losing  their  connection  with  the  vocations 
of  which  they  bore  the  names,  were  wealthy  property  o\\Tiers, 
their  leading  members  continuing  to  be  individually  associated 
with  commerce,  do  we  see  the  members  of  the  Corporation 
becoming,  not  indeed  a  vocational,  but,  in  effect,  a  rate- 
payers' Democracy.  And  even  in  the  City  of  London,  the 
Companies  themselves,  like  nearly  all  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions elsewhere,  shrank  up  into  limited  groups  of  privileged 
persons,  recruiting  themselves  by  co-option,  and  having  an  ever- 
dwindling  community  of  interest  with  the  inhabitants  at  large. 


"  SELF-ELECTION  "  371 

It  was  this  progressive  decay  of  the  vocational  basis  of  muni- 
cipal structure  that  caused  the  vast  majority  of  Municipal  Cor- 
porations to  become,  from  the  standpoint  of  Local  Government, 
little  more  than  an  expedient  for  recruiting  a  local  bench  of 
magistrates,  who,  within  the  privileged  area,  exercised  much  of 
the  authority  of  the  County  Justices. 

The  Principle  of  "  Self-Election  "  or  Co-option 

To  the  modern  student,  who  might  expect  to  find  in  the 
eighteenth  century  the  beginning  of  the  political  Democracy  of 
the  nineteenth,  it  is  a  shock  to  discover  that  by  far  the  most 
widely  approved  constitution  for  local  institutions,  right  down 
to  the  early  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century,  was  the  dis- 
a  tinctively  oUgarchical  structure  of  a  close  body  recruiting  itself 
,  by  co-option.  Among  the  Local  Authorities  of  this  period  the 
I  meeting  of  inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled  was  the  only  one  in 
which  anything  like  a  communal  Democracy  can  be  seen,  or  any 
germ  of  a  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the 
people.  And  yet,  even  in  Parish  organisation,  the  Select  Vestry 
crops  up  sporadically  over  nearly  all  parts  of  England  and 
becomes  actually  the  common  form  in  the  cities  of  London, 
Westminster  and  Bristol,  and  in  Northumberland  and  Durham. 
Sometimes  this  Select  Vestry,  styled  indifferently  "  the  Gentle- 
men of  the  Four  and  Twenty,"  "  the  Company  of  the  Twelve," 
"  the  Masters  of  the  Parish,"  or  "  the  Kirk  Masters,"  claimed  to 
derive  its  authority  from  a  custom  "  whereof  the  memory  of  man 
runneth  not  to  the  contrary."  But  on  examination  of  the 
records  we  found  this  immemorial  custom  sometimes  entangled  in 
the  occupation  or  tenure  of  particular  husbandries  or  farms, 
probably  inherited  from  some  Manorial  organisation  ;  in  other 
cases  we  found  it  originating  in  a  resolution  of  the  Open  Vestry  in 
the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  century,  whereby  "it  is  agreed  by 
the  consent  of  the  whole  Parish,  to  elect  and  choose  out  of  the 
same,  twelve  men  to  order  and  define  all  common  causes  per- 
taining to  the  church,  as  shall  appertain  to  the  profit  and  com- 
modity of  the  same,  without  molestation  or  troubling  of  the  rest 
of  the  common  people."  ^     But  for  the  most  part  these  Select 

^  Churchwardens'  Accounts  0/  Piltington  and  other  Parishes  in  the  Diocese 
of  Durham  from  1580  to  1700  (Surtees  Society,  voL  Ixxxiv.,  1888),  p.  12  ;  The 
Parish  and  the  County,  pp.  184-185. 


372  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

Vestries  were  deliberately  brought  into  being,  expressly  in  order 
to  exclude  the  common  folk,  not  by  local  agreement,  but  by 
bishops'  faculty  ;  or,  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  or  the  first 
decades  of  the  nineteenth  century,  by  Local  Act.  Even  as  late 
as  1819  the  redoubtable  Thomas  Rhodes  succeeded  in  getting  an 
Act  completely  extinguishing  the  turbulent  Open  Vestry  of  St. 
Pancras  (which  he  had  for  twenty  years  been  stripping  of  its 
powers),  expressly  forbidding  any  such  body  to  meet  for  the 
future  ;  and  transferring  all  the  property  and  the  powers,  both 
of  the  Vestry  and  of  the  Directors  of  the  Poor,  to  a  Select  Vestry 
of  persons  named  in  the  Act,  and  entitled  to  fill  up  vacancies  by 
co-option. 

When  we  turn  from  Parish  government  to  the  Municipal  Cor- 
porations, we  find  the  great  majority  of  these,  amounting  to 
three-quarters  of  the  whole,  governed  each  by  a  close  body. 
This  body,  whether  styled  Court  of  Common  Council,  Court  of 
Aldermen,  or  the  Mayor  and  Commonalty,  itself  elected  the  Mayor 
or  other  head  of  the  Corporation,  and  filled  vacancies  in  its 
ranks  by  simple  co-option.  In  these  cases,  even  if  there  existed 
also  a  large  body  of  members  of  the  Corporation,  styled  Freemen, 
who  were  recruited  by  apprenticeship,  patrimony  or  purchase, 
they  found  themselves  excluded  from  the  government  of  the 
Corporation,  ranking  merely  as  humble  participants  in  some  of 
its  profitable  privileges,  such  as  freedom'  from  toll,  eligibility  for 
charities,  and  right  to  "  stint  of  common."  ^  This  kind  of 
government  it  w^as  that  the  Royal  Commission  of  1835  stig- 
omatised  as  "  the  Corporation  System,"  and  assumed  to  be  repre- 
sentative of  all  the  Municipal  Corporations.  We  need  not  here 
enquire  whether  the  close  body  derived  its  authority  from  the 
original  or  from  an  amending  charter  ;  or  merely  from  the 
existence  or  presumption  of  a  byelaw  of  the  Corporation  itself. 
"  The  Twenty-Four,"  recites  one  of  these  municipal  byelaws, 
"  shall  be  instead  of  the  whole  commonalty,  and  no  other  of  the 
commonalty  to  intermeddle  upon  pain  of  five  pounds."  ^    It  is 

^  The  Law  Courts  scorn  willingly  to  have  accepted  mere  usage  as  warranting 
this  exclusion,  and  even  to  have  been  prepared  to  pn^sume  from  usage  within 
living  memory  the  existence  of  a  byelaw  "  restraining  to  a  select  body  the  right 
of  election  of  the  principal  corporators,  though  vested  by  the  ancient  con- 
stitution in  the  popular  assembly  "  (The  Law  of  Municipal  Corporations,  by 
J.  W.  Willcock,  1828,  p.  8  ;   The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  p.  274). 

*  MS.  Minutes,  Corporation  of  Romney  Marsh  (Kent),  1604  ;    The  Manor 


THE  DECAY  OF  THE  JUSTICES  373 

significant  of  die  state  of  public  opinion,  aa  late  aa  1808,  that 
we  find  "'  the  pubKc  committee  of  Manchester  citizens,"  which 
then  headed  the  reform  movement  in  this  miincorporated  town- 
expressing  the  desire  that  Manchester  shonld  be  oidowed  with 
municipal  institntions  STTnflar  to  those  of  Leeds,  "  seLf-elect " 
though  these  were.  "  We  conceive,"  thev  declared,  "  that  a 
permanent  bodv  of  guardians  of  the  peace,  clothed  with  the 
authority  of  magistracy,  would  here,  as  in  other  places,  be  the 
natural  guardian  of  aU  interior  public  interests,  able  to  conduct 
them  with  uniformity  and  consistency,  and  ready  at  all  times  for 
the  immediate  prevention  or  correction  01  abuses  :  and  might 
represent  the  inhabitants  in  aH  tKeir  external  relations  with  a 
character  and  dignity  becoming  the  largest  provincial  community 
in  the  United  Kingdom.'*  ^ 

Even  among  the  County  Justices,  who  ^ried  in  bong  the 
directly  appointed  officers  of  the  King,  we  find  the  principle  of 
*  co-option  coming  in  at  the  begmning  of  the  nineteenth  centurv, 
it  not  earlier.  As  we  have  described,  the  sc-andaious  breakdown 
of  the  Middlesex  Bench  was  attributed  to  the  carelessness  and 
favouritism  which  permitted  the  appointment,  in  the  name  of 
the  Crown,  of  "  men  of  low  degree,"  who  became  tke  notorious 
"  Basket  Justices  "  or  "  Trading  Justices,"  5ham.elessly  using 
their  office  for  corrupt,  oppressive  and  even  fraudulent  purposes. 
Manv  are  the  complaints,  by  the  Justices  themselves,  to  be 
found  not  only  in  Quarter  Sessions  records,  but  also  in  the 
"  Magistrates'  Book  "  in  tlie  Home  Office  archives,  of  "  gross 
misconduct  and  unfitness  "  and  of  "  sc-andalous  corruption  and 
extortion "  among  tliese  unwortliy  nominees  of  the  Crown. 
With  tlie  upgrowth  of  the  movement  for  "  the  reformation  of 
morals  and  manners,"  initiated  by  the  Eoyal  Proclamation 
against  vice  and  immorality,  issued  early  in  1737  at  tie  instance 
of  Witberforce,  tiie  County  Justices  began  to  insist  on  nominating 
their  coReagues  and  successors.  The  reader  wiH  recall  the  case 
of  the  Merionethshire  County  Magistrates  who.  in  1333,  actually 

aiuL  the  BorvugK  p.  36L  A  lesser  revolmioii  Tnfgfit:  be  eSected  by  a  byelaw 
relating  ^o  the  eiecdon  or  qualidcations  of  the  ComnLon.  Council,  the  Aldermen, 
or  the  -Justices  oi  the  Peace  ;  usually  of  a  restrictrvs  tendency,  -ather  in  trans- 
ferring the  right  to  appcint  to  a  smaller  body,  or  n/riii,inj  t;he  rerscns  eiiaihie 
for  appointment. 

^  Beport  of  CommiHee  to  obtain  Reforms  (Manchesi^r,  IsOs) ;    The  Mmar 
and  tie  Boro^jjqh,  voL  u.  p.  422. 


374  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

"  went  on  strike  "  for  a  time,  in  their  resentment  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  wealthy  local  landowner,  because  he  had,  within  their 
recollection,  kept  a  retail  shop,  and  still  belonged  to  "  the 
Methodists."  They  objected  to  this  individual,  we  are  told, 
not  so  much  on  account  of  religious  differences,  which  might 
possibly  have  been  overlooked,  but  because  his  origin,  his  educa- 
tion, his  connections,  his  early  habits,  occupations  and  station 
were  not  such  as  could  entitle  him  to  be  the  famihar  associate 
of  gentlemen.  "  The  refusal  of  the  County  Magistrates,"  declared 
an  exceptionally  Conservative  member  of  the  Municipal  Cor- 
porations Commission,  "  to  act  with  a  man  who  has  been  a 
grocer  and  is  a  Methodist  is  the  dictate  of  genuine  patriotism  : 
the  spirit  of  aristocracy  in  the  County  magistracy  is  the  salt 
which  alone  saves  the  whole  mass  from  inevitable  corruption."  ^ 
Under  the  influence  of  this  spirit  of  mingled  reformation  and 
exclusiveness,  the  County  benches  came  to  be,  at  any  rate  from 
the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  normally  recruited  by 
what  practically  amounted  to  co-option,  the  Lord  Chancellor 
habitually  accepting  the  nominations  of  the  Lord  Lieutenant, 
and  the  latter  expressing  the  views  and  desires  of  the  active 
Justices.  The  result  w^as,  notwithstanding  a  rapid  and  continu- 
ous increase  in  the  number  of  Justices  during  the  first  few 
decades  of  the  nineteenth  century,  a  quickly  developing  homo- 
geneity among  them  in  social  status  and  political  opinions. 

A  conclusive  demonstration  of  the  common  acceptance^ 
during  the  eighteenth  century  of  the  oligarchical  principle  of 
self -election  or  co- option  is  afforded  by  its  deliberate  adoption 
» for  the  great  majority  of  Statutory  Bodies  for  Special  Purposes 
described  in  the  present  volume.  The  most  numerous  of  all 
these  bodies,  the  Turnpike  Trusts,  consisted,  from  first  to  last, 
of  persons  named  in  the  Act,  who  were  always  empowered  to 
continue  the  existence  of  the  Trust  by  co-opting  other  persons  to 
fill  vacancies.  The  more  important,  though  far  less  numerous, 
Improvement  Commissions  exhibited  more  variety  in  their  con- 
stitutional structure.  But  throughout  the  eighteenth  century, 
the  majority  of  these  bodies  were  constituted  as  sets  of  named 
persons,  together  with  some  ex-officio  members,  the  body  as  a 
whole  always  recruiting  itself  by  co-option.     It  is  only  in  the 

1  Report  on  Certain  Boroughs,  T.  S.  Hogg  (H.C.  No.  68G  of  1838,  p.  5) :   The 
Parish  and  the  County,  p.  385. 


NOMINATION  BY  THE  SERVING  OFFICERS        375 

early  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  that  we  find  the  amend- 
ing Acts  tentatively  introducing  the  element  of  election  by  the 
ratepayers.  And  though  in  the  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the 
Poor  the  principle  of  election  was,  even  in  the  earliest  examples, 
usually  introduced  to  some  extent,  amid  ex-officio  members  and 
others  designated  by  status  or  named  in  the  Act,  vacancies  were 
usually  filled  by  co-option. 

To  the  political  philosopher  the  principle  of  co-option  or  self- 
election,  as  the  method  of  recruiting  a  governing  body,  has 
interesting  afliliations  to  other  oligarchical  constitutions.  By 
their  very  nature,  the  non-elective  Municipal  Corporations  were 
assumed  to  belong  to  the  same  political  category  as  the  hereditary 
monarchy,  the  House  of  Lords,  the  Established  Church  and  the 
freehold  tenure  of  pubHc  office.  Had  not  Edmund  Burke  him- 
self declared  that  "  Corporations,  which  have  a  perpetual  succes- 
sion and  an  hereditary  noblesse,  who  themselves  exist  by  succes- 
■  sion,  are  the  true  guardians  of  monarchical  succession  "  ?  ^  Thus 
it  was  not  without  reason  that  the  "  Corporation  System " 
foimd  in  the  House  of  Lords  of  1835  its  last  and  most  vehement 
supporters.  More  interesting  to  the  philosopher  of  to-day  is  the 
historical  connection  of  the  principle  of  co-option  with  the  two 
other  contemporary  features  that  we  have  described — the 
common  obligation  to  hold  public  oJ0B.ce  and  vocational  organisa- 
tion as  the  basis  of  government.  Thus,  we  find  in  the  records  of 
many  Parishes  that  the  officers  for  the  time  being,  whether 
*  Church-wardens,  Overseers,  Surveyors  or  Constables,  habitually 
nominated  their  successors.  It  was  the  serving  officers  who 
were  keenest  to  get  other  substantial  inhabitants  to  take  over 
their  onerous  and  troublesome  duties.  It  was,  in  fact,  the  little 
meeting  of  Parish  Officers,  with  their  empirical  practice  of 
choosing  their  successors,  that  frequently  constituted  itself,  by 
one  or  other  instrument,  a  Select  Vestry  for  all  purposes  of  Parish 
organisation,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  the  other  inhabitants.  The 
same  notion  that  those  who  do  the  work  at  any  given  time  are 
the  best  judges  of  those  who  should  do  it  in  the  future,  is  deeply 
rooted  in  all  vocational  organisation,  both  mediaeval  and  modern. 
There  is,  however,  one  significant  difference  between  mediaeval 


1  Burke  to  the  Chevalier  de  Rivarol,  in  1791,  in  Correspondence  of  Edmund 
Burke,  by  Earl  Fitzwilliam  and  Sir  R.  Bourke,  1844,  vol.  iii.  p.  212  ;  The  Manor 
and  the  Borough,  p.  703. 


376  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

and  modern  vocational  organisation.  Prior  to  the  advent  of  the 
Trade  Union  Movement  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  there  must 
necessarily  be,  within  each  vocation,  one  or  more  superior  grades 
— an  inner  oligarchy  that  would,  whatever  its  own  method 
of  appointment,  exercise  some  sort  of  jurisdiction  over  the 
humbler  members.  Bishops  in  the  church,  Benchers  in  the 
legal  profession,  Fellows  in  the  Royal  Colleges  of  Physicians 
and  Surgeons,  the  master-craftsmen  in  the  gilds,  all  alike  claimed 
to  hold  the  gateway  through  which  were  admitted  into  the 
vocation  the  junior  or  inferior  grades  of  priests,  barristers, 
licentiates  or  journeymen  :  in  a  word,  the  great  body  of  prac- 
titioners of  the  profession  or  craft.  Thus,  if  to  the  principle  of 
vocational  organisation  be  added  the  conception  of  graded  status, 
there  emerge  in  full  view  the  "  Corporation  System "  and 
the  "  Select  Vestry  System,"  which  were  swept  away  by  the 
democratic  reforms  of  1830-1835. 


The  Virtues  and  Vices  of  the  Oligarchical  Principle 
of  Co-option  or  Self-Election 

Is  it  possible  to  summarise  the  effects,  good  and  evil,  which 
this  oligarchical  principle  of  renewal  by  co-option  had  on  the 
administration  and  procedure  of  local  institutions  ?  For  it  so 
happens  that  this  very  period  of  history  gives  us  a  unique  oppor- 
tunity of  distinguishing  the  virtues  and  vices  of  this  form  of 
government  in  comparison  with  other  and  more  democratic 
constitutions.  Alike  in  Parish  and  Municipal  government,  and 
in  the  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes,  there  is  an 
opportunity  of  comparing  Authorities  recruited  by  co-option 
and  Authorities  established  and  renewed  by  popular  election, 
either  by  the  inhabitants  at  large,  or  by  the  ratepayers  as  such, 
or  at  least  by  large  bodies  of  manual-working  Freemen.  In 
Parish  government  the  oligarchical  form  was  the  exception, 
whilst  the  more  democratic  practice  became  increasingly  the 
rule.  In  municipal  government,  on  the  other  hand,  democratic 
practice  was  exceptional  and  the  oligarchical  form  was  the  rule  ; 
whilst  in  the  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes  we  not 
infrequently  see  effected  by  Local  Acts  a  sudden  transformation 
of  an  oligarchical  into  an  elective  constitution. 

The  first  conclusion  to  be  deduced  from  this  extensive  and 


CORRUPTION  AND  JOBBERY  377 

varied  material  may  seem  paradoxical :  it  is  that  close  bodies 
display  not  only  the  utmost  variety  among  themselves  ;  but  also 
even  greater  extremes  than  may  be  found  among  bodies  of  any 
other  constitution.  Some  are  more  timid,  others  more  audacious, 
in  the  use  of  their  multifarious  powers  than  democracies  of  in- 
habitants, democracies  of  ratepayers  or  democracies  of  Freemen. 
Some  are  seen  to  sink  to  the  lowest  depths  of  maladministration 
and  venality,  whilst  a  few  reach  a  level  of  efficiency  and  honesty 
not  attained  during  these  hundred  and  fifty  years  by  any  other 
parochial  or  municipal  authorities.  Let  us  take  first  the  Parish 
organisation.  "  These  Select  Vestries,"  said  a  blunt  critic  of 
1828,  "  are  a  focus  of  jobbing  ;  the  draper  supplies  the  blankets 
and  linen  ;  the  carpenter  finds  the  church  pews  constantly  out 
of  repair  ;  the  painter's  brushes  are  never  dry  ;  the  plumber  is 
always  busy  with  his  solder ;  and  thus  the  public  money  is 
plundered  and  consumed."  ^  "  Select  Vestries  are  select  com- 
panies of  rogues,"  2  said  another,  seventy  years  before — a  verdict 
undoubtedly  true  of  the  majority  of  these  close  bodies.  But 
there  were  one  or  two  exceptions.  The  Select  Vestry  of  St. 
George's,  Hanover  Square,  for  instance,  as  it  seems  to  us,  attained 
a  higher  level  of  efficiency  and  integrity  than  any  other  con- 
temporary Local  Authority,  and  enjoyed  a  remarkable  freedom 
from  adverse  criticism  of  either  policy  or  administration.  The 
minutes  and  other  records  of  this  Parish,  from  1725  onward, 
reveal  the  Select  Vestry  as  a  little  knot  of  pubUc-spirited  peers 
and  gentry  who  governed  their  great  and  wealthy  Parish  with 
consistent  honesty,  and,  relatively  to  the  standards  of  the  time, 
with  exceptional  efficiency.  In  later  years  this  Select  Vestry, 
strengthened  by  successive  Local  Acts,  paved,  watched  and 
lighted  the  streets  and  squares  ;  carried  out  a  certain  amount  of 
scavenging  and  suppressed  nuisances  ;  systematiscd  the  assess- 
ment and  collection  of  the  rates,  and  put  a  stop  to  illegal  exemp- 
tions ;  and,  in  the  administration  of  the  Poor  Law,  voluntarily 
anticipated  by  several  years  some  of  the  reforms  of  1834.  No 
evidence  of  maladministration  was  produced  against  these 
vestrymen  before  the  House  of  Commons  Select  Committee  of 
1829  ;   and  when,  in  1832,  the  inhabitants  had  the  opportunity 

^  Sunday  Times,  1828,  quoted  in  Considerations  on  Select  Vestries,  1828, 
p.  49  ;    The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  233. 

2  The  Constitutional,  quoted  in  The  Select  Vestry  Justified,  1754,  p.  14  ; 
Tlie  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  233. 


378  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

of  electing  a  new  Vestry,  they  contented  themselves  with  unani- 
mously choosing  their  old  governors.  Our  own  impression  is 
that,  during  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  first  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth,  St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  was,  under  its  Select 
Vestry,  by  far  the  best-governed  Parish  in  the  Metropohtan 
area. 

Much  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  Municipal  Corporations. 
No  one  who  studies  the  records  of  such  close  corporations  as 
those  of  Leicester  and  Coventry,  together  with  case  after  case 
in  a  hundred  other  Boroughs,  can  doubt  the  substantial  accuracy 
of  the  condemnation  of  many  of  these  oligarchies  by  the  Municipal 
Corporation  Commissioners  in  1835,  as  guilty  of  "  mismanagement 
of  the  corporate  property  of  the  most  glaring  kind,"  the  "  ahena- 
tion  in  fee  of  the  corporate  property  to  individual  corporators," 
the  "  execution  of  long  leases  for  nominal  consideration,"  the 
"  voting  of  salaries  to  sinecure,  unnecessary  or  overpaid  officers," 
the  devotion  of  their  income  to  "  entertainments  of  the  Common 
Council  and  their  friends,"  the  misappropriation  of  trust  funds 
"  to  gain  or  reward  votes  both  at  the  Municipal  and  ParUamentary 
elections  "  ;  and,  in  short,  of  an  almost  unparalleled  neglect  of 
public  duty  and  failure  to  promote  the  well-being  of  their  respec- 
tive Boroughs.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  a  few  Boroughs, 
no  less  oligarchical  in  their  constitutions,  such  as  Penzance  at 
one  end  of  the  Kingdom  and  Wisbech  at  the  other,  which  were 
reported  as  free  from  all  the  vices  discovered  among  their  neigh- 
bours— a  verdict  which  our  own  closer  investigation  of  the 
records  has  completely  confirmed.  Moreover,  the  greatest  of 
all  the  provincial  municipalities,  that  of  Liverpool,  whilst  main- 
taining its  rigidly  exclusive  oligarchy,  showed  itself,  generation 
after  generation,  markedly  superior  in  energy,  dignity,  integrity 
and  public  spirit  to  any  other  Municipal  Corporation  in  the  land, 
not  excluding  the  "  ratepayers'  democracy "  of  the  City  of 
London  itself.  Its  Bench  of  Aldermen  discharged  gratuitously 
the  whole  burdensome  duty  of  magistracy  for  the  town  and 
docks ;  governed  the  largest  provincial  police  force  of  the 
Kingdom  in  a  way  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  inhabitants  ;  and 
kept  the  five  local  prisons  in  a  state  of  relatively  high  efficiency. 
The  close  body  of  the  Mayor  and  two  Bailiffs  and  thirty  or  forty 
Aldermen  or  Common  Councilmen,  recruiting  itself  exclusively 
by  co-option,  not  only  gave  to  the  town  its  magistrates,  but  also 


THE  EXPERIENCE  OF  LIVERPOOL  379 

acted  itself  as  Lord  of  the  Manor  and  owned  in  fee-simple  a  large 
portion  of  the  land  ;  it  governed  the  port ;  it  erected  markets, 
warehouses  and  public  baths  ;  it  provided  weigh-bridges  and  a 
chain-cable  testing-machine  for  common  use  ;  it  spent  large  sums 
on  widening  the  streets  and  generally  improving  the  town  ;  it 
lavished  money  on  the  building  and  endowment  of  new  churches, 
and  latterly  it  estabhshed  and  maintained  at  its  own  expense 
extensive  free  schools.  In  any  emergency  the  Corporation  came 
forward  to  serve  the  interests  of  its  important  commercial 
community.  More  than  once,  during  the  eighteenth  century, 
from  1715  down  to  1803,  it  undertook  the  defence  of  the  port, 
raising  regiments,  erecting  batteries  and  equipping  gunboats  at 
its  own  expense.  In  the  commercial  crisis  which  occurred  at 
the  sudden  declaration  of  war  in  1793,  when  banks  and  business 
firms  were  faihng  on  all  sides,  the  Liverpool  Corporation  took 
the  boldest  financial  step  recorded  in  the  annals  of  EngHsh  Local 
Government,  It  first  tried  to  borrow  £100,000  from  the  Bank 
of  England,  with  which  to  uphold  the  credit  of  the  principal 
Liverpool  houses  ;  and  when  the  loan  was  not  forthcoming,  it 
promptly  obtained  power  from  Parliament  to  issue,  up  to  a 
maximum  of  £300,000,  its  own  promissory  notes  payable  to 
bearer,  which  were  accepted  as  currency.  In  this  way  it  advanced 
no  less  than  £140,000  to  the  local  merchants,  on  the  security  of 
their  temporarily  unsaleable  goods,  to  enable  them  to  meet  their 
engagements  ;  with  the  result  that  the  panic  was  stayed,  failures 
were  prevented,  and  the  whole  sum,  with  interest,  was  within 
three  years  recovered  without  loss.  It  remains  to  be  added  that 
this  self-elected  Corporation  made  way  for  the  representative 
body  with  unusual  dignity.  Unlike  all  the  other  wealthy 
Municipal  Corporations,  the  Liverpool  Town  Council  refused  to 
oppose  its  own  abolition.  At  a  special  meeting  summoned  to 
consider  the  Mimicipal  Corporations  Bill,  we  find  it  resolving 
"  That  this  Council,  conscious  of  having  always  discharged  the 
important  duties  devolved  upon  it  as  the  governing  body  of  this 
Corporation  with  the  utmost  desire  for  the  welfare  and  advantage 
of  the  Town  of  Liverpool,  does  not  feel  itself  called  upon  to  ofEer 
any  opposition  to  the  principle  of  the  measure  brought  into  the 
House  of  Commons,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  removal  of  the  members 
of  this  Council,  and  the  substitution  of  another  body  by  a  different 
mode  of  election  for  the  future  management  of  the  corporate 


38o  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

estate,  but  that  the  same  should  be  left  to  such  determmation 
as  Parliament  may  think  fit  regarding  it."  ^ 

The  paradox  of  so  extreme  a  divergence  in  administrative 
results  among  a  group  of  Local  Authorities  practically  identical 
in  the  form  of  their  government  is  capable  of  explanation.  The 
working  of  the  principle  of  co-option  depends  in  the  main  on  two 
conditions  :  first  the  characteristics  of  the  persons  who  are  in 
ofiice  at  the  start,  and  secondly  the  existence,  within  the  circle 
of  eligibility,  of  persons  of  like  character.  The  subsequent 
development  of  all  these  bodies  is  governed  by  the  rule  that 
"  like  attracts  like."  In  the  majority  of  urban  Parishes  in 
which  a  Select  Vestry  was  started,  this  close  body  fell,  from  the 
outset,  into  the  hands  of  the  small  shopkeepers,  master-crafts- 
men and  builders,  to  whom  the  opportunities  for  eating,  drinking 
and  making  excursions  at  the  pubUc  expense,  and  the  larger 
gams  of  extending  their  little  businesses  by  Parish  work,  offered 
an  irresistible  temptation.  The  Select  Vestry  came  more  and 
more  to  attract  the  less  scrupulous  and  to  repel  the  more  refined 
members  of  this  class,  whilst  the  filling  of  vacancies  by  co-option 
tended  inevitably  to  make  the  whole  body  homogeneous  in  its 
low  standard  of  public  moraUty.  "  As  the  old  ones  drop  ofi," 
Defoe  had  remarked  in  1714,  "  they  are  sure  to  choose  none  in 
their  room  but  those  whom  they  have  marked  for  their  purpose 
beforehand  ;  so  rogue  succeeds  rogue,  and  the  same  scene  of 
villainy  is  still  carried  on,  to  the  terror  of  the  poor  parishioners."  - 
On  the  other  hand,  in  St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  the  Select 
Vestry  was  composed,  from  the  start,  exclusively  of  persons 
unconnected  with  trade,  and  moving  in  a  different  sphere.  The 
"  noblemen  and  gentlemen  "  of  the  West  End  squares  were,  as 
a  class,  quite  as  unscrupulous  as  the  shopkeepers  of  Spitalfields, 
in  obtaining  pay  without  work,  at  the  pubhc  expense.  But  the 
opportunities  of  this  class  for  plunder  and  jobbery— for  the  most 
scandalous  public  sinecures  and  pensions,  and  bribes  from  the 
secret-service  money  dispensed  at  the  Treasury — lay  in  another 
direction.     Feeding  and  driving  in  carriages  at  the  Parish  expense 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Corporation  of  Liverpool,  at  special  meeting  to  consider 
the  Municipal  Corporations  Bill,  17th  June  1835;  The  Manor  and  the  Borough, 
pp.  490-491. 

*  Parochial  Tyranny,  or  the  Housekeeper'' s  Complaint  against  the  Insupportable 
Exactions  and  Partial  Assessmeiits  of  Select  Vestries,  etc.,  by  Andrew  Moreton 
(i.e.  Daniel  Defoe),  1714  (?),  p.  10  ;    The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  245. 


THE   VICE  OF  EXCLUSIVENESS  381 

was  no  temptation  to  them.  The  supply  of  groceries  to  the 
workhouse,  or  the  repainting  of  the  Parish  church,  offered  them 
no  chance  of  profit.  Hence  this  Select  Vestry  attracted  to  itself, 
not  the  unscrupulous  and  avaricious  members  of  its  class,  but 
those  who  took  an  interest  as  owners,  occupiers,  or  philan- 
thropists, in  the  good  government  of  their  parish.  And  here, 
equally,  the  practice  of  co-option  tended  constantly  to  a  homo- 
geneity of  motives  and  manners  and  morals. 

It  is  needless  to  trace  the  same  principle  of  "  like  attract- 
ing like  "  in  the  degeneration  of  the  majority  of  the  Municipal 
Corporations.  In  those  few  municipalities  in  which,  for  some 
reason,  the  Corporation  business  continued  in  the  hands  of  a  close 
body  of  old-established  and  reputable  resident  famihes  (in  the 
case  of  Liverpool,  substantial  merchants  and  shopkeepers  ;  in 
the  cases  of  Penzance  and  Wisbech,  hereditary  fishermen,  master- 
craftsmen  and  yeomen  cultivators),  the  municipal  business  was 
carried  on  by  successive  generations  of  honourable  and  pubKc- 
spirited  administrators  in  the  interests  of  the  whole  community. 
But  with  the  surging  of  new  populations  in  some  Boroughs,  and 
with  the  progressive  exclusion  or  withdrawal  of  the  principal 
inhabitants  or  more  respectable  citizens  from  the  close  bodies  of 
other  Corporations,  we  see  these  oligarchies  more  and  more 
recruiting  themselves  from  inferior  strata.  When  once  the 
deterioration  began  the  disease  grew  rapidly  worse,  without 
possibility  of  recovery.  The  close  body  made  up  of  venal  corrupt 
and  incompetent  men  continued  to  recruit  itself  from  men  of  like 
character,  and  became  a  source  of  infection  to  all  who  came  in 
contact  with  it.  Such  being  the  tendencies  at  work,  it  is  not 
surprising  that,  whilst  one  or  two  close  bodies  remained  superior 
alike  in  initiative  and  honourable  conduct  to  any  of  their  con- 
temporaries, the  vast  majority  fell  even  below  the  mediocre 
standard  of  administrative  efficiency  and  pecuniary  honesty  that 
prevailed  in  the  open  Vestries  and  democratically  controlled 
municipalities  of  the  eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth  centuries. 

The  Vice  of  Exclusiveness 

There  was  one  vice  which  even  the  best  of  the  close  bodies 
manifested,  a  vice  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  was  eventually 
more  responsible  for  their  undoing  than  any  lapse  in  adminis- 


382  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

trative  capacity  or  pecuniary  honesty.  The  same  law  of  "  like 
attracts  like,"  inherent  in  the  device  of  co-option,  caused  "  the 
Gentlemen  of  the  Four-and-Twenty,"  or  "  the  Company  of  the 
Twelve  "  of  the  Select  Vestry,  and  the  little  oligarchy  called  the 
Court  of  Aldermen,  or  the  Common  Council,  or  the  Mayor  and  the 
Bailiffs  and  Commonalty  of  the  Municipal  Corporation,  vehemently 
to  object  to  inviting  any  person  to  participate  in  the  work  of 
government  who  did  not  share  their  own  political  and  religious 
views.  Already,  in  1635,  we  find  it  reported  to  the  Star  Chamber 
that  the  Parish  of  St.  Andrew's,  Holborn,  had  "  a  Selected  Vestry 
of  twelve  persons,  grave  and  ancient  inhabitants,  men  of  approved, 
honest  and  good  discretion,  and  {which  is  ever  regarded  in  their 
choice)  men  that  are  kno^v^l  to  be  well  addicted  to  the  rites  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  no  way  prone  to 
faction."  ^  In  Bristol  the  gross  political  partisanship  of  the 
close  Vestries,  century  after  century,  was  notorious.  It  was  the 
support  which  the  Metropohtan  Close  Vestries  gave  to  the  Tory 
and  High  Church  party  that,  more  than  anything  else,  earned 
for  them,  during  the  eighteenth  century,  the  repeated  hostile 
criticism  of  the  Whigs  in  the  House  of  Commons  ;  the  not 
unbiassed  accusations  of  such  contemporaries  as  Oldmixon  and 
Calamy,  and  the  satirical  abuse  of  Daniel  Defoe.  After  the 
French  Revolution  these  same  Close  Vestries  everywhere  formed 
a  wall  of  resistance  to  Radicalism  against  which  those  who  strove 
for  reforms  of  any  kind  long  beat  in  vain.*  In  the  Municipal 
Corporations  the  vice  of  exclusiveness  had  even  more  sensational 
results.  These  oligarchies  often  controlled  large  incomes  and  an 
indefinite  amount  of  patronage.  They  provided  the  bench  of 
magistrates  which  administered  justice,  and  they  controlled  such 
police  forces  as  existed.  More  important  than  all,  they  frequently 
elected  the  Members  of  Parliament.  For  the  most  part,  this 
political  and  religious  partisanship,  gross  and  unashamed,  was 
inextricably  entangled  (as  at  Coventry  and  Leicester)  with 
favouritism  and  bribery,  and  even  oppression  of  fellow-citizens. 
The  Leicester  corporators,  it  is  to  be  noted,  gloried  in  their 
religious  and  political  exclusiveness.  "  Holding  with  fervour," 
they  resolved  in  1790,  "  that  conscientious  men  have  the  strongest 
of  all  possible  motives  to  support  and  extend  their  own  party, 

*  MS.  Chartac  MisccUancac,  vol.  vii.  p.  57,  in  Lambeth  Palace  Library  ; 
The  Parish  and  the  County,  j).  242. 


POLITICAL  PARTIZANSHIP  383 

namely,  tlie  supposition  that  they  alone  are  in  possession  of  the 
truth,"  they  avowedly  never  "  scrupuled  to  use  their  whole 
influence  and  authority,  whether  as  magistrates,  as  landlords,  as 
trustees  of  charities  or  as  municipal  administrators  to  put  their 
own  party  into  power."  ^  But  even  without  corruption  or 
misappropriation  of  funds,  the  very  zeal  and  public  spirit  of  an 
oligarchical  Municipal  Corporation  might  make  its  exclusiveness 
more  offensive.  The  Mayor,  Bailiffs,  and  Burgesses  of  Liverpool 
would  probably  have  aroused  less  hostility  among  the  powerful 
groups  of  dissenters  rising  to  wealth  in  this  flourishing  port  if  they 
had  merely  wasted  the  corporate  funds  on  feasting  and  jaunts, 
in  corrupt  leases  and  contracts,  instead  of  spending  the  income, 
not  only  on  docks  and  street  improvements  but  also  in  repairing 
and  redecorating  old  churches,  in  building  new  ones,  in  endowing 
clergymen,  and  most  obnoxious  of  all,  in  maintaining  free  schools 
in  which  the  catechism  of  the  Established  Church  was  made  the 
basis  of  religious  instruction.  It  was  true  that  bribery,  Ucentious- 
ness  and  corruption  disgraced  the  municipal  elections  of  the 
so-called  municipal  democracies  of  Norwich  and  Ipswich.  But 
in  this  pandemonium  Whigs  and  Tories  were  ahke  involved  ; 
though  the  maj  ority  of  citizens,  the  non-Freemen,  found  themselves 
excluded  from  the  chance  of  sharing  in  the  spoils.  What  was  at 
the  time  the  most  powerful  and  the  most  complete  municipal 
democracy  in  the  world,  the  City  of  London,  scandalously 
neglected  its  port,  its  prisons  and  its  police,  and  spent  httle  or 
nothing  out  of  its  huge  income  on  rehgion,  education,  science  or 
art.  2  Yet  it  was  exempted  from  the  iconoclastic  Municipal 
Corporations  Act  of  1835 — an  exemption  due,  not  to  any  purity 
of  administration  or  freedom  from  jobbery,  but  primarily  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  a  close  body,  which  made  it  inconvenient 
for  the  City  to  be  included  in  the  main  Report  of  the  Com- 
missioners. It  had,  as  we  have  seen,  become  virtually  a  rate- 
payers' democracy,  with  a  long  tradition  of  defiant  independ- 
ence, in  the  name  of  the  people,  of  either  King  or  Government. 
This  development  into  a  ratepayers'  Democracy  gave  the  City 
of  London,  notv*^ithstanding  the  scandalous  corruption  and 
extravagance  that  continued  for  at  least  another  generation, 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Corporation  of  Leicester,  23rd  February  1790  ;    The  Manor 
and  the  Borough,  vol.  ii.  pp.  477-479. 

2  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  vol.  ii.  pp.  G90-692. 


384  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

sufficient  political  influence  to  save  it  from  the  reform  that 
hardly  any  "  close  "  body  escaped.  Thus,  it  was  not  the  ad- 
ministrative inefficiency  or  the  failure  in  honesty  that  brought 
down  the  local  oligarchies,  but  above  all  their  exclusiveness. 
Without  the  prodding  of  hatred  caused  by  their  political  and 
religious  partisanship  it  is  doubtful  whether  there  could  have 
arisen  in  1830-1836  any  popular  movement  for  their  radical 
reform. 

Freehold  Offich 

Another  characteristic  feature  of  the  ancient  order  continued 
into  the  eighteenth  century  ;  and  may,  indeed,  be  found  Unger- 
ing  down  to  our  day.  This  was  the  permanent,  or  as  it  was  often 
expressed,  freehold  tenure  of  the  older  offices.  In  the  Parish, 
*not  only  the  incumbent  of  the  living,  whether  rector  or  vicar, 
but  also  the  immemorial  Parish  Clerk,  once  usually  in  minor 
orders,  held  office  for  Ufe  ;  and  were  legally  entitled  to  enforce 
payment  of  their  customary  dues  and  fees  of  office,  irrespective 
of  any  particular  service  rendered.  In  the  County  a  like  tenure 
was  enjoyed  by  an  officer  of  far  greater  importance  in  the  local 
administration,  namely,  the  Clerk  of  the  Peace,  who  was,  in  fact, 
under  no  control  at  all.  The  appointment,  on  the  occurrence  of 
a  vacancy,  was  in  the  hands,  not  of  the  Justices  in  Quarter 
Sessions,  but  of  the  Lord-Lieutenant ;  who  had,  however,  no 
power  of  dismissal  from  office,  and  no  right  to  give  any  instruc- 
tions as  to  the  performance  of  the  customary  duties,  for  which 
fees  could  be  exacted.  The  Clerk  of  the  Peace  had  an  exclusive 
legal  right  to  perform  these  duties,  and  to  receive  the  fees  ;  and 
these  rights  he  was  by  statute  ^  authorised  to  devolve  upon  a 
deputy,  whom  he  could  appoint  at  his  discretion.  The  office 
was,  in  certain  cases,  almost  openly  bought  and  sold  ;  but  more 
usually,  whilst  the  Clerkship  of  the  Peace  was  held  as  a  sinecure, 
the  Deputy  Clerkship  was  held,  practically  as  an  hereditary 
possession,  by  the  principal  firm  of  solicitors  in  the  County  town, 
which  took  the  multitudinous  fees  as  part  of  its  profits.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  was  natural  that  the  Justices  should  find 
it  almost  impossible  to  get  done  any  work  for  which  a  fee  could 
not  be  charged.     "  For  a  considerable  time  past,"   reports  a 

1  37  Henry  VIII.  c.  I,  sec.  3  ;   1  William  and  Mary,  c.  21,  sec.  4. 


LIFE  TENURE  OF  OFFICES  385 

Committee  of  the  Middlesex  Quarter  Sessions,  "  great  incon- 
venience has  been  felt  for  want  of  due  attention  in  certain  depart- 
ments of  the  ofEce  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Peace.  Public  business  is 
often  impeded  and  the  time  of  the  magistrates  unnecessarily- 
consumed  by  the  irregular  attendance  of  the  proper  officer,  and 
by  the  delays  occasioned  in  searching  for  books  and  papers  which, 
if  fomid  at  all,  are  with  much  difficulty  procured."  ^  When  Sir 
James  Graham,  then  newly  elected  to  Parliament  for  Carlisle, 
alarmed  at  the  rapid  rise  of  the  County  rate,  began  to  overhaul 
the  accounts  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Peace  (who  ran  up  his  fees  by 
charging,  for  instance,  £7  or  £10  for  his  attendance  at  each  meet- 
ing), and  demanded  a  regular  checking  of  the  quarterly  bills  by 
one  or  two  Justices  before  they  were  formally  presented  to  the 
Court  to  be  passed  for  payment,  he  was  met  by  an  indignant 
protest.  "  It  is  a  very  unpleasant  thing,"  complained  the 
offended  official,  "  to  have  one's  bill  handed  round  for  every  one's 
inspection."  ^  The  remuneration  of  public  officers  by  allowing 
them  to  charge  fees  on  all  the  business  that  they  transacted, 
went  along  with  the  right  of  property  in  offices.  But  it  was 
especially  characteristic,  as  we  have  mentioned,^  "  of  the  system 
which  aimed  at  making  the  administration  of  justice  self-support- 
ing." The  scandal  of  the  system  was  that  unscrupulous  officers, 
not  excluding  Justices  of  the  Peace,  made  the  fees  yield  an  income 
by  a  perpetual  flow  of  business,  which  it  thus  became  their  interest 
to  promote. 

Another  ancient  office  of  the  County  held  practically  by  Ufe- 
tenure  was  that  of  the  Coroner,  who  was,  apart  from  numerous 
exceptions  in  particular  Liberties  or  Franchises,  elected  by  the 
freeholders  of  the  County,  had  a  legal  right  to  perform  the 
customary  duties,  and  could  enforce  payment  of  the  customary 
fees.  The  Coroner  was  under  no  one's  orders  ;  and  although  he 
was  nominally  subjected  to  dismissal  from  office  by  the  Crown  by 
special  writ,  he  was  in  practice  irremovable.  For  the  rest,  it 
must  be  said  that  the  Lord-Lieutenant  and  the  Justices  of  the 
-''  Peace,  like  almost  all  nominees  of  the  Crown,  were  normally 
appointed  for  life  ;  and  only  in  the  rarest  cases,  usually  connected 

^  Report  of  Committee  on  the  Records,  MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions, 
Middlesex,  9th  December  1824  ;    The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  505. 

2  Lonsdale's  Worthies  of  Cumberland,  1868,  vol.  ii.  p.  81  ;    The  Parish  and 
the  County,  p.  507. 

3  The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  326. 

2o 


386  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

with  political  partisanship,  were  they  dismissed.  In  the  Manorial 
Boroughs  and  Municipal  Corporations,  as  in  the  Select  Vestries 
and  in  nearly  all  the  various  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special 
Purposes,  life-office  was  the  rule  ;  and  though  here  and  there  the 
CrowTi  might,  in  theory,  have  a  more  or  less  nominal  right  of 
removal,  the  tenure  was,  in  normal  times,  rightly  looked  upon  as 
equivalent  to  freehold. 

Now,  what  was  open  to  objection  in  this  hfe-tenure  in  pubUc 
office,  which  had  once  been  a  matter  of  course,  when  pubHc 
office  was  so  frequently,  to  use  the  words  of  Blackstone,  an 
incorporeal  hereditament,  was  not  the  security  of  tenure  itself, 
enjoyed  to-day  by  all  persons  exercising  judicial  functions,  and 
even  by  the  bulk  of  our  Civil  Servants,  but  (in  administrative 
^  offices)  the  absence  of  any  control  and  power  of  direction  ;  (in 
all  offices)  the  lack  of  any  practical  means  of  even  requiring  the 
due  performance  of  the  duties  of  the  position  ;  and,  what  was 
specially  characteristic  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  assumption 
that  all  those  who  were  selected  to  fill  offices  of  honour  or 
authority  should  be  owners  of  property,  and,  originally,  even 
owners  of  a  particular  kind  of  property,  namely,  land. 


The  Propekty  Qualification 

Running  like  a  red  thread  through  all  the  local  institutions 
of  the  eighteenth  century  was  the  assumption  that  the  ownership 
of  property,  more  particularly  landed  property,  carried  with  it, 
not  only  a  necessary  qualification  for,  but  even  a  positive  right 
to  carry  on,  the  work  of  government.  "  We  may  describe  feudal- 
ism," writes  F.  W.  Maitland,  "  as  a  state  of  society  in  wliich  all 
or  a  great  part  of  public  rights  and  duties  are  inextricably  inter- 
woven with  the  tenure  of  land,  in  which  the  whole  governmental 
system — financial,  military,  judicial — is  part  of  the  law  of  private 
property.  ...  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  speak  of  our  mediaeval 
constitution  except  in  terms  of  our  mediaeval  land  law."  ^  It 
must  be  admitted  that,  if  we  accept  this  definition,  the  feudal 
system  was  far  from  being  extinct  in  the  England  of  the  eighteenth 
and  early  nineteenth  centuries.  It  is  needless  to  recall  to  the 
reader  the  intimate  connection  between  the  o\^Tiership  of  land 
and  the  still  surviving  Courts  and  officers  of  the  Manor  and  the 
*  The  Constitutional  History  oj  England,  1919,  pp.  23-24. 


THE  PROPERTY  QUALIFICATION  387 

Manorial  Borough  ;  and  the  intermingling  of  the  occupation  of 
land  with  the  ecclesiastical  and  secular  constitution  of  Parish 
government.  In  the  foregoing  chapters  of  this  volume  we  have 
shown  how  this  red  thread  of  property  qualification  (and,  wher- 
ever possible,  landed  property)  is  an  almost  universal  feature  in 
Othe  constitution  of  the  Statutory  Authority  for  Special  Pur- 
poses, Far  more  significant  was  the  fact  that  the  most  powerful 
of  all  the  local  institutions  of  this  period,  the  Commission  of  the 
Peace,  was  based  on  the  landed  interest.  "  In  this  Kingdom," 
writes  an  indignant  pamphleteer  of  1748,  "  any  booby  is  invested 
with  the  ensigns  of  magistracy,  pro\'ided  he  has  as  many  acres  of 
land  as  are  necessary  to  qualify  him  under  the  Act.  .  .  .  Thus, 
they  are  nominated  by  dint  of  estate,  or  ministerial  influence, 
without  any  regard  to  their  knowledge,  virtue,  or  integrity.  .  .  . 
After  this  manner  in  every  County  we  have  ignorant  petty  tyrants 
constituted  to  lord  it  over  us,  instead  of  honourable,  ingenuous, 
upright,  conscientious,  learned  and  judicious  magistrates."  ^ 
Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  practice  into  which  the  Crown,  during 
the  eighteenth  century,  sometimes  fell,  of  appointing  men  as 
magistrates  without  the  qualification  of  good  estate,  was  justified 
by  its  results.  "  In  places  inhabited  by  the  scum  and  dregs  of 
the  people  and  the  most  profligate  class  of  life,  gentlemen  of  any 
great  figure  or  fortune,"  writes  a  contemporary  journalist,  "  will 
not  take  such  drudgery  upon  them."  ^  Successive  Lord  Chan- 
cellors found  themselves,  especially  in  Middlesex,  driven  to  fill 
the  Commission  with  small  professionals  and  tradesmen  who, 
as  it  was  said,  "  had  picked  up  a  little  knowledge  by  attending 
on  Special  Juries,  and  thought  themselves  lawyers."  ^  "  The 
Justices  of  Middlesex,"  said  Burke  without  contradiction  in 
1780,  "  were  generally  the  scum  of  the  earth — carpenters,  brick- 
makers  and  shoemakers  ;  some  of  whom  were  notoriously  men 
of  such  infamous  characters  that  they  were  unworthy  of  any 
employ  whatever,  and  others  so  ignorant  that  they  could  scarcely 
write  their  own  names."  *      Thus  we  find,  up  and  down  the 

^  Pamphlet  of  1748  quoted  in  Morning  Chronicle,  3rd  December  1824  ; 
The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  346. 

^  Applebee's  Journal,  19th  August  1732,  quoted  in  Oentletnan^s  Magazine, 
August  1732,  p.  910  ;    The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  324. 

^  Memoirs,  etc.,  of  Laetitia  Matilda  Hawkins,  1824,  vol.  i.  p,  18  :  The  Parish 
and  the  County,  p.  324. 

*  Parliamentary  History,  8th  May  1780,  vol.  xxi.  p.  592  ;  The  Parish  and 
the  County,  p   325. 


388  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

country,  but  especially  in  Middlesex  (including  Westminster  and 
the  Tower  Hamlets)  and  the  Metropolitan  parts  of  Surrey,  a 
particular  type  of  Justice  who,  as  we  have  seen,  gained,  in  the 
documents  and  literature  of  the  eighteenth  century,  an  infamous 
notoriety  under  the  appellation  of  a  "  Basket "  or  "  Trading 
Justice."  With  the  improvement  in  the  choice  of  Justices,  and 
the  slowly  rising  standard  of  manners  and  morals,  the  "  Justice 
of  Mean  Degree  "  had,  at  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  been  gradually  eliminated.  Meanwhile  the 
tacit  adoption  by  the  Lords  -  Lieutenant  of  the  principle  of 
co-option,  coupled  with  the  real  social  apprehension  and  fierce 
pohtical  cleavages  that  marked  the  era  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, had  caused  the  Rulers  of  the  County  to  be  chosen,  more 
than  ever,  exclusively  from  one  social  class — the  landed  gentry, 
who,  it  must  be  added,  belonged,  for  the  most  part,  also  to  one 
political  party  and  one  religious  denomination.  The  philan- 
thropists, lawyers  and  statesmen  who  busied  themselves  in  the 
course  of  the  eighteenth  century  with  such  matters  as  prisons  and 
pauperism,  highways  and  bridges,  all  alike  proposed,  in  their 
various  schemes  of  reform,  to  extend  the  powers  of  the  County 
Justices,  either  as  direct  administrators  of  their  own  institutions 
and  services,  or  as  local  legislators  dictating  a  policy  to  sub- 
ordinate authorities.  This  unhesitating  acceptance  of  the 
landed  gentry  as  an  autonomous  County  oligarchy  is  to  be  seen 
reflected  in  parliamentary  procedure  as  well  as  in  legislation.  So 
far  as  the  internal  local  administration  of  the  rural  districts  was 
concerned  the  House  of  Commons  felt  itself  to  be  scarcely  more 
than  a  legislative  "  clearing  house  "  of  the  several  Courts  of 
Quarter  Sessions.  The  Knights  of  the  Shire  who  sat  at  West- 
minster habitually  regarded  themselves  as  the  spokesmen  of 
these  Courts,  from  which  they  received  instructions  as  to  Bills 
to  be  promoted,  supported,  amended  or  opposed.  To  give  an 
instance  among  many  :  when  Whitbread  brought  in  his  compre- 
hensive Poor  Law  Bill  in  1807  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  it 
would  be  circulated  to  the  Justices.  Rose,  latterly  Pitt's  ablest 
subordinate,  thought  that  "  it  might  go  to  Quarter  Sessions  in 
its  present  shape."  Another  Tory  member  objected  that  "  the 
opinion  of  the  Justices  could  not  be  collected  at  the  next  Quarter 
Sessions  "  on  so  extensive  a  Bill,  and  urged  that  it  should  "  be 
divided  into  parts  for  their  consideration,"  a  course  which  WTiit- 


CUSTOM  AND  COMMON  LAW  389 

bread  thought  it  prudent  to  adopt.  ^  The  student  will  now 
realise  what  we  meant  by  the  assertion  that,  in  spite  of  the 
apparently  centralised  legal  constitution  of  English  Local  Govern- 
ment, and  of  the  complete  dependence  in  law  of  the  Commission 
of  the  Peace  on  the  will  of  the  monarch  and  his  ministers,  at  no 
period  did  the  landed  gentry  enjoy  so  large  a  measure  of  local 
autonomy  and  irresponsible  power  as  between  the  accession  of 
the  House  of  Hanover  and  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars.  It 
was  this  "  local  self-government"  of  each  County  by  a  Commission 
of  the  Peace  made  up  of  voluntarily  serving  territorial  magnates 
and  landed  gentry,  that  seemed,  to  Rudolf  von  Gneist,  the 
greatest  foreign  student  of  English  Local  Government,  the  most 
unique,  distinctive  and  admirable  feature  of  the  British  con- 
stitution. 


Local  Customs  and  the  Common  Law  as  the 
Foundation  of  Local  Institutions 

We  pass  now  from  the  principles  embodied  in  the  structure 
and  function  of  the  old-established  local  institutions  of  the 
eighteenth  century  to  the  subsoil  of  local  customs  and  the 
Common  Law  ^  in  which  these  institutions  were  deeply  rooted. 

^  The  Parish  and  the  County,  j^p.  554-555. 

^  F.  W.  Maitland  thus  defines  Common  Law  :  "...  This  term  common 
law,  which  we  have  been  using,  needs  some  explanation.  I  think  that  it  comes 
into  use  in  or  shortly  after  tlie  reign  of  Edward  the  First.  The  word '  common  ' 
of  course  is  not  opposed  to  '  uncommon '  :  rather  it  means  '  general,'  and  the 
contrast  to  common  law  is  special  law.  Common  law  is  in  the  first  place 
unenacted  law  ;  thus  it  is  distinguished  from  statutes  and  ordinances.  In 
the  second  place,  it  is  common  to  the  whole  land  :  thus  it  is  distinguished  from 
local  customs.  In  the  third  place,  it  is  the  law  of  the  temporal  courts  ;  thus 
it  is  distinguished  from  ecclesiastical  law,  the  law  of  the  Courts  Christian, 
courts  which  throughout  the  Middle  Ages  take  cognisance  of  many  matters 
which  we  should  consider  temporal  matters  — in  particular  marriages  and 
testaments.  Common  law  is  in  theory  traditional  law — ^that  which  has  always 
been  law  and  still  is  law,  in  so  far  as  it  has  not  been  overridden  by  statute  or 
ordinance.  In  older  ages,  while  the  local  courts  were  still  powerful,  law  was 
really  preserved  by  oral  tradition  among  the  free  men  who  sat  as  judges  in  these 
courts.  In  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  century,  as  the  king's  court  throws 
open  its  doors  wider  and  wider  for  more  and  more  business,  the  knowledge  of 
the  law  becomes  more  and  more  the  possession  of  a  learned  class  of  professional 
lawyers,  in  particular  of  the  king's  justices.  Already  in  John's  reign  they 
claim  to  be  juris  perili.  More  and  more  common  law  is  gradually  evolved 
as  ever  new  cases  arise  ;  but  the  judges  are  not  conceived  as  making  new  law — 
they  have  no  right  or  power  to  do  that — rather  they  are  but  declaring  what  has 
always  been  law  "  {The  Constitutional  History  of  England,  by  F.  W.  Maitland, 
1919,  pp.  22-23). 


390  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

We  can  imagine  no  more  unpleasant  nightmare  for  the 
meticulous-minded  solicitor  of  to-day,  acting  as  clerk  to  a  Town 
or  County  Council,  or  a  Rural  or  Urban  District  Council,  than 
to  find  himself  suddenly  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  called 
upon  to  act  as  steward  of  the  Manor,  clerk  of  the  Vestry,  chamber- 
lain to  some  Municipal  Corporation  or  Clerk  of  the  Peace  to 
Quarter  Sessions.  Listening  with  bewilderment  to  what  was 
taking  place  around  him,  his  first  instinct  would  be  to  call  for 
the  Act  of  Parliament  determining  the  constitution,  the  procedure 
and  the  activities  of  the  body  that  he  was  called  upon  to  advise 
and  serve.  To  the  little  group  of  tenants  who  appeared  before 
him  as  steward  of  the  Manor  in  the  guise  of  manorial  officers  or 
members  of  the  Leet  Jury,  the  question  would  have  been  meaning- 
less :  they  would  have  told  him  that  their  right  to  declare  the 
customs  of  the  Manor,  to  make  presentments  and  to  give  verdicts, 
as  well  as  their  obligation  to  serve,  came  down  from  "  time  out 
of  mind,"  and  that  there  were  no  Acts  of  Parhament  which 
affected  them.  The  little  knot  of  Parish  Officers  and  principal 
inhabitants,  who  formed  the  Vestry  to  which  he  acted  as  clerk, 
would  have  been  puzzled  at  his  question.  The  chairman,  who 
was  also  the  incumbent  of  the  Parish  and  probably  himself  a 
Justice  of  the  Peace,  would  assert  that  the  Parish  Officers  took 
their  orders  from  the  Justices  ;  and  that  with  regard  to  these 
orders  he  had  better  look  up  the  noted  .work  of  the  Rev.  Richard 
Burn,  a  contemporary  clerical  Justice  ;  but  that  he  doubted 
whether  there  would  be  anything  in  it  about  the  constitution  of 
the  Vestry.  If  this  clerical  Justice  happened  also  to  be  a  man 
of  learning  he  might  proceed  to  tell  the  ignorant  clerk  that 
neither  the  King  by  charter,  nor  the  High  Court  of  Parhament 
by  statute,  had  ever  endowed  the  Parish  with  a  precise  con- 
stitution, or  even  with  any  constitution  at  all.  With  respect  to 
some  of  the  most  important  of  its  features — such,  for  instance, 
as  its  area  and  boundaries,^  the  number  and  method  of  appoint- 

^  "  The  settling  parochial  rights  or  the  bounds  of  parishes,"  says  Arch- 
bishop Stillingfleet,  "  depends  upon  an  ancient  and  immemorial  custom.  For 
tliey  were  not  limited  by  any  Act  of  Pariiament,  nor  set  forth  by  special  com- 
missioners, but  as  the  circumstances  of  times  and  places  and  persons  did  hai){)en 
to  make  them  greater  or  lesser  "  (Ecclesiastical  Cases  Relative  to  Duties  and 
Rights  of  Parochial  Clergy,  etc.,  by  Edward  Stillingfleet,  1698,  Tart  I.  p.  348  ; 
The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  9).  Thus,  the  Vestries  of  Tooting  and.Streatham, 
in  1808,  in  connection  with  "  beating  the  bounds  "  of  their  respective  parishes, 
formally  agreed  by  resolutions  to  exchange  certain  strips  ot  land  and  groups 


THE  ABSENCE  OF  STATUTE  LAW  391 

ment  of  its  most  characteristic  ofi&cers,  and  their  powers  of 
taxation — the  Parish  had  no  better  warrant  than  ancient  tradi- 
tion, handed  down  from  generation  to  generation,  seldom  em- 
bodied in  any  document,  and  admittedly  differing  from  place  to 
place  according  to  local  usage,  of  which  no  one  outside  the  locality 
concerned  had  any  exact  knowledge.  A  modern  soUcitor  would 
find  himself  even  more  distressed  by  the  constitution  of  a  Muni- 
cipal Corporation  of  the  eighteenth  century.  As  Chamberlain 
to  the  City  of  London,  for  instance,  he  would  have  been  told  that 
the  Corporation  consisted  of  an  agglomeration  of  distinct  Courts,^ 
originating  at  different  periods  and  for  different  purposes,  deriving 
their  authority  indifferently  from  immemorial  prescription  and 
royal  charter.  Rigid  constitution  there  was  none,  seeing  that 
the  Corporation  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  of  altering  its 
own  constitution  without  the  interference  of  ParUament.  The 
Clerk  of  the  Peace  of  to-day  might  hope  to  find  himself  more  at 
home  attending  a  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  in  the  eighteenth 
century.  Of  Acts  of  Parliament,  indeed,  there  was  no  lack, 
deaUng  with  the  poor,  the  vagrants,  the  highways  and  so  on. 
But  he  would  be  disheartened  to  discover  that  there  was  no 
statute  establishing  or  even  describing  his  own  office  ;  that  his 
fees  were  regulated  only  by  local  custom,  and  it  was  long  uncertain 
whether  or  not  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  could  lawfully  dispute 
his  charges.  Moreover,  the  whole  procedure  of  presentment  by 
Juries  of  the  defective  highways  and  bridges  left  it  uncertain 
what  works  could  be  ordered  by  the  Justices,  and  whether  they 
could  assess  the  inhabitants  for  the  widening  of  a  road  or  the 

of  houses,  with  apparently  no  thought  that  this  matter  concerned  any  one 
but  themselves  (The  Parish  and  the  County,  1907,  p.  53). 

1  In  our  chapter  on  "  The  Municipal  Corporation  "  we  show  that  a  Municipal 
Corporation,  like  the  Manor  and  unlike  the  Parish  and  the  County,  was,  in  fact, 
not  primarily  a  territorial  expression.  "  It  was  a  bundle  of  jurisdictions 
relatmg  to  persons,  and  only  incidentally  to  the  place  in  which  those  persons 
happened  to  be.  But  beyond  this  simple  form,  every  additional  jurisdiction, 
it  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say,  involved,  for  its  operation,  a  separate  and  difierent 
geographical  area.  There  was  one  at  least  of  the  Municipal  Franchises  that 
had  no  geographical  limits  whatever,  though  it  is  precisely  the  one  which  to-day 
we  associate  most  directly  with  definite  boundaries,  namely,  the  right  to  return 
Burgesses  to  sit  in  ParUament.  .  .  .  Thus  the  geographical  extension  of  a 
Municipal  Corporation  can  be  represented  only  by  an  indefinite  number  of 
circles,  differing  among  themselves  from  jurisdiction  to  jurisdiction.  One 
of  these — as  we  think  the  most  important — was  the  area  over  which  the  Cor- 
porate Justices  exercised  their  magisterial  powers  "  {The  Manor  and  the  Borough, 
p.  289). 


392  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

making  of  a  new  bridge.^  And  when  the  Clerk  of  the  Peace 
followed  the  Justices  into  the  parlour  of  the  tavern  where,  over 
their  walnuts  and  wine,  they  issued  general  instructions  to  keep 
and  cause  to  be  kept  the  King's  peace,  he  would  be  startled  to 
find  that  the  Justices  considered  themselves  (as  Ritson  com- 
plained in  1791)  "  a  sort  of  legislative  body,"  having  power  to 
determine  the  behaviour  of  their  fellow-citizens  ;  to  forbid  fairs, 
wakes,  revels  and  any  meetings  they  objected  to  ;  to  shut  up 
public  houses,  and  even  to  give  to  the  principal  inhabitants  of 
the  townships  the  option  of  closing  any  public  houses  which  they 
or  a  majority  of  them  might  consider  to  be  ill-conducted  or 
unnecessary.'^  Or  the  Justices  might  require  every  Petty 
Constable  within  the  County  to  report  to  them  "  what  number 
of  men  and  women  servants  each  inhabitant  within  his  con- 
stabulary hath,  and  what  quality  and  what  wages  every  master 
gives  to  every  particular  servant  "  ;  in  order  that  the  Justices 
might  settle  what  wages  should  be  paid  in  future.  The  Justices 
would  even  take  upon  themselves  to  alter  Local  Government 
areas,  to  dictate  the  basis  of  assessment  to  the  local  rates  and 
even  to  divide  the  County  into  two  or  more  entirely  autonomous 
districts,  with  separate  finances,  separate  County  properties  and 
separate  rates  ;  whilst,  as  Cobbett  indignantly  pointed  out  in 
1822,  enactments  vitally  afiecting  the  right  of  the  destitute 
person  to  poor  relief  could  be  made  in  the. name  of  the  Hampshire 
Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  by  "  two  squires  "  and  "  five  parsons  " 
from  behind  the  closed  doors  of  the  "  Grand  Jury  Room."  ^ 
Even  the  Justices  themselves  would  occasionally  complain  of  the 
informality  and  legislative  assumptions  of  their  so-called  "  de- 
liberative assemblies."     "  I  observed  a  paragraph  and  advertise- 

^  In  1710,  relates  a  lively  writer  in  the  Gentleman'' s  Magazine,  "  I  remember 
a  gentleman  went  to  the  Quarter  Sessions,  holdcn  at  Easter  in  a  Northern 
County,  to  oppose  "  certain  expenditure  on  a  bridge,  "  for  whieii  £1:50,  as  an 
introductory  sum,  had  been  paid  by  the  Petty  Constables  to  the  Chief.  The 
lawyer  he  retained  addressing  lumself  to  the  Court,  said.  Gentlemen,  j-ou  must 
maintain  the  ancient  bridges,  but  have  no  authority  to  build  new  ones  where 
there  never  were  any,  without  an  Act  of  Parliament.  Then  moved  for  a  dis- 
charge of  the  order  granted  before,  and  for  repayment  of  the  money,  which 
were  agreed  to  without  objection,  every  Petty  Constable  soon  after  receiving 
his  respective  share  "  (The  Story  of  tlie  King's  Highway,  by  iS.  and  B.  Webb, 
1913,  pp.  95-96). 

*  The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  636. 

8  Cobbett's  Political  Register,  21st  September  1822  ;  The  Parish  and  the 
County,  p.  iJSl.  Sec  the  "  Berkslxirc  Bread  Act  "  or  "  Specnhamland  Act  of 
Parliament  "  {ibid  pji.  544-550). 


ALMOST  UNCHECKED  AUTONOMY  393 

ment,"  deprecatingly  writes  an  eminent  Suffolk  magistrate  in 
1793,  who  objected  to  the  device  of  a  legally  prescribed  non- 
competitive wage,  "  in  your  paper  of  yesterday,  reporting  a 
resolution  passed  at  the  Quarter  Sessions  held  at  Bury.  I 
assuredly  did  not  concur  in  it ;  but,  as  far  as  I  understood  it  to 
be  before  the  company  as  a  matter  of  conversation  (for  I  did  not 
contemplate  it  as  a  question  before  the  Sessions),  I  opposed  it, 
and  the  resolve  must  have  passed  in  my  absence."  ^  The  Clerk 
of  the  Peace,  in  fact,  was  as  powerless  to  control  the  Justices  as 
the  Justices  were  to  control  him.  All  the  authority  of  the  Justices 
was  in  its  nature  judicial ;  it  was  concerned  with  the  enforcement 
of  the  obligations  of  individuals  or  of  corporations,  or  of  pseudo- 
corporate  bodies,  under  the  law  of  the  land.  Once  the  Justices 
abandoned  judicial  procedure  and  retired  from  the  "  Open 
Court "  into  their  private  room,  for  mingled  deliberation  and 
conviviality,  it  became  exceedingly  doubtful  whether  all  their 
proceedings  were  not  extra-legal  in  character,  and  without 
formal  authority. 

The  dependence  of  local  administration  on  local  customs  and 
the  Common  Law  had  curiously  conflicting  results.  It  meant 
that  from  one  end  of  England  to  the  other,  each  of  the  Local 
Authorities  enjoyed,  in  practice,  an  almost  unchecked  autonomy, 
unless  and  until  any  of  its  actions  or  decisions  happened  to  be 
brought  into  a  Court  of  Law.  The  autonomy  of  the  Parish  was 
checked  by  the  subordination  of  its  officers  to  the  local  Justices 
of  the  Peace,  but  the  autonomy  of  the  Manor,  of  the  Manorial 
Borough  and  of  the  Municipal  Corporation  could  only  be 
questioned  by  suit  in  the  Courts  at  Westminster,  a  very  expensive 
and  uncertain  method  of  redress.  As  for  the  Justices  of  the 
Peace,  they  were  judges  to  enforce  their  own  decisions,  and  any 
individual  Justices  or  local  bench  of  Justices  could  do  practicall)'' 
anything  they  liked  so  long  as  they  had  Quarter  Sessions  on  their 
side.  The  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  itself  was  subject  to  no 
formal  appellate  jurisdiction,  and  equally  to  no  external  audit 
or  systematic  scrutiny  of  its  proceedings,  the  legality  of  which 
could  be  challenged  only  by  action  in  the  Courts  of  King's  Bench, 
Common  Pleas  or  Exchequer.  Notwithstanding  the  expense 
and  trouble  of  such  an  action,  it  was  through  the  public  spirit 

^  Capel  Lofft  to  the  editor  of  the  B^lry  Post,  15th  October  1795  ;  The  Parish 
and  the  County,  p.  551. 


394  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

or  obstinacy  of  aggrieved  or  recalcitrant  indixaduals  that,  once 
or  twice,  in  every  generation,  led  to  authoritative  judicial 
decisions,  which  determined,  until  the  next  time  that  the  issue 
was  tried,  what  were  the  qualifications  and  obligations,  the 
powers  and  the  duties,  of  the  several  officers  of  the  Parish  and 
County  ;  within  what  limits  the  Manorial  Court  could,  by  creat- 
ing new  nuisances,  active  or  passive,  prescribe  the  conduct  of 
the  local  residents  or  mulct  them  in  fines  ;  in  what  sense  the 
frequently  conflicting  charters  of  a  Manorial  Borough  or  a 
Municipal  Corporation  were  to  be  understood,  and  how  far  their 
decaying  authority  could  be  stretched  to  meet  new  circumstances  ; 
what  the  Courts  of  Sewers  could  command  in  the  way  of  assess- 
ments to  make  new  sewers,  and  how  the  Sewers  Juries  were  to  be 
summoned  ;  and  how  the  obligation  of  the  Parish  to  keep  up 
its  highways  and  those  of  the  County  to  maintain  its  bridges 
could  be  construed  to  include  the  new  methods  of  roadmaking, 
and  the  upkeep  of  bridges  of  the  very  existence  of  which  the 
County  had  had  no  official  cognisance.  It  must  be  remembered 
that,  in  every  such  action,  the  Courts  of  Law  decided,  in  terms, 
no  more  than  the  liability  of  a  particular  defendant  in  a  particular 
issue.  There  was  no  general  promulgation,  and  not  even  any 
official  report  of  the  decisions.  The  enterprise  of  publishers  and 
unofficial  law-reporters  provided  an  ever-growing  number  of 
volumes  of  "  Reports  of  Cases,"  which  were  hard  to  read  and  still 
harder  to  construe.  The  decisions  were  not  always  consistent 
with  each  other  ;  and  it  remained  in  all  cases  uncertain  in  what 
sense  future  judges  would  apply  them  to  the  differing  circum- 
stances of  future  actions.  What  was  supposed  to  be  the  law 
might  at  any  moment  be  completely  changed — as  we  have  shown 
to  have  happened,  for  instance,  with  regard  to  the  legality  of 
Select  Vestries,  and  with  regard  to  the  liability  of  the  County 
to  maintain  privately  constructed  bridges — if  a  new  case  was 
brought  before  a  different  judge,  presented  with  additional 
knowledge  of  former  precedents  and  existing  facts,  and  argued 
by  more  learned  or  more  ingenious  counsel.  The  popular 
manuals  of  Local  Government  law  from  "  Burn  "  to  "  Stone  " 
strove  in  vain  to  condense  this  voluminous  mass  of  "  case  law  " 
into  a  systematic  code  to  be  relied  upon  as  legally  authoritative 
and  at  the  same  time  understandable  by  the  country  gentleman 
or  sorely  perplexed  Overseer. 


DIFFICULTY  OF  ENFORCEMENT  395 

But  though,  in  the  absence  of  general  statutes  prescribing 

I  the  constitution  and  powers  of  the  various  Local  Authorities, 

there  existed  a  local  autonomy  amounting  almost  to  anarchy, 

^  i  there  was  grave  difficulty  in  enforcing,  against  any  recalcitrant 

'  offender,  any  judgment  or  decision  whatsoever.  The  Court  of 
the  Manor  could  "  amerce  "  but  not  imprison  ;  and  it  was 
popularly  supposed  that  no  amercement  could  exceed  forty 
shillings.  Wealthy  sinners  preferred  to  pay  the  fine  and  continue 
the  offence.  The  Justices  of  the  Peace  might,  in  practice,  be  as 
autocratic  as  they  chose  ;  but  they  were  sometimes  checked  by 
Lords  of  Manors  who  threatened  to  take  a  prohibition  of  fairs 
or  markets  into  the  Courts  at  Westminster,  as  an  infringement 
of  their  property  rights.  Moreover,  against  the  judgments  of 
a  "  Single  "  or  a  "  Double  "  Justice,  there  was  an  appeal  to 
Quarter  Sessions  ;  and  always  the  possibility  of  the  case  being 
carried  to  Westminster  on  a  point  of  law.  What  was  more 
serious  was  that  serious  breaches  of  the  law  could  only  be  dealt 

/with  by  the  dilatory  and  expensive  process  of  indictment,  just 
as  civil  actions  for  debts  or  damages  involved,  in  the  usual 
absence  of  any  petty  debt-court  in  the  locality  itself,  a  costly 

\and  long-delayed  action  in  the  King's  Courts.  Thus,  the  great 
-mass  of  common  people  could  be,  in  practice,  autocratically 
governed,  and  even  harried  and  oppressed  by  arbitrary  taxation  ; 
whilst  the  wealthy  person  could,  by  threatening  to  take  the  case 
to  Westminster,  or  fight  the  matter  at  the  Assizes,  go  far  to  reduce 
authority  to  a  nullity.  It  was,  more  than  anything  else,  this 
uncertainty  of  the  law  and  of  the  powers  of  the  various  Local 
Government  Courts  and  officers,  coupled  with  the  growing  need 
for  summary  jurisdiction  in  dealing  with  offenders  or  recal- 
citrants, that  gradually  led  to  the  establishment  of  new  Statutory 
^  -Authorities  for  Special  Purposes,  the  steady  increase  in  the 
kinds  of  cases  which  the  magistrates  could  deal  with  summarily, 
and  (in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century)  the  enactment 
of  general  statutes  seeking  to  systematise,  and  to  codify  for 

luniversal  application,  the  laws  relating  to  the  various  functions 
yf  Local  Government.  To  the  dismay  and  regret  of  those  who, 
like  Toulmin  Smith,^  upheld  the  ancient  autonomy  of  the  Parish 

^  In  a  remarkable  scries  of  volumes  between  1848  and  1870,  the  erudite 
and  conservative-minded  J.  Toulmin  Smith  idealises  under  the  term  "  Local 
Self- Government  "  the  autonomy  arising  out  of  the  Common  Law  of  England 


396  THE  OLD  PRINCIPLES 

and  the  Manor,  and  the  supremacy  of  immemorial  local  customs 
and  the  Common  Law,  the  whole  field  of  Local  Government  came 
gradually  to  be  dominated  by  Acts  of  Parliament.  The  active 
control  of  the  structure  and  function  of  local  governing  bodies 
by  the  National  Legislature  was  one  of  the  new  principles  gradu- 
ally evolved  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

and  local  customs  interpreted  by  Juries  of  inhabitants.  "  To  attempt,"  wrote 
Touhnin  Smith  in  1851,  "  in  any  one  age,  to  tie  down  institutions  of  Local 
Self- Government  to  certain  definitive  and  peculiar  tasks — still  more,  to  attempt 
to  tie  them  down  to  the  fulfilment  of  any  of  these  in  a  particular  way — docs 
but  betray  the  grossest  ignorance  of  human  nature  and  of  the  foundations  of 
social  and  political  union.  It  is  what  the  Common  Law  and  the  Constitution 
of  England  never  have  attempted  to  do,  though  empirical  pretenders  in  modem 
legislation  have  oftentimes  done  their  best  in  this  direction — with  the  necessary 
result  of  leading  to  mischief  instead  of  good  "  {Local  Self-Government  and 
Cevtralisation,  by  J.  Toulmin  Smith,  1851,  p.  35).  "The  institution  of  Trial 
by  Jury,"  he  states,  "  forms  one,  but  a  highly  important,  practical  application 
of  the  system  of  Local  Self- Government — that  by  which  law  is  administered 
by  the  people.  Hence,  like  every  other  form  of  manifestation  of  Local  Self- 
Govcrnment,  it  has  become,  in  our  time,  the  object  of  the  insidious  attacks  of 
the  strivers  after  centralisation  "  (Ibid.  p.  22.  See  also  Government  by  Com- 
missions Illegal  and  Pernicious,  1849  ;  The  Laws  of  England  Bclaling  to  Public 
Health,  1848 ;  Centralisation  or  Representation,  1848 ;  Tlie  Parish,  1854, 
second  edition,  1857  ;  The  Metropolis  Local  Management  Act,  1855 ;  Prac- 
tical Proceedings  for  the  Removal  of  Nuisances,  1857 ;  The  Local  Goi^ern- 
ment  Act,  1858  ;  The  People  and  the  Parish  :  tJie  Common  Law  and  its  Makers, 
1853  ;  Local  Self-Government  Unmystijied,  1857  ;  The  Metropolis  and  its  Muni- 
cijml  Administration,  showing  the  essentials  of  a  sound  system  of  municipal 
self-government,  as  applicable  to  all  town  populations,  etc.,  1852;  What  is  the 
Corporation  of  London  ;  and  Who  are  the  Freemen?  1850;  The  Right  Holding 
of  the  Coroner's  Court,  1859  ;  Practical  Directions  for  the  Formation  of  Sewerage 
Districts,  1854 ;  National  Defence  in  Practice,  1859 ;  On  Church  Property  : 
showing  that  the  Church  of  England  was  not  endowed  by  the  Slate,  1870  ;  English 
Gilds  (Early  English  Text  Society,  1870)— all  by  Joshua  Toulmin  Smith. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE    EMERGENCE    OF   THE   NEW    PRINCIPLES 

We  have  now  to  consider  what  were  the  new  ideas  of  social 
organisation,  or  the  new  principles  of  government,  by  wliich  the 
old-estalblished  local  institutions  of  the  Manor  and  the  Borough, 
the  Parish  and  the  County  were  gradually  transformed.  These 
new  principles  of  government  were  not  introduced  deliberately, 
suddenly  or  universally  :  they  gradually  emerged  in  different 
decades  in  different  places,  with  varying  degrees  of  awareness 
on  the  part  of  their  promoters  and  opponents.  It  is,  in  fact, 
only  "  by  being  wise  after  the  event "  that  we  can  isolate  each 
principle,  and  trace  its  evolution  as  a  process  of  continual  action 
and  reaction  between  the  new  physical  and  mental  environment, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  waxing  and  waning  activities  of  the 
various  organs  of  Local  Government  on  the  other.  "It  is  not 
only  from  the  point  of  view  of  logical  distinctions,"  declares 
Professor  Vinagradoft",  "  that  analogies  and  contrasts  in  law 
have  to  be  considered.  It  is  clear  that  there  is  a  background 
of  social  conditions  which  accomit  to  a  great  extent  for  the  stages 
of  the  doctrinal  evolution."  ^ 

To  enable  this  revolution  in  the  principles  of  Local  Govern- 
ment to  be  understood,  we  open  this  chapter  with  a  brief  survey  ■ 
of  the  changes  that  were  occurring,  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth 
and  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  the  life  and 
labour  of  the  English  people.  We  proceed  to  discuss  some  of 
the  novel  concepts  and  new  methods  of  thought  that  partly 
arose  from,  and  partly  gave  birth  to  the  changes  in  the  material 
environment.  But  our  main  task  in  this  concluding  chapter 
will  be  to  disentangle  and  to  analyse  the  distinctive  principles 

^  Essays  in  Legal  History,  edited  by  Professor  Paul  Vinagradoff,  1913,  p.  7. 


398  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

resulting  from  the  new  physical  and  mental  circumstances  in 
which  the  various  local  institutions  had  to  operate  :  circum- 
stances effecting  so  momentous  a  transformation  in  both  parish 
and  county  administration,  and  stimulating  the  estabhshment 
of  so  many  new  Statutory  Authorities,  as  eventually  to  render 
almost  inevitable  the  revolutionary  reconstructions  of  the  Muni- 
cipal Corporations  Act  and  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act. 

The  main  forces  transforming  the  environment  of  English 
local  institutions  between  the  Revolution  and  the  Municipal 
Corporations  Act  were,  first,  the  Industrial  Revolution  (in  its 

V)  largest  sense,  including  agriculture  and  commerce)  doubling  the 
numbers,  altering  the  geographical  distribution  and  transforming 
the  status  and  the  circumstances  of  the  English  people  ;    and, 

,  ,^  secondly,  the  new  conceptions  of  political  liberty  and  personal 
freedom,  arising,  possibly,  in  connection  with  religious  non- 
conformity, subsequently  manifested  in  and  advertised  by  the 
American  and  French  Revolutions,  and  incorporated  in  Great 
Britain  in  the  administrative  and  legislative  projects  of  the 
Utilitarian  school  of  social  philosophy. 

The  Industrial  Revolution  in  Relation  to  Local  Institutions 

We  are  not  here  concerned  with  the  two  outstanding  and 
dramatic  results  of  the  Industrial  Revolution  :  on  the  one  hand, 
the  enormous  increase  in  wealth  and  power  of  the  British  Empire 
through  its  dominance  of  the  world  markets  ;  and,  on  the  other, 
the  transformation  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  inhabitants  of  England 
from  independent  producers,  owning  the  instruments  and  the 
product  of  their  labour,  into  a  vast  wage-earning  proletariate, 
in  large  part  subsisting  always  on  the  brink  of  destitution  and 
chronic  pauperism.  The  student  who  concentrates  on  one  or 
other  of  these  aspects  may  regard  this  period  either  as  the  most 
glorious  or  the  most  infamous  in  English  history.  The  investi- 
gator into  the  contemporary  developments  of  English  local 
institutions  finds  the  resulting  transformations  alike  more  com- 
plicated and  less  easy  to  value  one  against  the  other. 

^^    The  Massing  of  Men 

The  most  obvious  of  the  changes  made  by  the  Industrial 
Revolution  in  the  circumstances  of  the  Parish  and  the  County, 


THE  MASSING  OF  MEN  399 

the  Manor  and  the  Borough,  was  the  vast  increase  in  population, 
and  the  new  massing  of  men,  women  and  children  in  particular 
areas,  a  process  steadily  intensified  from  the  close  of  the  eighteenth 
century  onward.  When  William  of  Orange  landed  at  Tor  Bay 
his  future  English  subjects  numbered  fewer  than  six  millions  ;  ♦ 
and  these,  apart  from  the  exceptional  aggregation  of  the 
Metropolis,  were  scattered,  more  or  less  evenly,  throughout  all* 
the  Counties  of  England,  from  Cornwall  to  Berwick,  from  Harwich* 
to  Holyhead,  They  lived,  for  the  most  part,  in  tiny  hamlets 
and  small  villages,  surrounded  by  wastes  and  common  fields, 
with  here  and  there  a  market  town  or  cathedral  city,  enclosing 
within  its  ancient  boundaries  a  hundred  or  two,  or,  at  most,  a 
thousand  old  -  estabHshed  households  of  traders  and  master 
craftsmen.  Omitting  for  the  moment  the  anomalous  City  of 
London,  with  its  outlying  villages,  and  the  ancient  cities  of 
Bristol  and  Norwich,  which  counted  each  thirty  thousand  in- 
habitants, there  were,  in  1689,  no  towns  of  even  twenty  thousand 
■ — a  figure  not  reached  at  that  date  by  either  York  or  Exeter — 
whilst  only  half-a-dozen  others  exceeded  five  thousand.  The 
unique  aggregation  in  the  Metropolitan  area  alone  could  boast 
of  half  a  milHon  people.  A  hundred  years  afterwards  the  total 
population  had  reached  nine  millions,  and  when  England  emerged 
triumphant  from  the  Napoleonic  wars  it  had  increased  to  nearly 
twelve  millions,  having  doubled  its  population  within  a  century 
and  a  quarter.  But  even  more  important  than  the  growth  in 
total  numbers  was  the  ever-increasing  concentration  of  these  new 
masses  in  densely  crowded  industrial  centres.  By  1835  the  bulk  f 
of  the  English  people  were  no  longer  country  folk  engaged  in# 
agriculture  and  domestic  handicrafts;  an  actual  majority  of« 
them  had  become  denizens  of  the  mean  streets  springing  up  in.« 
irregular  agglomerations,  for  the  most  part  outside  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  any  Municipal  Corporation.  Over  large  parts  of  Middle- 
sex, Surrey,  Lancashire,  and  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire,  in 
Durham  and  Nottinghamshire,  in  Birmingham  and  the  Midlands, 
the  Juries  of  the  Lord's  Court  or  the  Church-wardens  and  Over- 
seers and  principal  inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled,  found  them- 
selves dealing,  not  with  a  little  group  of  neighbours  centring 
roimd  church  and  manor-house,  but  with  uncounted  hordes  of 
unknown  men,  women  and  children,  crowded  together  in  hastily 
built  tenements  ;    with  the  ancient  King's  highway,  which  had 


400  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

become  encumbered  with  wagons  and  travelling  beasts,  trans- 
formed into  streets  lined  with  warehouses,  with  here  and  there 
a  factory,  forge  or  mine,  each  employing  hundreds,  and  even 
thousands  of  "  hands,"  and  contaminating  the  ground,  the 
streams  and  the  air  with  its  output  of  filthy  refuse — a  neigh- 
bourhood from  which  the  country  gentleman  and  the  incumbent, 
/who  alone  were  Justices  of  the  Peace,  had  usually  withdrawn  to 
rMnore  agreeable  places  of  residence.  Exactly  where  the  local 
l^nstitutions  were  of  the  weakest  type,  the  population  became 
•the  greatest.  Some  of  the  old  Municipal  Corporations,  with 
their  own  magistrates  and  corporate  officers,  often  with  their 
own  representatives  in  the  House  of  Commons,  had  shrunk  into 
rural  hamlets,  whilst  elsewhere  the  Manorial  and  Parish  Officers 
often  found  themselves  the  only  Local  Authorities  in  densely 
peopled  and  rapidly  increasing  mining  or  manufacturing  areas. 

-^  The  Devastating  Torrent  of  Public  Nuisances 
Without  citing  illustrative  cases,  as  described  by  contem- 
poraries, it  is  not  easy  to  make  the  student  understand  the 
extent  and  the  disastrous  character  of  the  changes  in  the  physical 
environment  of  the  common  people  wrought  by  the  Industrial 
Revolution,  notably  in  the  latter  part  of  the  period  under  review. 
The  successful  warehousemen  or  millowners  in  and  around 
Manchester,  for  instance,  who  were  between  1763  and  1832 
growing  rich  beyond  the  dreams  of  avarice,  failed  entirely  to 
realise  the  inroads  which  their  profit-making  enterprise  was 
making  upon  the  common  conditions  of  healthy  existence.  Even 
as  late  as  1795  Manchester,  as  pictured  in  Aikin's  classic  work,^ 
lay  in  the  midst  of  smiling  meadows  and  well-growing  planta- 
tions, interspersed  with  ponds  stocked  with  perch  and  pike,  and 
clear  streams  yielding  abundantly  both  of  trout  and  salmon. 
But  in  the  town  itself,  as  we  have  indicated,  the  worst  nuisances 
were  already  rife.  In  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
it  could  be  said  by  a  medical  man  that,  "  in  some  parts  of  the 
town,  cellars  are  so  damp  as  to  be  unfit  for  habitations  "  ;  that 
there  is  one  street  in  which  "  is  a  range  of  cellars  let  out  to 
lodgers  which  threaten  to  become  a  nursery  of  diseases  "  ;  that 
"  near  the  extremities  of  the  town  .  .  .  the  lodging-houses  .  .  . 

^   A  Description  of  the  Country  from  Thirty  to  Forty  Miles  round  Manchester, 
by  Dr.  John  Aikin,  1795. 


THE  NUISANCES  OF  THE  TOWNS  401 

produce  many  fevers  ...  by  want  of  cleanliness  and  air."  ^ 
Thirty  years  later,  all  these  kinds  of  nuisances  were  found 
in  undiminished  intensity  with  the  important  difference  that, 
instead  of  one  such  street  or  group  of  underground  dwellings  or 
lodging-houses  there  were,  in  1830,  Uterally  thousands  in  the 
same  awful  state.  This  meant  that  the  wretched  inhabitants 
of  these  cellars  and  tenement  houses  had  become,  not  only 
more  densely  crowded  together,  but  also  increasingly  hemmed 
in,  so  that  their  whole  lives  were  passed  in  the  slums.  The 
growth  of  Manchester,  together  with  the  corresponding  trans- 
formation of  Salford,  Stockport,  Stalybridge,  Hyde,  Ashton, 
and  other  townships,  had,  for  miles  in  every  direction,  defiled 
the  atmosphere,  polluted  the  streams  and  destroyed  the  vegeta- 
tion. Whilst  the  Manchester  Police  Commissioners  had  been 
widening  one  or  two  main  thoroughfares  for  their  own  lorries  and 
carriages  ;  or  imperfectly  paving,  lighting,  cleansing  and  watch- 
ing the  principal  streets  in  which  their  own  mansions  and  ware- 
houses were  situated,  unregulated  private  enterprise  had  been 
covering  the  green  fields  with  mile  upon  mile  of  squalid  "  back 
to  back  "  cottages,  crammed  close  together  in  narrow  courts 
and  blind  alleys  ;  with  underground  cellars  occupied  indifferently 
by  human  beings,  animals  and  stores  of  cinders  and  filth  ;  with 
dunghills,  middens  and  open  cesspools  in  which  every  conceivable 
refuse  lay  putrefying.  The  enormous  multipHcation  of  steam- 
engines,  and  the  growth  of  every  kind  of  industry  had,  in  spite 
of  the  half-hearted  admonitions  of  the  Authorities,  both  deepened  « 
and  broadened  the  pall  of  black  smoke,  which  ever  overhung  the  t 
houses,  and  from  which  every  fall  of  rain  brought  down  showers  • 
of  soot.  Inside  the  town  the  continued  increase  of  population 
had  augmented  every  evil.  The  few  private  slaughter-houses, 
which  had  in  old  days  supplemented  the  shambles  of  the  market- 
place, had  grown  to  nearly  fourscore,  stowed  away  in  back 
yards,  closed  courts  or  even  underground  cellars,  which  they 
infected  with  putrefying  blood,  oiial  and  filth.  When  in  1832 
the  outbreak  of  cholera  led  to  "an  inspection  of  the  town,  con- 
ducted under  the  orders  of  a  well-organised  Board  of  Health," 
there  were  "  disclosed  in  the  quarters  of  the  poor  .  .  .  scenes  of 
filth  and  crowding  and  dilapidation,"  which  could,  we  think, 

^  Dr.  Ferrier's  Report  to  a  Committee,  quoted  in   A  Description  of  the 
Country  .  .  .  round  Manchester,  by  J.  Aikin,  1795,  p.  193. 

2d 


402  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

hardly  have  been  paralleled  in  character,  and  certainly  not  in 
extent,  in  any  city,  at  any  previous  period  whatsoever.  Out  of 
no  more  than  687  streets  inspected,  there  were  248  wholly  un- 
paved,  "  53  paved  partially,  112  ill-ventilated  (closed-in  courts, 
etc.),  352  which  have  heaps  of  refuse  and  stagnant  pools  at  the 
doors  "  ;  whilst,  out  of  6951  houses  inspected,  2221,  or  nearly 
a  third,  were  found  to  be  destitute  of  any  kind  of  sanitary  accom- 
modation whatsoever.  Throughout  one  whole  quarter  of  the 
town,  reports  the  Board  of  Health,  "  the  privies  are  in  a  most 
disgraceful  state,  inaccessible  from  filth,  and  too  few  for  the 
accommodation  of  the  number  of  people,  the  average  number 
being  two  to  250  people.  The  uy)per  rooms  are,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  very  dirty,  and  the  cellars  much  worse  ;  all  damp, 
and  some  occasionally  overflowed.  The  cellars  consist  of  two 
rooms  on  a  floor,  each  nine  to  ten  feet  square,  some  inhabited 
by  ten  persons,  others  by  more  ;  in  many  the  people  have  no 
beds  and  keep  each  other  warm  by  close  stowage,  on  shavings, 
straw,  etc.  A  change  of  linen  or  clothes  is  an  exception  to  the 
general  practice.  Many  of  the  back  rooms  where  they  sleep  have 
no  other  means  of  ventilation  than  from  the  front  rooms."  ^ 
The  deplorable  result  of  free  "  and  unregiflated  private  enter- 
prise "  in  the  development  of  building  estates  was,  indeed, 
apparent  in  every  growing  town,  not  excluding  the  Metropolis 
itself.  "  The  principle  of  speculation,'-  reports  a  Marylebone 
resident  in  1814,  "is  to  take  large  tracts  of  ground  by  the  acre, 
and  to  crowd  as  many  streets  and  lanes  into  it  as  they  can,  in 
•order  to  create  so  many  feet  Uneal  [of  frontage]  to  underlet  for 
building ;  and  the  fruit  of  the  speculation  is  the  sale  of  the 
increased  ground  rents.  These  houses  are  therefore  of  the 
meanest  sort ;  are  built  of  the  worst  and  shghtest  materials, 
and  but  for  their  dependence  on  each  other  for  support,  would, 
many  of  them,  not  stand  the  term  of  their  leases.  ...  A  very 
few  years  will  exhibit  cracked  walls,  sagged  floors,  bulged  fronts, 
crooked  roofs,  leaky  gutters,  inadequate  drains  and  other  ills  of 
an  originally  bad  construction."  ^    An  observer  of  1768  reports 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Local  Board  of  Health,  Manchester,  21at  December  1832. 
(Report  of  Special  Sub-Committee  on  "  Little  Ireland  "  district.)  Part  of  this 
is  printed  in  tlie  General  Report  on  the  Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Labouring  Popula- 
tion of  Great  Britain,  1842,  p.  39. 

-  Some  Account  of  the  Proposed  Improvements  of  tht  Westerii  Pari  of  London, 
1814,  pp.  XXV,  xxviii. 


THE  NUISANCES  OF  THE  METROPOLIS  403 

that,  "  in  one  morning's  walk  which  we  took  along  the  Strand 
last  week,  we  counted  no  less  than  seventy  odd  houses  made  up 
of  nothing  but  laths  and  plaster^ — -a  frightful  number  this  in  a 
street  the  most  frequented  of  the  whole  town  ;    and  no  wonder » 
that  so  many  fires  are  continually  alarming  the  Metropolis  while* 
such  edifices  as  those  are  suffered  to  stand  in  various  parts  of 
it."  ^    But  it  was  not  only  the  jerry  builder  who  was  at  work. 
Between  1806  and  1816  the  Paving  Committee  of  the  Joint 
Vestries  of  St.  Margaret  and  St.  John,  Westminster,  carried  on 
a  prolonged  wrangle  with  the  new  joint  stock  gas  and  water* 
companies,  whom  they  denounced  for  "  so  frequently  disturbing* 
the   pavement,"    and   thereby   heedlessly   increasing   by   their* 
works  and  omissions  the  dangerous  obstruction  of  the  streets.* 
The   "  dilapidation   of   the   pavements,"  which  had,  in  1816, 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  House  of  Commons,  was  ascribed 
by  the  Select  Committee  to  "  the  frequency  with  which  the 
numerous  water  and  gas  companies,  as  well  as  the  Commissioners 
of  Sewers,  disturb  the  pavements,  to  the  great  inconvenience  of 
the  public,  and  to  the  severe  loss  and  expense  of  the  districts 
which  they  pervade."  ^     "AH  the  competition  or  rivalry  which 
they  produced,"  declared  in  1819  a  spokesman  of  the  Vestries  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  "  was  the  rivalry  of  who  should  pull  the 
pavement  most  violently  to  pieces."  ^     "  It  is  highly  desirable," 
concluded   a   leading  Manchester  citizen   in    1834,    "  that   the 
inhabitants  .  .  .  should  have  the  ownership  of  works  "  for  gas 
and  water,  on  account  of  the  "  breaking  up  of  the  streets."  * 

To  any  Englishman  of  the  present  day,  who  found  himself 
suddenly  transported  to  the  London  or  Birmingham,  the  Liver- 
pool or  Sheffield  of  a  century  ago,  the  most  striking  feature  « 
would  probably  be  the  "general  nastiness  "  of  the  ground  her 
trod  upon,  defiled  by  an  almost  incredible  accumulation  of  every  • 
kind  of  filth.     He  might  next  notice  the  noisome  and  all-pervad-i 
ing  stench,  which  was  so  customary  and  continuous  as  to  be« 
scarcely  ever  commented  upon.    A  specially  disgusting  instance  is 
given  by  an  anonymous  writer  early  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
The  Parish  Authorities,  he  writes,   "  dig  in   the    churchyards 

1  The  Occasionalist,  No.  XIV.,  1769, 

*  Report  of  the  Select  Coynmitlee  on  the  Present  State  of  the  Pavement  of  the 
Metropolis,  1816,  p.  3. 

3  Hansard,  17th  May  1819. 

*  Speech  of  Thomas  Hopkins,  Manchester  Times,  25th  January  1834. 


404  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

\  or  other  annexed  burial-places  large  holes  or  pits  in  which  they 
put  many  of  the  bodies  of  those  whose  friends  are  not  able  to 
;  pay  for  better  graves  ;  and  then  those  pits  or  holes  (called  the 
i  Poor's  Holes)  once  opened  are  not  covered  till  filled  \vith  such 
'dead  bodies.  Thus  it  is  in  St.  Martin's,  St.  James's,  St.  Giles 
in  the  Fields  and  other  places.  .  .  .  How  noisome  the  stench  is 
that  arises  from  these  holes  so  stow'd  with  dead  bodies,  especially 
in  sultry  seasons  and  after  rain  one  may  appeal  to  all  who 
approach  them."  ^  A  hundred  years  later,  there  was,  at  Bristol, 
in  1822,  "  generally  two  or  three  times  a  week,  a  most  sickening 
and  offensive  vapour,"  supposed,  we  are  told,  to  arise  from  the 
gas  works  or  salt  refinery,  "  which  hangs  over  the  whole  city 
for  about  two  hours,  whose  noxious  effluvia  is  capable  of  awaken- 
ing the  soundest  sleeper,  and  interrupting  the  respiration  of  all 
who  have  not  very  strong  lungs."  ^  Another  way  in  which  the 
air  was  habitually  polluted  by  poisonous  stench  was  the  result 

♦  of  the  much- valued  practice  of  keeping  pigs  in  back  yards, 

•  front  areas,  cellars  and  even  inside  rooms.  This  prevailed  to  an 
incredible  extent  in  every  town,  not  excluding  the  Metropolis 
itself.  At  Rochester  in  1673,  the  Municipal  Corporation,  whilst 
objecting  to  pigs  roaming  at  large,  expressly  sanctioned  their 
being  kept  in  the  citizens'  houses.^  In  1768  Sir  John  Fielding 
declared  that  this  particular  "  evil  ...  is  increased  to  an  enor- 
mous degree ;  and  a  number  of  sows  for  breeding,  and  other 
hogs  are  kept  in  cellars  and  other  confined  places  in  the  City  and 
Liberty  of  Westminster,  which  are  very  offensive  and  unwhole- 
some." *  In  the  notorious  district  of  Kensington,  known  as 
"  the  Potteries,"  nearly  every  family  kept  pigs,  which  "  usually 
outnumbered  the  people  three   to  one,   and   had   their   styes 

♦mixed  up  with  the  dwelling  houses."  ^  The  almost  universal 
^pollution  of  the  water  supply  in  every  aggregation  of  people, 
w^hich  inevitably  resulted  from  the  dirt  and  filth  of  the  thorough- 
*fares,  and  the  absence  of  any  means  of  disposing  of  excreta, 
♦was,  as  we  now  reahse,  a  constant  cause  of  disease.     The  dense 

^  Some  Customs  considered,  wJiether  prejitdicial  to  the  Health  of  this  City 
(n.d.  ?  1721),  pp.  7,  10. 

=  Bristol  Journal,  10th  August  1822. 

'  An  Authentic  Copy  of  the  Charter  and  Bye-  Laws  of  the  City  of  Rochester, 
1809,  p.  35. 

«  Extracts,  etc.,  by  Sir  John  Fielding,  pp.  100-103. 

*  The  Observance  of  the  Sanitary  Laws  Divinely  Appointed,  by  the  Rev. 
Charles  Richson,  with  notes  by  Dr.  John  Sutherland,  1854,  p.  12. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  PAUPERISM  405 

swarms   of   pallid,   undersized   and   wretchedly   clothed   wage- 
earners,  who  constituted  all  but  a  tiny  minority  of  the  popula- 
tion, might  have  been  noticed,  by  a  twentieth- century  observer, 
to  be  perpetually  suffering  from  ill-health,  and  to  be,  in  fact, 
practically  all  either  sickening  for  or  recovering  from  attacks  of* 
what  we  should  now  term  either  enteric  or  typhus.     Whilst  the* 
number  of  births  everywhere  increased  by  leaps  and  bounds — 
coincidently  with  the  common  abandonment  of  the  practice  of 
the  "  living  in  "  of  farm  labourers  and  town  apprentices  and 
^ I  journeymen — the  death  rate  was,  at  all  ages,  enormous.     There* 
are,  in  fact,  indications  that,  during  the  eighteenth  as  doubtless  * 
during  the  fourteenth  century,  in  the  worst  areas  in  the  slums  of  • 
the  great  towns — continually  recruited  by  immigration  from  the* 
rural  districts — the  mortality  actually  exceeded  the  births.^  * 


The  Growth  of  Pauperism 

The  catastrophic  transformation  in  the  physical  environment 
of  large  sections  of  the  inhabitants  of  England,  in  the  homes 
they  lived  in,  in  the  ground  they  trod,  in  the  water  they  drank 
and  in  the  air  they  breathed,  was  accompanied  by  an  equally 
drastic  change  in  the  circumstances,  the  amount  and  the  security 
of  their  livehhood.  We  do  not  need  to  repeat  the  eloquent 
description  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hammond  of  the  efiect,  on  the  one 
hand,  of  the  enclosures  on  the  agricultural  worker,  and  on  the 
other,  of  the  novel  capitalist  industry  on  the  new  class  of  wage- 
operatives.  "  How  much,"  they  exclaim,  "  the  working  classes 
lost  in  happiness,  in  physical  energy,  in  moral  power,  in  the 
inherited  stamina  of  mind  and  body,  during  the  years  when 
these  overwhelming  forces  were  pressing  them  down,  it  is  im- 
possible to  estimate."  ^  What  seemed  more  relevant  to  the 
Church-wardens  and  Overseers,  and  to  the  little  meeting  of  prin- 
cipal inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled,  as  well  as  to  the  County 
Justices,  was  the  continuous  growth  of  pauperism,  which  dates,# 
in  many  parts  of  England,  from  the  very  beginning  of  the« 

1  We  do  not  suggest  that  sanitary  conditions  may  not  have  been  quite  as 
bad  in  the  crowded  towns  of  the  fifteenth  century  as  in  those  of  the  eighteenth 
century.     But  prior  to  the  eighteenth  century  the  town  j)opulation  was  small. 

^  TJie  Town  Labourer,  by  J.  L.  and  Barbara  Hammond,  1917,  p.  141.  See 
also  The  Village  Labourer,  1912,  and  The  Skilled  Labourer,  1919,  by  tiie  same 
authors. 


4o6  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

•eighteenth  centur}-.  Instead  of  merely  ha\'ing  to  succour 
by  doles  a  few  dozen  or  a  few  score  of  aged  or  sick 
neighbours,  individually  known  and  complacently  tolerated  in 
their  indigence,  the  Church-wardens  and  Overseers  of  Parish 
after  Parish  found  themselves  confronted  wdth  the  adminis- 
trative difficulties  attendant  on  maintaining  hundreds  and 
sometimes  even  thousands,  of  men,  women  and  children,  often 
immigrants  from  other  Parishes,  whose  circumstances  were 
unknown  to  the  Officers,  and  whose  requirements  seemed  to 
threaten  a  serious  inroad  on  the  incomes  of  the  minority  of 
solvent  ratepayers.  We  have  described  in  our  chapter  on  the 
ijncorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor  how  this  problem  led  to 
•the  establishment  of  new  Local  Authorities,  which  erected  work- 

•  houses  and  experimented,  wdth  uniform  but  constantly  repeated 

*  ill-success,  in  "  setting  the  poor  to  work  "  to  produce  their  own 
«  maintenance.     In  our  description  of  the  activities  of  the  Justices 

of  the  Peace,  in  legislating  for  the  Coimty,  we  have  seen  them 
reverting  to  the  simpler  device  of  Outdoor  Relief,  which  they 
elaborated  by  "  the  Allowance  System,"  into  a  comprehensive 
scheme  of  making  up  everybody's  earnings  to  a  prescribed 
minimum,  varying  with  the  price  of  bread.  The  peace  of  1815 
brought  with  it  social  conditions  even  worse  than  those  of  the 
couple  of  decades  of  war.  "  From  the  beginning  of  1816,  England 
was  visited  by  an  imexampled  stagnation  of  trade.  The  poor," 
said  Brand  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  March  28th,  1816,  "in 
many  cases  have  abandoned  their  own  residences.  Whole 
Parishes  have  been  deserted,  and  the  crowd  of  paupers  increasing 
in  numbers  as  they  go  from  Parish  to  Parish,  spread  wider  and 
wider  this  awful  desolation."  ^ 

All  this  new  destitution,  compHcated  by  the  Law  of  Settle- 
ment and  the  Allowance  System,  confronted  the  unpaid  Parish 
Officers  with  intricate  administrative  and  financial  problems 
which  they  were  wholly  unable  to  solve.  At  the  beginning  of 
the  eighteenth  century  the  total  Poor  Rate  levied  throughout 
England  scarcely  reached  one  million  pounds.  During  the 
•ensuing  three-quarters  of  a  century  it  rose  slowly  to  a  million 
•and  three-quarters.  Between  1776  and  1785  it  suddenly  bounded 
%up  by  25  per  cent.     At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 

^  Hansard,  vol.  xxxiii.  p.  071  ;    The  Life  of  Francis  Place,  177 1-1 854 ,  by 
Graham  Wallas,  1898,  p.  114. 


THE  INCREASE  IN  CRIME  407 

it  had  risen  to  over  four  million  pounds,  by  1813  to  nearly  seven 
millions,  and  by  1818  to  nearly  eight  millions.  Meanwhile  the 
rates  levied  by  the  new  Improvement  Commissioners,  who  were 
feebly  grappling  with  the  outburst  of  public  nuisances,  together 
with  the  rising  County  Rate  for  bridges  and  prisons,  added 
substantially  to  the  local  burden.  Moreover,  the  task  of  assess- 
ing and  collecting  the  rates  had  been  completely  altered  from 
the  informal  agreement  among  a  group  of  neighbours,  as  to  the 
contributions  in  respect  of  their  old-established  homes  or  holdings, 
into  a  series  of  elaborate  calculations  without  the  data  by  which 
alone  such  assessments  could  be  made  on  any  equitable  basis. 
The  bewildered  Church-wardens  and  Overseers  were  confronted, 
not  only  with  streets  on  streets  of  dwellings  of  every  sort  and 
description,  but  also  with  the  multitudes  of  newly  erected  forges 
and  factories,  blast-furnaces  and  w^arehouses,  not  to  mention  the 
newly  opened  colHeries  and  canals.  How  was  it  possible  for  the 
Parish  Officers  to  estimate  the  rental  value  of  premises  which 
had  never  been  in  the  market,  and  the  size  of  which,  measured 
in  three  dimensions,  still  more  the  cost,  was  wholly  beyond  the 
capacity  of  their  imaginations  ?  The  mere  collection  of  the 
;  greatly  swollen  rates  from  thousands  of  shifting  occupiers,  to 
/  say  nothing  of  the  control  of  an  expenditure  which  had  risen 
'/  to  imexampled  sums,  involved,  in  itself,  a  transformation  of  the 
!  machinery  of  Local  Government. 

The  Increase  in  Crime 

To  the  noblemen  and  gentlemen  to  whom,  as  Justices,  was 
committed  the  keeping  of  the  King's  peace,  there  was  a  con- 
sequence even  more  sinister  than  the  rise  in  the  Poor  Rate. 
The  transformation  of  the  bulk  of  the  English  nation  from  a 
settled  population  of  yeomen  cultivators,  peasant  copyholders, 
domestic  handicraftsmen  and  "  small  masters,"  owning  the  in- 
struments and  the  product  of  their  labour,  and  accepting  without 
question  the  existing  order  of  society,  into  a  migratory  swarm 
of  propertyless  wage-earners,  crowded  together  in  the  labyrinths 
of  houses  characteristic  of  the  Metropohs,  the  great  ports  and 
the  new  urban  centres,  inevitably  meant  an  enormous  increase 
of  disorder,  licentiousness  and  crime.  There  is,  we  think,  reason 
to  agree  with  contemporary  writers,  that  the  overgrown  and 


4o8  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

unorganised  conglomeration  of  houses  of  the  Metropolitan  area 
was,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century, 

♦  pre-eminent  in  criminality.  We  despair  of  conveying  any 
•adequate  picture  of  the  lawless  violence,  the  barbarous  licen- 
•tiousness,  and  the  almost  unlimited  opportunities  for  pilfering 
•and  robbery  oiYered  by  the  unpoliced  London  streets  of  that 
•century.    Down  to  1697  the  whole  districts  of  Whitefriars  and 

the  Savoy  were,  by  immemorial  custom,  sanctuaries,  into  the 
precincts  of  which  no  officer  of  justice  ventured  ;  and  though 
these  privileges  were  taken  away  by  statute  in  that  year,  the 
crowded  streets  and  alleys  of  "  the  Mint,"  in  Southwark,  main- 
tained a  similar  immunity  until  1723.  But  even  without  legal 
privileges,  the  very  size  of  the  Metropolis,  wath  its  bewildering 
mass  of  narrow  thoroughfares,  served  as  one  vast  sanctuary, 
from  which  thieves  could  sally  out  in  practical  safety.  "  Who- 
ever, indeed,  considers,"  said  Henry  Fielding,  "  the  cities  of 
London  and  Westminster,  with  the  late  vast  addition  of  their 
suburbs,  the  great  irregularity  of  their  buildings,  the  immense 
number  of  lanes,  alleys,  courts  and  byeplaces,  must  think  that, 
had  they  been  intended  for  the  very  purpose  of  concealment, 
they  could  scarce  have  been  better  contrived.  Upon  such  a 
view,  the  whole  appears  as  a  vast  wood  or  forest,  in  which  a 
thief  may  harbour  with  as  great  security  as  wild  beasts  do  in  the 
deserts  of  Africa  or  Arabia ;  for  by  wandering  from  one  part 
to  another  and  often  shifting  his  quarters,  he  may  almost  avoid 
the  possibility  of  being  discovered."  Innumerable  references 
occur,  from  1700  onward,  to  "  the  frequency  of  street  robberies 
of  late  years."  ^  "  London,"  writes  Shenstone  in  1743,  "  is 
really  dangerous  at  this  time  ;  the  pickpockets,  formerly  content 
with  mere  filching,  make  no  scruple  to  knock  people  down  with 

*  bludgeons  in  Fleet  Street  and  the  Strand,  and  that  at  no  later 
hour  than  eight  o'clock  at  night ;  but  in  the  Piazzas,  Covent 
Garden,  they  come  in  large  bodies  armed  with  couteaus  and  attack 
whole  parties,  so  that  the  danger  of  coming  out  of  the  playhouses 
is  of  some  weight  in  the  opposite  scale  when  I  am  disposed  to 
go  to  them  oftener  than  I  should."  ^  Shenstone's  account  is 
borne  out  by  official  documents.  "  Divers  confederacies  of  great 
numbers  of  evil-disposed  persons,"  declared  the  Common  Council 

*  Lo7ulon  Journal,  19th  March  1726. 
-  LetLor  by  Shenstone  in  174.'i  (Work:<!,  3rd  edition,  vol.  iii.  p.  73). 


HIGHWAY  ROBBERY  409 

of  the  City  of  Loudon  in  1744,  "  armed  with  bludgeons,  pistols, 
cutlasses  and  other  dangerous  weapons,  infest  not  only  the  private 
lanes  and  passages  but  likewise  the  public  streets  and  places  of 
usual  concourse,  and  commit  most  daring  outrages  upon  the 
persons  of  your  Majesty's  good  subjects  whose  affairs  oblige  them 
to  pass  through  the  streets,  by  robbing  and  wounding  them  ; 
and  these  acts  are  frequently  perpetrated  at  such  times  as  were 
heretofore  deemed  hours  of  security."  ^  "  One  is  forced  to 
travel,"  wrote  Horace  Walpole  in  1752,  "  even  at  noon,  as  if, 
one  were  going  to  battle."  So  great  was  the  "  increase  of 
robberies  within  these  few  years,"  wrote  Fielding  in  1753,  "  that 
the  streets  of  this  town,  and  the  roads  leading  to  it,  will  shortly 
be  impassable  without  the  utmost  hazard  ;  nor  are  we  threatened 
with  seeing  less  dangerous  gangs  of  rogues  among  us  than  those 
which  the  Italians  call  the  Banditti."  ^  From  London  these 
gangs  of  robbers,  and  individual  pilferers,  radiated  into  the 
country  on  all  sides.  We  have  the  high  authority  of  Sir  John 
Fielding  for  the  statement  that  "  There  are  more  highway 
robberies  committed  .  .  .  within  twenty  miles  of  London  than 
...  in  the  whole  kingdom  besides."  ^  "  The  robberies,"  says 
a  newspaper  of  1754,  "  are  chiefly  in  and  about  London ;  and 
even  when  they  happen  in  the  country,  they  are  generally  com- 
mitted by  rogues,  who  make  excursions  out  of  London  at  fairs, 
horse  races  and  other  public  meetings ;  which  clearly  and 
evidently  points  out  the  true  cause  of  them  to  be  the  overgrown 
size  of  London,  affording  infinite  receptacles  to  sharpers,  thieves 
and  villains  of  all  kinds.  In  the  villages  adjacent  to  the  Metro- 
pohs,  scarce  any  one  resident  therein,  be  his  condition  ever  so 
low,  can  call  anything  his  own."  Right  down  to  the  end  of  the* 
eighteenth  century  the  neighbourhood  of  the  great  Metropolis* 
continued  to  present  the  same  scene  of  disorder  and  rapine.* 
"  The  fields  near  London,"  wrote  Middleton  in  1798,  '"  are  never 

1  MS.  Minutes,  Court  of  Aldermen,  City  of  London,  1744 ;  given  in 
Eighteenth  Century,  by  J.  Andrews,  p.  230. 

-An  Enquiry  into  the  Causes  of  the  late  Increase  of  Robbers,  etc.,  by  H. 
Fielding,  1751. 

3  A  Plan  for  Preventing  Robberies  within  20  Miles  of  London,  by  Sir  John 
Fielding,  1755,  p.  7 ;  see  also  his  Extracts  from  such  of  the  Penal  Laws  as 
particularly  relate  to  the  Peace  and  Good  Order  of  the  Metropolis,  1768.  "  House- 
breaking in  London,"  records  the  Annual  Register  for  1770,  "  was  never  known 
to  be  so  frequent ;  seldom  a  night  passing  but  some  house  or  other  was 
entered  and  robbed"  (p.  78). 


4IO  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

free  from  men  strolling  about,  in  pilfering  pursuits  by  day,  and 
committing  greater  crimes  by  night."  ^  No  one,  said  Colquhoun 
in  1800,  could  be  approaching  the  Capital  in  any  direction  after 
dark,  without  risk  of  being  assaulted  and  robbed,  and  perhaps 
wounded  or  murdered.  We  cannot  lay  down  to  rest  in  our 
habitations  without  the  dread  of  a  burglary  being  committed, 
our  property  invaded,  and  our  lives  exposed  to  imminent  danger 
before  the  approach  of  morning."  ^ 

y      For  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  all  the  evidence 
•leads  to  the  impression  that  crime  and  disorder  were  much  less 
(jiprevalent  in  the  rural  districts  and  the  provincial  towns  than 
•in  the  Metropolis.    The  records  of  convictions  at  Quarter  Sessions 
are  relatively  few  and  light.     Such  provincial  newspapers  as  can 
still  be  consulted  reveal  no  serious  grievances  in  the  way  of  the 
prevalence  of  robbery  or  assault.     The  impression  of  the  country 
districts  that  we  derive  from  many  contemporary  sources  is  that 
of  a  stolid,  home-keeping  and  reasonably  contented  population  ; 
gross  and  sensual  in  its  habits,  but  not  incited  to  plunder  or  riot 
by  extreme  want ;    inclined  occasionally  to  riot  in  resentment 
of  this  or  that  grievance,  but  saved  by  generous  poor  relief  from 
destitution,  and  intellectually  submissive  to  the  justices  of  the 
•peace.    After  the  middle  of  the  century  the  picture  gradually 
<  changes  for  the  worse.     With  the  increase  in  vagrancy,  coupled 
•with  the  growth  of  passenger  traffic  and  mails,  there  appears, 
*on  all  the  great  roads,  the  professional  highwayman.     With  the 
new  and  rapid  growth  of  the  Northern  and  Midland  industrial 
centres,  we  find  developing  whole  classes  of  local  professional 
pickpockets  and  pilferers,  swindlers,  cheats,  sharpers  and  "  scufile- 
hunters  "  of  every  kind.     The  very  growth  of  crowded  slums  in 
Liverpool  and  Manchester  led  to  a  reproduction  on  a  smaller 
scale,  of  all  the  disorderly  Ufe  of  the  Metropolis.     "  Bodies  of 
miscreants,"  we  read  of  Chester  in  1787,  "  infest  the  streets  and 
rows  early  in  the  evenings,  and  insult  with  impunity,  and  lay 
under  contribution  whomsoever  they  meet.     There  are  no  watch- 
men, or  others  who  can  be  applied  to  for  redress."  ^    Towards 
the  latter  part  of  the  century,  the  insidious  but  unmistakable 

^  Oeneral  Vietu  of  the  Agriculture  of  Middlesex,  by  John  Middleton,  1798, 
p.  4G0. 

^  A  Treatise  on  the  Police  of  the  Metropolis,  by  Patrick  Colqulioun,  1800,  p.  2. 
^  GentlemaiCs  Magazine,  October  1 787. 


A   CARNIVAL  OF  CRIME  411 

worsening  of  the  economic  condition  of  the  agricultural  popula-^ 
tion,  brought  about  by  the  enclosure  of  the  commons  and  the  rise* 
in  the  cost  of  living,  coupled  with  a  spasmodic  stringency  in  poor» 
relief,  is  reflected  in  a  general  increase  of  rural  delinquency.  In» 
1786,  we  read  of  the  West  of  England,  "  Such  depredations  are 
committed  in  the  different  parts  of  the  country  by  the  horse 
and  sheep  stealers  that  the  farmers  are  afraid  to  turn  out  their 
flocks  into  the  fields.  Within  this  week  or  two  five  horses  have 
been  carried  off  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Pendock  in  Worcester- 
shire, and  at  diff'erent  times  within  two  years  a  gentleman  farmer 
not  far  from  thence  has  lost  three  score  sheep."  ^  What  seems 
to  have  been  a  sort  of  epidemic  of  rural  crime  is  reported  in  1788 
at  Pyrland,  a  village  near  Taunton  (Somerset),  on  the  estate  of 
Sir  William  Yeo.  "  Innumerable  are  the  depredators  and  stealers 
of  deer,  sheep  and  fowls  that  have  been  already  discovered.  .  .  . 
Men,  women  and  children  have  all  been  conspirators,  and  the 
whole  country  is  in  an  uproar.  We  have  strong  evidence  of 
twenty  deer,  and  as  many  sheep,  having  been  slaughtered  and 
devoured  in  an  old  farmhouse  belonging  to  Sir  Wilham  Yeo. 
The  chambers  of  this  house  are  a  perfect  Golgotha,  and  horse- 
loads  of  deer  skins  have  been  sold  at  a  time  from  hence.  Three 
or  four  years'  wool  was  stolen  out  of  the  lofts  over  his  stables, 
packed  up  in  the  open  court,  and  carried  off  without  interruption 
during  his  absence.  The  deer  were  killed  early  in  the  morning, 
if  the  baronet  was  at  home,  or  shot  openly  in  the  middle  of  the 
day  if  absent.  The  sheep  were  mostly  eaten  by  his  out  of  door 
workmen  and  dependents,  and  five  or  six  at  a  time  have  been 
driven  away  and  sold,  by  persons  of  this  description.  .  .  .  These 
thieves  used  to  play  at  cards  on  their  nights  of  feasting,  and  the 
stake  to  be  played  for  was  always  declared,  perhaps  three  or 
four  turkeys,  geese  or  ducks,  etc.,  and  the  loser  was  to  go  forth 
and  steal  them  against  the  next  entertainment,  or  undergo 
pimishment."  ^ 

/       From  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  desperate  mobs* 
of  destitute  persons  appear  on  the  scene,  enraged  at  one  or  other-* 

,  result  of  the  Industrial  Revolution.     There  were  food-riots  at-* 

i  Manchester  in  1762,  and  others  in  Derbyshire  in  1767.=*     We 

I 

1  Bristol  Gazette,  13th  July  1786. 

2  Bristol  Journal,  8th  March  1788. 

*  The  Early  English  Cotton  hidvstry,  by  G.  W.  Daniels,  1920,  p.  84. 


412  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

have  already  mentioned  the  spasm  of  insurrection  of  the  Suffolk 
labourers  in  1765,  against  the  erection  of  Houses  of  Industry  and 
the  withdrawal  of  Outdoor  KeUef  :  an  insurrection  which  caused 
the  destruction  of  thousands  of  pounds  w'orth  of  property,  and 
was  only  put  dowai,  after  more  than  a  week's  unrestrained  licence, 
by  a  charge  of  dragoons.     There  were  riots  in  Lancashire  in  1779 

,  "  owing  to  the  erection  of  certain  mills  and  engines  ...  for  the 

1  manufacturing  of  cotton,  which  .  .  .  tend  to  depreciate  the 
)     price  of  labour."  ^     Sheffield  broke  into  revolt  in  1791,  in  resent- 

\ment  of  the  enclosure  of  a  large  common.  "  Hundreds  of  people 
assembled  and  [were]  busily  employed  in  pulling  down  the  town 
gaol,  after  having  given  all  the  prisoners  their  liberty.  From 
thence  they  went  to  Justice  Wilkinson's  house  and  set  fire  to 
his  valuable  library,  but  happily  the  fire  was  got  under.  They 
then  set  fire  to  seven  large  haystacks  belonging  to  him,  which 
are  now  in  flames.  .  .  .  When  the  soldiers  arrived  they  were 
obliged  to  fire  several  times.  .  .  .  The  mob  then  dispersed.  .  .  . 
The  workmen  are  all  in  an  uproar,  and  business  of  every  kind  is 
at  a  standstill."  -  At  Birmingham  and  other  places,  amid  the 
)  vterribly  high  prices  of  1800,  there  were  bread  riots,  against  which 
the  Yeomanry  had  to  be  called  out,  and  a  force  of  dragoons 

•sent  for.  Between  1800  and  1810,  when  the  press-gang  was  at 
work  obtaining  soldiers  and  sailors  for  the  Napoleonic  war,  and 
County  Benches  were  suppressing  liquor  licenses  and  otherwise 
reforming  the  morals  and  manners  of  the  lower  orders,^  there 
seems  to  have  been  a  temporary  diminution  of  riots  and  dis- 
order. When  again  these  break  out,  in  1811-1812,  and  still 
more  after  the  distressful  year  1816,  they  show  signs  of  being 
Q{  changed  in  character.     The  riots  of  the  eighteenth  century  had 

Ibeen,  almost  exclusively,  the  mere  impulses  of  an  untamed 
people,  born  of  their  impatience  of  suffering  or  restraint,  the 
habitual  licentious  disorder  of  the  individuals  gathering  itself  up 
from  time  to  time  into  mob  outrages  on  a  large  scale,  excited 
by  some  local  and  temporary  grievance — it  might  be  the  erection 
of  a  turnpike  or  the  enclosure  of  a  common,  the  introduction  of 
a  new  machine  or  the  establishment  of  a  House  of  Industry,  the 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Quarter  Sessions,  Lancashire,  11th  November  1779; 
Manchester  Mercury,  16th  November  1779. 

*  Public  Adtrrliser,  1st  August  1791. 

'  History  of  Liquor  Licensing,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1903,  cliap.  iii.,  ami  the 
Appendix  on  the  Movement  for  the  Reformation  of  Manners. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  DEMOCRACY  413 

scarcity  of  corn  or  the  liigli  prices  of  the  butchers.  There  was,  to» 
;  put  it  briefly,  in  these  eighteenth-century  riots,  no  intermixture* 
I  of  sedition.  From  1812  to  1832  a  new  spirit  may  be  detected* 
in  the  riots.  They  are  still  often  wild  protests  against  high* 
prices  or  angry  attacks  on  machinery.  But  instead  of  the» 
eighteenth-century  feeling  of  loyalty  to  the  King  and  the  Con-« 
stitution,  and  the  conviction  that  the  grievances  are  innovations,* 
there  appears,  practically  for  the  first  time,  an  unmistakable  con-* 
sciousness  among  the  rioters,  demonstrators,  machine  destroyers  # 
and  rick  burners,  that  what  they  are  in  rebellion  against  is  the* 
established  order  of  society,  laid  down  by  Parliament,  upheld* 
by  the  Courts  and  enforced  by  the  standing  army.  • 


Laying  the  Foundations  of  Democracy 

These  four  main  evils  wrought  by  the  Industrial  Revolution 
in  the  environment  of  local  institutions — the  massing  of  men  in 
urban  districts,  the  devastating  torrent  of  pubhc  nuisances,  the 
catastrophic  increase  in  destitution  and  pauperism,  and  the  con- 
sequent prevalence  of  crime  and  sedition — had,  as  we  indicated 
in  the  last  chapter,  completely  undermined  the  old  principles  of 
government  inherited  from  time  immemorial  and  embodied  in 
local  custom,  the  Common  Law  and  the  Tudor  and  Stuart  legisla- 
tion. But  the  results  of  the  Industrial  Revolution  were  not 
exclusively  iconoclastic.  The  pioneers  of  the  new  Capitalism* 
were  unwittingly  laying  the  foundations  of  modern  Democracy.' 
One  of  the  barriers  to  reform,  whether  of  national  or  of  Local 
Government,  was  the  Municipal  Corporation,  with  its  decaying 
groundwork  of  vocational  organisation,  its  oligarchical  constitu- 
tion, its  trade  privileges  and  monopolies,  not  to  mention  its 
representation  in  the  House  of  Commons,  its  inveterate  policy 
of  excluding  from  citizenship,  and  frequently  from  employment, 
all  those  who  did  not  belong  to  one  or  other  of  its  original  trade 
groups.  It  was  exactly  against  the  static  exclusiveness  of  the » 
old  vocational  basis  of  society  that  the  new  capitalists  were* 
waging  a  persistent,  relentless  and  eventually  successful  war. 
Throughout  the  Northern  and  Midland  Counties,  the  cotton 
manufacturers  and  the  machine  makers,  the  canal  constructors 
and  the  colhery  owners,  were  building  up  new  communities,  for 
the  most  part  outside  the  area  of  any  Municipal  Corporation. 


414  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

If  they  were  multiplying  public  nuisances,  they  were  also  defying 
the  Lords  of  Manors  ;  if  they  were  massing  men,  women  and 
children  in  mean  streets  and  keeping  them  day  and  night  in  the 
works,  they  were  also  nullifying  the  Law  of  Settlement  and 
enabling  the  poor  to  escape  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  incumbent 
and  the  squire  as  Justices  of  the  Peace.  Above  all,  they  were 
successfully  posing  as  the  only  representatives  of  the  consumers' 
desire  for  cheap  and  plentiful  commodities.  Moreover,  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  not  all  the  displaced  copyholders  and  in- 
dependent handicraftsmen  were  pressed  down  into  the  sweated 
industrial  proletariat.  A  not  insignificant  proportion  of  the 
more  vigorous,  self-controlled  and  acquisitive  among  them 
utiUsed  their  new  economic  freedom  to  make  themselves  fore- 
men and  managers,  and  even  to  become  themselves  millowners 
and  capitalist  entrepreneurs. 

The  universal  freedom  of  competition  and  freedom  of  contract 
preached  by  Adam  Smith  and  practised  by  the  new  capitaUst 
industry  were,  in  fact,  hberating  not  only  industrial,  but  also 
political  energy.  The  very  diversity  of  origin  of  the  employers 
/combined  with  their  rise  in  economic  power  to  make  them 
reformers.  It  was  from  the  class  of  the  "  new  rich,"  the  manu- 
facturers and  warehousemen  of  Manchester,  the  shipowTiers  and 
merchants  of  Liverpool,  who  found  themselves  excluded  alike 
from  the  County  Commission  of  the  Peace  and  the  Municipal 
Corporation,  that  emerged  the  most  powerful  recruits  to  the 
^rst  stages  of  a  movement  towards  pohtical  Democracy.  Few 
of  them,  it  is  true,  had,  like  Robert  Owen  and  Francis  Place, 
any  sympathy  with  the  industrial  or  political  aspirations  of  the 
wage-earners.  What  they  demanded  was,  in  the  phrase  of  the 
Liverpool  reformers  of  1830,  "  equal  privileges  for  all  of  equal 
station."  But  it  was  from  this  essentially  "  caste  "  struggle 
between  the  Tory  squires  and  the  Radical  manufacturers  that 
sprang,  not  only  "  free  trade  in  corn,"  the  Factory  Acts  and  an 
ever-widening  Parliamentary  franchise,  but  also,  at  successive 
removes,  the  general  adoption  throughout  the  whole  Local 
Government  of  the  Kingdom,  of  the  modern  Consumers'  Demo- 
cracy of  imiversal  sufeage. 

But  the  Industrial  Revolution  unwittingly  made  an  even 
greater  contribution  to  the  cause  of  industrial  and  political 
Democracy.     The  power-driven,  machine-worked  and  ruthlessly 


THE  TORYISM  OF  THE  MOB  415 

managed  establishments  of  the  new  industries  produced,  not  only 
the  sinews  of  war  and  the  dominance  of  British  enterprise  in 
foreign  markets,  but  also  the  British  Trade  Union  Movement. 
"  Whilst  industrial  oppression  belongs  to  all  ages,  it  is  not  until 
the  changing  conditions  of  industry  had  reduced  to  an  infini- 
tesimal chance  the  journeyman's  prospect  of  becoming  himself 
a  master,  that  we  find  the  passage  of  ephemeral  combinations 
into  permanent  trade  societies."  ^  So  long  as  all  classes  of  the 
English  people  were  divided  up  vertically  into  occupational 
groups,  the  majority  of  the  families  owning  alike  the  instruments 
and  the  products  of  their  labour,  whether  as  agriculturists, 
as  domestic  manufacturers,  or  as  town  handicraftsmen,  their 
economic  aspirations  and  personal  loyalties  were  attached  to 
the  leading  members  of  the  same  occupational  groups,  even  if 
these  were  their  social  superiors  or  economic  exploiters.  Hence 
we  find,  throughout  the  seventeenth  century,  the  master  crafts- 
men and  the  journeymen  in  each  trade  frequently  supporting, 
by  their  petitions,  the  appUcations  for  privilege  and  monopoly 
made  by  the  promoters  of  the  national  manufacturing  and 
trading  companies  ;  whilst  the  copyholders  and  yeomen  were 
always  on  the  side  of  the  rural  landowners  as  against  other 
sections  of  the  community.  This  vocational  bias  was  heightened 
by  the  instinctive  Conservativism  of  the  lower  orders  of  the 
English  people.  The  "  mob  "  of  the  eighteenth  century,  made  up 
of  the  rabble  from  village  and  town,  was  invariably  Tory  in 
sympathy  ;  and  its  violence  was  constantly  directed  against  the 
reformers  of  the  British  constitution  and  the  dissenters  from  the 
Established  Church.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  the 
early  trade  clubs  of  town  artisans,  and  even  the  ephemeral 
combinations  of  factory  operatives,  instinctively  turned  fijst  to 
the  House  of  Commons  and  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  for  pro- 
tection against  the  inroads  made  by  the  new  CapitaHsm  on  the 
sufficiency  and  security  of  their  livelihood.  For  some  time,  as 
we  have  described  elsewhere,^  the  country  gentleman  of  the 
House  of  Commons  supported  this  appeal  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  mediaeval  and  Tudor  order ;  but  towards  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  especially  during  the  financial  strain  of 
the  Napoleonic  war,  the  new  industrial  policy  of  unrestricted 

^  History  of  Trade  Unionism,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  edition  of  1920,  p.  6. 
2  Ibid,  pp.  48-51. 


4i6  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

freedom  of  enterprise  became  almost  mnversally  accepted  by 
the  governing  class.  The  abandonment  of  the  operatives  to 
the  operation  of  free  competition  was  even  carried  out  with 
miflinching  determination  as  a  matter  of  principle.  The  Select 
Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  1808  reported  that  the 
ancient  legal  protection  of  the  workers'  Standard  of  Life  and 
security  of  employment  was  "  wholly  inadmissible  in  principle, 
incapable  of  being  reduced  to  practice  by  any  means  which  can 
possibly  be  devised,  and,  if  practicable,  would  be  productive 
of  the  most  fatal  consequences  "  ;  and  "  that  the  proposition 
relative  to  the  limiting  the  number  of  apprentices  is  also  entirely 
inadmissible,  and  would,  if  adopted  by  the  House,  be  attended 
with  the  greatest  injustice  to  the  manufacturer  as  well  as  to  the 
labourer."  ^  Needless  to  say,  the  governing  class  was  by  no 
means  impartial  in  the  application  of  the  new  doctrines.  Medi- 
aeval regulation  acted  in  restriction  of  free  competition  in  the 
labour  market  not  only  to  the  pecuniary  loss  of  the  employers, 
but  also  to  that  of  the  employees,  who,  as  the  economists  now 
see,  could  obtain  the  best  terms  for  their  labour  only  by  collective 
instead  of  individual  bargaining.  Any  such  combination  of  the 
wage-earners,  however,  was  in  1800  made  more  definitely  than 
ever  a  criminal  offence,  which  it  took  the  organised  workers  the 
greater  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  wholly  to  abolish.  We 
have  traced  elsewhere  the  gradual  evolution  of  the  Trade  Union 
Movement  during  the  past  two  hundred  years,  and  its  emergence 
into  politics  in  the  twentieth  century,  developing  into  the 
wider  Labour  Party  of  workers  by  hand  or  by  brain,  which  is 
striving  persistently  to  secure,  for  the  community  that  "  lives 
by  working,"  as  contrasted  with  the  still  dominant  section 
that  "  lives  by  owning,"  such  a  Parliamentary  majority  as 
would  enable  it  to  constitute  the  government  of  the  country. 
This  brings  us  a  long  way  from  the  slow  and  gradual  rise 
of  the  new  capitalist  industry,  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
^seventeenth  century  onward.  But  it  is  not  too  much  to 
!»say  that  it  was  the  sweeping  away  by  the  Industrial 
•Revolution  of  the  peasant  copyholder,  the  domestic  manufac- 
•turer  and  the  independent  craftsman,  that  made  possible  the 
•transformation  of  the  bulk  of  EngUsh  people  into  a  horizontally 

*  Reports  on  Petitions  of  Cotton  Weavers,  1S09  and  1811  ;    quoted  in   The 
History  of  Trade  Lhiiotiism,  new  edition,  1920,  p.  56. 


I 


POLITICAL  LIBERTY  AND  PERSONAL  FREEDOM  ^ij 

stratified  democracy  of  workers,  claiming  alike  industrial  and* 
political  control  for  those  who  constitute  the  great  majority  of* 
the  commmiity.  • 


The  New  Conceptions  of  Political  Liberty  and  Personal  Freedom 

It  will  always  be  a  matter  of  dispute  how  far  the  Industrial 
Revolution,  with  its  novel  ideas  of  free  competition  and  free 
contract,  was  itself  the  result  of  the  new  conceptions  of  personal 
freedom  and  political  Uberty  that  may  be  traced  in  the  rise  of 
religious  Nonconformity,  and  that  were  so  dramatically  mani- 
:  fested  in,  and  so  widely  advertised  by  the  American  Declaration 
of  Independence  and  the  French  Revolution.  Whilst  some 
eminent  thinkers,  like  Burke,  combined  an  almost  fanatical  adhe- 
sion to  the  existing  political  order  with  a  naive  credulity  in  the 
beneficence  of  free  competition,  there  were  many  disciples  of 
Adam  Smith  who  welcomed  alike  the  success  of  the  American 
Rebellion  and  the  sweeping  political  changes  inaugurated  by  the 
French  Revolution.  At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  there 
seemed  to  be  no  incompatibility  between  complete  political  Demo- 
cracy and  the  unrestrained  exercise  of  property  rights  in  every- 
thing that  could  possibly  be  made  subject  to  private  ownership. 
In  the  seventeenth  century  there  had  been,  we  think,  a  clearer 
vision.  In  those  illuminating  debates  in  the  Council  of  War  at 
Reading  in  1647,  we  watch  Cromwell  and  Ireton  spending  day 
after  day  in  trying  to  persuade  their  officers  and  men  "  That 
which  is  most  radicall  and  fundamentall,  and  which  if  you  take 
away  there  is  noe  man  hath  any  land,  any  goods,  [or]  any  civill 
interest,  that  is  this  :  that  those  that  chuse  the  Representors 
for  the  making  of  Lawes  by  which  this  State  and  Kingedome  are 
to  bee  govern'd,  are  the  persons  who,  taken  together,  doe  com- 
prehend the  locall  interest  of  this  Kingedome ;  that  is,  the  persons 
in  whome  all  land  Hes,  and  those  in  Corporations  in  whome  all 
trading  lies.  ...  If  wee  shall  goe  to  take  away  this  fundamentall 
i^arte  of  the  civill  constitution,  wee  shall  plainly  goe  to  take  away 
all  property  and  interest  that  any  man  hath,  either  in  land  by 
inheritance,  or  in  estate  by  possession,  or  any  thinge  else."  ^ 

^  The  Clarke  Papers :  Selections  from  the  Papers  of  William  Clarke,  edited 
by  C.  H.  Firth,  for  the  Camden  Society,  1891,  vol.  i.  pp.  302-303.  And  see 
English  Democratic  Ideas  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  by  G.  P.  Gooch,  pp.  202-226. 

2e 


41 8  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

And  they  defended  their  proposal  of  excluding  from  the 
Parliamentary  suffrage  n\\  men  without  landed  ])roperty  or 
corporate  privileges,  by  comparing  them  to  foreigners  who  come 
to  live  in  the  Kingdom,  having  no  permanent  interest  in  it.  It 
was  useless  for  the  protagonist  of  the  other  party,  Colonel  Rain- 
borow,  to  assert  "  I  doe  nott  finde  anythinge  in  the  law  of  God, 
that  a  Lord  shall  chuse  twenty  Burgesses,  and  a  Gentleman  butt 
two,  or  a  poore  man  shall  chuse  none.  I  finde  noe  such  thinge 
in  the  law  of  nature,  nor  in  the  law  of  nations.  Butt  I  doe  finde, 
that  all  Englishmen  must  bee  subject  to  English  lawes,  and  I 
doe  verily  beleive,  that  there  is  noe  man  butt  will  say,  that  the 
foundation  of  all  law  lies  in  the  people.  .  .  .  Therefore  I  doe 
[think]  and  am  still  of  the  same  opinion  ;  that  every  man  born 
in  England  cannot,  ought  nott,  neither  by  the  law  of  God  nor 
the  law  of  nature,  to  bee  exempted  from  the  choice  of  those  who 
are  to  make  lawes,  for  him  to  live  under,  and  for  him,  for  ought 
I  know,  to  loose  his  life  under."  ^  Again  and  again  Cromwell 
and  Ireton  reiterate  that  if  "  one  man  hath  an  equall  right 
with  another  to  the  chusing  of  him  that  shall  governe  him — by 
the  same  right  of  nature,  hee  hath  an  equal  right  in  any  goods 
hee  sees :  meate,  drinke,  cloathes,  to  take  and  use  them  for  his 
sustenance.  ...  If  the  Master  and  servant  shall  bee  equall  Electors, 
then  clearlie  those  that  have  noe  interest  in  the  Kingedome  will 
make  itt  their  interest  to  chuse  those  that  have  noe  interest. 
Itt  may  happen,  that  the  majority  may,  by  law,  nott  in  a  con- 
fusion, destroy  propertie  ;  there  may  bee  a  law  enacted,  that 
there  shall  bee  an  equality  of  goods  and  estate."  ^  At  last 
Colonel  Rainborow  ironically  retorts  :  "  Sir  I  see,  that  itt  is 
impossible  to  have  liberty  butt  all  propertie  must  be  taken 
away.  If  itt  be  laid  downe  for  a  rule,  and  if  you  will  say  itt, 
itt  must  bee  soe."  ^ 

/  No  such  foreboding  of  the  economic  implications  of  Political 
/  Democracy  hampered  the  leaders  of  either  the  American  or  the 
French  Revolution.  In  the  Continental  Congress  of  1776  the 
founders  of  the  United  States  saw  no  contradiction  in  terms 
between  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the  declaration  "  that  all 

*  The  Clarke  Papers :   Selections  from  the  Papers  of  William  Clarke,  edited 
by  C.  H.  Firth,  for  the  Camden  Society,  1891,  vol.  i.  pp.  304-305. 
-  //>/</.  p.  307. 
3  Ibid.  p.  315. 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN  419 

men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  inahenable  rights,  and  among  these  are  Hfe,  liberty 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  It  is  accordingly  not  surprising 
to  find  Hamilton  and  JefEerson  alike  without  any  inkling  of  a 
possible  incompatibility  between  a  universal  equality  of  in- 
dividual liberty  and  the  tacit  inclusion  of  land  and  other  instru- 
ments of  production  among  the  things  in  which  private  property 
was  to  be  maintained  and  ensured.^  A  few  years  later  the 
French  revolutionists  could  unhesitatingly  assume  that  an  abso- 
lute right  of  private  property,  without  limits  or  qualifications, 
was  actually  implicit  in  the  "  Rights  of  Man,"  and  in  political 
citizenship.  "  The  end  of  all  political  association,"  declared  the 
French  National  Assembly  in  1789,  "  is  the  preservation  of  the 
natural  and  imprescriptible  rights  of  man  ;  and  these  rights  are 
Liberty,  Property,  Security  and  Resistance  of  Oppression."  2 
The  explanation  of  this  common  lack  of  appreciation  of  the 
American  and  the  French  revolutionaries,  as  of  the  economic 
optimism  of  the  Adam  Smith  of  1776,  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  the  full  results  of  the  Industrial  Revolution  on  the  practical 
freedom  of  the  individual  wage-earner  had  not  then  revealed 
themselves.  In  the  United  States,  where  land  was  still  to  be 
had  for  the  asking,  and  any  but  the  smallest  capitals  were  non- 
existent, the  fullest  "  Individualism  "  was  as  practicable  in  the 
production  of  subsistence  as  in  political  association.  The  French 
cultivator  was  conscious  of  political  oppression,  but  not  yet  of 
Capitalism  as  itself  depriving  him  of  freedom.  The  taxation 
and  personal  servitude  to  which  he  was  subjected  came,  not 
from  his  being  ousted  from  his  fragment  of  a  communal  owner- 
ship of  the  land,  but  from  the  arbitrary  exactions  of  liis  seigneur, 
together  with  the  gabelle  and  other  direct  imposts  of  the  Govern- 

^  For  Hamilton's  special  sense  of  the  importance  of  giving  influence  to 
j)roperty,  see  The  Federalist,  No.  54  (p.  364  of  Ford's  edition).  John  Adams 
lays  it  down  that  "  the  moment  the  idea  is  admitted  into  society  that  pro- 
perty is  not  as  sacred  as  the  laws  of  God,  and  that  there  is  not  a  force  of  law 
and  pubUc  justice  to  protect  it.  anarchy  and  tyranny  commence  "  (Works  of 
John  Adams,  edited  by  C.  F.  Adams,  1851,  vol.  vi.  p.  9). 

2  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of  Citizens,  by  the  National  Assembly 
of  France,  translated  in  Rights  of  31  an,  1791,  by  Thomas  Paine,  included  in 
vol.  i.  p.  79  of  his  Political  Works,  1819.  In  the  later  amplifications  ofjthis 
declaration  it  is  explained  that  "  The  right  to  property  being  an  inviolable  and 
sacred  right,  no  person  may  be  deprived  of  it,  unless  for  reason  of  public  neces- 
sity, legally  certified,  and  with  the  condition  of  an'^equitable  compensation  " 
(Histoire  de  la  France  contemporaine,  by  Ernest  Lavisse,  1921,  vol.  i.  p.  81). 


420  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

ment.  The  labourers,  who  had  swelled  the  population  of  the 
little  market  towns,  as  of  Paris  itself,  saw  their  enemies  not  in 
the  capitalist  employer,  but  in  the  restrictions  of  the  obsolescent 
juratides  or  of  the  antiquated  Municipal  Authorities,  by  which 
the  newcomers,  or  the  unapprenticed  man,  or  indeed  any  one 
outside  the  privileged  circles,  was  prevented  from  obtaining 
remunerative  employment.^  In  the  contemporary  England,  too, 
"  the  country,"  Thomas  Paine  could  declare,  "  is  cut  up  into 
monopoUes.  Every  chartered  town  is  an  aristocratical  monopoly 
in  itself,  and  the  qualification  of  electors  proceeds  out  of  those 
chartered  monopolies.  Is  this  what  Mr.  Burke  means  by  a  con- 
stitution ?  In  these  chartered  monopohes,  a  man  coming  from 
another  part  of  the  country  is  hunted  from  them  as  if  he  were  a 
foreign  enemy.  An  Englishman  is  not  free  of  his  own  country  : 
every  one  of  those  places  presents  a  barrier  in  his  way,  and  tells 
him  he  is  not  a  freeman,  that  he  has  no  rights.  Within  these 
monopolies  are  other  monopolies.     In  a  city,  such  for  instance 

^  The  story  of  the  suppression  of  mediaeval  craft,  professional  and  trading, 
corporations  in  France  is  well  worth  further  investigation.  In  1776  the  great 
Minister,  Turgot,  passed  an  Act  abolishing  all  corporations,  which  applied  in 
theory  througliuut  all  France,  but  specifically  to  Paris.  Every  person,  even 
foreigners,  were  to  be  free  to  exercise  any  profession  whatsoever,  and  no  com- 
binations or  meetings,  either  of  masters  or  men,  were  to  be  permitted.  This 
Act  was  repealed  on  the  fall  of  Turgot  in  the  same  year.  In  the  famous  Declara- 
tion on  the  Rights  of  Man  made  by  the  revolutionary  National  Assembly  in 
August  1789,  it  was  laid  down  that  all  men  are  born  and  remain  free  and  equal 
in  rights,  an  abstract  proposition  which  was  elaborated  in  the  constitution  of 
September  1791,  that  all  citizens  arc  free  to  enter  any  employment  without  any 
distinction  other  than  of  virtue  and  talent.  Meanwhile  an  Act  had  been 
passed  in  March  1791  in  connection  with  a  tax  on  the  licence  to  exercise  a 
profession,  abolishing  all  the  ancient  mediaeval  corporations  connected  with 
crafts,  arts  and  commerce,  and  suppressing  all  professional  privileges  whatso- 
ever. A  more  comprehensive  Act  arising  out  of  the  innumerable  strikes  in 
Paris  and  other  French  towns  during  the  Spring  of  that  year,  and  drafted  by 
Chapelier,  passed  in  June  1791,  abolishing  and  forbidding  all  corporations  of 
citizens  or  combinations,  or  even  meetings  of  citizens  belonging  to  particular 
professions,  as  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  basis  of  the  French 
constitution.  It  was  on  the  occasion  of  the  passage  of  this  Act  that  Marat 
wrote  his  famous  letter  to  the  Assembly,  laying  down  that  though  it  was 
necessarj'  that  liberty  of  meeting  should  be  guaranteed  to  citizens,  no  meeting 
or  assembly  of  citizens  of  particular  professions  having  economic  interests  in 
common  should  bo  allowed.  "  II  n'y  a  plus  do  corporations  dans  I'Etat ;  il 
n'y  a  plus  que  I'interct  particulier  de  chaque  individu,  et  I'interet  general." 
Marat  went  on  to  explain  that  even  Friendlj' Societies  were  objectionable  because 
they  led  to  conspiracies.  Full  particulars  are  given  in  Histoire  des  classes 
ouvrieres  et  de  Vindustrie  en  France  de  17S9-1S70,  E.  Lavasseur,  2  vols.,  1903. 
Sec  also  Histoire  des  Corporations  de  Metiers,  1897,  pp.  474-510,  by  iStienne 
Martin  Saint-Leon. 


THE  UNDIFFERENTIATED  MAN  421 

as  Bath,  which  contains  between  twenty  and  thirty  thousand 
inhabitants,  the  right  of  electing  representatives  to  Parhament 
is  monopolised  into  about  thirty-one  persons.  And  within  these 
monopolies  are  still  others.  A  man,  even  of  the  same  town, 
whose  parents  were  not  in  circumstances  to  give  him  an  occupa- 
tion, is  debarred,  in  many  cases,  from  the  natural  right  of  acquir- 
ing one,  be  his  genius  or  industry  what  it  may."  ^ 

It  was  therefore  inevitable  that,  with  all  these  personal 
oppressions,  these  municipal  and  vocational  monopolies,  these 
jhampering  restrictions  on  men  earning  a  livelihood  as  they  best 
Jcould,  that  the  whole  strength  of  the  reform  movement  should 
(have  been  directed  to  the  removal  of  what  were  ob^dously 
"artificial"  restraints  on  individual  freedom.  The  twin  move- 
ments for  political  and  industrial  freedom  seemed  to  be  but  parts 
of  a  common  bursting  of  bonds.  Thus,  the  constant  aspiration  of 
the  revolutionaries  of  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  alike 
in  England  and  in  France,  was  to  get  back  to  the  individual, 
the  common  citizen,  the  undifferentiated  man.  Parcelled  out 
into  equal  electoral  districts  so  that  each  man  should  comit  as 
one,  and  for  no  more  than  any  other  man,  this  mass  of  identical 
citizens  were  to  elect  their  representatives  and  thereby  control 
their  agents,  in  the  indispensable  work  of  government.  Thus, 
the  undifferentiated  citizen,  whose  needs  the  government  was  to 
serve,  and  whose  freedom  in  disposing  of  his  income  was  to  be 
absolute,  was  visualised,  not  as  a  producer,  whether  lawyer  or 
land  cultivator,  cleric  or  craftsman,  physician  or  farrier,  but 
entirely  as  a  consumer  of  commodities  and  services.  It  was 
this  particular  conception  of  poUtical  liberty  and  personal 
freedom  that  was  one  of  the  ferments  that  in  England  deter- 
mined the  new  principles  of  Local  Government  presently  to  be 
described. 

At  this  point  in  our  analysis  of  the  new  mental  environment 
of  English  Local  Government  between  the  Revolution  and  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act  we  are  brought  against  religious 
Nonconformity  and  its  rapid  spread,  especially  among  the  in- 
dustrial workers  of  the  North  and  Midlands,  during  the  latter 
part  of  this  period.  With  the  theological  and  emotional  aspects 
of  this  revolutionary  movement  of  thought  we  are  not  here 

''■  Rights  of  Man,  by  Thomas  Paine,  1791  ;  included  in  his  Political  Works, 
1819,  vol.  i.  p.  4G.     See  also  Godwin's  Political  Justice. 


422  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

concerned.  For  our  present  purpose  it  counts  merely  as  one 
among  many  expressions  of  the  new  conceptions  of  political 
liberty  and  personal  freedom.  Perhaps  the  most  bitterly  re- 
sented manifestation  of  the  oligarchical  principle  was  the  ex- 
clusion of  Dissenters  from  all  offices  of  power  and  dignity, 
alike  in  the  Counties  and  in  the  Municipal  Corporations  :  an 
exclusion  actually  sanctioned  by  statute  law.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  humbler  and  more  onerous  offices  of  Overseer,  Con- 
stable and  Surveyor  of  Highways,  and,  oddly  enough,  also  that 
of  Churchwarden,  were,  as  we  have  sho\^^l,  obligatory  on  all 
inhabitants  not  expressly  granted  a  privileged  exemption.  More- 
over, it  was  always  in  the  power  of  a  select  body  recruited  by 
co-option  to  exclude  Nonconformists  even  from  membership,  as 
well  as  from  all  offices  whatsoever,  and,  this  as  we  have  shown, 
was  the  invariable  practice  of  the  Select  Vestries  of  Bristol  and 
London.  Hence,  even  the  wealtliy  shipowners  and  merchants 
of  Liverpool  and  the  millowners  and  warehousemen  of  Man- 
chester, the  shopkeepers  of  St.  James's  and  St.  Marylebone,  if, 
as  was  frequently  the  case,  they  did  not  belong  to  the  AngHcan 
Church,  found  themselves,  like  the  Roman  Catholics,  not  only 
excluded  from  pubHc  office,  but  actually  taxed  and  governed  by 
trade  rivals  who  happened  to  adhere  to  the  established  creed. 
It  was,  more  than  anything  else,  this  ostracism  because  of  their 
religion  that  made  these  opulent  refprmers  so  persistent  in 
their  demand,  as  expressed  in  the  Liverpool  petition,  that  "  all 
in  equal  station  should  enjoy  equal  privileges."  ^  In  the  new 
manufacturing  districts  in  which  the  Nonconformists  were  in 
the  majority  they  sometimes  took  their  revenge.  We  have 
described  in  our  account  of  the  open  Vestry  ^  the  turbulent 
public  meetings  in  the  ancient  Parish  churches  of  Leeds  and 
Manchester,  when  Nonconformist  Churchwardens,  even  occasion- 
ally with  their  hats  on,  whilst  smoking  their  pipes,  sitting  on 
the  Communion  table,  objected  to  such  items  in  the  Parish 
accounts  as  payment  for  the  sacramental  wine  and  the  washing 
of  surplices  ;  and  refused  resolutely,  amid  the  applause  of  a 
disorderly  mob,  to  make  any  Church  Rate.  Beneath  the  rivalry 
of  religious  creeds  we  see  emerging  the  contemporary  struggle 
c-   between  government  by  the  minority  who  performed  the  service, 

^  The  Manor  and  the  Bormtgh,  p.  701. 
2  The  Parish  and  the  County,  pp.  91-103. 


THE  BENTHAMITES  423 

and  government  by  the  mass  of  undifferentiated  citizens  who 
were  assumed  to  enjoy  it.^ 

The  Utilitarians 

The  impulse  to  change  supplied  by  the  common  faith  in 
political  liberty  and  personal  freedom,  and  the  emphasis  laid 
on  satisfying  the  desires  of  the  average  citizen- consumer,  were 
greatly  strengthened,  from  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  by 
the  persuasive  force  of  a  new  social  philosophy.  The  Utilitarians, 
as  Professor  Graham  Wallas  remarks  in  his  admirable  Life  of 
Francis  Place,  "  though  they  broke  with  the  French  revolutionary 
thinkers  and  the  whole  doctrine  of  Natural  Rights,  nevertheless 
retained  many  of  the  characteristic  habits  of  eighteenth-century 
thought.  They  beheved  themselves  to  have  found  a  common- 
sense  philosophy,  by  which  ordinary  selfish  men  could  be  con- 
vinced that  the  interests  of  each  invariably  coincided  with  the 
interests,  if  not  of  all,  at  any  rate,  of  the  majority."  ^  What 
was  needed  to  complete  this  all-embracing  principle  of  individual 
self-interest  was  knowledge,  by  which  term  Jeremy  Bentham  and 
James  Mill  meant,  not  the  observation  and  analysis  of  facts,  but 
a  series  of  logically  accurate  deductions  from  a  single  law  of 
human  nature,  namely  that  every  man  will  follow  his  own 
interests  as  he  understands  them :  a  law  as  certain  and  as  uni- 
form in  its  operation  in  human  society  as  the  law  of  gravitation 
in  the  physical  universe.  "  So  complete  was  my  father's  reliance 
on  the  influence  of  reason  over  the  mind  of  mankind,"  we  are 
told  by  John  Stuart  Mill  in  his  Autobiography,  "  whenever  it  is 
allowed  to  reach  them,  that  he  felt  as  if  all  would  be  gained  if 
the  whole  population  were  taught  to  read,  if  all  sorts  of  opinions 
were  allowed  to  be  addressed  to  them,  by  word  and  in  writing, 
and  if,  by  the  means  of  the  suffrage,  they  could  nominate  a 
legislature  to  give  effect  to  the  opinions  they  adopted."  ^ 

It  was  plain  that  this  choice  by  every  man  of  the  pursuit  of 

^  The  three  rival  conceptions  of  government,  by  the  vocation  concerned, 
by  political  democracy,  and  by  consumers'  democracy,  can  be  followed  in  the 
history  of  the  Christian  churches.  Whilst  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  a 
purely  vocational  government,  most  of  the  English  nonconformist  denomina- 
tions are  unmixed  consumers'  democracies.  The  Church  of  England  presents 
a  mixed  government  of  vocational  and  political  control,  to  which  has  been 
added  by  recent  legislation,  a  certain  degree  of  congregational  or  consumers' 
participation.  ■^  Life  of  Francis  Place,  by  Graham  Wallas,  1898,  p.  89. 

'  John  Stuart  Mill's  Avtobiography,  p.  106  ;  The  Life  of  Francis  Place,  by 
Graham  Wallas,  1898,  p.  93. 


424  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

his  own  interests  was,  in  the  England  of  George  the  Third, 
hampered  and  prevented  by  all  sorts  of  obsolete  and  ill-con- 
trived laws,  as  well  as  by  institutions  devised  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  exceptional  advantages  to  favoured  classes  and 
individuals.  Accordingly,  Bentham  ^  and  his  disciples,  here 
following  Jefferson  and  Priestley,  were  perpetually  emphasising 
the  fact  that  any  social  institution,  even  the  British  Con- 
stitution itself,  ought  to  be  swept  away  if  it  ceased  to  be 
useful ;  that  is,  if  it  could  be  showTi  not  to  conduce  to  the 
greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number.  Hence  all  laws  ought 
to  be  periodically  reviewed  and  suitably  amended,  or  even 
replaced  by  entirely  new  laws  according  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  time.  The  old  plea  in  favour  of  local  customs,  "  that 
they  had  existed  from  time  immemorial,"  or  the  claim  that  the 
Common  Law  of  England  must  be  maintained  because  it  em- 
bodied the  wisdom  of  past  generations,  appeared  to  Jeremy 
Bentham  and  James  Mill  as  a  pernicious  superstition.  It  was 
at  this  point  that  the  UtiHtarians  found  themselves  in  practical 
agreement  with  those  who  beheved,  with  fanatical  fervour,  in 
the  "  Rights  of  Man."  The  most  vital  of  the  three  fundamental 
Rights  of  Man,  Dr.  Price  had  explained  in  his  famous  sermon 
on  the  fourth  of  November,  1789,  were  to  choose  our  own 
governors,  to  cashier  them  for  misconduct,  and  to  frame  a 
government  for  ourselves.^    These  rights^  it  is  clear,  involved  a 

^  Wc  need  not  refer  the  student  to  Bentham's  Works,  in  Sir  John  Bowring's 
edition  in  11  volumes.  Much  suggestive  analysis  of  the  influence  and  signifi- 
cance of  the  Utilitarians  will  be  found  in  Sir  Leslie  Stephen's  The  English 
Utilitarians  as  in  the  Life  of  Francis  Place  and  other  works  by  Professor 
Graham  Wallas.  But  we  have  found  most  illuminating,  in  connection  with 
Local  Government,  the  three  brilliant  volumes,  by  M.  Elie  Halevy,  on  La 
Formation  du  Radicalisme  economique  (La  Jeunesse  de  Bentham,  1901  ;  UEvo- 
lution  du  doctrine  utilitaire,  1901  ;   and  Le  Badicaltsme  philosophique,  1904). 

An  interesting  confirmation  of  the  influence  of  tlio  Benthamites  on  the 
legislation  of  1832-1830  is  supplied  by  tlie  works  of  Toulmin  Smith,  who,  in  his 
successive  pamphlets  and  books,  attributed  the  contemporary  movement 
towards  centralisation  and  bureaucracy  and  the  commercialisation  of  local 
administration,  to  the  pedantic  doetrinairism  and  materialist  ends  of  the 
followers  of  Bentham,  especially  Edwin  Chadwick  and  his  colleagues  at  the 
Board  of  Health. 

*  The  three  fundamental  rights  of  man  were,  according  to  Dr.  Price,  "  The 
right  to  liberty  of  conscience  in  religious  matters  ;  the  right  to  resist  power 
when  abused ;  and  the  right  to  choose  our  o\vn  governors,  to  cashier  them  for 
misconduct  and  to  frame  a  government  for  ourselves"  {A  Discourse  on  iAe 
Love  of  our  Country,  dehvered  on  November  4th  before  the  Society  for  Com- 
memorating the  Revolution  in  Great  Britain,  1789,  by  Robert  Price,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  F.R.S.,  London,  1789). 


INVENTION  OF  NEW  SOCIAL  DEVICES  425 

freedom  of  perpetual  innovation  on  the  part  of  each  succeeding 
generation.  "  The  reasonableness  and  propriety  of  things,"  de- 
clared Thomas  Paine  in  1792,  "  must  be  examined  abstractedly 
from  custom  and  usage  ;  and  in  this  point  of  view,  the  right 
which  grows  into  practice  to-day  is  as  much  a  right,  and  as  old 
in  principle  and  theory,  as  if  it  had  the  customary  sanction  of 
a  thousand  ages.  .  .  It  is,  however,  certain,"  he  continued, 
"  that  the  opinions  of  men,  with  respect  to  systems  and  principles 
of  government,  are  changing  fast  in  all  countries.  The  alteration 
in  England,  within  the  space  of  Httle  more  than  a  year,  is  far 
greater  than  could  then  have  been  believed,  and  it  is  daily  and 
hourly  increasing.  It  moves  along  the  country  with  the  silence 
of  thought."  ^ 

The  effect  of  the  Utilitarian  social  philosophers  was  thus  not 
'  only  to  discredit  local  custom  and  the  Common  Law,  and  to 
\  lead  to  the  enactment  of  brand  new  statutes,  and  their  constant 
I  revision  and  codification,  but  also  to  suggest  new  principles  of 
^administration.  For,  although  the  Utilitarians  firmly  believed 
:  that  each  person  always  acted  in  such  a  way  as  he  believed 
t  would  increase  his  own  pleasures  or  diminish  his  own  pains, 
iBentham  never  had  as  much  faith  as  Adam  Smith  in  the  assurance 
that  this  free  play  of  individual  self-interest  would  automatically, 
without  social  contrivances  of  one  sort  or  another,  produce  the 
greatest  happiness  of  the  greatest  number.  Accordingly,  unlike 
Adam  Smith,  Bentham  was  constantly  devising  new  laws  and 
new  social  institutions  to  replace  the  old  ones.  Never  has  there 
been,  at  any  time  or  in  any  country,  such  a  stream  of  projects 
for  deliberate  and  often  compulsory  social  improvement,  as 
issued  from  the  little  house  near  Birdcage  Walk,  whether  in  the 
way  of  amendments  of  the  Poor  Law,  the  institution  of  re- 
formatory prisons,  the  collective  organisation  of  "  Schools  for 
All,"  the  reorganisation  of  the  magistracy  and  the  Courts  of 
Justice,  the  codification  of  the  law,  so  that  it  might  be  brought 
within  the  knowledge  of  every  citizen,  and  the  most  ingenious 
social  devices  for  systematically  preventing  error,  fraud,  mis- 
understanding or  deceit.  All  these  separate  projects  had  in 
common  the  idea  of  artificially  combining  the  pecuniary  self- 
interest  of  the  individual  citizen  with  the  greatest  happiness 

^  Letter  Addressed  to  the  Addressers,  on  the  late  Proclamation,  by  Thomas 
Paine,  1792,  included  in  his  Political  Works,  1819,  vol.  ii.  p.  34. 


426  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

of  the  greatest  number.  Far  from  dispensing  with  law  and 
public  administration,  what  Bentham  desired  was  that  his 
uncouth  formula,  ''  the  duty-and-interest-j  unction-principle," 
should  dominate  the  whole  field  of  government,  which  he 
always  recognised  as  indispensable.  This  explains  his  ob- 
session in  favour  of  "  farming,"  or  "  putting  out  to  contract, 
at  the  lowest  price  yielded  by  competitive  tender,  every 
function  in  which  this  plan  was  conceivable,  whether  the 
execution  of  public  works,  the  conduct  of  a  prison,  the  setting 
to  work  of  the  unemployed,  or  even  the  maintenance  of  orphan 
children.  But  he  could  not  ignore  the  fact  that  the  contractor 
would  himself  seek  his  own  pecuniary  advantage  ;  and  to  pre- 
vent this  militating  against  the  public  interest,  Bentham  devised 
an  equally  bewildering  array  of  checks,  from  the  "  central  in- 
spection chamber,"  perpetually  surveying  the  radiating  corridors 
and  workshops  of  the  Panopticon,  to  the  "  life -warranting  prin- 
ciple," by  which  the  prison  or  Poor  Law  "  farmer  "  had  to  pay 
a  forfeit,  at  a  progressive  rate,  for  every  death  above  the  previous 
average  that  took  place  among  those  committed  to  his  charge. 
All  this,  as  subsequently  elaborated  by  Edwin  Chadwick, 
involved  a  hierarchy  of  centrally  appointed  inspectors,  to 
whose  pecuniary  advantage  it  would  be  to  "  catch  out "  the 
army  of  contractors.  In  short,  Bentham  sought,  as  would  now 
be  said  by  the  business  man,  to  introduce  into  government 
departments  the  motives  and  methods  of  profit-making  enter- 
prise. His  influence,  exercised  through  his  disciples,  and 
notably  in  the  couple  of  decades  of  Edwin  Chadwick's  official 
life,  was  to  "  commercialise  "  public  administration. 

There  was  another  implication  of  the  Benthamite  philosophy 
which  had  a  special  bearing  on  English  Local  Government. 
As  what  had  to  be  secured  was  the  interest  of  the  majority  of 
the  whole  community,  it  seemed  to  follow  that  no  geographical 
section  of  the  commmiity,  and  therefore  no  Local  Authority, 
I  could  be  trusted  or  permitted  to  enjoy  complete  autonomy  in 
the  interests  of  its  own  constituents.  We  forget  to-day  how 
novel  a  hundred  years  ago  was  the  inference  that,  not  only 
general  laws  applicable  to  the  whole  nation,  but  also  central 
government  departments  able  to  secure  the  interests  of  the 
community  as  a  whole,  even  against  the  desires  of  any  one 
locality,  were  imperatively  required.     The  Benthamites  foresaw 


1 


AN  EXPERT  BUREAUCRACY  427 

that  these  central  departments  at  Whitehall  would  have,  for 
their  function,  by  their  ubiquitous  inspection  and  continuous 
instruction,  to  overcome  the  "  fro  ward  retention  of  custom," 
the  bucolic  ignorance,  the  secretiveness,  the  bias,  and  the  pos- 
sible corruption  characterising  remote  districts,  small  areas  of 
administration,  and  any  "  localised "  or  "  sectional "  group. 
Hence  a  commercialised  municipal  administration  was  to  be 
incessantly  stimulated,  guided  and  checked,  under  the  control 
of  the  national  Representative  Assembly,  by  an  authoritative 
expert  bureaucracy.  It  is  easy,  after  a  century  of  experience, 
to  see  defects  and  limitations  in  the  elaborate  official  reconstruc- 
tion that  formed  an  indispensable  part  of  the  Benthamite  scheme. 
It  was  characteristic  of  the  extreme  intellectualism  of  the 
Benthamites  that  they  vastly  exaggerated  the  superiority  in 
width  of  information,  extent  of  experience,  and  knowledge  of 
principles,  which  a  central  government  might  be  expected  to 
possess  as  compared  with  any  Local  Authority  ;  just  as  they 
enormously  over-estimated  the  certainty  with  which  the  able 
investigators  and  distinguished  administrators  of  the  central 
departments  could  be  trusted  to  decide  what  were  the  interests 
of  the  community  as  a  whole  ;  or  the  persuasiveness  with  which 
they  could  induce  a  recalcitrant  Local  Authority  to  believe  in 
the  superiority  of  Whitehall.  We  may  to-day  recognise  how 
nmch  there  is  to  be  said  for  a  more  highly  organised  and  more 
delicately  adjusted  relation,  and  for  a  more  balanced  estimate  of 
the  claims  and  wills  of  local  and  central  authorities  respectively, 
than  Bentham  ever  visualised  or  than  Chadwick  would  admit. 
But  no  one  who  realises  the  state  of  things  in  1833,  when  under 
the  Reformed  Parliament,  the  Benthamites,  for  a  few  brief 
years,  came  into  their  own,  can  doubt  the  great  public  benefit, 
even  with  all  their  shortcomings  and  defects,  effected  by  the 
Commissioners  who  enquired  into  the  Poor  Law,  the  Municipal 
Corporations,  and  the  sanitary  condition  of  the  population  ;  or 
the  imperative  necessity  of  some  such  central  departments  as 
they  wished  to  see  established  to  inspect,  guide  and  control  the 
local  administration  of  poor  relief,  public  health  and  municipal 
government  generally. 


428  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

The  New  Principles  in  Local  Government 

We  have  now  to  trace  the  emergence,  amid  the  revolutionary 
changes  both  in  the  industrial  environment  and  in  thought, 
between  the  Revolution  and  the  Great  Reform  Bill,  of  new 
principles  in  Local  Government.  These  new  principles  are  found 
embodied,  not  only  in  the  succession  of  Parliamentary  statutes 
culminating  in  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act,  the  Municipal 
Corporations  Act  and  the  Acts  for  registering  Births,  Deaths 
and  Marriages,  but  also  in  the  administrative  expedients 
spontaneously  adopted  by  the  Parish  and  the  County,  the 
Municipal  Corporations  and  the  new  Statutory  Authorities  for 
Special  Purposes. 

The  more  important  of  these  new  conceptions  were  in  direct 
contradiction  of  the  old  principles  that  they  superseded.  The 
use  of  the  contractor,  employing  labour  at  competitive  wages, 
gradually  ousted  the  citizen's  obligation  to  serve  gratuitously  in 
public  office,  and  introduced  the  ratepayer  as  the  predominant 
economic  interest  in  Local  Government.  Government  by  citizen- 
consumers  superseded  the  decaying  remnants  of  the  vocational 
organisation  that  underlay  the  constitution  of  the  Manor  and 
the  Borough.  Representative  Democracy  gradually  gained 
ground  on,  though  it  never  entirely  eliminated,  the  oligarchical 
principle  of  Co-option.  The  advent  of  the  salaried  expert, 
bringing  the  technique  required  for  the  new  services,  threatened 
the  authority,  if  not  the  very  existence,  of  the  inheritor  or  pur- 
chaser of  freehold  office,  endowed  with  the  right  to  rule  or  to 
tax  his  fellow-citizens.  Equally  important  with  these  changes, 
in  the  very  structure  and  function  of  the  local  institutions,  was 
the  increasing  intervention  of  Parliament,  prescribing  the  con- 
stitution and  powers  of  local  governing  bodies,  with  the  resulting 
substitution  of  innovating  statutes  for  immemorial  local  custom 
and  the  Common  Law.  Finally,  in  the  supervising,  inspecting 
and  sanctioning  authority  vested  in  central  government  depart- 
ments, there  is  the  beginning  of  a  new  kind  of  national  executive 
control  of  local  affairs.  The  only  conception  that  was,  down  to 
the  very  end  of  the  period,  retained  almost  intact,  was  that  which 
made  property,  if  possible  landed  property,  a  necessary  qualifica- 
tion for  important  public  office,  thereby  maintaining  the  landed 
gentry  as  the  Rulers  of  the  County  ;    though  their  activities 


THE  CONTRACTOR  AND  HIS  LABOURERS  429 

were  increasingly  encroached  upon  by  new  forms  of  Ratepayers' 
Democracies.^ 


The  Contractor  and  his  Staff  of  Wage  Labourers 

When  the  task  of  Local  Government  became  too  onerous  for 
the  unpaid  and  compulsorily  serving  officer  of  the  Parish  or 
Manor,  Borough  or  County  ;  when  the  work  to  be  done  involved 
the  continuous  labour,  day  after  day,  not  of  one  but  of  a  number 
of  pairs  of  hands  ;  when  even  the  planning  and  direction  of  the 
operation  transcended  both  the  time  and  the  skill  of  the  farmer 
or  tradesman  conscripted  for  his  turn  of  service  as  Overseer,  or 
that  of  the  country  gentleman  called  upon  to  act  as  Bridge- 
master,  recourse  was  had  to  the  paid  service  of  the  contractor, 
with  his  staff  of  men  at  wages.  At  the  outset,  this  new  expedient 
was  far  removed  from  the  nineteenth  century  professional  profit- 
maker  wielding  armies  of  workmen  of  different  kinds  and  grades. 
The  first  innovation  was  no  more  considerable  than  to  permit 
the  Churchwarden  or  Surveyor  of  Highways,  the  Town  Clerk  or 
Bridgemaster  to  make  payments  to  one  or  more  workmen,  who 

^  It  is  significant  of  the  slow  and  gradual  evolution  of  English  institutions 
that,  in  1922,  after  nearly  another  century  of  extensive  changes,  we  find  still  in 
existence  many  isolated  survivals  of  all  the  old  principles  that  characterised 
the  institutions  of  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Thus  the  citizen's 
obligation  to  serve  gratuitously  in  public  office  continues  in  the  Jury  and  the 
High  Sheriff.  Under  the  Act  of  1872,  residents  may  stiU  be  appointed  to 
serve  as  Parish  Constables  if  the  Justices  in  Quarter  Sessions  think  this  neces- 
sary (sec.  92).  The  liverymen  of  the  City  Companies  fictitiously  representing 
old-established  trades,  still  elect  the  Lord  Mayor  and  SherifEs  of  the  City  of 
London,  whilst  in  some  other  ancient  Municipal  Corporations  the  Freemen  still 
enjoy  privileges.  The  principle  of  co-option  not  only  survives  in  the  Alder- 
men, but  has  been  introduced  at  various  points  in  the  municipal  organisation 
of  the  new  public  services  of  Education  and  Health.  Freehold  office  is  still  the 
characteristic  form  in  the  Anglican  Church,  whilst  no  sacrilegious  hand  has  been 
laid  on  the  office  by  tenure  of  the  immemorial  Lords  of  the  Level  of  Romney 
Marsh.  Local  customs  are  still  successfully  pleaded  in  the  Courts  of  Justice, 
and  the  actual  domain  of  the  Common  Law  is  probably  no  less  extensive, 
notwithstanding  the  vast  development  of  statutory  enactment  and  various 
attempts  at  systematic  codification,  than  it  was  in  1689.  Even  the  possession 
of  landed  property  lingers  as  a  necessary  qualification  for  appointment  as  High 
Sheriff  or  as  Commissioner  of  Sewers  ;  and,  by  Act  of  1917,  any  owner  of 
real  property,  by  freehold  or  any  other  tenure,  is  qualified  to  be  elected  a 
member  of  any  Local  Government  Authority  for  the  area  in  which  the  pro- 
perty is  situated,  without  being  a  resident,  a  ratepayer  or  a  registered  elector 
(7  and  8  George  V.  c.  64,  §§  3-10).  Except  for  this,  no  one  can  be  a  member 
of  the  Metropolitan  Asylums  Board  whose  name  is  not  on  the  ratebook  of 
some  London  Parish  for  property  rated  at  £40  a  year. 


430  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

could  carry  out  the  necessary  repairs  or  works  at  the  customary 
rates.  Presently  the  whole  service  was  entrusted  to  a  master- 
craftsman  or  local  trader,  who  might  or  might  not  assume  the 
title  of  Town  Carpenter  or  Pavior,  but  who  was  habitually 
employed,  cither  by  the  Local  Authority  itself,  or  successively 
by  individual  citizens,  to  do  what  was  required  in  building  or 
paving.  As  the  business  grew,  in  variety  as  well  as  in  magnitude, 
and  especially  when  the  needs  to  be  met  were  those  of  a  new 
and  rapidly  growing  urban  district,  there  came  to  be  a  whole 
set  of  tradesmen  employed  on  various  kmds  of  building  and 
sewer  work,  on  the  multitudinous  repairs  of  the  increasing  pubhc 
property  of  one  kind  or  another,  and  on  the  furnishing  or 
decorating  of  the  different  institutions.  Meanwhile,  the  habit 
of  contracting  for  pubUc  services  had  been  growing  along  another 
line.  Up  and  down  the  country,  in  every  conceivable  service, 
the  easiest  way  of  getting  done  any  continuous  duty,  seemed  to 
be  to  "  farm  "  it,  or  put  it  out  to  contract  to  the  man  who 
offered  the  most  advantageous  terms.  It  is  the  almost  universal 
prevalence  of  this  contract  system  in  the  eighteenth  century 
that  explains  the  exiguity  of  the  executive  staff.  The  stretch  of 
highway  could  be  repaired  and  kept  in  order  by  a  contractor. 
The  troublesome  accumulation  of  garbage  could  be  kept  down 
by  getting  some  one  to  contract  for  its  removal,  with  no  more 
demand  on  the  time  or  labour  of  the  unpaid  pubhc  officers  than 
the  periodical  payment  of  the  "  farmer's  "  account.  The  rows 
on  rows  of  street  lamps,  which  took  the  place  of  the  swinging 
lantern  of  the  individual  householder,  could  be  made  and  fixed 
by  contract,  cleaned  by  contract  and  ht  by  contract.  The 
collection  of  the  pubhc  revenue  could  equally  be  "  farmed  "  ; 
and  tolls  and  dues,  from  parish  pounds  and  manorial  cornmills 
up  to  municipal  markets  and  turnpike  roads,  could  be  made  the 
basis  of  contractual  payments,  leaving  the  contractor  to  incur 
all  the  labour  and  risk  which  would  otherwise  have  fallen  on  the 
Local  Authority  or  its  gratuitously  serving  officers^  It  was  early 
discovered  that  the  poor  could  be  "  farmed,"  and  their  main- 
tenance secured,  either  for  so  much  per  head,  or  even  for  a 
fixed  lump  sum  per  annum,  the  "  farmer  "  making  what  profit 
he  could  out  of  "  setting  the  poor  to  work."  Having  got  under 
his  control  the  contingent  of  pauper  labour,  the  contractor 
could  then   profitably  tender  for  the  service  of   cleaning  the 


I 


"  FARMING  "  431 

streets  at  a  fixed  sum.  But  the  most  scandalous  of  all  these 
forms  of  contract,  because  of  the  opportunity  and  the  tempta- 
tion that  it  gave  for  the  worst  oppressions,  was  the  farming  of 
the  prisons.  These,  like  the  workhouses,  could  be  let  by 
contract  to  the  gaolers,  keepers,  masters  or  governors  ;  the 
wretched  inmates,  if  fed  and  clothed  at  all,  could  be  fed  and 
clothed  by  contract,  and  even  physicked  by  contract.  The 
vagrants  were  conveyed  by  contract,  fed  by  contract  and  also 
whipped  by  contract ;  and  when  the  felons  were  sent  beyond 
seas,  they  were  habitually  transported  by  contract,  and  sold 
by  auction  on  arrival  to  those  who  contracted  at  the  highest 
rate  to  employ  them. 

Now,  this  substitution,  as  the  motive  and  reward  for  the 
execution  of  the  function  of  the  Local  Authority,  of  profitmaking 
and  the  earning  of  wages  for  public  work — inevitable  as  it  may 
have  been — had  all  sorts  of  far-reaching  results,  upon  which  it  is 
unnecessary  here  to  dwell.  But  one  of  its  accompaniments,  in 
the  very  rudimentary  stage  at  which  government  organisation 
/•had  then  arrived,  was  an  unchecked,  and,  indeed,  an  entirely 
;J  unashamed  prevalence  of  what  is  now  stigmatised  as  favouritism 
''\and  corruption.  When  the  holder  of  a  public  office  was  allowed 
to  make  its  exercise  an  opportunity  for  private  profit,  it  became 
almost  inevitable  that  his  interests  as  a  profit-maker  should  come 
into  conflict  with  his  duty  as  a  vigilant  steward  of  the  public 
funds.  When  the  jobs  to  be  paid  for  by  the  Parish  or  the 
Borough  were  given,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  the  uncontrolled 
Parish  Officers  or  to  the  various  members  of  the  Select  Vestry  or 
of  the  Town  Council,  or  even  when  they  were  shared  among  a 
relatively  small  body  of  Freemen,  without  competition  and 
without  any  impertinent  scrutiny  of  their  bills,  the  way  was 
clear  for  the  orgy  of  corruption  which  characterised,  in  varying 
degrees,  nearly  all  the  Local  Government  of  the  eighteenth  and 
early  nineteenth  centuries.  The  very  exclusiveness  inherent  in 
the  dominant  principle  of  Co-option,  as  a  method  of  recruiting 
the  governing  group,  accelerated  the  downward  drift  into 
favouritism  and  corruption.  "  Every  Parish  Officer,"  wrote  a 
shrewd  London  observer  in  1796,  "  thinks  he  has  a  right  to  make 
a  round  bill  on  the  Parish  during  his  year  of  power.  An  apothe- 
cary physics  the  poor ;  a  glazier,  first  in  cleaning,  breaks  the 
church  windows,  and  afterwards  mends  them,  or  at  least  charges 


432  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

for  it ;  a  painter  repairs  the  Conimandments,  puts  new  coats  on 
Moses  and  Aaron,  gilds  the  organ-pipes,  and  dresses  the  little 
Cherubim  about  the  loft  as  fine  as  vermilion,  Prussian  blue,  and 
Dutch  gold  can  make  them.  The  late  Churchwardens  [of  the 
writer's  own  London  Parish]  were  a  silversmith  and  a  woollen 
draper  ;  the  silversmith  new-fashioned  the  commmiion  plate,  and 
the  draper  new-clothed  the  pulpit  and  put  fresh  curtains  to  the 
windows."  ^  It  would,  however,  be  unfair  to  suggest  that 
(predominantly  Tory  membership  of  the  Close  Bodies  was  any 
'worse  at  this  game  than  the  predominantly  Radical  and  popu- 
larly elected  Common  Comicillors  of  the  City  of  London.  The 
/most  common  form  of  plunder,  in  which  nearly  all  the  members 
of  that  Corporation  participated,  was  the  execution  of  work  or 
the  provision  of  goods  for  the  Corporation,  in  their  respective 
trades,  without  competition,  often  at  the  most  extravagant 
^prices.  "  Here  the  sacred  office  of  a  Common  Councilman,"  we 
are  told  by  a  contemporary  writer,  "  is  prostituted  to  the  lowest 
and  basest  ends."  ^  The  multiplication  of  standing  or  permanent 
master  craftsmen  midertaking  work  as  profit-making  contractors 
for  the  Corporation  was  carried  on,  we  are  told  by  a  contem- 
porary writer,  "to  an  incorrigible  extent."  There  was  the 
"  Land  Carpenter  of  the  Bridge  House,  the  Water  Carpenter, 
the  Bridge  House  Mason,  the  Bridge  House  Bricklayer,  the  City 
Plasterer,  the  City  Plumber,  the  Bridge  House  Plmnber,  the  City 
and  Bridge  House  Painter,  the  City  Printer,  the  City  and  Bridge 
House  Glazier,  the  City  Stationer,  the  City  Smith,  the  Bridge 
House  Smith,  the  City  Founder,  the  City  and  Bridge  House 
Purveyor,"  and  so  on,  ad  infinitum.^  Spasmodic  attempts  were 
made  by  the  more  honourable  members  of  the  Court  to  prevent 
the  grossest  of  the  favouritism  by  Standing  Orders,  which  it  cost 
a  whole  half-century  of  efiort  to  get  adopted,  designed  to  stop 
the  habitual  practice  of  the  shopkeeper  members  giving  each  other 
orders  for  supplies  or  work,  or  actually  appointing  each  other 
to  the  salaried  offices  in  their  gift.  Unfortunately  the  Standing 
Orders  could  always  be  suspended  ;  and  we  are  told  by  a  news- 
paper critic  in   1826  that  this  course  was  habitually  taken. 

1  The  Olio,  by  Francis  Grose,  1796,  pp.  217-218  ;  The  Parish  and  the  County, 
p.  79. 

"  City  Corruption  and  Maladministration  Displayed,  by  a  Citizen,  1738, 
p.  4  ;   Th€  Manor  and  the  Borough,  p.  650. 

3  Ibid. 


I 


SELF-DENYING  ORDINANCES  433 

"  Whenever  a  case  arises  in  which  they  ought  to  be  strictly 
enforced,  some  Honourable  Member  rises  in  his  place  and  moves 
that  they  be  suspended,  and,  as  a  matter  of  course,  they  are 
suspended  accordingly.  .  .  .  Whenever  any  snug  situation  .  .  . 
is  declared  vacant  .  .  .  any  member  of  the  Court  .  .  .  per- 
suades some  kind  friend  ...  to  move  that  in  his  particular  case 
the  Standing  Orders  may  be  suspended.  ,  .  .  The  Court  finds  it 
impossible  to  resist  an  appeal  of  this  kind,  as  it  is  made  on  the 
principle,  '  Do  this  for  me  to-day,  and  I  will  do  as  much  for  you 
another  time.'  "  ^ 

To  the  modern  administrator  it  must  seem  strange  that  not 
for  something  like  a  century  is  there  any  systematic  attempt  to 
prevent  this  naive  combination  of  profit-making  with  public 
office.  The  eighteenth  century  does  not  seem  to  have  been  able 
to  bring  itself  to  give  up  the  plan  of  gratuitously  serving  public 
ofiicers,  constrained  to  midertake  onerous  duties.  Even  in  the 
nineteenth  century  the  engagement  of  a  salaried  official  staff  was 
commonly  denounced— as  it  still  occasionally  is  in  the  twentieth 
century — as  "  bureaucracy."  The  first  remedy  for  corruption 
was  an  attempt  to  restrain  the  unpaid  representative,  whose 
duty  it  was  to  protect  the  common  purse,  from  himself  contract- 
ing for  pubfic  work.  Not  until  the  last  decades  of  the  eighteenth 
century  do  Parish  Vestries  decide,  in  one  form  or  another,  "  that 
none  of  the  gentlemen  hereafter  chosen  and  appointed  to  the 
offices  of  Churchwardens  and  Overseers  of  the  Poor  of  this  Parish 
shall,  under  any  pretence  whatever,  be  permitted  to  serve  the 
workhouse  with  provisions,  or  any  other  article  or  commodity 
whatsoever,  or  send  any  materials,  or  do  any  work  either  in  or 
about  the  workhouse,  or  otherwise  on  the  Parish  account  while 
in  office.'  "  ^  It  occurred  to  some  one  to  embody  such  a  self- 
denying  ordinance  in  statute  law,  and  this  was  effected  in  some 
of  the  Local  Acts.^    Not  until  1782  was  it  made  a  penal  offence 

1  No.  629  of  "  Sketches  of  Aldermen,  etc."  (MSS.  Guildhall  Library)  ; 
The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  -p.  651. 

-  Tlte  Parish  ami  the  County,  p.  120. 

^  It  seems  that  in  one  of  the  Local  Acts  obtained  by  the  City  of  London 
in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  House  of  Commons  insisted, 
against  the  wishes  of  the  representatives  of  the  Common  Council,  on  inserting 
a  clause  excluding  members  of  the  Common  Council  from  participating  in  any 
of  the  contracts  under  it  {Th&  Manor  and  the  Borough,  p.  650).  Exactly 
when  similar  clauses  became  the  rule  in  Local  Acts  we  have  not  been  able  to 
discover.     But  in  1773  we  find  the  following  clause  in  an  Act  for  the  biiilding 

2f 


434  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

for  Churchwardens  or  Overseers,  or  other  persons  responsible  for 
the  maintenance  or  management  of  the  poor,  themselves  to 
contract  for,  or  supply,  goods  to  be  paid  for  out  of  the  public 
funds  for  which  they  were  themselves  responsible.^  In  1824  a 
similar  prohibition  was  applied  to  members  of  Turnpike  Trusts.^ 
Even  then  no  general  statute  forbade  a  member  of  a  Municipal 
Corporation,  or,  indeed,  a  member  of  any  Local  Authority  not 
being  a  Turnpike  Trust,  and  not  concerned  with  poor  reUef,  to 
supply  goods  to,  or  do  work  for,  or  enter  into  profitable  con- 
tracts with  the  corporate  body  of  which  he  formed  part.  Not 
until  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835,  and  then  only 
with  regard  to  the  Boroughs  to  which  that  Act  appHed,  was  this 
even  made  a  cause  of  disqualification  for  office.^ 

At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  Philosophic 
Radicals  and  Political  Economists  thought  they  had  found  an 
additional  or  an  alternative  remedy  in  the  imiversal  insistence  on 
competitive  tendering,  and  the  automatic  acceptance  of  the 
lowest  tender.*     This  unredeemed  competitive  tendering,  when  it 

of  a  bridge  :  "  No  person  shall  be  capable  of  acting  as  a  Commissioner  in  any 
case  in  which  he  shall  be  interested,  or  in  any  manner  whilst  he  shall  hold  any 
office,  or  in  his  private  capacity  be  concerned  in  any  contract  or  agreement 
relative  to  the  execution  of  this  Act ;  and  if  any  person  shall  act  as  a  Com- 
missioner, not  having  the  requisite  qualification  of  estate,  or  being  otherwise 
hereby  disquahficd  from  acting,  he  shall,  for  eveiy  offence,  forfeit  the  sura  of 
£50  "  (13  George  III.  c.  83  ;  An  Act  for  building  a  Bridge  across  the  River 
Thames  from  Richmond  in  the  County  of  Surrej^  to  the  opposite  Shore,  in  the 
County  of  JNIiddlesex,  etc.). 

1  In  the  so-called  Gilbert  Act  of  1782  (22  George  III.  c.  83,  sec.  42)  we  fmd 
the  following  clause  :  "  If  any  visitor,  guardian  or  governor,  shall  sell  or  furnish 
any  materials,  goods,  clothes,  victuals,  or  provisions,  or  do  any  work  in  his 
trade  for  the  use  of  any  workhouse,  poor  house,  or  poor  persons,  within  any 
parish,  township,  or  place,  for  which  he  shall  be  so  appointed  to  act,  or  be 
concerned  in  trade  or  interest  with  any  person  or  persons  who  shall  sell,  provide, 
do,  or  furnish  the  same,  he  shall  for  every  such  ofEence,  forfeit  a  sum  not 
exceeding  twenty  poimds,  nor  less  than  five  pounds,  on  being  duly  convicted 
thereof  by  a  justice  of  the  peace  "  {The  Laws  relating  to  the  Poor,  by  Francis 
Const,  1807,  vol.  i.  para.  1007). 

-  3  George  IV.  c.  126,  c.  65  (General  Turnpike  Act,  1824). 

3  5  &  6  William  IV.  c.  76,  sec.  28  (Municipal  Corporations  Act,  1835) ; 
extended  to  contracts  for  the  borough  gaol  by  7  William  IV.  and  1  Victoria, 
c.  78,  sec.  39. 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  not  until  1819  was  any  power  given  generally  to 
Parishes  to  appoint  a  salaried  officer  to  perform  the  duties  of  Overseer  (59 
George  III.  c.  12).  By  1834  this  power  had  been  acted  upon  chiefly  in  the 
urban  districts  of  the  North  of  England,  there  being  then  267  Assistant  Over- 
seers in  Lancashire  and  205  in  Yorkshire  (Third  Annual  Rejjort  of  Poor  Law 
Commissioners,  1837,  p.  21).  The  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  in  their  early 
years,  prided  themselves  on  putting  out,  by  competitive  tendering,  even  the 


I 


THE  COMING  OF  THE  RATEPAYER  435 

was  not  defeated  by  "  rings  "  and  "  knock-outs,"  such  as  those 
constantly  resorted  to  by  the  farmers  of  turnpike  tolls,  when  these 
were  put  up  to  auction,  led  to  a  steady  degradation,  alike  in  the 
quahty  of  the  workmanship  or  the  efficiency  of  the  service,  and 
in  the  rates  of  wages  paid  to  the  unorganised  crowds  of  labourers 
by  whom  the  manual  work  was  done.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  immediate  pecuniary  saving  to  the  ratepayer,  the  moral 
results  were  disastrous.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the 
[  ubiquitous  introduction  of  the  profit-making  contractor,  intent, 
Ion  the  one  hand,  upon  buying  labour  in  the  cheapest  market, 
|even  in  the  workhouse  or  the  prison,  and  on  the  other,  upon 
'extracting  from  the  public  authority,  by  fair  means  or  foul,  the 
highest  possible  price — evoking,  as  the  system  did,  among  the 
sweated  workers,  a  like  desire  to  do  as  little  labour  as  possible, 
.  without  regard  to  the  efficiency  of  the  service — has  left,  even 
to-day,  an  evil  tradition  of  inefficiency  and  greed  in  the  lower 
branches  of  municipal  work. 

The  Coming  of  the  Ratepayer 

The  abandonment  of  the  obligatory  and  gratuitous  service  of 
the  ordinary  citizen  in  public  office  involved  the  establishment 
of  the  "  cash  nexus  "  as  the  basis  of  all  the  transactions  of  the 
Local  Authority.  For  it  is  clear  that  the  payment  of  an  ever- 
1  growing  volume  of  salaries  and  wages,  if  not  also  of  contractor's 
1  profits,  meant  the  raising  of  a  corresponding  money  revenue, 
which  took  the  form  of  a  periodical  levy  of  leys,  cesses,  scots  or 
jrates  on  all  the  occupiers  of  land  or  buildings.  We  cannot  here 
'explore  the  innumerable  ramifications,  in  the  course  of  the  past 
hundred  years,  of  this  substitution  of  taxation  upon  every  house- 
medical  attendance  on  the  sick  poor ;  in  some  cases  even  prescribing  a  maxi- 
mum sum  which  could  not  be  exceeded,  however  numerous  might  be  the  poor 
on  whom  the  Medical  Officer  was  required  to  attend.  "  We  have  considered," 
said  the  Commissioners  in  their  First  Annual  Report,  1835  (p.  53),  "  that  the 
interests  of  the  pubUc  and  the  profession  itself  were  the  best  served  by  keeiiing 
the  situations  of  Medical  Officers  in  the  new  Unions  open  to  the  competition 
of  the  whole  body  of  medical  practitioners.  Instead  of  attempting  to  fix  the 
price  of  the  services  of  the  medical  practitioners  for  the  Union,  we  deemed  it 
the  most  advantageous  that  each  practitioner  should  fix  the  price  of  his  own 
services  under  competition.  ...  In  some  Unions  ...  it  has  been  provided 
that  the  terms  of  the  contract  should  be  a  remuneration,  at  a  given  sum  per 
head  on  the  number  who  receive  medical  relief  ;  but  with  the  proviso  that  the 
gross  sum  should  not  exceed  a  given  amount  " 


436  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

holder  all  the  time  for  personal  service  by  a  minority  of  citizens 
in  rotation.  From  it  have  sprimg  all  the  intricate  problems  of 
the  economic  incidence  of  local  taxation  upon  different  classes 
of  citizens,  different  kinds  of  property  and  different  forms  of 
industry.  To  the  same  root  may  be  traced  the  financial  ex- 
pedients of  loans  for  short  periods  and  long,  the  subsidising  of 
some  municipal  services  out  of  the  profits  made  m  others,  and  the 
necessity  of  "  equalising "  the  burdens  of  the  various  Local 
Authorities  by  subventions  from  the  National  Exchequer. 
Another  result  of  far-reachmg  importance,  and  one  which  was 
already  beginning  to  be  manifested  at  the  opening  of  the  nine- 
jteenth  century,  was  the  new  cleavage  of  interest  between  those 
'citizens  who  felt  themselves  directly  benefited  by  this  or  that 
]  municipal  service,  and  those  who  were  conscious  only  of  paying 
I  for  it  in  new  and  onerous  taxation.  This  cleavage  already  appears 
in  the  objections  of  the  turbulent  Democracy,  which  swarmed 
into  the  open  Vestries,  to  the  expenditure  on  the  new  safeguards 
and  amenities  of  urban  life  desired  by  the  more  substantial 
citizens.  The  mass  of  wage-earning  labourers  of  Plymouth  Dock 
[now  Devonport]  vehemently  protested  in  1813  against  being 
saddled  with  the  payment  of  new  rates  for  "  lamping,  lighting 
and  watching  the  town  of  Dock,  the  enormous  expense  of  which 
they  deprecate  and  see  no  necessity  for.  .  .  .  The  population  of 
this  Parish  will  consist  principally  of-  persons  employed  in  His 
Majesty's  Dockyard.  .  .  .  Mechanics  and  the  labouring  classes 
.  .  .  will  amount  to  about  seven  or  eight  in  ten  of  the  in- 
habitants, whose  employments  are  of  that  nature  as  to  call 
them  early  to  bed  and  early  to  rise  ;  and  consequently  partaking 
in  no  one  degree  of  the  benefits  of  a  measure  towards  which  they 
will  be  called  upon  materially  to  contribute  ;  with  respect  to  their 
property  it  may  be  said  in  a  general  way  that  it  does  not  consist 
of  more  than  they  themselves  are  able  to  protect."  ^  It  is  not 
necessary  to  comment  on  the  analogous  cleavage,  a  hundred  years 
later,  which  leads  to  the  constant  struggle,  in  the  Local  Govern- 
ment of  to-day,  of  the  class  that  resents  having  to  pay  rates  for 
schools  which  its  own  children  do  not  use,  for  maternity  and  child 
welfare  institutions  which  its  own  families  do  not  require,  and  for 
the  healthy  maintenance  of  the  unemployed  workmen  and  their 

^  MS.  Minutes,  Stoke  Damarel  Vestry  [now  Devonport],  10th  October  and 
14th  November  1813  ;   Municipal  Origins,  by  F.  H.  Spencer,  1911,  p.  33-34. 


I 


AN  ASSOCIATION  OF  CONSUMERS  437 

dependents,  in  whom   the    upper   and   middle   class   have   no 
interest. 

There  were,  however,  two  immediate  consequences  of  the 
steady  increase  of  Local  Government  based  on  local  taxation, 
which  began,  even  in  the  eighteenth  century,  to  perplex  the  local 
administrators.  The  fact  that  every  householder  had  to  contri- 
bute towards  the  cost  of  every  step  taken  by  the  Parish  or  the 
County,  the  Improvement  Commissioners  or  the  Borough,  and 
that  the  benefits  of  such  action  were  enjoyed  in  common,  em- 
phasised the  position  of  the  Local  Authority  as  being,  virtually, 
an  Association  of  Consumers,  in  which  membership  was  obhgatory 
and  universal.  It  seemed  to  follow,  as  a  necessary  corollary — 
at  least  to  those  who  believed  that  Representation  and  Taxation 
should  always  be  united — that  the  ratepayers  were  entitled  to 
elect  and  to  control  all  those  who  spent  the  ratepayers'  money. 


Government  as  an  Association  of  Consumers 

We  pause  here  to  consider  what  seems  to  us  one  of  the  most 
interesting  questions  in  the  natural  history  of  institutions,  namely 
at  what  stage  and  at  what  date  did  government  begin  to  appear 
as  predominantly  an  Association  of  Consumers.  There  is  much 
to  be  said  for  the  contention  that  all  the  governmental  institu- 
tions in  olden  time  were  rooted  in  the  assumption  that  the 
persons  concerned  had  a  common  vocation,  or  at  least  a  common 
right  to  exercise  a  particular  fimction,  to  render  a  particular 
service  or  to  produce  a  particular  product.  And,  broadly 
speaking,  it  was  to  the  vocation  itself,  whatever  its  constitution, 
that  was  committed  the  direction  of  its  activities.  That  is  to 
say,  the  Manor  and  the  Municipal  Corporation,  and  even  the 
landowners  who  as  Justices  of  the  Peace  ruled  the  Coimties— 
like  the  King  and  his  warriors,  the  Church  and  its  priesthood, 
such  nascent  professions  as  the  lawyers  and  the  medical  men,  the 
chartered  National  Companies  for  overseas  trade  or  for  mining 
or  other  monopolies  at  home,  and,  last  but  not  least,  the  Merchant 
iand  Craft  Gilds — were  all  of  the  nature  of  Associations  of  Pro- 
ducers. It  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say  that,  in  connection  with 
anything  like  the  exercise  of  governmental  functions,  so  far  as 
our  Umited  researches  have  gone,  we  do  not  come  upon  the  con- 
ception of  an  Association  of  Consumers  until  the  close  of  the 


438  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

'  seventeenth  century.  Even  in  that  century,  as  we  have  shown, 
and  for  long  afterwards,  it  was  upon  the  decaying  remnants  of 
vocational  organisation  that  continued  to  rest  the  constitutional 
structure  and  the  authority  of  the  Manorial  Courts,  the  Municipal 
Corporations  and,  we  may  almost  say.  Quarter  Sessions  itself. 
There  remains  to  be  considered  the  Parish,  upon  the  nature  and 
antiquity  of  which  there  has  been  much  controversy,  based,  as 
we  think,  upon  inadequate  historical  Imowledge.  Whether  it  is 
at  all  true,  as  Toulmin  Smith  vehemently  asserted,  that  the 
Parish  was  an  essentially  secular  Authority,  of  immemorial 
antiquity,  comiected  with,  or  identical  with,  the  TowTiship  or  the 
Manor,  we  cannot  pretend  to  decide.  There  is  more  evidence 
for  Maitland's  view  that  the  Parish  Vestry,  at  any  rate,  as  an 
organ  of  secular  government,  was  a  relatively  modern  institution, 
which  can  hardly  be  carried  back  further  than  the  fourteenth  or 
fifteenth  century,  and  that  its  functions  as  a  Local  Authority 
may  have  grown  chiefly  by  the  imposition  upon  it,  by  royal 
decree,  of  specific  obligations  and  duties.  However  this  may  be, 
jthe  Vestry,  as  the  governing  body  of  the  Parish,  was  certainly 
essentially  the  congregation  of  heads  of  households  joined  together 
by  the  universal  and  obligatory  participation  in  the  rehgious 
services  of  the  Church.  As  such,  it  necessarily  had  a  communal 
character,  irrespective  of  vocation  ;  and  even  in  its  earliest 
historically  demonstrated  functions  of  managing  "  the  Parish 
stock,"  whether  of  money  or  of  sheep  ;  maintaining  the  fabric 
of  the  church  and  seeing  to  the  upkeep  of  the  churchyard  and  its 
wall ;  and  providing  the  sacramental  wine,  it  can  be  regarded 
only  as  an  Association  of  Consumers.  In  the  course  of  the  next 
three  centuries  the  Parish  took  on  successively,  not  only  the 
various  duties  placed  upon  it  by  statute,  but  also  the  provision 
and  management  of  all  sorts  of  services,  which  the  inliabitants 
"  in  Vestry  assembled  "  decided  that  they  required,  and  preferred 
to  have  provided  at  the  common  expense.  The  Church  Rate, 
levied  only  on  the  basis  of  immemorial  custom,  became,  in  fact, 
a  secular  public  revenue,  appKcable  to  such  diverse  purposes  asj 
the  payment  of  any  expenses  necessarily  incurred  by  the  Parish! 
Officers,  the  destruction  of  vermin,  the  repair  of  any  parochial 
property  and,  at  a  later  date,  occasionally  even  the  purchase  of 
substitutes  for  any  parishioners  unfortunate  enough  to  be  drawn] 
for  service  in  the  militia.     The  Parish,  imder  the  government  oi 


VOLUNTARY  ASSOCIATIONS  439 

the  inhabitants  "  in  Vestry  assembled  "  (though  always  remain- 
ing entangled  in  the  ecclesiastical  organisation,  dominated  by  the 
Incumbent  and  the  Incumbent's  Churchwarden,  and  subject  to 
interference  by  the  Archdeacon  and  the  Ordinary,  not  to  mention 
also  the  Justices  of  the  Peace),  imdoubtedly  took  on  the  char- 
acter, if  only  gradually,  and  so  to  speak  unself-consciously,  of  an 
Association  of  Consumers. 

But  the  Parish  Vestry,  with  its  infinite  variety  of  constitu- 
tion and  activity,  is  an  equivocal  example.  At  the  end  of  the 
seventeenth  century  there  emerged,  in  one  or  other  form,  the 
deliberately  constructed  and  specifically  designed  Association  of 
Consumers,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  carried  out  something 
recognised  as  a  governmental  function.  It  is  significant  that 
our  earliest  instance  is  that  of  a  voluntary  association  ;  and  that 
its  object  was  the  performance  of  the  most  primitive  of  all 
governmental  functions,  namely  the  protection  of  life  and  pro- 
perty. Thus,  when  in  1698  the  inhabitants  of  the  Tower  Hamlets 
were  "  much  perplexed  by  pilfering  people,  picklocks,  house- 
breakers and  such  ill  persons,"  and  annoyed  by  scenes  of  open 
profligacy,  which  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  did  nothing  to  repress, 
the  inhabitants  themselves  set  to  work,  as  members  of  the  local 
Society  for  the  Reformation  of  Manners  ;  and  they  were  soon 
able  to  report  that,  "  by  means  of  this  society  alone,  about  2000 
/  /  persons  have  been  legally  prosecuted  and  convicted,  either  as 
/  keepers  of  houses  of  bawdry  and  disorder,  or  as  whores,  night- 
walkers  and  the  like.  .  .  .  They  have  also  been  instrumental  to 
put  down  several  music  houses,  which  had  degenerated  into 
notorious  nurseries  of  lewdness  and  debauchery."  ^  In  the  latter 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  with  the  increase  of  crime  and 

Border  due  to  the  massing  of  the  population  in  industrial  dis- 
3ts,  associations  formed  specifically  for  the  prosecution  of  felons 
jame  widely  prevalent  all  over  England.  There  was,  it  must 
ite  remembered,  no  public  prosecutor.  It  was  left  to  any 
laggrieved  person  to  incur  the  trouble  of  getting  a  thief  arrested 
land  committed  to  prison,  and  then  the  expense  and  labour  of 
{preferring  an  indictment,  producing  witnesses  and  engaging 
counsel.     The  result  was  that  thefts  and  assaults  were  com- 

^  An  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Religious  Societies  in  the  City  of 
London,  etc.,  and  of  the  Endeavours  for  Reformation  of  Manners  which  have  been 
made  therein,  by  Josiah  Woodward,  1G98,  pp.  74,  78,  79. 


440  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

mitted  with  impunity.  The  society  for  the  prosecution  of  felons 
undertook  the  task  for  any  of  its  members,  and  sometimes  main- 
tained its  own  paid  officials,  who  were  sworn  in  as  Constables 
to  apprehend  offenders.  Thus,  the  farmers  of  the  village  of 
Diss,  in  Norfolk,  formed,  in  1777,  their  own  association  for 
apprehending  and  prosecuting  horse-stealers.  The  manufacturers 
in  the  Northern  industrial  centres  resorted  to  the  same  device, 
sometimes  against  robbers  of  their  bleaching  grounds,  some- 
times against  the  weavers  to  whom  they  gave  out  work,  but 
always  including  in  their  aim  the  receivers  of  the  stolen  goods. 
Even  "  the  qualified  sportsmen  of  England."  we  read,  "  associate 
in  clubs  for  the  better  detection  of  those  who  are  prohibited  from 
killing,  or  having  game  in  their  possession,  many  of  whom,  it 
must  be  confessed,  have  been  prosecuted  w4th  a  resentful  warmth 
which  the  nature  of  the  offence  did  not  seem  fully  to  justify."  ^ 
jThe  most  usual  of  these  police  associations  was,  however,  that 
'  of  the  property  owners  of  a  given  Parish  or  district.  The  Man- 
chester newspaper  of  1772  repeatedly  advertises  the  existence 
of  a  society  "  for  the  more  effectual  security  of  this  town,  the 
>  neighbouring  towns  and  the  country  adjacent,  against  house- 
'^breaking,  thieves,  and  receivers  of  stolen  goods,"  by  means  of 
the  prompt  prosecution  of  depredators  on  the  property  of  the 
subscribers.  In  1784  "  several  robberies  and  burglaries  having 
been  lately  committed  in  the  Parish  and  village  of  Twickenham, 
the  nobility,  gentry  and  other  inhabitants  have  entered  into  a 
subscription  for  the  apprehending  and  prosecuting  to  the  utmost 
any  person  who  shall  be  guilty  of  any  robbery  or  felony  in  the 
said  Parish."  ^  As  late  as  1811-1812  there  is  a  renewed  out- 
burst of  these  associations,  largely  connected,  we  imagine,  with 
the  Luddite  outrages  ;  and  in  1819  they  again  aboimd,  perhaps 
even  to  a  greater  extent  than  at  any  previous  period.  In  1827 
it  is  reported  that  "  associations  against  thieves  have  been 
formed  in  all  the  districts  of  the  country."  ^  They  continue 
throughout  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  principally 
in  the  rural  districts  ;  and  they  do  not  entirely  disappear  until 
the  universal  establishment  of  the  County  Constabulary  after 
1856. 

^  Hints  respecting  the  Public  Police,  by  Rev.  H.  Zouoh,  J.P.,  1786,  p.  3. 
2  Gazetteer,  19th  January  1784. 

'  The  Subordinate  Magistracy  and  Parish  System  considered,  by  Rev.  C.  D. 
Brcreton  (Norwich,  1827),  p.  9. 


INCREASE  OF  ASSOCIATIONS  OF  CONSUMERS    441 

It  was,  however,  naturally  in  connection  with  the  new  con- 
structive services  rendered  necessary  by  the  Industrial  Revolu- 
tion that  witnessed  the  greatest  development  of  these  Associa- 
tions of  Consumers  for  the  performance  of  governmental  functions. 
We  have  mentioned  in  the  present  volume  the  organisation  of 
"^  Local  Authorities  for  the   construction  and  improvement   of 
harbours.^     Others,  like  that  of  the  Manchester  traders  in  1776, 
dealt  with  the  erection   of   market   buildings,   and   the  daily 
administration  of  the  markets  in  the  growing  trading  centres. 
The  Turnpike  Trusts,  which  eventually  reconstructed,  at  the 
instance,  and  largely  at  the  cost  of  the  principal  local  users,  all 
the  main  roads,  constituted  the  most  numerous  class  ;  and  they 
drew  their  considerable  revenue  from  the  very  persons  who 
enjoyed  the  conveniences  that  they  suppHed.     But  the  greatest 
'development,  as  we  have  described  in  detail,  was  in  the  organisa- 
tion of  the  services  required  by  the  multiplication  of  houses  and 
ithe  ever-increasing  traffic  of  the  town  streets.     The  watching, 
flighting,  paving,  cleansing  and  otherwise  improving  the  rapidly 
increasing  urban  aggregations  became  the  most  imperative  of 
the  tasks  of  Local  Government.     In  nearly  all  cases  these  urban 
services  began  in  voluntary  associations  of  the  principal  in- 
.habitants.     Sometimes  the  association  was  transient  only,  and 
'merely  voluntary,  as  when  the  leading  parishioners  of  the  little 
town  of  Ashford  in  Kent  subscribed,  once  for  all,  the  necessary 
f  sum  to  pave  the  principal  streets.     More  frequently,  the  associa- 
;  tion  was  that  of  the  owners  and  occupiers  of  a  district— in  some 
cases  those  of  a  particular  "  square  "  in  a  Metropolitan  Parish— 
who  joined  together  to  provide  the  lamps  or  the  watchmen,  the 
pavement  or  the  sweeping  necessary  for  their  own  comfort.     In 
such  cases  what  invariably  happened  was  that  the  voluntary 
I  basis  was  presently  found  to  be  inadequate  or  inconvenient ; 
I  and  the  association  obtained  a  Local  Act  compelling  all  the 
j  inhabitants  to  pay  their  shares  of  the  annual  expenses.     We 
'  have  sufficiently  described  in  this  volume  the  great  development 
of  Local  Authorities  established  under  their  own  Local  Acts, 
(  which,  between  1748  and  1836,  gradually  came  to  be,  so  far  as 
■  specifically  "  municipal  "  administration  was  concerned,  the  most 
important  form  of  English  Local  Government.     What  impresses 
the  student  of  their  records  is  the  complete  contrast,  alike  in 
^  Ante,  p.  24. 


442  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

conception  and  in  constitutional  structure,  between  these  char- 
acteristic Local  Authorities  of  1748-1836,  and  the  earlier  Manorial 
Courts  and  Municipal  Corporations  that  they  succeeded.  The 
Paving,  Lighting,  Police  or  Improvement  Trustees  or  Commis- 
sioners were,  in  fact,  the  representatives  of  Associations  of 
Consumers,  in  which  membership  was  locally  obligatory. 

It  was  characteristic  of  this  new  form  of  governmental  organ- 
isation that  it  had  absolutely  no  connection  with,  and,  indeed, 
practically  no  consciousness  of,  the  producers  of  the  commodities 
and  services  which  it  supplied.  WTien  each  inhabitant  was  under 
obligation  to  supply  and  light  the  lantern  at  his  door,  to  pave 
and  sweep  the  street  in  front  of  his  own  house  or  workshop  ;  to 
supply  his  own  horses  or  his  own  labour  for  the  mending  of  the 
roads  he  used  ;  to  maintain  at  his  cost  the  bit  of  primitive 
embankment  that  protected  his  holding  from  the  flood,  or  even 
to  perform  in  his  turn  the  duties  of  the  various  Parish  offices, 
it  was  of  his  own  pains  and  costs,  his  own  efforts  and  sacrifices 
in  the  process  of  production  that  he  was  most  vividly  conscious. 
But  the  minutes  of  the  Manchester  Police  Commissioners  or  the 
Westminster  Paving  Commissioners  exhibit  these  representatives 
of  the  consumers  organising  their  growing  services,  and  giving 
out  their  extensive  contracts,  on  the  basis  of  buying  labour  as 
a  commodity,  just  like  lamp  irons  or  paving-stone  ;  quite  un- 
conscious, indeed,  that  it  is  sentient  beings  whom  they  are 
enlisting,  and  the  conditions  of  human' lives  that  they  are  deter- 
mining. All  that  they  were  concerned  with— and  this,  in  their 
inexperience  of  pubHc  administration,  they  lamentably  failed  to 
secure — was  "  buying  in  the  cheapest  market,"  and  getting  the 
work  done  at  the  lowest  possible  monetary  cost  to  the  con- 
stituency that  they  taxed.  Among  the  crowds  of  nondescript 
unskilled  workers  who  were  concerned  in  work  of  this  character 
there  was,  at  that  time,  no  Trade  Unionism,  or  protective  com- 
bination of  any  kind.  Taken  in  conjunction  with  the  rapidly 
spreading  Benthamite  philosophy  the  result  was  the  rooting  of 
the  growing  mimicipal  services,  so  far  as  concerned  the  great 
bulk  of  the  manual  labourers  by  whom  these  services  were  per- 
formed, in  a  morass  of  "  sweating,"  out  of  which  it  did  not  1 
emerge  until  the  last  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

But  whilst  the  organisation  of  pubhc  services  by  the  re- 
presentatives of  the  Associations  of  Consumers  that  we  have 


PROFITABLE  SERVICES  443 

described  took  on,  so  far  as  the  conditions  of  the  wage-earners 
were  concerned,  all  the  characteristics  of  the  capitalist  employ- 
ment that  it  quite  frankly  imitated,  the  fact  must  not  be  ignored 
that  this  collective  or  communal  organisation  contained  within 
it  the  germ  of  an  actual  supersession  of  capitalist  enterprise — 
i  a  supersession  not  in  the  interest  of  the  producers  of  the  services 
'  but  in  that  of  the  whole  body  of  consumers.  For  the  most  part 
the  services  organised  by  the  new  Local  Authorities  were  not 
those  in  which  the  private  capitalist  had  hitherto  found  a  source 
of  profit.  The  maintenance  of  the  highways,  the  paving  of  the 
town  streets,  the  watching,  cleansing  and  lighting  of  the  thorough- 
fares, and  the  provision  of  sewers  by  the  new  Local  Authorities 
deprived  no  private  capitalist  of  his  business  ;  and  even  increased 
his  opportmiities  for  profit-making  as  a  contractor  for  the  neces- 
sary works.  And  though  here  and  there  a  Lord  of  the  Manor 
or  a  fortunate  landowner  found  himself  in  possession  of  a  profit- 
able market  or  bridge,  a  ferry  or  even  a  harbour  as  part  of  his 
estate,  the  provision  of  similar  conveniences  elsewhere  did  not 
seem  to  threaten  any  encroachment  on  private  enterprise.  In 
the  nineteenth  century,  however,  there  arose,  among  some  of 
the  new  Local  Authorities  claims  and  aspirations  to  serve  the 
public  of  consumers  in  ways  which  purported  to  dispense  with 
the  toll  of  private  profit.  We  have  described  how  the  Manchester 
Police  Commissioners  in  1809  fought  unsuccessfully  in  favour  of 
a  public  provision  of  the  water  supply,  in  opposition  to  a  capitalist 
company,  avowedly  on  the  ground  that  "  it  would  be  contrary 
to  sound  policy  to  entrust  the  furnishing  and  control  of  this 
important  article  of  food  and  cleanliness,  on  which  the  health 
and  comfort  of  the  inhabitants  depend,  to  persons  whose  sole 
object  will  be  the  promotion  of  their  own  private  interest,  and 
who  are  induced  to  the  undertaking  from  no  other  motive."  ^ 
Parhament,  on  that  occasion,  gave  the  victory  to  the  capitalist 
company  ;  but  the  Association  of  Consumers,  which  the  Man- 
chester citizens  had  secured  in  their  statutory  Police  Commis- 
sioners, was  already  beginning  a  more  significant  enterprise. 
Whilst  capitalist  promoters  in  other  towns  were  projecting  profit- 
making  gas  companies,  the  Manchester  Police  Commissioners, 
from  1807  onwards,  were  making  gas  by  a  municipal  staff,  in 

^  Ante,  p.  261  ;    History  of  the  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  Water-Supply  in 
Manchester,  1851. 


444  .  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

municipal  retorts,  for  municipal  use,  and  supplying  this  new 
means  of  lighting  to  all  the  inhabitants  who  desired  it.  For 
no  less  than  seventeen  years  this  municipal  enterprise  was  con- 
ducted without  statutory  authority,  this  being  obtained  only  in 
1824  ;  and  then  less  from  any  deliberate  act  of  policy  by  Parlia- 
ment than  by  a  happy  accident.  This  incipient  Municipal 
Socialism,  as  we  have  related,  did  not  fail  to  be  denounced  by 
those  who  objected  to  interference  with  capitalist  enterprise  ;  ^ 
but  it  proved  to  be  the  beginning,  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  of 
an  ever-increasing  volume  and  range  of  "  municipal  trading," 
often  in  actual  supersession  of  capitalist  profit-making,  the  whole 
scope  of  which  it  is  impossible,  at  the  present  day,  even  to 
forecast.^ 

The  reader  will  now  appreciate  how  this  new  form  of  Local 
Government  by  Associations  of  Consumers,  empirically  evolved 
1  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century,  acted  and  reacted  on 
/  the  contemporary  movement  towards  Political  Democracy.  In 
every  act  of  their  administration,  all  these  various  bodies  re- 
presenting the  mass  of  undifferentiated  citizens  of  particular 
areas,  necessarily  had  forced  on  their  attention  the  fact  that  the 
producers  of  each  commodity  or  service  constituted  only  a  tiny 
minority,  whilst  the  consumers,  for  whom  the  commodity  was 
produced  or  the  service  performed,  were  the  whole  of  the  in- 
habitants. When  the  Westminster  Paving  Commissioners  hired 
gangs  of  labourers  to  put  down  the  Aberdeen  granite  and  York 
sandstone  on  which  the  surging  traffic  walked  or  drove  in  comfort, 
it  was  obvious  that  the  few  score  labourers  were  serving  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  citizens,  rich  and  poor,  men,  women  and  children. 
The  dozen  or  two  of  workmen  whom  the  Manchester  Police  Com- 
missioners hired  to  make  gas  to  light  the  whole  town  were  plainly 
serving  the  whole  of  the  inhabitants.  The  Benthamite  formula 
of  seeking  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number  seemed  to 
amply  a  complete  subordination  of  the  interests  of  the  municipal 
() 'employees  to  those  of  the  ratepaying  citizens.  At  the  same 
time,  the  current  Radical  conception  of  the  "  Rights  of  Man," 
and  the  necessary  union  of  taxation  with  representation,  irre- 
sistibly led  towards  a  consumers'   or  ratepayers'   Democracy. 

^  Ante,  pp.  2G2-265. 

"  iSeo   the   authors'   Conslilution   for   the   Socialist   Commo)uvealth   of  Great 
Britain,  1920. 


GOVERNMENT  BY  ELECTED  REPRESENTATIVES    445 

For  nearly  the  whole  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  only  question 
agitating  the  successive  generations  of  "  reformers  "  seemed  to 
be  how  exactly  this  exclusively  territorial  Democracy  was  to  be 
organised. 

Government  by  Elected  Representatives 

The  conception  of  government  by  representatives  of  the 
whole  community  was,  as  we  have  shown,  not  embodied  in  the 
local  institutions  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  distinctly 
oKgarchical  expedient  of  a  Close  Body  recruiting  itself  by  co- 
option  was  the  dominant,  if  not  the  universal,  device  of  all  the 
constitutions  resting  on  the  decaying  remnants  of  vocational 
organisation.  The  right  of  the  persons  charged  with  carrying 
out  any  service  to  nominate  their  colleagues  and  successors,  was 
taken  for  granted  in  the  essentially  vocational  organisations  of 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries.  The  new  Statutory 
^Authorities  for  Special  Purposes  frequently  adopted  a  similar 
oligarchical  principle  in  their  various  forms  of  Co-option.  Among 
the  Local  Authorities  of  this  period  the  meeting  of  inhabitants 
in  Vestry  assembled  was  the  only  one  in  which  can  be  discerned 
a  communal  Democracy.  But  this  nascent  Democracy  had  not 
then  developed  a  representative  system.  It  was,  indeed,  not 
without  reluctance   and   many   complaints,^   that  Englishmen 

^  "  One  of  the  great  books  that  remain  to  be  written,"  we  are  told  by 
F.  W.  Maitland,  "  is  the  History  of  the  Majority.  Our  habit  of  treating  the 
voice  of  a  majority  as  equivalent  to  the  voice  of  an  all  is  so  deeply  engrained  that 
we  hardly  think  that  it  has  a  history.  But  a  history  it  has,  and  there  is  fiction 
there  :  not  fiction  if  that  term  implies  falsehood  or  caprice,  but  a  slow  exten- 
sion of  old  words  and  old  thoughts  beyond  the  old  facts.  In  the  earlier  middle 
ages  it  is  unanimity  that  is  wanted  ;  it  is  unanimity  that  is  chronicled  ;  it  is 
unanimity  that  is  after  a  sort  obtained.  A  shout  is  the  test,  and  in  form 
it  is  the  primary  test  to-day  in  the  House  of  Commons "  (Township  and 
Borough,  by  F.  W.  Maitland,  1898,  pp.  34-35).  The  erudite  but  reactionary 
Toulmin  Smith,  in  his  embittered  criticism  of  the  new  principles  of  Local 
Government,  was  always  objecting  to  government  by  representative  bodies  : 
"  Unless  constant  attention  be  fixed  on  this,"  he  states,  "  Parliaments  and 
Common  Councils  become  but  other  names  for  oligarchies.  They  become  but 
a  mask  and  a  juggle  ;  a  means  to  fasten  the  machinery  of  real  despotism  on  a 
people,  and  to  rob  them  of  their  liberties  under  the  disguise  of  names  "  (Local 
Self-Government  and  Centralisation,  1851,  p.  73).  In  his  view  the  preferable 
alternative  was  "  that  other  part  of  the  Local  Institutions  which  .  .  .  the  long 
practice  of  the  Common  Law  and  Constitution  of  England  require,  namely, 
the  Folk  and  People,  themselves  meeting  in  frequent,  fixed,  regular,  and  access- 
ible assemblies,  as  matter  of  individual  right  and  duty ;  and  discussing  and 
hearing  discussed,  the  matters  which  the  local  body,  entrusted  to  administer 
in  their  behalf,  has  done  or  is  doing  "  (ibid.  p.  32). 


446  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

abandoned  the  simpler  expedient  of  government  by  the  common 
consent  of  all  those  concerned.  At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century  it  was  this  common  agreement  of  the  inhabitants,  by 
tradition  and  practice  the  j^ni^cipnl  inhabitants,  rather  than 
decision  by  a  numerical  majority,  whether  of  representatives  or 
ratepayers,  for  which,  particularly  in  matters  of  Local  Govern- 
ment, men  yearned.  And  down  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  this  note  of  common  agreement,  as  the  end  of  dis- 
cussion and  debate,  remained  strong.  "  It  is  most  convenient," 
says  a  widely  read  eighteenth-century  law-book,  "  that  every 
Parish  Act,"  done  at  a  Vestry  "  be  entered  in  the  Parish  book 
of  accounts," — not,  be  it  noted,  as  having  been  carried  by  a 
majority  vote,  but  with  "  every  man's  hand  consenting  to  it 
...  set  thereto  ;  for  then  it  will  be  a  certain  rule  for  the  Church- 
wardens to  go  by."  1  "  Agreed  and  consented  to  by  us  whose 
names  .  .  .  are  hereunto  subscribed  "  is,  in  fact  a  phrase  con- 
stantly found  preceding  the  lists  of  signatures  by  which  the 
inhabitants  in  Vestry  were  accustomed  to  authenticate  their 
minutes.2 

What  broke  down  this  old  conception  of  government  by 
consent  of  all  the  persons  concerned  was  the  surging  into  the 
Vestry  meetings  of  such  populous  Parishes  as  Manchester  or 
Leeds,  Woolwich  or  St.  Pancras,  of  large  numbers  of  parishioners, 
Iwho  were  naturally,  for  the  most  part,-  not  the  "  principal  in- 
habitants "  to  whom  the  government  had  habitually  been  left, 
and  whose  turbulent  proceedings  led  to  the  withdrawal  from 
attendance  of  the  quieter  and  "  more  respectable  "  inhabitants. 
In  a  few  Parishes  the  practical  impossibility  of  "  government 
by  public  meeting  "  of  this  sort  led  to  the  establislmient,  quite 
extra-legally,  of  a  Parish  Committee,  elected  at  a  Vestry  meeting, 
which  took  upon  itself  the  whole  functions  of  Parish  government, 
merely  reporting  to  and  seeking  covering  sanction  from  Open 

^  Shaw's  Parish  Law,  p.  55  ;    The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  52. 

-  Ibid.  p.  52.  As  lato  as  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  Toulmin 
Smith  sought  to  argue  that  this  principle  of  common  consent  was  necessary  to 
any  alteration  of  the  law,  whatever  a  mere  majority  might  decide.  He  quoted 
Bracton  as  authoritative  for  the  dictum  that  "  the  laws  of  England  having  been 
approved  by  the  consent  of  those  who  use  them  (utentium),  and  guaranteed  by 
the  oath  of  the  King,  cannot  bo  changed  nor  set  aside  within  the  common 
consent  and  counsel  of  all  those  by  whose  counsel  and  consent  they  were  first 
put  forth "  (Bracton,  De  Legibus,  lib.  i.  chap.  ii.  par.  7 ;  Local  Self-Govern- 
mcnt  and  Centralisation,  by  J.  Toulmin  Smith,  1851,  p.  27). 


THE  REFERENDUM  447 

Vestry  meetings  held  at  periodical  intervals.  We  have  described 
the  highly  organised  and  remarkably  efficient  government  of  the 
great  Parish  of  Liverpool  by  such  an  extra-legal  committee.^ 

But  such  a  Parish  Committee  had  in  it  the  wealaiess  of 
possessing  no  legal  authority.  The  Parish  Officers  could,  at  any 
moment,  decline  to  act  upon  its  resolutions.  Any  recalcitrant 
ratepayer  might  invoke  the  interference  of  the  Justices  of  the 
Peace  or  the  Courts  of  Law  against  its  action.  Such  Parish 
Committees  were,  in  fact,  upset  in  various  Parishes.^  An 
alternative  expedient,  and  one  that  could  be  employed  also  to 
strengthen  a  Parish  Committee,  was  to  take  a  poll,  in  order  to 
ascertain  the  real  opinion  of  the  whole  mass  of  parishioners,  who 
(contrary  to  the  opinion  of  some  legal  authorities)  were  allowed 
to  vote  whether  or  not  they  had  been  present  at  the  meeting 
at  which  the  poll  was  demanded.  In  adopting  the  device  of  a 
ipoU  of  all  the  parishioners,  the  Vestry,  it  will  be  seen,  was 
'(abandoning  the  conception  of  government  by  common  consent, 
I  in  favour  of  government  by  the  decision  of  the  majority  for  the 
time  being.  In  1819,  the  well-known  Sturges  Bourne  Act  enabled 
any  Parish  to  appoint  annually  in  Open  Vestry  a  Committee 
empowered  to  carry  out,  not,  indeed,  all  the  work  of  the  Parish, 
but  all  matters  relating  to  the  relief  of  the  poor,  and  reporting 
to  meetings  of  the  Open  Vestry  at  least  twice  a  year.  So  far 
the  Act  was  "  adoptive  "  only.  But  the  statute  also  provided 
that,  in  all  Parishes  outside  the  City  of  London  and  Southwark, 
and  not  governed  by  Local  Acts  of  their  own,  the  ratepayers 
should  each  have  from  one  to  six  votes,  in  proportion  to  the 
rateable  value  of  their  premises.  It  was  not  foreseen  that  the 
recording  of  these  various  votes  necessarily  involved  taking 
separately  the  decision  of  each  voter,  and  thus  a  poll  which 
could  not,  in  practice,  be  confined  to  those  persons  who  had 
been  present  at  the  previous  Vestry  meeting.  Thus  Sturges 
Bourne's  Act  introduced,  in  effect,  into  BngHsh  Local  Govern- 
ment, at  the  option  of  any  one  ratepayer  in  attendance  at  the 
meeting,  a  popular  Referendum  upon  any  decision  whatsoever. 
We  have  described  how  this  limitation  of  the  work  of  the  Parish 
Committee  to  the  one  function  of  poor  rehef,  coupled  with  the 

1  The  Parish  and  the  County,  pp.  134-145. 

^  In  St.  Giles,  Cripplegate,  1731  ;   and  in  St.  Mary  Abbots,  Kensington,  in 
1776  ;  see  The  Parish  and  the  County,  p.  143. 


448  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

I  introduction  of  an  obligatory  Referendum,  heavily  weighted  in 
\  favour  of  the  larger  ratepayers,  created  confusion  and  disorder 
I  in  the  Vestries  of  the  larger  Parishes.  Any  section  outvoted  at 
,  the  meeting  immediately  claimed  a  poll  of  the  Parish  ;  and  this 
\had  to  be  granted  as  a  matter  of  legal  right.  As  the  wealthier 
classes  abstained  from  the  public  meeting,  and,  moreover,  had 
jmost  to  gain  by  the  strict  counting  of  the  plural  votes,  it  was 
/usually  the  Tories  who  demanded  this  Referendum,  and  the 
/Radicals  who  objected  to  it.  This  unpremeditated  experiment 
in  the  use  of  the  Referendum — -handicapped  as  it  was  by  every 
unfavourable  circumstance — practically  introduced  a  fatal  ele- 
ment of  discord  into  the  most  smoothly  working  constitutions 
of  populous  parishes.  Even  at  Liverpool,  where  Toryism  and 
the  Church  of  England  dominated  the  working  men  as  well  as 
the  upper  classes,  we  see,  from  1828  onward,  a  constantly  in- 
creasing number  of  appeals  from  the  Vestry  meeting  to  the  poll. 
In  one  year  (1832)  no  fewer  than  eight  of  these  polls  were  taken, 
on  such  questions  as  the  amount  of  salary  to  be  paid  to  an 
official,  the  election  of  Churchwardens  and  Sidesmen,  the  assess- 
ment of  the  owners  of  cottage  property,  and  whether  the  Church- 
wardens' account  should  or  should  not  be  passed.  The  active 
spirits  who,  in  the  heated  years  of  the  Reform  controversy, 
carried  the  Open  Vestry  meetings,  were  habitually  defeated  at 
the  poll.  They  revenged  themselves  on  the  Tory  party  by 
turning  the  half-yearly  meeting  at  the  old  Parish  Church  into  a 
pandemonium.  At  Leeds,  if  the  Nonconformist  Radicals  carried 
the  election  of  Churchwardens  at  one  of  the  large  and  turbulent 
Vestry  meetings  that  we  have  described,  the  Tories  insisted  on 
a  poll  of  the  Parish.  From  1833  onwards  this  becomes  a  regular 
practice.  When  a  poll  was  refused,  they  obtained  a  mandamus 
ordering  it  to  be  conceded.  The  Tory  newspaper,  in  April  1835, 
candidly  avowed,  that  "  the  only  method  now  left  to  the  friends 
of  law  and  order  is  to  appeal  from  such  packed  Vestries  to  the 
Parish  at  large.  Nor  will  the  appeal  be  in  vain.  .  .  .  Rated 
females  are  entitled  to  vote  as  well  as  males.  We  do  not  wish  for 
a  gynocracy  ;  but  we  are  sufficiently  gallant  to  perceive  that  too 
many  of  the  wayward  lords  of  creation  are  disposed  to  make  a  bad 
world  of  it ;  therefore  the  sooner  the  ladies  interfere  the  better."  ^ 

^  Leeds  Intelligencer,  25th  Aijril  1835  ;    The  Parish  and  the  County, 
1G8-169. 


THE  ELECTED  COUNCILLOR  449 

The  first  embodiment  in  legislation  of  this  change  of  opinion 
was  "  An  Act  for  the  Better  Regulation  of  Vestries  and  for  the 
Appointment  of  Auditors  of  Accounts  in  Certain  Parishes  of 
England  and  Wales."  1  Whilst  Sturges  Bourne  in  1818-1819  had 
merely  sought  to  regularise  and  supplement  the  decision  and 
control  of  the  open  Vestry  Meeting,  another  aristocratic  reformer, 
John  Cam  Hobhouse,  more  under  the  Benthamite  influence,  a 
dozen  years  later,  gave  to  every  Parish  the  opportunity  of 
superseding  the  Vestry  altogether  by  a  body  of  elected  repre- 
sentatives in  whom  the  whole  government  of  the  Parish  was 
vested.  Based  on  ratepayers'  suffrage,  equal  voting,  the  ballot 
and  annual  elections,  with  provisions  for  publicity  and  an  in- 
dependent audit,  "  Hobhouse's  Act,"  as  it  was  universally  called, 
was  "  the  first  legislative  attempt  to  apply  the  principle  of 
mimicipal  self-government  to  the  inorganic  masses  of  population 
and  property  forming  the  modern  additions  to  London."  But 
the  Act  apphed  only  to  those  Parishes  in  which  the  ratepayers 
chose  to  adopt  it  on  a  poll ;  and  its  operation  was,  in  fact, 
confined  to  a  relatively  few  large  Parishes,  principally  those 
having  Select  Vestries  in  the  Metropolitan  area. 

Government  by  bodies  of  elected  representatives  was,  how- 
ever, by  this  time  definitely  accepted  as  the  necessary  form  for 
new  constitutions.     For  some  years  it  had  been  becoming  steadily 
more   usual   in   Improvement   Commissions.     The   Manchester 
Police  Commissioners,  at  that  time  perhaps  the  most  important 
Local  Authority — apart  from  the  exceptionally  busy  Municipal 
I  Corporations   of   Liverpool   and   Bristol — outside   the   City   of 
London,  were  changed,  by  the  1828  Act,  from  being  a  class  of 
all  the  substantial  householders,  thousands  in  number,  to  an 
elected  assembly  of  240  members.^    When  the  time  came  for 
the  urgently  needed  reform  of  the  Poor  Law,  in  the  first  flush 
of  triumph  of  the  Reformed  Parliament,  though  much  was  said 
.  against  the  new  principles  on  which  relief  was  to  be  given,  and 
j  against  both  the  Union  area  and  the  workhouse,  not  a  voice  was 
I  raised  in  opposition  to  the  work  being  entrusted,  not  to  the 
i  ratepayers  at  large,  but  to  a  representative  body.^ 

1  1  &  2  William  IV.  c.  60. 

2  Ante,  p.  268. 

'  So  strong  was  the  tendency  towards  entrusting  Local  Government  to 
representative  bodies  that  the  very  existence  of  another  alternative  was 
ignored.     It  is  usually  forgotten  that  the  report  of  the  Poor  Law  Inquiry 

2g 


450  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

The  seal  was  set  upon  the  principle  of  government  by  a 
representative  body  by  the  agitation  for  the  reform  of  the 
Municipal  Corporations,  which  culminated  in  the  Municipal 
Corporations  Act  of  1835.  The  public  resentment  of  the  Close 
Bodies  which  had  continued  to  govern  the  property  and  privileges 
of  the  Boroughs  was  doubtless  mainly  political  in  its  origin.  So 
far  as  Local  Government  was  concerned,  the  complaint  was  not 
so  much  that  the  Corporations  performed  the  Municipal  functions 
\  badly,  as  that  they  did  not,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  perform 
^Jthem  at  all.  The  Reformed  Parliament  of  1833  willingly  saw 
the  appointment  of  a  Royal  Commission  to  enquire  into  the 
Municipal  Corporations  ;  and  the  habit  of  the  time  of  manning 
all  such  Commissions  by  eager  young  intellectuals  of  Whig 
opinions  determined,  as  we  have  shown,  the  tenor  of  the  verdict.^ 
There  was,  in  fact,  at  the  moment,  no  rival,  among  those  with 
reforming  instincts,  to  the  Benthamite  political  philosophy  which 
had  erected  representative  Democracy,  based  on  universal  suffrage 
and  ballot  voting,  into  a  panacea.  The  Municipal  Corporation 
\  Commissioners  (with  a  dissenting  minority  of  two  only)  made 
their  recommendations  with  no  uncertain  voice.  Lord  Mel- 
bourne's Cabinet,  pressed  for  time,  found  no  other  policy.    Public 

Commissioners  of  1832  was  as  adverse  to  the  administration  of  elected  Parish 
Committees,  Select  Vestries  under  Sturges  Bourne's  Act,  and  Local  Act  In- 
corporations of  Guardians  of  the  Poor  as  it  was  to  that  of  Open  Vestries  and  the 
compulsorily  serving  Parish  Oi!icers.  "  [Nassau]  Senior's  j^rincipal  sugges- 
tion," we  are  told,  "  is  to  take  away  the  controlling  power  of  the  magistracy, 
and  to  vest  it,  together  with  the  duty  of  revising  and  auditing  the  accounts, 
in  paid  local  authorities,  who  might  also  be  employed  for  other  purposes " 
(Letters  of  the  Rt.  lion.  Sir  George  Cornewall  Lewis,  Bart.,  1870,  p.  13).  What 
Chadwick  wanted,  and  what  was  strongly  recommended  was,  to  use  his  own 
words,  at  a  later  date,  "  that  the  administration  of  the  Poor  Laws  should 
bo  entrusted,  as  to  their  general  superintendence,  to  one  Central  Authority 
with  extensive  powers  ;  and  as  to  their  details,  to  paid  officers,  acting  under 
the  consciousness  of  constant  superintendence  and  strict  responsibility.  .  .  . 
The  functions  assigned  to  the  unpaid  Guardians  were  not  executive  but 
solely  supervisory ;  they  were  analogous  to  those  of  the  Visiting  Justices 
to  the  prisons.  I  failed,  however,  in  getting  the  administrative  principle, 
as  set  forth,  acted  upon,  or  in  preventing  the  rules  and  orders  being  so 
couched ;  I  failed  also  to  take  from  the  unpaid  officers  [Boards  of  Guardians] 
the  responsibility  of  the  executive  details,  these  being  left  to  be  disposed 
of  by  the  unpaid  Guardians  at  their  weekly  meetings — often  in  crowds  of 
cases  in  large  towns — perfunctorily  and  most  objectionably.  .  .  .  Among 
other  evils  there  has  been  that  of  generally  putting  the  paid  officers  under 
the  necessity  of  having  to  work  down  to  ignorance  instead  of  up  to  science  " 
(Chadwick's  statement,  quoted  in  the  third  volume  of  NichoUs'  History  of  the 
Poor  Law,  by  Thomas  Mackay,  1899,  pp.  93-94). 
*  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  pp.  740-751. 


'•THE  WHOLE  COUNTRY  MUNICIPALISED"       451 

opinion  throughout  the  country  gave  the  reform  overwhelming 
support.  The  House  of  Commons  put  up  practically  no  opposi- 
tion ;  and  even  Sir  Robert  Peel  could  see  no  alternative.  Only 
in  the  House  of  Lords  was  the  principle  of  representative  De- 
mocracy seriously  contested  ;  and  here,  as  we  have  described, 
the  opposition  was  eventually  driven  to  give  way,  owing  to  the 
refusal  of  the  Tory  leaders  in  the  House  of  Commons  to  support 
the  Upper  House.  The  passing  of  the  Municipal  Corporations 
Act  in  1835,  even  subject  to  the  concessions  that  were,  by  way 
of  compromise,  made  to  the  House  of  Lords,  meant,  for  English 
:)  1  Local  Government,  much  more  than  the  substitution,  in  178 
'towns,  of  an  elected  Town  Council  for  the  former  Close  Body. 
Coupled  with  the  unopposed  adoption  in  the  Poor  Law  Amend- 
{  ment  Act  of  1834  of  a  representative  body  for  the  administration 
Sof  the  Poor  Law,  it  meant,  as  the  subsequent  history  has  de- 
^^  !  monstrated,  the  definite  acceptance  of  representative  Democracy 
throughout  the  whole  sphere  of  Local  Government.  Francis 
Place  was  right  in  1836  when  he  foresaw,  as  the  outcome  of 
Lord  Melbourne's  Act,  "  the  whole  country  "  becoming  eventu- 
ally "  Municipalised  "  ;  by  which  he  meant,  "  an  incorporation 
of  the  whole  country  which  will  be  the  basis  of  a  purely  repre- 
sentative government."  ^ 

It  is  worth  notice  how  sweeping,  in  many  respects,  was  the 
revolution  thus  made,  and  how  little  public  attention  its  uni- 
versality attracted  at  the  time.  With  the  one  significant  excep- 
tion of  the  red  thread  of  Property  Qualification  running  through 
all  forms  of  authority,  which  was  retained  intact,  and  in  some 
ways  even  strengthened  by  the  Reformed  House  of  Commons, 
the  barriers  which  had  divided  the  English  people  into  mutually 
exclusive  groups  were,  in  1834-1836,  so  far  as  Local  Government 
was  concerned,  almost  wholly  broken  down.  In  the  government 
of  his  Parish,  his  Poor  Law  Union  and  his  Borough,  the  un- 
differentiated citizen-consumer,  electing  whatever  representatives 
he  chose,  became,  in  effect,  supreme.  The  vocational  qualifica- 
tion, once  the  very  basis  of  Manor  and  Borough,  finds  no  place 
in  the  reorganised  municipahty.^     Less  complete,  but  scarcely 

1  Place  to  Parkes,  3rd  January  1836,  Add.  MSS.  35,150,  p.  102  ;  The 
Manor  and  the  Borough,  p.  751. 

2  The  reservation  (by  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  1835,  sec.  2)  to  the 
existing  Freemen,  their  wives,  children  and  apprentices,  of  all  rights  of  pro- 
perty and  beneficial  exejnptions  that  they  enjoyed  in  1835,  including  the  right 


452  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

less  significant,  was  the  tacit  abandonment,  so  far  as  concerned 
the  government  of  the  Parish,  the  new  Poor  Law  Union  and  the 
urban  area  under  Improvement  Commissioners,  of  the  barrier 
of  sex.  Women  occupiers  had  never  been  declared  to  be  inehgible 
for  the  onerous  Parish  offices,  any  more  than  for  those  of  the 
ancient  organisations  for  maintaining  the  embankments  and 
sluices  of  districts  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Courts  of  Sewers  ; 
and  they  had  never  been  excluded  from  attendance  and  voting 
at  the  Open  Vestries.  Now,  under  both  Sturges  Bourne's  and 
Hobhouse's  Acts,  the  rights  of  occupiers  in  the  government  of 
the  Parish  were  definitely  made  independent  of  sex ;  and  this 
precedent  was  followed  in  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act  of 

1834,  as  well  as  in  the  General  Highways  Act  of  1835,  not  merely 
in  respect  of  the  right  to  elect  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Guardians  and  Highway  Boards,  but  also,  as  it  seems,  in  respect 
of  eligibility  for  election.^     But  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act, 

1835,  failed  to  go  so  far.  Though  the  status  of  Burgess  was 
extended  to  inhabitant  "  occupiers,"  ^  they  were,  until  1869, 
definitely  required  to  be  males. 

The  most  important  enfranchisement,  however,  was  that 
gained  by  the  sweeping  away  of  religious  exclusiveness.  Owing 
to  the  curious  heedlessness  which  Parliament  and  the  Govern- 
ment displayed  about  the  Parish,  neither  Nonconformists  nor,  as 
it  seems,  Roman  Catholics,  were  ever  legally  disqualified,  either 
for  membership  of  the  Open  Vestry,  or  from  service  in  the  Parish 
offices,  any  more  than  from  membership  of  the  Juries  of  the 


to  vote  for  Members  of  Parliament,  was  but  a  transient  exception.  It  may  be 
added  that  the  Municipal  Corporations  omitted  from  the  Act  retained  their 
old  constitutions,  to  be  swept  away  (with  the  exception  of  that  of  the  City  of 
London)  only  in  1883.  The  nominally  vocational  basis  of  the  Liverymen  of 
the  City  of  London,  with  their  equally  nominal  participation  in  the  election  of 
the  Lord  Mayor  and  a  few  other  officers,  remains,  we  believe,  in  1922,  the  only 
survival  of  the  old  vocational  organisation  in  English  Local  Government. 

^  It  remained  uncertain,  however,  whether  a  married  woman  could  either 
vote  or  be  elected  ;  not  because  of  any  disabilitj'  by  sex,  but  because  it  was 
doubtful  whether  a  woman  "  under  coverture,"  being  (until  the  Married 
Women's  Property  Act  of  1870)  unable  legally  to  own  property,  could  legally, 
in  her  own  person,  be  an  "  occupier."  The  point  can  hardly  be  said  to  have 
been  definitely  and  generally  decided  in  her  favour  until  the  passing  of  the  Sex 
Disqualification  Removal  Act  of  192U. 

-  Having  been  occupiers  within  the  Borough  for  two  whole  years,  in- 
habitant householders  therein  or  within  seven  miles,  British  subjects,  not 
defaulters  in  payment  of  rates,  and  not  receiving  parochial  relief  or  corporate 
charities  within  twelve  months  past. 


i 


THE  SALARIED  OFFICER  453 

Manor  or  of  the  Court  of  Sewers,  or  of  the  offices  connected 
therewith.  They  were,  however,  normally  excluded  from  all 
Close  Bodies,  whether  Select  Vestries  or  Municipal  Corporations, 
as  they  were  from  the  Commission  of  the  Peace,  and  from  the 
County  shrievalty.  The  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special 
Purposes,  growing  up  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century,  had 
entirely  ignored  differences  of  religion  ;  and  the  reorganisation 
of  Parish  government  by  Sturges  Bourne's  and  Hobhouse's  Acts, 
together  with  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act  itself,  tacitly 
adopted  the  same  poUcy.  Most  potent  of  all,  however,  was  the 
like  sweeping  away  of  reUgious  disabilities  in  the  reformed 
Boroughs  by  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  which  brought  to 
a  summary  end  a  much-prized  monopoly  of  the  Established 
Church.  This  part  of  "  Corporation  reform  "  it  was  that  its 
author.  Lord  Melbourne,  regarded  as  the  most  revolutionary. 
"  You  may  not,"  he  felt,  "  see  all  the  consequences  of  this  to- 
morrow ;  but  you  have  given  by  law  a  permanent  power  in  all 
the  centres  of  industry  and  intelUgence  to  the  Dissenters  which 
they  never  had  before,  and  which  they  never  could  have  had 
otherwise.  They  are  the  classes  who  will  really  gain  by  the 
change,  not  the  mob  or  the  theorists  ;  every  year  their  strength 
will  be  felt  more  and  more  at  elections  and  their  influence  in 
legislation.  Depend  upon  it,  it  is  the  Established  Church,  not 
the  hereditary  peerage,  that  has  need  to  set  its  house  in  order."  ^ 


The  Salaried  Officer 

The  student  will  have  realised  how  universally  prevalent, 
down  to  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  was  the  con- 
ception of  the  performance  of  all  the  work  of  Local  Government 
by  unpaid,  compulsorily  serving  and  constantly  changing  average 
citizens.  For  many  offices,  however,  notably  those  which  could 
be  made  remunerative  to  the  holder  by  the  exaction  of  sufficient 
fees,  the  alternative  principle  of  freehold  tenure  was  adopted. 
Both  these  conceptions  yielded  during  the  eighteenth  century, 
but  only  slowly  and  incompletely,  to  a  fundamentally  different 
principle  of  administration.  The  change  was  threefold.  In 
place  of  the  constantly  changing  service  of  ordinary  citizens, 

1  Memoirs  of  Lord  Melbourne,  by  W.  T.  McCuUagh  Torrens,  1878,  vol.  ii. 
p.  156  ;   The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  p.  750. 


454  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

\  there  is  the  continuous  employment  of  the  same  person,  who 

•  necessarily  developed  a  certain  professional  expertness.  Instead 
of  the  independent  authority  enjoyed  by  the  unpaid  citizen  who 
was  appointed  to  exercise  as  he  thought  best  the  customary  or 
statutory  powers  of  the  Churchwarden,  the  Overseer,  the  Con- 
stable or  the  Surveyor  of  Highways,  or  the  absolute  autonomy  of 
the  holders  of  such  freehold  offices  as  Clerk  of  the  Peace  or 
Coroner,  there  is  the  employment  of  a  salaried  agent  to  carry  out, 
as  he  was  bid,  the  orders  of  the  superior  Authority.     Finally 

'  there  emerges,  at  the  very  end  of  the  period,  in  contradistinction 
to  the  notion  that  any  man  of  honesty  and  zeal  is  equal  to  the 
duties  of  any  office  whatsoever,  the  modern  conception  of 
specialist  qualifications,  without  which  even  the  most  virtuous 
candidate  could  not  be  deemed  fit  for  appointment. 

It  is  needless  to  enumerate  all  the  instances  of  this  change  of 
principle.     One  of  the  earliest  examples  was  the  gradual  and 

\  silent  passing  away  of  the  immemorial  freehold  office  of  Parish 
Clerk.  From  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  onward, 
we  find,  especially  in  the  South  of  England,  vacancies  being  filled, 
,here  and  there,  by  the  appointment  of  a  Vestry  Clerk,  whose 
office  was  regulated  neither  by  custom  nor  by  statute  ;  who  was 
Ipaid  such  salary  as  the  Vestry  chose,  and  who  could  be  required 
[to  act  in  any  way  the  Vestry  desired. ^  An  even  greater  innova- 
tion, and  one  long  characteristic  chiefly  of  Northern  and  IVIidland 
Parishes,  was  the  appointment  of  a  "  standing,"  "  perpetual  "  or 
"  hireling  "  Overseer,  to  whom  a  salary  was  assigned,  and  on 
whom  the  whole  onerous  duty  of  the  Overseer  was  cast,  to  be 
carried  out  under  the  direction  of  the  Churchwardens,  the  Parish 
Committee,  or  the  inhabitants  in  Vestry  Assembled.  In  1819 
ithis  institution  of  a  salaried  Overseer  was  legalised  by  Sturges 
iBourne's  Act,  when  it  was  very  widely  adopted.^  When  the 
Parish  established  a  workhouse,  it  frequently,  as  we  have  seen, 
put  the  management  out  to  contract.  But  otherwise  it  had  to 
appoint  a  paid  "  master  "  or  "  governor  "  of  the  institution, 
frequently  other  servants,  and  occasionally  even  a  surgeon  and 

^  A  humbler  servant  of  the  Vestry,  scarcely  earlier  in  origin  than  the 
Vestry  Clerk,  was  the  Parish  Beadle,  who  could  be  used  for  anj'  service  whatso- 
ever, and  whose  duties  during  the  eighteenth  century  became  steadily  more 
multifarious. 

^  In  some  urban  Parishes  paid  watchmen  supplemented  the  efforts  of  the 
unpaid  Constable,  or  replaced  hira. 


THE  PROFESSIONAL  EXPERT  455 

a  chaplain.  Only  in  a  few  cases  do  we  find  a  salaried  Surveyor 
of  Highways.  But  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
some  of  the  principal  roads  were  coming  to  be  reconstructed  by 
the  promoted  stone  mason,  Telford,  one  of  the  founders  of  the 
Institute  of  Civil  Engineers,  the  premier  professional  organisa- 
'  tion  of  the  most  scientific  of  modern  professions.^  Owing  to  his 
influence  a  clause  was  inserted  in  the  Act  of  1818  (merging  into 
i  one  five  Turnpike  Trusts  concerned  with  a  portion  of  the  Holy- 
>  head  road)  compelling  the  new  body  to  employ  a  professional 
civil  engineer  as  their  surveyor  for  the  whole  of  their  mileage  of 
road.  In  other  parts  of  the  country  the  management  of  the  Turn- 
pike Trusts  came,  more  and  more,  as  we  have  already  described, 
to  be  undertaken  by  Macadam  and  his  son.  "  Gratuitous 
services,"  Macadam  urged,  "  are  ever  temporary  and  local ;  they 
are  dependent  on  the  residence  and  life  of  the  party  ;  and  have 
always  disappointed  expectation.  Skill  and  executive  labour 
must  be  adequately  paid  for,  if  expected  to  be  constantly  and 
usefully  exerted  ;  and,  if  so  exerted,  the  price  is  no  consideration 
when  compared  with  the  advantage  to  the  public."  2  Equally 
scientific  was  Macadam's  organisation  of  his  constantly  increasing 

^  The  professional  organisation  of  the  civil  engineers  began  at  the  end  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  but  did  not  take  shape  until  1818.  In  the  latter  half 
of  the  eighteenth  century  the  land  surveyors  and  master  craftsmen  employed 
by  landed  proprietors,  speculators,  or  Municipal  Corporations  in  the  construc- 
tion of  docks,  harbours,  canals,  bridges,  roads,  land  drainage,  or  embankments, 
began  to  call  themselves  "  civil  engineers."  In  1771  the  most  prominent 
among  those  in  London,  John  Smeaton,  started  a  dining  club  in  order  that 
"  the  sharp  edges  of  their  minds  might  be  rubbed  off  ...  by  a  closer  com- 
munication of  ideas  "  ;  that  they  might  "  promote  the  true  end  of  the  public 
business  upon  which  they  should  happen  to  meet  in  the  course  of  their  employ- 
ment." It  seems  that  the  main  purpose  of  this  club  was  to  prevent  the  pro- 
moters and  lawyers,  in  passing  private  Bills  through  Committees  of  Lords  and 
Commons,  from  using  one  expert  engineer  to  contradict  the  facts  and  theories 
of  another.  The  civil  engmeers  desired,  in  fact,  to  form  a  profession,  having 
its  own  technique,  its  own  code  of  manners  and  its  own  solidarity  against 
other  professions  and  the  pubUc.  In  1818  a  more  business-like  organisation 
was  called  for  ;  and  six  young  engineers  established  a  society  "  for  promoting 
regular  intercourse  between  persons  engaged  in  the  profession,  to  the  end  that 
such  persons  might  mutually  benefit  by  the  interchange  of  individual  observa- 
tion and  experience."  This  society  was,  in  1828,  by  the  potent  aid  of  the  great 
road-maker  and  bridge-builder,  Thomas  Telford,  incorporated  as  the  Institu- 
tion of  Civil  Engineers — the  type  of  professional  organisation  which  has  not 
only  spread  in  this  country  to  other  brainworkers,  but  has  also  been  adopted 
by  the  engineering  profession  in  the  United  States  of  America  and  on  the 
Continent.  See  The  New  Statesman,  Supplement  on  Professional  Associations, 
by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  21st  April  1917. 

2  The  Story  0/  the  King's  HigMvay,  p.  173. 


456  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

staff  of  subordinate  road  engineers,  representing  the  coming  in  of 
the  definite  professional  qualifications.  The  same  tendency  is  to 
be  seen  in  the  whole  experience  of  the  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners, For  the  new  duties  and  new  services,  in  so  far  as  these 
were  not  put  out  to  contract,  salaried  ofiicers  were  employed. 
These  gradually  became  professionally  expert  gas  engineers  or 
gas  managers,  police  superintendents,  managers  of  markets, 
harbourmasters,  or  what  we  now  call  Municipal  Surveyors 
or  Municipal  Engineers.  And  although  the  County  Justices 
continued,  right  down  to  our  own  day,  to  be  advised  by  such 
independent  freeholders  as  the  Clerk  of  the  Peace  and  the  Coroner, 
in  one  County  after  another  they  appointed  salaried  officers  to 
manage  the  repairs  and  rebuilding  of  the  bridges  (for  which  the 
Shropshire  Justices  were  wise  enough  to  engage  Telford),  and, 
eventually,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  even  salaried  governors 
/of  the  new  prisons  in  substitution  for  the  old-time  gaoler  who 
I  lived  by  his  fees  and  other  exactions.  Not  the  least  important 
of  these  substitutions,  though  one  long  confined  to  the  Metropolis 
and  only  extended  to  a  few  provincial  towns,  was  that  of  stipend- 
j  iary  magistrates  for  the  unpaid  Justices,  who  had  too  often 
I  proved  themselves  to  be  "  Trading  Justices,"  These  Metro- 
politan stipendiaries,  at  first  secretly  developing  from  what  we 
have  called  the  Court  Justice,  and  statutorily  authorised  only  in 
1792,  were,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  always  appointed  from  the 
Bar,  and  were  thus  always  professionally  qualified  for  the  office.^ 

^  It  is  interesting  to  find  the  notorious  younger  Mainwaring  in  1821,  a  few 
months  before  his  discreditable  career  as  unpaid  Justice  of  the  Peace  and 
Treasurer  of  the  County  of  Middlesex  was  brought  to  an  end,  unctuously 
expounding  the  superiority  of  the  "  Great  Unpaid,"  "  a  national,  independent, 
gratuitous  magistracy,  giving  their  time,  their  learning,  and  their  efforts,  to 
the  preservation  of  the  peace  and  good  order  of  society,  and  the  due  administra- 
tion of  the  laws  throughout  the  countrj'  reconciles  all  even  to  their  severest 
exercise,  inasmuch  as  it  proves  that  general  good,  and  no  sinister  motive  or 
interest,  can  actuate  those  who  so  engage  in  the  public  service.  .  .  .  Can  such 
a  feeling  prevail  with  respect  to  a  stipendiary  body  ?  .  .  .  Will  not  the  feeling 
be  .  .  .  that  the  members  of  such  a  body  are  the  servants  of  the  Government, 
instead  of  the  independent  guardians  of  the  public  interest  ?  "  For  these 
reasons  this  bankrupt  peculator  supplicates,  from  tlie  King,  "  the  gracious  boon 
of  an  independent  magistracy  for  the  Metropolis  "  {Observations  on  the  Police 
of  the  Metropolis,  by  G.  B.  Mainwaring,  1821,  pp.  128-129,  133  ;  Tlic  Parish  and 
the  County,  pp.  5G5,  579-580). 

"  '  To  lay  down  the  principle  that  men  are  to  serve  for  nothing,'  said 
Cobbett,  in  criticising  the  system  of  unpaid  magistrates,  '  puts  me  in  mind  of 
the  servant  who  went  on  hire,  who,  being  asked  what  wages  he  demanded,  said 
ho  wanted  no  wages  :  for  that  he  always  found  about  the  house  little  things  to 
pick  up'  "  {The  Village  Labourer,  by  J.  L.  and  B.  Hammond,  1911). 


INNOVATING  STATUTES  457 

Finally,  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act  of  1831  and  the  Mvmicipal 
Corporations  Act  of  1835  definitely  adopted  the  principle  of  the 
execution  of  the  work  of  Local  Government  by  salaried  officers, 
'appointed  by  the  Local  Authority,  subject  to  its  orders,  and 
holding  office  only  at  its  will.  What  was  absolutely  unknown  as 
an  instrument  of  Local  Government  in  the  seventeenth  century — • 
a  hierarchical  bureaucracy  working  under  a  body  of  elected 
representatives — became,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  not  only  the 
successor  of  the  holders  of  freehold  offices  and  the  unpaid, 
compulsorily  serving  citizens,  but  also,  in  one  service  after 
another,  a  practicable  alternative  to  the  profit-making  contractor 
or  capitalist  entrepreneur.^ 


The  Innovations  of  Statute  Law 

It  is  difficult  to  realise,  in  the  twentieth  century,  how  dominant 
in  the  whole  range  of  Local  Government  was  still,  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  the  Local  Custom  and  the  Common  Law,  At 
the  beginning  of  that  century  no  less  an  authority  than  Chief 
Justice  Coke  could  be  quoted  in  support  of  the  inviolable  suprem- 
acy of  the  Common  Law,  and  in  depreciation  of  the  innovating 
statutes  by  which  Parliament  was  beginning  spasmodically  to 
interfere  with  it.'-^    A  couple  of  centuries  later,  Toulmin  Smith 

^  It  was  this  introduction  of  the  salaried  oflacial  as  the  alternative  to  the 
unpaid,  compulsorily  serving  citizen,  taking  his  turn  in  public  office,  that 
Toulmin  Smith  denounced  as  "  one  of  the  most  alarming  symptoms  of  the 
successful  attempts  that  have,  of  late  years,  been  made — imder  cover,  at  the 
best,  of  a  pedantic  doctrinairism — to  overlay  the  free  Institutions  of  England, 
their  working  and  their  spirit  alike,  by  the  system  of  Bureaucracy  and  Func- 
tionarism  "  [The  Parish,  its  Powers  and  Obligations  at  Law,  1857,  by  Toulmin 
Smith,  p.  211).  Here  as  elsewhere  with  him  the  old  principle  was  the  alterna- 
tive to  the  new.  "  The  best  of  all  practical  education — namely,  the  taking 
actual  part  in  the  working  of  institutions — mil  be  shared  equally  among  all 
men,  and  be  thus  felt  as  a  burthen  by  none.  .  .  .  One  day  a  year  would  certainly 
be  more  than  the  average  call  on  the  time  of  each  man.  .  .  .  Empirical 
remedies,  and  cant  cries  of  Law  Reform,  will  never  do  anything  but  help  the 
growth  of  Fimctionarism  "  {ibid.  pp.  220-221). 

-  "  It  is  not  almost  credible  to  foresee,  when  any  maxim  or  fundamental  law 
of  this  realm  is  altered,  what  dangerous  inconveniencies  do  follow.  .  .  .  New 
things  which  have  fair  pretences  are  most  commonly  hurtful  to  the  Common- 
wealth ;  for  commonly  they  tend  to  the  hurt  and  oppression  of  the  subject, 
and  not  to  that  glorious  end  that  at  first  was  pretended  "  (Coke,  4  Inst.  41). 
Throughout  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  there  was  a  continuous 
controversy  in  the  law  books  concerning  the  relative  supremacy  of  Parliament 
on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  the  "  fundamental  law  of  the  land  "  as 
handed  down  in  the  Common  Law.     Toulmin  Smith,  the  nineteenth -century 


458  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

passionately  clung  to  the  idea  that  English  "  Local  Self -Govern- 
ment," a  glorious  heritage  from  "  time  out  of  mind,"  was 
independent  of  Parliament,  inviolable  by  innovating  statutes, 
and  inherently  superior  in  moral,  if  not  also  in  legal  authority,  to 
ParUament  itself. ^  Prior  to  1689,  indeed,  the  innovations  of 
Parliament  in  Local  Government  had  been  few  and  far  between, 
and  more  by  way  of  prescribing  new  functions  than  in  materially 
altering  either  the  constitution  of  Manor  or  Parish,  Borough  or 
County,  or  their  ancient  authority.  But  at  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  and  throughout  the  eighteenth  century  we  find,  as 
we  have  described,  ever-increasing  crowds  of  innovating  statutes. 
To  the  hundreds  of  brand-new  Local  Authorities  that  they  set  up, 
we  have  had  to  devote  a  whole  volume.  As  the  century  wore  to 
its  close.  Act  after  Act,  of  a  character  once  unusual,  imposed 
general  rules  and  wide-reaching  prohibitions  upon  all  the 
Parishes  in  respect  of  their  relief  of  the  poor,  upon  all  the  Turn- 
pike Trusts  in  their  maintenance  of  the  roads,  upon  all  the  Courts 
of  Quarter  Sessions  in  their  upkeep  of  the  bridges  and  their 
management  of  the  Houses  of  Correction  and  County  gaols. 

protagonist  of  the  Common  Law,  quotes  the  following  dictum  in  a  legal  treatise 
of  1771 :  "  '  Our  Legislative  Authority  is,  by  its  own  nature,  confined  to  act 
within  the  line  of  the  Constitution  and  not  break  through  it ;  because  the  House 
of  Commons  is  only  vested  with  a  trust  by  the  people,  to  the  end  they  may 
protect  and  defend  them  in  their  rights  and  privileges.  And  therefore  it  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms  to  say  they  have  a  right  to  consent  to  a  law  that  may 
restrain  or  destroy  them.  I  think  it  is  as  plain  as  any  proposition  in  Euclid, 
that  the  House  of  Commons  could  not  consent  to  such  a  law,  without  a  notori- 
ous violation  of  the  trust  reposed  in  them'"  {An  Historical  Essay  on  the 
English  Constitution,  1771,  pp.  141,  146  ;  quoted  in  Government  by  Commissions 
Illegal  and  Periiicious  .  .  .  and  the  Bights,  Duties  and  Importance  of  Local 
Self -Government,  by  J.  Toulmin  Smith,  1849,  p.  44).  On  the  other  hand, 
Maitland  quotes  an  uncompromising  assertion  of  the  sovereignty  of  Parlia- 
ment from  an  older  and  weightier  authority  :  "  The  Parliament  abrogateth 
old  laws  ;  maketh  new  ;  giveth  orders  for  things  past  and  for  things  hereafter 
to  be  followed ;  changeth  rights  and  possessions  of  private  men  ;  legitimateth 
bastards  ;  establisheth  forms  of  religion  ;  altereth  weights  and  measures ; 
giveth  forms  of  succession  to  the  Crown.  .  .  .  And  to  be  short,  all  that  ever 
the  people  of  Rome  might  do  either  in  centuriatis  comitiis  or  tributis  the  same 
may  be  done  by  the  Parliament  of  England,  which  representcth  and  hath  the 
power  of  the  whole  realm,  botli  the  head  and  body.  For  everj'  Englishman  is 
intended  to  be  there  present,  either  in  person  or  by  procuration  and  attorneys, 
of  what  pre-eminence,  state,  dignity  or  qualitj-  soever  he  be,  from  the  prince, 
be  he  king  or  queen,  to  the  lowest  person  of  England.  And  the  consent  of  the 
Parliament  is  taken  to  bo  every  man's  consent '  "  (Sir  Thomas  Smith,  De 
Repjtblica  Anglorum,  ed.  L.  Alston,  1906,  Bk.  II.  c.  1  ;  quoted  in  The  Con- 
stitutional History  of  England,  by  F.  W.  Maitland,  1919,  p.  255). 

'  See,  for  instance,  Local  Self -Government  and  Centralisation,  by  J.  Toulmin 
Smith.  1851,  p.  23. 


SPECIALISED  CENTRAL  DEPARTMENTS  459 

But  it  was  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  particularly  in  itst 
second,  third  and  fourth  decades,  that  this  tendency  for  Parlia-i 
ment  to  prescribe,  by  statute,  general  rules  in  supersession  of* 
Local  Custom  and  the  Common  Law  for  all  the  Local  Authorities « 
from  one  end  of  England  to  the  other,  became  a  regular  habit.* 
Sir  Samuel  Romilly  induced  the  House  of  Commons  smnmarily 
to  cut  down  the  oppressive  powers  of  all  the  bodies  of  Incor- 
porated Guardians  under  Local  Acts  ;   by  Sturges  Bourne's  Act 
and  Hobhouse's  Act,  all  the  Parishes  were  reformed  ;    nearly 
every  year  saw  a  new  General  Turnpike  Act ;  the  lunatic  asylums, 
the  prisons,  the  roads,  the  relief  of  the  poor,  were  made  the 
subject  of  statutes  which  applied  to  every  Local  Authority  dealing 
with  these  functions  of  Local  Government.     What  had  empiric-* 
ally  become  the  practice  of  the  House  of  Commons  was  raised* 
by  the  Benthamite  philosophy  almost  to  a  dogma.     ParUament* 
became   increasingly   careless   of   local   peculiarities   and   local 
customs,  and  more  and  more  disposed  empirically  to  supersede 
them  by  a  national  uniformity  based  on  the  current  social  philo- 
sophy.    To  those  who  were  directly  or  indirectly  inspired  by 
Bentham  and  James  Mill,  this  national  uniformity  in  what  was 
judged  rationally  to  be  the  utilitarian  course  seemed,  in  the  new 
statecraft,  merely  obvious  wisdom.     Thus,  the  way  was  open  for 
the  Reformed  Parliament  in  a  couple  of  sessions  to  smooth  out 
of  existence,  by  two  all-embracing  statutes,  the  infinite  variety  of 
Local  Customs  and  particular  Charters  or   Byelaws  that  had 
continued  to  characterise  the  Municipal  Corporation,  and  all 
the  casual  habits  and  peculiarities  which  had  marked  the  separate 
administration,  by  more  than  a  hundred  incorporated  bodies  of 
Guardians  and  over  ten  thousand  autonomous  Parishes  and 
Townships,  of  the  Elizabethan  Poor  Law. 

The  Rise  of  Specialised  Central  Departments 

The  gradual  development  of  general  statute  law,  introducing 
a  measure  of  uniformity  in  the  several  branches  of  Local  Govern- 
ment, was  accompanied  by  a  still  more  gradual  and  tentative 
development  of  the  authority  of  the  National  Executive,  with 
regard  to  one  function  after  another  ;  taking  eventually  the  form 
of  the  estabhshment  of  specialised  Government  Departments  of 
supervision  and  control. 


46o  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

We  may  begin  with  the  service  of  the  prevention  and  punish- 
ment of  crime  and  disorder,  in  which  the  intervention  of  the 
Government  long  manifested  itself,  not  so  much  in  a  regulation 
and  control  of  Local  Authorities,  as  in  a  direct  utilisation  of 
the  Lord- Lieutenant  and  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  as  agents 
of  a  centralised  National  Executive.  During  the  whole  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  down  to  the  French  Revolution  at  any  rate, 
this  intervention  came  to  little  more  than  the  issue  of  periodical 
proclamations,  sometimes  merely  on  the  accession  of  a  new 
sovereign,  sometimes  on  the  occurrence  of  some  riot  or  tumult, 
commanding  "  all  our  Judges,  Mayors,  Sheriffs,  Justices  of  the 
Peace,  and  all  other  of  our  officers  and  ministers,  both  ecclesi- 
astical and  civil,  to  be  very  vigilant  and  strict  in  the  discovery 
and  effectual  prosecution  and  punishment  of  all  offenders." 
But  although  these  proclamations  were  solemnly  read  at  the 
Assizes,  circulated  to  the  Lord-Lieutenants  and  printed  in  the 
London  Gazette,  no  one,  in  ordinary  times,  took  much  notice  of 
them,  and  no  attempt  was  made  by  the  Government,  either  by 
calling  for  specific  reports  or  by  further  investigation,  to  make  the 
solemn  formality  effective.  Nor  were  the  other  Privy  Council 
proclamations  of  the  eighteenth  century  of  much  more  interest 
to  the  student  of  Local  Government.  From  time  to  time  some 
particularly  heinous  murder  or  street  robbery,  some  exceptional 
deer  stealing  or  forest  depredations,  would  provoke  a  verbose 
proclamation,  of  which  the  only  operative  part  would  be  the  offer 
of  a  large  reward,  often  £100,  for  the  discovery  and  conviction 
of  the  culprits.! 
'»       After  the  outbreak  of  the  French  Revolution — still  more  after 

•  the  Peace  of  1815 — the  attitude  of  the  National  Executive 
changes.  There  is  no  more  effective  action  than  before  against 
mere  licentiousness  or  ordinary  crime.     But,  at  any  rate  from 

•1815  onward,  the  Ministers  strove  with  might  and  main  to  put 
•down  the  popular  tumults  and  mob  disorders,  which,  with  some 

•  justification,  they  now  associated  with  incipient  rebeUion.     This 
/"methodical  repression  is  revealed  in  the  reports  and  doings  of 

^  See,  for  instance,  the  proclamations  against  street  robberies  and  murders 
of  21st  January  1720,  29th  February  1727,  9th  July  1735,  7th  November  1744, 
11th  January  1749  and  20th  December  17r)0  ;  those  of  2nd  February  and  8th 
October  1723  against  deer  stealers  ;  and  that  of  12th  June  1728  against  the 
"  great  destruction  ...  in  the  Forest  of  Nccdwood  "  (MS.  Acts  of  Privy 
Council,  George  I.  and  George  II.). 


THE  NATIONAL  EXECUTIVE  461 

the  Government  spies  and  informers,  which  so  much  impressed 
the  members  of  the  Privy  Council  and  of  the  various  Secret 
Committees  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament ;    in  the  constant 
instructions  which  were  given  to  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  acting 
in  the  disturbed  districts,  and  in  the  activities  of  the  "  Bow 
Street  runners,"  in  co-operation  with  such  willing  agents  as 
Nadin,  the  permanent  police  officer  of  the  Boroughreeve  and 
Constables  of  Manchester.     Even  more  repressive  and  alarming* 
to  the  ordinary  citizen  was  the  readiness  with  which,  in  1795-  • 
1800,  in  1811-1812,  between  1816  and  1819,  and  in  the  rural 
counties  of  the  South  of  England  in  1830-1831,  the  Government* 
made  use  of  the  military  forces,  horse,  foot  and  artillery,  in  dis-* 
orders  often  connected  only  with  industrial  disputes,  which,  at» 
the  present  day,  would  be  quite  successfully  dealt  with  by  the 
constabulary  of  the  Local  Authorities.^ 

Out  of  this  spasmodic  and  so  to  speak  revolutionary  extension 
into  the  provinces  of  the  authority  of  the  National  Executive, 
there  developed,  to  some  extent  under  Lord  Sidmouth  between 
1816  and  1822,  and  more  systematically  under  Sir  Robert  Peel 
between  1822  and  1830,  a  more  continuous  supervision  by  the^ 
Home  Office  than  had  ever  before  been  customary,  of  the  County  • 
Justices   and  the  Corporate  magistracies  in   their  capacity  of« 
Police  and  Prison  Authorities.     The  Home  Office  in  1815  got* 
passed  an  Act  requiring  all  Prison  Authorities  to  furnish  statistical 
reports  of  their  gaols  and  Houses  of  Correction  ;  and  on  the  basis 
of  these  reports,  supported  by  the  recommendations  of  House  of 
Commons  Committees  of  1820  and  1822,  Peel  was  able  to  induce 
Parliament  to  enact  the  Prisons  Act  of  1823,  "  the  first  measure  t 
of  general  prison  reform  to  be  framed  and  enacted  on  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  National  Executive."  ^     This  Act,  besides 
consolidating  the  whole  statute  law  relating  to  prisons,  for  the 
first  time  made  it  the  duty  of  the  Local  Authorities  for  prisons 
to  organise  their  administration  uniformly  upon  a  prescribed 
plan,  which  became  a  statutory  obhgation  ;  and  peremptorily 
required  these  Local  Authorities  to  furnish  quarterly  to  the^^ 

^  See  for  all  this,  the  Home  Office  archives,  1795-1832,  now  accessible  in 
the  Public  Record  Office  ;  and  the  able  and  interesting  books  of  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Hammond  {The  Village  Labourer,  1760-1S32  ;  The  Town  Labourer,  1760-1832  ; 
and  The  Skilled  Labourer,  1780-1832). 

^  4  George  IV.  c.  64 ;  English  Prisons  under  Local  Government,  1922 
p.  73. 


462  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

Home  Secretary  detailed  reports  of  every  branch  of  their  prison 
administration.  This  Act,  applying  to  all  the  Courts  of  Quarter 
Sessions  of  the  Counties,  to  the  Cities  of  London  and  Westminster, 
and  to  seventeen  of  the  principal  Municipal  Corporations,  was 
the  first  that  dictated  to  Local  Authorities  the  detailed  plan  on 
which  they  were  to  exercise  a  branch  of  their  own  local  adminis- 
tration ;  the  first  that  made  it  obhgatory  on  them  to  report, 
quarter  by  quarter,  how  their  administration  was  actually  being 
conducted ;  and  the  first  that  definitely  asserted  the  duty  of  a 
Central  Department  to  maintain  a  continuous  supervision  of  the 
action  of  the  Local  Authorities  in  their  current  administration. 

•  In  1835  a  second  great  Prisons  Act,  passed  on  the  reports  which 
the  Home  Office  got  adopted  by  an  exceptionally  authoritative 
Select  Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords,^  prescribed  a  still 
"  greater  uniformity  of  practice  in  the  government "  of  all  the 
prisons  in  England  and  Wales  ;  authorised  the  Home  Secretary 
to  make  binding  regulations  from  time  to  time  on  all  the  details 
of  administration,  and  subjected  all  the  Local  Authorities,  for 

•the  first  time,  to  constant  inspection  of  their  work  in  this  branch 

•  of  Local  Government,  by  a  staff  of  salaried  professional  experts, 
by  whose  outspoken  critical  reports,  regularly  submitted  to 
Parliament  and  thereby  published  to  the  world,  both  the  National 
Government  and  public  opinion  were  kept  informed  of  every 
seeming  imperfection. 

In  another  service  of  the  Local  Authorities,  that  of  the  main- 
tenance of  the  highways,  the  new  intervention  of  the  National 
Executive  was  almost  entirely  concentrated  within  the  second 
and  third  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  ;  and  a  sudden 
change  of  circumstances  prevented  the  development  of  a  special- 
ised Government  Department.  We  have  told  elsewhere  how, 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  Post  Office 
became  greatly  troubled  at  the  bad  state  of  the  Holyhead  road  ; 
how  in  1815  the  Treasury  summoned  up  courage  to  ask  the 
House  of  Commons  to  vote  £20,000  for  the  improvement  of  this 
main  artery  of  communication  with  Ireland  ;  how  the  work  was 
undertaken  by  a  new  body  of  ten  Commissioners,  three  of  whom 

*  See  the  voluminous  five  successive  reports  of  the  House  of  Lords  Com- 
mittee on  the  State  of  the  Gaols  and  Houses  of  Correction,  1835  ;  the  Act 
2  &  3  William  IV.  c.  38  ;  and  our  English  Prisons  under  Local  Oovernment, 
1922,  pp.  111-112. 


GOVERNMENT  INTERVENTION  463 

were  Ministers  of  the  Crown  ;  and  how,  in  the  course  of  the 
next  fifteen  years,  these  Commissioners  of  the  Holyhead  Road, 
virtually  a  central  Government  Department,  spent  three-quarters 
of  a  million  pounds,  without  actually  superseding  the  Turnpike 
Trusts,  in  order  to  enable  Telford  to  construct  what  was  deemed 
in  1830  the  "  most  perfect  roadmaking  that  has  ever  been 
attempted  in  any  country."  Meanwhile,  what  was,  in  effect, 
another  central  Government  Department,  although  based  on  an 
unpaid  advisory  board,  began  to  press  the  Local  Authorities  to 
improve  their  roads.  The  Board  of  Agriculture,  under  Sir  John  » 
Sinclair,  from  1810  onward  brought  forward  J.  L.  Macadam,  with  I 
his  plan  for  constructing  a  road  surface  both  better  and  cheaper* 
than  any  previously  in  use.  For  a  couple  of  decades  we  watch 
the  influence  of  the  Government,  and  the  diligence  of  Macadam 
effecting,  through  the  Turnpike  Trustees,  an  almost  continuous 
and  almost  universal  improvement  in  the  roads— until  in  1829, 
the  amazing  success  of  Stephenson's  locomotive  engine  turned 
everybody's  attention  to  the  coming  railways  ;  and  the  National 
Executive  ceased,  with  dramatic  suddenness,  to  trouble  itself 
about  a  service  seemingly  doomed  to  rapid  obsolescence. 

A  greater  measure  of  permanence  was  gained  by  the  inter- 
vention of  the  National  Executive  in  another  branch  of  Local 
Government,  that  which  was  then  thought  of  as  the  Suppression 
of  Nuisances  and  is  now  styled  Public  Health.     Here  it  was  the 
Privy  Council  that  suddenly  brought  its  influence  to  bear  on 
the  Local  Authorities.     In  the  spring  of  1831  England  began  to 
be  alarmed  by  reports  that  a  new  and  frightful  epidemic  disease, 
afterwards  known  as  Asiatic  Cholera,  was  advancing  steadily 
westwards  through  Europe.     The  Privy  Council,  after  sending 
two  doctors  to  St.  Petersburg  to  report  on  the  disease,  not  only 
put  in  force  all  the  precautionary  measures  of  quarantine,  which 
had  been  used  against  the  Levantine  plague,  but  also,  following 
precedents  of  1721  and  1805,  established  a  Central  Board  of* 
Health  of  medical  and  other  dignitaries,  which  issued  solemn* 
proclamations  of  advice  to  all  and  sundry  how  to  keep  them-* 
selves  from  disease.     But  the  Asiatic  Cholera  paid  no  attention* 
to  the  futilities  of  the  Central  Board  of  Health  ;    and  in  the 
autumn  of  1831  it  broke  out  in  Sunderland  and  spread  rapidly, 
during  the  ensuing  twelve  months,  to  nearly  all  parts  of  the 
country.     In  this  emergency  the  central  Board  of  Health  was 


464  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

•reconstituted,  and  by  Orders  in  Council  Local  Boards  of  Health 

•  were  appointed  in  a  large  number  of  towns  and  populous  places, 

on  which  were  placed  the  local  magistrates,  clergy,  doctors  and 

other   "  principal  inhabitants "  ;   and  which  were  charged  to 

•suppress  nuisances,  and  to  take  any  elementary  measures  of 

•public  sanitation  that  commended  themselves.     For  all  this  the 

Parish  Officers  were  directed  to  pay,  and  the  Parish  Vestry  was 

asked  to  provide  for  by  rate.     When  some  of  them  demurred, 

an  Act  of  Parliament  was  hastily  passed  in  1832  making  this 

financial  provision  obligatory  on  all  the  Parishes  for  which  Local 

Boards  of  Health  had  been  set  up. 

These  Local  Boards  of  Health,  which  were  eventually  estab- 
lished in  nearly  all  towns  and  populous  districts  of  any  magni- 
tude, are  interesting  to  the  student  of  Local  Government  as 
affording  a  simple  instance  of  an  ad  hoc  body ;  estabhshed 
wherever  desired,  independently  of  Municipal  Corporation  or 
Parish  Vestry  ;  nominally  by  appointment  from  above,  but 
practically  by  the  self-election  of  some  zealous  citizens  who 
volunteered  their  services  at  a  public  meeting  or  otherwise,  and 
the  co-option  of  others  ;  and  making  what  was  virtually  a  pre- 
cept on  the  Parish  Overseers  for  the  amomit  of  their  expenditure. 
"•These  Local  Boards  of  Health  all  came  to  an  end  when  the 
•cholera  died  away,  not  to  be  revived  again  until  there  was  a 
•renewed  alarm  in  1848.  What  is  more  significant  is  the  fact 
that  the  central  Government  Department  concerned,  in  this  case 
the  Privy  Council,  continued  its  interest  in  the  health  work  of 
the  Local  Authorities,  and  thus  established  a  claim  to  be  the 
Central  Health  Authority,  which — temporarily  entrusted  to  its 
creature,  the  much-resented  Central  Board  of  Health  in  1848- 
1854 — issued  in  1871  in  the  Local  Government  Board,  to  be 
still  further  specialised  in  1919  (at  least  in  name)  by  its  con- 
version into  the  Ministry  of  Health.^ 

For  the  rest  of  the  services  specially  characteristic  of  town 
government — in  1835  mostly  in  the  hands  of  Improvement 
Commissioners — no  specialised  Government  Department  was  set 
up.  By  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  1835,  it  was  intended 
and  hoped  that  these  bodies  would  be  led  voluntarily  to  merge 
themselves  and  their  services  in  the  reformed  Municipal  Corpora- 

1  Bentham  deserves  credit  for  his  sketch  of  a  Ministry  of  Health  a  century 
before  such  a  Ministry  was  established ;  see  Work?,  vol.  ix.  p.  443. 


CENTRAL  CONTROL  465 

tions  ;  and  ttis  in  fact  occurred,  though  not  without  much  further  « 
legislation  ;  and  it  took  another  half  century  for  all  these  separate* 
Commissions  to  be  absorbed.    But  not  even  Lord  Melbourne  dared  • 
to  subject  the  reformed  Municipal  Corporations  in  all  their  work 
to  the  same  systematic  inspection  and  control  as  he  was  able 
to  enact,  for  them  as  well  as  for  the  County  Justices,  in  respect 
of  their  administration  of  prisons.     The  only  approach  to  central 
control  in  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835,  is  the  section 
making  it  necessary  for  a  Corporation  desiring  to  alienate  any 
of  the  Corporate  real  estate  first  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the 
Lords  Commissioners  of  the  Treasury — a  control  transferred  in 
1871  to  the  Local  Government  Board. 

A  more  significant  example  of  Benthamite  centralisation 
was  the  establishment,  by  two  Acts  of  1836,  of  the  Registrar- 
General,  who  was  placed  in  control  of  the  new  machinery  for 
the  official  registration  of  births,  deaths  and  marriages  through- 
out the  whole  of  England  and  Wales. 

The  most  impressive  instance  of  the  development  of  the 
influence  and  authority  of  Parliament  and  the  National  Execu- 
tive into  the  establishment  of  a  speciaHsed  Government  Depart- 
ment is  afforded  by  the  history  of  poor  relief.  Throughout  the 
eighteenth  century  there  had  been  occasional  statutes  enlarging 
or  amending  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Local  Authorities. 
These  Authorities  had  been  permitted  from  time  to  time  to 
unite  in  larger  areas,  to  erect  and  maintain  workhouses ;  and 
even  to  exercise  great  authority  over  vagrants  and  other  persons 
neglecting  to  earn  their  living.  They  had  been,  by  one  or  other 
Act,  alternately  encouraged  and  restrained,  in  this  direction  or 
that.  They  had,  on  two  occasions,  even  been  statutorily  required 
to  render  statistical  returns  of  their  proceedings,  which  were 
presented  to  Parliament.  But  throughout  the  whole  period, 
their  action  was  regarded  as  of  strictly  local  concern.  What  the 
Parish  Officers  chose  to  do,  the  Parish  Vestry  to  acquiesce  in 
and  the  Local  Justices  of  the  Peace  not  to  prohibit  was  not 
made  the  subject  of  any  official  criticism  from  London.  In  the 
relief  of  the  poor  the  Local  Authorities  were,  right  down  to  1834,  ♦ 
left  unsupervised  and  uncontrolled  by  any  Government  Depart-  % 
ment.  The  innovation  of  1834  was  not  preceded  and  led  up  to  • 
by  any  tentative  interference  of  the  National  Executive.  Save  • 
for  occasional  enquiries  by  Committees  of  the  House  of  Commons, 

2h 


466  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

out  of  whicli  came  such  constitutional  reforms  promoted  by 
private  members  of  Parliament  as  Sturges  Bourne's  Act  and 
Hobhouse's  Act,  there  seem  to  have  been  no  official  preparations 
^   for  the  revolutionary  change  of  1834.     What  brought  it  about 
*was,  of  course,  the  enormous  and  continued  rise  in  the  Poor 
•Rate,  which  went  from  one  million  pounds  in  1700  to  three 
^Billions  in  1800,  to  seven  millions  in  1820,  and  remained  for 
rfffteen  years  near  that  figure.     Coupled  with  this  drain  on  the 
rental  of  the  land  and  buildings,  on  the  ownership  of  which 
the  authority  of  the  governing  class  rested,  was  the  reahsa- 
tion  by  a  large  proportion  of  the  educated  classes  of  the  wide- 
spread demoralisation  that  was  being  caused  by  the  methods  of 
pauperisation  that  were  employed.     The  prevalent  opinion  of 
the  Reform  Parliament  was  in  favour  of  drastic  reform,  and  the 
celebrated  Poor  Law  Commission  was  promptly  appointed.     But 
although  there  had  been  no  official  preparation  for  an  adminis- 
trative   revolution,    the    permeation    of    "  enlightened    public 
opinion  "  by  the  necessary  political  theory  had  been  effective. 
« Nor  was  the  Whig  Ministry  averse.     In  the  all-important  Com- 

•  mission,  the  members,  the  secretary  and  the  Assistant  Com- 
.missioners  were  alike  chosen  from  among  those  who  had  been 

•  influenced  by  the  Benthamite  philosophy.  Their  investigations, 
their  discoveries  and  their  recommendations  were  all  dominated 
by  the  potent  contemporary  doctrines  of  Philosophic  RadicaUsm. 

•  They  were  all  based  on  the  conception  of  local  administration, 
»not  by  compulsorily  serving  amateurs,  but  by  salaried  officials  ; 
«not  as  each  district  might  choose,  but  according  to  a  uniform 
•and  centrally  prescribed  plan  ;   yet  without  complete  autonomy 
-for  the  executive  ofilcers,  who  were  to  be  supervised  by  an 
•elected  body,  representing  the  ratepayers  on  whom  the  cost  was 
•to  fall ;    and  these  local  representative  bodies  were  to  be  con- 
trolled by  a  central  Government  Department  which — continu- 
ously informed  by  a  stafTt  of  salaried,  peripatetic,  expert  inspectors 
— alone  would  be  competent  to  devise  and  enforce  a  policy  that 
would  be  for  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number.     Eagerly 
accepted  by  the  Whig  Ministry  and  the  House  of  Commons, 
this  drastic  reform  of  the  Poor  Law  was  embodied  in  the  Poor 
Law  Amendment  Act  of  1834,  which  established,  in  what  were 
called  "  the  three  Bashaws  of  Somerset  House,"  the  first  Govern- 
ment Department  deliberately  created  exclusively  for  the  pur- 


J 


THE  PROPERTY  QUALIFICATION  467 

pose  of  controlling  and  directing  Local  Authorities  in  the  execu- 
tion of  their  work.  The  reader  will  not  need  to  be  reminded 
how  the  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  denounced  and  derided,  never- 
theless held  their  own,  and  were  continued  in  1848  as  the  Poor 
Law  Board  ;  and  how  in  1871  this  body  was  combined  with  the 
Public  Health  Department  of  the  Privy  Council  and  the  Local 
Act  Branch  of  the  Home  Office  to  become,  in  the  Local  Govern- 
ment Board,  more  explicitly  than  ever,  the  central  Government 
Department  to  the  authority  of  which  all  local  governing  bodies 
were  subjected ;  and  how,  in  1919,  the  Local  Government 
Board,  following  the  tendency  towards  the  specialisation  of 
Government  Departments  according  to  function,  was  united  with 
the  National  Health  Insurance  Commission  to  constitute  the 
Ministry  of  Health. 


The  Property  Qualification 

Of  all  the  old  principles  of  English  Local  Government  that 
we  described  in  the  last  chapter  as  dominant  at  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century  one  only  was  destined  to  survive  the  changes 
of  the  century  and  a  half,  and  even  the  iconoclastic  years, 
1832-1836,  which,  throughout  nearly  the  whole  range  of  Local 
Government,  set  the  seal  on  the  new  principles  by  which  the  old 
ones  were  replaced.  The  fortimate  survivor  was  the  principle — 
in  some  respects  actually  strengthened  by  the  Reformed  Parlia- 
ment— of  the  ownership  of  property,  or  at  any  rate  the  evidence 
of  more  than  average  fortune,  as  a  necessary  qualification  for 
the  exercise  of  governmental  authority. 

The  dominance  of  this  Property  Qualification  is  seen  most 
strikingly  in  the  continued  rule,  in  the  Counties,  of  the  Justices 
of  the  Peace.  Apart  from  Middlesex  and  Surrey,  in  which  the 
unregulated  spread  of  the  MetropoHs  had  led,  as  we  have 
described,  to  the  degradation  of  the  County  Bench,  the  Commis- 
sion of  the  Peace  had  everywhere  remained  restricted,  with  few 
exceptions,  to  the  landowning  class,  to  the  exclusion  of  even 
wealthy  ironmasters  or  merchants  ;  the  squires  being  reinforced 
only  by  the  leading  rectors  or  vicars  of  the  County,  as  owners  of 
freehold  benefices.  In  the  early  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  in  the  struggle  of  the  landed  gentry  to  maintain  a 
position  of  dominance  in  the  nation,  their  class-exclusiveness 


468  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

became  even  more  rigid.^  Moreover,  the  clerical  Justices  of  the 
type  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Zouch,  zealous  for  the  "  reformation  of 
manners  "  of  the  "  lower  orders,"  incurred  widespread  unpopu- 
larity, not  only  among  those  with  whose  pleasures  they  inter- 
fered, but  also  among  the  "friends  of  freedom"  in  all  classes.^ 
Even  in  the  honest  administration  of  their  office,  the  Justices  of 
the   Peace  made  themselves,   throughout  the  whole   country, 

•  thoroughly  disliked.     Their  attempts  to  regulate  and  limit  the 
•number  of  the  inns  and  alehouses  were  objected  to,  both  as 

interfering  with  legitimate  amusement  and  as  violating  the 
natural  right  of  every  man  to  invest  his  capital  in  any  profit- 
making  enterprise  that  he  thought  advantageous  to  liimself .  In 
their  control  of  the  local  administration  of  the  Poor  Law,  the 
Justices  were  objected  to  when  they  sought  to  limit  the  reckless 
generosity  of  the  Vestry  or  the  Overseer  ;  and  equally  when,  in 
the  Allowance  System,  they  strove  to  get  the  relief  made  adequate 
to  the  needs  of  each  family.  When  they  sought  to  obey  the 
injunctions  of  Parliament,  and  to  provide  the  County  with 
decent  prisons  and  lunatic  asylums,  not  to  say  also  to  build  the 
enlarged  bridges  that  the  growing  traffic  on  the  liighroad  required, 
they  w^ere  denounced  by  all  the  ratepayers,  and  by  most  of  the 
Radical  reformers,  for  the  rise  of  the  rates  that  their  "  extrava- 
gance "  necessitated.  But  what  more  than  anything  else  made 
the  authority  of  the  Justices  unpopular  among  the  masses  of  the 

•  people  was   the   arbitrariness   and  severity   with  which  they 

•  habitually  administered  the  Game  Laws,  especially  against  any 

^  Thus,  in  1827,  there  was  a  great  lack  of  magistrates  in  the  mining  districts 
of  Monmouthshire  ;  but  the  Lord  -  Lieutenant  refused  to  recommend,  for 
appointment  to  the  County  Bench,  the  younger  son  of  an  ironmaster  who  had 
become  a  landed  proprietor.  The  heir  apparent,  it  was  explained,  might  be 
recommended,  but  not  a  younger  son,  even  if  he  possessed  the  legal  qualifica- 
tion (Duke  of  Beaufort  to  the  Lord  Chancellor,  16th  November  1827  ;  in  MS. 
Homo  Office  archives  in  Public  Record  Office).  The  scandalous  "  Trading 
Justices,"  never  common,  we  believe,  outside  the  Metropolitan  area,  had,  by 
the  nineteenth  century,  been  eliminated  from  the  County  Benches.  Even  in 
the  Metropolitan  area  the  disreputable  "  Justices  of  mean  degree  "  were  largely 
superseded  in  1792  by  the  establishment  of  "  public  offices  " — now  the  Metro- 
jjolitan  Police  Courts — at  which  twenty-four  salaried  magistrates  performed 
all  the  police  and  judicial  duties  {The  Parish  and  the  County,  pp.  577-578). 

*  "  Most  of  the  magistrates  distinguished  for  over-activity  are  .  .  .  clergy- 
men "  (Hansard,  1828,  vol.  xviii.  N.S.  p.  IGl).  Windham  was  reported  to 
have  said  "  that  he  did  not  luiow  a  more  noxious  species  of  vermin  than  an 
active  Justice  of  the  Peace "  {A  Letter  to  the  Rt.  Hon.  Lord  Brougham  and 
Vaux  on  the  Magistracy  of  England,  1832,  p.  24  ;  The  Parish  and  the  County, 
pp.  358-359). 


II 


THE  JUSTICES'   UNPOPULARITY  469 

labourer  suspected  of  poaching ;  and  the  reckless  selfishness 
with  which,  particularly  in  the  North  of  England  after  1815,  they 
abused  their  legal  powers  of  stopping  up  the  public  footpaths 
that  had  from  time  immemorial  crossed  their  estates.  Mean- 
while the  wild  panic  which  spread  through  the  country  houses  of 
England,  from  the  outbreak  of  the  French  Revolution  onward— 
a  panic  maintained  between  1816  and  1830  by  the  industrial  and 
political  unrest  of  the  suffering  wage-earning  population— led 
to  an  administration  of  the  Vagrancy  Laws  that  can  only  be* 
described  as  scandalously  tyrannous.  Any  Justice  of  the  Peace* 
committed  to  prison  any  man  or  woman  of  the  wage-earning 
class  whom  he  chose  to  suspect  of  being  of  a  seditious  or  even  of 
a  disturbing  character.  To  the  perpetual  denunciations  of  the 
County  Justices  by  the  Philosophic  Radicals  and  the  rural  rate- 
payers, there  was  thus  added  a  furious  underground  hatred  of 
these  oppressors  by  the  mass  of  factory  operatives  and  farm 
labourers.! 

Notwithstanding  this  widespread  impopularity  of  the  Justices  ; 
notwithstanding  the  violation  of  all  the  cherished  principles  of 
Radicalism  in  the  government  and  taxation  of  the  County  by 
the  unrepresentative  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  ;  notwithstanding 
the  very  real  shortcomings  and  limitations  of  these  Rulers  of  the 
County,  nothing  was  done  to  amend  the  constitution  of  the 
County  Bench,  and  there  was  practically  no  proposal  even  for  a 
removal  of  the  Property  Qualification.^  What  happened  was 
the  beginning  of  a  process  of  erosion  of  the  Justices'  powers  and 
functions,  particularly  as  exercised  by  any  single  Justice,  or  pair 

^  We  believe  that  the  state  of  feeling  of  the  nation  is  accurately  represented 
by  the  works  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hammond  (The  Village  Labourer,  The  Town 
Labourer  and  The  Skilled  Labourer). 

2  By  the  Acts  13  Richard  II.  c.  7  and  2  Henry  V.  stat.  2,  c.  1,  Justices  had  to 
be  made,  within  the  County,  of  the  most  sufficient  knights,  esquires  and  gentle- 
men of  the  land.  The  qualification  (for  other  than  judges,  peers  and  their 
heirs-apparent,  or  the  heirs-apparent  of  landowners  of  at  least  £600  a  year)  was, 
by  5  George  II.  c.  18  and  18  George  II.  c.  20,  fixed  at  the  ownership  of  real 
estate  producing  at  least  £100  a  year.  Not  until  1875  was  the  alternative 
qualification  introduced  of  occupation  within  the  County,  for  the  preceding 
two  years,  of  a  dweUing-house  rated  at  not  less  than  £100  a  year.  County  Court 
Judges,  Metropolitan  Police  Magistrates  and  Vice -Wardens  of  the  Stannaries 
in  Devon  and  Cornwall  being  exempt  (38  &  39  Vict.  c.  54).  This  was 
removed  by  statute  in  1901,  when  the  qualification  for  a  County  Justice  was 
made  the  same  as  that  for  a  Borough  Justice,  namely  the  mere  occupation  of 
any  rated  premises,  coupled  with  residence  in  or  within  seven  miles ;  whilst 
all  qualification  except  that  of  residence  was  removed  in  1906  (6  Edward  VII. 
c.  16).  j 


470  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

of  Justices.  They  were  practically  ousted  in  the  decade  following 
the  Act  of  1834  from  the  Poor  Law  administration  ;  by  the 
General  Highways  Act  of  1835  they  lost  the  right  of  formally 
appointing  the  Surveyor  of  Highways  and  their  practical  power 
of  directing  the  highway  administration  ;  they  found  themselves 
virtually  excluded  from  the  growing  territory  placed  under  the 
reformed  Municipal  Corporations,  whilst,  so  far  as  civil  adminis- 
tration was  concerned,  the  Parishes  in  which  Vestries  were 
established  under  Hobhouse's  Act  were  entirely  abstracted  from 
their  control.  The  Prisons  Act  of  1835  made  the  magistrates 
definitely  subordinate  to  the  Home  Office  and  its  outspoken 
peripatetic  inspectors.  The  Acts  of  1836  and  1837  instituting 
a  centralised  system  of  registration  of  births,  deaths  and 
marriages,  entirely  ignored  the  Justices.  With  regard  to  their 
judicial  functions,  even  within  the  territory  left  to  them,  their 
powers  were  successively  restricted  by  the  increasing  transfer 
of  their  authority  from  the  "  justice  rooms "  of  their  own 
mansions  to  the  formal  sittings  of  Petty  Sessions  "  in  open 
Court,"  and  by  the  greater  opportunities  of  appeal  to  Quarter 
Sessions.!  Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  this  steady  erosion  of  the 
structure  of  the  Justices'  power,  it  was  still  possible  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  for  Rudolf  von  Gneist,  in 
the  successive  editions  of  his  account  of  English  Local  Govern- 
ment,2  to  regard  the  whole  class  of  country  gentlemen,  protected 
in  their  exclusive  occupancy  of  the  County  Benches  by  the  high 
property  qualification,  as  the  effective  rulers  of  rural  England. 

In  the  other  Local  Authorities  the  prescribed  qualification  for 
office  underwent,  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a 
gradual  change,  which  became  generalised  during  the  first  third 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  This  change,  whilst  it  significantly 
transformed  the  character  of  what  we  have  called  the  Property 
Qualification,  left  it  nevertheless  effective  as  an  instrument  for 
the  retention  of  authority  by  the  relatively  small  minority  of  the 

^  This  is  not  the  place  in  which  to  describe  the  successive  limitations  of  the 
Justices'  functions  during  the  remainder  of  the  nineteenth  century,  culminating 
♦  in  1888  in  their  practical  supersession  as  administrators  by  the  elective  County 
•Councils.  What  is  here  significant  is  that  it  was  not  until  the  twentieth 
♦century  that  the  restrictive  qualification  for  appointment  to  the  Commission 
•of  the  Peace  was  quite  removed. 

*  Adel  und  Riiterschafl  in  Englmid,  1853  ;  Geschichte  und  heulige  Gestall 
der  Acmter  in  ErtgJand,  1857  ;  Die  englische  Communal-verjassung,  oder  daa 
System  des  SelJ-Govemvievt,  18G0,  1863,  1871. 


THE  RATING  QUALIFICATION  471 

population  who  constituted  the  propertied  class.  The  first  step 
was  to  admit,  as  an  alternative  qualification  for  certain  offices, 
the  ownership  of  a  substantial  amount  not  of  property  in  land 
only,  but  of  wealth  of  any  kind.  Alongside  of  this  qualification 
by  ownership  of  personal  property  was  presently  admitted,  for 
some,  and  eventually  for  most  offices,  a  qualification  by  mere 
occupancy,  for  a  specified  term,  of  a  dwelling-house  or  other 
premises  of  a  rateable  value  fijced  at  a  figure  so  high  as  to  exclude 
the  vast  majority  of  the  inhabitants. 

This  introduction  of  a  high  rating  quahfication,  or,  indeed, 
any  quahfication  at  all  beyond  local  inhabitancy,  into  the  Local 
Government  of  the  Parish  was  an  innovation  on  behalf  of  the 
propertied  class.  No  law  had  ever  excluded  any  adult  inhabitant 
from  the  Vestry  meeting ;  and  if,  in  all  Parishes,  the  women 
abstained  from  attendance,  and,  in  the  rural  Parishes,  few  if  any 
labourers  presumed  to  put  in  an  appearance,  this  was  merely  a 
matter  of  use  and  wont.  The  open  Vestry  meetings  of  Man- 
chester and  Leeds,  Liverpool  and  Woolwich,  which  themselves 
decided  the  important  issues  of  Parish  administration,  were 
attended  by  all  classes  of  the  inhabitants,  rich  or  poor,  and  were 
even  frequently  dominated  by  "  the  rabble."  Moreover,  until 
the  passing  of  Sturges  Bourne's  Act  in  1819,  each  person  in 
attendance,  or  voting  in  the  poll  taken  as  an  adjournment  of 
the  Vestry  meeting,  had  one  vote,  and  one  vote  only.  Similarly, 
no  law  had  prescribed  any  quahfication  (apart  from  special 
exemptions  which  were  privileges),  beyond  that  of  residency,  for 
the  ancient  office  of  Churchwarden,  for  which  persons  of  the 
smallest  fortune  and  of  the  humblest  station,  even  Roman 
Catholics  or  Dissenters,  were  both  eligible  and  hable  to  com- 
pulsory service.  The  case  was  the  same  for  the  statutory  office 
of  Overseer  of  the  Poor,  for  which  mere  cottagers  and  day- 
labourers  were  held  to  be  eligible  and  liable  to  serve,  even  if  only 
resident  part  of  the  year,  and  women  equally  with  men,  at  least 
if  no  more  "  substantial  householders  "  were  available.^  There 
was  just  a  beginning  of  a  qualification  for  Parish  office  in  1691, 
when  the  Parish  Officers  and  the  inhabitants  in  Vestry  assembled 
were  required  to  present  to  the  Justices  a  list  of  parishioners 
owning  property,  or  at  least  occupiers  of  land  or  premises  worth 
£30  a  year,  "  if  such  there  be,"  and  if  not,  "  of  the  most  sufficient 
1  R.  V.  Stubbs,  2  T.R.  395,  406,  etc. 


472  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

inhabitants,"  out  of  which  the  Justices  were  to  appoint  one  or 
more  as  Surveyors  of  Highways.^  Even  in  the  Municipal  Cor- 
porations, where  power  had,  for  the  most  part,  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  small  and  usually  close  bodies,  there  continued,  in  some 
Boroughs,  a  relatively  considerable  class  of  Freemen,  often  con- 
sisting, to  the  extent  of  a  majority,  of  manual- working  wage- 
earners  or  otherwise  indigent  folk,  who  enjoyed,  irrespective  of 
whether  or  not  they  were  occupying  ratepayers,  or  whether  they 
were  rich  or  poor,  the  franchise  for  such  elections  as  were  held. 
In  these  Corporations,  which  included  such  extensive  towns  as 
Liverpool,  Bristol,  Norwich  and  Coventry,  once  a  man  had  been 
admitted  as  a  Freeman,  whether  by  patrimony,  apprenticeship, 
purchase  or  gift,  he  needed  no  other  qualification,  whatever  his 
occupation,  station  or  fortune,  for  appointment  to  any  corporate 
office  or  dignity,  not  excluding  that  of  membership  of  the  close 
governing  body,  or  the  mayoralty  itself.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
non-Freeman  remained  in  these  Boroughs,  right  down  to  1835, 
not  only  absolutely  ineligible  for  any  corporate  office,  however 
wealthy  he  might  be,  however  extensive  his  business  in  the 
Borough,  or  however  high  the  rateable  value  of  the  premises 
that  he  occupied  ;  but  also  excluded  from  the  valuable  exemp- 
tions from  tolls  and  dues,  and  the  profitable  right  of  sharing  in 
the  "  commons  and  stints  "  or  other  common  property,  enjoyed 
by  his  business  rivals  who  were  "  free  "  of  the  Corporation. 

With  regard  to  membership  of  a  public  body,  it  was  naturally 
in  the  new  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes,  to  which 
we  have  devoted  the  present  volume,  that  the  novel  form  of 
qualification  came  in.  The  Court  of  Sewers  continued  in  this  as 
in  other  respects  closely  to  resemble  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions.^ 
For  the  membership  of  the  Turnpike  Trusts,  however,  we  in- 
variably find  a  statutory  qualification,  in  which  the  ownership 
of  £1000  of  personal  property,  or  some  other  amount,  was 
admitted  as  an  alternative  to  the  possession  of  an  estate  in  land. 
In  the  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor,  as  we  have  seen,  the 

^  3  William  III.  c.  12  ;  re-enacted  in  13  George  III.  c.  78,  where  it  is 
further  expressly  si^ecified  that  the  Justices  may,  if  the  list  contains  none  whom 
they  tliink  "  qualified,"  appoint  any  "  substantial  inhabitants  "  living  within 
the  County  and  within  three  miles  of  the  Parish. 

-  The  qualification  for  a  Commissioner  of  Sewers,  originally  stated  as  land 
worth  "  4U  marks  "  annually,  and  by  13  Elizabeth  c.  9  (1571)  as  forty  pounds 
sterling,  was  actually  raised  in  1833  to  £100  a  year  freehold,  or  £200  a  year 
leasehold,  within  the  County  (3  &  4  William  IV.  c.  22). 


THE  FRANCHISE  473 

qualification  varied  ;  but  usually  the  County  Justices  and  the 
Incumbents  of  benefices  were  reinforced  not  only  by  the  owners 
of  freehold  estates,  but  also  by  the  leaseholders  (in  which  we 
think  were  included  the  farmers  under  any  agreement  of  tenancy) 
of  land  worth  at  least  £60  per  annum.  It  is,  however,  in  the 
more  multifarious  and  diverse  bodies  of  Commissioners  for 
Paving,  Lighting,  Watching,  Cleansing  and  otherwise  Improving 
the  various  urban  centres  that  we  find  both  the  greatest  variety 
of  qualification  for  office  and  the  most  obvious  transition  from 
the  old  forms  of  qualification  to  the  new.  Among  the  thousand 
Local  Acts,  by  which,  during  the  eighteenth  century,  the  three 
hundred  or  so  bodies  of  Commissioners  were  established  or 
amended,  there  was  introduced  first  the  qualification  of  owner- 
ship of  real  estate  ;  then  the  alternative  of  possession  of  £1000 
or  other  specified  amount  of  any  form  of  wealth  ;  and  in  the  later 
constitutions,  first  as  a  new  alternative  and  latterly,  in  a  few 
cases,  as  the  only  permissible  form  of  qualification,  the  occu- 
pation within  the  town  of  premises  of  what  was  at  the  time  a 
high  annual  value  ^ — sometimes  (as  in  Manchester  in  1828)  £28 
per  annum,  sometimes  twice  that  sum,  which,  in  the  early  part 
of  the  century,  indicated  the  shop  or  warehouse  of  a  very  sub- 
stantial trader  or  the  mansion  of  a  man  of  wealth. 

With  regard  to  the  qualification  for  the  franchise,  it  was  a 
characteristic  feature  of  the  Local  Government  reforms  of  the 
first  third  of  the  nineteenth  century  that,  along  with  the  privileges 
of  the  Freemen  in  the  Municipal  Corporations,  the  remaining 
laxity  as  to  qualification  in  Parish  administration  was  brought 
to  an  end.2     It  became  the  general  rule  that  no  one  should* 
exercise  any  right  to  vote,  and  in  most  cases,  that  no  one  should  * 
be  eligible  for  any  elective  office,  unless  his  name  was  actually* 
entered  in  the  ratebook  as  that  of  a  ratepayer,  whether  as* 
occupier  or  as  owner,  of  prernisgs  within  the  area  concerned.' 
Alike  for  the  Parish  Committees  under  Sturges  Bourne's  Act,  for 
the  elective  Vestries  under  Hobhouse's  Act,  for  the  Boards  of 

^  It  is  curious  to  find  the  requirement  that  publicans,  to  be  eligible,  needed 
a  rating  qualification  twice  as  great  as  other  inhabitants  ;   ante,  p.  245. 

2  The  strenuous  fight  of  the  House  of  Lords  against  the  Municipal  Cor- 
porations Bill  in  its  original  form  maintained  the  vote,  for  the  new  Town 
Councils,  of  the  possibly  non-occupying,  indigent  and  even  pauper  Freemen  of 
Liverpool,  Coventry  and  other  ancient  Boroughs,  so  far  as  the  existing  holders 
of  privileges  were  concerned,  though  the  Act  abolished  the  privilege  as  regards 
future  generations. 


474  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

Guardians  under  the  regulations  made  upon  the  authority  of  the 
Poor  Law  Amendment  Act,  for  the  Town  Councils  under  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act,  and  even  for  the  Highway  Com- 
mittees under  the  General  Highways  Act,  it  was  taken  for  granted, 
when  not  expressly  laid  down  by  regulation  or  statute,  that  the 
franchise  was  confined  to  independent  occupiers  of  dwelling- 
houses  or  other  premises,  whose  names  were  on  the  ratebook  as 
direct  payers  of  the  local  rates,  and  whose  rates  during  the  pre- 
scribed period  had  been  actually  paid.  The  prescribed  period  of 
occupancy  and  ratepaying  was,  in  some  cases  (as  by  the  Municipal 
Corporations  Act)  fixed  at  two  years  next  previous  to  the  making 
of  the  last  rate.  And  when  to  this  was  added  the  disfranchise- 
ment, not  merely  of  those  householders  who  were  aliens,  but  also 
(for  Boards  of  Guardians)  of  all  persons  who  (or  any  member  of 
whose  family)  had  received  during  the  prescribed  period  any 
kind  of  parochial  relief,  and  (for  the  new  Town  Councils)  of  all 
occupiers  of  the  female  sex — ^when  it  is  realised  that  it  became 
an  almost  universal  practice  of  the  landlord  of  small  cottage 
property  or  tenement  dwellings  himself  to  pay  the  rates,  and 
thus  keep  all  his  tenants  off  the  ratebook — it  will  be  seen  how 

•  very  far  was  the  franchise  for  the  elective  Local  Authorities,  even 

•  after  the  reforms  of  1832-1836,  from  that  of  a  universal  Demo- 
•cracy  of  Consumers.     Exact  statistics  do  not  exist,  but  it  is 

probable  that  the  aggregate  electorate  of  all  the  elective  Local 
Authorities  of  England  and  Wales  did  not,  in  1836,  for  a  popula- 
tion then  amounting  to  over  14.  millions,  or  some  three  million 
families,  exceed  the  total  number  of  Parliamentary  electors, 
which  is  commonly  estimated  at  800,000.  Spealdng  generally, 
it  may  be  said  that,  whereas  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century 
every  householder,  male  or  female,  could  legally  attend  and  vote 
at  the  Parish  Vestry,  and  in  the  Municipal  Corporations  even 
the  poorest  Freeman  was  a  member  of  the  Corporation ;  after  the 

•Local  Government   revolution  of    1818-1836  only  one   house- 

•holder  out  of  four  could  cast  a  vote.^ 

But  the  restriction  of  the  Local  Government  franchise  to 
those  who  had  been,  over  a  prescribed  period,  directly  assessed 
to,  and  had  actually  paid  the  local  rates,  ^ith  the  further  dis- 

^  It  is  something  more  than  a  coincidence  that  the  proportion  of  weekly 
wage-earners  and  their  families  to  the  whole  population  certainly  amounted  to 
three-fourths. 


PLURAL   VOTING  475 

franchisement  of  aliens,  paupers,  married  women  and  (for  the 
Town  Councils)  even  independent  women  ratepayers,  was  not 
the  whole  of  the  establishment  of  what  amounted  virtually  to  a 
new  Property  Qualification.  By  Sturges  Bourne's  Act  of  1819, 
followed  by  the  much  more  important  Poor  Law  Amendment 
Act  of  1834,  as  amended  by  that  of  1844,  the  device  of  Plural 
Voting  was  introduced  in  such  a  way  as  to  place  the  dominant 
power  even  more  certainly  in  the  hands  of  the  richer  inhabitants. 
Each  registered  owner  (who  might  be  only  a  leaseholder  of  a 
mortgagee),  and  each  rated  occupier  of  the  premises  in  the  rate- 
book, was  accorded,  in  the  election  of  the  Poor  Law  Authority, 
from  one  up  to  six  votes,  according  to  the  annual  value  of  the 
premises,  with  the  further  aggravation  that  where  (as  became 
usual  with  all  cottage  property  or  tenement  dwellings)  the  land- 
lord's name  appeared  on  the  ratebook  as  owner  and  also  as  paying 
the  rates  for  his  tenants,  he  enjoyed  double  votes,  thus  being 
given  as  much  as  twelve  times  the  weight  of  such  occupants  of 
the  smaller  dwellings  as  had  votes  at  all.  At  the  same  time 
statutory  provision  was  made  in  1844  to  enable  joint  stock 
companies  or  other  corporate  bodies  to  vote  as  persons,  and 
individual  owners  were  even  enabled  to  send  an  agent  to  cast 
their  votes  for  their  property,  with  the  singular  proviso  that 
"  except  a  tenant,  bailiff,  steward,  land-agent  or  collector  of 
rents,"  no  such  agent  was  allowed  to  cast  votes  on  behalf  of  more 
than  four  owners  !  1  Here,  perhaps,  is  found  the  most  ingenious 
application  of  the  principle  of  Property  Qualification  for  the 
exercise  of  authority,  seeing  that  it  secured  the  predominance  of 
the  propertied  class  in  the  State  without  necessarily  involving 
the  exclusion  of  even  the  poorest  resident.  The  most  straight- 
forward defence  of  this  device  of  plural  voting,  because  it  shows 
how  the  commercialised  political  philosophy  of  the  time  had 
spread  even  to  the  oldest  EngHsh  aristocracy,  is  that  made  by 
Lord  Sahsbury  in  resisting  the  coming  of  Household  Suffrage. 
His  daughter,  Lady  Gwendolen  Cecil,  describing  and  quoting 
from  his  article  on  the  subject  in  1864,  thus  summarises  his  argu- 
ment :  ''A  democratic  extension  of  the  franchise  would  not  only 
give  a  share  to  every  man  in  the  government  of  the  country,  but 
would  give  to  every  man  an  equal  share.  Yet  with  regard  to  the 
suhject-raatter  of  Parliamentary  action  [the  italics  are  ours], 
1  7  &  8  Vict.  c.  101,  sec.  15  (1844). 


476  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

there  is,  and  always  will  be,  a  ubiquitous  inequality  of  interest  in 
tlie  decisions  taken.  He  suggests  an  analogy  in  the  management 
of  joint  stock  companies.  The  best  test  of  natural  right  is 
that  right  which  mankind,  left  to  themselves  to  regulate  their 
own  concerns,  most  naturally  admit.  Joint  stock  companies, 
like  States,  finding  themselves  too  numerous  to  undertake 
directly  the  management  of  their  affairs,  have  adopted  a  repre- 
sentative system.  How  do  they  settle  this  thorny  question  of 
the  suffrage  ?  The  system  under  which,  by  universal  agree- 
ment, such  bodies  are  universally  managed  is  that  the  voting 
power  should  be  strictly  proportioned  to  the  stake  which  each 
man  holds  in  the  company.  It  is  a  system  whose  justice  has 
never  been  disputed.  The  question  has  never  even  been  a  matter 
of  controversy.  The  wildest  dreamer  never  suggested  that  all 
the  shareholders  should  each  have  a  single  vote,  without  reference 
to  the  number  of  shares  they  might  hold."  ^ 

If  it  is  significant  to  find  the  Cecil  of  1864  unhesitatingly 
assuming  that  the  "  chief  subject-matter  of  Parliamentary 
action  "  is  the  maintenance  of  private  property  (for  it  is  in  this 
only  that  there  can  be  said  to  be  "a  ubiquitous  inequality  of 
interest  in  the  decisions  taken  "),  it  is  interesting  to  see  how 
mistaken  he  proved  to  be  in  supposing  that  "  mankind  left  to 
themselves  "  invariably  adopted  the  joint  stock  principle  of 
voting  according  to  the  amount  of  wealth  at  stake.  The  con- 
simiers'  Co-operative  Movement,  which  was,  in  1864,  in  its 
infancy,  now  (1922)  includes  in  its  membership  in  the  United 
Kingdom  some  four  million  households,  or  more  than  a  third  of 
the  total.  These  men  and  women,  far  more  numerous  than  the 
entire  aggregate  of  shareholders  in  joint  stock  companies,  and 
owning  among  them  over  £100,000,000  worth  of  capital  in  their 
Co-operative  Movement — have  always,  spontaneously  and  un- 
questioningly,  adopted  in  the  constitution  of  the  Co-operative 
world,  the  principle  of  "  One  Member  one  Vote,"  irrespective, 
not  only  of  age  and  sex,  station  or  fortune,  but  also  of  the  amount 
of  share  or  loan  capital  possessed  by  each.^ 

The  qualification  for  public  office  was,  in  certain  cases,  even 

^  Life  of  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  by  Lady  Gwendolen  Cecil,  1921,  vol.  i. 
p.  152.  It  may  be  recalled  that  Burke  had  declared  that  "Property  .  .  . 
never  can  be  safe  from  the  invasion  of  ability  unless  it  be,  out  of  all  pro- 
portion, dominant  in  the  representation  "  (Reflections  on  the  French  Revolution). 

^  The  Consumers'  Co-operative  Movement,  by  S.  and  B.  Webb,  1921. 


NON-PAYMENT  OF  MEMBERS  477 

more  restrictive  in  its  effects  than  that  for  the  franchise.  Thus 
the  Poor  Law  Commissioners,  in  framing  their  regulations  for  the 
new  Boards  of  Guardians  under  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act, 
which  had  empowered  the  fixing  of  a  rating  qualification  not 
exceeding  £40  a  year,  willingly  adopted  this  statutory  maximum 
for  all  the  Unions  in  the  Metropolitan  area,  and  for  some  of  those 
elsewhere,  whilst  in  all  Unions  whatever  such  a  rating  qualifica- 
tion was  fixed  as  to  exclude  not  only  the  whole  wage-earning 
class,  and  all  the  smaller  shopkeepers,  but  also,  incidentally, 
most  of  the  independent  women  occupiers.^ 

We  may  point  out  that  there  was  the  less  need,  in  the  nine- 
teenth as  in  the  twentieth  century,  for  any  such  rigid  exclusion 
from  ofiice  of  the  four-fifths  or  seven-eighths  of  the  adult  popida- 
tion  who  could  not  prove  either  their  ownership  of  landed  or 
other  property,  or  even  their  occupancy  of  a  dwelling-house 
rated  at  £40  a  year,  in  that  service  in  the  elected  offices  was 
almost  invariably  unpaid.  The  whole  aggregate  of  persons  in 
industrial  or  commercial  employment  at  wages  or  salaries, 
together  with  all  those  in  the  service  of  public  bodies,  and  all  the 
more  necessitous  shopkeepers  and  other  employers  or  professional 
men,  were  (as  they  still  are)  normally  excluded  from  the  elective 
Local  Authorities  by  their  inability  to  give  the  necessary  time. 
The  refusal  to  provide  either  salary  or  fees  for  the  members  of 
local  governing  bodies,  even  such  merely  as  would  pay  for  the 
time  actually  spent  on  the  pubfic  service,  amounts  in  itself 
practically  to  the  maintenance  of  a  Property  Qualification,  which, 
without  any  further  restriction,  necessarily  confines  membership 
to  the  small  minority  who  are  able  and  willing  to  afford  such  a 
sacrifice  of  their  time.  The  actual  result  has  been,  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  to  throw  the  Town  Councils  and  Boards  of 
Guardians  almost  entirely  into  the  hands,  not  of  the  largest  and 
wealthiest  merchants  and  traders,  any  more  than  of  the  land- 
owners or  of  the  mass  of  wage-earners,  but  of  the  substantial 
resident  shopkeepers,  builders  and  publicans  in  the  towns,  and 
farmers  in  the  country,  with  a  small  intermixture  of  auctioneers, 
petty  contractors,  and  here  and  there  a  few  solicitors,  doctors  or 

^  The  rating  qualification  for  Guardians  was  not  reduced  until  1893,  when 
it  was  fixed  at  £5  only.  It  needed  another  statute  to  abolish  the  qualification 
altogether ;  see  Local  Government  Act,  1894,  sec.  20  (5).  Even  then,  the 
qualification  of  £40  remained  (and  still  remains)  for  membership  of  the  Metro- 
poUtan  Asylums  Board  for  any  one  not  possessing  real  estate  within  the  area. 


478  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

persons  retired  from  business.  Apart  from  the  Courts  of  Quarter 
Sessions  and  the  Courts  of  Sewers,  English  Local  Government 
was,  by  the  series  of  reforms  that  culminated  in  1836,  in  effect 
handed  over,  almost  exclusively,  to  a  particular  stratum  of  the 
middle  class. 


But  still  no  System  of  Local  Govermnent 

We  end  our  analysis  of  the  new  principles  that  emerged  in 
English  Local  Government  between  the  Revolution  and  the 
Mimicipal  Corporations  Act,  on  the  same  note  as  we  struck  in 
opening  our  previous  chapter.  In  1836,  as  in  1689,  there  was 
still  nothing  in  Local  Government  that  could  be  called  a  system. 
The  separate  forms  of  social  organisation,  the  Manor  and  the 
Borough,  the  Parish  and  the  County,  originating  indifferently  in 
prescription  and  local  custom,  charter  and  Royal  Commission, 
Common  Law  and  Parliamentary  statute,  superimposed  one  on 
top  of  another  according  to  the  needs  and  circumstances  of  each 
century,  and  inextricably  entangled  in  each  other's  growth  and 
decay,  had  been  made  even  more  complicated  and  confused  by 
the  establishment,  during  the  eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth 
centuries,  of  the  eighteen  hundred  new  Statutory  Authorities  for 
Special  Purposes,  only  partially  connected  with  the  constitution 
and  activities  of  the  other  local  institutions,  that  we  have 
described  in  the  present  volume.  By  Sturges  Bourne's  Act 
and  Hobhouse's  Act,  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act  and  the 
Mmiicipal  Corporations  Act,  the  General  Highways  Act  and 
the  Births  and  Deaths  Registration  Acts,  this  heterogeneous 
complex  of  overlapping  Local  Authorities  was  not  straightened 
out  into  any  systematic  organisation.  Not  one  of  the  fifteen 
thousand  or  more  separate  local  governing  bodies  found  itself 
actually  abolished,  even  by  the  most  iconoclastic  of  these 
statutes.  What  these  Acts  accomplished  was  finally  to  dis- 
possess the  old  principles — save  for  certain  surviving  remnants 
— and  to  set  the  seal  upon  the  adoption,  in  the  reorganised 
bodies  to  which  all  authority  was  gradually  transferred,  of  the 
new  principles  that  we  have  described.  But  no  organic  system 
of  Ivocal  Government  as  a  whole  could  at  that  time  be  recog- 
nised. The  Metropolitan  Vestries,  the  Parish  Committees  of  pro- 
vincial Vestries,  the  Munici})al  Corporations,  the  new  Boards  of 


THE  CHAOS  OF  AREAS  479 

Guardians,  not  to  mention  such  survivals  as  the  Courts  of 
Sewers,  the  Turnpike  Trusts  and  the  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners, the  still  existing  City  of  London  and  other  unreformed 
Corporations,  and  such  ephemeral  Authorities  as  the  Local 
Boards  of  Health  and  the  Highway  Boards,  had,  without 
reference  to  each  other,  all  been  created  or  reformed  by  separate 
statutes,  to  meet  particular  circumstances.  Their  methods 
of  election  were  unHke.  The  qualifications  for  the  franchise 
and  for  office  differed  materially  and  irrationally  from  one  to 
the  other.  The  areas  over  which  the  several  Authorities 
exercised  their  diverse  jurisdictions  overlapped  each  other ; 
their  several  powers  and  functions  were  sometimes  incon- 
sistent and  frequently  duplicated ;  they  levied  on  the  same 
ratepayers  a  multitude  of  different  imposts,  assessed  under 
different  rules,  and  payable  at  different  dates.  The  position  of 
these  multifarious  Local  Authorities  to  each  other  was  undefined  ; 
whilst  their  relations  to  the  National  Executive  were  as  diverse 
as  their  constitutions  or  their  functions.  Thus,  whilst  the 
Municipal  Corporations,  like  the  rural  Parish  Vestries,  had  the 
very  minimum  of  contact  with  any  Government  Department, 
and  were  subject  to  practically  no  control,  the  new  Boards  of 
Guardians  were  bound  hand  and  foot  to  the  autocratic  Poor  Law 
Commissioners  ;  in  their  administration  of  the  Births,  Marriages 
and  Deaths  Registration  Acts  the  new  Local  Authorities  had 
to  obey  the  commands  of  the  Registrar-General ;  and  even  the 
Courts  of  Quarter  Sessions  were,  in  respect  of  their  prison 
administration,  brought  under  the  peremptory  injunctions  of 
the  Home  Office. 

What  was  efiected  in  1832-1836,  so  far  as  English  Local 
Government  was  concerned,  was  definitely  to  cut  it  off  from 
Vocational  Organisation,  with  its  exclusiveness,  industrial, 
pohtical  or  religious  ;  its  methods  of  Co-option  and  of  universal 
rotational  tenure  of  public  office,  and  above  all  its  assumption 
that  the  direction  of  any  service  should  be  vested  in  those  who 
performed  it — and  to  base  the  new  bodies  on  election  by  a  rate- 
payers' or  consumers'  Democracy,  in  which  those  who  enjoyed 
the  benefit  of  the  public  services,  and  paid  for  them  by  local 
taxation,  were  themselves  assumed  to  exercise  all  authority 
through  their  elected  representatives,  who  ordered  and  directed 
the  work  of  contractors  or  paid  servants.     It  was,  as  we  can  now 


48o  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

see,  this  form  of  government  that  was  destined,  in  the  course  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  to  become  universal.  It  is  on  the  basis 
of  this  Katepayers'  Democracy  of  1832-1836,  completed  as  a 
Consumers'  Democracy  by  the  franchise  or  rating  reforms  of 
1867,  1869,  1888,  1894,  1900,  1917  and  1918,  that  English  Local 
Government,  after  a  further  three-quarters  of  a  century  of  effort, 
has  ceased  to  be  the  chaos  of  areas,  chaos  of  Authorities  and 
chaos  of  rates,  which  it  was  left  in  1836  ;  and  has  at  last,  in 
the  twentieth  century,  become,  as  Francis  Place  predicted,  fairly 
well  systematised  in  the  municipal  form. 

Unfortunately,  as  we  have  seen,  the  reforms  of  1832-1836 
failed  not  only  to  systematise  Local  Government,  but  also — 
mainly  by  the  froward  retention  of  the  old  principle  of  Property 
Qualification  in  its  new  guise — failed  to  make  the  Ratepayers' 
Democracy  coextensive  with  the  consumers  of  the  public  services 
which  it  had  collectively  to  provide.  By  the  ratepaying  qualifica- 
tion, nearly  always  fij^ed  at  a  high  figure,  coupled  with  the  refusal 
of  any  payment  for  public  work,  the  framers  of  the  legislation  of 
1818-1836  not  only  excluded  from  the  reformed  Councils,  as 
they  intended,  the  manual-working  class,  and,  indeed,  the  great 
mass  of  folk  of  all  occupations  absorbed  in  earning  a  livelihood, 
but  also,  as  was  probably  not  foreseen,  practically  the  men  of 
wider  education,  the  brain-worldng  professions,  the  heads  of  the 
more  important  businesses,  and  all  others  who  did  not  actually 
reside  within  the  particular  ward  or  local  district  for  which 
representatives  had  to  be  elected.  Incidentally  all  women, 
whether  married  or  unmarried,  were  long  debarred,  either  by  law 
or  by  the  practice  of  the  rating  Authorities,  from  serving  on  any 
public  bodies.  The  result  was  that  nearly  the  whole  of  Local 
Government,  outside  the  restricted  scope  of  the  Courts  of  Quarter 
Sessions  and  the  Courts  of  Sewers,  was  handed  over  to  the  class 
of  retail  shopkeepers  and  farmers,  whose  ^^rtues,  whose  short- 
comings and  whose  general  outlook  on  life  became  everywhere 
dominant,  alike  in  the  Town  Coimcil,  in  the  Parish  Vestry  and 
in  the  Board  of  Guardians.  We  cannot  express  it  better  than  in 
the  carefully  weighed  judgment — already  quoted  by  us  in  con- 
nection with  the  relatively  democratic  Corporation  of  the  City 
of  London,  and  full  of  significance  to  students  of  political  science 
— which  De  Tocqueville  passed  upon  the  government  of  France 
between  1830  and  1848.     The  dominating  spirit  of  that  govern- 


THE  RULE  OF  THE  MIDDLE  CLASS  481 

ment,  he  said,  was  the  spirit  characteristic  of  the  trading  Middle 
Class  ;  a  spirit  active  and  assiduous  ;  always  narrow ;  often 
corrupt ;  occasionally,  through  vanity  or  egotism,  insolent,  but 
by  temperament  timid  ;  mediocre  and  moderate  in  all  things 
except  in  the  enjoyment  of  physical  indulgence  ;  a  spirit  which, 
when  combined  with  the  spirit  of  the  manual- working  wage- 
earners  and  the  spirit  of  the  aristocracy,  may  achieve  marvels, 
but  which,  taken  alone,  inevitably  produces  a  government  with- 
out elevation  and  without  quality.^  We  may  add  a  significant 
comment  on  the  Local  Government  of  the  generation  that 
followed  immediately  on  the  reforms  of  1832-1836  by  a  well- 
instructed  official.  "  Too  often,"  said  Tom  Taylor,  who  had 
been  Secretary  to  the  Central  Board  of  Health,  "  '  local  seK- 
government '  is  another  name  for  the  unchecked  rule  of  the  least 
informed,  noisiest  and  narrowest,  or,  as  often,  of  the  most  self- 
seeking,  who  can  achieve  seats  in  a  Town  Council  or  at  a  Local 
Improvement  Board.  .  .  .  But,  in  the  whirl  of  complicated 
affairs,  among  the  incessant  demands  of  private  interests  stimu- 
lated by  the  closest  competition,  the  bewildering  action  and 
counter  action  of  class  wants  and  claims,  and  the  self-conscious- 
ness bred  of  too  exclusive  a  pursuit  of  material  advancement,  it 
is  no  wonder  if  the  most  public-spirited,  the  most  anxious  to  do 
their  best  for  the  interests  of  the  community  of  which  they  are 
a  part,  who  often  find  themselves  more  and  more  perplexed  and 
baffled,  and  discover,  to  their  dismay,  that  active  participation 
in  local  affairs  too  often  resolves  itself  into  an  unsuccessful 
struggle  with  the  grossest  ignorance,  the  most  offensive  mob 
oratory,  and  the  most  sordid  self-seeking.  Only  very  stout 
hearts  indeed  can  long  maintain  the  struggle.  The  temptation 
is  too  often  irresistible  to  withdraw  from  the  Town  Council  or 
Local  Board,  and  to  seek  in  the  exercise  of  more  secluded  benevol- 
ence for  a  satisfaction  of  those  inward  urgings  to  unselfish  duty 
which  can  find  no  useful  employment  in  the  public  arena  with- 
out." 2 

^  Souvenirs  d" Alexis  de  Tocqueville,  1893,  p.  6  (freely  translated) ;  The 
Manor  and  the  Borough,  p.  692. 

*  "  On  Central  and  Local  Action  in  Relation  to  Town  Improvement,"  by 
Tom  Taylor,  M.A.,  in  Transactions  of  the  National  Association  for  the  Promo- 
tion of  Social  Science,  1857,  p.  475.  Tom  Taylor  proceeds  to  suggest  the  im- 
portance of  central  control.  "  Are  local  powers,"  he  says,  "  a  trust  for  the 
public  advantage,  or  a  means  of  enforcing  the  supremacy  of  local  cliques,  and 
a  machinery  for  rewarding  local  partisanship  with  power,  patronage  and  place  ? 

2  I 


482  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

Such  is  the  pessimistic  verdict  of  a  competent  observer  of 
1857.  But  no  judicial  estimate  of  the  nature  and  results  of  the 
revolutionary  transformation  of  the  machinery  of  Local  Govern- 
ment effected  in  1832-1836  could  be  made  in  that  generation. 
It  would  be  misleading  and  unfair  to  leave  off  on  Tom  Taylor's 
depressing  note.  A  popular  dramatist  turned  bureaucrat,  grap- 
pling with  the  "  Early  Victorian  "  stupidities  of  local  officials, 
and  the  prejudices  of  the  average  sensual  man,  could  hardly  be 
expected  to  take  an  optimistic  view  of  Local  Government.  It 
is  more  instructive  to  consider  the  exceptional  difficulties  with 
which  the  new  elective  bodies  had  to  cope.  For  it  must  be 
remembered  that  all  the  disastrous  changes  in  the  environment 
of  the  common  people,  due  to  the  Industrial  Revolution  de- 
scribed in  the  opening  pages  of  this  chapter,  contmued  in  opera- 
tion, in  some  cases  with  accelerating  speed,  during  the  whole  of 
the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  even  later.  The 
population,  in  spite  of  (and  perhaps  because  of)  widespread 
destitution  and  servitude,  went  on  increasing,  and  more  and 
more  crowding  into  the  urban  slums.  The  devastating  torrent  of 
nuisances,  characteristic  of  unrestricted  profit-making  enterprise, 

If,  as  I  contend,  such  powers  are  a  public  trust,  then  their  exercise  ought  to  bo 
watched  and  recorded  on  behalf  of  the  public,  the  lessons  which  the 
experience  of  each  place  supphes  ought  to  be  deduced  and  made  known 
for  the  benefit  of  all ;  glaring  instances  of  neglected  duty  and  their 
consequence  should  be  stigmatised  ;  conspicuous  examples  of  activity  and 
well-directed  efforts,  and  their  results  should  be  held  up  for  imitation. 
This  duty,  to  bo  performed  not  for  a  single  town  or  district,  but  for  the 
whole  Kmgdom,  turns  local  facts  to  general  use,  whether  by  way  of  warning 
or  example.  Some  would  add  to  these  central  duties  that  of  acting  as  a  court 
of  appeal  against  local  oppression,  and  as  a  court  of  mandamus  in  cases  of 
default.  .  .  .  Reviewing  what  had  been  said,  it  will  be  found  that  the  necessity 
of  central  action  on  matters  of  local  improvement  is  maintained  : 

"  (1)  To  accord  the  conferred  powers  for  such  improvement  cheaply  and 
effectually  ;  to  invest  with  the  local  character  of  '  towns  '  areas  of  dense 
population  not  having  yet  acquired  a  known  and  defined  boundary  ;  and  to 
fuse,  into  a  consistent  whole,  existing  Local  Acts,  and  a  general  measure  of 
town  improvements. 

"  (2)  When  such  powers  are  conferred,  to  forward  generally  the  wise  and 
efficient  exercise  of  them  by  diffusing  the  light  of  a  general  experience,  and  by 
communicating  the  results  of  such  special  enquiries  as  the  Central  Department 
may  be  charged  to  make,  by  advising  in  cases  of  doubt  or  difficulty,  and  gener- 
ally by  assisting  but  never  superseding,  local  efforts. 

"  (3)  To  protect  posterity,  by  examining  and  deciding  upon  application  for 
leave  to  mortgage  roads  ; 

"  (4)  To  report  to  Parliament  on  the  exercise  of  local  powers. 

"  (5)  To  act  as  a  court  of  appeal  against  local  oppression  in  certain  specified 
cases,  and  a  court  of  mandamus  in  cases  of  local  default "  [ibid.  pp.  478-479). 


THE  DIFFICULTIES  OF  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT     483 

went  on  spreading  over  the  land,  maintaining  the  sickness-rate, 
the  accident-rate  and  the  death-rate  at  appaUingly  high  figures, 
whilst  the  insanitary  factories  and  workshops,  and  the  unregu- 
lated mines  and  smelting  works  were  insidiously  lowering  the 
vitaUty  of  men,  women  and  children.  To  guide  the  new  Ijocal 
Authorities  there  was  no  administrative  science.  There  was  no 
fully  organised  National  Executive  charged  with  protecting  the 
race  from  the  worst  results  of  the  capitalist  system.  Not  until 
the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  then  only  im- 
perfectly, can  even  the  educated  public  be  said  to  have  realised 
the  necessity  for  the  legal  limitation  and  regulation  of  capitalist 
enterprise  ;  or  can  our  Factory  and  Workshop  Acts,  Mines 
Regulation  Acts  and  Merchant  Shipping  Acts  be  said  to  have 
more  than  begmi  to  ensure  to  the  whole  population  that  funda- 
mental National  Minimum  of  the  conditions  of  civihsed  life 
without  which  Local  Government  can  be  no  more  than  a  botch. 
And  the  instruments  were  as  lacking  as  the  science  and  the 
law.  To  replace  the  ordinary  citizen  temporarily  conscripted 
to  unpaid  public  service,  there  was,  in  1835,  no  body  of  trust- 
worthy, trained,  professional  officials.  The  specially  charac- 
teristic modern  vocations,  whether  of  engineers,  architects, 
surveyors,  accountants,  and  auditors  ;  or  of  teachers,  nurses, 
sanitary  inspectors  and  medical  officers  of  health  ;  or  even  of 
draughtsmen,  bookkeepers,  clerks  and  poHcemen,  were  as  yet 
only  beginning  to  be  developed.  Without  effective  vocational 
organisation  they  were  still  without  either  tradition  or  training, 
and  wholly  unprovided  with  the  code  of  professional  ethics  on 
which,  as  we  now  know,  the  highest  administrative  efficiency 
so  much  depends.  The  obsolescent  and  obstructive  mediaeval 
vocational  organisation  had  been  cleared  out  of  the  way  ;  and 
the  new  and  virile  type  of  vocational  organisation,  of  which  the 
germs  lay  in  the  then  persecuted  and  prescribed  Trade  Union 
Movement  and  the  beginnings  of  modem  Professional  Associa- 
tion, had  not  yet  been  created. 

No  less  important  was  the  nature  of  the  functions  to  which 
the  nascent  Local  Government  of  the  nineteenth  century  was 
still  confined.  By  far  the  most  extensive  service  was,  for  several 
decades  after  1836,  that  of  the  relief  of  the  poor.  Now,  necessary 
as  may  have  been  the  Poor  Law  revolution  of  1834,  and  devoted 
as  were  the  services  of  many  of  those  who  worked  at  its  adminis- 


484  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

tration,  it  proved  impossible  to  enlist  either  administrative 
genius  or  public  support  for  a  purely  deterrent  and  repressive 
treatment  of  destitution  and  vagrancy.  Scarcely  more  inspiring 
seemed  municipal  government,  so  long  as  this  was  confined,  in 
the  main,  to  the  suppression  of  those  nuisances  which  threatened 
the  health  or  lessened  the  amenity  of  the  life  of  the  Middle  Class. 
It  took,  we  may  usefully  remember,  all  the  rest  of  the  nineteenth 
century  to  generalise  and  extend  to  the  whole  field  of  Local 
Government,  even  the  structural  reforms  of  1832-1836.  It  was 
#at  least  as  long  before  the  new  Local  Government  got  into  its 
•stride  as  the  obligatory  Association  of  Consumers  for  the  collective 
•provision  of  those  services  and  commodities  for  which  profit- 
•m  a  king  enterprise  seemed  less  well  adapted  than  comnmnal 
•organisation.  With  the  gradual  assumption,  as  communal  ser- 
vices, of  the  whole  range  of  education  from  the  nursery  school 
to  the  miiversity  ;  of  the  organisation  in  parks  and  open  spaces, 
in  libraries  and  museums,  in  music  rooms  and  picture  galleries, 
of  recreation  and  amusement ;  of  a  general  provision,  not  merely 
for  the  treatment  of  the  sick,  but  also  actually  for  the  promotion 
of  health  of  future  generations  as  well  as  of  the  present ;  of  town 
planning,  local  transport  and  housing  not  merely  as  the  correctives 
of  slums  but  as  the  creators  of  the  city  of  to-morrow ;  and,  last 
but  by  no  means  least,  of  the  supply  of  water,  gas,  electricity, 
power,  and  local  transportation  as  necessary  adjuncts  of  muni- 
cipal life,  the  whole  scope  and  spirit  of  Local  Government  has 
*been  transformed.  Merely  in  magnitude  and  range  of  affairs 
•the  Local  Government  of  1922  is  much  further  removed  from 
•  that  of  1836,  than  that  of  1836  was  from  its  predecessor  of  1689. 
The  ten  or  twelve  millions  sterling  of  annual  revenue  of  all  the 
English  Local  Authorities  on  the  accession  of  Queen  Victoria 
have  become  the  three  hundred  million  pounds  of  gross  receipts 
of  the  Local  Authorities  of  to-day  ;  the  few  thousand  persons 
whom  they  employed,  for  the  most  part  contractors  and  low- 
paid  labour,  have  grown  into  an  average  staff,  at  salaries  or 
wages,  of  something  like  a  million  on  the  pay  roll  of  1922,  com- 
prising as  many  as  one  in  fifteen  of  the  entire  working  population  ; 
whilst  the  capital  administered  by  the  various  Local  Authorities 
of  England  and  Wales,  formerly  infinitesimal,  now  exceeds  in 
value  1500  milhons  sterling.  With  this  growth  of  Local 
Govenunent  in  magnitude  and  variety  ;  and  especially  with  its 


THE  REGENERATION  OF  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT    485 

expansion  from  essentially  repressive  or  eleemosynary  functions^ 
into  the  commmial  organisation  of  the  city  life,  new  classes* 
have  reinforced  the  municipal  service,  both  as  elected  repre-* 
sentatives  and  as  officials.     The  wage-earning  class  has,  in  the' 
twentieth  century,  not  only  supplied  from  its  educated  children 
the  great  bulk  of  the  new  hierarchy  of  Local  Government  staffs  ; 
but  has  also,  by  electing  to  the  Councils  its  Trade  Union  officials, 
and  sometimes  by  providing  for  its  representatives  a  modest 
salary,  increasingly  managed  to  overcome  the  barrier  presented 
by  Property  Qualification  and  the  Non-Payment  of  Councillors. 
And  Local  Government  in  its  modern  guise,  with  its  new  and 
larger  aims  and  vaster  problems,  has  come  to  attract,  both  as 
elected  representatives  and  as  officials,  ever  more  and  more  of 
the  ablest  and  best  trained  intellects,  who  find,  in  its  service, 
whether  paid  or  unpaid,  an  inspiration  and  a  scope  actually 
superior,  in  their  own  estimation,  to  that  offered  by  the  pursuit 
of  pecuniary  profit.     In  short,  English  Local  Government,  in 
1832-1836  handed  over,  in  effect,  to  a  particular  stratum  of  the 
Middle  Class,  has  gradually  become  representative  of  all  the  best 
sections  of  English  life. 

But  this  story  is  not  for  us  to  tell.  How  from  the  un- 
systematised  and,  as  we  have  indicated,  "  commercialised " 
chaos  of  separate  Authorities  of  1836,  English  Local  Govern- 
ment has,  in  the  course  of  three-quarters  of  a  century,  become 
generally  organised  as  a  Consumers'  Democracy ;  how  the 
invidious  and,  as  we  think,  calamitous  exclusion  of  the  great 
mass  of  the  consumers  has  been,  by  a  whole  series  of  minor 
reforms  of  franchise  and  rating,  largely  remedied  ;  how  the 
merely  eleemosynary  and  largely  deterrent  "  relief  of  destitu- 
tion "  has  been,  in  one  department  after  another,  replaced  by 
the  institution  of  communal  services,  and  the  demoralising 
Poor  Law  Authority  increasingly  superseded  by  municipal 
activities ;  how  new  vocational  organisation  has  arisen  to 
redeem  an  untempered  consumers'  government,  and  the  neces- 
sary provision — absolutely  ignored  in  1836 — for  the  participation 
in  the  administration  of  those  who  are  actually  engaged  in  the 
service  is,  in  the  twentieth  century,  at  least  beginning  to  be 
made  ;  how  the  still  unsolved  problems  of  areas,  of  the  equahsa- 
tion  of  burdens,  and  of  the  relation  between  local  and  central 
Authorities   are   being   tentatively    explored  ;    how    with    this 


486  THE  NEW  PRINCIPLES 

greater  inclusiveness  and  with  the  elaboration  of  an  adminis- 
trative science  the  outlook  and  purpose  of  Local  Government 
has  been  gradually  defined,  widened  and  ennobled — all  this 
fascinating  evolution  of  Parish  and  Borough  and  Coimty  into 
the  Local  Government  of  to-day  we  must  regretfully  leave  to 
be  described  by  younger  students.^ 

^  We  may  be  permitted  to  refer  to  some  incomplete  studies  that  subseqtient 
enquirers  may  find  useful.  With  regard  to  the  provision  of  roads,  and  the 
maintenance  of  prisons,  we  have  sought  to  bring  the  Local  Government  history 
down  to  the  twentieth  century  in  our  books,  The  Story  of  the  King's  Highway, 
1913,  and  English  Prisons  under  Local  Government,  1922.  A  corresponding 
volume  on  The  Evolution  of  Poor  Relief  and  the  Repression  of  Vagrancy  is 
in  preparation.  With  regard  to  the  manifold  functions  of  the  Poor  Law 
Authorities,  we  may  refer  to  the  Minority  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commission, 
1909,  separately  published  in  two  volumes,  with  jcngthy  introductions,  as 
Tlie  Break-up  of  the  Poor  Law,  1909,  and  The  Public  Organisation  of  the  Labour 
Market,  1909  ;  to  The  State  and  the  Doctor,  1910  ;  and  (for  the  evolution  of 
policy  since  1834)  to  English  Poor  Law  Policy,  1910 ;  together  with  the 
systematic  survey  entitled  Tlie  Prevention  of  Destitution,  1911,  reissued  with 
new  preface,  1920.  Only  a  brief  sketch  of  the  period  after  1835  is  given  in 
The  History  of  Liquor  Licensing  in  England,  1903.  On  the  other  hand.  Gravis 
in  Aid,  a  Criticism  and  a  Proposal,  1911 ;  second  edition,  1920,  deals  exclusively 
with  that  period. 

For  a  general  view  of  the  evolution  of  Local  Government  during  the  nine- 
teenth century,  the  summary  outline  entitled  Towards  Social  Derriocracy  f 
A  Study  of  Social  Evolution  during  the  PaM  Three-quarters  of  a  Century,  1916, 
may  be  consulted.  For  a  survey  of  the  position  in  1920,  and  a  speculative 
forecast,  we  may  cite  A  Constitution  for  the  Socialist  Commonwealth  of  Great 
Britain,  1920 ;  some  parts  of  this  being  amplified  in  the  final  chapter  of  The 
Consumers'  Co-operative  Movement,  1921. 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS 


Abercromby,  224 

Abinger,  Lord,  157 

Adams,  C.  F.,  419 

Adams,  John,  419 

Aglio,  — ,  270 

Aikin,  J.,  401 

Aitken,  Thomas,  211,  222,  224 

Alcock,  Rev.  T.,  122 

Allen,  L.  B.,  199 

Allen,  T.,  51 

Alston,  L.,  458 

Anderson,  A.,  158 

Andrews,  J.,  409 

Andrews,  W.,  158 

Anstice,  Robert,  197 

Archenholtz,  J.  W.  von,  284 

Asgill,  Sir  Charles,  87 

Ashmole,  Elias,  95 

Axon,  Ernest,  183 

Backway,  — ,212 
BaUey,  J.,  178,  205 
Bailey,  William,  122 
Baines,  F.  E.,  144,  207,  262 
Baker,  I.  0.,  276 
Baker,  Sir  John,  70 
BaUen,  Dorothy,  153 
Bannatyne,  Dr.,  177 
Barker,  Sir  George,  70 
Barlow,  Theodore,  13 
Bateman,  J.,  171,  225,  233 
Bateman,  Thomas,  280 
Bathurst,  Rt.  Hon.  C.  B.,  200 
Bayldou,  Richard,  227,  231 
Bayley,    Thomas    Butterworth,    ' 

178,  200 
Bazalgette,  Sir  J.  W.,  57,  71,  106 
Bealby,  J.  T.,  28 
Beaufort,  Duke  of,  468 
Bedford,  Duke  of,  28,  30-31 
Bentham,  Jeremy,  10,  78,  423-26, 
Berkeley,  Sir  Charles,  70 
Betenson,  Edward,  63 
Bigg,  J.,  6 
Billingsley,  John,  40 
Bird,  George,  82 
Bird,  James  Barry,  170 


Birley,  H.  H.,  266 

Bisset,  J.,  311 

Black,  W.  H.,  33 

Blackstone,  386 

Bladeslade,  T.,  28 

Blakemore,  Richard,  200 

Blamire,  W.,  155 

Blanch,  W.  H.,  337 

Blanchard,  A.  H.,  276 

Blew,  W.  C.  A.,  207 

Bolton,  Mrs.,  vi 

Boreman,  Dame  Margaret,  67 

Borthwick,  33 

Boswell,  James,  284 

Boulnois,  H.  Percy,  224,  276 

Boulton,  J.  W.,  187 

Bourn,  Daniel,  197 

Bourne,  Sturges,  449 

Bowen,  I.,  2 

Bowke,  Sir  R.,  231,  375 

Bowring,  Sir  John,  424 

Boyes,  J.,  204 

Boys,  W.,  45 

Bracton,  H.  de,  446 

Braddook,  — ,  259 

Bradford,  Gladys,  40 

BramweU,  Sir  George,  5 

Brand,  John,  319,  406 

Bray,  W.,  240 

Brereton,  Rev.  C.  D.,  440 

Brome,  Rev.  James,  15,  34 

Brooks,  Samuel,  258,  268 

Brotherton,  J.  E.,  268 

Brougham,  Lord,  468 

Brown,  Glenn,  105 

Buckingham,  W.,  153,  215 

Buckland,  212 

Bulkley,  Miss,  vi 

Bunce,"  J.  T.,  239,  252 

Burke,  Edmund,  375,  387,  420,  476 

Burman,  Charles,  95 

Bum,  Dr.  Richard,  112,  205,  210,  359, 

390 
Burrows,  Montagu,  18,  33 
Byng,  George,  103 

Calamy,  Rev.  Dr.,  382 


487 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS 


Callis,  Robert,  13,  IG,  22-23,  27 

Candelot,  P.  T.,  271 

Canning,  Rev.  R.,  122-23,  130-31,  141 

Cartwright,  Sir  Hugh,  70,  72 

Gary,  John,  112-14,  121 

Cecil,  Lady  Gwendolen,  475-70 

Cecils,  the  family  of  the,  70,  475-70 

Chadwick,  Edw-in,  86,  93,  343,  424, 

426-27,  450 
Chalmers,  Dr.  Thomas,  15 
Chambers,  A.  H.,  200 
Champnoys,  Basil,  33 
Chandos.'Dukc  of,  175 
Chandler,  Richard,  112 
Chapelier,  Lo,  420 
Chapman,  Captain,  109 
Chelmsford,  Lord,  274 
Child  &  Co.,  87 
Clark,  Andrew,  319 
Clark,  D.  Kinnear,  224 
Clark,  John.  178 
Clarke,  James,  28,  212 
Clarke,  William,  417-18 
Clayton,  Rev.  John,  239 
Cleland,  177 
CUfford,  F.,  5,  8,  58,  153,  157-59,  175, 

182,  201,  243,  298 
Qode,  C.  M.,  17,  192 
Cobbett,  WilUani,  10,  171,  230,  392, 

456 
Cobden,  Richard,  258 
Cock,  John,  311,  313 
Coke,  Lord,  23,  457 
Cole,  C.  N.,  28 
Colquhoun,  Patrick,  410 
Conder,  J.  B.  R.,  301 
Congloton,    Lord.     See    Pamell,    Sir 

Henry 
Conot,  Francis,  434 
Cook,  John,  197 
Cooper,  Samuel,  124,  126 
Corns,  A.  R.,  51 
Cottonham,  Lord,  75 
Courtney,  J.  S.,  313 
Cox,  J.  C.,  155 
Crabbo,  143 
Craven,  Earl  of,  70 
Creovey,  Thomas,  106 
Cripps,  J.  N.  P.,  225 
Crokor,  J.  D.,  314 
Cromwell,  Oliver,  417 
Cudworth,  William,  335,  341 
Culley,  G.,  178,  205 
Gumming,  Alexander,  197 
Cunningham,  Dr.  W.,  366 
Gurtlor,  W,  H.  R.,  2 
Cur  wen,  John  F.,  311 

Dalton,  Michael,  111 
Daniels,  (i.  W.,  411 
l)artf(<rd.  Vicar  of,  60 
Davics,  David,  2 


Davies,  J.  S.,  298,  328 

Davics,  Walter,  117,  1.39,  142 

De  Bathe,  Sir  Henry,  18,  38 

De  Lacy,  Henry.     See  Lincoln,  Earl  of 

De  Rivarol,  Chevalier,  375 

De  Tocqueville,  Alexis,  480-81 

Deacon,  William,  198 

Defoe,  Daniel,  14,  187-88,  232-33,  306, 

363,  382 
Dehany,  William  ICnight,  171 
Delano,  W.  F.  A.,  233 
Demi)soj',  G.  D.,  13 
Dcnham,  Sir  John,  70,  71 
Dent,  R.  K.,  183,  239,  253 
Deykes,  William,  295,  327 
Dickons,  Charles,  194 
Dickins,  F.,  198 
Dodd,  C,  6 

Donaldson,  T.  L.,  23,  69 
Donkin,  Bryan,  275,  312 
Dowling,  J.,  40 
Downe,  H.  B.,  276 
Drake,  James,  313 
Driver,  Abraham  and  William,  138 
Dugdale,  Sir  William,  13,  14-15,  18, 

30,  33,  40,  45,  51,  53,  54,  59 
Dumas,  — ,  224 
Dunning,  112 
Du])in,  Baron  Charles,  153,  206,  222, 

233 
Durbm,  — ,  174 

East,  Sir  E.  H.,  27,  41,  43 

Eden,  Sir  F.  M.,  15,  114,  112-13,  120, 

126,  131,  138-39,  142,  149 
Edgeworth,  R.  L.,  197,  203,  224,  289 
Egremont,  John,  171 
Ellonborough,  Lord.  27 
Elliott,  James,  jun.,  33,  36,  38 
Ellis,  Charles  Thomas,  5 
Ellis,  Sir  Henry,  40 
Elstobb,  William,  28 
Erskine,  Sir  T.,  6 
Evans,  Henry  Tobit,  153,  227 
Evelyn,  John,  94-95,  240,  277-78 
Everard,  Sir  Richard,  70 
Eversley,  Viscount,  2 

Faulkner,  Thomas,  69 

Fenn,  G.  M.,  28 

Ferrier,  Dr.,  401 

Fid<lian,  Charles,  256 

Fielding,  Henry,  122,  408-409 

Fielding,  Sir  John,  404,  409 

Fiennes,  Celia,  188 

Firmin,  Thomas,  113 

Firth,  C.  H.,  417-18 

Fitzhorbert,  Sir  Anthonv,  19 

Fitzwilliam,  Earl,  248,  302,  375 

Flood,  Luke  Thomas,  103 

Flower,  C.  T.,  13,  19,  20,  29,  52-53,  55 

Fowler,  J.  K.,  195 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS 


489 


Foxcraft,  Samuel,  339 

Frost,  — ,  224 

Fry,  Danby  P.,  24 

Fry,  F.  A.,  233 

Fry,  Joseph  Storrs,  197 

Furley,  Robert,  33 

Gardiner,  S.  R.,  30 

Gamett,  J.,  258,  268 

George,  C.  N.,  234 

Gibbs,  L.,  28 

Gilbert,  Da  vies,  M.P.,  F.R.S.,  197.  229 

Gilbert,  Thomas,  172,  356 

Glass,  H.  A.,  211 

Glen,  W.  C.  and  A.,  154,  175 

Gneist,  Rudolf  van,  355,  389,  470 

Godfrey,  Sir  Edmondbury,  70-71 

Godschall,  W.  M.,  155 

Godwin,  W.,  421 

Goede,  C.  A.  G.,  284 

Gomme,  G.  L.,  28 

Gonner,  Sir  E.  C.  K.,  2 

Gonzales,  M.,  281 

Gooch,  G.  P.,  417 

Good,  J.,  51 

Gordon,  Alexander.  234 

Gould,  S.  Baring,  28 

Gouldmg,  R.  W.,  328 

Graham,  Sir  James,  385 

Grahame,  Thomas,  177,  230 

Granger,  John,  178 

Gransdell,  Mrs.,  67 

Grantham,  R.  B.,  13,  28 

Gray,  B.  Kirkman,  110,  115 

Gray,  H.  L.,  2 

Green,  J.  R.,  33,  116,  244 

Greg,  R.  H.,  268 

Griffith,  George,  311,  313 

Griffiths,  Hon.  Mrs.,  14,  15,  188 

Grose,  Francis,  432 

Grosley,  M.,  284 

Grosvenors,  the  family  of  the,  70 

Haines,  William,  256 

Halcomb,  John,  5 

Hale,  Sir  Matthew,  112 

Halevy,  EUe,  424 

HaU,  Sir  Benjamin,  249 

Hamilton,  A.  H.,  114,  419 

Hammond,  J.  L.  and  Barbara,  2,  5,  7, 

405,  456,  461 
Hampson,  John,  271 
Hanna,  W.,  15 
Hanway,  Jonas,  237-38,  280-82,  323- 

324 
Harbord,  Sir  Charles,  70 
Hardy,  W.  J.,  278 
Harper,  C.  G.,  194-95,  207,  218,  222 
Harris,  Stanley,  195,  207 
Harris,  Mrs.,  15 
Harwood,  Sir  J.  J.,  261 
Hasbach,  W.,  2 


Hawkins,  Sir  Henry,  205 

Hawkins,  Laetitia  Matilda,  387 

Hawkins,  W.,  106 

Hay,  William,  122 

Healey,  Sir  C.  E.  H.  Chadwick,  40 

Heathcote,  J.  M.,  28,  30 

Hentzner,  Paul,  188 

Heme,  John,  13,  20 

Heywoods,  the,  258 

HiU,  Birkbeck,  284 

Hill,  Frederic,  295 

Hill,  G.  R.,  301 

HiU,  Matthew  Davenport,  264 

Hillsborough,  Earl  of,  122 

Huide,  J.  H.,  158 

Hippesley,  Sir  J.  C,  Bart.,  169,  202, 

210 
Hobhouse,  Rt.  Hon.  Henry,  347 
Hobhouse,  John  Cam,  69,  449 
Holloway,  William,  18,  33,  45 
Holt,  John,  177,  180,  205,  356 
Homer,   Rev.   Henry,   156,   180,   187, 

197,  204,  211 
Hopkins,  Thomas,  268,  270,  403 
Home,  Thomas,  284 
Houldsworth,  the  family  of,  266 
Howards,  the  family  of,  70 
Howell,  James,  236 
Howlett,  John,  2,  117,  119,  126 
Hume,  Joseph,  230 
Hunter,  J.,  51 
Hutchms,  Miss  B.  L.,  316 
Hutton,  William,  238-39,  252-53,  255, 

330 

Ilbert,  Sir  C.  P.,  6 
Ireton,  General,  419 

Jackman,  W.  T.,  153,  159,  175,  195, 

201,  207,  218 
Jacob,  J.,  197 
Jacobs,  Joseph,  236 
Jaffray,  James,  253,  255 
James,  W.,  185 
Jebb,  Rev.  John,  126,  131 
Jeboult,  Edward,  40,  41 
Jefferson,  J.  Cordy,  238,  322,  424 
Jennings,  L.  J.,  314 
Jephson,  Henry,  58,  84,  106,  248,  316 
Jewitt,  Llewellyn,  250 
Johnson,  A.  H.,  2 
Johnson,  James,  114,  115,  148-49 
Jones,  John  E.,  69 
Jummins,  Jeremy,  88 

Kay,  James  Philips,  126 
Kennedy,  G.  G.,  13,  23 
Kingsley,  Rev.  C,  28 
KnatchbuU,  Sir  Edward,  116,  148 
Knight,  F.  A.,  40,  45 

Langford,  J.  A.,  183,  253,  311 


490 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS 


Latimer,  J.,  175 

Lavasseur,  E.,  420 

Lavisse,  Ernest,  419 

Law,  Henry,  224 

Leach,  T.,  15G 

Leadam,  I.  S.,  2 

Leahy,  Edmund,  295 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  8 

Lennox,  Lord  William,  207 

Leonard,  E.  M.,  110-11 

Leslie,  John,  69,  75,  81 

Levis,  M.  do,  285 

Levy,  — ,  195 

Le^vin,  Thomas,  33 

Lowins,  W.,  202 

Lewis,  Sir  Frankland,  225 

Lewis,  Rt.  Hon.  Sir  George  Cornowall, 

Bart.,  450 
Lincoln,  Earl  of,  54 
Littleton,  E.,  155-56,  232 
LlandatT,  Bishop  of,  192 
Lloyd,  Sir  Richard,  123 
Loader,  Isaac,  95 
Locke,  John,  112,  121,  149 
Locke,  Richard,  40 
Lofft,  Capel,  393 
Lowe,  R.,  205 
Lowther,  Viscount,  230-31 
Lyon,  Edmund,  344 

Macadam,  John  Loudon  and  James, 
195-96,  201,  212,  218,  219-20,  223- 
227,  230-31,  234,  312,  455-56,  463 

Macassey,  Sir  L.  L.,  5 

McConnells,  the  family  of,  266 

MacCulloch,  J.  R.,  13,  153 

Macfarlane,  C,  28 

Mackay,  Thomas,  450 

Mackenzie,  Sir  William  W.,  154 

Main  waring,  G.  B.,  456 

Main  waring,  William,  82-83,  91,  103, 
289 

Maitland,  F.  W.,  280,  358,  386,  389, 
438,  445,  458 

Maitland,  WiUiam,  275,  278,  325 

Malcolm,  W.  J.  and  Jacob,  185,  214 

Malot,  Captain  H.  E.,  207 

Malmesbury,  Lord,  15 

Mandevillo,  Bernard  de,  321-22 

Marat,  J.  P.,  420 

Marks,  Alfred,  20 

Marsh,  Thomas,  166 

Marshall,  W.,  334 

Martin,  C.  Trice,  45 

Massingbird,  W.  O.,  28,  54 

Maudsloy,  Athol,  195,  224 

Maxwell,  George,  28 

May,  A.,  316 

Meiboumo,  Lord,  346,  450,  451,  453, 
466 

Mendham,  Thomas,  126 

Merceron,  Joseph,  82,  91,  103 


Meredith,  Sir  William,  5 

Meriton,  G.,  156 

Metcalfe,  John,  211 

Middleton,  John,  410 

Mill,  James,  423,  424,  459 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  233,  423 

Miller,  S.  H.,  27 

Milton,  Rev.  W.,  199 

Molesworth,  Sir  William,  10 

Moon,  Edward,  126 

Moore,  Sir  Jolm,  38,  106 

Moore,  Sir  Jonas,  28 

Moreton,  Andrew,  363,  380.     See  also 

Daniel  Defoe 
Moritz,  C.  P.,  284-85 
Morris,  Corbyn,  324 
Murrays,  the  family  of,  266 

Nadin,  — ,  461 

Neilson,  N.,  29 

Newport,  Earl  of,  70 

NichoUs,  Sir  George,  8,  109,  112,  122, 

450 
Nield,  W.,  268 
NoUekens,  J.  F.,  280 
Noithouck,  J.,  279 

Odgers,  Blake,  154 
Oldfield,  Edmund,  53 
Oldmixon,  174,  382 
Owen,  Hugh,  117 
Owen,  Robert,  414 

Padley,  J.  S.,  13,  51 
Pagan,  William,  157,  196 
Paine,  Thomas,  419-20,  421,  425 
Pamell,  Sir  Henry  (Lord  Congletfm), 

153,  158,  205,  206,  207,  212,  213, 

221,  222,  229,  232 
ParnoU,  Sir  John,  295 
Pashloy,  Robert,  112 
Pearson,  James,  194 
Peel,  Sir  Robert,  179,  314,  461 
Porcies,  the  family  of  the,  70 
Phelps,  Rev.  W.,  40,  43,  45 
Phillips,  Francis,  201,  261 
Phillips,  John,  84 
Phillips,  Mark,  268 
Phillips,  Robert,  186-87 
Phillijis,  the  family  of  the,  258 
Picton,  Sir  J.  A.,  304,  313,  331,  332 
Pinkerton,  John,  281 
Pitt,  William,  38,  106,  388 
Place,  Francis,  10,  177,  295,  406,  414, 

423,  451.  480 
Playtor,  Sir  WilUam,  Bart.,  70 
Plymlev,  Joseph,  117,  120,  141 
Poole,  B.,  330 
Popham,  Chief  Justice,  23 
VotU^T,  R.,  123,  126,  140 
Potter,  Richard,  268 
Potter,  Sir  Thomas,  260,  262,  268 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS 


491 


Potter,  family  of,  258 
Powell,  Sir  Nathaniel,  Bart.,  45 
Powys,  Philip  Lybbe,  306,  311 
Prentice,    Archibald,    265,    267,   271- 

272 
Price,  Robert,  424 
Priestley,  Joseph,  424 
Pringle,  A.,  204 
Proctor,  Thomas,  156 
Prothero,  Rowland  (Lord  Emle),  32 
Pryme,  George,  32 
Pugh,  John,  238 

PulHng,  Alexander,  110,  111,  348 
Pulteney,  Sir  WiUiam,  70,  117,  119 

Rainborow,  Colonel,  418 

Rawnsley,  W.  F.,  51 

Redlich,  Josef,  6 

Rendle,  W.,  58,  94 

Rennie,  Sir  J.,  28,  38,  68,  224 

Rhodes,  Thomas,  372 

Ricardo,  David,  227 

Richardson,  H.  A.,  25 

Richardson,  H.  G.,  19,  57 

Richman,  John,  153,  222,  291 

Rickards,  A.  G.,  5 

Roberson,  G.,  116,  244 

Robertson,  J.  C,  295 

Roe,  John,  86,  93 

Rolle,  — ,  154 

Romilly,  Sir  Samuel,  10,  459 

Rose,  George,  388 

Rudder,  S.,  40 

Ruggles,  Thomas,  112,  121,  124,  126, 

137,  140 
Russells,  the  family  of,  70 
Ryland,  A.,  40 
Ryves,  Reginald,  224 

Saint-Leon,  Etienne  Martin,  420,  427 

St.  Levan,  Lord,  183 

Salisbury,  Lord,  475 

Saunders,  George,  81 

Saunders,  J.  S.,  13,  23 

Scholefield,  J.,  301 

Scott,  John,  153,  170-72,  179,  186-87, 

190-91,  197,  205,  210-15 
Scrutton,  T.  E.,  2 
Senior,  Nassau,  450 
Shaftesbury,  Lord,  272 
Shapleigh,  John,  165 
Shaw,  — ,  110,  446 
SheKord,  Leonard,  233 
Shenstone,  William,  408-409 
Sherwood,  Thomas  M.,  5 
Shuttleworth,  John,  261-62 
Sidmouth,  Lord,  461 
Simon,  Sir  John,  58 
Sinclair,  Sir  Jolm,  Bart.,  187,  196,  198, 

202,  220,  223,  463 
Skertchley,  S.  B.,  27 
Slater,  GUbert,  2 


SmUes,  Samuel,  13,  30-31,  40,  51,  211, 

222  224  231 
Smith,  Adam,  190,  414,  419,  425 
Smith,  A.  L.,  154 
Smith,  Charles  Roach,  33 
Smith,  J.  Toulmin,  10,  280,  355,  395, 

424,  438,  445-46,  457-58 
Smith,  Sir  Thomas,  458 
Smith,  William,  211 
Soper,  G.  A.,  316 
Spencer,  F.  H.,  vi,  6-7,  58,  85,  105-106. 

109,  118,  144-45,  147,  225,  243,  298 
Spencer.  Mrs.,  vi 
Spinks,  Wilham,  301 
Spranger,    John,    237,    279,    280-82, 

314,  322,  324 
Stedman,  Rev.  Thomas,  117 
Stephen,  Sir  James  Fitzjames,  8 
Stephen,  Sir  LesUe,  424 
Steuart,  Sir  James,  285-86 
Stillingfleet,  Archbishop  Edward,  390 
Stocking,  Thomas,  114 
Stonehouse,  Rev.  W.  B.,  32,  51 
Strange,  Sir  John,  60 
Strype,  John,  279 
Sturges,  Bourne,  447-50,  452-54,  459, 

466,  471,  473,  475 
Sutherland,  Sir  John,  404 
Sympson,  E.  M.,  51 

Tait,  James,  261 

Tawney,  R.  H.,  2 

Taylor,  John  Edward,  258,  268,  270 

Taylor,  Michael  Angelo,  288,  290-94, 

327 
Taylor,  Tom,  481-82 
Telford,  Thomas  and  Robert,  68,  153, 

221,  222,  224,  231,  295,  312,  455, 

463 
Thompson,  P.,  51,  55 
Thring,  T.,  13 

Throkmorton,  Clement  K.,  253 
Tomlins,  Sir  T.  E.,  105 
Torrens,  W.  T.  McCullagh,  453 
Tresaguet,  Pierre,  224 
Tristram,  W.  0.,  207 
Turgot,  224,  420 
Twistleton,  148 

Vauthier,  Maurice,  38 
Vernon,  Admiral,  122 
Vetch,  Capt.  R.  E.,  280 
Vinagradoff,  Professor  Paul,  54,  397 
Vince,  C.  A.,  253 

Walker,  A.,  236 

Walker,  James,  38 

Walker,  Thomas,  273 

Wallas,  Graham,  406,  423,  424 

Walpole,  Horace,  409 

Walpole,  Spencer,  8 

Ward,  C.  M.,  187,  196,  198 


492 


INDEX  OF  PERSONS 


Waring,  Colonel,  316 

Wamor,  Rev.  R.,  138 

Watson,  J.  Yellowly,  40 

Watson,  Richard,  192 

Watson,  W.,  28 

Waylon,  James,  313 

Welch,  C,  348 

Wells,  Samuel,  15,  28,  30-31 

Whateley,  Rev.  Richard,  13U 

Wheeler,  E.,  5 

Wheeler,  G.  J.,  6 

Wheeler,  Thomas,  271 

Wheeler,  W.  H.,  13,  31-32, 51-52,  55-50 

Whitaker,  T.  D.,  1G9,  175 

Whittle,  P.  A.,  313 

Whitworth,  Sir  Charles,  282 

Whitworth,  William,  267,  271 

Wickens,  Wilham,  171 

Wilberforce,  H.  W.  W.,  6,  373 

Wilde,  Sergeant  (Lord  Truro),  91 

Wilkmson,  412 

Wilks,  John,  91 

Williams,  Sir  Daniel,  67,  85,  91,  93 


Williams,  J.,  69 

Windor,  G.  H.,  271 

Wiiuiliam,  William,  468 

Winstono,   Benjamin,   153,    188,   193, 

195-96,  215-18 
Wood,  George  WUliam,  262,  268 
Wood,  Isaac,  117,  118,  119-20,  137 
Woodward,  Josiah,  439 
Woolrych,  Humphry,  W.,  13,  57,  85 
Worth,  R.  N.,  250 
Wren,  Sir  Christopher,  71 
Wright,  R.  S.,  347 
Wroe,  J.,  271-72 
Wroe,  Thomas,  262 
Wroxall,  Sir  Nathaniel,  191 


Yeo,  SirWilUam,  411 
Young,  Arthur,  51,  55,  125-26,   137, 
191,  205,  220,  223,  333-34 


Zeal,  Zachary,  285 
Zouch.  Rev.  H.,  440,  458 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


Aberystwith,  Harbour  Commissioners 

at,"  241 
Abingdon,  Order  of  Court  of  Sewers 

at,  40 
Acton,  Sewer  Commissioners  for,  77 
Aldgato,  Guardians  of  Poor  of,  146  ; 

paving  of  streets  of,  277 
Alston  (Cumberland),  Turnpike  Trust 

of,  227 
Amlwch,  Harbour  Commissioners  of, 

241 
Arundel,  Harbour  Commissioners  of, 

241  ;  paving  of,  311 
Ashcote,  Sewers,  Jury  of,  42 
Ashford     (Kent),     paving     of,     302, 

441 
Ashton,  public  nuisances  in,  401 
Atcham,    employment    of    poor    at, 

118 
Athelney,  marshes  of,  40 
Avalon,  Isle  of,  40 
Axbridge,  Court  of  Sewora  at,  43,  45  ; 

Drainage  Act  for,  45 
Axe  and  Brue,  drainage   awards  for 

the,  41  ;   Act  for,  45 
Axholme,  Isle  of,  32 

Bardney  Abbey  and  drainage  of  the 
fens,  29 

Barham,  House  of  Industry  at,  125 

Barlings  Abbey  and  drainage  of  fens, 
29 

Barmouth,  Harbour  Commissioners  of, 
241 

Bamhill  to  Hatten  Heath  Road,  the, 
158 

Barnstaple,  207 

Bath,  election  of  ParUamentary 
candidate  for,  421  ;  House  of 
Industry  at,  118 ;  Improvement 
Commissioners  for,  161,  309;  paving 
streets  of,  159,  309,  312;  street 
cleansing  at,  335  ;  Turnpike  Trust 
for,  160,  204,  227 

and   Kingsdown    HiU   Tumjiike 

Act,  166  ;  road,  160 

Bayswater  road  turnpike,  167 


Bedford    Level,    Act    of    1663,    26 
Corporation     of,     13,     27-33,     56 
Governors  of,  14  ;    records  of,  20 
surveyor     of,     49 ;      North     Level 
Commissioners,  32 

Bedfordshire,  turnpikes  of,  158-59, 164 

Belgium,  drainage  areas  of,  38 

Belgravia,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  247-48  ;   paving  of,  296 

Berkshire,  "  Bread  Act,"  392  ;  Court 
of  Sewers  for,  40  ;  exemption  from 
tolls  in,  191  ;  Quarter  Sessions  of, 
302 

Bermondsey,  Guardians  of  Poor  of, 
145  ;   Paving  Authorities  of,  296 

Berwick,  207  ;   Freemen  of,  366 

Beswick,  Lord  of  the  Manor  of,  261 

Bethnal  Green  Council,  91  ;  Cleansing, 
Lighting,  and  Watching  Act,  1750, 
325  ;  Guardians  of  Poor  of,  146  ; 
street  cleansing  in,  324 ;  statute 
labour  for  street  cleansing  in,  325 

Beverley  Act,  the,  161  ;  Beck  Act, 
the,  328  ;  Harbour  Commissioners 
of,  241  ;  street  cleansing  regula- 
tions at,  329 

Bewdley,  paving  at,  313 

Birdlip  and  Gloucester  Road,  the,  158 ; 
Turnpike  Act  for,  167 

Birmingham,  207,  258  ;  bread  riots 
at,  412 ;  Court  Leet  of,  252 ; 
Guardians  of  the  Poor  for,  144-45, 
253  ;  history  of,  252  ;  Improve- 
ment Commissioners  for,  244,  273  ; 
Lamp  Commissioners  of,  252-56 ; 
Lighting  Act  of,  330 ;  Manorial 
Courts  of,  370  ;  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion of,  256 ;  paving  in,  252-56, 
311,  312-13;  police  of,  254-55; 
Poor  Law  Union  of,  109  ;  popula- 
tion of,  238 ;  streets  of,  238-39 ;  toll 
bridge  at,  182-83;  Town  Surveyor 
of,  256 

Bishopsgate,  Guardians  of  Poor  for, 
146 

Bishopwearmouth,  bridge  tolls  of, 
182-83  ;  Streets  Act  for,  330 


493 


494 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


Blackfriars  Bridge,  286 

Blackwall.  Commissionors  of  Sewera 
for,  85  ;   Dyko  at,  48 

Bloomsbury,  Guardians  of  Poor  for, 
146 ;  paving  of,  282,  287  ;  and 
Westminster  Commission  of  Sowers, 
80 

Blything  Hundred,  Commissioners  of 
Sewers  for,  38  ;  Poor  Law  adminis- 
tration at,  131,  136-37 

Bolingbroke,  Soke  of,  20,  55 

Bosmere  Hundred,  House  of  Industry 
of,  125 

Boston,  Harbour  Commissioners  of, 
241  ;   Court  of  Sewers  at,  52,  56 

Boughton,  highways  of,  166 

Bradford,  Improvement  Commis- 
sionors for,  244 ;  street  cleansing 
at,  335,  341 

Braintree  (Kssex),  Gentlemen  of  the 
Four  and  Twenty  of,  25 

Brentford,  Sewer  Commissioners  for, 
77  ;   Tumpilvo  Trustees  for,  195 

Bridgewater,  Act  of,  245  ;  Court  of 
Sowers  for,  41-45,  53  ;  Market  and 
Streets  Act  for,  300 ;  Turnpike 
Trust,  266.     See  also  Somerset 

Bridport,  Harbour  Commissioners  of, 
241 

Brighton,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  244 ;  contract  with 
Poor  Law  Authority  for  street 
cleansing,  341  ;  paving  contracts, 
310 ;  revenue  from  sale  of  street 
rcfuso,  336 

Road,  227;  Tumpilve  Trust  of,  195 

Bristol,  Cor])oration  of  the  Poor  of, 
111,  114,  148-49  ;  Close  Vestries  of, 
and  political  partisanship,  382 ; 
Freemen  of,  472 ;  Harbour  Com- 
missioners of,  241  ;  Hospital  of  St. 
Peter  at,  143  ;  Improvement  Act 
of,  300,  307-309 ;  Incorporated 
Guardians  of,  116;  Mimicipal  Cor- 
j)oration  of,  307,  449  ;  paving  at, 
298,  306-10,  312  ;  pollution  of  air 
at,  404 ;  Select  Vestry  of,  371, 
422 ;  street  cleansing  at,  287, 
330-31  ;  Turnpike  Trust  of,  204, 
220,  227  ;  turnpike  riots  at,  174-75  ; 
toll  bridges  at,  182 

Brixton,  drainage  of,  100 

Broadstairs,  Harbour  Commissioners 
of,  241 

Brue  (Somerset),  drainage  of,  41,  45 

Buckingiiamshire,  Turnpike  Trustees 
of,  159 

Bulcamp,  House  of  Industry  at,  125, 
UO 

Bungay,  street  cleansing  in,  328-29 

Bury  St.  Edmund's,  union  of  Parishes 
at,  116  ;   Quarter  Sessions  at,  393 


Buxton,    Incorporated   Guardians   of 

Poor  of,  125 
Byrmynghara.     See  Birmingham 

Cainscross  (Gloucester),  turnpike  riots 
at,  174 

Camberwcll,  sale  of  refuse  in,  337 

Cambridge,  University  of,  and  paving 
regulations,  298 

Cambridgeshire,  Commissionors  of 
Sewers  of,  39  ;  drainage  of  fens  of, 
28,  53  ;   roads  of,  157-58,  161-62 

Canterbury,  33 ;  Commissioners  of 
Sewers  ft)r,  46,  49  ;  Jury  of  Sowers 
at,  50;  Paving  Act  for,  298; 
Sheriff  of,  50  ;  union  of  Parishes 
at,  116 

Cardiff,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  244 

CarLford.     See  Colneis  and  Carlford 

Carlisle,  fees  of  Clerk  of  Peace  in, 
385  ;  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  244 

Carnarvon,  Harbour  Commissionors 
for,  241 

Carsdyke,  29 

Caxton,  tumpilvo  toll  at,  158 

Chatham,  Paving  Act  for,  300  ;  and 
Canterbury  Turnpike  Act,  188 

Chedzoy  (Somerset),  Sewers,  Jury  of,  42 

Chelmsford,  petition  of,  to  Essex 
Quarter  Sessions,  188-89 

Cheltenham,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  244 

Cheshire,  turnpikes  of,  158 

Cheshunt,  Turnpike  Trust  of,  212 

Chester,  crime  at,  410-11  ;  Improve- 
ment Commissionei-s  of,  244  ;  street 
cleansing  at,  332  ;  union  of  Parishes 
at,  116 

Chichester,  Paving  Act  of,  298; 
union  of  Parishes  of,  116 

Christchurch,  Guardians  of  the  Poor 
of,  145 

Cinque  Ports,  liberty  of  the,  18,  46  ; 
Lord  Warden  of  the,  50,  106 

Cirencester,  Paving  Act  of,  298 

Clayton  Hundred,  House  of  Industry 
of,  125 

Clobsdon,  sewers  of,  38 

Colchester,  Guardians  of  the  Poor  of, 
115;  Harbour  Commissioners  of, 
241  ;  Harbour  and  Streets  Act  for, 
299-300 

Coley  House,  164 

Colneis  and  Carlford  Hundred, 
Guardians  of  Poor  of,  124-26,  127, 
130,  132-33 ;  Acts  relating  to, 
121-23,  127,  137;  House  of  In- 
dustry of,  140 

Congresbury  (Somerset),  drainage 
awards  for,  41 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


495 


Cosford  Hundred,  Incorporated 
Guardians  of,  137 ;  and  Polsted 
Poor  Law  Act,  142 

Cottenham  (Cambridgeshire),  fens  of, 
15 

Coventry,  Freemen  of,  366,  472-73  ; 
Improvement  Commissioners  of, 
244 ;  Incorporated  Guardians  of, 
116  ;  Municipal  Corporation  of,  378, 
382  ;  pavage  toll  in,  298  ;  street 
cleansing  in,  327,  330 

Crediton  (Devon),  Guardians  of  Poor 
of,  115 

Crowland  Abbey  and  drainage  of 
fens,  29 

Croydon,  amercement  of,  by  Sewer 
Commissioners,  99 

Deal,  Streets  Act  for,  300-301 

Derby,  food  riots  in,  411  ;  gas  supply 
of,  262  ;  Guardians  of  the  Poor  of, 
125 ;  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  245 

Deritend,  bridge  tolls  of  (Birming- 
ham), 182-83 

Devizes,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  313  ;   Streets  Act  of,  330 

Devon,  Hundred  Jury  of,  73  ;  relief 
of  poor  in,  112 

Devonport,  toll  bridge  at,  183  ;  pav- 
ing of,  312 

Diss  (Norfolk),  association  of  farmers 
for  suppression  of  horse-stealing  at, 
440 

Dock.     See  Devonport 

Domsey  Road  (Essex),  184 

Dorchester,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  244  ;  Street  Act  for, 
300 

Dorset,  Hundred  Jury  of,  73 

Dover,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  244  ;  and  Rye  Harbour  Com- 
missioners, 241 

Dudley,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  245 

Dunwich,  drainage  of,  16 

Durham,  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  244 ;  Commission  of  Sewers  of, 
20  ;  Select  Vestry  of,  371  ;  Turn- 
pike Trust  of,  166 

Dursley  and  Berkeley,  Turnpike  Trust 
for,  153 

Dymchurch,  the  wall  at,  33,  36,  38 

Edinburgh,  207  ;    street  cleansing  in, 

319 
EUesmere,   employment   of   poor   at, 

118,  120 
Ely,   Bishop   of.  Commissions   issued 

by,  20  ;    Commission  of  Sewers  of, 

23,  29;    fens   of,    14;     Library  of 

Cathedral  of,  28 


Enfield  Turnpike  Trust.  See  London 
— Shoreditch 

Eppmg  and  Ongar,  Turnpike  Trust  of, 
153,  188,  193,  195-96,  210,  215-18 

Epsom,  Turnpike  Surveyor  for,  212 

Essex,  bridge  tolls  m,  182-83;  Court 
of  Quarter  Sessions  of,  73 ;  Hun- 
dred Jury  of,  73  ;  roads  of,  186, 
215;  sewers  of,  27,  40;  Turnpike 
Trust  of,  158,  184,  188,  204,  208; 
Wallreeves  of,  53 

Everingham,  Incorporated  Guardians 
of  the  Poor  of,  125 

Evesham,  toll  bridge  at,  183,  191-92  ; 
Turnpike  Act,  192 

Exeter,  Guardians  of  the  Poor  of,  115  ; 
Improvement  Commissions  Act, 
161  ;  paving  by  contract  at,  310 ; 
population  of,  399  ;  roads  of,  177  ; 
Turnpike  Trust  of,  153,  204,  215, 
227 

Falmouth,  Turnpike  Trust  for,  204, 207 

Fazeley,  road  through,  179 

Fens,  the  Corporation  of  the  Governor 
.  .  .  and  .  .  .  Company  of  Conser- 
vators of  the  Great  Level  of,  30 ; 
drainage  of,  13-15,  27-31,  58; 
enclosure  of,  20 

Flegg,  East  and  West,  Poor  Law  Act 
for,  131 

Fobbing  (Essex),  Courts  of  Sewers  in, 
38 

Folkestone,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  244 

Forden,  House  of  Industry  at,  118 

Forehoe,  House  of  Industry  at,  125  ; 
Poor  Law  Act  for,  142 

Fomhill  (Beds.),  highway  of,  159 

Fossedyke,  29 

Foundling  Hospital  Estate  (London), 
224 

Frampton,  Dykereeves'  Rate  at,  55 

France,  suppression  of  corporations 
in,  420  ;  character  of  Government 
of,  481  ;  roads  in,  224  ;  turnpikes 
in,  206  ;  toUs  in,  163 

Gainsborough,  Lighting  and  Paving 
Act  for,  300 

Glastonbury,  Court  of  Sewers  at,  43 

Gloucester,  Mayor  and  Dean  of,  4  ; 
Paving  Act  for,  298-99  ;  Corpora- 
tion of  the  Poor  of,  116  ;  Guardians 
of  the  Poor  of,  115 ;  Poor  Law 
Union  of,  109  ;  and  Stroud  Turn- 
pike Trustees,  180-81 

Gloucestershire,  Levels  of,  40  ;  road 
toll  in,  157  ;  sewers  of,  27  ;  turn- 
pikes of,  158,  173-74 

Godalming,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  245 


496 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


Gorton,  water  su[)i)ly  at,  2G 

Grampound,  Turnpike  Trust  for,  204 

Grantchoster,  Commissioners  of  Sewers 
for,  39 

Grantham,  turnpike  road  at,  177; 
milestones  at,  187 

Gravesend,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners of,  244 ;  and  Rochester 
Road,  159  ;  and  Milton  Streets  Act, 
300.  See  also  Greenwich,  Commis- 
sioners of  Sewers  for 

Great  Ambrey,  petition  of,  72 

Great  North  Road,  the,  157-58,  lGl-02, 
180,  231  ;  Turnpike  Act  for,  166 

Groat  Tew,  366 

Groat  Western  Road,  the,  171,  181, 
218 

Greenwich,  Commissioners  of  Sewers 
of,  58-68,  84-85 ;  corruptness  of, 
64-67;  officers  of,  58-60,  65-67; 
membership  of,  64-65  ;  renewal  by 
co-option,  65  ;  Standing  Jury  of, 
59-65,  73,  88  ;  and  Ravensboumo 
Bridge,  66  ;  paving  at,  304  ;  Royal 
Hospital  at,  62 

Greenwich,  East,  Commissioners  of 
Sewers  of,  59,  68 ;  Guardians  of 
Poor  of,  145  ;  street  cleansing  in, 
328 

Gressinghall,  House  of  Lidustry  at, 
125 

Grosvenor  Place,  Imjirovemcnt  Com- 
missioners for,  247 

Hacklmg's  Land  (Kent),  48 
Hadleigh,  street  cleansing  in,  328-29 
Halliwell  and  Finsbury,  sewers  at,  89 
Ham  Wall,  the  (Bridgewater),  42 
Hampshire,    poor  relief  by   Court  of 
Quarter  Sessions  in,  392  ;  turnpikes 
of,  158.     See  also  Isle  of  Wight 
Hampstead,   Guardians   of   Poor  for, 
146  ;  sewage  of,  80,  89  ;   and  High- 
gate,  Turnpike  Act  for,  163 
Hampton,  Sewer  Commissioners  for, 

77 
Hampton  Court,  toll  bridge  at,  182-83 
Hanley,  Improvement  Commissioners 

for,  245 
Harlow,  road  administration  at,  215  ; 
and    Stuni])    Cross    Turnpike    Act, 
167  ;      and     Woodford     Turnpike 
Trustees,  215-16 
Harivich  Road,  the  158 
Hastings,      Improvement      Commis- 
sioners of,  244  ;  Street  Act  for,  330  ; 
petition  against  turnpike  tolls  of, 
173 
Hatfield  Chase  (Lincolnshire),  Bill  for 

establishing  a  Coqjoration  for,  32 
Hcckingham,  House  of  Lidustry  at, 
125,  134-36,  141 


Hereford,  Guardians  of  the  Poor  of, 
115  ;  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  243  ;  turnpike  riots  in,  174 ; 
Turnpike  Trust  of,  227 

Hertfordshire,  Turnpike  Trust  for, 
188,  210  ;  petition  of  Justices  of, 
157-58 

Highgate  and  Bamet,  Turnpike  Act 
for,  167  ;  and  Hampstead,  Turn- 
pike Act  for,  1 67 

Hockley  and  Wobum,  Turnpike  Act 
for,  164  ;   road  at,  158-59 

Hockliffe  and  Stony  Stratford,  Turn- 
pike Act  for,  167 

"  Hog  Island,"  88 

Holkham,  street  cleansing  at,  333 

Holland,  Commissioner  of  Sewers  in, 
79  ;   streets  of,  284 

Holyhead  Road,  the,  177,  202,  207, 
220-23 ;  Commissioners  for  the, 
231-32,  462-63 

Hove,  Paving  Act  for,  300 

Huddersfield,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  244 

Hull,  Guardians  of  the  Poor  of,  115  ; 
Lighting  Act  for  1810,  301  ;  Paving 
Act  for,  299-330 ;  paving  regula- 
tions of,  298-99  ;  street  cleansing 
in,  334 

Huntingdon,  28 ;  fens  of,  28 ; 
pavage  toll  in,  298 ;  roads  of, 
157-58,  161-62  ;   Surveyor  for,  212 

Huntspill,  sea  wall  at,  45 

Hyde,  public  nuisances  in,  401 

Ipswich,  municipal  elections  at,  383  ; 

Paving  Act  for,  298  ;  Town  Council 

of,  298-99 
Irish  Road,  the.     See  Holyhead  Road 
Isle  of  Dogs,  annual  sewage  rate  of, 

62,  98  ;    drainage  of,  85  ;   jurymen 

of,  63 
Isle  of  Wight,  Guardians  of  the  Poor 

of,  138-39 ;    House  of  Industry  at 

Parkhurst  Forest,  138-39  ;    Quarter 

Sessions  of,   138 ;    Turninke  Trust 

of,  138 
Isleworth,  Sewer  Commissioners  for,  77 

Kent,  Marsh  Rate  for,  53  ;   roads  of, 

189  ;    signposts  on  roads  in,   188  ; 

Sewers'  Commission  of,  14, 17-18,  33, 

58     (sec     also     Romney     Marsh) ; 

Turnpike  Trusts  in,  158,  166,  204, 

229 
East,  Commissioners  of  Sewers 

for,    14,    27,   45-51,   53 ;     Standing 

Jury  of,  73  ;   rates  of,  89 
West,  cleansing  regulations  for, 

328-29 
King's  Lynn,  fens  of,  28  ;   Guardians 

of  Poor  of,  115 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


497 


Kingslancl  Road,  Turnpike  Trust  of, 

168 
liingston-on-Thames,  paving  at,  303- 

304 
Kings  wood,  turnpike  riots  at,  174 
ICirkstead    Abbey   and    drainage    of 

fens,  29 
Kirton  Wapentakes  (Lines.),  drainage 

of,  52  ;   Sewers  Rate  of,  56 
Knutsford,  jjavements  at,  311 

Lancashire,  assistant  overseers  of  poor 
in,  434;  bridge  tolls  of,  182-83; 
riots  against  introduction  of 
machinery  in,  412  ;  signposts  on 
roads  of,  188  ;  statute  labour  in, 
167  ;  Turnpike  Trustees  in,  179-80, 
205 

and  Yorkshire   turnpike  roads, 

211-12 

Lancaster,  Duchy  of.  Fen  Code  of,  55  ; 
Commission  of  Sewers  of,  20 ; 
Harbour  Commissioners  for,  241  ; 
Improvement  Commissioners  for, 
245 ;  paving  of  London  area  of, 
282 

and  Richmond  Turnpike  Act  for, 

192 

Langport,  Court  of  Sewers  at,  43-44  ; 
Jury  at,  42 

Launceston,  Turnpike  Trust  for,  160 

Ledbury,  Turnpike  Trustees  for,  175 

Leeds,  Act  concerning  Improvement 
Commissioners  of,  161 ;  Act  re  over- 
seers of  poor  in,  108  ;  churchwarden 
of,  422 ;  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners of,  244-45,  301  ;  contracts 
of,  with  Workhouse  Board,  341-42, 
344 ;  paving  laws  in,  301,  303 ; 
principle  of  co-option  in,  373 ; 
sale  of  refuse  in,  339  ;  street  cleans- 
ing regulations,  330  ;  Street  Com- 
missioners of,  105,  315 ;  turnpike 
riots  in,  174-75  ;  Turnpike  Trusts 
of,  227  ;   Vestry  of,  440,  448,  471 

Leicester,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners of,  242  ;  Mimicipal  Corpora- 
tion of,  378,  382-83;  pavmg  in, 
310;  Poor  Law  Union  of,  109; 
rating  for  town  improvements  in, 
302-303 

and    Hickley    Turnpike    Act, 

166 

Leicestershire,  Guardians  of  Poor  of, 
125  ;   roads  of,  186 

Lewes,  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  245 ;  Sewage  Commission  of 
Levels  of,  40 

Liberty  of  the  Rolls,  the,  146  ;  paving 
of,  282 

Lichfield,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  245 


Lincoln,  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  244  ;  Incorporated  Guardians  of 
the  Poor  for,  116  ;  Streets  Act  for, 
299-300 

and  Peterborough  Turnpike  Act, 

193 

Lincolnshire,  29 ;  fens  of,  27-28 ; 
Sewers  Commission  for,  13,  51-57  ; 
Sewers,  Jury  of,  73 

Littlehampton,  Harbour  Commis- 
sioners for,  241 

Liverpool,  crime  in,  410 ;  Harbour 
Commissioners  of,  241  ;  Improve- 
ment Commissioners  of,  242,  244, 
301  ;  merchants  of,  414 ;  paving 
of,  304-305,  313  ;  use  of  referendum 
at,  448  ;  street  cleansing  in,  331-32  ; 
Street  Commissioners  of,  105 ;  Turn- 
pike Trustees  of,  179;  Vestry  of, 
471 

Municipal  Cor]Joration  of,  378- 

381,  449  ;  and  religious  partisan- 
ship, 383,  422  ;   Freemen  of,  472-73 

Parish  Committee  of,  447 

and  Prescot  Turnpike  Act,  1G8 

Lloyd's  Coffee  House,  212 

Loddon  and  Clavering,  House  of 
Industry  at,  135 

Loes  and  Wilford,  Guardians  of  Poor 
of,  133-34;  Local  Poor  Law  Act 
for,  142 ;  House  of  Industry  at, 
134-35,  143  ;   poor  relief  at,  136 

London,  crime  in,  408-409 ;  Great 
Fire  of,  237,  277 ;  Improvement 
Commissioners  of,  240,  242,  244, 
248  ;  pavements  of,  75,  77,  276-97  ; 
population  of,  189-90,  399  ;  roads 
of,  177-79,  185,  189-90;  Sewers 
Commissioners  of,  57-58,  68,  81,  89; 
240,  278,  286,  319-20,  347-48; 
Sheriff  of,  73  ;  state  of  streets  in, 
408-10  ;  street  cleansing  adminis- 
tration of,  236-37,  318-25  ;  Sturges 
Bourne's  Act  re,  447  ;  toll  bridges 
of,  176,  182  ;  pavage  toll  of,  157  ; 
turnpike  tolls  of,  105 ;  Turnpike 
Trusts  in,  228-29 

City  of,  354  ;    aldermen  of,  35  ; 

Common  Coimcil  of,  58,  286,  408- 
409,  432-34 ;  Corporation  of,  58,  89, 
348 ;  Corporation  of  Poor  of,  4,  109- 
110,  114;  election  of  Mayor  and 
Sheriffs  of,  429  ;  officers  of,  432-33  ; 
Municipal  Corporation  of,  378,  383, 
384,  449 

County    Council,    3,    270,    347 ; 

papers  of,  81  ;  and  Metropohtan 
Commission  of  Sewers,  57-58,  85, 
106.  See  also  Metropolitan  Board 
of  Works 

Foundling  Hospital,  117 

Government  Act,  98,  347 

2k 


498 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


London,  places  within — 

Chancery  Lane,  paving  of,  277 

Charing  Cross,  paving  of,  229,  277  ; 
sewers  of,  71 

Charterhouse  Square  (London)  Act 
of  1742,  244 

Chelsea,  Commissioners  of  Sewers 
for,  77-78,  80  ;  drainage  of,  69  ; 
Hans  Town  Street  Commissioners, 
32(5 ;  paving  of,  277,  289,  291-92  ; 
population  and  Turnpike  Trus- 
tees of,  228 ;  Vestry  of,  289, 
291-92 

Chiswick,  Sewer  Commissioners  for, 
77 

Christchurch,  Spitalfields,  pave- 
ments of,  295 

Clapton,  Commissioners  of  Sewers. 
See  Uolborn  and  Finsbury 

Clcrkenwell,  Guardians  of  Poor  for, 
146 

Dean's  Yard,  paving  of,  282 

Deptford,  Commissioners  of  Sewers 
for,  94,  100 ;  drainage  of,  85  ; 
Guardians  of  Poor  of,  145  ;  high- 
way inflictment  of  Parish  of  St. 
Paul  in,  296 

Ealing,  Sewer  Commissioners  for, 
77 

Fetter  Lane,  pavement  of,  28(5 

Finsbury,  Court  of  Sowers,  14,  26, 
67,  103.     See  also  Holborn 

Fulham,  drainage  of,  69 

Gray's  Inn  Lane,  paving  of,  277 

Hackney,  Guardians  of  Poor  for, 
146 ;  highway  rate  for,  168 ; 
road,  the,  186  ;  sewage  rate  for, 
89 

Hammersmith,  Sewor  Commis- 
sioners for,  69,  77  ;  Turniiiko 
Trust  for,  199,  218-19 

Hanover  Square,  St.  George's, 
Guardians  of  Poor  for,  146 ; 
paving  of,  277 

Hanwell,  Sewer  Commissioners  for, 
77 

Holbom,  Guardians  of  Poor  of,  146 ; 
paving  of,  278,  282  ;  Paving  Act 
of  1533,  277  ;  Sowers  Commis- 
sion, 14,  26,  67,  85,  103 

Holbom  and  Finsbury,  Commission 
of  Sewers,  85-93,  100  ;  constitu- 
tion and  procedure  of,  89-93 ; 
inclliciency  and  corruption  of,  87- 
91  ;  otlicors  of,  87,  92-93  ;  rates 
of,  87  ;  Standing  Jury  of,  88-91  ; 
Treasurers  of,  92 

Holbom  Bridge  and  Bars,  paving, 
277 

Islington,  Guardians  of  the  Poor 
for,  146-47:  police  of,  237; 
Turnpike  Trust  for,  217 


London,  places  within,  cbntd. — 

Kcnsingtcm,  drainage  of,  69 ; 
Guardians  of  Poor  at,  147  ; 
paving  of  streets  of,  277,  291  ; 
pig-keeping  in,  404;  population 
of,  228  ;  Sewers  Commission  for, 
77-78,80;  Sewers'  Rate  for,  75; 
street  cleansing  of,  324  ;  Turn- 
pike Act,  163 ;  Turnpike  Trust 
of,  193,  209,  217,  228-29 

Lambeth,  pavement  of,  295 ; 
sewage  of,  101  ;  Lighting  Trustees 
for,  248 

Lcwisham,  Guardians  of  the  Poor 
for,  146 

Lincoln's  Lin  Fields,  paving  of,  282 

Lombard  Wall.  See  East  Greemvich, 
Co>nmis.sio7iers  of  Sewers 

Mile  End,  Guardians  of  Poor  for,  146 

IMillbank,  drainage  of,  69.  Sec 
Westminster 

New  Gravel  Lane  and  Shadwcll 
Act,  1774,  re  street  cleansing,  325 

Newgate,  tumpilcc  rioters  com- 
mitted to,  174 

Notting  Hill,  sewer  at,  84  ;  turn- 
pike at,  167 

Old  Artillery  Ground,  Guardians  of 
I'oor  for,  146 

Old  Bailey,  Presentment  of  Grand 
Jury  of,  on  street  cleansing,  317- 
318,  320 

Old  Street  Road,  Turnpike  Trustees 
for,  195 

PadcUngton,  Guardians  of  Poor  for, 
146-47  ;  population  of,  and  Turn- 
pike Trustees,  228  ;  sewage  of, 
79-80 

PiccacUUy,  228-29 

Pimlico,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  247  ;  sewage  of,  79 

P<)I)lar,  Commissioners  of  Sewers 
for,  14,  65-67,  85,  103  ;  Guardians 
of  Poor  for,  146 ;  sewage  cus- 
toms in  north  of,  54.  See  also 
Isle  of  Dogs 

Putn(>y,  Sewer  Commissioners  for, 
94  ;   toll  bridge  at,  182-83 

RatclifFe,  Guardians  for,  146 

Saffron  Hill,  Hatton  (jtarden  and 
Ely  Rents,  Guardians  of  Poor  for. 
146 

St.  Andrew's,  paving  of,  282,  287  ; 
Select  Vestry  of,  382 

St.  Ikitolph,  Aldgate,  Parish  of  and 
Local  Poor  Law  Act,  110 

St.  Botolj)!),  Bishopsgate,  Parish  of 
and  Local  Poor  Law  Act,  110 

St.  Bride's,  Fleet  Street,  Guardians 
of  Poor  for,  146 

St.  George  the  Mart3rr,  282,  287 

St.  George's,  paving  of,  277,  282,  287 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


499 


London,  places  within,  cvntd. — 

St.  George's,  Hanover  Square,  Select 

Vestry  of,  377-78,  380;    paving 

regulations  of,  290-92.     Sec  also 

Hanover  Square 

St.     George's,     and     Westminster 

Commission  of  Sewers,  80 
St.  George's-in-the-East,  Guardians 

of,  146 
St.    Giles-in-the-Fields,   paving    in, 
282,    287;    "Poor's   Holes''    of, 
404  ;    and  Westmmster  Commis- 
sion of  Sewers,  80 
St.  James'  Square,  paving  of,  282, 

287  ;    "  Poor's  Holes  "  of,  404 
St.  Katherino's,  Commissioners    of 

Sewers  for,  14,  73,  85,  103 
St.  Luke's,  Guardians  of  the  Poor 
of,  145  ;   paving  trustees  of,  291- 
292 
St.  Martin's-in-the-Fields,  Guardians 
of    the    Poor   for,    146 ;     paving 
contracts      of,      310 ;       "  Poor's 
Holes  "  of,  404 
St.  Martm's  Lane,  paving  of,  279 
St.  Marylebone,  Guardians  of  Poor 
for,  108,  146-47  ;  housmg  in,  402- 
403  ;    paving  of,   277,  280,  282, 
288,  291-92,  294;    population  of 
and     Turnpike     Trustees,     228 ; 
revenue   from   street    refuse    in, 
335-36;    sewers  of,   79,   80,   84; 
street      cleansing      in,     324-25; 
Turnpike    Trust    for,    193,    195, 
217 ;      Watching,     Paving,     and 
^  Lighting  Act  for,  338 
St.     Pancras,    Select    Vestry    and 
creation  of,  372  ;    church  path's 
rate,  297  ;    Guardians  of  Poor  of, 
146-47  ;  paving  of,  277,  288,  294, 
296-97  ;    sewage  of,  79-80  ;    Sur- 
veyor   of     Highways     of,     297 ; 
meetings  of  Vestry  of,  446 
St.     Paul,     Covent     Garden,     and 
pauper  labour  for  street  cleansing, 
342 
St.  Paul's  Churchyard,  229,  236 
St.    Sepulchre,   Guardians   of   Poor 

for,  146 
Savoy,      408 ;     Commissioners     of 

Sewers  for,  20  ;   pavmg  of,  282 
Shoreditch,  Guardians  of  Poor  for, 

146 
Shoreditch     to     Enfield     Turnpike 

Trust,  Powers  of,  161 
Somerset  House,  151 
Southwark,  Borough  of,  Drainage  of, 
85 ;  Guardians  of  Poor  for,  146  ; 
paving  regulations  of,  278,  294 ; 
Sewer  Commissioners  for,  94, 101 ; 
Street  Commissioners  for,  99, 408 ; 
and  Sturges  Bourne's  Act,  447 


London,  places  within,  contd. — 

Southwark    and    East    Greenwich 

Turnpike  Act,  1717,  167-68 
Spitalfields,  Court  of   Sowers  Jury 

at,  88 
Stamford   Hill,   Turnpike   Trustees 

for,  198 
Stepney,     Marsh    of,    the    Sewage 
Customs  in    the,    54.     See    also 
Poi^lar 
Strand,  paving  and  drauiago  of,  69, 

277 
Streatham,  "  boating  the  bounds"  of 
parish  of,  390-91  ;    amercements 
by  Sewers  Commissioners  of,  99 
Tooting,  "  beating  the  bounds  "  of, 

390-91 
Tower  Hamlets,  activities  of  Society 
for  Reformation  of  Manners  at, 
439  ;    collection  of  Sewage  Rates 
for,  72  ;   Trading  Justices  of,  388 

Commissioners  of  Sewers  for, 

14,  23,  26,  27,  65,  73,  85,  88,  91, 
93  ;    l^anker  of,  87  ;  payment  of, 
65,  67  ;  membership  of,  103  ;  rates 
levied  by,  87 
Vauxhall  Bridge  Road,  247 

■  sewage  of,  101 

Walworth     Common,    sewage     of, 

101 
Wandsworth,  Sewers  Jury  for,  96; 

drainage  of,  85 

Wappmg,  Guardians  of  Poor  for,  146 

Westminster,  Deau  and  Chapter  of, 

282;    drainage  of,    14-16,   65-S7, 

103-104,  240  ;   Commissioners  of 

Sewers  for,  14,  20,  65,  68-87, 103- 

104  ;  Corporation  of  the  Poor  of, 

1 10  ;  Guardians  of  the  Poor  of, 

110,     146;     GuildhaU    for,    80; 

Improvement  Commissioners  for, 

240-41  ;    Justices   of    the    Peace 

for,  388,  393,  395 ;  Select  Vestries 

of,  371  ;    toll-bridge  at,  182-83  ; 

Paving  Commissioners  for,  280-89, 

312,  424,  444  ;   pigs  m,  404 

Whitechapel,  Guardians  of  Poor  of. 

146;      Paving     Act     for,     277; 

roads  of,  186  ;   sanitation  of,  88 ; 

Turnpike  Trust  for,  204,  208 

Whitefriars,  408 

Willesden,  Sewer  Commissioners  for, 

80 
Woolwicli,  Guardians  of  Poor  for, 
146-47 ;  pavmg  of,  302 ;  Improve- 
ment Commissioners  for,  245 ; 
street  cleansing  regulations  at, 
329 ;  Vestry  meetings  at,  446 ; 
Vestry  of,  471.  See  also  under 
names  of  parishes,  streets,  and 
districts  ;  also  under  Metropolitan 
in  Index  of  Subjects 


500 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


Longdendalo  Valley,  Water  Supply 
from,  261 

Longport  (Kent),  highways  of,  166 

Lothingland,  Hundred  of,  Commis- 
sioners of  Sewers  for,  38 

Loughborough  and  Derby,  Turnpike 
Act  for,  163 

Louth  (Lincolnshire),  drainage  of,  15  ; 
street  cleansing  in,  327-28 

Ludlow,  Turnpike  Act  for,  192 

Lymne,  33 

Lynn  (Norfolk),  street  cleansing  at, 
333.     See  also  King's  Lynn 

Macclesfield,  Streets  Act  for,  300; 
and  Buxton  Turnpike  Trust,  181 

Maidenhead,  pavement  at,  302  ;  and 
Reading  turnpike,  181  ;  toll  bridge 
at,  183 

Maidstone,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  245  ;  Streets  Act  for, 
299  ;   union  of  Parishes  at,  116 

Manchester,  administration  of  mar- 
kets at,  441  ;  and  Buxton  Trust, 
227  ;  Court  Leet  of,  266  ;  crime  in, 
410  ;  desire  for  "  select  "  corjiora- 
tion,  373 ;  food  riots  at,  411  ; 
gas  works  of,  262-63  ;  highways 
rate  of,  168  ;  Imperial  Joint  Stock 
Oil  Gas  Company  at,  263  ;  Manorial 
Court  administration  in,  370  ;  Manu- 
facturers of,  414 ;  Market  Street 
Act  of,  245  ;  Market  Street  Widen- 
ing, Commissioners  for,  260  ;  muni- 
cipal water  supply  for,  261  ;  Non- 
conformist Churchwarden  of,  422  ; 
and  Oldham  Turnpike  Trust,  210, 
217  ;  ojjcn  Vestry  meetings  at, 
471  ;  paving  at,  303  ;  Police  Officer 
Nadin  of,  461  ;  Poor  Law  adminis- 
tration in,  144 ;  public  nuisances 
at,  400,  401 ,  402  ;  PubUc  Reference 
Library  at,  270  ;  streets  of,  239, 
250,  315,  403  ;  street  cleansing  in, 
332,  344  ;  Street  Commissioners  for, 
105 ;  street  regulations  in,  270 ; 
Surveyor  of  Highways  for,  168 ; 
Town  Council  of,  273,  347  ;  turn- 
pike tolls,  195 ;  Vestry  of,  257, 
446 ;  voluntary  associations  for 
crime  suppression  in,  440 

• Ira])rovcmont        Commissioners, 

268,  290,  339.  See  also  Police 
Commissioners  of 

Local  Government,  exclusion  of 

Nonconformists  and  R.C.'s  from, 
422  ;  improvement  in,  269 

Police  Commissioners,  245,  256- 

273,  401,  442  ;  Bill  of  1836,  272-73  ; 
constitution,  258,  259,  264-66,  208- 
269 ;  an  elected  assembly,  449 ; 
finance  of,  260-63,  273  ;  gas  supply. 


municipal  admmistration  of,  262, 
264-65,  266,  270,  272 ;  gas  and 
water  supply,  261,  443-44  ;  Police 
rate,  261-63,  266-67 ;  statutory 
powers  of,  273 ;  taxes  levied  by, 
260 ;  and  Town  Improvement, 
259-60 

Manchester  and  Salford  Act  of  1765 
(Street  Cleansing),  330 

and  Salford  Improvement  Com- 
missioners for,  244-45 ;  constitu- 
tion of,  243-44  ;  functions  of,  303  ; 
Local  Act  regarding,  303 

Manners,  movement  for  reformation 
of,  412,  439 

Margate,  Harbour  Commissioners  for, 
241 

Marseilles,  plague  at,  279 

Marshland  (Norfolk),  Embankment 
of,  54 

Medway,  River,  drainage  of,  58 

Melton,  House  of  Industry  at,  123-25, 
141  ;  meetings  of  Directors  and 
Acting  Guardians  of,  133-34  ;  mal- 
administrating  at,  143 

IMorionethshire,  County  Magistrates 
of,  373-74 

Motropohs,  the.  Courts  of  Sewers  in, 
57  ;  growth  of,  11  ;  Improvement 
Commissioners  in,  244,  248-49 ; 
Incorporated  Guardians  for,  151  ; 
opposition  to  municipal  authority 
for,  291  ;  overcrowding  in,  407, 
408  ;  Poor  Law  Administration  in, 
145-47  ;  population  in,  399  ;  public 
nuisance  in,  404  ;  result  of  jjrivato 
building  enterprise  in,  402.  See 
also  London,  natnes  of  j)laces  in  the 
Metropolitan  area ;  also  under 
Metropolitan  in  Index  of  Subjects 

Mevagissey,  Harbour  Commissioners 
for,  241 

Middlesex,  breakdown  of  magistracy 
of,  373  ;  Committee  on  Nuisances 
for,  323  ;  Commission  of  the  Peace 
for,  82-83,  91,  228,  373,  385,  387, 
388,  467  ;  Commission  of  Sewers 
for,  23,  72-73,  104  ;  sewers  of,  27, 
80  ;  Sheriff  of,  73  ;  street  cleansing 
in,  322-23 ;  turnpike  roads  in, 
181  ;  Turnpike  Trusts  of,  208,  228- 
230 

Quarter  Sessions,  385  ;  Indict- 
ment of  Paving  Commissioners  in, 
289-90 ;  Justices'  paving  regula- 
tions for,  278-79,  322-23  ;  personnel 
of,  82-83,  91 

and  Essex,  Turnpike  Trust  for,  227 

Milne,  Incorporated  Guardians  of  the 
Poor  of,  125 

Minchinhampton,  Paving  Committee 
at,  313-14 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


501 


Minehead,  Harbour  Commissioners 
for,  241  ;   roads  at,  158 

Mitford  and  Lauuditch,  Poor  Law 
Act  for,  131  ;  Act  re  Poor  Rate  for, 
137 

Mole,  River,  drainage  of,  58.  See  also 
Surrey  and  Kent  Commissioners  of 
Sewers 

Molton,  South,  paving  in,  311,  313 

Monmouth,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  244 ;  status  of  Magis- 
trates ill,  468 

Montgomery,  emi:)loyment  of  poor  at, 
118 

Mountnessing,  turnpike  at,  194 

Mutford,  Hundred  of.  Commissioners 
of  Sewers  for,  38 

Nacton  Heath,  House  of  Industry  at, 
123-24 

Narbeth,  Courts  of  Sewers  at,  38 

New  Cross,  Turnpike  Trust  of,  227 

New  Sarum,  Improvement  j?rustees 
for,  242 

New  Shoreham,  Harbour  Commis- 
sioners for,  241 

New  York,  Public  Library  of,  316 

Newcastle-on-Tyne,  freemen  of,  366 

Newcastle-under-Lj'me  and  Maccles- 
field Turnpike  Trustees,  181 

Newhaven,  Harbour  Commissioners 
for,  241 

Newington  (St.  Mary),  Improvement 
Commissioners  for,  248 

Newmarket,  fens  of,  28 

Newport,  Isle  of  Wight,  Streets  Act 
for,  299-300  ;    Workhouse  of,  138 
See  also  Isle  of  Wight 

Norfolk,  dramage  of,  53  :  fens  of,  28 
Himdreds  of,  116 ;  Houses  of 
Industry  of,  125,  141-43 ;  Incor 
porated  Guardians  of,  128,  130-34 
150  ;  sewers  of,  54 ;  turnpikes  of 
158 

Northampton,  Improvement  Commis 
sioners  for,  244;  Paving  Act  for, 
298 

Northamptonshire,  fens  of,  28 

Northumberland,  Sewage  Authority 
of  Parish  in,  25 ;  Select  Vestry 
Government  in,  371  ;  turnpike 
roads  of,  205 

Normch,  191  ;  Corjjoration  of  Poor 
for,  114,  116;  factors  of,  and 
Houses  of  Industry,  111,  143; 
freemen  of,  472 ;  Guardians  of 
Poor  for,  115  ;  municipal  elections 
at,  383  ;  Poor  Law  Union  of,  109  ; 
population  of,  399 ;  Sewers  Com- 
missioners for,  40  ;  toll  bridges  in, 
182-83  ;  weavers  of  and  employ- 
ment of  paupers,  124 


Norwich  and  Black  Hill  Turnpike  Act, 

167 
Nottingham,  Courts  of  Sewers  of,  38  ; 

Improvement     Commissioners     of, 

242-43  ;    street  cleansing  m,   330  ; 

Town  Council  of  and  paving,  309 
Nottinghamshire,    Guardians    of    the 

Poor  of,   125 ;    turnpike   roads   of, 

204 

Oldham,  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  245  ;  Turnpike  Trust  of,  153,  168 

One-House,  House  of  Industry  at,  125 

Ormsby,  Parish  of,  28 

Oswestry,  employment  of  poor  at, 
118  ;  House  of  Industry  at,  120, 
125 

Oulton,  House  of  Industry  at,  125 

Oxford,  Court  of  Sewers  for,  40 ; 
Improvement  Commissioners  of, 
244 ;  Incorporated  Guardians  of 
Poor  for,  116;  union  of  Parishes 
of,  116 

Paris,  streets  of,  295  ;  suppression  of 
Trade  Corporations  in,  420 

Parton,  Harbour  Commissioners  for, 
241 

Pembroke  Dock,  Act  for,  244 

Penzance,  313,  378,  381 

Peterborough,  voluntary  subscrip- 
tions for  paving  of,  302  ;  new  road 
from,  231 

Pevensey  Marsh  (Sussex),  18 

Pinchbeck,  "  Hoven  Due  "  at,  55 

Plymouth,  Board  of  Health  for,  252 ; 
Corporation  of  Poor  of,  116; 
protest  against  rates  at,  436  ;  and 
employment  of  poor,  111  ;  Guar- 
dians for,  115,  149;  Improvement 
Commissioners  for,  249-252,  273 ; 
paving  in,  310,  313  ;  Paving  Acts 
for,  330,  331  ;  sewage  at,  105 ; 
toll  bridge  at,  183 ;  street  cleans- 
ing contract  at,  341  ;  street  refuse 
at,  336 

Dock.     See  Devonport 

Pontef ract.  Streets  Act  for,  330 

Poole,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  244 

Portsmouth,  207 ;  Lighting  and 
Watching  Act  for,  338 

Road,  the,  159 

Preston,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  245,  313  ;  toll  bridge  at,  182-83 

Radwell,  Vestry  of,  157 

Rainhill,  233 

Ramsay  Abbey  and  drainage  of  fens, 

29 
Ramsgate,    Harbour    Commissioners 

for,  241 


502 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


Ravensbourne  River.  Sco  East  Green- 
ivich  Commission  of  Sewers 

Ravenspur,  sewerage  of,  16 

Reading,  Council  of  War  at,  417 ; 
higliway  rate  for,  155 

and    Puntfield    Turnpike    Act, 

164,  192 

Rocth,  pavements  at,  311 

Regent's  Park  and  Regent  Street, 
Sewers  Commissioners  for,  86 

Roigate  and  Crawley  Road,  the,  158, 
162 

Rochdale,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  245 

Rochester  (Kent),  byelaw  on  pig- 
keeping  at,  404 ;  street  cleansing 
in,  327-30 

Romney  Marsh,  Corporation  of,  24, 
33,  45,  372  ;  common  clerk  of,  34, 
36,  38  ;  history  of,  73  ;  Lords  of  the 
Level  of,  3,  14,  33,  45,  56,  429  ;  the 
Twenty-Four  Jurats  of,  17-19,  25, 
26  ;  Court  of  Sewers  for,  15,  17-18, 
33-39 

Rother  Levels  (Kent),  45 

Rotherhithe.  See  under  London  ;  also 
East  Surrey  Commission  of  Sewers 

Royston,  Turnpike  Trust  of,  161-62, 
212 

Russia,  shipment  of  town  refuse  to, 
334-35 

Ryde,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  245 

St.  Albans,  employment  of  poor  of, 
111  ;   Turnpike  Trust  at,  160 

St.  Petcr'sHospital,  Bristol,  115.  See 
also  Bristol 

Salford,  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  257  ;  public  nuisances  in,  401. 
Sec  also  Mancfiesler 

Salisbury,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners of,  244 ;  Local  Act  re  Poor 
Law  Legislation  of,  108  ;  union  of 
Parishes  of,  116.  See  also  New 
Sarum, 

Samford,  Incorporated  Guardians  of 
the  Poor  of,  129,  135-36  ;  desire  for 
dissolution  of,  142 

Sandwich,  Municij)al  Corporation  of, 
45  ;  Commissioners  of  Sowers  for, 
46,  48,  50  ;  Jomt  Stock  Company 
for  improving  the  harbour  at, 
51 

Scarborough,  Harbour  Commissioners 
for,  241 

Scotland  Yard,  Commissioners  of, 
239-41,  275,  277,  323 

Siulcnatos,  ]mj)rovement  Act  for, 
.•501  ;   Streets  Act  for,  300 

Sedgmoor  (Somerset),  Draiiiivgc  Act 
for,  45  ;  enclosure  of,  44-45 


Semer  (Norfolk),  House  of  Industry 
at,  125 

Somperingham  Abbey,  and  drainage 
of  fens,  29 

Sevenoaks  and  Woodsgate  Road,  the, 
159 

Shaftesbury,  Guardians  of  the  Poor 
for,  115 

Shardlow,  Incorporated  Guardians  of 
the  Poor  of,  125 

Sheemess,  Harbour  Commissioners  of, 
241  ;  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  244 

Sheffield,  House  of  Industry  at,  118  ; 
Improvement  Commissioners  of, 
244 ;  riot  against  enclosure  of 
common  at,  412 

Sheppard's  Shord  and  Devizes  Road, 
the,  159 

Shipmeadow  (Norfolk),  House  of  In- 
dustry at,  125 

Shooter's  Hill,  Turnpike  Trust  for,  204 

Shrewsbury,  cmi)loyment  of  poor  of, 
111;  Guardians  of  Poor  of,  117; 
House  of  Industry  at,  116-21,  138, 
143  ;  Improvement  Commissioners 
of,  245  ;  Poor  Law  Act  for,  142  ; 
roads  of,  202,  221  ;  Turnpike 
Trustees  of,  195 

and  Bangor  Turnpike  Act,  222 

Shropshire,  Incorporated  Guardians 
of  Poor  in  certain  parishes  of,  125  ; 
Justices  of,  456  ;  Quarter  Sessions 
of,  on  bridges,  221 

Skirbeek  Wapentake  (Lines.),  drain- 
age of,  52  ;   sewage  rate  of,  56 

Smallburgh,  House  of  Industry  at, 
125 

Somersetshire,  drainage  of,  18 ; 
sewers  of,  14-15,  27,  39-45  ;  Court 
of  Sewers  for,  27,  38,  48,  53-55; 
Standing  Jury  of  Sewers  for,  50,  73, 
88 ;  turnpikes  of,  158 ;  riots  in, 
174 

Southampton,  early  Act  relating  to 
borough  of,  4  ;  Court  Loet  of,  328  ; 
Court  of  Sewers  for,  40  :  Improve- 
ment Commissioners  of,  244 ;  Paving 
Act  for,  298  ;  pavage  toll  in,  298  ; 
scavage  money  in,  328 ;  street 
cleansing  in,  328  ;  union  of  Parishes 
in,  116 

South  Holland  (Lincolnshire),  Marsh 
officers  of,  55 

South  wold,  early  Act  relating  to,  4  ; 
Harbour  CommLssionors  of,  241 

Spalding,  Courts  of  Sowers  at,  52  ; 
drainage  of  fens  of,  29 ;  dyke- 
rce\(^".s  imiiu-st  at,  .52 

SpeeuiianilaiKl,  so-called  Act  of,  392 

Stalyhridgo,  public  nuisances  in,  401 

Stamford,  feus  of,  28 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


503 


Stebunheath  Marsh  Commissioners  of 
Sewers  for,  80.  See  also  under 
London  and  Stepney 

Stevenage  and  Biggleswade  Turnpike 
Act  for,  166 

Stilton,  turnpike  toll  at,  158 

Stockport,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  245  ;  public  nuisances 
in,  401 

and  Manchester  Railway  Com- 
pany, 270 

Stockton,  Turnpike  Trustees  for,  180 

Stoke  Damarol.     See  Devonport 

Stony  Stratford  (Bucks.),  highways  of, 
159 

Stour,  River,  drainage  of  basin  of,  46, 
49-50  ;  by  Joint  Stock  Company,  51 

Stow,  Hundred  House  for,  125,  140  ; 
increase  in  Poor  Rate  for,  137 

Stretford  and  Hulme,  Turnpike  Act 
for,  192 

Stroud,  multiplicity  of  Turnpike 
Trusts  at,  227 

Sudbury  (Suffolk),  Guardians  of  the 
Poor  for,  115  ;  Improvement  Com- 
missioners for,  161 

Suffolk,  Commission  of  Sewers  in,  38- 
39 ;  fens  of,  28 ;  Hundreds  of, 
116 ;  Houses  of  Industry  in,  122- 
125  ;  insurrection  of  labourers  in, 
412 ;  Incorporated  Guardians  in, 
128,  130-34,  139-41,  150;  Poor 
Law  Reform  in,  123 ;  County 
Justices  of  and  cleansing  regula- 
tions, 328-29 ;  workhouses  of, 
132-34 

Sunderland,  Asiatic  Cholera  at,  463  ; 
Harbour  Commissioners  of,  241  ; 
Streets  Act  for,  330  ;  toll  bridge  in, 
182-83 

Surrey,  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  14, 
27,  89.     See  Surrey  and  Kent 

County   Bench,  degradation   of, 

467 

drainage  of  marshes  of,  84-85  ; 

roads  of,  189 ;  street  paving  in, 
278;  Sheriff  of,  94;  Turnpike 
Trustees,  195,  199,  213-14,  229 

East,  Sewers  Jury  of,  68 

and     Kant     Commissioners     of 

Sewers,  93-104 ;  audit  courts  of, 
97  ;  constitution  of,  94-96,  100 ; 
corruption  of,  97-98,  101  ;  debt  of, 
99-101  ;  Expenditor-Goneral  of, 
95,  97  ;  Jurats  of,  94,  95-97,  100  ; 
officers'  fees,  66-67,  96;  Parish 
Vestries'  deputation  to,  100  ;  per- 
sonnel of,  94,  97  ;  rating  of,  95-97  ; 
Standing  Committee  of,  for  General 
Purposes,  99-100 

and     Sussex     Turnpike     Trust, 

revenue  of,  226  ;   area  of,  226 


Surrey,  turnpikes  of,  158 

Sussex,     draiiiage    of,     17,     18,    40 ; 

union   of    Rural   Parishes  in,    139. 

See  also  Romney  Marsh 
Swansea,  Harbour  Commissioners  for, 

241 

Tamworth,  179 

Tattingstone,  House  of  Industry  at, 

125,  135 
Taunton,  Paving  Act  for,  298  ;  turn 

pike  at,  204 
Teddington,  Sewer  Commissioners  for, 

77 
Temple  Bar,  286 
Tenby,  Courts  of  Sewers  at,  38 
Tendring  Hundred  Level  (Essex),  240 
Thames,  the,  drainage  of,  16,  18,  88- 

90,  99  ;  jurisdiction  over,  51 
Thirlmere  Water  Scheme,  history  of, 

261 
Thirsk,  petition  of,  against  erection  of 

toll  gate,  180 
Thurso,  207 
Tiverton,  Guardians  of  the  Poor  of, 

115 
Torksey  Abbey,  and  drainage  of  fens, 

29 
Trumpington  (Cambs.),  Commissioner 

of  Sewers  for,  39 
Truro,  Turnpike  Trusts  for,  204 
Twickenham,  prosecution  of  felons  at, 

440  ;  Sewers  Commissioners  for,  77 
Tyburn  and  Uxbridge  Turnpike  Act 
.      1714,  167 

United  States  of  America,  Continental 
Congress  of,  1776,  418-19 ;  pro- 
fessional organisation  of  engineers 
in,  455 

Uxbridge  Road,  turnpike  on,  167 ; 
tolls  on,  230 

Wadesmill,  turnpike  toll  at,  158,  312 
Wainfleet.     See  Waynflete 
Wakefield,  Paving  and  Cleansing  Act 

for,  330  ;   Streets  Act  for,  331 
Wales,  North,  workhouse  test  in,  139  ; 

roads  of,  221  ;    TurnpDie  Trusts  in, 

205,  222,  233 
South,  Tumpilie  Trusts  in,  227  ; 

toll  rents  in,  334 
W^alton  -  on  -  Thames,  bridge    toll   at, 

182-83 
Wangford,     Hundred     of.     Commis- 
sioners of  Sewers  for,  38 
Warwick,  pavage  toll  at,  298 
Warwickshire,  cost  of  maintenance  of 

roads  of,  197 
Watemewton,  turnpike  at,  161-62 
Watlington,  drainage  customs  of,  54 
Waynflete,  drainage  customs  of,  53-54 


504 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


Welland  Canal,  presentment  by  Jury 
of,  56 

Wells,  Court  of  Sewers  at,  43,  45 

Wenlock,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  242 

Westfirle,  Guardians  of  the  Poor  for, 
139 

Westmoreland,  turnpike  roads  of,  204 

Weston  Zoyland  (Somerset),  sewage 
rate  of,  42 

Weymouth,  Paving  Act  for,  300 

Whetstone,  Turnpike  Trust  of,  153, 
195 

Whitby,  Harbour  Commissif>ners  for, 
241 

Whitchurch,  employment  of  poor  at, 
118 

Whitehaven,  Harbour  Commissioners 
for,  241 

Whitstablc,  Commissioners  of  Sewers 
for,  4G 

Wickham  Market,  meetings  of  Guar- 
dians at,  133 

Wigan,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  242  ;   state  of  streets  of,  315 

Wilton,  turnpike  riots  at,  175 

Wiltshire,  turnijikes  of,  158 

Winchester,  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  244  ;  Streets  Act  for,  299 

Windsor,  employment  of  poor  at, 
111  ;  toll  bridge  at,  182-83 


Wisbech,  38,  378,  381 
Witham  (Essex),  sale  of  refuse  at,  339 
Wolvcrhamjjton,  Improvement  Com- 
missioners for,  244 
Woodbridge         (Suffolk),        turnpike 

weighing  machine  at,  198 
Woodford  Road  (Essex),  the,  158,  215 
Worcester,     Improvement     Commis- 
sioners for,  245  ;    Paving  Act  for, 
300 ;     Turnpike    Trust    for,    227  ; 
Guardians  of  Poor  of,  115 
Worcestershire,  crime  in,  411 
Wye,  Commissioners  of  Sowers  for,  40 
Wymcndham  and  Attleborough  Road, 
the,  158 

Yarm,  petition  of,  against  toll-gate, 
180 

Yarmouth,  Harbour  Commissioners 
for,  241  ;  Improvement  Commis- 
sioners for,  244 

Yeovil  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  161 

York,  Improvement  Commissioners 
for,  313  ;  street  cleansing  at,  343- 
344  ;  population  of,  399  ;  Turnpike 
Trust  for,  160 

Road,  the,  231 

Yorkshire,  Assistant  Overseer  of  Poor 
in,  434 ;  Turnpike  Trustees  in, 
180 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Acrebook,  acrerate,  acresbot,  55  ; 

see 

Acts  of  Parliament,  contd. — 

also  Dykereeve's  Rale,  Sewers  Rate 

2  William  and  Mary,  sess.  2,  cap,  8, 

Acts  of  Parliament : 

sec. 

14,75 

13  Richard  II.  c.  7,  4G9 

3  William  and  Mary,  c.  12,  155 

2  Henry  V.  St.  2,  c.  1,  469 

4  &  5  W^ilbam  and  Mary,  c. , 

6  Henry  VI.  c.  51,  19 

158, 

161 

8       „        „    c.  3,  19 

3  William  III.  c.  12,  472 

18    „        „    c.  10,  19 

7  &  8  WilUam  III.  c.  9,  158,  166 

12  Edward  IV.  c.  6,  19 

7  &8 

„    c.  26,  158,  166 

23  Henry  VI.  c.  9,  19 

7  &8 

„    c.  32,  114 

4  Henry  VII.  c.  1,  19 

8&9 

„    c.  15, 158, 161-63 

4       „          „     c.  21,  4 

S  &  9 

„    c.  16,  188 

6  Henry  VIII.  c.  10,  19 

8&9 

„    c.  27,  240 

23     „          „      c.     5      (Statute 

of 

8&9 

„    c.  37,  277 

Sewers),  3,  19,  20,  22-24,  26 

54, 

9&  10 

„    c.   18,  158,  164, 

56-59,  74,  81,  83 

166 

23  Henry  VIII.  c.  23,  21 

10  &  1 

1    „          „     c.  26,  45 

24      „          „      c.  11,  277 

11  &  12    „          „    c.  23,  306 

25      „          „     c.  8,  277 

12  &  13    „          „    c.  9,  158 

25      „          „      c.  10,  20 

1  Anne 

,  sess.  2,  c.  10,  158,  161,  215 

32      „          „      c.  17,  277 

4  &  5  Anne,  c.  9,  158 

33      „          „      c.  35,  4 

5  Anne 

,  c. ,  159 

34  &  35  Henry  VIII.  c.  11  &  12. 

277 

5     „ 

c.  10,  159,  164 

37  Henrv  VIII.  c.  1,  sec.  3,  384 

5     „ 

c.  26,  159 

3  &  4  Edward  VI.  c.  8,  20 

6     „ 

c.  1,  158-59,  160-61,  166 

2  &  3  Pbibp  and  Mary,  c.  8, 155, 

369 

6     „ 

c. ,  309 

5     EUzabetb,     c.     4     (Statute 

of 

7      „ 

c.  4,  158 

Apprentices),  368 

7      „ 

c.  10,  20 

13  EUzabetb,  c.  9,  20,  21,  24,  472 

8      „ 

c.  15,  159 

13          „          c.  23,  277 

9     „ 

c.  7,  159 

13         „          c.  24,  298 

9     „ 

c.  8,  159 

23          „          c.  12,  277 

10   „ 

c.  34,  159 

13  &  14  Charles  II.  c.  2,  240,  277 

12   „ 

St.  1,  c.  1,  168 

13  &  14       „         „   c.  6,  155 

12   „ 

St.  1,  c.  18,  110 

13  &  14       „         „    c.  12,  110 

12   „ 

St.  2,  0.  15,  114 

15  Charles  II.  c.  1,    158,   161, 

163, 

1  George  I.  c.  12,  160 

166-67 

1       » 

„  sess.  2,  c.  25,  167 

15  Charles  II.  c.  13,  26,  30,  31 

1       „ 

„  c.  52,  328 

19       „        „   c.  3,  277 

3       „ 

„  c.  4,  163,  167 

20       „        „   c. ,  31 

3       „ 

„  c.  15,  159 

22       „         „    c.  12,  155,  240 

4       „ 

„  c.  3,  114 

22       „         „    c.  17,  277 

4       „ 

„  c.  4,  167 

26       „         „    c. ,  158 

4 

„  c.  5,  167 

1  William  and  Mary,  c.  ,  215 

5       „ 

„  c.  6,  197 

1        „        „        „      c.  21,  sec.  4, 

384 

6       ,, 

„  c.  25,  166 

2        „        „       „      sess.  2,  c.  8. 

240, 

7 

„  c.  18,  167 

277,  323 

7       „ 

„  c.  19,  159,  309 

505 


5o6 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


cts  of  Parliament,  conid. — 

Acts  of  Parliament,  ccmtd. — 

9  George 

I.  c.  11,  164 

4  George 

III 

c.  39,  282 

9   „ 

„  0.  15,  183 

„ 

c.  56,  125 

9   „ 

„  c.  31,  158 

„ 

c.  57,  125 

10  i, 

„  0.  9,  158,  215 

j^ 

c.  58,  127 

11  ,, 

„  c.  15,  159 

[] 

c.  59,  125 

12  „ 

„  c.  22,  158 

,, 

c.  89,  125 

13  „ 

„  c.  4,  328 

„ 

c.  90,  125 

24  „ 

„  c.  26,  325 

J, 

c.  91,  125 

I  George 

II.  c.  19,  170 

5  ", 

„ 

c.  13  (Sunday  Toll 

1   » 

„  c.  33,  166 

Act),  282 

5  „ 

„  c.  18,  469 

5  George 

in 

c.  50,  282 

5   » 

„  c.  33,  170 

5   „ 

^, 

c.  81,  257,  330 

7   „ 

„  c.  13,  166 

6 

, 

„ 

c.  34,  300,  307 

8   „ 

„  c.  20,  170 

6 

, 

„ 

c.  54,  282 

9   „ 

„  c.  18,  328 

6 

, 

„ 

c.  64,  110,  146,  307 

11  „ 

„  c.  33,  167 

6 

, 

„ 

c.  100,  146 

13  „ 

„  c.  9,  167 

7 

^ 

j^ 

c.  40,  172,  188,  198 

14  „ 

„  c.  42,  170,  198 

7 

, 

„ 

c.  101,  282 

16  „ 

„  c.  21,  158,  167 

9 

j^ 

c.  21,  215,  300 

17  „ 

„  c.  4,  188 

10 

[ 

,[ 

c.  14,  250,  330 

17  „ 

„  c.  9,  158,  167,  215 

10 

,' 

„ 

c.  .54,  167 

17  „ 

„  c.  13,  192 

10 

, 

„ 

c.  75,  146 

17  „ 

„  c.  29,  166 

10 

, 

„ 

c.  80,  146 

17  „ 

„  c.  41,  168 

11 

, 

c.  9,  299 

18  „ 

„  c.  13,  330 

11 

, 

c.  17,  99 

18  „ 

„  c.  20,  469 

11 

c.  50,  282 

18  „ 

„  c.  30,  114 

11 

' 

c.  43,  138 

19  „ 

„  c.  19,  168 

11 

c.  44,  330-31 

20  „ 

„  c.  6,  164,  192 

12 

c.  8,  251,  331 

20  „ 

„  c.  7,  198 

12 

e.  18,  300 

20  „ 

„  c.  16,  158 

12 

, 

c.  68,  146 

20  „ 

„  c.  22,  183 

12 

, 

c.  79,  146 

21  „ 

„  c.  28,  170 

13 

, 

c.  15,  300 

23  „ 

„  c.  19,  299-300 

13 

, 

c.  78,  472 

23  „ 

„  c.  37,  183 

13 

c.  83,  434 

23  „ 

„  c.  38,  160 

13 

c.  84,  sec.  1,  198  ;  sec. 

24  „ 

„  c. ,  190 

7,  170 

;"sec.  10,  191;  sec.  18, 

24  „ 

„  c.  11,  192 

170;  sec. 

33,  202  ;  sec.  41,  188  ; 

24  „ 

.,  c.  13,  192 

sec.  46 

194;  sec.  51,170;  sec.  50, 

24  „ 

„  0.  29,  192 

209 

24  „ 

„  c.  43,  170 

14  George  III.  e.  8,  251 

26  „ 

„  c.  27,  sec.  20,  330 

14   „ 

c.  29,  146 

26  ., 

„  0.  28,  167 

14   „ 

c.  30,  146 

26  „ 

„  c.  30.  170 

14   „ 

c.  75,  146 

26  „ 

„  c.  98,  145 

14   „ 

e.  108,  146 

26  „ 

.,  c.  100,  145 

15   „ 

c.  13,  125 

27  „ 

„  c.  38,  145 

15   „ 

c.  15,  325 

28  „ 

„  0.  17,  170 

15   „ 

c.  21,  146 

28  „ 

„  c.  27,  299 

15   „ 

c.  23,  146 

28  „ 

„  c.  32,  307 

15   „ 

c.  54,  325 

29  „ 

„  0.  79,  122 

15   „ 

c.  59,  125 

30  „ 

„  c.  27,  170 

16   „ 

» 

c.  9,  125 

30  „ 

„  c.  42,  145 

16   „ 

,  c.  27,  300 

30  „ 

„  0.  43,  170 

16   „ 

c.  53,  138 

31  „ 

„  c.  45,  145 

16   „ 

c.  57,  300 

31  „ 

„  c.  56,  114 

17   „ 

c.  5,  146 

2  George 

III.  c.  21,  282 

17   „ 

c.  20,  187 

2 

„  c.  58,  146 

18   „ 

c.  35,  125 

3  " 

„  c.  23,282 

18   „ 

c.  63,  192 

3   „ 

„  c.  40,  146 

18   „ 

c.  66,  89 

3   „ 

„  c.  53,  146 

19 

„ 

c.  30,  125 

INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


507 


Acts  of  Parliament,  contd.- 


Acts  of  Parliament,  contd.- 


19  George  III.  c.  36,  300 

47  George 

III.  sess.  1,  c.  7,  80 

20   , 

„  c.  21,  300 

47   „ 

„  c.  38,  288 

20   , 

„  c.  66,  146 

47 

„  sess.  2,  c.  73,  142 

20   , 

„  c.  71,  166 

49 

„  c.  122,  161 

21   , 

„  c.  36,  330 

49 

„  c.  183,  100 

22   , 

„  c.  20,  307 

49 

„  c.  192,  257,  261 

22   , 

„  c.  35,  146 

50 

„  c.  3,  160 

22   , 

„  c.  44,  287 

50 

„  c.  25,  330 

22   , 

„  c.  83  (Gilbert  Act), 

50 

„  c.  27,  330 

434 

50 

„  c.  40,  330 

23   , 

„  c.  32,  146 

50 

„  c.  41,  301 

23   , 

„  c.  42,  287 

50 

„  c.  83,  146 

23   , 

„  c.  43,  287 

50 

„  c.  84,  146 

23   , 

„  c.  54,  144 

50 

„  c.  119,  137 

23   , 

„  c.  89,  287 

50 

„  c.  144,  100 

23   , 

„  c.  90,  287 

50 

„  c.  190,  146 

24   , 

„  c.  15,  117 

51 

„  c. ,  215 

25   , 

„  c.  27,  125 

52 

„  c.  48,  80 

25   , 

„  c.  57,  193 

52 

„  c.  145,  191 

26   , 

„  c.  9,  299 

53 

„  c.  20,  257 

26   , 

„  c.  102,  282 

53 

„  c.  37,  146 

26   , 

„  c.  114,  146 

53 

„  c.  79,  100 

26   , 

„  c.  119,  299,  300 

53 

„  c.  82,  191 

26   , 

„  c. ,  305 

53 

„  c.  92,  100 

28   , 

„  c.  57,  199 

53 

„  c.  112,  146 

29   , 

„  c.  75,  146,  287 

54 

„  c.  43,  146 

30   , 

,    „  c.   36  (Gammon's 

54 

„  c.  170,  10 

Act) 

,  199 

54 

„  c.  219,  91-92 

30   , 

„  c.  53,  282,  287 

55 

„  c.  152,  221 

30   , 

„  c.  81,  144 

56 

„  c.  12,  257 

30   , 

„  c. ;  215 

56 

„  c.  66,  125 

31   , 

„    c.  1,  145 

56 

„  c.  129,  10 

31   , 

„  c.  24,  118 

57 

, 

„  c.  29  (Michael  Angelo 

31   , 

„  c.  02,  299 

Taylor' 

3  Act),  290-94,  327 

31   , 

„  c.  64,  300-301 

59  George  III.  c.  12  (Sturges 

31   , 

„  c.  78,  118 

Bourne 

s  Act),  434,  447-50, 

31   , 

„  c.  80,  299-300 

452-54, 

459,  466,  471,  473,  475 

31   , 

„  c.  91,  45 

59  George 

III.  0.  15,  146 

32   , 

„  c.  69,  257 

59   „ 

„  c.  30,  222 

32   , 

„  c.  85,  118 

1  George 

[V.  c.  6,  137 

32   , 

„  c.  95,  118 

1   „ 

„  c.  12,  330 

32   , 

„  c.  96,  118 

1  &  2  George  IV.  c.  47,  257 

33   , 

„  c.  59,  100 

1  &2   , 

„  c.  126,  257 

33   , 

„  c.  126,  130-31 

3  George 

[V.  c.  24,  114 

34   , 

„  c.  96,  287 

3   „ 

„  c.  44,  215 

35   , 

„  c.  61,  110 

3   „ 

„  c.  126,  171,  225,  434 

36   , 

„  c.  38,  118 

4   „ 

„  c.  16,  225 

37   , 

„  c.  79,  145 

4 

„  c.  64,  461-62 

39  &  4 

0  George  III.  c.  3,  166 

4 

„  c.  115,  257 

39  &  4 

0   „    „  c.  35,  146 

5   „ 

„  c.  67,  183 

39  &  4 

0   „    „  c.  70,  193 

5     ;> 

„  c.  69,  225 

41  Geo 

rge  III.  0.  30,  300-301 

5 

„  c.  83,  111 

41   , 

„  c.  63,  137 

5 

„  c.  100,  80,  348 

41   , 

„  c.  72,  45 

5   ,, 

„  c.  126,  146 

44   , 

„  0.  47,  146 

5   „ 

„  c.  133,  257 

45 

„  0.  99,  146 

6 

„  c.  70,  161 

46   , 

„  c.  26,  308 

6   „ 

„  c.  123,  118 

46   , 

„  c.  44,  125 

6   „ 

„  c.  175,  146 

46   , 

„  c.  46,  146 

6   „ 

„  0.  196,  300 

46   , 

„  c.  136,  199 

7 

„  c.  1,  142 

47   , 

„  c.  3,  146 

7 

„  sess.  1,  c.  14,  111 

5o8 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Acts  of  Parliament,  conld. — 
7  George  IV.  c.  58,  247 
7       „         „    c.  114,  146 
7       „         „    c.  117,  141,  142 
7       „         „    c.  142,  231 
7       „         „    c.  143,  288 
7  &  8  George  IV.  c.  24,  225 
9  George  IV.  c.  43,  145 
9       „         „    c.  77,  225 

9  „         „    c.  117,  251,  257 

10  „         „    c.  43,  111 

10  „         „    c.  59,  231 

11  „         „    c.  15,  301 
11     „         „    c.  47,  257 
11     „         „    0.  110,  161 
1  William  IV.  c.  4,  114 
1        „  „    c.  16,  257 

1  &  2  VViUiam  IV.  c.  6,  226 

1  &  2        „         „   c.  60  (Hobhouse's 

Act),  81,   247,  252,  449,  452-53, 

459,  466,  470,  473 
1  &  2  William  IV.  c.  67,  144-45 

1  &  2        „  „    c.  81,  225 

2  &  3        „  „    0.  38,  462 

2  &  3        „  „    c.  106,  161 

3  &  4        „  „    c. ,  222 

3  &  4        „  „    c.  22,  20,  27,  43, 

104,  472 

3  &  4  William  IV.  c.  107,  142 

4  &  6        „  „    c.  58,  248 

4  &  5        „  „    c.  96,  27 

5  &  6        „  „    c.  50,  233 
6&6        „         „    c.       76,        1835 

(Mmiicipal  Corporations  Act),  434 

6  WilUam  IV.  c. ,  215 

0  „  „    c.  16,  256 

7  William  IV.  and  1  Victoria,  c.  78, 
434 

1  Victoria,  c.  37,  256 

2  „        c.  2,  256 

2  &  3  Victoria,  c.  87,  256 

3  &  4        „        c.  30,  256 

4  Victoria,  c.  8,  256 

5  &  6  Victoria,  c.  117,  256 

6  Victoria,  c.  17,  256 

6  &  7  Victoria,  c.  17,  273 

7  &  8        „        c.  101,  151 
10  &  II    „        c.  70,  104 
14  &  15     „         c.  95,  348 

26  &  27     „         c.  78   (Metropolitan 

Turnpike  Act),  231 
26  &  27   Victoria,  c. (Town 

Gardens  Protection  Act),  348 
28  &  29  Victoria,  c.  23,  45 
38  &  39        „        c.  54,  469 
40  &  41         „        c.  36,  45 
61  &  62        „        c.  133,  348 

6  Edward  VII.  c.  16,  469 

7  &  8  George  V.  c.  64,  429 

Acts,  Local,  7-10,  160,  352,  376,  458- 
459,  481  ;  definition  of,  3-4  ;  form 
of,  8-9  ;  Licorporations,  151  ;  pro- 


Acts,  Local,  contd. — 

tective  clauses  in,  relating  to  con- 
tracts and  expenditure,  353,  433-34  ; 
re  bridges,  182-83 ;  drainage,  45  ; 
harbours,  299-300 ;  Improvement 
Commissioners,  161, 242-48, 253, 256- 
258,  260,  300-301  ;  markets,  245, 
300  ;  paving,  etc.,  77,  86,  248,  277, 
298-99,  302-303,  306-307,  309,  316, 
324-25,  327-30,  338;  Poor  Law, 
108-10,  115-16,  122,  125,  127,  131, 
137,  139,  144,  148,  151,  450; 
sewers,  52,  347-48  ;  street  cleaning, 
245,  299,  300,  301,  316,  324-25,  327- 
331  ;  town  improvements,  274 ; 
Turnpike  Trusts,  162-68, 170, 172-73, 
188,  192-93,  216,  225;  Select 
Vestries,  377  ;  for  Axe,  45  ;  Bamet, 
167;  Bath,  166;  Bedford  I^vel, 
26,  32,  50;  Bethnal  Green,  325; 
Beverley,  161  ;  Beverley  Beck,  328  ; 
Birdlip  and  Gloucester,  167 ;  Birm- 
ingham, 330 ;  Bishopwearmouth, 
330;  BIything,  131,  137;  Bridge- 
water,  245,  300  ;  Bristol,  298,  300  ; 
Brue,  45  ;  Canterbury,  188,  298  ; 
Charterhouse  Square,  244 ;  Chat- 
ham, 300,  188  ;  Chichester,  298  ; 
Cirencester,  298  ;    Colchester,  299- 

300  ;  Crown  Estate,  86  ;  Deal,  300- 

301  ;  Devizes,  330 ;  Dorchest^^r, 
300  ;  Exeter,  161  ;  Gams  borough, 
300  ;  Gloucester,  298  ;  Gravcsend 
and  Milton,  300;  Harlaw  and  Stump 
Cross,  167  ;  Hastings,  330  ;  Hamp- 
stead  and  Higiigate,  163,  167  ; 
Hanover  Square,  377 ;  Highgate 
and  Barnet,  167 ;  Hockley  and 
Wobum,  164  ;  Hockliffo  and  Stony 
Stratford,  167  ;  Holbom,277;  Hove, 
300  ;  Hull,  300-301  ;  Ipswich,  298  ;  , 
Kensington,  163 ;  Lancaster  and  | 
Richmond,  192  ;  Leeds,  161  ; 
Leicester  and  Hickloy,  166  ;  Lin- 
coln. 2!)'.)-3(K) ;  Liverpool  and  Prea- 
cot,  168,  301  ;  London,  109,  347, 
348  ;  Londcm  and  East  Grinstcad,  i 
167  ;  London  and  Harwich,  166  ;  I 
Loughborough.  163  ;  Ludlow,  192  ; 
Macclesftold,  300  ;  Maidstone,  299  ; 
Manchester,  245,  300,  303  ;  New- 
port, 299-300  ;  Northampton,  298  ; 
Norwich,  167 ;  Pembroke  Dock,  244 : 
Plymouth,  330  ;  Pontofract,  330  ; 
Reading  and  Punthold,  164,  192  ; 
Reigato  and  Crawley,  102  ;  Scul- 
coatos,  300-301  ;  Scdgemoor,  45  ; 
Shadwell,  325  ;  Southampton,  298  ; 
Southward  and  Greenwich,  167-68  ; 
Stevenage  and  Biggleswade,  166 ; 
Strand,  277  ,  Strctford  and  Hulme, 
192 ;    Sudbury,    161  ;    Sundorlan 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


509 


Acts,  Local,  contd. — 

330;  Taunton,  298;  Tyburn  and 
Uxbridge,  167;  Wakefield,  330- 
331  ;  Westfirlo,  139 ;  Weymouth, 
300  ;  Winchester,  299  ;  Worcester, 
300  ;   Yeovil,  161 

Personal,  4-6 

Private,  4-6,  8 

of  Privy  Council,  460 

Public  General,  8,  10,  160,  239  ; 

procedure,  4-6 

Ad  hoc  bodies,  3,  22,  464 

"  Adventurers'  Lands,"  29,  30,  31 

Agriculture,  Board  of,  169 ;  road 
administration  by,  178,  204-205, 
220,  223-27,  463  ;  powers  of,  con- 
cerning Courts  of  Sewers,  57 

common,  367  ;  effect  of  statu- 
tory enclosures  on,  370;  statutory 
obligations  in,  369 ;  workers  in, 
position  at  end  of  17th  century, 
11 

Aldermen,  rota  of,  378  ;  election  of, 
373 

Aleconner,  office  of,  367 

Alehouse -keepers,  194 

Amalgamation  of  Improvement  Com- 
missioners with  Town  Councils, 
346-47 

American  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence, 417  ;   revolution,  398 

Apothecaries  and  exemption  from 
obligation  to  serve,  359  ;  society  of, 
366 

Areas  of  Local  Government,  165,  391- 
392  ;   overlapping  of,  479 

Assizes,  19,  351,  358 

Associations  Polderiennes,  39 

Attorneys  and  exemption  from  obhga- 
tion  to  serve,  359 

Audit  of  Local  Authorities'  accounts, 
269,  449-50 

Bailiff,    office    of,    243  ;     of    Romney 

Bank  of  England,  92,  366 

Barristers  and  exemption  from  obliga- 
tion to  serve,  359 ;  monopolised 
stipendiary  magistracy,  456 

Baths  and  washhouses,  246 

"  Beatmg  the  bounds,"  390-91 

Benthamite,  legislation,  424 ;  philo- 
sophy, 233,  406,  426-27,  442,  444, 
449-50,  459,  465 

BiU  of  Wains,  36 

Bills  of  Mortality,  75,  110,  240 

Births,  registration  of,  428.  See  also 
Statistics,  Vital 

Bishop's  Faculty,  372 

Board  of  Trade,  Commissioners  of,112 ; 
Report  of,  on  Poor  Rate,  149 

Bodleian  Library,  285 


Boroughreeve,  the,  266 ;  of  Man- 
chester, 268-69,  461 

Boroughs,  1,  3,  9 ;  Representative 
Government  of,  451 ;  and  Turnpike 
Trusts,  160;  Metropolitan,  347. 
See  also  Municipal 

Bow  Street  Runners,  the,  461 

Bridges,  221,  365,  391-92,  394,  407, 
443,  458,  468  ;  clause  in  Local  Acts 
relating  to  contracts  for,  434 ; 
County,  24,  182,  357-58.  See  also 
Toll-bridge 

British  Museum,  227,  280 

Building  regulations,  236,  238 

Bull-baiting,  suppression  of,  254 

Bureaucracy,  nature  of,  433 

Burgess,  status  of,  452 

Burial  grounds,  404 

Camden  Society,  417 

Canals,  204 

Capitalist    enterprise,    effect    of,    on 

Local  Authorities,  413-16,  482-83; 

growth  of,  11-12;    supersession  of, 

by    Municipal    enterprise,    443-44 ; 

alternative     of      salaried     officers, 

457 


Chamber's  case,  60 

Dore  V.  Gray,  27 

Galloway  v.  Corporation  of  the  City 
of  London,  274 

Harrison  v.  Duke  of  Rutland,  154 

Hickman  v.  Matsey,  154 

Northam  Bridge  Company  w.  London 
and  Southampton  Railway  Com- 
pany, 157 

R.  V.  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for 
Essex,  40 

R.  V.  Commissioners  of  Sewers  for 
Somerset,  27,  43,  50 

R.  V.  Stubbs,  471 

Vicar  of  Dartford's  case,  60 

Westminster      Commissioners      of 
Sewers  v.  George  Bird,  82 
CeUar-flaps,  236,  238 
CentraUsation,    in    control    of    Local 

Authorities,    351-52,    424,    427-28, 

459-67,  479  ;    of  highways,  462-63  ; 

of   Poor   Law,  465-67  ;  of  prisons, 

459-62  ;  of  public  health,  463-64 ;  of 

roads,  204-206,  220-21 
Chancery,  Court  of,  70 
Chartered   corporations,  298,  346-47, 

366  ;   companies,  437 
Charterhouse  Charitable  Foundation, 

the,  244 
Charters,  of  Crown,  10  ;   to  Municipal 

Corporations,  459 
Child's  Bank,  91 
Cholera,    outbreaks    of,    315,    342-44, 

401-402,  463 


5IO 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Church,  the  Anglican,  36G ;  com- 
munal character  of,  438-39 ;  and 
Poor  Law,    122 

Established,  423  ;  freehold  office 

in,  429 ;  monopoly  of,  453  ;  oligarchi- 
cal constitution  of,  375 

Church  rate.     See  Rate,  Church 

Churchwarden,  361-G3,  399,  429,  432, 
439,  446,  454 ;  and  collection  of 
rates,  407  ;  co-option  of,  375  ;  and 
Commissioners  of  Sewers,  2G1 ;  non- 
conformist, 422  ;  and  poor  relief, 
108,  116,  129,  144-45;  prohibition 
of  contracting  by,  433-34  ;  quali- 
fications and  status  of,  354-55,  471  ; 
referendum  on  appointment  of, 
448  ;  and  sewage  rates,  72 

of  Manchester,  259  ;  of  Salisbury, 

108  ;  of  Westminster,  72 

City  Companies.     See  Companies 

Civil  engineers,  33,  455 

Civil  Service,  Municipal,  9  ;  Ben- 
thamite preference  for,  450  ;  objec- 
tion to,  453-57 

Cleansing.  See  Improvement  Com- 
missioners 

Clerk  of  the  Peace,  384,  391-92,  456  ; 
fees  of,  384-85  ;  freehold  office  of, 
454 ;  relation  to  Justices,  393 ; 
Deputy,  384 

Clerk  of  Sewers,  66-07 

Close  Bodies,  378,  381-84  ;  opposition 
to,  450  ;  religious  exclusivenoss  of, 
452-53  ;  supersession  of,  451.  Sec 
also  Co-option,  principle  of 

Commission  of  the  Peace,  363 ; 
exclusiveness  of,  414,  453  ;  quali- 
fications for,  467-68,  470;  of 
Middlesex,  228 

Common  Council.  See  Council, 
Common 

Driver,  366 

Law,   3,    12,   351,    353,   424-25, 

428,  429,  445,  457  ;  definition  of, 
389  ;  as  foundation  of  Local  In- 
stitutions, 389-96  ;  supremacy  of, 
10  ;  and  obligation  to  serve,  355, 
356,  358 

trading,  control  of,  367 

Commons,  House  of,  5  ;  Committee 
of,  7  ;  Select  Committee  of,  1829, 
377  ;  on  broad  wheels  and  turnpike 
roads,  178,  187  ;  on  bridges,  183  ; 
on  cotton  weavers,  416  ;  on  high- 
ways and  roads,  161-63,  169,  177, 
180,  190-91,  193,  197,  217,  220, 
222-24,  229,  231  ;  on  paving,  282, 
290,  292-93  ;  on  Poor  Law,  125, 138 ; 
on  Private  Bills,  5  ;  on  Sewers  of 
Metropolis,  20-21,  57,  63,  80-81,  86, 
89,  91,  93,  99,  101-102,  103-104; 
on  Turnpike  Trusts,    175,   225-26, 


234  ;  (jn  union  of  Parishes,  122  ; 
fees  of,  225  ;  journals  of,  5,  8,  153  ; 
legislative  procedure  of,  4-6 ; 
Private  Bill  legislation  in,  352  ; 
and  Municipal  Coq)orations  Act, 
451  ;  and  road  legislation,  223, 
225-26  ;  and  Turnpike  Trusts,  171, 
234 

Commonwealth,  Ordinance  of,  109 

Com])anies  of  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  366,  370,  376 

Act  of  1862,  4 

City,  429 

"  Company  of  the  Twelve,"  the,  371, 
382 

"  Compounders,"  Turnpike,  216-17 

Compounding  for  paving,  288 

Compulsory  service.  See  Obligation 
to  serve 

Conservators  of  Wimbledon  and  Put- 
ney Commons,  348 

Constable,  Parish,  266,  356,  359-60, 
429,  440,  454  ;  co-ojjtion  of,  375  ; 
functions  of,  354-55,  363. 

Petty,  391 

of  Manchester,  268-69,  461 

• •  of  Westminster,  72 

Constabulary,  County,  440 

Constitution,  the  English,  457-58 

Consumers,  Associations  of,  compul- 
sory, 437-39,  441-44,  484  ;  volun- 
tary, 439-41  ;  as  form  of  demo- 
cracy, 423,  428,  474,  485 

Contract,  freedom  of,  414 

Contractors,  sujxirsession  of,  by 
salaried  officers,  456 

Contracts  of  Local  Authorities,  428- 
35,  -443;  for  rotvds,  181-90;  for 
street  cleansing,  319,  326,  335-36, 
338-39,  340-41  ;  for  street  paving, 
310  ;  of  Turnpike  Trusts,  194,  211, 
214,  217 

Co-ojicrative  Movement,  franchise 
qualificaticms  in,  476 

Co-option,  the  principle  of,  65,  75-70, 
351,  371-82,  388,  422,  428-29,  431- 
432,  445,  464,  479 

Copyholders,  11,  361,  370,  414 

Coroner,  243,  385,  454,  456 

Corporations,  372,  375-76 ;  election 
rights  of,  475  ;  suppression  of,  in 
Franco,  420.  See  also  Quardians 
of  the  Poor  and  Municipal  Gor- 
j)orations 

Council,  Common,  372-73,  382 

Councillors,  elected,  485 

County,  the,  1,  2,  3,  7,  9,  107,  228. 
353,  428 ;  autonomy  of,  352 ; 
freehold  tenure  of  oOioo  in,  384 ; 
vocational  organisation  in  govern- 
ment of,  369  ;  Grand  Inquest  for, 
357  ;    growth   of,   360 ;     and   Poor 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Law  Guardians,  108  ;  Magistrates, 
strike  of,  in  Merioneth,  373-74 ; 
obligations  of,  394  ;   officers  of,  357, 

394  ;  and  road  maintenance,  155  ; 
real  rulers  of,  353-54,  358,  368 ; 
shrievalty  of,  religious  exclusive- 
ness  in,  453  ;  and  Turnpike  Trusts, 
160,  165,  169-70;  as  unit  of 
obligation,  356. 

County  Council,  352  ;  records  of,  153 ; 
supersession  of  Justices  by,  470 

Court  of  Aldermen,  372,  382 

Baron,  the,  366-67 

of  Chancery,  23-24 

Christian,  the,  389 

of  Common  Council,  372 

of  Common  Pleas,  393 

of  Exchequer,  393  ;  sewage  fines 

imposed  by,  22,  73-74 

of  Justice,  425  ;  and  Commis- 
sioners of  Sewers,  57,  71 ;  and  local 
custom,  429 ;  and  iiahabitants' 
obUgation  to  servo,  358  ;  in  Quarter 
Sessions,  2.  See  also  Quarter  Ses- 
sions and  Justices 

— —  of  King's  Bench,  79 ;  and 
Sewers  Commissioners,  54,  70,  78- 
79,  89,  98 

— —  of  Law,  actions  against  Local 
Authorities  by,  394 ;  on  Select  Cor- 
porations, 372 

Leet,  25,  73,  257,  299,  358,  366, 

395  ;  Improvement  Commissioners, 
269,  274,  298  ;   of  Manchester,  266 

Courts  of  Sewers.     See  Sewers,  Com- 
missioners of 
Crime,  increase  of,  407-13  ;    preven- 
tion of,  by  voluntary  associations, 
440 ;     by    centralised    administra- 
tion, 460-61 
Crown,  Clerk  of  the,  57 
Crown  Estate  Paving  Act,  86 
Cubitt  Estate  Trustees,  247-49,  273, 

296 
Customs,  Commissioners  of,  60 

Deaths,  Registration  of,  428 

Democracy,  evolution  of,  413-17 ; 
poUtical,  12,  444 ;  representative, 
428 ;  territorial,  445.  See  also 
Consumers,  Associations  of 

Dog-fighting,  suppression  of,  254 

Drainage,  1,  58  ;  of  fens,  28-29  ;  of 
streets,  187,  208,  275  ;  Acts  relating 
to,  45 ;  underground,  104-105. 
See  also  Sewering  and  Sewers, 
Commissioners  of 

Drummond's  Bank,  83 

Dues,  levied  on  Manors,  367 ;  on 
towns,  308-309  :  Freemen's  exemp- 
tion from,  368  ;  port  and  shipping, 
241 


Dykereeves,  43,  52-56 

Dykes,  Roman,  29.     See  also  Sewers. 

East  India  Company,  the,  366 
Educational  services,  484  ;    principle 

of  co-option  in,  429 
Elections,   Parliamentary    and    local, 

192 
Elective   principle   in   Local   Govern- 
ment, 345 
Electors,  statistics  of,  474,  477 
Electricity,  Municipal  supply  of,  484 
Elizabeth,    Queen,    state    of    fens    in 
reign    of,    28 ;     state    of    roads    in 
reign  of,  154 
Enclosure  Commissioners,  supersession 

of,  by  Board  of  Agriculture,  57 
Enclosures,    11,   370 ;    Acts   concern- 
ing,   4 ;    effect   of,   on   agricultural 
workers,  485 
Exclusivenoss,  vice  of,  381-84 
Expert,  the  salaried,  in  Local  Govern- 
ment, 189,  428 

Factory  and  Workshops  Act,  414, 
483 

Fairs,  prohibition  of,  395 

Fees  of  public  officers,  385 

Fellowship  of  Carmen,  contract  of 
Commissioners  of  Sewers  with,  319, 
322 

Fen  Code  of  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  55 

Fenmon,  the  rebellions  of  the,  29 

Ferry,  443 

Finance  of  Statutory  Authorities,  2, 
10.     See  also  Revenue  and  Taxation 

Fines  imposed  for  refusal  to  serve  as 
Parish  Officer,  360 

Fingerposts,  erection  of,  on  roads,  254 

Fire  ongmes,  246,  267-69 

Fish  and  Flesh  Taster,  office  of,  367 

Footpaths,  469 

Franchise,  qualification  for,  in  Local 
Government,  473-75,  477  ;  Parlia- 
mentary, 414,  475-76 

Freehold,  tenure  of  office,  princijile  of, 
361,  370,  384-86,  428-29  ;  decay  of, 
453-54 ;  salaried  officers  an  alter- 
native to,  457 

Freemen,  370,  372,  376-77,  429,  431, 
451-52,  472-74  ;  tolls  and  dues  of, 
368 ;  qualification  for,  472 ;  re- 
striction of  trade  of,  368  ;  of  Aln- 
wick, 366 

French  Revolution,  398,  417-20,  460 

"  Funetionarism,"  457 

Game  Laws,  468-69 

Gammon's  Act  of  1790,  199 

Gaols,  County,  and  Houses  of  Correc- 
tion, 358,  458,  461  ;  Acts  relating  to 
contracts  for,  434 


512 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Gas,  Municipal  supply  of,  24G,  262-63, 
265-67,  270-72,  347,  443-44,  484 

engineers,  456 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Four  and  Twenty," 
371,  382 

Gilbert  Act.     See  Acts  of  Parliament. 

Gilds,  Merchant  and  Craft,  367-70, 
437  ;   princijjlo  of  co-option  in,  376 

"  Government  by  consent,"  362 

Grants  in  Aid,  486 

Guardians  of  the  Poor,  Incorporated, 
4,  107-51,  241,  450,  452;  Acting 
Guardians  of,  126-27,  131-36  ;  Acts 
relating  to,  130-31,  137,  151,  459  ; 
administration  of  workhouses  bv,  1, 
122  ;  constitution  of,  107-10,  126- 
127,  130-33,  243  ;  contracts  of,  with 
Local  Authorities,  160,  310,  340-43  ; 
election  of,  126,  474  ;  employment 
of  women  and  children  by,  131,  145, 
160 ;  finance  of,  141  ;  in  the 
Hundreds,  123-25  ;  number  of,  152  ; 
officers  of,  126-27,  149  ;  origin  of,  9, 
108-109 ;  in  the  Parishes,  125 ; 
principle  of  co-option  on,  375; 
rating  of,  108,  129  ;  tenure  of  office, 
161  ;   Vestry  Executive  of,  144 

Hackney  coaches,  268 

Hanoverian  administrations,   general 

incapacity  of  the,  165 
Harbour-master,  office  of,  456 
Harbours,    241,   441,   443 ;     Commis- 
sioners for,  241,  347 
Hassocks,  15 
Hayward,  office  of,  366 
Headborough,  office  of,  298 
Head  money,  136 
Health,  Board  of,  346,  401-402,  424, 

463-64,  481 ;   Local  Boards  of,  464 ; 

in  Plymouth,  251-52 
Insurance  Commission,  National, 

467 
Ministry  of,  464,  467.     See  also 

Local  Oovernment  Board  and  Public 

Health 
Herdsman,  office  of,  366 
Highway  rates.     See  Rates 

Sessions,  Justices  in,  158-59 

Highways,  Acts  relating  to,  165,  170, 

290,  308,  328,  452,  470;    of  1716, 

328;     of    1773,    170-71;     of   1835, 

233-34 

Board,  452 

Commissioners  of,  Liverpool,  306 

Committees,  franchise  of,  474 

House   of  Commons  Committee 

on,  161-63,  169,  177,  180,  200-201, 

210,  212,  220 
Surveyor    of.     See    Surveyor    oj 

Highways 
Trusts.     See  Turnjnke  Trusts 


Hobhouse's  Act,  81,  247,  252,  449, 
452-53,  459,  466,  470,  473.  See 
also  Acts  of  Parliainent 

Homage,  the,  366-67,  369 

Home  Office,  470,  479  ;  archives  of, 
69,  373,  461  ;  8ui)ervision  of  police 
by,  461-62  ;  and  Commissioners  of 
Sewers,  57  ;  Home  Secretary,  352  ; 
and  Improvement  Commissioners, 
291 

Houses  of  Industry,  118-19 ;  Acts 
relating  to,  133  ;  aged  in,  140  ; 
debts  of,  136-37  ;  employment  in, 
139,  142-43  ;  management  of,  120, 
132-35,  140-43,  149-50;  salary  of 
Governor  of,  135  ;  revolt  against, 
139-40,  412.     See  also  Workhouse-f 

Hundred,  the,  powers  of,  352 ;  work- 
houses estabhshed  in,  122-25 

Houses,  125 

Jury.     See  Juries,  Hundred 

Improvement  Commissioners,  1-2,  32, 
57-58,  147,  235-349,  441,  452,  464, 
481  ;  activities  and  powers  of,  241, 
246,  248-49,  253,  274,  348;  Acts 
relating  to,  161,  242-48,  253,  257-58, 
260;  constitution  of,  241-46,  250- 
251,  253-54,  256,  273,  345-46,  374, 
442,  449  ;  contracts  of,  251,  340  ; 
history  of,  243 ;  inefficiency  of, 
314-15  ;  jiroperty  qualification  for, 
473  ;  number  of,  207,  243  ;  salaried 
professionals  first  employed  by, 
456 ;  supersession  of,  345-49 ; 
taxation  by,  235 

Kates.'  See  Rates,  Improve- 
ment 

Inclosure  Acts  and  Commissioners. 
See  Enclosures 

Incorporated  Guardians  of  the  Poor. 
Sec  Guardians  of  the  Poor 

Incumbents,  Church,  362,  473 

Industrial  organisation  in  seventecntli 
and  eighteenth  centuries,  11-12 

Revolution,    and    its    effect    on 

Local  Government,  203,  237,  398- 
423,  428,  441,  482 

Inhabitants,  in  Vestry  assembled, 
355,  445,  454  ;  obligation  to  serve, 
354-65 

Innings,  15 

Inns  of  Court,  366 

Inquisition  of  18  Edward  II.,  54 

Joint  Stock  Companies,  election 
rights  of,  475-76  ;  for  sewering,  51  ; 
toll  bridges  built  by,  183 

Judges  of  Assize,  19,  41,  111,  164, 
351,  368 

County  Court,  469 

Jurats  of  Sowers.     See  Juries 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


513 


Juries,  obligation  to  serve  on,  429  ; 
presentments  by,  391-93  ;  trial  by, 
396 

Annoyance,  282 

Coroners',  25 

of  the  Court  Leet,  25-26,  357,  361 

Franchise,  357 

Grand,  26-27 

Hundred,  19,  25-26,  73-74,88,357 

Leet,  390 

of  Lord's  Court;,  399 

of  the  Manor,  352,  354,  452-53 

of  Sewers,  9-10,  19,  22-23,  26-27, 

41-42,  52-53,  55,  88,  92,  99-100,  453  ; 
allowances  for,  62,  65 ;  district 
juries,  43-44  ;  foremen  of,  44,  60-66, 
95,  97 ;  ordainments  of,  61-62 ; 
presentments  of,  27  ;  a  riding,  52  ; 
Standing  Juries,  42-43,  46-48,  50, 
53,  56,  73,  85,  94-95  ;  of  Bedford 
Level,  32  ;  of  the  general  valleys, 
47-49  ;  of  Greenwich,  64  ;  of  West- 
minster, 71-73 

Traverse,  25-26,  27,  74,  88 

Justice,  local  administration  of,  349, 
382,  392.     See  also  Courts  of  Justice 

the  Single  or  Double,  128 ;    the 

Basket  or  Trading,  373, 388, 456, 468 ; 
Borough,  469 ;  clerical,  468 ;  of 
mean  degree,  468  ;  the  Court,  70, 
456;  the  County,  150,  161,  208, 
370,  388,  456,  468,  473  ;  controUed 
by  Central  Government,  357,  461, 
465  ;  unpopularity,  469  ;  and  Poor 
Law  Corporations,  110  ;  and  prin- 
ciple of  co-option,  373  ;  and  sup- 
pression of  liquor  licence,  412 ; 
status  of,  355  ;  and  street  cleansing 
regulations,  328-29  ;  and  Turnpike 
Trusts,  165-66,  171,  184 

of  Sewers,  51 

Visiting,  of  prisons,  450 

Justices,  18,  19,  392,  456  ;  in  Highway 
Sessions,  158-59,  188 ;  in  Quarter 
Sessions,  384,  429 ;  in  Petty 
Sessions,  167 ;  powers  of,  470 ; 
number  and  status  of,  374 

of  Peace,  257,  361,  400,  437,  439, 

461  ;  agents  of  National  Executive, 
460  ;  authority  of,  21,  354,  393  ; 
autonomy  of,  352 ;  creation  of, 
367  ;  as  directors  of  agriculture, 
369 ;  election  of,  373 ;  and  em- 
ployment of  poor.  111  ;  exemption 
from  obligation  to  serve,  359-60 ; 
failure  to  suppress  disorder,  439  ; 
functions  and  powers  of,  8,  170, 
362-63,  390,  468-69;  and  Com- 
missioners of  Sewers,  39,  82-83,  102- 
103  ;  and  Guardians  of  the  Poor, 
126-29  ;  and  paving  of  streets,  277  ; 
payment  of,  21  ;    personnel  of,  91  ; 


as  Poor  Law  Authority,  121  ; 
qualifications  of,  387-89,  467-69 ; 
redress  against,  395 ;  and  roads, 
223  ;  and  statute  labour,  155,  166- 
167;  and  street  improvements,  274, 
328;  tenure  of  office  of,  385-86; 
and  turnpike  tolls,  157-60,  194,  202- 
203,  208,  216.  See  also  Quarter 
Sessions 

King,  the,  and  Commissioners  of 
Sewers,  19-21,  24 ;  and  Local 
Government,  351,  353-54,  357,  446  ; 
and  Parliamentary  statutes,  5 ; 
highway  rigiits  of,  154 

Iving's,  the.  Courts,  366,  395.  See  also 
Courts 

Highway,  154,  204,  274,  357 

Peace,  357 

"  Earkmasters,"  371 

Knights  of  the  Shire,  388 

Labour  Party,  the,  270,  416 

Lammas  Lands,  366 

Lamp    Commissioners,     252-56.     See 

also  Improvement  Commissioners 
Lands  Clauses  Act,  9 

Drainage  Act,  57 

Freehold,  11  ;     Mediaeval  Laws 

concerning,  386 
Lath,  the  General,  59  ;    of  Ronmey 

Marsh,  34,  37-38 
Law  of  Settlement,  149,  414 
Leather  Searcher  and  Sealer,  office  of, 

367 
Leet  Jury,  390.     See  also  Jury 
Legal  profession,  co-option  in  the,  376 
Libraries,  PubUc,  246,  484 
Lieutenant,   King's.     See  Lord  Lieu- 
tenant 
Lighting,  235,  250,  262-65.     See  also 

Gasworks 
Watching,  Paving  and  Cleansing 

Commissioners.     See     Improvement 

Commissioners 
Liquor  Licensing,  412,  468,  486 
Livery  Companies,  370 
Local  Authorities,  number  and  distri- 
bution of,  399  ;    evolution  of,  353- 

354,  486  ;   origm  of,  12 
Local    autonomy,    the    anarchy    of, 

352-55 
Local     customs     as     foundation     of 

local  institutions,  389-96,  429,  459 
Local  Government,  Acts  for,  347,  477  ; 

extent  of,  in  thirteenth  century,  25  ; 

finance     in     Manchester,     268-70 ; 

hierachy  of,  165  ;   improvement  of, 

175  ;    new  principles  in,   397-486  ; 

officials  of,  213  ;  origin  of  the  term, 

355  ;    no  system  of,  478-86  ;    types 

of,  107,  110 

2l 


514 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Local  Government  Board,  464-65,  467 ; 
and  Courts  of  Sewers,  57 ;  and  Poor 
Law,  150-51 

Improvements  Acts,  8 

self-government,  10,  17,  395-96, 

445,  458 

London  Parishes,  429  ;  relief  of  poor 
by,  110  ;  Select  Vestries  of,  371,  422 

Lord  Chancellor,  appointment  of 
County  Magistrates  by,  374,  387  ; 
and  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  39, 
75 ;  and  Poor  Law  Corporations,  110 

Lord  Lieutenant  of  County,  243,  367- 
368,  384,  388  ;  as  agent  of  National 
Executive,  460  ;  and  appointment 
of  County  Magistrates,  374  ;  tenure 
of  office  of,  385-86 

Lord  Mayor  of  London,  election  of, 
by  liverymen,  429 

Lord's  Court,  369.     See  also  Manor 

Lords,  House  of,  5 ;  Chairman  of 
Committees  of,  6,  353  ;  Committee 
on  Gaols  and  Houses  of  Correction, 
462  ;  on  Manchester  Police  Com- 
mission Bill,  268  ;  on  Corporation 
system,  375  ;  legislative  procedure 
of,  4-5 ;  manuscripts  of,  40 ; 
opposition  to  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions Bill,  451,  473 ;  oligarcliical  con- 
stitution of,  375 

Lords'  Chairman,  The,  6,  353 

Luddite  outrages,  440 

Lunatic  asylums,  459,  468 

Magna  Charta,  provision  in,  concern- 
ing sewers,  17 

Mail  coaches,  202,  221,  229 

Main  waring' s  Bank,  83 

Manor,  the,  1,  3,  369  ;  decay  of,  360, 
362 ;  and  exaction  of  tolls,  366-67 ;  of 
Great  Tow,  366;  offices  of,  364;  pro- 
perty rights  of  tenants  of ,  1 1 ;  self-de- 
termination of,  10 ;  steward  of,  390 ; 
structure  of,  437-38 ;  and  Tumpilco 
Trusts,  160 :  lord  of,  243,  260,  358, 
361,  362,  414,  443 ;  and  the  Bedford 
Level,  29  ;  Courts  of,  354  ;  and  ob- 
ligation to  serve,  356 ;  status  of.  See 
also  Court  oj  Manor  and  Lord's  Court 

Manorial  Borough,  3 ;  activities  of, 
368  ;  autonomy  of,  393  ;  Charters 
of,  394  ;  and  exaction  of  tolls,  367  ; 
life  office  in,  386 ;  origin  and 
functions  of,  3  ;  property  qualifica- 
tions in,  387 

commills,  430 

Courts,  150,  366,  386  ;   decay  of, 

as  organs  of  local  administration, 
370 ;  functions  of,  8,  362 ;  and 
rating,  161  ;  of  Spittal  and  Tweed- 
mouth,  155  ;  structure  of,  442  ; 
substitution  for,  55 


Manorial  officers,  53-54,  400 

Markets,  240.  249,  443  ;  administra- 
tion of,  441  ;  expert  managers  of, 
456  ;   prohibition  of,  395 

Marriage,  registration  of,  428 

Marsh  Reeve,  office  of,  55 

Mayor,  office  of,  378-79 

Meadows  and  Stints,  Freemen's  mono- 
poly of,  366 

Merchant  Shipping  Acts,  483 

Metropohs,  Borough  Councils  of,  347  ; 
cleansing  of,  324-34  ;  Close  Vestries 
in,  228,  382 ;  Management  Act, 
297,  347  ;  Parishes  in,  441 ;  Paving 
Boards  in,  290-94  ;  police-courts  of, 
468  ;  police  magistrates  of,  469  ; 
roads  of,  226-31  ;  Sewers  of,  27,  56, 
75,  84,  89,  102-106  ;  Sewers'  rates 
in,  98  ;  stipendiary  magistrates  for, 
456  ;  streets  of,  275,  324-30,  333-37  ; 
toll-bridges  in,  182-83 ;  turnpikes 
of,  153,  209,  215,  230-31,  288; 
Vestries  in,  104,  228,  332 

Metropolitan  Asylums  Board,  429,  477 

Board  of  Works,  106, 231, 247, 249 

Borough  Councils,  347 

Poor  Act,  151 

Sanitary  Commission,  57,  69-70, 

80-81 

Sewers  Commission,  21,  56,  75, 

84,  89,  102,  104-106 

Turnpike  Trust,  228-31 

Vestries,  104,  228,  332.     See  also 

under  London  and  names  of  parishes 
in  Index  of  Places 

Michael  Angelo  Taylor's  Act,  288,  294, 
32T 

Middle  Ages,  Common  Law  in  the, 
389  ;   Marshmen  of  the,  16 

Milestones,  187 

Mines  Regulation  Acts,  483 

Mole-catcher,  office  of,  63 

Monopolies,  chartered,  420  ;  of  Free- 
men, 366 ;  Municipal  and  Voca- 
tional, 420,  421 

Municipal  Corporations  Acts,  12,  56, 
345-47,  379,  380,  383,  398,  428,  434, 
450-53,  457,  464-65,  473.  See  Acts 
of  Parliament 

Corporations  Commissioners  and 

Report,  243,  249,  251,  348,  372, 
374,  378,  427,  450-51 

Councils,  349,  431,  473  ;  elected, 

451  ;  franchise  for,  474-75  ;  mem- 
bership of,  481  ;  qualifications  for, 
477-78 ;  and  Supervision  of  Im- 
provement Commission,  345-47.  See 
also  Towns 

enterprise,    nature   of,   443-44; 

in  Manchester,  261-66;  in  street 
cleansing,  316;  in  street  paving, 
300-301  ;   types  of,  484-85 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


515 


Municipalities,  2,  105,  150,  152,  228, 
236,  291,  346,  353,  380,  382,  399, 
400,  420,  428-29  ;  activities  of,  368, 
378-79,  382-83;  arbitrary  central 
regulation  of,  353  ;  autonomy  of, 
352,  367  ;  byelaws  excluding  com- 
monalty in,  372  ;  byelaws  on  street 
cleansing  in,  327-28  ;  charters  of, 
394  ;  close  constitutions  of,  378-79  ; 
contracts  by,  434 ;  co-option  in, 
372,  375  ;  decay  of,  360,  362,  370- 
371  ;  definition  of,  391  ;  degeneracy 
of,  381  ;  engineers  and  surveyors 
in  service  of,  456 ;  exclusion  of 
Justices  from,  470  ;  exclusiveness 
of,  382-84,  414;  freedom  from 
control  of,  464-65  ;  freemen  of,  472  ; 
functions  of,  368,  378-79,  382-83  ; 
general  statutes  as  to,  9 ;  Guardians 
of  the  Poor  in,  107 ;  harbour 
powers  of,  241  ;  improvement  of 
government  in,  264,  484 ;  life 
tenure  of  office  in,  386  ;  magistracy 
in,  355 ;  markets  in,  430 ;  mis- 
appropriation of  fimds  in,  378 ; 
number  of,  354  ;  objection  to,  345  ; 
obligation  to  serve  in,  356  ;  officers 
of,  367  ;  origin  of  functions  in,  3  ; 
paving  in,  298-99,  306  ;  poUcy  of, 
166,  258,  264,  266-68  (Manchester), 
270-72,  289  ;  power  to  levy  bridge- 
toUs  in,  182-83  ;  principle  of  co- 
option  in,  375 ;  Producers'  Associa- 
tions, 367-68  ;  reactionary  constitu- 
tion of,  413  ;  regulation  of,  353, 
368-69  ;  religious  exclusiveness  of, 
453  ;  revenue  of,  from  refuse,  335  ; 
road  tolls  in,  157  ;  seK-govemment 
of,  449  ;  street  cleansing  by,  353- 
355  ;  street  improvement  by,  274  ; 
structure  of,  437-38,  442  ;  super- 
vision of  capitalist  enterprise  by, 
443-44  ;  Turnpike  Trusts  in,  160  ; 
Vestries  in,  304-305.  See  also 
under  names  of  towns  in  Index  of 
Places 

Museums,  246,  484 

Mutiny  Act,  the,  192 

Napoleonic  wars,  effect  of,  on  popula- 
tion, 399 

National  Exchequer,  subventions 
from,  436 

Executive,  relations  of,  to  Local 

Authorities,  351-53,  428-29,  436,  483 

New  River  Company,  4,  366 

Nonconformists,  398,  448,  452 ;  ex- 
clusion of,  from  Local  Government, 
422-23;  spread  of,  12,  421-22; 
effect  on  political  liberty  of,  417  ; 
of  Manchester,  and  Municipal  policy, 


Nuisances,  Public,  259-60,  268,  279, 
317,  352,  400-405;  definition  of, 
358-59  ;  prosecutions  for,  202 ; 
suppression  of,  by  Select  Vestries, 
377.     See  also  Public  Health 

"  Obligation  to  Serve,"  351,  354-65  ; 
in  Courts  of  Sewers,  22-23,  44 ;  as 
Churchwarden,  471  ;  decav  of  prin- 
ciple of,  428-29,  435,  453-54 

Office  of  Woods  and  Forests,  222 

Office  of  Works,  232 

Officers  of  Local  Government,  213, 
366-67 ;  honorary,  433 ;  salaried 
professional,  433-35,  453-57,  462, 
483 

Oligarchical  structure  of  Local  Auth- 
orities, 371,  388,  422 

Overlapping  of  Local  Authorities,  161 

Overseers  of  the  Poor,  116,  122,  129, 
132-37,  145,  148,  150,  359-63,  399, 
429,  454  ;  and  collection  of  rates, 
407  ;  and  Commissioners  of  Sewers, 
26 ;  compulsory  office  of,  356 ; 
and  contracts,  433-34  ;  co-option  of, 
375  ;  obUgations  of,  128-29 ;  powers 
of.  111;  salaried,  454 ;  status  of, 
354-55,  434  ;  supersession  of,  115  ; 
of  Bristol,  114;  of  Birmingham, 
144  ;  of  Leeds,  108  ;  of  Manchester, 
144,  257  ;   of  Shrewsbury,  117 

Assistant,  434 

Parish,  the,  1,  3,  9,  228,  353,  362,  428, 
442,  459 ;  Acts  concerning,  446, 
458  ;  in  relation  to  public  nuisances, 
403  ;  autonomy  of,  393  ;  Beadle 
of,  454  ;  Clerk  of,  454  ;  Committees 
of,  446-48,  450,  454,  473  ;  collection 
of  rates  by,  464 ;  constitutional 
history  of,  390-91  ;  growth  of,  360  ; 
highways  of,  201,  205  ;  in  relation 
to  Improvement  Commissioners, 
240,  243  ;  the  Masters  of  the,  371  ; 
number  of,  354  ;  obhgations  of,  365, 
394  ;  organisation  of,  371  ;  Over- 
seers of  the  Poor  for,  464  ;  Poor 
Law  admiaistration  by,  458  ;  pound 
of,  430  ;  poverty  of,  289 ;  reform  of, 
459 ;  rej^resentative  government 
in,  451  ;  road  administration  and 
maintenance  by,  155,  156,  231,  234  ; 
self-determination  of,  10 ;  and 
Statutory  Authorities,  107,  108 ; 
and  street  cleansing,  324-25  ;  and 
street  improvement,  274 ;  struc- 
ture and  functions  of,  438-39 ; 
Surveyor  of,  294 ;  and  Turnpike 
Trusts,  153,  160,  165,  168-69,  202- 
203  ;  union  of,  347  ;  union  of,  at 
Chester,  116;  union  of,  at  Chi- 
chester,   116  ;     union   of,  for  poor 


516 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


relief,  110,  121,  144;  as  unit  of 
obligation  to  ser^e,  356 ;  United 
District  Boards  of,  347  ;  Vestrj'  of, 
150,  304-305,  438-39,  465,  470; 
Vestry,  contracts  of,  437 

Parish  Government,  democracy  of,  376- 
377  ;  by  poll  of  ratepayers,  449  ; 
relation  to  Poor  Law,  145-48  ; 
property  qualification  in,  387 ; 
reorganisation  of,  453 ;  super- 
vision of,  363  ;  Vocational  organisa- 
tion in,  369 

—  OflBcers,  362-63,  364,  390,  394, 
400,  431,  438,  452,  454;  and 
assessment  of  rates,  407 ;  com- 
pulsory service  as,  356  ;  co-option 
among,  375 ;  freehold  tenure  of, 
384  ;  functions  of,  9  ;  and  Parish 
Committees,  447  ;  powers  of,  352  ; 
qualifications  for,  471  ;  status  of, 
354-55  ;  and  Turnpike  Trusts,  188- 
189 

Parks  and  open  spaces,  246,  484 

Parliament,  1,  107,  164-65;  apathy 
of,  149,  351  ;  Committees  of,  6 ; 
debates  in,  on  roads,  181  ;  elec- 
tions to,  474 ;  election  to,  by 
Mimicipal  Authorities,  382-83 ; 
exemption  of  Members  of,  from 
service,  359-60  ;  Highways  legisla- 
tion bv,  168-69,  172 ;  gasworks 
legislation  by,  261-64  ;  Police  Com- 
missioners, legislation  by,  268,  270  ; 
procedure  of,  4,  5,  6  ;  indifference 
to  Local  Government  of,  351  ; 
Paving  Acts  by,  289-90  ;  petitions 
to,  from  Turnpike  Trustees,  180-89  ; 
pohcy  of,  in  regard  to  Turnpike 
Trusts,  152-53,  193-95 

Parhamentary  Register,  5 

Statutes,   12.     See  also  Acts  of 

Parliament 

Patent  Rolls,  157 

Pauper  emplo3'ment,  109-13,  115-16, 
118-21,  124;  Gary's  proposals  for, 
in  city  of  Bristol,  112-15 ;  of 
children,  124,  145 ;  by  Local 
Authorities,  430-31  ;  by  Paving 
Commissioners,  310  ;  at  Shrewsbury 
House  of  Industry,  117-21  ;  for 
street  cleansing,  333,  340-42 

Pauperism,  426 ;  increase  of,  364, 
398,  405-407  ;   provision  for,  4 

Paving,  274,  401,  403,  443-44  ;  Acts 
for,  77-78,  248,  277,  298-99,  302-303, 
306-309,  322  ;  Authorities  for,  161  ; 
Boards  for,  248-49,  294,  325,  347  ; 
Commissions  for,  4,  9,  77-78,  287, 
290,  310,  348,  403,  442  :  defects  of, 
314;  in  London,  276,  297;  in 
provinces,  298,  315  ;  obligation 
for,  298-301,  304,  305-307  ;   Parlia- 


mentary inquiries  concerning,  294  ; 
rates  ihv,  283,  292,  301-302,  304; 
rate  in  Bristol,  308-309 ;  rate  in 
Liverpool,  305 ;  rate  in  West- 
minster, 287 ;  rate  compulsion, 
objection  to,  302-303,  307  ;  regu- 
lations for  enforcement  of,  298-99  ; 
toll  for,  298  ;  voluntary  subscrip- 
tions for,  302  ;   under  Vestrj-,  377 

Peers,  exemption  of,  from  obligation 
to  servo,  359-60  ;   hereditary,  453 

Petty  Sessions  in  Open  Court,  470 

Physicians,  College  of,  366  ;  co-option 
in,  376  ;  exemptions  from  service 
of,  359 

Picture  galleries,  246,  484 

Pig-keeping,  a  public  nuisance,  404 

Pigringer,  office  of,  366 

Pikemen,  193-99,  214 

Pikes,  157 

Pinder,  office  of,  366 

Plural  voting,  475 

Police,  8,  10,  235,  237,  239-40,  246, 
255,  382  ;  Acts  for,  270  ;  of  Bir- 
mingham, 254  ;  Magistrates,  29  ; 
MetropoUtan,  291,  410;  Rates  for, 
261  ;   Superintendents  of,  456 

. Commissioners   of    Manchester, 

152,  161,  256-73,  442-44 ;  number 
of,  152  ;  powers  of,  161  ;  tenure  of 
office  of,  161 

Political  democracy,  423  ;  economic 
implications  of,  417-18 ;  resulting 
from  the  Industrial  Revolution, 
417-27 

Politics,'  close  corporations  and,  382  ; 
influence  of  Local  Authorities  on, 
382-84 

Poll  of  Parish.     See  Referendum 

Pontage.     See  Toll  Bridge 

Poor,  children  of  the,  122  ;  Local 
Acts  concerning,  108-109  ;  methods 
of  reheving,  108-109 ;  Statutes 
relating  to,  10 ;  units  for  mainten- 
ance of,  107-108,  110.  See  also 
Pauperism,  Pauper  Employment, 
Rates 

Corporation    of    the,    144 ;     for 

Bristol,  114  ;  for  London,  109,  110, 
111,  114,  241;  for  Norwich,  114; 
for  Westminster,  110 

Directors   of   the,    107,    126-27, 

131-36 

Governors  of  the,  107 

Trustees  of  the,  107 

Poor  Law,  173,  425-26  ;  Act  of  1723, 
121  :  Allowance  System,  468 ; 
Amendment  Act  of  1834,  12,  56, 
111,  150,  398,  428,  451,  452,  453, 
457,  466,  474,  475 ;  Amendment 
Act  in  Suffolk  and  Norfolk.  126; 
Bill  of  1807,  3S8,  389  ;   Board,  150- 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


517 


151,  467 ;  contracts  with  Im- 
provement Commissioners,  340-343 ; 
control  of,  by  National  Executive, 
465-67;  EUzabethan,  111,  459; 
"farmer"  under,  426;  Inquiry- 
Commissioners,  report  of,  120-21, 
138,  297,  342-43,  449-50;  poUcy, 
148-49  ;  reforms,  109,  449  ;  unions, 
110,  435,  449-52 

Poor  Law  administration,  107,  127-29, 
175,  483-84  ;  centralised,  450  ;  ex- 
clusion of  Justices  from,  470  ;  unit 
of,  138 

Authority,    485  ;     Civil   Service 

of,  150 ;  plural  voting  in,  475 ; 
rating  qualification  for,  477  ;  re- 
presentative constitution  of,  449 

Commissioners,      108-109,      121, 

434-35,  466-67  ;  inquiry  of,  427  ; 
Jlinority  Report  of,  486  ;  powers 
of,  150-51  ;  Report  of,  148  ;  Report 
of,  on  sale  of  London  refuse,  337-38  ; 
Report  of,  on  Sanitary  Condition 
of  Labouring  Population,  280,  314- 
315  319 

Poor  reUef,  1,  147,  235,  410,  447-48, 
458,  459 ;  Acts  concerning,  108- 
109;  of  Allowance  System,  406; 
disfranchisement  of  recipients  of, 
452  ;  evolution  of,  486  ;  in  Hamp- 
shire, 392 ;  in  London  parishes, 
110-11 

outdoor,  119-20,  124,   129,   136, 

142,  406,  412,  See  also  Guardians, 
Pauperism,  Pauper  Employment, 
Rates 

Poor's  Holes,  the,  404 

Population,  concentration  of,  11-12; 
growth  of,  and  effect  on  local 
government,  362,  364,  398-99 

Port  Authorities.  See  Harbour  Com- 
missioners 

Post-office,  193  ;  and  roads,  202,  231, 
462-63 

Postmaster-General,  229,  230;  and 
roads,  221,  231 

Pound  Keeper,  office  of,  366 

Presentments  by  juries,  357-58 

Press  gang,  412 

"  Principal  Inhabitants,"  government 
by,  245,  361,  369,  390,  399,  445,  446, 
471-72  ;  on  Local  Boards  of  Health, 
464 

Principles  of  Local  Government,  old 
and  new,  350-96,  397-486 

Prisons,  407,  425-26,  459,  468  ;  Acts 
for,  461-62,  470;  Central  Control  of, 
465  ;  and  Police  Authorities,  461, 
462  ;   Visiting  Justices  of,  450 

Private  Bills,  Committees  on,  6-7 ; 
legislation  by,  4-8,  263-64  ;  Report 
of  Committee  on,  5 


Private  enterprise,  effect  of  im- 
regulated,  401-403 

Privy  Council,  23,  111,  346-47,  351, 
460-61,  467 

Producers'  Associations,  366-70  ;  in 
agriculture,  367  ;  in  local  govern- 
ment, 437,  442.  See  also  Voca- 
tional Organisations 

Professional  Associations,  455,  483 

Progressive  party  in  L.C.C.,  270 

Proletariat,  position  of,  11-12 

Property  quahfications,  351,  419,  429, 
451,  467-78,  480;  for  franchise, 
local,  473-75,  477  ;  for  franchise, 
parhamentary,  475-76  ;  for  Justices, 
467-70 ;  in  local  government, 
386-89  ;  for  Municipal  Corporation, 
472  ;  for  Parish  Officers,  471  ;  for 
Statutory  Authorities,  472-73 

Prosecutor,  Public,  office  of,  439 

Prosecution  of  Felons,  Society  for  the, 
440 

PubUc  General  Act,  definition  of, 
4-5 

PubUc  Health  Acts,  243,  252,  274, 
309,  346-47,  404 ;  services,  235, 
323,  347,  427,  482-83  ;  principle  of 
co-option  in,  429  ;  intervention  of 
National  Executive  in,  463-64.  See 
also  Nuisances,  Suppression  of,  and 
Health,  Ministry  of 

Pubhc  Record  Office,  19,  20,  28,  174- 
175,  461 

Publicans,  civil  disabilities  of,  245 

Purbeck  stone,  use  of,  287 

Quarter  Sessions,  Court  of,  24-26,  73, 
161,  352,  358,  391,  395  ;  Grand  Jury 
at,  25 ;  presentments  at,  26 ; 
records  of,  373 ;  status  of,  393 ; 
structure  of,  438 ;  and  Acts  for 
bridges  and  gaols,  458  ;  and  bridge 
administration,  182-83,  392,  458; 
and  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  39, 
92  ;  and  County  Surveyors,  224  ; 
and  Guardians  of  the  Poor,  127-28  ; 
and  Highway  Rates,  276 ;  and 
obhgation  to  serve,  358  ;  and  street 
cleansing  regulations,  328-29  ;  taxa- 
tion by,  469  ;  and  Turnpike  Trusts, 
163-64,  169-70,  183-84, 188,  202-203 

Quilor,  office  of,  35-36 

Radicals,  the,  414,  432,  448,  469  ;  and 
Close  Vestries,  382  ;  and  referen- 
dum, 448 ;  and  mimicipal  enter- 
prise, 268,  271,  273,  345,  348  ;  and 
turnpike  roads,  232.  See  also 
Benthamites 

Railways,  result  of,  upon  road 
administration,  181,  204,  206,  231- 
234,  463 


5ii 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Raker,  office  of,  319-20,  322,  324,  326, 
331,338 

Eatepaver,  advent  of  the,  435-37 ; 
democracy  of  the,  375-77,  429,  444, 
4(56-69,  479-80  ;  exclusion  of  women 
from,  480  ;  plural  voting  in,  475 

Rates,  240,  245,  364,  479  ;  assessment 
and  collection  of,  269,  365,  377, 
407 ;  exemptions  from,  364 ;  in 
Manchester,  267  ;  increase  of,  233, 
468 

Church,  297,  352,  361,  422,  438 

for  Commons,  348 

"  Composition,"  303 

County,  385,  392,  407 

Dvkereeve's,  54-56 

Garden,  348 

Highways,    68,    155,    161,    168, 

202,  205-206,  235,  256,  276,  278, 
289,  309 

by  Improvement  Commissioners, 

241,  247-48,  250-51,  253,  255,  261- 
263,  341,  345,  407 

Moor.     See  Sewers  Rate 

Poor,  24,  108,  116,  123,  129,  136- 

137,  139,  142,  144-45,  147,  149,  235, 
297,  341,  361,  363,  406,  466;  in 
Bristol,  113;  equalisation  of,  115; 
reduction  of,  118-19,  125  ;  rise  in, 
2,  112,  466  ;  paid  by  Sewage  Com- 
missioners, 68 ;  at  Shrewsbury, 
118-19  ;  levying  of,  127  ;  Vestry's 
power  to  levy,  146 

Rate,  Public  Health,  469 

Sewage,   23,   24,   41-42,   44,   46, 

56,  59,  62,  78,  85,  87,  89,  92,  95-98, 
235,  256,  319-20,  328;  Court  of 
Chancery  on,  23 ;  Dykereeves'  Rate, 
54-56 ;  Marsh  Rate,  63  ;  Scots,  49- 
50 ;  unequal  assessment  of,  84 ; 
wallscot,  61  ;  Watering  Scot,  35-38 ; 
for  Isle  of  Dogs,  62,  85,  98  ;  in 
Westminster,  71-75.     See  also  Tolls 

Reeve,  office  of,  367 

Referendum   in    Local    Government, 

447-48 
Reform  Bill  of  1832,  206,  351,  428 

Reformed  Parliament,  and  Poor  Law 
administration,  406  ;  and  property 
qualilication,  467 ;  and  Local 
Government  reforms,  449-51 
Registrar-General  of  Births,  Deaths, 
and  Marriages,  465,  479.  See  also 
Statistics,  Vital 
Religion,  ministers  of,  and  exemption 

from  obligation  to  serve,  359 
Religious      partisanship      in      Local 

Authorities,  382-84,  452 
Representative  government,  437,  444- 

453 
Revenue  of  Local  Authorities,  484  ; 
collection  of,  by  contract,  430 


Rights,  Declaration  of,  419,  420  ;  doc- 
trine of  natural,  423-25 

Riots,  411-13,  460  ;   the  Rebecca,  227 

Roads,  Acts  relating  to,  8,  160,  175, 
231,  232  ;  administration  of,  1,  4, 
184-85,  226-27,  391,  394,  443,  459  ; 
administration  by  National  Govern- 
ment, 204-206,  220-21,  223-27,  232- 
234  ;  462-63  ;  exclusion  of  Justices 
from  administration  imder,  470 ; 
Commissioners  of,  201-202  ;  effect 
of  Industrial  Revolution  on,  203- 
204  ;  legal  position  regarding,  154, 
156-57 ;  legislation  concerning, 
191-98,  231-32  ;  main  roads,  181  ; 
maintenance  of,  197,  221-22 ; 
mileage  of,  207  ;  milestones  on, 
187-88;  Royal  Commission  on,  175, 
201  ;  signposts  on,  188  ;  state  of, 
184,  186-87  ;  tax,  156 ;  traffic 
developments  on,  156 ;  turnpike, 
177-79,  194,  201-202,  206-207.  See 
also  Highway,  Turnpike 

Roman  Catholics  as  churchwardens, 
452,  471 

Royal  Historical  Society,  2 

Royal  Societj',  186 

"  Rulers  of  the  County,"  the,  428-29 

Rural  District  Councils,  3 

Sanitary  Condition  of  the  Population, 
Report  on,  243 

Sanitation,  10,  314-15,  404-405.  See 
also  Improvement  Commissioners, 
Xuisances,  and  Public  Health 

Scavage  Money,  256,  319-20,  328. 
See  also  Eates 

Scavenger,  office  of,  223,  250-51, 
256,  319-20,  326,  327,  328-29,  331, 
332 

Scotland,  stone  from,  283-85,  287 

Scots.     See  Bates 

Scottish  roads,  223-24 

Seven  Years'  War,  250 

Sewering,  25,  29 ;  Commission  of 
Inquiry  into,  20  ;  compulsory  ser- 
vice in,  44  ;  of  Dutch  Netherlands, 
29.     See  also  Sewers,  Commissioners 

of 

Sewers,  236-37,  240,  365,  443  ;  Acts 
as  to,  3,  19,  23,  27,  33;  Clerk 
of,  66-67  ;  and  Improvement  Com- 
missioners, 246  ;  multiplication  of 
bodies  dealing  M-ith,  105 

Commissioners  of,   19,  68,  286  ; 

Act  of  1834,  91-92  ;  creation  of, 
20-21  ;  fees  of,  67  ;  functions  and 
powers  of,  21-24,  85  ;  inefficiency 
and  corruption  of,  103-105  :  quali- 
fications for.  20-21,  429  ;  officers  of, 
22,  59-61,  63-67,  93,  103,  208-209  ; 
pro^^sions  re  contracts  for,  91-93  ; 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


519 


resemblance  to  Justices  of  Peace, 
102-103  ;  Standing  Committees  of, 
71,  76  ;  and  street  cleansing,  319- 
321,  325 
Sewers,  Commission  of,  13-106,  353, 
403  ;  and  Bedford  Level,  27-33  ;  as 
Court  of  Record,  24 ;  district,  52  ; 
of  C4reen-n-ich,  58-68  ;  of  Kent,  27, 
45-51  ;  of  Manchester,  268-69 ;  of 
Romney  Marsh,  33-39 ;  of  Somerset- 
shire, 39-45 ;  of  Lincolnshire,  51-57 ; 
of  Metropohtan  area,  57-106,  347- 
348  ;  of  Westmmster,  68-86  ;  of 
Holborn  and  Fmsbury,  86-93  ;  of 
Kent  and  Surrey,  93-102.  See  also 
Sewers,  Courts  of 

Courts  of,  13-106,  147,  150,  228, 

452,  472 ;  assessments  of,  18-19, 
63,  394  ;  constitution  of  powers  of, 
1,  20-27,  43-44,  352  ;  of  districts, 
43-44 ;  and  enforcement  of  in- 
habitants' obligations,  358 ;  en- 
croachment of  Paving  Commis- 
sioners on,  78  ;  evolution  and  origin 
of,  3,  9,  17-19  ;  rural,  33-57  ;  num- 
ber of,  152  ;  Sessions  of,  46  ;  tenure 
of  office  of,  161  ;  unconnected  with 
Local  Government,  107-108 

Expenditor  of,  17-18,  34,  38,  44, 

47,  59,  60,  63,  67,  213  ;  functions 
of,  48-49,  99  ;  payment  of,  48-49, 
60  ;  of  Bedford  Level,  50  ;  deputy 
for,  63,  67 

Juries  of.     See  Juries,  Sewers 

Justices  of,  19-22,  43.     See  also 

Servers,  Commissioners  of 

Rates.     See  Rates,  Sewage 

Statutes  of.     See  Statutes 

Sheriff,  County,  26,  367  ;    and  Com- 
missioners of  Sewers,  18-19,  22,  26- 
27,  41-43,  46,  50,  52,  60,  67,  72-73, 
80-81,  88,  94  ;    compulsory  service 
as,  360,  429  ;    functions  of,  18-19  ; 
quaUfications   for,   429  ;     and  toll- 
gates,  170 
Sidesmen,  Referendum  as  to  appoint- 
ment of,  448 
Signposts,  institution  of,  188 
Slaughter-houses,  246,  401 
Sluicekeeper,  office  of,  63 
Soughing.     See  Sewering 
Stage-Coaches,  199,  207,  218 
Stannaries,  Vice- Wardens  of  the,  469 
Star  Chamber,  Report  to,  382 
Statute  Duty  or  Statute  Labour,  or 
Team  Duty,  155,  165-69,  176,  190, 
202,    215,    276,    278,    288-89,    355, 
364-65 ;    in   agriculture,   369 ;     for 
paving,  309  ;    for  street  cleansing, 
325 
tatute   Law,  innovation  of,  457-59  ; 
and  "  Obligation  to  serve,"  355-56 


Statute  of  Apprentices,  of  Sewers,  for 
Turnpikes.     See  Acts  of  Parliainent 

Statutes.     See  Acts  of  Parliament 

Statutory  Authorities  for  Special 
Purposes,  2,  353 ;  administration 
by,  9-10 ;  definition  of,  152 ; 
finance  of,  2,  10  ;  multiphcation  of, 
152,  360 ;  origin  and  functions 
of,  3 

Committees,  107 

SteUage.     See  Toll 

Stone  Pipe  Company,  Act  of  the, 
261 

Street,  definition  of,  274 ;  improve- 
ments of  the,  254  ;  regulations  for 
paving  of  the,  278  ;  state  of  the, 
289,  296,  315,  331-33,  340,  342-44, 
408-10,  441  ;  upkeep  of,  365 ; 
width  of  the,  280-81 

cleansmg,  236-39,  315-44  ;    Acts 

concerning,  276,  324-25,  327-30, 
338 ;  by  frontages,  329-31  ;  by 
householders,  317-20  ;  by  munici- 
pality, 316-74 ;  by  Select  Vestry, 
377  ;  contracts  for,  319,  321  ;  cost 
of,  336,  341,  344 ;  employment  of 
paupers  on,  323  ;  local  officers  for, 
319-20,  322-24,  326-30,  332;  in 
MetropoUs,  316-26 ;  in  provincial 
towns,  327-44 ;  regulations  con- 
cerning, 270,  319-20,  327-28,  330- 
331 ;  revenue  from  disposal  of  street 
refuse,  334-40,  343 

Street  Commissioners.  See  Improve- 
ment Commissioners 

Stuart  Dynasty,  results  of  dismissal 
of,  351 

Sturges  Bourne's  Act  (59  George  IIL 
c.  12).     See  Acts  of  Parliainent 

Suffrage,  household,  475.  See  also 
FrancJiise 

Summary  jurisdiction,  8 

Sunday  Toll  Act.  See  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment 

Surgeons,  exemption  from  obligation 
to  serve,  359 ;  College  of,  376 ; 
Company  of,  366 

Surveyors,  County,  223-25,  232 

of  Sewers,  34-36,  40,  56,  71-72, 

87 

of  Pavements,  251,  293-94 

Parish,    or    of    Highways,    155, 

165-68,  188,  232,  256,  303,  305,  308- 
309,  324-25,  354,  359-60,  363,  365, 
369,  375,  429,  454-55,  470,  472; 
appointment  of,  363,  375,  410 ; 
co-option  of,  375 ;  functions  of, 
303,  308-309,  369  ;  salaried,  455  ; 
status  of,  354 

Riding,  221 

Turnpike,   165-67,   187-89,   218- 

220.  222 


520 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Taxation,  alternative  to  compulsory 
labour,  435-37  ;  objections  to,  436- 
437  ;  by  Quarter  Sessions,  409  ;  in 
eighteenth  century,  175  ;  on  licences 
to  exercise  a  profession,  420  ;  by 
municipalities,  10  ;  and  representa- 
tion, 232,  444 

Taylor,  Michael  Angelo,  and  his  Act, 
288,  290-94,  327 

Team  Duty.     See  Statute  Labour 

Telegraphy,  204 

Telephones,  204 

Tenure  of  office,  freehold,  351,  375 

Tithe,  church,  361 

Tolls,  157-58,  162-64,  171-84,  190-98, 
200,  204-207,  215-16,  222,  229-34, 
282  -  83,  367,  430,  443  ;  auctions 
for  lettmg,  195,  216  ;  authority  for 
levying,  182-83  ;  bridge,  182-83  ; 
collection  of,  by  contract,  430 ; 
exaction  of,  by  IManors,  367 ; 
exemptions  from,  216-17 ;  free- 
man's privileges  as  to,  368  ;  farmers 
of,  195-96  ;  gates  for,  207  ;  leasing 
and  letting  of,  194-95,  216  ;  peti- 
tions against,  173-74,  180  ;  weigh- 
ing engines  for,  195,  198-200 

Tories,  the,  414,  432  ;  and  Municipal 
enterprise,  268,  271  ;  and  Refer- 
endum, 448 ;  and  support  of 
Metropolitan  Vestries,  382 

Town  Carjjenter  and  Paviour,  430  ; 
Clerk,  429  ;  improvements,  274-75  ; 
moor,  366 ;  pa-viour,  298 ;  plan- 
ning, 484;  state  of,  235-41,  275, 
315.  See  also  Municipal  Council, 
Public  Nuisances,  and  Surveyor 

Town  Gardens  Protection  Act.  See 
Acts  of  Parliament 

Township,  the,  438,  459  ;  numbers  of, 
354  ;  and  Turnpike  Trust,  302 

Trade,  Board  of,  Report  on  Poor  Law 
by,  149 

Companies,  368.  See  also  Com- 
panies 

Union  Movement,  376,  415,  442, 

483,  485  ;  T.U.  officials  as  elected 
Councillors,  485 

Tramways,  204 

Transport,  local,  484 

Traverse  Jurj'.     See  Jury 

Treasury',  the,  and  corporate  real  estate, 
465  ;  and  secret  service  money,  380 

Turnpikes,  Acts  relating  to,  8,  159-61, 
172,  175,  178,  180,  188-89,  191-93, 
202,  209,  225,  231,  300,  434,  458, 
459  ;  committees  as  to  legislation 
for,  153,  189,  196-99,  201 ;  definition 
of,  157;  references  to,  5,  274-75;  riots 
about,  153,170-71,174-75,234;  roads 
having.  196,  198-99,  203-204,  233, 
430.  See  also  Turnpike  Trusts,  Tolls 


Turnpike  Trusts,  4,  5,  147,  248,  324- 
325,  441,  463  ;  administration  of, 
152-234  ;  amalgamation  of,  221-22, 
226-27,  234,  455;  central  control 
of,  153,  232-34;  consolidation  of, 
221-22,  226-27,  234,  455  ;  constitu- 
tion and  powers  of,  1,  153,  159-73, 
184-89,  204,  209,  216-19,  228; 
contracts  of,  211,  214-18,  434; 
defects  of,  176-80,  186,  189-90,  202- 
203,  210-18;  distribution  of,  177- 
178 ;  employment  of  paupers  by, 
166,  310  ;  evolution  of,  9  ;  finance 
of,  152,  162-70,  172-73,  176,  184-85, 
189-90,  194,  201-207,  215-17,  226- 
227,  229,  230-34 ;  highway  rates  for, 
161  ;  indictment  of,  202-203  :  law- 
clerks  of,  211,  216-19;  legislation 
concerning,  8,  159-68,  172,  175,  178, 
180,  188-89,  191-93,  202,  209.  225- 
226,  229-31,  300,  434,  458-59; 
Local  Government,  relation  of,  to, 
107-108  ;  letting  of  tolls  by,  195 ; 
meetings  of,  209-10,  214-15  ;  mem- 
bership of,  176,  181,  184-85,  194, 
208-12,  228;  multiplicity  of,  227, 
229;  officers  of,  185,  189,  211-16, 
224,  455  ;  origin  of,  156-59  ;  paving 
powers  of,  288-89  ;  principle  of  co- 
option  in,  374 ;  qualification  for, 
208,  472  ;  records  of,  153  ;  roads 
not  administered  by,  233  ;  statistics 
of,  173,  175,  205,  207;  street 
cleansing  by,  325  ;  defective  super- 
vision of,  220-22,  228-31  ;  surveyors 
of,  211-18;  tenure  of  office  by, 
161,  163,  173 ;  treasurers  of, 
185,  213-17 ;  in  urban  areas, 
189.  See  also  Turnpikes,  Toll^, 
Epping  and  Ongar,  Exeter,  Holy- 
head Road,  Metropolitan,  Rebecca 
Riots,  Whetstone 

Tyburn  Ticket,  the,  360 

Uniformity  of  local  administration 
caused  by  centralised  control, 
459 

Unincorporated  villages,  367 

Unions,  of  parishes,  in  rural  districts, 
121-42  ;  in  urban  districts,  110-21  ; 
in  Bristol,  110-15  ;  at  Shrewsbury, 
117-21  ;  in  the  City  of  London, 
110-11,  145-47;  in  the  Metro- 
politan area,  145-47.  See  also 
Corporation  of  the  Poor,  Poor  Law, 
Hundred,  and  under  Names  of 
Parishes  arid  Unions 

Universities,  366 

Urban  District  Councils,  3  ;  chairmen 
of,  35 

Utilitarians,  the,  360,  398,  423-27. 
See  also  Benthamites 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


521 


Vagrancy,  109,  484  ;  increase  of,  406, 
410 ;  laws  as  to,  469 ;  repression 
of,  486.     See  also  Poor  Law 

Vestrv,  the  Parish,  56,  105,  108,  145- 
46,"' 238,  243-45,  248,  287,  324-25, 
362-63,  370-71,  375-78,  380-82,  390, 
431,  449,  454,  453,  471  ;  Act  for 
regulation  of,  449  ;  administration 
of,  146-47  ;  clerk  of,  454  ;  close  or 
select,  105,  108,  145-46,  208,  228, 
287,  371-72,  375-78,  380-82,  394, 
422,  431,  449,  453 ;  creation  of 
close,  371-72  ;  degeneracy  of,  380- 
381  ;  election  of  Parish  Committee 
by,  446-48  ;  election  of  Poor  Law 
Authority  by,  142 ;  exclusion  of 
Nonconformists,  Roman  Catholics 
and  Radicals  from,  422,  453 ; 
franchise  for,  473-74  ;  government 
by,  146-47,  377-78;  under  Hob- 
house's  Act,  449 ;  and  Improve- 
ment Commissioners,  243-45,  248  ; 
legality  of  close,  394  ;  Hfe-tenure  of 
office  'in,  386  ;  meetings  of,  471  ; 
in  the  Metropolis,  324-25  ;  opposi- 
tion to  close,  345  ;  organisation  of, 
in  Manchester,  257  ;  and  Paving 
Commissioners,  290-95  ;  and  Poor 
Law  administration,  117,  142,  144- 
146 ;  qualification  for,  473-74 ;  rates 
levied  by,  436  ;  religious  exclusive- 
ness  of  close,  422,  453  ;  and  Sewers 
authority,  56  ;  and  street  cleansing, 
324-25  ;  system  of,  in  decay,  376  ; 
supervision  of,  449-50.  See  also 
Metropolitan,  Parish,  Poor  Law, 
and  imder  Names  of  Parislies 


Vice  and  Immorality,  Royal  Pro- 
clamation against,  373 

Vital  statistics,  479 

Vocational  bias,  415 ;  basis  of  all 
ancient  government,  422,  451-52  ; 
basis  of  Local  Government,  437-38  ; 
basis  of  society,  359  ;  organisation, 
12,  351,  428,  479,  483  ;  principle  of 
co-option  in  everjiihing  connected 
with,  375-76  ;  undermining  of,  in 
local  institutions,  369-71 

Voting,  plural,  447-48 

Wallreeve,  office  of,  53-54,  61,  63-64, 
66-67 

Wallscot.     See  Rate 

Wapentake,  Sewers  Jury  for  each,  56 

Ward  Mote  or  Council,  325 

Watch  and  Ward,  355 

Watching,  235,  237,  255,  259,  355,  443 

Watchman,  night,  237,  255,  259.  See 
also  Improvement  Commissioners 
and  Police 

Water-supply,  4,  246,  249,  281,  361, 
404-405,  484 ;  extensive  pollution 
of,  404-405  ;  municipal,  361,  443 

Watering  Scot.     See  Rate 

Whigs,  the,  232,  268,  271,  382,  450, 
466 

Whitbread's  Poor  Law  Bill,  388-89 

Women,  participation  of,  in  Local 
Government,  448,  452,  474;  dis- 
franchisement of,  480 

Woods  and  Forests,  Office  of,  86 

Workhouse,  110-11,  115-16,  120,  126- 
127, 129, 130-33, 139-40, 144-48, 433, 
441,  454-55.     See  also  Poor  Law 


Priiitedin  Great  Britain  by  R.  &  R.  Clark,  Limited,  Edinburgh. 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  SIDNEY  AND  BEATRICE  WEBB. 

ON  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  HISTORY: 

(a)  The  Structure. 

I.  The  Parish  and  the  County.     16s.  net. 

II.  and  III.  The  Manor  and  the  Borough.     Two  Volumes. 
25s.  net. 

IV.  Statutory  Authorities  for  Special  Purposes.    25s.  net. 

(b)  The  Functions. 

V.  The  Story  of  the  King's  Highway.     12s.  6d.  net. 
VI.  English    Prisons    under    Local    Government.     (With 
Preface  by  Bernard  Siiaw.)     15s.  net. 

VII.  The    Relief  of  the    Poor    and    the    Repression    of 
Vagrancy.  [In  jyreparation. 

(TJic  above  uniform  in  Demy  8vo.      Blue  Cloth.) 

The  History  of  Liquor  Licensing  in  England.     Small  8vo. 
2s.  6d.  net. 

These  works  present  a  complete  systematic  analysis  of  the  Local 
Government  of  England  and  Wales  from  the  seventeenth  to  the  nineteenth 
— continued  in  some  cases  to  the  twentieth — century.  Drawn  largely 
from  the  unpublished  manuscript  records  of  the  Justices,  the  Vestries 
and  Parish  Officers,  the  Manorial  Courts  and  Municipal  Corporations,  the 
Courts  of  Sewers,  Turnpike  Trusts  and  Improvement  Commissioners,  they 
afford  a  new  view  of  the  past  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  the  history 
of  the  English  people,  with  an  inspiring  vision  of  the  development  of  social 
organisation,  out  of  which  has  grown  the  Local  Government  of  To-day. 

"Mr.  and  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb's  monumental  work  on  our  local  institutions 
must  be  a  source  at  once  of  pride,  and  of  something  a  little  like  shame.  Here  at 
last  we  have  a  book  which  is  more  than  worthy  to  be  placed  beside  those  of  the 
great  continental  writers  on  the  subject.  ...  If  it  be  literature  to  present  a 
singularly  vivid  picture  of  a  past  stage  of  society,  to  render  it  real  and  lifelike 
by  a  careful  selection  and  skilful  grouping  of  illustrative  details,  and  to  explain 
its  meaning  with  clearness,  sound  judgment  and  not  infrequent  touches  of  quiet 
humour,  then  assuredly  is  this  volume  literary  as  well  as  learned." — Standard. 

"  Without  exaggeration  it  may  be  said  that  this  work  will  necessitate  the 
rewriting  of  English  history.  ...  A  history  of  the  English  people,  more  com- 
prehensive in  its  survey  of  social  affairs  and  more  truly  human  in  its  sympathies 
than  any  treatise  liitherto  given  to  the  public." — Daily  Neivs. 

LONGMANS,  GEEEN  &  CO. 

1 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  SIDNEY  AND   BEATRICE  WEBB. 

ON  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT. 

Grants  in  Aid :  A  Criticism  and  a  Proposal.  By  Sidney 
AVebb.  Demy  8vo.  Pages  viii  and  145.  Xew  and 
revised  Edition,  1920.     7s.  6d.  net. 

The  only  monograph  on  this  important  subject,  aflfecting  every  Local 
Government  Official  and  Councillor,  and  every  Ratepayer. 

English  Poor  Law  Policy.     Demy  8vo.     Pages  xv  and  379. 

7s.  6d.  net. 

The  "  ]\Iis^ing  Link  "  in  histories  of  the  Poor  Law — an  analysis  of 
the  successive  transformations  of  the  policy  of  the  Government  and  the 
Guardians  since  the  "Principles  of  1834." 

The  State  and  the  Doctor.     Demy  8vo.     Pages  xiii  and  276. 

6s.  net. 

An  examination  of  the  extent  to  which  sickness  was,  in  1908,  already 
dealt  with  by  the  State,  and  the  lines  on  which  reform  may  proceed. 

The  Break-up  of  the  Poor  Law.     Demy  8vo.     Pages  xvii 

and  601.     7s.  6d.  net. 

The  Minority  Report  of  the  Poor  Law  Commission.  An  impressive 
detailed  description  of  the  actual  administration  of  every  phase  of  the 
Poor  Law  ;  with  a  full  description  of  the  policy  now  adopted  by  the 
Government  for  the  Abolition  of  the  Poor  Law,  and  the  Supersession  of 
the  Boards  of  Guardians  by  the  Local  Health,  Education,  Lunacy,  Pension, 
and  Unemployment  Authorities. 

The  Public  Organisation  of  the  Labour  Market.     Demy 

8vo.     Pages  xiii  and  345.     5s.  net. 

A  description  and  an  attempted  solution  of  the  Problem  of  Un- 
employment and  the  Unemployed.  The  autliors  here  present,  not  only 
an  exhaustive  aud  detailed  description  of  the  facts  of  Unemployment,  but 
also  a  carefully-worked-out  plan  by  which  they  believe  that  Unemploy- 
ment can  (apart  from  sporadic  cases)  be  not  merely  relieved  but  actually 
prevented  from  occurring. 

The  Prevention  of  Destitution.     Demy  8vo.     Pages  xvi  and 

348.      10s.  6d.  net. 

A  comprehensive  and  practical  programme  of  how  it  can  be  done,  as 
soon  as  the  nation  chooses. 

LONGMANS,  GEEEN  &  CO. 
2 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  SIDNEY  AND  BEATRICE   WEBB. 

ON  INDUSTRIAL  AND  SOCIAL  ORGANISATION. 

The  Consumers'  Co-operative  Movement.  Demy  8vo. 
Pages  XV  and  504.      1921.      18s.  net. 

The  Co-operative  Movement  in  Great  Britain  now  enrols  three-sevenths  of 
all  the  families  ;  supplied,  in  1920,  goods  and  services  to  the  value  of  more  than 
£250,000,000  ;  furnishes  one-seventh  of  all  the  food  we  eat ;  directs  a  capital 
exceeding  £100,000,000  ;  and  is  gi'owing  very  much  faster  than  the  population. 
It  is  an  extraordinary  example  of  successful  business  administration  by  the 
manual-working  class.  This  book  describes  in  detail  the  organisation  and 
activities  of  this  characteristically  British  "Socialism";  analyses  its  achieve- 
ments and  specifies  its  defects  and  shortcomings  ;  recounts  the  story  of  its  recent 
political  transformation,  and  seeks  to  forecast  its  future. 

A  Constitution  for  the  Socialist  Commonwealth  of  Great 
Britain.  Demy  8vo.  Pages  xviii  and  364.  1920. 
12s.  6d.  net. 

What  is  here  presented  is  more  than  a  Constitution  (though  as  a  practicable 
and  characteristically  British  scheme  for  Parliamentary  and  Local  Government 
reform  it  may  receive  the  attention  of  Statesmen  and  students).  It  is  more  even 
than  a  fully-worked-out  plan-  for  Nationalisation  and  Municipalisation,  with 
"workers'  control."  "With  its  proposals  for  the  development  of  the  Co-operative 
Movement,  for  the  reorganisation  of  the  Vocational  World,  and  for  the  co- 
ordination of  all  factors,  from  the  Crown  to  the  Works  Committee,  it  sets  forth 
a  complete  Socialist  Commonwealth. 

Industrial  Democracy.  Demy  8vo.  Pages  xxxix  and  899. 
Xew  and  revised  Edition,  with  New  Introductory  Chapter. 
1920.     21s.  net. 

This  comprehensive  and  critical  analysis  of  every  phase  of  Trade  Union  theory 
and  practice  has  stood  the  test  of  a  quarter  of  a  century's  searching  examination 
by  employers,  workmen  and  economists.  The  questions  so  often  put — Is  Trade 
Unionism  a  good  thing  or  a  bad?  Is  it  an  economic  success  ?  What  effect  does 
it  have  on  prices  and  profits  ? — are  answered  in  this  volume. 

"A  permanent  and  invaluable  contribution  to  the  sum  of  human  knowledge.  .  .  .  We 
commend  to  the  public  a  book  which  is  a  monument  of  research  and  full  of  candour.  .  .  . 
Indispensable  to  every  publicist  and  politician." — Times. 

The  History  of  Trade  Unionism.  Revised  Edition.  Enlarged 
and  extended  to  1920.  Demy  8vo.  Pages  xv  and 
784.     21s.  net. 

This  is  practically  a  new  work,  having  been  nearly  doubled  in  size  in  order 
to  bring  the  story  down  to  1920.  Whilst  the  whole  history  from  the  middle  of 
the  seventeenth  century  has  been  revised,  the  volume  now  sets  forth  the  recent 
dramatic  progress  of  Labour,  notably  during  the  last  thirty  years,  the  revolution 
that  is  occurring  in  thought,  the  Coal  and  Railway  struggles,  the  controversy  as 
to  Direct  Action,  and  the  rise  of  the  Labour  Party. 

No  fewer  than  19,000  copies  of  a  special  edition  were  bought  by  the  Trades 
Unionists  in  December  1919,  before  publication.  "  Read  what  the  workmen 
are  reading." 

"  A  masterly  piece  of  work." — Times. 

"  To  the  politician  ...  an  invaluable  guide." — Observer. 

"  Undoubtedly  marked  by  the  qualities  of  true  history — fullness,  accuracy — and  clear  con- 
nection in  the  presentation  of  facts." — Newcastle  Chronicle. 

"A  full,  clear  and  condensed  history  such  as  can  have  few  parallels.  ...  A  masterpiece  of 
lucidity  of  knowledge." — Speaker, 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO. 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  SIDNEY  AND  BEATRICE   WEBB. 

Problems  of  Modern  Industry.     Demy  8vo,     Pages  xxxvi 
and  286.     7s.  6d.  net. 

Eleven  short  studies  on  such  industries  as  the  London  Docks,  the  Tailoring 
Trade  and  the  work  of  tlie  London  Jews  ;  the  well-known  "  Pages  from  a  Work- 
girl's  Diary  "  ;  the  relations  between  Trade  Unionism  and  Co-operation  ;  and 
other  economic  subjects. 

The  Works   Manager   To-day.     Small    Svo.     Pages  v  and 
162.     5s.  net. 

A  series  of  Addresses  to  Works  Managers  by  Sidney  Webb  on  such  problems 
as  Reducing  Costs,  Systems  of  Payment  by  Results,  How  to  prevent  "  Ca' 
Canny,"  Fatigue  and  Accidents,  the  Changing  Status  of  Employers  and  Wage- 
earners,  etc. 

London    Education.      1904.      Crown    Svo.     Pages    ix    and 
219.     2s.  6d.  net. 

LONGMANS,  GEEEN  &  CO. 


The  Story  of  the  Durham  Miners.  By  Sidney  Webb.  Small 
Svo.  Pages  x  and  154.  1920.  Paper  Boards,  2s.  6d. 
net.  Cloth,  5s.  net.  (Published  by  the  Fabian  Bookshop, 
25  Tothill  Street,  Westminster ;  and  the  Labour  PubUsh- 
ing  Co.,  Ltd.) 

Men's    and    Women's    Wages :    Should    they    be    Equal  ? 

By  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb.  Small  Svo.  Pages  79.  With 
Portrait  of  the  Author.  Is.  net.  (Published  by  the 
Fabian  Bookshop,  2  5  Tothill  Street,  AVestminster  ;  and 
by  George  Allen  and  Unwin,  Ltd.) 

The  Co-operative  Movement  in  Great  Britain.  By  Beatrice 
PoTTEU  (Mrs.  Sidney  Webb).  Pages  xii  and  260. 
Tenth  Impression  of  the  Second  Edition,  1S93.  3s.  6d. 
net.      (Published  by  George  Allen  and  Unwin,  Ltd.) 

Towards  Social  Democracy  ?  By  Sidney  Webb.  Demy  Svo. 
Pages  48.  Is.  net.  A  striking  survey  of  the  evolution 
of  Democracy  in  Great  Britain,  with  references  also  to 
the  United  States,  France  and  Germany,  from  1840  to 
1914.  (Pubhshed  by  the  Fabian  Bookshop,  25  Tothill 
Street,  Westminster  ;  and  George  Allen  and  Unwin,  Ltd.) 


/^ 


JS       Passfield,  Sidney  James 

3025     Webb,  baron 

P3         English  local  government 

v.$ 

cop. 2 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY