70 
completed. The method of government in the counties was 
the last to be reformed and remodelled on democratic prin- 
ciples. It was not twenty years since the county adminis- 
tration was in the hands of the justices, appointed by the 
Crown on the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant of the 
County ; a method of appointment which had in it not a 
shadow of the characteristics of popular representation. When 
the change did come in 1888, there were few persons who had 
any criticisms to offer against the administration of the magis- 
trates. Their government had been efficient and economical, 
and had shown a decent regard for public opinion. The de- 
mand for the new County Councils did not rest upon the faults 
of the old government, but, owing to the increased demands 
upon the central governing body, 1.e., Parliament, it was felt 
that new duties should be placed on the counties, and that in 
the imposition of these new duties, it would be more in harmony 
with modern democratic ideas to place upon the body of voters 
in each county the responsibility of choosing the county rulers. 
Turning to the new conceptions of the State, and of the organi- 
sation of functions of central and local government, which 
grew up about the beginning of the last century, when the 
movement for reform was reaching its practical issue, Mr. 
Rothwell pointed out that these new theories were set out in 
the writings of a group of men known as Benthamites or Utili- 
tarians. The reform of local government which was accom- 
plished in 1835 was in principle identical with the ideas of 
local government as contained in Bentham’s work, “ The 
Constitutional Code.” The spirit of progress which led to 
the much needed Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832 was not 
satisfied with that valuable result, and in the following year it 
was finally determined to reconstruct the municipal organi- 
sation of the boroughs (which in purity and efficiency had at that 
time reached its lowest ebb) upon a sound and popular basis. 
The investigation of a Royal Commission revealed a most de- 
plorable state of things ; the true functions of municipal gov- 
ernment were not only neglected by, but were entirely unknown 
to, the majority of those to whom the administration of local 
affairs was entrusted, or rather by whom such administration 
had been usurped. Jobbery, corruption, and oppression 
were almost universal ; townspeople were excluded from cor- 
porate privileges and from any share in local government. In 
short, the Commission found the condition of local govern- 
ment to be wrong in principle, and defective and impure in 
operation. Asa result of the report of the Commission, a very 
effective and much needed reform was carried out by the 
passing of the Municipal Corporations Act in that same year 
(1835). This Act swept away the abuses which had been ex- 

