A HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 



town were met out of the town rates, fixed by the 

 magistrates at quarter sessions and kept distinct from 

 the corporation accounts.*" As early as 1692 a mayor 

 is commended because ' he did not sell the town land 

 for claret as others did.'*i The corporation became, 

 in fact, little more than a dining club with considerable 

 powers of patronage. 



One by-product of this stagnation was the difficulty 

 found in filling municipal office and even in recruiting 

 the corporation itself. A substantial sum was 

 annually derived from the fines cf tho«e who refused 

 office. We have seen that in 1694 eight mayors- 

 designate refused to serve. This brought in ^80. 

 Similar difficulties occurred in 171 1, 171 3, 1723, and 

 1730.*^ The same reluctance to serve was shown by 

 bailifls-elect.*' The records of the mayor and alder- 

 men's court show the difficulty of filling up the vacan- 

 cies in the Forty Eight created annually by the election 

 of the two bailiffs. The first instance of refusal to act is 

 recorded in 1696, and from that time complaints were 

 constant.** On 7 August 1775, for instance, 13 

 persons who were elected to the Forty Eight were 

 displaced because of their refusal to take the oath ; 

 ten of them, however, were immediately re-elected 

 with six others. On 5 August 1776 twelve were simi- 

 larly displaced and re-elected.** The assembly in its 

 turn was endeavouring to compel persons to become 

 freemen : on 23 May 1 776, for instance, it was 

 resolved that nine persons should be admitted freemen 

 at j^^io each, and prosecuted if they refused.** As a 

 result, by 1 791 the corporation consisted of a mayor, 

 18 aldermen, 22 baiUlTs and 19 Forty Eight men, 

 whilst 29 persons elected to the Forty Eight were 

 refusing to act. Under the charter of 1663 the mayor 

 and aldermen had power to fine, and if necessary 

 imprison and distrain freemen who refused to serve.*' 

 Having taken legal opinion, in 1794 they had a 

 mandamus served on several of the defaulters, and the 

 case was brought before the court of King's Bench, 

 with unforeseen consequences. It appeared that by 

 the Act of 1489 the mayor must be elected by a 

 majority of the Forty Eight, not being ex-baiUfTs, ana 

 that for several years past the mayors had been 

 elected by a minority, as no majority existed.** The 

 corporation had thus no legal warrant for its existence, 

 and the only remedy was to surrender the charter of 

 1663*' and petition for a new one. The townsmen 

 seized on the chance of asserting their rights and held 

 a meeting on i June 1795 at the County Ilall (not 

 being allowed the use of the Town Hall) and a counter- 

 petition organised by Edward Bou\erie, the Whig 

 member for the borough, was signed by five hundred 

 persons, praying the King not to grant a charter 

 without reference to the petitioners.'*' The attitude 

 of the corporation is reflected in the resolution passed 

 in the assembly of 8 June.'* 



'That it is the opinion of this Assembly that the 

 peace and good government of tliis town and the 



interest of all its inhabitants whether free or not free 

 of the corporation have been well secured under the 

 Ancient Powers and Franchises heretofore and 

 hitherto exercised by the Corporation. 



' That it would not be wise to depart from a System 

 which has been found upon such long experience to 

 answer. And therefore it is the opinion of this 

 Assembly that they should endeavour to procure such 

 a Charter only as shall confirm and restore the ancient 

 Rights and Franchises of the Corporation and leave 

 the Government and the Election of its officers under 

 the same regulations which have hitherto prevailed.' 



Thanks were also voted to Mr. Charles Smith for 

 his ' manly and steady conduct in resisting the unjust 

 imputations aimed at the Corporation ' at the late 

 town meeting. 



As was to be expected, the view of the assembly 

 rather than that of the town meeting was accepted 

 by the central government, and the charter of 2 April 

 1796'^ differed only in trifling respects from that of 

 1663. The right to fine freemen for refusal of office 

 and to fine members of the corporation for non- 

 attendance at assemblies was made definite, and the 

 clause forbidding any but freemen to trade within the 

 town was dropped. The fresh lease of life given to 

 the old corporation led to no improvement either in 

 zeal or in public spirit. Quorums were difficult to 

 obtain,** and the worst instances of the expenditure of 

 public funds on entertainment, of the exploitation of 

 charity endowments for party purposes, and of 

 pohtical bias in judicial action belong to the period 

 1796-1835. A proposal from one of its own members 

 in 1831 to reform the financial procedure of the 

 corporation was quashed as ' unusual, improper and 

 prejudicial,' ** and the appointment of a special 

 committee to audit the accounts in 1833, though 

 it produced a valuable report, was in the nature of a 

 deathbed repentance. The epitaph of the old 

 regime was spoken by Cockburn in 1835 : ' It seems 

 impossible to justify a system which alienates from 

 the municipal government the affections and respect 

 of one half of the community and gives rise to com- 

 plaints of so serious a character.'** In November 

 1835 the close corporation of the last three and a half 

 centuries was replaced by an elective body of one 

 mayor, 6 aldermen, and 18 councillors, representing 

 the three wards into which the town was newly 

 divided. 



Under the Local Government Act of 1888 (51 and 52 

 Vict. c. 41) Northampton became a county borough 

 in that year, but the form of its government was 

 unchanged till 1898, when, owing to the victories of th'- 

 Progressive party in the municipal elections of i8g7,** 

 a Boundaries Committee was appointed and a Pro- 

 visional Order obtained from the Local Government 

 Board, rcdividing the town into six wards. After 

 further enquiry, the area of the town was enlarged by 

 the act of 30 July 1900*' so as to include nine wards. 



" Pari. Paperi, 1833, vol. xiii, p. 50. 

 •' B<^o. Rec. ii, 38 (HaU'i MS.). 

 " Ibid, il, 39. 

 " Ibid. 55. 

 " Ibid. 21-2. 



" Northampt. Corp. Rcc. Prcii N 4. 

 *' Anembly Book, Prcii N. 10. 

 " Horo. Rec. i, 141. 

 '• Ibid, ii, 14. 



" The town wai governed under thii 

 charter, and not chat ol 1683, at, the lur- 



rendcr of the former never having been 

 enrolled, the latter (which had provided 

 for a company of forty instead of forty- 

 eight) wai declared void by Sir Kdw.ird 

 Northey, Attorney-General, 1701-1707, 

 1710-1718. Bridges, Hist, of Northants. 



i. 433- 



•• BoTo. Ree. ii, 24. 



" Asiembly Book, Northampt. Corp. 

 Rec. Prefi N, 10. 



•• Btro. Rtc. i, 154-184. 



16 



'■' Ibid, ii, 25-6. 



" Ibid, ii, 27. 



" Pari. Papers, 1835, vol. xxv, p. 

 19S1. 



" Northampt. Mercury, ^^ov. 1900, 



" I..G.B. Provisional Orders Con- 

 firmation (no. 14) Act, 1900, 63 and 64 

 Vict, dxxxiii (Public Act of a local 

 character). Northampton Workhouse 

 serves Hardingstone Union. 



