The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Mr. John 'Wilson Croker, although ostensibly re-
tired from public life, and quietly enjoying his pension
and sinecures, is, nevertheless, under-ground, an ac-
tive writer on behalf of the Tories. All the world
know that he entertains forlorn hopes of the re-ap-
pearance of " Conservatives " on the stage of Go-
vernment, for any considerable period ; and that he
privately ridiculed the late attempt. of Sir Robert Peel
to draw the State carriage with the old team of out-
and-out Tories. Nevertheless, Mr. Croker has a na-
tural appetite for reviling and reviewing the Re-
formers, and would, if he could, overturn their
principles and delay them in their laudable labour of
rooting up corruption. Mr. Croker, in one of his
" thunder and lightning " articles in the last number
of The Quarterly Review, just published, on Muni-
cipal Reform, has out-Heroded Herod in his prophe-
cies of bloody revolutions and prognostications of
political evil. Some malevolent spirit would seem to
haunt his resting place, and to dictate these morbid
effusions. Mr. Croker is the night-hag of English
politics—the witch supposed to wander in the night,
described by Milton in " Paradise Lost"—
" Nor uglier follows the Night-hag; when, called
In secret, riding through the air she comes,
Lured with the smell of infant-blood, to dance

With Lapland witches."
We extract from the Municipal Corporation Re-
former, a weekly paper of great talent, temporarily
published to record the debates on the important ques-
tion of Municipal Reform, a commentary on Mr. Cro-
ker's municipal effusions. Such personal exhibitions
are worth a ream of argument ; the facts stated in the
extract are singularly illustrative of the borough system,
and prove Mr. Croker to be' eminently informed on the
value of the abuses of Corporations to the Tories. We
there find that Mr. Croker has been steeped in all the
iniquities of the municipal system of England—that he
has been a " manager'. of boroughs, and is now a cor-
porator in several English ;towns. The Corporation
Rybrmer has " shown up" Mr. Croker in reference
only to England; we will take up his political biography
as respects Ireland. The " Right Honourable" Gentle-
man first entered Parliament in 1808, being returned at
the general election in 1807 for the borough of Down-
patrick, in the county of Down, a town enfranchised by
the Act of Union, with the privilege of returning one
Member to the United Parliament. Lord De Clifford, as
the owner of the greater part of the houses and adjacent
property, was at that time the " Patron," and " no-
minated" Mr. Croker. The Corporation, unluckily
for the Noble Patron, was a mere shadow, or his
Lordship might have preserved his borough, which other
families of growing property and influence subsequently
wrested from him. Mr. Croker sate quietly for this
snug seat during the years 1807, 1809, 1810, and
1811 ; but, in 1812, Mr., Hawthorn defeated him by
a majority of 159 votes to 124. After this defeat we
find Mr. Croker the following year returned for Ath-
lone, in the counties of Westmeath and Roscommon,
a rotten borough, the nomination seat of the then Mr.
William Handcock, the patron being in December of
the same year (1812) created Viscount Castlemain
Twelve self-elected burgesses " chose" their " repre•
sentative," Mr. Croker, who continued Member for
Athlone till 1819. Here, again, the Right Hon.
ex-Secretary became conversant with the advantages
of a close Corporation. Now, let us turn to the Re-
ports of the Irish Commissioners on the Corporations
of the sister island. They are fae similies of the
English self-elect bodies, but more exclusive in reli-
gious composition. Mr. Baldwin, the Irish barriSter,
in his Report on Athlone (Appendix, Part 1., p.
127), ably describes the place of refuge of Mr.Croker.
The twelve burgesses are thus enumerated :
"No Roman Catholic or other Dissenter has ever been a
burgess. Indeed, this body is almost confined to the family
of Lord Castlemain, the ' patron' of the Corporation. The
following list of the present burgesses_(lB33) justifies this ob-
servation :

. admitted 29th June 1790
12th June 1815
9th July 1821
4th Dec. 1824
10th May 1826
4th July 1831
29th April 1794
24th June 1797

" Richard Handcock, sen.
Richard Handcock, jun. . .
Rev. John Gustavus Handcock
Henry Robert Handcock . .
George Handcock, . . . .
Charles Handcock
Richard Telford
Richard Cuppiadge . . .
The Archbishop of Tuam .

30th June 1800

Lord Ashtown. • same date.
Hon. Wm. Le Poer Trench - . ... 4th August 1826
Joseph Morgan Daly . . . . ... sth August 1820
" The first six are of the immediate family of Lord Castle-
main; the seventh and eighth were stated to be his nephews;
the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, to be connected with him by
marriage; and Mr. Daly was said to be the only burgess
not connected with or related to his Lordship. Of the bur-
gesses three only arc resident, namely, Richard Handcock,
sen , Richard Handcock, jun., and Charles Handcock. Lord
Castlemain is himself a burgess, as constable of the Castle."
Of the Council, Mr. Baldwin says seven were resi-
dent and thirteen non-resident. No restriction exists
as to the number of this body, and it seldom exceeds
twenty ; but the Reporter says " It is remarkable that,
with respect to it, we could obtain very little informa-
tion even from the members of the Corporation." No
Roman Catholic has ever been a member of the body,
and only one Protestant Dissenter at present belongs
to it. The duty of the Common Council is to audit
the accounts. Mr. Baldwin reports, "It did not ap-
pear, however, that any account was ever investigated
by them, and during the sovereignty of Richard Hand-
cock, sen., they frequently refused to do so, and passed
the accounts •on his representation." The• class of
freemen of course have been made subservient to the
purposes of the patron. They are elected for life and
admitted by " grace especial," no inchoate right to
freedom being acknowledged, and no qualification re-
quired. Before the Reform Acts, of 227 freemen
on the books, two-thirds were non-resident:- On the
24th June, 1831, the fresh number of 165 freemen
was admitted, of whom ten were under the age of
21 years, and nine only Roman Catholics. The
return in 1830 having been contested against the
nominee of Lord Castlemain, this copious admission of
165 persons " took place for the purpose of increasing
the constituency in the interest of his Lordship's fa-
mily." The selection was made secundem artem. Mr.
Baldwin states " that in the year 1829, 350 residents,
comprising most of the respectable inhabitants, applied
to be admitted free, and tendered 1/. each, with their
petition to the Sovereign, but being supposed to be
hostile to the Handcock family, they were all refused
admission !" Of the 165 freemen admitted in the in-
terest of the Patron 157 were non-resident. Mr.
Baldwin makes the following remarks on the ruling
body :. •
" 8. The management of the affairs of the borough is no-
minally vested in the Common Council, but in reality the en-
tire control of the Corporation is exercised by Lord Viscount
Castlemain. The "borough" formerly belonged to the
Handcock and St. George families. The present Lord
Castlemain purchased from Sir Richard St. George his in-
terest therein, and from the period of that purchase has exer-
cised over it complete, dominion.
" The forms of election by the Council are regularly ob-
served, but the elected are either the nominees of his Lord-
ship, or persons notoriously in his interest.
" The right of electing the officers is granted by charter to
the Sovereign, bailiffs, and burgesses. How it came to be
exercised by the Common Council did not appear. In effect,
however, there is little difference, as this body consists of the
Sovereign, and bailiffs, and generally of the burgesses, toge-
ther with a very few of the freemen.
" The power of self-election exercised by this body, pos-
sessing, as it in form does, the whole management of the Cor-.
poration, enables its ' patron,' however extended the number
of freemen may be, to maintain a perfectly close and exclusive
Corporation.
, " So secret are the proceedings of this self-elected and
irresponsible body, that even burgesses and freemen, not
members of it, are excluded from its meetings." •
Now all these facts are well known to the Quarterly
Reviewer, Mr, Croker. The history of the Corpora-
tions of Ireland down to the accession of James I. fol-
lows a course exactly parallel to that of the English
Muncipal Government. It was the policy of that pe-
dantic despot which first began the direct subversion
of all popular constitution in the corporate boroughs of
Ireland. The distinction was, however, completed
in the reign of Charles 11., when the first Irish
Parliament after the Restoration gave to. that Mo-
narch and his Irish Privy Council (Statute 17th
and 18th Charles 11., cap. 2) the power to legis,
late ' for the Corporations of Ireland within a:
given time ; and a few days before the expiration of`
that time the celebrated " New -Rules " were:-issued,
which abolished even in Dublin every relic of popular
constitution,. and provided that no 'chief officer of a
body corporate should execute the duty of 'his office
until his election had been ratified by the Lord Lieu-
tenant, a rule which has remained the law tb the pre-
sent day: Nevertheless, A shall doubtless see Nr.,