The government of
Lord Grey, having carried out reform of parliamentary constituencies, turned its attention to local government. In February 1833 a
select committee was appointed "to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations in England, Wales, and Ireland; and to report if any, and what abuses existed in them, and what measures, in their opinion, it would be most expedient to adopt, with a view to the correction of those abuses". The committee made their report in June 1833, having inquired into a handful of boroughs. The committee found that: The committee did not believe that they had sufficient powers to carry out a full review of the existing system. They instead recommended the appointment of a
royal commission, and that the country be divided into districts with a commissioner responsible for enquiring into boroughs in each district. • North Midland: Richard Whitcombe and Alexander Edward Cockburn • Eastern: George Long and John Buckle • South Western: Henry Roscoe and Edward Rushton • Southern:
John Elliot Drinkwater and
Edward John Gambier • Western: Charles Austin and James Booth • Midland: Peregrine Bingham and David Jardine • Northern:
Fortunatus Dwarris and Sampson Augustus Rambull • North-Western: George Hutton Wilkinson and
Thomas Jefferson Hogg • South-Eastern: Thomas Flowers Ellis and Daniel Maude The commission's secretary was
Joseph Parkes.
Report The commission issued its report in 1835. Altogether 285 towns had been investigated. The main conclusions of the report were: • The corporations were exclusive bodies with no community of interest with the town after which they were named. • The electorate of some corporations was kept as small as possible. • Some corporations merely existed as "political engines" for maintaining the ascendancy of a particular party. • Members of corporations usually served for life and the corporate body was a self-perpetuating entity.
Roman Catholics and
Dissenters, although no longer disabled from being members, were systematically excluded. • Vacancies rarely occurred and were not filled by well-qualified persons. • Some close corporations operated in almost complete secrecy, sometimes secured by oath. Local residents could not obtain information on the operation of the corporation without initiating expensive legal actions. • The duties of the mayor were, in some places, completely neglected. • Magistrates were appointed by the corporations on party lines. They were often incompetent and lacked the respect of the inhabitants. • Juries in many boroughs were exclusively composed of freemen. As the gift of freedom lay with the corporation, they were political appointees and often dispensed justice on a partisan basis. • Policing in the boroughs was often not the responsibility of the corporation but of one or more bodies of
commissioners. An extreme example was the City of
Bath, which had four districts under different authorities, while part of the city had no police whatever. • Borough funds were "frequently expended in feasting, and in paying the salaries of unimportant officers" rather than on the good government of the borough. In some places funds had been expended on public works without adequate supervision, and large avoidable debts had accrued. This often arose from contracts being given to members of the corporation or their friends or relations. Municipal property was also treated as if it were only for the use of the corporation and not the general population. The commission concluded its report by stating that: ==Effects of the act==