then, the said mayor, capital burgesses, and assistants, or major part of them, shall impose such fine, as they may think reasonable, not exceeding 50l. (v)

It is presumed a mere lodger, or inmate, would not be liable to the fine mentioned in this clause ; and which is quite sufficient to prove his ineligibility to be elected a corporate officer. (w) It is pretty clear also, the reverend vicar of Witheridge, although residing in Tiverton under licence from the Bishop of the diocese, when elected a common council man, might have refused to accept the office. This reverend gentleman was at the time, also, rector of Poughill. Indeed his appointment to an office, to be at all times aiding

(v) It has been said, that the late Mr. Besley, being chosen mayor, when he was a resident at Teignmouth, considered himself ineligible, not being an inhabitant of Tiverton, and that he actually resisted the payment of the fine for some time. He however, after due consideration and earnest recommendation, paid it. The account of the expences of the liberty will, I should suppose, confirm this.

(w) A lodger, or inmate, is not qualified to exercise the elective franchise. King James, in the charter granted to the inhabitants of Tiverton, did not alter the common law of election, but restrained or confined it, to those 25 inhabitants, called the mayor, 12 capital burgesses, and 12 assistants. It need only be suggested, that to enable any one to vote, as an inhabitant, he must be an householder, paying scot and bearing lot. But of this, we shall observe further, when we come to consider the restoring clause, Z.

and assisting to the mayor of Tiverton, does appear rather at variance with the Earl of Harrowby's bill for the residence of the clergy; and many of his lordship's friends will not even now believe, his lordship's sanction was given to this appointment, notwithstanding there was a general report to the contrary at the time. (x) It would appear, that already burthened with the two spiritual charges above mentioned, he had forgotten the following extract from my Lord Coke. 2. Ins. 4. To the intent that clergymen may the better discharge their duty, in celebration of divine service, and not be entangled with temporal business; if any of them be chosen to any temporal office, he may have his writ to be discharged."

(x) I can now with some confidence assure the reader, that a clergyman residing in our town under a licence of nonresidence from the bishop of his diocese, cannot be considered such a description of inhabitant, as to render him eligible to serve a corporate office. A clergyman cannot resign his cure of souls without the consent of his diocesan, and his licence of absence, extends only two years, but it may be revoked at any time. It is therefore certain, the reverend rector of a living 80 miles off, residing with us under licence, would not be liable to the above fine; and indeed, it does appear a contradiction, that an election should be made of one to a corporate office, such as capital burgess, or assistant, which prima facie, is to be held for "the natural life" of the person elected, (vide charter) who has only licence and permission, to reside within the jurisdiction, at the farthest, "two years," but which permission may be revoked at any time.

In addition to the above spiritual avocations, we understand this reverend common council man of Tiverton, was also curate of Thelbridge!! Very shortly after his election to be an assistant, "having dwelt long enough on this mount," this reverend gentleman, very properly went to reside on his living at Witheridge. This "departure" from Tiverton, was of itself a sufficient resignation of the corporate office, and so indeed we thought he would have esteemed it, but his appearance on certain days, proves we were mistaken. (y)

Such fine, however, is not for the use of the mayor and common council, as some would have us to believe, but belongs to the inhabitant householders, and should be appropriated by the mayor,

(y) I have extracted the following interesting intelligence, from the Western Luminary, of the 11th of Nov. 1823; and as I think it worthy the attention of those who "watch over our souls," I recommend it strongly, as a subject for their consideration.

"PLURALITIES.-Last week the Synod of Glasgow, refused to admit the Rev. Dr. Mc Farlane, principal of the University, to the parish of St. Mungo, to which he had been presented by the King. The refusal is grounded on the impropriety of one clergyman holding a plurality of offices," What would this Synod say, to a reverend rector of oue parish, who is a vicar of a second! a curate of a third !! and a common council man of a fourth!!! If they called Dr. Mc Farlane's case an impropriety, I should not at all wonder if they presumed to call this latter, a gross impropriety.

capital burgesses, and assistants, agreeably to the directions contained in the charter of James, which grants to the inhabitants, under their incorporated name of mayor and burgesses, the privilege of holding two fairs, &c. namely, "for the better support and maintenance of the charges and expence of the said town and parish, and also for the better relief.and sustenance of poor artificers, and other poor inhabitants of the same town and parish." I really should have thought, this clause by which the fairs are held, came under the cognizance of the commissioners under the act 59 George iii. but the late worthy Mr. R. H. Strong, who was a corporate officer of Tiverton, and if I mistake not, at the same time, town clerk, being also clerk to the said commissioners, and who assisted them in their investigation of the several charitable donations, &c. made to our town and parish, thought or knew that it did not, or we should have found some mention of it in the report. (*) The grant of

(2) A communication, which I have lately had the honor to receive from the commissioners, states, what I was well aware of, "that it does not appear to them, the clause in the Tiverton charter to which you refer, can be considered as having the effect of obliging the corporation to apply the profits of the fairs mentioned in the charter, for the relief and sustenance of poor artificers, &c." This is quite true; but still, with deference I would observe, some notice ought to have been taken of the clause. The mayor, I would suggest, should have been asked,-is the produce of the fairs

lease of lands in Elmore, by King William and Queen Mary, (1693) 1 observe in their report. This consisted originally of 150 acres, and was, it is supposed, a grant to the parish of Tiverton, from Isabella, Countess of Devon; and that on the attainder of one of her successors, in the reign of Henry viii, the said lands were seized by the crown. This accounts for the grant of William and Mary. In December (1693) John How, Esq. the mayor, and John Ivey, the justice, it appears, leased 30 acres of this common to different persons. Thirty acres was but a fifth part of the original gift; but in the grant of King William and Queen Mary, the mayor, capital burgesses, and assistants, as trustees, were directed to reco. ver the whole, for the future advantage of the crown. This indeed was the condition, on which the lease for 99 years was granted. Instead of a recovery, however, we are informed by the commissioners, that even these (a) thirty acres, were

applied to defray the expences of the town and parish, and no part to the relief of poor artificers? The mayor's reply would have been highly interesting to the inhabitants of Tiverton. I would also ask,-if the expences of the town be otherwise provided for, are not the corporate officers compelled to expend the produce of the fairs, in the support and maintenance of poor artificers ?

(a) At some future time, I hope I shall have it in my power, to place before my fellow-townsmen, some information relative to the Elmore grant, which may prove acceptable, more particularly to our poorer brethren.