§ On the question that the Borough Improvements Bill be read a third time,
§ The Duke of Wellington moved with respect to Oxford similar to that which he had moved when the third reading of the Drainage Bill was under consideration.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he had, on a former day, presented several petitions from the rated inhabitants of the town of Birmingham, praying that the town of Birmingham might be excluded from the operation of the bill, and he now, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, rose to move a proviso to that effect. He would state in a few words the grounds on which he made that proposal. They bore some resemblance to the grounds stated by his noble Friend in the former amendment. There had been for thirty years a local Act applicable to the town of Birmingham, and the commissioners under that local Act had powers similar to and corresponding nearly to, the powers proposed to be given to the town council by this bill. They had exercised those powers entirely to the satisfaction of the people of Birmingham, and he might appeal to gentlemen resident in that town or in its neighbourhood, to state whether a greater portion of improvement had not taken place in it within those thirty years, under the jurisdiction of the commissioners, than in any other town in this kingdom. The commissioners, who were men of all parties and sects, had acted with the greatest cordiality and harmony; but this bill proposed to substitute for them the town council, which was notoriously the most party body in the empire—the 1452 most radical body in the empire—the most sweeping and unmeasured in every step in which, it had proceeded. He could only say, that all its conduct had been in conformity with its original creation. He would mention one instance. There was a Borough Court in Birmingham, which had a registrar, and it was usual to give such an appointment to a lawyer, or to a person who had some legal knowledge; but this town council appointed, not a lawyer nor a person who had some legal knowledge, but the editor or manager of a Radical journal in that town. He would ask, was the House willing to entrust such extraordinary powers—such unlimited powers—of taxation, with no appeal to the commissioners who had so well exercised their duty, or would they entrust them to a town council, composed of party men, and influenced by the principles which he had stated? He was sure that they would not hesitate, and he was sure that they would all be of opinion that the town of Birmingham ought to be excluded from the bill. He, for one, would repeat, that he would not consent to give such large powers to a party body, constituted in such a manner. It might purchase whatever property it pleased, and give whatever price it pleased, without any control or appeal. Another inconvenience would be this:—It might be proposed to purchase some property. The commissioners might say, "Give such a price;" and the town council might say, "Give such a price." Now, who was to decide between them? Nothing could be more absurd than allowing such conflicting jurisdictions to exist in one town. It was ridiculous while the one competent jurisdiction existed to establish a concurrent jurisdiction. It was on these grounds that he proposed, by way of proviso, "that nothing in this Act shall extend to the town of Birmingham."
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he thought that there was no danger that the powers proposed to be given to the town council would be abused. He admitted with the noble and learned Lord that nothing could be more undesirable than that there should be conflicting jurisdiction in the same town: but the Act under which these commissioners were appointed was only for five years, and that time had almost expired. The Act was intended for a temporary purpose—that purpose had been answered, and as the object of the bill now before the House was intended to introduce one general system of improve- 1453 ment in large and populous towns, he hoped the noble and learned Lord would not press his motion.
Lord Ellenboroughwas anxious that the House should act on a uniform principle. His noble Friend near him had recently carried an amendment to this effect—that the commissioners under the local act at Birmingham had discharged their functions so satisfactorily, that it was quite safe to delegate to them the additional powers under this act. Did he understand his noble Friend to exclude Birmingham by his present amendment?
§ Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that the form of his motion would exclude Birmingham. But be had no objection so to frame the provision as to vest the existing commissioners with all the powers given to the town councils by the act.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that after the decision which had been come to on the former amendment, it was not his intention to press the House to a division against the motion of the noble and learned Lord. He must, however, protest against Birmingham being made an exemption from the system of popular control.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Earl Stanhope moved a proviso, excluding the borough of Derby from the operation of the act.
The Marquess of Normanbyopposed the motion. The reason for this motion was not the same as the last. The commissioners in Derby amounted to about 400,
§ Amendment negatived, Bill passed.
§ The Buildings Regulation Bill was also read a third time and passed.
§ House adjourned.