MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 5 July 1836)

§ The Attorney-General

then said, that it was with great satisfaction he thought that with respect to this Bill the amendments which had been made were not likely to create any difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. The Bill had originally been so framed as to avoid giving any offence elsewhere, and the House of Lords had returned the Bill, 1282 which contained, as amended, only two or three points to which it was necessary to call the attention of the House. It was his duty to call the attention of the House to two amendments only with respect to which he thought they ought to disagree with the Lords. The first of these related to the manner in which the election, of aldermen and mayor should be carried on in boroughs where the town-councillors were equally divided. In two boroughs at the last municipal election the town-council was divided nine against nine; they could not agree upon the election of aldermen, and sat till twelve o'clock, after which no alderman could be elected under the Act. By the Bill sent up from the Commons it was provided, to remedy this inconvenience, that the councillor who had the greatest number of votes should preside at the election, but should not give the casting vote, and that where the council could not agree in their selection of aldermen and mayor, the election should be referred to the constituent body. This seemed the wisest course that could be pursued, because the constituent body having elected councillors so opposite in sentiment, were likely to choose the aldermen from both parties also. The House of Lords had, however, thought that a different course ought to be adopted, and had referred the election to mere chance, which was, to determine whether the majority in a corporation should be Reforming or Conservative, for they pro posed that the councillor who was to pre side at the election should be chosen by lot, and that he should have two votes, his own and a casting vote in case of an equality. Now, to this amendment he could not ad vise the House to agree. He should move, that if the town-council could not agree in their selection of aldermen and mayor, the election should be referred to the constituent body, and he thought that if the town-council found that if they continued obstinate they would not have the power of election at all, they would most probably compromise their differences. The second point to which he had to call the attention of the House was the clause relating to charitable trustees who were left by the English Corporation Act in the same situation as they were before the passing of the Act, till November 1, 1836, and if Parliament did not make any provision respecting it in the meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor, who was at the head of the charitable institutions of the country, was to take them under his care. Now, the 1283 House of Lords had prolonged his clause for another year, and that amendment he could not recommend the House to agree to, as the operation of the clause had been found to be very inconvenient, and a Bill had been introduced by his hon. Friend, the Member for Northampton, relating to charitable trustees, by which the rate-payers were to elect, but each rate-payer was to vote for only half the number of candidates, so that each side was sure to be fairly represented. Their Lordships were probably not aware that this Bill had been introduced into the House, which they would no doubt find very fair and equitable, and therefore he should recommend the House to dissent from that amendment of the House of Lords. There was another clause which had been pointed out to him by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter, relating to small courts in the different boroughs. Now, as the clause came down from the Lords, the recorder was only enabled to sit four times in the year, but it was essential that many of these courts should sit from week to week, and he therefore should propose that the recorder should have a right to appoint a deputy to sit for him, who should receive such remuneration for his services as the town-council should appoint. With respect to the last clause of the Bill, which affected the rival jurisdictions of the town and University of Cambridge, and was to settle the dispute between town and gown, as the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, was not then in his place, he would not proceed with it in his absence, but would propose that the further consideration of it be postponed till the right hon. Gentleman was able to attend in his place, and then the right hon. Gentleman, and his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being pre sent, the claims of town and gown might be satisfactorily adjusted.