The Attorney-generalasked leave to bring in a bill to explain and amend the 5th and 6th Wm 4th, c. 76, the Municipal Regulation Act. There was a clause in the act which provided against any councillor or alderman remaining in office while, either by himself or by his partner, he had any interest in property held under lease from the corporation. Now this was the case to a great extent in Liverpool, Bridgewater, and many other corporate towns. He had called the attention of the late Government to this subject, and he had received an answer, to the effect that the then Attorney-general had no doubt that a literal construction could not be put upon the clause. The Court of Queen's Bench had, however, thought differently. They laid down as law that the property could not be held, and the office at the same time retained; and also, that the parties doing so would be subject to a penalty for every time they acted as councillors. From forty to 100 actions could now be brought under the operation of this clause, and, consequently the Legislature would be breaking faith with that part of the public who were interested in this question, unless they speedily set the matter at rest.
§ Mr. Jervissupported the measure. He presumed that it was merely a declaratory act to state what the Legislature had formerly intended, and not to remedy the defect which they had committed.
§ Leave given.