§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ MR. WARTONproposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "a majority of the," and insert the words "not less than two-thirds of their." The object of the Amendment was to bring the Bill to its original form in this respect. He felt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) accepted the words "a majority of the" without due consideration. The hon. Gentleman must see that if a mark of distinction was to be conferred by a borough upon an eminent person, that mark of distinction would come with much better grace if there were two-thirds of the people in favour of bestowing it than if there were only a bare majority. If he (Mr. Warten) were an eminent person, and a borough wished to confer a mark of distinction upon him, ho should feel very annoyed if he thought it was only carried by a mere majority of one vote. He had great confidence in submitting this Amendment to the consideration of the House.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "a majority of the," and insert the words "not less than two-thirds of their,"—(Mr. Warton,}
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, that the Amendment was made in Committee upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who, in a speech of some force, pointed out that the body who had the power to elect a Sheriff and Mayor by a majority of one ought to be competent to decide by a mere majority whether a mark of distinction should be bestowed upon anyone. He (Mr. Norwood) did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) need have much fear on that score, because honours and distinctions would never be conferred when there was only a majority of one in favour of conferring them. It would be a distinction worth nothing, and would be scarcely acceptable.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was a difference between conferring appointments such as that of Mayor and Sheriff and the bestowal of the honorary distinctions dealt with in the Bill. It was the duty of the Corporation to appoint those officers, and, therefore, it was right that a majority should suffice; but, in regard to conferring the honorary freedom of towns, that was a mere complimentary business, and the circumstances were very different. He would say that not only in the interest of the distinction conferred, but in the interest of the towns themselves. A compliment of this kind ought to carry with it the general sense of the town, and that could not be expressed by a bare majority of the Corporation. It could only be shown by the fact of a considerable proportion of the Corporation being in favour of it. He thought that must have been the idea of the other House of Parliament in drawing the Bill in this form.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that it was a little absurd to question the authority of the Corporation of the City of London to confer its freedom upon a distinguished person when a majority of one could confer upon Mr. Speaker the dignity of First Commoner of England.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. NORWOODI would now ask the House to permit the Bill to be read a third time.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed,with an Amendment.