The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-26 00:00:00

THE NEW CORPORATION BILL.

Alderman SIDNEY rose to call ;?',3 attention of the
court to what he considered to be a breach of one of the
most important of the privileges of the corporation. It
was well known that the new municipal Bill, which it
was agreed upon all sides was calculated to operate
beneficially for the citizens of London, had been in-
troduced to Parliament, after having undergone
the most grave deliberation and discussion, had
passed through certain stages in the House of Commons
without opposition, but bad been suddenly ad-
journed from the 6th to the 29th instant.—(Hear, hear.)
For that postponement, which looked very much like
the result of a confederacy between the clerks of the
companies, to which some of the clauses referred, and
those to whom the office of superintending the passing
of the Bill was committed, no cause was assigned; but
he considered that such a delay was likely to be
fatal to the measure during the present session—an
event which would be greatly to be deplored. He thought
the corporation ought to defend their own course of
proceeding in the most determined manner. They had,
atter having re-argued the clauses aff wing the City
companies, resolved to prosecute the bill in its entire
condition, and referred it to the freedoms committee,
with perfectly intelligible directions. In tha House of
Commons Selection Committee, of which Mr. Bernal was
chairman, however, he found that the long postponement
had taken place notwithstanding the anxiety so unequi-
vocally expressed that the necessary measure should, as
soon as possirile, become the Jaw of the land. As a
member of the Corporation, arid of the House of Com-
mons, he considered it to be his duty to write to Mr.
Bernal upon the occasion, and the following was the
answer he had received from that gentleman :
" 93, Eaton-square, April 12.
" My dear Alderman Steney,—l am not agile to give
you the+ inform xcion you wish for. I am not aware of
the cause of the postponement of the Londi,n Corpora-
tion B-11. When I sat lately in my tribunal the party in
charge of the Bill mentioned that he was not ready to
proceed, and he applied for and obtained a postpone-
ment as a matter of course.—Believe me yours very
truly, " R. BERNAL."
Ha then wrote to the City Remembrancer, who had the
charge of the bill, on the subject, stating his apprehen-
sion that the delay would be, in all probability , fatal to
the accomplishment of the great olject of the corpora-
tion in the present session of Parliament. To that com-
munication he received the following reply:—
"Guildhall, 13th April, 1852.
"My dear Sir,—ln consequence of the Court of Com-
mon Council not having determined upon the form of
the bill until the 2d instant, I was unable to settle the
bill with Lord Redesdale by the 6th instant, and it was
in consequence postponed. I particulary requested Mr.
Bernal to fix the earliest day he could after the Easter
recess for the committee on the bill, which I have no
doubt he has done.
" If Parliament continue long enough to pass the ge-
neral private business, I see no reason why the Corpo-
ration Bill should not pass.—l am, dear sir, yours truly,
" E. TYRRELL.

" Mr. Alderman Sidney."
He subsequently wrote again to the Rembrancer, repre•
sentirig that there was a mistake as to the acaml
condition of the Bill, the principle of which had been
aereed upon in October, and had Dever been disturbed
since, notwithstanding the efforts made to exclude
the companies from its operation. It however ap-
peared that the proceedings of the court were to be
disregarded; and ho had been just informed that it
would be an act of policy to give the exemption to the
companies, in order to secure the success of an important
measure, the most important part of which tended to the
diminution of the power winch those companies had
usurped.—(Hear, hear.) He had given notice of a mo.
tion upon the subject to the Town Clerk, but that officer
had not complied with his request to place the motion
upon the paper of business. Now he would seriously
ask the court whether they would surrender their Bill
in consequence of the machinations of what he might
a little conspiracy within doors? whether they would al-
low their proceedings, calculated as these proceedings
were, to extend to their fellow citizens generally the
right to vote for the highest municipal offices, to be tam-
pered with and rendered of no avail?—(Hear, hear.)
Alderman Sidney concluded by moving the !allowing re-
solution
That this court having been informed that the
Corporation Election Bill has been introduced into
Parliament, and was on tho 15th of March last read a
second time in the House of Commons, and committed
and referred to the Committee of Selection without op-
position; that the time fixed for its further consideration
by that Committee was the 6,h of April, but at the
express instigation of Mr. Remembrancer was post.
pone d and is now fixed for the 29th instant; that ihis ,
delay in the consideration of the Bill endangers its pass-
ing through Parliament during the present session, and
thereby defeats the intention of this honourable court in
seeking to rectify the acknowledged evils of the present
sate of the tnuuicipality; that the conduct of Mr. Re-
membrancer, as the Parliamentary office the corpo-
the passing of this measuree into a
rati n, in delaying
law, is unauthorised, and is in contravention to the de-
cistees of this court.
(Sarong expressions of disapprobation, and loud cries
of .1 Withdraw, withdraw.")
Mr. BENNOCU seconded the resolution.
The,rowN-Cnuale—The principle upon which I acted
innot r
Alderman Sidney's notice of motion upon
the paper of
business is that upon which it has been the
invariable practice of the Court to act. The question
was a question of privilege, right,
which, by takes
pre-
cedence of all other matters, and without any notice
whatever, and if I had placed the notice upon the paper
of business, such ace would
have been an unwarrantable
interference with the rule and practice.—(Hear, hear.)
The REMEDIBRANCER described, in a manner which
called forth the loud and unanimous approbation of the
Coure, the whole of the proceedings adopted by him
for the purpose of facilitating the progress of the mea-
sure in Parliament. He showed that he had acted,
not hastily nor negligently, but deliberately, cautiously'
and energetically,
in the performance of his duty; that
the delay which had taken place was unavoidable, and
that everything had been done to carry
not
tt
htheeacinten-
tions of the Court—an object which could
plished without a very close and judicious attention
the several stages of the bill.
f
Mr. ANDERTON said it was quite evident that the re-
section upon the conduct of the Remembrancer was quite
an error, and Mr. Alderman Sidney would not hesitate
to withdraw that part at least of his motion.—(Cheers.)
Alderman SIDNEY nodded assent.
Mr. WILLIAN JONES said if the complaint had been
made by any one except a member of Parliament ho
would look upon it as being too ridiculous to be noticed.
—(Loud laughter.) He was quite satisfied that the
Remembrancer had acted upon the important occasion
with the judgment whieh that gentleman never failed to
exhibit in the performance of his duties, and he believed
that in Parliamentary proceedings of the nature to
which their attention had been drawn, policy was the
better part of valour.—(Hear.)
Mr. GeDSON said he thought the delay which bad
taken place would be of advantage to the Bill, which
aeotild, no doubt, come out of Parliament somewhat
steered in shape and condition.
13r. R. TAYLOR said he saw from the Remembrancer's
statement that the Bill had been taken to Lord Redes-
dale, and he wished to know why that course had been
purstee, when the Bill had not as yet passed the Com-
mons.
The REMEMBRANCER said it was the invariable prac-
tice of Parliamentary agents to apply to have Bills
settled in the House of Lords before the passing of such
Bills in the House of Commons.
Mr. STACY said it was obvious that the Remem-
brancer had acted by the direction of the committee,
that there was a difference of opinion between the Court
and the committee, and if the Court attached blame to
the Remt riebrancer for the act of the committee, it would
have beet more reasonable not to have appointed a com-
mittee at all.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Lin Nur BLASE said the fault lay with the com-
mittee, ,ose duty it was to advocate the in its in-
tegrity; in 'stead of doing which, they had taken out its
essence.
BOWER pleaded guilty to the charge of
Mr. Di iputy
having ag 'etat-d the necessity of altering the Bill to meet
ear, hear.)
the difficulties which presented themselves in the
threatener oppoeition of the companies._(
He was cos vinced that the corporation would, backed
by such a I )(ewer as the new Bill would give them, be
soon enable,t to carry the clauses whice lay in the way
of its success .
Mr. B. Pa tILLIPS and Mr. TOWSE approved of the
whole proceea dings of the Remeeibreamer upon the Bill,
and lookiid to the event with confidence.
Mr. D sauey HARRISON defended the committee from
the attack which he considered Alderman Sidney bad
made upoe . them, through the medium of the insinuations
against if a Remembrancer, and moved as an araend•
ment that the explanation of that officer was most satis-
factory.— .(Hear; hear.)
Mr. D,Tuty STEVENS seconded the amendment.
Al derv; 'an SIDNEY said ho had sought several °poor-
tuniti es of withdrawing his motion, but such had been
the excited state of the court that he could not make
himself und, erstood.
There wt s some objection to the offer of Alderman
Sidney to eve'thdiaiv the resolution, but ultimately the
court ftgreed.-.to a motion to that effe9t..