The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, SEPTEMBER 1.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL-QUALIFICATION

CLAUSES.
Colonel LEITH HAY said it was notorious in S3otland that no
system ever worked worse than allowing town-clerks to remain as
they at present were.—(Cheers.) He trusted that the system
would soon be done away with altogether.
Mr. SCARLETT supported the amendment.
Mr. GOULI3URN thought the House was bound to afford more
protection to the town clerks.

The CHANCELLOBof the EXCHEQUER thought the
amendment of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) a great im-
provement upon the clause as sent down by the Lords. He
agreed with what fell from the Right Honoerable Baro-
net, that some part of the Bill would give distrust without
security, and he .applied it to this clause ; for if the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet's amendment was carried, it would imply distrust without any
security. The proposition was that a Town-clerk, whether
qualified or disqualified, should be forced upon the new
Corporations ? Was it proper that he should be so forced upon the
Council? He said forced against their will, because, if he was
an efficient officer, he would be re-elected by the new Council.
Compensation was not left to be decided by the town-council
If the town-council had the power of offering inadequate compensa-
tion to a town-clerk, and turning him out, it would be most unjust
but an appeal lay on the part of the officer to a perfectly disinterested
tribunal, and it' inadequate the Treasury had the power of setting
the matter right. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not want
to do these gentlemen an injustice, nor did he want to encumber the
new Corporations, and have forced on t hem instruments who had the
charge of all the documents and charters of the old cot-prate
bodies, and who distrusted the new Corporations, and might he
likely to withhold from them the necessary information. That,
perhaps, implied a distrust of the town clerks, but was it not as
reasonable to distrust those who had openly avowed their distrust
to the whole commuity, as to distrust the whole community?
The clause was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill,
as laid down by the House of Lords. There was another
instance of this in the case of the Recorders, and in thei
case a qualification had been introduced, to which they
must all submit—all who did not come within that qualifi-
cation and who held that office must loose it at once, and it became
the duty of the Crown to fill it up. He would give an instance in the
case of the county of Surrey, where the Recorder was a solicitor, a
man of great respectability, and had held the office many years.
He was at once removed by the Bill, and it was now urged
that five years standing at the bar was a sufficient qualification.
He would say that if the Town Clerks were duly qualified,
if they were men of respectability, and possessed the good
opinion and confidence of the Town Council, every possible
motive, both economical and of public convenience, ought, and
would induce the Town Councils to re-appoint them. But how
differently would they stand, if they were appointed by the goodwill
of their fellow-citizens, instead of being forced upon them ? Suppose
a man (and he would assume a case) were disqualified, and
of a disreputable character, only imagine the irritation
that would be caused by such a man being thrust into
a town council. Would they not worry such a man to death ?
(Laughter.) The man himself would exclaim against it. He would
support the amendment of his Noble Friend Lord J. Russell.
Lord SANDON supported the amendment.
Mr. CUTLER FERGITSSON thought, if. they allowed the
town-clerks to hold office during life, all the good effects of the Bill
would be lost.

Several Members rose amid ioml cries of " Divide," when
Sir R. PEEL withdrew his amendment. He would not
consume the time of the House in dividing, but would at
once agree to the amendment of the Noble Lord.
The amendment was accordingly agreed.to, as were some
others.

CHURCH PATRONAGE.
Clause 11,1 (after clause 63), inserted by the Lord:, to pro-
vide that members of the Church only should appoint to va-
cant benefices, &c., in the gift of Corporations, was then taken
into consideration.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that this was entirely a
new clause, and one to which, as he observed last night, he
could not give his assent. He was no. anwilling to agree to a
proposition which might be framed Iv: !living every possiblo
security to the Church in the exerciseof the patronage is sues.
tion, but he was not disposed to agree to any proposition by
which the council would be divided into two parts, one being
composed of members of the Church of England, and the other
of Dissenters. At the time of the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts, no security was required from Di,icnters
on being admitted into Corporations, except that contained in
a declaration to be taken alike by Churchmen and Dissenters.
He would repeat that he was ready to accede to any propoFi,
tion by which security to the Church could be further ob-
tained in this respect; and that he was not prepared to can..
tend, as an abstract principle, that those who dissented from
the Church were therefore the persons in whose hands taiyht
to be placed the appointment to Church benefices in any por-
tion of tbo p'atkiage of the Church ; but be re:;arUcd ft a:3. 3.