The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-28 00:00:00

.//

COMMON COUNCIL.-(THIS DAY.)

The Loan Ma volt took the chair at a few minutes past twe ye.
The minutes of the last meeting having been read,
Alderman T. Woon said he had a motion to submit to the
Council, which, as he had on a former occasion advocated at some
length, it was not now necessary for him to enlarge upon. His
ototion was—" That the Aldermen at present elected be continued
for life, and that the only disqualifications for this office be cases of
Bankruptcy, Insolvency, Deeds of Composition, taking the Benefit
of the Act, Convictions for Fraud, or other misdemeanours, by the
verdict of a Jury ; absence for a certain length of time without
leave of the Common Council, or general imbecility."
Mr. BLACK WTI' seconded his motion. It was most important
that those who were selected to discharge the Magisterial functions
should be independent, which they could not be if they were only
elected for a certain period. •
Mr. PRITCHARD rose to move as an amendment, in pursuance
of the recommendation of the Committee, that the election of Al-
dermen hereafter be periodical. He regretted that the task
had devolved upon him, instead of the talented • gentleman
who had intended to bring it forward. The worthy Alder-
man who had brought the motion before the Court, `had laid
no grounds before it which might satisfy them of its expediency.
He would endeavour, as well as his recollection served him, to re-
capitulate the arguments formerly made use of by the worthy
Alderman, and to repel them by such as would appear to him most
peer f r that purpose. The gentleman who had seconded the
motion had argued that the Alderman must be independent, but he
(Mr. P.) was not aware how periodical elections could in any way
compromise their independence. He entertained a profound
espect for all the Corporate Institutions of the city, and
hat feeling resulted from their popular character, which had
ended much to their efficiency. He was disposed also to pay
every respect. to the Civic functionaries, more especially those who
iheld the most prominent and responsible offices. He regarded them
as parts of a great whole, which should be kept in unison and bar- 1
monv with the other parts, and not be built up with any exclusive
privileges, which might impair their efficiency. He thought that
efficiency must, in a great measure, depend upon the principles by
which their appointment was regulated„ and which should be in
unison with those which regulated the other portions of the
Corporate body.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If the system of po-
pular representation worked well in the Common Council,
he saw no reason why it should not work equally well in the ap-
pointment of Aldermen. The Common Council had been so appoint-
ed from the earliest period, and if it had been an exception to the
general corruption which prevailed of late among corporate bodies,
it was entirely owing to this cause. It was their duty to con-
sider whether the application of the same principle to the al-
dermanic body might not beneficial, or whether it, would be
best to adhere to the present system. It was alleged that
the independence of the aldermen would be affected by such a.
charge, but it was incumbent upon the. other side to show some
grounds for that assertion. In his mind the principle of periodical
election would be attended with very great advantages.. He need
not refer to historical authorities to remind the Court that the
office of Alderman was annual up to a very late period, and the
only objection to it now was, that it would interfere with the
discharge of the judicial functions which they at pre:ant exercised.
Formerly they were at the heads of their several Wards, and exercised
supreme authority at the Board, and this did not cease until the
appointment of Justices of the Peace, when the Aldermen were
deprived of their judicial functions, and all their authority
merged in that of the Lord Mayor. Ile could not trace
out any period in which they exercised any functions exclu-
sively judicial; it was therefore impossible to apply to them
the argument of the independence of the Judges. the Magis-
terial business was -not exclusively performed by the Alder-
men—the Lord Mayor performed a much larger portion of
it than the Aldermen ; if, therefore, the principle were good for any
thing, it was good for the entire purpose of the argument, and went
to prove that the Lord Mayor, as well as the Aldermen, should be
elected for life. In the present state of things, if a vacancy sud-
denly occurred in a small Ward, and there should not be any gentleman
in the Ward to whom the constituency could apply, they would be
obliged to look to strangers without any opportunity of enquiring
into their qualification for the office, and would be driven to a
speedy election. If they should happen to make an imprudent
choice, they had no remedy—the choice once made was unalter-
able. He saw that it was proposed in certain cases to admit of anew
election, such as bankruptcy, &c., but who was to define what was
meant by the terms " general imbicility," which was one of those
cases? Who would suggest to the party to withdraw if he were
slow to perceive his imbecility ? It must at all times be painful to
do so.—( Hear.) He thought they were bound to inquire whether
they could not resort at least to the consideration of the expediency
and possibility of carrying out the principle of a periodical election of
Aldermen as well as of other officers. It was only a return to the
ancient practice of their Constitution. Upon these grounds he
would submit to the Court a resolution to the effect " that all Al-
dermen hereafter to be elected, shall be periodically elected by the
constituency." If that resolution were carried a second would be pro-
posed, defining the period for which the Aldermen should be elected.
Mr. STEVENS complained of the course • taken by the worthy
Alderman who moved the resolution. It was not fair in him to re-
serve all argument to the reply, for then he knew it must pass;
but if the Court decided upon the motion adverse to his opinion
under such circumstances, he would not consider it a fair de-
cision. It was under these feelings that he rose to second the
amendment. He agreed with many parts of the original
resolution, and if only two points of it were left out, and it was
then joined to periodical election, he would at once agree to it. He
could not see that a Magistrate of London held a higher or more
important situation than a Member of Parliament, yet'he was perio-
dically elected, and many benefits were found from it, and lie did not
believe there was either a Member of Parliament or a Magistrate of
London who would give up a conscientious opinion to please any
man—then what liarm could ensue. It was a most gross libel upon
the constituency of London to say that they were unfit to select
proper men for the Magistracy—it was, in fact, saying to them—
You would always be making the Aldermen parties to some job
or other, and therefore we will not give you more than one election
during a life-time." He believed there were gentlemen in that
Court who were quite independent, and yet they were elected
annually.
Sir P. I. A eluz then ruse and said, there appeared fo he a great
shyness upon the part of the Learned Members of the Court to
grapple with the subject; and thought he knew that he laid him-
self open to their attacks, and he knew one Learned Gentleman
who would not let hint pass easily—(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Charles Pearson) still, as the question was one of nearly
vital importance, he would at once enter upon it. In the
year 1390 Aldermen of London were elected annually, and were

not eligible to be re-chosen. That was altered in 1393;by making
them eligible to be re-elected; but then the duties of au Alder-
man were only analogous to those of a constable of the present.
day.—( Hear, hear.) In the year 1394, an Act was passed
making them, when once chosen, Aldermen till they lost their
office for some grave offence ; and from that time they have
been chosen for life, and for the whole 500 years they had been, not
constables but Judges, which they still most incontestably remained,
for at the Old Bailey when the Alderman left the )3ench, the
Recorder laid down his pen till his return, nor was a sentence ever

given before an Alderman was consulted. If they went back to old
times, as he had no doubt some one would say they should, then
the door of the Court must be shut., for so it was %%lien the Alder-

men were elected annually. If they made the Aldermen to

--..—
be elected periodically, then they would degrade them to the level
of themselves—of those who were the slates of St. Thomas's Day.
It would be a disgrace to this city, if its magistracy were to be less
independent than that of the rest of the country. There was another
reason, which was this—when an Alderman became Lord Mayor,
his expenditure was about 4,000/. or 5,0001. He should like
to know how a man would like a periodical election, after
such an expenditure. What Alderman would make arrange-
ments to spend so- very large a sum of money, unless he
were certain of being re-elected ?—( Hear, hear, hear. ) It bad
been said that the Directors of the Bank of England were periodi-
cally elected—perhaps gentlemen were not aware of this se:.ret.
Next Thursday, which was the day appointed for the election of
the Governor of the Bank, every Director disqualified himself ex-
cept one, and that one, of course, become Governor. This was
the election at the Bank.—( Hear.) In Scotland, he admitted, the
Magistrates were re-elected. But the Magistrates there had no

judicial power—they merely had the powel• of transferring to the
Sheriff-Depute the criminals to be examined, and the Sheriff
handed them over to the Lord Advocate. The uorthy Alderman

then referred to the votes of thanks passed by the different Wards,
to prove that the Magistracy of the city had uniformly discharged
their duty to their constituents so as to ensure their approbation.—
A motion of this kind, he said, would the greatest slur that
could be cast on the Court of Aldermen; and he hoped it would not
be carried. •

Mr. C. P.Eaßsoti had come there for the purpose of hearing the
question discussed fairly and calmly. He did not approve of the
shifting, manner in which the motion had been brought forward,
.

and he disapproved of the observation of the last speaker that the wor-
thy mover had many arguments to bring forward in reply. He would
be ashamed to resort to so unworthy a subterfuge to catch votes.
If there were any good reasons for acceding to the motion, why
should they not have been at once stated to the Board? There
was a motion of his for periodical elections upon the books, which
he had been prevented from bringing forward by a very unfair
manoeuvre. He would be glad to contrast the sentiments of the
worths mover ( Alderman T. Wood) now with what they were
when "he was merely Mr.• Deputy Wood, a something floating be-
tween the two extremes of Alderman and Member of the Common

Council. It had been asserted by him then that nothing could be
more unpopular than the body of Aldermen."—( Hear.) What was
the meaning of submitting a resolution restricting persons from
filling the office of Alderman from poverty, when such was at pre-
sent the law of the land? Mr. Pearson here referred to some law
authority on Corporations, to show that such was the law, and that
a conviction for fraud or other misdemeanour was equally a ground
for objection. It. appeared, therefore, that every one of the pro-
positions contained in the resolution (with the exception of
one to which he would presently allude), were at this moment
the law of the land. But he would go further, and without mentioning
names, he would ask them, was it not a fact that there were among
them persons in almost every one of the predicaments to which the
resolution alluded ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it not perfectly ridicu-
lous, therefore, to come to such a resolution ? What was the
cure? Periodical elections, which would at once purify the alder-
.

manic body.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.) Under the present
system, the aldermen would never remove a member from their
body, so long as it was their convenience to keep him in. But send
him back to the people, and the constituency would decide
fairly and independently upon his qualifications to be re-elect-
ed.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Were not the people to be trusted?
Had they not, with few exceptions, always excercised their elective
rights fairly and justly.—(Hear.) The last exception in the Re-
solution to which he would allude, was that of " General imbe-

cility." It was a monstrous and cruel proposition. Who were to
be the judges To what tribunal were they to be dragged?
(Ltrr SPEAKING.)

INSOLVENT COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. William Strange, the well-known publisher, late of-Pater-
noster-row, was opposed on his application to be disr.tharged by Mr.
Edward M'Coy, a wholesale stationer, in person. He was sup-
ported by 3lr. WOODROFFR.
After evidence had been heard, he was ordered to be discharged.

TIDE IRISH CHANCELLORSHIP.--We believe the
30th current had something to do with the settlement of this
Sir Robert, we are told, put it to Sir Edward, that it
was not worth his while to shift quarters until he could go out
with a whole ministry, and be thus entitled, by all usage, to a
retiring allowance, which it would be " too bad" either to
claim, or to grant, on the strength of a mere huff. Independent
of every other consideration, it was evidently desirable that
there should not be as a consequence of the coup dieted, the
creation of two ex-Chancellorships, within a space of time not
far more lengthened than " a little month." Sir Edward's fa-
mily have retired to London, never to return to the Green Isle
under any circumstances. Sir Edward himself is understood
to be in Dublin, though inaccessible to all visitors.—Dublin
Morning Rejister.