The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-26 00:00:00

exempt the Cif-v.llle Ports altogether from the operation of the
Bill, on the 2].cdertanding that another Dill for their regula-
tion, and founded on the same principles as the present Bill,
whatever they might be, should be introduced early next Ses•
sion. If such towns as Margate and Ramsgate were thrown
into the counties, very expensive and complicated machinery
wor.ld necessarily be incurred.

Lord MELBOURNE said that the consequence of the
Noble and Learned Lord's suggestion would be that another
Bill would have to be prepared for then, alone.
Lord LYNDI-lURST said he was willing to undertake to
introduce the other Bill next year, if the Noble Viscount would
trust him,

Lou). BROUGHANI—Yes ; just as you have introduced
the present 13i11.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Lord MELBOURNE understood that the jurisdiction over
the towns subject to the Cinque Ports, so far from being de-
sirable, was considered onerous and inconvenient. He thought
it would be more convenient if the larger of those Corpora-
tions were left-under the operation of this Bill, and the rest
thrown into the counties.
After a few words from the Duke of WELLINGTON and
Lord LyNottras-r

The clauses were then withdrawn, on the understanding,
we believe, that they should be again brought forward at a
later stage of the Bill.

On clause 15 being. read,

. ,
The Earl of DEVON proposed that in all corporate towns
which under the present Act should be divided into four or
more than four wards, all ti:xsons being possessed of real or
personal estate to the e.mount of more than 1,000/., and in
towns divided into than four wards, or which should not be
divided into war:is at all, all persons being possessed of real or
personal estc.ie to the amount of 5001. should be entitled to be
placed upon the list of councillors.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he had no objection to this
qualification, if any qualification was to be adopted; but he ob-
jected to the principle of qualification entirely.
Lord LYNDI-lURST said that he had copied his qualifi-
cation from a Bill brought in by the Noble Lord last year.
Lord BROUG HAM—Yes, V but why take the only bad part
of the Bill?—( Hear, and a laugh.) By a curious infelicity
of selection, the only objectionable part of that Bill was
taken.—( Hear.) But be did not object to the amendment of
the Noble Earl (Devon.) He thought it a great improve-
ment upon the detestable clause proposed by his Noble and
Learned Friend.

Lord L YND HURST thought the qualification proposed
by him a very moderate one. It should be remembered that
to this Bill were appended eighty-eight Acts of Parliament
for paving, lighting, cleansing, &c., the different towns, under
which trustees were appointed whose powers were transferred
to the Corporations created under this Act. Now, with the
exception of four of the Acts, which he could not find, he
had examined all those Acts, and found that there was not one
of them which did not require a large pecuniary qualifier,iior,
from the trustees-4 Hear, hear)—some as high as ',1,0001.,
and some 4,000/., and there were only six in whiff.' the quali-
fication was under 500/. He, therefore, thought the qualifi-
cation very moderate.

Lord BROUGHAM reiterated his former objection to the
principle of the amendment introduced by his Noble and
Learned Friend—namely, that he was not so strongly op-
posed to the requiring of a qualification in the shape of the
possession of a certain sum as to declaring that the richest
men shall only be crialified. He had previously stated why
he thought it des:sable to have no qualification of eligibility ;
but if they we;•e to have one, let it be the same as the qua-
lification for voting, or that which was adopted in the Scotch
Bill.

The Earl of WICKLOW alluded to the principle which
had been followed only two years ago in the Irish Grand
Jury Bill, and could not see on what ground it was not
equally supported by his Majesty's Government on the pre-
sent occasion.

Lord H ATHERTON said that the principle followed in
that Bill was not the same as now proposed; that imposed as
a qualification the possession of a certain sum, whereas this
selected only a few of the richest individuals.
The amendment was then agreed to.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE asked a question of the
Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst)on the subject of clause
25 ; as to whether he meant to apply the required qualifica-
tion of councillors to the aldermen whom it was proposed to
retain under the provisions of the Bill ?
Lord LYNDHURST replied that the existing aldermen
would not be qualified to remain on the roll after they had
ceased to possess the qualification of councillors.
Lord BROUGHAM alluded to the instance of a borough
in which the Mayor had taken the benefit of the Insolvent
Act, and of the three remaining aldermen, two were also in-
solvent ; yet they would still remain in office under the pro-
posed arrangement for the rest of their lives.

Lord L 17ND HUR ST said that it would be necessary for
the party to have a continuing qualification ; a provision which
would meet the case of insolvency. There was even a
clause ia the Bill providing for the removal of mayors, alder-
men, or councillors, in the event of their becoming bankrupts
or insolvents.

Lord BROUGHAM said that the question was not as to
what was technically called bankruptcy or insolvency—but as
to the circumstance of a man being in point of fact insolvent.
The election should be the test •f qualification—a declaration
should be required on the part of the individual elected.
Lord L YND HURST said that a party becoming insolvent
and still remaining, could be removed by a writ of quo war-
ranto. He had no objection, however, to add a provision re-
quiring any Alderman, at the demand of a member of the
Council, to make a declaration of qualification at any time.
Lord LANSDOWNE was desirous that the Aldermen
should make the declaration like as the other Councillors did
at the time of election.

On clause 39, requiring the County Magistrates to settle the
wards in boroughs,
The Duke of RICHMOND suggested that the duty should
be performed by the Revising Barristers—they being of course
paid for it. The arrangement of this clause would have the
effect of imparting to the Magistrates of the county a political
character.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE saw no objection to the proposal.
Lord LYNDHURST was not aware of any, if the Noble
Viscount (Melbourne) would take on himself to make an ar-
rangement for giving Barristers compensation.
Lord MELBOURNE was understood to assent ; and it
was then arranged that the provision should be inserted in the
Report.
Lord ELLE NB OR OUG H suggested that it might be put
in at once, and moved the insertion of words accordingly.
The amendment was agreed to.
Clause 40.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved that the Revising Bar-
riSters, in assigning the number of Councillors to each ward,
should be directed to have regard as well to the number of
persons rated to the relief of the poor in such ward, as to the
aggregate amount of the sum paid by the ward to the poor ;
which was agreed to.
Clause 50—The Town-couucil to appoint the town-clerk
and other officers.

Lord LYNDHURST said that in a great variety of in-
stances the town-clerks held their oFr:tees during good beha-
viour—others held them during pleasure—but almost every
clerk holding office during pleasure, substantially held it
during life. He wished to preserve that practice, and there-
fore begged to propc,se as an amendment to this clause the in-
sertion of words to the effect : " That the town-clerks should
hold their offices during life, and as a consequence of this,
that the present town-clerks should hold their offices during
their lives, or, which was the same thing, during good be-
haviour."
Lord BROUGHAM expected this, and was therefore not
at all surprised. The new Bill of his Noble and Learned
Friend would not have been in the least degree complete in
all its badness without the preservation of the body corporate
of town-clerks—the two-score individuals who were the life
and soul of these corporations. He only wished that this
amendment had been given notice of three or four weeks
ago, for he was morally certain if this worshipful body
of town_clerks could have known that their offices would
be preserved, their Lordships would have been saved all
the trouble of hearing counsel and witnesses, and the many
debr,tes that had taken place thereup,.m. By preserv-
itr; the aldermen and the town_clerks, their Lordships
svere telling the people of this country that the whole af-
fair was a mere affectation of reform, and that in effect
everything would remain substantially the same, with the
exception of the periodical electron of three-fourths of the
town-council. He had said tha.l the Bill was gone again and
again ; but now the final Close of the measure appeared to
lam to have arrived. If VA Noble Friend (Lord Melbourne)
should still think.it right to go on with the Bill it would only
show that his Noble Friend possessed greater patience than he
(Lord Brougham) feel—that he had more power cf en-
durance, or a greater disposition to be sanguine than most.
men. For his part, he felt it to be fruitless and vain to at-
tempt to argue the question any more. He knew that their
Lordships would carry the amendment by the usual majority
of three to one ; and he also knew this, that the people of this
country would know and feel to whom they owed this Bill,
and that it ivould be to them a lesson which they would never
allow any time or any chance to erase from their memory.
Lord .WHARNCIIFFE said, by the reform of the Scotch
13arg,hs Bill, not only were town-clerks allowed to hold office
for life, but chamberlains also held their offices for life. If,
therefore, tl,eir Lordships were to be held up to the people
as caomi'Js to all reform because they allowed town-clerks to
hold tli,eir offices for life, so also must his Noble and Learned
Friend, for having adopted the same principle in his Scotch
Burghs Reform Bill.
Lord LYNDIIURST regarded the speech of his Noble
ased Learned Friend more as an attack on the town-clerks than
an argument against the proposed amendment.
The Earl of WINCHILS EA, though still opposed to the
principle of the Bill, was yet of opinion that the amendments
that had been made by their Lordships would give satisfaction
to the great body of the people.
Viscount MELBOURNE conceived that the House had
been pledged not to make any further alteration in the Bill.
Even at present the change which herd been made in the
measure, by which a fourth of the town-council were to hold
-their offices for life, would have the effect of overwhelming the
independent part of the council.
The Earl of WICKLOW, adverting to the Scotch Corpo-
ration Reform Bill of 18.33, by which the town-clerks were
to hold their offices for life, wished to know why his Majesty's
Government had brought forward two Bills of a similar
kind, but which were in that respect founded on such different
principles ?

Lord BROUGHAM believed that, by the Bill to which
the Noble Lord alluded, the town-clerks were removable at
pleasure, and did not retain their offices for life. He thought,
indeed, that no mention was made in that Bill of town-
clerks, and he recommended a similar abstinence in the pre-
sent measure.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE referre4 to a later measure for