Star.
London, England, 1830-07-23 00:00:00

it. in the.,ls.h year of his reign, had granted a charter to this Nl-
rough, ordaining, that the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses of
that borough might, from time to time, elect as many as to
them might seem expedient to be burgesses of the said borough,
that the mayor and common council might have full power to
triune laws, according to their discretion, tor the good rule and
govetntuent of the burgesses, and of the inhabitants of the
borough ; that this charter was duly accepted, and that on
tile Ist of December, 167.,. the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses
of the said borough, did make a by-law, to avoid popular
confusion and disorder at the election of burgesses ; that the
mayor and common council should, in future, by themselves, and
without the assistance of the rest of the burgesses, elect such per.
sons to be burgesses as to them should seem meet ; that this by-law
had ever since been observed in that borough, and was still in NH
tome, and that the defendant was admitted to the office of burgess
to cousequence of having been duly elected according to such by.
To this plea there was a general demurrer on the part of the
.tlator, rejoinder by the defendant, that the charter of Charles 11.
was not duly accepted by the corporation as to that part of it which
ordained that the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses, might be able to
elect so many burgesses as to them should seem most expedient, out
of persons inhabiting or not inhabiting within the borough. To this
rejoinder there was a special demurrer, and the case corneal to be
argued in Michaelmas Term, 1824, in the Court of King's Bench,
wnieu gave judgment fur the Crown on the demurrer to the two
tirst pleas, and for the defendant upon the demurrer to the third
plea. From this decision the relator brought a writ of error to the
t loose of horde, where it was argued in this session.
Lord TENTSRDEN (who presided this day on the woolsack, in
the absence of the Lord Chancellor,) in giving judgment, observed.
that this case embraced two legal questions. The first was, whe-
ther it was competent for a corporation to accept a charter in part,
And reject it as to another part ? There were some expressions
made by judges in former times, favouring the competency of cor-
porations to accept charters partially, but latterly the judges were of
a different opinion, for they contended that it would be the same as
to accept a gift and deny an obligation for it. The other question
was, as to a by-law made by the corporation, confining the right of
electing members into that body to a select class. On this question
there was a difference of opinion among the judges of the Court of
King's Bench, two of them being in favour of the validity of such
by-law, and one of them against it. He himself (Lord Tenterden)
entertained some doubts on the question at that period, and conse-
quently abstained from giving any opinion at all. The subject was
subsequently referred by their lordships to all the judges, among
whom there was also a difference of opinion, but the majority were
in favour of the judgment of the Court of King's Bench.—
It was admitted that this corporation had the power which was in-
cident to all corporations by common right to make by-laws for the
good government of the borough; but as the charter had confined
the right of making such by-laws to the mayor and common council,
the question was, whether it did not take away from the body at
large the power of making such by-laws ? and the by-law by whist
the election in question took place was made by the body at large.
It was contended by some of the judges that it was not competent
tor the corporation to make laws that would narrow the number of
the electors by taking the power of election from the general body
and giving it to a select body ; but a considerable majority of the
Judges were of opinion that it was not inconsistent with the charter,
or with justice or expediency, for the corporation at large to make
such a by-law. In this opinion he himself (Lord Tenterden) con.
cared, and from some conversation which he had with the hoed
Chancellor on the subject, he could say that he was of the
same opinion. Thaefore in conformity with the opinion of
the Lord Chancellor, and of the majorithe Judges, he
thought that the by.law was valid. His Lordship then moved
that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, which was
agreed to.