BILL TO AMEND THE ENGLISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.
When the bill relative to the reform of municipal corporations came into operation, in the end of 1835, it was soon discovered that some of the details of its machinery would require amendment. A bill for that purpose was brought in early in the present session. In some instances the mayor and other corporate officers had been elected, when the person presiding at the election was not legally entitled to preside; and the bill enacted that, notwithstanding this, all such elections, and all acts done by the officers so elected, should be good and valid. The act passed directed that elections should be held before the mayor and assessors; but, in some instances, there had been elections where there were no assessors: the present bill proposed to declare, both for the past and the future, that elections held before the election of assessors, but with the mayor or council presiding, should be as effectual as if they had been made before the mayor and assessors. The act provided, that the councillors who should go out of office were to be those who had been elected by the smallest number of votes; and if the votes had been equal, the majority of the council was to determine who should first go out. This did not provide for the case when there was no division of votes, in consequence of there being no contest; and the present bill provided for this case, by enacting that the majority of the council should select their out-going colleagues. The act did not provide for the town-councillors being equally divided in the election of mayor or alderman, and instances had occurred of two parties in the council dividing against each other till midnight, after which no election could take place, as the day named in the act had expired: it was proposed by the present bill that, in such a case, the councillor who had the greatest number of votes at the election should preside, but without any casting vote, and that when the councillors could not agree on a mayor or alderman, the election should be referred to the constituent body. The act had abolished various corporate officers, without observing that, by their charter, their presence was necessary at the sessions. Serious doubts had arisen from this as to the legality of the proceedings at the sessions, before the new officers entered upon their duties under the act of parliament. The present bill declared that any court held since the passing of the act of last session, or before the 1st of May, 1836, in presence of the recorder, or any two persons who, at the date of that act, were entitled to act as justices for the borough, had been well and lawfully held. Many of the municipal elections having been questioned by proceedings in the King’s Bench, as being illegally and invalidly made, it was proposed by the bill that these causes should be decided in favour of one of the parties by act of parliament; that the proceedings should be quashed, and suits prohibited, by enacting that the defendants should have the right of getting them discontinued on making payment of costs. This bill passed the commons; and when it came to be read a second time in the house of lords, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst pointed out the grave consideration and the careful examination which many of its enactments would require. Lord Lyndhurst especially called the attention of the house to the tendency of those provisions which had a retrospective operation. After the bill, therefore, had been read a second time, it was referred, with the acquiescence of ministers, to a select committee, which committee made various amendments upon the bill, all of which were agreed to by the house and adopted into the bill. The commons, on receiving the bill back again, agreed to all the amendments except two. The first of these was an amendment on the provision, that when the town-council was equally divided in the election of mayor or alderman, these officers should be chosen directly by the constituent body. The lords had altered this into a provision that, in case of equality, the town-council should first of all name by lot one of this number to preside at the meeting, and that their presiding councillor should have a casting vote. The second amendment consisted in the insertion of a clause to continue for another year the arrangement contained in the municipal act for the management of charitable trusts. No portion of these new institutions had produced greater jealousy between parties; the popular party were eager to get hold of them, while the other insisted on some arrangement which would prevent the funds of charities from being prostituted to party and political purposes. This jealousy was not set aside by the municipal bill, which left those charitable trusts in the hands of the persons then administering them, till the 1st of August, 1837, unless parliament in the meantime should otherwise provide, and if it did not, then the lord-chancellor was to appoint new trustees. Previous to this Mr. Smith had brought in a bill to administer these trusts by a system of popular election. The town-council of each borough was to fix the number of trustees, and then the trustees were to be chosen by the municipal electors, each elector voting for only half of the number, in the idea that this would give both parties an equal chance. The trustees were to be elected every three years. This bill had not passed when the municipal bill was sent up to the lords; and it proceeded upon a system which their lordships were not likely to approve of. The lords, therefore, had inserted in the municipal bill a clause continuing for another year that administration of these charitable trusts which had been admitted into the original corporation act. The attorney-general moved that the commons should not agree to this amendment, as Mr. Smith’s bill would soon pass; and he further moved that they should not agree to the amendment regarding the election of mayor and aldermen when the town-council were equally divided, on the ground, that it left to chance, and not to the voice of the people, which should be the predominating party in the corporation. This motion was agreed to; and the reasons of the commons for disagreeing with these amendments were communicated to the lords in a conference. The lords, however, still adhered to their amendments, the Duke of Wellington contending that the rejection of them was a departure from the principle on which he and his friends had waived all opposition to the decision of the select committee, and had consented to adopt the amendments as that committee had framed them. The decision of the lords to adhere to their amendments took place on the 1st of July, and on the 28th Mr. Smith’s bill for administering the charities by popular election passed the commons. The second reading was moved in the lords on the 4th of August, when it was opposed by the Duke of Wellington, who deemed it as unreasonable in the circumstances and bad in itself. On a division the second reading of the bill was negatived by a majority of thirty-nine to twenty-two. The commons still refused to agree to the clause which the lords had inserted in the bill on this subject, and there seemed to be no alternative but to drop the bill. The lower house, however, resolved to adopt the only course open to them, namely, that of a free conference, at which the matter in dispute might be debated between the managers viva voce. This course was pursued; but the two houses could not come to any agreement on these clauses, and finally Lord John Russell moved that the further consideration of the amendments should be postponed till that day three months, which motion was agreed to. Certain bills were subsequently brought in and passed, to supply those parts of the dropped bill, in which both houses were agreed.