THE BRISTOL TOWN-CLERK JOT!.
A centres:tie t-isx.r at Bristel has supplied us with some parti- cult: Is I-es:diets Ile e nu ni nsation awarded to Mr. Sergeant Lt. D-
Lew', lut4! q't.v• id that city, %%Lich seem to demand the
at ten I :•:n t r and ot Members of Parliament, especially at a tieie elem a bill lt.i emending the Municipal Act is in pro- gri s, II:resell :he Utilise of Conmems, under the auspices of Sir Joe N CA77PrELL.
11ir. LUDLC,W, banister and Tory, wits appointed
Town-Cite k 11E, istol, by the old corrupt Corporation, in the year 181a. lies duties wen not defined in any of the charters : hut, by it is 'ea tien ef the Corporation, he was required to :mend thsir meet es tied cuivi.e t hem in their proceedings, prepare city leases, act as Sea: zip! of Ile Manor Courts, and enrol freemen and /intik stie, s. lie held his office during good behaviour—" so long Us lie s Ito!' thine an himself well... Mr. Lis :now was also appeinted by the INI:!g:sitates their Assessor at Quarter-sessions. Under the lt f tnt Act, the Too n-Cleirk is required to register freemen, Isis ewers, &c. Such were the duties of Mr. Sergeant laire.ow : I.e pet itermil but one of theta in person—namely, that ot A”4-.S:•fir 0: LI1 the others he soon managed to do by deputy,lecketitig himself a clear profit of S00/ a year. W Len the new Cue nen was chosen limier the Municipal Act,both parties noised to le elect Mr. Sergeant Lonnow their Town-Clerk, in order te avoid the cost el compensating him for loss of office. Mr. Lennow, on his reappointment, waited on the Council, and thanked them, hut wished to reserve for a few days the privilege of acceteirig or decliniog. Months passed away, and he returned no positive answer. The Council required his services, and called uron Lim by retinal resolutions to attend to the duties of the otEce to at Melt he Lad been legally appointed. He refused to compls. with thew requisitions, and was still the out-of Mum- Clerk. It was evident that Mr. LUDLOW wished to compel the Unveil to remcve hint, that be might get up a plea for cont pen- satire). The Com cil, at length, conceiving that Mr. LUDLOW bud tint dt mowed ham elf well, removed him from office, under the nu- thority of the 58th section of the Municipal Act, which declares the Towie•Clerk to be removable at pleasure. Immediately Mr. Lennow demanded compensation, on the ground that the duties of his ollice were different from those of the Town-Clerk under the old Cerportition. The Council rejected the claim; as, by the fiGth section of the Municipal Act, an officer removed for " mis- conduct " is denied compensation, and systematic negligence is certainly misconduct.
Mr. Leol.ow appealed to the Lords of the Treasury. A state- nient of feels, egri.ed upon by the Council and by Mr. LUDLOW, was laid before them; and " my Lords" awarded the claimant 500/. a year, being adeised by the Attorney-General and Solicitor- Genera' that he was entitled to compensation. It at pears to us us clear as any thing can be, that the Lords of the Its usury had no right whatever to award Mr. Lennow a B) the 66th section of the Municipal Act it is de- cla!“1, that "any (freer who shall he vontimied in or remminted to any tEre under this Act, shall, if subsrgnently removed, (FOR ANY OMER CAUSE THAN MISCONDUCT,) be entitled to conapen- satien, as if he bed not been continued or reappointed." But Sergeant Lunnow had been guilty of misconduct, and thereby forleited his canm to that compensation which the Lords of the Treasury, in defiance of the statute, but at the instance of the Crown Laws r rs, have am raided him.
The pretence that the duties of the Town-Clerk under the Municipal Act, being diffirent from these of the same officer under t he old Corporal ion, Mr. Lunnow was nut bound either to ac- cept or decline the reappeintment, or that the reappointment was on that account in' alid, is a mere shutfle,—not a legal quibble, for there is nothieg whatever in the law that can justify his conduct or Ow hint a colourable claim. The plain meaning and intent of the Municipal Act is surely this,—if the old Town-Clerk is re- appointed, and refuses to serve, he has no claim for compensation; if you remove him, except for misconduct, be has a claim. In either case, Sergeant Loneow is out of coert. If he says that he never accepted cue of flee which was offered him, the reply is, that he has then nobody to blame but himself—he might have had it If he admits the appointment to have been valid, then he cannot deny that he nee-hetet! his duty. If a difference in the dutiCs of a Town Clerk under the new system, from those which he per- formed, or neglected to perform, under the old, confers a right in that officer to refuse a reapeeintment and still c'elint compensa. lion, there must be something to that effect in the Act if Par- !lament by which the whole is mutilated : but there is ire hinitof the sort. The title to enntpen -a tion rests upon the rein sal to make the old Town-Clerk the ileW Town-Clerk, or upon temoval
power 'without proof of miseendmit. Ott these two grounds only can a claim for compensation be sustiiined.
Ott a review of the cireum4anees of this ease, we must come es the conclusion that the Crown LIP.t.'■ ers attended less to the law than to their iuclinatirm sorve a brothor barrister. But they had no rieht to grain's' their charitable feeliegs at the expense er- 500/. a yi ar to the people of Bristol. It is plain that this of compensation is liable to the gi cutest able:e. The Lie& of the Treasury are irresponsible, practically. They coasult their At- tot ney-Geneml ; who gives an oeinion on which they act, without inquiry into the merits, or into the law of the case. The Attorney- General is in fact the Compensator-Coneral ; aiel when it is con- sidered that the esprit du vori,3 is pills-nt among lawyers, and that almost all the claimants are lawyers, the Attorney-General appears to be as improper a person as could be selected for the exercise of this power. At all events, it aepears from the case of Sergeant Lunnow, that Sir JOHN CA:rum LL ought not to have I his &legato. 4 irresponsible au thorn y.
Weehope that the Bristol Town-Council will refuse compliance with the mandate of the Treasury, and resist its enforeetnent ins court of law. Then the Attorney-General is ill have an opportu- nity of pointing out that clause in the Municipal Act which authorizes the Lords of the Treasury to award 500/ a year to a Town-Clerk reappointed, but removed for misconduct. In the me-in whi'e, we should recommend that provision be neule in the Munioipal Corporation Act Amendment Bill, net" ill the House of Commons, that appeals from the Councils in cases of compen. sation shall not he tried by a secret conclave of jobbing officials and timeserving barristers, but before a judge and jury—a public. and responsible tribunal.
Previous page
