Star. — London, England, 1819-05-07 00:00:00

•h to t trait il e, te; the • • PBLL ...svfYr elm aco on sideration i 7 arid, It. would be reqnteite fa pritren and cirtti!at::n —c di s c e ssi:i ci,uld 4e,iii'lisig°P[sehi'imet' be done in leas than P.OYAL SCOTCH BURGH_ Liesteaact-Colooel STEWART .wesenced frOin 3orgh of. New Calloway, praying for R f or m itt t h e ' otch 13tirghs. Tfle Honourable ! l"h e r observed, that tile Petitioners did not semi e aware of the Bill before the House, brought the Lord Advocate, or' they. would not hate o te d it necessary to present such a Petition. GRANT said, the Pritioners were fully Ho f t he Bill which was introduced; and they, we ll as many other Petitioners from Scotland, lee h i lly of opinion that the Bill alluded to would or t he elect of Confirming the evils they come e i ne ,' of. Of this opinion were the persons, MP lo ather, who signed a Petition from Edinburgh lo ins/ the 11111. General FERGI.TSSON prertuted a petition from licritors and Burgesses of the Burgh of Dun ohne, praying for a li.eform in the Scotch Burghs.' h: Honourable Member, though he conceived the o rge of the Petition was decorous, felt irneces -01 to point out one passage of it which the Howe i iiht perhaps not think regular. The Petitioners holed to a speech delivered by a Member in dm Fosse, relating to the great body of the Petitioner' r Burgh Reform, whom he (as they were given to ajerstand) described as nut being respectable.--. his they denied. The SPEAKER observed, that the Honourable hasher must be aware that the aUusion to or coin ed on any speech delivered in the louse was not sular in any Petitioners. CASTLEREAGH felt satisfied, that his ...rued Friend (the Lord Advocate of Scotlaad, to' Jae speech the Petitioners alludec4 had not in his emarks intended to sly any thing hurtful to the . tidings of the Petitioners. As to the regularity of be Petition itself, he trusted the Honourable Mem- La would see tbat it was not one which could be railed. Sir J. MACKINTOSH if.ion from a Corporation as allusion was also made t owable and Learned are time that he should galarity, he should- oni, iu was notorious in Engl: The SPEAKER repeated a allusion as the Petitioners established rale of General FERGUSON :Nation of the Noble oreign Department, vet in express words odand were not respectable, e maintained that the Lox . place when these words • by Honourable blerabeis,, ny Or disavow . Sir G. WAF rds used by the rgesses of k. earned -Lord to tch of the Burghs more an the bulk of the Burt After these o> ions Mr. J. P. GRANT hition which luith . en we of the Lean:' - a not previously intimated ontents. The Petition Petition of the Corporation . Edinburgh against the Bill which the Lord Advocate had intro (laced into Parliament on the subject of Burgh R*- form. The Petitioners assert, that this Bill, so. far faun remedying any of the eiils of which such nni-, versal complaint is now made, would only serve to increase and augment them. They also state, that though they had been represented by a Scotchman, and a Member of the House, as a disreputable body amen, they were well aware how generally useful tley were to the community---(Hear, hear),—and be little the charge against them was valued by the country. They also complain that they had hart branded as radical Reformers, with a view to, depreciate their characters in the estimation of the' House; they deny the truth of this imputation, and' assert it to be as unfounded as it is injurious. Whe-' ther the Petition which he presented would be re• caved or not; he coull not positively say; hnhad' done his duty in presenting it. It would be disor derly in him to allude to what had passed upon a former debate, but as the debates of that House some how or other got abroad, Gentlemen ought to consider before they spoke, the effect which their words, when published, were likely to produce upon the community. • The SPEAKER said, that he did not wish to in "st upon a nicety of construction; but he really thought that there were three points in the Petition Jost read to them, which it was his duty to point out to the House before he allowed it to be brought up. The first p o i nt w a s, that it alluded, as Ear as he re coii.ected, to what had been said in that House; the second, that it alluded to what had been said by a Scotchman and a Member; the third— ML J. P. GRANT here read over the Petition, from which it appeared that no allusion was made to any thing said in the House specifically. Lord CASTLEREAGH said a few words ou the tulject. .After which, The SPEAKER pet,the otaestion, that the Petition be brow ht up. . T he LAMRD ADVOCATE of to e , and disclaimed all intention Armerly said, of throwing any !ite Burgesses of Scotland. all he had meant to say, was, tly• Peal nor in any other of the Roy 11 ;!gestes, eith er f rom their rank, . . 11.. " 4 ,21. tar. , of greater weight or respeci e u : ll abitaldto r neither were thev th zP o r :" 11 1 0 40 .cf their .9P 411 * ov 1 5) grr W ere their superiors dimes• on wag err opinion` .o.tued, and wliith sftrinl4 zt -I where itvaa ite• "t• the Petitill4or of th e scotch IM ToPt.:gES .A.CKINTOSII argued the pp: titinners had not made any altusion to any alter*, tions that had been made in that House: there Vt i l indeed, a statement i n the Petition that an allegat* had been made. to prejudice them in the oßinion .of the House.' To exclude the Petition for such a rea ion, would be carrying the rigour of construction q. great deal too far. Sir GEORGE CLERIC said, chat as the statement to which allusion had been made could not have been made any where else but inthat House, it was the duty of the House to notice it. . He principalky rose to notice what an liorourable Member had sag in the litter part of his speech,.that it behoved every . Member to consider the meaning which his spetell. might carry ouvof doors. Ifithis were always to lif minutely attended to, there could be no freedom of debate, no publicity of discussion. Mr. J. P. GRAN s f explained, and said that shuuld be the last person in the world to place 4 ps; restrictions on the freedom of debate. The Petition was then withdrawn. Mr. HUME presented a Petition from the city:4 Aberdeen against the present system of Scotch Burgh& The grand mischief of it was the self-election and non-respansibility of the Magistrates. He was happy to hear the Learned Lord retract the insinuation' which he had himself heard him expressly =doe against the respectability of the Burgesses of Scot land. The Petition which he then presented wits signed by fourteen individual;, whose conjoint pro % perty did not amount to less than half a million • it had only lain for signatures a few hours, and nOriei had been allowed to sign it except Burgesses : if had been open for signatures longer, and the inhabi tants in general had been allowed to sign it, it would have been signed by many thousands. He hoped 'that the House would take into consideration the grievances which these Petitioners stated, and which . dley declared their willingness to prove at the Bar of 4.hajiouse.—Laid on the table, and to be printed. ARCHIBALD HAMILTON had several 'on .ject, from • from Yeaxe been hid i. _.., r .._ , .-t pet lie . regretted that this Report had not been reprinted, as' t would have conveyed considerable information to the House. His motion was not for Parliamen tary Reform, though he ought to state how far di rectly and indirectly his motion was connected with it. In the burghs where the Magistrates were selfs silected—(Here the Noble Lord was interrupted by. the noise of some Members on the Treasury Bench, which seemed to annoy him considerably. He ob-i • .-d to them, that he did not wish for their atten- I bay; but for their conversion; he did not wish forj their careful consideration of what he said, but for t rcommon courtesy which the House generally tended to every speaker.)—On resuming the thresidl ‘ ,his argument, .he said, that the only indirect ways sa. which his motion touched upon Parliamentaryl Reform was, that where the Magistiates were self elected, they returned the Members to Parliament.! Now the Burgesses wished to have the same share in' the election of their Magistrates. as their Magistrates i ' had in the election of their Representatives. This was the only way , in which the subject of a Reform in Parliament was connected with that of a reform in the burgh system, and he should therefore dismiss that insinuation from his mind without any further remark or observation. lie should state, that the system gilder which the burghs exist is so different from any other in the whole circle of the Bri tish empire—nay, he might say, in the whole civi- ; lined world, that he could not understand how the • . on. Gentleman opposite could possibly defend it.— The Committee which sat 25 years ago, and to which he had before alluded, had reported that the com- Plaints of the Burghs were well founded , and yet no Member could show that any redress had been grant t4 in consequence of it. He must say a word or two tes an observation which had fallen from the Lord] Advocate on these petitions : first, the Petitioners' 'were not numerous ; 2dly, they were not interestsdl persons. The objection taken by the Noble and ,earned Lard that these Petitions came from the . ... Burghs ought to rejoice in an opportunity of inquiring into 14 system which placed in the hands of the Magi , crates an unlimited power over the pockets and per sons of the Burgesses--a power which they used to contract debts, and not only to contract debts, but ,t 0 do so by means which the Burgesses were noCable ,•tp detect, and which, were th ey able to detect, they ,could neith er get accounted for nor redressed— (Hear, hear).—lle contended that this fact alone suf f iciently proved the subject to be a fit one for the attentive consideration of the House. One great sub 'ject of complaint the Petitioners had no possible means of redress for. It was absolutely true, that notwithstanding any acts of the greatest injustice, ini quity, and oppression, on the part of the Magistrates, it was ,perfectly incompetent for the Burgesses to ap peal to any Court of Justice, so long as the Council should be unanimous —(118 a.-, Lear).—The very re formation which the Noble Lord charged him with wishing to effect in these Burghs, 'the very principle he taxed him (Lord A. Hamilton) with, he himself .acted upon lately in regard to the Borough of IVlose trete. The Noble and Learned Lord had objected, to consider the Petitions, because the Government of the Scotch Burghs was settled or, recognized at the time of the Scottish Union. But if this argu ment was to he final, it would be neither more nor less than giving to his Majesty's Minister; a power of perpetuating a system of abuse throughout the Scotch Burghs ; of perpetuating that corrupson foe which Boroughs have been disfranchised The Noble Lord then proceeded to teed a remora-' strance addressed some years since by the Burgesses , of Irvine to the Council—they complained that they had no more interest in electing a Magistrate than in electing an Emperor of Morocco—(A laugh.) By a' strange anomaly in law, these Scotch Burgesses were liable for the debts contracted by their Magistrates. Another instance of gross corruption in the Magis ttacy of the Burghs was the notorious fact that seats in the Council had been sometimes sold for £lOO-- -, for £3O. These seats had been sometimes favour of others for a sum of money, and times had been held by individuals for a merely to serve political purposes. The LOrd proceeded to state several other griev under which the Burgesses laboured ; and as could not for a moment think that the House, - what they had heard, after perceiving the ge feeling on the subject in Scotland evinced by number of petitions on their table, after the state - had made of the severe assessments levied places at the arbitrary will aid pleasure of Magistrates, under pretexts of police and other but in reality to make good deficiencies in _ their own misconduct, he could not per iimself to imagine that they would refuse ,to rip. A Committee to erm ine into this important. He should therefore move that the several _presented during the present Session of Par ., from theltoyal Burghs of Scotland, be te tt* a Committee to-examine the matter thereof, _Fapiert their opinion thereon accordingly. W. DUNDAS was willing to admit that some lar improvements might be necessary to fulfil execute the intention of the law as it now existed. 'it he said this,- he believed not that he was de from ,the principles on which the Govern :the country had been so long conducted, and Church so surely fonnded. The inhabitants of Scotlaed,had a title to higher relief, as derived from -lore than one Act of Parliament. (Here the Ho nOtirable Member dwelt on the express meaning of an Act of the Scottish Parliattent, in the year 1449.) since that period, a great va'riety of alterations had been made, or suggested to be made, in this branch of legislation. Thrsem and substance of this Mo tiinivres, whether the Burgesses in particular places, ought or ought not to be under future controul in the exercise of their functions ? The Petitioners called for an uncontrouled privilege, and referred to for peer Acts in their favour, in order to shew that the l atatulory as well as common law of Scotland• had partially acknowledged their endeavours to procure in equality of the elective franchise. The Honourable F. W. PRIMROSE deElared, that all the returns he had received from Ills correspon dents in Scotland, satisfied him that the general wish of Scotland was, that an inquiry should take place. ,it was only upon very strong and well established !grounds that he should espouse or recommend the surrender of any privilege or practice that was or ,could be advantageous to the revenue of the coun try. Unless this view was fairly entertained, be feared that a suspicion would arise of their being too naturally averse to any. system of Parliamentary Reform. it was true that there was a distinction well known between the Merchant Burgesses and the Actual Burgesses of Stirling and other places. There was a class composed of superior Merchants in Edin burgh, who also complained, that although there ex isted in that City a body of 12 men extremely well satisfied with their condition, that situation was not equally satisfactory to their fellow-citizens. The Honourable Member concluded by strongly remind ing the House of what had already taken place in the Boroughs of Stirling and Montrose. What hej had to expect was, that benefits extended already tel those places, should not be refused to Edinburgh and . the other Corporate Towns of Scotland. The effect of the Bill now berore the House would be to intro duce more litigation than any other plan that could be devised. ~~ that when the united wishes of the people are respect fully carried to the Throne, and when they contain • nothing improper, they..will always he granted."—, fifenr, heren,), Petitions were presented from :111 parts of Scotland, praying for similar sets to that of Mon trose. What had been granted to .Montrose was re fused to Aberdeen. This created peat dissatisfac tion in Scotland. It seas extremely desirable that the question should he pot to re,t. In 1•117 it had.been made the common pretext for deluding and, abusing the people. Mr: BOSWELL was against the motion. The Petitioners claimed what had le:en their inalienable rights till 146 V. But he defied any man to say what the,trate of the Scotch Burghs was befor2 Mtn they went to the loges burgorum, where they found pro6i haraines, v. iiich a countryman of his trans hued, lionea men ;" he knew no descriptica of per sons so called.- •-(A laugh.) He could tell the Ho nourable Ce;ulernan opposite who smiled at this ez pression,.that in the part of the country to which they both belonged, the term was not applied to men c.± great wisdom I—(Mach laughter.) He coincided iu opinion with the Right Hun. Gentleman, that Scot land was no longer to be distinguished.from England. Mr. J. I'. GRANT begged to remind the House that almost every port and every considerable town ,in Scotland was a 'Loyal Birgh, and that the subject was in that i4ew important. In those burghs greater grievances wefe now stated to exist than cver existed in any other shailbbefore--hut because by remedying those defects.we might touch a small part of the re. presentation, no rerpOy must be a pplied--(hear,hecr.) He could not avow himself a fi iend to Reform ; it was so disgraceful to be se—(e laugh, and hear, hear.) The petitioners disclaimed any intention of promoting Parliamentary. Reform, and he could Corc , :ive reason why they should not be believed. Very few of themandeed wished for such reform. For his own part he thought this question had nothing to do with it—but any large and great change in the Constitn don of the country, • in. the Constitution of that House, or in the representation of the people, was a question which he would approach with great apprehension--(Hear.) But the House were only called upon now to do what bad been done in.l79S, The Right Hon. Member, or supposed Membor t for fdiftburgh, deprecated the introduction of .a West spinster Election into Edinburgh. The who/asshes of Busgesies in Edinburgh was only 1300. the population of Edinburgh, this is the oteillber that claims the , A Magistrates, amid elect Parliament. would be to sdinburgh 40,44 was, *ea Officers, ile.could this with universal So mach he felt no :,'KINTOSH said he had a similar Pe- Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON had several in the Cou Corporation of Edinburgh, in which Petitions to present on the same subject, from which at others, as also made to the speech of, the Ho- he would separate two that tame from the District vacated in 1 Learned Lord. It might, perhaps, of Boroughs represented by the Lord Advocate. The at other t the should mention it. As to tbe Noble Lord then laid' on the table two Petitions from time only, hould only say, that the speech alluded East and West Anstruther, against the Burgh Sys- Noble Lor Des in England and Scotland. tem ; also from Banff, Ruthven, Haddington, the In- ances undo .KER repeated his opinion, that such emisorated Guilds of Dumbarton, &c. • he could the Petitioners made was contrary to .!./Ord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON, in rising to after what d role of the House. tiring on his Motion for referring the Petitions of the neral feella ERGUSON shortly commented Mt the Royal Burghs to a Committee, 'said, that after the the numbe f the Noble Secretary of Stale for the numerous Petitions which had been received by the Ment he h na artent, that the Le ' bad . ftouseAt was unnecessary for him to say any thing in some pl ress words said that the • • of lite;*opeepasiisir . Under Iris* timi Petitioners la- the Magis e not respectable, but. the sporyeigeoree. • kit - theter t erelliaglsernsg there could be expenses, 1 ;c1 that the Lord Advocatd inkfitititi 0:0 1 416nel his Metiewiler t Committee. curred by n these words . had been ... ..eitiiipted he • ferietemilsii • BkOon regarding' spit himsel amble Members,- end ha i llAquises bp die • •• : • . • bad.. : dat ed,. as die- p. row them, Vii, 0,4 a. ' : 0114 i ; • .4 4. ,Tir v i'rinit any subject. PIRRENDp, did rags illdrillriga * Nile MIS". „ 1 . _ _l/1211 and _l4 twat .11 y t h e 'Loiatkig i o l iepAß ( von t h e what it was not. i Lt ivanas c wtowe presvuops he nament, Scotland in genetal.i. leceaceived the 'had not been safe • • the ibituuttlta . ce 'the • Gelb- tarred to rd to mean that themileittu.persosisiu tlemen opposite.' They hid statekthat this subject and to rep arghs more capable of deciding props y' was'rherely Used as a cloak for parliamentary reform ; vy, :of the Burgess& Were.: he denied this assertion most positivelt,sand . said that particular oteareationsabeketisiess wee widadrayrn. they might have seen how unfounded :it was from. and ezecui sesteld mcbmelmesented time reading the Petition themselves. His-had informed Whilst he htth e iturld boo t i n the - aim- the Houselhat the grievance wads neither new, nor parting fr Learned Lord to whantit ranted, if *h pa . itial, nor unknown,' bat one of more than twenty /sent of th iouslt intimated to bins the =ate ofits Yeats' standing; and of peat notoriety ; that it had its Churci he Petition to which he alluded. was the been referred toa/COmmittee, and that their Report Scotland j le Corporation of Tailors o 1 Edinburgh ilia been , printed; and Ent in the ban& of Members. more than • . ,!1' * _ . lietc!Scall4e,4* 64e brife 0 31 .v/ 110 4, gons4l , l* . jOesni.aftd thilt*Ole . ‘ vms . sq, thy. V Piigr, alkegatigns: *et* tarot, , they . ought rtes.',; S.) tad . no d stnxiowt,eticides*e I 3 urges*** opmfce not to be taken into immediate consideration ? iti=l. t.be norin"nid n dt ofrendati:itt 41Whavigr called the jiiiilvi 1 that hot positttsly ~. i. .44. -# O . i ll; in the casesintroduced to the notice of the flour!, tad op tiara, 'it * R a y on , an t i dre!Tteq• pi/4 -shoti4ditat,,.deny havuttupl;e4 4101 • particularly in that of Aberdeen, the system was , .....„ 4 „.. t h.:1—...„1 1 .-"a #„,, farm t ) mr.m, .1106 on the presept and on.a &poet proved to be unjust and oppressive—if it was made arisc 'inn them iliiihouz i ktt occasiop r -(lieur.) - • : nut that the administration of the Government of than 84e or 4 1 i dq!' . siy4A,M)l - MACKINTOSH argued that. th . yryt: Scotch Burghs was fraudulent and secret, the House' H BURGHS. . titioners had not Made any allusion to any antra. Ought to refoiee in an orinnrtunitv of ;nnnir;ne, inn, radical Reformers. don of a Trustees, 4s, to Overturn _ ~,'. r. -^_~ selves even record that system was been said to touch by two bettering already recei objection _ _ 14:69- to. against the . 1793 stated sometimes He would , Surgeons the Petitioners,. _ _ system liable to the w hole amount of their private property for the' debts contracted by the Magistrates, over whose-conduct they had no conttoul. He (Mr. J. P. Grant) would be ' glad to hear the opinion of the ,earned Lord Advocate on this subject, as lit had beard that the Learned Lord, being consulted in the rapacity of Counsel, had given his opinion that the Burgesses were liable for the debts of the Council — (No, no, from the Lord Advocate.)—Then he knew that lawyers , with whom it would be no disparage ment to the Learned Lord . to be compared, had de livered such an opinion—(Hear, hear).—Was not this sufficient to justify the Petitioners for their applica tion to the House, without exposing them to the im putation of entertaining speculative opinions on Par. liamentary Reform? Ile Petitioners of the Corpo ration abQvementioned stated, that the income of the City of Edinburgh was £40,000 per annum, and that its expenditure was €15,000 mote. Now when the expenditure of the capital so much exceeded its income, when it was going, on adding to its debts, and when the Burgesses, without any will of their own, became liable for these debts in the whole amount of their private property, was it not treating them harshly and, unjustly to deny that they had any , gmun& for grievance, any foundation for, alarm; but they employed an application for a remedy of this evil, to cover attempts at Pai liamentary, Reform? Lord BINNING said, the question was, whether they would refer 'the whole of those Petitions to a Committee, referring, at the same time, the general inquiry, how far it was desirable that the principle of Parliamentary. Reftrnt should be applied to the Scots Burghs?, It was true that the Petitioners did not avow the principle but there .were reasons why they should not avov.- it,. and he was• satisfied that a great number of the persons who were, most active s Petitions -- - •for 1). - • to right of electing Magistrates, whertigam elect a Membrif of Parliament. And. this ~.. to introduce the Westminster Election into ghl--(Msieh lamgkter.) What the Petitioner, was, that each Corporation should elect its cers, and those Officers elect th,,Ntagistrates.'-: 1 not conceive how any man Gould elmfound h radical reform, by which : ,be and stoef l suffrage and annual Parhipents.-. .0 confidence h his Mejea.M.itsister, that ! o suspicion tbat4hey would' . stilt lota% t$ teformers. .Aberdeen had. beeurio the ahOid Bankrupt, and was put into thihaeds kit ' , and the Ma*strates had divested. *ow; .en of their jail. -.(A laugh.) They ieshronei that it was all the fault of the system. •Mthil vas now universally complained of. ,it- 40$ 1 that the Union had stopped every aidlioi. the system. Surely it was ;sever inteiged great Nations to debar themselves Istaoo. , their condition. But the question had.ll • 100 received by the Legislature, and 'stir i could not therefore be now urged.. . ) 1793, complaints continued to be. he system. The Report of the CommitypOk ated, that the property of the Burghs 440 es alienated by the self-elected Counells.." Id read a passage from the Petitiph of that and respectable body, the Collimation of s of Edinburgh, which stated the belief of :loners,. that by the present system they were rned Lord that these Petitions came ,run' au* uc km, sausa• 4 . SCOTI,INI) . then orgeasei Meniselves only, and not from the country DR. W. DOUGLAS hoped to give a sufficient es- an procuring the Petitions were advocates for Pariia- ition in what he had at large, was an objection equally frivolous and un- . planation for voting differently from the Right lion. mentary Reforro..—(No, //e, jives the Oppozetiot disgraceful reflectimi sneartiag. What did the Noble Lard require? If tientkcinan who had spoken second in rhe..tlei ate. ilenthes).—There were some to whom this descrip- • All he had said, and. theP were punii.tout, he disputedthejr respectabilitr Be Wns anxious to go into a ColOitteet hetaaSt the tioudid not apply; but tlx grcaternumber were etch that neither in the Ca- :kud if .tbej.wore but fevi,• he contended thg th objects had excited great irritation, which could.not as he had stated. He had. no doubt but that griev. 1 oyal Burgin were the wets of o i l. sufficient inhere:L.4p rtquire.the HOaie iniary. other risantier be satisfied . Scotch subjects maces had occurred under the existing system, but k, their wealthortheir ' erenie, Oe.evOia $0 41 ; thel._hfil.COnl.P.44le .- d &Pugh vie little understood in ttgland, .to the . extent alledged. The Lord Advocate had vai n respectaifility than she ad a.fo, _lf* ofnasiolt 111. 4 1. OW°, 40 44.: -, . 4 4 :thc r 4Prga dliPiAc.ll. Petitions4m ; this subject were introduced .a B 41: for the purpose of correcting the they_ enqed, - ,16e eq. 4:.*,1414,0 „. .., reP.fra . , .04 JAG *0 _ . ,._1 41,*Stting:of ins] . algence an,d i aiip4paon. The subject evils, • and tbe.Biltio,ipttocioced rendered aver • other Weals' : 4:... ft . sithaa .49 :, , M , 94* ' „ or OM, ~ , a t ` .14 . ,11 . 1 . 1 *a!je,doilvville Rt Agotlapd LAlimofore th . :lteilise p roceed ing nimetessary. The Constitutink.of tii. or , 2414 TS. .in iinowlifige and ' glitAf t rtilK 4 0 4 ipt ." ~l ' eV,Mceilf 1.. '': .: _ P ;dam, attention. There-ody n.o_publje Scots Burgh s had existed for threnhundred and6fty in'''whkh he hiff:Werikr . .id 40 rtoditlili f ....'" ' ' 5lO A'. . , "' i 112'MIIMIV. ' be•llkivsYs rogonfible Wrbut Korot ; Iroupi.: It id drat Oe.;4rdritiity-of a4ivh- iid riiiit Oft 'dft t k, c s.. ' o•oirrptii suit .i4b. fbe 0 . 5 , .I. , .. • • .40,Attgradod.govAstiushotwitro: palemibiemaimingd.filias4o,lo.ground.rakvzhih. He belleved - diat..thet uip.,414 d. o:other,. flit ,ho Was it , .' 940 0 0/1 1 Cifrn*f! J kskaAd.,lmoso9l l lld„„gti i 9 cl 94 l tati*ltyldmvsheNAPald ,Atiject..taikairitteipia4 titiii in the municipal theßrpthelabillti ;stifle PetitittUisit. - Thit ' d taii into }lieu Petitions. lo the Burgh a rdontrose a electing Nlagistrate% by poll. Ili: chief motive la ighs w 4 s. to o ver t urn Noble Lord, or any of his fricUds, stand UP and new set had been given, and he would read part of opposing the question wAs, ho would a d m it, becAre If