Star. — London, England, 1824-02-27 00:00:00

y 1 - • -; think that ultimately success might fbllovs. The Peti tion was voted at a very large and numerous meeting of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. It was not his good fortune to say that the meeting was countenanced by the Provost, the Chief Magistrate of the City, but he was Satisfied that the Petitioners . were a highly respecta ble body of individuals. 'The Petition contained the sentiments , of a large proportion of the inhabitants of the City of Edinburgh—about 7000 persons. When any Petition was presented to this flonie, signed by a numerous body of individuals, that circumstance alone would cause the Hone to take it into consideration ; but if all those Petitioners were highly respectable, as' in the one now mentimmed, that would . likewise be, an additional reason for attending. to its prayer. He would now proceed to state in detail who the Petitioners were. These were in Edinburgh about 21,000 house holders ; of that number about 10,16 S were rated at , 51. per annum and upwards. Tnis,statement included those persons who 1)441 for two residences. it was re solved at the meeting that as it was desirable to have few persons to sign the Petition, therefore no one should put his signature to it who did not pay more than 51. a year rent. Five pikes in twenty were appointed for eig,natnres to be received, and respectable individuals attended to see that tome but properly qualified persons signed it. The resolution was not carried under the im pression that those who were under St. yearly rent mere not entitled to Petition—far from it. The strongest presumption was afforded that the Petitioners were per- sons "possessing education, and that they had fixed places of residence. He would now explain the actual repre sentation of the City of Edinburgh.. The inhabitants amounted to about 100,000, and only 33 of these ha .1 the right of election; practically and essentially, only 19, consisting of the Town Council. The Honourable Mem ber here described the manner in 'which these members of the Town Council were elected. He then said, that there were fourteen corporate trades, consisting of a body of about 700 persons. Each of the fourteen cor porate trades elected six persons, (torn whom were se lected what was called the " Long Leet." The Town Council had the privilege of striking out the names of three fvom the six, and then each corporate trade made choice of one from theeteshtee to form the Long Leet. Thus it would be seen, that unless the corporate trades had four persons upon whom they could rely, the Town Council actually formed the Long Leet as they pleased. The Town Council were themselves selected from the Long Leet. These were the persons who had the right of electing the Members, in spite of all the intelligent virtuous body of the people. He had to learn upon what principle this right was founded. It surely would not be said that they were chosen for their property; neither would it be urged that they possessed in an emi nent degree any virtues which their fellow-citizens did not pos•ess. Such an argument would be to hold them up to the scorn of their townsmen, and he would not imagine that this mode of defence would be resorted to. Then it might be said this body was formed for the good of the people, or that it was bad, but ought not to be chanced. He was of opinion that neither of these propositions was true, and that it ought to be altered. The Honourable Gentleman examined at considerable length the motives which, in all probability, induced these Members of the Town Council to elect the Mem ber for tits! House of Commons, and he stated that this Council was by the people of Edinburgh as particularly sensitive to their own interests, but not so much alive to those of their fellow-citizens. He then went on to compare the difference between the elections of Members in England and Scotland, and put several hypothetical cases in support of his arguments. He then proceeded to shew that not only the people of Edin burgh felt a necessity for a change in their mode of election, but such an opinion prevailed throughout Scotland. " Indeed," said he, " the question of Re f(); rn is making rapid strides, and will be a case of deep regret to this House, if the measure be not conceded." In Scotland, the rights of election were entirely in the hands of an oligarchy, in which the body of the people bad no ahare. There was not a single instance of an election in which the rights of the people were known. —(Thar, heal. But if they had an interest at stake, ought they not to have some share in - it ? There could not be any possible ground for refusing this right. It was said that the people of Scotland had been virtually represented since the union of the two countries; but ' this was not the fact. lie was not anxious to add tale number of Members, bet only of seeing the People have a shale in elections. lle now proposed io biting in a Bill for the more effectual representation of the City of Edinburgh in Parliament.—Oa the Motion being put Ilan the Chair, Mr.STUAItT WORTLEY rose.—lle said that he had listened with the greatest atteption to the argu• mews advanced by the Honourable Member (Mr. Aber cromby), and he must confess that he had not heard anything which appearesno him to furnish the least possible reason for the support of those views. It was not asserted that any corruption had taken place in the election of the Member, or that these thirty-three Gen tlemen composing the Town Council had acted impro perly. What did he (Mr. Abet cromby) say to the mode of election in Glasgow ? Or what would he say to the County elections of England either, since the body of time people had nd votes ? Or to the mote of election at Liverpool, which consisted of 100,000 inhabitants, and bad only about 3,000 freemen? (Jr to the election of London, where Liverymen only were entitled to vote for Members? In shoot, he must recollect that there were many large towns in this count' y in which the right of voting was limited to a vet y few. He (Mr. S. ortley) would say, and he spoke it with pride, for al though he was an Englishmen hisaucestors were Scotch, that of all the cities he had ever visited, Edinburgh was the finest. He never went theme without feelings of plea sure, and however short might be the time between each visit, he always discoveteu some improvement. And by whom were these ileprovernents suggested and car ried into effect? By this vety Corporation about whom so much bad been sail—(Cheers). —lle would 'Jost beg to refer the Hon.Cientleinan who had brought tOrward the motion, to a debate in the I louse of Lords, which took place in the reign of George the Second: the debate was to to the Porteus riot, which has been recently immortalized in the works ascribed to Sir W. S c ot. The Duke of Argyle, in his place in the House of Lards, said-r" My Lord., I was in the Palliament of Scotland when that part of the regulation relating to the &ands, burghs was agreed to. The regulations were disposed of, and it was settled that the burghs s h ou ld not be altered by the Parliament of Greet Britain. It was suggested, my Lords. that Greet Britain should have a power of alteration; but, after a stroeg deb rte, it was carded that it sho uld not." He a oulB ask the Honourable and Learned Genies:eats (Mr. A' ccroml.e) pes:e.bed the fie - VA eltct the Membus of EttliA :tent in Edinburgh? That right was exercised by thirty. three persons—a right verted in them by prescription-.- "Ord a right, heavould venture to say, as strong and as wall founded as that by which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman held his seat in that House:--(Hear,l hear, from the Opposition).--He (Mr. Stuart WortleY), understood the meaning of .these " hears." He knew that the Honourable Gentleman held his seat only in trust for the people, and that misconduct might de prive him of it ; and just in the same manner the Cor poration of Edinburgh held their office for behoof of the people, and exercised it, he believed, for their bene fit. But he would put the question on its proper basis. The real object to be attained in bringing it forward was to introduce the question of Reform, and Open the mouths of those who were favourable to that measure. Ile (Mr. Stuart Wortley) thought, in opposition to these Gentlemen, that the people were sufficiently represented in Parliament; and no better evidence could be given of this tact, than that it bad brought the country safely through pea it and difficulty, through good and through evil days, through war and through peace. No doubt some representations appeared anomalous; but no bad effect had resulted from these. Upon the whole, he felt no hesitation in giving the motion his decided negative. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that there were some things which struck one at first sight as so extracvdioary and extravagant that they were listeired to nowhere but in that House. Such were the statements of the Ho nourable Member for Yorkshire. To say that Scotland agreed at the Union that she should be represented by a few individuals, seemed to him unworthy of notice, and nearly as absurd as to say that the City of Edin burgh should be represented by one persod only. An objection had been urged, that the same privilege should be extended to Glasgow. To this he would not object, if a strong case were made out for that city ; but he could not see how the absence of that casecould afect the motion of his Honourable Friend. Edinburgh stood alone as the capital of a great and enlightened nation. From some personal knowledge which he pos sessed of that town, he could not name any place in which Reform could be so safely exercised. The citi zens were distinguished by a love of order, and In a calm and deliberative view of political questions, flee from wild and democratic notions. Looking to the benefit which would arise to that people (rim a Mem ber of their owh free election, and anzirars to see Re. form begin in such quarters, he gaye the motion his unqualified support. Lord BINNING could not assent to the principles laid down by the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord had said, in commenting on the speech of his Honourable Friend, the Member for Yorkshire, that rights and privi leges in regard to election were granted at the Union for the benefit of the people of Scotland. This he (Lord Binning) would not deny ; but the articles of Uni9n alto expressly stipulated that the charters of Burghs were to be maintained in the same state as they had been in all times past. By changing the representative constitution of Scotland, it must endanger the whole representative constitution of 'Great Britain. He (Lord Binning) did not mean to say it was the best which could be devised for her; but if the House were to give a new constitu tion to one place, it must extend the privilege to all. Nay, he would go a step further; and say, that if by any extraordinary circumstance, Scotland should be se parated from England, she might require to be differ ently. governed. The Honourable Gentleman had ar gued as if there were no public opinion in that country. On the contrary, he would maintain that it- had public opinion, and that the doors of the House were always open to the expression of it. Care had been taken' on the opposite side to abstract Scotland from England.— He protested against this line of conduct t one must be taken_ in conhection with the other, as they were now component parts of the same empire. The system of representation which prevails in the one must depend OQ the same views as in that of the other.. He objected to weighing the case of the individual city or borough in jutting of the constitution of the country. In this manner the whole system, for individual faults, could not be denied. It struck him too, as a something peculiar in this case, that the Petition had only been subscribed by inhabitants the rents of whose houses *ere rated at upwards of £5 a year. He had understood that per sons had beets placed at every corner of the streets of Edinburgh,whose directions were to exclude those from subscribing who had not this qualification. • In spite of all the noise and - clamour which had been raised--in spite of pamphlets and Pantheon speeches—and in spite of the" intolerable nuisance," as the system was styled, the Petition had only been subscribed by six thousand or seven thousand persons, and this number was only got out of 21,000 people who were entitled to subscribe.--.- Poor result from a people who, according to their pa-• negyrists were distinguished by a thirst for liberty—who valued life only when accompanied with this blessing He would put it to-the House, if Petitions mere nume rously, and perhaps as respectably subscribed—some bewailing the want of representatives, and others la menting those which were worse than none at all—had not been pi actically attended to? But Edinburgh had a Member who represented her; but where was the Member for Leeds, for Sheffield, or for Manchester ? Why did not the Noble Lord stand up for these.places ? Look at the representation of other towns. The ancient, populous, and medicinal City of Bath, containing 36,000 inhabitants, who were not wanting in character and intellect, was represented by two Members, who were elected by a Corporation consisting entirely of that learned faculty, "the faculty of medicine. Why does the Honourable Gentleman give his attention to' 'Edinburgh alone, while Bath stares him in the face? In conclusion, he (Lord Binning) therefore grounded his opposition to the present Motion on two reasons; first, or principally, that it was part and parcel of Parliamen tary Reform ; and second, because he denied that any grievance bad been shewn to exist. Sir J. NEWPORT said, that although the Petition from Edinburgh was not subscribed by one-tenth of the ' inhabitants, it must be considered as the petition of the people, in the absence of one from the opposite party. If the House should continue to refuse attending to the Petitions of the people, it was probable thkt the destruc tion of the piesent system would result, instead of that model ate Reform which the people demanded. Mr. KENNEDY rose amid the cries of "Question I." The Honourable Gentleman quoted the words of the Act of Union, to prove that to the town or city of Edin burgh, and not, to the Corporation, was the right se a cured to elect sive Member to serve in the Parliament of G t eat Hritin. - - - Mr. A BERCKOMBY replied; after which the House di v %i hen there were— For the Motion A4aiiast it AZaicniti : - 75 - 99' • . • -.;,4 BEAR BAITING. • On the se-admission of strangers to the gallery, Mr:MARTIN (of Galway) WAS addressing the House: The Honourable Gentleman said, that in proposing a Bill for preventing cruel practices which tended to de moralise and debase the people, he was at a loss to know on what ground he could an:icipate opposition to it; on the score of humanity alone the Bill was entitled to the concurrence of every, Honourable Member in that House; but the demoralizing effects ever of more importance; and to prove which it would be only ne cessary to refer to the Magistracy of London—of its vi cinity--,of Great Britain---indeed, of the Empire—when it would be found that those crueOports everywhere tended to corrupt and debase the p eople. It would be unjust for that House to resist his Motion on the ground which he knew some Honourable Members would take —a-namely, that those pursuits wete as much the right of the people as were field sports the rights of the Aris tocracy. A greater libel could not be uttered against the Aristocracy than that argument, for it went to place them on a par with the rabble who attended at and en gaged in the cruel exhibitions, 'to prevent which was the object of his Bill. After quoting some instances of cruelty in badger and bear baiting, with which the Public have been already made acquainted, the Honourable Member concluded by moving that a Selects Committee should be appointed to inquire how far hear baiting- and other cruel sports are calculated to produce mischievous effects upon the morals of the people. Sir It. IIEIION rose to oppose the motion of the Ho nourable Gentleman, and to enter his pr9test against the petty, trumpery, bungling, and he might add blun• dering,mode of legislation whicii he attempted to in troduce—(Cheers, and loud laughter). He begged to remind the House, that when - the Honourable Gentle man introduced a former Bill, of which the object of the present motion was to procure an extension, he had declared that it was not his intention to include in or affect by it the baiting of bulls; he (Sir It. 'Heron) 14 therefore justified in calling this a -blundering mode of legislation. He would not concede to the Honourable Gentleman that the morals or habits of the people were degenerating ; on the contrary, the diffusion of educa tion, and the examples of the higher clas s es, were,every ctry producing their natural effects. Either the Ho nourable Gentleman went too far,• or did not go far enough. He (Sir R. Heron) thought he had gone too far in attacking the amusements of the people. We should next hear of his sympathy being directed to cock-fighting ; and what, he would ask, was there to prevent the extension of the Honourable Gentleman's attack to'those who should persist in the horrible prat-, tice of tonsil ing a living oyster for the purpose of eat ing it? If the Honourable Member went on in this way to...curtail the amusements of the poor, it would be ne ' cessary for him to obtain a vote of the House to Pe tition his Majesty to make an application to the King of France to put an end amongst his subjects to the cruel mode at present in use of killing frogs by lopping off their hind quarters, and prohibiting a Strasburg pie altogether, which was formed from the livers of geese,, l which had obtained a peculiar flavour from the singular' cruelty with which they were treated. Mr. YATES PEEL oppyped the motion, bn the ground th-t it would be to interdict the amusements of the poor on the supposition of their immoral tendency, whilst they sanctioned those of the higher orders, whose obvious tendency was immoral. He could not instance this more strongly than in the case of the Opera op Saturday nights, which amusement frequently broke in on, the Sabbath mornings. As to the irregular congre gation of people at these bear-baitings and dog-fights, he •thought the law, if put in force, was sufficiently strong to restrain such exhibitions. Mr. J. SMITH said, in despite of the ridicule which had beeri attempted to be thrown on the motives , of Honourable Mover. he should cordially support his mo-, tion, because he felt by no means disposed to 'coerce the lower orders ; that their morality, comfort, and even en joyment, would be best consulted by abolishing the prac tices complained of. Those who frequented these ex hibitions wer e . of a class least regulated by anything like religious education, and who, unfortunately, crowded the docks of our Criminal Courts, or the convict ships. Had the Honourable Member for Winchelsea been pre sent, he no doubt would have supported the motion, as a preliminary to the diffusion of education in the lower orders, to which he had regretted that part of our sur plus of this year had not been appropriated. Mr. Secretary PEEL perfectly joined in the regret of the last Honourable Gentleman as to the prevalence of sgnorance and coarseness in the lower classes of society. That was a fair argument for legislating for the pur pose of procuring that class instruction and education ; but it never would be a just one for cutting them off from the sports incident to their habits and state of life. Qn the principle that all animals subject to man should share his protection, not only the bear, the bull, the dog, but the hare who had no friend, the partridge, the snipe, should be spared by law all unnecessary suffer ing. But he should remind him - of the cruelty of cock fighting, a sport patronised by Gentlemen. (Mr. MAR. TIN, across the table, " I hope to put that down too.") No doubt he did so; that one day he would come with a sad story of a cock and then of a bull !—(Loud laughing) until the patience of the House should be worn out by these petty appeals to its sensibility for each class of animals. It appeared too, some of the Patricians, at least of the Westminster School, countenanced these sports, as well as butchers' boys; and cruel an amuse ment as horse-racing !night be termed, even some of the Menibers of that House were known to desert their places in Parliament to go down to Epsom Races. There were many virtues which could not be inculcated by, law, such as benevolence, and, perhaps, mercy. He thought it strange, that whilst there'were not twenty bears In England kept to be baited, the Honourable Member should have so strong - a sympathy with the alien enemy, and pass the native hare and rabbit. It was not a fit subject for legislative interfeienEe, for on this principle they ought to prevent the spinning of a cockchafer. It was beginning too at the wrong end ; for these reforms in manners should be the growth and fruit of education. He thought, under these circumstances, he should best consult the interests of the brute creation, and the dig nity of the House, by negativing the Motion. Mr. hI A RTIN, in reply, observed, that had he consi dered the spot is of fox-hunting and racing'of an equally cruel character with those he had embodied in the mo tion, he would have included them amongst the objects. of the proposed inquii y. Ile contended these did not stand upon the same footing of cruelty. Tile objection that lie had not gone far enough, was no reason why be should not promote the practice of mercy towards animals, as far as lie could induce the House to second his pretensions in behalf of the brute creation. He had but one reason for not pressing the House to a division, viz. out of tenderness to• the character of that Ilouse, and the Members who might dote with his lii :ht l'ziend, and whose names of course would appe•.tr in the list of the majority, which was so confide itly an t i. cipated. To appear in such a list of a majority on such an occasion, could reflect but little ci edit ins any man's kindly feelings. As a fiend to ttrit House, he wished them to stand high in the estimation of their Constituents; he should, therefore, beg leave to withdraw his motion. —The question was negatived without a diiision. CitURCH ItATE3. Mr. GOULDURN moved for leave to bring in a flail to amend the Act of the 4th of Geo. IV. relative to thi collection of Church Rates in Ireland. Sir J. NEWPORT strongly reprobated the Act question ; and should move Amendments when the came before the House.—Leave given to bring in the 13:11: AUSTRIAN LOAN. Mr. HUME wished ro have a copy of the lintel-from the Contractors for the payrrient of the Austrian Loan to the Treasury ; and made a motion to that effect. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the Austrian Government proposed to pay a cer tain quantity of Austri In stock; but Ministers pteferred money, and for that pOrpcse the Government of A!TstriA empowered some British bankers to settle with the Eng lish Government. The Government tv<4 then ohl;ged to take what those Gentlemen offered, or to have no: tiring at all. Mr. HUME contended, that public notice shou:d have been given on the Exchange, and a public con:. petition been invited. Mr. BARING said,-that there was nn paper in exist. ence containing specific terms. In this case, the Eng. lish Government had- had no option, as the Austria% Government could only pay in stock. He was con. winced there was no wish to withhold any information. Mr., MABEILLY considered the money paid to be a God-send; and, therefore, the Emperor of Au:tria had behaved like a man of the highest honour. Mr. CANNING said, the Emperor of Austria bad certainly acted with the highest sense of honour. Tire Motion of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume) pro ceeded on a mistake. The Honourable Gentleman seemed . to think that there was a period at which the English Government •was in complete possession of Austrian Stock, which they might-have brought into the mark. t and disposed of on the best terms they could obtain.— This was a mistake. An offer of Stock had been made by the Austrian Government, lint on the part of the British Government a certain sum of money was re quired. The first communication with respect to the converting of the Austrian Stock into money was made to certain monied men in this country, and not to the English Government. There -never was, as the Honour able Gentleman (Mr. Hume) seemed to think, a period, from beginning-to end of the negociations, at which the Government was in possession of Austrian Stock which might be disposed of in the market.—Balancing the con , veniences and inconveniences contingent on both ways of proceeding, that of aceep;ing stock or money to a certain amount, Government judged it the most eligible ' way to act as they lod done. The Mr Won, therefore, of the Honourable Gentleman proceeded on an assump tion of circumstances that never existed. In answer to a question from Mr. Tloanousx, the CIIANCELLOS of the E'en EQUIR said, the sum would be two Millions, if the pay ments were made up. The motion was negatived without a division. ' The House went into a Committee on the Postage Rates Bill. Mr. HERRIES moved a Resolution, that . Packages of Notes sent from London, and re.issuable in the Country, should be trans mitted at half the usual rate of postage.—Another clause was intern duced, fixing the rate of postage to Buenos Ayres. Mr. HUME said, he wisfsed, while the House was In Cool. mittee, to make a few observations on a subject to which he had alluded the other night. It appeared to him that the lame facilities should be allowed to the Colonies for the transmission of News papers as were enjoyed by Ireland and other pans of the British dominions. The impediments that existed with respect to the Co. Aonies . presented them from profiting by that information which Newspapers were calculated to communicate. The number of Daily Papers sent to the Colonies, inl3lo, was only 383—in 1817, 271—• and in 1821,206. A Daily Paper could not be received there at a less yearly expense than £18.35. other Papers in proportion. The apparent diminution of revenue by allowing them to be sent free of postage would be only about £6,000. The btarups on the increased number that might be sent out, if his, proposition were adopted, would be more than sufficient to counterbalance this £6,000. He knew not by what Act of Parliament these' charges were made, for he could find none to authorise them. They were principally distributed among the Officers of the Post-office, Mr. Stanhope and Mr. Freeling. He did not wish that they should suffer any loss, but any emolument of which they might thus be , deprived could be made up in some other way. He saw no reason why the Colonial Newspapers, if printed on English paper, might not be sent to this country on similar terms. They would this be enabled to obtain a more accurate knowledge of what was passing in the Colonies. The Honourable Gentleman concluded by pro pOsing a Resolution, the object of which was the transmission of Newspapers to and from the Colonies free of postage. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sorry he was not able to state to the Honourable Gentleman the particular Act under which this charge was made ; there was, however, he could assure the Honourable Gentleman, such an Act. He would, however, suggest to the Honourable Gentleman the propriety of withdrawing his Motion for the present, as there was a Commis sion sitting, inquiring into the expenditure of the Poet Office. Mr. H U hoped that the Treasury would have a power in this Bill to adopt the proposal, if the Report of the Committee should be favourable. He did not wish to press the Motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the last suggestion very singular and unreasonable. Mr. J. MARTIN asked whether all the 'money feted fur build ing the New Post Office had been actually advanced? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, part of it had been paid into the Exchequer by the City of London. The work was going on, though it would not be neces.ary to call on Parliament for money this year. A City bond for 40,0001. was in the hands of the Postmaster-General, for the purposes of the Act. Mr. BARING asked, had the City contributed their share ori ginally fixed upon ? Tilt CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER answered in the affirmative. Mr. Ald. WOOD said die City was full - Eloo, l xlo out of pocket. The Motion was then withdrawn ; the l louse resumed ; and the Report was order►d to be received to-morrow. The Mutiny Bill was read a second time, and committed for Moo. day.—The other Orders of the Day were thin disposed of, sad at Half -past Ten the House adjourned. DREADFUL OCCURRENCE. - 'festerJay afternoon most horrible occurrence occui red in RoHey's-place, Lambeth. A Dutch woman, named IVoctry, who ha" latterly exhibited a French dog tilt ough the metropolis, to gain a livelihood, had it appeared, kicked the animal which was distempered, acrd which instantly flew at her, and actually lacerated her in nine places, and then flew at three young children, from one to the other biting them in a shocking manner. Their cries brouglv some persons to the room, some of whom, in endea iouring to destroy the 'animal, were dreadfully lace rated ; a sailor received three bites in the hands, before he destroyed the animal. 'Prompt surgical assistance Oras rendered the sufferers, but Mrs. Noetcy during do evening, exhibited' rigns of hydrophobia, and was ii such a state this morning, that it. is expected a fe , hottrs will terminate her sufferings. The children al all Confined, and in an extremely low and dangerom state, and it is feared will fall victims t. the afflictini Malady. Theeailor has had his wounds dressed by surgeon, and appeals out of danger., , • 1 1 1 it e n t. te rt. to a a c, 151 al at a- 'co re cC be it' :ver Ire los ng 'a