The Statesman. — London, England, 1818-02-14 00:00:00

s purpose of espres%ing his hope, that the Right Ho nourable Gentleman would adhere lo the present •edvaitteeeetts system of issuing Exchequer Bills at tw 0. pence per cent. per diem, or about three per cent. which, when the premium was deducted, moon& ed to very little more than two per cent. A saving Hof 300,0001. had already been made by this means, ' end a further of one between 600,0001. and 6004001. might be effected by persevering in the same Coarse during the present year. •He rejoiced the more at this circumstance, as, be conceived it bad a ten liency to keep do Fri the general rate of interest, and to enable the great landed proprietors to undertake and esrry into emotion plans for the improvement of their estates; as well as to give encouragement to every species of national industry and -enterprise.— He was aware that it might lead to a partial Invest ment of capital Jot foreign fends, but the peat dif ference of the we'll would probably prevent this disadvantage from proceeding to any serious *lie hid only one other observation to snake, and be made it without any desire to ice the management of the business of the Bank interfered with ; but he spoke as a Bulk Proprietor, when be suggested that they would do wisely to lower the rate of their dis counts, in the prelent circumstances dike country, from five to four per cent. They were doing very little now, bat he believed that, if this change were adopted, they mght do it greet deal. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer to the question of the Honourable Member, observed, that it was not intended by his Majesty's Ministers to exercise the option reserved by the Act, of delaying the repayment of the loan of 6,000,0001. to the Bank for the perred of three years. He @greed generally with the lion. Member in his other ob. servations; sod mast express the great gratification • which his Majesty's Ministers derived from being able to ;else money on more advantageous terms than it had ever before been raised in this country. The Report was then agreed to, and the Bill or dered to be read a third time on Monday. SECRET COMMITTER. Mr. BROUGHAM asked the Noble Lord if he tould say when the Report of the Secret Committee . might bee:peeled ? . Lord CASTLEREAGH replied that he could not ' give the Honourable and Learned Gentleman a satis factory answer. The Committee were still actively engaged ht the investigation for which they were ap pointed, end would make the earliest Report practi . cable. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER it was ordered that, at its rising, the House should adjourn to Monday. Mr. CA LCRA FT presented a Petition from the • nigh Constable of Westminster, praying for corn pettsation.for his attendance and that of his Officers •on the Houle of Commons, which wisordered to lie on the table. Mr. Calcreft gave notice, that on Mon day he would move that it referred to the consider ation of a Committee. ROYAL SCOTCH BURGHS. Lord A. HA NI wroN rose to make Ms promised • motion respecting the regulation of Scotch Burghs. lie felt it incumbent on him to premise that, in sub mitting this ovation to the House, he had not the slightest idea of connecting it in any way, either - mow or at any future period,with the general question of Parliamentary Reform. The discussion he pro posed to enter into, might, its his mind, without pre judice be treated as a separate question from that of Parliamentary Reform, as it was generally 4011°mi -sated. His application to that House was prompted by the most sincere desire to be of service, more • particularly to that part of tho United Kingdom to which, from his earliest years, he had been affec tionately attached. The question was not whether the People of that country (Scotland) felt dissatisfied with things as they were, or what' was the pro portion of oppression they were subjected to in consequence of the esistence of the evil complained of. He was satisfied the case he should have the honour to &cif's* to the House, would discover in it such a system of fraud and iniquity as would call imperatively upon the House to redress the grievance. The case of the Scotch Royal Burghs Was, from these circumstances, eminently entitled to their consideration. In these Burghs the resident inhabitants had no constitutional controul over the • 'Magistrates and Officers of the Burgh, who, for the greater part, elected themselves in perpetuity, in ' stead of beiog elected by the Burgesses, as they should be, if any regard were to be had to the or. dinary dictates of reason or justice. Yet although the Burgesses were thus deprived of all constitutional contractl over their Officers, they were nevertheless Considered by the Constitution of the Burgh liable in their personal effects and property to the debts in. 'varied on the part of the Corporation of the Burgh. What was more extraordinary in the system of elec. lion, if such it might be called, in these . Burghs, was, that the Magistrates,after becoming self-elected, and that not unfreqoently in perpetuity, often pro. ceeded to elect such personsinto the corporation as were likely to be sobsetvieekto theirleishcs and po litics. It was even a matter of indifference Whether 4hese Magistrates were resident or not, and in no in stance were these Public Officers of the Burgh liable ' to be called to account for the sums of money depo sited or expended for the public use of the Burgh by the Burgesses. Cases of this peculiar nature had been brought before the Courts in Scotland, and some had been removed into Appeal Courts in this country. One • In 1707 bad been brought before the Barons of the Ex chequer, and Lord Karnes expressed himself extremely concerned the Court was not competent to afford the Bergh any redress under the circumstances; a simi , ler application to the Courts of this country had met with a like fate in 1800, and the parties were in . formed the. Court had no authority to interfere in the adjustment of their accounts. The case of the • !gorgh of Montrose was that to which he wished • to draw the attention of the House. This Burgh had ‘': Men is the last year, owing to a non-election of its • *Scars at the regular period, in point of fact dis ' solved, an application was thereupon made to his Majesty's Government to revive it by a poll-election. Government in that case proceeded to revive the Bergh, bet in doing so, effected a complete altera tion in the settleuseot, or, as it is called, the consti- Mien of the Burgh. lie would not enter into the propriety of the original constitution of these Burghs, bet he contended that what had been done in this case, ,and the case of Stirling, which was similar, • a. THE STATESMAN had not beendooe justly, because the Crown bad, in lifteer oflontrAse, .taken upon Itself to alter the sed of tbollergN so as to: affect lanais* tstate of the Hinireaentation of that place . ln Per inent. "Weever, this alteration (which be could not deny created so extension of the franchise) might have been - unattended with dangerous matins to the public interest in the late case, its very extension might be productive of the worst consequences, bad Ministry made a more constitutional use of the fa. cility which it might have afforded them. lie should call the attention of the House to this question on a more extended scale after. Easter, but for the present ha should, in reference to the existing case, endea vostr to supply that information to the House, which it was expedient they should have, by moving, Thatlt copy of the Act and Warrant of his Majesty's Coun cil, dated September, 1817, authorising the Guild of Brethren sad Borrows of Montrose to elect a set or Magistretes and Tows Oicers, and she far permitting them to alter theses of the Constituter's of that Bergh in all time to come, should be laid before the Hoare. The motion being pot and seconded— Lord CASTLEREAGH contended, that if the question of Reform, as to a number of Scots Burghs, were now entertained, and the Papers required granted, although it might not be the Noble Lord's wish to introduce the question of Parliamentary Reform, yet it would thus be incidentally entertain ed upon inadequate and fallacious grounds. That there were no grounds for the immediate interference of the House, might be inferred from the satisfaction the Burgesses themselves, of Montrose and ether places, felt at the change, and the general peace able and tranquil disposition of the inhabitants of all the Royal Scots Burghs. All that' could be said on the subject now *as, that lie, in common with the Noble Lord, regretted there was that defect in the Constitution of the Scots Bombe, which rendered it difficult for the Bur. gesses to inspect and controul its accounts and ex penditure. But sorely an application to Parlia ment, of this nature, was not the way to obtain ade quate redress. The papers sought for could not afford adequate information to be of any practical utility, and the Lord Advocate had that evening given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill to meet the grievance complained of, and grant to a com petent Court a right to enquire into end examine such accounts. He could not help thinking that a Court might even now be applied to which would quash any illegal and extravagant assessment by aoch Magistrates. But the fact was, the Noble Lord did not appear to think the Burgesses had not an ade quate defence whereby to defend themselves from illegal assessments, so much as their inability to superintend and restrain their officers in any attempt to misapply their funds. He thought the question might be determined in the . Courts of Law, particularly if the Learned Lord Advocate should pass his Bill.— Indeed the question might incidentally he brought before a Committee of the )louse under the Gren ville Act ; and he could not help thinking t►e House itself the lust adapted to discuss and determine upon an intricate and complicated , question of Scotch law. laugh.]—Under the', cirbumstances, be felt disposed to resist the production of the papers; as in adequate to their professed purpose. Mr. ABERCROMBIE said, that the subject brought forward by the Noble Lord had no con nection with that of Parliamentary Reform. The state of the Scfrtch Boroughs, however, was such as, in the opinion of those who were most competent to form an opinion on the subject, called imperiously for enquiry. He could not indeed see any connection between such an enquiry and the subject of Parlia mentary Reform, excepting iu as tar as any regale. Lions respecting those who had a right to vote in the election of a Member of Parliament was connected with that subject. It was said, that it was only when the rights of the Borough were suspended, that the Crown interfered to reanimate them. But in the case alluded to it went farther, it altered the set altogether. If thi, was wrong, it was , an usurpation on the part of the Crown ; and though in the present instance it might have been exercised beneficially, yet it went to establish a precedent which, in the bands of bad Ministers, might be made use of to justify the worst encroachments. He thought no subject more suitable for Parliamentary enquiry. He thought that copies of the old and new set should be produced, that they might be able to see the alteration, to find whether the Crow• has improperly interfered, or whether in such manner as demands Parliamentary enquiry. If the Crown has improperly interfered, and no notice be taken of it, the measure will be acquiesced in and established into precedent. He thought the course adopted by the Noble Lord a very proper one. It was not connected with any wild theories of Parliamentary Reform, and if it were he should have been silent ; but being of a different opinion, and finding that in the course of this year five or six other Boroughs were likely to be •placed in a similar situation to that in which Montrose lately stood, he thought it of very great importance that the subject should be fully discussed. He thought the circumstances of the ease completely relieved his Noble Friend from any ',spiciest; of beiog desirous of agitating the question of Parliamentary itefores ,• ' he wished only to resist a precidbat which; though now beneficial, may be improperly applied• After some further observations to the sante effect, and some compliments to the Magistrates of Scotland, the Honourable Gentleman concluded by supporting the motion. The LORD ADVOCATE said, that. be never on. derstood that it was in the power of the Council of any Borough to tax the inhabitants. If they bad the power of contracting debt, they most have power to levy money from the burgesses to cover those debts ; but to levy money 'without the authority of Parlia ment is contrary to law. The Borough of Aberdeen was insolvent, yet there were no actions against them who were liable: and the fact of there being no se& actions showed there was no power to tea. From the Revolution downwards, the argument was never maintained, that the Magistracy could contract debt to which the Burgesses were liable. At any rate, there was no suit yet raised of that kind. It was , contrary to the principles of the Constitution, Miry to the Declaration of Grievances, to levy mo ssy without the authority of Parliament. It had bees attempted by the Magistrates of Aberdeen to impose 'petty customs by their own act, but both the Court of Session end the House of Peers had decided against the Magistracy. All this went clearly to show that no such field debited. The Noble Lord seated, many gOonalte existed under the most degrading tem of self-election. In this respect they worn than any Boroughs in England, Magistrates continue for life. With respect _ trose, the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last esis-stated the eau. The Boroegh lost the right to elect by neglect. Such a case had 'listed in Eng land ; and when the case was brought before Lord Mansfield, the decision of the Court of King's Bench was, that the Borough was not dissolved. Their right was only dormant or quiescent till restored.— The situation was precisely the same u of the English Boroughs. And as to the several cases, each case most stand on its own circumstances. There was no ge neral commotion In Scotland on this subject. Mr. ABERCROMBIE and the LORD ADVO CATE mutually explained. . Sir J. MACINTOSH said, he should not enter into the question of Parliamentary Reform, nor that of dry law, which was connected with the present motion, because the present was an unfit time to die cuss the .one, and the House of Commons was an improper tribunal to decide the other. He thought the motion of his Noble Friend had been hardly dealt with, in being considered a motion subservient to Parliamentary Reform; it was strange that a sets. tine, which called in question the legality of a chap in any one Burgh, should be viewed as leading to universal change. This seemed a paradox, which tell' Learned Lord had chosen for the purpose-of display. ing his ingenuity ; but in supporting it be bad for gotten his arguments. The Learned Lord bad used an argument, connected with the question of Perlis mentary deform, which he could not help noticing. He had said, that it was strange that thine who should blame the Scotch Burghs, did not blame the close Boroughs in England. There were some close Boroughs, and some in which there were rights of popular election ; but in Scotland there were none of the latter description ; so that, *whoever support. ed the English Constitution could not like the Con. stitatiou of Scotland. In England, though the sys tem might be, in some respects, improved, there was a variety of modes of election, which had been false ly blamed, as producing an inadequate Representa tion ; but which, on the whole, produced a Repre sentation more complete than any mode which should proceed on the basis of uniformity.—(!year, hear!) ---But in Scotland there was the must perfect uni formity on an oligarchical principle. Ile contended that any uniform Representation was bad. Univer sal Suffrage was, indeed, the worst of all—(Hcar, hear!)—if not a monstrous inconsistency will, all forms of human society.— ( near, hear, hear!) —lt never existed in this country, and if it had, he should have thought its abolition the best plan of Reform.--(Hcor !)—But in Scotland theta was in uniformity of the opposite kind. There was no po pular election, or pretence of popular election. So that Scotland, though it by the. Union enjoyed the protection of the free Constitution of England, did not in the nobler sense participate in it. It was a gross fallacy, therefore, to compare oho state of the Representation in Scotland to that of England.. He did not wish . to speak to the dry legal question, but legal questions affecting the Constitutioo, and parti cularly the rights of election, were peculiarly sub jects for dm consideration of that House. The ques tion now was, whether the Crown possessed, not the power of reviving a Burgh, the charter of which bad been lost by intermission of elections, but *he. ther it possessed the power of altering the conslitu-1 4 Lion of it ? This was a qoestion over . which great doubt hung. He did not mean to give an opinion on it. The right rested on a single case, that of Stir ling, which bad never been decided on in a Court of Law, or in Parliament. In such a case it was the duty of the House to reqeire information, and he should therefore vote for the motion. Mr. J. P. GRANT said, that after the able speech of his Hon. Friend who sat down he would not go at length into the subject. It was certainly worthy the attention of Parliament to introduce some specific regulation. He would ask if, when elections fail, the Crown had power to alter, to what extent would such a power go ? If the matter were regarded in this light, Ministers themselves would come to Parliament for some regulation on the sub ject. No question ever agitated Scotland more than this question. There was no probability of redress from the Courts of Law ; because any application to . the Court of Session must be by a constitutional member of the body whose election was complained of. This is a reason why the House should inter fere; and the proper mode of doing so was to adopt' the course pointed out by the Noble Lord whi mowed the subject. The LORD ADVOCATE explained. Sir R. FERGUSSON said, that the Represeete. lien of the Scotch Boroughs was in a deplorable state et present; they bad been represented as in a - state of fermentation, but there was no ferment except aeincese and ardent desire to get rid of the vexations system of grievances which galled them so much. He saw no objection to the Reform in the Borough of Montrose, but to the mode. Lord A. HAMILTON shortly replied. Mr. FORBES bad no doubt that in a few years the state of the Scotch Boroughs would be greatly alnytiorated. Mr. W. SMITH observed, that one of the Boroughs was 1,4001. short of the sum which would enable it to pay the interest of its debts. lie hoped no such alteration would take place as would debar creditors from their right of recovering their debts. Mr. DOUGLAS stated, that after providing for the debt of the Borough, a sinking fund would re main of 3001. a gear. The debts of the Borough were 20,0001. • The question was negatived without a division. Sir J. MACINTOSH moved for an account of all Prizes of War, otherwise called Droll. of the Crown, Or Droits of Admiralty, together with such Prizes as have been adjudicated to the captors since 1793, with the date, amount, resource, apd application of each receipt. The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER suggested, that inch an eccount would be attended with great difficulty and expeoce, and the motion was withdrawn. The Surgeons' Bills was read a first time, and or. dered to be read a second time on Thursday. On the toothy+ of Mr. J. P. GRANT, it was ordered ta, be Anted. —Adjourned to Monday. THE STATEBitAk: LONDON: y. SATURDAY. 'payAim. il l Zits• , . - • A variety of interesting topics conneCterisrldk`rh e liberty of the subject came under review last nighe i n the House of Commons. The Arbitrsvy.lmpriso . meats were again one of the chief subjecemtior kid claim to the attention and humanity of the Hoeft..-. Petitions from the safferers detailed esi* of 'trashy and unnecessary oppression, which, as Sir Murk'. Boarirrr said, would induce any one who hea r d their contents to believe we lived under the dominiso of the 'Bey of ALGIERS, rather than a Governmeat of law. Besides Petitions from Bctinow and Mrs. cum, whose cases have already been before the Public, Mr. Bentterr presented a Petition from WK. OGEIRK, a person 74 year. of age, who had also suffered arbitrary imprisonment. He hid b ees treated with the greatest cruelty, loaded With mina. ties, 30Ibs. weight, which dislocated one of bi g arms, and he was 16 hours is this state without re. relying any assistance; he ultimately lost the use of his hand, and was discharged after nine months so. litary confinement, though he had never committed the slightest offence against the laws of his country. Ile further stated, that, by a double marriage, he w‘3 the father of 17 children, most of whom were dependent upon him for support.—Sir F. &mum also presented a Petition from JOHN STEWART, a a weaver at Glasgow, who had been arrestethisme on the 2241 of February, and kept in solitary. Aso. finement for seven weeks and three days, with twenty, and sometimes no food, and on au allowance of fort shillings per week, half of which went for fuel. The feeling which these details of oppression must excite in every bosom but those whom the 66 furies steal," cannot be expressed by words. To the honour si the House it is stated, that the case of the god Petitioner, WILLIAM OGDEN, who had borne, wr rather attempted to bear, such a weight of iros, had s powerful effect on the feelings of the Members. If it had not, we should imagine humanity and all sense of justice had been suspended with the horrid Act which has been made to authorise such cruelties. We trust if justice is yet conceived to be a dity, that the Petitions of those unfortunate victims of oppres. sion, will not merely be allowed to lie on the table of the « Honourable House," bat that they will ha come subjects of serious enquiry to Parliament and the Committees that are to report on the conduct of NW. stets. Every one that•tin read and thick will.demand this at their hands, before a Bill Of Indetinitishallbe granted to men capable of directing or screening such 'wanton 'violatons of all the common principles of humanity. Theee facts are solemnly' laid before Par. liament—they can be disproved if they are false— they are, indeed,,daosnifying proofs of the lenity and mercy said to have been exercised in the adminis tration of the extraordinary powers. They chal lenge enquiry, and why are they not disproved by that test ? Yet the Courier has the brazen faced impudence to assert that 64 nothing has base proved against Government !" We should be ashamed to notice such flagrant assortioas, the the unjust absurdity of which every one can peiceive; but it is added, " it only true half of what Mikan affirmed could be proved, They who have failed to give the proof in the way which is at their command, have culpably neglected their duty." Now,. who' are they who have thus failed ? Not those, ...rely, who have already adduced proofs of the raiikast in• justice in their impeachment of Ministers ‘' in the way readiest at their command," and who desire to be allowed to substantiate them before any .other tribunal; and are not they the persons who have culpably neglected their duty, and all other duties Who still refuse to permit the evidence of their guilt to be investigated in the manner most conducive to the establishment of their own innocence, and the Ite• tional satisfaction. We will use the same words, sod Kb that if. only one bolt of what has been affirmed tioutd be proved - , the Ministers and the persons em ployed by them ought to be tried in the most solema manner that the Courts of the Nation can exhibit. — For the sake of the victims of the wrong, for the sake of the Constitution itself, the doors of enquiry and of justice ought not to be closed on such taw actions as the arbitrary acts which the country has lately witnessed. It should be known that the Bill of Indemnity is not confined to the past viols• tions: it will, by its example, reach all Mors Suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act; • and it will be henceforth constituted, by precedent, the practical law of the land, that Ministers rosy when they please li:spend the Constitution of the country ; may then form themselves, • end a few of their friends, into a Committee, which C. mittee shall refuse to hear any complaints; _skit thence determine that none bavo bean aggrieved by the Suspension, and that a Bill of Indemnity shall be granted by Parliament for all that has beets done un der it. We must hops that this will not be the mat but that the means of redress will be conceded t* those who hate a right to demand it. It is theacti"t •• t t ek , I. ti glii="6, rated, that itnitig444o, "Ar c a ' riding 4 1 - 9 per eer .ea & et um tt.•is 1; e 7 were not 3 per Cent. Gaels r tto onf o rer use ccuu ts for Arm In_ where the . 19 I. ; . • t • . • A • • • ~; 1 ~,