The Sun. — London, England, 1824-02-27 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, FEu. 26. Mr BnooDEN and others from the Commons brought up the Exchequer Bills Bill, the Irish Courts, of Law Bill, the retrospective Duties Amendment Bill, the Transfix Aids Bill, which were read a first time. 't'he Marriage Act Amendment Bill wa% committed, and crrdered to be reported to-morrow.—Adjewned. HOUSE. OF COMMONS. COAL-TAX. Potitions against the D tty on Coals were presented from in Cornwall, by Sir W. LEMON ; from the town of Sandwich, by :11r. BONHAM : frail' the town of Dorrington. by Sir IV. IsoitTiv ; and from Epping, in the County of Bseex, by Sir E. H ARVE V.-14 1d on the table. NVESI' INDIA SIAVERV. Petitions for the Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies were, presented from the town of Redford, by 31r. PYM ; from tlie town of Spalding, by Sir W. INGII.IIY ; from a town in Yorkshire, by Lord AI rt...rom ; from Cirencester, in the County of Gloucester, by ;11r. CRI rrs ; and from the town and neigh bourhood of Milburn, by Sir T. LETRTILIIVO-E. LICENCE DUTIES. Petitions against the Duty on Excise Licences were present ed from 'the inholders and Licensed Vituallers of the follow ing places ;—The City of Coventry, by Mr. 1)...1.10-onr.; the Borough of Lancaster, by Mr. BLACRBURNE ; the town of KnaresboiOugh, by Mr. S. WoRTLEY ; the town of Bowes, in the - No - rth Riding of Yorkshire, by Mr. S. WORTLEV ' • the town of Bradford, by Mr. BERNAL ; and the North Riding of the County of York, by Mr. 11 UME.—Laid on t ) ! . .e table. HOUSE AND WINDOW TAX. Mr. WHITBREAD presented a petition from a Mr. John Richards, praying for the repeal of the House and Window Tax.--Laid on thi, , Table, and ordered to be printed. SHIP SURVEYING. Sir 1. COFFIN presented a petitipn from Thomas Brusser,. paying for the adoption of a new mode of surveying , all vessels I,ot built by contract.—Laid on the table, :And to be printed. LA W STAMPS. 'Sir J. NEWPORT moved for an account of the Stamp charges on Law proceedings for the several courts of justice in Great Britain and Ireland for each ofthe last-seven years, under the several heads or classes into which they are divided.. Like tiile for an account of the Stamp Duties on the several branches of conveyancing for the same time. The .Right lion. Bart. gave notice, that as soon as the above -returns were produced, would submit to the House a resolution fur the moditi catiou'of those ditties, for the purpose of throwing open the Courts of Law to the great body of the people.—(Hera !) FOREIGN FLAX SEED. Sir J. NEWPORT gave notice, that he would to-morrow bring under the notice of the House a proposition relative to Flax-seed imported into Ireland, with a.:view to the statement <if some information.on that.head, whirl it was fit those Gen tlemen who were interested -in the welfare, and prosperity of that country should be put in possession of. OLIVE, PRINCESS OF CI3M BE R LAND. 'llr.' SCAR LETT presented a petition from the above cele brated personage,in which she set forth that she was a lineal descendant of George 11., and that, notwithstanding her Royal birth, she was at present a prisoner in the King's Bench prison. `idle therefore prayed for redress, and to be heard at the Bar of that Honourable lionse.—Laidori the table. LINEN TRADE. " - Mr. HUME rose to move for a return of the number of yards of linen at and under 7d. per yard, exported from England, Ireland, and Scotland, for the year ending the 24th of January laet, and the amount of bounty paid on the same. Ile wished en: House to be acqueinted with the . bounty paid on these in feri.Jr linens, beciiuse lie was anxious to show that the operation 'of the Chancellor oFthe Exchequer's - repeal of the Linen Bonn ties would fall on. the•Borougleg-of that part of Scotland which he. represented. An Hon. Friend Aced him why he restricted his mottos to linens of this particular ',value. He did so, be souse the bounty on all linens ofthe value of7d. a yard and grider (a great deal of which was manufactured in See:land), wit to he immediately taken away, while the bounty on linens of superior quality was to be removed,gradually. Mr. BERN'A I. said, the effect of the repeal of the bounty would not be felt by Scotland .alone. The greater part of the cixeree linens Which were sent to the Wait Indies, under the de- nomination of Osnaleurghs, and which were under 7d. a yard, Were manufactured in the north of this country. Mr. BRIGHT said a few. words as .to the effect therepeal, would have on a certain description of cheap handkerchiefs. CoIoneI:FRENCH. was of opinion .that taking awry the linen' bounty was an act which wohlil -be destructive •of the, prosperity of Ireland. In the 'north -of Ireland, the linen trade was in a state of vigour and manhood-4 bat in the we :t of Ireland, it was in its infancy. Those who had read the reports laid befure that House might judge whether, to *ele , increase of that titsde, they ought not to ascribe-the peace and tranquillity of those parts of, the sister kingdom where it tialtrished. Immense mischief would be occasioned by the re peal of this, bounty, and. that for the paltry , saving of 100,000/. lie 'hoped, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the •subject into his .serious consideration. His Itight Hon. Friend began, he thought, at the wrong end. If, the bounty were taken away at all, it ought to be from that branch of the trade which was able to bear the change, and not from that which was vet in its infancy. Helneov,..ae a general principle, that bounties were objectionable: but the situation of the west of Ireland was not one that would justify the appli- rAtion of general principles. A report on the linen trade wee neadein 1822, and Mr. Ogle, in his evidence before the Coln- Mittee, distinctly stated that the removal of the:bounty would be destructive to the inCent trade, 'lf Ireland were to be pu nished by the repeal of the bounty, ...it would be in consequence of the roguery of some merchants in London. The name of o'se of them was mentioned in the report to .which he had ellUdeel. Ile was in the habit of making up parcels .of cot ton; on which be forged the name of Mr. Wilson, an eminent linen-merchant. Here was a. double injury. .The consumer was cheated, and Ireland was in consequence to be depriv ed of the bounty. .The Right Honourable Gentleman had said, that foreigners were as ready to tax the raw material at we were to tax the manufacture by ..this.bounty. But Ire lind would soon not want the raw material at all. Owing to the exertions of a public spirited gentleman, she would soon produce flax superior to. that of RUNSin. er .Holland, from her own seed. Mr. i%IABERLY could say nothing in favour.pf the prin ciple of protecting bounties; but he did not think the arrange ment judicious under which they were to be taken oft: For Ir4land, he hoped that such a course was now taking as would remier her, before long, a great raw producing country. Scot land, he agreed, would be materially affected by the taking the. bounty off low linens, which were almost entirety supplied by 11:;:. - The removal of the bounties generally should be so ma naged, as to press equally upon all 'parts of the kingdom. It would be remembered, that Government had promised a re daction of the duty on hemp ; and this reduction became im portant now the drawback on low linens was.refused. Theduty on raw hemp was from 25 to 30 per cent.—a tax on raw material in contradiction to every sound principle. .If this duty were lowered, hemp would come to be worked up in the low linens instead of flax, and so the article exported still cheaper to the Viest India islands, with as much advantage to the manufac turer as at preSent. Mr. WESTERN presented .four petitions from different parts of Essex against the duty on coals. QUALIFICATION OF JURORS. Mr. WESTERN brought in a bill to amend the Act of the 3d of G-eo. 11., and alter the qualification for serving on Juries —Read a first time, and !?rdered to be read a second time - on Irlonday se'nnight. The Bankrupt Laws' Amendment Bill went throup,^h itCoin rnittee.--Report to be further considered that day (yesterday) three weeks. 2rlr. DAWSON moved for a copy of the lgth Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Institutions in England and Wales. SCOTCH COMMISSARY COURTS. - . The Act of secierkia of the Commission on this subject was laid upon, the table. .dr. PEEL just mentioned that it was the paper which had bnen asked for last night by the llonouruhle Member for Lanarkshire. Mr. WILMOT moved for a copy of a certain Proclamation issued by John Fergusson, Esq., his Majesty's superintendent of Mosquitto shore, with a copy of the letter which had accom panied the tramanission of that - document. Lord A IsTHORP gave notice of his Motion upon the Gene ral State of Ireland, for Tuesday, the II th of May. SCOTCH REPtiESENTATION. Mr. A BE RCROM BY being called On by the SP EA )(En, re quested that the petition on the subject of the Representation of the City of Edinburgh, which he presented last year, might he read. This having been done, the Hon. Member proceeded. He had last year, he observed, in obedience to the wishes of a numerous, intelligent, and respectable body of his fellow creature, presented the petition which they had just heard read - at the time that he had received it, the House was en gaged in urgent business; and he had postponed founding any motion upon it, until he might have better reason to hope for the patient and undivided attention of the House. Ile had caused it to be read on the present occasion, Wcause it contained a clear statement of the case, with the impressive expressions of the evils of which the Petitioners had to complain. He might also add, that it was impossible any Petitioner could approach that House in a more respect ful and confiding manner. If the result of that night's debate should teach them that that confidence was ill placed, he should have the bitterness to know that it was owing to the ineffi cacy and weakness of the advocate they had chosen ; for it could not be for the want of truth, strength, and justice in their cause. If the object of his moti o n h a d been general Re form, he would have to contend against the recorded votes of that House—against the 'deep-rooted opinions of individual Members of it, and with what pine would term the prejudices and self-interest of others. But the Reform which he proposed was of a very confined and liberal nature. 'Whatever the dif ficulties against which he had to contend, he was, however, sustained by a confidence in the justice of his cause, and by a knowledge that the more the details and the facts of it were discussed, the more their truth would become known to the public. lle also knew that the Petitioners were supported by a great mass of public opinion.. He was therefore sure of success at one stage or another of his labours. The Petition which lie had just heard read had been voted by a large meet ing of the inhabitants of Edi n b urg h. H e cert ainly could not say that the meeting had the good fortune of being sanctioned by the Lord Provost, for that Magistrate bad thought that he best discharged his duty towards the citizens of Edinburgh by withholding his countenance from a meeting assembled for the purpose of conveying to Parliament the statement they had just heard. Nevertheless, the Petition was voted by a' most nu merous meeting, and it contained the' sentiments of the most respectable inhabitants of Edinburgh t and he could safely say it had the ac qu i escence o f t h e goo d wishes of a large portion of the people of Scotland. It was signed by nearly 7,000 inhabi tant householders of the city of Edinburgh. From its numbers alone, therefore, it deserved a favourable reception from that House. There never was, indeed, a Petition more numerously signed, or which from its nature so strongly called for the favourable and impartial consideration of the House. Edin burgh contained 21,000 householders; of this number 10,160 were rated at a rent of 51. and upwards. Of this number he abstracted one-fourth for errors, sack, and absentees, leaving the number remaining who had signed the Petition upwards of three.fourtlis of the population of that city paying 51. and upwards of rent.—(Hear!)—The greatest pains, he assured . :the House, had been taken to insure the signatures of none but those who paid this amount of rent. 'Phis was not done from the arrogant assumption, that none who were not rated at that amount of rent were unfit to petition that House; but because they knew full well the weight which that re spectable mass of property must carry with it, possessing all the advantages of education, and an interest in the tranquil.: lity and peace of the country. The population of Edinburgh amounted. to 100,000, of whom theoretically 33, but practi cally-and essentially , only 19, exercised the right of voting.— (Hear! )--This right was vested in a body called the Town Council, which consisted of 33 members, who carried within themselves the principle of self-election. The ground of his stating This was, that each member had the power of ap pointing his successor, which he conceived to be one and the same thing with self-election.; for his successor was equally , hound to re-elect the inembenfrom whom he received his ori ginal appointment. But the majority of 33 was 17, so that there were two to spare in the number of 19, which lie had stated to be the electors of the Member to that House. The fourteen other members were called Deacons, and were cho sen by the incorporated Trades. Each trade selected four names, out of which the Town Council could erase three ; so that unless the power were similar in sentiment, the Trades could have no chance of being represented as they wished. How such a system of election as regarded the Member return ed to that House was to be defended, he knew not. It could not be on fhe principle of property ; for these were only trades men, and possessed no more than tradesmen. Nor could they be said to be gifted with that disinterested spirit, or those gene rous, noble motives which would qualify them for so important a task. To pursue such an argument would bring the ridicule of their fellow-citizens on these worthy Magistrates. What then could he said in favour of such a system ? it must be, either. that it was favourable to the good composition of that House, or.tnat a better one could not be devised ; or that it was better to, put up with what they had than go to what might prove.worse. .But all of these he was ready to contend were wrong. First, could it he likely to improve the composition of that House ? Could they come to such a conclusion, judgin, e a by the ordinary moti ves w hi c h ac t uate d h uman nature . Could they suppose this limited number of men, with those facilities of self-election, and security in office, to be guided by nothing but a simple, honest, disinterested love of country ? Ile thought, on the contrary, they might be sure to find in them a sort of sympathy betwixt Member and constituents._ Ile asked the House if it was to be gratuitously assumed that they were likely to choose only an independent, fearless, public-spirited gentleman to represent them in that House; or _whether they were net to suppose they would in all probability choose one who could have ready access to the Treasury, and who could secure them some of those things which flowed from that golden source which were known to contribute to men's comforts ? For his part, he thought that men separated in that way from the rest of the commu nity were sure to select for their representative some one in. timately- connected with -the King's Ministers. He knew nothing of the present Town-Council of Edinburgh further than as they were opposed to the mass of their fellow-citi zees.; and could it be supposed, under these circumstances, that they would uniformly -so act as to represent the feel ings and sentiments of the People of Edinburgh. The fact spoke otherwise. That House knew it, as having seen many important interests.fram the Town Council, which had, since the separation, been found to flourish, Indeed, if any insti tutions were to be founded in Edinburgh, it was the com mon saying—" Don't let the Town Council get hold of it." —(llear, liear.l)--Was it possible, then, in this state of things, to satisfy the people of Edinburgh as to the choice of their representative ? On what principle, then, was the greatest privilege a free people could exercise to be taken away from the intelligent population, and given to nineteen Gentlemen ? —Could it be wondered at that the people of Edinburgh - ihould feel insulted at that .power being' given to persons in whom they hail no confidence, which it was thereby assumed they were unworthy of -possessing ? They had the power of elect ing some one of whom the people of Edinburgh knew nothing, some one who need make to them no explanation of his politi cal principles, and was in no way accountable to them, so long as he was well backed by those 19 Gentlemen.—(Hear !) They could never suppose that their choise would be regulated by wisdom, disinterestedness, and puhlic spirit, when nothing that !they knew of the Town Council but they disapproved-- These sentiments he found had been maintained -so long ago a:. 1649, when, these very sentiments were expressed in an Act of Council of the predecessors of the present Town Councile_ lie found this in a pamphlet lately published on elle - sub- - ices, which would have convinced . him, if he had not been be. fore, that th e case aga i nst t h e, Mgistrates was unanswerable. There were peculiarities in .the city .of -Edinburgh which gave it strong claims.on the attentionbf Parliament. It was the seat of the administration of. justice, and numbered among its inha bitants many of the most distinguished ornaments of the bar. It contained many eminent characters, who exercised the most powerfhl and controuling influence on public opinion, besides . a must distinguished University ; the professors belonging to it, numerous persons of fortune, who came to reside in the capital, and a.largc and most respectable body of householders. He wished to know where the danger was, iu confiding the elective franchise to-such a body as this, instead of having it where it now was. The leading persons in Edinburgh exer cised a great controuling influence over the opinions of all Scot land. Of late years the question of Reform had occupied much attention in that country, and he would ask if it would be well, by refusing to attend to an application like the present, to give the people a permanent cause for dissatisfaction and aliena tion ? He should regret as unjust and unwise a detormination not to remove that blOt and stain on the Constitution which was now the subject of just complaint, and he was sensible that, doing so, they would make the people ready to question and challenge every thing else belonging to the system. They had now the means of conciliating a large body of the people. If they neglected to do so, and refused to effect the Reform called for, they would leave behind them a mass of abuse Which might give rise to dissatisfaction, which would eventually be come most formidable in its character. The elective franchise was at present leftlin the hands of an Oligarchy who had hardly any thing in common with the people at large. To give an idea of the state of Edinburgh representation he would suppose a case. He would suppose that in London, Westminster, and in all the large towns in England, the Representatives sent to Par liament were to be chosen by a small body of la or 20 persons. He would suppose that in counties no right of voting remained with the possessors of the soil, but that it lay with the Lords of Manors. He would suppose thiS right capable of being purchased by merchants and persons of opulence. He would also suppose the existence of and hereditary aristocracy, who had bought up, in ninny cases, the right in question for their friends and retainers ; and to make the parallel com plete, he would suppose, that all Peers were not, as in Eng land, entitled to sit in Parliament, but that only a certain number could enjoy that privilege, and that by favouring their elections a cheap means of influencing those so returned was possessed by the Crown. He would suppose these circum stances, and that in no case the people had a right t o int er f ere in the election of those who were said to represent them, and he would ask if this were a state of things which ought to exist ? Ile was decidedly , of opinion that it it ought not to con tinue. He contended that the population of Edinburgh was such, that to no body of persons could the elective franchise be more safely confided ; that giving it to them much would be done to conciliate, and not giving it, a body of abuse would be left behind which would claim their most serious attention at a future period. It might be said this was a step towards Par liamentary Reform. He unquestionably thought that those who were friendly to a Parliamentary Reform in England were bound to favour Reform in Scotlond. If the state of representation were in England snch as it is in Scotland, be should like to see the man who would stand up and say that Reforin ought not to take place.--(Hear, hear!)—lf then it would be admitted in such a case, that Reform ought to be ef fected here, why should not that Reform which he called for be accomplished in Scotland ? On an examination of the rea soning by which it was attempted to support the present sys tem, he maintained that the same arguments would as well serve to justify the giving Ministers the right of nominating the Members who were to serve in Parliament. Were there not material distinctions between the people of England and the people of Scotland, •and was there not a difference between the laws which governed them. Such being the case, ought not the people of Scotland to be represented by those who were known to them, who resided among them, and whose interests were identified with theirs. Was it not too much to tell them that 45 Members were to come to Parliament to sup port the measures of Government, but that those whom they were supposed to represent were to have nothing to do with choosing them? All he now en' red was not to make any alarming innovation on the Constitution. What he claimed was that Edinburgh, which was already nominally represented, should henceforth be really so. He wished the inhabitants of that great City to have those in Parliament whom it was their pleasure to choose, who would b e respon s ible to them for th e i r con d uc t, a nd who might be removed by them. —(Hear, hear !)—He might be told that to make the change he had called for, would be so far as it went a Parliamentary Reform. He lived that argument would not be used that night. If it were, he could consider it very unfortunate. He hoped the House would not oppose itself to every project of Reform, lest eventually it should embody the whole of the people against it. The Honourable and Learned Gentle man concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the more effectually representing in Parliament the City of Edinburgh. Mr. STUA RT \WORTLEY said, he had listened with great attention to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,having the great est respect for his talents and character; but he had heard no argument that could justify the house in snaking the change he called for.—(Hear !)—He would give him the benefit of all the arguments he had used in his speech, and still contend that no case had been made out which called for their interference.— No proof had been given that the poWer lodged in the hands of the Corporation had been abused, or that any evil consequences had resulted from the manner in which it had been exercised.— Ever since Edinburgh was Edinburgh—ever since the right of voting in corporate towns and boroughs was established, the same practice had existed—that right had been stipulated for, and secured to the people of Scotland by the article of Union, and 'no grounds had been laid which in his judgment made a change necessary. If that of which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman complained were wrong—why did he stop ' short at Edinburgh. Jf it were a hardship that the right in question should be confided to the keeping of' 33 persons in the city of Edinburgh, why did lie not go a little farther with his reform and include Glasgow, which returned but one-fourth of a Member to Parliament, under similar circumstances ? Why did he not extend his measure to other corporate bodies, even in England ? Why did he not complain of the system acted upon in the City of London, where a corporate body called " the Livery," exercised the right of returning Members to Parlia ment, to the exclusion of all the rest of the fellow-citizens ? Why did he not propose to correct the practice established at Liverpool,' where its Members were returned by a body of 3,000 freemen, many of whom were not resident there; and why did he not undertake to reform a similar grievance in Dublin ? Why did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman stop short at Edinburgh ? He agreed in all that had been said as to the respectability and importance of the inhabitants of that city, but he contended that no stranger could go there without being struck with the signs of sound government which it exhibited. As a Scotchman, as one descended from Scotch parents, he was proud of it. He considered it quite a sight for a stranger to see, and for his own part was astonished at the improvenient which he witnessed, and which had been effected by that very Corporation, which had been made the subject of complaint and censure. He referred the House to a debate, which had oc curred in the House of Lords or} ,the subject of the Riot which took place relative to a person of the name of Porteous, which had been immortalized by the writings of a person whom they did not know, and who had certainly given a beautiful re. presentation of the circumstances of that riot. In the debate to which he had alluded, the comparative rights of Scot land, and the privilege of sending Members to Parliament, as she h a d been accustomed to do, were strongly insisted upon by the Duke of Argyll, who contended that as Scotland, at the time of the Union, had treated with England as an in dependent State, and had expressly stipulated that her cor poration laws, like her established religion, were not to be liable to be altered by the British Parliament, it would be as ungenerous as unjust to interfere with them. Lord Hard , wick also had spoken of them as most important to the well being of' Scotland. The thirty-three persons to whom the right of returning Members to P a rliament had been given ought not now to be disturbed in that right, which was as clearly theirs a s the right of th e Hon. and Learned Gentle man to any thing he possessed was his.—(Hear, hear, hear!) —He understood what was meant by that cheer. It was in tended that - the right of returning Membrs to P a rliament was that which could only h ee vested as d e frost for the be nefit of the country. He 'Meld admit that it was so to be con s id e red ; but having once b een veste d i n part i cu l ar hands, h it was not afterwards to without som e em i nent i nstance o f m i scone ee moved without cogent reasons for doing so, duct being proved ; and neither of these cases had been made out. He was attain:it the motion as a commence ment of Reform in Parliament. He, for one, thought s such as it was , sufficient for the thegovernment Hou e of C o f theom Commons, such This was one of the greatest nations in the world. That House had carried it through good and through evil—through war and through peace, till at more prosperous sentiltetutmetinon than any other country. With opposite admitted that it was in a was satisfied. Ile admitted onsa ntalons in the manner in which some of its Members were ret urned ; but still the House ou gh t to pause before they altered th at system un d er w hi c h th e that such there a House Was of something C oinm country had been so largely .benefitted. Those who wished the representation to be more P opu l ar d es i re a c h ange; b ut h e was satisfied with _the British Constitution, such as he found ' it ; with a King; possessing limi te d power; a House of Lords, possessing a certain degree of power; and a House of Com mons, composed as' that was, an d enjoying those privileges which they might claim. He adverted to motions like that now before the House, which served but to encourage vitupe ration and discontent out of doors. If carried, it would be one step towards the general extinction 'of the right of select bodies to return Members to that House. He therefore thought the Hon. and Learned Gentleman might as well at once have moved to do away all rotten boroughs and close corporations Not being prepared to go that length, he should meet the mo tion with a direct negative. . Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion, that to maintain that the people of Scotland had stipulated at the time of the Union, that nineteen persons should have the right of returning Mem bers to Parliament, without the concurrence and in despite of the 21,000 householders in Edinburgh, as their representative, was such an absurdity, that no man could believe them to hare been capable of such conduct. There were some propositions which would only do for a public meeting, and others which could only be hazarded in that House, and that to which he had just alluded was one of the latter. The Hon. Gentleman had said that he was satisfied with that House, since it had carried the country through good and through evil, through war and through peace, to a state of prosperity. But would the Honourable Gentleman stand up and say, that the present prosperous situation of the country ought to be ascribed to the wisdom of that House ? He (Lord Russell) could say th s was not his opinion.. When the House was on all sides as sailed with.cries of agricultural distress, were any propositions then devised in that !louse to put a stop to the evil ? It was suggested by the Gentlemen on that (the opposite) side of the House that no relief could be afforded to the sufferers bu t by the remission of taxation. What course was then taken ? Why the idea was scouted. It was successfully maintained that no effectual relief could, without money, be afforded ; an d nothing remained but to wait for relief from the course of events. After this, what man of common sense could say that the prosperity of the country was owing to that House ! They had the advantage of being under some good laws, which no man would dare to propose to alter; but it was owing to the activity • and spirit of the people that the country had risen from its difficulties to a flourishing condition, even in despite of the corrupt way in which that House was brought to gether. He contended that the Reform called for ought to take place. But, it had been asked, why should they stop short at Edinburgh--why not look to Glasgow ? To this he would reply, that when so strong a case should be made out for Glas gow as had been made out for Edinburgh, he would vote for a reform there, anti in his opinion it might be wisely, safely, and consistently granted. The people of Edinburgh were distin. guished by their love of order; they never took a greater interest in the politics of the day than formerly, and those who knew the city of Edinburgh, knew that if the rights claimed were granted to its inhabitants, they would be exer cised with good discretion and with moderation. In his opi nion the House could not do better than begin with a reform like that now proposed, and go quietly on correcting similar defects in our Constitution.—(Hear, hear !)—Were he opposed to reform on a more extended scale, he should still advocate this policy, as the friends of the present state of things could not strengthen themselves more than by getting such bodies of men on their side as would become their supporters, if such a course were taken. Lord BINNING for one could never give his assent to the course of policy recommended by the Noble Lord who had just sat down. He could understand why the principle for which he contended should be advocated by the Noble Lord himself and by others who failed in their attempts at Reform in a more wholesale way, now sought to accomplish this object by proceeding peace-meal, well knowing, that if they suc ceeded in one case it would .he an argument for conceding all the rest. It was said it would become the House to re move the blots-and stains which were now in our system, by giving Cities *tech as Edinburgh a larger share in the Con stitution than they eit present possessed. He dissented from this. Where corruption and malversation could be proved, the House had always been ready to apply the proper remedy ; but he could not agree to alter the mode of returning Mem bers to Parliament for boroughs and corporate towns from what it had been from time immemorial. The Noble Lord could not conceive that the Duke of Argyll and Lord Chancelfor Hardwicke had considered the Corporation Laws respecting. the returns of Members to Parliament among the privileges of Scotl a nd. Si nce , th en , t h e N oble Lord had attempted to " rail the seal front off the bond," he would show what the Duke of Argyll and Lord Hardwick had meant by referring to the Articles of Union. These stated that the ." old c:iartered rights of Corporations in Scot land should be mentioned in all times to come as they had been mentioned in all times past." It was to those words that they had alluded, and it was out of the power of man to give any meaning to what they had said, than the one which had first been given. He was convinced that nothing would be so bad for Scotland as to interfere with the Constitution of England. This would be done if the present motion were carried, as it would lead to consequences which would go to subvert the whole representation of the British empire. If he thought the repre sentation of Scotland as bad as it had been said to' be, which he did not, still he could not consent to change it at such risk. He did not mean to say, that if a Constitution were now to be grant ed, that it would enter into his bead to give the Constitution of Scotland to any country as a mo d e l of theoretical perfection. Were Scotland to be wholly separated from England, that case would be as different from the present as light was from dark, and then he would admit that important changes might he ne cessary. Scotland was always spoken of as it in that House no regard was had for public feeling. He denied that such was the case, and contended that on every subject that House had always been open to the representations which might be made of the views and interests of the people of Scotland. The Noble Lord had said tie Ives ready to vote for reforming Glasgow as well as Edinburgh. No doubt he was, and for every other city and corporation-town ; but he would call upon those who were not disposed to go quite so far as the Noble Lord, to look to the consequences of tamper ing with the system at all. If the Honourable and Learned Gentleman must reform the system, why did he not begin with Glasgow, which only returned. a Member for itself once in four times. He thought Glasgow but little obliged to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman for the preference which lie had given to Edinburgh. He would not consent to alter the Constitution of England on such a case as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had brought before them. The Noble Lord thought it unrea sonable in the Hon. Member for Yorkshire to pass that enco mium which, in his opinion, had been very justly pronounc ed on Parliament, for carrying the country through a most tremendous contest to its present state of prosperity. The Noble Lord, however, did not deny the result, but only that that House had no share in it. His lion. Friend, the Member for York shire, had never meant to exclude the people from all share in the merit. Their conduct could not be enough applauded ; and it would be held up by the historian to the future admiration of the nations of the world in all time to conic. But that which fur nished the best proof of the true character of that House, was the identity of feeling which had exist e d on t h e i r part, andi on that of the country. It was said that great care had been taken if thatwhereis t ty d " door the h Petition lay for e that the Petitions presented on this subj ect s h ou ld be signed by none whose houses were at n ::to odt After rn atthitieeilea.ffnoslrwttestryinagsaivmdeeontsotwexgaes-e, ~ traordieary that these popular leaders those Whig P a t r i o t s , should act thus, signature, ouldp ton lace a ask tell man the at the par of th ose w h o came— " Is your N o,Hoonulsye at r a4tl. ig eda s t .;, .l;; , e case, you may . not petition the Petition universally signed, he was surprised that not more than from six to 7,000 names had been gained out of 21,000. Many of these had, no doubt, signed twice; some had done it through wantonness; so that the House ought not to consider i one-third of the in aca householdersselike h petitioned; House etitioned ; h b ad ut n if ot on a e ti l third of them had done so tha t was no reason why th e H ouse shouldtended to p give way etitions in England, some complaining that they were not represented, and others bewailing that they were so represented that they were worse off than if th ey h ad not been represented at all. Edinburgh had its Member, but where wer e the Members fo r Leeds, Manchester , Birmingham, and Shef field ? Why were not the defects in the Constitution in those places looked to before their attention was called to Edinburgh ? There was one other place, too, the ancient, populous, and medicinal city of Bath. That had a Member returned, but the right of returning that Member was, he believed, confined to the faculty of medicine. He was not prepared to disfran chise Bath ; but with B at h star i ng them in the face it was too much to ask them to alter the representation of Edinburgh.— He opposed the plan as one of general reform, and contended that a particular change was unnecessary for Scotland, as how ever different the laws and the Church establishment of the two countries in their feelings and in their interests, their inha bitants were but one people, and the welfare of Scotland a s a component part of the empire had never been overlooked. He complained of the manner in which the Town Council of Edin burgh had been spoken of, and believed the course they had pursued to have been generally in unison with the feelings of the respectable part of the inhabitants of that magnificent city. Sir J NEWPORT supported the motion, and set forth the importance of meeting the wishes of the people by effecting a timely Reform. Mr. KENNEDY expressed surpsise that a Right Hon. Gentleman who had formerly declined speaking, when the Petition was before the House, reserving himself till a motion like the present were made, had taken no part in the debate. lie referred to the articles of Union to prove that by those articles it was provided that the town of Edinburgh should be represented, without any mention being made of the Corpor anon. He contended that Where was no necessity to prove nial versation on the part of the Members of the Corporation to war rant a change in the system. It was enough to shew that the city of Edinburgh was so altered in its circumstances, as every one knew it to be, since the birth of its present institutions. It was not difficult to predict that the consequence of a refusal to grant the prayer of the petitioners, would be the alienation of their respect and attachment for thati House. Mr. A BERCROMBY replied. It was at least some matter of satisfaction to him that in the course of the debate no one had the hardihood to defend the system of Scotch Representation. The Hon. Member for Yorkshire had said that the measure he proposed would lead to the growth of republican principles.— He contended, on the contrary, that the refusal of the just de mands of the people would create that spirit. He had heard too that Parliament was to arrogate to itself the present flour ishing condition of the country. He denied that the merit of bringing the country out of its late distresses, belonged to any one but the public. All measures which had been taken for the advantage of the public in that House, had originated with the public, and always obtained redress, after contests of the greatest exertion and perseverance. If the House should decide, as he had no doubt it would, that it was more for its own interests, as it was at present constituted, to shut out the people of Edinburgh from a due share of the representation of the country, they would find sooner or later that they would no longer have the power of continuing that exclusion. After what had passed that night, the people of Scotland would See what their condition was when even in that House no one was to be found who would justify the system under which they lived. He lived in times when things were called by their right names, and it was impossible to make it otherwise unless they could take away from the people the power of reading and writing and talking. Therefore they would send out to the people of Edinburgh that night that it was the opinion of the House that they were here represented by nineteen respected persons. This would sink deep into their minds, and be the cause of th e i r com i ng b ac k upon the House until they were ultimately successful in ac acquiring their just rights. In the present state of the country, the course which a wise Minister would adopt was that of con ciliating large bodies of people, such as these Petitioners, anti thereby extending the base of popularity, upon which a popular institution must find the greatest support. The House then divided, when there appeared For the motion Against it - - - - 75 - - - - - 99 Majority - - - 24 [For the remainder of the Debate, see the Fourth Page.] WOOL TRADE.—A meeting was yesterday held at the White Bear, Basinghall-street, for the purpose of taking into consideration the reduction of the duty on wool of foreign growth, as proposed by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER, when several temperate resolutions were entered into upon the subject, which are to be submitted to the Right Hon. Gentleman. The first pile of wood for the foundation of the new London bridge is expected to be driven on Monday next, opposite Fishmongers'-hall. The newribridge will be a level, nearly resembling Waterloo-bridge, and will commence from Cannon-street. By this plan the declivity of Fish-street, and tile nuisance of waggons, carts, &c. at London-bridge will be avoided, as there will be an arch over Thames-street, under which the traffic of the city in carts, &c. will continue with out interrupting the great thoroughfare of stage-coaches into Kent. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF COMMONS. .lOU/S, 26 0 die .Februarii, 1 824. Cm! n CRES—Blackburn, and Barnsley—Bills read a first time • ROADS—Appleby and Kirkby Kendal. Ambleside and Kirkb Kendal, and Shepley Lane Head, &c.—Bills read a first time. Camden Town, City, Renfrewshire, Glasgow and Yoker, and Bolton and Ch or l ey —Bill s or d ere d to be brought in. Kensington—Petition of Inhabitant s o f Kensingtno, Chelsea, and Fulham, ap;ainst, to lie on the table. Hold" and Huddersfield—P e tit ion of Inhabitants of Elland cum Greetland, against, to lie on the table ; Order. for Bill dis charged, and another Bill ordered to be brought in. Thirsk and Yarn—Petitions from Boirowby, Landmoth, Thirsk. South Kilvington, Yarn, Stockton, &c. in favour of Bill, to lie on the table ' • Petition of Credito rs on th e T urnp ik e - ro ad from Thirsk to Yarm, against, referred to the Committee on the Bill. Istritovt MENT—lslington—llill ordered to be brought in- Glamorgarishire Canal--Petition for Bill reported, eport to lie on the table. LEITH. TRINITY HOUSE -1 Poon—Hull PAVlNG—Paddington POLlCE—Dundee, and Bathgate GAOL—Ayr W.ATEIIWOBICS•-Canterbury INC LosunES- , Tarrant H inton (Dorset), GAS LlGHTS—Manchester—Members added to the Commit tee. Hereford—Bill ordered to he brought in. COMMUTATION OF TlTHES—Leeds—Bill reported, to be ingrossed. Do c K—St. Katherine's—Petition of Edward Colebatch, Lessee . of Warehouses, against; to lie on the table. COAL DUTlES—Petitions against the Duties on Coals, from Ilayle, Donington, Cotherston, Epping,• Dagenham, LT' minster, Hornchurch, Orsett, an d S an d w i c h —to li e on tO .table. PUBLlCANs—Petitions of Licensed Innkeepers and Victualkrs of Coventry, Knaresborough, Lancaster, Padiharn, Bedale, and Batclifl; for the repeal of the increased Duties ua Li cences ; to lie on the table. QUALIFICATION OF JURORS—BiII " to extend the Qaalifi cation of Jurors to persons being householders, and possess ing personal property, and to amend an Act made in the 3d. year of the reign of his Alajesty Qeorge 11. intituied, Act for the better regulatiOn of Juries, and to exempt certain persons from serving on Juries,' " read a first time ; to be read a second time on Monday, March 8, and to be printed• Bills ordered to bc" brought in. ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR THIS DAY. 1. Ways and Means—Third Resolution, 16th February, (Fo reign Spirits and Sweets Further consideration of lit port. 2. Usury Laws Repeal Bill—Committee. 3. Ways and Means—Second Resolution, Feb. 16, (Tax 011 Pensions, &c.)—Further Consideration of Report. 4. Recovery of Penalties Bill—Committee. 5. Judges in Vales Bill—Second Reading. 6. Supply—Committ ee . 7. Ways and Means—Committee. 8. Mutiny Bill—Committee. 9. Postage Rates—Report,thereupon. 10. Revenue Inquiry Bill—Second Reading. 11. Annual Indemnity Bill—Second Reading. 12. Austrian Loan Convention Bill—Secondbßeading NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR THIS DAY. 1. Sir Henry Hardinge—Ordnance Estimates. (In Committee of Supply.) 2. Sir John Newport—Return of Flax Seed imported into Ireland. NOTICES GIVEN YESTERDAY. Tuesday, March 2. Mr. Hobhouse—Resolutions regarding proposed reduction of Taxation, and mode repealing the Window Tax. Thursday, March 4. I Sir J. Newport—To repeal Statute 9th William, c. 1, (Irish) and for securing the right of burial of Roman Catholics and Dissenters in Ireland. (Deferred from March 2.) fir. r C I Ta c n a s i c e n t t t e el n h g a m o c — c a ß si e o s n o a lu ll t y i or ), o s en h o i w n Wednesday, April 7. b ld of the United Ki ng d om. sing oth e t r he Cap u Vt l a i I° o of I"stesday, May 11. Lord Viscount Althorp—Alotion on tile general state of Ireland. PRIVATE BILLS—SECOND READINGS for THIS DA' 1. Snelston Inclosure 4. I3uxton and Stockport Road 2. West Drayton Inclosure b. Carlisle & Cockermouth Road , 3..Nantwich and Tarporley 6. Bromptork Square Impro'N' Road ment. S DAY AT TWO O'CLocK.. PRICE OF STOCKS T sl i Bank Stock' 2361 I n di a Stock - 3 per C e nt. Red. - Pe rr per C c e e n n 9121 South Sea Stock . • —.• 4 p 102. Ex. Bills 45 , 4 4 New II 01(1 Annuities . 10, Ditto Small 3 3 i ece t nt .. t 7 n O i d 5 per Cent s . 1797 Bank fn. Act. - Bank Long Ann. 22 11-16ths i I India for Con. Acct. Imp. 3 per Cents. -. I Cons. for Act. • 92i if PRICE or FOREIGN STOCKS IN LONDON, Fan• 27, AT ONE O'CLOCK. French .1 Five per Cents. 99i ( Scrip, ll pm. Six per Cents. 00. Russian Five per Cents. (Metallic) 00. Ditto New 944. Neapolitan Five per Cent. Bonds, BQ. Austrian Scrip, 10a prem. Five per Cent. Bonds, 1820, 00. Spanish Ditto 1821, 24j. Ditto 1823, 19g. Prussian I Five per Cent. Bonds, N. ( Ditto New, 93i. Danish Five per Cent. Bonas, 99. Portuguese 90i. Peruvian Scrip, 00. Chili 80k. Colombian Six per Cent. Bonds, 67i. Mexican Scrip, 74 prem. Poyais Mexican Mines Greek American New, 00. Hullett's, par. Anglo, 8 prem. 2i prem. Bank Shares £'232s. ad. Seven per Cent. 95. Six per Cent. 94-102. Five per Cent. 100-10 - 2. Three per Cent. 76i. 1G II WATER i flrning, :8 minus ►T LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW. tea after 1. 1 Evening, 31 minutes after 1. TH stjNo SOLEIVI QUIS DIOERE FALSUM AF&DE4T LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 18424. EXPRESS FRO3I .PARIS. We have received by Express Galignaves senger of the 25th instant, from which the fol- owing are extracts:— [From Galignani's Messenger of Feb. 2.5.]' Yesterday the King took an airing upon the outer Boulevard. A Telegraph Dispatch received at Paris yes terday announces that Prince Eugene Beauhar nois died at Munich on the 21st inst. We are happy to announce that the health of the Princess de Conde is gradually improving. The King of the Netherlands arrived at Brus sels on the 20th instant. [Extract of a Private Letter from Madrid of the 1316 imet.j 44 The delay of the account of amnesty ap pears to have created some dissatisfaction, and it is remarked that the ardent Royalists, who some