The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-27 00:00:00

Corporation of mane petty tows, lobo thimght of nothing but eat.
ing and drinking. He would refer to the appearance of that city,
and to the good regulation that prevailed, as to the junky of such
imputation. No foreigner ar Englishman could visit that city
without being struck with the splendor of its buildings, and with
the excellent management evinced by its Magistrates. He would
refer to the late visit of the Sovereign of this country to Scotland,
when the good order that prevailed, and the propriety of conduct of
the inhabitants, were the themeof general commendation. It 4,1
I not appear to him that I:dinburgli, in its present state of growing
i prosperity, in every department, required any interference of the
legislature. Ile was grateful for the attention of the House, and
for the reasons he had stated, would oppose the 'notion of the Hon.
Ge6tlerti.m.

--.SirJOTIN NEWPORT heard with suspicion and distrust the
various eulogies that wee* pronounced upon what that House had
done for the country. They reminded him of the speeches which
were made in the Irish Parliament from 1792 to WOO, wiarti the
Parliament of that country scaled their downfall by the surrender
of their Legislature. With the exception of local allusions and ap-
pliattions, the eulogies which he beard from the lion. Member for
York and other Hon. Member., were precisely the same. It had
been said that the petition now presented did not speak the general
opinion of the initabitsints of Edinburgh. If so, why wss there
not a counter petition laid on the table of the House ? It had been
said that tiht.gow was • titter place to introduce a reform in the
representation. It might be so: but they had not now a petition
Gum Glasgow, and should confine their attention to the one from
Edinburgh. The present petition hail been derided because it
haul been endeavoured to obtata signatures of pertains of property.
This had been done because other petitions had been ritliculal be-
, cause they were not signed by permit's of property. It was said int-
incdiately tin the other side of the House, that the petitions were
the petitions of the rabble; and now it was complained that they
' were the petitions of those who were rot the rabble. lie highly ap-
proval of the motion of his lion. (Friend, and thought progressive
reform, of which it set an example, would be adopted and ca-
-1 wheal to the ;.,encrail improvement of the representation of the
kingdom.
3I r. KENNEI/Y supported the motion of his lion. Friend (Mr.
Aber:Tondo). Ile rose only to make an observation on the articles
lof Union which had been relented to. The ot 'one of the Duke of
Argyll and of Lord Ilanhiticke (than which none could be more
authoritative; had been quoted to prove that the corporate rights had
been guaranteed to the several towns of Scotland possessed of char-
tered rights. A distinction, however, should be made between
corporate rights anti the right of trending a Member to Parliament.
The 22u1 Article, to which he begged to refer the (louse, in his
construction only meant the former, and did not include the latter.
';'his was his construction of the Acts of Union, as related to the
representation of Mambos for Wive and cities of Scotland. If any
doubt existed on the subject, it ought to be cleared up. It was not
fair to presume that an insuperable bar was raised to the Improve-
ment of the representation of Saida:id.
The House was then clearing for a division, when

Mr. A BERC HUM BY rose to reply. Ile was glad to find that
in the several opinion' which had that night been thrown out, no
Member rose to vindicate the present system of representation in
Scotland. That was a task which no lion. Gentleman volunteered
to undertake. An allusion to republicanism had been matte in the
course of discussion : if a spirit of republicanism prevailed, no
better mode could, in his opinion, be suggested for repressing it
titan a gradual and progressive reform' and in the extension of the
benefits of the I:int:mention, by which all in the participation of its
benefits might feel an interest in preserving it. Ile had not before
connected the present question with the more general one of Par-
liamentary Reform ; but he was free to say that was one in the
advancement of which lie felt a deep interest. The education of the
people of late had greatly advanced : in proportion to the advances
it made, so would a growing spirit for reform strengthen and pre-
vail throughout the country. II is conclusions on this subject had
been made up from the effects which he saw education create on
the minds of the people. Tilis House largely contributed to its
self-love; they. suributed every thing to thcar own skill and wisdom,
and ability. lie would, however, say that this House did not
lead public opinion, but was led by it. (-• Hear, hear," from the
Ministerial benches.) Ile knew the point of view in which this
arg.seent would be regarded on the opposite side of the House.
What he meant by it was, that it was the force and effect of public
opinion, which wrung from 31inisevs those concessions which they
made, and the merit of those concessions was due, not to Mintstent
but to the perseverance of the people. (Cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) If his present motion was refused, and he was not sanguine
enough to hope it would be acceded to. two propositions would go
forth to the public, and he knew the effect they would produce on
the intelligent mind of Scotland: first, that the people had en in-
terest in choosing their representatives; and secondly, that sixteen
or seventeen suspected persona were better qualified to choose a re-
presentative for thentilum they themselves. These plain proposi-
tsons would be well understood—the diffusion of education lied
caused the minds of the people to expand and understand the
policy by which they were governed. lir hatever might be the sun.
cam of hiwpresent motion, he felt that the force of popular opinion
and the daily increasing intelligence of the people, would ensure it
and the principles which sustained it, ultimate success.
The House then divided. The numbers were—
For the motion, 73—Against it, P9—Majority against Mr. Aber-
croenby's motion, 24.
.....