The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-05-26 00:00:00

qnslification of a voter did set at all depead ee
property. All the, holders et property in a given
county might not possess% arse Vote among them-
end on the. other bandy all the voters might
have no posparty in it. This *separatist* of pro-
perty sad 'meg, arm what he thought might not
to contests*. It hod been acknowledged on va-
rious occasions is decrees of the Scottish Courts.
and appeals from them to the English. that
property and tbn right of voting was wholly
distinct. 144 viten*, object was to alter that
provisioa. He did est see bow any remedy
amid be applied • het. by creating new rotes,
pod Sicking times to the owners of property. But
Ile by no maatatirished to take away. an of the
rotes foinididnii.fendal rights; he wit it to be
distinctly sidesilsid, that in any memol r. be should
ever propose on the *object. it nab not his in-
tention to destroy any rusting right.--(Hese.)—
his proposition would be to add some votes to these
already sawing. which Amid be hooded en the
possessiee of property. At that moment he did
sot feel Si 'hit:nary to sey more. hecaose he seder-
stolid that Ae production of the lowest 'SAS o,t
be objected to by his Majesty's Ministers; hot be
should reserve to himself the right of speaking
more it length incase any other Hon. Gentleman
should oppose the motion. The Noble Lord then
moved—

That lbws ha kid before be Bosse • Copy of the Roll
of freeholders its every Comity of icothred, •• lave ass&
sp. certified by be Sioreirs Curb foe each county."
The question having been pot—
Lord CsolLuitaiinin said, that the Noble Lord
'only desired s paper to furnish him with the facts
on which to ground his future proceedings, and if
other Hon. Members had no objection to its pro-
duction. he certainly was swore of none. It was
public document, to which he hod a right to refer.
He hoped that no discussion would take place on
the motion that night. but that the observations on
it might be postponed till the Noble Lord should
hsvc ass opportunity of stating his views more folly.
Mr. Hums •hought it would he of the utmost
coaequencr to the objects of his Noble Friend.
that a distinction should be made in the returns
between loofa Cot superiority', and votes on bene-
CrHd iiit'erestb.

Sir G. CLEat said. that the suggestion made by
the Tloo. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) was imprac-
ticable.

Mr. Hume explained.
Mr. ABERCROVIT conctled that the primary
nhjecr of his Noble Friend Was to ascertain the pre-
cise number of persons entitled to vote in counties.
The suggestion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Howse)
did ion appear to him to be so important as he
seemed to think, because his Noble Friend bad
very wisely declared that it was not his intention to
impose destroying any existing right. His object,
he understood it, was to effect an extensiou of
the elective fra•chise. The fluctuations of pro.
petty. and the incte ise and diffusion of wealth in
Scathing!, were sufficient grounds for any motion of
the stature described. There might be individuals
in the House who, having looked at the state of the
English representatioo alone, might have come to
the conclusion that it was not wise to make any al.
aeration in the representation generally; but he im-
plore-II any persons in this frame of mind to pause
reflect well before giving any vote no his Noble
Friend's motion. The principle of representation in
the two king toms was directly the reverse. In Eng-
laud the representation of the counties was founded
on population and property ; in Scotland it was
purely aristocratinsl, the people being absolutely
rs.•lua)ed from soy share in it. In England a 40a.
freehold entitled a man to a vote; in Scotland a
man might possess property to the amount of
10.1)01)1. a year he • county, while the superiority
was vested in hands which did not hold all acre
therein. and the owner of the 10,000/. a year 'soca-
liable either of voting or of bring elected.—( Hear,
hear, hear.)—Therefore this question stood on
grounds perfectly different from that of Reform
in England. Further be earjured the House to
recollect, that the Parliament of Scotland had coo.
aimed of only one House, &imposed usually of the
prim:lied members of the Peerage; and that the
'reser Ba►ons and Gentlemen, so far from viewing
it as an object of ambition, considered it down to
the time of the Union as a very grievous burden.
This was the basis on which the laws in existence
bad hero framed, from which it might be inferred
how consonant they were to the principles of the
British Constitution. Otte of the ablest lawyers
who had ever written on the Scottish Constitution
had said. that •' the Parliament of Scotland might
tome trbly be considered as an ornament of the
Crown than an institution fur the benefit of the
people."—( Hear, hear.)
The Ca/iN CELLO!. of the EXCHEQUER contended
that it did not follow that because the represen-
tation of Scotland differed from that of England it
was therefore imperfect.
A Member, whose name we could not learn. said
that the present system of representation of Scot.
land was one of the greatest blots on the consti-
tution. He believed that any reasonable improve-
ment therein would conciliate the minds of the pops..
lotion of that country as much as any thing could.
General Feenusomcould not let that opportu-
nity pass without thanking his Noble Friend for
the great benefit he had done his country in taking
up this subject. The quieition of Reform iu the
too countries was wholly different. Naked justice
reqnired that something in that way should be con-
cealed to Scotland. The motion was then carried
unanimously.
Sir J. NEWPORT postponed his motion for the
consideration of the Reports of the Commissioners
Inquiry into Courts of iu Ireland. cape-
<laity as regarding taxation of Costs, till Thurs-
day next.