The Sun.
London, England, 1822-02-21 00:00:00

sidered to arise from thepresen t forms of municipal
goiermnent in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and, other
Royal Burghs. He stated the chief source of these.
evils to bethe system under which the IgagistrAte°
going out of office elect their successors.;, and. he
Proposed as a remedy the abolition of ,this .right,
and the establishment of a poPular mode of elec.
tion. The LORD ADVOCATE (who, it may be_re•
membered, has given notice of a Bill on the subject
of Scotch Burghs) declared explicitly, that hi?
, plan would not extend to the innovation proposed
. ,
by Lord A. HAMILTON', "which he objected to as
a violation of chartered rights, an infringement of
the Articles of Union, and an indirect Mode 01
introducing Parliamentary Reform. That this is the
true end of Lord ARCHIBALD'S m otion is, we think,
very-fairly inferred from the fact, that the Noble
Lord has'only interested himself for anise burghs
which return Members to Parliament, although
there are many others equally liable to objection
with respect to their internal gOvernment. Mr.
Hume openly avowed' this object, and adduced
himself (in bis capacity of member for Mow
trose), as an instance of the a.dvantagei to Le
reaped -by the country from a more open -system
of 'election in these Burghs. • The 'queslions
affecting these Northern Corporations, which
might be looked upon `with little interest in this
part ,of the kingdom if teonsideTed as 'mere mat. i
tees of mere local regulation, become highly itir
portant to the whole empire when we view them
as connected with a plan for introducing:Par-
liamentary Reform by the way of Scotland:
A Petition was 'presented yesterday evening
by Mr. HUME, on behalf of HENRY HUNT. Jt
appears that this gentleman having been refused
permission to see his Solicitor and his own Sur-
geon, in Ilchester gaol, applied to the Court
of King's Bench, for au, order to that effect.
The Court could not regularly make an order
except on affidavits, but they desired that Mr,
HUNT'S Solicitor' might have access to him for
the purpose of preparing them. Whether Mr.
II uNr objected to making a statement of his
grievances on oath, or whatever may have been
his reason, he neither prepared any affidv
vies, nor made any regular application to the
Court.—But some four or five thousand inhabi•
tants of Preston, in Lancashire, conceiving

that the matter ought not to rest here, send UV
a Petition to Parliament in 'Mr. HUNT'S behalf,
which is presented by Mr. Hussui with 'lnailf
strong reflections upon the Courts of Law, and-s
gratuitous opinion that the-'Mee'ting presides
over :by Mr. HUNT was perfectly lawful. The
petitioning inhabitants.of Preston, in Lancashire,
being obviously very conversant with the local
administration of the county of Somerset in gene'
!al, and of Ilchester in particular, entreat. that
HUNT may not be a sufferer -by the caprice or ma.

lice of the Magistrates; they dwell upon the belie'
I fit done to the county of Somerset by his inter'
ference with the abuses in lichester gaol ; they
contrast the punishment of Sir MANAssut LOPEZ,
who was found guilty' of bribery, with that of
Me. IfusT, who was only convicted of on.'dtt
bordering upon high treason ; they are 0,
opinion that a man who is convicted only .

" half a count," cannot be a great offender;'
and filially, they request Parliament to addreis'
his MAJESTY for a remission of the remaining
part of Mr. HUNT'S sentence. Avery worth"'
errand ! We must own, however, that it 10010
ill on the part of the Somersetshire people,
who have 'received such benefits at the hana
of Mr. IfuNT, to leave the task of preparing this
Petition in the hands of their fellow-subjecti
four hundred miles off. The presentation of.thist •
mOdest, sensible, and reasanableslocnment, gall%
rise to some warm language between the SoLiti-
TOR•GENCRAL and Mr. Rtmirr. It stems, froal
the proceedings that have taken place or Mr.

HuNT's account, that an ex-deupgogne, well SU pd
_ported in Parliament, may be
_almost as troubl.
•
some a captive as an Ex-Emperor of France.

The French. Papers. of Monday arrived this,
morning,from which Aregive extracts in our pre.
ceding columns.

The new Law for regulating the Periodical
Press in France passed the Chamber of Depu-
ties, supported by a majority of 92, twenty-five
of the Opposition (as it is said) exhibiting the
petulant and puerile Caprice of refusing to vote.
If any person considers the present state of
France to be such as renders the existence of s•
free Press inconsistent with general safety, he
may on that ground defend the present law with
at least some shew of reason ; but the attempt to
reconcile its provisions vs ith the Liberty of the
Press, as understood in. this Country, would. he
extravagantand hopeless. The Journals, it. will
be remembered, were already subject to the veil
severe, and in some. respects arbitrary enactments
of the law previously introduced for the repres-
sion.
of seditious -or libellouscommunications