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

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 motion had 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 Edinburgh. He certainly 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 acquiescence of the good 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,ea
by the ordinary motives which actuated human 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 the case against the, 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 to interfere
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 be responsible
to them for their conduct, and 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 had 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 Parliament had been given
ought not now to be disturbed in that right, which was as
clearly theirs as the right of the 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 Parliament
was that which could only h
ee vested as defrost for the be-
nefit of the country. He 'Meld admit that it was so to be
considered ; but having once been vested in particular hands, h
it was not afterwards to
without some eminent instance of miscone
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
onsantalons in the manner in which
some of its Members were returned ; but still the House ought
to pause before they altered that system under which the
that such
there a House
Was of
something
C oinm
country had been so largely .benefitted. Those who wished
the representation to be more Popular desire a change; but he
was satisfied with _the British Constitution, such as he found '
it ; with a King; possessing limited power; a House of Lords,
possessing a certain degree of power; and a House of Com-
mons, composed as' that was, and 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 Scotland. Since, then, the Noble 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 model 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 existed on their part, andi on
that of the country. It was said that great care had been taken
if
thatwhereis
t ty d "
door
theh
Petition lay
for e
that the Petitions presented on this subject should be signed
by none whose houses were
atn::to odt
After
rn atthitieeilea.ffnoslrwttestryinagsaivmdeeontsotwexgaes-e,
~
traordieary that these popular leaders those Whig Patriots,
should act thus,
signature, ouldp
tonlace a
ask
tell man
the
at thepar
of those who came—" Is
yourN o,Hoonulsye
atr a4tl. ig
edast.;,.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;
Houseetitioned ;hbadut
nifotonaetil
third of them had done so that was no reason why the House
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 they had not been
represented at all. Edinburgh had its Member, but where were
the Members for 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 Bath staring 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 as 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 their coming back
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.