The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-05 00:00:00

UNION- HALL.

On Tue,day Fitzhugh Harding, one of the come-
dians belonging to Richardson's Show, was brought
up for final examination, charged with the abduc-
tion of Agnes Elizabeth Walker, the daughter of a
respectable tradesman ar Deptford.
The Magistrate should commit him for trial, but
as it was a bailable offence he should call upon him
to enter into his own recognizance in the sum of
2001, and find two securities of 1001 each, to appear
at tli next asszes to answer the charge.
Mr. Hanson, grocer, in Mead-street, Cheapside,
was re-examined, on the charge of violating his late
servant, Harriet Lake, aged 14. The girl, in her
cross-examination by Mr. Clarkson, prevaricated so
grossly, that the Magisirates discharged the de-
tendant.

Not fifty miles from Northallerton, one of the
National Scholars having undesignedly enteted the school
a Sunday or two ago, wearing an orange coloured han -
kerchief, one of the Curates of the place, exasperated at
the poor boy's appearing in so rebellious a colour, unce-
remoniously tore it off his neck, and thre retied him that,
should he again tare to make his appearance with it at
the school, he would exp. I him. What a pretty article this
must he for a spiritual Pastor !—York Courant.

PITCAIRN'S ISLAND.—We learn from the
Salem Gazette rlart the inhabitants of Pitcairn's Island,who lately emigrated in a body, in consequence of the
scarcity of water on their own island, to Otaheite, being
shocked A the lieentiou.ness of manners which prevailed
there, and having suffered severely from sickness, twelve
of their number having died, have been all re-conveyed
to their farmer residence. They were transported beck by
Crptain DRIVER, of the brig Charles Doyget, of Silent.
The num er, when conveyed to Otaheite, was 87.
American Paper
SUDDEN DEATH.—HENRY MARQUIS, who
for sortie time had I,een a performer at the old Royalty
and Surrey Th,atres, departed this life about a fortnight
since, in rather embarras-ed circumstances. Hi. widow
appli.d to Mr. FARRELL, the proprietor of the Pavilion
Theatre, whom be (MARQUIS) had formerly known, for a
subscription
to defray his funeral expenses. Tire request
was instantly complied with. She was desired to come or
send on the Monday morning. Her eldest daughter was
despatched to receive the money collected on the Satur.
day; the girl had not proceeded three minutes' walk from
her mother's house before she was fetched back to behold
her mother stretched a corpse on the floor, leaving five
helpless orphans (we believe all girls) to bewail her loss.._
Times.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuLr 4.

The Sheriffs of London appeared at the Bar with a le
tition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common
Council, expressing their gratitude for the Bill to amend
the representation of England and Wales, and praying that
the measure for Ireland might be equally extensive.
Mr. Alderman WOOD, in moving that the petition be
read, said, the Corpiration of London was anxious tl ai
the Irish should enjoy all the privileges which the Englisi
Reform Bill gave to this country, particularly that the 40s.
freeholders of Ireland might be allowed to retain their votis.
and that the system of registry should be the same in lie-
land as in England.
Mr. Alderman VENABLES said this petition was
rather to be taken as an expression of the good feeling of
the Corporation of London towards Ireland than as having
a tendency to interfere with the progress of the Irish Re-
form Bill. He was inclined to think, from what be had
heard, that the subjects complained of would undergo
some alteration before the Bill was passed.
Mr. H. GRATTAN expressed his gratification that
this subject had been taken up by so intelligent and inde-
pendent a body as the Corporation of London.
Mr. SHAW was of opinion that the petitioners were
wholly ignorant of the real definition of a 40s. freeholder.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN supported the prayer of
the petition, which was then read a second time, and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. A. PELHAI%I presented a petition from certain far-
mers, graziers, &c. of Long Sutton, in the county of Lin-
coln, for an alteration in the law regarding sheep stealing.
The petition stated that at the Lincoln Assizes a roan
had been convicted of stealing a sheep, and sentenced
of death was recorded against him. The crime of sheep
stealing then became much lessened, but it was very soon
known that the prisoner's sentence had been commuted to
one year's imprisonment, and then the crime suddenly in•
creased in Lincolnshire to an enormous amount.

Mr. SCHONSWAR supported the prayer of the peti-
tion, and expressed regret that the law was not more fixed
and definite. The present case was a very aggravated one
of its kind, and occurred in a part of Lincolnshire where
the crime was carried on to a great excess.
Mr. LAMB bad communicated with the Learned
Judge who tried the prisoner, and had learnt that the
man was convicted of stealing a single sheep, but that
from a recommendation to mercy, and there being reason
to believe it was his first offence, the sentence was com-
muted to one year's imprisonment.
Mr. EWART was opposed to the punishment of death
for such an ffence, but observed that the petitioners
would have no longer any cause of complaint upon this
subject, for by an amendment by the Lords to a Bill which
had been sent down to this House, the crime was to be
punished with transportation for life.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
THE CHOLERA MORBUS.

Captain GORDON having presented a petition from
the p irish of Ardshaw, in the county of Tyrone, again,
the Government plan of education in Ireland, said, that
seeing his Majesty's Min,sters in their places, be wished to
know if any precautions had been taken regarding the re-
vival of the cholera, for he had been informed that one
physician had seen no less than 48 cases. Now, it wa•
well known, that a gentleman, the father of this House,
was cut off by it.—(Cries of No, no.) He understow,
it was so given out —(Cries of No, no.) At all
events, a good deal of anxiety existed in the publo
mind on the subject of it, and it would be web it
by concealing the faet they could get rid of the disorder,
but it was one over which habit had a very great influence.
Mr. LAMB sa d it could not be properly called a revi-
val of the cholera, the real fact was that it had never
ceased but for two or three days; to use a medical phrase,
it bad ceased to be epidemic, and was now but one o,
those disorders which often occurred. He had been to
the Board of Health to-day, and the returns of cases in
the metropolis gave nothing like forty cases; many case,
had happened, but they had been treated very successfully,
and the deaths were very few. He did not believe it wa,
the intention of Government, nor was it recommended b)
the Board of Health, to publish any more cases in the me-
tropolis, for he was not aware that any benefit was de-
rived from it. Some cases had, he believed, occurred ii.
Coldbatr-fields and other places, but the symptoms wer,
very sl•ght, and although m .ny cases had been set down
as those of cholera, most of them were but common com-
plaints.

Mr. Alderman VENABLES hoped that the statement
of the Right Hon. Gentleman would quiet the public mind.
Mr. HUNT begged to call the attenion of the Undei
Secretary of State to the report of Mr. Dixon, surgeon
to the Magistrates of Surrey, by which it appeare
that there were no less than nineteen cases in Horse
monger lane Gaol The Honourable M,mber was not
at all suprised at this, from the circumstances hi
would state. He had received a letter from a person who
stated that the bread was of such a nature as to be to-
tally unfit for human food. The Hon. Member produced
some of the bread, stating his firm belief that it was chiefly
composed of ground bones. There was plenty of Arne.
rican wheat in the country which was actually rottine
in bond on account of the high ditties imposed upon it.
Such were the regulations of this prison, that if the friends
of a prisoner brought hint an ounce of tea or a pound of
bread be was not allowed to have it.
Mr. LAMB said that since the introduction of cholera
into the prison the evil cmnp'ained of had been remedied,
by good bread being substituted for the bad, and the best
of results had ensued in the disappearance of the cholera.
He had no doubt the visiting justices would take care to
prevent occurrences of a similar nature to that referred to
by the Hon. Member.

Mr. H. BULWER wish, d to know to what extent the
cho!era prevailed in Cohibath-fields prison?
Mr. LAMIZ was most happy to say that the cholera
had ceased in the prison referred to by the Hon. Member,
no case having been reported for three or four days. The
whole of the cases that had occurred there only amounted
to fifteen.

After some observations from Mr. HUNT, the petition
was ord,red to be print.•d.

Lord OXMANt OWN rose to present the petition of
which he had given my ice from George D. Mills, and
Clotworthy Divett, innerly officers in the Post Office,
Ireland. The petitioners complained of being dismissed
from their office without inquiry, and without the means of
making any defence. Mills, one of the petitioners, had been
in the Irish Post Office 22 years, during that time he
all:
di
hisd ss(c)tgnlaiearged l
nioceferstahloelcca
(oil.siune
raddutiesrduescdto
‘fhv
the
the utmosthvh,ilicetciiaollielll:cdiei.ifiunrstthoo
m zealbteehle and ability,
and
believe
vwmeaytrhekaeerlpdisiulaibatgylpoi
epirrociu) amt
c
revenue was not sufficiently protected, he brought the subject
under the consideration of the proper authorities, and it was
discovered that the statements of the petitioners were true,
and that fraud had been carried on to a great extent. Through
the means adopted by Mr. Mills those frauds were put
an end to; and what was his reward? why a dismissal
without even the slightest kind of inquiry or examination.
Here was a man who faithful:), served the public for two
and twenty years, dismissed without a trial, without even
an official notification of any crime. If this were to be
the case with public servants, the public would be with-
out security, for no men of character would run such a
risk.

Lord ALTHORP said, it was well-known that there
were two parties in the Irish Post-office. Mr. Mills
was placed at the head of the Cheque-office, and it was
without doubt that while he was there many errors took
place in that depat tment. Among others, there were many
erasures in the books. No doubt, he had informed the
authorities of these errors, but in place of his
informing the Secretary to the Post-office, as was
his duty, he at once complained to Lord Rosse, who imme-
diately gave up his authority, and the charge was inquired
into. He (Lord Alctiorp) considered that when the new
at ant.tements were made in the Dublin Post-office, it
was impossible to overlook many errors that had taken
place under Mr. Mills's direction of that office. He,
therefore, considered it would have been improper to have
continued him as head of the Cheque department. Then
came the question of a couspensaiion or retiring allow-
ance. He (Lord Aithorp) would not far a moment
say that a public officer serving such a great length
of time, was nut well entitled to look to the
country fur support. But to entitle him to a retiring
pension, his conduct in office must have been irreproach
wile. He was not sure whether the Noble Lord intended
to move for any papers, but if be did, he (Lord A.) would
he most happy to lay every paper connected with the case
before the House.

Mr. SHAW hoped the Noble Lord would not pre,s t
printing of the petition. In it charges were made again.t
dertaiu individuals who were most anaioas to meet them,

After a few word. from Mr. Dawsox and Mr. LEADER,
he petition was ordered to lie on the t able.
Lord OXMANTOWN felt it incumbent on him to
move the printing of the petition. As to all the main
facts, he could assure the House they were collect,
Mr. WALLACE considered the case one of great
hardship. The only question on which any gentleman
wished for further investigation was, whether there had
'teen any ground of negligence that could explain the
missal. As far as he could see, he was clearly excul-
dated from any moral delinquency.
Lord ALTHORP opposed the printing of tho petitien.
The House was then summoned in the usual manner to
'he House of Peers, to hear the Royal Assent giv. n by
Commi•sinn to certain Acts which had been agreed upon
'ty both Houses.
The SPEAKER announced, on his return, the names
.fthe Bills to which the Royal Assent had been given (for
which see our Lords' report).
Lord OXMANTOWN then withdrew his motion for
the printing of the petition.
Sir H. PARNELL wished to troultle the House with
two or three observations respecting a matter personal
to himself. He had been stated during the debate on the
Irish Reform Bill, to have said that he was one who re.
commended the alteration of the proposed plan of registry
in Ireland to that of England, and since then the H on.
Hon. and Learned Member for Kerry had published a
letter, accusing him of interfering to prevent that altera-
tion taking place. Now, the fact was, that ten or eleven
months ago, he communicated to the Right Hon. Sure-
tary for Ireland his opinion that the English plan was
not fit for Ireland, and ever since then he had expressed
the same opinion. It was true that he attended a meet-
ing of the Irish Members on the subject, but it was per-
fectly understood then that no crson shou.d be bound by
whatever took place at that meeting.
Lord ALTHORP said a few words exculpatory of the
Right Hon. Baronet.

Mr. O'CONNELL sail, at the meeting alluded to,
certain alterations in the Bill st ere suegested, of which
the registry was one, and resolutions were agreed to
unanimously, so that from that time, he (Mr. O'Connell)
had no idea that the Right Hon. Baronet differed from the
resolutions to which he was a party. It any error took
place, it must have arisen from his not expressing an op-
posite opinion before the resolutions were cirri. d.

Lord SANDON wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Hun. Member opposite (Mr. C. Denni-
son) to proceed with his Bill for the removal of Scotch and
and Irish vagrants this Session.

Mr. C. DENNISON said that it was not.
The House then proceeded with th Orders of the
Mr. CAMPBELL postponed the second reading or the
Registry Bill for a fortnight.

Mr. BENETT moveti that the llouse form itself into
a Committee on the Liverpool Franchise Bill.
Lord SANDON opposed the motion, considering that
it was altogether unnecessary, in consequence of the
passing of the Reform Bill, which made such additions
to elections, and so materially shortened their duration.
The Bill, if passed, would repeal one of the most
important clauses in the Reform Bi,l.—namely, t. at
which continued to corporate towns those runts which
they at present enjoyed. His Lordship moved by way of
amendment that the Bill be read that day six months.
Mr. WASON supported the original motion.
Mr. CAMPBELL was in favour of the amendmert.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON would vote for going Into Com-
mittee.

Mr. STRICKLAND thought it would he improper to
direct an act of severity against a particular place, wi fi
.0 many others were equally corrupt.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY likewise supported the amend-
ment.

Mr. CHARLES WYNN thought that the corruption
of Liverpool having been notorious, it ought to be severe y
punished.

Mr. BENETT was surprised to heir any Reformer oh-
j,ct to the Bill. The representation of Liverpool had al-
ways been attained at the price of c.irruoti,,n. I had
been a sort of stipulation, without which no atoli•!ate
~00ld expect to succeed there, that the patrons: e of the
Government shoul I be bestowed on the voters or their

iiinees. That was the only ebarve which ala e Right
lion. Gentleman had not been able ►uceis•fuliy to repo-
!late.

Lord SANDON objected to remarks of this nature, ap-
olied to persons Win were gone.
Mr. BENETT did not intend to accuse the Rieht Hon.
Gentleman, but the system.
Mr. HUNT did not think t':at this question shou'd be
•liscussed when there was no House, and he c,lled the
Speaker's attention to the subject.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw ; the Hntt•e was
counted, and there being only 37 3lemb,rs present. it was
declared adjourned.—A j..urne at Half -p ,st Seven.

ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY 4.

At Half-pist Five the Riyal Assent was given by Com-
mission to several Bills. The Coinmis balers w. to the
LORD CHANCELLOR, the Duke of SussEx, awl the E tri
of SHAFTESBURY. The following were the Bid—the
I(4le's Couooty... n
Anessit p,ilzesßl
LondonderrytheCtk
Exeter Impry
the Inverness County Court Bill , and several private Bills.
The Earl of DARTAIOUTH presen:ed a petitioo born
the coal and iron masters of Worcester in favour of the
London and Birmingham Railway B;ll.—Refer red to the
Committee on the Bill.

The Bishop of HEREFORD presFnt•d a similar peti-
t•on from Matlock.—Referred to the Committee on the
Bill.

The Marquess of WESTMEATH moved for returns
respecting the stare of crime in Wei•tmeatli ; but on
Lord MELBOURNE stating that such returns had
been ordered for the whole of Ireland, witiohew his !notion.

The Duke of SUSSEX presented a pi,lition from
eertsin townships in t .4- parish of Hatifix, praying th it the
franchise of that borough might be exte..ded to diem.
GAME BILL (SCOTLAND).

This Bill was considered in Committee, and the report
ordered to be received to•miirro.v.

The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition, of
which he had given notice, complaining of the manner in
which superiority votes were affected by the Scotch Re-
4)cro Bill, and setting forth thit a groth-man of the n.,mc

of Shaw bad, some time back, devised some of this kind of
property to a charitable institution, the funds of which
would, in consequence, be materially diminished. The
petitioners prayed that their Lordships would tereive evi-
,ience on this point, and grant them compensvion. The
Noble Earl entered into a description of this species of pro.
perty, which, he contended, had been tep.atedly recog-
nised by Scotch law ; had been transferre l by de: d and
devised by will, and was, in point of fact, of consider ble
value; and if destroyed by the legislature, certainly ought
not to be destroyed wit out compensation. e were
between 3,000 and 4,000 superiorities in Scotland, each
of which was worth, on the average, 400/. at the lowest.
On occasions of contested electious he had known theta
worth three times that sum ; so that, at the least, this
Bill would onerve as a confiscation of property in Scot-
land of 1,200,0001.
The Earl of 110SEBERY—In askine for corM,ensa-
tion in the casl of a charity, the Noble Earl appeared to
wish to appeal to their Lordships' feelings, as much as to
their justice ; but this was a question merely of
lustice, and he would state his reason for thinking
that no justice, no compensation whatever, was due for
taking away the naked right of voting from the supe-
riurities- A superiority was of a threefold character. In
th.• first place, it included what were calbal the casttilti-a
of superiority, such‘as feu duties, and in dirt sense it was
property as much as any other species of property. In the
second place, it was connected with titles, from which
connexion some beneficial interest arose, and in that view,
also, it might be considered as property. Its third chi..
racter was, that it carried the right of voting, end, con-
sidered with reference to the taik,,il right of voting, it was
not propery, hut a mere trust, which [night at any tune
be justly d. tidied from it when it could be better repined
in other hands. That incident might be detached from it
without the slightest claim, iu justic,, to compensation. It
had been said that compensation had been m to the pro-
prietors of Irish boroughs at the time of the Union, and
(e
that,e ~t w s
and
cited
everyas a
onepr ecewd.aestnitraiwva
etri
s the truly pre-
was granted, not on account of any just claim to it, hut
nion into
i.ec.iuse it would be and pr reaps iln pOSS; biO, to
carry the great measure trf
The Ear I of HADDINGTON explain, (I.

The Earl of ABERDEEN-I'lle Noble Eat (R
hery) had no.taken toe uwure ut the aut.eil.,:itte, T ,ey
were ay much popt-ry eo, any ~ther s
and as such the Legislature had dealt WI h then, ile
had himself sold buperiorith-s to vams.il,
The Earl of. ItOSEBERY had expres,ly tchu,.

,„I N.-L.), :ii."

\4

that ouperioriti€9 wile property, except as to the right„

of voting.
Lnrd 3llNTO—Superior;ties, except as to the right ni
voting. wire no do, hr procfrrty, and so it ba4 been ad-

milted by his Nobl- Friend.
The petition was 1.i,1 on the table.
SCOTCH REFORM BILL.
The Order of the Day for the second reading of the
Reform Bill being read,
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move the second
reading of the Bill. He was quite certain that, in doing
so, he was relieved from the necessity of entering at all
into any discussion on the subject by the circumstances
under which the Scotch Reform Bill came before therm
in consequence of the passing of the English Reform Bill
which was now the law of the lind. And he should
hove availed himself of that dispensation, had it nor been
that he felt that respect to their Liirdahipa, and the great
importance of the matter itself, required that he should
say a few words respecting the Bill which he now
had in his hand. He would, therefore, briefly advert, in
the tir-t place, to the circumstances under which this Bill
came before their Lordships ; and, in the second place, to
tlai nature of the elective system at present prevailing in
Scotland. Whatever ,doubts might have been entertained
as to the propriety of adoptine a measure of this kind.
with respect to Scotland, before the passine of the English
Reform Bill, be believed that since that Bill hail become
Vie law of the land, all doubts on the subject must have
been dispelled. No doubt could now exist, not merely as
trt the expediency, but even as to the necessity of passing
ttaia Bill ; so that those N able Lords who might before
have hesitated, or might hive been reluctant to pass such
a Bill as this, or might have been determined not to pass
it, might now with perfect consistency sto putt it. They
might now unhesitatingly give their support to the Bill,
without the slightest impeachment of their consistency.
The tints• question was—shall the representation of Scot-
land remain as it is. aver the Reform B 11 fur England and
Wales has pissed? And that was a question which could
be answered only in one way. There was every reason
for passing this Bill amending the representation in Scot-
land, which existed for the passing of the English Reform
Bill ; and there were many additional reasons for the pass-
ing of this Bill, which did not apply in the case of the Eng-
Bill. Having made these few observations in reference
to the circuttistancea under which this Bill was brought
forward, he would now proceed to explain to their Lord-
ships the actual state—he hoped it might be soon called
the former state—of the elective franchise and the repre-
sentation in Scotland. In attempting to explain that system
in such a manner as would make it intelligible to their
Lordships, he felt himself involved in much the same kind
of difficulty that pressed upon the Noble Earl ( Badding •
ton) near him, in explaining the nature of superiorities.
But he would endeavour ro explain, as briefly as possible,
the nature of the elective qualification and system of repre-
sentation in Scotland, so as to enable their Lordahips to
comprehend how much stronger was the reason for a
change in Scotland than for a change in England. For
the whole of Scotland, forty-five Members of Parliament
were returned : thirty for the counties, and fifteen for the
boroughs ; one of the latter being for the Scotch Metro-
polio, and the other fourteen being for the other boroughs
in sets. So far the matter was plain, and he would only
remark, that the number of voters were far from being
sufficient either for counties or boroughs, and that the kind
of delegation which prevailed in returning the Members
for the boroughs was one of the worst systems that could
prevail anywhere. For both of these evils the present Bill
provided an ample, and, he hoped, a sufficient remedy.
One gloat objection to the system of delegation was, that
in its principle and in its working, it involved the mon-
strous absurdity, that a comparatively small minority
might over-rule the majority. This was always the case
wherever the system of intermediate election prevailed, as
Sad been exemplified in France. Suppose there were four
boroughs, and he took them in even numbers, for the sake
of simplifying the illustration—and that in each borough
there were 100 voters. Each of these boroughs appointed
a delegate to vote for the Member. Three of the
delegates might hive each but fifty-one votes, or a bare
majority, and yet these three delegates would have the
power to determine the election, so that the Member might
be elected by 153 voters out of 400, and in opposition to
the votes and wishes of the majority of i 47. But suppose
the number of the boroughs were five, as it usually was,
then the 153 out of the 500 voters might carry the elec-
tion against a majority of 347, which rendered the absur-
dity still greater. This, perhaps, did not very frequently
happen, but it had happened in many cases, and it was a
power which the minority ought not to have. Add to
this, that when influence was to be exercised, it might
often he thought an easier method to influence the dele-
gates than the voters. But that he would pass over. He
came now to the right of voting, according to the present
system, for the counties and boroughs, as to which he
wished to say a few words. Among those who had made
it their pursuit to dive into the antiquarian history of
Scotland from the remotest times, some dispute pre-
vailed, as to whether there ever was such a thing in Scot-
land as a popular election. But one thing was clear, that
from the earliest period to which any historical records
extended, there never was in Scotland a popular elective
A 5 stem, nor any thing like it, either fur countyor borough.
There never was any thing approaching to what an English.
man, Welshman, or an Irishman, would understand by a
popular election. That there had been elections in Scot-
land there could be no doubt; but then they were like
elections in England fur close or nomination boroughs,
now happily at an end, and in this manner were the whole
45 Members elected. First, as to the elections f r coun-
ties, his Noble Friend (the Earl of Haddington), when
presenting a petition for a compensation to a charity, had
occasion to call their Lordships' attention to the nature of
superiorities, or the qualifications of those who elected
the County Members, or Commissioners for Shires, and
;his Noble Friend had felt the difficulty of giving such an
explanation of what was meant by them as their Lord-
ships could understand. He felt the same difficulty, and
hardly knew how to express himself so as to place the
subject clearly and distinctly under their Lordships'
view. But, instead of giving a definition of what a
superiority was, he would try what he could by stating,
as an example, siniething that would come nearly up to the
idea of a superiority. Suppose, then, a manor in Englane, in
which the lord had deperted with all manorial rights—in
which lie had no waste, na quit-rents, but merely a pepper-
corn tine from a copyhoid, and as to which, in short, he was
saript of all beneficial interest whatever. Let their Lord-
ships figure to themselves a lord of a manor of this de
ecription, and they would have some idea of a Scotch su-
perior and a superiority. The superior might have a
vassal and a feu duty, but that feu-duty might be only a
laepper-cion, and to the vassal might belong the entire real
and beneficial interest in the property on which tr,e superior
miz,lit not have a right to set a foot without being a tree
passer. In this manner there Lords ips might form for
themselves the abstract idea of a superiority, or of the
doniihium directurn, as contrialistinguished to the do-
minium utile. To put another example—suppose the
mow of a lease in perp• tuiry, and there were such cases,
with an annual payment to the lessor of a pepper-corn ;
the leaser and the lessee in that case might enable their
Lordships to form some idea of the superior and the vassal.
The superior had the feu duty, but he might release that
duty to the vassal for a pepper-corn, and then the vassal
had the entire right of property in the soil, and the suoe-
riot bad nothing hut the bare and naked right of voting
Nut but that a superior might have the right of property in
the 101 l as wed as the superiority. But lie had the vote—
not on account of his right to the spit—hut on account of
the hare superiority. So that there was, in fact, no ex-
egaeration in the statement of hint who had easerted, that
:t might happen that every one of the thirty Members fur
the Scotch counties might be returned by the Jews of
Lombard-street, without the slightest interest in the soil,
or the right to enter upon a single foot of land in these
counties. So much for the county Members. And he
might add, that the argument was the stronger for a
change in this state of things, when it w.as considered
in
what a liniited number of hands the votes were placed.
There was the calmly of Argyle, for inatatme. There were
100,000 inhabitants; and there the number of voters was
113 ; and of the 113, there were eighty- feur who had no
property whatever in the county.--(Hear,)—twenty-nine
voters only being connected with the soil. There was also
a small county which sent a Member to Parliament alter-
nately with another county—the c,iunty of the isle
of Bute,
in which the voters were 2 l in all, and of the 21 only one
voter was connected with the land in the eounty.—(kear,
hear.) Tee county of Caithness had 60 000 inhabitant..
and 40 voters, and 36 out of the 40 had no connexion
with the property in the county. He would not go
through the whole of the counties in order to show in
what condition they stood in regard to their voters, but I e
would take ten 01 these counties, and in these the whol,
number of voters was 610, and of these 4441 only had an,
lahileil repel ty, but mere y the ideal votes, and only 162
had property in the counties for which they had the votes.
Among these ten counties was the metropolitan county,
for he had nor selected the ten smallest counties. The
county of Edinburgh was included, which had 580,000
inhabitant.. To refer to the towns three and thirty
vetets chose the fraction of a Member for Glasgow, foi
Glasgow was united to A her boroughs Edinburgh, too,
had only thirty .thred\voserio ViNreturn rte 11,mber, anti
these Weie not rleeteri, bytt .j4hahitauts. There were iii
Setaland sixty-four biroughi teriAnged in tinarteen sets,
and on an average there Were uetlatiove 21 electors to
Ottola Nesuber. There was: a scifr rho:then among the

~u

T
uud.,OZ

. • _
-,.. ^

gin' abitants, who elected those who elected the Member.
iTwig was delegation to which he objected. The delegate•
were not even chosen by the Guild of Trades, but the
members of the Corporations elected one another. In
ancient times, elections were on a different footing ;
though antiquaries were not agreed as to what was the
extent of the right of election. It went, however, once
much further than at present. In 1469, an act wa.
passed for altering and limiting the right of elections. The
preamble of that act stated, that because great clamour
arose from a multitude of simple persons, "who were
thought not to have any right, it was resolved that the old
Corporation should choose the officers, the Guilds having
reserved to them the right of chosing the Deacons." In
Edinburgh, there were twenty Deacons and thirteen

old Deacons end Bailies. Those to whom some power
was given, wanted more, and the twenty made up
the Leets, as they are called, and so engrossed the
whole power into the hands of the Town Councils.
This was not intended. In Edinburgh, the Council chose

twenty of the Council,:and interfered in choosing the other
thirteen ; so that net even the trade or the guilds—the se-
lect parts of the trades—had anything like an effectual
right to interfere with the elections. Nothing could be
worse than the system of Scotch county elections; hut the
system of borough elections was a fit companion for its
sister. The Bill he was about to propose the second read-
inz of, assumed that this system could be improved ; that
it was pnasible to make it worse, he would not assert ; but
it was diffieuir to imagine a system more hostile to every
princiale of representation than this. As to this system.
it was not ancient ; if antiquity could hold out against
reason, it did not give to this sstern the grace of its sanc-
tion. He did not say that there was ever a popular system
of representation in Scotland ; hut anterior to the accession
the House of Stuart, there were something like elections, at
which all those who owed suit and service took part. He
would not, ho,vever, enter into these obscure parts of the
ancient history of Scotland. He would only say, that
in remote times the feudal Parliament of Scotland re-
sembled that of England, though it sooner departed
from that form. Where veneration was challenged for the
antiquity of the Scotch Pdrliantent, be refused the appeal ;
because in England it was fixed in its principles, though
it might vary from age to age, changing only a little from
century to century; but in Scotland the history of the
Parliament was one of quick, great, he might say, vio-
lent and fundamental changes. There was in it no abiding
principle. The Noble and Learned Lord then referred,
at some length, to the history of Scotland, to show, that
WI to the right of voting, the duration of Parliament, and
he persons elected, the Scotch system had been corn-
tinually changed. The Noble and Learned Lord quoted
several successive statutes, showing the manner in which
the people were relieved from any concern in electing
Members for the Parliament ; but were called to nominate
Commissioners. In 1681 a great change was made in the
number of county Members, which totally overthrew the
balance which before existed between the county and bo-
rough Members; th. county Members having been then
increased snore than two-thirds. The Parliament which
existed at the time of the Union, was a most extraordinary
legislative body, for it had no fixed duration; lasting at
cne time only one session, while the Parliament of King
William 111. lasted eight sessions. This Parliament was
completely under the control of the Lords of the Articles.
When not sitting, the Parliament intruved to a sort of
Committee the whole power of making laws. It was
painful to look back upon the deeds of this Parliament, as
affording a melancholy picture of the barbarous state of
society in that part of the kingdom. He would only re-
mind their Lordships, that sedition, and attending con-
venticles, were punished with death, as treason. Torture
was the law of the land till the latter end of the reign of
King William. In the middle of the 16,h century, a law,
which actually existed even at present, in the Statute-
book, though it had fallen into desuetude, by which, who-
ever, not being a Nobleman, should shoot wild fowl,
should suffer death, and forfeit all his goods and chattels,
which were to he given to whoever should sue for the
same. The Noble and Learned Lord next refei red to the
fact, that the lesser Barons had staid away from Parlia-
ment so long, that it was doubted whether they had any
right to attend, and they petitioned to have that right re-
stored. To sum up, he would say, that any argument
used in defence of the English system must fall as ap-
plied to Scotland. The great argument as to the Eng-
lish system was, that it w•nt on well notwithstand-
ing the anomalies it contained in theory. When it
was said that Birmingham was not represented—
that Bath was only represented by those who were
not elected by the people—the answer always was,
that these unrepresented towns were safe in the re-
presented towns in their neighbourhood having the
same interest as themselves. That argument had long pre-
vented Reform in this country, hut it failed entirely as to
Scotland, for in that country there was no represented
place whatever These evils the Bill proposed to amend.
It proposed at first to do away with delegation. The
Noble and Learned Lord then explained the particular pro-
visions of the Bill—as to giving limners to Edinburgh
and Glasgow—as to the electors in countries consisting of
ten-pound holders of land—as to registration, &c., explain-
ing the difference between the machinery adopted for
Scotland, and that adopted for England. There the want
of poor laws made another system necessary. Scotland
had a parish school system, and the parish schoolmaster
was to supply the place of overseer in England. In Eng-
land, registration was placed under barristers, and here it
had been found necessary, which he regretted very much,
to invest the Judges with the power of appointing these
barristers; he ohjected much to this, as increasing the
power of the Crown ; but necessity compelled them to
adopt it. Scotland happily stood under other cir-
eumstancea. It had a system of local Judicature and
local Judges—the system of which he hoped to see
extend• d to England—and the Bill, taking the ad-
vantage of that circumstance, intrusted those duties to
the Sheriffs of Scotland, which were here intrusted to
the laarriaters. He would not enter further into the parti-
culars. He apologized to their Lordships for troubling
them so much on such a dry, though it was such an im-
portant subject. He should be repaid for the trouble he
had taken, if he should have rendered this dry subject at
all interesting to their Lordships.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble and Learned Lord then moved the second reading
of the Bill
The Earl of HADDINGTON referred to the empty
• enches to show that there was neilaer interest taken in
nor opposition intended to this Bill. By the passing of
the English Bill. the case was entirely altered as to Scot-
land, and Reform must he given to that country. If he
had intended to oppose the second reading of this Bill,
which he never had, the state of that House and the passing
of the English Bill, would make him most certainly not do
-o at present. The first question was, if ample justice
had been done to Scotland by this Bill of Re orm? By
the articles of Union, Scotland was to have 45 Members.—
(Hear, bear.) That arrangement was made, however,
in days when theoretical notions of representation were
not prevalent ; and, whey the state of English repre-
sentation was such, that Scotehtnen might find their
way, through that medium, into the House of
af Commons. This new Bill would deprive them of that
chance. But the direct return of forty-five Members,
and the indirect return through the English boroughs to
which he had alluded. gave to Scotland more than the 53
Nlern,ers which she was to have by the present Bill.—
The population of Scotland, the taxation of Scotland, and
the assessed property of Scotland, bore a much larger
proportion to the proposed represent ation of Scotland, than
the population, the taxation, and the assessed property of
England bore to the representation of England. If the
principle of the Union was to be abandoned, why ought
not Scotland to share in all the benefit of the various
changes which had taken place since that union ? Let
heir Lordships look to the state of the borough and of
the county representation in Scotland. With reference
to the former, seeing' whet the wealth and the population
of the Scotch boroughs were, hat could wish, without
arejudiee to the 53, that the number of representa-
tive, for them Was increased. But what he complained
of was the manner in which the county qualification was
constituted, which was such, that the representation of
the counties of Scotland would not be the representation
of the land, but in several instances would be the repre-
sentation of the manufacturing interest. It would be a
great improvement of the measure to make landed property
the foundation of the county constituency. He must also
complain of the manner in which the Universities of Scot
taro: hail been neglected. Why was the University of
Dublin to have an additional Representative, thus haven_
two Members, and the four Universities of Scotland to
nave no representative at all ? When the 811 went into
use Committee, he would endeavour to show why the
scotch Universities ought to be represented.
Lord BELHAVEN gave the Bill his cordial support.
The Earl of ROSEBERY expatiated on the necessity,
he wise policy, and the bemficiai results that would aris,
tom the measure. The politieal servility attributed to
the Scotch was principally owing to the Manner in which
be represeetativ, s of Scotland had been chosen ; for thosa
representatives had not acted in the way in which they
would probably have acted had they been otherwise chosen.
In truth, they hod been chiefly the representatives, not of
,corland, but err the Admiralty, ti:e Treasury, and the
War-Office. He did not agree with his Noble Friend,
oi at Scotland was hardly dealt with in the number of
Members assigned to her by the present Bill ; but he did
teree with his N ble Friend in lamenting that the tour
Universities of Scotland were nut allowed to return at

~ ~*~ ~;

least one Member, of the same time, knowing that some
limit m ust be put to the number of representatives. He
was disposed, however reluntantly, to relinquish an objeet
th At would otherwise appear to him to be exceedingly
'esirable.
Lord NAPIER confiding in the discretion and cnd
sense of the people of Scotland, readily and cordially gave
his support to the measure.
The Earl of HADDINGTON most highly approved of
that portion of the Bill which gave the franchise to the
tenantry of Scotland
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the
Boundaries Bill.
The Bill was then passed through the Committee, and
the House resumed.
Tie Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that if the re-
port should be received to-morrow, he would move the third
reading of the Bill on Friday.
The House then adjourned to eleven o'Clock to-morrow
(this day).