Star.
London, England, 1819-05-07 00:00:00

•h to
t trait ile,te;
the • •
PBLL ...svfYr
elm aco onsideration i 7 arid,
It. would be reqnteite
fa pritren and cirtti!at::n
—c discessi:i ci,uld
4e,iii'lisig°P[sehi'imet' be done in leas than
P.OYAL SCOTCH BURGH_
Liesteaact-Colooel STEWART .wesenced
frOin 3orgh of. New Calloway, praying for
Rform itt t he'otch 13tirghs. Tfle Honourable
! l"her observed, that tile Petitioners did not semi
e
aware of the Bill before the House, brought
the Lord Advocate, or' they. would not hate
oted it necessary to present such a Petition.
GRANT said, the Pritioners were fully
Hof the Bill which was introduced; and they,
well as many other Petitioners from Scotland,
lee hilly of opinion that the Bill alluded to would
or the elect of Confirming the evils they come
eine,' of. Of this opinion were the persons, MP
loather, who signed a Petition from Edinburgh
loins/ the 11111.
General FERGI.TSSON prertuted a petition from
licritors and Burgesses of the Burgh of Dun-
ohne, praying for a li.eform in the Scotch Burghs.'
h: Honourable Member, though he conceived the
orge of the Petition was decorous, felt irneces-
-01 to point out one passage of it which the Howe
iiiht perhaps not think regular. The Petitioners
holed to a speech delivered by a Member in dm
Fosse, relating to the great body of the Petitioner'
r Burgh Reform, whom he (as they were given to
ajerstand) described as nut being respectable.--.
his they denied.
The SPEAKER observed, that the Honourable
hasher must be aware that the aUusion to or coin-
ed on any speech delivered in the louse was not
sular in any Petitioners.

CASTLEREAGH felt satisfied, that his
...rued Friend (the Lord Advocate of Scotlaad, to'
Jae speech the Petitioners alludec4 had not in his
emarks intended to sly any thing hurtful to the.
tidings of the Petitioners. As to the regularity of
be Petition itself, he trusted the Honourable Mem-
La would see tbat it was not one which could be
railed.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH
if.ion from a Corporation
as allusion was also made
towable and Learned
are time that he should
galarity, he should- oni,
iu was notorious in Engl:
The SPEAKER repeated
a allusion as the Petitioners
established rale of
General FERGUSON
:Nation of the Noble
oreign Department,
vet in express words
odand were not respectable,
e maintained that the Lox
. place when these words
• by Honourable blerabeis,,

ny Or disavow.
Sir G. WAF
rds used by the
rgesses of k.
earned -Lord to

tch of the Burghs more
an the bulk of the Burt
After these o> ions
Mr. J. P. GRANT
hition which luith.en
we of the Lean:'-
a not previously intimated
ontents. The Petition

Petition of the Corporation . Edinburgh
against the Bill which the Lord Advocate had intro-
(laced into Parliament on the subject of Burgh R*-
form. The Petitioners assert, that this Bill, so. far

faun remedying any of the eiils of which such nni-,
versal complaint is now made, would only serve to
increase and augment them. They also state, that
though they had been represented by a Scotchman,
and a Member of the House, as a disreputable body
amen, they were well aware how generally useful
tley were to the community---(Hear, hear),—and
be little the charge against them was valued by
the country. They also complain that they had
hart branded as radical Reformers, with a view to,
depreciate their characters in the estimation of the'
House; they deny the truth of this imputation, and'
assert it to be as unfounded as it is injurious. Whe-'
ther the Petition which he presented would be re•
caved or not; he coull not positively say; hnhad'
done his duty in presenting it. It would be disor-
derly in him to allude to what had passed upon a
former debate, but as the debates of that House
some how or other got abroad, Gentlemen ought to
consider before they spoke, the effect which their
words, when published, were likely to produce upon
the community. •
The SPEAKER said, that he did not wish to in-
"st upon a nicety of construction; but he really-
thought that there were three points in the Petition
Jost read to them, which it was his duty to point out
to the House before he allowed it to be brought up.
The first point was, that it alluded, as Ear as he re-
coii.ected, to what had been said in that House;
the second, that it alluded to what had been said by
a Scotchman and a Member; the third—
ML J. P. GRANT here read over the Petition,
from which it appeared that no allusion was made
to any thing said in the House specifically.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said a few words ou the
tulject. .After which,
The SPEAKER pet,the otaestion, that the Petition
be brow ht up.
.The LAMRD ADVOCATE of
toe, and disclaimed all intention
Armerly said, of throwing any
!ite Burgesses of Scotland.
all he had meant to say, was, tly•
Peal nor in any other of the Roy
11;!gestes, either from their rank, .
.
11.."4,21. tar., of greater weight or respeci
e u:llabitaldto r neither were thev
thzPor:"111040 .cf their .9P411* ov 15) grr
Were theirsuperiors
dimes• on wag err opinion`
.o.tued, and wliith sftrinl4
zt -I where itvaa ite•
"t• the Petitill4or
of the scotch IM

ToPt.:gES .A.CKINTOSII argued the pp:
titinners had not made any altusion to any alter*,
tions that had been made in that House: there Vtil
indeed, a statement in the Petition that an allegat*
had been made. to prejudice them in the oßinion .of
the House.' To exclude the Petition for such a rea-
ion, would be carrying the rigour of construction q.
great deal too far.
Sir GEORGE CLERIC said, chat as the statement
to which allusion had been made could not have
been made any where else but inthat House, it was
the duty of the House to notice it.. He principalky
rose to notice what an liorourable Member had sag
in the litter part of his speech,.that it behoved every.
Member to consider the meaning which his spetell.
might carry ouvof doors. Ifithis were always to lif
minutely attended to, there could be no freedom of
debate, no publicity of discussion.
Mr. J. P. GRANsf explained, and said that
shuuld be the last person in the world to place 4ps;
restrictions on the freedom of debate.
The Petition was then withdrawn.

Mr. HUME presented a Petition from the city:4
Aberdeen against the present system of Scotch Burgh&
The grand mischief of it was the self-election and
non-respansibility of the Magistrates. He was happy
to hear the Learned Lord retract the insinuation'
which he had himself heard him expressly =doe
against the respectability of the Burgesses of Scot-
land. The Petition which he then presented wits
signed by fourteen individual;, whose conjoint pro%
perty did not amount to less than half a million • it
had only lain for signatures a few hours, and nOriei
had been allowed to sign it except Burgesses : if
had been open for signatures longer, and the inhabi-
tants in general had been allowed to sign it, it would
have been signed by many thousands. He hoped
'that the House would take into consideration the
grievances which these Petitioners stated, and which
.dley declared their willingness to prove at the Bar of
4.hajiouse.—Laid on the table, and to be printed.
ARCHIBALD HAMILTON had several
'on .ject, from •
from

Yeaxe
been
hid i. _..,r.._ , .-t pet
lie. regretted that this Report had not been reprinted,
as' t would have conveyed considerable information
to the House. His motion was not for Parliamen-
tary Reform, though he ought to state how far di-
rectly and indirectly his motion was connected with
it. In the burghs where the Magistrates were selfs
silected—(Here the Noble Lord was interrupted by.
the noise of some Members on the Treasury Bench,
which seemed to annoy him considerably. He ob-i
• .-d to them, that he did not wish for their atten- I
bay; but for their conversion; he did not wish forj
their careful consideration of what he said, but fort
rcommon courtesy which the House generally
tended to every speaker.)—On resuming the thresidl
‘ ,his argument, .he said, that the only indirect ways
sa. which his motion touched upon Parliamentaryl
Reform was, that where the Magistiates were self-
elected, they returned the Members to Parliament.!
Now the Burgesses wished to have the same share in'
the election of their Magistrates. as their Magistrates
i'
had in the election of their Representatives. This
was the only way, in which the subject of a Reform
in Parliament was connected with that of a reform in
the burgh system, and he should therefore dismiss
that insinuation from his mind without any further
remark or observation. lie should state, that the
system gilder which the burghs exist is so different
from any other in the whole circle of the Bri-
tish empire—nay, he might say, in the whole civi-;
lined world, that he could not understand how the
• . on. Gentleman opposite could possibly defend it.—
The Committee which sat 25 years ago, and to which
he had before alluded, had reported that the com-
Plaints of the Burghs were well founded, and yet no
Member could show that any redress had been grant-
t4 in consequence of it. He must say a word or two
tes an observation which had fallen from the Lord]
Advocate on these petitions : first, the Petitioners'
'were not numerous ; 2dly, they were not interestsdl
persons. The objection taken by the Noble and
,earned Lard that these Petitions came from the
. ...

Burghs
ought to rejoice in an opportunity of inquiring into
14 system which placed in the hands of the Magi-
, crates an unlimited power over the pockets and per-
sons of the Burgesses--a power which they used to
contract debts, and not only to contract debts, but
,t 0 do so by means which the Burgesses were noCable
,•tp detect, and which, were they able to detect, they
,could neither get accounted for nor redressed—
(Hear, hear).—lle contended that this fact alone
sufficiently proved the subject to be a fit one for the
attentive consideration of the House. One great sub-
'ject of complaint the Petitioners had no possible
means of redress for. It was absolutely true, that
notwithstanding any acts of the greatest injustice, ini-
quity, and oppression, on the part of the Magistrates,
it was ,perfectly incompetent for the Burgesses to ap-
peal to any Court of Justice, so long as the Council
should be unanimous—(118 a.-, Lear).—The very re-
formation which the Noble Lord charged him with
wishing to effect in these Burghs, 'the very principle
he taxed him (Lord A. Hamilton) with, he himself
.acted upon lately in regard to the Borough of IVlose-
trete. The Noble and Learned Lord had objected,
to consider the Petitions, because the Government
of the Scotch Burghs was settled or, recognized at
the time of the Scottish Union. But if this argu-
ment was to he final, it would be neither more nor
less than giving to his Majesty's Minister; a power
of perpetuating a system of abuse throughout the
Scotch Burghs ; of perpetuating that corrupson foe
which Boroughs have been disfranchised
The Noble Lord then proceeded to teed a remora-'
strance addressed some years since by the Burgesses,
of Irvine to the Council—they complained that they
had no more interest in electing a Magistrate than in
electing an Emperor of Morocco—(A laugh.) By a'
strange anomaly in law, these Scotch Burgesses were
liable for the debts contracted by their Magistrates.
Another instance of gross corruption in the Magis-
ttacy of the Burghs was the notorious fact that seats
in the Council had been sometimes sold for £lOO--
-, for £3O. These seats had been sometimes
favour of others for a sum of money, and
times had been held by individuals for a
merely to serve political purposes. The
LOrd proceeded to state several other griev-
under which the Burgesses laboured ; and as
could not for a moment think that the House,
- what they had heard, after perceiving the ge-
feeling on the subject in Scotland evinced by
number of petitions on their table, after the state-
- had made of the severe assessments levied
places at the arbitrary will aid pleasure of
Magistrates, under pretexts of police and other
but in reality to make good deficiencies in-
_ their own misconduct, he could not per-
iimself to imagine that they would refuse
,to rip.
A Committee to ermine into this important.
He should therefore move that the several
_presented during the present Session of Par-
., from theltoyal Burghs of Scotland, be te-
tt* a Committee to-examine the matter thereof,
_Fapiert their opinion thereon accordingly.
W. DUNDAS was willing to admit that some
lar improvements might be necessary to fulfil
execute the intention of the law as it now existed.
'it he said this,- he believed not that he was de-
from ,the principles on which the Govern-
:the country had been so long conducted, and
Church so surely fonnded. The inhabitants of
Scotlaed,had a title to higher relief, as derived from
-lore than one Act of Parliament. (Here the Ho-
nOtirable Member dwelt on the express meaning of
an Act of the Scottish Parliattent, in the year 1449.)
since that period, a great va'riety of alterations had
been made, or suggested to be made, in this branch
of legislation. Thrsem and substance of this Mo-
tiinivres, whether the Burgesses in particular places,
ought or ought not to be under future controul in the
exercise of their functions ? The Petitioners called
for an uncontrouled privilege, and referred to for-
peer Acts in their favour, in order to shew that the
latatulory as well as common law of Scotland• had
partially acknowledged their endeavours to procure
in equality of the elective franchise.
The Honourable F. W. PRIMROSE deElared, that
all the returns he had received from Ills correspon-
dents in Scotland, satisfied him that the general wish
of Scotland was, that an inquiry should take place.
,it was only upon very strong and well established
!grounds that he should espouse or recommend the
surrender of any privilege or practice that was or
,could be advantageous to the revenue of the coun-
try. Unless this view was fairly entertained, be
feared that a suspicion would arise of their being
too naturally averse to any. system of Parliamentary
Reform. it was true that there was a distinction
well known between the Merchant Burgesses and the
Actual Burgesses of Stirling and other places. There
was a class composed of superior Merchants in Edin-
burgh, who also complained, that although there ex-
isted in that City a body of 12 men extremely well
satisfied with their condition, that situation was not
equally satisfactory to their fellow-citizens. The
Honourable Member concluded by strongly remind-
ing the House of what had already taken place in
the Boroughs of Stirling and Montrose. What hej
had to expect was, that benefits extended already tel
those places, should not be refused to Edinburgh and.
the other Corporate Towns of Scotland. The effect
of the Bill now berore the House would be to intro-
duce more litigation than any other plan that could
be devised.

~~

that when the united wishes of the people are respect-
fully carried to the Throne, and when they contain •
nothing improper, they..will always he granted."—,
fifenr, heren,), Petitions were presented from :111 parts
of Scotland, praying for similar sets to that of Mon-
trose. What had been granted to .Montrose was re-
fused to Aberdeen. This created peat dissatisfac-
tion in Scotland. It seas extremely desirable that the
question should he pot to re,t. In 1•117 it had.been
made the common pretext for deluding and, abusing
the people.
Mr: BOSWELL was against the motion. The
Petitioners claimed what had le:en their inalienable
rights till 146 V. But he defied any man to say what
the,trate of the Scotch Burghs was befor2
Mtn they went to the loges burgorum, where they
found pro6i haraines, v. iiich a countryman of his trans-
hued, lionea men ;" he knew no descriptica of per-
sons so called.- •-(A laugh.) He could tell the Ho-
nourable Ce;ulernan opposite who smiled at this ez-
pression,.that in the part of the country to which they
both belonged, the term was not applied to men c.±
great wisdom I—(Mach laughter.) He coincided iu
opinion with the Right Hun. Gentleman, that Scot-
land was no longer to be distinguished.from England.
Mr. J. I'. GRANT begged to remind the House
that almost every port and every considerable town
,in Scotland was a 'Loyal Birgh, and that the subject
was in that i4ew important. In those burghs greater
grievances wefe now stated to exist than cver existed
in any other shailbbefore--hut because by remedying
those defects.we might touch a small part of the re.
presentation, no rerpOy must be a pplied--(hear,hecr.)
He could not avow himself a fi iend to Reform ; it
was so disgraceful to be se—(e laugh, and hear, hear.)
The petitioners disclaimed any intention of promoting
Parliamentary. Reform, and he could Corc,:ive
reason why they should not be believed. Very few
of themandeed wished for such reform. For his own
part he thought this question had nothing to do with
it—but any large and great change in the Constitn-
don of the country, • in. the Constitution of that
House, or in the representation of the people, was
a question which he would approach with great
apprehension--(Hear.) But the House were only
called upon now to do what bad been done in.l79S,
The Right Hon. Member, or supposed Membort for
fdiftburgh, deprecated the introduction of .a West-
spinster Election into Edinburgh. The who/asshes
of Busgesies in Edinburgh was only 1300.
the population of Edinburgh, this is the oteillber that
claims the , A Magistrates,
amid elect Parliament.
would be to
sdinburgh
40,44 was,
*ea Officers,
ile.could
this with
universal
So mach
he felt no

:,'KINTOSH said he had a similar Pe- Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON had several in the Cou
Corporation of Edinburgh, in which Petitions to present on the same subject, from which at others,
as also made to the speech of, the Ho- he would separate two that tame from the District vacated in
1 Learned Lord. It might, perhaps, of Boroughs represented by the Lord Advocate. The at other t
the should mention it. As to tbe Noble Lord then laid' on the table two Petitions from time only,
hould only say, that the speech alluded East and West Anstruther, against the Burgh Sys- Noble Lor
Des in England and Scotland. tem ; also from Banff, Ruthven, Haddington, the In- ances undo
.KER repeated his opinion, that such emisorated Guilds of Dumbarton, &c. • he could
the Petitioners made was contrary to .!./Ord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON, in rising to after what
d role of the House. tiring on his Motion for referring the Petitions of the neral feella
ERGUSON shortly commented Mt the Royal Burghs to a Committee, 'said, that after the the numbe
f the Noble Secretary of Stale for the numerous Petitions which had been received by the Ment he h
na artent, that the Le ' bad .ftouseAt was unnecessary for him to say any thing in some pl
ress words said that the • • of lite;*opeepasiisir. Under Iris* timi Petitioners la- the Magis
e not respectable, but. the sporyeigeoree. • kit- theterterelliaglsernsg there could be expenses, 1
;c1 that the Lord Advocatdinkfitititi 0:01416nel his Metiewiler t Committee. curred by
n these words
.had been .....eitiiipted he • ferietemilsii • BkOon regarding' spit himsel
amble Members,- end haillAquises bp die • •• : • .
•bad.. :dated,. as die- p.
row them, Vii, 0,4 a. ' :0114i; • .44. ,Tirvi'rinit any subject.
PIRRENDp, did rags illdrillriga *Nile MIS". „ 1 . _
_l/1211 and
_l4 twat .11
y the'LoiatkigioliepAß (von the what it was not.i Ltivanascwtowe presvuops he nament,
Scotland in genetal.i. leceaceived the 'had not been safe •• the ibituuttlta.ce 'the • Gelb- tarred to
rd to mean that themileittu.persosisiu tlemen opposite.' They hid statekthat this subject and to rep
arghs more capable of deciding props y' was'rherely Used as a cloak for parliamentary reform ; vy,
:of the Burgess& Were.: he denied this assertion most positivelt,sand.said that particular
oteareationsabeketisiess wee widadrayrn. they might have seen how unfounded :it was from. and ezecui
sesteld mcbmelmesented time reading the Petition themselves. His-had informed Whilst he
httheiturld boot in the- aim- the Houselhat the grievance wads neither new, nor parting fr
Learned Lord to whantit ranted, if *h pa.itial, nor unknown,' bat one of more than twenty /sent of th
iouslt intimated to bins the =ate ofits Yeats' standing; and of peat notoriety ; that it had its Churci
he Petition to which he alluded. was the been referred toa/COmmittee, and that their Report Scotland j
le Corporation of Tailors o 1 Edinburgh ilia been , printed; and Ent in the ban& of Members. more than

• .
,!1' * _ .
lietc!Scall4e,4* 64e brife 031.v/1104, gons4l,l*.jOesni.aftd thilt*Ole.‘ vms. sq, thy. V Piigr, alkegatigns: *et* tarot, , they. ought
rtes.',; S.)
tad . nod stnxiowt,eticides*e I 3 urges*** opmfce not to be taken into immediate consideration ?
iti=l. t.be norin"nid ndt ofrendati:itt 41Whavigr called the jiiiilvi
1
that hot positttsly ~. i.
.44. -#O.
ill; in the casesintroduced to the notice of the flour!,
tad op tiara, 'it* Rayon, anti dre!Tteq• pi/4 -shoti4ditat,,.deny havuttupl;e4 4101 • particularly in that of Aberdeen, the system was
, .....„4„..th.:1—...„11.-"a #„,, farm t) mr.m, .1106 on the presept and on.a &poet proved to be unjust and oppressive—if it was made
arisc 'inn them iliiihouziktt occasiopr-(lieur.) - • : nut that the administration of the Government of
than 84e or 41i dq!' . siy4A,M)l- MACKINTOSH argued that. th.yryt: Scotch Burghs was fraudulent and secret, the House' H BURGHS. . titioners had not Made any allusion to any antra. Ought to refoiee in an orinnrtunitv of ;nnnir;ne, inn,