Star.
London, England, 1826-04-14 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENLNG, APRIL 14, 1826.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

..

ROUSE OF LORDS, Aram 13.

The Earl of DERBY presented Petitions against the Menthes-
ter and Liverpool Railway Bill, fro the Trustees of the Turnpike
Road in the line of the Maya/111nd from William Allerton,
through whose estate it is to run. The latter prayed to be heard
by Counsel at the liar against the measure.—Referred to the
Committee upon the Bin.
The Earl of CALEDON presented a Petition from the Mer-
chants of Dublin in favour of the Manchester Railway.—Referred
to the Committee on the Bill.

The Duke of ATHOL presented a Petition from the Parish
of Kircooren, against any change in the Banking System. •
Similar Petitions were presented by the Earl of Listeatcx from
Shanahgoiden and Lochlln, and referred, as well as the former, to
the Committee on the Dill.

Lord SUFFIELD gave notice, that on Monday next he should
submit. Motion to their Lordships respecting the appoinments and
emoluments of Public Functionaries in the West India Colonies.
Earl DARNLEY presented a Petitiou from Ashford, In Kest,
against the continuation of Negro Slavery.—Laid on the tableo—
Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. Jonsson. from the Irish Chief Secretuy of Smell Oiler,
presented Copies of Papers relative to the Court of Chancery of
Ireland.—Ladd on the table.

Mr. W. GORDON presented a Petition from the Coroners of
Rockingham, praying for an increase of their Fees.—Referred to
the Committee on the County Rates.
Mr. CU RWEN moved for Returns of all Grain exported from
Ireland, Scotland, and England, during the last two years.—Also
for a Return of the Quantity of foreign Tallow, Hemp, Flax, Seed,
&c. imported into this country during the same period.—Ordered.
Mr. E. WODRHOUSE presented a Petition from the Justices
of Peace in the County of Norfolk, praying for an alteration of the
Game Laws.—Liid on the table.

Mr. ELLIS presented a Petition from the British Shipowners
of South Shields, taking notice of the Reciprocity Duty Act.—
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a Petition from several House.
holders of Westminster, belonging to a Benefit Society called " The
Sons of Albion," praying against the " Arbitration Clause" of the
new Benefit Society Act, and complaining that they would be ma-
terially injured if such a Clause were to be carried into effect. Laid
on the table.

Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster Abbey, for leave to bring in a Bill to re-
plate the Tithes of the Parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate.—Ordered
to be printed.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman Wools, the Cripplegate Tithe
Composition Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. HUSKISSON presented a Petition from Manse, in Scot-
land, against any alteration of the Currency of that Kingdom. H
would not detain the House by detailing, at length, the prayer of
the Petitioners. They. were averse to any alteration in their cur-
rency, and skewed that it was an extravagant system of speculation
that bad entailed the commercial distress, which had been lately
felt, and not the paper circulation. They trusted that they might
be allowed to circulate their notes and confine the alteration to
England. Although he did not entirely agree with the prayer of
the Petition, be had thought it his duty to present it, as it was sent
by a Gentleman (whose name he never heard of before) who re..
quested him, as a Member of Parliament, to bring it rot ward. The
Petition was referred to the Committee on the Scotch and Irish
Banking Systems.
Similar Petitions were presented from Auldrig, in the Burgh of
Caithness, by Sir H. Isnas • from the County of Cawthorn, by Mr.
Kum'; and from a town in Scotland, by Mr. G. Ge.aam—The
Petitions were referred to the Committee on the Banking Systems
of Scotland and Ireland.

Mr. W. GORDON presented a Petition from Ashwold, in
Beekingimmshlre, against Slavery.—Ordered to be printed.
Similar Petitions were presented from Chobbam, in Surrey, by
Mr. H. Swim ; from Newley, in Gloucestershire. by Lord R.
Somas= • from Bundy. by Captain °name ; and from Marter
in SomerseXshire.—The Petitions were laid on the table, and or-

bred to be printed.
Mr. HUSKISSON presented a Petition from the Mayor and
Burgesses of the town of Liverpool, praying that they might not be'
deprived of the benefits of a free trade in Silk from the Continent.
It was his misfortune In many instances not to agree with his Con.
admen's, and is this case he could not exactly say that be did;
be, however, agreed as to the tenor of it, the improvement in the
commerce of Liverpool.
The Hon. Massa* also presented a similar Petition from the
Trustees of the Liverpool New Dock.
Alter a few observations from General Gascorna, in cloposition
to the Petition, they were laid on the table. Ordered to be printed
Mr. HUSKISSON presented a Petition from the Corporation
of Weavers of Glasgow, in favour of the Corn Laws.—Laid on
the table.

Mr. HUME presented a Petition from a Gentleman
of the name of Edwards, a Doctor, of Law and a Ma-
gistrate, residing at Brixton, in the county of Surrey,
complaining of the conduct of his brother Magistrates
in granting Licences to Victuallers. The Petitioner
was fully aware that well-regulated houses would be not
only an accommodation to the public, but also of be-

nefit to the individuals who kept them. He had perused
all the documents before the House on the subject of
licensing Victuallers, and he was convinced that the sys•
tem was ill conducted; and there was a system of jobbing
carried on, which it became the imperative duty of the
House to put an end to. He(Mr. Hume) did not see why a
license for selling beer w3s not to be procured as easily as
a license for selling tea or coffee. In Scotland, until with-
in the last year, there had been no difficulty in procuring
a license; on paying a certain sum of money, the license
was granted immediately. This was, however, fix
coffee, tea, and other licenses; and he hoped that •
licenses for selling beer and other articles %would be
granted with the same facility. To give an idea of the
system of speculation, he would merely inform the
House that individuals had been known to commence

a business (which they never intended to pursue); pro-
cure a license by their interest with the Magistrate, and
then dispose of it and the business for 2,00 W. or more.
Among the improvemen:s that had lately been mad*
by his Majesty's Ministers, he regretted t. find that this
evil had been completely overlooked by the Secretary
for the }IMP Department. A brewer, who was acquainted, with
a Magistrate (according us the present ill-conducted system), had
only to ask him not to grant licenses but to those persons who pur.
chased his porter to retail, and the thing was done. Thus persons
were obliged to drink porter of interior quality, because a
brewer bad influence with the Magistrates in their dispensation
of licenses.—Ho concurred entirely with the prayer of the Petition.
The Petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. ESTCOURT.wasid certainly attend to the prayer of the
Petitioner, whose reskctability be could Touch for, and hoped
that the Bill upon the subject of licensing Victuallers, which
was then before the House,. would meet with the support of Hon.
Members.

Mr. BERNAL presented a Petition from an individual of the
name of Booth, a victualler, residing in Vere-street, Mary-la-bonne,
complaining that hie license had bets taken away, and his inabi-
lity of procuring another, without the intwherence of the Reese.—
Laid on the table.

A slessage from the Lords sifted that their Lordships had
agreed to several private Bills wititout any amendment. Their
Lordships also requested the attendance of Mr. L. Foster and Mr.
Goulburn at the &r of the House, to give evidence as to Lotd
Down's right of vote at the election of Irish Peers.
The Srzacsa acquainted their Lerdships" Alessengee that um
would scud an answer by a Messenger of their own.

REPRIMSTATION 01 ZDINBUIGH.
Mr. ABERCROM by calst assure • the House Oust
previous to entering on this important ciae.tion be bad

studied it and found it required some looking into. He
had looked into it, and had persevered in the perform-
ance of his duty to lay it before Parliament ; he regret-
ted, however, that it had not fallen into better hands._
He contended, not only against the injustice of prevent-
ing the whole class of _freeholders of the city of Edin-
burgh, but against the plan of one representative elect-
ing his successor, who would do the same in his turn,
and thus it would become hereditary. Out of thirty-
three representatives which the city of Edinburgh had
furnished, nineteen had been appointed in that way. It
had Seen asked, if they were to give a full and free re-
presentation to Edinburgh, why not extend it to Glas-
gow, Aberdeen, and other places in Scotland ? His
answer was, that if he succeeded in the case of Edin-
burgh, his views would not stop thee. He could not
reason upon such a topic with those high-rne tied Anti-
reformers in Scotland who rejected every idea of Re-
form.; but to those who sincerely feared that Refot m was
remotely connected with Revelation he particularly ad-
.• dressed himself. He proposed tolegislate in the individual
case of Edinburgls,because the Town Council of that city
had the power of sending one Member to the House with-
out the sanction of other contributory boroughs, as in
the case of Glasgow. There was this advantage in the
course he proposed; if any inconvenience were found
to arise from it, they might-be guided by that expe-
rience in any further measures which might be after-
wards proposed. It was as an experimental measure
that he proposed it. He would assert without fear that
the great and intelligent body whom he should desig-
nate as the reformers of Scotland would not be jealous
of the exclusive application of their principles to the
case of Edinburgh, in the first instance. He contended
that the measure he was about to propose was a wise,
measure of reform, because it was a prudent, safe, and
cautious one. He repelled the charge of having lent
himself to the views of those who held republican prin-
ciples, and denied that such a construction could be put
upon the language of the Petitions. He was asked to
point nut any case of misconduct on the part of the
Town Council of Edinburgh, in the exercise of their,
privilyges, and to say whether that City had not thtiven
under their regulations. It had thriven and prospered,
but not in consequence of the measures taken by the
Town Council ; on the contrary, he contended that it
had thriven and prospered in spite of the obstructions
thrown in the way of improvement by that body.—
Whenever measures of improvement came before that
House, the Town Council had always been opposed to
the inhabitants and householders; and in all cases the
inhabitants and householders had succeeded against the
Town Council. If he felt himself bound to answer the
question as to particular acts on the part of this body,
he might easily shew that the property of the city had
been alienated for improper political purposes. But
he did not admit the proposition that he was bound to
make out any such charge. It was against the system
that he warred, and not against persons. By an Act of
1449, the mode which now prevailed, and was called
self-election in Scotland, was first introduced., Flom
that period down to the Revolution, the Scotch Statute
Book was full of Acts of Parliament, all of which were'
made in consequence of malversation in the boroughs
where that system of election existed. In the reign of
Charles the Second, these abuses had grown to such a
head, that a Commission was appointed to inquire into
them. An Act of Parliament was passed, the pre-
amble of which proved that the only rational mode of
giving a remedy would have been that of restoring
to the people a system of free etectiocts. From the
year 1784 down to the present time, the miscon-
duct of these Magistrates had at intervals been the
constant subject of complaint; yet no remedy had
been applied, and the evil still continued. The
effects of the system had been, that it created a venal
and corrupt magistracy, who had lost- the respect I
of the people, and were unworthy to discharge the
duties or exercise the power originally deputed to them
by the Law. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman thou
argued that the measure he was about to propose would
be less opposed to the provisions of the Union than the
abolition of habitable jurisdictions, which the Parlia-
ment had so long since effected. He begged to ask what
it was the House should be afraid of in such a measure
as this? Why were they afraid of the people ? He
could excuse any apprehension, if it were proposed
to give the elective power to an illiterate mob. But the
class for whom he proposed it were the educated and
respectable householders of the City of Edinburgh. In
England the question of reform was, whether they
should not extend the principle of popular elections?
but in Scotland it remained to be introduced. No such
thing was in existence in that country; the popular
feeling was never appealed to. He defied any Gentle-
man in that House to say that he reprewnted the po-
pular interests of Scotland. The Members for that
country were sent then by those whose interests were
opposed to the interests of the people; and if they at-
tended to the latter, they neglected those of their real
constituents. Was it ;lot a most mortifying reflection
for the people of Scotland,.that while the people of
Ragland and Ireland enjoyed it, they alone were shut out *am the
privilege of popular election? He sincerely implored the House to
consider this seriously ; and if they wished to carry the people of
Scotland along with them, they mast not leave the Elective Fran-
chise exclusively in the hands of a small privileged body, whose In-
terests were directly opposed to those of the country at large. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving for
leave to bring in a Dill to amend aid alter the Representation of
the City of Edinburgh.

DUNDAS said, that he was not surprised to
see the Hon. and Learned Gentleman appear as the
chosen champiod of this cause, when he had taken the
same character two years ago, when the same question
was amply discussed, and when the House rejected it
by a large majority. It did net surprise him that
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman appeased the chosen
champion of such a cause when he considered that he.
himself was such a splendid example of the purity of
election, sent there, as he was, by the free and unbiassed
voice of the people. But at what price were they to
receive this hoop from the Hon. and Learned Gent.?
Why, at the breaking down and trampling apoh,legal
rights, not created yesterday or in the last yeir or in
the last century, but which had been stamped with the
sell of ages,and whose benefits were vstitted fel the general prosperity
sidthe Isuilvidnal happiness sad assfort el' the eitinssse of Min-
bersfsThese tinny. be would b_sibeff
mass of the Hoe. and '

was dos is thisees of the