for the patient and undivided attention of the House. If the object of his motion had been general reform, he would have to contend against the recorded votes of that House,-against the deep-rooted opinions of individual members of it, and against what some term the prejudices and self-interest of others. But the reform which he proposed was of a very confined nature. 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 he had just heard read had been voted by a large meeting of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. The Lord Provost, indeed, had withheld his countenance from it, but it was signed by nearly 7000 inhabitant household

ers.

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. Edinburgh 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, sick, and absentees, leaving the number remaining who had signed the petition upwards of three-fourths of the population of that city paying 51. and upwards of rent. The greatest pains, he assured the House, had been taken to insure the signatures of none but those who paid this amount of rent. The population of Edinburgh amounted to 100,000, of whom theoretically 33, but practically and essentially only 19, exercised the right of voting. 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 appointing his successor, which he conceived to be one and the same thing with self-election, for his successor was equally bound to re-elect the member from whom he received his original appointment. But the majority of 33 was 17, so that there were two to spare in the number of 19, which he had stated to be the electors of the member to that House. The 14 other members were called deacons, and were chosen by the incorporated trades. Each trade selected four names, out of which the towncouncil could erase three; so that unless the four were similar in sentiment, the trades would have no chance of being represented as they wished. How such a system of election as regarded the member returned to that House was to be defended, he knew not. He asked the House if it were likely that this limited number of men thus elected, would be likely to choose an independent and public-spirited representative, and not rather one who could have ready access to the Treasury, and could secure to them some of the good things which flowed from that golden source? He considered it evident, that the present town-council did not represent the sentiments and feelings of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. That House knew it, as having seen many important interests separated from the town-council, which had, since the separation, been found to flourish. Indeed, if any institutions were to be founded in Edinburgh, it was the common saying"Don't let the town-council get hold of it." There were peculiarities in the city of Edinburgh which gave it strong claims on the attention of Parliament. It was the seat of the administration of justice, and numbered among its inhabitants many of the most distinguished ornaments of the bar. It contained many eminent characters, who exercised the most power

ful and controlling influence on public opinion, besides a most distinguished university, the professors belonging to it, numerous persons of fortune, who came to reside in the capital, and a large and most respectable body of householders. It might be said that this was a step towards Parliamentary reform. He unquestionably thought that those who were friendly to a Parliamentary reform in England were bound to favour reform in Scotland. If the state of representation were in England such as it is in Scotland, he should like to see the man who would stand up and say that reform ought not to take place. 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 support 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 desired 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.

Mr Stuart Wortley, notwithstanding his high respect for the honourable mover, did not conceive that any case had been made out which could justify Parliamentary 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 articles 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? If 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 he not go a little farther with his reform and include Glasgow, which returned but onefourth 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 Parliament, to the exclusion of all the rest of their 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? 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 improvement which he witnessed, and which had been effected by that very corporation which had been made the subject of complaint and censure. The corporation-laws of Scotland had been secured by the treaty of Union, and her right to them had been strongly defended by the Duke of Argyle, Lord Hardwicke, and other eminent men. The 33 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 honourable and learned gentleman to anything he possessed was his. He was also against the motion as a commencement of reform in Parliament. He, for one, thought the House of Commons, such as it was, sufficient for the government of the country. 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 length the gentlemen opposite admitted that it was in a more prosperous situation than any other country.

Lord Binning also conceived, that the noble Lord and others who failed in their attempts at reform in a wholesale way, now sought to accomplish this object by proceeding piece-meal, well knowing, that if they succeeded in one case, it would be an argument for conceding all the rest. 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 representation 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, if a constitution were now to be granted, that it would enter into his head 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 be necessary. It was said that great care had been taken that the petitions presented on this subject should be signed by none whose houses were

66

not rated at 5. It was most extraordinary that these popular leaders, these Whig patriots, should act thus, should place a man at the door where the petition lay for signature, to ask of those who came, "Is your house rated at 51.," and when the answer given was, No, only at 4/. 10s. ;" then to tell the party," If that is the case, you may not petition!" After the efforts made to get the petition universally signed, he was surprised that not more than from 6000 to 7000 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 consi, der one-third of the householders to have petitioned; but if one-third of them had done so, that was no reason why the House should give way in a case like this. The House had not attended to petitions 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 Sheffield?

In opposition to these views, Lord J. Russell was of opinion, that to maintain that the people of Scotland had stipulated at the time of the Union, that 19 persons should have the right of returning a member 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 have been capable of

such conduct.

Mr Kennedy 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 corporation. He contended that there was no necessity to prove mal

versation on the part of the members of the corporation to warrant 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.-Mr Abercromby finally congratulated himself, that in the course of the debate no one had had the hardihood to defend the system of Scotch representation. 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 ved 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 19 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 acquiring their just rights.

The motion was negatived only by the majority of 24, (99 to 75.)

Association.

IRELAND presented, as much as ever, an object of serious and painful contemplation; one on which it was impossible that Parliament should cease to direct its most intent and anxious regard. The disorganized counties were still kept from breaking out into open violence, only by the severe operation of the insurrection act; factions in the capital and the great cities, raged with equal fury, and the remedies set in motion to mitigate the evils under which the country laboured, acted only slowly and imperceptibly. Although, however, Ireland could not but be a prominent object of discussion, its aspect was so very unchanged, and it had been so repeatedly survey ed, that it became extremely difficult either to say or do anything more on the subject. The general Catholic question, which had sunk last session in so remarkable a manner, was not

VOL. XVII. PART I.

revived during the present, which was spent chiefly in inquiries into the causes and nature of those evils which appeared to have taken such deep root, and had bid defiance to all the measures hitherto employed with a view to their mitigation or removal.

Lord Darnley, on the 8th April, brought all the questions connected with the state of Ireland into full and formal discussion. It was a remarkable spectacle, his lordship observed, to see this great country flourishing more than any other part of Europe, her manufactures in full activity, her agriculture reviving, her commerce embracing the world, her remotest dependencies sharing in her prosperity, the attention of her Parliament directed to improving the condition of slaves, and, at the same time, to behold her nearest and most important possession in a state of wretchedness

F