BURGH REFORM (SCOTLAND).] The Lord Advocate rose to submit a Motion to the House on a very important subjectthat of Reforming the Municipal Constitution of the Royal Burghs of Scotland. It was a subject of which the discussion was likely to be monopolized by the Scotch Members, and he, therefore, would not then enter into any details of the measure. He believed, that it would be more convenient to the House, and more conducive to a saving of time, if the discussion were taken at a future period. He proposed, therefore, to read the Bill a first and a second time pro forma, and after the second reading, he would move, that it be referred to a Select Committee. He would propose that this Committee should consist of all the Members for the Scotch burghs, about twenty-three, which would make a very proper Committee as to numbers. By so doing the House would not come to a discussion of the measure till it was well acquainted with it. He would then only move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws with respect to electing the Magistrates and Town Councils of Royal Burghs in Scotland. Captain William Gordon expressed his regret that the measure was not in the first instance referred to a Committee of Inquiry, as had been done with respect to the English and Irish Corporations. He hoped, too, that the learned Lord would not confine the Select Committee to the Members for Scotch burghs. The Lord Advocate explained, that a considerable time would elapse before the Committee could come to any conclusion, that the Bill would be amply discussed, and that the Committee would readily listen to any suggestions. As to placing other Members on the Committee, it would be open to hon. Members to name whom they pleased when the Committee was appointed. Mr. Gillon wished to ask, when the Committee would begin its labours? He hoped nothing would be done till the Bill had been printed and sent to Scotland, so that the opinion of those most interested in it might be obtained. Mr. Kennedy thought the Committee might begin its labours immediately. An extension of the time sufficient to make the Bill known, would, however, be given, and the whole discussion, both on its principle and on its details, might be gone into after the Committee had completed its labours. Mr. Oswald gave his support to the Motion. Captain Dunlop asked, whether the learned Lord meant to take any steps to improve the constitution of those boroughs which were not royal burghs? We understood the hon. Member to call them barony burghs. The Lord Advocate believed, that his Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to propose a measure for them. He could certainly say, for himself, that he had a Bill in preparation to amend the constitution of the boroughs alluded to by the hon. Member. Mr. Andrew Johnston differed from the hon. member for Aberdeenshire as to requiring a Committee of Inquiry, because the subject had already been much inquired into. Burgh Reform had agitated Scotland much more than Parliamentary Reform, and now that they had obtained the latter he hoped that the former would be also soon obtained. He recommended a sweeping and effectual Reform of the boroughs, similar to that which had been made of the Parliament, and not a bit-bybit Reform. Leave given. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.] Mr. Robinson wished to ask the noble Lord, what arrangement he proposed to make, as to the presentation of petitions, on the next day. Lord Althorp said, that it had been agreed, that petitions relative to the Irish Coercive Bill should be presented, and he hoped that hon. Members would adhere to that arrangement which had been made with a view of hearing those petitions which related to the Bill before it passed. Mr. Robinson said, he should take the sense of the House on that subject, when the time came. Mr. O'Connell hoped the hon. Member would not. It would be of no use to receive the petitions of the people against the Bill after it was passed. Mr. Hume thought the hon. member for Worcester should raise the question then, and not wait till the next day. Mr. Henry Grattan hoped the hon. I ment; but he must declare that the preMember would waive his intention. sent state of the business of the House was now become a grievance of very great importance. The present mode of proceeding was neither more nor less than an interference with the rights and privileges of the House. If he were not allowed to present petitions, which he thought of importance, and if he were not allowed to submit motions of which he had regularly given notice, what was that but infringing on the rights and privileges of the Members? He admitted, that there had been an understanding across the Table between the noble Lord and the hon. and learned member for Dublin ; and he knew that the House generally acceded to those understandings to which the parties most interested came. He did not wish to interfere with such understandings; but he wished to ask would the noble Lord assure him any day on which he might bring forward his Motion? He had a notice fixed for the 26th, on a subject which he considered of great importance-when was he to be assured of an opportunity of bringing that forward? The Notice-book up to the 20th of May, was filled up with Motions, four or five for each day, and motions of a description that each of them would, as things were now discussed, take four or five days to discuss Lord Althorp said, it was impossible to raise the question then. The question could only be raised on the presentation of any individual petition; and it might be raised at any time when it was proposed to lay a petition on the Table. It was in the power of any hon. Member to present a petition; but it was in the power of the House to decide that it should not be received. The House, however, had no right to interfere and prevent Members from presenting petitions. There certainly was a general understanding, that the petitions relating to the Irish Bill should alone be presented; but the House could not prevent other petitions being brought before it, if hon. Gentlemen offered them. He had given notice of a motion, to call the attention of the House to the propriety, in the present state of business, of always taking the Orders of the Day before Notices, during the progress of the Irish Bill. He did not intend to take the sense of the House on that Motion, but he only wished that an understanding should be come to on the subject. At the time of the debates on the Reform Bill, he had made a similar proposition, and the Gen-it. If the country was not to be altogether tlemen opposed to him had concurred in the suggestion; and the consequence was, that other business was not allowed to interfere with it. He should, therefore, on this occasion, only make such a suggestion; and he hoped that Gentlemen would not again press their notices, and allow the Orders of the Day to take precedence, so as not to interfere with the progress of the Irish Bill. Mr. Warburton wished to ask the hon. member for Worcester if it were his intention to interfere with the arrangement for presenting petitions against the Bill? If the hon. Member meant to raise the question, he had better do it then. He thought a resolution might be moved, that no other petitions should be presented to-morrow than petitions relative to the Irish Bill. If there were no impropriety in that mode of settling the question, he should have no objection to move such a resolution. Mr. Robinson was sure the noble Lord would do him the justice to say, that he had never shown himself disposed pertinaciously to resist the wishes of the Govern deceived-and if the House was to have time for deliberation-something must be done to obviate the pressure of business. Such a state of things was inconsistent with the dignity, character, and usefulness of the House. He knew, unsupported as he was by any party, that his attempts might be unavailing, but he could not give up his rights and privileges as a Member of that House, and could not forego his right to introduce the Motion of which he had given notice. He wished to know whether all other business was to be put an end to till the Irish Bill was passed? Lord Althorp had always supposed that all the decisions of the House would be guided by good sense and discretion. He had, however, been apprehensive that the eagerness of Gentlemen to bring forward Motions would lead the House to attempt to do more business than it possibly could do in one Session. That apprehension had been realised. On looking at the Notice-book, he found so many notices of motions on very important subjects, that every man acquainted with business must know it would be impossible to get through them in one Session. Mr. Hume asked, if all the business of the country was to give place to the Irish Bill? On two grounds, the Bill, he thought, should be abandoned first, because it entirely interrupted the business of the House; secondly, because, by every account from Ireland, it would be quite unnecessary to put into operation. But as to the precise course to be taken on the question before the House, he would not come to any understanding. Lord Althorp thought it strange that the accommodation granted to him by the minority in the last Parliament should be refused to him in this. Mr. Harvey, though highly disapproving of the coercive Bill, yet thought that the sooner it was disposed of the better. After the decided opinions expressed by the House on its necessity, it was hardly to be expected that it would be dropped in its present stage. Mr. Baring considered the course pursued by the noble Lord to be very unfair to the people of England, whose interests were made to appear very subordinate to the interests of Ireland, and who were left in the dark as to the intentions of Ministers in reference to the great public questions which affected their dearest interests. The admitted urgency of the Irish Coercion Bill did not justify the noble Lord's most blameable silence respecting the Established Church, and the Bank Charter, and the East-Indian and West-Indian interests, and the tithes, and the other important questions, which must, however late, come under their consideration. What was to prevent the noble Lord devoting one evening to express the intentions of Ministers in relation to those great questions? There need be, then, no dis cussion; all that was wanting, was to know what measures Ministers proposed respecting these important interests. Lord Althorp hoped to be able to state the intentions of Ministers before the recess. It was plain, that a short expression or outline of their intended measures would only lead to misconception and misrepresentation. If he adopted the course suggested by the hon. Member, the propositions of Ministers would be attacked piecemeal throughout the country. Mr. Baring said, surely it was not meant that the public were not to discuss any or every measure which Ministers would bring forward. Mr. Ruthven said, that the Irish coercion measure was introduced to draw public attention from the violation of the pledges made by Government. They were thus enabled to shift aside the questions of economy, reduction of taxation, &c., and deny the country the relief which it had a right to claim at their hands. HOUSE OF LORDS, Wednesday, March 13, 1833. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By the Bishop of BATH AND WELLS, from Blackheath, and from Stage Coach and Waggon Proprietors of Bath; and by Lord Suffield, from several Congregations of Dissenters,-for the better Observance of the Sabbath.-By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from Fowey; by Lord KING, from Titchmarsh, and by Earl FITZWILLIAM, from several Places in Northamptonshire,--for the Abolition of Slavery,-By the Earl of RODEN, from Anstruther, for the Abolition of Church Patronage (Scotland.)-By the Earl of SEPTON, from Liverpool, for the Repeal of the Disabilities affecting the Jews. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, March 13, 1833. MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of Sir HARRY VERNEY, Number of Persons confined within the year ending Michaelmas 1832, for breaches of the Revenue Laws. Bills. Read a second time:-Fines and Recoveries; Dower; Limitation of Actions; Curtesy of England, &c. New Members. Lord MILTON took his Seat for the Northern Division of Northamptonshire, in the room of his Father Lord MILTON, called up to the House of Peers, Petitions presented. By Mr. LUKE WHITE, from Ardagh, and several other Places in the County of Longford; by Mr. HALL, from Monmouth; by Major KEPPEL, from Diss, Norfolk; by Mr. D. O'CONNOR, from several Parishes in Roscommon; by Mr. O'FERRALL, from Arklow; by Mr. A. OSWALD, from the Bath Political Union; by Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR, from two Parishes in Cork; and by Lord MOLYNEUX, from Todmorden,against the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.→ By Mr. BRIGSTOCK, from a Place in Somersetshire; and by Mr. INGHAM, from South Shields,-in favour of the Bill. By Mr. ROBINSON, from Portsmouth, against the Corporation of that Town.-By Mr. CHARLES GRANT, from Kilmorack and Kirkhill,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath. SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) - PETITIONS.] Mr. Grote presented a Petition from the Borough of Marylebone against the Irish Coercive Bill. The petition was signed by 2,951 persons. The petitioners stated, that they had heard with horror and alarm, that a bill had passed the other House of Parliament to suspend the Constitution of Ireland, and to establish in that unhappy Country Martial-law. The petitioners stated their belief that the only means of putting an end to the disturbances that were taking place in Ireland was, to give | from such a constituency as that of the full justice to the people of that country, borough of Marylebone, and begged to thereby enabling them to enjoy the fruits give the petition his most hearty support. of their own labour, and also by destroying the iniquitous oligarchical faction that existed in that country. The petitioners concluded by praying that the House would not adopt the measures then under consideration in that House, but would resort to the introduction of measures calculated to insure the affections of the Irish people. He gave his cordial support to the prayer of the petition, which, he hoped, might be favourably heard. Mr. Robinson would take that opportunity of stating, that in consequence of what had on a former evening been said by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was unwilling to oppose any suggestions which had been made to promote public business, and he should withdraw his opposition to the Irish petitions taking precedence this day; but, in doing so, he could not but express a hope, that in consequence of the understanding which had taken place, hon. Members would be induced not to enter into long and desultory discussions on the presentation of such petitions. He trusted that such a course would not be adopted this day, and that it would be the last on which hon. Members would feel it necessary to ask the House for the favour of being alone heard. If, however, hon. Members were to enter into long discussions on the presentation of these petitions, it would be utterly useless to attempt to proceed with the business of the House. The hon. member for Oldham had taken no less than an hour in the presentation of petitions the other day. Mr. Cobbett, as he had been personally alluded to, begged to observe, that he had never been a party to an understanding of the description referred to by the hon. Member. The proposition that he had put forward to the House was, that the petitions should be read aloud, and that the whole of them should be printed at full length, and that, upon such course being adopted, he would abstain from saying a word on any petition he had to present. With respect to the time which he had occupied in the presentation of petitions the other day, the hon. Member had made a little mistake, as he did not entertain the House more than thirty-five minutes. He hailed with great pleasure the presentation of a petition of this sort Mr. Brocklehurst presented a similar Petition from Macclesfield, signed by 2,400 people. He must, however, take the opportunity of saying that, though an ardent supporter of constitutional liberty, still he could not support the prayer of this petition, after hearing the case made out by the Ministers, to arm the Government with the power, great though it was, which was proposed to be given them by that Bill. The petitioners stated, that they had heard with delight of the measures of conciliation which were stated to be in preparation; but they were of opinion that, even if they were all passed, they would not relieve that country from a tithe of its burthens, and grievances, and prayed the House not to pass that Bill before trying the effect which measures of conciliation would have. Mr. John Fielden said, as the hon. Member could not support the prayer of the petition which he had presented, he (Mr. Fielden) would take that office upon himself. He begged to say, that he most cordially agreed with all the statements contained in it. When it was admitted by the hon. Member, as it had been, that the weavers of Macclesfield were in a state of great distress, they could not look with a favourable eye on their Representatives who supported a measure which must enhance the expenses of the country, and at least, prevent those burthens being diminished under which they laboured. Mr. Finn presented three Petitions from parishes in Kilkenny, to the same effect. Upon only one of them would he detain the House. He considered it to be of very great importance, as it contradicted one of the facts which had been so often relied on to justify this coercive measure. The petitioners denied that the Jurors upon the Carrickshaugh trials, who had voted for conviction, had been obliged to fly the country, and stated, that five of them were still living in their own houses unmolested that one had removed, on account of pecuniary embarrassments, and one for causes not known. He took that opportunity of saying, that he was happy to observe, that upon this question, the people of England differed from their Representatives, for they had not sent up any petitions but what were against the Bill. Their conduct, at least, had been such as to draw closer the ties that in direct contradiction to those which had united the two kingdoms. been urged in support of the measure. Now, it happened there was not any one member of the Government now present to hear those statements, though it had been clearly understood, when the new arrangement was made, that at least one Minister of the Crown should be present to hear the representations and complaints of the people. As the petitions would go to the Petition Committee, and only such parts be printed as they thought fit, it was surely not too much for the people to expect that, at least, one officer of the Crown should be present on these occasions. Mr. Fitzgerald concurred in the observations of the hon. member for Colchester. He did not complain of the want of attention to himself individually; but he certainly had been anxious that some one of his Majesty's Ministers should be present to listen to the statement he had to make, particularly as he had not been able to obtain a hearing on a former oc Mr. Fitzgerald presented several Petitions from Louth and King's County, against the measure of coercion for Ireland now before the House. The petitions contained a large number of signatures. They clearly proved, that as regarded the county of Louth, the measure brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers was perfectly unnecessary. The right hon. Secretary of State for Ireland had given the House a statement upon anonymous authority of the intimidation of a Juror in the county of Louth. Now, he could state, from his own knowledge of that county, and from experience gathered by constant attendance at the Assizes, that no such case of intimidation had occurred; he repeated, therefore, the statement of the petitioners, that there was no necessity whatever, as regarded the county of Louth, for the enactment of this tyrannical and oppressive measure. The statements made with regard to the backwardness of the gentry of that county to do their duty,casion. If he had been allowed a hearing he denied in toto. In 1817, when the country was in such a state of disturbance, that the Judges were obliged to ride with a military escort, the yeomanry of the county, who might do honour to any English county, fearlessly and independently came forward to discharge their duty. The people looked upon this Bill with feelings of disappointment and in-stress upon a letter of Sir Patrick Bellew's. dignation of disappointment, because they had placed confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, and had done all they could to support them. He begged to add, that unless his Majesty's Ministers made up their mind to remove the odious impost of tithes, they could never hope to see tranquillity restored in that country. He said this because it was the conviction of his mind, and not because he had the slightest wish to put one penny of the tithes in his own pocket as a landlord. What he wanted was, that the tithes should be applied to benevolent purposes. He was surprised the other night to hear the right hon. member for Tamworth so strenuously maintain the right of the clergy to the whole of these tithes. He contended, that the poor had at least a co-equal and co-extensive right with the clergy. The petitions having been brought up, Mr. Harvey said, he had listened with attention to the petitions which had been presented, and which contained statements on that occasion, he should have stated that he had received a letter from one of the Deputy-lieutenants, informing him that Sir Patrick Bellew had written to him, the Deputy-lieutenant, to say that his part of the country had become perfectly tranquil. He mentioned this, as the right hon. Secretary had laid great But what would the House think when he stated that that letter had been written five weeks previously to that written by the Deputy-lieutenant, and was for the specific purpose of being allowed to put the Peace Preservation Act in force, permission to do which had been granted and acted upon, with the best possible effect? Mr. Nicholas Fitzsimon said, that five of these petitions having been presented from the county he represented, he begged leave to support the prayer of them. They were numerously and respectably signed. They asserted that their county was in a state of tranquillity, notwithstanding it had been stated in that House that it was in a state of disturbance. He would appeal to his noble colleague opposite, whether, from what had been done on numerous trials, the law was not sufficient, as had been demonstrated, to put down those disturbances, if it were to be put vigorously into execution. One of the |