Sir R. Fergusonpresented a petition from Cupar, Fife, in favour of Reform, and especially in favour of Reform in the Representation or rather non-representation of the Scotch boroughs. He declared, that he had been both astonished and hurt at hearing that a noble Duke had said, in another place, that the country was satisfied with the present, system, and that he was not prepared to agree to any proposition for Reform. If the noble Duke really had made any such declaration, and supposed, indeed, that the people were satisfied with the present system, he (Sir R. Ferguson) must say, that the noble Duke was quite ignorant of the feelings of the people. By such a declaration the people would not be stopped, but would press forward with double zeal in the cause of Reform; for he felt bound to say, that, in his belief, there was but one opinion as to the necessity of Reform from one end of the kingdom to the other.
§ Mr. Kennedysaid, that as this was the first petition that had been presented from Scotland on the subject, he must take the opportunity of observing, that he entreated the House to pay the utmost attention to the wishes of the people of Scotland 516 on the question of Reform. His own opinion was firmly settled on this question, though he did not concur with the petitioners in asking for the ballot.
Mr. Humepresented six petitions from Perth, Arbroath, Brechin, and Stockport, for Reform and reduction of Taxation. The boroughs from which these petitions came, were some of the worst specimens of our Scotch boroughs. The petitions, however, were most respectably signed, but he believed that some of the places from which they were sent would send no more, unless Ministers exhibited a disposition to afford relief to the petitioners. It was with deep regret that he heard of the declaration of a noble Duke in another place, and from that declaration he anticipated a great deal of mischief. He declared, that the universal wish of the people of Scotland was for the ballot.
Mr. Dundasdenied, that any such feeling existed in Scotland in favour of the ballot. He denied, too, that the people wished the reform of which the hon. Member had talked; he absolutely denied, that they wanted reform in the Representation; at least that was not the general feeling in Scotland.
§ Mr. Kennedyshould be perfectly contented if that question were to be decided by the expression of opinion that the petitions to that House would disclose.
§ Sir C. Forbessaid, that he could not help thinking the hon. member for Middlesex had borne rather hardly upon Brechin, to which borough he was mainly indebted for being four times returned to Parliament before he got his present seat, and that it was rather ungrateful in him now to turn round upon that borough, and represent it as one of the worst in Scotland.
Mr. Humeanswered that the majority of five was three, and that having Montrose and Arbroath with him, he only wanted Brechin to complete that, majority. In that way Brechin had returned him to Parliament. He denied, however, that it had ever done so corruptly. He did not, indeed, owe much gratitude to the self-constituted electors of Brechin as they were against him, but were afraid of their fellow-townsmen if they rejected him. The hon. member for Edinburgh had denied that the people in Edinburgh wanted Reform in Parliament. He would ask that hon. Member if he had the courage to risk the decision of that question by a 517 ballot of the people of Scotland? If the people of Edinburgh voted by ballot, the hon. Member, who now sat in the House for that City would be the last man who would represent it. The hon. Member spoke the opinions of the thirty or forty men by whom he was returned, but not of the 125,000 inhabitants whom he pretended to represent, but who had no vote in his election. It was a shameful blot on the character of that House, that among such a population there should be but so few voters.
Mr. Dundassaid, the hon. member for Middlesex was mistaken, when he said that there were only forty electors for Edinburgh; but he knew nothing of the Constitution of Edinburgh, and therefore he made bold assertions. It was ignorance that made him bold. Among his (Mr. Dundas's) electors, were fourteen persons who were chosen by the people, as elders or deacons, and that was a public election as far as it went.
Sir J. Grahamobserved, that although he might be almost afraid of the censure of the hon. Member opposite, for his ignorance exhibited in what he was about to say, he could not avoid feeling a wish to state one fact on this subject. The last time that the people of Scotland had the opportunity of pronouncing their opinion on the question of reform was in the year 1826, when the present Chief Baron of Scotland brought that question under the consideration of the House. The people of Scotland then showed, that there were in Edinburgh 10,000 persons rated to the annual amount of 51., and that, after deducting the number of women and other persons unqualified to vote, there remained 7,256 householders, who signed a petition to that House, praying that. Parliament would alter the mode of election for Scotland. The hon. member for Edinburgh would find the greatest difficulty in producing petitions from Scotland, with or without the ballot, that should express an opinion (he meant the opinion of men of property, not the rabble) at all conformable to the declaration of the Duke of Wellington, that imagination could not conceive a system of representation so perfect as that which was established in the United Kingdom. He was sure, that the hon. member for Edinburgh would not find 500 people in Scotland who would go that length with him, or who would pretend in any way to vindicate the present 518 mode of returning Members. With regard to the mystification and craft of returning Members, they had been already well exposed by others, and he had only to say, that, in his opinion, however high the tone taken by the Ministers, or haughty the determination they expressed on the subject, they would find that they could not continue this corrupt system against the moderate but firm and universal demands for reform that were uttered by the people of this empire.
§ Mr. Kennedysaid, that the Corporation by which the hon. member for Edinburgh was returned, consisted of thirty-three persons, and the election of fourteen of them, it was true, did participate in some degree of a popular election— but nineteen out of the thirty-three were self-elected, so that the whole fabric of popular election, which the imagination of the hon. member for Edinburgh had erected, at once fell to the ground.
Mr. Dundasaffirmed, that it stood where it did. Fourteen of these persons were popularly elected, and they conduced to the election of the others.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Council influenced the election of the whole thirty-three, and that the people of Edinburgh had no more to do with the election of the hon. Member than had the people of Japan.
§ Petitions read and laid on the Table.