§ Lord A. Hamiltonrose to move for the re-appointment of the Committee to inquire into the state of the Scotch Burghs. He understood, that no opposition on the part of ministers was intended to the motion. The only alteration he should propose, was, to substitute, in the place of a gentleman who was not likely to attend, another hon. member. The report that was made by the former committee, was before the House, and he could appeal to it, as confirming, every observation he had ever uttered on the subject. The abuses proved to exist, were so gross, so perpetual, and he might say, so flagitious, that nothing but an investigation into the causes could provide a remedy. These abuses sprung from the practice of self-election in corporate bodies endowed with the power of perpetuating the abuse. When he had introduced the subject first to the consideration of the House, it was retorted upon him, that whatever he might profess, his object was parliamentary reform. He repeated now what he then stated, that neither himself nor the petitioners from the Royal Burghs sought parliamentary reform directly, although neither he nor they disguised from the House, that any alteration in the burghs must collaterally and in a small degree affect the representation in that House. If parliamentary reform grew out of the change, it would do so collaterally, and not directly. The strength of the existing abuses were fully illustrated in the fact, that three most 1401 populous places. Inverness, Aberdeen, and even Edinburgh, were under a sentence of disfranchisement. As to Edinburgh, though he saw in his place the right hon. member (Mr. W. Dundas), yet it was now a question before the Court of Session, whether there had been an election or not? Aberdeen was in a worse state, as it had no vote whatever. Inverness, he believed to be in the same predicament. Under these circumstances, he was warranted in asking the House to pursue the inquiry further. The noble lord concluded with moving, "that the Petitions from the Royal Burghs of Scotland be referred to a Select Committee."
§ Mr. W. Dundasobserved, that the noble lord, in moving for the renewal of the Committee, had said a great deal, of which he (Mr. D.) had never heard before, and which was not in any degree confirmed, even by the luminous report of the last committee. As to the election of Edinburgh, the only question arose from the chance absence of one of the magistrates. The noble lord had stated the Burgh of Aberdeen to be bankrupt; that he denied, and dared him to the proof. The noble lord had that night struggled to show, that parliamentary reform was not his object; he believed the noble lord before to feel that parliament would not suffer those corporate rights, guaranteed by the articles of the Union, to be shaken. All that could be expected was, to replace the boroughs in the state in which they stood previously to that compact, so that no burgess should be made liable to debts, over which he had no control.
Mr. Forbesreminded the House, that during the discussions of last session, he had uniformly maintained, that the burgh of Aberdeen was not bankrupt. He could now prove that facts justified his opinion: Aberdeen was paying an interest of four per cent on all its debts, and in the course of a year five per cent would be paid up on the arrears of the two last years. The town of Aberdeen was considered good security, and most of its creditors would feel greatly disappointed were the debts paid off. He did not rise to oppose the motion, for as far as the labours of the first Committee went, they were as productive of as little evil as of good.
§ The motion was agreed to, and Committee appointed.