ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND. (Hansard, 23 March 1819)

§ Lord A. Hamilton
took an opportunity of contradicting a statement which had been made during the last session by the lord advocate that the people of Scotland were perfectly satisfied with the reform which his bill had provided. The reverse was clearly proved to be the case, by the number of petitions presented to the House.

The Lord Advocate
said, he saw no reason to alter any opinion he had expressed on the subject. He did not think the wish for reform was by any means general.

§ Mr. Hume
contended, that the people of Scotland had a right to expect some redress. The situation of the very borough from which this petition came proved the necessity of a reform. He had a list in his hand of the magistrates of that town for the last twenty years, and he found that one set of magistrates presided this year, and the other set presided the next; and that the public property of Dundee had been let at half its value to friends of the magistrates. The petition was signed by nine-tenths of the population.

§ Lord A. Hamilton
presented (similar petitions from Crail, Hawick, and Elgin.

§ Mr. Brougham
said, the learned lord had stated that the people of Scotland were satisfied with the present state of the burgh system. When petitions however came in signed by so many, he thought his learned friend should make some exception to that observation.

The Lord Advocate
said, he was still persuaded that the great body of the Scots population did not desire any such alteration. Were they unanimous, it would be different, but they were not, and besides the petition from Hawick just presented, was not from a royal burgh. Much dependence could not be placed on those petitions, which came from a few interested persons.

§ Sir James Mackintosh
said, that of all the speeches he had ever heard, with re- 1123 spect to the presentation of petitions, that of the learned lord was the most extraordinary, and to him the most unintelligible, he had ever listened to. On all former occasions when his majesty's subjects applied to that House for a redress of grievances, the House particularly wished to see petitions from those persons who really were aggrieved; whose interests were injured; who demanded a definite redress, for a definite evil. But, if he received the learned lord's doctrine, he must relinquish all these principles. He seemed to say, that the petitions were not worthy the attention of parliament, because the statements contained in them were made by persons who were suffering under the grievance of which they complained, and whose situation enabled them to point out the most effectual remedy. Because persons, who had no specific connexion with these transactions, did not appear at the bar of the House, he argued, that no evil existed. If he had said, that the great body of burgesses had not petitioned, and had inferred from that circumstance, that they were satisfied, he would have understood him. He, however, had said no such thing; but had observed that the great body of the people of Scotland had not petitioned. He had proceeded on a sort of universal suffrage principle, and seemed to suppose, that the great body of the Scotch people were the proper persons to judge of the constitution of the burghs, instead of those who really understood the subject, and who suffered from the existing system. Tomorrow Or next day he should have the honour of presenting three or four petitions, praying for an alteration of that system, and he believed the learned lord would find, that a great majority, in point of property, character, and numbers, would very shortly appear before the House, complaining of the grievances under which they laboured in consequence of the mischievous manner in which their affairs were managed.

§ Mr. W. Douglas
said, that much of the confusion which had arisen in the funds of the Scots burghs was occasioned by the self election of the magistracy, and the want of control which the inhabitants had over the receipts and expenditure. The bill introduced last year was by no means adequate to remedy the evil. The expectation of the different incorporated trades in Scotland had been much excited by the charter given to Montrose; and he could 1124 not help thinking it a very extraordinary thing in government to act as they had done to the burgh of Aberdeen, thereby crushing all the hopes they had formerly excited.

Sir R. Fergusson
contended against the impolicy of government in refusing the same charter to the trades of Aberdeen, as they had granted to those in Montrose. In the latter borough the happy effects of such reform had been already felt.

§ Mr. Boswell
impressed upon the House the necessity of not placing the fullest reliance on petitions of this description, particularly when they called for what the petitioners were pleased to consider their inalienable rights. Had they confined themselves to a control over the expenditure of the burghs, or what was termed the common good, he was disposed to give his co-operation to the success of their application. A bill to that effect, he understood, was in preparation; and to that extent it should have his support.

§ Mr. F. Douglas
stated, that under the present management of the royal burghs, the inhabitants were not only robbed of their rights, but almost of the power of giving expression to their grievances.