HL Deb 10 July 1832 vol 14 cc205-7
The Duke of Richmond

moved the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Reform (Scotland) Bill.

House in Committee.

On the question that the Committee should agree to the clause for regulating the order of proceedings at elections for counties,

The Earl of Rosslyn

thought it advisable that the election for the county of Mid-Lothian should not take place in the city of Edinburgh. The chance of riot at a period of excitement like that of an election, was much greater in a large and populous town than in a small place. For this reason, perhaps, the elections for the county of Middlesex took place at Brentford. Upon the same principle, he would suggest that Dalkeith should be substituted for Edinburgh, as the polling-place for the county of Mid-Lothian. The probability of tumults and disorders in Edinburgh would be much increased, if the elections for the county and the city should happen to be going on at the same time.

The Earl of Rosebery

saw no reason for adopting the suggestion of the noble Earl. Edinburgh was the most central spot in the county; the residence of the Sheriff, and the place for transacting all the county business. The noble Earl was apprehensive that tumults might arise if the elections for the county and the city should be carried on at the same time. But that would be the Sheriff's fault. It was not likely that the Sheriff would appoint the two elections to take place at the same period. He saw no reason to depart from the rule which had been followed in similar cases.

The Duke of Buccleugh

, living within a hundred yards of Dalkeith, would, for his own convenience, prefer that the election should not take place there. At the same time, he was bound to admit that there was great weight in the objection his noble friend had urged against holding the election at Edinburgh.

Clause agreed to; as well as several others, with verbal amendments.

On the clause relating to the writ for the election of a member for Orkney and Shetland,

The Earl of Haddington

said, the union of those two places, for the purpose of returning one Member, had excited great surprise amongst those acquainted with the places. These two clusters of islands are divided from each other by eighty miles of stormy sea. There was no regular communication by post between them; but when a person in Orkney wrote a letter to a person in Shetland, he sent it to Edinburgh, where it remained until some trading vessel carried it to its place of destination. Under these circumstances, it appeared to be impossible that the Sheriff of Orkney could execute the duties imposed upon him by this Bill, unless a Government steam-vessel were placed at his disposal during the time of the election. In November and December, all communication between the islands was stopped. He hoped that his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would propose such amendments as would render it possible for the Sheriff of Orkney to perform the duties imposed upon him by this Bill.

The Lord Chancellor

did not think his noble friend had sufficiently considered the clause. The writ to Orkney and Shetland was not returnable until fifty days after it had been issued; which appeared to him sufficient time for the purpose, allowing for all the impediments to the communication between Orkney and Shetland.

The Earl of Rosslyn

could say, that within his recollection, the return of the writ for Orkney never had taken place in less than fifty-eight days.

The Lord Chancellor

did not believe that there was any physical impossibility of communicating between Orkney and Shetland. The Sheriff of Orkney was not bound to send his precept to the Sheriff Substitute in Shetland by post; but, like the English Sheriff, he must communicate with his officers in the best way he could.

The Earl of Haddington

wished to know how the Sheriff of Orkney could issue his precept to the Sheriff Substitute in Shetland, if the stormy nature of the seas would not allow of communication? and what, he would ask, was to be done if the person bearing the precept should be wrecked?

Clause agreed to. The remaining clauses, with verbal amendments, were also agreed to.

The schedules were also agreed to.

On the question being put on the Dumfries district of borough,

The Earl of Selkirk

begged to make a request to their Lordships on the part of the people of Kirkcudbright, namely, that they should be removed from this district, and added to No. 14, consisting of New Galloway, Stranraer, Whithorn, and Wig-ton. The town of Kirkcudbright was more nearly connected with the district of Wig-ton, in its geographical position, than with that of Dumfries. The former was by far the smaller district of the two; that of Dumfries containing 24,051 inhabitants, and 1,623 10l. houses, and paying assessed taxes to the amount of 27,000l.; while the Wigton district had only 7,209 inhabitants 342 10l. houses, and paid 525l. assessed taxes.

The Earl of Rosebery

thought their Lordships ought not to disturb the arrangement of this district, by agreeing to the wish of the noble Earl. The noble Earl had been requested by the people of Kirkcudbright to make this proposition, but he had not stated whether he had been similarly applied to by any others in this district; there was, therefore, no ground whatever for making the change.

The Earl of Selkirk

said, his object was, that the two districts should be equalised, by transferring a moderately-sized town from the large to the small one.

Motion agreed to. The remainder of the Bill agreed to, and ordered to be reported.—House resumed.

Back to