the neighbourhood, and they had borrowed these funds, and thus involved these charitable institutions in the general wreck. They had taken up money of every Kirk session that would lend them. At the last election only two persons could be found to accept the office of councillors; there exists now only six, instead of nineteen, that is, four under a quorum qualified to act. The citizens have now an action before the court of session, by which they hope to disfranchise the burgh, with the view of obtaining a new set." He appealed to an hon. member present (Mr. Forbes) if this was not substantially correct. Similar facts, to a greater or less extent, might be adduced in the case of all the royal burghs in Scotland, as he could prove before a committee of the House. Well as he was acquainted with the gross! abuses existing in Scotch burghs, and their general prevalence, still he had been surprised, since the time he had given notice of this motion, by the numerous representations he had received of facts new to him, offered to be substantiated by proofs, and of complaints of grievous injury, and impending ruin, all tending to establish the same point; the cruel, ruinous, and oppressive mismanagement of the burghs. The general subject, however, was not now before the House, and though he foresaw, plainly, that his present motion was to be negatived, he would take an opportunity after Easter of bringing this very questionable power of the Crown to alter the set of a burgh again, under the consideration of the House, along with a more extended view of this important subject.

Mr. Forbes stated, that the burgh was involved in some difficulties by the purchase of a large quantity of ground which for some years they could not let out on building leases, but even under their difficulties they were only 1,400l. short of the whole interest on the sum due. There were generally two sides to a question, and he believed the noble lord had only got hold of one. For the last few years the affairs of the burgh had been in a progressive state of improvement.

Mr. W. Smith said, that the revenues of the town of Aberdeen were 1,400l. short of the sum necessary to pay the interest of their debt.

Mr. Douglas said, that the embarrassments of the burgh were so far removed as to leave a sinking fund of 300l. a year after the payment of its debts.

The motion was negatived without a division.

UN

HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, February, 16. PETITION FROM PHILIP DRUMMOND COMPLAINING OF IMPRISONMENT DER THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.] The Earl of Carnarvon said, he had a petition to present to their lordships from a person who had suffered under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and who stated that he had been imprisoned without any cause. If the forms of the house would permit it, he should wish to move, without loss of time, that the petition be referred to the Secret Committee: but as notice of the motion must be given, that would occasion delay, and the report of the committee might perhaps be made to-morrow.

The Earl of Liverpool said, the report would not, perhaps, be made for a day or two. The noble earl might, therefore, move, that the petition be received to-day and give notice of his motion for the earliest convenient day.

Lord Holland said, it was important that petitions of this kind should be sent to the committee, and he could see no objection to their being immediately referred thereto.

The clerk carried the petition to the lord chancellor, by whom it was found to wantthe word "humble."

The Earl of Carnarvon said, he had read the petition, and could assure their lordships that it was decorously worded. The omission of the word "humble," he hoped would not be considered of such consequence as to prevent its being received.

Lord Holland begged their lordships to consider, that as this was a petition from a person who complained of nothing less than illegal confinement, it was one which they ought not to reject on the ground of any trivial informality.

The Earl of Liverpool thought it would be proper to have the petition altered, as he understood it was not the custom of the House to receive petitions so worded.

The Marquis of Lansdown thought, that where there appeared no intention to treat the House with disrespect, there could be no reason for rejecting a petition. When such complaints as that offered were made, their lordships ought to throw wide their doors for the reception of such petitions.

now

The Lord Chancellor said, it was quite contrary to their lordships practice to receive petitions so worded.

Lord Holland asked, whether the learned lord meant to go the length of saying, that no petition in which the word "humble" had been omitted had been received by the House?

The Lord Chancellor had by no means pledged himself to any such thing. It certainly was not the practice to receive petitions with the omission which occurred in the present case.

Lord King said, that as this was a petition purporting to come from an injured individual, every facility ought to be afforded to the complaint. The objection related only to one word, and that a word of omission. It would therefore be highly improper to refuse it, especially as the noble earl meant to move, that it be referred to the Secret Committee, for which there might not be time, if an alteration in the petition was insisted on, as it would be necessary to send it to Manchester.

tion, sent him some things which would have been useful to him, but he was not allowed to receive them. When sent off he was chained by the leg to another prisoner, by a chain of not less than 30lb. weight. He arrived in London on the 15th of March, and was conveyed to the House of Correction in Cold Bath-fields. He was afterwards carried before lord Sidmouth. When before his lordship, he stated openly what he had done, and called upon the noble lord to bring forward his accusers. He was told he should have a fair trial, and was remanded. On the 28th of April he was removed to Dorchester gaol, and afterwards to Exeter. In the month of December he was set at liberty on entering into recognizance to appear in the Court of King's Bench on the first day of term, and every subsequent day, until he was discharged. He accordingly came to London, and in compliance with the conditions of his recognizance, attended the court of King'sbench, until he was, with others, finally discharged on the 31st of January. While he remained in London he was obliged to contract debts, and he had been furnished with no means of defraying the expense he had been put to, or of enabling him to return home, by his majesty's ministers, though it was by their order he had been illegally arrested and obliged to undergo all these hardships. He had solicited an interview with lord Sidmouth before he left town, intending to represent his case to him, but the noble lord would not see him. The petition concluded with urging on the consideration of the House the sufferings of the petitioner, and his loss by the debts he had been obliged to contract, and prayed that their lordships would not consent to any bill of indeninity which might be proposed for ministers.

The Earl of Carnarvon hoped that there would be time for the motion he intended to make, before the Secret Committee reported to the House. If there should be time for altering the petition, he would get it done before he made the motion for referring it to the committee. In the mean time, he moved that the petition be read.

The petition was then read. It purported to be the petition of Samuel Drummond of Manchester, reedmaker, and set forth, that the petitioner had been present at a meeting in March last, called for the purpose of petitioning the Prince Regent to withhold his assent from the bill for suspending the Habeas Corpus act. The petitioner was addressing the persons assembled for this purpose, when a troop of horse came among them to break up the meeting, It could be proved that there never was a more peaceable and regular meeting in Manchester than that which had thus been disturbed, until it was broken in upon by those riotous, not to say drunken, soldiers. The petitioner was arrested and conveyed to the Old Bailey prison in Manchester, where he was allowed only four ounces of bread and one ounce of cheese for the day. He applied for other food, and offered to pay for it himself, but was not permitted. He was sent off to London without being allowed any time for preparation. Mr. Silvester, hearing of his distressed situa

The Earl of Carnarvon then gave notice that he should on Thursday move that the above petition be referred to the Secret Committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, February 16.

PETITION OF OWNERS OF COTTON MILLS FOR A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO THE STATE THEREOF.] Lord Stanley presented a Petition from the Owners and Occupiers of Cotton Mills in Manchester and the vicinity, setting forth,

"That the Petitioners have heard with concern that it is intended to move in

thought proper: on the 13th of November a king's messenger came into the room of the petitioner and informed him that, in consequence of a petition sent by his father to the honourable privy council, the petitioner would be permitted to visit his mother at Manchester, who at that time lay upon her death-bed, and is since dead; on his arrival in Manchester he was confined in the New Bailey two nights and one day, at the expiration of which he was removed to Lancaster Castle; on the arrival of the petitioner in that prison he was informed by the worthy governor, that he had received orders from lord Sidmouth to keep the petitioner in close and solitary confinement; the petitioner was then conveyed to his destined abode, which was a flagged cell four yards square, the window of which was boarded up in the form of a prison shutter: the petitioner was allowed to walk two hours each day on a terrace which surrounds the keeper's house; after he had been confined three weeks in this cell he was discharged, on entering into his own recognizances in the sum of one hundred pounds, to appear in his majesty's court of King's-bench, Westminster, on the first day of the present term, and so from day to day, the petitioner has accordingly travelled to London, in order to answer to such recognizances, and has appeared day by day until the 31st of January, on which day his recognizances were discharged; the petitioner having endured all this unjust imprisonment, at the end of which he was compelled to enter into recognizances, in order to evade future imprisonment; it is likewise the humble but firm belief of the petitioner, that the treatment which he received in the prisons of Horsemonger and Gloucester was wanton and cruel, and he prays that the House will procure copies of orders sent by lord Sidmouth to Mr. Walters, the governor of Horsemonger gaol, Surrey, and to Thomas Cunningham, the governor of the county gaol of Gloucester; and if such orders do not warrant the treatment which the petitioner received, that the said governors, particularly the latter may be by due course of law called upon to answer for their conduct; and the petitioner further prays, that the House will afford him such redress as it may of its wisdom think fit; but, above all, the petitioner most humbly and most fervently prays, that no bill of indemnity may be suffered to pass, but that his majesty's

ministers may be called to an account for the cruel wrongs which they have inflicted upon his majesty's loyal and peaceable subjects."

Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, February 17.

Assizes.

MOTION RESPECTING THE IN THE NORTHERN COUNTIES.] Mr. M. A. Taylor rose to call the attention of the House to a subject which was of great importance to the country. He wished particularly that his majesty's ministers would attend to the statement he was about to make, as it was impossible, if a moment's consideration were given to the subject, that there could be more than one feeling as to the necessity of some remedy being applied to the very great evil complained of, as he could not suppose that any member would say that the four northern counties ought to be excluded from the ordinary administration of justice. Every member of the House knew, that throughout the three kingdoms, with the exception of the counties of Cumberland, Northumberland, Durham, and the town and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, there were regular gaol deliveries twice a year, as courts of assize and sittings at Nisi Prius were held twice a year in the different counties, with the exception of those mentioned. Bristol, he believed, was the only exception, but he hoped such regulations would be adopted as would give that city also the same enjoyment of the laws as the other parts of the country possessed. Why those counties were deprived of the privileges enjoyed by the rest of the country, he was at a loss to determine. Those counties were as rich, as well peopled, and as deserving of protection as any other part of the kingdom. Would it be said that though those counties were as fully peopled as any others, yet they were less addicted to crime than the other inhabitants of the country? He feared that such a reason as that could not be assigned, for their being deprived of the protection enjoyed by the other parts of the country. It was well known that in the northern counties many persons had been in prison for the last three months, to take their trial, not at the next spring, but at the next summer assizes. Thus a number of persons were to be confined from nine to eleven months before their guilt