tine manner, made off with part of his property; and when the remainder was sold, he had contrived to buy it back himself. He thought that, during the whole transaction, the officers of excise had done nothing but their duty. With regard to the solicitor of excise, who had now held that office for five years, he certainly did not know any man, who, for integrity of character, and a conscientious discharge of duty, was more deserving of praise. The worthy alderman had only moved for an account of the expenses incurred in this prosecution; but he conceived that the account of these would not give an adequate idea of the transaction, and therefore he should move that there be also furnished copies of the several petitions presented by William Weaver to the lords of the Treasury, and of the proceedings upon these petitions.

The Attorney General said, he should not have troubled the House on the present occasion, if the worthy alderman had not stated, that the object of his motion was, to open the eyes of the House to the system of the excise laws. The petitioner said that he had never before violated the laws of excise, as they ought to be administered. What might be the petitioner's ideas of the manner in which those laws should be administered he did not know; but he was sure that a man who had been convicted six times of smuggling, and in whose house smuggled goods had been repeatedly found, was a person who ought to be prosecuted as an example to others. This man had presented a petition to the court, and as his (the attorney general's) recommendation had considerable weight, as was natural from his official situation, he had made inquiries into the particulars of the case; but when he found that the man was an habitual smuggler, or at least an illicit trader, he did not think it proper to recommend him to the lenity of the court. There was another fact of some importance: this man was a grocer in that quarter where goods were most frequently smuggled ashore, and had been convicted five times of receiving smuggled tobacco and other articles from Lascars and various descriptions of low character. Was this, then, a man entitled to indulgence? The learned gentleman then detailed the circumstances of the prosecution, in order to refute the charge of oppression. The many convictions of this man had not cured his family; for a few days before

been a seizure of tobacco in his House.

Mr. D. W. Harvey was quite sure that the worthy alderman had been himself imposed upon, although he had done all in his power to ascertain the truth. Such petitions prejudiced the general principles and prejudiced those who were really aggrieved. This man might fairly have paid 1,000l. instead of 2001. which were taken as a compromise. The several counts had been formally drawn out, charging him to the amount of 44,000l. The commis sioners of excise, in this case, as in all other cases, had only reviewed the peti tion, but told not what sum would be taken in compromise. He had formerly stated and would now repeat, that the solicitor knew in the infancy, as well as in the developement of a case, what sum would be taken. He was the responsible party, and could give a negative or affirmative to a proposition for compromise, and hence arose expenses that were most injurious and grievous to the country. The solicitor came into court with two columns: the one containing the full charge, the other the mitigated sum that would be taken; and he acceded to any sum that was proposed, if it amounted to the latter sum.

The Attorney General denied, with great warmth, that the solicitor came into Court with two lists, and took what compromise he pleased. That gentleman, in receiving a compromise, never took into consideration the expenses of the prosecution, or what charges the crown might be put to; but he did consider the capacity of the party to pay, and if he could pay a reasonable sum without inconvenience, he would put something to it in order to create inconvenience. The object of the excise laws was to occasion inconvenience, and so to deter from offences against them. If he had known this man's offences, he would not have agreed to any compromise.

Mr. Alderman Waithman said, he had brought forward his motion, in the first place, in order to relieve the wretched man. Whatever might have been the number and character of his former offences, they had no right to punish him but for this offence. Another object with him was, to expose the system itself. By correcting the system, an enormous expense might be saved to the country. The excessive severity of the excise laws, like the excessive severity of the criminal laws, counteracted its object. §

Sir Isaac Coffin was sorry that so much | of the time of the House had been occupied by so unworthy a case as that of a man five times convicted. The motion was agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 1.

GAOL DELIVERIES.] Mr. Western rose to offer some observations on a most important subject, and to move for certain returns connected with it. If more frequent Gaol Deliveries took place, the number of prisoners confined in the different prisons throughout England and Wales, would be diminished in the proportion of at least one-half. Since he had first spoken upon this subject, he had received returns of the number confined at three several successive periods in Kent, Suffolk, and Essex. The House would see, that between October and January the number had increased; whereas, between January and March it had diminished. In Kent, on the 1st of October, there were 54; on the 1st of January, 108; and on the 15th of March, 177. Now, if gaol deliveries had taken place during these periods, he must contend those numbers would have been considerably less. When the returns he was about to move for, should have been laid upon the table, he would submit some specific proposition on the subject. In looking at the returns already prepared for the years 1817 and 1818, it would appear, that the total number of persons confined in the different gaols throughout the kingdom was, in round numbers, 13,000. Of that number there were 2,000 in each year, against whom either no bills were found, or who were not prosecuted, and 2,000 who were acquitted. In the period which elapsed between July and the Lent assises, many persons had been confined who had remained in prison perhaps fourteen or fif teen months before they had been tried an enormous evil. Whatever the difficulties were, in which such delay originated, they ought to be done away with; and some regulation should be adopted, which should render it unnecessary that they should be detained in custody for so long a period, but, if possible, be brought to trial immediately. It was during that imprisonment that their morals became corrupted. When men first came to a prison, they looked with horror on their situations; but that horror wore off, and their

minds soon became corrupted. It was the prompt execution of laws which could alone produce the effects contemplated by the legislature. He should, for the present move for a "Return of the total number of prisoners that were confined in the different gaols of England and Wales for trial at the present Lent assizes; distinguishing those who were in custody prior to the 1st of October last, the 1st of January last, and the latest period ante cedent to the commencement of the gaol delivery; and, as soon as the present Lent assises shall be terminated, that re turns may be made to this House, of the number, names, and ages, of the prisoners, male and female, who shall have been severally tried in each county of England and Wales, specifying the dates of their several commitments, and arranging the returns in the order thereof; specifying also, the crimes with which they shall have been charged, and the verdicts and sentences that shall have been passed upon them; also, returns of those who shall have been discharged by proclamation, or by reason of no bills being found against them, with the dates of commitment in like manner, and the crimes with which they were charged upon commitment."Ordered.

The motion was fixed for Tuesday.

ROYAL BURGHS-CASE OF THE BURGH OF ABERDEEN.] Lord Archibald Hamilton said, that before he entered on the subject of the motion which he was now about to submit to the House, he wished to apologise for the length of time which had elapsed since he had first given notice of it. Had it depended only on him, he should have wished an earlier day. The delay had not proceeded from levity, or inattention to the House, nor from any doubts or dissentions among the parties whose cause he had undertaken, nor from any distrust in the cause itself; least of all, however, had the delay arisen from any change of opinion on his part; for the longer he inquired into the subject, the more he was confirmed in his first opinions upon it; the more he revolved it in his own mind, or conferred with others upon its principle, and details, the more he was convinced that the question was one of the greatest importance to Scotland. and of the greatest importance to that House. Before he proceeded to say what the question was, he wished to say what it was not. It was not connected with parliamentary reform, in any sense of the word. It was not a mere matter of local interest of the burgh of Aberdeen; but it was a matter of interest to every burgh in Scotland, and to every inhabitant of that country. It was not a speculative point, to which he was offering any specu. lative remedy, but it arose out of a practical evil most galling and extensive actually felt and recently complained of. He wished also to state another point of some consequence. The subject of this motion was not unnecessarily introduced to the attention of the House, for the grievance complained of could only be remedied by the House. He meant that for the injuries and injustice, which had lately been committed in the burgh of Aberdeen, there existed no tribunal in Scotland of adequate jurisdiction, to afford prompt and effectual redress, even though the clearest and strongest case of injury and injustice should be manifest to all the world.

He would state, as shortly as possible, before he entered on the subject, a few details, in order that the House might the better understand the case. He should first proceed to state some of the outlines of the government of a Scots burgh. A Scots burgh was administered by self

elected magistrates; these magistrates were appointed to their offices for one year; and, de facto, they went out of office at the end of the year; but then they appointed their successors, and they took care to nominate persons who would nominate them as successors in turn. But the system of the Scots burghs was not only the self-election of magistrates, but these self-elected magistrates and council were paramount to all authority; for whatever injury they did in their capacity of magistrates, the inhabitants were without redress. He meant for whatever was done by them in their official capacitythe dilapidation of funds entrusted to them, the contracting of debt, or otherwise. In all such cases there was no remedy. It so happened lately, in the case of the burgh of Aberdeen, that the election of magistrates having been illegal, was reduced by the court of Session. But this did not invalidate the position he had laid down, that for whatever acts were done by the magistrates, there was no redress. For an election was only reducible at some one of these self-elected magistrates, while they were unanimous and agreed in their iniquity, themselves complained of the election. The magistrates elected in the different burghs might be disqualified, yet there existed no authority for setting aside the election. In Aberdeen, the election made towards the latter end of 1817 was declared illegal and reduced. But an action could be brought by no one who was not a "constituent member" of the meeting at which the wrong was done. And it was merely from the casual circumstance (though the abuse had been so gross as it was), that two assistant counsellors, who had been called in to complete the number of persons requisite to constitute a legal meeting, and who thus became "constitutional members" of the meeting, and as such had lent themselves to the complaint,-it was owing wholly, he said, to that casual circumstance, that any action could be instituted. The magistrates and council were not only self-elected, but unaccount. able and unamenable to any one so long as they continued magistrates, and were either unanimous in their proceedings, or chose to screen each other by refusing to complain. Neither the suffering burgesses nor the suffering inhabitants had any legal competency to bring an action against their magistrates for official conduct or misconduct, however gross and oppressive,

the House stated, that the inhabitants were liable to the debts contracted by these self-elected magistrates. But what did it signify in regard to the rottenness of the burgh, whether this was the case or not? The burgesses to the number of 600 were liable for the debts, or the creditors lost the money, amounting also to 600. He hoped the learned lord would give some explanation as to who was to be the ultimate loser, whether the burgesses or the creditors? At the last election there was not less than 2,000l. a year of deficiency of the revenues to pay the interest of the debt. The blame of this did not attach to the men who happened then to be at the head of affairs; the thing had been going on for twenty years. He had documents, which he could read to the House, establishing these facts, but he would not read them, unless the facts were contradicted by the opposite party. Of the debt due, not less than 57,000l. had been borrowed to pay interest alone. It was an annual custom in the burgh to call together certain persons on behalf of the burgesses at a regular legal court, to hear the accounts stated. It was curious, that whenever any law was passed, from which there was something like a hope that the evil might be corrected, those who entertained the hope were sure to be disappointed. At that meeting, so called, by legal authority, for the express purpose of promulgating to those concerned, annually, the state of their accounts, no mention was ever made of that 230,000/., nor was any portion of it ever introduced at all into the official accounts. The whole was secret. The inhabitants found themselves for twenty years deluded and deceived by those men who managed the burgh, and for whose contipuance in office the learned lord was so anxious.

There was one fact which he should not now state, if he were not satisfied of its veracity. He would state to the House, that of the 230,000l. contracted by these self-elected magistrates, a large proportion was contracted by false and forged minutes. He should like to hear the learned lord deny this. To give this town to this system was delivering up between 30 and 40,000 inhabitants to military execution-it was giving carte blanche to injustice, fraud and oppression. He did aver, on authority which was not like to be contradicted, that a great part of this debt was contracted on false and

forged minutes. Because they could not prevail on all the junto to enter into all these measures, sometimes a few got together for the purpose of committing these depredations on the public. And he was positive, and could produce proof of the fact, that a large part of this debt was not only clandestinely but fraudulently contracted-And be it remembered, that debt could not be contracted at all, without the apparent authority of a meet. ing of the magistrates and an apparent signature of names. In this case, the names, or the authority given, or both, had been used fraudulently, if not actually forged; and indeed the published, recorded declaration of the parties themselves, the agents or the accessories to this guilt. He would now read what were the sentiments of the magistrates themselves, when they went out of office. If he had no other authority than this, he would say, that his majesty's ministers had done what was injurious to the country, and disgraceful to themselves. In 1817, when the system dissolved by its own rottenness, of the 19 persons elected, only six would accept of the office. So obnoxious had the system become, that the magistrates who went out thought proper, whether from compunction or hypocrisy he could not tell, to put on record this Proclamation:

"Council Chamber, Aberdeen, Sept. 19, 1817.-In justice to themselves, however, they are desirous to place upon record their sentiments and opinions, in reference to some of the various topics arising out of the embarrassments of the city treasury. This has become the more necessary, from their having dis covered, that, in their efforts for the re. storation of public confidence, their motives have been misconstrued and per verted, and their proposals and plans received with a degree of prejudice and distrust, which they will be bold enough to say, their personal and private charac ters were sufficient to invalidate and disprove. Be this as it may, they are aware, that the sincerity of their intentions can be known but by few, and may be doubted by many; and, therefore, they here rei terate their decided opinion, that the present mode of election of the town council, and management of the town's affairs, are radically defective and improvident, tending to give to any individual or party, who may be so inclined, an excessive and unnatural preponderance; and to foster