In Scotch counties, the right of voting is annexed, not to the proprietorship, but to the feudal superiority, of the land. On the 2nd of June, lord Archibald Hamilton, who had in former sessions called the attention of the legislature to this subject, after unfolding the evils of a system, which excluded the great mass of the property as well as of the population of the country, from political power, moved five resolutions, in which were embodied the facts and the principles which showed the necessity of an alteration. These resolutions were to the following effect: 1. That it appeared by a certified copy of the roll of freeholders of every county in Scotland, laid before Parliament in 1820, that the total number of persons having a right to vote, in all those counties together, did not exceed 2,889: 2. That, by the same return, it appeared that the greatest number of persons having a right to vote in any one county, did not exceed 240, viz., for the county of Fife; and that the smallest number did not exceed 9, viz., for the county of Cromarty: 3. That it further appeared from the same return, that many of the same persons had a right to vote in several counties, and consequently that the total number of voters for all the counties of Scotland was considerably less than 2,889: 4. That the right of voting for a representative for a Scotch county depends, not on the possession of the dominium utile of any real landed estate in such county, but on holding superiority over such estate, which superiority might be, and frequently is, disjoined from the property, insomuch that of all the persons qualified to vote for a Scotch county, there may not be

one who is possessed of a single acre of land within the county; while the whole of the land may belong to, and be the property of, persons who have not a single vote for the representative: 5. That the house would, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration the state of the representation of counties in Scotland, with a view to effect some extension of the number of votes, and to establish some connexion between the right of voting and the landed property of that country.

The remedy, which lord A. Hamilton recommended in his speech, was, to leave existing rights untouched, but to increase the number of electors by giving votes to those to whom the dominium utile of the land belonged.

These principles and resolutions were opposed by sir George Clerk, Mr. H. Twiss, lord Binning, and the Lord Advocate. Their only arguments were, that the people of Scotland did not complain, and that, in fact, the electors were nearly all land-owners. The first topic was obviously one of declamation and not of argument; and the other tendered an issue altogether erroneous: for the gravamen of the charge made by lord A. Hamilton was not that the actual electors had no connection with the land-but, that it was not their property in land which gave them their vote-that the vote might be separated totally from substantial property-and that, in point of fact, only a very few of the land-holders of Scotland had any share in the elections. The resolutions were supported by lord Milton, lord Glenorchy, sir James Macintosh, and Mr. Kennedy.

The previous question being put on the first resolution, the House divided: the Ayes, 117; the Noes, 152; which gave against lord A. Hamilton's motion, a majority of only 35.* The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers from the opposition benches: and lord Milton expressed a hope, that the result of the division would be well consider ed by the whole country; and that

in it the inhabitants of Scotland, who took an interest in the state of their representation, would see a much nearer prospect of their wishes being accomplished than some gentlemen who spoke, had anticipated.

The magistrates of the Borough of Inverness having been removed from their office by process of law, in consequence of a legal informality, the crown had in 1822

granted a warrant, empowering certain persons, therein named, to elect counsellors for the Borough; and under this warrant, the same persons were restored to office, who had been previously displaced as unduly elected. Lord A. Hamilton questioned both the legality,

and, in point of discretion, the propriety of this mode of proceeding: contending that the warrants ought to have directed the election to be by the open vote of the burgesses. His motion on the subject was rejected by a majority of 49 to 31.

IR James Mackintosh, in prosecution of the vote to which the Commons had come in the preceding year*, that they would in this session take into consideration the means of increasing the efficacy of the criminal laws by abating their rigour, submitted, on the 21st of May, nine resolutions to the House. The purport of these resolutions was: — That it was expedient to take away the punishment of death in the case of larceny from ships, from dwelling houses, and on navigable rivers: That it was expedient to repeal so much of the statute 9 Geo. 1, commonly called the Black Act, as creates capital felonies, excepting the crimes of setting fire to a dwelling house, and of maliciously shooting at an individual; so much of the statute 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, commonly called the Marriage Act, as creates capital felonies; so much of the statute 21 Jac. 1. c. 26, relating to fines and recoveries; of 6 Geo. 2, c. 37, relating to cutting down

*See Ann. Reg. Vol. LXIV. p, 86,

banks of rivers; of 27 Geo. 2, c. 15, relating to threatening letters; of 27 Geo. 2, c. 19, relating to the Bedford level; of 3. Geo. 3, c. 16, relating to Greenwich pensioners; of 22 Geo. 3, c. 4, relating to cutting serges; and of 24 Geo. 3, c. 24, relating to convicts returned from transportation, as subjects persons convicted of the offences therein specified, to the punishment of death:That it was expedient to take away the punishment of death in the cases of horse stealing, sheep stealing, and cattle stealing, of forgery, and of uttering forged instruments:That in the case of all the aforesaid offences, which are not otherwise sufficiently punishable by law, the punishments of transportation for life or years, or of imprisonment with or without hard labour, should be substituted for death, in such proportions and with such latitudes of discretion in the judges, as the nature and magnitude of the respective offences might require ;-That it was expedient to make provision, that the judges should not pronounce sen

tence of death in those cases where they had no expectation that such sentence would be executed ;—and that it was fit to take away the forfeiture of goods and chattels in the case of suicide, and to put an end to those indignities to which the remains of the dead are exposed, in the cases of suicide and high treason. Sir James, with his usual eloquence, expatiated on the general principles, on which the necessity of mitigating our criminal code is ordinarily enforced, and illustrated the propriety of the particular changes which he had recommended.

Mr. Peel, while he acceded in general to the principles expressed by the mover, objected to the course which he had followed. He contended, that the proper mode of proceeding would have been to have asked leave to bring in a bill upon each of the heads included in the resolutions, and that great inconveniences might be the result of following the course now proposed. The House, by assenting to the resolutions, would affirm all the propositions laid down in them; and yet a bill, brought in pursuant to those propositions, might ultimately be found not worthy of being supported throughout. While the resolutions professedly followed the report of the committee on criminal law, they in truth comprehended cases not referred to in that report. The offences of stealing sheep, cattle, and horses were not referred to in the report, and yet the resolututions proposed to take away the capital punishment from them. That the hon. and learned gentleman had been misled by the report, was plain; and being so misled as to facts and cases wholly omitted in that report, was it fair that

without any notice given to the House of the objects of his resolutions, they should be called on to give a distinct opinion upon so many important alterations of the law? Suppose the House to affirm the resolutions that night, and afterwards to find themselves unable to assent to the bills brought in pursuant to them, would not that be an inconvenient situation for the House to be placed in? Was there nothing inconvenient in the rejection of a bill brought in to remedy defects, which the journals of the House would show to have been fully and clearly admitted? The right hon. secretary then discussed the merits of several of the proposed alterations; and, while he announced the intention of government to bring in bills for carrying some of them into effect, he showed that others of them were of very doubtful expediency. He concluded by moving the previous question.

Sir James Mackintosh, though several of his friends expressed their opinion that he now sought to pledge parliament, without sufficient deliberation, to too many detailed measures, persisted in taking the sense of the House upon his first resolution. The previous question was carried upon it by a majority of 86 to 76.

During the subsequent period of the session, four acts were introduced and passed, mitigating in some particulars, the severity of our penal code. By one of these,* the 6 Geo. 2nd, cap. 37, against unlawfully and maliciously breaking or cutting down the banks of rivers or sea-banks, whereby lands shall be overflowed or damaged, as also unlawfully and maliciously cutting