50] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



case of" Stirling was referred to, 

 and the right of altering the set, 

 as was done in 1781 or 1782, was 

 not questioned. The alteration 

 in Stirling was precisely the same 

 as that in the burgh of Montrose ; 

 there was therefore no ground 

 for the allegation that this exer- 

 tion of the prerogative of the 

 crown was illegal. He had been 

 asked by tlie noble lord, whether 

 he intended to propose the same 

 alteration in every burgh which, 

 by neglect, might become dis- 

 franchised. He should answer 

 No. Every case must stand 

 / upon its own merits. The same 

 constitution could not possibly 

 be applied to all the burghs, 

 because electors with the same 

 qualifications could not be liad in 

 all of them, unless all the exclu- 

 sive privileges which had existed 

 for ages should be abolished. It 

 was said that the question did 

 not touch upon political reform. 

 This was true, if the question was 

 confined to the consideration of 

 the particular case ; but if, in 

 defiance of the act of Union, it 

 i\ as intended to introduce a new 

 .'ij'stem of election in all the 

 burghs, it would have the same 

 effect as a sweeping measure of 

 parliamentary reform. He was 

 convinced that there would be a 

 general feeling of alarm if a 

 general change were apprehended, 

 and should therefore oppose the 

 motion. 



Sir R. Fergusson supported 

 the motion. No one who looked 

 at the deplorable state of the 

 representation in Scotland could 

 agree in the eulogies which had 

 been pronounc'd on it. He then 

 read the parting address of the 

 late magistrates of Aberdeen, 



who declared their decided opinion 

 that a new constitution was ne- 

 cessary for the sake both of the 

 magistrates and people. This 

 address was written by gentlemen 

 who had been in the unifonn 

 habit of supporting his majesty's 

 ministers. The hope of a change 

 in the constitution of the burghs 

 had been fostered by the com- 

 missioners at Montrose ; one of 

 whom, the sheriff of Perthshire, 

 praised the liberal constitution 

 which the paternal government 

 of the country had given them, 

 and adduced it as a proof that the 

 ministers were willing to effect 

 reform, when reform was ncces- 

 sarj'. 



Lord Archibald Hamilton, 

 rising to reply, said, that the 

 question still returned, whether 

 the Crown had legally the power 

 to alter by its own authority the 

 constitution of a burgh, how it 

 pleased, when it pleased, and as 

 often as it pleased. The question 

 was certainly worthy of being 

 settled ; and if the Crown had 

 any such legal power, even in 

 circumstances similar to those of 

 Montrose, he meant when an 

 alteration was requested by the 

 burgh itself, the conse«]uence 

 must be fatal to the stability of 

 the burghs, even under any im- 

 provement they might receive ; 

 for the influence of the Crown 

 throughout Scotland was so great, 

 that it might easily procure an 

 application to be made for altera- 

 tion in almost every one of the 

 Scotch burghs, at such times as 

 its ministers conceived to be con- 

 venient. The learned lord had 

 maintained very positively that 

 the burgesses were not liable for 

 the debts contracted by the 

 magistrates. 



i 



