Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 002.djvu/735

borough of Montrose, the inhabitants may go into a court of law, to ascertain the right of the magistracy to act under the new charter. In granting this charter, the Crown had acted with a view to relieve, and not to injure, the rights of the inhabitants; and he did not now understand that any complaint was preferred on their part. This question, however, might be brought before the House as interfering with the right of returning a representative, and, in that case, would come before a committee under the Grenville Act. If this motion were granted, it would go far to give countenance to the question of parliamentary reform, a question which the House ought not to entertain, without ascertaining what was specifically proposed to be done. Upon this ground, then, he considered it his duty to dissent from the motion.

Mr Abercromby said, the subject brought forward by the Noble Lord had no connexion with that of parliamentary reform. The state of the Scottish boroughs, however, was such as, in the opinion of those who were most competent to form an opinion on the subject, called imperiously for inquiry. He could not indeed see any connexion between such an inquiry and the subject of parliamentary reform, excepting in as far as any regulations respecting those who had a right to vote in the election of a member of parliament was connected with that subject. It was said, that it was only when the rights of the borough were suspended that the Crown interfered to re-animate them. But in the case alluded to it went farther—it altered the set altogether. If this was wrong, it was an usurpation on the part of the Crown; and though, in the present instance, it might have been exercised beneficially, yet it went to establish a precedent, which, in the hands of bad ministers, might be made use of to justify the worst encroachments. He thought no subject more suitable for parliamentary inquiry.

After some farther discussion, in which the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Sir James Macintosh, Mr J. P. Grant, and Sir R. Ferguson, took a part, the question was put, and negatived without a division.

Buonaparte's military carriage, which arrived in our city yesterday, has excited more interest as an exhibition in Edinburgh, than any thing for a number of years. The manner in which the four horses were driven through the city by the French coachman, who lost his right arm when the carriage was captured at Waterloo, prove the excellent manner in which they were broke, and their present state of discipline. Mr Bullock, in whose hands this splendid trophy of victory was placed by Government, is said to have already cleared £26,000 by the exhibition of it.

Jury Court.—On Tuesday came on before the Jury Court, the case in which John Johnston, residing at Stobo-Hill, and William Proudfoot of Hatton, near Lockerby, were the pursuers; and Alexander Pennycook, son of John Pennycook of Soiliary, and James Owler, cattle-dealer at Pritfield, county of Perth, were defenders.

This action arose out of a breach of bargain alleged to have taken place at the Falkirk Tryst, in September 1816. As stated by the opening Counsel, the pursuers were persons of great respectability in Dumfriesshire, and were in the habit of attending all the great cattle fairs in Scotland, and purchasing for the English markets. In September 1816, they were present at the Falkirk Tryst, and agreed to purchase forty stots or steers, from the defender, Pennycook, which were accordingly tarred with their mark, and delivered to their servants, Pennycook being present all the time. Subsequent to this, however, a person of the name of Owler seems also to have taken a fancy to the same drove: and although he saw the tarmark of Johnston and Proudfoot upon the cattle, and was informed by a person present that they were already disposed of, yet he immediately went to Pennycook, and made him, as it appeared from one of the witnesses, a higher offer for the cattle. Pennycook was accordingly prevailed upon to enter into another bargain with Owler, and after concluding it, immediately left the market, without having any further communication with the pursuers. Owler then made his appearance with a number of men and dogs, and forcibly took the cattle from the servants of the pursuers, notwithstanding the resistance which they made, and the repeated tenders of the price made by the pursuers and their friends. He equally refused to accede to the proposal made by Johnstone and Proudfoot, that the cattle should be put up in a field for the night, until the dispute should be settled next morning. In short, he appeared to have been, as the counsel for the pursuers represented, a modern Rob Roy, perfectly conversant with the practice of his Highland ancestor.

The facts of the case were distinctly proved by the witnesses for the pursuers; and the Jury, after hearing the evidence summed up in a most able manner by the Lord Chief Commissioner, in whose opinion Lord Gillies entirely coincided, found a verdict for the pursuers, and that the defenders were jointly and severally liable in £20 damages, with full costs.

There have been from fourteen to eighteen bee hives destroyed at Langloan and its neighbourhood, and their honey combs taken away, by some persons who appear to be acquainted with bees. The methods they take are—some hives they remove to a small distance, and cut out the combs containing honey, and leave the hive and the useless combs. At other places they cut the hive about five or six inches from the top, where all the honey is contained, and thus take it away, and cover up the hive again, so that it is not discerned that any thing is wrong unless narrowly inspected. Indeed it is