Be it so. We are content to take that view, albeit a low one, and to examine his scheme without any partial leaning to the present constitution of the House of Commons. And first, let us see what regard he has paid to the principle of equal representation.

It will not, we presume, be denied by any one that the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, ought to be put upon an equitable footing as regards one another in this matter of representation. If imperial measures were all that the House of Commons had to discuss, this relative equality might be of less importance; but with separate laws and separate institutions guaranteed to and existing in the three kingdoms, it is proper that each should be fairly represented in the grand council of the nation. At present that is not the case. If we take the test of population, Scotland ought to have 18 more members than are now allotted to her; if we take the test of taxation and revenue, she ought to have 25 more. Combining the two, there is a deficit of more than 20 members to Scotland in her share of the national representation. Now, that is a matter which ought, in the very first instance, to have occupied the attention of the noble lord, and would have so occupied it, had he laid down for himself any fixed principles of action. It is nonsense to talk of inequalities between one borough and another, or between town and country qualification, before the first grand inequality is remedied. Apply the double test of population and revenue, and you will find that Ireland is upon an equality in point of representation with England, but that Scotland is not; and no reason has been, or can be, assigned for this anomaly. The quota for Scotland was fixed by the Act of Union at 45 members. It was increased by the Reform Act of 1832 to 53, but the number is still insufficient. Lord John Russell proposes, out of the 66 disfranchised seats, to give three to Scotland, but he has assigned no reason for doing so. The people of Scotland are not in the position of men supplicating for a boon. They are demanding that, when such a change as this is made, their political rights shall be respected and allowed; and they will not be satisfied with less than a measure of perfect justice. We think it right to put forward this point prominently, because it lies at the foundation of the whole question of the readjustment of the representation.

The question of the disfranchisement of the boroughs is one which should be approached with very great caution. In 1852, as we have already seen, Lord John Russell did not propose to touch them—now he has made up his mind to lop away 66 members from this branch of the representation. This is, in our opinion, by far too reckless a proceeding. We can see no good ground or principle for the entire disfranchisement of any of the boroughs, a step which we think ought never to be taken, except in case of absolute and proved corruption. When constituencies are too small, the proper and natural plan is, to annex and unite, not to abolish; and we believe that this could be effected with very little difficulty. The new Schedule A contains a list of 19 boroughs, returning at present 29 members, which are to be wholly disfranchised, on the ground either that the number of the electors is under 300, or that of the inhabitants under 5000. Therefore the privilege is to be taken from them, and the voters are to be thrown into the counties. We agree with Lord John Russell, that some constituencies are too small, but we do not agree with him in his scheme of disfranchisement, and we utterly object to his proposal of quartering the electors on the counties. They are borough voters, and so they ought to remain; and it is a very poor pretext, indeed, to make this disfranchisement the excuse for altering the county qualification. Let a union of the boroughs, by all means, take place; let the number of their members, if necessary, be considerably reduced; but let us have no disfranchisement, or assimilation between the town and county qualification, which would quite upset the whole system throughout the kingdom.

We do not profess to be conversant with local details, so that we cannot speak with perfect confidence; but it appears to us that some such arrangement as the following, which would unite the smaller boroughs, and at the same time diminish the number of members, might be adopted with advantage:—

County. Borough. Present Electors. Combined Electors. Present Members. Future Members.
Devonshire, Ashburton, 211 520 1 1
„ Dartmouth, 309 1
„ Honiton, 335 649 2 1
„ Totness, 314 2
Dorsetshire, Lyme Regis, 297 665 1 1
Somersetshire, Wells, 368 2
Sussex, Arundel, 208 493 1 1
„ Midhurst, 285 1
Wiltshire, Calne, 151 641 1 1
„ Marlborough, 254 2
„ Wilton, 236 1 1
Yorkshire, Richmond, 342 642 2
„ Northallerton, 303 1
Essex, Harwich, 299 506 2 1
Norfolk, Thetford, 217 2
22 7

Thus, without any disfranchisement, or violent displacement, fifteen boroughs, at present returning twenty-two members, might be formed into seven respectable constituencies, returning one member each to Parliament. There are, however, four others—Knaresborough, Evesham, Reigate, and Andover—which cannot be so easily thrown together. We would proceed with these on the same principle, by adding them to boroughs at present returning two members, but which Lord John Russell proposes to restrict to one member each. The following is our view:—

County. Borough. Present Electors. Combined Electors. Present Members. Future Members.
Yorkshire, Knaresborough, 226 583 2 1
„ Ripon, 357 2
Worcester, Evesham, 396 755 2 2
„ Tewkesbury, 359 2
Surrey, Reigate, 297 1124 1 2
„ Guildford, 595 2
Hampshire, Andover, 232 2
13 5

Here there are twenty-three seats set at liberty, without disfranchisement in any one instance. In justice to ourselves, we must state that we have implicitly followed the schedule attached to Lord John Russell’s bill, and not indulged in speculations of our own. Had the latter been the case, we might have been tempted to ask why Westbury, with an electorate of 289, is to be spared, while Wells, with 368, is to be blotted from the list of boroughs?

Besides these, Lord John Russell proposes that thirty other seats shall be made vacant, by restricting boroughs now returning two members to one. (His number is thirty-three, but we have already noticed Ripon, Tewkesbury, and Guildford.) If it could be shown that there is a really clamant case for representation elsewhere, the reduction might be allowed, but only to the extent required. It seems to us perfect madness to proceed with wholesale disfranchisement, until the necessity of transferring seats to other places is satisfactorily established. We can very well understand why some of the smaller boroughs which have now two members should be restricted to one, in order to satisfy the just requirements of some rising township which has hitherto been unrepresented. We have no doubt that Lord John Russell is quite right in his proposals to give members to Birkenhead, Burnley, and Staleybridge, and to erect Chelsea and Kensington into a Parliamentary borough to return two members. We think that two additional members each might be granted to the West Riding of Yorkshire and to the county of Lancaster—that Salford should return two members instead of one—and that the London University should be represented. We think that these are rational demands, and such as might be accorded; and the necessary number for these purposes, and for putting Scotland on a fair footing of equality with England and Ireland, would amount to the vacation of about thirty or thirty-two existing seats. We have already shown how, without entirely disfranchising any borough, twenty-three seats may be obtained; and if nine others are required, it would be no hardship to take from each of the following boroughs one out of the two members which they presently return:—

County.Borough.Constituency.
Hampshire,Lymington,328
Cumberland,Cockermouth,330
Buckinghamshire,Marlow (Great),335
Wiltshire,Chippenham,345
Buckinghamshire,Buckingham,349
Devonshire,Tavistock,352
Cornwall,Bodmin,360
Wiltshire,Devizes,363
Buckinghamshire,Wycombe (Chipping),365