By the Reform Act of 1832, every English county returns at least two members to Parliament—many of them possess a larger privilege. Yorkshire has six members; twenty-five counties, being divided, send four each; seven have the privilege of three.

No Scottish county returns more than a single member to Parliament; the number of the whole being precisely that which was fixed by the Act of Union.

Now, if, in 1832, no addition had been made to the English county representation, we should perhaps have no reason to complain. But such addition was made, to a very large extent; and now that a period of accounting has come, at the instance of the Prime Minister, it is our duty to see that, if there is to be a change at all, we are at least allowed something like a measure of justice.

Let us take the case of ten Scottish counties returning only ten members:—

Scottish Counties. No. of Constituency.
Perthshire, 480
Aberdeenshire, 4022
Ayrshire, 3823
Lanarkshire, 3785
Fife, 3211
Forfarshire, 2882
Dumfriesshire, 2520
Renfrewshire, 2450
Stirlingshire, 2257
Mid-Lothian, 2071
Constituency of ten Scottish}
counties returning}
ten members,}31,827

Let us now contrast that table with another containing the electoral statistics of ten English counties, or divisions of counties, returning twenty members to Parliament:—

English Counties. No. of Constituency.
Notts, N. D., 3817
Notts, S. D., 3539
Cambridge County, 3757
Hants, N. D., 3580
Salop, S. D., 3445
Sussex, W. D., 3289
Northumberland, 3063
Huntingdon County, 2892
Wilts, S. D., 2539
Rutland, 1908
Constituency of ten English}
counties returning}31,829
twenty members,}

Here is an aggregate constituency, almost exactly equal in amount; and yet the number of members returned by the English is precisely double of that returned by the Scottish counties.

This is a monstrous inequality; and it cannot be defended by reference to other anomalies. There can be no reason why Perthshire should not stand at least on an equality with Rutland, or why the metropolitan county of Scotland should not be put upon an equality with it. If the Tweed is to be an imaginary boundary, not separating two distinct nations, but flowing through one cordially united—and if, again, we are called upon, even partially, to remodel the constitution—let this enormous discrepancy in political power be immediately remedied, as remedied it can be, if Lord John Russell chooses to deal with the trash of small English boroughs as he ought to do. We, on our side, would have no objection whatever to make concessions. One or two of our Scottish counties are, in point of population and constituency, hardly worthy of the name. Bute, which was separated from Caithness in 1832, and which has only a constituency of 491, principally derived from the little town of Rothesay, might conveniently be incorporated with Dumbartonshire. Sutherland, with a wretched constituency of 207, ought certainly to be annexed to its nearest neighbour, Caithness; and, if further consolidation were required, Selkirk might be annexed to Peebles. In this way, only seven additional seats would be required to satisfy the just claims of the leading Scottish counties—claims which, if not satisfied just now, since the Whig Ministry have chosen to unsettle existing arrangements, will certainly be preferred hereafter, with possibly less temperance of tone than would be proper on the present occasion.