Lord Montaguehad been intrusted with two Petitions on the subject of Reform, and they being of a different character from those lately presented, he considered it his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to the statements of these petitions. He wished to avoid entering into the general question, and to confine himself to the petitions. One was from the freeholders of the County of Selkirk, the other from the Burgh of Selkirk; and both complained that, by the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, the petitioners 589 would be virtually disfranchised. The freeholders stated, that, from the earliest records, they returned two Members to the Parliament of Scotland; and that, by the Treaty of Union, it was settled they were to return one Member to the British Parliament. They had heard, however, with great surprise, that, by the measure of his Majesty's Ministers, they were to be deprived of this right, and, in conjunction with Peebles-shire, to return only one Member to Parliament. The petitioners were at a loss to discover on what principle they were to be deprived of their privilege. The petitioners had not seen the Bills, and when they received them, they would naturally seek to discover on what grounds they were to be deprived of their rights. The preamble of the English Bill would tell them that it was expedient to increase the number of county Members; but in the Bill for Scotland, they would find not one word in the preamble about county Members. That Bill contained only a dry enactment, that Scotland was to return twenty-eight instead of thirty county Members. By the English Bill, the county of Rutland was to return two Members with a population but little exceeding that of Selkirkshire and Peebles-shire united, which were to return but one. There were at least seven English towns which were to return two Members each, of which the population was inferior to that of the two Scotch counties. If Selkirkshire was taken singly, the ease would be still more striking. From the superior population of Peebles-shire, it was quite evident that, under the proposed new qualifications, Selkirkshire could never return the Member, and thus would be doomed, practically, to perpetual disfranchisement. He would say nothing of the new qualifications, numerous as were the objections to them, because they were not noticed in the petition. It was, indeed, not worth while for the petitioners to inquire how a county Member was to be elected, when it was quite evident they never could elect one. Passing then to the Burgh, Selkirk, with three others, Peebles, Lanark, and Linlithgow, at present return one Member, and Selkirk has generally had its fair share in the election; it was proposed, however, to add Falkirk to these four burghs, a town hitherto unrepresented, with a population so superior to that of any of the other burghs, that, under the new qualifications, it would always return the 590 Member. By uniting with Linlithgow, a town at no great distance, and in the same county, it would prevent Selkirk, Peebles, and Lanark, from ever having the Member of their choice. The petitioners asked, why they were to have the populous town of Falkirk thrown in upon them, while many English towns were to enjoy the privilege of electing a Member, though their population be inferior to that of the four united burghs. Scotland might have made a bad bargain at the Union as to her Representation; with it, however, she had hitherto remained contented. Under it she had increased in happiness and prosperity; but if the Treaty of Union was to be violated, at least let Scotland be placed on an equal footing with England.
The Earl of Roseberysaid, that he would not, on that occasion, follow the noble Lord through all his arguments. The noble Lord had presented a petition from Selkirk, and had told their Lordships that the petitioners would be disfranchised by the Bill. He had a petition to present from persons similarly circumstanced in all respects, but their prayer was, that the Bill might pass into a law. The petition was from Linlithgow. The petitioners expressed their joy and approbation at the measure, and declared, that they were not only most willing, but most desirous, to surrender their individual privileges and interests for the sake of what they and the majority of their fellow-subjects believed to be a great public benefit. There was one observation which had fallen from the noble Lord (Montague) opposite, which he could not allow to pass unnoticed. The noble Lord had expressed a hope that, if the Union were to be violated at all, Scotland would at least be allowed a fair relative proportion to England in the new system of Representation. He would say nothing then about violating the Union, but he must remind the noble Lord that by the proposed measures Scotland would gain five, while England would lose sixty-two Representatives. Surely, then, Scotland would be better off than it was at present.
§ Petitions to be laid on the Table.