Sect. 23. It is remarkable that in extending the elective franchise in the case of Coupar, they extend it from 377, in whom it is now vested, to 324, in whom it will be. In the case of Jedburgh, from 97 it is increased to 88. And while they annihilate the East of Fife District, whose burghs contain respectively sixty-four, twenty-three, eighty-two, fifty-two, and thirtyfive houses, of the annual value of 10l. and upwards, they leave Dornoch untouched, of which it is reported, "There is no dwelling"house and premises within the said burgh "rented at 107." The East Fife District, again, containing 6065 inhabitants, and 256 10l. houses, is blotted out, the Galloway District, containing 7970 inhabitants, and 325 107. houses, remains. What virtue does there exist in these majorities, so as to entitle the Galloway Burghs to retain their representatives, while the Eastern Fife Burghs are totally disfranchised? Caithness and Ayrshire have also been particularly favoured. Cromarty, Stonehaven, Peterhead, Kilmarnock, and Falkirk, are cal- * N. B. Situate within twelve miles of each other, and having the same Sect. 23. Sect. 25. It is curious to observe the ingenuity which Ministers have displayed under the pretence of yielding to the strong feeling of disapprobation expressed at the power of the Sheriff; how this Bill, like Mr. Fox's India Bill, under the cloak of amendment, increases, while it varies, abuses! May it share the same fate! The power of surveying the extent and limits of our Boroughs has been taken from the Sheriffs, officers for life, not completely at the beck of the ministry, and given to others appointed and paid by the Crown for an especial purpose, holding a situation revocable at will, and therefore exercising the power conferred upon them in a manner the most agreeable to Ministers, the most conducive to the retaining of their places, and the most inimical to the freedom of election. These Commissioners are empowered to enquire into and determine the limits of Towns and Burghs entitled to send members to Parliament, according to the true intent and meaning of this Act. What the true intent and meaning of this Act is, or is here supposed to be, or Sect. 25. what construction or reference those words bear here, stripped as they are of the clause which preceded them in the former Bill, and to which they there referred, it is not for us to inquire, since they are still honored with a place in the Bill. We may, however, beg information as to the mode in which the Commissioners are to proceed to determine and limit:-1st, Whether they are to visit each of the places or not, and decide by ocular evidence. 2d, Whether they are to bring up witnesses to London, or wherever the Board of Commissioners is established, and to determine by oral testimony, as they are empowered to do by Section XXVI.; by the way, rather an expensive mode of proceeding. 3dly, To settle the boundaries according to maps, surveys, &c.; for which purpose persons must be specially sent by them to each of the places to be limited; likewise a costly proceeding; and, conjointly with the expense of bringing up witnesses, and paying the salaries of the Commissioners, an expenditure which will require no inconsiderable sum to defray, and one drawn from a source with which Ministers have not thought fit to acquaint us; but which information was perhaps needless, as all are too well acquainted with their talents and ingenuity not to be aware that patronage of the Crown is a very principal object to be attained. Thus, they have surrendered that patronage which Sect. 25. they would have possessed through one officer of the Crown, in order to give it to several; they only exchange the Sheriff for others infinitely more under the same influence. Nor have Ministers informed us whether the decision of the Commissioners be final, absolute and determinate, and altereth not, like the laws of the Medes and Persians; whether it be elastic and variable, and liable to revision; nor whether an appeal from their fiat lie to any tribunal or to none. Sect. 28. SECTION XXVIII. Is the privilege of representing any Scotch county in Parliament, without the qualification necessary to others, now for the first time conferred upon the eldest sons of Scotch peers, in order to compensate to them their hitherto total ineligibility? If so, why are they not also, on the same grounds, permitted to elect, as well as be elected, without qualification? Is a man entitled to be registered on a bare superiority, in virtue of which he was formerly upon the roll of freeholders, but from which roll he had been struck off upon his father succeeding to a Scotch peerage? Has he, or not, retained the qualification, (Section. V.) although he lost it? Or, in other words, |