1.—: Counties and Divisions, 2.—: Cities, Boroughs, and Towns.

Abstract of a Return of the number and description of the existing Commissions of Inquiry, showing the total cost of each commission, from its appointment to the 29th of April, 1834.

In England 40 counties return 144 members, and previous to the election of 1832 had 344,564 registered electors. The cities and boroughs are 185; they return 327 members, and their registered electors up to the same date were 274,649. The total for England was thus 619,213 electors, and 471 representatives of counties and boroughs.

In Wales, 12 counties return 15 members, and their registered electors in 1832 were 25,815. The 14 districts of boroughs return 14 members, and their registered electors were 11,309.

In Scotland, 30 counties have 30 members, and their registered electors in 1832 were 33,114. Seventy-six cities and boroughs return 30 members, and their registered electors of the above date were 31,332. Total for Scotland, 53 representatives, and 64,447 electors.

In Ireland 32 counties have 64 members, and their registered electors in 1832 were 60,607. The cities and boroughs are 34; they return 41 members, and their registered electors are 31,545. Total for Ireland 105 members, and 92,152 electors, according to the registration of 1832.

The first remark that occurs is upon the proportion of the town to the county suffrage. In round numbers, the gross population of cities and boroughs of England and Scotland is half the population of counties; and the representation of cities and boroughs is about double the representation of counties. Wales gives an advantage to the counties; and the returns for Great Britain stand thus:—County population 10,446,241; Borough population 5,816,060. Members for counties, 189; members for boroughs, 364. So that the county population is two to one against the town, and the town representation two to one against the county.

In Ireland the case is different. The county representation exceeds the borough representation, but the county population is rated at 7,000,000, and the borough at little more than 700,000. In Ireland the registered electors for counties in 1832 about doubled those for towns.

Taking Great Britain and Ireland together, the population of cities and boroughs is about one-third of the population of counties; the electors for counties are to the electors of towns about as four is to three—the numbers of the first being 403,494, of the latter 317,290; the number of members for counties is 253, the number of members for boroughs 405. According to the registration of 1832 the electors for the towns and counties of Great Britain and Ireland were altogether 812,936.

In the election of 1832, of the 114 counties and divisions of the United Kingdom, 60 were contested, and in 54 no contest. Of the 254 cities, boroughs, and towns, 190 were contested, and in 64 no contest.

At the general election in 1832, the poll was over in many of the boroughs on the first day; and it appears probable that by the erection of a few more booths, and the appointment of additional polling places, the whole number of electors in the cities and boroughs might have been easily polled in one day.

In ten of the counties of England and Wales, which were contested at the same general election, 37,075 voters out of 44,551, or five-sixths of the whole number who voted, presented themselves for the purpose on the first day; and there can be no doubt that if an opportunity had not been given for choosing between one of two days, a very large proportion of those who presented themselves on the second would have done so on the first day of the election. It is certainly possible that some electors might be unavoidably prevented from attending if the election were to be begun and concluded on the same day; but as is remarked in the Report on Election Expenses, “some inconvenience will be found from every course that can be adopted, and the question is to be decided on the balance of advantage to the public by the limitation proposed, it being expected that voters will generally accommodate their time to comply with the law.”

One part of the Reform Act which has occasioned great vexation and disappointment, is the demand which it sanctions of one shilling from each county elector at the time of claiming to register his right, and from each borough elector at the time of registration, and on every year thereafter. These payments were required in order to defray the expense of making out lists or registers of electors which expense must otherwise have fallen upon the parish rates. It was thought to be just that those who enjoy the franchise should pay the expense of the registration. Upon this point it is observed in the Report, that “the suffrage is for the benefit of the whole community, and that it is desirable to have as large a number of electors as possible enrolled, whence it becomes a fit question for consideration, whether, if the payment of the shilling operates against registration, and at the same time creates discontent, it ought not to be discontinued.” Upon a review of all the circumstances, the committee have recommended that these shilling payments shall cease to be demanded.

The sums paid to the revising barristers employed under the provisions of the Reform Act at the registrations of 1832 and 1833, and which were defrayed by the Treasury, amounted to £83,364.

It is not pretended that the foregoing statement affords a correct view of the expenses incurred by candidates in England, many of whom undertook personally, or through their committees, to defray various additional, and not strictly legal charges, of which the committee could not obtain any account.

We believe it is not generally known, that, with reference to elections for members of parliament in Scotland, whether for cities or burghs, no qualification whatever of property is required on the part of the candidate; upon which fact the Committee already referred to has remarked, that “as no practical inconvenience appears to have arisen therefrom, they submit to the House whether the existing laws respecting qualifications of candidates in England and Ireland should not be reconsidered.” We should cordially join in a recommendation for doing away with the qualification altogether; not because we would throw open the doors of parliament to needy adventures, for, practically, the existing system is not found to place any obstacles in the way of such characters when they can prevail upon electors to return them as members. Every question of this kind may safely be left to the discretion of the electors, who should not be restrained from selecting a man in whose ability and integrity they can confide, because his estate is not of sufficient magnitude; and, on the other hand, it appears to be demanded for the sake of the respectability of the House of Commons itself, that all necessity should be removed for having recourse to a subterfuge, which, in other cases, might lay the parties open to the imputation of fraud.