COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 5 August 1881)

§ MR. WARTON
desired to know why should the Preamble be postponed?

THE CHAIRMAN
It is the ordinary practice, and it is in order that the Preamble may be made to correspond with the Bill, should the Bill be amended.

§ MR. WARTON
said, it occurred to him that in this case there was much more in the Preamble than in the remainder of the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Member will have an opportunity of proposing Amendments to the Preamble, if he desires to do so.

§ MR. WARTON
said, in deference to the ruling of the Chairman, he had not challenged the postponement of the Preamble; still, he did not quite understand why it should be postponed.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is the Schedule upon which the Committee is now engaged.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he was aware of that; and he had an Amendment to propose to the Schedule. But he wished to explain, in order that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General might understand his object. In this particular Bill there was much more in the Preamble than in the Schedule, and he had to show how the one re-acted on the other. It would have been much better to have taken the Preamble first, and the usual practice was absurd in 1102 this case. The exact Amendment he had now to propose was to omit the second column of the Schedule. He could not see that there was any necessity to provide an abstract of the cases against each particular borough. He did not wish to challenge the accuracy of the abstract; but on another occasion it might be the opportunity for statements unfair or unjust towards a constituency. In suspending elections for a time, it was not necessary to give an account of the delinquencies in each particular borough which might be complete or uncomplete. Fair or unfair, he could not see the reason for it; and the Amendment he had to propose, taken in connection with the Preamble, would involve the Amendment of the latter, so that the second and third paragraphs would read— Whereas the said Commissioners have reported in each and all of the said cities and boroughs corrupt practices have prevailed in one or more elections. And then, again— Whereas it is expedient, with a view to future consideration, to provide for the temporary suspension of elections therein. There was no occasion, as a matter of principle, for saying what this or that borough had done, and how far corrupt practices had prevailed. If the hon. and learned Attorney General could give a precise reason for it, and say it was founded on precedent, then, as a Conservative and a lawyer, he would acquiesce.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, it seemed to him that in taking away the Constitutional right of a constituency to representation, the Act should set forth why this course was taken. Of course, if it were taken generally to the effect that in one or more elections corrupt practices have prevailed, then the whole might be unfairly classified as equally delinquent. But the hon. and learned Member was willing to be guided by precedent, and he would find such a precedent in Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act of 1867. That precedent had been followed, and therefore the Schedule had been provided. If there was anything that could be shown to be unfair in it, that unfairness could be remedied.

§ MR. WARTON
said, in consequence of the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General he had not pressed his objection; but he must take exception to the verbal construction of the third paragraph. In the 13th line were the words, "the cases by Parliament." That seemed but a poor weak way of expressing it. "The cases" did not indicate what cases, and did not even say the cases of the said cities and boroughs. He supposed the words emanated from the great Sir Henry Thring; but still he ventured to say his Amendment would improve the reading. His Amendment would be, first to strike out the words "of the cases," and then the words "by Parliament" would stand, and following these he proposed to add "in the cases of the said cities and boroughs," so that the whole should read— Whereas it is expedient, with a view to the future consideration by Parliament of the cases of the said cities and boroughs, to provide temporarily for the suspension of elections therein, and that, he thought, would be a much better reading.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, the Amendment was really a question of the reversal of words, whether they should read "by Parliament of the cases" or "of the cases by Parliament;" and he really thought the hon. and learned Member would not think it worth while to press it.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that was not so; it was much more than the mere reversal of words. True, he proposed to strike out the words "of the cases;" but, as he had explained, it was for the purpose of afterwards inserting after the word "Parliament," "of the cases of the said cities and boroughs," certainly a clearer and more elegant form of expression.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that after "cases" he proposed to put in the words "of the said cities and boroughs," for 1104 really the words "of the cases" did not make sense of the paragraph.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he thought the paragraph was properly drawn, and in grammatical English. It was hypercritical on the part of the hon. and learned Member to raise the objection, and to wish to send the Bill back to the Queen's printer for the sake of the alteration. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he must press the Amendment; and he would ask anybody to say, in reading the paragraph, what "the cases" could possibly mean. He would send the Bill back to the printer and to the draftsman too.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would return good for evil, and not object to the Motion he (the Attorney General) was now about to make—namely, that the Bill be read the third time.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he was quite ready to let the bad English go with all the sanction of the Attorney General.