COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 11 August 1882)

§ MR. MONK
said, he wished to call attention to the unsatisfactory character of the Bill that had been withdrawn by the Government this Session. He held that Gloucester had been treated with exceptional severity. The Election Commissioners in the case of that borough made most exhaustive Reports, whereas in other places they performed their investigations most perfunctorily. In the case of Oxford the Commissioners stated their belief that 2,000 electors either received bribes or had been subjected to corrupt practices; but in the end only 55 voters were scheduled, as the Commissioners did not consider it a part of their duty to waste time in investigating the individual cases of corruption.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
rose to Order. The hon. Gentleman was not speaking on the Bill then before the House.

§ MR. MONK
challenged his hon. and learned Friend to contradict his statements. The result was that in the case of Gloucester all the corrupt element would be eliminated by the disqualification of scheduled voters, and a perfectly pure constituency would remain; but how? —without any Representatives; while in the cases of Oxford, Chester, and Boston, the great majority of bribees would escape, and after this Parliament those unpurified boroughs would be in a position to return their Members as heretofore. He commended those considerations to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and hoped the Bill which would be brought in next Session would mete out equal justice to all.

§ BARON DE FERRIERES
moved to leave out all after "of," in line 23, page 1, and insert "the present Parliament." The Bill, as it now stood, proposed to suspend elections in the scheduled towns until seven days after the meeting of 1602 Parliament in the coming year. There was now no probability of a Dissolution, so that an objection to the Bill was that it would be open to any hon. Member, after seven days, to move for a writ to issue in regard to any one of the boroughs. The result would be that the boroughs would be kept in a state of uncertainty, and they would be obliged to keep all their election machinery at work. The object of his Amendment was that the scheduled boroughs should have no Member until the end of the present Parliament. By the adoption of the Amendment the Committee would not be dealing more harshly with these boroughs than the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to do in the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he was obliged to his hon. Friend for the good intentions with which he had introduced his Amendment. It was quite true it would relieve him (the Attorney General), personally, and the House from the trouble of next Session considering the matter. But the Committee would see this was a suspensionary Bill, and if they were to adopt the present Amendment they would really pass sentence on the boroughs, and that ought not to be the case within the limits of a suspensionary Bill. He would also remind his hon. Friend that the Committee would still have to consider the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill.

§ MR. WARTON
proposed to add, at end of line 25— Provided, That in the event of another Parliament being summoned before the first day of February, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, writs shall issue for the election of Members for the cities of Canterbury, Oxford, and Chester, and the borough of Boston. He admitted that some few days ago, when he put the Amendment on the Paper, there seemed more probability of a Dissolution than at present; but, even now, such was the condition of the political atmosphere at home and abroad, 1603 that it was quite possible, when the House re-assembled in October, Ministers might have some singular announcement to make. His Amendment would do no harm, and it carried out the very wish of the Attorney General himself, as far as related to the four boroughs named in the Amendment. He was only carrying out the wishes of the Government, by providing for a contingency which might happen. If the Attorney General could, with that prophetic foresight of his, say that a Dissolution would not take place, well and good. He, however, thought the Government would show their consistency by adopting his Amendment.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, one reason amongst others why he should not support the Amendment was that it included the borough of Boston. It was not now the proper time to consider the iniquities of that borough; but, still, the Committee would like to hear why that very corrupt borough was to be spared.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, there were two practical reasons why this Amendment could not be accepted. The first was the reason he had given before—namely, that this was a suspensionary Bill, and the second was that it would grant to the corrupt portion of these constituencies, in case of an election, more power than was given to the purer part.