as aforesaid, then preference shall be given to the said candidates in the order of their priority in the gazetted lists of candidates prepared as hereinbefore provided,[1] and if the said candidates shall be on different gazetted lists, then in the order of their priority if they had been upon the gazetted list for the same part of the United Kingdom; and to the end aforesaid the registrars shall, with all practical speed, certify to the returning officers of the constituencies in which the said votes have been polled for any of the said remaining candidates, the number of votes appropriated to them from each constituency, excluding, where two or more candidates shall have been equal, and cannot both or all be returned, the name or names of the candidates who have not the preference in the order of priority as aforesaid; and if they be still equal, preference shall be given to a candidate for a constituency in Ireland before one for Scotland or England, and to a candidate for a constituency in Scotland before one in England, and to a candidate for a smaller before one for a larger constituency; and the registrars shall also, as soon as possible, certify to the returning officers of the constituencies in which the said votes have been polled, the names of all the candidates who have failed to obtain a quota of votes, or a number sufficient to form one of the said comparative majorities or being equal to one of such majorities have been excluded as not having the priority as aforesaid, signifying that in consequence thereof such candidate cannot be returned at that election as members to serve in Parliament.
In the last edition of this treatise, a clause was introduced for appropriating the votes of elector's that had been ineffectual owing to having the names of unsuccessful candidates at the head of their voting papers, by assigning them as part of the constituency of any member whom they had named lower on the voting paper, in order to compensate them in some measure for the loss. It was argued that if the voter were not represented by the man whom he would above all desire, because he could not procure a sufficient concurrence of opinion or sentiment for his election, he is yet represented by the man who stands highest in his favour for whom that concurrence can be obtained: that the variation in the numbers of the constituencies which the ultimate appropriation of votes might introduce, derogated in no degree from the true principle of representation, "A is not the less perfectly represented by Z because B and C have likewise chosen Z to represent
- ↑ Clause IX., p. 91.
