Chamber of statesmen, composed of public men who had passed through great political offices and employments. Addressing himself to the election clauses, &c, he could not refrain from referring to the manner in which his hon. friend Mr. Butler had misunderstood both Mr. Hare and Mr. Mill on this subject The hon. member had complained that the committee had mutilated Hare's scheme by rejecting manhood suffrage. But Mr. Hare's scheme had nothing to do with manhood suffrage; it was, in fact, devised for England, where, happily, manhood suffrage did not exist. But Mr. Hare's scheme was nothing more than a mode of voting applicable alike to any constituency. He had weighed the Bill under a deep sense of their responsibility to the future, and he supported it not as a perfect measure, but as one which it would be wise in them to pass, and as one which they might pass without prejudice to the future policy of the country.
After discussion on other parts of the Bill,—
Mr. Holden replied.—The first objection of Captain Ward arose from a misapprehension of the principle and object of the contingent votes. Their entry on the voting paper was apt to be misunderstood as a departure from the system of single voting, whereas it was merely an expedient to prevent the single vote from being thrown away on a candidate who did not require it. It merely indicated for whom the elector would desire to give his vote, if on his coming to the poll he were told, “Mr. A., for whom you intend to vote, is already elected by a full quota, and you are therefore at liberty to aid in the election of another.” It was not a second vote, and should be regarded as if it were non-existent or written in invisible ink, until effect was given to it in consequence of the primary vote not being required. Then it has all the effect of a primary vote. Such being the case, it was evident that no candidate whose name was second on any voting paper has any claim whatever to consideration on this account if the first-named candidate received the vote as a part of his quota. It was a mere indication that the elector would have voted for him if he had not used his vote for another in preference. A vote given by an elector to B, because his greater favourite A did not require it was as good a vote as the vote of another elector, who esteemed B as superior to A. Kow if these two considerations were borne in mind, all the objections raised by his hon. friend Captain Ward to the method of allotting contingent votes, on the ground of supposed injustice to candidates, fell to the ground. It was wholly the concern of the voter, and if he had secured the privilege of rendering his vote—his one vote—effectual for some one candidate of his choice, no other candidate was entitled to complain. Surely nothing could be more ridiculous than that a candidate should complain of it as a hardship that he is not allowed to derive any advantage from the votes of electors whose votes had returned another, because they would have voted for him if they had not voted for that other person. But although no candidate had any greater right than another to influence
