is not at all necessary. In this way, in a small electorate, the whole number to be returned may be elected without the necessity of any great expense, and without the need of much official machinery. But, of course, when you came to apply the principle to extensive electorates, then this official machinery became necessary, just as it was necessary at present. It was not more liable to abuse than any other system. In all cases you must necessarily depend on the integrity of individuals, and if they could not repose confidence to this extent in their officials, the sooner we obtained a despotism the better. But he (Mr. Forster) had no doubt on this score, and he saw no difficulty whatever in applying this system, which embraced the best possible means of securing a representation of opinions. It was argued that persons might combine to secmre the election of particular candidates. But was there anything improper or undemocratic in that? Suppose the Wesleyans, or the Roman Catholics, or any other body, desired to elect one of their own number to represent them, was there anything wrong in their combining in order to secure that end ? He maintained there was not. On the contrary, he contended it was quite in accordance with the true theory of representation, which regarded the candidate as the representative of opinions, and not of mere numbers. The more he considered the Hare system, the more he admired it as calculated to secure democratic freedom. He might be told that it destroyed responsibility. It destroyed responsibility to local opinion, perhaps; but it held the representative amenable to the general opinion of the country; for the holding of his position must depend on his having gained the confidence and the respect of the commonwealth of which he formed part. He (Mr. Forster) said, therefore, he had no hesitation in giving in his adherence to the Hare system—a system admirable for its simplicity, and one that did honour to its contriver in the mother-country, and for the introduction of which the honourable gentleman who had brought it so prominently under notice here was entitled to great credit.
Mr. Hoskins would accept the single electorate, in combination with Hare's system, which had the advantage of giving effect to every vote. The provision for giving five votes to each elector was no part of Hare's system, and should not have his support.
Mr. Lucas was in favour of trying Hare's system; and, in so far as he could understand it, he regarded it as being as simple and easy as the present system. Nor did he think there was any possibility of a vote being lost, as had been stated by one hon. member; for every man who voted must tell for one member at all events; and if he put one name only on the paper, then it would be the duty of the returning officer to first select those papers which had one name only on them, so that the vote should not be lost. The present bill differed somewhat from Hare's system, but he believed that difference to be an improvement. Under the system the returning officer collects the number of votes registered, and from that forms his quota. Thus, if there were 30,000 electors and thirty to be returned, he formed his
