The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA: FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1894.

Clutha Leader, Volume XX, Issue 1030, 20 April 1894, Page 4

The Clutha Leader. BALCLUTHA: FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1894.

The bye-election of Bruce two years ago is not likely to be soon forgotten as regards the interference of the, Government with the electors. Two Ministers visited the district and did their best by addresses and otherwise to induce the electors to vote for the Government candidate. But all their efforts were of no avail. The probability is that their interference did their candidated more harm than good. As a rule people do not like to be interfered with, and it might be expected that this would be especially true as regards the exercise of the ■franchise. Ministers found in the case of Bruce that the people would not submit to be dictated to by them, and they might have profited by the lesson taught; them on that occasion, but this they do net seem to have done. At the late general election a Mr Monk was returned foe Waitemata. His son had during the election shown great zeal and indiscretion, for which the father was held responsible, and he lost not only his seat but was placed under the disability of not being able to contest any election for 12 months. When the writs were issued for a fresh election two candidates presented themselves. The one was the defeated candidate of the previous election. He had represented the district in the previous Parliament, and was a very keen supporter of the * Government. The other was a Mr Massey, who was an opponent of the Government, but whether keen or not we cannot say. The Government did not follow quite the same tactics in Waitemata that they did in Bruce. They worked in Waitemata chiefly by deputy. They sent their whip to address and influenoe the electors. The Premier, however, was not quite idle. During his recent trip in the North he had occasion to be in the Waitemata electorate. When the election was in progress a deputation of gumdiggers waited on him about local affairs. To this deputation he is reported to have said that 'a certain section of the diggers were induced by prominent members of that deputation to vote for an adherent of the party that thwarted the Government in their efforts to improve the condition of the working classes." There is a great deal in the way of putting things, 1 and Mr Seddon put his views of the coming election in the way which he thought was best fitted to influence the minds of the members- of the deputation. Considering that the deputation came to trim about their local requirements, this part of his reply simply means that their local wants would be better looked after if they would return a supporter of the Government than they would be if they should return an opponent. Mr Monk lost his seat because he was considered to. have acquiesced in the action of his son in bribing some of the electors with beer, but we are very much mistaken if Mr Scddon's words have not something in the nature of bribery in them. It is, however, a kind of bribery against wh.'ch the law makes no provision. As to the impression which Mr Seddon wishes to convey to the minds of the deputation that the opposition are opposed to the improvement of the : working classes, there may be differences of opinions as to the best way of affecting such improvement, bnt as to the thing itself we believe that every member, or almost every member of Parliament, has it at heart quite as much as Mr Seddon himself. As proving this to some extent we may remark that ifc is not possible now-a-days for a man to get into Parliament without the support of a considerable section 'of

the working classes, and it is not to b« expected that they would vote for any man that they did not consider had their interests at heart. Besides the personal interference of Mr Seddon and his whip in the "Waitemata election, it is said that the Government have been using their influence through the press. There is a passage that is going the round of the papers, and which is said to have Vippn inspired by ministers. For the honor of our parliamentary institutions we hope this is not the case. The passage is as follows and speaks for itself: " Minister will he more than human If unier snch circumstancps the crying wants of Waitemata during the °nsning three years of the power which is insured to them by their overwhelming majority appear j not to have any special claim upon their attention." The action of the Government is almost unaccountable. If there had been a doubt as to whether they had a majority or not, or if the majority had been a narrow one, we would have been able to understand their action,although even then nothing would have justified it. But it is well known that the Government hare, to use the words just quoted, "an overwhelming majority," —a majority so large that its very largeness is usually looked upon as a source of weakness to them. The only reason we can think of is this, that Mr Jackson Palmer, the former member, was a very warm supporter of theirs, and that, as he had assisted them in the past in gaining and retaining their mimisterial position, they were willing to do what they could to assist him in getting back to parliament. Gratitude no doubt is a very good thing and we should sacrifice much to show it, but we are not justified in going the length of tampering with the convictions of a whole com- • mnnity. Having been taught by sad experience that it is no advantage, but rather a disadvantage, to interfere with electors, it is to be hoped that the Government will profit by their experience and refrain from doing anything of the kind in future.