The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. Monday, October 6, 1879.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 913, 6 October 1879, Page 2

The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. Monday, October 6, 1879.

There has been, with a large section of the electors, a strong protest against members of the General Assembly receiving two hundred guineas by way of honorarium for "the discharge of their legislative duties during each Pai-liamentary session ; but with perhaps half-a-dozen exceptions, we do not believe other than that every candidate has had, or will have to pay more money for contesting his seat than his honorarium will be at all likely to recoup. Many leading papers have referred to the heavy expenses incurred by candidates during the elections now just passed over. The Wellington Chronicle, writing on this subject, says : — " In the election' for Wellington City we saw wealth poured out like water to secure the return of the plutocratic candidate. We saw paid canvassers, by the dozen, soliciting votes at the point of — well, ] the ' pocket-pistol.' We saw free hotels for bibulous members of the free and independent 1 We saw cabs and carriages, by the score, plying m all directions to convey voters to the polling booth. We have heard even that the voters were absolutely purchased for coin of the relm. Let it be understood that we do not accuse any of the candidates of any of the above scandalous practices. Our accusations are levelled at the plutocratic party. Another of the candidates who was not elected had to pay most extravagantly for the honour of Contesting a seat m Parliament. Every vote polled for the candidate m question cost him no less than 225. 6d. This gentleman did not buy the votes. But the expenses incurred by him on account of his election amounted to a sum equal to £1 2s. Gel. per vote. One of the successful candidates paid an enormous price for his whistle." These practices and expenses are not peculiar to Wellington, but are pretty universal throughout the Colony, and are, m fact, a survival of old-time election customs m England, which, with some other things, might with general advantage he allowed to pass into desuetude. With elections costing over .£650 a piece — tho .price named by our Wellington contemporaries — Triennial Parliaments might be anything but a blessing, or productive of those Libeiul results- which are fondly predicted of them. None but a rich man, and one who had an axe to grind, could dream of standing for Parliament. ■ We believe the whole system of canvass is bad, and that this touting for votes should be put an end to under penalty of disqualification. No doubt much fewer persons would poll, but the franchise would be moi'e intelligently exercised by those who took interest enough m public affairs to render them capable of forming a judgment. Personal solicitation is an infringement of the spirit of ballot voting, and if productive of no other evil, generates wholesale lying, many persons finding it inconvenient on grounds of self-interest, or from want of moral courage to refuse a vote when asked, and who yet record according to conscientious conviction under cover of the ballot. Instances are known m which the .promises considerably exceeded the number of voters on the roll, the plain deduction being that many persons had given assurances to both sides. This, it is said, was the case m one of the Auckland elections. But, though the evil of these practices is pretty generally admitted, and they are to a great extent illegal/ it would be m Tain to expect any reform emanating from candidates. While the system continues they must consent to be fleeced, and must even submit to known extortions. One candidate is obliged to employ itfl- the artifices used by his

opponents, and if possible to devise new and better ones. So long as canvassing for voters, dividing the names among committees, and driving electors to the booth, is practised by one candidate, his opponent niust do likewise. But the whole system should be put a stop to by law. Legal restrictions do already exist, but are for the most part a dead letter. We doubt whether a single member m the new Parliament who has been returned after a contestedi election has won his seat without employing cabs and paid canvassers. Under Mr, Stout's Bribery Bill this custom was visited with very severe penalties. It was made unlawful for any candidate, directly or indirectly, to use monetary influence m procurring votes ; to treat a voter directly or indirectly with either food or drink of any kind ; or directly or indirectly, to employ any kind of conveyance to bring electors to the polling-booth. These offences were equally punishable if done after the elector had recorded his vote and severe penalties were attached. Any candidate guilty of any of the above offences was not only disqualified from sitting m Parliament for a term of five years, but was stripped of all the privileges of citizenship, and equal penalties were imposed on any voter who acted as agent for a candidate m any of the above practices. Pecuniary fines were also imposed. Such a bill contemplates a radical change m the manner of conducting elections, and anything short of that will not suffice. Except by the methods of influencing the judgment of electors through meetings and public manifestoes, candidates should be prohibited from doing anything to coerce voters into recording m their favour. Not that we believe the minds of a dozen electors m any contest, when they come to the ballot papers, are materially swayed by a glass of beer, either past or prospective, but because the whole thing is pernicious and opposed to that spirit of calm intelligent judgment which we should desire to see characteristic of the conduct of public affairs ; and it is deterrent of healthy rivalty m appeals to the people, by making them too costly for a man of small means.