Mr. Ashton Dilke, on Thursday, moved the second reading of
a Bill providing that the expenses of elections should be thrown upon the ratepayers, and that, when a successful can- didate was supported by less than half the electors, there should be a second ballot. The second half of the Bill met with no favour, and the first, though supported by the Government, only attracted 87 votes to 85. We rather agree with the Mem- bers present. The second change would only protract the uncer- tainty, and consequently increase the expense of elections, while• the arguments for and against the first are pretty equally divided. It is expedient that working-man Members should be- allowed to enter the House, but it is not expedient that candi- dates should be multiplied till every separate opinion produced its man, or that Members should be paid, which is a logical corollary of paying the expenses. We do not desire to see Mem- bership made a profession, nor are we clear that a large body of extremely poor representatives would be beneficial. They might be bought. It is true the English have a distinct liking for representatives above themselves, which tempers all political action; but they might, under certain circumstances, wish for mere delegates, and then they would choose poor men. In Ire- land, property is no help to a candidate, and we have expenses paid, iu many cases, by popular subscription. The result is not attractive, and, the balance of evidence being so close, we would rather let the innovation alone, at least till the next Reform Bill.
Previous page
