88 



among second preferences, except where Sir Philip Fysh was 

 second, in which case it went to the third preference. No candi- 

 date gained a surplus as a result of this count. Mr Fulton, who 

 was lowest on the poll at. this stage, was then excluded, and his 122 

 papers were distributed [among the candidates whose fate yet 

 remained uncertain. The result of this distribution was to raise 

 Mr Bradley's total to 483. As this involved a surplus of 26, that 

 surplus had to bedistri buted in a proportion determined by 

 reference to the next preferences on the whole votes transferred 

 to Bradley from other candidates, i.e , from Fysh, Cox, or Fulon. 

 The process of elimination, alternated with the occasional distri- 

 bution of a surplus, was continued until only six candidates 

 remained. These were then declared elected. Itwill be seen 

 from the accompanying table, on pp. ( J2, that only four were 

 successful in obtaining a quota. 



It will be interesting to compare with the foregoing, a table 

 for the compilation of which I am indebted to the courtesy of 

 the Government Statistician. Ike table shows how different 

 would have been the result if the cumulative method had been 

 adopted. 



Quota — 457. 



* Elected, t Obtained quota. J Highest in order 

 * of general favor. 



The result of the election failed to give universal satisfaction. 

 Rejected candidates found some consolation in unsparing criticism. 

 On the part of some electors, whose candidate owed to the 

 system the fact of his election, there was an ignoble disavowal 

 of indebtedness. Still the results were very generally regarded 

 with approval. There were few electors so unfortunate as to see 

 all their preferences rejected ; where such a failure occurred, the 

 fault rested with the elector in not voting for more candidates. On 

 a future occasion electors will probably remember this ; if they 

 soon exhaust their preferences, they hate only to continue the 



