43
that irregularities of the latter kind have not come to light during my own research (they are of course difficult to discover), but a glaring and paradoxical case can be recorded of the former.
In the years after the system of proxy voting had been adopted there apparently grew up an uneasy feeling about the way it was practised. This can be deduced from the fact that the Commission for revision of the Land Regulations advised in 1866 to drop this system. One of the reasons for this was given at the Public Meeting of March 12, 1866, by one of the members of the Commission, Mr. Hogg: "it had been foreseen that in a short time there would be very few owners of land left in Shanghai. But there lay the objection, for large numbers of Renters went to England, and naturally left their votes in the hands of some agent. It resulted that a person who had a large business of this description practically held the election of the Councillors. There was a grave objection to a man holding in his hands the turning power in such matter. It was felt to be unfair that a man residing in England should have a voice through his agent in the election of Councillors to represent the interests of ratepayers on the spot". An amendment was moved, however, permitting the continuance of proxy voting, but this motion was rejected by 71 as against 62 votes, with two gentlemen, Mr. Keswick and Mr. Hogg together casting 51 votes at the Public Meeting. So with the weapon which he wished to abolish, Mr. Hogg defeated the opposition who wanted to retain it.
Nevertheless, proxy voting was included in the final Land Regulations by the foreign ministers.
The system of proxy voting made it necessary that voting lists were drawn up at each Public Meeting in order to establish how many votes each person attending could cast. Not much research has been done in this field, but it should make interesting reading to see in what measure meetings were manipulated by a minority physically present at a meeting. Up to 1866 only incidental references to the number of votes cast by one individual can be recorded. For example, on the voting list of June 6, 1861, one person appeared with 6 votes, two with 4, four with 3, ten with 2, and three with 1 vote.20 At the Public Meeting of August 18, 1864, Mr. Cowie managed to assemble 19 votes.30
43
that irregularities of the latter kind have not come to light during my own research (they are of course difficult to discover), but a glaring and paradoxical case can be recorded of the former.
In the years after the system of proxy voting had been adopted there apparently grew up an uneasy feeling about the way it was practised. This can be deduced from the fact that the Commission for revision of the Land Regulations advised in 1866 to drop this system. One of the reasons for this was given at the Public Meeting of March 12 1866 by one of the members of the Commission, Mr. Hogg: "it had been foreseen that in a short time there would be very few owners of land left in Shanghai. But there lay the objection, for large numbers of Renters went to England, and naturally left their votes in the hands of some agent. It resulted that a person who had a large business of this description practically held the election of the Councillors. There was a grave objection to a man holding in his hands the turning power in such matter. It was felt to be unfair that a man residing in England should have a voice through his agent in the election of Councillors to represent the interests of ratepayers on the spot". An amendment was moved, however, permitting the continuance of proxy voting, but this motion was rejected by 71 as against 62 votes, with two gentlemen, Mr. Keswick and Mr. Hogg together casting 51 votes at the Public Meeting. So with the weapon which he wished to abolish, Mr. Hogg defeated the opposition who wanted to retain it.
Nevertheless, proxy voting was included in the final Land Regulations by the foreign ministers.
The system of proxy voting made it necessary that voting lists were drawn up at each Public Meeting in order to establish how many votes each person attending could cast. Not much research has been done in this field, but it should make interesting reading to see in what measure meetings were manipulated by a minority physically present at a meeting. Up to 1866 only incidental references to the number of votes cast by one individual can be recorded. For example on the voting list of June 6 1861 one person appeared with 6 votes, two with 4, four with 3, ten with 2 and three with 1 vote.20 At the Public Meeting of August 18 1864 Mr. Cowie managed to assemble 19 votes3°
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.