The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3907, 1 September 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1875.

ihe result of last night’s meeting is so tmimportant that comment is almost needless. Looked upon as a demonstration in favor of Provincialism, it must have proved a keen disappointment to the promoters. They had laid their schemes under the idea that the sophisms sown broadcast at Caversham had spread like thistle-down, and had taken root widely. But

r lhe beat-laid schemes of mice and men U-ang aft a-gley, And leave us naught but gr'ef an ; pain For promised joy. The enthusiasm in favor of Provincialism that was ty have awed the House of Representatives into remitting the Bill to the decision of the constituencies was absent. Hot even a resolution expressive of disapprobation of Abolition was proposed or hinted at. The little argument used was entirely in favor of Abolition, and the row was in favor of Provincialism. Whoever was responsible for getting up the meeting did his work badly. He or they might have been better prepared. We think thay should have been allowed to speak, whether electors or not j for the theorv of public meetings is that at them'men not otherwise represented are enabled to explain their views. Electors speak through their representatives: nonelectors make known their views at public meetings, and it is simply tyranny to doom them to a sort of outlawry because they happen not to have a vote. They pay taxes, fulfil the duties of citizens, are subject to laws passed bv the Legislature, and no mistake of appointing a meeting of “ electors ” should have been allowed to interfere with the evident design of the meeting being a “ public ” one. We do not suppose their influence would have been overwhelming. Diluted Stout would have been all with which they could have regaled the meeting, and the taste of it, as administered by Mr MTndok, Mr Hooper, or Mr Mercer would have been amply sufficient I to have soured the stomach of the I

hassling and to have secured an adverse vote. But matters took ■< different turn, ami one cannot but admire the adroitness with which Mr Ramsay tried a new dodge worthy of an intending candidate, at the coming election. What a fin- picture far ‘ Punch ’ one con’d make of the resolution adopted. Dunedin might •be represented as a gigantic North Briton, seated on the stool of authority ; his countenance severe, his attitude threatening, his air importin" that all the dignity of all the electors ot the City was embodied in him. He should have a rattan in his hand emblematical of his power to punish, and trembling at lus feet should be the delinquents, Reynolds and Wales. They are brought up for sentence, and the oracular sentence is, “ I do not find fault that you have supported the Abolition Bill—iu fact, you have done quite right—but you should have consulted me. You two shall no longer be my mouthpiece, but I will hereafter trust my interests to Mr Ramsay and somebody else—l don’t know who—possibly Mr Barnes.'’ We think such a tableau would have a wonderful effect upon the House of Representatives. How sheepish the sitting members would look! How Mr Mac an drew would laugh ! How Mr Reid would sneer! How Sir George Grey would chuckle with high falutin’ glee! Possibly washing his hands in invisible water with the aid of invisible soap, as Dickens has it, he would exclaim: “ This is something like support. When these Dunedin people come out of their shell they take care their horns shall not be hidden. They are determined to run a tilt at somebody, and as they can’t find fault with the Ministry who proposed the Bill, they make a rush at their members for supporting it. This is the sort of stick to rest upon. My ‘ better Bill ’ when I bring it forward, may chance to bring down an expression of censure upon the intelligent Ramsay-cuiu-Barnes’s vote ia the next Parliament. Who knows?’