Page 1 Advertisements Column 3

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 747, 11 June 1853, Page 1

the Pensioner Force during the agitation for the election of members lor the Municipal Corporation." (Signed) Patrick King, Chairman. Onehunga, June 8, 1835. ADDRESS Of the Commillee elected at a Public Meeting of the Pensioners at Onehnnga, who were empowered to select fit and proper persons lo be returned to sit as members in the Provincial Council of the Pravitace of Auckland, to represent the interests of the Pensioner Settlements. FELLOW PENSIONERS, Working Men, and Colonists generally,—We, the Committee appointed in accordance with the resolution passed at a Public Meeting, beg to embrace this opportunity of addressing you on the movement, which you have empowered us to carry forward. We pledge ourselves to work heartily and do our best towards ensuring success to the cause we have taken in band. And at the same time call upon you to lend us your united co-operation and assistance to carry the same through properly and successfully. Such a step as we now invile you to take, being according to " Act of Parliament ;" strictly legitimate, and Consistent with your duty as Pensioners, as Members of civ il society, and as Colonists. Whatever objections may have been urged against the Pensioners as a body taking any part in politics, and against our enfranchisement previously, such have been properly met and removed by the Queen and the British Parliament, by the granting of the New Zealand Constitution Act, which has conferred upon us the same rights and privileges as upon other British subjects We are sorry to have it to say that a few at times have both spoken and written against the enfranchisement of the Pensioners, and have even gone *o far as to cast severe reflections on the policy of the governim-ii? for having conceded this right to us. We, how. ever, cannot but think that such as have done so, must have taken only a hasty and a ve*y narrow view of the question ; or, that they have wiitten and spoken when actuated by feelings of prejudice or interest, instead of a sincere desire to vindicate the cause of truth and justice. It has not been without mortification to our feelings as men, that we have witnessed such an unfair and uncharitable disposition manifested. This being the first time since our arrival in the colony, that we of necessity have been called so prominently before the public, and in a manner in which our statements can receive proper authenticity, we presume we might be allowed to defnd our own entire in answer to the various reasons urged why we as Pensioners, ought no' to enjoy our political rights ; and this we shall do to the best of our ability, though humbly, still boldly and fearlessly. We remember that severe reflections and bit er cen-ures were hurled at the head of Governor Sir George Grey, who granted the Municipal Charter, and all who suppoited it, singling out and alluding particularly to the clause which gave votes to the inhabitants of the Pensioner Settlements, —omitting at the same time, in our opinion, to give any thing like forcible or convincing arguments, or any tangible grounds of reason against it. Now, then, we wish to put a few questions to these jealous and selfish denouncers of the People's Myitis; and, at the same time to inform them that we fancy we are able to detect sophistry and mystification, should any of these patriots condescend to reply to our questions. Is it because we receive compensation for our services from the Government by way of pension, that this jealousy arises, and for which forsooth we ought to be deprived of our rights as British subjects, and thus remain in the character of inferiors or slaves as compared with other portions of tho community ? Is it because we, as a body, are tainted with crime, and have thereby di;qualified ourselves ? Is it that because, when we were on active service, that is, when facing the battle and the breeze, we ever showed either fear or cowardice, and thus brought disgrace upon our country's flag ? Surely these sticklers for consistency would not attempt to bring such a charge against the British Army. Is it because we are not under (at the present time) direct taxation, that our interests ought not to be represented in tlie councils of our adopted country? High authorities have laid it down as a correct principle " that taxation and representation ought to be co-equal." Politicians have taken the cue and reiterated the sentiment until it has bidden defiance to contradiction by b. coming generally acknowledged. Can it be proved that we are not taxed ? Do we not spend the whole of our pensions aud what wages we earn besides, in procuring taxable articles for every day consumption ? And does not our money, so spent and circulated, ussist others, find its way into the Custom House, and help to swell the revenue of the Colony ? On what other ground is their argument supported against our having votes? Is it merely because we have been soldiers that these liberty-loving gentlemen would wish to deprive us of our rights? Is it because many of us have both fought and bled, and suffered other hardships and deprivations in the field, or when ploughing the treacherous wares in defence of the Commerce, and the institutions of our fatherland? Or because we are still fairly liable at a moment's call from our Officers, to fight or perhaps die, in defence of the Colonists, and our adopted country, that we ought to he precluded from voting at the elections ? Is it because we are not so likely to be true and loyal to our Queen and country for being treati d like rational beings, and placed on an equality with our fellow men, that it is wrong for the pensioners to be so recognized as to be brought within the pale of the Constitution ? Is it because we receive a kindness from the hands of the Queen and Government in this way, that we must of course shew symptoms of insubordination? Or would they argue that ads of oppression would be the better way of causing us to be more loyal to our Queen, and obedient to our Officers and discipline ? Then as to the precedents. Have the constituencies in England, Ireland,or Scotland, always refused a personas their representative on account of his being an officer, and served his country, either in the Army or Navy ? Have they not frequently chosen Colonels, Majors, Captains, &c.,of both Navy and Army ? Was the late Great Duke of Wellington considered any the inferior as a civilian for having once been a soldier in active service, and was he not once even while a Field Marshal in the Army, the Prime Minister of England 1 And did he not hold other situations under the Government in a civil capacity? And was Lord Nelson, another of England's noblest heroes, any the worse man for being in the Navy? How many (we would humbly beg to ask) of the British Colonies have been governed by Naval and Military men, during the last century? Do the Americans chime in with this doctrine of exclusion from office, and political rights? Do they look upon such as a crime, and degradation? Do they not honour their soldiers with places of responsibility and trust? How many of the American Presidents have been Military men? Does the fact of their having served in thai capacity, necessarily deprive them of all legislative abilities, smother their feelings of humanity, prevent them from acts of benevolence, and blind their minds to all practical common sense. And would your consistent politicians, who so strenof citizenship, and who so boldly contend for the rights of the Natives of New Zealand to be in every respect recoguized as British subjects, wish, nay rejo.ee, to see some hundreds of your/fellow Countrymen treated as " aliens and slaves" merely because they orjee were soldiers, and having served their country have come to labour aud spend the remainder of their days amongst you in the midst of toil and hard work ? Particular stress has been laid on the probability, or, as they would make it appear, the certainty, of such olitical privileges proving a premium to insubordination. Would it not bo an act of the greatest ingra-