MR. FITZHERBERT’S ADDRESS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4600, 17 December 1875, Page 2 (Supplement)

MR. FITZHERBERT’S ADDRESS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sib,—l think that before Mr. Eitzherbert had published his address he should have paid more attention to the opinions which have been expressed at the different meetings that have been held all over tile colon}', and the reception those members have received by the electors, who voted for the abolition of provinces. Their conduct has been scrutinised, and judged at the very tribunals Mr. Eitzherbert and his colleagues wished it to be referred to (I mean the different constituencies of the colony). Now, if these tribunals give judgment in favour of those members who voted tor abolition, and again return them or others of the same opinion, will Mr. Eitzherbert and the gallant minority, as he calls them, take that decision as Anal, supposing that they are still in the minority? It does not appear to me by his address that lie intends to do so. He says:—'‘So tar as I can judge by the addresses of candidates throughout the country, the question appears to have been too much regarded as a foregone conclusion, and instead of endeavouring to guide public opinion by adducing reasons pro and con, the interpretation seems to be elect me, and I am ready to adopt any opinions wliich may be most pleasing to you at the present moment." Now, if I understand anything of the reasoning of the gallant minority who obstructed the work of the Assembly so long last session on the abolition question, it was that the whole matter should be referred to the electors in the colony for their decision on it before it became law, and not that those members who had voted for abolition were to go to their constituents, and say to the electors, “We wero wrong in voting for abolition,” hut rather to say, “Were we wrong! If we were, you are the judges, and will not again return us as your representatives, but will return others w’ho will vote against abolition.” Sir, in my opinion Mr Eitzherbert is very disingenuous, and though he has always been admired for his logic, Ills provincial propensities have so clouded his reasoning powers that vou would scarcely imagine his address was written by himself. Surely he cannot think that the members of the Assembly who belonged to the majority were to go to the country for that gallant but obstructive minority, rather than to back up their own opinions. No ; Mr Eitzherbert appealed to the people as to Cajsar, and he and the minority appealed to the country to decide. and they ought to accept the position. At the same time, if the country return a majority of representatives of Mr. Eitzherbert’s opinions, and they decide that provincialism is the best form of government for the country, it will be the duty of the Government in minority to accept the position and retire from the Treasury benches, and let the minority take their places, and not waste the time and treasure of the colony in debating the question again. Mr. Eitzherbert seems to have taken this one question so much to heart that there is no room in his very long head for any other. He says nothing of education, wliich is agitating' the minds of people from one end of the island to the other. He talks of electing executive officers to administer the local funds;—some bastard provincialism between the city councils and road boards, to be paid of course, and so waste half the funds before it comes into the hands of those local bodies. There is an underlying selfishness in this, as it still points out to place and pay, which I hope the electors will deprecate and. if possible, frustrate. In fact, the whole address is nothing but egotism, selfishness, and spite.—l am, &c.. Abolitionist.