New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16.

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

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16.

Elsewhere we publish a report of the speeches of Messrs. Pearce and Hunter, candidates,for the representation of Wellington in the House of Representatives. We have supported their candidature from the first, and a perusal of their speeches should satisfy anyone who may have been in doubt onthe subject that our advocacy was based on proper grounds. It is not for us to say how well these gentlemen acquitted themselves in Parliament ; the record of work done and work in progress in this province, to the undertaking of which, by their votes and influence they largely contributed, is a sufficient answer to the small cavilingand petty fault-findingof Mr. Travers. We do not now refer to Mr. Gisborne. That gentleman has voluntarily withdrawn from the contest,, and henceforward we shall not refer to him even as a disturbing element in the political affairs of the city; but with Mr. Travers the case is different, for we must expect that the party which brought a humiliating defeat upon Mr. Gisborne for the Mayoralty will rally to a man round Mr. Travers, and endeavor to secure, through his facile advocacy, that controlling influence in public instruction which they were foiled in obtaining inamoredirectway through Mr. Gisborne. Let there be no mistake about it, therefore, whatever Mr. Travers may protest to the contrary, he is the candidate for which the Ultramontane vote will be cast in the city ballot boxes next Thursday. The real battle has to be fought yet. It was only an affair of outposts on Wednesday ; the field day will be on Thursday next, when the poll will be taken for the representation of the city in the General Assembly. We put this matter thus pointedly, because the friends of secular education must present a united front to the common enemy of free thought and freedom of worship. On this question Messrs. Pearce and Hunter speak with no uncertain voice. They are in favor of a State system of school instruction, secular and undenominational in its character; Mr. Travers is in favor of denominationalism. Therefore it follows that a split vote, that is a vote given to Mr. Travers and one to either of the other candidates, increases the chance of Mr. Travers’ election, because he will undoubtedly poll a denominational block vote, in other words, he is to receive so many plumpers from his denominational backers, and as many more votes as he can secure by palaver and personal influence from Secularists. It will be seen, therefore, that the question has narrowed down to this : Will the advocates of secular education in State schools adopt the tactics of their opponents, and give a block vote to the candidates pledged to that principle, sinking all minor considerations ; or will they weaken themselves by splitting votes on any mere trifling question of taxation, which the exigencies of the country } must always regulate ? We greatly mistake the lesson of the Mayoralty election if the Secularists do not respond to the call. There is nothing intolerant or improper in such a proceeding. It is a simple matter of self-defence. The plan of the electoral campaign was clearly stated by the Tablet , —the organ of one religious denomination in this country, which is ■ edited with great ability by a learned prelate of that church, and which recently advertised the Pontificial blessing on its labors. And this plan has been adhered to throughout the campaign in all the large centres of population. It would be simple folly to ignore this fact, or to act as if it had no existence. The challenge has been thrown down to the friends of—secular education, and they must fight in their own defence, and with the feeling that every vote given to the candidate adopted by the Ultramontanists is a vital weakening of the forces of intellectual progress and free thought in this country. Reverting to the speeches of Messrs. Pearce and Hunter, we think it will be admitted that they dispelled the illusion which Mr., Travers sought to create, to the effect that Wellington had been, overlooked by the Government in the public works scheme. No statement could well be, made on a more baseless foundation. The figures quoted by Mr. Hunter are demonstration clear and unimpeachable, that Wellington has nothing whatever to complain of.. On the contrary, it has every reason to be well satisfied with what has been done already ; and when the public works, for which appropriation is made, have been'completed, it will bo seen that Wellington comes satisfactorily out of the loan expenditure. Then, with regard to a third representative for the city,. we think that objection has been satisfactorily disposed of. Such a proposal would not have been listened to last session, and it was the part of Sagacious men not to attempt to imperil the attainment of what was possible, namely, an increase of members for the North Island, by proposing what would certainly have been resented by Middle Island members. If this is the only ground' of complaint that can be urged against Messrs. Pearce and Hunter, these gentlemen are singularly fortunate, and as it is a purely sentimental objection,* it 'Should not Weigh with the constituency one moment; ; , On questions of general policy, Messrs. Pearce' and Hunter were likewise clear

and decided. Thera was no attempt to catch votes by popularity-hunting. Their opinions in reference to taxation, local administration, and other cognate matters, were expreseed without reserve ; and especially in reference to the effect of the Customs tariff on consumption they displayed far more accurate knowledge of the subject than their opponents. Of coarse, on such large questions, there is room for considerable divergence of opinions, and wo should be slow to say that on every minor point of detail the electors should agree with their old representatives; but looking at the matter generally, we have no hesitation in saying that they should accord them their fullest confidence and undivided support. Since writing the foregoing we; have read printed appeals to the public on behalf of Mr. Travers. It appears that Mr. Gisborne, good easy man, was wrongly accused; and the : public are assured that they will yet repent their hasty decision regarding him in sack-cloth and ashes. We do not believe a word of it. The public seldom err on a matter of this kind. They are guided by common sense, and generally decide wisely and well. Our opinion is that time will , only harden their judgment. Now, however, we are told that Mr. Travers is a man of an entirely different stamp. He also is a deeply-injured individual, and the New Zealand Times is creating a prejudice against him. on false grounds. Sserious charge if true ; but it is not true. Again, we hear from another wing of his supporters that Mr. Travers is unmistakeably an advocate of secular education, and that therefore the religious cry, if it had not been already worn threadbare, can scarcely be used with much effect against him. This is simply begging the question. What “religious cry ” is worn threadbare 1 We are not aware of having imported the religious element into this contest. On the contrary, our efforts have been directed towards excluding it altogether, but it will not be kept back._ It ' 3 con ‘ stantly cropping up, and as it refuses to keep quiet it must be dealt with. We adhere to every word we have written regarding Mr. Travers’ candidature. It is quite true that at Ngahauranga ha disclaimed being the nominee of any religions denomination as a candidate for the school board, and adhered to a secular programme, that is, he did not say anything about religious instruction; but his sponsors were not above suspicion, and the electors very properly rejected him. At the Odd Fellows Hall, however, addressing - the elector of the City as a candidate for Parlia men . tary honors, he was forced to make a confession in favor of the Bible as a classbook in State schools, which brought him within the range of those candidates for which the Tablet states Roman Catholic electors may vote, because by an easy and natural development of opinion, Mr. Travers would become a fullblown denominationalist. It is for the electors of Wellington to look well to it that they be not deceived in this matter. Mr. Travers cannot do without the block vote to which we have referred, and which was given to Mr. Gisborne on the Mayoralty contest. That vote carries with it conditions expressed or understood, and Mr. Travers will be expected to fulfil them. He may wish to get rid of them, to free himself from them, but he cannot do so. For his own sake, therefore, as well as for the good of the community at large, it is much better to keep him out of the Legislature. As a private citizen he may be of great use in the community; as a member of the General Assembly, hampered on every side by tlie political alliance to which we have so frequently referred, ho can only do mischief. As wo said before, so we repeat again, every secular vote cast for Mr. Travers is worse than thrown away; —it is strengthening the hands of those who oppose the secular principle utterly.