PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. SATURDAY, MAY 7, 1881. COUNTY MEMBER.

Patea Mail, 7 May 1881, Page 2

PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. SATURDAY, MAY 7, 1881. COUNTY MEMBER.

Tin-; population in the Count} 7 of Patea is ascertained to be 5,970. This will entitle the County to separate representation in Parliament, on the basis of the Redistribution Bill prepared last year by the Government, and to be again introduced next session. That bill proposed to give one member to every group of 4,000 persons in a country district, or one to every 6000 in a town. Major Atkinson said he did not think this County would be entitled to a member under that bill, but if the population wore found to be sufficient, he would endeavor to obtain separate representation for Patea County. Now is his lime. The County has the required minimum, and nearly half as much more. Mr Ballance is arguing, on the other hand, that the electoral district of Wanganui, which includes Waitotara and Waverley (belonging to this County), should remain as it is, and that Patea County should continue to be attached to and absorbed in the Taranaki district of Egmont. Mr Ballauce strangely misunderstands the position, for he first shows that the Redistribution Bill will enable the Wanganui electoral district to retain its two members, and then he draws conclusions as to the Patea district which are refuted by the very bill he is talking about. If 4,000 be the basis for a County electoral district, how can he overlook the fact that the statistics he quotes should entitle Patea County to be made a separate electoral district? What prior claim can Wanganui have to go on borrowing two townships from our County ? It seems this County cannot rely on an ex-Colonial Treasurer for bare justice in a matter of statistics. What next ?