NELSON AND WELLINGTON MEMBERS. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE PROVINCE OF NELSON.

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 329, 14 December 1860, Page 2

NELSON AND WELLINGTON MEMBERS. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE PROVINCE OF NELSON.

Gentlemen, My accidental visit to Nelson on my road home from attending the General Assembly has enabled me to gather from the columns of the newspapers some idea of the statements which your late Representatives have been making to you in reference to the proceedings during the late session at Auckland. It would have been impertinent in me to interfere between you and your representatives, were it not that the latter have made a very free use of my name and of those of my political colleagues, and have endeavored to attribute to our action in the Assembly whatever events they think would be distasteful to you, or injurious to the Province of Nelson. I wish I could have had the opportunity of meeting these gentlemen face to face at a public meeting. Possibly in that case some of their rash statements might have been materially modified—at all events, I should have answered them. As however the brief time at my disposal before the sailing of the steamer for Wellington precludes the possibility of my personally participating in your political discussions, I may perhaps be permitted to address to you a few words through the press, for the purpose of exposing some of the very unfounded statements, gross fallacies, and, I fear, deliberate misrepresentations which appear to have been circulated for the purpose of prejudicing your minds at the coming elections, and deterring you from supporting candidates who might be' supposed likely to coincide in the views of the Wellington members. 1. One fallacy which pervades nearly all the speeches of your ex-members, the addresses of new candidates, and the recent articles in the Examiner, is, that the Wellington members were the great obstacles to useful measures during the late session, and that to them alone were due the frequent defeats which the ministry received, as well as its very tottering and tumble-down condition at the present moment. The charge against the Wellington members is very flattering to them. Allowing for the absorption of one of their number by the Speakership, there were exactly seven Wellington members in the house. The whole house consisted of 43, of whom 41 were present during the session. That is to say, the Wellington members were just one-sixth of the whole house. And according to the tale of your Representatives this one-sixth ruled the other five-sixths, and did with them just as they pleased ! Now I think the electors of Nelson are a great deal too shrewd to believe this. The Wellington members had, no doubt, their fair weight in the debates of the house; but when it came to voting, they numbered exactly seven votes, and no more. If they had not had the voluntary aid of the Canterbury men, of a large majority of the Auckland men, and of hall, the Otago men, Wellington would have, stood in the pleasing position of a minority of 7to 34. If the ministry was repeatedly defeated, and its policy thwarted, it was not by the Wellington men, but as in all such cases, by a majority of the votes of the whole House. Why then lay the blame, , if it be such, on the shoulders of the Wei- | lington men ? Your representatives resembled the unfortunate juryman, who, finding

himself in a minority of one, declared that he never met with such unreaaonable, obstinate fellows as the other eleven. I repeat the ministry was .beaten not by Wellington, but by the united votes of Wellington,. Canterbury, Auckland, and Otago. The unreasonable, obstinate fellows were not that majority, but the minority, who blindly followed the ministry through thick and thin, and of whom your representatives , were on all occasions the most determined and the most prominent. Another reckless misrepresentation which I find in the speeches of your ex-members is when they speak as they do of the " bankrupt provinces of Auckland, Wellington, and Hawke's Bay." As regards Wellington, Ihnow, and as regards Auckland I am very confident, that the statement is false, and entirely without foundation. Those provinces are no more bankrupt than Nelson is. They have both met at all times, and will, I hope, always continue to meet, their liabilities of every sort with punctuality and promptness. Their finance has been much disturbed, and their ability to execute public works lessened, by the illegal retention of £30,000 of surplus balance by Mr. Richmond, which we compelled him to disgorge at the close of the session, and by the breach, of the compact of 1356, which deprived the Northern Island of about d£30,000 more dn which we had calculated and which we expect to get back at a future day. But the only province of the three which has in any sense been bankrupt is the model new province of Hawke's Bay, which, at the date when we called there on our way to attend the Assembly, had suspended payment, and was in arrear not only for her official salaries, but we were told for the wages of the men employed on the public works. The men who make such reckless assertions as that which I am noticing, must themselves be bankrupt in character, and I hope that when they come into court at the ensuing elections you will refuse their certificates, and remand them to private life for the rest of their days. 2. One of your late representatives, Mr. Herbert Evelyn Curtis, tries to frighten you by calling his opponents names; a method common among those whose animosities are strong and reasoning faculties weak.. He brands Dr. Featherston, myself, and some more of us, as " two or three men of reckless and unscrupulous political conduct, actuated by unwholesome ambition." I might ask whether Mr. Curtis's own standing is such as justifies him in thus branding men who have teen much longer before the public than he has, and also have for many years been placed in the highest offices of political trust in the community where they reside. But I will rather ask such of you as have known me for many long years whether there is a shadow of a foundation for such a charge. I lived among you for five years— years of great social and political trial, such as Mr. Curtis never saw, and the position I filled was not one in which a man's acts or motives were capable of much concealment. I ask you, did you ever see in me anything which would justify this accusation of Mr. Herbert Evelyn Curtis? Was I a • reckless and unscrupulous politician ?' Was it not rather my desire and my habit to work with the people for the people's good ? I know you will answer that question in only one way. It is a calumny which Mr. Curtis ought to be ashamed to utter. And I know you will believe me when I assure you that the old tried colonists, Clifford, Featherston, Fitzherbert, Brandon, Renall, ! and Carter, my colleagues in the late Assembly, are no more reckless and uncrupulous men than I am. He is " reckless and unscrupulous,"^who without a particle of truth to justify him, endeavors to prejudice the minds of the Electors against those who, but for an accident, would have had no opportunity of vindicating themselves from such aspersions. It is not the first occasion by many on which the party to which Mr. Curtis belongs has resorted to this system of wholesale backbiting in reference to the Wellington members. 3. I will now advert to a few of the specific charges which have been made against us. And first of the War. We are charged with having resorted to a " fractious opposition " on the subject of the war. I will tell you what we really did, and you shall judge how far we opposed the war, and how far such opposition was " fractious." Shortly after the Assembly met, Mr. Carleton, the member for the Bay of Islands, without any communication with us, moved for a committee to enquire into the causes which had led to the war. We supported him earnestly and cordially^ in which we were' joined by several members from other provinces. The Ministry first promised Mr. Carleton not to vote against enquiry; but they did vote against his motion, which was lost solely in consequence of their doing so; their three votes defeated him. The ministry then proposed a resolution which was really a vote of confidence in themselves, affirming the justice of the war. We opposed the motion, and ultimately we and a great many more left the house without voting, and the motion was carried by 19 to 2, the majority being less than half the house, and therefore practically of no weight or value to the Government. Now, suppose that the British Government at home should get into a war during the recess of Parliament, and instead of calling the latter together, should prorogue it from month to month, to a period far beyond the proper term of its meeting, and when finally it did meet, a motion should be made for an enquiry into the causes of the war, which the Government should oppose and refuse to grant; how long do you j suppose suchagoveinmentwouldholdoffice ? We are accused of " un-English practices " for the part we took in this matter. Would not that which we did have been done in England? Did any one, ever hear of an

English ministry first proroguing Parliament for six months after a war had been raging, and then refusing all enquiry into its cause? It seems to me that the " unEnglish ' practice" was that which your representatives adopted, accepting from the Government its. one-sided statements, receiving whatever it told them as true, and J setting their faces against an enquiry such 1 as alone could have sifted the matter to the bottom. What harm could enquiry have done ? If the Government was really in the right, would not that fact have been made plain ? Could anything be more injudicious than to refuse enquiry? Could any course be more likely to suggest that they were in the wrong? If a patty, petitions the Assembly, and alleges that he has been wrong]y convicted by a magistrate, the magistrate's word is not taken; a committee of enquiry is invariably granted. And yet on the great question of the war, the very idea of asking for an enquiry is scouted, and those who demand it are charged with■'"fractious opposition!" I cannot understand how the mere demand for enquiry could amount to " fractious opposition," nor what there was " un-English," about it. "Let us know what we are fighting for "—that was what we asked. Was there any thing unreasonable in the request ? Observe that we never-threw the smallest impediment in the way of the war being efficiently carried on. What we said was, "We believe that this war is an unjust and unnecessary war; but you, the Government, have got the country into it, and we must fight it out. We cannot treat with rebels in arms. If you want £500,000 for the purpose of carrying on the war we are ready to vote it. (It was Mr. Fitzherbert s aid that.) But we insist on knowing why we are at war, and we believe that the best prospect of putting an end to it will "be to understand the real cause which led to it." This was the sum and substance of our talk; was there anything " un-English " in it ? If it had been spoken in Parliament of a Chinese war, or a Burmese war, or an Affghan war, or a Shiek war, would any man in his senses have charged the speakers with "fractious opposition" and "un-English" practices ? We voted every sixpence which the Government asked for " carrying on the war," and as I have said should have done so if it had amounted to £500,000. Was this "fractious opposition?" was this "unEnglish?" But we did oppose a series of what may be called "war measures"—the Native Offenders' Bill, the Arms Bill, and the Militia Bill No. 1. The practical effect of these three Bills if passed would have been to place the whole Northern Island under Martial Law, to convert its population into soldiers, and its towns into camps and garrisons. Mr. Dillon Bell, a staunch supporter of the Ministry, said that the Native Offenders' Bill alone, if passed, would render the Northern Island uninhabitable by white men. Think what would have been our position then, if not only that Bill, but the Arms Bill, which was only fit for a convict colony, and the Militia Bill, which would have subjected every man to the Mutiny Act, had been passed also. By the united action of Northern Island men, who only were practically interested, these three measures were defeated. Your Nelson men voted, or were prepared to vote, for all these measures. Mr. Wemyss, one of your new candidates, I observe, says he would have done the same for the Native Offenders' Bill. la mercy to the Northern Island prevent him, by your votes, from being in a position to inflict such a calamity 1 upon us. On most Native questions, large majorities of Northern votes were overridden by Southern men, and I confess we felt it very hard, and very unfair towards us that it should be so. 5. This was what we said and did about the war. Now as to our views for the future. Mr. Herbert Evelyn Curtis tells you that crit was well understood in Auckland that the first result of the overthrow of the Stafford Ministry, would have been the despatch of a deputation to the rebel W. King, to sue for peace upon the best terms he toould condescend to grant.'' I was pretty well acquainted with the leading politicians in Auckland and with a good many others, but I certainly never heard of the existence of any such " understanding " as Mr. Curtis mentions. At the same time, there are some weak-minded and credulous men to be found in that city, and it is possible (regard being had to an old adage) that Mr. Curtis may have been in their company. I hope it was so, because I should be sorry to think that this " understanding " was an emanation from his own brain. I can assure you however that there never was the smallest foundation for it, at least not if the new ministry was to be formed by those." reckless and unscrupulous " persons whom Mr. C. has alluded to as desirous of thrusting out the Stafford Ministry from its seat. But is it not a pity that a person who has filled so important a position as that of your, representative in the General Assembly, and who aspires to fill it again, should be reduced to such silly old woman's tales with which to regale your ears, to alarm your minds, and to prejudice you against his political opponents. If you will get this and a good deal more of Mr. Curtis's nonsense out of your heads, you will be better able to appreciate his conduct in the late Assembly, and that of the men of whom he tells or invents such ridiculous stories. What we should actually do with regard to the war, were we in the Ministry, I cannot say. Other minds than mine would have to be consulted. No one can tell what may happen between this and then. The war may die out. On the other hand it may become general. I do not know what control the Ministry would have over the war. The Governor has declared in writing that "he alone is responsible for the maintenance of peace between the races." Your late representatives tell you that not even the Governor can interfere with the details of the war. I think that the Ministry made a fatal mistake when they put their fingers into the pie. By so doing there is no doubt that they have inflicted on the colony a large share of the cost of the war. If they had not interfered it would have been a purely imperial war, and the imperial Government must have paid all the cost. Their interference is of no real advantage whatever. The Governor could carry it on, and no doubt would, without their sanction. The war originally was the Governor's war-r-------the ministers have done their best to make it a Colonists' war, and the colonists will have to pay in proportion. What part a future ministry ! ought to take in the matter must depend on circumstances. First, on the position of affairs when they may come into office—and secondly, on the extent to which the colony may have been com*

mitted by their predecessors. One thing rltavem' I may say, that the mam end to be kept fir view j ought to be to secure an honorable and permanent peace. As to the question of what is called a material guarantee, Mr. Stafford stated in the House most distinctly that he would be no party to recommend the Governor to take the lands from the] defeated natives. I think it will be time enough to discuss that question when they have been defeated. In the main I concur in' Mr. Stafford's sentiment; but some may think that there may be exceptional cases: at present I' do not express any opinion upon that point. There is one strong reason which I think renders it desirable if possible to avoid confiscating these lands. The Governor has in his despatches to the Home Government charged the colonists as a body with "coveting" the lands of the natives, and desiring to obtain them by good means or bad. He has also severely rebuked the Taranaki settlers for endeavoring to persuade him to "coerce" the natives into selling their lands. These charges have been repeated at home both by statesmen in Parliament and by the press; and it is certain that if the war ends with any large confiscation of land, particularly at New Plymouth, it will tend greatly to confirm them, and to make people believe that the war was promoted by the settlers for the purpose of obtaining those lands which the Governor says they covet and are determined to have, right or wrong. For the sake of the characters of the colonists generally, and of the Taranaki colonists in particular, I think it is very desirable to close this war without any confiscation of land if it be possible to avoid it. I believe, if the Government adopt a different system from its present one, the natives can be induced to sell their lands to us to any extent to which we may desire to obtain them.. If any such feelings as the Governor alleges have existed^ they have been generated by .the mismanagement of the Native Land Purchase Department. In the meantime however, till the opportunity for putting an end to, the war arrives, I should certainly not put myself into a position of greater antagonism towards, the natives than that in which we already stand, I should not insult them by I calling them " black devils," as I have heard them j called in the streets, nor " hoary cannibals living in a state, of beastly communism, 1' as I have heard Mr. I)omett and Mr. Richmond call them ia the House of Representatives. I should act on the belief which I entertain that the feelings of most of them towards the colonists are friendly, although they have lost all confidence in the Governor, in his present Ministry, and in his Native Secretaries, Land Purchase Commissioners, and other officials. I would not sit with my legs under a mahogany table at Auckland, but I would go among them, and endeavor to foster whatever feelings of loyalty and attachment still survive in their minds towards the Queen and the colonists; I would endeavor to turn to advantage that intelligent agitation known as the king-movement; and to carry out as early as possible such wise, sagacious, statesmanlike plans as that which Mr. Fenton originated, which Mr. Richmond claimed the credit of, and which Mr. M'Lean defeated—plans which if persevered with would have done much to obviate the present crisis, to civilise and rescue the native race. And here I may take occasion to call your attention to the conduct of the Ministry in reference to this great experiment of Mr. Fenton's. When Mr. Fenton (who was a Resident Magistrate in the North) saw a strong excitement seething in the native mind, some three years ago, and found that its aim was the social elevation and political consolidation of the race, he proposed to meet them half way, and to use the movement as the means of introducing among them the machinery of self-go-' vernment, and of attaching them to our laws and institutions. He wrote a very able memorandum ; on the subject recommending that the experiment should be tried in the Waikato country, where the desire for self-government was strong, and the natives were numerous and highly intelligent. The Governor and his responsible Ministers adopted his views and sent him to the Waikato country as Resident Magistrate, to carry out his own schemes. His efforts were attended with remarkable success; when Mr. M'Lean, who had been absent for great part of.a year in the South, unfortunately returned to the North. He interfered— persuaded the Governor to stop the experiment, and to recall Mr. Fenton. The Ministry remonstrated, protested, and did everything but resist. This they lacked the pluck to do. Though fully persuaded of the excellence of Mr. Fenton's scheme, and of his ability to carry it into execution, they abandoned him and his sagacious plan, succumbed to the Governor and M'Lean, left the natives to their fate, and suffered the King movement to take a new direction and grow to that dangerous maturity to which it has since attained. It was a cowardly abandonment of a great experiment, and a shabby desertion of the able and enthusiastic man who had inaugurated it. Instead of calling the Assembly together as they ought to have done, and telling it that they and the Governor were at a dead-lock on this important subject, they slunk from the contest; and when at last the Assembly met, they did not even then bring the subject before the House, but left it to be dragged to light by the motion of an opposition member, Mr. Forsaith, who had heard something about it, and after much perseverance got Mr. Fenton's Report produced. This led to the appointment of the Waikato Committee whose investigation and report (however little Mr. Kelling may think of them) will I hope lay the foundation of better relations between ourselves and the native race, and be the means of awakening the attention of this colony to that allimportant subject. 6. But the principal cause which has broken down the Ministry and arrayed the majority of the house against them, has been their unmistakable aversion to the Provincial Governments of the colony, and their evident determination to destroy them. At the commencement of the session they had a strong majority in the house. On the war question, and the inquiry question, they had it all their own way. How was it that before the end of the session they were defeated on almost every division, and only held their seats on sufferance? How was it that they who had carried their eighty Acts through the Assembly of 1858 with scarcely a division, were during the last session defeated on almost every ministerial measure ? How was it that they were beaten on the Provincial Surplus Revenue Resolutions ? — beaten three times over on the Land Revenue Bill?—beaten on the Militia Bill?—beaten on the Arms Bill?— beaten on the Native Offenders' Bill?—beaten on the Lunatic Asylum and Central Penitentiary Votes? —and only saved from being beaten on the New Provinces Repeal Bill, by the enforced vote of Mr. Carjeton, given under a false estimate of the obligation of an imaginary c Jephtha's vow? ' Why did they encounter all these defeats on so many important questions ? What was it that detached from their ranks the Superintendent of Auckland, whose vote helped them to power in. 1856 and kept them there in 1858 ? Whjat was it that arrayed against them the Superintendent of Canterbury and caused him to denounce them in such strong terms, while he declared that he would return to the House as the champion of the Provincial Governments? It was the conviction which was forced upon the minds of all that the Ministry desired to cripple and destroy those governments, to arrogate to the General Government all power and all, patronage, and to reduce the Provinces to diminutive, feeble, costly, and inefficient municipalities. It was the reckless manner in which they seized upon and abstracted the Provincial Revenues. It was the unblushing breach of faith towards the North Island provinces in rele* tion to the financial compact of 1856. I 7. And here again I must call attention to an* , other gross representation of your late representartive, Mr. iierbert Evelyn Curtis. He stated at the late meeting iv the town, that "it is the intention of the Wellington party, should they get into power, to upset the financial arrangements of 185G and so deprive this and the other Middle Island provinces cf their Land Fund." A grosser misstatement than this was never made even by Mr, Evelyn Curtis. The Wellington men had long ago accepted of the financial scheme of 1856 on the express understanding that while the Southern Provinces were to be relieved from contributing to Northern land purchases, the whole of. tha jura**

X; vinoes should receive the Land Funds entirely without deduction. The Assembly of 1858, in the absence of I he.Wellington members, broke, through that arrangement by authorizing the Government • to receive from the provinces of the Northern Island, first two-sixths, and then one-sixth of the Land 1 und. Dr. Featherston's resolutions and Bills of last session had for their object the restoration of these sixths to the Northern provinces; and he, and I, and all the other Wellington members, not once but ten times, told the House that so long as the Southern members respected our rights under the compact, we would respect theirs, and never suffer it to be broken through- It was Mr. Richmond who attempted to defend his breach of that compact by declaring that it was " a mere sketchy plan to which there were no consenting parties." All this Mr. Herbert Evelyn Curtis must know full well ; and he must also know that on the last night of the session but two, we Northern men refused to accept an offer of-Mr. Richmond's most favorable to us, on the express groimd that, as regarded the Middle Island, it was an infringement of the compact of 185(5, to tuhich infringement ws declared we would be no party. I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read the report of Mr. Ourtis's speech on this point, knowing as he must that we had over and over again declared our intention of religiously observing the compact of 1856, so long as the Middle Island members tvould abide by it also. Of course if Mr. Curtis and his colleagues persist in supporting Mr. Richmond in his infringement of this compact as j against the Northern provinces, we shall certainly not consider ourselves bound to respect it as regards the Middle Island; but in such case Mr. Curtis and his friends will be responsible, and not we. 8. The last point in which I shall notice these gross misrepresentations of your members, is the feeling of jealousy which they state to exist in our minds towards Nelson; and their allegations that it was tliis which prevented the Lunatic Asylum and Central Gaol, being placed here. The ground on which we objected to the expenditure on these objects was no such narrow jealousy as they allege. Many of us certainly did not see any reason for centralising these institutions, or altering the present system under which every province does or ought to provide for its own lunatics and criminals. But the great reason of ouv opposition —an opposition shared by so large a majority of the House, that the Government withwithdrew the items — was that we considered- that to borrow i>50,000 for such purpose at a time like this, was an act of insanity or criminality,' which qualified its proposers for a residence eithter in the Asylum or the gaol. When the colony is involved in a costly and ruinous war, when it .is saddlea>-witlueld debts amounting to halt-a million sterling, and about to borrow £150,000 more to be sunk in the unproductive employment of killing and being killed, is this a time to go borrowing another i>50,000 to provide for our lunatics at the rate of ,£6OO per head, and our long-sentence criminals at a still greater cost ? It the current revenue of the Colony would have availed for the purpose, the subject might have been entertained and discussed on its merits. But to do it with borrowed money at a time like this, if it did not ruin our credit for ever on the Stock Exchange, would at least have been regarded as the operation of "reckless and unscrupulous politicians." And for this reason at least three-fourths of the House I think were prepared to vote against the insane proposition of our lunatic government. As regards jealousy of Nelson I do not think any exists among the Wellington members. It is not perhaps unnatural that a feeling of alienation should have grown up among us towards your Nelson members. It was the votes of Mr. Curtis and Mr. Travers which turned out in 1856 a ministry in which Wellington was represented, and which placed in power one which has done all it could to stop the progress of Wellington, and since that date the united vote of all the Nelson members has been at the service of the ministry in a spirit of servile, uninquiring, undeviating fidelity. It is not surprising if under these circumstances we are in some degree alienated from your late members. But send to the House of Representatives men who will support us in rescuing the Provincial Governments from the destruction which threatens them, men who will unite with us in curbing the aggressive spirit of ultra-centralism which has distinguished the present ministry, and see whether we do not work cordially with them for our good and yours. We were not backward to assist your Representatives in promoting your local interests during the late session. We supported Mr. Domett with his Compensation Bill. It was not our fault that it did not pass. It was Dr. Monro, not Dr. Featherston, who made that ungracious speech about the old New Zealand Company laborers being more worthy of punishment than compensation. If Mr. Domett had sought it he would have received our assistance towards passing the Bill in the shape yon desired. We did all we were asked to do. In like manner we would have aided Dr. Monro if he had pressed his Dun Mountain Railway Bill; but he withdrew it apparently in a sort of pet, without asking any of us to assist him. I believe we could have got the Bill if he had invited us to help him; but he did not. Don't blame us, but blame those who were intrusted \|ith your interests, and did not secure them. It -gives no satisfaction to any ultra-provin-cialist, as they call us, to hear of the failure of any measure fintended to promote the welfare of a particular province—and we have invariably on every occasion, such as the Canterbury Railway Bill, Auckland Waterworks, Auckland Debentures, and other similar measures, lent our aid to promote their passing. This silly charge is as basele&s as others by which your ex-members havesought to damage their opponents, to cover their own short comings, and to conceal the unpopularity of the ministry they have been supporting. I trust that the days of that I ministry are numbered, and am confident that, succeed them who may; the safety of our Constitution and the prosperity of the colony will be secured and promoted by the change. I remain, Gentlemen, Your most obedient servant, WILLIAM FOX.

Naval Artillery Volunteers. — The drill meeting of this corps on Wednesday last, though better attended than on some former occasions, was still under the mark when the number of persons who entered their names and were sworn in is considered. Another peculiar feature about it was that all on the ground were married men. This we consider to be a reproach to the younger members of the community, whose enthusiasm should be more manifest and their time more easily devoted to such matters: a better attendance would result, and unpleasant measures against defaulters be avoided. The resignation of Mr. Thomas Simcoe (gunner of the company) as drill-master, Jhas led to the appointment of Mr. Edwards, lately from Glasgow, where he filled a like capacity so satisfactorily, that on his departure he was presented with a beautiful rifle. The drill days of this company are Wednesdays and Saturdays, at such an hour that will not necessitate loss of time to the workingman, namely, six o'clock in the evening. Mechanics' Cricket Club.—The first practice meeting of the club this season took place on Wednesday afternoon, in the paddock in Toi-Toi Valley. The play was tolerably good, and should be so to make up for the late commencement this year: the delay will militate against the success of the club in the first challenge match they play, unless they now make strenuous efforts to get into full practice. At a late meeting the following persons were appointed to act in the respective capacities subjoined :—W. West as President; T. Mills as Secretary; and T. Batchelor as Treasurer. The club will meet on the above ground every Wednesday afternoon at half-past three o'clock, Education RATE.-r*We are desired to intimate that this rate again became due on the first day of last month. The greater evils of legal proceedings and augmented cost can only be avoided by submitting to the lesser—that of paying.