THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1872.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 218, 20 June 1872, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. THURSDAY , JUNE 20, 1872.

At the present time, the continued absence of our only representative in the General Assembly, which is an old grievance, is being again very generally commented upon. We have already expressed our opinion on the matter that, if Mr O’Neill’s business or pleasure necessitates such prolonged absence, he ought to resign. There is now little or no time for him to redeem his promise of meeting the constituency, to render an account of his stewardship, and to give his views of questions likely to be brought forward in the ensuing session, even if he gets back in time for the opening of Parliament. When the electors of the Thames chose Mr O’Neill to represent them, they certainly did not expect to have been so neglected by their member. During next session, many subjects will be discussed which vitally affect the interests of the goldfield, and it is necessary that the district should be represented. The voice of this large and important constituency should make itself heard, through its representative, on the Education question, the present system of administering the delegated powers, the gold duty, and a variety of subjects, which are sure to be keenly debated. That an attempt will be made to carry a bill to abolish the Provincial system seems highly probable, and this would be a most material alteration—for the better in all probability for this district, which has been a sort of milch-cow for Auckland, without which, indeed, the latter would have come badly off for the past four years. On former occasions we have pointed out how very inadequately the place is represented, even supposing our only member was con stantly amongst us, and a suggestion was thrown out that some one or two gentlemen locally connected with the place should be raised to the Upper House. Latterly we have learned nothing more in reference to the proposition, which has certainly much to recommend it. The goldfields interest a f present is not properly represented in either branch of the Legislature, and the Thames is especially badly off in this respect. We should be glad to sec a public meeting called to discuss some of these points to which we have from time to time adverted, that the voice of the majority could be ascertained in reference to goldfield legislation. This would strengthen the hands of our representative should he return to take his place in the House, and if he does not return by the time the session commences we think steps should be taken to get him to resign his seat. Next session will probably be one of the most important that has taken place since New Zealand has had responsible Government, and we certainly expect to see the interests of the Thames fairly represented. The question is one of very great importance to the whole community, and we hope to see further action taken upon it.