THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. MONDAY, JULY 15, 1872.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 239, 15 July 1872, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. MONDAY , JULY 15, 1872.

Mr Charles O’Neill, the only representative which the Thames possesses in the Parliament of New Zealand, has returned from Australia, and gives us a few leaves of his autobiography during the past session and the recess, with many promises of what he will do for the benefit of the district during the coining session. We hope those promises will be performed. Mr O’Neill tells us that during last session he took an active part in promoting measures calculated to be benelicial to the mining interests, and reminds us that he moved for a reduction of the gold duty to one shilling per ounce, and of the fee for M. net's Eight to ten shillings. This reduction, he truly observes, would be a considerable relief to a very heavily taxed community—-the miners, and those connected with mining interests. He further says, and this is worth attention, absence of petitions praying for a reduction of these imposts assisted the arguments, used by those who opposed him, to the effect that the reauction of the gold duty was not desired by the goldfields communities. No such excuse ought to be given in future, and a petition signed by every resident on this goldfield ought to be forwarded to Mr u’Neill immediately, asking for a reduction of the gold duly and fee for Miner’s Right. Mr (J’Neill very appropriately observes that the goldfields interests are under-estimated.

tliat additional members for goldfields districts are required, and that public works have not been prosecuted here with vigour or earnestness. In the important subject of education, our member informs us that he takes a deep interest, but does not approve of the Bill introduced last session, and hopes that a wiser measure may take its place. Mr O’Neill gives his idea of what the Education Bill should be, as follows :—“ Let the (State appoint Inspectors, whose duty it will be to report upon the state of the buildings used for schools, the number of scholars, standard of education, etc., Government aid to be granted at a fixed rate per head (if the result of the examination be satifactory), the minimum number of scholars necessary to constitute a school to be fixed; the Inspector to examine all schools without distinction of

creed, and not to interfere in any way with the religious teaching, each de nomination being left perfectly free to give such religious instruction as it may think proper, the State not to interfere with parents in the direction of the education of their children.” The exact meaning of our member in reference to the Education Bill is a little hazy, but in other respects his address to his constituents is clear enough, and will, we think, meet with general approval. Many of his constituents would have been better pleased if Mr O’Neill had given them the opportunity of hearing him speak, and of asking him questions on the points to which he alludes; but, as this opportunity has not been given, they must make the best they can of the printed document before them. Mr U’Neill accounts lor his long absence

and inability to visit the district, prior to the opening of the Session, on the ground of absence in Australia on professional business, during which he has had the opportunity of making Jbin*fcelf acquainted with the management of Goldfields in Australia, which knowledge may be beneficially used this session. If Mr O’Neill carries out his promises and does what he can to promote the interests of the Thames, now that he is again amongst us, his con stitueuts will readily forgive him for long absence, and for his not fulfilling the promise made some time ago, that he would personally give them on ac-

count of his stewardship-last session, and of the policy he intended to pursue for the future. He says he shall be most happy to receive any suggestions, letters, or petitions tending to advance the interests of the Thames, and will gladly do all he can to | remote the welfare of the Goldfields generally. These are fair promises, and if they are only satisfactorily performed the Thames will have no occasion to repent its chQice of candidates at the last election. Time will show whether our member’s performances in the house equal his promises. We trust that they-may.