THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1872.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 267, 16 August 1872, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1872.

Few, if any, residents on the Thames will, we think, refuse to sign the petition in favour of increased Parliamentary representation for the district.

The petition wn* published in our issue of yestVnlaJ, and so far as its prayer is concerned all, we think, will concur in it. As regards,Retails, wc think it might Jiave .been better if the basis of .population had been taken as one of the grounds for asking f< r increased representation. The petition states correctly the value of the gold exported, the duty thereon, and other items of revenue. It also points out very fairly that the iuhabitants. cp.tisunie a large amount of dutiable goods, and thereby contribute to the general revenue, in addition to special taxation. All this is trtie, but' the chief ground upon which an increase of representation should be asked is surely population, and this is omitted altogether. At the last census, the population of the electoral district of the Thames, which expends from Cape Colville to Te Aroha, and embracesthe goldfields of the Thames and Coromandel, was estimated at 15,000 or thereabouts, which, when compared with the population of Auckland and other electoral districted puts the Thames at a manifest and unfair disadvantage, and it certainly appears to us that the petition should have embodied the item of population. It is certain that if Auckland, Parnell, and Newton together are entitled to five members, the Thames is certainly entitled to more than one, and this is implied by clause 3 of- the petition, which says: “It (the Thames) is not justly represented as compared with the general electoral districts of the province of Auckland.” We think, however, it would have been better to have said that the district is not justly represented as compared with other districts in the colony, without special allusion to the province of Auckland. If a member can be spared from Taranaki or any other portion of New Zealand, and added to the Thames, which we think there can be no doubt about whatever, we do not see why this should not be done. There is no reason why the re-adjustment of seats should be confined to re-adjustment within each particular province—a principle sought to be established in 1870. Let the whole colony be tairly represented on the basis of population and taxation, and if these issues are fairly considered the Thames will not go to the wall. In the principle embodied in the petition we cordially concur, but we would suggest, if it, were not too late, t iat the wording should be slightly altered, so as to embrace the alterations we have suggested. The members of the committee have, we think, prepared their petition rather hurriedly. They met on Wednesday evening at the Court-house Hotel, and drafted the document then and there. Had they slept upon it for a night they might perhaps have made some addition to it in the direction we have suggested. We do not. wish to be hypercritical in the matter, but we should like to see this petition as perfect as possible, and drawn so that none, if any fault could be found with it by Southern members, who may be not averse to pick holes, in the document when it comes before them. It would be quite fair, in our o[ inion, to take one of the five members from Auckland, Parnell, and Newton and give him to the Thames, but it would be fairer still. to take from Taranaki, and therefore wc think clause 3 of the petition might be advantageously altered. The. fact that this district is inadequately represented is beyond all dispute. There is a chance that a petition carefully drawn up and embodying all the strong points of the case influentially signed may have weight in the House, but a petition carelessly drawn and omitting certain facts which might well be urged in support of the prayer may fall to the ground, where a document pr>'pared with more study and care would have the desired effect. If the committee would go over the petition again we think they would see good grounds for adopting the suggestions we have ventured to make. With the prayer of the petition we cordially concur, but as to the wording of some parts of the document we cannot help thinking that exception may be takqn in the House, and therefore that it should be altered before being forwarded to the atfgust Assembly now sifting at Wellington.