New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1875. THE CAVERSHAM ELECTION AND THE ABOLITION BILL.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume III, Issue 122, 27 August 1875, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1875. THE CAVERSHAM ELECTION AND THE ABOLITION BILL.

++ Last week Mr. Stotjt was elected member for Caversham, in the House of Representatives, by a majority of twelve over his opponent. The issue decided by the electors was Provincial Government or immediate Abolition. Mr. LaujStach, the defeated candidate, declared in favour of the latter, and the result of the election proves that the majority of the constituency is opposed to immediate abolition. Had Mr. Larnacii advocated the propriety of postponing the decision of the question, and of consulting the constituencies on the Abolition Bill at the general election, which must be held before the next Session of Parliament, possibly the result of the Caversham contest might have been different, though we do not think it would. In all probability the majority of the successful candidate was made up of voters who are determined opponents of Centralism in Wellington. No doubt the three Dunedin Daily papers say that, in reality, Centralism has triumphed in this election. It may be so, but it certainly is not easy to see how this can be. The contest, all things considered, seems to have afforded a very fair test of the mind of the constituency. There was nothing inflammatory, no undue influence, so far as we know. The attitude of the candidates towards each other and the electors was becoming, and there was no reticence or equivocation on the part of either. The issue was clearly put by both — the maintenance of Provincial G-overnment, or its immediate, abolition. This was the question decided. The provisions of the Abolition Bill now before the General Assembly, was hardly taken into account. But had the question been the acceptance or rejection of the Bill, the majority against the former would have been overwhelming. Nobody approves of its provisions, that is nobody who has read it and been able|to master its meaning. But the fact appears to be, that instead of the election being in reality a victory for Abolitionists, the contrary conclusion must be drawn by all who are aware of the circumstances of the contest. The successful candidate does not reside in the district, nor has he any property there ; but his opponent, Mr. Larnacit, not only resides but possesses a large and valuable property there, where he is also, personally, very popular. Then it must be borne in mind that Cavereham is a suburb of Dunedin, in which city this gentleman carries on an extensive business, and gives employment to hundreds, of whom very many are freeholders and householders in the Caversham district. Indeed, during hia canvass, Mr. Laenach stated that he employed five hundred people. In addition to this, it is notorious that several gentlemen of merit, as public men,

and of considerable influence, exerted themselves to the utmost in favour of Mr. Lakstach. For these reasons we had arrived at the conclusion that had not Mr. Stotjt been opposed by Mr. Larnacii, his majority would have been very much larger, and the success of the cause he advocates, much more signal. This Caversham election was a very fair stand up fight for a principle, and clearly demonstrates the 'fallacy of the argument so frequently made use of lately, viz., that the ; overwhelming majority of the people is in favor of the ProI vinces Abolition Bill. And it would be strange indeed if they were, for nothing can be more certain than that far the greater number labor under profound ignorance of its clauses. The Bill is not generally understood, and for this reason, if ! for no other — time should be given for its due consideration. It is monstrous to endeavor to force such a measure as this Parliament without giving the people sufficient time to master all its detail. Such conduct on the part of its advocates argues a consciousness of weakness, except indeed so far as mere members in the General Assembly are concerned, and a dread that when the people fully understand what is proposed, the Bill will be ignominiously and universally scouted, as we have no doubt it deserves to be. A change— a reformation — in our mode of Government is no doubt necessary, but not such a change as this Bill contemplates. The Centralists have been for some time endeavoring to i throw odium on their adversaries, and weaken their position, by saying that these are for the most part Superintendents. and members of Provinces Executives and Councils, and that consequently their opposition arises from pure selffishness. This is a strange way of arguing the question, which ought to be discussed on its merits. Besides, such as employ this argument ought to remember that they lay themselves open to a very cutting retort. For who are the leading advocates jof Centralism 1 A.re they not almost all either members of I the Central Government, and hangers on of'that,Government,' who may be called the rejected of the Proviuces. There is great danger in arguing- the question in this way, — people in glass houses should not throw stones. Now that the Abolition Bill is beginning to be understood by the people, a reaction in public opinion in many quarters is perceptible ; and there is reason for believing that before long this reaction will swell into a loud and well-de-fined expression of opposition, and of indignation at the trick by which the Southern Provinces would be deprived of the proceeds of their land sales. The representatives from Otago in the General Assembly may rest assured that if they help the Government to force this Bill through Parliament before the general elections, they may abandon, in most cases at least, a)l hope of being re-elected. The constituencies will not tolerate such high-handed and unconstitutional conduct.