THE AVON ELECTION.

Press, Volume VII, Issue 725, 24 February 1865, Page 2

THE AVON ELECTION.

From an early hour yesterday carts began to drive about the town in all directions placarded with the names of the rival candidates. Mr. Cowlishaw's Committee Rooms were stationed in the chambers over Mr.Younghusband's new shop, whilst the headquarters of Captain Anderson were at Mr. Ollivier's auction rooms. To. judge from the appearance of the town Captain Anderson seemed to trust more to the larger class of vehicle—fourhorsed coaches and such like, whilst the Government party brought up their forces in a swarm of small gigs, dog-carts, and one-horsed traps of every name and description. Mr. Moneys handsome four-in-hand break was in the Government service, but appeared to be comparatively little used. Both parties are reported to have been equally confident of winning, and a good deal of that powerful sort of logic which is conveyed in a bet, was used during the few days preceding the election. Though, if it be true, as we have heard on both sides, that a considerable proportion of the electors of the district were down on the lists of both candidates as "faithful promises" the result must have been \ one by no means easy to predict with any confidence. Captain Anderson was undoubtedly what is commonly called the " popular " candidate, though, as theevent showed, not the candidate of the electors. From the j first hour in the day Mr. Cowlishaw took the lead in th? polling, and was never caught. At Papanui polling booth Captain Anderson had a majority; the toll-bar question undoubtedly having been worked so as to gain many votes. But at the Ricearton booth, the majority was aU the other way, and at the close of the poll at four o'clock the numbers stood somewhere as follows: — Riccarton. Papanui. Total. r Cowlishaw ... 61 88 143 Anderson ... 16 107 183 Minority for Cowl—haw ' ... jjo We do not give the above as the officially declared numbers, but we beUeva they wiU be found to be not -rery £_• fivmoonrect when the poll ia declared; as it wfll be to-day as Papanui, at 12 o'clock. Few elections which have taken place in Canterbury have been so wett contested, and the result following upon the Heathcote election last year proves inecmtestably tiiat S» public is perfectly satisfied tiiat the present Government shall have fair play, and thai those who have guided our fortunes so ably and prudently during a time cif unewunpled difficulty shall not "be deprived of power at the very moment when from the turn in the tide the province is about to reap the fruits of their policy.

CANTEBBTJBY HANDICAPS. We published a few days ago some remarks made by the Nelson Examiner on the-manner in which the horses were handicapped in the late Canterbury Champion Meeting, and while we certainly must compliment that paper on its report of the races as a whole, we think that it has been rather severe and, in some cases, unjust in its remarks towards the handieappers. We quite agree with the Examiner that handicapping is an art of itself, and that few amateurs understand it; but we know of no professional ones mNewZealand. We also feel sure that theExaminet'a remarks are given in no unfriendly spirit, but stfll if we allowed the Nelson critic to have it all his own way people might believe that all that was said was gospel, and they might think worse of our haudieappers than they ought. We do not commence by saying that we thought the Jockey Clak Handicap a good one, but we did not think the,other handicaps much amissjbesides whiebitisavery hardtbingtohandicap eighteen horses, sittingmastewards' room with per petual interruptions of every kind; but as the public will have the handicap out as soon as possible, there is no choice left. The Examiner's remarks on tbe Metropolitan Handicap, to begin with, are entirely incorrect. It states that Begnum had to give Bob Boy 4 lbs. for having been beaten by him on the first day; now in reality Bob Boy gave Begnum lib- the weights being—Bob Boy, 98t. 21b.; Beg- | num. 9st.; and their difference at weight for age j being only lib. at a mile (that being Admiral House's scale). Next he states that Stormbird only had to ] give Opera 21b., the former having run third for the j Champion, and-the latter nowhere. Now this re- j mark is obviously unfair, as the distance of the two ; races is entirely ignored, the one being a mile and the other three, and at a mile in the Ohampion ' Opera was running quite as well; in fact, we think better than Stormbird. As to Fal-de-lal being made a favorite, we do not think that was any criterion of, her being favored by the handicappers, as in almost every race the representative of that particular stable was fancied by the talent. In the Jockey Club Handicap, and the Forced Handicap, the animal selected as a test of the handicapping is a very fortir* nate one for the arguments of the Examiner, bnt scarcely a fair one to select for a man criticising the handicaps without prejudice, as Shillelagh is a horse that we defy any one to handicap properly, for he runs one day like a racehorse and the next like a donkey. For instance, he won the Canterbury Cup like a racehorse and very easily, giving Ladybird more than a 71b beating, and as her penalty in that race was only 71b it would be fair to argue he was a better horse than the Champion winner. His owner also showed by his running his horse in both these handicaps, where he is stated to have been ao unfairly weighted, that he thought his horse had a chance if he would try, 6 . Next, the great test of fair handicapping is that no one shall be able to spot the winner, and if we go by this criterion our handicaps were most successful, as in neither the Metropolitan nor the Jockey Club Handicap was tbe winner mentioned in the betting,and in the Forced Handicap almost every one thought the Cloud had too much weight to win. Many people said the weights were unfair, and the race a gift to so-and-so ; but no one that we know of was fortunate enough to put his money on the right one.. We have made these few remarks on the handicapping to assure the public that their horses will always be treated fairly at our meetings, though of course there will be mistakes- iv this as in everything else, bnt we do not think that the "blunders of the officers of the Jockey Club," as the Nelson Examiner has it, excluded half as many horses as that paper would have the public to suppose. But the long and the short of the matter is, that it is much easier to sit down and cut a handicap to pieces after it is made than to make it. We shall always be ready to court all criticism, and agree with the Examiner that it will lead to reformation ; but, criticism, to be worth anything must be perfectly correct, and quite free from all ridicule; and in these two essentials we think the Examiner has failed.