THE NEW LOCAL BOARDS BILL.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XIV, Issue 997, 16 January 1857, Page 4

THE NEW LOCAL BOARDS BILL.

Te Mt Editor oftht Southern Cross. Sim. -After the above Bill hw been ushered into liuUit m«i ice by a tli-pif v «»t the nntct brilliant talent and'Higiciilrca-nniriir, contained in a long lending article t>: the • jfceu StaiUnder, 1 sonru'mg its prnises and holdi*ig it up as a measure deserving universal snprurt; »nd, in the moit impressive, challenging, and «hall I say Uiumphant language, calling for a searching exaiuination, ami & full discussion, on its merit** and principles. And, nfter having only gone through but n si ght investigation, the Kdrnr of the ' New Zealander,' as it convinced thui h*tb pet Bill Mill not stand the test of •crutiny, slackens down, or lowers his tone, by modestlj informing his reader* that the said Bill was to be looked upon only a» an experiment, and also lectures us on the absurdity of refusing the acceptance of a Bill merely because it may be a little objectionable in detail. Perhaps, holding it up now merely as an experiment, is the *Ueat course he could tuke ; about the only support it deserves, and therefore about the best he is able to render it. Bu', in reference to detail, I beg, with all due deference, to differ, and that most widely, from him. It is not against the details I complain but the mnin-apriner of the Bill, in which there is a great principle involved. The defence I wish to render this Bill w. if possible, to defeat it, by holding it up to public utlium and detestation ; to ust- my sincere^ earnest, and beat endeavours, in every proper and legitimate way, in -turning public opinion against it. I hate it myself, and am desirous that no one shall love it. I look upon it as a very dangerous, — and, considering the party from whom it has emanated, an evidently inconsistent and most unprincipled attempt to encroach and trample upon the civil rights of the people. The aim and intention of this Bill is, if carried out in its present form, to diatortrdly exalt one class of men by distortedly debasing another class ; and without any reasonable pieierence being shewn for such distinction. If the Editor- of the l New Zealander' feels inclined to stick to this Bill, he would do well, if he could piovp, that because a man may be in possession of 6000 acres of land, he mu«t be six times more virtuous, more honest, more talented, and six times more patriotic and devoted to the interest of his country, than his neighb Jur who may bp in possession of ten hundred acres! lie must prove this bet ore he can justify the act of keeping one portion of his fellow men far in the background of the human picture, in Older to bring forward the other portion with greater glare and boldness. In reviewing the very sudden change and "Jim Orowism" ot our new Executive— or at least the Constitutional legislators who have been the originators of this very peculiar Bill -I am forcibly reminded of a rathe* funny anecdote, which I think will do well to illustrate the professions and conduct of the above gentlemen towards their several trusty and well-beloved constituencies. The anecdote to which I allude exhibits the arrogance and presumption of a public speaker. The orator in question, when once on his •way to a public gathering, in the course of conversation with his travelling companions, offered, in the most bragging, confident, and boasting manner, to make a wager that while he was addressing the people that evening he would make thorn laugh, cry, groan, hiss, and then turn round and give him a loud clap, and exhibit other manifestations of the most rapturous appl mse. Such was this gentleman's opinion of the gulhability of the people he was about to address. If an Executive can pass this measure, and still expect to retain credit Ob Constitutionalists, they may next perhaps, with equal success, attempt to make us believe that the moon is made of " green cheese." The bold, daring, and independent stand which the Editor ot the ' New Zealander' has taken, as champion of his Executive friends' bantling, puts me very much in mind of a tale which is occasionally told of two tramps, Jack and Tom. who, on approaching a country inn. were attracted by evident signs of merry-making ; being what is termed " hard up," they went in, indulging the hope that there might be a chance of " raising the wind.' They found the company consisted of larmers and agricultural labourers, who were making but poor attempts at singing. After having sat a lew moments Jack, who could not sing a bit himself, asked the company if they would like to hear a " comic song." Of course they would, tie then, without further ceremony, called upon Tom to burst off. The other looking unutterably surprised at him, all the while thinking that he was going to sing himself, declared that he never learnt a comic song in his life. " Never mind that, you fool," said Jack, " jnn sing the one you were humming to me on the load a shoit time ago, and I'll call it comic, which will satisfy these ignorant • Chaw Bacons,' because they will know no better." The Executive have concocted a Bill, which the Editor has endpavoured to prove is Constitutional, thinking it will please the country settlers, because they will know no h'tter;— or, why not have tried the same for the Cty? Now about the detail objection. The Edi T or, in reply to the sensible, but rather waspish and stinging remarks of Mr. Midd'emas, uses a little " soft sawder," by telling him that " it is something like a joint-stock company" ! I would beg to ask this Mr. Editor whether he ever knew in England, or anywhere else, a jointstock company that allowed three of its members to make 13 by-laws, giving them powers to levy rates and impose fines, &c, &c, and make the same binding on all the rest of the shareholders, without first submitting them for the approval of the majority of the shareholders at a gpnpral mpating convened for the purpose ? If he says he does, — he knew a body of men that I should more appropriately call a joint stock company of complete fools— or even worse than that, — a jointstock company of drivelling, servile slaves, who were _, willing to lick the hand raised to smite them. If any one will take the trouble to read this Bill he will find that the 3rd clause gives power to elect commissioners in the chat acter of six votes to one. Any three of the five commissioners, when elected, have power to carry out all thp clauses — awarding very extensive pow ers from clause 1 1 to 20. Then the same three commissioners have powers to make by-lows, containing all the powers therein stated, in no fewer than 13 clauses— commencing at clause 21 and ending at clause 34— which by-laws become binding on all in the distiict after having received the sanction of the Superintendent. Here, then, the commissioners have the power to carry out duties and powers embodied in twenty- two clauses, without being subject to any cheek, or the villagers being called together to have a voice in the matter, so far as thirteen of them are concerned. Is it then " Constitutional" to tell men that ail they have to do with the laws is to obey them, and with the rates, to pay them? Or, if they do not do so, power is hereby given to a magistrate to compel them ? To be sure, they will have the piivilege of looking at them merely before they become law, and that is all If this is not centralism, of the very worst description, it is really difficult to tell what it is ! The commissioners can appoint a collector, who will have the power to enforce the payment of rates in a summary proceeding before an}' Justice of the Peace. The objections here stated nre to the main features of t"he Bill and not merely to its details. It smacks of centralism and despotism ; it is un-English and unconstitutional ; and a perfect outrage on civil liberty ; and the men who are to be governed by it may be thought to be on a level in intellect, and a knowledge of what is right and wrong, with those " who lived in the days of Julius Csesar." Yours, &c, Wjs, Griffin. January 7th, 1 857.

To the Editor of the Southern Crost. Sir,— As a letter appeared in pour paper of Tuesday, from the pen oi Mr. A. Clark, in which he criticises a report in your issue ot the preceding Friday, containing statements made by me, and which animadversions I trust you will allow me, in justice to myself and the members of the Freedom of Religion Society, to set as clearly before your readers as brevity will permit. 1. lt^is made to appear that I explained, in a public meeting.that there was a want of conscience manifested by Mr. Clark and '"his friends," who signed the scheme of Education set forth in a pamphlet. Mr. Clark is an " honourable man, and so are they all honourable men;" but we could not say they were" such, if they wanted a conscience. \\ hether we did or did not use* the word conscience I no longer recollect, but I am sure I did not use it in the sense there attributed. We did, however, affirm that their position in the matter was untenable as protestants, and that a mystery hangs around their position in all thinking minds, which the , have not endeavoured to clear away. 2. As to the statement " fully one half.'' I did affirm " that nearly one half of the support of teachers was sought from the public funds." I referred to the two pounds sought for each scholar per annum, up to the average attendance of forty, besides the discretionary powers sought for certain cases of extended grants of tnotiie 1 ?. We leave it to the public to judge as to the accuracy of our resptctH'e statements on this head. 3. With regaid lo the declaring " the Bible to be insufficient." We ask Mr. Clark (v.}io was Chairman) whether one of the gentlemen did not slate, a! the conference held in the Mechanics' Intitule, (after the proposition that the BiWe nvghl be used in the proposed schools, but that no church formularies should be allowed) " That sooner than give up the formul-ries of his church, they would remain as they were;'' and he was supported by others of a different creed. Mr. Clark knows well that it was each holding by his shibboleth creed, ehatediifcni, or formularies, instead of the Bible, which broke up the meeting, and not the question as stated by himself. In «ur..ming up, he says, it " appears/ to him, " that we will not allow the teacher, in the school, to draw the

truth from the fountain of truth, which is the Bible.*' The contrary, however, is the tact, for' we advocate that the truth ie in the Bible, but not in the conflicting creeds of cectstrist* ; and only object to the trntb- being drawi* through those, orally or written. Yours respectfully William sen. January 14, 1857.