MEETING OF THE ELECTORS OF THE WAIMEA DISTRICTS, AT RICH MOND.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XII, Issue 597, 13 August 1853, Page 6

MEETING OF THE ELECTORS OF THE WAIMEA DISTRICTS, AT RICH MOND.

On Tuesday evening last, a very numerous meeting of the electors of the Waimea Districts took place at the Star and Garter, Richmon J. The advertisement calling the Meeting was addressed to the friends of the ' liberal candidates,' but this was construed into an invitation to the friends of all the candidates, who attended accordingly.

S. L. Moller, Esq., was called to the chair.

After , a few preliminary''' remarks from Mr. Otterson, and ,*Mr. A. Saunders,

Dr. Monko said, that having already addressed the electors at some length from the hustings, he was not there for a similar purpose, but would be prepared to answer any questions which the electors might think proper to put to him. Mr. Joseph Ward stated] what he believed to be Dr. Monro's views on affording State grants in aid of religion, and said that although the Church to which he belonged did not object to the principle of State assistance, yet, as he ibund that other bodies of Christians had conscientious scruples to receiving any such aid, he saw that such a principle could not be introdacedaWithout doing violence to the conscience of others, and therefore he would be consent to give up all claim to any such aid ; and would like to know whether Dr. Monro's opinion bad undergone any change on the subject. Dr. Monro stated that his convictions were as strong as ever as to the necessity of the State affording religious aid in a colony like New Zealand, where the population was widely scattered, but observed, that as he found there was a very strong feeling against the principle, and that it could not be carried into Operation with perfect fairness to all religious bodies, he would give the matter up.

In reply to a question from Mr. A. Saunders,

Dr. Monro said that he was for teaching the fundamental principles of religion in the public schools, and that he thought this might be done, and a plan of religious teaching adopted , if persons would be content to forego for that purpose a certain portion of their convictions. If not, then a purely secular education only could be given. Mr. Humphrey enquired of Dr. Monro whether the^ report in the Examiner of his (Dr. Monro's) speech on the day ofnomination was correct, where he was made to say that he was in favour of the Superintendent being a nominee of the Crown, instead of an officer elected by the people ?

Dr. Monro admitted the correctness of £the report, and stated the reasons which had caused him to come to that conclusion. He considered that the Superintendent possessing the power of vetoing the acts of the Provincial Council, and being at the same time dependent on its vote for his salary, was not likely to work satisfactorily. The powers possessed by the Superintendent would more partake of the powers wielded by a Lieutenant Governor than those of the Mayor of a corporate town, and it was a rule of the British Constitution that all suclfofficers should be nominated by the Crown. Mr. Otterson suggested that Dr. Monro should state his views on the constitution of tho Upper Chamber.

Dr. Monro would prefer seeing the Upper House elective, as he thought it would then be a better barrier against hasty legislation than as now constituted. He thought that the members should possess a different qualification to those of the Lower House — such as more mature age, larger property ; and considered also that they might be elected for a longer term. In reply to some remarki of Mr. A. Saunders on the system of compulsory education, to which Dr. Monro had expressed himself favourable,

Dr. Monro observed thaf i»~ "•••» willing to try the oiner plan first, but defended the principle of compulsory education.

Mr. Saunders enquired of Mr. Elliott whether he concurred in the opinions expressed by Dr. Monro? Mr. Elliott said he agreed with Dr. Monro in some particulars, but differed with him widely on others. He differed with him on the desirability of making the Superintendent a nominee of the Crawn, instead of allowing him to remain as at present, an officer elected by the people. He thought with Dr.*Monro that the office of Superintendent resembled that of a Lieutenant Governor more than that of a Mayor of a corporate town, and it might be true that under the , British Government such offices were always {filled by nominees of the Crown, but this did not convince him that the departure in the New Zealand^Constitution Act from the old plan was not a wise one. The statesmen who gave us the measure certainly were no mean authorities, and they had made the Superintendent'] elective. He (Mr. Elliott) vrould therefore propose no change in this until the present measure had been tried, as he was decidedly averse to giving up the power of election by the people of any officer when once conceded to them. His views on religious endowments he had already stated from the hustings. Since the time he had first given thought to that subject, he had been convinced not only of the impolicy, but of the!absolute injustice of the State- giving aid to "religious purposes, as it was impossible that it could be done without violating the conscientious scruples of many persons, whom it was unjust to tax for such a purpose. Public education was a subject to which he had given much consideration, and his views upon it were briefly embodied in an address which he had just issuwd to the electors of the Waimea Districts. He was aware that objections are made to an |!educational qualification for the franchise and the question was asked, "what is. education," and fiovv could the proper amount of knowledge required by an elector be determined ? This was a matter of detail, but yet he thought the question might readily be answered. Without going deep into details, it had appeared to him that a board of examiners might be appointed, who would grant a certificate to all who passed an examination. On the construction of the Upper Chamber he had before stated his opinion. He would change its nominee character before the institution as it stood had taken root.

Mr. Ogg enquired of Mr. Elliott whether he would advocate Universal SufTrag*. ', Mr. Elliott replied, that his views on the Suffrage were unaltered. Subject only to the qualification of a six months' residence in the Province before the day of registration, he would give every adult man of good character a vote. The objections which existed to so large an extension of the suffrage in England did not extend to this colony ; and as the principle of this wide extension of the suffrage was undeniable, so would he see it carried into effect whenever, as here, it could be done with safety. Liberal as the present franchise was, there was still a number of persons disqualified from voting for the representatives who would make the laws under which they were to live, and the men so excluded possessed as fair a share of intelligence as any equal number taken, indiscriminately within the pale of the franchise. He would not seek to deny that many of the present electors were scarce fitted for the duties they had to perform ; but such men would be found on the electoral roll whatever might be the qualification of a voter. The remedy for this, and many other social anomalies, was education. Provide a sound system of public teaching, and the fruit of it would soon I be seen.

In reply to an enquiry whether, being in favour of Universal Suffrage, he would extend the principle to the Maories, Mr. Elliott said that tho case of the Maories was an exceptional one, and he could not agree to investing them with political privileges until they know u«.t*~. !,,_,« 10 appreciate them than did the majority at present.

Mr. Cautley, on being atked his opinion on giving State aid to religion,

and supporting a system of compulsory education, said that while he was convinced of the evils which attended t the present system of education, he'jwas not prepared to say whether or not he would make education compulsory. He was favourable to the State affording religious aid, but wouldnot support the principle, if opposed to the wishes of his constituents.

Mr. Dartnall condemned in strong terms all State grants in aid of religion. In] reply to a question from Mr. Otterson, Mr. Cautley said he disapproved of a Nominee Upper House, and particularly to the members being nominated for life; but at the same time a power had been conceded to the people of electing their Superintendent, which he could not reconcile with an elective Upper House by the same class of electors. He was averse to~constant changes in the Government, which destroyed its stability, and the people were thereby prevented from knowing the form of Government, and the laws they were living under. He was averse to Ultra-Democracy, and considered the Government of the United States a bad example, where it was notorious the Executive was too weak to punish the breach of laws when the offenders were sympathised with by the people. Mr. Saunders had heard the subject of religion supported by the State, and compulsory and religious education, spoken of as matters of little importance ; and he*had been told that they ought not to reject good men because they differed from them on such slight grounds. But if as it possible that these subjects could be considered slight by men who had given them any thought 1 He had never.; before heard liberty of conscience spoken of as a trifle; he had never before heard that religion should be looked upon as a thing of no importance ; he had never before heard that the oppression of the few by the many, or the many by the few 3 was a matter which we had no right to complain of — that we ought quietly to give up whit to a father was dearer than his life — the right of doing^as he pleased with his own children. Those children, it was now proposed, should be taken from the charge of their parents, and consigned to a teacher, not chosen by them but for them, and there to receive their earliest, and therefore most permanent impressions. All £their strong feelings as to when and how the subject of religion should first be brought before their offspring were to be violated, as well as their, convictions as to what was right and what was wrong on the subject, but were to be compelled to hand them over to the State schoolmaster, to be taught what Dr. Monro or Mr. Cautley, or Mr. Anybody-else might think proper to call the if fundamental principles of Christianity." It was no use to tell them of what had been done in Prussia; of how some other nation had submitted to the despotic will of its ruler. As Englishmen, their feelings revolted at such tyranny ; and so long as they believed religion to be something more than a name, so long as they would not pay a tax for the support of what they believed to be error, so long as they entertained the feelings of a father towards their own children, so long as th«y objected to be sent to jail for not obeying the mandates of an arrogant and arbitrary government in regard to their children, so long did they feel bound to oppose tho men who would thus so preposterously misrepresent them.

Mr. Humphrey had heard with some surprise Mr. Cautley's admiration of old laws, and his aversion to changes. He knew well what many of the old laws were, and had witnessed their operation. The frequent suspension of the habeas corpus Act, Manchester massacres, and a sanguinary criminal code, were all old laws which the people were made to understand. He condemned the change which Dr. Monro would make in the manner of electing the Superintendent; he was averse to a compulsory system of education, as well as to withholding the franhhise from the uneducated, but would leave the matter perfectly voluntary. He confessed his surprise at the anxiety now manifested by certain gentlemen for the education

of the'people, when these gentlemen had never before put themselves to one hajfhour's inconvenience to promote education, but had left the work to the labouring classes. Mr. Creasy said that the meeting had been called for a*specific purpose, namely, to promote the cause of the liberal candidates ; tbut he did not consider that-the gentlemen who had supported Mr. Jollie could answer to that description. He thought that the electors should be and return only men who represented their own principles. Mr. Ogg stated that his only objection to Dr. Monro was, that he believed him to be too clever for the office.

Dr. Monro considered that opposition was very necessary in every Council ;^f led to discussion, by which truth was elicited. The electors therefore could not do better than elect him.

Mr. Humphrey called upon the working classes to support only men who enjoyed their confidence. The fact that Mr. Jollie, in the late election for the Superintendence^ had been supported, as he had himself said, by nearly all the original landpurchasers, he looked upon as a suspicious circumstance. He did not consider Mr. Jollie to have been a friend of the working classes. He called upon the electors to look to measures and not men.

Mr. Cautlev and Dr. Monro defended the character,of Mr. Jollie.

After some further remarks from a few other persons, a vote of thanks was given to the Chairman, and the meeting broke up.