The New-Zealander. AUCKLAND, SATURDAY, AUGUST 25, 1855.

New Zealander, Volume 11, Issue 977, 25 August 1855, Page 2

The New-Zealander.

AUCKLAND, SATURDAY, AUGUST 25, 1855.

Be just ntui fear not: I.et «I 1 the tncif) thou niihst at, bu thy Country’s, Thy God’s, aml.Tftilli.’s,

If any man, unacquainted with tie fuels, should read and believe in the leading article in the Southern Cross of yesterday he could come lo no oilier conclusion than dial the greater numberof the Auckland members do not hesitate to support a measure originated in the “extreme;si folly and perversity, or else in unpardonable mischief,”— have given llreir countenance. to a motion which is “ more than foolish or mischievous” —even indeed “ ungenerous and ignoble," and have not shrunk from that which “ offered lo lake an unprincipled advantage ” According lo the, Cross indeed the whole lot of Auckland members appears to be a bad one, Messrs. Brown, Carlelon, Bacol, and Taylor always excepted, who are very highminded gentlemen, and who upon the occasion to which we refer, considered it due to themselves lo speak put, and lo clear themselves from even the appearance of participation” in such proceedings. What is really the meaning of all these hard big words? Simply to help Messrs. Brown and Carlelon and their friends out of a dinicully which, with that obstinate perversity that appears to direct all their public conduct, they have determined on gelling, themselves into. Nothing can lie clearer than that their extraordinary conduct will create a feeling of disgust in this iVovinee, and I.mice the laboured article of yesterday to mystify and explain away the truth.

Messrs. Mrown and Carleton and their supporters appear to cntortnin lho very odd notion lluU the object for which they have been sent to the Assembly is to coax the Southern gentlemen into allowing a few more members in the House of Uepresenlilives as the share of this Province ; ami now we are told that “ for the ten’s sake” ’ —that is, for the sake of Messrs. Frown, Carleton, Hacol, and Taylor, wo presume, “ the fuller represeulalion may yet be won, notwithstanding that the other representatives of the Province have thrown “ the torch of discord into the House,” by simply asking for the granting of a just demand. It appears to us that nothing can be more insulting to the Southern members than to put a question of this kind on such a fooling. We.are asked to believe that because some of our representatives area little importunate that our just demand should be complied with, that the gentlemen from tire South will altogether repudiate the debt, even though it should be admitted. That, in short, l ey will ac upon the principle, that the a'king for a debt is suilicienl to justify its repudiation. 'S his we do not believe; we have not so bad opinion of them as their “coaxing friends;” and, in the long run, we fully believe that we have only satisfactorily lo make out our claim, and we shall gel what is duo lo us. For ourselves we nlleily scout the idea of accepting anything of the sort as a favour: it would be injustice to the other Provinces, anil strongly a§ wo may advocate our own claims, which we believe to bo just, wo will never even consent lo be unfairly enriched at the expense of our neighbours. No, our position is this, —that an adherence lo the provisions of the Constitution Act would give us what weask, and being entitled lo it we demand it as a right and do not beg it as a favor. Only shew us that upon the principle prescribed by our constitution we are wrong, and we shall at once abandon, without hesitation or regret the claim we make. Even Messrs. Curieton and brown always were of opinion that Auckland is not sullicienlly represented in the Assembly, and yet with ibis lad admitted limy call it “ principle’'' In vole against an extension of the number of our representatives because the opposite course might put out of good humour the Southern members of the Assembly. We are told that a “ moderate amount of good feeding would have refrained from offering lo lake an advantage,” and that to “ hit at the strong man, when he happens, to be sick, is not the practice of the country we have left.” From this one might be led lo believe that there was an intention on the part of Mr. Porter and the supporters of his motion to take something from the “ sick man” which they had no right to —in fact lo rob him. Yet Mr. Porter’s oppo neats are bound lo admit that if what he wanted should be taken it would be nothing more than right. So that the “Cross’s” argument, if it mean anything, amounts to this, that another's properly may be justly detained by “the sick man” upon the “principle” that he is not strong enough to keep possession by force,!

Judging from tho report in the “ Cross” the honourable member for the Kay of islands appears to have made almost as lung a speech on the subject as all the other speakers pul together. llis reason for opposition is excellent. lie tells ns that because the Officer administering the Government staled in the circulars that be should only send down two bills that it would be a breach ol faith (or the House to deal with ibis tjueslion. Ibe honourable gentleman is as wrong in bis facts as be is m Ins argument. it was simplv staled that il was noi then his Excellency’s present intention to propose more than was mentioned in the circular.

But. if II is Em‘i Honey had slat cel \vi f liout resene, liial he shout J propose oniy two measures, hit hat i no riybi, nor did hi; ailempi to did tile lo any of tin; members ihe course they should pursue. ic ii, he a Breach of Vailb lor ii member lo bring in -j hill Mu; (pudiemeu from ihe South are Miemsel es very Cailtiless people, and one of Hum, ;i member of the Betpsiaiive C.ouimil, commilleu no less than lour breaches inonedav le, in!. odneim; •is ,in.my me tsnres, [So, dir. (.urlelon, ii won't do - if you wish Lo s;.v “ something i.o your ailvanlage’* vou will have to shake a beimj reason eat of \mn* hr id man Miis. .The *• Southern Gross’* lake:; up Mr Cuil- il s line of oppoMiiuii of last session. I ;ms iouiid oi/i liial we bale almost univ -c , 1 suliraye, and has been (old that some boys are on (he 8011, a mi sue!) reasons as me c afe advanced \ihy our rip,his should be withheld. However ip-acdtd such n r quI Metis miidll be, COiJliiig i COllI M C. (it!! Fn, \\ C should-have- limed)!. .it an uy, (sadly such as are s iril'ih.'v for the “* rosS.” Vv mil possible necessity there can he for ■ i! i cub lea porar;> I ■ , ;.!■ e sir; ■ a I ... U; J \

out of simple a'matter we arc at a loss to understand. The Province ol' Auckland either is entitled fairly and honestly to a larger share of the representation or she is | not,—that is the simple question, and ‘ there are three parlies entertaining different views upon it. I. Those who say and think, as Mr. Porter does, that we are entitled to a larger share. 2. Those who deny the rigid, as Mr. Sowell does. Noth of ( which are straightforward and intelligible— ; but there is another neither straightforward j nor intelligible parly—for they say one thing ! and do exactly the reverse of the opinion , they express. With these gentlemen, as Mr. Porter j pithily observed, “it is never the right lime to do justice to Auckland.” A full house would not do, and a thin one is worse; and so we presume, with Mr. Porter, that, wilh such gentlemen at all events, the right lime will never come. We are not at all disposed to make a charge of “treachery” against those who have 1 , on this question, ever been op-

posed to toe nestmterests oi Auckland; uni we do say that they are crotchety—that they lake up crotchety ideas, and support them by crotchety arguments; and if they had their own-way altogether in the General Government as they have had for tin* last (l\e months in the Provincial, they would cause to “ progress to ruin” the former as they i.ave the latter, hv on overdose of crotchets. ii ■