The Tuapeka Electoral District.

Otago Witness, Issue 2761, 13 February 1907, Page 65

The Tuapeka Electoral District.

TO TBZ EDITOR.

Sin. — Your Roxburgh correspondent^ ia * last week's "Witness, says that very little • interest was taken in the district pver tbe question of the electoral boundaries, ard ' that very few knew that a. deputation wu sent to Christchurch in favour of the old boundaries being retained. Let me iell your ' correspondent that fully three handled electors in and around Roxburgh and Coa-1 Credt • signed the petition in favour of tfee old - Tuapeka, district being preserved, *.nd that ft public meeting was held in Roxburgh whereat • two delegates were appointed to act with the Lawrence and Tuapeka County delegates in appearing before the Representative Commissioners in opposition to Tuapeka's electoral . extinction. A still greater number of names . could have been picked up in and around, Roxburgh, but those in charge of the petition were under the impression that the r.arnea of male electoia only should appear thereon, and, therefore, did not ask lady electors to sign. There is a strong fe-ehng among the more prominent electors that Roxburgh and its neighbourhood will not fere bo well 1 in forming part of the new electoral district as it did in forming part of the old electorate. Your correspondent has » peculiar weakness for crying out " stinking fish," and mayhap the long spell of hot weather tf> affected him rbat be. hsd to time either to sifrn the petition io favour of retaining th« old electoral district or to attend the pubMo meeting at which, the delegates were appointed to waii upon the Representative Commissioners, hence his lack of knowledge. — I am, etc , ißaracouta.

Majorities of One. TO THE IDITOB..

Sir, — Apropos of an article that appeared in ■ last week's edition of your paper, pointing out that great constitutional changes have often, been wrought by small parliamentary majorities, your article contained, I think, one important omission. It is not generally known that the Hanoverian dynasty owe their present position on the throne entirely to «■ meagre majority of one in the House of Commons. In 1701, when the succession hung in the balance, the Princess Sophia of Hanover, by virtue of her being the nearest Protestant heir, was put forward as a desirable candidate for the throne, «nd as before stated; her claim waß confirmed by a majority of one, the figures being for the bill 116, against 117. By this act the descendants of Charles I. were excluded from the succession, and tha ->ld world principles of loyalty and cavalier theories of Divine Eight -were discarded. Unlike the French Revolution, the English Revolution was never really popular with the bulk of the people, and it was some 60 year* before the interloping dynasty were established on the bedrock of middle-class approval. Indirectly we owe another gTeat constitutional change to the Act of Settlement of 1701, In 1714, when George I ascended the throne, so strongly did the tide of P°PuJ* r feeling ran in favour of the exiled Stuarta, that their triumphant return was only averted by the- passing of the Septennial Act, tfins prolonging the existence of Parliament, Tintol such a time that the Whig monopoly of the machinery of force and corruption could be brought into play. It is interesting to reflect that but for the Act of Settlement the Princess Mary of Bavaria would now be reigning over us. Her Royal Highness is the henm* of the House of Stuart, and is not without partisans in England and Scotland.— l aw* etc., C. C. Bagkali* Feilding, February 8.