Untitled

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2116, 15 October 1875, Page 2

With communities as with individuals, there are occasions when something is impending, the result, of which is half? expected-—; half-dreaded.;, The worst is feared—nay, realised in imagination; but •it-is not till the certainty comes that the' full measure of the blow is felt. Of such a lialuro is the fate of Mr Charles O'Neill's .motion for au additional representative to

tho Thames besides that proposed to be granted by the Government. "We referred to this matter a day or two ago when the result reached us,, and we refrained from indulging in any'strong lan-1 guago partly because we were convinced) that it would not avail us — partly I because were were unable\ to find adequate terms strong enough -to express what we felt. This district has no doubt been shamefully treated, and the "Government are to blame... It was not, we contend, that the House was in- ' disposed to do justice to the Thames, but the; Government .had a majority in their favour, and we believe they shirked the question of doing tardy justice to us because to face the question boldly would have involved them in discussions of a damaging character over fresh proposals for increasing the representation of other districts, and possibly entailed further debate on questions which they would prefer to see left over to another session This is now really the case, and.the discussion is reduced to a .farce — a scramble for whatever may be obtained in the way of additional members. The Representation Bill, has not yet finally passed, but it has progressed so. far that we fear little hope remains to us that justice may be done. The members who fought for the Thames and our righteous demands deserve our thanks. Those who voted against Mr O'Neill's motioD deserve unqualified censure, especially those renegade Auckland members who were'numbered amongst tho " Noes.' 1 "We do not propose to go into this question more fully, and say ail the uncomplimentary things that could be said of these traitors to our interests. We simply wish to place on record the division list, so that the public may have an opportunity of distinguishing between the white and black sheep, the latter of whom, by negativing the proposal for giving three members to the Thames, have made themselves infamous. We especially allude to the Auckland members, the other honourable members in the division list doubtless having reasons of a local nature for dividing as they did*. The following is the division list: — Ayes, 21— Noes, 37— Sir G. Grey Sir D. Bell Mr.. Andrew „ D; McLean „ Bryce „ C.Wilson „ Crcighlon Mr. Atkinson „ Pignan „ Ballance „ Jackson „ Bowen „ W. Kelly „ J. C. Brown „ May .;■- >» Buckland „ Mervyn „ Bunny „ O'Connor „ Carriugion „ O'Neill (teller) „ Curtis „ Ormond „ Cuthbcrtsou „ Pike „. Gibbs. „ Sheehan (teller) „ Hunter „ Stafford „ Harrison „ Swanson . „ Johnston „ Takamoana .. „ Katene „ Steward '. „,. Kelly „ Wakefield „ Luckie „ Wales „ : McGillivray „ White"? ■„ 3 McGlasban „ G. McLean j, Montgomery „ Murray „ Parata „ G.B.Parker „ Pearce „ Reynolds „ Richardson „ Eeeves „ Rolleston . .. ■ „ J. Shepherd „ Tribe „ Thomson „ Yon der Heyde „ Webb