ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1727, 23 May 1862, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor of the Independent.) Sir, — I observed a letter from Mr. William Allen in the last number of your paper, in answer to mine which appeared in a previous issue. According to parliamentary usage, I am bound to accept the explanation offered by Mr. Allen relative to the introduction of the Appeal Bill ; but I cannot help stating that his words conveyed a very different impression to my mind ; and not only to my mind, but also to that of Mr. Carpenter, who was sitting immediately opposite Mr. Allen, and whom I afterwards heard declaiming against the position assumed by Mr. Allen. But how about the second statement — that the Act was repealed in regard to the whole town, and and that Mr. McKenzie had suppressed that fact from the meeting ? Mr. Allen is discretly silent upon this question, and merely crosses the scent with a red herring. When Mr. Allen made the statement relative to the repeal of the Bill, it was challenged in the meeting, — some person remarking that the "Bill had only been repealed so far as related to Thorndon" — and it was then that Air. Allen stated, what he repeats in his letter, "that the Bill had been repealed," &c. The Act in queation only repealed "the Streets Sewerage and Drainage Act, Sess. 2, No. 17, as to a part of the Town of Wellington,' 1 and I consider it a want of candour on Mr. Allen'*, part, for him not at once to admit that he was in error, and thus correct the false assertion he made at the meeting, Your'a respectfully, Vkmtas.