Untitled

New Zealand Tablet, Volume VI, Issue 268, 21 June 1878, Page 14

and persecuting disposition in reference to a large section of liis fellow-citizens, who have equal rights with himself, is not more censurable than his supporters. These it is probable constitute the majority of the voters of Dunedin and the colony ; but such being the case, what a commentary does not this fact afford as to the justice to be obaineel under popular Institutions. The majority can act the tyrant and persecutor as surely as Cjesak. In fact the tyranny of the mob is more grinding, more sinister, more cruel, and more odious, because more hypocritical, than the tyranny of a Hkrod or a Nero. Witness the mob led by Cromwell, or Robespierre, and the secularists of the nineteenth century.

The colonies are greatly to be pitied on account of the absence of a sufficient number of citizens to form intelligent constituencies and supply qualified members of Parliament. Unhappily, in the colonies it too often happens that our laws are made for us by vulgar mob orators, and money grubbers ; men who have ascended either by pandering to the prejudices and ignorance of the unthinking multitude, or by usurious practices. From tliis flow the meddle and muddle so shocking to cultivated minds, unintelligible laws, and the never-ceasing repealing of such laws. Here in New Zealand we are trampled on witli a vengeance on the principle that the vox populi, no matter how unjust, impolitic, or absurd is the vox Dei. Here, not justice, not equity, not decency, not common sense — at all events so far as education is concerned — rules, but the majority. Here the majority, simply because it is the majority, insists on having a right to put its hands into other people's pockets, and rob them for the advancement of its own special purposes, to invade the homes of the people and compel fathers and mothers to educate their children in a way that violates their consciences, to compel them in effect to submit to double taxation that it may itself thence derive considerable pecuniary advantages, and' to violate, without let or hindrance, the personal, parental, natural, divine, and religious rights of individuals and churches.

Mr. Oliver's policy advocates all these atrocious principles, and therefore we sliall certainly not vote for him. True he has not asked us personally to do so, but lie has asked for the support of the citizens of Dunedin, amongst ■whom -we are counted, and consequently we have a right to say NO.