CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 230, 13 January 1855, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times, Sir, —The public has a right to expect from the editor of a respectable journal, that he will at least be truthful and honest when he takes upon himself to hold up to public view the acts, or publicly to criticise the observations, of any individual, but as you have done me the honour to give me a place in your leading-article of the 3rd instant, under very different circumstances, i will now beg the favour of your correcting the statement which you yourself have "foisted upon the public," and which I not only take upon myself to denounce as untrue, but to prove it by the report in your own paper, by which, at least, you ought to have been guided. In me lust place, you would have the public to understand," I complained in the Council that some oi my constituents had forwarded to me a document expressing their opinion that a good cait road between the Port and the Plains was wrn »ai? d r, eluestin ff my support of the Goif.w Nt. plan* Siv ' l dei)y tllat 1 complained culrl i P'Y'', 111 Which * most-heartily con"lm i f- dHI ch«™teri 2 e the .second as f> t\vl Tip°Vr t, lt, Utiollal l 0 call uP°n a represenSo, osiS" °- U ly t0 BUPP°« a»y Government Sent •V' tlloUt knowi »ff wbat tl)e Gov'e»'nU c SuiZ 0Slt10!! Sho.llkl he sil mi B* have been roacl 1"f Tr?- a,d> 01" U m[Shi have been » better that it ln i ah *e *Pres* myself to the Council ound tl - k- e a Species of wwcioii, for I theen P '/ eg'? UV° n ' lhou»u addressed to all ded tofrt for Lyttehon, had not been haub« so lv- hCr tW?>} mt l 0 me Ollly. Tt had Persons hid? y W? ri ed» that J believed many £^ tos^" it for the d/ " h d \\Z tOad> Wh,° would not liave s5S"^ costly «Ja y™?Tu d H I>led£ed theln tsthe °» the Sum c, .o''J lyvCXtraVagaUt «P*nditure article <"ff ifr if You stlUe in your leading them L «i« i, ,DainP«er did not agree with accord nit hU °-^ them 80»»nd vote(l rft«l«Motti rTf™ 6 ' misleading your T»»e conuirv , behef \tlm!• J ««Hted to do either. wportedi, 7J S U'e facL 7 rfi>rf both > «s is P Ut(!l» your own paper, which gives parti-

ally my speech. The instant I received the requisition, which was only on the day before the Council met, I wrote the plain and unmistakeable reply which I submitted to the Council after reading the requisition, and both of which are referred to in your paper, and. quoted in the Canterbury Standard though not in the Lyttelton Times. I think I might | also accuse you of want of fairness in reporting the requisition in your paper of the 27th ult., the day the Council met, without my reply, which had been returned to my constituents within an hour or two after receiving the requisition. At any rate I may complain that in making the observations in your leading-article (after the answer had been read and published), you were endeavouring to prejudice me before the public in ignorance, it would seem, of the reply I had sent, and with which I cannot but suppose you were acquainted. Your observation, "that I came down to the house with the petition in ray | hand, and whined about it there" (as you"say I did), and what you characterise as " a course so undignified and childish, not to say impertinent, as to be almost inconceivable," is an observation too contemptible to deserve further notice than simply to say, it was untrue, and that no one who knows me will believe me capable of whini ing about any thing at all. j The sentiments expressed by Burke, to which j you refer, were in substance the very same that | I was myself led 10 declare in the Council, and !at the same time expressed it to be a privilege of the representative to be advised of the I wishes of his constituents, and the basis on | which they founded'theirjviews, were it possible ; I so little did I expect to find myself put, as you have put me, opposed to those views, much less did I expect to find you enunciating a threat such as that you so wisely (in your own) conceit, but as unnecessarily, think proper to put out, " that the constituents of Lyttelton, although wishing their representatives to use their own unbiassed judgment, would not suffer them, when they had obtained their seats, to pass over the opinions of those who elected them without consideration, or to complain of them when expressed as impertinent and intrusive." I never disregarded the one, or so complained of the other. My opposition to the Government proposition of the Simmer road, was neither the result of ignorance, nor contempt either of the legislature or of my constituents ; but was the exercise of that independent judgment which I believe will yet be found most sound; nor was the theory you profess to have been laid down by me, the-extraordinary theory you represented. I trust, therefore, that in common honesty, you will repudiate the uncalled for and mistaken expressions contained in your leading article of the 3rd January, ult,, that I may not lie under the political'slander you have (unadvisedly, I am willing to believe,) attempted to cast upon me. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Chris. Edw. Dampier. Waicliffe, Jan. 6, 1854. [Mr. Dampier cannot yet understand the nature of his offence. We are almost glad that this is the cnse, as it acquits him of the charge of premeditated contempt of his constituents. At any rate he does not understand Burke. We never charged Mr. Dampier with ignorance or contempt for opposing the Governrnont'plan, but for complaining in the Council of an expression of opinion on the part of his constituents. His misinterpretation if not wilful, must be put down to a hazy confusion of mind on the subject of the relations between a representative and his constituents. In either case Mr. Dampier had much better have left his letter unwritten.—Ed. L. T.]