The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 523, 7 November 1857, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Saturday, November 7th. Most of the elections are now over, and we have time to look round quietly and calculate upon our political prospects for the next four years. But, before the remembrance of the contests which have to some extent agitated the province is quite obliterated by new topics of interest, it would be well for us all if we were to. reflect upon the manner in which the electors of Canterbury have availed themselves of their franchise, and to gather from such reflection the benefits of an experience which may be useful on another occasion. We do not mean, when we speak of the manner in which the franchise has been exercised,. either what men have been elected or what principles have been supported ; but, what amount of consideration and conscientious discretion has been shown by electors, in determining for whom they would vote, Quot homines, tot sententus is a very old and a very true saying. Every man has or ought to have his own opinion on all matters of public interest; and if we could only be sure that each man acted as his conscience prompted him, we should have very little fear of the ; result, whatever that result might be. j During the ,late elections no doubt a very large number of persons did exercise their franchise in a manly and conscientious manner; but we fear that, as in most cases, there were many who acted thoughtlessly, many who were actuated by cowardice, and many who, though meaning well, were too easily led by those around them, without due consideration for themselves.

If every elector were to put the question to himself, "Were-'the men I voted for those men whom I honestly believed to be the men best qualified for the office they sought?" we cannot doubt but that many would not be very well satisfied with the answer that must present itself. How many men have considered the serious nature of the trust confided to them ? How many have considered the public service first and private feelings not at all ? Do we not hear on all sides such apologies as the following for votes.:—"Oh! so and so is my neighbour, and so I thought I ought to give him a vote;" or, "So and so is sure to come in, and so I may as well vote for him;" or, "Mr. Jones did not take the trouble to ask me for my vote, and Mr. Brown did;" or, again, "Mr. Eobinson did me a personal service once, and so I am bound to vote for him." Now, gentlemen, do you, who give such reasons as these for your votes, consider that you are doing your duty as citizens of. a free country; or that you are doing your best to make free institutions respectable in the eyes of the world? Every man has an influence wherever he may be; and under such institutions as ours individual influence is tenfold as great as under systems which govern the greater part of'the world. Neither self respect, nor the respect of the public, whether friends or opponents, whether those you vote for or those you vote against, .is to be attained after this fashion. We put out of the question altogether the voters who are influenced by bribery whether, the bribe .be grog or a promise of patronage, or any one of the thousandfold forms of seduction practised at elections. No argument is of any avail with men thus influenced. They are an evil, we fear a necessary evil, in all communities. In this province they are few in number happily, but our readers will not fail to agree with us that with a large number due weight is not given to the responsibility of the duty devolving upon electors.

How many men allow themselves to be dictated to by the noisiest of their neighbours for " peace sake," as they say. -An inglorious peace truly. * They will find that such peace is short-lived, and that no paace is worth having save that which is won by : courage and self-dependence. How many men allow their voting papers to be filled up for them at the last moment by the most pressing applicants, and come

away with a sigh of relief at having- got rid of their vote. Remember, that you who have failed to help yourselves so far as you had the opportunity have no right to "complain when you feel aggrieved by measures in which you think you have had no hand. And here we would take the opportunity of saying one word to the working men on the subject of canvassing. As a general rule, you may depend upon .it that the man who does not tease and worry you for your vote is the man who most deserves it. He shows more respect for you than if he were to think that you could not exercise your own judgment. Are , you" aware of what the candidate who solicits your vote so eagerly often sb,js to the man who is supposed to be better educated than you. Why, he says " I have gone round and done the needful for the mass of voters j flattered where flattery was necessaiy; talked bunkum where bunkum would go down best; and promised voting- carts and lots of beer where that would tell best; of course, my dear sir, I did not. think of canvassing you." And such a piece of bunkum as this goes down with many of your " educated" men. But the candidate who offers himself fairly to the public and trusts to their exercising their juflg'ments honestly as to his merits or demerits, and thus shows real respect for the electors, has a very slight cnance of election. His is the gain; the loss is the electors'. Which elector, do you think, is the one most likely to be respected by a candidate ; the one who gives him his vote because he is the first to ask it, or the one who gives it or refuses ifc upon good and substantial grounds? In the first case, the candidate simply books your name amongst a herd of others who must be well dry-nursed. In the other case he remembers that you have opinions which must be respected, and a character that cannot be practised upon. Amongst the working men of Canterbury there are many men of the latter class; men whose conscientious refusal would be worth, more than a dozen unintelligent promises.

Carelessness on the part of the workingmen, however, is excusable from the little time and opportunity which they have to five to the proper. <3qnsideration of such uties as those of excising the elective franchise; hut thereis'Jfaarless excuse for those who hoast tbafeirfchey- are •. educated men, and who seem't&take a pleasnre in showing that to all practical ends their education has not raised them one iota above the level of men they affect to look down on. Well may the working1 men turn round when they hear such men talking as if the blundering1 votes of working men had ruined them, and cry out savagely at such cant. Cant is an ugly word whether in politics or religion ; unfortunately, it is also an unfortunate fact. There is plenty of cant talked about the unfitness of certain classes to exercise the franchise. We cannot ourselves see that those who are fondest of such talk use their votes or influence in a much more conscientious manner than those they condemn. It is a pleasure to see some men come to the poll, whatever their opinions may he; we know what views they have advocated, and we may feel certain what vote they will give. Such men earn the respect which even their opponents cannot fail to accord to honesty and manliness. When all electors do likewise the Utopia of representative institutions will have been gained, and we need not fear the demagogue and the trading politician. Their trade will be gone, and the minority will yield to the majority with some satisfaction. Such a state of things would be Utopia. Let us remember, however, that the best citizens always place before them an object higher and greater than they can attain to, but by striving to attain which they raise the ambitions and aspirations of those around them.

In making- these few remarks we would request our readers not to be considering who they may be that take it upon themselves to make them. "We " may be as faulty as all the other electors put together in the exercise of our franchise, if we have one; but if "we" know, or fancy we know, what is right, we should be as culpable as the most cowardly elector in not speaking out in our proper place. At any rate the subject raised is one worthy of serious consideration. •

The news jrom England, most important for New Zealand, » that of the success of Mr Sewells mission to obtain the imperial g Ua i T-/l f 1 TV 'c i°J °f £500>°0°- Three New Zealand Bills had passed through all their stages m both Houses, viz., the New Zealand Loan Guarantee Bill, the Waste Lauds Amend-

I ment New Zealand Sales Bill, and the New Zealand Government Act Bill. We may therefore look on the matter as settled. Private letters inform us that as regards the Guarantee we have to thank "Mr. Sewell for his energy and skill in pleading his cause, and Mr. Adderley for working it through Parliament.' In the House of Commons, Mr. Henley attempted to reduce the amount of the loan guaranteed; and Sir J. Graham also spoke against the policy of the measure. It was defended by Mr. Labouchere, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and. Mr. Adderley. The whole weight of the New Zealand.interest both in and out of Parliament was exerted to get the measure passed. The first bill, as its name implies, is to give the Imperial Guarantee for a Loan of £500,000. The second to make the change in the Constitution Act necessary to enable us to pay off the New Zealand Company. The third amends the Constitution Act " bygiving almost unlimited powers of altering it, except only in a few fundamental points.". We have not time or space at this late hour to give any detailed account of the debates in the British Parliament on the subject j we hope, however, to publish them next week. The members of the late Canterbury Association gave a dinner at Greenwich in honour of Mr. Sewell's success, at which were present Lord Lyttelton (in the chair), Mr. Godley, Ac. No reporters were present. The dinner went off capitally.