ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 827, 6 July 1853, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of tlie New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, 4th July, 1853. Sra, — Despite the indifference felt by myself, in common with the majority of the settlers, at the ' election which took place on Saturday, of a Superintendent for this Province, T felt both surprise and pleasure at , the amended tone of those portions of the addresses which I arrived in time to hear of the two leaders of the Anti-British Government; party, which for a rare novelty neither outraged the feelings of the settlers by furious abuse of Sir £r. Grey's government, nor levelled any slanderous aspersions on its conscientious supporters — on the contrary, their speeches were marked by a tone of gentlemanlike courtesy and conciliation which proved, that for once, they properly appreciated the courteous forbearance of their former political foes by wisely abstaining from all remarks tending to provoke a contest. Their less intelligent followers, however, evidently mistake for a conquest what* more resembles an armed truce, leaving their enemies with unbroken numbers and undiminished self-re* liance if needed for a future conflict. The political onus now lies officially on the leader of the — patriots (?) — gigantic promises beget enormous expectations, and .doleful will soon be the visages of his now elated followers if the mountain of their political hopes produces merely a mouse. But for one portion of the speech of the Honourable Superintendent, containing opinions coming in a manner officially from a neiv public servant, and comprising what I believe to be two pernicious fallacies, — I would not have troubled you with any comment on the election proceedings. Dr. Featherston after the usual thanks to his supporters and the customary compliments to the free and independent electors and so forth — in a set speech, rather neatly delivered, suggested that the same gentlemen should be returned for both the local and general assembly — a proposition Avhich in my belief, if acted upon, would defeat the chief aim and end of two houses of colonial parliament, and be as great an absurdity as the same persons being at once Mayors of English Boimighs and their I representatives in the Imperial Parliament. — The plan of Dr. F. would virtually cause the trouble and expense of two legislative chambers with only the deliberative advantages of one. This subject I think deserves editorial consideration, for to do it justice would trespass too much on the space usually devoted to letters, — -leaving it therefore I come to Dr. Featherston's hostility to all exaction of pledges from candidates as to their votes on special political questions, which he alledges, perhaps justly interferes with their deliberative judgment on those subjects. General subjects should doubtless be left to the deliberate judgment of the representative, in implicit reliance on his honor, good faith, and zeal for the welfare of his constituents — but on those questions on which the will of the electors is unmistakeably resolved and expressed — his vote merely — not Ms judgment is required — he is on these points merely the servant of the people to do their bidding — their spokesman to express their voices, morally only free — should his opinion on these vital questions become changed — to. resign before giving a vote fatal to the wishes of his constituents. On the principle urged by Dr. F. any man might capriciouslyvote against the very measure his constituents expressly elected him to enforce; for instance O'Connell against Catholic Emancipation — Lord John Russell against the Reform Bill, or Cobden against the repeal of the Corn Laws. I am averse to leave any such plausible pretext to any political who possibly we may unfortunately elect; and I desire & leave no loophole for political ratting. If any man feels conscientious scruples as to obeying the will of his constituents, on such points for instance, as the universally popular New Land Regulations, let him consult his own honour and our interest by declining a seat in the Council. I make these remarks with no hostile feeling to Dr. F. or any other former political foe ; but from a desire to approach our representation as nearly as practicable to the state of imaginary purity and efficiency to which it was hoped the New Constitution Act would elevate it — willing for political quiet, but fearless of party strife, I say to old political enemies, like the ancient Briton when required by a Roman General to disarm his forces — " Let's have the peace of honour — that's fair dealing, " But in our hands our swords." If we elect ' any dubious friends, or former foes, without arming ourselves with their written pledges as to their votes on matters about which the public mind has long been decided, we shall eventually suffer from our own imprudence. Let the written pledges of all can'

didates be required on all such vital questions as — cheap land, small allotments, and fixed prices — and preserve them as honourable records of good service, if performed ; or as brands of lasting infmny on the turncoat's character if broken, — that "When in the tomb their pampered flesh shall rot, And even by friends their memories be forgot, Still shall they live — recorded for their crimes In History's page — and stink to after times.'' Respectfully requesting your insertion of these hints to my fel ow voters. I remain, yonr humble servant, AN ELECTOR.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. July 2, 1353. Sir, — I enclose a copy of a letter I have sent to the Independent, hoping that a sense of what is due to the character of the Press for honesty and independence may induce a reconsiderationof the attempt to suppress the publication of my letter to Mr. Clifford ; however, as it is possible that the attempt maybe persevered in, I think you will so far concur in opinion with me on this matter as to see the propriety of publishing it yourself. I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, W. BISHOP.

To the Editor of the Independent. •! Sir, — I am surprised that when penning the few editorial ]ines excusing yourself from keep* ing your promise to insert in your paper my letter to Mr. Clifford, it did not occur to you whether the same kind consideration for the advantage of all parties which prompted the exclusion of my letter, should not also have kept back the reply to it ; but having inserted the reply, you have precluded yourself from the position of adviser, and have left yourself no open course but the publication of the letter in question ; until you do so, the inference is, that there is an influence at work which an independent journalist ought to be very jealous of allowing to attach to him. I waive any notice of the discourtesy to myself, but the same great cause, viz., Protestant legislation for a Protestant State, still demands vindication ; and I once more request the publication of my- letter as an act of justice, it having been termed absurd in the reply you published ; and with reason I ask it, because the manner in which the case has been met indicates that the power or system which I deprecated gaining ground in our Councils, already exercises a malign influence on our affairs. As you appear to think this not a political question, I will ask'if our House of Assembly will not be a House of Commons to us ? then, as before the Commons of England, so before the Commons of New Zealand, religious subjects will have to be discussed, being indeed the highest court of judicature even on that subject in most of its bearings to the community at large, and especially as it bears on education. And let it not be forgotten that this great Council of a great nation, even our own, does not think it unnecessary, intolerant, or absurd, to guard against the known tendency to , mischief of the Roman Catholic Church, by exacting from those members of it admitted into Parliament, a solemn oath not to disturb the Protestantism of the nation. Shall we have even that slight check for our defence here ? for slight it would seem to be, judging by the animus lately displayed by the section of the House of Commons called the Irish Brigade. I have heard it asserted by an influential Roman Catholic, an official, that this is not a Protestant State, and from late appearances it would seem he was not so far wrong as I thought him ; for if our Protestantism is so little prized -as to be thought not worth defending, we shall not long keep it; and I will venture also- to say that if England had not defended herself from Roman Catholicism by something more earnest than mere professions, she would not now be the bright spot she is, the last home for toleration and freedom in Europe. Hoping you will make the amende by inserting this communication in addition to the one named above. | I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, j W k BISHOP.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. July 5, 1853. Sir, — If the following queries may be deemed of any sendee at this present juncture, your insertion of them in your next impression will oblige A CONSTANT READER.

Queries pro Bono Publico. 1. Is it safe and proper to intrust with political power the man who divides his allegiance to Queen Victoria with the Roman Despot ? 2. -Is it safe and proper to intrust with political power the man who helieves it necessary to prosecute what are called heretics to the death ? 3. Is it safe and proper to intrust with political power the man who helieves that all temporal authority should be placed under a Roman Spiritual Despotism ? , 4. Suppose the individual in question denies the above doctrines as a portion of his Roman Catholic Creed, is it safe and proper to intrust with political power the man who does not believe or understand the system he has embraced, and of which he might be made the blind and mischievous instrument? 5. Is it objected that such questionable patriots are promoted to office and power at home ? Let it be asked in the same breath, what has been the result? Has not an impersonation of the dreaded despotism sought to ride rough-shod over the free land of Britain? N.B.— The above queries do not involve at all any religious question. It must be granted in this case that it is of no. consequence of what religion a candidate for ' the -Legislature may be, or whether he possess, the, quality or not. But he ought not to entertain opinions (however classed) dangerous to the peace, safety, and good order of Society.