NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR AND Cook's Strait Guardian. Saturday, July 30, 1853.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 834, 30 July 1853, Page 2

NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR AND Cook's Strait Guardian. Saturday, July 30, 1853.

The length of our report of last Wednesday's meeting prevents us from indulging in any lengthened comments upon it. The meeting was rather disorderly, hut we think it has been productive of good results. It has set the Electors thinking, and has brought before them several questions that might otherwise have escaped their attention. Among these are some that acquire additional weight from Mr. Fitzherbert's objections to last Wednesday's meeting. Why was not a Meeting of the Electors called before ? Why did not the soi distant leaders of popular opinion themselves call a Meeting of the Electors ? Why, when the Meeting was called, was Mr. Fitzherbert the only man of his party willing to face the Electors ? There are seven members of the Constitutional Association candidates for the honor of representing the City of Wellington in the Provincial Council, four of them also candidates for seats in the General Assembly. In their addresses they boast of the constitutional triumphs gained by their exertions, and claim considerable credit to themselves for the introduction of Popular Institutions, how is it that on the first Public Meeting of the Electors, only one of these popular candidates, — though six of them were in the room — could be found to address the Electors ? Passing from this topic to Mr. Fitzherherbert's speech, it must be admitted he deserves some credit for the pains he took to refute his own arguments. No doubt he thought much might be said on both sides the question, and was determined to say it. I'he pledge in his opinion was unfair, unconstitutional, and j dangerous, but his clenching argument against it was that it was ineffectual, inoperative, and perfectly harmless ! If \he had any faith in his clenching argument, why is he so obstinately resolved rather to lose his election than take the pledge ; if any pledge is unconstitutional, unfair, and dangerous, why is he ready to take three rather than one ? r Another inconsistency that could not fail to^strike the electors was to see Mr. Fitzherbert, the constant Agitator for Responsible Government, the champion, as he would have the electors believe,, of popular rights and privileges, refusing to become responsible to the electors. Mr. Fitzherbert appears to be hedged in by dilemmas on every side and, like the scorpion when surrounded by a circle of fire, he has turned his own sting on himself with desperate energy. We must also direct attention to another of Mr. Fitzherbert's fallacies in his suggestions for improving the Legislative Council. He wishes to make it elective and would limit the franchise and j impose other restrictions to prevent its ! becoming an unmeaning repetition of the lower house. We say nothing at present of his childish desire to pull the Constitution to pieces before it has been brought into operation, but did- it never occur to i Mr. Fitzherbert and his friends that in

offering- themselves as candidates for the ProvinciaiCouncil and General Assembly, they were doing all that lay in their power to destroy the distinctive character of both Councils, and to make the orie an unmeaning repetition of the other? We hdpe at least the electors will seriously think of these things, and refuse to concentrate so much power iti the hands of those who desire to evade responsibility ; that they will hesitate before they vote for men whose professions are at «o much variance with their practice.