New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4981, 10 March 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1877.

The complete speeches of both candidates for the representation of the city are now before the electors. We have never hesitated to express our opinion with regard to these gentlemen, that we could have better seen a better man than either come forward. But since none such has come forward, it is the duty of each elector to make a selection from the limited sphere of choice set before him. It has been pretty well agreed that not much fault could be found with Mr. Hutchison's speech. Its excellence in many respects disarmed those unscrupulous people who, if they dared, would treat him as they treated him at the time he was first a candidate for the Mayoralty. His language on the education subject was clear and- unmistakable, devoid of vagueness, and distinguished by : sound practical common'sense. He did not in a special pleading way say, "lam not an opponent of the' present' Ministry;" but he did say that his which would be - fairly given to them, should only be theirs so long as by their acts they deserved port from our representatives. On the land question,, which is certain to engage much attention next session, Mr. Hutchison was also explicit, and pronounced himself, in favor of that settlement of land : by the people which, properly and judiciously carried out, is perhaps the greatest:work the country has to accomplish. I)i several respects Mr. Hutchison's speech Was one which it would be difficult to better. Its manner and its matter were both of a high standard. Its thoughts and its language were equally excellent. We do not say that Mr. Hutchison per se is the best representative we could,get; but judged by his speech (and ,the electors have only that and his admitedly goad Mayoralty career to decide by), he deserves stipport. The speech is cjommendably free from; all reference to his opponent, is a model exposition of his own views, and;founds a fair claim to the suffrages of tlie electors. We '' cannot read' Mr. Travers' speech with the same satisfaction as that with which we read "Mr. Hutchison's, i Mr. Travers' declaration on the education question was pronounced and : peculiar. He is against State education, but while it exists he is in favor of its being purely secular. He did not make these statements until the close of his speech. ■, It is a pity that he was not as early in | favor of secularism as was his Worship the Mayor, and a pity also that by entertaining conscientious objections to State education at all, he may be able! to voVo as he likes upon any measure proposed for general education. We accept freely Mr. Travers' assurance that lie is a secularist, and only regret that, as seems habitual with him, he. cannot make an assurance without a qualification such as that implied by his objections to State education. His speech jwas too much made up of an effort 1 to extend the circulation of a paper he recently read at the Philosophical Society, on the surveys of the colony. 'All he said on this head may be true, but" surveying is not the panacea for all national evils, and a little less of it jin Mr. Travers' speech, and a little more of his own views 6n the administration of the waste lands , of the . colony arid their settlement by the people, would have left him in less unfavorable contrast Mr. Hutchison. "As to the manner in which Mr. Travers • would act if elected, he unwittingly gave us a good guide. He promised.-to;,render his assistance in bringing the new Acts for local selfgovernment into working. Rea'd in the light of experience of Mr. Travers, this means that he would, as on his trumpery constitutional, question, insist upon forcing his owii views down the throat of every onp else, and would be continually discovering objections and raising questions of a ridiculous nature, which he would 'consider "uniting with every party in the 1 State to place the local institutions of the country on aplain, simple, and inexpensive basis." He professed the utmost respect for the Mayor, arid then gave him a.backhanded insult by ranking himself as a candidate with Mr. Pearce and placing ;Mr.!HuTCHison at a level which in reality Mr. Travers-occupies. Neither Mr. Travers nor Mr. Hutchison will make as good a" repreaentative as was Mr. Pearce. Of Mr. Travers and Mi*. Hutchison, however, the latter is incomparably the better. Of'course, iri characterising t!he Civil Service as a refuge for the destitute, Mr. Travers made an appeal ad ckptandum vulgus, which, he hopes, may secure him votes. It would have been better had he less reminded us of the proverbial bird

by the manner in which he abused his former nests in Nelson and Canterbury; and he drew upon his imagination when he numbered his audience at 500, since in reality they did not come up to 300; that being a very respectable number too. He did ail he could to make fair professions ; but, as was remarked of him when he formerly occupied the position of a representative, he always seemed to convey the idea that if only permitted to talk long enough he would contradict himself. And for all his fair professions, we must not forget what his advocate, the Canterbury Press, was forced to admit that he is the possessor of—"A wayward and impulsive temperament, which effectually prevents any party from counting upon his continued adhesion, and leaves it open to possibility that at any critical moment he may be found, from some inexplicable motive, to have altogether quitted the field."