The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1872.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3569, 26 June 1872, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1872.

The electors of Waikouaiti have been patted on the back to such an extent lately that they must begin to think themselves very fine fellows indeed. After all, what have they done that they should be so be-praised ? They had to select one out of six candidates for their suffrages as a representative in the General Assembly, and they chose Sir David Munro, ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives, who we believe has no connection of any sort with the district, is personally unknown there, and resides in another part of the colony. Eor doing this, for selecting what they believed to be the best man, they are told that they deserve great credit, and a good deal more in the same strain. It is, however, a noteworthy fact that this fulsome praise comes chiefly from those who profess the same political creed as the successful candidate. The inference is, that the electors of Waikouaiti, if they had chosen as good a man on the other side of politics, would not have deserved—at any rate, would not have received—the laudation that has been so freely bestowed since the result of the election became known.

It must not be supposed that we consider this election discreditable, either to the electors or the elected. On the contrary, we think the former bare shown a large amount of good sense in preferring a man of experience in colonial politics to men with no experience at all and no particular claim to public confidence and support. Sir David Monro has certainly good reason to be proud of his election, and to look upon it as the highest compliment that could possibly be paid to any public man. It was not only that he had no connection with the district and was personally unknown to the electors. From the outset, he showed bo great anxiety to be elected, for he announced that he would be unable to visit the district daring the contest, and that he must leave everything to his committee. Instead of resenting this indifference, the electors placed him at the bead of the poll by a majority which left no doubt as to their opinions, unless we are to infer that a large number voted for Monro, not no much because they wished to see him in, as because they were anxious to keep Webster, Preston, and the rest oat. It does not always follow that the elected candidate represents the opinions of all those who elected him. Many of the voters may say, and often do ssy, that though A is not exactly the man they would prefer, he is far better than B or U The election of Sir David Monro, it has been said, most be highly unpalatable to the Government for several reasons. The first of these is, that be is among the staunchest members of the Opposition. We see no reason Why the Government should be so particularly displeased, far less alarmed, on this score. No doubt they would have preferred to see a supporter electee, but they can hardly expect that the country should be altogether unanimous on any one point. Sir David Monro will no doubt prove a worthy and consistent opponent of a policy which he thinks is “ engulfing ; the colony in debt,” though how be in now to prevent that policy from

being carried out is a problem we must confess our inability to solve. He has a sort of prestige in the House, but we are not aware that it is based on a belief in hispolitioal or ndmiowtrative ability. Why should it P He has done nothing, laid nothing, so far as we can remember, which marks him out as a possible leader or even lieutenant. His deportment in the House will always serve as an example which a few members will be guided by, which many will laugh at either openly or covertly, but which all will feel the influence of in some way or other. We are reminded that when Sir David was a candidate lor the representation of Motueka, at last general election, “he was loud in ms denunciations of the gambling policy,” into which he said Ministers were hurrying the country. The phrase is happily chosen, and fitly describes the speeches made by men of the MonroRichmond way of thinking. They denounced, but did not argue; they condemned, but gave no sound reasons for their condemnation. They had a few pet words, such as “ gambling,” “ reckless,” “ disaster,” and the like, which they dinned into the cars, of all who would listen to them ad nauseam, but we do not remember that they ever demonstrated the unsoundneas of the policy of public works and immigration or the unfitness of the present Government to administer it.

la proposing Mr J. 0. Richmond as a fit and proper person to represent the electors of Nelson city, Sir David Monro is said to have spoken strongly of the critical condition into which the Government have brought the colony. This means, we presume, that he once more indulged in a burst of declamation without argument. If this can be called speaking strongly, we have no doubt the speech was as strong and as highly seasoned as the most rabid opponent of the Government could desire. Whether Sir David Monro, on the occasion just referred to, spoke strongly or not, is now a matter of little or no moment. It is quite certain, however, that be spoke of Mr Luckie, the successful candidate, in exceedingly bad taste, to say the very least. “ If,” he remarked, “ they happen to elect Mr “ Luckie—which ho felt pretty certain “ they would not do—they could not “ make a greater mistake. Mr Luckie “ belonged to a class, which in a representative body was not at all of a “ desirable character. There were “ already in the House too many men “ of Mr Luckie’s stamp. If the electors “of Nelson were true to themselves “ they would not add to that number. “ The presence of Mr Luckie would “ not add to the dignity nor the wisdom “ of the House, nor increase the weight “of Nelson in the counsels of the “nation.” No wonder that the Wellington Independent should consider itself justified in saying that Turveydrop was never so felicitous. Sir David’s election for Waikouaiti, it is alleged, conveys a disagreeable bint that the Government are losing ground in the country districts. The wish must surely have been father to the thought in drawing this inference. There is no hint, in the local paper, to the effect that the Government or their policy is unpopular in the district, and the return of Sir David Monro is attributed solely to the energy and ability displayed by bis committee. The plain fact is, all the other candidates, with one exception, were a great deal too local and insignificant, and Sic David Monro was elected principally on personal grounds; not because tho electors liked him or his politics much, but because they hated, despised, or distrusted the other candidates more. This, at all events, is the impression to be gathered from reading the local journal, and it is consistent with common sense.