NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR AND Cook's Strait Guardian. Saturday, November 14, 1857.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume XII, Issue 1282, 14 November 1857, Page 2

NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR AND Cook's Strait Guardian. Saturday, November 14, 1857.

I he Election for the Country Districts has ended in another triumph for the cause of Reform; three members, Messrs. J. Wallace, Ashton St. Hill, and T. D. M’Manaway having been returned to the Provincial Council, favourable to the cause and in opposition to the Government party; the other two members being Messrs. Brandon and Johnston. The elections so far give a return of twenty members in favor of Reform, so that if we were to assume. Ibrthesake of argument, thattheremain. ingclections would be favorable to Dr. Featherston’s party, there would still bo a majority of twenty to ten, or two to one, against him in the New Provincial Council. But another point of very great imporlance which has been determined by the recent Election, is the complete and conclusive answer given to Dr, Featherston's assumption that his re-election as Superintendent is a virtual approval of his policy by the great majority of the Electors of the Province; and that he would be justi. fied in maintaining that policy against a hostile majority of the Provincial Council, an assumption which Mr. Fitzherbert declared could not be controverted. We maintain that this assumption is by no means borne out by facts, that, on the contrary, the facts connected with the Superintendent’s re-election directly negative this assumption. In the first place tlio total number polled by Dr. Featherston, S.'M, is a minority of the total number of elec, '■'is "I the Province. In many of the districts the number polled by Dr. Featherston is con.

siderably less than that subsequently poU,. by tho Reform Candidate, the lushest r n- ipw.™.,-,.,,. » he sustained a signal defeat, Dr ldtl„. Polled 223, while Mr. Hunter polledi ““ the Hutt Dr. Featherston polled 85 i-? District, while tho number who voted for n' 7 Featherston was only 155, th,. nnuih r ' for Mr. Wallace is 18(1; a considerable , IH " 8 her of voters who strongly disapproved of p ’ Featherston’s policy, having abstained Iron voting in the election for Superintend' either because they disapproved of the Lofi of the other candidate, or because he vas " '' known to them. And of those who voted”". Dr. Featherston many would have. .siipp,„- t( q another candidate, if he had been an old 6et tier, who was generally known. This «•„' clearly the case in the Ahuriri district, wlieie fi was distinctly declared in the local paper that under ordinary circumstances the Electors would have abstained from voting at all, an j only voted for Dr. Featherston because the v strongly disapproved of the views and opinions of his opponent. But the condemnation of tho Superintendent’s policy is shewn in t] lc strongestmannerby the rejection of his respon. sible advisers by the largest constituencies of the Province. Of his Executive Council, only one, the Provincial Solicitor, has been elected tho others, the Provincial Secretary, the Chief Land Commissioner, Provincial Trea suier, anti Mr. Revans, have all been rejected by the constituencies they formerly repre sented;—the Provincial Secretary has been rejected by two constituencies, by Wellington and by the Hutt, and if Mr. Fox should obtain a seat in the Council, it will be only by means of the Government pocket borough Wanganui, which will prove a refuge for tho destitute, where the chief motive that influ. cnees the Government supporters is declared by the local journal to be that sort of political gratitude which is for favors to cornu! One of the results of the recent elections which seems to have given unqualified satisfaction,is the report of Mr. Revans’ exclusion from the Council by his rejection by the Wairarapa electors. It is clear he never ought to have obtained a sent in the Council under any circumstances, and never would have done so if the faintest opposition had been made in the first instance to his election. The question between the <uperintendent and the electors nuiv be stated in very few words. His first act on his re. election is to offer his past policy to their ap. proval by tho re appointment of his former responsible advisers. And the answer to this appeal is the condemnation by the electors of this policy by the nearly unanimous rejection of his responsible advisers.