The Star. THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1882.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4454, 3 August 1882, Page 2

The Star. THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1882.

Stanmobb, after beit.g twico married; is now seeking for a divorce ; the grounds alleged arc, desertion and infidelity. An attempt has been made to deprive the petitioner of ejm--1 pathy, on the ground that she entered into the matrimonial stato with her eyes open. > Mr Pilliet may well ask to be Bared front

•foose very queer friends, whose best argument for him is that he never ought to have been trusted, and that in consequence the verdict on the electors should be, "Serve them right." Mr Olephane, however, disposes of this peculiar piece of special pleading, both completely and neatly. He did not, he says, vote for Mr Pilliot, but for Mr PillietV promises ; just as he did not vote against Mr Cowlishaw personally, but against that gentleman's political opinions. Mr Olephane is certainly right in objecting to have the private character of candidates dragged on to tbe stage, at the hustings or in the meeting-hall, whether this be done for the purpose of attack or defence. In his , protest we join now, and in doing bo merely repeat what we said when Stanmore vas first being canvassed in November last. Publio men must be discussed on their public aeriti and demerits, and neb on their private virtues or failings. Nor, should we fancy, ought the wont enemy of the present member for Stanmore desire to have a fairer or a wider field for the criticism of that peraonage. In the hurry and noise of an excited meeting, exciteable men often make use of arguments which read somewhat quaintly when seen in print in the cold light of the following morning. But of all the ridiculous .propositions ever advanced, one made on Tuesday evening with regard to Mr Pillietj «eems to us to bear away the bell. An elector, in defending the member for breaking his pledges, committed himself to the assertion that no one should ask a candidate to pledge himself, and that for a candidate to be " cornered" by a stubborn question was sufficient excuse— to put it bluntly— for him to tell Ues. This fairly " bangs Bannagher." The -next thing we •halt be told, we suppose, is that a witness in tbe Supreme Court ia justified in committing deliberate perjury, if compelled to reply to questions whioh he had rather not answer, or if "badgered by an examining counsel whose manner happens to displease him. Is truth any longer to be held sacred, or even necessary, in politics ? From the action of the Government, whioh action has fince been whitewashed by the unanimous approval of •its party, one is forced to conolude not. No ( reasonable man now doubts that an understanding was arrived at, at the beginning of the session, by which Mr Pilliot and Mr ' Cowlishaw were to be played off against Mr Biohardson, — against whom, as a man who knew too much, and was always wanting to know more, the Government had conceived the hatred whioh is born of fear. Messrs Whitakor, Bolleßton, and Atkiu«on were perfeotly well aware that if Mr Pilliet remained, disqualified, Mr Bichard--son would beat Mr Cowlishaw; and - they also knew that eren if Mr Pilliet stood again, and Mr Cowlishaw did not, that the late Minister for Public Works might beat the much mistrusted late Magistrate of Akaroa. ! Therefore, the Pilliet Indemnity Bill was | passed: therefore, Mr Cowlishaw faced the Lootings of those angry meetings, and split ' Mr Biohardson's votes. Mr Pilliet has had '. Ait reward. When is Mr Cowlishaw going to have his, and what will it be, we wonder? ' The avenue to the Judicial Bench was closed by the Supremo Court judgment in that , unfortunate little affair of the petition. ■