EN PASSANT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 855, 30 January 1883, Page 2

EN PASSANT.

“Wise as a judge,” is a common enough simile, and, like a good many other sayings that have become sanctified by constant use, it never to have entered people’s minds to enquire how far it is true. The owl enjoyed a reputation for wisdom among the ancients, [for the reason, according to Washington Irving, that it said nothing and looked stupid. We would not hint that any of our New Zealand judges possessed even one of the qualifications of Minerva’s bird, but we venture to assert that anybody who takes the trouble to read through the charges delivered to juries at the opening of the Supreme Court criminal sessions will find it difficult to discover in them proof of special wisdom. For the most part these judicial utterances are made up of a series of platitudes, but now and then we are treated to something original, and this something is generally noticeable for its absurdity. A case in point was the address of Mr Justice Gillies to the Auckland Grand Jury the other day, which the Press Association thought so important that it was telegraphed all over the colony. There has been of late a great deal of crime in Auckland, and it occurred to the learned judge to try and account for this. Why he should have been thus moved is net very clear, especially as he admitted that the problem was not easy of solution. After making some observations concerning crime being “ an infectious or contagious disease,” he went on to speak as follows : —“ At the same time I cannot help thinking that to some extent sensational and often exaggerated descriptions of crime, under headings of big type, which are paraded before the public by the Press, tend to recurrences of similar kinds. I fully recognise the valuable aid which publicity through the Press gives to the detection and exposure of crime, but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that offences tend to their reproduction, especially among young persons and people of emotional natures,” Now, one would imagine that when a man in a high official position gave expression to an opinion of this kind, he would be able to support it by some sort of argument. We admit that we have no sympathywith that order of journalism which gives prominence to sensational reports of crime, but our objection does not go further than a condemnation of bad taste. To say, however, that

“young persons and people of emotional nature” would, on reading these, reports, feel impelled to “ go and do likewise ” is nothing less than absurd. But if Judge Gillies talked nonsense in his opening charge, he fairly surpassed himself later on in the session, when he was called on to dilate upon the evidence offered in the Hamilton-Priestly case. That never failing comparison between circumstantial testimony and a chain was trotted out, and the twelve good men and true were seriously informed that if a single link were wanting they could not bring the prisoners in guilty. Were this doctrine observed by juries in the future, it may safely be said that only a person who was taken in flagrante delicto would incur the slightest chance of being convicted. Then, again, when the two prisoners in this case were declared innocent of the murder of which they had been accused, the learned Judge took occasion to give them a short lecture on their immorality. He told the male prisoner, in effect, that had it not been for his undue familiarity with the female prisoner, he would not have found himself in his present ' awkward position, and he addressed Mrs Hamilton in almost identical words. The moral was certainly an admirable one, but was it - not slightly out of place ? It would be interesting to know by

what process of logic Mr 'Gilliej^ came to the conclusion thfficonjugaV immoralityHwoiild hecesskrily* tenet to those Who had sinned in that direction being accused of a murder of which they were not guilty.

There is always a time in the journalistic yegr which is known as the dull season. It is then that the soul of the editor is troubled for a subject to write about, and a gooseberry of abnormal size, or the breaking down of the parish pump is welcomed with enthusiasm. We happen to be in the middle of this dull season just now, and this may be taken as the reason that several of our contemporaries have been treating at length on colonial “ servant-galism,” a topic which, however interesting in itself, would not have received much attention at any other period of the year. There seems to be a great dearth in New Zealand of domestic servants, and the reason given for this is that girls prefer the slavery and poor wages of a factory worker’s life because they are afforded more liberty of action. To the mind of females of this stamp there is something humiliating in the very idea of domestic servitude, and unfortunately colonial mistresses do not as a rule treat their servants in

a way likely to remove that feeling. There are no doubt advantages to be derived from living in a democratic country, but at the same time it would be idle to say that there are not decided drawbacks. When people are what is called self-made, and have had to fight their way up from the lowest ranks of life, it but too often happens that the acquisition of power makes them overbearing with_ their inferiors. This is, we are afraid, especially true of womankind; and although we do not doubt that there are exceptions, in the great majority of colonial households, the “ slavey’s ” lot is not a happy one. For this reason we cannot wonder that girls shrink from going into service, and that domestic servants who are worth their salt should be at a premium. But the question arises : If young women will not accept menial situations,. what work in the future will they find to do? This is a problem that has puzzled social reformers in England for a good many years, and how to find employment for the “ redundant six per cent,” as somebody over ungallantly termed the weaker sex, has not yet been decided. It appears, ftom a letter that has been recently distributed through the colony,! that an association, called the “ Female: Middle Class Immigration Society,” has been casting longing eyes on New Zealand. This document states that the Society in question was founded for the ; purpose of promoting the emigration of educated women, who have great difficulty in obtaining employment in England, such as “ governesses, schoolmistresses, certificated teachers, sicknurses, women able to help in cookery, household work, the care of young children, parochial and missionary work.” We do not think that the well-meaning people who control this society will receive many applications from this part of the world. This system of “lady-helps” was tried some years ago at Home, and proved an egregious failure, and it has a far less chance of succeeding here. That nondescript person known as a “ companion,” who is not a domestic servant, but has to perform duties that are at once irksome, and, to a woman of education, humiliating, is an unknown quantity in the colonies, and for her own sake may she long remain so. The presence of a “ lady-help ” in a New Zealand household would be a ridiculous incongruity; she would remind the mistress of a thousand gaucheties that were not observable before, while the actual assistance she would give in the management of affairs would amount to nothing. We honestly believe that the scarcity of domestic servants is at least as much due to the mistresses as to the girls themselves. If the latter were treated kindly, and made to feel that they really had a home and not merely a refuge, the utterly false idea of menial occupation being humiliating would soon be a thing of the pasl..