OUR MELBOURNE LETTER.

Evening Star, Issue 3991, 9 December 1875, Page 3

OUR MELBOURNE LETTER.

Melbourne, November 27. Gat o£ all the dreary financial muddlo, one fact stands out plain, palpable, undonied because undeniable, and that is—that the country has lost L 50.000 by tho action of Woods in reducing the railway freights. That step was a direct, open, all-but-confessed bribe to some country constituencies, to support Berryisra. It was done without consulting the traffic manager or any of the permanent staff, and, as soon as it was condemned by the House and the Press, Woods attempted to wriggle out of it by throwing the whole blame upon that very staff. The disgraceful falsehood was instantly uetected and exposed ; nobody has suffered for it, for every one sympathises with the permanent officers, and Woods is held in such contempt that no amount of such couvictions can sink him lower. But tho money is irredeemably gone. Somewhat less distinct, but almost as universally agreed upon, is it that our impecunioaity is largely owing to Mr l.angton. T hat gentleman, when Treasurer, a ltered the mode of keeping the public accounts. It was done in spite of the adverse opinions of every other experienced member, and in the teeth of the strongest remonstrances from the Audit Commissioners, audits results are exuc ;ly what they predicted. How Mr Bangton feels under the chorus of condemnation from all s.dos of the House I don’t know, but since he it very thin-skinned I should suspect he is not very comfortable. Thu imminent wreck of more than one financial reputation which will result from this crisis is a curious spectacle to tho outsider, and will probably be a blessing to the community. Sir James on the one side, and ;.M r Perry on the other and Mr Lancton . in the middle, are in equal danger. Service is the man who conics best cut of the thing. Each of his successors sure his principles, and v.here they altered detail? made a mess of it. I should not be surprised if it turn out that Berry’s two mooting of office

prove the moat disastrous blow that he and his party have ever received. His only claim to be considered an able man was based on his imputed skill in money matters. For my own part, I confess I never could see that he had any; and so far from his being even a Triton among minnows, have held him a mere minnow among molluscs. But then I wield no political influence; Ido not sit in the House, and never headed a deputation, so my opinions are of course valueless. Nevertheless they are being proved true,

People often say that things come in batches. Unhappily it is the case with things evil, though I fear only too vcldom so of their opposite. After a long period of comparative freedom from such filth, the pages of our dailies have been flooded with details of actions for seduction. It is true that they are, except in one case, nominally brought for breach of promise of marriage, but the crime has been p;esent in all. Another action, for slander, rested on similar imputations, but only served to reveal how vile in morals are some of those Arcadian little spots where poet’s fable purity and peace alone to dwell.

Our Law Court has been perverted once as so often in the history of these Colonies, into a theatre whereon a double-dyed villain may posture and mouth before the public. The murderer Weechurcb, finding solitary confinement (rendered necessary by his misconduct in prison) rather tedious, determined to have some amusement. He conthat a little virifc to Melbourne and a fresh airing before his fellow-criminals still at large were best calculated to keep up h/s spirits and his infamous reputation. He therefore attempted to murder a warder. Being brought to trial he refused the services of counsel, chose to defend himself, and showed clearly his reason, for that course by grossly abusing his privilege of free speech in self-defence. - uch a disgusting exhibition raises anew the question as to whether a criminal of this class ought to bo reprieved. For my part, I cannot see how the sworn administrators of Government can acquit themselves to their own consciences for so defrauding justice and poisoning public morals as they have done by keeping such men alive, and giving them the opportunity to pollut > the air in pretended defences. Of course the wretch was convicted, but it is by no means certain that even now justice will be done. The Cabinet are to “consider ” his case on Monday; as if it could need an instant’s consideration’! A much more easily solved question is suggested by Weechurch’s case. Ought wc not to forbid (at any rate to such a class of criminals) the opportunity of doing incalculable moral damage under color of a defence ? Ought they not to be always represented by counsel, who are bound, at any rate, to observe some rule of decency ?

My next subject is only a few degrees less repulsive. It is actually Gatehouse again ! Let me despatch, him quickly. A testimonial to Ristori, consisting of a crown of gold and silver leaves, was presented to her at one of the Town Hall pei formonces. Gatehouse was to read the address. His manner of doing it may be inferred from the following facts First, the whole audience was convulsed with laughter. The people shouted, they shrieked, they writhed, they beat the floor with sticks, they stamped, they held their sides, and thou they roared, and shouted, and shrieked again until tears ran down their faces—all with pure laughter. .My comic friend Grallator was there, and it was delicious to see him ! My sombre-visaged acquaintance Dolores was there, whose countenance would have saddened even Hogarth’s “ Laughing Audience ” by a mere instant’s glimpse, and his amusement almost rivalled that of Grallator. Second, the * Argus ’ —once the staunchest supporter of Gatehousaism, gave a glorious description of his condition, in which, without crossing the borders of libel, the truth was not obscurely shadowed forth. The keenest hit of all perhaps was the simple statement that it was evident in Mr Gatehouse that “some-

thing staggered him.” Third, ‘Punch’ gave a picture of him—true to the life—angular at the k mes, helpless in brachial posture, the proffered coronet drooping at an angle of 30Jeg. to tne horizon, and emphasized by the underwriter’s motto, “Hie! Gatehouse on the saveloy machine.” A new candidate tor a doubtful reputation has sprung up—-a member of the Lower House this time—a Mr Mason. One of the betting brotherhood, accused Mason of having lost to him bets which were not paid. Mason plumply denied, not only that transaction but any transaction with any bookmaker iu all his life, and declared he had never seen his accuser before. However, when the Club came to investigate the affair they pronounced Mason guilty, and their verdict was on all points against him. He paid up at once. The ‘ Age - wrote some slashing things against him,' threatening terrible consequences if he should ever enter the House again. Notwithstanding the interest of the financial debate, Mason has not (so I am told) since appeared on the Legislative Benches. .talking of bookmakers reminds me of a complaint that I have lately heard amongst cricketing men. It is that bookmakers are being admitted into the clubs, and appear among the privileged in the pavilions, &c,, pushing their infamous “business ’ in bets on the matches in progress. . South Melbourne is credited or debited with leading the way in this innovation. Unless it be put an end to it will destroy cricket. Numbers of gentlemen, the life of cricket, as to both play and subscriptions, declare they will withdraw if they are to have such vile company thrust upon them. The architects are quarrelling. New designs for the Eastern Market are the bone of contention. Long ago Mr Flannagan got the prize

for a design, which everybody expected was to be executed immediately, but not a step has yet been taken. And now a section of the City Council want to call for new designs on the plea that the former are not quite suitable. It is broadly stated that the whole thing is a dodge to put the building into the hands’ of a firm who have many friends in the Council. Who can that firm be? Nobody mentions a name. But it is a little singular that some time ago a firm of architects lead a crusade against the Government to compel the passing of a rule that any architect successful in such a competion should be entrusted with the exeeu tion of the work at a certain high percentage, and to the exclusion of the Public Works Department and its supervision. Of course that firm cannot for a moment be suspected of ideutifcy with the “dodgers” abovo referred to. they have had nearly a monopoly of <_!ty Council works for a long time past; and if they be excluded from the guess work who are left to be guessed at? I see my Jotter is a grumble of disgust and condemnation throughout. I can’t help it. Who could make an interesting letter out of good people? Now lest anybody should say that I paint a very black picture of Victorian society let mo point out that one must have a cleaning day” sometimes. Let me make this my clearing up. Or if your readers like it better let them lay the blame on the rich supper, of which your correspondent partook last evening, and on the effect upon his mind of contrast between his charming partners in tho dance at night and the public characters whom he is compelled to contemplate by day. , c . ori^ a P on dent writes but in accordance with bis lights (or, if you take the supper hypothesis, m accordance with his lived so again I say-how can I help it? But be assured of this we are not half so black as we are panned.

Two sensational incidents occurred during tho tird of the convict Weeohuich for attempting to murder a warder. A man Bounding m dm gakery over the dock let a pocket-knife fall -it tho prisoner’s feet. The man was at once arrested, and the knife was picked up bv a warder. It turned out, however, that the spectator wore a waistcoat which at bottom was worn into, holes, and he convinced the police that the la ling of the knife was purely accidental. Another incident was the behaviour of a prisoner from Peatrmge named Scott abas ‘Captain Mooulite,” of bank-robbery notoriety. Ho gave hia answers < 0 \v reCchurch’s questions, and then wished to make a statement on his own account. Permission was not given, but in ite of the refusal he managed while being removed from emit, to say that Reotridge was die most immoral place ho ever knew, and that he intended to do s,mmtbing violent so that his ca.o might be brought beloie the public, °