The Globe. FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1875.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 377, 27 August 1875, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1875.

We are sorry for the Provincial Secretary in the foolish position in which the Leithfield meeting has placed him. Those “influential residents” of the district who induced him to call the meeting ought to be ashamed of themselves, for having been the means of causing the Provincial Secretary of this province to add one more meeting to the list of those in favour of abolition. There are peculiar circumstances in connection with it which deserve special notice. It was called by Mr Maskell, the head of the Provincial Executive of (he province, with the avowed object of passing a resolution adverse to the measures now before the country. In this respect it differs from most of the meetings which have been held in various parts of the colony. They were convened for the purpose of obtaining an expression of public opinion on the part of the electors, which might or might not be adverse to the measure. But the electors of Leithfield were called together for a special purpose; they were invited to meet in order to curse Mr Haskell's enemies, and instead they have altogether blessed them. This anxiety on the part of the Provincial Secretary to have the Government measures cursed by his constituents, is natural enough. One so intimately connected with the management of provincial affairs as he is, no doubt sees much to admire in them, which is hidden from the gaze of the general public. He, of course, feels that were the direction of our local affairs to pass into less patriotic hands than his, the liberties of the people would be sadly trampled upon. Hence, therefore, his energetic appeals to the ratepayers the other evening in favor of existing institutions. Some years ago, when the question of abolition was discussed in the Provincial Council of Canterbury, we find it recorded on the minutes that Mr Maskell was one of five who voted for the following resolution : —“ That in “ the opinion of this Council, it is “ expedient that the present system “ of government by the Superinteu-

“ dent and Provincial Council, as esta- “ bished by the Constitution Act, “be abolished.” Mr Maskell has changed his opinions since then. But he is now Provincial Secretary and he then sat on the Opposition benches. Of course Mr Maskell is at perfect liberty to change his opinions if he wishes. Truth is many sided, and there is nothing remarkable in a man’s views altering with the change of circumstances, and as Mr Fitzherbert put it the other day, as long as that change is not coincident with a change of interest, it is not derogatory to a man. We are far from saying that it is the accidental circumstance of Mr Maskell holding the office of Provincial Secretary which has been the cause of this revolution in his opinions. It is, as we have said already, no doubt due to the increased knowledge which he has been enabled to obtain of the provincial system. He can speak from an intimate personal acquaintance of its beauties. But we would also remark, that co-incident with this change of opinion on the part of the Provincial Secretary, there has been another one going on in the public mind of the province. The conduct of the Provincial Council under the guidance of the present Executive has alienated the regard of a large body of the electors of the province ; and each day is only adding strength to that dissatisfaction. It is a singular fact, that the same circumstance which has converted the Provincial Secretary into an ultraprovincialist, has had a directly opposite effect on the general public. • A monster in the form of humanity has been brought before the authorities, and the community may be congratulated that he will no longer serve as cause to ruffle the accustomed tranquillity of the Christchurch public. Men of business, who may on occasions be detained at their offices until after dark, may venture homewards without the slightest fear of being garrotted. Factory girls who have remained after hours, in order to execute a most important order, can walk to their suburban cottages without any anticipation of being molested on their journey. Extra bolts need not now be placed on the hall door, or watch dogs purchased for the back yard. Hen-roosts will be allowed to remain intact, and clotheslines will be inviolate. Highway robbery under arms will be a matter of history, and facial disguises will be dead stock upon the hands of the importers ; bushranging will be legendary, and the familiar salutation “ bail-up ” will become a figure of speech. Yes, indeed, for did not an event happen on Wednesday, that cannot fail to inspire the most phlegmatic constitution with feelings of the highest admiration for all the actors —save one — who took part in the scene. We are at a loss which to admire most —the humanity of the mother, the activity of the police authorities, or the manner in which the dignity of the law was sustained. One Albert Atherton Jones, aged four years, was brought before the Court as utterly incorrigible, and after a patient hearing of the case, the culprit was ordered to the Industrial School for the period of seven years. To such a depth of degradation had this hopeless scion of the house of Jones descended, that really his estimable parent felt the absolute necessity of relegating hef duties to the Provincial authorities. We refer to the Appropriation Ordinance, 1875, and there find the amount of £950 as voted for the maintenance of the Burnham Reformatory for the financial period now current. We are aware that in some instances a charge is levied, wherever possible, for the maintenance of those who have ventured beyond the pale of law and order,, but, notwithstanding this fact, it must be allowed that the fuller the Reformatory becomes the more will this sum of £950 be encroached upon or exceeded as circumstances demand. We venture to affirm, that justice would have been perfectly satisfied had the magistrate informed the worthy matron that she showed an uncommon want of common sense, and ordinary firmness, in allowing such a case to come before the Court, The very idea of a child of four years old being incorrigible is perfectly preposterous. The heavy expenses of Government which the public are defraying are sufficiently oppresive without their being saddled with the maintenance of children commencing their term of incarceration at such a tender age as the youthful Jones, The Provincial authorities may have been guilty of parading certain questionable attributes, and the public, for reasons best known to themselves, have tacitly assented to their position. The assumption of the role of parental monitor, however, is straining the point rather too far, and we protest against a judgment which condemns a child four years of age to the Reformatory for a lengthy term, before it has scarcely been possible to inculcate his mind with the difference between good and evil.