The Globe. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1223, 4 February 1878, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1878.

If anything were wanting to prove conclusively that the inautlo of Jenkins has descended upon our venerable contemporary the Lyttelton Times, its article on Saturday would supply the evidence. We must confess that we perused that effusion with mingled feelings of regret and wonder. It is indeed sad to find uumistakeable evidence of senility in one who has so long coudosended to act the part of mentor to an unenlightened and ungrateful public, and who has always endeavoured by a kaliedoscopic change of opinions to carry out St. Paul's injunction to the letter. Hitherto these flights of genius, these extraordinary lucubrations, that of one morning contradicting the preceding, have been confined to the political arena. Our venerable friend has wagged its ancient head, and predicted utter ruin on tho colony if its wise counsels were not attended to. Its very cap border has stiffened with indignation when some daring politiciau after having boon solemnly warned by tho Cathedral square oracle as to what ho should do, has done precisely tho opposite. But recently, for somo reason or other, the dear old lady has taken it into her head to discourse garrulously —as in tho fashion of ancient gossip—on city matters. Tho City Council appears to be our venerablo friend's pot aversion. Liko unto hor prototypo Sairey Gamp, sho can't " abidge 'em," and no opportunity is lost of attacking them in that feeble and indecisive manner peculiar to the aged. Only a short time back the vials of wrath were poured out respecting the side channels. Of course our friend was wrong, but then the statements were so ingeniously inado ns to appear like truth, until contradicted. This however has now become so characteristic a part of the Cathedral square tactics that one ceases to bj astonished at it. The second essay on matters municipal appeared, as we have said, on Saturday morning, and is certainly a most wonderful production. Thoso who had the pleasure—nay more, gratification—of perusing tho highly dramatic picture given by our contemporary of tho late fire, will rejoice to find again in this article more of the same kind of "smart" writing. What we may call tho prologue is taken up by the vivid description of a fancy sketch evoked for the occasion. Then the article proceeds to assert that the recent bylaw as to the pace of vehicles round street corners is unnecessary. It is gratuitous folly, no such i-estriction is needed at all, and so the poor dear old thing meanders on. Our friend appears to forget that, for for somo two months, local paragraphs were constantly appealing in its columns, recording narrow escapes of pedestrians from reckless cabmen. After enlarging upon tho hairbreadth escape from a fatal accident, what was the moral pointed by tho Times ? Why, that measures should be taken by t\io authorities to put a stop to it. Over and over again was this reiterated. Dramatic pictures—which none can use so well as our contemporary —were drawn of unoffending citizens immolated on tho crossings by careless drivers. No one called more emphatically than the Times did for some euactment to prevent this, and the writer of the article could easily have seen this had ho desired. Now our contemporary is astonished, amazed, and wrathful because what, for some tinio past, has been urged persistently, and almost ad nauseam, has been done. Our contemporary gayjs:—

" Why this extreme measure ? Why this vexations harassment of tho lieges ? Why this pettifogging interference with the liberty of the subject?" Well, we will imitate, for once, our antiquated friend, and ask, " Why this sudden solicitude for drivers?" "Why this alteration in opinion P" Can it be because the minions of tho law have dared to take down tho name of one of those whom the Times delighteth to honour ? Is tho alteration in the views of our contemporary due to tho fact that a wellknown pillar of finance has been requested to attend Mr. Mellish's levee at an early dato on account of a breach of this ve.y by-law, almost at the gates of his sanctum ? So long as tho cabmen, the canaille wero concerned, the authorities wero told that it was their plain duty to protect tho citizens. Wero wo, they wero asked, to wait until a second enactment of tho tragedy at Hobbs' crossing ? But lo ! some of the salt of the earth are included in tho operation of tho new law. All our contemporary's Jenkinism is aroused, and what was necessary beforo is now, an " extremo measure," " vexa- " tious harrassment of tho lieges," " petti- " fogging interference with the liberty of " tho subject," and bo on. Now it is necessary to rescind this by-law, becauso forsooth it touches us too nearly. After what tho Times hai urged it should have been tho last to have spoken against the by-law. Nor would it have done so had the cabmen or such common people been tho only sufforers. It would have recorded tho fact of the fining of such obscure offenders with such unction, and no doubt improved the occasion with a few mild platitudes exprossivo of its joy that tho offenders against the by-law had at last received their deserts. But when a gentleman driving his own equipage is stopped all but in front of the palatial edifice over which jho rules, by a common policeman, to bo told that he will bo summoned for a breach of the by law, then the cups of retribution for the City Council is full. Tho enactment so earnestly desired is characterised as absurd, and with the war cry of " Jenkins to the rescue" our contemporary makes an onslaught on the City Council, the by law, and everything connected with it. Had the Council instructed the police not to interfero with any of " our set, yon know," and confined their services to taking dovn the numbers of cabmen and other common folk wo venture to say Ave should have heard nothing of tho " vexatious harrassment of the lieges,"