The Globe. TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1390, 30 July 1878, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1878.

On the strength of a statement made by an obscure Otago paper, the Auckland Herald sounds a note of warning to the members from that part of the colony. The Dunedin Aye, it appears, affirms, on what it professes to be good authority, “that at the meeting of the Assembly Mr. Rolleston and Mr. Bowen, with a view of detaching the Canterbury members from the side of the Ministry, intend moving for select committees or commissioners to inquire into the discipline of the various gaols in New Zealand, the design being to select Lyttelton Gaol as a central penal establishment. Those opponents of the Government,” the Age affirms, “rely on the active support of every Canterbury representative, and it is anticipated that by these means the old and disastrous dissensions between the members for Canterbury, Otago, and Auckland will he revived, and the Ministry, with its programme of liberal measures, upset.” Any one here must certainly be more than astonished to read the words wo have quoted above. Although professing to disbelieve that the Canterbury members could be actuated by such narrow motives of action, our Auckland contemporary, nevertheless, gravely discusses the danger to the Ministry arising out of this penal question. It is not to he the impounding of the laud fund, or the numerous other instances of mal-administration which is to form the basis of an attack upon the Government. What is to enlist all Canterbury members in opposition to the Ministry is the hope of securing the expenditure of some public money in Lyttelton in the construction of a central prison. What could have suggested the idea of prisons and prison discipline in connection with the “highway robbers” now in office we do not pretend to explain. The relationship is suggestive however. Nor do our contemporaries evince a very high opinion of the motives which actuate Mr. Rolleston and Mr. Bowen in shaping their political conduct. They are credited with selecting the expenditure of a paltry sum of money on a prison in Lyttelton as a centre round which they hope to rally Canterbury members, and which will draw deserters from the Ministerial camp. Wo have never entertained a very high opinion of the motives and judgment of the Canterbury supporters of the Government. They are not numoi’ous, nor are they very influential, hut we cannot imagine Mr. Brown, or Mr. Montgomery even, deserting from tho Ministerial camp for such a cause. They have calmly supported the Cabinet in spoiling Canterbury of money which would have built a splendid penal establishment —money which would not have been spent upon a uou-reproductive work in Lyttelton, but would have been circulated, iu the form of wages to the working man, all over the provincial district. In these circumstances, why should they bo supposed capable of aiding tho Government, on the one hand, to take the laud fund from Canterbury, and then combining to extort a doubtful advantage on tho other. As regards Mr. Rolleston and Mr. Bowen, it is absurd to suppose that, if they intend to attempt to collect the Canterbury members into one camp, they would select such a paltry rallying cry as “ the question of prison discipline, and the erection of a central prison or penetcutiary for long-sentenced criminals.” Wo are afraid our contemporaries are measuring other people’s corn with their own bushel. Auckland, iu the old provincial days, used to ho a constant pensioner on tho colonial bounty, and combinations of the nature referred to were common enough amongst its members. Canterbury representatives, however, have no occasion to appeal to the feelings of “ selfishness and localism” if they wish to make attacks upon the Government. Without departing from matters of the widest application—the eternal principles of justice aud honesty -—they might easily find material for an attack upon the Government which should rally round them every member who has any regard for the credit of tho colony.