The Globe. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1479, 12 November 1878, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1878.

A leading Dunedin paper, the morning h erald, seems to be much exercised over the fact that the Resident Magistrate of Christchurch, Mr. Hellish, lately sentenced a hoy to receive twelve lashes with the cat-’o-niuo-tails for having stolen some fowls. Our contemporary is excessively severe upon magistiates who thus appeal to the physical feelings of “poor urchins,” -and it rhapsodises at great length ?•> to the merits of moral suasion, wln-h it affirms should alone be used in the repression of crime among juveniles. Wo are scarcely prepared to endorse this view of the case. Mr. Mellish, it is well-known, is far from being a popular man, and his mode of administering justice has oftentimes been adversely criticised in our columns, which, iu those instances, wo think fully reflected public opinion. But, in the matter of dealing with larrikinism, it must be said that the Resident Magistrate has generally discharged the duty he owes to the community at largo, when endeavouring to put it clown, with a firm hand. The Dunedin herald admits — while it deplores it —that physical flagellation lias been frequently resorted to by the Dunedin Bench, wherever the latter deemed it conducive to straightening the crooked ways of youth there. But it takes a general and apparently an evangelical, and semi-ecclesiastical view of the question, and asks “ who, when once the hall is set rolling, shall say when or where it may stopa.” It argues that if the Magistrate of alary! town may with impunity sonLcmeo a hoy to suffer the horrors of the lash, om might naturally look to country contemporaries for a record of the like punishment uudor the authority of tho Great Lnpnid, and it furthermore affirms tliat fleggiug in tho case of a youthful offendci seems barbarous and degrading to a decree. “ Tho Magistrate who passes the seitenco —adds our friend —is practically irresponsible and free from ail control; for before his decision could he appealed against or a conviction re- [ Tferscd bj those process which tho law

alone recognises, the lacerated back of the poor urchin would only too plainly demonstrate how futile any appeal or attempt to upset the sentence must inevitably prove.” How impracticable are the good-natured arguments of the Herald, many of our readers, who have been sufferers from the increase of that social post larrikiuism, will find no difficulty in determining. Robbing of hen-roosts, pilfering from orchards and breaking of windows, are but minor offences nowadays, in comparison with the more serious class of (to them) pleasurable misdemeanours by which numberless boys or youths of pretty well seasoned years deem it manly to amuse themselves in the centres of population. And the Herald might have recollected that not very long ago, Dunedin hoodlums distinguished themselves by outrages such as, had our contemporary been exposed to them, the article to which wo refer would have never been written. Upon one occasion a shower of stones assailed a public band heading a procession through the town. Several instrument s were seriously damaged and numbers of people were severely injured. Not many days ago a similar display of the effervescence of juvenile spirits brought to grief a number of people witnessing volunteer manoeuvres in an enclosure and a newspaper reporter was badly cut about the face. Here in Christchurch, this larrikin evil is gradually assuming larger proportions. Gardens are devastated by midnight prowlers, any articles of A r aluo loft about back promises at night are missing in the morning, and the good old days when colonists could retire to rest with doors and gates unlocked, have gone by. A few days ago it was recorded that occupants of pleasure-boats on the Avon had been assailed by a number of boys armed with stones, who made great fun of (he attempts of their victims to resent the outrage. The “ manly ” language and general behaviour of half-grown youths who try to copy the vile obscenities of the worst class of their elders has long been notorious, as shown by police testimony. Whether moral suasion, as advocated by the Herald, could effect any radical changes in this state of things is more than questionable. And, it might bo asked, who are those who would undertake the task of infusing it ? In the generality of cases, parents may be left out of the question, as when it is not due to their neglect of their children that the latter go astray, it is owing to their inability to keep them in the right path. We know that for some time past it has been a matter for serious consideration with the Judges, let alone with Stipendiary Magistrates, what to do with juvenile criminals. Mr Mellish, wo believe, has long given the question more than ordinary thought. Our Dunedin contemporary will have it that “to expose a lad of tender years to the disgrace of corporal punishment is to apply a remedy worse than the disease.” When, however, the “ hen-rooster ” for whom it takes up the cudgels was brought before the Bench, it was found that the case was such as rendered it necessary to apply physical irritants. “ Spare the rod and spoil the child ” is a good old maxim. Physical punishment has always been part and parcel of the education of British youths in even the very best public schools, and wo are not aware that the result has been to demoralise Englishmen. Our best men, whether in the church, the army, or in Parliament, we make bold to say, received many sound hoggings during their youthful days. Later years has not proved that these a. posteriori arguments were misapplied. Far from it. And wo really do not sec why objections should bo jesuitical 1 / raised against the legal application of physical punishment in cases wind lu the opinion of Courts of bore upon their very faces _ “moralsuasion” would be a' effective as the traditional watery d' lU go upon a duck’s back.