THE WEEK.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XI, Issue 246, 7 October 1876, Page 2

THE WEEK.

Who says the members of our House of can't work when they are so disposed? I really am quite disgusted at the flneeriog tones in which they have been alluded to of late. People say, "Hero the session has lasted nearly four months, and not a thing done yet ; really it is time we were represented by men who can work and will work," but no matter what the public say I fall back upon the question with which I started—Who says they can't work? Aud why I ask this with such an air of assurance is because a recent telegram informed us that within the space of an hour or two the House on Wednesday night got through an amazing amount of legislative business. We were told that Mr Bowen moved the second reading of the Public Health Bill, and that, notwithstanding considerable opposition being offered to it, it was read the second time, went through Committee, only one trifling amendment being effected in its long array of 153 clausess read the third time, and passed. And then yoa say our M.H.B.'s do no real workl What utter nonsense tbis is! Just consider the amount of thought and earnest consideration a Bill containing 153 clauses, and bearing upon that most important of all matters — the public health— must involve. Think of the strain on the minds of legislators, the concentration of their thoughts on this particular subject tbat must have been required in order ;that each individual one of the 153 clauses should not when passed contain a single objectionable provision. Did not this mean work; real, hard, wearisome, exhausting mental work! How absurd, how unjust, how unfair it seefras to cavil at the Parliament spending three months in mere talk when we have proof positive that they can rattle off the business in this sty]e. Keally lam getting awfully proud of our senators, instead of being as I was, before tbat telegram reached us, a little bit ashamed of them. If each one of the 153 clauses of the Public Health Act proves to be faultless — and why shouldn't it?— and if all the rest of the necessary legislation is carried out in an equally prompt, ready, and able manner, what can there be to growl at in June, July, August, and September having passed by without anything to show for them? It is high time that we were more charitable in our criticisms upon our Parliament men and their Acts. A hundred and fifty-three clauses in one hour or two. Just think what it means.

j From the frequent references made I to it in telegrams and other forms the j Eabbit Nuisance Bill has probably long ere this been voted a nuisance by the public of Nelson, very few of whom are troubled to any great extent by tbe | little pests against which it ia proposed I to bring into operation the strong arm of the law. But it may not be generally known tbat even within a few miles of this town the depredations of I those mischievous little wretches are i attended with consequences almost [ ruinous to some of our settlers. This is what was told to me by one of the sufferers a few days ago, On 500 acres of land he and hia friends bad within twelve months destroyed over 4000 of them, and yet a diminution in their numbers was in no way perceptible. With several acres laid down in English grasses he is compelled to purchase hay for his horses, for it is impossible to grow it, owing to the incursions of the ravenous rabbit ; last year he had two acres of potatoes which had been kindly allowed almost to arrive at maturity, and were calculated to yield at least ten tons to the acre. Suddenly their agreeable taste and nutritive quali^ ties were discovered by the insatiable vermin, and in the course of a week or two they were so completely disposed of that little was left besides the mere shells, and my friend had to buy for bis own use, where he was calculating upon selling a considerable quantity. These things are common enough in some of the districts of this Island, but few perhaps are aware of the extent to which the evil exists here. He who first turned out rabbits in the "Waimea little thought of the ruinous results that were to attend his acclimatising propensities. '

The reduction to an absurdity, when it can be fairly brought into the field, is by no means a contemptible reserve to bring np in the course of an argu-, ment, and I think I may use it now without in any way laying myself open to a charge of being unreasonable. It may be remembered that I have on more than one occasion called attention to the silly and objectionable form of " viewing the body" at au inquest, and I think I can now adduce an instance of the practice being carried to an absurd extent. We have all heard of the "Balham Mystery," which is agitating the minds of the English public, and we know that when the last mail left the second inquest was proceeding. The form with which that inquest was to be opened never occurred to me until I read the following paragraph in the Globe of June 27 :— "The old inquisition has been quashed and a direction issued to the same coroner to institute a fresh inquiry before a new jury. There is every reason to suppose that the inquest now to be held will be as full and searching as the other was incomplete. Only one inconvenience results from the plan which the court has adopted. The new ; jury must, as such, open their investigations in sight of the body— a distressing formality which might have been dispensed with if the old jury had been summoned afresh. The law is formal on the point, and in a case of this sort the observation of all forms is particularly to be desired." Isn't this a charming " formality?" The body of the poisoned man, mutilated at the post mortem examination, and buried a couple of months, bad to be dug up in older that the coroner's jury might be assisted in their deliberations by an inspection of the loathsome object. I should like to know how many of the happy twelve looked at the mass of I corruption placed before them, and if any of them did so to what extent they would thereby be aided in solving the v mystery." Verily some of the manners and customs of ua English people savor very strongly of barbarism, this " viewing the body " being one of tbe most barbarous.

Most of " the changing scenes of life" have their two sides, the one bright, the other dark. So I thought when reading Mr Justice G-illies' recent charge to the Auckland Grand Jury. If I saw the number of natives charged with serious crimes decidedly on the increase I should regard it as a proof that they were growing in immorality and wickedness. .Not so, however, does Judge Gillies argue. He takes a far more hopeful view of the matter, as will be seen by the following extract from his charge: — " One peculiarity of tbe calendar on this occasion is the large proportion of native cases, there being no less than five out of the seventeen cases against Maoris. This indicates, I believe, not so much any increase of crime amongst the natives as an increasing desire to appeal to the law for redress of their grievances, rather than to trust to their own law of utu. If such be the case, we must hail it as a hopeful sign of progress." I suppose the light in which you regard passing events depends a good deal on the state of your liver, but I confess that mine would require to be in a remarkably healthy condition before I could hail the appearance of a large number of native cases on the calendar of the Court as a " hopeful sign of progress."

The honorarium-cum - railway - freepass epidemic appears to be spreading in a manner that is truly alarming. I see that the Waimea Road Board has had a bad attack to which it would have succumbed had it not been for tbe extra strong constitution of the Chairman which pulled the patient through. I fancy though that it must have been by way of sarcastic comment on the noble geuerosity displayed by the members of the House of Representatives towards themselves that it was moved in the Board that its members should receive "an honorarium of £100 per annum and free passage on the railway." However, sarcasm or not, the proposition was very nearly carried, Bhowing how dangerous it is to Bet a bad example. Let our legislators ponder over this. P.