South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2824, 13 April 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1882.

The resignation of the Hall Government in a body has set the wits of the knowing, ones, to work. All sorts of rumors*;,are floating about the air), some professing to be inspired, and Others mere-flights of fancy. A great deal is made in some quarters of the Governor’s ignoring any, possible adtice th& ; Retiring ...Ministry might offer’ and selecting Sir Georgo Grey instead of a nominee of the Cabinet. For our own part we do not see any Occasion for such an * outcry, 1 and we shall presently give our reasons for not joining .in it. Only'three things can lead to the resignation of a Government —either " they do not possess the confidence of the country, of they are unable to agree among themselves, or they findi themselves unable to agree with the. Governor. Ip this case 1 the Premier’s reason’ for resigning is of course a plain one, which persons of every shade of bpinioa will learn with regret. With Mr Hall, personally,,therefore 'we have no fjipthqr,concern in,- the. discussion'. Why the Cabinet did not, however, proceed at opce .to select: another member as Premier, vfs not quite so* clear. ’ Patliament is .about to meet, and -it maf be reasbriabljr presumed that aiMinistry intent oh the' work of the country ' and 'prepared to meet the House woulA have sttiick to the ’ ship although weakened by the loss of the captain. Here, as we think, lies the key to the whole matter.. : We have no doubt (though of course we can not pretend,dike our morning contemporary, to be “in a position to state positively ”) that when Parliament meets the real reason for their resignation, when disclosed, will prove to be that they, are,, unprepared with ahy Bills or useful measures with, which to; meet the House. All them peripatetic business of the past season, this walking, up, and down, and, to and, fro’, this sounding of new members, and this mysterious style generally have convinced them 'that.- a strong, even irresistible, opposition awaits them r at the commencement of the session. They therefore, regarding prudence a»; the better part of valour, have thought it best to withdraw at their leisure—have preferred, in fact, going quietly down stairs to being kicked down. Now, as to the action of His Excellency! the Governor* in sending for Sir George Grey. We should like to be informed in what the illegality or breach of constitutional . usage lies. The Governor is not bound to act at the bidding of a Cabinet which throws up the sponge just before public business is brought • forward. The resignation of the Ministry is sufficient evidence that they - do not possess the confidence of the country, or that they are not fit to meet the country., This being so, common sense would dictate the propriety and expediency of sending for the chief of the Opposition f and if Sir George Grey is not the leading oppositionist, we should like to know who is. It is all very well for humble but expectant friends to vent their disappointed rage thus, and tp get up a case. Those who really have the good of the country at heart will, throw in their weight with the new Government when appointed, since the old one has proved itself unable to “ come up to time.” We felt it our duty last night to complain of the conduct of our morning contemporary

in making rash assertions, and utter-ing"ill-considered and (as the event proved) false prophecy. This evening we must still protest against the ione adopted by the “ Herald.” We are in such and < such, a position. 'We know what is and what should be. We are- the people, let all the rest of humanity listen respectfully to us. This sort of thing, this lofty air, was what Shakespeare had in mind when he penned those well-known and oftquoted. words “I am Sir Oracle ; when I do ope ray mouth, let no dog . bark.”-, The public of New Zealand are by this time quite surfeited with it. They know quite well how to estimate the pretensions of “ inspired organs,” and the utterances of those individuals who profess to be behind the scenes, in every political crisis. Bombast has always one •offe use. It has the effect of placing the person who employs it at ease with himself. Having given utterance to it, the speaker looks round him with the utmost self-satisfaction. If any obscure .fellow chooses to differ from him,, why, confound him, he is a presumptuous fool. Now this style cannot commend itself intelligent hiinds. Sensible people cannot tolerate it, and it is melancholy to think that such arrogance should betray itself in a journal professing to guide public opinion. For this is not guidance, it is misleading.

On the Isih • of -March last there appeared before,, the Central Police Court, Sydney, one Mary Anne D’Arcy,.- She was a married woman holding a “ protection order,” and she charged her,; husband l with burglary and the theft from her of the sum of £lB. It appeared it was the cruelty of her husband that had forced her to apply for .the protection order, and since then (about a year) she and her husband had lived- apart. The case was plain enough. The woman had been fobbed of her ehfhings, and she held an order from the Supreme Court protecting those earnings. And so ;far the*.Bench admitted the justice of her claim .for the. -punishment of the thief, though he might be her own tbusband... But, iu spite of this, the Magistrate was .compelled to stop the case before it had been fully heard and to intimate to the poor woman’s counsel that there was no provision in the 'Act' for a case of this kind. Should. any ; , dispute , about property occur between man and wife) it might be,brought .to civil trial, but .could not be subjected ,to criminal process. Husband and. wife ..are debarred from taking criminal proceedings, unless in summary' cas.es, against one another, by the simple fact that neither can give evidence against the, other. The poor woman then" had to stand down and submit to the cruel wrong while holding in her hand a vastly formidable ddcument that pretended to shield her. This monstrous inconsistency calls attention to the state of our Statute Bookr, and to legislation l • generally. Measures are introduced by earnest, well-meaning men as" remedies for particular and, glaring abuses. They appear effective and workable, and in |the warmth and enthusiasm of the time they, pass into law... It is,perhaps, inot for a long time after that some lease occurs which to everybody’s surprise shows that their special act comes into collision, in some particular, with an existing Statute, and is rendered inoperative, and its effectiveness and power are therefore nullified. This is a - case- in - point.- An Act d esighed for the express purpose of protecting the earnings of married women against their husband’s creditors,., or anybody else' to whom they, are not justly responsible, is powerless ~to protect them from robbery' by the husbands themselves. Surely such a contingency Ought to have been foreseen. Things have come to a sad pass when a married woman has to. invoke the law to protect her during the life of her husband. If :hia , conduct should render such a ~course;on her part necessary,, however, it. is, surely quite pjrobable that if an opportunity presents itself he will rob her. If his conscience does not’prick him for his neglect, it will not restrain him . from theft. Should he actually commit such a theft his wife is quite at his mercy. The poor woman must bear it in that uncomplaining silence only too familiar to her sex. Surely some provision for this ought to be made : the more so,, as when the bull-headed creatures who are accustomed to use their wives with brutality come to find out that so far as they are personally concerned the “ Married Women’s Protection Act ” is 1 a., dead letter, they, will have no scruple, in plundering their wives whenever opportunities 'present themselves, ' ‘