The Globe. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 736, 28 October 1876, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1876.

Here is a “pretty kettle of fish !” The House of Representatives have thrown out the votes for the Inspectors of Prisons and of Lunatic Asylums, who had been “ ordered ” from Great Britain to take charge of those institutions. The Inspector of Prisons’ appointment has for some time past been in the hands of the colonial agents at home, who had been instructed to take steps to secure the services of a gentleman thoroughly qualified for the office. What the active Agent-General may have done in the matter, and how far he may have committed the colony to any particular individual is not known yet. The telegraph will doubtlessly be used at once to stop proceedings, if not too late. As to the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums, he has long since been appointed, and is on the way out. The gentleman in question is a Dr. Skae, a man who holds a very high rank as a “ mad doctor,” and who, besides, has had a large and varied experience in Europe in the organisation of Lunatic Asylums. Dr. Skae is expected at Wellington shortly, when the pleasant intelligence will reach him on landing that he has been “abo- “ lished ” by “ Act ” of Parliament. Now for the little bill: When engaged at home, he stipulated for and obtained (wise man, evidently used to vagaries of colonial life !) a three years’ engagement, the sum total to be paid him whether his services be retained or not. Thus, as the salary agreed upon was to be £7OO per annum, together with passage to New Zealand, the country is now saddled with a charge of some £2300, without any quidpro quo being secured in return. We lose, besides, the services of an officer, which would have proved of immense value. This absurd and childish behaviour of our sapient legislators can scarcely be credited. Having to pay the money, why cancel the appointment? Of course the Government duly pointed out the ridiculous position in which the House was placing itself, but it proved of no avail. Some Opposition members, who must certainly have lingered too long at Bellamy’s, expressed themselves to the effect that they did not care what amount of compensation would be incurred, but the appointments they would have quashed at any cost. This is the result of too protracted a session; and it shows, but too clearly, what lamentable fate may overtake measurss of importance, even when brought up for discussion at so late a stage of the year’s proceedings. Surely Dr. Skae will go home very much struck with the manner in which things financial are carried out at the Antipodes, What would Rothschild think of his securities, when hearing how the most overtaxed country in the world can afford to toss overboard a paltry ten thousand !

The Volunteer vote for the Middle Island was not killed in Committee of Supply, but considerably “scotched.” The feeling in both Houses was unexceptionally strong this session against its continuance, and for very obvious reasons. Most members thought that all that was wanted in the way of defence was the maintenance, on a sound footing, of the Artillery corps. As it was, the vote would have been rejected had not Mr. Reynolds stupidly urged the extinction also of some of the North Island grants. In order to snub the member for Port Chalmers, and for nothing else, the House passed the item in gloho. By the bye, while on the subject of Volunteers, what is the meaning of those warlike rumours which have found their origin, we believe, in a most mysteriously-worded advertisement in local paper ? What is known, among “ those who love to light and bleed for their country,” as a “general order,’ informs us that a well-known and gallant cavalry officer, M having been reported fit for duty,”

will resume the command of the Canterbury Yeomanry Cavalry from date; and that (accordingly, we presume) the corps will parade—mounted for inspection. It is doubtless very considerate on the part of the Colonel-commanding to use such explicit language when “ rounding up” his military friends. But why this fitness—or otherwise — for duty ? Has the officer in question seen any special service of late, by which honourable marks testifying of his valour have temporarily disabled him from his post ? This is a matter pregnant with interest, and which has already excited considerable discussion in well-informed military circles, and among non-combatants even.