WHO SHALL BE FIRST ?
Melbourne is having a run on quefetioss of precedence — those nice questions over which bhe inberested ones grow so desperabely earnest 4 , while bhe uninterested pub bhe bongue ia bhe cheek. First the Premier and the President of the Legislative Council fell out over which should ride nearest to Lord Brassey in his reception procession. In bhe. end they bobh had bo ride in bhe same carriage, for the noble lord kicked at Mr Turner's comfortable arrangemenb that " I and the Attorney -general will ride wibh the Governor." Auother nice little disturbance seemed brewing when Mr Wanliss aaked in the Legislative Council how ib came aboub bhab Archbishop C*rr and Bishop Goe had places on the dais at bhe Governor's levee while the moderator of bhe Pre3byt?rian Assembly had none. He reed a letter from bhe moderator, who said bhe Queen had labely gazetted a law of precedence by which the moderator of tho Church of Scotland bad bhe same official rank and place a3 bishops of the Church of England, with the title of " Right Rev.," while ex-moderators were bo bs called " Most Rsv." The Solicitor-general, however, nipprd bbc brewing difficulby in the bud. The arrangements at the levee were, he said, tliß Governor's affair solely, and the Government could nob be expecbed either to answer questions or geek explanations upon the subjecb. Bub it turns out that Mr Wanliss and Dr Renboul were " at sixes and at seveDS." The politician was referring to the Governor's levee and the clergyman to the reception in the Exhibition Building. Dr Renloul now explains that tha moderator , has always been treated w.th the greatest courtesy at Government Houso ; and though he was nob placed in a seat of honour at the exhibition he has been assured bhab ib will not occur again. A third precedence question was a military matter. In Victoria the military is in two classes— the regulars and the militia. Majorgeneral Sir Charles Hollcd-Smith, the senior regular officer, is cf course without doubt in command wh«n he is in the colony. But when he leaves ib he claims to have the righb of nominating his locum tenens. Colonel Templeton is the senior militia officer. He claims that when the gener&l is away bhe command devolves upon him by right. And he goes furbher, for he takes oommaud — at less*"., he has done so over the heid of the officer to whom it has been deputed. - Now, if the general confers the command upon one man and another .assumes it the dire offence of a breach of dis'ciple — the unpardonable sin — has been committed. Colonel Templeton's duty is nob be jump the position, bub to obey his general and protest bo bhe Defence department. Therefore nothing will appease the wrath of Majorgeneral Sir Charles Holled-Smith bub bhe disobodienb colonel's retirement, and Colonel Templebon, ib is said, is bo be rebired accordingly. — [We have learned by cable bhab the difference between bhe bwo officers has bees arranged.! A WOMAN HANGED. Mrs Williams, who was hanged on bhe daj before bha Cup, was the third woman in succession hanged in Melbourne. Mrs Koorr and Mrs Needle were the other two. Mrs WilliaaiE tried hard to escape bhe scaffold. She dreaded bhe shame of such an ending. She stated thai she was pregnanb (in which case the law would have respited her), and though bhe doctors said she wasn't bhere were numbers of people whe accepbed her sbabemenb ngainst bhe docbors', and were only convinced when Dr Shields sebtled the question finally by a post morten examination. Mr Hancock championed the woman in Parliament-, and out of it the Rev Charles Strong, Marshall Lyle (the defendei of Deeming), and a good many others Some of them desired the remissior of the death penalty on one plea, somt on another : Dr Strong and Mr Lyle objecb t< hanging on principle, male or female. Bub bhe Government were resolved. All the same ther< is a good deal to be 6aid for bhe view that Mrs Williams wa3 a fib subjecb for clemency. Hei crime, looked at on the surface, was a heinous one enough. She drowned her four-year-ole boy at Port Melbourne, bying a Bbone to thi innocenb little fellow to keep him down, anc only regretting afterwards that the water wai so clear that she could not help seeing hii death struggles on the bottom. It was tyio( bhe sbone that hanged her— the act showec such callous deliberation. Bub consider th< woman's history. Manied at 14 ehe was i mother, fit !&• Star, husband, was drunken. *n<
brutal, and after a miserable brawling existence of some years she left him. They were separated four years, and then came together again. The husband took ill and died in the Melbourne hospital two years ago. She went downhill— sometimes taking to the Btreets, sometimes seeking the protection of a paramour. Her last paramour was drunken, and by this time she was drunken also. Ib was after a drinking bout she drowned her little one. The police theory was that she got rid of it bo enable her to have her fling ; the child was in her way in her vicious life. But if prisouers arc callous, sometimes police and Crown prosecutors are callous too. It is their business to secure a conviction and to paiub all prisoners with a black brush. There was no one to say miny good words for Mrs Williams. She had tried in vain to get rid of her child — leaving it here and there and trying lo place it with the charitable in vain. The State will stand no nonsense of that kind. The police always succeeded in tracing the mother of the waif, and the magistrates, interpreting the law as they found it, commanded her to maintain it. What was the future to be ? Did the mother argue ib out ? And did she conclude that death, whilst purity and innocence were its portion, was best ? Perhaps she imagined Heaven would be kinder than the State; thab she would give her babe the chance of angelhood, of which her care of it on earbh could only rob ib. And if Lord Bratsey, in his first week of office* had refused to seal an execution warrant on so frail and erring a sister, few could have raised a word in blame. Mrs Williams was one of the "submerged benbh" truly. She never had a chance.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW18951128.2.211
Bibliographic details
Otago Witness, Issue 2179, 28 November 1895, Page 57
Word Count
1,077WHO SHALL BE FIRST ? Otago Witness, Issue 2179, 28 November 1895, Page 57
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.