perpetual succession and a common seal." The act provides for an inquiry ' m case of objection on the part of the 1 board, but we cannot see that any i valid reason could be assigned for 1 withholding assent to the prayer of the 1 petitioners that the Lyttelton Orphan age be constituted a separate institu- ] tion. The board could hardly object on 1 the ground that the public was wrong 1 and the board and the committee '_ right m the dispute between - them ( and Mr Ritchey, and that it was ( the intention of the subscribers to reverse the latter's dismissal. If , such, a foolish objection were to be £ raised it would be instantly brushed on one side. We know of no other objec- { tion which could be raised, and there appear to be no technical difficulties m " obtaining the Order-in-Oouncil. We, j therefore, look upon it as certain that within a few weeks the Lyttelton Orphanage will be constituted a sepa- J rate institution. A counter petition ' from outside subscribers is not to ' be expected, for the public haa been 1 unanimous m its verdict of strong dis- i approval of the course pursued by the ' board and the committee. We may f hope, therefore, that before long justice will be done, and an excellent public , servant ■ reinstated m an office from ( which he ought not to have been ( ejected. We have been much struck by ( the remarks of some of the members of ( the board at the meeting at which Mr Ritchey's summary dismissal was deter mined on. It is evident that they were ' not quite satisfied with the line that had been adopted from the first, and that they would have been very glad had the ' committee displayed a little more com- 1 mon sense and a little stronger desire ' to work amicably with Mr Ritchey. 1 There was also a repetition of the old I and thoroughly inadequate charges by ] way of excuse for what had been done. ' There was, however, no retreating on : the part of the majority, and the scale i was turned by one vote. 