THE LONGHURST PETITION.

Kumara Times, Issue 2042, 15 March 1883, Page 3

THE LONGHURST PETITION.

In reviewing this petition, which we published last Monday, the Christchurch Press gives a very diffeient version of the affair to that which has been got up by Messrs Dwan and M £ Keever. The editor remarks “In this case of Longhurst the Ministers, with, no doubt, the most anxious desire to do what is right, have, after consultation with the Judges, declined to advise his Excellency to interfere with the operation of the law ; and his Excellency, after carefully considering the evidence placed before him, has decided that he sees no reason for interfering with the sentence. This petition that is now being circulated is neither more nor less than an attempt to force the Ministers, by pressure of popular agitation, to rescind that determination, and to act in opposition to their own conscience and judgment in the most solemn function entrusted to them by the Constitution. Now, we have unbounded confidence in the integrity and wisdom of the Ministers as the advisers of the Governor with respect to the prerogative of mercy. We are convinced that they have thoroughly investigated the case, and having given careful consideration to all the circumstances, have adopted what they believe to be the right course regarding it. They are all men of sound common sense and of humane disposition, and two of them, the Premier and the Minister of Justice, are, perhaps the ablest lawyers in the country. It is monstrous, therefore, to suppose that, either from stupidity or cruelty, they are guilty of the crime of advising the keeping a fellow creature to a degrading punishment, who is morally and legally entitled to his liberty. Yet this is what the petition before us lays to the Ministers’charge. We do not believe a word of it. The Ministers have, we may be sure, sufficient reasons for not advising the release of Longhurst and those reasons, whatever they may be, should be sufficient for the public. We have said that we have entire confidence in the integrity and wisdom of the Ministers in this matter. We may say, on the other hand, that we have no confidence at all in the wisdom of the promoters of the petition.”