Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1352, 6 September 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1883.

The Longhurst case was again brought before the public on Fridaylast, when, in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Public Petitions reported to the House that they had been unable to go into the whole of the available evidence at this late period of the sesions, but recommended that the petition should be referred to the Government for consideration. Had it not been for Mr E. Shaw no doubt the question would have been left in status quo. That gentleman, having in view the unsatisfactory manner in which the question has been hitherto dealt with by the Government, proposed to insert the word “ favprable ” before consideration. The circumstances of the case were then fully discussed by the House and are briefly these: —Geobge Long-’ hurst was tried and convicted on a charge of rape upon his cousin, a girl named Adams, then about eight years of age, and in addition to a long term of imprisonment, was sentenced to two floggings. Subsequently grave doubts arose as to his guilt, and circumstances having arisen to justify the action, Adams, the father of the girl, and the girl herself, were put upon their trial for conspiracy and convicted. A technical point was then raised by the defence to the effect that the girl, being of such tender years, was legally irresponsible. Upon these grounds the conviction was quajhed. There was no flaw whatever in the evidence, and the verdict was set aside upon purely technical grounds. According to the foregoing it must follow that the second verdict of guilty could have no other effect than that of proving the innocence of the victim to their conspiracy. It certainly had this effect in the eyes of all the people of the Colony. Notwithstanding this, and in spite of numerous representations made, the Government have, up to the present time, persistently and anomalously refused all prayers having for their object the release of the injured man. And now a petition presented to the House and signed by thousands, has been sought to be shelved for the alleged reason that the Committee were unable to go into the whole of the available evidence on account of the want of time, but recommended it to the consideration of the Government. The debate, which lasted all the afternoon, at one time assumed an exceptional character, inasmuch as Mr Hutchison moved “That the doubt is so great as to Longhubst’s guilt, that the Royal prerogative should be at once extended to him.” Had this motion been carried, it would have had the effect of taking the exercise of the prerogative of mercy entirely out of the hands of the Executive. It is true that, as Mr Kelly succinctly remarked, the Government is the Executive Committee of the House. At the same time we must say that when this Executive Committee fails to carry out the clearly expressed wishes of the House, the sooner the Hou e appoints an Executive that will do so the better for the country at large. Mr De Lautoub imploring the House to pause before they took the prerogative out of the hands of the

responsible Ministers, and exercised it at the bidding o£ an assembly “ swayed by the pas* sions of the hour,” no doubt had a splendid theatrical effect, but had no more in it than his assertion that “ up till now the department of justice had been unsullied.” We think that the department of justice has been greatly sullied by their action in this Longhurst case. We cannot help thinking but what there has been too much law and too little justice in the matter. Under any circumstances we think more attention should have been paid by the authorities to the numerous representations and petitions which have been made and presented on this subject; and when it is proved to be such a most difficult matter for the people to obtain what, on the face of the known facts, appears to be bare justice, from those entrusted with the administration and control of the same, the sooner the prerogative is vested in some body more accessible and pliant to the laws of humanity, and the dictates of reason and mercy the better for the community at large. After what fell from the hon. Mr Conolly we have little doubt but what the Longhurst case will at last receive the “ favourable ” consideration of the Government, and that the young man will shortly be set at freedom.