PROTESTS HIS INNOCENCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18822, 10 March 1931, Page 9

PROTESTS HIS INNOCENCE.

Rouse’s Confession Denied. WIFE’S FAITHFUL ATTENTION. United Press Association--By Electrlo Telegraph—Ooprrlght (Received March 9, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, March 8. Mrs Rouse, who is a daily visitor to the gaol, denies that Rouse has confessed. On the contrary, he is constantly proclaiming innocence. Under British law, confessions before execution are never revealed. PETITION FOR REPRIEVE. AUTHORITY OF HOME SECRETARY.

It was reported yesterday that the Home Secretary had refused to reprieve Alfred Rouse, under sentence of death. It was revealed later that the remains of the unknown victim, who perished in Rouse’s burning motorcar are still uninterred. Many believe that Rouse could throw light on the identity of the victim whose burial has been delayed until the execution of Rouse, which is fixed for Tuesday. The “News of the World” stated that Rouse, since his appeal, had admitted his guilt, and said, “the jury were right.” He also said that he came to the conclusion from a conversation with the victim that he was an exconvict, who had resented inquiries as to his identity. Some days ago a petition bearing 5000 signatures on behalf of Albert Rouse was handed to the Home Secretary, Mr J. R. Clynes In view of the public interest in the case, this figure is remarkably small, compared with other unsuccessful petitions in the past. In Bywaters’ case there were 700,000, and in Vaquier’s 40,000. In the recent case of Victor Edward Betts, who was executed a few weeks ago for a murder at Aston in July, a petition signed by 20,000 persons was sent to the Home Secretary asking for a reprieve. The Home Office then issued the following statement:— Statements have been made in the Press by the secretary of the Council for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, and by others about the action of the Home Secretary in the case of Victor Edward Betts.

Some of these statements are mischievous and misleading, and others exhibit a complete ignorance as to the function of the Home Secretary in advising as to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Mr Clynes is as predisposed as anyone to take a merciful view and to recommend the prerogative in cases where he is satisfied that there are good grounds for it, but it cannot be claimed that the proceedings in the Courts of Justice and the whole apparatus of the criminal law are to count for nothing if a public meeting passes a resolution or a petition is organised.

On grounds of public policy it is well that our law and practice should be in harmony with the national will, but we cannot have trial by jury in accordance with the law and later the consequences of the jury’s verdict set aside by the decision of a mass assembly.

Whatever Mr Clyne’s opinion is about capital punishment, he would view with dismay the practice which he is asked to follow of giving effect to personal opinions in these distressing capital cases. The responsible position of a Minister of the Crown will, he hopes, always enable him to subordinate his individual views so that without consideration of party or person the proper administration of the law continues, however Ministers or Governments may change.