THE PRERPGATIVE OF MERCY.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVI, Issue 1596, 2 July 1861, Page 5

THE PRERPGATIVE OF MERCY.

We have, to.-day reprinted from the L Assembly proceedings, the conversations which have taken place on some of the few subjects likely to interest our readers. One of them will doubtless excite sur?prise. Has our Superintendent beeii setting " the Queen's supremacy" at defiance and, arrogating to himself the "royal prerogative of mercy?" The honorable the Colonial Treasurer says that certain documents, have been received which " seem to show" that such, is really the case ; and no wonder therefore that a northern cotemporary heads its notice of motion for papers by the alarming catch line " USURPATION OP THB ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF MERCY." Dr. Featherston is often charged with doing most extraordinary acts; but often as he " magnifies his office" and exercises ultra provincial powers, no one would for a moment give credence to his having assumed a prerogative of royalty, 'if Mi*. Richmond had not implied that such was the case. What extraordinary act has Dr. Featherston been doing? Reprieving some criminal sentenced to the gallows ; commuting some sentence of imprisonment for life ; opening the gaol doors to some desperado?; or has Mr. Curtis discovered a mare's nest;.. Is it as Mr. Renall says it is, " all a hoax." The fact is simply this. A couple' of months ago Inspector Atcheson was fined 40s. and costs for an assault on one Newey. That judgment seemed to the Superintendent a most unjust one, both in law and equity. The Inspector had been called upon to remove Newey from a house, and had done so, as all tne evidence but that of the, complainant himself most clearly proved, without any •undue violence. As Inspector Atcheson and the police who were with him could not refuse to put Newey out without shirking their duty, it seemed to be a hard case that the Bench should inflict

a penalty for so doing. Even, however, if law had. necessitated the imposition of a fine, (which we are assured it did not) justice certainly demanded that it should be remitted, and it was remitted accordingly. The power to remit fines under £20 or imprisonment under three months duration, was expressly delegated i;by, ,sir Greor^e Grey ih a circular^ letter 1 ' addresed to the" Superintendents of Provinces on the sth August 1853, and has been exercised as occasion required by most of them. Sir George Grey was perfectly well aware how needful it was to give the power to some local authority to remedy the evils which would often result from the infliction of Justices' justice, if the appeal had always to be made .to the Governor at a distance. Justices are not always " up" in their law, and. sometimes make sad mistakes. We refrain from illustrating this remark by any local anecdotes, of which many must occur to our readers ; but it is not very long ago that one of the Sydney Justices found his brethren of the Bench trying a case where a Chinaman was der • fendant. When informed that the charge ' was v arson," he replied, " Oh, fine him £5, and moke him marry the girl /" To counteract the ills inflicted by such Magistrates* the power of remitting petty fines and setences was delegated. The Superintendent of Wellington has on several occasions availed himself of the power conferred by Governor Grey, and on one occasion at least, where law and justice clashed, the infliction of a fine has been accompanied by the Magistrate's assurance that he would seek its remission from His Honor. A return of these remissions was laid before the, Assembly last session and. published, from which we learn that the Superintendents of Otago (Cargill) had made remissions 28 times ; , Nelson (Stafford and Robinson) 9 times ; Taranaki (Brown and Outfield) 7 tinies ; and Wellington (Featherston) 3 times. Thus this outcry about the " usurpation of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy" is, after all, just what Mr. Renall says it is — only a hoax.