The Petitions Committee Justified.

As it has been pointed out, the finding of the Commissioners rather more emphatic than a verdict of "Not Guilty," since they say not only that "it would on such a retrial have been proper to acquit the claimant," but also that "'we should have so stated to the jury." Thus the fundamental and only disputed finding of the Petitions Committee is more than justified; and it follows that the recommendations which they based upon it must be carried out.

Ignoring the Report.

To the credit of the Commissioners be it said that they definite in their recommendation that "the claimant," as they love to call him, should be cleared of the criminal stigma. They propose that either a free pardon should be granted to Meikle-it is surely time that the farce of pardoning people page 36 whose pardon we should be asking for wrongly convicting them was abolished—or that, as suggested by the Adolph Beck Committee, "the simpler remedy should be Adopted of quashing the conviction on motion by the Attorney-General and entering an acquittal as of record." For the latter course legislation would be necessary, and "such legislation should be general in its terms," say the Commissioners," and should by no means be limited to the case of the claimant. It is impossible to resist a smile on seeing Ministers and Parliament engaged with a Meikle Acquittal Bill by way of currying out this emphatic recommendation of a general measure That the rest of the Commissioners' report will be ignore goes without saying, for nothing else could be done with it by a people of common-sense and self-respect. Recommendations, indeed, there are none on the subject of compensation for they have not yet made up their minds whether such a right exists in any case where neither misconduct nontechnical error can be imputed to a Judge, policeman, or other official. If they have not convinced themselves by their pages of see-saw reasoning on the subject, they certainly will not either convince or unsettle anybody else. It is positively ludicrous to see the learned Commissioners grappling labouriously, but vainly, with a simple moral issue by means of this forensic casuistry which is so dear to the heart of the lawyer so cramping to his intellect, and so paralysing to his conscience.

"Bounty" or Justice?

We may add that, as Mr. Justice Edwards was duly reminded during the argument—(C. 34-5)—Mr. Meikle's claim twelve years ago and now is in precisely the same position as that of a Supreme Court Judge who, having been removed from the Bench owing to a technical flaw in his appointment, petitions Parliament for redress. In each case the appeal is not to "bounty "or charity, but to the justice and the, honour of the country, and Parliament is certainly not going to make any distinction between the cases on the ground that in the one a judge was the victim and in the other a party to the wrong.

How the £500 was paid.

"A Touch of Human Sympathy."

From this two things are clear—(1) that the money was paid for convicting Lambert; (2) that the Government still held and proclaimed the recipient a sheep-stealer. Meikle said, "I am innocent; give me compensation." The Crown replied, You are a sheep-stealer, but you have convicted a perjurer at your own cost. We will give you £500 for that if you sign a full receipt." Meikle's acquittal having since been recorded by a tribunal appointed by the Crown itself, can the Crown honorably take shelter behind that receipt? To quote from the same authority to which we are already indebted:— page 38

"Is money paid as to a sheep-stealer for convicting a perjurer to cover the claim of the recipient to redress in respect of the charge of sheep-stealing, of which he is subsequently proved to be innocent, whatever the unfortunate man may have signed' in the meantime ? 'Claim' is, however, an ambiguous word, which lends itself readily to the litigious analogies of the Commissioners. Honour does not look primarily to the merits of the claim or of the claimant but to what is due to itself. The country owes it to itself to do something to right this man, and we do not believe that its conscience will be easy or its reputation clear until it has done so. Not forensic logic-chopping, but a touch of human sympathy and a chivalrous conception of public honour, are needed to settle the question, and the good feeling of the country will supply what may be sought in vain among the dry bones of this report."—"Evening Post," 20th April, 1907.

This is surely a point of view which will make a more effective appeal to any man with a heart than the nicely balanced doubts of the Commissioners. Mr. Meikle himself is cleared by their verdict after waiting for nearly twenty years, but the country's reputation will not be cleared unless it hastens to make what amends it can at this late hour for an irreparable wrong. After the sympathetic and kindly words of the Premier to the deputation which waited on him on the 25 th July some compensation is inevitable. For the credit of the country try, let it be handsome and handsomely given—" not grudgingly or of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver." For twenty years we, the people of this Colony, through the blundering of our Courts—for which, whatever the Commissions may say, we cannot honourably disclaim responsibility—have made the life of this brave old man a hell upon earth. Are we now to add to this involuntary wrong the disgrace of deliberate meanness and hardened cruelty by staying to haggle about the measure of redress ?