The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1882.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3565, 12 December 1882, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1882.

The New Zealand Times complains at the delay that has occurred in the distribution of certain printed papers that were moved for during last session of Parliament. One paper io particular, moved for by the member for Invercargill, showing the number of prisoners on whom additional terms of imprisonment had been passed during their incarceration for breaches of prison discipline, since the coming into force of the Prisons Act, 1873, has only just come to band. Reverting to the published return in question, the Times is constrained to say that it reveale an extraordinary state of things, and proclaims toe necessity for another Howard to effect reform in our gaol government and discipline. It appears that si me the passing of the Prisons Act in 1873, no fewer than 220 persons have had additional terms of imprisonment inflicted on them, varying from seven days to five years, accompanied in most cases with hard labor, and in some cases with solitary confinement. According to the figures supplied, the number of prisoners subjected to additional punishments is as follows :—At Dunedin, 163; Auckland, 18; Invercargill, 15 ; Addington, New Plymouth, and Wanganui, 5 each; Lyttelton and Wellington, 3 each, and at other places, 1 each. To quote from our contemporary : —" That which, on a perusal of this paper, strikes one as most startling and unaccountable, is that there seems- to be no recognised principle or rule by which offences committed by prisoners should be dealt with, and that the authorities and visiting justices of the several gaols do very much as they please. In Auckland, for example, though the number of cases seem large, the sentences are comparatively mild, as in do instance does the additional term of imprisonment exceed two months, while the original terms ranged from three to eighteen months, with hard labor. It is also to be noted that in' no instance does there appear to have been there more than one extension of the punishment, though it is poesible that this may be accounted for by, in all cases where more than one oftence had been committed, grouping them under one heading for sake of brevity. This is also a point of some importance on which the returns ought to bave left no doubt. This matter apart, however, it must be admitted that the discipline in the Auckland gaol seems to be comparatively lenient and just. But the returns from Dnnedin, on the other band, show very plainly that the prison administration there is such as to offer an outrage to our instincts of humanity and junice. Thus, one man is sentenced for three days with hard labor for being druck, and on successive charges of idleness — which in all the returns is the most common offence-is kept in prison for over six months. Another, imprisoned for larceny for one month with hard labor, is, on successive charges of idleness, condemned to remain for over seven months, aod dies before the last term of his detention expires. Cases of a similar nature appear on every one of the eleven pages occupied by the Dunedin return: but space will not admit of our doing more than to add that the discipline maintained there appears to be unique in its harshness. When, again, we look at the return for New Plymouth there is among the few cases mentioned an astonishing diversity, and even inconsistency, in the additional sentences recorded. Thus while one man, originally, imprisoned for two years with bard labor, gets one month additional, with one week solitary confinement on bread and water, for inciting prisoners to mutiny, another, sentenced at first for only one month with hard labor, is adjudged three months with solitary confinement for four weeks, at intervals of one week between each, to be kept in a separate cell all the time, for refusing to work. Similarly, we find one prisoner, with ten jears , penal servitude, gets two additional years for escaping from prison once. There is thus disclosed the astounding fact that, in a matter vitally affecting the liberty of the subject, and the safety of the community, there appears to exist no code of prison regulations by which the requisite discipline could be systematically maintained without permitting the possible exercise of that severity and tyranny which tend to make men mutiny." This is manifestly a state of things that ought not to be allowed No prisoner, be bis fault what it may should beat the mercy of his gaoler or Yhiting Justice. The punishment for prison offences ought to be regulated by statute, and the conviction of the accused ought to be the outcome of a fair trial, and of evidence by other witnesses besides the prison officials. The present return, defective though it be,

yet sufficiently demonstrates that our whole penetentiary administration is in a very unsatisfactory condition, and ought without delay to engage the serious attention of the Government. It is so far gratifying to know that the matter has already been engaging their thoughts.