The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY MARCH 8, 1883.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIX, Issue 6871, 8 March 1883, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY MARCH 8, 1883.

Wa give ia another column a curious j and intereeting table which we havej compiled from two Parliamentary i papers which have recently been pub-; luhed. It will be waemb«fed by oar J readers that there was some excitement j created a few months ago by the nam- i ber and severity of the eases of punishmeat indicted in Danedin Gaol, for priflcn offences, upon prisoners already ia confinement A return wits made in reply to a motion by Mr Feidwick, in which details are given as to the etfence% and the punishmaats inflioted for them by the Visiting Justices. And a very curious return it ia; and it seams to us to require a little wider publicity, and a little more oonsideration khan it has yet received. For it moat be remembered that the persons on whom these punishments are inflicted are not free agenta, breaking laws they themselves have helped to make, bat they sure prisoners subject entirely to the control of the prison officials, charged, for the most part, with offences which are only breaches of prison regulations, and are not offences against society, good order, or morality; tried in secret, before Judges not likely to view them with mach favour, with no legal assistance, with no jury, with no agents of the Press to report the trial, and convicted on the evidence of the prosecutors, who themselves carry out the sentences. It must be evident that, under such circumstances, the most careful scrutiny is required into the nature of the offences, their

frequency in particular gaols, and the greater or lees severity of the punishments.

The table shows the total number of prisoners actually in each gaol daring the year 1881, including all that were inmates on the let of January in that year, and all received daring the year. This part of the table we have *xtraetgd from the Registrar-General's report, p. 245. The third column contains the total number of punishments inflicted as shown by the return we have just mentioned, and the fourth column shows the proportion of punishments to every hundred of prisoners. It is obvious that the mere number of punishments, as shown by the retnra to the House of Representatives, would be of very little use without the two other columns, which we have been at some pains to calculate. Now, probably the first thing that will strike j the reader's eye in glancing over this table is the extraordinary proportion of punishments in Lyttelton and Addisgton gaols. In these two together the total number of prisoners wai 893, and the total number of punishments inflicted was 141, or rather over 17 per cent. In Dunedin, about which there was so much outcry (for a return covering a number of years), the proportion was only six per cent, in Auckland eight, and in Wellington ten. In Lyttelton five times as many punishments were inflicted as in any of the other large gaols of the Colony. Bat in Lyttelton the conditions are obviously less favourable. Hokitika apparently has a larger proportion, but in fact the return shows that in all the nine cases brought before the Visiting Justice the prisoner was discharged or cautioned, and no actual punishment was inflicted. Of course, there must be some explanation of this extraordinary difference. In Lyttelton the most trivial offences appear to have been brought before the Visiting Justices; nine are brought up for spilling oil, or " carelessly spilling oil on prison floor." One was brought up for passing bread from the hospital to a fellow-prisoner, and had a week in the solitary cells, but not on punishment diet; his fellow-prisoner, charged with receiving ] the bread, received a sentence of "no tea to-night, and to be locked up at once." Another is charged with " having concealed about his person a large ' sheet of brown paper." For tbis Mr ' J. 0. Phillips, gaoler, sentences him to be " looked up at once, no smoking for to-day." H.B. seems to have been a : troublesome customer. From Maroh 19 to Nov. 23 he seems always to have been in trouble. He positively refuses to obey repeated orders, he fights, he > has paper, pencil and tobacco concealed about him, he disturbs the prison at aigafc,he shouta from 8 to 9.3op.tau, he writes "improper communications after being repeatedly cautioned/' he assaults a fellow prisoner, he disturbs the quiet of the prison at 4a.a, making use of highly abusive language towards his officer, he is highly insub-

ordinate and refractory fro® f& S 5 to Oct. 2, ho is noisy >ft osll * 1 »« m *f p tt ßUbm«Bt (solitary confinement, wWek ho evidently determines shall not* be •oUtory,) and ha is tost of nil ntporMl for "highly iwoboraiwtj and refrae; tory conduct, from Oat 24 to Noy, *J. This was submitted to tha visiting Justices, Rod no award made, the Visiting Justices having either given uo the case i» despair, or determined to try what gentler means would do. From this time forth there is no mention of H, E. No on© can read I the llit of charges and the punishments awarded, without seeing dearly that iu default of explanation thero most have been a mi want of proper management, JMany of the obarges are ao truoa* jpory that it would bavo been wiser to take no notice of them, and some of the punishments are extremely severe for twf trivial crime*. For instance, Mr Beswiek gave ft mm three days' solitary confinement for having a newspaper in pcMtßession on the public works. Asking a free workman for matches is punished by "being looked tip till Monday morning" that in, from Saturday until Monday. Looking out of th© gratings at the cell door is punished by Mr J. 0. Phillips by the prisoner being looked up for three nights (after labour) in the solitary cell division. In another case the fearful crime of looking out through the bars over bit cell door in punished by Mr Phillips with a week's confinement in the solitary cells, except during working hours. But we must stop, for the return from Lyttelton Goal fills more than three pages of printed foolscap.

In Napier the cases were comparatively few, but the sentences were tremendously severe. Oa Feb. 16 the first case is pathetically reported as JT.B. " still refusing to work," and J.B. gets a farther term of six* months in irons, and one month's solitary confinement. On May 12 J.B. is "atill refusing to work," and gets another month's solitary. Fighting mi using obscene language is punished in P.L. with four weeks' solitary confinement; breaking windows and using threatening language gets the same sentence, while simple disobedience gets 48 hours' solitary in Napier, aad in Addington three days' solitary confinement on bread and water is given for the same offence in one case, and four ddyaia another. We forbear to make any more quotations, but commend the return to the consideration of the Minister of Justice, who will doubtless see good reasons for enquiring carefully into the matter.