Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4136, 23 June 1874, Page 2

It is not difficult to understand how an act of clemency on tho part of His Excellency tho Governor of New South Wales has all but upset the ministerial coach. Gardiner, the bushranger—so famous twelve or fourteen years ago—has been pardoned conditionally on his leaving that Colony, after having suffered imprisonment for ten years ; and tho Executive, blamed for recommending clemency to a culprit who had been sentenced to imprisonment for life, have only been saved by the casting-vote of tho Speaker. Mr. Parkes has been hardly used in this matter. There were two parties, apparently, engaged in the assault on the Government: those who really believed that the country was again placed in danger of internal disturbance and fear through the liberation of a distinguished horso-stealer and mail robber, and those who merely regarded tho occasion as a favorable opportunity for attacking a not unpopular Government. The latter based their objection to tho releaso of the notorious detenue" chiefly on the ground that it was tho act of Her Majesty's reprosentativo, contending that in all such matters as this the Governor should follow only the advice of his responsible advisers. They hold their case to be strengthened by the fact that returns before Parliament showed that tho clemency of tho Queen had been given, from timo to time, to at least a scoro of young Colonial "bloods" who had arrived at distinction by following the example of Dick Turpin, and other "heroes of tho road," when ITounslow Heath was tho favorite resort of footpads, and it was tho custom of English ladies and gentlemen, when approaching London, to conceal their valuables, and pray to the Saints to bo protected from tho knights of the heath. Tho dofonco of tho Ministry was that in theso matters Her Majesty's representative had exercised tho prerogative of mercy of his own free will ; and that in tho case of Gardinor, when called upon to consult with His Excollency, Mr. Parkes had simply statod tho case as it had been placed before him in numorous momorials in favor of tho prisonor, and had expressed no opinion whatever. It was shown, howovor, that on a previous occasion, when strong and influential representations in favor of Gardiner had

been made signed by members of former Governments, members of Parliament, magistrates, and representatives—we are led to believe —of the "best families" in New South Wales, the prisoner had received a promise that when he had completed a term of ten years' imprisonment, without complaint of his conduct in gaol, his case should obtain favorable consideration. It was confessed, however, that the Cabinet had resolved that there should be a change in the future in the manner in which the prerogative should be exercised, (so far as they were able to control it), and that in all future cases recommendations should be submitted to the Governor by the Cabinet when subjects of that kind came up for consideration. How far it is possible for the Government of any Colony to interfere with the determination of the representative of Her Majesty to exercise or refuse to exercise the power of pardon appears to be a matter which is scarcely left to Colonial Governments or Parliaments to determine. The privilege is beyond and above the Constitution Acts under which Colonial Governments exercise power, and therefore we may leave that portion of the debate in the New South Wales Assembly without discussion. We take it upon the plain ground of expediency. The subject of the conditional pardon of young colonials charged with bushranging, attracted no attention until the discharge of Gardiner from prison was proposed. But what had happened in the meantime? It was on the records of the Parliament of New South Wales that between twenty and thirty young men who had been convicted of offences on the road—robbery with arms, attacks on Her Majesty's mail, &c.—had been pardoned. Some, we presume, left the country to enter upon a new life where their old one might be forgotten ; but some to return to their own friends, and breathe the free air again even in the scenes which had been made notorious for the time by their dare-care exploits. But it is not on record that any one of those conditionally or absolutely pardoned convicts broke the pledge they had come under to peaceful subjects of Her Majesty for the future. So far the clemency of the Queen has not been abused.

Why the same mercy should not be extended to Gardiner can only be argued upon grounds which exhibit more of fear than of philosophy. It cannot be reasonably held that imprisonment should be perpetual, even though the original sentence may be for life. A more rational view of _ the object of punishment is now entertained than when revenge —a life for a life —was the main object sought by the law. Reformation is now wisely regarded as one of the objects to be attained, if possible ; but of what service is reformation to a person once convicted of a crime if the change of moral character is to be exhibited only in a cell, to the pitying warder, or the clerical consoler of the poor wretch condemned to pass his existence, though wholly and utterly useless to himself, his friends, and society—a prisoner in a cell to the end of his natural life. More humane ideas now prevail. In olden times a prisoner for debt might rot and rot within a gaol, without hope of release, while innocent dependents upon him might suffer punishment even greater in some respects than his, through no fault either of his or theirs. Modern ideas on that subject are more just, and are rapidly becoming still more benignant. Almost everywhere justice is now tempered with mercy. At home, good conduct invariably secures for a prisoner material shortening of his sentence. In some of the Colonies it is part of the penal system that imprisonment, say for three years, really means release at the end of two, if the convict's conduct has been good. Without some hope of this kind what is there to induce a life or long-sentenced prisoner to do anything else than hasten the end of his earthly torture, or become a perfect torror to those who are charged with his safe keeping. A case in point recently occurred in Victoria, where a prisoner named Weechurch, detained through error a few days longer than the proper period for his release after a comparatively short sentence, was guilty of so many offences against the regulations of the prison, and attempted so many serious crimes to end his imprisonment either by release or self-murder, or on the scaffold, that his name has become a terror to the gaol officials of Melbourne and Pentridge, and his accumulative sentences would not be exhausted if ho lived to double the ordinary span of human life. Because Gardiner was sentenced to imprisonment for life is no reason why clemency should not be extended to him. Born and brought up amongst old settlers in New South Wales, who.3e literature was not of the most refined kind, though circumstances had altered their social position materially, and educated in a school which worshipped the glories of "the road," it was not unnatural that his inexperienco should set up for itself a false theory of glory. When a youth he was a horsestealer. When ho became older he drew around him a band who—if the time only had been different—the ballad-singers might have likened to that of Robin Hood and the Foresters of Sherwood. It was never said of him that he shed blood; and there was a spice of gallantry in his story which removed him from association with such utter ruffians as Morgan. He was the head, no doubfc, of a band of lawless fellows who for years baffled the police of New South Wales in the remote pastoral districts ; but his career was more the result of a wild and untutored spirit of adventure than of a worse character. Those who shed blood perished either at the hands of the troopers, or of volunteers, or died on the scaffold. New South Wales has long been comparatively free from the class represented by " Thunderbolt." Gardiner has passed ten years of the prime of his life in confinement. Ho lias been well conducted in prison, and of assistance to the authorities on more than one occasion. He has reached the ago of forty-fivo, and as his friends are able and willing to assist him to enter on a new life in some distant land, where he can hopo to work his way honestly in the world, it surely is not wrong-doing to anyone to give him that opportunity. Tho petitions against his release, and the strong opposition shown to it in tho Assembly of Now South Walos, appear very much like an assumption of virtue Mr. Parkes has permitted a humane courso to bo taken—if, indeed, he had anything to do with the matter and liia action is rathor to bo applauded than condemned.