A.—No. 12,

IV. The last requisite of punishment mentioned by Archbishop Whately, is economy or cheapness, respecting which he says : —" The last point is of far less consequence than the others, and of less than it is I think usually considered; but still it is one which must not be entirely overlooked, since a failure in this point, inasmuch as it admits of infinite degrees, might be conceivably such as to amount to a very serious evil. It would be a paltry and ridiculous economy which should calculate nicely the difference of a few pounds ; but one may conceive a system so expensive as to amount to a very serious burden." And no doubt in a Colony situated as New Zealand is at present, it may turn out to be better, for the meantime, that existing arrangements should be modified and improved, than that an attempt should be made to establish one or more Penal Settlements, deficient in some real essentials which cannot at present be secured; and it appears by the experience both of Sir Joshua Jebb and Sir Walter Crafton (the most eminent practical authorities of modern times on this subject), that a great ■deal can be done to improve the utility of prisons, though not capable of being adapted to a complete introduction of the now approved modern system of treatment, and to make them much less objectionable than they were before in respect of classification, separation, and general efficiency. Sentences and Punishments. It is very obvious even a priori —and the experience of England amply confirms the a priori opinion—that it must be very desirable to secure uniformity of punishment in the same country, and under the same laws ; and that there ought not to be great discrepancies between the nominal punishments awarded and the actual punishments inflicted; nor between the sentences awarded, and the punishments inflicted in different parts of the same country; for it is of the highest importance to make the community understand and feel that the sentences of criminals and the amount of punishment actually inflicted, are not liable to vary substantially through the caprice or fancies of Judges, or the deficiencies or differences in the working of penal establishments, or the favouritism or undue severity of prison officers. The want of uniformity in the mode of carrying out sentences, even in England, will be found to have been one of the matters most urgently brought to the attention of the Legislature by the Reports of Committees of both Houses, and of Royal Commissions. The very wide discretion given by the law to Judges in modern times as to the amount of punishment to be awarded, on the conviction of persons of certain offences, is no doubt startling to the vulgar, and to those whose minds are not familiar with the subject. The great injustice necessarily caused by the award of a Procrustean measure of punishment for a particular and technically categorized offence, is not the only mischief attending the too rigid administration of criminal punishments. The experience of England during the times when a very largo proportion of offences was punishable with death, clearly shows that humanity rebels against the .administration of too severe laws, and that serious crimes will be allowed both by private persons and public functionaries to go entirely unpunished, rather than that they should be visited by punishments excessive and unnecessary, and therefore cruel. The principles upon which Judges exercise their large discretion are well defined, though the application of them is often by no means free from difficulty; but there must be a complete failure in their application, if there be not a clear though tacit understanding between the judicial body and the Executive authorities of the State, as to the actual practical consequences to the convicted criminal of the particular sentence awarded to him. And the Executive Government of the country ought not, by toleration of differences of system and discipline in different gaols, nor ought the Queen's representative in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, to interfere to modify, remit, or alter the nature and amount of punishment intended by the Judge to be inflicted, except in cases like the following : — 1. Where fresh facts have been established on trustworthy testimony, which if brought before the Court on such testimony would probably have altered the verdict of the jury, or the sentence of the Judge ; 2. Where something has happened since the trial, which makes the convict unfit for the punishment assigned, or gives him a claim for consideration by the public in respect of positively meritorious •conduct; or 8, Where those in whom the prerogative of mercy is vested, are prepared, on a review of the facts, in the absence of a Court of Appeal, to over-rule the finding of the jury, or censure the conduct of the Judge for undue severity (if he has not changed his mind) ; subject to inquiry by the Legislature and the verdict of public opinion. At present the Judges are somewhat in the dark as to the effect of their sentences; and most probably it will be found that there is more severity in their administration in some parts of the Colony than in others. No doubt the same amount of restraint, denial, and labour operates as a more severe punishment on one man than on another; and Judges must make some allowances for the antecedents of convicts. But they ought, at all events, to be certain as to what will be done with the criminals whom they sentence. A substantial correspondence between the sentence and the actual punishment inflicted, and uniformity in respect thereof, are matters of the greatest moment, and deserve the minutest investigation. Details to be Attended to. In determining what are to be the specific details with respect to which the Commissioners are to institute a general and minute inquiry, they must look for assistance and direction to the modern experience of the mother country as evidenced in the reports and accompanying testimony contained in the English Blue Books. The practical questions with which this Memorandum will conclude have been suggested by a perusal of Colonel Jebb's Eeport in 1850, on the Eeport of the Committee of the House of Commons on Transportation in 1861, and the Report of the Lords Committee on Prison Discipline, 1563, and the " Digest and Summary of Answers from Colonial Governors to Circular 0

i Memorandum. . Economical.

Uniformity of punishment.

Discretion of Judges.

Principles on what used.

Cases for alteration of sentences by Executive.

Effect of sentences.

21

COMMISSION ON PRISONS.