Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1883.
In the House of Representatives last week Mr. Hutchinson moved for a “ return of the number of bricks “ made week by week by the prisoners “ at Mount Cook penal establish- “ ment; the number of prisoners “ employed ; the number of warders in “ charge of those prisoners ; and the “ estimated value of the bricks bo made.” He next volunteered the astonishing and somewhat startling information that “ bricks had been associated from “ the earliest historic period with “misrule, tyranny, and injustice.” Upon what data Mr. Hutchinson bases this assertion we should much like to know. We can only suppose that he has confined his researches in this matter entirely to the fifth chapter of Exodus where we read that “ the “officers of the children of Israel, "which Pharoah’s taskmasters had set “ over theta, were beaten and deman- “ ded, wherefore have ye not fulfilled “ your task in making bricks, both “ yesterday and to-day, as heretofore ?" And this without the aid of straw. If this be the case, and Mr. Hutchison’s assertion that “ bricks had been associ- “ ated from the earliest historic period “ with misrule, tyranny, and injustice,” fully justifies us in this surmise—then we must say that he is most inconsistent, as further on be objects to brickmaking as “ one of those kinds of skilled labour ” on which prisoners should not be employed. In other words he thinks that the recreative and delightful occupation of brick making is of far too amusing a nature to be indulged in by prisoners. History tells us nothing about “ misrule, tyranny, and injustice ” in conjunction with the manufacture of bricks in ancient Babylon, where they were first used in the construction of the arches upon which were erected those wonderous hanging gardens and beautiful terraces which Strabo and Diodorus have told us about. The same with Greece, Rome, and last England, where they were introduced by our enlightened and ingenious Roman conquerors and afterwards extensively .
manufactured under the direction of wise ArtitEU the Great, Tn fact the only authority for the assertion made by the hou. gentleman is the one contained in Holy writ, which is quite exceptional. It is evident that Mr. Hutchinson’s field of thought is quire as limited as his researches have been in this matter of brick making, as is evidenced by the promulgation of his theory “ that all prisoners should be “ employed on hard manual labor.” What is brick making ? is it not one of the most laborious occupations known. This certainly proves that the hon. gentlemen’s reasoning powers are somewhat dull, else he Would scarcely associate brick making with .-killed labor and ease, and assert that it was " worse than a crime ” for Government to establish a penal establishment in the midst of a city like Wellington, " thereby competing “injuriously with skilled labor outside.” To our minds a large amount of trade in the shape of supplies of various descriptions, provision con-tr-aets, &e., is brought to a place, and a consequent impetus given to business by the establishment of a place of this description in any town. As to having any injurious effects upon the morals of the surrounding community, such an idea must be acknowledged to be purely mythical, and as ridiculous as the whole tenor of the hon. gentleman’s speech. The presence of a prison in any town should act as a deterrent and standing warning to all those whose guilty minds might contemplate any infringement of the law or outrage on society. As to the employment of prisoners on skilled labor, we have before expressed our views in favor of the same. To advance the theory that, because a man is incarcerated for a time between four walls for the safety of society that he is not to be allowed to work at a trade to support himself, is to betray a narrowness of mind and want of common sense most surprising in the extreme. To say that it injures “ outside trade ”is ridiculous. As well might Government be called upon to prevent any “new chum ” from working at a trade, as being injurious to those already engaged in the same, as to ask that, because a man is under restraint, he shall be debarred from trying to support himself. The prisoner is a consumer; he weal’s out clothes, eats and drinks the same as any other unit of the community; then why should he not, in a like manner with all other members of the said community, be allowed to work, according to his abilities, at the best and most remunerative trades ? This is only one, and perhaps the least important point to view this matter from. Is it not necessary in the interests of the country to reduce the expenses of prison maintenance as much as possible r Is the country to be burdened with the support of penal establishments, when they can be made self-supporting —nay, even remunerative, if placed under proper control and management. Setting aside ail these cogent reasons there still remains the vital and most important of all considerations—viz., the reformation and amelioration of the unhappy prisoner. The beneficial effect caused by a judicious application of the privilege of allowing well-conducted prisoners to work at interestiifg and skilled employment cannot be overestimated, and has been such a power for good in the hands of prison authorities, ns to fully justify the Government in continuing this most salutary adjunct to wholesome discipline. We cordially agree with the Hon. Mr. Connolly’s statement that men like the hon, member for Wellington, South, were “ the worst enemies of fhe working classes,” and he might with truth, have added, “ the worst enemies to all progress, civilization, and humanity.”
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18830802.2.7
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1337, 2 August 1883, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
955Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1883. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1337, 2 August 1883, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.