A.—2b

36

(No. 6.) Minute of the Colonial Secretary. His Excellency,— I should be glad if His Excellency would, at his convenience, read the accompanying minutes by myself and the Sheriff on the subject of the new prison regulations, and the extent to which a consideration of the effect of these regulations should influence the Judges in awarding sentences. I notice what Mr. Maclean says of the important facts illustrative of the life and character of a prisoner, which are disclosed to a Judge at the time of trial; but I fear these facts—especially such as lie outside the sworn evidence, such as persoual demeanour and the manner of witnesses —are often misinterpreted. I have spoken to members of the bar, having a large criminal practice, who take my view in this respect. HP.—l7/4/67.

(No. 7.) Minute of His Excellency Sir John Young (Lord Lisgar). In his letter of the 25th March last, the Sheriff proposes that the special attention of the Judges both of the Supreme and Quarter Sessions Courts be specially invited to the regulations. This proposal is in accordance with the original intention entertained at the time the framing of the regulations was first thought of. This I think a reference to the former papers will show. It is also in accordance with the course pursued in England. There will, if 1 recollect right, be found in the printed Parliamentary Papers a circular letter from Secretary Sir George Grey to the Judges, giving them formal and authentic notice of the adoption of analogous regulations at Home. The sending the Judges such notices seems to me a part of the courtesy due to gentlemen holding offices of such important trust, as well as an invitation to them to co-operate with the Government. Their co-operation and advice would, in many ways, be advantageous and desirable. Moreover, the withholding the official intimation of the regulations from them cannot have the effect of keeping them in ignorance of their existence, nor, consequently, of preventing their taking them into consideration in passing sentences. They have the same means of information as the rest of the public ; and I am informed that, as a matter of fact, the Judges of the various Courts—though not officially or formally apprised of them— do know all about the regulations, and make reference to them in their addresses, when passing sentences on prisoners. In my opinion, it will be better, and right in itself, to make the adoption of the regulations known to the Judges, accompanying the communication with whatever suggestions of their opinion the Government may, on full deliberation, think proper to make. The making of these suggestions, however, is a matter of extreme delicacy, and one which, as a precedent, may involve much difficulty and many grave consequences. In any event, a Judge cannot but be intrusted with a wide discretion in the administration of the Criminal Law. With this discretion " the Secretary of State, in England, never pretends to interfere," while there, as here, there is great inequality in the sentences pronounced by Judges and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions for the same offence. To the inequality of the sentences I think it would be well to draw the attention of the Judges of the various Courts, and invite them to meet and confer together, with a view of reconciling the diversity of practice and opinion in this respect. Comparing, however, the practice which prevails in this colony with that in the British Islands, the excessive severity of the punishments awarded is apt to cause doubt,even more than the inequality already alluded to. The imprisonment of a young person of from eighteen to twenty-five years, for five, seven, or even more years, for the offence of stealing a horse or a cow of the value of from £1 to £5, seems cruel and oppressive, and, under all the circumstances of the country, beyond all measure of justice or reason. Instances of this severity are frequently brought before me, while persons in Sydney, stealing property of greater value from a shop or dwelling-house, usually get sentences of only two years or less. Indeed, a case of recent occurrence in Victoria may be referred to as in point. An officer in a bank, in a confidential situation, intrusted with the custody of money, embezzled £2,000, was convicted of the offence, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. There is no proportion between the guilt in this case and in that of most of the persons convicted of cattle or horse stealing. The former —the guilt of an educated man betraying a trust —is clearly more heinous than that of a peasant boy who steals a half-wild cow or horse, an offence scarcely worse than poaching—than stealing a hare or a pheasant in England. No doubt there is lawlessness and wrong in the act, and it is usually the first step to worse. Ido not desire to extenuate it in any degree, but surely it ought not to be visited with a heavier penalty —with twice or thrice a longer term of imprisonment —than a robbery to a much higher value, aggravated by a breach of trust, and committed under circumstances of far less temptation. In the Evidence on Prison Discipline taken before a Committee of the House of Lords in 1863, witnesses of great experience give opinions in favour of short sentences under the separate system, in preference to long sentences and association. A few months' sentence with strict discipline and distasteful penal labour may not perhaps work a moral reformation, but they are found sufficient to deter beginners from a course of crime. This sort of deterrent influence seems to be what is wanted in New South Wales. The great majority of the young men convicted in the country parts of the colony are not criminals by profession, but persons who have rather been led to commit robbery for the want of something just at the moment, and not concerted robberies —they are seldom associated with others, at least seldom in their first offences. As great improvements have been effected in the gaols, and the power to apply penal disci-