66 RETURN to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons, Copy of the Report of the Commissioners appointed in August last to inquire into the Management of Millbank Prison, together with the Evidence. Also copies of any Instructions or Orders issued by the Secretary of State to the Prison Authorities, in consequence thereof." Sir, No. 1. The Earl of Chichester to Sir George Grey. Stanmer, January 8, 1847. I HAVE the honour to send you the Report upon Millbank Prison, signed by Lord Seymour and myself. Mr. B. Escott, the third Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty on this inquiry, does not agree with us on some portion of this Report, and prefers making a separate one for himself. I have, &c. Baker's Petitions WE, your Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the conduct and management of your Majesty's prison and gaol at Millbank, and of the prisoners therein confined, and into certain allegations of Edward Baker, late a Warder in that prison, and also into the conduct of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and other officers of the said prison, humbly beg leave to report, that we directed our attention in the first instance to various allegations contained in two petitions presented to the House of Commons, on the 15th of June and the 5th of August, 1846. These petitions seriously impugned the character and conduct of the Governor of Millbank Prison; and consequently imputed to the Inspectors, under whose superintendence the government of this prison is placed, a culpable neglect of their duty in having permitted such mal-administration to continue. For the purpose of thoroughly investigating charges of so grave a nature, we called before us the petitioner, and after examining him upon matters in reference to which he was himself competent to furnish information, we summoned the witnesses whom he named, and questioned them upon oath in his presence, affording to the petitioner himself an opportunity of putting to them such interrogatories as he might think would tend to substantiate his charges. He also had the advantage of the assistance of Mr. Duncombe, the gentleman by whom his petition was presented to the House of Commons, whom we allowed to be present during the whole period of our investigation, and who examined and cross-examined all the witnesses at his discretion. In order to check inadvertent errors, and to detect mis-statements, we ordered the books and other documents of the prison to be furnished to us, and tested the evidence of the witnesses by a reference to these records, in every case in which such concurrent testimony could be obtained. We also had before us, during the progress of this investigation, the three Inspectors, and the Governor of the prison, that they might hear the evidence adduced against themselves, question the witnesses, and afford to us immediate information upon any subject incidentally arising, connected either with their own duties, or with the accusations into which we were inquiring. This mode of proceeding has both protracted the inquiry, and rendered the evidence much less methodical in its order, and more desultory in its character than we could have wished. We have, however, determined to report the evidence in full, and in the same order in which it was given. In dealing with the petitions of Edward Baker, we have thought it convenient to take seriatim the several charges contained in them, and we report upon them as follows: That your Petitioner was employed as Warder, in the Millbank Prison, from the 20th December, 1842, to the 14th day of April, 1846. That he resigned his situation in con- Groves, the Governor of that prison, That your Petitioner considers it an which he humbly prays you to inves tigate. That on the 12th April, 1846, George where the prisoner (who was now on his the Governor quitted the Airing Yard The allegation, respecting the treatment of Chinnery, is the only charge on which the petitioner could prove anything from his own knowledge, and since it occurred after he had sent in his resignation, could not be one of the instances of cruelty in consequence of which he resigned. The fault or innocence of the Governor, on this occasion, depends entirely upon the validity of the reasons assigned by him for concluding that the prisoner was only feigning a fit. There being no other witness than himself and Baker, we cannot pronounce a decided opinion upon so very doubtful a question. Reviewing, however, all the circumstances which were brought under our notice, in connexion with this case, we think the Governor should, before awarding the punishment, have made a closer investigation into all the facts, and have consulted the medical officer, for the purpose of testing the probable accuracy of his own impressions. In this case, therefore, we are of opinion that the punishment, whether merited or not merited by the prisoner, was injudiciously inflicted by the Governor. It was proved that upon one occasion the Governor, When your Petitioner replied, because he did not consider the prisoner was feigning a fit. On the 14th April, 1846, the same prisoner was brought before the Governor, and sentenced by him to be put on bread and water allowance for three days, namely, one pound of bread and two pints of water per diem, and likewise to be debarred from writing to his friends for one month. This sentence was passed without calling the attention of the medical officer to the same. Note. This prisoner had been previously confined in the General Penitentiary for upwards of two years, and was placed in a cell next to the Warder's room because he was subject to fits, which he frequently had during his term of imprisonment. On the 15th of February, 1846, the of whom opened their Bibles. The Governor censured them in chapel for this act, considering it irreverent, and afterwards sentenced them to an allowance of with the concurrence of an Inspector, punished three prisoners were assembled in chapel, three youths, by bread and water diet for seven days, on account of irregularity in chapel. This act appears to have consisted in reading their bibles while the Chaplain bread and water diet for seven days. was preaching in a way which showed that they were not attending to his discourse. It appears that this was the first instance of prisoners being punished for such conduct, we think that in such a case the punishment was quite disproportionate to the offence, and that, as no previous warning had been given them, an admonition would have been a sufficient and much more suitable mode of enforcing their future attention; we moreover regret to find that the sentence of the Governor was confirmed by the Inspector to whom it was reported. The Governor, by his rules, is not allowed to sentence more than three days' bread and water diet; however, what he thinks fit to order always obtains the sanction of the three Inspectors, who prison. In cases where the Governor have the entire management of the does not deem it necessary to report to the Inspectors, his mode of punishment is this: a prisoner may be brought before him who is on bread and water diet, he will order that the prisoner do receive full rations for one day, and that the bread and water be resumed. On the 10th February, 1846, Frederick Bunyan was sentenced to receive one hun The prisoner Bunyan was sentenced and punished by flogging, as described, for an aggravated and mali- dred lashes with a cat for cutting a Warcious assault. The second allegation, that he was ordered to receive "no instruction, either religious or der on the arm with a pair of scissors. This punishment was inflicted the following morning, the Governor and Doctor present. The prisoner was taken moral," is untrue. He was visited by the Chaplain, down after having received seventy and had the usual access to religious books. lashes. It was then ordered that he should receive no instruction, either religious or moral, neither did he do so from that date to the day your Petitioner quitted the prison. He was placed in a cell, and only taken out one hour per day for exercise. On the 29th May, 1845, Henry Bourne was removed to the infirmary, where he died on the 1st of June. This prisoner made several applications to 29th of May, but the surgeon would not see the Doctor, from the 16th to the remove him to the infirmary, allowing him to remain in his cell, under the There is nothing in the evidence to support the part of this charge which attaches blame to the Governor. It appears, however, that the prisoner, H. Bourne, was neither skilfully nor very attentively treated by the then resident Surgeon, who resigned shortly afterwards. The resident Surgeon, the Physician of the prison, and the Governor, attended the inquest and were examined; other officers attended but were not called upon to give evidence; and the alleged neglect of the resident Surgeon was reported by the Governor to the ing the sick, which did not take place Inspectors. The death of Harris Nash was occasioned by a severe attack of dysentery. regular prison discipline, until the officer in charge saw him in a dying state. He, the officer, then sent a special re port, but even then the surgeon did not think fit to attend to the notice given him until going his daily rounds of visit for several hours afterwards. The surgeon then ordered the prisoner's removal to the infirmary, where he died two days after his reception. The Governor was aware of this, and as a public officer, why were the officers in the immediate charge of the prisoner, previous to his removal to the infirmary, not summoned to give their evidence at the inquest held upon the body, instead of which, this case of cruelty was settled without. On the 10th October, 1844, Harris Nash was drafted from the Pentonville Prison. He remained under the usual He first complained of illness on the 1st of January, discipline until removed to the infirmary. 1845, and was admitted to the infirmary on the 2nd. It appears that he had been frequently sentenced to punishment diet between the time of his first entrance into the prison and the date of his removal to the The removal was on the 1st day of Ja nuary, 1845, and he died on the 7th of the same month. The body was what may be termed a skeleton. This pri soner's punishment, the Supervisor's Books of Pentagons 5 and 6, will inform your honourable House. infirmary. He was a man of weak intellect and evil propensities; he refused to work, and struck the warders. Under these circumstances the Governor acted rightly in sentencing him to punishment, but it would be advisable that any prisoner, frequently condemned to punishment diet, although he may not have been placed in a dark or refractory cell, should yet be visited by a medical officer, in order to ascertain that the punishment is not such as seriously to endanger his health. In the case of H. Nash, his weak state of body may have rendered him less able to resist the attack, but there is nothing in the bread and water diet, as we are assured by the medical authorities, tending to produce dysentery, and therefore it can hardly be considered to have occasioned his death. On the 28th day of November, 1845, James Richmond, a boy ten years old, mained under the regular discipline of firmary; the removal was on the 5th day of May, 1846, and he died on the was received from Edinburgh, and re the prison until removed to the in 22nd of the same month. The Establishment Male Defaulter Book will inform your honourable House the number of days this boy was confined in a dungeon on one pound of bread and two pints of water per diem. There was no bed allowed him during this punishment, having only boards to lay on during the night, with one rug and one blanket to cover him; and also, the number of days this boy was sentenced bread and water diet while under punishment in his cell. In this case no responsibility rests upon the Governor, whose attention was never drawn to the prisoner's state of health. James Richmond was a boy of bad disposition, and repeatedly guilty of misconduct; there was no symptom of disease visible to the medical men when Richmond first entered the prison, nor was he ever punished after the indications of disease had manifested themselves. On the 15th April, 1845, Warder James Shields went on guard at 45 minutes past 8 o'clock P.M. and was found in a dying state on the morning of the 16th, at three-quarters past 6, in the guard-room, by the warder whose duty it was to clean it. The surgeon visited him at a quarter after 7, and ordered his removal to a place called Pentagon 2 Tower, where he expired at 5 o'clock P.M. He was buried inside the prison on the 21st, without a coroner's inquest being held on the body. There does not appear to be the slightest foundation for the suggestion insinuated in this charge; neither of the three prisoners named having witnessed any punishments calculated to produce a bad effect on their minds. The prisoner Pearson, however, had himself been subjected to three days' dark cell, for insubordinate and violent conduct, and had only just returned to his own cell, when he committed suicide. The other two, viz., C. Shipworth and T. Perry, had never been reported or punished since their admission to the prison. Warder J. Shields appears to have died in consequence of a cancer in the stomach, which occasioned the sudden rupture of a blood-vessel. It does not appear that he was in any way neglected. The Governor immediately informed the Coroner, who did not think it necessary to hold an inquest. The arrangements made by the Governor, in order to train the prisoners in the Juvenile Ward for the service alluded to, appear to be excellent in themselves; and upon one occasion, when a fire actually occurred, eminently successful. On two occasions of the fire practice slight accidents occurred, but it does not appear from the evidence that any officer of the establishment was to blame. The evidence of Principal Warder Gray shows that he did not, on the occasion referred to, evince that energy and promptness which his duty required from him. He was fined by the Inspectors, and he confesses his belief that the Inspectors would have listened to any thing he wished to say in his defence. The charge made against him by the Governor appears to have been perfectly just, though the rules respecting fines are not sufficiently explicit; and therefore it is difficult to determine whether or not the negligence of Warder Gray rendered him justly liable to the fine imposed. Patrole Hutchinson was not an old servant of the Governor, nor does it appear that he was treated with any partiality; the Governor recommended the reduction of the fine in this case, because he considered that this officer's beat was too extensive to be properly watched by a single sentry. The Governor's conduct towards Warder Harston appears to have been perfectly just, and, indeed, he would himself have been blameable had he permitted irregularities to continue destructive of all discipline, and even hazarding the safe custody of the prisoners. The Chaplain's Clerk was suspended on account of refusing to perform what the Inspectors considered to be a part of his duty. Upon reference to the Secretary of State, he received a reply informing him that "unless he strictly and immediately complied with the recent order of the Inspectors of Millbank Prison, his dismissal would be ordered forthwith." The charge made against the Governor of having misrepresented the conduct of this officer to the Inspectors is entirely unsustained by the evidence, and is repudiated by the Clerk himself. The responsibility of suspending this officer rests with the Inspectors. The Secretary of State restored him after a full consideration of the circumstances, and we concur in the view taken of the case by the Secretary of State. There is no evidence to show that the Governor recommended the dismissal of any officers who, in respect of age and health, were capable of continuing to perform their duty. Nor does it appear that he acted towards the old Penitentiary Officers with any injustice or invidious severity. The books do not prove this allegation, and no evidence was adduced to show that the Governor had concealed the fault of any officer. That Principal Warder Gray (nearly eight years employed) was charged by the Governor, on the 5th of April, 1846, misrepresented by the Governor to the That Patrole Hutchison (the Governor's old servant) was brought before the Inspectors on the 5th May, 1846, for gross neglect of duty, in allowing a prisoner to make his escape over the boundary wall of the prison, this being his beat, and fined 27. 2s. That on the 31st October, 1845, Warder Harston (three years' service) was suspended by the Governor, and immediately restored, without any inquiry before the Prison Inspectors, for giving two keys to the master baker at five o'clock A.M. to unlock four prisoners under his immediate charge in the bakery. This had been practised every morning (Sunday excepted) for upwards of one year, no order having been given to the contrary. Notwithstanding this, the Governor reported this Warder to the Inspectors, on a charge of breach of duty, and he was ordered to be fined 21. 6s. |