The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-12 00:00:00

MILBANK PRISON.

A supplementary report has just been issued by the
House of Commons. emanating from the Inspectors of
Milbank Prison, with evidence append..d, relative to
the complaint of Edward Baker. The following are ex-
tracts from this document. The inspectors iu their sup-
plementary report say
We beg to state that we have instituted a full and
searching inquiry into Mr. Duncombe's allegations, and
we herewith transmit our report on the statements to
which Sir G. Grey has directed our attention.
In reference to that part of our report which relates
to the corporal punishment of two prisoners with cats,
different from those approved by the inspectors, we en•
close two lashes taken from one of those approved by the
inspectors, and also two from one of the cats with which
those prisoners were punished. A comparison of these
lashes will show that there is no material difference be•
tween them. The evidence of the Deputy. Governor
proves that no order was given by the Governor for any
change to be made from the usual pattern of the cat, for
although the Th-putv-Governor states that he was di-
rected to procure new cats (which the Governor himself
does not recollect), he expressly adds that he was not
ordered to vary them in any manner from the original
model, but, on the contrary, that the Governor desired
that preparation should be made for the punishment in
the usual manner, in the case of Bunyan, whereas, in
that of the other prisoner, the Governor was absent on
leave.

There has, however, been manifest irregularity in the
eour'e adopted, from time to time, in renewing the cats
when worn out, and due care has not been taken to pro-
vide that the eats, whenever renewed, should be sub-
mitted to the inspectors for approval.
In this, as in all other cases, we look to the Governor,
in the first instance, to take care that the rules of the
prison are strictly observed. It appears, however, by
the evidence, that the Goiernor did not interfere, the
rule in question not requiring him to submit each cat,
when renewed, for the approval of the inspectors, but
only that he should take care that the new cats were in
accordance with the pattern sealed by the inspectors.
En the case of Frederick Bunyan, the governor is proved
to have given the usual directions to the Deputy-
Governor for carrying the sentence into effect, and he
had a right to expect that the officer specially ap-
pointed to see his orders correctly executed, would in
this instance have peirlbrined that duty ; but vi e regret
that the Governor did not, by his own inspection from
time to time, consistently with his interpretation of the
rule, ascertain that the cats in use were in strict ac-
cordance with the sealed pattern.
We are of opinion that the Deputy-Governor is highly
blameable for having omitted to preserve proper pre-
cautions in providing cats for Bunyan's punishmet, the
responsibility of which is not diminished by the acci-
dental fact, proved in evidence, that no injury resulted
to the prisoner from the omission. Finding the re-
newal of the cat necessary, he should, as on former
occasions, have applied to the steward of the establish-
ment for new cord ; or, if it was necessary to send out
an officer to purchase the cord. he should have provided
him with a pattern, and should not have allowed him
to depend upon his memory to guide him in the selec-
tion. When the new cats were made, also, he should
have examined them, for the purpose of ascertaining
that they were in accordance with the pattern, by which
examination he would have discovered that they were
lapped with thread waxed with cobbler's wax, instead of
bees' wax, as heretofore.

It is but justice to the Deputy. Governor to state, that
he appears not to have considered this to be a part of his
duty ; but we do not admit the validity of this defence.
As, however, we have reason to believe that the De-
puty-Governor is a good and efficient officer, that he had
no intention to do an act of injustice to the prisoner, or
to increase the severity of the instrument with which
he was to be puni.ihed, and that, in point of fact, there
is no material d fference between the cat with which the
convict was punished and that approved by the inspectors,
we submit whether the justice of the case will not be met
by the Deputy Governor receiving a severe reprimand.
The following is an extract with regard to one of the
allegations or order against the authorities of the.prison,
and the result of investigation made thereinto:—