The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-19 00:00:00

THE CASE OF MR. BARBER.

TO THE EDITOR, OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—ln the Times of the 9th inst. there is an
article relative to the case of Mr. Barber, in which
the writer brings to notice Mr. Barber's sufferings
at Norfolk Island, and the wrongs inflicted on hinl
by " one Major Child." This name should be
" Child."

The fact that it was not the province of Major
Childs to decide on the guilt or innocence of the pri-
soners committed to his charge appears to have been
entirely overlooked, and Major Childs is repre-
sented as pursuing with vindictive cruelty an in-
nocent and injured man. It should be recollected
that Mr. Barber was sent to the island, having been
convicted as the pt incipal agent iu a crime which Dot
many years preciously would have cost those con-
cerned in it their lives. Your readersare introduced
to the "unsavoury" details connected with the in-
ternal regulations of the worst of our penal settle-
ments. The object is not apparent, unless it be
to show that no favour was extended to Mr. liarber,
and that he was treated probably neither worse nor
better than his fellow convicts, albeit (as the writer take'
care to point out) an " innocent convict." But, whether
innocent or not, I repeat he was sent to the Wand as *
convicted felon, and it was not for Major Childs to ques-
tion the justice of his sentence. Major Childs was bound
to carry out, at Norfolk Island, the rules and discipline
prescribed for the settlement, and I presume he did hie
duty. Since Major Childs quitted Norfolk Island he
served many years with the Plymouth division of Royal
Marines, and became in course of time Lieut.-Colonel
and Colonel Cammandant, from which last peat he
ret'red in April, 1857, with the honorary rank of
Major-General. Let the writer of the article inquire
among the officers and men with.whotn Major• General
Childs served, and whom he subsequently commanded,
for instances of his tyrannical and oppressive con-
dect. With those who know Major• General Childa and
his character I feel assured that your article will a►ail
little to change the opinion they may have formed of
him. If it bo the writer's object to cause pain and
annoyance to an old officer who has passed 47 years is
the servioa of his country, I think ha may congratulate
himself on his BIiCC3PB, fur I doubt whether the old
officer is sufficiently " strong-minded" entirely to dia•
regard the article and to treat it with the contempt whiolL
it deserves. I am proud to call that old officar mY
father, and beg to subscribe myself, sir, your obed:eat
servant,

J. C. CHILDS, Captaiu B.A.
Alderney, July 13.
**.-x- Captain Childs would have done well to
let this disagreeable story rest without further
discussion. The charge against Major Childs was,
not that he carried out the discipline and rules of
Norfolk Island in the case of the convict
Barber, but that he carried them out in his
case with unrelenting severity, while he modified
them in the cases of other prisoners. Barber was
kept to his urine-tub?, while Fletcher was remitted
at once to the comfortable and light sorvitudi, of
the apothecary's shop. At this work he was kept,
despite the earmst and repeated remonstrances of
the other officials on the island. It was not until
Major Childs was told that ho would be held -
responsible for .the death of the man he was killing
by inches that he desisted from persecuting him ill
one way to persecute him in another. The change
from the urine-tubs to the fellowship of murderers
who were daily threatening to brain him was no
great gain to poor Mr. Barber. Finally, Major
Childs " quitted" Norfolk Island by the very sum-
mary process of a dismissal. If Captain Childs is
disatisfied with our remarks, let him turn to his
f4ther's own evidence before the committee. BY
that alone lot Major Childs be judged.—Editor of
Times.