The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-27 00:00:00

'IN'G; APRIL 27, 1861,

also inflicted by visiting magistrates of prisons, for prison
offences. With such offences there was obviously a diffi-
culty to know how they should be dealt with, because a
punishment must then be inflicted on a person who was
already in a state of punishment, and some addition to the
ordinary means of punishment must be found. The law
conferred on visiting justices this power of ordering flog-
ging for prison offences. As had been correctly stated by
the hon. baronet opposite, it could only be done on an in-
quiry before the visiting magistrates, evidence being taken,
and a proper record of that investigation made, which was
accessible to the prison inspector when he came round. He
was not aware that any cases of excessive punishment by
flogging had been reported by any of the inspectors, or
made subject of special complaint to the Home-office.
If it had been so, it would undoubtedly have been
attended to. Thb complaint against the present prac-
tice therefore rested entirely on the return now
on the table, from which it certainly appeared that
in many cases boys of tender age had been subject
to flogging by the cat, which was no doubt a severe instru-
ment, though it did not correspond with the description,
just now given. One of those boys, at the New Bailey,
Salford, was thus punished for repeatedly shouting in his
cell, after being cautioned by the watchman not to do so,
that being the seventh offence since he was in the prison .
There was a boy of eleven, who received 36 ashes with a
birch rod, for the same thing, being his ninth similar of-
fence in four months. These were probably very incorri-
gible boys, who had given great trouble to the prison au-
thorities. The house might consider if it would alter the
law, and lay some restriction on the discretion of the visit-
ing magistrates, or define the instrument and the number
of lashes. But it was not competent for the Home Secre-
tary to issue a circular and lay down a general rule, under
the existing law; though ho could inquire into any parti-
oular case of cruelty, and take steps in consequence. He
would consider if it was possible to deal with the subject.
(Cheers.) It appeared to be more frequent in some prisons
than others, but that might be owing sometimes to the
defective construction of the prison.
Col. NORTH thought this floirging the most tyrannical
and brutal thing he ever heard of in his life. In the army,
the flogging of a boy with a cat of nine tails was never
heard of, and no soldier could be sentenced by a court-
martial to more than fifty lashes. They might talk of
brutality in the army, but here was far greater brutality.
In the army they could not flog without the preliminary
of a court-martial, but here a magistrate might go into
a prism, and flog as many gentlemen as he liked.
(Laughter.) Some of the cases in these returns were of
the most trivial.nature. A little boy was flogged for
tearing his catechism; another, for throwing water on a
prison officer. Twenty or thirty men were flogged in one
gaol, and the governor said they were flogged lightly, and
no blood was drawn. This looked as if men were flogged
merely for amusement. He would not give this power to
any magistrates.
CASE OF COLONEL KEOGH.

PARLIAMENT 4.R V COMMITTEES.

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

The committee met again yesterday—Mr. Hen-
ley in the chair. The other members present were
Sir M. Seymour, Admiral Duncombe, Sir Y. Gra•
ham, Sir H. Willoughby, Sir J. Elphinstone, Lord
Clarence Paget, Sir F. Baring, Mr. Corry, and Mr.
Whitbread.

The Duke of Somerset, in reply to questions by
Sir H. Willoughby, said—l did not see the report
of the Royal Commissioners on Dockyards before it
was presented to Parliament. As regards their ob-
servations on accounts, and their recommendations
that a double entry should be furnished, I approve
of them. The Royal Commission was requested to
go int) the cost that had been incurred in the build-
ing and converting of ships during the last ten
years, and give their opinion whether the system
had been efficient, and whether the money expended
on ships had been judiciously applied. They were
also directed to inquire into the system of control
and management of the dockyards, and to suggest
such changes as might render the establish-
ments more effective. Their recommendations
must be construed in reference to the inquiries
they were directed to make.

Sir H. Willoughby—The commission came to the
conclusion that the Board of Admiralty was not a
convenient mode of governing the dockyards, which
are full of manufacturing establishments and fac-
tories. Does your grace concur in that opinion ?
The Duke of Somerset—No, because I think you
take a part of the business of the Admiralty sepa-
rate from all its functions. You must deal with
the Admiralty as a whole, and it is impossible to
separate the repair from the victualling of ships.
The whole must be under one department. I there-
fore do not agree with the recommendations of the
commissioners.

Sir IL Willoughby—What powers have the
Admiralty of seeing that the moneys of the State
are properly applied as regards wages or the ex-
penditure for materials ?
The Duke of Somerset—They must act through
their controller, but the superintendents of the
dockyards are constantly communicating with the
board as to what is going on in these establish-
ments.

Sir H. Willoughby—Did you not express to the
commission your conviction that the controller had
not sufficient authority in the dockyards ?
The Duke of Somerset—l did. I said he had not
sufficient means of using his authority and know-
ing what was going on, and 1 think there ought to
be another shipwright officer to assist him, acting
directly under him.
Sir H. Willoughby—Do you Concur in the state-
ment of Sir B. Walker, that during the time he
was surveyor there was no controlling power in
the dockyards—that there were too many parties
communicating with the dockyards to prevent any
single control. Do you concur in that, or d 3 you
think the complaint was an error ?
The Duke of Somerset—lt would be impossible
for me to give a correct notion of what was going
on ten years before I was at the Admiralty. My
impression was that the controller had not sufficient
power, and therefore I increased it.
Sir -1. Willoughby—Sir B. Walker complained
at the end of 1853 that out of 114 letters forwarded
relating to the building of ships only ten were seen
by his clerks. Under such circumstances and such
a system, how is it possible to carry on the busi-
ness in a satisfactory manner when the head of a
department is not made aware of the state of affairs
in the dockyards ?
The Duke of Somerset—lf I were to give an
opinion on that point, I should say that his own
shipwright officers were greatly to blame in not
calling his attention to matters which they must
have known.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under •
stood to reply to Mr. Whiteside, that the above case ap-
peared to be one requiring investigation, and if an inquiry
were demanded, ho should not feel justified in opposing
such a proceeding. It appeared according to the right hon.
gentleman's statement to be held that no misconduct of
officers of a cow t of justice could be punishable, short of
public fraud. The case of Mr. Barber had been referred to,
but that was a case of great difficulty, and the wrong, if
any, was traceable through its servants to the executive,
who were responsible to the legislature. In this case the
executive had no direct authority. With respect to the
Irish case referred to, there was a means of remedying it
out of the funds of the court.
THE BUDGET.

• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply
to Mr. Ayrton, said it would be quite out of his power to
bring in a bill legalising the budget until the house had in
the first instance acceded to the resolutions.

Mr. A YRTON intiiated that last session the bill was
introduced in the first instance, and then in a committee of
ways and means the resolutions were proceeded with. It was
now proposed for the first time to tax three particular classes
of the community, and it was desirable to know why these
classes were to be made special objects of taxation.

Sir H. Willoughby—ls there not a great want of
accommodation for large ships ?
The Duke of Somerset—Yes. I think there are
at present two in preparation. This is one of our
greatest wants. In 1859 my attention was called
to the fact that we were building ships for which
there were no docks sufficiently large; but the
alteration in the size of vessels has been so recent
that no charge can be brought against the late
Board of Admiralty for not having provided docks
sufficiently large.
The committee then adjourned.

THE TRANSPORT SERVICE'
The select committee appointed in the House of
Commons to inquire into the transport service re-
sumed their inquiry on Thursday—Mr. Lindsay in
the chair. The other members of the committee
present were Lord Clarence Paget, Admiral Dan-
combe, Admiral Sir M. Seymour, Mr. Kinnaird.
Mr. Brookes, Mr. Longfield, Mr. Dalglish, Mr.
Jackson, Mr. H. Baillie, and Mr. Caird.
Sir James Graham, M.P., was examined at con-
siderable length. He said—When I was first at the
Admiralty, in 1831, I proposed to Parliament the
abolition of the Navy Board and of the Victualling
Board, it then being a time of peace. During the
long French war no doubt it was advisable that the
two departments should be kept separate. In 1831
when I effected this change the Victualling Board
and the Transport Board were united, but I always
avowed my intention, in the event of a war, of re-
viving the subdivision. I returned to the Admi-
ralty in 1852, in a time of peace, and I continued
the arrangement as it had existed from 1831 to 1834.
The Russian war broke out while I was at the Ad•
miralty, and I soon discovered that my original
view was right, and that the severance was neces-
sary. I left the Admiralty in the middle of that
war, and my last act before leaving it wns to effect
the severance and to create the Transport Board.
On the return of peace the Transport Board was
abolished. The Board of Admiralty was not cog-
nisant of any supreme authority other than the
Secretary for War, and all requisitions for trans-
sports for the military service were upon the respon-
sibility of the Secretary of State for War. lam of
opinion that one department should be responsible
for the transport of troops and stores until they
reach their destination. I see with surprise that
after a ship has been fitted out with the concurrence
of the military authorities and under naval respon-
sibility, and even after a charter party has been
entered into with regard to the number of men to
be conveyed, at the last moment the military com-
manding officer at the ports from which the troops
are shipped has the power entirely to change the
arrangement. No naval concurrence is required ,
but the whole arrangement may be changed within
24 heurs, at the will of a military officer and at an

increase of expense to the extent of 20 per cent.
In point of fact an end is put to all check upon the
expense. I think that one department should
undertake all the transport duties, and be respon-
sible for them. With regard to emigration I con-
cur with the Duke of Somerset and the Duke of
Newcastle that emigration is about to collapse.
It is reduced now to about 5,000 annually; but
while emigration still continues under the direction
of a public office, I would not disturb the arrange-
ment which now exists. I believe, however, that
emigration will soon come to an end, and when that
time arrives I think the important functions now
exercised by the Emigration Commissioners in re-
ference to the execution of the Passengers' Act
should be transferred to the Board of Trade. Nor
in respect to the transport of convicts would I at
present change the existing system, for similar
reasons. At the same time I would advocate the
concentration of the whole transport service under
one department.
The Chairman—Who, in your opinion, ought to
be the responsible head of that department ?
Sir James Graham—That a most difficult ques-
tion to answer, and one on which a great difference
of opinion exists. The Duke of Somerset is strongly
in favour of continuing it under the Admiralty, and POOR RELIEF —ENGLAND.
so also is Admiral Craigie ; but, on the other hand, The select commitee appointed by the House o,
the Duke of Newcastle and Colonel Gordon are of Commons to inquire into the destitution existing opinion that, in the transport of troops, direct mill.- in the metropolis, and the mode of administering
tart', control is indispensable. In my humble judg- the poor laws, resumed their investigation yester ment either the maintenance of it under the Admi- day—the Right Hon. C. P. Villiers, President of the
rally, or the transfer of it immediately to the Poor-law Board, in the chair. The other members
military authorities, would be infinitely better than of the committee present were Mr. Bazley, Mr.
the continuance of the present state of things. Kekewich, Mr. l,yall, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Monckton
Great inconvenience is now experienced in a time Milnes, Sir W. Jolliffe, Lord R. Cecil, Mr. Alder-
of peace, and there might be great danger in a time man Sidney, Colonel Pennant, Mr. Caird, Sir J.
of war.
Acton, and Lord Fermoy.
Lord C. Paget—ls it not absolutely necessary that Mr. Bowring, clerk to the City of London
the transports should be under the naval authorities Union, was examined in reference to the duties
when great combined movements in a time of war and salaries of the medical officers of the union.
are being conducted ? Do you not think it is psi- He expressed a strong opinion that it would be
tively necessary that transports should be under better to pay them adequate salaries than to
the immediate control and management of the officer give them a small remuneration and grant them commanding the fleet privileges of charging for extras. lie, saw great
Sir James Graham—Those who advocate the difficulty in arriving at any general basis upon
transfer of the duties to the War Department con- which the salaries of medical men should be fixed,
template the necessity of borrowing agents from as the circumstances of different localities widely
the Admiralty on important occasions. d ffered. For instance, taking the case of Lance-
The Chairman—Would you place the duties in shire and Yorkshire, and of Cornwall—in the former
the hands of a board ? case the duties would be very onerous, while in the
ference of
latter they would be comparatively light, and it
Sir James Grahamopinion on —Th
thatere is apointns dif-
would therefore be unfair to fix the same salary in
.co Th ide
Duerable ke of
Somerset and the Duke of Newcastle, who each case.
entertained different views as to the de- By Sir W. Jolliffe—We have about 890 inmates
partment which should have the control and
in our workhouse. The children are sent to Han-
superintendence, were both of opinion that a board well, where they are much better off than if the
were classified in the union workhouse. In point
was not the best autto entrust with te
management of theses matters. I think there h
is of fact, the classification of children would be little great force in their objections ; and yet, when I better than rendering them paupers for generations.
was at the Admiralty, I did create a Transport The existence of an able-bodied women's ward in a
Board. workhouse must tend greatly to increase the seve-
By Admiral Duncombe—l would not pi.edge rity of the discipline. The women require much
myself that the officer at the head of the depart- more strict discipline than the men.
ment should in a time of peace be a naval officer. By Mr. M. Milnes—With regard to chi'dren, I
I should probably incline to the opinion that in a think they ought to be dissociated as far as possible
time of peace he should be a civilian, but in a time from any idea of pauperism. With that view I
of war he ought to hdve the assistance both of a
would prevent them from ever appearing at the pay military and naval officer. I should be sorry to see table to receive the out-door relief allotted to their
the navy without the glean# of trans Port) And alto- parents, as that is generally their fiat initiation

-
into the mysteries of pauperism. We apprentice
children out of the union, and after they have served
40 days they become chargeable to the parish 10
which they have been apprenticed, the settlement
having changed. Girls are generally sent out at 1*
years of age, and for two years after they leave Or
district school they are visited by the chaplaiofel
order to ascertain how they are going on.
The
guardians set their faces, and in ray opinion 'lel/
properly, against sending young girls to milliners/
or to any description of needlework. We have more
demands for children as apprentices than we 1i
children.

The Chairman—l believe the fact is notorious fat
there is a great demand for children?
Witness Yes; chiefly for domestic sere
The children receive an industrial training ;
believe that an industrial training out of the 03,0
house is better than one in the workhouse. .;,0
doubt in many cases the children of paupers reeel,:o
a better education than the children of those 114'0
contribute towards the poor rates. If the childtei
are refractory we lock them up for a few hours. d
think that no harm arises from allowing the b:01
women to mix with the good. As a gene
rule, we find that the example set by the iveii.
t
conducted exercises a good influence I
those who are badly disposed. There would s
much less chance of reclaiming the bad if It 6
,
placed them altogether and afforded them 11°°
portunity of judging by the conduct of others Wl'
their own ought to be.
By Mr. Lyall—As to placing them in a reforq
tory, I do not think they would go there. I should
however, feel disposed to remove respectable yellal
girls to some such establishment as that in Gres
Ormond-street, paying the amount of their Ina,„:
penance there.

By Mr. Alderman Sidney—There are 98 parisli,f6l
in the City of London Union, and they are c„elh
unequally rated to the relief of the poor. .1R
highest rates are 6s. and the lowest 6d.
Mr. Stockton, churchwarden of St. Pancras, II:
then called, and asked by the chairman to state r
objections he entertained as to the control ofe
Poor-law Board, and the amendments he vo:10
suggest in the law. He said he objected in 1';
first instance to the power exercised by the Poo-.
law Board of dismissing the masters of workhonsett
In his opinion it was a power which ought to u;
exercised by the guardians alone. The geardiari
of St. Pancras dismissed their officer in 1852, ala
,
the Poor-law Board declined to sanction this dr
missal, threatening the board with a writ of manila'
mus to compel them to take him back. After eon:
siderable correspondence Sir B. Hall and Lora
Dudley Stuart, the members for the borough, pro'
mised to take up the matter, and after that the
board heard no more from the central authority?!
but were allowed to rest in peace. What th°
guardians wanted was simply the power of di'
charging an officer if they were of opinion that h:
did not discharge his duties properly. They had 0
local act upon which they relied for the pore
they sought to exercise.
The Chairman—Have you had much occasion ,t°
dismiss your officers ? Have you dismissed • I°'
chaplain ?
Witness—Yes.
The Chairman—Was it upon the ground of
doctrine ?

_________
•
Witness—We thought he was too Romanistegill
0
his tendencies; and as he would not do for US " ..,re
got rid of him. We never dismiss a man from veto
caprice, and not without full inquiry. We s'
dismissed our medical officer about two years og„:11
The Chairman—ls there any other point 11P
which you think the law ought to be amended ?
Witness—Yes; I think the power of surehars
exercised by the auditors is exercised in a most e
jectionable manner. The names of particular I.
sons who happened to have signed the cheque uh-oi
allowed are published to the world as the names
persons who have misappropriated the funds of the
parish. The old system of audit ,a as much better
than that now adopted.
The Chairman remarked that the auditor 16
1
elected bY the chairman and vice-chairman of w
district for which he acted, and was perfectly ill"ie,
pendent of the Poor-law Board.
The committee then adjourned.