The Sun. — 1858-07-19 (London, England)

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 prisoners committed to his charge appears to have been entirely overlooked, and Major Childs is represented as pursuing with vindictive cruelty an innocent 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 concerned in it their lives. Your readersare introduced to the "unsavoury" details connected with the internal regulations of the worst of our penal settlements. 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 question 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 condect. 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 summary 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.