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

THE CASE OP MR. BARBEL?.  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 him by " one Major Child." This name should be " Childs."  The fact that it was not the province of Major Childs to decide on the guilt or innocence of the prison( rs 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 principal agent in a crime which not many years previously 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. Barber, and that he was treated probably neither worse nor better than his fellow convicts, albeit (as the writer takes care to point out) an " innocent convict." But, whether innocent or not, I repeat he was sent to the island as a 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 his 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 Commandant, from which last post he retired in April, 1857, with the honorary rank of Major-General. Let the writer of the article inquire among the officers and men with whom Major-General Childs served, and whom he subsequently commanded, for instances of his tyrannical and oppressive condiet. With those who know Major-General Childs and his character I feel assured that your article will avail 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 in the service of his country, I think he may congratulate himself on his success, for I doubt whether the old officer is sufficiently " strong-minded" entirely to disregard the article the article and to treat it with the contempt which it deserves. lam proud to call that old officer my father, and beg to.subscribe myself, sir, your obedient servant,  J. C. CHILDS, Captain R.A. Alderney, July 13. *** 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 bis case with unrelenting severity, while he modified them in the cases of other prisoners. Barber was kept to his urine-tubs, while Fletcher was remitted at once to the comfortable and light servitude of the apothecary's shop. At this work he was kept, despite the earnest and repeated remonstrances of the other officials on the island. It was not until Major Childs was told that he would be held responsible for the death of the man he was.killing by inches that he desisted from persecuting him in one way to persecute him in another. The change from the urine-tubs to the fellowship of murderers who were daily threNtenii,;, to Main him was no it g..in to poor Mr. Barber. Finally, Major Childs " quitted" Norfolk Island by the very summary process of a dismissal. If Captain Childs is dissatisfied with our remarks, let him turn to his father's own evidence before the committee. By that alone let Major Childs be judged.--Editor of Times.