Part 10 (1/2)

These were the princ.i.p.al orders issued, and attempted to be carried out. I say attempted, for some of them were regularly evaded or broken by the prisoners, and winked at by the officers. These were the orders that were expected to be instrumental in converting thieves into honest men! Whatever opinion might be formed of their probable efficacy out of doors, or of the sanity of the man who sat in his office and scrawled them out, the thieves themselves mocked and ridiculed them, and called the small-minded military man set over them a ”Barmey”[20] humbug. ”What does it matter,” they would say to each other, ”how we walk? What does it matter whether our neck-ties be once or twice round? Why don't they teach us to get an honest living and show us a good example? What good will all this humbugging do us? We don't want to come into such places if they will only let us live when we are out. Why don't they find us work and try to keep us out of prison?” ”Ah! that would spoil their own trade,” someone would reply. Such criticisms pa.s.sed between the prisoners on these new orders, with an accompaniment of oaths which I cannot repeat.

[20] Insane.

The punishment for prison offences now became more severe under the new governor, and the following may be taken as fair examples of the manner in which this cla.s.s of offenders were dealt with. A convict just about due for his liberation had half-an-inch of tobacco given him by another prisoner. The officer happened to notice the gift, went to the prisoner, found the contraband article upon him, and took him before the governor. That gentleman sentenced him to ten days in the refractory cells, and recommended him to the prison director for the loss of his gratuity and three months' remission. The unfortunate prisoner was by-and-bye called up and informed that in addition to the governor's sentence he was condemned to lose all his gratuity money, which amounted to about 3_l._, and three months of his remission.

Two sentences for one offence were getting very common, but this prisoner happened to be one of those who cared very little about liberty, and received the information very coolly. As soon as he was out of the cells he had his ”snout” again as usual, but he was ”chaffed” a good deal by his ”pals” for neglecting to swallow the quid when he saw the officer coming to him. One of the hospital nurses (a convict) got punished, though not quite so severely, for appropriating to his own use a mutton chop that he was ordered to carry to the pigs.

At that time the authorities kept swine, who got all the food the patients could not eat, but now it is sold. The prisoner thought, I presume, that the chop would do a hungry man more good than it would an over-fed pig. Another prisoner was sentenced twice for having an onion on his person. One of his fellow-prisoners who was working among these luxuries gave him one, and as the officer in charge had a grudge against him, he was taken before the governor, who gave him ten days'

punishment, to which the director afterwards considerately added three months! Such offences as these were of daily occurrence, but the punishments for them when detected were very unequal.

It is not often a convict is flogged, but it does happen occasionally.

I remember a young rollicking Irishman being flogged for attempting to strike an officer, who, as often happens, was far more to blame than the prisoner, who in this case was goaded and tempted to strike. The majority of the officers--who are civil and sensible men, considering their position in society--would have acted very differently.

Another case, where the prisoner not only attempted but did actually strike his warder rather severely, met with a more lenient punishment.

In this case the prisoner was decidedly to blame, and his punishment, in technical language, was ”six months in chokey with the black dress and slangs.”

These cases were usually disposed of by the director at his monthly sitting. That gentleman--who was fond of having nothing to do--generally spent about twenty-four hours in prison per annum, spread over eleven visits of an average duration of two hours each. Latterly it was rather difficult for a prisoner to get to see him, and quite impossible if he had a complaint to make against any of the officials, which they thought he could establish. I have often thought that this gentleman's duties could be performed more satisfactorily for a less salary than one thousand pounds per annum!

Before leaving the hospital, I will now relate a few of the conversations I had with some of the patients.

”How long have you been unwell?”

”About fifteen months.”

”What is the matter with you?”

”Oh! my health has been ruined by the treatment I received in the Scotch prison before trial.”

”How long were you detained waiting trial?”

”Six months.”

”Have you been to the public works?”

”Yes, I was at Chatham; but my strength and const.i.tution gave way, and for a working man I am now ruined for life.”

”Did you enjoy your health before you got into prison?”

”I was never a day unwell, and was as stout and as fit for work as any man in the country.”

”What will you do when you get out of prison?”

”G.o.d knows! I suppose I shall have to go to the workhouse. I am very willing to work, but if I don't mend I shall never be able to handle a tool again.”

Another case--

”How long have you been ailing?”

”Ten months.”

”What is the matter with you?”