INFLUENCE OF FLOGGING ON REFRACTORY PRISONERS.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2597, 4 May 1877, Page 3

INFLUENCE OF FLOGGING ON REFRACTORY PRISONERS.

The Daily News, referring to a recent conference on prison discipline, says: — In a conversation on flogging Dr Mouatt told a story of his experience in Indian prisons. In one gaol there were a hundred military prisoners, men who had resisted, all means of discipline in the army as soon as flogging was abolished. They, took possession of the prison as it were by force, and being strong men the Governor said it was impossible for him an^iis small staff to manage them uiiless their physical natures were appealed to. So-Dr.'Mouatt went down, paraded them, and readout their character rolls. The first was Timothy M'Carthy, described as, "without exception, the greatest blackguard in the British army." Dr Mouatt read;him the description, and asked if it was correct. " It's my portrait," he re« plied, " bjat not painted by myself," " You cannot deny thai you are a great blackguard.^ If you resist the authorities in ;tlie prison,; there is oflly one argument, and that 1 must apply to your back." ."Have, you, the power?" he masked. ''-Why do you doubt it?" replied Dr. Mouatt. "Because in the articles oFwar, flogging is abolished, and I am a soldie|," said the prisoner., " No, you are no longer 'under-military rule." The law was then read to him, and five minutes 'Werie giten; him for reflection. At the eno!. of the time the fellow., went "upv salUted, and said, ". Sir, I give in." The'threat, of flogging had been ienough. Major. Fulford, who had had to deal for three-and-twenty years with prisoners from the ; Staffordshire iron mines, said tliat such men could not be managed, without corporal punishment, though he,. resorted to it as rarely as possible, and had it administered "iti presence of all the- prisoners, and .its reason explained.' Some years ago he had a young man in prison for two years for robbing a fellow-workman, and nearly killing him with a pickaxe. One morning the man seemed perfectly: mad, broke everything in his cell, tore tip his clothes, and threatened to, ,kill- the first man jwho entered. Major Fulford went to the man, told him he be flogged, and ordered him to pick up the things he had scattered about. He .refused, and nothing would move him. He was quietly told that he would have nothing to eat or drink till he obeyed, and ■was then locked up, with an injunction from the Major, " Send for me if you vant anything." At the end of 48 hours he sent for Major Fulford, and said, " I'm that clemmed, I can't stand it." " Pick up the things," was the reply, and the fellow obeyed at once. The flogging was inflicted, and the co.nvict remained two years in the prison without having another bad/ mark against him. Four or five years after his release, Major Fulford. met. him, working as a navvy in another part of the country; and he at once offered his hand to shake hands. "Then you don't owe: me any grudge for that flogging ? " asked the Major. f'Not I," said the navvy; !'I -was .-a d—^d fool." -Mr Frederic Hill, now Secretary to the Post Office, who was formerly an Inspector of Prisbris,: said that on going tb:Elgin, many; years ago, he was told by s the keeper of a prison that a powerful man had barricaded himself in liis cell. The keeper's notion tp.send foif a numlber of.men'ajad force it; but Mr Hill advised that he should be lefFwithouf; food till he himself asked the warder to enter. It is needless to say that no long time, elapsed before the man; was glad to take down his barricades, and; ask the warder to; go 4n.