There Rules seem to me as flagrant a breach of the Secretary of State's instructions as I have ever read.
In '96 we had a lengthy correspondence with the Governor relative to the use of flogging in the Gaol. In Despatch 19172, we exceptionally strong precautions against abuse of flogging. Inter alia we said "no instrument of flogging shall be used... other than the cat in any case whatever... In all cases too the maximum number of strokes shall be forty. Where the case has been dealt with by the Superintendent, the maximum number of strokes shall be twelve. In no case shall be as it were... the Superintendent shall be present..." (looked at all as 201).
In view of this Despatch, Ord 5 of 47 was introduced to amend the law in regard to flogging.
These Rules are framed under Ord 29 & Instructions from the Governor in Council with looked chs with surfaces.
The Flogging provisions of these Rules (see Ss 290-294) are in strict violation of the above quoted Despatch of Ord of 1897.
They empower the Asst. Supt to flog & to authorize a maximum penalty of fifteen strokes, they allow Visiting Justices to inflict thirty strokes & they reintroduce the cat.
Firstly, I should telegraph home that these Rules are disallowed. See my Despatch of 11 August 1954. Prison Rules of March 97 should be reintroduced for present Despatch follows by mail.
I should amplify in a Despatch saying that the Rules as proposed above are not approved.
I should also tell the Governor that the Prison Rules which were amended in 1897 after careful enquiry & lengthy correspondence should not have been repealed & amended in essential particulars without the S of S's approval & I should point out that the Flogging provisions are not only contrary to Despatch of 97. I should say that this Ordinance is illegal.
The power to flog must not be allowed where it is not applied to Hosgi CPL prison Ex must allude to Brdu, the power where IE tht.
--12635-2000-190
I am not prepared to consider any amendments of the Regulations approved in 1897, unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the S of S.
When the rearrangement of duties proposed in this Despatch is introduced, some amendments of those Regulations will doubtless be required.
And I should express surprise that Regulations (in direct contravention to the S of S's instructions) should have been submitted without any explanation. [Sir H. Blake himself was probably aware of the above quoted Despatch, "but surely his may should have overlooked it.]
GR1178/1922/32(III)
Page 587
Page 587
Page 587
--end of page--
--start of next page--
Page 588
Page 588
Page 588
was removed and the relevant information was directly formatted into HTML as per the instructions. The response now directly outputs the proofread text in HTML format.