2
as giving at all events an opportunity for abuses of this nature, and as also affording a rearly occasion for tobacco or implements or food being handed to Chinese prisoners. We enquired about the alleged misconduct of Principal Warder No. 32, but we are satisfied that such misconduct did not take place.
(d) With regard to the allegations of prisoners being ill-used, we have carefully questioned the above 6 witnesses upon the subject, and are of opinion that such allegations are not well founded.
(e) Upon the food question generally, we may add that it is clear that a considerable outbreak of beri-beri occurred in the gaol in October/ November last, which caused a further shortage of the gaol staff in those months inasmuch as many of the prisoners were removed to Kennedy Town. The beri-beri was due to the prisoners being put on a diet of white rice, and we think it regrettable that the beef congee diet was not started sooner. The experiment which was tried of mixing bran with the rice, though no doubt good from a medical point of view, was a failure, as the prisoners absolutely refused to eat the rice mixed with bran. Such an incident shows that prisoners are by no means so powerless to voice their grievances as is suggested by Wong Kwong; and the state- ments of the Chief Warder, Principal Warder Robertson, and Mok Sing have satisfied us that prisoners are afforded ample and unrestricted opportunity of making complaints about food, ill-treatment and other
matters.
(There were certainly no deaths from starvation in 1918 or 1919. In every
case of a death in the gaol an Inquest is held.
(g) We do not think it worth while to comment further on Wong Kwong's
statements.
In dealing with questions relating to the food, clothing and treatment of prisoners, we have thought it advisable (though it does not fall strictly within the terms of the reference to us) to go into the statements of the other convicted man, Mok Sing, as reported in the Daily Press of Tuesday the 23rd March, 1920, more especially as his reimarks were far more connected and coherent than those of Wong Kwong; and, in order to sift his complaints fully to the bottom, we have taken a very full statement from Principal Warder Robertson (referred to by Mok Sing at his trial as a kind man) and have interviewed Mok Sing himself at some length.
(1.) As regards food, Mok Sing complains:
(a) That he was not given enough food;
(b) That the rice was not properly cooked;
(c) That the prisoners were sometimes given rotten fish and bad food;
(d) That condemned prisoners do not receive the proper allowance of food;
(e) That short sentence prisomers do not get the proper Regulation allowance
of food;
(f) That long sentence prisoners do not get the proper Regulation allowance of
food;
(g) That if prisoners wanted to weigh the rice they were hindered in doing so.
Our findings on the above are as follows:-
(a) That such is not the case;
(b) That during the white rice period last year, owing to the rice being partly broken rice, it was very difficult to cook and was, in some instances, not well cooked;
(c) That, in summer time, the fish was occasionally bad, but that it was changed by the compradore, on complaint being made, either for fresh fish, or, if that could not be procured, salt fish was supplied in its place; (d) That such is not the case:
(e) and (ƒ) That such is not the case. We recommend however that a new measure be made for the equivalent of 16 oz. of food, which is one of the regular rations.
(g) We are satisfied that this statement is absolutely unfounded. Mok Sing admitted that he was allowed, when he complained of short allowance
of rice, to see it weighed and was not scolded or hindered in any way; and we are satisfied, from what the Chief and Principal Warder told us that no punishment is inflicted on any prisoner for making unfounded complaints of short weight, unless he has done so 3 times at least, in which event he is either cautioned or put on rice and water for a day.
(2) Other complaints made by Mok Sing were :--
(a) That they were not given enough blankets;
(b) That during this past winter, they were supplied with a flannelette shirt,
instead of a flannel shirt.
As regards point (a) we are satisfied that the reserve of blankets was too low this last winter, and that the Medical Officer's recommendation as regards extra blankets for prisoners could not be carried out; and we recommend that a larger reserve of blankets be kept in the future.
As regards point (b) we are satisfied that there was cause for complaint owing to a single flannelette shirt being issued to prisoners for a few weeks in November-Decem ber, 1919, but this was afterwards remedied by two flannelette shirts being issued in lieu of one flannel shirt. We have been informed by the Chief Warder that the flannel ordered from England has now arrived and is being made up into flannel shirts for the pri-
soners.
3. Comments on and suggestions for the Reform of Gaol Administration will now be made, and will be accompanied by occasional references to the Verdict of the Coroner's jury, a copy of which has been forwarded to us.
4. The first suggestion of the Coroner's jury is that the numerous implements found in Cell 63 after the escape of the prisoners could not all of them have come there without some collusion between the prisoners and the officials of the gaol. We think that probably this is so; but proper supervision in searching the prisoners on their going off duty and in searching their cells ought to have made such collusion impossible. We are satisfied that the non-discovery of such implements in Cell 63 by the Warders who searched that portion of the gaol on Saturday the 13th December, 1919, was due to gross negligence on the part of two Indian Warders, who have since been dismissed. We are, however, clear that the chupatti and the ginger which were found in Cell 63 must have been introduced into that cell by direct collusion between an Indian Warder and Prisoner 791.
5. As regards searching the cells of prisoners, we understand from Mr. Frauks, who has had some years' experience at Dartmoor and Brixton gaols, that it is the custom in England, as it is here, to search the cells only once a week in addition to the ordinary daily inspections.
We desire to point out that such daily inspections are only for the purpose of seeing that everything is tidy and are inadequate for the discovery of any hidilen implements. We also have to point out in connection with the searching of cells that, at the time of the occurrence in question, owing to the shortage of the staff, which has since been remedied, it was the custom to have such searches of cells conducted entirely by Indians instead of, as now, under European supervision. It is certain that two of the weapons, (fashioned out of files) which were exhibits in the murder trial, as well as the key for opening the door of the cells (also an exhibit) were manufactured at the tinsmith's shop. It also seems probable that the key of the gate, leading out into the yard, was manu- factured at the Tinsmith's shop. The above shows in our opinion an extraordinary lack of supervision.
Mr. Franks is opposed to the closing down of the tinsmith's shop on the ground that it is useful for minor repairs and for making food tins and iron buckets, but we are of opinion that, on the whole, it is desirable that the tinsmith's shop should be closed, nad that the work of the tinsmiths who are about ten in number, should be carried out otherwise. In the course of our inspection we found one of the prisoner tinsmiths meading one of the locks of the gaol under European supervision, but we consider that such a practice and also the practice of repairing the keys of the gaol in the tinsmith's shop is most undesirable; and it is significant that one of the prisoners who escaped is an expert blacksmith.
318