Ninth: Edward Baker further asserted that the reply furnished to the House to his first petition was garbled and untrue. It had been prepared secretly in the prison; it was altogether false; facts had been suppressed or distorted; and that besides, the “cats” used were not those sanctioned by law.
Tenth: that the governor had exceeded his powers of punishment, and that in some cases prisoners had undergone as many as eighteen days’ bread and water in one month.
Finally, to quote the words of the petition, Baker urged that—“During the last three years the cruel conduct of the governor is known to have induced twenty prisoners to attempt suicide, and that four have actually succeeded in destroying themselves, and that others are constantly threatening self-destruction; forming a melancholy contrast with the system pursued during the twenty-three preceding years at the Millbank Penitentiary, that system being free from any such stain during that period:
“That the severity of punishments for alleged offences has led to the removal of many prisoners in a dying state to the invalid hulk at Woolwich, where every seventh man has since died, although when they came into the prison they were in good health. This cruel removal takes place to prevent the necessity for coroner’s inquests within the walls, and exposure of the discipline of the prison.”
The petitioner therefore prays for an immediate inquiry into the manner in which Millbank is conducted, the deaths that have occurred, the cruelties that are practised, the dying prisoners that have been removed; also into the numerous reports and irregular hours and conduct of the governor, and how far the inspectors have done their duty by allowing such irregularities to pass unnoticed; “such facts being notorious to all the prison.”
In consequence of this petition an inquiry was instituted by the House of Commons; and the Earl of Chichester, Lord Seymour, and Mr. Bickham Escott were appointed commissioners.
A very searching and patient investigation followed, the full report of which fills an enormous Blue-Book of hundreds of pages. It would be tedious to the reader if I were to go through the evidence, in anything like detail, of the many witnesses examined; the commissioners may be trusted to have done this conscientiously, and their summing up in deciding on the allegations against Captain Grove may be quoted here. The evident animus of the subordinates against their governor is very clearly shown in every page: nothing he did was right, and the complaints when not actually false, as in the case of prisoner Chinnery, were childish and almost beneath consideration. One officer declared that Captain Groves did not like the old prison officers; that he had said openly “he would get them all out.” They could never please him; they got no credit however much they might exert themselves. Another told the governor he was breaking his (the officer’s) spirit and his heart. “He (Captain Groves), after making his rounds, would send for supervisors and warders in a body and reprimand them in his office. Once when an officer expostulated with him, Captain Groves struck him to the ground with his stick, and swore he’d have none of his d——d Penitentiary tricks.” Another officer, who had been sent to Pentonville and came back without an important document, complained that he had been sent again all the way to the Caledonian Road to fetch it. Mr. Gray (the victim) considered this was a great hardship, although he admitted that he was none the worse for his walk. All the officers were positive they had much more to do now than ever before. Mr. Gray, above-mentioned, complained also that he had been deprived of his lawful leave; yet he admitted that when all the paint work of the prison was filthily dirty and had to be scrubbed, it was badly done; and that the governor had only insisted on officers remaining on duty till the whole was properly cleaned.