Bedfordshire Archives Service Catalogue
  • Reference
    QGR2/6/1/8
  • Title
    Report of the Visiting Justices to the Bedfordshire Midsummer Quarter Sessions. William Stuart junior, Chairman, H W Beauford, W B Higgins, J Campion, Brooks, B H Starey, C C Beaty Pownall. Includes the following:
  • Date free text
    June 1869
  • Production date
    From: 1869 To: 1869
  • Scope and Content
    In May the Chairman of the Visiting Justices was informed by the Revd H B Smyth that Mr Cumberland of Luton had publicly made statements involving serious imputations against the Officers of the Prison respecting the treatment of Thomas Kenney, a prisoner who died there on the night of April 23; but the nature of these imputations was not explicitly mentioned by Mr Smyth. The Visiting Justices determined to enquire into the matter and requested the assistance of one of the Government Inspectors of Prisons. The enquiry was commenced on the 24thMay in the presence of Mr Voules, one of the Inspectors, Mr Smyth cam e and brought with him two men, Buckingham and [George] Woodcraft, ho had been confined in the cell with Kenney, and had given Mr Cumberland the information on which he relied. Mr Smyth produced the statements of these men which he had taken down in writing and got them to sign. The Visiting Justices having read these statements found that the charges made were: 1) That Thomas Kenney was neglected by the Surgeon and not visited by the Chaplain. 2) That he was ill-treated by the warders. 3) That the Governor got them to sign untrue statements as to the circumstances of Kenneys death, and kept Buckingham back from giving evidence at the Coroners Inquest. The Visiting Justices then examined Buckingham and Woodcraft apart from each other and in the presence of Mr Voules and Mr Smyth; their examinations thus taken differed materially from their previous statements and were contradictory to each other in important particulars. On 1st June the Visiting Justices read written statements furbnished by the officers of the Gaol, and then cross examined these officers. The evidence taken on these two occasions as well as the written statements of Buckingham and Woodcraft will be in Court. On the 8th of June the Visiting Justices having carefull considered all the evidence before them came to the following conclusions: As concerns the charges made against the Governor the Visiting Justices are glad to relieve him of any blame, at the same time they consider it unfortunate that the exigences of the Prison rendered it necessary to confine those three prisoners in one cell and that it should have happened that this cell (though visited often during the night in question by the night watchman) was unfurnished with a bell. The Visiting Justices are of opinion that the Governor is completely exonerated from the charges against him,. The Visiting Justices are of opinion that no charge of intentional neglect has been proved against the surgeon; he may have been in error in considering the prisoner Kenney fit for hard labour but they are satisfied that he had no information as to his having refused his food or fainted or fallen at the shot drill. With regard to the Chief Warder the Visiting Justices are of opinion hat he was wrong in keepin the prisoner Kenney out so long in the yard after his refusing to work at the shot drill and falling - he should have had him sent back to his cell and acquainted the surgeon, and he should certainly have reported the case to the Governor or the Surgeon the fact of the prisoner having refused his food, which in fact was reported by Warder Bettles on Friday at 1pm. With regard to the charge of throwing water over the prisoner Kenney the Visiting Justices are satisfied that only so much water was sprinkled on the prisoner as to revive him when he appeared to be faint, and that it was not used or threatened as a punishment or after he had refused to work at the shot drill. With regard to the subordinate officers the Visiting Justices are of opinion that no charge of ill treatment or misconduct is proved against them. With regard to the statement that the prison had not been visited by the Chaplain the Visting Justices consider that fact satisfactorily accounted for. Mr Voules..has since written to the Clerk of the Peace stating that he concurs with the Visiting Justices.
  • Level of description
    item
Hierarchy browser