'ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BOMBAY PRESIDENCY, FOR THE YEAR 1862-63’ [‎104r] (203/266)

IT.
1861
lfifl'4
3'3
5'4
5*4
ie real state of siclufi!
?ar all the serious®
included in the ate :
tory conclusions, h
iture on:
:e of sic
■parately.
able blankets, fa.,
ices of sack-cloth te
f clothing isin®|k j
scale is in force, t
, been introriucd.
ien satisfactorily
iil by Mr. Ricli*’
oe S not appear W :
will here briefly^
;u ine conclusions.
hich connnence^^'
submitted to
gs, in accord^
nay report-%
af the hr
iaid for>s
« red resultSOt ( ^
h e military P® ’
APPENDIX TO JUDICIAL REPORT.
has not been charged in the Engineer’s report, will entirely absorb the whole profit to
the convict labour fund, yet would render the cost of each convict to the State more than
four annas and six pies per head per diem.”* Thus by Mr. Richardson’s own showing
have the so-called financial advantages been demonstrated to be a myth.
The cost of guards, be they military or police, cannot by any show of sound reasoning
he excluded from such calculations. 1 he arguments in favour of such exclusion from the
returns of the road gangs apply with equal force to the case of prisoners engaged on in-door
labour. If therefore it be for a moment admitted that guards should notVorm an item of
debit in the.case of out-door gangs, it should equally be conceded that a similar exception
be made in the case of in-door gangs working'within the Jail.
It is impossible to follow Mr. Richardson’s calculations on the figures which he
quotes, as they are totally at variance with those supplied to this office, and items are
included as a outstanding debts,” “ cash balance,” and “Value of stock” in drawing I ge
neral summary of the cost and profit of the Jail factory An East India Company trading post. and road gangs together, which are
quite inadmissible. He concludes, however, by stating that “ no amount of factory An East India Company trading post. pro
ductiveness can ever yield so remunerative a return for the cost of keeping, clothincq
guaiding, and medical attendance, as does the labour of those employed on the roads ”
It is well known from Dr. Mouat’s reports that the very reverse of this is every day
taking place. But it may, perhaps, be objected that the Alipore and Mooghly Jails f are
exceptional cases, and that they must be excluded irom the comparison.
Admitting this exception, I maintain that the circumstances of the Munmar «ang
were equally exceptional, and that it was in consequence of the rates of labour in
Khandeisb being high, from the convicts performing a higher average of daily work than a
tree labourer, from their being frequently changed to enable them to keep up this high
average, and from the exclusion of a costly but legitimate item of expenditure in calcu
lating the value of work performed that exceptional results, if any, were due.
It will appear on reference to the 25th and 30th paragraphs inclusive of my report
on the out-door gangs, dated the 7th October 1862, and paragraphs 9 to 12 inclusive at
page 13, that these exceptional circumstances did exist, and that, calculated at two-thirds
ot free labour rates, viz. the rates fixed by Government, there was no profit from the
1 1 unmar gang, but an actual loss of Rs. 6,498-14-10, and that in the other three gangs,
where no exceptional reasons operated in their favour, a still heavier loss was incurred bv
the State.
But this is merely a money view of the case, and after all one scarcely to the advantage
of the gangs. I would, however, ask, are there no other and far higher considerations
involved in ihe question ? ihere are no doubt interests connected with this mode of
employment which are incompatible with even a show of discipline, with classification, moral
impiovement, and, I may add, with the health of those working in the road gangs.
On this latter point the data furnished a quarter of a century ago by the Bengal
prison committee in their masterly report are most conclusive, and are further corroborated
by recent inquiries in Bengal.
Dr. Mouat, the Inspector-General of Prisons for Bengal, has been, by order
oi the Government, lately engaged in inquiries as to the relative sickness and mortality
among piisoners employed on in-door and out-door labour. It appears from Dr. Mouat’s
tables that the rates of mortality for the last six years, viz. from 1856 to 1861, among
The value fixed by Captain Fife, the engineer officer in charge.
■f f ule report INo. ol5 of the 9th April 18G3, £2nd and following paragraphs.
1863-64