B.—3b

78

6. And there were two " wet" occupants in the new dormitory ?—Yes. That was probably accidental. 7. Ten in 126. Is not that a large proportion ?—No, I do not think so. I could not be absolutely certain of the ten. This is nothing unusual. 8. Besides the coarse shirts, did the boys have any under-shirts ?—No; a few had flannel shirts. The majority had not. 9. Do you think it sufficient clothing when clad in only a coarse shirt ? 10. Do you not think they want something more? —I do not think so ; but I think they want more suitable material next to the skin, for the purposes of health. 11. As regards size, you say the boys were under-sized as compared with boys in England and Wales. Can you suggest any reason ?—We have not sufficient grounds to go upon to make our opinion of much value. 12. Are there conveniences of any description in these dormitories?—ln the new dormitory there are none. In the big dormitory there is one in the corner. We understand that the boys in the new dormitory go to this. In the " wet " dormitory there is none. This is just off the big one. In the children's dormitory there was none when we were there. There is a urinal in the big dormitory. There is no w.c.; but we heard that two pails were brought in at nights. 13. Do you consider baths necessary for health in winter?— Yes; most decidedly. 14. Did you see any bathing appliances ?—Yes. They have one bath in the room off the big dormitory, and arranged round the wall are basins for washing hands and faces. 15. Are there any proper conveniences for bathing a large number of boys? —We did not inquire into this, as it did not come within the scope of what we were asked to report upon. With regard to the one bath, we were informed that the hot-water system was not working at present. One bath would be hardly sufficient. 16. Was the general appearance of things clean or otherwise?— Clean. We got there on Saturday morning, when they were washing out. They were doing it very thoroughly. 17. What is your opinion of confinement of boys in cells for eight days, night and day, with visits four times a day, and caning occasionally, even supposing that the food was given as usual ? Do you think such treatment would be likely to be harmful or not ?—Harmful, undoubtedly. 18. Would such solitary confinement be likely to affect boys from ten to fifteen?— Yes, both mentally and bodily, It would, of course, not improve the nutrition ; and, mentally, it would tend to make them dull and apathetic. 19. We have had a great deal of evidence about boys taking mustard for headaches of all descriptions. Have you had any experience in dosing boys with mustard in that fashion ? —Only in cases of severe poisoning. 20. Do you think it is a reasonable or proper remedy in cases of bilious headaches and headaches generally?—No, I.do not. 21. Mr. Bush.] You would not give it in such cases?—No, I would not. It has a very irritating effect: just the same as if applied to the skin. 22. Mr. Harley.] The greater the quantity the more the irritation, I suppose ? —I cannot agree with that: a large quantity might come up straight away. A moderate dose might be more' harmful than a large dose. 23. It is a violent emetic ? —Yes. 24. I gather it is one you would not give as a general practice ? —No, decidedly not. 25. Mr. Fell.] You heard that a doctor recommended tbe use of this emetic, followed by a moderate dose of castor oil. I suppose there is nothing absolutely injurious in that ?—Of course, it depends on what you call injurious. If in every case you were not certain about you gave a dose of mustard, your mortality would tend to increase. 26. Supposing you heard that it had been practised for many years back in the school, and that in six years there were no deaths at all ?—That is no argument. So far there may not have been any deaths; yet next week you might have two or three deaths. 27. Would it be imprudent ?—I should call it injurious, unnecessary, and cruel. 28. Even if recommended by another doctor? —That is another matter. lam just answering you on a point of general practice. 29. I suppose one cause of boys being under-sized is heredity, low parentage, a low form of health or constitution, or neglect in early days. This is a frequent and common cause, is it not, of a general arrest and retardation of development ?—Yes, of course. But that may be corrected to a very large extent, if not entirely, in the course of years. In conclusion, I would like to state that we were received at the Orphanage with every kindness and courtesy. At the same time, I think there should be some medical officer to attend to the minor ailments of the boys. One boy had a big abscess, and another was suffering from a scalded foot when we were up there. 30. Mr. Bush.] Had the boy with the scalded foot not had medical attendance ?—-No ; neither of them. It was not a very bad scald. Perhaps one visit would have been sufficient. As it was, the scalded foot was bound up with a dirty piece of rag with some sort of oil on it. Dr. Talbot was called, and said : I concur with what Dr. Gibbs has stated regarding the condition of the boys and their clothing and of the dormitories at the Stoke Industrial School. My evidence would be exactly the same as his on those matters; and I strongly disapprove of the treatment by mustard-and-water and of the solitary confinement. Donald Mac Donald (known in religion as Beothee Augustine), re-called and re-examined on former oath. 31. Mr. Fell.] Have you made up the accounts for the school since yesterday ? I understand there were some erors in the list read by Brother Loetus ?—I went through the bocks with Brother Damien last night, and we checked various items.