167

sions from the incidence of sickness. There were very few cases of sickness
serious enough to call for admission into hospital amongst the prisoners in
either class. Thus in the return for 1998 with an average daily strength of
174.59 there were 92 admissions into hospital, while during the six months
the prisoners were on these modified diets the total admission into hospital
were on a very much lower scale. While this is statisfactory, so far as it
goes, no conclusions can be drawn from it, as the sickness rates vary very
much from year to year quite independent of the diet.

     The only means of contrasting the results of the change that gives any real
measure of comparison is its effects on the body-weight, and even this is apt to
be fallacious. If the special diets had only been given to prisoners newly
admitted and their effects on the body-weight noted, a comparison with the
results of former years would have been of value but we had to place the
total prisoners of the jail on the diets and the number of new admissions was
too small to afford conclusive evidence.

     It is well-known that prisoners on first admission increase in body-weight
to a very marked extent.

     Thus the percentage of those who increased in weight during the year 1907
was 58 and in 1908 was 53.8 in the jails of Bengal. In 1908, 62 per cent. of
the prisoners in Puri jail increased in body-weight.

     We have by a comparison with these figures a means of measuring the
results obtained from the change of diet.

Class A.

Fish Diet.

     That is, for the usual period during which prisoners are retained in a small
district jail, like Puri jail, the percentage of those showing an increase in body-