The Prison Chaplaincy, And Its Experiences

by Hosea Quinby

Here the commissioned dignitaries from kings and emperors found themselves met with delegates from voluntary associations and democratic institutions. How could they, in justice to their dignity, submit to this? But the matter was amicably adjusted, and all came upon a democratic level and acted in the greatest harmony,—an important gain to manhood. The meeting was held at a Hall of the Middle Temple; at the opening, Earl Carnarvon presiding and making the inaugural address, giving welcome to the foreign delegates and making numerous important suggestions. At the next session Dr. Wines presided, and gave an address full of information as to the purpose of calling this congress and the objects to be gained,—a universal harmony in prison managing, which managing should have certain broad principles underlying, permeating and vivifying it.

At a soiree given by the English committee to foreign visitors, the Prince of Wales and suit attended, thus showing the sanction of the English government to the congress. This sanction was also expressed by the attendance at one session of the Home Secretary of State, Right Hon. Austin H. Bruce, giving an official welcome to the gathering, and expressing a hope of being materially profited by the deliberations. The meeting, on the whole, was an important affair, of high interest from beginning to end. Its transactions are published in a volume of 796 pages, to be had of Rev. Dr. Wines, New York. Then one of the commissioners from New Hampshire, Mr. Allen Folger, wrote out a synopsis of the doings, which has been published in a pamphlet of 50 pages, by the authority of our State, for distribution, showing the interest our Governor and Council take in these matters.

The questions before spoken of were taken up by each country and elaborate answers given, papers were read upon them and thorough discussion had. The order was not to take any votes but to bring in facts of the various prison workings, to interchange views, criticise and thus sift out the best, in which, evidently, great enlightening of mind was obtained, and a great advancement made in the right direction. On page 537 of Transactions we have the following reform sentiments: "Man, in the state of penal servitude, is no longer a thing, but a moral being, whose liberty human justice has not the right to confiscate absolutely and irrevocably, but only within the limits required by the protection and security of social order. The logical sequence of this view is, that it is the duty of society to reform the criminal during his temporary privation of liberty, since, in this way only can the peril of his relapse be successfully combatted, and the public safety effectually maintained. The reformation of imprisoned criminals is not, therefore, in our day, a work of philanthropy, but an obligation of the State."

In one or two prisons they have been so successful in reform efforts, that, having taken some of the very worst criminals, they have led them to such order and good behavior, as to be able to dispense with locks and bars, rendering the prison more like a great family, kindness being the great controlling element.

In the abridged report of the proceedings of the International Congress, under the head of "Cumulative Imprisonment," we learn that the following question was submitted, and several important suggestions followed its presentation.

Question: Ought prisoners on reconviction to be subjected to more severe disciplinary treatment than on the first sentence?

It was opened by M. Peterson, of Bavaria, who maintained that cases required treatment according to the degree of demerit shown on the prisoner's trial, and therefore, that instead of laying down one principle, the right course was to leave the judges to decide what should be done in each case.

M. Ploos Van Amstel, of Holland, and M. Stevens, of Belgium, advocated a merciful treatment as likely to have more effect than severity.

Mr. Aspinall, of Liverpool, read resolutions which the Liverpool magistrates had passed, to the effect that it was desirable that cumulative principles should be applied to the punishment of all crimes and offences, and that the magistrates should be empowered to transfer well conducting and deserving prisoners to homes for the remainder of their sentences. Voluminous statistics showed that there were numerous reconvictions up to seventy times, and that the conclusions arrived at, by the magistrates, was that it would be better for the prisoners and better for society if the cumulative principles were carried out.

Dr. Guillaume, of Switzerland, mentioned his experiences in some of the cantons of his country, which had led him to the conviction that it was better to give the reconvicted such sentences as would enable the prisoner to learn a trade, by which he could earn his living in the labor market without being obliged to fall back upon the lines of crime, than to give short and severe punishments, which, by including a lessened diet, sent the criminal back into the world, not only unimproved in morals, but deteriorated physically.