brought in they took their clothing from them by force, and exchanged it for rum.
4. The indiscriminate intermingling of criminals, untried prisoners, and debtors, was another monstrous abuse, and led, in many instances, to the conversion of debtors and innocent parties into criminals.
5. Parents were allowed to have their children with them in jail, and young offenders were exposed to all the corrupting influences of association with confirmed and reckless villains.
6. It was presented as a radical evil that a large proportion of the prisoners were unemployed; and farther, it was maintained that labor, even in the public streets, was preferable to sheer idleness within the walls.
In view of these several considerations, and as the result of careful observation, the Society resolved that “labor in seclusion, and the interdiction of all intoxicating drinks, were the two principal elements of the desired reform.”
Publications; and Reform of Penal Code.—From an early period, the Society had issued through the press, memorials and addresses in behalf of its objects, and in 1790 a pamphlet was published, entitled, “Extracts and Remarks on the Subject of Punishment and the Reformation of Criminals,” 500 copies of which were distributed among the members of the Legislature, and other persons prominently connected with the government, with a view to preparing them to support such reforms as the observations of the Society had suggested to be necessary. As a result mainly due to the efforts of the Society, an Act was passed in April, 1790, to reform the penal code of the State, by which the principle of individual separation was recognized, though applied strictly only to “more hardened and atrocious offenders, who
are sentenced for a term of years,” while the introduction of intoxicating drinks was prohibited under severe penalties.
Early Advantages of Separation.—Even this very partial separation resulted so satisfactorily, that one of its early fruits was the Act of 1794, by which it was intended that not only “the more hardened and atrocious offenders,” but all convicts should be subjected to seclusion. But as the number of the cells was not equal to one-third the average number of the convicts (say thirty of the former to one hundred of the latter) the Inspectors were obliged to exercise their discretion. Some of the prisoners, immediately on their admission, were conducted to their separate cells, and remained in them until their discharge; and the remarkable and most gratifying fact is on record, (see Roberts Vaux’s Letter of Sept. 21st, 1827, to William Roscoe, of Liverpool,) that the cases thus treated were the only instances of reformation which continued throughout the lives of the individuals, so far as they could be traced, or their condition ascertained by diligent inquiry.
Jailor’s Fees.—In the year 1796, the sore evil and reproachful practice which existed, of the jailors exacting fees, as a condition of liberation from imprisonment, was taken in hand, and an adequate salary to the keeper was suggested as the best remedy, so that he might have no personal interest in any question affecting the liberty of the prisoner. This wholesome suggestion was not, however, at that time, as fully accepted and acted upon as its importance demanded.
Imprisonment of Debtors.—The broad and interesting question of imprisonment for debt, in its various aspects, came up for investigation and consideration by the Society in 1798, and resulted in an Act of the Legislature