The English Prison System

by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise

Although historically our Prison System may be said to date from the Prison Act, 1778, a long, dismal history of ill-considered administration was destined to intervene before the principles of penal science, as now understood, obtained expression. It is probable that the discovery of Australia by Captain Cook was the "mésure de circonstance" which determined the prison history of this country for nearly fifty years. The easy methods and means of transportation which this great Colony afforded, relieved Parliament of the necessity of inventing any new and wise methods for the punishment of crime. The system instituted in 1788 for the transportation of offenders to the Australian Colonies was regularly organized and extensively acted upon up to 1840. It could not, however, survive the condemnation of the Parliamentary Inquiry of 1837. It was condemned absolutely, as being unequal, without terror to the criminal class, corrupting to both convicts and colonists, and extravagant from the point of expense. This condemnation of the Colonial System followed closely on another Inquiry of the previous year into the Hulks, and the System of Imprisonment at home.

Transportation to New South Wales was abolished by Order in Council in 1840, and in the case of those still transported to Van Dieman's Land, a "progressive stage" system was instituted, under which convicts were able to gain a succession of privileges in different classes, terminating either in a ticket-of-leave in the Colony, or in a conditional or absolute pardon. This plan, however, failed, as the benefits of a gradually improving condition could not be realized from the fact that the supply of convicts was greater than the demand, and so they could not be absorbed when they had qualified for private service or employment. There was no employment to prevent these men from starving, and the Government were obliged to furnish subsidies and work. By 1846, accounts which had been received of the moral degradation of the convicts, crowded together in depôts, were of so alarming and deplorable a nature, that public opinion was deeply roused, and the two Ministers who were then responsible (Lord Grey at the Colonial Office and Sir George Grey at the Home Office) took the matter in hand. Transportation was stopped for two years, and it was generally agreed that it could not be resumed on the former plan. It was arranged that all convicts should undergo (1) a limited period of separate confinement at home, the advantages of which as a basis of discipline had been fully proved at Pentonville Prison: (2) that they should then be sent to associated labour on Public Works in this country, or at Gibraltar, and Bermuda, and (3) thence they should be removed on Ticket-of-Leave to any Colony disposed to receive them.

The history of Pentonville Prison is an essential guide to a clear understanding of the actual basis of our Penal Servitude, as well as of our ordinary Prison System. I have already stated that the Penitentiary idea, of which the basis is separate or cellular confinement, had found expression in an Act of Parliament of 1778, and that the idea had, owing to many circumstances, remained obscure till it was revived in the United States of America. In the second quarter of the last century Mr. Crawford, an Inspector of Prisons appointed under the Prison Act, 1824, (which had again endorsed the principle, although little or no effect was given to it) was sent to America to report on the question. Papers drawn up by himself and Mr. Russell, also an Inspector of Prisons for the Home District, were submitted to Parliament, and were widely discussed. In 1837, Lord John Russell, the then Home Secretary, issued a Circular to the Magistracy expressing his own conviction on the efficacy of separate cellular confinement, as a means both for the punishment of crime, and for the reformation of the offender. It was then decided to erect Pentonville Prison as a model Prison on the cellular plan for the purpose of practically working out a new system of Prison discipline. The Prison was occupied in December 1842. Commissioners were appointed to superintend the experiment, drawn from leading members of the social and public life of the community. Two Medical Commissioners were also appointed to watch narrowly the effect on the health of the prisoners. The period of separate confinement was limited to eighteen months. The Second Report of the Commissioners expressed the opinion that the adoption of separate confinement, as established at Pentonville Prison, promised to effect a most salutary change in the treatment of criminals, and was well calculated to deter, correct, and reclaim the offender; and in their Fourth Report they stated that the Separate System was safe and efficient, and that generally the moral results of the discipline had been most encouraging, and were attended with a success which was without parallel in the history of prison discipline, and that it was the only sound basis on which a reformatory discipline could be established with any reasonable hope of success.

In virtue of these strong and unanimous opinions, the principle of Separate Confinement for the first stage of Penal Servitude was established, the period in the first instance not to exceed fifteen or eighteen months. At the end of that period the principle of employing convict labour on national works of importance was adopted, as affording, in connection with the reformatory influences brought to bear in separate confinement, the best means of training the men to those habits of industry which would fit them to earn an honest livelihood on discharge, either at home or abroad. The abolition of the Hulks was at the same time decided upon. The employment of a large body of convicts on what was called the "Public Works" System commenced a new era in the history of Prison Administration in England. It was a combined system applicable to all convicts: (1) a fixed period of separate confinement: (2) employment in association on Public Works at home for a period apportioned to the term of the sentence: (3) disposal with a Ticket-of-Leave in the Colonies. It was ordained that a convict "shall not pass out of the custody of the Government in the Colony until he shall be engaged, for at least a year, for service with some private employer. If suitable service cannot be obtained, the convict shall be employed by Government." The condition of the Ticket-of-Leave was that "the holder is required to remain in a particular district, must be at his dwelling from 10 o'clock at night to day-break, and must report himself periodically to the Police Officer of the district." This combined system of home discipline and colonial disposal depended for its success (1) on the character and conduct of the convict being such, while under the discipline of a Public Works Prison, that remission could reasonably be accorded with a view to expatriation: (2) that the Colony should be willing to receive convicts on Ticket-of-Leave, i.e., in a state of semi-liberty. In fact, convicts were able to render themselves ready for transportation after serving less than half the period of their sentence, e.g., two years, in a seven years' sentence, two-and-three-quarters in ten years, and so on. The claims to this remission were carefully estimated from daily records of conduct and industry kept by the subordinate officers. No Mark System, as now understood, was then in operation. A system of Badges (worn on the arm of every prisoner) was the principal incentive to good conduct. As soon as the letters "V.G." (Very Good) were inscribed on the Badge, he became eligible for a Ticket-of-Leave. Gratuities were also credited to well-conducted convicts for conduct and industry, respectively. There were three degrees of conduct, carrying 6d., 4d., and NIL per week. There were three degrees of industry—VERY GOOD, GOOD, and NIL, carrying 9d., 4d., and NIL.

The first prisoners were embarked from Portland in 1849. Favourable accounts were received of their conduct from Van Dieman's Land and Australia. The System, however, which was bearing good fruits, only remained in operation till 1852, when Van Dieman's Land refused any longer to be made the receptacle for the disposal of malefactors from the Mother-Country, and the cessation of Transportation, and the release of so many desperate characters at home, caused the gravest apprehension in the public mind. There were at that time about 8,000 male convicts in the Convict Prisons in England, and at Bermuda and Gibraltar. The question arose whether the men should be released perfectly free, as had previously been the case of thousands discharged from the Hulks, or whether the plan of granting a Ticket-of-Leave on a principle which had long been established in the Colonies, should be adopted. The Penal Servitude Act, 1853, represents the decision of Parliament on the matter. That Act substituted sentences of Penal Servitude for those of Transportation, four years of the one being deemed equivalent to seven years of the other; and the Secretary of State was empowered to grant to a convict a licence to be at large during the unexpired portion of the original sentence of Transportation. Public opinion remained, however, restless and dissatisfied with the discharge of so many Ticket-of-Leave holders in the Mother-Country, and a formidable public agitation led to the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1856. The Penal Servitude Act of 1857 embodies their recommendation, viz:—that the terms of Penal Servitude should be extended to a period corresponding with former sentences of Transportation, and that every punishment by Penal Servitude should, in addition to separate Imprisonment and labour on Public Works, include a further period capable of being abridged by the good conduct of the convict himself, i.e., that there should be a remission of part of a sentence of Penal Servitude in the case of those convicts whose conduct in Prison was such as not to deprive them of the indulgence. The portion to be remitted varied from one-sixth in the case of a three years, or minimum, sentence, to one-third of a sentence of fifteen years and upwards. The principal punishment for serious crime became then what it has remained ever since, and involves a triple responsibility on the part of the Judge who passes the sentence, the Secretary of State who fixes the maximum amount of remission, and the Prison Authorities whose duty it is to keep a just account of the conduct and industry which will enable them to reckon the amount of remission to be granted.

What has since been known as the Progressive Stage System was introduced by regulations passed subsequently to the Act of 1857. They prescribed a period of nine months in separate confinement, the remaining term of the sentence being divided into three stages of discipline, representing three equal portions of the residue of the sentence. On passing from the first to the second Stage, prisoners were rewarded in the way of extra gratuities, badges, etc. On arriving at the third Stage, there was a further increase of privileges of the same nature, and a different dress from that of ordinary convicts was worn.

The object aimed at was to devise a useful system of progressive reformatory discipline, based upon a nice adjustment of the elements of hope and repression, but subject to the principle that the punishment due to the crime is the primary object, and that, consistently with that, no effort to reform should be neglected.

This idea of progressive reformatory discipline had, therefore, an entirely English origin, and was the result of the tireless efforts made at that time by Sir Joshua Jebb, and his colleagues, to devise a system for the punishment of serious crime in lieu of Transportation. It retained such features of the Colonial System as it was practicable to engraft on the system of Penal Servitude at home, although this latter involved a longer term of detention in actual custody with diminished prospect of employment on discharge.

It betrays a curious ignorance of the English System that the origin of this idea has become historically attributed to an Irish source. Idle principle which had been established with so much care at Pentonville and Portland was introduced into Ireland by Sir Joshua Jebb himself, when, in consequence of the number of convicts in that country rising from 700 to two or three thousand, he was ordered by the Government to proceed to Dublin, and advise the Prison Authority there with a view to the adoption of the Progressive System. The English Rules were, as far as possible, applied at Spike Island and at Mountjoy. In 1850, a few years later, Sir Joshua Jebb was again ordered by the Government to proceed to Ireland, but as he was unable to go, Captain Knight, Governor of Portsmouth Prison, took his place, with the result that a Board of three Directors was formed, (of which Captain Knight was a member) who entered upon their duties in 1854. Captain Crofton, Chairman of the Board, stated in evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons that he had followed out the English System, and in the Report for 1855 it is stated that the System of Progressive Classification continued to have an excellent effect. The only difference in the Irish System was the adoption of an Intermediate Stage before discharge followed by Police Supervision, both the conditions having been established as elements of the English System in the Colonies. This part of the Colonial System was not, however, adopted in England, as the Government naturally shrank from the great and novel responsibility of finding employment in England for discharged convicts. Ireland, however, with its rural and scattered population, its demand for labour, and its centralized police, afforded facilities both for securing employment, and, with it, police supervision, which should not be hostile, as a system of espionage, but friendly in its character, and from knowledge of local circumstances, calculated to promote the welfare of the convict. The relatively small number of convicts in Ireland rendered easy the introduction of the so-called Intermediate System, which was simply the collection of the better-disposed convicts previous to their discharge in centres under easy discipline, with a view to disposal under favourable conditions. The strong belief which existed at the time that the so-called Irish System was producing results which were unprecedented was due to the economic history of the country. During the years when the system was introduced, it happened that Ireland was passing through a crisis without parallel in the history of Europe. The crisis included a famine, a pestilence, an exodus, a transfer of large areas of land to a new proprietary, and the introduction of a new Poor Law. The population was decimated three times between 1845 and 1861. Towards the end of this period, work became plentiful, and wages rose as much as one hundred per cent. At the same time, in England the population was increasing, work was difficult to find, there was no centralized police as in Ireland, and any comparison between the results of the two Progressive Systems would have been valueless, the conditions being so entirely different.

Owing to an increase of serious crime in the early 'sixties, public attention was again called to the system of punishment in force, and a Royal Commission was appointed to enquire into the operation of the Penal Servitude Acts. It was found that the late increase in crime coincided in point of time with the discharge of convicts sentenced for short terms, i.e., for three years under the Act of 1857; and it was proposed that the minimum term of penal servitude should be increased, and that longer sentences should be passed on persons guilty of habitual crime. The Commissioners pointed also to defects in the methods of identification: they objected to reconvicted convicts not receiving remission, and believed that it would be more effectual to pass long sentences on reconvicted prisoners than to remove the chief inducement to industry and good conduct. They found fault with the Regulations made under the Act of 1857, on the ground that they did not indicate to convicts with sufficient clearness that remission could only be earned as a reward for industry and conduct. They objected to giving credit for general good conduct as well as for industry, on the ground that the mere abstaining from misconduct gives no just claim for reward. They advocated the adoption of the Mark System as introduced into Australia by Captain Maconochie, and, subject to a considerable remission of punishment earned under this system, they were in favour of longer sentences. They came further to the opinion that the Irish System of Police Supervision should be adopted in England. They thought that the sentence of Penal Servitude should be for not less than seven years, subject to the concession that the third of a period would be remitted under the operation of the Mark System, when the highest industry had been maintained. They were in favour of continuing Transportation to Western Australia: they pronounced against the high rates of gratuities which convicts in England were entitled to receive, and regarded favourably the system by which convicts in the Irish Intermediate Prisons, and the "road parties" in Western Australia were allowed to spend a weekly portion of their earnings in procuring for themselves certain indulgences. Appended to the Report of the Commission was a Memorandum by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, which has become historical as laying down the principles which, in his opinion, ought to be observed in the punishment of offenders, viz:—