The English Prison System

by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise

The passing of the Reformatory School Act of 1854 marked the climax of the efforts of that generation. They had established the principle that the young offender, at least up to the age of 16 should be dealt with by other than the methods of Prison or Transportation. This was a great victory at the time, and for many years public opinion regarded the Reformatory School Act as the last word spoken on the subject of juvenile delinquency. There were others, however, and among them Mr. Sidney Turner, who regarded that Act only as a stepping stone to further progress. The age of 16 which for so many years was consecrated as the age at which criminal youth ends and criminal majority begins, he described more than once 'as a mere measure of precaution'; and a stage on the road to lead to further developments. The age of 16 was adopted at that time by universal consent for no other reason, so far as I can gather, than that it was the age of 'criminal majority' in the French Penal Code, and it had become notorious owing to the success of the French Colony of Mettray, established in the 'thirties' and which prescribed 16 as the age of 'discernment' under French Law.

The age of 16, therefore, became crystallised as the age of criminal majority in this country. Attempts were made from time to time to have the age raised to 18, but the conflict of opinion on this point waxed very fierce, some maintaining that the admission of older youths would corrupt the rest, while others asserted that an enormous number of youths now being sent to Prison at the age of 16 might be reclaimed, if subject to reformatory influences. This battle waxed fierce in the early 'eighties' and although, in my opinion, the best argument was on the side of those who desired an extension of age, yet by one of those curious results that sometimes issue from the Parliamentary Machine, the only legislation affecting the age of the inmates of Reformatory Schools is known as Lord Leigh's Act of 1891, which, instead of giving greater powers to Reformatory Schools, limited the right of detention to the age of 19 years, whereas it had formerly been 21. The question of age, however, was not destined to remain in abeyance. Other causes than the conflict of opinions between Managers of Reformatory Schools brought this question very prominently to the front a few years later.

It came to the front incidentally, as I have already stated, in the findings of the Prison Committee of 1894; and of the Reformatory Schools Committee of the same year. Both Committees arrived at the same conclusion almost simultaneously, viz:—that 16-21 was the dangerous age: that attention must be concentrated on that: that we must try and lay hold of the incipient criminal, or as we call him in prison language, the Juvenile-Adult.

It was at this time that I was appointed by the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) to be Chairman of the Prison Commission, against which so severe an indictment had been laid, as explained in a former Chapter, of being indifferent to the moral welfare of prisoners. My experience and observation had already led me to form a very strong opinion that the Penal Law, which classified forthwith as adult criminals lads of 16, was unjust and inhuman. I obtained the authority of the Home Secretary, Sir M. Ridley, who was in warm sympathy with my views, to go to the United States in 1897 to study at Elmira the working of what is known as the American "State Reformatory System." The annual reports of the authorities at Elmira had begun to attract considerable attention in Europe. The American System classified as youths all persons between the ages of 16 and 30. While we classified our boys as adults, the American adopted the converse method, and classified his adults as boys. I thought myself that the truth lay midway between these two systems, between the system that ends youth too early and that which prolongs it too late, between the voluntary system of England and the State Reformatory System of the United States. The point I was aiming at was to take the 'dangerous' age—16-21—out of the Prison System altogether, and to make it subject to special "Institutional" treatment on reformatory lines.

I was impressed by all that I saw and learnt at the principal State Reformatories of America, at that time chiefly in the States of New York and Massachusetts. The elaborate system of moral, physical, and industrial training of these prisoners, the enthusiasm which dominated the work, the elaborate machinery for supervision of parole, all these things, if stripped of their extravagances, satisfied me that a real, human effort was being made in these States for the rehabilitation of the youthful criminal. It was on my return that, with the authority of the Secretary of State, the first experiments were begun of the special treatment, with a view to the rehabilitation of the young prisoners, 16 to 21, in London Prisons. A small Society was formed, known as the London Prison Visitors' Association, to visit these lads in the London Prisons: (they were removed later, as stated, to the old Convict Prison at Borstal). The procedure was to visit Borstal by roster each month, and interview the cases about to be discharged in the following month, so that the best arrangements might be made. Out of this small body of visitors sprang the Borstal Association, and it is interesting now, looking back to that time, to recall the circumstances under which this Association was founded. There was in the public mind a great confusion as to the exact meaning of the phrase "Juvenile Offender". That ambiguity has since been largely cleared up by the definitions of the Children Act, but, at that time, there was a confusing medley of appellations; and children, young persons, and youthful offenders, were all jumbled together in the same category. The specific proposal was to deal with the age, 16 to 21, and it was decided, in order to emphasize this fact and make a clear distinction between this age and all other ages, to make use of the word "Borstal", that is, the name of the village where the experiment was being carried out. I think that this appellation has been singularly fortunate in its results, as it has made it quite clear that we are not dealing with the youthful offender as usually conceived, that is, a boy, or even a child, who may have lapsed into some petty or occasional delinquency, and who was being sufficiently provided for by the Reformatory School Acts and by the Rules concerning juvenile offenders in prisons. Our object was to deal with a far different material, the young hooligan advanced in crime, perhaps with many previous convictions, and who appeared to be inevitably doomed to a life of habitual crime.

We had, in the Association of Visitors in London Prisons, a nucleus in forming the now well-known Borstal Association. Among them were two young barristers, living in chambers, who placed their time and their rooms at our disposal. They were Mr. Haldane Porter and Mr. (now Sir Wemyss) Grant-Wilson, the first and the second Honorary Directors of the Association. We had little or no money. The Treasury gave us £100 a year. An appeal, addressed to the public through the columns of "The Times", met with only a disappointing result; but later an appeal to personal friends for a small annual subscription, rather than a donation, was successful to this extent, at least, that we were able to rely on a small income with which to conduct our operations. By this means, we obtained an income of some £400 or £500 a year, and to those kind and generous friends who helped us at that critical moment, the success of the movement is principally due.

Having established an Association, we next had to establish a system. The object of the System was to arrest or check the evil habit by the 'individualization' of the prisoner, mentally, morally, and physically. To the exhortation and moral persuasion of a selected staff, we added physical drill, gymnastics, technical and literary instruction: inducements to good conduct by a system of grades and rewards, which, though small and trivial in themselves, were yet calculated to encourage a spirit of healthy emulation and inspire self respect. Elaborate rules for giving effect to the system were introduced by the Authority of Parliament, but at this stage, Parliament had not recognized the system in any other way, and we had to work within the limits which existing Penal law afforded: that is, the cases we dealt with were by the transfer of young prisoners of this age, who happened, for their particular offence, to have been awarded sentences of imprisonment for six months and upwards. It soon became clear that the element of time, that is, a longer sentence than the law permitted, was essential for the success of the scheme. Experience showed that something may be done in twelve months, little or nothing in a shorter period, that the system should be one of stern and exact discipline, tempered only by such rewards and privileges as good conduct, with industry, might earn: and resting on its physical side on the basis of hard, manual labour and skilled trades, and on its moral and intellectual side on the combined efforts of the Chaplain and the Schoolmaster. Such a sentence should not be less than three years, conditional liberation being freely granted, when the circumstances of any case gave a reasonable prospect of reclamation, and when the Borstal Association, after careful study of the case, felt able to make fair provision on discharge.

It was in 1906, when an experience of four or five years had established these principles, that I addressed a strong representation to the Secretary of State, asking for an alteration of the law on these lines: and in 1908, thanks to the cordial agreement with these views, manifested at that time both by the Secretary of State (Lord Gladstone) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Asquith), these principles became law under the Borstal Act of 1908. The system in vogue to-day is a legal system: it has passed beyond the experimental stage, and has become a part, an important part, of the criminal law of this country, and not of this county only, but is a prototype of analogous Institutions which have been established in many parts throughout the civilized world. The system, as it operates to-day, is the same in its leading features as the experimental system prior to the Act. The principles are the same, but we now have the element of time. We have now no case of less than two years, and a considerable number with the maximum of three years.

During recent years the annual committals to Borstal Detention have averaged nearly 600 for males and 180 for females, and three Borstal Institutions have been established—Borstal and Feltham for males, accommodating about 400 each, and Aylesbury for females. These Institutions are fulfilling in an admirable way the purpose for which they were created, viz.,—to furnish the opportunity by which many young persons who have ceased to be "young offenders" (i.e., under sixteen years) and who are not yet fully developed adults (i.e., over twenty-one) may be rescued from a life of crime. The high tone and character of the superintending staff, untiring in the efforts which they devote to the moral, literary, and technical education of inmates: the healthy rivalry stimulated by competition, not only in the schools, but in the playground (for it is the privilege of the Special Grade to take part in games of football and cricket): the great care devoted to the physical well-being and training in Gymnastics, &c.—experience is daily showing that all these things are having the effect of arresting in his downward career the young, and often dangerous, criminal between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, who, until the necessity of special legislation to deal with his case was recognized by public opinion, only served an apprenticeship in a succession of short sentences for trivial crime in his early days, in order to qualify for entry into the ranks of habitual crime.