The question is well summed up in the general observations on the nature of Inebriety in the Report of the Committee of 1908:—"Inebriety is undoubtedly a constitutional peculiarity; and depends, in many cases, upon qualities with which a person is born, in many is acquired by vicious indulgence. Whether the possession of such a constitutional peculiarity, when inborn, should or should not be considered, from the scientific point of view, a disease, is perhaps, a question of nomenclature. If such native constitutional peculiarities as the possession of a sixth finger, and the absence of a taste for music, are rightly considered diseases, then the native constitutional peculiarity which underlies many cases of inebriety may be so considered. But there are cogent reasons why the term disease should not be used to characterise the inebriate habit. By disease is popularly understood a state of things for which the diseased person is not responsible, which he cannot alter except by the use of remedies from without, whose action is obscure, and cannot be influenced by exertions of his own. But if, as is unquestionably true, inebriety can be induced by cultivation; if the desire for drink can be increased by indulgence, and self-control diminished by lack of exercise; it is manifest that the reverse effects can be produced by voluntary effort; and that desire for drink may be diminished by abstinence, and self-control, like any other faculty, can be strengthened by exercise. It is erroneous and disastrous to inculcate the doctrine that inebriety, once established, is to be accepted with fatalistic resignation, and that the inebriate is not to be encouraged to make any effort to mend his ways. It is the more so since inebriety is undoubtedly in many cases recovered from, in many diminished, and since the cases which recover or amend are those in which the inebriate himself desires and strives for recovery."
"PATRONAGE" OR AID TO DISCHARGED PRISONERS: ITS EFFECT ON RECIDIVISM.
As prisoners in this country are classified broadly into two categories (1) those sentenced to penal servitude—"Convicts:" (2) those sentenced to ordinary imprisonment—"Local," or short-sentenced prisoners,—so has the system of aid-on-discharge varied according to the category to which a prisoner belongs. For Convict Prisons there has been, until lately, no system of aid-on-discharge strictly so-called. What is known as the Gratuity system in Convict Prisons operated for many years as the principal means for providing a convict on his discharge with means of obtaining the necessities of life. There was no Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society immediately connected with the establishment from which the convict was discharged, as in the case of Local Prisons, but certain Metropolitan Societies, notably the Royal Society for the assistance of Discharged Prisoners, and later the St. Giles's Christian Mission and the Church Army and Salvation Army, came to be recognized as the agents for helping a convict on discharge. There was no Government Grant. It was voluntary on the part of the convict whether he should place himself in the hands of such a Society. If he so desired, the Gratuity that he had earned would be paid to him through the Police or otherwise at the place whither he went on discharge. A Gratuity, as already described, was a sum of money which could be earned under the Progressive Stage System for general industry with good conduct: it had no relation to the value of work done, being based simply on the degree of industry, and apportioned to what is known as the Mark System i.e., so many marks representing so much cash. The English Gratuity System was, therefore, quite different from what is known on the Continent as the "Cantine" or "Pécule" System, under which a prisoner receives a percentage of the actual profit of his work, and which he is allowed to spend on diet or otherwise during detention. An English convict (unless in the Long Sentence Division or under Preventive Detention) was not allowed to spend any part of his Gratuity while in Prison, but it was accumulated as a small cash fund to provide against the day of discharge. £6 was the maximum that could be earned, but the average amount earned would be considerably less than this. In old days it was possible for convicts to earn large sums of money, but the practice was condemned by a Royal Commission in the middle of last century, and, since that date, the amount earnable has been limited as stated.
With regard to Local Prisons, from the earliest times it was not uncommon for persons to leave bequests for the relief of prisoners on discharge from Prison, some of these dating as far back as the 15th century. The first legal enactment took place in 1792, by which Judges and Justices were authorized to order any prisoner on discharge to be conveyed by pass to his own parish. About this time, Societies began to be established for the relief of prisoners on discharge. One of the earliest—the Sheriff's Fund Society (which exists at the present time), was founded in 1807-8 for the relief of necessitous prisoners discharged from Newgate Gaol. Another Institution, known as the "Temporary Refuge for Distressed Criminals" discharged from the London Gaols, owed its origin to the efforts of the Society for the Improvement of Penal Discipline. It was commenced in 1818, but was soon after closed for want of funds.
In 1823 an Act of Parliament was passed giving power to Justices to direct that such moderate sum should be given to any discharged prisoner, not having the means of returning to his family, or resorting to any place of employment, as in their judgment should be requisite, such sums to be paid either out of benefactions or as Prison expenses.
Soon after this time, numerous Societies came into existence. One of the most notable experiments of this kind was the Birmingham Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society. A report issued at this time by the Chaplain of the Prison, the Rev. J.T. Burt, stated that the Society took its rise in the conviction of its founders that crime is to a considerable extent the result of external circumstances. The Society employed an agent to canvas employers for work, and found lodgings in the homes of poor persons of respectable character for the discharged prisoner. In special cases it gave guarantee to the employer against special loss in the event of his sustaining injury through the person recommended to him. The whole plan was reported to work successfully.