The English Prison System

by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise

At this point, as was to be expected, when every other Department of Prison administration was undergoing revision and reconstruction, the question of devising a system of aid-on-discharge received a large share of notice. As before stated, the law of 1877 gave the power to grant £2 to any prisoner. There was, therefore, no legal difficulty in the way of continuing the same method that had previously prevailed, viz:—in deserving cases of granting a sum of money on the recommendation of the Visiting Committee, or otherwise. This comparatively simple method was not resorted to, and apparently because it seemed to the authorities to be too capricious in its operation, to work unevenly, and to lack that precision and uniformity which it was the object to establish. Moreover, as stated, it had no relation to the conduct and industry of a prisoner, and it was only natural that the Commissioners should be predisposed in favour of the system of gratuities under the Progressive Stage System, at that time working with success in Convict Prisons, and where the money that a prisoner could earn by industry with good conduct was also a gratuity or benefaction which, under proper direction, might be used for his benefit on discharge. In their Second Annual Report, the Commissioners stated "There is no reason why such a system of awarding gratuity for industry should not be worked in conjunction with that of aiding prisoners with reference solely to their needs on discharge. As respects the grants of aid, it is, in our opinion, essentially necessary to success that the co-operation of persons unconnected with the prisons should be secured in order that by their aid and interest, prisoners may be provided with employment." Here we have, therefore, a distinct departure, the so-called 'gratuity' of the convict system taking the place of the former grant in aid in Local Prisons; or, in other words, one of the methods for securing Prison industry and conduct being utilised for the additional purpose of supplying the needs of a prisoner on discharge. It is, I think, obvious that such a scheme—though it worked well in regard to convicts where the maximum gratuity might reach £6—is not applicable to Local Prisons where the maximum is fixed at ten shillings, and where few prisoners reach their maximum, or even a considerable portion of it, owing to the shortness of their sentences. However, the attempt was made, and a sum of £5,000 taken in the Estimates under the heading of "Gratuities"—an equivocal term, meaning both the earnings of prisoners under the Progressive Stage System and also the charitable donation, which was to benefit the prisoner on discharge. It soon became apparent that the effect of this policy would be to starve existing Aid Societies and to paralyze their powers of good. Strong representations were made to the then Secretary of State that it had become impossible to help short sentence cases—often the most deserving and including most of the first offenders—and in December, 1878, a Conference of Aid Societies was held to "protest against the failure of the Stage or Mark System for the purpose of aid on discharge," and a resolution was passed asking the Government to make a grant in addition to the gratuities under the Stage System at the rate of one shilling a head of total discharges. In consequence of this, the Home Office decided that the Stage System should be considered as a matter of discipline, but that assistance to Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies should be on a different footing: and that it was reasonable, and in accordance with public opinion, to make a grant either according to the number of cells or the number of discharges provided a certain proportionate amount is voluntarily subscribed. Here are contained two important assertions of principle on which has been based the action of the Government since this date.

(1) that it is the duty of the Government to make a charitable donation in aid of discharged prisoners in addition to the gratuities under the Stage System, which are an affair of prison discipline.

(2) that the sum should be regulated by the amount of private subscriptions, provided that a maximum calculated on the total number of discharges is not exceeded.

In short, the State goes into partnership with bodies of charitable and benevolent persons, duly certified under the Act, in order to secure a double object (a) the State object, that steps shall be taken at least to lessen the chances of a man's relapse into crime (b) the private and charitable object of relieving misfortune and distress.

After some correspondence, the Treasury agreed to the principle, and in addition to the money already taken for gratuities in Local Prisons (£5,000), an ultimate limit of £4,000 was sanctioned for this purpose, and its expenditure was regulated by the following conditions:—

(1) that there should be assigned to each prison the proportion of this sum which its average number of prisoners or of discharges bore to the total number of the same.

(2) that there should be a Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society in connection with the Prison, and that voluntary subscriptions should be at least an equal amount.

(3) that the Society, if required, take charge of the sums earned under the mark system.

(4) that the grant should be exclusively for the benefit of prisoners recommended by the Prison authorities as industrious and fairly conducted.

(5) that the grant shall not in any case exceed £2, inclusive of the sum earned under the Stage System.

The System, however, did not work satisfactorily; and the Departmental Committee on Prisons of 1894, after considering the matter, reported that it did not appear that there was either uniformity of action under definite principles, or that the various Societies were so far organized as a whole that the effect of aid could be satisfactorily ascertained. There seemed to be a great and unnecessary variation in the methods of working. They advised that a special inquiry should be undertaken into the character, and working, and methods, of each Society, and were in favour of an increase in the Government Grant where it was shown that Societies were working on principles approved by the Government, and with success. Such an inquiry was undertaken by the Commissioners in 1896, and, at the end of the following year, a Circular was issued by them prescribing Rules for the future regulation of all Aid Societies.

In suggesting these Rules, the Commissioners made it clear that it was not their desire or intention to coerce or interfere with the free liberty of action of Societies which were of course only subject to official control so far as they might draw a subsidy from public funds. They pointed out that "the central authority has opportunities not possessed by individual societies of collating information as to the methods and working of all Societies; and upon the knowledge thus obtained, of forming an opinion as to what are, on the whole, the methods most likely to succeed in attaining the objects which the Societies and the Government have in view: that uniformity of procedure does not necessarily connote official control. As there has been in the past, so there must be in the future, official control to this extent, viz:—that it is the duty of the Government to satisfy itself in all cases where there is a grant, however small, from public funds, that the grant is expended in a proper and effectual way on the object for which it is designed: that the Commissioners are, on the one hand, the trustees for the Government grant, and, on the other, the responsible authorities for carrying out the sentences of the law, and, though their strict duty ends when the prisoner has purged his crime, and left the prison gate, common humanity demands that some care shall be bestowed by the State on the discharged prisoner, both in order to relieve his immediate necessities, and to make his re-entry into honest life possible and less difficult: that it is in the fulfilment of this latter duty that they have in the past been able to avail themselves of the assistance, warmly proffered and gratefully accepted, and in very many cases zealously and effectually rendered, of certified Societies for the Aid of Discharged Prisoners: that these Societies now form a network of charitable and philanthropic effort spread throughout the country and working in connection with each prison: that their work, though due to private initiation, and mainly supported by private subscriptions, has nevertheless such public importance and value, that it is becoming more the duty and concern of the Government, not indeed to fetter and harass their free and independent action by the imposition of binding official rules and regulations, but to encourage and stimulate their efforts, to offer direction and guidance, and it is in this spirit, and not with any desire to override or control the free play of benevolent action, that the Commissioners desire to suggest, for the guidance of each Society, the methods which they believe to be the most effectual."

The Scheme was as follows:—

(1) That the Governor and Chaplain should, in all cases, be members of the Committee, and should act with, or as, a Sub-Committee under the larger body, for the purpose of dealing with small cases, and those under short sentences.

(2) That the Visiting Committee should, if possible, in all cases be members of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, and take an active share in its management, especially in cases where they are also Trustees of the Prison Charity.