THE ENGLISH PRISON SYSTEM

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited

LONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA . MADRAS
MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

NEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO
DALLAS . SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.

TORONTO

THE

ENGLISH PRISON
SYSTEM

BY

Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise, K.C.B.

CHAIRMAN OF THE PRISON COMMISSION FOR
ENGLAND AND WALES

AND

PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL PRISON COMMISSION

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON

1921

COPYRIGHT

CONTENTS.

PREFACE.

In October, 1910, I conveyed to the International Prison Congress at Washington the invitation of the British Government to hold the next Quinquennial Congress of 1915 in London. The invitation was accepted with enthusiasm. The London Congress of 1872 had prepared the way for the creation of the International Commission, which was founded a few years later; but, though supported and encouraged by the Government of the day, it owed its origin to American influence, notably that of the celebrated Dr. Wines. Great Britain did not formally adhere to the International Commission till 1895, when Mr. Asquith, then Home Secretary, nominated the present writer as British Representative to the Paris Congress of that year. Since that date, the Quinquennial Congresses had been held at Brussels, Buda-Pesth, and Washington in 1900, 1905, and 1910, at all of which the British Government was represented, the reports of the proceedings being duly submitted to Parliament.

The preliminary arrangements for the Congress in London in 1915 had been carefully prepared by meetings of the Commission representing the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Holland, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Norway, Russia, Servia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. It was intended also to invite our Dominions-over-Sea—India, and Egypt, to send special representatives. These meetings were held in Paris in 1912, and in London in 1914, the British Committee consisting of the Chairmen of the Prison Boards for Scotland and Ireland (Lord Polwarth, and Mr. Max Green), Sir Basil Thomson, K.C.B., and Mr. A.J. Wall, O.B.E., the late and present Secretaries of the English Board, and myself, as President of the International Commission.

But man only proposes, and the Great War intervened to prevent the realization of those plans. It has, also, of course, for the time being, arrested the development, and thwarted the purpose, of what promised to be a great international movement for the discussion and improvement of all methods affecting the punishment and treatment of crime.

It was for the purpose of the Congress of 1915 that I prepared this short manual, in order that the history and leading features of the English Prison System might be understood by our foreign visitors, and especially its more notable developments of recent years, since England joined the Congress in 1895.[1]

I had been greatly impressed with the singular ignorance that existed, both on the Continent and in the United States, of the character of British penal methods.

In my Report on the Brussels Congress, 1900, I wrote as follows:—

"It is often asked, "What is the value of these Congresses?" It must not be supposed that an Englishman, going to hear discussions on penal subjects in a foreign country, where the laws, habits, and character of the people are entirely different, is going to bring back new ideas of Prison administration, which he will be able at once to apply, with advantage, in his own country; nor must it be supposed that he is going to carry with him instructions and opinions on these matters which other nations will readily adopt. With a pardonable pride in his national institutions, he is disposed to think that his Prison system is the best in the world; but when he goes abroad he must not be surprised to hear the same claim raised by other countries. He will find that where the English system is not known or is misunderstood, it is but little appreciated. There is a general idea that our punitive methods are harsh, if not barbarous. Legends circulate as to the terrors of the "fouet," the ingenious torture of "la roue," and the grinding tyranny of "travaux forcés." It is not surprising that even an intelligent foreigner fails to grasp the distinction between a sentence of "hard labour" and one of "penal servitude:" so misleading are our terms. At the recent Congress, the Head of the Russian Prisons asked me what is the minimum time for which a sentence of "hard labour" could be imposed, thinking that it was something in its duration and severity comparable to the "katorga" of his own country. When I explained that it might be inflicted for one day only, he turned to his Secretary with a smile, saying, "How little do we understand the English system!" There is a minority, and I hope an increasing one, who understand and appreciate the efforts that have been made of late years to improve the conditions of the treatment of crime in this country."

The comparatively few foreigners who had a personal acquaintance with our Institutions did not conceal their admiration for the order, method, discipline, and exactness which characterize our methods of dealing with crime; but, generally speaking, these legendary ideas prevailed.

The shadow of transportation, of the dark days of penal servitude, and of grievous floggings, hindered a true conception of English methods.

I looked forward to the London Congress as the occasion to dispel these illusions.

A short historical retrospect will show that it is only in comparatively modern times that 'Imprisonment' became the recognized method for the punishment of crime, and that prison reform, in the sense of moral improvement by imprisonment was formulated as a political duty, and became an earnest pre-occupation of statesmen and philosophers. Prisons, as places of punishment, were unknown to ancient Roman law. The 'carcer' was known only as a place for 'holding' prisoners, not for 'punishing' (ad continendos, non ad puniendos homines), and the object of punishment was frankly held by Roman legists to be only that of deterrence by fear. The 'carcer' is not mentioned in the list of Roman penalties: death by hanging, by being hurled from the Tarpeian rock, drowning in a sack; with exile, beating with rods, &c., were the methods with which as schoolboys we were familiar.

In that dark period of penal law, based, as it was, on the ideas of vengeance and intimidation alone, which lasted down to the French Revolution, we find little, or no, reference to Imprisonment as the punishment for crime. In the long list of punishments under the old French Code we find 'réclusion perpetuelle' as a punishment for women and a substitute for the galleys and banishment. There is too 'la prison perpetuelle,' but this was not an organized system, but really a euphemism for that mysterious disappearance of persons obnoxious to the Crown or the State by 'lettres de cachet,' or otherwise.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 marks the beginning of the reaction against these ideas, and the substitution of an orderly and methodical system of punishment. We find 'Imprisonment' formally installed for the execution of offences against the law in the French Code of 1791. At this time Mirabeau is said to have anticipated modern penitentiary science by publishing a remarkable report, declaring Prisons to be 'maisons d'amélioration,' founded on the principle of labour, separation, rewards under a 'mark' system, conditional licence, and aid-on-discharge. We seem to be reading a modern treatise on Prisons—a sudden gleam of light, bursting on an age darkened by the shadow of much unutterable cruelty in the punishment of crime.

But there were certain influences that had been silently operating for some time before this, and leading men's minds to a juster and truer conception of the purpose of punishment. Those influences were both ecclesiastical and secular. The influence of the Church in the middle ages has profoundly affected the modern idea of punishment. 'Le système pénitentiaire' is the direct heir of the 'pénitences' of the Church. In days when no distinction had yet been created between crime and sin, these were the expiation of both. The public 'pénitence' effected both repentance and example, as a warning to others. The private 'pénitence' worked by 'solitude,' to the moral value of which the early Church attached very great value—"Quoties inter homines fui, minus homo redii" was the guiding maxim which separated the monk from his fellow-man. 'Solitary confinement,' as we understand the phrase, dates from the old 'Detrusio in Monasterium' of Canonical law.

But while religious custom had rendered familiar the idea of deprivation of liberty as a means of effecting both repentance and expiation, the influence of the French philosophers and encyclopædists of the eighteenth century had destroyed the claims of the State to deprive a person of liberty by arbitrary process for indefinite periods, or for any period beyond that warranted by the strict necessity of the case. The famous treatise of Beccaria in the middle of the same century further determined the reaction against all arbitrary, unjust, and cruel penalties. He was the first of the utilitarians; every punishment which did not arise from actual necessity of social defence, was, to him and his school, tyrannical and superfluous. Its object was not to torment or afflict a sensitive human being beyond the strict limit of social utility. His propositions have become commonplaces now; but they were new in the age when they were written, and probably no work has exercised a greater influence in the domain of penal law.

It is true that, irrespective of the influence of the Church, and of the writings of philosophers, isolated experiments in the way of prison reform had been made in different parts of Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Some of these anticipated in a remarkable way the principles in vogue to-day.

The Protestants of Amsterdam in 1593 built a prison for women, which had for its object their moral reform by work and religious influences. There are records of similar establishments in Germany and Hanseatic towns. In 1703, Clement XI. built the famous Prison, St. Michel, for young prisoners, and, later in the century, Villain XIV. built the celebrated cellular prison at Gand, which excited the admiration of our own Howard.

It was the immortal Howard who first stirred public opinion in England to consider the question of prison reform. As Burke finely said of him "He surveyed all Europe, not to view the sumptuousness of palaces, but to survey the mansions of sorrow and of pain: to collect the distresses of men in all countries. The plan was original, and full of genius as of humanity. It was a voyage of discovery."

The names of Howard and Bentham will always stand in the forefront of those who in those dark days tried to enlist public sympathy for the prisoner and captive,—the former by his keen humanity, protesting against the abuses and barbarisms which he found to exist at home and abroad: the latter, as utilitarian and economist, devising a new system to secure, firstly, a rational system of legal punishment for the offence committed, and, secondly, a rational system of treatment while in prison after commitment.

To the casual student of English Prison history, Bentham is known chiefly as the author of the somewhat whimsical scheme known as the 'Panopticon'—a structural device for securing, in the first place, the safe custody of prisoners and economy of administration. Because he said boldly that he rejected sentiment in his construction of a Prison System, his influence has been sometimes regarded as hostile to the reformatory idea which was beginning to gain ground in Europe; but in rejecting sentiment, he, at the same time, admitted that, controlled by reason, it was a useful monitor, and, indeed, it is the great merit of Bentham that, in an age when there was grave need of adjustment of the essential factors of punishment, he worked for a compromise between a too great pre-occupation with its moral purpose, and a too severe insistence on its penal and terrifying effect. Though in vigorous language he preached the gospel of 'grinding rogues honest,' it was part of his plan to educate, to classify, to make methodical provision for discharge, and, lastly, he may be said to be the founder of the modern school of criminology in laying stress on the absolute necessity of preventing crime by discovering and combating its causes.

But Bentham was in advance of his age in these matters, though his writings exercised a considerable influence in France, where jurists were busy preparing the Penal Code of the First Empire. History, by the pen of Professor Lecky, has severely condemned the statesmen of that period for their callous indifference to all questions relating to the treatment of crime and of prisoners. He says: "England, which stood so high among the nations of the world in political, industrial, and intellectual eminence, ranked in this matter shamefully below the average of the Continent." There was, in fact, no penal system, strictly so-called. It was simply a policy of 'débarras,' under which all offenders against the law were shipped to the Colonies; young and old, grave and petty offenders were all banished under a rough and ready scheme of Transportation, (as explained in my Chapter on the history of Penal Servitude). So long as this System lasted—from 1787 to 1845—the modern problems, which are involved in keeping our prisoners at home, did not occupy the public mind. This apathy and callousness was not due entirely to the sense of security which Transportation gave by the practical elimination from the body politic of persons presumed dangerous to the State: it was due also to the want of imagination, which is the parent of cruelty. For this, the absence of any system of National Education must be held responsible. It was not until imagination was quickened by the great religious revivals, by the gradually increasing power of the Press—(the champion of all forms of unnoticed suffering) and by the spread of education among the masses, that Philanthropy, in its modern garb, the Inquisitor of prisons and of the dark places of the world, came down to the earth, and demanded that all those cruelties which were associated with English penal law should cease, and that it should no longer be possible to say with Sir S. Romilly (1817) that "the laws of England were written in blood." Excidat illa dies ævo nec cetera credant secula.

But dawn was breaking, and the impulse that was to compel attention to 'la question pénitentiaire' came from the other side of the Atlantic.

I have shown, in tracing the history of imprisonment for short sentences (Local Prisons) in this country, how paramount was the influence of America in the first half of the last century. The echo of the controversy between those who upheld the Auburn and the Philadelphian Systems—the Cellular and Associated plans—respectively, still lingers. In America, the movement which determined the reform of Prisons was essentially religious. It was the old idea of 'Pénitence' borrowed from the Canonical Law, which there, as in Europe, dominated the minds of men who regarded a sentence of the law as the instrument for bringing back the mind of the offender, by solitude and meditation, to remorse for the sinful act, and amendment for the future. The prison cell, as with the monks of old, was the method of redemption—"cella continuata dulcessit." If by its positive effect the cell worked redemption of the soul, its negative result was claimed to be equally efficacious in preventing contamination by means of segregation. Pressed severely to its logical conclusion, cellular seclusion became a refinement of cruelty, while, on the other hand, promiscuity, resulting from unregulated association, was admitted in this, as in other countries, to be the nursery of crime. From that day, the course of Prison Reform has been in the direction of finding a compromise between these two opposite principles; an effort to reconcile the deterrent effect of punishment with the object of so improving the mind and body of a prisoner that he shall leave Prison a better and not a worse man. Because it is a more inspiring and a nobler task to reform a man by punishment, than to use punishment merely as the means of retribution by exacting from him the expiation of his offence by a dull, soulless, and a monotonous servitude, public sentiment, in all its zeal for the rehabilitation of the offender, is apt to overlook the primary and fundamental purpose of punishment, which, say what we will, must remain in its essence retributory and deterrent.

It is a curious and interesting fact that a dispute between two neighbouring States in America as to the best plan to follow in dealing with offenders—whether it was better to keep them in their cells day and night, or during the night only, should have determined for England, France, and other parts of Europe the method of imprisonment to be adopted, viz:—the Cellular System. The System found favour in Europe, as in America, for its moral or religious value; in other words, the reform of the prisoner from this date takes its place deliberately as one of the essential factors of punishment, side by side with retribution and deterrence. As I have said, it was essentially a religious movement, but to the success of the propaganda, which elevated the cellular system almost to a fetish, there were contributing causes of a more practical nature,-the admitted evils of unregulated association, the urgent need of a new method of construction, the greater security of prisoners, and the economy of administration, resulting from the employment of a smaller staff for supervision. These latter considerations soon became the principal pre-occupation of those engaged in prison administration. For many years following the triumph of the cellular system, the originally dominating idea of moral reform, as the principal purpose of punishment, seemed to be lost sight of in a hurried rush, both in England and on the Continent, to build new prisons on the cellular plan, to improve their sanitary conditions, to regulate dietary, to organize labour, and generally to concentrate on the economic, rather than on the moral, improvement of those suffering imprisonment.

The writings of De Tocqueville and Beaumont, the delegates sent out by France to study the cellular plan in America, had a wide influence in restraining that excessive zeal for aiming at the moral or religious reform of prisoners, which had inspired the Quakers of Pennsylvania in their crusade against the abuses of the old system. The words of De Tocqueville are worth quoting, as they called back the minds of men at a time when such a warning was greatly needed, to a just and wise appreciation of the function and purpose of punishment, and corrected a tendency which is always asserting itself, to exaggerate the necessity for moral and spiritual reform, at the expense of the other essential attributes of punishment. He says, "I say it boldly: if the penitentiary system has no other purpose than reform, the lawgiver must abandon the system, not because it is not admirable, but because it is too rarely attained. The moral reform of the individual is a great thing for the religious man, but not for the statesman: a political institution does not exist for the individual, but for the mass. Moral reform is then only an accident of the system. Its value is in the habit of order, work, separation, education, obedience to inflexible rule. These have a profound moral value. If a man is not made honest, he contracts honest habits: he was a useless person, he now knows how to work: if he is not more virtuous, he is at least more reasonable: he has the morality of self-interest, if not of honour."

MM. De Tocqueville and Beaumont had been commissioned by the French Government in 1831 to visit the United States, and to report on the comparative advantages of the Auburn and Pennsylvania systems. They were followed in 1837 by M. Demetz, the famous founder of the Colony of Mettray. It was due to the influence of these men, aided by the writings of MM. Lucas and Bérenger in France, and of Ducpetiaux in Belgium, that a remarkable impulse was given in Western Europe to the adoption of the cellular system. Two International Congresses were held at Frankfort in 1846, which declared in favour of the separate system. It was to this period of keen interest in the question of prison reform that in England we owe the model prison at Pentonville, 1842, the Prison of Louvain in Belgium, and a large number of cellular prisons built in France, Switzerland, Prussia, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. We have here the beginning of the later International movement, which afterwards found expression in the International Prison Commission-a formal body of experts nominated by most of the leading States of the World, whose periodical meetings in different centres since the London Congress of 1872 are recognized as a great civilizing influence in all that relates to the treatment of prisoners, the construction of Prisons, and the revision of penal law.

It may be stated broadly that to France and America must be given the credit for the impulse and energy which lit and kept alive the torch of prison reform during those years of the last century, say 1830-70, when, by reason of dynastic changes on the Continent, and political struggles at home, the flame might have been obscured, or even extinguished. Although, in many countries, as in our own, eminent men and women, whose names will always live, had even from the middle of the eighteenth century, inspired by a lofty humanity, raised their voices in protest against the callous indifference which tolerated much cruelty and barbarity in the system of punishments, yet, the main impulse came, on the one hand, from the religious zeal of the Pennsylvanian Quakers who tried to utilize deprivation of liberty, by means of imprisonment, as an instrument for effecting the spiritual regeneration of the offender; on the other, from the political zeal for the rights of man—even the reversionary rights of the prisoner,—which dominated French thought, under the influence of the encyclopædists. These currents, reacting on each other, determined the course of public opinion in the direction of regarding a good, just, and humane prison system as the index of a progressive civilization. It was the combination of these two influences in concrete, which, just fifty years ago, inaugurated what may be called the 'modern system.' The famous Commission of enquiry into the state of Prisons, appointed by the National Assembly in France in 1871, and with which the names of d'Haussonville, Bérenger, and Félix Voisin will always be honourably connected, was followed immediately by the mission to Europe of Dr. Wines, the Secretary of the Prison Association of New York. To his energies we owe the London Congress of 1872, the parent of the International Prison Commission, established on a secure and lasting basis a few years later. In 1877, was founded in Paris the Société Générale des Prisons—the French Academy of penal science—a body of men distinguished in law, medicine, science, and philanthropy, who have consistently since that day, through their Journal, 'La Révue Pénitentiaire'—a monthly publication,—informed and educated public opinion throughout the civilized world on all questions relating to the treatment, and, notably, the prevention of crime.

The first International Congresses—known generally as 'Prison' Congresses, were concerned more with 'Prison' than with penal law, with visits to penal establishments, and with comparisons of Prison systems. The régime pénitentiaire was the principal pre-occupation, but the subjects of discussion soon outgrew the original limits. The sphere of inquiry gradually broadened. The prison régime is only the expression of the penal law, which itself again is only the expression of the public sentiment or opinion, which is the final arbiter in deciding the methods to be followed in maintaining the rights of the community against those who threaten its peace and security. Succeeding Congresses, therefore, as was to be anticipated, composed, as they were, not only of Prison officials and experts in prison management, but of persons from all countries, distinguished in law, medicine, and science, claimed for themselves a larger field and a more ambitious title. La 'Science' pénitentiaire is declared to be the new scope and title of the work. It is an all-embracing phrase, and, from the necessities of the case, of ambiguous meaning. It includes both practical knowledge of administration, and the knowledge by which Science, in its strict sense, can inform and instruct in dealing with the problem of crime, and of criminal man. To these must be added Social Science, and all implied by that wide term. The reaction that became manifest at the close of the last century was against what is called the "classical" conception of crime and punishment. Professor G. Vidal, the eminent author of 'Droit Criminel et la science pénitentiaire' has shown how rigid and mechanical, under the influence of the French penal code, the administration of criminal justice had become. The accused was simply a 'type abstrait' a "mannequin vivant sur lequel le juge colle un numéro du code pénal." A reaction against this abstract conception of crime came in the early 'eighties from a school of Criminologists known as the Italian School, of which the chief was Lombroso. Theories of the criminel-né—i.e., a human being fore-doomed to crime by atavistic propensity, and distinguishable physical stigmata, or 'tares physiologiques'—created considerable sensation at the time, and it cannot be denied that, though refuted by later enquiry, they exercised a profound influence in Europe, and gave a direct impulse to the scientific study of the causes predisposing to criminal acts. This study has since become the principal pre-occupation in all countries of those interested in what, by a misnomer, is spoken of generally as Prison Reform. The phrase remains, but it refers no longer to questions concerning the construction and management of prisons, the comparative merits of the cellular or associated plan, forms and methods of prison industries, staff and discipline. The Prison Reformer of to-day has adopted from Continental writers a phrase, which is at once the motto and the principle of his faith. 'L'individualization de la peine' sums up concisely the new tendency. This phrase aptly expresses the efforts now being made throughout the civilized world to grapple with the problem: not by dealing with prisoners as 'abstract types,' or in the mass, by imposing hard and fast regulations to be adopted for one and all irrespective of individuality, but to deal with each case on its merits: to note its peculiarities, and above all things, by 'preventive' measures to avert an otherwise certain gravitation towards crime.

In the working out of this problem, the International Commission is a sort of 'League of Nations,' ever striving by the invention of new Preventive measures, not so much to improve the habitation, custody, and treatment of offenders who are committed to prison, but to prevent them from arriving at that stage where commitment to prison becomes necessary, for long or short periods, in the interests of the security and protection of the community.

The aid of science is more and more invoked, and it is with reason and good purpose that the International movement professes to be a movement for the discovery and propagation of 'la science pénitentiaire.' Of all the sciences invoked in the cause of prison reform, medical science is assuming more and more a preponderating rôle in the domain of criminal justice. The mysterious laws of 'psychiatry'—a word of common use and application in all discussions in the problem of crime,—now engage, especially in the United States, a keen and close attention. The 'psychical laboratory' is, in many States, a necessary appanage of a penal institution. In theory, the knowledge of the mental state of a person committing an offence is a condition precedent to a correct assessment of guilt. Such investigation includes not only the diagnosis by scientific test of mental state, but of all those pathological conditions resulting, perhaps, from physical or external causes, hereditary or otherwise, which may be held to attenuate responsibility for any given act. The psychical laboratory as a system in aid of justice assumes, of course, a normal or reasonable being, and to such a being alone can full responsibility be attached. It is obvious to what extravagance such a system can be pushed, but the underlying principle is sound, and a perfect prison system, based on science, would adapt its treatment to a far greater degree than at present to the varying categories of offenders, who, under the old classical system, which recognized only the uniform and abstract type of crime and criminal, would be consigned equally to the one abstract and uniform type of penalty—the prison cell.

But it is not only medical science which claims this preponderating rôle. If the Lombrosian School erred in asserting the predominant influence of what was called the 'physio-psychical' conditions of crime: if the right to punish man be based not on the character of the crime, but on the constitution of the criminal, the doctor would usurp the function of the judge, and the bankruptcy of the old penal system would be complete. It was in protest against this extravagant assertion of the claims of medical and mental science (medico-légale expertise) that a succession of Congresses was held on the Continent in the latter part of the last century (Congrès International d'anthropologie et sociologie), at the last of which—the Congress of Geneva, 1896—the English Government was represented. The general result of the discussions that took place was to reject the Lombrosian idea of the physical or constitutional causes of crime, and to assert the importance of 'milieu' (nurture and environment) as the predisposing factor in anti-social conduct,—in the words of Dr. Lacassagne, Professor of Legal Medicine at Lyon—words which sum up tersely the familiar view that crime is entirely the result of social conditions, 'le milieu social est le bouillon de culture de la criminalité, le microbe c'est le criminel.'

The relative part played by inherited propensity and social environment remains to-day the leading subject of controversy with those interested in the philosophical aspect of crime. England has contributed its share to this controversy in the remarkable work of Dr. Goring "The Study of the English Convict," of which I have given a brief account in the Chapter "A Criminological Inquiry in English Prisons." His early death has robbed penal science of a brilliant and earnest votary; but his work will always remain as the first attempt to analyze the causes of crime by strictly scientific method. An abridged edition of his work has lately been published, with an Introduction by Professor Karl Pearson, under whose auspices and guidance it was compiled at the Biometric Laboratory of the London University. An Introduction by Professor Pearson not only marks the great scientific value of this attempt to probe the causes of crime, but gives a just and merited appreciation of a singular effort by a very remarkable man to test the observations and experience that came to him as a Medical Officer of Prisons by the latest methods of scientific investigation.

On the Continent of Europe there has been proceeding since 1869 an attempt to reconcile the extreme views of the Italian School as to the predestination by atavistic or innate disposition to criminal acts with the theory that the causes of crime are to be sought exclusively in social condition. In that year, was founded l'Union Internationale de droit pénal, of which the most distinguished founders were three Professors of Law—Van Hamel, Prins, and Von Liszt, Professors of Law at the Universities of Antwerp, Belgium, and Berlin, respectively. Since that date, Congresses have been held at Brussels, Berne, Christiania, Lisbon and Buda-Pesth. The object of this School, while admitting the value of experimentation by anthropological and sociological study and research, was to encourage preventive work, so that the occasion of crime might be anticipated, be it that of social circumstance which induced the predisposition to the anti-social act (the occasional criminal), or the psycho-physiological state which, unless discovered and checked in the beginning by appropriate preventive handling, medicinal or institutional, is likely to become the parent of conduct dangerous to the community (the habitual criminal). The two factors, external and internal, often co-exist, and the difficulty of the problem must be intensified by their co-existence. It is, therefore, only by the 'individualization of punishment' i.e., by a careful, and exact, and scientific system of preventive diagnosis that a true and correct assessment of criminal responsibility can be attained. This is the modern system—the point to which the long road of penal device, theory, and invention leads. The problem is scientific and social. To deal with it effectively we require not only what science can disclose in the sphere of mental diagnosis, and therapeutics (psychiatry), but what the improvement of social condition can effect in raising the standard of life.

It may not occur to those who observe casually, and perhaps carelessly, the phenomenon of crime to what an extent it depends on, and can be explained by, strictly social conditions. What is summarized by criminologists under the title of 'l'hygiène préventive' comprises all those social and political reforms which make up the 'Social Programme,' which is engaging the attention of our statesmen to-day. Better housing and lighting, the control of the Liquor Traffic, cheap food, fair wages, insurance, even village Clubs, and Boy Scouts, in fact, all the special and political problems in vogue to-day—all react directly on the state of crime. The great War—terrible and hard school of experience though it has been—has given us the great object lesson of what new conditions of life, resulting notably from the control of the Liquor Trade and facility of employment, can effect. A century of legislation directed to the changes of the penal code, or the methods of punishment, would not effect what social legislation, induced by the War, and affecting the daily habit and living of the people, has revealed during the last five years,—the numbers coming to prison reduced 75 per cent! 71 per 100,000 committed to prison in 1918, as against 369 in 1913: the committals for Drunkenness reduced from 70,000 to 2,000: the almost complete disappearance of Vagrancy—a reduction from 24,000 to 1,200—the "plaie sociale"—the despair and the problem of the prison and social reformer.

By recapitulating shortly in this Preface the history of punishment in its successive phases since the question of Prison Reform first began to occupy the minds of statesmen and philanthropists in the middle of the eighteenth century, I have endeavoured to make it clear to those who, in the future, will be responsible for the law and practice of Prisons, the direction in which progress lies. Given firm, thoughtful, humane administration in all that concerns the actual custody of all offenders of both sexes of the various categories, given a wise classification and treatment according to age, sex, and nature of the offence—the future lies in Preventive Science; on the one hand, medical science, strictly so-called, which shall, by diagnosis and therapeutics of the mental and physical state, in early age before it is too late, correct and restrain by suitable preventive means, institutional or otherwise, the tendency to anti-social conduct; and on the other, social or political science, which, by raising the standard of life among the masses, will re-constitute the 'milieu' whence vice and misery spring. Let not the reproach again be made by an English historian that "England falls shamefully below the level of foreign countries" in this great matter. If foreign countries rightly admire the method, discipline, firmness, and impartiality of our penal system, let them also recognize that we are not behindhand in what Preventive Science has to teach in the domain of medicine, law, and social hygiene. While firmly maintaining the system of human rights unimpaired, and while not failing in the protection of the State from any attack made on that system by persons, individually or collectively, let us exhaust every means for saving the potential offender from succumbing inevitably, in the absence of prophylactic methods, to the temptations to commit anti-social acts, which from causes mental, physical, or social he is unable to resist. This is the meaning of the 'individualization of punishment'—it is quite consistent with a firm administration of penal justice, but it destroys for ever the old classical idea of the 'abstract type of criminal.' In other words, justice demands that the old formula of 'Imprisonment with or without hard labour' indiscriminately applied, shall no longer be held to satisfy all her claims.

The reaction against this so-called 'dosimétrie pénale' i.e., the abstract conception of crime and the mechanical application of punishment 'according to code' is a growing force. It is marked in the United States of America by the universal adoption of the 'Indeterminate sentence,' and on the Continent of Europe by various degrees for conditional conviction and liberation which find their place in the latest penal codes. In England and America, Probation: in France and Belgium, the 'sursis à l'exécution de la peine'—all mark the reluctance to resort to fixed penalties when Justice can be satisfied by other means. England, I believe, stands alone in its adoption of the system of Preventive Detention—one of the most notable reforms of recent years for dealing with the Habitual Criminal. The success of the system, so far as it has gone, goes far to justify belief in the virtue of Indetermination of sentence. Public opinion may not be ripe for this yet, as applied to ordinary crime, but the principle which the system of Preventive Detention illustrates, viz:—the careful observation of the history, character, and prospects on discharge by an Advisory Committee on the spot, with a view to the grant of conditional freedom, furnishes in a different sphere an interesting example of the value of 'individualization.' The strict condition of release is that a man places himself under the care and supervision not of the Police, but of a State Association, organized and subsidized by the Government, but entirely controlled by a body of unofficial workers, who keep him under strict but kindly supervision, provide him with employment and lodgings, but unfailingly report him to the Authorities if he fails to observe any one of the conditions on which freedom has been granted. The singular success of this system applied to the worst and most inveterate criminals, each of whom has been found by a Jury to belong to the habitual criminal class, has naturally induced the opinion which is gaining ground, that similar methods might, with advantage, be used in dealing with the ordinary penal servitude population, and be substituted for the old ticket-of-leave system, under which remission of sentence can be earned by a more or less mechanical observance of prison rules, on the condition that the unexpired portion of the sentence is passed under Police Supervision. It is possible that comparison of the two systems may engage public attention in the future, when interest in prison reform, obscured and diminished by the greater problems which the war has created, again asserts itself.

I have shown in the Chapter on Discharged Prisoners the indispensability of a good system of 'Patronage' or aid-on-discharge. Much has been done in this respect in recent years. The action of the Government in 1911 in recognizing the supreme importance of regulating the discharge of persons from penal servitude by the establishment of a State Association for this purpose, was a great step forward. To the Central Association for the aid of discharged convicts, then created, may be attributed a large and an honourable share in that remarkable decrease of recidivism which prison statistics illustrate, and to which reference is made in my Chapter on "Patronage, or Aid-on-discharge." It is also a remarkable example of the value of a co-operation by which the resources of the State, and the enthusiasm and freedom of action possessed by a voluntary association, can contribute to the diminution of crime.

The retrospective study of crime in this country since the London Congress, 1872 (Chapter XVII.), must suggest many reflections, both concerning its treatment in the past, and its prospect for the future. If we eliminate the period of War, 1914-18, the special conditions of which I have already referred to, the broad deduction may be made that so long as the classical conception of punishment remained, i.e., the mechanical application of the letter of the law to an abstract type of offender, no great impression was being made either in the number or character of offences. Statistics varied from year to year under the influence of special circumstances; but the great stage army of offenders in all the categories continued its unbroken array, with a monotonous regularity, and it seemed almost a mockery to talk of social progress, when, in the background was the silent, ceaseless tramp of this multitude of men, women, and children, finding no rest but behind prison walls, and only issuing thence to re-enter again.

In Chapter VII. (The Inquiry of 1894), I have shown how the public conscience awoke at the end of the last century. It declared in a voice that could be heard that a determined effort must be made to grapple with this problem, and in two ways in particular, (a) It asserted the new policy of Prevention, not Prevention in the sense of the old penal servitude Acts, by which a criminal was prevented after a series of offences by strict supervision of Police from repeating his crimes, but Prevention which would strike at the sources of crime, by cutting off the supply by concentration of effort on the young offender; and (b) by the organization of such a system of Patronage, or Aid-on-discharge, that no prisoner could say with truth that he had fallen again from want of a helping hand. Prevention, in this sense, has been the watch-word of the Prison System since that time, and its effect is distinctly traceable in the statistics of crime since the beginning of the century.

Enough has been said to show that the future of crime is with the statesmen and men of science. The prison administrator plays only a small and obscure executive part—but from his experience and observation of the causes that make for crime, he may be able to denote the direction in which its gradual solution may be found. A quarter of a century spent by the Author in directing the prison administration of this country is his excuse for offering his humble contribution to this absorbing and all-important theme—

"Enough if something from our hands gives power
To live, and act, and serve the future hour."

E.R.B.

December, 1920.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Although the greater part of this work was prepared in 1915, where it has been possible, the statistics furnished are of a more recent date.

THE ENGLISH PRISON SYSTEM.

[CHAPTER I.]

THE MEANING OF
"PRISON REFORM."

"Prison Reform" is a phrase of many meanings. It is used indifferently by the publicist who is seeking a correct definition of the function of punishment: by the utilitarian who doubts if the official system of administration is fulfilling its State purpose: by the humanitarian whose pity is stirred by the inevitable austerity of a system, inflexibly applied to all who suffer deprivation of liberty, and whose mechanical operation might, in their opinion, be relaxed relatively to the vastly different mental and physical states of all the categories of human beings coming, in one way or another, within the domain of the criminal law.

All agree that the System should be, as far as possible, 'Reformatory,' but many are tempted to overlook that it must be also, if punishment is to have any meaning, coercive, as restraining liberty; deterrent, as an example; and retributory, in the sense of enforcing a penalty for an offence. When Plato said that the object of punishment is to "make an offender good," he did not intentionally underestimate the 'retributory' theory of punishment. He only meant that, in the language of modern philosophy, we must respect the reversionary rights of humanity, and while inflicting punishment for an anti-social act, must not lose sight of the duty of restoring, if possible, the offender to society as a better man or woman. As stated by the Committee of 1894, we must not regard him or her as "a hopeless and worthless element of the community." It must be admitted that chastisement by pain (i.e. temporary deprivation of liberty and all that that implies) appeals only to the lower nature, but it is effective in suggesting the consciousness of what the system of human rights means—the system which is maintained by a strong collective determination that it shall not be violated with impunity. This is commonly called 'retribution,' but it has nothing to do with vindictiveness or private vengeance. Society without such a collective determination to resent and punish anti-social acts would be a welter of anarchy and disorder. Let us not then be tempted in the goodness of our hearts, and in the strength of our human pity and sympathy, to overlook the necessary foundation of punishment, which is the assertion of the system of rights by pain or penalty—not pain in its physical sense, but pain that comes from degradation and the loss of self-respect.

There is some confusion in the everyday use of the phrases 'Prison Reform' and 'Penal Reform'. Formerly, 'Prison Reform' meant the structural reform of prisons, sanitation, order, cleanliness. To-day, it means the reform of the "prisoner" by improved methods of influence and treatment while in prison. 'Penal Reform' means strictly the reform of penal law, or of the system of punishment—a question of State policy, with which Parliament and the Judiciary are primarily concerned. These are, of course, greatly influenced by public sentiment and opinion. It is a difficult, complex, and subtle problem, for the solution of which we require legal knowledge, administrative experience, and a nice judgment of the temper of the community, and of the balance which should be kept between the just, and even stern, maintenance of the system of public rights and the rights of the individual human being, which must always be respected, even under chastisement. 'Prison Reform' is not a theory of punishment: it is an incident of it: it is a question how far we can assert the rights of the State without unnecessary, or excessive, or unprofitable moral and physical damage to the individual.

Of physical damage we need not speak, for it must, I think, be conceded that the medical care of prisoners in this country is as exact, and patient, and considerate, as can be secured by an able, humane, and untiring medical staff.

With moral damage it is different. The most sanguine would hardly expect that, even with the most approved methods, the 'flétrissure' of punishment can be entirely avoided: the blow to pride and self-respect, and of the respect of one's fellow creatures, must constitute a damage which, if not irreparable, must be heavy and even lasting. A humane administration will try and mitigate this inevitable incident of all punishment. Its first and primary function must be, of course, to secure obedience, discipline, order, and the habit of industry. These things alone have a great moral value. Many cruelties have been enacted in the past in the name of prison discipline—solitude, darkness, chains, floggings, tread wheels and cranks, even until a comparatively recent period, were regarded as the essential accessories of punishment. In studying the history of punishment, we cannot fail to be struck by the singular inventiveness of the human mind in designing forms of suffering for those who broke the law—crucifixion, mutilation, stoning, drowning, torture. It was not until the folly of unprofitable and cruel punishment had been illustrated, as in this country, by its failure to correct, or prevent, or until the certainty of punishment was recognized as the real deterrent for crime, that the penal system was rationalized, and by a slow process, due to a progressive widening of the circle of humanity, to what M. Tarde describes as "la propagation ambiante des exemples," the civilized races of the world laid down the sharp and cruel instruments by which alone it had been believed that society could be avenged, and justice secured. It came slowly to be recognized, not only as a religious, but as a political truth, that the worst criminal possessed 'reversionary rights of humanity,' and that it was only by respecting these that there existed the chance, and the hope, that a man might be reformed by punishment, and not thrown back again into the world with only one burning desire to avenge himself for the cruelties which society had indicted upon him. This is the meaning of the Platonic maxim that the purpose of punishment is "to make men good."

How do we try and 'make prisoners good in English Prisons'? Admitting the necessity for strict regulation to secure order, discipline, and obedience, what are the Reformatory influences in English Prisons? Let us first consider the nature and character of the population to whom these influences are to be applied. True, that they are all human beings, with 'reversionary rights of humanity'; but what an infinite variety of mental and physical states: what an infinite degree of will-power, of self-conciousness, and of self-control, of capacity to realize and to understand. Let us regard them as a College or University of persons of all ages, sexes, and dispositions, and let us not forget that this 'corpus' on which our reforming influences are to be brought to bear is, for the time being, not subject to all the impulses, stimuli, hopes, rewards and temptations to which persons in free life are subject. It was well and truly said by the Home Secretary (Mr. Churchill) in the House of Commons, in 1910, "the mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm, dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of the convicted, criminal against the State—a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment—a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry those who have paid their due in the hard coinage of punishment: tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes: unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man. These are the symbols, which, in the treatment of crime and criminal, mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it." There could not be better words than these to inscribe as a phylactery on the brow of every prison administration throughout the world. They are, indeed, the test of civilization. Do our works in this country correspond to this profession of faith?

Of what does this 'corpus' consist? In the year before the war there were, in round figures, 90,000 males and 32,000 females sent to prison for periods of less than 6 months: about 7,000 of both sexes sent for long periods over 6 months: about 1,000 sent to penal servitude: and about 6,000 Juvenile-Adults came within the jurisdiction of the Prison authority, either in Borstal Institutions or ordinary prisons. Of these, the percentage of recidivism in Convict Prisons was no less than 87% for males and 70% for females. Of those sentenced to imprisonment, 63% of the males, and 79% of the females had been previously convicted, while no less than 17% of the males and 31% of the females had incurred eleven or more previous convictions. Amongst the young male prisoners, 16-21, sentenced to imprisonment, about 60% had incurred no previous conviction. The system of classification to which all these are subject in prison, is described in Chapter VII.

All are subject alike under general prison rules to the reforming influences of religion. The Chaplain, Priest, or Minister walks noiselessly among them all, gleaning wheat among the tares, and calling back those who will come to the bidding of the divine Imperatives, which if they have been imparted in youth, have, in many cases, almost faded from memory; and who can tell how often in the silent communings of the cell, the spark of life and regeneration may not light again at the voice of the patient, pleading Minister of God. It is not only by the call of the Chapel services, with the hymns and simple prayers, but by the regular visitation of each in their cells, that this spark latent, but not quite extinguished, may rekindle. Do not let us undervalue the quiet, patient, and unwearying task of those who minister spiritually to those in bondage in prison cells. The door is wide open to all creeds and denominations who seek to enter in; and not only to Ministers of religion, but to lay visitors and missionaries who find their prompting to this work by their desire to realize the holy precept "I was in prison and you visited me." Let us not forget the gentle and comforting influence of our Lady Visitors, and the thousands of forlorn and despairing women, young and old, who perhaps find, for the first time, the voice of sympathy and encouragement, which, like a ray of sunshine, lifts the gloom from off their souls.

In addition to the carefully prescribed orders for the education up to a certain Standard of such prisoners as are shown after examination on reception to be in need of it, there are, too, other means by which "the spark of life and sympathy" can be kindled in prison. Of late years, great progress has been made in the systematic introduction of outside influences in the form of lectures and addresses on lay subjects, calculated to interest and inspire, and to afford matter for reflection, and to mitigate the evil of morbid introspection inseparable from long and monotonous seclusion. The value of such influences is manifested in a wonderful degree by the reference made to them in letters from prisoners to their homes and friends. In many cases, a new outlook on life begins. Men and women who have almost lost their humanity by habitual association with the lower conditions of life,—its cupidities, baseness, and greed—whose minds have never risen above the gratification of sensual desires and impulses, have a new vista of things opened to them. Such 'conversion' may arise quite unexpectedly and fortuitously from some simple story, from some appealing incident in world history, even from simple explanation of the wonders of nature or of science. During the war, the practice was instituted of giving a weekly account of the great events occurring on the battlefields of the world: of the heroic deeds that were done: of the noble sacrifices that were made. There was a unanimous agreement as to the moral value of these addresses; and it has recently been decided to continue the system of imparting news of the world to all prisoners by the same method of weekly addresses, Governors and Chaplains having a discretion as to the subjects they shall select, and the manner in which they shall deliver them. It has often been made a reproach against the Prison System that prisoners are cut off from all knowledge of outside events, and are thrust back again into the world like children pushed into a dark room, and obliged to grope and feel their way before they can stabilize themselves in the current of normal life. This is no longer the case.

It is another reproach against the system that prisoners are doomed to an unnatural existence by the so-called 'law of silence.' Since 1898, there has been no 'law of silence,' strictly so-called. Previously to that date, the order ran "The Governor shall enforce the observance of silence throughout the Prison." The Committee of 1894 said on this subject: "We think that the privilege of talking might be given after a certain period as a reward for good conduct on certain days for a limited time, and under reasonable supervision, to all long-sentence prisoners, local as well as convict, who have conducted themselves well, and who are not deemed unsuitable for the privilege. The present practice of imposing silence except for the purposes of labour and during the visits of officials and authorised persons, for a period it may be of 15 or 20 years, seems to us unnatural. We recognize that careful supervision would be necessary if this privilege is allowed, but we do not think that the disadvantages which might, perhaps, from time to time, occur would be at all equal to the good likely to result from a partial and judicious removal of this very unnatural restriction." The existing rule made under the Prison Act, 1898, is as follows:—

"The Governor shall, subject to the provisions of these rules, prevent all intercourse or communication between the prisoners, so far as the conduct of the business of the prison or the labour of the prisoners will permit, and shall take care that all intercourse or communication between them shall be conducted in such manner only as he may direct. But the privilege of talking may be given after a certain period as a reward for good conduct on certain days, for a limited time, and under reasonable supervision, to such long-sentenced prisoners as have conducted themselves well, and who desire the privilege and are not deemed unsuitable for it."

Conformably to this rule, a prisoner who desires this privilege (and many do not desire it) and is not unsuitable for it, may, on Sundays, after a certain period of sentence, walk and converse with another prisoner, provided that such prisoner is of the same class, and that, in the opinion of the Governor, the association is not likely to be injurious. Female prisoners and invalids in hospital are allowed a large latitude in this respect.

The object of the regulations is not to impose a strict 'law of silence,' which is reasonably deemed 'unnatural,' but to prevent harmful and profitless gossip, and inter-communication between prisoners, which is not only dangerous from the point of view of order and discipline, but as furnishing a fertile source of corruption. Those who declaim against the 'law of silence,' in the same breath denounce the prison régime as a 'manufactory of criminals,' or as a 'nursery of crime.' In what way could criminals be better manufactured than by allowing a free intercourse, where evil designs and plottings, both for mischief inside and concerted crime outside the prison, would be fostered and encouraged?

Apart from the organized privilege of talking, allowed to well-conducted prisoners, there are many other ways in which their humanity is respected—the brightening of the daily Chapel service, with arrangements for choirs, singers, and instrumentalists taking part in the services: weekly missions in prisons: the delivery of moral and religious addresses by lay persons or members of religious bodies of any denomination: weekly classes, for which prisoners can be taken from labour, and where they may discuss among themselves selected subjects. These classes, referred to in a later Chapter, may be composed of 'Star' and Second Division prisoners, and even ordinary Third Division prisoners may be chosen to participate.

Lectures, with or without magic lantern, may be arranged on lay or sacred subjects, calculated to elevate and instruct prisoners, and containing an undoubted moral purpose and value.

Another innovation of recent years has been the issue to well-behaved prisoners who have completed six months of their sentences, of note-books and pencils, by which they are enabled in their leisure moments, to make a special study of some particular subject, which is likely either to be of benefit to them on discharge, or where their prospects on discharge might be impaired by the absence of any special means for maintaining the knowledge of any special subject which they previously possessed. Notes also may be taken from books regularly furnished from a well-stocked library, where such literary extracts are deemed to be of value to a prisoner for the improvement of his mental equipment.

By such methods and strivings to find the 'treasure that is in the heart of every man,' I venture to assert that there is, and has been now for many years, what Mr. Churchill described as the "tireless effort towards curative and regenerative processes," and this is the test of the virtue of a prison system, as it is also the test of the degree of humanity in the nation.

Our prison System has, in recent years, been subjected to a very severe test by the fact that, of necessity, penal treatment in prison, primarily designed for the criminal class, has been applied to thousands of individuals in no way belonging to that class, whom it has been necessary to commit to prison under the Defence of the Realm Acts, either as Conscientious Objectors to Military Service, or otherwise, for the safety of the realm. It is not denied that prison rules and regulations press hardly on men and women who, under normal circumstances, would never have become the subject of those punitive and repressive conditions, which are inseparable from the deprivation of liberty by the State. It may be said generally that the restraints of bondage were borne with courage and patience by the great majority of those who, under the special circumstances referred to, came within the jurisdiction of the prison Authority. To persons of refinement and education (as many were), the many restrictions necessary for the safe custody of criminals would naturally seem harsh, unnecessary, and even unnatural. No doubt their experience has given an impulse to the Prison Reformer, who, in his honourable zeal to soften the lot of the unfortunate captive, is apt to overlook the necessity for strict rules and regulations in dealing with a class to whose habits and instincts he himself is a total stranger. I think that, on the whole, it may be claimed for our Prison System that it has stood the test, and emerged from the search-light thrown upon its inner workings, with at least the admission that the humanities are not neglected: that it is doing its best with the very difficult material with which it deals, to save, encourage, and rehabilitate, when that is possible.

But good influence in prisons, and on prisoners, is a very subtle and mysterious thing. I remember being struck by a passage in the life of 'John Smith of Harrow', lately published. It was as follows: "In the conduct of school-life, it is the personal factor that works for inspiration: no perfecting of methods or machinery can ever replace this." This can be applied literally to prison life; and the first and principal duty of those who administer prisons is in the effort to secure this factor of personality in the selection of the superintending staff, not only of the superior staff—Governors, Chaplains, Medical Officers, and Matrons, but of all the subordinate grades, who are in daily touch with prisoners, and who by their conduct and bearing, and example, exercise a profound influence. We are fortunate in this country in possessing such a staff. It is not given to every man and woman to be capable of combining discipline with kindness: to be at the same time firm and gentle, to be inexorable in securing obedience, while, at the same time, adapting tone and method to the infinite mentalities and moralities to be found in Prison. It is not an exaggeration to say that harshness and abuse of authority are as rare in English Prisons as instances and examples of kind and considerate treatment are abundant; and this is the more admirable when we consider the temptations and difficulties of the task. It is in the upright and manly attributes of our Warder class, typical of the English national character, that a great reforming influence is to be found. Discipline with kindness is the watch-word of our Prison Staff, both in the higher and the lower ranks, and I can say confidently, having examined the condition of Prisons in many foreign countries, that in this respect, the 'tone' of English Prisons is unrivalled.

I have been referring so far to general reformatory influence of the Prison régime, so far as it operates generally with regard to adult prisoners, convicted of ordinary crime. There are two special categories of prisoners, where in recent years a notable departure has been made from prison regulations, in the direction of bringing to bear all those special 'stimuli' and encouragements which appeal to any better instincts that may be latent, and may inculcate laws of conduct which shall protect the offender from a relapse into evil-doing. These categories are (1) the Borstal lad, (2) the habitual offender. These represent the opposite poles of criminality—the beginning and the end of a criminal career.

In the Appendix will be found the special regulations for dealing with each, and from their perusal it will be seen that the motive power used is in the appeal to the sense of Honour. This appeal is conducted primarily, and necessarily, through the natural instincts which desire comfort and rewards in ordinary human beings. They are simple enough, but in their simplicity is their value, because they teach the homely lesson, which the older criminal may have forgotten, and the younger not yet learnt, viz:—that by good behaviour and industry, and a proved effort to profit by the encouragement they receive, they may pass from a lower to a higher grade, with increasing privilege and comfort, until in the ultimate stages they are placed entirely upon their Honour, employed in positions of trust, free from supervision, and even outside the walls of the establishment. In this way the re-entry into free life is facilitated: semi-liberty precedes full liberty, and by breaking the abruptness of the change, rehabilitation or re-settlement under normal conditions of life is achieved.

Thus the lesson is slowly learnt that there is a reward for industry and good conduct—not only in what can be gained in material comfort, but that the delicate plant of self-respect, in many cases withered, but not quite dead, can blossom again; and from self-respect follows the respect of others, of those in authority; and after release, of those with whom they associate in the outer world.

Those who have watched these two movements—at Borstal and Camp Hill—have been struck by their boldness; but in their boldness has been their great success. The Borstal and Camp Hill experiments exactly illustrate the true meaning of 'prison reform,' i.e., the building up of character on the basis of strict discipline, obedience, and order, tempered by progressive stages of increasing trust, liberty, and material improvement of status. When to these influences operating inside, while the man or woman is still in custody, is added the ever-watchful care of a highly organized system of help and protection, on which all can rely on discharge, if ready and willing to respond to advice given and help offered, 'Prison reform', in the sense of the reform of the individual prisoner, is realized in its best and most practical way. It is not Utopian: it is a fact which can be verified by the records of the Borstal and Central Associations, which deal on discharge with these two special categories. It is not achieved by newspaper articles or angry denunciation of the existing system, or by the formulation of abstract theories concerning prison treatment. It is achieved by "personality," inside and outside the penal institution—personality stimulated by a lofty conception of duty to God and man. To deny these reforming influences in English Prisons is to misrepresent wilfully, and in ignorance of the facts, the great and good work that is being done.

As to the future, there seems to me to be three directions in which those who are pressing for prison reform might usefully proceed:—

1. The organization of Probation on large and well-considered national lines.

2. The application of some of the principles of Preventive Detention to our Penal Servitude system.

3. The co-ordination, with a view to the prevention of crime, of all organized effort, collective and individual, now existing in this country, and of which most of the value is wasted from the absence of unity of aim, and of mutual co-operation.

1. Though Probation is ancillary to the Prison System, and is closely allied to the actual administration of justice in the Courts of law, its method and working must be of profound interest and importance to all who desire to find alternatives, consistent with the due assertion of the law, to commitment to prison. This, as is so often said, should be the last and not the first resort. Custom, routine, and the fatal ease, and saving of trouble to all concerned, has, in the past, induced the tendency to regard the warrant of commitment to prison as the ordinary and only expedient for satisfying the claims of Justice. It is only of late years that the successful operation of Probation, or sursis á l'exécution de la peine in foreign countries, and notably in some of the States of America, has awakened a lively and growing interest in this method of finding an alternative to imprisonment; and here we have to steer a wise and prudent course between the Scylla of harsh infliction of a 'peine déshonorante' which imprisonment for a few days really is, and the Charybdis of undue leniency. This is the function of the Magistrate: on him depends a successful working of the system, and he must have a deciding voice as to its application. Put consistently with the free authority and discretion of the Court, it ought to be possible to create a national system, for which the Lord Chancellor, or Secretary of State, as Chief of the Magistracy, would be responsible. I would not advise the imposition of any official system independently of the Courts, but only that the political heads of the Judiciary should take steps to satisfy themselves that Probation, as a system, is working efficiently at every criminal court in the country, before whom offenders of all ages, liable to the penalty of imprisonment, are brought. It is the function of the Secretary of State to take steps to satisfy himself that the Police Forces of the country are working efficiently, without in any way interfering with the discretion of the local Police Authority in the management of their respective forces. This is done by a system of State-Inspection, and a certificate of efficiency when all is reported well. The same system might be applied to Probation. State control would only be exercised through an Inspector-General at Whitehall, who would be assisted by Chief Probation officers in the various judicial areas. These would be paid by the State, and a system could be devised by which the State granted a subsidy in aid of the salaries of the general body of Probation officers, who would be appointed locally under regulations approved by the Secretary of State. Such aid would be dependent, as in the case of Police, on an annual certificate of efficiency. By such means an admirable 'Salvage Corps' would be created. By 'Salvage' I mean a body of devoted men and women who, from knowledge of the character and history of individual cases, would be in a position to furnish the Courts with information and suggestions which would enable them to exercise a wise direction whether or not in any case Justice would be satisfied by granting a 'sursis', subject to satisfactory conditions and guarantees, to the penalty of imprisonment. Such a system would not conflict with the full authority and discretion of the Court, and would, at the same time, prevent Justice from striking blindly at the offender, by being in possession of material facts, which, under the present system, are often concealed from it.

Such a system would be a striking advance on the road of the individualization of the offender, which is the aim and purpose of the modern penal system in all civilized countries.

2. The principle of Preventive Detention, which might perhaps be extended with advantage, but with great care and prudence, to our Penal Servitude System, is that expressed by the Advisory Committee (Section 14 (4) of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, Part II), and the provision for After-care (Section 15 of the same Act).

Long sentences of penal servitude are now reported periodically to the Home Office for review and consideration. Without impinging in any way on the authority of the Court, which fixes the term of the sentence, it might be arranged that such reports should be accompanied by a report of an Advisory Committee, set up at each convict prison, whose opinion would be of value to the Secretary of State in deciding whether conditional licence under adequate safeguards could be granted, or whether the stern penalty of a sentence of penal servitude having been sufficiently expiated, there might be a commutation of the sentence to the less rigorous conditions of Preventive Detention. The great success which has attended the work of the Advisory Committee at Camp Hill seems to justify the extension of the principle, quite consistently with a due and exact regard for the interests of Justice and the protection of society.

Section 12 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, gives power to the Secretary of State to commute in certain cases to Preventive Detention. An Advisory Committee could fitly advise as to the occasion for the exercise of this power.

3. In addressing the Central Committee of Aid Societies last year, I ventured to propose the foundation of a National Society for the Prevention of Crime. I was led to this proposal by the experience which has come to me in watching the operation of the great network of effort now employed in diverse capacities throughout the country, not only in the aid of prisoners discharged from ordinary or local prisons, but in the supervision of Borstal, Penal Servitude, and Preventive Detention cases through the admirable machinery of the Borstal and Central Associations. In addition to these recognised, and more or less State-aided, instruments for dealing with the actual offender, we have the preventive agencies for the supervision of cases discharged from Industrial and Reformatory Schools, as well as the large field of care and tutelage for those placed on Probation,—all these methods for after-care and prevention are co-ordinated with the help given by other benevolent or religious Societies, thus forming a compact whole of altruistic effort of what is known in France as 'Patronage', or a National life-saving apparatus.

My idea was to stabilize and unify all this somewhat unconnected effort by the formation of a Central Council, on which all persons or societies working in the field of reclamation, either of young or of old, could be brought, so to speak, under 'one umbrella'.

There would be Committees of such Central Council in every selected area or district, on which would be represented the local Aid Society, the local Probation officer, the Associate of the Borstal and Central Associations, agents of the Reformatory and Industrial School Department, and any local representatives for dealing with the care and employment of the young.

To such a body would be affiliated the associations which exist in many parts of the country for the care of the mentally defective.

There is a growing appreciation on the part of Magistrates, and the public generally, of the close and often undiscovered association between crime and mental deficiency. Steps are now being taken, notably in the Midlands and the North of England, for establishing a co-operation between the Police Authority, the Courts of law, and Committees of the County Council, working under the Mental Deficiency Act. If such co-operation could become general throughout the country, a new and formidable 'preventive' against many acts of petty and repeated lawlessness would be created, and there is little doubt that many persons of both sexes who hitherto have spent their lives in and out of Prison—the despair of the Courts, a source of perpetual trouble to Police, and of nuisance to their neighbours, would, on inquiry, and mental observation, be found to be 'irresponsibles', and proper subjects for medical care, rather than the grim severity of ceaseless and useless imprisonment. The long and mournful roll of incurable recidivists would cease to haunt our prisons, and public places; and under Institutional care, would, at least, be removed from evil-doing, if they did not regain, under medical care, their opportunity for reinstatement in normal industrious life.

It is in these directions that I think that the hope of dealing effectively with the ever-present criminal problem lies. Let those who are anxious to get to the heart of this problem know that the solution lies, not in abstract theories of so-called Prison Reform: not in academical discussion of the best prison system to adopt: not in the old vexed controversies of the comparative value of the cellular or associated plan, but in patient observation of every human being, while in the custody of the State for an infraction of its laws, and in aiding the reconstruction of a life that has failed, by the adoption of a system of After-care, on the lines I have described, or, which is far better still, in endeavouring to create such a network of preventive work throughout the land, that, as a nation, we may rejoice in being able to feel that, at least so far as human effort can avail, Prison, with all its consequences, shall be the last and not the first resort, which, in the absence of well-organized preventive and curative measures, it has too often been in the past.

[CHAPTER II.]

THE PRISON COMMISSION: OFFENCES, AND PUNISHMENTS.

The prisons in England and Wales are divided into (a) Convict, and (b) Local.

(a) Convict Prisons were created specially to contain convicts under sentence of transportation prior to, or in lieu of, removal to the penal colonies, and were constituted by special Acts of Parliament passed from time to time, which provided for their separate administration and inspection. In 1850, they were all placed under a Board of Directors who exercise all the powers formerly vested in the various bodies who managed them.

(b) Local Prisons.—By the Prison Act, 1877, county and borough prisons, which formerly belonged to the local authorities, were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of State, a permanent Commission, not exceeding five members, being created for the purpose of aiding the Secretary of State in carrying out the provisions of the Act.

In 1878, when the local prisons were thus transferred, there were, therefore, a Board of Directors of Convict Prisons, consisting of four members (including the Chairman) and a Board of Commissioners, consisting of four members (including the Chairman). The then Chairman of the Directors was appointed also Chairman of the Commissioners; but, except to this extent, at that time no further amalgamation took place, each class of prisons being administered separately. The two Boards still have separate legal existence, but under the Prison Act, 1898, every Prison Commissioner is, by virtue of his Office, also a Director of Convict Prisons. The Boards are now, in fact, if not in law, amalgamated.

The control of all Prisons is thus vested in a body of Commissioners, who act subject to the control and authority of the Secretary of State, who is himself directly responsible to Parliament for the whole administration.

In addition to the Convict and Local Prisons, the Commissioners are also responsible for the administration of the Institutions established by the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, for dealing with:—

(a) young offenders, 16-21—Borstal Institutions.

(b) habitual criminals under 'Preventive Detention.' They are also responsible for the care and control of Habitual Inebriates sentenced under the Act of 1898; but, as pointed out later in dealing with the question of Inebriety, there are, at the present time, no inmates in custody.

Offences against the criminal law can be classed generally into two divisions—Indictable (i.e. tried on indictment before a Superior Court): Summary (i.e. tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction). The Superior Courts are (1) Assizes: (2) General Quarter Sessions. (1) The Assize Courts are itinerant criminal tribunals created by Commission to Judges of the High Court to try prisoners presented for trial by the grand juries for the several Counties in which the Assize is to be held. They can try any indictable offence whatever, and are the most important of criminal Courts of first instance. In London, a special Court, known as the Central Criminal Court, has been created by Statute, having the same powers as Courts of Assize, and sits monthly. (2) Quarter Sessions. These are held once a Quarter, and were originally meetings of the Justices of the Peace of a particular County. More recently, certain cities and boroughs have obtained the privilege of a local Court of Quarter Sessions, presided over by a Recorder, who must be a barrister. These Courts can try all indictable offences except such felonies as are punishable by Penal Servitude for Life or by Death.

Summary Justice is administered generally by Petty Sessional Courts composed of unpaid local Magistrates, not necessarily of legal experience, nominated by the Lord Chancellor; but in the Metropolis and other Cities and populous places, e.g., Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, etc., by paid Stipendiaries who are barristers of standing and repute, appointed by the Crown. The great mass of petty offences against the law is dealt with by these tribunals. Of late years, the powers of the Summary Courts have been extended so as to include certain indictable cases. Thus, young persons under 16, when charged with any indictable offence whatever, except homicide, may be dealt with summarily, subject to certain conditions; also adults, when charged with various forms of larceny, theft, embezzlement, &c., where the value of the property stolen does not exceed twenty pounds.

The punishments that the Superior Courts can impose are, generally speaking, penal servitude for grave offences, and ordinary imprisonment for lesser offences. The special penalty of commitment to a Borstal Institution, or to a State Inebriate Reformatory, may only be imposed by a Superior Court. Superior Courts have, in addition, the power to order Whipping in the case of Robbery with Violence, and of persons deemed to be Incorrigible Rogues under the Vagrancy Act, and for the offence of Procuration, under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912. They have power also to order a person to be placed under the Supervision of Police for a fixed period after his punishment. In the Summary Courts the principal punishment is by fine. According to the Judicial Statistics for 1913, fines were inflicted in about 88 per cent. of the cases convicted for petty offences. Where a fine is not paid, imprisonment is generally ordered to take place in satisfaction in lieu of the fine. Out of 128,686 persons committed to Prison by the Summary Courts in 1913-4, no less than 74,461 were imprisoned in default of payment of fine, the amount of imprisonment being regulated by statute in proportion to the amount of fine. Under the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, it is now obligatory on the part of the Courts to allow time in which to pay the fine imposed. In 1918-19, the number of persons received into prison in default of payment had fallen enormously, only 5,264 being received, or about 2 per cent. of the total sentenced by the Courts to pay a fine, as compared with 15 per cent. in 1913-14. Though the maximum term which may be imposed by Summary Courts is limited to six months, in practice the great majority of the sentences awarded do not exceed three months.

There are also the Juvenile Courts which deal with offenders under sixteen, as to which particulars are given in a later chapter.

There is power also under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, for any Court (either Superior or Summary) to release an offender on probation—the former, in lieu of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, or in the case of the latter, without proceeding to conviction. The offender may be discharged conditionally on entering into recognizances to be of good behaviour, and to appear for sentence or conviction at any time within three years. The Court may, in addition, order the offender to pay damages for injuries, or compensation. A recognizance under this Act may contain a condition that the offender shall be placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer, and other conditions may be that he shall not associate with undesirable persons, and that he shall abstain from intoxicating liquors, and, generally, that he shall lead an industrious life. Details as to the operation of the law will be given in a subsequent chapter.

Previously to 1907, there was no Court of Criminal Appeal. The general principle had been that in criminal cases no appeal was allowed to either party on any question of fact; the only resource for a wrongfully convicted man was to petition the Secretary of State. A prisoner now has an absolute right to appeal on any question of law, and, if leave be obtained, on any question of mixed fact and law. He also has the right to appeal against the sentence passed on him. Neither the Crown's Prerogative of Mercy, nor the powers of the Home Secretary to institute such inquiry as he may think fit, are affected by the Act.

The penalty of death is now practically restricted to cases of murder, although permitted by law in the case of treason, and certain forms of piracy and arson. The average number of capital sentences for the last ten years has been 25, and of these, 13 suffered the extreme penalty of the law.

I propose to commence the Study of the English Prison System by a short survey of the history of Penal Servitude,—an essential preliminary to an understanding of the System as it exists to-day.

[CHAPTER III.]

THE HISTORY OF PENAL SERVITUDE.

Penal Servitude was substituted for Transportation in the year 1853. It will be necessary to trace shortly the history of Transportation, so that the features of Penal Servitude, as they exist to-day, may be understood. Transportation is first mentioned as a punishment under an Act passed in the reign of Charles II, which empowered Judges to exile for life the moss-troopers of Northumberland to any of H.M. Possessions in America. It is stated that in the Bloody Assizes of 1685 Judge Jeffries sent no less than 841 persons to Transportation. It appears to have been the practice to subject these transported offenders to penal labour, and to employ them as slaves on the estates of the planters. An Act was passed in the reign of George I., giving to the persons who contracted to transport a property and interest in the service of such offenders. A great want of servants in the Colonies is one of the reasons assigned for this mode of punishment. In spite of this, however, many of the Colonies, especially Barbadoes, Maryland and New York, objected to having their wants supplied by these means, and with the War of Independence, transportation to America ceased.

It was about this time that, under the influence of Blackstone, Howard, and others, what was known later as the Penitentiary System for the treatment of Crime began to be considered in England, and an Act was passed in the year 1778 for the introduction into the Prison régime of the three factors on which the so-called Penitentiary System rested, viz:—separate confinement, hard labour, and instruction—secular and religious. Although the System was commenced in good earnest in a few places, e.g., Petworth and Gloucester, under the auspices of keen prison reformers (at these places, the Duke of Richmond and Sir G.O. Paul) it was not till some fifty years later that general interest was attracted by the experiments being made in the United States, where the rival Systems—"Cellular" and "Associated," as carried out at Philadelphia and Auburn, respectively, have become historical.

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:—

"These purposes are twofold; the first, that of deterring others exposed to similar temptations from the commission of crime; the second, the reformation of the criminal himself. The first is the primary and more important object: for though society has, doubtless, a strong interest in the reformation of the criminal, and his consequent indisposition to crime, yet the result is here confined to the individual offender, while the effect of punishment, as deterring from crime, extends not only to the party suffering the punishment, but to all who may be in the habit of committing crime, or who may be tempted to fall into it. Moreover, the reformation of the offender is in the highest degree speculative and uncertain, and its permanency, in the face of renewed temptation, exceedingly precarious. On the other hand, the impression produced by suffering, inflicted as the punishment of crime, and the fear of its repetition, are far more likely to be lasting, and much more calculated to counteract the tendency to the renewal of criminal habits. It is on the assumption that punishment will have the effect of deterring from crime that its infliction can alone be justified, its proper and legitimate purpose being not to avenge crime but to prevent it. The experience of mankind has shown that though crime will always exist to a certain extent, it may be kept within given bounds by the example of punishment. This result it is the business of the lawgiver to accomplish by annexing to each offence the degree of punishment calculated to repress it. More than this would be a waste of so much human suffering; but to apply less out of consideration for the criminal is to sacrifice the interests of society to a misplaced tenderness towards those who offend against its laws. Wisdom and humanity, no doubt, alike suggest that if, consistently with this primary purpose, the reformation of the criminal can be brought about, no means should be omitted by which so desirable an end can be achieved. But this, the subsidiary purpose of Penal Discipline, should be kept in due subordination to its primary and principal one. And it may well be doubted whether, in recent times, the humane and praiseworthy desire to reform and restore the fallen criminal may not have produced too great a tendency to forget that the protection of society should be the first consideration of the lawgiver."

The views of the Lord Chief Justice on the value of Police Supervision, and Ticket-of-Leave, and the aspect from which he regarded the value of the Irish Intermediate System attracted much attention at this time. He stated:—

"Those who advocate remission, make supervision an essential element in their system, as necessary not only for the security of the public, but also for the protection of the convict himself when first set free and exposed anew to temptation. But it may be questioned first, whether supervision is practicable; secondly, whether, if practicable, it is not more mischievous than beneficial. There can be little doubt that by change of name, and change of locality, which, as we have just seen, is largely resorted to for this purpose, holders of Tickets-of-Leave can without much difficulty elude the vigilance of the police; and no adequate means have been suggested for satisfactorily overcoming this difficulty. But a far more serious objection arises from the fact that, at least in this country, any supervision by the police, or other officer appointed for the purpose, would be fatal to the convict's chance of employment, on which his continuing in the right course, if so disposed, so materially depends. Police supervision is incompatible with the concealment of the man's antecedents, while, in the great majority of instances, the well-doing of the convict must depend on his secret being kept. Few masters would employ a man who was known to be a convicted felon, and an equal obstacle would be found in the disinclination of other labourers to be associated with one thus degraded. It would seem, therefore, that if remission is to be continued, it would be better that it should not be attended by any attempt at supervision, the beneficial effects of which, from the difficulty of carrying it out, are doubtful, while its mischievous tendency, so far as relates to the welfare of the convict, is apparent. It would seem to be better to leave the liberated convict to take his chance of finding employment and making his way as he can, than to fetter him with a clog which may prevent the possibility of honest exertion."

It was in consequence of the Report of the Commission that in 1864 an Act was passed raising the minimum sentence of Penal Servitude from three to five years. The Act also authorized any two or more Justices of the Peace to exercise powers of corporal punishment for offences against Prison discipline, hitherto vested exclusively in one of the Directors, the Commission of 1863 having expressed the opinion that acts of violence committed by convicts were not punished with sufficient promptitude or severity. This measure also enacted the principle that a convict on licence should report periodically to the Police of the district in which he should reside, and any failure to comply with the conditions imposed in the licence might result in its forfeiture, and in the re-committal of the holder to Prison.

As a result of this measure, the Progressive Stage System, through which convicts passed on their road to remission, was further defined and elaborated, and the Mark System as now in operation was instituted. Every convict was required to earn by actual labour a certain number of marks, proportioned to the length of his sentence, to enable him to purchase, as it were, any remission of sentence, or to advance from the lower to the higher class. Although misconduct would involve a forfeiture of marks, the marks are allotted simply for actual industry, as shown by the amount of work done, and are checked by the actual measurement of the work, where such is possible. The Directors, in their Report for 1865, comment on the introduction of the system as follows:—

"The value of the Mark System when honestly administered is, that it gives a tangible idea to the convicts of the value of their daily labour, and our endeavour has been to impress upon them that they must earn these marks to gain the advantages held out to them of remission of sentence and advancement in classes. Like any other system of recording the conduct and industry of convicts, the Mark System requires careful watching, to prevent it from degenerating into mere routine, and to avoid favouritism or intimidation. We have under existing circumstances the advantage that the convicts are employed in important Public Works, which admit of accurate measurement and valuation; and we think the checks we have adopted are sufficient to guarantee that whatever the convicts do earn will be earned by fair labour accompanied by good behaviour. It is very satisfactory to us to state, that although none of the officers of the English Convict Prisons had any previous experience of the working of the Mark System, which might naturally be expected to be regarded with some kind of suspicion, its success has far exceeded our expectations. The Governors and the subordinate officers have devoted themselves very zealously to master the principles and details of the Mark System, and have entered into the spirit of the measure with great zeal, and the testimony of the Governors to the beneficial results on the labour and industry of the convicts is very gratifying. The convicts themselves take a lively interest in the account of their marks, which they watch with earnestness, and fully avail themselves of the privilege of bringing before the Directors any grievance they think they have respecting them."

The Mark System, as then introduced, has remained in operation ever since, and may be regarded as the fundamental principle of the Penal Servitude System. We have not at our disposal to-day the same amount of "Public Work," strictly so-called, i.e., buildings, harbour-making, &c., and the allocation of marks cannot be checked to the same degree by actual measurement of work done, but the record of daily industry, whatever the employment may be, is strictly kept. The gain or loss of marks, either for remission or stage, constitutes the reward or punishment lying at the root of convict discipline. As will be explained in a later Chapter, this has been applied also to the Local Prison System, mutatis mutandis, in common with many other features in the Convict Prisons, which, previous to the Prison Act, 1877, were alone under the direct control of the Government.

At the same time a considerable reduction was made in the large amount of gratuity paid to convicts, and the maximum earnable was reduced to £3, irrespective of length of sentence, with power to grant a further bonus of £3.

The changes resulting from the Royal Commission of 1863, and the Penal Servitude Act of 1864, were generally satisfactory as tested by the number of persons sentenced to penal servitude. The Authorities reported in 1871 that there was good reason to believe that great progress had been made in solving the difficulty of forming an effective system of Secondary Punishment. Although in that year there was a considerable increase in the number of reconvictions to penal servitude, this was due to an alteration in the law brought about by the Habitual Criminals Act, 1869, and the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, by which greater facilities were given to the Police for the detection of habitual criminals, the proportion of recommittals depending more on the activity of the Police and means of identification at their disposal than on any changes in the Prison System. The Act of 1871 provided that a person convicted a second time on indictment might be sentenced to be subject to Police Supervision for a number of years, not exceeding seven, after the expiration of his sentence. During such period he is required to notify his place of residence to the Police, and to report himself to them monthly, in default of which he is liable to imprisonment. The Act also imposed similar obligations and penalties on persons released from penal servitude, and, further, if it were proved that the convict was living dishonestly, he would be liable to be sent back to prison to undergo the remainder of his unexpired portion of penal servitude. The effectual supervision of a discharged convict, which resulted from these provisions, began to show itself in an increase both in the number of sentences to Penal Servitude and in the number of reconvictions. In the year 1876, these latter had nearly doubled during the past two decades, rising from 11 to 21 per cent.

At this time it appears that some disquietude arose in the public mind, both with regard to the alleged severity of discipline to which Penal Servitude prisoners were subjected, and also with regard to the contamination due to the association of all classes of convicts on public works. There was then no classification of prisoners sentenced to Penal Servitude, and all herded together, irrespective of age, antecedents, and habits. This disquietude led the Directors of Convict Prisons to suggest to the Secretary of State that an independent inquiry should be held into the Administration of Convict Prisons, feeling confident that any full and impartial inquiry would tend only to establish the soundness of the principle on which the Convict System was founded and the care with which it was administered. A Royal Commission was accordingly appointed in 1878, with Lord Kimberley as Chairman, and their Report marks another epoch in the history of Penal Servitude. The Committee advised an improved system of Classification by placing in a distinct class those against whom no previous conviction of any kind is known to have been recorded. This was the origin of the "Star Class" System, i.e., the formal separation of the First Offender from the rest, which is one of the peculiar features of the English Convict System. Since those days this system of classification has been greatly improved and extended, as will be shown later; but the "Star Class" represents the first and most practical attempt to introduce the principle of segregation of the better from the worse, which has since become so familiar as an essential condition of any well organized Prison System. The Commission approved generally of the rigour which had been introduced into the Penal Servitude System by the Act of 1864, and subsequent Acts, which imposed and facilitated stricter police supervision on discharge. They condemned, however, that provision of the Act of 1864, by which seven years was made the minimum sentence after a previous conviction for felony. They were, however, in favour of retaining the minimum of five years for a sentence of Penal Servitude.

Another respect in which the Report foreshadowed the future development of the System was the great stress laid on the importance of taking steps to secure the inspection of Convict Prisons from time to time by persons appointed by the Government unpaid and unconnected with the Department. This idea was resisted in the minority Report by one of the members of the Commission, and also by the Prison Authorities of that day. It denotes the want of public confidence which, at a time of awakening interest and curiosity in the administration, was sure to arise from a system of control which was vested in a close bureaucracy, such as almost from necessity, having regard to the history of the case, existed at that time for the management of Convict Prisons. It was nearly twenty years later that the principle, not only of unofficial visitation and inspection, but of actual co-operation in the government of Convict Prisons, was recognized by the Prison Act of 1898.

The succeeding ten years were marked by a remarkable fall in the number of sentences to Penal Servitude. The average yearly numbers, which for the five years ended 1864 had been 2,800, fell to 729 in 1890, or about two per 100,000 of the population,—a point at which it remained for many years; but during the last five years it has fallen to the lowest on record, viz:—·9 representing only 340 committals during the year. In 1891 an Act was passed reducing the minimum period of Penal Servitude from five years to three, and various minor alterations in the law affecting the practice of licensing convicts were also made; thus, convicts were allowed to earn marks during the nine months of separate confinement (with which each sentence commenced) in the same way as during the remainder of their sentence, so that the maximum remission to be earned is exactly one-fourth part of the whole sentence: also convicts serving remanets of former sentences became able to earn marks under remanets in the same manner as under original sentences. The same Act also gave power to the Secretary of State to remit the requirements as to reporting to Police on discharge.

[CHAPTER IV.]

PENAL SERVITUDE TO-DAY.

Three years later the principles of Prison treatment, as prescribed by law for all Prisons, Local and Convict, were made the subject of a fierce indictment in the public press. Criticism was directed, not only against the principles of administration, but even against the personnel of the administering authority. An inquiry, which was ordered by the Secretary of State, had reference mainly to the administration of Local Prisons which had been taken over by the Government in 1877, and were administered by a Board of Commissioners, distinct from the body of Directors, but it also called in question the principle of a long period of separate confinement which had for many years been the preliminary stage of a sentence of Penal Servitude. It also considered the question of offences committed by Habitual Criminals, whether in Local or in Convict Prisons, and offered the opinion that a new form of sentence should be placed at the disposal of Judges, by which such offenders might be segregated for long periods of detention under conditions differing from those either of Imprisonment or Penal Servitude.

The changes that have taken place in the Penal Servitude System since that date have been far-reaching and important.

1. The Progressive Stage System has been recast with the object of increasing the inducements to good conduct and industry in each Stage, and to bring the benefits of the System within the reach of the great majority of convicts who, by the shorter sentence of three years, under the operation of the Act of 1891, were excluded from them. At this time no convict whose sentence was less than six years, and who, after deducting one-fourth remission of sentence allowed to all convicts, was not more than four years in Prison, could fully profit by the System, and thus two-thirds of the convict population were not in Prison for a sufficiently long time to be really subject to the benefits which the Stage System offers. Only one-fourth just got beyond the Second Stage, while one-third did not reach the Fourth Stage, and none of these could reach the "Special" Class, which, with the privileges it entails, may be regarded as the principal reward which the Penal Servitude System affords. A convict in this Class earns a special remission of one week and extra gratuity, wears a special dress, and is eligible for special employment in positions of trust. The wisdom and value of the system consists in its adaptation to each period of sentence, so that it may be within the reach of each convict who works hard and behaves well to gain privileges.

2. Another serious defect in the Penal Servitude system at that time was insufficient classification. There was no classification except that of the "Star Class" as already described. The object of the "Star Class" was to segregate prisoners not previously convicted and not habitual criminals from those versed in crime. There were only 370 convicts out of a total of nearly 3,000, or not much more than one in ten, eligible for the "Star Class." The others were a heterogeneous mass, who, although not considered eligible for the exclusive caste of "Stars," yet, in age, character, and antecedents differed greatly. To meet this, convicts are now divided into (a) the Star Class; (b) the Intermediate Class; and (c) the Recidivist Class—each class being, as far as practicable, kept apart by themselves, and not allowed to associate with convicts of the other classes. (a) The Star Class.—Any convict may be eligible for this class who has never been previously convicted, or who is not habitually criminal or of corrupt habits. Convicts in this class may be liable to be removed to the Intermediate Class if found to exercise a bad influence over other convicts; (b) The Intermediate Class.—Any convict may be placed in this class who has not been previously convicted, but who, owing to his general character and antecedents, is not considered by the Directors to be suitable for the Star Class; or whose record shows that he has been previously convicted, but not of such grave or persistent crime as would bring him within the Recidivist Class. Convicts in this Class may be promoted to the Star Class on their showing proof of a reformed character, or they may be reduced to the Recidivist Class if they are known to be exercising a bad influence over other convicts. (c) The Recidivist Class.—Any convict may be placed in this class who has been previously sentenced to Penal Servitude or whose record shows that he has been guilty of grave or persistent crime; or whose licence, under a sentence of Penal Servitude, has been revoked or forfeited. There is also a separate classification of convicts sentenced to Penal Servitude who, on conviction, are under the age of 21 years.

If under the age of eighteen, they may be sent by order of the Secretary of State to a specially selected Prison for treatment under the Rules for Juvenile-Adult prisoners. To those that remain in a convict prison, the principles of Borstal treatment are applied as far as practicable.

A new category of convicts was also established known as the Long Sentence Division, i.e., convicts sentenced to 8 years or more, and who had served more than five years under ordinary rules. These men are specially located: they wear a special dress, earn gratuity, and may purchase articles of comfort or relaxation. The rules provide for meals in association, and for conversation at exercise and meals; and, latterly, a still further category has been established known as the "Aged Convicts" Division, in which a convict may be placed when it is clear from his advanced age, and the length of the sentence remaining to be served, that (1) he is physically feeble and not dangerous, and (2) that he has little prospect of surviving the sentence in confinement. Subject to good conduct, a prisoner in this class is free, as far as possible, from all penal conditions.

One of the recommendations of the Penal Servitude Commission of 1879 was that Weakminded Convicts should be concentrated in special Prisons, and placed in charge of specially selected officers. The medical evidence given before the Prisons Committee of 1895 was in favour of a more effective concentration than had hitherto been carried out. Since 1897, all male convicts whose mental condition was considered doubtful or defective have been transferred to Parkhurst Prison. The numbers in this class increased, and the experience gained by the methods adopted for their treatment enabled the Directors in 1901 to formulate special regulations for their treatment. These regulations are of a wide and general character, and admit of an elasticity of treatment for the varying types classed as "weakminded"; at the same time they ensure that the departure from the rules and routine applicable to ordinary prisoners shall be minimised as far as possible, so that any marked difference of treatment should not operate as an inducement to malingering. A similar class for weakminded female convicts was commenced at Aylesbury Prison in 1906.

3. The period of Separate Confinement which, from the earliest days, had preceded a sentence of Transportation or Penal Servitude, has, during recent years, been the subject of much consideration. The Separate System for convicts, as already explained, owes its origin to a letter addressed in 1842 by the then Home Secretary, Sir James Graham, to the Commissioners of Pentonville Prison. It was the success realized at Pentonville in the early 'forties which has made Separate Confinement part of the sentence of Penal Servitude in this country from that day to this. When Transportation ceased, and with it the system of selecting particular convicts, young and not versed in crime, to undergo the Pentonville experiment with the hope and prospect of freedom after eighteen months in a foreign but congenial clime, the "System" still remained, but without the conditions which had contributed to its success in the first instance. It seems that in fact the penal and deterrent, rather than the reformatory value, came gradually to be regarded as its basis and justification. It was applied to all convicts, irrespective of age and antecedents. In 1853 the period was reduced from eighteen months to nine months. It appears that the former period of eighteen months was the subject of severe criticism and of great prejudice by those who formed their opinion on rumours very prevalent at the beginning of the last century with regard to the effect of the so-called "solitary" system as carried out in the United States, with the accompaniments of darkness, absolute solitude, absence of any employment, and unwholesome sanitary conditions. On the other hand, an extensive experience had been gained in Local Prisons, where cellular separation was already in force previously to the Act of 1865, and had become in many Prisons the regular method of executing a sentence of imprisonment up to two years. This strengthened the position of those who argued that strict separation for eighteen months could be carried out without disadvantageous results, on the condition that prisoners were supplied with occupation and employment, kept in physically healthy circumstances, and separated, not from all other human beings, but only from each other. The nine months' period seems to have been adopted as a sort of compromise with the prejudices above referred to; and it had this further advantage—that by its adoption, the expense of having to provide accommodation for all convicts during separate confinement was greatly reduced, as twice the number could be passed through this Stage under the limitation of nine months. The penal or deterrent purpose of Separate Confinement for convicts was, no doubt, greatly intensified by the Report of the Royal Commission of 1868. That Commission reported as follows:—

"The separate confinement to which convicts sentenced to Penal Servitude are, in the first instance, subjected, seems to be regarded with great dislike by most of them, and especially by those who are criminals by profession. It appears that owing to the want of room in the prisons for separate confinement, and the demand for labour on Public Works at Portland and Chatham, the period of separate confinement, during the last year, has fallen so short of the nine months prescribed by the regulations, that the average has been only seven months and twenty days. Arrangements ought at once to be made for remedying this. We are of opinion that convicts ought to be kept in separate confinement for the full period of nine months, except in the case of prisoners who are found unable to undergo it so long without serious injury to their bodily or mental health. No considerations of expense, whether connected with the necessity for additional buildings, or with the loss of the labour of the convicts, ought to be allowed to prevent this stage of punishment from being continued for the time prescribed by the regulations. We think, too, that though separate confinement, even under the present system, is, as has been said, extremely distasteful to convicts, this wholesome effect on their minds might be increased. It has been already mentioned that in Ireland the diet is lower during the first four months, and that no work is given to the prisoners for the first three months, except such as is of a simple and monotonous character, in which they require little or no instruction. This practice has been adopted because it has been found that by far the greater number of convicts have no knowledge of any trade, and when first taught one must necessarily be constantly visited by their Instructor, whose visits tend to mitigate the irksomeness of separate confinement. There appears to us to be much force in the reasons which induced the Directors of the Irish Convict Prisons to adopt these means for rendering separate Imprisonment more formidable, and we therefore recommend that attempts should be made with due caution to give a more deterrent character to separate Imprisonment in the English Prisons."

The Report of the Directors for 1863 shows that steps were at once taken to enforce rigidly this stage of punishment. Fixed wooden beds were substituted for hammocks; the assembling of convicts for education in classes was discontinued, and the cell doors, which had been formerly opened after two months, were kept bolted during the whole period of separate confinement. The Governor and Chaplain of Millbank both reported that these changes had been attended with a visible improvement in the bearing and demeanour of the prisoners. The Directors stated that their object was to render this stage of punishment as deterrent as possible; to habituate convicts to habits of order and obedience preparatory to their going on Public Works, and, at the same time, to avail themselves of this opportunity to educate by means of cellular instruction.

The great fall in the convict population which was taking place at this time, and continued during succeeding years (the fall between 1854 and 1874 was from 15,000 to less than 9,000) led the Directors in 1873 to attribute this remarkable decrease to the severe system which had been established. They say:—"Whatever may be the causes which combine to produce an increase or decrease of crime, this system of punishment is certainly one of them, and the records of past Commissions of Inquiry show that an increase of crime has generally been attributed principally to defects in the Prison System. If punishment alone is not to be relied on to diminish crime, it is certainly one of the means of doing so, and it should be carried out so as to make imprisonment a terror to evil-doers, as well as the means of bringing those subject to it into better habits of mind by placing them under the influences to which they would not ordinarily be subject."

The last expression of public opinion on the point is in the Report of the Committee of 1895. It was recognized that the purpose served by the System was to give a more deterrent character to the sentence of Penal Servitude. The practice of serving this period in Local Prisons was regarded with disfavour; and it was suggested that the severity of the System might be mitigated by a substantial reduction in the period of separation, and by the introduction of such reformatory influences as were brought to bear on convicts at Pentonville under the original system. Soon after that date, there was a reduction in the period for "Star" Class and "Intermediates," viz:—three and six months, respectively, but nine months still remained for men in the "Recidivist" Class. In 1909 the whole question of separate confinement again came under review, when it was agreed that a short period of separate confinement was a proper preliminary of a sentence of penal servitude, in the same way as it is of an ordinary sentence of imprisonment with "hard labour." It was regarded that to send convicts direct to Convict Prisons from the outer world, fresh from a criminal and disorderly life, to associate with those whom discipline had sobered, and, possibly, improved, would be fraught with evil; and that there would be a constant introduction of newcomers from the outer world with fresh news and incidents, causing general unrest in Convict Prisons. It would give to the "old lag" what he most desires,—a prompt renewal of association with his old companions, while to the less criminal man it would be an intolerable suffering to be placed at once in association at Public Works. After the fullest consideration, the Commissioners advised that a change be made both in the duration of the period of separate confinement for convicts, and in the method of its execution. The Commissioners recognised that the difference of the periods, three, six, and nine months served, respectively, by the "Star," "Intermediate," and "Recidivist" Classes under the Rules then in force, emphasized in a way which it might not be easy to defend, the penal or deterrent effect of Separate Confinement. It was thought simpler and more defensible to rest the Penal Servitude System on the analogy furnished by the Local Prison Code, where a month's cellular confinement precedes an ordinary sentence of Hard Labour, and that, by analogy, three months' cellular confinement might be deemed a fitting prelude to a sentence of Penal Servitude. Eventually, however, it was decided that three months should be the period for "Recidivists" only, and that the period for the convicts classed as "Star" and "Intermediate" should be for one month, subject, of course, in every case to medical advice, having regard to the convict's mental and physical condition.

4. The Prison Act of 1898 effected far-reaching changes in the Convict System. (a) It placed the control of Local and Convict Prisons under one Board: (b) It gave power to the Secretary of State to make Rules for the government of Convict and Local Prisons, subject to Parliamentary sanction, so that henceforth the whole Prison Code has Parliamentary sanction, and can be altered at any time by Parliamentary rule without the necessity for fresh legislation: (c) A Board of independent Visitors was established for every Convict Prison with judicial powers analogous to those exercised by Visiting Committees of Local Prisons: (d) Corporal punishment for offences against prison discipline, which had hitherto been ordered by one of the Directors for any serious offence, was limited by this Act to cases of gross personal violence to an officer of the Prison, and to acts of mutiny. Such cases are reported to the Board of Visitors and determined by them, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. These provisions of the Act of 1898 have been attended with remarkable success. Constant criticism, which for many years had been directed against the System, has been silenced. It is no longer contended that secret tribunals administer unauthorized floggings, or that what goes on in Convict Prisons is concealed from the light of day, without the opportunity of free and independent inspection and inquiry. Floggings in Convict Prisons, without any apparent effect on order or discipline, which, prior to 1896-7, averaged about thirty yearly, have gradually diminished, until, for the past five years, the average has been less than two—and, at the same time, offences against discipline amongst males have fallen, only 21.7 per cent, last year incurring punishment, as compared with 31 per cent, in 1896-7. The whole character of the administration has been largely affected by this important Act, and the gloom and the mystery which was popularly supposed to envelope the Convict System has largely disappeared, and greater public confidence in the administration has taken its place.

Penal Servitude is the same in its essential features for men as for women, except that the latter under the Progressive Stage System are able to earn marks entitling them to a maximum remission of one-third, and, in certain cases, are eligible to be sent to a Refuge under conditional licence for the last nine months of their sentence. The number of female convicts in the country has been steadily falling. Since the Penal Servitude Act of 1864 the number received has decreased from 468 in that year to an average of about 38 annually. Towards the end of 1918, in view of the increasing number of young women committed to the Borstal Institution at Aylesbury, the Convict Prison there was closed, and a wing of Liverpool Prison has been temporarily set apart for women sentenced to penal servitude.

The System pursued for rendering aid to discharged convicts, and the means taken for their rehabilitation will be dealt with in a subsequent Chapter.

[CHAPTER V.]

PREVENTIVE DETENTION.

Preventive Detention is the name given to a form of custody, provided by the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, for the protection of the public from the Habitual Criminal. The Judge has the power of passing a sentence of penal servitude for the particular crime charged in the indictment, and to pass a further sentence ordering, from the determination of the sentence of penal servitude, that the prisoner shall be detained for a period not exceeding ten years in Preventive Detention. Such a sentence cannot be passed unless the jury finds on evidence that the offender is an "Habitual Criminal", that is to say, that since the age of 16 he has been at least three times previously convicted of crime, and that he is persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life. During the public inquiry into Prison administration of 1894 the question had been raised whether a new form of sentence should not be placed at the disposal of the judges for dealing with persons convicted of "professional" crime. The word "professional" is used in a technical sense to denote men whose Penal Records show that they have lived systematically by thieving and robbery, and that their acquisitive instincts have not been controlled by the fear and example of punishment. It appears from a census of the convict population of 1901 that of the total convict population of 2,879, no less than 1,342 had been previously sentenced to penal servitude or to three or more terms for serious crime involving sentences of six months and over. Of these, no less than 1,213 were convicted of offences against property, and it is interesting to observe that as we descend from the best to the worst, there is a proportionate increase of crime against property, until it can be almost said that the "professional" criminal as defined constitutes a separate and peculiar class which demands a special and peculiar treatment. As stated in the volume of Judicial Statistics for 1897, "It is a fact that has to be faced that neither penal servitude nor imprisonment serves to deter this class of offender from returning to crime. His crime is not due to special causes such as sudden passion, drunkenness, or temporary distress, but to a settled intention to gain a living by dishonesty." It was proposed in 1903 to set up in Convict Prisons a "Habitual Offenders" Division, and that Courts, when satisfied that a person convicted on indictment of an offence punishable by penal servitude after more than two previous convictions on indictment, was leading a persistently dishonest or criminal life, and that it was expedient for the protection of the public that he should be kept in detention for a term of years, should have power, after passing a sentence of penal servitude for not less than seven years, to order that he should pass a certain period of his sentence in the Habitual Offenders' Division.

The object of the Bill was to make better provision for dealing with persons who habitually lead a life of crime. In a Memorandum explaining the Bill it was stated that "in the case of such persons, a sentence of imprisonment has neither a deterrent nor a reformatory effect, and in the interest of society, the only thing to be done with them is to segregate them from society for a long period of time. It may not be necessary, during that period of time, that their punishment should be a severe one. All that is wanted is that they should be under discipline and compulsorily segregated from the outside world. In the case of a conviction for a small offence, e.g., stealing a pair of boots, both judges and public opinion would be averse to the passing of a long sentence of penal servitude, such as would be appropriate to a grave crime, however notorious an evil liver the offender may be. The new prison rules have created a new Division of long term convicts, for whom the ordinary convict discipline will be greatly mitigated, and this Bill authorizes judges to relegate habitual offenders, after a brief period of punishment, to that Division, and thereby seeks to encourage in appropriate cases the passing of long, as opposed to severe, sentences." The project, however, did not pass into law, and it was not till five years later, in 1908, that Parliament enacted the very important Statute establishing a system of what is known as "Preventive Detention," it being deemed expedient for the protection of the public that where an offender is found by the Court to be a habitual criminal, the Court should have power to pass a special sentence ordering that, on the determination of sentence of penal servitude, he may be detained for a period not exceeding ten nor less than five years, under a system known as that of "Preventive Detention."

In laying before Parliament the Rules for carrying out the Act, the Secretary of State, Mr. Churchill, stated:—

"Only the great need of society to be secured from professional or dangerous criminals can justify the prolongation of the ordinary sentences of penal servitude by the addition of such Preventive Detention. It appears a matter of much importance that this should be clearly understood, and that the idea should not grow up that Preventive Detention affords a pleasant and easy asylum for persons whose moral weakness or defective education has rendered them merely a nuisance to society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that no case has been established, either from the statistics of crime or otherwise, for an increase in the general severity of the criminal code, and certainly no increase of general severity was within the intention of Lord Gladstone in proposing, or the House of Commons in passing, the Prevention of Crime Act. On the contrary, it was intended to introduce such mitigation into the conditions of convict life as would allow the longer detention of those persons only who are professional criminals engaged in the more serious forms of crime. This is indicated in the Act by the fact that Preventive Detention cannot be imposed except for a crime of such a character that it has justified the passing of a sentence of penal servitude. It was, moreover, repeatedly stated by Lord Gladstone in the course of the debates that the Bill was devised for 'the advanced dangerous criminal,' for 'the persistent dangerous criminal,' for 'the most hardened criminals': its object was 'to give the State effective control over dangerous offenders': it was not to be applied to persons who were 'a nuisance rather than a danger to society,' or to the 'much larger class of those who were partly vagrants, partly criminals, and who were to a large extent mentally deficient.' On the 12th June 1908, he explained to the House of Commons that the intention was to deal not with mere habituals but with professionals: 'For sixty per cent the present system was sufficiently deterrent, but for the professional class it was inadequate. There was a distinction well known to criminologists between habituals and professionals. Habituals were men who drop into crime from their surroundings or physical disability, or mental deficiency, rather than from any active intention to plunder their fellow creatures or from being criminals for the sake of crime. The professionals were the men with an object, sound in mind—so far as a criminal could be sound in mind—and in body, competent, often highly skilled, and who deliberately, with their eyes open, preferred a life of crime, and knew all the tricks and turns and manœuvres necessary for that life. It was with that class that the Bill would deal.' Although, therefore, the term 'habitual' is used, it is clear that not all habituals but only the professional class is aimed at by the Act, which not only restricts the use of Preventive Detention to those already found deserving of three years' penal servitude, but provides many safeguards against the too easy use of the new form of punishment."

A new Prison for the reception of these cases has been constructed at Camp Hill in the Isle of Wight, where it has been possible to secure not only an admirable site, with sufficient ground for cultivation, and for additional buildings, if necessary, but a locality which, from the point of view of climate and salubrity, and opportunity for agricultural work of a severe nature, is well adapted for the custody and treatment of a new class of prisoner, for whom, in conformity with the words of the Act, it has been necessary to devise a treatment which, while subject generally to the law of penal servitude, shall admit of such modification in the direction of a less rigorous treatment as may be prescribed; while, at the same time, they shall be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed on such work as may be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge. The rules made, attempt to follow, with as much precision as possible, the prescription of the Act, which, it will be recognized, does not admit of a simple or easy solution. They have been framed generally with a view that, consistently with discipline and safe custody, there should be a considerable modification of the severer aspects of a sentence of penal servitude. Promotion from the ordinary to the special grade is earned by good conduct and industry, as in penal servitude, but certain privileges, such as association at meals, and in the evenings, smoking, newspapers and magazines, &c., can be earned, as well as a small wage, not exceeding threepence a day, part of which can be expended on the purchase of articles of comfort from the canteen. Special provision has recently been made for the location in what are called "Parole lines," of such men as are, in the opinion of the authorities, qualifying for conditional discharge. The rules permit a considerable relaxation of discipline and supervision, so that each man may be tested as to his fitness for re-entry into free life.

It would, perhaps, in any case, have been impossible to have given a definite opinion on the value of the system until a longer period of time had elapsed. Such a judgment is rendered more difficult by the fact that the operation and effect of the System has been, of course, greatly affected by the intervention of the Great War. However, reports of the Central Association, to whose care these men are entrusted after release on conditional licence, and the reports of the Advisory Committee (an unpaid body unconnected with official administration appointed by the Secretary of State, under the Act, to advise him when, in their opinion, conditional liberation may be opportune without danger to the community, and with reasonable possibility of good behaviour), furnish material on which an estimate may be formed, both as to the future working and the success of the system.

Since the Act came into operation on the 1st August 1909, 577 persons have been sentenced to Preventive Detention. Of 389 cases released, no fewer than 325, or 84 per cent., were considered sufficiently promising to be released on licence, while of the remaining 64 who served their whole sentence of Preventive Detention, many were mentally or physically deficient. Of the 389 cases, the Central Association has recently reported that no unsatisfactory report has been received in the case of 210, or 54 per cent.

The singular success of the Central Association in dealing with these cases on discharge, representing, as they do, the worst and most dangerous class in the community, naturally suggests reflection as to the comparative merits of the systems of licensing on discharge from Penal Servitude and Preventive Detention, respectively. Under the Penal Servitude system, a convict can, by industry and good conduct, reduce his sentence by as much as one-fourth. On discharge he remains, during the unexpired portion of his sentence, under a licence which compels him to report his place of residence to the Police of the district, and to notify them of his intention to remove, and of his arrival in a new district, and to report to the Police once a month. A prisoner under Preventive Detention remains in custody only until the Advisory Committee are able to report that, if licensed, there is a reasonable probability of his abstaining from crime; but he is licensed, not to the Police Authorities, but to the Central Association—a voluntary Association subsidized by the Government for the after-care of convicts. The form of licence is quite different from that used on discharge from Penal Servitude, and compels a man to proceed to an approved place, not to move from that place without permission, to be punctual and regular in attendance at work, and to lead a sober and industrious life to the satisfaction of the Association. The Police licence may be described as negative in character, viz:—it only prescribes that a man shall abstain from crime. The licence to the Central Association is positive, as prescribing that, under careful and kindly shepherding and supervision, a man shall actually work where work is found for him, and shall remain at work under the penalty of report for failing to observe the conditions of licence. The difference between the negative and positive forms of licence has been the subject of much discussion in the United States of America, where the English methods, as prescribed by the Penal Servitude Acts of last century, have been ruled out of court by a strong public opinion, which insists that for many of the crimes for which men are sentenced to Penal Servitude, it is neither necessary nor reasonable to inflict a long period of segregation under severe penal conditions. It is felt there, as it is by many people in this country, that a comparatively short period, followed by discharge on positive licence, with liability to forfeiture on relapse, would restore many men to normal conditions of life before the habit of hard work had been blunted by imprisonment, and family and other ties broken, and would save large sums of public money now spent on imprisonment.

The application of the principle of Preventive Detention to our Penal Servitude System would, of course, involve the question of the Indeterminate Sentence. That opinion is hardening in the direction of some such system in lieu of Penal Servitude is demonstrated by the fact that at the last International Congress in Washington in 1910, a resolution in favour of the Indeterminate Sentence, as a punishment for grave crime, was carried unanimously by delegates representing most of the countries of Europe and of the civilised world.

The successful working depends almost entirely on the capacity and discretion of the Advisory Committee, appointed under Section 14(4) of the Act of 1908, and what success has been attained is due to the care taken by the Committee in the investigation of each individual case, and in the suggestions offered to guide the Secretary of State in deciding the question of conditional release. By the death of Sir Edward Clayton, Chairman of this Committee since 1914, a great public loss has been sustained. He devoted himself during the latter years of his life with untiring energy to the duties of this office, for which he was pre-eminently qualified by his long experience in prison administration, as well as by largeness of view and understanding of the criminal problem. From the elaborate Memorandum which he wrote shortly before his death, it appears that his experience at Camp Hill made him a strong advocate of the Indeterminate Sentence, and he feared that the fixing of a definite limit, irrespective of a man's reformation, may defeat eventually the intention of the Act. The intention of the Act was, it will be remembered, primarily that there should be no fixed limit of detention, but Parliament thought otherwise, and the present limit of ten years, with a minimum of five, was decided upon.

Sir Edward Clayton was succeeded by Mr. Arthur Andrews, J.P., as Chairman of this Committee. Mr. Andrews has devoted himself for many years with great zeal to the functions of the Committee over which he now presides. He has lately reported to the effect that, in the opinion of the Advisory Committee, after reviewing the history of the Scheme since its inception in 1912, "it is an unqualified success." They consider the Scheme, as now applied, "is highly satisfactory, and productive of the best results; and that great credit is due to all concerned in its administration. The reformative influence of Camp Hill and the Parole Line System deserve commendation, and the fact that none of the 175 prisoners who have been located in the Parole Line Cabins made any attempt to break parole, and that it has only been necessary to remove three for misconduct, testifies to the success of the plan which provides a stepping-stone from imprisonment to liberty."

"The Committee also desire to make special reference to the work of the Central Association, and to the excellent system of providing employment and keeping in touch with the men under their supervision. The success of the Preventive Detention Scheme is greatly due to the exhaustive efforts of the officials of the Association."

On reviewing and comparing the figures afforded by the Central Association's Reports, there can be little doubt that Preventive Detention, as a supplement to our penal system, has, so far, yielded much more favourable results than could have been originally expected. The Committee recognise that the high proportion of successes is probably, to a considerable extent, attributable to the war, inasmuch as the Army provided a wide field of employment, and the labour market offered almost unlimited work for both skilled and unskilled men. As a result, many habitual criminals have renounced their criminal tendencies in favour of honest work, and those who have joined the Army are there the subjects of a disciplinary organisation which is probably an important factor in their reformation.

There is, of course, an element of doubt as to whether all these men would have abstained from crime in a normal environment, but the manner in which they responded to their country's call indisputably proves that in the worst of criminals there is a latent moral strain which can be brought to the surface under favourable conditions; and, moreover, the splendid example afforded by those who acquitted themselves so well has probably a more far-reaching effect on their late fellow prisoners at Camp Hill than is apparent.

These facts certainly justify the hope that a successful attempt has been inaugurated for dealing with the problem of Habitual Crime and of Recidivism. As an additional security that the great powers vested in the judge may not be appealed to lightly, and without the fullest consideration, the Act provides that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions must be obtained before a charge for dealing with a prisoner as an Habitual Criminal can be inserted in the indictment. This is sufficient guarantee that the intention of Parliament, viz:-that the somewhat drastic provision, by which the offender guilty of a grave crime can, after expiating a sentence of penal servitude for that offence, be deprived of his liberty for another period of ten years in the general interest, and for the protection of society, shall not be applied to persons who, as stated in Mr. Churchill's Memorandum, are "a nuisance rather than a danger to society, or to the much larger class of those who are partly vagrants, partly criminals, or who are, to a large extent, mentally deficient." In other words, it must be clearly understood that this defensive power is not meant to be used as a protection against Recidivism in petty offences. It does not touch that large army of habitual vagrants, drunkards, or offenders against bye-laws and Police Regulations, who figure so largely in the ordinary prison population. It is a weapon of defence to be used only where there is a danger to the community from a professed doer of anti-social acts being at large, and reverting cynically on discharge from prison to a repetition of predatory action or violent conduct. Used in this way, with caution, it is, I think, an invaluable instrument for social defence. It has remained rusty during the war, only 80 having been sentenced under the Act during the last four years; but it remains ready for application in the event of the recrudescence of grave habitual crime, and it is earnestly to be desired that both Judicial and Police Authority may make use of the great powers conferred upon them by the Act to relieve society, at least for a time, of those who are its professed enemies. The Act also applies to women, but only eleven have been sentenced to Preventive Detention since the Act came into force, and at present there are none in custody.

[CHAPTER VI.]

IMPRISONMENT.

Under the Common Law all gaols belonged to the King and by 5 Henry 4. c. 10, it was enacted that none should be imprisoned by any justice of the peace, but only in the "Common Gaol," saving the franchises of those who have gaols. Except in special cases the gaols were under the control of the sheriff, but the gaols which great noblemen and bishops were allowed to maintain must have been governed by these dignitaries, while the gaols which towns, liberties, or other bodies, having no sheriffs, were empowered by charter or otherwise to keep, must have been under the governing authorities of those bodies. By the 39th Eliz., another place of imprisonment was established for certain classes of offenders, under the name of "House of Correction," and 7 James 1. c. 4, directs that, in every county, such a house should be established, and means provided for setting rogues and idle persons to work. These establishments were under the justices. The custom gradually grew up of committing criminals of all classes to Houses of Correction, and was legalized by 6 Geo. 1. c. 19 and 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 38. s. 3, by which latter Act even sentence of death might be carried out at these places; but debtors could still be committed only to the Gaol and vagrants only to the House of Correction; and though it became common to unite the two buildings under one roof, with one governing staff, the two superior jurisdictions of the sheriff and the justices over what was virtually one establishment were still maintained.

The title "House of Correction" was subsequently abolished by the Prison Act, 1865, and since that date "Local Prison" has been the official designation of the place of detention of persons sentenced to imprisonment. A "Convict Prison" is a place of detention for a person sentenced to penal servitude. There are fifty-six Local Prisons in which sentences of imprisonment are served, (though 14 have been temporarily closed during the war). They vary in size, from the large Local Prisons in London, Manchester and Liverpool, with an average population of 1,000 or more, to the small prisons in country districts with a daily average of less than 100. By the Prison Act of 1877, the entire management of these prisons was transferred from the various local jurisdictions to the State, and the cost incidental to their maintenance from the local rates to the Imperial Exchequer. They are vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and are administered, subject to his approval, by a body of Commissioners appointed by the Crown.

Although by Common Law imprisonment only involves deprivation of liberty, yet by a series of statutes extending from the middle of the eighteenth century to the present day, the nature and methods of imprisonment have undergone successive modification. These I propose to trace shortly, so that the present system of imprisonment, in its two principal forms—"with," and "without hard labour"—may be understood. There is probably no legal phrase so imperfectly understood, or which in its application has been so embarrassing to the administration, or which has to a greater extent misled the Courts of law in assigning punishment, as the phrase "hard labour." By its comparison with the French "travaux forcés" it has created an impression in foreign countries that it is a very severe penalty, applied only for the greatest crimes; at home it obscures the principle that in prison all labour is hard, i.e., that all prisoners are punished with an equal prescribed task, whether they be sentenced to imprisonment with or without hard labour: and in penal servitude, where the manual labour is of the hardest, the phrase has no legal existence.

The reform of the English Prison System originated towards the end of the eighteenth century with the public exposure made by the great Howard on the deplorable condition of our gaols, and his statue in St. Paul's Cathedral fitly commemorates the gratitude of his country for the services he rendered to humanity. The story of his life is well known: how, being seized by a French privateer on his way to Lisbon in 1755, he was thrown into a dungeon at Brest, and so had personal experience of the horrors of imprisonment: how in 1773 the duties of his office as High Sheriff of the County of Bedford led him to inquire into the state of Prisons in England and Wales: how in 1774 he was examined by the House of Commons on the subject, and had the honour of receiving the thanks of that Body: how he devoted his later life to the inspection of prisons at home and abroad until his celebrated work on the "State of Prisons," published modestly at his own expense in a provincial town, awakened the public conscience to all the horrors of imprisonment; how, owing to his influence, not only statesmen, lawyers, and philosophers, but all the uninstructed public opinion of the day, now, for the first time, began to realize that the whole penal system was a scandal and a disgrace.

The Prison Act of 1778 is the beginning of the English Prison System. This measure, the result of the joint labours of Mr. Howard, Sir William Blackstone, and Mr. Eden, was due, not only to the newly-awakened interest in the treatment of prisoners, but to the political necessity for making provision for keeping our prisoners at home, which had resulted from the loss of the American Colonies. In this Act the principle of separate confinement with labour, and of religious and moral instruction, is clearly laid down and enforced. In the year 1781, a further Act was passed, making it compulsory for Justices to provide separate accommodation for all persons convicted of felony who were committed for punishment with hard labour, it being recited in the preamble to the Act that in the absence of such provision "persons sentenced for correction frequently grow more dissolute and abandoned during their continuance in such houses."

The principle of separate confinement having been thus recognized by Parliament, the Justices of some Counties, including Sussex and Gloucester, respectively, started the local prisons of Horsham, Petworth, and Gloucester, on the separate plan, and they furnish interesting historical record of the formal adoption in this country of a system which, a few years later, under American influences, became generalized throughout the civilized world.

The proposition of Mr. Jeremy Bentham for a new and less expensive mode of employing and reforming convicts, by the construction of a large establishment, called by him a "Panopticon," appears to have diverted public attention from the real end and object of imprisonment; and this proposition, being finally abandoned in 1810, led to the consideration of fresh plans, which ended in a system of so-called "Classification" as established in 1822, by the Act of 4th George IV., Cap. 64. Until Mr. Crawford's visit to the United States, separate confinement, though established in 1775, and only ceasing to be enforced when broken in upon by numbers for whom the accommodation was insufficient, appears to have been almost entirely lost sight of. An approximation to it existed at Millbank since the completion of that Prison in 1821, and a fair example of the system had been in operation at Glasgow since the year 1824. It is very doubtful, however, after the enormous expenditure made to effect classification, whether these traces of the system would have rescued it from oblivion without the aid derived from its practical development in the United States, and the concurrent testimony given in its favour by eminent men in France, Prussia, and Belgium.

By some curious growth of sentiment, which cannot be accurately traced, Classification rather than Separation, became the leading idea of those interested in prison reform. Howard was quoted as the authority for Classification, but it must be remembered that Howard was chiefly moved by the physical suffering of prisoners, and, with him, classification did not mean much more than to separate the debtor from the felon, the guilty from the innocent, the men from the women, and the adult from the child,—and this by a system of separate confinement described in the Act of 1778. The classification in the sense in which it affected the movement of opinion in the first quarter of the last century went further than this. It seems to have assumed that if prisoners in the same categories, and, therefore, presumably of more or less the same moral characters, were associated together in common rooms or dormitories, no evil results were likely to follow, and facilities for labour, according to Bentham's ideas, would be greatly improved; and thus we find that in 1823, the Act of 4 Geo. IV., c. 64, in so far as discipline is concerned, gave effect mainly to this principle. Many extensive and important prisons were erected in conformity with this Act, notably at Maidstone, Derby, Westminster, Chelmsford, and Leicester, in which the Governor's house was usually placed in the centre with detached blocks of cells radiating from it. The average size of the cells was only about eight feet by five feet, with a day room and yard of proportionate size for each different class or category of prisoners. The only inspection was from the central building, and there was no interference with the unrestricted association of prisoners, and the greatest neglect, disorder, or irregularities might go on unperceived; and it soon became manifest that, to whatever extent classification might be carried, there was no moral standard by which it could be regulated, nor any limit short of individual separation that could secure any single prisoner from contamination. The mischievous effect of this Act was soon condemned by public opinion, and two Parliamentary inquiries were held in 1832 and 1836, which concurred in the strong opinion that more efficient regulation should be established in order to save all prisoners, especially the untried, from the frightful contamination resulting from unrestricted intercourse. It was at this time that the great controversy between the so-called "Silent" and "Separate" Systems sprang up in the United States, and its echo was felt throughout the civilized world. The rival systems of Auburn and of Philadelphia became the historic battleground in which was fought out the great and burning controversy which centred round the question of the proper treatment of prisoners, and established the importance of the now accepted principle that prison discipline shall be reformatory at least to this extent, viz:—that the prisoner shall not be exposed to contamination by his fellows. The Silent System at Auburn meant a separate cell at night, and work in association by day under a Rule of Silence. The Separate System at Philadelphia meant entire separation both by night and day. The criticism on the former was that the Rule of Silence could only be maintained by harshness and severity, and the criticism of the latter was that continuous separation for long periods was unnatural and bad, both for body and mind. Mr. Crawford, one of the newly-created Inspectors under an Act of 1835, was sent to America to examine and report upon the rival Systems. MM. De Beaumont and De Tocqueville went from France; Dr. Julius and M. Mittermeyer from Prussia; and M. Ducpetiaux from Belgium. All travelled at the same time through the United States for the same purpose, and their practically unanimous views in favour of the principle of separate confinement had a great effect on public opinion throughout Europe. In England, Lord John Russell, then Home Secretary, issued a circular to Magistrates calling attention to its advantages, and in 1839 an important Act was passed containing a permissive Clause to render it legal to adopt the separate confinement of prisoners. It was, however, an express condition that no cell should be used for such purpose "which was not certified to be of such a size, and ventilated, warmed, and fitted up in such a manner as might be required by a due regard to health." Also that a prisoner should be furnished with the means of religious and moral instruction, with "books and labour or employment." These were the first substantial steps taken in England since 1775 for establishing separate confinement. No prison in Great Britain, excepting perhaps that at Glasgow, was of a construction to enable magistrates to take advantage of the clause referred to. Lord John Russell, therefore, determined on the erection of a model prison at Pentonville.

It was completed in 1842, and a strong body of Commissioners was appointed by the Secretary of State to work out the great experiment. The Commissioners, in their Report for 1847, gave it as their final and deliberate opinion that the separation of one prisoner from another was the only sound basis upon which a reformatory discipline could be established with any reasonable hope of success. The satisfactory progress of the experiment, and the confidence of the public in the Commissioners, under whose superintendence the experiment had been conducted, led to a general desire for its adoption throughout the country, and within a very few years many Prisons which had been recently erected for a Classification System were altered.

In 1850, a Select Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by Sir George Grey, the then Home Secretary, expressed the opinion that, under proper regulation and control, separate confinement is more efficient than any other system which has yet been tried, both in deterring from crime and in promoting reformation, but that it should not be enforced for a longer period than twelve months; and that hard labour is not incompatible with individual separation.

The student of the English Prison System must be careful to bear in mind at this juncture that the Secretary of State was not, as he now is, the supreme head of all Prisons in the country. He only had control over prisons where persons sentenced to Transportation might be confined. Pentonville, therefore, was not a local prison to which prisoners of the Metropolis would be committed in the ordinary course, but was specially built in order that an experiment of the System of Separate Confinement might be made by the authority of the Government under the best possible direction and superintendence. The corpus on which this experiment was made were first offenders between eighteen and thirty-five sentenced to Transportation, for whom a period, not to be prolonged beyond eighteen months, should be one of instruction and probation, rather than of severe punishment before the convict was shipped to Van Diemen's Land. Everything was done to render the separation real and complete: exercise was taken in separate yards, and masks were worn to prevent recognition. While primarily the Pentonville system was applied to convicts only, and became in fact the basis of our penal servitude system, as explained in the former chapter, yet it led indirectly to the establishment of the separate system in Local Prisons throughout the country. Although the Secretary of State had no control over the administration of Local Prisons, yet, apart from the influence which the Secretary of State would naturally exercise in directing public opinion in such a matter, an Act of 1835 had made provision that all Rules framed by local Justices for Prisons should be subject to his approval; and the Act of 1844 authorised the appointment of a Surveyor General of Prisons to aid the Secretary of State by ensuring that due attention was given by local Authorities to the requirements of proper prison construction as prescribed by Act of Parliament.

Thus the Separate System became gradually established throughout the country, both for convicts in the early stage of their imprisonment, and for those committed to the County and Borough Gaols, although uniformity was very far from being established owing to the absence of any central control. It was this absence of uniformity which led later, as we shall see, to the complete centralization of the Prison System, which was effected finally by the Prison Act, 1877.

At the same time, two principal features of our prison system—Separate Confinement and Hard Labour—began to assume a definite shape at this period, which has been retained, subject to modification, until the present day. The duration of the period of Separate Confinement, and the regulation of the task of hard labour, consistently with cellular confinement, remained the problem of prison administration for many years, and cannot yet be said to be finally settled. There will be found running through all this period an earnest attempt to reconcile the claims of the two admitted objects of imprisonment, viz:—deterrence and reform. On the one hand there was strict separation, and on the other hand it was ordained that provision should be made in every prison for enforcing sentences of hard labour as enjoined by the Act of 1823, although that Act, as already stated, did not contemplate separate confinement, but a system of associated labour, and the word "Hard Labour" only assumed its narrow and technical meaning when the advocates of the Separate System, as the means of reformation, were unwilling altogether to lose sight of the necessity for some deterrence in the shape of hard work. The question thus arose, and was warmly agitated, as to how hard labour could be adapted to the cellular system, and we find great ingenuity expended in devising forms of labour, such as cranks and treadwheels, in which each prisoner occupied a separate compartment. These particular forms of labour were recognized as "hard labour" par excellence, and as necessary for the due punishment of the offender, consistently with his occupation of a separate cell by day and night. With these problems unsettled: with a strange and general ignorance of the true principles of punishment: with conflicting views and diverse authorities, it is not to be wondered at that, during the following years, our Local Prison System was in a very confused and chaotic state, although nominally professing adhesion to prescribed principles, until inquiry made by Committees of the House of Commons and House of Lords, respectively, into the state of Local Prisons, in 1850 and 1863, led practically to the modern Prison System.

The Committee of 1850 condemned the state of existing prisons in unmeasured terms, declaring "that proper punishment, separation, or reformation was impossible in them." They anticipated by a quarter of a century the legislation of 1877 by advising the establishment of a Central Authority for enforcing uniformity on the lines of Rules laid down by Parliament. They advised that the Separate System, as carried out at Pentonville, should be generally applied to all prisons, but not for a longer period than twelve months. No action was taken on this Report until, in 1863, a Committee of the House of Lords again condemned the want of uniformity of punishment and treatment of prisoners, and the bad construction of prisons. They again urged that separation should be the rule in all prisons, and strongly advocated greater severity as a means of making punishment really deterrent, and their proposition that prisoners should endure "hard labour, hard fare, and a hard bed," has become historical, and was translated into practice by the Prison Act, 1865, which, for the first time, gave legal sanction to the principle of uniformity, by enacting a code of Rules as a schedule to the Act. These Rules, having statutory authority, were only capable of alteration or repeal by Parliament itself. The great rigidity thus given to the System remained a barrier to real progress, and it was not until 1898, as I shall show later, that an elasticity was given to the System by the repeal of this schedule, by vesting in the Secretary of State the power to make Rules for the government of Prisons, subject to the condition that the new Rules should be laid formally before Parliament before they could be adopted.

However, the Act of 1865 was a great step forward. Prisons still remained under the control of the local Justices, but every prison authority was required to provide separate cells for all the different classes of prisoners. These cells were to be such as could be certified by an Inspector of Prisons that they satisfied all the requirements of the Rules. Elaborate provisions were introduced for regulating "Hard Labour," (a phrase carried on from early Acts of Parliament, framed before the days of scientific accuracy). It was divided into two classes: (1) the treadwheel, shot-drill, crank, capstan, stonebreaking, &c. (2) any other approved form of labour. All prisoners over sixteen were required to be kept to first class labour for at least three months, after which time they would qualify for the second class. Dietaries were to be framed by the Justices, and approved by the Secretary of State, and any Rule they might make was to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. If they failed to comply with the Act, the Secretary of State was able to stop the Treasury contribution towards expenses of the Prison. It was also authorised, for the first time, that a prison authority might make a grant in aid of prisoners on discharge. The Schedule to the Act comprises details of the Rules regulating the administration of the Act on matters of Prison treatment. The power of punishment was restricted to Justices and the Governor of the Prison, the latter having power to order an offender to be placed in close confinement for three days on bread and water; the former could order one month in a punishment cell, or, in the case of a convicted felon sentenced to hard labour, could order flogging. Regulations were also made for the use of irons or other forms of mechanical restraint. The important principle was enacted, which has since remained in force, viz:—that no prisoner may be employed in the discipline of the prison, or the service of any officer, or in the service or instruction of any other prisoner.

Many years had not passed before it was perceived that the uniformity of punishment at which the Act aimed was not being secured. It began to be perceived, and most quickly by the criminal classes themselves, that in the different localities the same effect was not being given to the same sentence. Distribution of power among so many Justices—some 2,000 in all—gave occasion to the exercise by them of different views and methods of punishment, with the result that no standard of treatment was maintained, applying equally to all prisons, and severity or leniency of treatment seemed to depend on the accident of the locality in which the offender was arrested. Inquiry showed, also, that the System, besides being inefficient, was extremely costly, and many unnecessary prisons were being maintained, and that local sentiment operated against any effective supervision or control on the part of the Central Authority. These causes, taken in conjunction with an active demand, which found expression in Parliament at the time for the relief of some of the burden of local taxation, led the Government of the day to adopt a policy of complete centralization of the Prison System of the country. This new policy, as embodied in the Prison Act, 1877, resulted then from two causes,—a desire to establish a system of equal and uniform punishment under the direct authority of the State, and, incidentally, to relieve the taxpayer of the burden of maintaining Prisons. It was not to be expected that the local Authorities, naturally jealous of their rights and privileges, would abandon the control of the Prison System without a severe struggle. But the great relief offered to local rates, amounting to about half-a-million pounds per year, was sufficient to overcome opposition. Eventually, the Act transferred the whole of the Prison establishments, and their contents, to the control of the Government. It created a body of Commissioners, appointed by Royal Warrant, to manage the new Department, and placed under them a staff of Inspectors, and of other officers, by whom the control of all those establishments was to be exercised. The Act compelled the local authority to hand over to the Government suitable and sufficient accommodation in each district, the test of sufficiency being the average daily number of prisoners maintained by the local authority during the five previous years. Where such accommodation was in default, the local prison authority was required to pay £120 for every prisoner for whom such accommodation was not handed over. At the same time, compensation was paid by the Government to the local authority which had provided a reasonable amount of accommodation in excess of the maximum of the average numbers received for the five preceding years.

Although the Justices lost their administrative powers, they remain in the shape of the "Visiting Committee," a body selected from the local Magistracy, as the judicial authority of Local Prisons, for hearing and determining reports against prisoners, and for the award of punishment. They also have large general powers of advice and suggestion; and the admitted success of the policy of centralization has been undoubtedly due to the wise compromise which continued the interest and concern of the local Magistracy in their local prisons; and which ensured not only just and patient hearing of reports against prisoners, but permitted reports on any abuses within the prison, and on complaints made by prisoners, by an independent judicial and unpaid body; and provided, at the same time, a tribunal to which the Secretary of State could always refer with confidence any question that might arise as between prisoners and the State. In certain respects, however, the judicial powers of the local magistrates were curtailed, e.g., powers of ordering confinement in a punishment cell were reduced from twenty-eight to fourteen days, and the award of corporal punishment was made dependent on the concurrence of two magistrates. In other respects, the tendency of the Act was towards a greater humanity of treatment. The rigid provisions of the Act of 1865 as to the enforcement of first class hard labour were modified. Under that Act, it was enforced for the whole of a sentence of three months, or even for an entire sentence, however long. Under the Act of 1877, the compulsory period was limited to one month. Another notable feature of the Act was the classification of prisoners into two divisions, one of which was that any person convicted of misdemeanour and sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour, might be ordered to be treated as a misdemeanant of the First Division, and, as such, was not deemed to be a criminal prisoner. Persons convicted of sedition or seditious libel, or imprisoned under any rule, order, or attachment, or for contempt of any Court, were to be placed in the First Division.

It is difficult to say whether the legislature intended this division, which, on the face of it, was a bold step in the way of differentiation, to be more than a reservation in favour of a few exceptional cases, such as are actually mentioned in the Act. The presumption is, having regard to the fact that prisoners treated as First Class Misdemeanants were not to be deemed criminal prisoners, that there was no intention to anticipate an elaborate classification, such as is now laid down, and that it was not realized what a vast importance rested in Classification, strictly so-called, and which finds its expression in the Prison Act, 1898. The powers given to the Secretary of State to make Rules under the Act of 1877 extended to such important matters as the treatment of prisoners awaiting trial, and of debtors; and the Rules then made, although modified in some details, remain essentially the same to-day. The principle of governing prisons by Rule made by the Secretary of State, subject to Parliamentary sanction, was still further developed in the Act of 1898, and may be said now to have been finally accepted as a wise and effective method for securing progressive change and reform without the necessity for revoking or enacting by the machinery of an Act of Parliament.

The Commissioners appointed under the Act took over their new duties on the 1st April, 1878. On that day, thirty-eight out of the 113 existing Prisons were closed. Sir Edmund Du Cane, the Chairman of the new Board of Commissioners, had been for some time Chairman of the Board of Directors administering Convict Prisons, and his influence soon became predominant till his retirement in 1895. His great administrative powers were devoted to securing the objects which, in his opinion, the Prison Act, 1877, intended to secure, viz:—(1) the application to all Prisons of a uniform system of punishment: (2) the best possible method for carrying out the primary object of punishment, viz:—the repression of crime: and (3) economy in expense.

As to (1), uniformity was secured by the adoption, as in the Convict Prisons, of a Progressive Stage System: by the adoption of a uniform and scientific dietary: a uniform system of education: a uniform system of first class hard labour by means of the treadwheel, the task for which was regulated by the most minute instructions as the task for hard labour in Prisons.

As to (2) it has since been made a charge against the administration of these days that it erred on the side of a too severe repression. To those who have lost their faith in the virtues of the cellular system, it may seem unduly rigorous that a prisoner should have remained subject to that system during the whole length of his sentence. There were, of course, exceptions to the general rule, e.g., persons employed in the service of the prison, and other forms of extra-cellular labour, but separate confinement remained the rule for Local Prisons. To those, also, who condemn all forms of mechanical and unproductive labour, it may seem unduly rigorous to have insisted so minutely on the exact performance of a task of so-called first class hard labour. It is doubtful if public sentiment at that time would have been satisfied with the comparative leniency of the modern prison régime. The result of the earnest thought and discussion which have taken place through the civilized world during the last quarter of a century on all matters affecting the welfare of the prisoner has been, no doubt, to place his punishment on a more rational basis than that of mere obedience to mechanical and uninteresting forms of labour. The State until now had had no experience in dealing with short sentences. The problem to be solved was a new one, viz:—how to deal effectively with a man who was in prison for only a few days or weeks, and to whom during that time no useful trade could be taught. It is indeed a problem which may well vex the brains of the wisest, and if the solution has not yet been found, we have at least got beyond the stage where it was thought sufficient, by the invention of fantastic devices for executing sentences of so-called hard labour, to give expression to a sentence of imprisonment. The Prison Authority of this day perhaps erred in regarding it as a part of their duty to add to the penalty prescribed by the Court by imposing, in the name of the Progressive Stage System, certain penalties and incapacities as a peculiar feature of the early Stages. The only precedent for dealing with short sentences was that afforded by Military Prisons. It is well-known that the Committee on Military Prisons of 1844, which was in favour of hard penal treatment—shot-drill, cranks, &c., (in use in military prisons as a punishment for recalcitrant soldiers) exercised a considerable influence with local authorities in administering Civil Prisons, and the reproach, so often directed to the Local Prison System, that it was too military in its character, was probably due to this source.

(3) With regard to economy, Sir E. Du Cane was formerly a distinguished officer of the Royal Engineers, and had been engaged for many years in advising the Secretary of State as Surveyor-General of Prisons. It was owing to his experience and capacity that, at a relatively small cost, the prison buildings soon after the Act were brought up to a high standard, both in construction and in sanitation. His financial ability was also of a high order, and economy, consistently with efficiency, became the order of the day. It may be that in some respects his desire for economy led him too far in the direction of retrenchment, both in buildings and in service, but, for the time being, he was justly credited with great administrative and financial success; and it appears from a table prepared in 1885, comparing expenditure on Local Prisons for seven years before and after the Act of 1877, that economy had been achieved amounting to nearly half-a-million of money. Further, in that same year, 1885, the prison population touched and continued at a lower level than had been previously known. For the year 1878, in which the Prisons were handed over to the Government, the Local Prison population was the highest known, viz:—21,030. From that date it fell almost continuously till February 1885, when it touched the lowest figure then known, viz:—15,484. There had been, moreover, a decrease in the yearly death rate, in the number of suicides, and in corporal punishments, and in the yearly average of dietary punishments. A greater variety of employment had been introduced, and a new uniform system of accounts had been established. The Chairman had some justification, therefore, for inferring from these facts and figures that not only had the new penal system been made effective for the repression of crime, but that the legislation of 1877 had completely succeeded in its object in promoting uniformity, economy, and a generally improved administration.

[CHAPTER VII.]

THE INQUIRY OF 1894: THE PRISON ACT, 1898: AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1914.

Criticism, however, was not silent. There was an uneasy feeling in the public mind that too much importance had been attached to the principle of "uniformity," which was held to be responsible for the alleged evils of the system then in force, i.e., the want of "individualisation" of the prisoner, and the stifling of local control. This feeling found an echo in the Press; not only were the principles of prison treatment, as prescribed by the Prison Acts, criticised, but the prison authority itself, and the constitution of that authority, were held to be responsible for many grave evils. It was contended that centralization only fostered bureaucracy, and that the Prison System of the Country was at the mercy of a single bureaucrat, the Chairman of the Prison Board. It was impossible for the Government of the day to ignore this fierce indictment. A Committee of Inquiry was appointed, under the Chairmanship of Mr. H. Gladstone, M.P., then Parliamentary Under Secretary for Home Affairs. The Report was published in April, 1895, just at the time that Sir E. Du Cane was retiring from the Service, he having attained the age of sixty-five, the age for retirement under the Superannuation Acts. The Report, resulting from a keen and exhaustive inquiry into every branch of prison administration, marks a distinct epoch in the Prison history of this country. It paid a high tribute of praise to the Prison Commissioners and their late Chairman, by its formal declaration that the centralization of authority had been a complete success in the direction of uniformity, discipline, and economy. But while admitting this, and the attention that had been given to organization, finance, order, sanitation, and statistics, it gave some justification for the popular belief that centralization had been carried too far, and that local interest and authority had been unduly suppressed; and to use the words of the Report (which constitute the real gravamen of charge against the prison authority) "that prisoners have been treated too much as a hopeless or worthless element of the community, and that the moral as well as the legal responsibility of the prison authorities has been held to cease when they pass outside the prison gates." These words may be said to mark the passage from the old to the new methods of punishment, and from those which rested upon severity and repression to those which looked more hopefully towards the possible reformation of persons committed to prison.

The decrease of crime, i.e., as judged from the reduced daily average population of persons in prison, which had been habitually quoted and regarded as the correct test of a successful prison system, was shown on examination to be due almost entirely to a diminution in the average length of sentences. This fact, i.e., a greater leniency on the part of Magistrates and Judges, taken in conjunction with the remarkable outburst of public sentiment, to which I have referred, undoubtedly connote a gradual rise and growth throughout the community of a tendency towards a larger humanity in the treatment of crime, and a more rational execution of the sentences of the law. Hope of rehabilitation, which had perhaps been made too subordinate to the desire for a firm and exact repression, began to lift its head, and, from this time, the responsibility of the official authority, as a reclaiming agency, became greatly accentuated.

The new spirit which breathes in this Report, and which has largely influenced subsequent legislation and practice, is to be found, so far as Local Prisons are concerned, principally in reforms having for their purpose:—

(1) the concentration of effort on the young or incipient criminal, 16-21.

(2) improved classification, and the separation of first from other offenders in Local Prisons.

(3) the abolition of the old forms of "hard labour"—

cranks, treadwheels &c. The rules provide that the labour of all prisoners shall, if possible, be productive, and the only difference, so far as labour is concerned, between a sentence with, and without, hard labour, is that in the former case a prisoner works in cellular separation for the first twenty-eight days of his sentence, after which period he may work with the rest in association in workrooms, or other open spaces. So long as the Statute preserves the distinction between imprisonment with, or without, hard labour, it is necessary that the system should give effect to the distinction, but the meaning which has been so long associated with the phrase "hard labour" still lingers in the public mind, which even now is apt to imagine that a sentence of hard labour implies a long period of solitary confinement with employment throughout the sentence on hard monotonous forms of labour, such as cranks and treadwheels. Associated labour on productive work is now the rule of Local Prisons, subject to the exception above stated.

(4) the reorganization of "Patronage" or Aid-on-discharge.

(5) improved methods for the education and moral betterment of prisoners.

(6) the establishment of Training Schools for all ranks of the Prison Staff.

(7) improved Prison Dietary.

(8) improved medical treatment with special regard to weakminded and tuberculous cases.

(9) the reconstruction of prisons, with a view to better sanitation, and provision of workshops for associated labour.

It was at this time that the present writer succeeded Sir E. Du Cane as Chairman of the Prison Commission, and the Secretary of State (Mr. Asquith) in conferring this appointment upon him, expressed the strong desire of the Government that the views of the Committee should, as far as practicable, be carried into execution. Since that date, accordingly, the reform and reorganization of the Prison System has been proceeding in every Department. The steps taken will be found in detail in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners since that date. It is not necessary to recapitulate here all the Departmental changes that have taken place, although they are very extensive and far-reaching.

So far as legislation is concerned, three Acts of great importance have been passed—the Prison Act, 1898, the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, and the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914.

The principal changes effected by the Prison Act, 1898, were, firstly the power given to the Secretary of State to make Rules for the Government of Convict and Local Prisons. The Rules embodied in the Schedule to the Prison Act, 1865, and enforced by Statute, were repealed, and what was, in effect, a new Prison Code was established, regulating every detail of administration in Local and Convict Prisons, subject only to the sanction of Parliament, and liable to alteration, from time to time, by Parliamentary Rules. Until now, the Rules of Prisons had been in a confused and chaotic state; some were fixed rigidly by Statute, others were framed without Parliamentary authority by the Secretary of State, others were enacted only by Standing Order,—all these were consolidated and embraced in a single Code, and their execution regulated by a new set of Standing Orders. Rules, with the Standing Orders which interpret them, are now the authority and foundation for the Government of Local and Convict Prisons. Not only has a greater simplicity of administration been attained, but, at the same time, a greater elasticity has been given to the System, which was sadly in need of it. It is not likely that it will again be necessary to resort to legislation in order to effect any change in the details of the System, the Secretary of State now having power, by Parliamentary Rule, to introduce such alterations as time and experience may dictate.

Secondly,—The Prison Act, 1898, created a Triple Division of offenders, power being given to the Courts to direct the treatment in one or other of the Divisions, having regard to the nature of the offence, and the character and antecedents of the offender. It will be remembered that the Act of 1877 had not gone further in the way of Classification than the establishment of the Division known as First Class Misdemeanants. This provision was repealed, and under the new law Courts have, generally speaking, an absolute discretion as to the Division in which any convicted prisoner shall be placed. The Rules regulating the treatment of each Division are, of course, subject to Parliamentary sanction. It was hoped, at the time, that the Courts would gladly and readily avail themselves of these new and enlarged powers, although it is recognized that a great responsibility is thus imposed upon the Courts, whose duty, if strictly fulfilled, would be to discriminate in each case brought before it, and to order treatment according to character and antecedents. In this way, it was hoped to secure that "individualisation de la peine", which modern penitentiary science declares to be the ideal at which a good penal system should aim. Courts have not, however, shown a keen desire to exercise this fresh power to the extent contemplated by the Act, the number committed to the Second Division representing not much more than an average of about three per cent of the total eligible committals. The traditional methods of commitment to ordinary imprisonment, with, or without Hard Labour, have so deeply affected the criminal administration of Summary Courts that it has proved difficult to escape from their influence, in spite of the great power of discrimination which the Act affords.

Thirdly,—Another very important provision of the Act was the power given to enable a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment in default of fine to obtain his release on part-payment of the fine. Thus, in the case of a prisoner sentenced to pay a fine—say of ten shillings or two weeks' imprisonment in default—imprisonment could be reduced by a number of days bearing the same proportion to the length of his sentence as the sum paid by him bears to the total fine imposed. The object of this provision was, of course, to modify, though it could not abolish, the admitted evil of the system under which about half the population of Local Prisons is composed of persons not directly committed without the option of a fine for the graver offences, but sentenced to pay perhaps small fines for trivial offences. These, on their inability to pay, became subject to the ordinary pains and penalties of imprisonment as in the case of ordinary criminal prisoners. Although the principle established under the Act was largely made use of, and thus a considerable reduction has taken place in the number of days for which persons sentenced in default of fine remained in Prison, the system of imprisonment in default continued in vogue, and was responsible for some fifty per cent. of the Prison population until action was taken by Parliament in the Session of 1914, since when a great change has taken place in this respect. The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, to which I refer later, in addition to many other valuable provisions regulating the treatment of crime, is specially directed to meet this evil.

The Prison Act, 1898, has also been of historical interest as being the last deliberate decision of the legislature on the vexed question of Corporal Punishment in Prisons. Previously to the Act, a sentence of Corporal Punishment could be awarded in Convict Prisons by one of the Directors, and in Local Prisons by the Visiting Magistrates for any serious offence against prison discipline, and subject to no confirming authority. It is now strictly limited as a penalty for gross personal violence to prison officers, and for mutiny, or incitement to mutiny, and then only in the case of prisoners convicted of felony or sentenced to hard labour. A sentence can only be imposed by a tribunal consisting of not less than three persons, two of whom must be Justices of the Peace, and the order for corporal punishment from such tribunal cannot be carried into effect until confirmed by the Secretary of State, to whom a copy of the notes of evidence and a report of the sentence, and of the grounds on which it was passed, must be furnished. Experience has justified the wisdom of this enactment, which affords a sufficient guarantee against excessive, or unnecessary, exercise of the powers of corporal punishment. It has not been found that the discipline of prisons has suffered, while a due security exists for the protection of prison officers from violence. Public sentiment, which had previously been uneasy on the question of flogging in Prisons, has accepted the present limitation of power as a just and reasonable solution for what has always been a very vexed and difficult question of prison administration.

Again, a change of far-reaching importance in its effect on the discipline and management of Local Prisons was introduced, viz:—the power given to short-term prisoners to earn remission of their sentence by special industry and good conduct. Prisoners whose sentence is for over one month are now able to earn remission of a portion of their imprisonment not exceeding one-sixth of the whole sentence. The power to earn remission has always existed in the case of persons sentenced to penal servitude, where the minimum sentence is three years, and its great value, both as an incentive to industry and good conduct, and as furnishing an element of hope and encouragement under long sentences, has always been recognized. The expectation that the translation of this privilege to the Local Prison System would operate in the same way has been justified by experience.

Hitherto, the stimulus to industry and good conduct in Local Prisons had consisted only of the privileges that could be earned under the Progressive Stage System, in the shape of more letters and visits, and more library books, and larger gratuity. Gratuity, however, did not exceed the sum of ten shillings, whatever the length of sentence. It was, therefore, only prisoners under the longer sentences, presumably those guilty of grave offences, that could benefit to any extent under the Gratuity System—some twenty per cent. of the whole. Moreover, the risk or fear of losing remission marks operates as a powerful deterrent against idleness or misconduct, and it has been found, generally, that under the influence of this salutary provision there has been a marked improvement in the tone and demeanour of the prisoners, while, at the same time, an aid has been furnished to those responsible for maintaining order and discipline.

Such, broadly, were the changes introduced by the Prison Act, 1898. Though a short Act of a few Sections, it has profoundly affected the whole of the Prison administration. It seems to have been accepted by public opinion as a reasonable solution of many difficult questions which had been the subject of criticism, and which led to the outcry against the policy of the administration which had followed the Prison Act, 1877.

Ten years passed before further legislation respecting Prisons was passed. The Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, is of paramount interest as giving effect to the two principal proposals of the Committee of 1894, viz:—special treatment of the young, and the habitual criminal, respectively, but it does not affect the Prison régime, as applied to other categories of criminals, and, so far as it relates to these two special categories, is dealt with in separate chapters.

Since this chapter was written, the Criminal Justice Administration Bill, 1914, has become law. The great effect of this valuable measure is shown in my later chapter No. XVII. dealing with statistics of crime. It will there be seen how largely prison statistics have been affected by the obligation now imposed on Courts to allow time for the payment of fines. The offences for which a fine is imposed are presumably of a trivial character, but by long custom and usage, the practice of almost automatic commitment in default had grown to such a large extent that the intervention of Parliament proved necessary. That the principle of Imprisonment, and all that it connotes, both of shame and stigma, should depend upon the accident whether or not a small sum of money could be provided for payment of a fine at the moment of conviction, is obviously contrary both to reason and to justice. It is now laid down that where any prisoner desires to be allowed time for payment, not less than seven clear days shall be allowed, unless, in the opinion of the Court, there is good reason to the contrary. It is also laid down that in all cases where the offender is not less than sixteen nor more than twenty-one years of age, the Court may allow him to be placed under "Supervision" until the sum is paid. This provision is intended to meet the admitted evil of committing young persons under twenty-one to Prison where the offence is only of a trivial nature, due, in many cases, to the rowdy and irrepressible instincts arising rather from animal spirits, and the absence of proper control, than to any deliberate criminal purpose. It is proposed to create a new Society, whose business it will be to provide the necessary supervision, and to act, as it were, as an auxiliary to the Courts in furnishing a guarantee that the offender shall either pay the fine or, if after reasonable means of suasion and influence shall have failed, shall be returned to the jurisdiction of the Court to be dealt with in a severer manner. By this special provision for young persons, 16-21, who have hitherto come to Prison in such large numbers, the Act recognizes and extends the principle of the Borstal System—the principle of which, as I shall explain later, is to concentrate attention on the young offender at this plastic age, when the tendency to criminal habit can be arrested and diverted before it is too late, and before familiarity with Police Courts and Prisons obliterates the fear and terror of the law, thus rendering easy an almost certain descent and further degradation to a life of habitual evil-doing. The Act, moreover, as explained in a subsequent chapter, extends the application of the Borstal System, as prescribed by the Act of 1908.

As a further provision against the admitted evil of short sentences of Imprisonment, it is enacted that no imprisonment shall be for a period of less than five days. Power is given to the Secretary of State, on the application of any Police Authority, to certify any police cells, bridewells, or other similar places provided by the authority, to be suitable places for the detention of persons sentenced to terms not exceeding four days, and may make regulations for the inspection of places so provided.

With the object of further modifying what, under the influence of long custom, has become an almost mechanical use of awarding imprisonment with hard labour, it is provided that any imprisonment in default of payment of a sum of money shall be, in the future, without hard labour, and in other cases, where a commitment is without the option of a fine, the Court has a discretion whether or not hard labour shall be imposed. In order to give a fuller application to the Act of 1898, as before described, viz:—that the classification of prisoners should be into three Divisions, according to character and antecedents, power is given to the Visiting Committee of Prisons, on the application of the Governor, to direct that, in any suitable case, the prisoner may be placed in the Second Division, where, in the absence of any instruction of the Court to deal otherwise, he would be located in the Third Division.

It is anticipated that this Act will have far-reaching effects (1) in the avoidance of imprisonment where the offence can be adequately met by money payment: (2) in the saving from the taint of imprisonment in the early years, by placing under responsible supervision and care, any young person under twenty-one, who, under the old system, would become familiar with prison surroundings: (3) by extending and strengthening the provisions of the Borstal Act, 1908, and (4) by making effective the classification of ordinary prisoners, aimed at by the Prison Act, 1898, and by adapting their treatment and segregation during imprisonment according to their antecedents and the character of their offence.

[CHAPTER VIII.]

THE BORSTAL SYSTEM.

The little village of Borstal, on the banks of the Medway, not far from Rochester, has given its name to a system which is now being universally applied, not only at home, but in our Dominions, for the treatment of young offenders, 16-21.

It happened in this way. In this village was situated an old Convict Establishment, formerly used as an annexe to Chatham Convict Prison. There were still a few convicts there; but there was available space for an experiment, which it was decided to make (and which is described later) for the special location and treatment on reformatory lines of young prisoners, 16-21, selected from the ordinary Prisons, where the length of sentence afforded a reasonable time for the application of the system.

The title "Juvenile-Adult" was invented to describe the class—too old for commitment to Reformatory Schools, and too young to be classified with the ordinary grown-up criminal.

The average number of youths of this age committed to Prisons in England and Wales in the opening years of this century was about 19,000. For one year their distribution was as follows:—

Some light was thrown on the character and antecedents of this class of young criminal by an inquiry made with regard to the offences, previous convictions, homes, and educational status of all male prisoners in the Prisons of England and Wales, on a given day, within the ages of sixteen to twenty-one. The total number was 1,238. Nearly two-thirds were guilty of crimes of acquisitiveness, i.e., larceny, burglary, housebreaking, embezzlement, &c. One-fifth of crimes of passion, i.e., sexual offences, assaults, and wounding. There were twenty cases of malicious injury to property, and the remainder were convicted of minor offences against bye-laws, &c. With regard to their education, ninety had none, 512 little, 496 fair, and 111 good. Of the total number, 280 had good homes, but 198 had none at all; 138 had bad ones, and thirty lived in common lodging houses. Only 330 were without previous convictions and 353 had two or more.

At the same time, Dr. Baker, of Pentonville Prison, conducted a most interesting inquiry with regard to the young offenders between sixteen and twenty, who passed through Pentonville Prison in the course of a year. The total was 2,185. Physically, as a class, they were two-and-a-half inches below the average height, and fourteen lbs. less than the average weight. Twenty-six per cent. were afflicted with bodily infirmity. The majority of the offences were of a grave character, offences against the person and against property without violence. Twenty-two per cent. were imprisoned for larceny alone, the various crimes of "acquisitiveness" being characteristic of this age; while in the aggregate thirty-four per cent. had been previously convicted (no less than 144 on three or more occasions). In the case of offences against property, with and without violence, and vagrancy, the reconvictions were 50, 40, and 45 per cent. respectively.

Public attention has also been called to the large number of indictable offences, and of larceny in particular, committed by persons of this age. Criminal statistics are dominated by the rise or fall in offences of larceny, and this age-category contributed nearly 30 per cent.

The Committee of 1894 made an emphatic declaration in favour of some action being taken to deal specifically with this class. They reported:—"The age when the majority of habitual criminals are made lies between 16 and 21. It appears to us that the most determined effort should be made to lay hold of these incipient criminals, and to prevent them by strong restraint and rational treatment from recruiting the habitual class. We are of opinion that the experiment of establishing a Penal Reformatory under Government management should be tried, and that the Courts should have power to commit to these establishments offenders under the age of 23, for periods of not less than one year and up to three years, with a free exercise of a system of licence."

The proposal to found a State, or Penal, Reformatory, confirmed and emphasized the opinion that had been rapidly gaining ground, both in England and abroad, and especially in the United States, that up to a certain age, every criminal may be regarded as potentially a good citizen: that his relapse into crime may be due either to physical degeneracy, or to bad social environment: that it is the duty of the State at least to try and effect a cure, and not to class the offender off-hand and without experiment with the adult professional criminal.

It seems difficult to believe that, until recently, a lad of 16 was treated by the law, in all respects, if convicted of any offence, as an ordinary adult prisoner, and that for lads of this age, the principle had not been recognized that a long sentence of detention under reformatory conditions can be justified, not so much by the actual offence, as by "the criminal habit, tendency, or association" (Section 1 (b), Borstal Act, 1908), which, unless arrested at an early age, must lead inevitably to a career of crime.

But the fixing of criminal majority at 21 has only been arrived at after a long struggle. It is about a hundred years ago since certain benevolent persons, struck by the wrong of sending the young to prison, if it could be avoided, founded the Colony of Stretton in Warwickshire in 1815, which had for its express purpose the reclamation of criminal youth between the ages of 16 and 20. The process by which they conducted their benevolent efforts was curious, for they took advantage of an ancient law by which young persons might be hired out in husbandry, and they applied to the County Authorities to hire them out young prisoners of this age, with a view to their conversion into honest and useful citizens. So far as I have been able to gather from the history of Juvenile Crime, no other attempt was made, either then or for many years to come, to grapple with this problem of Juvenile delinquency. Though it is stated on the authority of a great philosopher that "the angel of Hope came down from heaven in the first decade of the nineteenth century," it does not seem that her influence began to be felt at that time in Penal and other legislation; it was some years after the first decade of the last century that Sir Samuel Romilly complained that it was more easy to get an attendance of Members at the House of Commons to listen to a Debate on a new archway for Highgate or a new Water Bill for Holloway, than to any proposals that he might have to make in the direction of Penal Reform.

It is true that some years later, in 1838, under the auspices of Lord John Russell, then Home Secretary, an Act was passed for the establishment of a Prison at Parkhurst for young offenders. The public conscience had begun to be stirred by the terrible sentences of transportation passed on mere children and youths for periods of as much as 15 to 20 years for what we should now regard as petty offences. The Parkhurst Act of 1838 contained a Clause which has become historical and is known as the "Pardon" clause. By this, the Secretary of State was able to pardon any young person sentenced to transportation on condition that he should place himself under the charge of a benevolent Association. The benevolent Association of those days was known as "The Philanthropic Institution", which was the parent of the famous Red Hill Reformatory School of to-day.

The number of lads, however, sent to Parkhurst was comparatively few, and the absence of any means of dealing with the great mass of Juvenile delinquency began to be recognized by thoughtful and humane persons, and, in 1847, a Parliamentary Committee was appointed to enquire into the question of Juvenile Crime. It was before this Committee that the Authorities of the Stretton Colony gave remarkable evidence which, at the time, came as a new light to a generation whose imagination had not yet been quickened to perceive the possibilities of reform in the case of youthful prisoners. They stated in evidence that "their experience had been with prisoners between the ages of 16 and 20 with whom they had been dealing since 1815, and that no less than 60 in every 100 might be permanently reformed and restored to Society, whereas the ordinary prospect that awaits these youths under the ordinary Prison System is a life of degradation, varied only by short terms of Imprisonment, and terminating in banishment or death." It may be that the eyes of the Committee were opened by this simple statement of fact. We know that they took a step which is of singular historical interest. They formally consulted the High Court Judges as to the possibility of introducing a reformatory element into Prison Discipline. The High Court speaking in the name of its most distinguished members, Lord Denman, Lord Cockburn and Lord Blackburn, declared reform and imprisonment to be a contradiction in terms, and utterly irreconcilable. They expressed a doubt as to the possibility of such a system of imprisonment as would reform the offender, and yet leave the dread of imprisonment unimpaired.

Though this was the legal and official view at the time, there were fortunately other voices heard during the progress of this enquiry, the voices of less distinguished men and women, but of those whose names will be recorded in history as the pioneers and the workers in the field that eventually led fifteen years later to the establishment of our Reformatory School system. I refer to such persons as Davenport Hill, Sir Joshua Jebb, Miss Carpenter, Monkton Milnes, Captain Machonochie, Mr. Sergeant Adams and Mr. Sidney Turner.

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.

For the purpose of permanent rehabilitation, the Borstal Association has taken these lads in hand on discharge and led them into the paths of honesty, and industry, and employment; and statistics furnished shortly before the outbreak of war concerning 1,454 cases discharged on licence since the Act of 1908 came into force showed that only 392, or twenty-seven per cent., had been reconvicted. It is commonplace to assert that a good system of "Patronage," or aid on discharge, is a necessary complement to the Prison System; but, generally speaking, Aid Societies, either from the number of persons with whom they have to deal, or from insufficient resources, fail to deal except with a very small proportion of cases; but the Borstal Association takes all cases, and spends time and money equally on each, despairing of none, and maintains a long and continuous record and subsequent history of each case. Behind this highly organized method of care and supervision lies a great and a sincere humanity, which prevents the work degenerating, as is too often the case, into a hard and mechanical routine. The Borstal System, by itself, would not work wonders, nor by itself, eradicate the vicious or anti-social elements from the young criminal heart; but a system of strict control and discipline while under detention, followed up and supported by a real and effective system of "Patronage" on discharge, furnishes the secret of the considerable success that has been obtained. The same spirit which animates the system is also being manifested in our Probation and Children Laws; and to it can be ascribed the marvellous reduction of juvenile crime during the twenty years prior to the war.

The application of the System to young women is dealt with in the Chapter (infra) on Female Offenders.

It is a great satisfaction to those who have directed so much effort to building up the Borstal System that the Lord Chief Justice, presiding over the Court of Criminal Appeal, should have stated recently that the Court are of opinion that "Borstal Institutions are of the greatest assistance to the lads committed to them, and may, and often do, save them; and also the three years, which is the term that is permitted, is, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the right term, as it does give the lad that chance which very often a shorter term does not afford him."

Independently of the law of 1908, there is in operation a so-called "Modified" Borstal System at all Prisons, in all parts of the Country, and special Rules regulate the detention, and "Borstal Committees" devote themselves to the after-care of young prisoners of both sexes between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, whatever the length of sentence. The object of the System for males is to apply, us far as practicable, having regard to the length of sentence, the methods followed at Borstal Institutions, for the special treatment of offenders 16-21 sentenced to imprisonment. The shortness of sentence, of course, operates against any manifest result, but experience has shown that with lads of this age much can be effected by close personal interest and oversight on the part not only of the prison authority, but of voluntary workers. The longer sentences are transferred to collecting depôts. The System provides for two Grades, Ordinary, and Special. To pass from the Ordinary to the Special Grade, a juvenile-adult must earn 300 "merit marks", the maximum number being 25 a week; In the Special Grade he may receive a good conduct stripe after serving a month with exemplary conduct, which entitles him to a special gratuity. Cases sentenced to less than 3 months are not transferred to a Collecting Depôt, but are specially located and segregated from adult offenders at the prison of committal. Both categories receive daily drill and exercise, and are associated at labour. If the conduct and industry of an inmate are satisfactory, he may receive a gratuity not exceeding £2. Remission of sentence is not granted, except when specially recommended by the Borstal Committee. Special attention is paid to the education of all cases, by instruction in class and by lectures on secular subjects. During the year 1919-20, 1130 males were committed to prison with sentences of 3 months and over, and 2,261 with sentences of less than 3 months.

At all Prisons, Borstal Committees are set up to deal with this particular class of delinquent. They are composed of members of the Visiting Committee, who may co-opt for the purpose members of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, and any other influential person, of either sex, interested in the treatment and reclamation of the young. It is a splendid testimony to the efforts made by the members of these Committees throughout the country to rescue lads from a life of crime that, out of 2,126 dealt with during 1918, 1,734 or 81 per cent. were well placed on discharge, while some Committees were able to place the whole of their cases in suitable employment. In the case of young females, the difficulties encountered on discharge are more formidable, but of 913 dealt with during the year, 406 were suitably placed, and 160 returned to their friends.

In the case of young Convicts, also, sentenced to penal servitude, as already stated, Rules provide for the collection of this category at Dartmoor, where they are strictly segregated from the ordinary prison population, and are treated, so far as conditions permit, according to the principles of the Borstal System. On discharge moreover, they are specially committed to the care of the Borstal Association.

It will be seen, therefore, that the Borstal net is now wide-spread, and embraces the whole of the Prison population, male and female, between the ages of 16 and 21. Now that this differentiation according to age has become a fact, it is regarded almost as a commonplace that no person under the age of 21 should be treated under Rules applicable to adults. Yet this simple proposition is of quite recent origin. Twenty years ago, not only were all offenders under 21 years of age mingled with the general herd to be found in our Prisons, but many young persons under the age of 16. So quickly, and so easily, do reforms based on reason, and justice, and humanity—although at the time encountering the resistance and opposition that comes of prejudice and custom—commend themselves to public approval.

Such then is the short history of what is well-known as the Borstal System. It is, in the abstract, an attempt to give expression by the executive dealing with crime, to the natural and scientific law that, up to the age of 21 (the age of civil majority for the ordinary affairs of life), neither the human mind nor the human body is fully formed and developed, but is still plastic and receptive of good influences, skilfully and carefully applied. It is, in the concrete, a simple system of firm and exact discipline, tempered by an ascending scale of rewards and privileges which depend upon industry, conduct, and special merit. The Instructions for the treatment of inmates will be found in the Appendix, and give the details of the system,—a system of grades, with an ascending scale of privileges—the passing from a lower to a higher grade, only to be achieved after a sufficient period of test and observation by supervising authority. The 'Tutors' are a special feature of the Institutions. They are in a sense House-masters, or Masters of Sections or Wings of inmates. They are selected for their special qualifications for dealing with lads of this age and character, each of whom it is their duty to 'individualize,' i.e., to observe closely. They have an important position in the establishment, having the rank and status of Deputy Governors. They constitute a sort of advisory council to the Governor, advising as to claim and fitness to pass from one grade to another. They are at the same time, the friend and counsellor of the inmate, and the adjutant to the Governor in maintaining a strict discipline, and a due observance of order and method in every particular. They are also, under the presidency of the Chaplain, the educational authority of the establishment, being responsible for the method both of elementary and advanced teaching.

Though it will be seen that the rewards and privileges of each grade are of a simple nature, yet they are a sufficient stimulus to the majority of these lads to 'gain their blue,' as it is called. They are simple devices for cultivating self-respect in a field where that tender plant has never hitherto been sown. But it is in the simplicity of these things that their value lies. Many of these lads are total strangers to the most elementary refinements of civilized life; and so we inculcate the principle that by working hard and behaving well, a reward which brings comfort and pleasure follows upon the effort made. Here then we lay the first brick in building up character. The Borstal lad is regarded as a piece of "human masonry," and every one works with a will to turn out a creditable piece of work while the lad is in their hands. They are laying bricks all the time, till the fatal day of liberation comes—fatal because the Borstal System depends essentially for its success upon the Aid-on-discharge which Aid Societies, individually and collectively, can and will render. If the crime in this country is going to be diminished, effort must be concentrated on the young. It must be seen that the piece of masonry which we have built up does not fall to pieces, like an Egyptian mummy, immediately it comes into contact with the outer air of liberty. But the best-conceived regulations will not, by themselves, effect much. It is the personal influence of the Superintending Staff, from the Governor downwards, which is the thing that matters. To understand the Borstal System it is not enough to read about it in a book: you must see it in actual operation,—the keen activity that pervades the establishment: the admirable order and precision of the parade ground: the swing-and-go of the gymnasium: the busy hive of industry in all its multifarious departments: the educational classes and chapel services, the lecture room; and when the time for recreation comes, the glow and keenness of the youngsters in the football or cricket field. Given the material we work with, at first slow, stubborn, impenetrable, with no outlook in life but that of criminal adventure, with its gamble—but its ultimate certain doom, the Prison—any impartial visitor will, I think, agree that here is a wonderful metamorphosis—the conversion of the inveterate gaol-bird of a few years ago to a strong, well-set-up, well-drilled handy English lad, with respect for authority, with a new birthright, qualifying him to enter the ranks of honest, industrious labour. Such a conversion in a few cases would amply justify the system, and all the expense and labour it has entailed; but when the records of the Borstal Association can show that this conversion takes place in many cases, it must indeed be a great encouragement to all engaged in social work, even in the most difficult places, that such results will certainly follow upon healthy influences, steadily and wisely applied.

The principle of the Borstal System received an important extension by the provisions of Section 10 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. The condition that the particular offence must be indictable being removed, largely widens the scope and operation of the System. The same Act also raises the minimum period of detention, and extends that of "Supervision" after discharge. Considerable advantage is being taken of Section 10 since it became law, no fewer than 211 males and 42 females having been dealt with under its provisions in 1919-20.

[CHAPTER IX.]

THE HANDMAIDS OF THE PRISON SYSTEM:—
(1) THE CHILDREN ACT, 1908:
(2) THE PROBATION ACT, 1907.

(1) THE CHILDREN ACT, 1908.

The passing of the Children Act, 1908, which practically forbids imprisonment before sixteen years of age, marks the last stage in that slow and tedious journey which had to be undertaken by many devoted men and women who were conscious of the grave evils resulting from imprisonment, before it was generally realized that it was not by throwing children and young persons automatically and indiscriminately into gaol, that the grave problem of juvenile delinquency was going to be solved.

The Children Act, 1908, known as the "Children's Charter", revolutionized the penal law of this country, so far as the imprisonment of young persons under the age of sixteen was concerned, in the English law there is a conclusive presumption that children under seven years of age cannot have mens rea, and so cannot be made liable to be punished by criminal law. Between seven and fourteen years that presumption is no longer conclusive. Guilty knowledge may be shown by the fact of the offender having been previously convicted of some earlier offence, or even by the circumstances of the present offence. Full criminal responsibility is presumed at the age of fourteen. The Children Act, without reference to the question of criminal responsibility, prescribed a clear distinction between offences committed by children, i.e., persons under the age of fourteen, and young persons, i.e., between fourteen and sixteen. Neither "children" nor "young persons" i.e., no person under the age of sixteen, can now be sent to penal servitude or to imprisonment unless the Court certifies in the case of a young person, 14-16, that he is of so unruly a character that an alternative form of punishment is not desirable. Offenders under sixteen cannot be sentenced to death, but may be detained during His Majesty's Pleasure. Those guilty of grave crime, such as attempt to murder, manslaughter, &c., can be detained in such places, and under such conditions, as the Secretary of State may direct. The effect of this Act is, therefore, to withdraw all persons under sixteen entirely, or almost entirely, from the control of the Prison Authority. In lieu of detention in Prison, the Act creates "Places of Detention", to be established by the Police Authority of the district, the expense of maintenance being divided between the Police Authority and the Treasury. Young offenders may be committed to such Places of Detention for any period not exceeding one month, or on remand or committal for trial. Such establishments are subject to regulations and inspection by the Secretary of State. The Children Act, 1908, consolidated the law as to Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and, at the same time, introduced other amendments, e.g., that no child under twelve should be sent to a Reformatory School: children under that age may be sent to Industrial Schools, notwithstanding any previous conviction recorded against them: power is given to the Secretary of State to transfer from a Reformatory to an Industrial School, and vice versâ: power of control and supervision of cases up to the age of 19 is given to managers of Reformatory Schools where the term of detention expires earlier: earlier licensing in the case of Industrial Schools is permitted: and statutory reference is also made for providing special Reformatory and Industrial Schools for physically and mentally defective cases.

For some years prior to the passing of the Children Act, 1908, those interested in the welfare of the young had been trying to secure the hearing of charges against juvenile delinquents in Courts of Justice apart from those of adults. In 1905, several large towns had taken this step. At Birmingham, the first separate Court for children's cases was established in April, 1905, to which was attached the first Probation Officer for children.

In the same year, the Secretary of State issued a circular to Magistrates pointing out the evil resulting from contact with the more depraved and criminal adults, and asking them to consider what steps could be taken to prevent such contamination by securing their protection at Police Courts during the hearing of their cases.