The English Prison System

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The English Prison System
Author: Ruggles-Brise, Evelyn
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The English Prison System" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

SYSTEM ***

THE ENGLISH PRISON SYSTEM

[Illustration]

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

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_

LIST OF CHAPTERS.

PAGE.

Preface i

CHAPTER.

I. The Meaning of Prison Reform 1

II. The Prison Commission: Offences, and Punishments 18

III. The History of Penal Servitude 23

IV. Penal Servitude to-day 39

V. Preventive Detention 49

VI. Imprisonment 59

VII. The Inquiry of 1894: the Prison Act, 1898: and
the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. 75

VIII. The Borstal System 85

IX. The Handmaids of the Prison System--(1) The
Children Act, 1898; (2) The Probation Act,
1907. 101

X. Female Offenders 114

XI. Educative, Moral, and Religious Influences in
Prison 124

XII. Labour in English Prisons 131

XIII. (1) Vagrancy; (2) Inebriety 142

XIV. "Patronage" or Aid to Discharged Prisoners:
its effect on Recidivism 164

XV. The Medical Service 185

XVI. A Criminological Inquiry in English Prisons 198

XVII. (a) A Short Sketch of the Movement of Crime
since 1872: (b) The War, 1914-18. 216

Appendix:--(a) Regulations &c., for Borstal
Institutions 231

(b) Regulations for Preventive
Detention Prisons 265

Index 268

CONTENTS.

PAGE.

Preface i

CHAPTER I.--THE MEANING OF "PRISON REFORM." 1

"Prison Reform"--a phrase of many meanings. The aim of the
modern prison administration. The prison population. Influences
operating for "reform" in prisons--religious services, visitation,
education, lectures and addresses, summary of weekly news of the
world, &c. No 'law of silence' strictly so-called: talking exercise in
prisons, &c. Non-criminal persons committed under special legislation
during the war--the prison system not intended for such. Officers of
prisons and their power of influence for good. The special categories of
the Borstal lad, and the 'habitual offender' at Camp Hill. The three
directions along which 'prison reform' might proceed,--the organization
and development of Probation: the extension of the principle of
Preventive Detention to the Penal Servitude system: the co-ordination
of preventive efforts.

CHAPTER. II.--THE PRISON COMMISSION: OFFENCES, AND PUNISHMENTS. 18

Constitution of Prison Board. Establishments under control of Prison
Board. The criminal law and its a administration, punishments, &c.
Probation Act, 1907. Court of Criminal Appeal.

CHAPTER III.--THE HISTORY OF PENAL SERVITUDE. 23

History of Transportation. Pentonville Prison. Public Works. Penal
Servitude Act, 1857. Progressive Stage System. The Irish System.
Royal Commission, 1863. The Penal Servitude Act, 1864. Mark
System introduced. Habitual Criminals Act, 1869. Prevention of
Crimes Act, 1871. The Royal Commission, 1878. The Star Class. Fall
in convict population.

CHAPTER IV.--PENAL SERVITUDE TO-DAY. 39

The Inquiry of 1894. Progressive Stage System recast. New classification
of 1905. Weakminded convicts. Separate Confinement, history
of. Changes in system under the Act of 1898. Corporal punishment.
Penal Servitude for Women.

CHAPTER V.--PREVENTIVE DETENTION. 49

Definition of professional criminals. Proposed Habitual Offenders'
Division. The Act of 1908. Camp Hill Prison. Rules for treatment
of prisoners. Release on Licence. Statistics of Releases. The
Advisory Committee. The Intention of the System.

CHAPTER VI.--IMPRISONMENT. 59

Houses of Correction. Local Prisons and their administration. The
phrase 'Hard Labour.' Howard and English Prisons. The Act of
1778 and separate confinement. Jeremy Bentham and the 'Panopticon.'
Classification under the Act of 1823. Mr. Crawford's visit to U.S.A.
Classification, the leading principle of reform. Inquiries of 1832 and
1836. Auburn and Philadelphian systems. The Act of 1839 and
separate confinement. The model prison at Pentonville. Local Prisons
and the control of Secretary of State. Surveyor-General appointed.
Separate Confinement and Hard Labour, and the objects of imprisonment.
Committee of 1850 and uniformity. Prison Act, 1865. Uniformity not
secured. Centralization of Prisons under Act of 1877. Powers of
Justices under. Classification and the objects and effect of Act of 1877.

CHAPTER VII.--THE INQUIRY OF 1894: THE PRISON ACT 1898: AND
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1914. 75

Appointment of Committee and its report. Public opinion and the
treatment of crime. Subsequent reforms in system. Retirement of Sir
E. Du Cane and appointment of Sir E. Ruggles-Brise. Prison Rules
and Administration. Triple Division and individualisation of prisoners.
Part-payment of fines. Corporal punishment. Power to earn remission
of sentence. Gratuity and remission of sentence.

CHAPTER VIII.--BORSTAL SYSTEM. 85

Its Origin. Statistics of youths committed annually. The Committee
of 1894. The Colony at Stretton, 1815. "The Philanthropic Institution."
The Reformatory School Act, 1854. The Colony of Mettray.
The Age of 16 and criminal majority. Visit to the American State
Reformatory at Elmira. The London Prison Visitors' Association, and
first experiments at Borstal: the features of the early System.
Representation to Secretary of State. Statutory effect given to System
in 1908. The Institution for males and females to-day. "Modified
System" and Borstal Committee System in Convict Prisons. The
Borstal System, and its extension under the Criminal Justice
Administration Act, 1914.

CHAPTER IX.--THE HANDMAIDS OF THE PRISON SYSTEM. 101

(1) THE CHILDREN ACT, 1908.

(2) THE PROBATION ACT, 1907.

(1) The Children Act, and age of criminal responsibility. Juvenile
Courts, statistics of. Physically and mentally defective children.
The Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Acts,
1899 and 1914. Juvenile Employment Bureaux and Labour Exchanges.
The Elementary Education Act 1918. The Value of Voluntary personal
service directed to the young.

(2) The Provisional Sentence abroad. The English law of Probation:
Extent of its application: the Law prior to 1907. Difficulties of
comparison of the various Systems. Probation in State of New York:
Direct control and supervision by the State.

CHAPTER X.--FEMALE OFFENDERS. 114

The fall in committals to prison. The heavy rate of Recidivism.
Formation of the Lady Visitors' Association, its duties, &c. The
Borstal System at Aylesbury, and the work of the Ladies' Committee
of the Borstal Association. The "Modified" Borstal System; Instructions
regulating the class; Extension of Borstal System under
Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. Female recidivism, and the
need for adoption of the principle of the reformatory sentence, and
the formation of a State Reformatory. Superintendence and control of
female prisoners by women.

CHAPTER XI.--EDUCATIVE, MORAL AND RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES
IN PRISON. 124

Education in prisons before Education Act, 1870: comparative statistics
of degree of education of prisoners: large number of illiterate
prisoners: present system of education and teaching staff: prison
libraries, lectures, debates, missions: the work of Chaplains.

CHAPTER XII.--LABOUR IN ENGLISH PRISONS. 131

Changes in system due to reduction of convicts. Less Public Works
labour. Competition with free labour. Contract system unknown in
English Prisons. Character of present work in Convict Prisons.
Medical census of convicts' fitness for work. The last Public Works,
Dover Harbour. Character of Convict Prison labour approximating
more to that of Local Prisons. Inquiry of 1863, and labour in Local
Prisons. 'Hard Labour' of two classes. The Prison Act, 1877.
Abolition of unproductive labour, and inquiry of 1894. Revision of
Labour Statistics. Improvement in output of manufacture since 1896.
Unskilled labour. Reorganization of female labour, 1911. Work for
Government Departments. Work during the War. The work of
Juvenile-Adult prisoners.

CHAPTER XIII.--(1) VAGRANCY: (2) INEBRIETY. 142

(1) Early history of Vagrancy legislation. The Act of 1824. Categories
of Vagrants. The casual pauper. Casual wards. Alleged attractiveness
of prison to workhouse: Commissioners' observations on. Committee of
1906 and need for uniformity in casual wards, &c. Merxplas Colony.
Labour Colonies and the Inquiry of 1903. Identification of habitual
vagrants. Treatment of Vagrancy abroad. Great fall in number
convicted of Vagrancy offences. The way ticket system. Casual Wards
of Metropolis and Metropolitan Asylums Board. High number of
convictions of vagrants. No plan yet adopted by State for dealing
with professional vagrancy.

(2) Committee of 1872. Act of 1879. Inquiry of 1892. Principles of the
Act of 1898. Establishment of State Inebriate Reformatories.
Character of inmates. Control of State Reformatories. Commitments
under the Act. The working of the Act. Committee appointed in 1908
to inquire into Inebriates and Probation. Causes operating against
wider use of powers under Act. Inebriety as a factor of crime.
Dr. Branthwaite's inquiry into a number of cases. Mental deficiency
obvious in many. Condemnation of short sentences of imprisonment.
Habitual inebriety and mental defectiveness. Report of Committee of
1908.

CHAPTER XIV.--"PATRONAGE" OR AID TO DISCHARGED PRISONERS:
ITS EFFECT ON RECIDIVISM. 164

Former system of aid to discharged convicts. Gratuity system
different from '_cantine_' or '_pécule_' system. Early history of aid
to local discharged prisoners. Provisions made by Acts of 1862 and
1865. System under Act of 1877. Inquiry of Committee of 1894 and
recommendations. Scheme of 1897. Formation of 'Central Association.'
Discontinuance of Convict Gratuity System. New scheme for aid of
Local prisoners, 1913. The Central Organization of Aid Societies;
Aid to wives and families of prisoners. Proposed National Society for
Prevention of Crime, and protection of the young offender. Aid on
discharge from Borstal Institutions and Preventive Detention Prisons.

CHAPTER XV.--THE MEDICAL SERVICE. 185

_Personnel_ of the Medical Staff; duties. Sickness and low death rate in
Prisons. Prisons described as the best sanatoria in England. Infectious
disease. Venereal disease. Prison dietary. Insanity and mental
defectiveness, estimated rates of; the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. The
'Birmingham' experiment for mental investigation of remand prisoners.
The Borstal System and physical development. The clinical laboratory;
"Study-leave" for Medical Officers. The nursing of sick prisoners.

CHAPTER XVI.--A CRIMINOLOGICAL INQUIRY IN ENGLISH PRISONS. 198

The nature of the inquiry. Professor Lombroso and the postulate of
the 'Positive' School. The Lombrosian doctrine founded upon observation
alone. The science of statistics: 'Normal' and 'abnormal'
man. The 'criminal diathesis:' The biometric method of Professor
Karl Pearson. Anthropometry and the existence of a criminal type.
Comparison of statistics of criminals and non-criminal public. Dr.
Goring's conclusion that there is no physical criminal type. 'Selective'
factors and the physique of criminals. No 'mental criminal type.'
Statistics of mental defectiveness. Defective physique and defective
intelligence in selection of criminals. Heredity and other environmental
factors. The relation between education and crime. Alcoholism.
Conclusions as to the causes of crime. The criminal a "defective"
man. His inability to live up to required social standard. The need
for individualization of punishment. The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913.

CHAPTER XVII.--(A) A SHORT SKETCH OF THE MOVEMENT OF CRIME
SINCE 1872: (B) THE WAR 1914-18. 216

(A) Classification of offences proceeded against in Criminal Courts.
Fall in serious crime since 1871. Decrease of non-indictable offences
of a criminal nature. Statistics of non-criminal offences. Prison
Population, statistics since 1881. Decrease in total number of sentences
to Penal Servitude. Great decrease in prisoners under 21 years
of age. Statistics of recidivism. Petty Recidivism and vagrants
and mentally defective persons in prisons.

(B) Prison statistics during the War: the effect of the Criminal Justice
Administration Act, 1914, and payment of fines. Statistics of the
decrease in various offences. The effect of the Central Control Board
(Liquor Traffic) and committals for Drunkenness. The great fall in
Vagrancy. Criminal statistics in times of industrial prosperity and
distress. Closing of penal institutions during the War. Statistics of
charges tried and proceeded against. The maintenance in the future
of the present low criminal population.

Appendix:--

(a) Regulations &c., for Borstal Institutions. 231
(b) " " Preventive Detention Prisons. 265

Index 268

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:

[Footnote 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 6_d._, 4_d._, and NIL per week. There were three degrees of
industry--VERY GOOD, GOOD, and NIL, carrying 9_d._, 4_d._, 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:--

16 years 2,898
17 " 4,099
18 " 5,550
19 " 5,576
20 " 5,130

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.

One of the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on
Physical Deterioration, 1904, was that, whenever possible, in cases
touching the young, where the assistance of a Magistrate was invoked,
he should be a person specially selected, sitting for the purpose. In
a Circular to Justices in 1909, explanatory of the provisions of the
Children Act relating to the establishment of Children's Courts, the
Secretary of State expressed the opinion that it was desirable, where
possible, that the formation of Juvenile Courts should be assigned to a
separate rota of Magistrates who possess, or who would soon acquire, a
special knowledge of the methods of dealing with juvenile crime and of
institutions for juvenile offenders.

On the passing of the Children Act, 1908, special Courts, called
Juvenile Courts, were created for dealing with charges against children
or young persons. Such Court may be either in a separate building, or
in a room of an ordinary Court House. No person, other than members
or officers of the Court or parties to the case, their counsel or
solicitors, or persons otherwise directly concerned in the case, may
be allowed to attend, and means must be taken for preventing young
persons while in attendance at the Court, or being conveyed to or from
Court, from associating with adults. The chief methods for dealing with
children and young persons charged with offences enumerated in Section
107 of the Act, are:--

(_a_) by dismissing the charge; or

(_b_) by discharging the offender on his entering into a recognizance;
or

(_c_) by so discharging the offender and placing him under the
supervision of a probation officer; or

(_d_) by committing the offender to the care of a relative or other
fit person; or

(_e_) by sending the offender to an industrial school; or

(_f_) by sending the offender to a reformatory school; or

(_g_) by ordering the offender to be whipped; or

(_h_) by ordering the offender to pay a fine, damages, or costs; or

(_i_) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to pay a
fine, damages, or costs; or

(_j_) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to give
security for his good behaviour; or

(_k_) by committing the offender to custody in a place of detention
provided under the Act; or

(_l_) by dealing with the case in any other manner in which it may be
legally dealt with.

Since 1910, the number of cases dealt with in Juvenile Courts has
risen from 33,598 to 49,915 in 1918, the increase having taken place
chiefly since the outbreak of war. Included in the latter total were
28,843 boys and 1,364 girls under the age of 14. Statistics show that a
conviction is recorded in about 50 per cent. of the number dealt with
annually, the majority of which are disposed of by fine, whipping, or
committal to a Reformatory School. Of those cases in which the charge
is proved, though no order made for _conviction_ (about 35 per cent.)
the bulk of the cases are disposed of by Probation, Recognizances,
Dismissal, or committal to an Industrial School. Only in the number
who were placed on Probation, and in the number whipped, is there any
great variation since 1910 in statistics as to the manner in which
cases were dealt with, as shown above. In the case of probation, in
1910 3,568 cases or 10·6 per cent. of the total dealt with, were so
disposed of: in 1918, the number had risen to 5,868, or 11·8 per cent.
of the total. A large rise is shown in the number who were whipped,
_viz_:--1,562 in the former year, and 3,593 in the latter, or 11·9 and
13·1 per cent, respectively, of the total _convicted_. In 1913 (the
latest figures available), 6,972 children and young persons, dealt with
in Juvenile Courts, were committed to Places of Detention, 4,073 of
whom were on remand, 1,910 to await removal to Industrial Schools, 11
to await trial, and 147 under sentence. Nearly sixty per cent. of the
total cases were committed from the Metropolitan Police District and
Liverpool.

Public concern is not, however, only with the delinquent child. It
is also with the many thousands of children who are the subject of
physical or mental defect, or of insufficient care and supervision
during the age of adolescence. During that period, after having left
the public elementary schools, boys and girls are thrown into the outer
world to earn what wages they can without regard either to the special
aptitude they may possess, or to any security that the occupation they
choose is one in which they have any chance of remaining permanently
employed. It has become manifest to those dealing with young offenders
on discharge from Prison, or other Institutions, that one of the
principal causes leading to the commission of criminal acts is to be
found in what is generally known as "blind-alley" employment, _i.e._,
employment obtained casually and thoughtlessly by young persons on
leaving school in which they cannot be maintained on attaining maturity.

It was not till 1893, or more than twenty years after the principle
of compulsory elementary education had been established, that Blind
and Deaf children were made the special concern of the legislation. It
was later still than this that the case of the Defective and Epileptic
child engaged the attention of Parliament; but the Elementary Education
(Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, did not go beyond
prescribing that it should be the duty of the Local Education Authority
to ascertain the existence of such children. It was left to the option
of the Local Authorities whether or not the provisions of the Act
for their special treatment should be adopted, and a large number of
Education Authorities failed to respond.

The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, however, makes it the duty of every
Local Education Authority

(1) to ascertain the existence of mental defect of such kind or degree
as to justify the diagnosis of feeble-mindedness, imbecility, or
idiocy;

(2) to determine whether a child diagnosed as feeble-minded is or is
not capable of benefiting from education in a Special School, and;

(3) to notify to the Local Authority under the Act, all defective
children over the age of seven (_a_) who are incapable of education
in Special Schools; (_b_) who, though educable, are detrimental to
other children; (_c_) who require supervision or guardianship under
the Mental Deficiency Act, or (_d_) who after leaving a Special School
need institutional treatment or guardianship.

Under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic) Children
Act, 1914, every Local Education Authority is compelled to notify
all mentally defective children; and to provide for the education
of those who are capable of profiting by instruction, the number
of whom (excluding idiots, imbeciles, and the lowest grade of the
feeble-minded) is estimated at over 30,000.

As a security against "blind-alley" employment, and its consequent
dangers, a well-organized movement is now in progress throughout the
country by the establishment of Juvenile Employment bureaux and Labour
Exchanges, and by the setting-up of Advisory Committees in connection
with Education Authorities to secure advice, and guidance, and control
during the perilous age of adolescence. The Education Act, 1918, made
provision for raising the compulsory age for 'full-time' attendance
at a Public Elementary School from 12 to 14, and also for compulsory
attendance at continuation schools between the ages of 14 and 18. The
Act also contains drastic provisions restricting child labour during
such hours as interfere with efficient instruction. The determination
that the youth of this country should not only be saved from a criminal
career, but should have opportunities, suited to the age, for the
development of character, is found in the widely spread organizations
of Boy Scouts, Boys' Brigades, and other kindred associations.

It is in this movement of voluntary personal service, on the part of
the earnest men and women, engaged in all these works and acting in
the highest sense of patriotism and public duty, that the hope of the
solution of the criminal problem lies in the future; and it is for this
reason that I have adverted shortly to a movement that is proceeding in
this country at the present time for the better nurture and education,
and control of all that enormous number of boys and girls who, though
they must profit to a certain extent under a system of free compulsory
education, will not be transformed by education alone into useful and
honest citizenship. Side by side with the machinery of the public
elementary school system, there must be agencies at work of which the
high purpose is not only to secure that the defective child shall be
treated in accordance with scientific method, and that the pauper
child shall not have less favourable opportunity than his fellows,
but that all classes of children after satisfying the standard of
literacy ordained by the school authority, shall, during the period
of adolescence, be subject to such influences as shall secure them,
when they attain maturity, a fair chance in the competition of life.
Therein lies the prophylactic of crime. No Prison Authority can be
indifferent to the great social effort now being made, the effect of
which is perhaps already visible in the diminishing number of young
persons convicted of crime. In future years, it is hoped that it will
not be a commonplace, as it is now, for many old offenders to attribute
their downfall, and their persistence in a criminal career, to neglect
during infancy and early youth, and to the absence of any controlling
influence to save them during the initial years preceding maturity
from acts of mischief, or of fraud, until Prison, as the automatic and
unvarying penalty, destroyed in them the germs of hope and confidence,
and self-respect, without which a foothold in honest life could with
difficulty be regained.

(2) THE PROBATION ACT, 1907:--

Former International Prison Congresses pronounced in favour of the
provisional sentence ("_sentence provisoire_"). By this is meant in
foreign codes what is generally known as a "conditional conviction,"
_i.e._, a conviction takes place, but is not carried into effect,
conditionally on the good conduct of the offender during a term of
years (generally five) prescribed by the law. This respite is known
technically as "_sursis à l'exécution de la peine_." The principle of
conditional conviction is common to most penal codes, but operates
in different ways, _e.g._, it may take the form simply of judicial
reprimand, or of being bound over to be of good behaviour, or of
probation, as in England and America, or of respite in the execution of
the sentence, as in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. The Continental
law of "_sursis_" or "_respite_" differs from the English law of
Probation in that in the former case there is always a conviction.
In England, except in serious cases tried on indictment, there is no
conviction. The English law gives power if the court, "having regard
to the character, antecedents, age, health, or mental condition of
the person charged, or to the trivial nature of the offence, or to
the extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed,
thinks fit so to act, to discharge the offender conditionally on his
entering into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to be of good
behaviour and to appear for conviction" (if before a court of summary
jurisdiction) "and sentence when called on at any time during such
period, not exceeding three years, as may be specified in the order."
Such a recognisance may contain the condition that the offender
shall be under the supervision of a probation officer. The court may
add further conditions with respect to residence, abstention from
intoxicating liquor, and any other matter which, having regard to the
particular circumstances of the case, it may consider necessary for the
prevention of the same offence, or the commission of other offences.

It is the duty of the probation officer, subject to the directions of
the court--

"(_a_) to visit or receive reports from the person under supervision
at such reasonable intervals as may be specified in the probation
order, or subject thereto as the probation officer may think fit;

"(_b_) to see that he observes the conditions of his recognisance;

"(_c_) to report to the court as to his behaviour;

"(_d_) to advise, assist, and befriend him, and, when necessary, to
endeavour to find him suitable employment."

Should the probationer commit fresh offences, or evade the supervision
of the probation officer, or otherwise break any of the conditions
of his recognisance, he is to be brought again before the court and
sentenced for his original offence.

The Probation Act, therefore, provides a method by which a person who
has offended against the law, instead of being punished by imprisonment
or fine, or, in the case of a child, being sent for a prolonged period
to a reformatory or an industrial school, may be brought under the
direct personal influence of a man or woman chosen for excellence
of character and for strength of personal influence; and, lending
authority to that supervision, and securing that it shall not be
treated as a thing of little account, the Act keeps suspended over the
offender the penalties of the law, to be inflicted or to be withdrawn
according as his conduct during the specified period is bad or good.

The new procedure, under the Act of 1907, marks a great advance. The
formality of the Probation Order, regular visits and reports, and the
knowledge that the supervision is that of a duly appointed officer of
the Court,--all these things combine to secure a much stronger hold
over the offender than the simple recognizance, which was previously
the rule. Again, the Act provides for the appointment of officers at a
number of Courts which had not previously been provided with the means
of securing supervision in cases where the Courts desired not to resort
to the penalty of imprisonment. The appointment of at least one paid
Probation Officer at every Court may now be regarded as indispensable
for the proper administration of justice. Their appointment, however,
is not compulsory, and it is only in the Metropolis that they are
appointed by the Secretary of State. It is within the discretion of
other Courts whether or not they shall avail themselves of the services
of a Probation Officer. In fact, many Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
throughout the Country are still unprovided for.

The extent to which Probation Orders are applied varies to a great
extent in different parts of the country. In the Metropolis, not
more than one in seventy-eight out of the total number of persons
proceeded against summarily was so dealt with in 1913. At Liverpool
and Manchester, it is less than this, while in Hull and Birmingham,
it is greater. Though many years have elapsed since the passing of the
Act, there is still a comparative inactivity on the part of many of the
Courts to give effect to its provisions, and many do not yet appear
to have fully realized that the Act may be applied to all classes
of offenders, and not only to first offenders, as was formerly the
case. Moreover, the fact that the Probation System has been actively
advocated by those specially interested in the treatment of Juvenile
Offenders has led to a general opinion that the measure is to be used
only in the case of the young. But in fact there are a great number of
cases in which the offender is neither a first offender nor a child,
but in which a Probation Order could very properly be made. Time will,
no doubt, remove this misunderstanding, and when the Courts realize
what assistance can be rendered to the administration of justice by
judicious use of the Probation System, it is nearly certain that
Probation Officers--male and female--for the younger as for the older
prisoners, will become an established part of the machinery of every
Court. The Probation Act, 1907, repealed Section 16 of the Summary
Jurisdiction Act, 1879, and the Probation of First Offenders Act,
1887. The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, provided by Sec. 16 (1) that
where the charge, though proved, was of a trifling nature, the Court,
_without proceeding to conviction_, might dismiss it, and _might_ order
the defendant to pay damage not exceeding 40/- and costs; by Sec. 16
(2) that _on conviction_ the Court might order the defendant to give
security with or without sureties, and with or without payment of
damage or costs.

The Act of 1887 provided that the Court, before whom a person, not
previously convicted, was brought, and who was convicted of larceny
or false pretences, might, having regard to the youth, character and
antecedents &c. of the offender, or to the trivial nature of the
offence, direct that he be released on entering into recognizances, &c.
to come up for judgment when called upon, and to be of good behaviour.
If he failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance
he was liable to be brought up to answer as to his conduct, and to
receive judgment.

The Act of 1907, in lieu of the foregoing, provides that when any
offender is charged before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction with an
offence punishable by such Court, and the Court thinks the charge is
proved, it may nevertheless dismiss the charge altogether, or may bind
the offender over, with or without sureties, to appear for conviction
and sentence when called on at any time during a specified period not
exceeding three years, if it "is of opinion that, having regard to the
character, antecedents, age, health, or mental condition of the person
charged, or to the trivial nature of the offence, or to the extenuating
circumstances under which the offence was committed, it is inexpedient
to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal punishment, or
that it is expedient to release the offender on probation."

If such an order is made, or if the charge is dismissed under the Act,
the Court may further order the offender "to pay such damages for
injury or compensation for loss (not exceeding in the case of a Court
of Summary Jurisdiction ten pounds, or, if a higher limit is fixed by
any enactment relating to the offence, that higher limit), and to pay
such costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks reasonable."

The powers granted under the latter Act were thus wider in their scope,
and it was hoped that they would be used with greater frequency, and
with better guarantee of good results by the appointment of Probation
Officers, as prescribed by the Act. But at the present time, statistics
do not show that the principle of Probation has been as widely extended
in consequence of these provisions, as might have been expected. The
numbers so dealt with in 1907 (the year before the Act came into
operation) and those for the last recorded year (1918) are as follows:--

1907 Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887 8,097
" Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, Sec. 16 (1) 45,195
" " " " " Sec. 16 (2) 8,205
-------
Total 61,497
-------
(or 8.2 per cent of the total number proceeded against).

1918 Probation Act. 1907:--
Tried on indictment (conviction recorded):--
Recognizances, with Probation Order 443}
" without " " 652} 1,095
Tried summarily: Order made, without conviction for:--
(_a_) Dismissal 26,231}
(_b_) Recognizances 11,284} 48,761
(_c_) Probation Order 11,246}
Total 49,856
-------
(or 11·5 per cent of the total number proceeded against).

Owing to differences in the law and of procedure, it is difficult,
if not impossible, to make comparison between England and Foreign
Countries as to the extent to which Probation in the former,
and "_sursis_" in the latter is being used as an alternative to
imprisonment. So far as my researches have enabled me to go, I would
venture the opinion that "_sursis_" is being used to a considerably
larger extent in France, Belgium, and Italy than Probation is being
used in England. There are, moreover, I believe, no statistics for
comparing the results of the two systems. We know that in England the
percentage of revocations is not more than about 6, the actual numbers
having been as follows for the five years ended 1913:--

------------------------+------------------------
Probation | Number who appeared
Orders made. | for sentence.
------------------------+------------------------
1909 8,962 624
1910 10,217 584
1911 9,516 593
1912 11,192 655
1913 11,057 603
-------------------------------------------------

The effect of suspended sentence ("_sursis_"), without probationary
oversight, was declared at the Washington Congress to be difficult,
if not impossible, to ascertain, and the Congress went further in
resolving that it was desirable for each State or County to provide
a Central Authority to appoint some agency to exercise general
supervision over Probation work. This is now the case in the State
of New York, where a State Probation Commission has been appointed,
and where, since 1910, as the consequence of good organization, there
has been a great extension of the operation of the system. My own
opinion is that Probation, carefully organized, _i.e._, with a staff
of carefully selected Probation Officers, both Male and Female, is,
as I have already stated, an indispensable part of the machinery of
criminal justice, and, as such, ought to be under the direct control
and supervision of the State, not with the idea of hindering or
impeding voluntary effort by official interference, but by securing
that each Court shall have its proper equipment for this purpose, and
that, in every case where there is a transgression of the conditions
of Probation, there shall be, without fail, an immediate report to the
Court entailing an effective punishment of the offender who has refused
to profit by the clemency extended to him under the Probation Act. I
do not think, so long as the institution of this valuable machinery is
permissive and left to the discretion of the Court, that a full effect
will ever be given to the admirable principles of the Probation System,
as a handmaid of justice, or that there will be a sufficient guarantee,
that where a Court has used its powers in this respect, there shall
be a prompt and effective vindication of the law in the event of any
breach of conditions. In this way only, can an answer be made to any
criticism by the many persons who have attempted, by their experience
in individual cases, to suggest that Probation may be merely a mask
for impunity. Unless Probation is so organized as to clear itself from
this reproach, I am afraid that it will never take its place firmly and
progressively as a necessary and indispensable weapon in the armoury of
the criminal law.

The Home Secretary has recently appointed a Committee to inquire into
the question of the organization of Probation; and it is likely that we
are on the eve of an extensive development of the system.

CHAPTER X.

FEMALE OFFENDERS.

At the date of the London Congress of 1872 there were more than 1,200
females in convict prisons undergoing penal servitude: to-day there are
less than 100. In the same year, there were 44,554 committals to local
prisons, representing 382·3 per 100,000 of the female population of the
country. For each of the ten years ended 1913, the committals steadily
decreased from, roughly, 50,000 to 30,000, and since that date, to
about 12,000, or 76 per cent., representing in 1920 only 32 per 100,000
of the population of the country, as compared with 198 in 1913. The
Local Prison daily average population has fallen from 3,198 to 2,375
during the ten years ended 1913-14, and to 1,137 in 1919-20, or 61 per
cent., and that of the convict population from 149 to 82, a decrease of
45 per cent.

The great diminution of the female population has resulted in the
closing of a large number of establishments. At the time the Prisons
were taken over by the Government there were about 100 female prisons;
to-day there are only 26, and of these only six had a daily average
exceeding 50 in 1919-20.

Women sentenced to penal servitude are, as already stated, kept in a
section of the local prison at Liverpool. Except in the Metropolis,
those sentenced to ordinary imprisonment are kept in wings of local
prisons, entirely detached from the male side, and are under the
supervision of a matron, assisted by a female staff, the Governor
of the whole establishment being responsible for general order and
discipline. In the Metropolis, a large prison--Holloway--is given up
entirely to the custody of female convicted prisoners, and is also the
House of Detention for the unconvicted. The Governor is a medical man.
At the largest Prisons the female population is under the supervision
of a Lady Superintendent.

If we examine the causes that bring these women to prison annually,
whether the population be high or low, it appears that nearly
two-thirds are committed for Drunkenness or Prostitution. Each
succeeding year presents a heavy and monotonous list of women who
thieve, keep brothels, neglect, or illtreat their children and offend
in various ways against the Vagrancy Laws or Police Regulations. For
such offences, the figures of recidivism are appalling--about one in
every five committed having incurred over 20 previous convictions--some
as many as 100 or 200. The actual percentage of the total receptions
annually who have been previously convicted is greater in the case of
females than for males, the former ranging between 70 and 75 per cent.,
and the latter between 50 and 60 per cent, annually.

A striking illustration of the high rate of recidivism prevailing among
the female population was afforded a few years ago, when an inquiry
was instituted as to the numbers of women committed to Holloway Prison
for Drunkenness, and their previous convictions for that offence. It
showed that during the three years ended 1915, 10,888 committals for
Drunkenness were recorded against 1,628 women, who, including the above
convictions and those incurred _prior to 1913_, had on their combined
records a total of 30,986 convictions. Of these 1,628 individual
prisoners:--

1,092 were received in 1913, incurring in that year 2,768 convictions,

1,045 were received in 1914, incurring in that year 3,931 convictions,

813 were received in 1915, incurring in that year 4,189 convictions.

Amongst the 1,628 women was selected a group of 25, who, at the end
of 1915, had each received ten or more convictions for this offence.
All were stated to have been first offenders in 1913 and 1914. By the
end of 1915, these 25 women had amassed a total of 353 convictions.
This inquiry showed that in 1915 a falling population committed for
Drunkenness was contributing more convictions per annum than formerly,
_viz_:--5 per annum in 1915 as compared with 2.6 in 1913. The high
rate of recidivism in the Local prison population limits the number of
_individual_ women in the community who are sent to prison annually to
a comparatively small total. Statistics show that over 32 per cent.
of the total committed on conviction in a given year are sent to
prison more than once in that period. This rate applied to the total
receptions for 1919-20 would show that the whole Female population of
prisons for that year was limited to slightly over 8,000 individuals.

It does not appear that until recently any special effort had been made
to deal with the problem of the female recidivist: in fact, the study
of the English Penal System does not show that at any time the method
of dealing with criminal women has engaged that close attention which
might have been expected from the nature and difficulty and importance
of the problem. The law strikes men and women indifferently with the
same penalties of penal servitude and imprisonment. In the case of
women it only provides that they shall be separated from the other sex:
that they shall be in the charge of female officers, and that they
shall be relieved from the harder forms of labour. Generally speaking,
the methods of punishment are the same, subject to such modification
and exceptions as difference of sex obviously demands. This is not the
place to examine those abstruse, psychological, and social causes which
render the rehabilitation in honest life of women who have fallen from
their high estate of probity and virtue so difficult. Prison workers
can, from painful and almost daily experience, endorse the despairing
plaint--

"L'honneur est comme une île, escarpée et sans bords,
On n'y peut plus rentrer, quand on est dehors."

But the admitted difficulty of the task has not prevented the most
strenuous efforts being made in this country during recent years to
rescue the female prisoner by visitation in Prison and by after-care
on discharge. In 1901 the Lady Visitors' Association was founded with
the object of securing at each Prison a body of earnest and devoted
ladies, with experience of rescue-work and a keen sympathy with even
the most degraded of their sex. This body worked for many years under
the presidency of Adeline, Duchess of Bedford, until her much lamented
death which recently occurred. These ladies working in all the female
prisons, local and convict, under a regular and approved system, by
their unfailing devotion to the quiet, if trying and inglorious, duty
of cellular visitation, and in close co-operation with the authorities,
lay and religious, have discharged a great and difficult public duty.
They have undoubtedly contributed to that decrease in the number of
female prisoners which recent statistics illustrate. Apart from this,
they have furnished a notable example of high christian endeavour, and
many prisoners owe their reclamation to the light from the torch of
promise which these Visitors hold high in their work of encouragement
and persuasion to turn from the paths of crime and evil-doing.

Lady Visitors are appointed by the Commissioners, subject to the
concurrence of the Visiting Committee and of the Prison Authorities,
with a view to the regular and systematic visitation of _all_ Female
prisoners, soon after reception, during sentence, and shortly before
discharge.

In order that the assistance of Lady Visitors may be utilised to the
fullest extent, Governors, Matrons, and Chaplains are instructed to
inform all female prisoners, and to encourage them to avail themselves
of the privilege within their reach.

It is the duty of the Chaplain at each Prison to endeavour to secure a
sufficient number of Lady Visitors to attend to the needs of all female
prisoners, and to take care, by a judicious distribution of duties,
that all deserving cases receive consideration, and that no conflict
or competition arises in the attention given to any individual case.
As it is obvious that most practical good is likely to follow the
ministrations of the Lady Visitors if their attention is concentrated
mainly on the welfare of the prisoners on discharge, and if any
influence that may be acquired over the prisoners while in prison is to
be continued after release, it is desirable, in this connection, that
use should be made of the services of any ladies who may be attached to
the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society. In order to secure the better
direction of the services of Lady Visitors, and to avoid any clashing
of duties, it has been found advisable that their work should be under
the guidance of the Chaplain or Prison Minister.

Arrangements may be made for a Lady Visitor to deliver, or arrange for,
addresses or lectures, to selected classes of prisoners, on any moral
or useful subject.

A book is kept for the use of Lady Visitors, in which they may make any
record they think desirable as to the action taken by them in regard
to any prisoner, and in which they may enter any suggestion they may
have to offer with regard to the industries on which prisoners could be
employed, having regard to the needs of the locality and their welfare
on discharge.

But it is to concentration of effort on the younger cases that the
most fruitful and lasting results must be due. The application of the
Borstal System to the young female, is being strenuously pursued at
the Aylesbury Institution and is full of promise for the future. Here
again the Prison authority relies greatly on the influence and aid of
voluntary lady workers both inside the Institution and on discharge.
The Visiting Committee, over which a lady presides, in addition to
duties, judicial and other, prescribed by statute, take a keen personal
interest in the work of the Institution,--laundry and domestic work,
cooking classes, gardening, drill, school,--and make themselves
acquainted with the personal character and history of the inmates.
These, on discharge, pass into the hands of a Ladies' Committee of the
Borstal Association who have already made the preliminary arrangements
necessary for suitable disposal. As a rule, a girl passes straight
to work, be it domestic service, or factory, or workshop. A social
worker in the district, who places her services at the disposal of the
Association, and known as an "Associate," is placed in touch with the
case, for help or advice at any time. If possible, also, arrangements
are made that the girl may benefit by association with any guild, club,
or adult school, under the influence of which a relapse into idle or
criminal habits might be prevented.

The Annual Reports of the Borstal Association show that on an average
about 59 per cent. of girls discharged annually from Aylesbury are
reported as satisfactory at the end of the year; 30 per cent. as
unsatisfactory, and about 11 per cent. as having been reconvicted.

On the question of permanency of results of Borstal treatment, the
following figures will be of interest:--132 girls were discharged from
Aylesbury between 1st January, 1910, and 31st March 1914. In 1915 their
records showed that 75 (or 56.8 per cent.) had not since been reported
as reconvicted, and were satisfactory when last heard of; 17 (or 12.9
per cent.) were unsatisfactory when last heard of, but had not been
reported as reconvicted; 35 (or 26.5 per cent.) had been reported as
reconvicted; 2 had died; and 3 were sent to asylums. That is to say,
over 69 per cent. had not been reported as reconvicted.

These figures are full of hope for the future when it is considered
with what material we are dealing. It is nearly, if not quite, certain
that if, as was till lately the case, these girls had on the occasion
of each repeated offence, been made subject to a mere repetition of
short sentences of imprisonment in the Local Prisons, they would,
without exception, have drifted hopelessly and inevitably into the
ranks of "professional" recidivism. To pick up and save even one from
such a fate is a great and praiseworthy act, bringing as much honour to
the worker who achieves it, as advantage to the community, which is at
least freed from this one contaminating and hurtful influence: but to
save even more than half, and as time goes on, it is hoped even more
than that, is a work, not only of substantial material benefit to the
State, and in that way patriotic in the best sense of the word, but a
splendid example of human charity and effort, which is determined that
these young erring creatures shall not glide down the easy current of
shame and dishonour without at least an attempt to rescue and save.

As in the case of male offenders, there is also in operation at all
Prisons, a "Modified" Borstal System for females, which may be applied
up to the age of 25. The later age than in the case of males is due
to the great desire of the Commissioners to segregate, as far as
practicable, all young females from the contamination which experience
shows must arise from any association with the older females, versed
in crime and ever ready to corrupt, by their precept and example, the
younger ones, who are still hesitating which path to choose.

The instructions regulating this class provide that cases up to the age
of 25 may be admitted if the Authorities at the Prison are of opinion
that benefit would result therefrom, and that no prejudicial influence
would be exerted on younger inmates in the class. Admission to the
class up to the age of 21 is the rule rather than the exception, but
in any case where it is shown that a girl has rejected former efforts
made to reclaim her, or that she is known to be likely to exert a
corrupting influence on others, or that her manner or disposition, or
previous history, are such as to make it probable that she will do
so, the Authorities are empowered to exclude her from the class. The
rules provide that such cases as are excluded shall be kept apart, as
far as possible, from adult recidivist prisoners, and may, if thought
desirable, receive special treatment. Care is to be taken that no
prisoner shall be allowed to think that she is considered to be past
hope or cure.

It is not likely, of course, that the same results can be obtained by
the application of the "Modified" System to short sentences in local
prisons, but there is satisfactory proof that the "individualization"
of each case as it comes to prison, the care and attention given, the
encouragement of any showing the least symptom of a desire to reform,
are bearing fruit.

The fall in the annual number of young women, 16-21, received into
prison on conviction, which has taken place during the fifteen years
prior to the War, _viz_:--from 2,310 to 858, or 63 per cent., may
be largely attributable to this special work in Prisons. It is to
be regretted that during the War there has been a tendency for this
particular age category to increase, the number received last year
having risen to 1,098. But it may confidently be expected that with
a return to normal conditions, this total will again decrease. Had
not the terrible calamity of War impeded progress, steps would have
been taken earlier to greatly improve and develop the State methods
of dealing with young female offenders; but, as already stated, in
view of the remarkable fall in the number of women sentenced to penal
servitude, it has lately been found possible to transfer the female
convicts from Aylesbury to a Wing of Liverpool prison, thus releasing
the establishment entirely for use as an Institution under the Borstal
Act. The powers conferred by this Act are largely extended by Section
10 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. Whereas the former
Act applies only to persons of criminal habits or tendencies convicted
on indictment, this Section allows a sentence of detention in a Borstal
Institution to be imposed in a case where an offender is summarily
convicted of an offence for which a sentence of one month or upwards,
without the option of a fine, can be imposed, but before an offender
can be dealt with under this Section, it must _appear_ that there is
criminal habit or tendency, and it must be _proved_ that there has been
a previous conviction of an offence or a failure to observe a condition
of recognizance on being discharged on probation. This same Act also
raises the minimum period of detention in a Borstal Institution to two
years, and increases the period during which a case may be kept under
supervision after discharge.

Owing to this extension of powers under the Borstal Act a larger number
of young women offenders are now falling within the meshes of the net,
thus widely and wisely spread, the daily average having risen from 87
to 184.

In anticipation of such an increase, an extension of the scope of
employment under skilled superintendence is being gradually introduced.
Work in the open air, gardening, farm-work, tending poultry and stock,
will be specially encouraged.

It is devoutly to be hoped that as the Borstal System for women
develops, the march of the annual army of female recidivists
through the prisons may be arrested. It can only be stopped by
the concentration of a great effort, legal, official, and moral,
on the young female offender. The easy irresponsible method of
awarding sentences of a few days or weeks for repeated offences of a
trivial nature is no remedy for the evil. The Borstal System catches
comparatively few of these cases. If the age were extended, say to
30, in the case of women, and the principle of Reformatory sentences
were approved by Parliament in every case where criminal tendency was
observable, and a State Reformatory for this purpose were established,
as it has lately been established in some States of America, then
there might be some hope of rescuing from crime a larger percentage
of women than is likely, or even possible, under the present system.
By the daily operation of the law, sending these cases repeatedly and
hopelessly to Prison, and from the present limitation of age (21) for
the admission of women offenders to special reformatory treatment
(_i.e._, under periods of detention long enough to give a chance of
eradicating the evil tendency), no really great impression is going to
be made on the girl or woman offender. The heavy roll of commitments
to Prison and re-commitments will only cease when the State boldly
recognizes the essential difference between the instincts and motives
leading to criminal acts in the two sexes, and adapts its method of
punishment and reformation accordingly.

The desirability of employing women for the superintendence and control
of female prisoners is recognized. At the time when the Departmental
Committee on Prisons, 1895, made their report, nearly 50,000 women were
being committed annually to Prison, but that Committee did not consider
that "the time of a Lady Inspector of Prisons would be sufficiently
employed, but thought that a Lady Superintendent might be appointed who
could not only do the ordinary work of inspection, but who could also
be responsible for the general supervision of female prison industry,
and for such other duty as the Secretary of State might consider it
desirable to assign her." Since that date the annual committals have
fallen by 78 per cent., the total commitments for last year being only
12,000; but the Commissioners have, for a considerable time, been
assisted by a Lady Inspector of Prisons, and at each female prison
there is a voluntary body of Lady Visitors, whose duties are referred
to above; the welfare of young girls at the Aylesbury Institution, both
during detention and on release, is the subject of anxious care and
supervision by Lady Members of the Visiting Committee. Lately a new
rank of Lady Superintendent has been created among the discipline staff
of the largest female prisons. The presence of Ladies on the Visiting
Committees of Prisons is in every way desirable, and it is hoped that,
in the near future, the qualification of Justice of the Peace having
been extended to the female sex, all Prisons for females may be subject
to the visitation and jurisdiction of Lady Justices. It is recognized
also that the medical care of females in penal institutions should be
entrusted to Lady Doctors. We have been fortunate in securing very able
and highly skilled women both at Holloway and Aylesbury, and their
appointment has been an undoubted success.

CHAPTER XI

EDUCATIVE, MORAL, AND RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES IN PRISON.

In a former Chapter I have referred generally to the efforts made in
English Prisons to apply such methods as are practicable, having regard
to the average shortness of sentences, and to the fugitive character of
the population, for the uplifting of prisoners educationally, morally,
and spiritually.

It is a commonplace, dating from the middle of the eighteenth century,
that we must educate our prisoners, as it was also the common
injunction that we must inspire them with the teachings of religion,
and the habit of industry.

At a time when education was the privilege of the few, and no national
system was in existence, and when the average length of sentence gave
opportunity for methodical and continuous teaching, it was reasonable
that advantage should be taken of a long period of enforced custody
to establish a system, where, at least, the many illiterates coming
to prison could be taught the simple lessons of reading, writing, and
arithmetic.

Records, however, do not show that before all prisons passed under
the control of the Government a very serious effort had been made
to grapple even with illiteracy, to say nothing of schooling in
the more advanced subjects. When the Local Prisons were taken over
by the Government in 1878, there were only 50 schoolmasters in 113
prisons. 'Hard Labour' was the dominant note in prison administration,
regardless of the obvious fact that simple manual labour unaided by
the increased aptitude that follows upon even a moderate cultivation
of the mind, will not rehabilitate a man or enable him to rise to a
higher level of existence. Half-an-hour a week, or even a quarter of
an hour, was all that could be set aside from the demands of labour
for such a purpose as teaching a prisoner to read or write, or perform
those simple calculations in money, by which he could regulate the
spending power of his wages, or estimate his domestic budget.

No great advance was made even after the Government assumed control,
though the subject of education in prison was, on more than one
occasion, the subject of special inquiry.

Even at that time, the question was considered whether the passing
of the Compulsory Education Act in 1870 had not relieved the Prison
Authority of the duty of adult teaching in its elementary sense, and
whether it might not be assumed that all persons coming in later life
to prison had acquired a sufficient learning in elementary subjects in
the National schools. But statistics showed that in 1880 the number of
illiterates coming to prison was practically the same as before the
passing of the Act--about 33 percent., while the number of those who
could only read and write imperfectly was no less than 62 per cent. It
was obvious that some years must elapse before elementary teaching in
Prisons could be dispensed with. If we examine statistics since 1880,
it is true that we find a large decrease in the number of illiterates
coming to prison. In 1890 there were 37,000 committed who could neither
read nor write: in 1900, 28,000, and in 1913 (the last recorded year)
the number had fallen to 18,000,--representing for each year 25, 19,
and 13 per cent. of the total committals, respectively. The bulk of the
prisoners fall within the category of those who "can read and write
imperfectly, or with moderate proficiency," and concurrently with the
decrease in the proportion of illiterates received, these have risen
from 72 per cent. in 1890, and 75 per cent. in 1900, to 82 per cent. in
1913. But the remarkable feature of these statistics is that, after 50
years of compulsory education, over 18,000 should be committed annually
who are unable to read or write. These disappointing figures may be
explained in various ways. Either a large number of those forming the
criminal class, by reason of vagrancy and absence of settled home
and life, slip through the meshes of the educational net: or, in the
years between the school-leaving age and the apprenticeship of crime,
they forget all they have learnt: or the rudiments of learning are
not impressed with sufficient force and concentration in the tender
years, when impressions are most likely to remain. Educational experts
may argue as to this, but the fact remains that, judged by prison
statistics, our costly and elaborate system of public education is not
at least producing the results which were anticipated by those who
dared to think fifty years ago that elementary teaching would be no
longer required in Prisons; and so the Prison authority still remains
in a sense an educational authority; but the _rôle_ it plays is not
ambitious, and does not aim higher than to teach the illiterate to read
and write, and in the small space and opportunity given, to raise to a
higher standard those who are just a little better than illiterates.

For many years all prisoners under the age of 40, and with sentences of
three months and over were taught in prison. Experience has, however,
shown that better results can be obtained by concentrating attention on
the young, and on them even if the sentence is quite short--more than
a month. The rule is now to confine education to those under 25 years
of age; with power to admit older prisoners to the privilege, where the
circumstances of the case would promise any practical result.

At the present time, it is estimated that about 5,000 prisoners under
25 in a year, who on reception are below Grade III. of the National
Code pass through the schools, and, as a result of such education as
will be given, about 33 per cent. succeed in passing out of this Grade
in a year, while 74 per cent. pass one or more grades during the year.

Our teaching staff is recruited from our own discipline staff.
Capable and intelligent warders are given the opportunity, subject
to satisfying the Civil Service Commissioners that they possess the
necessary literary requirements, of entering the Schoolmaster class.
Having passed such literary test, they are appointed for six months,
when their ability to teach is tested by the Chaplain of the Prison,
and then, subject to confirmation by the Chaplain-Inspector of Prisons,
they pass into the permanent Schoolmaster grade.

It is not an ambitious scheme, nor is it pretended that our
Schoolmasters can compete in learning and ability to teach with the
trained teacher of our public schools; but, given the nature of the
task they have to perform with a fugitive class, many of whom are not
desirous to learn, or to re-learn what they have once been taught, it
may be stated that they adequately fulfil the purpose for which they
are appointed.

Although the classes are now limited to the younger prisoners, there
is, of course, an infinite diversity in the standard of education,
ranging from the illiterate to the half-educated, and those who having,
perhaps, been taught, have forgotten what they once knew. Formerly,
education was given to each individual prisoner in cells; but now it is
given in class. The best plan would probably be to revert to cellular
teaching in the case of those who, from the absence of a common
standard of education, cannot usefully be taught in class. Here, again,
'individualization' is asked for. In the case of the younger prisoners,
now collected in depôts under the "Modified" Borstal System, we have
lately made arrangements with the local education Authority to lend us
a trained teacher, who comes in the evening after hours of labour, and
conducts what is of the nature of a "Continuation Class," the teaching
being adapted to the requirements of each. This plan has worked very
successfully and might, with advantage, be extended. The whole question
is now under consideration.

But elementary teaching in prisons forms only a small part of the
moral influences which we seek to bring to bear in Prisons. The Prison
Libraries are stocked with suitable books both of technical instruction
and of general literature, and prisoners are encouraged to make full
use of them under the guidance of Chaplains and Schoolmasters. Note
books and pencils are provided for those who wish either to make a
special study of some particular subject, or to maintain knowledge
which they previously possessed; and if the necessary books are not
in the library, permission can be obtained for them to be supplied
by the prisoner or his friends. The privilege of selecting books
from the library is associated with the Progressive Stage System,
_i.e._, depends on industry and conduct, but, generally-speaking,
a well behaved prisoner would be allowed two books a week, in
addition to those which form a permanent part of his cell equipment,
_viz_:--devotional and school books, and books of moral and secular
instruction. Under this latter head, a Chaplain is given a wide
discretion to allow practically all kinds of books, except works
of fiction, _i.e._, histories, biography, and science, political,
social, and physical. Generally speaking, fiction would be reserved
as a privilege to be earned by good behaviour. Lectures calculated to
elevate and instruct prisoners are given from time to time either by
some member of the prison staff or by lecturers from outside. Such
lectures are given weekly during the winter months to those under
Borstal treatment and are frequently illustrated by lantern slides.
The subjects cover a wide range. Sometimes there is a description of
life in foreign or uncivilised countries, or an account of travel and
adventures by land, sea, or air, by men who are speaking of their own
personal experience; or a talk about the wonders of science. At other
times, they are of a more practical character and deal with various
trade processes, or domestic work, housekeeping, cooking, hygiene, and
so on. There is seldom any great difficulty in finding persons who are
experts in these and other subjects and who are very willing to place
their services at the disposal of the Chaplains.

As a step beyond this, the experiment has been successful in large
prisons of allowing men to meet together under the presidency of the
Chaplain, or other official, for the purpose of a debate or discussion
on a subject chosen by themselves. The proceedings are conducted on
the lines of similar meetings in free life, and as long as due order
is maintained, there is no objection to the expression of natural
feelings. The object of these efforts is not merely educational.
Experience has shown that they have a psychological effect, which is
even of greater importance and value. They provide healthy food for
thought during many solitary hours, and so tend to prevent morbid
introspection, brooding over wrongs or worrying about family affairs;
they break the unavoidable monotony of institution life, and provide
a mental stimulus which is of the utmost value. But more than this,
the mere fact that a prisoner is trusted, if only for a short time,
to control himself without the restraint of authority, is of immense
value in building up that self-respect, without which restoration is
impossible.

In addition to these lectures and classes which usually take place
in the evenings after working hours, selected prisoners may be
withdrawn from labour twice a week to attend Bible or other classes of
instruction conducted by the Chaplain.

Recognising that the sanctions of religion are the true basis of all
reformatory work, every effort is made to render the daily Services
in Chapel as bright and instructive as possible. For this purpose,
frequent advantage is taken of the help of outside preachers, not
necessarily clergy, in the delivery of religious and moral addresses;
also choirs, singers and instrumentalists are invited to take part in
the Services. The Church Army is specially helpful in this way, and
also in sending their trained Evangelists at the invitation of the
Chaplains to conduct special Missions to prisoners.

Every week a short resumé of the week's news is given by the Governor
or Chaplain, and this practice has been found to react favourably on
the temper and attitude of prisoners towards authority, as showing that
it is not desired to exclude them, though prisoners, from news of the
outside world.

The annual reports of our Chaplains in nearly every prison, furnish
accounts of strenuous efforts, apart from their usual ministrations,
for the moral uplifting of their charges. The following is a summary
of such efforts recorded during twelve months at a large Metropolitan
Prison for males--an eight-day mission: 15 selected preachers occupied
the chapel pulpit: 7 attendances by Choral Societies, bands, &c.: 28
special lecturers attended to give secular addresses to lads: a weekly
Bible Class or moral lecture to lads by the Chaplain: the organization
of a weekly debate among selected prisoners: the floral decoration of
the Chapel, &c. Besides all this, there is the personal interest in
the prisoner after his release, and many Chaplains and others speak of
a correspondence maintained which furnishes abundant testimony that
the labour of love during a prisoner's stay in prison has not been in
vain. Year by year this great volume of work goes on in our Prisons:
it is quietly and unostentatiously performed, and is probably little
known and insufficiently appreciated by the general public; and for
this reason a somewhat detailed account may not be out of place in an
Account of the Prison System of this country.

CHAPTER XII.

LABOUR IN ENGLISH PRISONS.

A great change has taken place in the system of labour both in Convict
and Local Prisons during the last twenty-five years. In Convict Prisons
this change is due, not, as in Local Prisons, to a different policy or
to changes in the law, but to the fact that not only has there been a
great reduction in the number of persons sentenced to Penal Servitude,
but the opportunity for employment on what was known generally as
"Public Works," _e.g._, the excavations at Chatham, the breakwater at
Portland, the Dockyard extension at Portsmouth, the Forts at Borstal,
has largely disappeared. Such Works in the early days of the English
Convict system greatly facilitated the purpose of the Administration
by affording means for carrying into effect the object of a sentence
of Penal Servitude, which was to create a deterrent effect on the
prisoner himself by the execution of a hard day's work, to develop his
intelligence by his employment on interesting and productive labour
and to give facilities for acquiring a knowledge of all those trades
which the construction of such Works involved. Moreover, having regard
to the valuable character of the Works referred to, it was possible in
those days largely to recoup the cost of maintaining the Prisons. Thus
the value of the labour of convicts at Portland, Portsmouth, Chatham
and Borstal during the year 1880-1 amounted to £124,000, exclusive
of the value of what is known as the domestic service of Prisons,
such as baking, cooking, washing, &c., while the cost of maintaining
those Prisons in the same year was £147,000. It has never at any time
been regarded as an axiom in this country, however, that all prison
labour should be remunerative or that the primary object of a Prison
was to make it self-supporting, and for this reason, in those Prisons
controlled by the Government, (that is Convict Prisons only prior to
the Prison Act of 1877), the principle of competition with free labour
was not admitted on such a scale that reasonable ground of complaint
could arise as to undue interference with the outside market. The
"Contract" system by which goods are manufactured for outside firms
with the use of machinery, or under the supervision of the agents
of those firms, is unknown in English State Prisons; and from early
days to the present time, there has been no change of policy in this
respect. The largest prison in the country, Wormwood Scrubs, was built
entirely by convict labour, between 1874 and 1890. It has cellular
accommodation for 1418 prisoners. Most of the bricks were made by
prison labour on an adjacent site leased for the purpose. The massive
blocks of stone used for the chapel, gate, and other buildings were
quarried by convicts at Portland and Dartmoor: iron castings were
prepared at Chatham and Portland. The average cost per cell was £70. 7. 0,
as compared with a mean rate of £164 per cell paid to contractors
elsewhere. Although no Public Works of importance have been undertaken
for many years, the constant reconstruction of, and other works in
connection with, the Convict Prisons of Aylesbury, Portland, Dartmoor,
and Parkhurst have continued to engage a large percentage of the labour
at the disposal of the Authorities. Thus of the value of the labour
performed in Convict Prisons during 1912-13--a total of £63,000--more
than half was in connection with building and quarrying work, the rest
being divided between manufactures, farm and domestic service in the
proportion of £16,000, £5,000, and £9,000 respectively. Apart from the
fall in the numbers of the convict population, which now represents
not more than a daily average of 1,500 persons, (whereas in the period
of Public Works, strictly so called, to which I have referred, it was
about 10,000) there has been a remarkable change in the physique and
personnel of persons sentenced to penal servitude. From a medical
census of the inmates of Convict Prisons taken in 1881, no less than
three-fourths of the convicts were fit for hard labour of any kind,
while only about one-thirtieth, or rather more than three per cent.,
were deemed unfit for any labour. An intermediate group of about
twenty-one per cent. were returned as fit for the lighter forms of
labour. A medical census of Convict Prisons taken in 1898 shows that
only fifty-six per cent. were fit for hard labour, while seven per
cent. were unfit for any labour and thirty-seven per cent. fit only for
light labour. The days are, therefore, past when Public Works can be
undertaken by large bodies of convicts either at the place of detention
itself or by transfer to other localities for this special purpose.
The last Public Work of this nature contemplated by the Government
was the building of the new harbour at Dover; but though the plan
advanced so far that a special prison was actually built at Dover for
the location of the necessary number of convicts, the idea was not
proceeded with chiefly on account of the great delay and slowness of
building operations which is inseparable from the employment of convict
labour. The result is that with the exception of quarrying stone,
which is still a distinctive feature of the convict labour at Portland
and Dartmoor, and reclaiming land for farming purposes (Dartmoor and
Parkhurst), the character of the labour in Convict Prisons is more
and more approximating to that in Local Prisons. Thus, if we compare
the work carried on at the Local Prison of Wormwood Scrubs and at
Parkhurst at the present time, we should find that much of the work was
practically the same for those undergoing the longer sentences, _e.g._,
a considerable number at each Prison would be employed as tailors,
smiths and fitters, shoemakers, bricklayers, labourers and carpenters.
In Convict Prisons, however, there was till recently no cellular
labour, and the hours of labour and the whole system of Administration
were adapted to the principle of outdoor associated labour. Now that
the quarries employ a continuously diminishing number, the system
of labour in both Convict and Local Prisons will be more and more
assimilated.

Labour in Local Prisons has quite a different history. These Prisons
did not come under Government control till 1878. The want of uniformity
in their management, leading to an inequality of punishment in
different parts of the country, was one of the principal arguments
used for the centralization of all Prisons in the hands of the State;
and it was specially marked in the matter of Prison labour. The
Parliamentary inquiry of 1863, which led to the passing of the Prison
Act 1865, while Local Prisons were still under the control of the
Local Authorities, laid great stress on this point. In some Prisons,
there was complete idleness: in some, unregulated association: in some
an active industry conducted with a view to commercial profit: and,
in some, a close and melancholy adherence to the rule of separate
confinement and its concomitant hard labour. Although, as before
stated, the phrase "hard labour" was adopted in Acts of Parliament
since the middle of the 18th century, its meaning has never been
accurately defined, and there was consequently a great variety in
its application. The Prison Act of 1865 attempted to define it, and
enacted that hard labour was to be of two classes. First Class,--mainly
treadmill, shot drill, crank, capstan, stonebreaking, to which every
male prisoner of the age of sixteen and upwards, sentenced to hard
labour, was required to be kept for at least three months and might be
kept for the whole of his sentence. Any other approved kind of labour
was called Second Class. This meant practically all forms of prison
employment exclusive of the special forms of penal labour prescribed
for the First Class. When the prisons were taken over by the Government
under the Act of 1877 it was found that at some Prisons, _e.g._
Winchester, practically the whole of the population were employed in
pumping, grinding and oakum picking. At Oxford, the treadmill, shot
drill and capstan were the order of the day. At Devizes, sixty-two
out of seventy-eight prisoners were engaged on the treadmill or on
oakum picking. At other Prisons the question of providing remunerative
employment received the keenest attention. One Prison competed with
another in finding a market for its produce. Governors and Officers
were encouraged to take an active interest in trade by bonuses or
other payments and the amount of trade profit was taken largely into
account by the Magistrates in dealing with applications for increase of
pay. At Wakefield an extensive mat trade was carried on in which the
sale averaged £40,000 a year. Steam-power was employed. A commercial
traveller was appointed to sell the goods, and the whole of the
industrial department of the prison was under the control of a trade
manager, who was provided with a staff of clerks and trade instructors.
The salaries of all those officers were paid out of the trade profits.
The trade manager had authority to award a gratuity not exceeding
half-a-crown to any prisoner on his discharge who had shown special
assiduity in the performance of his work, and the Governor could
supplement this to the extent of 17_s._ 6_d._, making it one pound in
all. It was in the power of the trade manager also to recommend the
grant of additional bread as a reward for marked industry. Diligent
long-term prisoners on their discharge were frequently provided for
in the way of clothes, and had their railway fares paid to their
destination. Cases have even been known of mutton chops being allowed
at Christmas time to exceptionally industrious men. Preston Prison
was another busy prison. It carried on a large trade, employed a
commercial traveller, and the Governor was allowed a trade agent at a
salary of £60 per annum. A taskmaster and assistant taskmaster also
formed part of his staff. The regulations provided that "with a view to
encourage habits of industry as well as to reward the honest efforts of
prisoners, and to enable such as desired to reform to have the means
of living after discharge until they can procure employment," the
Governor should be empowered to grant a sum of two shillings to every
prisoner who had performed his fixed task diligently and well during
the whole period of his sentence (being not less than three months) and
a further sum not exceeding two pounds for all work done in addition
to such fixed task. The allowances were:--for an extra square yard of
matting, 1_d._; for an extra ton of stone breaking, 2_d._; for every
extra coat made, 2_s._; for every extra pair of boots, 9_d._; and
so on. The same system prevailed at Bodmin, Bedford, Chester, Mold,
Chelmsford, Maidstone, Coldbath Fields, Holloway, Lewes, and Warwick.
Manchester had an agent paid by commission for the purchase of stores,
and the sale of manufactured articles. The Governor of Hereford
received ten per cent. on the net profits arising from the sale of the
manufactured goods, and the assistant turnkey had an extra allowance of
three shillings a week for acting as trade instructor. Then Kirkdale,
Strangeways, Leeds, Lewes, and many other prisons were furnished, in
addition to the ordinary disciplinary staff, with trade officers, whose
duty it was to instruct the prisoners in the various industries carried
on.

All this was altered when the Government assumed the complete control
of all Local prisons in England and Wales on the 1st of April 1878.

In connection with the strict and uniform system of discipline which
was introduced into every department of the Service, the granting
of allowances to officers and the payment of rewards to prisoners
were abolished, and in lieu of these rewards, the gratuity system,
which is explained in another chapter, was introduced. The actual
industries on which prisoners were employed remained much the same,
except that, later on, matmaking, which had been one of the principal
Prison industries, employing a daily average of nearly 3,000 workers,
had to be almost abandoned in consequence of an agitation which had
commenced in 1872 on the part of outside workmen, who complained that
the competition of Prison labour was seriously affecting their trade.
About this date, the oakum trade, on which the prisons throughout the
country had been able to rely for employment for many generations,
collapsed owing to the substitution of iron and steel for wood in the
building of ships. This industry employed between 3,000 and 4,000
prisoners, mostly those under sentences then considered too short to
admit of the teaching of any trade. At the same time, the Act of 1877
reduced the period of hard or penal labour to one month in the case
of those sentenced to hard labour. A larger body of prisoners thus
became eligible for the ordinary industrial employment of the Prison,
but these employments were still carried on in separation, and it was
not till twenty years later that the principle of associated labour
in local prisons was recognized and adopted. The public inquiry of
1894 into Prison Administration was a practical condemnation of the
separate or cellular system except for short periods. It swept aside
the old-fashioned idea that separate confinement was desirable on the
ground that it enables the prisoner to meditate on his misdeeds. It
held that association for industrial labour under proper conditions
could be productive of no harm, and this view was supported by the
fact that association for work on a large scale had always been the
practice at the Convict Prisons without being productive of dangerous
outbreaks by prisoners who as a class were less easy to control
than those in Local Prisons. At the same time the vexed question of
competition with free labour was examined, and representatives of
trade unions who appeared before the Committee, while admitting that
industrial labour was morally and physically beneficial to prisoners,
only urged that direct competition with outside labour should not be
allowed at cutting prices. They only asked that goods should not be
sold below the market price for the district or the standard price
elsewhere, and that every consideration should be shown to the special
circumstances of particular industries outside so as to avoid all
undue interference with the wages and employment of free labour. The
inquiry of 1894 marks a new starting point in the history of Prison
labour in Local Prisons, and steps were at once taken to give effect
to the leading recommendations of the Committee, which were broadly in
favour of the abolition of all forms of unproductive labour, cranks,
treadmills &c., and of a system of associated, in lieu of cellular,
labour. The problems involved were costly and difficult and only slow
progress could be made. The provision of workshops alone in Prisons
built for the most part on the cellular plan and for strictly cellular
purposes was a considerable undertaking. The abolition of cranks,
treadmills, &c., involved the necessity of finding work which should
be of an onerous and disagreeable character for prisoners during the
first month. The collapse of the matmaking and oakum trades increased
this difficulty. The form in which the labour statistics had hitherto
been rendered was thoroughly revised and the out-of-date labour price
list, which had previously been in use as the basis of valuation in
Convict Prisons, was abolished and a new list brought into operation
on the 1st April, 1897, applicable to both Convict and Local Prisons.
The old-fashioned "per diem" rates which had previously obtained in
Local Prisons and which often had no relation whatever to the amount
of work done, giving rise to fallacious valuations, were replaced
with what are called "per article" rates, the actual quantity of work
performed being now the basis of valuation. The institution of the
new rates in connection with the new scale of the tasks required of
prisoners now enables accurate calculation to be made as to the exact
degree of industrial output and efficiency at each Prison. At the same
time, a scheme was introduced for the payment of special allowances
to officers engaged in instructing prisoners. The effect of these
changes became at once apparent, and by the year 1900, there was an
increase of no less than thirty per cent. in the average earnings per
prisoner, as compared with what was earned four years previously when
the revision of manufacturing methods was first taken in hand, and in
that year the entire value of the labour in all branches, manufactures,
farms, building and domestic service showed an increase of nearly
£10,000. It was at this time that the demolition of treadmills had
begun to place at our disposal for workshop purposes the buildings in
which the treadmill had hitherto been worked, and steps were taken
for the development of work of a higher grade such as bookbinding,
printing, carpentry, tinsmithing, shoemaking, and tailoring, which
it was thought it would be possible to obtain by the friendly
co-operation of the Government Departments requiring such articles.
Hitherto the Government work undertaken had been more or less of a
simple and non-technical character and this must, of course, in the
main be looked to for the employment of the local prison population,
consisting largely of prisoners with short sentences, many being sent
to Prison for periods of a month or under. Only two or three per cent.
are for periods of more than six months. In spite of these drawbacks,
the progress resulting from the new organization has been remarkable.
There is a great improvement in the value of the manufacturing output
which in 1913-14, exceeded that of 1897 by no less than 88 per cent.,
and this has been achieved without entering into undue competition
with private traders. The payment of trade allowances to carefully
selected officers, though small in amount, has had a far reaching and
stimulating effect. Not only do the officers take the keenest interest
in their work, but the prisoners, now that they receive instruction in
interesting trades, are year by year increasing their average earnings.
It was estimated that the average earnings of a local prisoner in
1878, when the local prisons were taken over by the Government, was
£5. 18. 0. In the year 1904, the average earnings per prisoner per
annum reached £9. 18. 9. At this time the employment of local prisoners
in associated labour was further extended: where shops were not
available, they worked in the corridors, on the landings or at their
cell doors for several hours daily: the numbers so employed, starting
from comparatively low numbers in 1898, numbered more than 9,000 in
1911. The average number of prisoners for whom productive work is found
represented in 1913-14 about eighty-six per cent. of the population,
distributed as follows:--manufacturing department, 10,500: building,
1,700: prison service, 3,000: farm, 400.

By 1908, the average annual earnings per prisoner had increased to £13.
2. 0., and a gradual reduction had been made in the number engaged upon
what are generally known as low-grade industries. A certain amount of
unskilled and less remunerative labour is inevitable, owing to the
short sentences of so many prisoners, and the physical inability of
others. The work thus described consists of pea-sorting, bean-sorting,
coir-balling, coir-picking, cotton-sorting, oakum-picking,
rope-teasing, and wool-sorting. In 1908 about twenty-eight per cent.
of the total number of prisoners under the Manufacturing Department
were employed in this way. There was also a permanent non-effective
strength, amounting to about sixteen per cent. This number represents
prisoners under remand or awaiting trial, patients in prison hospitals,
ill-conducted prisoners under punishment, and prisoners not told off
for work pending medical examination, registration, &c.

The strong efforts made to increase the productivity of prison labour
during the period which had elapsed since the daily round of crank and
treadwheel was superseded by a rational system of tasked industrial
labour obtained a marked success in 1911, in which year there was a
record output of labour valued at over a quarter of a million pounds.
In this year, the average annual earnings per prisoner rose to £14. 9.
4. This average has since increased to £15. 1. 0. in the year 1919-20.
At the same time, there has been a decrease both of non-effective
strength, which has fallen to 15 per cent. of prison population, and of
the number employed on low-grade industries, which decreased to four
per cent. last year. In 1910, satisfactory results became manifest from
the development of female labour, the reorganization of which had been
proceeding steadily throughout the country. By permitting women to
proceed to associated labour at the commencement of their sentences, it
was found possible to do much of the domestic service by prisoners with
comparatively short sentences, thus freeing those undergoing longer
periods for skilled labour, _e.g._, dress-making, needle-work, or
other suitable occupation. Owing to the difficulty experienced during
1912-1913 in connection with the supply of materials for manufacturing
purposes, consequent upon serious labour disputes throughout the
world, there was a fall in that year in the aggregate earnings of
prisoners, which still, however, continued high, thanks to the orders
for skilled and unskilled work which are now placed at the disposal of
the Authorities by the various Government Departments--the General Post
Office, Admiralty, War Office, Office of Works, Stationery Office, &c.
The sympathetic help of these Departments, on which we are now able to
rely, furnishes a promising prospect for the present, and also for the
development of other industries in the future.

On the outbreak of war, drastic steps were taken to secure a maximum
output of war manufactures, _e.g._, the association of male prisoners
during the first month of sentence; extended hours of labour; and
optional employment on Sundays. The appeal which was made to the
patriotism of the prisoners met with a splendid response, and, in spite
of the large withdrawal of able-bodied men and women for national
services, the average value of prison labour was nearly £9 per head
greater than for the five years before the War. During the period of
the War, over 20 million articles were supplied to various Government
Departments.

The Great War has sadly impeded the development of the plan of
industrial training in Borstal Institutions which was originally
intended. Up-to-date modern workshops, plant and machinery have not yet
been fully installed, owing both to lack of the necessary material,
and to the shortage of labour caused by the enlistment of inmates
after a comparatively short period of detention. Rapid steps are now
being taken to make up for lost time: advantage has been taken of
the opportunity offered by the sale of materials of all sorts by the
Government Surplus Property Disposal Board to accumulate plant and
machinery, and it is hoped that before long the opportunity will be
given to intelligent lads to acquire a good elementary instruction
in various technical trades, which will facilitate their disposal
on discharge, and also instil, not only the habit, but the love of
work--the absence of which is in most cases the beginning of the
criminal career, born of idleness, and the example of bad early
associations. In the meantime, good work of an instructional character
has been forthcoming by the employment of lads in the various building
operations, often necessary at Borstal and Feltham, and the trades of
carpentry and smithing incidental thereto. There is also a considerable
area for farming operations at both places, with the advantage of
healthy outdoor life and hard manual labour. There is also a regular
system of instruction in market-gardening; and the various forms of
domestic service, cooking, baking, laundry, &c., and in the case of
those more fitted for sedentary occupation, tailoring, bootmaking, &c.

CHAPTER XIII.

(1) VAGRANCY: (2) INEBRIETY

(1) Vagrancy:--

Out of a curious medley of Tudor legislation has grown up the English
idea of Vagrancy. It is a survival of a long series of penal enactments
dating from the 14th century, which were directed against the desertion
of labourers from their respective districts when serfdom was breaking
down. Parliament interposed to prevent the rise of wages, resulting in
the free exchange of labour, and, at the same time, to check the acts
of disorder which followed in the train of Vagrancy and Mendicancy.
Further penalties against Vagrancy followed from the Elizabethan law
of Settlement. The wandering or vagrant man became, from the operation
of these causes, a suspected or criminal person, and, in the course of
time, vagrancy and crime became almost synonymous terms. It was not
till the beginning of the last century that steps were taken to repeal
and consolidate the numerous enactments--some fifty in number--relating
to the law of Vagrancy, which four centuries had accumulated. The
present law dates back as far as 1824, and bears the impress of the
old Tudor legislation. It is repressive in character, and its object
is to punish the offences such as wanderers are likely to commit. The
offences dealt with by the Act are numerous, and can be divided roughly
into three classes:--

(1) offences committed by persons of a disreputable mode of life, such
as begging, trading as a pedlar without a licence, telling fortunes,
or sleeping in outhouses, unoccupied buildings, &c., without visible
means of subsistence:

(2) offences against the Poor Law, such as leaving a wife and family
chargeable to the poor rate, returning to and becoming chargeable to
a parish after being removed therefrom by an order of the justices,
refusing or neglecting to perform the task of work in a workhouse, or
damaging clothes or other property belonging to the guardians; and

(3) offences committed by professional criminals, such as being found
in possession of housebreaking implements or a gun or other offensive
weapon with a felonious intent, or being found on any enclosed
premises for an unlawful purpose, or frequenting public places for the
purpose of felony.

The offences specially characteristic of the vagrant class are
"begging" and "sleeping-out," and it is with vagrancy used in this
sense that the Prison Authorities are chiefly concerned. Under the Act
any person begging in any public place is an idle and disorderly person
liable to imprisonment on conviction under the common law for one month
or a fine not exceeding £5: a person wandering abroad without visible
means of subsistence, or not giving a good account of himself is styled
a "rogue and vagabond" and may be punished with imprisonment up to
three months, or a fine not exceeding £25. There is a third category of
Vagrant, known as the Incorrigible Rogue, _i.e._, a person who has been
more than once convicted of any offence under the Act. Such a person
is convicted at a Court of Petty Sessions and committed till the next
Court of Quarter Sessions to receive sentence, which may be to a year's
further imprisonment or to corporal punishment.

There is another class known as Vagrant, which does not come within
the jurisdiction of the Prison Authority, and who is known as the
destitute wayfarer or casual pauper. This class presents a curious
history of quasi-penal legislation. No special provision was made for
his case when the whole question of the Poor Law was comprehensively
dealt with by the celebrated Act of 1834. During the years following
that Act, there was an alarming increase of non-criminal vagrancy, and
the principle of relieving the casually destitute in "special" wards
of the Workhouse was established, and, with it, the principle of a
prescribed task of labour in return for food and lodging. There was,
however, no power to detain for more than four hours after breakfast
on the morning after admission. It was not till 1871 that the period
of detention was prolonged to the third day after admission, on proof
that there had been more than two admissions during the month; it
then became necessary to frame regulations for the detention of the
casual vagrant on lines analogous to those under which the prisoner
is detained:--labour, dietary, task, &c., and the casual ward became
in many respects a sort of miniature Prison for very short sentences.
These provisions, however, of which the purpose was to render detention
in Casual Wards unattractive, especially to the habitual Vagrant,
did not succeed in diminishing the number of the class of destitute
wayfarer, who have for so long been a puzzle and a problem to the Poor
Law reformer. The average numbers received into Casual Wards on a given
day, for the five years ended 1876, had risen from 2,945 to 8,012 for a
similar period ended 1913.

The Casual Wards, moreover, furnish a considerable contingent each
year to the Prison population in the shape of persons who misbehave
as paupers, _i.e._, refuse to perform the allotted task, or destroy
workhouse clothes. There was at the beginning of the century a
remarkable increase in the number of persons committed for offences
against Workhouse regulations. For twenty years previously the numbers
had oscillated between two thousand and four thousand: in 1901 they
increased to over five thousand. The cry that the pauper prefers Prison
to Workhouse was again raised with the object of showing that the
conditions of Prison life were unduly attractive.

This agitation, combined with the fact that the number of persons
convicted of "Begging" and "Sleeping-Out" had risen, in the four years
from 1900 to 1903, from 12,631 to 20,729 led to some uneasiness in the
public mind, and a special Inquiry was ordered by the President of
the Local Government Board as to the law applicable to persons of the
Vagrant class, and as to the administration of that law. Previously
to this, the Prison Commissioners had reported to the Secretary of
State--"that they are not prepared to admit that the increase of the
vagrant class sent to prison is due to the fact that the conditions
of prison life are unduly attractive. Casual paupers as soon as they
become prisoners are subject to ordinary prison rules, not specially
devised for dealing with this class, but to meet the _average human
needs of thousands of prisoners of different classes, characters,
professions, and physique_; and being, as a rule, under very short
sentences, they receive the dietary and employment which practice
and experience has designed as being, on the whole, the best and the
most salutary for the early stages of a sentence of imprisonment.
This dietary is not, like that of a casual ward, for one night or two
nights, but part of a systematically graduated dietary table, intended
to embrace both short and long sentences. The dietary and task are
uniform throughout the country, varying only on medical certificate,
all prisoners on reception being subject to a careful medical
examination, and if they deviate from the normal standard of health
and fitness, a full task of labour is not imposed; and the medical
officer also has power to make additions to the dietary. In workhouses,
however, our inquiries show that there is no uniform scale of diet
or of task, and, so far as we are aware, these are not regulated by
medical certificate as is done in prison. Hence, two results follow:
Firstly, vagrants to whom the prison dietary and task and medical
practice are well known, from a probable acquaintance with many
prisons, openly profess a preference for the prison in those localities
where the workhouse conditions are more severe; and, secondly, it may
happen that on reception in prison the medical officer will not certify
the prisoner as fit for the labour, the refusal to perform which, at a
workhouse, has resulted in imprisonment."

"Again, the prison dietary is based on the opinion of experts, is
framed on scientific principles, so as to represent a sufficiency,
and not more than a sufficiency, of food for an average man doing an
average day's work. The scale of tasks is based on the experience
extending over many years of what can reasonably be expected from a
man working his hardest during a given number of hours per diem.
They believe that both the dietary and the tasks strike a fair
average, so as not to err on the side of severity or leniency. As
before stated, they can be varied on medical advice. The large and
almost preponderating rôle played by medical officers of prisons is
a factor that should be taken into account by anyone who attempts to
compare prison with workhouse life. Public opinion properly exacts
the most scrupulous care in all matters affecting the treatment of
prisoners, and medical officers are always liable to criticism from
outside persons for having failed to diagnose this or that malady,
to have ordered this or that dietary, or to have prescribed this or
that task. They dwell on this matter at some length, because they feel
it necessary to guard against the impression which might be formed
from the fact that a small section of the criminal community openly
prefer prison to the workhouse, that therefore prison life is unduly
attractive, that its conditions are not sufficiently rigorous, and that
the whole edifice should be reconstructed to meet the special case of
a few ne'er-do-wells who have lost all sense of self-respect, and to
whom it is a matter of indifference whether they spend a few nights in
a workhouse, a prison, or a barn. The diminution of this class is not,
in our opinion, likely to follow from any alteration of prison régime;
it might be modified if, as we venture to suggest, a more uniform
system were established in workhouses, and a greater discrimination
shown in the treatment of each case; it can only be effected gradually
by a general improvement of social conditions, pending which the
prison can only play a very insignificant part as a remedy for this
evil; for no one can seriously contend that vagrancy is going to be
cured by a succession of short sentences in the various local prisons
of the country. So generally is this felt to be the case that strong
expressions of opinion from responsible persons have been expressed
in favour of some specific remedies being provided by the State for
dealing with the admitted evil of professional vagrancy. It has been
suggested that labour colonies should be established on the Belgian
model, where the professional vagrant who now tramps from prison to
prison could be detained for a long period of time. This system it
is believed has worked well in some foreign countries. A necessary
condition of its application would be some system of identification,
so that a vagrant, after undergoing a sentence in one locality, should
not, as now, be able with impunity to commit another offence in another
locality, again become subject to a light penalty, and so on _ad
infinitum_. If such vagrants could be identified by finger prints or
otherwise, and systematically dealt with on indictment and sentenced to
a long term, something at least more effective than the present system
might result. We do not see how any system can be effective without an
elaborate method of identification."

The Report of the Committee of 1906 is an instructive and valuable
document. The Casual Ward system was condemned both on the grounds of
efficiency and of economy, and it was boldly proposed to substitute
the Police for Poor Law Authorities as the body responsible for local
relief and management of Casual Wards. The want of uniformity in the
administration of over 600 independent authorities had impressed the
Committee as the principal cause in the failure of the system, and it
was believed that by giving control of the Wards to the Police, and by
that way only, uniformity of treatment would be secured.

With regard to the punishment of Vagrancy also, the evidence showed
that there was no uniformity whatever in the sentences given for
Vagrancy offences. It was found that sentences given by stipendiary
magistrates appeared to be as little governed by any fixed principles
as those inflicted by unpaid justices. The great majority of the
sentences are for fourteen days or under. The evidence showed
conclusively that as a protection against vagrancy, short sentences
were indefensible. They quoted the opinion of the Prison Commissioners
that the "elaborate and expensive machinery of a prison, whose object
is to punish, and at the same time to improve, by a continuous
discipline and applied labour, cannot fulfil its object in the case of
this hopeless body of men who are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and
who, from long habit and custom, are hardened against such deterrent
influences as a short detention in prison may afford." They came
generally to the opinion that while it is evident that short periods of
imprisonment were useless, and long periods could not be given without
injustice, and having regard to the fact that prison conditions could
not be made deterrent to vagrant offenders, a complete change in the
treatment of Vagrancy was called for. Their principal proposal was
that the class of habitual Vagrants should be defined by Statute to
include any person who had been convicted three or more times within
a period of twelve months of certain offences, such as "Begging,"
"Sleeping-Out," or refusing task in Casual Wards, and that such a
person should be treated, as far as possible, not as a criminal, but as
a person requiring detention on account of his mode of life.

The Report on the Belgian Colony at Merxplas, which was issued by a
Committee appointed by the Lindsey (Lincs.) Quarter Sessions in 1903,
had strengthened the growing conviction in this Country that new
methods were necessary for dealing with habitual Vagrants, and a large
number of local authorities and Courts of Quarter Sessions addressed
memorials to the Secretary of State and the Local Government Board
in favour of the establishment of Labour Colonies for Vagrancy. The
members of the Committee visited such Colonies in Holland, Belgium, and
Switzerland, and though they came to the opinion that these Colonies,
whether voluntary or compulsory, exercised but little reformatory
influence, in spite of this, however, there was such a consensus of
opinion as to the evil resulting from unrestrained habitual Vagrancy
that the establishment of compulsory Labour Colonies in England and
Wales was recommended. They state in their report, "even if they are
not successful in achieving greater reformatory effects than the
existing labour colonies abroad, we think that at least they may clear
the streets of the habitual vagrant and loafer, may make him lead a
more useful life during his detention, and may offer a real deterrent
to those starting on a life of vagrancy." At the same time, they urged
the great importance of a system of identification, by which the
habitual vagrant could be recognized and dealt with. The finger-print
system would furnish an easy method, and would only entail that any
person charged with a vagrancy offence should be remanded for a few
days to enable information as to previous convictions to be obtained.
Any inconvenience that might be caused in the first instance by the
remand of any person charged with a vagrancy offence would be fully
compensated for by the ultimate results. The fact that no action has
been taken upon the elaborate inquiry of 1906 goes to show that the
sequestration, under strict control, of the habitual vagrant is not
generally accepted as a solution of the evil, and it is a remarkable
thing that, while in most civilized countries the proper treatment
of Vagrancy has been the subject of so much thought and discussion,
as in Belgium and Switzerland and other countries, and of practical
expedients for the protection of the community from this _plaie
sociale_, yet in England, Vagrancy is still dealt with and punished
under the old law of 1824, a law which has little relation to the
facts, customs, and habits of the present day, which only requires that
where a vagrant shows by his actions that he is either a nuisance or
a danger, there shall be power at law to bring him before the Courts.
Although the magistrate may give him three days', or three months'
imprisonment, or Quarter Sessions order him to be flogged, it remains a
matter of indifference; and so long as public opinion is in this state
regarding the question, it is not likely that Parliament will intervene.

Conditions prevailing during the War have caused a striking
illustration to be furnished showing how the general demand for labour
which prevailed has had the effect of practically clearing the prisons
of the Vagrant convicted of Begging and Sleeping-Out. The numbers
proceeded against for these offences had risen steadily for nearly
20 years until 1910, and for a number of years prior to the War had
averaged over 37,000 annually, furnishing in 1913 no less than 11 per
cent. of the total receptions into prison, though from some Counties
the percentage was much greater, _viz_:--from Lincoln, 66; Cornwall,
58; and from many others over 30. Since that date, this large body
of Vagrants in prison has fallen by no less than 93 per cent.,
_viz_:--from 15,000 in 1913-14 to 1,066 in 1918-19.

For a few years before the War, however, a decrease had been noted.
By some it was attributed to the growing opinion among Magistrates
as to the futility of very short sentences: by others, to the fact
that recent alterations in the Prison régime had rendered a few days'
sojourn in Prison more irksome than formerly: others also considered
that the gradual adoption by various police authorities of the
Way-Ticket system, (the object of which is to enable the needy wayfarer
to move quickly through the county towards his destination and to
provide him on his route with lodging, supper and breakfast at the
casual ward, and with a mid-day meal, thus removing all necessity for
begging), was a cause of diminishing the offence of Begging in public
places. Others were of opinion also, that the Insurance Act, by which a
Magistrate has proof of whether a man is a bonâ fide worker or tramp,
has led to a greater individualization in the case of Vagrants brought
before the Courts, and correspondingly to the diminution in the number
committed to Prison. But an examination of statistics, spread over
a long period, shows that the rise or fall of Vagrancy offences and
other minor charges, is chiefly determined by the prevailing rate of
unemployment in the country. Thus, in the years of trade depression
which culminated in 1909, and which showed a very high percentage of
unemployment, the number proceeded against for Begging and Sleeping-Out
also reached the highest recorded total, _viz_:--45,408. Although
this number is very great, there was, in addition, an enormous total
of persons of vagrant habit, _i.e._, with no settled place of abode,
appearing in criminal statistics at this time charged with offences
other than Begging and Sleeping-Out. An inquiry made about this time
showed that of the male Local Prison population _on a given day_
(14,632), no less than 4,411, or 30 per cent. (including 695 convicted
of Begging and Sleeping-Out) had no settled abode, of whom 82 per cent.
had been previously convicted, and 1,420, or 32 per cent., were classed
as _habitual_ vagrants. It is not surprising to find, therefore, that,
with the rapid fall in the percentage of unemployment, which set in
in 1910, and has continued since, until during the War, when, owing
to the abnormal conditions prevailing, there was abundant work for
all, the number of persons actually charged with Vagrancy (Begging and
Sleeping-Out) should have fallen in 1918 to only 2,651, and that, at
the same time, a great decrease in crime should be recorded also. (Vide
Chapter XVII).

So far as non-criminal vagrancy is concerned, active steps have lately
been taken by the Local Government Board with a view of introducing
greater uniformity in the administration of the Casual Wards, at least
so far as the Metropolis is concerned. An order was issued in November
1911 vesting the control and management of the Casual Wards in the
Metropolitan Asylums Board. The Board appointed a special Committee to
give effect to the Order, and at once took steps to provide for the
uniformity of all the Casual Wards committed to their charge, which had
hitherto been administered by the separate local Boards of Guardians.
The results have been very remarkable. Of the twenty-eight casual wards
available on the 31st March, 1912, only six remained in use by the end
of 1919, the average number of inmates accommodated on a given day
at the end of the years named having fallen from 1,114 to 82 during
the period. The comparative accommodation available is shown in the
following table:--

--------------+----------------+----------------+----------------
| 31 Mar., 1912. | 31 Dec., 1913. | 1 Jan., 1917.
--------------+----------------+----------------+----------------
Men | 1,136 | 627 | 286
Women | 402 | 177 | 92
Double Beds | 110 | 57 | 28
--------------+----------------+----------------+----------------
Total | 1,648 | 861 | 406
--------------+----------------+----------------+----------------

The Metropolitan Asylums Board, in their report for 1912, had no
hesitation in expressing the view that the decline of casual pauperism
in London is due to the unification of the Casual Ward Authorities in
the treatment of London as a homogeneous whole under an absolutely
centralized system. The Report confirms the conclusions arrived at by
the Committee of 1904 with regard to classification and treatment. They
report as follows:--"First there is the bonâ fide working man in search
of work, and we have no reason to doubt the estimates which placed the
proportion of this class at under 3 per cent. of the whole. Secondly,
come those who undertake casual labour for a short time, but will not
or cannot undertake continued work. This type soon degenerates into the
habitual vagrant unless deterred, as we hope under present conditions
he is being, from the continual frequenting of casual wards. The third
class is the 'work-shy' or habitual vagrant who professes to look for
work but has no desire to find it. Amongst this number are many who
although strong and able-bodied, deliberately embark upon a career of
idleness and of alternation between casual ward and prison at such an
early age as twenty years. They are often qualified and able to work
and have been assisted over and over again until they are given up
as hopeless and their papers marked 'prefers to walk the streets.'
Further reference is made to this class of habitual vagrants in the
section discussing the question of punishments, where it is pointed out
that neither casual ward nor prison exercises the slightest punitive
or deterrent effect. It is certain that the community need have no
compunction about applying to this class so-called severe measures of
compulsory detention and work for indefinite periods, and it must be
remembered that for vagrants, who will not have households of their
own, who have but one object in all their wicked and perverse lives--to
exist without work at the expense of their industrious neighbours--we
are taxed to provide board and lodging. Lastly, there is the class of
old and infirm persons who are unemployable, who cling to the little
liberty left to them by going from casual ward to casual ward in
preference to entering the workhouse infirmaries. Between the 1st May
and the 31st December, 1912, thirty-three men over fifty, including
twelve over sixty, were admitted from forty to fifty-four times each in
the casual wards, and nine women aged from fifty to seventy years were
admitted over forty times each."

It remains to be seen whether this endorsement of the findings of the
Committee by the Authorities of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, who
have given such close and practical attention to the subject, will
influence opinion toward the severe measures of compulsory detention
which are recommended. Prior to the War the number of persons sentenced
at Quarter Sessions as Incorrigible Rogues was increasing, the average
number for the five years ended 1913 having been 618, as compared with
398 for the preceding five years. This increase may indicate greater
attention on the part of the Courts towards repressing the evil.
Although there is no system of identification for the purpose of the
Vagrant Class at present in existence, there is evidence from a Prison
in the Midlands that, of 700 prisoners of the Vagrant Class received
during a period of 12 months some years ago, one-third had served from
two to seven imprisonments during the year. The total convictions
incurred by these 236 prisoners were as follows:--

From 2 to 4 previous convictions had been incurred by 95
" 5 " 10 " " " " " 66
" 11 " 20 " " " " " 58
" 21 to 30 " " " " " 6
" 31 " 50 " " " " " 9
67 " " " " " 1
87 " " " " " 1

It will be seen from the foregoing short account of the history of
Vagrancy that England has not yet adopted any special plan for dealing
with this problem on the lines with which we are familiar in other
Countries. It is possible that the growth of professional Vagrancy,
manifested in an increase of those offences which are now grouped
generically under the law of Vagrancy, may induce either the State
or the local Authority to protect itself against what is at once an
intolerable nuisance and a social danger, by the introduction of
a System which will allow of the sequestration, for indeterminate
periods, and under an austere system of detention, of that category of
Vagrants, who, by a series of convictions for criminal acts, prove to
be a danger to society. At the present time, however, no action in this
direction is being contemplated by the Government, and the efficacy of
imprisonment for the punishment of such offences is still relied upon,
in spite of increasing evidence that short sentences are ineffectual as
a remedy. So far as the casual pauper is concerned, it is likely that
the recent action of the Local Government Board in the unification of
the Casual Ward System will be further extended in that direction where
the policy, carefully and energetically carried out by the Metropolitan
Asylums Board, has already been fruitful in such excellent results.

(2) INEBRIETY:--

It is just fifty years ago since the need for special legislation for
the proper control and treatment of inebriates, on the grounds that
such persons contributed to crime and lunacy, and caused nuisance,
scandal, and annoyance to the public, became apparent. At that time
there was no process whereby an inebriate who became a public offender
could be dealt with, except by short sentences of imprisonment; and
no means whatever by which a private inebriate could be dealt with,
however much he constituted himself a cause of nuisance or distress
to his family. The futility of short sentences of imprisonment for
the reform of the inebriate offender was fully recognised by prison
authorities; by those who took an active interest in prison reform; and
by magistrates, before whom the same drunkards repeatedly came, in no
way improved by the only method then applicable; and was accentuated
by certain notorious cases of persons who served, without improvement,
hundreds of short sentences.

In 1872 a Select Committee of the House of Commons agreed that it had
been shown, by the evidence taken, that "drunkenness is the prolific
parent of crime, disease, and poverty" that "self-control is suspended
or annihilated, and moral obligations are disregarded; the decencies
of private and the duties of public life are alike set at nought; and
individuals obey only an overwhelming craving for stimulant to which
everything is sacrificed." No action was taken on this Report until
1878, when a Bill was presented to Parliament for dealing with the
more easy and less costly part of the recommendations, _viz_:--those
which concerned inebriates admitted voluntarily. No attempt was made
to deal with the really important class, _i.e._, persons convicted as
Habitual Drunkards. The Statute of 1879 did no more than permit the
establishment of Retreats, to which inebriates could be voluntarily
admitted. More than ten years later, in 1892, when the inadequate
protection afforded by the Law against the nuisance and the evil of
habitual inebriety led to a renewed agitation, especially against the
repeated infliction of short sentences for ordinary drunkenness, a Home
Office Committee of Inquiry, under the Presidency of an experienced
Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Mr. J.L. Wharton, M.P., was appointed.
This Committee aimed, as its composition shows, rather at an amendment
of the Criminal Law, and the abolition of recurring short sentences of
imprisonment, the futility of which had been fully demonstrated. At
this time there was less concern with regard to voluntary inebriates
who, on the application of relations or friends, might be compulsorily
committed to Retreats, than with the grave social evil which resulted
from the interminable commitment to prison of persons who by committing
offences against public order came within the action of the Criminal
Law, or who were proved guilty of ill-treatment and neglect of their
wives and families, and who failed to find the required sureties for
good behaviour.

The principle of the Act of 1898, which resulted from the findings
of this Committee, was that the protection of the community, and the
opportunity of reform, would only be obtained by relatively prolonged
detention. The Act accordingly legalized detention for a term not
exceeding three years (_a_) of persons convicted on indictment, where
a Superior Court is satisfied that the offence was committed under
the influence of drink, or that drink was a contributing cause, and
where the offender admits that he is, or is found by a Jury to be, a
Habitual Drunkard: (_b_) of persons convicted under various Statutes
enacting penalties for drunken conduct, who, within the preceding
twelve months, had been convicted summarily at least three times of
any such offence,--such persons to be confined either in a State
Reformatory or in a Reformatory established and maintained by local or
independent authority.

Action was at once taken by Local Authorities throughout the country to
provide for the reception of cases committed from Courts situate within
their jurisdiction, but in the hope and belief that such accommodation
would prove sufficient, no action was taken by the State to provide a
State Institution until it became manifest that some special means must
be created for dealing with cases which proved violent and intractable,
and with which the local authorities were unable to cope; it being
admitted that in order that these Reformatories might exercise the
most beneficial effect, they must be conducted under conditions as
far removed as possible from Prison methods and restrictions. Unless
the State were in a position to undertake the charge of such cases,
the only alternative would have been to discharge them, and, in fact,
such discharges did take place, and it was made clearly evident that
the establishment of a State Institution was essential to the proper
working of the Act. It was accordingly decided, in 1900, to build a
State Reformatory for female Inebriates on a plot of land contiguous
to the Female Convict Prison at Aylesbury, and for male Inebriates it
was decided to adopt a disused part of Warwick Prison which could be
entirely severed from all connection with the penal quarters.

It was decided to confine the use of the State Reformatories to the
reception and treatment of persons who had proved uncontrollable in the
Local Reformatories. They are conducted on prison lines only so far
as is necessary to ensure safe custody and control, and on strictly
asylum principles in all matters referring to the treatment of inmates.
The application of all restraint and punishment is controlled by the
medical aspect of the question. The majority of inmates are persons
who, through a long life of debauch, immorality, violence, and crime,
have given constant trouble to the Police in the streets and to Prison
Authorities during innumerable penal sentences. They are either too
old, too confirmed in their habits, or too demented to afford ground
for any hope of reformation. The value of the State reformatory will
not consist in the production of actual results, but its existence will
permit of certified institutions carrying on a work of reformation
otherwise impossible. It will also ensure the retention to the end of
their sentence of persons who are dangerous at large, a disgrace to
the streets, and an important source of contamination to others. The
pity is that at the end of such sentence the law requires the absolute
discharge from custody of persons known to be so dangerous and so
deleterious to the peace, morality, and health of the community at
large.

These State Institutions are under the control of the Prison
Commissioners, and form part of the Prison administration. They are
controlled by minute regulations, approved by Parliament, and their
function is to reconcile, as far as possible, a strict custody and
control with certain alleviating conditions and privileges for those
who deserve them. Their population is however, relatively small, the
average for the three years prior to the War not having exceeded
nineteen Males and fifty-seven Females. Since that date the numbers
gradually fell, and, at the present time, there are no inmates in
custody. The inmates of State Institutions practically represent
the persons of both classes who are of a character and temperament
incapable of control in local Institutions. As the number committed to
the local Institutions diminishes, there is, of course, a corresponding
reduction in the number coming under State control.

Although both Sections 1 and 2 of the Act give effect to a most
important principle, _viz._, the special treatment otherwise than by
imprisonment, of persons whose offence is due to morbid conditions,
affecting the power of self-control, and whom it is practically useless
to punish for the offence, while the predisposing condition is left
untouched, yet experience, so far, does not furnish evidence that the
power given to the Courts is either largely exercised or fruitful of
curative effect.

The great majority of cases dealt with under Section 1 of the Act are
for cruelty to children (459 out of 586 up to the end of 1913) and the
tendency of the day is more and more towards Summary procedure, owing
largely to the delay, and expense, and trouble involved by commitment
for trial under this Section to the Superior Courts.

With regard to Section 2, which enables Summary Courts to send to
Inebriate Reformatories persons convicted of certain scheduled offences
of drunkenness, only about 4,300 have been dealt with since the Act
became law, although during that period more than 3,500,000 persons
have been convicted in Summary Courts of drunken behaviour.

The reluctance of the Courts to pass long sentences of detention,
especially in the case of men, (more than 80 per cent. of the
commitments are women): the comparative ease and simplicity of
commitment to Prison: the delay and difficulty involved by a
comparatively cumbrous procedure; and an uncertainty as to the prospect
of recovery, as a result of special treatment--all these things operate
against any wide use of the law in Summary Courts, which is also
hindered by the absence of any definite instruction as to the share to
be borne by the State and the Local Authority, respectively, in the
maintenance of these Institutions.

Opinion has, however, been by no means indifferent to the operation
of the Act, and is far from being satisfied at the present time
with the extent of its application. In 1908, the Secretary of State
appointed a strong Committee to inquire as to the operation of the
Law, and to report what amendments, either in law or administration,
were desirable; and their valuable recommendations will probably
receive the attention of Parliament in the near future. The principal
proposals are in the direction of increasing the power of the Summary
Courts, giving to Magistrates a discretionary power to send to
Reformatories, in addition to, or in substitution of, imprisonment,
all persons who are adjudged to be Inebriates and who commit offences
now dealt with summarily by committal to Prison. It is also proposed
that the necessity for proving three previous convictions shall be
abolished, and that the State should, at its own cost, provide for
the accommodation and maintenance of all Inebriates committed by
Courts. With regard to penalty, the free use of the Probation Act was
recommended under special conditions suitable to the case. If, however,
Probation were not thought desirable, it was proposed that the first
sentence to a Reformatory should be for a period not exceeding six
months, to be followed by a period of Probation; but where an Inebriate
forfeits such Probation, on breach of its conditions, he shall be
liable to be committed to a Reformatory for a period not exceeding one
year, again, on release, to be subject to Probation; but if he again
forfeits such Probation, for two years, and, in the event of further
forfeiture, for three years.

Should these recommendations be adopted by Parliament, it is possible
that greater results than at present might be achieved, and the
measure might find larger application. It is doubtful if the public
sentiment is keen to penalize inebriety, when it does not result in
serious harm to the community, by methods of long detention under
discipline and control. In so far as the proposals of the Committee
of 1908 modify these long periods by placing offenders on Probation,
there may be disposition on the part of the Courts to take this course,
except in cases where the overt criminal act resulting from inebriety
is grave and serious, and where punishment under ordinary penal law
is called for. There is, moreover, a feeling which operates against
harsh or drastic sentences in the case of inebriety, due to the
proved association between mental disorder and habitual drunkenness.
Experience of the operation of the Law of 1898 has confirmed this
belief. Of the more turbulent cases whom it has been necessary to
transfer to State Inebriate Reformatories for purposes of control, it
is found that a very large proportion are more or less defective in
mind. That such persons should be segregated from their fellows, and
from the opportunity of doing harm is, of course, a great gain; and,
of itself, would justify the cost of these Institutions, which is
considerable. It must be frankly recognized that in these cases the
purpose of detention is for the public safety, and not with the hope of
reform. The law protects the community by compulsory segregation within
a limit of three years, although the criminal offence will probably
in most cases only warrant a short sentence of imprisonment. This is
something gained in the interests of order. It does not constitute
an encouragement to make further efforts for the cure of habitual
inebriety by means of costly Institutions, and for this reason, apart
from the inherent difficulties of the case, rapid progress in dealing
with this evil in this country can hardly be expected. The Prison
Authority is only concerned with this question of inebriety as a
factor of crime. By many writers, drink and crime are used almost as
synonymous terms, yet nothing is so difficult as to trace the extent
to which criminal statistics are influenced by drink. In 1913, the
actual convictions for drunkenness represented 32 per cent. of the
total convictions for all offences, but in addition to this, must be
reckoned the number of offences to which drunkenness was directly a
contributing cause. It is a reasonable inference that alcohol enters,
as a contributing factor, into about 50 per cent. of offences committed
in this country in any given year. To legislate against drink is
indirectly, therefore, to legislate against Crime. As shown in Chapter
XVII, a striking illustration has been afforded showing the great
decrease in crime generally which has taken place during the War, when
severe restrictions have been placed upon the sale of intoxicating
liquor. In previous years, in times of industrial prosperity and
plentiful wages, convictions for drunkenness have been enormous, and
have obscured the decrease which has taken place, as a result of
prosperity, in other offences, _e.g._, Vagrancy, and petty larceny.

In his Report for 1909, Dr. Branthwaite, the Inspector under the
Inebriates Acts, furnishes a most valuable and interesting analysis of
the life history and mental and physical conditions of 1,031 persons.
This investigation was conducted by himself personally, and throws a
flood of light on the nature of the problem to be dealt with. He states
that as a result of his inquiry, "three points of vital importance
stand out clearly--(1) the close association between inebriety and
psycho-neurotic disturbance, (2) the physical unfitness resulting
from a life of uncontrolled inebriety, and (3) the necessity for the
organisation of more suitable methods for dealing with persons who
offend against law and order by reason of habitual drunkenness."

"The presence of obvious mental defect in a large proportion of cases,
and (in cases not obviously defective) the criminal tendencies, the
proneness to immorality, the uneducability, the early age at which
disorderly habits commence, the ease with which all inmates become
excited by alcohol, and their unreasonable behaviour in a hundred
different ways, are conclusive evidences of the existence of a mental
state far removed from normal, in nearly all cases committed to
Reformatories. To attempt to attribute all such conditions to vicious
indulgence in alcohol is absurd; they existed in the large majority
of cases long before drunkenness appeared, or they developed _pari
passu_ with the drunkenness from a common cause. When mental defect is
obvious, it will usually be found responsible for the drunkenness; when
not sufficiently definite to be recognised, a modified morbid strain,
a heredity of disorder, a psycho-neurotic fault, a constitutional
peculiarity, call it what we may, will generally be discovered as the
key to the position."

His condemnation of short sentences in Prison as a cure for inebriety
in all its forms is expressed as follows:--

"The arguments in favour of the substitution of something better than
the short sentence prison treatment of inebriates hold good, whether
the individual be reformable or not. The routine of a prison is no
more suited to the needs of the habitual drunkard than it is suited to
the treatment of any other form of mental unsoundness. The inebriate
requires careful medical attention, regular bathing, physical exercise
and drill, with a view to the recovery of physical, as a preliminary
to recovery of mental health. His condition demands harder, more
continuous and healthy work than is possible in the confines of a
cell, or even within the restricted area of prison walls. Either in
the form of education, work or play, he wants occupation of some sort
throughout the day, in company with his fellows, under supervision
only just sufficiently strict to prevent its misuse. Discipline is
essential, but it should be the discipline of army barracks, or a ship;
not the necessarily hard routine of a prison. Punishment, as such, must
be kept in the background, and, so far as is possible, encouragement
for good conduct, and reward for good work, should replace the fear of
the results of bad conduct and idleness. But, above all, he requires
medical treatment for his disordered mental state applied as early as
possible after the condition is recognised. The nearer an Inebriate
Reformatory resembles a mental hospital in all its arrangements, the
better will be its suitability for the work it has to do, and the more
the mental aspect of inebriety is kept in the foreground, the more
satisfactory will be the results of treatment and control."

It is true that the views expressed by Dr. Branthwaite seem to indicate
as a rule the dependence of habitual inebriety on pre-existent "mental
defect", and will not, as such, be accepted by general authority; and
it is well known that a strong tendency to drink to intoxication exists
in very many persons and families who show no other signs of deficient
intelligence or loss of self-control. But the experience of many other
observers who have dealt with inebriates committed by the courts to
reformatories under the Act undoubtedly corroborates Dr. Branthwaite's
opinion that notably large numbers of such inebriates have been
markedly defective in mind from even their earliest years.

The question is well summed up in the general observations on the
nature of Inebriety in the Report of the Committee of 1908:--"Inebriety
is undoubtedly a constitutional peculiarity; and depends, in many
cases, upon qualities with which a person is born, in many is acquired
by vicious indulgence. Whether the possession of such a constitutional
peculiarity, when inborn, should or should not be considered, from
the scientific point of view, a disease, is perhaps, a question of
nomenclature. If such native constitutional peculiarities as the
possession of a sixth finger, and the absence of a taste for music,
are rightly considered diseases, then the native constitutional
peculiarity which underlies many cases of inebriety may be so
considered. But there are cogent reasons why the term disease should
not be used to characterise the inebriate habit. By disease is
popularly understood a state of things for which the diseased person is
not responsible, which he cannot alter except by the use of remedies
from without, whose action is obscure, and cannot be influenced by
exertions of his own. But if, as is unquestionably true, inebriety can
be induced by cultivation; if the desire for drink can be increased
by indulgence, and self-control diminished by lack of exercise; it
is manifest that the reverse effects can be produced by voluntary
effort; and that desire for drink may be diminished by abstinence,
and self-control, like any other faculty, can be strengthened by
exercise. It is erroneous and disastrous to inculcate the doctrine
that inebriety, once established, is to be accepted with fatalistic
resignation, and that the inebriate is not to be encouraged to make
any effort to mend his ways. It is the more so since inebriety is
undoubtedly in many cases recovered from, in many diminished, and since
the cases which recover or amend are those in which the inebriate
himself desires and strives for recovery."

CHAPTER XIV.

"PATRONAGE" OR AID TO DISCHARGED PRISONERS: ITS EFFECT ON RECIDIVISM.

As prisoners in this country are classified broadly into two categories
(1) those sentenced to penal servitude--"Convicts:" (2) those sentenced
to ordinary imprisonment--"Local," or short-sentenced prisoners,--so
has the system of aid-on-discharge varied according to the category to
which a prisoner belongs. For Convict Prisons there has been, until
lately, no system of aid-on-discharge strictly so-called. What is known
as the Gratuity system in Convict Prisons operated for many years as
the principal means for providing a convict on his discharge with
means of obtaining the necessities of life. There was no Discharged
Prisoners' Aid Society immediately connected with the establishment
from which the convict was discharged, as in the case of Local Prisons,
but certain Metropolitan Societies, notably the Royal Society for
the assistance of Discharged Prisoners, and later the St. Giles's
Christian Mission and the Church Army and Salvation Army, came to be
recognized as the agents for helping a convict on discharge. There
was no Government Grant. It was voluntary on the part of the convict
whether he should place himself in the hands of such a Society. If
he so desired, the Gratuity that he had earned would be paid to him
through the Police or otherwise at the place whither he went on
discharge. A Gratuity, as already described, was a sum of money which
could be earned under the Progressive Stage System for general industry
with good conduct: it had no relation to the value of work done, being
based simply on the degree of industry, and apportioned to what is
known as the Mark System _i.e._, so many marks representing so much
cash. The English Gratuity System was, therefore, quite different from
what is known on the Continent as the "_Cantine_" or "_Pécule_" System,
under which a prisoner receives a percentage of the actual profit of
his work, and which he is allowed to spend on diet or otherwise during
detention. An English convict (unless in the Long Sentence Division or
under Preventive Detention) was not allowed to spend any part of his
Gratuity while in Prison, but it was accumulated as a small cash fund
to provide against the day of discharge. £6 was the maximum that could
be earned, but the average amount earned would be considerably less
than this. In old days it was possible for convicts to earn large sums
of money, but the practice was condemned by a Royal Commission in the
middle of last century, and, since that date, the amount earnable has
been limited as stated.

With regard to Local Prisons, from the earliest times it was not
uncommon for persons to leave bequests for the relief of prisoners
on discharge from Prison, some of these dating as far back as the
15th century. The first legal enactment took place in 1792, by which
Judges and Justices were authorized to order any prisoner on discharge
to be conveyed by pass to his own parish. About this time, Societies
began to be established for the relief of prisoners on discharge.
One of the earliest--the Sheriff's Fund Society (which exists at the
present time), was founded in 1807-8 for the relief of necessitous
prisoners discharged from Newgate Gaol. Another Institution, known as
the "Temporary Refuge for Distressed Criminals" discharged from the
London Gaols, owed its origin to the efforts of the Society for the
Improvement of Penal Discipline. It was commenced in 1818, but was soon
after closed for want of funds.

In 1823 an Act of Parliament was passed giving power to Justices
to direct that such moderate sum should be given to any discharged
prisoner, not having the means of returning to his family, or resorting
to any place of employment, as in their judgment should be requisite,
such sums to be paid either out of benefactions or as Prison expenses.

Soon after this time, numerous Societies came into existence. One of
the most notable experiments of this kind was the Birmingham Discharged
Prisoners' Aid Society. A report issued at this time by the Chaplain
of the Prison, the Rev. J.T. Burt, stated that the Society took its
rise in the conviction of its founders that crime is to a considerable
extent the result of external circumstances. The Society employed an
agent to canvas employers for work, and found lodgings in the homes of
poor persons of respectable character for the discharged prisoner. In
special cases it gave guarantee to the employer against special loss in
the event of his sustaining injury through the person recommended to
him. The whole plan was reported to work successfully.

A prisoners' relief Society was formed in connection with Worcester
Prison in 1840. Its rules provided, as an inducement to employers of
ex-prisoners, for the grant of a weekly sum of money. This allowance
might continue for three months, being subject to withdrawal in
unworthy cases. For prisoners who could not get work, an allowance
not exceeding four shillings a week might be paid for a period not
exceeding one month.

Another early experiment was the "Gloucester Refuge for Discharged
Prisoners" commenced in 1856. Prisoners on discharge from the County
Gaol were, on the recommendation of a Visiting Justice or the Chaplain,
maintained free of charge for a fortnight, after which a small charge
was made. On employment being found they handed over the whole of their
earnings, any balance remaining being handed to them on leaving the
Institution. The stay of unemployed inmates was limited to fourteen
days, and in no case exceeded one month.

Another phase of relief to discharged prisoners took the form of an
"Industrial Home" at Wakefield, founded in 1856, under the auspices of
the Governor of the House of Correction for the West Riding. It was
said to be self-supporting, manufactures being carried on. Lodgings
were found for inmates outside the Home.

These three experiments are said to have compared favourably as regards
expenditure with those having the same object in view, which had
been established in London, and known as the London Reformatory, the
Preventive and Reformatory Institution, and the Metropolitan Industrial
Reformatory at Brixton.

About this time, Societies for aiding ordinary prisoners on discharge
were formed at many of the larger Prisons, _e.g._, the Hull, East
Riding, and North Lincolnshire; Glamorganshire; North and South
Stafford; Leeds; West Kent; Manchester; Liverpool; and the Metropolitan
Aid Societies, all of which are in existence at the present time.

The success of the Birmingham experiment is said to have led to the
passing of the Act of 1862, which recited that Aid Societies had been
established by voluntary effort, and gave power to Justices to pay a
sum not exceeding £2 to such Societies, to be expended on behalf of the
discharged prisoner.

Another Act was passed in 1865 which re-enacted a similar provision
to that contained in the Act of 1862, the expense to be borne by the
local rates. Under the Prison Act of 1877, it was laid down that "where
any prisoner is discharged from prison, the Prison Commissioners may,
on the recommendation of the Visiting Committee or otherwise, order a
sum of money not exceeding £2 to be paid by the Gaoler to the prisoner
himself, or to the Treasurer of a Certified Prisoners' Aid Society or
Refuge, on the Gaoler receiving from such Society an undertaking to
apply the same for the benefit of the prisoner."

This being the law, two general observations may, I think, be made with
regard to it (1) that the duty of aiding prisoners on discharge has
been recognized from the beginning of the century as a public duty to
be borne by public funds, the Voluntary Aid Society being ancillary for
this purpose, _i.e._, to assist in the disbursement of public money,
and _incidentally_, at least, in the first instance, to increase it by
private benefaction (2) that in its origin this grant was a charitable
gift, irrespective of the prison history and conduct of a prisoner, and
the total sum expended might assume large proportions, the maximum of
£2 being permissible for _any_ prisoner.

As a matter of fact, the local authority used this power very
sparingly. A Return is given in Appendix 19 of the Second Annual
Report of the Commissioners, and shows that the total discharges for
the three years preceding 1878 were, roundly, 370,000, and the total
gratuities paid to prisoners, roundly, £11,000, or a proportion of
about 7d., per head, the sums given varying greatly in the different
districts, _e.g._, Cold Bath Fields Prison gave £3,000 and Manchester
£60 for a nearly similar number of discharges (circ. 30,000). In some
Prisons, there was a system of giving a percentage on the value of
work done, but this did not prevail to a large extent, and the above
statement may, I think, be taken as roughly representing the extent to
which monetary help was forthcoming to discharged prisoners before the
prisons passed into the hands of the Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Scheme was as follows:--

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

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

(3) That a Sub-Committee of ladies be appointed for the assistance of
female prisoners, and that they act under instructions prescribed for
them by the Commissioners.

(4) That for both male and female prisoners, Agents should be appointed
in all cases.

(5) That the Society should establish relations with any Labour Homes
or Institutions for men and women that may exist in the county or
district, and shall arrange for the charge of cases by payment of a
capitation grant.

(6) That the Society should appoint corresponding members or
committees, _e.g._, Clergymen, Police Officers, private individuals
(male and female) in districts remote from the Prison with the object
of (_a_) paying gratuities; (_b_) following up a case; (_c_) securing
care and superintendence in a deserving case; (_d_) furnishing
information with a view to employment.

(7) That the Society should take charge of _all_ gratuities and arrange
for their disbursement in a manner most advantageous to the prisoner,
and calculated to prevent the immediate and useless dissipation of
the money. Payments of cash in lump sums should, as far as possible,
be avoided, and receipts for all cases should be taken for the aid
which has been given. Payments by instalments and through the agencies
described in (6) will be preferred, and when necessary, payments in
kind by the purchase of clothes or materials, according to the needs of
each case.

(8) That the Society should allow other benevolent societies or persons
desirous of assisting discharged prisoners to make arrangements for so
doing, subject to its approval and control.

(9) That the Societies should co-operate with each other by mutual
arrangement, in taking charge of cases coming from districts other than
their own; especially of the juveniles whose sentences are in excess of
one month and who are transferred to collecting or district prisons,
and who thus by being moved out of their own localities might suffer by
being deprived of local interest in their case.

It will be seen that these Regulations did not fundamentally alter
the principles according to which the aid to discharged prisoners
had hitherto been regulated. Gratuity remained part of the system:
there was no proposal to increase the Government Grant, and the new
Regulations applied only to prisoners discharged from Local Prisons.
The object in view was mainly to secure greater uniformity in method,
and otherwise to secure the co-operation of any outside agencies,
persons, or Institutions which might be able to give assistance in the
districts where the prisoners were discharged.

No further action was taken in the way of improving or altering the
system of aid-on-discharge in either Convict or Local Prisons till
some ten years later, when a very important step was taken, completely
changing the system of the former, and largely modifying that of the
latter. The Commissioners informed the Secretary of State in 1909 that,
after full consideration, they had come to the opinion that the task
of rehabilitation in the case of a man on discharge from a sentence of
Penal Servitude was too difficult and too costly to be left entirely to
voluntary Societies unaided by any grant of public funds, and working
independently of each other, at a problem where unity of method and
direction are above all things required. Mr. Secretary Churchill,
to whom these views were represented, at once agreed that a new
Agency should be established for the aid of discharged convicts, and
announced his decision in the House of Commons in July, 1910. The new
Association has accordingly been formed, and is called, "The Central
Association for the Aid of Discharged Convicts." It combines, for the
common purpose of aiding prisoners on discharge from penal servitude,
all those Societies which had hitherto been operating independently
at Prisons. This new Association is subsidized by the Government, and
is not dependent on voluntary contributions. At the same time, the
Gratuity System has been discontinued, and the Association undertakes
to provide in the case of every discharged convict, so that he may
not be without the necessaries of life, and a fair prospect of
rehabilitation on the day of discharge. The Association, which is under
the capable management of Sir Wemyss Grant-Wilson at 15, Buckingham
Street, W.C., established a procedure by which every convict is
interviewed at a reasonable period before discharge. At this visit,
his wishes and circumstances are ascertained, and if he desires to
place himself under the care of any of the Societies represented on the
Association, arrangements are made accordingly.

The Association is governed by a General Council, of which the
Secretary of State is President, and on which the Societies and
Institutions hitherto operating in this particular field of charity
are represented.

While these great changes were proceeding in the Convict System, I was
endeavouring also by conference with representatives of Discharged
Prisoners' Aid Societies of Local Prisons to obtain their agreement
to certain changes in the system of aid for Local prisoners, having
been led by experience to the opinion that a greater efficiency might
perhaps be attained in dealing with prisoners discharged from Local
Prisons under a different system. I submitted certain propositions, the
object of which was, within the limit of existing financial resources
(public and private), by an alteration of the financial arrangements,
to increase the powers and duties of Aid Societies, subject to a
sufficient control of public funds on the part of the Commissioners.

This could only be made possible by discontinuing the practice of
allowing certain prisoners to earn gratuities _as a matter of right_
by good conduct and industry in prison. Long experience had led the
Commissioners to the opinion that the Gratuity System in Local Prisons
was not a success. It was originally borrowed from the Penal Servitude
System at the time when Local Prisons were centralized at Whitehall,
and was generally accepted as a sufficient discharge of the power
conferred on Justices of the Peace under Section 42 of the Prison Act,
1865, for making provision for the benefit of discharged prisoners, but
it was ineffective, as a means of charity, because such a relatively
small percentage of prisoners (_i.e._, only those whose sentences
were over one month) would profit by it, and, secondly, as a means of
discipline in securing the good conduct of the prisoners by the hope
of earning a small sum on discharge, it could now be dispensed with,
as the power to earn remission, conferred by the Prison Act, 1898,
constituted, in the opinion of the Prison Authorities, a sufficient
inducement to abstain from acts by which this highly-prized privilege
could be lost. It was therefore desirable that the benefits conferred
on prisoners by the Gratuity System should be secured to them in some
other way. The State was paying in Gratuities at that time about
£8,000 a year, and between £3,000 and £4,000 by way of grants to Aid
Societies, under the scheme approved in 1897. To this total of about
£11,000 a year the Aid Societies were contributing, roughly, about
£10,000 a year. My proposals were (1) to abolish all gratuities: (2)
to raise the Government grant from 6_d._ to 1_s._ per head: (3) to
place this money at the disposition of the Aid Societies, at a rate
corresponding to the number of prisoners discharged from each prison,
subject to certain conditions, the principal of which were that every
Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society should: (_a_) be duly registered with
a certificate of the Commissioners that it is properly and efficiently
organized: (_b_) that the increased Government grant should be met by a
local annual subscription equal to one-half of the amount: (_c_) that
the money hitherto spent on Gratuities should be handed over to the
Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, no Society to receive less in grant
than the annual average amount of gratuity earned at the prison during
the last triennial term.

The effect of these proposals, which were finally approved by the
Secretary of State and the Treasury, at the beginning of 1913, was
obviously to increase very materially the amount which each Society
receives from public funds. The intention is that every case,
_irrespective of length of sentence_, shall receive the _personal_
attention of the Aid Society attached to the Prison, whose resources
are considerably increased under the present plan. The Government
having great confidence in the earnest purpose of the Discharged
Prisoners' Aid Societies throughout the country, felt justified in
asking them to undertake this greater responsibility. In giving effect
to these proposals it was pointed out to the Aid Societies that it
could only be undertaken, with any prospect of success, and even with
fairness to the prisoner (especially if under a long sentence, and
henceforth to be deprived of his Gratuity), subject to the following
conditions--

1. The affairs of the Society shall be managed by a Committee. The
Committee shall appoint a Sub-Committee whose duty it shall be to meet
weekly at the Prison, and to make provision for assisting prisoners due
for discharge in the ensuing month or fortnight. The Sub-Committee
shall consist of at least one member of the Discharged Prisoners'
Aid Society, to be selected by roster or otherwise, in addition to
the official Prison Authorities. The Governor, Chaplain, Priest, and
Minister of the Prison shall be _ex-officio_ members of the Committee
and of the Sub-Committee. Lady Visitors shall also be members of both.

2. Where the amount of work to be done is sufficient, the Society shall
appoint an agent or agents to act under their direction generally, and
in particular:--

(_a_) to find employment for discharged prisoners.

(_b_) to find respectable lodgings or Homes in which discharged
prisoners may be placed and maintained in suitable cases.

(_c_) to visit, encourage, and report on the progress of all persons
under the care of the Society.

(_d_) to accompany prisoners to the railway station and see them off,
if required.

3. The Society shall keep a record of its dealings with all discharged
prisoners, and shall publish an Annual Report, with statements of
results and of Accounts in an approved form. The accounts shall be
audited by a Chartered Accountant. Three copies of such report shall
be forwarded to the Commissioners not later than the 14th of April in
every year.

4. The payments and grants received from the Commissioners shall be
expended for the benefit of prisoners, and shall not be invested.

5. The Society shall render assistance to all deserving cases on
discharge, irrespective of length of sentence, all prisoners being
deemed to be eligible for assistance provided that they are, in other
respects, worthy of the consideration of the Society, special attention
being paid to the longer sentenced prisoners who formerly earned
gratuity.

6. The Society shall co-operate with the Borstal Committees in giving
special attention to the assistance on discharge of persons treated
under the "Modified" Borstal System.

The new scheme is working satisfactorily, and there are signs
everywhere that the result has been to encourage and stimulate the
action of the Societies by throwing a great and new responsibility
upon them, and by placing in their hands a considerable sum of public
money, to be spent according to their discretion and not according
to a fixed and mechanical rule, as was formerly the case under the
Gratuity system. There is every reason to hope that the system of
aid-on-discharge, both in Convict and Local prisons, is now placed
on a sound and effective basis, and that through its operation, many
cases will be saved from a relapse into criminal ways, owing to the
personal care and individual attention which the new system postulates
as a condition of efficiency. During 1918, 21,388 convicted prisoners
were discharged, of whom 7,719, or 36 per cent., were aided, and of
these latter, 75 per cent. were suitably placed in good employment.
Twenty-eight Aid Societies were able to find employment for over 50 per
cent. of the cases aided by them.

The new system in each case, both for Local and Convict Prisons,
furnishes a remarkable example in the application of what may be
called the new spirit in the Prison Administration of this country,
_i.e._, the cordial and harmonious co-operation between official and
voluntary effort, which experience shows every day to be not only the
best, but the only effective method for dealing with the problem of the
discharged prisoner.

An important change has recently been made in the machinery of the
Central Organization of Aid Societies. Prior to 1917, the central
representation of Aid Societies had been by means of a Committee of
the Reformatory and Refuge Union, known as the Central Committee
of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies. The Reformatory and Refuge
Union had, in the early 'sixties, warmly taken up the question of
aid-on-discharge, and, by its energy and initiative, had become the
principal instrument for the organization of Societies dealing with
short-sentenced prisoners. In 1878, soon after the passing of the
Prison Act, an important conference of Aid Societies was convened by
the Union, at which a Committee was appointed having generally for
its purpose to extend the operations of Aid Societies, as well as to
maintain existing Societies and to increase their efficiency. This
historical connection with the Reformatory and Refuge Union remained
till the present time, and of late years, the Central Committee, under
the able direction of its Chairman, Lord Shuttleworth, has rendered
valuable service in calling attention to various reforms by means of
conferences invoked, from time to time, in different centres. There
had, however, been manifested of late years a growing desire on the
part of many Societies for some change in the central organization,
which should have the effect of strengthening the Executive function of
the Central body, so that its influence might be extended and advantage
taken of its large common stock of experience for the investigation of
new methods of development. The Chairman of the Royal Aid Society, Mr.
F.P. Whitbread, acting in agreement with the representatives of some
of the leading Societies, proposed a scheme for the establishment of
such a Central Executive body, to meet periodically for discussion,
and with power to appoint sub-Committees to enquire, and report, and
advise as to the adoption of improved methods of relief for the various
categories of prisoners of both sexes. The new body, known as the
Central Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, was formally instituted by
general consent at the beginning of 1918, Mr. Whitbread being elected
Chairman of the Central Executive Committee, and the Commissoners were
invited to nominate three members to serve on the Executive. The new
system is only a variation of that hitherto pursued; but its effect
will be to bring a more direct influence on the various Societies,
all of whom will be represented on the Executive. In this way not
only uniformity of procedure, but an agreed policy in the pursuit of
a common purpose, is likely to result. It is only the complement and
the fulfilment of the public-spirited and beneficent work undertaken
in the beginning by the Reformatory and Refuge Union, acting through
the Committee of 1878, and to that body must be given the credit not
only for pioneer work in originating the system of aid-on discharge in
this country, but for the growth of public interest and zeal in the
development of this particular branch of social work, to which the
recent change of methods bears witness.

During recent years, the work of Aid Societies has been extended to the
assistance of the wives and families of men undergoing imprisonment,
and the steps taken will insure that, in future, no deserving case will
be overlooked, and the suffering that has been endured by hundreds of
innocent women and children will become a thing of the past. Various
agencies have rendered assistance in making the necessary inquiries,
chief among them being the National Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children, the Church Army, and the Charity Organization
Society.

Owing to the War, no general effect has yet been given to the powers
taken by Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914,
to subsidise a society for the care and control of persons under the
age of 21, being either on Probation, or placed out on licence from
a Borstal Institution or Reformatory or Industrial School, or under
supervision within the meaning of Section 1 (3) of the same Act (vide
page 82). As President of the newly-constituted Central Committee of
Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, I recently took the opportunity
of appealing for the establishment of a National Society for the
Prevention of Crime and for the Protection of the Young Offender.
All these categories of young persons named are now being attended
to by different Agencies or persons, the same agent often acting for
different classes, though not under the same authority. Such a National
Society, though not interfering with liberty of action of each, would
co-ordinate the whole, and such exchange of voluntary service might
be of the greatest benefit, and would provide the rallying point for
all forces, both secular and religious, now occupied in the task of
rehabilitating those who have fallen under the ban of the criminal law.

So far, I have dealt only with "Patronage," as applied to Convict and
Local Prisons. There are two other categories of prisoners who are
dealt with on discharge in a different way, _i.e._, those discharged
under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 (_a_) from Borstal Institutions
(referred to in a former chapter): (_b_) from Preventive Detention.

The Gratuity System still remains in force for both these classes, its
object being, in the former case, that the inmate should have a small
_pécule_ at his disposition, which, taken in conjunction with such
assistance as the Borstal Association are able to give, may furnish
material help towards his reinstatement; and, in the latter, where
a prisoner may be awarded 1d., 2d., or 3d., for every working day
according to the nature of work, and skill, and industry displayed. The
money thus gained may be spent, either in purchasing certain articles
in the canteen, or be sent to a member of his family: if accumulated,
it would, in the event of conditional licence, be paid over on the
prisoner's behalf to the authorities of the Central Association to be
expended in such way as they may think fit for his benefit.

The Gratuity System also remains in force for those young prisoners
who are treated under the "Modified" Borstal System in Local Prisons,
as before explained, the object being not only to provide a stimulus
for labour and good conduct, but to furnish means for material aid on
discharge in cases considered by the Borstal Committee operating at
each Prison, for the purpose of the reinstatement of these lads in
honest industry. Moreover, they are not entitled to earn remission in
the same way as are other prisoners under the provisions of the Prison
Act, 1898. It is because ordinary prisoners have enjoyed this privilege
since 1898 that it was found possible to abolish the Gratuity System
for them, the necessary stimulus for industry with good conduct being
provided for by the hope of remission of sentence, which experience
shows to be more effective for the purposes of discipline than the
fear of losing any portion of the money to which they may have become
entitled under the Progressive Stage System.

* * * * *

For many years prior to the War, statistics of recidivism had
indicated, at least so far as serious crime tried on indictment was
concerned, that the mass of criminality was being confined to one
set of people, who were slowly passing to the later age categories,
and leaving a reduced number to take their place. The Tables printed
below show the remarkable decline in recidivism that has taken place,
especially since the War. A large proportion of this decrease may
doubtless be credited to the extraordinary growth of "Patronage",
or aid-on-discharge, which has taken place during the last quarter
of a century. For many years past, the Borstal Association has been
successful in reclaiming over 70 per cent. of the lads, 16-21, released
to its care; and among hardened convicts, the Central Association is
able to furnish remarkable figures. In their report for 1914-15 they
showed that since its foundation in 1911 the following numbers of
discharged convicts had passed through its hands each year:--1,147,
878, 761, and 792. Of this body, the numbers still out of prison on
the 1st April, 1915 were 527, 474, 449, and 662 respectively. Of those
discharged during 1914-15 the numbers in the "Star," "Intermediate"
and "Recidivist" classes were, respectively, 77, 187, and 528.
The number reconvicted in each category was 2, 21, and 107. As we
pass, therefore, from the "Star," or First Offender category, the
difficulty of successful after-care becomes manifest; thus, while
only two First Offenders were reconvicted, the reconvictions in the
case of "Intermediates" and "Recidivists" were 11 and 20 per cent.
respectively. It is clear, however, from the Annual Report of the
Association, that they are far from being dismayed by what must be, in
many cases, a hopeless struggle with this resisting mass of recidivism.
They look forward, and with good reason, to the hope that lies in
the future, _viz_:--that what they describe as "the stage army of
recidivist outlaws" will be steadily and permanently reduced in Convict
Prisons, not only in consequence of a better system of after-care,
which, under new methods, now awaits the convict on his first discharge
from penal servitude, but as the certain result of concentration of
effort on the young, or adolescent offender. To find work for 366
out of 792 discharged convicts is by itself striking evidence of the
vigour, method, and real zeal which characterizes the work of the
Association; to be able to report that 662 of these men were known to
be satisfactory at the end of the year furnishes proof of a work which
must, from the character and antecedents of these cases, be extremely
difficult and unpromising, and shows that the men must have been the
subject of much careful shepherding.

About ten years have elapsed since the formation of the Central
Association, and since that date the actual number of persons convicted
on indictment with _six or more_ previous convictions has fallen by
80 per cent. In 1910, there were 1,066 prisoners convicted who had
previously served a sentence of penal servitude, while in 1918 there
were only 297. A great reduction has also taken place in the number of
male convicts classified as Recidivist after reception into prison.
Prior to 1911, the number frequently exceeded 900 annually, while in
1918 it was only 191.

* * * * *

The following tables show (a) the actual fall that has taken place in
the numbers sentenced on indictment who had been previously convicted,
and (b) the decrease in the number of male convicts classified as
recidivist:--

(a)

-----+---------------+-----------------------------------
|Total convicted| Number previously convicted
| +---------+---------+---------------
Year| on indictment |1-3 times|4-5 times|6 times & over
-----+---------------+---------+---------+---------------
1910| 11,317 | 3,954 | 1,215 | 3,828
1913| 10,165 | 2,459 | 998 | 3,462
1918| 4,694 | 1,153 | 287 | 786
+------------+
Decrease per cent.|
since 1900 |59| 71 | 76 | 80
------------------+--+---------+---------+----------------

(b) Classification of Male Convicts received into Convict Prisons.

----------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+-------
Year |Star, or |Intermediate.|Recidivist.|Total.
| First | | |
|Offender.| | |
----------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+-------
Average for five years| | | |
ended 1910-11| 99 | 245 | 948 | 1,292
" " 1915-16| 104 | 160 | 579 | 843
For year 1916-17| 18 | 55 | 279 | 352
" " 1917-18| 63 | 49 | 298 | 410
" " 1918-19| 40 | 70 | 191 | 301
Decrease per cent. | | | |
since 1910-11| 60 | 71 | 80 | 77
----------------------+---------+-------------+-----------+-------

CHAPTER XV.

THE MEDICAL SERVICE.

No account of the English Prison System would be complete without
reference to the place and duty of the Medical Officer in the daily
administration of a Prison. The English law requires that a Medical
Officer shall be appointed to each prison. The appointment is made
by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Prison
Commissioners, and office is held subject to the approval of the
Secretary of State. Great care is taken in selecting suitable men with
high medical qualifications, and who are possessed of proved tact and
discretion; a practical knowledge of insanity is also requisite. As
the size of the prison varies very considerably, in the smaller prison
the Medical Officer is generally a medical practitioner residing in
the vicinity of the prison, who devotes a part only of his time to
prison duties: at least one visit daily is required. In the larger
prisons one or more medical men are appointed, whose whole time is at
the service of the Commissioners, the senior appointments being filled
by promotion from the junior rank. The prisons are frequently visited
by a Medical Inspector who not only supervises and advises the Medical
Officers, but forms a link with the whole of the Medical Staff, thus
tending to standardize the medical work carried out in prisons. He is
also available to visit and report on any individual prisoner when any
difficulty arises necessitating special inquiry. He works under the
Medical Commissioner, who represents the medical side of the service on
the Prison Board, and deals with the administration of the Department.

The mere enumeration of his statutory duties reveals the great and
varying responsibility imposed upon the Medical Officer:--examination
on reception and discharge; visitation of the sick and those under
punishment; the sanitary condition of the buildings; ventilation; food;
water; clothing and bedding:--all these things are combined in the
daily round. He classifies prisoners for labour according to their
physical fitness. He carefully notes the effect of imprisonment on
the mental or physical state of prisoners, and advises when, in his
opinion, life or reason is likely to be endangered by the continuance
of imprisonment, and it is satisfactory to record that no abuse of this
great responsibility has occurred since the prisons were taken over by
the State in 1878. He takes under special observation any case where
he has reason to suspect that the mental state is becoming impaired or
enfeebled by imprisonment, and carefully notes any sign of incipient
insanity. The health of the prison officers and their families, and the
sanitary condition of their quarters are also his special concern.

It is a striking testimony to the skill and care with which these
duties are performed that, with receptions in a normal year, we will
say, of 200,000 persons, and with some 15,000 serious cases treated
annually in hospital, of both sexes, and some 25,000 under continuous
medical treatment for seven days or over, the death-rate in prison
should be generally less than ·50 per 1,000 receptions.

Our prisons have been described by a high medical authority as among
the best sanatoria in England. This praise is well deserved, but it
does not mean that illness is rare or only trivial, but that the skill,
industry, and patience of the medical staff, operating in healthy
sanitary conditions, equipped with modern knowledge and resource
in dealing with the great variety of disease, which diagnosis on
reception, or individual care during detention, reveals, is effective
in maintaining a high standard of general health with a comparatively
low death-rate, so far as prison conditions admit a comparison with the
general death-rate of England and Wales.

For instance heart disease, pneumonia, and phthisis claim a regular
roll of victims, though, in most cases, death would be due to chronic
complaints in old, or prematurely old persons, with broken-down
constitutions.

The incidence of infectious disease in prisons has, for some years
past, been remarkably low. In a prison community, any illness of an
infectious character is naturally viewed with great apprehension,
and is always made the subject of strict inquiry--the danger of
infection being, of course, very great when so many persons are daily
received and brought into association at chapel, exercise, labour,
&c. Against this danger, the chief prophylactic must be in the exact
and unerring skill of the Medical Officer, who is able to detect
symptoms on reception which, unless detected, might spread an epidemic
throughout the prison. Thus, at the time of the small-pox epidemic of
1902, it was due to the precautions taken that, with few exceptions,
this highly infectious disease was prevented from spreading. When the
epidemic of enteric fever raged at Lincoln in 1905, not a single case
occurred in the prison, though prisoners were being received daily from
various parts of the city. Erysipelas is disease which is not uncommon
in prisons in the early days of imprisonment. Prisoners are not
infrequently received with cut hands and other wounds in a neglected
or septic condition, and with a probable predisposition to the disease
arising from a weak or unhealthy physical condition. Isolation, and the
usual precautions, however, generally prevent the disease, which has a
tendency to recur, from spreading.

Deaths from phthisis average from ten to twenty a year. It is very
rare indeed for the disease to manifest itself for the first time
during imprisonment, but is already existing on reception, and more
often than not in a far advanced condition. It had been observed that
for the ten years ending 1901, there had been an average death-rate
of 16·7 from this cause, and in that year, special instructions
were issued for the segregation and special treatment of tubercular
disease. Cases were to be treated in the most airy cells, with southern
aspect, and special precautions taken with regard to the provision of
spittoons, disinfection of clothing, utensils, fumigation of cells,
&c. To carry out the spirit of these instructions necessarily entails
much circumspection and good-will on the part of all concerned, both
officers and patients. The effect of these regulations is not easy to
discern in Local, or short-sentence, prisons, owing to the fugitive
character of the population, but in convict, or long-sentence, prisons,
where the conditions incident to imprisonment are operative over a
sufficiently long period, evidence may be found as to the measure of
the effect of prison life on this particular disease. An inquiry made
in 1906-7 shows that the death-rate from phthisis among males (cases
very rarely occur among females) sentenced to penal servitude (_i.e._
not less than three years) was 1·38 per 1,000 of the daily average
population. Previously to the regulations of 1901, the mortality was
nearly double, amounting to 2·00 per 1,000. Since 1901, also, another
cause has been operating towards a decline in the amount of tubercular
disease, _i.e._, the more generous prison dietary of that year, with an
increase in the proportion of fatty elements.

Inquiries made at the time of the appointment of the Royal Commission
to inquire into the prevalence of Venereal disease in 1913 showed
that of the receptions into prison during the six months between
November and April 1914, 64,023 males and 17,161 females were received
into prison. Of the males 1·58 per cent., and of the females, 1·98
were found to be suffering from some form of venereal disease. Full
advantage is taken of the modern methods of treatment, and practically
at all the larger prisons there is a clinic. Where facilities do not
exist in the smaller prisons, prisoners are treated at an outside
clinic, or transferred to a prison where there is one.

Medical Officers also have very important duties and responsibilities
in connection with the feeding of prisoners. Prison dietaries in this
country have always been prescribed by Statute, but these definite
prescriptions--what a prisoner shall eat and drink--are always subject
to the moderating discretion of a Medical Officer. Formerly, the prison
dietary was regarded as an element of penal discipline. Sir J. Graham,
when Home Secretary, had repudiated this principle as long ago as 1843,
but the Secretary of State of those days had no power to enforce his
views on the local Justices, who gave effect to the popular idea that
the ordinary prison diet might properly be regarded as an instrument
of punishment. It must not be supposed, however, that the elimination
of the penal element necessarily connotes an attractiveness of prison
fare. This is not the case; but the difficulties of framing a dietary
which shall be sufficient and not more than sufficient, for the varying
needs of many thousands of human beings of different ages and physique
is admittedly very great.

The dietary of 1900 has, at least, removed one grave reproach against
the system, _viz_:--that prisoners habitually, and almost invariably,
lost weight. Under the old dietary, no less than 80 per cent. of
prisoners engaged on hard labour for a month or less lost weight. The
progressive improvement of dietary scale, proportioned to length of
sentence, has been effective in mitigating the ill-effects arising from
the application of the principle of punitive diet as a part of the
sentence of imprisonment.

The skill and care of the medical staff would, however, be less
positive in its results but for the sanitary condition of the interior
of prisons, which has, for many years past, engaged the closest
attention. Great improvements have taken place of late years in the
construction of hospitals, and in the ventilation of halls and of
cells, and in the reconstruction of drains on the most up-to-date
lines. Formerly, the gas-lights, which are now in the corridors, were
inside the cell--in many cases, naked lights,--an objectionable system
from a sanitary point of view, and affording an easy means for mischief
or self-destruction, while giving inadequate light for reading or
working. It is not only with regard to artificial light that progress
has been made. The opaque window glass excluding the light of day,
and the hermetically closed window are now only memories of the past.
All these things of late years have had the effect of improving the
sanitary condition of prisons and the health of prisoners, and have, no
doubt, contributed to the remarkable bill of health which our prisons
present.

But it is not only with the physical state of prisoners and the
sanitation of prisons that the medical staff is concerned. The prison
Medical Officer has justly acquired a reputation as an expert in mental
disease. Although a practical acquaintance with lunacy is expected of
a candidate for the Medical Service, it is owing to the exceptional
opportunities afforded for diagnosis of the varying and often peculiar
mental states of prisoners that he is expected, and is able, to give
an expert opinion, not only in the grave cases where sanity is in
question, but also in those difficult and doubtful cases of mental
defectiveness which are continually occurring in every mode and degree.
Especially is great importance attached to the opinion of the Medical
Officer of prisons as that of an unbiassed expert witness on the mental
condition of cases charged with a capital offence. The growing practice
of the Courts to remand for medical observation in prisons when any
doubt exists as to the state of mind, has the desired result of
preventing the commitment to prison of persons who would be certified
to be insane almost as soon as received. Thus, twenty years ago the
number certified insane after reception into prison was a little over
one per cent. of the total receptions. To-day it is about half that
number.

It is, however, with regard to a class of prisoner, who, for want of a
more precise and descriptive term, is designated "mental defective",
that the Medical Officer is called upon to exercise all his vigilance
and powers of diagnosis. There are persons who cannot be deemed
sufficiently irresponsible as to warrant certification, but who, from
obvious mental deficiency, cannot be considered fit subjects for penal
discipline. In 1901, a special treatment was established for this class
in local and in convict prisons. The effect of the new regulations was
largely to increase the rôle and responsibility of Medical Officers
in controlling the daily routine in respect of food, labour, and
punishment. It was about this time that the question of the best method
of dealing with mentally defective persons, other than those certified
under the Lunacy and Idiots Acts, came prominently before the public,
and a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the matter. At the
same time, an attempt was made to ascertain the number of persons in
prison who, on account of mental defect, were deemed unfit for ordinary
penal discipline. Medical Officers were requested to note down for six
months the number of persons received into their respective prisons
who, in their opinion, were of such a low order of intelligence as
would be likely, by want of normal self-control, to get into mischief,
or commit crime. The result was that 3 per cent. of both sexes of the
total number of prisoners received were shown to fall within this
category. Writing on this subject in 1912, Sir Herbert Smalley, until
lately the Head of the Prison Medical Service, states:--

"The number of prisoners who are mentally defective is the subject of
the very widest difference of opinion. There are some who would have
us believe that all prisoners are mentally affected, in fact they urge
that the mere fact of their committing crime is a proof of this. There
are others, who, whilst not going this length, yet put the number at
a very high figure. One well known writer recently alleged in the
daily press that probably 40 per cent. of our criminals are mentally
defective. A well known alienist writing to the "Times" some years ago
stated that at least 20 per cent. of all police court cases belonged
to the class of mental defectives. The Medical Investigators appointed
by the Royal Commission for the care and control of the feeble-minded,
after visiting several prisons and having seen some 2,553 prisoners,
estimated the number as mentally defective at 10·28 per cent. This
is again a higher rate than is generally returned by the prison
authorities as the number of mentally defective persons amongst the
prison population (irrespective of those certifiably insane who are
obviously unfit to be at large), _viz._, 3 per cent.

"Here at once is a wide divergence of opinion and the reason for the
great discrepancy is that so much depends on the view that is taken
as to the degree of mental deficiency which justifies an individual
being regarded as "Feeble-minded." There is no hard and fast line
of demarcation, as has been asserted, between feeble-mindedness and
sanity, any more than there is between a great many cases of insanity
and sanity; from the normal down to the lowest idiot, or dement, it is
only the question of degree of deficiency of mental power. This was
pointed out by the Departmental Committee on Defective and Epileptic
Children as far back as 1898."

"One of the Medical Investigators of the Royal Commission alleges that
"the higher grade aments" are sometimes not recognised by the prison
authorities, who are apt to think a man who works well and behaves well
in prison must be normal. There is some truth, no doubt, in this, for
in prison there is strict and close supervision, there is the daily
routine and the absence of "stress," "alcohol" and "temptation," to
which people are subject in the outer world; moreover, in many cases,
their time in prison is very short and their true mental condition is
masked by the condition in which they are received (as, for instance,
under the influence of drink and deprivation) so that the medical
officer very naturally hesitates before reporting them feeble-minded."

The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, came into operation on the 1st April
1914. It provides for three forms of supervision for defectives,
_viz_:--State Institutions for defectives of dangerous or violent
propensities, Certified Institutions, and Guardianship. The last named
can be ignored in considering criminal defectives.

When the Act came into force there were no State Institutions, and the
accommodation in Certified Institutions was totally inadequate to meet
the needs of the situation. A State Institution was secured towards
the end of 1914, but was almost immediately handed over to the War
Office. Little, or nothing, could be done in the way of provision of
further accommodation, State or otherwise, during the continuance of
the Great War, and, as a result, very few criminal defectives could be
dealt with. Since the termination of hostilities, a State Institution
for male and female defectives has been established, and further
institutional accommodation provided, and it is hoped that in the near
future full provision will be made for dealing with all defectives,
guilty of criminal offences, who are certifiable under the Act.

From 1st April 1914 to 31st March 1919, 871 cases were certified under
the Act, the total receptions into local prisons for this period being
376,000, _i.e._, 2·3 per 1,000 receptions. The prisoners certified in
prison do not comprise the whole number of cases of criminal defectives
dealt with, as Courts have power under the Act to send such defectives
direct to Institutions, instead of to prison, and, as the working of
the Act becomes more stabilised, advantage is taken of this power to
an increasing extent.

But even so, there is a considerable discrepancy between the defectives
dealt with under the Act and the official ante-Act estimate, which was
considerably greater, and this is mainly due to the strict requirement
of the Act that the defect must have existed from birth or from early
age. Here at once a large number of prisoners regarded as mentally
defective, forming 30 per cent. of the whole, were excluded from the
operation of the Act owing to the fact that the mental defect from
which they were suffering, _e.g._, senility, alcoholism, arose from
causes operating later in life. Again, of the number of prisoners whose
mental defect was regarded as of congenital origin, 77 per cent. were
over 25 years of age, thus making it difficult to obtain proof of the
existence of the defect from early age, without which a certificate
cannot be given.

But the Mental Deficiency Act, limited as it is in its scope, and
disappointing in its results, is a pioneer piece of legislation of
considerable importance. Many Voluntary Associations and other bodies
in this country interested in its administration are advocating an
extension of its provisions, and I think we can anticipate with every
confidence the time, to which the prison reformer has so long looked
forward, when those unhappy persons, who through mental affliction
drift inevitably into criminal courses, are removed from prison
surroundings to the more appropriate atmosphere of institutions where
they can remain under proper care and control.

The operation of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and the discharge
from Naval and Military Hospitals of numbers of men suffering from
mental and physical disabilities arising out of the war, have
accentuated the already growing interest shown by Justices, and others
engaged in the administration of the Criminal Law, as to whether the
means hitherto taken for dealing with persons committing offences
are the best and most humane which could be adopted. The opinion has
been growing in intensity for some years that mental and physical
disabilities may largely contribute to the commission of crime, and
that it is the duty of the community to investigate thoroughly such
causes, when they exist, to determine whether they are beyond the
ability of the individual to control, whether they do not limit wholly,
or in part, the responsibility for the commission of the offence, and
to what extent they should be taken into account in determining the
question of punishment: and whether some form of _treatment_, rather
than _punishment_, by imprisonment, cannot be devised, which shall be
more scientific, efficacious and humane.

The Justices of the City of Birmingham, early in 1919, took action and
approached the Prison Commissioners in the matter and asked that a
whole-time Medical Officer might be appointed to the Prison, and that
portions of the hospitals, on both the male and female side, might be
entirely partitioned off from the rest of the Prison and adapted for
the reception of persons on remand whose mental condition appeared such
as to require investigation.

Effect has been given to the recommendations of the Justices and,
at the time of writing, the scheme has been in operation for some
12 months with valuable results. The Medical Officer of the Prison
works in the closest co-operation with the Justices and no person,
in whose case there is any suspected mental element, is sentenced to
imprisonment until after full investigation of his condition of mind
and all other avenues of dealing with the case have been exploited. The
"Birmingham" experiment, as it is termed, has aroused great interest
throughout the country and an extention to other centres, in a modified
form, has already resulted.

The institution of the Borstal System has given a new and additional
importance to the rôle of the Medical Officer, who plays an important
part in the daily administration of these Institutions. From the
medical point of view, the system commends itself more particularly
by its insistence on the influences which promote sound physical
development. Special inquiries made by the Medical Staff in 1903
and 1907 furnish positive proof of the physical inferiority of the
adolescent criminal, 16-21, relatively to the free population, notably
in height and weight. These inquiries furnish a striking argument in
favour of the soundness of the principles on which the Borstal System,
as explained in a previous chapter, has been established.

The foregoing observations merely indicate generally the direction
in which the manifold activities of the Medical Prison Service are
exercised. I have laid stress on the part played in the discernment
and investigation of mental disorder. That the question of guilt is
identical with the question of mental soundness is a commonplace
not only with those who seek to analyse by scientific inquiry the
mysterious and subtle working of the human mind, but with those who,
working in the name of humanity, are forced by personal observation,
unaided by science, to the conclusion that many whom the law strikes
are not fully responsible for their actions, and are not justly
punished. In the United States of America, where science and humanity
march hand-in-hand in exploring prisons and places of punishment, and
in surveying the whole field of crime, we find that practical steps
have been taken by the establishment of criminal laboratories, as
at Chicago and Boston, to classify offenders, especially the young,
according to the nature and degree of their mental capacity for
distinguishing right from wrong. There is nothing so elaborate as
this in England, but this is not because public opinion is not keenly
alive to the importance of the medical aspect of cases, but because
it would not be disposed to admit that the causes of a criminal act
are discoverable by physical observation, or by the precise research
of a criminal or clinical laboratory. It would be the duty, and the
pride, of any civilized State to maintain a high standard of medical
work in Prisons: it is a question whether the establishment of criminal
laboratories does more than illustrate the practical benefits to be
derived from good and thorough medical work in prisons, and whether
experimental psychology, with its instruments of precision for testing
the human mind, is a really effective auxiliary for the Court of Law
in deciding guilt. It may be of value, as a supplementary aid to such
diagnosis as a conscientious Medical Officer would apply, and it could
be used as a means to support and justify opinion, but it cannot, by
itself, be a substitute for other methods of observation. Though
public opinion in England is increasingly sensitive to degrees of
responsibility, as affecting punishment of crime, it would be more
disposed to place its faith in a medical man having experience of
mental disease than in the conclusions drawn from the employment of the
precise methods of experimental psychology alone. It is disposed to
take the view expressed by no less an authority than Dr. Binet, which
is to the effect that the complex phenomena of human action cannot
be expressed in a few terse formulas,--"_c'est de la littérature: ce
n'est pas de la science_." He inclines to the view that the essential
characteristic of normal man is in the _direction_ of choice. The want
of direction is due to a disordered _moral_ nature. Of this moral
degeneracy little is known. The subjective valuation of the alienist
cannot in practical life be the test of responsibility--the Judge, as
representing 'common sense,' must decide.

At the same time, it recognizes the enormous value of preventive
medicine in relation to the detection of mental disorder in its
earliest stages. Sir George Newman, in his recent work "An Outline of
the Practice of Preventive Medicine" lays great stress upon this point.
He states: "Here, as elsewhere, we must seek to begin at the beginning.
An understanding of eugenic principles and practice, a new aptitude
and alertness in the physician, a new type of clinic, special hospital
and institution--"early treatment centres"--a system of "voluntary
boarders" in approved homes and institutions, a wider education of
the public in what causes and constitutes mental incapacity, a larger
apprehension of the meaning of self-control--all this is necessary
if we would prevent mental disease. It is obvious that such a policy
raises many questions of science, law and administration. But the
experience of the war and of our colleagues in America (at the Phipps
clinic at Baltimore and the psychiatric hospital at Boston) all points
in one direction, namely, the practicability of establishing suitable
psychiatric clinics in this country for dealing with early cases of
mental and nervous disorder."

In order that the whole-time staff of the prison medical service
should be kept fully acquainted with modern developments in medicine
and surgery, a system of "study-leave" was inaugurated in 1909, whereby
a certain number each year take up a post-graduate course at the
large hospitals. Special leave is allowed for the purpose, and the
Commissioners pay the fees. Each officer chooses his own course of
study, subject to the approval of the Medical Commissioner, due regard
being paid to the special requirements of the prison service.

The nursing of sick prisoners is carried out by officers of the
hospital staff, except in the smaller prisons where, for the present,
outside nurses are engaged. The male officers are selected from
candidates who have had nursing experience in the Royal Army Medical
Corps or in Institutions, and they undergo a course of training in
prison nursing and hospital duties at the invalid convict station at
Parkhurst, Isle of Wight, before appointment to the hospital staff. As
regards the female officers, these have, in the past, been officers
trained in the larger female prison hospitals, but the question
of securing more fully trained nurses for female prisons is now
under consideration. With this object in view, a Voluntary Advisory
Nursing Board has been established consisting, for the most part,
of distinguished members of the medical and nursing professions to
advise the Commissioners in formulating a scheme for a prison nursing
scheme, and the Board will, it is hoped, be a useful auxiliary to the
administration for this purpose in the future.

CHAPTER XVI.

A CRIMINOLOGICAL INQUIRY IN ENGLISH PRISONS.

An attempt has lately been made in this country to apply scientific
method to the study of criminal man. A vast amount of data relating
to the personal condition, social estate, and penal histories of
"convicts" (_i.e._, men sentenced to penal servitude for three
years and upwards) has been co-ordinated and amplified by physical
measurements, by details of personal and family history, and by
description of physical and mental qualities. An examination in respect
of all or some of these points of 3,000 men, taken without selection
from those undergoing penal servitude in English Convict Prisons, has
formed the basis of this inquiry.

Of this large number of sets of observations, which were made by
the Medical Officers of the Convict Prisons, Dr. Goring contributed
considerably more than half, and to him was entrusted the onerous
task of tabulating the material of the whole. With the assistance and
advice of Professor Karl Pearson, Dr. Goring was enabled to carry out
this work which he has achieved with remarkable patience and ability.
The main intention of this investigation at the outset was to obtain
accurate information whereby the many hypotheses advanced by different
schools of criminology, and especially the Italian Schools, might
be confirmed or refuted. But the scope of the work grew, perhaps
inevitably, beyond its original purpose, and now includes not only an
analysis of the physical and mental condition of convicts, but also
many data for speculations on very difficult and contentious questions
as to the relative influence of "heredity," "environment," &c., on the
genesis of 'criminals' generally.

Dr. Goring's complete and elaborate Report, entitled "The English
Convict--a Statistical Study," has been published by the Government
in an official Blue-Book. It appears now as Dr. Goring's own work,
carried out by a special method, and the conclusions arrived at are his
own. I do not propose to attempt to criticise either his method or his
conclusions, being aware that such an attempt would involve discussion
of some matters on which there is much difference of scientific opinion.

This work is, as far as I know, the first essay made in any country to
arrive at results on criminology by the strict application of what is
known as the biometrical method of statistical treatment of recorded
observations. Whatever its merits or demerits may be, it at least marks
an epoch in the history of criminological studies. In the pages which
follow, I endeavour to present in a more simple and popular form, and,
as far as possible, in his own words, an abstract of Dr. Goring's
views, and of the results to which his general inquiry has led him.
Students of Criminology must turn to the original volume itself for a
detailed exposition of the whole case which the author so ably presents.

The postulate of the "Positive" School, with which the name of the
celebrated Professor Lombroso will always be associated, is that crime
or criminality is a morbid or pathological state akin to disease,
or, in other words, an abnormal state, due to certain physical
or mental defects, made manifest by certain stigmata or "_tares
physiologiques_"--the result either of inherited defect or reversion
to atavistic type, or in short, that there is "a criminal type"
_i.e._, a race of beings predestined to criminal acts, against whom
any system of punishment would be futile, as by nature such beings
would not be amenable to the deterrent influences of penal law. This
theory--of which the logical result would be either elimination of the
unfit, or the translation into the province of medicine of all legal
procedure--has failed to command general assent or approval. Like all
half-truths, it is extremely dangerous, for it is, of course, the
fact that morbid conditions are associated, to a certain degree, with
crime, and, like all sensational dogmas, based on untested observation,
it affected the public imagination, prone to believe that the criminal
is a sort of "bogey-man"--the stealthy enemy of peaceful persons, ever
ready to leap in the dark. This uneasy feeling encouraged the idea
that the criminal was a class by himself--an abnormal being, the child
of darkness, without pity and without shame, and with the predatory
instincts of a wild beast. Thus gradually the common belief has taken
root that there is a criminal type, and that it is persons of this
particular brand or species who commit crime, and go to Prison. This
belief is what Dr. Goring calls the great "superstition" of the day,
which stands in the way of Prison reform, which darkens counsel in
dealing with crime, which renders rehabilitation difficult, and which
stifles and discourages the zeal of the philanthropist, to whom the
"criminal" is a man of like passions with himself, and amenable to the
same influences; and not predestined to crime and anti-social conduct,
from which no human effort could save him.

The peculiarity of the Lombrosian doctrine was in the attempt made
by it to "stamp a preconceived idea with the hall-mark of science;
to support an _à priori_ conception of 'abnormality' by an alleged
scientific method of investigation;" but the methods of Lombroso
were scientific only in name. He sought to solve those infinite and
delicate relations which exist in all human or social conditions
by _observation_ alone. He brought much acumen, a great diligence,
and imagination to the examination of the subject, but his field of
observation was limited. If criminality were a morbid state, with signs
comparable to those of disease, observation alone would suffice; but,
in fact, there are no characteristics, physical or mental, peculiar
to criminals, which are not shared by all people. It is common to
speak of poverty, drink, neglect, &c., as the "causes" of crime; but
such a causation can only be established by the statistical method of
averaging large numbers, with the view of proving that the tendency
to anti-social conduct is, in fact, associated with the personal,
economic, and social condition of an individual. "The science of
statistics," says Dr. Goring, "is essentially a science of method;
and, as applied to criminal man, it may be described as a system of
methods whereby comparison, based on a strict anthropometrical survey
of the different sets of individuals, may be effective in providing
legitimate, simple, and intelligible description of the criminal, and
of crime, and of the fundamental inter-relationships of criminality."

The author of the work approaches his inquiry with an open mind
regarding the common _à priori_ belief that all men are morally and
mentally equal, in the absence of definite pathological cause. This
belief is common to all ages. In early days, anti-social conduct was
regarded as a sin against the light, _i.e._, against the teaching of
religion and the word of God. The punishment of crime was, therefore,
an affair for the ecclesiastical tribunals. The distinction between
sin and crime evolved but slowly, and the lay punishments of the
Classical Schools were largely affected by the religious law. Later,
the anti-social man was regarded as a pathological product--the victim
of disease; and it is one of the fashions of to-day to regard him as 'a
social product'--the victim of adverse social environment.

All these conceptions are regarded as due to a fixed conventional
idea that there was a 'normal' man, who led a good life, and an
'abnormal' man who led a bad life, and this misconception is held to
have stood in the way of a scientific view of the nature of criminal
man. "Scientifically," according to Dr. Goring, "we can only divide men
into 'normal' and 'abnormal' when there is some qualitative difference.
'Normal' is the outcome of the natural laws of existence. This becomes
'abnormal' only when supplanted by some pathological process. Normal
never 'merges' into the abnormal, _e.g._, the natural ranges of
vesicular breathing, of normal temperature, of folly, and want of
control, never merge into the morbid ranges of pneumonic breathing,
fevers and madness. The qualities that have to be considered in
relation to crime are not 'abnormal' qualities, but qualities common
to all humanity. Law-breakers are not a special breed of human beings
differing _qualitatively_ from those who keep the law: any difference
there may be between these two human classes is of degree only and
not of kind: and, similarly, law-breaking is not different in quality
from all other forms of anti-social conduct for which men are not
punished, even if they are found out: yet here again there is a vast
range of difference in _degree_. And that is why statistical methods
are necessary for the scientific study of the criminal. For only by
measurement can difference of degree be evaluated; and statistics is
merely a refined instrument for making measurements."

The word 'criminal,' strictly-speaking, only designates the fact that
an individual has been imprisoned: that he has committed a crime. The
object of this inquiry is to determine whether certain constitutional,
as well as environmental, factors play a part in the production of the
criminal act. It is impossible to state dogmatically _à priori_ what
these factors are, or which of them prevail in the determination of
a given act, but it is lawful to assume from the phenomenon of crime
that there is a hypothetical character of some kind, a constitutional
proclivity, either mental, moral or physical, present, to a certain
degree, in all individuals, but so potent in some as to determine for
them the fate of imprisonment.

This hypothetical character which, in the absence of a better term,
Dr. Goring provisionally calls "the criminal diathesis," is described
as a "normal" character, possessed to some extent by all normal people
whose differences are of degree only, and not of kind. It is a highly
complex unanalysable character which, founded upon, and resulting
from, a combination of qualities, some, perhaps inconceivably minute,
is best described as a "make-up" comparable to the domesticated or
wild "make-up" amongst animals, or to the human "make-up" whereby the
sociable being is distinguished from the recluse. Nobody would suppose
the gregarious tendency, or the impulse to lead a solitary existence,
to be a simple primary quality--a so-called unit character--peculiar
to the category it represents; and, similarly, criminality is not a
simple heritable entity--a primary instinct to evil, for instance, as
Lombroso imagined it to be: it is rather a resultant quality springing
from many social and anti-social tendencies, which together form the
criminal or non-criminal "make-up" called the "criminal diathesis."
It is the degree to which a man is thus "made-up" as a criminal or
non-criminal which determines eventually the fate of imprisonment:
consequently, the intensity of criminal diathesis is measured by
conviction or non-conviction, and by frequency of conviction for crime;
and the main object of this inquiry has been to find out the extent to
which this "criminal diathesis," as measured by criminal records, is
associated with environment, training, stock, and with the physical
attributes of the criminal. To this examination, the "biometric"
method, under the guidance of its distinguished exponent Professor Karl
Pearson, has been applied.

Although only those gifted with high mathematical powers could have
originated the minute and abstruse symbolical reasoning at the source
of the methods whereby the inter-relationship of these phenomena have
been measured and calculated, yet the application of these methods,
and of the formulæ which have now been provided, are open to any
intelligent worker who has knowledge of arithmetic and of simple
mathematics, and the computer's zeal for precision and accuracy. If the
results do not command general acceptance, they are fruitful of new
ideas, which, by further elaboration, may possibly furnish more light
on the problem of crime, and may aid in the direction of administrative
methods. At least they furnish an extraordinary example of what
industry, and skill, and research, can accomplish in a domain where
science, in the past, has asserted itself but slightly.

The question of the existence of a criminal type is regarded as
essentially anthropometrical, _i.e._, it can only be solved by the
statistical analysis of a large series of measurements. Anthropometry
has, of course, been used as an instrument by criminologists, but its
strict application demands more than the crude contrast of mean values
which is the most that has been hitherto attempted: in addition to
the means, it insists that probable errors should be also calculated
and recorded; that a measure of the variability of each series of
measurements should be obtained; and that, in every case, effects upon
measurement due to differentiation in age, stature, intelligence,
&c., of the contrasted populations under measurement should be also
estimated and allowed for.

Having, by means of a comparison with regard to thirty-seven
representative physical attributes of criminals, distinguished (1)
by their conviction for different orders of crime, _e.g._, thefts,
assault, arson, sexual offences, and frauds, (2) by their frequency of
reconviction, and (3) by the length of their imprisonment, established
the conclusion that criminals are not physically differentiated
because they are criminals, but because of difference in age, stature,
intelligence, &c., our author proceeds to a comparison between
statistics of criminals, as a class, and of the non-criminal public.
The absence of any comparative data with regard to many of the physical
characters of the law-abiding classes is, of course, fatal to any
precise demonstration, but a comparison of the head-length, -breadth,
-height, -index, and -circumference in convicts is made with similar
statistics of a set of undergraduates of Oxford, Cambridge, and
Aberdeen Universities, and of the London University College Staff,
with the result that prison inmates, as a whole, approximate closer
in head-measurement to the Universities generally than do students of
different Universities conform with each other in this regard, and
that from a knowledge only of an undergraduate's cephalic measurement,
a better judgment could be given as to whether he were studying at an
English or Scottish University, than a prediction could be made whether
he would eventually become a University Professor, or a convicted felon.

Similar comparison with the general Hospital population and with
soldiers (118 non-commissioned officers, and men of the Royal
Engineers) establishes a similar conclusion that, so far as
head-measurements are concerned, the criminal, and the hospital
patient, and the soldier cannot be differentiated.

Next, comparison with some seventeenth century skulls, recently
discovered while excavations were being made in Whitechapel, leads to
the interesting conclusion that there is a close agreement between
correlation values obtained from measurements of English skulls
300 years old, and those calculated from the cephalic-diameters of
English convicts alive to-day. And a detailed comparative analysis of
head-length and -breadth statistics brings against a current theory,
respecting the anomalous conformation of the criminal's head, the
following fact: that amongst 200 criminals, the head of only one will
be genuinely anomalous--a proportion less than has been found amongst
Scottish insane people, and probably much the same as would be found in
any section of the law-abiding healthy community.

Comparison with respect to hair and eye colour, nose conformation,
deafness, left-handedness, tattooing, of such data as are available,
illustrates the absence of any marked peculiarity in the case
of criminals, and, lastly, a comparison of the head-contours of
800 convicts with those of 118 Royal Engineers, according to a
plan invented by Professor Pearson for comparing skull-contours,
demonstrates with great precision that, so far from criminals as
a class being differentiated or stigmatized by low and receding
foreheads, by projecting occiputs, by asymmetry, and by sugar-loaf,
dome-shaped, and other peculiar forms of heads, the agreement between
the contrasted types is so remarkable, and the differences so trifling,
that at least in this respect no ground can be said to exist for
the popular belief that criminal tendency can be inferred from the
shape of a man's head. From all these comparisons, pursued strictly
according to the biometric method of which I have only attempted to
give the outline, Dr. Goring draws his conclusion that "no evidence has
emerged confirming the existence of a physical criminal type, such as
Lombroso and his disciples have described. The data show that physical
differences exist between different kinds of criminals, precisely as
they exist between different kinds of law-abiding people. But, when
allowance is made for a certain range of probable variation, and when
they are reduced to a common standard of age, stature, intelligence,
class, &c., these differences tend entirely to disappear. The results
nowhere confirm the evidence, nor justify the allegations, of criminal
anthropologists. They challenge their evidence at almost every point.
In fact, both with regard to measurements and the presence of physical
anomalies in criminals, the statistics present a startling conformity
with similar statistics of the law-abiding classes. The final
conclusion we are bound to accept until further evidence, in the train
of long series of statistics, may compel us to reject or to modify an
apparent certainty--our inevitable conclusion must be that _there is no
such thing as a physical criminal type_."

But although no physical type peculiar to criminals can be
demonstrated, certain physical differences in criminals have emerged,
and it is in the examination of these differences that Dr. Goring
attempts to establish a theory of criminality more simple and
reasonable than that which refers them to the presence of a definite
criminal type. From a comparison of the stature and weight of the
general population, published in 1882 by the British Association for
the Advancement of Science, he shows that, (apart from differences
due to class differentiation,) in physique, as measured by stature
and weight, criminals, with the exception of those convicted of
fraud, are markedly differentiated from the non-criminal sections
of the community. This physical inferiority, however, must not be
associated with any condition of degeneracy, atavism, or other defect,
mental or physical, originating spontaneously, but all the evidence
points to the truth of the theory that these bodily conditions are
"selective factors" determining, to some extent, conviction for crime.
It may be imagined that as good physique determines occupation, so a
bad physique predisposes to a criminal career. It also facilitates
arrest by the Police, and apprehensions are considerably fewer than
offences committed. It is, too, generally observed that persons of
good physique are less irascible and prone to violence, and the case
of the incendiary would show that a weakly man has recourse to a mean
act from motives of revenge, not being capable of an act requiring
physical force. "Fraudulents," it is true, are not selected for
crime, for they resemble, in weight and stature, the law-abiding
public; but they are an exceptional case, which, while destructive
of a theory of degeneracy, is not necessarily inimical to the theory
that physique selects crime. Dr. Goring does not deny that there is a
possibility that this physical inferiority may tend to become an inbred
characteristic of the criminal classes, the convicted fathers having
sons who inherit their diminutive stature, and thus, in course of time,
an inbred differentiation of the criminal classes might result. That
this may be so is illustrated by statistics, which show that industrial
and reformatory school children are consistently on the average one
inch shorter in stature, and several pounds less in weight, than any
other class of school-children of the same age in the United Kingdom.
Nothing more than this can be conceded to the Lombrosian School. The
only fact at the basis of criminal anthropology is that thieves,
and burglars, and incendiaries (_i.e._, about 90 per cent. of all
criminals) are markedly differentiated from the general population in
stature and body-weight. There is no other scientific foundation than
this for the extravagant doctrines of the "Positive" School.

It is also held by Dr. Goring that there is no such thing as a "mental
criminal type." It is not denied that marked unlikeness of mental
characters exists between criminal groups, as it does between different
sections of the law-abiding community; but the point emphasised is
that this unlikeness is associated not with a differentiation in
criminal tendency, but with the criminal's differentiation in general
intelligence or mental capacity, which, according to the nature of
his crime, varies enormously: _e.g._, the percentage of actual mental
defectives convicted of stack-firing is 53, of rape 16, of stealing 11,
of manslaughter 5, whereas amongst persons convicted of embezzlement,
forgery, and other forms of fraud, the percentage is practically zero.
The recent Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded,
from an enumeration of defectives in sixteen representative districts
of the British Isles, estimated that ·46 per cent. of the whole
population of England and Wales are mentally defective; a similar
enumeration in prisons, casual wards, shelters, etc., revealed
10·28 per cent. of mental defects. Dr. Goring contends that it is
clear from this that criminals, as well as showing wide differences
amongst themselves, are also, as a class, highly differentiated in
mental capacity from the law-abiding classes. Mental defectives, it
is argued, unlike the insane and pathological imbeciles, are not a
special class of human beings, and they are chiefly distinguished from
other normal persons by their low level of general intelligence. The
term mental deficiency, as applied to convicts, as well as connoting
a mind of inferior capacity, in many cases implies also an unbalanced
mind, _i.e._, a mind whose equilibrium is easily disturbed by the
preponderance of extreme degrees of objectionable and dangerous
qualities, such as impulsiveness, excitability, passionate temper, &c.
These qualities are held to be not "morbid" but "natural," being shared
in some degree by persons of all mental grades. The measure of general
intelligence among criminals bears also a striking relation to their
occupational class. Thus, if we examine, say, 1,000 cases of conviction
for crime, we should find that the percentage of mentally defective
criminals varied from 6 to 35, accordingly as the offender belonged
to the professional, commercial, artizan, or labouring class,--the
actual percentages for all crime in each class being 6, 15, 26, and 35,
respectively. Probably, in the opinion of Dr. Goring, the chief source
of the high relationship between weak-mindedness and crime resides in
the fact that the criminal thing, which we call "criminality," and
which leads to the perpetration of many, if not most, anti-social
offences to-day, is not _inherent wickedness_, but natural stupidity.
The striking characteristic of 90 per cent. of offences is their
incredible stupidity, and, moreover, it is probable that the commonly
alleged causes of crime, such as alcoholism and epilepsy, are not more
than accidental associations with crime, themselves depending upon
the high degree of relationship which is admitted to exist between
defective intelligence and crime.

So far then, the conclusion is that English criminals are selected by a
physical condition and by a mental constitution which are independent
of each other: that the one significant physical association with
criminality is a generally defective physique, and that the one vital,
mental constitutional factor in the etiology of crime is defective
intelligence.

The question of the respective influence of heredity and environment is
next considered by Dr Goring. The family histories of 1,500 convicts
are examined, and two important relations are demonstrated (1) that
the percentage of criminal offspring increases progressively according
to whether neither parents, the mother only, the father only, or both
parents are criminal: (2) that the percentage of criminal offspring
becomes steadily greater as the age of the children increases from
14 to 23. With regard to age, the interesting fact results that the
mean age of criminal enlistment is 22, with a deviation of nine years;
and 14 to 32 may be regarded as the age when the chance of inherited
criminal disposition is most likely to reveal itself--the modal age at
first conviction is about 19.

It appears also that the probabilities of conviction are greatly
increased when a brother has been convicted, and the greatest intensity
of the fraternal, as well as of the paternal association, occurs in
families tainted by the crimes of stealing and burglary, _i.e._, the
taint of habitual and professional criminality. But though the tendency
for crime to recur in families already criminally tainted is an
indisputable statistical fact, it is not in itself a fact of heredity.
It may be due to contagion within the corrupted home into which a
criminal is born. The solution of the question as to which of the two
influences, heredity or contagion, is predominant, cannot be determined
by observation alone--there are numberless instances pointing one way
or the other--it can only be determined by a statistical examination
of family statistics, where the possible influence of each factor has
been eliminated. The high degree of association between criminality
in husband and wife would, at first sight, seem to furnish proof of
the influence of contagion, it being a relation where heredity can
be eliminated, but when it can be shown that every other married
female criminal is the wife of a criminal husband, and that four out
of every five alcoholic wives have alcoholic husbands, the theory
of contagion gives way to a theory of 'associative or selective'
mating among criminals, due to the universal tendency prevailing in
every department of life, of like to mate with like. So again, if we
eliminate contagion, _i.e._, if we examine crimes in the perpetration
of which parental example would not play an important part, such as
arson, damage, or sexual offences, the parental correlation is found to
be greater than in stealing or burglary, when the influence of parental
example would be likely to have most effect. The result arrived at is
that the criminal diathesis, revealed by the tendency to be convicted
and imprisoned for crime, is inherited at much the same rate as are
other physical and mental qualities and pathological conditions in
man, and that the influence of parental contagion is, on the whole,
inconsiderable, relatively to the influence of inheritance, and of
mental defectiveness, which are by far the most significant factors
discovered in the etiology of crime.

Other environmental factors which are commonly alleged as the 'causes'
of crime, _e.g._, illiteracy, alcoholism, poverty, etc., are examined
statistically, so far as the data at the disposal of the author furnish
ground for valid scientific conclusion.

These alleged causes are, in reality, nothing more than the
co-existence of associated phenomena, and until such association is
analysed by statistical methods, causation, in the strict scientific
sense, cannot be demonstrated. Thus, to take a general instance:
poverty and illiteracy are often described as the 'causes' of crime,
but as more than a third of the population of Great Britain belongs
to the class of general labourers, who are presumably both poor and
illiterate, such a statement can mean no more than that there is a
more frequent association of criminal acts with persons living on a
low rather than on a high economic scale. The exact numerical measure
of the association can only be obtained by elaborate statistical
comparison, the data for which are not in existence.

As a matter of fact, a statistical comparison of the penal records
of convicts reveals the startling fact that if there be any relation
between a convict's education and the frequency of his convictions for
crime, it is that those who have received no schooling are the least
frequently convicted, and that the worst penal records are of those
who have passed through reformatory and industrial schools. Again, if
we take alcoholism--it is the fact that deaths from alcoholism are
twice as frequent among prisoners as in the general population (26 per
1,000 as against 12 per 1,000), from which it might be inferred that
alcoholism is specially associated with the committing of crime. But
the incidence of two statistical facts does not, of itself, determine
which of the two is antecedent to the other. Does the alcoholist tend
to become criminal, or the criminal tend to become alcoholic? Or is the
relation of alcoholism to crime due to the fact that both have a common
antecedent in defective intelligence? The employment of the correlative
tables would seem to point conclusively to the fact that this
antecedent is defective intelligence. If a comparison is made of the
mean degrees of intelligence of alcoholic and temperate convicts, it
appears that there is a pronounced differentiation of intelligence in
favour of the latter, and that the mental grade of alcoholic convicts
is lower by a half than that of alcoholics in the general population.
Apart from offences connected with personal violence, where there is
a direct association with inebriety, alcoholism cannot strictly be
regarded as a cause of crime, and the general conclusion would seem
to be that adverse environment is related much more intimately to the
intelligence of convicts than it is to the nature of their crimes, or
to the degree of their recidivism. Again, if we examine the relation
of occupation to criminality, it appears that crime is related much
more closely to the opportunity which a particular occupation offers
than to the economic scale of living which it suggests: thus, sailors,
miners, and labourers are relatively free from association with the
acquisitive offences, for which, from the special facilities afforded
by their occupation, clerks, shop-keepers, and persons engaged in
commerce are disproportionately selected; and this proclivity to fraud
in all its forms is distributed equally through all these classes, the
professional and the upper classes providing nearly their proportional
share of thieves. Four per cent. of persons in the general population
belong to the professional classes: the number of convicted thieves
belonging to this class is three per cent. As ninety-five per cent. of
all offences are of an acquisitive kind, it is difficult to sustain the
point that poverty is a cause of crime.

Dr. Goring is led to the conclusion that there is not any significant
relationship between crime and what are popularly believed to be its
"causes", and that crime is only to a trifling extent the product of
social inequalities or adverse environment, and that there are no
physical, mental, or moral characteristics peculiar to the inmates
of English Prisons: that one of the principal determinants of crime
is "mental defectiveness," and as this is a heritable condition, the
genesis of crime must to this extent be influenced by heredity.

Putting aside the part played by the different circumstances affecting
criminal man, biologically and otherwise, and without subscribing to
the different views and doctrines which, in the opinion of the author,
result from the inquiry, the broad and general truth which appears from
this mass of figures and calculations is that the "criminal" man is,
to a large extent, a "defective" man, either physically or mentally,
or, is unable to acquire the complex characters which are essential
to the average man and so is prone to follow the line of least
resistance. This truth may not be new or startling. It is advanced now
by Dr. Goring as a truth which is scientifically demonstrable and so
commanding respect and possessing a value which would not belong to
statements based on purely empirical observation. This result may be
regarded as modest and even disproportionate to the labour involved,
but it is worthy of attainment, for much is gained everywhere and
especially in the realm of penology, when definite ideas as to the
nature of the problems dealt with are substituted for vague notions,
or even illusions, as to the nature of the criminal: notions which, in
the absence of detached and scientific inquiry, undertaken, as this has
been, from a single-minded desire to search out what is true, may have
their origin in two quite contrary sources, _viz._: an undue pity for
the offender or an undue desire to be revenged on him.

Quite apart from general incapacity to live up to the required social
level which brings them within the meshes of the criminal law, Dr.
Goring even suggests that the physical aptitude of evading the police
may affect statistics, and the fact is that the weaker and not the
stronger man is "run in," although the "criminal diathesis" may be
equally strong in each. In any case his conclusion on this point is
very emphatic, _viz._: that English criminals are selected by their
physical condition, and that the one significant physical association
with criminality is a generally defective physique; and that the
one vital mental constitutional factor in the etiology of crime is
defective intelligence.

This general theory of defectiveness as a general attribute of
criminality may be regarded by some as confirmed by the fact that
persons convicted of crime are mainly drawn from the lowest social
scale; and it is plausible to infer that physical and mental
inferiority is allied to a low economic scale of living. This theory,
however, must not be pressed so far as to affect the liability to
punishment of the offender for his act. Penal law is, through its
prohibitions, the expression of the social standard of life in the
country. Where that standard is high, there must be a residuum of
individuals whose mental and physical state does not enable them to
live up to that standard. They fall below it through constitutional
incapacity, which manifests itself in weakness of will and power of
resistance. This inquiry goes to show that it may be predicated that
with regard to the great mass of offenders coming within the meshes
of the criminal law, this _defectiveness_, in its economic sense,
is a predisposing cause, and has no necessary relation to definite
physical or mental disease. It is a relative term only, relative to a
high standard of social requirement to maintain which the law exists.
Penal law, wisely and humanely administered, as in a highly civilized
State, should apply its sanctions only with regard to the varying
characters and capacities of those who come before the Courts. In
other words, punishment must be individualized. The tendency towards
the individualization of punishment is making marked progress in all
the countries of the world, and nowhere more than in this country. In
addition to the absolute discretion vested in the Courts and Tribunals,
there is a careful classification for purposes of prison treatment, the
object of which is to adapt, as far as practicable, the nature of the
punishment to the character and antecedents of the offender. Although,
therefore, the fact brought out by the inquiry that, on the average,
the English prisoner is defective in physique and mental capacity,
would seem to call in question the whole responsibility of any person
guilty of an anti-social act, yet, if fully and properly understood,
it does not mean more than that in a perfect world where the faculties
of each would be fully and highly developed, the problem of punishment
would not exist; and it would be a cause of rejoicing if the crime
of the country could be demonstrated by statistical methods to be
the result, not of a general perversity pervading all classes, but a
tendency only on the part of persons living on a low economic scale to
fail, on account of physical or mental defectiveness, to conform to the
restraints of the criminal law. I regard this as a fair and reasonable
explanation of crime generally in this country. It is, at least, an
explanation which must fortify and stimulate all those who desire
that there shall be fewer persons suffering from those incapacities
which predispose to crime, or that, where incapacity is obvious and
can be defined, special steps shall be taken not to expose such a
person without care or oversight to the conditions of free life, which
are likely to be not only ruinous to himself, but dangerous to the
community.

It is satisfactory to note that incidentally to its general purpose,
the inquiry (1) confirms the idea to which practical effect has been
given in recent years by the institution of the Borstal system that
the effective way of dealing with crime is to attack those between
the ages of 16 and 21, which is shown to be the probable age for
enlistment in the criminal brigade, (2) it demonstrates by statistical
method that imprisonment does not have the adverse physical and mental
results which are often alleged, (3) it confirms the opinion held of
the necessity for better care being needed for the mental defective,
and (4) it shows that it is by consideration of the individual men and
women who make up the criminal population that the best solution of the
criminal problem is to be found.

Those who agree with the opinion of Dr. Goring that the principal
determinant in crime is mental deficiency will be encouraged by the
passing of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, in the belief that this
important measure constitutes a great step forward in the rational and
scientific treatment of the criminal problem.

However much opinion may differ as to the exact proportion borne
by heredity and environment, respectively, in the formation of the
criminal character, whether any or no predominant part can be ascribed,
as by Dr. Goring, to mental defectiveness, the fact remains and is
known to all those concerned in the administration of prisons and in
the actual treatment of crime, that a considerable number of adult
persons in custody cannot be regarded as fully capable of dealing
with the ordinary affairs of life. The provision, therefore, that has
now been made for the detection and diagnosis of all forms of mental
defectiveness from childhood and early youth justifies a general
hope and belief that if this Act is effectively administered, a
great impression will, in course of time, be made on the figures of
imprisonment; and this hope can be held not only by those who take an
extreme view of the influence of heredity, but by plain men and women,
without scientific training or knowledge, who are now profoundly moved
at the sight of persons of both sexes and of all ages coming to prison
in the expiation of offences which, had they been mentally conscious of
their obligations to society, or adaptable to their social environment
and standard of living, they never would have committed.

CHAPTER XVII.

A SHORT SKETCH OF THE MOVEMENT OF CRIME--

(A) 1872 to 1914: (B) THE WAR, 1914 to 1918.

The object of this Chapter is (a) to compare the number and character
of offences according to recent statistics with statistics obtainable
at the time of the London Congress, 1872; and (b) to show the great
change that has taken place in the volume of crime due to causes
consequent upon conditions of War.

(A) 1872 to 1914.

1. Serious offences (e.g. murder, wounding, sexual offences, burglary
and fraud), tried at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, decreased between
1872 and 1913 by nearly a half, relatively to population, as will be
seen from the following Table of the number of offences dealt with by
the Courts for quinquennial periods 1873 to 1913:--

--------+------------------+-------------------
Period | Number |Ratio per 100,000
|proceeded against |of the population.
--------+------------------+-------------------
1873-77 | 15,298 | 63·62
1883-87 | 13,908 | 51·09
1893-97 | 11,632 | 38·20
1903-07 | 12,344 | 36·32
1908-12 | 13,558 | 37·88
1913 | 12,511 | 33·89
--------+------------------+-------------------

2. Less serious offences, which, though triable by Superior Courts,
can be dealt with summarily, i.e., principally acts of petty larceny,
have increased during the same period, though relatively to population
there has been a decrease, as the following Table shows; but it must
be remembered that a large proportion of these offences are those
committed by children or 'young persons,' coming within the provisions
of the Children Act, 1908. Nearly 40 per cent., according to latest
figures, belong to this category, and over 60 per cent. of charges were
either dismissed or dealt with otherwise than by conviction:--

--------+-----------------+------------------
Period | Number |Ratio per 100,000
|proceeded against|of the population
--------+-----------------+------------------
1873-77 | 37,245 | 154·90
1883-87 | 43,936 | 161·41
1893-97 | 41,542 | 136·42
1903-07 | 47,721 | 140·40
1908-12 | 52,743 | 147·36
1913 | 50,758 | 137·48
--------+-----------------+------------------

3. There is a third category of offences, which, though only triable in
Summary Courts, are 'criminal' in character, e.g., assaults, damage,
&c. As will be seen from the following Table, there has been, generally
speaking, a fall since 1872 of considerably more than a half, the
number of offences per 100,000 of population having decreased for the
period 1873 to 1913 from 567 to 192.

--------------------+---------------------------------------+-------
| Quinquennial averages. | Year
Offence. +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ 1913
|1873-77|1883-87|1893-97|1903-07|1908-12|
--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
Assaults, Malicious}| | | | | |
Damage, Unlawful }|136,390|116,836|108,298| 85,193| 75,212| 71,124
Possession &c. }| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Ratio per 100,000 | | | | | |
of population | 567·22| 429·22| 355·64| 250·65| 210·14| 192·65
--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------

These three categories include all offences which are strictly
'criminal' in character. The great bulk of offences, which may involve
commitment to Prison, are not strictly 'criminal.' The principal
offences in this category are Drunkenness, Offences against Police
Regulations, Bye-laws, Highways Acts and Education Acts. The following
Table shows that the actual number of these offences rose continuously
from 1873 to 1907. Between the latter date and 1913 there was a fall in
the actual numbers, and relatively to population, the figure for 1913
(1649·99) showing a decrease of no less than 157·51 per 100,000 of the
population, as compared with 1873-7:--

------------------------+---------------------------------------+-------
| Quinquennial Averages. | Year
Offence. +-------+-------+-------+---------------+ 1913
|1873-77|1883-87|1893-97|1903-07|1908-12|
------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
Drunkenness |195,682|180,462|179,496|219,675|188,813|204,038
Education Acts, offences| | | | | |
against | 18,320| 80,566| 64,924| 56,117| 40,763| 44,030
Highway Acts " " | 16,743| 18,847| 30,677| 47,313| 62,405| 76,011
Police Regulations, | | | | | |
Bye-laws, breach of | 59,393| 62,028| 88,84 |131,600|100,842|106,509
Vagrancy | 15,193| 26,694| 25,228| 34,857| 41,267| 27,523
------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
Total non-criminal | | | | | |
offences |434,620|496,341|534,844|630,474|578,486|609,166
Ratio per 100,000 of | | | | | |
population |1807·50|1823·39|1756·38|1854·94|1616·25|1649·99
------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------

The following Table is interesting in showing the committals to prison
for the last three decades, commencing in 1881--the earliest date from
which the comparison is possible. It will be observed that the Prison
population in 1883 stood as high as 622 per 100,000 of the population
of the country, and that for the year ended 31st March, 1914 it had
fallen to the lowest then recorded, _viz_:--369. The great decrease
that has taken place since 1914, as will be shown subsequently, reduced
the ratio to 70 per 100,000 of the population:--

------+------------+---------------------------+-----------+----------
Year |Convicted of| Convicted of Offences| Total. | Per
ended |Indictable | tried summarily. |Committals |100,000 of
31st | Offences +---------------------------+ on |population
March.| tried at |Indictable.|Non-indictable.|Conviction.| of the
| Assizes and| | | | Country.
| Sessions. | | | |
------+------------+-----------+---------------+-----------+----------
1881 | 9,528 | 139,546 | 149,074 | 580
1882 | 10,550 | 150,888 | 161,438 | 621
1883 | 10,069 | 153,645 | 163,714 | 622
1884 | 9,780 | 151,056 | 160,836 | 604
1885 | 9,886 | 150,096 | 159,982 | 594
1886 | 9,617 | 138,015 | 147,632 | 542
1887 | 9,611 | 144,989 | 154,600 | 562
1888 | 9,024 | 138,755 | 147,779 | 531
1889 | 9,198 | 144,765 | 153,963 | 547
1890 | 8,180 | 137,088 | 145,268 | 511
1891 | 7,843 | 132,789 | 140,632 | 490
1892 | 8,302 | 128,958 | 137,260 | 473
1893 | 8,542 | 136,996 | 145,538 | 495
1894 | 8,590 | 147,876 | 156,466 | 526
1895 | 7,991 | 139,836 | 147,827 | 492
1896 | 7,933 | 146,019 | 153,952 | 506
1897 | 7,386 | 140,727 | 148,113 | 482
1898 | 8,004 | 145,961 | 153,965 | 496
1899 | 8,315 | 151,744 | 160,059 | 510
1900 | 7,194 | 146,266 | 153,460 | 483
1901 | 7,091 | 141,509 | 148,600 | 461
1902 | 7,764 | 159,232 | 166,996 | 513
1903 | 8,271 | 168,286 | 176,557 | 535
1904 | 8,640 | 21,730|159,518 | 189,888 | 569
1905 | 8,761 | 21,784|167,396 | 197,941 | 586
1906 | 8,972 | 21,890|164,194 | 195,056 | 571
1907 | 8,966 | 20,272|149,105 | 178,343 | 516
1908 | 9,091 | 20,886|146,625 | 176,602 | 505
1909 | 9,613 | 21,710|153,578 | 184,901 | 523
1910 | 9,500 | 21,381|149,080 | 179,961 | 503
1911 | 9,136 | 18,758|139,801 | 167,695 | 465
1912 | 8,756 | 17,668|132,443 | 158,867 | 439
1913 | 8,781 | 17,102|125,081 | 150,964 | 413
1914 | 7,738 | 15,598|113,088 | 136,424 | 369
------+------------+---------------------------+-----------+----------

For many years past, a marked decrease has taken place in the number
of persons sentenced to penal servitude. In 1872, there was a convict
population of 8,823 males and 1,249 females. This had fallen to 2,568
males and 98 females at the end of 1913-14, representing a decrease
of over 70 per cent. As will be seen from the following Table, the
average length of sentence has also fallen considerably:--

---------------------------+-----------------------------------------
|Sentences of convicts in custody on the
Sentence. |last day of each of the following years--
+--------+--------+--------+--------------
| 1872 | 1891-2| 1902-3| 1913-14
---------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------------
Life | 152 | 268 | 138 | 128
Above 15 years | 101 | 177 | 64 | 38
15 years and over 10 years | 308 | 332 | 166 | 73
10 years and over 5 years | 7,898 | 1,498 | 581 | 343
5 years and over 3 years | 1,613 | 1,726 | 1,141 | 830
3 years | -- | 28 | 819 |1,254
+--------+--------+--------+--------------
Total |10,072 | 4,029 | 2,909 |2,666
---------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------------

The most gratifying feature shown by the comparison of statistics prior
to 1914 is the wonderful decrease in the number of convictions under 21
years of age. These figures can be traced as far back as 1848:--

--------------------+---------------+----------------
Year | Under 12 |12 and Under 16|16 and Under 21
------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------
| M. | F. | M. | F. | M. | F.
1848 | 1,332| 215| 10,537| 1,718| 21,324| 6,307
1856 | 1,674| 316| 10,134| 1,857| 17,655| 7,231
1866 | 1,485| 152| 6,614| 1,105| 18,480| 6,147
1873 | 1,370| 112| 6,692| 1,185| 19,992| 7,033
1876 | 940| 58| 5,292| 848| 20,356| 6,572
1886 | 229| 21| 4,016| 547| 19,813| 5,143
1896 | 59| 1| 1,336| 102| 13,433| 2,924
1906 | 3| --| 999| 30| 15,878| 2,248
1910 | 1| --| 139| 3| 12,236| 1,186
1911 | --| --| 32| 2| 10,380| 1,163
1912 | --| --| 22| 1| 8,265| 938
1913 | --| --| 27| 5| 7,789| 900
1914 | --| --| 12| --| 6,320| 858
------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------

It will be seen that the category (16-21) has fallen from 13,433 males
in 1896 to 6,320 in 1913-14. In the 'seventies it represented 1,306 per
100,000 of the population of the country of that particular age, and
since that time the ratio has fallen as shown below:--

1883 1,164 per 100,000 of population 16-21
1893 728 " " "
1903 499 " " "
1914 212 " " "

The following Table is interesting as showing the higher average age
of the prison population in 1913-14 as compared with ten years before
that date, indicating the fact that the supply of younger recruits is
failing:--

----------+-----------------------------------------------
| Age on conviction, and the Proportion Per
| Cent. which each Category bears to the Total.
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
| Under | 21 to | 30 to | 40 to | 50 to | 60 and
| 21 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | over
----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------
Males-- | | | | | |
1902-3 | 11·6 | 26·7 | 26·9 | 18·2 | 8·1 | 8·2
1913-14 | 6·1 | 24·8 | 28·8 | 21·3 | 10·0 | 9·0
Females-- | | | | | |
1902-3 | 4·8 | 25·3 | 35·0 | 22·6 | 7·8 | 4·3
1913-14 | 2·5 | 18·4 | 34·1 | 29·1 | 11·3 | 4·4
----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------

As described in a foregoing Chapter, it was about the time of the
year first-named in the above Table that the Borstal System was
inaugurated, and to its operation (both "Full" and "Modified" Systems)
the decline in the rates of the first two columns is doubtless largely
due. Shortly before the outbreak of War, the Borstal Association
furnished remarkable figures showing that, since the Borstal System
was made statutory in 1909, only 392, out of 1,454 lads, or 27 per
cent., discharged from Borstal Institutions during that period had been
reconvicted. Bearing in mind that all these lads had qualified for
Borstal detention as being "of criminal habits or tendencies," it is
not surprising to find that the successful efforts of the Association,
and of those of Borstal Committees in Local Prisons, are resulting in
a decreasing number not only of the age with which they are directly
concerned, 16-21, but with the following one (21-30), which has
hitherto contributed some 30,000 cases annually.

But while the statistics of 1913 showed a decrease in the volume of
serious crime, and a falling-off both in the total number committed to
prison for these as well as for less serious offences, (and of those so
committed a decreased proportion of young and first offenders) there
remained both in Local and Convict Prisons a large body of reconvicted
men and women. Thus, in Local Prisons, the percentage of reconviction
stood at 61 and 77 for men and women, respectively: while in Convict
Prisons, presumably for more serious offences, the percentage was 87
and 67 respectively. But this high figure, taken in conjunction with
the falling prison population and the decreased number of young and
first offenders shows conclusively that recidivism in both cases is
being localized, and that, in course of time, (if even at this late
stage the many agencies now operating fail to reform) this large body
of men and women will disappear from criminal statistics, leaving a
reduced number to take their place. So far as penal servitude prisoners
are concerned, their number is relatively small. An inquiry made in
1910 into the careers of ex-convicts showed the rate of reconviction
to be about 70 per cent. Since that date the Central Association for
the Aid of Discharged Convicts has been established, and they were
able to report in 1915 concerning nearly 2,800 men, largely Recidivist
convicts, the majority of whom had been at liberty for more than two
years, that only 50 per cent. had been reconvicted.

With regard to petty recidivism in Local Prisons, the number, prior
to the great reduction since 1914, was largely composed of persons of
vagrant habit: many, too, were mentally defective. As an example, it
was found at a particular prison that out of 700 vagrants received in
a year, 236 served from two to seven imprisonments during the year,
and that the total previous convictions of these 236 men amounted to
considerably over 2,000: while 92 reported in one year at another
prison as being of feeble mind had together amassed a total of 1,270
convictions. Although the total of the latter category has diminished,
recent statistics show that the proportion of mentally defective in
the prison population remains about the same. So far as these are
concerned, it had been hoped that when the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913,
was brought fully into operation, the Prisons would have been purged
of this class, who are unfitted for prison discipline; but these hopes
remain to a large extent unfulfilled, chiefly owing to difficulties
arising out of the War in finding accommodation for defective persons.
Should legislation proceed on the lines of the recommendations of the
Vagrancy Committee of 1906, and should restriction on the sale of
intoxicating liquor still be enforced, there is little doubt that the
high rate of petty recidivism in Local Prisons will be permanently
reduced.

(B) THE RESULT OF THE WAR.

The European War broke out in August, 1914, and it is the purpose of
the following pages to show, as far as possible, the effect of the many
changes brought about by the social upheaval consequent upon war-time
conditions and legislation upon the crime of the country.

As will be seen from the following Table, the daily average Local
prison population has fallen enormously since 1913-14--52 per cent.
in the case of males and 40 per cent. in the case of females. But
as regards the number of males committed by _Ordinary Courts_, the
fall in the average population is much greater, for included in the
daily average population shown below is an average probably not far
below 2,000 prisoners committed by Courts Martial, the larger number
of whom were cases of men, who, having failed to obtain from local
tribunals exemption on the ground of conscientious objection under the
Military Service Acts, were ultimately committed to prison for breach
of military discipline. Further, there are also included many cases
charged under the Defence of the Realm &c. Acts. Excluding all these,
the daily average male population in 1918-19 had fallen by over 60 per
cent. of the number at which it stood in the year before the War. A
fall of over one-half is also shown in the male average population of
Convict Prisons:--

--------+------------------------------------------
| Daily Average Population of
+-------------+---------------+------------
|Local Prisons|Convict Prisons| Borstal
| | |Institutions
--------+------+------+-------+-------+-----+------
| M. | F. | M. | F. | M. | F.
1913-14 |12,116| 2,236| 2,609 | 95 | 841 | 87
1918-19 | 5,751| 1,322| 1,146 | 83 | 566 | 194
--------+------+------+-------+-------+-----+------

This great fall in the prison population is still more strikingly shown
in the Table showing the total committals to prison on conviction by
Ordinary Courts for the years named:--

-------------+--------------------------------------------+----------
| Committals to Prison on Conviction. |Proportion
+----------+----------+--------------+-------+ per
Year. | On |Indictable|Non-indictable| | 100,000
|Indictment| Offences | Offences | Total | of the
| | Tried | | |Population
| |Summarily | | |
-------------+----------+----------+--------------+-------+----------
1913-14 | 7,738 | 15,598 | 113,088 |136,424| 369
1918-19 | 3,486 | 8,568 | 13,996 | 26,050| 70
+----------+----------+--------------+-------+----------
Decrease | | | | |
since 1913-14| 55% | 45% | 88% | 81% | 299
-------------+----------+----------+--------------+-------+----------

This great fall in the numbers committed must, of course, be attributed
to a great extent, to conditions arising out of a state of war: but,
at the same time, it must be borne in mind, as shown above, that a
decrease in grave, as well as in the less serious, forms of crime, had
been proceeding for some years before the war. The general call upon
the manhood of the nation for service with the Forces: the endless
opportunities for employment for those who, in ordinary times, would
probably not be eligible for want of necessary qualifications--to which
must be added the intense spirit of patriotism pervading all classes,
leading men and women to abstain from evil--have, no doubt, been
chiefly responsible for so few persons coming to prison. But the War
alone, or the spirit engendered by the War, cannot be said to have been
the sole cause of this great fall. In the first year of the War, the
Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, came into operation, which
provided new facilities for the payment of fines; and, whereas before
the operation of this Act between 75,000 and 100,000 persons had been
committed annually in default, the number so committed in 1918-19 had
fallen to about 5,300 only. This low number is probably to be accounted
for by the high wages prevalent, thus affording means to pay the fines
imposed. As a result of this, the total number of short sentences fell
enormously. Before the War, and the passing of the Act of 1914, there
had been nearly 100,000 sentences annually to two weeks or less, while
in 1918-19, only 4,000 were received for those terms.

As regards the actual offences which have contributed to this decrease
during the War,--amongst grave crime, the offences of Burglary and
Housebreaking showed the greatest fall, _viz_:--57 per cent., the
numbers having been 1,960 in 1913-14, and 840 in 1918-19. Larcenies,
including the less serious cases dealt with summarily, fell from
22,459 in the first-named year to 8,915 in the latter year, or 60 per
cent. (A large increase in the case of Bigamy was noted,--the number
which had averaged about 80 per annum before the War, had risen to
420 in 1918-19). Cases punishable by fine fell greatly, and amongst
these was the offence of Drunkenness: 51,851 persons were received
on conviction in 1913-14 and only 1,670 in 1918-19, a fall of 97 per
cent., the number for the latter year probably representing largely the
cases which were committed without the option of a fine. Assaults also
fell from 8,666 in 1913-14 to 1,269 in 1918-19, or 85 per cent., and
offences against Police Regulations from 8,661 to 889, or 90 per cent.

A striking feature of statistics during the War has been the decreased
proportion of recidivists convicted of _serious_ crime tried on
indictment. In 1913, 3,462 persons, or 34 per cent. of the total
convicted, had incurred six or more previous convictions: in 1918, this
number had fallen to only 786, or 17 per cent. of the whole.

Soon after the outbreak of War, drastic measures were enforced on
the sale of intoxicating liquor. On the 31st August, 1914, the
Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914, was passed,
and under its provisions numerous Orders were made by the Licensing
Justices, suspending the sale or consumption of liquor on licensed
premises or clubs. Similar Orders were also made by Naval and Military
Authorities. In June, 1915, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)
was constituted under an Order in Council, which established the
Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations 1915, pursuant to
Act of Parliament. Statistics for the offence of Drunkenness showed a
remarkable decrease year by year, as will be seen from the following
Table:--

------------------+----------------------------------------------
|Convictions for Drunkenness in England & Wales
Year +--------------+---------------+---------------
| Males. | Females. | Total
------------------+--------------+---------------+---------------
1913 | 153,112 | 35,765 | 188,877
1914 | 146,517 | 37,311 | 183,828
1915 | 102,600 | 33,211 | 135,811
1916 | 62,946 | 21,245 | 84,191
1917 | 34,103 | 12,307 | 46,410
1918 | 21,853 | 7,222 | 29,075
Decrease per cent | | |
since 1913 | 86 | 79 | 85
------------------+--------------+---------------+---------------

Another remarkable feature of prison statistics during the War was
the practical disappearance of the Vagrant, convicted of Begging and
Sleeping-Out. In the years before the War, as many as 27,000 had been
committed annually for this offence (see chapter XIII), while in
1918-19 only 1,066 were received, and these were said to have been
largely the aged and the mentally or physically weak.

From observation of all the causes leading to the very remarkable
decrease in every category of criminal offences during the War, the
conclusion to be drawn seems to be that when employment is easy and
plentiful, and when, at the same time, there is severe restriction of
the opportunities for spending wages in intoxicating drink, there is
the probability that the records of crime (and by 'crime' is meant
not only grave offences, but the multitude of offences against Police
Regulations, Vagrancy, &c.) would be very low in the community. In past
years, the effect upon crime of prosperity, leading to good wages and
easy employment, seems to have been obscured in criminal statistics
owing to the enormous figures of convictions of Drunkenness, which,
in some recent years, have exceeded 200,000, and have represented
one-third of the whole receptions into prison. The following Table is
interesting as showing the comparison of prison statistics during a
year (1918-19) of plentiful employment with restrictions on the sale
of intoxicating liquor, with a year in which there was acute trade
depression:--

----------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------
|1918-19|1908-09
+-------+-------
Board of Trade percentage of Unemployment | ·08 | 7·8
| |
Daily Average Local Prison population | |
(excluding Military prisoners) | 5,500 | 16,000
| |
Total receptions on convictions |26,050 |184,901
| |
Including | |
| |
Charges for Drunkenness | 1,670 | 62,822
| |
" Begging and Sleeping-Out | 1,066 | 27,387
| |
" Larceny | 8,380 | 24,060
| |
Total Debtors received | 1,830 | 18,996
| |
Number committed in default of fine | 5,264 | 95,686
----------------------------------------------------------+-------+-------

The great fall in the prison population made it possible to close
temporarily, at various dates, a considerable number of the penal
institutions, representing about one-quarter of the total cellular
accommodation of the country. These included the large convict prison
at Dartmoor, which was utilized as a "Work Centre" for the prisoners
known as "Conscientious Objectors," and the Borstal Institution at
Feltham.

So far as crime generally in the country is concerned, a comparison
with the Tables printed on pages 216-8 shows a further great
falling-off, as follows:--

-------------------------------------+------------------------------------
|Number tried or proceeded against.
+-------+-------+--------------------
| 1917 | 1913 |Decrease per cent.
-------------------------------------+-------+-------+--------------------
(a) Serious crime tried on indictment| 5,586| 12,511| 55
| | |
(b) Less serious, though indictable | | |
crime, tried summarily | 57,419| 50,758| 13 (increase)
(c) Non-indictable offences of a | | |
criminal nature | 52,152| 71,124| 27
(d) Non-indictable offences of a | | |
non-criminal nature |393,606|609,116| 35
-------------------------------------+-------+-------+--------------------

With regard to category (a), serious offences against the person have
fallen since 1913 by 39 per cent; offences against property with
violence (burglary, housebreaking, &c.) by 58 per cent; and offences
against property without violence (larceny, receiving, &c.) by 60 per
cent.

As regards the increase shown under category (b) above, a large
proportion of the charges included are for petty larceny by children
and "young persons." Deducting these from the total, the offences
committed by persons over 16 total to 33,012 and 36,433 for the years
1917 and 1913 respectively, or 9 per cent. decrease.

In category (d) are included 65,386 offences created by war-time
legislation, _viz_: offences against regulations made under the Defence
of the Realm Acts, about 50,500; Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, 13,600;
and National Registration Act, 1,192. If these be excluded, the
decrease shown in the Table above would be about 46 per cent.

* * * * *

Although over two years have elapsed since the cessation of
hostilities, during which time several million men have returned
to civil life, and although during that time there has been much
industrial unrest, and though certain modifications have been allowed
on the severe restrictions placed upon the sale of intoxicating liquor,
referred to above, the ordinary prison population is still 36 per cent.
below that at the time of the outbreak of war, _viz_:--

---------------------+--------+--------+---------------------+------------
Number in Custody on: |Local |Convict |Preventive Detention |Borstal
| Prisons|Prisons |Prisons |Institutions
---------------------+--------+--------+---------------------+------------
4th Aug. 1914 |13,580 | 2,601 | 247 | 925
| | | |
1st March 1921 | 8,535 | 1,305 | 73 | 1213
---------------------+--------+--------+---------------------+------------

The elimination of many thousands of petty offenders from the prison
population, due to the causes enumerated above, has had the effect of
reducing enormously the _volume_ of recidivism to be found in Local
Prisons at the present time, though the _proportion_ who had been
previously convicted remains about the same as formerly. Thus, the
total with _more than three previous convictions_ who were committed
during the first three months of 1920, as compared with a similar
period in 1914, shows a decrease of no less than 73 per cent. in the
case of males and 66 per cent. in the case of females. The actual
figures are as follows:--

-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
|Receptions on conviction during the first|
| three months of |
| 1914. | 1920. |
+----------+--------+---------------------
| M. | F. | M. | F.
-------------------------------+----------+--------+--------+-------------
Number received | | | |
with 1-3 previous convictions| 6,533 | 1,772 | 2,132 | 685
" 4-5 " " | 1,704 | 845 | 397 | 189
" 6-10 " " | 2,490 | 832 | 513 | 226
" 11-20 " " | 2,243 | 816 | 475 | 257
" over 20 " " | 1,866 | 1,476 | 453 | 583
-------------------------------+----------+--------+--------+-------------

As regards the population in Convict Prisons, the great bulk of whom
are classified as Recidivist, only about 700 are so classified at the
present time, as compared with 2,000 at the beginning of the present
century; while the supply of the Juvenile-Adult sentenced to penal
servitude has almost ceased: in 1901 there were 200 lads 16-21 serving
sentences of penal servitude--to-day there are 9 only.

An examination of statistics for the years following the conclusion
of the Wars of the previous century shows that any increase which
then took place was largely attributable to industrial depression,
and that, on the revival of trade, they fell to their normal level.
If, at the present time, there is a reversion to the former state of
things--unrestricted sale of intoxicating liquor, or should recurring
cycles of acute trade depression result in wide-spread unemployment
and poverty,--it may be expected that the Prisons of the country will
once again be occupied with thousands of tramps and vagrants, and
petty offenders committed for short periods, and that the provisions
of the Criminal Justice Administration Act as to checking committals
in default of payment of fine will be largely nullified. If, on the
other hand, a social system can be devised and maintained which
can facilitate the means of employment, while, at the same time,
maintaining sobriety at its present level, there would incidentally be
found in such measures the solution of the penal problem.

APPENDIX (A)

BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.

EXTRACT from the PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT, 1908. (8 Edw. 7, cap. 59).

Part I.

Reformation of Young Offenders.

[Sidenote: Power of court to pass sentence of detention in Borstal
Institution.]

(1) Where a person is convicted on indictment of an offence for which
he is liable to be sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment, and it
appears to the court--

(_a_) that the person is not less than sixteen nor more than
twenty-one years of age; and

(_b_) that, by reason of his criminal habits or tendencies, or
association with persons of bad character, it is expedient that
he should be subject to detention for such term and under such
instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to his
reformation and the repression of crime;

it shall be lawful for the court, in lieu of passing a sentence of
penal servitude or imprisonment, to pass a sentence of detention under
penal discipline in a Borstal Institution for a term of not less
than[2] one year nor more than three years:

Provided that, before passing such a sentence, the court shall consider
any report or representations which may be made to it by or on behalf
of the Prison Commissioners as to the suitability of the case for
treatment in a Borstal Institution, and shall be satisfied that the
character, state of health, and mental condition of the offender, and
the other circumstances of the case, are such that the offender is
likely to profit by such instruction and discipline as aforesaid.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order direct that this section shall
extend to persons apparently under such age not exceeding the age of
twenty-three as may be specified in the order, and upon such an order
being made this section shall, whilst the order is in force, have
effect as if the specified age were substituted for "twenty-one":

Provided that such an order shall not be made until a draft thereof
has lain before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days
during the session of Parliament, and if either House, before the
expiration of that period, presents an address to His Majesty against
the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken
thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft order.

[Sidenote: Application to reformatory school offences.]

2. Where a youthful offender sentenced to detention in a reformatory
school is convicted under any Act before a court of summary
jurisdiction of the offence of committing a breach of the rules of the
school, or of inciting to such a breach, or of escaping from such a
school, and the court might under that Act sentence the offender to
imprisonment, the court may, in lieu of sentencing him to imprisonment,
sentence him to detention in a Borstal Institution for a term not
less than[3] one year nor more than three years, and in such case the
sentence shall supersede the sentence of detention in a reformatory
school.

[Sidenote: Power to transfer from prison to Borstal Institution.]

3. The Secretary of State may, if satisfied that a person undergoing
penal servitude or imprisoned in consequence of a sentence passed
either before or after the passing of this Act, being within the limits
of age within which persons may be detained in a Borstal Institution,
might with advantage be detained in a Borstal Institution, authorise
the Prison Commissioners to transfer him from prison to a Borstal
Institution, there to serve the whole or any part of the unexpired
residue of his sentence, and whilst detained in, or placed out on
licence from, such an institution, this Part of this Act shall apply to
him as if he had been originally sentenced to detention in a Borstal
Institution.

[Sidenote: Establishment of Borstal Institutions.]

4.--(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the Secretary of
State may establish Borstal Institutions, that is to say, places in
which young offenders whilst detained may be given such industrial
training and other instruction, and be subjected to such disciplinary
and moral influences as will conduce to their reformation and the
prevention of crime, and for that purpose may, with the approval of the
Treasury, authorise the Prison Commissioners either to acquire any land
or to erect or acquire any building or to appropriate the whole or any
part of any land or building vested in them or under their control, and
any expenses incurred under this section shall be paid out of moneys
provided by Parliament.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the rule and
management of any Borstal Institution, and the constitution of a
visiting committee thereof, and for the classification, treatment,
and employment and control of persons sent to it in pursuance of this
Part of this Act, and for their temporary detention until arrangements
can be made for sending them to the institution, and, subject to any
adaptations, alterations, and exceptions made by such regulations, the
Prison Acts, 1865 to 1898 (including the penal provisions thereof), and
the rules thereunder, shall apply in the case of every such institution
as if it were a prison.

[Sidenote: Power to release on Licence]

5.--(1) Subject to regulations by the Secretary of State, the Prison
Commissioners may at any time after the expiration of six months,
or, in the case of a female, three months, from the commencement
of the term of detention, if satisfied that there is a reasonable
probability that the offender will abstain from crime and lead a
useful and industrious life, by licence permit him to be discharged
from the Borstal Institution on condition that he be placed under the
supervision or authority of any society or person named in the licence
who may be willing to take charge of the case.

(2) A licence under this section shall be in force until the term for
which the offender was sentenced to detention has expired, unless
sooner revoked or forfeited.

(3) Subject to regulations by the Secretary of State, a licence under
this section may be revoked at any time by the Prison Commissioners,
and where a licence has been revoked the person to whom the licence
related shall return to the Borstal Institution, and, if he fails to do
so, may be apprehended without warrant and taken to the institution.

(4) If a person absent from a Borstal Institution under such a licence
escapes from the supervision of the society or person in whose charge
he is placed, or commits any breach of the conditions contained in the
licence, he shall be considered thereby to have forfeited the licence.

(5) A court of summary jurisdiction for the place where the Borstal
Institution from which a person has been placed out on licence is
situate or where such a person is found may, on information on oath
that the licence has been forfeited under this section, issue a warrant
for his apprehension, and he shall, on apprehension, be brought before
a court of summary jurisdiction, which, if satisfied that the licence
has been forfeited, may order him to be remitted to the Borstal
Institution, and may commit him to any prison within the jurisdiction
of the court until he can conveniently be removed to the institution.

(6) The time during which a person is absent from a Borstal Institution
under such a licence shall be treated as part of the time of his
detention in the institution: Provided that where that person has
failed to return to the institution on the licence being forfeited or
revoked, the time which elapses after his failure so to return shall be
excluded in computing the time during which he is to be detained in the
institution.

(7) A licence under this section shall be in such form and shall
contain such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the
Secretary of State.

[Sidenote: Supervision after expiration of term of sentence.]

6.--(1) Every person sentenced to detention in a Borstal Institution
shall, on the expiration of the term of his sentence, remain for a
further period of[4]six months under the supervision of the Prison
Commissioners.

(2) The Prison Commissioners may grant to any person under their
supervision a licence in accordance with the last foregoing section,
and may revoke any such licence and recall the person to a Borstal
Institution, and any person so recalled may be detained in a Borstal
Institution for a period not exceeding[5]three months, and may at any
time be again placed out on licence:

Provided that a person shall not be so recalled unless the Prison
Commissioners are of opinion that the recall is necessary for his
protection, and they shall again place him out on licence as soon as
possible[6] and at latest within three months after the recall, and
that a person so recalled shall not in any case be detained after the
expiration of the said period of six months' supervision.

(3) A licence granted to a person before the expiration of his sentence
of detention in a Borstal Institution shall, on his becoming liable
to be under supervision in accordance with this section, continue in
force after the expiration of that term, and may be revoked in manner
provided by the last foregoing section.

(4) The Secretary of State may at any time order that a person under
supervision under this section shall cease to be under such supervision.

[Sidenote: Transfer of incorrigibles, &c. to prison.]

7. Where a person detained in a Borstal Institution is reported to the
Secretary of State by the visiting committee of such institution to be
incorrigible, or to be exercising a bad influence on the other inmates
of the institution, the Secretary of State may commute the unexpired
residue of the term of detention to such term of imprisonment, with or
without hard labour, as the Secretary of State may determine, but in no
case exceeding such unexpired residue.

[Sidenote: Treasury contributions towards expenses of societies
assisting, &c. persons discharged from Borstal Institutions.]

8. Where a society has undertaken the duty of assisting or supervising
persons discharged from a Borstal Institution, either absolutely or
on licence, there may be paid to the society out of money provided by
Parliament towards the expenses of the society incurred in connection
with the persons so discharged such sums on such conditions as the
Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may recommend.

[Sidenote: Removal from one part of the United Kingdom to another.]

9. Where a person has been sentenced to detention in a Borstal
Institution in one part of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State,
the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as the
case may be, may, as authority under this Act for that part of the
United Kingdom, direct that person to be removed to and detained in a
Borstal Institution in another part of the United Kingdom, with the
consent of the authority under this Act for that other part.

EXTRACT FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo.
5, cap. 58).

_Committals to Borstal Institutions._

[Sidenote: Power to send youthful delinquents to Borstal institutions]

10.--(1) Where a person is summarily convicted of any offence for which
the court has power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for one month
or upwards without the option of a fine, and--

(_a_) it appears to the court that the offender is not less than
sixteen nor more than twenty-one years of age; and

(_b_) it is proved that the offender has previously been convicted of
any offence or, that having been previously discharged on probation,
he failed to observe a condition of his recognizance; and

(_c_) it appears to the court that by reason of the offender's
criminal habits or tendencies, or association with persons of bad
character, it is expedient that he should be subject to detention for
such term and under such instruction and discipline as appears most
conducive to his reformation and the repression of crime,

[Sidenote: 8 Edw. 7, c. 59.]

it shall be lawful for the court, in lieu of passing sentence, to
commit the offender to prison until the next quarter sessions, and the
court of quarter sessions shall inquire into the circumstances of the
case, and, if it appears to the court that the offender is of such age
as aforesaid and that for any such reason as aforesaid it is expedient
that the offender should be subject to such detention as aforesaid,
shall pass such sentence of detention in a Borstal institution as is
authorised by Part I. of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, as amended
by this Act; otherwise the court shall deal with the case in any way in
which the court of summary jurisdiction might have dealt with it.

(2) A court of summary jurisdiction or court of quarter sessions,
before dealing with any case under this section, shall consider any
report or representations which may be made to it by or on behalf
of the Prison Commissioners as to the suitability of the offender
for such detention as aforesaid, and a court of summary jurisdiction
shall, where necessary, adjourn the case for the purpose of giving an
opportunity for such a report or representations being made.

(3) Where a person is committed to prison under this section, his
treatment in prison shall, so far as practicable, be similar to that in
Borstal institutions, or he may, if the Secretary of State so directs,
be transferred to a Borstal institution.

[Sidenote: 8 Edw. 7 c. 15.]

(4) The Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, shall apply in the case
of a person committed to prison by a court of summary jurisdiction
under this section as if that person were committed for trial for an
indictable offence.

(5) A person sentenced by a court of quarter sessions under this
section to detention in a Borstal institution may appeal against the
sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal as if he had been convicted on
indictment, and the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, shall
apply accordingly.

[Sidenote: 7 Edw. 7 c. 23.]

(6) This section shall come into operation on the first day of
September nineteen hundred and fifteen.

[Sidenote: Amendment and application of Part I. of the Prevention of
Crime Act, 1908.]

11.--(1) The term for which a person or youthful offender may be
sentenced to detention in a Borstal institution under section one or
section two of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, shall not be less
than two years, and accordingly "two years" shall be substituted
for "one year" in subsection (1) of section one and in section two
respectively of that Act.

(2) The period for which a person sentenced to detention in a Borstal
institution is on the expiration of the term of his sentence to remain
under the supervision of the Prison Commissioners shall be one year,
and accordingly "one year" shall be substituted for "six months" in
subsection (1) of section six of the same Act.

(3) The maximum period for which a person so under the supervision of
the Prison Commissioners may on recall to a Borstal institution be
detained in such an institution shall be one year, and he may be so
detained notwithstanding that the period of supervision has expired,
and accordingly "one year" shall be substituted for "three months" in
subsection (2) of section six of that Act.

(4) The provisions of Part I. of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, as
so amended, shall apply to persons sentenced to detention in a Borstal
institution under this Act in like manner as they apply to persons
sentenced under that Part of that Act.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 2: Altered to two years (vide Sec. 11 (1), C.J.A. Act, 1914).]

[Footnote 3: Altered to two years (vide Sec. 11 (1), C.J.A. Act, 1914).]

[Footnote 4: Altered to one year, (vide Sec. 11 (2), C.J.A. Act, 1914).]

[Footnote 5: " " one year, (" " 11 (3), " " ").]

[Footnote 6: The passage from "and at latest" to "six months
supervision" repealed by C.J.A. Act, 1914.]

BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS

FOR

MALES AND FEMALES.

Regulations made by the Secretary of State under Section 4 (2) of the
Prevention of Crime Act, 1908.

_Grades_.

1. Persons sentenced to detention under Penal discipline in a Borstal
Institution, or transferred for the purpose of such detention under
Section 3 of the Act, shall be divided into grades, proceeding from the
Ordinary to the Special Grade, where promotion is justified by industry
and good conduct. Failing that, inmates may be degraded or forfeit any
privileges of their Grade, or be reduced to the Penal Class.

2. Promotion will be regulated by the close personal observation of the
inmates, attention being specially paid to their general behaviour,
their amenability to discipline, and their attention to instruction,
both literary and industrial.

3. There will be an ascending scale of privileges enjoyed by inmates as
they pass from one Grade to another.

4. Inmates may be placed in the Penal Class by order of the Governor
if believed by him to be exercising a bad influence, but no inmate
shall be detained in it longer than is necessary in the interests of
himself or others. While in the Penal Class, inmates shall be employed
in separation at work of a hard and laborious nature and wear a special
dress.

5. Promotion in the early stages will be decided by the Governor, on
the report of the party officers. Promotion to the Probationary and
Special Grades will be by the selection of a Board, to be called the
Institution Board (composed of such officers of the Institution as
the Prison Commissioners may select), at their monthly meeting, but
inmates shall not be promoted unless the Board are satisfied that they
deserve it, and they shall not be retained in either Grade, should it
be considered necessary to remove them for any good reason.

Inmates may qualify for the Probationary Grade after passing nine
months in the lower Grades in the case of males, and twelve months in
the case of females.

6. Well-conducted inmates in the Special Grade may be selected by the
Governor for work in places of trust and confidence on the farm or
elsewhere, may be placed on parole, and may perform their work under
such conditions for custody and supervision as he may think fit.

7. Inmates in the Special Grade, in addition to other privileges, will
wear, in addition to a distinctive dress, a good conduct badge for
every three months passed in the Special Grade. For every such badge
they may be allowed a small money payment, which may be devoted to the
purchase of approved objects, or sent to their relations.

8. They may also be specially selected for the duties of monitors,
and will assist in the administration of the Establishment in various
capacities, and will be known as the "Star Special" Grade.

9. The Visiting Committee shall consist of not less than six persons
appointed by the Secretary of State. They shall hold office for such
period not exceeding three years as may be fixed by the Secretary of
State. They may exercise all such powers as are given to the Visiting
Committees by the rules for the Government of Local Prisons made under
the Prison Act, 1898.

10. As soon as any person is sentenced to detention in a Borstal
Institution, arrangements shall be made for his removal thither, and
until such arrangements can be made, he will be specially located and
segregated in the prison of the district whence he was committed,
and be subject to the Prison Rules for offenders sentenced to
imprisonment without hard labour: provided that where, owing to lack
of accommodation in the Borstal Institutions, immediate arrangements
cannot be made for the removal of any person so sentenced to any
Borstal Institution, the Prison Commissioners may temporarily locate
such person in a prison where training similar to that given in Borstal
Institutions is being given to a class of Juvenile-Adult prisoners;
and any person so located shall not be allowed to associate with any
prisoners except members of the Juvenile-Adult class, and shall be
removed to a Borstal Institution as soon as accommodation is available.

11. Gratuities shall be placed to the credit of inmates, and shall be
expended in assisting them on discharge.

12. When the Institution Board, having closely examined into the
character and conduct of an inmate, and being satisfied, after
communication with any society or person interested in the case, that
there is a reasonable probability (1) that he will lead a useful and
industrious life and abstain from crime, and (2) that employment will
be found for him, may at any time, always provided that he has served
not less than six months of his sentence, or three months in the case
of females, submit the case to the Visiting Committee who, if they
think fit, may thereupon recommend to the Prison Commissioners that he
be discharged from the Institution on licence.

13. Special provision will be made for the discharge on licence of each
inmate by arrangement with benevolent societies or persons who may
be willing to assist the case on discharge. Full information will be
afforded, and help given, to such societies or persons with the object
of securing a continuous and well-directed supervision of the case,
both at the moment of discharge and afterwards at the home or place to
which the inmate goes. Every encouragement will be given to preliminary
visitation in the Institution before discharge, in order that the
Society or individual may have a personal knowledge of the inmate, and
be in possession of the views of the authorities of the Institution
concerning him.

14. If the Prison Commissioners are satisfied that an inmate who has
been released on licence has escaped from the supervision of the
Society or person under whose care he has been placed, or has been
guilty of serious and wilful breach of the conditions of his licence,
and that the case cannot be dealt with by admonition and warning, they
may revoke the licence in pursuance of Section 5 (3) of the Act.

15. Inmates whose licences have been revoked under Section 5 (3), or
forfeited under Section 5 (4) of the Act, may be detained in the Penal
Class for such length of time as the Institution Board shall deem
it necessary, having regard to all the circumstances of the case or
they may be placed in the Ordinary Grade, but shall not be promoted
therefrom except with the approval of the Prison Commissioners.

16. The Form of Licence under Section 5 (1) and of Revocation under
Section 5 (3) of the Act shall be in the form of the Schedules appended
hereto.

SCHEDULE A.

PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT, 1908. _No._

(8 Edw. 7. Ch. 59.)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1914.

(4 & 5 Geo. 5, Ch. 58.)

Order for Discharge on Licence from a Borstal Institution.

PRISON COMMISSION,

Home Office, Whitehall,

...... day of ...... 19..

The Prison Commissioners, in pursuance of the powers conferred
upon them by the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, do by this Licence
permit ......, who at the ...... held at ...... on the ...... of
......, 19.., for the ...... of ...... was convicted of ......
and was sentenced to detention in a Borstal Institution for a term
of ...... years, and is now detained in the Institution at ......,
to be discharged from the said Institution within thirty days from
the date hereof on condition that he places himself under the care,
supervision and authority of the Honorary Director of the Borstal
Association, until the expiration of his sentence on the ...... of
...... 19.., and during the further period of one year for which he
is liable by the said Act to remain under supervision, namely until
the ...... day of ...... 19.., unless the Prison Commissioners sooner
revoke or alter this Licence.

This Licence is granted subject to the conditions endorsed
hereon, upon the breach of any of which it will be liable to be
revoked or forfeited.

_Secretary, Prison Commission._

Conditions.

1. The Licensee shall proceed to 15, Buckingham Street, Strand, W.C.
and shall not without the consent of the Society or person under whose
charge he has been placed, remove from that place or such other place
as may be named by the Society or person.

2. He shall obey such instructions as he may receive with regard to
punctual and regular attendance at employment or otherwise; he shall
report himself periodically, either personally or by letter, if
required to do so; he shall not change his address without permission.

3. He shall abstain from any violation of the law, shall not associate
with persons of bad character, and shall lead a sober and industrious
life to the satisfaction of the Borstal Association.

Attention is directed to the following Provisions of "The Prevention of
Crime Act, 1908."

Section 5. (3) A licence under this section may be revoked at any time
by the Prison Commissioners, and where a licence has been revoked
the person to whom the licence related shall return to the Borstal
Institution, and if he fails to do so may be apprehended without
warrant and taken to the Institution.

(4) If a person absent from a Borstal Institution under such a licence
escapes from the supervision of the Society or person in whose charge
he is placed, or commits any breach of the conditions contained in the
licence, he shall be considered thereby to have forfeited the licence.

(6) The time during which a person is absent from a Borstal Institution
under such a licence shall be treated as part of the time of his
detention in the Institution; provided that where that person has
failed to return to the Institution on the licence being forfeited or
revoked, the time which elapses after his failure so to return shall be
excluded in computing the time during which he is to be detained in the
Institution.

* * * * *

I hereby acknowledge that I am aware of the above-named conditions,
&c., which have been explained to me.

_Inmate._

_Governor._

SCHEDULE B.

PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT, 1908, (8 Edw. 7, Ch. 59.)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1914.

(4 & 5 Geo. 5, Ch. 58.)

No.

Order of Revocation of Licence for Discharge
from Borstal Institution.

Whereas by Licence bearing date the ...... day of
...... 19.., you ..... being a person under sentence of detention
in the Borstal Institution, were duly licensed to the care of the Honorary
Director of the Borstal Association, of 15, Buckingham Street,
Strand, in the County of London, for the period of ...... months,
...... days, from ...... the Prison Commissioners do hereby revoke the
said Licence from the date hereof, and require you
the said ...... forthwith to return to the Institution at ......

Given under my hand this ...... day of ...... 19..

_Secretary._

* * * * *

Note.--A person failing to return to a Borstal Institution on
revocation of his Licence may be apprehended without warrant and be
taken to the Institution.

(_See_ Section 5 (3) of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908.)

MEMORANDUM TO GOVERNORS, MALE BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.

The following arrangements for carrying out the Borstal System have
been arrived at after a series of experiments lasting over twelve
years. Conferences have been held from time to time among the various
Governors and others who have been charged with the carrying of the
System into effect and it is believed that these arrangements will
fulfil the object at which they aim, _viz_:--the due instruction and
reclamation of Borstal inmates by the means suggested--physical,
mental, and moral.

The System aims at an intellectual, physical, and moral improvement and
development of each inmate. The first will be secured by a carefully
arranged educational system appropriate to the needs of each. The
second by a methodical system of labour, which shall be, as far as
possible, of an interesting and instructive kind analogous to the day
of a free workman in full employment. Drill and Gymnastics for the
bodily development of inmates will be a leading feature of the System.
Education and labour well organized will thus largely contribute to
the "disciplinary and moral influences" referred to in Section 4 of
the Act. There will be, in addition, the moral precept and example
of the Staff, superior and subordinate. Each and all have a great
trust confided to them, which is to raise the young offender, by
personal influences and wise exhortation, to a due sense of duties
and responsibilities as a law-abiding citizen. The System will rest
primarily on good discipline, firmly but kindly administered. In the
obedience which follows from this is the beginning of moral improvement
This being secured, the System admits a wide latitude for trust and
confidence in the later stages, whence will spring the sense of honour
and self-respect. When this sentiment has been inculcated, the purpose
of the Act may be said to be fulfilled, namely, the reformation of
the offender, and, incidentally, the repression of crime, for if the
criminal habit be arrested at the beginning, the supply of criminals in
the later stages of their career is effectively stopped.

1. The Borstal course in future will be as follows:--

(a) the Ordinary Grade--3 months.
(b) the Intermediate Grade--6 months: divided into two Sections A & B.
(c) the Probationary Grade,
(d) the Special Grade, and
(e) the Star Special Grade.

The Penal Grade will be known, in future, as the Penal _Class_, so as
to avoid confusion with other Grades.

2. Inmates in the Ordinary Grade will work in association during
the day, but in order to prevent lads in this stage being kept for
unduly long periods in separate confinement, arrangements will be
made by which inmates shall not retire to their rooms until late in
the evening. Education will take place in the evening as furnishing
an opportunity for bringing the lads out of their rooms, or, failing
this, some other means will be devised. Inmates in this Grade will go
through the ordinary course of physical exercises and drill, but will
be debarred from the privileges which can be earned later of games, &c.
It is obvious that the period passed in the Ordinary Grade will furnish
the opportunity for special observation and attribution to later
employment, &c.

3. The system of awarding marks to indicate progress through and out
of the Grade will be discontinued. The award of gratuity will also be
abolished, but a sum of £1 will be paid to the Borstal Association
for each inmate released, for the purpose of providing assistance to
inmates on discharge. The inmates will be divided into Divisions, and a
Tutor will be allocated to each.

He will act, so to speak, as the Headmaster of a Division, and will be
responsible for advising the Governor as to the conduct, character,
and progress of each individual lad. No lad will be passed out of the
Ordinary Grade unless the Governor is satisfied, after consultation
with the Tutor, the Principal and the Party Officers, that his conduct
and industry are such as to merit advancement. The conduct will be
recorded weekly in a Register kept for the purpose, for which the
Principal Officer of the Division will be responsible. The Instructor
or Party Officer will be supplied with pocket registers in which
notes will be made containing anything of importance concerning the
character, demeanour, and industry of the lad. These will be collected
by the Principal Officer of the Division and brought before the Tutor
or head of the Division, and will, as stated, furnish the Governor with
the opportunity of making his decision as to the advancement of the lad
out of the Ordinary Grade.

4. A lad on passing out of the Ordinary Grade will pass into the
Intermediate Grade 'A'. He will then have the privilege of meals in
association, and he may associate on Saturday afternoons and Sundays,
during which time talking may be allowed, and games, such as chess and
draughts, may be played in the corridor. After remaining for three
months in this Grade, he will pass into the Intermediate Grade 'B,'
where he will be allowed to play games in the open air.

5. After completing three months in Intermediate Grade 'B', inmates
should be eligible for the Probationary Grade, but no inmate will be
passed into the Probationary Grade except after formal consideration
of his case by the Institution Board. No inmate will pass out of the
Probationary Grade except on special certificate of the Institution
Board that he has profited by his training and can safely be trusted
with the liberties and privileges of the Special Grade. There will
be no automatic passage to the Special Grade, which will consist
only of those who have proved their fitness for consideration and
distinction, and in whose case a reasonable hope exists that they may
be fit subjects for conditional release. Release will be regulated by
Instruction No. 22.

6. The Division under the leadership of the Tutor will be organized in
such a way that competition between Sections may stimulate a healthy
rivalry and competition, which can be proved in different ways, _e.g._
by proficiency on parade, or by games in the open air, or by literary
or artistic competitions, or any other way that may be devised. The
object of this organization is to furnish means for dividing the
Establishment into separate sections and promoting healthy rivalry
between each, and to establish a close personal relation between the
head of the Division and every individual in it.

7. The Penal Class will be separately located and clothed in ordinary
prison dress. They will be specially employed on hard manual or bodily
labour. Failing such employment on the land in any capacity, they will
be employed on the penal forms of labour already in existence, _i.e._,
grain-grinding or stonebreaking.

8. In order to furnish a still further stimulus, a Star Special Grade
will be introduced. To this could be admitted lads who had shown
special proficiency as Captains of Companies or as Monitors in the
Halls. It is proposed to introduce gradually the monitorial system by
which lads would be placed in charge of sections both in the Halls
and on the Parade Ground, and at games. Specially proficient lads
might even supervise parties at labour, &c. Where this character and
proficiency is shown, promotion will be made to the Star Special Grade.
A distinctive article of dress will be worn, but these details will be
worked out by each Governor on the spot, after observing the general
operation of the System.

9. Labour parties, and numbers assignable to each, will be strictly
and definitely prescribed. Selection will be made for instruction in
special trades, and for distribution of the remaining strength, as
shall be arranged by the Governor.

It will be clearly understood that there will be no casual distribution
of labour in unauthorized parties. Every lad assigned to a definite
employment for due observation will be maintained in that employment
until specially removed, and will not be employed on any other. For
any incidental work which may become necessary, labour and staff will
be provided by special arrangement from one of the existing parties.
One of the principal complaints against the System has been that the
parties and officers have been constantly shifted. This will no longer
be the case.

10. The Staff will be divided first of all into a main labour shift,
which will be on duty day after day with the inmates during labour
hours; and a domestic shift which will do duty from early morning till
mid-day, and from mid-day till the closing of the Institution. This
morning and evening duty will alternate from day to day. Appointments
to fill vacancies in the staff will be to the Domestic shift. While
serving in the Domestic shift they will be able to perform the duties
allotted to them and acquire a sufficient knowledge of the work and
objects of the Institution so as to enable them in time to pass into
the main labour shift. The Probationers thus selected for service
at Borstal Institutions will not pass through the Prison Officers'
Training School. They will be specially instructed as to their duties
on joining by the Governor, the Chaplain, the Medical Officer, and the
Tutors, but this will take the place of the ordinary training, and
they will be liable to report at the end of four months as to their
fitness for Borstal work, and again at the end of their twelve months'
probation. Great care will be taken not to pass for permanent service
in a Borstal Institution any officer who does not show a special zeal,
aptitude and interest for the duties entrusted to him.

11. It has been decided that a change shall be made in the title of
Borstal Officers. They will be known as Borstal Officers simply. The
Governor will be assisted in his daily duties by the Tutors, whose
functions are detailed in paragraph 3. These Tutors (who will be
members of the Institution Board) will have the rank of Acting Deputy
Governor with all the powers of Deputy Governors and will be in charge
of the Establishment in the absence of the Governor.

The head of the executive staff will be known as Chief of Staff, the
Principal Warders as "Principal Officers" and others as ordinary
"Officers", and they will wear Uniform different from that of a Prison
Warder. The Chief of Staff will be the medium of communication between
the Principal Officers and the Governor. The Chief of Staff will, of
course, have no power of adjudication, and every matter reported to
him by Principal Officers as heads of sections will be reported to the
Governor for such action as the Governor may order.

12. The object of the system is to individualize, and this can only be
done with the cordial co-operation of the Tutors, whose time will be
devoted to the careful observation of each inmate coming within their
command. Subject, of course, to the general authority and supervision
of the Chaplain, the Tutors will, in addition to their other duties,
be responsible for the organisation of the Education of inmates in the
lower and higher stages. Elementary Education will, as a rule, be left
in the hands of the Schoolmasters, provided for this purpose, but the
Tutors will themselves superintend and conduct the Higher and Technical
Education in conformity with the Syllabus laid down.

13. It is not necessary to fill in this sketch of the system to be
aimed at in greater detail. The problem of the best system to adopt
for the handling, treatment and the reclamation of these lads can
only be arrived at after much experience. Governors will have a free
hand in experimental work, and will at their respective Institutions
work out the system as best they can, with the co-operation of an
efficient staff. Details as to hours of duty etc. are matters which can
generally be arranged by discussion between the Governor and his staff.
Officers will understand that the Borstal System is a very peculiar
and difficult problem, and that the administration of it differs
essentially from that of ordinary prisons. They will, I feel sure,
co-operate heartily with any scheme which the Commissioners may decide
is necessary for the full efficiency of the system.

E. RUGGLES-BRISE.

Instructions for carrying out the Regulations under the Prevention of
Crime Act, 1908.

MALES.

1. All inmates on reception will be placed in the Ordinary Grade when
they will pass by Progressive Stages through a Probationary to a
Special Grade.

_Ordinary Grade._

2. An inmate will remain in the Ordinary Grade for at least three
months, and will be employed on domestic service.

No Association at meals: no conversation.

During this period he will be carefully observed by the whole staff as
to his character, mentality, and fitness for a special trade.

One letter on reception. One letter and one visit (30 minutes), or
letter in lieu.

_Intermediate Grade "A"._

3. At least three months: placed in a trade suitable to his individual
taste and capacity. Meals in association. No games in evening. Games on
Saturday. Two letters and one visit (40 minutes) or letter in lieu.

_Intermediate Grade "B"._

4. At least three months: Games on Saturday out of doors. Weekly
newspapers. Two letters and two visits (40 minutes) or letters in lieu.

_Probationary Grade._

5. To be selected by the Institution Board. Meals in association. Games
in association in evening inside. Games in playing fields on Saturday
afternoon and evening if possible. Daily newspapers. One letter and one
visit (40 minutes) or letter in lieu every fortnight.

6. To be selected by the Institution Board. May be employed without
supervision in Honour parties. Badge money may be earned by exemplary
conduct as follows:--

5/- after 3 months

7/6 " 6 "

10/- " 9 "

10/- every 3 months after.

The Badge money awarded every 3 months may be spent by inmates on
approved objects, or sent to their relations. A special room will be
provided as a club room for reading, writing, &c. One letter and one
visit (50 minutes) or letter in lieu every fortnight.

_Star Special Grade._

7. When an inmate in the Special Grade appears, after close
observation, to satisfy the Governor by his general demeanour and
efficiency, that he can be safely placed in a position of special
trust, he may be promoted to what will be known as the Star Special
Grade, and wear a distinctive dress.

Such inmates may act as Monitors in different capacities, and may
be placed in authority over other inmates on parade or in the Halls
or common room, and other situations where they can assist the
administration in various capacities.

_Penal Class._

8. Where an inmate is believed to be exercising a bad influence, he
shall be placed by the Governor in the Penal Class, for such time as
the Governor considers necessary in the interest of the inmate himself,
or others. While in the Penal Class, an inmate will be employed in
separation on hard and laborious work, and will forfeit all privileges.
The Governor will record in his journal particulars of every case
ordered by him to be placed in the Penal Class, with the reasons for
the same, and stating the period during which an inmate is so retained.
The inmate will not be restored to the Special Grade without passing
through a period of probation in the Ordinary Grade, of such duration
as the Governor may determine.

_Education._

9. There will be a Board of Education, over which the Chaplain will
preside. It will be the authority to consider all questions connected
with the education of inmates, and will decide, as the result of
examination, into which Grade each inmate shall be placed on reception.

10. The education of inmates will be classified as follows:--

(1) Elementary.--Such inmates as are found on reception not to have
profited sufficiently by the teaching received in Public Elementary
Schools to pass out of Grade III of the National Code.

(2) Progressive.--Those who can pass out of that Stage, and are fit
subjects for higher Grades.

(3) Technical.--Inmates engaged in the technical trade

(1) Elementary Education.--The standard aimed at may be broadly defined
as follows, _viz_.:--"the ability to write a letter such as is needed
by a workman applying for employment, and such arithmetic as a workman
needs for the ordinary purpose of daily life, including checking his
wages." Such a Standard is practically represented by Grade III of the
National Code, _viz_.:--

WRITING:--
Simple Spelling rules.
Simple Composition.
Reconstruction of easy stories.
Easy letter writing.
Dictation.

ARITHMETIC:--
4 simple rules.
4 compound rules (money & easy weights & measures).
Introduction to decimal system.
Simple fractions.

All inmates not qualified to pass from that Grade shall receive
Education during the first three months of their sentence, at such
times and in such classes as the Board of Education, created by
Instruction 9, shall decide; and such period may be extended in any
special case where the Board is of opinion that it would be to the
advantage of an inmate that this should be done.

Where an inmate obviously fails to profit by instruction, and there may
be reason to think that this may be due to physical or mental causes,
he will be specially examined by the Medical Officer, and such steps
will be taken on his report as may be deemed suitable to meet the
special circumstances of the case.

(2) The Progressive Class will consist of all those inmates who have
passed through a period of Elementary instruction. Arrangements will
be made by the Board of Education for such inmates to attend Evening
School at such times, and for such objects as they may decide.

(3) Technical Classes.--The syllabus will consist of Technical
Mathematics and Drawing, and though specially suited to inmates in the
Technical Trades, the subjects will form a basis for any lad desirous
of improving his knowledge on those lines.

11. In addition to the times set apart for these respective Classes,
there will be a Silent Hour for private study, for which a period of
absolute silence for one hour daily will be introduced throughout the
Institution, during which time all inmates will be engaged in the study
of educational or trade matter. It is considered that organized private
study is the most satisfactory way of securing that inmates shall not
be locked in their rooms until late in the evening.

The objects of the Silent Hour are:--

(1) To provide opportunity (a) for the working of tasks set by the
Schoolmasters; (b) for inmates to study their trade text books and
prepare notes from the same;

(2) To occupy the minds of the inmates in a profitable manner.

(3) To inculcate habits of studious application in order that the
benefits of mental concentration and self-control may become apparent.

12. It will be seen that a great responsibility is incumbent on the
Education Board in arranging the details of Education on these lines.
It will be the duty of the Governor, acting on the advice of the
Chaplain and Tutors, to arrange the details of each Class, consistently
with the general needs of the Establishment and the convenience of
the staff; and it is only by a real and hearty co-operation between
all members of the educational staff that the object of the system
can be attained, _viz_.:--in the first place, to raise the ignorant
and illiterate to such a standard of education as will enable them
to compete with the ordinary conditions of life on discharge; and,
secondly, to furnish opportunity to write intelligent English, and to
rise not only to the higher educational grades, but to obtain special
technical knowledge in the particular trades to which their faculties
are applied.

13. In addition to the ordinary educational curriculum, it will be the
duty of the Education Board, subject to the authority of the Governor,
to organize a regular system of Lectures or Addresses, on such
subjects as, in their opinion, are calculated to increase knowledge, to
widen outlook, and to inspire by example, _e.g._, readings from history
or biography. They may, in addition, organize Debating Societies, where
inmates can themselves take part in discussion on selected subjects.
It is considered that Debating Societies might be a great advantage to
the Institution. The advice of the Chaplain Inspector will always be
available for the organization of the conduct of such Societies. They
may also arrange for the formation of Singing or Choral Classes.

_Offences and punishments._

14. No punishment or privation of any kind shall be awarded to an
inmate by any officer of the institution except the Governor, or, in
his absence, the officer appointed to act for him.

15. An inmate shall be guilty of an offence against the discipline of
the institution if he:--

(1) Disobeys any order or rule.

(2) Treats an officer with disrespect.

(3) Is idle or careless at work.

(4) Is irreverent at Divine Service or Prayers.

(5) Uses bad language, or threats.

(6) Is indecent in language, act or gesture.

(7) Strikes or behaves in a provoking way to another inmate.

(8) Makes a disturbance by singing, whistling or shouting.

(9) Does any damage.

(10) Has in his room, or cubicle, or dormitory, or in his pockets or
clothes, anything he has not been given leave to have. Nothing found
on the works, or on the farm, may be picked up and kept.

(11) Receives anything from any other inmate, or gives anything to any
inmate without leave.

(12) Misbehaves himself in any other way.

16. The Governor may examine any person touching any alleged offence
against the discipline of the institution, and determine thereupon and
punish the offence.

17. In addition to the power vested in the Governor for ordering an
inmate to be placed in the Penal Class (Instruction 8), the above
offences may be punished by him in the following way:--

(1) In the deprivation of any privileges; or

(2) In the manner prescribed by Prison Rules.

18. If an inmate is charged with any serious or repeated offence for
which the punishment the Governor is authorized to inflict is deemed
insufficient, he shall be brought before the Visiting Committee, or
one of them, who, in addition to any power vested in the Governor,
may order, such punishment as is prescribed by Prison Pules; or, in
the exercise of their discretion, may report him to the Secretary of
State as incorrigible, or exercising a bad influence, with a view to
commutation to a sentence of imprisonment under Sec. 7 of the Act of
1908.

19. While under No. 2 diet, the inmate will be employed in separation
on outdoor work, to be tasked with due regard to the dietary scale.

20. If any inmate is charged with:--

(1) Mutiny or incitement to mutiny,

(2) Gross personal violence to any officer or servant of the
Institution,

the Visiting Committee have the power within the provisions of the
Prison Act, 1898, to order corporal punishment in addition to, or in
lieu of, their other powers of punishment.

21. Dietary punishment shall not be inflicted on any inmate, nor shall
he be placed in close or separate confinement, nor shall corporal
punishment be inflicted, unless the Medical Officer has certified that
the inmate is in a fit condition of health to undergo the punishment.

_Release on licence._

22. Although in the ordinary course the Institution Board will
not bring forward for licence any inmate who has not attained the
Special Grade, yet cases will occur from time to time in which the
Institution Board, in the exercise of their discretion, may think an
earlier licence to be desirable. Such cases the Board may, and should,
recommend for licence at any time when they think it in the best
interests of the inmate to do so.

23. The essence of the Borstal System is that conditional licence can
be granted when there is a reasonable probability that the offender
will, if licensed, abstain from crime; and although in most cases it
is likely that the test of promotion to the Special Grade will be the
best index of such probability, yet the Institution Board will bear
in mind the provisions of Section 5, Subsection (1) of the Prevention
of Crime Act, 1908, and can and will bring forward for licence any
inmate as soon as he appears to them to satisfy the conditions of that
Subsection.

_Application of Standing Orders for Local Prisons._

24. Officers and Inmates of Borstal Institutions shall be subject to
the Standing Orders for Local Prisons, except in so far as they are
inconsistent with the Regulations and Instructions made under the
Prevention of Crime Act, 1908.

TIME TABLE FOR MALES.

5.40 a.m. Inmates rise.
6.15 " Drill.
6.45 " Inmates breakfast.
7.30 " Chapel.
8.0 " Labour.
12 noon Inmates dinner.
1.0 p.m. Labour.
5.0 " Inmates tea.
5.40 " Evening School, Silent hour and recreation.
8.30 " Inmates locked up.

MEMORANDUM TO THE GOVERNOR, AYLESBURY BORSTAL INSTITUTION FOR FEMALES.

The object of the Borstal System being, as defined in Section 1(b)
of the Act of 1908, that those subject to it shall receive such
instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to their
reformation and to the repression of crime, the following methods will
be adopted for giving effect to it. Under Section 5(1) of the Act, a
female offender may be discharged by licence from a Borstal Institution
_after three months from the commencement of the term of detention_, if
the Commissioners are satisfied that there is a reasonable probability
that she will abstain from crime, and lead a useful and industrious
life.

* * * * *

The object of the following Instructions is to provide a test by which
the Authorities on the spot, _i.e._, the Governor and the Institution
Board, will be able to judge when an inmate can be licensed. It was
the intention of Parliament, in prescribing the minimum period of
three months in the case of females, to secure that they should be
given a chance of liberty after completing that period, subject to the
reasonable probability of their abstaining from crime, but experience
has shown that in the great majority of cases a much longer period
of detention is necessary to enable any real reformatory influence
to be exercised. The responsibility in this matter rests primarily
on the Institution Board, and it is only by the closest personal
observation of each case from the commencement of the sentence that a
true and just opinion may be formed as to the date on which a licence
may be properly and wisely granted. The key-note of the system is,
therefore, the "individualization" of the inmate. Inmates will be
interviewed regularly--those doing well encouraged; those doing badly
cautioned, and made clearly to understand that they will not be allowed
the privilege of the higher Grades until the Institution Board is
completely satisfied that they are doing their best in every way to
profit by the opportunities afforded. Each and all members of the
staff have a great trust confided to them, which is to raise the young
criminal, by personal influences and wise exhortation, to a due sense
of duties and responsibilities as a law-abiding citizen. The system
will rest primarily on good discipline, firmly but kindly administered.
In the obedience which follows from this is the beginning of moral
improvement. This being secured, the System admits a wide latitude
for trust and confidence in the later stages, whence will spring
the sense of honour and self-respect. When this sentiment has been
inculcated, the purpose of the Act may be said to be fulfilled, namely,
the reformation of the offender, and, incidentally, the repression of
crime, for if the criminal habit be arrested at the beginning, the
supply of criminals in the later stages of their career is effectively
stopped.

E. RUGGLES-BRISE.

Instructions for carrying out the Regulations under the Prevention of
Crime Act, 1908.

FEMALES.

1. All inmates on reception will be placed in the Ordinary Grade when
they will pass by Progressive Stages through a Probationary to a
Special Grade.

_Ordinary Grade._

2. Inmates in the Ordinary Grade will be specially located. They will
remain in the Grade for three months at least, being promoted to the
Intermediate Grade at the Governor's discretion. Inmates will undergo
physical training, and, subject to educational requirements, will work
in association during morning and afternoon, and in their rooms, in the
evening.

When, in the opinion of the Governor, it is desirable, in the interests
of health, that an inmate on reception shall be employed for part of
the day on outdoor work on farm or garden, this may be arranged for
selected cases, in lieu of morning or afternoon labour.

The Ordinary Grade will be the deterrent or punitive period of
detention, during which conversation except such as is incidental to
their daily routine duties, will not be allowed.

_Intermediate Grade._

3. Inmates will remain in the Grade for three months at least, being
promoted to the Probationary Grade at the discretion of the Institution
Board. They will be allowed an extra letter on promotion, associated
exercise and games at week-ends.

_Probationary Grade._

4. Inmates will remain in the Grade for six months at least. They will
be specially located and will be allowed meals in association and
conversational exercise and organised games at week-ends. When labour
ceases in the afternoon, they will be permitted to change clothes for
tea. Subject to educational requirements, classes, lectures, labour,
&c., they will be free for recreation either in a room with others,
or for the purpose of private work, study, &c., in their own rooms.
The rooms will be locked only at night. Arrangements will be made, if
practicable, to place inmates under Group Matrons in convenient groups.
Marching in parties to labour will cease. Each inmate will find her
own way to work, &c. at the appointed time. The Group Matron will be
responsible for seeing that the strictest punctuality is observed, and
that at a given signal every inmate is in her proper place.

An inmate's conduct and industry will be closely observed during
this stage, and she will not be passed out of this Stage until the
Institution Board is fully satisfied that she is doing her best. When
the Institution Board are so satisfied, she shall be passed into the
Special Grade.

_The Special Grade._

5. On passing into the Special Grade, an inmate's case will be
specially considered for conditional licence. During the time that
has elapsed since reception, under the scheme detailed, it ought
to be possible for the Authorities on the spot to have formed an
opinion whether, or not, as prescribed by Section 5(1) of the Act,
there is a reasonable probability that an inmate will lead a useful
and industrious life if let out on licence. Cases, of course, differ
infinitely. The causes that led to the Borstal sentence may be deeply
ingrained, thus requiring a long period of reformatory training,
or they may be due more to circumstance than character, and if the
criminal habit or tendency is not deep seated, it is hoped that in
many cases, the period of twelve months' detention, under healthy
influences, will furnish sufficient guarantee that a criminal course
is not likely to be persisted in. In arriving at an opinion on this
point, the Institution Board will, of course, avail themselves to the
fullest extent of the services and experience of the representative of
the Borstal Association. Such representative will, if possible, be a
member of the Visiting Committee, and thus closely identified with the
history of each case from the commencement of sentence. Inquiries made
by the Borstal Association as to home surroundings, parental influence,
capacity for any special branch of work, will furnish the guide to the
authorities in their determination of each case.

Inmates in the Special Grade will be specially located. Those not
considered eligible for licence will, on passing into the Special
Grade, be at once transferred to superior quarters, where they will be
kept distinct from the main body, under a distinct body of officers,
who will reside in quarters contiguous to such superior buildings. In
addition to the privileges enjoyed by the Probationary Grade inmates
in this Grade will have a special dress: their mess-room and dwelling
rooms will be supplied with superior crockery, and they will elect
their own mess president of each table or section. The reading of
newspapers will be allowed.

Inmates may earn a good conduct stripe for every three months passed
with exemplary conduct, carrying 5s. gratuity for the first stripe, 7s,
6d. for the second stripe, and 10s. for each stripe thereafter, up to a
maximum of £2, half of which may be spent in purchase of articles for
their own use, _e.g._, material for private work, articles of clothing
&c.

Inmates may, in addition to the privileges allowed in the Probationary
Grade, be allowed outside the walls on parole, or to go errands, or to
undertake work in the neighbourhood.

Every ease in the Special Grade will be specially considered every
two months by the Institution Board, with a view to conditional
licence. The behaviour of inmates on parole will furnish the test of
trustworthiness, and by its appeal to higher instincts, on conduct or
behaviour, will strengthen the probability of successful liberation. A
careful study and individualization, therefore, of each inmate in state
of parole or semi-liberty, will furnish the necessary evidence for
determining her fitness for liberty.

_Star Special Grade._

6. When an inmate in the Special Grade appears, after close
observation, to satisfy the Governor, by her general demeanour and
efficiency, that she can be safely placed in a position of special
trust, she may be promoted to what will be known as the Star Special
Grade, or Honour Party, and wear a distinctive dress.

Such inmates may act as Monitors in different capacities, be employed
in positions of trust in the Institution,--clerical work, library,
nursing &c.,--or they may be placed in authority over other inmates
or in situations where they can assist the administration in various
capacities.

_Penal Class._

7. The sanction of the System will be the Penal Class. This is an
administrative, not a judicial, weapon in the hands of the Governor,
and whose powers of degradation are unlimited. Strict separation in
rooms, and loss of privilege, will be a sufficient deterrent for the
unruly, combined with such ordinary punishment for occasional offences
as the rules admit.

Where an inmate is believed to be exercising a bad influence, she shall
be placed by the Governor in the Penal Class, for such time as the
Governor considers necessary in the interest of the inmate herself,
or others. She will forfeit the privilege of letters and visits. The
Governor will record in the journal particulars of every case ordered
to be placed in the Penal Class, with the reasons for the same, and
stating the period during which an inmate is so retained. This record
will be placed before the Commissioner or Inspector at each visit. The
inmate will not be restored to a higher Grade without passing through
a period of probation in the Ordinary Grade of such duration as the
Governor may determine.

_Gratuity._

8. A sum of £1 will be paid to the Borstal Association for each inmate
released, for the purpose of providing assistance to inmates on
discharge.

_Letters & Visits._

9. An inmate will be allowed at the Governor's discretion to write and
receive letters and have visits as follows;--

In the Ordinary and Intermediate Grades--every six weeks.
In the Probationary Grade--every month.
In the Special Grade--Visits monthly; Letters fortnightly.

Visits will be of 30 minutes' duration for the Ordinary and
Intermediate, and 40 minutes' for the Probationary and Special Grades,
with reasonable extension in any case at the discretion of the Governor.

_Education._

10. There will be a Board of Education, over which the Chaplain will
preside. It will be the authority to consider all questions connected
with the education of inmates, and will decide, as the result of
examination, into which Grade each inmate shall be placed on reception.

11. The education of inmates will be classified as follows:--

(1) Elementary.--Such inmates as are found on reception not to have
profited sufficiently by the teaching received in Public Elementary
Schools to pass out of Grade III of the National Code.

(2) Progressive.--Those who can pass out of that Stage, and are fit
subjects for higher Grades.

(3) Technical.--Inmates who are being prepared for commercial or other
special pursuit.

(1) Elementary Education.--The standard aimed at may be broadly defined
as follows, _viz_.:--"the ability to write a letter such as is needed
by a woman applying for employment, and such arithmetic as a woman
needs for the ordinary purpose of daily life, including checking her
wages." Such a Standard is practically represented by Grade III of the
National Code, _viz_.:--

WRITING:--
Simple Spelling rules.
simple Composition.
Reconstruction of easy stories.
Easy letter writing.
Dictation.

ARITHMETIC:--
4 simple rules.
4 compound rules (money & easy weights & measures).
Introduction to decimal system.
Simple fractions.

All inmates not qualified to pass from that Grade shall receive
Education during the first three months of their sentence, at such
times and in such classes as the Board of Education, created by
Instruction 10, shall decide; and such period may be extended in any
special case where the Board is of opinion that it would be to the
advantage of an inmate that this should be done.

Where an inmate obviously fails to profit by instruction, and there may
be reason to think that this may be due to physical or mental causes,
she will be specially examined by the Medical Officer, and such steps
will be taken on his report as may be deemed suitable to meet the
special circumstances of the case.

(3) Technical Classes.--These will be limited to those inmates who have
been specially selected for a career in which a knowledge of special
subjects is called for.

12. In addition to the times set apart for these respective Classes,
there will be a Silent Hour for private study, for which a period of
absolute silence for one hour daily will be introduced throughout the
Institution, during which time all inmates will be engaged in the study
of educational or trade matter. It is considered that organized private
study is the most satisfactory way of securing that inmates shall not
be locked in their rooms until late in the evening.

The objects of the Silent Hour are:--

(1) To provide opportunity (a) for the working of tasks set by the
Schoolmistresses; (b) for inmates to study their trade text books and
prepare notes from the same;

(2) To occupy the minds of the inmates in a profitable manner;

(3) To inculcate habits of studious application in order that the
benefits of mental concentration and self-control may become apparent.

13. It will be seen that a great responsibility is incumbent on
the Education Board in arranging the details of Education on these
lines. It will be the duty of the Governor, acting on the advice of
the Chaplain and Schoolmistresses, to arrange the details of each
Class, consistently with the general needs of the Establishment and
the convenience of the staff; and it is only by a real and hearty
co-operation between all members of the educational staff that the
object of the system can be attained, _viz_.:--in the first place, to
raise the ignorant and illiterate to such a standard of education as
will enable them to compete with the ordinary conditions of life on
discharge; and, secondly, to furnish opportunity to write intelligent
English, and to rise not only to the higher educational grades, but
to obtain special knowledge in the particular careers to which their
faculties are applied.

14. In addition to the ordinary educational curriculum, it will be the
duty of the Education Board, subject to the authority of the Governor,
to organize a regular system of Lectures or Addresses, on such subjects
as, in their opinion, are calculated to increase knowledge, to widen
outlook, and to inspire by example, _e.g._, readings from history or
biography. They may, in addition, organize Debating Societies, where
inmates can themselves take part in discussion on selected subjects.
It is considered that Debating Societies might be a great advantage to
the Institution. The advice of the Chaplain Inspector will always be
available for the organization of the conduct of such Societies. They
may also arrange for the formation of Singing or Choral Classes.

_Revoked Licences._

15. Inmates whose licences are revoked, if not removed to a special
Institution for such cases, will be placed in the Penal Class for one
month, and will work with their room doors open, and will be employed
at any suitable form of manual labour. After one month, they may, at
the discretion of the Governor, be placed in the Ordinary Grade, and
will be again removed to the Penal Class if he is satisfied that the
inmate is making no real effort to improve. Any such case will be
recorded in the Governor's Journal, to be laid before the Commissioner
or Inspector at each visit. If no signs of improvement are manifest,
the case will be submitted to the Visiting Committee for such action as
may be desirable under Section 7 of the Act of 1908.

_Industrial Training._

16. It is desirable that after a close observation of character
and capacity, a definite view should be taken as to the class of
training--industrial, domestic, clerical, or otherwise--for which an
inmate is best fitted, and that she should be specialized on this with
a view to her employment on discharge, but each inmate should, in the
first instance pass through a course of instruction in laundrywork,
housework, needle-work and cooking, as such a course must always be of
advantage, whatever the special employment to be followed on discharge
may eventually be.

Farm and garden work, attending to poultry and cattle, will be a
special feature of the Establishment, and will require special
training, which will be provided. The various garden spaces will also
offer profitable employment and training under suitable instruction.
In any place where there are garden plots, they will be kept with
scrupulous care and neatness in all parts of the Establishment.
The grass will be kept closely mown, and flower beds placed in all
appropriate spots. Officers will be given the option of cultivating the
plots contiguous to their Quarters, but failing this, it will be the
duty of the inmates.

Farm and garden work, though it can be assigned specifically as
training for a certain number of inmates, is rather a valuable
subsidiary employment, to be made use of largely on medical and
physiological grounds for girls requiring active labour in the open
air, or who are unsuitable for other forms of labour. For such
reasons, there would be no objection to employing girls in the Ordinary
Grade on such work for limited periods, or in the summer evenings in
lieu of labour in their rooms, always provided that girls in this Grade
work under disciplinary supervision, which will be the differentia of
this Grade.

_Punishments._

17. No punishment or privation of any kind shall be awarded to an
inmate by any officer of the institution except the Governor, or in his
absence, the officer appointed to act for him.

An inmate shall be guilty of an offence against the discipline of the
institution if she;--

(1) Disobeys any order or rule.

(2) Treats an officer with disrespect.

(3) Is idle or careless at work.

(4) Is irreverent at Divine Service or Prayers.

(5) Uses bad language or threats.

(6) Is indecent in language, act or gesture.

(7) Strikes or behaves in a provoking way to another inmate.

(8) Makes a disturbance by singing, whistling or shouting.

(9) Does any damage.

(10) Has in her room, or cubicle, or dormitory, or in her pockets or
clothes, anything she has not been given leave to have. Nothing found
on the grounds, or on the farm, may be picked up and kept.

(11) Receives anything from any other inmate, or gives anything to any
inmate without leave.

(12) Misbehaves herself in any other way.

The Governor may examine any person touching any alleged offence
against the discipline of the institution, and determine thereupon and
punish the offence.

In addition to the power vested in the Governor for ordering an inmate
to be placed in the Penal Class, the above offences may be punished in
the following way:--

(1) By deprivation of any privilege, or
(2) In the manner prescribed by Prison Rules.

If an inmate is charged with any serious or repeated offence for
which the punishment the Governor is authorized to inflict is deemed
insufficient, she shall be brought before the Visiting Committee, or
one of them, who, in addition to any power vested in the Governor,
may order such punishment as is prescribed by Prison Rules; or, in
the exercise of their discretion, may report her to the Secretary of
State as incorrigible, or exercising a bad influence, with a view to
commutation to a sentence of imprisonment under Section 7 of the Act of
1908.

18. Officers and Inmates of Borstal Institutions shall be subject to
the Standing Orders for Local Prisons, except in so far as they are
inconsistent with the Regulations and Instructions made under the
Prevention of Crime Act, 1908.

TIME TABLE FOR FEMALES.

6.0 a.m. Inmates rise.
6.30 " Clean rooms, boots, &c.
7.25 " Inmates breakfast.
7.55 " Chapel.
8.15 " Labour.
12 noon Drill Exercise and inmates dinner.
1.25 p.m. Labour.
5.0 " Inmates tea.
5.30 " Bible class, choir practice, singing class & bathing.
6.0 " Silent hour.
7.0 " Evening labour.
8.0 " Recreation.
9.30 " Lights out.

APPENDIX (b)

RULES FOR PERSONS UNDERGOING PREVENTIVE DETENTION.

(1.) Persons undergoing Preventive Detention shall be divided into
three Grades, Ordinary, Special, and Disciplinary. On entering upon
Preventive Detention, they shall be placed in the Ordinary Grade.

(2.) After every six months passed in the Ordinary Grade with exemplary
conduct a prisoner who has shown zeal and industry in the work assigned
to him may be awarded a certificate of industry and conduct. Four of
these certificates will entitle him to promotion to the Special Grade.
With each certificate a prisoner will receive a good conduct stripe
carrying privileges or a small money payment.

(3.) A prisoner may be placed in the Disciplinary Grade by order of
the Governor as part of a punishment for misconduct, or because he is
known to be exercising a bad influence on others, and may be kept there
as long as may be necessary in the interests of himself and of others.
While in the Disciplinary Grade he may be employed in association if
his conduct justifies association, but he will not be associated with
others except at labour.

(d.) Prisoners will be employed either at useful trades in which they
will be instructed, or at agricultural work, or in the service of the
Prison, and those in the Ordinary and Special Grades will be allowed to
earn gratuity by their work. They will be allowed to spend a portion
of their gratuity in the purchase of additions to their dietary, or
to send it to their families, or to accumulate it for use on their
discharge.

(5.) A prisoner who is in Hospital, or medically unfit for full work
will, on the recommendation of the Medical Officer who will certify
that the disability was genuine and not caused by the prisoner's own
fault, be credited with gratuity in proportion to his earnings when in
health or calculated on his general disposition to work, coupled with
good conduct.

(6.) A canteen will be opened in the Prison at which prisoners in the
Ordinary and Special Grades may purchase articles of food, and other
small articles at prices to be fixed by the Directors. The cost of
such articles will be charged against each prisoner's gratuity. The
privilege of purchasing articles in the canteen may at any time be
limited or withdrawn by the Governor.

(7.) Prisoners who have obtained three certificates of industry, will
be eligible to have a garden allotment assigned to them which they may
cultivate at such times as may be prescribed. The produce of these
allotments will, if possible, be purchased for use in Prisons at market
rates, and the proceeds credited to the prisoner.

(8.) Prisoners in the Ordinary Grade may be allowed to associate
at meal times and also, after gaining the second certificate, in
the evenings. Prisoners in the Special Grade may also be allowed to
associate at meal times and in the evenings, and shall be allowed such
additional relaxations of a literary and social character as may be
prescribed from time to time.

(9.) Any of the privileges prescribed in these special rules or
gratuity earned may be forfeited for misconduct. A prisoner has no
legal claim upon his gratuity, which will be expended for his benefit,
or may be withheld at the discretion of the Society or person under
whose supervision he is placed.

(10.) It will be the duty of the Chaplain and Prison Minister to see
each prisoner individually from time to time during his detention and
to promote the reformation of those under their spiritual charge.
Divine Service will be held weekly in the Prison, and there will be in
addition such Mission Services, lectures and addresses on religious,
moral and secular subjects as may be arranged.

(11.) Prisoners shall receive the diets which the Directors may
prescribe from time to time.

(12.) Prisoners will be allowed to write and receive a letter and to
receive a visit at fixed intervals according to their Grade.

(13.) The Board of Visitors appointed by the Secretary of State under
Section 13 (4) of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, shall hold office
for three years. Their powers shall not be affected by vacancies. The
Secretary of State shall, as soon as possible, fill any vacancy by
making a new appointment. At their first meeting they shall appoint a
Chairman. One or more of them shall visit the Prison once a month, and
they shall meet as a Board as often as possible. They shall hear and
adjudicate on such offences on the part of prisoners as may be referred
to them by the Directors, and they shall investigate any complaint
which a prisoner may desire to make to them, and, if necessary, report
the same to the Directors with their opinion. They shall have free
access to every part of the Prison and may see any prisoner in private,
inspect the diets and examine any of the books. They shall bring any
abuses to the immediate notice of the Directors, and in cases of
urgency they may make recommendations in writing which the Governor
shall carry out pending the decision of the Directors. They shall
keep minutes of their proceedings, and make an annual report to the
Secretary of State at the beginning of each year.

(14.) The Committee appointed under Section 14 (4) of the said Act
shall meet once a quarter, and shall forward to the Directors such
reports as may be required for their assistance in advising the
Secretary of State as to the prospects and probable behaviour of
prisoners after discharge.

(15.) Any person whose licence has been revoked or forfeited may on his
return to Prison be placed and kept in the Disciplinary Grade for such
length of time as the Board of Visitors shall think necessary.

THE ENGLISH PRISON SYSTEM.

INDEX TO CHAPTERS

Aged convicts, 41

Ages of prisoners received on conviction, 221

Aid-on-discharge (see 'Borstal,' and 'Central' Associations and
Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies), 164

Alcoholism and crime, 160, 211

America, visits to, 25, 62, 64, 91

Appeal, Court of Criminal, 21

Auburn and Philadelphian Systems, 24, 63

Australia, Transportation to, 27, 31

Aylesbury Borstal Institution, 118

Baker, Dr., Inquiry at Pentonville as to young offenders, 86

Bedford, Adeline, Duchess of, 117

Bermuda, convicts at, 27

Birmingham, Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, 166

Birmingham Juvenile Court, 102

Board, Prison--Constitution of, 18, 46

Borstal Association, 92, 95, 118, 182

Borstal Committees at Local Prisons, 96

Borstal System, 11, 85, 194, 214

" " and age of criminal majority, 87

" " its aims, 11, 83, 98

" " origin of name, 85, 92

" " early stages, 91

" " statutory effect given to, 94

" " since the Act of 1908, 94

" " and the Act of 1914, 100, 121

" " the "Modified", 96, 119, 127

" " for young women, 118

" " for young convicts, 41, 97, 118

" " regulations for, 231

" " remarks of Lord Chief Justice, 95

" " statistics of 'after-care', 95, 117, 119

" " labour of inmates, 141

Branthwaite, Dr., Inquiry into cases of inebriety, 160

Camp Hill Prison, 52

_Cantine_ System, 165

Cells, Certification of, 64, 68

Census of convict population, 1901, 49

" prisoners fit for Hard Labour, 132

" " between the ages of 16 and 21, 85

Central Association for aid of discharged convicts, 54, 56, 174, 182

Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), 225

Central Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, 179

Centralization of authority, 69

Chaplains of Prisons, 5, 129

Children Act, 1908, 101

Classification (Convict) Inquiry of 1878, 37

" " present, 40

" " "Star" Class, 37, 40

" (Local) Under the Act of 1823, 62

" " " " 1877, 71

" " " " 1898, 78

" " " " 1914, 83

Cockburn, Lord Justice, 31, 89

Commission, Royal, 1863, 30, 34, 43

" " 1879, 37, 41

Commissioners of Prisons, The, 18

Committals to Prison since 1881, 219

Committee on Prisons, 1832 and 1836, 63

" " 1850, 65, 67

" " 1863, 67

" " 1895, Habitual criminals, 39

" " " separate confinement, 42

" " " Weakminded convicts, 42

" " " Local prisons, 75

" " " prisoners 16-21, 76, 86

" " " prison labour, 136

" " " and discharged prisoners, 76

Committees, Visiting &c., 32, 46, 53, 70, 123

"Conditional conviction", 107

Convict Prisons, 18, 131

Corporal Punishment, 34, 47, 70, 80

Correction, Houses of, 59

Courts, The Criminal, and their punishments, 19

Cranks and treadwheels, 67, 77, 134, 137

Crawford, Mr. W., Inspector of Prisons, 25, 62

Crime and its causes, 200

Crime, Prevention of, Act of 1908, 51, 82, 94

Crimes, Prevention of, Act of 1871, 36

Criminal Appeal, Court of, 21

"Criminal Diathesis,", 203

Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, 20, 82

" " " changes under, 82

" " " and Borstal System, 100, 121

" " " decrease in committals, 20, 224

Criminal, (clinical), laboratories, 195

Criminal Statistics, 1872 to 1914, 216

Criminal type, The, 203

Criminological Inquiry in English Prisons, 198

Death penalty, The, 21

Death-rate in Prisons, 186

Debating classes in prisons, 8, 128

Defective children, 105

Defectiveness, mental, (See 'Mental')

"Detention, Places of" for Juveniles, 102

Dietaries, Prison, 145, 188

Directors of Convict Prisons, The, 18

Discipline, Progressive Reformatory, and Sir J. Jebb, 29

Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, early history, 165

" " " " under Act of 1877, 167

" " " " Conference of 1878, 169

" " " " and co-ordination of effort, 15

" " " " scheme of 1896, 171

" " " " " 1913, 175

" " " " Central Committee of, 178

(See also "Borstal Association" and "Central Association")

Dover Harbour, last Public Works, 13

Drunkenness, Habitual, (See also 'Alcoholism' and 'Inebriety'), 154

" " statistics of, 115, 225

Du Cane, Sir E., 71, 73, 75

Earnings of prisoners, 138

Economy in administration, 73

Education in prisons, 6, 121

Elementary Education (Defective & Epileptic Children) Acts
1899 & 1914, 105, 106

Elmira State Reformatory, 91

Employment of prisoners (See 'Labour')

Female prison population, statistics, 114, 223

" " " and recidivism, 115, 122

" convicts, 47

" prisoners in Preventive Detention, 58

" " superintendence by female staff, &c., 114, 122

" under the Borstal System, 118

Fines, committals in default of payment, 20, 224

" release on part-payment, 79, 82

" 'supervision' until payment, 82

First Division prisoners, 71, 78

Gibraltar Prison, 27

Gloucester Refuge for discharged prisoners, 166

Goring, Dr. Chas. "A Criminological Inquiry", 198

Grant-Wison, Sir W., 92, 174

Gratuities, prisoners'--early convict system, 27

" high rate of, condemned, 31

" maximum earnable reduced to £3, 36

" English & continental systems, 165

" abolition of in Local Prisons, 175

" retained for certain classes, 180

Habitual Criminals Act, 1869, 36

Habitual Inebriates (see 'Inebriety')

Habitual Offenders Division, proposed, 39, 50

Hard Labour, definition of phrase, 60, 66, 134

" and Committee of 1863, 67

" and the cellular system, 66

" provisions of Act of 1865, 68,134

" " " 1877, 70

" present methods of enforcing, 77

" and the Act of 1914, 83

Heredity and environment, 209

Holloway Prison, 114

Hospital Staff of Prisons, 197

Howard, John, 23, 60, 62

Hulks, The, 26

Indeterminate sentence, the, 55

Individualization of prisoners, 75, 93

Industrial labour in Prisons, 136

" prosperity and criminal statistics, 160

Inebriety, Committee of 1872, 154

" Act of 1879, 155

" Home Office Inquiry, 1892, 155

" Act of 1898, 155, 157

" Types of inmates in Certified Reformatories, 156

" Infrequent use of Act of 1898, 158

" Committee of 1908, 158, 162

" Mental state of inmates, 161

" Alcohol as a factor in crime, 160

" Analysis of 1,000 cases of, 160

(See also 'Drunkenness')

Infectious disease in prisons, 186

Intermediate Class in Convict Prisons, 40

Irish System, The (1854), 30, 33

Jebb, Sir Joshua, 29

Justices, Visiting, 70

Juvenile-Adult prisoners (see "Borstal")

Juvenile Courts, 102

" Labour Bureaux and Exchanges, 106

" Offenders, commitment of, 101

" " statistics of committals, 220

Labour, Prison, The Act of 1865, 68, 134

" " Recent changes, 138

" " Prior to Act of 1877, 131

" " and the inquiry of 1894, 136

" " revision of labour statistics, 137

" " increase in output, 139

" " Public Works, 26, 35, 131

" " Juvenile-Adults, 140

Labour, Prison, in Convict Prisons, 131

" " in Local Prisons, 133

" " during the Great War, 140

Lectures and addresses, 6, 128

Libraries, prison, 127

Licensing system for convicts, 34, 38, 54

Local Prisons, 18, 59

Lombroso, Professor, 199

London Prison Visitor's Association, 92

Long Sentence Division, 41

Mark System, in Convict Prisons, 31, 34

" " in Local Prisons, 81

Mechanical tasks in Prisons, 68, 72, 137

Medical Officers of Prisons, 185

Mental defectiveness and crime co-operation between Justices
and Police, 16, 193

Mental defectiveness and inebriety, 161

" " duties of prison medical officers, 185

" " special prisons for cases of, 190

" " in prison, estimate of, 191, 207

" " The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, 16, 105, 192, 215

" " Sir G. Newman, and prevention of, 196

" " Commission on Care and Control of
Feeble-minded, 190, 207

" " Dr. Goring's Inquiry, 207

Merxplas, Labour Colony at, 148

Metropolitan Asylums Board and Casual Wards, 151

Mettray Agricultural Colony, 90

Millbank Prison, 44, 62

Misdemeanants, First Class, 71, 78

Moral and religious influences in prisons, 8, 127

National Society for Prevention of Crime, 15, 180

New South Wales, Transportation to, 24

New York, State Probation Commission, 113

'Normal' and 'abnormal' man, 201

Oakum-picking in prisons, 136

Offences against the law, 19

Officers of Prisons, 10, 197

'Panopticon' (J. Bentham), 62

Parkhurst Prison for young offenders, 88

Part-payment of fines, 79, 82

Patronage (See 'Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies')

Pearson, Professor Karl, 198

_Pécule_ System, 165

Penal Servitude: changes in System since 1894, 39

" " Act of 1853, 28

" " " 1857, 28

" " " 1864, 34

" " " 1891, 38, 39

" " " 1898, 46

" " decrease in committals, 38, 219, 230

" Reformatories for young offenders, 87

Pentonville Prison, 25, 26, 64, 65

Philadelphian and Auburn Systems, 24, 63

Philanthropic Association, 88

Physical criminal type, 203

Police Supervision, 20, 33

Population, prison-fall in (See also 'Statistics'), 46, 73, 114, 219, 223

Positive School of Criminology, 199

Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, 36

Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, 51, 82, 94

Preventive Detention: the Advisory Committee, 54, 55

" " conditional release, 54

" " definition of, 49, 57

" " extension to penal servitude system, 14

" " objects of, 12, 51, 52

" " Memo, explanatory of Act of 1908, 51

" " 'parole' lines, 53

" " rules for, 53, 265

" " statistics of men discharged, 54

Prison Act 1778, 23, 24, 61

" " 1781, 61

" " 1823, 62

" " 1824, 25

" " 1835, 59, 66

" " 1839, 64

" " 1844, 66

" " 1865, 67, 134

" " 1877, 18, 69, 136

" " 1898, 46, 78

Prison Commission, The, 18

Prisons, &c. description of, 18, 60

Prisons Reform, meaning of, 1

" " in the future, 12

Probation, Act of 1887, and Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, 110

" " 1907, 21, 111

" New York State Probation Commission, 112

" indispensable to criminal justice, 113

" English and Foreign systems, 107

" national system of, 13

" statistics of, 111

Professional criminals, 49, 50

Progressive Stage System, 28, 34, 39

Punishments for prison offences (See also 'Corporal
Punishment'), 34, 47, 68, 70

Public Works, 26, 35, 131

Recidivism, statistics of, &c., 115, 183, 221, 229

Recidivist class in convict prisons, 41, 57, 230

Reform, prison, 1

Reformatory Schools Act, 1854, 89

Remission of sentence, 38, 81

Reporting to police, 36, 38

Rules for the government of Prisons, 66, 67, 71, 78

Sanitary condition of prisons, 186

Second Division prisoners, 38

Secondary Punishments, 36

Sentences to penal servitude, decrease in number, 38

" " " increase after Act of 1871, 36

" " " minimum term reduced, 31, 38

Separate Confinement--and Pentonville Prison, 25, 26, 64

" " Reports of Commissioners of Pentonville, 26, 64

" " History of, 42

" " present terms for convicts, 46

'Separate' and 'Silent' Systems, 24, 63

Short sentences, 73, 83, 224

Silence, the law of, 7

'Special' class of convicts, 40

Spike Island, 29

Staff of Prisons, 10, 197

Stages, Progressive, 28, 34, 39

'Star' Class, 37, 40

State, transfer of prisons to, 18, 69, 71

Statistics, Criminal, Comparison of 1872-1914, 216

" showing committals of young offenders since 1848, 220

" prison, during the Great War, and since, 223

" " in times of industrial prosperity, 160, 226

" " decrease in recidivism, 183, 222, 229

Stipendiary Magistrates, 20

Stretton Colony for young offenders, 87

Study-leave for Medical Officers, 196

Study in prison, facilities for, 8

Summary Jurisdiction, Courts of, 20

Supervision of young offenders, 82

"Sursis," law of, 107, 112

Surveyor-General of Prisons, 66

Talking in prisons, 7

"Temporary Refuge for distressed criminals", 165

Ticket-of-leave (See also 'Licensing'), 26, 28, 33

Transportation, history of, 23

_Travaux forces_ and Hard Labour, 30

Treadwheels and cranks, 67, 77, 134, 137

Triple Division of offenders in Local Prisons, 78

Tubercular disease in prisons, 187

Uniformity of system, 66, 67, 69, 72

Unconvicted prisoners, 71, 194

Vagrancy, early history of, 142

" the Act of 1824, 20, 142

" "Begging and Sleeping-out", 143

" and Labour Colonies, 148

" Colony at Merxplas, 148

" and Way-ticket system, 150

" and Casual Wards, 144, 151

" Committee of 1906, 147

" incorrigible rogues, 143

" Previous convictions and statistics, 149, 153, 222

Van Dieman's Land, 24, 27

Visitors, Boards of, 46

Visiting Committees of Prisons &c., 32, 53, 70, 123

Wakefield Industrial Home, 166

War, criminal statistics and the, 223

" employment of prisoners, 140

" closing of prisons during, 227

Weakminded prisoners (See 'Mental Defectiveness')

Whipping, 20

Works, Public, 26, 35, 131

Young Offenders, alternatives to committal to prison, 101, 109

" " at Parkhurst, 88

" " decrease in commitments to prison, 220

" " concentration of effort upon, 76, 106

" " supervision until fine is paid, 82

" " under sixteen years of age, 20, 101

(See also under "Borstal" and "Juvenile")

Printed at His Majesty's Convict Prison Maidstone.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The English Prison System" ***

Home