been carefully applied. If the number had been 180,000 instead of 18,000, then the question might have assumed formidable proportions. Up to the present time, there could be no doubt that these industrial schools and reformatories had stopped from vice those who were plunging headlong into it. With regard to supervision the assumption in the speech which they had just heard was that every policeman was constantly exercising it upon every criminal. He wished to remove that impression. What criminals, subject to supervision, had to do was, to report themselves to the superintendent of the police, or else get some respectable person to go and tell him where they were; or the same information might be conveyed through the agency of the clergyman of the parish. If there was any reason why a man should not make his appearance at the police station, the difficulty could be easily met by the representative of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, a clergyman, or some other respectable person being prepared to account for him. That was a complete answer to the assumption that every policeman was constantly dogging the footsteps of a`discharged prisoner under a sentence of supervision.

Mr. Serjeant Cox offered a word of explanation. He wished not to be misunderstood, as having said that police supervision was a bad thing; on the contrary, he considered it would be of enormous advantage, if only carried out. What he aimed at was, the adoption of means to make supervision effectual.

Colonel Du CANE (the chairman) said the Section was much indebted to Mr. Serjeant Cox for having thrown life into a discussion, which, but for his observations, would not have brought out so many arguments on the subject; and if he was not already converted it was not for want of arguments that had been brought against him. There was, however, a half-way house, by which he might be brought to an agreement with those who had differed from his views. There were two branches of supervision sometimes mixed together, viz., that of following up criminals to where they go, and that of the powers conferred on the police over those criminals, when found. He agreed, and most people agreed that these presumptions of guilt and these special powers might very justly and properly be brought against the criminal-that they were not to be regarded as if they were innocent men who had been prosecuted and shown up as bad characters. They were bad characters, and it was only just and proper that their employer should know it, and that they should suffer the consequences of his knowing it. On the other hand, there were great difficulties in following up criminals in their career. Mr. Serjeant Cox admitted that could be done in sparsely populated places, but held it to be impossible in the metropolis. But then, some parts were less densely populated than others, and, therefore, they might all agree that, in half of the metropolis police supervision might be fairly improved. With regard to the others, no improvement could be expected until the magistrates made use of the powers given them; nor until, at all events, the results were brought together in quarterly or annual returns, so that it might be ascertained where and how the system failed.

1

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.1

What Improvements are now required in the Treatment of Prisoners in County and Borough Gaols. By J. T. HIBBERT.

THE

HE special question for discussion is one of great public interest. And whether we consider it as affecting the treatment upon sound principles of the criminals confined in the prisons, or the cost of their incarceration there, the subject deserves every possible attention. The Prison Act, 1865, which gave the outlines of an improved system of prison discipline based on the recommendations of the House of Lords' Committee of 1863, has now been in operation for a period of nine years, and under it no doubt much has been done to improve the treatment of our criminals in the County and Borough Prisons. Many inadequate prisons have been closed; provision has been made for the due separation of prisoners, and regulations issued for the proper supply of certificated cells; hard labour' has been defined, and power given to the Home Secretary to withhold the Treasury grants from such prisons as are not provided with proper appliances for enforcing hard labour; an improved scale of dietary has been generally adopted; and the use of the plank-bed without mattress has been permitted.

At the present time, then, we should have been enabled to show throughout the country a good and efficient system of prison discipline. Is such the case? I fear not. For, notwithstanding all that has been done, there is still such a want of uniformity in the treatment of our prisoners as seriously to affect the repression of crime. In 1870 Sir Walter Crofton, speaking of the Irish system of prison discipline, said: The County and Borough Gaols of that country still remain, for the greater part, unreformed, and present a state of things which it is most unsatisfactory to contemplate, but which cannot much longer be allowed by the Government to continue.' The same language might be applied with almost equal justice to the prison training of Great Britain. In one prison you may find strictly penal labour carried out during the whole sentence, an absence of all industrial employment, and no effort to assist the prisoner on his discharge. In another prison you may see the criminal treated on a progressive, and more satisfactory, system, commencing with penal labour at the

1 See Transactions, 1873, p. 299.

outset, rising by good conduct to industrial labour as the sentence advances, and ending with an Aid Society' to assist him on his liberation. In some prisons you find a daily average of 1, 3, 5, or 6 prisoners only; in others, you find at least 1,000 prisoners daily under treatment. In one prison you may see strict separation; in another, overcrowded cells, and association of the worst kind.

What, then, is the remedy for this unsatisfactory state of things? Before venturing to make any suggestions, I would first call attention to (1) the number of the County and Borough Prisons in Great Britain, (2) their cost, (3) the prisoners incarcerated within them, and (4) their treatment.

I. As to the number of County and Borough Prisons: There are 115 such prisons in England, and 51 in Scotland. Many of these prisons, however, are unworthy of being classed as fit places for the treatment of prisoners. Taking the average daily number of prisoners during the last five years, I find that there were 17 prisons in England and 4 in Scotland where the average was between 30 and 50; 17 prisons in England and 14 in Scotland where the average was between 10 and 30; and 8 prisons in England and 30 in Scotland where the average was under 10. Yet in these small prisons, which are neither deterrent nor reformatory in their effects, many of our criminals have to undergo long terms of imprisonment. Captain Craigie, in his Local Taxation Address, draws attention to the same subject. He says: "In 14 different English prisons there was last year a daily average never exceeding 12 prisoners each, and in some instances 3, 6, or 7 only. In Scotland matters are still worse, for there excessive decentralisation produces 16 prisons, each with a daily average of a single prisoner. But even in England, what waste of power is involved in cases where the prison officials equal the whole prisoners in confinement, or where 9 officers keep watch over 11 captives; or what room for reform may there not be in a system which maintains a staff of 72 persons in 13 prisons to look after 94 prisoners?' Captain Powell also refers in strong terms to the state of several small prisons in his district. Kirkintilloch he says:No labour has been performed. The keeper and matron, who are the only staff, are so badly paid that the former is compelled to get daily employment away from the prison, the prison being left in sole charge of the matron.'

Of

What a parody is this on an efficient system of prison discipline?

The remedy is clear. The time has arrived for the

State to undertake the entire cost of our criminals after conviction, and consequently to be entrusted with sufficient power to consolidate the present prison system.

II. As to the cost of the County and Borough Prisons: The total ordinary cost of these prisons in England was, in 1873, 502,000l., or at the rate of 281. 6s. 7d. per prisoner. An analysis of the Prison Inspector's Reports for this year affords such striking comparisons in the cost of the prisons as to show the necessity for a more uniform system of prison administration. At Salford, the annual cost of each prisoner, after deducting the profits of his labour, was 107. 5s. 8d.; at Preston it was 107. 14s. 11d.; whilst at Lincoln County Prison the average cost was 1147. 4s. 10d. per prisoner, at Rutland 1047. 17s 6d., and at five Scotch prisons over 1007. per prisoner. Of course these latter are small prisons, but the cost is so great that it would be much cheaper to contract for the maintenance of the prisoners in some large and properly administered prison than to continue the present inefficient system. Again, the County Prison at Leicester costs 497. 18s. 3d. per prisoner, while the Borough Prison, with an equal average of prisoners, costs 271. 18s. 2d.; and at Nottingham, Capt. Powell says, 'the County still retains its ill-constructed prison, with a daily average of only 25 prisoners, costing nearly 477. each a year, though there is a well-constructed prison in the same town with about 70 vacant cells.'

Can any one deny that our present prison system is not only inefficient but costly?

III. As to the prisoners in the County and Borough Prisons: The number of criminals passing through these prisons in England in the course of the year is about 158,000, leaving an average of 17,000 prisoners under daily treatment. Owing, however, to the large number of commitments for short terms of imprisonment, a very small proportion of the whole number of prisoners are ever brought under any effective system of prison training. For instance, out of 92,000 prisoners convicted summarily in 1873, 65,389 were imprisoned for one month and under, while only 95 were sentenced for more than six months. And out of 8,558 prisoners passing through Salford Prison last year, 6,300 were for periods of one month and under, and only 350 were for more than six months. Indeed, nothing can be worse in our present prison system than the useless repetition of short sentences on inveterate old offenders. In a report issued by the City Justices of Manchester, in 1872, they say: Out of 149 prisoners committed to prison during one week, 83 had been previously in prison 835 times.

One

female had been committed 63 times-viz. 30 for being drunk, 20 as a prostitute, 11 for offences against the Police Act, and once for felony. For these offences, she was imprisoned 9 times for three days, 12 times for seven days, 33 times for fourteen days, and 9 times for one month.'

Surely such a system neither deters nor reforms, and calls for legislative interference. Cumulative punishments seem to be the only remedy.

IV. As to the treatment of the Prisoners: By section 34 of Schedule 1 of the Prison Act, a prisoner sentenced to hard labour is to be kept at hard labour of the first class during the first 3 months of his sentence for such number of hours not more than 10, nor less than 6, as may be prescribed by the Justices, and during the remainder of his sentence to be kept at hard labour of the first class, except where the Justices substitute, during the remainder of the sentence, hard labour of the second class for that of the first class. Under this power, therefore, a criminal under sentence for two years' hard labour could, at the discretion of the Justices, have in one prison only three months' hard labour of the first class for six hours, and in another prison ten hours' hard labour of the same class for the whole two years of his sentence, irrespective of his conduct.

I need not say that this is a great injustice, and is contrary to the spirit of the Prison Act. I would therefore recommend that the number of hours during which hard labour of the first class should be worked, be defined by statute. Judging from the practice in the majority of prisons, as shown by Sir John Kennaway's Return, I think six hours daily would be a satisfactory time, with the proviso that industry and good conduct have been duly recorded in favour of the prisoner. By this means greater uniformity would be attained.

I will now refer to the subject of Penal Labour (i.e. hard labour of the first class), about which, I fear, there has been much misapprehension. There are some who would abolish the penal stage altogether from the system, as degrading to the criminal. There are others who would insist on industrial employments during the whole sentence. I think the advocates of both sides are wrong. For penal labour, as carried out under the Prison Act, is not of so degrading a character as is supposed. In some prisons, no doubt, the labour is aimless, consisting of the treadwheel, crank, or shot drill; but in many others the treadwheel and crank are applied to some useful purposes, and many varieties of severe industrial work are now classed as hard labour of the first class. A reference to the Inspector's Reports will show that the Home Secretary