has been gradually extending the varieties of penal labour, as we now find rope-beating, mat-making with heavy loom, matmaking with heavy beater, pumping and grinding corn, platting coir yarns, weaving cocoa matting, iron nut making, weaving carpets, sawing wood, coopers' work, and smiths' work included in the term 'hard labour' of the first class.

And I believe that by associating industrial employment in the minds of the prisoners as a privilege to be earned, the more severe forms of labour may be used as a lever by which greater results may be obtained from their industry. As an example of this, Salford prison may be referred to, where by means of the treadwheel, used as a lever for industrial task work, and upon which every prisoner sentenced to hard labour undergoes a proportionate part of his sentence, no less than 61. 6s. 3d. per prisoner was obtained last year as earnings by an average of 916 prisoners. But I prefer to quote the wide experience of Sir Walter Crofton, who says: "I have minutely watched the effect of imprisonment with and without the penal stage upon individuals for many years. By at once placing the prisoner at ordinary industrial work, he has failed to appreciate industry as a privilege.'

While, then, I would retain the penal stage in the system, I would shorten the period from three months to one month, and thus allow a prisoner to earn the privilege of being put to industrial work at an earlier period of his sentence than at present. In support of this change, I may state that I made a similar proposal in the Select Committee on the Prison Bill in 1865, and should have succeeded in carrying it, had not one member of the committee, who was favourable, walked out of the room to prevent the Government being placed in a minority.

I would also, during the last month of every sentence exceeding six months, permit a prisoner by good conduct to earn the privilege of wearing a modified prison dress, and of participating in the earnings of the work in which he is engaged.

The treatment of criminals beyond the walls of the prison is almost as important as that of their treatment within, and this has been illustrated by the legislation in aid of Discharged Prisoners' Societies, of which there are already upwards of thirty in operation. Prisoners and the public have cause to be thankful for the establishment of these institutions, and I trust the time is not distant when there will be a 'refuge' of that character in connection with every prison, or at least with a certain number of them in every district. I would give power to the Justices to establish them, as part of prison expenditure, wherever voluntary effort failed to supply the want.

Z

Before I conclude, let me give a few short extracts which I have received from Thomas Dickins, Esq., respecting some foreign prisons which he lately visited.

Gramatelli at Portici.-A convict prison for long, and life imprisonment-about 300 convicts in chains; for the first two years they are attached in couples, a chain round the waist and one leg of each, and another chain to link them together. They are separated at the end of two years, provided their conduct has been good. Their employment is quarrying, shoemaking, and tailoring, and they are allowed a portion of their earnings.

St. Michele at Rome. The prison contains 250 prisoners, has separate cells, very little discipline, no compulsory labour, and very noisy. One prisoner had been fifteen months awaiting his trial.

· Il Murate at Florence.-About 430 prisoners, sleep in separate cells, but work in association. The employments are colouring, tailoring, printing, compositing, cabinet work, basket making, &c. The punishments are, not being allowed to work, low diet, and solitary confinement. Compositors learn their trade in three to four months, and on leaving prison earn from four to six francs per day.

As compared with our new English prisons, the foreign prisons are very inferior in government, order, discipline, cleanliness, and sanitary arrangements; but with reference to industrial labour we have much to learn from them. Our system may be more deterrent, but perhaps not so reformatory. The classification is better than ours, there being separate prisons for women, children, and untried prisoners.

In conclusion, I beg to suggest the following amendments in our present prison system:

More central power, the abolition of the small prisons, and the consolidation of the moderately-sized prisons where practicable.

Sentences to be cumulative.

Penal labour to be exacted only for six hours daily during the first month of a sentence, if the prisoner's industry and good conduct have been satisfactory.

All penal and industrial labour to be tasked, and the prisoner to have the privilege of earning a portion of the profits of his labour during the last month of a sentence exceeding six months.

The use of the plank-bed without mattress to be compulsory in all prisons during the first month of a sentence.

The promotion of Refuges or Aid Societies for prisoners.

DISCUSSION.

The Right Hon. Sir WALTER CROFTON thought it was their duty, before considering the Prison Act of 1865, to recall the state of things which existed prior to that measure, because, otherwise, they could not do justice to it. Previous to the passing of the Act in question, separation was, in a large number of the county and borough gaols, impossible with regard to sentences of hard labour; the manner in which they were carried out depended in some cases upon the definition of the governor of the prison. For instance, a labourer convicted for the first time might be placed on the treadwheel, while another prisoner, though a great rogue, might be placed on the fatigues of the prison, simply because he was a very handy sort of fellow. The Act of 1865 had remedied the matter with regard to separation, for now there was scarcely a prison without means for separation. There were some prisons requiring the necessary accommodation, but they were in process of alteration, so that the Act had already done material good in that respect. The same measure had also defined hard labour, and made it imperative that all those who, according to medical opinion, were fit to undergo the punishment should be subject to hard labour. It had likewise prevented men from being placed on the fatigues of the prison, except where industry and good conduct merited that employment; for, as everybody knew, it was a great relaxation and favour to be placed on the fatigues. He mainly concurred in Mr. Hibbert's statements and recommendations. A great deal of misapprehension had prevailed for years past with reference to the course adopted by the Home Office on the subject of hard labour. Fault had been found with the Home Office for insisting upon unproductive labour during the first three months of sentences for hard labour. The whole onus was cast upon that department. Nothing could be more unjust. With regard to the definition of hard labour, Sir George Grey and Mr. Baring (now Lord Northbrook) took considerable pains to ascertain for themselves by inquiry in the different gaols what could really be called hard labour They referred the question to a medical committee, and that committee reported that hard labour should be that which quickened the breath and opened the pores. However, the Government eventually enacted certain definitions, by reference to which it was found that they did not insist upon unproductive labour, as had been charged against the Home Office. The Act divided hard labour into two classes. Mr. Hibbert had mentioned from forty to fifty different descriptions of hard labour of the first class, and all tending to industry. It was also evident by the circular issued from the Home Office on March 23, 1866, that the suggestions sent to visiting justices absolutely gave a rough outline of a progressive system of prison discipline, which could be carried out under the statute. Therefore the Home Office was not to be blamed for insisting upon penal labour to the bitter end. He agreed with Mr. Hibbert that the permissive power, given to magistrates under the 19th and 34th clauses, was a great blot in the Act, and he must condemn the want of

uniformity that was rendered possible by the operation of a power of that kind. In the case of a sentence of two years' hard labour a prisoner could be kept in one gaol on the treadwheel for ten hours daily throughout the two years, whilst in another gaol a person need only be kept at penal labour for six hours a day during the first three months of his sentence. That, in his opinion, was rank injustice, and he hoped that some pressure would be brought to bear upon the Home Office, in order to obtain a speedy remedy. As to plank-beds, there was an inconsistency which ought to be set right, for they were used in some gaols and not in others. They could be introduced at any period of the sentence, or even for the whole of it. Plank beds were certainly of great service in cases where the medical men thought the prisoners might be placed upon them, but surely they ought to be used, not at the end nor at the middle of a sentence, but at the commencement. It had been recommended that plank beds should be brought into requisition at the end, but that, in his opinion, was when you had nearly done with the criminal, and all the reformatory influences were ceasing. The proposal was opposed to the principle of progressive improvement. With respect to the Scotch prisons, a gentleman present, who had been an inspector there for many years, would be particularly horrified to learn that, not only was the present discipline bad, but that females were employed, in a large number of the prisons, on crank labour. The Prisons Act, 1865, did not apply either to the Scotch or to the Irish prisons. The latter were in many cases as bad as they could possibly be. A large number of them were said to be training-schools for vice and crime. The Scotch prisons had an Act. of their own. Mr. Cross, the Home Secretary, was doing what he could to make some alteration in regard to them. It would be perfectly illegal in England to put women on crank-labour. With regard to doing away with prisons, he had heard of many cases in which the prisoners had cost at the rate of 100%. each, and others 127. or 147. Some allowance ought, however, to be made to the Government for not abolishing these prisons. There would be an enormous amount of difficulty in interfering too much with them, and insisting upon their being done done away with. It was originally intended to abolish a large number, but, under the present Act, only a few could be disposed of. It stood to reason that no proper discipline could be carried on in a gaoì with only three or four prisoners in them; but when there were from thirty to forty prisoners in well-conducted gaols, it would be difficult for the Government to order them to be closed.

Mr. BARWICK BAKER (Gloucester).-Had given considerable thought to this subject, having been a visiting justice for above forty years. He differed from some of the opinions expressed. It was said that those gaols should be abolished where the average number of prisoners was very small, on account of the great expense they involved. He wished to point out that the average number of prisoners was not a fair reckoning as to whether it was large or small. If only two prisoners. were convicted for one year it would be utterly absurd and monstrous to keep them in a gaol at a cost of 1207. each, when they might be sent to Manchester or Salford, and maintained there for little more

than 107.; but if they averaged two prisoners, consisting of eight men at one time for a week each, then of eight men at another time also for a week each, and a large number of men sent for very short terms, the travelling expenses to the larger or central gaol, instead of being for journeys of the two men in prison for one year each, would be the expenses of conveying perhaps 500 men. This, of course, would be somewhat objectionable, especially if the distance were great. Therefore, it was not enough to take, as the basis of calculation, the mere fact of the average number of prisoners in gaol; that must be combined with the numbers of committals, because, for every week in gaol a considerable sum might be saved, but a very large amount would have to be spent in journeys backwards and forwards. It would be very inadvisable to pull down small gaols where very considerable additions had in consequence to be made in some of the large ones in order to admit the prisoners sent to them. Where, in the large gaols, there was room to take them in, all well and good; but, while he would gladly see the small gaols done away with, he always looked with regret at fresh buildings. It had often been said that crime would continue to go on, and that if gaols were only built of a proper size, they were sure to be always wanted. He remembered when, thirty years ago, he had been only ten years a visiting justice in the county of Gloucester, there were seven gaols in county, city, boroughs, and all. The visiting justices were ordered to enlarge those seven gaols. They did so, and in 1844, they reported that there was room for 800 prisoners. They were, however, sharply scolded for not having room for more, because crime, it was said, was increasing at a certain known ratio that would always go on, and that they would be flooded in the course of ten years. Not in ten, but in twelve years, they had shut up five gaols out of the seven. In 1873, the one remaining gaol took the whole of the prisoners; in 1874, there was, he was sorry to say, an increase to 222 from 197, the number in the preceding year. For twenty years he had been laughed at very much by his friends for his excessively absurd and sanguine prophesying. He believed he was rather sanguine, but he must own that everyone of his prophecies had been wrong because they had not been sanguine enough. He still did believe that crime and imprison ment would very largely decrease, and that, as a means to that end, police supervision should be improved, because if it were got into a better state than it was in at present, it would considerably lessen imprisonment. Therefore, he earnestly deprecated any more or any considerable building of gaols, where it could possibly be avoided. În Gloucestershire they had five gaols, well-ventilated, well-lighted, having large cells, and everything that could be desired, and they would be very glad to let them to any county that wished to have them on the most moderate terms. They were now all shut up, or were only used as police stations. With regard to alterations of the discipline in prisons, he had not so great a hope of advantage arising from changes as his own friends had. During the forty years he had been engaged at this work, he had seen many changes imperatively called for, and changes that were to do such enormous good. He had seen the tread-wheel started, which was to lessen crime greatly; he had seen the tread-wheel