MikhailT/lj-speech huggingface dataset:
In others the separation between the sexes consisted in a hanging curtain
or an imaginary boundary line, and nothing prevented parties from passing to either side
but an empty regulation which all so disposed could defy.
Numbers of the jails were still unprovided with chaplains, and the prisoners never heard Divine service.
In many others there were no infirmaries, no places set apart for the confinement of prisoners afflicted with dangerous and infectious disorders.
No attempt was made to maintain discipline.
Half the jails had no code of rules properly prepared and sanctioned by the judges, according to law.
By degrees, however,
the changes necessary to bring the prisons into conformity with the recent acts were attempted, if not actually introduced into the county prisons, to which,
with a few of the more important city or borough prisons, these acts more especially applied.
Most of the local authorities embarked into considerable expenditure, determined to rebuild their jails de novo on the most approved pattern,
or to reappropriate, reconstruct, and patch up the existing prisons till they were more in accordance with the growing requirements of the times.
Religious worship became more generally the rule; chaplains were appointed, and chapels provided for them; surgeons and hospitals also.
Workshops were built at many prisons, various kinds of manufactures and trades were set on foot, including weaving, matting, shoe-making, and tailoring.
The interior of one prison was illuminated throughout with gas, -- still a novelty, which had been generally adopted in London only four years previously,
"a measure which must greatly tend to discourage attempts to escape."
There were tread-wheels at most of the prisons, and regular employment thereon or at some other kind of hard labor.
In many places too where the prisoners earned money by their work, they were granted a portion of it for their own use after proper deduction for maintenance.
Only a few glaring evils still demanded a remedy.
The provision of separate sleeping cells was still quite inadequate. For instance,
in twenty-two county jails there were 1063 sleeping cells in all (in 1823)
and the average daily number committed that year amounted to 3985.
The want of sleeping cells long continued a crying need.
Four years later the Prison Society reported
that in four prisons, which at one time of the year contained 1308 prisoners, there were only sixty-eight sleeping rooms or cells,
making an average of nineteen persons occupying each room.
At the New Prison, Clerkenwell, which had become the principal reception jail of Middlesex, and so took all the untried,
the sleeping space per head was only sixteen inches, and often as many as 293 men had to be accommodated on barrack beds
occupying barely 390 feet lineal
The "scenes of tumult and obscenity" in these night rooms are said to have been beyond description; a prisoner in one nocturnal riot lost an eye.
Yet to Clerkenwell were now committed the juveniles, and all who were inexperienced in crime.
Great want of uniformity in treatment in the various prisons was still noticeable
and was indeed destined to continue for another half century, in other words, until the introduction of the Prison Act of 1877.
At the time of which I am writing there was great diversity of practice as regards the hours of labor.
In some prisons the prisoners worked seven hours a day, in others ten and ten and a half.
The nature of the employment varied greatly in severity, especially the tread-wheel labor.
In some county jails, as I have already said, female prisoners were placed upon the tread-wheel;
in others women were very properly exempted from it, and also from all severe labor.
Earnings were very differently appropriated. Here the prisoners were given the whole amount, there a half or a third.
Sometimes this money might be expended in the purchase of extra articles of food.
The rations varied considerably everywhere.
It was still limited to bread in some places, the allowance of which varied from one to three pounds;
in others meat, soup, gruel, beer were given.
Here and there food was not issued in kind, but a money allowance which the prisoner might expend himself.
Bedding and clothing was still denied, but only in a few jails;
in others both were supplied in ample quantities, the cost varying per prisoner from twenty shillings to five pounds.
It was plain that although the law had defined general principles of prison government,
too much discretion was still left to the magistracy to fill in the details. The legislature only recommended,
it did not peremptorily insist. Too often the letter of the law was observed, but not its spirit.
One great impediment to wide amelioration was that a vast number of small jails lay out of reach of the law.
When the new acts were introduced, numerous prisons under local jurisdiction were exempted from the operation of the law.
They were so radically bad that reform seemed hopeless, and it was thought wiser not to bring them under provisions which clearly could not be enforced.
Mr. Peel, who as Home Secretary had charge of the bill,
which became the 4 George IV. cap. 64, said that he had abstained from legislating for these small jurisdictions "on mature deliberation."
"It is not," he said, "that I am insensible of the lamentable and disgraceful situation in which many of them are,
but I indulge a hope that many of them will contract with the counties,
that many of them will build new jails, and that when in a year or two we come to examine their situation,
we shall find but few which have not in one or other of these ways removed the grievance of which such just complaint is made.
When that time arrives
I shall not hesitate to ask Parliament for powers to compel them to make the necessary alterations, for it is not to be endured that these local jurisdictions should remain
in the deplorable situation in which many of them now are."
At this time there were in England one hundred and seventy boroughs, cities, towns, and liberties
which possessed the right of trying criminals for various offenses.
Nearly every one of these jurisdictions had its own prison, and there were one hundred and sixty such jails in all.
Many of them consisted of one or two rooms at most.
he total number of prisoners they received during the year varied from two persons to many hundreds.
It was in these jails, withdrawn from the pressure of authority, that the new rules were invariably ignored.
The right and privilege of the borough to maintain its own place of confinement was so "ancient and indisputable,"
that for long no idea of interfering with them was entertained.
All that was urged was that the borough magistracy had no right to govern their jails
so as to corrupt those committed, "to the injury of the peace and morals of the public."
As time passed, however, these magistrates made no effort at reform.
They neither built new jails nor contracted with the counties, as had been expected, for the transfer of their prisoners.
As the Society put it in 1827, "the friends to the improvement of prison discipline will regret to learn
that the jails attached to corporate jurisdictions continue to be the fruitful sources
of vice and misery, debasing all who are confined within their walls, and disseminating through their respective communities
the knowledge and practice of every species of criminality.
The Society proceeded to support this indictment by facts. It is much the old story.
The prisoners were lodged in rooms whence they could converse with passengers in the streets, and freely obtain spirits and other prohibited articles.
All descriptions of offenders congregated together in the felons' wards.
The keeper and his officers resided at a distance from the jail, and left its inmates to their own devices.
There was no decency whatever in the internal arrangements;
still no separation of the sexes, no means of ablution or other necessary services.
One borough prison consisted of nothing more than a couple of cells, about ten yards square, and absolutely nothing more.
In another borough, with a population of ten thousand, the prison was of the same dimensions.
One cell was a dungeon, and the other an "improper and unhealthy abode for any human being," with a watercourse running through it.
Most of these small jails were still in existence and in much the same state eight years later,
as is shown by the report of the Commissioners to inquire into the state of the municipal corporations in 1835.
An examination of this report shows how even the most insignificant township had its jail.
Thus Dinas Mwddy, in Merionethshire, had, "besides the pinfold and the stocks or crib, a little prison."
Clun, in Shropshire, had a lock-up under the town hall.
At Eye, in Suffolk, the jail was part of the poor-house; so it was at Richmond, in Yorkshire, where the master of the workhouse was also keeper of the jail.
At Godmanchester there was no jail, but a cage to secure prisoners till they could be taken before a magistrate.
Kidderminster had a prison, one damp chill room,
the only aperture through which air could be admitted being an iron grating level with the street,
through the bars of which quills or reeds were inserted, and drink conveyed to the prisoners.
At Walsall, in Staffordshire,
the jail consisted of six cells, frequently so damp that the moisture trickled down the walls; there was not space for air or exercise,
and the prison allowance was still limited to bread and water.
Newgate through all these years continued a bye-word with the Society.
Some reforms had certainly been introduced, such as the abolition of irons, already referred to, and the establishment of male and female infirmaries.
The regular daily visitation of the chaplain was also insisted upon.
But it was pointed out in 1823 that defective construction must always bar the way to any radical improvement in Newgate.
Without enlargement no material change in discipline or interior economy could possibly be introduced.
The chapel still continued incommodious and insufficient
female prisoners were still exposed to the full view of the males, the netting in front of the gallery being perfectly useless as a screen.
In 1824 Newgate had no glass in its windows, except in the infirmary and one ward of the chapel yard;
and the panes were filled in with oiled paper, an insufficient protection against the weather;
and as the window-frames would not shut tight, the prisoners complained much of the cold, especially at night.
There was a diminution in the numbers in custody, due to the adoption of the practice of not committing at once to Newgate every offender for trial at the Old Bailey
but nothing had been done to improve the prison buildings.
In 1827 the Society was compelled to report that "no material change had taken place in Newgate since the passing of the prison laws,
and that consequently the observance of their most important provisions was habitually neglected.
It was enacted that the court of aldermen should make rules for the government of the prison, and that these should be posted publicly within the walls.
As yet no rules or regulations had been printed or prepared.
By another clause of the Jail Act, two justices were to be appointed to visit the prison at least thrice in every quarter, and "oftener if occasion required."
These justices were to inspect every part of the prison, and examine into the state and condition of prisoners.
The city justices had not fulfilled this obligation.
Idleness was still the general rule for all prisoners in Newgate, in defiance of the law.
There was no instruction of adult prisoners, in accordance with the law. The sleeping accommodation was still altogether contrary to the latest ideas.
The visits of friends was once more unreservedly allowed, and these incomers freely brought in extra provisions and beer.
Last, and worst of all, the arrangements for keeping the condemned prisoners between sentence and execution were more than unsatisfactory.
They were not confined apart from each other, but were crowded thirty or forty together in the press yard,
so that "corrupt conversation obliterated from the mind of him who is doomed to suffer every serious feeling and valuable impression."
I shall have more to say on this subject, and upon the state of Newgate generally, in the following chapter.
The Prison Society did not relax its efforts as time passed, but its leading members had other and more pressing claims upon their energies.
Mr. Buxton had succeeded to the great work which William Wilberforce had commenced, and led the repeated attacks upon slavery in British colonies
till the whole body of the slaves were manumitted in 1833.
In the year immediately preceding this, Parliament was too busy with the great question of its own reform to spare much time for domestic legislation.
Nevertheless a committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1831 to report upon the whole system of secondary punishments,
which dealt with jails of all classes, as well as transportation.
This committee animadverted strongly upon the system in force at the metropolitan jails, and more especially upon the condition of Newgate
where "prisoners before and after trial are under no efficient superintendence," and where "there was no restraint, or attempt at restraint."
Mr. Samuel Hoare was examined by this committee
and stated that in his opinion Newgate, as the common jail of Middlesex, was wholly inadequate to the proper confinement of its prisoners.
From the moment of a person's committal he was certain to be plunged deeper and deeper in guilt.
The prisoners were crowded together in the jail, contrary to the requirements of the 4 George IV.
Again in 1835 prisons and their inmates became once more the care of the senate, and the subject was taken up this time by the House of Lords.
A committee was appointed, under the presidency of the Duke of Richmond
"to inquire into and report upon the several jails and houses of correction in the counties, cities, and corporate towns within England and Wales
upon the rules and discipline therein established with regard to the treatment of unconvicted as well as convicted persons."
The committee was also to report upon the manner in which sentences were carried out, and to recommend any alterations necessary in the rules
in order to insure uniformity of discipline. It met on the 31st March, 1835, and continued its sittings well into July
during which time a host of witnesses were examined, and the committee presented three separate reports,
embodying recommendations which may be said to have formed the basis of modern prison management.
It was laid down as a first and indispensable principle that uniformity of discipline should prevail everywhere,
a theory which did not become a practical fact for forty more years.
As a means of securing this uniformity,
it was suggested that the rules framed for prison government should be subjected to the Secretary of State for approval,
and not, as heretofore, to the judges of assize; that, both to check abuses and watch the progress of improvement,
inspectors of prisons should be appointed, who should visit all the prisons from time to time and report to the Secretary of State.
It was recommended that the dietaries should be submitted and approved like the rules; that convicted prisoners should not receive any food but the jail allowance;
that food and fuel should be issued in kind, and never provided by the prisoners themselves out of monies granted them.
The use of tobacco, hitherto pretty generally indulged in both by men and women,
should be strictly prohibited, "as a stimulating luxury inconsistent with any notion of strict discipline and the due pressure of just punishment."
Prison officers should not have any share in prisoners' earnings,
which should be paid into general prison funds, and no part of them handed over to the prisoners themselves.
As a means of increasing the severity of imprisonment, letters and visits from outside should not be permitted during the first six months of an imprisonment.
Various other recommendations were made as regards the appointment of chaplain and schoolmasters; the limitation of the powers of wardsmen,
or prisoners employed in positions of trust, who should not be permitted to traffic with their fellow-prisoners in any way.
The committee most of all insisted upon the entire individual separation of prisoners, except during the hours of labor,
religious worship, and instruction, as "absolutely necessary for preventing contamination,
and for securing a proper system of prison discipline.
This was the first enunciation of the system of separate confinement,
which was eventually to replace the attempted arrangement of prisoners by classes according to antecedents and crimes,
an incomplete and fallacious method of preventing contamination.
The Lords' Committee fully recognized the painful fact
that the greatest mischief followed from the intercourse which was still permitted in so many prisons; to use its words,
"the comparatively innocent are seduced, the unwary are entrapped,
and the tendency to crime in offenders not entirely hardened is confirmed by the language, the suggestions, and the example
of more depraved and systematic criminals.
This committee, as well as the one preceding it, also reported in terms of strong reprobation on the small prisons and jails
still under the borough corporations. The Commons' Committee gave it as their opinion that they were in a deplorable state.
The same language was used by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the municipal corporations in 1835,
when speaking more particularly of the borough jails.
In these the commissioners found "additional proof of the evils of continuing the present constitution of the local tribunals.
Instances rarely occur in which the borough jails admit of any proper classification of the prisoners.
In some large towns, as at Berwick on Tweed, Southampton, and Southwark, they (the prisons) are in a very discreditable condition.
In many of the smaller boroughs they are totally unfit for the confinement of human beings.
In these places the prisoners are often without a proper supply of air and light; frequently the jails are mere dungeons under the town hall.
It was frequently stated in evidence that the jail of the borough was in so unfit a state for the reception of prisoners,
that plaintiffs were unwilling to consign the defendants against whom they had obtained execution to confinement within its walls."
The Lords' Committee on Jails were of the same opinion, and considered the prisons under corporate or peculiar jurisdiction in a very unsatisfactory condition.
They therefore recommended that the prisoners should be removed
to the county jails from such prisons as were past improvement, and that the borough funds should be charged for the accommodation.
The whole question was again dealt with in Lord John Russell's bill for the reform of the municipal corporations, and with a more liberal election of town councilors,
and the establishment of municipal institutions upon a proper footing,
The Chronicles of Newgate, Volume 2. By Arthur Griffiths. Section 9: The first report of the inspector of prisons.
In the preceding chapter I have been tempted by the importance of the general question to give it prominence and precedence over the particular branch of which I am treating.
Newgate has remained rather in the background while the whole of the jails as a body were under discussion.
But this digression was necessary in order to present a more complete picture of the state of jails in the early part of the present century,
just before the public mind was first awakened to the need for thorough reform.
I shall now return to the great jail of the city of London, and give a more detailed account of its condition and inner life
as the inspectors of prisons found them in 1835 to 6.
These gentlemen were appointed in October 1835, owing to the strong representations of the Lords' Committee
backed up by the evidence of several influential witnesses.
Mr. Samuel Hoare, when examined, considered it indispensably necessary, to carry out whatever system might be established,
that inspectors should watch over the observance of the law. He saw no objection on the score of their probable interference with the local jurisdiction,
but he would not arm them with any authority lest their cooperation might be offensive.
Sir Frederick Roe was of the same opinion as regards the appointment, but he would give the inspectors the power of acting as well as reporting.
They should be persons, he thought, selected from the highest class; the duty was most important,
one which required discretion, judgment, and knowledge of law, with sufficient insight and experience to discover defects in prison discipline.
These considerations no doubt had weight
with those who made the selection of the first inspectors, and the two gentlemen appointed were probably the most fitted in England to be so employed.
One was Mr. William Crawford, the other the Rev. Whitworth Russell.
The first named had long been an active philanthropist, devoting himself more particularly to the reformation of juvenile criminals.
William Crawford had been one of the promoters and managers of the Philanthropic Society's farm school.
Later on he had devoted himself to the personal investigation of the prisons of the United States.
At that time the mild and intelligent prison discipline in force in Pennsylvania, the legacy of the old Quaker immigrants,
had made such prisons as Auburn a model for imitation.
Several European states had dispatched emissaries to examine and report upon them.
France had sent Misseurs Beaumont and De Tocqueville, who subsequently published several interesting works on the subject.
England was represented by Mr. Crawford, and the result of his inquiry was given to the public as an appendix to the House of Commons' Report on Secondary Punishments.
It is an able and exhaustive state paper, testifying to the keenness of the writer's perception, and his unremitting labor in pursuing his researches.
Mr. Crawford was thoroughly versed in the still imperfectly understood science of prison management, and fully qualified for his new duties.
The second inspector, the Rev. Whitworth Russell, was the chaplain of Millbank penitentiary,
the great architectural experiment which grew out of the strong representations of Jeremy Bentham and others, and was the first national recognition of the principle
that punishment must be reformatory as well as deterrent.
Messrs. Crawford and Russell proceeded to carry out their new functions with commendable energy, and without a moment's loss of time.
The ink was barely dry upon their letters of appointment before they appeared at Newgate, and commenced a searching investigation.
They attended early and late; they mustered the prisoners, examined into their condition,
took voluminous evidence from all classes of individuals, from the governor down to the convict in the condemned cells.
They visited the wards after locking-up time, and saw with their own eyes what went on.
"a subject of magnitude and importance sufficient to exclude other jails," they soon narrowed their inquiry still further,
and limited it to Newgate alone. Newgate indeed became the sole theme of their first report.
The fact was that the years as they passed, nearly twenty in all, had worked but little permanent improvement in this detestable prison.
Changes introduced under pressure had been only skin deep.
Relapse was rapid and inevitable, so that the latter state of the prison was worse than the first.
The disgraceful overcrowding had been partially ended, but the same evils of indiscriminate association were still present; there was the old neglect of decency,
the same callous indifference to the moral well-being of the prisoners, the same want of employment and of all disciplinary control.
All these evils were set forth at length in the inspectors' first report.
There was no longer the faintest possible excuse for overcrowding. The numbers now committed to Newgate had sensibly diminished.
The prison had become more or less a place of detention only, harboring mainly those awaiting trial.