# First Annual Report of the Woodbury Hill Reformatory

FIRST
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
WOODBURY HILL
REFORMATORY
JULY, 1857.
WOODBURY HILL REFORMATORY,
SHELSLEY, WORCESTERSHIRE.
General Manager.
REV. D. MELVILLE.
Master and Chaplain.
REV. W. GRIFFITHS.
Assistant.
MR. EDWARDS.
Labor Master.
MR. ROBBINS.
Matron.
MRS. ROBBINS.
Master of the Basket Making School.
MR. TAYLOR.
​If we think of the many and pressing questions, which more or less are receiving elucidation in a Reformatory School, it becomes a duty to furnish from time to time, through a Report, such evidence as each may. The general question of Education—the value of it as a corrective of crime—the peculiar mental and moral conditions on which criminality seems to depend—the social circumstances influencing these—the degree of criminality for which Reformatory treatment is right and proper—the hopefulness or otherwise of such treatment even then—are only some of the large topics which each lad in a Reformatory School presents in his own person. Besides, though philanthropy and political wisdom may have dictated these experiments on a just estimate of their necessity, the very principles and laws for their conduct and regulation await experience and induction for anything like settlement.
Scarce a day passes in such an establishment, without supplying something that might enlighten all concerned from the Committing Magistrate, or even the Legislator, to the Labour Master; and anyone engaged in the work knows how erring, abstract thought, and mere opinion, are apt to be, about the practical operation.
Over and above then the satisfaction and information of those more immediately or locally interested or involved, any Reformatory School may well tell such tale as it has to tell, as furnishing possibly something, however little, bearing on these points, even though being, as this is, individually established and maintained, it has no Committee or Body of Subscribers, to whom to render an account.
The Woodbury Hill Reformatory was certified under 17 & 18 Vic, June, 1836, and received its first inmate July 14. It stands on the Western Slope of Woodbury Hill, ten miles from Worcester, in the Parish of Shelsley. The Buildings consist of an adapted Farm House and Premises. The labour consists of field and farm labour, (for which there are ten and half acres at present), and basket making. The land, buildings, fittings up, and all expense beyond the Government allowance, are given by Lord Ward. The Staff consists of Chaplain, Sub-Schoolmaster, Labor-Master, Matron, and Basket Maker. It is under the Inspection of the Government Inspector of Prisons, and the Privy Council Inspector of Workhouse Schools. The Rev. Sydney ​Turner, late of Redhill, is now the Government Inspector of Reformatories, and has visited, and will shortly again visit this Reformatory.
Thirty-seven Boys have been admitted in the course of the year, all under 17 & 18 Vic., of these Worcestershire supplied 15, Birmingham 10, Herefordshire 5, Gloucestershire 2, Shropshire 1, Nottinghamshire 1, Northamtonshire 1, and two others originally of Birmingham, were received from Hardwicke Reformatory, in exchange for a Worcester boy sent there.
The ages of these were:—
| | 10 | years | 1 |
| | 11 | " | 2 |
| | 12 | " | 3 |
| | 13 | " | 13 |
| | 14 | " | 7 |
| | 15 | " | 6 |
| | 16 | " | 4 |
| over | 16 | " | 1 |
| | | | 37 |
These had been:—
| Never before convicted (but some nevertheless of known criminality): | 18 |
| Once | 9 |
| Twice | 4 |
| Thrice | 3 |
| Four times | 2 |
| Eight times | 1 |
| | 37 |
Their educational state was:—
| Ignorant of alphabet | 6 |
| Able to read small words | 7 |
| Able to read 2nd Irish Book and write a little | 13 |
| Able to read 3rd Irish Book, write fairly and with some arithmetic | 11 |
| | 37 |
Their Parental state was:
| Both dead or having deserted their children or mentally incapacitated | 7 |
| Onedittoditto | 11 |
| Both living | 19 |
Of the eleven, two are vicious, eight doubtful. Of the nineteen, three are vicious, one doubtful.
​Of these thirty-seven, four have been removed to other Reformatories, viz: two who had absconded and were recovered, to the Akhbar School Frigate, one to St. Bernard's, and one to Hardwicke; two (one of whom had absconded and been recovered) have been discharged as unfit for Reformatory treatment, one is now at Parkhurst, having absconded in August last, and committed other depredations, and three having absconded, and not yet recovered, have for the present been lost sight of. This leaves twenty-seven, of those admitted in the first year, (three have since been admitted), still in the house, of whom one has run away twice and been recovered, three have run away once and been recoverd, and four are waiting their discharge as cured.
On these subjects I will here offer a few observations, much comment, but not always with a perfect understanding of the case, having been made upon them.
That four boys should thus early be pronounced cured affords no criterion as to the time ordinarily necessary for the work of Reformation in criminal boys. One boy was a Hardwicke boy, who had in fact been two years and a half in a Reformatory, and the others are only fit to go out thus soon, because they were never fit to come in. They were not boys of criminal nature and experience, and it was with much regret that I had to associate them, even under our strict surveillance, with boys who were; though I hope and believe the discipline and teaching has been advantageous and the contact not prejudicial—these scarce considerate, though may—be well-meant committals of non-criminal boys, trouble the managers of Reformatories, no less, and more painfully, than the other extreme of incorrigibles. The committing magistrates of one of these boys, afterwards admitted that they did not believe the lad criminal, even in the matter with which he was charged—but it was well to get him taken care of, away from a parent who they thought was a bad character. To effect this good, so questionable under such circumstances, he has the criminal brand put upon him—a conviction—3 weeks gaol—and a sentence to a Reformatory. What advantage received can efface, or perhaps, in such a case, compensate for this degradation? At all events, as a question which more comes within our province, how is this advantage in such cases to be secured in a society whose staple is presumed to be more vicious than virtuous? Our concern is with boys more or less criminal by habit and profession, and to send us boys who are not at all criminal for fear they should become so, is to put upon us another work in conflict, or at least not in harmony with, that which is ours professedly and legitimately.
Next, with regard to running away. This is not remarkable to anyone who knows anything of boy-nature. Whilst of course it marks ​the dislike of the Reformatory, at the time the boy does run away, it does not even mark such thorough dislike of it as might be supposed. It is often repented of even whilst being committed. This we learn subsequently. Any whim, any little discomfort, will set boys off, or trying to be off. Town alley-bred boys used to close atmosphere, will run away from the mere bracing air and exposure of field-working. This and a sense that they are not stuffed to repletion—caused I believe most of our attempts to escape. The sense that they have not their liberty—that from morning to night they do another's bidding, however kindly imposed, operates very strongly also, and seemingly never is lost. Even the best boys, and those who most cheerfully and intelligently acquiesce in the system, do look forward to their release, always using any opportunity of greater confidence or more free communication, to enquire about and urge it. "But I should like to see that dear old Brum."—ends all admission of the comparative peace, happiness, freedom from temptation, &c., of their present life.
Running away then is nothing but the working out of this feeling under any extraordinary provocation, and though of course if successfully pursued to any great extent, it would witness against the vigilance and management of the institution, the attempts, or even the escape altogether of some boys, are only the percentage of risk paid for the use of moral instead of absolutely coercive means; and whilst of course that percentage should be reduced, by all possible care, to a minimum—moral means—that is the general tone of the school, will be the best security. With the school overflowing, and opportunity thereby necessarily increased—we have not had a whisper of the thing for the last four months; the tone of the school having grown up during the year and being now fairly established. Still attempts at escape there always will be, if the regulations for the open hopeful temper of the society are what they should be. Nothing is a better test of the state of a school, nor in our case more encouraging, than the mind of the school generally under such attempt. The feeling of the mass was always with the authorities and against the runaway, the recapture was hailed by those at home as a personal victory.
The cases of the boys discharged as unfit to be retained were as follows:—one was committed to us without, as the Act provides, the Reformatory being consulted. Nevertheless to prevent his necessary immediate discharge he was admitted. He turned out to be, 18 years old or upwards, and therefore not properly coming under 17 and 18 Vic. at all, and after keeping him three months and proving his entire unfitness to be the associate of younger boys—he was discharged on my petition by order of the Home Office.
​The other case was discharged under the same authority (and without such sanction we have no power to discharge a boy at all) after nine months residence, for an incurable physical condition which baffled all our ingenuity, all medical treatment, and under contact with which it was impossible to preserve the moral and sanitary state of the establishment. Much remark has been made on this case. I can only say we simply used the law, and did not turn to its relief, for the extension of which to us I beg to acknowledge my gratitude to the Home Secretary, till reduced to this last appeal by the imperilled welfare of the institution—and against the law, and not our use of it, objection should be raised. I would just observe farther, that we would not shrink from any amount of criminality where there is anything like a hope for a reclaiming treatment taking root, but either the unfit or hopeless in age or condition should not be sent, or if they indiscriminately are sent, we freely should be allowed the present method of relief. A Reformatory is a moral Infirmary, and, just as in that for bodily ailments, there are unfit and incurable cases, which can only be imposed to the hindrance and detriment of the true work. I do not say they should be at large, but with that I am not here concerned. I only say we ought to have the benefit of this rule translated into its moral equivalents in its two last conditions—and kept in its plain meaning in its first—which regulates the county hospital—"No person labouring under any infectious distemper—or deemed incurable—or more likely to receive benefit as an out-patient, is to be sent to the house." The itch—a boy of 18—and a non-criminal, are not fit inmates.
Whilst on this point of my subject I may refer to the strange and often contradictory objections taken to Reformatories from the evidence of the criminal boys themselves. One Magistrate lately declined to commit boys to us because one had requested to be sent—another, some time before, had objected, because an escaped boy requested not to be re-sent. Let me afford a little insight into the nature of these boys—which may perhaps be useful to persons before whom they may he brought.
Untruthfulness is a very strong feature. It is often the chief home lesson, and in the worst boys a prevailing practice. The most wanton instance of lying occurred lately in the case of that boy released after nine months detention. He knew why he was sent away, and that he had nothing to apprehend. The head of the police of a certain town who knew of his committal to us, found him and questioned him as to his being at large. He told him that I had died lately, and being very ill before I died, I said I could not die happy if the boys were kept in the Reformatory—so I had sent for them and released them all and then died. Hence, quite as much as the mischief of making them fancy you have an interest in their criminal career, the mistake of asking ​them of their history. A boy will try to catch your idea and always shape his statement accordingly. I remember an eminent man visiting us and asking a very bad boy of his parentage, &c. The boy thought bad example and depraved life was the cue from the form and tone of the question, and drew a picture of domestic degradation very appalling but entirely imaginary. They understate their age on trial always. They know well enough that leniency may ensue—or the treadmill be escaped. The boy mentioned above as between eighteen and nineteen doubtless gave himself as fifteen. The following letter is as good an evidence bearing on this point, as also on the dislike of criminal parents to Reformatories, as I can adduce.
The son of this woman having run away had arrived at her house, and was in lodgings procured by her, and visited by her daily, at the time she wrote as follows:—
   "Birmingham, Jen 13th.
   Rev. Sir, I take the Libberty of adrising theus few Lines to you to now if you ave found the Boys and if you have to pleas not to punnish George as it afects is head if hee is put about the Least thing in the World the doctor told me that is head was so Bad that it was not fit for to Be put about and if you ave pleas to let me now and i shold take it as a very Great faver of you,
   and Remane your Humbel Sirvent
   SARIAH TURNER."
Vanity is another marked feature. This shows itself in various ways—in dress and the like—but in nothing outward so much as their hair. Haircutting, though except in runaways it is never cut for disfigurement, is always a time for tears. This dislike of short hair does not arise from its relation to the Gaol, or it were commendable, but from its supposed ugliness and its relation to the workhouse—but chiefly the first. Two big boys detected in a design to run away—roared with grief at the cropping of their hair, though nothing else moved them, and one was of very large experience of life.
Vanity co-operates with or stimulates untruthfulness in such results as these. In exaggerated accounts of their parents income &c. A low origin is very much disliked. The workhouse is despised not because the idle resort to it, but because it is unaristocratic. A thief will take advantage of the workhouse to elude pursuit or for opportunity of pilfering, but he never would like it thought he was obliged to have recourse to it—or for long time. In a tendency to exaggerate past criminality. In these cases all character for honesty is gone—the title of "reg'lar thief"—being claimed. Sometimes the appearance of glorying in iniquity may be put on with a view to repelling a tense of shame and of repelling commiseration, but after repeated convictions there is scarcely much sense of shame left, and the exaggeration proceeds from the vain wish of creating an interest and of proving a claim to heroism.
​In like manner there is a love of being individualised or distingnished no matter for what. Boys will undertake anything if it involves a selection, and decline the very same thing if many are to join. Poverty is not disclaimed if it is remarkable for its extremity—dullness in school—failing health and strength become sources of pride if they only are excessive and prodigious. Hence, and because great people are supposed to consume a large quantity, the fondness for physic. Happily Epsom salts are an exception.
Impatience under pain and fatigue is another characteristic especially in town boys.
On January 5th, a fine bright frosty morning, four big boys came home from the labour field crying lustily and begging they might not be sent to dig. Next day two of these ran away. The school was vaccinated lately. One boy fainted under the operation, another sixteen years old—had to be held during it, and would have fainted but for Sal Volatile.
Above all really criminal boys seem to be characterised by a wonderful want of self-mastery. As if their hands and feet did not belong to them but to somebody else—a sort of demoniacal possession. Our worst boys have been extremely marked by this. In one boy it ran into great extravagancies under recapture—great violence of conduct—seeming attempts at self-destruction—as well as most outrageous assertions. In fact the careful and intelligent friend who resides as master in our establishment, and verifies these traits, concludes, that the thing which no really criminal boy seems ever to have been taught at all, is self-denial—and the degree of criminality of any boy, in relation to that of any other boy, might be tested by the length, or, rather shortness, of time, which he could keep a piece of sugar candy in his pocket without eating it. The desire among them seems simply to acquire, rather than to possess, to have rather than to hold. Possession strips things of their value. This accounts for their real poverty under often abundant wealth by theft. In this particular of self-denial our experience is very cheering. The Governor of Worcester County Gaol—remarked the other day looking at our boys—"this is all very well now, where there is constant watching and no temptation, but what will they be when they pass out from being watched into constant temptation? " Little things test and form character. This time last year—an apple tree, or fruit of any sort, which abounds here, was a constant trouble. One day the whole of the boys went off to the garden to pilfer, and you could not turn your back walking to church or to bathe, but a boy had a shy at some pendant apples; the sense of chastisement for it wore out in a few hours. This year the cherries ripened in the play-ground without molestation. The garden is worked in constantly, without, seemingly, a wistful appetite ​for what is forbidden—and the dropped apples are brought in for the pigs, as a matter of course. Anyone who knows to what extent such a boys belly is his God—and how fruit is its most choice offering, can estimate what moral strength this denotes. Many of our boys serve higher probations and walk for miles with money and goods.
The cases of the two boys mentioned above, one of whom before experience chose—the other on experience rejected, a Reformatory, only reasonably prove that boys enter them with false notions. Policemen and others, out of pity or for fun, seem to suggest extravagant ideas of the life they are to lead, and the provision that is to be made for them. The disappointment that ensues does but enhance, of course, the difficulty of the work. A full statement of the comforts to be expected, even though strictly true, is dangerous, because a boy exaggerates what he hears into something higher which he expects. The best way to represent a Reformatory beforehand is as a place in which repentance may be assisted and perfected—leaving all the rest to be discovered. These, which are only the more remarkable features of a juvenile criminal, are quite consistent with what an ordinary visitor would observe at our institution, namely:—great cheerfulness, activity, and promptness in answering to a wish or order—much expression of trust and personal attachment. They are adduced as helping possibly to a juster estimate of what credit is due to what such boys say or profess, when not under remedial but stimulating circumstances.
The objection against Reformatories that they afford better training and teaching than honest children receive, is not perhaps worth much refutation—as often stated, it reminds me always of an objection I once heard against extemporary preaching—that it was so unfair on those who could not employ it. In either case what is the low level beyond which it is wrong or inconsiderate to proceed? If however the superior advantages of a Reformatory, stimulated crime either in parents or children, there would be a decidedly evil result: the remedy being provocative of the very disease it aimed at curing. I can only say I have no experience of this result. Both the parents and boys consider a Reformatory as a place of discipline and restraint. Neither party ever loses the sense of loss of liberty and involuntary work. Generally speaking young thieves are no burden, often a profit, to their parents. Neither party, in the worst cases, has such an estimate of right conduct and sound teaching, as to value them beyond liberty and wage for labor. Even those parents, and they are many, who are grateful for the care taken of their children, regard it, more or less, as a punishment; whilst others, and those the most depraved, prove their dislike by conniving at escape.
The general opinion among a class of persons not exactly criminal, but just the persons in character and circumstances to take the ​advantage of Retormatories which is apprehended, was well evidenced here last autumn by the hop pickers. The first Sunday the boys went to church during the sojourn of the hop pickers, the road was lined with them. Two or three boys were known to them, and as we passed on, those we passed formed a crowd and followed, At first there was a low murmer of commiseration, which gradually swelled louder and louder, till it assumed almost an alarming tone, and I frequently had to stop and address the people, assuring them there was no ground for their almost indignant pity.
Besides the letter given above, the following, lately received, is a fair specimen of how parents regard this matter:—
   "To the revd Mr Griffiths
   Revd sir Will you please to let me know if you have Aney I dia how long my son John has got to stop I know he is well don by but at the same time it is hard for A perent to rare A child up to 18 years of Age and to be deprived of his Assistence Rev Sir I hope you will Excuse me for taking this liberty
   I remain your humble Servant
   JAMES MOLLOY."
The escape of boys, and other matters, have brought me in connection with the police, and I wish to express my sense of the kindness and willingness to be of service, which I have experienced from the Chief Constable of the County and all heads of offices, as also of the little or no service we have received from any subordinates. There is no lack of civility and attention, but no use. Two boys we received back through policemen, they having been given up by others to their custody, but we never have recovered a boy by means of a policeman, and have long given up referring to them. In six cases wherein their agency was fruitless we ourselves recovered boys, by the simple exercise of determination and common sense. Let me illustrate this by instances: The first time we had a boy run away was on a Sunday—and within a very short time information was given at a neighbouring police office, as I was pretty well sure he would pass by there. I could not myself go in quest till the middle of the next day. I found no enquiry made and nothing had been done, though in ten minutes I ascertained and almost from the first person I asked—that the boy had called and asked his way at a cottage—next door the police station, and about half an hour before my messenger arrived. I sent a policeman to Cheltenham for two boys who I was sure had gone there. They had, and the grandmother of one admitted he was in the house, and the policeman took her assurance that at three in the afternoon he should be given up and went away. The boy was of course well on for London when the policeman went back again. He came back to us in the evening without either. The other of whom he brought no tidings I ​went for and got without much difficulty, These were rural instances, but the towns, even Birmingham—do not serve us at least better. Five boys escaped in the spring—two or three of them well known to the police—one especially. I went—gave full particulars and felt sure of their capture—weeks elapsed and nothing could be heard of the boys. I felt sure three at least were in Birmingham. Mr. Griffiths very soon ferreted out two and the other was given up. All five had slept two or three nights in the tramp-room of the Union, and one entered his true name at the very time I gave notice. The superintendant of the rooms said, the policemen never came there, he only wished they did. One boy—the one known to every criminal officer in Birmingham—from the Stipendary Magistrate to the Detectives—was walking the streets daily. Another was the boy whose mother's letter is given before. We wrote to her and she attempted to put us off as that letter indicates. Not satisfied, Mr. Griffiths went to her house after that letter was received—made the woman confess its lie and give up her son. I had sent a policeman to this very woman's house at first, and the boy told us on his return—"I was at home when the policeman came and heard mother "stuffing the Bobby." I ought in fairness to add, I never have employed any of the Worcester City police in these matters.
With regard to the question of the relation between ignorance and crime—it was lately pointed out by Mr. Kingsmill, Chaplain of Pentonville Prison—that the general proportion of uneducated persons among criminals is about the same as that of the class of life to which they belong, and the ordinary result of education, is rather to change the quality, than affect the quantity of crime. In cases of summary conviction for petty offences, 95 in 100, are classed as having little or no education—and this number drops, in a regular ratio in proportion to heinousness of offence, to 54 in 100 in the case of those condemmed to penal servitude or transportation for life. Both these conclusions are doubtless truly drawn—though the second somewhat modifies the first, through this circumstance. The cases from which this intelligent observer derives these conclusions, need not be, and very often are not, different cases, but identically the same cases at different stages of their career. Our oft-convicted boys, quickened into an intelligence in crime, are found under the head of "fairly," or "well" in elementary education, though they may have been totally ignorant when first committed. Gaols have schools, and the sharpened faculty required for the perpetration of the higher offence, often is acquired in the prison instruction; and a juvenile thief put to school in gaol to quicken his intelligence, and in contact with the more knowing and older hand there to give that intelligence direction, results in that higher grade of crime under a more educated mind, which is here noticed.
​Therefore the diminution of ignorance—may, and certainly in our experience does only prove, that the criminal disposition of the boy has ceased to be united with total ignorance, by instruction received under and owing to its course of crime. In fact this whole question turns on the kind of education imparted. All education doubtless tends in some degree to purify and elevate, but if there is a corrupt tendency and vicious experience, the mere communication of knowledge will probably only sharpen the powers for evil. Gaol teaching for boys hardly can impart right habits and motives, form—that is—character—because you want the experimental field. It is vain and a total misconception of its processes, to expect youth to impress on itself principles of conduct by reflection. The whole separate system is mistaken, if not vicious, for boys. The schoolroom is a great auxiliary to us, but it is so subordinately to those humanizing influences, and practical teaching in the daily life, whereby the thoughts are influenced in their active exercise. It is the felt relation of friendship personally inforcing lessons of truth and goodness in the details of daily life, which supplants slyness and meanness by honest cheerful confidence, and which washes off, as it does, the hang-dog look and outcast bearing from most of our boys in about a month. Whatever may be the value of the intellectual element of education, it never single-handed forms the character under very favorable circumstances, how much less then where under strong counter influences the work is very directly and obviously "to repair the ruins of our first parents, by regaining to know God aright."
The financial statement will make ours seem an expensive experiment. The first year is necessarily so. It is all outlay and no income. Next year I hope to shew something on the per contra side from the produce of land, and the basket making. We have an experienced superintendant, and hope to supply everything from a perambulator, if we get an order, to the commonest hamper. Our numbers having ranged from 3 to 28—with nearly the same staff to pay and maintain, makes of course the rate per head very high. Our staff indeed would carry an increased number still, had we but room for them, who would pro tanto diminish the average of the more expensive items. Still segregation not aggregation is the secret of Reformatory success. Each establishment should not be beyond the personal and individual observation of him on whom its character mainly depends. From 40 to 50 I should think about an ordinary maximum. Nevertheless I have no doubt that the cost of our boys has been less than somebody would have had to pay had our boys been at large, living on the public, in Gaol or out of it. "The advantage to the general community"—says Mr. Tuffnell in his late report—"in turning a single criminal into an honest person, taking even the low money view of the case, cannot be less than £100; or, as some one else says, leaving out Christianity, benevolence, justice, and political economy, the mere money argument stands in favor of Reformatories.
​Without going into the comparison of voluntary and compulsory or even rate-supported institutions: it is well certainly that the demand for Reformatories under the abundance of juvenile crime, which is, perhaps, the strongest argument for non-voluntary schools, has not carried their legislative establishment. For no one who had a Reformatory to start from the first, could possibly tell how they were to be officered, with a true regard of the work to be done. Demand cannot cause, at least quick, supply of such articles. If it is only considered that a Reformatory staff ought altogether, and as far as possible in each single member, to possess a knowledge of the evils of human nature with the method of its cure, with the rarer faculty of applying the one to the other, this will be at once perceived. A Reformatory officer over and above his special function in the establishment, should be a compound of a detective and a devotee. A mere devotee without judgment and practical sagacity, quick apprehension and concentrated purpose—would be in despair in a week, with an empty school probably. A mere detective would keep or regain his boys, but never reclaim them. In proportion as Reformatories are felt beneficial, anxiety about their permanance is reasonable. I think Magistrates in Sessions might, advisably, have power to continue by rate a voluntary institution—which by change of property or other contingencies is in danger of being given up. Or a county which has not requirement for a separate institution cf its own, or no likelihood of getting one, but which felt confidence in, and gladly would use that of a neighbouring county, might have powers to grant aid in proportion to such use, without interference with the management.
None of the clauses of Sir G. Grey's bill seemed capable of carrying these two most probable, and least objectionable cases.
But more pressing than the establishment or maintenance of Reformatories is, or soon will be, what to do with the boys on their release, and where. Home service will rarely be adviseable for the most real and true Reformatory subject. The very way they cling in heart and feeling to their old haunts and homes—"that dear old Brum!"—makes me fear their return to them. If the argument about honest and criminal labour applies anywhere, it does to the bringing back the known criminal youth to supersede, probably, his honest competitor. I trust the Government will aid this looming difficulty by establishing Colonial Correspondents for the reception and employment of the boys. The benefit would soon be felt to be mutual—and any antecedent suspicion removed on experience. If the expense is the difficulty, why not apply one shilling a week for this purpose out of the seven shillings now allowed per head by the Government.
​The thing most needed to assist the Reformatory working is some mode of sifting and sorting. Convicted boys want treating as cinders are treated—screening or riddling—and there should be recepticles for each species—non-criminal, criminal, and incorrigible—discovered by the process. Establishments under the Industrial Schools Bill and Reformatories will meet the two first cases—but the last—the worst and most difficult—still claims due notice. There are such cases. As it is, the judicial process—be it full formal trial before my Lord Judge or summary conviction before a local Justice—is the only machine for discrimination, and results in all three cases finding themselves within the same walls and under the same treatment, to the great hindrance of its full benefit for either. The presence of the two extremes neutralizes the full benefit of the system on its proper subjects. The Reformatory Act and The Industrial Schools Act, should allow of the free exchange of those for whom either legislates, on the representation of managers of schools, confirmed by magisterial authority.
Very curious and instructive too, did space permit, is what might be told from the experience of a Reformatory School, concerning irreligion or religion, falsely so called, in connection with crime. The dull cold callousness of the totally dark—in a fellowship of iniquity with the frequent utterer of a "Hail Mary!" or a booked passenger by "The Spiritual Railway." And it is not because of their little moment, that these and kindred points are not more fully dwelt upon.
At the commencement I remarked on the political questions, that cluster, as it were, round a Reformatory inmate. These, however, are not the points which give to those engaged about it, or to the work itself its chief or essential interest. Whilst it is true that "the great social evil which has called the Reformatory movement into existence, and the removal of which forms its principal aim, is a class of children who are born, bred, and trained to crime, as the calling by which they are to live," that they are the rising generation of the caste of professional criminals whom society does not know how to reform, can no longer banish, and dares not exterminate, this terrible picture in its political and social aspect, does not supply what characterizes the work. This world to each responsible being in it is but a vast Reformatory School. To use its destiny of work, and its religious and educational instruments, for the correction of the evil, ​and the advancement of the divine principle within us—is each ones probation. The interest that attaches to a Reformatory boy, is, that in him these forces have not to be regarded indirectly, and only through the actions which often successfully cloke them, but overtly, obviously, and positively. It is not that—what we have to deal with is necessarily more sinful, than what in the world around us escapes such treatment, but that, what we have to treat is actually confessed sinfulness, and that all those powers and agencies from the punishment whereby God has marked His sense of it—to the mercy which will not condemn because of it—are ours not merely to proclaim as a prescription, but to apply as a remedy.
Between those defective extremes just referred to, which, as elsewhere, meet in a too free condonance, comes that better teaching which our Church bestows, wherein the discipline of the law tempers, for those who have thrust themselves back under law, the fuller privilege of the Gospel. Whilst the one permits us to say "Neither do I condemn thee!" the other may confirm such acquittal by teaching them to "Go, and sin no more."
D. MELVILLE.
Shelsley Rectory, Worcester, July 25th, 1857.
TIME TABLES.
SUMMER.
Rise at 6. Make beds,—wash,—prayers,—and an hour's school.
Breakfast at 8.
Labour, 9 to 12.30.
Dinner at 1. Play till 2.
School, 2 to 3.
Labour, 3 to 5.30.
Supper at 6.
School, 6.30. to 8.
Play,—prayers,—bed at 9.
WINTER.
Forenoon, as in summer.
Labour, 2 to 4.30.
Supper, at 5.
School, 5.30. to 7.30.
Prayers,—bed at 8.
DIETARY.
| BREAKFASTS: |
| Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday, | cocoa, milk, or stewed rice, 1 pint, 8 oz. bread, and (with cocoa or rice) a little treacle. |
| Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, | oatmeal porridge, 1 pint; bread 6oz. |
| DINNERS: |
| Sunday and Thursday | 4 oz. meat; 12 oz. potatoes, or other vegetables. |
| Monday, Wednesday, and Friday | 1 pint of soup; 12 oz. potatoes, or an equivalent of ship-biscuit. |
| Tuesday | 8 oz. bread and 2 oz. cheese. |
| Saturday | 1 lb. suet pudding. |
| SUPPERS: |
| Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, | 8 oz. bread, and 2 oz. cheese. |
| Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday | milk, rice, or porridge, 1 pint, with bread as at breakfasts. |
Boys above 15 years old, who work well, are allowed 2 additional ounces of Bread, meat, cheese, potatoes, at each meal.
When in solitary confinement the allowance is 1lb. of bread per day, and water.
SYSTEM OF MERIT MARKS.
Conduct is considered under four heads, viz., labour, house duties, (including order in dormitory and at table, personal cleanliness, &c.), school duties, and general conduct.
A boy may get 16 marks per day, i.e., 4 under each of these heads, the significance being as follows:—0, very bad; 1, bad; 2, moderate; 3, good; 4, very good.
On Sudays there are no marks for good conduct, but only fines for mis-conduct.
Sixteen marks are worth a penny;—so that a boy may get sixpence per week.
Every morning, at breakfast, the marks of the preceding day are publicly read in detail,—each boy's marks, under each head.
Every week, each boy is accredited with the value of his marks for the preceding week, in his own separate book.
Certain sums are allowed to be spent weekly, under supervision,—a privilege which enables boys to realize the value of marks.
Fines are an ordinary punishment, and as they are taken out of the portion allowed for spending, their infliction is speedily felt, and may be long felt.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
Expenses previous to occupation defrayed by Lord Ward.
Repairing and adapting premises, £160 3s. 2d. This does not include furnishing and fitting up.
| EXPENSES | EXPENSES | EXPENSES | EXPENSES | EXPENSES | RECEIPTS. | RECEIPTS. | RECEIPTS. | RECEIPTS. | RECEIPTS. | RECEIPTS. | RECEIPTS. | RECEIPTS. |
| | £ | s. | d. | d. | | | | | | £ | s. | d. |
| Salaries | 150 | 0 | 0 | | Lord Ward: |
| Extra rations, incidental services, &c. | 24 | 0 | 0 | | October, 1856 | | | | | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Meat | 70 | 2 | 0 | | June, 1857 | | | | | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Flour, meal, biscuit, &c. | 75 | 19 | 7 | | Boys' labor | | | | | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Cheese, barm, &c. | 4 | 6 | 0 | | Privy council office | | | | | 19 | 0 | 0 |
| Clothing | 59 | 17 | 10 | | Boys' Parents through Mr. Morgan | | | | | 2 | 12 | 16 |
| Books, stationary, &c. | 13 | 2 | 9 | ½ | Home Office: | |
| Coal and hauling | 14 | 8 | 6 | ½ | September | 30 | 19 | 0 | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | 331 | 19 | 6 |
| Groceries | 18 | 12 | 9 | ½ | December | 80 | 12 | 0 | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | 331 | 19 | 6 |
| Police | 19 | 8 | 0 | ½ | March | 99 | 19 | 6 | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | 331 | 19 | 6 |
| Crockery, &c. | 2 | 18 | 7 | | July | 118 | 9 | 0 | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | 331 | 19 | 6 |
| Carriage of goods,—potatoes,—pig and feeding, &c. | 22 | 0 | 4 | | |
| Preliminary expenses | 14 | 4 | 9 | | |
| | £489 | 1 | 4 | ½ | | | | | | £557 | 13 | 0 |
As the boys have ranged from 3 in the first weeks to 27 latterly, with every variety between—the only way to get an average, is by adding all the boys in each week together. In this way it is found that there have been 996 boys, one week with another, in the whole 52 weeks, this gives us an average of 19 boys a week.
52 weeks at £489 1s. 4d. gives an average cost per week of £9 8s. 1d.
19 boys at £9 8s. 1d. per weeks, gives an average cost of each boy per week of 9s. 4½d.
* ↑ Your regular thief never confesses to have had enough till he is what he calls "sicklified." On Chrismas day when the diet allowance was not observed, almost all were so—or the stage beyond.
* ↑ This was written after having seen only the bill as originally introduced: since then I have seen the amended form lately passed by the Lords, and these cases are provided for.
* ↑ The mother of a truly criminal boy, sent her son lately a rapturous piece of poetry under the above title, with up and down lines leading, in violation of all Railway experience, from and to totally conflicting termini. In the note that accompanied this description of an Express Train to Heaven and somewhere else, she mentioned to her son that she had given up living with some one with whom for a time she had been cohabiting, because she found him unworthy of her regard!I need not say such things are never given to the boys; all correspondence on either side is previously inspected.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse