The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-06 00:00:00

Prison Discipline and the Hampshire County
Magistrates.

WINCHESTER, MONDAY.
The Epiphany Sessions for the county of Hants
were opened to-day at Winchester Castle, when, it
being known that the Earl of Carnarvon was going
to bring forward a motion opening up the whole
question of prison discipline, an unusually large
number of magistrates were in attendance. Viscount
Eversley presided, and among the more prominent
members of the county Bench present were the Earl
of Carnarvon, Lord H. Cholmondeley, Lord Cal-
thorpe, Sir J. C. Jervoise, M.P., Mr. B. Carter,
M.P., Mr. Beach, M.P., the Hon. J. F. Dutton,
M.P., Mr. J. S. Booth, M.P., the Hon. J. Carnegie,
Mr. W. Long, Mr. M. Portal,
The business relating to the county rates having
been disposed of,
Lord H. Cholmondeley brought up the Visiting
Justices' Report, which having been adopted,
The Earl of CARNARVON said,—My Lords and
Gentlemen, I rise to move for a select committee to
consider the system of prison discipline in this
county and the expediency of any changes therein.
Considering the extreme importance of questions
referring to the penal system at all times, and par-
ticularly at the present moment, it would be a mere
waste of time upon my part if I attempted to im-
press upon you the deep interest -which the country
at large feels in this question of prison discipline,
nor will it be necessary to remind my noble friend
who has just read the report of the Visiting
Justices that I am in
no way desirous of usurp-
ing the province which he so ably fills,
nor do I desire in reference to this question
to act in any spirit antagonistic to that
committee. 11,4 noble friend will see that these duties
of the committee of which he is a member, and the
duties of the one I move for, are quite distinct. The
committee over which my noble friend presides is
intrusted with the duty of maintaining continually
the prison discipline on the system on which it has
been established, while the duty of the committee
for which I move will be to take a broader view of
the question, and the members of it will address
themselves to the principles rather than to the de-
tails of the penal system upon which the discipline
of prisoners in this county is based. I am therefore
quite sure that my noble friend will not consider
that any personal slight is intended either towards
him or the Committee of Visiting Justices, when I
ask the Court to consider a question to which the
whole attention of England is at the present moment
directed. Putting aside all personal considerations,
the question of the present system of prison disci-
pline and its mode of administration is of the greatest
possible importance to the welfare of the country at
large. It is not my intention to enter into any ques-
tions which have referencelto sentences exceeding
two years' imprisonment, because they all come
under the term of penal servitude, and Parliament
next session will be called on to decide what course
the central Government shall pursue with regard to
them. It is rather with reference to a class of sen-
tences much more numerous, bat in which the per-
sons sentenced are, I am afraid, just as criminal as
those sentenced to a longer term, and with which
sentences this Court has to deal, that I wish an in-
quiry should be instituted ; for I think it is the duty
of each county from time to time to examine the
basis of its prison discipline, and the principles
upon which that prison discipline should be carried
out—(hear, hear)—and I think that on this general
ground there is quite enough to justify me in
asking the Court to agree with my motion for the
appointment of a committee to inquire into the whole
subject of prison discipline in this county. It is
now about 16 years—nearly half the lifetime of
the present generation—since a committee, of which
your lordship was the chairman, laid down the sys-
tem upon which prison discipline in this county
should be based. It was established at a time when
the question of prison discipline was much dis-
cussed, and when its principles could hardly be said
to be settled. Since that time committees of both
Houses of Parliament have sat, commissions issued,
reports published, and a very abundant and volu-
minous flood of evidence has been brought forward
upon this particular subject; and therefore it would
be preposterous to jump to the conclusion that,
however well the subject was deliberated by the
committee to which I have alluded, its conclusions
ought to be it vested with any degree of finality,
so as to preclude the idea of a reinvestigation at the
present day. During these 15 years various changes
have been made in the mode of administering pri-
son discipline, and although it may be true that in
themselves none of these changes have been great
revolutionary changes, yet taken in the aggregate
they really do, in consequence of their uniform ten-
dency and operation being all in one direction,
constitute a very considerable change in our prison
discipline. If the present committee is granted, I
shall be prepared to show you that there has been
a very considerable departure from the conclusions
of the committee of 1847, and that the various
changes made have exercised very considerable in-
fluence upon the amount of hard labour, and the
dietary of our county gaol, which the Court will
remember is just as much a part of the sentence as
the hard labour itself. To bring the matter shortly
and clearly before the Court, I will addrese myself
to three points. In the first place, hard labour as
a part of the punishment of offenders was intro-
duced here in 1848. After considerable discussion
by the committee of which your lordship was chair-
man, it was decided to make hard labour an into.
gral part of the prison system ; but the only method
of carrying that system into effect was by means of
certain cranks let into the walls of the cells, and
it was required that each prisoner should perform
a certain number of revolutions. It was soon found
that, owing to the construction of the cranks and
the small spaces in which they were worked, they
were open to objection, and very soon afterwards a

series of cranks were constructed on improved prin-
ciples and set up in an open shed in which the
convicts worked. About the year 1853 great diffi-
culty began to be felt in carrying out the sentences.

I do not think there were more than 50 cranks in

the shed I have described, and at the Michaelmas
session in 1854 the question was brought before this
Court, and an order was obtained for the erection

of two tread wheels, so that prisoners might ful-
fil their sentence of hard labour. I am sorry to say
that, from that time down to November, 1861,
this order of the Court remained a dead letter,
for it was not till November, 1861, that the com-
mittee of which my noble friend was chairman en-
tered into a contract for a tread-wheel, which
ought to have been in full working order in the
middle of 1862. It was, however, found that, owing
to the faulty construction of the machinery, there-
volutions of the wheel were so unequal that it was
quite impossible to apply it to the ordinary pur-
poses of prison punishment. I
importance of the subject that at thefeltsogreatly
Midsummer
the
Sessions I pressed my noble friend upon the matteer
as earnestly as I could; but no step
jam was-taken in it
till within the lust fortoi.ht,
very glad to
hear by the report of the noble lordtha
that steps are
now being taken to render this operative for the
purpose of inflicting punishment. It is true that
the wheel is not wholly operative; it may be par-
tially applied for the purpose of grinding corn, but
as it is only used for the prison supply it would, if
continuously worked for that purpose give two hours
labour to the men a day, and if you compare that
amount of work per day with the original rule laid
down by the committee you will find a very great
relaxation in the labour of convicts. That commit.
tee laid down most distinctly that while all proper
means of moral reformation ought to be tried, yet
that it was esQenti,:i that every prisoner should un
dergo a certain amount of penal discipline before
those moral m?ans of reclamation were to be used.
For this purpose the prisoners were divided into
four classes—those serving their first month, to
whom was allotted a minimum of eight hours' hard
labour a day, it being provided that over and above
that they were to receive what instruction they
could obtain from the schoolmasters and chaplains;
the second class, those serving the second month, were
to be employed six hours a-day in hard labour; the
third class, serving their third month, where to be
employed four hours a day in hard lahnure, nd the
fourth class, wlia had served three months, awere to
be employed three hours in each day. What is ,

the case now ? The first class, instead of receiving
a minimum of eighthours hard labour a day,rreceive
a maximum of 3 hours ; the second, the third and
fourth classes, instead of receiving respectively a
minimum of six, four, and three hours, receive a
maximum of about two hours a-day. Well, then, I
ask is it not idle to talk of sentencing a prisoner to
hard labour if this is to be the state of things in the
prison ? What is the result ? Look at it in any
light you please—either as respects the prisoner,
or as regards the judges—it must have a bad effect.
With respect to the prisoner, the sentences of hard
labour now passed are a perfect mockery !for no
hard labour is inflicted ; and, notwithstanding that
the sentences may be passed with all the solemnity
and formality which the Court canmport into
i
them, they go for nothing in the mind of the pri-
soners who have been committed—like those I had
last before me-18, 20, and 25 times. (Hear.) The
sentence of hard labour has, indeed, become a mere
absurdity. Then look at it as regards the jadge.
It is the duty of the judge to make his sentence, as
commensurate with the offence which
hfaarsabsehene can,coinutted ; but, knowing the extraordi-
nary modifications which have taken place in prison
discipline, he is compelled to extend the time, and
where he would, under a stringent system, have
sentenced a prisoner to 12 months, he now sentences
him to 18, which, of course, inflicts upon the county
an additional expense to the extent of half a year's
maintenance of the prisoner. Take it in another
point as regards :the judge. All offences which
come before him are placed, according to their
gravity, in different categories ; if he does (not
choose to sentence a man to penal servitude he is
limited to a maximum of two years' imprisonment,
and, therefore, when he sentences a man to two
years, on the principle that practically his sentence
is remitted by the prison discipline, and that if it
had not been he would have only sentenced him to
18 months, he is compelled to put him in the same
category as a man who had committed a, in a moral
point: of view, much graver and more dangerous
offence to society. Well, then, as respects the
prisoners, you must remember that jest as you
diminish the amount of hard labour you must
find some substitute for it, because you cannot
take a man in the prime of life, as the majority
of the prisoners are, possessing full bodily
vigour, and clap him into a cell, however warm
and comfortable, for the best part of 24 hours every
day, without absolutely endangering his life;
consequently, it has been found necessary to give
the prisoners open-air exercise to such an extent
that not only is it no punishment at all, but it tends
greatly to aggravate the difficulties of carrying on
the prison discipline. You have either to increase
the number of warders or make them do double,
duty; in either ease an injustice to the men and an
increase of expenses to the country. Let me now
say a few words upon the diet, which is, as I have
said, just as much a part of the sentence as the hard
labour. lam not one of those who are in favour
of harsh and cruel measures towards criminals. I
am not in favour of a starvation diet, but I think
that what has hitherto been forgotten or practically
ignored in these discussions is that there is a me-
dium between a starvation and an excessive diet.
While I would give such a dietary as would sustain
fairly the bodily vigour of prisoners I would studi-
ously refrain from giving anything like a luxurious
diet. I certainly think that the scale of dietary
laid down in 1848 did not err on the side of starva-
tion, but even if it did that dietary has been re-
vised, and you will find that all the changes have
been on the side of relaxation, and there has been a
considerable increase in the amount of the meat
given to the prisoners, who now have meat five
days out of the seven. But this is not all, for there
exists a system of extra diet, and that has grown to
such an extent that, out of 300 or 320 prisoners,
the number on extra diet is no less than 59. I
do not say :that extra diet is wrongly given,
but I do say that we ought thoroughly
to understand the principle upon which it is
given, for I assure this Court that if they
compare the prison diet with the workhouse diet it
will be found that the comparison is far from being
in favour of the workhouse diet; and I must say
that when a poor man, without a blot on his repu-
tation, who has, perhaps, lived a long life without
the slightest shadow of suspicion attaching to him,
is at last obliged, either through misfortune or old
age, to resort to the workhouse, and receives hardly
sufficient to keep body and soul together, while the
sturdy felon, who has been committed and recom-
mitted over and over again, is well fed and comfort-
ably cared for, it is dealing with guilt and innocence
in a most unsatisfactory manner. (Hear.) I now
come to the general changes affecting prison disci-
pline, and I am sorry to say that I can number se-
veral cases in whioh the relaxation of prison disci-
pline has led to increased evils. In the first place,
the extension of theopen-air exercise has been un-
satisfactory. As I have said, where open-air exer-
cise ispermitted to excess, imprisonment is no longer
a punishment; but you have stripped it of the very
semblance of punishment by removing those re-
straints which prevented large numbers of prisoners
being brought together for open-air exercise, be-
cause by enlarging the space you have rendered it
almost impossible for the warders to prevent that
which is subversive of all prison discipline—namely,
a free communication between the prisoners. You
allow the prisoners now to be employed in agri-
cultural operations, especially in spade labour. If
your prison system had been one of the soundest, I
should not have been disposed to complain of that ;
but, in fact, your prison system is almost entirely
made up of recreation and relaxation, not only out
of doors, but in doors. Quite recently there has
been an extra allowance of pudding. By the old
rules a prisoner was allowed a rug, a sheet, and
a blanket, which latter, being large, could be
doubled down. He is placed, remember, in a cell
only 12 feet by 8 feet in width, which is warmed
by hot air, and which he himself has the power of
ventilating as much as he pleases. You have
now allowed him in the day time an additional
waistcoat and at night an additional blanket, and
not 'only that, but, in order to keep his feet off ,
the asphalt floor, and save him from any draughts
that may creep through the exceedingly well-fitting
door of his cell, I perceived on a recent visit to the

gaol that you have actually accommodated him with
a footstool. (Laughter.) Then, again, in order to
provide for his amusement and instruction I observe

you have a very admirable library, one-half of which
is composed of works of purely religious instruction
and of a serious character, and the other half is made
up of works of fiction and works of entertaining, in-
teresting, instructive, and amusing knowledge—
(laughter)—such books, certainly, as are far beyond
the reach of the poor. Ido not wish to throw any
slight on the system of having a prison library; on
the contrary, I think there ought to be one, but I
certainly did not expect to find such books in it as
those I saw in the county gaol. I find works on kis-
tory, on ancient Egypt and Greece, treatises on mo-
dern astronomy and astro-theology—
(laughter)
books of fiction, such as " Frank Leverton" and the
"Dairyman 's Daughter"—books of travels, such as
Dr. Liviegstone's ``Travels in Africa ;" and lastly,
popular poems and prize essays. (Laughter.) Now,
I do not want to cut off from these unfortunate per-
sons anything
which I think might be fairly allowed
• tence more miserable than
them, or to make their existence
crime has made it, but I think it very questionable
the library works of the description ave named
how faryou should allow prisoners to withdraw from
for the purpose of relieving the tedium of the prison,
which, with the single exception of the restraint on
_
their personal liberty, now remains the only part of
their punishment left, and thus render their condi-
tion far better than the poor, but honest, labourer.
(Hear.) Why, my lord, I saw in several cells such
books as " Livingstone's Travels," and works of that
character, and in ono a publication certainly in the
nature of a newspaper, though it might not have
been of so interesting a character as the Tenses or
the Saturday Renew. Lastly, you have afforded an
indulgence which I consider subversive of all prison
discipline, by pulling down the partitions in the
chapel and the walls in the exercise ground, thus
allowing the prisoners means of communication with

each other, and you have so altered the distribution
- - -

of the hours within the gaol that prisoners are con-

tingally passing and repassing along the corridors of
_ . _

the gaol, rendering it almost impossible for the war-
ders to maintain an Acicnc discipline, What has

been the result ? Why, that within the last two
weeks we have been on the brink of a most serious
conspiracy among the prisoners, which might have
led to a violent outbreak, which outbreak must have
led to bloodshed if not to loss of life. That conspi-
racy first originated in chapel, in consequence of
the unrestricted communication of the men, and
the very first step the Governor took was to dis-
continue the open-air exercise, thus proving con-
clusively that he thought it a source of danger.
This has not been an easy task for me to undertake.
tlofebeel sionrryopepvoesnitiinon to the inginthe slighest degree
Visiting Justices, but
when I find a hardened felon, who has perhaps
committed some brutal outrage, and who has by
some mere technicality only escaped from penal ser-
vitude, or, as in time past, transportation, enjoying
his ten hours of sleep and two hours of labour a
day—and we cannot even call it hard labour, con-
sidering the amount of open-air exercise and the
recreation he has—l cannot forbear from noticing
what I conceive to be a weak and dangerous point
in oar present prison system. (Hear.) When I
find him comfortably wrapt up in his warm cell,
with an extra waistcoat, with his feet on a footstool,
when I find him enjoying the luxury of reading
Livingstone's " Travels," or deeply engaged in the
study of astro- theology—(laughter)—and compare
his condition with that of the poor, but honest
labourer, who, after a long life struggle, goes at
length to the workhouse, I say that the present
system is most unjust in every part of it as regards
him, and most unsatisfactory in a moral point of
view. (Hear, hear.) No doubt my noble friend
will tell us that the laxity permitted here is no
greater than is permitted in other county gaols, but
I cannot say that I care whether it is or not. I am
aware that Sir Joshua Jebb, in his last report,
alluding to the moral efforts at reformation in Pen•
tonville, says, "The period of imprisonment had
been reduced from eighteen months to twelve, the
daily amount of open-air exercise had been in-
creased, and a more healthy and exhilarating kind
of exercise had been substituted for the listless
walk in separate yards." . . . " Since this
was written other important alterations have
been attempted, having for their object the
moral improvement of the prisoners. The
term of imprisonment in separation has been re-
duced to nine months, the separate stalls used for
chapel and school purposes have been abandoned,
and the prisoners consequently are associated in
chapel and at school time." No doubt Sir J. Jebb
congratulates himself upon that state of things, but
I have read that passage in his report with great
pain, because I conceive it to be a perfect subversion
of prison discipline, and I cannot doubt that what
we see in Winchester Gaol is a perfect reflex of
what has taken place in every other county gaol, as
the result of a system which at all events the good
sense of the public is at length determined to ques-
tion. By all means keep the reformatory element
in your prison discipline, and make good use of it,
but do not let it subvert everything else; do not
abandon that straightforward rule of right for what
is at best but a theory, what I believe to be of no
real service to the prisoners themselves, but is in-
flicting a grievous mischief and a great wrong upon
society at large. Ido not advocate the adoption of
harsh or cruel measures, but I want to see the sys-
tem of prison discipline brought down to that level
to which it ought to be. I blame no one for the
present state of things, because I believe we have
all been carrying out a system which has grown up
year after year. We have rushed, as it were, from
a system of excessive severity into one of excessive
lenity and indulgence. I ask this Court not to pre-
judge the question, not wholly to depart from a
system which may be a good one if carried out in a
properly modified form, and I ask for this committee
with a view to inquire into the general principles
upon which prison discipline is now based, and for
the purpose of inquiring how far it is answering the
purposes for which it is intended. (Hear, hear.)
Lord H. CHOLMONDELEY acknowledged the cour-
tesy with which Lord Carnarvon had brought
that,
in question forward, but he could not help feeling
in plain English, it amounted to nothing more nor
less than this—that the Visiting Justices were an
earnest and well-intentioned set of gentlemen, but
that it was perfectly clear they did not understand
the management of prison discipline. He did not
complain of the noble lord, but this motion was a
vote of censure, and as such he accepted it, If the
noble earl was animated with a desire to make any
alteration in the prison discipline, why did he not
make a representation to the Visiting Justices on the
subject before coming to this court ? They might
then have gone into the whole question of prison
discipline, and have had the advantage of the assist-
ance of their noble chairman. The noble earl might
then have investigated the whole subject, but by
coming forward with this motion he had placed the
Visiting Justices in a very unpleasant predicament.
In a speech of so general a kind it was impossible
to make an answer to every point, but he thought
the noble earl had fsllen into some errors. In the
first place, the committee of 1848 did not introduce
hard labour into the gaol with a view to prison dis-
cipline at all, and it was only in cases where, from
the shortness of the imprisonment or other causes,
reformation through moral means was hopeless,
that they recommended the punishment of hard
labour, and it was with that view that they classi-
fied the prisoners. It was clear that that committee
were in favour of a distinction between the treatmen

of those sentenced to long terms and those sentenced
to short terms of imprisonment. At the time the rules
were drawn up the whole management of the gaol

was new to magistrates, and it was found that
many of the original rules would not work and had
to be modified. The magistrates were not to be
blamed because the treadwheel did not work as
well as it ought, and their successive reports showed
that they had been eonstanty using the best means
they could to make it. With respect to the hard
labour power of the gaol, they must remember that

• -
within the last two years they had had a great
number of military and naval prisoners, which it
was to be hoped they would not have again. He
did not agree with the noble earl that they ought
to look at their position, and compare it with other
gaols. They had now hard labour power to em-

ploy 100 prisoners, their average number being
about 220. He had taken the trouble to ascertain
what was the hard-labour power in several other
gaols, and he found that while in Coldbath-fields
prison they had 1,500 prisoners they had only

treadwheels for 160, or 1 in 9. At Wakefield,

another considerable . prison, they had neither
treadwheel nor crank, but employed the prisoners
in picking oakum. At Stafford they had 400 pri-
soners, and they only had treadwheels for 88 and

cranks for 57. In Kent, where there were 328

prisoners, there was a treadwheel for 100. At

Durham, where there were 229 prisoners, no ma-

chinery of any kind was employed. At Glocester,
where there were 200 prisoners, there was a tread-

wheel for 60 only. At Worcester, with 200 pri-

Boners, there was a treadwheel only for 58, and

cranks for 14. So that it would seem that at Win-

Chester there was really more hard labour power
than in other gaols. With respect to the dietary,
the short answer was, that the extra diet was
ordered invariably by the surgeon, and that it was
ordered was a proof that the prisoners were not
overfed. So far from their being worse treated
than people in the union, he had found on inquiry
that the cost of a prisoner per week was only ls. 91d.
per head, while for each person in the workhouse it
was 2s. tild. The surgeon had also, on the ground of
health, ordered the extra open air exercise, and had
stated that if he had not done so he must have
ordered an increase of diet. With regard to the
extra clothing he reminded the Court that most of
the prisoners had guernseys when they came into
gaol, and it was felt as a serious deprivation to
take away without any substitute. There-
fore, the them
extra ()thing had been allowed. He con-
trasted the number of recommittals in Hampshire

with those in other southern counties, and he de-

fended the general discipline of the gaol, observing
that the report of the intended conspiracy alluded

to rested solely on the unsupported testimony of
two or three of the prisoners.
Mr. DOVERELL said that the fact could not be
doubted that publie attention had been called to
prison discipline, and that an impression existed
that it was far too indulgent. He certainly thought
that the adoption of the noble earl's motion as it