PRISONS.

The arrangements necessary to adapt prisons to the ends for which they are designed seem to require little more than the exercise of practical good sense; and yet the manner in which the practice of the world blunders on from one absurdity, and very often from one atrocity to another, shows pretty distinctly, how little the public affairs of mankind have hitherto had the benefit of that practical faculty, or of any thing that resembles it.

Prisons have been applied to three purposes: 1st, That of safe custody; 2dly, That of punishment; 3dly, That of reformation.

It is very evident, that each of these purposes requires an arrangement of means peculiar to itself.

Though each requires a combination of means peculiar to itself, it does not follow that, of the means required for each, a portion may not be the same in all. Every body will acknowledge that this is the case.

The means of safe custody, for instance, are equally required for those who are imprisoned in order to be punished, and those who are imprisoned in order that they may be reformed, as for those who are imprisoned to the sole end of being made present at a particular time and place.

The arrangements, then, for safe custody, form a basis,’ on which every combination of means for attaining any of the other ends of imprisonment must always be erected. Other means for the attainment of these ends are to be considered as accessions to those required for the first.

It is a corollary from this position, that the same house may, at one and the same time, be employed for all the three purposes. Those properties in the building which make it fittest, at the least expense, for safe custody, make it fittest also for the purposes either of punishment or of reformation. This will be rendered abundantly apparent in the sequel; and from the single circumstance, that the means of punishment and reformation are only additions to those of safe custody, it wants not much of its demonstration already. If the arrangements needed, for those who are to be punished, and those who are to be reformed, interfere not with one another, or with those needed on account of the persons in safe custody merely, the truth of the corollary is indisputable; for nobody will deny that, in point of economy, there must be very great advantage.

I. We shall consider, first of all, what is the best combination of means for safe custody. Dungeons and fetters are the expedient of a barbarous age. And in respect of prisons, as of every thing which comes within the precincts of law, the expedients of a barbarous age are, with great industry, retained in those which are civilized; they are, indeed, not only retained with great industry, but preserved with a success which, if it were not experienced, would be altogether incredible. As the expedients of a barbarous age are still preserved in many more of the arrangements for the purposes of law, so it is but of yesterday that the prisons of our forefathers have been regarded as fit for reform, or the means which in their ancestorial wisdom those sages devised for attaining the ends of imprisonment were supposed capable of being altered for the better, by their less instructed sons.

It is at last, however, allowed, that inspection is a means for safe custody, which renders unnecessary all but very ordinary means of any other description. Thus, so long as a man is, and knows that he is, under the eyes of persons able and willing to prevent him, there is very little danger of his making an attempt, which he sees would be vain, to effect a breach in the wall, or force open the door, of his cell. Any great strength, therefore, in such wall or door, as well as fetters upon any part of his body, the object of which is to make provision against such an attempt, are wholly unnecessary; since the attempts are sure of not being made, or being instantly frustrated.

The plan of a prison, in which the power of inspection is rendered so complete, that the prisoner maybe, and cannot know but that he is, under the eyes of his keepers, every moment of his time, and which we owe to General Bentham, so
universally
known for his mechanical genius, is described by his brother, in his work entitled Panoptico, or Inspection House ; where also a system of management is delineated, and its principles are so perfectly expounded and proved, that they who proceed in this road, with the principle of utility before them, can do little else than travel in his steps.

An idea of the contrivance may be conveyed in a few words. It is a circular building, of the width of a cell, and of any height; carried round a space, which remains vacant in the middle. The cells are all open inwards, having an iron grating instead of a wall, and, of course, are visible in every part to an eye properly placed in the vacant space. A narrow tower rises in the middle of that space, called the inspection tower, which serves for the residence of the keepers, and in which, by means of windows and blinds, they can see without being seen; the cells, by lights properly disposed, being capable of being rendered as visible by night as by day.

We have thus provision for safe custody; and along with it, five other important purposes are gained. First of all, there is great economy; the vast expense of thick, impenetrable walls, being rendered unnecessary. Secondly, all pretence of subjecting prisoners to the torture and degradation of irons is taken away. Thirdly, no misbehaviour of the prisoners can elude observation, and instant correction. Fourthly, no negligence, or corruption, or cruelty, on the part of the subordinate agents in the prison, can escape the view of their principals. And, fifthly, no misconduct towards the prisoners, on the part of their principals, can remain unknown to the public, who may obtain a regulated admittance into the inspection tower, and regulated communication with the prisoners.

The persons who are liable to be in prison, for sure custody merely, are of three classes. First, persons apprehended, and about to be put on their trial, for the commission of a crime. Secondly, persons convicted of a crime, and about to receive their punishment; and, thirdly, debtors.

Under a good system of law, very little provision would need to be made for these cases. It is one of the essential properties of a good system of law to permit as little time as possible to intervene between the apprehension and trial, and between the conviction and punishment, of a person for a crime. There would never, therefore, be many such persons in any prison at a time. And under a good system of law, there never would be any body in a
prison
on account[7:18:575] of debt.^[1. If evident fraud were committed in contracting the debt, or if the property of others, obtained by loan, had evidently been dishonestly spent, or dishonestly risked, such fraud or dishonesty, being crimes, not a debt, might justly subject a man to imprisonment, or any other sort of due punishment. ] This is mentioned merely to show how little, under a good system of law, the apparatus and expense of a separate prison, for this set of cases, would be wanted.

These persons being inmates of a prison, for insuring their presence merely, the question is, What treatment they ought to receive?

Persons in prison before trial, and debtors, are persons of whom nothing is certainly known, but that they are unfortunate. They are, therefore, entitled to all the benevolence which is due to the unfortunate.

What is done for them in a prison must, however, be done at the expense of the community, that is, by sacrifices demanded of those who are not in prison; and those sacrifices ought, undoubtedly, to be the smallest possible. The question is, therefore, to be settled by a compromise between the principle of benevolence, and the principle of economy.

The principle of benevolence undoubtedly requires that the health of the prisoners should not be impaired; for this, importing the premature loss of life, is in reality the punishment of death, inflicted upon those to whom no punishment is due.

That health may not be impaired, three things are indispensable: 1st, a wholesome apartment; 2dly, a sufficiency of wholesome food; 3dly, sufficient clothing.

The principle of economy, with equal certainty, exacts, that all those should be of the cheapest possible kind.

All this is abundantly clear. It is equally clear that, with respect to those who are in prison for safe custody merely, the principle of benevolence requires, and the principle of economy does not forbid, that they should be free to use any indulgence, which costs nothing, or which they provide for themselves; and that no farther restraint should be placed upon their liberty than the custody of their persons, and the rule of economy, which prescribes the limits and accommodations of the place, may demand.

Few words will be necessary to show what is appropriate to the case of the man who is in prison during the interval between his sentence and his punishment.

By the supposition, in this case, his punishment is something distinct from his imprisonment; because, if not, it is a case which comes under another head, namely, that of persons who are in prison for the sake of punishment; and will be fully considered in another part of this discourse.

If he is in prison for detention merely, his punishment, as meted out and fixed by the judge, being something wholly separate; every particle of hardship imposed upon him, not necessary for his detention, is something without law, and contrary to law; is as much injustice and a crime, when inflicted upon him, as if inflicted upon any other member of the community. The same considerations, which, as we found above, ought to regulate the imprisonment of debtors, and persons in custody before trial, namely, the compromise between the principle of benevolence and the principle of economy, apply, without the smallest difference, to the case of persons who, during the interval between their sentence and its execution, are in prison for the mere purpose of preventing their escape.

We foresee a difficulty, or rather an objection, for there is really no difficulty in the case.

Persons come into prisons, who have been accustomed, in the preceding part of their lives, to all degrees of delicate and indulgent living; to whom, therefore, the hard fare prescribed by the principle of economy will occasion very different degrees of uneasiness.

Such persons, when in prison for safe custody merely (what is required when persons are in prison for punish ment, or for reformation, will be seen hereafter), may be allowed to make use of any funds which they may possess for procuring to themselves all unexceptionable indulgencies. They may be also allowed the exercise of any lucrative art, consistent with the nature of the prison, for procuring to themselves the means of such indulgencies. This the principle of benevolence dictates, and there is nothing in the principle of economy which forbids it.

We shall be told, however, that there are persons who have been accustomed to a delicate mode of living, and who come into prison without the command of any funds, or the knowledge of any art, by which they may soften the hardship of their lot; and we shall be asked what is the course which our philosophy recommends for the treatment of them? The course which it recommends is very clear. Such persons arc paupers, and whatsoever treatment is fit for paupers of the description to which they belong, is fit also for them. If there are any funds, to which as paupers they can apply, the application should be open to them. If there are none, and there is no person to whose benevolence they can resort, the effects of such a destitute situation must be sustained, the same way in a prison, as they must be, when any person falls into it, out of a prison.

II. Having stated what appears to us necessary for illustrating the principles which ought to regulate the imprisonment of those, in respect to whom safe custody is the end in view, we come, in the next place, to the case of those, in respect to whom, in addition to safe custody, punishment is to be effected through the same medium.

This subject we shall unfortunately be under the necessity of treating superficially; because, in order to explain it fully, we ought to have before us the whole doctrine of punishment; and, for this purpose, a development, too extensive for the present purpose, would be required.

This we may assume as an indisputable principle; that whatever punishment is to be inflicted, should be determined by the judge, and by him alone; that it should be determined by its adaptation to the crime; and that it should not be competent to those to whom the execution of the sentence of the judge is entrusted, either to go beyond the line which he has drawn, or to fall short of it.

We have already established, on what seemed sufficient reasons, that for persons confined, on account of safe custody merely, the cheapest accommodation, not importing injury to health, in respect to apartment, food, and clothing, should alone be provided at the public expense.

Unless in the case of those whom the judge might condemn to lose a portion of their health, as the punishment due to them, by the sufferings of an unwholesome prison, unwholesome food, or improper clothing, this accommodation ought to be afforded even to those who are placed in prisons for the sake of punishment. And if it should be thought that the loss of health never can be a proper punishment, if it has never been regarded as such even by savages, and is repudiated by every principle of reason, then it follows, that the accommodations which we have described in the former part of this discourse, as required in the case of prisoners detained for safe custody, are required in the case of prisoners of every description.

This is a basis, therefore, upon which every thing is to rest. In every rational system of prison management, this is an essential condition. We are now to see in what manner, upon this footing, punishment, by means of imprisonment, is to be effected.

One mode is sufficiently obvious and sufficiently known. The punishment may be rendered more or less severe by [7:18:576]its duration. Want of liberty is, in almost all cases, a source of uneasiness; want of liberty, added to the denial of all pleasures of sense, can hardly ever fail to be a source of great uneasiness. A long imprisonment, therefore, with the cheapest accommodation not importing injury to health, must be a severe punishment. This, it is evident, may be graduated to more or less of severity, not only by degrees of time, but the use of such means as the prisoner might command for procuring accommodations and indulgencies.

To this imprisonment may be added solitude. But though we mention this, as a practicable addition to simple imprisonment, it is well known how little, unless for short periods, and on very particular occasions, it is to be recommended.

The modes which lately have been most in repute, of adding to the severity of simple imprisonment for the purpose of punishment, have been two; 1st, hard labour; and, 2dly, bad prisons, and bad management in those prisons.

1. The species of labour which appears to have obtained the preference is that of treading on a wheel.

If a criminal in a prison is ever to be let out again, and to mix in society, it is desirable that nothing should be done, and least of all done on purpose, to make him a worse member of society than when he went in. There cannot be a worse quality of a punishment, than that it has a tendency to corrupt and deteriorate the individual on whom it is inflicted; unless, indeed, he is a prisoner for life; in that case, people of a certain temper might say, that making worse his disposition is a matter of little importance; and to them we have no time to make any reply.

Most of those persons who come into prison as criminals, are bad, because they have hated labour, and have had recourse to other means than their industry of attaining the supply of their wants and the gratification of their desires. People of industry, people who love labour, seldom become the criminal inmates of a prison.

One thing, however, is pretty certain, that men seldom become in love with their punishments. If the grand cause of the crimes which have brought a man to punishment is his not having a love but hatred of labour; to make labour his punishment, is only to make him hate it the more. If the more a man hates labour, the more he is likely to act as a bad member of society; to punish a man with labour, and then to turn him out upon society, is a course of legislation which savours not of the highest wisdom.

Besides, in treating labour as an instrument of punishment, call it hard labour, if you will, what sort of a lesson do you teach to the industrious and laborious class, who form the great body of your people? to those whose lot is labour, whose lot is hard labour, harder than any which it is in your power to impose? What compulsory labour is so hard as many species of voluntary labour?

As an instrument of reformation, labour, as we shall presently see, is invaluable. As an instrument of punishment, hardly any thing can be conceived more exceptionable. That which is the source of all that mankind enjoy, that which is the foundation of every virtue in the most numerous class of the community, would you stamp with ignominy and dishonour, by inflicting it as a punishment upon the worst and basest of your people? Is this your expedient for rendering it, what every wise legislator would wish to render it, honourable, and thence desirable?

There are other objections, perfectly decisive, against labour as a punishment. It operates with more inequality than almost any other instrument of punishment that ever has been invented. The same degree of labour would kill one man, that to another would be only a pastime. From this source we may apprehend the most horrid abuses, in the continuance of those tread-mills. We may be very sure, that the most atrocious cruelty will often be inflicted upon those who, with strength below the average standard, are placed in those penal engines; while, in the case of those whose strength is much above that standard, they will hardly operate as a punishment at all.

It is impossible that the judge can measure out this punishment; because the judge has not the means of ascertaining the relative strength of the parties who come before him. It must, therefore, be left to the jailor. The jailor, not the judge, will mete out and determine the degree of suffering which each individual is to undergo. The jailor, not the judge, is the man who adapts the punishment to the crime. Hence one of the stains which mark a careless and stupid legislation.

It is a far inferior, though still no inconsiderable proof of a blundering legislation, that the labour, if labour it must be, is not of such a sort as to be useful. The turning of a wheel, by human labour, when so many better means of turning it are possessed in abundance, is destitute of even this recommendation. It stands upon a similar footing with the contrivance of the jailor, whom Mr. Bentham celebrates: “We are told somewhere,” he says, “towards the close of Sully’s Memoirs, that for some time after the decease of that great and honest minister, certain high mounts were to be seen at no great distance from his house. These mounts were so many monuments of his charity. The poor in his neighbourhood happened to have industry to spare, and the best employment he could find for it was, to remove dirt from the place where it lay to another where it was of no use. By the mere force of innate genius, and without having ever put himself to school to learn the economy of a French minister, a plain English jailor, whom Howard met with, was seen practising’this revived species of pyramid architecture in miniature. He had got a parcel of stones together at one end of his yard, and set the prisoners to bring them to the other; the task achieved, now, says he, you may fetch them back again. Being asked what was the object of this industry, his answer was, t to plague the prisoners.’” In a note on this passage, Mr Bentham says, “I beg the jailor’s pardon; what is above was from memory; his contrivance was the setting them to saw wood with a blunt saw, made blunt on purpose. The removers of mounts were a committee of justices.”

2. Bad prisons, and bad management in these prisons, is a mode of punishment, the recommendation of which has lately been revived, after we might have hoped that, in this country at least, it was exploded for ever. The language of such recommendation has, on several occasions, been heard in Parliament; and an article on Prison Discipline, which appeared in the Edinburgh Review, cannot be interpreted in any other sense. Even the Committee of the Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline have not been able to withstand the force of what they may have supposed to be fashionable doctrine. In their Fourth Report, lately published, which we are sorry to say evinces more of good intention, than of enlightened views for its guidance, they say, “No charge can be more mistaken and unfounded, than that the plans recommended by this institution are calculated to introduce comfort into gaols. The committee are of opinion, and have always contended, that severe punishment must form the basis of an effective system of prison discipline ;” thereby confounding two things, punishment, and prison discipline; which are totally distinct; and between which, it is of so much importance to preserve the distinction, that without it not a rational idea can be entertained about either.

No doubt crimes must be punished. Who needs instruction upon that head? But when the judge has prescribed, that, in a particular way, which he points out, a particular measure of pain shall be inflicted upon an individual; and when the individual is taken, and made to sustain the operations through which the pain is generated; what has this [7:18:577]to do with the discipline of the prison? It is an act or series of acts, sui generis ∙, acts not forming any part of the ordinary course of prison management; acts which would not have taken place, which ought not to have taken place, if the judge had not commanded them, and which were performed solely and exclusively in obedience to his commandment. This is the nature of punishment; other punishment than this there ought to be none.

The Committee would make severe punishment the basis of prison discipline. What business have the Committee with punishment? The assigning of punishment the legislature have given to other and fitter hands; to those who take cognizance of the offence, and alone ought to measure the punishment. Saying they would make punishment the basis of prison discipline, what do they intend by this ill-contrived expression? Do they mean, that their jailor shall hold the scales, and weigh out the proper quantity? If not, how are they to be understood; for if not the jailor but the judge is to weigh, and the jailor is to do nothing but punctually carry the prescription of the judge into execution, then is punishment, in no proper sense of the word, any part of prison discipline. It is a separate operation, performed on a particular occasion, because prescribed by the judge, and in the exact manner in which the judge has prescribed it. If it is, on the other hand, a part of prison discipline, then all the horrid consequences, inseparable from making the jailor the judge and meter of punishment, present themselves to the imagination; and he who can endure to look at them may dwell upon the picture of a prison, wherein the poor will not be more comfortable than at home, nor by the charms of imprisonment enticed to the commission of crimes.

Nothing can more clearly indicate that state of mind, which consists in confusion of ideas, than the vague language which we hear about the necessity of making prisons the seats of wretchedness, that crimes, they say, may not receive encouragement.

We have already seen, that, unless it is part of a man’s punishment, expressly ordained, that he shall lose a portion of his health; that is, that his life shall be cut short; that is, that after a period of torture, he shall receive a capital punishment; a wholesome apartment, a sufficiency of wholesome food, proper clothing, all of the cheapest kind, must be provided for every body. When people talk about making prisons seats of wretchedness, do they mean something worse than this?

Many of them will no doubt answer, yes, we mean hard labour in addition. We ask again, do you mean hard labour, according to the prescription of the judge, or without the prescription of the judge? If according to the prescription of the judge, the case is the same with that which we have previously examined. This instrument of punishment is exceptionable, only because it is a bad instrument.

The whole matter evidently comes to this. If more wretchedness is desired than what is implied in confinement under the worst accommodation which the preservation of health admits, it must be meted out, either at the pleasure of the jailor, or the pleasure of the judge. The writer in the Edinburgh Pevieiv, and the Committee of the Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline, speak as if they had never reflected upon the difference.

We do not mean to bestow a word upon that theory, which, for the prevention of offences, would make prisons scenes of wretchedness at the pleasure of the jailor.

The only question which can deserve a solution is, what mode of inflicting evil in a gaol can the judge make use of for best attaining the ends of punishment? The answer is not difficult Unless, where that course of reformatory discipline, which we shall delineate under the next head, suffices; and we allow, that, though it may be made to involve no small degree of punishment, there are cases in which it would not suffice; it will certainly appear, that prisons are not the best instruments of punishment.

A single consideration suffices for the proof of this proposition. Punishment in a prison loses the grand requisite of a punishment, that of engendering the greatest quantity of terror in others, by the smallest quantity of suffering in the victim. The principal, perhaps the sole end of punishment, is to restrain by the example; because, with respect to the individual whom you have got, if you think society in any danger from him, you can keep him in sight, and no more is required. Yet, the language we hear about the tread-mill, and hear from the mouths of high persons, implies, that hardly any thing more is in their minds, than the effect upon the individual sufferers. “Nothing finer than the tread-mill; a fellow who has been in the tread-mill never comes back again.” Be it so; but by your leave, this is a very insignificant part of the question.

The choice of expedients, for obtaining the punishment best adapted to the several cases for which a course of reformatory discipline does not suffice, belongs to another head of inquiry, and must, for the present purpose, be regarded as determined. All that it is necessary for us to show here is, that a prison is not the proper scene for it, nor the instruments of a prison the proper instruments. To render a punishment the most efficacious in accomplishing the great end of punishment, it must be a punishment calculated to make the strongest impression upon the senses, and, through the senses, upon the imagination, of the public at large; more especially of that part of the public who lie under the strongest temptations to the commission of similar crimes. But the punishments inflicted in a prison are withdrawn from the senses of the public, and seem as if they were intended to make the smallest possible, not the greatest, possible, impression upon the imaginations of those who are to be deterred from crime. They are defective, therefore, in the most essential quality of a punishment, and can always be supplied by better means of attaining the same end.

The proper idea of a prison, is that of a place of custody, and that alone. This idea ought to be clearly, and distinctly, and steadily preserved in the mind, in all disquisitions respecting prison discipline. Punishment and reformatory discipline may be annexed to safe custody; and in as far as they consist of a series of operations, requiring time for their performance, it is essential to them. As reformatory discipline consists wholly in such a series, imprisonment is a necessary condition of it. Since many, also, of the best kinds of punishment are not such as can be executed all at once, but require a period of time, imprisonment is equally necessary for these punishments. But though you must have safe custody to enable you to execute certain punishments, and also to enable you to carry into effect a course of reformatory discipline, safe custody is not the same thing with punishment, nor the same thing with reformatory discipline; and no conclusions can be depended upon, in which ideas so distinct are confounded.

III. Having thus considered prisons, as instruments of safe custody, and as instruments of punishment; two of the purposes to which they have been applied as means; it remains that we consider them as instruments of reformatory discipline, the third of the purposes to which they have been applied.

It is necessary, first of all, to state a clear idea of reformatory discipline.

When offences, against which it is necessary that society should have protection, are committed, it is desirable that the punishment of the offender should have three properties: lsí, That it should deter all other persons from committing a similar offence, which is its most important property. c ldly i That it should have the effect of deterring the man himself from a repetition of the offence. 3√∕y, [7:18:578]That it should have the effect of removing his former bad habits, and planting useful habits in their stead. It is this last property which is sought to be communicated to his punishment by reformatory discipline.

As the creating and destroying of habits is the work of time, and as the restraint of safe custody, and restraint from all indulgencies, except under certain conditions, are necessary to reformatory discipline, whatever punishment is involved in such protracted coercion, is a necessary part of reformatory discipline.

What is desired is, to create a habit of doing useful acts, in order to break the habit of doing hurtful acts. To accomplish this, means must be obtained of making the individual in question perform certain acts, and abstain from the performance of certain other acts.

The means to be employed for producing performance cannot be of more than two sorts, the pleasurable and the painful. A man may be induced to perform certain acts, either by punishment or reward. He may be made to abstain from performing certain acts by an additional means, by withholding the power of performing them.

The latter is the means chiefly applicable for preventing the performance of hurtful acts in prisons; not only crimes, but acts of intemperance, gaming, or any others, the tendency of which is towards crime. As this is nearly the universal practice, the reasons of it must be so generally known, as not to need development.

The inquiry which chiefly calls for our attention is, what are the best means of producing the performance of those acts, the habit of performing which we desire to render so perfect, that it may be relied upon for the effect, even in a state of freedom?

The persons on whom reformatory discipline is intended to operate, belong to the class of those who depend upon their industry for their support. So nearly, at least, do they belong to this class exclusively, that the immaterial exceptions may, in this general inquiry, be omitted.

The necessary foundation, in the case of such persons, not only for all virtues, but for abstinence from crime, is the habit of performing some one of those series of acts, which are denominated lawful industry, and for which the performers obtain payment or reward.

Labour, therefore, in some of its useful branches, is to be regarded as the foundation of all reformatory discipline. But as the object of this discipline is to train the man to love, not to hate labour, we must not render the labour in such a case any part of his punishment. The labour must, for this important purpose, be a source of pleasure, not of pain.

The way in which labour becomes agreeable to men out of a prison, is the way in which it can be made agreeable to them in a prison; and there is no other. Advantages must accrue from the performing of it.

The way of attaching to it advantages the most intensely persuasive, in a reformatory prison or Penitentiary, is exceedingly obvious.

There it is easy to prevent the attaining of any pleasure, except through the medium of labour.

What is provided in the prison, according to the principles already explained, is lodging, food, and clothing, all of the very cheapest kind not producing injury to health. In the monotony of a prison, there is no one who will not intensely desire pleasure in addition to this.

In the sentence of a criminal, who is subjected to reformatory discipline, it may, and as often as the ease requires, it ought, to be rendered a part, that he shall not be permitted to make any additions to this hard fare from any source belonging either to himself or others, except his labour; but that what he earns by his labour he may, in a certain way, lay out to procure to himself better food, or any other indulgence (certain hurtful ones excepted) which he may desire. Few cascs, indeed, will be found in which this simple contrivance will not produce steadiness of application.

We have now then attained what is of principal importance. For if we have got the inmates of a prison to labour steadily in some useful branch of industry, to look to labour as the great or only source of their enjoyments, and to form habits of so doing, sufficiently confirmed to be depended upon for governing their conduct in a state of freedom, we have prepared them for being useful members of society, and our purpose is accomplished.

Here, then, comes the question, By what arrangements, in detail, can the business of confining, maintaining, and setting offenders to work, be most advantageously performed?

In other words, in what hands should the government of penitentiaries be placed, and under what rules should it be ordained for them to act? ‘

It is an universal axiom in morals, that no security is equally to be depended upon for any desirable result, as the interest of those upon whom its accomplishment depends. If, in devolving upon a man the task of bringing about a particular end, we make it his interest to bring it about in the best possible manner, especially if we make it his interest in any high degree, we can hardly be disappointed in counting upon his most strenuous exertions. On the other hand, if he has no interest, or a very inconsiderable interest, in the end which he is entrusted to bring about; if little cognizance will be taken of his proceedings, whether good or bad; if to attend to the business would be exceedingly troublesome, to neglect it will produce little inconvenience; we may be very sure that, by a great majority of men, the business of the task devolved upon them will be very imperfectly performed. If they can make a profit out of oppression, or if, as is the case, to so great a degree in prisons, they can consult their ease by imposing additional and mischievous restraints upon the prisoners, their interests are strongly set against their duties, and ill conduct is still more perfectly secured.

This last, how deplorable soever the confession, is the state of management of all British prisons, with hardly any exception. There is a jailor, who receives a salary and power, and is told to manage the prison well; and there is a number of justices, that is, gentlemen of the neighbourhood, who obtain not a little power, and a great deal of praise, for undertaking to do certain public duties of a local nature, with little interest in doing them well, and no little interest in doing them in many respects exceedingly ill, who have the charge of looking after him. Varieties we cannot afford to particularize. This is the general description.

The management, then, of the prison, is the joint concern of the jailor and the justices, or magistrates, including sheriffs, who, jointly or severally, have no such interest, as can be expected generally to produce any considerable effect, in any thing more than such a kind of management as will not excite attention and indignation by its badness. All the degrees of bad management, which are within those limits, having little or no interest to prevent, they have abundant interest to permit.

It is surely not necessary, that we should go far into the detail of this case, to show the causes which it places in operation, and their natural effects.

First of all, it is sufficiently evident, that the jailor has an interest in obtaining his salary, and other emoluments, with as little trouble to himself as possible.

It is not less evident, that the magistrates have an interest in getting the power and credit attached to their office with as little trouble to themselves as possible.

This is enough. The book of human nature is clear upon the subject. This principle, at uncontrolled work in [7:18:579]a prison, is perfectly sufficient to generate all the evils which those abodes of misery can be made to contain.

It is undeniable, that so far as those, who thus have the superintendence of jailors, are disposed to consult their ease, and to perform negligently a troublesome duty, which they may perform well or ill, just as they please, so far they will be indisposed to listen to any complaints against the jailor. It saves them a good deal of trouble to confide in the jailor. They speedily come, therefore, to look upon confidence in the jailor, and to speak of it as a good thing, a duty. “Has not the jailor been most carefully and judiciously selected for his office, by wise and good men? (namely ourselves). Would it not be an injury to a man of his character to distrust him? And to distrust him, for what? For the complaints of prisoners. But prisoners are always complaining, always giving trouble. Jailors are a good set of men. Prisoners are a bad set of men; especially complaining prisoners. They are the very worst kind of men; they are, therefore, to be silenced; and it is often very difficult to silence them; nothing but harsh measures will do it; when harsh measures, however, are absolutely necesssary, it is the duty of jailors to use them, and the duty of magistrates to protect such men in the discharge of so important a duty.”

Such are the feelings and conclusions which are undeniably prompted, by the mere love of ease, in the bosom of such men as English magistrates.

So far as the magistrates consult their ease (men generally do consult their ease when they have not a preponderating motive to the contrary), the jailor is at liberty to consult his ease.

In the jailor’s consulting his ease, every thing that is horrid in a prison finds its producing cause.

What the jailor has chiefly to guard against is, the escape of his prisoners, because that is a result which cannot be hidden, and will not escape animadversion. But the love of ease prompts him to take the easiest means for this purpose; locking up in dungeons, loading with irons, and prohibiting communication from without; in other words, all the measures which are the most tormenting to the prisoner. If the prisoner, confiding in his ingenuity or his strength, makes any attempts to free himself from this misery, by escaping, the disturbance which is thus given to the ease of the jailor is a cause of pain, proportional to the love with which he cherishes his ease; this pain excites resentment, resentment calls for vengeance, and the prisoner is cruelly punished. The demon despotism reigns in his most terrific form.

This is only one half of the evil. The servants of the jailor, the turnkeys, as they are called, and others who wait upon the prisoners, are as fond of their ease as the jailor is of his. If the jailor has no adequate motives to make him take care that the business of the prison is well done, he will repose the same confidence in his servants, which the magistrates so liberally exercise towards him. He will leave them to indulge their ease, as he could not do otherwise without disturbing his own.

From the servants of the prison indulging their ease, neglect of the prisoners is the immediate and unavoidable consequence. From neglect of prisoners, that is, of men placed in a situation destitute of all the means of helping themselves, all those evils, which, in another situation, could be produced only by the most direful oppression, immediately ensue.

Upon the servants of a gaol, cherishing their ease, and left by their superintendents to do so, every call of a prisoner for help, from relief from any annoyance, is felt as an injury, and resented as such. Cruelty speedily comes, as a co-operator with neglect, to fill up the measure of the prisoner’s calamity.

The prisoner, finding himself destitute of all remedy, except he can prevail upon the people who approach him to remove some of the causes of the misery which he endures, has recourse to bribery, when he can possibly command the means; and then pillage, without limit and without mercy, is added to all the evils of this den of horrors.

If such are the consequences of entrusting the management of prisons to persons who have no interest, or not a sufficiency of interest, in good management, we have next to consider the important question, by what means a sufficiency of interest in good management can be created? We need not have any doubt, that if a sufficiency of good accrues to the managers from every particle of good management, and a sufficiency of evil from every particle of bad, we shall have as much as possible of the good, and as little as possible of the evil.

The grand object, as we have stated, of reformatory discipline is, to create habits of useful industry. A second object is, to preserve the health of the prisoners, and impose upon them no suffering, not implied in the conditions of their confinement, or prescribed by the judge. A third is, by moral and religious tuition, to generate and strengthen good dispositions. A fourth is, to attain those ends at the smallest possible expense.

It is not difficult to give the manager or keeper of a reformatory prison or penitentiary, a very strong interest in all these important results.

We have already seen, that the mode of giving to the prisoner a motive to labour, is, by giving him a share in the produce of his labour.

It is evident that an equally certain mode of giving to the jailor a motive for obtaining as much of that labour as possible, that is, for doing all that depends upon him. to make the prisoners labour as much as possible, and as productively as possible, is by giving him also a share in the produce of their labour.

It may be said, however, that if the jailor receives a share of the labour of the prisoners, he will have a motive for making them labour too much; labour may be so excessive as to equal the severest torture.

Effectual expedients, however, for the prevention of this evil, are easy and obvious. In the first place, it does not seem necessary that the labour should be in any degree compulsory. If a prisoner is, according to the rule above laid down with respect to the cheapest fare, confined to the coarsest kind of bread, and water, if he does not labour, but has it in his power to add to his enjoyments by labouring, more especially if he may labour in company, but if he will not labour, must remain in solitude, the cases will be exceedingly few in which compulsion will be needful; and these might, if it were deemed of sufficient importance, be specially provided for by the legislature.

If a man may work, or not work, as he pleases, and much or little as he pleases, there is no need of any farther security against excessive labour. If there were, it would be afforded by the interest which it is easy to give to the jailor in the health of the prisoner.

Giving to the jailor a share in the produce of the labour of a prisoner has two happy effects; not only that of giving him an interest in rendering the value of that produce as great as possible, but that, also, of giving him an interest in the health of the prisoner, because the produce of a man’s labour is greater when he is in health than when he is not.

This may be increased by giving to the jailor, through a very obvious channel, an interest, and an interest to any amount, in the life of each prisoner. It being ascertained what is the proportion of persons of a similar age that die annually, when not confined in a prison, all that is necessary[7:18:580] is, to entitle the jailor to a sum of money for each of the individuals above that proportion whom he preserves alive, and to make him forfeit a sum for each individual above that proportion who dies. This sum, it is evident, may be sufficiently high, to ensure, on the part of the jailor, a strong desire for the life, and thence a proper attention to the health of the prisoners.

Another particular in this case requires attention. It is obvious, that the motive of the prisoner to render the quantity or value of his labour the greatest, is, when the share which he enjoys of it is the greatest. It is equally obvious, that the motive of the jailor to promote the augmentation of this quantity or value is the greatest when his share is the greatest.

If the whole of the produce of the labour of each of the prisoners were left to be divided between himself and the jailor, the motives of the two pa ties, taken jointly, would be at the highest. And the question then would be, according to what proportion should the division be made?

The peculiar circumstances of this case permit the most decisive answer to be returned. No evil can accrue, and every good purpose is best gained, by allowing the jailor to take as much as he pleases. It being first established that he can employ no compulsory methods, that the prisoner must have as much of the coarsest fare and accommodation as he needs, whether he works or not, and that work can thus be obtained from him only by the operation of reward, it will be the interest of the jailor to make his reward sufficiently high to obtain from him all the work which he can perform, and, in his situation as a criminal, he ought, generally speaking, to receive no more. The propriety of this regulation, therefore, rests on conclusive evidence.

Here, however, an objection worthy of attention occurs. If the jailor receives so great a proportion of the produce of the labour of the prisoners, he may receive a much higher remuneration than the nature of his duties requires; and so far the public is deprived of a fund which ought to be available for the public service.

This observation is true; and the question is, in what manner can the separation of what is necessary in remuneration of the jailor, and what should be detached for the benefit of the public, be most advantageously made?

If the situation of the jailor affords more than an adequate reward, he will be willing to give something annually in order to retain that situation. And for measuring exactly what he ought to give, there is a sure and well-tried expedient; it is, to lay the thing open to competition.

By this expedient, a double advantage is gained; for both the public receives as great a share of the produce of the labour of the prison, as is compatible with the due remuneration of the jailor; and the jailor being entitled, in the first instance, to share the whole of the produce with the labourers, having both to pay what he owes to the government, and obtain his own remuneration out of his share, has a motive as strong as if the whole were his own, to render the produce as great as possible.

It will easily be seen that this contract between the public and the jailor, if sufficient securities can be taken for its being cancelled, as soon as misconduct on his part should render it desirable that it should be so, ought, for important reasons, to be concluded for a considerable number of years, or for his life. It is of importance that those individuals, who are to undergo the reformatory discipline, and who are unacquainted with any trade, should, especially if they are young, be taught the trade in which their labours can be turned to the greatest account; and, to make it the interest of the jailor to have them taught, it is evident that he must have the prospect of enjoying the benefit of their skilled labour for a sufficient length of time. This short illustration we hope will suggest to the reader sufficient re-

flections for evidence on this point; and we must hasten to the remainder.

We have now shown, to how great an extent, upon the plan which we have thus briefly sketched, the interest of the jailor is rendered coincident with the ends which are in view, and the most effectual of all securities is obtained for the goodness of his management. We proceed to show what additional securities this plan enables us to provide.

Let us, first of all, attend to the power of inspection, which may be afforded in a degree altogether unparalleled. By the admirable properties of the building which we have recommended, not only is the conduct of the prisoners rendered wholly transparent to the jailor, but the conduct of the jailor may be rendered equally transparent to his inspectors. And as the central lodge, or tower of inspection, may be entered by any number, without giving the least disturbance to the prisoners, without their even knowing that any body is there, the public may be admitted on such terms as to afford the full benefit of public inspection, the most efficient of all inspections, over the whole economy of the prison. By means of whispering tubes, oral communication might be permitted with the prisoners, at such times, and under such regulations, as would prevent it from interfering with the working hours, or other parts of the discipline, to all persons who might have a wish to hear if they had any complaints.

Another very simple expedient would make an important addition to the list of securities. It ought to be an obligation on the jailor to keep a book, in which all complaints of the prisoners should be entered, and, as often as they could write, signed with their names. Along with the complaint should be entèred a statement of what had been done for removing the ground of the complaint, or of the reasons for doing nothing. And this book should be open to the perusal of the public, and should lie in a place convenient for the inspection of all the visitors of the prison.

A still more important and indispensable security would be, the obligation of the jailor to present, annually, to the principal court of justice, such as the Court of King’s Bench in England, a report on the management and state of the prison during the preceding year, containing, with all other points of useful information, exact accounts of the receipts and disbursements; to verify these statements by his oath; to print and publish them at his own expense; and to answer, upon oath, all interrogatories made to him in open court by the judge, or by any other person, how much soever the answer might tend to his own crimination; and this as often as the judge might call upon him for such a purpose. By this means, with the obvious security afforded for other still more important ends, so perfect a knowledge would be communicated of the gains of the jailor, and the mode of obtaining them, as would ensure an accurate bargain, rigidly proportioned to the amount of them, as often as the contract came to be renewed.

The last thing which we think it necessary to recommend in the shape of a security, would operate as a test of the efficacy of the management in its character of a reformatory discipline. The jailor should be held bound to pay a certain sum, varying in proportion to the length of time during which the prisoner had been subject to his discipline, for each of the prisoners who, after liberation, should be convicted of a crime.

Connected with the important part of the subject relating to the labour of the prisoners, it is proper to bring to view the advantage of a subsidiary establishment for receiving and employing those who might be liberated from the prison. It is a well-known ground of lamentation, that persons liberated from a prison, find often great difficulty in obtaining employment, and are constrained, by a kind of necessity, to betake themselves to their former evil courses, [7:18:581]though with the inclination to have devoted themselves to honest industry, had the means not been denied them. The best mode of obviating this great evil would be, to have a subsidiary establishment, the architectural form the same as that of the prison, in which the jailor should be obliged to receive all persons who have been liberated from the prison, and who make application for admittance; and to employ them on the same terms as the prisoners, with the single exception of its being in their power to remove when they please, and to make, in respect to terms all such stipulations with the jailor as may be for their mutual advantage.

The next part of the subject to which we proceed, is the plan according to which the prison shall be supplied with the articles which the prisoners are enabled by their labour to purchase.

As there are certain articles, such as intoxicating liquors, which ought to be altogether withheld, unless for special reasons permitted, and as the jailor could not have a sufficient command over the articles conveyed into the prison, unless he had in his own hands the power of supply; as the intercourse, also, which would be created with strangers, if the prisoners were at liberty to purchase of whom they pleased, would be incompatible with the discipline of the prison, the power of supplying articles of purchase to the prisoners ought to be confined to the jailor.

If it be objected that the jailor would thus have the power of oppressing the prisoners, by selling bad articles, or good articles too dear, the answer is, that he could not. We have already seen, that in order to derive from the prisoners the greatest quantity of profit to himself, he must give to them a reward for their labour sufficient to make them labour to the most profitable account. But if he sells articles to them at more than the usual price, this is merely a reduction of the reward left to them for their labour: this he cannot reduce beyond a certain point, without reducing the amount of his profit; and any greater reward than up to this point, the nature of the case renders undesirable.

We have now then stated all that seems necessary to be said on the three great subjects: 1.s'∕, of the structure and form of the prison; i idly, the securities which may be applied for obtaining good conduct on the part of the jailor; and, 3¢//y, the first and principal part of reformatory discipline, namely, voluntary labour.

The remaining conditions of reformatory discipline will not require much explanation.

1. Separation, as far as concerns the sexes, and as far as concerns the good from the bad, is now so generally attended to as an object of importance, that the danger sometimes is of other things being too much overlooked in the comparison.

In a prison, such as we have described, in which, by means of moveable partitions, the cells may be enlarged or contracted at pleasure, and in which the prisoners are all under continual inspection, the power of separation, to any desired extent, is complete.

The two sexes, though inmates of the same prison, and simultaneously subject to the same inspection, may be as completely disjoined as if they were inhabitants of a different region. By a piece of canvass, and nothing more costly, extended in the form of a curtain, from the boundary on each side of the female cells, in the direction of a radius across the central area to the inspection lodge, the females would be as completely cut off from seeing, or being seen by the male prisoners, as if they were separated by seas and mountains; the same effect would be obtained as to hearing, by merely leaving a cell vacant between those of the males and females; and thus the space appropriated to each of the two sexes might, in the easiest manner, be diminished or enlarged, as their relative numbers might require.

A much more complete and desirable separation than that which is aimed at, as the utmost in other prisons, is easily attainable in this. The ordinary separation of young offenders from old, of the greatly corrupted from those who are presumed to be less deeply infected, is still apt to leave associations too promiscuous and too numerous, not to be unfavourable to the progress of reformation.

The prisoners should be put together in companies of twos, and threes, and fours, seldom more; each company occupying a separate cell. It would be the interest of the jailor to put them together in such assortments as would be most conducive to the quantity and value of work they could perform, and to the goodness of their behaviour; that is, to the most perfect operation of the reformatory discipline; and his experience of their dispositions and faculties would of course fit him beyond any one else for making the selection.

It will have been all along understood, that, to attain the ends of inspection and economy, the same rooms or cells which form the day and working rooms on our plan, form also the sleeping rooms. Not the smallest inconvenience from confusion of things in the apartment can thence be derived; because the hammocks, which would be more convenient than beds, could be stowed away in little compass during the day.

It is also to be particularly observed, that whatever degree of seclusion might either be indulged to the feelings of an individual, or might be deemed conducive to his mental improvement, might still, upon this plan, be easily secured; because, by means of screens, a portion of the cell might be formed into as many private apartments as might be desired; and where experience of good conduct had laid a foundation for confidence, periods of seclusion, even from the eye of the inspector, might be allowed.

2. Nothing of great importance to be mentioned in this summary sketch seems now to remain, except schooling, and religious instruction.

The Sunday is the appropriate period of both. Sunday-schools are found by experience to be sufficient for communicating to children the important arts of reading, writing, and accounts. It would be obligatory on the jailor to afford the means of instruction in these respects to every prisoner who might not have attained them; together with all other means, not incompatible with the case, of promoting their moral and intellectual improvement.

3. The religious services proper to the day, and such other devotional exercises as might be thought requisite on other days, would be conducted by the chaplain, the prison affording remarkable facilities for bringing all the prisoners into a situation conveniently to hear; and also, which would be a circumstance of great importance, bringing the public from without, to participate in the religious services of the prison, for whom temporary accommodation in the vacant central area might be provided, and to whom, by the charms of eloquence and music, and the power of curiosity, it would be the interest of the jailor, by letting the seats, to provide sufficient attraction.

It seems to be necessary, before concluding, to obviate an objection, which, though it has seldom been urged as a reason against reformatory discipline, is yet considered as requiring a great deduction to be made in the estimate formed of its advantages. The objection is, that, by affording the means of employment to prisoners, we take away those means from a corresponding number of persons who are not prisoners, and thus sacrifice the deserving to the worthless.

This objection is drawn from some of the conclusions of Political Economy. That which affords the means of employment to labour is capital; in other words, the means of subsistence to the labourer, the tools he works with, and [7:18:582] the raw material on which he is employed. When labourers are too numerous for the means of employment, it is evident that, if any new ones are added to the number, you can give employment to them only by taking it away from the old ones. It is, therefore, said, that by giving employment to prisoners, we make an equal number of honest workmen paupers.

In this objection, however, as is generally the case with false reasoning, a part only of the essental circumstances, not the whole, is taken into the account. In the first place, with regard to the prisoners, one principal part of the capital which puts labour in motion, namely, subsistence, is afforded to them of course, whether they labour or not.

In the next place, the objection proves too much; for, if it would be better, for the sake of affording employment to others, that the man should do nothing in prison, it would equally be better that he should have done nothing out of prison; better that we should have a portion of our population useless than productive. According to this doctrine, the proper rule, whenever population exceeds the demand for labour, and wages are low, would be to give subsistence to a portion of the people, on the condition of their abstaining from labour.

Thus much of the allegation is true, namely, that when to the subsistence, which you would have given at any rate, you add tools and raw materials, you so far diminish the quantity of tools and raw materials which can be furnished to others. But, counting only this circumstance, another most important circumstance is left out of the computation. This deduction of tools and raw materials is made once for all. The productive labourer replaces the capital, which employs him, with a profit. Advance to him, for one year, the food and other articles which he needs, you never need to advance any thing more. What he produces in the course of the year, replaces the food and all other articles which he has used, with a profit. But if he has not laboured, he has produced nothing; you have to supply him, therefore, with the means of subsistence, not one year, but every year, from the produce of other men’s labour. If he labours, you have to give him once, out of the general stock of means for the employment of labour, subsistence for a year, with tools and raw material, and you have no occasion to give him any more. If he is to be idle, you give him, it is true, only subsistence, without tools and raw material, the first year; but you have to give him subsistence, that is, so far to diminish the means of employing other men’s labour, every year; whereas, if he is a productive labourer, for the advance which you make to him the first year, he not only exempts you from all further deductions from the means of employing other men, but he every year adds to those means, by the whole amount of the profit made upon his labour. To make those persons, therefore, productive labourers, whom you must at any rate subsist, is to increase, not to diminish the means of employing others.

As to another objection which is sometimes offered, that the commodities produced in a prison glut the market, and injure other manufactures, this is still more evidently founded upon the consideration of part of the determining circumstance, without consideration of the remainder. If it is meant to apply not to one class, or two classes of commodities, but to the mass of commodities in general, it may instantly be seen to be untrue. The men who become sellers of the articles produced in a prison, become buyers to the same amount. Whenever a man sells a greater amount of articles than before, he gets the means of buying an equally greater amount. He always brings as much of a new demand into the market as he brings of a new supply. If he introduces more of some one commodity than the market requires, and reduces the profits on producing it, capital leaves that employment till the inequality is redressed. If the number of people is the same, and the quantity of commodities is increased, it is a contradiction in terms, not to say that the circumstances of such a people are improved.

Having answered these objections, it does not occur to us that there is any thing more which in this outline it is necessary for us to add. The plan, both of construction and management, appears to us simple, and easy to be understood; and to offer securities for the attainment of the end, such as the imperfection of the human powers seldom permit to be realized. In the delineation presented, the only merit we have to claim is that (if our endeavour has been successfuD of adding perspicuity to compactness. There is not, we believe, an idea which did not originate with Mr. Bentham, whose work ought to be the manual of all those who are concerned in this material department of public administration. (a a.a) The preceding article has been preserved entire, as having been the offspring of a very powerful mind, and as presenting a perspicuous outline of the most advanced ideas of a good system of prison discipline, which prevailed up to the time of its publication, (April 1823.) Since that date, the art of managing prisons has made considerable progress, and experience has shewn more than one of the opinions above expressed to be erroneous. Some additional observations appear, therefore, to be requisite, in order to point out what has recently been done in this, and other countries, towards the advancement of this science; and what may be at present regarded as the leading objects to which all efforts for the perfection of prison discipline ought to be directed.

The public attention in England was first drawn to the evils of the existing prisons, towards the end of the last century, by the benevolent Howard; and the question of the establishment of a penitentiary system forced itself at the same time upon the consideration of the government, as a substitute for transportation, on account of the loss of the British North American Colonies, previously used for that purpose. Mr. Bentham’s plan of the Panopticoìi was put forth at this juncture; but although the government seems to have had serious intentions of making some experiment of the kind, and more than one act of parliament for the erection of penitentiary houses was passed, no result followed, beyond the subsequent establishment of the penitentiary at Milbank for a certain number of convicts; a measure of too limited and partial a character to have any effect as a penal instrument, and, as it has turned out, equally worthless as a model for other prisons. The foundation, and gradual extension, of the penal colonies in New South Wales, provided an outlet for a large portion of the criminal population, and, in so far, diminished the urgency of the demand for penitentiaries; whilst the ordinary prisons continued to be managed with little thought or care, and without legislative interference. Even the review, by Sir Samuel Romilíy’s committee, in 1812, of the whole subject of secondary punishments, did not produce any improvement in the then existing system; and thus matters stood at the period when the preceding article appeared.

The gaol acts of 1823 and 1824,^[2. Geo. IV. cap. 64, and 5th Geo∙ IV∙ cap. 85∙ ] which are now in force, and for which the country is indebted to the labours of Mr. Fowell Buxton and the London Prison Discipline Society, effected important changes in the administration of English prisons, especially those of the counties. They prescribed numerous regulations, amongst which the separation of the [7:18:583]sexes, the classification of all prisoners, and the enforcement of instruction, were prominent. But the benefits anticipated from them have, from various causes, been only partially realized; and their method of classification, which is founded principally upon technical distinctions, has, in particular, proved a signal failure.

The select committee on secondary punishments, of 1832, in recommending the introduction of a modified system of solitary confinement, in imitation of that practised in some American prisons, shewed its participation in the opinion then beginning to prevail, of the merits of the penitentiary system of the United States. Many travellers spoke of them in high terms, and the French government had intrusted a mission of inspection to MM. de Beaumont and de Tocqueville, whose report, published in 1833,^[3. Du Système Ρenitentiare aux Etats-Unis, et de son Application en France; suivis d’un appendice sur les colonies penales, et de notss statistiques. Par MM (J. de Beaumont, et A. de Tocqueville, avocats à la cour Royale de Paris. Paris, 1833. ] has been highly appreciated throughout Europe. The distinguishing characteristic of this work is its philosophic impartiality. It describes with fidelity the two systems, both based upon the principle of isolation, but executing it, the one by means of separation, the other by silence, which pass respectively under the names of the Philadelphia and the Auburn system of discipline. The authors come to no very definite conclusion upon the relative merits of the two systems. That of Philadelphia had only just been put into action at the time of their visit, and they had not therefore those opportunities of extensive inquiry into its working which have Deen afforded to more recent observers. Mr. Crawford, the commissioner despatched by the British government in 1833, bears strong testimony, in his report,^[4. Report of William Crawford, Esq , on the Penitentiaries of the United States, addressed to H Μ. Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department Ordered by the. House of Commons to he printed August, 1834 ] to the superiority of the Philadelphia system; and the mass of valuable information which he collected, leaves no very favourable impression of the penitentiaries managed on the Auburn plan. Dr. Julius, charged more recently with a similar mission from the Prussian government, declared himself, on his return in 1836, favourable to the Philadelphia system;^[5. Lettre addressée à Μ fV Crawford, Inspecteur-G néral des prisons de la Grande-Brétayne. Par le Docteur Julius. Leipzig. I837∙ ] and a still later report of MM. de Metz and Blouet, made to the French government in 1837, and to which we shall more particularly advert, recommends the same system more decidedly than any of its precursors.^[6. Rapports à Μ Le Comte de Montalivet, pair de France, Ministre, if e-, de l’intérieur, sur les Penitenciers des Etats-Unis Par Μ. De Metz, counseiller à la Cour Royale, et par M∙ Abel Blouet, archi ’ ecte du gouvernement. Paris, imprim. royale, 1837· ] The balance of the testimony of official inquirers preponderates strongly against the Auburn discipline.

The Lords’ committee of 1835^[7. See the five Reports of this Committee, Session 1835. ] collected a mass of evidence exhibiting the condition of the prisons of England and Wales, and reported to the house a series of resolutions suggesting reformatory measures. Amongst these is one thus recommending the silent system: « That entire separation, except during the hours of labour, and of religious worship, and instruction, is absolutely necessary; and that silence be enforced so as to prevent all communication between prisoners, both before and after trial.” This resolution, however, did not receive any express sanction from the legislature; but in 1835,^[8. and 6th Will. IV. cap. 38. ] an act was passed, whereby the power of establishing rules for prisons was transferred from the judges to the Secretary of State, and the appointment of inspectors was authorised. These inspectors have regularly made their official reports, which have been laid before Parliament, and to which the reader is referred for a complete description of the existing prisons of Great Britain. Whilst we write, (1838) a bill for the better ordering of prisons in England and Wales, is before Parliament. This bill is a step towards the introduction of the separate system, in as far as it will enlarge the powers of the Secretary of State to substitute separation for classification, and will suppress several minor abuses which have hitherto prevailed.

The gaol acts quoted do not extend to Scotland, and the prisons in that part of the kingdom have continued, upon the whole, in a more defective state than in England. The greater part of the Scottish gaols belong to the royal burghs, whose funds being inadequate for their support, the construction and discipline have accordingly been neglected. The bad condition of these prisons is described in the report of the select committee of the House of Commons in 1826, which suggested the erection of proper places of confinement for large districts, with various other reforms. The many existing evils have since been particularized by the inspector for Scotland in his reports; and as a remedy for these, as well as for the more equal distribution of the burthen of maintaining the national prisons amongst all classes of the community, a bill has been introduced by the government during the present session (1838) for the improvementof the Scottish prisons. Under this bill, the liabilities of the royal burghs, and all other peculiar burthens, will cease; and all the expenses connected with prisons will be defrayed out of one common fund, to be raised by a general rate upon property. Suitable prisons are to be provided, under the direction of a general board, sitting in Edinburgh, to whom the sole authority and responsibility relating to all the prisons of Scotland is to be committed, subject to the controul of the Secretary of State, and of Parliament. A central authority of this nature may be the means of introducing important ameliorations into the present defective management; may materially aid the administration of justice; and may not only equalize, but greatly reduce, the cost to the community.

The prisons of Ireland are regulated by an act^[9. 7th Geo. IV. cap. 74∙ ] which was framed on the basis of the English gaol acts. This law invests the Irish government with the power of appointing inspectors-general, who make annual reports; and the grand jury of each county and city are also required to appoint a board of superintendence, and a local inspector, whose duty it is to visit the prisons at least twice in every week. These measures have operated beneficially, the gaols having previously been in a most deplorable condition, and being now improved, particularly as regards the employment and instruction of prisoners. But the small prisons belonging to the local jurisdictions are stated to be still extremely defective.

If the progress of improvement in prisons has been slow in the United Kingdom, the system of management on the continent is, almost everywhere, still more defective. In France, the administration of penal justice previous to the Revolution, was altogether barbarous, consisting principally of capital and corporal punishments. But when something like a system began to be acted upon by the legislature of the Republic, a classification both of places of punishment, and of their inmates, began to be established. The French prisons are divided into the bagnes , for offenders sentenced to hard labour either for life or for a term of years; the maisons centrales, for those sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, exceeding one year; and the maisons departementales, for minor offenders sentenced to terms under one year. These establishments are for convicted prisoners; in addition to which, the law requires that there should be in every arrondissement, near to the tribunal de premiere instance, a maison dCarret for the detention of persons arrested, and also near to every assize court a maison de justice for the custody of those against whom a warrant of caption has issued from the court. There are besides[7:18:584] the maisons de depot, or police stations, for the temporary custody of persons apprehended. These divisions, however, appear to answer little or no moral end, since the association of prisoners in every description of French prison is permitted, with scarcely any restriction, and the result is commonly a frightful degree of disorder, immorality, and mutual corruption.^[10. See particularly the works of Μ. Moreau Christophe, the present inspector-general of the prisons of France, entitled De l Etat actuel des Prisons en France, Paris, 1837; and De la Reforme des Prisons en France, Paris, 1838. ] The obligation of labour seems to be attended with little good effect; nor is there perhaps any position less favourable to reformation, than confinement in a French prison. These evils have recently excited much interest in the public mind in France, and the government has announced its. intention to propose a general law for the separate confinement of the untried, though nothing seems to have yet been accomplished. Opinions are much divided in regard to the adoption of the system of silence or of cellular separation,^[11. See in favour of the silent system, De la Reforme des Prisons, ou de la Théorie de l’Emprisonment, deses Principes, de ses Moyens, et de ses Conditions Practiques; Par Μ. Charles Lucas, tome i. Paris, 1836. tomes 2 and 3, Pans, 1838. Des Moyens propres à Généraliser en France le Système Pénitentiaire Par Μ. Berenger. Paris, imprim. royale. 1836· Rapport à Μ. le Ministre Secretaire d’Etat au Departement de l’ Intérieur sur la Reforme des Prisons en France. Par AI. Gasparin; 6 Septembre 18:16. In favour of separation, see particularly Μ. Moreau Christophe’s works, and the Report of MM. Be Metz and Blouet, before cited. ] but the effect produced by MM. de Metz and Blouet’s Report, has already led to a resolution in its favour, as regards the untried, by the council-general of the department of the Seine, who have recently voted a sum of three millions of francs for the construction of a prison for all the untried prisoners of Paris, upon the separate system.

The prisons of Belgium were, soon after die Revolution of 1830, divided into three classses, analogous to those of France, viz. prisons for punishment; for safe custody (maisons darret et de justice ;) and police stations, (maisons de depot et de passage.) Several improvements, especially the separation of the sexes, have been effected since that period; but the classification is, in other respects, very imperfect. The convicted of all ages and descriptions, are described as living together in vicious association, and sleeping in large numbers in the same dormitory. Imprisonment is any thing but reformatory, or even deterring, but is represented as a security against want, and an encouragement to improvidence, to such an extent, that admission to the maison centrale is hailed with joy by the convict. A plentiful diet, a weekly allowance of money, with liberty to expend it in beer, tobacco, coffee, and other indulgences, qasy labour, and the society of friends, are described as removing even the semblance of penality; and the separation of the sexes, has under such circumstances, operated rather perniciously, by leading to more shameful vices. The inspector-general is thoroughly convinced of the necessity of introducing a system of cellular separation, and a new wing has been added for the purpose to the maison de force at Ghent.^[12. See Des Progréset de l’Etat actuel de la Réforme Pénitentiaire, par Ed∙ Ducpétiaux, inspecteur général des Prisons, &c. de Belgique. Bruxelles, 1838, vol 2, No. 9; a work full of valuable information, on the prisons and philanthropic institutions of Belgium, and several other countries ] The government is stated also to have in contemplation the erection of a prison on the separate system, at Liege.

In Holland, there are distinct prisons for the accused, and for the convicted; and there are separate buildings for the confinement of women, and of juvenile offenders. The convict prisons are divided into those analogous to the maisons centrales, for offenders of the graver class, and houses of correction for minor offenders sentenced to terms under twelve months. A council of regents is attached to every prison, and reports to the central administration. The Dutch prisons are liable to all the objections attaching to systems of association, and nothing appears to have yet been effected in those of Switzerland towards separation.

The penitentiaries of Switzerland have acquired ahigh reputation, and deserve considerable study. Those of Lausanne and Geneva have carried the discipline of silence to a considerable degree of perfection, without the aid of corporal punishment; and the attention paid to the moral instruction of the prisoner is greater than in any of the penitentiaries of the United States. Lausanne is the best, and its situation, affording a view from the cell-windows, of the Lake of Geneva and the Alps, is not a little calculated to heal and elevate the mind of the penitent convict. But in neither of these establishments is communication between the prisoners effectually prevented, and they are consequently not free from the evil of mutual contamination. The penitentiary of Berne admits of more association, especially at night, than the two others mentioned, and can therefore scarcely be cited ag a model of the silent system; but, looking at the whole management of the penitentiaries of Lausanne and Geneva, particularly the former, we believe that the moral reform of the prisoner may be anticipated with more confidence in these establishments than in any other prison conducted on the principle of association in silence, either in Europe or America. The small prisons, in other parts of Switzerland, arè as bad as in the adjoining countries.^[13. See Mémoire sur le Système Pénitentiaire addressé a Μ. le Ministre de l’ Interieur en France. Par Μ Aubanel, directeur du penitencier de Genève: Geneve, 1837; also several publications of AIM. Cramer-Audéoud, Tallandier, &c. on the Swiss penitentiaries, and the opinions of Μ. Lucas and Μ. Ducpétiaux, in the works above cited. ]

The prisons of Germany are principally known to us by the descriptions of Dr. Julius.^[14. Leçons sur les Prisons, par le Dr. N. II. Julius, traduits de l’Allemand par II. Lagarmitte; Paris 1831. ] But our present space must confine us to the remark, that the last fifty years have materially ameliorated the prisoner’s condition in point of health, cleanliness, and exemption from the tortures and fetters of the middle ages; and that little remains of absolute inhumanity in the treatment of offenders in any part of Germany. The bastinado is used, though not cruelly, as a disciplinary punishment in Austria, Prussia, and other states. The enforcement of silence, as well as the treadmill, have been introduced into some few prisons; but there is little classification worthy of the name, and the general system of management may be described as permitting the association, and consequent mutual corruption, of the prisoners. No prison has yet been established, on the plan of cellular separation, in any part of Germany, and the state of opinion amongst distinguished thinkers there, seems at present but little in its favour. Professor Mittermaier of Heidelberg has declared himself opposed to it,^[15. See an article by this eminent jurist in the Revue Etrangère et Française de Législation; Paris, Nov. 1836, ] β and we are not aware of any recent publicist there, except Dr. Julius, who is decidedly favourable to its adoption.

A prison on the separate system was completed at Warsaw in 1835, capable of receiving 380 prisoners, and is in operation with good effect.

The Norwegian government is understood to contemplate the reform of its prisons, having lately dispatched a mission to England to acquire information on the subject.

We have adverted to the prisons of the most civilized European states. There remains unfortunately to be drawn a revolting picture of the places of confinement in which humanity suffers, in countries the governments of which are less [7:18:585]advanced beyond ignorance and barbarism. In such countries, a prison is in fact a place in which the strong wreak their vengeance upon the weak; the prisoner is not punished ; he is subjected to certain physical and moral evils, from which neither himself nor society derive any benefit. Such injuries will continue to be inflicted until the influence of the moral sciences, especially that of jurisprudence, shall have pointed out the errors and blunders which are entailing so much misery upon mankind. It is. not in Turkey, nor in Spain alone, that the slow progress of social improvement is to be lamented. It is a humiliating reflection, that the principal gaol in the British metropolis has for many years past been in as disgraceful a state as any in Spain. A comparison of the description of Newgate^[16. See Edinburgh Review, No. 130, art. 3. ] with that of the Saladero at Madrid, makes it difficult to determine in which prison the evils of indiscriminate association and total laxity of discipline have led to the worst results. It is vain to anticipate from the exertions of philanthropy a remedy for such abuses. The reform of prisons is only to be hoped for by the uniform application of principles the soundness of which has been verified by an extended experience, and which reason has demonstrated as the best means of accomplishing the end for which punishment is inflicted. If it were otherwise, the government of prisons would be dependent upon the caprice of individuals, and consequently a ready instrument of oppression and injustice.

We proceed now to state the general principles which ought to be observed in the construction and arrangement of prisons,^[17. For details of the most approved modes of prison construction, with numerous plans, the reader is referred to the Second and Third Reports of the Inspectors of Prisons, (Home District), presented to both Houses of Parliament, sessions 1837 and 1838. The plans referred to in this article are derived from these reports. ] and what are, in our judgment, the essential requisites of a good system of prison discipline.

The situation of a prison should be healthy, open, and calculated to secure a free circulation of good air. It is objectionable for a prison to be surrounded with buildings of any description; for which reason, a detached or isolated position ought, as far as may be, to be selected. Attention is also requisite to proximity to the courts and offices of justice, so as to facilitate the removal of prisoners before or after trial. The airiness of the situation is the more desirable, as there must be an extensive subdivision of the internal parts, to provide for the confinement of each prisoner in a separate cell. The site should be dry, and free from the effects of marshy damp soils. It should also be elevated, in order to avoid fogs, and the possibility of inundation; and the buildings should be so arranged as not to be exposed to view from any adjacent grounds.

The ground appropriated should be enclosed with a strong boundary wall, of sufficient height to prevent escapes. The buildings occupied by the prisoners must not adjoin the boundary wall, but a wide open space be preserved round the interior. A single gateway, or opening in the boundary, should form the only entrance to the prison, to be placed in front, and opposite the central building. At the entrance, and outside the boundary wall, may be placed the residences of the keeper and chaplain, so that the families of those officers may be unconnected with the prison.

Except for very small prisons, the radiating plan is preferable to any other, because the various objects of inspection, facility of access, convenience, and security, cannot be obtained so completely in any multiplied form of building, as in that which diverges from a central point of observation. In this respect, the principle of Mr. Bentham’s Panoptico is followed, except in as far as it aims at viewing the interior of the prisoners’ cells; the practicability of which, so as to exclude the possibility of the prisoner’s re-, tiring to a part of the cell where he cannot be seen, is very doubtful. With a system of separation, however, no central observation of the prisoners whilst in their cells need be attempted. The inspection required is of the corridors, and of the general establishment, exclusive of the cells.

In arranging the buildings, the grand requisite is the provision of a sufficient number of cells for the individual separation of each offender by day and by night. The construction of the cells should be such as to preclude all communication between the prisoners, and at the same time combine adequate space and means of ventilation, to ensure their health and admit of continued employment. The general dimensions of the cells should therefore be not less than thirteen feet by seven feet, and ten feet high, so as to contain about 1000 cubical feet. The cells may be ranged upon each side of, and opening into, the corridors running longitudinally through the radiating buildings. Every endeavour should be used to prevent the possibility of communication between the cells; to ensure which object, the ι 'partition walls should not be less than eighteen inches in thickness, and worked with close joints, so as to preclude, as far as may be, the transmission of sound. The requisite machinery should be applied to the introduction of warm air, and to the ventilation of the cells;^[18. See plans minutely describing the mode of ventilation, annexed to the Inspector’s Report, Session 1837. ] and each cell should be fitted with such necessary conveniencies, that the prisoner will never, under ordinary circumstances, have occasion to leave his cell, as well as with a bell, or equivalent instrument, to notify his wants. The cells on the upper stories may be arranged like those below; and if at the end of each radiating building two or three cells be laid together intoalargerapartment,itmaybeusedby the sick, and there will be no need of a distinct building for an hospital or infirmary. Airing yards should be provided for such prisoners as may, in the opinion of the surgeon, require exercise in the open air, and for the especial use of the untried.

In large prisons, one or more of the radiating buildings should be appropriated exclusively to the female prisoners.

If there be a chapel, it should adjoin the central building, and have several distinct entrances for the prisoners. Individual separation may be maintained during divine service, by placing each prisoner in a distinct stall, or sitting within the view of the officers, and of the chaplain. The form of the chapel will be that of an amphitheatre, with rows of seats rising above each other in face of the chaplain.^[19. See plan of a chapel annexed to ditto. ]

Reception rooms must be provided near the entrance, in which prisoners may be placed on admission, before their examination by the surgeon, as well as suitable cleansing rooms and baths. Some peculiar cells will be required for the purpose of punishing offences against the discipline of the prison, and for offenders sentenced to short periods of solitude. The kitchen and other offices for the service of the prison need not be particularly described.

The use of any ornament or embellishment, whether external or internal, in a prison, seems entirely misplaced. The style of architecture should be plain, and divested of anything not conducive to the purpose of the building. A custom has prevailed of fixing chains, or axes, on the external walls, and of inscribing admonitory sentences over the gates, the good taste of which is very questionable. The mere name of the prison appears the most appropriate inscription.

Plates CCCCXVI. and CCCCXVII. exhibit plans of the ground and first floors of a prison, on the construction recommended, which are equally applicable to the confinement of the untried and the convicted. The imprisonment of debtors in general is inadmissible at allunderagood system of law, as [7:18:586]unjust in principle, and mischievous in operation; but if there are some few cases of debtors deserving incarceration, there can be no impropriety in placing them in separate cells of the same description as are provided for other prisoners.

Assuming, then, that we have a prison adapted to the discipline intended, we come to describe what the treatment of the prisoner should be, in respect of separation, employment, instruction, diet, and the care of health, and disposal after discharge. In considering these points, we shall distinguish the case of the untried, detained for safe custody only, from that of the convicted, who are confined either for correction, or for both correction and reform.

Hi. Separation. Mr. Bentham rejected absolute solitude from the administration of the Panoptico, as productive of despair and injurious to health, unless used for a few days only, for the purpose of repentance. He therefore proposed the classification of the prisoners into small companies in the discretion of the gaoler, which suggestion the writer of the preceding article has adopted as a part of his reformatory discipline. Now, there is no doubt that the confinement of an individual for any lengthened period in a cell, such as those in the ordinary English county gaols, would be very prejudicial to his health. These cells have been constructed merely for dormitories, not for habitation by night and by day. They are too small to enable the prisoner to take exercise, are badly lighted, imperfectly ventilated, in no degree warmed, and destitute of those conveniencies which are indispensable to render them fit and salubrious for constant habitation. But it is not in such cold, contracted, and desolate cells, that the introduction of the separate system is recommended. Nor is absolute solitude by any means intended. We are as averse from it as Mr. Bentham could possibly be. For it should be expressly understood, that the seclusion of the prisoner is to be relieved by stated daily visits, by manual occupations, and by his possessing the means of communication at any time with the officers of the prison. We entirely concur upon this important point with the inspectors of prisons for the home district, whose explanation we here subjoin, to prevent any misconception of the nature of the confinement intended.^[20. Second Report, Session 1837. ]

« In the case of the untried, the prisoner is placed in an apartment at least ten feet square, and ten feet high, sufficiently large to enable him to take exercise. This apartment is well lighted, ventilated, and warmed; water is laid in; a water-closet is provided; and in the fitting up, every arrangement is adopted essential to the prisoners’ health. To this apartment the prisoner is strictly confined by day and by night; nor is he allowed to leave it at any time, except for the purpose ofattending divine worship in the chapel. This seclusion, however, is broken by daily and stated visits of the governor, chaplain, surgeon, and other prison-officers. The prisoner enjoys the privilege of seeing his friends; he has every facility for consulting his legal adviser; he may send and receive letters; he is permitted to have unobjectionable books; he may receive suitable articles of food; he has the option of any employment that can be conveniently furnished to him; he is exempted from all discipline that is calculated to create irritation; he is tempted to commit no violation of prison-rules, and he is thus spared the infliction of prison-punishments; he is exposed to no quarrels; he is protected from those ruffianly assaults committed in every other kind of prison, which arise from the tyranny of the strong over the weak; his mind cannot be tainted and demoralized by relations of the burglar, nor his ears assailed by the language of the blasphemous and obscene.”

“The coìivicted prisoner, according to this system, is confined by day and by night, in such an apartment as has been described. Whatever is necessary for the preservation of his health is strictly attended to, but no indulgence in any shape whatever is extended to him. The distinctions observed in the treatment of the untried and convicted, are broad and definite. It has been seen that, under this system, the untried are permitted to receive visits from their connexions; the convicted are prohibited from such intercourse; the untried may also communicate with their friends by letter, the convicted have no such privilege; the untried are allowed to receive food beyond the prison diet; the convicted are rigorously restricted to the prescribed ration; with the untried employment is optional; upon the convicted a daily task is imposed.”

The inspectors,in their latest report,further state,^[21. Tìàrd Report (Home District) Session 1838. ] —“To guard against evils which might possibly arise from prisoners being confined in cells not fit for separate confinement, we recommend that the following provisions should form part of any law which may be framed for this purpose :—

“1st, That no cell be made for the separate confinement of a prisoner which does not contain at least 750 cubic feet, and is not lighted, warmed, ventilated, and fitted up in such a manner as is consistent with the health of the prisoner, and furnished with the means of enabling ’ him to communicate at any time with the officers of the prison; and that no cell be used until its fitness be certified by the secretary of state.”

“2d, That every prisoner shall be visited once at least every day by the governor, chaplain, and surgeon, in addition to other visits; and that every prisoner shall have the means of taking air and exercise as recommended by the surgeon, and shall be furnished with the means of moral and religious instruction, and with suitable books, to be selected by the chaplain, and also with labour and employment, unless specially withheld by order of the secretary of state.”

Such, then, is the explanation of the system of separate confinement which has recently been recommended by the secretary of state to the English magistrates for adoption in all new prisons.^[22. See Lord John Russell’s Official Circular, 15th August 1838. ] It is not, we repeat, a discipline of continuous solitude, but consists, in the effectual separation of the prisoners from each other. It precludes their intercourse only with those whom it is for their moral good that they should not see. It rescues the untried prisoner, who may be innocent, from the shame of future recognition by gaol associates; it facilitates the correction of the convict sentenced to a short term of imprisonment; and affords the best possible opportunity of effecting the reformation of him whose confinement is sufficiently long to admit of the application of penitentiary discipline. The separate system is eminently calculated to favour the influence of Christianity on the depraved heart;^[23. See Thomas a Kempis, De Imitatione, §'c cha∕j. 20, on the Love of Solitude and Silence. ] it has all the improving qualities of monasticism, without the entire renouncement of connexion with the world; nor is the rigour of its discipline at all comparable to that which many pious anchorets have voluntarily inflicted on themselves for the expiation of crime, or to the ordinary regime of the Grande Chartreuse, or the convent of La Trappe. Not that imprisonment should be regarded as a merely religious instrument, or visionary hopes indulged in of making criminals more virtuous than other men. It is unreasonable to expect more in general than to bring them into those habits which characterise the useful members of society. But there is little chance of attaining this object, unless the criminal be reduced to that docile and subdued frame of mind, which fits him to receive moral instruction, and to reflect upon his former errors. The acquirement of such a frame of mind, in the midst of associates, even of a carefully selected class of associates, as suggested by Mr. Bentham, we regard as impossible[7:18:587]. “Converse as much as may be,” says Thomas a Kempis, “with God and thy own conscience. It is a good reflection which the philosopher made of himself, that he never was in other men’s company, but he came out of it less a man than he went in; and this is what we may frequently confirm by our own experience.”

The apprehension of danger to the mental or bodily health of the prisoner is unquestionably one not to be treated lightly. But there is no proof of any such result, in those prisons where the discipline of separation has hitherto been established. It has been in operation in the Glasgow Bridewell for about fourteen years; and the prisoner is never permitted to enter the open air, but is allowed exercise in a corridor, the cells not being quite so large, as we have stated to be requisite for ventilation and exercise.^[24. The dimensions of the cells are, for males nine feet by seven feet, and ten feet high; for females eight and a half feet by seven and a half, and seven feet three inches high. ] Prisoners are not unfrequently confined here for periods of atwelve-month and upwards; but their health has not been found to sustain any injury, and the moral effect of the imprisonment has been very favourable.^[25. See the Reports of the Inspector of Prisons for Scotland. ] But it is the celebrated Eastern Penitentiary of Philadelphia that affords the strongest proofs, that individual separation can be enforced for lengthened periods with perfect safety to the body and mind. In this penitentiary, the prisoners are confined day and night in large airy cells,^[26. This prison contains eight corridors, and 262 cells. In three of the corridors, the cells are eleven feet nine inches long, by seven feet six inches wide, and in the other five corridors they are three feet longer. The cells on the ground floor have generally airing yards; but the prisoners in the upper cells are never allowed to enter the open air. ] and are cut off from all intercourse with their fellow-prisoners, whilst they are visited by the director and officers, the religious ministers, the medical attendants, the inspectors, and numerous official visitors, including the members of Congress, the judges, &c. There are prisoners in this penitentiary who have been there for years, without the slightest injury to their constitutions, and there are numerous instances in which health has been improved. In the seven years from the opening of the penitentiary in 1829 to December 1836, the average mortality did not exceed three per cent., (that at Sing-Sing being four per cent., and at Auburn two per cent. ;) and of 697 prisoners during that period, the state of 312 who left the prison was as follows:^[27. We quote from the latest authority, MM. de Metz and Blouet⅛ Report. ]

78 in better health.

166 in equal health.

17 weaker, not worse.

13 in worse health.

4 much worse.

34 dead, including one suicide. ~3Ī2

Our limits do not admit of the details of the discipline of this establishment, but we have pointed out the works where the reader will find them. Suffice it to add that its success has been so far encouraging, that a second penitentiary has recently been built on the same plan at Pittsburgh, in the same State of Pensylvania, and that in the States of New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Missouri, penitentiaries on the separate system have also been lately erected. The principle of separation, as applied to prisons, is no doubt comparatively new; but it is not too much to say, that experience, as far as it has gone, has served to confirm the opinion of its excellence, to which reflection upon the theory of punishment, and the nature of the human mind, would be likely to lead the inquirer.

The basis of the silent system, like that of the separate, is isolation. It aims at solitude of the minds, whilst it permits the bodily association of the prisoners. The silent system ought to consist of the cellular separation of each prisoner by night, and of labour in common, with rigorous silence during the day. It is contended that the prisoner is thus morally isolated as effectually as if he were in a separate cell, and that the associated labour being more conformable to the habits of men in society than seclusion, the probability of converting the criminal into a useful citizen is proportionally greater. The system has been brought to a high degree of efficacy in the state-prisons of Auburn, Sing-Sing, Wethersfield, Charlestown, Baltimore, and Washington, in the United States, and in the houses of correction at Wakefield and Coldbathfields in England. But its strict enforcement involves several serious evils, not the least of which is the necessity of inflicting very numerous and vexatious punishments upon the prisoners. Every detected violation of the rules must be visited with some penalty, so that not only is the imprisonment contemplated by the sentence seriously aggravated; but the notion of an offence against prison discipline is insensibly confounded with one against law. In some of the American penitentiaries, corporal punishment has been used to a brutal degree; but even where this is not the case, the penalties are of an objectionable nature, such as the reduction of food, or confinement in dark ill-ventilated cells, both which have a tendency to impair the prisoner’s health. In the year 1836, the number of punishments inflicted daily at Coldbathfields was computed at seventy-six, or about eight and-a-half per cent, on the number of prisoners, and no less than 6794 punishments, or about twelve per diem, were inflicted in that year for talking and swearing alone.^[28. Inspector’s Second Report, (Home District,) 1837. ] Referring to the two English prisons in which the silent system is most strictly carried into execution, it appears there were in the course of last year in

Prisoners. Punishments.

Coldbathfields House of Correction 9,750 13,812

Wakefield House of Correction 3,438 12,445

13,188 26,257

In all the prisons in England and½_ ∣θg ggð

So that whilst these two prisons contain rather less than one-eighth of the whole number of prisoners, there were inflicted within them nearly one-half the whole number of punishments.^[29. Inspector’s Third Report, (Home District,) 1838. ] A feeling of perpetual irritation is thus kept up, the reverse of that tranquil and submissive frame of mind from which alone there is any chance of reformation. Nor can the system be maintained at all without so much vigilance, that a necessity has generally arisen of employing a number of the prisoners themselves as wardsmen and monitors, a practice wholly inconsistent with the punishment to which such prisoners have been sentenced, and subversive of discipline in many ways. The silent system, therefore, even when most strictly enforced, is open to many objections which do not attach to that of cellular separation, besides affording opportunities of communication which cannot exist where the prisoners are physically separated by the walls of their cells. But where the discipline of silence is loosely enforced, which is by far the most frequently the case in prisons where it is nominally established, it then becomes in fact a system of association, and open to all the evils of contamination, so baneful to the novice in crime, so pernicious in their effect upon society. Nor should it be disregarded that the observance of silence is enforced to no inconsiderable extent upon the untried, who are therefore subjected to the infliction of [7:18:588]punishment, contrary, if not to law, at all events to the first principles of justice.

There are, in fact, but three known systems of discipline; those of separation, of silence, and of association. We have described the first two; of the last, we shall only say, that it is the fruitful source of vice and demoralization, and that the prisons in which it prevails, are schools not of reformation, but of crime. Even the partial association allowed by Mr. Bentham is, in our view, wholly inadmissible. Classification will not cure the evil. Whether committed entirely to the discretion of the gaoler, or prescribed according to technical distinctions, as in the English gaol acts, classification will never prove an adequate remedy for the evils to be averted. The prisoner must be removed from the possibility even of recognition by another prisoner, before he can have a chance of acquiring that self-respect which, in a right sense, is indispensable to his moral reform.

A question may occur, whether the separation of the prisoner should be left, in any case, to his own option? The answer seems clear, that he should not. The convict has of course no right to choose what the nature of his punishment shall be. The untried, who is detained for safe custody, has no right to require to be provided with associates. He is injured, if his health is impaired, or if any needless restriction is placed upon him, but he is no more entitled to insist that other offenders committed to the same prison shall be confined in the same apartment with him, than to ask for a prisoner to be removed for the purpose from another gaol. If the state has a right to prescribe the place of his detention at all, it has also the right to debar him during such detention from the society of those at whose hands he would probably sustain the injury of moral corruption.

2J. Employment. Assuming cellular separation to be the best system of confinement, the most proper mode of employing the prisoners will be that which is the best suited to the single cell. That hard labour, either in association or in solitude, should constitute the gravamen of the prisoner’s punishment, is highly objectionable. Experience has shewn how great a mistake it is to use as a punishment for the basest of the people, that labour which should be held in honour, as being the only solid foundation of public prosperity and virtue. The evils anticipated in the preceding article from the tread-wheel, have been fully realized. It is a punishment which is characterized by a remarkable amount of inequality, and consequent injustice, in its operation. Not only is it necessarily unequal, because applied to persons of different degrees of physical strength, but in some persons it is carried to an excessive point of severity, whilst in others it is a merely nominal punishment. There is so little uniformity of system, as regards the number of hours devoted to labour, the height of the steps of the wheel, the rapidity of its rotation, and the proportion of prisoners placed upon it, that the severity of the punishment varies in almost every prison. The following county houses of correction, fortuitously selected, will illustrate this:^[30. See Digest of Gaol Returns, No. 6, in Appendix to Second Report of Inspectors of Prisons, 1837. ]
[table]

So that a prisoner sentenced to hard labour in the house of correction at Knutsford, would perform twice as much labour as at Northampton, and three times as much as at Walsingham house of correction. Nor is this all; for the severity of the labour depends also upon the season of the year in which the offender may be sentenced. In Maidstone gaol, for instance, in January, the number of working hours at the wheel is 6½, and the number of feet of daily ascent, 12,000; whereas in the month of June, the working hours are 9½, and the feet of ascent, 18,240; so that a man sentenced to two or three months hard labour in the summer, undergoes one -third more of the tread-wheel, than he who is committed in the winter, and that without any difference of diet. Such inconsistencies form a most serious objection to the system of tread-wheel labour, which, in connection with a more or less rigorous discipline of silence, is generally adopted in our houses of correction.

There can be no great difficulty in selecting suitable employments for the solitary cell. At the Glasgow bridewell a variety of works are carried on in the cells, from oakum picking, to the difficult art of print-cutting, with a view to suit the demand for labour in the surrounding districts, and to raise a fund applicable to the expences of the prison. At Philadelphia, the trades are principally weaving, tailoring, and shoemaking, and the two latter are the chief occupations at Millbank. The hand-crank is an instrument used in many prisons as a means of labour to the prisoner kept in temporary solitude.

The principles to be regarded in the employment of prison labour, are briefly these. The labour of the untried should not only be perfectly voluntary, but they are entitled to pursue any occupation not inconsistent with the good order of the prison, and of course to receive the whole of the profits which such occupation may yield. Upon the convicted., the state has the right to impose labour, although it may be questionable whether in general it is expedient to enforce it against the will of the prisoner. Under a system of separation there would be little occasion to impose a task, because experience has shewn that the prisoner in solitude very soon begins to desire labour as a boon; and this is precisely the disposition with which he ought to regard it. The convict should therefore be supplied with work at his own request; but it does not follow that he is entitled to any part of his earnings, because being no longer a free agent, the produce of his labour is the property of the State. That a convict should derive profit from his degraded situation is manifestly an abuse; except in so far, that where the term of imprisonment is long, the principle of reward, if discreetly applied, may occasionally prove a valuable instrument of reformation. Some discretion to present the penitent prisoner with a portion of his earnings might therefore be committed to the proper authority.

The notion of allowing the keeper, or any officer of the prison to participate in the profits of the prisoners’ labour appears to us wholly erroneous. In Mr. Bentham’s Panoptico, it is proposed to deliver over the prisoners to a contractor, to whom an interest in their earnings is given, in order to secure his training them in industrious habits. But the reason does not apply to prisons managed according to certain regulations prescribed by law, and governed by officers who are public servants, and responsible for their conduct to competent authority. There are no sufficient grounds for delegating to a contractor, that which is the business and duty of the government; nor should the officers of a prison look to any remuneration beyond their adequate salaries, nor have any contingent .interest depending upon the manner in which the prisoners are employed.

The prisoners’ earnings may be properly applied towards the expences of the establishment, and in some prisons they have become so productive, as to reduce the cost of maintenance[7:18:589] to a mere trifle. It is quite possible that prisons may thus be made self-supporting, and be carried on without any public charge. Let it not, however, be supposed that the fact of economical management is at all conclusive of the excellence of a prison. The object of imprisonment is not production, but the correction and reform of offenders; and unless the employment be made subservient to these great ends, there will be little gain to the community, however cheaply this or that prison may be maintained. There is so strong a feeling, both in this country and the United States, in favour of stimulating production by prisoners, that some danger really appears to exist, lest higher objects should be lost sight of, and it should be forgotten that nothing is more costly to society than crime, and that in their tendency to the prevention of crime consists the only true economy of penal establishments.

It is hardly necessary to observe that the employment of prisoners as wardsmen, monitors, cleaners, cooks, or any other offices of trust, or menial services in the prison, is incompatible with a system of separation. The monitorial system has arisen chiefly out of the difficulty of enforcing the discipline of silence; but the practice of employing prisoners in domestic services is an abuse which prevails to a very grêat extent, and is a striking instance in which purposes of economy have been madeto defeat the ends of justice.

3d. Instruction is an important element of penitentiary discipline; but its effect must depend materially upon the length of the term of the prisoner’s sentence. The late Lords’ Committee recommended, that where there are fifty prisoners, there shall invariably be a chaplain whose whole time shall be devoted to his duties, and also a schoolmaster, not being one of the prisoners. In very short terms of imprisonment, little benefit can be anticipated from the labours of either chaplain or schoolmaster, and it is scarcely worth while to attempt the elementary teaching of reading and writing. But in every case, religious advice and exhortation should be imparted, and the chaplain, or an adequate number of chaplains, should devote a considerable portion of time to private converse with the prisoners, individually, in their cells. The judicious conversation of an intelligent clergyman on moral and religious subjects, and his friendly advice on such topics as may occur, are eminently calculated to raise the prisoner in the scale of morality, and to fix good resolutions in his mind. We need hardly remark, that if the chaplain is not what he ought to be, if he is a man of a weak, narrow, or ill-informed mind, or not thoroughly imbued with a Christian spirit, his labour will be in vain. But there are no bounds to the benignant influence of religion, rightly understood, in turning the wicked man’s heart, nor can any vocation be more signally Christian, than that which consists in promoting the criminal’s repentance.

We have referred to the plan of a chapel, according to which each prisoner maybe separated during divine service. But a question naturally suggests itself, why, if separation is to be maintained, so as to preclude communion of worship, there is any occasion for a chapel at all? Divine service may be performed by a chaplain placed in the corridor, within the hearing of the prisoners, so that the prisoners are as much present at the service as if they were in the building called the chapel. This is the mode in which prayers are read at the Eastern Penitentiary of Philadelphia; and the seclusion of the cell is therefore not broken for the purpose of repairing to chapel. Whichever mode of celebrating divine service may be preferred, it is pretty certain that the private converse of the chaplain with the prisoner will always be the most beneficial part of his ministry.

As it seldom happens that all the inmates of a prison are of the same religious denomination, it will often be requisite to provide ministers of different religions, or sects, according to circumstances. Thus, although in England the majority of prisoners will in general belong to the Established Church, yet, where the number of Catholics, or of dissenters of any one sect in the prison, reaches a given point, it is clear that the services of a Catholic priest, or dissenting minister of such sect, ought to be secured and paid for by the state. For if it be concluded that religious instruction in indispensable to the reformation of the prisoner, it follows that such instruction can only be effectual when based upon the religion which the prisoner believes to be true. The circumstance, moreover, of the prisoner being deprived of his liberty, distinguishes his claim, in this respect, from that of other members of the community.

4. Diet and care of health. The loss of health forming no part of the prisoner’s sentence, it follows that all due care must be taken of its preservation; and attention is therefore requisite to diet, clothing, cleanliness, and every other matter whereby it is liable to be affected. In some prisons the diet is so excessive as to be greatly superior to the ordinary fare of the free labourer, and consequently to constitute a bonus upon imprisonment; in others it is so inadequate as to impair the prisoners’ constitutions, and reduce their physical strength. The latter appears particularly to be the case in those houses of correction where tread-wheel labour is enforced as a part of the silent system. The want of uniformity in the dietary of British prisons will seem very striking when the returns are referred to.^[31. See Appendix, No. 4. to Inspector’s Second Report, Session 1837. ] Under a system of separation, the sufficiency of the diet will easily be determined by the observation of the medical attendant, who will best regulate the variations of food which particular cases will require. The convict will, of course, be limited to the prison fare; the untried will, as at present, be permitted to receive such articles of food as his means may procure him. Stimulating liquors are only admissible within a prison for medical purposes, nor ought any canteen, or place for the sale of any food or liquors be permitted to exist within its walls.

It is not necessary to offer particular suggestions in regard to washing, clothing, and the other requisites of bodily health. The exercise of ordinary good sense will regulate such matters without difficulty. The utmost cleanliness should pervade every part of the prison. This is a point in which the English prisons surpass by far those of the continent. Nor need any apprehensions be entertained lest perfect cleanliness should make a prison too luxurious an abode. Cleanliness is no superfluous luxury; but should rather be regarded as having a strong tendency to purify the moral as well as the physical man.

bth. The disposal of the prisoner after his discharge is, at present, the most embarrassing question to which imprisonment gives rise. The short terms to which offenders are for the most part sentenced, make it quite visionary to anticipate reform as a general result of the best system; and even if the prisoner should have become a better man, the difficulty of his finding employment is (except in newly settled countries, like the United States) so great as to tempt him forcibly to relapse into crime. Several modes of provision for this difficulty were suggested by Mr. Bentham, such as, employment in the army or navy; encouragement of voluntary emigration to the colonies; the requiring security for good behaviour, with liberty to the surety to contract for the prisoner’s labour; or a subsidiary establishment for the reception of the prisoners as a modified kind of imprisonment. Much has been done in France and elsewhere on the continent, by societies “pour le patronage des libérés,” whose endeavour it is to place discharged prisoners in useful occupations. The British colonies, where labour is in very great demand, offer favourable[7:18:590] prospects to the emigrant; and if some systematic plan were organized, the opportunity of emigration would, without doubt, be joyfully accepted by many liberated convicts. To the young offender, such an opportunity is especially desirable. But compulsory banishment cannot be resorted to for the mass of offenders. It is therefore worthy of consideration, whether the convict should not, on his liberation, be placed under the temporary control of the police, in order that the police might be duly cognizant of his residence and occupation, and thus exercise a check upon his return to criminal pursuits? (See article Police). It might also be advantageous, in many cases, to commute sentences of imprisonment, either in the whole, or in part, for police surveillance, and thus to relieve the prisons of a mass of petty offenders, upon whom incarceration can rarely, even under the best system, operate beneficially. These, however, are questions belonging rather to the theory of punishment, than to the subject of prison discipline; nor is it possible to treat the latter subject at all satisfactorily, unless in connexion with an entire system of secondary punishments.

Our space has limited us to the leading points of prison management, nor is it requisite that we should enter into the details of minor arrangements. In every prison much will depend upon the good sense and discernment of the keeper, and the efficiency of the inferior officers, whose duties should be prescribed with precision, and enforced with exactness. The prison should be inspected, at frequent and uncertain times, by inspectors duly authorised to inquire into every thing in and relating to it. Proper books must be kept for recording every matter of importance, in a uniform manner, which the government should prescribe for all prisons, and the fewer and simpler the books the better. Uniformity of regulations should exist, as far as possible, in all prisons used for the same purpose, which can only be effected by a central authority charged with their superintendence.

The costs of constructing prisons do not fall within the scope of the present article. It may be useful, however, to refer the reader to Μ. Blouet’s report before quoted. That architect estimates the cost of erecting a prison in Paris, for 480 offenders, on the Auburn, or silent system, at about L.80 per cell; and on the Philadelphia, or separate system, at L.148 per cell. The first cost of establishing the separate system will unquestionably be the highest; but, as it requires a smaller number of officers, and on other accounts, it may probably prove in the end the most economical. At all events, we repeat, it is not the cheapest, but the best system, that is desirable. Nor can we imagine a more legitimate appropriation of public money, than that which is expended with a reasonable prospect of preventing crime, by introducing into prisons efficient means of correction and reform.