Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/777

Rh PRISON DISCIPLINE 753 object, broadly stated, was to compass the reformation of the convicted offender and at the same time deter others from crime. The chief experiments in this direction had been made in the United States, where two remarkable systems of penal discipline had for some time been in operation. Each had its warm supporters and friends. One had originated with the Quakers of Pennsylvania, who, as far back as 178G, had abolished capital punishment and all other purely personal penalties, and had subjected all offenders instead to solitary confinement without occupa tion for mind or body. This, as developed in the years following, became the purely solitary system, and was the first of the two methods mentioned above. The idea, although not absolutely new. having been already accepted in the United Kingdom both in the Gloucester penitentiary and the Glasgow bridewell, was hailed with enthusiasm as a solution of all difficulties of prison treatment. Many other States in the Union followed the lead of Pennsyl vania. That of New York built the great Auburn peni tentiary in 1816 to carry out the new principles. There every prisoner was kept continuously in complete isolation. He saw no one, spoke to no one, and did no work. But within a short period very deplorable results began to show themselves at Auburn. Many prisoners became insane ; health was impaired, and life greatly endangered. Mr Crawfurd, whose mission to the United States has been already referred to, was in favour of solitary confinement, but he could not deny that several cases of suicide followed this isolation. Some relaxation of the disastrous severity seemed desirable, and out of this grew the second great system, which was presently introduced at Auburn, and afterwards at the no less renowned prison of Sing Sing. It was called the silent system. While the prisoners were still separated at night or meals, they were suffered to labour in association, but under a rule of silence ruth lessly and rigorously maintained. The latter, entrusted to irresponsible subordinates, degenerated into a despotism which brought the system into great discredit. All discipline officers were permitted to wield the whip sum marily and without the slightest check. &quot; The quantity of punishment,&quot; says Mr Crawfurd, &quot; is entirely dependent on the will of the overseers, against whose acts there is no appeal.&quot; Under such a system the most frightful excesses were possible, and many cases of brutal cruelty were laid bare. Eeviewing the merits and demerits of each system, Mr Crawfurd gave in his adhesion to that of unvarying solitude as pursued in the Eastern Penitentiary in Penn sylvania. &quot; I have no hesitation in declaring my con viction,&quot; he says, &quot; that its discipline is a safe and efficacious mode of prison management&quot;; of the opposite system, that of Auburn, he reports that, notwithstanding the order and regularity with which its discipline was enforced, &quot; its effects were greatly overrated.&quot; Mr Crawfurd came back from the United States an ardent champion of the solitary system. To use his own words, &quot;so greatly does increasing experience prove the importance of solitude in the management of prisons that I could not, if circumstances admitted, too strongly ad vocate its application in Great Britain, for every class of offenders as well as for persons before trial, under modifica tions which would divest seclusion of its harshest character.&quot; He saw great difficulties in making this the universal rale, chief among which was the enormous expense of providing suitable prisons. Some modification of the rule of unbroken solitude would be inevitable ; but he strongly urged its adoption for certain classes, and he was equally convinced of the imperative necessity for giving every prisoner a separate sleeping cell. It is clear that the Government endorsed Mr Crawfurd s views. Where it was possible they gave effect to them at once. At Millbank, with its spacious solitary cells, the rule of seclusion was more and more strictly enforced under the supervision of a reverend governor, also a warm partisan of the system. Ere long permissive legislation strove to disseminate the new principles. In 1830 Lord John Kussell had given it as his opinion that cellular separation was desirable in all prisons. But it was not until 1839 that an Act was passed which laid it down that individuals might be con fined separately and apart in single cells. Even now the executive did not insist upon the construction of prisons on a new plan. It only set a good example by under taking the erection of one which should serve as a model for the whole country. In 1840 the first stone of Pen- tonville prison was laid ; and, after three years of very considerable outlay, its cells, 520 in number, were occupied on the solitary, or more exactly the separate, system, the latter being somewhat less rigorous and irksome in its restraints. To the credit of many local j urisdictions, they speedily followed the lead of the central authority. Within half a dozen years no less than fifty-four new prisons were built on the Pentonville plan, which now began to serve generally as a &quot;model&quot; for imitation, not in England alone, but all over the world. That able administrator Sir Joshua Jebb, who presided over its erection, may fairly claim indeed to be the author and originator of modern prison architecture. Other jurisdictions were less prompt to recognize their responsibilities, the city of London among the number. They were satisfied with small makeshifts and modifica tions, without entering upon that complete and radical reconstruction which could alone meet the case. From this inertness there followed a lamentable want of uni formity in the administration of legal penalties. Crimi nals suffered more or less punishment according to the locality in which they were incarcerated. Dietaries differed here too high, there too low. The amount of exercise allowed varied greatly ; there was no universal rule as to employment. In some prisons hard labour was insisted upon, and embraced treadwheels or the newly invented cranks ; in others it was industrial, devoted to manufactures ; while in some it did not exist at all. The cells inhabited by prisoners (and separate cellular con finement was now very general) were of different dimen sions, variously lighted, warmed, and ventilated. The time spent in these cells was not invariably the same, and as yet no authoritative decision had been made between the solitary and silent systems. The first-named had been tried at Pentonville, but the period for which it was deemed possible had been greatly reduced. The duration had been at first fixed at eighteen months, but it was in- contestably proved that the prisoners minds had become enfeebled by this long isolation, and the period was limited to nine months. In many jurisdictions, however, the silent system, or that of associated labour in silence, was still preferred ; and there might be prisons within a short distance of each other at which two entirely different systems of discipline were in force. In 1849 Mr Charles Pearson, M.P., mo-ved for a select committee to report upon the best means of securing some uniform system which should be at once punitive, reformatory, and self- supporting. He urged that all existing plans were ineffi cacious, and he advocated a new scheme by which the labour of all prisoners should be applied to agriculture in district prisons. The result of a full inquiry was the reiteration of views already accepted in theory, but not yet generally adopted in practice. The committee re commended separation, so long as it was conducted under proper safeguards ; it animadverted upon the great variety which still existed in prison discipline and the construction of jails and strongly urged the legislature to XIX. 05