Page:First Annual Report of the Woodbury Hill Reformatory.djvu/11

 The other case was discharged under the same authority (and without such sanction we have no power to discharge a boy at all) after nine months residence, for an incurable physical condition which baffled all our ingenuity, all medical treatment, and under contact with which it was impossible to preserve the moral and sanitary state of the establishment. Much remark has been made on this case. I can only say we simply used the law, and did not turn to its relief, for the extension of which to us I beg to acknowledge my gratitude to the Home Secretary, till reduced to this last appeal by the imperilled welfare of the institution—and against the law, and not our use of it, objection should be raised. I would just observe farther, that we would not shrink from any amount of criminality where there is anything like a hope for a reclaiming treatment taking root, but either the unfit or hopeless in age or condition should not be sent, or if they indiscriminately are sent, we freely should be allowed the present method of relief. A Reformatory is a moral Infirmary, and, just as in that for bodily ailments, there are unfit and incurable cases, which can only be imposed to the hindrance and detriment of the true work. I do not say they should be at large, but with that I am not here concerned. I only say we ought to have the benefit of this rule translated into its moral equivalents in its two last conditions—and kept in its plain meaning in its first—which regulates the county hospital—"No person labouring under any infectious distemper—or deemed incurable—or more likely to receive benefit as an out-patient, is to be sent to the house." The itch—a boy of 18—and a non-criminal, are not fit inmates.

Whilst on this point of my subject I may refer to the strange and often contradictory objections taken to Reformatories from the evidence of the criminal boys themselves. One Magistrate lately declined to commit boys to us because one had requested to be sent—another, some time before, had objected, because an escaped boy requested not to be re-sent. Let me afford a little insight into the nature of these boys—which may perhaps be useful to persons before whom they may he brought.

Untruthfulness is a very strong feature. It is often the chief home lesson, and in the worst boys a prevailing practice. The most wanton instance of lying occurred lately in the case of that boy released after nine months detention. He knew why he was sent away, and that he had nothing to apprehend. The head of the police of a certain town who knew of his committal to us, found him and questioned him as to his being at large. He told him that I had died lately, and being very ill before I died, I said I could not die happy if the boys were kept in the Reformatory—so I had sent for them and released them all and then died. Hence, quite as much as the mischief of making them fancy you have an interest in their criminal career, the mistake of asking