Chapter IX: The Artist Monk (3)

If no longer available as a deterrent, is transportation a purely beneficial auxiliary? Let us look into _that_ question. During the present session of Parliament, Mr. Childers, the Member for Pontefract, obtained a Select Committee “to inquire into the present system of transportation, its utility, and effect upon colonization, and to report whether any improvement could be effected therein.” The committee was, upon the whole, well manned. Mr. Childers himself has a practical knowledge of the subject, from his connection with Australia; and I believe one purpose of the inquiry was to show that, in consideration for the Australian colonies generally, transportation ought to be wholly abandoned, even to Western Australia. The net result of the report is, that the committee advises no interference, but delicately suggests that transportation should continue as it is carried on now, under the actual circumstances of the day. These circumstances are remarkable. It has been resolved to suppress the convict prisons in Bermuda and Gibraltar. The gross number of convicts in England, as well as in Ireland, appears to be actually diminishing. The free colonies of Australia have passed laws for preventing the admission of any licence-holder or expiree, under severe penalties to be inflicted upon any ship-master who shall infringe the local law. Some convicts have escaped from Western Australia, but not in great numbers, and the alarm on the subject appears to have subsided, though the feeling of repugnance is as strong as ever.

It comes out in evidence, that the Western Australians can employ a certain amount of convict labour, but cannot employ much more than they now have, at the present rate of annual supply. Many employers prefer convicts, as more tractable than free labourers, and they are decidedly pleased at the exclusion Acts of the free colonies. Mr. Burgess and other witnesses declare that crime has not increased in proportion to the number of convicts, a considerable proportion of the men having behaved well; but they draw marked distinctions between a bad order of convicts and a better order, strongly hinting that a careful selection should be made; and I am disposed to believe that these hints will not be lost upon the head office in Parliament Street. Several of the colonists had desired the introduction of convicts, because they looked forward to the official expenditure on account of the establishment, &c.; and these speculators have been disappointed. They were particularly annoyed because provisions for convicts were furnished from other colonies, whereas they claimed a protective system of trade, as the correlative of the convict burden. Amongst eastern colonists are many who formerly approved of transportation, but they found “the character of the convicts grow worse as the criminal laws of England were ameliorated and softened.” A very curious lesson is brought out incidentally. “Formerly,” says Mr. Hewitt, of Tasmania—the last colony in which convictism was abolished, much to the chagrin of Governor Denison and the authorities in England—“we got men sent to us for political offences, for poaching, machine-breaking, and so on; and there was always a very large body of convicts who prided themselves that they were not thieves and rogues; but since the alteration of the laws in this country, it seems to me that every man who comes out has committed some grave offence.”

On one point all appear to be agreed: that the old assignment system, and _à fortiori_ any Norfolk Island system, which tends to mass convicts together in bodies undiluted by the elements of ordinary society, can never more be tolerated. Those who view the subject with a practical knowledge, and yet without local predilections, believe that transportation cannot be continued much longer, even to Western Australia. I am well aware that the Irish as well as the English authorities desire that that outlet should be retained, and I see objections to any _sudden_ closing of it; but that it ought to be abolished within a comparatively few years I am convinced. I have the very highest authority for the avowal, that the crime, which irresistibly impelled Sir William Molesworth’s Committee to pronounce the doom of convictism in Australia generally, cannot be prevented or effectively controlled in Western Australia, even now. One of the most experienced officials, Mr. Thomas Frederick Elliot, of the Colonial Office, was amongst those who stood against the abolition proceedings of 1837; but “further observation,” he says, “has altered my opinion.” The convicts who remained in Sydney and New South Wales have done harm. Western Australia may profit from the expedient while the colony is in a languishing state, but it can never be a substitute for ordinary colonization. The relief is not “beneficial to this country”—“the numbers sent out are too trifling to be of any account,” either to the mother country or to the colony. “In every point of view I think that transportation as a system has come to an end, and that its day is past.”

Before I proceed to close this series of papers with the conclusions which have been forced upon me in my survey of the whole, in Ireland and England, I must refer once more to the case set forth on behalf of the English system. The fate of my last paper appears to have been curious. In some quarters it has been regarded as too favourable to the English system, while the chief conductors of that system think that I have “not done them justice.” I am told that I have fallen into many errors, and that the comparison which I have made between England and Ireland is disparaging to England. In the most explicit terms that could be employed I have invited correction of errors. I have avowed my readiness to incorporate in this third paper any emendations with which I can be supplied; my object being, not to advocate one system or to disparage another, but simply to lay before your readers, as far as my examination of the two systems and your space would permit, the facts themselves. The communications upon the subject have been very numerous and protracted. Throughout all, I have been met by Sir Joshua Jebb with the most handsome consideration and a generous frankness. The result, however, is that I have a lengthened statement, from his pen, going over the ground from the time when “sound principles were laid down in 1842 by the then Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham, for establishing probationary periods of discipline at home, in order to the disposal of the convict by transportation;” and this statement I now take bodily, with some very slight curtailment.

“The difficulties which occurred at that time in Van Diemen’s
Land prevented the development of these principles, and led to
a modified arrangement under Earl Grey and Sir George Grey.
Under the system as it was then settled, from 1847 to 1853, a
printed notice was communicated to every convict, telling him
that the first period of probation would be passed in solitary
confinement for some time; and employment on the public works
for the second period; the third stage under a ticket-of-leave
in one of the colonies. The incentives to industry and good
conduct, during the two first periods, were very fully
explained in this document. They consisted of remissions of
the imprisonment, gratuities, badges marking the progress of
each individual, and other records, by which a man’s fate was
placed in his own hands, and was mainly dependent upon his own
exertions.

“In regard to the third period of probation, however,
with a ticket-of-leave, the following conditions were
promulgated:—‘The holder of a ticket-of-leave will be required
to remain within a certain district; he will not be released
from the custody of the Government until engaged to serve
an employer for twelve months; he will then be placed under
the supervision of the police, will be required to register
his place of abode, and periodically report himself to the
police,’ &c. Pentonville and Portland afford the fullest means
of judging of the system of discipline and the results of the
two periods which were to be enforced in this country. The
commissioners of the former prison, after anxiously watching
the moral effects of the great experiment conducted for five
years under their superintendence, thus recorded the conclusion
at which they had arrived, in a report dated in 1847:—‘We feel
warranted in expressing our firm conviction, that the moral
results of the discipline have been most encouraging, and
attended with a success which, we believe, is without parallel
in the history of penal discipline.’

“With respect to Portland, Captain Whitty, in his report for
1850, after stating his conviction that the system of following
up a period of separate confinement by associated labours, was
working well, states:—‘The subdued, improved, and disciplined
state in which the convicts generally arrive at Portland from
the stage of separate confinement, appears to be an admirable
preparation for their transfer to the greater degree of freedom
unavoidable on public works.’ Captain Knight, who succeeded
Captain Whitty as Governor, remarks in his report for 1851:—‘I
have frequently watched the working parties from positions in
which I could not have been seen by them, and I have seldom
seen a greater amount of willingness or industry displayed
by men whose livelihood depended upon their exertions.’ [I
myself was a witness of the same degree of cheerful industry,
in 1861.] It appears from the returns, that 400 men are at the
present time quarrying and loading from the great ditch of
the fortress about three tons a man, for which a contractor
had previously received 1_s._ 5_d._ a ton. The net saving to
the Government, after deducting 4_d._ for the cost of plant,
would give 3_s._ 3_d._ a day as the net earnings of each man
in the working parties; whilst the entire cost, exclusive of
buildings, will not exceed 1_s._ 9_d._ a head. Were it not
that a proportion of the convicts are detained at school,
and employed as cooks, tailors, &c., the prison would be
self-supporting; and had there been opportunity for the full
development of convict labour, at least one-half of the usual
cost of such works would have been saved.

“Though Portland is only known to the general public as a
place where an outbreak occurred some years ago; and though
the discipline has endured the rudest shocks from the changes
consequent on the cessation of transportation,—which not only
disappointed the expectations that had been held out to the
men, but entirely shook their confidence, and was the cause
of the outbreak referred to,—the establishment never was in
a much higher state of discipline and efficiency than at the
present time. The breakwater and fortifications, too, are
advancing towards completion, and already constitute a grand
and imperishable monument of what can be effected by convict
labour.

“From 1848 to 1853, during which time alone the established
system appears to have been in full operation, everything went
on swimmingly. It was ‘all right,’ in the English prisons of
Pentonville and Portland; and we have it on the authority of
Sir W. Denison, the Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, that in 1851
the convicts sent from public works were generally conducting
themselves as honestly and industriously as unconvicted
farm-servants in England. Every interest was then satisfied.
The mother-country annually got rid of some 3,000 of her
criminal population, and the colony obtained the advantage of
cheap labour. This was the culminating point of a sound and
carefully devised system of penal and reformatory discipline.
[Sir Joshua Jebb states, in one of his reports, that we never
may hope to see the like again. The last ship sailed in 1852;
and though he must have cast a lingering look after it, he
appears to have manfully set to work to repair the breach made
in the system of discipline.]

“An Act was passed in 1853, under the provisions of which a
large proportion of convicts might be sentenced to ‘penal
servitude,’ instead of transportation. It will not escape
notice that, during the whole period of a convict’s being
employed on public works, he is placed in a condition
intermediate between imprisonment and liberty. During this
portion of the sentence, as I described in a former article,
the men work in association; good order being preserved by
the presence of an officer with each party; and their return
from distant works in the open quarries at Portland, or from
dockyards or fortifications at Portsmouth or Chatham, being
insured by watchfulness of guards. With a view to afford
greater encouragement, it was considered desirable to divide
this probationary period into four progressive stages, to each
of which certain ameliorations and privileges were attached.
In the last stage, especially, a proportion of the men are
selected for ‘special service,’ in which they pursue their
several avocations, relieved from any direct supervision. At
Portland, they may be seen passing to and fro with tools,
attending points on the railways, &c.; at Dartmoor, they attend
cattle on the hills, and perform various farm operations,
independent of control. A large body of these men have also
been employed at Woking assisting in the completion of the new
prison, and others are to be sent to Broadmoor.

“We now come to the consideration of the third period of the
system, with a probation pass or a ticket-of-leave designed
for a distant colony, but now forced on our attention at home.
Here the range is limited to the few convicts who since 1852
have been sent to Western Australia, and the English system
in its entirety requires to be judged by the few openings
afforded in that colony. Here we see an intermediate system,
expressly designed to fit the man for colonial life and labour,
in full operation, on a plan suggested by Sir Joshua Jebb
in 1849. It is well known to any one who has experience of
convicts, that release from imprisonment will alone afford
any sure test of character; and it is to this test, in the
face of all the difficulties which had to be encountered, that
an appeal has necessarily been made. The system of granting
pardons, revocable on certain conditions, popularly known as
tickets-of-leave, has been adopted from the colonial stage, an
a precautionary measure; and the benevolent assistance of the
public has been sought in every way that has been possible.
On mature consideration, however, and on very sufficient
grounds, it has been deemed inexpedient to do more, either
in giving effect to the principle of the probation gangs,
or the supervision of police. There is scarcely an officer
in the convict service who does not strongly entertain this
conviction. [After alluding to the help afforded by the
chaplains and the Prisoners’ Aid Society, the statement
proceeds.] Thousands have been rescued from criminal courses
and tided over their greatest difficulties, by these most wise
and economical preventive measures.

“We now come to the results, which are given in the
accompanying comprehensive tabular returns. [The tables are
placed at the end of this article.]

“If the results be carefully consulted, it must be confessed
they have been more favourable than could have been
anticipated; for though twenty, or perhaps even twenty-five,
per cent., may have returned upon the hands of the Government
in seven or eight years, it is a fact that the number sentenced
has diminished from 3,311 in 1848, when the great majority were
transported to Van Diemen’s Land,[4] to an average, during the
last three years, of 2,226, when the great majority have been
released at home. Many causes must have combined to produce a
result so wholly subversive of all previous calculations;[5]
but a sound, deterrent, and, at the same time, an enlightened
and Christian discipline, steadily persevered in under the
authority of every Secretary of State since 1838, may fairly be
allowed to claim its share.

“In an admirable article which appeared in the _Times_ of
the 18th of April last, the writer has ‘hit the right nail
on the head.’ After a graphic description of desperate and
highly-skilled ruffians returning to their malpractices, after
confinement, with greater zest than ever, he states—‘These
constitute the ugly percentage of convicts with which nothing
can be done, the true blackamoors of the system who can never
be washed white.’ Here it is, and, perhaps, here only we fail.

“We find the following, in Sir Joshua Jebb’s report for
1849:—‘In connexion with the subject of modification of the
present system, I would submit the expediency of establishing
a more severe system of discipline, and of enforcing a more
protracted term of imprisonment, in the case of all men
convicted of heinous offences, especially such as were
accompanied by violence, and in certain cases. It is impossible
to state the precise operations of such measures, or the
extent to which they might be applied; but if the very worst
characters were imprisoned for the whole term of life, or
during their respective sentences, at some penal establishment
at home, or in the colonies, others disposed of by
tickets-of-leave in Western Australia, and the residue released
at home with conditional pardons, or encouraged to emigrate,
I believe that no sensible inconvenience could possibly be
experienced.’

“The foregoing is a brief sketch of the English system and
its results, deprived as it is of its mainstay, namely, a
satisfactory means of disposing of the convicts who are subject
to the two first probationary stages; and defective, as it
is admitted to be, in the means of dealing with the ‘true
blackamoors of the system.’”

This document is, as I have said, the statement of Sir Joshua Jebb, very slightly curtailed to bring it within your space. I have abridged a small portion of the retrospect at the commencement, and have shortened the transitions here and there; and that is all the change. The writer has not allowed himself to take the broadest view of the subject; which we shall not quite understand, unless we glance at the chronic controversy between the two systems of England and Ireland. In 1857, Sir Joshua Jebb made a report professing to describe the Irish system, and stating his own opinion upon it. I certainly could not adopt Sir Joshua Jebb’s description of the arrangements in Ireland; nor can I entirely agree with what he supposes to be the object of inquiry: namely, to ascertain whether the probationary prisoners should be withdrawn from the higher stages on public works, and congregated in the huts of the intermediate stage; whether discharged prisoners could not be placed under the supervision of the police, and whether employment could not be found for prisoners released on licence as in Ireland. Sir Joshua meets these questions in the negative, and I believe I am correct in stating his conclusions thus:—

“Firstly. The character of the convicts in this country, and
the circumstances, differ so much from those of Ireland, that
any plan for congregating them together under less control than
is at present exercised, would not be calculated to render them
more fit for discharge, or give the officers to whose care they
might be consigned better, or even the same, opportunities of
judging their character as those which exist at present.

“Secondly. That even if such objects could be promoted by
removing selected convicts into separate, small, intermediate
establishments, with diminished control and more voluntary
action, the exhibition of convict discipline in such a form
would impair the exemplary character and deterrent effects of a
sentence of penal servitude, which, on all accounts, it is most
essential to preserve as the most formidable of our secondary
punishments.

“Thirdly. That any general superintendence of the police would
be impossible in England, without obstructing the employment of
the men.

“Fourthly. That if such measures could be systematically
organized, it would be very desirable to afford convicts
some special information or instruction in connection with
their future prospects during the last few months of their
confinement—not in separate, intermediate establishments
disconnected from the prisons, but in the stage of discipline
which precedes discharge.”

I have already said, that controversy in the subjunctive mood is totally worthless. You can establish no logical conclusion except by a statement of facts, which, like the figures in an arithmetical sum, render the ultimate fact, the _x_ to be proven, a matter of moral certainty. Undoubtedly there are great differences in the character of Englishmen and of Irishmen, and, therefore, in the character of the convicts of the two countries; but the points of resemblance between all civilized communities are more numerous than the points of difference. This is peculiarly the case with races under the same governments and laws; and when we select a special class, formed by the aberrant tendencies of all humanity, we increase the ratio of resemblance. The treatment of convicts in the two countries might vary; we have no reason to assume that it should be fundamentally opposed.

Secondly, there is reason to doubt whether the deterrent element ever has much force in the operation of penal servitude, of imprisonment, or of any penalty save those involving acute physical suffering for very short periods. The deterrent effect is severe in the case of hanging, flogging, torture, and the like. In the case of correctional discipline, the effect seems to be produced, far more, by a sort of compulsory teaching. Through the force of facts, the involuntary student is made to learn that a dishonest line of conduct cannot be pursued, but must sooner or later be frustrated; therefore that an honester course of life is unavoidable, and the attempt to avoid it foolish. At one time transportation, was a penalty accounted “secondary” to death alone; but I have already shown you that in 1861 it is accounted an actual boon, an increase to the opportunities and enjoyments of life. Indeed it is, literally, in this auxiliary sense that transportation to Western Australia, which still tolerates the practice, is now recommended. In England, as well as in Ireland, it is claimed as usefully completing that round of correctional discipline which ends in reformation—holding out a hope to the reformed convict of employment in a sphere where he will have the reward of industry without disgrace. But in Ireland, we see that as the criminal advances through his course of penal servitude, the whole system is made to have the character of correction, and to awaken the hope of betterment through honest exertion.

Thirdly, the statement that the general superintendence of the police would be impossible in England, without obstructing the employment of the men or without converting the men into spies and tyrants, is thus far a pure assumption. Not a shadow of evidence to establish it has been shown to me. I know that policemen have interfered injuriously, but they have not yet been instructed in a different line of conduct; and I also know that there are, amongst the chief officers of the police in the counties, those who are perfectly competent to study such a subject, and who are prepared to begin the inquiry in a favourable spirit. But we must also remember that the police do not represent the only class of public servants who might be employed to act in this behalf, and report the conduct of men out on licence.

The fourth objection applies, in some degree, to the English arrangement, in which the teaching of trades is by no means systematic; for it is principally confined to the earlier stages of imprisonment, while the employment of the vast majority on public works sends them into the world only as common labourers. In Ireland, the adaptation of the instruction is much more individualized, and the Intermediate stages turn out a much greater variety of callings.

A fifth objection on which the English authorities lay very great stress is, that if the English convict be suffered to go at large, as he is at Lusk, he will, perhaps in the very first hour of his freedom, run away to rejoin his friends; particularly if he be a married man: nothing will restrain him from decamping to rejoin his wife and family! “The introduction of the Irish system into this country, the first element being imperfect liberty granted to a man whose own act could make it absolute in a moment, and would debar the married man from the society of his wife and children, would do so much violence to every feeling of his mind, that we could not be surprised if the slight barrier were instantly broken which held him from the world. One of our most deserving prisoners, lately discharged, of whose sincerity I have the highest opinion, told me some months since that if 10,000_l._ were offered to him to stay for twelve months, with nothing if he insisted on going to his wife and children, then he would prefer the liberty to the money.” So writes the chaplain of Portland Prison, in an unpublished report forwarded to me, with his usual kindness and frankness, by Sir Joshua Jebb; who also insists strongly on the same point.

Now, at several of the prisons I have been shown convicts who are employed on “special service,” and whom I have confounded with the more numerous body of prisoners working at large on Southsea Common. This mistake is corrected by a friendly note from the Governor of Portsmouth Prison. “The greater number of the men,” he says, “were ordinary prisoners—in the ordinary stages, and still under the usual surveillance.” The man I referred to, who wished to be transferred from that spot, was not in the special class at all. “Had he been so,” writes Captain Rose, “the privilege of change of labour would probably have been accorded to him. He merely asked for a transfer of party—a very common demand, and rarely founded on any sufficient reason. Another point in which I wish to correct you, or I should rather say, to make myself more clear than perhaps I did during our far too hurried interview, relates to the adoption of an ‘Intermediate stage,’ from which it might be inferred that I advocated the Irish system in its integrity (the word being there employed). I was careful to guard myself against this; and in saying that I would willingly enlarge the special class to one or two hundred men, for the purpose of employing them on Portsdown Hill, without prison dress, and merely attended by a few picked officers as general superintendents (equally undistinguished by any distinctive dress), I reserved the important question whether they should be there located as in Ireland, or be still subjected to the ordinary routine of prison discipline and restraint, going to and returning from their distant labour daily by special train. The difference would be most important, and, in fact, constitutes the point mainly at issue between Sir Joshua Jebb and Captain Crofton. Should you write again, perhaps you will make this more clear.”[6]

From these corrections with which I have been favoured, we gather two things. First, that the special class are exempted from surveillance: they are employed in carrying messages, and in other duties which send them abroad into the world, like the trusted members of the Intermediate class in Ireland. The application of the principle, indeed, is so fractional, that all comparisons which I see attempted between it and the Irish Intermediate system are untenable. But, secondly, the corrections appear to me to show that in England there is no resistless impulse to break through the moral restraint, and that in this respect the Englishman is quite as amenable as the Irishman. I have never been told, with regard either to Portsmouth or any other English prison, that they limit this privilege to bachelors.

Another incident appears to me sufficient not only to corroborate my doubt, but to annihilate the official presumption in England. Recently there have been those very important extensions of the Convict Prison at Woking, to which Sir Joshua Jebb alludes in the statement I have embodied. The work was carried on, in part at least, by convicts from another prison—from Portland, I believe. The men were not taken from those on special service; they were not selected even from those accustomed to labour out of bounds; they were, I have been told, “just the ordinary prisoners.” I have not visited Woking, but I am also informed that they were diligent at their work; and that there was no escape, nor any serious attempt at escape, if any at all. The prisoners were fifty in number; and, again, I was not told that they were all selected from the unmarried class. It appears to me, therefore, that this imputed family _storge_ is a myth.

I have bestowed great attention and pains on the endeavour to find out if the leading objectors in the English system had actually made themselves masters of the Irish system in its details, even so far as I have done myself. I have sometimes feared that I pressed my questions upon them further than was courteous; though I must confess that I have uniformly been met with a frankness as candid as it was kind. I have not only found that the study of the Irish system has been very partial, and that the judgment against it has been formed on arguments in the subjunctive mood and the most arbitrary assumptions, but I have also observed that even with regard to the English system, there is not the same mastery of the whole process in detail that I noticed in Ireland. For instance, I am not aware that the leading authorities of the English system have personally examined the working of the Discharged Prisoners’ Aid Society, or have in many instances personally traced the behaviour of discharged convicts out in employment.

The investigation of the subject, in one respect, is neither easy nor inviting. I have myself observed amongst discharged English prisoners an unbecoming levity, mingled with a marked ill feeling towards the prison authorities; and I am not satisfied that all the prisoners who seek the aid of the society in Charing Cross, are conscious of the obligations which they owe to it. I felt less pained at the exhibition for the sake of the society and its officers, than for the sake of the men who thus betrayed their total unfitness to guide themselves through the world into which they were again thrown. My hearing is considerably keener than most men’s, and probably the applicants for succour were not aware that I could hear every word of the conversation which was going forward between them in groups; but I did, and the whispered talk related to plans of amusement, of social meetings, of sports by no means elevating, and of gambling. I have forborne to ask the secretary whether ingratitude is the rule, because no such questioning should be instituted without an authority to compel which should absolve the respondent from responsibility; but I believe that no investigation could be more interesting than one into the conduct of prisoners whom the society has relieved, and particularly into their bearing towards those who have helped them. I doubt whether the authorities of our convict system have examined into this part of the matter at all. It is impossible not to make a comparison between the peculiar bearing of the English prisoners and the entirely opposite demeanour of the prisoners in Ireland. The manner there is more free, the men speak with less reserve, and they look less “cowed,” but they are much graver; and, if they do not deal in professions of gratitude, they permit you to see that the treatment that they have received and the opportunities opened to them are taken very much to heart.

The fact is, that the Discharged Prisoners’ Aid Society requires to be placed on a much broader basis. In order that it should act with thorough efficacy, it ought to be converted into a public department, with authority to take cognizance of all prisoners leaving prison, to follow up its information respecting discharged prisoners, and to dispose of them with a freer choice than it can at present command. As I have before remarked, there are several public organizations which might supply an agency, but it is not for me to dictate any particular arrangement. In my three reports on the convict systems, I have limited myself to a plain statement of such facts as I was able to verify, and as I could group into a summary of the general subject. Another change needed to render the society efficient, and therefore secure of public support and of its future position, is that the prisoners who seek its aid should be trained to a greater variety of callings, so that no opportunities may be lost through the over supply in one particular branch of industry or a want in another branch. But, thirdly, and most chiefly, the discharged prisoners who are candidates for the patronage of the society should come to it in a condition of better moral training. They should have learned, not simply the outward fashion of their behaviour, but the facts concerning themselves which would suffice alone to prompt better feelings; and they should have been more thoroughly taught, by the mode of discipline, to appreciate the kindness so spontaneously extended to them.

The requirements which appear to me necessary for the complete efficiency of the society, and, therefore, for its stability, imply two radical changes in its position. The first is a more distinct legislative and official recognition of it as a constituent part of the English convict system. For either the society is surplusage, or it is an essential; and if it is essential, it should be brought into a more universal and co-ordinate working with the rest of the establishment. The second change is, that the convicts should pass through something analogous to the Intermediate stage of the Irish system.[7]

It seems to me quite time that the rivalry, displayed in the reports on both sides of the Channel, should be absolutely and finally discontinued. I must confess that the documents before me go to show that the initiative of aggression was taken on the English side,—that representations with regard to the working of the Irish system were put forward with a high official authority on this side of the Channel, and that they called for rectification from the other side; but it is idle to enter into any retrospective award upon the merits of that obsolete controversy. Our business is to take things as we find them _now_, and to do the best we can both for England and for Ireland. I have already said, that the Irish system appears to me to be the best; and I ascribe its excellence to these three reasons—that, being the most recent invention, it comprises the chief advantages of previous systems, with new applications and extensions of tried principles admirably designed by Captain Crofton; that it is planned upon a consideration of the objects to be attained, irrespectively of difficulties or predilections; and that it is carried out by men who are personally familiar with its details in every part.

I am not prepared to say that all details of the arrangement in Ireland are essential to the completeness of an equally good system in England; but the principles upon which the Irish system relies are applicable over the whole globe, and they are consequently drawing the attention of the most intelligent and active criminal reformers in distant countries. I know that their progress is watched from Heidelberg, which has itself been a great centre of prison improvement, under that able and enthusiastic lawyer, Professor Mitternaier. Among the reforms which have been pushed forward by the immortal Cavour, is a system of convict discipline established at Pianosa, a small island lying south of Elba. Tuscany has always been celebrated for reforms of the kind; and it is not losing its reputation in our own day. One of the distinguishing traits in the Pianosa system is the introduction of the Intermediate stage, which Cavour had thoroughly studied; and the Superintendent of the Prisons, M. de Peri, reports with great satisfaction on the working of the new plan. A little farther east, at Corfu, we see M. Cozziris, the Inspector-general of the Prisons in the Ionian Islands, diligently following out the same work. His report for the year, which is now before me, shows a thorough acquaintance with the Intermediate system, and a proportionate admiration of it.[8] While I was in the United States, I had the opportunity of visiting some of those prisons which have often been mentioned as examples of modern improvement, and such unquestionably they were a few years back. It is no reproach to the intelligence of the American reformers that, in great part by their help, we have since surpassed them; and it must be allowed that they might have made more progress than they have, but for that unlucky working of their government system, which so periodically and thoroughly removes the higher officers in all departments of the State. Amongst the leading managers of these prisons, however, I found considerable interest excited by the reference to the Irish system, and a ready disposition to enter into its advantages; which have been the subject of a special explanation in the _Philadelphia Journal of Prison Discipline_ for January of the present year. In other countries, therefore, even more remote from Ireland than England, there is no reluctance to study the newest experiment, and to profit by its instruction.

I can well understand that there are difficulties in altering the arrangements of any system; and our arrangements in England have been particularly designed to suit a past state of circumstances, and to attain particular objects. The leading objects were—the construction of prisons so designed as to facilitate the ready inspection of large numbers; the mustering of very numerous bodies of men upon public works, which was thought to be an economical and beneficial employment of convict labour; and the ultimate disposal of the convict by transportation. Transportation has nearly ceased; we have arrived at the perception that labouring on public works is not exclusively the best discipline for all criminals; and we have learned that the best system of our day attains its striking success by subdividing the prisoners into small bodies and dealing with them in detail individually. A show of transportation exists to tantalize the English officials, the system of public works goes on with as much success as ever, and we have large prisons on our hands; to say nothing of the fact, that the authors of the living picture are naturally proud of the high development which has been given to it. To get rid of these accessories of the system is the greatest difficulty in any change, and I admit it in its fullest force.

Other difficulties have been alleged—the greater delicacy of the Englishman who has been criminal in concealing his shame, and, therefore, in shrinking from any Intermediate stage; his impatience, under the enforcement of conditions, to the ticket-of-licence, and the indomitable impetuosity which will make every married convict break bounds the instant he is placed in a state of half freedom; the reluctance of English employers to co-operate, and other special distinctions ascribed to the English character. But, on closer scrutiny, the force of these difficulties is refuted by facts which I have stated in the foregoing pages. Indeed, I have found the raw materials for the Irish system scattered throughout English prisons, only they are not turned to account, and are not placed in their natural order. I have expressed my readiness to put forward any facts to prove that the English system attains results equal to those which exist in Ireland, but I have been supplied with no such facts. What we claim in England, by all the rights of urgent necessity, of national intelligence, and of national resources, is the most perfect system of convict system that the world can supply,—whether we call that system “Irish,” or, as I should prefer to call it, British. The one step needed for the introduction of those tried principles amongst us is, to institute a thorough inquiry; and, undoubtedly, Parliament is bound to inquire, and, having inquired, to deal with the ascertained facts. Until that be done, we English are left with a system not so good as the one we might have; we are compelled to suffer for more crime than would otherwise exist in the country; and uneducated misguided multitudes are suffered to stray into destruction, from which they might otherwise be rescued.

* * * * *

Subjoined are the tables mentioned at page 240. The following facts are necessary to complete the information conveyed in the first table:—

No. 1.—9,180 orders of licence have been issued to the
directors for the release of male convicts from the different
convict prisons since the commencement of the system in
October, 1853, out of which 834 have had their licences
revoked and 1,038 have been reconvicted to penal servitude or
transportation, making a total of 1,872 who have forfeited
their licence; being an average percentage of 20.3, or an
average of 2.2 per annum, during the seven and a half years of
its operation.

No. 2.—9,180 orders of licence have been issued; out of which
number, 1,363, or 14.8 per cent., were returned to convict
prisons for larceny and light offences, and 509, or 5.5 per
cent., for offences of a graver character, in seven and a half
years; being 1.9 per cent. per annum of light offences, and 0.7
per cent. per annum of more serious crimes.

No. 3.—3,307 convicts have been transported to Western
Australia during the years 1853 to 1861; out of which, it may
be assumed from the reports received, that from 5 to 8 per
cent. only may have relapsed into crime. This, if taken into
account, would reduce the average results of the English system.

RETURN of the NUMBER of MALE CONVICTS released under ORDERS of LICENCE in each Year, from October 1853, to April 1861; showing the NUMBER returned to the CONVICT PRISONS, either by having had their LICENCES REVOKED for trifling Offences, or by being sentenced to PENAL SERVITUDE or TRANSPORTATION.

--------+--------+--------------------------------------------------
| | Number of MALE CONVICTS whose Licences have been
| | revoked, or who have been reconvicted.
| +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Years. | No. | 1853. | 1854. | 1855. | 1856. | 1857. |
|Licensed+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
1853[9] | 335 | 1 | | 7 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 |
1854 | 1,895 | | | 14 | 19 | 63 | 53 | 38 | 64 | 19 | 33 |
1855 | 2,528 | | | | | 40 | 47 |126 |190 | 99 | 64 |
1856 | 2,007 | | | | | | | 49 |131 |122 |106 |
1857 | 674 | | | | | | | | | 15 | 34 |
1858 | 318 | | | | | | | | | | |
1859 | 260 | | | | | | | | | | |
1860 | 818 | | | | | | | | | | |
1861[10]| 345 | | | | | | | | | | |
--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Totals | 9,180 | 1 | | 21 | 29 |106 |105 |215 |389 |257 |242 |
--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+

---------------------------------------------------------+---------+----
Number of MALE CONVICTS whose Licences have been | Per |
revoked, or who have been reconvicted | Centage.| P
---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+-----+---- +----+----+ e
1858. | 1859. | 1860. | 1861. |Total|Total|Grand| | | r
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ Rev.| Rec.|Total| | | i
| | | | | | | | | | |Rev.|Rec.| o
Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.| | | | | | d
| | | | | | | | | | | | | .
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----
| | | | | | | | | | | | |Y.M.
| | | | | | | | 15 | 24 | 39 | 4.5| 7.1|7 6
5 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 2 | | | | 143 | 182 | 325 | 7.5| 9.6|7 3
36 | 24 | 12 | 15 | 1 | 7 | | 1 | 314 | 348 | 662 |12.5|13.7|6 3
52 | 52 | 26 | 33 | 8 | 13 | | 2 | 257 | 337 | 594 |12.8|16.7|5 3
31 | 20 | 14 | 22 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 69 | 82 | 151 |10.2|12.1|4 3
7 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 6 | 4 | | | 25 | 26 | 51 | 7.8| 8.1|3 3
| | 5 | 4 | 3 | 10 | | 1 | 8 | 15 | 23 | 3.0| 6.1|2 3
| | | | 2 | 15 | | | 2 | 15 | 17 | 0.2| 1.8|1 3
| | | | | | 1 | 9 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 0.2| 2.6|0 3
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----
131 |116 | 71 | 89 | 30 | 54 | 2 | 14 | 834 |1,038|1,872| 9.0|11.3|
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----

The following shows the percentage per annum of Male Convicts returned to Convict Prisons, either by revocation of licence, or under fresh sentences, to Penal Servitude or Transportation, during the 7½ years the system has been in operation:—

licensed Per ct. Yrs. Per ct.
Of the Number 335 from Oct.
to 31st Dec. 1853 11.6 or in 7½ 1.5 per ann.
” 1,895 in the year 1854 16.11 ” 7¼ 2.2 ”
” 2,528 ” 1855 26.2 ” 6¼ 4.1 ”
” 2,007 ” 1856 29.5 ” 5¼ 5.5 ”
” 674 ” 1857 22.3 ” 4¼ 5.1 ”
” 318 ” 1858 15.9 ” 3¼ 4.5 ”
” 200 ” 1859 9.1 ” 2¼ 4.0 ”
” 818 ” 1860 2.0 ” 1¼ 1.5 ”
” 34 to 31st March 1861 2.8 ” 3 mos. 0.12 ”

As regards the nature of the Crimes for which the 834 Male Convicts had their licences only revoked, and the 1,038 who have been re-convicted for fresh offences, the following is an analysis:—

MINOR OFFENCES.

Larceny 650
Offences against vagrant act 126
Assaults on police 34
Desertion 18
Picking pockets 27
Wilful damage 14
Assault 118
Offences against game laws 21
Theft, misdemeanour, and other offences 355
-----
Total 1,363

OFFENCES OF A GRAVER CHARACTER.

Murder 2
Forgery, uttering forged notes or base coin 44
Burglary 106
Robbery 41
Robbery with violence 16
Highway robbery 6
Cutting and wounding with intent 6
Felony, housebreaking, sheep-stealing, &c. 284
Arson 4
-----
Total 509
Minor offences 1,363
-----
Total 1,872

RETURN of the NUMBER of FEMALE CONVICTS released under ORDERS of LICENCE in each Year, from October 1853, to June 1861; showing the NUMBER returned to CONVICT PRISONS, either by having had their LICENCES REVOKED for trifling Offences, or by being sentenced to PENAL SERVITUDE or TRANSPORTATION.

--------+--------+--------------------------------------------------
| |Number of FEMALE CONVICTS whose Licences have been
| | revoked, or who have been reconvicted.
| +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Years. | No. | 1853. | 1854. | 1855. | 1856. | 1857. |
|Licensed+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| |Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
1853[11]| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
1854 | 40 | | | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | |
1855 | 115 | | | | | 2 | 1 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 2 |
1856 | 221 | | | | | | | 10 | 11 | 14 | 8 |
1857 | 55 | | | | | | | | | 5 | 3 |
1858 | 18 | | | | | | | | | | |
1859 | 29 | | | | | | | | | | |
1860 | 183 | | | | | | | | | | |
1861[12]| 103 | | | | | | | | | | |
--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Totals | 764 | | | | | 3 | 1 | 21 | 19 | 24 | 13 |
--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+

---------------------------------------------------------+---------+----
Number of FEMALE CONVICTS whose Licences have been | Per |
revoked, or who have been reconvicted | Centage.| P
---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+-----+---- +----+----+ e
1858. | 1859. | 1860. | 1861. |Total|Total|Grand| | | r
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ Rev.| Rec.|Total| | | i
| | | | | | | | | | |Rev.|Rec.| o
Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.|Rev.|Rec.| | | | | | d
| | | | | | | | | | | | | .
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----
| | | | | | | | | | | | |Y.M.
— | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | —| —| —
| | | | | | | | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5. | 1.5|7 8
1 | 3 | | 1 | | | | | 18 | 14 | 32 |14.7|12.1|6 5
7 | 9 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | | 33 | 30 | 63 |14.9|13.5|5 5
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 2 | | | 7 | 7 | 14 |12.7|12.7|4 5
| 1 | | | | 1 | | | | 2 | 2 | |11.1|3 5
| | 1 | | | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3.4| 3.4|2 5
| | | | 4 | 3 | | 5 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 2.1| 4.2|1 5
| | | | | | | 2 | | 2 | 2 | | 1.9|0 5
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----
9 | 14 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 8 | | 7 | 65 | 65 | 130 | 8.5| 8.5|
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----

The following shows the percentage per annum of Female Convicts returned to Convict Prisons, either by revocation of licence, or under fresh sentences, to Penal Servitude or Transportation, during the seven years and eight months the system has been in operation:—

licensed Per ct. Yrs. M. Per ct.
Of the No. 40 from Oct. 1853
to 31st Dec. 1854 6.5 or in 7 8 0.8 per ann.
” 115 in the year 1855 26.8 ” 6 5 4.0 ”
” 221 ” 1856 28.4 ” 5 5 5.2 ”
” 55 ” 1857 25.4 ” 4 5 5.9 ”
” 18 ” 1858 11.1 ” 3 5 3.2 ”
” 29 ” 1859 6.8 ” 2 5 3.3 ”
” 183 ” 1860 6.3 ” 1 5 4.4 ”
” 103 to 1st June 1861 1.9 ” 0 5 ”

As regards the nature of the Crimes for which the 65 Female Convicts had their licences only revoked, and the 65 who have been re-convicted for fresh offences, the following is an analysis:—

MINOR OFFENCES.

Larceny 72
Wilful damage 2
Breach of peace 3
Vagrancy 5
Theft 26
Disorderly conduct 4
Picking Pockets 4
----
Total 116

OFFENCES OF A GRAVER CHARACTER.

Uttering base coin 2
Unlawful possession 3
Horse-stealing 1
Robbery 2
Receiving stolen goods 1
Wounding 1
Housebreaking 4
----
Total 14
Minor offences 116
----
Total 130

FOOTNOTES

[4] In the years from 1841 to 1845, the average annual number of convicts sent to Van Diemen’s Land was 3,527.

[5] One of the official calculations laid before the Government was, that in the event of transportation being abolished, it would be necessary to provide accommodation for 28,000 offenders, in addition to that which then existed.

[6] There were two other clerical errors in the part of the paper referring to Portsmouth. The thirty-three convicts were fulfilling sentence not under the new, but under the old Act; and in lieu of seventy-three under report for misconduct, it should have been thirteen—an important difference.

[7] The annual report of the Directors of Convict Prisons for 1860, published recently, more than confirms the report which I made to you, and which was published in your April number. The excellent working and progress of the Irish system continue with increasing force. The Government prisons contain accommodation for 3,000 convicts; the total number incarcerated in the first year of the new system, 1854, exclusively of the 345 convicts in the county prisons, and several hundreds in Bermuda or Gibraltar, was 3,933, and it has decreased, by a steady progress, to 1,492. In 1861 the number convicted has decreased from 710 to 331. This is the more remarkable, since the deportation of convicts from Ireland ranged from 600 to 1,540 in the five years preceding 1854. Out of 5,500 convicts discharged in the last seven years, 1,462 were discharged on licence; 89 licences have been revoked, amounting to seven per cent. “We do not,” say the Directors, “believe a single case can be proved of a convict having been reported for infringing the condition of his licence, and still remaining at large in this country.”

[8] Statistica del Penitenziario di Corfu, per gli Anni 1857, 1858, 1859. Compilata da Giovanni Cozziris, Governatore del Penitenziario di Corfu, ed Inspettore Generale delle Prigioni dello Stato Ionio.

[9] From October to December 31st, 1853.

[10] To 31st March, 1861.