ON

Official and other delegates from Austria, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Brazil, Chili, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Prussia, Russia, Saxony, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and from the United States were there; and representatives from India, from our Colonies, and of the magistracy of the United Kingdom were there also. The idea of this great and important Congress the World's the World's Congress, as its organiser, Dr. Wines, of the United States, has somewhere termed it-originated in America. Congress, approving the proposal, authorised the President to appoint a Commissioner to visit Europe for the purpose of giving effect to it, and General Grant placed the Commission in the hands of Dr. Wines. No person could have executed that very difficult commission better, and very few so well. His mission to various Continental States in 1871 met with the highest, the warmest support, the results most abundantly illustrating that this encouragement was not merely an encouragement of words, but of deeds, involving as it did each State in considerable trouble and some expenditure.

The proposal seemed, indeed, to be most timely, for all nations, in a greater or lesser degree, considered their treatment of criminals to be in an incomplete and tentative

state. Some were on the eve of erecting prisons which would be governed in their construction by the prison system it would be advisable to adopt. Others desired to know whether a system of progressive classification of criminals could be safely and advantageously introduced, and how far it could be applied consistently with different nationalities.

Considering the vast importance to humanity of this great social question, it is well to find the warm and active interest evinced by various Governments with regard to it for it was not always so.

In England we need not look back far to find the treatment of our criminals erring through excessive severity and brutalising conduct. Under such a system, if system it can be called, we manufactured criminals, and reaped the sure and very sad results. Subsequently, with the reaction which was the inevitable consequence of such a state of things, we erred, and deeply erred, on the side of excessive lenity. In either case we worked without a principle, dealing in a fragmentary manner with a very grave and comprehensive question. What stronger testimony need be adduced to confirm this statement than the fact that it is only recently we have realised the necessity by legislation of firmly controlling the criminal classes, and attacking crime and its haunts at the root?

To return to the President's address on the evening of July 3-an evening which will not be very easily forgotten by those present at the meeting - Lord Carnarvon, whose experience on this subject as Chairman of the Committee of the

House of Lords on Prison Discipline, and for many years as Chairman of Quarter Sessions and Chairman of Visiting Justices to the Gaols in Hampshire, gives to his opinion considerable weight, indicated the course which he assumed the Congress would follow in its discussions, and gave a brief his tory of the treatment of our criminals in England.

He said I shall not overstate my case if I say that here in England we have, in spite of many interruptions, errors, and failures of purpose, entered into a period of general, though gradual, improve

ment.

'Three measures, indeed, of considerable magnitude for the repression of crime have been enacted during the last eight years-the Penal Servitude Act of 1864, which was the result of the Penal Servitude Commission; the Prisons Act of 1865, which was the result of the House of Lords' Committee on Prison Discipline, of which I had the honour to be Chairman; and the Habitual Criminals Acts of 1869 and 1871, which were the result of the cessation of transportation, and the gradual conviction that somehow means must be found or made for dealing with a large body of professional criminals growing every year into more formidable proportions amidst all the difficulties of an old and wealthy and artificial society. Certainly our prisons are not now what they were when Howard first began his task, nor do they deserve the name of palaces, as they were, I think, once called by Voltaire. They have passed through the extremes of undue harshness and undue leniency; and they are approaching, though they have only in individual instances reached, that middle and wholesome condition where health and life are cared for, where all facilities for moral and religious im

provement are given, but where labour is exacted from all, and where a disagreeable sense of personal restraint and real punishment is brought home to each offender.

Finally, under the Prevention of Crime Act of 1871, which embodied and amended the Habitual Criminals Act of 1869, some important measures have been adopted to weaken, if they have failed to break up, that large class which follows crime as a trade, and which

at all times a cause of trouble and grievous expense to the community-becomes a source of grave danger in seasons of popular disturbance. Re-convictions for felony receive a heavier punishment; receivers of stolen goods are brought, or are intended to be brought, under the severer action of the law; a registration of habitual criminals and the use of photography have been attempted, though I doubt whether in the most effectual manner. The police are enabled to deal with previously convicted offenders against whom there is reasonable cause of suspicion; supervision, formerly nominal, has been made more real by enforcing a monthly report of the license holder to the police; and lastly, though this provision seems capable of improvement, it is now possible to affect in some measure the springhead and supply of crime itself by sending to industrial schools the children of women who have been twice convicted, provided that they are left without visible means of subsistence, or are without proper guardianship. These, doubtless, are improvements, and it is possible that they may be carried yet further.'

With reference to progressive classification, he states' Such inducements to amendment may be promoted, and their results will be best tested by a well-considered system of classification, under which

the quantity and quality of labour are regulated, and the upward progress of the prisoner (who himself becomes the arbiter of his own fate) through each class in succession may be accelerated by industry and good conduct. I believe that there are few natures upon which the gradual substitution of lighter for heavier work, the concession of small privileges for good conduct, and, above all, the sense that the duration or character of their punishment depends in a considerable measure upon themselves and their own exertions, will not exercise a wholesome effect. But let it always be remembered that good conduct means neither promises nor professions of feeling, nor even a mere passive compliance with prison rules; it means actual industry, of which some evidence can be given, and, if possible, voluntary industry over and above the prescribed task. Such a result, though hard to be secured in cases of short sentences, is not impossible.'

After describing the progressive classification (which is governed by 'marks') in the convict system, the President stated 'that in smaller gaols, with short sentenced prisoners, privileges of an almost nominal value may be made to have an almost equal effect: for men are influenced by the wants and circumstances of the moment, and things which in a state of personal freedom are of small account, become in prison of the highest moment.' With regard to the mark' system, he said I need hardly add to those who have studied these questions that the best and most proved machinery for giving effect to these ideas is a scale of marks, which may be made as simple for small as it can be brought to a high degree of elaboration for large prisons. The opposition to this system, which many of us may remember when it was first introduced in Ireland, and afterwards was applied in England,

has now passed away; its value is fully recognised, and it is at last understood that under no method can the prisoners' work be more effectually measured, or the diligence and fairness of the prison officers more accurately tested.'

On July 4 the discussions commenced; the arrangements, order of papers, &c., having been previously settled by the International Committee.

Very important and interesting papers were read to the Congress, and elicited some very profitable discussion. It was a cause of regret to many, and especially to the representatives of the English magistracy present, that on several subjects of considerable importance sufficient time was not allowed for their discussion, or even for the full explanations which were required to remove much misapprehension of our English practice which appeared to exist in the minds of our Continental and American friends.

This was especially the case with regard to the subject of corporal punishment, introduced by M. Stevens, of Belgium, and of prison labour, by Mr. Frederick Hill.

It is impossible to deny that the general feeling of the Congress was extremely hostile both to the infliction of corporal punishment, and to some of the statutory requirements of hard labour, viz. the crank, tread wheel, and shot drill. As indicative of this feeling, M. D'Alinge, the delegate from Saxony, to whom the Congress was indebted for much useful information, has written two letters to the Times within the last few weeks, stating

that he had been deeply pained by what he had witnessed in some departments of our penal institutions,' and found it necessary to point to the remaining old barbarities which in our beautiful country still discredit the laws of justice and the authority of punishment.'

Ladies and gentlemen, in discuss

ing this question, spoke as if these were our ordinary forms of punishment and of work, and most charitably hoped that the necessity for such treatment would no longer be apparent to us now we had adopted compulsory education. But how stand the facts?

Corporal punishment is retained as a very exceptional, and not an ordinary form of punishment, and is never resorted to save in cases in which a most brutalised nature has been evinced by the offender, and then only by magisterial order, which must be supported by medical approval. Those conversant with the ordinary practice of visiting justices of gaols, before ordering the infliction of corporal punishment, will be amazed at some of the opinions expressed in the Congress, pleading for the abolition of the power, lest it should be abused. With regard to this subject, the President said, 'One word more on prison punishments. Where there is an intractable disposition, which breaks out in acts of insubordination and violence, the employment of corporal punishment becomes sometimes necessary. It is a resource to be used sparingly and cautiously, never without medical sanction, and always with discrimination, both as to the cases and individuals. But under such conditions I hold it to be an invaluable resource. Within my own experience, I can scarcely recall the instance where it has failed in the desired effect, or where there was room for the slightest doubt as to the expediency of the order.'

There is no person, whose opinion would be entitled to weight, who would in this country advocate the indiscriminate use of corporal punishment. On the other hand, there would be very few, with practical experience, but would desire the retention of the power, to be applicable only to those exceptional and brutalised natures which

are unfortunately at times found in our gaols. It is believed, and rightly believed, that the retention of the power prevents, in many cases, the necessity for its exercise.

It should be clearly understood that the punishments of solitude, and privation of diet, have in this country, under medical authority, their limits, and that we do not admit the use of such punishments as the shower bath, collars, &c.

In the course of discussion, Dr. Mouat, who was for many years the Inspector-General of Prisons in Bengal, pointed out that he had found, in several instances, the retention of the power of inflicting corporal punishment had been the means of preventing murder.

General Pilsbury, of the United States, the able and humane Gover nor of Albany Prison, whose experience of fifty years and his own estimable qualities give to his opinion considerable weight, made a statement to the same effect; and, had time permitted, these opinions would have been abundantly confirmed by the magistrates and governors of gaols present at the meeting.

Very much misapprehension also prevailed with regard to penal labour.' It seemed to be the impression that it was confined by statute to the crank, shot drill, and the treadwheel. This is not the case; it is optional with the magis tracy to adopt these forms of labour, or others (some of which are indicated in the statute 19th cl. 28 and 29 Vic. cap. 126) calculated to secure hard bodily labour. Mr. Hibbert, M.P. for Oldham, and Secretary of the Local Government Board, made this explanation to the Congress, and as Chairman of the Visiting Justices at Salford Borough Gaol showed that, although the treadwheel was used at the commencement of sentences of hard labour, the industrial profits of the gaol exceeded those of any other county

or borough gaol in the United Kingdom.

The fact being, that in Salford Gaol and in several others, 'penal labour' has been placed in its proper order, leading by good conduct to 'industrial labour,' which is thereby associated in the mind of the criminal with privilege, a very important portion of his training, when it is considered how necessary it is that he should learn to like work. Members of the Congress were justified in deprecating the practice pursued in many of the gaols which they had visited, in restricting the work to 'penal labour,' such as the treadwheel, shot drill, &c. Nothing could be more detrimental to amendment, or be more fatal to the promotion of habits of true industry, than such an absence of system and motive power to improvement.

But we cannot accept such a procedure as an approved type of prison treatment in this country.

In inviting the attention of the magistracy to the Prisons Act 1865, the Home Secretary pointed out how industry and good behaviour could be stimulated under good and systematic arrangements-showing that progressive classification, even seven years since, was expected to be the result of a course which he was enabled to suggest, but had not power to direct. We can, however, fortunately point to several gaols in which the intention of the Government has been carried out.

In turning to the convict establishments, which, from being under the sole control of the Government, may be considered as directly representing its views upon prison discipline, we find the system based upon progressive classification, with the strongest motive power to amend, existing in its different stages.

It will be seen, from what has been stated, that the practices in some gaols which have been complained of by members of the Congress cannot be recognised as the prison

system of the country, but as the result of the great power given to gaol authorities under the Prisons Act 1865. We must accept this as a blot in our procedure, and trust that, either by an early amendment of the statute, or by other very obvious means, both uniformity of treatment and progressive classification will very soon be made imperative.

But, in pleading guilty to this blot, which, it is to be hoped, will soon be removed, we have reason, as a nation, to be proud of the comprehensive manner in which we deal with our criminal classes as a whole; and it is submitted that a due consideration of our principles of procedure will show that the whole course is tempered with humanity, whilst due protection to the community is at the same time afforded.

The late Count Cavour, in a minute on the Irish convict system, recorded that, in his opinion, it was the only efficacious means of discountenancing vice and crime, by encouraging, through means purely philanthropic, the reform of the criminal without, however, holding from him his punishment.'

The treatment of our criminals in this country, if carefully considered as a whole, is now entitled to equal approval.

We administer punishment as being exemplary, and, if placed in its proper order, as being both deterrent and reformatory to the criminal himself.

We offer, in our progressive classification, the strongest inducement to amend, and in the process we use such motive powers as will best secure that end.

We do not enfeeble or crush the will of the criminal by lengthened isolation, but endeavour so to mould, and then to co-operate with it, as to utilise it in a new and a better form for the great battle of life which must be fought on liberation. As it is of little use to train him