Part 7 (1/2)

I have repeatedly asked prisoners under sentences of penal servitude for life whether they would prefer that sentence to being hanged. The general reply was ”I would rather be 'topt' at once, and be out of my misery, than remain in prison all my days.” ”It's bad enough when I have the prospect of liberty in twelve years.” ”If they are going to keep men in prison all their days, and torture them besides, they'll commit suicide or murder in prison. Look at Townley, who threw himself over the stair-railings at Pentonville and killed himself.”

Such would be the answers I would receive to my questions on this subject. With reference to Townley's case I was told by an intelligent prisoner, who knew him and saw him commit suicide, that it was committed mainly in consequence of the cruel, absurd and childish system of suppressing a prisoner's letters to his friends, on grounds usually hostile to the interests of society, viz., the concealment of truth.

Another cla.s.s of prisoners were ”coiners.” These were generally ”fly-men.” They knew every point of the law on the subject, and as a rule returned to their profession as soon as they got their ”ticket.”

Prison is no doubt a great punishment to such men, because they can make a good living at their business; but I question if ever there was a reformed coiner. They are usually well-conducted prisoners, that is, they are civil and do what they are told, but their influence over others is very pernicious. A very considerable number of the convicts left the prison with the intention of ”hawking” from place to place, and doing a little bit on the ”cross” when they saw the coast clear, which meant either stealing or ”snyde-pitching.” These hawkers found friends in the coiners, who would tell them where they could get the bad money, so that if they could not work themselves they could do a friend a turn in the way of business. I knew several instances of prisoners with a first conviction getting a second in consequence of being told where to get bad money; and I knew many more who will, in all human probability, meet with the same fate from the same cause.

Another of my fellow prisoners was a singular specimen. I have already referred to him as being almost the only ”highflyer” in the prison, as being the man who once obtained 150_l._ from a gentleman in Devons.h.i.+re under false pretences. This man was not ranked among the ”_aristoes_”

in prison society, although he was in many respects their equal or superior in certain branches of education. And here I may remark that on parade, where all the prisoners exercised together, they a.s.sociated in cla.s.ses as they would do outside--the ”roughs,” the ”prigs,” the ”needy-mizzlers,” and the ”aristoes,” keeping, not always, but pretty much among themselves. There were only a few of the cla.s.s termed ”aristoes,” and they comprised men who had been clergymen, merchants, bankers, editors, surgeons, &c. These were usually my a.s.sociates during the exercise time. Now the ”highflyer” I have referred to did not belong to this cla.s.s, but except in his principles and habits and tastes, his education was quite equal to theirs. He spoke German and French fluently, knew Latin and Greek, a smattering of Italian, and the higher branches of mathematics. What first surprised me about him was his pretended intimacy with some German merchants of the highest standing I knew in London, and with whom I had done business. To know such men I afterwards found was part of his profession. He could tell me not only the names and t.i.tles of the n.o.bility and gentry, but the names of their families, where many of them were educated, to whom they were married, and many other particulars of their private history. His sentence was three years, and I believe he got it something in this way. He had been in the country following his profession, and had obtained some money, I think thirty pounds, from a gentleman of ”his acquaintance.” In the country he was the Reverend Dr. So and So, with a white neck-tie and all the surroundings of a clergyman. In London he was a ”swell,” with a cigar in his mouth.

It so happened that the benevolent gentleman from whom he had obtained the money came to town and recognized the ”Doctor,” when cutting the swell, and had him apprehended and punished. He had been several times in county prisons, but, as he always changed his name and his localities, this fact was not known officially. He was an avowed infidel, and seemed to delight in spreading his opinions among the prisoners, who were generally too willing to listen to him. If he keeps out of prison, it will be his cleverness in escaping detection and not his principles that will save him. His prison influence was most pernicious, and afforded another striking and painful ill.u.s.tration of the evils of indiscriminate a.s.sociation of prisoners. I maintain that it formed no part of any prisoner's sentence that, in addition to all the other horrors of penal servitude, he should be placed within the sphere of this man's influence and such as he; and the system which not only permits but demands that his moral and religious interests should be thus imperilled, if not altogether corrupted and destroyed, undertakes a fearful responsibility.

The next case I will notice will ill.u.s.trate the truth of what I have advanced on this point. It was that of a young man, P----, who had been respectably educated, and whose crime was simply the foolish frolic of a giddy youth. He had engaged a dog-cart to drive to London, a distance somewhere about fifty miles from where he resided. He had another youth for his companion, and they both got on the ”spree” in London. Some shark picked them up, and bought the horse and dog-cart from them at a merely nominal price. When they got sober they returned home, and this youth went and told the proprietor of the dog-cart what he had done, and (according to his own statement) offered, through his friends, to pay for it. The proprietor was so enraged, however, that nothing but the prosecution of the prisoner would satisfy him, and he was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude. He had the character of a ”fast” youth, and met with a severe judge. This prisoner might have been easily led into the path of honour and usefulness, if the attempt had been honestly made. Whoever his judge was, if he were an Englishman and father of a family, he would never again pa.s.s sentence of penal servitude on such a youth for any offence against property, if he knew as well as I do what the sentence involves. Shut up any such man for seven years in a place where the only men of his own age are city-bred thieves, and what can be expected of him? This young man elected the smartest and cleverest of the London pickpockets for his companions.

They made a tool of him in prison, and unless his friends have managed to get him sent abroad, he is very likely acting as a ”stall” for some of his old companions now. He never learnt anything in prison except _knitting_. He was also one of the ”readers,” but most of his time was spent in hospital. He could spit blood when he chose, and the doctor being more liberal to him than many others, for several very natural reasons, the prisoner used this liberality to benefit some of his ”pals” who could not manage to get the good things they wanted from the doctor otherwise. In return for this kindness he would get an inch or two of tobacco, or ”snout,” as it was usually termed. When other means failed to procure this luxury, he would write to his friends for a toothbrush and sell it for the weed, which caused the toothbrushes to be withdrawn from all the prisoners. Then he would write for a pair of spectacles, pretending that his eyes were getting weak. These he sold, and the last were discovered pa.s.sing into one of the cooks' hands in fair exchange for mutton chops. They were taken into the governor's room, and after being examined by that potentate they were laid on his desk, and next morning they were nowhere to be found; they were stolen, but _not_ by a prisoner. Of course, P---- knew nothing about his spectacles, when examined on the subject, except that some one must have taken them from his shelf. The result was that all spectacles belonging to the prisoners were called in, and prison ”gla.s.ses” issued in their stead. The spectacles were intended ultimately to reach the hands of an officer for tobacco, and if they had not been removed from the desk, the officer might have got his discharge and the prisoner a severe punishment. This was one of the thousand-and-one schemes which prisoners resort to in order to get ”snout,” and without the aid of an officer they can get none.

This youth was intended by his parents for the church, but was trained in prison to be a thief, as ”a warning to others”--and his was far from being a solitary case.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE ACT OF 1864--CLa.s.sIFICATION OF PRISONERS--THE MARK SYSTEM: ITS DEFECTS--THE TRUE CRIMINAL LAW OF RESt.i.tUTION--THE ONLY METHOD BY WHICH CONFIRMED CRIMINALS MAY BE RECLAIMED--WORKHOUSES.

The year 1864 was a marked epoch in convict life. A new Act was then pa.s.sed and fresh prison regulations were brought into force. This Act contained one good clause, viz., the abolition of three and four years'

sentences. In one year as many as 1800 men were sentenced to three and four years' penal servitude, being a large proportion of the total number. Such men are now for the most part sentenced to eighteen months and two years' imprisonment, which will account for a decrease in the number of convicts and an increase in the number of county prisoners.

This is a short step in the right direction. The convict directors take credit to themselves for this reduction in the number of convicts, and boast that they have at last found the true panacea for criminal diseases. A report to that effect, cut out of a newspaper, was circulated amongst the prisoners, and their indignation was great at the way in which the public were ”gulled” about themselves and prison treatment. No doubt a few more thieves and burglars are driven to pursue their callings in France and America by the operation of the new police regulations, and I freely admit that a few more may annually be sent into another world by the same means, but no one can yet point to a reformed professional ”Cracksman,” ”Coiner,” ”Hoister,” or ”Screwsman,” as proof of the beneficial results of the change. The most unpopular clause in the Act was that relating to police surveillance.

The majority of the prisoners were very much annoyed at this regulation, some of them, indeed, would much rather have remained in prison than encounter it. For my own part, I approve of the principle of surveillance. I see in it the germ of a system whereby a large cla.s.s of criminals may ultimately be punished entirely outside the prison walls. I object, however, to the police being entrusted with the duty.

Their proper business is to catch the thief and preserve order. The surveillance of liberated prisoners ought to be entrusted to those who are directly interested in empty jails, and who would endeavour to a.s.sist the liberated men either in getting employment or to emigrate.

With reference to the _cla.s.sification_ of prisoners which commenced under the Act of 1864, I have no hesitation in saying that it is a gross fraud upon the public, a delusion and a snare. The error which I pointed out in a former chapter, as being committed in the selection of convicts for transportation, is here repeated and in a more aggravated form, if that were possible. By the new Act the prisoners were divided into four great cla.s.ses. Into the fourth, or ”probation cla.s.s,” all prisoners were required to enter on being admitted into prison. After a certain time, if the prisoner was so fortunate as to escape being ”reported” for any offence against the prison rules, he would be placed in the third cla.s.s, and again, after being a certain time in the third cla.s.s he was pa.s.sed, subject to the same condition, into the second, and so on. Should he have made any mistake and allowed himself to get ”reported,” he either missed his chance of getting into the higher, or was degraded into a lower cla.s.s. The object of this cla.s.sification no doubt was to get all the well-behaved men together, but the blunder committed was in making obedience to the prison rules the only test of qualification for the higher cla.s.ses. This, as I have already explained, was really worse than no test at all, because the frequently convicted criminal, who was thoroughly posted up in all points of prison discipline and regulations, was more likely than the novice to escape being ”reported” for violation of them. The consequence is, that in respect of character, disposition and moral quality, there is really no difference to be found amongst the men in any of the cla.s.ses. The scheme operates in this way--suppose that a clergyman by some mischance gets sentenced to penal servitude, and enters the prison in company with one of the very worst villains that could be selected out of our criminal population; both these men, the one with a first sentence, the other with a long string of convictions against him, enter the ”probation cla.s.s” at Millbank, on precisely the same terms. The ”jail bird,” knowing all about the ways of the prison, would probably pa.s.s with ease into the third cla.s.s. The clergyman, being new to the discipline, might make a mistake and get ”reported,” and in that way would not be so likely to reach the third cla.s.s so soon as the other; but granting that he did so they would still be together, the man inured to guilt and crime would still be beside the new and casual lodger, the man who had never been in prison before would still have the opportunity of learning the evil ways of the confirmed rogue.

Again, should the clergyman be fortunate enough in pa.s.sing into the higher cla.s.ses at the usual time, the jail bird would certainly not be behind.

If a thousand prisoners, from all parts of the country, of all ages, habits, and antecedents, were brought to one of our convict establishments, they would go through their time in the same way, good, bad, and indifferent, all together. The clergyman, even if he were to get into prison innocently, and were the best Christian in the world, would never get rid of the jail-bird; and in the highest cla.s.s his companions would be no better than those in the lowest.

I grant that our directors could not cla.s.sify convicts according to their real merits, any more than a quack doctor could cla.s.sify patients suffering from disease; but although they cannot have the knowledge necessary to do it properly, they might do a little in the right direction. The quack, even, would know cholic from consumption, diarrhaea from dropsy; so any man of sense would be able to distinguish between a case of chronic moral disease and a case of partial or temporary paralysis of the moral faculty!

The system of ”marks,” as it is called in prison, is the most prominent feature in the new regulations, and is based upon the same absurd principle as the cla.s.sification clause. The rule relating to marks specifies ”That the time which every convict under sentence of penal servitude must henceforth pa.s.s in prison will be regulated by a certain number of marks, which he must earn by actual labour performed before he can be discharged.”

The method adopted is to debit the prisoner with a certain number of marks, according to the length of his sentence, and if he performs the whole of the work required of him he is credited with as many marks as would represent a fourth part of his sentence.

If this law were carried out in its integrity it would be most cruel and unjust. Fortunately for the prisoners it is not very strictly adhered to--at least not at the prison where I was confined--the officers making allowance for the prisoners' infirmities. To show how it would operate, let us take the case of the clergyman and the jail-bird once more. a.s.suming that the former was a stout and healthy man, and able to work, but not having been accustomed to it, really not able to do much of it, and that the latter had been at the work for years--which would win in the race for liberty, if the law was strictly enforced? The probability is that the clergyman would not earn a single day's remission, whilst the jail-bird would get one-fourth of his time remitted; and a.s.suming that both had the same sentence originally, would go a considerable way into a ”fresh bit” before the poor clergyman had finished his first sentence.

The ”mark” system admits of great cruelty being practised, but on the whole, as it is carried out, it is a more innocent piece of deception than the cla.s.sification. At the public works, however, there is much injustice done by it, no allowance being made for a sick man, unless he has met with some accident. If the ”marks” were money, _bona fide_ sovereigns, and if the prisoner were permitted to exercise the abilities G.o.d has given him in order to earn that money, there might be some sense and justice discernable in the system. As it is there is neither.

I may here venture to say that we might materially diminish crime and expense connected with the prosecution and punishment of criminals by doing away with our convict establishments altogether, except for the confinement of political prisoners, and those having sentences for life. In lieu of these I would suggest the introduction of the system of remissions into our county jails, granting first offenders a liberal, and third and fourth, an extremely small allowance. Teaching the prisoners such trades as they are fitted for, qualifying them for colonists, and selecting the most suitable for emigration. I would also place the jails and workhouses under one management. Commissioners for the prevention of crime and pauperism in each county, and subject them to a rigid government inspection by a board responsible to Parliament and the nation.

But even this would only be a partial reform. I would have our criminal laws based upon the old Mosaic principle of ”enforced rest.i.tution,” and carried out on the Christian principle of making the offender ”pay the uttermost farthing.” Then we could fairly and justly retain the idle and the useless in the net of justice, and allow the willing and industrious to achieve their own freedom by satisfying the claims of the law.