CO885(2-3) — Page 685

232

In England, in the carrying out of the first stage of imprisonment, which is undenif ably the most important, it is now generally acknowledged that there can be no sound pena treatment without the fullest recognition of the principle of the separate confinement o prisoner from prisoner.

The Right Honourable Mr. Cardwell, in his despatch to the Governors of all British Colonies, dated the 16th of January, 1865, quoted in Dr. Mouatt's Report of 1868, states unreservedly, "That it is the decided opinion of the Lords Committee that, having reference to the course of legislation now extending over many years, and the agreement in opinion and practice of the highest authorities, the system generally known as the separate system must now be accepted as the foundation of prison discipline.

In America the same system is acknowledged on all sides to be highly penal and deterrent; it prevents the prisoner from becoming worse through extraneous influences. It reformation be possible at all, it is possible only with separation.

"In France M. Duchatel, Minister of the Interior, writing in 1841 to all Prefects of Departments, directs the gradual and general introduction of the separate system as the only one que la raison et la justice conseillent d'accorder.'

<

In Prussia, Dr. Julius, deputed by his Government to visit the prisons in England, France, and America, came to the same conclusion."

Such being the decided opinions expressed in Europe and America respecting the treatment of prisoners in the first stage of their imprisonment, it is, perhaps, scarcely to be wondered at that the able Inspector-General of Gaols in Bengal, Dr. Mouatt, F.R.S., in his Report of 1868, should have been led to recommend the adoption of the same system

amongst native convicts. lle says, at page 154 of that Report, what he had written to

the Statistical Society of London in 1867;—

The broad general principles which should regulate prison discipline in India, differ in no way from the principles adopted for other countries, and merely need such modifica- tions of detail as may be required by local circumstances. These modifications need never, so far as my experience entitles me to express an opinion, set aside the principle on which

hey are based."

"The principles of human nature, which connect disgrace with crime and punishment, are universal, and although the shame and discredit attached to conviction and imprison- ment are not at present as strongly felt and exhibited in India, as they are supposed to be in more advanced countries, I have not the least doubt, from my long and intimate acquaintance with the educated and criminal classes of Bengal, that, as education extends, and the 93 per cent. of uninstructed criminals diminishes, the feelings of Bengalis will not differ very materially from those of Englishmen on the subject of crime, its disgrace, and its punishment.”

The Committee appointed to report on prisons in Ceylon also arrive at the same conclusion. They state in their Report--" If we do not dwell at any length on the import. ance of building cells in the prison so as to introduce thoroughly the separate system, it is not because we are convinced of it, but because it is so distinctly and emphatically enjoined in the Secretary of State's Circular, and that a recommendation by us seems superfluous. Every prisoner ought to pass the night in his own separate cell. Separation from other prisoners is to the thoroughly bad man the most severe part of his punishment, while it is a boon to a better disposed man. It separates him from the contaminating influences of other prisoners. It gives him time to reflect, it forces him to reflect," and so on.

If the view of the eminent authorities I have quoted be considered to have established beyond doubt that the separate system" in its entirety is applicable in all cases, and under every condition of climate, and race, there can be no doubt of its being the duty of the Straits Government to adopt it forthwith. It is true that this would involve a very

large expenditure in the complete alteration of our prisons, and in some cases their entire reconstruction, but I do not think that this consideration should, nor do I believe that it would, be allowed to weigh for an instant against its introduction, if once the sound- ness of the principle be acknowledged.

I conceive, however, that it will be presently seen that principles which apply both in theory and in practice in the treatment of criminals in Europe and America, have not, of necessity, the same effect upon, nor can be made to apply to the semi-civilized races, Chinese, Klings, Malays, and natives of the Archipelago, with whom we have almost exclusively to deal, and I venture to think that this point has been overlooked by the able men who have expressed opinion on the subject.

In the former case there is, generally, a mind capable of some reflection, which, if

233

blunted by crime and vicious habits may yet in the retirement of the cell be roused to a sense of right and wrong.

In the latter there is is in many instances a predominance in the animal nature, an absence of moral perception, almost an absence of the power of thought.

Again, it may be quite true, as stated by the Ceylon Commissioners, and my experience tells me it is so with Europeans, of whose control I have had acquaint- ance both in England and the Straits, that "to a well-disposed man it is a boon to be separated from other prisoners," but can this be held to apply to those classes with whom we are concerned. Is it within reason that we should expect that

the retention of a low class Asiatic in a separate cell would lead him to any salutary reflection?

Would he not mest generally, on the expiration of his daily task either brood over his former instances of crime, or fall into that torpid sleep which results from a natural dulness, and which the climate only helps to encourage ?

My experience leads me to the conviction that this would be the inevitable result, and that it is hopeless to expect that mere seclusion will develop powers, of the existence of which there is no indication.

"that

It is also noticeable in the remarks of Dr. Mouatt, that, while he acknowledges in the abstract the principle of cellular separation, he virtually writes as if he were fully conscious that education must, to while the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, in reviewing his Report, says expressly.

great extent, precede its introduction into India, he (Dr. Mouatt) has entered upon an elaborate résumé of the arguments in favour of cellular gaols, and maintined with much force the position which he has taken up in regard to this mode of prison construction. Government of India on the matter arc, however, so recent and decisive that the But the conclusions of the Lieutenant-Governor does not feel himself at liberty to reopen the discussion, while

4

it has yet to be seen what effect the central gaols may have upon our Indian prison system.'

Thus an officer of long Indian experience has deemed it desirable to withhold his con- currence in the views of Dr. Mouatt, even though so ably advanced.

Upon a review of these arguments, I cannot help thinking that both in India and Ceylon, the fact of the undoubted superiority of the separate system, as applied to Euro- pean criminals, has been allowed undue weight, and has tended to keep out of sight the important question of its applicability in the case of natives.

Although, therefore, I do not consider that the time has yet arrived for the intro- duction into our prisons of the "separate systein," which is being tried in Ladia and Ceylon, I am nevertheless conscious that some modification may with advantage be made in that which is at present pursued.

The alterations I recommend are as follows:--

All criminals under sentence of hard labour to be divided into two classes, "short- term and long-term.”

The first consisting of those having to undergo sentences of six months and less,

the latter those having sentences exceeding six months' duration.

To the "short-term men " I would assign for the period of their imprisonment under the task system, with the strictest rigour, the heavy work of breaking stones, pounding coir, husking rice, &c., to be performed in separation from their fellow-prisoners, so far as the circumstances of our prisons will admit.

The sentences of the long-term men would be divided into three distinct periods, viz. :-

1. The lower stage of rigorous penal labour.

2. The middle stage of industrial hard labour.

3. The upper stage of industrial light labour.

The first period of six months would be under the same rigorous system of discipline

as enforced on the short-term men. During the second period, which should be about one- half the remaining time of their sentence, provided it does not exceed eighteen months, they would be employed within the jail work yard, at the trade or labour for which they might appear best fitted. During the remaining portion of their sentence, they would be employed on public works without the jail, with the privilege to earn by diligence and attention a small gratuity to be given to them on release.

I need hardly say that their removal into the 2nd and 3rd stages would be entirely dependent upon their conduct.

In order to carry out the system which I have suggested, considerable alterations will be required in the prisons of the three Settlements, where there exist but imperfect means for working prisoners in separation. The cost of these alterations would be so

(128)

30

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

„T T

Reference

C.O.885

2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO ;