voluntary effort. Knowing of all these official and non-official toes liable to be trodden on, can anyone envy the Committee its task ? In the course of this article I propose to discuss some of the questions which will come up for inquiry, and it may be asked, What are your credentials ? I am in no way connected with any of the departments concerned, neither have I the privilege of writing 'J.P.' after my name; but I can claim to have had forty years' experience, Eastern it is true, of both police and prisons, and reformation rather than repression was for years my pet hobby. Last, but not least, apart from still an intense interest in the whole subject, I have no special axe to grind. I trust, therefore, that I may be given a hearing. I have already ventured to deal with the police side of the problem elsewhere, and recapitulation can serve no useful purpose. It will suffice to say that a reorganisation of the Criminal Investigation Department was the substance of my proposal. We hear a great deal in the Press of the 'Great Four,' but the person we should hear more about is ' a Greater One' still to be created-what is required being a Director-General of Public Security for the whole of England. New Scotland Yard should become a Great Scotland Yard with representatives in every county and city. It no longer suffices for the local authority to requisition for an investigator when required. The motor car has revolutionised criminal methods, and the C.I.D. net should now be spread over a larger area than the metropolis. We want decentralisation, but also a controlling central authority. In short, we might with advantage adopt the French sûreté organisation, which is a national department paid by the Treasury working in conjunction with uniformed police paid by the local authority. In the present article I propose taking as my text the penological principles-Probation, Repression, Reformation, and Preventive Detention. These four principles will certainly all be discussed not only by the Home Office Committee, but also by the International Prison Congress which is shortly to assemble in London. But it is the Committee, rather than the Congress, which I am hoping to influence, as my experience teaches me that, beyond a mass of literature to be issued later from Geneva, we can expect nothing very tangible to come of this Congress. Doubtless the recommendations of the Committee will probably assist the Congress to come to a unanimous decision even if no action follows. For reasons which will appear later I will take each of these principles in the order I consider to be best applicable. PROBATION We are, I think, all agreed that the large majority of misdemeanours (délits in France) which formerly used to be dealt with by either fine or imprisoriment can now be better disposed of by placing the offender on probation. But if this form of punishment (it should be looked on as a punishment rather than a simple condonation) is to be effective, the probation service requires to be placed on quite a different footing to that on which it is at present. This service must not be left entirely in the hands of philanthropists, as it is second only to the police in its importance. The carrying out of an order of probation should be regarded as part of a judicial proceeding quite as much as the execution of a warrant of imprisonment or the realisation of a fine inflicted. We have to thank philanthropists for initiating this form of punishment, but it has now outgrown the philanthropic stage and requires a more elaborate organisation and official control. I am aware that a Home Office Committee has a few years back reported adversely on the creation of a new civil service,' as it was termed, but I trust that wiser counsels will now prevail. Anyway, I am not in agreement with the conclusions reached by the Committee; I refer especially to the sketchy control exercised by the Children's Branch at the Home Office. Nevertheless, subject to certain conditions to be imposed by the courts, the liberty of the probationer should not be unduly interfered with. The offender must, however, be made to realise that he or she has committed an offence and is not going to escape scot-free. It is equally important that magistrates should understand that the Probation Act cannot be altogether ignored or abused, as often happens at present. The proper working of the Act can best be ensured by appointing a full-time Government official as a probation officer for each court. In country districts where magistrates sit only at intervals the same officer will suffice for two or more courts. In addition to this officer there should be one or more probation workers in each parish, but not necessarily full-time, or even paid, officials. In the absence of a philanthropic individual who will undertake the task, the local schoolmaster would appear to be a suitable person to appoint. The local constable should not be utilised, as probation would then be associated with supervision by the police-not at all desirable. The court probation officer (not the parish officer) would be the official the magistrate would look to for reports, and he would also be responsible for the compilation of statistics and general supervision of probation work in his charge-he, in turn, being controlled by a superior officer to be attached to each chief constable's office, with, say, the rank of a deputy. It is important that there should be no friction or jealousy with the police, and this connection would seem advisable on this account if for no other. This deputy in charge of probation work might be granted the power of appeal against a magistrate's decision irrespective of whether the offender had been refused probation without reason or been put on probation when another severer punishment was thought necessary. This would ensure that the probation policy was duly followed by the magistrates, by many of whom it has been hitherto ignored (vide statistics published by the Departmental Committee). The chief constable, under the scheme I suggest, would be regarded as the director of the public security unit rather than the chief of police, all the probation officials being his subordinates. This will prevent friction between the two services and temper undue zeal on the part of the probation officers. The court's proceedings should invariably show the report of the probation officer, whether written or verbal, much the same as the assessor's views are recorded in India. The police should inform the probation officer of cases coming before the court to enable him to be ready with his report prior to the sitting of the court. There need be no delay, but when necessary the court would grant a remand to obtain such report. The expense of this probation service will be more than covered by savings in the prisons department. The probation service will also be the agency for protection and supervision of young persons released on parole from reformatories and schools, or those boarded out. The after-care of released prisoners will also fall to its lot. For the actual probation supervision it will sometimes be advisable to appoint female as well as male officers. But this does not necessarily mean extra expense, as when the number of persons to be supervised are few, a small allowance for each will be all that is required-no fixed salary. When probation fails, or when the offence is too grave to allow of its adoption, even with first offenders, the question arises, Should reformation or repression be the next step ? REPRESSION Many reformers will tell you that repression is a remnant of barbarism, and when imprisonment cannot be avoided reformation should be our one and only consideration. Consequently our prisons have become hybrid institutions robbed of much of their terrors, but which, nevertheless, fail to reform. I admit that at one time I too looked on a happy combination of repression and reformation as an ideal to work for in our prisons, but I have changed my mind, and have come to the conclusion that prisons should be prisons and prisons only. Moreover, I have learned from experience that reformation is a very long and costly process; further, that mere tinkering at reformation is not only useless, but harmful. I am of opinion, therefore, that we should have recourse to reformation only after repression-the shorter and sharper the better-has been tried and failed. As I hope to show presently, I yield place to no one in making reformative measures, when they are made use of, as thorough as it is possible to do; but let repression and reformation be applied in their proper places do not let us spoil both in our endeavour to make good prisons (as ours were) into indifferent reformatories, as they are now. In support of my contention that this is where we fail, I think that I cannot do better than ask those interested in prison reform to visit any of our large London prisons and see for themselves to what lengths this agitation for reformation rather than repression has carried us. An inquisitive visitor will learn that we went to great expense in constructing our prisons with cellular accommodation throughout. We then created a 'prison tradition' with silence and strict discipline its chief features, so much so that the 'gloomy portal became proverbial. For further severity the treadmill and plank bed were added. Oakum-picking or making coir mats within the cells was the prisoners' sole occupation, a dark cell with bread and water being the incentive to complete the allotted task. But no sooner had we completed our buildings and perfected our measures, than the wave of reformation arose and struck our prison administration with its full force, wrecking all the repressive measures which we had so laboriously devised. We were told that solitary confinement led to depravity, silence to insanity, the treadmill was degrading to the yearning for labour which all prisoners possessed, and sleeping on a plank bed was brutal; further, that oakum-picking ruined the sensitive touch and spoiled the fingers for use in free life later. Reformation without repression became the order of the day. The dark punishment cell disappeared with the treadmill, and the plank bed was limited to a short period. It became fashionable to talk of the 'remunerative labour.' But, seeing that prisonmanufactured articles are refused sale in the open market, an elaborate credit and debit system with the Post Office and Admiralty had to be introduced, and accounts for the menial duties within prison walls manipulated to show increase in prisoners' earnings. Cell doors were thrown open during the day and prisoners allowed to work in association or in the corridors where they could see and communicate with each other. Finally, when the day's work is ended, to relieve the monotony of a long evening in the cells, the prison library provides a literature less austere than the Bible and lectures, and concerts are arranged for. I am not exaggerating, but it must not be supposed that I am blaming the Commissioners; they have simply been carried off their legs by this popular craze as we all have been. What we should now endeavour to do is, not to check this reformative enthusiasm, but merely to guide it to its proper channel, viz., the creation of reformatories for adults. Let us then continue to agitate till we have persuaded the judiciary that imprisonment does not purge an offence and there is no such thing as punishment 'fitting a crime.' Punishment is or should be regarded solely as a means to the end-prevention. With this object in view, let us reserve reformation for other institutions and reintroduce many, if not all, of the repressive measures which we have discarded. Never! I can hear some exclaim, and I fully realise that to persuade others will be no easy task, such a hold has reformation obtained on our imagination. But I must ask those who disagree with my suggestion to bear with me to the end, and they may be convinced that after all there is method in my madness. Let us then commence by re-defining 'imprisonment' as confinement in a solitary cell for a period of not less than one month and not exceeding one year; the Courts being at the same time advised that one month's imprisonment under the new system should be regarded as equivalent to three months' under the conditions which exist to-day. It follows, therefore, that in cases in which to-day the Courts are inflicting less than three months' imprisonment a fine or placing the offender on probation will have to be substituted as a punishment. At the same time many offenders, less deserving, will certainly not get off more lightly than they do now, and we shall no longer hear of short terms of imprisonment being gibed at by old lags as 'a wash and brush-up.' But there must be no half-measures-the solitary confinement must be made as repressive as human nature can make it. For instance, all industries outside the four walls of the cell should cease. There must be no instruction in crafts, though a craftsman-prisoner may be allowed to follow his calling should space permit within the cell, and should the prison administration benefit thereby. For the non-craftsman oakum-picking or making coir matting should be the occupation, tasked as of yore. Exercise should take the form of shot drill, and on wet days the treadmill (a real flourmill, with electric power to assist if necessary). The cooking should be performed by an officer of the prison, with |