I accompanied myself a large number of foreign delegates on a visit to the convict establishment at Chatham, and their verdict from all observations I heard was decidedly favourable. There are amongst ourselves, no doubt, those who would desire to see adopted the cellular system as it exists in Belgium; but calling to mind that with us the prisoner passes through three stages-of solitary confinement, of employment on public works, and of supervision under ticket of leave until the results of the system are shown to be unsatisfactory, or until, which may be the case, we are driven to make a change by the difficulty of finding public works of a nature suitable, it is not likely that we shall abandon our present system. Still, the question of employment is one that will have to be faced before long. We witnessed the other day the completion of the Portland Breakwater; the docks at Chatham will be approaching completion in the course of a few years. There are advocates for other harbours and fortifications, but I trust we may see their competing claims referred to the investigations of a royal commission, by which means alone I think a decision satisfactory to the country would be arrived at.

The employment of the prisoners in our common gaols presents still greater difficulties, mainly from the fact that the terms of detention are so short, averaging about fourteen days in duration. The consequence of this has been that up to a very recent period, with very few exceptions, industrial labour has been but little encouraged, and the treadwheel, shot drill, and the crank, or stone breaking, have almost exclusively been made the means of enforcing the hard labour which is laid down by the sentence. Public opinion has, however, of late protested against this indiscriminate use of the tread wheel, and has loudly cried out that the rogue must not be maintained at the cost of the honest ratepayers; that he must by his labour contribute to his own support. It is also perceived that the treadwheel is a very unjust punishment, pressing very unfairly upon those accustomed to sedentary occupation, while it loses all terror in the eyes of the criminal, who prefers it often to solitary labour in his cell, having learnt, by long experience, how to shift the burden. on the shoulders of his neighbours. Moreover, this habit of shirking becomes so ingrained, he learns his lesson so well, that when he goes to employment outside on the conclusion of his sentence, I am assured by a manufacturer, who has had experience of such cases, he cannot be intrusted to do the work which he seems to be carrying out. And yet I am not disposed to attach a slight importance to the deterrent influence conveyed by the sight of prisoners engaged in unproductive labour, to the people outside, to the thousands who visit the gaols as spectators, and on whose minds a most salutary im· pression is made; but the greatest care must be taken to prevent the abuse of it. Let it be inflicted only upon those to whom it is a real punishment. Let even those have all an opportunity to work themselves off the wheel by extra industry out of working hours. But let it never be inflicted throughout the whole term of any man's imprisonment, unless as an exceptional punishment.

I may perhaps be permitted to remind the section that the county and borough prisons in England and Wales are regulated by the Prisons Act of 1865, which was enacted for the purpose of producing uniformity of system without sacrificing the independent action and the beneficial supervision of the local authority. Unfortunately, however, we have no means of knowing how far the Act is intelligently carried out. We know the average cost of each gaol; but why one should cost two or three hundred per cent. more than another we have no means of judging. We are not even told in which gaols classification is carefully carried out; where the mark system is adopted; how the produce of the prisoners' labour is disposed of. We find most unfortunately none of these things in the annual reports of the overworked inspectors. But you will agree with me that it is to the inspectors' returns that we ought to look. For as there is no central prison authority, they should point out in each case the method of conducting each gaol, whether good or bad, intelligent or the reverse, and the publicity would stimulate in a manner which nothing else can do, while the visiting justices would profit by the experience attained in other places and act accordingly. There is no excuse for this deficiency; it is in the power of the Home Office, under an Act of Geo. IV., to appoint five inspectors; and as it is very clear the work cannot be done by two, we should not be satisfied until we have made an end of such a piece of miserably false economy. We are imposing a difficult and an unexpected task upon our prison governors. We ask them to embark upon the unwonted trade of a merchant; to try a new material; to dispose of the manufactured article. While this is the case I cannot think the results can be satisfactory. We have now as a consequence the large proportion of mat-making carried on, and the consequent outcry from honest traders outside, who find themselves exposed to undue competition. I feel sure that Captain Du Cane has arrived at the right conclusion that work required by the Government should be preferred to any other; and as there is plenty of work to be done for Government for which people have to pay, I think we have a right to demand that the Government should go to the prisons as far as possible for the work they want done. When we think of the clothing required for the army and navy alone, there would be enough ten times over to provide profitable occupation for all whom it is desirable in our prisons. In the Pimlico Government clothing establishment alone, no less than 53,7477. is paid annually for wages for tailoring. Surely one-half of this might be carried on in prisons under proper management. I have already expressed the hope that the disposition of convict labour will be referred to a royal commission, and a branch of their inquiry might with advantage be directed to the investigation of the practicability of the suggestion I have made.

The only remaining subjects upon which I shall touch in the briefest manner are those which have been brought under the notice of Parliament during the past session, and which fall within the pro

vince of the section. The first is one respecting which views differing most widely are held by members of this Association-I refer to the greatest of all crimes, those, namely, which touch the sacredness of human life. I will only say on this subject I believe that, in rejecting Mr. Gilpin's motion for the abolition of capital punishment, the House of Commons duly reflected the public opinion of the country. The second was the transfer proposed by Sir C. Adderly of the control of certificated schools from the Home Department to that of the Privy Council. The greatest alarm was hereby excited among the managers of these institutions. They have prospered under the Home Office, which indeed may be regarded as the national guardian of children who are detained under a magistrate's order, and on whom or on their parents the penal stain must for a time rest. The project found little favour with the House of Commons, and while treated with the deference due to one who has done so much in the establishment of reformatories, it was conclusively shown that we are not at present at any rate prepared for such a step. The Public Prosecutor Bill made some progress; but ultimately, owing to pressure of time, it was abandoned, Mr. Bruce undertaking, on the part of the Government, to take up the matter next year. We shall wait with interest the shape which the Government proposals will take. I will not further detain you, but will conclude with the expression of a hope that the proceedings of this section may not prove to be without results. We pretend to make no great discovery, to prescribe no infallible remedy; but we are anxious to keep the subject on which we are engaged before the mind of the public, and to prepare the way for intelligent legislation as it may be shown to be necessary. We desire to guard against the notion that everything here is perfect; but to strive heartily in conjunction, and cooperate to arrive at the attainment of a more excellent way.

CUMULATIVE PUNISHMENT.

Is it desirable to adopt the Principle of Cumulative Punishment? By T. B. L. BAKER.

THE

HE system of apportioning punishment to crime rather by the antecedents and the number of repetitions, than by the heinousness of the crime as judged by itself, has for many years been steadily increasing in practice. Even before the 24 & 25 Vict., an increased punishment for second offences was permitted, but was more distinctly recognised by the Act of that year. Most judges and chairmen of quarter sessions have acted generally, though irregularly, on the same system. In Shropshire and Surrey it has not been indeed publicly proclaimed as a principle, but has been fully acted on for many years. In Gloucestershire and in Liverpool the

system has been publicly recommended by the quarter sessions for adoption by the magistrates. In Manchester the same subject is now under consideration; and probably other towns and counties will ere long move in the same direction.

But though the law has given us all the power that is requisite to carry out cumulative sentences, in cases of felony or simple stealing, there is another class of offences punishable at petty sessions, in some of which the court has slight powers, and in others no powers at all, of accumulation. Speaking roughly, we may say that those connected with-1st, ale or beer-houses; 2nd, stealing animals, growing trees or shrubs; 3rd, malicious injury to property; 4th, idle and disorderly persons, &c., allow of a certain degree of accumulation, though scarcely sufficient to prevent a determined habit of setting the law at defiance; while 5th, assaults; 6th, offences against the game laws; and 7th, the being found drunk and disorderly, allow of no cumulative punishment at all; and the tenth or one hundredth offence can be punished with no more severity than the first. This is a failure of justice, which has often been rightly deplored by the press, and by all who take an interest in the prevention of crime.

It is quite true that the offence of being drunk and disorderly is in itself a small thing, but a continued habit of so offending, in spite of all warning-the setting the law at defiance, and exposing its weakness to prevent a wrong-inflicts a far deeper injury on society than the simple offence by itself. The object of all who think seriously on the subject is not to punish crime, but to prevent it. The permitting any person to go on in an unchecked course of wrong, if they have merely resolution to bear the pain without flinching, cannot but incite others to commence a similar course, and show them that the law is weak if they have courage to resist it. But this is not the only class of offences in which harm is done. If it be found that prison can be braved time after time with impunity, the whole prestige of the prison is lowered as regards felony, as well as the minor offences. Who can be afraid of prison, knowing that in the next street lives one who has braved it more than a hundred times with impunity?

The magistrates of Liverpool have felt this strongly, and have passed resolutions in favour of cumulative sentences, with a view, as they state, to the following results :

"1st. That the short sentences passed on young offenders would become much more deterrent, because they would be known to lead up to the really long sentences, which are unquestionably much feared by nearly all the criminal classes.

"2ndly. That under the influence of long detentions when they became necessary (particularly if part of the time were passed in well-regulated homes), a certain proportion of the offenders would be reformed.

3rdly. That the residuum of reckless incorrigibles would be detained in prison under a succession of long sentences instead of

under a succession of short sentences; this class would therefore, under the amended law, have fewer opportunities of committing crimes, and training up others in bad ways, while the expense of their detention would not be materially if at all increased, as the labour of long-time prisoners can be made profitable to an extent quite impossible in the cases of short-time prisoners."

To this end they have memorialized the Home Secretary that"In the first place, they consider it desirable to obtain such an amendment as would enable the justices in petty sessions to send an offender for trial to quarter sessions, for any offence other than simple drunkenness or some very trivial offence, provided that he or she had been guilty of a certain number of offences, and spent a certain aggregate time in prison for them, both these limitations to be strictly defined by the law. The quarter sessions to have power to sentence such offenders to a borough or county prison for any period not exceeding four years. It will at once be seen that the limitations above-named might be so defined that the extended powers of punishment suggested should not come into force, except in reference to the cases of offenders who had been guilty of not only many previous offences, but of several of an aggravated kind. For instance, the conditions might be laid down that no offenders should be liable to punishment under the extended cumulative powers now proposed who had not been already fifteen times, and for an aggregate period of not less than three years, in prison. Such a change in the law would only extend the application of principles recognised so long ago as 1824 in the Vagrant Act, and probably this Act might most conveniently be amended and its title enlarged, so as to secure all that is desired."

Also, "That it is desirable that the visiting justices of each prison, with the consent of the Home Secretary, should have power to transfer any prisoners who had undergone twelve months' detention, and two-thirds the time of their full sentence in a borough or county prison, to any home willing to receive the prisoners, and which might be under the management of a certified Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, and subject to Government inspection." *

I would earnestly hope that the Council of the Social Science Association may be induced to take into serious consideration the question of supporting the prayer of the Liverpool magistrates. Whether we agree precisely in all the details is another question. Probably hardly any two men will be found to agree exactly in the details of any measure; but as to the broad principle that persons shall not be allowed to continue in an unchecked habit of setting any law at defiance, and thereby encouraging and strengthening others to follow their example, I think that few, if any, can doubt the wisdom, or I might almost say, the necessity, of such a course.

*I learn that the Committee on Vagrancy and Mendicity, appointed under the auspices of the Charity Organization Society, has agreed to a resolution, that in all cases of a third conviction for vagrancy, a sentence of one year's imprisonment should, as a general rule, be inflicted.