Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-l48q4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-29T08:57:10.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Scottish Prisons Under the General Board of Directors, 1840–1861*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Get access

Extract

Despite recent interest in both the administration and conditions of prisons in England during the Victorian Period historians have neglected the study of Scottish prisons. It is the intention of this article to redress this omission by assessing the administration of the Scottish penal system between 1840 and 1861 as it developed under the supervision of the General Board of Directors. This Board was equipped with considerable powers over local prisons by the Prisons Act of 1839, and by the time it was replaced by the Managers of Scottish prisons in 1861, it had overseen the completion of an extensive building program to implement the separate system. Working in conjunction with county prison Boards, which had raised the necessary assessments, the Board of Directors attempted to impose uniformity and efficiency in local jails while separately maintaining sole responsibility for the management of the general prison at Perth. This form of administrative structure was unique, and differed from England where local prisons were not brought under close central supervision before 1865.

South of the border the Home Office possessed no authority to enforce sanctions, but through the efforts of the prison inspectors appointed in 1835, it persuaded a number of local authorities in England to remodel or rebuild their prisons in conformity to the separate system. Some magistrates resisted the official adoption of designs and rules which often involved large expenditures they were unwilling to impose on the rate payers. Consequently, throughout the period 1835 to 1865, in contrast to the situation in Scotland, local prisons in England were marked by a lack of uniformity in construction, diet, and discipline as standards were often dictated by the views of each prison governor appointed by the magistrates. This “quest” for uniformity continued in 1865 when a Prisons Act required local jails to provide separate cells commensurate with the highest number of prisoners held there, to follow a uniform code of rules, and to enforce hard and unproductive labor. Many magistrates were still able to avoid these regulations and the victory of uniformity came only in 1877 when legislation centralized all prisons in the country and placed them firmly under the control of the Home Office. Scottish prisons had, however, since 1839 experienced some degree of centralized control that had attempted to bring uniform standards to all the jails in the country.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank the American Philosophical Society and the University of Puget Sound for their financial support for this research project.

References

1 2 and 3, Vict., Ch. 42, An Act to Improve Prisons and Prison Discipline in Scotland, 1839. 7 and 8 Vict., Ch. 34, An Act to Amend and Continue to 1st September 1861 “The Law in Respect to Prisons and Prisons and Prison Discipline in Scotland,” 1861.

2 Studies of nineteenth century English prisons include Henriques, U.R.Q., “The Rise and Decline of the Separate System of Prison Discipline,” Past and Present 54 (1973):6193CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DeLacy, Margaret E., “Grinding Men Good? Lancashire's Prisons at Mid Century,” in Bailey, Victor, ed., Policing and Punishment in Nineteenth Century Britain (London, 1981), pp. 182216Google Scholar; Ignatieff, Michael, A Just Measure of Pain (New York, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McConville, Sean, History of English Penal Administration: 1750-1877 (London, 1981)Google Scholar; Tomlinson, M. Heather, “Design and Reform: The ‘Separate System’ in the Nineteenth Century Prison,” in King, Anthony D., ed., Buildings and Society: Essays in the Social Development of the Built Environment (London, 1980), pp. 94119Google Scholar; and idem., “Prison Palaces': A Re-Appraisal of Early Victorian Prisons, 1835-77,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 51 (1978): 60-71.

3 First Report of the Board of Directors of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 26 (1840), p. 3.

4 Ibid., pp. 5-9;50.

5 Ibid., pp. 10-12.

6 Hill reported: “Want of the means of separating prisoner from prisoner, and of preventing intercourse from without; want of employment, and of a provision for teaching the prisoners a trade or other occupation, by which to earn an honest livelihood when restored to society; want of mental, moral, and religious instruction; insecurity; the luxurious diet and life of ease in some prisons compared with the food and labour of the lowest class of honest and industrious people; great expense of many prisons; incompetency of many keepers; want of female officers; want of means of inspection; want of cleanliness and ventilation; sloth and injury to health, induced by the long time prisoners pass in bed, and want of a uniform system.” First Report Inspectors of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 32 (1836), p. 13.

7 Hill, Frederic, An Autobiography of Fifty Years in Times of Reform, edited with additions by his daughter, Hill, Constance (London, 1894), pp. 11, 129.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., p. 9.

9 Second Report, Inspector of Prisons, PP, Vol. 32 (1837), pp. 766, 771.

10 Hill, , Autobiography, pp. 130131.Google Scholar

11 First Report, PP, Vol. 25 (1836), p. 18.

12 Second Report, PP, Vol. 32 (1837), p. 778.

13 First Report, PP, Vol. 25 (1836), p. 19, and Second Report, PP, Vol. 32 (1837), p. 777.

14 Hansard, Vol. 37 (1837), pp. 1201–03.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 13.

16 Ibid., pp. 7-13, 29-30.

17 Hansard, Vol. 42 (1838), pp. 426437Google Scholar; Vol. 44, (1838), pp. 632-633; ibid., Vol. 47 (1839), pp. 345, 1324-36; Vol. 48 (1839), pp. 1157-1158.

18 Melville to Fox Maule, 16th April 1840, Melville Papers, 354 A/130, National Library of Scotland; see also Secretary of the Board of Directors to the Lord Advocate, 22 April 1840, Scottish Record Office, HH/7/1.

19 Melville to Fox Maule, 29 April 1840, Melville Papers, 354 A/149; and observations on W. Rae's notes on Scottish Prisons made by Melville, 6 July 1840, Melville Papers, 354 A/177. Melville noted that there were only 40 counties with one jail each in England serving some 13 million persons. Scotland had 34 counties (with a proposed county jail) serving only 2,300,000 persons. Assizes were always held in every English county town but this was not always the case in Scotland.

20 Murray to the Lord Advocate, 22 April 1840, SRO, HH/7/1.

21 Melville's observations on Rae's notes, 6 July 1840, Melville Papers, 354 A/177 and Murray to the Lord Advocate, 22 April 1840, SRO HH/7/1.

22 Murray to Alex Thomson, 29 June and 6 July 1840, SRO HH/7/1.

23 Fifth Report Inspector Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 26 (1840), p. 12.

24 An attempt had been made during debate on the bill to appoint nine directors that excluded the prison inspector to be nominated by nine local boards. See Hansard, Vol. 42 (1838), p. 1421Google Scholar, and Vol. 47 (1839), p. 1230. See Parris, Henry, Constitutional Bureaucracy (London, 1969), pp. 8287Google Scholar, for a discussion of the use of boards in Victorian administration. Fifteen new boards were created between 1832 and 1855. Peers that served as Directors included: Lord Elcho, the Marquess of Breadalbane, Earl Dalhousie, Fox Maule (Earl Dalhousie), Earl Rosebery, Viscount Melville, Lord Belhaven, Lord Ivory, Earl of Mansfield, Lord Dunfermline, Lord Dalmenay, Sir William Rae, Bart, Sir Alex Charles Gibson Milner, Bart, 22nd Report, Directors of Scottish Prisons, Vol. 555. The ex officio members were to include the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General, the Dean of the Faculty of the University of Edinburgh, the Sheriffs of Edinburgh and Perthshire. An Act in 1851 removed the Prison Inspector, the Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk as ex officio Directors. Viscount Melville acted as Chairman from 1839 to 1852 and John Gordon from 1852-1860. Ludovic Colquhoun was Secretary from 1843 to 1854 and John Hill Burton from 1854 to 1860. The continuity of the Board was further assisted by Mr. Gould, Chief Clerk between 1839 and 1859. 16th Report, PP, Vol. 26 (1854-5), p. 24.

25 2 and 3, Vict., Ch. 42, Clauses 16-19.

26 Ibid., Clauses 19 and 28.

27 Ibid., Clauses 29-47. Melville to Graham, 12 May, 11 October 1842; 23 April 1843, National Library of Scotland, 354 A/212, 232, 252.

28 Paterson, Audrey, “The Poor Law in Nineteenth-Century Scotland,” in Fraser, Derek, ed., The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1976), p. 172Google Scholar; Cage, R.A., The Scottish Poor Law 1745-1845 (Edinburgh, 1981), pp. 90110.Google Scholar

29 Paterson, , “The Poor Law,” pp. 173174Google Scholar; Cage, , “Scottish Poor Law,” pp. 126140Google Scholar. For example see Grey to D. Cameron, 13 Feb. 1845; Waddington to MacLeod or MacLeod, 7 Dec. 1850; LeMarchant to the Provost of Paisley, 10 May 1848, HO 103/11.

30 Eighth Report, Inspector Prisons, PP, Vol. 25 (1843), p. 443; Eleventh Report, PP, Vol. 20 (1840), p. 483.

31 Paterson, , “The Poor Law,” pp. 175184Google Scholar; Cage, , “Scottish Poor Law,” pp. 140143.Google Scholar

32 Prisoners sentenced to imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years for 1851:1226; 1856:970; 1861:613. Prisoners sentenced to penal servitude or transportation for 1851:432; 1856:336; 1861:207. Prisoners imprisoned for indefinite periods: 1851:3,390; 1856:4,357; 1860:5,366. Prisoners imprisoned for less than six months: 1851:12,561; 1856:11,573; 1860:9,695. Previous imprisonments in the same prison: 1851:35.23%; 1856:40.71%; 1860:47.41% of the total committals in each year. Between 13% to 14% of these prisoners were in jail for the second time. Twenty-Second Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 29 (1862), pp. 561-581.

33 Secretary of the General Board to Fox Maule, 11 Feb. 1841, SRO, HH/7/3, Melville to Graham, 7 March 1842, NLS, 354A. Second Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 11 (1841), pp. 9-10.

34 2 and 3, Vict., Ch. 42, Clause 19.

35 Twenty Second Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), pp. 356-359. Seventeen counties had applied for additional assessments by 1847 under 2 and 3 Vict., Ch. 42, Clause 36, and 25 by 1851. Ninth Report, PP, Vol. 34 (1847-8), p. 135; Melville to Campbell, 19 April 1851, GD 55.5, SRO 164/3.

36 Twenty Second Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), p. 539.

37 Fifteenth Report, PP, Vol. 32 (1854), p. 120; Sixteenth Report, PP, Vol. 24 (1854-55), p. 191; Eighteenth Report, PP, Vol. 7 (1857), p. 594; Nineteenth Report, PP, Vol. 30 (1857-58), p. 551, Twenty Second Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), p. 533, and for example see Twentieth Report, Inspector of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 26 (1854-5), “Scottish prisons are in their usual excellent order, and prison rules generally observed,” p. 129.

38 Twenty Second Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), p. 356; Nineteenth Report, PP, Vol. 30 (1857-58), p. 552; Twenty First Report, PP, Vol. 36 (1860), p. 12.

39 Ninth Report, PP, Vol. 34 (1847-48), pp. 174-215 and Sixteenth Report, PP, Vol. 26 (1854-55), p. 196. For the difference between Scottish and English rules see Melville to Grey, 23 August 1847, PRO, HO 45, OS 1995.

40 Eighteenth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 36 (1860), p. 15.

41 Hill, Frederic, Crime. Its Amount, Causes and Remedies (London, 1853), pp. 193, 283, 286, 307–8, 371Google Scholar, idem., Autobiography, pp. 277-278, 371. In 1860 the conduct of prisoners was classified: 21,235 = good, 789 = tolerable, 255 = bad. Of the 20,026 received into Scottish jails only 802 were punished for misconduct, although of the 170 placed in irons 104 were females, 158 females and 286 prisoners were placed in dark cells. See Twenty Second Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), pp. 561-570.

42 Thirteenth Report, Inspector Prisons (Northern District), PP, Vol. 26 (1847-48), p. 375; Hill, , Crime, pp. 193, 206, 348, 283, 371Google ScholarPubMed; idem., Autobiography, pp. 277-8, 371. He praised Glasgow Bridewell which resembled a “well regulated manufactory.”

43 Second Report, Inspector of Prisons, PP, Vol. 32 (1837), pp. 773-77.

44 See PP, Vol. 13 (1845), “Select Committee to inquire into the practical operation of the Acts 2 & 3, Vict., c 42, and 7 & 8, Vict., c 34, as far as the regulation of Assessment in Counties and Burghs is concerned.”

45 McKichan, Findlay, “A Burgh's response to the Problems of Urban Growth: Stirling, 1780-1880,” Scottish Historical Review 57 (1978): 76.Google Scholar

46 Coloquhoun to Waddington, 25 March 1850, SRO, GD 45/9/158/59; to Fox Maule, 19 April 1851, SRO, GD 45/9/158/9.

47 The Lord Provost to Melville, 27 March 1851, SRO, GD 51.5/162; Melville to the Lord Provost, 28 March 1851, Ibid; and Melville to Bruce 10 and 15 April 1851, Ibid; 163/4.

48 Melville to Graham, 23 April 1843, NSL, 354A/252; Melville to Richardson, 17 January 1851, SRO, GD 51.5, 161/1; Melville to Bruce, 10 April 1851, SRO, GD 51.5, 164/1. For example, there was need to recover money from Renfrewshire: Secretary of the General Board to William Davie, 30 September, SRO, HH/7/11. Legal proceedings were moved against Fife, Ross and Cromarty, Ninth Report, PP, Vol. 34 (1857-8), p. 151.

49 See 7 & 8 Vict., Ch. 34, Clause 1, and Melville to Graham, 12 May 1842, 11 October 1842; 23 April 1843, NSL 354A/212, 232, 252. The counties were also relieved of the expenses of criminal lunatics and for the maintenance of all prisoners convicted to trial by a jury or before the court of Justiciary. Grey to the County Prison Boards, 18 January, 1848, PRO, HO 45, OS 833; Trevelyan to the Home Office, 6 November, and the Lord Advocate to the Home Office, 11 December 1847, HO 45/2015.

50 For example, there were two good prisons in Fife at Culpar and Dunfermline but the increase of population and crime had made them inadequate. The new prison at Culpar was constructed in the mid 1840s with accommodation for between forty and fifty separate cells. Melville to Campbell, 19 April 1851, SRO, GD 51.5, 164/3; Melville to Graham, 22 My 1843, 354A, NLS 260. Committals had reached 25,850 per annum by 1851. See Seventeenth Report Inspector of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 52 (1851-2), p. 269.

51 Eleventh Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 29 (1850), p. 460; Thirteenth Report, Inspector of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 26 (1847-8), p. 514; Fifteenth Report, PP, Vol. 28 (1850), p. 797; Sixteenth Report, PP, Vol. 27 (1851), p. 840.

52 Secretary of the General Board to William Davie, 23 June 1847, SRO, HH/7/11 and to Waddington 14 January 1851, GD 45/9/158.51; Twelfth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 29 (1847), p. 531; Thirteenth Report, PP, Vol. 36 (1847-48), p. 342.

53 Melville to Graham, 5, 25 May and 11 October 1842, NLS, 354A, pp. 223-4; 7 & 8 Vict., c 34, Clauses 4 & 6.

54 Melville thought “it is impossible to carry into effect to any adequate extent, the principle of separation which was contemplaated in the Scottish Prisons Act of 1839.” Melville to the Home Office, 2 October 1848, PRO, HO 45, OS 833. See also Ninth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 34 (1847-8), p. 128; Tenth Report, PP, Vol. 26 (1849), p. 497.

55 Memorial from the Clerk of the Prison Board of Lanarkshire, 5 January 1848, PRO, HO 45, OS 833.

56 Melville to Sheriff Gordon, 4 January 1850, SRO, GD 51.5, 160.

57 Melville to the Home Office, 2 October 1848, PRO, HO 45, OS 833; Melville to Sheriff Gordon, 4 January 1850, SRO, GD 51.1/160; Twelfth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 28 (1851), p. 513.

58 Fourteenth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 8 (1852-53), pp. 432-33; Fifteenth Report, PP, Vol. 32 (1854), p. 98; Sixteenth Report, PP, Vol. 26 (1854-55), p. 219. Seventh Report, Managers of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 35 (1867-68), p. 877. There was a request that prisons close one hour earlier to relieve officers who were away from home for 14 to 15 hours a day. Sixteenth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 53 (1852-53), p. 254.

59 PP, Vol. 7 (1847), p. 79.

60 Ibid., p. 74. See also pp. 63-82, 115, 372-8.

61 Ibid., pp. 80-82, 95, 351.

62 Minutes of the Board of Directors to the Home Office, 12 May 1844, PRO, HO 45, OS 833 and 13 September 1849, PRO, HO 12/5/460.

63 Ibid., 12 May 1844, and quoted in the Board of Directors to the Home Office, 5 december 1844; Ibid.

64 Graham to Melville, 7 March and 14 October 1842, NLS, 354A/240.

65 Melville to the Home Office, 2 October 1844, PRO, HO 45, OS 833.

66 Hill, , Autobiography, p. 242.Google ScholarPubMed

67 Melville to Graham, 22 May 1843, NLS, 354A.260.

68 General Board of Directors to the Home Office, 13 September 1849, PRO, HO 12/5/60; Melville to Campbell, 19 April 1851, SRO, GD 51.5/164/3; see also Board of Directors to Manners Sutton, 21 January 1846, SRO, HH/10. Legal opinions were sought out and it was assumed there was little need to change the law to accommodate the use of the crank. “Useful Labour” was interpreted by them to mean that it was useful to the prisoner after liberation. Thus, for short term prisoners the crank was an acceptable alternative to idleness as it promoted the correct attitude towards work. Board of Directors to the Lord Advocate, 26 December 1849, SRO, GD 45/9/158./22; Tenth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 34 (1847-8), pp. 513-5.

69 Ibid., Eleventh Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1850), p. 460.

70 Ibid., p. 442; Thirteenth Report, PP, Vol. 26 (1847-8), p. 432; see also Board of Directors to the Home Office, 2 August 1850, PRO, HO 12/5/460.

Prisoners were to complete 14,400 revolutions on weekdays and would not be eligible for supper until they were completed. Those who broke prison rules were to be put on the crank: if they refused to perform on the machine they were placed in solitary on bread and water. Sixteenth Report, Inspector of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 27 (1851), p. 842.

71 Fourteenth Report, Inspector of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 21 (1849), pp. 444-445; 14 & 15 Vict., Ch. 7, section 6.

72 Hill, , Crime, pp. 194206.Google ScholarPubMed

73 Twenty Second Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), pp. 561-70. In 1860 8,758 males and 7,126 females were sentenced to jail—1,100 males and only 628 females received sentences with hard labor. Nineteenth Report, PP, Vol. 30 (1857-58), p. 587; Sixteenth Report, PP, Vol. 26 (1854-5), p. 206; at Perth in 1857 the gross cost of keeping a prisoner was £19.2.7 and earnings from productive labor came to £2.11.0 resulting in a net cost of£16.117 per annum. Two hundred prisoners were taught some skills each year and between 35-50 prisoners came to the prison with some skills already. Nineteenth Report, PP, Vol. 30 (1857-8), pp. 587-8. In Scotland the gross cost per prisoner ranged from £15.12.11 in 1851 to £20.17.5 in 1855; earnings from £2.8.0 in 1854 to £3.5.8 in 1851, and the net cost from £12.7.3 in 1851 to £18.9.1 in 1855.

74 4 Melville to Fox Maule, 30 January 1840, NLS, 354A/128. Melville commented, “In England or Ireland where the county magistrates have always been accustomed to the management of gaols, Mr. Hill could do little or no harm, because they would be quite as well able to judge as he could of the prospects of adopting any of his suggestions.” Ibid. See also Melville to Fox Maule, LS, 354A/134.

75 Murray to Melville, 6 August 1840, to Fox Maule, 19 August and 16 September; to Newell Burnett, 11 November 1840, SRO, HH/7/1.

76 Hill to Graham, 15 May 1846, PRO, HO 21/10; Manners Sutton to Hill, 10 May 1846, PRO, HO 21/10 and Grey to the Inspectors of Prisons, 25 May 1849, PRO, HO 45, OS 2581.

77 Phillips to the Visiting Magistrates of Morpeth Jail, 6 November 1845; to Hill, 30 April 1846, Hill to Graham, 30 July, 28 October 1845, 3 April, 11 March 1846, PRO, HO 45, OS 1067.

78 Graham to Melville, 10 January 1844, Graham Papers, Gen. S., B69A; Fox Maule to Hill, 29 October 1838, PRO, HO 21/8; Hill to Melville, 2 May 1840, NLS, 354A/149; Hill, , Autobiography, p. 132Google ScholarPubMed; Hill to the Home Office, 7 March 1844, PRO, HO 45, OS 782.

79 Graham to Hill, 14 February 1844, PRO, HO 45, OS 782. Graham stated “The General Prison Board of Scotland has been constituted specially for the purpose of overlooking, and of generally directing the Proceedings of the County Boards ….” Ibid; Hill to Graham, 7 March 1844, Ibid.

80 Graham to Melville, 10 January 1844, Graham Papers, Gen. S., B69A.

81 Twenty Second Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), pp. 536-7. £2,000 per annum was raised from assessments but this was lowered to £1,200 in 1854—this was paid off by 1858.

82 Twenty Second Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), p. 541. Local officials, reimbursed by the Treasury, were responsible for transporting the male convicts to England: e.g., in 1857, 118 penal servitude convicts were sent to wakefield and 87 to Millbank. In 1852 108 out of the 170 transportation convicts were removed from Scotland, Fourteenth Report, PP, Vol. 53 (1852-53), p. 435; Nineteenth Report, PP, Vol. 30 (1857-58), p. 544. After a number of escapes en route a special railway carriage was constructed with 18 cells for economy and security—two prisoners hacked through the roof in 1864 in order to escape. Twentieth Report, PP, Vol. 11 (1859), p. 283; Twenty First Report, PP, Vol. 34 (1860), p. 6; twenty Sixth Report, PP, Vol. 23 (1865), p. 477.

83 Twenty Fourth Report, PP, Vol. 24 (1863), p. 494; Twenty Fifth Report, PP, Vol. 27 (1864), pp. 561, 567.

84 Ibid., p. 538; Twenty Fifth Report, Managers of Scottish Prisons, Vol. 27 (1864), p. 560; Thirtieth Report, Vol. 29 (1868-69), p. 808.

85 Ninth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 34 (1847-8), p. 131; Eleventh Report, PP, Vol. 39 (1850), p. 441; Thirteenth Report, Inspector of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 26 (1847-8), p. 514; Sixteenth Report, PP, Vol. 27 (1851), p. 843; see also Kincaid to grey, 23 October 1847, and Grey's reply, 3 November 1847.

86 In 1862 the Managers, acting for the Secretary of State, could send any insane prisoner to Perth or even hold an insane inmate after the expiration of his or her sentence. Twentieth Report, PP, Vol. 11 (Sess. 1) (1859), p. 560; Thirtieth Report, Managers of Scottish Prisons, Vol. 29 (1868-69), p. 808.

87 Eighteenth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 7 (1857), p. 589; Twentieth Report, PP, Vol. 11 (Sess. 1) (1859), p. 284; Twenty Second Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1861), p. 531; Twenty Fourth Report, Managers of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 24 (1863), p. 413; Twenty Fifth Report, PP, Vol. 27 (1864), p. 559; Twenty Sixth Report, PP, Vol. 23 (1865?, p. 474.

88 Twenty Third Report, PP, Vol. 25 (1862), p. 250.

89 Nineteenth Report, Board of Directors, PP, Vol. 30 (1857-8), p. 548; Twenty First Report, PP, Vol. 36 (1860), p. 7; Twenty Fourth Report, Managers of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 24 (1863), pp. 412-13; Twenty Sixth Report, PP, Vol. 23 (1865), p. 472; Twenty Eighth Report, PP, Vol. 25 (1867), p. 585; Twenty Ninth Report, PP, Vol. 25 (1867-68), p. 785; Thirtieth Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1868-69), p. 810.

90 Hill, , Crime, pp. 339, 379–80Google ScholarPubMed; Thirteenth Report, Inspector of Prisons (Northern District), p. 399.

91 McConville, , “English Prison Administration,” pp. 365378Google Scholar, PP, Vol. 12 (1863), pp. i-xiv, 253.

92 Hansard, Vol. 177, pp. 215218Google Scholar; two Home Office circulars to local justices, 9 December 1865 and 23 March 1866, HO 22/14.

93 For a full discussion of the ideas of penal reform in the 1830s and 1840s see Cooper, Robert Alan, “Bentham, Fry and English Penal Reform,” Journal ofthe History of Ideas 42, No. 4 (1981):675–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

94 Hill presented his ideas of prison reform in his long reports as an inspector in Scotland and Northern England. See Second Report Inspector of Scottish Prisons, PP, Vol. 22 (1857), pp. 773-7; Third Report, PP, Vol. 21 (1837-8), pp. 3-10, Fourth Report, PP, Vol. 22 (1839), p. 471; Fifth Report, PP, Vol. 26 (1840), pp. 5-6; Seventh Report, PP, Vol. 21 (1842), pp. 374-381, Eighth Report, PP, Vol. 22 (1843), pp. 448-9; Tenth Report, PP, Vol. 24 (1845), pp. 403-13; Eleventh Report, PP, Vol. 20 (1846), pp. 471-82; Twelfth Report, PP, Vol. 29 (1847), pp. 386-98.

95 For a full discussion of the Convict Service see Tomlinson, M. Heather, “Penal Servitude 1846-1865: A System in Evolution,” in Bailey, , Policing and Punishment, pp. 126149Google Scholar; Smith, David, “The Demise of Transportation: Mid-Victorian Penal Policy,” Criminal Justice History 3 (1983):1532Google Scholar; McConville, , “English Prison Administration,” pp. 177–87.Google Scholar