CHAPTER III.

THE HISTORY OF PENAL SERVITUDE.

Penal Servitude was substituted for Transportation in the year 1853. It will be necessary to trace shortly the history of Transportation, so that the features of Penal Servitude, as they exist to-day, may be understood. Transportation is first mentioned as a punishment under an Act passed in the reign of Charles II, which empowered Judges to exile for life the moss-troopers of Northumberland to any of H.M. Possessions in America. It is stated that in the Bloody Assizes of 1685 Judge Jeffries sent no less than 841 persons to Transportation. It appears to have been the practice to subject these transported offenders to penal labour, and to employ them as slaves on the estates of the planters. An Act was passed in the reign of George I., giving to the persons who contracted to transport a property and interest in the service of such offenders. A great want of servants in the Colonies is one of the reasons assigned for this mode of punishment. In spite of this, however, many of the Colonies, especially Barbadoes, Maryland and New York, objected to having their wants supplied by these means, and with the War of Independence, transportation to America ceased.

It was about this time that, under the influence of Blackstone, Howard, and others, what was known later as the Penitentiary System for the treatment of Crime began to be considered in England, and an Act was passed in the year 1778 for the introduction into the Prison régime of the three factors on which the so-called Penitentiary System rested, _viz_:--separate confinement, hard labour, and instruction--secular and religious. Although the System was commenced in good earnest in a few places, _e.g._, Petworth and Gloucester, under the auspices of keen prison reformers (at these places, the Duke of Richmond and Sir G.O. Paul) it was not till some fifty years later that general interest was attracted by the experiments being made in the United States, where the rival Systems--"Cellular" and "Associated," as carried out at Philadelphia and Auburn, respectively, have become historical.

Although historically our Prison System may be said to date from the Prison Act, 1778, a long, dismal history of ill-considered administration was destined to intervene before the principles of penal science, as now understood, obtained expression. It is probable that the discovery of Australia by Captain Cook was the "_mésure de circonstance_" which determined the prison history of this country for nearly fifty years. The easy methods and means of transportation which this great Colony afforded, relieved Parliament of the necessity of inventing any new and wise methods for the punishment of crime. The system instituted in 1788 for the transportation of offenders to the Australian Colonies was regularly organized and extensively acted upon up to 1840. It could not, however, survive the condemnation of the Parliamentary Inquiry of 1837. It was condemned absolutely, as being unequal, without terror to the criminal class, corrupting to both convicts and colonists, and extravagant from the point of expense. This condemnation of the Colonial System followed closely on another Inquiry of the previous year into the Hulks, and the System of Imprisonment at home.

Transportation to New South Wales was abolished by Order in Council in 1840, and in the case of those still transported to Van Dieman's Land, a "progressive stage" system was instituted, under which convicts were able to gain a succession of privileges in different classes, terminating either in a ticket-of-leave in the Colony, or in a conditional or absolute pardon. This plan, however, failed, as the benefits of a gradually improving condition could not be realized from the fact that the supply of convicts was greater than the demand, and so they could not be absorbed when they had qualified for private service or employment. There was no employment to prevent these men from starving, and the Government were obliged to furnish subsidies and work. By 1846, accounts which had been received of the moral degradation of the convicts, crowded together in depôts, were of so alarming and deplorable a nature, that public opinion was deeply roused, and the two Ministers who were then responsible (Lord Grey at the Colonial Office and Sir George Grey at the Home Office) took the matter in hand. Transportation was stopped for two years, and it was generally agreed that it could not be resumed on the former plan. It was arranged that all convicts should undergo (1) a limited period of separate confinement at home, the advantages of which as a basis of discipline had been fully proved at Pentonville Prison: (2) that they should then be sent to associated labour on Public Works in this country, or at Gibraltar, and Bermuda, and (3) thence they should be removed on Ticket-of-Leave to any Colony disposed to receive them.

The history of Pentonville Prison is an essential guide to a clear understanding of the actual basis of our Penal Servitude, as well as of our ordinary Prison System. I have already stated that the Penitentiary idea, of which the basis is separate or cellular confinement, had found expression in an Act of Parliament of 1778, and that the idea had, owing to many circumstances, remained obscure till it was revived in the United States of America. In the second quarter of the last century Mr. Crawford, an Inspector of Prisons appointed under the Prison Act, 1824, (which had again endorsed the principle, although little or no effect was given to it) was sent to America to report on the question. Papers drawn up by himself and Mr. Russell, also an Inspector of Prisons for the Home District, were submitted to Parliament, and were widely discussed. In 1837, Lord John Russell, the then Home Secretary, issued a Circular to the Magistracy expressing his own conviction on the efficacy of separate cellular confinement, as a means both for the punishment of crime, and for the reformation of the offender. It was then decided to erect Pentonville Prison as a model Prison on the cellular plan for the purpose of practically working out a new system of Prison discipline. The Prison was occupied in December 1842. Commissioners were appointed to superintend the experiment, drawn from leading members of the social and public life of the community. Two Medical Commissioners were also appointed to watch narrowly the effect on the health of the prisoners. The period of separate confinement was limited to eighteen months. The Second Report of the Commissioners expressed the opinion that the adoption of separate confinement, as established at Pentonville Prison, promised to effect a most salutary change in the treatment of criminals, and was well calculated to deter, correct, and reclaim the offender; and in their Fourth Report they stated that the Separate System was safe and efficient, and that generally the moral results of the discipline had been most encouraging, and were attended with a success which was without parallel in the history of prison discipline, and that it was the only sound basis on which a reformatory discipline could be established with any reasonable hope of success.

In virtue of these strong and unanimous opinions, the principle of Separate Confinement for the first stage of Penal Servitude was established, the period in the first instance not to exceed fifteen or eighteen months. At the end of that period the principle of employing convict labour on national works of importance was adopted, as affording, in connection with the reformatory influences brought to bear in separate confinement, the best means of training the men to those habits of industry which would fit them to earn an honest livelihood on discharge, either at home or abroad. The abolition of the Hulks was at the same time decided upon. The employment of a large body of convicts on what was called the "Public Works" System commenced a new era in the history of Prison Administration in England. It was a combined system applicable to all convicts: (1) a fixed period of separate confinement: (2) employment in association on Public Works at home for a period apportioned to the term of the sentence: (3) disposal with a Ticket-of-Leave in the Colonies. It was ordained that a convict "shall not pass out of the custody of the Government in the Colony until he shall be engaged, for at least a year, for service with some private employer. If suitable service cannot be obtained, the convict shall be employed by Government." The condition of the Ticket-of-Leave was that "the holder is required to remain in a particular district, must be at his dwelling from 10 o'clock at night to day-break, and must report himself periodically to the Police Officer of the district." This combined system of home discipline and colonial disposal depended for its success (1) on the character and conduct of the convict being such, while under the discipline of a Public Works Prison, that remission could reasonably be accorded with a view to expatriation: (2) that the Colony should be willing to receive convicts on Ticket-of-Leave, _i.e._, in a state of semi-liberty. In fact, convicts were able to render themselves ready for transportation after serving less than half the period of their sentence, _e.g._, two years, in a seven years' sentence, two-and-three-quarters in ten years, and so on. The claims to this remission were carefully estimated from daily records of conduct and industry kept by the subordinate officers. No Mark System, as now understood, was then in operation. A system of Badges (worn on the arm of every prisoner) was the principal incentive to good conduct. As soon as the letters "V.G." (Very Good) were inscribed on the Badge, he became eligible for a Ticket-of-Leave. Gratuities were also credited to well-conducted convicts for conduct and industry, respectively. There were three degrees of conduct, carrying 6_d._, 4_d._, and NIL per week. There were three degrees of industry--VERY GOOD, GOOD, and NIL, carrying 9_d._, 4_d._, and NIL.

The first prisoners were embarked from Portland in 1849. Favourable accounts were received of their conduct from Van Dieman's Land and Australia. The System, however, which was bearing good fruits, only remained in operation till 1852, when Van Dieman's Land refused any longer to be made the receptacle for the disposal of malefactors from the Mother-Country, and the cessation of Transportation, and the release of so many desperate characters at home, caused the gravest apprehension in the public mind. There were at that time about 8,000 male convicts in the Convict Prisons in England, and at Bermuda and Gibraltar. The question arose whether the men should be released perfectly free, as had previously been the case of thousands discharged from the Hulks, or whether the plan of granting a Ticket-of-Leave on a principle which had long been established in the Colonies, should be adopted. The Penal Servitude Act, 1853, represents the decision of Parliament on the matter. That Act substituted sentences of Penal Servitude for those of Transportation, four years of the one being deemed equivalent to seven years of the other; and the Secretary of State was empowered to grant to a convict a licence to be at large during the unexpired portion of the original sentence of Transportation. Public opinion remained, however, restless and dissatisfied with the discharge of so many Ticket-of-Leave holders in the Mother-Country, and a formidable public agitation led to the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1856. The Penal Servitude Act of 1857 embodies their recommendation, _viz_:--that the terms of Penal Servitude should be extended to a period corresponding with former sentences of Transportation, and that every punishment by Penal Servitude should, in addition to separate Imprisonment and labour on Public Works, include a further period capable of being abridged by the good conduct of the convict himself, _i.e._, that there should be a remission of part of a sentence of Penal Servitude in the case of those convicts whose conduct in Prison was such as not to deprive them of the indulgence. The portion to be remitted varied from one-sixth in the case of a three years, or minimum, sentence, to one-third of a sentence of fifteen years and upwards. The principal punishment for serious crime became then what it has remained ever since, and involves a triple responsibility on the part of the Judge who passes the sentence, the Secretary of State who fixes the maximum amount of remission, and the Prison Authorities whose duty it is to keep a just account of the conduct and industry which will enable them to reckon the amount of remission to be granted.

What has since been known as the Progressive Stage System was introduced by regulations passed subsequently to the Act of 1857. They prescribed a period of nine months in separate confinement, the remaining term of the sentence being divided into three stages of discipline, representing three equal portions of the residue of the sentence. On passing from the first to the second Stage, prisoners were rewarded in the way of extra gratuities, badges, etc. On arriving at the third Stage, there was a further increase of privileges of the same nature, and a different dress from that of ordinary convicts was worn.

The object aimed at was to devise a useful system of progressive reformatory discipline, based upon a nice adjustment of the elements of hope and repression, but subject to the principle that the punishment due to the crime is the primary object, and that, consistently with that, no effort to reform should be neglected.

This idea of progressive reformatory discipline had, therefore, an entirely English origin, and was the result of the tireless efforts made at that time by Sir Joshua Jebb, and his colleagues, to devise a system for the punishment of serious crime in lieu of Transportation. It retained such features of the Colonial System as it was practicable to engraft on the system of Penal Servitude at home, although this latter involved a longer term of detention in actual custody with diminished prospect of employment on discharge.

It betrays a curious ignorance of the English System that the origin of this idea has become historically attributed to an Irish source. Idle principle which had been established with so much care at Pentonville and Portland was introduced into Ireland by Sir Joshua Jebb himself, when, in consequence of the number of convicts in that country rising from 700 to two or three thousand, he was ordered by the Government to proceed to Dublin, and advise the Prison Authority there with a view to the adoption of the Progressive System. The English Rules were, as far as possible, applied at Spike Island and at Mountjoy. In 1850, a few years later, Sir Joshua Jebb was again ordered by the Government to proceed to Ireland, but as he was unable to go, Captain Knight, Governor of Portsmouth Prison, took his place, with the result that a Board of three Directors was formed, (of which Captain Knight was a member) who entered upon their duties in 1854. Captain Crofton, Chairman of the Board, stated in evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons that he had followed out the English System, and in the Report for 1855 it is stated that the System of Progressive Classification continued to have an excellent effect. The only difference in the Irish System was the adoption of an Intermediate Stage before discharge followed by Police Supervision, both the conditions having been established as elements of the English System in the Colonies. This part of the Colonial System was not, however, adopted in England, as the Government naturally shrank from the great and novel responsibility of finding employment in England for discharged convicts. Ireland, however, with its rural and scattered population, its demand for labour, and its centralized police, afforded facilities both for securing employment, and, with it, police supervision, which should not be hostile, as a system of _espionage_, but friendly in its character, and from knowledge of local circumstances, calculated to promote the welfare of the convict. The relatively small number of convicts in Ireland rendered easy the introduction of the so-called Intermediate System, which was simply the collection of the better-disposed convicts previous to their discharge in centres under easy discipline, with a view to disposal under favourable conditions. The strong belief which existed at the time that the so-called Irish System was producing results which were unprecedented was due to the economic history of the country. During the years when the system was introduced, it happened that Ireland was passing through a crisis without parallel in the history of Europe. The crisis included a famine, a pestilence, an exodus, a transfer of large areas of land to a new proprietary, and the introduction of a new Poor Law. The population was decimated three times between 1845 and 1861. Towards the end of this period, work became plentiful, and wages rose as much as one hundred per cent. At the same time, in England the population was increasing, work was difficult to find, there was no centralized police as in Ireland, and any comparison between the results of the two Progressive Systems would have been valueless, the conditions being so entirely different.

Owing to an increase of serious crime in the early 'sixties, public attention was again called to the system of punishment in force, and a Royal Commission was appointed to enquire into the operation of the Penal Servitude Acts. It was found that the late increase in crime coincided in point of time with the discharge of convicts sentenced for short terms, _i.e._, for three years under the Act of 1857; and it was proposed that the minimum term of penal servitude should be increased, and that longer sentences should be passed on persons guilty of habitual crime. The Commissioners pointed also to defects in the methods of identification: they objected to reconvicted convicts not receiving remission, and believed that it would be more effectual to pass long sentences on reconvicted prisoners than to remove the chief inducement to industry and good conduct. They found fault with the Regulations made under the Act of 1857, on the ground that they did not indicate to convicts with sufficient clearness that remission could only be earned as a reward for industry and conduct. They objected to giving credit for general good conduct as well as for industry, on the ground that the mere abstaining from misconduct gives no just claim for reward. They advocated the adoption of the Mark System as introduced into Australia by Captain Maconochie, and, subject to a considerable remission of punishment earned under this system, they were in favour of longer sentences. They came further to the opinion that the Irish System of Police Supervision should be adopted in England. They thought that the sentence of Penal Servitude should be for not less than seven years, subject to the concession that the third of a period would be remitted under the operation of the Mark System, when the highest industry had been maintained. They were in favour of continuing Transportation to Western Australia: they pronounced against the high rates of gratuities which convicts in England were entitled to receive, and regarded favourably the system by which convicts in the Irish Intermediate Prisons, and the "road parties" in Western Australia were allowed to spend a weekly portion of their earnings in procuring for themselves certain indulgences. Appended to the Report of the Commission was a Memorandum by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, which has become historical as laying down the principles which, in his opinion, ought to be observed in the punishment of offenders, _viz_:--

"These purposes are twofold; the first, that of deterring others exposed to similar temptations from the commission of crime; the second, the reformation of the criminal himself. The first is the primary and more important object: for though society has, doubtless, a strong interest in the reformation of the criminal, and his consequent indisposition to crime, yet the result is here confined to the individual offender, while the effect of punishment, as deterring from crime, extends not only to the party suffering the punishment, but to all who may be in the habit of committing crime, or who may be tempted to fall into it. Moreover, the reformation of the offender is in the highest degree speculative and uncertain, and its permanency, in the face of renewed temptation, exceedingly precarious. On the other hand, the impression produced by suffering, inflicted as the punishment of crime, and the fear of its repetition, are far more likely to be lasting, and much more calculated to counteract the tendency to the renewal of criminal habits. It is on the assumption that punishment will have the effect of deterring from crime that its infliction can alone be justified, its proper and legitimate purpose being not to avenge crime but to prevent it. The experience of mankind has shown that though crime will always exist to a certain extent, it may be kept within given bounds by the example of punishment. This result it is the business of the lawgiver to accomplish by annexing to each offence the degree of punishment calculated to repress it. More than this would be a waste of so much human suffering; but to apply less out of consideration for the criminal is to sacrifice the interests of society to a misplaced tenderness towards those who offend against its laws. Wisdom and humanity, no doubt, alike suggest that if, consistently with this primary purpose, the reformation of the criminal can be brought about, no means should be omitted by which so desirable an end can be achieved. But this, the subsidiary purpose of Penal Discipline, should be kept in due subordination to its primary and principal one. And it may well be doubted whether, in recent times, the humane and praiseworthy desire to reform and restore the fallen criminal may not have produced too great a tendency to forget that the protection of society should be the first consideration of the lawgiver."

The views of the Lord Chief Justice on the value of Police Supervision, and Ticket-of-Leave, and the aspect from which he regarded the value of the Irish Intermediate System attracted much attention at this time. He stated:--

"Those who advocate remission, make supervision an essential element in their system, as necessary not only for the security of the public, but also for the protection of the convict himself when first set free and exposed anew to temptation. But it may be questioned first, whether supervision is practicable; secondly, whether, if practicable, it is not more mischievous than beneficial. There can be little doubt that by change of name, and change of locality, which, as we have just seen, is largely resorted to for this purpose, holders of Tickets-of-Leave can without much difficulty elude the vigilance of the police; and no adequate means have been suggested for satisfactorily overcoming this difficulty. But a far more serious objection arises from the fact that, at least in this country, any supervision by the police, or other officer appointed for the purpose, would be fatal to the convict's chance of employment, on which his continuing in the right course, if so disposed, so materially depends. Police supervision is incompatible with the concealment of the man's antecedents, while, in the great majority of instances, the well-doing of the convict must depend on his secret being kept. Few masters would employ a man who was known to be a convicted felon, and an equal obstacle would be found in the disinclination of other labourers to be associated with one thus degraded. It would seem, therefore, that if remission is to be continued, it would be better that it should not be attended by any attempt at supervision, the beneficial effects of which, from the difficulty of carrying it out, are doubtful, while its mischievous tendency, so far as relates to the welfare of the convict, is apparent. It would seem to be better to leave the liberated convict to take his chance of finding employment and making his way as he can, than to fetter him with a clog which may prevent the possibility of honest exertion."

It was in consequence of the Report of the Commission that in 1864 an Act was passed raising the minimum sentence of Penal Servitude from three to five years. The Act also authorized any two or more Justices of the Peace to exercise powers of corporal punishment for offences against Prison discipline, hitherto vested exclusively in one of the Directors, the Commission of 1863 having expressed the opinion that acts of violence committed by convicts were not punished with sufficient promptitude or severity. This measure also enacted the principle that a convict on licence should report periodically to the Police of the district in which he should reside, and any failure to comply with the conditions imposed in the licence might result in its forfeiture, and in the re-committal of the holder to Prison.

As a result of this measure, the Progressive Stage System, through which convicts passed on their road to remission, was further defined and elaborated, and the Mark System as now in operation was instituted. Every convict was required to earn by actual labour a certain number of marks, proportioned to the length of his sentence, to enable him to purchase, as it were, any remission of sentence, or to advance from the lower to the higher class. Although misconduct would involve a forfeiture of marks, the marks are allotted simply for actual industry, as shown by the amount of work done, and are checked by the actual measurement of the work, where such is possible. The Directors, in their Report for 1865, comment on the introduction of the system as follows:--

"The value of the Mark System when honestly administered is, that it gives a tangible idea to the convicts of the value of their daily labour, and our endeavour has been to impress upon them that they must earn these marks to gain the advantages held out to them of remission of sentence and advancement in classes. Like any other system of recording the conduct and industry of convicts, the Mark System requires careful watching, to prevent it from degenerating into mere routine, and to avoid favouritism or intimidation. We have under existing circumstances the advantage that the convicts are employed in important Public Works, which admit of accurate measurement and valuation; and we think the checks we have adopted are sufficient to guarantee that whatever the convicts do earn will be earned by fair labour accompanied by good behaviour. It is very satisfactory to us to state, that although none of the officers of the English Convict Prisons had any previous experience of the working of the Mark System, which might naturally be expected to be regarded with some kind of suspicion, its success has far exceeded our expectations. The Governors and the subordinate officers have devoted themselves very zealously to master the principles and details of the Mark System, and have entered into the spirit of the measure with great zeal, and the testimony of the Governors to the beneficial results on the labour and industry of the convicts is very gratifying. The convicts themselves take a lively interest in the account of their marks, which they watch with earnestness, and fully avail themselves of the privilege of bringing before the Directors any grievance they think they have respecting them."

The Mark System, as then introduced, has remained in operation ever since, and may be regarded as the fundamental principle of the Penal Servitude System. We have not at our disposal to-day the same amount of "Public Work," strictly so-called, _i.e._, buildings, harbour-making, &c., and the allocation of marks cannot be checked to the same degree by actual measurement of work done, but the record of daily industry, whatever the employment may be, is strictly kept. The gain or loss of marks, either for remission or stage, constitutes the reward or punishment lying at the root of convict discipline. As will be explained in a later Chapter, this has been applied also to the Local Prison System, _mutatis mutandis_, in common with many other features in the Convict Prisons, which, previous to the Prison Act, 1877, were alone under the direct control of the Government.

At the same time a considerable reduction was made in the large amount of gratuity paid to convicts, and the maximum earnable was reduced to £3, irrespective of length of sentence, with power to grant a further bonus of £3.

The changes resulting from the Royal Commission of 1863, and the Penal Servitude Act of 1864, were generally satisfactory as tested by the number of persons sentenced to penal servitude. The Authorities reported in 1871 that there was good reason to believe that great progress had been made in solving the difficulty of forming an effective system of Secondary Punishment. Although in that year there was a considerable increase in the number of reconvictions to penal servitude, this was due to an alteration in the law brought about by the Habitual Criminals Act, 1869, and the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, by which greater facilities were given to the Police for the detection of habitual criminals, the proportion of recommittals depending more on the activity of the Police and means of identification at their disposal than on any changes in the Prison System. The Act of 1871 provided that a person convicted a second time on indictment might be sentenced to be subject to Police Supervision for a number of years, not exceeding seven, after the expiration of his sentence. During such period he is required to notify his place of residence to the Police, and to report himself to them monthly, in default of which he is liable to imprisonment. The Act also imposed similar obligations and penalties on persons released from penal servitude, and, further, if it were proved that the convict was living dishonestly, he would be liable to be sent back to prison to undergo the remainder of his unexpired portion of penal servitude. The effectual supervision of a discharged convict, which resulted from these provisions, began to show itself in an increase both in the number of sentences to Penal Servitude and in the number of reconvictions. In the year 1876, these latter had nearly doubled during the past two decades, rising from 11 to 21 per cent.

At this time it appears that some disquietude arose in the public mind, both with regard to the alleged severity of discipline to which Penal Servitude prisoners were subjected, and also with regard to the contamination due to the association of all classes of convicts on public works. There was then no classification of prisoners sentenced to Penal Servitude, and all herded together, irrespective of age, antecedents, and habits. This disquietude led the Directors of Convict Prisons to suggest to the Secretary of State that an independent inquiry should be held into the Administration of Convict Prisons, feeling confident that any full and impartial inquiry would tend only to establish the soundness of the principle on which the Convict System was founded and the care with which it was administered. A Royal Commission was accordingly appointed in 1878, with Lord Kimberley as Chairman, and their Report marks another epoch in the history of Penal Servitude. The Committee advised an improved system of Classification by placing in a distinct class those against whom no previous conviction of any kind is known to have been recorded. This was the origin of the "Star Class" System, _i.e._, the formal separation of the First Offender from the rest, which is one of the peculiar features of the English Convict System. Since those days this system of classification has been greatly improved and extended, as will be shown later; but the "Star Class" represents the first and most practical attempt to introduce the principle of segregation of the better from the worse, which has since become so familiar as an essential condition of any well organized Prison System. The Commission approved generally of the rigour which had been introduced into the Penal Servitude System by the Act of 1864, and subsequent Acts, which imposed and facilitated stricter police supervision on discharge. They condemned, however, that provision of the Act of 1864, by which seven years was made the minimum sentence after a previous conviction for felony. They were, however, in favour of retaining the minimum of five years for a sentence of Penal Servitude.

Another respect in which the Report foreshadowed the future development of the System was the great stress laid on the importance of taking steps to secure the inspection of Convict Prisons from time to time by persons appointed by the Government unpaid and unconnected with the Department. This idea was resisted in the minority Report by one of the members of the Commission, and also by the Prison Authorities of that day. It denotes the want of public confidence which, at a time of awakening interest and curiosity in the administration, was sure to arise from a system of control which was vested in a close bureaucracy, such as almost from necessity, having regard to the history of the case, existed at that time for the management of Convict Prisons. It was nearly twenty years later that the principle, not only of unofficial visitation and inspection, but of actual co-operation in the government of Convict Prisons, was recognized by the Prison Act of 1898.

The succeeding ten years were marked by a remarkable fall in the number of sentences to Penal Servitude. The average yearly numbers, which for the five years ended 1864 had been 2,800, fell to 729 in 1890, or about two per 100,000 of the population,--a point at which it remained for many years; but during the last five years it has fallen to the lowest on record, _viz_:--·9 representing only 340 committals during the year. In 1891 an Act was passed reducing the minimum period of Penal Servitude from five years to three, and various minor alterations in the law affecting the practice of licensing convicts were also made; thus, convicts were allowed to earn marks during the nine months of separate confinement (with which each sentence commenced) in the same way as during the remainder of their sentence, so that the maximum remission to be earned is exactly one-fourth part of the whole sentence: also convicts serving remanets of former sentences became able to earn marks under remanets in the same manner as under original sentences. The same Act also gave power to the Secretary of State to remit the requirements as to reporting to Police on discharge.