55. “In recommending a wider adoption of associated work, we must admit that several competent witnesses expressed disapproval of the principle. . . . But upon cross-examination, it _did not appear that they could sustain their objection to associated labour properly supervised, and they seemed to us to have formed their opinion rather because separation has been the accepted rule of the prison system than on any experience of failure of the associated system_. . . .” 76. “In the consideration of several matters contained in the reference we had to touch upon the practice of confining convicts for nine months’” (now, 1909, three, six or nine) “solitary imprisonment either in local or convict prisons. . . . The history of it is interesting and suggestive. It was originated in 1842 by Sir James Graham, then Home Secretary. . . . We shall show how complete a change in the apparent object of the practice has since occurred.” 77. “. . . The convict was to undergo eighteen months’ solitary imprisonment, but he was to be _freely visited_ by chaplain and prison officials . . . he was to be kept in a state of cheerfulness; hope, energy, resolution, and virtue were to be imparted to him, and he was to be trained to be fully competent to make his own way and become a respectable member in the penal settlements. . . .” 78. “In 1848 it was determined that, eighteen months being too long a period for isolated confinement, a system should be introduced based on a period of separate confinement, followed by a term of associated labour, with a maximum of twelve months. This was reduced by Lord Palmerston in 1853 to nine months. The original intention of Sir J. Graham, which was that this period should be _primarily of a reformatory character, appears fifteen years later to have been lost sight of_. . . .” 79. “It would appear from Sir J. Jebb’s evidence in 1853 that the main object of the separate (solitary) confinement had come to be _deterrence_. . . .”