Millbank Penitentiary: An Experiment in Reformation
John Stuart Mill · en
There was, about this time, a sort of panic in the country at
the alarming prevalence of crime in England. Its continuous and
extraordinary growth was certainly enough to cause uneasiness. In the
years between December, 1817, and December, 1831, it had increased one
hundred and forty per cent. For this there was more than one reason, of
course. One, and no insignificant cause, was the comparative immunity
enjoyed by offenders. It came now to be understood that the lot of the
transgressor was far from hard. The system of secondary punishments in
force for their correction was felt to be inadequate, either to reform
criminals or deter from crime. Here was an explanation: evidently
a screw was loose in the way in which the sentence of the law was
executed. The judges and the juries did their duty, but the criminal
snapped his fingers at the ordeal to which they subjected him. This
discontent with the system of imprisonment grew and gained strength,
till at last the whole question of secondary punishments was referred
to a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
All prisoners found guilty of non-capital crimes were at that time
disposed of by committal for short periods to the county gaols and
houses of correction, or they were sentenced to transportation for
various terms of years. Those whose fate brought them within the latter
category were further disposed of, according to the will of the Home
Secretary, in one of three ways: either, by committal to Millbank
Penitentiary; or, by removal to the hulks; or, finally, by actual
deportation to the penal colonies beyond the seas. There were therefore
four outlets for the criminal. How he fared in each case, according as
his fate overtook him, I shall describe hereafter.