At last, in the early years of George IV. (1823-24) a prison act was passed for all local gaols with the object over and above safe custody, of preserving health, improving morality and enforcing hard labour, and there was a curious provision that if each prisoner could not have a separate cell, he should at least have a separate bed. That such a provision should have been necessary only one hundred years ago, illustrates the advance in public sentiment and opinion since that date.
This particular act marked an advance, though its provisions were largely ineffective, owing to the reluctance of the local au thorities to re-build or enlarge their gaols : and there was another reason. By the misconception of the teachings of Howard and of the Discipline society, it was a common belief that the secret of good prison discipline lay in "classification," which was deemed even more important than "separation." It was believed and very erroneously, that if prisoners in the same categories, and there fore presumably of the same characters, were associated together in common rooms or dormitories, no evil results were likely to fol low. Both Howard and Bentham were quoted as evidence in favour of classification as a means of facilitating labour. Many prisons were erected in conformity with the act—Maidstone, Derby, Westminster, Chelmsford and Leicester. The Governor's house was usually placed in the centre with blocks of cells radiat ing from it, the only inspection coming from a central office, ac cording to Bentham's plan, and there was practically no interfer ence with the unauthorised association of prisoners, according to the categories in which they were placed. It became more and more evident that there was no moral standard, by which "classi fication" could be regulated as a basis of prison discipline, and the reaction culminated in a system of almost solitary confinement.
America was at this time declaring that it had found the key to the solution of the great problem of all prison systems, which is that they shall be at once deterrent and reformatory, by the invention of the plan of strict cellular confinement by day and night in Philadelphia,—by night only in the rival system at Auburn in the State of New York, labour being in association by day, but under a strict rule of silence. The rival systems of Philadelphia
and Auburn are the historic battle ground, concerning the com parative merits of the cellular and associated plans of imprison ment. The controversy excited great interest in England, France, Germany, Belgium. All these countries sent delegates to study the rival systems on the spot. They all travelled together through the United States : de Beaumont and de Tocqueville from France, Ducepetiaux from Belgium, Mittermeyer from Prussia, Crawford from England. The result was a strong endorsement of the prin ciple of separate cellular confinement for all prisoners by day and night. In England the then home secretary (Lord John Russell) issued a circular to magistrates, calling attention to its advantages, and in 1839 an Act was passed, which, though permissive only, established the legality of the system ; but the magistrates were at a loss how to proceed as the construction of existing prisons gave no facilities for the purpose.
Lord John Russell, then determined on the erection of a "model" prison, as an example of cellular construction and as a test of the merits of the separate or cellular plan. It was com pleted at Pentonville in 1842. The corpus on which this experi ment was made, was first offenders between 18-35 sentenced to transportation. The period of isolation was for eighteen months and the separation was complete, even masks being worn to avoid recognition.
Five years later, the commissioners appointed to direct and ob serve the experiment gave, as their deliberate opinion, that "the separation of one prisoner from another was the only sound basis upon which a reformatory discipline could be established with any reasonable hope of success." The effect on public opinion was immediate and striking—not only did the Pentonville plan become the basis of "penal servi tude" then under the control of the Government, but it led directly to the establishment of the separate system throughout the country. For, though the secretary of State did not then directly control local prisons, recent legislation had provided that all rules should be subject to his approval, and the appointment of a surveyor-general of prisons in 1844 ensured that due attention was given by local authorities to the requirements of good prison construction.