Pentonville prison was built by Sir Joshua Jebb, the first sur veyor-general. His report on its construction, "as a model to be appropriated for carrying into effect the separate system of disci pline," was aptly designated as the model for the remainder of the 19th century, and the essential features of construction are still adhered to. Sir Joshua Jebb was succeeded by another emi nent engineer, Sir Edmund Du Cane, R.E. His largest undertaking was the construction of Wormwood Scrubbs prison for convicts by prison labour. The plan is what is known as the "separate block" system, and was adopted as an improvement on the "radial" or Pentonville plan, though many of the essential features of the latter were retained, e.g., heating, ventilation, sanitation and size of cells. When the central authority took over control of all local prisons in 1878, the main building work consisted chiefly of alterations and additions, but these in many instances amounted to almost entire re-construction. Since then, the main building work has consisted of bringing old establishments up to date.
In addition great skill and ingenuity has been expended of recent years in the conversion of existing establishments into Borstal institutions, e.g., the old convict prisons at Borstal and Portland, and the old reformatory school buildings at Feltham, Middlesex. All this work has been carried out under the direction of another able engineer, Colonel Rogers, R.E. who also designed the new prison at Camp hill, in the Isle of Wight, for the purpose of providing detention under the special conditions prescribed for habitual criminals under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908.
But to revert to the history of the separate system, where we left it with the building of the model prison at Pentonville.
With these problems unsettled, with a strange and general ignorance of the true principles of punishments, with conflicting views and diverse authorities, the local prison system was in a very confused and chaotic state, until the parliamentary inquiries of 185o and 1863 led formally to the establishment of a central authority in 1878, when the Government took complete control of all prisons, convict and local. In that year the prison commission
was appointed.
It was the refusal of the colonies to become the dumping ground of transported convicts which led in 1857 to the intro duction of the system of "penal servitude." Henceforth convicts were to be kept at home under a special form of discipline in what were known as "public work prisons," where opportunity existed for their employment on works of public utility, e.g., the breakwater at Portland, docks at Chatham and Portsmouth, land reclamation at Dartmoor. The leading feature of the new con vict discipline was the progressive stage system, borrowed from experience gained in the management of convicts in the Australian settlements. The rules prescribed a period of nine months' sepa rate confinement, the remaining sentence being divided into three stages. Under the operation of the "mark" system, a considerable remission of sentence could be earned, not exceeding one fourth of the sentence imposed.
This system remains in its leading features the same to-day with many modifications, e.g., the period of separate confinement and the increase of relaxations, and rewards in the different stages.
The opportunity for employment on public works no longer exists, and the comparatively few persons now sentenced to penal servi tude would not provide a sufficient contingent of labour for the great operations carried on in former years. The fall in the con vict population between 1854 and 1874 was from 15,000 to 9,000. Since then, the number of male convicts had fallen to 1,430 in 1926.
The introduction of the penal servitude system had a far reaching influence and reaction on the local prison system and this was intensified when Sir E. Du Cane became chairman of the joint boards of directors of convicts, and commissioners of local prisons, in 1878. The State until now had had no experience in dealing with short sentences, and the problem was a new one, viz. : how to deal effectively with a man who was in prison for a few days or weeks or months, from whom during so short a period no useful productive labour could be exacted. Many of the fea tures of the penal servitude system were introduced—the "mark" and progressive stage system, cellular confinement in the early stages, followed by associated industry so far as was practicable in the confined spaces of local prisons, built on the cellular plan. The new system was, however, justly credited with great administra tive and financial success. But in spite of an admitted adminis trative success, the public conscience was uneasy. It was felt that too much had been sacrificed to the virtues of the sepa rate system, to the passion for uniformity and that the "individ uality" of the prisoner had been lost sight of and crushed under inflexible rule.