Session 7: Uniformity in prisons and prison education

Introduction

Uniformity in prison discipline – the idea that the experience of imprisonment should be the same for every prisoner convicted of a similar offence regardless of the prison he or she ends up in – had been an ambition of penal reformers since the beginning of the 1800s. It was, they argued, a question of fairness. Also, they believed that deterrence (discouragement to commit crime) was impossible without it. From the early 1800s through to the 1870s, stories circulated that some criminals deliberately committed their crimes in jurisdictions with prisons in which discipline was ‘soft’ (McConville, 1995b, pp. 126–7).

Because convict prisons were under the control of the Home Office, uniformity was easier to achieve in this sector (though, crucially, it was never absolute). From the early 1850s, the Convict Prison Directors used Standing Orders to enforce, clarify and extend the rules set out for each type of prison or stage of penal servitude. You looked at some of these Standing Orders in Session 6. In this session, you will examine another, Standing Order 309, which aimed to homogenise (make the same) the curriculum and delivery of education across the convict prison sector.

Local prisons were run by local magistrates (county and borough) and paid for, almost entirely, by local rates. Between 1800 and the 1870s, legislation passed by Parliament to achieve greater uniformity in this sector had a limited effect. In 1877, Parliament passed new legislation which transferred control of all UK local prisons to the Home Office and their running costs to the Exchequer (i.e. Treasury).

Nationalisation provided an opportunity to enforce in full prison rules and regulations contained in legislation; for example, in the case of England and Wales, in the 1865 Prison Act. As these rules included the provision of education, by the early 1880s a national system of prison education had been created in Britain (in Ireland it took a little longer). In this session, you will learn how policymakers went about the task of creating a homogenous experience of education in local prisons. Throughout, you will be asked to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the pursuit of uniformity in prison discipline.

Figure 1 Edmund Frederick Du Cane (1830–1903), an officer in the Royal Engineers with experience of managing convict settlements in Western Australia became a director of convict prisons in 1863, chair of the Convict Prison Directors in 1869, and chair of the Prison Commission for England and Wales in 1878. Du Cane was committed to the achievement of uniformity in prison discipline and has been credited with creating ‘the most severe system of secondary punishment in English history’ (McConville, 1995a, p. 187).

Show description|Hide description

This black and white photographic portrait features a man seated with one elbow propped on a table. He faces to the right, with his head turned to the left. He has dark hair, a moustache and full sideburns, and wears a velvet jacket over a buttoned waistcoat. A metal implement is fastened to one of his waistcoat buttons.

Figure 1 Edmund Frederick Du Cane (1830–1903), an officer in the Royal Engineers with experience of managing convict settlements in ...

By the end of this session, you should be able to:

• assess the extent to which uniformity in prisons was achievable
• outline the impact of the pursuit of uniformity on the content and delivery of prison education
• evaluate the impact of an exclusive focus on the basic skills (reading, writing and arithmetic) on the transformative potential of education in prisons.

Let’s begin by returning to Lincoln Castle Gaol. In this video, Rosalind Crone presents the final chapter in the history of this prison. Why did Lincoln Castle Gaol close in 1878? What happened to the prisoners? What happened to the prison buildings?

Watch the video now and make some brief notes in answer to these questions. You’ll refer back to them later in this session.

Download this video clip.Video player: boc_pre_1_week7_nationalisation.mp4

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript

[GENTLE MUSIC]

[DOOR CREAKING]

ROSALIND CRONE

In 1878, Lincoln Castle Gaol was closed. It's true that from about the 1860s, prisoner numbers had been declining. In 1873, there were only, on average, 13 prisoners in occupation at any one time. But the county authorities kept it going. They still believed it had a role to play.

Its closure was a consequence of the nationalisation of local prisons following the 1877 Prison Act. Through that legislation, control for local prisons passed from the county and borough authorities to the home office.

The supporters of nationalisation argued that the management of prisons by local government was inadequate, that deterrence was impossible when the experience of imprisonment was different at each institution, and it gave rise to abuses. But by the 1870s, few local prisons were badly run. Lincoln Castle Gaol certainly wasn't.

Historians now recognise that the nationalisation of prisons was a means of fulfilling an election promise to lower local rates. The financial burden of punishing criminals was transferred to the exchequer. It was accompanied by a plan to close prisons and amalgamate populations, which was deeply flawed. Some prisons became dangerously overcrowded, and the provision of education suffered temporarily.

The prisoners from Lincoln Castle Gaol, as well as those from the city Gaol, were relocated to the county prison on Greetwell Road, which had been built in 1872 and is still in use today. There, they were subjected to a new regime in which the rules contained in the 1865 Prisons Act on hard labour, diet, and separation were strictly enforced. Education was limited to a small number of prisoners under tightly-controlled conditions.

What of the Castle Gaol? Well, its closure in 1878 and the protection that was afforded to it by being within the castle complex meant that we have before us a well-preserved example of a mid 19th century prison, really one of a kind.

The buildings tell us a lot, especially about ideals and intentions. But what I have tried to show over the last few weeks is that it is what went on inside the prison, daily life, that really mattered. Realities did not always fulfil expectations.

I hope that the story of Lincoln Castle Gaol, as a way into the history of imprisonment and prison education, has challenged some of your preconceptions about prisons and prisoners in the 1800s. Over the next two weeks, you'll have an opportunity to reflect on what you have learned, and ways that you can use your new knowledge.

End transcript

Download