2 The nationalisation of local prisons

The video you watched at the start of this session explained the reasons behind the decision to nationalise local prisons in 1878. Not all (or even many) local prisons were inefficient or badly run. Nationalisation fulfilled an election promise made by the Conservatives to reduce local rates.

As a result of the 1877 Prison Act, three new national prison systems were created to manage local prisons in the UK: the Prison Commission for England and Wales, the Scottish Prison Commission and the Irish General Prisons Board. Officials for all three reported directly to the Home Secretary.

Nationalisation had an immediate impact on the provision of education in English and Welsh prisons. Prison closures led to overcrowding in some institutions where governors were forced to squeeze up to three men in cells designed for one. At other prisons, major renovations and rebuilding took place to ensure facilities were fit for purpose (McConville, 1995a, pp. 196–7). Education was disrupted as a result. Schools were suspended at Bristol and Lewes prisons. ‘[There] have been difficulties in the way of education to which as much attention as not been paid as usual,’ officials at Derby Prison reported to the Commissioners at the end of 1879 (Commissioners of Prisons, Third Annual Report, 1880, p. 24).

Figure 4 The local prison estate inherited by the Commissioners of Prisons in England and Wales, the Commissioners in Scotland, and by the Prisons Board in Ireland, contained an assortment of buildings, including castles which dated back to the medieval period. The county gaol for Norfolk was located at Norwich Castle from the 1300s. The castle keep was used until a new gaol was constructed inside and around the keep in the 1790s. There were further alterations made in the 1800s. After centralisation, the Prison Commissioners for England and Wales decided it was entirely unsuitable and could not be modified any further. A new prison was constructed at Mousehold Heath, which remains in use today.

Show description|Hide description

(a) This is a black and white illustration of an imposing stone-built castle, located on a raised mound. The castle is constructed as a solid square block, with its façades punctuated by regularly spaced projections. A lower extension on the right houses an arched entranceway. (b) This colour photograph features a three-storey red-brick building, with high-pitched roofs and many chimneys. At its right end is a clock tower, and on the left is an extension whose small windows suggest that it houses additional cells. In the foreground is a gorse-covered bank.

Figure 4 The local prison estate inherited by the Commissioners of Prisons in England and Wales, the Commissioners in Scotland, and by ...

One of the first acts of the Commissioners of Prisons in England and Wales was to introduce a new, uniform system of progressive stages into local prisons. Soon after, the same system was implemented in Scottish local prisons. The inspiration came from the convict prison sector where progressive stages had been introduced in 1864 (in 1854 in Ireland).

By this system, imprisonment in local prisons was served in four stages. Prisoners had to earn 224 marks through good behaviour and industry in order to progress to the next stage. Up to 8 marks could be earned each day. The minimum time that had to be served in the first stage was 28 days but often it was longer.

The first stage was designed to inflict the most severe punishment on prisoners. They were kept in strict separation, subjected to ten hours of hard labour of the first class, six to eight of which had to be performed on the treadwheel, crank or other work of a similar nature, and they were forced to sleep on a plank bed without a mattress. As prisoners progressed through the stages, there was a general ‘lessening’ of pressure, with the gradual introduction of some lighter labour, gratuities for work performed, mattresses, limited association with other prisoners, books, and, in the highest stage, permission to write a letter. Unlike convicts, prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment in local prisons could not earn remission (time off their sentence).

The system of progressive stages in local prisons made education – through tuition or self-instruction – a privilege that had to be earned.

Most prisoners in local prisons were sentenced to short periods of imprisonment which did not exceed one month. This scheme narrowed access to education to a small minority. On the one hand, this was a pragmatic policy. You might remember from Session 5 that illiterate prisoners with sentences of less than three months made little progress at school.

On the other hand, prisoners with longer sentences were often repeat offenders or serious offenders. From a reformatory perspective, this intervention came late in the day. It was also too little. Time that could be used for instruction was wasted while prisoners completed their first stage. Many had little time left to serve when they became eligible for instruction.