Note 1 — INTRODUCTION.

xviiiAs there appears a strong coincidence between this opinion and one expressed in the preface to the “Rules for the Government of Gaols,” I beg leave to add an extract from that excellent publication, which appeared in 1820, but had not been seen by me until long after the above was written. “It must be apparent to all who have directed their attention to this subject, that the system of Prison Discipline too generally prevalent in England was confined to a single object, the safe custody of the prisoner; and to one method of accomplishing that object, severe and sometimes unnecessary coercion: if the prisoner could be retained within the walls of a gaol by bars, by chains, or by subterraneous and unventilated dungeons, by the use of any rigour or privation, this plan, aiming only at his personal security, was deemed sufficient: the possibility of reforming the criminal seems never to have been contemplated; no rule was in force, no arrangement existed, which could be referred to such a purpose: the attempt to disengage the culprit from long formed habits of vice, and to rekindle in his breast the latent sparks of virtue, were schemes known indeed by the writings of Howard, but generally regarded as the visionary efforts of an excessive philanthropy.”