and discipline, we presume, was not preserved in consequence.1 One of these cases occurred at Maidstone, where two sentences of flogging were passed by the Visiting Justices, the second of which the Home Secretary reduced from 36 lashes to 12. The other case in which the sentence was not confirmed occurred at Preston, where there were three flogging sentences, one of which was also reduced from 36 lashes to 12. Preston and Maidstone were the only places in which sentences of 36 lashes of the cat were passed. The Home Secretary reduced the 108 lashes to 24, but we presume the same Visiting Justices still preside over these prisons. Of the sentences passed elsewhere only two were reduced by the Home Secretary, while in a third instance the doctor stopped a flogging of 30 strokes when the culprit had received 20. The largest amount of flogging took place at Portland and Dartmoor, there being 11 inflictions at the former and 9 at the latter; but as there are nearly 1,000 convicts at Dartmoor, against 700 at Portland, the proportion for the latter is greater than that for the former by more than one-half. At Dartmoor the cat only was used, while at Portland there were six inflictions of the cat and five of the birch. The ages of the offenders are not given. At several large prisons, no flogging was found to be necessary for the maintenance of discipline. The punishment which was found to be necessary at Preston was not needed at Manchester.

Having touched on the inequality with which flogging is dealt out to offenders in different prisons, we may remark that the inequality as regards some other punishments is still greater-a punishment largely resorted to in some prisons being wholly disused in others. For example, the

1 However, the Governor of Maidstone Prison reports that "the discipline of the prison has been good," and the Governor of Preston Prison that "the conduct of the prisoners has generally been satisfactory."

2 In Birmingham, where similar sentences were lately passed and carried out, no prisoner received more than 12 lashes in 1901-2.

total number of female prisoners punished by being put in irons or handcuffs was 40, of whom 12 were at Durham, 10 at Wormwood Scrubbs, and 6 at Maidstone; all the remaining local prisons collectively giving the same number as Durham alone. In Holloway Prison the punishment was not adopted in the case of any female, though the number committed was more than twice as large as in Durham, Wormwood Scrubbs, and Maidstone put together. Holloway, again, presents no instance of confining females. in special cells for refractory prisoners, while Wormwood Scrubbs is responsible for 13 out of a total of 41. At Holloway, out of over 25,000 prisoners, male and female, who spent a portion of the year in prison, only 631 incurred any form of punishment, while at Wormwood Scrubbs 949 were punished out of less than one-fourth of the number. Taking two adjacent counties, at Gloucester 67 males were punished out of 1,070, while at Hereford 68 were punished. out of 308. Idleness appears to have been the great offence at Hereford, but it evidently did not extend to Gloucester. As regards idleness, however, so far as the male prisoners are concerned, Liverpool is a very easy first, with 1,944 offences of this class to a total of 9,921 prisoners. On the other hand, only two such offences are recorded against 8,272 female prisoners at the same place. What idle men! What industrious women! But there is evidently as much. inequality in the treatment of prisoners as in their sentences.

The imprisonment of children, though diminishing, has not ceased. We seem to have imprisoned criminals of the mature age of nine years, and during the last year 19 persons under the age of twelve years were committed to prison. We have prisoners in penal servitude who were under the age of sixteen years when sentence was passed. The Home Secretary does not appear, so far as we can judge from this report, to have interfered with any of these sentences. With children we may class lunatics, respecting whom the

Home Office seems to have displayed the same masterly inactivity. It is clear that several of these latter were lunatics when tried, convicted, and sentenced, and that the fact was known (or at least, ought to have been known) to the prison authorities before the trial. Thus at Gloucester a labourer, aged 78, was received on the 30th of August and not tried till the 16th of October, when he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. He is described as "insane" when admitted, the form being "senile dementia," and in the column "Whether known to have been previously insane," the entry is "Yes." At Leeds a man admitted to prison on the 25th of February is described as of unsound mind when admitted. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on the 9th of March. A man admitted at Lewes on the 3rd of July, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude on the 22nd, is described as insane when admitted, the form being "acute mania." At Lincoln a man who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death on the 2nd of July, was certified to be insane after conviction. He had been in prison since the 23rd of March He was suffering from "delusional melancholia," described as "hereditary." At Knutsford a woman, described as insane on admission, was tried 14 days afterwards for attempted suicide, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. She had been previously insane, and the form of insanity was "acute mania." At Liverpool, a man described as insane on admission, was after nine days' detention sentenced to ten years' penal servitude for attempted murder and suicide; and another, who was of unsound mind when admitted, and had been previously confined for insanity, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, after being in custody for more than three weeks. At Nottingham, a man who had been previously in an asylum and is described as weak-minded on admission, was tried and sentenced to six weeks' imprison

sentence.

ment, after remaining in prison for more than two months. This list cannot be regarded as complete, and the proportion of insane persons whose condition should have been known previous to trial, will appear very large, if we bear in mind that the table chiefly consists of persons who were not sent to prison until after trial and conviction. In these latter cases we cannot blame the prison authorities, although we think that the prisoner's condition should sometimes have been sufficiently apparent when placed in the dock, to induce a properly constituted tribunal to pause and make inquiries before proceeding to conviction and A man at Manchester was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for stealing 5s. 6d. He is described as "imbecile" when received into the local prison, the imbecility being congenital and previously known. At Plymouth a man was sentenced to two months' hard labour for stealing a brass ornament. He is described as insane when admitted, previously known to be so, and the cause "heredity." At Portsmouth a man, sentenced to two months' hard labour for wilful damage, was found to be imbecile, to which a remark was appended: "Was imbecile on admission, but symptoms became more acute after 47 days." (It appears from the dates that he was sent to a lunatic asylum at the end of six weeks; but for that time this imbecile was no doubt treated as an ordinary prisoner.) When, in addition to these cases of insanity, we find that two or three prisoners died of delirium tremens within so short a time after conviction as to show that they were suffering from an acute attack of that malady when tried, it seems clear that the precautions taken with regard to the mental state of the prisoner in the dock were not always adequate. Other prisoners must have been tried when in

1 Besides leading to the punishment of lunatics, neglect on this subject may lead to the liberation of dangerous lunatics when the proof of the act charged is deficient.

a dying condition. At Devizes a man died ten days after being sentenced to two months' hard labour, the cause of death being "coma supervening on coma supervening on a congestive attack in the late stage of general paralysis of the insane." Another prisoner died of softening of the brain eight days after his conviction. A woman died of chronic alcoholism on the day after she was sentenced, and another on the very day of the trial. More than one died of consumption within a very short time after conviction. Thirty-five prisoners died within a week after being sent to prison, the total number of deaths being 143.

In connection with this subject, we may refer to the length of time that some insane prisoners were detained before being sent to a lunatic asylum. This is most conspicuous at Parkhurst. A prisoner described as mentally "weak" on admission, the cause being "hereditary deficiency," was sentenced in 1896, and only removed to an asylum in 1901. Another whose mental state is described as "doubtful" on admission, in 1895, was not sent to a lunatic asylum until after his sentence of five years' penal servitude had actually expired, though by what authority he was detained longer at Parkhurst does not appear. Another prisoner, in whose case congenital deficiency is also alleged, and who had previously been insane (though reported of sound mind when committed), was detained in penal servitude for more than a year after his mental state had attracted the notice of the prison authorities. There are many similar cases. Parkhurst, indeed, supplied upwards of 20 lunatics during the year embraced in the return, and more than half of these remained in the prison for a considerable time after being certified as insane. We presume there is special accommodation for prisoners of this class at Parkhurst. But even at the local prisons more than one prisoner served out, or almost served out, his sentence before being sent to an asylum. At Cardiff, a prisoner sentenced to nine