this class tried on indictment, the net decrease was only something over 300. The Report gives other decreases as follows: "assaults 750; Poor Law offences 534; breach of police regulations 455; malicious damage 483; gaming 252; frequenting 175; and drunkenness 125." It is remarkable that in the case of an offence like drunkenness, for which (if the Commissioners' term includes drunkenness with aggravations) over 54,000 persons were sent to prison, the difference in the total from that of the year before was only 125. Out of this large number over 48,000 went to prison in default of a fine. The Report also calls attention to slight increases in the number of prisoners received for prostitution, Elementary Education Acts, indecent exposure, cruelty to or neglect of children. Of course this last offence may not be, it is to be hoped, on the increase; but the increase in convictions may be due to increased vigilance on the part of the police and societies. The Governors of some of the prisons comment on the decrease of commitments. The Governor of Durham Prison says, "The daily average population reached the lowest point for several years. Many causes have tended to reduce the number of prisoners. Trade has been exceedingly good in this part of the county; more time than heretofore has been allowed for the payment of fines; many offenders have been placed on probation, and sentences of imprisonment have been growing more and more lenient. It is open to serious doubt if these light sentences are beneficial, either to the offenders or to the community at large." The Governor of Newcastle Prison attributes the decrease to "the beneficent legislation of recent years, together with the industrial prosperity of the district." He does not, however, specify the "beneficent legislation." The Governor of Northallerton Prison adds another possible cause to those referred to above, namely, "the more rigid enforcement of the rules and exaction of tasks of labour, thus making prison life much less comfortable for the habitual idler." He justifies

this suggestion by referring to the considerable decrease in the number of convictions for begging, sleeping out, and kindred offences. The Governor of Exeter Prison attributes the decrease to "the system of giving offenders time to pay fines instead of sending them to prison at once." The Governor of Hereford Prison considers it "the direct result of an unwillingness on the part of the magistracy to commit offenders to prison." He adds, rather doubtfully, “It can only be hoped that the leniency shown may have beneficial results."

After perusing these opinions of experienced men, it is interesting to note what the Commissioners say. After calling attention to the fact "that the number of persons tried in the Courts of summary jurisdiction have decreased during the last ten years by nearly 100,000," they indulge in the hope "that the fall in the number of persons committed to prison during the last two years can be attributed, at least to some degree, to a higher standard of conduct." They attribute the decrease partly to "the growing desire amongst magistrates to exhaust the alternative which the law affords before actual commitment to prison. Thus, in 1911, out of a total number of persons dealt with summarily (684,512), 79,830 were discharged, and 76,584 were dealt with without conviction though the charge was proved. This latter number includes 52,258 cases in which the charge was dismissed, and 12,840 in which recognizances were ordered under sect. I of the Probation Act, and 8,868 cases in which probation orders were made under sect. 2." They also refer to the operation of Juvenile Courts under the Children Act 1908.

The Commissioners give a table showing the sentences of prisoners received from ordinary Courts under the various terms of penal servitude and imprisonment, and this shows that the sentences to one month or less were 121,126, or 80.6 per cent. of the whole. They say-" We have, on many

occasions during recent years, called attention to the futility and harmfulness of repeated short sentences, especially in the case of young and trivial offenders. The almost unanimous voice that comes to us from the prisons, be it of officials or voluntary workers, calls for legislative remedy, and it is a great satisfaction to us to be assured that the Secretary of State is giving his grave consideration to this and many other matters touching the administration of justice." They quote the opinions of some of the chaplains, of which that of the Chaplain of Pentonville Prison is, perhaps, the most remarkable. He says:

"It is pitiful to have to record that many lads continue to be sent to prison for what one must, in all charity, call trivial offences. There were no less than 226 such cases in the course of the past year. The fact points to a strange and serious defect in the administration of the law, that there should be no other way of disposing of young offenders, who are neither vicious nor criminal, but just headstrong, stupid, and foolish. Moreover, the length of sentences is ludicrously inadequate for any purpose other than to accustom the youth to an experience for which he should entertain a lifelong and wholesome dread. From a utilitarian point of view it seems little short of insanity to sit still and make no effort to check this pitiful waste of human life. It seems to me that the man who will invent some salutary method of treatment, not involving imprisonment for minor breaches of the law, will have earned well of his day and generation." We add the testimony of the Governor of Norwich Prison: "I desire particularly to endorse what the chaplain says in his Report about sending young lads to prison for short sentences-I am certain it does more harm than good. All fear of prison is gone when once they have done their first short sentence, and have found out that it is not so bad as they thought, with the result that they come back again and again.”

The Home Secretary has recently announced that a Bill will be brought in to deal with this question. He has not given much information as to the form of the legislation proposed, but has indicated that a power to give facilities. for the payment of fines by instalments will be included. How this will operate it is difficult to say; it is hoped it may enable and induce convicted persons to avail themselves more largely of this option of paying a fine, and so escape imprisonment and its contamination, but on the other hand it may diminish the force of a fine as a deterrent if the time of its exaction is postponed. That the effect may not be entirely that hoped for is rather indicated by the evidence of the Governor of Portsmouth Prison, who reports that many of the prisoners who had been allowed time to pay their fine made no effort to do so till assisted, and that "it was evident that the friends had withheld the necessary advance, in the hope that the commitment would not be enforced." We notice that one experienced Chairman of Quarter Sessions has already strongly protested against the proposed measure.

A considerable portion of the Report is concerned with the Borstal treatment of young prisoners, both that of the "full" Borstal System under the statute and the "modified" or local prison system. The figures for the Borstal System for the year are shortly summarised: "1,433 cases have been under detention during the year, viz., 1,275 males and 128 females. Of the males, 670 were at the Borstal Institution at Borstal, 516 at Feltham, and 89 at Canterbury. The commitments were 518 males and 53 females. The average age was 17 years II months for males and 17 years nine months for females. The average number of previous convictions in the case of male prisoners was slightly over two, and in the case of females slightly under two. Although the average number of previous convictions of inmates was only about two, yet

the criminal history of many showed that they had been previously charged with serious offences for which no order for conviction had been made, the offender being bound over under the Probation Laws; many had also served terms in industrial schools." Of the 7,789 male prisoners between the ages of 16 and 21 received into prison during the year, 518 were sentenced to detention in a Borstal Institution, and 1,679 were treated under the "modified" Borstal System, the great bulk of the remainder having too short sentences to be able to profit from the system. Two suggestions are made as regards sentences to Borstal Institutions; the first is by the Governor of Chelmsford Prison, that "the maximum Borstal sentence might be advantageously raised to five years"; the other is quoted in the Report of the Governor of Gloucester Prison, as being the opinion of the local Borstal Committee, that "should it appear that a boy's character is really bad it should be possible for Courts to send him, on conviction of an offence, to a Borstal Institution, even if he is not tried on indictment." A very strong opinion is expressed by the Governor of Newcastle Prison: "I am strongly of opinion that legislation empowering magistrates to pass on minors, of either sex, convicted of repeated petty offences, a sufficiently long sentence to bring them under the influence of the Borstal System, will be an inestimable advantage. At present young offenders qualify for the Borstal training by months or years of wrong-doing, for which short periods of imprisonment are awarded time and again-sentences which do nothing to correct, but only familiarise young persons with prison life, and thereby destroy its deterrent and corrective influence. Further, this constant coming into prison hardens the material upon which the Borstal reformer has to work, making it less likely to yield to treatment." The difficult material on which the reformer has to work is quite recognised by the Commissioners, who refer to it as follows: