Laura Sellers

Pentonville Prison opened its doors on 21 December 1842, initially holding 520 male convicts who were destined for transportation and aged between eighteen and thirty-five. These men were part of an experiment: could convicts be reformed? The Surveyor-General of Prisons, Joshua Jebb, and his colleagues believed that they could; and the Pentonville model would be the way it was done. The Pentonville experiment was an attempt to continue transportation for as long as possible by sending industrious, healthy, morally reformed convicts to Australia. This would be achieved by putting the men through a reform programme at Pentonville for eighteen months, where they would be in separate confinement, perform hard labour and receive religious education. As it happened, the number of people being transported declined from the 1850s as transportation came to an end. The experiment was adapted to use the same tools to reform people who would then be released back into Britain. Pentonville was the “model prison” but also a test ground for government policies, one that Joshua Jebb was particularly invested in, and very proud of.

Probably coined by Jebb, the name “model prison” for Pentonville was taken up quickly by others, including in Post Office Directories and official maps like the Ordinance Survey. The rapid changes in policy reflected Pentonville’s status as the “model prison”; the name was sometimes used (primarily by Jebb) to highlight that the design of the prison was perfect and it was used as the blue print for other convict prisons and adapted prisons. The layout of Pentonville inspired almost all subsequent prison new builds, and the Pentonville system was rolled out nationally between 1842 and 1878. Despite the supposed perfection, the expression “model prison” was also a reflection of the fact that the site was used to test changes in the convict system which would be experimental and supposedly scientific before policies were rolled out across the convict system.

Pentonville became Britain’s first attempt to bring uniformity to penal servitude, drawing on an American prison, the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, and past attempts to build radial prisons in England. Eastern State employed the “Pennsylvania System”, known as solitary confinement in Britain. In this system prisoners only saw institutional officers, and very occasional visitors. By contrast, Pentonville’s “separate system” allowed more communication with instructors and guards, but also employed separate cells reflecting the Pennsylvania system. These separate cells were designed to be sound proof and stop inmates communicating with each other. Pentonville was not a panopticon, so guards couldn’t see into the cells at all times. Nevertheless, the architects and directors of Pentonville believed separate cells encouraged reflection and reform.

The most notable difference between the two prison systems was that Pentonville employed work as well as silence to encourage reform. Designed by William Crawford, Revd Whitworth Russell and Joshua Jebb, Pentonville was an attempt to correct the mistakes of the earlier convict prison at Millbank and to test the separate system. In 1842 the Pentonville Prison Act was passed, making Pentonville the only prison with its own Act of Parliament. This Act gave royal assent to the prison in June 1842 and was an Act “for the better ordering of prisons.” Pentonville was the model for the start of a government programme to build convict prisons around Britain reliant on religion, discipline, morality and labour, eventually leading to the nationalisation of all prisons in 1877.

Pentonville very soon cemented its international status as the model prison. It was one of the first prisons of this scale built in contemporary Europe and attracted much of public attention. It was visited by a huge range of people including, Prince Albert, the King of Prussia, the King of Saxony, Grand Duke Michael of Russia, Prince William of Prussia, and Prince Alexander of the Netherlands. The visitors’ book did not state the professions of the people visiting, but there were regular visits. Some days, so many people came there might have been tour groups. Everyone was accompanied by an officer and the majority of the visitors appear to have been men, although there is and illustrations in Jebb’s book on Pentonville that included women. There were addresses from England, Denmark, Russia, Prussia, and the East Indies, all on the first page, Later, there were visitors from Greece, Portugal, Hannover, Belgium, Cuba, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and Hungary…

Laid out in a spoke and wheel design each area of the prison was designed with a specific purpose in mind. And of interest to my research is how this architecture was designed to impact on prisoners’ health. The design for Pentonville was intended to be as healthy as possible whilst treating convicts as uniformly as possible. Millbank taught prison authorities that it was “desirable that a prison should be built in a dry and airy, and, if possible, in an isolated situation; the former being conducive to the health of the prisoner, and the latter to their quiet and seclusion.”[1] Also, it was commonly understood that “the ventilation of a cell cannot fail to have a direct influence on the health of a prisoner.”[2] For Jebb, this was absolutely central to the design of Pentonville, and he was clearly very pleased with the ventilation system and valued its health benefits, writing at length along with illustrations to explain it. Although not stated, the ventilation system was probably mostly Jebb’s own design, whereas the majority of the building was designed with architects.

As well as having clean air, it was necessary for the place to be impeccably clean for physical and moral hygiene. Pentonville was described as having a “perfectly Dutch-like cleanliness pervading the place”, with polished asphalt floor and carefully dusted stucco walls, all measures intended to improve morality and health.[3] It is also possible that this environment was intended to be reminiscent of simple Protestant churches thus aiding moral and spiritual reflection by association. In order to maintain this sanitary system, on the first Monday of the month (or as close as was convenient) the PMO was expected to inspect the entire prison with the governor to ascertain cleanliness, warmth, ventilation and drainage as well as seeing every prisoner. He was also required to visit the kitchens frequently. Each convict in Pentonville was issued with a jacket, waistcoat, a cloth stock, a cotton or flannel shirt as ordered by the PMO, stockings, a pocket handkerchief, a cap, shoes and a belt, if the individual had “been in the habit of wearing one.”[4] On entry to the prison, each convict was issued with a hammock, hair mattress and pillow, two sheets, two blankets, and a coverlet. All of which were cared for, inspected, and kept clean as possible as part of a disciplined and healthy regime.

In his Surveyor-General’s Report of 1844, Jebb noted that, as per his design, the cells were “spacious and thoroughly ventilated”, so that if a prisoner was sick, in most instances he could be treated in his cell by the doctor. It was only if they needed a constant nurse, required surgery, or were infectious or had a “malignant fever” that prisoners left their cells for treatment.[5] According to Jebb, between the prison opening in 1842 and the time of writing in 1844 there were only three or four cases where the prisoner was sick enough to be moved to the convalescent rooms. These rooms were in the central space behind the chapel. It is unclear to me if that is because it was free space or if there were spiritual reasons for this location. There were two medical rooms on each floor, plus the surgeon’s office on the top floors.

The chaplain and the PMO both played their part in the prison system and the ‘science’ of the separate system included religion, which contributed significantly to the perceived reformatory nature of the separate system. In-house prison chaplaincy was a new profession, like that of the prison doctor. Each day the chaplain performed morning and evening prayers, visited each cell and spent time with the sick. Usually he was on duty for eight hours and the assistant chaplain was available for five. In order to encourage Christian lessons, services were held on Sunday and high holidays. Both chaplains and PMOs kept daily record books and contributed to the quarterly and annual reports. When Pentonville opened, mental health was the responsibility of the chaplain, reflecting the moral conception of insanity in the 1840s. The rules stated that if a prisoner’s state of mind appeared to require “special assistance” this should be reported to the chaplain.[6] In 1853 assistant Chaplain John Burt noted that “under any system of severe punishment, a degree of risk to the mind is therefore inevitable.”[7] This was so especially “the reasoning faculty is weak, and the passions excessive and uncontrolled.” [8] There were no clear rules as to what the chaplain should do to manage the risks or to approach treatment.

Generally, though, there were high hopes for the success of Pentonville, one author writing “the object of Pentonville as I understand it, is to instil into such abandoned and neglected criminals some moral and religious principles, and to induce them to reform by at once cutting off all hope of a return to their former profligate companions.”[9] This was reinforced by anonymity, separating the convict from his former life, and through architecture and rules most people around him. As stated, Pentonville originally only took young men destined for Australia, and they had to be deemed capable of reform and healthy enough to test the separate system on. It was designed for male adult convicts, not debtors, females, juveniles, or prisoners classified under local systems. Consequently, there was some criticism when the Pentonville system and Pentonville inspired architecture was used in other prisons with different groups of people for whom it was potentially unsuitable. The Pentonville system was supposed to combine reform and punishment, producing remorseful, hardworking, healthy men who could be returned to the world of work. The prison never achieved the model perfectionism it had promised.

 

 

 

 

[1] Surveyor General of Convict Prisons [Joshua Jebb]. (1844) Modern Prisons: Their Construction and Ventilation (with Plates). (London: J Weale): 1.

[2] Surveyor-General of Prisons [Joshua Jebb]. (1844). Report of the Surveyor-General of Prisons on the Construction, Ventilation, and Details of Pentonville Prison. (London: William Clowes and Sons): 6–7, 17.

[3] See Henry Mayhew and John Binny (1862) The Criminal Prisons of London and Scenes of London Life (The Great World of London). (London: Griffin, Bohn, and Company): 118–121 for a detailed description of the inside of Pentonville.

[4] The National Archives, Home Office 20/13. Rules for the Government of Pentonville. 1842: 90.

[5] Surveyor-General of Prisons [Joshua Jebb]. (1844). Report of the Surveyor-General of Prisons on the Construction, Ventilation, and Details of Pentonville Prison. (London: William Clowes and Sons): 17.

[6] TNA.HO20/13. Rules for the Government of Pentonville. 1842: 56.

[7] John T Burt (1852). Results of the System of Separate Confinement as Administered at the Pentonville Prison. (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans): 89.

[8] John T Burt (1852). Results of the System of Separate Confinement as Administered at the Pentonville Prison. (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans): 89.

[9] Anon (8 December 1843). “A Magistrate of a Manufacturing County. ‘Pentonville Prison.’” The Times: 6.