Chronicles of Newgate Vol 2 — The Beginnings of Prison Reform part 2

Newgate prisoners were the victims to another most objectionable practice which obtained all over London.

Persons committed to a metropolitan gaol at that time were taken in gangs, men and women handcuffed together, or linked on to a long chain, unless they could afford to pay for a vehicle out of their own funds.

Even then they were not certain of the favour, for I find a reference to a decent and respectable woman sent to Newgate, who handed a shilling to the escort warder to provide her with a hackney coach; but this functionary pocketed the cash, and obliged the woman to walk, chained to the rest.

As the miserable crew filed through the public streets, exposed to the scornful gaze of every passenger, they were followed by a crowd of reckless boys, who jeered at and insulted them.

Many thus led in procession were in a shocking condition of dirt and misery, frequently nearly naked, and often bearing upon them the germs, more or less developed, of contagious disease.

"Caravans," the forerunners of the prison vans, were first made use of about 1827. That the need for prison reform was imperative may be gathered from the few out of many instances I have adduced, yet there were those who, wedded to ancient ideas, were intolerant of change; they would not admit the existence of any evils.

One smug alderman, a member of the House of Commons, sneered at the ultra philanthropy of the champions of prison improvement.

Speaking on a debate on prison matters, he declared that "our prisoners have all that prisoners ought to have, without gentlemen think they ought to be indulged with Turkey carpets."

The Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline was taxed with a desire to introduce a system tending to divest punishment of its just and salutary terrors; an imputation which the Society indignantly and very justly repudiated, the statement being, as they said, "refuted by abundant evidence, and having no foundation whatever in truth."

Among those whom the Society found arrayed against it was Sydney Smith, who, in a caustic article contributed to the 'Edinburgh Review,' protested against the pampering of criminals.

While fully admitting the good intentions of the Society, he condemned their ultra humanitarianism as misplaced.

He took exception to various of the proposals of the Society.

He thought they leant too much to a system of indulgence and education in gaols.

He objected to the instruction of prisoners in reading and writing.

"A poor man who is lucky enough," he said, "to have his son committed for a felony educates him under such a system for nothing, while the virtuous simpleton who is on the other side of the wall is paying by the quarter for these attainments."

He was altogether against too liberal a diet; he disapproved of industrial occupations in gaols, as not calculated to render prisons terrible.

"There should be no tea and sugar, no assemblage of female felons around the washing-tub, nothing but beating hemp and pulling oakum and pounding bricks--no work but what was tedious, unusual."

"In prisons, which are really meant to keep the multitude in order, and to be a terror to evil-doers, there must be no sharings of profits, no visiting of friends, no education but religious education, no freedom of diet, no weavers' looms or carpenters' benches.

There must be a great deal of solitude, coarse food, a dress of shame, hard, incessant, irksome, eternal labour, a planned and regulated and unrelenting exclusion of happiness and comfort."

[69] Undeterred by these sarcasms and misrepresentations, the Society pursued its laudable undertaking with remarkable energy and great singleness of purpose.

The objects it had in view were set forth in one of its earliest meetings.

It sought to obtain and diffuse useful information, to suggest beneficial regulations, and circulate tracts demonstrating the advantages of classification, constant inspection, regular employment, and humane treatment generally, with religious and moral instruction.

It earnestly advocated the appointment of female officers to take exclusive charge of female prisoners, a much-needed and, according to our ideas, indispensable reform, already initiated by the Ladies' Committee at Newgate.

[70] It made the subject of the newly-invented tread-wheels, or stepping-wheels, as they were at first called, its peculiar affair, and obtained full details, from places where they had been adopted, of the nature of these new machines,[71] the method by which they were worked, and the dietaries of the prisoners employed upon them.

Nor did it confine itself to mere verbal recommendations.

The good it tried to do took active shape in the establishment of temporary refuges--at Hoxton for males, and in the Hackney Road for females--for the reception of deserving cases discharged from prison.

The governor of Newgate and other metropolitan prisons had orders of admission to this refuge, which he could bestow on prisoners on release, and so save the better-disposed or the completely destitute from lapsing at once into crime.

The refuge, which had for its object the training of its inmates in habits of industry, and in moral and religious duty, and which after a time sought to provide them with suitable situations, was supported entirely out of the funds of the Society.

At the time of its greatest prosperity, its annual income from donations and subscriptions was about £1600. Another point to which the Society devoted infinite pains was the preparation of plans for the guidance of architects in the construction of prisons.

A very valuable volume published by the Society traced the progress of prison architecture from the days when the gaol was the mere annexe of the baronial or episcopal castle, or a dungeon above or below the gate of a town, to the first attempts at systematic reconstruction carried out under the advice and supervision of Howard.

[72] It is interesting to observe that the plan of "radiation," by which the prison blocks radiated from a central hall, like spokes in a wheel, was introduced as early as 1790 by Mr. Blackburn, an architect of eminence who was very largely employed in the erection of prison buildings at the close of the last century.

With some important modifications this principle of radiation is still the rule.

The Society did not limit its remarks to the description of what had already been done, but it offered suggestions for future buildings, with numerous carefully-executed drawings and designs of the model it recommended for imitation.

Experience has since shown that in some respects these plans are defective, especially in the placing of the governor's residence in the centre of the prison.

It was thought that this would guarantee constant supervision and inspection, but it did nothing of the kind, and only the presence of warders on duty is found now-a-days to be really efficacious.

The main recommendations, however, are based upon common sense, and none are more commendable than that which deprecates the excessive ornamentation of the external parts of the edifice.

"The new gaols," as Howard says, "having pompous fronts, appear like palaces to the lower class of people, and many persons are against them on this account."

The Prison Society reproves the misdirected efforts of ambitious architects, who by a lavish and improvident expenditure of public money sought to "rank the prisons they built among the most splendid buildings of the city or town."

Absence of embellishment is in perfect unison with the character of the establishment.

These are principles fully recognized now-a-days, and it may fairly be conceded that the Prison Discipline Society's ideal differed little from that kept in view in the construction of the latest and best modern gaols.

After a few years of active exertion the Society was rewarded by fresh legislation.

To its efforts, and their effect upon Parliament and the public mind, we must attribute the new Gaol Acts of 4 Geo.

IV.

cap.

64, and 5 Geo.

IV.

cap.

85, which having gone through several sessions, at last became law in 1823-4. By the preamble of the first-named act it was declared "expedient to introduce such measures and arrangements as shall not only provide for the safe custody, but shall also tend more effectually to preserve the health and improve the morals of the prisoners, and shall insure the proper measure of punishment to convicted offenders."

Accordingly due provision was made for the enforcement of hard labour on all prisoners sentenced to it, and for the employment of all others.

As a rider to this enactment, it was laid down that any prisoner who could work and would not had no claim to be supported in gaol, "unless such ability (to work) should cease by reason of sickness, infirmity, the want of sufficient work, or from any other cause."

It was distinctly laid down that male and female prisoners should be confined in separate buildings or parts of the prison, "so as to prevent them from seeing, conversing, or holding any intercourse with each other."

Classification was insisted upon, in the manner laid down by the 24 Geo.

III.

cap.

54,[73] with such further separation as the justices should deem conducive to good order and discipline.

Female prisoners were in all cases to be under the charge of female officers.

Every prison containing female prisoners was to have a matron who was to reside constantly in the prison.

The religious and moral welfare of the prisoners were to be attended to, the first by daily services, the latter by the appointment of schoolmasters and instruction in reading and writing.

Last, but not least, the use of irons was strictly forbidden, "except in cases of urgent and absolute necessity," and every prisoner was to be provided with a hammock or cot to himself, suitable bedding, and, if possible, a separate cell.

The second act, passed in the following year, enlarged and amended the first, and at the same time gave powers to the House to call for information as to the observance of its provisions.

The promulgation of these two Gaol Acts strengthened the hands of the Prison Discipline Society enormously.

It had now a legal and authoritative standard of efficiency to apply, and could expose all the local authorities that still lagged behind, or neglected to comply with the provisions of the new laws.

The Society did not shrink from its self-imposed duty, but continued year after year, with unflagging energy and unflinching spirit, to watch closely and report at length upon the condition of the prisons of the country.

For this purpose it kept up an extensive correspondence with all parts of the kingdom, and circulated queries to be answered in detail, whence it deduced the practice and condition of every prison that replied.

Upon these and the private visitations made by various members the Society obtained the facts, often highly damnatory, which were embodied in its annual reports.

The progress of improvement was certainly extremely slow.

It was long before the many jurisdictions imitated the few.

Gaols, of which the old prison at Reading was a specimen, were still left intact.

In that prison, with its cells and yards arranged within the shell of an ancient abbey chapel, the prisoners, without firing, bedding, or sufficient food, spent their days "in surveying their grotesque prison, or contriving some means of escape by climbing the fluted columns which supported the Gothic arches of the aisles, and so passing by the roof down into the garden and on to freedom."

In a county prison adjoining the metropolis, the separation between the male and female quarters was supposed to be accomplished by the erection of an iron railing; in this same prison capital convicts were chained to the floor until execution.

In another gaol not far off male and female felons still occupied the same room--underground, and reached by a ladder of ten steps.

In others the separation between the sexes consisted in a hanging curtain, or an imaginary boundary line, and nothing prevented parties from passing to either side but an empty regulation which all so disposed could defy.

Numbers of the gaols were still unprovided with chaplains, and the prisoners never heard Divine service.

In many others there were no infirmaries, no places set apart for the confinement of prisoners afflicted with dangerous and infectious disorders.

No attempt was made to maintain discipline.

Half the gaols had no code of rules properly prepared and sanctioned by the judges, according to law.

By degrees, however, the changes necessary to bring the prisons into conformity with the recent acts were attempted, if not actually introduced into the county prisons, to which, with a few of the more important city or borough prisons, these acts more especially applied.

[74] Most of the local authorities embarked into considerable expenditure, determined to rebuild their gaols _de novo_ on the most approved pattern, or to reappropriate, reconstruct, and patch up the existing prisons till they were more in accordance with the growing requirements of the times.

Religious worship became more generally the rule; chaplains were appointed, and chapels provided for them; surgeons and hospitals also.

Workshops were built at many prisons, various kinds of manufactures and trades were set on foot, including weaving, matting, shoe-making, and tailoring.

The interior of one prison was illuminated throughout with gas,--still a novelty, which had been generally adopted in London only four years previously,--"a measure which must greatly tend to discourage attempts to escape."

There were tread-wheels at most of the prisons, and regular employment thereon or at some other kind of hard labour.

In many places too where the prisoners earned money by their work, they were granted a portion of it for their own use after proper deduction for maintenance.

Only a few glaring evils still demanded a remedy.

The provision of separate sleeping cells was still quite inadequate.

For instance, in twenty-two county gaols there were 1063 sleeping cells in all (in 1823), and the average daily number committed that year amounted to 3985. The want of sleeping cells long continued a crying need.

Four years later the Prison Society reported that in four prisons, which at one time of the year contained 1308 prisoners, there were only sixty-eight sleeping rooms or cells, making an average of nineteen persons occupying each room.

At the New Prison, Clerkenwell, which had become the principal reception gaol of Middlesex, and so took all the untried, the sleeping space per head was only sixteen inches, and often as many as 293 men[75] had to be accommodated on barrack beds occupying barely 390 feet lineal.

The "scenes of tumult and obscenity" in these night rooms are said to have been beyond description; a prisoner in one nocturnal riot lost an eye.

Yet to Clerkenwell were now committed the juveniles, and all who were inexperienced in crime.

Great want of uniformity in treatment in the various prisons was still noticeable, and was indeed destined to continue for another half century, in other words, until the introduction of the Prison Act of 1877. [76] At the time of which I am writing there was great diversity of practice as regards the hours of labour.

In some prisons the prisoners worked seven hours a day, in others ten and ten and a half.

The nature of the employment varied greatly in severity, especially the tread-wheel labour.

In some county gaols, as I have already said, female prisoners were placed upon the tread-wheel; in others women were very properly exempted from it, and also from all severe labour.

Earnings were very differently appropriated.

Here the prisoners were given the whole amount, there a half or a third.

Sometimes this money might be expended in the purchase of extra articles of food.

[77] The rations varied considerably everywhere.

It was still limited to bread in some places, the allowance of which varied from one to three pounds; in others meat, soup, gruel, beer were given.

Here and there food was not issued in kind, but a money allowance which the prisoner might expend himself.

Bedding and clothing was still denied, but only in a few gaols; in others both were supplied in ample quantities, the cost varying per prisoner from twenty shillings to five pounds.

It was plain that although the law had defined general principles of prison government, too much discretion was still left to the magistracy to fill in the details.

The legislature only recommended, it did not peremptorily insist.

Too often the letter of the law was observed, but not its spirit.

One great impediment to wide amelioration was that a vast number of small gaols lay out of reach of the law.

When the new acts were introduced, numerous prisons under local jurisdiction were exempted from the operation of the law.

They were so radically bad that reform seemed hopeless, and it was thought wiser not to bring them under provisions which clearly could not be enforced.

Mr. Peel, who as Home Secretary had charge of the bill, which became the 4 Geo.

IV.

cap.

64, said that he had abstained from legislating for these small jurisdictions "on mature deliberation."

"It is not," he said, "that I am insensible of the lamentable and disgraceful situation in which many of them are, but I indulge a hope that many of them will contract with the counties, that many of them will build new gaols, and that when in a year or two we come to examine their situation, we shall find but few which have not in one or other of these ways removed the grievance of which such just complaint is made.

When that time arrives I shall not hesitate to ask Parliament for powers to compel them to make the necessary alterations, for it is not to be endured that these local jurisdictions should remain in the deplorable situation in which many of them now are."

At this time there were in England one hundred and seventy boroughs, cities, towns, and liberties which possessed the right of trying criminals for various offences.

Nearly every one of these jurisdictions had its own prison, and there were one hundred and sixty such gaols in all.

Many of them consisted of one or two rooms at most.

The total number of prisoners they received during the year varied from two persons to many hundreds.

It was in these gaols, withdrawn from the pressure of authority, that the new rules were invariably ignored.

The right and privilege of the borough to maintain its own place of confinement was so "ancient and indisputable," that for long no idea of interfering with them was entertained.

All that was urged was that the borough magistracy had no right to govern their gaols so as to corrupt those committed, "to the injury of the peace and morals of the public."

As time passed, however, these magistrates made no effort at reform.

They neither built new gaols nor contracted with the counties, as had been expected, for the transfer of their prisoners.

As the Society put it in 1827, "the friends to the improvement of prison discipline will regret to learn that the gaols attached to corporate jurisdictions continue to be the fruitful sources of vice and misery, debasing all who are confined within their walls, and disseminating through their respective communities the knowledge and practice of every species of criminality."

The Society proceeded to support this indictment by facts.

It is much the old story.

The prisoners were lodged in rooms whence they could converse with passengers in the streets, and freely obtain spirits and other prohibited articles.

All descriptions of offenders congregated together in the felons' wards.

The keeper and his officers resided at a distance from the gaol, and left its inmates to their own devices.

There was no decency whatever in the internal arrangements; still no separation of the sexes, no means of ablution or other necessary services.

One borough prison consisted of nothing more than a couple of cells, about ten yards square, and absolutely nothing more.

In another borough, with a population of ten thousand, the prison was of the same dimensions.

One cell was a dungeon, and the other an "improper and unhealthy abode for any human being," with a watercourse running through it.

Most of these small gaols were still in existence and in much the same state eight years later, as is shown by the report of the Commissioners to inquire into the state of the municipal corporations in 1835. An examination of this report shows how even the most insignificant township had its gaol.

Thus Dinas Mwddy, in Merionethshire, had, "besides the pinfold and the stocks or crib, a little prison."

Clun, in Shropshire, had a lock-up under the town hall.

At Eye, in Suffolk, the gaol was part of the poor-house; so it was at Richmond, in Yorkshire, where the master of the workhouse was also keeper of the gaol.

At Godmanchester there was no gaol, but a cage to secure prisoners till they could be taken before a magistrate.

Kidderminster had a prison, one damp chill room, "the only aperture through which air could be admitted being an iron grating level with the street, through the bars of which quills or reeds were inserted, and drink conveyed to the prisoners."

At Walsall, in Staffordshire, the gaol consisted of six cells, frequently so damp that the moisture trickled down the walls; there was not space for air or exercise, and the prison allowance was still limited to bread and water.

Newgate through all these years continued a bye-word with the Society.

Some reforms had certainly been introduced, such as the abolition of irons, already referred to, and the establishment of male and female infirmaries.

The regular daily visitation of the chaplain was also insisted upon.

But it was pointed out in 1823 that defective construction must always bar the way to any radical improvement in Newgate.

Without enlargement no material change in discipline or interior economy could possibly be introduced.

The chapel still continued incommodious and insufficient; female prisoners were still exposed to the full view of the males, the netting in front of the gallery being perfectly useless as a screen.

In 1824 Newgate had no glass in its windows, except in the infirmary and one ward of the chapel yard; and the panes were filled in with oiled paper, an insufficient protection against the weather; and as the window-frames would not shut tight, the prisoners complained much of the cold, especially at night.

There was a diminution in the numbers in custody, due to the adoption of the practice of not committing at once to Newgate every offender for trial at the Old Bailey, but nothing had been done to improve the prison buildings.

In 1827 the Society was compelled to report that "no material change had taken place in Newgate since the passing of the prison laws,[78] and that consequently the observance of their most important provisions was habitually neglected."

It was enacted that the court of aldermen should make rules for the government of the prison, and that these should be posted publicly within the walls.

As yet no rules or regulations had been printed or prepared.

By another clause of the Gaol Act, two justices were to be appointed to visit the prison at least thrice in every quarter, and "oftener if occasion required."

These justices were to inspect every part of the prison, and examine into the state and condition of prisoners.

The city justices had not fulfilled this obligation.

Idleness was still the general rule for all prisoners in Newgate, in defiance of the law.

There was no instruction of adult prisoners, in accordance with the law.

The sleeping accommodation was still altogether contrary to the latest ideas.

The visits of friends was once more unreservedly allowed, and these incomers freely brought in extra provisions and beer.

Last, and worst of all, the arrangements for keeping the condemned prisoners between sentence and execution were more than unsatisfactory.

They were not confined apart from each other, but were crowded thirty or forty together in the press yard, so that "corrupt conversation obliterated from the mind of him who is doomed to suffer every serious feeling and valuable impression."

[79] I shall have more to say on this subject, and upon the state of Newgate generally, in the following chapter.

The Prison Society did not relax its efforts as time passed, but its leading members had other and more pressing claims upon their energies.

Mr. Buxton had succeeded to the great work which William Wilberforce had commenced, and led the repeated attacks upon slavery in British colonies till the whole body of the slaves were manumitted in 1833. In the year immediately preceding this, Parliament was too busy with the great question of its own reform to spare much time for domestic legislation.

Nevertheless a committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1831 to report upon the whole system of secondary punishments, which dealt with gaols of all classes, as well as transportation.

This committee animadverted strongly upon the system in force at the metropolitan gaols, and more especially upon the condition of Newgate, where "prisoners before and after trial are under no efficient superintendence," and where "there was no restraint, or attempt at restraint."

Mr. Samuel Hoare was examined by this committee, and stated that in his opinion Newgate, as the common gaol of Middlesex, was wholly inadequate to the proper confinement of its prisoners.

From the moment of a person's committal he was certain to be plunged deeper and deeper in guilt.

The prisoners were crowded together in the gaol, contrary to the requirements of the 4 Geo.

IV.

Again in 1835 prisons and their inmates became once more the care of the senate, and the subject was taken up this time by the House of Lords.

A committee was appointed, under the presidency of the Duke of Richmond, "to inquire into and report upon the several gaols and houses of correction in the counties, cities, and corporate towns within England and Wales; upon the rules and discipline therein established with regard to the treatment of unconvicted as well as convicted persons."

The committee was also to report upon the manner in which sentences were carried out, and to recommend any alterations necessary in the rules in order to insure uniformity of discipline.

It met on the 31st March, 1835, and continued its sittings well into July, during which time a host of witnesses were examined, and the committee presented three separate reports, embodying recommendations which may be said to have formed the basis of modern prison management.

It was laid down as a first and indispensable principle that uniformity of discipline should prevail everywhere, a theory which did not become a practical fact for forty more years.

As a means of securing this uniformity, it was suggested that the rules framed for prison government should be subjected to the Secretary of State for approval, and not, as heretofore, to the judges of assize; that, both to check abuses and watch the progress of improvement, inspectors of prisons should be appointed, who should visit all the prisons from time to time and report to the Secretary of State.

It was recommended that the dietaries should be submitted and approved like the rules; that convicted prisoners should not receive any food but the gaol allowance; that food and fuel should be issued in kind, and never provided by the prisoners themselves out of monies granted them.

The use of tobacco, hitherto pretty generally indulged in both by men and women, should be strictly prohibited, "as a stimulating luxury inconsistent with any notion of strict discipline and the due pressure of just punishment."

Prison officers should not have any share in prisoners' earnings, which should be paid into general prison funds, and no part of them handed over to the prisoners themselves.

As a means of increasing the severity of imprisonment, letters and visits from outside should not be permitted during the first six months of an imprisonment.

Various other recommendations were made as regards the appointment of chaplain and schoolmasters; the limitation of the powers of wardsmen, or prisoners employed in positions of trust, who should not be permitted to traffic with their fellow-prisoners in any way.

The committee most of all insisted upon the entire individual separation of prisoners, except during the hours of labour, religious worship, and instruction, as "absolutely necessary for preventing contamination, and for securing a proper system of prison discipline."

This was the first enunciation of the system of separate confinement, which was eventually to replace the attempted arrangement of prisoners by classes according to antecedents and crimes, an incomplete and fallacious method of preventing contamination.

The Lords' Committee fully recognized the painful fact that the greatest mischief followed from the intercourse which was still permitted in so many prisons; to use its words, "the comparatively innocent are seduced, the unwary are entrapped, and the tendency to crime in offenders not entirely hardened is confirmed by the language, the suggestions, and the example of more depraved and systematic criminals."

This committee, as well as the one preceding it, also reported in terms of strong reprobation on the small prisons and gaols still under the borough corporations.

The Commons' Committee gave it as their opinion that they were in a deplorable state.

The same language was used by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the municipal corporations in 1835, when speaking more particularly of the borough gaols.

In these the commissioners found "additional proof of the evils of continuing the present constitution of the local tribunals.

Instances rarely occur in which the borough gaols admit of any proper classification of the prisoners.

In some large towns, as at Berwick on Tweed, Southampton, and Southwark, they (the prisons) are in a very discreditable condition.

In many of the smaller boroughs they are totally unfit for the confinement of human beings.

In these places the prisoners are often without a proper supply of air and light; frequently the gaols are mere dungeons under the town hall....

It was frequently stated in evidence that the gaol of the borough was in so unfit a state for the reception of prisoners, that plaintiffs were unwilling to consign the defendants against whom they had obtained execution to confinement within its walls."

The Lords' Committee on Gaols were of the same opinion, and considered the prisons under corporate or peculiar jurisdiction in a very unsatisfactory condition.

They therefore recommended that the prisoners should be removed to the county gaols from such prisons as were past improvement, and that the borough funds should be charged for the accommodation.

The whole question was again dealt with in Lord John Russell's bill for the reform of the municipal corporations, and with a more liberal election of town councillors, and the establishment of municipal institutions upon a proper footing, the borough gaols were brought more into accordance with the growing demand for a more humane system of prison management.

CHAPTER V. THE FIRST REPORT OF THE INSPECTORS OF PRISONS.

Appointment of inspectors of prisons--Their names and antecedents--Mr. Crawford and Mr. Whitworth Russell at once visit Newgate, and make a searching inquiry--Find old evils still present--Overcrowding no longer excusable--Want of classification--The governor, Mr. Cope, blamed for this--Prisoners' treatment--No beds, uncleanly, and in rags--Baleful despotism of prisoner wardsmen, who have more power than the officers--Again proofs of Mr. Cope's neglect--Scenes of horror in Newgate--Gambling, drinking, debauchery--Flash books allowed--Libel of Stockdale v. Hansard grows out of this--Serious affrays in the wards--Prisoners badly wounded by one another--Extra and luxurious food admitted--Also visitors of both sexes indiscriminately--Same evils to a lesser degree on female side--Ladies' Association--No real separation of the sexes--Mr. Cope an offender in this respect--The press-yard or condemned convicts' yard the worst of all--Culpable and indiscriminate association--Brutal behaviour of many of those sentenced to death--The ordinary checked in his zeal--Criminal lunatics allowed to remain in Newgate--House of Commons' prisoners monopolize hospital and best accommodation in the gaol--Abuses of State Side revived in their case--Evils rampant briefly recapitulated by inspectors--Their report raises a storm in the city--Protest of the Corporation--Some attempt at reform--Many of the charges reiterated in later reports--No radical reform possible without complete reconstruction.