ABSTRACT
The Carnarvon committee had emphasized the need for uniformity, by which was meant that the same type of penal discipline should be applied throughout the country. This was an article of faith, but also useful rhetoric, which Du Cane used to consolidate his position. Separation had supposedly been secured by the Prison Act of 1865, but local authorities had contrived many ways to elude that legislation. Separation was not justified by Du Cane as the necessary precondition for reformation, but was valued as a harsh and unpleasant condition which increased the deterrent quality of imprisonment. Given its public sensitivities, prison punishment had to be closely controlled and restrained. Especially under central government, the possibilities of a national scandal were omnipresent. Corporal punishment was reserved for assaults, threats to staff, false accusations against staff, damage to property, and as punishment for the persistent repeat offender.
