Following on from the pioneering work of John Howard and other early penal reformers, there were improvements to certain aspects of penal policy in the nineteenth century. However, although physical punishments, such as public whippings and corporal punishment in general, declined, there was also a clear decline in the support for the reformation of prisons. This reaction to the early reforms described above occurred in tandem with a strong push towards a greater centralisation of prisons, with a more uniform and rational prison regime introduced across the country. These developments were evidenced by the rigid application of strict rules and a strong emphasis on obedience, with the nineteenth-century prisons becoming impersonal and highly regimented institutions, characterised by an array of internal disciplinary procedures and punishments attached to all aspects of daily prison life (for example, prisoners being allowed to eat only after they had completed certain tasks – such as turning the crank a specified number of times). This repressive approach was well established and widely supported by the mid-1800s, helped by the panic over street crimes such as garrotting in the 1860s and given governmental backing by the Carnarvon Report (1864), which highlighted an ‘insufficiency of penal discipline’. The language of this report, while typical of the time, was indicative of this more repressive approach: ‘the large majority of criminals were low and brutish, mainly swayed by self gratification and animal appetite’ (quoted in Muncie 1996, p. 186).