From the same volume we find that Government had then inaugurated a wiser, kinder system of dealing with the convicts destined for the colonies.  By the new regulations, females were allowed to take out with them all children under the age of seven years; while a mother suckling an infant was not compelled to leave England until the child was old enough to be weaned.  Again, the convicts were not to be manacled in any way during their removal from the prison to the convict-ship; “but as the rule is often infringed, it is desirable that ladies of the committee should be vigilant on the subject, and should represent all cases to the governor of the prison, and afterwards, if needful, to the visiting magistrates.”  Further, the Government, or the boroughs, had to provide the transports with needful clothing for the voyage; and, at the end of it, the surgeon’s or matron’s certificate of good behavior was sufficient to ensure employment for most of the women.  Altogether it seems certain that a new era for prisoners had dawned, and new ideas prevailed in regard to them.  How much Mrs. Fry’s labors had contributed to this state of things will never be fully known; but her work was almost accomplished.

This little book, which is a perfect Vade Mecum of prison management, was written in the interest of lady visitors, and for their use.  It is still interesting, as showing Mrs. Fry’s own mode of procedure, and the principles upon which she acted.  The few quotations given in this chapter will, however, suffice for the general reader.  She concludes with a pregnant sentence:  “Let our prison discipline be severe in proportion to the enormity of the crimes of those on whom it is exercised, and let its strictness be such as to deter others from a similar course of iniquity, but let us ever aim at the diminution of crime through the just and happy medium of the REFORMATION OF CRIMINALS.”

Not only in the published page, but in other ways—­in fact in every possible way—­did Mrs. Fry continue to proclaim the need of a new method of ordering criminals, and also of so treating them, that they should be fitted to return to society improved and not degraded by their experience of penal measures.  In 1832, she was called upon to give evidence before another committee of the House of Commons, upon the best mode of enforcing “secondary punishments” so as to repress crime.  On this occasion she dwelt particularly upon the points noticed in her book published five years previously, and added one or two more.  For instance, while advocating complete separation at night, she quite as earnestly contended against what was known as the “solitary system.”  On this point she maintained that “solitude does not prepare women for returning to social and domestic life, or tend so much to real improvement, as carefully arranged intercourse during part of the day with one another under the closest superintendence and inspection, combined with constant occupation, and solitude at night.”  In her evidence there occurs the following passage:—­