Millbank Penitentiary: An Experiment in Reformation — Background and Themes

The Architecture of Reform

The prison's design was itself a statement of intent. Howard's plan, quoted at length, proposed that convicts build their own cells, starting with the 'surrounding wall, intended for full security against escapes.' Griffiths notes that an 'architect of eminence' oversaw the work, and the committee—composed of 'dukes, bishops, and members of Parliament'—involved itself in 'minutest details.' The physical layout, with its 'curious towers' and isolated cells, was meant to enforce reflection and discipline. Yet the same walls that symbolized order also became obstacles: the narrative later describes how prisoners exploited 'the present unsafe condition of the prison, owing to the extensive repairs' to plan escapes.

The Governor's Dilemma: Pickard Smith

A substantial portion of the excerpts follows the case of Pickard Smith, a prisoner whose repeated escape attempts baffled the governor, Mr. Nihil. Smith's resourcefulness is detailed: he tore blankets into strips for scaling, fashioned a picklock from a piece of metal hidden in his stocking, and even removed a staple from a dark cell door to work at the wall. Nihil's reports to the committee reveal a growing frustration. He writes that Smith 'has already experienced [corporal punishment] very severely without any beneficial effect' and that his 'knowledge of the localities' makes perpetual attempts inevitable. When offered removal of handcuffs in exchange for a promise not to escape, Smith refuses: 'I'll never make another promise as long as I am here.' The governor's language—'I cannot but lament that the powerful qualities he possesses should have been so greatly perverted'—shows a reformist ideology struggling with an inmate who refuses to be reformed.

Discipline and Its Limits

The excerpts show a system constantly improvising. Smith is moved from cell to cell, placed in a 'strong room,' handcuffed, and finally put in a dark cell—yet he continues to cause disturbance. The governor's request to 'get rid of this prisoner' highlights the prison's inability to contain a determined individual. Griffiths presents these incidents not as anomalies but as evidence of the gap between theory and practice. The committee's close oversight, meant to ensure humane treatment, also creates a paper trail that documents failure. The narrative does not resolve Smith's story; instead, it leaves the reader with the image of a governor 'almost bewildered,' caught between the ideal of reformation and the reality of a prisoner who declares, 'there isn't a part from which I couldn't escape.'

Readers should approach this work as a case study in institutional history rather than a complete chronicle. The excerpts focus heavily on the prison's early decades and on a few dramatic episodes, leaving later developments and broader statistical trends unexplored. Griffiths's reliance on committee minutes and governors' reports gives the narrative a bureaucratic texture, but it also preserves voices—like Smith's—that official records rarely capture. The book rewards those interested in the practical contradictions of penal reform.

Reading about Millbank’s orderly corridors and its stubborn, human flaws, I found myself drifting to another kind of confinement—the furious, articulate letters from Jefferson City. Both books measure the distance between the stated purpose of a prison and the quiet weight of its days. That same ache for reform, met by walls, lingers in A fragment of the prison experiences of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman In the State Prison at Jefferson City, Mo., and the U. S. Penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga. February — A Reader’s Guide.