Smuggling was a victimless crime as smugglers just tried to make the goods affordable to people. Smugglers also gave people access to goods that they would not have otherwise been able to afford. By looking at source C smuggling can also be interpreted in this manner.
The facts that Tax was on duties and not on income, made many people feel hard done by. This is why the writer of source C blames the taxation law for making smuggling into a crime when it ‘should never have been.’ The very fact that the writer blames the government shows that they also saw smuggling as a victimless crime and felt hard done by the government and its tax policy.
(ii)
Smuggling had reached its peak during the eighteenth century. This was mainly due to the government and its policies. Smugglers illegally brought foreign foods into the country. The basic purpose of smuggling was to provide people with affordable goods.
The general public viewed the smugglers as harmless adventurers with a taste for excitement and danger. The government however saw them as a threat to the country’s economy. This is because smuggling threatened to deprive the government of money to carry out its tasks.
There was a range of punishments for smuggling and this depended on the amount and value of the goods brought; this even included the death penalty.
By the twentieth century smuggling changed. Gradually it came to mean the import of items that were illegal, such as certain types of drugs and pornography. In the eighteenth century goods like tea, coffee and spices were smuggled into the country. Smuggling in the eighteenth century was harmless and had a good purpose.
However in the twentieth century smuggling had no benefits. In the twentieth century beer and other such items such as cigarettes were smuggled into the country so as to avoid tax. In the eighteenth century smuggling gave people affordable goods and so was more beneficial.
The attitudes towards smuggling also changed. In the eighteenth century smugglers were seen as heroes whereas in the twentieth century the people viewed them as criminals doing harm to the country. In the eighteenth century smuggling was harmless and beneficial, in the twentieth century however illegal items such as drugs and pornography were smuggled into the country. This was harmful and unbeneficial to the country. Other goods such as beer was smuggled into the country so as to avoid taxation, this again was harmful to the country as it prevented the government from receiving the money it required to perform its normal tasks.
The punishment given to the smugglers in the eighteenth century was harsher than the punishment given in the twentieth century. In the eighteenth century smugglers could get sentenced to the death penalty whereas in the twentieth century they were usually sent to prison.
In the eighteenth century, small boats usually brought in items that were smuggled in to the country at night; this is why smugglers were viewed as adventurers and heroes. In the twentieth century however items were smuggled in large batches and were smuggled into the country illegally.
By comparing smuggling in the eighteenth century and the twentieth century there are many differences that can be seen. The most important change could be said to be how smuggling in the twentieth century was mainly the import of illegal items whereas in the eighteenth century the goods smuggled into the country included tea, coffee and spices. Due to this smuggling, which was beneficial and harmless in the eighteenth century, became harmful and unbeneficial.
(c) Conscientious Objectors
One form of protest during the twentieth century was peaceful; it was a protest against violence itself.
Conscientious Objectors refused to take part in the organised violence of war for strongly felt reasons. They were pacifists who were put in the difficult situation of having to decide on whether or not to disobey an order to fight.
This was never a problem until the twentieth century, because wars up to that time were fought by professional armies, which were recruited from volunteers.
During the First World War the government adopted a tough policy. This was the policy of conscription that made it compulsory for men aged between 18 and 41 to fight for their country. This was eased up a little in the Second World War. Public attitudes, however, remained constant in both the wars, which meant that the Conscientious Objectors had a very hard time. The public viewed the Conscientious Objectors as cowards to the country. They felt that if their husbands, brothers, sons or any other male relative had to go to war and die, then the Conscientious Objectors should as well.
Between the years of 1914 and 1916 the government relied mainly on volunteers to fight in the war, although an increasing pressure was placed on men to join the army.
In May 1916, conscription was introduced for men aged between 18 and 41; the upper age limit was then extended by another ten years to 51. Exemption was available in certain cases.
Conscientious Objection during the First World War was extremely difficult. Tribunals interviewed Conscientious Objectors, and some were offered different means of work for the War effort. Even so, they were still widely accused of being cowards by many people. Some were attacked and some were completely shut out of society. The authorities imprisoned about thirty percent of the total number of Conscientious Objectors, while many others eventually did give up and fight. Public grudges towards the Conscientious Objectors lasted even after the war.
In the Second World War official attitudes had changed. This was partly due to the Prime minister, Neville Chamberlain at the time when conscription was brought back.
Tribunals had been set up to examine the reason for why some people did not want to fight in the war. As a last resort some men were even sent to prison. Conscientious Objectors were given alternative work.
The British people were less tolerant than the government. Conscientious Objectors were treated very badly by the British people. They were sacked form their jobs and some even attacked. This is because the public accused the Conscientious Objectors as cowards.
The Conscientious Objectors were interned as the public and government accused them of being cowards. In the Second World War the government became a little more lenient as they knew how bad the First World War was and the very fact that they wanted to help the Conscientious Objectors. Another factor of which affected the governments attitude was the fact that there were too many men wanting to fight in the war as they saw how awful the First World War was. The public attitudes towards the Conscientious Objectors remained constant over both the wars. They accused them of being cowards. They felt this because they did not see why their male relatives should go and fight and die in the war if the Conscientious Objectors did not.
(d) (i)
Source D is an extract from ‘Crime and Punishment,’ by Roger Whiting, written in 1986. The source explains how Sir George Paul, the Sheriff of the county of Gloucestershire was important in the prison reform in Gloucestershire.
According to the source Sir George Paul said ‘a prison sentence should not cause a prisoner to die from disease or hunger.’ The answer he stated was an airy prison, which was secure.’
The source explains how Sir George led a reform movement in Gloucestershire. And that he got the local gentry and clergy involved and worked to get the Parliament to pass the Gloucestershire Act in 1785. The Act allowed them to buy land and employ trained staff.
(ii)
From the source it can be seen that there were a number of factors that were required to bring about the changes that Sir George Paul wanted. From the source it can be seen that Sir George Paul required the support of the clergy and gentry to help in passing the Gloucestershire Act of 1785. Once the act was finally passed in 1785 Sir George Paul still required an architect to help in designing the new prisons. The architect that designed the new prisons was William Blackburn.
It can be seen that to bring the changes that Sir George Paul wanted he had to not only gain the support of the clergy and gentry to persuade the Parliament to pass the act, but he also had to employ some workers and an architect to help design the new prisons.
(e) (i)
Elizabeth Fry was an English prison reformer. She was born Elizabeth Gurney at Norwich, Norfolk, on May the 21st in 1780. She was the daughter of a Quaker banker. In 1800 she married Joseph Fry, another Quaker, and became a minister and preacher for the Society of Friends in 1810. Elizabeth had always been attentive to the poor and neglected, her interest in prison conditions began after visiting the Newgate prison in 1813 and seeing the plight of women and children there. She fought for what we now regard as first principles; classification of criminals, segregation of the sexes, female supervision of women and provision for education. In 1818 she gave evidence at a Royal Commission, and later saw many of her proposed reforms carried out, but she did not stop there. For twenty years she checked every female convict ship before it sailed; inspected prisons and mental hospitals in Scotland and Ireland; instituted a Nursing Order; provided libraries for coastguard stations; and struggled for housing and employment for the poor. Between 1838 and 1842 she visited all the prisons in France, reporting to the Interior Minister, and travelled through Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark on similar missions. Her health prevented her in having further travels, but everywhere she had been the authorities put her suggestions to practical effect. She died at Ramsgate, Kent, on October 12th, in 1845.
It can be said that Elizabeth Fry made a large contribution to prison reform. This is because she was the first to fight for what we now regard as first principles; classification of criminals, segregation of the sexes, female supervision of women and provision for education. The very fact that she spent twenty years checking every female convict ship before it sailed; inspected prisons and mental hospitals in Scotland and Ireland; instituted a Nursing Order; provided libraries for coastguard stations; and struggled for housing and employment for the poor, shows how determined she was to change the way in which prisons were run.
Elizabeth Fry’s contribution is still remembered and used today in prisons all around the world.
(e) (ii)
After 1815 governments showed an increase willingness to accept some of the arguments of the reformers. In 1823 the Gaols Act was passed. The Act stated that the payment of salaries to the prison officers, regular inspection of prisons and visits from chaplains and surgeons and the grading of prisoner for work. Female prisoners were to be placed under the authority of women warders, basic education was also to be provided, many more reforms followed. During the 1830s prisoners were allowed to have separate cells, in 1835 prison inspectors were appointed. These changes unfortunately only applied to prisons in the larger towns. The smaller prisons were not reformed in the same manner.
Due to improved detection and the fall in the number of other punishments, the size of the prison population was steadily increasing.
The government was therefore forced to take another set of measures. The most important of these measures was the largest prison-building programme in the whole of the English history. It was inspired by the ideas of Joshua Jebb, the Surveyor General of Prisons. Joshua Jebb believed that there should only be one prisoner per cell and his design allowed for cells to be organised in ‘wings’, which spread outward from a central hub, this meant that supervision for the guards would be easier.
It was in Pentonville, London where the first of this type of prison was opened in 1842. It was able to accommodate five hundred inmates. Others followed, including Portland in 1849, Dartmoor in 1850, Portsmouth in 1852, Brixton in 1853 and Chatham in 1856. Between the years of 1842 and 1850, fifty prisons were built or rebuilt.
Elizabeth Fry made a large contribution to prison reform. This is because she was the first to fight for what we now regard as first principles; classification of criminals, segregation of the sexes, female supervision of women and provision for education. The very fact that she spent twenty years checking every female convict ship before it sailed; inspected prisons and mental hospitals in Scotland and Ireland; instituted a Nursing Order; provided libraries for coastguard stations; and struggled for housing and employment for the poor, shows how determined she was to change the way in which prisons were run.
It can be argued that the government’s action in the first half of the nineteenth century was more important than Elizabeth Fry’s contribution to prison reforms. This is because their actions resulted in several changes to prison reforms. Such as the building or rebuilding of fifty prisons between the years of 1842 and 1850.
It can also be argued that Elizabeth Fry’s efforts were more important as it was she and other reformers that demanded for better prisons that made the government start to act in the year 1815. It can be stated that without the continuous effort of Elizabeth Fry and other reformers the government may have never acted upon changing the prisons at all.
