specie."

E. S.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. An agent is a person who is employed to do an act on behalf of another called the principal, so that as rule the principal himself becomes bound. That one person can represent another is a doctrine that has developed but slowly. In Roman law it was a general principle that no one could enter into a contract by stipulation on behalf of another, and in the case of mandate the mandatarius or quasi-agent incurred a personal liability towards their parties (see MANDATUM). The modern principle is that contracts entered into by an agent are regarded as entered into by the principal, provided the contract is within the scope of the agent's authority.

No special form of words is required to appoint an agent, and agency may be inferred from the conduct of the parties. An agent is required to conduct the business entrusted to him with as much skill as is generally possessed by persons engaged in a similar business, to act with reasonable diligence, to display the utmost fidelity, to keep proper accounts, and to pay over all moneys received less any expenses and his own remuneration.

Directors, managers, clerks, and servants, having power to act for their principals or masters, are agents. Besides these, the chief classes of agents are (a) FACTORS (q.v.); (b) BROKERS (q.v.); (c) auctioneers; and (d) ship masters. Each class is subject to the usages of the trade relating to the class. An agent cannot as a rule delegate his powers, but by the custom of certain trades sub-agents may be employed. The relation of principal and agent is terminated by mutual consent, by revocation, by the agent renouncing, by the expiration of the time agreed upon by the completion of the business, by the death or lunacy of either principal or agent, and by the bankruptcy of the principal.

[Evans on Principal and Agent, London, 1888.Campbell on the Sale of Goods and Commercial Agency, London, 1891.]

J. E. C. M.

PRINSEP, CHARLES ROBERT (1789-1864), translated into English J. B. SAY'S Traité d'Économie Politique. He published A Letter to the Earl of Liverpool on the present Distress of the Country, and the efficacy of raising the Standard of our Silver Currency, 1816. M. BLANQUI (Dict. de l'Econ. Pol.) remarks that "this curious letter is an indispensable part of the discussion on paper money which arose in England after the events of 1814, and on the

Prinsep also published An Essay on Money, (London, 1818, 8vo), of which the same authority remarks: "This writing is much and justly esteemed in England for its lucidity and its excellent exposition of the subject."

A. L.

PRIOR, THOMAS (1682-1751), co-founder and secretary of the Dublin Society for promoting husbandry and other useful arts in Ireland, 1731, wrote four economic treatises on Ireland.

In A List of the Absentees of Ireland and the Yearly Value of their Estates and Incomes spent abroad, 1729, 2nd ed., 1729, reprinted in A Collection of Tracts and Treatises illustrative of Ireland, 1860-61; (the 6th, miscalled 3rd, ed., 1769, is a new book not by Prior). Prior reckoned on the debit side of the balance of trade payments to absentee landlords, employees, and pensioners, etc. The idea was taken from Sir W. PETTY, Pol. An. of Ireland, 1672, pp. 72, 73, 84, and Report, 1676, who improved on a hint from T. MUN, Eng. Treas., 1664, p. 215. But Petty's results -acclaimed by Sir W. TEMPLE, 1673, and J. HOUGHTON, November 9, 1682, R. Lawrence, 1694-were guesswork. Prior, like his editor in 1769, and A. YOUNG, Tour in Ireland, 1779, ii. 57, made exhaustive personal enquiries, and published his items. Their results, miscited by Lecky and others, made the total drain £621,499, 1729, £1,208,982, 1769; the drain for rent £383,700, 1729, £641,700, 1769, £732,200, 1779. The socalled estimates of Swift, Works, 1824, vii. 40; A. DOBBS, Essay, 1729, p. 51; J. HELY-HUTCHINSON, Com. Restr., 1779, p. 121, Faulkner (Prior's printer), and Newenham, 1805, were based on these figures, which Boulter, Letters, 23rd October 1729, and Dr. JOHNSON, Boswell's Life, 1848, p. 277, alone pooh-poohed, and on which EDEN, CAIRNES, Sir G. C. LEWIS, and Lecky, see Hist. of Irel., 1892, i. 212-214, relied. This first premise of Prior's syllogism was solid: not so his second premise, which was that net exports, including baseless estimates of profits and freights, only accounted for part of the drain: and his conclusion that the rest, £240,000, was carried out in specie, thereby

causing high exchange-rates and a money famine, was clearly unsound (see ABSENTEE). The money famine was a chronic disease aggravated by debased coins and the overrating of the MOIDORE, as Prior himself described in his Observations, and the precise effects of absenteeism were not understood until this century, West. Rev., x. 237; TOOKE'S Hist. of Prices, passim; but it was true that exchange rates had to be abnormally high before the ebb produced the flow of money, Ireland being, as A. Young said, "cut off from the reaction of free trade," and Ireland was compelled by law to resort to the worst markets in order to pay its debts in commodities. Of Prior's two remedies a tax on absentee pensioners, etc., existed 1715-1801, but was never extended to landlords as he wished, Lecky, ii. 119, et seq., and his demand, echoed from Petty, for commercial equality with England, was granted in 1779, 1782, 1800.

In Observations on Coin in general, with some Proposals for regulating the Value of Coin in

Ireland, 1729, reprinted by the Political Economy Club with preface by M'CULLOCH (q.v.) in A Select Collection of... Tracts on Money, 1856-Prior summarised LOCKE's theory of money, but repeated BARBON'S idle accusation that Locke regarded the value of silver as immutable, and proved its mutability by an illustration which Locke, Considerations, 1691, pp. 34, 47, had already used for the same purpose, and objected to Locke's silver monometallism that if one mutable metal could measure value, two could; and with two standards (he does not understand the modern theory of alternative standards) there would be more coin. Like many others, Boulter, Letters, 25th Ap., 2nd May 1730, he wished English proportions among coins to prevail; yet his proposals made a crown worth more than ten sixpences and less than five shillings. His and Dean Swift's ultimate remedy was an Irish mint (Lecky, i. 449).

Prior's Essay to encourage and extend the Linen Manufactures in Ireland by Premiums and other means, 1749, advocated prizes rather than bounties, and expressed the then usual belief in patrons and paupers as industrial agents: his Proposal to prevent the Price of Corn rising too high or falling too low by means of Granaries differs but slightly from those of Lord Molesworth, 1723, and Dobbs, Essay, pp. 66 et seq. [These and similar schemes are discussed in Letters of Lord Chesterfield, ed. Mahon, iii. 175; A Dialogue between Dean Swift and T. Prior, 1753, pp. 116 et seq.; Cunningham, Growth of Eng. Ind., ii. 307; Berkeley, Works, 1871, iv. 11, 329.]

J. D. R.

PRISAGE. PRISE or PRIZE was the taking from a merchant, with or without his consent, for the king's use, of such quantity of such commodities as the custom of the time allowed. Prise, when applied to native products, was called PRE-EMPTION or PURVEYANCE, and was practised under gradually increasing restrictions till its abolition, at the restoration: when applied to imports or exports, it was called EMPTION or caption.. In the case of wine imported by denizens, the right of prise was commuted for the right to take one tun from every ship of between 10 and 20 tuns burden, and two tuns from every ship of over 20 tuns. This constitutional payment was called RECTA PRISA, in contradistinction to mala prisa, the old unrestricted prise, and obtained a place in the national accounts under the name of

prisage or prizage of wine. Aliens importing wine compounded for the recta prisa by a money payment called BUTLERAGE, but were still subject occasionally to the mala prisa.

[Hall, History of the Customs London, 1885.]

Revenue,

A. E. S.

PRISE. See PURVEYANCE. PRISON LABOUR. The problem of prison labour is one of comparatively modern develop ment. Its growth is due to the gradual appreciation by society of the correctness of the view that imprisonment should not merely punish or deter, but should also reform. The appearance in 1777 of the work of John

205

HOWARD (q.v.), on the State of Prisons in England and Wales, gave an impetus to the study of the causes of crime which has led the public mind more surely to the conclusion that not only the criminal himself but his family history and the social conditions surrounding him, have to be considered. The labours of individuals such as BECCARIA, Howard, and Jeremy BENTHAM have been taken up aud carried on by schools of thought in England, by Herbert SPENCER, Maudsley, and others; in Italy, by Lombroso, Ferri, and their followers; and in Germany, by Krafft-Ebing and others. There have thus been laid the foundations of something like a science of criminology, in which the resources of sociology, physiology, psychology, and the study of heredity have been brought to bear on investigations connected with crime and its causes. The natural outcome of this interest, both scientific and humanitarian, in the subject has been the prominence now given to the reformatory As soon element in imprisonment. as this element is properly recognised, the importance of prison labour becomes self-evident.

What are the reformatory agencies which can be brought to bear on prisoners? They practically resolve themselves into two, the ministrations of religion, and the provision of wholesome occupation, using both terms in their widest acceptance. The good effects of work are twofold: (1) in keeping the prisoner in habits of industry or in teaching them to him; and (2) in occupying mind and hands, and so enabling him to resist the depression which is the bane of prison life. The questions

follow: What is the nature of the work which can be profitably undertaken by prisoners, and What are the special conditions affecting it? It will be convenient to treat upon these under

four heads.

I. In Great Britain and Ireland the view is strongly held that prison labour should be in the hands of the state itself, and not of outside agencies. But in the United States, and in several continental countries, this view does not obtain, and three systems of employing prisoners are in vogue, (a) the system of direct state control, as in our own country; (b) the contract system, where a contractor employs prisoners at an agreed price per day, to work under his agents; (c) the lease system, under which a contractor leases prisoners for a fixed period, and, in most cases, undertakes to feed them and to maintain proper discipline amongst them while employed on the work specified in the lease. From the admirable report of the United States Commissioner of Labour issued in 1886 it appears that out of 64,349 prisoners, 33,290, or more than half, were employed on the contract (23,591) or lease (9699) systems. There is no space here for a full discussion of the intrinsic merits of

the three systems, but it will be enough perhaps to point out that the contract system opens the door to serious competition with free labour, and the lease system is exposed to abuses, many of them identical with those which put an end to transportation and closed the British colonies to convicts. It is certain that public opinion in England, the most thoroughly organised industrial country in the world, would tolerate neither.

In

II. Next to be considered are the peculiar conditions of prison life. In most countries there are two classes of prisons, for longsentence and for short-sentence prisoners. the former class of prisons-known as convict or public works prisons at home-the difficulties connected with prison labour are minimised. Convict prisons are situated either in the open country (e.g. Dartmoor), or in proximity to public works (e.g. Portland, Borstal, and Peterhead). After their first nine months of separate confinement-a period which seems likely to be shortened,—convicts can be placed at associated labour on public works such as breakwaters, harbours, ports, or new prison buildings, or on land-reclamation, farming, and quarrying. All convicts are so employed unless found either too delicate for hard work in the open or specially qualified for indoor occupation.

In short-sentence or local prisons the matter is more complicated. There prison labour may be of two kinds-unproductive (e.g. the crank or treadwheel) and productive; and the latter may be either cellular or associated, and either skilled or unskilled. Very little can be said in favour of unproductive labour, which is universally conceded to be brutalising in effect. Practically it is only retained in English prisons to carry out the provisions of the law requiring prisoners sentenced to hard labour to be kept for a month at hard labour of the first class, and as a means of punishment for offences committed within the prison. As such it is likely to be given up so soon as an efficient substitute can be devised. Whether productive labour should be cellular or associated has been

a debateable point. In order to avoid contamination, prison reform has tended to keep prisoners so far as possible from intercourse with one another. Almost all modern prisons, at home and abroad, are therefore built on the cellular principle. But for purposes of labour, associated workshops have obvious advantages over cells.

Work and the appliances for ite.g. machinery, can be of a far more elaborate and therefore educational character, and the effect on the mind of work in company with others, even though general conversation be forbidden, is healthier. As to contamination there is the experience of associated labour in convict prisons to show that the danger can be obviated. The consideration of the whole

question is tending in England to the general adoption of a salutary compromise whereby prisoners shall have their meals and sleep in separate cells, but shall work in associated workshops under strict supervision.

Further difficulties are the fact now universally conceded that prisoners are below the average in mental and physical capacity, and the shortness of the term which many of them have to serve. On 6th March 1894, out of 14,582 prisoners in English local prisons, 3383 were in for four weeks or less, and 7024, or nearly half, for three months or less. All these would not be unskilled workmen, but prisoners have a natural inclination to conceal their trade, and it is possible a man may serve the whole of his term without its being discovered what is the trade to which he could be set without preliminary instruction. Besides skilled labour there must thus be provided in prisons the means for rough unskilled labour, rising from oakum-picking or stone-breaking, and the like, to sack and mat-making.

Certain

III. There follows the danger of competition with free labour. This, statistically viewed, is less important than is sometimes imagined. The danger is largely a sentimental one, but is none the less deserving of consideration on that ground. The annual value of the labour in English local prisons, including the domestic services of the prison, is estimated at less than £120,000, which is clearly an infinitesimal proportion of the trade of the country. industries are practised in English prisons; comparing the numbers of prisoners employed in them with the census number of persons engaged in the like occupations outside, and reckoning the amount of a prisoner's work to be but half that of a free workman, the proportion stands as one prisoner to 1886 free workmen, or, with all possible developments of prison labour in the future, as one prisoner to 1587 free workmen. In the United States the Commissioner of Labour estimates the competition in particular trades as much higher, but reckons a free labourer to be worth 1-27 prisoners, not two, as in the proportion which forms the basis of the calculation in the preceding sentence. Perhaps in individual trades at home, specially suited for prisons and not largely engaged in outside, e.g. mat-making, the amount of competition is appreciable. But the fact remains that the average annual value of an English convict's labour is not estimated at more than £27, nor of a local prisoner's at more than £8. The Austrian estimate is not higher than £3 per head for the three years 1889-91.

The attitude of trades unions to prison labour has been somewhat misunderstood. No doubt, as in the case of mat-making, particular trades have imagined that their interests were menaced, and have done their best to abate certain industries. But at the

Trades Union Congress at Belfast in 1894, a proposal to condemn industrial work and training in reformatory and industrial schools was rejected. Authoritative trade union opinion seems to be in favour of the industrial training of prisoners, and not to object to the sale of prison-made goods, for the relief of taxation, provided (a) that they are not sold below market prices, and (b) that every consideration is paid to the special circumstances of particular trades outside the prisons.

In order to minimise undue competition with free labour the principle has been generally adopted of directing the energies of prisoners so far as possible to the construction of public works and the supply of articles required by the prison service itself or other departments of government. Thus, longsentence prisoners in England built Wormwood Scrubs Prison, Portland breakwater, and the Chatham forts, and short-sentence prisoners have helped to meet the demands of the Post Office for belts, pouches, mail-bags, and the like, of the Admiralty for coal-sacks, hammocks, baskets, mats, etc., of the War Office for bed and bolster-cases, rugs, oil-cans, etc. Here of course what the country loses in wages it gains in relief of taxation. The surplus of articles is sold, care being taken not to sell below market prices, nor to make any particular article in such quantities as to disturb the equilibrium of the market into which it enters.

It is, perhaps, right to mention here that complaints have been rife in England for some time that the importation of prison-made goods from Germany and other countries has seriously depressed the market for the same goods at home. The extent of the mischief, whether appreciable or not, was so much canvassed that in the first session of 1895 a departmental committee of the Board of Trade was appointed to investigate the subject. Its report was to the effect that no cause had been shown for the necessity to take steps to restrict the importation of prison-made goods, and that if cause were shown no steps could be taken which would not produce more harm than good. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that negotiations have been entered into with foreign governments in order to check if possible a competition which, slight or severe, is objectionable in itself. Of exportation as a means of disposing of prison-made goods practically no use is made in this country.

IV. The fourth consideration is twofold; to what extent should prison labour be directed with a view of making the prisoners pay for their own maintenance, and to what extent should prisoners receive money payments for their work. It is clear that in a system whose main end is the reform of the prisoner, the desire to make pecuniary profit out of his labour will hold no place inconsistent with the

207

primary object. Regard will not be had as to whether or no a saleable article will be produced, but the prisoner will be set to such labour as is most likely to fit him for earning an honest livelihood after discharge, or is most suited to his physical or mental condition. But as a matter of practice, the two run very much together, and most of the work to which it is desirable and possible to set prisoners results in the production of saleable articles. A compromise must be effected, and the natural desire to find the state a fair set off against the cost of the prisoners' maintenance must be held in check. Herein subsists one of the main arguments in favour of the direct control of prison labour by the state, for pecuniary profit is far less likely to become the main object under that system than under either the contract or lease systems. As to whether prisoners should receive pay for their work or not, general opinion is in favour of granting them gratuities proportioned to their industry. The objects are of course to encourage the prisoner to work and to secure to him a bonus against the day of discharge; and care should be taken that the amount of the gratuities is not larger than is necessary to fulfil those objects. Even in so developed a prison system as that of England this question has not received the attention it deserves. At present the maximum which a local prisoner can earn is 10s.-a sum adequate neither as a spur to work nor as a bonus. In most foreign countries larger gratuities can be earned, but there prisoners are allowed to spend a portion of their earnings in procuring creature comforts, better food, coffee, and even in some cases cigarettes, from the prison canteen. Such a disposal of prisoners' earnings is not tolerated in England, and probably on the whole rightly so.

In conclusion it may be useful to direct attention to the care which has recently been devoted in this country, under the auspices of government, to the consideration of the questions treated of in this article. An important departmental committee of the home offices published a report in 1895 (see reference below), in which the subject of prison labour is dealt with exhaustively. The spirit in which that committee approached the question is modern, but, after all, not more modern than Jeremy Bentham, who said: "Occupa tion, instead of being the prisoner's scourge, should be called, and be made as much as possible, a cordial to him. It is in itself sweet in comparison with enforced idleness; and the produce of it will give it a double interest. The mere exertion, the mere natural energy, is amusement, when lesser ones are not to be found. Taken in this point of view, industry is a blessing; why paint it as a curse?'"

[See PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE LABOUR. Reference may also be made to Sir E. Ducane,

208

Punishment and Prevention of Crime. Dr. Mouat's paper on Prison Ethics and Prison Labour, read before the Royal Statistical Society, 17th March 1891, to the report of the United States Commissioner of Labour, issued in 1886, and to the following official papers-Prison Committee's Report with Appendices (c. 7702 and c. 7702 I.), 1895-Report of Departmental Committee on Habitual Offenders in Scolland with Appendices (c. 7753 and c. 7753 I.), 1895-Report of Departmental Committee on Importation of Foreign Prison-Made Goods (c. 7902), 1895; and Foreign Office Commercial Series, No. 8 (1894), reports on prison labour in certain foreign countries. Foreign Prison - Made Goods Act, passed 1897.]

J. G. L.

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. See INTERNATIONAL LAW, PRIVATE.

PRIVATE PROPERTY. See PROPERTY. PROBABILITY AND CALCULUS OF PROBABILITIES. Probability means a greater or less degree of credibility. The probability of an event is measured by the frequency with which it has occurred in past experience. Thus the probability of an ace turning up when a die is thrown is one-sixth, since it has been observed that in the long run one side of a die turns up about once in six times (Venn, Logic of Chance), and other regularly-shaped bodies present analogous proportions. From statements of frequency given by experience the calculus of probabilities deduces, often by a long chain of mathematical reasoning, statements of frequency-affording measurements of credibility which could not easily be proved by experience. Thus, if it is given that when a coin is tossed heads turn up as often as tails, it is deducible that, when a hundred coins are tossed, it is hardly credible that as many as seventy of them should present heads. The odds against such an event are many thousands to one. It is more than an even chance that the number will be between forty-six and fiftyfour inclusive. The calculus of probabilities may be similarly employed to give confidence in the uniformity of our results in many statistical problems which concern economics; in particular the determination of the average variation of prices, and the average variation of wages (Bowley, "Changes in Average Wages," Journal of the Statistical Society, 1895; see arts. ALEATORY; ERROR, LAW OF; INDEX NUMBERS; TABULAR STANDARD).

[Of the two elements distinguished by Laplace in his definition of Probabilities as "good sense reduced to calculation," the latter is more prominent in most of the treatises, the former is found in the greatest purity in Laplace's Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités-bound up with his severely mathematical Théorie Analytique des Probabilités, and in Dr. Venn's Logic of Chance (3rd ed.). Prof. Karl Pearson, in his Grammar of Science, explains with authority the foundations of an edifice which he has elsewhere contributed to raise. The definition and evidence of prob

ability are examined in an article on the "Philosophy of Chance" in Mind, 1894, by Prof. Edgeworth. Some applications of the calculus to affairs are suggested by him in his book entitled Metretike, 1887, and in an article "On Some Applications of the Calculus of Probabilities" in Journal of the Statistical Society, September and December 1897 (pt. i., Bimetallism; pt. iv., Elections).] F. Y. E.

PROBATE. When an executor of a will has

any occasion to assert his right as executor he must show that he has proved the will, which he does by producing a copy of it, called the probate, sealed with the seal of the court of probate. The probate is legal evidence of the will. Scotch and Irish probates may be resealed in England, and then have the same effect as if granted in England.

[Williams, Law of Executors and Adminis trators, 19th ed., 1893.]

J. E. C. M.

PROCÈS VERBAL (FR.). An official report drawn up by a public officer or administrative agent to testify to acts or to infractions of the law witnessed by him or of which he has cognisance, and which may serve as a basis for ulterior proceedings. The officer or agent can only verbalise relative to acts within his competency; as, the rural policeman for trespass, poaching, etc.; the customs or excise officer for frauds on the revenue; the notary for inventories, the placing of seals, etc.; the bailiff for the service of writs or to declare the absence of parties, etc. The procès verbal must contain a brief statement of the facts with

the date and signature, written on stamped paper, if on blank paper it must be registered for stamping, the duty being included in the costs. Minutes of the meetings or proceedings of associations, companies, legislative or other bodies, are called procès verbaux.

T. L.

PROCLAMATIONS nowadays may be termed administrative or executive orders issued in accordance with law by the privy council in the name of the sovereign; but in earlier times, particularly under the Tudors and Stuarts, in the 16th and 17th centuries, they were used to supplement legislation and perhaps occasionally to supersede it. According to the

spirit of the times, economic and financial matters were often the subject of royal proclamations: alterations of coinage under Henry VIII. and Edward VI.; exportation of money and other commodities, cultivation of wood, regulation of dress, under Elizabeth; increase of London and manufacture of starch under James I.; fixing of prices and interference with tradesmen and artisans under Charles I.-all these and many other subjects, besides ecclesiastical and political affairs, were dealt with by the royal power acting by advice of the council, independently of parliament and often without reference to common or statute law.

[Proclamations were like the earlier ordinances in council. Gneist (Const. Hist.) makes no dis