In 1879, English prison authorities introduced into convict prisons a new system of inmate classification, which took account of a convict’s prior criminal history, a move representing “a radical break with existing penal practice” (3). The newly formed division, which came to be known as the star class with reference to the red star-shaped patch that was sewn to the cap and to the sleeves of the men’s jackets, allowed for the segregation of inmates who had been sentenced to penal servitude, a long-term sentence of imprisonment, for the first time. The classification remained in operation in English prisons until 1967, when first-offender classification was superseded by security categorization.
The star class has been considered only briefly in previous histories of the prison, but in Ben Bethell’s recent monograph, “Star Men” in English Convict Prisons, 1879–1948, it takes center stage. Bethell’s work seeks to answer a series of fairly straightforward questions: why was the star class created; who were the star men; what did such a classification mean, in practice, for men’s experience of confinement; and was the policy successful at achieving what the prison administrators sought? More broadly, his account offers an exploration of class, work, and masculinity in English prisons and culture from the late nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century.
In explaining the decision to create the star class at this junction in penal history, Bethell attributes considerable power to contemporary fears over “contamination.” The opening two chapters are consequently dedicated to excavating the meanings and resonances of this term. Anxieties over contamination, Bethell contends, were stoked and shaped by “gentlemen convicts”—usually former businessmen or professionals convicted of fraud and/or embezzlement—who forcefully and strategically argued that, within convict prisons, there were two groups, themselves and “accidental criminals,” who were categorically distinct and at particularly risk from the ordinary convict population (34). Elements of this view were endorsed by convict prison authorities when they opted to create the star class.
Not all first offenders joined the star men, and not all star men were first offenders. In chapter 3, Bethell draws imaginatively and skillfully on prisoner and prison officer memoirs, Home Office correspondence, and surviving convict licenses to recover the process that developed for selecting star men and to reveal the types of offenders chosen. Prison administrators went to great lengths to inquire into the background and character of convicts to determine their fitness for the division—that is, to assess whether they were “likely to do harm in association” or if they deserved a “chance among the good” (69). The group that resulted from this subjective and unpredictable filtering process was diverse, as the “snapshot” Bethell creates of the star-class population at Chatham prison at the end of 1880 highlights. Nonetheless, one type of convict who seemed inevitably to benefit was the gentlemen convict.
In an era that trumpeted uniformity in the penal system, star-class men, though kept totally separate from other inmates, were nonetheless supposed to be treated the same. Yet, through an exploration of labor at several convict prisons between 1879 and 1909, Bethell finds that, over time and for a variety of mainly practical reasons, privileged occupations especially printing, the system’s “most congenial form of labour” in his view, came to be reserved for star men, who consequently avoided, for the most part, the worst work assignments (133).
The final two chapters consider how the star class evolved in the first half of the twentieth century. Chapter 5 focuses on the origins, population, and regime at Maidstone, a convict prison reserved for star men hitherto neglected by historians. This close study allows Bethell to show how, between 1880 and 1911, the star class became less heterogeneous, its composition dominated by “white-collar” offenders and men convicted of violent offenses against women and girls. The star class may have shielded “gentlemen” from associating with common thieves and some of the harshness of prison discipline, but it did not totally spare them from mixing with lower social classes or individuals charged with heinous offenses. In chapter 6, Bethell takes a broader approach, tracing the fate of the star class at several prisons between 1920 and 1948 and contextualizing the division by considering its place within and impact on the wider prison system in England.
The star men were a relatively small group within Britain’s wider prison population; nevertheless, Bethell makes a convincing case for their relevance to prison history, showing repeatedly how the close study of star men sheds light on the wider prison system. For instance, Bethell argues that the star class is evidence of a tentative, though growing, interest in and experimentation with convict rehabilitation and the individualization of inmate treatment, a conclusion that challenges established periodization and traditional depictions of penal theory and practice in late-nineteenth-century England. This work also makes an important methodological contribution to prison histories, as Bethell, by privileging the daily operation of prisons, pushes scholars to recognize the contingent nature of penal change. There is scope for Bethell to expand on his study of the star class and its wider significance in the future. As Bethell makes clear, his focus is squarely on men, on civilian convicts, and on England. Moreover, while there is some discussion of local prisons and borstals, the work mainly concerns the convict prison estate, where those sentenced to penal servitude were confined. One wonders, for example, how gender intersected with class to shape the creation and experience of the star class at women’s prisons or what the star class population looked like at prisons that held individuals convicted of less serious crimes. Still, this is a well-researched and engaging study which will appeal to those interested not only in prisons but also in policymaking, class, and sex in modern British history.
