Jewish Affairs

Menu

Jews of Breakwater Convict Station in Historical Perspective

Author: Published on: Published in: Jewish History – South Africa

(Author: Rebecca Feigelson, Vol. 64, #1, Pesach 2009) 

“…It naturally exists a fuelling of discontent in the minds of prisoners of other religious denominations when they find that man who calls himself Jew (whether he truly is or not) receives superior privileges both in exemption from labour and increased food of better and more varied description, and lends to an increase of ‘so called’ Jews at our station…”

HM Penfold, Office of the Superintendent Breakwater Convict Station, 17 March 1888 PBW 14 no 209/1886

“Man seems to be an incurably religious animal; and the greater his weakness the greater his need for the sustaining support of a religion. Prisoners are often encountered with a unique sense of helplessness and religion can act as anchor in their stormed tossed lives.”

Kate Richards O’Hare (In Prison London and Seattle: University of Washington Press; 1923, p117

The growing Jewish exodus from Eastern Europe combined with the discovery of diamonds and minerals in South Africa, resulted in a significant influx of Jews to the Cape Colony towards the later half of the 19th Century. Involvement in illicit diamond buying and later the running of houses of ‘ill-fame’ resulted in the Jewish immigrants becoming synonymous with the growing criminal element. The impact of the criminal element was that a significant number of Jews ended up confined and sentenced to hard labour in the Breakwater prison. This was the first time the Colonial government was confronted with the hindrance of a Jewish minority group within the penal system.  Through archival evidence the attitude of the Colonial Government towards Jews within the penal system can be assessed. The events that took place must be understood against the backdrop of a reformed labour system and the growing race and labour issues at large.

The prison system can be understood as an important social institution with a three fold purpose: being places of vengeance where the law breakers are punished, safe places to segregate unpleasant and dangerous persons, and a place where reformation may be achieved. It can be claimed that penal problems have been systematically solved, not according to criminology and penology but rather according to economics. Whether a given country at a given time resorts to imprisonment with labour, fines, transportation, mutilation or capital punishment can be linked to factors of the labour market rather than humanitarian principles. If there is a scarcity of labour, it is uneconomical to execute the convicts rather than extracting valuable labour from them through prison work. Yet, if there is a large surplus of unemployed labour, demoralized by economic misery, prison will lose its effectiveness as a deterrent against crime unless the conditions can surpass the wretchedness of the slums outside the prison walls.1 This dilemma was dealt with in the Cape colonial setting through the introduction of unproductive forms of labour (such as the crank and the treadmill) as punishment.2

The evolution of the prison system has been linked to the demands of the capitalist labour market, with the function of the prison being to supply and train labour.3 This theory exemplified with strict implementation of pass laws at the beginning of the 20th Century in Kimberley, in order to supply the mines with convict labour.4 Where there is an excess of labour the penitentiary becomes an institute for destroying the work force but when the labour supply is restricted, convicts become useful employees. In the context of the Cape Colony this theory becomes useful as there was often shortage of free laborers. The employment of convict labour was at times the colonial Government’s only choice for the execution of much needed public works, such as the building of roads and harbors.

Punishment by deprivation of a fixed quantum of liberty, exactly proportional to the gravity of the crime committed, is peculiar to a capitalist society.5 This underlying theory becomes the applicable issue when addressing the conflict regarding the Jewish work exemption; it was deemed unfair that the punishment in laboring hours was to be reduced on grounds of religion. H.M. Penfold, the superintendent of Breakwater, complained in 1888:

It is manifestly unjust that one section of the community should receive these privileges … I can not think that it is the intention of the law that sentences two men to seven years penal service with hard labour, that one, because he calls himself a Jew – should be exempt from at least twenty days a year which the other man has to work…I would suggest that where these exemptions are allowed the time taken from the sentence and compiled at the expiry of their original sentence.6

The efficiency of punishment depends on its legitimacy.7 This is a prominent feature when considering the use of convict labour in public places, where the public may view their toil – such as the building of the Breakwater in Cape Town:

“In the carrying out of punishment, short of death or perpetual imprisonment among communities that have to absorb and receive their liberated criminals, the reformation of the convict before his restoration to society is of paramount importance, both in the political and social point of view…The secondary punishment, being imprisonment with hard labour for the period proportional to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, not only satisfies the ends of justice for the public good but if properly, humanly and consistently carried out, subserves also to the other end, the reformation of the offender.”8

From the start of the colonization in the Cape until the beginning of the 19th Century, prison labor was unknown in the colony. This may be linked to wide availability of slave labour at the time. When a felon was convicted, the focus of the punishment was physical pain or death through direct inflictions to the body. Prison was viewed as a place of waiting before the actual punishment occurred. Punishment was presented as a public spectacle and was usually cruel, yet not unusual for the times. Cruel and public punishment was commonly used to display the authority of the state throughout Europe in the 17th and 18th Centuries. It was common occurrence for brutal executions to be held in the center of town. This form of punishment was inherited by the British from their Dutch predecessors.

The rulers in both the first and second British occupation were most likely influenced by the European Enlightenment Movements of the time which rejected torture practices as they considered them inhumane and barbaric. In 1796 the English governor, Lord Macartney stated,

“Whereas it has been represented to us, that the practice of proceeding to torture against persons suspected of crimes, by breaking upon the wheel and other barbarous modes of execution, prevails in the said settlement, it is our will and pleasure that you should wholly abolish these forms of punishment, and provide other more lenient and equitable proceedings…”9

The need for new forms of punishment was also exacerbated by the notion that deportation to other British colonies was now unacceptable, as other colonies, such as Australia, did not want to accept convicts from the Cape. The abolition of slavery in 1834 lead to mass emancipations of slaves in the beginning of the 19th Century, resulting in both an increase in convicted felons and an acute labour shortage. The prison population grew from 861 in 1828 to 4,242 in 1842.10 There were some forms of convict labour, but the system was highly unorganized and lacked structure. For example, in Cape Town prisoners were employed as street cleaners, gardeners in the Government Gardens, and even assistant police officers and overseers of other convicts. The first work house modelled along the lines of those of England was established in Cape Town in 1827 but was used mainly for female offenders. These women were initially assigned the task of weaving coconut matting but in 1845 a switch to laundering occurred as it was determined to be more lucrative.11 The demise of the old system of punishment by torture or death resulted in a gap in the penal system. The newly appointed Colonial Secretary, John Montagu, devised an organized system of convict labour as means of filling the gap.  His system placed equal benefits on both the ends and the means of the punishment of convicts through labor.12

Montagu was a passionate advocate of reformation through labour. The expanding economy of the Cape Colony, with its need for efficient labour resulted in the Government accepting Montagu’s ideas of reformation through useful labour. His plans were soon in action through legislation; the 1844 an ordinance For the Discipline and Safe Custody of the Convicts Employed on the Public Roads being one of several.  The Ordinance dictated that convicts sentenced to hard labour for longer than three months in the scattered gaols were to be consolidated and placed in one of three convict stations where they would begin the task of building hard roads around the Cape. Initially these stations were located in Tygerberg, to build the roads from the Cape Flats to Stellenbosch; in Cradockskloof, near George, to build the mountain passes into the interior; and in Howisonspoort situated in proximity to Grahamstown. Simultaneously, the existing convict stations, such as Robben Island, were reorganized to be in line with new policies.13

Montagu is responsible for systematically organizing the convict labour system in the Cape. He divided the convicts into separate classes, not based on race or even criminal conviction, but reputation. Those criminals with bad reputations for being violent or unruly or those, whose particular sentences required it (about 10%), were put into the chain gangs. A series of graded rewards were laid down for good conduct with the aim of encouraging the convicts. These rewards included permission to correspond through letters (subject to inspection), visitation privileges, small allowances of tobacco, and others. Montagu proclaimed that out of every 100 men, the man who tried the hardest at his daily labor should receive six shillings per month to be paid out on completion of sentence.

Good discipline was an essential factor for running the convict road camps as the men were mostly allowed to work without physical restraints and any violent outbreak could be severely dangerous. It was determined that the six shilling reward system was conducive for promoting good discipline – if a convict committed a major breach of the rules, than his entire savings were forfeited.

Montagu developed records on every prisoner, much in the manner of modern social welfare officers. Each year, a comprehensive report was prepared by superintendents, with the inputs of visiting magistrates, medical officers and religious leader. In this way it was possible for Montagu to keep a close eye on the convict labour system and its progress.

The hours of work ranged from nine to ten hours, depending on the season. At the end of the working day, convicts were required to attend classes teaching reading, writing and spelling. The results of this system of education were astonishing: “Out of 464 who were sent to the station, only 18 could spell or read on arrival… so that the readers and spellers have increased from 18 to 380 out of a total 464 convicts in 12 months.”

The system of monetary reward extended to progress in education and four pupils in every 100 were awarded 6 shillings per month for showing the greatest improvement.   To encourage reading during non-working hours, Montagu went to the extent of establishing small libraries at the larger convict stations.

Montagu’s systems continued in the Cape after his departure in 1852, but his ideals, especially those regarding merit based on behavior rather than race, were not held up in a country growing in racial hierarchies. Prisoners sentenced to hard labour continued to be employed in public works but the emphasis shifted from the building of the hard roads and mountain passes to harbor works – with the construction of the Breakwater in Cape Town the most prominent activity.14 The establishment of Breakwater Convict station in 1859 was an essential element for the execution of the Harbour Board’s Breakwater program and was the largest convict station for most of the 19th Century. Initially, the station held prisoners of all races, although there was a policy of physical racial segregation.

The later half of the 19th Century has been characterized as a low point in prison administration, and there was a general laissez faire attitude with regards to the running of convict stations, contrasting with the times of Montagu. Prison regulations were badly drafted and poorly distributed during this time and the stations ran according to “station custom”, often amounting to compromises between prisoners and officials rather than strict discipline. It was known by prisoners that through protest, policies could be changed. There are records of prisoners going on strikes as a form of resistance against bad conditions, such as stale bread. The influx of IDB prisoners being “men of intelligence and education” may have contributed to the spirit of defiance and class consciousness.15

Major changes were also taking place in South Africa affecting the entire country. The successful mining which began in 1871 attracted many immigrants. A result was a significant increase in white criminals, many convicted for crimes surrounding illicit diamond dealing. As the mining industry progressed, the need for labour was further recognized. The pivot of change was in Kimberley, as it was the centre for mining. It seemed a natural step to utilize the supply of convict labour in the mines. Since its introduction, the mining industry had worked on the mines.17

One of the many results of the changing system was that whites sentenced to hard labour in Kimberley were not sent to the Kimberley prison, but were transported by train to Breakwater convict station in Cape Town. Florence Bernault claims that the convicts sent from Kimberley for the crime of Illicit Diamond Buying (IDB) seemed to be “refined, intelligent and rich”.18 These criminals were mostly Jewish and this may have created contentions amongst the white convicts at Breakwater. A record of incoming criminals from Kimberley for the crime of IDB on 4 June 1886 reflects the preponderance of Jewish names: Nicholas Shiplich, Frank Schweder, Otto Schaeffer, Charles Siebler, Charles Marcus, Abraham Barnett, Allen Goldenstein. This is also in evidence in the following table of Breakwater convicts undergoing terms of imprisonment for IDB in 1886:19

By 1890, the Breakwater Prison held the highest majority of white prisoners when compared to all the other convict stations of the colony. Although it was the industrial centre for penal labor, it also held the reputation among prisoners as being ‘comfortable’.20

The Jewish Community of the Cape Colony

By 1849, the affairs of the Cape Town Jewish community had made sufficient progress to warrant the appointment of a minister. The third Minister to be appointed to lead the Cape Town Hebrew congregation was Rev. Abraham Fredrick Ornstein, who arrived from London in 1882.21 It was under his leadership that significant changes occurred with regards to the Jews in Breakwater prison.

NUMBER NAME Date of Conviction Offence Sentence
295 Wolf Rosendhal 13th Oct 1881 IDB 7 years hard labour
296 Solomon Rosendhal 13th Oct 1881 IDB 7 years hard labour
314 Saul Goodman 26th Feb 1882 IDB 5yrs + E100 or 3/12 added
318 Amos Otto 9th April 1882 IDB 9 yrs
322 William Steinman 16th April 1882 IDB 8 yrs
388 Israel Cohen 15th Jan 1885 IDB 7yrs + 3/12 add
2606 Elias Blumenthal 14th Feb 1885 IDB 7yrs + E100 or 6/12 added
2609 David Cohen 25 March 1885 IDB 7+ E75 or 3/12 added
2608 William Herschal 21 Feb1885 IDB 4 yr + E75 or 3/12 add
2671 Thomas Roshein 12 Dec 1885 IDB 3yr+ 3/12

The mineral discoveries in South Africa combined with the deteriorating situation of the Eastern European Jewry led to a significant number of Jewish emigrants to the Cape Colony. The arrival of the East-European Jews, usually in state of destitution, unable to speak English or Dutch, perpetuated attitudes of xenophobia and antisemitism.

The struggle to make a living was clearly overwhelming for many immigrants, and prompted some to engage in criminal activity. Most of the crimes committed by Jews involved illegal moneymaking ventures – the sale of stolen goods, trading without licenses, and fraud in the form of dishonoring cheques. The inspector of the Standard Bank on Plein Street commented that Jews were “an indigent lot, their cheques frequently dishonored…”

Prostitution and the keeping of brothels and gambling houses were also fairly common among the indigent Jews of Cape Town. The imbalance of the sex ratio allowed for a growth in prostitution as an economic venture.22 The growing Jewish stereotype may have also been due to Jewish involvement in the business of diamonds, which was often somewhat crooked. Comments Shain, “If Africans were labelled diamond thieves by mine owners…the Jews were commonly associated with illicit diamond buying.”23 Those who entered a life of crime were clearly desirous of rising rapidly from rags to riches.

The SA Jewish Chronicle in 1903 argued that it was the duty of Jews to visit the brethren in Breakwater because of the Jewish duty to visit the sick: “Those suffering of body at hospital are regularly visited and their lives thereby brightened. Is it too much to ask that those of our brethren who are diseased of mind and consequently suffering form the criminal outcome of such illness should receive little consideration…?”

This extract reveals that the Jewish community of the Cape did not see the criminals of Breakwater as outsiders to their community and had an ongoing relationship with them.24 The Jewish Philanthropic Society papers25 contain a letter from a convict ‘Marcus’, who seems to be one of the first Jewish prisoners in Breakwater and who, through insolent behavior as well as connections to the broader Jewish community, may have been responsible for instigating policy change regarding the Jews and labor:

Breakwater Convict Station

Cape Town 7th of June 1903

Name of Convict: B. Marcus

Number (with initial letter) B6219

Dear Sir

I write to ask you a kindness in regards to the Jewish novel books which you promised to send to the convict station what few are up here as all been read by the Jewish prisoners. I thank you very much to send some up as there is most of them can not read English we are all longing to see you. I beg to remain your humble servant Barnet Marcus

Gwynne Schrire, through her close examination of the minute books, discovered that the Philanthropic Society agreed to purchase suitable books for the prisoners. Marcus seems to have been well known in prison circles. There is a report, dated 23 February 1865, about the insolent behavior of prisoner ‘Marcus’, whose convict number shows him to be the same man who would ask for the Yiddish books forty years later.

“..Yesterday evening convict G6219 “Marcus” came to me and stated that he was unwilling to work on Saturday as it was his Sabbath, but that he was willing to work on Sunday as he did not believe in the Christian Sabbath – this he said in the most impudent manner. I told him that I had no power to alter the regulations and that he should think over it until this morning.  …this morning when while the gang was moving off to work… ‘Marcus’ was brought over as he refused to work. Marcus said that the report was true and that he would not go to work this morning as it was his Sabbath day and he could not consequently work on it. I then told him that if he refused to go to his work, I would have to place him in confinement, and report him to the government, he was quite agreeable to this and still refused to go to work. Convict ‘Marcus’ has been confined at this station for the last 15 months during which period he has been regularly visited by his rabbi once a week, but during the period he has never spoken to me on the subject, which leads me to believe it has been other convicts which have advised him that it is fine conduct.26

The response to this letter is very telling as it reflects the official policies towards convicted Jews in 1865:27

“Marcus”:

Breakwater Convict Station

Feb 11th 1865

I am in the opinion that Jews should not be permitted to remain away from work on Saturdays for although a willing liberty of conscious, the Government can not provide for the peculiarities of every kind of faith. Yet the Roman Catholics are nightly visited by the services of a priest and the Jews by a rabbi.

The Government rules in all its establishment are framed with regard to the requirements of Christianity thus all Sundays, good Friday, Christmas day are holiday. Therefore all Jews and other non-Christians if under the rules of government must perform their religious exercise on those days.

Jews in the army and navy are required to due their duties on Saturday therefore Jews in convict station is to be required to due their duties. If the exception were to be made for Jews than the Malays with equal rights could also require the treatment on their holy days. With regard to the conscious of any individual in such matters I remark that Roman Catholic overseers and constables are on duty at the Church of England service, the RC authority maintaining that in so doing the conscious of the individual on duty is not offended, a Jew on duty on Saturday is in a similar position. So long as a Jew keeps one day holy, it calls on a matter of fact the Sabbath is not exactly the same with regard to beginning and end in any two longitudes. This would equally apply to a Christian in a Mohammedan country.

If it is to be argued that Roman Catholic officers of convict stations and men in army and civil service need not take employment under government unless they please so also ‘Marcus’ (who refused to work on Saturday) was not forced to come to the convict station for he did things which he knew, if discovered, would send him there. He should have thought of the difficulty of keeping the seventh day holy before he made himself amenable to the laws…

The letter refuses the request of the Jewish prisoner ‘Marcus’, thus setting a policy towards Jewish prisoners that would remain unchanged for the next twenty-three years.

Marcus, however, continued his campaign as is shown through a series of letters from 1878 from the London Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies signed by its President, Joseph M. Montefiore; probably through the Philanthropic Society or Rev Ornstein. The Cape Town solicitor, Louis Emanual, sent to the Breakwater superintendent copies of previous correspondence dealing with Jews in Convict Labor in order to create a persuasive case for the rights of Jewish convicts to be exempt from work on their Sabbath, as was the case in England.

London Committee of the Deputies of the

British Jews 23rd May 1878

To the Secretary of State for the Home

Department,

Sir,

I am directed by the board to address upon the subject of No 25 of the general rules for the governance of prisoners, recently issued under the authority of the Prison Act, 1877.

This rule provides that ‘No prisoner who is a Jew shall be compelled to labour on his Sabbath’ …

This board having in 1856 addressed Sir George Grey, one of your predecessors in office, upon the subject, received a reply in the following terms:

…Sir,

With reference to your letter if the 25th of September, I am … pleased to authorize the governors of the various government prisons to grant permission to convicts of the Jewish persuasion to abstain from work on their Sabbath and Religious festivals on their making application to them for that indulgence…. ….

… I am directed by the board to ask that you will be so good as to take into your consideration … of amending the rule in question, so as to make it in terms apply to ‘Jewish festivals’ as well as the Jewish Sabbath; or if this is impracticable of inconvenient, than that you will consider the expediency of issuing instructions so the governors of several prisons that the word ‘Sabbath’ in the rule in question is intended to include several Jewish festivals (to which I will pleased to furnish you with a list if so required) and that such interpretations be uniformly acted upon….

Joseph M. Montefiore,

President

The following reply was received by Montefiore

from the Home Secretary:

23rd August 1878

Sir,

Referring to your letter of the 18th and previous correspondence, I am directed by Secretary Cross to acquaint you that instructions have been issued to the Prison Commissioners that Jewish Prisoners are:

    • To be exempted from work on their holy days
    • To be discharged on the day previous to the Sabbath – or holiday on the event of their sentence expiring on the Sabbath or holiday
    • Notice of death of a Jewish prisoner is to besent to a Jewish Clergyman who attends such prison as well as to his friends.

Office of the Chief Rabbi

…The following are faculties which have been granted by home office to the Jewish prisoners confined in Portsmouth Convict establishment and similar prisons. They are exempt from labour on Saturday and all Jewish festivals.

Arrangements are to be made by which a Jewish minister or other competent for the purpose attends at the prison for one hour or more on Saturdays, Sundays and Jewish Festivals with the view of holding divine service and giving prisoners religious instruction. On Passover they are to be supplied with Passover cakes

…I believe that these concessions will contribute to the moral improvement and spiritual welfare of the convicts.

Yours faithfully H. Adler

Chief Rabbi of London28

In 1887, the question of observance of the Jewish Sabbath for convicts of Breakwater was raised in the House of Assembly by a Mr Innes, who asked attorney-general Sir Thomas Upington whether Jewish prisoners might be allowed to observe their Sabbath in accordance to their faith. He had been assured by Rev. Ornstein that it would be quite impossible for anyone to obtain, under false pretences, two days of rest rather than one.  (This proved to be a false assurance as later letters from the superintendent, H M Penfold, reflect concern for the growing corruption.) The Attorney-General admitted in reply that in England the prison regulations allow for the observance of Jewish festivals. He too had received a letter from the Cape Town Rabbi, covering communication from the Chief Rabbi in London.

London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews

London, March 25th 1887

I may add that in taking action indicated in this correspondence, this board felt that although the number of Jewish prisoners in this country is always small it is not right that the ignominy of their position should be aggravated by the denial of religious observances which are not only in comfort to one who is really of a contrite spirit but also serves as a most useful in the difficult task reclaiming from crime and bringing light into a darkened heart.

Sir Upington promised to examine the matter further. The presence of Jewish MP’s in the House of Assembly like George G. Woolf and Barnett Isaac Barnato might have been of some assistance.29 But it was no use. The reply from the Attorney Generals office the following year was negative.

Attorney General Office Cape Town

22nd August 1888

Jewish Privileges

Sir,

With reference to your letter… requesting that Jewish Prisoners may be allowed to abstain from work on the Sabbath day and receive special food on holy days, I am directed by attorney general to acquaint that he is unable to vary the decisions previously arrived at on this subject, that is to say exempt Jewish prisoners from work and allow them to receive special food on certain holy days…

Little good can be done by keeping the men in barracks doing nothing and as he is informed by the police authorities the ‘Jewish places of business are kept open on Saturdays almost without exception’ he thinks that there can be no ground for feeling that any violence done to the moral feelings of Jewish Convicts performing coerced labor on that day at the same time …on Saturday afternoons…

Your obedient servant

Secretary to the law department

A record from 1886 shows the makeup of the prisoners of Breakwater according to religious belief: Jewish 28, Episcopalian 256, Church Reformed 148, Scotch Protestant 6, Roman Catholic 72, German Lutheran 26, Hindu/ Mohammedans 9, Non believers 4, Total 549.30

Although official policy reflects that Jews were not to be granted any special treatment on religious grounds the “station policy” of Breakwater seems to differ. Jews were granted special treatment during the holy days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The record books of 1886 show the complaints from the new superintendent, H M Penfold, regarding this issue. Penfold, being a reasonable man, complains of inconvenience, corruption, unfairness and tension between prisoners that resulted from the allowance of special treatment for Jews. He also suggests a remedy, in that for every day of labour missed, that same time will be added on at the end of the sentence.

Sir

…During the time I have had charge of this convict station, i.e. from the first April 1886 the Jewish prisoners have always had 8 clear days holiday, from the 19th to the 28th of April inclusive; during said holidays they were allowed coffee, sugar, meat, soup fish, Passover cakes and fruit. During that time it was necessary to have special sentries and much dissatisfaction was expressed and felt by other by other prisoners of other religions.

I find on enquiry that indulgences have only been permitted within the last three years. The practice of allowing prisoners to receive food from outside the prison is liable to many abuses, and it has been abused here, for in many instances forbidden articles have been found secreted in what was proposed to be food required for the observance of the religious rites, such as tobacco, cigars, sweets, money, and newspapers.

With all due respect for the Rev Mr Ornstein, I would like some proof of his statement that the privileges asked for are allowed in the other parts of the civilized world that he names. It is becoming more widely known that the Jewish prisoners do receive more indulgences than professing other faiths; that had in itself lead to abuse for I have no means of ascertaining whether a man be Jew or not, and should these privileges be contained, I have no doubt the Jews will receive a large accession of co-religionists in the gaols and prisons of this colony…

It is manifestly unjust that one section of the community should receive these privileges to the detriment of the rest. We have here prisoners of many dominations, they also have various feasts which should be entitled to the same respect in observance as those as the Jews and I can not think that it is the intention of the law that sentences two men to 7 years penal service with hard labour, that one, because he calls himself a Jew – should be exempt from at least 20 days a year which the other man has to work.

I would suggest that where these exemptions are allowed the time taken from the sentence and compiled at the expiry of their original sentence. We may have less trouble with these so called religious scruples, for it simply means that for a certain number of days a number of men have kept in idleness, their only pastime to over feed themselves.

Should the Government see fit to grant these privileges I would most respectfully urge that it should be done on the following conditions:

Firstly, the minimum of time for idleness

Secondly, that food only in proportion to requirements of men in idleness be allowed (as I maintain that a convict prison is not the place for feasting)

Thirdly, that convicts should have the option of observing these festivals or not, he being given to understand that every day spent in idleness be made up to the government at the expiry of the original sentence.

In conclusion, in common justice of the prisoners of other denominations, that the same number of holidays on the same conditions, be accorded, where in the eyes of the law, all prisoners are equal…

M. Penfold31

A later record reflects that the remedy was taken up as several of the Jewish names have additional time included to their sentence. This is presumably the result of time taken for religious observances.

It is reflected through the record books that Rev. Ornstein was responsible for arranging religious services on the Holy days at Breakwater, although the request had to be first issued to the Attorney Generals office.

Number Name Date of Conviction Offence Sentence
295 Wolf Rosendhal 13th Oct 1882 IDB 7yrs Hard Labour
296 Solomon Rosendhal 13th Oct 1882 IDB 7yrs Hard Labour
314 Saul Goodman 26th Feb 1882 IDB 5yrs + E100 or 3/12 added
318 Amos Otto 9th April 1882 IDB 9 yrs
322 William Stemman 16th April 1882 IBD 8yrs
388 Israel Cohen 15th Jan 1885 IBD 7yrs+ 3/12 add
2606 Elias Blumenthal 14th Feb 1885 IBD 7yrs+ E100 or 6/12 added
2609 David Cohen 25 March 1885 IBD 7+ E75 or 3/12 added
2608 William Herschal 21 Feb 1885 IBD 4 yr + E75 or 3/12 add
2671 Thomas Roshein 12 Dec 1885 IBD 3yr+ 3/12
3073 Nicholas Steipileh 18 June 1885 I DB+ assault 8 + 9/12

Office of Superintendent Breakwater Convict Station 9th May 188732

To Captain Penfold:

Sir,

Will you kindly give instructions for the Jewish Prisoners to assemble on Sunday at 3 o’clock pm for the purpose of holyday services? Will you let me know as I wish to make arrangements if you will grant permission to the Jewish Prisoners to be supplied with special food during the Passover Holiday, as has been done in the former years?

Passover commences on Monday the 26th

Faithfully yours

Rev. A Ornstein33

Memorandum from the Cape Town Hebrew congregation to the Attorney General- 1888

…Request for permission to hold religious services in the Breakwater convict station on the Jewish high holidays for the Jewish convicts…34

It can be reasonably assumed that these requests were granted as the letters from Ornstein imply that the practice has been done in former years.

Breakwater prison continued to be the hub of the convict labour program of the Cape, utilizing the work of convicts from all religious dominations, until its transformation into a juvenile prison in 1907. In 1923, Breakwater was once again transformed, this time into a hostel for black contract workers. Today, where Breakwater convict station once was, a lodge exists, grounds for the business school of the University of Cape Town and a national monument.35

Conclusion

The changing nature of the rights of Jewish convicts was the result of continual persuasion and the influence of the growing Jewish community of the Cape. In an attempt to create a balance between equality amongst prisoners and religious freedom, Superintendent Penfold designed a system that would achieve this through adding on additional labour time to compensate for time lost due to religious observances.

It is still unclear whether the Jews in Breakwater were truly pious or just simply seeking upward mobility in their positions as convicts. The attitude of Penfold, as displayed through his writings in the record books, denotes that it was his impression that the convicts were simply playing ‘the Jewish card’ to gain the special treatment. The counter argument remains that “Convicts are, as a rule, deeply and passionately religious because they need religion more than other people.”36 It is the author’s opinion that the motives of the Jews in question were irrelevant as religious freedom is a fundamental human right and should be extended to all individuals, whether they are convicts or not.

Rebecca Feigelson recently graduated from the University of Cape Town with an LLB. This article is based on a research project she did on Jewish prisoners in the 19th  Century and their struggle to be exempted from work on Shabbat.

NOTES

  1. Dr. Herman Mannheim, The Dilemma of Penal Reform London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd; 1939, p34.
  2. Stephen Alister Pete’s The Penal System of Colonial Natal:From British Roots to Racially defined Punishment Masters Thesis of University of Cape Town; 1984
  3. D Melossi and M Pavarini, The Prison and the Factory:Origins of the Penitentiary System London, McMillan,1977.
  4. Dirk van Zyl Smit ‘South Africa’ in Prison Labour: Salvation or Slavery England: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited; 1999, p216.
  5. E B Pushukanis, Law and Marxism: A general theory 1978 found in Pete, The Penal System, p12
  6. PBW 14 NO 209
  7. M Ignatieff A Just Measure of Punishment 1978 found in Penal System of Colonial Natal, p14
  8. John Montagu, Accounts and Papers, 1850, p35 found in TM Corry’s Prison Labour in South Africa p15.
  9. Dirk van Zyl Smit “Public Policy and the Punishment of Crime in a Divided Society: A Historical Perspective on the South African Penal System”, De Rebus. 223-6
  10. Dirk van Zyl Smit ‘South Africa’ (1999), p212
  11. Corry, p114
  12. ibid
  13. Van Zyl Smit, “Public Policy…”
  14. Van Zyl Smit, ‘South Africa’ (1999)
  15. PBW 130 as sited in Harriet Deacon History of Breakwater Prison from 1859 to 1905 Honors Thesis, University of Cape Town, 1989
  16. Van Zyl Smit “Public Policy…”
  17. Deacon, p23
  18. Florence Bernault, ‘The Politics of Enclosure in Colonial and Post Colonial Africa’ in A History of Prison and Confinement in Africa Heinemann, 2003, p9
  19. PBW 14 209/1886
  20. Corry, p123
  21. Israel Abrahams, The Birth of a Community, Cape Town,1955
  22. BJ Feldman, ‘Social Life of the Cape Town Jewry 1904-1914: with special reference to Eastern European Immigrant Community’
  23. Milton Shain The Jewry and Cape Society Historical Publication Society 1983, p5
  24. Gwynne Schire, ‘How Cape Town Jewry Cared for its Sick Poor a Century Ago’, Jewish Affairs, Winter 2001, p6
  25. Alexander papers in the Archives of the University of Cape Town.
  26. CO 6289
  27. Attachment in CO 6289
  28. CO 209
  29. Abrahams, Birth of the Community, p59
  30. PBW 14
  31. Ibid.
  32. Ibid.
  33. Ibid.
  34. CO 209
  35. Willem Steenkamp, Poor Mans Bioscope, Howard Timmins Publishers, 1979, p50
  36. Kate Richards O’Hare In Prison pg 128

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

You may also like