should be recommended; and instead of a gratuity given when the term of penal servitude shall have expired, let a small sum be thenceforth deposited weekly as an addition to wages, until-as a general rule about two years have elapsed, when it might be well-bestowed, and would be either properly expended, or, perhaps, form the nucleus to which savings might be added. Thus, without being abused, as at present, the gratuity would prove in many respects a permanent benefit."

We have reason to state that a Bill will be introduced into Parliament during the present Session, by an English County Member, for the purpose of securing the more speedy trial and punishment of Larceny in certain cases. We sincerely trust that, the provisious of the Bill, when it shall have become an Act of Parliament, may not, like the Youthful Offenders' Act, be concluded by the clause confining its operation to Great Britain. There is no lawyer attending our Irish Circuits, who has not felt regret that the public money should be wasted in the prosecution, and the valuable time of jurors squandered in the trial of petty cases, much more suitable for the Petty Sessions, or at all events, in the very highest class of such cases, to the Quarter Sessions. Referring to such cases as these, and to the effect of the Bill to which we have referred, Mr. Field writes :--

"Without in the least undervaluing that trial by jury which has been well termed the bulwark of our liberties, or desiring that any really innocent person, if charged with crime, be deprived of an appeal to his compeers, should he even suspect that either prejudice or incapacity endanger his freedom, yet it may be assumed that none who have witnessed the uprightness and discrimination with which justice is administered towards the less heinous offenders in our Courts of Petty Sessions, will doubt the propriety of extending their jurisdiction, at any rate so far as to include all offences which do not exceed in their nature and consequences those at present determined in such courts. That a measure of this kind is required in order to remove some judicial anomalies which reason, equity, and economy condemn, a single illustration may suffice to show. How incongruous is it, that whereas a criminal who has stolen a sack of growing potatoes from a field can be summarily convicted at a trifling cost, and, perhaps, imprisoned for a month, on the other hand, one who has pilfered but a tenth of that quantity from a garden, a stall, or a shop, may be committed to gaol for, possibly, three mouths, and then prosecuted at ten times additional expense.

Many plausible, and some even sound, arguments, may be advanced in support of a principle which, with men who witness its practical effects, will have little influence, or their weight

09

may be entirely counterbalanced by an alternative. It may be proper to allege that injury may result, and has resulted," from} the mistaken judgment of two or three persons, and the conseit quent conviction and punishment of an innocent party. But without insisting on the fact that jurymen more numerous, indeed, but less educated, and intelligent are as likely to return erroneous verdicts, we may well believe that, whilst instances of wrong convictions at our Petty Sessions are rare at present, they would be still less frequent when a consciousness of greater re sponsibility would be produced in the mind of those invested with extended authority. Let us also mark the effect of withholding' this jurisdiction, and we shall see that injury to an equal amount i is occasioned. The authority to commit for trial is, and must be entrusted to the magistracy-the warrant of even one being suffi cient; and whereas this is now exercised in cases of suspicion, or prima facie guilt, to the detriment of every prisoner who subsequently is found not guilty, that injury would be prevented by the measure proposed, since the signature of two justices would, it is presumed, be required, and much more conclusive evidence would be demanded for the conviction than for the committal of a person charged with erime. Hence, the stigma of such committal, which no subsequent acquittal serves entirely to efface, and the infamy consequent upon arraignment at the felon's bar, which long survives the culprit's release, would both be prevented.

But my object in this Appendix is not so much to advocate the proposed measure itself-advantageous as, I trust, it would prove -as to deprecate those ineffectual punishments which are too commonly awarded on summary convictions. I have often endeavoured to show by arguments, statistical returns, and other evidence, that imprisonments, the duration of which is too short to afford means of correction, must tend to increase the number and atrocity of crimes, and without repeating proofs of this, I claim the reader's permission to insert a paragraph from a recent publication in which I suggested what appears to be the only remedy for a practice so pregnant with disastrous consequences: We earnestly pray that short terms of imprisonment may never be imposed, believing that, in most cases, less evil would result if for the first, or even the second trifling offence, pardon were granted, rather than ineffectual punishment inflicted. We are assured that if punishment does not amend it must demoralise.

But

whilst deprecating a sentence to short imprisonment, even under favourable circumstances, we do not, for a first offence, advocate an unconditional pardon, and consequent impunity; although if that were the alternative, the tendency would often be less mischie vous, both to society and the offender. may, however, affirm that the encouragement to crime, which the exemption from punishment commonly affords, would be as effectually prevented, and the greater evil of imposing such a measure as, whilst inadequate for correction, must inevitably degrade, would be likewise avoided, if,

***Prison Discipline, în vol. i. 96.; ii. 166. 497. et seq.” wi, &ld

upon the first conviction of many delinquents and misdemeanants (or those convicted of certain larcenies) the offence were recorded but the penalty suspended to be, however, inflicted in a cumulative manner and degree, if the offender became again amenable to the claims of law. This would be only an extension of the principle and adaptation of the practice now pursued in our criminal courts, where, upon a felon being found guilty, a previous conviction is proved and an aggravated penalty awarded; the only difference being, that the offender in the case proposed would be destitute of that apology for his reappearance at the bar which a former sentence to a short and inefficient term of imprisonment may not unfrequently afford. Nor must the observation be withheld, that if the learned judges and other magistrates of our land were as well acquainted with the operation and effect of the punishments decreed as they are familiar with jurisprudence and the provisions of our penal code, that discretionary power, with which they are so properly invested, whereby many inequalities of the law are adjusted and equity promoted, would be still further exercised; and, at all events, in the judgment pronounced upon convicts, that which is now alleged as an aggravation of guilt, would be often rather regarded as an extenuation of the crime. Upon a first conIviction the circumstances sometimes indicate that the character is not depraved, and are thought to justify a mitigated penalty, and one is accordingly inflicted-short in its duration, therefore insufficient for improvement-light, perhaps, in its nature, but lasting in its degradation. And to what can the re-conviction with so much reason be ascribed as to a previous imprisonment, which deprived the convict of self-respect and of reputation; and having despoiled him of these occasional safeguards of honesty, gave additional power to temptation when again presented, whilst it afforded no opportunity for that correctional discipline by which the offender might have been restored, and his relapse prevented. The law then provides a more severe punishment for consequences of which it has been itself the cause.'"†

The Report of Lieutenant-Col. Jebb, is not so depressing as one might suppose from the frequent paragraphs appearing in the newspapers, recording the outrages committed by convicts liberated on tickets-of-leave. It is stated, by Colonel Jebb, that 944 prisoners were released from 8th October, 1853, to 27th June 1854, and that of these, only 4 licences have been revoked. He contends that if 80, or 75 per cent. of such persons as our convicts exist by honest means after liberation, it would leave no cause of alarm. He adds, that such men as these, when first set free, after a long, forced abstinence from tobacco and spirits, may, by analogy with the army and navy,

"Hints on Imprisonment and Penal Labour in Meliora, Second Series. Edited by Viscount Ingestre."

be excused for excesses. With regard to relapses, he states that of the lesser criminals, amounting to 7,436, confined during the year in Tothill Fields prison, 4,086 were recommittals-therefore, we should, in "common justice," consider such figures as these before passing judgment upon the ticket-ofleave system. He concludes by stating, "the true test will be the number of licences revoked for infraction of the conditions, many of which are not cognizable by law, and the number of men on licence who are recommitted to prison for fresh offences of a very grave character."

Secondly, he contends that the system of making the period of release, during the term of punishment, dependent upon the good conduct of the prisoner, is of the chiefest importance, as it keeps alive that strongest incentive to reformation, at all events to its appearance, hope. In this he is fully supported by the evidence of the Reports of the Governor and Chaplain of Parkhurst Prison. The Governor writes, that when the boys believed last year that no tickets of leave were to be granted, they were restless and dissatisfied. On this point he adds:

"This disadvantage kept the better inclined lads under the depressing influence of continually disappointed hopes, and afforded to the vicious and ill-disposed a plausible ground for taunting and discouraging their better behaved comrades, to whom they would sarcastically remark- Where is the use of striving to do well; you may just as well go on as we do, for you will not get your liberty any sooner by good conduct?' As boys are always ready credulously to receive and to yield themselves to the influence of statements made by their comrades, it could not be a subject of wonder that some who had striven zealously and resolutely for a considerable time to behave well in the midst of temptation, opposition, and scoffing from depraved associates, became at length disheartened, and, seeing no near prospect of release from prison, relaxed in their efforts to main. tain uniformly and constantly a high standard of good conduct. This was remarkably the case during the summer months, from May to September, the season when boys have generally been embarked in former years with tickets-of leave for the Colonies. The disappointment and consequent restlessness of the prisoners then involved an increase of the reports for misconduct beyond the average number. When it became known in November, that boys selected, under certain conditions, for license, would be liberated in England, the opening this gate of hope produced a great and immediate diminution of the number of irregularities and transgressions of the rules."

This statement, it will be perceived, is not in support of the principle of unchanging sentences, as advocated by Mr. Field;

but then it may be objected, that not one of those boys had been treated as Mr. Field contends all prisoners should be treated; and that in fact not one of these convicts thus acting was fit to be released, and we will not deny the perfect truth and justice of the objection.

A very valued friend, in writing to us of Mr. Field's pamphlet, observes

"He is right in opposing short imprisonments, which give no time for assured reformation, but he is wrong in considering that a fixed time is desirable, because it evidently takes away a great spur to improvement. Again, he is right in drawing the distinction between a good prisoner and a good man, but he is wrong in confounding the characters of each. By a good prisoner I understand a man who falls into the routine of prison life with facility, is obedient to its rules, outwardly submissive, and who performs the not over difficult tasks which are usually the only ones imposed upon him, to the satisfaction of the officers, and lastly, who cultivates the good opinion of the Chaplain by expertness in all that belongs to ritual, and by somewhat of exuberance in all that belongs to religious profession. A good man is another creature. His desires are changed and his habits have conformed themselves to this reformation in the inner man, and above all, he has acquired the power of self-control, in short he has, attained to the resolution and to the ability of self-support and selfgovernment. Now this conquest is not to be made without hard fighting against counteracting motives. The means of acquiring good habits must be given to him, and above all habits that of industry. He must therefore enjoy the opportunity of daily labour in some useful avocation which he may turn to account after he shall regain his liberty. He must have some freedom of action even in gaol, or how is he to learn the art of self-government, and when the means for reforming his habits have thus been given to him, the stimulus must also be furnished, and none other is so powerful on the human mind as the panting after the outside of the gaol. Let him then work his way out, that is, let his industry move him forwards while his failures from time to time in his duties of economy, restraint of temper, &c., make him fall from time to time backwards; and when I say that he is to work himself out, I mean that the gate is to be opened to him when the balance of his gains over his losses has arisen to a certain height.”

Having given Mr. Field's opinions at full length, and agreeing as they do, in many points with our own, we have thought it right to insert such opposite, or dissenting opinions as have reached us. We must, however, admit, that on each side much may be written, and if hope is to be kept alive, and the period of punishment is to be shortened-provided convicts shall conduct themselves well, it is of very great importance that they shall not, by that hypocritical observance of all that can please the prison authorities, obtain pardon by a seeming reformation, that