day of trial; and after trial, for trifling offences, and as a discharge of unpaid penalties. And especially is this the case with short imprisonments, which are supposed to be lenient, and to mark sufficiently the magisterial sense of the lightness of the offence committed, because, it may be, it is only for a few days, forgetful of the fact that such short sentences, though utterly useless either for reformation or deterrence, are long enough to brand the sufferer with the life-long stigma of "gaol-bird," and so to break down that inner fence of shame and self-respect which is intended by nature as his best barrier against a life of crime.

And, as I have already said, such cases frequently occurring, must debase the general tone of lower-class feeling with regard to imprisonment. When they see members even of respectably conducted families, and persons hitherto respectably conducted themselves, lightly condemned to it by authority, they are encouraged to think lightly of it themselves. They cannot regard as a grave evil and disgrace what is so freely and so lightly inflicted.

But if, on the other hand, the Legislature made provision, and the administrators of the law and of justice were instructed to show in practice their deep sense of the serious nature of the act of inflicting the disgrace of imprisonment by resorting to it as rarely as possible, the public mind of persons of that grade in society from whom our criminals too commonly spring, would gradually revert to a healthier tone, and become imbued with the idea that imprisonment in itself, and apart from any of its usual concomitants of hard labour, dietary, restriction, or other punishment, involves deep disgrace; and this fixed sentiment would exercise a most wholesome deterrent restraint on them whilst still in an incipient stage of crime, or in that critical border-state, when temptation is in danger of ripening into act.

Having now sufficiently insisted on the desirability of lessening the frequency of imprisonment as a matter of principle, I proceed to show briefly how this may be done in practice. We may do this, first, by resorting to it less often as a means of detention preparatory to trial.

I can merely glance, in passing, at the desirability of this, on the grounds that any unnecessary detention is an unjust interference with and infringement of the liberty of the subject, and note the fact, that thereby the innocent not unfrequently unjustly suffer. Nor can I dwell on the economical grounds, that these preliminary imprisonments entail heavy but unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer and ratepayer, in the cost of the maintenance of the accused himself, and too often of his family, who fall on the parish during his constrained absence. Nor can I stay to show how they contribute to that uncertainty in apportioning the subsequent punishment which leads to a graver evil, namely, the apparent inequality of sentences inflicted for similar offences; inasmuch as, in the mind of the judge, the length of the previous imprisonment before trial often weighs in deciding on the duration of that which is imposed after conviction,

though this fact is not apparent on the face of the reported sen

tence.

All this by way of parenthesis. To return. The necessity of dispensing with imprisonment as much as possible before trial is implied in our system of bail. And since the passing of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, sec. 23, little or nothing remains to be done, as far as the law is concerned, for the extension of the principle of bail. By the provisions of that Act, all offences, felonies, as well as misdemeanours are, I believe, bailable, except treason. All felonies, and some misdemeanours, at the discretion of the magistrate conducting the preliminary inquiry (in point of fact, murder is, of course, never bailed), and the lesser misdemeanours absolutely, without power of refusal on the part of the magistrate, if sufficient and trustworthy bail be tendered.

And yet, in spite of this, and although no doubt the acceptance of bail has greatly extended since the passing of that Act, it is not in practice adopted as often as it profitably might be. I am unable to find in any return I have consulted, the proportion of the bailable but unbailed cases to those which are bailed. But a single visit to a gaol, or a glance at an assize or sessions calendar, will prove that many more are imprisoned than bailed.

How far this fact is owing to the ignorance of the poorer classes as to the kind of offences for which bail may be taken, or to the difficulty of getting sureties on a sudden, or to other causes, I am unable to form an opinion. But to obviate difficulties in the full application of the system, it ought to be laid down for, and accepted by magistrates as a principle, that imprisonment before trial is to be the exception, and not the rule. That, in short, it is only to be resorted to when there are grounds for thinking the accused will abscond before trial, or otherwise absent himself when required.

I should very much wish to see it enacted that before committal every accused person should be formally asked by the presiding magistrate whether he would engage, if allowed to go free during the interim, to present himself at the next sessions or assizes, as the case might be, for trial. On his refusal to give this undertaking he might be committed for safe custody; but if he gave it, he should be set free till the day of trial. It will be objected to this plan that offenders could not be relied on to keep their promise.

Now, to this plausible but theoretical objection I oppose these two facts-First, that there is no difficulty under the present system of summons, in securing the attendance of persons charged with offences at petty sessions, many of which, under the increased jurisdiction of petty sessions, are just as heavy as some that are sent to the quarter sessions and assizes.

Secondly, the fact that I have learnt from the last report of the Metropolitan Police Commission for last year, issued within these few days, that during the whole of last year, 1871, only six cases occurred of persons absconding from their bail within the metro

politan district, and every one of these, on being brought before the magistrates, was discharged.

Now, it cannot be supposed that it is the mere fear of forfeiting a small sum of money, or even of compromising their sureties, that nduces men to surrender for trial. My own belief is that just as many would so surrender, at least of those accused of misdemeanours, now compulsorily bailable, as do now; and with regard to other offences, magistrates would still exercise their discretion. If, according to Mr. Justice Erle's rule for their guidance, they considered a conviction probable, and a heavy punishment likely to follow-to which I would add, if the accused was a man of no fixed and known abode, or known to be of migratory habits or tendencies-then committal must, as now, ensue.

But, in order to give the greatest amount of security for their attendance, I suggest that it should be enacted that the engagement undertaken should be thus conditional: First, that the person charged should be liable to immediate arrest on proof being given before a magistrate of a probable intention to abscond; and, secondly, that in default of appearances at time of trial, the accused should, ipso facto, also become liable to arrest; and further, to the highest penalty attached by law to his offence, if he were tried and found guilty.

No sane man would run the risk of this in preference to undergoing his trial, when there are so many chances in his favour, even if he is guilty, from the failure of evidence; the obtuseness or capriciousness of juries, or the obstinacy of even one of its members; from the defects of the law; and, even if convicted before, of the leniency of the judge.

With this security, then, an accused person might, in my judgment, be allowed to remain free during the interval between the charge and the trial, even without the additional security of sureties.

But in the graver cases, magistrates should still be at liberty to require sureties, who would keep a certain amount of watch against absconding, and give the police timely information in case of any appearance of its being contemplated.

Here I would note the necessity, where possible, of keeping the house of detention separate from the house of correction; and when this is not possible, the making a marked destination, within the boundary-walls of prisons, by a well-defined "middle wall of partition," or, at any rate, by a different colouring of the walls, doors, &c., so that both the public and the prisoners might know distinctly that there is a great difference even between confinement for security and imprisonment for punishment.

I have left myself but little time to state the two other suggestions I have to make as to the means of reducing the frequency of imprisonment after trial.

I take, first, the case of summary convictions before single magistrates or at petty sessions.

1. As to cases not giving an option between fines and imprisonment. Here I would allow a certain latitude of judgment to

magistrates as to the remission of sentences in the case of first convictions, a subject, however, which will be more laboriously discussed presently.

2. As to cases where imprisonment is inflicted on the non-payment of fines.

In these cases my suggestion is this: That the period of imprison、 ment now assigned under the Small Penalties Act (28 & 29 Vict. c. 127) shall be converted into a period for payment; that is to say, that when that Act imposes an imprisonment not exceeding seven days on non-payment of a penalty not exceeding 10s., such period of seven days shall be allowed for the payment of the fine before committal; and so on through the scale prescribed by that Act, or some other well-considered scale to be substituted for it; the heavier payments extending over the longer periods to be made by regular weekly instalments to the nearest policeman. In the event of omission to pay within the allotted time, then, but not till then, committal to ensue.

The advantage of this would be, that friends and others would often, by loans, enable the accused to pay the penalty, and so prevent imprisonment; or he would himself work it out, and during the whole time of his doing so his offence and the detrimental consequences of it to himself would be kept vividly before his mind, thus making the punishment more effective than if the fine were paid all at once and done with.

The last suggestion I have to make is, that in cases of first conviction at quarter sessions or assizes for offences which do not imply any great degree of moral obliquity, or criminal habitude or propensities, and provided further that the accused produce indisputable evidence of previous good character, the record of the conviction and of the sentences should suffice, but with the understanding that, on a second conviction, this sentence should take effect in addition to any new sentence for the new offence.

The adoption of this rule would, as I believe, tend greatly to raise the general standard of opinion, not only amongst the criminal and quasi-criminal classes, but amongst all classes of society with regard to crime. It would fix the mind on the fact that the disgrace consisted not in the imprisonment, not in the punishments which are its sequel, not even in the conviction itself, but in the fact of having committed the crime, the consciousness of which is doubly enforced by the legal conviction.

"Prima et maxima peccantium est poena, peccâm." The first and chiefest punishment of offenders is in the fact of their having offended. "Nec ullum scelus impunitum est, quoniam sceleris in scelere, supplicium est." Nor does any crime pass unpunished, since the punishment of the crime is involved in the crime itself; i.e., in the painful consciousness of the awakened conscience at having committed it. Such is the doctrine of Seneca, in his 97th Epistle, and such is the public standard we should aim at establishing.

And it will help to establish such a standard if, by diminishing the frequency of imprisonment in the ways suggested, we succeed in affixing to it, in a higher degree than now exists, the idea of disgrace, thus reawakening and appealing to that sentiment of shame, whose blush is the visible voice of crime, and which is in itself the innate counterpoise of temptation, the best specific against vice, and the natural antidote to crime.

Mendicity, Repression, and Charity Organization.
By HAMILTON WHITEFORD.

N no other country but Great Britain has a national system of

established. Our modern plan of dealing with both classes of the poor is very different from that practised by the overseers of Queen Elizabeth's day. There is now a great central authority, the Local Government Board, appointed to watch over, guide, and control the acts of every union and board of guardians in the kingdom.

A general uniformity of practice has been thus brought about, the value of which every one can appreciate. In dealing with the sick and disabled poor, borough and union guardians are allowed considerable discretionary powers. For these, out-door or house relief may be prescribed as the circumstances of each applicant render advisable. But with the able-bodied poor the case is different. For their relief minute regulations are laid down by the central board, and are enforced with considerable stringency.

For able-bodied paupers out-door relief is steadily discouraged, and with few exceptions entrance into the workhouse is made the compulsory test of their asserted poverty.

For houseless and wandering beggars are provided casual wards, where a night's rest and a morning meal have to be paid for by the performance of some prescribed piece of task-work, or prolonged unpalatable detention. For emergencies, cases of sudden sickness, and privation, provision presumedly adequate is also made by our poor laws. Parish doctors and relieving officers are authorized and directed in such cases to provide and order all that is needful. It would seem then, at first sight, that a merciful and watchful Government is now doing, directing, and seeing done in every quarter of the land all that the poor destitute can fairly ask for or require. Inside our workhouses masters and matrons, outside those cheerful buildings the relieving officers, have it in charge to see all are attended to, that every pauper is provided with food and clothing sufficient to keep body and soul together; if sick, with food and medical attendance also, and when at last defunct, with a coffin and decent burial. But, as we all know, every large town and district contains many poor strugglers, who, living habitually on the brink of destitution, yet manage somehow to keep outside the workhouse and