tion be the more costly; and the total charge incurred by the one which happens to be most in vogue must increase precisely as that of the other diminishes. Thus much has been said on the heavy tax occasioned by the accumulating numbers of felons either abroad or at home, because, in a financial point of view, the subject seems to deserve more consideration than it has hitherto received. It can make no difference in the reasoning whether the tax paid is at once imposed upon the whole country, or a part of it only is imposed upon the country, and the remainder made good by each separate county. The tax presses ultimately with the same weight upon the country, and becomes even more objectionable from the imperceptible manner in which it is raised. Though all which has now been urged against the costliness of the punishments of transportation and imprisonment were allowed to be true, it may be said that it would not amount to a conclusive argument against them. It certainly would not, nor has it been advanced with any such intention. All we contend for is, that, before capital punishment is abolished or any great stride made towards it, the unlimited drain upon the country which the punishments to be substituted for it would certainly occasion, is a strong reason for exacting the most satisfactory proof, that they would effectually answer those purposes of reformation and terror which they are said to serve, and unless we are much mistaken, nothing approaching to this has yet been produced.

It would give us much concern to hurt the feelings or damp the zeal of those who are engaged in the exalted task of moral reformation; but neither the evidence given before the Committee on the Criminal Laws and the Committee on Gaols, nor any facts which have come within our observation, hold out any expectation that a general or thorough amendment of criminals ever can be looked for. There is a degree of credulity shewn on this subject by most of the advocates for extreme mitigation of punishment which is perfectly amazing. The good sense and caution which they could not fail to display on other occasions seem here totally to forsake them, and they receive with avidity any reports of repentance and amendment, instead of examining them with the discrimination of sound practical statesmen, anxious to found projected improvements only on the basis of facts which will stand the test of the most rigid inquiry. Yet in whatever dress these Reports appear, or in whatever manner the extracts from them are selected, some circumstances always disclose themselves which place in the strongest light the difficulty of effecting permanent reformation. No opportunity seems so favourable for the exemplification of it, one should think, as in those cases where no legal steps have been taken against the offending parties; where their character to all appearance re

mains unsullied; and where all the notice which has been taken of their misbehaviour consists in the good advice they receive at the hands of those whom they have injured. Gratitude for forgiveness, and delight at escape from imminent danger, ought to conspire to effect a salutary change in the mind, if any thing short of the most violent remedies could. Yet even under these circumstances the facts contained in the Reports of the Committees on Criminal Laws and on Gaols offer little ground to expect it. Five cases of this sort are mentioned at pages 92, 97, 106, 116, and 118, of the Report of the Committee on Criminal Laws, and yet three out of the five offenders, after all the kindness shewn to them, are admitted to have turned out badly. This is viewing these cases most favourably, for it happened with them, as it does with many others of similar nature, that the continued criminality, of those who turned out badly is placed beyond all doubt, while the reformation of those who turned out well rests on information and belief only.

If reformation can be looked for with so little certainty among those in whom it might with so much reason be expected, the case of hardened or convicted criminals, whether young or old, is still more hopeless. The following evidence is given by Mr. Henry Hoare, jun. who has taken a principal share in the management of the permanent Refuge in London for boys, at page 149 of the Report of the Committee on Gaols:

'The committee would be glad to have a general account of the proportion you think have turned out well, and those who have not turned out well, or who have been dismissed for misconduct?' 'From May, 1815, which was the commencement of the establishment on the present premises to Christmas, 1816, 187 under 20 years of age have been admitted. Of these 56 now remain in the establishment, and are going on exceedingly well; 54 have been reformed and discharged, and we have the most satisfactory account of their conduct; the number of those who have returned to their evil practices is very high, being 46; but the majority of those cases were admitted before we had the system in proper order.'

Of the 31 unaccounted for, he says, the society feared that 18 'had returned to crime, and 13 they knew nothing at all about. "They wish to keep the boys two years in the establishment before they are considered as thoroughly reformed.' Taking this statement of Mr. Hoare in the most favourable view, it appears that out of 131 boys, being the total number discharged, 46 are known to have returned to crime, and there is reason to believe that 31 more have been little, if at all reformed.

Mr. Shelton, at page 27 of the Report of the Committee on Criminal Laws, says, 'persons who put off bad money uniformly 'come to the bar of the Old Bailey, till they are disposed of one

way

way or other if they be acquitted in one session they come the · next, and so till they are convicted: it is almost to a certainty that they will come again.' Mr. J. A. Newman, (page 68) on being asked if he could guess what proportion professed rogues and young offenders bear to the whole number of convicts, answers, No, not correctly, but I should think about one in four, who cannot get 'their living in any other way. Of capital convictions?—Of per'sons committed generally.' Mr. Ruell (page 70) supposes, that from one-third to one-half may be persons of that description. Mr. Shelton (page 22) is also asked, A very considerable number of those persons who are tried at the Old Bailey, one may say, are 'malefactors by profession, that is, persons engaged habitually in 'crimes? Yes, they are.-A great number of persons are more than once or twice brought to the bar? Oh dear, some are brought 'many times.'-Mr. Ruell (page 70) is asked-Have you any hope ' of reclaiming those brought up in ignorance sooner than others?' he makes the following reply :

6

In some cases good has been and may still be done; but my experience compels me to say, that I am not very sanguine as to reclaiming those young offenders, who have, from their very infancy, been inured to crime; we have generally more trouble and less success with such than more old offenders. The reason I conceive to be, because they have been brought up in entire ignorance of all moral and religious principles; and their associating together only tends to harden them in crime. There is a depth of depravity and moral insensibility among them truly appalling, and which would be hardly credited without ocular demonstration. While no efforts should be spared to recal such instances of moral degradation, I feel convinced in my own mind, from what I have seen and heard, that measures to remove their ignorance, and prevent the seduction of others, will confer a much greater benefit upon the public than the best means of recovering the lost?

Mr. John Teague, Keeper of Giltspur-street Compter, at page 271, of the Committee on Gaols, is asked

'Have you any means of observing whether any beneficial result has followed from keeping the boys so employed?'I have not had an

opportunity of observing, but I have no doubt they will be better for being employed; there is no doubt about it.' 'Have you any means of knowing how any of them have behaved after leaving the prison?'' I have heard of many of them being in custody again.' 'Committed to your gaol? No, to other gaols; but as I attend the sessions, I frequently see them, and, although in another name, I know them.'

With respect to the effect of the discipline criminals receive on board the hulks, we may take the evidence of Mr. Grey Bennett himself, in his Letter to Lord Sidmouth on the Transportation Laws, published in 1819. In speaking of the management of the prisoners on board the Laurel, convict ship, he says that one of the convicts

told

told him that little was effected in the nature of real reformation; 'the prisoners found it to be their interest to appear satisfied, and 'to make no complaints, but those who imagined that any moral amendment would be effected deceived themselves to the greatest 'degree.' Mr. Bennett also says, at page 48 of the same pamphlet,

'I read with surprise the annual report presented to parliament, and the account given by the respective chaplains of each ship. These statements, though the authors are very respectable and praiseworthy persons, are not to be admitted without great caution. These gentlemen are the heroes of their own works, and without meaning offence to those whose exertions I highly value, they are too apt to be their own panegyrists. Notwithstanding these authorities, I am incredulous as to the miracles of reformation, which are stated to be annually worked on board the different hulks on all varieties of persons and under all varieties of management.'

Prisons and houses of correction may indeed produce more reformation than the hulks. Those who take the trouble to turn to pages 304, S22, S29, 332, 353, 371, 280, 384, and 387, of the Report of the Committee on Gaols, will find instances of the amendment which may be there accomplished. They are the only ones, as far as we have observed, which occur in any part of the volumes lately printed under the authority of parliament, and, like many other facts which have been quoted for the same purpose, are not of so precise and satisfactory a nature as to permit entire reliance to be placed upon them. We shall, on the other hand, quote the testimony of Mr. Cunningham, one of the officers of Gloucester gaol, to be found at page 390 of the same volume, which, we are sorry to say, far more than bears down any evidence that has yet been put into the scale against it. Mr. Cunningham is asked—

'Have you been in the habit of late years of granting as many certificates of good conduct in the prison as you used to do?' We have not.'' On what account?' 'We could not ascertain the reformation we had worked upon them, in consequence of the crowded state of the prison, and their working on society.'

These short answers appear to us to communicate one of the most authentic and decisive results which has yet been laid before the public on the effect of imprisonment as a punishment. It is generally understood, that as Gloucester gaol was among the first, it has continued among the best regulated places of confinement in the kingdom, and in which we might consequently expect to see one of the fairest proofs of the effect of prison discipline. Yet after a trial of 17 or 18 years, with all the help that regulation and classification afford, it is found that it is relapsing into its former state, and that without any certainty of the prisoners being materially better than they were before, it is quite certain that they are a great

deal

deal more numerous. Some circumstances which we shall presently mention respecting the Maison de Force at Ghent, coincide singularly with what has happened in the gaol at Gloucester. The same thing which has occurred at Gloucester, we fear will happen in the gaol at Newgate after all the benefit it has derived from Mrs. Fry's exertions. Far be it from us to depreciate either their merit or success. We have examined her arrangements, and observed the calmness, kindness, judgment, and precision, displayed in the superintendence of them by the ladies who are her chief coadjutors. It is impossible to witness the labours of these ministers of benevolence, and the involuntary gratitude and respect they draw from some of the most 'abandoned of the human species, without fervently wishing them success. We do not understand that Mrs. Fry's object is to shew that her discipline would supersede other punishments, but to add its effects to that of the punishment which the law now imposes. The time during which criminals usually remain under her care will not permit her to make any greater experiment, and we certainly entertain apprehensions, which the conduct of some of Mrs. Fry's scholars when removed elsewhere has served to confirm, that the good impressions made in Newgate are too often transient, and that the improvement she has there introduced being subject to all the reverses which have happened at Gloucester, and in the Maison de Force at Ghent, will not be found to insure invariable and permanent reformation.

It has been supposed, however, that penitentiaries possess virtues both for terror and reform which no other places of confinement have ever yet claimed. Perhaps this may be true. That the treatment which prisoners and convicts now experience in prisons, bridewells, houses of correction, and in penitentiaries, is an incalculable improvement on the old system, and an excellent punishment for minor criminal offences, is beyond all question. Neither do we feel any disposition to deny that it has completely and permanently reformed many who have been guilty of delinquencies of a deeper dye. We only say that if the penitentiary is expected to purify most of those whom it receives within its walls, or eventually to supersede the necessity of capital punishment, we can see no good reason to suppose that it will ever fulfil the expectations of its patrons. The very uncertainty, which must always exist, of a supply of gentlemen of requisite capacity and condition, willing to devote their time to its superintendence, presents a very serious difficulty. As long as an institution possesses the charm of novelty, and the admiration of its original founders and promoters continues undiminished, it is watched and cherished with a degree of tenderness and solicitude under which it cannot fail to prosper. But a decline in the warmth of attachment sooner or later takes place, and the injurious