the interest of that part of the community that
does work and live honestly, he must be locked
up. It is difficult to say which of these
alternatives is the more disagreeable to him: that
both should be disagreeable to him is no fault
of ours. And this object is aimed at by the
present system as well as by Lord Kimberley's
bill, though by a rather different road.
Practically we say to the criminal now: "your
sentence has expired, and we have for the present
nothing more to do with you; if you be
detected in the commission of crime you will be
punished again, and more severely than for
your first offence; but until you are detected
you may do as you like." According to the new
Act, a twice convicted felon is to be subject to
the supervision of the police for seven years,
and is bound, if required, to show that he is
getting an honest living. So far, it is difficult
to see what there is to object to, in the
proposed alteration of the law. It is said, indeed,
that a frightful power is thrown into the hands
of the police. Think, it is urged, of the black
mail that will be levied by corrupt constables.
Imagine the condition of the poor wretch who
cannot, or will not, satisfy the demands of his
persecutors. He will be taken before the
magistrate and, whatever the result, must
inevitably be ruined. Convicted, he goes to prison
for twelve months. Acquitted, his master
dismisses him and he must starve, or steal, and
take the consequences. Probably no system
of human justice will ever be framed under
which all injustice and hardship will be
impossible, but this seems one of the veriest
turnip-headed bogies ever fashioned. The mere
fact of a man's being in honest employment of
any sort would be sufficient proof of the bad
faith or imbecility of any constable who
arrested him; and, except upon the wild
supposition that the magistrates and Commissioners
of Police entirely pervert their duty, it is pretty
clear that the ruin of the constable would be
at least as much a matter of certainty as that of
the convict. To say nothing of Colonel
Henderson's shrewd remark, that the police are
always heartily glad to be quit of troublesome
customers. Hence the facility with which
they get into the army, without let or
hindrance from the police, as most officers who
have experience of recruits, well know to their
cost.

"How," it is asked, "how about the wretched
creatures twice convicted of felony?—how of
those thrice convicted? By the provisions of
this bill they will pass the remainder of their
days on the system of one week out of prison
and one year in, until death draws the bolt for
the last time." Precisely so; and why not?
It is, be it observed, by no means necessary
that the interesting victim should pass the
remainder of his days in prison. That rests
entirely with himself. If he choose to live
honestly, he will see as little of the insides of
prisons as his workfellows who have never been
convicted. If he do not choose so to live,
surely he is better under lock and key, where
he can do no mischief, than at large, spoiling
and wasting the property of the community.
And, after all, if we do not keep him in prison
he is sure to find his own way there. The
difference is, that in the one case he is prevented
from doing harm, while in the other the
mischief is done before preventive measures are
adopted.

It is of little use in the consideration of the
proposed measure to say, as has been said, that
a more efficient police administration would
cure the greater part of the evils of which the
public complain. It is idle to say that our
detective police is unworthy of the name. It
is not necessary to go into these questions at
all. It may be the case (we do not say it is)
that the efficiency of the force is not what it
was; but how that can affect the question of
making professional crime as difficult and
dangerous a pursuit as it can be made, or what
argument can be found in it against a measure
eminently preventive and not detective, is
more than we can understand. Habitual
criminals exist and carry on their trade—it is
nothing more or less—for no other reason than
because the police have no preventive power
whatever over them, unless detected in some
offence. It is illogical in the last degree to
punish severely detected crime, so long as,
undetected, it is thus tacitly encouraged.

Over ticket-of-leave men, or, as they are more
correctly termed, licence-holders, the police
have at present some slight check. A male
licence-holder on his release from prison has to
report himself and his address at the principal
police station in the district in which he
resides, within three days of his liberation.
Afterwards he is required to present himself once a
month. With this exception he is, unless he
break any of the special conditions endorsed
on his licence, to all intents and purposes a
free man. His employer is not informed by the
police that he has a ticket-of-leave man in his
service. If he keep his own counsel and
behave himself well, nobody need know anything
of his antecedents. If he get into trouble, or if
the police of the district suspect him to be leading
an irregular life, report is made to the chief
office, and (after inquiry quietly conducted),
such steps are taken as may seem necessary. If
under such circumstances the man abscond, as
he very frequently does, he is advertised in the
Police Gazette, apprehended when discovered,
and his licence becomes forfeited. If the licence-
holder have a strong objection to reporting
himself to the police, he has only to place
himself under the care of the Discharged Prisoners'
Aid Society, whose officers will look after him,
unless his conduct become very bad. In that
case the Society give notice to the police, and
wash their hands of their man. It would appear
that the supervision of the society is greatly
preferred to that of the police. Colonel
Henderson, in his memorandum of the 5th of
March, tells us that of three hundred and sixty-
eight male licence-holders discharged into the
metropolitan police district in 1868, two
hundred and ninety placed themselves under the
society, either on discharge or shortly afterwards.