only just quitted, for a further term of five
years.

One Shepherd was sentenced, in July, 'sixty-
four, to four years, and was liberated in
December, 'sixty-seven. He reported himself to
the Aid Society until nearly the expiration of
his time, and six months afterwards was brought
before the magistrates—giving an alias—
charged with robbing a gentleman of his watch
and chain in Newington-causeway. He
admitted his guilt, which, as he was taken
absolutely in the fact, was a piece of superfluous
candour, and, his identity being established,
he was got out of the way of society for ten
years. This was an artful customer, for when,
in the struggle ensuing on the robbery, he
found he could not get away, and could not
dispose of the watch in any other manner,
he managed dexterously to put it into one of
the prosecutor's pockets! There is even less
room for doubt in the matter of a cunning-looking
German, who was liberated in March,
'sixty-eight, on licence, after a sentence of six
years. This man reported himself as about to
proceed to Berlin, but thought better of it, and
remained in London. Here, he had a tolerably
prosperous season of six months, which he
employed in the same line of business that had
before got him into trouble. This was the
robbing of furnished lodgings: an operation
of great simplicity, and decidedly remunerative.
He was "wanted" for some time previous to
his apprehension, but succeeded in keeping out
of the way until last September, when he was
taken. At that time he was travelling under
the romantic name of Oakley Brinsley, and,
with that alias added to his various others, he
now appears as sentenced to fourteen years.
Five different prosecutors, each of whom had
lost property to the value of upwards of twenty
pounds, gave evidence against him. Under the
new Act this money would probably not have
been lost. Since his imprisonment, the sergeant
remarks, this class of robbery has become very
much less frequent. There is no doubt that
this German innocent was a professor of
distinguished eminence.

Equally eminent, although in another line of
business, is Mr. Thomas Smith. This
suffering innocent was discharged on licence,
after serving five years out of a sentence of six,
and placed himself under the Aid Society. He
reported himself in November, and in January
he was apprehended, in company with a friend
named Kennedy; both being at the time in
possession of much incongruous property, of
which they were entirely unable to give any
coherent account. Investigation clearly showed
this property to be the proceeds of a number
of recent portico larcenies: a favourite form of
robbery, which consists in climbing, at a time
when the occupants of the house are not
likely to be in the bedroom, to the first
floor by means of the portico, quietly opening
a window, laying hands on all the
property available, and retiring by the same
road. The companions were committed for
trial; Kennedy pleaded guilty, and declared
that Smith was innocent of any participation
in the robberies; the jury, believing him,
acquitted Smith, and Kennedy was sentenced to
ten years. Now, mark the antecedents of the
innocent Smith. Before the magistrate, a strong
light was thrown on Smith's previous history by
the production of the following list of convictions:
'fifty-four, six weeks; 'fifty-five, eighteen
months; 'fifty-seven, three months; 'fifty-eight,
two months; 'fifty-eight (this was a bad
year for Smith), four years; 'sixty-two, six
months, and, in the same year, another six
months; 'sixty-three, three months, and,
immediately after the expiration of that sentence,
six years. Mr. Tyrwhitt remarked, when this
list was put in, that he could not understand
how such a man was at large at all. We share
Mr. Tyrwhitt's dulness of understanding. It is
to be hoped that it will not be possible for such
a man to be at large much longer.

As a companion picture to this, take the
history of Louisa Lyons. Her convictions
begin with eight months in 'fifty; in 'fifty-one
she had a month and six weeks; in 'fifty-two,
one month and twelve months; 'fifty-three,
six months; 'fifty-four, two months and four
years' penal servitude; 'fifty-eight, two months;
'sixty, six years; 'sixty-six, twelve months for
uttering counterfeit coin; finally, in January
of this year, ten years for the same offence.
This list has a rather professional aspect. It
does not appear as if the prospect of one week
out, and one year in, would have many new
terrors for Smith and Lyons.

Whole families are to be found engaged in
particular branches of crime. Here is one.
A man who gave the name of Hill was
convicted of a robbery on the river, and
sentenced to six years, of which he served all but
some four months. While a licencee, he was
apprehended, under suspicious circumstances
in connexion with certain stolen rope, but was
discharged. Immediately after his sentence
expired, he was taken, with a man giving the name
of Thetford, for stealing lead from the roof of
a house on the river-side at Vauxhall. They
were sentenced, Hill to twelve, and Thetford,
who had violently assaulted his capturer, to
fourteen years. It turned out that they were
brothers, and members of a family which
the sergeant describes as being "about the
worst family we've got, sir." A father and
four sons, all river thieves, and all experienced
at penal servitude, make up this charming
family circle. They are rarely all out of prison
together—indeed, they are all occasionally in
prison at once.

In December, 'sixty-eight, an inspector
detected three men attempting to open house
doors with skeleton keys. After a desperate
struggle they were taken, and proved to be
three notorious thieves, all of whom had had
various terms of penal servitude, and one of
whom had only been out of prison six weeks.

We might fill page after page with similar
cases. What terms are to be held with people
of this kind? They and their like are perfectly
well known to the police. They are professed