years, and in the other with six months of
imprisonment. This instance is not an isolated
one. On the 29th of August, James Wratten
was accused of robbing Frederick Minasi of
four feet of lead, and, by a second indictment,
of stealing fifty pounds of lead, the property of
John Price. The quantity of lead stolen is very
small, and the offence, one would be apt to say,
not a very terrible one; yet the sentence upon
James Wratten—against whom about a dozen
previous convictions were put in—was that he be
kept in penal servitude for seven years. The
same enormous penalty was awarded, three days
later, to George Lane, who "pleaded guilty to
stealing a shirt," but who had been "previously
convicted of felony." In every one of these
instances of severe sentences awarded to
comparatively light offences, it will be seen that
there are previous convictions on record against
the prisoner. When a man has been convicted
a certain number of times, his case, to all
appearance, gets to be regarded as certainly hopeless.
At any rate, hopeless or not, a long
sequestration from temptation, and from the possibility
of offending again, is judged to be necessary,
and so they put him out of harm's way for
a time, to get him out of what may be called a
felonious habit.

The only thing which one does not quite
see is, why this theory should not be more
completely carried out. If these previous
convictions affect in so marked a degree the
sentences of thieves and small pilferers, why should
they not be equally powerful when it is a question
of assault and battery? In many of these
cases of brutal attack on the police, which we
have heard so much of lately, these same
"previous convictions"—whether a magistrate's or
a justice's does not, or should not, matter—have
been proved, and yet the short sentence only
has been pronounced. When certain ruffians,
were charged with a murderous assault upon
Police-constable Harding, the report informs us
that the men were "well known to the police."
The magistrate was reminded that one of them—
Shea by name—had just had four months for an
assault on the police. Surely this was a
"previous conviction." Yet the ruffian is only
sentenced, after all, to two months of imprisonment
How is this? He has just had four months
and is none the better for it, and the magistrate
tries him next with two. Is this logical, in the
strict sense of the word?

Of inadequate sentences, pronounced against
persons convicted of acts of violence, the
instances are numerous, as almost any day's police
sheet will show. Here—to take one specimen
—here is James Roach, an Irishman, who first
assaults a woman indecently, then strikes her
in the face, then throws the policeman, who
comes to take him up, seven or eight times
kicking him, and nearly throttling him—what
does he get for all this? A paltry two months
in the House of Correction! Here is another
Irishman, who steals an umbrella, who assaults
the person from whom he steals it, who attacks
and kicks the policeman who takes him into
custody, who attacks and kicks a second policeman
who comes to the assistance of the first, taking
a piece of skin, an inch and a half long, off this
last one's leg, who, on his way to the station,
deliberately and wantonly kicks, and much
injures, a little girl six years of age, and who is
sentenced to what? "To be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour in the House of Correction
for one calendar month!"

The severity of the sentences awarded to
persons who are convicted of acts of dishonesty,
is compared with those pronounced against such
offenders as have just been mentioned, is
sometimes very striking. It really almost seems as
if offences against the purse have got to be
regarded by our law as much more serious
than those which are committed against the
man who carries the purse. One or two cases,
selected at random from the newspaper reports
of the last few months, will show this very
plainly. We find a milkman, who pleads guilty to
an accusation of stealing a quart and a half pint
of milk, sentenced to four months of imprisonment;
and, in another case, published a few
days later, that case—already alluded to—of an
Irishman who, for kicking and maiming a
couple of policemen, and committing other
acts of savage violence, gets but one month—
a fourth part of the sentence inflicted on the
felonious milkman. In another instance, a
pickpocket, who is detected practising his craft
on the platform of the London and North-
Western Railway, first strikes one policeman
a furious blow on the mouth, and then kicks
another as the report says "dangerously."
He is altogether so violent that he is obliged
to be handcuffed. The sentence on this gentleman
is edifying. He is condemned to three
months of prison for attempting to pick pockets,
and has two months, besides, for the assault on
the police. Upon the whole, the impression
conveyed by a diligent study of such cases as
these, is, that it is less culpable to commit an
aggravated assault, by which your victim is
crippled, disabled from following his calling,
and tormented with cruel pain, than to pick a
pocket or steal sixpenny-worth of milk.

On Thursday, 12th December, will be published
                         THE
EXTRA DOUBLE NUMBER FOR CHRISTMAS,
                     ENTITLED
           NO THOROUGHFARE.
          BY CHARLES DICKENS
           AND WILKIE COLLINS.

          A NEW SERIAL STORY,
              BY WILKIE COLLNS
Will be commenced in the Number to be dated
       Saturday, 4th of January next.