Observe! John Styles, who has committed
the felony has been 'living quite a careless
life.' That is his worst opinion of it,
whereas his companions who did not commit
the felony are ' wretched companions.' John
saw his 'folly,' and sees their 'wicked course.'
It is playhouses and theatres which many
unfelonious people go to, that prey upon John's
mind—not felony. John is shut up in that
pulpit to lecture his companions and his
sister, about the wickedness of the unfelonious
world. Always supposing him to be sincere,
is there no exaggeration of himself in this?
Go to church where I can go, and don't go to
theatres where I can't! Is there any tinge of
the fox and the grapes in it? Is this the kind
of penitence that will wear outside! Put the
case that he had written, of his own mind,
' My dear sister, I feel that I have disgraced
you and all who should be dear to me, and if
it please God that I live to be free, I will try
hard to repair that, and to be a credit to you.
My dear sister, when I committed this felony,
I stole something—and these pining five
months have not put it back—and I will
work my fingers to the bone to make restitution,
and oh! my dear sister, seek out my late
companions, and tell Tom Jones, that poor
boy, who was younger and littler than me,
that I am grieved I ever led him so wrong,
and I am suffering for it now! ' Would
that be better? Would it be more like solid
truth?

But no. This is not the pattern penitence.
There would seem to be a pattern penitence,
of a particular form, shape, limits, and
dimensions, like the cells. While Mr. Field is
correcting his proof-sheets for the press, another
letter is brought to him, and in that letter too,
that man, also a felon , speaks of his ' past
folly,' and lectures his mother about labouring
under 'strong delusions of the devil.' Does
this overweening readiness to lecture other
people, suggest the suspicion of any parrot-
like imitation of Mr. Field, who lectures him,
and any presumptuous confounding of their
relative positions?

We venture altogether to protest against
the citation, in support of this system, of
assumed repentance which has stood no test
or trial in the working world. We consider
that it proves nothing, and is worth nothing,
except as a discouraging sign of that spiritual
egotism and presumption of which we have
already spoken. It is not peculiar to the
separate system at Reading; Miss Martineau,
who was on the whole decidedly favourable to
the separate prison at Philadelphia, observed
it there. 'The cases I became acquainted
with,' says she, ' were not all hopeful. Some
of the convicts were so stupid as not to be
relied upon, more or less. Others canted so
detestably, and were (always in connexion
with their cant) so certain that they should
never sin more, that I have every expectation
that they will find themselves in prison again
some day. One fellow, a sailor, notorious for
having taken more lives than probably any
man in the United States, was quite confident
that he should be perfectly virtuous henceforth.
He should never touch anything
stronger than tea, or lift his hand against
money or life. I told him I thought he could
not be sure of all this till he was within sight
of money and the smell of strong liquors;
and that he was more confident than I should
like to be. He shook his shock of red hair at
me, and glared with his one ferocious eye,
as he said he knew all about it. He had been
the worst of men, and Christ had had mercy
on his poor soul.' (Observe again, as in the
general case we have put, that he is not at all
troubled about the souls of the people whom
he had killed.)

Let us submit to our readers another
instance from Mr. Field, of the wholesome
state of mind produced by the separate system.
'The 25th of March, in the last year, was
the day appointed for a general fast, on
account of the threatened famine. The following
note is in my journal of that day. "During
the evening I visited many prisoners, and
found with much satisfaction that a large
proportion of them had observed the day in
a manner becoming their own situation, and
the purpose for which it had been set apart.
I think it right to record the following
remarkable proof of the effect of discipline.
*    *    *    *    *   They were all supplied with
their usual rations. I went first this evening
to the cells of the prisoners recently
committed for trial (Ward A. 1.), and amongst
these (upwards of twenty) I found that but
three had abstained from any portion of their
food. I then visited twenty-one convicted
prisoners who had spent some considerable
time in the gaol (Ward C. 1.), and amongst
them I found that some had altogether
abstained from food, and of the whole number
two-thirds had partially abstained." ' We will
take it for granted that this was not because
they had more than they could eat, though
we know that with such a dietary even that
sometimes happens, especially in the case of
persons long confined. 'The remark of one
prisoner whom I questioned concerning his
abstinence was, I believe, sincere, and was
very pleasing. " Sir, I have not felt able to eat
to-day, whilst I have thought of those poor
starving people; but I hope that I have
prayed a good deal that God will give them
something to eat." '

If this were not pattern penitence, and the
thought of those poor starving people had
honestly originated with that man, and were
really on his mind, we want to know why he
was not uneasy, every day, in the contemplation
of his soup, meat, bread, potatoes, cocoa-
nibs, milk, molasses, and gruel, and its
contrast to the fare of ' those poor starving
people ' who, in some form or other, were taxed
to pay for it?

We do not deem it necessary to comment
on the authorities quoted by Mr. Field to