ship then went into details in reference to the proposed measure. He thought that we should only leave as subjects for transportation those who were now liable for fourteen years and upwards, including cases of receiving stolen goods, outrages, assaults on the person, attempts to do grievous bodily harm, house-breaking, burglary, cattle-stealing, and matters of that sort. The only remaining question was, what should be substituted as a punishment for the remainder? He thought that those who would have been transported for seven years should henceforth be kept in penal servitude for a term of four years; those transported for ten years undergo a penal servitude of six years; those for fifteen, one of eight; and those above fifteen, one of ten years.

Earl Grey declared that experience had proved that transportation, as formerly carried out, had proved one of the most effectual preventives of crime, and complained that the Lord Chancellor had not sufficiently developed the system of secondary punishments which it was proposed to substitute for transportation.

Lord Brougham regretted that transportation was about in any degree to be abolished. He thought infant training-schools and a good police the best preventives of crime.

The Duke of Newcastle expressed his entire acquiescence in the regrets expressed by Lord Grey and Lord Brougham at the cessation of transportation. The excuse, however, for that cessation was to be found in its absolute necessity, and, with a view to meet the altered circumstances of the

times, the present measure had been introduced as a first step towards the improvement of our penal system.

Lord Campbell supported the second reading, but said, when he agreed to this Bill, it must be understood to be without prejudice to the Government efforts still to continue transportation. At the present time they would only have Western Australia, but he thought new places might be found. He was told by those conversant with the subject, that there were other spots on the great continent of Australia to which they might advantageously send convicts, and it might be done to the Falkland Islands. He hoped the Government would use their best efforts to continue transportation in that

way.

The Marquis of Clanricarde hoped that there would be some clearer statement as to what was to be done with the convicts to whom promises had been made, because he understood that from 800 to 1200 would be let loose upon society in this country.

The Bill was then read a second time.

In Committee, the Lord Chancellor explained the proposed system for dealing with convicts, and several noble Lords made observations on the measure, which was subsequently read a third time and passed.

In the House of Commous, in Committee on the Bill, upon the 9th of August, Lord Palmerston gave an exposition of the views of the Government upon the subject of secondary punishments. The question, he observed, was one of extreme difficulty. The object of punishment was to make it a

penalty to the offender and an example to others, without shocking the feelings of the community, and at the same time to combine reformation with punishment. Hitherto our colonies had enabled us to make transportation beyond the seas one of our secondary punishments, but this resource having now failed-the feelings of the colonists revolting against being brought into contact with our criminals, and a great event having changed the condition of our Australian colonies--the system must be altered. The first result to which the Government were led was the necessity of ceasing to transport offenders to the colonies, except a small number to Western Australia, and the Bill proposed to empower the courts to alter the sentences. It was proposed that after a certain period of preliminary imprisonment the offender should be capable of receiving a ticket-of-leave in this country, liable to be revoked. He thought that, with regard to a great portion of those who were sentenced to transportation, reformation was by no means a hopeless object, and every effort would be made to accomplish it. When those persons who had conditional ticketsof-leave were to be released, the grave question arose, where were they to go, and how were they to be employed? He had every reason to believe that means would be found of giving all these persons employment upon the public works, apart from the convicts, at suitable wages, from which occupation, without a stigma, they might slide into the ordinary avocations of honest industry. The charge for providing additional accommodation would be borne by the public, but, as the cost of trans

porting criminals would be no longer incurred, there would be a very considerable annual saving of expenditure. The whole system must be considered in a great degree experimental; but he believed that this was the best mode that could be devised to meet the great change to which he had referred.

Mr. Walpole concurred in the scheme as a whole, but differed on two points. By the second clause, transportation for a shorter period than 14 years was abolished: it would be better to give the Crown power to commute all sentences of transportation for periods of penal servitude. As the Bill stood, no convicts but those who had committed the gravest offences could be sent to the colonies; but some colonists might desire our convicts, and if the Bill were altered as he suggested, that would enable the Crown to send convicts to any colony desiring it. He also suggested, that where a man, after remission, again commits an offence similar to that for which he has already been punished, he should receive the next higher punishment. If they looked to the reports upon the subject they would find that the system of employing criminals upon public works had not only proved highly beneficial to the convicts themselves, but had also contributed to the lasting advantage of the country. cost of transportation was little short of 200,000l. a year, including the expenses incurred in the colonies; the cost of the prisoners at home was also very great, but the works at Portland paid themselves at the present moment, besides producing a noble harbour; and he was satisfied that if similar works were prosecuted in other

The

parts of the kingdom, great public good would accrue to the country, and great progress would be made in the improvement and reformation of criminals. In the year 1849, the profitable labour at the works at Portland produced upwards of 17,000l.; in 1850, it produced 14,000l.; in 1851, 20,5417.; during the past year the earnings of the convicts had exceeded the cost of the establishment, and there was no reason to doubt that, wherever the same facilities existed for the employment of offenders, the same results would follow.

Sir John Pakington complained of the course taken by the Government in bringing forward this measure at a time when it could not be discussed. There should have been a full discussion. He hoped Ministers had not been too precipitate in abolishing transportation; he had intended to continue it until 1854. The Bill bore evident marks of haste, but on the whole he agreed with its provisions, and should offer no opposition.

Mr. Adderly approved of the plan, condemned transportation as a punishment, and expressed his preference for the present proposition over that of Sir J. Paking

ton.

Several other Members approved, and no one opposed, the Bill, which passed through Committee.

Upon the 12th of August, on the order of the day for the third reading of the Bill, Mr. Keating adverted to the novel and, as he considered, objectionable principle of granting to convicts tickets-ofleave, which would introduce, he said, in the country a new class of persons, who, although quasi free

men, capable of contracting obligations, would be yet in the anomalous position of being liable to have their liberty abridged at the will of a Secretary of State. This part of the plan, he observed, superseded the constitutional functions of the judges, whose sentences the Secretary of State would have the jurisdiction of revising. So far from deterring from punishment, this would produce an opposite effect. He thought these clauses required more consideration, and that they should form a separate Bill, to be introduced next session.

Lord Palmerston assured the House that this matter had received the most deliberate consideration from persons competent to deal with the subject, who had thought the system would be attended with considerable advantage. It was believed that, after a period of preliminary imprisonment and employment upon public works, the hope of obtaining a ticket-of-leave would tend to produce reformation and good conduct in order to merit this indulgence. As transportation had ceased, it was very desirable, with a view to reformation, to inspire and keep alive this element of hope. Imprisonment and forced labour would be sufficient for the purpose of example, and, as far as the security of the public went, the proposed system afforded additional safeguards. The liability of the party to have his ticket-of-leave recalled in case of misconduct, and to be cast back upon the prison or public works, would teach him habits of self-control. No new principle was introduced; no new power was conferred upon the Secretary of State. The Crown possessed at present the power of

not only remitting, but of mitigating or commuting sentences.

Mr. Walpole concurred in the plan of punishment laid down in the Bill, and believed that it would be beneficial. He was convinced, he said, and he showed that there were ample grounds for this conclusion, that the employment of convicts, in the manner proposed, upon public works, would not only have a reformatory influence upon them, but would in time reduce our convict expenditure to a comparatively trifling amount.

He

insisted, however, upon the essential importance of holding out, as a part of the scheme, a severer punishment to those who should abuse the indulgence conceded to them.

After a short discussion, in which Mr. Spooner, Mr. J. Phillimore, Mr. Barrow, Mr. T. Chambers, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Hume, and Sir J. Pakington took part, the Bill was read a third time and passed; it subsequently passed the House of Lords, and became law.