As to the offence of returning from transportation, Mr. Wakefield might, with a slight inquiry, have found very sufficient reasons, besides the mildness of the punishment, why conviction followed certainly on commitment in the few cases (only eight) which occurred during the three years to which his table applies. And he might also have discovered from the parliamentary returns for the very same three years, that the total absence of executions for a crime was not always attended with certainty of conviction. Why did he not give us a table as to cattle-stealing? During those three years-nay, during the seven years from 1824 to 1830there was not in London and Middlesex one execution for cattle stealing. But do we find the convictions equal to the committals, as they ought to be according to Mr. Wakefield's theory? Not at all. The committals in the seven years were eighteen, and the convictions only twelve. The truth is, the proof of the crime of returning from transportation (so far from being difficult) is peculiarly simple and easy, consisting merely of the order for transportation proved by the certificate of the officer of the court, and the proof of the identity of the party by constables or others familiar with his person. That numbers of such persons are at large in London without being detected is clear from the fact of only eight commitments taking place in three years; but when the officer has detected the individual, and has sworn decisively to his identity (without which the magistrates would not commit him), the case is so simple and so concise, that there can hardly be a doubt of his conviction. Mr. Wakefield might have discovered indeed, from the parliamentary returns, that this offence forms an invariable and solitary contrast to all other offences, as to the proportion between convictions and commitments. In 1825, four were committed and four convicted. In 1826, twelve were committed and all convicted. In 1827, thirteen were committed and twelve convicted. The returns show that there is scarcely an escape once in four years of a prisoner committed for this offence. The fact which Mr. Wakefield has so unsuccessfully attempted to prove-viz. that in proportion as punishment is severe, convictions are infrequent-is however so confidently proclaimed, and peremptorily reasoned upon, by various writers and speakers, that it may be as well to examine a little further how far it is borne out by authentic facts. The following tables, which we have constructed from the Parliamentary Returns for 1831, will enable the reader to pursue this inquiry, and will at the same time afford much light on other important points connected with crimes.* It is right to state that our Tables (for the sake of brevity) only exhibit the twenty-four most frequent crimes, leaving out sixteen offences in the Returns, as to which the numbers are in general so trifling (in many years none at all) as not to afford any grounds for inference one way or the other. TABLE |