ence, that the qualified man can sell to the licensed man, and the licentiate to the public.

It seems probable to us, that vast quantities of game would, after a little time, find their way into the hands of licensed poulterers. Great people are very often half eaten up by their establisments. The quantity of game killed in a large shooting party is very. great; to eat it is impossible, and to dispose of it in presents very troublesome. The preservation of game is very expensive; and, when it could be bought, it would be no more a compliment to send it as a present than it would be to send geese and fowls. If game were sold, very large shooting establishments might be made to pay their own expenses. The shame is made by the law; there is a disgrace in being detected and fined. If that barrier were removed, superfluous partridges would go to the poulterers as readily as superfluous venison does to the venison butcher-or as a gentleman sells the corn and mutton off his farm which he cannot consume. For these reasons, we do not doubt that the shops of licensed poulterers would be full of game in the season; and this part of the argument, we think, the arch-enemy, Sir John Shelley, himself would concede to us.

fect confidence. Men will brave the law for pheasants, but not for sixpence or a shilling; and the law itself is much more difficult to be braved, when it allows pheasants to be bought at some price, than when it endeavours to render them utterly inaccessible to wealth. All the licensed salesmen, too, would have a direct interest in stopping the contraband trade of game. They would lose no character in doing so; their informations would be reasonable and respectable.

If all this is true, the poacher would have to compete with a great mass of game fairly and honestly poured into the market. He would be selling with a rope about his neck, to a person who bought with a rope about his neck; his description of customers would be much the same as the customers for stolen poultry, and his profits would be very materi ally abridged. At present, the poacher is in the same situation as the smuggler would be, if rum and brandy could not be purchased of any fair trader. The great check to the profits of the smuggler are, that if you want his commodities, and will pay an higher price, you may have them elsewhere without risk or disgrace. But forbid the purchase of these luxuries at any price. Shut up the shop of the brandy merchant, and you render the trade of the smuggler of incalculable value. The ob ject of the intended bill is, to raise up precisely the same competition to the trade of the poacher, by giving the public an opportunity of buy ing lawfully and honestly the tempting articles in which he now deals exclusively. Such an improvement would not, perhaps, altogether annihilate his trade; but it would, in all probability, act as a very material check upon it.

The next question is, From whence they would procure it? A license for selling game, granted by country magistrates, would, from their jealousy upon these subjects, be granted only to persons of some respectability and property. The purchase of game from unqualified persons would, of course, be guarded against by very heavy penalties, both personal and pecuniary; and these penalties would be inflicted, because opinion would go with them. "Here is a respectable tradesman," it would be said, "who might have bought as much game as he The predominant argument against all this pleased in a lawful manner, but who, in order is, that the existing prohibition against buying to increase his profits by buying it a little game, though partially violated, does deter many cheaper, has encouraged a poacher to steal it." persons from coming into the market; that if Public opinion, therefore, would certainly be this prohibition were removed, the demand for in favour of a very strong punishment; and a game would be increased, the legal supply licensed vender of game, who exposed himself would be insufficient, and the residue would, to these risks, would expose himself to the loss and must be, supplied by the poacher, whose of liberty, property, character, and license.-trade would, for these reasons, be as lucrative The persons interested to put a stop to such a and flourishing as before. But it is only a few practice, would not be the paid agents of gov- years since the purchase of game has been ernment, as in cases of smuggling; but all the made illegal: and the market does not appear gentlemen of the country, the customers of the to have been at all narrowed by the prohibition; tradesman for fish, poultry, or whatever else he not one head of game the less has been sold by dealt in, would have an interest in putting down the poulterers; and scarcely one single conthe practice. In all probability, the practice viction has taken place under that law. How, would become disreputable, like the purchase then, would the removal of the prohibition, and of stolen poultry; and this would be a stronger the alteration of the law, extend the market barrier than the strongest laws. There would, of course, be some exceptions to this statement. A few shabby people would, for the chance of gaining sixpence, incur the risk of ruin and disgrace; but it is probable that the general practice would be otherwise.

and increase the demand, when the enactment of the prohibition has had no effect in narrowing it? But if the demand increases, why not the legal supply also? Game is increased upon an estate by feeding them in winter, by making some abatement to the tenants for For the same reasons, the consumers of guarding against depradations, by a large apgame would rather give a little more for it to a paratus of gamekeepers and spies-in short by licensed poulterer, than expose themselves to expense. But if this pleasure of shooting, so severe penalties by purchasing from poachers. natural to country gentlemen, is made to pay The great mass of London consumers are sup- its own expenses, by sending superfluous game plied now, not from shabby people, in whom to market, more men, it is reasonable to supthey can have no confidence-not from hawkers and porters, but from respectable tradesmen, in whose probity they have the most per

pose, will thus preserve and augment their game. The love of pleasure and amusement will produce in the owners of game that desire

CRUEL TREATMENT OF UNTRIED PRISONERS.*

[EDINBURGH REVIEW, 1824.]

"J. GURNEY. “Lincoln s Inn Fields, 2d September, 1823.” "I think the magistrates are empowered, under the tenth section (explained by the 37th and 38th), to maintain prisoners before trial, who are able to work, unable to maintain themselves by their own means, or by employnot willing to work; and I think also, that the ment which they themselves can procure, and words "shall be lawful," in that section, do not leave them a discretion on the subject, but are compulsory. Such prisoners can only be employed in prison labour with their own consent; and it cannot be intended that the justices may force such consent, by withholding from them the necessaries of life, if they do not give it. Even those who are convicted cannot be employed at the treadmill, which I consider as a species of severe labour.

Ir has been the practice, all over England, |ing such prisoners to work, either at the treadfor these last fifty years,† not to compel prison- mill, or any other species of labour. ers to work before guilt was proved. Within these last three or four years, however, the magistrates of the North Riding of Yorkshire, considering it improper to support any idle person at the county expense, have resolved, that prisoners committed to the house of correction for trial, and requiring county support, should work for their livelihood; and no sooner was the treadmill brought into fashion, than that machine was adopted in the North Riding as the species of labour by which such prisoners were to earn their maintenance. If these magistrates did not consider themselves empowered to burden the county rates for the support of prisoners before trial, who would not contribute to support themselves, it does not appear, from the publication of the reverend chairman of the sessions, that any opinions of counsel were taken as to the legality of so putting prisoners to work, or of refusing them maintenance if they choose to be idle; but the magistrates themselves decided that such was the law of the land. Thirty miles off, however, the law of the land was differently interpreted; and in the Castle of York large sums were annually expended in the maintenance of idle prisoners before trial, and paid by the different Ridings, without remonstrance or resistance.+

"September 4th, 1823."

"J. PARKE.

"2dly, As to the point of compelling prisoners confined on criminal charges, and receiving relief from the magistrates, to reasonable labour; to that of the treadmill for instance, in which, when properly conducted, there is nothing severe or unreasonable; had the question arisen prior to the late act, I should with confidence have said, I thought the magistrates had a compulsory power in this respect. Those who cannot live without relief in a jail, cannot live without labour out of it. Labour then is their avocation. Nothing is so injurious to the morals and habits of the prisoner as the indolence prevalent in prisons; nothing so injurious to good order in the prison. The analogy between this and other cases of public support is exceedingly strong; one may almost consider it a general principle, that those who live at the charge of the community shall, as far as they are able, give the community a compensation through their labour. But the "2dly, I am of opinion, that the magistrates question does not depend on mere abstract are empowered, and are compelled to main-reasoning. The stat. 19 Ch. 2, c. 4, sec. 1, entain, at the expense of the county, such prisoners before trial as are able to work, unable to maintain themselves, and not willing to work;

Such was the state of affairs in the county of York before the enactment of the recent prison bill. After that period, enlargements and alterations were necessary in the county jail; and it was necessary also for these arrangements, that the magistrates should know whether or not they were authorized to maintain such prisoners at the expense of the county, as, being accounted able and unwilling to work, still claimed the county allowance. To questions proposed upon these points to three barristers, the following answers were returned:

and that they have not the power of compell

1. A Letter to the Right Honourable Robert Peel, one

of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, &c. &c. &c.
on Prison Labour. By JOHN HEADLAM, M. A., Chairman
of the Quarter Sessions for the North Riding of the
County of York. London. Hatchard and Son, 1823.
2. Information and Observations, respecting the proposed
Improvements at York Castle. Printed by Order of the
Committee of Magistrates. September, 1823.

Headlam, p. 6.

We mention the case of the North Riding, to convince our readers that the practice of condemning prisoners to work before trial has existed in some parts of England; for in questions like this we have always found it more difficult to prove the existence of the facts, than to prove

that they were mischievous and unjust.

titled, An Act for Relief of poor Prisoners, and setting them on work,' speaks of persons committed for felony and other misdemeanours to the common jail, who many times perish

before trial; and then proceeds as to setting

poor prisoners on work. Then stat. 31 G. 3, such prisoners of every description, as, being c. 46, sec. 13, orders money to be raised for confined within the said jails, or other places of confinement, are not able to work. A late stat. (52 G. 3, c. 160) orders parish relief to such debtors on mesne process in jails, not county jails, as are not able to support themselves; but says nothing of finding or compelling work. Could it be doubted, that if the justices were to provide work, and the prisoner refused it, such debtors might, like any other

of bread and water, or otherwise the evasion of the law would be in the highest degree mean and reprehensible. But it is impossible to suppose any such thing to be intended by gentlemen so highly respectable. Their intention is not that idle persons before trial shall starve, but that they shall have barely enough of the plainest food for the support of life and health. Mr. Headlam has written a pamphlet to show that the old law was very reasonable and proper; that it is quite right that prisoners before trial, who are able to support themselves, but unwilling to work, should be compelled to work, and at the treadmill, or that all support should be refused them. We are entirely of an opposite opinion; and maintain that it is neither legal nor expedient to compel prisoners before trial to work at the treadmill, or at any species of labour, and that those who refuse to work should be supported upon a plain, healthy diet. We impute no sort of blame to the magistrates of the North Riding, or to Mr. Headlam, their chairman. We have no doubt but that they thought their measures the wisest and the best for correcting evil, and that they adopted them in pursuance of what they thought to be their duty. Nor do we enter into any discussion with Mr. Headlam, as chairman of a Quarter Sessions, but as the writer of a pamphlet. It is only in his capacity of author that we have any thing to do with him. In answering the arguments of Mr. Headlam, we shall notice, at the same time, a few other observations commonly resorted to in defence of a system which we believe to be extremely pernicious, and pregnant with the worst consequences; and so thinking, we contend against it, and in support of the law as it now stands.

parish paupers, be refused the relief mentioned | such prisoners should have a sufficient quantity by the statute? In all the above cases, the authority to insist on the prisoner's labour, as the condition and consideration of relief granted him, is, I think, either expressed, or necessarily implied; and thus viewing the subject, I think it was in the power of magistrates, prior to the late statute, to compel prisoners, subsisting in all or in part on public relief, to work at the treadmill. The objection commonly made is, that prisoners, prior to trial, are to be accounted innocent, and to be detained, merely that they may be secured for trial; to this the answer is obvious, that the labour is neither meant as a punishment or a disgrace, but simply as a compensation for the relief, at their own request, afforded them. Under the present statute, I, however, have no doubt, that poor prisoners are entitled to public support, and that there can be no compulsory labour prior to trial. The two statutes adverted to (19 Ch. 2, c. 4, and 31 G. 3) are, as far as this subject is concerned, expressly repealed. The legislature then had in contemplation the existing power of magistrates to order labour before trial, and having it in contemplation, repeals it; substituting (sec. 38) a power of setting to labour only sentenced persons. The 13th rule, too (p. 177), speaks of labour as connected with convicted prisoners, and sec. 37 speaks in general terms of persons committed for trial, as labouring with their own consent. In opposition to these clauses, I think it impossible to speak of implied power, or power founded on general reasoning or analogy. So strong, however, are the arguments in favour of a more extended authority in justices of the peace, that it is scarcely to be doubted, that Parliament, on a calm revision of the subject, would be willing to restore, in a more distinct manner than it has hitherto been enacted, a general discretion on the subject. Were this done, there is one observation I will venture to make, which is, that should some unfortunate association of ideas render the treadmill a matter of ignominy to common feelings, an enlightened magistracy would scarcely compel an untried prisoner to a species of labour which would disgrace him in his own mind, and in that of the public. "S. W. NICOLL.

“York, August 27th, 1823.”

In consequence, we believe, of these opinions, the North Riding magistrates, on the 13th of October (the new bill commencing on the 1st of September), passed the following resolution:-"That persons committed for trial, who are able to work, and have the means of employment offered them by the visiting magistrates, by which they may earn their support, but who obstinately refuse to work, shall be allowed bread and water only."

By this resolution they admit, of course, that the counsel are right in their interpretation of the present law; and that magistrates are forced to maintain prisoners before trial who do not choose to work. The magistrates say, however, by their resolution, that the food shail be of the plainest and humblest kind, bread and water; meaning, of course, that

We will not dispute with Mr. Headlam, whether his exposition of the old law is right or wrong: because time cannot be more unprofitably employed than in hearing gentlemen who are not lawyers discuss points of law. We dare to say Mr. Headlam knows as much of the laws of his country as magistrates in general do; but he will pardon us for believ ing, that for the moderate sum of three guineas a much better opinion of what the law is now, or was then, can be purchased, than it is in the power of Mr. Headlam, or any other county magistrate, to give for nothing-Cuilibet in arte sua credendum est. It is concerning the expediency of such laws, and upon that point alone, that we are at issue with Mr. Headlam; and do not let this gentleman suppose it to be any answer to our remarks to state what is done in the prison in which he is concerned, now the law is altered. The question is, whether he is right or wrong in his reasoning upon what the law ought to be; we wish to hold out such reasoning to public notice, and think it important it should be refuted-doubly important, when it comes from an author, the leader of the quorum, who may say with the pious Æneas,→

-Quæque ipse miserrima vidi,
Et quorum pars magna fui.

If, in this discussion, we are forced to insist upon the plainest and most elementary truths,

the fault is not with us, but with those who | does not know what he is doing, what progress forget them; and who refuse to be any longer he is making; there is no room for art, conrestrained by those principles which have hith- trivance, ingenuity, and superior skill-all erto been held to be as clear as they are im- which are the cheering circumstances of huportant to human happiness. man labour. The husbandman sees the field gradually subdued by the plough; the smith beats the rude mass of iron by degrees into its meditated shape, and gives it a meditated utility; the tailor accommodates his parallelogram of cloth to the lumps and bumps of the human body, and, holding it up, exclaims, "This will contain the lower moiety of an human being." But the treader does nothing but tread; he sees no change of objects, admires no new relation of parts, imparts no new qualities to matter, and gives to it no new arrangements and positions; or, if he does, he sees and knows it not, but is turned at once from a rational being, by a justice of peace, into a primum mobile, and put upon a level with a rush of water or a puff of steam. is impossible to get gentlemen to attend to the distinction between raw and roasted prisoners, without which all discussion on prisoners is perfectly ridiculous. Nothing can be more excellent than this kind of labour for persons to whom you mean to make labour as irksome as possible; but for this very reason, it is the labour to which an untried prisoner ought not to be put.

It

To begin, then, with the nominative case and the verb-we must remind those advocates for the treadmill, a parte ante (for which the millers a parte post we have no quarrel), that it is one of the oldest maxims of common sense, common humanity, and common law, to consider every man as innocent till he is proved to be guilty; and not only to consider him to be innocent, but to treat him as if he was so; to exercise upon his case not merely a barren speculation, but one which produces practical effects, and which secures to a prisoner the treatment of an honest, unpunished man. Now, to compel prisoners before trial to work at the treadmill, as the condition of their support, must, in a great number of instances, operate as a very severe punishment. A prisoner may be a tailor, a watchmaker, a bookbinder, a printer, totally unaccustomed to any such species of labour. Such a man may be cast into jail at the end of August, and not tried till the March following; is it no punishment to such a man to walk up hill like a turnspit dog, in an infamous machine, for six months? and yet there are gentlemen who suppose that the common people do not con- It is extremely uncandid to say that a man sider this as punishment!—that the gayest and is obstinately and incorrigibly idle, because most joyous of human beings is a treader, he will not submit to such tiresome and deuntried by a jury of his countrymen, in the testable labour as that of the treadmill. It is fifth month of lifting up the leg, and striving an old feeling among Englishmen that there is against the law of gravity, supported by the a difference between tried and untried perglorious information which he receives from sons, between accused and convicted persons. the turnkey, that he has all the time been These old opinions were in fashion before this grinding flour on the other side of the wall! new magistrate's plaything was invented; and If this sort of exercise, necessarily painful to we are convinced that many industrious persedentary persons, is agreeable to persons ac- sons, feeling that they have not had their trial, customed to labour, then make it voluntary-and disgusted with the nature of the labour, give the prisoners their choice-give more money and more diet to those who can and will labour at the treadmill, if the treadmill (now so dear to magistrates) is a proper punishment for untried prisoners. The position we are contending against is, that all poor prisoners who are able to work should be put to work upon the treadmill, the inevitable consequence of which practice is, a repetition of gross injustice by the infliction of undeserved punishment; for punishment, and severe pun-bour is a punishment, because it is irksome, ishment, to such persons as we have enumerated, we must consider it to be.

But punishments are not merely to be estimated by pain to the limbs, but by the feelings of the mind. Gentlemen punishers are sometimes apt to forget that the common people have any mental feelings at all, and think, if body and belly are attended to, that persons under a certain income have no right to likes and dislikes. The labour of the treadmill is irksome, dull, monotonous, and disgusting to the last degree. A man does not see his work,

Mr. Headlam, as we understand him. would extend this labour to all poor prisoners before trial in jails which are delivered twice a year at the assizes, as well as to houses of correction delivered four times a year at the Sessions; i. e. not to extend the labour, but to refuse all support to those who refuse the labour-a distinction,

but not a difference.

would refuse to work at the treadmill, who would not be averse to join in any common and fair occupation. Mr. Headlam says, that labour may be a privilege as well as a punishment. So may taking physic be a privilege, in cases where it is asked for as a charitable relief, but not if it is stuffed down a man's throat whether he say yea or nay. Certainly labour is not necessarily a punishment: nobody has said it is so; but Mr. Headlam's la

infamous, unasked for, and undeserved. This gentleman, however, observes, that committed persons have offended the laws; and the sentiment expressed in these words is the true key to his pamphlet and his system-a perpetual tendency to confound the convicted and the accused.

"With respect to those sentenced to labour as a punishment, I apprehend there is no difference of opinion. All are agreed that it is a great defect in any prison where such convicts are unemployed. But as to all other prisoners, whether debtors, persons committed for trial, or convicts not sentenced to hard labour, if they have no means of subsisting themselves, and must, if discharged, either labour for their livelihood or apply for parochial re lief, it seems unfair to society at large, and