2'r2 Proceedings of the Royal Socleti/ of Victoria. 



only vvei-e there ^ood authorities for that statement amongst 

 the leading writers in England, but it could be shown that, 

 even in this colony, such was the fact. Lord John Russell 

 had inaugurated the Penfold scheme —a reformatory schema 

 in whi(;h criminals, when improved to a certain extent, were 

 to be sent to Australia with so much money in their pockets. 

 Two shiploads of criminals, certificated as having been 

 reformed, had been sent to Australia about 1849 or 1850, 

 Two-thirds of the men who had entered the scheme never 

 reached Australia, and those that were sent were the best. 

 These men had not improved the population ; but our 

 records of crime showed that, instead of being reformed, 

 when they had got a sum of money in their pockets, and 

 were landed on a new shoi-e to start a new career, they had 

 turned out, as a rule, misei'able failures. But it was fair to 

 remember, that the ranks of crime included many characters. 

 There was the criminal who was of an energetic character, 

 and whose energies had been directed into an unfortunate 

 channel. There was the man who had mutinied in the 

 Army, or the man who had merely knocke.i a hare over 

 which happened to run in front of him. Then again, there 

 was the man whose daughter had been ruined by some 

 wealthy man, and who had avenged himself These were 

 not criminals in the proper sense of the term. They were 

 on a different footing, and might have a fan^ chance in a 

 new countiy, where that very energy and impetuosity that 

 had carried them into a wrong grove in one dii-ection, might 

 make them most successful in another. Many of the world's 

 gi-eatest men would have been great nuisances if they had 

 taken a wrong ti-ack ; Lord Clive was an instance. Marl- 

 borough, too, whose energy would perhaps have been 

 thrown into a wrong channel if his country had not 

 needed his services, had found an outlet for it in slaughter- 

 ing Fienchmen, and so had become a hero. Passing 

 from the question of reformation, there remained the 

 theories of retribution and deterrence. No philo.sophical 

 people would hold that punishment should be retributive — ■ 

 that if a man were struck, he should be resolved to return 

 the blow, merely as a matter of retribution, although 

 he would be perfectly entitled to take precaution 

 to prevent a repetition of the act. Retribution was 

 not according to modern views, and there only i-emained 

 the deterrent view, which should be widened out into 

 a question of placing a sufficiently strong deterrent motive 



