The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-25 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1869.

The difference between the habitual and the pro-
fessional criminal, it may seem, at a superficial
glance, is rather difficult to define. The defini-
tion of that difference may, to put it in other
words, appear to involve a very nice distinction. It
will be recognized, however, after a moment's con-
sideration, that there is a readily traceable line of
demarcation between those two offenders against the
law. The habitual criminal so called may after all—
supposing him to have been already twice or thrice
convicted—a criminal quite casua'ly, as one may say,
or by acci lent— a criminal, to put it otherwise,
simply by yielding to temptation. His antecedents,
apart from the offences brought home to him, may
admit of the keenest examination. D,stitution or evil
company may have led him to his first offence, may
lead him to the repetition of it once, or twice, or even
more frequently. The professional criminal is alto-
gether different. Spawned in the midst of crime and
squalor—" dragged up," rather than " brought up,"
to apply to them with peculiar force the pathetic
remark made by CHARLES LAMB in regard to the
children of the very poor—nurtured on the fruits of
felony—tutored, in the use of language, from their
earliest years by thieves' slang, intermingled with
perpetual oaths and blasphemies—these professional
criminals, the roughs of our towns, the tramps on our
highways, prey upon the rest of the community, not
intermittently, not accidentally, but sytematically
and by rule. They are known here in Lon-
don every man of them, every woman,
boy, and girl—to the police of the metro-
polis—known by name, or rather by names,
for they are prolific in the alias—known by form and
face —known in all their haunts and habits. The
difference, to speak familiarly, is not that be-
tween six and half-a-dozen, but that between
chalk and cheese. It is a distinction,

moreover, that it is now most incum-
bent upon the Legislature we should have as
clearly and as rapidly defined as possible. And for
this simple reason, that, within a very few days, the
Habitual Criminals Bill will be formally brought
under discussion in Parliament. The very title of that
measure is its principal flaw —it is the " head and
front of its offending." The suppression of syste-
matic crime by more stringent penalties—that is the
main object of the intended enactment. It is a pur-
pose, in the reasonableness of which we can all of us
very heartily sympathise. But the designation of the
bill is—after what has here been just now remarked--

quite clearly and obviously a misnomer. What is
meant by that title is in reality far rather the Profes-
sional Criminals Bill than the Habitual Criminals Bill.
In any case, the distinction ought to be more clearly
defined than it is, both in the heading and in the body
of the bill itself. Otherwise, there will be immi-
nent ri-k through it of a miscarriage of justice.
What we are here insisting upon has been very
clearly and emphatically set forth by the learned
Recorder of Portsmouth in his recent charge to the
Grand Jury. " The promoters of the bill," said Mr.
Sergeant Cox, " made a great mistake, because,
contrary to the experience of those whose duty
it was to administer the law, it assumed that
the habitual was necessarily a professional thief.'
Speaking as a Middlesex Magistrate, he said that his
experience, when presiding over the Session of that
county, bad demonstrated to him that out of all
those tried before him, there, only one-fifth could
be classed as professional criminals. How preju-
dichlly the proposed Bill would be likely to act in
regard to the Eon-professional class of criminals
the learned Sergeant thus signific Intly shadowed
forth—" If," said be to the grand jury of Ports-
rth_uth, speaking in his judicial capacity as Recorder,
" a person was brought before them—whither man,
woman, or child—who could not be regarded as a
professional thief, but who, it turned out, had
been thrice previously convicted, he was quite
sure that when it was known that a less punish-
ment than seven years' penal servitude could not
be awarded, there would be a great objection to
prosecute, there would be a greater reluctance on
the part of juries to convict, and there would be a
still greater reluctance on the part of a judge to
pass a sentence which was altogether uncalled for by
the nature and circumstances of the case." It is really,
after all, a question as to a minimum of seven
years or a minimum of three—of penal servitude.
- in he allowed discretionary power as to
im-
posev:te
do on pr hteh
ep rvi seorndei
er st brought
nbreyf. o. r e
In
the amount of punishment they are
..() • a +
j
wa A Pi
themtheanmdidsctonnf-

the very noticeable silence maintained by our judicial
authoritit s in regard to the Habitual Criminals Bill,
we are thankful to the learned Recorder of Ports-
mouth for directing attention betimes to the unques-
tionable anomalies of the bill prior to its coming for-
mally, as it is arranged to do, within a very few days
from the present moment, under the serutiny of the
Imperial Legislature.