Year: 1873

law deals otherwise with people who steal-eyen
with people who only eteal books OF law valued
at few shillings."


The first remarkable feature Of the case is, that
a barrister Of thirty years. standing in London,
who Was well known in his profession, who had
always borne 6potless character, and in whose
life there appears to bo no cause for failure,
should have been 80 reduced in circumstances
as to find himself unable to procure meal with
ont theft, and that he should haye persisted in
remaining in profession which, after thirty
years of practice, left him stranded and without
the means OF caring for himself in. old age.
There are, however, many instances where men
yield to the destinations OF certain pro-
fcssion, and never leave it, or, they DO,
always return to it again, when they kno" that
it can only provide for them the means to sus-
tain life as they go along, and nothing more,
leaving them in time OF sickness or necessity
with nothing for support Nothing, in fact, Ii
more common than to find men Of great ability,
and even Of great learning, who labor hard, labor
even by day and by night, and yet at the end OF
every year find themselves with no more money
than they had when they commenced. They
may DO honest, frugal, temperate, and indus
trious, and yet the result is tho samo. Their
ability, valuable as it is, never finds market
where any results can be realized from it.


This general view Of the question WAS the
only one which the prisoner took and he fol-
lowed it out to its natural sequence and laid tho
blame upon society, in speech which he made to
the Court. In the course Of his remarks, he
said "he had lived for weeks and months with
out dinner, simply on bread and tea, and such
nutr;ment as TINT. He had sold the coat from
his back and the shirt from his skin in order to
supply his daily wants, but he had never been
guilty Of dishonesty. Hehad worked hard. On the
shelves Of the Inner Temple Library there were
now books Of which he WAS. the author, which
he Ind presented to the Library, and which
wore Of much more value than tho odd volume
which had beon paradcd before the Court. He
| had dono all that mortal man could do to obtain
an honest and honorable livelihood; and. as he
understood from the witnesses who had 80
kindly como forward on his behalf, be had
gained an irreproachablo character as mnn OF
honor and gentleman"


EsHe then spoke with great feeling Of the waste
of his life's labor with which he l,ad sought to
lay down some sort Of foundation upon which
superstructure might be erected TINT would save
1t, +ofh frofn
and destitution. He then pointed out to the
Judge that he had the power to sentence him to
five years' penal scrvitude. and begged that the
full sentence should be pronounced. He even
begged that no heed should be given to the rec
om1nendation to mercy which Was affixed to the
verdict By the jury. "Whatover might be tho
sentence" ho uaid, "ho hoped he should be able
to bear it with tho resignation Of a Christian,
and with tho fort1tude of a well-born, and,-
he trusted he might add, notwithstand-
ing the verdict,-of q well-conducted English
gentleman" The meaning Of al this is that,
having tried as well and rs faithfully ns he could
to get living, and having failod through no
| fault of his, he WIS willing that society might





OVID mind ho felt that society was 1t fault for the


theft, aud not ho. Like many another, he had


claim against the world for living, and tho


world, having refused to pay tho claim, might


complete its injustice by my punishment it
chose. Many and many man has felt that the
world has not done him Justice, and it has been
sadly true in many cases but few have regard
ed it in the philosophical vein Of the book-pur-
| loiner. Many get eyon With the world BY
stealing large sums, and escape punish
ment. This 11r. Weishtman would not do.
he only took enough to get himself meal, with
the evident conviction that any means to obtain
his dinner was justidable and in this view, there
is unquestionably both poetic and practical
| injustice in his sentence for such an insignif-
cant crime. Why this man, who had not been
| idle, incorporate, extravagant, or prohigate,


shonld, after thirty yearB' laborious practice,


suddenly find himself not only without provision
for the exigencies Of old age, but even without
money enough to purchase his next meal, is a


problem for the social philosophers to solve.


Whether, after q thirty years. effort to obtain
the means Of life which Ind resulted in utter


failure, ho was in reality criminally guilty, is


problem for the moral philosophers to solve.
Il tho world owed him living, and refused to


pay it, was not tho world at fault in this case?


FRENCH TRAITS.


|