the country ought also to form a branch of Police, to which the Board of Superintendence should direct their attention. As to the evils attending the present management of Zillah jails, some observations will hereafter be offered.

The plan lately adopted by Government, of appointing two travelling Superintendents of Police; one for the Upper, and one for the Lower Provinces, has already been attended with much benefit; and it is by no means intended that the establishment of a Board of Police should at all interfere with their

duties, or that the one should supersede the other. They are both very necessary, and their duties very distinct. The travelling Superintendents act as a check on the Magistrates whose districts they visit. The Board will form a general Office of Record for the whole country; but, at the same time, they ought always to correspond, and give every possible assistance to each other.

It will not be necessary to say any more on this subject. I do not wish to be tedi

ous; and have yet many subjects to which to direct the attention of the reader.

For.

a description of the general utility of a superintending Board of Police, I refer the reader to COLQUHOUN'S Work.

The next cause of delinquency enumerated is, “The insufficiency of the punishment "of receivers." To a consideration of this cause I shall now proceed.

The crimes of Dacoity and theft will always decrease in proportion to the certainty, more than the severity of their punishments, the smallness of the chance of escaping detection, and the difficulty of disposing of the stolen property. But where there exists an easy method of disposing of their booty, in vain shall we increase the punishment, or diminish the chance of escape. There will ever be found those

who

who will run all risks, when ready money can be had. Were it possible to detect and to prosecute to conviction, the receivers of stolen property, we should at once destroy the root of most of the crimes that are committed. On this subject, COLQUHOUN, who was well qualified to judge, has the following observation : " One of the "principal causes of crimes may be traced "to the existence of receivers of stolen pro"perty; for, without that encouragement "which receivers hold out, by administer"ing immediately to the wants of crimi"nals, the thief, the robber, and the bur"glar, could not, in fact, carry on their "trade."

This crime, like most others, can be checked in two ways, by preventive measures, and by exemplary punishment. And as in every case preventive measures are preferable, we ought to direct our attention to them. For "punishment only prevents the

"fatal

"fatal effects of private interest and

65

pas

sion," without removing the cause; "but preventive measures fetter the cause, and impede its operation." And, in the first place, We ought to discover who the receivers are; secondly, How they are to be convicted; and, lastly, How they are to be punished.

In England, the receivers of stolen property are almost wholly confined to two descriptions of persons, viz. pawn-brokers, and the dealers in rags, metals, &c, In India, the case is different. The receivers are men of all ranks and descriptions; but the most common are these,-smiths, jewellers, braziers, washermen, keepers of wine-shops, and what are called judgemaun Brahmins, or those who receive presents in goods, as a remuneration for the performance of religious ceremonies. These classes are the great receivers, and the reason is plain why they are so. The trades of the smiths, jewellers, braziers,

braziers, and washermen, admit of their having a quantity of iron, gold, silver, and brass articles, and clothes, without subjecting them to suspicion, and these they can make up, melt, sell or exchange, with great facility.

If we can convict these, it will not be difficult to trace the lesser dealers, who collect in small quantities, and bring in to these great receivers. Of these small collectors there are few, the Dacoits generally arranging matters with some of the grand receivers previous to the commission of a robbery. But these grand receivers are not always, or even often, disposers of the stolen property by sale. There are above them a class of men whom we should not be inclined to suspect, but who, as has been proved beyond a doubt, are receivers. I allude to the upstart petty landholders. Where we find that these men have risen suddenly into affluence, without having the ostensible

means,