jocularity, mock-expressions of pain, and mock-severity, sufficiently shewed the worse than uselessness of this mode of punishment thus inflicted.
The constable reports, that the prisoner has received his punishment, which is duly recorded; and then the constable, the flagellator, and the pseudo-punished (if they can find an opportimity,) take a friendly glass together, and the culprit returns to his employer, more saucy, and more useless, than he was before.
I think it is the duty of a magistrate, to be convinced that the punishment he has awarded has been properly carried into effect, either from personal observation, or from the report of a person, on whom dependence can be placed. A friend of mine, a magistrate (lately made), has acted in this way, with the greatest advantage—the neighbourhood having soon become very quiet.
That settler, however, will best consult his own interest, who avoids, if possible, bringing his servants before any tribunal, especially for petty offences. He has it in his own power to preserve order, and to punish offenders, by giving or withholding various highly-prized indulgences—i. e. tea, sugar, tobacco, &c.: and I can state, from actual experience and observation, that those who act in this manner, have very little reason to complain of their assigned servants.
It is not my intention to enter into the discussions which have lately taken place, respecting the question as to whether transportation be, or be not, an efficient secondary punishment—I shall only state, that sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not. A prisoner, who is assigned to a good master, and who conducts himself with an ordinary share of discretion, is, leaving the moral stigma aside, not much to be pitied, as his situation is, in all probability, greatly improved—his health and comforts being, from interested motives, well looked after. It is true that, if he misbehaves, he is liable to summary punishment; but the well-conducted have no occasion for apprehen-
