Young as the subjects of the foregoing narrations mostly were, I have little doubt their pupilage commenced at a much earlier age; they could not otherwise have attained so much proficiency in the practice of crime, and hardihood on detection.  However possible it maybe thought to reclaim children of so tender an age, I am convinced that thieves of more advanced years become so thoroughly perverted in their wills and understandings, as to be incapable of perceiving the disgrace of their conduct, or the enormity of the offence.  I was once told by an old thief that thieving was his profession, and he had therefore a right to follow it; and I could plainly discover from further conversation with him, that he had established in himself an opinion that thieving was no harm, provided he used no violence to the person; he seemed, indeed, to have no other idea of the rights of property, than that described as the maxim of a celebrated Scottish outlaw,—­that

  “They should take who have the power,
  And they should keep who can.”

When this most lamentable state is reached, it is to be feared all modes of punishment, as correctives, are useless; and the only thing left is to prevent further depredation by banishment.

The incorrigibility which a child may attain, who has once associated with thieves at an early age, is apparent from the following fact.  “Richard Leworthy, aged fourteen, was indicted for stealing five sovereigns, the property of William Newling, his master.  The prosecutor stated, that he resided in the Commercial Road, and is by business a tailor; the prisoner had been his apprentice for four months, up to the 28th of August, when he committed the robbery.  On that day he gave him five pounds to take to Mr. Wells, of Bishopsgate Street, to discharge a bill; he never went, nor did he return home; he did not hear of him for three weeks, when he found him at Windsor, and apprehended him.  The prisoner admitted having applied the money to his own use.  He was found at a public house, and said he had spent all his money except one shilling and six pence.  A shopman in the service of Mr. Wells, stated that in August last the witness owed his master a sum of money; he knew the prisoner; he did not bring money to their shop, either on or since the 28th of August.  The prisoner made no defence, but called his master, who said he received him from the Refuge for the Destitute, and had a good character with him.  He would not take him back again.  Mr. Wontner stated, that he had received two communications from the Rev. Mr. Crosby, the chaplain of the institution, stating they would not interfere on his behalf.  The jury returned a verdict of guilty.  Mr. Justice Park observed, that the best course would be to send him out of the country.”