The missionaries were bound to face the problems of dealing with thieves, and the method adopted has been described at the end of last chapter, in a letter which was published in full in the Scotch newspapers, and of which extracts were made in the Missionary Record of the Church of Scotland. On that occasion no one criticised the Mission or its Directors; but at a later period the method was entirely condemned. For myself, I was very much astonished the first time I was told that the Directors had sanctioned the practice. I thought it objectionable, not because I fancied that there was the least suspicion of cruelty or danger, but because I did not like to see it connected in the remotest way with Mission work. Still those that know the state of the country will not wonder that the Directors had assumed civil jurisdiction, sanctioned flogging, and asked certain agents to act as magistrates. In a letter which was sent out long after, for the special guidance of the missionaries, we found the words, “I do not see how you can possibly do without corporal punishment,[1] and I strongly advise it”. A person on the spot would see that the criminal thus got more lenient treatment than he would have received at the hand of his fellows. By the native law of the district, a thief puts himself beyond the pale of human rights, and becomes liable to be treated as a leopard. No sooner was that offender (page 34) taken than certain of the native workmen at Blantyre said, “Give him to us and we will kill him”. But the punishment of death for theft, though inflicted by African law, could never be countenanced by English missionaries. Still it may be said, might they not have thought of merely confining the criminal? They did think of this, and sometimes wondered how they could make the imprisonment proportionate to the offence. These were thefts, often of valuable property as compared with the native rate of wages, and if the thief were kept till he wrought even for half the value, he would not be liberated for years! Though this looks an absurd difficulty, yet it was discussed by some of these pioneers in a grave manner. Only they seem to have felt that imprisonment was hardly a punishment at all to the native. He has no fine susceptibilities, and if he had to do no work, to be housed and cared for by Europeans, would be the acme of enjoyment to him. In any case the real punishment of an imprisonment would fall upon the European jailor that attended the prisoner. In adopting the plan of flogging, I have no doubt all parties were fully persuaded that the criminal thus received a milder chastisement than he would have had from his own countrymen.