So far as we are acquainted with the actual condition of the various countries of the civilized world, we are compelled to the painful and humiliating conviction, that there are individuals amongst their inhabitants who are prone to, and actually will interfere with, and depredate upon the rights of others, unless they are subjected to moral or physical restraint. This fact has made it necessary that measures should be adopted to protect the general mass of society against the wrong-doing of these evil-disposed persons. It must be evident to all, that in originating and maturing these measures, or in framing and perfecting laws for this purpose, an intimate acquaintance with human nature, and a high order of wisdom, are essential pre-requisites to fit those upon whom the duty should devolve, to enter upon the highly important work. The instinct of self-protection would naturally, and even properly suggest, that the first object should be to secure the community against a repetition of the wrong-doing, by placing the individual who has committed a serious offence under such physical restraint as to make it impossible for him for a time to continue his evil course. This object may be secured by a close confinement of the culprit in a prison or penitentiary. But if we rest satisfied with having accomplished this, we are taking a very narrow view of a very broad subject. This same instinct, if its promptings are intelligently pursued, will convince us that the punitive character of this restraint or imprisonment should be such as to operate upon the fears of the evil-disposed who are at large, and thus deter them from yielding to temptations which may prompt them to commit offences against society or individuals. And, also, as this imprisonment cannot be permanent, the individual incarcerated should, through this source, as well as others, be made to feel that “the way of the transgressor is hard;” and from this experience (in the absence of any higher motive) be induced to so conduct himself, after his liberation, as not to render himself liable to be subjected to a repetition of these “pains and penalties.” At the same time, however, that the imprisonment and discipline provided, should embrace such elements as would subject the convict to a full sense of punishment, they should be carefully guarded from partaking of the character of vindictiveness or revenge. If this care is not exercised, the higher and more enlarged action of Christian philanthropy and duty, which should immediately follow that referred to as being prompted by the instinct of self-protection, which is, the temporal and eternal good of the offender, by his reformation, will be entirely defeated.