The Act of 1887 provided that the Court, before whom a person, not previously convicted, was brought, and who was convicted of larceny or false pretences, might, having regard to the youth, character and antecedents &c. of the offender, or to the trivial nature of the offence, direct that he be released on entering into recognizances, &c. to come up for judgment when called upon, and to be of good behaviour. If he failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognizance he was liable to be brought up to answer as to his conduct, and to receive judgment.
The Act of 1907, in lieu of the foregoing, provides that when any offender is charged before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction with an offence punishable by such Court, and the Court thinks the charge is proved, it may nevertheless dismiss the charge altogether, or may bind the offender over, with or without sureties, to appear for conviction and sentence when called on at any time during a specified period not exceeding three years, if it "is of opinion that, having regard to the character, antecedents, age, health, or mental condition of the person charged, or to the trivial nature of the offence, or to the extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation."
If such an order is made, or if the charge is dismissed under the Act, the Court may further order the offender "to pay such damages for injury or compensation for loss (not exceeding in the case of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction ten pounds, or, if a higher limit is fixed by any enactment relating to the offence, that higher limit), and to pay such costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks reasonable."
The powers granted under the latter Act were thus wider in their scope, and it was hoped that they would be used with greater frequency, and with better guarantee of good results by the appointment of Probation Officers, as prescribed by the Act. But at the present time, statistics do not show that the principle of Probation has been as widely extended in consequence of these provisions, as might have been expected. The numbers so dealt with in 1907 (the year before the Act came into operation) and those for the last recorded year (1918) are as follows:—
| 1907 | Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887 | 8,097 |
| Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, Sec. 16 (1) | 45,195 | |
| " " " " " Sec. 16 (2) | 8,205 | |
| ——— | ||
| Total | 61,497 | |
| ——— |
(or 8.2 per cent of the total number proceeded against).
| 1918 Probation Act. 1907:— | ||
| Tried on indictment (conviction recorded):— | ||
| Recognizances, with Probation Order | 443} | |
| " without " " | 652} | 1,095 |
| Tried summarily: Order made, without conviction for:— | ||
| (a) Dismissal | 26,231} | |
| (b) Recognizances | 11,284} | 48,761 |
| (c) Probation Order | 11,246} | |
| Total | 49,856 | |
| ——— |
(or 11·5 per cent of the total number proceeded against).
Owing to differences in the law and of procedure, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make comparison between England and Foreign Countries as to the extent to which Probation in the former, and "sursis" in the latter is being used as an alternative to imprisonment. So far as my researches have enabled me to go, I would venture the opinion that "sursis" is being used to a considerably larger extent in France, Belgium, and Italy than Probation is being used in England. There are, moreover, I believe, no statistics for comparing the results of the two systems. We know that in England the percentage of revocations is not more than about 6, the actual numbers having been as follows for the five years ended 1913:—