Crime and Its Causes William Douglas Morrison 600 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Crime and Its Causes

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Crime and Its Causes

Author: William Douglas Morrison

Release date: May 9, 2005 [eBook #15803]
Most recently updated: December 14, 2020

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15803

Credits: Produced by Afra Ullah and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team.

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CRIME AND ITS
CAUSES ***

CRIME AND ITS CAUSES

By

WILLIAM DOUGLAS MORRISON

OF H.M. PRISON, WANDSWORTH

LONDON
SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO., LIM.
NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

1902

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

"The science of criminology is pursued vigorously among the Italians,
but this is one of the first English books to make the phenomena of crime
the subject of a strictly scientific investigation."—Daily Chronicle.

"The book is an important addition to the Social Science Series. It
throws light upon some of the most complex problems with which society
has to deal, and incidentally affords much interesting reading."—
Manchester Examiner.

"This is a work which, considering its limits and modest pretensions, it
is difficult to over praise. It is a calm and thoughtful study by a writer in
whom the deliberate determination to look on things as they are has not
extinguished a reasoned faith in the possibility of their amelioration. The
work is conceived throughout in a genuinely philosophical spirit."—
International Journal of Ethics.

"A thoughtful and thought suggesting book—well worthy of
consideration by penologists, whether specialists or amateurs."—Annals of
the American Academy.

"Mr. Morrison's book is especially valuable, because, without attempting
to enforce this or that conclusion, it furnishes the authentic data on which
all sound conclusions must be based."—Times.

"Cramful of suggestive facts and solid arguments on the great questions
how criminals are made, and how crime is best to be dealt with. Many
cherished superstitions and fallacies are exploded in Mr. Morrison's
pages."—Star.

First Edition, February 1891.
Second Edition, February 1902.

CONTENTS.

CHAP.

I. THE STATISTICS OF CRIME
II. CLIMATE AND CRIME
III. THE SEASONS AND CRIME
IV. DESTITUTION AND CRIME
V. POVERTY AND CRIME
VI. SEX, AGE, AND CRIME
VII. THE CRIMINAL IN BODY AND MIND
VIII. THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIME

APPENDICES

PREFACE.

This volume, as its title indicates, is occupied with an examination of
some of the principal causes of crime, and is designed as an introduction to
the study of criminal questions in general. In spite of all the attention these
questions have hitherto received and are now receiving, crime still remains
one of the most perplexing and obstinate of social problems. It is much
more formidable than pauperism, and almost as costly. A social system
which has to try hundreds of thousands of offenders annually before the
criminal courts is in a very imperfect condition; the causes which lead to
this state of things deserve careful consideration from all who take an
interest in social welfare.

In the following pages I have endeavoured to show that crime is a more
complicated phenomenon than is generally supposed. When society will be
able to stamp it out is a question it would be extremely hard to answer. If it
ever does so, it will not be the work of one generation but of many, and it
will not be effected by the application of any single specific.

Punishment alone will never succeed in putting an end to crime.
Punishment will and does hold crime to a certain extent in check, but it will
never transform the delinquent population into honest citizens, for the
simple reason that it can only strike at the full-fledged criminal and not at
the causes which have made him so. Economic prosperity, however widely
diffused, will not extinguish crime. Many people imagine that all the evils
afflicting society spring from want, but this is only partially true. A small
number of crimes are probably due to sheer lack of food, but it has to be
borne in mind that crime would still remain an evil of enormous magnitude
even if there were no such calamities as destitution and distress. As a matter
of fact easy circumstances have less influence on conduct than is generally
believed; prosperity generates criminal inclinations as well as adversity, and
on the whole the rich are just as much addicted to crime as the poor. The
progress of civilisation will not destroy crime. Many savage tribes living
under the most primitive forms of social life present a far more edifying
spectacle of respect for person and property than the most cultivated classes
in Europe and America. All that civilisation has hitherto done is to change
the form in which crime is perpetrated; in substance it remains the same.

Primary Schools will not accomplish much in eliminating crime. The
merely intellectual training received in these institutions has little salutary
influence upon conduct. Nothing can be mope deplorable than that sectarian
bickerings, respecting infinitesimal points in the sanctions of morality,
should result in the children of England receiving hardly any moral
instruction whatever. Conduct, as the late Mr. Matthew Arnold has so often
told us, is three fourths of life. What are we to think of an educational
system which officially ignores this; what have we to hope in the way of
improvement from a people which consents to its being ignored?

But even a course of systematic instruction in the principles of conduct,
no matter by what sanctions these principles are inculcated, will not avail
much unless they are to some extent practised in the home. And this will
never be the case so long as women are demoralised by the hard conditions
of industrial life, and unfitted for the duties of motherhood before beginning
to undertake them.

In addition to this, no State will ever get rid of the criminal problem
unless its population is composed of healthy and vigorous citizens. Very
often crime is but the offspring of degeneracy and disease. A diseased and
degenerate population, no matter how favourably circumstanced in other
respects, will always produce a plentiful crop of criminals. Stunted and
decrepit faculties, whether physical or mental, either vitiate the character, or
unfit the combatant for the battle of life. In both cases the result is in
general the same, namely, a career of crime.

As to the best method of dealing with the actual criminal, the first thing
to be done is to know what sort of a person you are dealing with. He must
be carefully studied at first hand. At present too much attention is bestowed
on theoretical discussions respecting the various kinds of crime and
punishment, while hardly any account is taken of the persons who commit
the crime and require the punishment. Yet this is the most important point of
all; the other is trivial in comparison with it. If crime is to be dealt with in a
rational manner and not on mere a priori grounds, our minds must be
enlightened on such questions as the following: What is the Criminal? What
are the chief causes which have made him such? How are these causes to be
got rid of or neutralised? What is the effect of this or that kind of

punishment? These are the momentous problems; in comparison with these,
all fine-spun definitions respecting the difference between one crime and
another are mere dust in the balance. There can be little doubt that a neglect
of those considerations on the part of many magistrates and judges, is at the
root of the capricious sentences so often passed upon criminals. The effects
of this neglect result in the passing of sentences of too great severity on first
offenders and the young; and of too much leniency on hardened and
habitual criminals. Leniency, says Grotius, should be exercised with
discernment, otherwise it is not a virtue, but a weakness and a scandal.

When imprisonment has to be resorted to, it must be made a genuine
punishment if it is to exercise any effect as a deterrent. The moment a
prison is made a comfortable place to live in, it becomes useless as a
safeguard against the criminal classes. This is a fundamental principle. But
punishment, although an essential part of imprisonment, is not its only
purpose. Imprisonment should also be a preparation for liberty. If a
convicted man is as unfit for social life at the expiration of his sentence as
he was at the commencement of it, the prison has only accomplished half its
work; it has satisfied the feeling of public vengeance, but it has failed to
transform the offender into a useful citizen. How to prepare the offender for
liberty is, I admit, a task of supreme difficulty; in some oases, probably, an
impossible task. For work of this character what is wanted above all is an
enlightened staff. Mere machines are useless; men unacquainted with civil
life and its conditions are useless. It is from civil life the prisoner is taken; it
is to civil life he has to return, and unless he is under the care of men who
have an intimate knowledge of civil life, he will not have the same prospect
of being fitted into it when he has once more to face the world.

In the preparation of this volume I have carefully examined the most
recent ideas of English and Continental writers (especially the Italians) on
the subject of crime. The opinions it contains are based on an experience of
fourteen years in Orders most of which have been spent in prison work. In
revising the proofs I have received valuable assistance from Mr. J.
Morrison.

W.D.M.

CRIME AND ITS CAUSES

CHAPTER I.

THE STATISTICS OF CRIME.
It is only within the present century, and in some countries it is only
within the present generation, that the possibility has arisen of conducting
the study of criminal problems on anything approaching an exact and
scientific basis. Before the introduction of a system of criminal statistics—a
step taken by most peoples within the memory of men still living—it was
impossible for civilised communities to ascertain with absolute accuracy
whether crime was increasing or decreasing, or what transformation it was
passing through in consequence of the social, political, and economic
changes constantly taking place in all highly organised societies. It was also
equally impossible to appreciate the effect of punishment for good or evil
on the criminal population. Justice had little or no data to go upon;
prisoners were sentenced in batches to the gallows, to transportation, to the
hulks, or to the county gaol, but no inquiry was made as to the result of
these punishments on the criminal classes or on the progress of crime. It
was deemed sufficient to catch and punish the offender; the more offences
seemed to increase—there was no sure method of knowing whether they
did increase or not—the more severe the punishment became. Justice
worked in the dark, and was surrounded by the terrors of darkness. What
followed is easy to imagine; the criminal law of England reached a pitch of
unparalleled barbarity, and within living memory laws were on the statute
book by which a man might be hanged for stealing property above the value
of a shilling.

Had a fairly accurate system of criminal statistics existed, it is very
likely that the data contained in them would have reassured the nation and
tempered the severity of the law.

Of Criminal Statistics it may be said in the first place, that they act as an
annual register for tabulating the amount of danger to which society is
exposed by the nefarious operations of lawless persons. By these statistics
we are informed of the number of crimes committed during the course of
the year so far as they are reported to the police. We are informed of the
number of persons brought to trial for the perpetration of these crimes; of
the nature of the offences with which incriminated persons are charged, and
of the length of sentence imposed on those who are sent to prison. The age,

the degree of instruction, and the occupations of prisoners are also
tabulated. A record is also kept of the number of times a man has been
committed to prison, and of the manner in which he has conducted himself
while in confinement.

One important point must be mentioned on which criminal statistics are
almost entirely silent. The great sources of crime are the personal, the
social, and the economic conditions of the individuals who commit it.
Criminal statistics, to be exhaustive, ought to include not only the amount
of crime and the degrees of punishment awarded to offenders; these
statistics should also, as far as practicable, take cognisance of the sources
from which crime undoubtedly springs. In this respect, our information, so
far as it comes to us through ordinary channels, is lamentably deficient. It is
confined to data respecting the age, sex, and occupation of the offender.
These data are very interesting, and very useful, as affording a glimpse of
the sources from which the dark river of delinquency takes its rise. But they
are too meagre and fragmentary. They require to be completed by the
personal and social history of the criminal. Crime is not necessarily a
disease, but it resembles disease in this respect, that it will be impossible to
wipe it out till an accurate diagnosis has been made of the causes which
produce it. To punish crime is all very well; but punishment is not an
absolute remedy; its deterrent action is limited, and other methods besides
punishment must be adopted if society wishes to gain the mastery over the
criminal population. What those methods should be can only be ascertained
after the most searching preliminary inquiries into the main factors of
crime. It ought, therefore, to be a weighty part of the business of criminal
statistics to offer as full information as possible, not only respecting crimes
and punishments, but much more respecting criminals. Every criminal has a
life history; that history is very frequently the explanation of his sinister
career; it ought, therefore, to be tabulated, so that it may be seen how far his
descent and his surroundings have contributed to make him what he is. In
the case of children sent to Reformatory Schools, the previous history of the
child is always tabulated. Enquiries are made and registered respecting the
parents of the child; what country they belong to, what sort of character
they bear, whether they are honest and sober, whether they have ever been
in prison, what wages they earn, and whether the child is legitimate or not.
A similar method to the one adopted with Reformatory children ought to be

instituted, with suitable modifications, in European prisons and convict
establishments. It is, at the present time, being advocated by almost all the
most eminent criminal authorities,[1] and more than one scheme has been
drawn up to show the scope of its operation.

In addition to the service which a complete personal and family record
of convicted prisoners would render as to the causes of crime, such a record
would be of immense advantage to the judges. At the present time a judge is
only made acquainted with the previous convictions of a prisoner; he knows
nothing more about him except through the evidence which is sometimes
adduced as to character. An accurate record of the prisoner's past would
enable the judge to see at once with what sort of offender he was dealing,
and might, perhaps, help to put a stop to the unequal and capricious
sentences which, not infrequently, disgrace the name of justice.[2]

Passing from this point, we shall now inquire into the possibility of
establishing some system of International Statistics, whereby the volume of
crime in one country may be compared with the volume of crime in another.
At the present time it is extremely difficult to institute any such comparison,
and it is questionable if it can ever be properly done. In no two countries is
the criminal law the same, and an act which is perfectly harmless when
committed in one part of Europe, is considered in another as a
contravention of the law. Each country has also a nomenclature of crime
and methods of criminal procedure peculiar to itself. In each country the
police are organised on a different principle, and act in the execution of
their duty on a different code of rules. In all cases, for instance, of
mendicancy, drunkenness, brawling, and disorder, the initiative rests
practically with the police, and it depends almost entirely on the
instructions issued to the police whether such offences shall figure largely
or not in the statistics of crime. A proof of this fact may be seen in the
Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for the year 1888.
In the year 1886, the number of persons convicted in the Metropolis of
"Annoying male persons for the purpose of prostitution" was 3,233; in
1888, the number was only 1,475. This enormous decrease in the course of
two years is not due to a diminution of the offence, but to a change in the
attitude of the police. Again, in the year 1887, the Metropolitan police
arrested 4,556 persons under the provisions of the Vagrant and Poor Law

Acts; but in the year 1888, the number arrested by the same body under the
same acts amounted to 7,052. It is perfectly obvious that this vast increase
of apprehensions was not owing to a corresponding increase in the number
of rogues, beggars, and vagrants; it was principally owing to the increased
stringency with which the Metropolitan police carried out the provisions of
the Vagrant and Poor Law Acts. An absolute proof of the correctness of this
statement is the fact that throughout the whole of England there was a
decrease in the number of persons proceeded against in accordance with
these acts. These examples will suffice to show what an immense power the
police have in regulating the volume of certain classes of offences. In some
countries they are called upon to exercise this power in the direction of
stringency; in other countries it is exercised in the direction of leniency; and
in the same country its exercise, as we have just seen, varies according to
the views of whoever, for the time being, happens to have a voice in
controlling the action of the police. In these circumstances it is obviously
impossible to draw any accurate comparison between the lighter kinds of
offences in one country and the same class of offences in another.

In the case of the more serious offences against person and property, the
initiative of putting the law in motion rests chiefly with the injured
individual. The action of the individual in this respect depends to a large
extent on the customs of the country. In some countries the injured person,
instead of putting the law in motion against an offender, takes the matter in
his own hands, and administers the wild justice of revenge. Great
differences of opinion also exist among different nations as to the gravity of
certain offences. Among some peoples there is a far greater reluctance than
there is among others to appeal to the law. Murder is perhaps the only crime
on which there exists a fair consensus of opinion among civilised
communities; and even with regard to this offence it is impossible to
overcome all the judicial and statistical difficulties which stand in the way
of an international comparison.

In spite, however, of the fact that the amount of crime committed in
civilised countries cannot be subjected to exact comparison, there are
various points on which the international statistics of crime are able to
render valuable service. It is important, for instance, to see in what relation
crime in different communities stands to age, sex, climate, temperature,

race, education, religion, occupation, home and social surroundings. If we
find, for example, an abnormal development of crime taking place in a
given country at a certain period of life, or in certain social circumstances,
and if we do not discover the same abnormal development taking place in
other countries at a similar period of life, or in a similar social stratum, we
ought at once to come to the conclusion that there is some extraordinary
cause at work peculiar to the country which is producing an unusually high
total of crime. If, on the other hand, we find that certain kinds of crime are
increasing or decreasing in all countries at the same time, we may be
perfectly sure that the increase or decrease is brought about by the same set
of causes. And whether those causes are war, political movements,
commercial prosperity, or depression, the community which first escapes
from them will also be the first to show it in the annual statistics of crime.
In these and many other ways international statistics are of the greatest
utility.

From what has already been said as to the immense difficulty of
comparing the criminal statistics of various countries, it follows as a matter
of course that the figures contained in them cannot be used as a means of
ascertaining the position which belongs to each nation respectively in the
scale of morality. Nor is the moral progress of a nation to be measured
solely by an apparent decay of crime. On the contrary, an increase in the
amount of crime may be the direct result of a moral advance in the average
sentiments of the community. The passing of the Elementary Education Act
of 1870 and of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 have added
considerably to the number of persons brought before the criminal courts
and eventually committed to prison. But an increase of the prison
population due to these causes is no proof that the country is deteriorating
morally. It will be regarded by many persons as a proof that the country has
improved, for it is now demanding a higher standard of conduct from the
ordinary citizen than it demanded twenty years ago.[3]

On the other hand, a decrease in the official statistics of crime may be a
proof that the moral sentiments of a nation are degenerating. It may be a
proof that the laws are ceasing to be an effective protection to the citizen,
and that society is falling a victim to the forces of anarchy and crime. It is,
therefore, impossible by looking only at the bare figures contained in

criminal statistics, to say whether a community is growing better or worse.
Before any conclusions can be formed on these matters, either one way or
the other, we must go behind the figures, and look at them in the light of the
social, political and industrial developments taking place in the society to
which these figures refer.

In this connection, it may not be amiss to point out that the present
tendency of legislation is bound to produce more crime. All law is by its
nature coercive, but so long as the coercion is confined within a limited
area, or can only come into operation at rare intervals, it produces
comparatively little effect on the whole volume of crime. When, however, a
law is passed affecting every member of the community every day of his
life, such a law is certain to increase the population of our gaols. A marked
characteristic of the present time is that legislative assemblies are becoming
more and more inclined to pass such laws; so long as this is the case it is
vain to hope for a decrease in the annual amount of crime. Whether these
new coercive laws are beneficial or the reverse is a matter which it does not
at this moment concern me to discuss; what I am anxious to point out is,
that the more they are multiplied, the greater will be the number of persons
annually committed to prison. In initiating legislation of a far-reaching
coercive character, politicians should remember far more than they do at
present that the effect of these Acts of Parliament will be to fill the gaols,
and to put the prison taint upon a greater number of the population. This is a
responsibility which no body of men ought lightly to incur, and in
considering the advantages to be derived from some new legislative
enactment, an equal amount of consideration should be bestowed upon the
fact that the new enactment will also be the means of providing a fresh
recruiting ground for the permanent army of crime.

A man, for instance, goes to prison for contravening some municipal
bye-law; he comes out of it the friend and associate of habitual criminals;
and the ultimate result of the bye-law is to transform a comparatively
harmless member of society into a dangerous thief or house-breaker. One
person of this character is a greater menace to society than a hundred
offenders against municipal regulations, and the present system of law-
making undoubtedly helps to multiply this class of men. One of the leading
principles of all wise legislation should be to keep the population out of

gaol; but the direct result of many recent enactments, both in this country
and abroad, is to drive them into it; and it may be taken as an axiom that the
more the functions of Government are extended, the greater will be the
amount of crime.

These remarks lead me to approach the question of what is called "the
movement" of crime. Is its total volume increasing or decreasing in the
principal civilised countries of the world? On this point there is some
diversity of view, but most of the principal authorities in Europe and
America are emphatically of opinion that crime is on the increase. In the
United States, we are told by Mr. D.A. Wells,[4] and by Mr. Howard Wines,
an eminent specialist in criminal matters, that crime is steadily increasing,
and it is increasing faster than the growth of the population.

Nearly all the chief statisticians abroad tell the same tale with respect to
the growth of crime on the Continent. Dr. Mischler of Vienna, and Professor
von Liszt of Marburg draw a deplorable picture of the increase of crime in
Germany. Professor von Liszt, in a recent article,[5] says, that fifteen million
persons have been convicted by the German criminal courts within the last
ten years; and, according to him, the outlook for the future is sombre in the
last degree. In France, the criminal problem is just as formidable and
perplexing as it is in Germany; M. Henri Joly estimates that crime has
increased in the former country 133 per cent. within the last half century,
and is still steadily rising. Taking Victoria as a typical Australasian colony,
we find that even in the Antipodes, which are not vexed to the same extent
as Europe with social and economic difficulties, crime is persistently raising
its head, and although it does not increase quite as rapidly as the population,
it is nevertheless a more menacing danger among the Victorian colonists
than it is at home.[6]

Is England an exception to the rest of the world with respect to crime?
Many people are of opinion that it is, and the idea is at present diligently
fostered on the platform and in the press that we have at last found out the
secret of dealing successfully with the criminal population. As far as I can
ascertain, this belief is based upon the statement that the daily average of
persons in prison is constantly going down. Inasmuch, as there was a daily
average of over 20,000 persons in prison in 1878, and a daily average of

about 15,000 in 1888, many people immediately jump at the conclusion that
crime is diminishing. But the daily average is no criterion whatever of the
rise and fall of crime. Calculated on the principle of daily average, twelve
men sentenced to prison for one month each, will not figure so largely in
criminal statistics as one man sentenced to a term of eighteen months. The
daily average, in other words, depends upon the length of sentence
prisoners receive, and not upon the number of persons committed to prison,
or upon the number of crimes committed during the year. Let us look then
at the number of persons committed to Local Prisons, and we shall be in a
position to judge if crime is decreasing in England or not. We shall go back
twenty years and take the quinquennial totals as they are recorded in the
judicial statistics:—

Total of the 5 years 1868 to 1872 774,667.
Total of the 5 years, 1873 to 1877, 866,041.
Total of the 5 years, 1884 to 1888, 898,486.

If statistics are to be allowed any weight at all, these figures
incontestably mean that the total volume of crime is on the increase in
England as well as everywhere else. It is fallacious to suppose that the
authorities here are gaining the mastery over the delinquent population.
Such a supposition is at once refuted by the statistics which have just been
tabulated, and these are the only statistics which can be implicitly relied
upon for testing the position of the country with regard to crime.

Seeing, then, that the total amount of crime is regularly growing, how is
the decrease in the daily average of persons in prison to be accounted for?

This decrease may be accounted for in two ways. It may be shown that
although the number of people committed to prison is on the increase, the
nature of the offences for which these people are convicted is not so grave.
Or, in the second place, it may be shown that, although the crimes
committed now are equally serious with those committed twenty years ago,
the magistrates and judges are adopting a more lenient line of action, and
are inflicting shorter sentences after a conviction. Let us for a moment
consider the proposition that crime is not so grave now as it was twenty
years ago. In order to arrive at a fairly accurate conclusion on this matter,

we have only to look at the number of offences of a serious nature reported
to the police. Comparing the number of cases of murder, attempts to
murder, manslaughter, shooting at, stabbing and wounding, and adding to
these offences the crimes of burglary, housebreaking, robbery, and arson—
comparing all these cases reported to the police for the five years 1870-
1874, with offences of a like character reported in the five years 1884-1888,
we find that the proportion of grave offences to the population was, in many
cases, as great in the latter period as in the former.[7] This shows clearly that
crime, while it is increasing in extent, is not materially decreasing in
seriousness; and the chief reason the prison population exhibits a smaller
daily average is to be found in the fact that judges are now pronouncing
shorter sentences than was the custom twenty years ago. We are not left in
the dark upon this point; the judges themselves frequently inform the public
that they have taken to shortening the terms of imprisonment. The extent to
which sentences have been shortened within the last twenty years can easily
be ascertained by comparing the committals to prison and the daily average
of the quinquenniad 1868-72 with the committals and the daily average of
the quinquenniad 1884-88. A comparison between these two periods shows
that the length of imprisonment has decreased twenty-six per cent. In other
words, whereas a man used to receive a sentence of twelve months'
imprisonment, he now receives a sentence of nine months; and whereas he
used to get a sentence of one month, he now gets twenty-one days. If it he a
serious offence, or if the criminal be a habitual offender, he now receives
eighteen months' imprisonment, whereas he used to receive five years'
penal servitude. As far as most judges and stipendiary magistrates are
concerned, sentences of imprisonment have decreased in recent years more
than twenty-six per cent.; and if there was a corresponding movement on
the part of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, the average decrease in the length
of sentences would amount to fifty per cent. But it is a notorious fact that
amateur judges are, with few exceptions, more inclined to pronounce heavy
sentences than professional men.

We have now arrived at the conclusion that crime is just as serious in its
character as it was twenty years ago, and that it is growing in dimensions
year by year; the next point to be considered is, the relation in which crime
stands to the population. Crime may be increasing, but the population may
be multiplying faster than the growth of crime. Is this the condition of

things in England at the present day? We have seen that the criminal classes
are increasing much faster than the growth of population in France and the
United States. Is England in a better position in this respect than these two
countries? At the present time there is one conviction to about every fifty
inhabitants, and the proportion of convictions to the population was very
much the same twenty years ago. If we remember the immense
development that has taken place in the industrial school system within the
last twenty years—a development that has undoubtedly had a great deal to
do with keeping down crime—we arrive at the conclusion that,
notwithstanding the beneficent effects of Industrial Schools, the criminal
classes in this country still keep pace with the annual growth of population.
If we had no Industrial and Reformatory institutions for the detention of
criminal and quasi-criminal offenders among the young, there can be no
doubt that England, as well as other countries, would have to make the
lamentable admission that crime was not only increasing in her midst, but
that it was increasing faster than the growth of population. The number of
juveniles in these institutions has more than trebled since 1868,[8] and it is
unquestionable that if these youthful offenders were not confined there, a
large proportion of them would immediately begin to swell the ranks of
crime. That crime in England is not making more rapid strides than the
growth of population, is almost entirely to be attributed to the action of
these schools.

We shall now look at another aspect of the criminal question, and that is
its cost. Crime is not merely a danger to the community; it is likewise a vast
expense; and there is no country in Europe where it does not constitute a
tremendous drain upon the national resources. Owing to the federal system
of government in America, it is almost impossible to estimate how much is
spent in the prevention and punishment of crime in the United States, but
Mr. Wines calculates that the police force alone costs the country fifteen
million dollars annually.[9] In the United Kingdom the cost of criminal
justice and administration is continually on the increase, and it has never
been so high as it is at the present time. In the Estimates for the year 1891
the cost of Prisons and of the Asylum for criminal lunatics falls little short
of a million sterling. Reformatory and Industrial Schools for juvenile
offenders cost considerably over half-a-million, and the expenditure on the
Police force is over five and a half millions annually. Add to these figures

the cost of criminal prosecutions, the salaries of stipendiary and other paid
magistrates, a portion of the salaries of judges, and all other expenses
connected with the trial and prosecution of delinquents, and an annual total
of expenditure is reached for the United Kingdom of more than seven and a
half millions sterling. In addition to this enormous sum, it has also to he
remembered that a great loss of property is annually entailed on the
inhabitants of the three kingdoms by the depredations of the criminal
classes. The exact amount of this loss it is impossible to estimate, but,
according to the figures in the police reports, it cannot fall short of a million
sterling per annum.

These formidable figures afford ample food for reflection. Apart from its
danger to the community, the annual loss of money which the existence of
crime entails is a most serious consideration. It is equal to a tenth of the
national expenditure, and every few years amounts to as much as the cost of
a big European war. It is tempting to speculate on the admirable uses to
which the capital consumed by crime might be devoted, if it were free for
beneficent purposes. How easy it would be for many a scheme, which is
now in the region of dreamland, to be immediately realised. Unhappily, it is
almost as vain to look forward to the abolition of crime as it is to look
forward to the cessation of war. At the present moment the latter event,
however improbable, is more likely to happen than the former. War has
ceased to be a normal condition of things in the comity of nations; it has
become a transitory incident; but crime, which means war within the nation,
is still far from being a passing incident; on the contrary, a conflict between
the forces of moral order and social anarchy is going on continually; and, at
present, there is not the faintest prospect of its coming to an end.

What is the cause of this state of warfare within society? Which of the
combatants is to blame? Or is the blame to be laid equally on the shoulders
of both? In other words, are the conditions in which men live together in
society of such a nature that crime is certain to flow from them; and is
crime simply a reaction against the iniquity of existing social arrangements?
Or, on the other hand, does crime spring from the individual and his
cosmical surroundings; and is it the product of forces over which society
has little or no control? These are questions which cannot be answered off-
hand, they involve considerations of a most complicated character, and it is

only after a careful examination of all the factors responsible for crime that
a true solution can possibly be arrived at. These factors are divisible into
three great categories—cosmical, social, and individual.[10] The cosmical
factors of crime are climate and the variations of temperature; the social
factors are the political, economic and moral conditions in the midst of
which man lives as a member of society; the individual factors are a class of
attributes inherent in the individual, such as descent, sex, age, bodily and
mental characteristics. These factors, it will be seen, can easily be reduced
to two, the organism and its environment; but it will be more convenient to
consider them under the three-fold division which has just been mentioned.
Before proceeding to do so, it may be as well to remark that in each case the
several factors operate with different degrees of intensity. It is often
extremely difficult to disentangle them; and the more complex the society is
in which a crime takes place, the greater is the combination and intricacy of
the causes leading up to it.

CHAPTER II.

CLIMATE AND CRIME.
Man's existence depends upon physical surroundings; these
surroundings have exercised an immense influence in modifying his
organism, in shaping his social development, in moulding his character. To
enumerate all the external factors operating upon individual and social life
is outside our present purpose, but they may be briefly summed up as
climate, moisture, soil, the configuration of the earth's surface, and the
nature of its products. These natural phenomena, either singly or in varying
degrees of combination, have unquestionably played a most prominent part
in making the different races of mankind what they at present are. We have
only to look at the low type of life exhibited by the primitive inhabitants of
certain inhospitable regions of the globe to see how profoundly the physical
structure of man is affected by his natural surroundings. Even a
comparatively slight difference of environment is not without effect upon
the population subjected to its influence. According to M. de Quatrefages,
the bodily structure of the English race has been distinctly modified by
residence in the United States of America. It is not more than two and a half
centuries since Englishmen began to emigrate in any considerable numbers
to the American Continent, but in that comparatively short period the
Anglo-American has ceased to resemble his ancestors in physical
appearance. Alterations have taken place in the skin, the hair, the neck, and
the head; the lower jaw has become bigger; the bones of the arms and legs
have lengthened, and the American of to-day requires a different kind of
glove from the Englishman. Structural changes of a similar character have
taken place in the negroes transplanted to America. M. Elisée Reclus
considers that in a century and a half they have traversed a good quarter of
the distance which separates them from the whites. Another important
point, as showing the influence of habitat upon race, is the fact that the
modifications of human structure resulting from residence in America are in
the direction of assimilating the European type to that of the red man.[11] In
short, it may be taken as a well-established principle that external nature
destroys all organisms that cannot adapt themselves to its action, and
physiologically modifies all organisms that can.

The social condition of mankind is also profoundly affected by climatic
and other external circumstances. The intense cold of the Arctic and

Antarctic regions is fatal to anything approaching a developed form of
civilisation. Intense heat, on the other hand, although not incompatible with
a certain degree of progress, is unfavourable to its permanence;[12] the
extinct societies of the tropics, such as Cambodia, Mexico and Peru,
affording instances of the operation of this law. It is impossible for man to
get beyond the nomad state in the vast deserts of Northern Africa; and the
extreme moisture of the atmosphere in other portions of the same continent
puts an effectual check on anything like social advance. In some parts of the
world social development has been hindered by external circumstances of
another character, such as the want of wood, the scarcity of animals, the
absence of edible fruits. In fact, it is only within a comparatively temperate
zone that human society has been able permanently to assume highly
complex forms and to build itself up on an extensive scale. In this zone,
climate, while favouring man up to a certain point, has at the same time
compelled him to eat bread in the sweat of his brow. It has compelled him
to enter into conflict with natural obstacles, the result of which has been to
call forth his powers of industry, of energy, of self-reliance, and to sharpen
his intellectual faculties generally. In addition to exercising and
strengthening these personal attributes, the climatic influences of what has
been called the zone of civilisation have brought man's social characteristics
more fully and elaborately into play. The nature of these influences has
forced him to cooperate more or less closely with his fellows; while each
step in the path of cooperation has involved him in another of a more
complex kind. The growth of social cooperation is not necessarily
accompanied by a corresponding development of the moral sentiments;
increased cooperation in some cases involving a distinct ethical loss. In
many directions, however, highly organised societies tend to evolve loftier
types of morality; and it is in harmony with the facts to say that the highest
moral types are not to be found where nature does most or where it does
least in the way of providing food and shelter for man.

It is also interesting to observe the effect which climate, through the
agency of religion, has had upon human conduct. One of the main factors in
the origin of religion is the feeling of dependence upon nature so strongly
manifested in all primitive forms of faith. The outcome of this feeling of
dependence was to exalt the forces of nature into divinities, and man's
conception of these divinities, shaped as it was by the attitude of nature

around him, had an incalculable influence on his life and actions. The
remains of this influence are still visible in the aesthetic effects which the
forces and operations of nature produce on civilised man; in all other
respects it has to a large extent passed away.[13]

We have now touched upon most of the ways in which external
surroundings have had a hand in shaping the course of human life in the
past; it will be our next business to inquire whether these surroundings have
any effect upon human conduct at the present day, and especially upon
those manifestations of conduct which are known as crimes. That they still
have an effect is an opinion which has long been entertained.

Going back to the ancient Greeks, we find Hippocrates holding that all
regions liable to violent changes of climate produced men of fierce,
impetuous and stubborn disposition. "In approaching southern countries,"
says Montesquieu, "one would believe that morality was being left behind;
more ardent passions multiply crimes; each tries to gain from others all the
advantages which can minister to these passions." Buckle believes that the
interruption of work caused by instability of climate leads to instability of
character. In analysing the contents of French statistics, Quetelet,[14] while
admitting that other causes may neutralise the action of climate, proceeds to
say that the "number of crimes against property relatively to the number of
crimes against the person increases considerably as we advance towards the
north." Another eminent student of French criminal statistics, M. Tarde,
comes to very much the same conclusions as Quetelet; he admits that a high
temperature does exercise an indirect influence on the criminal passions.
But the most exhaustive investigations in this problem have been
undertaken in Italy, by Signor Enrico Ferri. After a thorough examination of
French judicial statistics for a series of years, Ferri arrives at the conclusion
that a maximum of crimes against the person is reached in the hot months,
while, on the other hand, crimes against property come to a climax in the
winter.[15]

In testing these opinions respecting the influence of climate upon crime,
we are obliged, to some extent, to have recourse to international statistics.
But these statistics, as has already been pointed out, owing to the diversity
of customs, laws, criminal procedure, and so on, do not easily admit of

comparison. So much is this the case that we shall not make the attempt as
far as these statistics have reference to crimes against property. In this field
no satisfactory result can, at present be obtained. The same remark holds
good in relation to all offences against the person, with the exception of
homicide. This, undoubtedly, in an important exception; and it arises from
the fact that there is a greater consensus of opinion among civilised
communities respecting the gravity of homicide than exists with regard to
any other form of crime. Murder in all its degrees is a crime which
immediately causes a profound commotion; it is easy to recognise; it is
more likely than any other offence to come to the ears of the authorities. For
these reasons this crime lends itself most readily to international
comparison; nevertheless, differences of judicial procedure, legal
nomenclature, and different methods of classification stand in the way of
making the comparison absolutely accurate. These differences, however, are
not so great as to render comparison impossible or worthless; on the
contrary, the results of such a comparison are of exceptional value, and go a
long way to determine the question of the effect of climate upon crimes of
blood.

Assuming, then, with these reservations, that such a comparison can be
instituted, let us see to what extent murder, in the widest sense of the word,
including wilful murder, manslaughter, and infanticide, prevails in the
various countries of Europe. In ordinary circumstances this task would be a
laborious one, entailing a minute and careful examination of the criminal
statistics and procedure of many nations. Fortunately, it has recently been
accomplished by Dr. Bosco in an admirable monograph communicated in
the first instance to the Journal of the International Statistical Institute, but
now published in a separate form. Bosco's figures have all been taken from
official sources, and may, therefore, be accepted as accurate; but, before
tabulating-them, it may be useful to make an extract from the explanatory
note by which they are accompanied. "As the composition of the
population, with respect to age, varies in different countries, and as it has to
be remembered that all the population under ten years of age has no share,
at least under normal conditions, in the crime of murder, it has seemed to
me a more exact method to calculate the proportion of murders to the
inhabitants who are over ten years of age, than to include the total
population. For those States where a census has been recently taken, such,

for instance, as France and Germany, the results of that census have been
used; that is to say, the French census of May, 1886, and the German census
of December, 1885. For the other States the population has been calculated
(adding the excess of births over deaths to the results of the last census) to
the end of the intermediate year for each period of years to which the
information relates; that is to say, to the end of 1883 for Belgium, and to the
end of 1884 for Austria, Hungary, Spain, England, Scotland and Ireland. As
the information respecting Italy refers to 1887 only, the population has been
estimated up to the end of that year. The division of the population
according to age (above and below ten) has been obtained by means of
proportional calculations based on the results of the census for each State.
In the case of France and Germany, however, it has been taken directly from
the census returns."[16]

Homicides of all kinds in the following European States:—

Tried. Convicted.
Population Annual Per 100,000 Annual Per 100,000
Countries. Years.
over ten. average inhabitants. average inhabitants.
Italy 23,408,2771887 3,606 15.40 2,805 11.98
Austria 17,199,2371883-6 689 4.01 499 2.90
France 31,044,3701882-6 847 2.73 580 1.87
Belgium 4,377,8131881-5 132 3.02 101 2.31
England 19,898,0531882-6 318 1.60 151 0.76
Ireland 3,854,5881882-6 129 3.35 54 1.40
Scotland 2,841,9411882-6 60 2.11 21 0.74
Spain 13,300,8391883-6 1,584 11.91 1,085 8.18
Hungary 10,821,5581882-6 625 5.78
Holland 3,172,4641882-6 35 1.10 28 0.88
Germany 35,278,7421882-6 567 1.61 476 1.35

What is the import of these statistics? We perceive at once that Italy,
Spain and Hungary head the list in the proportion of murders to the
population. In Italy, out of every 100,000 persons over ten years of age,
eleven in round numbers are annually convicted of murder in one or other
of its forms; in Spain eight are convicted of the same offence, and in

Hungary five are convicted. These three countries are conspicuously ahead
of all the others to which our table refers. Austria and Belgium follow at a
long distance with two convictions in round numbers to every 100,000
inhabitants over ten. France, Ireland and Germany come next with one
conviction and a considerable fraction to every 100,000 persons over ten;
England, Scotland and Holland stand at the bottom of the list with between
seven and eight persons convicted of murder to every one million of
inhabitants over ten.

In order to understand the full meaning of these figures we must take
one more stop and compare the numbers convicted with the numbers tried.
In some countries very few convictions may take place in proportion to the
number accused, while in other countries the proportion may be very
considerable. In other words, in order to arrive at an approximate estimate
of the amount of murders perpetrated in a country, we must consider how
many cases of murder have been tried in the course of the year. It very
seldom happens that a person is tried for this offence when no murder has
been committed; and it may, therefore, be assumed that the crime has taken
place when a man haw to stand his trial for it. Estimating then the
prevalence of murder in the various countries by trials, rather than
convictions, it will be found that Germany, with a much larger percentage
of convictions than England, has just as few cases of murder for trial. And
the reason the number of convictions, as between the two nations, differs,
arises from the fact that a prisoner's chance of acquittal in England is a
hundred per cent. greater than it is in Germany. It is not, therefore, accurate
to assume that a greater number of murders are committed in Germany than
in England because a greater number of persons are annually convicted of
this crime; all that these convictions absolutely prove is, that the machinery
of the criminal law is more effective in the one country than in the other. To
take another instance, more persons are annually tried for murder in Ireland
than in France; but more cases of conviction are recorded in France than in
Ireland. These contrasts show that, while the French are less addicted to this
grave offence than the Irish, they are more anxious to secure its detection,
and that a greater body of public opinion is on the side of law in France
than in Ireland. All these instances (and more could easily be added to
them) are intended to call attention to the importance of looking at the
number of persons tried, as well as the percentage of persons convicted, if

we desire to form an accurate estimate of the comparative prevalence of
crime.

While thus showing that the number of trials for murder is the best test
of the prevalence of this offence, it is not meant that the test is in all
respects indisputable. At most it is merely approximate. One obstacle in the
way of its entire accuracy consists in the circumstance that the proportion of
persons tried, as compared with the amount of crime committed, is in no
two countries precisely the same. In France, for instance, more murders are
perpetrated, for which no one is ultimately tried, than in Italy or in England;
that is to say, a murderer runs more risk of being placed in the dock in this
country than in France. But the difference between the two countries is
again to a great extent adjusted by the fact that once a man is placed in the
dock in France he has far less chance of being acquitted than if he were
tried according to English law. On the whole, therefore, it may be assumed
that the international statistics of trials, corrected when necessary by the
international statistics of convictions, present a tolerably accurate idea of
the extent to which the crime of murder prevails among the nationalities of
Europe. In any case these figures will go some way towards helping us to
see whether climatic conditions have any influence upon the amount of
crime. This we shall now inquire into.

On looking at the isotherms for the year it will be observed that the
average temperature of Italy and Spain is ten degrees higher than the
average temperature of England. On the other hand, the average
temperature of Hungary is very much the same as the average temperature
of this country; but Hungary is at the same time exposed to much greater
extremes of climate than England. In winter it is nearly ten degrees colder
than England, while in summer it is as hot as Spain. The advocates of the
direct effect of climate upon crime contend that account must be taken not
merely of the degree of temperature, but also of the variations of
temperature to which a region is exposed. According to this theory one of
the principal reasons the crime of murder is, at least, fourfold higher in
Hungary than in England, is to be found in the violent oscillations of
temperature in Hungary as compared with England. In Italy murders are, at
least, ten times as numerous as in England; in Spain they are seven times as
numerous; the chief cause of this condition of things is said to be the

serious difference of temperature. In the United States of America there are
more crimes of blood in the South than in the North; the main explanation
of this difference is said to be that the climate of the South is much hotter
than the climate of the North.

In opposition to this theory of the intimate relation between temperature
and crime, it may be urged that the greater prevalence of crimes of blood in
hot latitudes is a mere coincidence and not a causal connection. This is the
view taken by Dr. Mischler in Baron von Holtzendorff's "Handbuch des
Gefängnisswesens." He says the real reason crimes of blood are more
common in the South of Europe than in the North is to be attributed to the
more backward state of civilisation in the South, and to the wild and
mountainous character of the country. To the latter part of this argument it is
easy to reply that Scotland is quite as mountainous as Italy, and yet its
inhabitants are far less addicted to crimes against the person. But it is more
civilised, for, as M. Tarde ingeniously contends, the bent of civilisation at
present is to travel northward. Admitting for a moment that Scotland is
more civilised than Spain or Italy, all savage tribes, on the other hand, are
confessedly less advanced in the arts of life than these two peninsulas. But,
for all that, many of these savage peoples are much less criminal. "I have
lived," says Mr. Russell Wallace, "with communities of savages in South
America and in the East who have no laws or law courts, but the public
opinion of the village freely expressed. Each man scrupulously respects the
rights of his fellows, and any infraction of these rights rarely or never takes
place." Mr. Herbert Spencer also quotes innumerable instances of the
kindness, mildness, honesty, and respect for person and property of
uncivilised peoples. M. de Quatrefages, in summing up the ethical
characteristics of the various races of mankind, comes to the conclusion that
from a moral point of view the white man is hardly any better than the
black. Civilisation so far has unfortunately generated almost as many vices
as it has virtues, and he is a bold man who will say that its growth has
diminished the amount of crime. It is very difficult then to accept the view
that the frequency of murder in Spain and Italy is entirely due to a lack of
civilisation.

Nor can it be said to be entirely due to economic distress. A condition of
social misery has undoubtedly something to do with the production of

crime. In countries where there is much wealth side by side with much
misery, as in France and England, adverse social circumstances drive a
certain portion of the community into criminal courses. But where this great
inequality of social conditions does not exist—where all are poor as in
Ireland or Italy—poverty alone is not a weighty factor in ordinary crime. In
Ireland, for example, there in almost as much poverty as exists in Italy, and
if the amount of crime were determined by economic circumstances alone,
Ireland ought to have as black a record as her southern sister. Instead of that
she is on the whole as free from crime as the most prosperous countries of
Europe. In the face of these facts it is impossible to say that the high rate of
crime in Italy and Spain is to be wholly accounted for by the pressure of
economic adversity.

Will not difference of race suffice to account for it? Is it not the case that
some races are inherently more prone to crime than others? In India, for
instance, where the great mass of the population is singularly law-abiding, a
portion of the aboriginal inhabitants have from time immemorial lived by
plunder and crime. "When a man tells you," says an official report, quoted
by Sir John Strachey, "that he is a Badhak, or a Kanjar, or a Sonoria, he tells
you what few Europeans ever thoroughly realise, that he, an offender
against the law, has been so from the beginning and will be so to the end;
that reform is impossible, for it is his trade, his caste—I may almost say his
religion—to commit crime." It is not poverty which makes many of these
predatory races criminals. Speaking of the Mina tribe inhabiting one of the
frontier districts of the Punjab, Sir John Strachey says: "Their sole
occupation is, and always has been, plunder in the native States and in
distant parts of British India; they give no trouble at home, and, judging
from criminal statistics, it would be supposed that they were an honest
community. They live amid abundance, in substantial houses with
numerous cattle, fine clothes and jewels, and fleet camels to carry off their
plunder." Special laws have been made for dealing with these tribes; a
register of their numbers is kept; they can be compelled to live within
certain local limits, but in spite of these coercive measures crime is not
suppressed, and "a long time must elapse before we see the end of the
criminal tribes of India."

Coming back to European peoples, it is worthy of note that both
Hungary and Finland are inhabited by the same race. These two countries
are separated by about fifteen degrees of latitude, but in the matter of
murder the people of Finland are much more nearly allied to the Hungarians
than to their immediate neighbours, the Swedes and Norwegians. The Finns
commit about twice as many murders in proportion to the population as the
Teutons of Scandinavia, but only about half as many as the Hungarians; and
it is not improbable to suppose that while the effect of race makes them
more murderous than the Scandinavians, the effect of climate makes them
less murderous than the inhabitants of Hungary.

Before bringing forward any additional material on one side or the other,
let us pause for a moment to consider the results which have just been
obtained as to the effect of race as compared with climate upon crime. In
India we have found an Aryan and a non-Aryan population living together
under the same climatic influences, and very much the same social
conditions, and we have seen that the Aborigines are more criminally
disposed than the Aryan invaders. Again we have a Mongolian race living
in the far North of Europe, and we find that they show a larger percentage
of homicidal crime than the Teutonic inhabitants who live in the same
latitudes. In Hungary, where the Mongoloid type is once more met with, the
same facts are substantially reproduced; this type is more homicidal than
the Austrian Teutons living under a similar climate. While these facts point
to the conclusion that race has apparently some influence on the amount of
crime, they fail to show that race characteristics alone are sufficient to
explain the differences in criminality between the same peoples when
settled in different quarters of the globe. The Mongoloid type in Finland is
less criminal than the same type in Hungary, and the Teutonic type in
Scandinavia is less murderously disposed than the same type in the empire
of Austria. It has also been pointed out that the Anglo-American of the
Northern States is more law abiding than his brother by race in the South,
while both are more murderous than the inhabitants of the United Kingdom;
where extremes of climate are not so great.

With these facts before us we shall now institute another comparison
between two widely separated branches of the Anglo-Saxon race, namely,
the colonists of Australia and the people of the motherland. Of the

Australian colonists it is not incorrect to say that they are, on the whole, the
pick of the home population. It is perfectly true that a certain proportion of
the ne'er-do-wells have emigrated to Australia, and some of them, no doubt,
help to swell the normal criminal population of the colonies. But, on the
other hand, Australia has this advantage, that the average colonist who
seeks a home beyond our shores is generally a superior man to the average
citizen who remains at home; he is more steady, more enterprising, more
industrious. In this way the balance is adjusted in favour of the colonies. It
is a great deal more than redressed if the superior, social, and economic
conditions, under which the colonists live, are also placed in the scale. In
his "Problems of Greater Britain," Sir Charles Dilke has shown, with
admirable clearness, what immense advantages are enjoyed by the working
population of Australia as compared with the same class at home; so much
is this the case that the Australian colonies have been not inaptly called the
paradise of the working man. Here then is an excellent opportunity for
comparing the effects of climate upon crime. In Australia we have a people
of the same race as ourselves, better off economically, living under
essentially the same laws and governed in practically the same spirit.
Almost the only difference between the inhabitants of the United Kingdom
and the communities of Australia is a difference of climate. Does this
difference manifest itself in the statistics of crime? In order to test the
matter we shall exclude the colony of New South Wales from our
calculations. For its size New South Wales is the richest community in the
world, and its riches are well distributed among all classes of the
population. But it was at one time a penal settlement, and it is possible that
the criminal statistics of the colony are still inflated by that remote cause.
The sister colony of Victoria stands upon a different footing and is free from
that disturbing factor; we shall therefore select that colony as a normal type
of the Australian group. In Part V.I.I. of the Statistical Register of the
colony of Victoria for 1887, there is an excellent summary of the position of
the colony with respect to crime. The admirable manner in which these
judicial statistics are arranged, reflects the highest credit on the colonial
authorities; for fulness of information and clearness of arrangement they are
not surpassed by any similar statistics in the world. As homicide is the
crime on which we have hitherto based our international comparisons, we
shall, for the present, confine our attention to the Victorian statistics of this
offence.

Tried. Convicted.
Per Per
Population Annual Annual
Countries. Years. 100,000 100,000
over ten. average. average.
inhabitants. inhabitants.
Victoria 581,838 1882-6 22 3.2 14 2.5
United 1882-
26,594,582 505 2.35 226 .96
Kingdom 6|

Before proceeding to analysis the contents of this table, it will be as well
to explain the method on which it has been constructed, and the sources
from which it is derived. The population of Victoria, over ten years of age,
has been calculated according to the Victorian census for 1881, as contained
in Part II. of the Victorian Statistical Register. In order to make the
Victorian table harmonise in all particulars with Dr. Bosco's table for
England, Scotland, and Ireland, the excess of births over deaths has been
calculated up to the end of 1884. The United Kingdom, it will be seen, has
been selected as the measure of comparison with the colony of Victoria.
This selection has been made on the ground that the colony of Victoria is
not composed of the inhabitants of any one of the three kingdoms, but
contains a mixture of them all. It will also be observed that the homicidal
crime of each of the three kingdoms differs from the other, but this is a
consideration which we shall not further comment upon at present.

After these preliminary explanations we are now in a position to
examine the contents of our statistical table in its bearing upon crimes of
blood. It will now be possible to see what light the criminal statistics of
Victoria, as compared with the criminal statistics of the United Kingdom,
throw upon these crimes; and the disturbing factor of race being eliminated,
what is the influence of climate pure and simple upon them. According to
the isotherms for the year the Victorians live in an atmosphere between
eight and ten degrees hotter than our own. Side by side with this additional
heat, there is, as compared with the United Kingdom, an additional amount
of crime. In the colony of Victoria, in proportion to every 100,000
inhabitants over ten years of age, there are nearly one-third more murders
annually than in the United Kingdom. On what ground is this considerable
increase of homicide to be accounted for, except on the ground of climate?
The higher percentage is not caused by difference of race; it is not caused

by worse economic conditions—these conditions are much superior to our
own—the meaning of the figures is not obscured by any material
differences of legal procedure or legal nomenclature. It cannot be urged that
the Victorian population are the dregs of the home population; the very
opposite is the fact. The bad characters who emigrate are the only
disturbing element; but, after all, these men are not so numerous, and the
evil effects of their presence is counterbalanced by the superiority of the
average colonist to the average citizen who remains at home. It may be said
that there is greater difficulty in detecting crime in a new colony than in an
old and settled country. As applied to some colonies it is possible this
objection may be sound, but, as applied to Victoria, it will not hold good. In
Victoria the police are much more effective than they are at home, and a
criminal has much less chance of going unpunished there than he has in
England. In Victoria in the year 1887, out of a total of 40,693 cases reported
to the police, 34,473 were brought up for trial. In England, on the other
hand, out of a total of 42,391 indictable offences reported to the police in
1886-7, only 19,045 persons were apprehended. The Victorian figures
include offences of all kinds, petty as well as indictable, whereas the
English figures deal with indictable offences only. But admitting this, and
admitting that it is more difficult to arrest indictable offenders, this
difficulty is not so great as to explain away the vast difference in the
numbers apprehended in Victoria as compared with the numbers
apprehended in England. Only one conclusion can be drawn from these
figures, and it is that the Victorian constabulary are more efficient than our
own, and that it is a more dangerous thing for a person to break the law in
the young colony of Victoria than in the old community at home.

It seems to me that the points of comparison between the United
Kingdom and Victoria, in so far as they have any bearing upon crime, have
now been exhausted; on almost every one of these points Victoria stands in
a more favourable position than ourselves. The colony has, on the whole, a
better kind of citizen; it has superior social and economic conditions; it has
a far more effective system of police. On what possible ground, then, is it,
except the ground of climate, that the Victorians are more addicted to
homicide than the people of the United Kingdom? I admit it would be rash
to assert that climate is the cause if our own and the Victorian statistics were
the only documents to which we could appeal; it would be rash to draw

such a sweeping conclusion from so isolated a basis. But when we know
that the Victorian statistics are only one set of documents among many, and
that all these sets of documents point to the operation of the same law, the
case assumes an entirely different complexion. The results of the Victorian
statistics harmonise with the conclusions already reached from a
comparison of the criminal statistics of Europe and America. These
conclusions in turn are powerfully reinforced by the experience of
Australia. In fact, the whole body of evidence, from whatever quarter it is
collected, points with remarkable unanimity to the conviction that, as far as
European peoples and their offshoots are concerned, climate alone is no
inconsiderable factor in determining the course of human conduct.

Yet the evil influence of climate, mischievous as it is at present, is not to
be looked upon and acquiesced in as an irrevocable fatality. At first sight it
would seem as if the human race could not possibly escape the malevolent
action of cosmical influences over which it has little or no control. The rise
and fall of temperature, its rage and intensity, is one of these influences, and
yet its pernicious offsets are capable of being held to a large extent in check.
As far as bodily comfort is concerned, it is marvellous to consider the
innumerable methods and devices the progressive races of mankind have
invented to protect themselves against the hostility of the elements by
which they are surrounded. In fact, an important part of the history of the
race consists in the ceaseless efforts it has been making to improve upon
and perfect these methods and devices. We have only to compare the rude
hut of the savage with the modern dwelling of the civilised man in order to
see to what extent we can shield ourselves from the elemental forces in the
midst of which we have to live. We have only to mark the difference
between the miserable and scanty garments of the natives of Terra del
Fuego and the attire of the Englishman of to-day to see what can be done by
man in the way of rescuing himself from the inclemencies of Nature. If
these conquests can be achieved where our physical existence is in peril,
there can be little reason to doubt that advances of a similar nature can be
made in the moral order as soon as man comes to feel equally conscious of
their necessity. As a matter of fact, in some quarters of the world these
advances have already in some measure been made. In the vast peninsula of
India the structure of society is so constituted that the evil effect of climate
in producing crimes of blood has been marvellously neutralised. It hardly

admits of dispute that the caste system on which Indian society is based is,
on the whole, one of the most wonderful instruments for the prevention of
crimes of violence the world has ever seen. The average temperature of the
Indian peninsula is about thirty degrees higher than the average temperature
of the British Isles, and if there were no counteracting forces at work,
crimes of violence in India should be much more numerous than they are
with us. But the counteracting forces acting upon Indian society are of such
immense potency that the malign influences of climate are very nearly
annihilated as far as the crimes we are now discussing are concerned; and
India stands to-day in the proud position of being more free from crimes
against the person than the most highly civilised countries of Europe. In
proof of this fact we have only to look at the official documents annually
issued respecting the condition of British India. According to the returns
contained in the Statistical Abstract relating to British India and the
Parliamentary paper exhibiting its moral and material progress, the number
of murders reported to the police of India is smaller than the number
reported in any European State. The Indian Government issue no statistics,
so far as I am aware, of the numbers tried; it is, therefore, impossible to
institute any comparison between Europe and India upon this important
point. But when we come to the number convicted it is again found that
India presents a lower percentage of convictions for murder than is to be
met with among any other people. It may, however, be urged that the
statistical records respecting Indian crime are not so carefully kept as the
statistics of a like character relating to England and the Continent. Sir John
Strachey assures us that this is not the case; he says that these statistics are
as carefully collected and tabulated in India as they are at home, and we
may accept them as worthy of the utmost confidence. The following table,
which I have prepared from the official documents already mentioned, may,
therefore, be taken as giving an accurate account of the condition of India
between 1882-6, as far as the most serious of all crimes is concerned. In
order to facilitate comparison I have drawn it up as far as possible on the
same lines as the other tables in this chapter.

Tried. Convicted.
Population Annual Per 100,000 Annual Per 100,000
Years.
over ten. average. inhabitants. average. inhabitants.
India 148,543,2231882-6 1,930 1.31 690 .46

According to this table, the remarkable fact is established that the
number of cases of homicide in India committed by persons over ten years
of age and reported to the police is smaller per 100,000 inhabitants than the
number of cases of the same nature brought up for trial in England. In order
to appreciate the full importance of this difference it has to be remembered
that in England a great number of cases of homicide are reported to the
police, for which no one is apprehended or brought to trial. In the case of
the notorious Whitechapel murders which horrified the country a year or
two ago no one was ever brought to trial, hardly any one was arrested or
seriously suspected. These crimes and many others like them materially
augment the number of homicides reported to the police, but they never
figure among the cases annually brought for trial before assizes. As a matter
of fact, no one is ever tried in more than one half of the cases of homicide
reported to the police in the course of the year. In the year 1888, for
instance, 403 cases of homicide were reported to the police in England and
Wales; but in connection with all these cases only 196 persons were
committed for trial. In short, double the number of homicides are
committed as compared with the number of persons tried; and if a
comparison is established between India and England on the basis of
homicides reported to the police, the outcome of such a comparison will be
to show that there are annually more than twice as many murders
committed per one hundred thousand inhabitants over the age of ten in
England than there are in India.

An objection may be taken to these figures on the ground that the crime
of infanticide is much more prevalent to India than it is in England, and that
the perpetrators of this crime are much less frequently brought to justice in
the former country than with us. That objection is to some extent valid; at
the same time it is well to remember that infanticide in India is an offence
of a very special and peculiar character; the motives from which it springs
are not what is usually understood as criminal; these motives arise from
religious usage and immemorial custom; in short, it is English law and not
the Indian conscience which makes infanticide a crime. Of course, the
practice of infanticide is a proof that the Hindu mind has not the same high
conception of the value of infant life as one finds in the western world, and
in that respect India stands on an inferior moral level to ourselves. But with
the exception of infanticide (and it is necessary to except it for the reasons I

have just alleged) India has not half as many homicides annually as
England.[17]

To what cause is this vast difference in favour of India to be attributed?
It is hardly probable that the difference is produced to any appreciable
extent, if at all, by the nature of the food used by the people of India. If it
were correct that a vegetable diet, such as is almost exclusively used by the
inhabitants of India, had a salutary effect on the conduct of the population,
we should witness the results of it, not only in the Indian peninsula, but also
in other quarters of the world. The nature of the food consumed by the
Italians bears a very close resemblance in its essential constituents to the
dietary of the inhabitants of India; in both cases it is almost entirely
composed of vegetable products. If vegetable, as contrasted with animal
food, exercised a beneficial influence on human conduct; if it tended, for
example, to restrain the passions, to minimise the brute instincts, some
indisputable proof of this would be certain to show itself in the criminal
statistics of Italy. As a matter of fact, no such proof exists. On the contrary,
Italy is, of all countries within the pale of civilisation, the one most
notorious for crimes of blood. In the face of this truth, it is impossible to
believe that a vegetable diet has anything to do either with producing or
preventing crime, and the contention that the wonderful immunity of India
from offences against the person is owing to the food used by the
inhabitants must be looked upon as without foundation.

The peculiar structure of society is unquestionably the most satisfactory
explanation of the high position occupied by the inhabitants of India with
respect to crime. The social edifice which a people builds for itself is among
all civilised communities a highly complex product, and consists of a great
agglomeration of diverse materials. These materials are partly drawn from
the primitive characteristics of the race; they are partly borrowings from
other and contiguous races; they are to a considerable extent derived from
natural surroundings of all kinds; and in all circumstances they are
supplemented by the genius of individuals. In short, all social structures,
when looked at minutely, are found to be composed of two main ingredients
—race and environment; but these two ingredients are so indissolubly
interfused that it is impossible to say how much is to be attributed to the
one, and how much to the other, in the building up of a society. But if, it is

impossible to estimate the value of the several elements composing the
fabric of society, it is easy to ascertain the dominating idea on which all
forms of society are based. That dominating idea, if it may for the moment
be called such, is the instinct of self-preservation, and it exercises just as
great a power in determining the formation and play of the social organism
as it exercises in determining the attitude of the individual to the world
around him. In working out the idea of self-preservation into practical
forms, the social system of most peoples has hitherto been built up with a
view to protection against external enemies in the shape of hostile tribes
and nations; the internal enemies of the commonwealth—the thieves, the
housebreakers, the disturbers of public order, the shedders of blood, the
perpetrators of violence—have been treated as only worthy of secondary
consideration. Such are the lines on which social structure has, in most
cases, proceeded, with the result that while external security was for long
periods assured, internal security remained as imperfect and defective as
ever.

The structure of society in India is, however, an exception to the general
rule. External security, or, in other words, the desire for political freedom
has, to a great extent, become extinct wherever the principles of
Brahmanism have succeeded in taking root.

These principles have been operating upon the Indian mind for
thousands of years; their effect in the sphere of politics excited the wonder
of the ancient Greeks, who tell us that the Indian peasant might be seen
tilling his field in peace between hostile armies preparing for battle. A
similar spectacle has been seen on the plains of India in modern times. But
Brahmanism, while extinguishing the principle of liberty in all its branches,
and exposing its adherents to the mercy of every conqueror, has succeeded,
through the caste system, in bringing internal order, security, and peace to a
high pitch of excellence. This end, the caste system, like most other
religious institutions, did not and does not have directly in view; but the
human race often takes circuitous routes to attain its ends, and while
apparently aiming at one object, is in reality securing another. The
permanent forces operating in society often possess a very different
character from those on the surface, and when the complicated network in

which they are always wrapped up is stripped from off them, we find that
they are some fundamental human instincts at work in disguise.

These observations are applicable to the caste system. This system,
when divested of its externals, besides being an attempt to satisfy the mystic
and emotional elements in the Indian heart, also represents the genius of the
race engaged in the task of self-preservation. The manner in which caste
exercises this function in thus described by Sir William Hunter in His
volume on the Indian Empire. "Caste or guild," he says, "exercises a
surveillance over each of its members from the close of childhood until
death. If a man behaves well, he will rise to an honoured place in his caste;
and the desire for such local distinctions exercises an important influence in
the life of a Hindu. But the caste has its punishments as well as its rewards.
Those punishments consist of fine and excommunication. The fine usually
takes the form of a compulsory feast to the male members of the caste. This
is the ordinary means of purification, or of making amends for breaches of
the caste code. Excommunication inflicts three penalties: First, an interdict
against eating with the fellow members of the caste; second, an interdict
against marriage within the caste. This practically amounts to debarring the
delinquent and his family from respectable marriages of any sort; third,
cutting off the delinquent from the general community by forbidding him
the use of the village barber and washerman, and of the priestly adviser.
Except in very serious cases, excommunication is withdrawn upon the
submission of the offender, and his payment of a fine. Anglo-Indian law
does not enforce caste decrees. But caste punishments exercise an
efficacious restraint upon unworthy members of the community, precisely
as caste rewards supply a powerful motive of action to good ones. A
member who cannot be controlled by this mixed discipline of punishment
and reward is eventually expelled; and, as a rule, 'an out-caste' is really a
bad man. Imprisonment in jail carries with it that penalty, but may be
condoned after release by heavy expiations."

Those remarks of Sir William Hunter afford an insight into the coercive
power exercised by the caste system on the Indian population. Without that
system it is probable that the criminal statistics of India would present as
high a proportion of crimes of violence and blood as now exists among the
peoples of Southern Europe. But with that system in active operation, the

evil influence of climate is completely neutralised and India at the present
moment enjoys a remarkable immunity from violent crime. With the
example of India before us we are justified in coming to the conclusion that
homicide and crimes of a kindred nature need not necessarily be the malign
products of climate. Whatever climate has to do with fostering these
offences may be obviated by a better form of social organisation. It would
be ridiculous to dream of basing western society upon Indian models; but at
the same time India teaches us a lesson on the construction of the social
fabric which it would be well to learn. The tendency of western civilisation
at the present time is to herd vast masses of men into huge industrial
centres. It is useless discussing the abstract question whether this is a good
thing or a bad; we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that it is a process
forced upon communities by the necessities of modern industrialism; and
we must accordingly make the best of it. In our efforts to make the best of
present tendencies, and to render them as innocuous as possible to social
welfare, there is one point at least where India is able to teach us an
instructive lesson. In India a man seldom becomes, what he too often is, in
all our large cities, a mere lonely, isolated unit, left entirely to the mercy of
his own impulses, constrained by no social circle of any description, and
unsustained by the pressure of any public opinion for which he has the least
regard. In India he is always a member of some fraternity within the
community; in that fraternity or caste he feels at home; he is never isolated;
he belongs to a circle which is not too big for his individuality to be lost; he
is known; he has a reputation and a status to maintain; his life within the
caste is shaped for him by caste usages and traditions, and for these he is
taught to entertain the deepest reverence. Caste is in many of its aspects a
state in miniature within the state; in this capacity it performs a variety of
admirable functions of which the state itself is and must always remain
incapable.

Before the era of great cities the township in the West used to exorcise
some of the functions at present discharged in India by the system of caste.
But the township in the old sense of the word, with its settled population
and the common eye upon all its members, has to a large extent
disappeared. The influence of the family is at the same time being
constantly weakened by the migratory habits modern industrialism entails
on the population; in a word, the old constraining force, which used to hold

society together, are almost gone, and nothing effective has sprung up to
replace them.

In these circumstances what is to be done? It is useless attempting to
restore the past. That never has been accomplished successfully; all
attempts in that direction look as if they were opposed to the nature of
things. It is among the living and vigorous forces of the present that we
must look for help. I shall content myself by mentioning one of these
forces, namely Trade Societies. It seems a pity that these societies should
confine their operations merely to the limited object of forcing up wages.
That object is, of course, a perfectly laudable and legitimate one, but it is
surely not the supreme and only end for which a Trade Society should exist.
A Trade Society would do well to teach its members how to spend as well
as how to earn. What, indeed, is the use of higher wages to a certain section
of the members of Trades-Unions? The increased pay, instead of being a
blessing, becomes a curse; it leads to drunkenness, to wife-beating, to
disorder in the public streets, to assaults on the police, to crimes of violence
and blood. It is a melancholy fact that the moment wages begin to rise, the
statistics of crime almost immediately follow suit, and at no period are there
more offences of all kinds against the person than when material prosperity
is at its height.

It lies well within the functions of such Trades-Unions as possess an
enlightened regard for the welfare of their members, to introduce a code of
regulations which would tend to minimise some of the evils which have just
been mentioned. It would immeasurably raise the status of the Union, if
certain disciplinary measures could be adopted against members convicted
of offences against the law. In the professions of law and medicine it is the
custom at the present time to expel members who are proved guilty of
serious offences of this description, and unquestionably the dread of
expulsion exercises a most salutary influence on the conduct of all persons
belonging to these professions. It would be possible for Trade organisations
to accomplish much without resorting to this rigorous treatment; and the
real object for which such societies exist—the well-being of the members—
would be attained much more effectively than is the case at present. Wages
are but the means to an end; the end is individual, domestic and social

welfare, and it is only a half measure to supply the means unless something
is also done to secure the end.

CHAPTER III.

THE SEASONS AND CRIME.
Let us now approach the question of temperature and crime from
another point of view. International statistics indicate pretty clearly that
warm regions exercise an injurious effect on the conduct of European
peoples. Does the information furnished by these statistics stand alone, or is
it supported by the result of investigations conducted in a different field? To
this vital question it will be our endeavour to supply an answer. In the
annual reports of the Prison Commissioners there is an instructive diagram
showing the mean number of prisoners in the local prisons of England and
Wales on the first Tuesday of each month. This diagram has been published
for a considerable number of years, and if we take any period of six years it
is remarkable to observe the unfailing regularity with which crime begins to
decrease as soon as the summer is over and the temperature begins to fall.
From the month of October till the month of February in the following year,
the prison population continues almost steadily to diminish; from the month
of February till the month of October, the same population, allowing for
pauses in its progress and occasional deflections in its course, mounts
upwards with the rising temperature. According to the last sextennial
diagram of the Prison Commissioners, which embraces the six years ended
March, 1884, the mean number of prisoners in the local prisons of England
and Wales was, on the first Tuesday in February, 17,600; on the first
Tuesday in April it had risen to 18,400; on the first Tuesday in July it had
reached nearly 19,000; on the first Tuesday in October it culminated in
19,200. From this date onwards the numbers decreased just as steadily as
they had previously risen, reaching their lowest point in February, when the
upward movement again commenced. The steadiness and regularity of this
rise and fall of the prison population, according to the season of the year,
goes on with such wonderful precision that it must proceed from the
operation of some permanent cause. What is this permanent cause? Is it
economic, social, or climatic?

Is it economic? It is sometimes asserted that the increase of crime in the
summer months is due to the large number of tramps who leave the
workhouses after the winter is over and roam the country in search of
employment. Many of these wanderers, it is said, are arrested for vagrancy;
in summer they swell the prison population just as they swell the

workhouse population in winter. This explanation of the increase of crime
in summer contains so many elements of probability, that it has come to be
rather widely accepted by students of criminal phenomena. It has not,
however, been my good fortune to meet with any facts or statistics of
sufficient weight to establish the validity of this explanation. As far as I can
ascertain it is an explanation which has obtained currency almost entirely
through its own intrinsic probability; it is believed, but it has not been
proved. Let us proceed to put it to the test. For this purpose we shall select
the county of Surrey—a fairly typical English county, composed partly of
town and partly of country. In the county of Surrey during the month of
July, 1888, sixty per cent. fewer persons were imprisoned for vagrancy than
in the following month of January, 1889. As far as Surrey is concerned,
these figures effectually dispose of the idea that vagrancy is more common
in summer than in winter; as a matter of fact they demonstrate that the very
opposite is the case. Surrey is the only county for which I have been able to
obtain trustworthy statistics, but there is every reason to believe that the
statistics of Surrey reveal on a limited scale what the whole of England, if
figures were procurable, would reveal on a large scale. Assuming, then, that
what holds good for Surrey is equally valid for the rest of England, the
conclusion is forced upon us that the augmentation of crime in summer
does not arise from an increase of vagrants and others arrested and
convicted under the Vagrancy Acts while in search of work or pretending to
be in search of it. The assumption that such is the case is quite unwarranted
by the facts so far as they are obtainable, and another explanation must be
sought of the greater prevalence of crime in summer as compared with
winter.

An economic cause of an opposite character to vagrancy has by some
been considered as accounting for the facts now under consideration. In the
summer months, work as a rule is more easily procured; people in
consequence have more money to spend; drunkenness becomes more
common, and the high prison population of summer is to be attributed to
drink. That there is a greater consumption of drink when work becomes
more plentiful is a perfectly correct statement which has been verified over
and over again, and it is also equally correct to say that drinking leads its
victims to the police court. But it has to be remembered that in almost all
cases of drunkenness the magistrate allows the alternative of a fine. A much

larger percentage of fines is paid in summer than in winter, the result being
that the increase of drunkenness in summer does not disproportionally
increase the size of the prison population. In July, 1888, as compared with
January, 1889, cases of felony and assault, followed by imprisonment,
increased in the county of Surrey 20 and 28 per cent. respectively, while
drunkenness on the other hand only increased 18 per cent. The reason of
this relatively small increase of imprisonment for drunkenness does not
arise from the fact that there is less drunkenness in proportion to the other
forms of crime; it is owing to the greater facility with which this offence
can be purged by the payment of a fine. It is more easily purged in this
fashion in summer than in winter, because people have more money in their
pockets. Money, in short, acts in two capacities which neutralise each other;
on the one hand it brings more persons before the magistrates on charges of
drunkenness; on the other hand, it enables more persons to escape with the
simple penalty of a fine. The prison population is, therefore, not unduly
swollen in summer by the undoubted increase in drinking during that season
of the year; drinking has, in fact, less to do with that increase than any other
cause.

The preceding observations on vagrancy and drinking will suffice to
show that as far as these two factors are concerned, the rise of the prison
population in the warm weather cannot be explained on economic grounds.
Are there any social habits which will account for it? Change of seasons has
a notable effect on social habits. In the cold days of winter, the great mass
of the population live as much as possible within the shelter of their own
home; as long as the short days and the cheerless and dismal weather
continue, there is little to tempt them out of doors and to bring them into
contact with each other. But with the advance of spring this condition of
things is changed; the lengthening days, the milder atmosphere, the more
abundant sunshine offer increased facilities for social intercourse. Crowds
of people are thrown together, quarrelling and disorders arise, which call for
the interference of the police to be followed shortly after by a sentence of
imprisonment. The growth of international intercourse is said to make for
peace; the growth of social intercourse, admirable as it is in many respects,
has the unfortunate drawback of mating for black eyes and broken heads.
Admitting the truth of this serious indictment against our social instincts,
and no one can deny that it does contain a considerable amount of truth, the

fact still remains that weather is indirectly if not directly the source from
which the increase of crime in summer proceeds. It is the good weather that
multiplies occasions for human intercourse; the multiplication of these
facilities augments the volume of crime; and thus it comes to pass, that the
conduct of society is, at least, indirectly affected by changes of season and
the oscillations of temperature.

But it is also directly affected by these causes, as I shall now proceed to
show. In one of the principal London prisons the average prison population
during the months of June, July and August for the five years ended August,
1889 was 1,061, and the daily average number of punishments amounted to
9 and a fraction per thousand. The average population during the winter
months of December, January, February, for the five years ended February,
1890, was 1009, and the daily average number of punishments amounted to
7 and a fraction per thousand. According to these statistics, we have an
increase of 2 punishments per day, or 12 per week (omitting Sundays) to
every thousand prisoners in the three summer months as compared with the
three winter months. In other words, there is a greater tendency among the
inmates of prisons to commit offences against prison regulations in summer
than in winter. In what way is this manifest tendency to be accounted for? If
prisoners were free men living under a variety of conditions, and subject to
a host of complex influences, it would be possible to adduce all sorts of
causes for the existence of such a phenomenon, and it would be by no
means a difficult matter to find plausible arguments in support of each and
all of them. But the almost absolute similarity of conditions under which
imprisoned men live excludes at one stroke an enormous mass of
complicating factors, and reduces the question to its simplest elements.
Here are a thousand men living in the same place under the same rules of
discipline, occupied in the same way, fed on the same materials, with the
same amount of exercise, the same hours of sleep; in fact, with similarity of
life brought almost to the point of absolute identity; no alteration takes
place in these conditions in summer as compared with winter, yet we find
that there are more offences committed by them in the hotter season than in
the colder. In what way, except on the ground of temperature, is this
difference to be explained. The economic and social factors discussed by us
in connection with the increase of crime do not here come into play. All
persons in prison are living under the same social and economic conditions

in hot weather as well as in cold. The only changes to which they are
subjected are cosmical; cosmical causes are accordingly the only ones
which will account adequately for the facts. Of these cosmical causes,
temperature is by far the most conspicuous, and it may therefore be
concluded that the increase of prison offences in summer is attributable to
the greater heat.

Seeing, then, that temperature produces these effects inside prison walls,
it is only reasonable to infer that it produces similar effects on the outside
world. The larger number of offences against prison discipline which take
place in the hot weather have their counterpart in the larger number of
offences committed against the criminal law during the same season of the
year. The conclusions arrived at with respect to the action of season are
supported by the conclusions already reached with respect to the action of
climate. In fact, both sets of conclusions support each other; both of them
point to the operation of the same cause.

To any one who may still feel reluctant to admit the intimate relation
between cosmical conditions and crime I would point out that suicide—a
somewhat similar disorder in the social organism—likewise increases and
diminishes under the influences of temperature. "We cannot help
acknowledging," says Dr. Morselli, in his work on "Suicide," "that through
the whole of Europe the greater number of suicides happen in the two warm
seasons. This regularity in the annual distribution of suicide is too great to
be attributed to chance or to the human will. As the number of violent
deaths can be predicted from year to year with extreme probability in any
particular country, so can the average of every season also be foreseen; in
fact, these averages are so constant from one period to another as to have
almost the specific character of a given statistical series." Professor von
Oettingen in his valuable work, "Die Moralstatistik," comes to the very
same conclusions as Morselli, although his point of view is entirely
different. After mentioning several of the principal States of Europe, the
statistics of which he had examined, Von Oettingen goes on to say that it
may be accepted as a general law that the prevalence of suicide in the
different months of the year rises and falls with the sun—in June and July it
is most rampant; in November, December and January it descends to a
minimum. In London there are many more suicides in the sunny month of

June than in the gloomy month of November, and throughout the whole of
England the cold months do not demand nearly so many victims as the hot.
In the face of these indisputable facts Von Oettingen, while rejecting the
idea that there is any inexorable fatality, as Buckle believed, connected with
their recurrence, is obliged to admit that the hot weather exercises a
propelling influence on suicidal tendencies, and that the cold weather on the
other hand acts in an opposite direction[18].

The influence of temperature is, however, much less powerful on crime
than it is on suicide. It has the effect of raising by one third the number of
persons to whom life becomes an intolerable burden, but according to the
diagram in the Prison Commissioners' Reports the highest increase in crime
between summer and winter does not amount to more than one twelfth. In
other words, between six and eight per cent. of the crime committed in this
country in summer may with reasonable certainty be attributed to the direct
action of temperature. This is a most important result and I should almost
hesitate to state it if it were supported by my investigations only. But this is
far from being the case. In an important paper contributed to the Revista di
Discipline Carcerarie for 1886, Dr. Marro, one of the most distinguished
students of crime in Italy, has arrived at similar conclusions. He has shown
that in the Italian prisons in the four hottest months of the Italian summer—
May, June, July and August—there are also the greatest number of offences
against prison discipline. This is a result which coincides in every particular
with what has already been pointed out as holding good in English prisons,
and the attempts of Dr. Colajanni in the second volume of his work, "La
Sociologia Criminale," to explain it away are not by any means successful.
It is hardly possible to conceive a more suitable form of test for estimating
the effect of temperature on human action than the one afforded by a
comparison of the offences committed against prison regulations at the
different seasons of the year. Such a comparison amply bears out the
contention that the seasons are a factor which must not be overlooked in all
enquiries respecting the origin of crime, and the best methods of dealing
with it.

In what way does a rise in temperature act on the individual so as to
make him less capable of resisting the criminal impulse? This is a question
of some difficulty, deserving more attention from physiologists than it has

yet received. It is a satisfactorily established conclusion that the higher
temperature of the summer months has a debilitating effect on the digestive
functions; it is also believed that these months have an enervating effect on
the system generally. In so far as the heat of summer produces disease, it at
the same time tends to produce crime. Persons suffering from any kind of
ailment or infirmity are far more liable to become criminals than are healthy
members of the community. The intimate connection between disease and
crime is a matter which must never be forgotten. In the present instance,
however, the closeness of this connection is not sufficient to account for the
growth of crime in summer. According to the Registrar General's report for
1889 the death rate in the twenty-eight large towns is less in the six months
from June to November than in the six months which follow. There is,
therefore, less disease at the very time when there is most crime. In the face
of this fact it cannot be contended that disease, generally, pushes the
population into criminal courses in summer.

But while this is so, it may yet be true that some special enfeeblement
(generated by the rise of temperature) which does not assume the acute
form usually implied in the name, disease has the effect of stimulating
impulses of a criminal character, or of weakening the barrier which prevents
these impulses from breaking out and carrying all before them. It is a
perfectly well-established fact that a high temperature not only produces
physical enfeeblement, but that it also impairs the usual activity and energy
of the brain. In other words, a high temperature is invariably accompanied
by a certain loss of mental power. In most persons this loss is comparatively
trifling, and has hardly any perceptible effect on their mode of life and
conduct; in others, it assumes more serious proportions. In some who are
susceptible to cosmical influences, and for one reason or another are
already on the borderland of crime, the decrease of mental function
involved in a rise of temperature becomes a determining factor, and a
criminal act is the result. Through the agency of climate the mental forces
which are normally capable of holding the criminal instincts in check, lose
for a time their accustomed power, and it is whilst this temporary loss
endures that the person subject to it becomes most liable to be plunged into
disaster. It is in this manner, in my belief, that temperature deleteriously
operates upon human conduct.

The results of my investigations do not, however, bear out the
commonly accepted view that crimes against property increase in the depth
of winter. As far as this law relates to crime in France it may be correct; the
statistical inquiries of Guerry, Ferri, and Corre point to that conclusion. On
the other hand, as far as the law relates to England, I have serious doubts as
to its validity. In the county of Surrey, in the year 1888-89, not only more
crimes against the person, but also more crimes against property were
committed in July than in January. In the former month, as compared with
the latter, cases of felony increased 20 per cent.; and if Surrey is to be taken
as a fairly typical English county—which there is every reason to believe it
is—we have before us the remarkable fact that there are more offences
against property in summer than in winter. The current opinion that winter
is the most criminal period of the year is entirely fallacious, and it is
extremely probable that it is equally fallacious to imagine that property is
less sate when the days are short and the nights long.

But while property, on the whole, in more safe in winter than in summer,
the offences committed against it in winter are, as a rule, of a more serious
character. This, at least, is the conclusion which I should be inclined to
draw, from the fact that there are more indictable offences—that is to say,
offences not tried by a magistrate, but by a judge and jury—in the six
months between October and March than in the summer six months. For the
year ended September, 1888, which is an average year, there were fully
2000 more indictable offences in the winter six months than in the summer
six months. As a considerable proportion of indictable offences consist in
crimes against property of the nature of housebreaking and burglary, it is
very probable that these crimes are most prevalent in winter. But if all kinds
of offences against property, petty as well as grave, are thrown together, and
calculated under one head, it comes out that these offences are most
numerous in summer.

The only kind of crime that increases in Surrey in winter is vagrancy;
the growth of this offence for the years I have mentioned in January, as
contrasted with July was 60 per cent. The development of vagrancy in the
cold months is partly owing to the fact that work is not so easily procured in
the cold weather; and a certain percentage of the population, mainly
dependent for subsistence on casual and irregular out-door jobs, will rather

resort to begging than the workhouse, when this kind of occupation is
temporarily at a standstill. This class, however, is a comparatively small
one, and constitutes a very feeble proportion of the offenders against the
Vagrancy Acts which swell the prison statistics in winter. Most of the
offenders against these acts are people who seize the opportunity afforded
by the bitter weather of appealing to the sympathies of the public. In
summer the occupation of such persons is to some extent gone; in the hot
sunshine their rags and piteous looks do not so strongly affect our feelings
of commiseration; we know they are not suffering from cold; their petitions
and entreaties accordingly fall upon deaf ears; in short, begging is not a
paying trade in the hot months. In winter, all these conditions are reversed;
with the first fall of snow off go the vagrant's boots, and out he runs looking
the picture of misery and destitution. In an hour or two, if he escapes the
attentions of the police, he has made as much as will keep him comfortably
for a few days; but like many better men his success often brings about his
fall; the alms of a generous public are consumed in the nearest beer-shop;
sallying forth in quest of fresh booty, and made bold and insolent with
drink, the beggar soon finds himself in the hands of the authorities. Anyone
who cares to verify this statement can easily do so by following the reports
of the police courts, and taking note of the number of convictions for
drunkenness and begging—a somewhat significant combination of
offences, and one which ought to make the inconsiderate giver pause.

What are the practical conclusions to be deduced from this study of the
relations between temperature and crime? The first and most obvious
conclusion is, that any considerable rise of temperature has a tendency, as
far as Europeans and their descendants are concerned, to diminish human
responsibility. Whether there are any palliatives against this tendency in the
way of regimen, and what they are, is a matter for the consideration of
physiologists; and a most important matter it is, for a high temperature does
not merely lead to offences against the law, it also injuriously affects the
conduct of children in schools, of soldiers in the army, of workmen in
factories, and of the public generally in their relations with one another.
While it is the task of physiologists to examine the physical aspects of the
anti-social tendencies developed by variations of temperature, it is the duty
of all persons placed in positions of authority to recognise their existence;
and to recognise their existence not merely in others, but also in themselves.

It is, unfortunately, not seldom true that justice is not administered so
wisely and patiently in the burning summer heat as it is at other times. In
adjudicating on criminal cases in the sultry weather, magistrates and judges
would do well to remember that cosmical influences are not without their
effect on human judgments, and that precipitate decisions, or decisions
based upon momentary irritation, or decisions, the severity of which they
may afterwards regret, are to some extent the result of those influences. The
same caution is applicable to those who have to deal with convicted men; it
should be remembered by them that in summer their tempers are more
easily tried, while they have at the same time more to try them; and the
knowledge of these facts should keep them on the alert against themselves.

While increased temperature undoubtedly decreases personal
responsibility, it is a most difficult matter to decide whether this factor
ought to be taken into consideration when passing sentence on criminal
offenders. It is much more truly an extenuating circumstance than the
majority of pleas which receive the name. In a variety of cases, such, for
instance, as threats, assaults, manslaughter, murder, a high temperature
unquestionably sometimes enters as a determining factor into the complex
set of influences which produce these crimes. But the first difficulty
confronting a judge, who endeavours to take such a factor into account, will
he the difficulty of discovering whether it was present or not in the
individual case he has before him. In reply to this objection it may be urged,
and urged too with considerable truth, that this hindrance is not insuperable.
It is possible to overcome it by noting whether the case in question stands
alone, or whether it is only one among a group of others taking place about
the same period. Should it turn out to be a case that stands alone, it would
be fair to assume that temperature is not a cause requiring to be taken into
consideration in dealing with the offender. Should it, on the contrary, turn
out to be one in a group of cases, it would be equally fair to assume that
temperature was not without its effect in determining the action of the
offender.

Having got thus far, having isolated temperature from among the other
causes, and having fixed upon it as the most potent of them all, what would
immediately and imperatively follow? As a matter of course it would ensue
that a person whose deeds are powerfully influenced by the action of

temperature is to that extent irresponsible for them. To arrive at such a
conclusion is equivalent to saying that such a person, if his offences are at
all serious, constitutes a grave peril to society. In a sense, he may be less
criminal, but he is certainty more dangerous; and as the supreme duty of
society is self-preservation, such a person must be dealt with solely from
that point of view. It would be ridiculous to let him off because he is largely
irresponsible; his irresponsibility is just what constitutes his danger, and is
the very reason he should be subjected to prolonged restraint.

In all offences of a trivial character presumably springing to a large
extent from the action of temperature, it might be wise if the offender were
only punished in such a way as would keep alive in his memory a vivid
recollection of the offence. This method of punishment is better effected by
a short and sharp term of imprisonment than by inflicting a longer sentence
and making the prison treatment comparatively mild. A short, sharp
sentence of this character has also another advantage which is well worth
attention. In many cases the offender is the bread-winner of the home. The
misery which follows his prolonged imprisonment is often heartrending; the
home has to be sold up bit by bit; the mother has to strip off most of her
scanty garments and becomes, a piteous spectacle of starvation and rags, the
childrens' things have to go to the pawnshop; and it is fortunate if one or
two of the family does not die before the husband is released. The misery
which crime brings upon the innocent is the saddest of its features, and
whatever society can do consistently with its own welfare to shorten or
mitigate that misery, ought, in the interests of our common humanity, to be
done.

One word with reference to offences which do not come within the
cognisance of the criminal law. I do not know if there are any statistics to
show that, in schools, in workshops, in the army, or, indeed, in any industry
or institution where bodies of people are massed together under one
common head—there are more cases of insubordination and more offences
against discipline when the temperature is high than in ordinary
circumstances. But, whether such a statistical record exists or not, there can
be little doubt that cases of refractory conduct prevail most largely in the
warm season. It would therefore be well if this fact were borne in mind by
all persons whose duty it is to enforce discipline and require obedience.

Considering that there are certain cosmical influences at work, which make
it note difficult for the ordinary human being to submit to discipline, it
might not be inexpedient, in certain cases, to take these unusual conditions
into account and not to enforce in their full rigour all the penalties involved
in a breach of rules. It is a universal experience that many things which can
ordinarily be done without fatigue or trouble, become, at times, a burden
and a source of irritation. Some physical disturbance is at the root of this
change, and a similar disturbance is also at the root of the defective
standard of conduct which a high temperature almost invariably succeeds in
producing among some sections of the community.

CHAPTER IV.

DESTITUTION AND CRIME.
Under this heading I shall discuss some of the more important social
factors which either directly or indirectly tend to produce crime. It will be
impossible to discuss them all. The action of society upon the individual is
so complex, its effects are so varied, in many instances so impalpable, that
we must content ourselves with a survey of those social phenomena which
are most generally credited with leading up to acts of delinquency.

It is very commonly believed that destitution is a powerful factor in the
production of crime; we shall therefore start upon this inquiry by
considering the extent to which destitution is responsible for offences
against person and property. A definition of what is meant by destitution
will assist in clearing the ground. It is a definition which is not at all
difficult to formulate; one destitute person is remarkably like another, and
what applies to one applies with a considerable degree of accuracy to all.
We shall, therefore, define a destitute person as a person who is without
house or home, who has no work, who is able and willing to work but can
get none, and has nothing but starvation staring him in the face. Is any
serious amount of crime due to the desperation of people in a position such
as this? In order to answer this question it is necessary, in the first place, to
ask what kind of crime such persons will be most likely to commit. It is
most improbable that they will be crimes against the person, such as
homicide or assault; it will not be drunkenness, because, on the assumption
of their destitution, they will possess no money to spend. In short, the
offences a person in a state of destitution is most likely to commit are
begging and theft. What proportion of the total volume of crime is due to
these two offense? This is the first question we shall have to answer. The
second is, to what extent are begging and theft the results of destitution? An
adequate elucidation of these two points will supply a satisfactory
explanation of the part played by destitution in the production of crime.

The total number of cases tried in England and Wales either summarily
or on indictment during the year 1887-88 amounted to 726,698. Out of this
total eight per cent. were cases of offences against property excluding cases
of malicious damage, and seven per cent. consisted of offences against the
Vagrancy Acts. Putting these two classes of offences together we arrive at

the result that out of a total number of crimes of all kinds committed in
England and Wales, 15 per cent. may conceivably be due to destitution.
This is a very serious percentage, and if it actually represented the number
of persons who commit crime from sheer want of the elementary
necessaries of life, the confession would have to be made that the economic
condition of the country was deplorable. But is it a fact that destitution in
the sense we have been using the word is the cause of all these offences?
This is the next question we have to solve, and the answer springing from it
will reveal the true position of the case.

Let us deal first with offences against property. As has just been pointed
out these constitute eight per cent. of the annual amount of crime. But
according to inquiries which I have made, one half of the annual number of
offenders against property, so far from being in a state of destitution, were
actually at work, and earning wages at the time of their arrest. Nor in this
surprising. The daily newspapers have only to be consulted to confirm it. In
a very great number of instances the records of criminal proceedings testify
to the fact that the person charged is in some way or other defrauding his
employer, and when these cases are deducted from the total of offences
against property, it considerably lessons the percentage of persons driven by
destitution into the ranks of crime. Add to these the great bulk of juvenile
offenders convicted of theft, and that peculiar class of people who steal, not
because they are in distress, but merely from a thievish disposition, and it
will he manifest that half the cases of theft in England and Wales are not
due to the pressure of absolute want.

But what shall be said of the other half which still represents four per
cent. of the annual amount of crime. According to the calculations just
referred to, the offenders constituting this percentage were not in work
when the crimes charged against them were committed. Was it destitution
arising from want of employment which led them to break the law? At first
sight one may easily be inclined to say that it is. These people, it will be
argued, have no work and no money. What are they to do but beg or steal?
Before jumping at this conclusion it must not be forgotten that there is such
a person as the habitual criminal. The habitual criminal, as he will very
soon tell you if you possess his confidence absolutely, declines to work. He
never has worked, he does not want work; he prefers living by his wits.

With the recollection of imprisonment fresh upon him an offender of this
description may in rare instances take employment for a short period, but
the regularity of life which work entails is more than he can bear, and the
old occupation of thieving is again resorted to. To live by plundering the
community is the trade of the habitual criminal; it is the only business he
truly cares for, and it is wonderful how long and how often he will succeed
in eluding the suspicion and vigilance of the police. Of course, offenders of
this class, when arrested, say they are out of work, and will very readily
make an unwary person believe that it is destitution which drives them to
desperation. But as was truly remarked a short time ago by a judge in one of
the London courts, nearly all of these very men are able to pay high fees to
experienced counsel to defend them. After these observations, it will be
seen that the habitual criminal, the man who lives by burglary,
housebreaking, shoplifting, and theft of every description, is not to be
classed among the destitute. Criminals of this character constitute at least
two per cent. of the delinquents annually brought before the courts.

Respecting the two per cent. of offenders which remain to be accounted
for, it will not be far from the mark to say that destitution is the immediate
cause of their wrong-doing. These offenders are composed of homeless
boys, of old men unable to work, of habitual drunkards who cannot got a
steady job, or keep it when they get it, of vagrants who divide their time
between begging and petty theft, and of workmen on the tramp, who have
become terribly reduced, and will rather steal than enter a workhouse. The
percentage of these offenders varies in different parts of the country. In the
north of England, for instance, there are comparatively few homeless boys
who find their way before the magistrates on charges of theft; in London, on
the other hand, the number is considerable, and ranges according to the
season of the year, or the state of trade, to between 1 and 3 per cent. of the
criminal population. Why does London enjoy such an evil pre-eminence in
this matter? In my opinion it often arises from the fact that house-
accommodation is so expensive in the metropolis. In London, it is a habit
with many parents, owing to the want of room at home, to make growing
lads shift for themselves at a very early age. These boys earn just enough to
enable them to secure a bare existence; out of their scanty wages it is
impossible to hire a room for themselves; they have to be contented with
the common lodging-house. In such places these boys have to associate

with all sorts of broken-down, worthless characters, and in numbers of
instances they come by degrees to adopt the habits and modes of life of the
class among which their lot is cast. At the very time parental control is most
required it is almost entirely withdrawn; the lad is left to his own devices;
and, in too many cases, descends into the ranks of crime. The first step in
his downward career begins with the loss of employment; this sometimes
happens through no fault of his own, and is simply the result of a temporary
slackness of trade; but in most instances a job is lost for want of punctuality
or some other boyish irregularity which can only be properly corrected at
home. To lose work is to be deprived of the means of subsistence; the only
openings left are the workhouse or crime. It is the latter alternative which is
generally chosen, and thus, the lad is launched on the troubled sea of crime.

It must not be understood that all London boys drift into crime after the
manner I have just described. In some instances these unfortunates have
lived all their life in criminal neighbourhoods, and merely follow the
footsteps of the people around them. What, for instance, is to be expected
from children living in streets such as Mr. Charles Booth describes in his
work on "Life and Labour in East London?" One of these streets, which he
calls St. Hubert Street, swarms with children, and in hardly any case does
the family occupy more than one room. The general character of the street
is thus depicted. "An awful place; the worst street in the district. The
inhabitants are mostly of the lowest class, and seem to lack all idea of
cleanliness or decency .... The children are rarely brought up to any kind of
work, but loaf about, and, no doubt, form the nucleus for future generations
of thieves and other bad characters." In this street alone there are between
160 and 170 children; these children do not require to go to lodging-houses
to be contaminated; they breathe a polluted moral atmosphere from birth
upwards, and it is more than probable that a considerable proportion of
them will help to recruit the army of crime. It is not destitution which will
force them into this course, but their up-bringing and surroundings.

In addition to homeless boys who steal from destitution, there are, as I
have said, a number of decrepit old men who do the same. There is a period
in a workman's life when he becomes too feeble to do an average day's
work. When this period arrives employers of labour often discharge him in
order to make way for younger and more vigorous men. If his home, as

sometimes happens, is broken up by the death of his wife, his existence
becomes a very lonely and precarious one. An odd job now and again is all
he can get to do, and even these jobs are often hard to find. His sons and
daughters are too heavily encumbered with large families to be capable of
rendering any effective assistance, and the Union looms gloomily in the
distance as the only prospect before the worn-out worker. But it sometimes
happens that he will not face that prospect. He will rather steal and run the
risk of imprisonment. And so it comes to pass that for a year or two before
finally reconciling himself to the Union, the aged workman will lead a
wandering, criminal life on a petty scale; he becomes an item in the
statistics of offenders against property.

Habitual drunkards form another class who sometimes steal from
destitution. The well-known irregularity of these men's habits prevents
them, in a multitude of cases, from getting work, and unfortunately, they
cannot keep it when they do get it. Employers cannot depend on them; as
soon as they earn a few shillings they disappear from the workshop till the
money is spent on drink. It is at such times that they are arrested for being
drunk and disorderly. As they can never pay a fine they have to go to prison,
but long before their sentence has expired they have lost their job, and must
look out for something else. If such men do not find work many of them are
not ashamed to steal, and it is only when trade is at flood-tide that they can
be sure of employment, no matter how irregular their habits may be. At
other times they are the first to be discharged and the last to be engaged. It
is not really destitution, but intemperance which turns them into thieves.
That they are destitute when arrested is perfectly true, but we must go
behind the immediate fact of their destitution in order to arrive at the true
causes of their crimes. When this is done it is found that the stress of
economic conditions has very little to do with making these unhappy beings
what they are; on the contrary, it is in periods of prosperity that they sink to
the lowest depths.

Summing up the results of this inquiry into the relations between
destitution and offences against property, we arrive as nearly as possible at
the following figures, so far as England and Wales are concerned:—

Proportion of offences against property to total offences: 8. p. cent.

Thus divided:
Proportion of offenders in work when arrested: 4. p. cent.
Proportion of offenders, habitual thieves: 2. p. cent.
Proportion of offenders, homeless lads and old men: 1. p. cent.
Proportion of offenders, drunkards, tramps: 1. p. cent.
8. p. cent.

We shall now proceed to an examination of offences against the
Vagrancy Acts presumably arising from destitution. It has already been
pointed out that seven per cent. of the annual amount of crime committed in
England and Wales consists of offences against the Vagrancy Acts, and it
now remains for us to inquire whether these offences are the result of
destitution, or what part destitution plays in producing them.

Out of the 52,136 offenders against the Vagrancy Acts in the year 1888,
less than one half (45 per cent.) were charged with begging; the other
offences consisted principally in prostitution, in having implements of
housebreaking, in frequenting places of public resort to commit felony, in
being found on enclosed premises for unlawful purposes. In all these cases,
with the exception of prostitution, it is not probable that destitution had
much, if anything, to do with inducing the offenders to violate the law. Men
who live the life of incorrigible rogues, who prowl about enclosed premises,
who lead a mysterious existence, without doing any work, are not to be
classed among the destitute; as a general rule, such persons are habitual
thieves and vagabonds, who persist in the life they have adopted merely
because it suits them best. One of the great difficulties in dealing with
persons of this stamp is their hatred of a well-ordered existence; in a vast
number of cases the life they live is the only kind of life they thoroughly
enjoy; it is a profound mistake to imagine that they are pining for what are
usually regarded as the decencies and comforts of human beings. Nothing is
further from their thoughts. Let us alone and mind your own business is the
secret sentiment and often the open avowal of most of these people. "We
should be miserable living according to your ideas; let us live according to
our own." It is very common for benevolent people to assume that the
objects of their compassion and solicitude are, in reality, as wretched as
they imagine them to be. Living themselves in ease, and it may be
affluence, and surrounded by all the amenities of existence, it is difficult for

them to realise that multitudes can enjoy a rude kind of happiness in the
absence of all this. Such, however, is the fact. The vagabond class is not
more miserable than any other; it is, of course, not without its sorrows,
vicissitudes, and troubles, but what section of the community is free from
these ills? This class has even a philosophy adapted to its circumstances, the
fundamental articles of which have been once for all summed up in the lines
of Burns:—

"Life is all a variorum;
We regard not how it goes,
Let them cant about decorum
Who have characters to lose."

What has just been said respecting the loafing, thieving vagabond
applies in a very great measure to the ordinary beggar. The habitual beggar
is a person who will not work. He hates anything in the shape of regular
occupation, and will rather put up with severe hardships than settle down to
the ordinary life of a working-man. It would be easy to adduce instances to
demonstrate the accuracy of what is here stated. It would be easy to
mention cases by the hundred, in which men addicted to begging have been
thoroughly fitted out and started in life, but all to no purpose. Once a man
fairly takes to begging, as a means of livelihood, it is almost hopeless
attempting to cure him. After a time he loses the capacity for labour; his
faculties, for want of exercise, become blunted and powerless, and he
remains a beggar to the end of his days. It sometimes happens that the
beggar who has taken to mendicancy as a profession is obliged to go to the
workhouse as a kind of temporary refuge. This is not so frequent
considering the sort of life a vagrant has to lead; but when it does occur, the
labour-master of the Union very often finds it next to impossible to got him
to perform the task every able-bodied person is expected to complete when
taking shelter in a Casual Ward. As a result the habitual beggar has
sometimes to appear before the magistrates as a refractory pauper, but a
short sentence of imprisonment, which usually follows, has lost all its
terrors for him; he prefers enduring it to doing the task allotted to him at the
workhouse.

From this it will be seen that habits of indolence, and not the stress of
destitution, are responsible for a great deal of the begging which goes on in
England; but these habits are not answerable for the whole of it. When
times are bad begging has a decided tendency to increase, and this arises
from the fact that a considerable proportion of the community possess
wonderfully few resources within themselves. Even in depressed times it is
astonishing how well men who can turn their hand, as it is called, can
manage to live. Men of this stamp are not beaten and rendered helpless by
the misfortune of losing their usual employment; they are capable of
devising fresh methods of earning a livelihood; they are persistent,
persevering, energetic; they are not content to stand by with their hands in
their pockets and their back at the wall; at times they even create an
occupation, and devise new wants for the community. Such men exist in
large numbers among the working population, and are able to tide over
periods of slackness and depression in a truly admirable way. But there are
others who are utterly lost the moment trade ceases to flourish. As soon as
they lose the job they have been accustomed to work at they at once sink
into a condition of complete helplessness; knowing not which way to move
or what steps to take; in a very short time they are to be found soliciting
alms in the streets. It is a very serious matter when such persons are reduced
to these straits. With the advent of better times it is often very difficult to
enrol them once again in the ranks of industry. Bad habits have been
acquired, self-respect has broken down, the mind has become accustomed
to a lower plane of existence; the danger has arisen that persons who were
to begin with only beggars by accident may end by becoming beggars from
choice. This is what actually does happen in some instances, and especially
where the level of life and comfort has at all times been low. The transition
from the one state to the other is not a very pronounced one, and the step
into the position of a habitual beggar is not hard to take after a certain
number of lessons in the mendicant's art have once been learnt. In one sense
it is the pressure of want which has made these people beggars, in another
sense it is their own apathy and feebleness of resource.

It is not easy to estimate the number of persons who become habitual
mendicants in consequence of slackness of work and the temporary loss of
employment. As a matter of fact the whole body of statistical information
bearing upon vagrancy is rather unreliable in character, and it is difficult to

see how it can be anything else. In almost all cases of begging the initiative
is taken by the police; it very seldom happens that a private citizen gives a
beggar in charge. The regular and systematic enforcement of the Vagrancy
Acts by the public authorities is impeded by a variety of causes, each of
which makes it difficult to grasp accurately the proportions of the begging
population. In the first place no two policemen enforce the law with the
same stringency; one is inclined to be lax and lenient, while another will not
allow a single case to escape. In some districts chief constables do not care
to bring too many begging cases before the local magistrates; in other
districts chief constables are zealous for the rooting out of vagrancy. In
some counties the magistrates themselves are not so anxious to convict for
vagrancy as they are in others; where the latter tendency prevails, the police
take their cue from the magistrates and comparatively few offences against
the Vagrancy Acts are brought up for trial. Again, there are times when the
public have fits of indulgence towards beggars, which are counterbalanced
at other periods by a corresponding access of severity; these oscillations of
public sentiment are immediately felt by the executive authorities. The
conduct of policemen and magistrates towards the begging fraternity is
largely shaped by the dominant public mood, and the statistics of vagrancy
move up and down in sympathy with it. Thus it comes to pass that the
variations which take place in the annual statistics of vagrancy do not
necessarily correspond with the growth or diminution of the number of
persons following this mode of life; the actual number of such persons in
the population may in reality be varying very little or, perhaps, remaining
stationary, whilst official statistics are pointing to the conclusion that
important changes are going on. In short, the statistics of vagrancy are more
useful as affording a clue to the state of public sentiment with respect to this
offence than as offering an accurate test of the extent to which vagrancy
prevails.

After this explanation it will be seen how difficult it is, in the first place,
to estimate the exact numbers of the vagrant population; and, in the next
place, the exact proportion of beggars who have been driven into the ranks
of vagrancy, as a result of bad trade and inability to obtain work. My own
impression is, that the number of persons who are forced to beg for want of
work is not large, and they consist, for the most part, of men beyond middle
life or verging upon old age. There are two causes at present in operation in

England which often press hard upon such men. The first of these causes is
one which was felt more severely twenty or thirty years ago than at the
present moment—I moan the introduction of machinery into industries
formerly carried on to a large extent by hand. One of the most conspicuous
characteristics of the present century is the ever-increasing extent to which
inventions of all kinds have invaded almost every department of industry.
As far as the young are concerned, those inventions have been on the whole
a benefit, and what used to be hard work has become, as Professor Alfred
Marshall recently said, merely looking on. But the case stands differently
with workmen who are surprised by some new invention at a period of life
when the power of adaptability to a fresh set of industrial circumstances is
almost entirely gone. One of the first consequences of a new invention may
be, and often is, that work which had hitherto been performed by men can
now be done by women and boys; or an occupation which had formerly
taken years to learn can now be mastered in a few weeks. In other cases the
new machine is able to do the work of twenty, fifty, or a hundred men; the
article produced is so immensely cheapened that the old handicraftsman is
driven out of the field; if he is a man entering into years, and therefore
unable to turn his hand to something else, the bread is practically taken out
of his mouth, and the machine, which is undoubtedly a benefit to the
community as a whole, means starvation to him as an individual. When
such circumstances occur, and positive proof in abundance can be adduced
to show that they do take place, the position of the aged worker becomes a
very hard and embarrassing one. He finds it a very uphill task to change the
whole course of his industrial activities at a period of life when nature has
lost much of her elasticity; the new means he has had to adopt in order to
earn a livelihood are irksome to him; the diminished sum he is now able to
earn per week depresses his spirits and deprives him of certain little
comforts he had long been accustomed to enjoy; but in spite of these
unforeseen and unexpected hardships it is marvellous to see how nobly
working-men, as a rule, struggle on to the end, like a bird with a broken
wing. There are, however, cases in which the struggle is given up. It would
be impossible to enumerate all the causes which lead to such a deplorable
result; sometimes these causes are personal, sometimes they are social,
while in many instances they are a combination of both. But, whatever such
circumstances may be in origin, the effects of them are generally the same;
the worker who is incapable of adjusting himself to his new industrial

surroundings has few alternatives before him. These alternatives, unless he
is supported by his family or relations, resolve themselves into the Union,
beggary, or theft. Many choose the Union and, with all its drawbacks, it is
undoubtedly the wisest choice; but others have such a horror of the
restraints imposed upon the inmates of a workhouse that they enter upon the
perilous and precarious career of the beggar or petty thief. The men who
make such a choice as this are not, as may easily be surmised, the pick of
their class. They consist, to a good extent, of persons who have been
somewhat unsteady in their habits; they are not downright drunkards, and
they have never allowed drink to interfere with their regular occupation; but
it has been their immemorial custom to go in for a good deal of drinking on
Saturday nights; on Bank holidays, and other festive occasions. Sensible
workmen do not care to amuse themselves after this fashion; it is rather too
like a savage orgie for most tastes; at the same time it is the only form of
amusement which certain sections of the populace truly and heartily enjoy,
and, on the whole, it is perhaps better that this rude form of merry-making
should remain, than that the multitude should be deprived of every outlet
for the pent-up exuberance of their spirits. My own impression is, that the
rough and boisterous element which shows itself so conspicuously when the
labouring population is at play will never be eradicated so long as men and
women have to spend so much of their time within the four walls of
workshops and factories, where so much restraint and suppression of the
individual is imperative, if the industrial machine is to go on. It is not at all
unnatural that the severe regularity and monotony of an existence chiefly
spent in this manner should be occasionally interspersed with outbursts of
somewhat boisterous revelry, and the persons who indulge in it are not to be
set down off-hand as worthless characters, because they sometimes step
beyond due and proper bounds. At the same time it must be admitted that it
is generally from the ranks of this class that the supreme aversion to the
workhouse proceeds, and that the disposition to live by begging, rather than
enter it, most largely prevails. If it happens, therefore, that a man who has
lived the life we have just described is thrown out of employment, by the
introduction of machinery, at a period when he is too old to turn his hand to
something else, he not unfrequently ends by becoming a beggar, and this
continues to be his occupation to the last.

The second cause which leads a certain number of elderly men to adopt
a life of vagrancy is to be attributed to the action of Trades-Unions. After a
workman reaches a certain period of life he is no longer able to do a full
day's work. As soon as this period of life arrives, and sometimes even
before it does arrive, the artisan finds it becoming increasingly difficult to
obtain employment. The rate of wages in his trade is fixed by Trades-Union
rules; every man, no matter what his qualifications may be, has to receive
so much an hour, or the full Trade-Union wage for the district; no one is
allowed to take a job at a lower figure. No doubt Trades-Unionists find that
this regulation works well an far as it relates to the young and the able-
bodied, and as these always compose the great majority in every trade
society, it is a regulation which is not likely to be rescinded or modified.
Nevertheless, it is a rule which often operates very unjustly in the case of
men who are getting old. These men may have been steady and industrious
workmen all their lives, they may still be able to do a fair amount of honest
work; but, as soon as that amount of work falls below the daily average of
the trade, such men have to go; they are henceforth practically debarred
from earning an honest livelihood at what has hitherto been the occupation
of their working life. Work may be abundant in the district, but it is useless
for grey-haired men to apply; they cannot do the amount required, and as
they are not permitted to work at a lower rate of wages than their fellows,
the means of getting a living are arbitrarily taken out of their hands. As a
consequence of these Trades-Union enactments, cases are not infrequent in
which workmen who have just passed middle life, or have sustained
injuries, drift insensibly into vagrant habits. These habits are acquired
almost without their knowing it. In the vague hope of perhaps finding
something to do a man will wander from town to town existing as best he
can; after the hope of employment has died away he still continues to
wander, and thus forms an additional unit in the permanent army of beggars
and vagrants. Trade-Unionists would undoubtedly remedy a great wrong if
some effective means were devised by them to meet cases of this character.
It should be remembered by those most opposed to any modifications of the
present system that they may one day be its victims. The hindrances in the
way of putting an end to the injustice inherent in the present arrangements
are not incapable of being overcome. It is surely possible to devise a rule
which, while leaving intact the essential features of the present system, will
render it more flexible—a rule to enable the maimed and the aged who

cannot do a full day's work to make, through the Union if need be, some
special arrangement with the employers. Such a rule, if properly safe-
guarded to prevent abuse, would be of inestimable benefit to many a
working man.

If the step here suggested were adopted by the Trade Societies, it would,
according to calculations which I have made, reduce the begging population
by about two per cent. This percentage, in my opinion, represents the
number of vagrants who are able and willing to do a certain amount of
work, but cannot get it to do. It is a percentage which at any rate does not
err on the side of being too low; when trade is at its ordinary level it is
perhaps a little too high. In any case this proportion may be taken as a
tolerably accurate estimate of the numbers of the vagrant class which will
not enter the Unions when out of employment, and are consequently forced
by the pressure of want to resort to a life of beggary.

The proportion here indicated of the number of vagrants who are willing
to work coincides in a remarkable manner with certain statistics recently
collected by H. Monod of the Ministry of the Interior in France.[19]
According to M. Monod a benevolently disposed French citizen wished to
know the amount of truth contained in the complaints of sturdy beggars,
that they were willing to work if they could get anything to do or anyone to
employ them. This gentleman entered into negotiations with some
merchants and manufacturers, and induced them to offer work at the rate of
four francs a day to every person presenting himself furnished with a letter
of recommendation from him. In eight months 727 sturdy beggars came
under his notice, all complaining that they had no work. Each of them was
asked to come the following day to receive a letter which would enable him
to get employment at four francs a day in an industrial establishment. More
than one half (415) never came for the letter; a good many others (138)
returned for the letter but never presented it. Others who did present their
letter worked half a day, demanded two francs and were seen no more. A
few worked a whole day and then disappeared. In short, out of the whole
727 only 18 were found at work at the end of the third day. As a result of
this experiment M. Monod concludes that not more than one able-bodied
beggar in 40 is inclined to work even if he is offered a fair remuneration for
his services.

If further proof were wanted that vagrancy, as far, at least, as England
and Wales are concerned, is very seldom produced by destitution, it will be
found in the following facts. A comparison between the number of male and
female vagrants arrested in 1888 under the provisions of the Vagrancy Acts
shows that there were nearly four times more male vagrants proceeded
against before the magistrates than female. The exact numbers are males,
40,672; females, 11,464. Although the numbers charged vary from year to
year, the proportion between males and females always remains very much
the same, and it may therefore be considered as established that men are
from three to four times more addicted to vagrancy than women. If the
charges of prostitution were excluded (they amounted to 6,486 in 1888), it
will be found that the proportion of male vagrants to female is as eight to
one. Looking at this matter à priori, we should expect these figures to be
reversed. In the first place women form a considerably larger proportion of
the community than men, and in the second place there are not nearly so
many openings for females in our present industrial system. Forming a
judgment upon these two sets of facts alone, one would almost inevitably
come to the conclusion that women would be found in much larger numbers
among the vagrant class than men. There are fewer careers open to them in
the industrial world; they are less fitted to move about from place to place
in search of work; the pay they receive in manufacturing and other
establishments is, as a rule, very poor; but in spite of all these economic
disadvantages only one woman becomes a beggar to every four men, or, if
we exclude fallen women, to every eight men. What does this condition of
things serve to show? It is an incontestable proof that at least three-fourths
or, perhaps, seven-eighths of the begging carried on by men is without
economic excuse. If women who are so heavily handicapped in the race of
life can run it to such a large extent without resorting to vagrancy, so can
men. That men fall so far behind women in this respect is to be attributed,
as we have seen, not to their want of power, but to their want of will. They
possess far more opportunities of earning a livelihood than their sisters, but,
notwithstanding this advantage, they figure far more prominently in the
vagrant list. The only possible explanation of this state of things is that
vagrancy is, to a very large extent, entirely unconnected with economic
conditions; the position of trade either for good or evil is a very secondary
factor in producing this disease in the body politic; its extirpation would not
he effected by the advent of an economic millennium; its roots are, as a

rule, in the disposition of the individual, and not to any serious degree in the
industrial constitution of society; hence, the only way to stamp it out is by
adopting vigorous and effective methods of repression.

The British Isles are in a position to adopt these measures with boldness
and confidence, for the Poor Law system provides for all genuine cases of
destitution, and in striking at begging with a heavy hand, the authorities are
at the same time doing much to suppress other kinds of crime. It has to be
remembered that the vagrant is a dangerous person in more ways that one.
The life he leads, his habit of going from house to house, affords him ample
opportunities of noticing where a robbery may he successfully committed.
If he does not make use of the opportunities himself, he is not at all
unwilling to let others who will into his secret for a small consideration. In
low lodging-houses and public-houses of a similar type beggars and thieves
are accustomed to meet, to fraternise, to exchange notes; the beggar is able
to give the burglar a hint, and many a case of house-breaking is the outcome
of these sinister confabulations. Little do many people imagine when they
are doing a good deed, as they believe, to some worthless, wandering
reprobate, that he is at the same moment looking around, so as to be able to
tell a companion how best the house may be robbed. It is very seldom
thieves break into houses without having received information beforehand
respecting them, and the source of that information is in many instances the
vagrant, who has been knocking at the door for alms a short time before.

One of the principal reasons which makes beggary such a profitable
occupation, and renders it so hard to repress, is the persistent belief among
great numbers of people that beggars are working men in distress. That, of
course, is the beggar's tale, but it is a baseless fabrication. It is no more the
practice of working-men to go about begging than it is the practice of the
middle-class, but until this elementary fact can be laid hold of by the public
all statutory enactments for the suppression of mendicity will be but partial
in their operation. Speaking from considerable personal experience, as well
as from statistical facts, one is able to affirm that the great mass of the
working population of these islands have nothing whatever in common with
the indolent vagrant; and it is a libel on the working-classes to assume that a
man is a workman to-day and a beggar to-morrow. As a matter of fact,
beggars are recruited from all ranks of the community, when they are not

actually born to the trade. Of course, the greatest number is drawn from the
working population; it is they who form the immense bulk of the nation,
and it is only reasonable to suppose that they will contribute to the begging
fraternity in proportion to their numbers. But, just as the proportion of
thieves drawn from the working-classes is not greater than the proportion
drawn from the well-to-do classes, so is it likewise with beggars. The other
classes, in proportion to their numbers, contribute just about as many
beggars to the community as the working population, and such beggars are
generally the most hardened and villainous specimens of their tribe. With
the beggar sprung from the working population one is sometimes able to do
something, but a beggar who has descended from the higher walks of life is
one of the most hopeless, as well as one of the most corrupt creatures it is
possible to conceive. If the public would only allow themselves to realise
that these are the facts respecting vagrancy, and if they would exercise their
knowledge in consistently refusing help to professional wanderers, the
plague of beggars would soon disappear, to the immense relief and benefit
of everybody, not excluding the beggars themselves.

A persistent refusal to assist beggars, while perfectly justifiable in these
islands, is a method which can hardly be adopted in countries where there is
no efficient and comprehensive Poor Law. In such countries, for instance,
an Austria and Germany, where there is no proper provision on the part of
the State for the feeble, the helpless, the aged, the maimed, begging, on the
part of these unfortunates, becomes, in many cases, an absolute necessity.
Recent statistics,[20] respecting the working of additions to the Austrian
vagrancy laws passed in 1885, would seem to show that numbers of the
genuine labouring population have been in the habit of resorting to begging
when going from place to place in search of employment. To meet these
cases the Austrian Government, in the year just mentioned, secured the
passing of a law for the establishment of what are called
Naturalverpflegstationen, or refuges for workmen on the tramp. These
shelters or refuges are strictly confined to the use of genuine labourers; the
poor of the surrounding neighbourhood are not allowed to enter them; nor is
any one afforded shelter who cannot show that he has been at work within
the previous three months, or who applies twice for admission in the course
of that time. A man must also produce his papers and be willing to perform
a certain amount of work; in return for this he is allowed to remain at the

shelter for eighteen hours, but not more, and is informed on his departure
where the next station is situated. He is also told if there is any probability
of getting employment in the district and is given the names of employers in
want of men. These institutions are a combination, of the casual ward and
the labour bureau, differing, however, from the casual ward in rejecting all
mere wanderers and accepting genuine workmen alone.

It in only in some parts of the Austrian Empire that this system has as
yet been put into operation, for the act is of a permissive character and is
mainly worked by the local authorities. In those districts of lower Austria
where it has been tried, it has so far produced most satisfactory results;
begging has decreased according to the statistics for 1888, more than 60 per
cent. in the course of three years, while in other parts of Austria, where
these institutions are not yet adopted, it has only decreased 25 per cent. The
system has as yet been in operation for too short a period to enable an
opinion to be formed of its eventual success, but so far it promises well and
is an interesting experiment which deserves to be watched. In any case the
experience derived from the working of this law shows that in Austria, at
least, the workman in search of employment has up till recently been too
often confounded with the habitual beggar, a confusion highly detrimental
to the real interests of the State. One of the main objects of every well
ordered Poor Law system should be to create as wide a gulf as possible
between the begging class and the working-class; it should do everything
possible to prevent anything like a solidarity of interests between these two
sections of the community; it should dissociate the worker from the vagrant
in every conceivable manner, so that the working population cannot
possibly fail to see that the State draws a sharp line of distinction between
them and the refuse of the land. It was a wise remark of Goethe's that, if
you want to improve men you must begin by assuming that they are a little
better than what they seem; and it is a principle which is applicable to
communities and classes as well as to individuals.

Before dismissing the question of the relations between vagrancy and
destitution there is one more point which still requires to be considered.
According to English law, prostitution is set down as a form of vagrancy,
and the number of persons convicted of this offence is to be found included
in the statistics of vagrancy. We shall, therefore, consider prostitution in this

connection as a form of vagrancy, and proceed to examine the extent to
which it is produced by destitution. If this grave social disorder were
entirely due to a want of the elementary needs of life on the part of the
unhappy creatures who practice it, we should find an utter absence of it in
America and Australia. In these two important portions of the globe,
woman's work is at a premium; it is one of the easiest things imaginable for
females to get employment; no one willing to work need remain idle a
single day, and the bitter cry of householders, in those quarters of the world,
is that domestic servants are not to be had. But, in spite of the favourable
position in which women stand, as far as work is concerned in America and
Australia, what do we find? Do we find that there is no such thing as a
fallen class in Melbourne and New York? On the contrary, it is often a
subject of bitter complaint by American and Australian citizens that their
large towns are just as bad, as far as sexual morality goes, as the cities of
the old world. The higher economic position of women does not seem to
touch the evil either in the Antipodes or beyond the Atlantic. It exists
among communities where destitution is an almost unmeaning word; it
exists in lands where no woman need be idle, and where she is highly paid
for her services. In the face of such facts it is impossible to believe that
destitution is the only motive which impels a certain class of women to
wander the streets.

What is true with respect to destitution is that it compels women to
remain in the deplorable life they have adopted, but it seldom or never
drives them to take to it. Almost all the best authorities are agreed upon this
point. No one has examined this social sin in all its bearings with such
patience and exhaustiveness as Parent Duchatelet, and his deliberate
opinion, after years of investigation, is that its origin lies in the character of
the individual, in vanity, in slothfulness, in sex. It does not, however, follow
that a person possessing these characteristics in an abnormal degree is
bound to fall. If such a person is protected by parental care, no evil results
need necessarily ensue. It is when low instincts are combined with a bad
home that the worst is to be feared. This fact was clearly and emphatically
brought to light by the parliamentary inquiry which took place in France a
few years ago. M. Th. Roussel, one of the highest authorities on the
committee, the man, in fact, from whom the inquiry derived its name, thus
sums up some of its results: "However large a part in the production of

prostitution must be allowed to the love of pleasure and of finery, to a
dislike of work and to debased instincts, the cause which, according to the
facts cited, appears everywhere as the most powerful and the most general,
is the want of a home, the want of maternal care." Here are some of the
facts on which M. Roussel bases his general statement. "At Bordeaux, out
of 600 'filles inscrites' 98 were minors. Of the latter, 44 appear to have
fallen through their own fault alone. The remaining 54 grew up under
abnormal, domestic conditions; 14 were orphans, without father or mother,
7 had only one parent, 32 had been abandoned or perverted by their
parents."

In England it would be impossible to conduct a parliamentary inquiry on
the lines of the "Enquête Roussel," but it is very probable if such an inquiry
were instituted it would reveal a condition of things very similar to what
exists in France. The scattered and fragmentary information we do possess
points to that conclusion, and the conclusion, it must be admitted, is not at
all a hopeful or comforting one. Supposing that all the homeless and
deserted female children we have now in our midst were immediately
placed under the protection of the State (as a matter of fact, most of them
are), it does not follow that they will grow up to lead regular lives.
According to the thirty-second report of the Inspector of Reformatory and
Industrial Schools, the authorities are unable to account satisfactorily for the
character of more than four fifths of the inmates of girls' industrial schools
who have left these institutions on an average for two or three years. That is
to say, it is probable that about twenty out of every hundred girls go to the
bad within two or three years of leaving an industrial school. The
proportion of girls discharged from reformatory schools, whose character is
bad within two years of their discharge, is still larger than in the case of
industrial schools. This is only what might be expected, for it is the worst
cases that are now sent to reformatory schools. "Since the passing of the
Elementary Education Act," said Miss Nicoll of the Girls' Reformatory,
Hampstead, at the Fourth Conference of the National Association of
certified Reformatory and Industrial Schools, "a great change has gradually
been made in the character and age of the inmates of our reformatories on
admission. The School Boards in the country, and more especially the
School Board of London, by enforcing compulsory attendance of all the
children of the poor between the ages of five and thirteen, have swept into

what are termed Truant Schools all the neglected and uncontrollable
children who were formerly sent to certified industrial schools—these latter
being now retained in a great measure for children who, besides being
neglected and beyond the control of their parents, have either taken their
first steps in a course of crime, or have, by association with vicious
companions, become familiar with it. The industrial schools have thus
intercepted the very class from which our numbers were usually drawn,
leaving, as a rule, for reformatories, girls about fifteen, who, though
nominally under fifteen, are sometimes a good deal older when admitted.
Young persons, as these are termed in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts of
1879, are of a much more hardened character than before, and in addition to
having been guilty of acts of petty larceny, have frequently been prostitutes
for some time anterior to their admission. This being so, it can hardly be
wondered at if the success of reformatories is not so marked as it was when
they were first instituted."

Seeing that reformatories for girls, on account of the more hardened
character of their inmates on admission, are not so successful as industrial
schools, it is certainly within the mark to say that at least one-fourth of the
cases discharged from these institutions become failures in the space of two
years. If the proportion is so high at the end of two years, what will it
amount to at the end of five? It is then that the young person enters upon
what is par excellence the criminal age, and when that age is reached, I fear
that the proportion of failures increases considerably. In any case we have
sufficient data to show that the protection of the State, when extended, as it
is in the United Kingdom, to helpless and homeless girls, does not in many
instances suffice to keep them on the road of virtue. Deep-seated instincts
manage to assert themselves in spite of the most careful training, the most
vigilant precautions, and until the moral development of the population, as a
whole, reaches a higher level, it will be vain to hope too much from the
labours of State institutions, however excellent these institutions may be.

It has, however, to be remembered that the fallen class is not by any
means recruited exclusively from the ranks of the helpless and the
homeless. On the contrary, according to the evidence of the Roussel
commission, nearly one half of the minors (44 out of 98) found in the
"maisons de tolerance" of Bordeaux had no domestic or economic

impediments to encounter. External circumstances, as far as could be seen,
had nothing to do with the unhappy position in which they stood, and the
life they adopted appears to have been entirely of their own choosing. It is
true the Bordeaux statistics only cover a small area, and are not to be looked
upon as in themselves exhaustive, but when these statistics confirm, as they
do, the careful observations of all unbiassed investigators, we cannot be far
wrong in coming to the conclusion that in France, at least, fifty per cent. of
the cases of prostitution are not originally due to the pressure of want. Since
the introduction of Truant and Industrial Schools in this country for
homeless and neglected girls, it is certain that the proportion of those who
fall from sheer destitution must be extremely small. On the Continent,
where such institutions do not exist on such an extensive scale, the
proportion may be somewhat larger, but in the United Kingdom it cannot,
according to the most liberal computation, exceed ten per cent. of the cases
brought before the magistrates. Many experienced observers will not allow
that it reaches such a high percentage.

We are now in a position to tabulate the results of our inquiries as to the
part played by destitution in producing prostitution and vagrancy. The
following table represents the proportion of persons charged under the
provisions of the Vagrancy Acts in the year 1888:—

Percentage of beggars, 45 per cent.
Percentage of prostitutes, 12 per cent.
Percentage of other offenders, 43 per cent.
100 per cent.

Percentage of beggars destitute from misadventure, 2 per cent.
Percentage of prostitutes destitute from 10 per
misadventure, cent.
Percentage of other offenders destitute from 2 per
misadventure, cent.
14 per
cent.

It has already been pointed out that persons charged with offences
against the Vagrancy Acts constitute on an average 7 per cent. of the total

annual criminal population. According to the statistics we have just
tabulated, 5 per cent. of these offences are not due to the pressure of
destitution, and only 2 per cent. are to be attributed to that cause.

Let us now collect the whole of the figures set forth in this chapter, so
that we may be in a position to give an answer to the question with which
we set out, namely, to what extent are theft and vagrancy the product of
destitution?

Proportion of offences against Property and the
Vagrancy Acts to total number of offences tried 15 per cent.
in 1888,
Proportion of offenders against property
2 per cent.
destitute,
Proportion of offenders against Vagrancy Acts
2 per cent.
destitute,

Adding together the two classes of offenders against Property and the
Vagrancy Acts who, according to our calculations, are destitute when
arrested, we arrive at the fact that they form four per cent. of the total
criminal population. As has already been pointed out, beggars and thieves
are almost the only two sections of the criminal community likely to be
driven to the commission of lawless acts by the pressure of absolute want. It
very seldom happens that murders, for instance, are perpetrated from this
cause; in fact, not one murder in ten is even committed for the purpose of
theft. The vast majority of the remaining offences against the criminal law
are only connected in a remote degree with the economic condition of the
population, and in hardly any instance can it be said of them, that they are
the outcome of destitution. In order, however, to err on the safe side, let us
assume that one per cent. of offenders, other than vagrants and thieves, are
to be ranked among the destitute. What is the final result at which we then
arrive with respect to the percentage of persons forced by the action of
destitution into the army of crime? In the case of vagrants and thieves it has
just been seen that the proportion amounted to four per cent.; adding one
per cent. to this proportion, brings up the total of offenders who probably

fall into crime through the pressure of absolute want to five per cent. of the
annual criminal population tried before the courts.

These figures are important; they demonstrate the fact that although
there was not a single destitute person in the whole of England and Wales,
the annual amount of crime would not be thereby appreciably diminished.
At the present day it is a very common practice to pick out a case of
undoubted hardship here and there, and to assume that such a case is typical
of the whole criminal population. It is, of course, well to point out such
cases, and to emphasise them as much as possible till we reach such a pitch
of excellence in our administration of the law as will render all unmerited
hardship exceedingly rare. As it is, such cases are becoming less frequent
year by year, and it is an entire mistake to suppose, as is too often done, that
a serious amount of the crime perpetrated in England is committed by men
and women who are willing to work but cannot get it to do. An opinion of
that kind has an alarming tendency to encourage crime; it creates a false
sentiment of compassion for the utterly worthless; it prevents them from
being dealt with according to their deserts, and worst of all, it is apt to make
the working population imagine that there is a community of interest
between them and the criminal classes which does not in reality exist. From
the point of view of public policy nothing can be more pernicious than to
propagate such an idea; and no artisan who values his own dignity should
ever allow any man, whether on platforms or in newspapers, to identify him
in any way whatever with the common criminal.

Before finally leaving the question of the relations between destitution
and crime, we shall now briefly inquire whether anything further can be
accomplished in the matter of raising our legal and poor law administration
to such a pitch of excellence, that not even five per cent. of our incriminated
population can, with justice, bring forward any economic pretext whatever
for violating the law. As far as legal administration is concerned, it must be
remembered that mistakes will sometimes occur, no matter how numerous
the precautions may be with which justice is surrounded.

To be certain of justice in all circumstances you must have not only an
infallible law, but also an infallible judge and an infallible method of
criminal administration. It is a truism to say that this is an impossibility, and

every now and again society will have to submit to be shocked by the
revelation of a palpable miscarriage of justice. At the same time it is
important to take every possible precaution against the occurrence of such
distressing accidents. This can only be effected by placing the
administration of the law in all its departments, from the policeman to the
Home Secretary, in the hands of thoroughly competent officials who have
not only their heart, but what is equally important, their head in the work.
When this is done, and if these officials are not embarrassed by public
clamour in the performance of their duties (honest criticism will do them
good), all will have been accomplished which it is possible to get in the way
of effective and enlightened administration of the law.

In the next place it may be possible to mitigate the operation of our
present poor law system in all cases of destitution through misadventure.
Some prominent politicians—and I believe among them Mr. Morley—
appear to be in favour of this course; and at a recent meeting of the British
Association, Professor Alfred Marshall was inclined to the belief that a
much larger discrimination might be allowed than now exists in the
administration of out-door relief in cases of actual want; and also that
separate and graduated workhouses might be established for the deserving
poor. It will be admitted on all hands that proposals of this character land us
on very delicate ground, and require the most mature consideration. Even
now the inmate of a workhouse is often better supplied with food, clothing,
and shelter than the poor labourer, who has to pay taxes to support him. If
the condition of that inmate is made still more comfortable, will it be
possible to prevent hundreds and thousands of the very poor, who now keep
outside these institutions, from immediately crowding into them as soon as
the slightest economic difficulties arise? Almost all philanthropic schemes,
and especially all such schemes when supported by the public purse, have a
tendency to be administered with more and more laxity as time goes on; and
a scheme of this kind, if carried into law, would require to be managed with
the utmost circumspection in order to avoid pauperising great masses of the
community.

A scheme of this character will, however, have to be tried if the
manifesto of the Executive Council of the Dockers' Union, issued in
September last, is to be acted upon by Trade-Unionists in general.

According to the doctrine laid down in this manifesto, the idea of a Trade-
Union, as a free and open combination, which every workman may enter,
provided he pays his subscription and conforms to the rules, is an idea
which must for the future be abandoned. Henceforth, a Trade-Union is to be
a close corporation to be worked for the benefit of persons who have
succeeded in getting inside it. The Dockers' Union, to do them justice, see
that this policy is bound to increase the numbers of the destitute, but they
propose to remedy this condition of things by establishing "in each
municipality factories and workshops where all those who cannot get work
under ordinary conditions shall have an opportunity afforded them by the
community." If these State establishments are to be started for the
unemployed, the workers in them must work at something, and it will have
to be something which the unskilled labourer will not require a great deal of
time to learn. What would the dockers say if one of these establishments
was instituted by the municipality for the loading and unloading of ships?
Hardly a Trade-Union Congress meets in which the complaint is not made
that prison labour interferes with free labour; but what sort of outcry would
there be if State labour, on an extensive scale, were to enter into serious
competition with the individual workman?

These schemes for the establishment of State institutions offering work
to the indigent will never solve the problem of want, and all attempts that
have hitherto been made in that direction have either ended in failure or met
with small success.

The latest of these schemes is a village settlement, which the authorities
in New Zealand started some time ago to meet the case of the unemployed.
The Government, in the first place, spent £16,000 in making roads and
other conveniences for the settlers, and afterwards advanced £21,000 for
building houses, buying implements, and so on. According to recent advices
from New Zealand, only £2000 of this advance has been paid back, and it is
the general feeling of the colony that the project has proved a failure. These,
and other experiments of a similar character, compel us to recognise the
disagreeable fact that a certain proportion of people who are in the habit of
falling out of work are, as a class, extremely difficult to put properly on
their legs. Failure, for some reason or another, always dogs their steps, and

the more Society does for them, the less they will be disposed to do
anything for themselves.

When such persons are sent to prison on charges of begging, or petty
theft, it very often happens that they are assisted on their release by a
Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society. Tools are given them, work is found for
them, yet they do not thrive. Not infrequently the job is given up on some
frivolous pretext; or if it is a temporary one, little or no effort is made till it
actually comes to an end to look out for another. It is little wonder that men
who live in such a fashion should occasionally be destitute; the only wonder
is that they manage to pass through life at all. Those men hang upon the
skirts of labour and seek shelter under its banner, but it is only for short and
irregular intervals that they march in the ranks of the actual workers. The
real working man knows such people well, and heartily despises them.

Would it be a right thing to increase the burdens of the taxpayer by
opening State workshops, even if such a plan were feasible, for men of the
stamp we have just been describing? Decidedly it would not. Yet these men
form a fair proportion of the persons whom we have classed as driven to
crime by economic distress. As far, then, as the criminal population is
concerned, no necessity exists for the organisation of State factories; and so
far as destitution is a factor in the production of crime, it can be grappled
with by other agencies. In fact, if a graduated system of Unions, with a kind
of casual ward, somewhat after the German Naturalverpflegstationen, could
be worked and if Trade Societies adopted, under proper precautions, the
principle of allowing debilitated members of their trade the opportunity of
doing something at a somewhat reduced rate, it would be impossible for any
well-intentioned man to say that he was driven to crime from sheer want. It
is worth while, on the part of the nation, to make some small sacrifice to
attain an object so supremely important as this. It is very probable that
hardly any sacrifice will be needed. In any case it would get rid of the
uncomfortable feeling entertained by many that there are occasions when
human beings are punished who ought to be fed. It would completely
alienate all sympathy from crime; it would then be known that criminal
offenders deserved the punishment they received, and justice would be able
to deal with them with a firm and even hand.

CHAPTER V.

POVERTY AND CRIME.
Having analysed the part played by destitution in the production of
crime, the cognate question of the extent to which poverty is responsible for
it will now be considered. If actual destitution does not count for very much
in producing criminals, it may be that poverty makes up the difference, and
that the great bulk of delinquency, if not the whole of it, arises from the
combined operation of these two economic factors. We have examined one
of them, let us now go on to the other. As this examination will have to be
conducted from several different points of view which, for the sake of
clearness, it will be expedient to consider one by one, I shall begin by
inquiring what light international statistics are capable of throwing on the
relations between poverty and crime. At the outset of this inquiry we are at
once met by the old difficulty respecting the value of international criminal
statistics. The imperfection of those statistics is a matter it is always
important to bear in mind, but in spite of this circumstance the light which
they shed on the problem of poverty and crime is not to be rejected as
worthless.

It has been pointed out in the preceding chapter that the offences people,
in a state of destitution, are most likely to commit are beggary and theft. In
the case of persons who are in a state of poverty, but not destitute, it may be
said that the offence they are most likely to commit is theft in one or other
of its forms. What then are the international statistics of theft, and what is
the relative wealth of the several countries from which these statistics are
drawn? An answer to these two questions will throw a flood of light upon
the nature of the relations between poverty and crime. If these statistics
show that in those countries where there is most poverty there is also most
theft, the elucidation of such a fact will at once raise a strong presumption
that the connection between poverty and offences against property is one of
cause and effect. If, on the other hand, international statistics are not at all
conclusive upon this important point, it will show that there are other
factors at work besides poverty in the production of offences against
property. With these preliminary remarks I shall now append a table of the
number of persons tried for theft of all kinds in some of the most important
countries of Europe within the last few years. In no two of these countries is
theft classified in the same manner, but in all of them it is equally

recognised as a crime; if, therefore, all offences against property, of
whatever kind, are put together under the common heading of "theft," and if
the number of cases of thefts (as thus understood) tried in the various
countries of Europe are carefully tabulated, we possess, in such a table, a
criterion wherewith to judge, in a rough way, the respective position of
those countries in the matter of offences against property.

The appended table is extracted from a larger one, the work of Sig. L.
Bodio, Director-General of Statistics for the kingdom of Italy. The
calculations for every country, except Spain, are based on the census of
1880 or 1881; the calculations for Spain are based on the census of 1877. In
all the countries except Germany and Spain the calculations are based on an
average of five years; for Germany and Spain the average is only two years.

1880- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
Italy, 221
84 inhabitants
1879- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
France, 121
83 inhabitants
1876- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
Belgium, 143
80 inhabitants
1882- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
Germany, 262
83 inhabitants
1880- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
England, 228
84 inhabitants
1880- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
Scotland, 289
84 inhabitants
1880- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
Ireland, 101
84 inhabitants
1876- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
Hungary, 82
80 inhabitants
1883- Annual trials for theft per 100,000
Spain, 74
84 inhabitants

To what conclusions do the statistics contained in this table point? It is
useless burdening this chapter with additional figures to prove that England
and France are the two wealthiest countries in Europe. The wealth of
England, for instance, is perhaps six times the wealth of Italy; but,

notwithstanding this fact, more thefts are annually committed in England
than in Italy. The wealth of France is enormously superior to the wealth of
Ireland, both in quantity and distribution, but the population of France
commits more offences against property than the Irish. Spain is one of the
poorest countries in Europe, Scotland is one of the richest, but side by side
with this inequality of wealth we see that the Scotch commit, per hundred
thousand of the population, almost four times as many thefts as the
Spaniards. With the exception of Italy it is the poorest countries of Europe
that are the least dishonest, and, according to our table, even the Italians are
not so much addicted to offences against property as the inhabitants of
England.

Perhaps the most instructive figures in these international statistics are
those relating to England and Ireland. The criminal statistics of the two
countries are drawn up on very much the same principles; the ordinary
criminal law is very much the same, and there is very much the same
feeling among the population with respect to ordinary crime; in fact, with
the exception of agrarian offences, the administration of the law in Ireland
is as effective as it is in England. On almost every point the similarity of the
criminal law and its administration in the two countries almost amounts to
identity, and a comparison of their criminal statistics, in so far as they relate
to ordinary offences against property, reaches a high level of exactitude.
What does such a comparison reveal? It shows that the Irish, with all their
poverty, are not half so much addicted to offences against property as the
English with all their wealth, and it serves to confirm the idea that the
connection between poverty and theft is not so close as is generally
imagined.

International statistics then, as far as they go, point to the conclusion that
it is the growth of wealth, rather than the reverse, which has a tendency to
augment the number of offences against property, and national statistics, as
far as England is concerned, exhibit a similar result. It is perfectly certain,
for instance, that the mass of the population possessed a greater amount of
money, and were earning on the whole higher wages between 1870-74 than
between 1884-88. According to the evidence given before the late Lord
Iddesleigh's Commission on the depression of trade, the prosperity of the
country in the five years ended 1874 was something phenomenal. This was

the opinion of almost every class in the community. Chambers of
commerce, leading manufactures, workmen in the various departments of
industry, all told the same tale of exceptional commercial prosperity. During
this period it was easy for any person with a pair of hands to get as much as
he could do; workmen were at a premium and wages had risen all round.

But, notwithstanding this state of unwonted prosperity, we shall find on
turning to the statistics of offences against property that a larger number of
persons were convicted of such offences in the five years ended 1874 than
in the five years ended 1888. It hardly needs to be stated that the five years
ended 1888 were years of considerable depression, some of them were
years in which there was a good deal of distress, and in none of them was
the bulk of the population as well off as in the preceding period. It is,
therefore, plain that an increase in the wealth of a country is not necessarily
followed by a decrease in the amount of crimes against property; that, in
fact, the growth of national and individual wealth, unless it is accompanied
by a corresponding development of ethical ideals, is apt to foster criminal
instincts instead of repressing them.

If we look at crime in general, instead of that particular form of it which
consists in offences against property, it will likewise become apparent that it
is not so closely connected with poverty as is generally believed. The
accuracy of Indian criminal statistics is a matter that has already been
pointed out. When these statistics are placed side by side with our own what
do we find? According to the returns for the two countries in the year 1888,
it comes out that in England one person was proceeded against criminally to
every forty-two of the population, while in India only one person was
proceeded against to every 195. In other words, official statistics show that
the people of England are between four and five times more addicted to
crime than the people of India. On the supposition that poverty is the parent
of crime, the population of India should be one of the most lawless in the
world, for it is undoubtedly one of the very poorest. The reverse, however,
is the case, and India is justly celebrated for the singularly law-abiding
character of its inhabitants. In reply to this it may be said that India differs
so widely from England in race, manners, religion and social organisation,
that all these divergencies must be taken into account when comparing the
position of the two countries with respect to crime. A contention of this kind

is in perfect harmony with what is here advanced. It is, in fact, a part of our
case that crime is either produced or checked by a great many causes
besides economic conditions. The comparison we are now making between
the criminal statistics of England and India is intended to show that
economic conditions alone will not satisfactorily explain the genesis of
crime. If such were the case India would have a blacker criminal record
than England, for it has a lower material standard of life; but as India is able
to exhibit a fairer record, in spite of its economic disadvantages, we are
compelled to come to the conclusion that poverty is not the only factor in
the production of crime.

A further illustration of the same fact will be found on examining the
Prison Statistics of the United States. According to an instructive paper
recently read by Mr. Roland P. Falkner before the American Statistical
Association, the foreign born population in America is, on the whole, less
inclined to commit crime than the native born American. In some of the
States—Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and California—"the foreign
born," says Mr. Falkner, "make a worse showing than the native. In a great
number of cases, notably Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee, we
notice hardly any difference. Elsewhere, the showing is decidedly in favour
of the foreign born, and nowhere more strongly than in Wisconsin and
Minnesota." It is perfectly certain that the foreign born population of the
United States is not, as a rule, so well-off economically as the native born
citizen. The vast proportion of the emigrant population is composed of poor
people seeking to better their condition, and it is well known that a largo
percentage of the hard, manual work done in America is performed by those
men. The economic condition of the average native born American is
superior to the economic condition of the average emigrant; but the native
American, notwithstanding his economic superiority, cuts a worse figure in
the statistics of crime. This is a state of things the Americans themselves are
just beginning to perceive, and it cannot fail to make them uneasy as to the
efficacy of some of their erratic methods of punishing crime. It has, until
recently, been the habit of American statisticians to compare the foreign
born population with the whole of the native population with respect to
crime. The outcome of this method of comparison was taken all round
favourable to the born Americans, and for many years people satisfied
themselves with the belief that a high percentage of crime in the United

States was due to the foreign element in the community. It is now seen that
this method of calculation is defective and false. A comparatively small
number of foreigners emigrate to the United States under eighteen years of
age; in order, therefore, to make the comparison between natives and
foreigners accurate, it must be made with foreigners over eighteen and
Americans over eighteen, for it is after persons pass that age that they are
most prone to commit crime. The result of this new and more correct
method of comparison has been to show that the native American element,
that is to say, the element best situated economically, is also the element
which perpetrates most crimes. Such a result is only another illustration of
the truth that an advanced state of economic well-being is not necessarily
accompanied by greater immunity from crime.

A further illustration of this significant truth is to be witnessed in the
Antipodes. In no quarter of the world is there such wide-spread prosperity
as exists in the colony of Victoria. All writers and travellers are unanimous
upon this point. Nowhere in the world is there less economic excuse for the
perpetration of crime. Work of one kind or another can almost always be
had in that favoured portion of the globe.

Even in the worst of times, if men are willing to go "up country," as it is
called, occupation of some sort is certain to be found, and trade depression
never reaches the acute point which it sometimes does at home.

Nevertheless, on examining the criminal statistics of the colony of
Victoria, what do we find? According to the returns for 1887, one arrest on
a charge of crime was made in every 30 of the population, and on looking
down the list of offences for which these arrests were made, it will be seen
that Victoria, notwithstanding her widely-diffused material well-being, is
just as much addicted to crimes against person and property as some of the
poor and squalid States of Europe. It may be said in extenuation of this
condition of things, that Victoria contains a larger grown-up population, and
therefore a larger percentage of persons in a position to commit crime than
is to be found in older countries. This is, to a certain extent, true, but the
difference is not so great as might at first sight be supposed. Assuming that
the criminal age lies between 15 and 60, we find that in the seven
Australasian colonies 563 persons out of every 1,000 are alive between

these two ages. In Great Britain and Ireland 559 persons per 1,000 are alive
between 15 and 60. According to these figures the difference between the
population within the criminal age in the colony, as compared with the
mother country, is very small, and is quite insufficient to account for the
relatively high percentage of crime exhibited by the Victorian criminal
statistics.

All these considerations force us back to the conclusion that an abundant
measure of material well-being has a much smaller influence in diminishing
crime than is usually supposed, and compels us to admit that much crime
would still exist even if the world were turned into a paradise of material
prosperity tomorrow.

In further confirmation of this conclusion let us glance for a moment at
another aspect of the relations between poverty and crime. It is generally
calculated that the working class population of England and Wales form
from 90 to 95 per cent. of the total population of the country. According to
the investigations of Mr. Charles Booth, as contained in his work on East
London, the working classes constitute about 92 per cent. in the districts be
had under examination, the remaining 8 per cent. being made up of the
lower and upper middle classes. Let us therefore assume that 10 per cent. of
the population consists of the middle and upper classes, and that the other
90 per cent. of the community is composed of working people. Many
statisticians will not admit that the middle and upper classes form 10 per
cent. of the nation, and assert that 5 per cent. is nearer the mark. This is also
my own view, but for the purposes of this inquiry we shall assume that it is
10 per cent.

How large a proportion of the criminal population is made up of the
middle and upper classes? An answer to this question would at once show
the exact relation between poverty and crime. If it could be shown that the
well-to-do classes, in proportion to their numbers, are just as much addicted
to the commission of criminal acts as the poorer people, it would
demonstrate that crime prevailed to an equal extent among all sections of
the community, and was not the work of one class alone. Unfortunately,
such statistics are not to be had. But, as the facts are not to be got at
directly, this does not mean to say that it is impossible to catch a glimpse of

what they are. This may be done in the following manner:—According to
the report of the Prison Commissioners, between 5 and 6 per cent. of the
persons committed to gaol during the year ended March, 1890 (omitting
court-martial cases), were debtors and civil process cases. Now, it may be
taken as certain that in a very small proportion of these cases were the
prisoners working people. Nearly all these offenders are to be considered as
belonging to the well-to-do classes. Yet we see that they form 5 per cent. of
the criminal population, and it has to be remembered that the fraudulent
debtor is just as much a criminal, nay, even a worse criminal in many
instances than the thief who snatches a purse. In addition to this 5 per cent.
there is at least 3 per cent. of the ordinary criminal population belonging to
the higher ranks of life. At the lowest estimate we have 6 per cent. of the
criminal population springing from the midst of the well-to-do, and if all
cases of drunkenness and assault were punished with imprisonment instead
of a fine, it would be found that the well-to-do showed just as badly in the
statistics of crime as their poorer neighbours.

In making this statement with respect to fines, I do not wish it to be
understood that all cases of drunkenness and assault should be followed by
imprisonment. On the contrary, it is a great mistake to send anyone to gaol
if it can possibly be avoided, and imprisonment should never be resorted to
so long as any other form of punishment will serve the purpose. What is
here stated is merely meant to bring out the fact that the proportion of well-
to-do among the prison population does not accurately represent the
proportion of offences committed by that class; and it does not represent it
for the simple reason that the well-to-do have facilities for escaping
imprisonment which the ill-to-do have not. When a man with a certain
command of means is involved in criminal proceedings, he has always the
assistance of experienced counsel to defend him, he is always able to secure
the attendance of witnesses,[21] if he has any, and should the offence be of a
nature that a fine will condone, he is always able to escape imprisonment by
paying it. It very often happens that poor people are unable to secure these
advantages in a court of justice, and prison statistics of the different classes,
even if we had them, would, for the reasons we have just mentioned, always
give the working classes more than their fair share of offenders.

It has always to be borne in mind in making calculations respecting the
proportion of criminal offenders among the various sections of the
community that there is a population of habitual criminals which forms a
class by itself. Habitual criminals are not to be confounded with the
working or any other class; they are a set of persons who make crime the
object and business of their lives; to commit crime is their trade; they
deliberately scoff at honest ways of earning a living, and must accordingly
be looked upon as a class of a separate and distinct character from the rest
of the community. According to police estimates this class consists of
between 50,000 and 60,000 persons in England and Wales. Notwithstanding
the smallness of its numbers, this criminal population contributes a
proportion amounting to fully 12 per cent. to the local and convict prisons
of England. As this percentage of the prison population is recruited from
wholly criminal ground, it is important to place it in a distinct and separate
category when forming an estimate of the criminal tendencies of the several
branches of the population. This is what has been done in the subjoined
table. This table will accordingly show, first the proportion of the poorer
class to the total population, and next their proportion to the prison
population. It will do the same for the well-to-do class, and will finally give
the percentage of the criminal class in the local and convict prisons:—

Proportion of working class to total 90 p.
population ct.
82 p.
Proportion, of prisoners from this class
ct.
10 p.
Proportion of well-to-do to population
ct.
Proportion of prisoners from this class 6 p. ct.
Numbers of criminal class, say 60,000
12 p.
Proportion of prisoners from this class
ct.

According to these figures, the well-to-do contribute less than their
proper proportion to the prison population. This arises, as has already been
stated, from the fact that this class has so many more facilities for escaping
the penalty of imprisonment; the difference would be adjusted if the cases
tried before the criminal courts were taken as a standard. An examination of

these cases would undoubtedly show that each class was represented in
proportion to its numbers.

According to Garofalo, one of the most learned of Italian jurists, the
poor people in Italy commit fewer offences against property, in proportion
to their numbers, than the well-to-do, while in Prussia persons engaged in
the liberal professions contribute twice their proper share to the criminal
population. A somewhat similar state of things exists in France; there the
number of persons engaged in the liberal professions forms four per cent. of
the population; but, according to the investigations of Ferri, in his striking
little book, "Socialismo e Criminalita," the liberal professions were
responsible for no less than seven per cent. of the murders perpetrated in
France in 1879.

What is the period of the year we should expect most crime to be
committed if poverty is at the root of it? In this country, at least, it is very
well known that the labouring classes are apt to suffer most in the depth of
winter, and the depth of winter may be said to correspond with the months
of December, January, and February. It is in these months that all outdoor
occupations come to a comparative standstill; it is then that the poorest
section of the population—the men without a trade, the men who live by
mere manual labour—are reduced to the greatest straits. In the winter
months some of these men have to pass through a period of real hardship;
the state of the weather often puts an absolute stop to all outdoor
occupations, and when this is the case, it takes an outdoor labourer all his
might to provide the barest necessaries for his home. In addition to this
difficulty, which lies in the nature of his calling, a labourer finds the
expense of living a good deal higher in the depth of winter. He has to burn
more fuel, he has to supply his children with warmer clothing, in a variety
of ways his expenses increase, notwithstanding the most rigid economy.
Winter is not only a harder season for the outdoor labourer, it is a time of
greater economic trial for the whole working-class population. This, I think,
is a statement which will be universally admitted.

On the assumption that poverty is the principal source of crime we ought
to have a much larger prison population in the depth of winter than at any
other period of the year. The prison statistics for December, January, and

February—the three most inclement months, the three months when
expenses are greatest and work scarcest—should be the highest in the whole
year. As a matter of fact, it is during these three months that there are fewest
people in prison. According to an excellent return, issued for the first time
by the Prison Commissioners in their thirteenth report, it appears that there
was a considerably smaller number of prisoners in the local prisons of
England and Wales in the winter months—December, January and
February, 1889-90—than at any other season of the year.[22] And this is not
an isolated fact. A glance at the criminal returns for a series of years will at
once show that crime is highest in summer and autumn—a time when
occupation of all kinds, and especially occupation for the poorest members
of the community, is most easily obtained—and lowest in winter and spring,
when economic conditions are most adverse.[23]

All these facts, instead of pointing to poverty as the main cause of crime,
point the other way. It is a curious sign of the times that this statement
should meet with so much incredulity. It has been reserved for this
generation to propagate the absurdity that the want of money is the root of
all evil; all the wisest teachers of mankind have hitherto been disposed to
think differently, and criminal statistics are far from demonstrating that they
are wrong. In the laudable efforts which are now being made, and which
ought to be made to heighten the material well-being of the community, it is
a mistake to assume, as is too often done, that mere material prosperity,
even if spread over the whole population, will ever succeed in banishing
crime. A mere increase of material prosperity generates as many evils as it
destroys; it may diminish offences against property, but it augments
offences against the person, and multiplies drunkenness to an alarming
extent. While it is an undoubted fact that material wretchedness has a
debasing effect both morally and physically, it is also equally true that the
same results are sometimes found to flow from an increase of economic
well-being. An interesting proof of this is to be found in the recent
investigations of M. Chopinet, a French military surgeon, respecting the
stature of the population in the central Pyrenees. M. Chopinet, after a
careful examination of the conscript registers from 1873 to 1888, arrives at
the following conclusions as to what determines the physical condition of
the population. After discussing the cosmical influences and the evil effects
of poverty and bad hygienic arrangements on the people, he proceeds to

point out that moral corruption arising from material prosperity is also a
powerful factor in producing physical degeneracy. He singles out one
canton—the canton of Luchon—as being the victim of its own prosperity.
In this canton, he says, that the old simplicity of life has departed, in
consequence of its prodigious prosperity. "Vices formerly unknown have
penetrated into the country; the frequenting of public houses and the habit
of keeping late hours have taken the place of the open air sports which used
to be the favoured method of enjoyment. Illegitimate births, formerly very
rare, have multiplied, syphilis even has spread among the young. Food of a
less substantial character has superseded the diet of former times, and, in
short, alcoholism, precocious debauchery, and syphilis have come like so
many plagues to arrest the development of the youth and seriously debilitate
the population."[24]

Facts such as these should serve to remind us that the growth of wealth
may be accompanied, and is accompanied, by degeneracy of the worst
character unless there is a corresponding growth of the moral sentiments of
the community. "The perfection of man," says M. de Laveleye, "consists in
the full development of all his forces, physical as well as intellectual, and of
all his sentiments; in the feeling of affection for the family and humanity; in
a feeling for the beautiful in nature and art." It is in proportion as men strive
after this ideal that crime will decay, and material prosperity only becomes
a good when it is used as a means to this supreme end. Otherwise, the mere
growth of wealth, be it ever so widely diffused, will deprave the world
instead of elevating it. The mere possession of wealth is not a moralising
agent; as Professor Marshall[25] truly tells us, "Money is general purchasing
power, and is sought as a means to all kinds of ends, high as well as low,
spiritual as well as material." According to this definition, money may as
readily become a source of mischief as an instrument for good; its wider
diffusion among the community has, therefore, a mixed effect, and it works
for evil or for good, according to the character of the individual. It is only
when the character is disciplined by the habitual exercise of self-restraint,
and ennobled by a generous devotion to the higher aims of life, that money
becomes a real blessing to its possessor. If, on the other hand, money has
merely the effect of making the well-to-do rich, and the poor well-to-do, it
will never diminish crime; it will merely cause crime to modify its present

forms. Such, at least, is the conclusion to which a consideration of the
contents of this chapter would seem to lead.

CHAPTER VI.

CRIME IN RELATION TO SEX AND AGE.
In the present chapter we shall proceed to discuss the effect exercised by
two characteristics of a distinctly personal nature in the production of
crime, namely, age and sex.

As sex is the most fundamental of all human distinctions we shall begin
by considering the part it plays among criminal phenomena. According to
the judicial statistics of all civilised peoples, women are less addicted to
crime than men, and boys are more addicted to crime than girls. Among
most European peoples between five and six males are tried for offences
against the law to every one female. In the southern countries of Europe,
females form a smaller proportion of the criminal population than in the
northern. This circumstance may be accounted for in several ways. In the
first place, it may be the case that women in the south of Europe are better
morally than in the north; it may be that the social conditions of their
existence shield them from crime; or it may be that the crimes men are most
prone to commit in the south are of such a nature that women are more or
less incapable of perpetrating them. It is perfectly well known that in the
south of Europe women lead more secluded lives than is the case in the
north; they are much less immersed in the whirl and movement of life; it is
not surprising, therefore, to find that they are less addicted to crime. Nor is
this all. The crimes committed in the South consist to a large extent of
offences against the person; physical weakness in a multitude of cases
prevents women from committing such crimes. In the North, on the other
hand, a large proportion of crimes are in the nature of thefts and offences
against property. Most of these crimes women can commit with
comparative ease; the result is that they form a larger proportion of the
criminal population. Assaults are offences women are less capable of
committing than men; hence, if we find that the crime of a country consists
largely of personal violence, we shall also find that the percentage of female
criminals will be relatively small. In Italy, where offences against the
person are so prevalent, females only form about nine per cent. of the
criminal population; in England, where personal violence is seldom resorted
to, females form between 17 and 18 per cent. of the persons proceeded
against, and about 15 per cent. of the numbers convicted.

A consideration of these circumstances tends to show that although
southern women commit fewer crimes in proportion to men than northern
women, this fact is partly owing to the character of the crime. But it is also
owing to more secluded habits of life, and to the freedom from moral
contamination of a criminal nature which these habits secure.

Proceeding from quantity to quality we find that although females
commit much fewer crimes in proportion than males, the offences they do
commit are frequently of a more serious nature than the crimes to which
men are addicted. According to the investigations of Guerry and Quetelet,
women in France commit more crimes of infanticide, abortion, poisoning,
and domestic theft than men. They are addicted equally with men to the
perpetration of parricide, and are more frequently convicted than men for
the ill-treatment of children. English criminal statistics also show that the
proportion of women to men rises with the seriousness of the offence. The
proportion of women to men summarily proceeded against is 17 per cent.,
the proportion proceeded against for murder and attempts to murder is as
high as 36 per cent. Women are also more hardened criminals than men.
According to the statistics of English prisons, women who have been once
convicted are much more likely to be reconvicted than men,[26] and the
prison returns of Continental countries tell the same tale.

The facts relating to female crime having been stated, it will now be our
business to inquire why women, on the whole, commit fewer crimes than
men. The most obvious answer is that they are better morally. The care and
nurture of children has been their lot in life for untold centuries; the duties
of maternity have perpetually kept alive a certain number of unselfish
instincts; those instincts have become part and parcel of woman's natural
inheritance, and, as a result of possessing them to a larger extent than man,
she is less disposed to crime. It is very probable that there is an element of
truth in the idea that the care of offspring has had a moralising effect upon
women, and that this effect has acquired the power of a hereditary
characteristic; at the same time, it must be remembered that other causes are
also in operation which prevent women figuring as largely in criminal
returns as men.

Among the most prominent of these causes is the want of physical
power. In all crimes requiring a certain amount of brute strength, such as
burglary, robbery with violence, and so on, the proportion of women to men
is small. A woman very rarely possesses the animal force requisite for the
perpetration of crimes accompanied with much personal violence. But
where the element of personal violence does not come conspicuously to the
front the proportion of female criminals to male immediately rises, and in
such crimes as poisoning, child murder, abortion, domestic theft, women
are more criminally disposed than men. Undoubtedly the lack of power has
as much to do with keeping down female crime as the want of will. This is
especially manifest in the crime of infanticide. For the perpetration of this
crime women possess the power, and the vast number of women convicted
of this offence in proportion to men is ample proof that they often possess
the will. Of course the temptation to women to commit this kind of crime is
often extreme; it is the product, in many instances, of an overwhelming
sense of shame; and the perpetrators of infanticide are often far from being
the most debased of their sex. Still, the prevalence of infanticide among
women is an evidence that, where the temptation is strong and the power
sufficient, women are just as criminally inclined as men.

It has also to be borne in mind that women are very frequently the
instigators of crime and escape punishment because they are not actually
engaged in its commission. In almost all cases where robberies are
committed by a pack of thieves, a part of the preparatory arrangements is
entrusted to women, and women lend a helping hand in disposing of the
spoil. It is the men, as a rule, who receive all the punishment, but the guilt
of both sexes is very much the same. In many cases of forgery and
fraudulent bankruptcy among the well-to-do classes, for which men only
are punished, the guilt of women is equally great. Household extravagance,
extravagance in dress, the mad ambition of many English women to live in
what they call "better style" than their neighbours sends not a few men to
penal servitude. The proportion of female crime in a community is also to a
very considerable extent determined by the social condition of women. In
all countries where social habits and customs constrain women to lead
retiring and secluded lives the number of female criminals descends to a
minimum. The small amount of female crime in Greece[27] is an instance of
this law. On the other hand, in all countries where women are accustomed

to share largely the active work of life with men, female crime has a distinct
tendency to reach its maximum. An instance of this is the high percentage
of female crime in Scotland. According to the Judicial Statistics for the year
1888 no less than 37 per cent. of the cases tried before the Scotch courts
consisted of offences committed by women. It is true only 11 per cent. of
these offences were of a serious nature—the remainder being more or less
trivial, but, even after taking this circumstance into consideration, the
unwelcome fact remains that Scotch women commit a higher percentage of
crimes in proportion to men than the female population of any other country
in Europe. The proportion of English female offenders to male is not half so
high; it was only 17 per cent. in 1888, and is showing a tendency to
decrease, being as high as 20 per cent. for the twenty years ended 1876. The
proportion of female offenders in Scotland to the total criminal population
is moving in an opposite direction. The late Professor Leone Levi, in a
paper read before the Statistical Society in 1880, stated that Scotch women
formed 27 per cent. of the persons tried before the criminal courts; they
now form 37 per cent., a most alarming rate of increase.

It hardly admits of doubt that the high ratio of female crime in Scotland
is to be attributed to the social status of women. In no other country of
Europe do women perform so much heavy manual work; working in the
fields and factories along with men; depending little upon men for their
subsistence; in all economic matters leading what is called a more
emancipated life than women do elsewhere; in short, resembling man in
their social activities, they also resemble him in criminal proclivities.
Scotch criminal statistics are thus a striking confirmation of the general law
revealed by the study of criminal statistics as a whole; namely, that the
more women are driven to enter upon the economic struggle for life the
more criminal they will become. This is not a very consoling outlook for the
future of society. It is not consoling, for the simple reason that the whole
drift of opinion at the present time is in the direction of opening out
industrial and public life to women to the utmost extent possible. In so far
as public opinion is favouring the growth of female political leagues and
other female organisations of a distinctly militant character, it is
undoubtedly tending on the whole to lower the moral nature of women. The
combative attitude required to be maintained by all members of such
organisations is injurious to the higher instincts of women, and in numbers
of cases must affect their moral tone. The amount of mischief done by these
public organisations for purposes of political combat is not confined to
women alone. The overwhelming influence exercised by mothers on the
minds of children is notorious; and that influence is not so likely to be for
good where the mother's mind is contaminated by a knowledge of, and
sometimes by practising, the shady tricks of electioneering.

The present tendency to create a greater number of openings in trade and
industry for women is not to be dismissed as pernicious because of its evil
effect in multiplying female crime. After all, an enlarged industrial career
for women may be the lesser of two evils. According to the present
industrial constitution of society a very large number of females must earn a
living in the sweat of their brow, and until some higher social development
supersedes the existing order of things it is only right that as wide a career
as possible should be opened out for the activities of women who must
work to live. At the same time it would be an infinitely superior state of
things if society did not require women's work beyond the confines of the

home and the primary school. In these two spheres there is ample
occupation of the very highest character for the energies of women; in them
their work is immeasurably superior to men's; and it is because the work
required in the home and the school is at the present moment so improperly
performed that our existing civilisation is such a hot-bed of physical
degeneracy, pauperism, and crime. One thing at least is certain, that crime
will never permanently decrease till the material conditions of existence are
such that women will not be called upon to fight the battle of life as men
are, but will be able to concentrate their influence on the nurture and
education of the young, after having themselves been educated mainly with
a view to that great end. European society at the present moment is moving
away from this ideal of woman's functions in the world; she is getting to be
regarded in the light of a mere intellectual or industrial unit; and the flower
of womankind is being more and more drafted into commercial and other
enterprises. Some affect to look upon this condition, of things as being in
the line of progress; it may be, and to all appearance is, in the line of
material necessity, but it is unquestionably opposed to the moral interests of
the community. These interests demand that women should not be debased,
as criminal statistics prove that they are by active participation in modern
industrialism; they demand that the all-important duties of motherhood
should be in the hands of persons capable of fulfilling them worthily, and
not in the hands of persons whose previous occupations have often rendered
them unfit for being a centre of grace and purity in the home. It cannot be
too emphatically insisted on that the home is the great school for the
formation of character among the young, and it is on character that conduct
depends. In proportion as this school of character is improved, in the same
proportion will crime decrease. But how is it to be improved when the
tendencies of industrialism are to degrade the women who stand by nature
at the head of it? Indifferent mothers cannot make children good citizens;
and the present course of things industrial is slowly but surely tending to
debase the fountain head of the race. At the International Conference
concerning the regulation of labour held recently at Berlin, M. Jules Simon,
at the close of an excellent speech to the delegates, pointed out the remedy
for the present condition of things. "You will pardon me," he said, "for
concluding my observations with a personal remark, which is perhaps
authorised by a past entirely consecrated to a defence of the cause which
brings us here. The object we are aiming at is moral as well as material; it is

not only in the physical interests of the human race that we are
endeavouring to rescue children, youths, and women from excessive toil;
we are also labouring to restore woman to the home, the child to its mother,
for it is from her only that those lessons of affection and respect which
make the good citizen can be learned. We wish to call a halt in the path of
demoralisation down which the loosening of the family tie is leading the
human mind."

Passing from the question of sex and crime we shall now consider the
proportions which crime bears to age. According to the calculations of the
late Mr. Clay, chaplain of Preston prison, the practice of dishonesty among
persons, who afterwards find their way into prisons, begins at a very early
age. In a communication addressed to Lord Shaftesbury, in 1853, he said
that 58 per cent. of criminals were dishonest under 15 years of age; 14 per
cent. became dishonest between 15 and 16; 8 per cent. became dishonest
between 17 and 19; 20 per cent. became dishonest under 20.

I have little doubt that these proportions are still in the main correct, and
that the criminal instinct begins to show itself at a very early period in life.
In Staffordshire "it is an ascertained fact, that there is scarcely an habitual
criminal in the county who has not been imprisoned as a child."[28] But it is
after the age of twenty has been reached that the criminality of a people
attains its highest point. A glance at the subjoined table will make this clear:
—

Population of England and Prisoners in Local
Wales in 1871— Gaols in 1888—
Under 5 13.52Under 12 0.1
5 and under 15 22.5812 and under 16 2.8
15 and under 20 9.5916 and under 21 16.1
20 and under 30 16.6621 and under 30 30.2
30 and under 40 12.8030 and under 40 24.3
40 and under 50 10.0540 and under 50 14.7
50 and under 60 7.3250 and under 60 6.4
60 and upwards 7.4860 and upwards 5.4

These figures show that in proportion to the population, crime is, as we
should expect, at its lowest level from infancy till the age of sixteen. From
that age it goes on steadily increasing in volume till it reaches a maximum
between thirty and forty. After forty has been passed the criminal
population begins rapidly to descend, but never touches the same low point
in old age as in early youth.

Females do not enter upon a criminal career so early in life as males;[29]
in the year 1888, while 20 per cent. of the male population of our local
prisons in England and Wales were under 21, only 12 per cent. of the female
prison population were under that age. On the other hand, women between
21 and 50, form a larger proportion of the female prison population, than
men between the same ages do of the male prison population. The criminal
age among women is later in its commencement, and earlier in coming to a
close than in the case of men. It is later in commencing because of the
greater care and watchfulness exercised over girls than boys; but it is more
persistent while it lasts, because a plunge into crime is a more irreparable
thing in a woman than in a man. A woman's past has a far worse effect on
her future than a man's. She incurs a far graver degree of odium from her
own sex; it is much more difficult for her to get into the way of earning an
honest livelihood, and a woman who has once been shut up within bolts and
bars is much more likely to be irretrievably lost than a man. If it is
important to keep men as much as possible out of prison, it is doubly
necessary to keep out women; but it is, at the same time, a much harder
thing to accomplish. This arises from the fact that the great bulk of female
offenders enter the criminal arena after the age of twenty-one, and can only
be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment. If females began crime at an
earlier period of life, it would be possible to send them to Reformatories or
Industrial Schools, and a fair hope of ultimately saving them would still
remain; but as this is impossible with grown-up persons, prison is the only
alternative, and it is after imprisonment is over that a woman begins to
recognise the terrible social penalties it has involved.

The proportion of offenders under sixteen years of age to the total local
prison population of England and Wales, has decreased in a remarkable way
within the last twenty or thirty years. The proportion of offenders under
sixteen committed to prison between 1857-66, amounted to six and three-

quarters per cent. of the prison population, and if we go back behind that
period it was higher still. In fact, during the first quarter of the present
century, the extent and ramifications of juvenile crime had almost reduced
statesmen to despair. But the spread of the Reformatory system and the
introduction more recently of Industrial and Truant Schools for children
who have just drifted, or are fast drifting, into criminal courses, has had a
remarkable effect in diminishing the juvenile population of our prisons. At
the present time the proportion of juveniles under sixteen to the rest of the
local prison population is only a little over two per cent. and it is not likely
that it will ever reach a higher figure. It might easily be reduced almost to
zero if children destined for Reformatories were sent off to these
institutions at once, instead of being detained for a month or so in prison till
a suitable school is found for them. Some persons object to the idea of
sending children to Reformatories at once, on the ground that to abolish the
terror of imprisonment from the youthful mind would embolden the
juvenile inclined to crime and lead him more readily to commit it. Others
object on the ground that it is only right the child should be punished for his
offence. In answer to the last objection, it may pertinently be said that a
sentence of three or four years to a Reformatory is surely sufficient
punishment for offences usually committed by small boys. With regard to
the first objection, our own experience is that the ordinary juvenile is much
more afraid of the policeman than of the prison, and that the fear of being
caught would operate just as strongly upon him if he were sent straight to
the Reformatory as it does now. The evils connected with the present
system of sending children destined for Reformatories to prison are of two
kinds. At the present time many magistrates will not send children to
Reformatories who sorely need the restraints of such an institution, because
they know it involves a period of preliminary imprisonment before they can
get there. Secondly, it enables a lad to know what the inside of a prison
really is. On these two points let me quote the words of an experienced
magistrate. "I have many times," said Mr. Whitwell, at the fourth
Reformatory Conference, "when having to deal with young people, felt it
very desirable to send them to a Reformatory, but have shrunk from it
because we are obliged to send them to prison first. I think it should be left
to the discretion of the magistrates and not made compulsory. I feel very
strongly indeed that it is most desirable to keep the child from knowing
what the inside of a prison is. Let them think it something awful to look

forward to. When they have been in the prison they are of opinion that it is
not such a very bad place after all, and they are not afraid of going there
again; but if they are sent to a Reformatory and told that they will be sent to
a prison if they do not reform, they will think it an awful place." These are
wise words. It is impossible to make imprisonment such a severe discipline
for children as it is for grown-up men and women, and as it is not so severe,
children leave our gaols with a false impression on their minds. The terror
of being imprisoned has, to a large extent, departed; they think they know
the worst and cease to be much afraid of what the law can do. Hence the
fact that society has less chance of reclaiming a child who has been
imprisoned than it has of reclaiming one who has not undergone that form
of punishment although he has committed precisely the same offence. In
England, many authorities on Reformatory Schools are strongly in favour of
retaining preliminary imprisonment for Reformatory children; in Scotland,
experienced opinion is decisively on the other side. On this point, the
Scotch are undoubtedly in the right. The working of prison systems,
whether at home or abroad, teaches us that any person, be he child or man,
who has once been in prison, is much more likely to come back than a
person who, for a similar offence, has received punishment in a different
form. The application of this principle to the case of Reformatory children
decisively settles the matter in favour of sending such children to
Reformatories at once. If this simple reform were effected, the child
population of our prisons would almost cease to exist. In the year 1888, this
population amounted to 239 for England and Wales under the age of twelve,
and 4,826 under the age of sixteen, thus making a total of 5,065 or 2.9 per
cent. of the whole local prison population.

In the preceding remarks on juvenile offenders under 16, it has been
pointed out that the great decrease in the numbers of such offenders among
the prison population is mainly owing to the development of Industrial and
Reformatory Schools. In order, therefore, to form an accurate estimate of
juvenile delinquency, we must look not merely at the number of juveniles in
prison; attention must also be directed to the number of juveniles in
Reformatory and Industrial Institutions. Although these institutions are not
places of imprisonment, yet they are places of compulsory detention, and
contain a very considerable proportion of juvenile delinquents. All juveniles
sent to Reformatories have, indeed, been actually convicted of criminal

offences, and in 1888 the number of young people in the Reformatory
Schools of Great Britain (excluding Ireland) was in round numbers six
thousand (5,984). These must be added to the total juvenile prison
population in order to form a true conception of the extent of juvenile
crime. It is almost certain that if these young people were not in
Reformatories they would be in prisons, for, in almost the same proportion
as the Reformatory and Industrial School inmates have increased, the
juvenile prison population has decreased.

To the population of the Reformatory Schools must also be added a large
percentage of the Industrial School population. Since the year 1864, the
number of boys and girls in Industrial and Truant Schools has gone on
steadily increasing. In that year the inmates amounted to 1,608; twenty-four
years afterwards, that is to say, in 1888, the number of children in Great
Britain in Industrial and Truant Schools amounted to 21,426.[30] It is true
that a considerable proportion of these children were not sent to the schools
on account of having committed crime; at the same time it has to be
remembered that nearly all of them were on the way to it, and would in all
probability have become criminals had the State left them alone for a year
or two longer. At the time of their committal the children we are now
dealing with were either children who had been found begging, or who
were wandering about without a settled home, or who were found destitute,
or who had a parent in gaol, or who lived in the company of female
criminals, prostitutes, and thieves. Such children may not actually have
come within the clutches of the criminal law, but it is sufficient to look for a
moment at the surroundings they had lived in to see that this was only a
question of time. We must, therefore, add those children, along with the
Reformatory population, to the number of juveniles in gaol if we wish to
form a proper estimate of the extent of juvenile delinquency. If this is done
we arrive at the conclusion that the criminal and semi-criminal juvenile
population is at the present time more than 25,000 strong in England and
Wales alone; if Scotland be included it is more than 30,000 strong. These
figures are enough to show that it is only compulsory detention in State
establishments which keeps down the numbers of juvenile offenders; and
there can be little doubt, if the inmates of these institutions were let loose
upon the country, juveniles would very soon constitute seven, eight, or,
perhaps, ten per cent. of the prison population.

Let us now consider the case of young offenders between the ages of 16
and 21. This is the most momentous for weal or woe of all periods of life.
During this stage, the transition from youth to manhood is taking place; the
habits then formed acquire a more enduring character, and, in the majority
of cases, determine the whole future of the individual. If youths between the
ages just mentioned could by any possibility be prevented from embarking
on a criminal career, the drop in the criminal population would be far-
reaching in its effects. It is from the ranks of young people just entering
early manhood that a large proportion of the habitual criminal population is
recruited; and if this critical period of life can be tided over without
repeated acts of crime, there is much less likelihood of a young man
degenerating afterwards into a criminal of the professional class. It is most
important that the professional criminal class should be diminished at a
quicker rate than is the case at present; and, in spite of police statistics to
the contrary, it is a class which has not become perceptibly smaller within
the last twenty or five and twenty years. A proof of this statement is to be
seen in the fact that offences against property with violence display a
tendency to increase, and it is offences of this nature which are pre-
eminently the work of the habitual criminal. It is a comparatively rare thing
to find a habitual criminal stop mid-way in his sinister career; the
accumulated impressions resulting from a life of crime have too effectively
succeeded in shaping his character and conduct, and he persists, as a rule, in
leading an anti-social life so long as he has physical strength to do it.

The only hope, therefore, of diminishing the habitual criminal
population, is to lessen the number of recruits; and as most of these recruits
are to be found among lads of between sixteen and twenty-one, it is to these
lads that serious attention must be directed. Every year a certain proportion
of youths ranging between these two ages shows a pronounced disposition
to enter permanently upon a criminal life by repeatedly returning to prison.
The deterrent effect of short sentences has ceased to operate upon them, and
all the symptoms are present that a downright career of crime has begun. In
such circumstances what is to be done? A plan has been proposed by Mr.
Lloyd Baker for dealing with refractory and unmanageable Reformatory
children, the substance of which is to send them to another institution of a
stricter character than the ordinary Reformatory School, and which for want
of a better name he calls a Penal Reformatory. It is very probable that

something in the nature of a Penal Reformatory is just what is wanted to
prevent a youth on the downward road from finally swelling the proportions
of the professional criminal population. If Great Britain ever established
such institutions, she would then possess a graded set of organisations for
dealing with the young, which would cover the whole period of youthful
life. The Truant School would catch the child on the first symptoms of
waywardness, the Industrial School would arrest him standing on the verge
of crime, the Reformatory School would dual with actual offenders against
the law, and the Penal Reformatory would grapple with habitual offenders
under the age of manhood.[31]

After the age of manhood has been reached, and the main lines of
character are formed, punitive methods of dealing with criminal offenders
must assume a more prominent position, and the prison should then take the
place of the Reformatory. In youth the deterrent effects of punishment are
small, and the beneficial effects of reformative measures are at their
maximum. In manhood, on the other hand, this condition of things is
reversed, and the deterrent effects of punishment exceed the beneficial
effects of reformative influences. An interesting example of the value of
punishment for adults, as compared with other methods, is given by Sir
John Strachey in his account of infanticide in certain parts of India. "For
many years past," he says, "measures have been taken in the North-West
Provinces for the prevention of this crime. For a long time, when our
civilisation was less belligerent than it has since become, it was thought that
the best hope of success lay in the removal of the causes which appeared to
lead to its commission, and especially in the prevention of extravagant
expenditure on marriages; but although these benevolent efforts were
undoubtedly useful, their practical results were not great, and it gradually
became clear that it was only by a stringent and organised system of
coercion that these practices would ever be eradicated. In 1870 an act of the
legislature was passed which enabled the Government to deal with the
subject. A system of registration of births and deaths among the suspected
classes was established, with constant inspection and enumeration of
children; special police-officers were entertained at the cost of the guilty
communities, and no efforts were spared to convince them that the
Government had firmly resolved that it would put down these practices, and
would treat the people who followed them as murderers. Although the time

is, I fear, distant when preventive measures will cease to be necessary, much
progress has been made, and there are now thousands of girls where
formerly there were none. In the Mainpuri district, where, as I have said,
there was not many years ago hardly a single Chauhán girl, nearly half of
the Chauhán children at the present time are girls; and it is hoped that three-
fourths of the villages have abandoned the practice."[32]

These facts speak for themselves and afford an incontestable proof of the
value of punishment as a remedial measure when other remedies have
failed.[33] In the re-action which is now in full force, and rightly so, against
the excessive punishments of past times, there is a marked tendency among
some minds to go to the opposite extreme, and an attempt is being made to
show that imprisonment has hardly any curative effect at all. Its evils, and
from the very nature of things they are not a few, are almost exclusively
elaborated and dwelt upon, little attention being paid to the vast amount of
good which imprisonment alone is able to effect. It is possible that
imprisonment sends a few to utter perdition at a quicker pace than they
would have gone of their own accord, but on the other hand, it rescues
many a man before he has irrevocably committed himself to a life of crime.
If it fails the first time, it very often succeeds after the second or the third,
and no one is justified in saying imprisonment is worthless as a reformative
agency till it has failed at least three times. According to the judicial
statistics for England and Wales, imprisonment is successful after the third
time in about 80 per cent. of the cases annually submitted to the criminal
courts, and although it is a pity that the percentage is not higher, yet it
cannot fairly be said that such results are an evidence of failure. The prison
is unquestionably a much less effective weapon for dealing with crime
among Continental peoples, and in the United States, than it has shown
itself to be in Great Britain; but this failure arises in the main from the
laxity and indulgence with which criminals are treated in foreign prisons. A
prison to possess any reformative value must always be made an
uncomfortable place to live in; Continental peoples and the people of
America have to a large extent lost sight of this fact; hence the failure of
their penal systems to stop the growth of the delinquent population. If,
however, imprisonment is not allowed to degenerate into mere detention, it
is bound to act as a powerful deterrent upon grown-up offenders, and it is
the only menace which will effectually keep many of them within the law.

The hope of reward and the fear of punishment, or, in other words, love of
pleasure, and dread of pain, are the two most deeply seated instincts in the
human breast; if Mr. Darwin's theory be correct, it is through the operation
of these fundamental instincts that such a being as man has come into
existence at all. In any case these instincts have hitherto been the chief
ingredients of all human progress, the most effective spur to energy of all
kinds, and when properly utilised they are the most potent of all deterrents
to crime. Were it possible for the hand of social justice to descend on every
criminal with infallible certainty; were it universally true that no crime
could possibly escape punishment, that every offence against society would
inevitably and immediately be visited on the offender, the tendency to
commit crime would probably become as rare as the tendency of an
ordinary human being to thrust his hand into the fire. The uncertainty of
punishment is the great bulwark of crime, and crime has a marvellous knack
of diminishing in proportion as this uncertainty decreases. No amelioration
of the material circumstances of the community can destroy all the causes
of crime, and till moral progress has reached a height hitherto attained only
by the elect of the race, one of the most efficient curbs upon the criminally
disposed will consist in increasing the probability of punishment.

In proportion as the probability of being punished is augmented, the
severity of punishment can be safely diminished. This is one of the
paramount advantages to be derived from a highly efficient police system.
The barbarity of punishments in the Middle Ages is always attributed by
historians to the barbarous ideas of those rude times. But this is only
partially true; one important consideration is overlooked. In the Middle
Ages it was extremely difficult to catch the criminal; in fact, it is only
within the present century that an organised system for effecting the capture
of criminals has come into existence. The result of the nebulous police
system of past times was that very few offenders were brought to justice at
all, and society, in order to prevent lawlessness from completely getting the
upper hand, was obliged to make a terrible example of all offenders coming
within its grasp. As soon, however, as it became less difficult to arrest and
convict lawless persons, the old severities of the criminal code immediately
began to fall into abeyance. Sentences were shortened, punishments were
mitigated, the death penalty was abolished for almost all crimes except
murder. But even now, the moment society sees any form of crime showing

a tendency to evade the vigilance of the law, a cry is immediately raised for
sterner measures of repression against the perpetrators of that particular
form of crime. The Flogging Bill recently passed by Parliament is a case in
point. These instances afford a fairly accurate insight into the action of
society with regard to the punishment of crime. It punishes severely when
the criminal is seldom caught; it punishes more lightly when he is often
caught; and its punishments will become more mitigated still, as soon as the
probability of capture is made more complete. A comparatively light
sentence is in most cases a very effective deterrent, when it is made almost
a certainty, and all alterations in the future in criminal administration should
be in the direction of making punishment more certain rather than more
severe. Such efforts are sure to be rewarded by a decrease in the amount of
crime.

CHAPTER VII.

THE CRIMINAL IN BODY AND MIND.
Has the criminal any bodily and mental characteristics which
differentiate him from the ordinary man? Does he differ from his fellows in
height and weight? Does he possess a peculiar conformation of skull and
brain? Is he anomalous in face and feature, in intellect, in will, in feeling? Is
he, in short, an individual separated from the rest of humanity by any set or
combination of qualities which clearly mark him off as an abnormal being?
As these matters are at present exciting considerable attention, let us now
look at the criminal from a purely biological point of view.

A good deal of diversity of opinion exists among competent authorities
respecting the stature of criminals. Lombroso says that Italian criminals are
above the average height; Knecht says German criminals do not differ in
this respect from other men; Marro says the stature of criminals is variable;
Thomson and Wilson say that criminals are inferior in point of stature to the
average man. Whatever may be the case on the Continent, there can be little
doubt that as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the height of the
criminal class is lower than that of the ordinary citizen. In Scotland the
average height of the ordinary population is (559) 67.30 inches; the average
height of the criminal population, as given by Dr. Bruce Thomson, is (324)
66.95 inches. According to Dr. Beddoe, the average height of the London
artizan population is (318) 66.72 inches; the average height of the London
criminal (300) 54.70 inches; the average height of Liverpool criminals,
according to Danson, is (1117) 66.39 inches. Danson's figures point to the
fact that there is hardly any difference in height between the criminal
classes of Liverpool and the artizan population of London It has, however,
to be borne in mind that the population of the North of England, being
largely of Scandinavian descent, is taller than the population of the South of
England. The height of Liverpool criminals should be compared with the
average height of the Scotch, to whom they are more nearly allied by race.
If this is done, it will be seen that they fall considerably short of the normal
stature.

The difference between the height of the criminal population and that of
the most favoured classes is more remarkable still. According to Dr.
Roberts' tables, the average height of the latter is 69.06 inches; the London

criminal is only 64.70 inches. There is thus a difference of from four to five
inches between the most highly favoured classes and the London criminal
class. The difference between the criminal class and the merely well-to-do
is not quite so great. Selecting Mr. Galton's Health Exhibition
measurements as a test of the stature of the well-to-do classes, the results
come out as follows:—Health Exhibition measurements, 67.9 inches;
London criminals, 64.70 inches. The criminal is thus between two and three
inches inferior in height to the well-to-do portion of the community. In fact,
the height of the London criminal is very nearly the same as that of the
East-End Jew. According to Mr. Jacobs, in a paper communicated to the
Journal of the Anthropological Institute, the average stature of the East-End
Jew is 64.3 inches; his co-religionist in the West-End is 67.5 inches. We
may accordingly take it as the outcome of these measurements that the
criminal population of Great Britain is inferior in point of stature to the
ordinary population.

From stature we shall pass to weight. Lombroso and Marro say that the
weight of Italian criminals is superior to the weight of the average Italian
citizen. On the other hand, the weight of London criminals is almost the
same as that of London artizans, but inferior to the weight of the artizan
population in the large English towns taken as a whole. Average weight of
London criminals (300) 136 pounds; average weight of London artizan
(318) 137 pounds; average weight of artizans in large towns generally, 138
pounds. The London criminal is considerably inferior in weight to the well-
to-do classes, as will be seen from Mr. Galton's Health Exhibition statistics.
Average weight, Health Exhibition, 143 pounds; average weight, most
favoured class (Roberts), 152 pounds. These figures show that the criminal
class in London is seven pounds lighter than the well-to-do, and sixteen
pounds lighter than the most favoured section of the population.

Hardly any investigations have been made in this country respecting the
skulls of criminals, and the inquiries of continental investigators have so far
led to very conflicting results. It is a contention of Lombroso's that the
skulls of criminals exhibit a larger proportion of asymmetrical peculiarities
than the skulls of other men. On this point Lombroso is supported by
Manouvrier. But Topinard, an anthropologist of great eminence, is of the
opposite opinion. He carefully examined the same series of skulls as been

examined by Manouvrier—the skulls of murders—and he discovered no
marked difference between these and other skulls. Heger, a Belgian
anthropologist says that the skulls of delinquents do not differ from the
skulls of the race to which the delinquent belongs. In fact, till more
exactitude is introduced into the methods of skull measurement, all
deduction based upon an examination of the criminal skull must be
regarded as untrustworthy. A striking instance of this was witnessed at the
proceedings of the Paris Congress of Criminal Anthropology held in 1889.
When the skull of Charlotte Corday, who killed the revolutionist Marat, was
subjected to examination, Lombroso declared that it was a truly criminal
type of skull; Topinard, on the other hand, gave it as his opinion that it was
a typical female skull. On this point Topinard was supported by Benedict.
[34] As long as such divergencies of view exist among anthropologists it is

impossible to place much stress upon inquiries relative to the conformation
of the criminal skull. Before a beginning can be made with inquiries of this
character, there must be some fundamental basis of agreement among
investigators as to what is to be accounted asymmetrical in skull
measurements and what is not. Even then it will have to be remembered,
before coming to conclusions, that no skull is perfectly symmetrical—every
one showing some variation from the ideal type. When the extent of this
variation has been absolutely demonstrated to be greater in the case of
criminals than among other sections of the community, we shall then be
approaching solid ground. At present we must wait for further light before
anything can be said with certainty with respect to the criminal skull.

Just as little is known at present about the brain of criminals as about the
skull. Some years ago Professor Benedict startled the world by stating that
he had discovered the seat of crime in the convolutions of the brain. He
found a certain number of anomalies in the convolutions of the frontal
lobes, and he came to the conclusion that crime was connected with the
existence of these anomalies. But he had omitted to examine the frontal
convolutions of honest people. When this was done by other investigators,
it was found that the brain convolutions of normal men presented just as
many anomalies, some investigators (Dr. Giacomini) said even more than
the brains of criminals. According to Dr. Bardeleben, there is no such thing
as a normal type of brain. Weight of brain is a much simpler question than
brain type, but so far it is impossible to say whether the criminal brain is

heavier or lighter than the ordinary brain. The solution of this comparatively
simple point is beset by a certain number of obstacles. It is not enough, Dr.
Binswanger tells us, to weigh the brains of criminals and the brains of
ordinary persons and then strike an average of the results. The height and
weight of the persons whose brains are averaged are essential to the
formation of accurate conclusions; till these important factors are taken into
account, all deductions based upon weight of brain only rest upon an unsure
foundation.

But supposing we had a trustworthy body of facts bearing upon the
weight and structure of the criminal brain, we should still require to know
much more of brain functions in general before satisfactory conclusions
could be drawn from these facts. We know something, it is true, of the
physiological functions at certain cerebral regions, but as yet nothing is
known of the localisation of any particular mental faculty, whether criminal
or otherwise. A conclusive proof that the study of the brain, as an organ of
thought, is still in its infancy, is found in the fact that the fundamental
question is still unsolved, whether the whole brain is to be considered one
in all its parts, so far as the performance of psychic functions is concerned,
or whether these functions are localised in certain definite centres. Till these
fundamental difficulties are cleared away, the presence of anomalies in
certain convolutions of the brain will not prove very much one way or the
other.[35]

An examination of the criminal face has so far led to no definite and
assured results. In the imagination of artists the criminal is almost always
credited with the possession of a retreating forehead. As a matter of fact, Dr.
Marro, one of the most eminent representatives of the anthropological
school, assures us that this is not the case. After comparing the foreheads of
539 delinquents with the foreheads of 100 ordinary men, he found that
criminals had a smaller percentage of retreating foreheads than the average
man.[36] He also found that projecting eyebrows, another trait which is
supposed to be a criminal peculiarity, were almost as common among
ordinary people as among offenders against the law. Projecting ears is
another peculiarity which is often associated with the idea of a criminal. But
Dr. Lannois states that after a careful examination of the ears of 43 young

offenders, he found them as free from anomalies as the ears of other people.
[37]

As it is the Italians who have studied these matters most exhaustively, it
is mainly to them we must go for information. In a little book on the
skeleton and the form of the nose, Dr. Salvator Ottolenghi comes to the
somewhat curious result that the bones of the criminal nose offer many
anomalies of a pre-human or bestial character; but the nose itself is straight
and long, or, in other words, just as highly developed as the noses of
ordinary men. Careful inquiries have been undertaken by criminal
anthropologists into the colour of the hair, the length of the arms, the colour
of the skin, tattooing, sensitiveness to pain among the criminal population,
but these laborious investigations have so far led to few solid conclusions.
According to Lombroso, insensibility to pain is a marked characteristic of
the typical criminal.[38] "Individuals," he says, "who possess this quality
consider themselves as privileged, and they despise delicate and sensitive
persons. It is a pleasure to such hardened men to torment others whom they
look upon as inferior beings." On this point M. Joly is at variance with
Lombroso. "I asked," he says, "at the central hospital, the Santé, where all
persons who become seriously ill in the prisons of the Seine are looked
after, if this disvulnerability had ever been noticed. I was told that far from
that, prisoners were always found very sensitive to pain ... Honest people,
industrious workmen, the fathers of families treated at the Charité or the
Hôtel-Dieu (Paris hospitals), undergo operations with much more fortitude
than the sick prisoners of the Santé."[39] On this point, therefore, as on so
many others, we are still without a sufficient body of evidence, and must,
meanwhile, suspend our judgment.

Let us now consider the criminal's physiognomy. In this connection it
must be borne in mind that a prolonged period of imprisonment will change
the face of any man, whether he is a criminal or not. Political offenders who
have undergone a sentence of penal servitude, and who may be men of the
highest character, acquire the prison look and never altogether get rid of it.
If a man spends a certain number of years sharing the life, the food, the
occupations of five or six hundred other men, if he mixes with them and
with no one else, he will inevitably come to resemble them in face and
feature. A remarkable illustration of this fact has recently been brought to

light by the Photographic Society of Geneva. "From photographs of
seventy-eight old couples, and of as many adult brothers and sisters, it was
found that twenty-four of the former resembled each other much more
strongly than as many of the latter who were thought most like one
another."[40] It would, therefore, seem that the action of unconscious
imitation, arising from constant contact, is capable of producing a
remarkable change in the features, the acquired expression frequently
tending to obliterate inherited family resemblances. According to Piderit,
physiognomy is to be considered as a mimetic expression which has
become habitual. The criminal type of face, so conspicuous in old
offenders, is in many cases merely a prison type; it is not congenital; men
who do not originally have it almost always acquire it after a prolonged
period of penal servitude.

But apart from the prison type of countenance, it is highly probable that
a distinct criminal type also exists. Certain professions generate distinctive
castes of feature, as, for instance, the Army and the Church. This
distinctiveness is not confined to features alone, it diffuses itself over the
whole man; it is observable in manner, in gesture, in bearing, in demeanour,
and is constantly breaking out in a variety of unexpected ways. In like
manner the habitual criminal acquires the habits of his class. Crime is his
profession; it is also the profession of all his associates. The constant
practice of this profession results in the acquisition of a certain demeanour,
a certain aspect, gait, and general appearance, in many instances too subtle
to define, but, at the same time, plain and palpable to an expert.

The slang of criminals is also explicable on the same principle. Every
trade and calling has its technical terms. The meaning of these terms is
hidden from the rest of the world, but the origin of their existence is not
difficult to explain. The jargon of the criminal arises from the same causes
and is constructed on exactly the same principles as the technical words and
phrases of the man of science. When a man of science is compelled to make
frequent use of a phrase, he generally gets rid of it by inventing some
technical word; it is precisely the same with criminals. With them technical
words are used instead of phrases, and short words instead of long ones in
all matters where criminal interests are intimately concerned, and on all
topics which are habitually the subjects of conversation among the criminal

classes. The language of the Stock Exchange with its Bulls, Bears,
Contangos, and other short and comprehensive expressions for various
kinds of stocks, is on all fours with the slang of criminals, and it is not
necessary to resort to atavism in order to explain it. It arises to supply
professional needs, and criminal argot springs up from exactly the same
cause.

Summing up our inquiries respecting the criminal type we arrive, in the
first place, at the general conclusion, that so far as it has a real existence it
is not born with a man, but originates either in the prison, and is then
merely a prison type, or in criminal habits of life, and is then a truly
criminal type. As a matter of fact, the two types are in most cases blended
together, the prison type with its hard, impassive rigidity of feature being
superadded to the gait, gesture and demeanour of the habitual criminal. In
combination these two types form a professional type and constitute what
Dr. Bruce Thomson[41] has called "a physique distinctly characteristic of the
criminal class." It is not, however, a type which admits of accurate
description, and its practical utility is impaired by the fact that certain of its
features are sometimes visible in men who have never been convicted of
crime. The position of the case, with respect to the criminal type, may be
best described by saying that an experienced detective officer will be sure in
nine cases out of ten that he has got hold of a criminal by profession, but in
the tenth case he will probably make a mistake. In other words, face,
manner and demeanor are no infallible index of character or habits of life.

When crime is not an inherited taint, but merely an acquired habit, this
fact has an important practical bearing upon the proper method of dealing
with it. Acquired habits, we are now being taught by Professor Weismann,
are incapable of being transmitted to posterity, and Mr. Galton is of the
same opinion.[42] This is not the place to elaborate the theory of inheritance,
as understood by those writers; its essence, however, is that we only inherit
the natural faculties of our forebears, and not those faculties which they
have acquired by practice and experience. The son of a rope-dancer does
not inherit his father's faculties for rope-dancing, nor the son of an orator
his father's ready aptitude for public speech, nor the son of a designer his
father's acquired skill in the making of designs. All that the son inherits is
the natural faculties of the parent, but no more. Hence it follows that the son

of a thief, on the supposition that thieving comes by habit and practice, does
not by natural inheritance acquire the parent's criminal propensity. As far as
his natural faculties are concerned he starts life free from the vicious habits
of his parent, and should he in turn become a thief, as sometimes happens, it
is not because he has inherited his father's thievish habits, but because he
has himself acquired them. It is imitation, not instinct, which transforms
him into a thief; and if he is removed from the influence of evil example he
will have almost as small a chance of falling into a criminal life as any other
member of the community. It will not be quite so small, because no public
institution, however well conducted, can ever exercise so moralising an
effect as a good home, but it will be much smaller than if he grew up to
maturity under the pernicious surroundings of a criminal home.

If we do not inherit the acquired faculties and habits of our parents, it is
unfortunately too true that we inherit their diseases and the connection
between disease and crime is a fact which cannot be denied. In many cases
it is perfectly true that persons suffering from disease or physical
degeneracy do not become criminals, in most cases they do not; at the same
time a larger proportion of such persons fall into a lawless life than is the
case with people who are free from inherited infirmities. The undoubted
tendency of physical infirmity is to disturb the temper, to weaken the will,
and generally to disorganise the mental equilibrium. Such a tendency, when
it becomes very pronounced, leads its unhappy possessor to perpetrate
offenses against his fellow-men, or, in other words, to commit crime. In a
recent communication to a German periodical, Herr Sichart, director of
prisons in the kingdom of Wurtemburg, has shown that a very high
percentage of criminals are the descendants of degenerate parents. Herr
Sichart's inquiries extended over several years and included 1,714 prisoners.
Of this number 16 per cent. were descended from drunken parents; 6 per
cent. from families in which there was madness; 4 per cent. from families
addicted to suicide; 1 per cent. from families in which there was epilepsy. In
all, 27 per cent. of the offenders, examined by Herr Sichart were descended
from families in which there was degeneracy. According to these figures
more than one fourth of the German prison population have received a
defective organisation from their ancestry, which manifests itself in a life of
crime.

In France and Italy the same state of things prevails. Dr. Corre is of
opinion that a very large proportion of persons convicted of bad conduct in
the French military service are distinctly degenerate either in body or mind.
Dr. Virgilio says that in Italy 32 per cent. of the criminal population have
inherited criminal tendencies from their parents. In England there is no
direct means of testing the amount of degeneracy among the criminal
classes, but, in all likelihood, it is quite as great as elsewhere. According to
the report of the Medical Inspector of convict prisons for 1888-9, the annual
number of deaths from natural causes, among the convict population, is
from 10 to 12 per 1000. Let us compare those figures with the death rate of
the general population as recorded in the Registrar-General's report for
1888. The annual death rate from all causes of the general population,
between the ages of 15 and 45, is about 7 per 1000. I have selected the
period of life between 15 and 45 for the reason that it corresponds most
closely with the average age of criminals. If deaths from accident are
excluded from the mortality returns of the general population, it will be
found that the rate of mortality among criminals, in convict prisons, is from
one third to one half higher than the rate of mortality among the rest of the
community of a similar age. If the rate of mortality of the criminal
population is so high inside convict prisons, where the health of the inmates
is so carefully attended to, what must it be among the criminal classes when
in a state of liberty? Independently of the premature deaths brought on by
irregularity of life, it is certain that a high proportion of criminals bear
within them the seeds of inherited disorders, and it is these disorders which
largely account for the high rate of mortality amongst them when in prison.

The high percentage of disease and degeneracy among the English
criminal population may be seen in other ways. The population in the local
gaols in 1888-9, between the ages of 21 and 40, constituted 54 per cent. of
the total prison population, whilst the same class between the ages of 40
and CO formed only 20 per cent. of the prison population. One half of this
drop in the percentage of prisoners between 40 and 60 may be accounted
for by the decreased percentage of persons between these two ages in the
general population. The other half can only be accounted for by the extent
to which premature decay and death rage among criminals who have passed
their fortieth year. In other words, the number of criminals alive after forty
is much smaller than the number of normal men alive after that age.

A direct proof of the extent of degeneracy in the shape of insanity
among persons convicted of murder can be found in the Judicial Statistics.
The number of persons convicted of wilful murder, not including
manslaughter or non-capital homicides, from 1879 to 1888 amounted to
441. Out of this total 143 or 32 per cent. were found insane. Of the 299
condemned to death, no less than 145, or nearly one half, had their
sentences commuted, many of them on the ground of mental infirmity. The
whole of these figures decisively prove that between 40 and 50 per cent. of
the convictions for wilful murder are cases in which the murderers were
either insane or mentally infirm. Murder cases are almost the only ones
respecting which the antecedents of the offender are seriously inquired into.
But when this inquiry does take place the vast amount of degeneracy among
criminals at once becomes apparent.

Passing from the mental condition of murderers, let us now take into
consideration the mental state of criminals generally. Beginning with the
senses, it may be said that very little stress can be laid on the experiments
conducted by the Anthropological School as to peculiarities in the sense of
smell, taste, sight, and so on, discovered among criminals. In all these
inquiries it is so easy for the subject to deceive the investigator, and he has
often so direct an interest in doing it that all results in this department must
be accepted with the utmost caution. Wherever investigations necessitate
the acceptance upon trust of statements made by criminals, their scientific
value descends to the lowest level. As this must be largely the case with
respect to the senses of hearing, taste, smell, etc., it is almost impossible to
reach assured conclusions.

It is different in inquiries respecting the intellect. Here the investigator is
able to judge for himself. According to Dr. Ogle, 86.5 per cent. of the
general population were able to read and write in the years 1881-4, and as
this represents an increase of 10 per cent. since the passing of the
Elementary Education Act, it is probably not far from the mark to say that at
the present time almost 90 per cent. of the English population can read and
write. In other words, only 10 per cent. of the population is wholly ignorant.
In the local prisons on the other hand, no less than 25 per cent. of the
prisoners can neither read nor write, and 72 per cent. can only read or read
and write imperfectly. The vast difference in the proportion of uninstructed

among the prison, as compared with the general population, is not to be
explained by the defective early training of the former. This explanation
only covers a portion of the ground: the other portion is covered by the fact
that a certain number of criminals are almost incapable of acquiring
instruction. The memory and the reasoning powers of such persons are so
utterly feeble that attempts to school them is a waste of time.[43]
Deficiencies in memory, imagination, reason, are three undoubted
characteristics of the ordinary criminal intellect. Of course, there are very
many criminals in which all these qualities are present, and whose defects
lie in another direction, but taken as a whole the criminal is unquestionably
less gifted intellectually than the rest of the community.

Respecting the emotions of criminals, it is much more difficult to speak,
and much more easy to fall into error. The only thing that can be said of
them for certain, is, that they do not, as a rule, possess the same keenness of
feeling as the ordinary man. Some Italian writers make much of the
religiosity of delinquents; such a sentiment may be common among
offenders in Italy; it is certainly rare among the same class in Great Britain.
The cellular system puts an effective stop to any thing like active hostility
to religion; but it is a mistake to argue from this that the criminal is addicted
to the exercise of religious sentiments. The family sentiment is also feebly
developed; the exceptions to this rule form a small fraction of the criminal
population.

The will in criminals, when it is not impaired by disease, is, in the main,
dominated by a boundless egoism. Let us first consider those whose wills
are impaired by disease. Among drunkards and the degenerate generally the
power of sustained volition is often as good as gone. Nothing can be more
pitiful or hopeless than the position of wretched beings in a condition such
as this. Often animated by good resolutions, often anxious to do what is
right, often possessing a sense of moral responsibility, these unhappy
creatures plunge again and again into vice and crime. In some cases of this
description the will is practically annihilated; in others it is under the
dominion of momentary caprice; in others again it has no power of
concentration, or it is the victim of sudden hurricanes of feeling which drive
everything before them. Persons afflicted in this way, when not drunkards,
are generally convicted for crimes of violence, such as assault,

manslaughter, murder. They experience real sentiments of remorse, but
neither remorse nor penitence enables them to grapple with their evil star.
The will is stricken with disease, and the man is dashed hither and thither, a
helpless wreck on the sea of life.[44]

Let us now consider the class of criminals whose wills are not diseased,
but are, on the other hand, dominated by a boundless egoism. Of such
criminals it may be said that there is no essential difference between them
and immoral men. Egoism, selfishness, a lack of consideration for the rights
and feelings of others, are the dominant principles in the life of both. The
dividing line between the two types consists in this, that the egoism of the
immoral man is bounded by the criminal law; but the egoism of the criminal
is bounded by no law either without him or within. It does not follow from
this that the criminal is without a sense of duty or a dread of legal
punishment. In most cases he possesses both in a more or less developed
form. But his immense egoism so completely overpowers both his sense of
duty and his fear of punishment that it demands gratification at whatever
cost. He sees what he ought to do; he knows how he ought to act; he is
perfectly alive to the consequences of transgression, but these motives are
not strong enough to induce him to alter his ways of life.

On summing up the results of this inquiry into criminal biology we
arrive at the following conclusions. In the first place, it cannot be proved
that the criminal has any distinct physical conformation, whether
anatomical or morphological; and, in the second place, it cannot be proved
that there is any inevitable alliance between anomalies of physical structure
and a criminal mode of life. But it can be shown that criminals, taken as a
whole, exhibit a higher proportion of physical anomalies, and a higher
percentage of physical degeneracy than the rest of the community. With
respect to the mental condition of criminals, it cannot be established that it
is, on the whole, a condition of insanity, or even verging on insanity. But it
can be established that the bulk of the criminal classes are of a humbly
developed mental organisation. Whether we call this low state of mental
development, atavism, or degeneracy is, to a large extent, a matter of words;
the fact of its wide-spread existence among criminals is the important point.

The results of this inquiry also show that degeneracy among criminals is
sometimes inherited and sometimes acquired. It is inherited when the
criminal is descended from insane, drunken, epileptic, scrofulous parents; it
is often acquired when the criminal adopts and deliberately persists in a life
of crime. The closeness of the connection between degeneracy and crime is,
to a considerable extent, determined by social conditions. A degenerate
person, who has to earn his own livelihood, is much more likely to become
a criminal than another degenerate person who has not. Almost all forms of
degeneracy render a man more or less unsuited for the common work of
life; it is not easy for such a man to obtain employment; in certain forms of
degeneracy it becomes almost impossible. A person in this unfortunate
position often becomes a criminal, not because he has strong anti-social
instincts, but because he cannot get work. Physically, he is unfit for work,
and he takes to crime as an alternative.

Another important result is the close connection between madness and
crimes of blood. We have seen that almost one third of the cases of
conviction for wilful murder are cases in which the murderer is found to be
insane. And this does not represent the full proportion of murderers afflicted
mentally; a considerable percentage of those sentenced to death have this
sentence commuted on mental grounds. In Germany, from 26 to 28 per cent.
of criminals suffering from mental weakness escape the observation of the
court in this important particular, and the same state of things
unquestionably exists in the United Kingdom. The actual percentage of
criminals who suffer from mental disorders in the prisons of Europe is
probably much greater than is generally supposed. At the present time a
knowledge of insanity is no part of the ordinary medical curriculum. "With
respect to this malady the great majority of medical men are themselves in
the position of laymen. They have not studied it. It was not included in their
examinations."[45] Till this state of things is altered we shall never exactly
know the intimacy of the connection between nervous disorders and crime.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIME.
In a previous chapter the deterrent action of punishment on the criminal
population has been pointed out. It now remains for us to consider the
nature of punishment, and the methods by which punishment should be
carried out. What is punishment as applied to crime? According to Kant it is
an act of retribution; it consists in inflicting upon the criminal the same
injury as he has inflicted on his victim. It is an application by society of the
principle of "jus talionis." Such a definition of punishment does not
harmonise with the facts. We cannot punish the slanderer by slandering him
in turn; and in punishing the murderer, it is impossible to torture him in the
same way as he has probably tortured his victim. According to the theory of
retribution, punishment becomes an end in itself; it is quite unrelated to the
benefits it may confer on the person who is punished, or on the community
which punishes him.

The difficulties surrounding the theory of retribution have led to other
definitions of punishment. Punishment, it is said, is not inflicted on the
offender as a retribution for his misdeeds, it is inflicted for the purpose of
protecting society against its enemies. Such a view leaves moral
considerations entirely out of account; it leaves no room for the just
indignation of the public at the spectacle of crime. It is defective in other
ways. For instance, a criminal has a particular animosity against some
single individual; it may be he murders this person, or does him grievous
bodily harm. Such an offender has no similar animosity against any one
else; as far as the rest of the community is concerned he is perfectly
harmless. On the supposition that punishment is only intended to protect
society against the criminal, a man of this description would escape
punishment altogether. Or supposing a man (and this often happens), after
committing some serious crime for which he is sent to penal servitude,
sincerely and bitterly repented of it, and would be, if released, a perfectly
harmless member of the community, such a man, according to the theory
we are now discussing, should be released at once. The certainty that the
public conscience would tolerate no such step shows that punishment has a
wider object than the mere attainment of social security.

Punishment is only a means say some; its real end is the reformation of
the offender. The practical application of such a principle would lead to
very astonishing results. It is perfectly well known that there is no more
incorrigible set of offenders than habitual vagrants and drunkards. And on
the other hand, the most easily reformed of all offenders is often some
person who has committed a serious crime under circumstances which
could not possibly recur. According to the theory that reformation is the
only end of punishment, petty offenders would be shut up all their lives,
while the perpetrator of a grave crime would soon be set free. An absurd
result of this kind is fatal to the pretention that punishment is merely a
means and not also an end.

Is it the end of punishment to act as a deterrent? We are often told from
the judicial bench that a man receives a certain sentence as a warning and
example to others. If such is the end of punishment it lamentably fails in its
purpose, for in a number of cases it neither deters the offender nor the class
from which the offender springs. It was under the influence of this idea that
criminals used to be hanged in public, but experience failed to show that
these ghastly exhibitions had much deterrent effect on the community.
Besides, it is rather ridiculous to say, I do not punish you for the crime you
have committed, I punish you as a warning to others. In these circumstances
the effect of punishment is not to be upon the person punished, but upon a
third party who has not fallen into crime. Unless the punishment is just in
itself, society has no right to inflict it in the hope of scaring others from
criminal courses. Justice administered in this spirit, turns the convicted
offender into a whipping boy; the punishment ceases to be related to the
offence, and is merely related to the effect it will have on a certain circle of
spectators.

In our view, punishment ought to be regarded as at once an expiation
and a discipline, or, in other words, an expiatory discipline. This definition
includes all that is valuable in the theories just reviewed, and excludes all
that is imperfect in them. The criminal is an offender against the
fundamental order of society in somewhat the same way as a disobedient
child is an offender against the centre of authority in the home or the
school. The punishment inflicted on the child may take the form of revenge,
or it may take the form of retribution, or it may take the form of deterrence,

but it undoubtedly takes its highest form when it combines expiation with
discipline. Punishment of this nature still remains punitive as it ought to do,
but it is at the same time a kind of punishment from which something may
be learned. It does not merely consist in inflicting pain, although the
presence of this element is essential to its efficacy; it consists rather in
inflicting pain in such a way as will tend to discipline and reform the
character. Such a conception of punishment excludes the barbarous element
of vengeance; it is based upon the civilised ideas of justice and humanity, or
rather upon the sentiment of justice alone, for justice is never truly just
except when its tendency is also to humanise.

"Sine caritate justicia
Vindicationi similis."

From the theory of punishment let us now turn to its methods. The most
severe of these is the penalty of death. A great deal has been said and
written both for and against the retention of this form of punishment. To set
forth the arguments on both sides in a fair and adequate manner would
require a volume; it must, therefore, suffice to say that in the field of
controversy the contest between the opposing parties is a fairly even one. In
fact, looking at the matter from a purely polemical point of view, the
advocates of the death penalty have probably the best of it. It has, however,
to be remembered that such questions are not solved by battalions of
abstract arguments, but by the slow, silent, invisible action of public
sentiment. The way in which this impalpable sentiment is moving on the
question of the death penalty may be seen, first, in the manner in which
crime after crime during the present century has been excluded from the
supreme sentence of the law, and secondly, in the steady diminution of
capital executions throughout the civilised world. If the present drift of
feeling continues for another generation or two it is not at all improbable, in
spite of temporary reactions here and there, that the question of capital
punishment will have solved itself.

Another form of punishment is transportation. As far as Great Britain is
concerned, transportation possesses only a historic interest. No one is now
sent out of the country for offences against the law. Experience showed that
penal colonies were a failure, and that the truly criminal could be more

effectively dealt with at home. Within recent years the French have resorted
to the system of transportation; but, according to several eminent French
authorities, the penal settlement in New Caledonia is hardly justifying the
anticipations of its founders.

Penal servitude has taken the place of transportation in Great Britain.
Every person sentenced to a term of five years and over undergoes what is
called penal servitude. The sentence is divided into three stages. In the first
stage the offender passes nine months of his sentence in one of the local
prisons in solitary confinement. In the next stage he is allowed to work in
association with other prisoners; and in the last stage he is conditionally
released before his sentence has actually expired. If a prisoner conducts
himself well, if he shows that he is industrious, he will be released at the
expiration of about three fourths of his sentence. If, on the other hand, he is
idle and ill-conducted, he will have to serve the full term.

During the first nine months of his confinement the convict sentenced to
penal servitude is treated in exactly the same way as a person sentenced to a
month's imprisonment; the only difference being that he is provided with
better food. During the period of detention in a Public Work's Prison the
convict may, if well-conducted, pass through five progressive stages; each
of these stages confers some privileges which the one below it does not
possess. The first stage of all is called the Probation Class. In this, as well as
in every succeeding class, a man's industry is measured by a process called
the Mark system. This system is somewhat similar to the method adopted
for rewarding industry in our public schools. In those schools a boy's
diligence is recognised by his receiving so many marks per day, and he
would be an ideal pupil who received the maximum number of marks. In
convict prisons, on the other hand, the maximum number of marks, which is
eight per day, can easily be earned by any person willing to do an average
day's work. If a convict earns the maximum number of marks per day for
three months he is promoted at the end of that time out of the Probation
Class into a higher stage called the Third Class. He must remain in the third
class for at least a year; while in this class he is permitted to receive a visit
and to write and receive a letter every six months. He is also rewarded at
the rate of a penny for every 20 marks, which enables him to earn twelve
shillings in the course of the year.

After the expiration of one year in the Third Class the prisoner, if he has
regularly earned eight marks a day, is advanced to the Second Class. In this
stage he can receive a visit and write and receive a letter every four months.
He is allowed a little choice in the selection of his breakfast; the value
attached to his marks is also increased, and he is able in the Second Class to
earn 18 shillings a year. At the termination of a year, if a prisoner continues
his habits of industry, he is promoted to the First Class. Persons whose
education is defective are not permitted to enter the First Class, unless they
have also made progress in schooling. In the First Class a man is allowed to
receive a visit and to write and receive a letter every three months. He is
also given additional privileges in the choice of food. In the First Class he
can earn 30 shillings a year.

Above the First Class is a Special Class composed of men whose
conduct has been specially exemplary. Men may be admitted into this class
12 months before their liberation; they may also be placed in positions of
trust and responsibility in connection with the prison, and are able to earn a
gratuity amounting to six pounds. Such men are, as a matter of course,
liberated at the expiration of three fourths of their sentence, which means
that a term of five years' penal servitude is reduced to somewhat under four
years.

For female convicts all these rules are modified and mitigated. Isolation
is not so strictly enforced; a female may be liberated at the expiration of
two thirds of her sentence; she may also earn four pounds instead of three,
which is the highest sum men can receive, except the limited number in the
Special Class. Corresponding to the Special Class of male convicts, there is
among the females what is called a Refuge Class. Well-conducted women
undergoing their first term of penal servitude are placed in this class, and
nine months before the date on which they are due for discharge on
ordinary licence, that is to say, nine months before they have finished two
thirds of their sentence, they are released from prison and placed in some
Home for females. Two Homes which receive prisoners of this class are the
Elizabeth Fry Refuge and the London Preventive and Reformatory
Institution. These Homes receive ten shillings a week for the care of each
inmate confided to them by the State, and the time spent there is used as a
gradual course of preparation for the re-entrance of these unfortunate

people into ordinary life. According to this method females, after a
prolonged period of imprisonment, are not thrown all of a sudden upon the
world; they re-enter it by slow and imperceptible stages, and are thus
enabled to commence life afresh under hopeful and salutary conditions.

Male convicts on their release from penal servitude are, if they desire it,
assisted to obtain employment by Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies. The
way in which assistance is rendered by the Royal Society, Charing Cross,
which may be considered as a type of most of these societies, is as follows:
—

"The convicts on their discharge are accompanied to the office of the
Society by a warder in plain clothes. They are there received by the
Secretary and the member of the Committee who, according to a fixed rota,
attends daily for this purpose. The first step is to give them a plentiful
breakfast of white bread, bacon and hot coffee. When this is finished they
are invited to come forward and state their hopes and intentions as to the
future. Full particulars of the nature of the crime, the sentence, and the
antecedents of the convict have been previously received from the prison,
and this information is, of course, of the greatest value as a guide to dealing
with the particular case. After friendly discussion with the convict at one or
more interviews, and further inquiry, if need be, by the officers of the
Society, the course to be taken in each case is decided upon and carried out
as soon as possible, either by the officers of the Society or through other
agency. In cases of emigration and other cases where it is advisable, the
gratuities received from Government are supplemented by donations from
the funds of the Society; and, if not already supplied by the prison
authorities, a respectable suit of clothes of a character fitted for the work on
which the recipient is to be employed is provided.

"The cases of men or women who elect to remain in or near the
Metropolis are usually dealt with directly by members of the Committee
and officers of the Society; others prefer to seek work for themselves; but,
meanwhile, respectable lodgings are provided till work is obtained. Others
who prefer a sea life are sent to the care of agents until ships can be found
for them—a few selected cases are sent abroad." In the case of persons
proceeding to seek work at a distance from London, the Royal Society

communicates with Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies in the country, and
these Societies take such cases in hand.

Another admirable Society for dealing with discharged convicts is the St
Giles' Mission, Brook St. Holborn. This Society provides a home for the
person whose sentence has expired; it is managed by a man (Mr. Wheatley)
possessed of an unsurpassed knowledge of the work; and it is year by year
rendering effective service to the convict population. Some idea of the work
accomplished by Societies such as those just mentioned may be gathered
from the fact that about two thirds of the discharged convicts are annually
passing through their hands; the other third declining or not requiring
assistance by such methods. What is wanted to perfect the working of the
institutions we are now describing is increased public support; even now the
Royal Society was able to state in one of its reports, "that no discharged
convict, who is physically capable and willing to work, has any excuse for
relapsing into crime."

This brief sketch of the manner in which a sentence of penal servitude is
carried into effect will afford some idea of the nature of this method of
punishment. We shall now proceed to describe another mode of dealing
with offenders against the fundamental order of society. In addition to
convict establishments there exists throughout the United Kingdom a large
number of places of confinement called Local Prisons. In England and
Wales there are about sixty Local Prisons; in Scotland there are about
twenty; in Ireland there are about eighteen. In Scotland and Ireland persons
sentenced to a few days' imprisonment are often confined in police cells, in
England all convicted offenders serve their sentence, however short, in a
regular Local Prison.

Before 1877 the Local Prisons of England and Scotland were under the
control and administration of the County Magistrates, and almost every
county had then its own prison. One of the chief defects of this system was
the multiplication of prisons; one of its chief virtues was that local power
kept alive local interest in a way which is impossible with highly
centralised machinery. Where prisons are small and numerous, as was to
some extent the case under the old system, it is difficult to conduct them so
economically; on the other hand, the herding of great masses of criminals

together in huge establishments is not without corresponding evils. It is now
being pointed out by specialists on the Continent and in America that huge
prisons destroy the individuality of the prisoner; his own personality is lost
amid the hundreds who surround him; he sinks into the position of a mere
unit, and is obliged to be treated as such by the officials in charge of him.
Under such a system it becomes almost impossible to individualise
prisoners; there is no time for it; as a result, the influence of reformative
agencies descends to a minimum and only the punitive side of justice comes
home to the offender. At one time the value of Reformatory Schools was
seriously impaired by herding too many lads together under one roof; it is
now seen that the success of these institutions is marred by making them
too large; it is accepted as an established maxim that the smaller the school
the better the results. The same principle holds true with respect to prisons.

When the County Magistrates were deprived of their powers by the last
government of Lord Beaconsfield, these powers were in England vested in
the Home Secretary; in Scotland they were latterly vested in the Secretary
for Scotland; in Ireland they are vested in the Chief Secretary. Under each
of these Parliamentary heads there is a body called the Prison
Commissioners or Prison Board. These Commissioners are centred in
London for England; in Edinburgh for Scotland; in Dublin for Ireland.
Under them is a body of Prison Inspectors, and last of all there comes the
actual working staff of the Local Prisons, consisting of warders,
schoolmasters, clerks, governors, chaplains, and doctors.

Wherein does the Local Prison system as worked by this staff differ
from the system in operation in convict prisons? Perhaps the difference will
be best expressed by saying that work in association is the centre of the
convict system, while work in solitude is the central idea of the Local
Prison system. This definition is not absolutely correct, for convicts, as we
have seen, are subjected to nine months' solitary confinement at the outset
of their sentence, and in some Local Prisons a certain amount of work in
common is performed, but, taken as a whole, work in common is the central
principle of the one; work in solitude the central principle of the other.

Work in solitude means that the prisoner is shut up in an apartment by
himself which is called his cell. Each cell is provided with an adequate

supply of air and light, and is heated in the winter up to a sufficiently high
temperature for health and comfort. The cell contains a bed and other
personal requisites; it also contains a copy of the prison rules. Before the
prisoner is finally allocated to a certain cell he is seen by all the superior
officers of the prison. His state of health is inquired into, so as to determine
the nature of his work, and if he is not too old to learn, and has received a
sentence of sufficient length to make it worth while instructing him, his
educational capabilities are specially tested. The seclusion of the cell is
varied by a short service in the prison chapel every morning and an hour's
exercise in the forenoon. It is further varied in the case of young boys by
daily attendance at the prison school.

The cellular system is an application of the old monastic system to the
treatment of criminals. The first cellular prison was built in Rome by Pope
Clement XI. at the commencement of the eighteenth century; its design was
taken from a monastery. The idea passed from Rome to the Puritans of
Pennsylvania; and it has now taken root in all parts of the civilised world.
The believers in the cellular system say that it prevents prisoners from
contaminating each other; it prevents the hardened criminal from getting
hold of the comparative novice; according to this system, although the
offender is in a prison, the only persons he is permitted to speak to are those
whose lives are free from crime. A prison system which has the negative
value of hindering men from becoming worse is worthy of high
consideration, and if the chief object of imprisonment is the punishment of
criminals the cellular system will not be easily surpassed. On the other
hand, if the purpose of imprisonment is not only to punish but also to
prepare the offender for the duties of society, the system of solitary
confinement will not effectually accomplish this task. On this point let me
refer to the words of M. Prins, the eminent Director General of Belgian
prisons: "Can we teach a man sociability," he says, "by giving him a cell
only, that is to say, the opposite of social life, by taking away from him the
very appearance of moral discipline; by regulating from morning till night
the smallest details of his day, all his movements and all his thoughts? Is not
this to place him outside the conditions of existence, and to unteach him
that liberty for which we pretend he is being prepared?... Assuredly, let us
not forget that prisons contain incorrigible and corrupt recidivists, the
residuum of large towns who must undoubtedly be isolated from other men;

but they also contain offenders resembling in great part men of their own
class living outside.... If it was a question of making these men good
scholars, good workmen, good soldiers, should we accept the method of
prolonged cellular isolation? And how can that which is condemned by the
experience of ordinary life become useful on the day some tribunal
pronounces a sentence of imprisonment? The physiological and moral
inconveniences of prolonged solitude are evident in other ways; and
attempts are made to combat them by great humanity in external things. So
much is this the case, that for fear of being cruel to the good, the bad are
also pampered by an exaggerated philanthropy which reaches absurd
heights."

A compromise between the absolute seclusion of the cellular system,
and the system of free association, is now being advocated by some
students of prison discipline. Prisoners, it is contended, should be carefully
classified according to their previous character and the nature of their
offence, and also according to the disposition they manifest in prison.
Prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment ranging from three months
to two years should during the first three months remain in solitary
confinement for purposes of observation as to diligence and character. At
the end of that period a man, if he showed fitness for it, would be placed in
association during his working hours, and in his cell during the remainder
of the day. In this way his social instincts would not be so completely stifled
as they are at present; he would not be so entirely left to the vacuity of his
own mind; he would not be so readily led to the indulgence of disgusting
vices ruinous to body and mind. In countries where prisons are on a large
scale such a system as this might easily be adopted, and it would, if
properly managed, be productive of beneficial results. In small prisons it
would be applicable on a limited scale, the smallness of the prison
population preventing proper classification.

But all prison systems, however excellent in theory, are comparatively
useless unless conducted in an enlightened spirit by competent and
sagacious officials. The best of systems if worked, as sometimes happens,
by a mere martinet, with no horizon beyond insisting on the letter of official
regulations, will be productive of no good whatever, and, on the other hand,
an indifferent system will achieve excellent results with a competent person

at the head of it. This was admirably pointed out by the head of the Danish
Prison Department at the Stockholm Prison Congress. "Give me," he said,
"the best possible regulations and a bad director, and you will have no
success. But give me a good director, and, even with mediocre regulations, I
will answer for it that everything will go on marvellously." In a recent
handbook on prison management by Herr Krohne, an eminent prison
director in the German service, the qualifications requisite for successful
prison work are clearly laid down.

The successful management of a prison, he says, "demands special
knowledge and ability. This knowledge should first of all consist in a
comprehensive general education, so that the head of a prison may be able
to form a competent opinion in all those branches of knowledge which bear
upon the punishment of crime. He thus stands on a footing of equality with
his subordinates. If he is deficient in this knowledge he will not be able to
carry out the sentences of the law efficiently, and the maintenance of his
official authority will be encumbered with difficulties. He must also possess
an understanding of the economic and social causes of crime as well as of
its individual causes. An understanding of its economic and social causes
supposes that he should be acquainted with the principles of sociology and
political economy; an understanding of its individual causes supposes that
he should know something of psychology. The historical, philosophic, and
legal aspects of criminal jurisprudence as well as its formal contents ought
not to be unknown ground. In the domain of prison science he should be
thoroughly at home. He ought to be acquainted with the historical
development of punishment by imprisonment, as well as with the nature of
the various prison systems in existence among modern civilised
communities. He ought to have a clear understanding of the aim and object
of imprisonment, and be thoroughly cognisant of the legal and
administrative arrangements by which it is effected, more especially those
of his own State. He should possess a competent knowledge of all matters
and regulations bearing upon prison administration, so that his own
arrangements may be based upon a ripened judgment.

"This knowledge in the head of a prison should show itself in his manner
of dealing with prisoners. This task demands a high degree of pedagogic
skill, and a force of character which is able, easily and quickly, to bend the

will of others to his own. He should also possess the power of setting every
branch of the administration to rights whenever anything happens to have
gone wrong. He must have a quick eye for all that is being done; he must
see everything; he must hear everything; nothing should escape him; and
still he ought to leave independence and initiative to every officer in his
own department. He should respect and bear with the individual
characteristics of every officer, especially the superior officers, so that they
may be able to perform their duties with pleasure. In this way all officers
will be able to do their work in his spirit rather than according to his orders.
In order to succeed in this, the head of a prison should consult with the
other officials on all important matters; a daily conference is best for this
purpose. He should hear and weigh their opinions even when the ultimate
decision rests entirely in his hands. Above all he must understand how to
keep peace among the officials, so that through their harmonious co-
operation the objects of a prison may be more certainly attained.

"A good prison chief," Herr Krohne continues, "is not matured or
educated, but discovered. On this account, the selection of persons ought
not to be narrowed down to any definite class or profession. Experience has
shown that able prison governors have been drawn from all callings; from
the law, from public offices, from the army, from medicine, from the
Church, from trade, from agriculture, from merchants and manufacturers.
From each of these occupations a man may bring knowledge and ability
which makes him suitable for the position. His preparatory studies will
teach him much, but he will learn most from actual practice, and he will
never finish learning, however experienced he may become. But the root of
the matter which can never be taught is a heart for the miserable; a
determination in spite of failures and disappointments to despair of no man
and nothing."[46]

Italy up to the present time is almost the only country in which prison
officers receive any preliminary training for their duties. As a result of this,
it not infrequently happens, as Mr. Clay has shown, that an inexperienced
person suddenly placed in absolute charge of a number of prisoners will in a
few days destroy almost all the reformative work of months and perhaps
years. The late Baron von Holtzendorff was of a similar opinion, holding
that one man can in a short time undo the work of ten. So much has this

been felt, that Dr. von Jageman and several other eminent prison authorities
on the Continent maintain that no man should be placed in charge of
prisoners till he has had some previous training in the nature of his duties. It
has been truly pointed out that the value of imprisonment depends to an
enormous extent on the qualifications of the person placed in immediate
charge of the convicted men. Others are with them occasionally, he is with
them all day long, and unless he comes to his task with a full knowledge of
the delicate and difficult nature of the duties he has to perform, he will
probably exercise a mischievous and irritating influence on the prisoners
committed to his charge. On the other hand, a well-instructed officer can
work wonders in the way of good, while insisting with inflexible firmness
on the rules of discipline, he is able at the same time by tact and kindliness
to diffuse a moralising atmosphere around him. Some men can do this by
instinct, but the majority require to be taught; it is therefore most essential
that every person entrusted with the control of prisoners should have some
previous theoretical instruction in his duties. After all, those who can do
most real good to prisoners are the warders immediately in charge of them.
Visits from persons outside who take an interest in the outcast and fallen,
are, according to French experience, comparatively worthless.[47] These
visits are well meant, but they are not paid by the class of people to which
the prisoner as a rule belongs; the gulf between the visitor and the visited is
too great for the establishment of that inner sympathy on which the
permanent success of moralising efforts so greatly depends, and it is easy
for such a visitor to do more harm than good. On the other hand, if you
have a competent and well-instructed class of warders, if you have these
men trained to regard their duties from an elevated point of view, you
possess in them a body of men who are not separated from prisoners by
impassable barriers; you have comparatively little in the way of social
antecedents to estrange the prisoner from the person in charge of him: such
being the case it is easy for the two men to understand each other, and is,
therefore a relatively simple matter for the one to influence the other for
good.

What is to be done with offenders when their term of punishment has
expired? This is a question which modern society finds it exceedingly
difficult to solve. What is the use of punishing a delinquent for offences
against the law if, the moment his sentence is completed, he is sent back

again into the surroundings which led to his fall. So long as his
surroundings are the same, his acts will be the same, unless his mind has
passed through a revolution during detention in gaol. The latter event, it
must be admitted, sometimes does happen, although it is not easy in these
days to get the world to believe it. And when it does happen it is marvellous
to see how men, through their own unaided efforts, will redeem their
character and wipe out the blot upon their life. But many offenders pass
through little or no change of mind, and unless delivered from their
surroundings they will continue to fall. Here, however, comes in the
difficulty. Many of these people love their surroundings; they have no
desire to change; a life of squalor among squalid companions is not
distasteful to them; on the contrary, they will refuse to leave old haunts no
matter what inducements are offered them elsewhere. It is hardly possible to
do anything with these offenders, and they unfortunately constitute at least
one fourth of the criminal population. Such persons return again and again
to prisons; and the manager of an important Prisoners' Aid Society in a great
northern city, says, that to aid them "is a mere waste of money, if not an
encouragement to vice."[48] How to deal with persons of this description is a
most tantalising problem. More vigorous methods of punishment are
sometimes advocated as the proper manner of deterring these habitual and
incorrigible offenders, but if we consider the constitution and antecedents of
most of them, it becomes perfectly certain that such means will not effect
the end in view. As a matter of fact, most of them are not adapted to the
conditions of existence which prevail in a free society. Some of them might
have passed through life fairly well in a more primitive stage of social
development, as, for example, in the days of slavery or serfdom, but they
are manifestly out of place in an age of unrestricted freedom, when a man
may work or remain idle just as he chooses. A society based upon the
principle of individual liberty is a society of which the members are
supposed to be gifted with the virtues of prudence, industry, and self-
control; virtues of this nature are indeed essential to the existence of such a
form of society. Unfortunately, a certain portion of its members do not
possess them even in an elementary degree, and no amount of seclusion in
prison will ever confer these qualities upon them. Imprisonment, to be
followed by liberty, however rigorous it is made, is accordingly no solution
of the difficulty; the only effective way of dealing with the incorrigible
vagrant, drunkard, and thief, is by some system of permanent seclusion in a

penal colony. All men are not fitted for freedom, and so long as society acts
on the supposition that they are, it will never get rid of the incorrigible
criminal.

It has also to be remembered that a considerable proportion of
incorrigible offenders are not only mentally but also physically unfitted to
earn their living in a free community. Almost always without a trade, and
very often the children of diseased and degenerate parents, the only kind of
work which they can turn to is rude manual labour, and this is exactly the
kind of work they have not the requisite physical strength to perform. It is
only in skilled trades that the physically weak have a chance at all, and if a
feeble person is not a skilled artisan he will, unless possessed of superior
mental gifts, find it rather a hard matter to earn a comfortable livelihood.
Should it be the case that such a person is below the average in body and
mind, to earn a livelihood becomes almost an impossibility. Now, this is
exactly the position of many habitual criminals, and more especially of that
large class of them which is being continually convicted and reconvicted of
petty offences. What can be said of them, except to repeat that they are unfit
to take a part in working the modern industrial machine; what can be done
with them except to seclude them in such a way that they will be no longer
able to injure those who can work it.

Outside the ranks of the incorrigible and incapable there exists a large
class of offenders who are perfectly able to earn a honest living in the
world. In many cases it happens that such men require no assistance on
their liberation from prison; they can resume work immediately their
sentence has expired. All that is needed is to send them back to the district
they were tried in, and this is what is always done if a man cannot reach his
destination by mid-day on the morning of his liberation. But in a certain
number of cases discharged prisoners require more than this; they require
tools, or clothes, or property redeemed from pledge, or a lodging, or to be
sent a long distance home, or to be emigrated. In each and all of these cases,
persons who are not incorrigible criminals are assisted to the best of their
ability and the extent of their funds by Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies.
One or more of these admirable institutions is attached to every Local
Prison, and every year a vast amount of quiet, conscientious work is
performed. These societies are voluntary agencies formed for the relief of

discharged prisoners. Their funds are derived partly from private
subscriptions and donations, partly from ancient bequests, and partly from a
small sum annually voted by Parliament. They are conducted on the most
economic principles, the gentlemen who form the committee or who act as
secretaries and treasurers being mostly magistrates and men of substance,
who gladly give their time and services for nothing. The only person who
has to be paid is an agent whose duty it is to see that the recommendations
of the committee with respect to assisting the discharged prisoners are
carried into effect.

A glance at the work of one of these societies will be the best way of
forming a conception of their usefulness as a whole. For this purpose let us
select the Surrey and South London Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society. In
the prison in which the work of this excellent society is conducted, 17 per
cent. of the prison population applied for aid in 1887, and 10 per cent. were
assisted, the 7 per cent. refused assistance were habitual offenders, and had
often been previously helped. Of the number assisted, consisting of 969
persons, 54 were sent to sea, 2 were assisted to emigrate, 913 were assisted
in the way of redemption of tools, purchase of stock, purchase of clothing,
and so on. In 1888, 929 persons were assisted, 54 were sent to sea, 4 were
helped to emigrate, and 871 aided in other ways. In 1889, assistance was
rendered in 1009 cases of these 36 were sent to sea, and 973 otherwise
aided. The average cost per head of sending cases to sea is three pounds,
fourteen shillings; the average cost in other cases is half a guinea.

What is being done by the Surrey Society is only a sample of the
assistance rendered to discharged prisoners all over England. It ought also
to be stated that some of these Aid Societies undertake to look after the
destitute families of persons committed to prison, and cases innumerable
might be mentioned in which prisoners' wives and children have been
assisted and kept out of the workhouse until the release of the bread-winner.
Other societies again provide permanent homes for destitute offenders on
their discharge from prison. All that is required of persons making use of
those homes is, that they shall earn as much as will cover a portion of the
expense of providing them with food and shelter. For this purpose work is
always provided for them, or if they prefer it, they may find occupation
outside and make the home a sort of temporary resting-place. It is hardly

necessary to add that Prisoners' Aid Societies could effect much more if
they were better supported by the public. The organisation is there; the men
to work it are there; the only impediment to their labours is a lack of funds.
If the possession of adequate funds enabled all the Prisoners' Aid Societies
to establish Homes for discharged prisoners, those institutions might be
made of the greatest service to the cause of justice generally. It would then
be easy to get a return from them of the number of persons whose criminal
life was due to sheer indolence, and magistrates would have far less
hesitation in dealing with them than they do now. At the present time, it is
sometimes difficult to know whether an offender is willing to work if he
had the opportunity, but the existence of prisoners' homes would soon solve
the question. Reference to a man's record in one of these institutions would
at once place the magistrate in full possession of the facts, and he would be
able to give judgment with a knowledge of the offender he does not now
possess. In this way many cruel mistakes might be avoided; and, on the
other hand, many hardened offenders dealt with in a more effective manner.

The difficulty sometimes encountered by discharged prisoners in finding
employment, as well as many other evils inseparable from imprisonment,
has, in recent years, led an increasing number of jurists to the conclusion
that every other method of punishment should, when the case at all admits
of it, be exhausted before the gaol is resorted to. "The very first principle of
enlightened penology," says Mayhew, "is to endeavour to keep people out
of prison as long as possible, rather than thrust them into it for the most
trivial offences." In many instances it is quite sufficient punishment for a
first offender in a petty case to be publicly rebuked in the police court. Such
a rebuke preceded, as it generally is, by a night's confinement in the police
cells, is just as effective as a deterrent and far less likely to do permanent
harm than a sentence of imprisonment. It was something of this kind which
Bacon had in view, when he says, respecting criminal courts: "Let there be
power also to inflict a note or mark; such, I mean, as shall not extend to
actual punishment, but may end either in admonition only, or in a light
disgrace; punishing the offender as it were with a blush."[49] A certain
amount of progress has been made of late in this direction, but there is still
ample room for more. On the other hand, experience has shown that light
punishments are of no avail against habitual offenders. For the last few
years this system has been in operation in the borough of Liverpool, with

the result that the number of known thieves apprehended for indictable
crimes has almost doubled within a comparatively short period. According
to the Chief Constable's Report, the numbers were, in—

1885 1886 1887 1888 1889
377 470 533 596 731

These figures show that habitual criminals will not be deterred by light
sentences, but rather emboldened in their sinister career.

THE END.

APPENDICES TO CRIME AND ITS CAUSES.

APPENDIX I.

Form suggested by Herr Krohne to be filled up by the police or other
agency respecting prisoners for trial.

1. BIRTH.
Place? County? Country?
Date?
Legitimate? or illegitimate?

2. UPBRINGING.
By parents?
By others?
In a public institution?

3. SCHOOLING.
School attendance, regular or not?
Knowledge, Extent of?

Confirmed, or not?
Religious belief?

4. OCCUPATION.
What trade?
Served Apprenticeship, or not?

5. MILITARY TRAINING.
Whether served? and where?

6. IMPRISONMENTS.
How many?
In Local Prisons?
In Penal Servitude?
Other Punishments?

7. PARENTAGE.
Name? Abode? Occupation?
Alive or Dead?
Cause of death? Suicide?
Temperate, or not?
Imprisoned, or not?
Were Parents related?

8. BROTHERS AND SISTERS.
Name? Age? Abode?
Occupation?
How many dead? and of what diseases? Suicide?
Imprisoned, or not?
Temperate, or not?

9. MEANS OF LIVING.
With or Without?
Destitute?
A Pauper?
A Beggar?

10. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS.

Character? Temperament?
Mental Capacity?
Habits? Drunken or other?
Indolent?

11. MENTAL AND BODILY STATE.
(a) Fits or Convulsions in Childhood, Epilepsy, St. Vitus Dance,
or other nervous diseases?
Insanity? Scrofula? Tuberculosis?
(b) Mental and bodily state of near relations same as above?

12. MARRIED.
Maiden name of wife?
Imprisoned?
If Children; How many?
Age, and state of Health?
How many dead?
Of what Disease?
Any imprisoned?

APPENDIX II.

Growth of Reformatory and Industrial School Population in England and
Scotland.

Industrial
Schools Day
Reformatory
Year (Including Industrial
Schools.
Truant Schools.
Schools).
1859 3,276
1860 3,702
1861 4,133
1862 4,283
1863 4,302

1864 4,286 1,668
1865 4,508 1,952
1866 4,798 2,462
1867 5,110 3,802
1868 5,320 5,562
1869 5,480 6,974
1870 5,433 8,280
1871 5,419 9,421
1872 5,575 10,185
1873 5,621 11,012
1874 5,688 11,409
1875 5,615 11,776
1876 5,634 12,555
1877 5,935 13,494
1878 5,963 14,106
1879 5,975 14,847 287
1880 5,927 15,136 1,005
1881 6,738 16,955 1,493
1882 6,601 17,614 1,692
1883 6,557 18,780 2,083
1884 6,360 19,483 1,876
1885 6,241 20,250 2,324
1886 6,272 20,668 2,444
1887 6,127 20,940 2,622
1888 5,984 21,426 2,783
1889 5,940 21,059 3,197

APPENDIX III.

Return showing the number of Prisoners committed to the Local Prisons of
England and Wales in each Month of the Year ended 31st March, 1890.

Month. Males. Females. Total.

1889. April 10,701 3,401 14,102
May 11,777 4,123 15,900
June 9,977 3,717 13,694
July 11,499 4,171 15,670
August 10,894 3,965 14,859
September 11,113 4,088 15,201
October 11,670 4,245 15,915
November 10,615 3,777 14,392
December 9,154 3,157 12,311
1890. January 9,993 3,154 13,147
February 8,990 3,037 12,027
March 10,052 3,196 13,248
Total 126,435 44,031 170,466

Footnotes
[1]

See Appendix I.
[2]

In his interesting work, "Die Beziehungen zwischen
Geistesstörung und Verbrechen," Dr. Sander shows that out of a
hundred insane persons brought up for trial, the judges only
discovered the mental state of from twenty-six to twenty-eight per
cent. of them.
[3]

Before the passing of the Elementary Education Act, no one was
tried for not sending his child to school; it was not a legal offence;
in 1888-9 no less than 80,519 persons were tried under this Act,
in England and Wales.

[4]

Recent Economic Changes, p. 345.
[5]

Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft ix. 472, sg.
[6]

See Statistical Register for Victoria, Part viii.
[7]

SERIOUS CASES REPORTED TO THE POLICE IN
PROPORTION TO THE POPULATION. ANNUAL AVERAGE
FOR FIVE YEARS:—
Murder. Attempts to Murder.
Manslaughter
1870-74 1 to 196,946 1 to 441,158 1 to 92,756
1884-88 1 to 168,897 1 to 418,923 1 to
116,463

Shooting, Stabbing, &c. Burglary.
Housebreaking.
1870-74 1 to 35,033 1 to 10,188 1 to
17,538
1884-88 1 to 38,007 1 to 7,892 1 to
11,911

Robbery. Arson.
1870-74 1 to 43,247 1 to 54,075
1884-88 1 to 70,767 1 to 77,018

This table shows that since 1870-74 there has been an increase in
murder, attempts to murder, burglary, and housebreaking, and a
decrease in manslaughter, robbery, and arson. The decrease in
shooting, stabbing, wounding, &c., is very small. (Cf. Judicial
Statistics for 1874 and 1888, p. xvi.)
[8]

See Appendix II.

[9]

American Prisons, 1888.
[10]

Cf. E. Ferri. I Nuovi Orizzonti del Diritto e della Procedura
Penale.
[11]

The various types of Jews also afford a striking instance of the
effect of natural surroundings on bodily structure.
[12]

Ratzel. Völkerkunde, i. 20.
[13]

Darwin says that in elaborating his theory of Natural Selection he
attributed too little to external surroundings. Life and Letters.
[14]

Physique Sociale, ii. 282.
[15]

Zeitschrift für Strafrechtswissenschaft, ii., 486.
[16]

Gli omicidii in alcuni stati d'Europa. Appunti di statistica
comparata del Dr A. Bosco, 1889.
[17]

For the high percentage of infanticide in England see the evidence
given before the House of Lords last July (1890) by Judges Day
and Wills.
[18]

DISTRIBUTION OF SUICIDES IN LONDON BY MONTHS
OF EQUAL LENGTH PER 10,000, 1865-84:—

January, 732. July, 905.
February, 714. August, 891.
March, 840. September, 705.
April, 933. October, 772.
May, 1003. November, 726.
June, 1022. December, 697.

Dr. Ogle, vol. xlix., 117. Statistical Society's Journal.
[19]

Cf. L'Etat Moderne et ses Functions par Paul Leroy Beaulieu, p.
300. See also Mr. J.C. Sherrard's letter to the Times of January
8th, 1891, on "Tramps."
[20]

Cf. Conrad's Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, i. 928.
[21]

A case was tried in London a short time ago which illustrates the
difficulties in the way of poor people, so far as the attendance of
witnesses is concerned. In this case the witness appeared five
successive days in court waiting for the trial to come on. Not
being paid by the defendant, this witness was unable to appear the
sixth day. On that day the case was at last called, the prisoner had
now no witness and was, of course, convicted.
[22]

See Appendix, iii.
[23]

Scotch statistics are in harmony with English. For the year ended
March, 1890, the number of ordinary prisoners in custody in
Scotland was lowest in December, January and February. It was
highest in July, August, September. Crime was also highest when
pauperism was lowest. See 12th Report of Scottish Prison
Commissioners.
[24]

Revue Scientifique, September 13, 1890.

[25]

Principles of Economics, p. 81.
[26]

In 1889-90 the recommitted males were 44.3 per cent. of the total
number of males committed (exclusive of debtors and naval and
military offenders); the recommitted females 65.8 per cent. of the
total number of females committed exclusive of debtors.
[27]

According to prison statistics of the Greek Government for 1889,
out of a total prison population of 5,023 only 50 were women.
See Revista de Discipline Carcerarie, Nov. 30th, 1890, page 667.
[28]

Reformatory and Refuge Journal, July, 1890.
[29]

Ages and proportion per cent. of males and females committed in
1889-90.
Ages Males Females

Under 12 years 0.2 0.0
12 years and under 16 3.1 1.1
16 years and under 21 17.5 10.7
21 years and under 30 28.4 31.4
30 years and under 40 23.9 28.6
40 years and under 50 14.2 17.5
50 years and under 60 6.4 6.8
60 years and above 6.2 3.8
Age not ascertained 0.1 0.1

[30]

In 1889 there is a slight decrease.
[31]

Ages at which 507 offenders first began to commit crime—

Under 10 1.5 41 to 45 2.1
11 to 15 17.0 46 to 50 2.3
16 to 20 36.1 51 to 55 2.1
21 to 25 20.1 56 to 60 .8
26 to 30 7.1 61 to 65 .8
31 to 35 5.1 66 to 70 .2
36 to 40 3.6

Marro. I Caratteri dei delinquente. Studio antropologico-
sociologico, p. 356.
[32]

India by Sir John Strachey, pp. 292-3.
[33]

Cf. Tarde Philosophie Penale, p. 467.
[34]

See Revista Internacional de Anthropologia Criminal y Ciencias
Medico-Legales, Marzo e April de 1890.
[35]

A masterly article on the "Localisation of Brain Functions" will
be found in Wundt's Philosophische Studien Sechster Band, 1.
Heft Zur Frage der Localisation der Grosshirnfunctionen, Von W.
Wundt. Compare also The Croonian Lectures on Cerebral
Localisation, by David Ferrier. London: 1890.
[36]

Marro, I Caratteri dei Delinquenti, p. 157.
[37]

Archives d'anthropologie criminelle Livraison, 10.
[38]

L'Homme Criminel, 324.
[39]

Le Crime, 193.

[40]

Daily News, June 12, 1890.
[41]

Journal of Mental Science, vol. xvi.
[42]

Die Continuität des Keimplasma als Grundlage einer Theorie der
Vererbung. A. Weismann. Jena, 1885. Natural Inheritance. F.
Galton.
[43]

In Christiania the number of children who cannot learn amounts
in the elementary schools to 4 per 1000. See Reformatory and
Refuge Journal for August, 1890.
[44]

Cf. Ribot, Les Maladies de la Volonté, 1887.
[45]

Sanity and Insanity. C. Mercier, p. XII.
[46]

Lehrbuch der Gefängnishunde von K. Krohne Strafanstalts-
director, pp. 534-6.
[47]

Revue des Deux-Mondes, Avril, 15, 1887.
[48]

At a recent meeting of the Statistical Society, Mr. Murray Browne
gave some interesting information respecting the work of
Prisoners' Aid Societies among habitual offenders. "A question,"
he said, "had been addressed to all Discharged Prisoners' Aid
Societies asking what was their experience with regard to
prisoners who had been four times arrested but not sentenced to
penal servitude, and had been arrested during a given period, say

a year. How many of them has turned out (a) satisfactory, (b)
unsatisfactory, (c) re-convicted? Detailed replies were received
from fifteen different societies, not all working in the same way,
or with the same machinery, giving a total of 253 such cases. Of
these only 95 were reported as satisfactory, 55 were reported as
unsatisfactory, 66 were re-convicted, 37 being unknown or
unaccounted for."
[49]

De Augmentis VIII. Aphorism 40.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CRIME AND ITS
CAUSES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located
in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project

Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to

you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the

efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment

including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a

copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.