thus sentenced will be unable to pay the fines; and thus the prison population might be kept up, notwithstanding a diminution in this class of offences. Where the effect of hard times would really appear is in crimes of dishonesty. Want is a temptation to dishonesty, and home discomforts render the change to prison life less deterrent. Well-fed people, on the other hand, would probably be more likely to commit crimes of violence. We can hardly expect to derive useful general results from unanalysed and unclassified statistics. The Prisons Commissioners, at all events, do not appear to have had much success in this respect.

One cause for increased crime, however, has been so often mentioned in treatises published long before the present juncture (for example, in Pike's History of Crime), that we are surprised to find that the Commissioners have not even alluded to it. We mean war. That war should conduce to crime at all events, to certain kinds of crime—might have been expected a priori without referring to the experience of former wars. In spite of all that has been done to humanise warfare, those who are engaged in it can hardly entertain as much respect for life and property as they previously did, while acts of violence not resulting in death or serious injury are often unpunished. The soldiers express their sentiments in letters to their friends at home, which are often published in the newspapers. War correspondents express similar sentiments; so do the leading articles in the press. If the enemy exceeds the limits of legitimate warfare, there is a cry for vengeance. Even a defeat leads to a similar cry. The "war spirit" is aroused everywhere. It exhibits itself on the one hand in an outburst of crimes of violence-on the other in a demand that these crimes should be repressed by violent methods. Humanitarianism is ridiculed, and the indulgence of revenge or of "righteous indignation" is represented as the proper object of all criminal legislation. The man who advocates lenient treatment

for prisoners is regarded as a sympathiser with crime, and almost a criminal himself. The man who has a word to say in favour of the enemy is disloyal. A development of brutality will always accompany this war spirit. Nor will this outbreak cease as soon as the war is over. On previous occasions, it was most strongly felt immediately after the peace. Soldiers imbued with these sentiments came home and were disbanded, and thus relieved from the discipline which had hitherto operated as a restraining force. Something of the same kind may be expected on the present occasion, but if we become involved in no further wars the future appears to us more hopeful than the Commissioners regard it. Humanity is not only the best, but the most. natural policy in times of peace.

It is, perhaps, fortunate for the humanitarians that the Home Office has throughout the war turned a deaf ear to their representations, whether general or special. The prerogative of mercy has never been used more sparingly, and nobody can attribute the general increase of crime, on which the Commissioners comment, to the more lenient action of the Home Office with regard to prisoners. The war spirit is opposed to any remission, and for some time past its influence has dominated the Home Office. We do not say that the increase of crime has resulted from the harshness of the Home Office in this respect, but certainly that harshness has utterly failed to check the increase of crime. An exercise of the prerogative of mercy on the doubly-auspicious occasion of the Coronation and the King's recovery could scarcely have done harm, and might have done good; and we feel confident that it was not by the desire of His Majesty that it was withheld. Perhaps we may still have it on Thanksgiving Day.

With regard to one of the causes of the increase in the "prison population" mentioned in the report-the increased activity of the police-it may be remarked that if this

activity is directed towards bringing real criminals to justice, the temporary increase of the prison population should be succeeded by a permanent diminution; for anything that increases the chances of conviction will help to deter persons from committing crimes in future. But it may consist in bringing charges against persons guilty of some technical offence, but who were not really doing any harm. If it be true that in certain localities a constable gets a bad mark unless he arrests a given number of persons in a given time, an apparent increase in the number of petty offences in these localities needs no explanation. The constable must supply his tale of bricks, and if no straw comes to hand he goes in search of stubble; or, to adopt another Scriptural simile, he goes out into the highways and byeways and compels the people to come in, that our prison-houses may be full. But magistrates should learn not to send people to prison on these trumpery charges.

We may notice, too, that imprisoned debtors contributed to increase the prison population during the period covered by the Report. We learn that 14,039 persons were imprisoned during the year "as debtors or on civil process," as against 12,576 in the preceding year, thus showing an increase of 1,463, or between 11 and 12 per cent. in one year. This number is exclusive of those sent to prison "in default of sureties." The figures are worthy of attention. We were assured that imprisoned debtors could always pay if they chose to do so, but preferred imprisonment on the old easy terms to producing the cash. So the terms of imprisonment were rendered more stringent by the Act of 1898, and it was predicted that imprisonment for debt would practically cease, and that the creditors would receive their money. The result after three years' trial is 14,000 imprisonments, being an increase of over 1,400 on the year. If the Report had given us the amounts due to the 14,000 creditors, and the expense which the country was put to by the proceedings

against the 14,000 debtors, it might have proved interesting reading.

One of the great objects of the Prisons Act of 1898 was to effect a classification among prisoners-an object of which the Commissioners express their strong approval. But they tell us that in this respect the Act has proved almost a dead letter, because, as has happened with many other reformatory measures, the magistrates make no use of it. "There is but a slight difference," they write, “in the actual treatment of prisoners sentenced to the Second or Third Division, but the sentence to the Second Division implies at least the segregation of the prisoners, and marks the distinction between the really criminal and only quasicriminal acts, which we believe it was the intention of Parliament to emphasise, when it conferred this classifying power on the Courts of law." They then refer to the fact that no less than 49,000 persons were sent to prison without hard labour for non-payment of a fine during the year, yet very few of these were placed in the Second Division. The exact number is not stated; but in a kind. of prison census, taken in the various prisons on the same day, it appeared that of 24 persons imprisoned for offences against the Elementary Education Act, only 4 were in the Second Division; of 100 convicted under Local Acts and Bye-laws only 2; and of 44 convicted of obstructions or nuisances none at all. In fact, only 37 per cent. of the prisoners who, not having been sentenced to hard labour, might have been placed in the Second Division, were placed in it, against 5 per cent. in the preceding year. The number in the First Division is not stated, but was no doubt very small, so that upwards of 95 per cent. of those who were classified were placed in the Third Division. It may be noted, however, that the Governors of Prisons do not seem to be dissatisfied with this state of things. Thus the Birmingham Governor writes: "The triple division of

offenders continues to work satisfactorily. One female prisoner has been received in Division I, and only six males and one female in Division II." This reminds one of the surgeon's remark to his pupils: "Gentlemen, the operation is successful, but the patient is dead." The Home Secretary, it seems, called the attention of the magistrates by circular to their powers in this matter, with the result that the proportion placed in Division II was even less than before. But has not the Home Secretary the power of modifying these sentences himself, and directing that a prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment in Division III shall be placed in Division II? If so, and if as his own circular as well as the Report before us implies he finds that the magistrates are not carrying out the plain intentions of the framers of the statute, why does he not intervene and make the requisite correction? Of what use is an appellate tribunal which issues circulars to the Courts of First Instance, and when those Courts utterly ignore them, stands by with folded arms and allows "the law to take its course"? It is useless to advise the Court below not to go wrong, and then to add, “But we will not reverse you if you do." Possibly the Home Office may be able to offer a defence of its action both in this and in other matters in which its proceedings have been impugned. But why is not that defence laid before the public in an Annual Report similar to that of the Prisons Commissioners, giving details of the claims for clemency brought before the Department and the mode in which each was dealt with, together with the reasons, or at all events the principles, on which each decision proceeded? That this tribunal really dispenses justice, not mercy, is sufficiently evident from the fact, that when mercy is refused the ground assigned is almost always in substance that it would be inconsistent with justice to grant it. There must, therefore, be grounds of justice for every refusal of mercy;