as is shown by the following table dealing with offences against property with or without violence :

In the earlier year proceedings followed in nearly 70 per cent. of the cases in the latter, the percentage was only 51, with the extraordinary result that, while there was a large increase of 9,925 crimes "known or reported," there was a large decrease of 9,618 in the number proceeded against. It is noteworthy, too, that in spite of the increase in the crimes of burglary and house-breaking, the reception of prisoners into prison for these offences was 1,960 in 1913-14 against 1,690 in 1924-5. The conclusions forced upon us are that, among crimes committed by what may be described as the regular professional criminal, there is a decided increase, both in actual number and in proportion to the general population of the country, and that fewer persons are: (1) proceeded against; (2) convicted; and (3) sent to prison.

The failure to bring criminals to justice is further emphasized by the figures relating to the gravest of all crimes contained in the calendar, viz., murder. It is a crime which the regular professional criminal does not necessarily commit. It contributes only a small number, it is true, to the total number of indictable crimes, and therefore too much stress should not be laid upon any fluctuation in numbers; but it is a singular fact that, in the quinquennial period 1857-62, there was a yearly average of 106 murders known to the police, for which a yearly average of 66 persons were proceeded against; whereas in the quinquennial period 1917-21 there was a yearly average of 150 murders known to the police and only a yearly average of 68 persons were

proceeded against. In the year 1923, the number of murders known to the police was the same, viz., 150, but the number of persons proceeded against had fallen to 58. Attention has been already called to the growing failure to bring to justice what may be described as the regular criminal, and these figures relating to the grave crime of murder make the matter even more serious. Has the advancement of education helped to improve the methods of the criminal, or have other modern developments, such as the quicker means of transit, etc., helped the evil-doer in his nefarious practices? Or, are the police methods not keeping pace with these changes? In any case, the figures quoted above need the very serious consideration of all those whose duty it is to fix the responsibility for crime and to mete out suitable punishment to those found guilty.

In addition to crimes known to the police, there are others which are not reported to them. If it is found that there is no result from reporting to the police, there is the danger of an increase in the number not reported. Only recently a gentleman wrote to the Times stating that he had lost his fifth watch and that he had given up going to the police, as on previous occasions there was no result from his doing so.

Mention has already been made of the shortening in the lengths of sentences in recent years. Everybody is agreed that it is futile to impose short sentences of imprisonment for trivial offences where the law allows of other suitable methods of dealing with them. It is an unnecessary expense to keep a person at the cost of the State, if the placing of the offender under a term of probation or the exaction of a fine will serve the double purpose of vindicating the law and preventing a repetition of the offence. Moreover, statistics prove that of those who go to prison, the majority drift back again. To save a person from the stigma of prison is therefore desirable; but the community has a right to protection against the evil-doer and the doctrine of allowing a dog to have his first bite should be applied with discretion.

Has this leniency affected the punishment imposed by the courts on the regular criminal? The falling off in the number of sentences to penal servitude has already been touched upon. In former years, both penal servitude and imprisonment were served under more rigorous conditions than at the present time. In many ways, the lot of the prisoner has been made more bearable

than it was forty or fifty years ago. The objection to long sentences on the ground of the misery of prison life, therefore, holds good no longer. The minimum sentence of penal servitude which can be imposed is three years, and for the offender who has deliberately embarked on a career of professional crime a sentence of three years does not seem to be too long for a salutary effect and for the protection of the community. What do we find by referring to the prison statistics? Take the crime of burglary, housebreaking, etc., which surely denotes the professional criminal. In 1923, of 1,755 persons convicted of these crimes only 170 were sentenced to penal servitude. Of the remainder, 1,318 were sentenced to imprisonment (two of them were given the option of a fine) and 267 were dealt with in other ways. Of those sentenced to imprisonment, 127 were without hard labour, 46 being placed in the second division. Many of those sentenced to imprisonment were for quite short terms. Of those sent to prison, 655 were 30 years of age or over, so the leniency of sentence cannot be attributed to their youth; 1,524 were known to have been previously convicted, 600 of them six times or over. The criminal career was, therefore, apparent. All but 68 were possessed of moderate proficiency in reading and writing, or of a higher standard of proficiency.

Look at the figures of another class of crime, viz., receiving stolen goods. Among this class of offender are to be found those who encourage and support the burglar and house-breaker by purchasing and disposing of his spoil. There were 408 persons convicted of this crime in 1923, of whom only seven were sent to penal servitude, yet 244 were 30 years of age or over, and 243 were known to have been previously convicted, 85 of them six times or over.

Robbery with extortion explains itself as a crime of gravity. There were 43 persons convicted of it in 1923. Only 12 were sentenced to penal servitude, although 19 were 30 years of age or over and 30 were known to have been previously convicted, 25 of them three times or over.

An analysis of the figures of other crimes reveals similar remarkable anomalies. In this connection it may be well to point out that recent legislation has conferred upon the courts the power, in awarding sentence, to take into consideration other offences in connection with which the police hold warrants against

the prisoner; but it is to be feared that this has not resulted in any material addition to the length of the sentences imposed. Consequently a prisoner will admit several offences, as he is pretty sure that the sentence he will get will not by any means be as long as the total of the sentences he would formerly have received had the various charges been dealt with separately.

The only deduction which can be drawn from the figures brought to notice is that the courts, in dealing with those offenders in whom the criminal career is established, are showing undue leniency, which is not in accord with good administration of justice. Such action is just as futile as that of sending persons to prison for trivial offences, when other suitable means of dealing with them are available within the law, for these established criminals are not deterred by leniency, and within a very short time are set free to prey on society again.

The Prevention of Crime Act of 1908 (under which the Borstal institution system was established), and its amendment by the Criminal Justice Administration Act of 1914, recognized the futility of short sentences for offenders under 21 years of age who had embarked on a career of crime, and laid it down that, when offenders by previous convictions or by their criminal associations, gave evidence of a definite criminal career, they could be sentenced to a term of detention in a Borstal institution of not less than two nor more than three years, to which was added a further year under supervision after release. Power was given to the Prison Commissioners to release on licence before the expiration of the sentence, and a condition of the licence is that the licensee must place himself under supervision and obey such orders as may be given to him while under supervision. The object of such a lengthened sentence was to allow of sufficient time for training in regular and proper habits. Incidentally, society was protected for a considerable period of time. No one who has watched the results of this legislation can have any doubt of its efficacy. Many young criminals have been pulled up with a jerk and have been diverted from a criminal career, instead of coming before the courts to be dealt with by repeated and ineffectual short sentences.

By the same Act of 1908, an effort was also made to deal with the regular habitual criminal of more mature age. Prison administrators had long recognized that the habitual criminal, especially one who followed crime as a regular profession, was

not to be deterred by repeated sentences, even of penal servitude. Experience showed that immediately on release from prison, he returned to his old method of living. Some way of protecting the community from his misdeeds was called for, and the weight of opinion was in favour of a form of indeterminate sentence. As such a sentence would be of no use unless of long duration, a Bill was presented to the House of Commons which was to allow of an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention being imposed, to take effect at the end of the sentence of penal servitude passed for a specific offence, in cases where the offender could be proved to be an habitual criminal within certain definitions.

The House of Commons, however, would not listen to an indeterminate sentence of detention, but provision was made for limited sentences of this character. Under the Act as finally passed, a person sentenced to penal servitude can, with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be further indicted as an habitual criminal; and, if it can be proved that, by reason of the offender's criminal habits and mode of life, it is expedient for the protection of the public that he should be kept in detention for a lengthened period of years, the court may order that upon the determination of the sentence of penal servitude he shall undergo a period of preventive detention, not exceeding ten years, nor less than five years. Provision is made for release on licence when an advisory committee, specially appointed to watch the man and observe his habits and demeanour, can report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that it is of opinion that there is a reasonable probability that the convict will abstain from crime and lead a useful and industrious life; but the Secretary of State has the power not to accept the recommendation unless he thinks fit. In the event of misconduct after release and during the currency of the licence, the Secretary of State has power to revoke the licence and to order return to preventive detention for the remainder of the sentence. Rules are made under the Act regulating the treatment of those persons undergoing preventive detention, which provide that the conditions shall be of a less rigorous nature than those applying to penal servitude. A new prison was specially built at Camp Hill in the Isle of Wight, for the confinement of men undergoing such sentences. It was planned for the purpose. It was a definite attempt to deal with the habitual criminal of adult age, and, although the original