In the last chapter it was shown that capital punishment sought for its justification in the theory that certain criminals had assumed an attitude of permanent and aggressive hostility towards society. Their presence in society is regarded as a menace to human life, and no moral improvement is expected to result from their imprisonment. So hopeless is this class of criminal regarded as being that, so it is declared, no other policy save that of extermination can be considered.

In primitive society criminals were less numerous than in our own time; but those that did then exist belonged, almost all of them, to the worst type. There being no public institutions for the administration of justice, practically one course only remained open, and that was, that the person wronged should seek to avenge himself as best he could, and the death of the wrong-doer was generally the satisfaction that he sought. As civilization has advanced, criminals have become more numerous; but they have taken to crime by more gradual steps. Society, too, has deprived the individual of the right of wreaking his own vengeance, and has erected institutions for the purpose of determining guilt and apportioning punishment. From the days of Noah, deeds of blood and other crimes of a serious nature, have been punished by death and from then, until this present day, the one idea underlying the administration of justice has been that society should get rid of its criminals as speedily as possible. Repression alone was thought to be efficacious, reformation was scarcely thought of.

Of late years the criminal has been more carefully studied by his fellow-beings. Some have studied him as a monster and believed him to have the heart of a beast; others have studied him as a man and had faith in his possibilities. The former have noticed the failure of repressive methods, such as flogging and other penal severities, and have in despair been led to advocate that the only possible remedy is that of extermination. The latter have discovered that the failure of these repressive methods but imposes upon society the obligation of adopting a system of an entirely different order and with an entirely different object, viz: a system for the reformation of the criminal.

The "exterminators" have studied the criminal objectively and have had regard to his crimes only; the reformers have studied him subjectively and have had regard to his possibilities. The policy of the "exterminators" must be condemned on this ground, viz: that they have made but a half study of their subject, and they do know, and they refuse to listen to, of what the criminal is capable. Neither do they estimate the capacity of the enormous social power that may be attached to the criminal's own, but feeble, effort so as to raise him up, even from the deepest depths of vice and villainy. The careful subjective study—the truly humane study—of the criminal, has shown that all theories which would declare any man to be incapable of improvement, are to be condemned absolutely. The possibilities of reform exist in every case, and the probabilities are never to be denied. None can gainsay this statement nor can it be termed extravagant, for with the imperfect machinery now in use results are being attained which justify every syllable of it. Yet in the face of these results, the "exterminators" still proclaim their policy. They bid us be deaf to the voice of prejudice and follow the true light of science, ever remembering that we are passing through a wonderful stage in social evolution! But the policy that they adopt belies that which is indicated in all this fine talk. They say that we must exterminate the criminal, and this is nothing less than an acknowledgement that, to their minds, the problem of the criminal is one of outer darkness and that we have no means of ever penetrating it. They would take us back to a period anterior to Adam.

Prejudice, indeed, needs to be overcome, but it is the prejudice that prefers vengeance to mercy. And if we follow the true light of science it will lead us to discover that the criminal is best got rid of by converting him into a useful citizen, or to be more exact, society's best effort is to be directed towards separating the crime from the criminal.

Recently a Wellington medical gentleman (Dr Chapple) published a work entitled "The Fertility of the Unfit." The problem which this gentleman attempts to grapple with in his book is the disproportionate rate of increase among the numbers of the unfit to the fit members of society. Under the classification of the unfit he places all those persons who, on account of mental, moral or physical defect, constitute a burden to society. These are, principally, the epileptic, the pauper, the insane and the criminal. These either will not, or cannot support themselves adequately and legitimately. For their treatment support and correction, hospitals, asylums, charitable aid boards, gaols and other institutions have had to be established, and the upkeep of these has become a great burden which necessarily has to be borne by the healthy, moral and industrious section of the community.

Dr Chapple draws attention to the undeniable fact that there is a tendency on the part of those unfit to increase at a greater ratio than the fit. The rate of increase during the past twenty years has been so great and so disproportionate as to make the cost of their maintenance become an increasingly heavier one for the individual taxpayer to bear, and to cause for this and other reasons, a considerable amount of alarm in the minds of those who have the welfare of society at heart.

The Doctor believes that the cause of this proportionate rate of increase is to be found in the methods adopted largely among certain classes for the prevention of child-birth.

In the conclusion of his book he states that sexual inhibition on the part of the better classes accounts for their smaller rate of increase as compared with the rate of the inferior classes. We cannot accept this conclusion without more evidence. We want to know definitely whether the natural rate of increase among the better classes is really lower than that existing among the inferior classes. That is to say, are the ranks of the defective being swelled by the influence of heredity or by some extensive force recruiting from among the ranks of the fit? Another question is this: Since the use of preventives is available to both sections alike, the Doctor accounts for the supposed natural disproportion by assuming that the better classes restrain themselves. Is he right? Using the word "restrain" in its absolute sense we beg leave for most emphatic doubt. In an enquiry such as this is, the only factor of any real importance as accounting for a diminished birth-rate, is the use of preventives. If this method is confined to the better classes, we must refuse to call them any longer our "best stock," for, if they are not producing a defective offspring, they are, as the recent Australian Birth-Rate Commission has made abundantly plain, speedily making defectives of themselves, besides being guilty of lowering the social moral tone and hardening its sensibility. We are strongly of the opinion that the diminished birth-rate does not account for the increase in the number of criminals and defectives further than that the use of preventives discloses a species of criminality.

Nevertheless, Dr Chapple proposes, not so much to restore the equilibrium as to get rid of the defective altogether. He assumes that defectives are born and not made, and then makes enquiry into the best possible means for the prevention of their birth. After passing several methods in review, he accepts an operation known as tubo-ligature as being the best from all points of view. This operation will render the female permanently sterile without having any deleterious effect upon her health. Absolutely no result follows, he assures us, but sterility. If the wives of all defectives were operated upon in this way, Dr Chapple assures us that the problem concerning the defective would speedily be solved and society would be the happier and wealthier in every way. The proposal might give something of a shock to the moral conscience but such a shock would only unfit us for our work. The criminal is upon us, he threatens us, and we must protect ourselves. The necessities of the case are so pressing and so urgent that we seek for the most effectual remedy and use it unhesitatingly when we have found it. Here it is, says Dr Chapple, and its morality is determined by the relief which it, and it alone, is able to bring.

What are we to do? Why, sterilize the wife of the defective. As the criminal is most harmful of all defectives he is summoned to come forward first and to bring his wife with him, when behold, the man turns up alone. Where is his wife? Why, he hasn't got one. Has Dr Chapple considered this fact? Did he know, when he made the statement that it was a matter of common observation that the criminal was among those who had the largest families, did he know then that the criminal rarely married? It cannot be said that the criminal's wife is as rare as the Great Auk's egg, but Havelock Ellis states that "among men criminals the celibates are in a very large proportion." And FÉrÉ further supports the value of the statement for our present purpose by saying that "criminals and prostitutes have this common character, that they are unproductive. This is true also of vagabonds, and of the idle and vicious generally, to whatever class they belong."

Two years' experience as a prison chaplain may not be of much value, but it certainly conveyed the impression that the majority of the criminals were young men who were unmarried.

But Dr Chapple adduces evidence. He tells us of a family in which there were 834 persons the descendants of one woman. Of this family 76 were convicts, 7 were murderers, 142 were beggars, 64 lived on charity. Among their women 181 lived disreputable lives, and in 75 years this family cost their country £250,000 in alms, trials, imprisonments, etc. What family is this? If the following comparison is conclusive in its results then it must be the "Jukes" family.

If it will be allowed that the agreement in these nine lines of statistics establishes the identity between the two cases, then the evidence may be examined.

In the first place, the "Jukes" family is the most exceptional one known in the history of crime, and it must be treated as an exception and not as an example. In the second place, these 834 persons were not descended from one woman in 75 years but from FIVE women who were the legitimate and illegitimate daughters of an old Dutch back-woodsman who lived in a rocky part of the State of New York and who is known to criminologists as "Max Jukes." My authority for declaring that there were five female ancestresses during the period reviewed as against one, stated to be the case by Dr Chapple, is Mr R. L. Dugdale, who made a close personal investigation of the life and records of the family. He himself collected the statistics that are given above and which are identical with those given by Dr Chapple's authority, Prof. Pellman, and therefore one must conclude that Prof. Pellman has studied the case at second hand and, in this important detail, is in error.

That 834 persons should have descended from five persons in 75 years covering five generations, exclusive of the 5 ancestresses, does not strike us as evidence of an exceedingly prosperous birth-rate. If there had been another thousand descendants it would not allow for an average of 3 children to grow up and marry in each family. We may then set aside the contention that the "Jukes" were enormously prolific.

Still the "Jukes" were an enormous cost to their country, and surely we should prevent such a family ever appearing in our midst. The answer to this is that the "Jukes" have only appeared once, and, so far as our community is concerned, our social progress makes their reappearance absolutely impossible. The "Jukes" were a tribe of vagabond outlaws. They gained a livelihood by fishing, hunting, robbery, and intermittent work. They lived in a rocky, inaccessible region in the lake country of the State of New York. Their criminals were able, with a considerable measure of success, to defy the police, and travellers very rarely approached the vicinity of their habitat. Some drifted into the towns and villages. A proportion of these supported themselves by honest industry, and a proportion became a burden upon the rates; Such nests of criminals can exist only in partially civilized countries. The advance of civilization extinguishes them. Nowhere in New Zealand could such a tribe prey upon and defy society for a period of two weeks together. The criminals that we have to deal with are those which society produces not those which it extinguishes.

But if the "Jukes" were at all reproductive what is the difference between them and other cases of criminals? Principally this, that the "Jukes" formed a little society of their own in which marriage and co-habitation was the rule. Of their women 52 per cent. were disreputable; but Dugdale refuses to call them prostitutes, but rather harlots, indicating that their marital relations were of the order of a progressive polyandry and by no means unproductive. Under these conditions, a fairly large natural increase is not to be wondered at.

No such family has, nor could, exist in the midst of our civilization, but as the case is advanced, not to show a distinct species of criminality, but rather as an example of the rate of natural increase that may be expected of a criminal family, we will examine and compare the conditions of life existing among the "Jukes" and the criminal that we have to deal with and thus discover features among the latter which militate against a large birth-rate; but which are not present among the former.

Our criminals, for the most part, commence their career of crime at an early age. The Rev. W. D. Morrison of Wandsworth Prison, England, declares that the most criminal age is reached between the years of twenty and thirty. This holds good, he says, for Europe, Australia, and the United States.

It is a mistake to suppose that a man first commits crime and then plunges headlong into vice. Though true in some cases, it is exactly the reverse course which is followed in the majority of cases. After having passed with a measure of success through the milder domestic and scholastic spheres, the youthful criminal become a failure in the severer social or industrial sphere. Some criminologists go so far as to say that the majority of criminals have displayed distinct evidences of criminality at so early an age as sixteen years. Whatever may have been the cause for committing crime, the crime itself shows that the youth refuses to acknowledge the obligations which an organized society lays upon him. This refusal extends practically throughout the social order, and neither is it confined to this order, but extends also to the moral order and is shown in a total disregard for the matrimonial state. The youth gives way to natural appetites and associates himself with women of low repute. He is of wandering habits, works, when he does work, but intermittently, is restless, and totally disinclined towards matrimony. Socially, industrially and morally he is unstable. It is these conditions of his life which so contrast him with that species of criminality which the "Jukes" family presents. And it is these same conditions which support the statement of FÉrÉ and Ellis, that he is generally a celibate and non-productive. Concerning the progeny of the female criminal there is little to say except that the causes which chiefly account for the male criminal operate to produce the prostitute among women, and therefore criminal women are in a very small minority. Of these criminal women, Lombroso says that they are monsters who have triumphed over the natural instincts of piety and maternity as well as over their natural weakness. They are bad mothers, and children are a burden to them from which they will readily rid themselves.

Notwithstanding Dr Chapple's evidence, it is conclusive that his statement that criminals have the largest families, is entirely opposed to fact, indeed the exact reverse is the case.

So far as the criminal is concerned, one may well ask whether he has not set himself to the useless task of threshing straw.

The question concerning the proportionate rate of natural increase among all classes of society is one which provides one of the fundamentals upon which Dr Chapple has based his proposal. Instead of enquiring into the actualities of this question he has assumed them, and from his assumption proceeded to his result. His assumption that the better classes use preventive means which the inferior classes do not use, is open to challenge; that there might exist among the inferior classes causes peculiar to these classes which militate against their increasing naturally, he has failed to notice. There do exist such, and so potent as to disprove entirely his statement that the problem is one for the solution of which we must search deep down in biological truth. The true solution will not be found in biological truth but in sociological truth, and there fairly near the surface.

As Dr Chapple's evidence entirely fails, the conclusions of expert criminologists must be accepted, viz., that criminals are characteristically unproductive, and that, among male criminals, the celibates are in a large majority. As, from these reasons, the vast majority of criminals cannot be the descendants of a criminal ancestry, obviously tubo-ligature will not meet the case.

So far indeed the criminal descendant from criminal stock has alone been considered, whereas a large number of criminals have come from a drunken or from a pauper ancestry. Statistics indicate that 33 per cent. of criminals come from an intemperate ancestry and 2 per cent. from a pauper one. But in both cases, environment has a great deal more to be held responsible for than has heredity. It is the conditions of the home life which make the drunkard's child a criminal, and the same applies with equal force to the pauper's child. So that, if drastic measures are to be taken with these classes, surely such measures will proceed gradually from the mean to the extreme, and severe measures will not be employed until milder ones have failed. Where the question is one of environment it is the man's character and habits which have to be dealt with and not his nature. Environment is always capable of modification, and, when improved, the result is invariably a beneficial one for those concerned. So that the least that may be said for the criminal descendants of drunken ancestors is that a better way exists and should, by all moral laws, be first adopted.

Further difficulties, of a physical, rather than moral nature, also exist.

And here again Dr Chapple has assumed another fundamental position. Is it too much to require of him that he should prove that, where criminals have sprung from a defective ancestry, this defect should be invariably transmitted? That, in short, a criminally defective ancestry is an invariable cause producing a criminal descent. (Note.—By criminally defective ancestry we mean the ancestry from which criminals spring. It may not itself be criminal. It may be drunken or pauper.) Such an important question cannot be assumed; positive proof is demanded, and this is nowhere forthcoming in Dr Chapple's book.

If it were allowed that criminals were the most prolific of all classes of society, this question of heredity would still have to be cleared up before such a proposal as tubo-ligature were seriously discussed, for surely so drastic a remedy would never be employed except under the most positive conditions, that is to say, that this operation would never be employed until it had been ascertained, with scientific precision, that the birth of degenerates, and degenerates only, was being prevented.Dr Chapple failing to illuminate us upon this point we inquire, does a criminally defective ancestry invariably convey to its offspring a taint disposing it towards crime? Or can it ever be ascertained that a certain given ancestry will certainly produce criminals?

In the treatment of the subject of heredity it has been made clear that on account of the vicious habits of the criminal he is apt to transmit to his offspring a physical defect which will make it difficult for him to adapt himself to the conditions of the society in which he is placed. This difficulty becomes almost, though not quite, insurmountable when the environment is one in which the practice of vice and dishonesty is easier than that of virtue and thrift.

The transmission of a taint which is a cause of criminality cannot be denied, but the close investigation of the criminal and of his family has revealed the fact that among the comparatively few criminals who are parents they do not all transmit a taint or defect to their offspring, nor among those from whom a taint has been transmitted has it necessarily been transmitted to every child.

The "Jukes" family being the most exceptional of all cases in which criminal heredity may be observed can be investigated for the purposes of discovering the extreme affirmative which the question proposed can give. The answer is an emphatic no. When the "Jukes" intermarried there was, strange as it may seem, almost an entire absence from crime in the family following upon such union. When they married into other families, crime frequently made its appearance. This, at least, shows that an hereditary taint is not invariably conveyed. It may be claimed that it proves that, under certain conditions, such taint is conveyed; but in cases of this nature we do not reach our particular and exclusive affirmatives anything like so rapidly as we reach our particular and exclusive negatives. The negative is often obvious, the affirmative generally remote. It may be that by cross marriages the element of virility, necessary to maintain criminality, is sustained: but if that were so it would be expected that pauperism would necessarily result from consanguineous marriages which is not so far the case as to indicate cause and effect. A more plausible suggestion is that in consanguineous marriages there is a tendency for the family ties to be reunited and the family ideal restored. Such, of course, effectively disposes of criminality. Of the three grandsons of Ada Jukes, who were themselves the sons of her one illegitimate son, their family report is as follows:—The first was licentious, a sheep-stealer, quarrelsome, and an habitual drunkard. He married a disreputable woman and had several children. Of his seven boys, five were criminals. The second grandson kept a tavern and a brothel and was a thief. He married a brothel keeper. Of his six sons, two were criminals. The third grandson was industrious but occasionally intemperate. He married a woman addicted to the opium habit. Of his four sons, none were criminals. These are fairly average cases, and they, at least, affirm very distinctly that the criminal does not always transmit a taint to his child which will dispose that child towards crime.

Although in the cases cited above only some 40 per cent. of the children were criminals, it must, however, be observed that a great deal of criminality goes unpunished, so that we might fix the average at 75 per cent. and be more exact. Of the 75 per cent. we must find out whether their heredity or their environment was the cause of their being criminal. Dugdale's observations led him to conclude that heredity is a latent cause which requires environment for its development. These 75 per cent., however, will be referred to again. There being 25 per cent. honest and industrious, brings us face to face with a question affecting the morality of Dr Chapple's proposal.

Since then all the children of criminal ancestry are not themselves criminal or likely to become criminals through an hereditary taint, can a proposal be accepted which would not only prevent the birth of the hereditary criminal, but would also prevent the birth of several persons who would have become good and useful citizens.

Thus far only the criminal descended from a criminal ancestry has been considered, whereas, as was stated previously, there are a considerable number of criminals termed "hereditary" criminals who are descended from a drunken ancestry. The proportion of these is about 33 per cent. of the whole. The impossibility of the success of Dr Chapple's remedy is very apparent from the insurmountable difficulties that would be experienced in determining with exactitude when a person was so degenerate in his own system as to make it positive that his prospective offspring would be born a criminal defective. Uncertainty, in this matter, reigns supreme.

There must remain then but very little support for Dr Chapple's proposal when we discover firstly:—that the criminal is very rarely a parent, and secondly:—that in every case a taint is not transmitted from parent to child. Its sphere of effectiveness is restricted by the very circumstances of the case, and even within that restricted sphere its operation would be most clumsy for it would prevent the birth of all a criminal's children, good and bad alike. Thus it would become both a moral and economic failure.

Dr Chapple has taken it for granted that a criminal's rate of increase is at least equal to the average if not indeed, for certain reasons, considerably greater, and that he in all cases transmits an hereditary taint to his offspring. Then he seeks for a remedy whereby the transmission of this taint may be avoided and he can find none other than one which prevents the very possibility of the prospective child being born. Before coming to such a drastic conclusion enquiry might have been made to discover whether there might not exist a remedy which would be a remedy in the truest sense. That is a remedy which would, while it would prevent the transmission of the taint, yet it would not interfere with reproduction. Such a remedy would be in fact a method for the reformation of the criminal, for if the criminal were reformed the problem would be solved. If he were transformed into an honest and industrious man then the transmission of the criminal taint is at once prevented. There are some, however, who maintain that the criminal is incorrigible and that reformatory agencies have invariably failed. They look upon all attempts on behalf of the criminal as a useless expenditure of energy and money. This question of the possibility or otherwise of the reform of the criminal must now be settled before we can proceed further.

Is the criminal incorrigible? Some criminals do not ever reform because they cannot. These are insane. Some do not because they will not; but these may. The many who pass through our gaols and show no signs of reform does not prove that although they may reform they never will. If nine hundred and ninety-nine cases were observed of men resisting reform it would not prove the impossibility of reforming the thousandth. It would point to the difficulty, the remote probability or the need of different methods; but it would not determine the impossibility. When the term "incorrigible" is applied to certain criminals it does not mean that these men are incapable of reform; but they are RESISTING reform; and no one can tell when or whether the most obstinate of these will surrender his will to the dictates of conscience and commence a life of reform. The possibility is always an open question. No better testimony can be brought forward than that of Mr Z. R. Brockway, late Superintendent of the New York State Reformatory at Elmira. Mr Brockway is one of the pioneers in reformatory work and is considered the greatest living authority upon the subject. Some 10,000 felons have passed through their hands. Speaking at the Fourth International Prison Congress held in St. Petersburg in 1890 he said:—"There is a sense in which nothing that lives is incapable of betterment, and so strictly speaking there are no incorrigible criminals. If it is possible to grasp the thought and cherish it, we should endeavour to discover in the very worst characters some spark of humanity which unites us all in ties of relationship, some secret soul-chambers where superhuman influences may find lodgment, and so with good leaven pervade the whole man; at least we may find in our sphere a field for most fascinating scientific research and experiment.

"I record it as my own conviction, after nearly a lifetime spent with and for criminals, that alike for all, corrigible and incorrigible, the aim to accomplish reformation is a true one. It most surely supplies all possible repression upon the criminal classes in society.... The aim of reformations is absolutely essential to any good degree of public protection from crimes.... Mr F. Ammetybock, Director of the Penitentiary of Vridsloselille, Denmark, added:—I would not dare charge as incorrigible one of the 3,000 criminals who have been confided to my care.... During my career as a prison officer, I have seen many criminals who offered, humanly speaking, characteristic signs of incorrigibility and who now and for a long time had led respectable lives.... I believe that other prison officers as well as philanthropists, can confirm the truth of my experience, and I hope that many will protest against the theory of incorrigibility and place in the balance their experience against purely abstract ideas."

On the other hand, it must be admitted that several criminologists emphatically declare that the "instinctive" criminal (or "born" criminal to use Lombroso's term) is incorrigible. Garofalo takes such a hopeless view of the matter as to demand his elimination by death, but none of these men, eminent criminologists as they may be, have studied reformatory science experimentally. Mr Brockway's testimony should be taken as final seeing that of the 12,000 felons who have passed through the Elmira Reformatory, 82 per cent. have reformed, i.e., have not returned to criminal practices. The statistics for the year 1903 are as follows:—

It will be seen that while the Reformatory claims only 86 per cent. of reforms, there were only 9 persons (or 2 per cent. of the whole) who were KNOWN to have certainly returned to crime.

This exhibit is conclusive. Reformatory Science, which is yet but in its infancy, can already deal successfully with by far the greatest proportion of criminals, and this success at this stage guarantees a much larger measure in the future. It is clear then upon the statements of the highest authorities that the criminal is not incorrigible, and that the prison (penal) system compares so unfavourably with the reformatory system that it ought to be abolished in favour of it. The system in vogue at the Elmira Reformatory will be described in a later chapter, and there it will be shown that the methods employed are upon a most scientific basis and that the results obtained cannot fail to satisfy the most exacting. It will be seen that by a "reformed" man is meant a man who can and will adapt himself to the conditions of society; a man sound in mind, healthy in body, industrious and honest in habit. Concerning this man's progeny, what have we to fear? It is in this way that we may dispose of the proportion of 75 per cent. of criminal children descended from criminal ancestry. It should here be again observed that the majority of criminals commence their career in crime at a very early age, and that therefore the reform of almost all criminals may be undertaken before they are likely to become parents. Again, true reformatory science forbids the release of any criminal from custody who has not given satisfactory evidence of reform.

Thus reformatory science effectually guarantees society against the evil that Dr Chapple has proposed to eradicate, and it does it by a method compared with which tubo-ligature is most crude.

The criminal is either set free as a reformed man or is to be kept in captivity because his resistance to reformatory discipline has shown him to be unfit to rightly use his liberty.

Not only are the chances of his becoming the parent of criminally disposed children effectually removed but he is himself transformed from having a negative to having a positive social value.

Dr Chapple's study convinces him that the cause of the startling increase of crime, insanity, and pauperism is to be found "deep down in biological truth. Society is breeding from defective stock." Dr Waddell, who writes the preface of the "Fertility of the Unfit," is so alarmed as to declare that "our civilization is in imminent peril of being swamped by the increasingly disproportionate progeny of the criminal." The most superficial observation of the life of the criminal would have shown both these writers that criminal habits militated substantially against the probability of a natural increase.

To repeat what FÉrÉ and Havelock Ellis both emphatically declare that the criminal and the pauper do not reproduce their kind is but to show that the cause of the natural increase of the criminal is NOT to be found in biological truth, neither is our society in any danger of being swamped by an increasingly disproportionate progeny of the criminal. In short, society has no enemy in Nature.

The true cause for the increase of the numbers of the criminal is to be found in sociological and not in biological truth. As Lacassagne says: "Society has the criminals that it deserves."

Dr MacDonald, W.S. Expert in Criminology, writes to the author, "As to tubo-ligature, or the like, it would not be supported by scientists."

If, however, there were absolutely no scientific objection to the proposal that the Doctor advances, if, that is, the basal facts were exactly he assumes them to be, would then his remedy be secure from attack? Most emphatically not. For is it not possible, nay with the present shrinking from maternity so widespread, is it not highly probable that the measure would be greatly abused? Thousands as the Doctor himself says would avail themselves of it to-morrow, and for the simple reason that they wish to escape from the responsibilities of bringing up children. Thousands would no doubt repudiate their debts to-morrow if they might do so with impunity, but their wish in the matter scarcely establishes the course as being a desirable one or one calculated to promote the happiness of society.

From the revelations of the Birth-rate Commission and from other enquiries it is most evident that tubo-ligature would be very largely abused indeed.

But it may be said that it were far better that the woman shrinking maternity should employ this method than that she should use the preventive drugs that she does. This is but to acknowledge the morality, or at least the necessity for the use of preventives and does nothing less than to charge the Deity with having made laws for the governing of the Natural Order which have got altogether out of hand and have involved His creatures in confusion.

Is it not a question whether marriage becomes a necessity when children are to be avoided? The evil to which Dr Chapple's remedy would run, is one in which the moral sentiment of society would be so hardened that the reason for marriage would disappear from the knowledge of man.

There is a great difference between this operation taking place from pathological reasons and its being performed simply as a deliverance from maternal responsibilities. In the latter case it is performed at the will of the woman who thus shows that she has conquered the maternal instinct, and as such she is a monster for she has contradicted her nature. Lombroso declares that these are the women that commit the most hideous crimes and that they are incorrigible.

The Birth-rate Commissioners stated that the use of preventives was having a most injurious effect upon the health of the women who used them.

Clearly then Morality and Nature are both opposed to their use.

If men and women are becoming so selfish as to be determined to live contrary to their nature then Nature will deal with them according to Her terrible manner. If they are in an extremity and find that our social system makes it impossible for them to undertake the responsibilities of parentage, then the reorganization of our social system is a matter for urgent consideration.

But Dr Chapple would only intensify the evil instead of remedying it.

What he practically says is this:—Regard yourselves for the moment as being brute beasts and discuss the question upon that level. Murder the social instinct; murder the compassionate spirit; disregard the Divine Law and stifle all faith in the Providence of God; let the mission of life be the enjoyment of pleasure; shrink from the marriage that might be a burden, and dissolve the happy marriage should indications of future burdens present themselves. He would have us compelled to take our betrothed to a medical board and shamelessly confess ourselves. Confess ourselves under circumstances which would know no secrecy. He would have us regard our wives from the standpoint of selfishness and lust alone. But we are not brutes we are human, and we have instincts which the brutes have not.

Note.—Dr. Chapple includes among the defectives not only the criminal but also the lunatic, the epileptic and the pauper. How far tubo-ligature would meet the cases of these defectives seems very uncertain. The information which the Doctor gives us, for the most part, is in direct opposition to him. On pages 74-76 he gives the history of eight families which it will repay to examine.

Cases I.—Cancer, consumption and epilepsy in the family. In the third generation there are seven persons, of whom five married. The only healthy member left five children, three were childless and one who died at 56 left five children. That is to say, twelve children represent the fourth generation.

Case II.—Insanity, idiocy and epilepsy. Of five persons the one sane member only has a family. Nine children, some (how many?) imbecile.

Case III.—Drunkenness, insanity. Seven children, two died of convulsions. One an idiot, one a dement (suicidal), one repeatedly insane. These three are scarcely likely to be chosen in marriage. One peculiar and irritable, one nervous and depressed.

Case IV.—In third generation there are two epileptics and one imbecile—scarcely likely to marry. Seven others are dead. (S. P.)

Case V.—From an insane parent we have three children, one excitable, one dull and one imbecile.

Case VI.—A family of mutes and scarcely relevant.

Case VII.—Drunkenness, epilepsy, etc. In the third generation "family now extinct." No indications of tubo-ligature having been performed.

Case VIII.—Apparently the issue in the second generation is from two parentages. There are fifteen persons accounted for. Seven died in infancy of convulsions. Epilepsy, scrofula, and idiocy can claim one each. One was drowned, and four are healthy. That is, of seven surviving children, four are healthy.

In all from fifteen parents there is the alarming increase of fifty-six persons. Of these eleven are healthy, fourteen are not described, fourteen are defective and seventeen are dead. The total number of living descendants, representing no less than the third generation of seven families, is but thirty-nine. These figures can scarcely be quoted to prove the "fertility of the unfit," but that is the title that stands over them. As to the hereditary tendencies that they propagate, more information is required.

It is a well known fact that in cases of hereditary defect there is a tendency for the defect to appear at either an earlier or later stage in life in each successive generation (Mercier). In the first case the family dies out, in the second case it recovers itself. In cases of congenital defect, there is very little to fear. The lunatic is locked up and the epileptic is avoided.

Nature deals most successfully with these cases. She saves where possible and destroys when recovery is hopeless. Very slowly perhaps, but very exactly—never making a mistake, and in her slowness she is but giving man an opportunity to contribute something towards the recovery she aims at.

The Case of the Epileptic.—The number of epileptics in whom the disease may be traced to hereditary causes is estimated to be about 33 per cent. of the whole. This is indeed a very large percentage. It does not, however, follow that in all the cases or in by any means a large proportion of them, the parents were also epileptics. Authorities are not agreed as to the influence of heredity as a predisposing cause; but it is recognised by all that the children of insane, neurotic, hysterical or neuralgic parents are liable to become epileptics. Also that alcoholism in the parents conveys a predisposition to the child. The hereditary cases are therefore to be divided amongst all these causes. In what proportion it would be difficult to estimate; but very few persons in whom epilepsy has developed marry, and as 75 per cent. of the cases are said to begin under the age of 20 years, and very few after 25 years (cases of hereditary epilepsy have been known to develop at so late an age as 65 and 70 years) it limits the number of epileptics who marry to a very narrow margin. For even these few, marriage should, however, be entirely out of the question. In cases, where from syphilis or shock epilepsy is developed in the married adult we should expect to find treatment imposing a restriction upon the freedom of the patient somewhat similar to that provided for lunatics. In almost every rank of society the developed epileptic would be excluded from marriage by the law of sexual selection, and as the great majority develop epilepsy before coming to a marriageable age, few epileptic children can claim a developed epileptic ancestry.

The number of cases, where epilepsy results from an epileptic ancestry, is estimated by Sir Wm. Gowers at 22 per cent. of the whole. These cases are to be distributed between the developed form and the petit mal. As the petit mal often escapes observation Dr Chapple's method would only apply to those cases of the marriage of persons who were afflicted with the major form of epilepsy, which means that perhaps not more than 10 per cent. of the number of epileptics could be prevented from coming to birth. If a ten per centum reduction is to be considered as solving the problem in the case of epileptics what will the 86 per cent. of reforms among criminals be valued at?

The Case of the Pauper.—Paupers may be divided into two classes, those whose poverty is due to misfortunes and those whose poverty is due to vicious idleness. Those whose poverty is due to drink or crime are not properly to be classified as paupers. Society regards them as primarily drunkards and criminals. Of these two classes the first are generally to be found making a courageous fight against adverse circumstances and feel their position keenly. They are deserving of the compassion of society. Their families, it is true, are a burden upon private and institutional charity, but only a temporary one and after a while become the very means of recovering the broken fortunes of their parents. Very large sums are spent in relieving the necessities (often in providing the luxuries) of the undeserving poor, but this fact should not be made the basis of a charge against the deserving but helpless poor. My own acquaintance with the poorest parts of one of our largest cities leads me to believe that very little charity ever reaches the truly deserving poor. They battle on and keep their sad condition as far from public observation as possible. The undeserving are very clamorous. These two incidents are by no means uncommon, they are fairly typical. (a) I was called one night to baptise a dying child. The mother stated that she was too poor to buy a few necessaries ordered by the doctor. I purchased these myself and brought them to the mother. The next morning she sent to say the child was dead and would I lend her money to wire to the father. As he was in work I thought a collect telegram was more suitable. In the evening a request came for monetary assistance to provide the child with a coffin and to purchase a plot in the cemetery. A clergyman who does that sort of thing might as well keep a private cemetery, undertaker and monumental mason of his own. I refused to do it and came in for a good deal of abuse. The mother appeared at the funeral in a new black silk dress!

(b) A crippled woman who earned her living by ironing. She made on an average 10s per week. I suggested to her the advisability of applying for an old age pension and proceeded to fill in her papers. When she discovered that she was two months under the age of 65 she was horrified at what she thought an attempt on her part to swindle the Government.

These cases speak for themselves. People seem afraid to refuse to give alms for fear of being called uncharitable, yet they have not the charity to investigate the cases brought before their notice and see that their relief is intelligently bestowed upon worthy persons. Some religious societies are cruel sinners in this respect. The consequence is that a premium is put upon professional begging and we have plenty of it. Society will never murmur against the burden of the deserving poor. Concerning the life of the poor, however, Korosi gives these statistics:—The average age of the rich is 35 years, of the well-to-do 20.6 years, of the poor only 13.2 years. These statistics are supposed to hold good for all large towns. The average life of the pauper (that is the vicious pauper) will be shorter still seeing that in his idle, vicious life the parent refuses to acknowledge his responsibilities towards his children and makes no effort to save them from perishing through want and proper healthful conditions. The numbers of the pauper may increase, but it is seen then that they do not live to any great length of life. The pauper has, however, a certain rate of increase and his children are brought up in pauper habits. To the criminal population they add about 2 per cent. of the whole. They constitute a burden, not very great, but one which society resents. To adopt tubo-ligature might relieve both society and the pauper, but its moral effect would be that the pauper would regard his vice as acknowledged and approved by society. To say that there are no other remedies, remedies which would compel the pauper to earn his living, is an appalling confession of failure on the part of society.