tion has increased sevenfold. In 1838 it was 1 in 822; in 1851, 1 in 606; in 1861, 1 in 467; and in 1890, 1 in 309. In fact, to quote Mr. Spalding's words, the number of 'criminals increased almost twice as rapidly as the popula'tion did.' On the other hand the rate of increase of criminals during the latter part has been less than in the first years of the century. Thus, from 1838 the increase was 76 per cent., whilst from 1861 to 1890 it was 19 per cent. But the first set of figures are the most important, and they show a clear increase of crime in this State. But the increase has been in moral rather than in serious crime, or, to use Mr. Spalding's words, in vice' and not in crime. Between 1881 and 1890 the increase in commitments for offences against the person was about 8 per cent., in offences against property 14 per cent. In the same period the population increased 25 per cent. The vast increase in mere viciousness is shown by the increase in commitments for drunkenness in 1880 they numbered 10,962; in 1890, 25,686. Further, it is clear that foreign-born persons are those who to the largest extent supply the State of Massachusetts with criminals.

We have taken these figures as Mr. Spalding gives them. He intends that they should prove that the criminal condition of the State is not so bad as at a first glance it may appear. This consolation may be granted to him, but the striking fact remains that the prison population has increased sevenfold, and that the state of order and sobriety has vastly deteriorated. We have not now to decide between the advocates of rival prison systems: whether punitive or reformatory systems are the best is not the question. We are face to face with the fact that even in the old and quiet State of Massachusetts there is an increasing population of those who have passed through prisons. If this is the condition of a state where men study statistics and prison systems, can we have any doubt what it is in states. where these things are not cared for?

A comparison of the statistics, so far as they are available, of the United States, may be profitably made with those of the Dominion of Canada, a country in which it would be natural to expect that the condition of crime would not be dissimilar to that of her neighbour. We find, however, that as against the 722 convicts per million of the United States, there are but 1 per 4,247 persons in Canada, which is a very large and marked difference in favour of the Dominion. The result, then, is that crime is on the increase in the

United States. The Federal Constitution of the Union contains no provision for the administration of criminal justice. There is no criminal law common to the whole country. The Federal Courts and their officers have no criminal jurisdiction, except in the case of offences against the revenue laws? When, as in Louisiana, a gross outrage and crime has been committed on foreigners, the Federal Government can only declare the inability of any Federal tribunal to afford redress or to punish the offenders. Each state has its own legislature and executive, its own body of law, its own system of procedure, and its own courts of justice. Thus from Montana to Florida there is neither uniformity of law nor of administration, so that, for example, if an improvement occurs in one state it does not necessarily take place in another. The executive officers, too, are either chosen by popular election or are nominated by the governor of the state (himself the creature of the electorate), who never holds office for more than four years.* Hence there is no possibility of a consistent and continuous course of administration whether of police or of prisons. The judges may be selected for longer periods-though some are no more than two years in office--but they are likewise the nominees of the political caucus, and a magistrate must, therefore, keep on ' good terms with those who have made him what he is and ' in whose hands his fortunes lie.' Hence the administration of justice is weak and faulty, and great numbers of the population are lawless in fact, and without respect for the law; they are not-to use a phrase well known in this country, and of which we may be proud-' law-abiding' men. In spite of the increase in the material prosperity of the United States, respect for law does not advance in the same ratio as the wealth of the community. It is said by some persons that this lawlessness is characteristic of lately settled lands. This is one excuse which is given for lynching by Mr. Bryce in his well-known work, in which we may observe that he passes over this question of the administration of the criminal law, and of the state of crime in the United States, in almost absolute silence; discreet it may be in an admirer of the Republic, but not judicious in the case of a critic who desires to be regarded as impartial. But Mr. Bryce goes further and treats lynching as though it were a method of justice free from technicalities, and not much open to censure.

In sixteen states the governor holds office for two years only.

'Lynch law is not unknown in more civilised regions, such as Indiana and Ohio. Now lynch law, however shocking it may seem to Europeans and New Englanders, is far removed from arbitrary violence. According to the testimony of careful observers, it is very seldom abused, and its proceedings are generally conducted with some regularity of form as well as fairness of spirit.*

It is sometimes well to test assertions such as this by actual facts. Would Mr. Bryce consider this act of lynching and of barbarous cruelty far removed from arbitrary violence'?

A woman had been assaulted by a negro in Texas. After a search for a week, those in pursuit came across a negro named Coy, whom they suspected. He was at once confronted with his victim, Mrs. Jewell identifying him without the slightest hesitation. It was then decided to hang him forthwith, and, surrounded by an angry mob, he was marched through the main streets of the city in the direction of the place selected for his execution.

'On the way one of the leaders was about to put a rope round his neck, when a shout went up, "Burn him!" The cry was immediately taken up, and repeated by a hundred throats. When near the post office a man, who had hold of the rope, which in the meantime had been placed on the prisoner's neck, attempted to mount a telegraph pole with it. He was seized by the foot, and dragged to the ground.

"Burn him! Burn him!" went up the cry again and again. 'It was evident that death by fire would be the only thing likely to appease the multitude. Several leading citizens mounted a box, and told the mob that if they decided to burn the wretch, they should, at least, for the sake of their wives and children, take him outside the city and do it in some quiet spot. This had the desired effect, and the cry turned to "Out of town with him! Burn him! Burn him!"

'Another start was then made, and, followed by the howling mob, Coy was taken outside the city limits. When just beyond the tracks of the Iron Mountain Railway a halt was made. There a stump of a tree about ten feet high stood in a large open space. To this the negro was immediately bound with iron fastenings, and then the contents of several cans of kerosene oil were poured over him.

"Let his victim apply the match!" cried out some one.

"Let Mrs. Jewell set fire to him! was shouted back by every man in the crowd. A clear space had been left round the doomed wretch. Suddenly out of the crowd, and greeted with cheers and shrieks of enthusiasm, Mrs. Jewell emerged. She looked pale, but determined, and was supported on either side by a male relation. She walked to the place of execution, where her assailant was pinioned, struck a match, and applied it to the negro's clothes in two places. In a few moments Coy was wrapped in flames, and ultimately died in fearful agony shrieking for mercy. Mrs. Jewell stood facing him with her arms folded until he died.

'The crowd which actually witnessed and assisted at this horrible

'What are the circumstances? Those highly technical rules of judicial procedure, and still more technical rules of evidence, which America owes to the English Common Law, and which have in some States retained antiquated minutiæ, now expunged from English practice, or been rendered by new legislation too favourable to prisoners, have to be applied in districts where population is thin, and where there are very few officers either for the apprehension of offenders or for the hunting up of evidence against them, and where, according to common belief, both judges and juries are occasionally "squared or got at." Many crimes would go unpunished, if some more speedy and efficient method of dealing with them were not adopted. This method is found in a volunteer jury, summoned by the leading local citizens, or, in very clear cases, by the seizure and execution of the criminal. Why not create an efficient police ? Because crime is uncommon in many districts-in such a district, for instance, as the rural part of Illinois-and the people have deliberately concluded that it is cheaper and simpler to take the law into their own hands on those rare occasions when a police is needed, than to be at the trouble of organising and paying a force for which there is usually no employment. If it be urged that they are thus forming a habit of lawlessness in themselves, the Americans reply that experience does not seem to make this probable, because lawlessness does not increase among farming population, and has disappeared from places where the rudeness or simplicity of society has formerly rendered lynch law necessary.' (Bryce, vol. i. p. 452.)

the

It is certain, however, that facts prove that this defence will not hold water. Without going into the details, it would be enough to refer to the New Orleans lynching case. In this instance the crime was committed not in a sparsely populated and wild frontier district, but in a city, a capital of a state, and a large commercial centre. The city prison was broken into, the ringleaders were men of respectable position; it was an instance of pure mob law, and of an absolute disregard for the most elementary rules of civilised life. In such a social state as is compatible with an event like this, life and property are unsafe, for there can be no real security, except by the regular administration of the criminal law. It would appear at this time of day hardly necessary to assert such an elementary proposition of civilised life, were it not that what may be termed 'illegal' justice is so common in the United States, and is excused, if not defended, by apparently reasonable men, and is likely to attract the less thoughtful and more violent members of a democratic community. It is, therefore, apposite to cite the

scene could not have been less than 4,000. Some estimate it as high as 6,000,'

view of a great American upon the necessity of the regular administration of justice, for we live in a time when, in America at any rate, the passions of the multitude are easily excited, and when men demand their victim with a clamorous precipitancy.'

The great object of a trial by jury in criminal cases,' writes Chief Justice Story, is to guard against a spirit of oppression and tyranny on the part of rulers, and against a spirit of violence and vindictiveness on the part of the people. Indeed, it is often more important to guard against the latter than the former. The sympathies of all mankind are enlisted against the revenge and fury of a single despot, and every attempt will be made to screen his victims. But how difficult is it to escape from the vengeance of an indignant people roused into hatred by unfounded calumnies, or stimulated to cruelty by bitter political enmities or unmeasured jealousies! The appeal for safety can, under such circumstances, scarcely be made by innocence in any other manner than by the severe control of courts of justice, and by the firm and impartial verdict of a jury sworn to do right, and guided solely by legal evidence and a sense of duty. In such a course there is a double security against the prejudices of judges, who may partake of the wishes and opinions of the Government, and against the passions of the multitude, who may demand their victim with a clamorous precipitancy.' (Story's Const. of U.S.,' sect. v. 777.)

Lynching is at once a cause and a consequence of a barbarous and uncivilised tone in the public mind in regard to justice. Such a practice cannot exist without degrading the public temper in respect of the rights of person and of life, and it is inevitable that as long as it is tolerated it must continually induce individuals to take the law in single cases into their own hands, and cause the community at large to regard with leniency, and even with approval, murders which wear a specious appearance of retribution, and it may even be of rough justice. The vicious action and reaction thus go on, and the whole national tone in regard to justice and order is debased.

The views of the ordinary traveller are of little value, but there are some specially gifted and observant men who do not fall within this class. The late Mr. Freeman, the historian, is certainly one of those whose views and opinions are entitled to weight, and in his Impressions of the United States,' wherein is described a visit to America between October 1881 and April 1882, are to be found some observations on this subject worthy of careful consideration. Mr..Freeman begins by the remark (p. 100), The Americans are on the 'whole surely a law-abiding people.' But the final view of the