24S Froceedinr/s of the Royal Society of Victoria. 



aibility of the criminal was a large one, and was to be 

 looked at critically from so many points of view, that 

 it was only by long and patient stud}' we could hope 

 to solve it, and to measure out punishment to the 

 criminal, with the view to the gradual reduction of 

 crime. So much was this felt, that it had justlj' been 

 considered necessary to examine the criminal class in a 

 thoi-oughly scientific manner. Hence the new Science of 

 " Criminal Anthropology," which had led to the holding of 

 International Congresses, the first of which had been 

 held at Berne in 1885, the second in 1889 at Paris, 

 and the third was to be held this year at Brussels. 

 There had also been established a few years back the 

 International Criminological Association. An enormous 

 amount of useful work had been done, but the new Science 

 was only in its infancy. INumerous articles and books on 

 this subject had been [)ublished in Europe and America, so 

 that the tirsfc results of enquiry were within reach. Have- 

 lock Ellis, in 1890, had published a book called "The 

 Criminal," which was a valuable compilation of the opinion 

 of those who had taken a lending part in the work. His 

 (Colonel Goldstein's) attention had been directed to three 

 articles in the " International Journal of Ethics," which 

 fairly represented some of the views lield. One was " The 

 Theory of Punishment," by the Kev. Hastings Rashdall ; 

 another " The Prevention (jf Crime," by Dr. Tonnies ; and 

 the third was a discussion on these by Professor James 

 Seth, of Dalhousie College, According to Professor Seth, 

 the new Science of Criminology was founded on the 

 theory that crime was a pathological phenomenon, and 

 that the proper treatment of the criminal was, accord- 

 ingly, that which sought his cure rather than his 

 punishment. He claimed that this was an advance in 

 iiumau ibeling as well as in intelligence. It might be 

 suggested ti)at, as these latter day views of criminology 

 wei'e the result of special studies, or studies by specialists, 

 we should do well to raise the question, were specialists, as 

 a I'ule. well trained in philosophy. Or, to put it more 

 distinctl}-, had these particular specialists any fair amount 

 of knowledge of the ultimate causes of the various 

 phenomena of the universe ? Because so far as specialists 

 were deficient in general philosophy, so far must we guard 

 agaiu.-it being led to avoid generalising on the I'e.sults of 

 their undoubtedly valuable accumulations of evidence. 



