56.34 57.45 56.00 Necessitous 22.99 30.77 32.15 Having only the bare necessities 11.54 9.98 10.13 Moderately well-off 2.13 1.80 1.72 Well-to-do or rich Here the favorable influence of means comes out distinctly. For 40% of the population had some means and 60% were in need; but among those convicted there were 13% with means and nearly 87% who were poor. Then the author gives a sketch of the influence of poverty in causing degeneracy among the proletariat and predisposing them to crime, for poverty is very destructive to men’s mental faculties. He cites in support of this many authors of weight. By comparing the different Italian districts, grouped about the average figure for wealth per capita, with the number of prisoners to the 100,000 of the population, grouped according to the place from which they came, the following result is obtained. Wealth. Prisoners according to the Place from which they Came. (3.333) Latium. VII -- -- VI -- -- V -- (2.746) Piedmont-Liguria. IV -- { Lombardy (43) (2.400) Lombardy. III { Piedmont-Liguria (51) { Venice (53) -- II Tuscany (76) (2.164) Tuscany. I Emilia (95) (1.935) Venice, } { (1.876) Kingdom. } Average. { Kingdom (118) (1.762) Emilia. } { -- 1st Marches-Umbria (137) (1.471) Sicily. } 2d { (1.333) Naples } { Sardinia (167) (1.227) Marches-Umbria 3d Naples (173) (?) Sardinia 4th -- 5th Sicily (212) 6th -- 7th Latium (250) According to the author this table shows that wealth and criminality present a certain symmetry, to this extent, that the wealthy regions have in general a lower criminality than the poor ones. It is only Latium that forms an exception, which is explained, according to Dr. Fornasari di Verce, first, by the circumstance that the capital is situated in that district, second, by the climate, and third, chiefly by the fact that the absolute wealth of a country gives no indication of the distribution of wealth. We can properly expect to find that where great wealth is heaped up there will also be considerable pauperism.