In the sixth chapter, in which Dr. Corre examines the relative importance of the principal sociological factors, he sums up his opinion as to the influence of economic conditions upon criminality. Too great wealth and too great poverty are both causes of crime. “The first corrupts and the second degrades; both lead to crime through lessening the resistance to temptation that promises the satisfaction of wants fictitious or real, and when they both appear in the same environment, they give more energy to bad impulses, more violence to conflicts.” [160] This is why the agricultural class, in which moderate prosperity prevails, is the least criminal. The means by which this condition of things is to be improved is complex: “it is not altogether to be found in the solution of the question of wages; it is chiefly to be found in a better system for making the masses moral, in the reduction of the influences which tempt them to improvidence and idleness, lead them to drunkenness and alcoholism.” [161] —The second part of this work will show sufficiently why, in my opinion, the treatment of Dr. Corre is confused and incomplete, notwithstanding the truth of some observations made by him with regard to the subject which concerns us. The criticism of the author upon the organization of society at present is that of the petty bourgeoisie; he expects salvation only from the multiplication of small holdings, and hopes that this will make mankind happier. However, the development of large industries makes me believe that this hope will never be realized.— IV. L. MANOUVRIER. Of all the adherents of the “hypothesis of the environment,” Professor Manouvrier is undoubtedly the one who has set forth this doctrine in the clearest manner. Being an anthropologist it is evident that he has not given his attention more especially to economic conditions. But it seems to me that what he says in opposition to the theory of Professor Lombroso, and in support of that of the environment, is of the greatest importance. I will give a résumé, therefore, of his “Genèse normale du crime”, [162] and in doing so will quote his own words as far as possible, in order to give their full value. Although there is no connection between the doctrine of Professor Lombroso and his adherents, and this work, I shall be forced to follow his whole demonstration, because of the interlacing of the theories of the Italian school and the detailed exposition of the doctrine of the “environment.” The doctrine of the innate character of crime and the phrenology of Gall and Spurzheim are closely connected. Gall thought that he had discovered in the brain the organs of homicide and theft, without, however, denying the importance of surroundings, so that he explained a case of theft by means of circumstances when the bump of theft was wanting in the thief.