—If one considers the study of the question by Joly from a critical point of view, the thing that most strikes the attention is this; that he puts economic causes by the side of the moral causes of criminality. As I have already more than once remarked, this is not sound. Every crime finds its origin in moral causes, or better, in the lack of moral ideas dominant at a certain period. But one of the principal questions to be answered is this; how far do these moral ideas find their origin in definite economic conditions? Joly, being a spiritualist, has not succeeded in formulating this problem well, still less in solving it. His entire treatment of the relation between criminality and economic conditions is characterized by a striking narrowness. He speaks of poverty and wealth as if they were the most natural things in the world, and had no need to be explained. Then he makes a distinction between voluntary and involuntary poverty, and excludes the former from the discussion as having nothing to do with the problem in question. This manner of reasoning has rather the air of a penitential sermon than of a scientific investigation. “Voluntary poverty” [215] is a contradiction in terms. For a man tries as far as possible to spare himself suffering and to gain happiness. There can never be any such thing then as voluntary poverty. Though his terms are unhappily chosen, Joly only wishes to point out that poverty may originate in circumstances or in the person himself. But in treating this problem he should not have been silent on a very important, and very difficult point, namely how far these individual causes of poverty are based upon the present economic system. If the question treated by Joly is incomplete, what he says neither has any great value, nor does it prove at all his statement that the influence of economic conditions is small. He gives but a few pages to the very difficult question of whether the standard of living of the working class has been raised. He brings out the universally observed fact that the wants of all classes have increased, but he seems not to have noted that this is intimately bound up with the present mode of production. He cites the testimony of an old police officer, and the investigations of a magistrate (investigations, it may be said in passing, that reached the colossal number of 107 cases) in order to prove that most crimes are not committed as a consequence of immediate privations—as if this were enough to solve the question of how far economic conditions enter into the causes of crime.— [216] II. L. PROAL. [217]