"Only the great need of society to be secured from professional or dangerous criminals can justify the prolongation of the ordinary sentences of penal servitude by the addition of such Preventive Detention. It appears a matter of much importance that this should be clearly understood, and that the idea should not grow up that Preventive Detention affords a pleasant and easy asylum for persons whose moral weakness or defective education has rendered them merely a nuisance to society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that no case has been established, either from the statistics of crime or otherwise, for an increase in the general severity of the criminal code, and certainly no increase of general severity was within the intention of Lord Gladstone in proposing, or the House of Commons in passing, the Prevention of Crime Act. On the contrary, it was intended to introduce such mitigation into the conditions of convict life as would allow the longer detention of those persons only who are professional criminals engaged in the more serious forms of crime. This is indicated in the Act by the fact that Preventive Detention cannot be imposed except for a crime of such a character that it has justified the passing of a sentence of penal servitude. It was, moreover, repeatedly stated by Lord Gladstone in the course of the debates that the Bill was devised for 'the advanced dangerous criminal,' for 'the persistent dangerous criminal,' for 'the most hardened criminals': its object was 'to give the State effective control over dangerous offenders': it was not to be applied to persons who were 'a nuisance rather than a danger to society,' or to the 'much larger class of those who were partly vagrants, partly criminals, and who were to a large extent mentally deficient.' On the 12th June 1908, he explained to the House of Commons that the intention was to deal not with mere habituals but with professionals: 'For sixty per cent the present system was sufficiently deterrent, but for the professional class it was inadequate. There was a distinction well known to criminologists between habituals and professionals. Habituals were men who drop into crime from their surroundings or physical disability, or mental deficiency, rather than from any active intention to plunder their fellow creatures or from being criminals for the sake of crime. The professionals were the men with an object, sound in mind--so far as a criminal could be sound in mind--and in body, competent, often highly skilled, and who deliberately, with their eyes open, preferred a life of crime, and knew all the tricks and turns and manœuvres necessary for that life. It was with that class that the Bill would deal.' Although, therefore, the term 'habitual' is used, it is clear that not all habituals but only the professional class is aimed at by the Act, which not only restricts the use of Preventive Detention to those already found deserving of