suitable cases, seems likely to be of great value. Before the passing of the Act, an offender who was released on his recognizances to appear for judgment when called upon, vanished from the ken of the Court almost completely, and the number of cases in which the offender was actually brought up for judgment at any later time, though he deserved it, was practically negligible. By making a probation order, the Court is now able to keep in touch with an offender who has had a chance given to him: the probation officer is required to inform the Court from time to time how the case is progressing, and to report at once if there is any breach of the recognizance. This method of dealing with offenders has a double advantage; not only is it a means whereby the Court can judge whether leniency has been justified, but it is also very frequently a means whereby an offender, after a lapse, can retrieve himself through the timely help of the probation officer, who is required to assist and befriend him. It is needless to observe that the Act requires discretion in its exercise, lest the idea should prevail that a first offender has almost a claim to be released under it, and that the law may be broken with impunity but it certainly seems to be an attempt to extend to offenders of all ages actively curative treatment.

Before Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, 734,356 persons were tried, of whom 48,782 were charged with indictable offences and 685,574 with non-indictable offences. It thus appears that four-fifths, roughly, of persons tried for indictable offences were dealt with summarily. Of the total of 734,356, 597,023 persons were convicted, 129,057 discharged, and 3,273 sent to Industrial Schools. Lest it be imagined that the large number of persons discharged 129,057, implies that unproven charges are freely brought, it is as well to point out that in 19,566 of these cases the charge was withdrawn, in 64,096 the charge was dismissed, and in 45,195 cases, though the offence was proved, the

defendants were discharged without conviction by the Courts in their discretion, under section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879. Of the 597,023 persons convicted, 76,130 were sentenced to imprisonment, and 498,325 to pay a fine: of this latter number, about 92,000 served terms of imprisonment in default of payment. It is a noteworthy fact in these days when complaints are rife as to the decay of parental responsibility, that only 127 parents were adjudged by the Courts to have conduced to the commission of offences by their children, and were thereupon ordered to pay the fine, &c. It is surprising that the Justices neglected this very effective means in their possession of bringing home to a parent his responsibility for the offences which his child had committed. But it is very probable that the effect of the provisions of the Children Act 1908, which came into force on the 1st April last, will be to stimulate parents to keep an eye on children who are likely to offend against the law.

There is nothing to call for special comment in the Police Statistics, but we may, perhaps, note that of 13,100 persons committed for trial at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, bail was allowed to 2,907. This gives roughly a per-centage of 22 per cent., the highest per-centage since 1902.

The per

centage is highest in rural districts and lowest in large cities. But it is pointed out in the Introduction that there are variations, not easily accounted for, between areas in which the conditions are apparently similar: thus in Suffolk the per-centage was 49, and in Devon 44, while in Lincolnshire it was only 17. On the other hand, in Newcastle-onTyne the per-centage was 30, and in Sheffield 23, while in Liverpool it was 7. In the Metropolitan Police district the per-centage was 25: it is, however, necessary to remember that in London Quarter Sessions are held very frequently, and that the period of detention awaiting trial can never be long. Possibly for this reason prisoners who

otherwise would find sureties, do not take the trouble to do so.

In the Penal Statistics, we may note that the total number of convicted prisoners received into prison during 1907 was 174,632, exclusive of 528 prisoners convicted by Courts martial. Attention has already been called to the fact that of this total, about 92,000 were imprisoned in default of payment of fines. About two-thirds (116,286) of the prisoners were sentenced to hard labour. As to length of sentences, it is interesting to observe that 37 per cent. of the sentences of imprisonment were for one week and under, 25 per cent. were for more than one week and not more than two, while only o'9 per cent. were for periods longer than one year. It is again worth while to call attention to the strange disinclination of the Courts to order prisoners to be detained in the second division, which is intended for persons whose general character is good. Only 2,504 persons were placed in the second division in 1907, and there is no doubt that this number should have been very much greater. In the first division 163 persons were placed, who suffered little discomfort beyond the actual loss of liberty.

Coming to the figures relating to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy, we find that the total number of cases in which the prerogative was exercised was 425; of this number, 102 were cases in which persons under police supervision were relieved of the obligation to report themselves to the police, and in 122 cases remission of sentence was granted on medical grounds. In 236 cases the clemency of the Crown was shown, for reasons of a personal nature, such as the youth of the offender; while in 18 cases only were persons released on grounds affecting the original conviction. It will be interesting to observe, in the statistics for 1908, what has been the effect on the statistics relating to the prerogative of the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

We may conclude with a few details as to the working of the Aliens Act 1905. In 1907 the number of aliens recommended by the Courts for expulsion was 289, as against 435 in 1906. The number of convicted alien prisoners received into English and Welsh prisons was less by 734 in 1907 than in 1906, the number falling from 3,399 to 2,668. The proportion of recommendations to receptions therefore fell from 12'80 to 10'69 per cent. There seems to be no explanation of this fact, save that the Courts did not choose to exercise their power of recommending for expulsion so freely as in 1906. In 1907, 310 cases became ripe for the Secretary of State's decision with regard to expulsion, and expulsion orders were made in 306 cases. Of these, 250

cases came from the Metropolis and 52 from the rest of England and Wales. Thus in 8 cases only did the Secretary of State refrain from making an expulsion order, and it is worth while to quote from the Report by H. M. inspector under the Act, in regard to these 8 cases, that " 4 prisoners proved on inquiry to be British subjects; 2 were very young and had no previous convictions; I was released for the purpose of appeal and absconded; and I died in prison."

THE

V. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE
ALIENS ACT.

HE ferocious outrages perpetrated at Tottenham in the month of January, the recent annual Parliamentary Paper on the working of the Aliens Act, and the questions and discussions arising therefrom in the House of Commons, invest with great interest the question whether any power exists in the executive by which an alien anarchist can be expelled the country. There is only one answer as far as the Aliens Act is concerned. Unlike all the previous Aliens Acts, 1793 to 1848, the present Act confers

no power on the executive to expel an alien after he has entered the country, if he does not commit any offence rendering him liable to be deported.

There can be no doubt, however, that there is a power at the Common law, frequently exercised in Queen Elizabeth's reign, and alluded to by Sir Leoline Jenkins a century later, called the Droit de Renvoi, by which an alien who rendered himself dangerous to the State could be expelled.1

The case for the existence and exercise of a right of expulsion by International law, either from the point of view of theory or modern and authoritative usage, stands on a very high footing, and International law is part of the law of England.

From the point of view of modern authoritative international usage, it would be breaking a butterfly on a wheel to demonstrate the proposition that, with the possible exceptions of Great Britain and Russia, the modern State claims a right of expelling an alien who becomes dangerous to its public tranquillity. It appears from a Parliamentary Paper published more than twenty years ago, that Me Clunet, the learned editor of Le Journal du Droit International Privé, rendered an affirmative opinion on this subject at the request of the Government of Lord Salisbury. While some States, as France, rely on a statutory power of expulsion, Germany appears to rely solely on the right as declared by International law. In 1887 Mr. Scott informed Lord Salisbury that "with regard to the continued residence of aliens in Germany, it is held that by International law each State has the power to expel from its territory aliens who may have rendered themselves obnoxious or dangerous to it."4

1 Life and Letters of Sir Leoline Jenkins, Vol. II, p. 714.

2 Speech of Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords; Hans. Parl. Deb., Vol. CXXIV, p. 1046; Is International Law a Part of the Law of England? Article in Law Quarterly Review, Jan. 1906, by Dr. Westlake, K.C. 4 Ibid.; 5168, p. 29.

8 Parl. Pap. 1887; Col. 5168.