argue that crime has consequently greatly increased of late years, on
account of the lightness of modern sentences or the uncertainty about
punishment. This may be true. Crime is said to increase with
population always. According to Mr. Buckle, it can be calculated with
a considerable degree of accuracy. We can estimate, for instance, the
probable number of murders which will take place in a year in a given
number of inhabitants. Whether this theory is true or not would
require a vast amount of study and observation to determine. We know
that population in our time crowds in cities; especially is this true
of the classes most likely to furnish criminals. Still, in spite of
this, do not most of us feel that it has of late years been rather
safer to reside in a city than in the country? Consider the numbers of
lawless and too often cruel tramps which have overrun the country
towns and villages for a few years past, making it so unsafe for women
to walk unattended in woods and highways, even in the quietest parts
of New England, where once they could go with perfect safety alone and
at all hours. No laws can be too severe against _cruel_ tramps. It has
been affirmed that people who live in cities are in reality more moral
than country people of the same class.

Is this state of things brought about by the infliction of light
sentences, or is it caused by the increase among us of a bad foreign
element? We have heard many serious and humane persons express
themselves as in favor of a restoration of the whipping-post and
stocks, really supposing that these things would lessen crime. But is
it likely that the old methods of punishment would be considered by
criminals themselves as severer than the present? Let us see what some
of the last century rogues thought about the matter. At a session of
the Supreme Judicial Court held at Salem, Mass., in December, 1788,
one James Ray was sentenced, for stealing goods from the shop of