In the first part of his “Utopia” More severely criticises the economic conditions of his time in England, and adds some observations upon the criminality of that period.

Raphael Hythloday, whom More makes the speaker in his work, and through whom he expresses his own opinions, says:

“It chanced on a certain day, when I sat at the Cardinal’s table, there was also a certain lay man cunning in the laws of your realm. Who, I cannot tell whereof taking occasion, began diligently and earnestly to praise that strait and rigorous justice, which at that time was there executed upon felons, who, as he said, were for the most part twenty hanged together upon one gallows. And, seeing so few escaped punishment, he said he could not choose but greatly wonder and marvel, how and by what evil luck it should so come to pass, that thieves nevertheless were in every place so rife and so rank. [2]

“Nay, Sir, quod I (for I durst boldly speak my mind before the Cardinal) marvel nothing hereat; for this punishment of thieves passeth the limits of justice, and is also very hurtful to the public weal. For it is too extreme and cruel a punishment for theft, and yet not sufficient to refrain and withhold men from theft. For simple theft is not so great an offense, that it ought to be punished with death. Neither is there any punishment so horrible, that it can keep them from stealing, which have no other craft whereby to get their living. Therefore in this point, not you only, but also the most part of the world, be like evil schoolmasters, which be readier to beat, than to teach their scholars. For great and horrible punishments be appointed for thieves, whereas much rather provision should have been made, that there were some means, whereby they might get their living, so that no man should be driven to this extreme necessity, first to steal, and then to die.

“Yes (quod he) this matter is well enough provided for already. There be handicrafts, there is husbandry to get their living by, if they would not willingly be nought. Nay, quod I, you shall not scape so; for first of all, I will speak nothing of them that come home out of the wars, maimed and lame, as not long ago, out of Blackheath field, and a little before that, out of the wars in France; such, I say, as put their lives in jeopardy for public weal’s or the king’s sake, and by reason of weakness or lameness be not able to occupy their old crafts, and be too aged to learn new; of them I will speak nothing, forasmuch as wars have their ordinary recourse. But let us consider those things that chance daily before our eyes. First there is a great number of gentlemen, which can not be content to live idle themselves, like drones, of that which others have labored for; their tenants, I mean, whom they poll and shave to the quick, by raising their rents (for this only point of frugality do they use, men else through their lavish and prodigal spending, able to bring themselves to very beggary) these gentlemen, I say, do not only live in idleness themselves, but also carry about with them at their tails a great flock or train of idle and loitering serving men, which never learn any craft whereby to get their livings. These men as soon as their master is dead, or be sick themselves, be incontinent thrust out of doors. For gentlemen had rather keep idle persons, than sick men, and many times the dead man’s heir is not able to maintain so great a house, and keep so many serving men as his father did. Then in the mean season they that be thus destitute of service, either starve for hunger, or manfully play the thieves. For what would you have them do? [3]When they have wandered abroad so long, until they have worn threadbare their apparel, and also impaired their health, then gentlemen because of their pale and sickly faces, and patched coats, will not take them into service. And husbandmen dare not set them a work, knowing well enough that he is nothing meet to do true and faithful service to a poor man with a spade and a mattock for small wages and hard fare, which being daintily and tenderly pampered up in idleness and pleasure, was wont with a sword and buckler by his side to jet through the street with a bragging look, and to think himself to be as good as any man’s mate.

“Nay, by Saint Mary, sir (quod the lawyer), not so. For this kind of man must we make the most of. For in them as men of stouter stomachs, bolder spirits, and manlier courages than handicrafts men and plowmen be, doth consist the whole power, strength, and puissance of our army, when we must fight in battle. Forsooth, sir, as well you might say (quod I) that for war’s sake we must cherish thieves. For surely you shall never lack thieves while you have them. No, nor thieves be not the most false and faint-hearted soldiers, nor soldiers be not the cowardliest thieves; so well these two crafts agree together. But this fault, though it be much used among you, yet is not peculiar to you only, but common also almost to all nations. Yet France besides this is troubled and infected with a much sorer plague. The whole realm is filled and besieged with hired soldiers in peace time (if that be peace) which be brought in under the same color and pretense, that hath persuaded you to keep these idle serving men. For these wise fools and very archdolts thought the wealth of the country herein to consist, if there were ever in readiness a strong and sure garrison, specially of old practised soldiers, for they put no trust at all in men unexercised. And therefore they must be forced to seek for war, to the end that they may have practised soldiers and cunning manslayers, lest that (as it is prettily said by Sallust) their hands and their minds through idleness and lack of exercise, should wax dull. But how pernicious and pestilent a thing it is to maintain such beasts, the Frenchmen by their own harms have learned, and the examples of the Romans, Carthaginians, Syrians, and of many other countries do manifestly declare. For not only the empire, but also the fields and cities of all these, by divers occasions have been overrunned and destroyed by their own armies beforehand had in a readiness. Now how unnecessary a thing this is, hereby it may appear, that the French soldiers, which from their youth have been practised and inured in feats of arms, do [4]not crack nor advance themselves to have very often gotten the upper hand and mastery of your new made and unpractised soldiers. But in this point I will not use many words, lest perchance I may seem to flatter you.

“No, nor those same handicraftmen of yours in cities, nor yet the rude and uplandish plowmen of the country, are not supposed to be greatly afraid of your gentlemen’s idle serving men, unless it be such as be not of body or stature correspondent to their strength and courage, or else whose bold stomachs be discouraged through poverty. Thus you may see, that it is not to be feared lest they should be effeminated, if they were brought up in good crafts and laborsome works, whereby to get their livings, whose stout and sturdy bodies (for gentlemen vouchsafe to corrupt and spill none but picked and chosen men) now either by reason of rest and idleness be brought to weakness or else by easy and womanly exercises be made feeble and unable to endure hardness. Truly howsoever the case standeth, this methinketh is nothing available to the public weal, for war’s sake, which you never have, but when you will yourselves, to keep and maintain an innumerable flock of that sort of men, that be so troublesome and noyous in peace, whereof you ought to have a thousand times more regard than of war.

“But yet this is not the only necessary cause of stealing. There is another, which, as I suppose, is proper and peculiar to you Englishmen alone. What is that? quod the Cardinal. Forsooth my Lord (quod I) your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame, and so small eaters, now as I hear say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves. They consume, destroy, and devour whole fields, houses, and cities. For look in what parts of the realm doth grow the finest and therefore dearest wool, there noblemen and gentlemen, yea and certain abbots, holy men no doubt, not contenting themselves with the yearly revenues and profits, that were wont to grow to their forefathers and predecessors of their lands, nor being content that they live in rest and pleasure nothing profiting, yea much noying the public weal, leave no ground for tillage, they inclose all into pastures; they throw down houses; they pluck down towns, and leave nothing standing, but only the church to be made a sheephouse. And as though you lost no land by forests, chases, lands, and parks, those good holy men turn all dwelling places and all glebeland into desolation and wilderness. Therefore that one covetous and unsatiable cormorant and very plague of his native country may compass about [5]and enclose many thousand acres of ground together within one pale or hedge, the husbandmen be thrust out of their own, or else either by fraud, or by violent oppression they be put besides it, or by wrongs and injuries they be so wearied, that they be compelled to sell all. By one means therefore or by other, either by hook or crook they must needs depart away, poor, silly, wretched souls, men, women, husbands, wives, fatherless children, widows, woeful mothers, with their young babes, and their whole household small in substance and much in number, as husbandry requireth many hands. Away they trudge, I say, out of their known and accustomed houses, finding no place to rest in. All their household stuff, which is very little worth, though it might well abide the sale; yet being suddenly thrust out, they be constrained to sell it for a thing of nought. And when they have wandered abroad till that be spent, what can they do but steal and then justly pardy be hanged, or else go about begging. Yet then they also be cast into prison as vagabonds, because they go about and work not, whom no man will set to work, though they never so willingly profer themselves thereto. For one shepherd or herdman is enough to eat up that ground with cattle, to the occupying whereof about husbandry many hands were requisite.

“And this is also the cause why victuals be now in many places dearer. Yea, besides this the price of wool is so risen, that poor folks which were wont to work it, and make cloth thereof, be now able to buy none at all. And by this means very many be forced to forsake work, and to give themselves to idleness. For after that so much ground was inclosed for pasture, an infinite multitude of sheep died of the rot, such vengeance God took of their inordinate and insatiable covetousness, sending among the sheep that pestiferous murrain, which much more justly should have fallen of the sheep-masters’ own heads. And though the number of sheep increase never so fast, yet the price falleth not one mite, because there be so few sellers. For they be almost all comen into a few rich men’s hands, whom no need forceth to sell before they lust, and they lust not before they may sell as dear as they lust.

“Now the same cause bringeth in like dearth of the other kinds of cattle, yea and that so much the more, because that after the farms plucked down and husbandry decayed, there is no man that careth about the breeding of young stock. For these rich men bring not up the young ones of great cattle as they do lambs. But first they buy them abroad very cheap and afterward, when they be fatted in their pastures, they sell them again exceeding dear. And [6]therefore (as I suppose) the whole incommodity hereof is not yet felt. For yet they make dearth only in those places where they sell. But when they fetch them away from thence where they be bred faster than they can be brought up; then shall there also be felt great dearth, stock beginning there to fail where the ware is bought. Thus the unreasonable covetousness of a few hath turned that thing to the utter undoing of your island, in the which thing the chief felicity of your realm did consist. For this great dearth of victuals causeth men to keep as little houses and as small hospitality as they possibly may, and to put away their servants, whither, I pray you, but abegging or else (which these gentle bloods and stout stomachs will sooner set their minds unto) astealing?

“Now to amend the matter, to this wretched beggary and miserable poverty is joined great wantonness, importunate superfluity and excessive riot. For not only gentlemen’s servants, but also handicraftman, yea and almost the plowmen of the country, with all other sorts of people, use much strange and proud newfangledness in their apparel, and too much prodigal riot and sumptuous fare at their table. Now bawds, queans, whores, harlots, strumpets, brothel-houses, stews, and yet another stews, winetaverns, alehouses and tippling houses, with so many naughty, lewd, and unlawful games, as dice, cards, tables, tennis, bowls, quoits, do not all these send the haunters of them straight astealing when their money is gone?

“Cast out these pernicious abominations, make a law that they, which plucked down farms and towns of husbandry, shall reëdify them, or else yield and uprender the possession thereof to such as will go to the cost of building them anew. Suffer not these rich men to buy up all, to engross and forestall, and with their monopoly to keep the market alone as please them. Let not so many be brought up in idleness, let husbandry and tillage be restored, let clothworking be renewed, that there may be honest labors for this idle sort to pass their time profitably, which hitherto either poverty has caused to be thieves, or else now to be vagabonds, or idle serving men, and shortly will be thieves. Doubtless unless you find a remedy for these enormities, you shall in vain advance yourselves of executing justice upon felons. For this justice is more beautiful in appearance, and more flourishing to the show, than either just or profitable. For by suffering your youth wantonly and viciously to be brought up, and to be infected, even from their tender age, by little and little with vice, then in God’s name to be punished, when they commit the same faults after being come to man’s state, which from their youth [7]they were ever like to do; in this point, I pray you, what other thing do you, than make thieves and then punish them?”2

In speaking of the faults which cling to society Meslier, among other things, says the following about crime:

“Another abuse, and one that is almost universally accepted and authorized in the world, is the appropriation of the wealth of the soil by individuals, in place of which all ought to possess it equally in common and enjoy it equally in common. I mean all those of the same district or territory, so that they as well as those who inhabit the same city, town, village, or parish should compose but one great family. They should all regard themselves as being brothers and sisters one to another and all children of the same fathers and mothers, who, for this reason ought to love one another as brothers and sisters and, in consequence, live peaceably together, having all things common. All should have the same or similar food, should be equally well lodged, clothed and shod, but should also apply themselves equally to their business, that is to say, to work or to some other honest and useful employment, each following his or her profession, or whatever is most necessary and fitting to be done according to the time or season or the things especially needed. And all this should be done, not under the direction of those who would like to dominate over others tyrannically and imperiously, but only under the direction of the wisest and best intentioned, for the maintenance and advancement of the public weal. All cities and other communities should also on their own account take great pains to make alliances with their neighbors and keep inviolable the peace and union between them, in order to aid and succor one another in time of need; for without this the public well-being cannot be maintained, and the greater part of mankind must be wretched and unhappy.

“For first, what results from this individual appropriation of the wealth of the soil for each to enjoy it severally apart from the others, as it seems good to him? It results that each is eager to get as much as he can, in all sorts of ways, good and bad. For cupidity, which is insatiable and, as we know, the root of all evils, looking through an open door, so to speak, toward the accomplishment of its desires, does not fail to take advantage of the opportunity, and makes all [8]men do whatever they can in order to have an abundance of goods and riches, and to be so protected from indigence as to have the pleasure and contentment of enjoying whatever they wish. From this it happens that those who are the strongest, the most crafty, the most skilful, and often even the most wicked and unworthy, have the largest share in the wealth of the soil and are best provided with all the good things of life.”4

“This is not all, but it also results from this abuse of which I have been speaking, namely that wealth is so badly distributed among men, some having everything, or at least much more than their true share, and others having nothing, or lacking a part of what is useful and necessary … it results from this, I say, that hatred and envy first of all arise. From these spring in turn murmurings, complainings, commotions, insurrections, and wars, which cause an infinity of evils among men. From these again proceed thousands and millions of mischievous lawsuits which the private owners are obliged to have among themselves to defend their property and to maintain what they consider their rights. These suits cause thousands of pains to the body, and tens of thousands of disquietudes to the mind, and often enough cause the entire ruin of both parties. From this it also happens that those who have nothing, or who have not all that they need, are constrained and obliged to employ evil means to get subsistence. From this come the frauds, deceptions, rascalities, injustices, extortions, robberies, thefts, murders, assassinations, and brigandages which cause such an infinity of evils among men.”5

I believe that the following observation, which I find in the “Discourse upon the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men”, is worth quoting.

“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, ‘This is mine’, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, and murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared if some one had torn up the stakes, or filled the ditch, and cried to his comrades: ‘Beware of heeding this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the ground belong to all, and the ground itself to no one.’ ”6 [9]

In his “Code de la nature” this author seeks to show that the harmony in which men lived in primitive society (when common property existed) has been destroyed by the institution of private property, which, coming in little by little, has changed common interests into contrary interests. He expresses himself on this point as follows:

“Every division of goods, whether equal or unequal, and all individual appropriation of the portions so formed are what Horace calls ‘Summi materiam mali.’ All political or moral phenomena are the effects of this pernicious cause. It is by this that we can explain all theorems and problems with regard to the origin, development, connection, and affinity of virtues or vices, disorders, and crimes; also with regard to the true motives of good or bad actions, the determinations and perplexities of the human will, the depravity of the passions, the inefficacy of precepts and laws to restrain them; and, finally, with regard to the monstrous creations resulting from the aberrations of the mind and the heart. The reason, I say, for all these things can be ascribed to the general obstinacy of legislators about breaking or letting any one else break the cord with which sociability was first bound by those who usurped to their own use soil that ought to belong indivisibly to all humanity.”7

Farther along he defines the same idea more exactly when he says: “Take away property, I repeat without ceasing, and you destroy forever a thousand factors which lead men to desperate extremities. I say that, delivered from this tyrant, it is totally impossible that man should give himself to crimes, that he should be a thief, an assassin, or a conqueror. The laws which authorize property punish him, it is true, for these crimes. Even his own remorse and fears, sprung from the prejudices of the moral system in which he has been raised, punish him still more. But the most severe chastisement of the offender is the primitive and innate feeling of benevolence. This inner voice of Nature, though commonly confined to the indifferent admonition not to injure, has still force enough to make the criminal feel keenly.”8 [10]

The following passage taken from the introduction to Beccaria’s “Des délits et des peines” is not without importance for our subject:

“The advantages of society ought to be equally divided among all its members. However, when men are gathered together we note a constant tendency to collect privileges, power, and happiness in the hands of a small minority, and to leave for the multitude only poverty and weakness. It is only by good laws that this tendency can be checked. But ordinarily men leave the regulation of the most important matters to temporary laws and to the caution of the moment, or even entrust them to the discretion of those whose interests are opposed to the best institutions and the wisest laws.”9

“If we turn to history we shall see that laws, which ought to be agreements freely made between free men, have oftenest been only the instrument of the passions of the minority or the result of the chance of the moment, never the work of a wise observer of human nature who has known how to direct all the actions of the multitude to this single end: The greatest good of the greatest number.”10

In Section 35 (“On Theft”) we read, among other things, as follows:

“A theft committed without violence ought to be punished merely by a fine. It is just that he who takes the property of another should be deprived of his own. But if theft is ordinarily the crime of poverty and despair, if this offense is committed only by that class of unfortunate men to whom the right of property (a terrible right and perhaps not a necessary one) has left no possession but mere existence, the imposition of a fine will contribute only to multiply thefts, by increasing the number of the indigent, and robbing an innocent family of bread to give it to a rich man who is perhaps himself a criminal.”11

In his “Théorie des lois civiles”, directed principally against Montesquieu’s “L’esprit des lois”, in which Linguet seeks to defend the thesis, “The spirit of the laws is Property”, there are some interesting [11]passages. After having shown that private property has been founded upon violence, he treats of the origin of the laws and, at the same time, of the causes of crime, and says:

“Among men all equal, all robust, passionate, sanguinary, and accustomed to arms, dangerous disputes would continually arise. It would be impossible but that chance and intelligence should produce great inequality of fortune. He who believed that he had been injured would wish to get justice for himself. The association formed to secure the booty would be troubled by the difficulty of enjoying it. These inconveniences occurred to the clearest thinkers and they sought to find a remedy. It was a totally new art that they created. But as it is almost always science that misleads, and as truth is never so easy to discover as at a distance from the Doctors, they looked about to see what route they should take.

“They thought that a primary act of violence was incontestably necessary. They could not disavow it, since it was the sole basis of their rights. But they also saw that it was necessary to prevent any further violence, since this would fall upon themselves. They conceived that the primitive usurpation ought to be regarded as a sacred title; but they perceived no less clearly that it was necessary to proscribe any new usurpation, which would contradict the ancient one and destroy it. In order to succeed in this they proposed to authorize only those brigandages which were carried on in common, and to punish severely those persons who dared to commit individual acts of spoliation. In response to their suggestions it was decreed that society should have the right to take everything, but that the members of society, as individuals, should be deprived of this right. They agreed that each should have peaceful possession of the part allotted to him, and that whoever tried to take it from him should be declared a public enemy and prosecuted as such.

“Here, then, in a few words is the source of all human laws. From it spring laws of every kind except the divine law, the source of which is as pure as its author. Upon this basis are founded all imaginable constitutions. This it is which sanctions the law of nations and the civil law, of which the one legitimates conquests, and the other proscribes robbery, only punishing, however, the thefts not committed by a large company. Finally this same principle has directed the steps of all politicians and of all founders of governments and empires.

“They have come by different ways, the details of which it is useless to discuss here, to change the original social anarchy, in which these principles were discovered, into administrations more or less [12]imperfect. Violence thus formed the foundation of their rights, but all wished to keep with justice what they got possession of very unjustly. They took precautions to prevent those who assisted them in their wholesale conquest from imitating them in detail. After making sure of the general domain they did not wish any one to be able to dispute the particular distribution of it. They confirmed by regulations all their accomplices in the possession of what they had had the address or the good fortune to seize. They decreed that any one who, seeing these possessions stolen by force, should attempt to secure restitution by the same method, should be punished as guilty of an offense against society.”12

In the chapter “Good and Evils which Laws Produce” Linguet pronounces the following trenchant and satirical judgment:

“The aim [of justice and law], as we have said, is to give society a fixed position. There results from them an invariable order which keeps each member in his place. It is by their means that the multitude who do not know them, even while they respect them, submit without repugnance to the small number who are armed by them. In this sense there is nothing so admirable as the law. It is the most sublime invention that ever presented itself to the human mind. It offers to any reflective individual the most satisfying, the most beautiful of spectacles. To restrain force and violence by pacific means; to subjugate the liveliest passions; to assure to painful virtues the preference over easy and delusive vices; to direct the eyes, the hands, and the hearts of men; to subdue them without preventing them from believing themselves free; to prescribe duties capable of securing the repose of docile souls who performed them, and of protecting them against rebellious spirits, who wish to be exempt from them; all this the laws do or ought to do. It would be difficult to join together so much greatness with so many benefits.

“But as the theory of the laws is honorable to the humanity which has been able to grasp it, so the practical application of the laws has been most distressing, when, after the observance of them has been recommended, it is necessary to pass on to the punishments decreed for the offenses which violate them. The passions which self-interest unceasingly incites often necessitate this grievous extremity. Then we see men authorized by general consent to exercise an inflexible rigor upon their fellows. We hear justice pronounce sentences which would pass for cruel if they were not indispensable. It makes use of prisons, executioners, gallows. Liberty and even life become pledges [13]of which justice deprives men at pleasure when they abuse them. To make good the losses which the state suffers from the crimes that disturb it, it comes back upon the criminals, and consequently suffers almost equally from the crime and from the punishment.”13

In the third section of his “Système social”, under the heading, “The Influence of Government upon Morals”, Holbach, in treating of the causes of crime says among other things:

“In China they punish the mandarin in the department in which a great crime has been committed. A bad government has its own negligence or its own injustice to blame for the great number of malefactors who are found in a state. The multiplicity of criminals proclaims an administration as tyrannical and careless. The severity of taxes, the vexations and hardships inflicted by the rich and great multiply the number of the unfortunate, whom poverty often reduces to despair and who avail themselves of crime as the promptest means of escape from their condition. If wealth is the mother of vices, poverty is the mother of crimes. When a state is badly governed and wealth is too unequally divided, so that millions of men lack the necessaries of life, while a small number of citizens are surfeited with luxuries, there we commonly see a great number of criminals, whose number punishments do not diminish. If a government punishes the unfortunate it leaves undisturbed the vices that are leading the state to its ruin; it erects gibbets for the poor, whereas by bringing men to poverty it has itself made thieves, assassins, and criminals of every kind; it punishes crime, while it continually invites men to commit crime.”14

“The man who has no share in the wealth of the state is not held to society by any bond. How can we expect a crowd of unfortunates to whom we have given neither principles nor morals to remain quiet spectators of the abundance, the luxury, the unjustly acquired riches of so many corrupt individuals, who seem to insult the general poverty, and are only rarely disposed to relieve it? By what right can society punish the thieving servant who has been a witness of the unpunished robberies and extortions of his master, or has seen public thieves strutting along, enjoying the consideration of their [14]fellow citizens, and shamelessly displaying the fruits of their extortions under the very eyes of the heads of the state? How can we make the poor respect the property of others when they themselves have been the victims of the rapacity of the rich, or have seen the property of their fellow citizens snatched away by violence or fraud with impunity? Finally how can we successfully preach submission to men to whom everything proves that the laws, armed against themselves alone, are indulgent toward the great and happy, and are inexorable only for the unhappy and poor? ‘A man dies but once’ and the imagination of the criminal familiarizes itself little by little with the idea of the most cruel punishments. He ends by regarding them as a ‘mauvais quart d’heure’, and would as soon perish by the hand of the executioner as die of hunger, or even work all his life without reward.”15

This author’s opinion of crime is best expressed by the following quotation taken from his “De la législation ou principes des lois”:

“The more I reflect upon it the more I am convinced that inequality of fortune and condition disorders man and alters the natural sentiments of his heart, for the habit of luxury gives him a desire for things that are useless for his true happiness and fills his mind with the most unjust and absurd prejudices and errors. I believe that equality, while satisfying modest requirements, keeps those requirements modest, and preserves in the soul a peace which is opposed to the birth and progress of the passions. By what strange folly should we have cultivated a studied elegance and refinement in our needs if inequality of fortune had not accustomed us to regard this ridiculous fastidiousness as a proof of superiority, and attained thereby a certain consideration? Why should I consider as below me a man who is perhaps my superior in merit; why should I pretend to have authority over him and so open the door to tyranny, to servitude, and all the vices most fatal to society, if the inequality of conditions had not exposed my soul to ambition, as the inequality of fortune has exposed it to avarice? It is inequality alone that has taught men to prefer many useless and harmful things to virtue. I believe that it has been demonstrated that in a state of equality nothing would be easier than to prevent abuses and maintain the law. [15]Equality is certain to produce all good, because it unites men, elevates their souls, and prepares them for mutual feelings of benevolence and amity. Inequality, on the other hand, produces all evil, because it degrades men, humiliates them, and sows division and hatred among them.”16

In his “Théorie des loix criminelles” we find among others the following passages that are of interest in connection with the subject which occupies our attention:

“A man is not born an enemy to society. It is circumstances which give him that title, such as poverty or misfortune. He does not disturb the general tranquillity until he has lost his own. He ceases to be a good citizen only when the name becomes meaningless in his case; and it is when poverty has destroyed his own privileges that he dares to attack those of his fellows. To make all citizens happy is, then, to prevent the inception of crime; and the rarity of crime is in direct ratio to the goodness of the administration. This simple principle, however unknown to administrators even to the present day, is no less solid on that account, no less luminous, and ought no less to serve as the basis for government. If it has been neglected, it is because it has appeared easier to rulers to punish the unfortunate being who demands the rights that nature gave him, than to satisfy his just demand; to stifle the cries of anguish, than to change them to shouts of applause. The penal code of every nation is much like the bull of Phalaris; its imposing garb of juridical forms, like the timbrels and other instruments surrounding the brazen monster, prevent the cries of the victims from reaching the ear. Tyrants cry out to the credulous spectators that blood is necessary to the public safety; good legislators are greedy of it.

“The first and most efficacious means of preventing crimes consists, then, in a wise administration that procures the general happiness. When the rays of the beneficent star that rules extend their influence even to the lowest ranks of society, they are rarely sullied by punishments; each, concentrating itself upon the spot where heaven has thrown it, makes the day that it lightens joyous and blessed (and crime is so near to the man who is forced to curse his fate!). If the taxes are light and not severely felt, if subsistence is [16]easy, the number of marriages increases, they are happy, and the population multiplies. The people then do not regret their labors, since they are interspersed with pleasures. They are attached to the fatherland, which offers them good fortune, and to life, which gives them the means of enjoying it. A man does not disturb the public peace, because his own prosperity is the fruit of it. A property-holder himself, he takes good care not to do any violence to the right of property, and even where he would not naturally have a horror of bloodshed, his days are too precious to him for him to dare to cut short those of his fellow-citizens.”17

“… What sovereign, I say, cannot easily see that he has in his hand the true means of restraining crime, namely to secure the public well-being by means of civil legislation. Yes, the more perfect civil legislation becomes the less need there will be for criminal legislation. And this need will disappear entirely when the twofold basis upon which civil legislation ought to rest becomes fixed and invariable; when the property and the liberty of subjects are respected by the monarch; when the unfortunate man who has been born without property (though with the same needs as others) can, by working, correct the injustice of fate, and destroy the inequality of the distribution of wealth; when, finally, the fruit of his labor will not be the prey of the greedy tax-gatherer. The rich man can then enjoy his wealth in safety, because despair will no longer expose him to the knife of the poor man whom his proud opulence insults. We posit here as the foundation of good legislation the security of real and personal property, but a masterpiece of statesmanship would be, to make them useless, if it were possible, by abolishing them altogether. This would be to tear up crime by the roots. It was thus that Lycurgus, whose laws have been so calumniated because to narrow minds they seemed impossible of imitation, cleverly dried up the source of all crime. To avoid attacks upon property he abolished it; to prevent adultery he had all women held in common; to make the Spartan a hero he made him the slave of his harsh legislation; finally to prevent the sad effects of the passions he permitted none but the passion for the public weal. This is why crimes were so rare in Sparta as long as these laws were faithfully observed. But when Lysander brought back from the fatal conquest of Athens treasures, the taste for art and the rage for luxury, all the vices were rapidly introduced. Then crimes broke out; ambition made men commit perjuries, assassinations, treasons; then the virtuous Agis, who wanted to revive [17]morality, perished under the perfidious knife of the royal servitude; then men like Nabis and Machanidas appeared; and finally a penal code was introduced, and Sparta was reduced to the status of an ordinary city.”18

“Ought we to be astonished that the attacks upon the social laws are so multiplied to-day, and that there are always so many thieves and assassins, when to the causes of crime which we have developed it is necessary to add that horrible malady of European states, mendicity? When the water destined by nature to quench the thirst of all men is artificially diverted into particular channels for the exclusive use of certain individuals, the unfortunate man, tormented by need, falls into despair, and in a rage breaks these fatal channels, making the fragments fall upon the heads of his enemies. Exclusive possession of property has everywhere produced poverty in the most numerous class, and poverty has given birth to mendicity, which, robbing with one hand to satisfy hunger, with the other plunges a dagger into the bosom of the rich to stop their cries. Here we have in two words the origin of theft and murder. To destroy the roots of these it would be necessary to restore among men the equality of condition so praised by modern philosophers, but not at all included in the programs of modern governments. It would be necessary to distribute wealth equally among all citizens, to eradicate from their hearts the corrosive desire of ambition, and to blunt the spur of their personal interest.”19

In his “Recherches philosophiques sur la propriété et sur le vol” Brissot gives an exposition of natural property, and of property as established by society. He says of crime: “Civil property is very different from natural property, as we have shown. It is not based upon the same title, and has not the same aim or the same bounds. Need is the limit of natural property. Civil property goes further and includes superfluities. In nature each man has a right to everything; in society the man to whom his parents have left no property has a right to nothing. In nature he would be guilty if he did not satisfy his needs; he is guilty in society when he satisfies them if he has no property. Society has, then, upset all the ideas of property given by nature. It has destroyed the equilibrium between human beings which nature established. Equality banished there appear the odious distinctions of rich and poor. Society has been divided into two classes, the first consisting of citizens with property, living in idleness; the second and more numerous class composed of the [18]mass of the people, to whom the right to exist has been sold dear, and who are degraded and condemned to perpetual toil. To confirm this new right of property the most cruel punishments have been pronounced upon all those who disturb or attack it. The breach of this right is called theft; and see how far we are from nature! The thief in the state of nature is the rich man, the man who has a superfluity; in society the thief is he who robs this rich man. What a complete transposition of ideas!”20

“If man retains, even in society, the inalienable right of property which nature has given him, nothing can take it from him, nothing can prevent his exercising it. If the other members of society concentrate in their own persons the possession of all the soil; if those who are robbed by this spoliation and forced to have recourse to labor cannot by this means secure their whole subsistence, then they have the right to exact from the others, who hold property, the means of satisfying their needs. They have a claim upon the wealth of others in proportion to their own necessity, and force used to resist this claim is violence. The rich man is the only thief; he alone ought to hang from those infamous gallows which are raised only to punish the man born in poverty for being needy; only to force him to stifle the voice of nature, the cry of liberty; only to compel him to subject himself to a harsh servitude in order to avoid an ignominious death.”21

In the third chapter of the First Book of his “Enquiry Concerning Political Justice”, Godwin treats of two important kinds of crime, theft and fraud.

Of these he says: “Two of the greatest abuses relative to the interior policy of nations which at this time prevail in the world, consist in the irregular transfer of property, either first by violence, or secondly by fraud. If among the inhabitants of a country there existed no desire in one individual to possess himself of the substance of another, or no desire so vehement and restless as to prompt him to acquire it by means inconsistent with order and justice, undoubtedly in that country guilt could scarcely be known but by report. If every man could with perfect facility obtain the necessities of life, and, obtaining them, feel no uneasy craving after its superfluities, [19]temptation would lose its power. Private interest would visibly accord with public good; and civil society become what poetry has feigned of the golden age. Let us inquire into the principles to which these evils are indebted for their existence.”22

According to him these crimes are the consequence:

First, Of poverty, which has reached enormous dimensions (in England one person out of every seven has at some time received public aid). The situation has become such that for the poor man the state of society is a state of war. He considers society not as a body whose object is to maintain personal rights and to procure to each individual the means of providing for his own support, but as a body that protects the advantageous position of one class of persons, while holding others in a state of poverty and dependence.

Second, Of the ostentation of the rich, who make the poor man feel all the more what he is deprived of.

Third, Of the tyranny of the rich, made permanent by legislation, by the administration of the laws, and by the distribution of wealth.

In his Eighth Book (“Of Property”), Godwin elaborates the ideas given above. Speaking of the moral improvement that would result from the abolition of private property, he says: “And here it is obvious that the great occasions for crime would be cut off forever. All men love justice. All men are conscious that man is a being of one common nature, and feel the propriety of the treatment they receive from one another being measured by one common standard. Every man is desirous of assisting another; whether we should choose to ascribe this to an instinct implanted in his nature which renders this a source of personal gratification, or to his perception of the reasonableness of such assistance. So necessary a part is this of the constitution of mind, that it may be doubted whether any man perpetrates any action, however criminal, without having first invented some sophistry, some palliation, by which he proves to himself that it is best to be done. Hence it appears, that offense, the invasion by one man upon the security of another, is a thought alien to the human mind, and which nothing could have reconciled us to but the sharp sting of necessity. To consider merely the present order of society, it is evident that the first offense must have been his who began a monopoly, and took advantage of the weakness of his neighbors to secure certain exclusive privileges to himself. The man on the other hand who determined to put an end to this monopoly, and who peremptorily demanded what was superfluous to the [20]possessor and would be of extreme benefit to himself, appeared to his own mind to be merely avenging the offended laws of justice. Were it not for the plausibleness of this apology, it is to be presumed that there would be no such thing as crime in the world.

“The fruitful source of crimes consists in this circumstance, one man’s possessing in abundance that of which another man is destitute. We must change the nature of mind before we can prevent it from being powerfully influenced by this circumstance, when brought strongly home to its perceptions by the nature of its situation. Man must cease to have senses, the pleasures of appetite and vanity must cease to gratify, before he can look on tamely at the monopoly of these pleasures. He must cease to have a sense of justice before he can clearly and fully approve this mixed scene of superfluity and want. It is true that the proper method of curing this inequality is by reason and not by violence. But the immediate tendency of the established administration is to persuade that reason is impotent. The injustice of which they complain is upheld by force, and they are too easily induced, by force to attempt its correction. All they endeavor is the partial correction of an injustice, which education tells them is necessary, but more powerful reason affirms to be tyrannical.

“Force grew out of monopoly. It might accidentally have occurred among savages whose appetites exceeded their supply, or whose passions were inflamed by the presence of the object of their desire; but it would gradually have died away, as reason and civilization advanced. Accumulated property has fixed its empire; and henceforth all is an open contention of the strength and cunning of the one party against the strength and cunning of the other. In this case the violent and premature struggles of the necessitous are undoubtedly an evil. They tend to defeat the very cause in the success of which they are most deeply interested; they tend to procrastinate the triumph of truth. But the true crime in every instance is in the selfish and partial propensities of men, thinking only of themselves, and despising the emolument of others; and of these the rich have their share.

“The spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud, these are the ultimate growth of the established administration of property. They are alike hostile to intellectual and moral improvement. The other vices of envy, malice, and revenge are their inseparable companions. In a state of society where men lived in the midst of plenty, and where all shared alike the bounties of [21]nature, these sentiments would inevitably expire. The narrow principle of selfishness would vanish. No man would be obliged to guard his little store, or provide with anxiety and pain for his restless wants, each would lose his individual existence in the thought of the general good. No man would be an enemy to his neighbor, for they would have no subject of contention; and of consequence philanthropy would resume the empire which reason assigns her; mind would be delivered from her perpetual anxiety about corporal support, and free to expatiate in the field of thought which is congenial to her. Each would assist the inquiries of all.”23

The author in several works has given us his ideas upon the relation between crime and the social environment, and especially economic conditions. It is in “The Book of the New Moral World”, which appeared in 1844, that his views are best expressed.25

They may be summed up as follows: It is not the man himself, it is his circumstances that form his character; an unfavorable environment produces a bad man, a favorable one a good man. The organization of the society of today is such that it awakens in a man all evil qualities. The greater part of mankind live in conditions of the greatest poverty, and become physically, intellectually, and morally inferior. The working classes are housed in unsanitary dwellings, work too hard and too long, and are insufficiently clothed and nourished.

Improper production and distribution of wealth are the causes of the prevalence of disorder and anarchy. The means of production, the raw materials and the productive forces, are sufficient to provide [22]amply for the needs of all. But competition by devouring wealth prevents this, and brings it about that while some have a superfluity, the majority have not even the necessaries of life (a fact which is one great cause of criminality). The process of distribution adds enormously to the waste because of the great number of intermediaries.

Education and instruction are neglected to the last degree. The children of the lower classes are almost entirely deprived of instruction, not to say education; their parents, never having been taught themselves, are incapable of imparting instruction, nor have they the leisure for it. However, the children of all classes are made egotistical and anti-social; they have impressed upon them the maxim “Each one for himself”, in place of being taught that the love of one’s neighbor is the principle upon which society ought to be based.

Owen finds the cause of crime, then, in the organization of society upon the basis of private property. The following is a characteristic passage from Volume VI, “General Constitution of Government and Universal Code of Law”:

“Private property has been, and is at this day, the cause of endless crime and misery to man, and he should hail the period when the progress of science, and the knowledge of the means to form a superior character for all the individuals of the human race, render its continuance not only unnecessary, but most injurious to all; injurious to an incalculable extent to the lower, middle, and upper classes. The possession of private property tends to make the possessor ignorantly selfish; and selfish, very generally, in proportion to the extent of the property held by its claimant.…

“Private property also deteriorates the character of its possessor in various ways; it is calculated to produce in him pride, vanity, injustice, and oppression, with a total disregard of the natural and inalienable rights of his fellow men. It limits his ideas within the little narrow circle of self, prevents the mind from expanding to receive the extended views beneficial for the human race, and understand great general interests that could be made most essentially to improve the character and condition of all.…

“Private property alienates mind from mind, is a perpetual cause of repulsive action throughout society, a never-failing source of deception and fraud between man and man, and a strong stimulus to prostitution among women. It has caused war throughout all the past ages of the world’s known history, and has been a stimulant to innumerable private murders.

“It is now the sole cause of poverty and its endless crimes and [23]miseries over the world, and in principle it is as unjust as it is unwise in practice.

“In a rational-made society it will never exist. Whatever may have been its necessity or utility, before the introduction of the supremacy of machinery and chemistry, it is now most unnecessary and an unmixed evil; for every one, from the highest to the lowest, may be ensured through life much more of all that is really beneficial for humanity, and the permanent happiness of the individual, through public scientific arrangements, than it is possible to obtain through the scramble and contest for procuring and maintaining private property.

“Private property also continually interferes with or obstructs public measures which would greatly benefit all, and frequently to merely please the whim or caprice of an ill-trained individual.…

“With a well arranged scientific system of public property, equal education and condition, there will be no mercenary or unequal marriages; no spoiled children; and none of the evils which proceed from these errors in the present system, if crudities which pervade all the departments of life, and are thoroughly inconsistent, can be called a system of society.

“In fact, as soon as individuals shall be educated and placed—and it is for the best and permanent interest of society that all should be educated and placed—the saving of time, labour, and capital, between public and private property, will be beyond any estimate the mind of man can form in favour of public property.…

“Therefore the twelfth law26 will be, that—

“ ‘Under the Rational System of society—after the children shall have been trained to acquire new habits and new feelings, derived from a knowledge of the laws of human nature—there shall be no useless private property.’

“The old system of the world has been created and governed on the assumed principle of man’s responsibility to man, and by man’s rewards and punishments.

“And this principle has been assumed upon the original supposition, that man was born with power to form himself into any character he liked; to believe or disbelieve whatever he pleased; and that he could love, hate, or be indifferent as to all persons and things, according to an independent will which enabled him to do as he liked in all these respects. [24]

“The present system is, therefore, essentially a system supported and governed by laws of punishment and reward of man’s creating, in opposition to nature’s laws of punishing and rewarding. The former system is artificial, and always produces crime and misery, continually increasing, and therefore requiring new laws to correct the evils necessarily forced upon society by the old laws; thus laws are multiplied without limit by man to counteract nature’s laws, and ever without success. While nature’s beautiful and benevolent laws, if consistently acted upon in a system made throughout in accordance with them, would produce knowledge, goodness, and happiness, continually increasing, to the human race.

“By man’s laws being forced upon the population of all countries, in continual opposition to nature’s laws; with law added to law, in the vain attempt to remedy endless previous laws, the world had been made and kept criminal, with crimes multiplying as human laws increased.

“The laws of man are made to support injustice, and give additional power to the oppressor and to the man devoid of truth and honesty over the innocent and just. And such must be the result, as long as human laws, lawyers, and law paraphernalia shall be sanctioned by society.…

“Nature’s laws carry with them the only just rewards and punishments that man should experience; and they are, in every case, efficient for nature’s purposes, and to ensure the happiness of man in all countries and climes; and, differing from man’s puny, short-sighted laws, they are always adequate to the end intended to be accomplished. And this end is evidently to increase human knowledge and happiness. It is through these laws of nature, that man has attained the knowledge which he has acquired. He has been continually urged onward to make discoveries, and to invent, through pain experienced, or pleasure enjoyed or anticipated.

“But man has been trained to have his character formed, and to be governed by laws of his own making; his habits, manners, ideas, and associations of ideas have emanated, directly or indirectly, from his artificial and injurious source; and, in consequence, the mind, language, and practice of all individuals have become a chaos of confusion. And this chaos in the character and conduct of individuals has made a yet greater chaos in all the proceedings of society: and, in consequence, man is now opposing man, and nation opposing nation, all over the earth. Yet all nature declares, that it shall be by union of man with man, and nation with nation, that the human [25]race can ever attain a high degree of permanent prosperity and happiness, or become rational.

“Nevertheless, while this irrational individual and general character shall remain, those men and women who have been made to receive this character, and to be so injured, must continue for a time to be governed by these most injurious laws. The laws of nature being alone applicable to a society, whose laws are in accordance with the laws of nature.

“When this rational society shall be formed, and men, individually and generally, shall be trained to act in accordance with it, then shall human punishments and rewards cease, and cease for ever.

“The thirteenth law will therefore be, that—

“ ‘As soon as the members of these scientific associations shall have been educated, from infancy, in a knowledge of the laws of their nature, trained to act in obedience to them, and surrounded by circumstances all in unison with them, there shall be no individual reward or punishment.’

“The Rational System of society is one and indivisible in its principles and practices; each part is essential to its formation. It is one unvarying consistent system for forming the character of all individuals, and for governing their affairs; and it is essentially a system to prevent evil, and render individual punishment and reward as unnecessary, as they are unjust and injurious to all.…

“Individual punishments and rewards, ignorance, the inferior feelings and passions, with all crimes and miseries, will go together when the irrational system shall be abolished. When the cause of evil shall be removed, then will the evil cease, and not before.”27

In the second part of his “Voyage en Icarie” the author treats of the relation between crime and economic conditions. In his opinion [26]money and inequality of fortune and of property are the causes of all crimes. The following quotation explains his views. (The work speaks of present day society as in the past, and supposes the existence of a state with common property.)

“Wealth and superfluity being, by their nature, as I have already said, injustice and usurpation, the poor often thought only of robbing the rich; and theft, under all its forms (swindling, pocket-picking, bankruptcy, breach of trust, fraud, cheating, etc.), was the almost universal occupation of the poor as well as of the rich. And the poor robbed not only the rich, they robbed even the poor themselves, so that all, rich and poor, were both robbers and robbed.

“It would be impossible to enumerate all the kinds of theft and classes of thieves. It was in vain that the rich had terrible laws made against theft; it was in vain that the prisons and galleys were kept filled with poor thieves, and that their blood was often poured out upon the scaffold. Buoyed up by the hope of not being discovered, the poor robbed in the fields, or in houses, or upon the highroads, or even in the streets at night. The skilful pick-pocket stole even in open day. The audacious swindler robbed by means of trickery and deceit, sometimes by selling things of no value, sometimes by taking advantage of credulity or even of beneficence.

“Shall I speak of the counterfeiters of every description? Shall I also speak of the usurers, the great thieves, the wolves of the bourse and the bank, the contractors and monopolists? Shall I speak of those who enriched themselves by means of public calamities, who desired or provoked invasions or wars in order to make their fortunes, and famines in order to amass money in the midst of corpses? Shall I speak of the thieves who risked the public health by adulterating the food and drink that they sold, and of those other great robbers, the heads of the army, who pillaged foreign peoples while exposing their own country to terrible reprisals? Finally shall I speak of the innumerable means of amassing money at the expense of others, and of the innumerable individuals in almost all classes who daily practiced them?

“Not all these acts were classed as thefts by the law. The most inexcusable, the most harmful, those which were only practiced by the rich, even enjoyed legal impunity. But all of them were, nevertheless, in reality according to the rules of a sound morality, thefts. Each class presented, without doubt, many exceptions. There were some rich men as honest as possible, and many workers and poor men were persons of probity; but it may be said that by force of circumstances, and as an irresistible consequence of the inequality of fortune, [27]all men, rich and poor, were generally induced to commit actions which were in reality only a kind of theft.

“And often theft led to all kinds of cruelty, to murder, and even to the most barbarous tortures in order to make owners reveal where they had hidden their gold. How many poisonings and parricides did the thirst for gold or inheritance excite! Thieves kidnapped children in order to prostitute them. They even stole and murdered young people in order to sell the flesh of their corpses!

“In a word, neither confidence nor security was possible. Each individual saw enemies in almost all the others; and society seemed, as it were, but a haunt of cut-throats in the midst of a forest! And all these horrors, which you will find more or less everywhere, were with us, and are still elsewhere—I cannot repeat it too often—the inevitable result of the unrestricted right of property.”28

In his “Essai sur la statistique morale de la France”, the author has made a study of the influence of age, sex, season, education, etc., upon criminality. But there is scarcely to be found an exposition of the influence of economic conditions upon the subject which we are considering. The following passages, however, are not devoid of interest.

“Wealth, (as determined by the amount of taxes on personal and real property) more often than density of population, coincides with crimes against property, of which it thus appears to be an indirect cause. We shall observe, however, that while the maximum of wealth falls in the departments of the North, where the greatest number of crimes against property are found; and the minimum in the center where these crimes are most rare; yet in the South the average is almost as high as in the North. Now if in the North is wealth which indirectly produces the crimes against property, why is it that the same is not true of the South? It would be unsafe to conclude from the fact that the poorest departments are those where the fewest crimes against property are committed, that poverty is not the principal cause of these crimes. In order to justify this conclusion, which in other regards we are far from rejecting, more direct proofs would be necessary. As a matter of fact, it is possible that the departments where there is the least wealth are not those where there are the greatest number of the very poor; and that the departments where the largest fortunes are to be found are just those where the poverty of a part of the population is greatest.

“The question of the effect of wealth or poverty upon morality [31]presents more difficulty than one would suspect at first glance. To study it it would be necessary to determine the ratio of the indigent and pauper class in each department. Some documents upon the subject have been published, it is true, but they have no authentic character, and do not appear to merit enough confidence for us to give the analysis of them here.”1

Further along Guerry shows that the departments where commerce and manufacturing are most highly developed furnish also the greatest number of crimes against property. But the author has not investigated the connection between these two symptoms. Although not rejecting, then, entirely the hypothesis that poverty is not the principal cause of crimes against property, Guerry recognizes nevertheless that a causal connection between poverty and crime is possible, that is to say he perceives that the department where the greatest poverty prevails is not necessarily that which is the poorest, nor that the richest is the one that has the fewest of the very poor.

An exposition of the whole system of this author would lead us too far. But the following quotations from his “Physique sociale” will suffice to show the breadth of his views and the vastness of his conception of society.

“Thus, to make our manner of procedure plain by an example, anyone who examines too closely a small portion of a very great circumference traced upon a plane, will see in this portion only a certain number of physical points, assembled in a more or less accidental way.… From a greater distance his eye will take in a greater number of points, which will already appear regularly distributed in an arc of a certain extent; soon, if the observer continues to recede, he loses sight of the individual points … grasps the law that has presided over their general arrangement, and recognizes the nature of the curve traced.…

“It is in this way that we shall study the laws that concern the human race; for when we examine them from too near at hand it becomes impossible to grasp them; we are struck only with individual peculiarities, which are infinite.”2

“In all that relates to crimes, the same figures are reproduced with [32]such constancy that it is impossible to misconstrue them, even in the case of those crimes which, it would seem, should be most likely to escape human prevision, such as homicides, since these are in general committed as a consequence of quarrels arising without motive, and under apparently fortuitous circumstances. Experience, however, proves that not only is the annual number of homicides nearly constant, but that even the weapons employed are used in the same proportions. What can be said then of crimes that are the result of reflection?

“This constancy with which the same crimes reappear annually in the same order, and lead to the same penalties in the same proportions, is one of the most curious of the facts that we learn from court statistics.… A budget which we pay with frightful regularity is that of the jails, the penitentiaries, and the gallows.… We can enumerate in advance how many individuals will stain their hands with the blood of their fellows, how many will be forgers, how many poisoners; almost as we can predict the births and deaths.…

“Society contains within itself the germs of all the crimes that are about to be committed. It is society, in a way, which prepares them, and the criminal is only the instrument that executes them.

“Every social state supposes, then, a certain number and certain order of crimes as a necessary consequence of its organization. This remark, which might appear discouraging at first sight, becomes consoling, on the contrary, when we consider it more closely, since it shows the possibility of the improvement of men, by the modification of their institutions and habits and whatever, in general, influences their manner of being. At bottom this is only the extension of the well known law … that so far as the same causes are present we must expect the repetition of the same effects. What has produced the belief that this did not apply to moral phenomena is the too great influence commonly ascribed to man in matters relating to his actions.”3

In the second volume of the “Physique sociale”, Quetelet studies the influence of climate, age, and sex upon the tendency to crime. Although he merely touches upon our subject and treats it only indirectly, the following passages are worth the trouble of quoting:

“Poverty also is very generally regarded as leading to evil; however the department of the Creuse, one of the poorest in France, is that which shows in every respect, the highest morality. In the same way in the Netherlands, the most moral province is Luxemburg, [33]where there is most poverty reigning. We must, however, be clear about the word poverty, which is here employed with a significance to which exception may be taken. A province is not really poor for having less extreme wealth than another, if the inhabitants, as in Luxemburg, are sober and industrious; if, by their labor, they succeed in providing in a dependable way for their needs, and in satisfying tastes that are so much the more modest, as the inequality of fortune is less felt, and causes less temptation; it may be said with more justice that this province enjoys a modest competence. Poverty makes itself felt in the provinces where great wealth is piled up, as in Flanders, Holland, the department of the Seine, etc., and especially in manufacturing countries, where the slightest political disturbance, the slightest obstruction in the channels of trade, will suddenly reduce thousands from a state of well-being to one of distress. It is these sudden changes from one state to another that give birth to crime, especially if those who suffer from them are surrounded by temptations, and are irritated by the continual sight of luxury and an inequality of fortune that makes them desperate.”4

In speaking of the three races that make up the population of France, Quetelet says:

“The most remarkable anomaly that the Celtic race seems to present is found in the departments that belong to the valley of the Seine, especially below Paris. Several causes contribute to bring this about. We shall note first that these departments are those which, by reason of their extent, contain most persons and things, and consequently offer most opportunities to commit crimes; it is there that there is most movement and that most vagrants flow in from all districts.… Finally, it is here also that we find most industrial establishments and these establishments support a congested population whose means of support are more precarious than in other vocations.… The commercial and industrial provinces of the Netherlands are likewise those in which most offenses are committed.”5

One of the parts of his “Paupérisme dans les Flandres” treats of the criminality in the two provinces of that name. We quote the following from it: [34]

“Criminality is the inseparable companion of poverty. As the number of indigent persons increases, we see the number of crimes also increase. Hunger is a bad counselor. In the midst of crushing destitution, a man gradually loses the notion of justice and injustice, of good and bad; beset by needs that he cannot satisfy, he disregards the laws, and ends by recoiling from no attempt that appears capable of bettering his condition. Visiting a prison is enough to convince one of the influence of this cause upon the number and the nature of the offenses, and before even questioning the statistics that attest the progress of criminality in Flanders, we could be assured that this progress had coincided with that of pauperism. It is not then a demonstration (which we judge quite unnecessary) that we are about to offer here, it is only a series of facts that may serve to make the reader appreciate the greatness of the evil and the urgent necessity of attacking its source.

“The first of these facts is the high figure for convicts belonging to East and West Flanders, when compared with the total number of convicts in the central prisons.… In the ten years between 1838 and 1847, 23,075 convicts were received in the central prisons of the kingdom; 10,308 belonged to the two Flanders and 12,767 to the other provinces; the proportion, to 1000 convicts, was 447 for the first two provinces, and 553 for the seven others. Now this proportion is considerably in excess of that of the respective populations of the two divisions, since, to the thousand inhabitants, there are only 331 in Flanders and 669 in the rest of the kingdom. In other words, during the decennial period in question, one prisoner was received to 139 inhabitants in Flanders, and to 227 in the seven other provinces.

“The second fact is the increase in the number of persons arraigned and convicted in the Flemish provinces during the last few of these years, and particularly since the food shortage of 1845. In a space of seven years, the number of those arraigned in the two Flanders increased about in the ratio of 7 to 17; that of those condemned to imprisonment grew, during the same period from 35 to 123, or nearly quadrupled.

“These data are confirmed by an abstract of the numbers received into the jails and prisons of the two provinces, as well as by the average population of these establishments, during the period from 1839 to 1848: [35]

“The increase in the numbers received into the jails and prisons of the two provinces took place especially in the years 1845, 1846, and 1847; in 1848 we note quite a pronounced decrease, which continues in 1849. Of all the signs to prove the existence and progress of pauperism, this is perhaps the most certain. During the disastrous years that had just elapsed, the prisons became in a sense annexes of the hospitals and almshouses; a great number of offenses were committed with the sole object of finding asylum.…

“As to the children, we shall understand the imminence of the danger when we realize that in the short space of three years, from 1845 to 1847, 26,247 children and young persons of both sexes under 18, were incarcerated in prison or were inmates of workhouses. Most of these children belonged to the two provinces of Flanders, and a great number were arrested outside the limits of their province. Here is the increase in the number of those received into the prisons [36]of Ghent and Bruges, and the jails of Audenarde, Termonde, Courtrai, Ypres, and Furnes:

“This deplorable fact of the increase of criminality among the young is explained by the statistics of indigence. We see in fact that, among the indigent persons aided in East Flanders, in 1847, there were:

“Supposing that West Flanders, which has more dependents in proportion than East Flanders, has the same proportion of children, we arrive at a total for the two provinces, of 225,894 indigent persons whose age is not above 18. In this number there are 174,588 who have not passed their twelfth year! And there are thousands of orphans!

“Notwithstanding the improvement that begins to make itself felt, thanks to the resumption of work and the low price of provisions, many of these young unfortunates continue to give themselves up to begging and vagrancy. But lately driven from their homes by cold and hunger, they form a wandering population, incessantly buffeted from almshouse to almshouse, from prison to prison. [37]

“In Brussels at this present moment (July, 1849) there are still to be found in the annex of the prison, about 250 mendicants, among whom are 97 children below the age of 17. In the prisons of Ghent and Bruges their number is equally great.”6

“It is an established fact, then, that the increase of criminality in Flanders has gone hand in hand with the extension of poverty. The latter brings about the abandonment of homes; … from this come mendicity, vagrancy, marauding, and theft. The incarceration of so great a number of unfortunates brings the most disastrous consequences. The germs of corruption, brutality, and crime are continually injected into a large fraction of the population. The habit of working is lost, energy is relaxed, idleness becomes incurable. When we think especially of the mass of children who, during the last few years, have passed through the prisons and almshouses, we cannot picture without pity, mingled with fear, the future of this generation, initiated at an early age into the existence of criminals, and condemned to the dangers and evils inseparable from the abandonment and degradation to which they are a prey.”7

In speaking of England, after having sketched how industrialism, as it spread more and more, drew after it an increase of pauperism, the author says of the connection between criminality and economic conditions:

“Parallel with the ascending figure for pauperism, rises the growing figure for criminality. The number of persons arraigned at the assizes of England and Wales has increased as follows:

[38]

“Thus in a space of thirty-four years the number of crimes has more than doubled in England, while, in the same interval, the increase of the population has hardly passed 40%.

“The parallelism between the growing pauperism and growing criminality is even more striking when the comparison is applied to the delinquents under the summary jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. Up to the time of the establishment of the workhouses in 1834 the number of poor persons assisted increased progressively from year to year. Well, the number of persons arrested by the metropolitan police followed the same progression. This number was 72,824 in 1831, and 77,543 in 1832. In 1833 the new poor law with its terrible workhouses was approaching; consequently the number of arrests was no more than 69,959. In 1834 the law was promulgated, and up to 1838 was executed with great rigor; as a result the number of arrests fell to 64,269 in 1834, to 63,674 in 1835, and to 63,584 in 1836. In 1837 the severity began to relax; consequently the number of arrests increased to 64,416. In 1839 the laxity continued, and the number of arrests increased to 70,717. Laxity reached its height in 1842, and the number of arrests rose to 76,545; this was an arrest to each 25 of the population.

“In Newcastle in 1837 the magistrates sentenced 1 person to 24 of the whole population. In Leeds during a period of six years, from 1833 to 1838, there was one person arrested to 32 of the population. In Manchester in 1841 … the ratio of persons arrested, to the population, was as 1 to 21.… In 1831, ten years earlier, the proportion was still only 1 to 78. It almost quadrupled, then, in the interval. In Liverpool in 1840 there was one arrest to 12 inhabitants.”9

The statistical data that form the basis of Dr. Mayr’s “Statistik der gerichtlichen Polizei im Königreiche Bayern und in einigen anderen Ländern” are different from those used in similar works. For, while generally only the number of crimes whose authors have been convicted, or that of delinquents punished, are considered, Dr. Mayr is of the opinion that to obtain a true picture of the morality of a people, it is necessary to take into account the number of crimes known to the police. “If we wish really to form an exact picture of [39]the moral condition of a people, we must first of all ask ourselves the question, how great is the number of the cases of crimes of different kinds that are of common notoriety, before we ask how great is the number of the individuals who are convicted of these crimes. The immorality of a people is determined not by the number of individuals convicted, but by the number of crimes committed; else that people would be most moral in which no offender ever let himself be caught, even if more crimes were committed there than elsewhere.”10

Bavaria.

The results of Dr. Mayr’s researches in regard to crime in this country are shown by him in a number of charts.11

Cis-Rhenal Territory. A comparison of the curves for crimes against property and those for crimes against persons shows us that the first descends as the other ascends, and vice versa. In seeking for the causes we find that in general the motives for the latter class of crime are, among others, coarseness, passion, and dissoluteness, while that of the first kind of crime is the desire to secure objects for direct use. The more difficult it is to gain a livelihood in a lawful manner, the more this tendency will develop.

According to the author, the fluctuation in the price of grain is one of the most important factors bearing upon criminality. And indeed, in examining his nine statistical charts the connection between the high or the low cost of grain, and the great or the small number of offenses against property comes out clearly. The curve for offenses against persons, on the other hand, falls when the price of grain rises, and vice versa. The improvement of living conditions, both subjectively (through having the means to purchase the necessaries) and objectively (through a fall in prices) must consequently exercise a considerable influence upon criminality. This is seen very well in the last years of the period 1835–61, when the price of grain was low, and wages very generally increased. Hence, from 1857 on, there was an increase in the crimes against persons, and a decrease in the crimes against property.

It ought to be remarked here that however just in itself Dr. Mayr’s [40]observation may be, we must beware of drawing the erroneous conclusion that those who feel most strongly the influence of the fall of prices and the rise in wages must necessarily, according to a law of nature, commit crimes against persons. This is true only for gross and uncultivated individuals who do not know how to occupy their leisure. But the degree of civilization of an individual depends above all upon the economic conditions under which he was placed by his birth. There are, then, economic causes for both kinds of crime.

Upper Bavaria. This district shows a higher figure for crime than any other province in Bavaria. It is especially the great increase since 1857–1858 that is most striking, and which is explained at least partially by the application of another system of examining offenses. The increase in the number of crimes against the person is the consequence of prosperous years, while the high figure for crimes against property is explained by the great influx of individuals from neighboring districts, who, from an economic standpoint, were not independent. In the period from 1837 to 1864 the population increased 49,128 by birth, and 66,299 by immigration.

Lower Bavaria. The connection between crimes against property and the price of grain is weaker in this province than in any of the others, because of its great production of cereals, which, for the most part, are destined for home consumption.

The upper Palatinate, Upper, Central, and Lower Franconia, and Swabia, all give convincing proofs of Dr. Mayr’s thesis, though in Franconia the truth is less apparent through the fact that bad years brought increased emigration, which cut down the normal increase in the number of crimes.

Where he treats of the different forms of crime, we read the following remarks, which are of interest in connection with our subject: “As we have just seen, crimes against persons increase when the price of grain goes up. We must except from this rule, however, two kinds of crime: infanticide and abortion.” The first of these crimes reached its maximum in the critical years 1854–55, and the second in 1853–1854.

As a proof of the coincidence of the fluctuations of crimes against property with those of the price of grain in the period preceding that which he studied especially, Dr. Mayr gives the following table: [41]

In chapter IV (“Zahl und Bewegung der Polizeiübertretungen im Gebiete diesseits des Rheins”) Dr. Mayr gives some interesting information with regard to thefts of wood. The following table gives the figures for these crimes in this district compared with the others:

The great difference between these figures is explained by the fact that in Lower Franconia only a quarter of the woods are privately owned (the rest belonging to corporations, etc.). In Upper Bavaria the private forests are 92%, and in Lower Bavaria 96½% of the whole. Besides, the price of wood is very high in Lower Franconia. Once more, then, economic conditions are the cause of crime.

Upon the movement of the figures for mendicity Dr. Mayr remarks that they are strongly influenced by the cost of the primary necessities. “The parallel movement of the food-price and mendicity offers little to astonish us if we learn from the statistics of crimes that the [42]objective difficulty or ease of getting food resulting from the fluctuations in price, exercises a direct influence upon increase and decrease of serious crimes against property. It is explicable that only a small portion of individuals who become economically dependent proceed to serious crime, while the majority fall into the minor misdemeanors involved in a living obtained through begging and vagrancy. The same force that appears in the increase and decrease of attacks upon property, must consequently appear much more intensively in the fluctuations of mendicity and vagrancy.”

[43]

England.

In speaking of the influence of economic conditions upon mendicity Dr. Mayr gives the following table:

However, in this case the increase of mendicity does not rest upon the high prices alone, but also upon the crisis which, owing to the depression of the cotton industry from 1860 on, lowered the plane of living of hundreds of thousands of workers, or drove them into the street.

England and Wales.

Here the influence of the fall of prices is distinctly seen; offenses against property have decreased, those against persons, on the contrary, have increased. [44]

England and Wales.

The great fall in the price of grain in 1863–1864 is once more accompanied by a diminution of the offenses against property, and an increase in those against persons.

We might conclude from this table that the remark concerning crimes against property and those against persons is not applicable, since in 1858 the number of crimes against property was very high, notwithstanding the reduced price of grain. Here is Dr. Mayr’s explanation of it:

“The reason must be the following: The occasion for high spirits to be found in improved living conditions follows immediately upon any such improvement, and disappears at once when times grow worse. For this reason the fluctuation in attacks upon persons harmonizes exactly with the fluctuation in the price of food. The effects of hard times are only partially such as lead to punishable offenses; in most cases economic ruin occurs first, which leads only after an interval to attacks upon property. For this reason the effects of hard times continue to manifest themselves at a time when the hard times themselves are already practically over. This is the explanation both of the great number of attacks upon property in the year 1857, when the effects of the immediately preceding hard times were making themselves felt, as well as the gradual increase in the number of attacks against property in the years 1860–1862.”13 [45]

The fall in the price of grain in 1863–1864 was accompanied by a diminution in the number of crimes of this kind.

The maximum number of infractions of the Vagrant Act took place in 1858, when the harmful consequences of the rise in the price of grain, which took place immediately before, were still making themselves felt. The increase in 1861–1862 was the result of the high price of wheat, and of the crisis in the cotton industry. [46]

Here also the influence of price makes itself felt.

The following table gives the number of persons arrested in the department of the Seine, grouped according to the alleged crimes, and compared with the price of wheat. Group I contains offenses against the public order; Group II, offenses against persons; Group III, offenses against morals; group IV, offenses against property; Group V, miscellaneous. Taking 100 as the average figure for the price of grain as well as for crimes in the economically favorable years 1858–59, the proportion is as follows:

[47]

Here it is to be observed:

a. that the movement of mendicity and vagrancy is not in direct correlation with that of the price of grain.

b. that Group IV shows only a slight correlation with the price of grain, since there are included in it many crimes whose causes are not of an economic nature.

c. that during the last years of this period the increase of crimes against property was greater than the figures for the price of grain would lead one to suppose; a fact which is explained, according to Dr. Mayr, by the lack of work resulting from the war of secession.

The law that crimes against persons increase with the fall of prices is confirmed by these statistics.

According to this author the laws regulating moral phenomena are at present hidden by thick clouds.

“We may await with confidence the dissipation of these clouds, when some great principle, about which our observations of detail will group themselves, will appear to us in a flood of light. Everything seems to indicate to me that this master principle is no other than the principle of activity. In fact, the first rudiments of social science have as yet been given us only by political economy, and its sole foundation is the affirmation of human activity. On the other hand, since giving myself up without any preconceptions to this special study of criminality I have been little by little led by a close examination of the facts, to find the general cause of crimes in the absence of this principle of activity.

“When we reflect upon this, it appears quite in the natural order of things that the development of criminality, that is to say of the spirit of destruction and dissolution, should manifest itself at the time of the weakening or disappearance of the generative principle of all production and of all society. There is here, then, if I am not deceived, more than a mere coincidence. There is a relationship which deserves to be noted so much the more since it is from the principle of activity that all physical laws also are derived today.”16

Let us accompany the author to the domain of facts. After having given an exposition of the movement of criminality in France in [48]comparison with that of other countries, he finally takes up the question of etiology. For the crowd, says the author, the criminal is a kind of monster in the midst of society, a monster predestined to crime because of his innate tendencies. Looked at in this way criminality is an individual evil. Corne, on the contrary, believes it to be a social evil. For, however much society may be developed in all respects, it is nevertheless always imperfect, since the ignorance and corruption of morals are great. The author lays stress upon two facts, namely, the corruption of morals in the upper classes, and militarism. Not only does militarism draw after it the ruin of peoples, and develop man’s violent instincts, but it has still other very serious moral consequences, by forcing celibacy upon young men at the passionate age.

The author admits that there are facts which might seem to give the lie to his opinion—the influence, for example, of the price of grain upon the decrease and increase of criminality.

Although, according to Corne, the high price of grain may be only an accidental fact, there must yet be some importance attached to it in view of the disastrous consequences which may result from it to families that have in any case a hard time to make both ends meet. But the figures given above do not prove the influence to be very great. For prices rise sometimes although the other figures fall, and vice versa. And then the sudden increase of [detected] crime from 1849 to 1853 must be attributed to a better organization of the police. [49]

Then the author gives the following table:

We see that the coincidence of the figures is here naturally greater than in the first table.

“The situation of criminals may be summed up in a word: isolation. Most of them hardly know what a family is. They are miserable, they have no home, no fixed occupation which attaches them little by little to men and things. They are immersed in the gloom of ignorance. Aside from what affects their immediate physical wants the rest of the world is for them as if it did not exist.”17 They are alone, isolated from birth. For among juvenile prisoners there are reckoned not only many illegitimate and orphaned children, but also many who have been deserted. Out of 8006 young criminals in prison December 31st, 1864, 60% were illegitimate, orphaned, or deserted.

The author then depicts the environment in which the children of the proletariat ordinarily grow up—bad hygienic conditions, demoralizing surroundings, etc.—and points out the harmful effect of labor in factories upon the young. Corne also considers celibacy to be one of the causes of crime, since the individual has no one to care for him or be interested in his fate. Crime is developed much more in the great cities than in the country, for the reason, the author thinks, that men are much more isolated, much more left to themselves in the city than in rural neighborhoods. [50]

—Here I would remark that it is for economic reasons that men are prevented from marrying, and that the great criminality of cities is best explained by the marked difference in economic situation, and by the more frequent opportunities for wrong-doing found there.—

According to Corne one of the best preventives of crimes is property, since it engenders a feeling of responsibility. The property owner exerts himself to increase his wealth, and hence property has a moral influence.18

“Criminality comes from a lack of vitality. It is an anemia. In order to prevent it we must excite a desire for activity.” It is in this that the usefulness of education appears. The man who knows how to read and write, has in his hands an instrument which can multiply his means of action indefinitely.19

—As regards education, it has been proved that Corne and many others have exaggerated its importance for the etiology of crime. When education extends beyond the art of reading and writing, it has a civilizing influence, and causes a diminution of violent crimes, but it does not result in a decrease of criminality in general, since the economic causes of crime remain. Education changes, indeed, the nature of criminality, but not its extent.20—

The author concludes by saying “The man who has a family, who has property, who is educated, who is known by his fellow citizens and has his share of influence upon them, can not be the individual whom we have seen to be criminal, because of weakness and isolation … he has energy, determination, and can control his passions because he is surrounded and sustained, because a thousand bonds of interest and affection attach him to society, order, and property.”21

The work “Das Verbrecherthum im Preussischen Staat”, published in 1869 by Prison-director von Valentini, treats especially of the results obtained by the penal system then in force in Prussia, and of the means of improving it. [51]

Von Valentini sees in crime primarily the consequence of social conditions, at least he considers that the best means of combating it is for society to prevent the criminal tendency from manifesting itself, and make efforts to raise the moral level of the people. For, according to our author, 90% of the criminals are “purely material and entirely neglected” and ought to “undergo a spiritual regeneration.”22

After these general observations he proceeds to more particular observations upon the criminals themselves in society. He examines statistically the proportion of criminals in the population. Obtaining different proportions for different districts of Prussia he investigates the causes. For this purpose he classifies crimes as: first, crimes from personal interest, and second, crimes from passion. Finding then that the provinces of the East give 9% of crimes from personal interest more than the others, he thinks he has found the cause in “an existing destitution both material and intellectual, and in the arrangement of the prisons.”23

Chapter Three, upon the “Dimensionen des Nothstandes” contains detailed tables for each province, the great cities, and the rich and poor countries. He obtains, then, the following result for the eight provinces:

Another thing that strikes him is the influence of the small landed proprietor. “The possession of even a small piece of property in land … is no slight preventative of crime against property.”24 The author gives the following statistical summary. [52]

He ranks in the class of small land holdings estates of 30 acres25 and below. The total amounts to 10,655,460 acres to 1,716,535 estates, with an average of 6 acres.

There were in the following provinces:

“The Rhenish provinces alone, then, have nearly twice as many as the four Eastern provinces together! This explains the figure, 5.59, for this district given in the table above, taken in connection with the noteworthy care given to the poor. Can the connection between the ratios given above and those of the occurrence of crimes against property be denied?”26

In this connection he treats of housing conditions, for which he gives the following figures.

Dwellings to 1 league:

A more detailed summary of the number of inhabitants shows us that there were:

In these figures von Valentini sees a parallelism with those for small holdings, and draws the conclusion that this isolation of households is one of the best preventives of crimes against property. [53]

In chapter IV (“Die ungeordnete Geschlechtsgemeinschaft und die Prostitution”), the author treats of the influence of the fluctuations of price in certain important articles of food upon crimes against property, against morals, against persons, and incendiary crimes (Prussia).28

This table shows then: first, that crimes against property diminish as prices fall; second, that under these same conditions crimes against morals and against persons increase.

—We must be on our guard, however, against drawing false conclusions from this second fact. The relationship in question is observed only during a certain period and in certain countries, and is not to be regarded as a law of nature, i.e., it must not be understood that an improvement in economic conditions invariably causes an increase in sexual and violent crimes. If this were the case, the well-to-do classes, who are always in a position to provide for all their needs, would furnish most of the criminals of this description. The facts show just the contrary to occur everywhere. (See Part Two, where I treat this subject fully.)—

In the chapter, “Die social ethische Lebensbethätigung in der bürgerlichen Rechtsphäre,” the author treats our subject more fully. Reasoning from different data taken from other authors, he points out the connection between economic conditions on the one hand and vagabondage and mendicity on the other. Having shown a considerable [54]increase in these offenses in the revolutionary period of 1848, he attributes this increase to the lack of social discipline, for the price of provisions was then low. We pass all this part of von Oettingen’s book in silence, his data being taken for the most part from other authors. We would merely point out his error in ranking the year 1848 among those economically favorable because of the fall in the price of food. As a matter of fact there was a terrible economic crisis in Europe at the time.

We take the following data from the section entitled “Getreidepreise und Kriminalität.”

To 100 complaints there were (in Prussia):

We find here this rule, that a rise in the price of food is accompanied by an increase in the crimes against property and a decrease in crimes against persons, and vice versa. This table also shows that, if a very pronounced rise in prices has caused a great increase in criminality, the later fall in prices does not make itself felt in the number of crimes until some time after its commencement. (See 1867–1868.)

This phenomenon is very distinctly shown by the following table:

It was only in 1857, then, that the fall in prices, beginning in 1856, commenced to produce its effect.

In conclusion we call attention to the following tables: [55]

Here is another proof of the rule, then, that crimes against property decrease and those against persons increase as prices fall.

In the first part of a brochure edited in 1878 and entitled, “Die Zunahme der Vergehen und Verbrechen und ihre Ursache,” the author attempts, with the aid of statistics, to discover in what measure criminality increased or decreased in Germany during the years 1871–1877. As a result of these researches he finds a considerable increase in all Germany.29

As regards the causes of this increase, Stursberg, though not rejecting entirely the opinion of Quetelet that society prepares the crime and that the criminal is only the instrument that executes it, is nevertheless of the opinion that it is very necessary to take into account the personal factor, i.e. the presence or absence of religious and moral sentiments. [56]

There are those, says the author, who seek the cause in the consequences of the war against France. Although believing also that the war has had unfavorable effects upon criminality, it is impossible, in his opinion that this war should be the cause of the increase of criminality, since crime decreased after the wars of 1864 and 1866. He considers that one of the causes is the great mildness of the penalties imposed by the new penal code of the empire. But according to him, this is not important, for since 1871 there has been rather a diminution than an increase of recidivism. Nor can bad economic conditions be the cause, says Stursberg; for criminality had already begun to increase before the bad years, and it is not theft that has increased the most. Nevertheless, Stursberg recognizes that prolonged poverty weakens the moral sentiments, which shows that criminality and poverty are closely connected.

But there are, in his opinion, more serious causes. There follows a description of the impetus taken by industry in Germany during the early seventies, a description not easily surpassed in pointlessness, and in the naïve ignorance that it evinces. Without comprehending the significance of the really important events that are happening about him, the author fulminates against certain consequences of modern capitalism.

—This appears to him as the consequence of a suddenly awakened desire for riches. But why should this desire arise at this time? The author does not tell us. But notwithstanding this he has unquestionably discovered here one of the principal causes, since the prodigious increase of industry, shortly followed by the inevitable crisis, has infallibly caused an increase in criminality. Since Stursberg treats this question rather as a moralist than as a man of science, we have no interest in spending longer time upon it.—

In the first few pages of his brochure Stursberg speaks of the disastrous consequences of alcoholism, after the enactment of the law of 1869, which increased the number of spirit shops. Armed with quotations without number he combats in turn the cafés-chantants, immoral literature, etc., etc.; after which he introduces all at once the matter of professional liberty. He speaks of the “influence, impossible to estimate, which honest and pious masters exercised for centuries upon the journeymen and apprentices, who were like members of the family.” “The freedom of the trades came in and loosed the bonds of piety and discipline which had retained the journeyman and apprentices in the home of their master.” [57]

—As far as we can see, the ideas of the author are rather those of a writer of the Middle Ages, than of a contemporary of modern capitalism. It cannot be denied that there is truth at the bottom of this reasoning. For it is incontestable that in the time of the guilds the position of the journeymen was in general more favorable than that of the proletariat today. But it does not follow that the religion of the master was the cause of this. And a demonstration in which professional liberty is represented as being in fact a legislative error, and not the logical and inevitable consequence of the birth of modern capitalism, is so unscientific that it has no place in an investigation into the causes of the increase of criminality.—

Then he preaches more particularly against the greater and greater extension of the study of the natural sciences, against social democracy, the lack of respect for constituted authorities, etc., etc., without, however, alleging the slightest proof of the connection of all this with the increase of crime. But at the end he says, “the fundamental cause of the increase of crime is the rapid growth of irreligion, and the weakening of Christian sentiment in church and school.”30

Before entering upon his special investigation, the author of “Der Einfluss der Lebensmittelpreise auf die Bewegung der strafbaren Handlungen” makes the following observation: Everywhere it is noted that assaults upon morals with acts of violence increase when the price of provisions falls. Adhering to the opinion of von Oettingen that “as the consequence of an increase of prosperity, the tendency to crime shows itself more by crimes against morals than by those against property”, Fuld also mentions the opinion of Valentini, that “in this case the people become audacious and commit these crimes more easily.”

Here are other salient facts; that the number of young criminals increases, and that the city produces more criminals than the country, although the sexual morality especially is far from ideal in the country. Finally in speaking of the influence of profession, Fuld mentions that the increase in the number of criminals which accompanies a rise in prices is greater for the first offenders than for recidivists. The following table which he gives to prove this point, however, plainly fails to do so: [58]

The author explains that the crimes against property are one of the consequences of the struggle for existence, a fact which accounts in part for the high figures for criminality in the great cities, where competition is most intense. The author treats of theft, and begins by saying that the connection between the price of provisions and theft is very close.

During the following years the prices fell. Nevertheless the number of thefts increased. According to Fuld we can draw the conclusion that the influence of price is only relative!—This table proves little. For, while in 1856 criminality attained its highest point, prices were lower than in 1860; and, while the figures for theft diminished greatly, prices remained constant.—

[59]

Here there is some agreement between the number of thefts and prices. But it is not as great as Fuld would make out. For example, notwithstanding the sudden rise on prices in 1860, criminality diminished, while the year following there was a still further fall in the thefts without violence.

We can indeed find here some agreement between the two columns, but that is all that can be said.

Then the author says that differences in price are not as great as formerly, on account of the development of international commerce. He gives a table of comparative prices from 1870 to 1879 which shows that five staples show no consistent movement in price. But during the same period theft was continually on the increase. The number of male delinquents from 18 to 50 alone varies with prices; the figures for delinquents between 50 and 60 follow the course of prices but slightly. Other economic crimes show little conformity.

The final conclusion of Fuld upon crimes against property is: “The influence of the price of provisions upon these offenses is quite important.” Although not giving my opinion upon the correctness of this judgment at this time, I may say that the statistics furnished by Fuld give almost no proof of it.

The following part treats of crimes against life. It is evident that we are not concerned with crimes of passion. The only ones that enter into consideration are those that have an economic object. But since criminal statistics do not make this distinction, the results of the author’s investigation can be but small. He is indeed convinced [60]that the influence of the price of provisions is very perceptible, but he does not prove it. The same may be said with regard to sexual crimes.

“The wants that man must satisfy are numerous, but there is none which makes itself felt so much as hunger. If he cannot satisfy his wants in a lawful fashion, necessity drives him to other means.”

To prove what he says Dr. Weisz produces the following table:

With but seven exceptions criminality here follows prices. When the figures for crimes against property are substituted for those for general criminality in the table, the agreement becomes greater: [61]

It is to be noted here that in the years 1850–1860 the penal law was changed. The correlation is not constant but appears in many cases. The years of the crisis, 1846–1847, are especially interesting. [62]

—The value of Dr. Weisz’s information would be greater if he had given us the relation of the figures for criminality to those for population.—

The first chapter that interests us is Chapter V (“Die Umgestaltung des Volkslebens, ihre Einwirkung auf die Kriminalität,” etc.) Sec. 3 (“die Sorge für die nothwendigsten Lebensbedürfnisse und die Lebensmittelpreise”).

PLATE I. (STARKE)

Just as the influence of the price of food makes itself felt in the number of marriages and births, it is also visible in the figures for criminality. So, when the temperature of the winter is very low (e.g. 1855, ’56, ’65, and ’71), since men have greater wants than ordinary, criminality rises. Thefts of wood increase during these years, [63]for example. But it is in only one part of the year that the cold makes itself felt, while the high price of food lasts the whole year. Hence the latter has much more influence on criminality.

PLATE II. (STARKE)

In the first of the plates which the author gives (see Plates I–VI), the effect of the rise in prices is distinctly seen in the period 1849–1855. The fall that follows is also accompanied by a diminution in the number of crimes. When, at the close of 1858, the price of rye and potatoes begins to rise again, criminality also increases, though not so much. We do not see this agreement during the years 1861–1865. While prices rise in 1866, criminality declines as a consequence of the war with Austria, and of economic events.

The years 1870–1871, during which prices rose, show a fall in the figures for crime, a second exception to the rule therefore, since 1866. At the close of 1875 criminality increased greatly, although prices rose but little, and when, in 1877, prices begin to come down, the curve for criminality goes on rising. As for the years 1870–1871, the explanation is to be found in the war, which strengthened the feeling of solidarity (as in a less degree in 1866). Further, the development of manufacturing had already begun by the end of the war, and the war itself withdrew from ordinary life many persons who, without it, might have committed crime. The author mentions also the great diminution of crime in France during these years.

We note, however, that the French statisticians (Lafargue, for example) consider these years as of little importance in the study of criminality, since the police and the courts were then much less active than at ordinary times. The same causes may be supposed to have been active in Prussia also, though in a less degree than in France.

At the close of the middle of this century manufacturing was but slightly developed in Prussia. But after the war its development assumed gigantic proportions. Wealth increased, but was not evenly distributed, as the following table from the income tax returns shows:

[64]

There were 96% of the population, then, with no education or only an elementary one.

Little by little manufacturing so forged ahead of agriculture that the necessary food was no longer produced in the country. From this time dates the importation of large quantities of grain.

The year 1873 saw the beginning of the terrible reaction that made itself felt in all strata of the population. The number of marriages diminished as well as the number of births, and criminality increased. (See Plate I.)

At first the curves for theft and criminality in general run parallel in their rising and falling. But with 1854 they begin to diverge, and this divergence is especially plain from 1871 on. Consequently something else must have had an influence upon criminality. And this other thing, according to Starke, is the modification of the political position of the people. According to him the participation of the mass of the people in politics, made possible by the right of suffrage, has been one of the causes of the increase of the number of crimes against the authority of the state, as the socialistic movement has been a second cause.33

PLATE III. (STARKE)

—Without doubt the participation of all classes in the political life will lead to crimes, especially when in the strife of classes the propertied class makes use of violent means. The assertion that the socialistic movement causes many crimes has only a semblance of truth. It is rather because of the manner in which the socialists are treated, than because of their doctrine that they are driven to acts of [65]violence. For the socialists wish to attain their end by pacific and legal, political and economic means, and it is only when they are opposed by force that they are incited to the use of violent means.—

PLATE IV. (STARKE)

Starke finally draws the following conclusion as to the causes in the movement in criminality: “Hardly ever in the short space of a generation have so many mighty factors of different kinds influenced the life of our people, as in the years from 1848 to 1878; a complete metamorphosis of the courts and the police; so extraordinary an increase in the numbers and density of the population that the soil could no longer produce enough to feed such numbers; connected with this a great development of manufacturing with repeated crises, brought on by the high price of the necessaries of life, and by epidemics; the development of intercourse and commerce world-wide in extent; bloody wars, which, through the system of universal military service, disturb the whole population of every class; a politico-economic crisis so severe that there has been none like it hitherto; and in addition to and at the same time with all these factors, the entrance of the people into the exercise of political rights; and finally, dependent upon these, a deep-seated socialistic agitation.

“All these factors have their part in the moulding of the life of the people in good as well as bad directions and accordingly influence the movement of criminality. In the first rank stand the effects upon the physical life of the lack of warmth and nourishment. The great significance of the coldness of the winter upon the increase and decrease of the theft of wood has been noted. Much greater is the effect of the anxiety about daily bread, which finds expression in the movement of the price of provisions.… Parallel with the curve of food-prices runs that of thefts and the movement of the latter is again impressed upon the curve of crimes and misdemeanors in general.”34 Let us consider now some of the important kinds of crime.

Offenses and contraventions against property.

“It is egoism which chiefly governs man, shows itself positively in the desire to acquire as much as possible, and negatively in the desire to lose as little as possible, and which reduces activity to insatiability, and economy to avarice.”35 Now, cupidity leads to most of the crimes against property, while hatred, vengeance, etc. drive men to malicious mischief.

Examining now Plates II and III, the influence of the years of high prices (1856 and 1867), of the years of war (1866 and 1870–1871), and [66]of the years of crisis shows itself very plainly. It is to be noted that the curve of crimes of “malicious mischief” takes a course totally different from that of crimes against property committed from other motives. Plate III shows the great influence of economic events upon fraudulent bankruptcies (1857 and 1873 having been years of crisis).

Offenses against persons.

We see that the curves of these crimes shown upon Plates IV and V have a course quite different from that of the curves of the crimes against property. It is only in 1870 that both fall together. Starke deduces the rule, confirmed by many statisticians, that an improvement in economic conditions is accompanied by an increase in assaults, etc., and vice versa. The facts confirm this rule during the first part of the period that Starke has studied, but not later. (Compare Plates I and IV.)

In studying the curve of infanticide we note that it reaches the highest point in the bad years, 1857, 1863, 1866, 1867 (Eastern Prussia), and 1868. In 1857 the first commercial crisis took place, and in 1864 and 1866 the cholera raged and war was declared; a number of fathers of illegitimate children died, leaving the mothers unable to support the children.

A comparison between the curve of crimes of arson, with those of the crimes against property in Plate III, committed with the same end, shows a great resemblance; the increase in this crime also shows itself in bad years.

The part of this author’s work dealing with crimes and misdemeanors against property contains some observations which are of importance for our subject.

PLATE V. (STARKE)

I cannot show the views of the author better than by quoting the following: “That the number of offenses against property must be related to the prevailing economic conditions, seems to need no proof. For the man who lives in the possession of abundance, the motive for appropriating the property of others is lacking, even though the inclination to commit all possible crimes slumbers within him. It is a favorite expression of the Social-democrats, that the abolition of private property would cause all crimes against property to disappear. They forget, while maintaining this, the probability [67]that just as earlier private individuals were robbed, so under the new order the state would be, by people of the same kind—those who today, without living in want, still are not content with their lawful gains, and reach out after unlawful ones. The apostles of state-ownership, in order to make their contention credible, must at least offer proof that the offenses against property which are now punished, are entirely due to hunger and need on the part of those convicted. They cannot however, offer such proof. This is not because the government statistics … give no data with regard to the economic condition of the convicts, but because, as a matter of fact, the worst offenses against property are not committed by the hungry. The merchant who goes into a fraudulent bankruptcy, the banker who embezzles deposits, the worldling who forges drafts, have all taken the step into crime from a life, if not of abundance, at least of a competence. People of this kind will not disappear from the socialistic state. In their case the lack is not in the social system, but in their individual make-up.”37

PLATE VI. (STARKE)

—We have given this quotation simply to furnish a typical example of the incorrect way in which many authors represent the socialistic opinion with regard to the genesis of crime. What nonsense, to assert that according to the theory of socialism all crimes against property find their causes in hunger and misery! See the second part of this work, where the reader will find that socialists hold an entirely different opinion, and that they have facts to prove the truth of their theories.—

With regard to the relation between the movement of the price of certain important cereals and a great part of the crime against property, the author gives the following table:

[68]

There is at first a certain correlation between the figures in the different columns, but there is none in the later years. It is very probable that the diminution in crimes against property is due, during these years, to a combination of favorable economic circumstances at that time.

The second section of the second chapter of the work, “Die Verbrechen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit dem wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhältnissen im Kanton Zürich”,38 treats of the influence of the price of provisions and crop-returns (see Plate I).

The author first calls attention to the years 1853–1861. We see that the curves of the price of cereals and of offenses against property are then quite closely parallel. However, the curve of the price of cereals was lowest in 1858, and that of offenses in 1859. It is a well-known fact that economic phenomena make their influence upon criminality felt only after some time. Further, it is only by the following year that a part of the offenses are counted in the criminal statistics. Crimes against persons increase when prices fall, and vice versa. The less the price of food is influenced by bad industrial conditions, the more its influence upon criminality will strike the eye.

The section following is entitled: “Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkurs-statistik als Ausdruck der wirtschaftlichen Lage der Bevölkerung und Kriminalität.” When we examine Plate II for the period 1832–1852, we see that the curves of bankruptcy and of offenses against property are parallel. From Plate III (1852–1892) we note that offenses against property are influenced by failures as well as by the price of grain. At times the two forces act in the same direction and reënforce one another, and at times their direction is opposite, and they more or less neutralize each other. It must be remarked that in 1867 an epidemic of cholera raged in the canton, and that the relief fund which was then given out kept the figure for criminality below what the economic situation would have produced.

PLATE I (MEYER)

INFLUENCE OF PRICES AND CROPS ON CRIMINALITY

Dr. Meyer’s conclusion from what has been said is this: “The result of the researches proves that in the course of years the number of crimes against property is strictly bound up with material conditions; the greater the difficulty of getting a living, the more numerous [69]the crimes against property. The statistics of crimes against property show at the same time the degrees of the prosperity of the country, as the statistics of failures, for example, prove.”39

PLATE II (MEYER)

Plate IV gives a comparison of crimes against persons with economic conditions, and shows that these crimes increase when economic conditions improve, and that vintages more or less abundant are not without importance.

On page 44, the author commences his examination of the criminality in the different districts of the canton of Zürich, investigating its distribution, both as to where the crimes are committed, and where the criminals come from.

According to the first distribution the districts of Zürich, of Dielsdorf, and of Horgen have the highest figures; those of Hinweill, of Meilen, and of Pfäffikon the lowest. According to the second distribution it is again the districts of Dielsdorf and of Horgen that have the highest figures, while Hinweill, Meilen, and Pfäffikon take the last place here also. Zürich and Winterthür, which in the first distribution held the first place, in the second have the eighth and tenth. We see from this that, however great the number of crimes the last two districts produce, the authors of the crimes are outsiders.

Dr. Meyer then compares the districts of Hinweill and Pfäffikon, which have the lowest figures, with the districts of Horgen and Dielsdorf, which have the highest. He concludes that the two former districts are the poorest, and the two latter the most well-to-do, a conclusion which he bases upon different facts, among others upon the appropriations which the public charities of the different districts receive from the state. And according to him it follows that in this case the connection between criminality and economic conditions is not direct.

The author then explains the indirect connection as follows: “In Hinweill as in Pfäffikon, there exists a general impoverishment, caused by the unfavorable state of the soil and of the population, heavy mortgages, bad cultivation by the small farmers, the diminution of industry, the lack of education, etc,—an impoverishment that threatens the ruin of entire communities.”40 Then, an increase of crime is not to be feared in countries where poverty strikes the whole population, for the thief has nothing to steal. Since in the well-to-do districts the differences of possessions are more marked, the opportunity for wrong-doing is greater, and it is this which makes criminality greater also. [70]

The conclusion of Dr. Meyer upon what has gone before is this: “Criminality is an historical product, and economic conditions are only one, though a significant, factor. Under like economic conditions … the number of crimes against property need not necessarily be like. It depends upon how the population has accommodated itself to the economic situation, whether it makes higher or lower demands upon life, what views it holds as to the end of human existence, etc.”41

As to the occupations of those convicted the data of Dr. Meyer are incomplete. The conclusion drawn from them is that the agricultural population is less criminal than the industrial proletariat. Here is the reason, according to Dr. Meyer: “An explanation of this phenomena that agrees fully with our investigations has already been given by von Valentini when he says: ‘Small holdings make direct and exhausting demands upon the labor of the whole family, while, on the other hand, they provide sufficiently for the immediate and indispensable needs of the household, so that idleness as well as anxiety about sustenance are generally both excluded from such a family.’ ”42

“It is otherwise in manufacturing. The greater independence of the industrial worker, his receiving his wages in money exclusively, the dependence of industry upon the conjunctures of the market, give instead of the stability of existence, enjoyed by agriculture, a life fluctuating and insecure. Abundance as well as want visits industrial workers, and each of the two begets in him a corresponding kind of crime.”43

—The expression “abundance” as describing the state in which the proletariat live, is a strange one. A man who is not indigent and has a few sous does not on that account live in abundance. The author adds a quotation from Garofalo to point out how the proletariat spend a great part of their “abundance” in the wine-shops. The reader is, however, referred to Part II of this work, where I have pointed out the social and economic causes of alcoholism.—

Dr. Meyer concludes his work by saying that he does not believe that an improvement of economic conditions will inevitably lead to an increase of crimes against persons, but that the causes of them are rather to be found in frivolity, grossness, and dissipation consequent upon an improvement of conditions.

PLATE III. (MEYER)

But—youth does not possess wisdom! It is only by advancing [71]in age that rash, rough youth becomes wise and gentle. Now, in the same way society will lose, one by one, the faults of its youth!

Plate IV. (MEYER)

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS COMPARED WITH THE PRICE OF PROVISIONS, WITH THE NUMBER OF FAILURES, AND WITH THE VINTAGE.

“Die sozialen Wirkungen der Handelskrisen in England”,44 by this author, aims to prove that the commercial crises in England in the years 1823–1850 had a much more violent character than those of the years 1871–1896, which occurred less suddenly, and made themselves felt for a long time afterwards. Since criminality is one of the social phenomena pointed out as caused by these crises, it is worth while giving a résumé of the work in question.

Dr. Tugan-Baranowsky has examined the influence that commercial crises have exercised, first, upon the agricultural counties, Cambridge, Essex, Norfolk, Oxford, Lincoln, Suffolk and Wilts (Diagrams 1 and 4); second, upon the industrial counties of Lancaster and Chester (Diagrams 2 and 5); third, upon all England (Diagrams 3 and 6).

Let us study the first three diagrams. The first shows that the commercial crisis of 1825 had a very slight effect upon criminality. It was the high price of grain in 1829 that made crime increase. The same effect was produced by the famous law of 1834 (by which not only was the aid given to poor working people very much limited, but which prescribed the placing in work-houses of those who were without means of support) and by the crisis of 1836. In 1844–1845, years of good harvests, criminality declined, after which the bad crops of 1847 brought about a contrary effect.

We note from Diagrams 2 and 3 that the effect of commercial crises was much greater in the manufacturing than in the agricultural counties (more plainly seen in 2 than in 3). The crisis of 1825 made the curve of criminality rise considerably; the favorable years 1833–1836 made it descend from 1834 on; while the crisis of 1836 caused a considerable increase in the number of crimes in 1837. The bad years 1840–1843 caused a formidable increase in the criminal population, which must also be attributed, at least in part, to the Chartist movement. The favorable period that followed had the contrary effect. It is interesting to compare the curves (in Diagram 3) of exports and crime, which cross continually. [72]

Let us consider now the last three diagrams. Dr. Tugan-Baranowsky attributes the descent of the curve of criminality in Diagram 4 to the improved condition of the agricultural population. Further, the number of crimes was greatly diminished by the alteration in the criminal procedure in 1879, and it goes without saying that this influence must also be taken into account in studying the last two diagrams. By Diagrams 5 and 6 we see that the influence of criminality is much less marked. Thus, for example, the diminution of criminality was not prevented by the crisis at the beginning of the period 1890–1896.

The final conclusion of Dr. Tugan-Baranowsky is this: “The first three diagrams give a picture of the life of the English people in the second quarter of this century [the nineteenth]. We see abrupt periodical changes of important phenomena in the life of the people, which are plainly connected with the changes in the industrial situation. Especially sudden are the variations in the life of the industrial population. Each crisis has a devastating effect upon the ranks of the working-classes, the workhouses are swamped with the unemployed, the prisons fill up as well, mortality mounts enormously, the mass of people out of work readily take up with any political agitation, and the years of crisis are likewise years of revolutionary movements.

“At the same time the manufacturing and commerce of the country increase rapidly. The enormous growth of exportation in England, the curve of which mounts continually, is in sharp contrast with the deterioration of the living-conditions of the working-class.

“The last three diagrams show us an entirely different picture. English exports no longer increase. In place of a steady rise of the curve with a sharp depression in the critical years, there are regular, wave-like variations in the same plane. The industrial development of the country proceeds at a slackening pace.

“And at the same time in the life of the people there are signs to be noticed of increasing well-being. Mortality, criminality, and pauperism fall quickly. Crises no longer have their former influence upon the condition of the people. Even in manufacturing districts business stagnation no longer has its former disastrous effect upon the working-class; crime and the death-rate no longer increase, and even the increase in the number of paupers is hardly noticeable. Organized labor supports even the unemployed. Wages are only a little lower in years of industrial depression than they are in a time of prosperity!”

DIAGRAM No. 1. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)

DIAGRAM No. 2. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)

DIAGRAM No. 3. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)

DIAGRAM No. 4. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)

DIAGRAM No. 5. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)

DIAGRAM No. 6. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)

[73]

At the end of his study the author gives the following table, which contains some data upon the relation between the price of grain and abundance of the crops, on the one hand, and criminality on the other. The figures in the second column have to do with the different kinds of theft. The law of May 18th, 1882, having considerably modified the penal code, the figures for the years 1882 and 1883 cannot be compared with those of preceding years. This is why they have been suppressed.

According to the author it may be doubted whether the years of poor harvests could cause an increase in the number of thefts in Russia. For the agricultural population is benefited by the high price of grain. [74]However, it is proved by the figures given above that these years have an unfavorable effect upon criminality, which can be understood if we take into account the fact that most of the Russian peasants only raise grain for their own consumption, and that bad crops accordingly affect them seriously.

In the introduction to his work, “Untersuchungen über die Bewegung der Criminalität in ihrem Zusammenhang mit dem wirtschaftlichen Verhältnissen”, Dr. Müller describes the result of his researches as follows: “In the course of our discussion it will appear that with time the state of industry, the greater or less chance to get work, the activity or depression of the general economic life, have gradually become of far more significance for the increase or decrease of crime, than a rise or fall in the price of provisions, and that at present these factors have reduced the economic meaning of the price of provisions to a minimum.”46

The period examined (1854–1895) is divided into two parts, because the criminal statistics of the empire, which are to be had from 1882 on, give the number of crimes and criminals, while the Prussian statistics give the number of new cases brought before the examining magistrate.

The figures for these years are as follows:

Now, the causes that make crime increase when there is an economic depression are, according to the author, the following: “The instinct of self-preservation, which in its harmonious development is the motive for the lawful and moral struggle of men for existence, and in more restricted form is the principal ground for industrial activity, in its degeneration … demands a certain, often high, percentage of victims, who fall into crime, especially theft, fraud, embezzlement, and other offenses against property. And experience shows that the [76]greater the care to maintain existence, or often simply to procure daily bread, the greater is the number of offenses against property. When need appears, at the same time comes the instinct impelling a man to seize the property of another, better situated than himself. Infractions of property are in part to be ascribed to other motives. There is nothing to show, however, that these motives (greed and covetousness, for example) are stronger in one year and weaker in another throughout a whole people. We must rather ascribe to them a certain uniformity in their influence upon criminal activity. The determining factor in the increase and decrease of crimes remains the general well-being of a people, in earlier times the price of the necessities of life, at the present the opportunity for employment.”47

Let us study in the first place crimes and misdemeanors against property:

I. Offenses, against Property.

[77]

The following table gives the prices of certain important foods (per 50 Kilogr.):

A comparison of these figures with those of crime will show that the crimes against property increase in the years of high prices up to 1855. In 1857 prices fell and crime decreased.

In the figures for foreign countries we see this relation much less clearly. Dr. Weisz has indeed succeeded in establishing a similar relation in France, but in Belgium it is much slighter. In England it is not possible to show that there is any parallelism between the curves of criminality and of the price of grain. In the years 1831–1840 and 1841–1850 the curve of crime even goes down, while provisions were then very dear. There must therefore be some other cause, and this is probably that England had a great industrial development long before any other country.

After an extremely rapid development up to 1847, manufacturing had to pass through a formidable crisis. While the average annual number of persons convicted in England and Wales was 20,455, and this figure fell to 18,100 and 17,400 in the prosperous years, 1845–1846, it rose during the years of crisis, 1847–1848, to 21,500 and 22,900, falling again to 21,000 in 1849, when business had resumed its normal course.

In the years following, industry received an enormous impetus, in consequence of the discovery of gold in California, the repeal of the Corn Laws, and many other causes. In 1857 came the panic, which affected all industrial countries, especially England. In 1856–1860 there was an annual average of 13,565 convictions; in 1857 it was 15,307, an increase of 12%. That the consequences of this crisis are not to be observed in the figures for crime in Prussia, is to be attributed to the fact that in that country manufacturing was little developed. [79]

After the very dear years 1852–1856 the price of grain remained fairly constant in Prussia. It was only in 1860–1862 that it rose a little and caused an increase in the cases of fraud and theft. 1867–1868 were years which were marked by an extraordinarily high price for grain, which had some influence upon crime, without equalling that of such years as 1852–1856.

Crime decreased in the years of war, 1866 and 1870–1871, due as Dr. Müller thinks, to two facts; first, that a great part of the population capable of committing crimes were then out of the country; and second, that the feeling of solidarity is stronger in time of war.

Notwithstanding the rise in the price of grain in 1871–1874, crime decreased greatly after the war of 1870. A modification of the penal law could not be the cause of it; its origin was deeper. Since 1871 Germany has seen its industries develop prodigiously. The period of prosperity was of short duration, for in the summer of 1873 came the crisis, which lasted till 1878. Now it is during these years that the crimes against property were much increased.

When we study this period in other countries, in Austria and England, for example, we see a great industrial development, accompanied by a decrease in crime. The average number of criminals in Austria for the years 1860–1870 was 32,800, and 26,900 for the years 1871–1875. In England the figures for the same period were 14,100 and 11,200 respectively. France alone was an exception, for in this country manufacturing did not begin to develop immediately after the war.48 But in Austria and England the effects of the crisis upon crime were felt just as in Prussia. In Austria, for example, criminality increased 10%. From 1878 on, business improved in Prussia and in other countries also, and little by little the number of crimes against property decreased (between 1885 and 1890 7% in France, 9% in Austria, and 20% in England).

In 1889 there was another great disturbance in the economic field, which was prolonged till 1892. During these years there was a new increase of crime; in Austria, for example, the average number of convictions was 29,483 in 1890–1894, as against 28,834 for the five years preceding. In England we see the same phenomenon, and in Prussia as well.

Dr. Müller calls attention to the marked fall in the price of grain in 1892, and sees in it a proof that prices have no longer any great [80]influence. Since 1892 there has been a new period of prosperity, and at the same time a constant diminution of crimes against property.

Dr. Müller reminds us that preceding moralistic statisticians have brought out the fact that crimes against persons increase when the price of grain falls, and vice versa, as is distinctly seen in the tables for the years 1854–1860. But there is a change during the ten years following. In 1867–1868 the price of grain was high, but crimes against persons and the public order rose also. Crimes against persons decreased in the years of war, 1866 and 1870, just as crimes against property did. Since 1871 crimes against persons have in general diminished, principally because of favorable economic conditions. (The diminution of crimes against morals is chiefly due to a modification of the law, which prescribed that a case could not be [81]prosecuted except upon complaint. The increase after 1876 was caused by a revocation of this requirement.) The crimes in question increased anew considerably after the crisis of 1874. Here is an important exception, then, to the rule that the earlier statisticians laid down, namely that crimes against persons decrease when economic conditions grow worse. [80]

II. Crimes against Persons.

[81]

“The great economic crisis beginning in 1873 was accompanied by the characteristic phenomenon that dissatisfaction with the existing economic, social, and political conditions affected wider circles than heretofore, that this embittered people’s minds, and brought about sharp oppositions and struggles of the industrial classes against each other, especially the struggle of labor against capital. The need of an economic reform was more and more felt, which is to be attained, in the opinion of the powerful, by force, and in that of the thoughtful, by social legislation. All public life since the seventies has been dominated by this idea.”49

Here also economic conditions are causes of crime, and show themselves principally in resistance to officials, etc. The tables show also an increase in the cases of perjury, bodily injuries, and other crimes that are the consequences of grossness. The increase is due, according to Dr. Müller, to bad economic conditions. For as a consequence of these the number of civil cases rose from 60,000 (the average for [83]1871–1873) to 120,000 and 135,000 (1876–1877) and it is by these cases that perjury becomes possible. It is necessary to attribute to the same causes the great increase in the number of cases of crimes against personal liberty (also, since 1876, to the abolition of the requirement of a complaint for prosecution). [82]

III. Crimes against the Public Order.

[83]

“The chief reasons why this crime (against personal liberty), like most crimes against persons, has constantly increased up to the present, in addition to the growing discontent with the present economic situation, are two; first, the effect of the spread of great manufactories in breaking up the family life, with concomitant lack of moral and religious education, and the too early necessity for self-supporting labor …; and second, the present inordinate desire for pleasure, whose results are seen not least in the harmful effects of the immoderate consumption of alcohol; for that this is a prolific source of the multiplication of crime can hardly be doubted.”50

Dr. Müller’s final conclusion is as follows: “We may regard it as an established truth that, in the last analysis, the cause for the increase and decrease of crime as a whole is to be found in the presence or absence of a chance for employment and gain, in the condition of individual lines of industry, and in the greater or less degree in which the population as a whole in consequence of this, are in a position to consume.”51

—Recently it has been proved that the conclusion of Dr. Müller with regard to the slight influence of the price of grain upon criminality was not entirely correct. Notwithstanding the growing influence of the industrial situation upon criminality, the price of grain has retained a certain influence.52— [84]

In “Crime, Its Causes and Remedies”,2 one of his last works, Professor Lombroso treats, among other things, of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality.

Chapter VI, bearing the title, “Subsistence (famine, price of bread)”, is the first in which we find any observations especially interesting to us. By the aid of data from von Oettingen, Starke, Corre, and Fornasari di Verce, which we treat separately, the author calls attention to the fact that the course of criminality is very little influenced by the price of provisions. He closes by drawing the following conclusion:

“But, admitting the action of scarcity of food upon the increase of thefts and of abundance upon the increase of homicides, assaults, and debauchery, it is easy to understand its slight influence upon the variation of criminality in general, if one group of crimes increases with a given state of the market, and another group decreases under the same conditions, and vice versa. Even when the price of food moves in a constant direction it does not modify essentially the proportion of certain crimes. For example, in Italy the effect of the rise in price of food upon aggravated thefts is very marked; yet the greatest difference is between 184 and 105, that is to say, a variation of 79 to the 100,000. Likewise, when the sexual crimes increase on account [89]of the low price of food, the greatest difference is 2.14 to the 100,000,—a fact easy to understand when one thinks of the greater influence of heredity, climate, and race.”3

The circumstance that the thefts of food represent hardly 1% of the total cases of theft (according to Guerry), that in London bread occupies only the 43d place among 43 categories of articles stolen, and that Joly has shown that the cases of theft of money are much more numerous than those of meal, domestic animals, etc.—all of this leads the author to the conclusion that the proportion of crimes caused by lack of food and real misery is not so great as has been supposed.

—I will not make any criticism of the preceding at this point, but wait until I analyze the works themselves. The exposition of the work of Dr. G. Mayr, for example, shows how superficial the observations made by Professor Lombroso are. (See also the analysis of the work of Dr. Müller, in which it is shown that now the industrial situation plays a preponderating part in causing crime.) I would only call attention to the naïve error involved in Professor Lombroso’s last remark, that there are only a few articles stolen that could immediately provide for pressing needs, and that this proves that poverty is not an important factor in criminality. If society were not based upon exchange this might be true, but the assertion has no basis in the present state of things, when anything may be bought for money. The reason that more money than food is stolen is to be found, in part, in the facts; first, that money is less bulky, and consequently can be more easily taken and concealed; and second, that money has more value than the same quantity of provisions, so that more can be procured with the same effort. But this proves nothing with regard to the influence of poverty upon crime.4—

In the second part of the chapter Professor Lombroso tries to show that the effect of hunger upon revolts is not very great. He cites a number of cases where there were no revolts although prices were high and work scarce. Thus, for example, in Strasburg from 1451 to 1500 and from 1601 to 1625, the price of beef rose 134% and that of pork 92%, and during many years wages fell 10%; and yet there was no insurrection.

—I must vigorously protest against any such argument, which, in my opinion, has no value. I will leave out of consideration the last example, which proves but little, since during these periods the price of bread may have been very low, neutralizing the effect of low wages [90](it is quite problematical whether the poorer classes of the population were great consumers of beef and pork!). But it is inaccurate to conclude from the fact “that prices were high and there was no insurrection” an absence of influence of the economic conditions. There may have been a number of factors working in the opposite direction, which prevented the manifestation of the economic factor. To cite but one example, it may be that during those times an excessively severe penal law was in force, threatening the least attempt at insurrection with cruel death.—

We shall next sum up Chapter IX, “Influence of Economic Conditions—Wealth.” After saying that it is difficult to estimate the wealth of a country at all accurately, the author produces the following data in the first section of the chapter. He divides the provinces of Italy into three groups according to the total wealth (estimated from taxes on consumption, direct taxes, and taxes on business), and compares the figures thus gained with some of the principal kinds of crimes, reaching the following results:

Professor Lombroso draws the conclusion, “that fraudulent crimes increase positively with the increase of wealth, and the same is true of thefts, but if we add rural thefts we get the maximum where wealth is least; and this last is always true of homicides.”6

“The results for sexual crimes are more unexpected. They show their minimum in Italy where wealth is moderate, and their maximum where there is the minimum of wealth. Italy thus presents an exception, as the usual course of sexual crimes is to increase with the increase of wealth.”7

Another way of estimating the wealth of a country is by means of the inheritance tax. For different Italian provinces the following results are thus obtained: [91]

(Indictments. Average to 100,000 Population, 1887–89.)

		Average Wealth.	Thefts.	Frauds.	Highway Robberies.	Homicides.	Assaults.
Latium		3333	639	116	18	25	513
Piedmont		2746	267	44	7	7	164
Liguria
Lombardy		2400	227	44	3	3	124
Tuscany		2164	211	34	6	7	165
Venice		1935	389	43	3	4	98
Reggio		1870	320	49	7	13	287
Emilia		1762	250	38	6	6	130
Sicily		1471	346	65	16	26	410
Naples		1333	435	47	6	21	531
Marches		1227	222	33	3	10	239
Umbria
Sardinia		—	670	113	14	20	277

This table gives very little information as to the influence of wealth upon criminality, since we can draw from it the most contradictory conclusions. Note, for example, that the highest figures for theft are to be found in the regions of Latium and Sardinia, i.e. in the richest and the poorest provinces, etc., etc.

—I have more than once had occasion to show that the value of such researches is fictitious. It is not the total amount of wealth but its distribution that bears upon criminality. (See, for example, Quetelet and Colajanni)—

In the 3d section the author treats of the effect of involuntary unemployment. Wright tells us that in Massachusetts of every 220 persons convicted, 147 are without regular work, and that 68% of criminals have no occupation. According to Professor Lombroso this is easily explained by the fact that criminals do not like to work. According to Bosco there were only 18% of murderers in the United States without work (—the proportion not being given for non-criminals, these figures have little value—). Finally, Professor Lombroso mentions the opinion of Coghlan, who says that unemployment has no influence upon criminality in New South Wales (—upon what he bases his opinion, we do not know—).

—Such data as these (to a subject of such high importance as this the author gives but thirty lines) suffice for the conclusion that the phenomenon in question has little significance for criminality. I have only to recall the extensive studies of Mayr, Denis, Müller, [93]Lafargue, and others, upon this subject, to prove the inaccuracy of this idea.— [92]