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. ========+======================+================= Years. | Average Price of a |Number of Persons | Hectolitre of Wheat. | Arraigned. --------+----------------------+----------------= | fr. c. | 1850 | 14 32 | 147,757 1851 | 14 48 | 146,368 1852 | 16 75 | 159,791 1853 | 22 39 | 171,351 1854 | 28 82 | 170,940 1855 | 29 32 | 163,748 1856 | 30 75 | 162,049 1857 | 24 37 | 161,556 1858 | 16 75 | 157,815 1859 | 16 75 | 150,948 1860 | 20 24 | 144,301 1861 | 24 55 | 151,112 1862 | 23 24 | 152,332 1863 | 19 78 | 144,072 1864 | 17 58 | 146,230 ========+======================+================= 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. Then the author gives the following table: ========+======================+=========================== Years. | Price of a |Number of Persons Convicted | Hectolitre of Wheat. | of Attacks upon Property | |(to 1000 of Population). --------+----------------------+--------------------------- | fr. c. | 1850 | 14 32 | 147,757 1851 | 14 48 | 146,368 1852 | 16 75 | 159,791 1853 | 22 39 | 171,351 1854 | 28 82 | 170,940 1855 | 29 32 | 163,748 1856 | 30 75 | 162,049 1857 | 24 37 | 161,556 1858 | 16 75 | 157,815 1859 | 16 75 | 150,948 1860 | 20 24 | 144,301 1861 | 24 55 | 151,112 1862 | 23 24 | 152,332 1863 | 19 78 | 144,072 1864 | 14 32 | 146,230 ========+======================+=========================== We see that the coincidence of the figures is here naturally greater than in the first table.