in 1846 to 61 million hectolitres
from,, 1853 to,, 63 million,, hectolitres,,
from,, 1867 to,, 83 million,, hectolitres,,
from,, 1873 to,, 84 million,, hectolitres,,

However, the bad harvests of 1855, 1861, and 1879 did not have these results, and with the good crops of 1847 to 1852 crime increased. Here there were, therefore, other factors. Consequently, although the price of grain can partially explain the fluctuations of criminality, it does not account for the general increase from 1840 to 1886.

The author combats further the opinion of Professor Lacassagne that crimes against persons are especially under the influence of the production and consumption of wine. If this were the case the wine-growing departments ought to furnish the highest figure for crimes against persons, which is not the case. On the contrary, Lafargue is of the opinion that in this respect, the consumption of brandy is of more importance. The continually increasing abuse of alcohol (i.e. of spirituous drinks like brandy) which in its turn is due to the miserable condition of the proletariat, is one of the causes of the increasing criminality.

Quantity of alcohol consumed: [[231]]

Year. Total (Hectolitres). Per Capita (Litres).
1850 585,200 1.46
1855 714,813 2.00
1860 851,825 2.27
1865 873,007 2.34
1875 1,010,052 2.82
1880 1,313,849 3.64
1885 1,444,342 3.86

In the third part Lafargue makes special investigations with regard to the correlation between economic conditions and criminality. If the theory of Lombroso were correct, criminality ought to decrease; bad harvests no longer explain the increase, and the climate has not changed. However, the increase of criminality coincided with the enormous increase in the productive forces in France.

Horse-power of steam engines used in manufacturing and agriculture 34,350 177,652 544,152 683,090
Consumption of coal (in tons) 4,256,000 14,270,000 28,846,000 30,941,000
Production of iron (in tons) 585,000 1,430,000 2,790,000 2,747,000
Production of steel (in tons) 8,262 30,000 389,000 503,000
Exports and imports (in millions of francs) 1,442 4,174 8,501 7,575
Increase of inheritances (in millions of francs) 1,608 2,724 5,265 5,244
National wealth (in millions of francs) 64,320 108,960 210,600 209,760

There is a close correspondence, then, between the development of the economic forces and the increase of criminality. Must we regard this as simply chance, or is there causality between the two? Quetelet has already pointed out that the poorest districts, i.e. those in which the absolute wealth is not great, but where the contrasts are not very marked, furnish fewer criminals than the wealthier provinces. According to Lafargue this has become still more striking with the development of capitalism.

“The colossal development of the productive forces and the national wealth does not lead to the increase of the well-being of all the members of society, but to enormous fortunes on the one hand, and on the other to misery and need, for the great majority of the [[232]]population.”[19] If the multiplying, grading, and perfecting of punishments have been incapable of checking the upward progress of crime, this proves that crimes and misdemeanors against the common law are the necessary products of conditions, and are closely bound up with the form and fashion of the creation of social wealth in capitalistic society.

“The development of the capitalistic mode of production is not uniform; at times it is over-rapid, and then slows up again and undergoes crises that destroy the living of thousands and millions of individuals. If it is correct that modern criminality is a necessary consequence of the method of the production of wealth in capitalistic society, then the fluctuations of crime must correspond with the variations in production. The number of offenses must increase in times of crisis, and decrease when economic conditions improve; in other words, criminality is determined by the flourishing or depression of the capitalistic mode of production.”[20]