a. 1854–1878. New Cases.
| Years. | Rebellion. | Offenses against Public Order. | Perjury. | Counterfeiting. | Leze-majesty. |
| 1854 | 18.6 | — | 3.0 | 0.83 | 0.63 |
| 1855 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 2.6 | 0.64 | 0.71 |
| 1856 | 18.0 | 23.2 | 2.7 | 0.71 | 0.40 |
| 1857 | 19.5 | 29.8 | 2.9 | 0.49 | 0.34 |
| 1858 | 19.7 | 28.7 | 2.7 | 0.50 | 0.53 |
| 1859 | 18.6 | 26.9 | 2.9 | 0.48 | 0.68 |
| 1860 | 19.7 | 30.2 | 3.0 | 0.39 | 0.51 |
| 1861 | 17.2 | 29.6 | 3.0 | 0.42 | 0.38 |
| 1862 | 19.9 | 29.0 | 3.0 | 0.50 | 0.47 |
| 1863 | 20.8 | 26.9 | 3.2 | 0.38 | 1.16 |
| 1864 | 23.1 | 26.6 | 3.2 | 0.40 | 1.00 |
| 1865 | 23.8 | 28.1 | 3.4 | 0.28 | 0.64 |
| 1866 | 23.4 | 24.2 | 3.1 | 0.39 | 1.94 |
| 1867 | 23.1 | 21.0 | 3.0 | 0.49 | 0.91 |
| 1868 | 22.5 | 22.8 | 3.4 | 0.57 | 0.54 |
| 1869 | 23.5 | 23.6 | 3.6 | 0.48 | 0.38 |
| 1870 | 19.0 | 21.7 | 3.1 | 0.36 | 0.66 |
| 1871 | 19.4 | 17.9 | 2.4 | 0.45 | 0.96 |
| 1872 | 23.6 | 26.4 | 3.2 | 0.38 | 0.67 |
| 1873 | 24.7 | 31.8 | 3.2 | 0.41 | 0.73 |
| 1874 | 28.6 | 43.7 | 3.7 | 0.45 | 1.23 |
| 1875 | 32.2 | 41.3 | 3.8 | 0.87 | 1.26 |
| 1876 | 32.7 | 47.0 | 4.2 | 1.21 | 0.86 |
| 1877 | 33.8 | 43.4 | 4.8 | 1.45 | 0.93 |
| 1878 | 33.7 | 49.6 | 5.5 | 2.24 | 9.93 |
b. 1882–1896. Persons Convicted.
| Years. | Violence to Officials. | Violation of Domicile. | Perjury. | Embezzlement in Military Service. |
| 1882 | 40 | 56 | 3.1 | 49 |
| 1883 | 39 | 52 | 2.7 | 54 |
| 1884 | 42 | 60 | 3.0 | 55 |
| 1885 | 40 | 57 | 3.0 | 57 |
| 1886 | 42 | 61 | 2.5 | 61 |
| 1887 | 43 | 58 | 8.8 | 66 |
| 1888 | 39 | 53 | 8.5 | 72 |
| 1889 | 39 | 58 | 8.6 | 61 |
| 1890 | 40 | 59 | 8.7 | 61 |
| 1891 | 40 | 57 | 8.5 | 56 |
| 1892 | 41 | 59 | 8.5 | 58 |
| 1882–91 | 41 | 58 | 8.8 | 60 |
| 1894 | 47 | 62 | 8.3 | 51 |
| 1895 | 47 | 65 | — | — |
| 1896 | 47 | 63 | — | — |
[[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]]