Reply to Sir Robert Stout's Statistics.

From the "New Zealand Tablet," March 4, 1892.

Surely we had thought that Sir Robert Stoat was nothing if not scientific. Bat here is a work of a scientific character that seems to exhibit him to us as merely taking superficial views, and knowing nothing of the true meaning of some things he deals with. Of coarse the explanation is always at hand that Sir Robert knows more than he pretends, bat, even at the expense of his reputation as a savant, we would gladly shield his reputation as an honest man, if it were possible for us. Has Sir Robert Stout, them read a certain work issued in the Social Science Series and named "Crime and its Causes," by William Doaglas Morrison, of H.M. Prison, Wandsworth. We conclude the work is esteemed of some value or it would not be so issued. If Sir Robert Stout has read it he must know that the figures quoted by him in his article in the Melbourne Age were of very little worth in proving the point in support of which he argued, namely, that godless education is calculated to raise the standard of morals. "Primary schools," writes Mr Morrison, in his preface, "will not accomplish much in eliminating crime. The merely intellectual training received in these institutions has little salutary influence upon conduct; Nothing can be more deplorable than that sectarian bickerings, respecting infinitesimal points in the sanctions of morality, should result in the children of England receiving hardly any moral instruction whatever. Conduct, as the late Mr Matthew Arnold has so often told us, is three-fourths of life. What are we to think of an educational system which consents to its being ignored?" Sir Robert Stout affirms that the figures quoted by him prove the moral advancement of New Zealand, but, according to Mr Morrison, "it is impossible, by looking only at the bare figures contained in criminal statistics, to say whether a community is growing better or worse" (p. 10). If New Zealand, moreover, shows the clean record that Sir Robert Stout claims for her, she is an exception to the general rule. There is another exception, as we shall see by-and-by, which certainly does not give the proof for which Mr Robert Stout pleads. Mr Morrison tells us there is some divergency of views on the subject, but that most of the principal authorities in Europe and America are emphatically of the opinion that crime is on the increase. "In the United States," he says, "we are told by Mr D. A. Wells, and by Mr Howard Wines, an eminent specialist in criminal matters, that crime is steadily increasing, and it is increasing faster than the growth of the population." "Nearly all the chief statisticians abroad tell the same tale with respect to the growth of crime on the Continent. Dr Mischler, of Vienna, and Professor von Liszt of Marburg draw a deplorable picture of the increase of crime in Germany. Professor von Liszt, in a recent article, says that fifteen million persons have been convicted by the German criminal courts within the last ten years; and, according to him, the outlook for the future is sombre in the last degree. In France the criminal problem is just as formidable and perplexing as it is in Germany; M. Henri Joly estimates that crime has increased in the former country 133 per cent, within the last half century, and is still steadily rising." The following paragraph has a special bearing on Sir Robert Stout's wish that someone would do fur the Australian colonies what he himself had done for New Zealand. "Taking Victoria," writes Mr Morrison, "as a typical Australasian colony, we find that even in the Antipodes, which are not vexed to the same extent as Europe with social and economic difficulties, crime is persistently raising its head, and, although it does not increase quite as rapidly as the population, it is, nevertheless, a more menacing danger among the Victorian colonists than it is at home" (p. 12 13). We said last week it was remarkable that the stated improvement in the moral condition of New Zealand was contemporary with a period of depression. "It is a melancholy fact," writes Mr Morrison, "that the moment wages begin to rise, the statistics of crime almost immediately follow suit, and at no period are there more offences of all kinds against the person than when material prosperity is at its height" (p. 59). As showing results similar to those quoted in favour of New Zealand for a certain term of years by Sir Robert Stout. Mr Morrison refers to the state of England in the five years ending with 1888. He compares this period with the five years ending with 1874, which had been a time of unwonted prosperity. "It hardly needs to be stated," he says, "that the five years ended 1888 were years of considerable depression. Some of them were years in which there was a good deal of distress and in none of them was the bulk of the population so well off as in the preceding period. It is, therefore, plain that an increase in the wealth of a country is not necessarily followed by a decrease in the amount of crimes against property; that, in fact, the growth of national and individual wealth, unless it is accompanied by a corresponding development of ethical ideals, is apt to foster criminal instincts instead of repressing them" (p. 133.) Mr Morrison, in fact, denies that poverty is generally a cause of crime. "The wealth of England," he writes, "is perhaps twice the wealth of Italy; but, notwithstanding this fact, more thefts are annually committed in England than in Italy. The wealth of France is enormously superior to the wealth of Ireland, both in quantity and distribution, but the population of France commits more offences against property than the Irish. Spain is one of the poorest countries in Europe, Scotland is one of the richest, but side by side with this inequality of wealth we see that the Scotch commit, per hundred thousand of the population, almost four times as many thefts as the Spaniards. With the exception of Italy, it is the poorest countries of Europe that are the least dishonest, and, according to our table, even the Italians are not so much addicted to offences against property as the inhabitants of England" (p. 131). The most exact comparison, however, says the writer, is that which may be made between England and Ireland. "It shows that the Irish, with all their poverty, are not half so much addicted to offences against property as the English with all their wealth, and it serves to confirm the idea that the connection between poverty and theft is not so close as is generally imagined" (p. 132). A like comparison with regard to America shows similar results. "It is perfectly certain," says the writer, "that the foreign-born population 01 the united states is not, as a rule, so well off economically as the native-born citizen. The vast proportion of the emigrant population is composed of poor people seeking to better their condition, and it is well known that & large percentage of the hard manual work done in America, is performed by those men. The economic condition of the average native-born American is superior to the economic condition of the average emigrant; but the native American, not withstanding his economic superiority cuts a worse figure in the statistics of crime" (pp. 135-6). The writer again takes Victoria as a colonial example. He alludes to her prosperous condition. "Nevertheless," he says, "on examining the criminal statistics of the colony of Victoria, what do we find? According to the returns for 1887, one arrest on a charge of crime was made in every 30 of the population, and, on looking down the list of offences for which these arrests were made, it will be seen that Victoria, notwithstanding her widely-diffused material wellbeing, is just as much addicted to crimes against person and property as some of the poor and squalid states of Europe" (p. 137). As a more detailed instance the writer quotes from the Revue Scientifique of September 13, 1890, the following paragraph relating to the Canton of Luchon in the Central Pyrenees. In this canton, we are told, "the old simplicity of life has departed, in consequence of its prodigious prosperity"—" Vices formerly unknown have penetrated into the country; the frequenting of public houses and the habit of keeping late hours have taken the place of the open air sports, which used to be the favoured method of enjoyment. Illegitimate births, formerly very rare, have multiplied, syphilis even has spread among the young. Food of a less substantial character has superseded the diet of former times, and, in short, alcoholism, precocious debauchery, and syphilis have come like so many plagues to arrest the development of the youth and seriously debilitate the population" (p. 147). We may mention, in passing, that, according to this writer, independence, in at least one notable instance, has the same effect that prosperity generally seems to have. In dealing with the sex of criminals Mr Morrison tells us that as a rule there is less crime among women than among men. Scotland, however, forms an exception. "The proportion of female offenders in Scotland to the total criminal population is moving in an opposite direction. The late Processor Leone Levi, in a paper read before the Statistical Society in 1880, stated that Scotch women formed 27 per cent of the persons tried before the criminal courts; they now form 337 per cent, a most alarming state of increase (p 155). Mr Morrrison accounts for this deterioration by the nearer approach of Scotch women to men in their social activities. He draws a moral with regard to the movement now bo prominent, and to Sir Robert Stoat, aas a leading advo- page break cate of women's rights, it ought to be especially interesting, The general law revealed by the study of criminal statistics as a whole, he tells us is that "the more women are driven to enter upon the economic struggle for life, the more criminal they will become." "This,' he adds, in allusion to the circumstances of the times, "is not a very consoling outlook for the future of society." But this is a digression. Revenons à nos moutons, What is true of communities, the writer says, is also true of individuals. "According to the report of the Prison Commissioners" he says, "between 5 and 6 per cent of the persons committed to gaol during the year ended March 1890 (omiting court martial cases) were debtors and civil process cases. Now it may be taken as certain that in a very small proportion of these cases were the prisoners working people. Nearly all these offenders are to be considered as belonging to the well-to-do classes. Yet we see that they form 5 per cent of the criminal population, and it has to be remembered that the fraudulent debtor is just as much a criminal in many instances as the thief who snatches a purse. In addition to this 5 per cent there is at least 3 per cent of the ordinary criminal population belonging to the higher ranks of life. At the lowest estimate we have 6 per cent of the criminal population springing from the midst of the well-to-do, and if all cases of drunkenness and assault were punished with imprisonment instead of a fine, it would be found that the well-to-do showed just as badly in the statistics of crime as their poorer neighbours" (pp 139-40). "According to Garofalo, one of the most learned of Italian jurists," he writes again, "the poor people in Italy commit fewer offences against property, in proportion to their numbers than the well-to-do, while in Prussia persons engaged in the liberal professions contribute twice their proper share to the criminal population. A somewhat similar state of things exists in France; there the number of persons engaged in the liberal professions forms four per cent of the population; but, according to the investigations of Ferri, in his striking little book, 'Socialismo e Criminalita,' the liberal professions were responsible for no less than seven per cent of the murders perpetrated in France in 1879" (pl43). From what has been said, therefore, we conclude that, as we argued in our last issue, a period of depression may be attended by a decrease of crime. We conclude, moreover as we also argued, that offences may be committed among the wealthier classes which do not find their way into the police courts, and do not go to swell the criminal statistics. In both these arguments Mr Morrison bears us out. And here it may not be out of place to submit to Sir Robert Stout certain evidence as to the moral condition of New Zealand which he would do well to take into consideration when he next writes on the subject in the newspapers. Referring to the Presbyterian General Assembly held the other day at Auckland, the New Zealand Herald of February 11 quotes as follows from the report of the Committee on religion and morals. "It was appalling to hear of the vast sums of money squandered on horse-racing, billiards, and card-playing, and to learn that these were encouraged by individuals holding high social positions in the colony." Sir Robert Stout who, for example, lately administered so sharp a rebuke to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in relation to gambling, will fully appreciate the alarm of the Committee. Everyone must perceive the gravity of their next statement. "As to social impurity, the Committee stated that its evil influence was widespread and extremely disastrous, and expressed regret that nothing special had been done by the Church to lessen what some considered to be the outstanding and revolting sin of the colony." But all this time we have neglected the condition of England. Mr Morrison examines at length the question as to whether England is an exception to the rest of the world with regard to the increase of crime. His conclusion is "that crime is just as serious as it was twenty years ago, and that it is growing in dimensions year by year" (p 17). That crime in England is not, as it is in France and the United States, growing faster than the population, the writer attributes to the establishment of the Reformatories and Industrial Schools. "At the present time," he says, "there is one conviction to about every fifty inhabitants, and the proportion of convictions to the population was very much the same twenty years ago. If we remember the immense development that has taken place in the Industrial School system within the last twenty years, a development that has undoubtedly had a great deal to do with keeping down crime, we arrive at the conclusion that, notwithstanding the beneficent effects of Industrial Schools, the criminal classes in this country still keep pace with the annual growth of population. If we had no Industrial and Reformatory institutions for the detention of criminal and quasi criminal offenders among the young, there can be no doubt that England, as well as other countries, would have to make the lamentable admission that crime was not only increasing in her midst, but that it was increasing faster than the growth of population. The number of juveniles in these institutions has more than trebled since 1868, and it is unquestionable that, if these youthful offenders were not confined there, a large proportion of them would immediately begin to swell the ranks of crime. That crime in England is not making more rapid strides than the growth of population is almost entirely to be attributed to the action of these schools (p 18)." We have quoted the writer's opinion as to the futility of looking to the training of the intellect for the improvement of conduct. He afterwards gives us instances in which the attempt at such an improvement has been a failure. He tells us that, while only 10 per cent of the English population is wholly ignorant, 25 per cent of the prisoners can neither read nor write, and 72 per cent can only read or read and write imperfectly. "The vast difference in the proportion of uninstructed among the prison, as compared with the general population," he adds, "is not to be explained by the defective early training of the former. This explanation only covers a portion of the ground; the other portion is covered by the fact that a certain number of criminals are almost incapable of acquiring instruction. The memory and the reasoning powers of such persons are so utterly feeble that attempts to school them is a waste of time" (p 195). The uselessness of mere appeals to the intellect in cases like these is evident. In conclusion, the case to which we have referred as exceptional, although of a different character from that claimed by Sir Robert Stout for New Zealand, is that of India. "According to the returns for the two countries in the year 1888, it comes out that in England one person was proceeded against criminally to every forty two of the population, while in India only one person was proceeded against to every 195. In other words, official statistics show that the people of England are between four and five times more addicted to crime than the people of India" (p 134), Mr Morrison attributes the immunity of India from crime to the action of Brahmanism through the system of caste. To institute a comparison between the action of godlessness in New Zealand by means of its secular schools and that of Brahmanism in India by means of caste would be a task too nice for us to undertake, though, perhaps, some element common to both might, without much difficulty, be discovered by those fitted for the inquiry. Heathenism and atheism, at least, are extremes that may possibly meet, and why should not those who are subjected to their influences display some affinities. Brahmanism, for example, notwithstanding its excellent effects, makes ample provision, as Mr Morrison admits, for infanticide. Godlessness, perhaps, in some respect, also excuses its votaries Is there not some suggestiveness in that report of the Presbyterian Committee? Had Sir Robert Stout read this book, we ask again, or, as a savàat, has he made an over sight? We would gladly, if possible, screen his reputation as an honest man, even at the expense of that he bears as a man of science, Possibly some little sacrifice of honesty seems allowable to Sir Robert with regard to his Catholic, not his Irish, fellow-colonists. As Irishmen, we acknowledge he would give us fair play, but as Catholics we are not quite so sure. Sir Robert must know that, if we are exceptionally bad, we are bad, whether it be our hot Celtic blood, or the misgovernment of our country, or anything else, that has made us so. It is the results not the cause that our fellow-colonists have to deal with. In fact, we appreciate the forbearance of that worthy man who gave the dog a bad name—" Mad dog, mad dog." Whether he had been bitten by another dog or had gone mad of his own corrupt nature what did it matter? "Irish thief,"—whether the criminal taint be inherited or independently acquired, what does it signify? Or whether as Catholic or Irishman, a a man be branded in the eyes of his fellow-colonists and kicked down beneath their prejudices, apparently justified, where is the difference? But if Sir Robert Stout will act consistently with his pretensions as a man of science, and not as a quack determined at any cost to cry up and champion—for-quack-like purposes—a mischievous and destructive system, he will find that, as the Irish at home are a law-abiding and virtuous people, so also are they abroad. Coeum non animum mutant qui tram mare current. As a man of science Sir Robert Stout must certainly recognise the worthless nature of his bare figures. As an honest man it would be his duty to do his best to counteract the false impression he has produced by means of them. Will he do so? His action in the matter may possibly afford us a subject for a concluding post-script.