Chapter XIII (1) Vagrancy: (2) Inebriety
(1) Vagrancy:—
Out of a curious medley of Tudor legislation has grown up the English idea of Vagrancy. It is a survival of a long series of penal enactments dating from the 14th century, which were directed against the desertion of labourers from their respective districts when serfdom was breaking down. Parliament interposed to prevent the rise of wages, resulting in the free exchange of labour, and, at the same time, to check the acts of disorder which followed in the train of Vagrancy and Mendicancy. Further penalties against Vagrancy followed from the Elizabethan law of Settlement. The wandering or vagrant man became, from the operation of these causes, a suspected or criminal person, and, in the course of time, vagrancy and crime became almost synonymous terms. It was not till the beginning of the last century that steps were taken to repeal and consolidate the numerous enactments—some fifty in number—relating to the law of Vagrancy, which four centuries had accumulated. The present law dates back as far as 1824, and bears the impress of the old Tudor legislation. It is repressive in character, and its object is to punish the offences such as wanderers are likely to commit. The offences dealt with by the Act are numerous, and can be divided roughly into three classes:—
(1) offences committed by persons of a disreputable mode of life, such as begging, trading as a pedlar without a licence, telling fortunes, or sleeping in outhouses, unoccupied buildings, &c., without visible means of subsistence:
(2) offences against the Poor Law, such as leaving a wife and family chargeable to the poor rate, returning to and becoming chargeable to a parish after being removed therefrom by an order of the justices, refusing or neglecting to perform the task of work in a workhouse, or damaging clothes or other property belonging to the guardians; and
(3) offences committed by professional criminals, such as being found in possession of housebreaking implements or a gun or other offensive weapon with a felonious intent, or being found on any enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose, or frequenting public places for the purpose of felony.
The offences specially characteristic of the vagrant class are “begging” and “sleeping-out,” and it is with vagrancy used in this sense that the Prison Authorities are chiefly concerned. Under the Act any person begging in any public place is an idle and disorderly person liable to imprisonment on conviction under the common law for one month or a fine not exceeding £5: a person wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence, or not giving a good account of himself is styled a “rogue and vagabond” and may be punished with imprisonment up to three months, or a fine not exceeding £25. There is a third category of Vagrant, known as the Incorrigible Rogue, i.e., a person who has been more than once convicted of any offence under the Act. Such a person is convicted at a Court of Petty Sessions and committed till the next Court of Quarter Sessions to receive sentence, which may be to a year’s further imprisonment or to corporal punishment.
There is another class known as Vagrant, which does not come within the jurisdiction of the Prison Authority, and who is known as the destitute wayfarer or casual pauper. This class presents a curious history of quasi-penal legislation. No special provision was made for his case when the whole question of the Poor Law was comprehensively dealt with by the celebrated Act of 1834. During the years following that Act, there was an alarming increase of non-criminal vagrancy, and the principle of relieving the casually destitute in “special” wards of the Workhouse was established, and, with it, the principle of a prescribed task of labour in return for food and lodging. There was, however, no power to detain for more than four hours after breakfast on the morning after admission. It was not till 1871 that the period of detention was prolonged to the third day after admission, on proof that there had been more than two admissions during the month; it then became necessary to frame regulations for the detention of the casual vagrant on lines analogous to those under which the prisoner is detained:—labour, dietary, task, &c., and the casual ward became in many respects a sort of miniature Prison for very short sentences. These provisions, however, of which the purpose was to render detention in Casual Wards unattractive, especially to the habitual Vagrant, did not succeed in diminishing the number of the class of destitute wayfarer, who have for so long been a puzzle and a problem to the Poor Law reformer. The average numbers received into Casual Wards on a given day, for the five years ended 1876, had risen from 2,945 to 8,012 for a similar period ended 1913.
The Casual Wards, moreover, furnish a considerable contingent each year to the Prison population in the shape of persons who misbehave as paupers, i.e., refuse to perform the allotted task, or destroy workhouse clothes. There was at the beginning of the century a remarkable increase in the number of persons committed for offences against Workhouse regulations. For twenty years previously the numbers had oscillated between two thousand and four thousand: in 1901 they increased to over five thousand. The cry that the pauper prefers Prison to Workhouse was again raised with the object of showing that the conditions of Prison life were unduly attractive.
This agitation, combined with the fact that the number of persons convicted of “Begging” and “Sleeping-Out” had risen, in the four years from 1900 to 1903, from 12,631 to 20,729 led to some uneasiness in the public mind, and a special Inquiry was ordered by the President of the Local Government Board as to the law applicable to persons of the Vagrant class, and as to the administration of that law. Previously to this, the Prison Commissioners had reported to the Secretary of State—“that they are not prepared to admit that the increase of the vagrant class sent to prison is due to the fact that the conditions of prison life are unduly attractive. Casual paupers as soon as they become prisoners are subject to ordinary prison rules, not specially devised for dealing with this class, but to meet the average human needs of thousands of prisoners of different classes, characters, professions, and physique; and being, as a rule, under very short sentences, they receive the dietary and employment which practice and experience has designed as being, on the whole, the best and the most salutary for the early stages of a sentence of imprisonment. This dietary is not, like that of a casual ward, for one night or two nights, but part of a systematically graduated dietary table, intended to embrace both short and long sentences. The dietary and task are uniform throughout the country, varying only on medical certificate, all prisoners on reception being subject to a careful medical examination, and if they deviate from the normal standard of health and fitness, a full task of labour is not imposed; and the medical officer also has power to make additions to the dietary. In workhouses, however, our inquiries show that there is no uniform scale of diet or of task, and, so far as we are aware, these are not regulated by medical certificate as is done in prison. Hence, two results follow: Firstly, vagrants to whom the prison dietary and task and medical practice are well known, from a probable acquaintance with many prisons, openly profess a preference for the prison in those localities where the workhouse conditions are more severe; and, secondly, it may happen that on reception in prison the medical officer will not certify the prisoner as fit for the labour, the refusal to perform which, at a workhouse, has resulted in imprisonment.”
“Again, the prison dietary is based on the opinion of experts, is framed on scientific principles, so as to represent a sufficiency, and not more than a sufficiency, of food for an average man doing an average day’s work. The scale of tasks is based on the experience extending over many years of what can reasonably be expected from a man working his hardest during a given number of hours per diem. They believe that both the dietary and the tasks strike a fair average, so as not to err on the side of severity or leniency. As before stated, they can be varied on medical advice. The large and almost preponderating rôle played by medical officers of prisons is a factor that should be taken into account by anyone who attempts to compare prison with workhouse life. Public opinion properly exacts the most scrupulous care in all matters affecting the treatment of prisoners, and medical officers are always liable to criticism from outside persons for having failed to diagnose this or that malady, to have ordered this or that dietary, or to have prescribed this or that task. They dwell on this matter at some length, because they feel it necessary to guard against the impression which might be formed from the fact that a small section of the criminal community openly prefer prison to the workhouse, that therefore prison life is unduly attractive, that its conditions are not sufficiently rigorous, and that the whole edifice should be reconstructed to meet the special case of a few ne’er-do-wells who have lost all sense of self-respect, and to whom it is a matter of indifference whether they spend a few nights in a workhouse, a prison, or a barn. The diminution of this class is not, in our opinion, likely to follow from any alteration of prison régime; it might be modified if, as we venture to suggest, a more uniform system were established in workhouses, and a greater discrimination shown in the treatment of each case; it can only be effected gradually by a general improvement of social conditions, pending which the prison can only play a very insignificant part as a remedy for this evil; for no one can seriously contend that vagrancy is going to be cured by a succession of short sentences in the various local prisons of the country. So generally is this felt to be the case that strong expressions of opinion from responsible persons have been expressed in favour of some specific remedies being provided by the State for dealing with the admitted evil of professional vagrancy. It has been suggested that labour colonies should be established on the Belgian model, where the professional vagrant who now tramps from prison to prison could be detained for a long period of time. This system it is believed has worked well in some foreign countries. A necessary condition of its application would be some system of identification, so that a vagrant, after undergoing a sentence in one locality, should not, as now, be able with impunity to commit another offence in another locality, again become subject to a light penalty, and so on ad infinitum. If such vagrants could be identified by finger prints or otherwise, and systematically dealt with on indictment and sentenced to a long term, something at least more effective than the present system might result. We do not see how any system can be effective without an elaborate method of identification.”
The Report of the Committee of 1906 is an instructive and valuable document. The Casual Ward system was condemned both on the grounds of efficiency and of economy, and it was boldly proposed to substitute the Police for Poor Law Authorities as the body responsible for local relief and management of Casual Wards. The want of uniformity in the administration of over 600 independent authorities had impressed the Committee as the principal cause in the failure of the system, and it was believed that by giving control of the Wards to the Police, and by that way only, uniformity of treatment would be secured.
With regard to the punishment of Vagrancy also, the evidence showed that there was no uniformity whatever in the sentences given for Vagrancy offences. It was found that sentences given by stipendiary magistrates appeared to be as little governed by any fixed principles as those inflicted by unpaid justices. The great majority of the sentences are for fourteen days or under. The evidence showed conclusively that as a protection against vagrancy, short sentences were indefensible. They quoted the opinion of the Prison Commissioners that the “elaborate and expensive machinery of a prison, whose object is to punish, and at the same time to improve, by a continuous discipline and applied labour, cannot fulfil its object in the case of this hopeless body of men who are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and who, from long habit and custom, are hardened against such deterrent influences as a short detention in prison may afford.” They came generally to the opinion that while it is evident that short periods of imprisonment were useless, and long periods could not be given without injustice, and having regard to the fact that prison conditions could not be made deterrent to vagrant offenders, a complete change in the treatment of Vagrancy was called for. Their principal proposal was that the class of habitual Vagrants should be defined by Statute to include any person who had been convicted three or more times within a period of twelve months of certain offences, such as “Begging,” “Sleeping-Out,” or refusing task in Casual Wards, and that such a person should be treated, as far as possible, not as a criminal, but as a person requiring detention on account of his mode of life.
The Report on the Belgian Colony at Merxplas, which was issued by a Committee appointed by the Lindsey (Lincs.) Quarter Sessions in 1903, had strengthened the growing conviction in this Country that new methods were necessary for dealing with habitual Vagrants, and a large number of local authorities and Courts of Quarter Sessions addressed memorials to the Secretary of State and the Local Government Board in favour of the establishment of Labour Colonies for Vagrancy. The members of the Committee visited such Colonies in Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland, and though they came to the opinion that these Colonies, whether voluntary or compulsory, exercised but little reformatory influence, in spite of this, however, there was such a consensus of opinion as to the evil resulting from unrestrained habitual Vagrancy that the establishment of compulsory Labour Colonies in England and Wales was recommended. They state in their report, “even if they are not successful in achieving greater reformatory effects than the existing labour colonies abroad, we think that at least they may clear the streets of the habitual vagrant and loafer, may make him lead a more useful life during his detention, and may offer a real deterrent to those starting on a life of vagrancy.” At the same time, they urged the great importance of a system of identification, by which the habitual vagrant could be recognized and dealt with. The finger-print system would furnish an easy method, and would only entail that any person charged with a vagrancy offence should be remanded for a few days to enable information as to previous convictions to be obtained. Any inconvenience that might be caused in the first instance by the remand of any person charged with a vagrancy offence would be fully compensated for by the ultimate results. The fact that no action has been taken upon the elaborate inquiry of 1906 goes to show that the sequestration, under strict control, of the habitual vagrant is not generally accepted as a solution of the evil, and it is a remarkable thing that, while in most civilized countries the proper treatment of Vagrancy has been the subject of so much thought and discussion, as in Belgium and Switzerland and other countries, and of practical expedients for the protection of the community from this plaie sociale, yet in England, Vagrancy is still dealt with and punished under the old law of 1824, a law which has little relation to the facts, customs, and habits of the present day, which only requires that where a vagrant shows by his actions that he is either a nuisance or a danger, there shall be power at law to bring him before the Courts. Although the magistrate may give him three days’, or three months’ imprisonment, or Quarter Sessions order him to be flogged, it remains a matter of indifference; and so long as public opinion is in this state regarding the question, it is not likely that Parliament will intervene.
Conditions prevailing during the War have caused a striking illustration to be furnished showing how the general demand for labour which prevailed has had the effect of practically clearing the prisons of the Vagrant convicted of Begging and Sleeping-Out. The numbers proceeded against for these offences had risen steadily for nearly 20 years until 1910, and for a number of years prior to the War had averaged over 37,000 annually, furnishing in 1913 no less than 11 per cent. of the total receptions into prison, though from some Counties the percentage was much greater, viz:—from Lincoln, 66; Cornwall, 58; and from many others over 30. Since that date, this large body of Vagrants in prison has fallen by no less than 93 per cent., viz:—from 15,000 in 1913-14 to 1,066 in 1918-19.
For a few years before the War, however, a decrease had been noted. By some it was attributed to the growing opinion among Magistrates as to the futility of very short sentences: by others, to the fact that recent alterations in the Prison régime had rendered a few days’ sojourn in Prison more irksome than formerly: others also considered that the gradual adoption by various police authorities of the Way-Ticket system, (the object of which is to enable the needy wayfarer to move quickly through the county towards his destination and to provide him on his route with lodging, supper and breakfast at the casual ward, and with a mid-day meal, thus removing all necessity for begging), was a cause of diminishing the offence of Begging in public places. Others were of opinion also, that the Insurance Act, by which a Magistrate has proof of whether a man is a bonâ fide worker or tramp, has led to a greater individualization in the case of Vagrants brought before the Courts, and correspondingly to the diminution in the number committed to Prison. But an examination of statistics, spread over a long period, shows that the rise or fall of Vagrancy offences and other minor charges, is chiefly determined by the prevailing rate of unemployment in the country. Thus, in the years of trade depression which culminated in 1909, and which showed a very high percentage of unemployment, the number proceeded against for Begging and Sleeping-Out also reached the highest recorded total, viz:—45,408. Although this number is very great, there was, in addition, an enormous total of persons of vagrant habit, i.e., with no settled place of abode, appearing in criminal statistics at this time charged with offences other than Begging and Sleeping-Out. An inquiry made about this time showed that of the male Local Prison population on a given day (14,632), no less than 4,411, or 30 per cent. (including 695 convicted of Begging and Sleeping-Out) had no settled abode, of whom 82 per cent. had been previously convicted, and 1,420, or 32 per cent., were classed as habitual vagrants. It is not surprising to find, therefore, that, with the rapid fall in the percentage of unemployment, which set in in 1910, and has continued since, until during the War, when, owing to the abnormal conditions prevailing, there was abundant work for all, the number of persons actually charged with Vagrancy (Begging and Sleeping-Out) should have fallen in 1918 to only 2,651, and that, at the same time, a great decrease in crime should be recorded also. (Vide Chapter XVII).
So far as non-criminal vagrancy is concerned, active steps have lately been taken by the Local Government Board with a view of introducing greater uniformity in the administration of the Casual Wards, at least so far as the Metropolis is concerned. An order was issued in November 1911 vesting the control and management of the Casual Wards in the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The Board appointed a special Committee to give effect to the Order, and at once took steps to provide for the uniformity of all the Casual Wards committed to their charge, which had hitherto been administered by the separate local Boards of Guardians. The results have been very remarkable. Of the twenty-eight casual wards available on the 31st March, 1912, only six remained in use by the end of 1919, the average number of inmates accommodated on a given day at the end of the years named having fallen from 1,114 to 82 during the period. The comparative accommodation available is shown in the following table:—
| 31 Mar., 1912. | 31 Dec., 1913. | 1 Jan., 1917. | |
| Men | 1,136 | 627 | 286 |
| Women | 402 | 177 | 92 |
| Double Beds | 110 | 57 | 28 |
| Total | 1,648 | 861 | 406 |
The Metropolitan Asylums Board, in their report for 1912, had no hesitation in expressing the view that the decline of casual pauperism in London is due to the unification of the Casual Ward Authorities in the treatment of London as a homogeneous whole under an absolutely centralized system. The Report confirms the conclusions arrived at by the Committee of 1904 with regard to classification and treatment. They report as follows:—“First there is the bonâ fide working man in search of work, and we have no reason to doubt the estimates which placed the proportion of this class at under 3 per cent. of the whole. Secondly, come those who undertake casual labour for a short time, but will not or cannot undertake continued work. This type soon degenerates into the habitual vagrant unless deterred, as we hope under present conditions he is being, from the continual frequenting of casual wards. The third class is the ‘work-shy’ or habitual vagrant who professes to look for work but has no desire to find it. Amongst this number are many who although strong and able-bodied, deliberately embark upon a career of idleness and of alternation between casual ward and prison at such an early age as twenty years. They are often qualified and able to work and have been assisted over and over again until they are given up as hopeless and their papers marked ‘prefers to walk the streets.’ Further reference is made to this class of habitual vagrants in the section discussing the question of punishments, where it is pointed out that neither casual ward nor prison exercises the slightest punitive or deterrent effect. It is certain that the community need have no compunction about applying to this class so-called severe measures of compulsory detention and work for indefinite periods, and it must be remembered that for vagrants, who will not have households of their own, who have but one object in all their wicked and perverse lives—to exist without work at the expense of their industrious neighbours—we are taxed to provide board and lodging. Lastly, there is the class of old and infirm persons who are unemployable, who cling to the little liberty left to them by going from casual ward to casual ward in preference to entering the workhouse infirmaries. Between the 1st May and the 31st December, 1912, thirty-three men over fifty, including twelve over sixty, were admitted from forty to fifty-four times each in the casual wards, and nine women aged from fifty to seventy years were admitted over forty times each.”
It remains to be seen whether this endorsement of the findings of the Committee by the Authorities of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, who have given such close and practical attention to the subject, will influence opinion toward the severe measures of compulsory detention which are recommended. Prior to the War the number of persons sentenced at Quarter Sessions as Incorrigible Rogues was increasing, the average number for the five years ended 1913 having been 618, as compared with 398 for the preceding five years. This increase may indicate greater attention on the part of the Courts towards repressing the evil. Although there is no system of identification for the purpose of the Vagrant Class at present in existence, there is evidence from a Prison in the Midlands that, of 700 prisoners of the Vagrant Class received during a period of 12 months some years ago, one-third had served from two to seven imprisonments during the year. The total convictions incurred by these 236 prisoners were as follows:—
| From | 2 to 4 | previous convictions had been incurred by | 95 |
| ″ | 5 ″ 10 | ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ | 66 |
| ″ | 11 ″ 20 | ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ | 58 |
| ″ | 21 to 30 | ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ | 6 |
| ″ | 31 ″ 50 | ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ | 9 |
| ″ | 67 | ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ | 1 |
| ″ | 87 | ″ ″ ″ ″ ″ | 1 |
It will be seen from the foregoing short account of the history of Vagrancy that England has not yet adopted any special plan for dealing with this problem on the lines with which we are familiar in other Countries. It is possible that the growth of professional Vagrancy, manifested in an increase of those offences which are now grouped generically under the law of Vagrancy, may induce either the State or the local Authority to protect itself against what is at once an intolerable nuisance and a social danger, by the introduction of a System which will allow of the sequestration, for indeterminate periods, and under an austere system of detention, of that category of Vagrants, who, by a series of convictions for criminal acts, prove to be a danger to society. At the present time, however, no action in this direction is being contemplated by the Government, and the efficacy of imprisonment for the punishment of such offences is still relied upon, in spite of increasing evidence that short sentences are ineffectual as a remedy. So far as the casual pauper is concerned, it is likely that the recent action of the Local Government Board in the unification of the Casual Ward System will be further extended in that direction where the policy, carefully and energetically carried out by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, has already been fruitful in such excellent results.
(2) INEBRIETY:—
It is just fifty years ago since the need for special legislation for the proper control and treatment of inebriates, on the grounds that such persons contributed to crime and lunacy, and caused nuisance, scandal, and annoyance to the public, became apparent. At that time there was no process whereby an inebriate who became a public offender could be dealt with, except by short sentences of imprisonment; and no means whatever by which a private inebriate could be dealt with, however much he constituted himself a cause of nuisance or distress to his family. The futility of short sentences of imprisonment for the reform of the inebriate offender was fully recognised by prison authorities; by those who took an active interest in prison reform; and by magistrates, before whom the same drunkards repeatedly came, in no way improved by the only method then applicable; and was accentuated by certain notorious cases of persons who served, without improvement, hundreds of short sentences.
In 1872 a Select Committee of the House of Commons agreed that it had been shown, by the evidence taken, that “drunkenness is the prolific parent of crime, disease, and poverty” that “self-control is suspended or annihilated, and moral obligations are disregarded; the decencies of private and the duties of public life are alike set at nought; and individuals obey only an overwhelming craving for stimulant to which everything is sacrificed.” No action was taken on this Report until 1878, when a Bill was presented to Parliament for dealing with the more easy and less costly part of the recommendations, viz:—those which concerned inebriates admitted voluntarily. No attempt was made to deal with the really important class, i.e., persons convicted as Habitual Drunkards. The Statute of 1879 did no more than permit the establishment of Retreats, to which inebriates could be voluntarily admitted. More than ten years later, in 1892, when the inadequate protection afforded by the Law against the nuisance and the evil of habitual inebriety led to a renewed agitation, especially against the repeated infliction of short sentences for ordinary drunkenness, a Home Office Committee of Inquiry, under the Presidency of an experienced Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Mr. J.L. Wharton, M.P., was appointed. This Committee aimed, as its composition shows, rather at an amendment of the Criminal Law, and the abolition of recurring short sentences of imprisonment, the futility of which had been fully demonstrated. At this time there was less concern with regard to voluntary inebriates who, on the application of relations or friends, might be compulsorily committed to Retreats, than with the grave social evil which resulted from the interminable commitment to prison of persons who by committing offences against public order came within the action of the Criminal Law, or who were proved guilty of ill-treatment and neglect of their wives and families, and who failed to find the required sureties for good behaviour.
The principle of the Act of 1898, which resulted from the findings of this Committee, was that the protection of the community, and the opportunity of reform, would only be obtained by relatively prolonged detention. The Act accordingly legalized detention for a term not exceeding three years (a) of persons convicted on indictment, where a Superior Court is satisfied that the offence was committed under the influence of drink, or that drink was a contributing cause, and where the offender admits that he is, or is found by a Jury to be, a Habitual Drunkard: (b) of persons convicted under various Statutes enacting penalties for drunken conduct, who, within the preceding twelve months, had been convicted summarily at least three times of any such offence,—such persons to be confined either in a State Reformatory or in a Reformatory established and maintained by local or independent authority.
Action was at once taken by Local Authorities throughout the country to provide for the reception of cases committed from Courts situate within their jurisdiction, but in the hope and belief that such accommodation would prove sufficient, no action was taken by the State to provide a State Institution until it became manifest that some special means must be created for dealing with cases which proved violent and intractable, and with which the local authorities were unable to cope; it being admitted that in order that these Reformatories might exercise the most beneficial effect, they must be conducted under conditions as far removed as possible from Prison methods and restrictions. Unless the State were in a position to undertake the charge of such cases, the only alternative would have been to discharge them, and, in fact, such discharges did take place, and it was made clearly evident that the establishment of a State Institution was essential to the proper working of the Act. It was accordingly decided, in 1900, to build a State Reformatory for female Inebriates on a plot of land contiguous to the Female Convict Prison at Aylesbury, and for male Inebriates it was decided to adopt a disused part of Warwick Prison which could be entirely severed from all connection with the penal quarters.
It was decided to confine the use of the State Reformatories to the reception and treatment of persons who had proved uncontrollable in the Local Reformatories. They are conducted on prison lines only so far as is necessary to ensure safe custody and control, and on strictly asylum principles in all matters referring to the treatment of inmates. The application of all restraint and punishment is controlled by the medical aspect of the question. The majority of inmates are persons who, through a long life of debauch, immorality, violence, and crime, have given constant trouble to the Police in the streets and to Prison Authorities during innumerable penal sentences. They are either too old, too confirmed in their habits, or too demented to afford ground for any hope of reformation. The value of the State reformatory will not consist in the production of actual results, but its existence will permit of certified institutions carrying on a work of reformation otherwise impossible. It will also ensure the retention to the end of their sentence of persons who are dangerous at large, a disgrace to the streets, and an important source of contamination to others. The pity is that at the end of such sentence the law requires the absolute discharge from custody of persons known to be so dangerous and so deleterious to the peace, morality, and health of the community at large.
These State Institutions are under the control of the Prison Commissioners, and form part of the Prison administration. They are controlled by minute regulations, approved by Parliament, and their function is to reconcile, as far as possible, a strict custody and control with certain alleviating conditions and privileges for those who deserve them. Their population is however, relatively small, the average for the three years prior to the War not having exceeded nineteen Males and fifty-seven Females. Since that date the numbers gradually fell, and, at the present time, there are no inmates in custody. The inmates of State Institutions practically represent the persons of both classes who are of a character and temperament incapable of control in local Institutions. As the number committed to the local Institutions diminishes, there is, of course, a corresponding reduction in the number coming under State control.
Although both Sections 1 and 2 of the Act give effect to a most important principle, viz., the special treatment otherwise than by imprisonment, of persons whose offence is due to morbid conditions, affecting the power of self-control, and whom it is practically useless to punish for the offence, while the predisposing condition is left untouched, yet experience, so far, does not furnish evidence that the power given to the Courts is either largely exercised or fruitful of curative effect.
The great majority of cases dealt with under Section 1 of the Act are for cruelty to children (459 out of 586 up to the end of 1913) and the tendency of the day is more and more towards Summary procedure, owing largely to the delay, and expense, and trouble involved by commitment for trial under this Section to the Superior Courts.
With regard to Section 2, which enables Summary Courts to send to Inebriate Reformatories persons convicted of certain scheduled offences of drunkenness, only about 4,300 have been dealt with since the Act became law, although during that period more than 3,500,000 persons have been convicted in Summary Courts of drunken behaviour.
The reluctance of the Courts to pass long sentences of detention, especially in the case of men, (more than 80 per cent. of the commitments are women): the comparative ease and simplicity of commitment to Prison: the delay and difficulty involved by a comparatively cumbrous procedure; and an uncertainty as to the prospect of recovery, as a result of special treatment—all these things operate against any wide use of the law in Summary Courts, which is also hindered by the absence of any definite instruction as to the share to be borne by the State and the Local Authority, respectively, in the maintenance of these Institutions.
Opinion has, however, been by no means indifferent to the operation of the Act, and is far from being satisfied at the present time with the extent of its application. In 1908, the Secretary of State appointed a strong Committee to inquire as to the operation of the Law, and to report what amendments, either in law or administration, were desirable; and their valuable recommendations will probably receive the attention of Parliament in the near future. The principal proposals are in the direction of increasing the power of the Summary Courts, giving to Magistrates a discretionary power to send to Reformatories, in addition to, or in substitution of, imprisonment, all persons who are adjudged to be Inebriates and who commit offences now dealt with summarily by committal to Prison. It is also proposed that the necessity for proving three previous convictions shall be abolished, and that the State should, at its own cost, provide for the accommodation and maintenance of all Inebriates committed by Courts. With regard to penalty, the free use of the Probation Act was recommended under special conditions suitable to the case. If, however, Probation were not thought desirable, it was proposed that the first sentence to a Reformatory should be for a period not exceeding six months, to be followed by a period of Probation; but where an Inebriate forfeits such Probation, on breach of its conditions, he shall be liable to be committed to a Reformatory for a period not exceeding one year, again, on release, to be subject to Probation; but if he again forfeits such Probation, for two years, and, in the event of further forfeiture, for three years.
Should these recommendations be adopted by Parliament, it is possible that greater results than at present might be achieved, and the measure might find larger application. It is doubtful if the public sentiment is keen to penalize inebriety, when it does not result in serious harm to the community, by methods of long detention under discipline and control. In so far as the proposals of the Committee of 1908 modify these long periods by placing offenders on Probation, there may be disposition on the part of the Courts to take this course, except in cases where the overt criminal act resulting from inebriety is grave and serious, and where punishment under ordinary penal law is called for. There is, moreover, a feeling which operates against harsh or drastic sentences in the case of inebriety, due to the proved association between mental disorder and habitual drunkenness. Experience of the operation of the Law of 1898 has confirmed this belief. Of the more turbulent cases whom it has been necessary to transfer to State Inebriate Reformatories for purposes of control, it is found that a very large proportion are more or less defective in mind. That such persons should be segregated from their fellows, and from the opportunity of doing harm is, of course, a great gain; and, of itself, would justify the cost of these Institutions, which is considerable. It must be frankly recognized that in these cases the purpose of detention is for the public safety, and not with the hope of reform. The law protects the community by compulsory segregation within a limit of three years, although the criminal offence will probably in most cases only warrant a short sentence of imprisonment. This is something gained in the interests of order. It does not constitute an encouragement to make further efforts for the cure of habitual inebriety by means of costly Institutions, and for this reason, apart from the inherent difficulties of the case, rapid progress in dealing with this evil in this country can hardly be expected. The Prison Authority is only concerned with this question of inebriety as a factor of crime. By many writers, drink and crime are used almost as synonymous terms, yet nothing is so difficult as to trace the extent to which criminal statistics are influenced by drink. In 1913, the actual convictions for drunkenness represented 32 per cent. of the total convictions for all offences, but in addition to this, must be reckoned the number of offences to which drunkenness was directly a contributing cause. It is a reasonable inference that alcohol enters, as a contributing factor, into about 50 per cent. of offences committed in this country in any given year. To legislate against drink is indirectly, therefore, to legislate against Crime. As shown in Chapter XVII, a striking illustration has been afforded showing the great decrease in crime generally which has taken place during the War, when severe restrictions have been placed upon the sale of intoxicating liquor. In previous years, in times of industrial prosperity and plentiful wages, convictions for drunkenness have been enormous, and have obscured the decrease which has taken place, as a result of prosperity, in other offences, e.g., Vagrancy, and petty larceny.
In his Report for 1909, Dr. Branthwaite, the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, furnishes a most valuable and interesting analysis of the life history and mental and physical conditions of 1,031 persons. This investigation was conducted by himself personally, and throws a flood of light on the nature of the problem to be dealt with. He states that as a result of his inquiry, “three points of vital importance stand out clearly—(1) the close association between inebriety and psycho-neurotic disturbance, (2) the physical unfitness resulting from a life of uncontrolled inebriety, and (3) the necessity for the organisation of more suitable methods for dealing with persons who offend against law and order by reason of habitual drunkenness.”
“The presence of obvious mental defect in a large proportion of cases, and (in cases not obviously defective) the criminal tendencies, the proneness to immorality, the uneducability, the early age at which disorderly habits commence, the ease with which all inmates become excited by alcohol, and their unreasonable behaviour in a hundred different ways, are conclusive evidences of the existence of a mental state far removed from normal, in nearly all cases committed to Reformatories. To attempt to attribute all such conditions to vicious indulgence in alcohol is absurd; they existed in the large majority of cases long before drunkenness appeared, or they developed pari passu with the drunkenness from a common cause. When mental defect is obvious, it will usually be found responsible for the drunkenness; when not sufficiently definite to be recognised, a modified morbid strain, a heredity of disorder, a psycho-neurotic fault, a constitutional peculiarity, call it what we may, will generally be discovered as the key to the position.”
His condemnation of short sentences in Prison as a cure for inebriety in all its forms is expressed as follows:—
“The arguments in favour of the substitution of something better than the short sentence prison treatment of inebriates hold good, whether the individual be reformable or not. The routine of a prison is no more suited to the needs of the habitual drunkard than it is suited to the treatment of any other form of mental unsoundness. The inebriate requires careful medical attention, regular bathing, physical exercise and drill, with a view to the recovery of physical, as a preliminary to recovery of mental health. His condition demands harder, more continuous and healthy work than is possible in the confines of a cell, or even within the restricted area of prison walls. Either in the form of education, work or play, he wants occupation of some sort throughout the day, in company with his fellows, under supervision only just sufficiently strict to prevent its misuse. Discipline is essential, but it should be the discipline of army barracks, or a ship; not the necessarily hard routine of a prison. Punishment, as such, must be kept in the background, and, so far as is possible, encouragement for good conduct, and reward for good work, should replace the fear of the results of bad conduct and idleness. But, above all, he requires medical treatment for his disordered mental state applied as early as possible after the condition is recognised. The nearer an Inebriate Reformatory resembles a mental hospital in all its arrangements, the better will be its suitability for the work it has to do, and the more the mental aspect of inebriety is kept in the foreground, the more satisfactory will be the results of treatment and control.”
It is true that the views expressed by Dr. Branthwaite seem to indicate as a rule the dependence of habitual inebriety on pre-existent “mental defect”, and will not, as such, be accepted by general authority; and it is well known that a strong tendency to drink to intoxication exists in very many persons and families who show no other signs of deficient intelligence or loss of self-control. But the experience of many other observers who have dealt with inebriates committed by the courts to reformatories under the Act undoubtedly corroborates Dr. Branthwaite’s opinion that notably large numbers of such inebriates have been markedly defective in mind from even their earliest years.
The question is well summed up in the general observations on the nature of Inebriety in the Report of the Committee of 1908:—“Inebriety is undoubtedly a constitutional peculiarity; and depends, in many cases, upon qualities with which a person is born, in many is acquired by vicious indulgence. Whether the possession of such a constitutional peculiarity, when inborn, should or should not be considered, from the scientific point of view, a disease, is perhaps, a question of nomenclature. If such native constitutional peculiarities as the possession of a sixth finger, and the absence of a taste for music, are rightly considered diseases, then the native constitutional peculiarity which underlies many cases of inebriety may be so considered. But there are cogent reasons why the term disease should not be used to characterise the inebriate habit. By disease is popularly understood a state of things for which the diseased person is not responsible, which he cannot alter except by the use of remedies from without, whose action is obscure, and cannot be influenced by exertions of his own. But if, as is unquestionably true, inebriety can be induced by cultivation; if the desire for drink can be increased by indulgence, and self-control diminished by lack of exercise; it is manifest that the reverse effects can be produced by voluntary effort; and that desire for drink may be diminished by abstinence, and self-control, like any other faculty, can be strengthened by exercise. It is erroneous and disastrous to inculcate the doctrine that inebriety, once established, is to be accepted with fatalistic resignation, and that the inebriate is not to be encouraged to make any effort to mend his ways. It is the more so since inebriety is undoubtedly in many cases recovered from, in many diminished, and since the cases which recover or amend are those in which the inebriate himself desires and strives for recovery.”