Now! Then! MPs discuss drink, proverbial curse of the working class, with James Wetherell, Leeds’s chief constable

30 April 1872: MPs discuss drink, proverbial curse of the working class, with James Wetherell, Leeds’s chief constable

House of Commons. 1872. Report from the Select Committee on Habitual Drunkards. London: House of Commons. Get it:

Excerpt

Wetherell: I should say that no working man ought to be in the public house after 11 o’clock at night. If he is, he is there for no good to himself or his family.
Henry Samuelson: I suppose the difficulty in making a rule would be that we should be told that gentlemen have their clubs where they can get what they want.
Wetherell: That is so.
Samuelson: It may be that in some towns the occupation pursued by the poorer classes induces habits of drinking more than in others.
Wetherell: In all our large northern boroughs there is more drunkenness probably than in the southern boroughs.
Samuelson: Is it not found that the sedentary occupation produces more drunkenness than out-of-door occupation?
Wetherell: I think very probably it does. Then there is a great deal of money earned now, and a great proportion of that goes to the public house.
Samuelson: Do the men abstain from working in Leeds during several days in the week, now that they earn high wages?
Wetherell: A great many do not work on the Monday, a great many forge men, for instance.
Samuelson: Do you think that by their habit of drinking on certain days in the week they reduce the total amount of the wages they receive to nearly the same amount that they received before, when they were not able to give up two days’ work?
Wetherell: I can hardly answer that. There is no doubt a considerable reduction in consequence of the habit of drinking. They are earning now nearly double what they were earning a short time ago.
Clare Read: How long ago?
Wetherell: I daresay they are earning from 25 to 30 per cent more than they earned six or eight years ago.
William Henry Gladstone: You have no doubt that the rise of wages has had the effect of increasing drunkenness?
Wetherell: I have no doubt of it.
Donald Dalrymple (Chair): Among the other causes, has the shortening of the hours of labour had anything to do with the increase of drunkenness?
Wetherell: Yes, a man has time now on Saturday to get drunk twice before he goes to bed.

Order the book

Subscribe to the free daily email

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.
Abbreviations:

ER: East Riding
GM: Greater Manchester
NR: North Riding
NY: North Yorkshire
SY: South Yorkshire
WR: West Riding
WY: West Yorkshire

Comment

It is amazing that Oscar Wilde didn’t come up with “work is the curse of the drinking classes” earlier.

The date, the forges, and the (real?) wage increases make me think “Second Industrial Revolution,” but I haven’t done the specific background reading.

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

2344. Chairman.] I BELIEVE you are Chief Constable of Leeds? -I am.
2345. How long have you filled that office? – Near upon six years; previously to which I was five years chief constable of Oldham, and some 13 or 14 years previously to that I was in the Leicestershire Constabulary.
2346. It is superfluous to ask whether during that period you have been very largely brought into contact with drunkenness and crimes arising therefrom?–I have, very much.
2347. Have you given your consideration to the laws as they now exist with regard to drunkenness simple and drunkenness connected with breaches of the peace and other offences? -I have.
2348. Have you any return from Leeds on that point? I have.
2349. What is your opinion of the effect of the existing laws in preventing drunkenness?-In my opinion they are insufficient.
2350. Will you say why? I think in the first place, there is not sufficient power in the hands of the magistrates to enable them to deal effectually with drunkards. The fine of 5 s. under the old Act of James, is still in existence with regard to simple drunkenness. Of course, money was of much greater value at that time than it is now, and therefore the penalty is comparatively small now to what it was then.
2351. Have you considered how far the principles of the Habitual Criminals Act with reference to thieves could be applied to public-houses and beer-houses?-I think it might be applied; I do not see any difficulty in the way. I have applied the Habitual Criminals Act very successfully in Leeds, where it has been the means of expatriating many of our criminals. They have left us, and I imagine if they are dealt with similarly in other places, they will find themselves in great difficulty, and perhaps be coerced into a more honest course of life.
2352. How do you think the principle could be applied to public-houses and beer-houses?–I think you should define an habitual drunkard by a given number of convictions, and then, after registering him as an habitual drunkard, give notice to the publicans of such persons, and if they allow them to drink in their houses to excess, they may be proceeded against as readily as they are now proceeded against for harbouring habitual thieves.
2353. You would first of all define your habitual drunkard? Yes.
2354. How would you define him?-By the number of convictions in a year, or a given number of years.
2355. Have you at all considered, from your knowledge of the repetition of offences by persons brought before the magistrates, what would be a fair number of times, without pressing too heavily upon the liberty of the subject?Almost every case differs from each other. There are some men who get drunk so constantly that three or four convictions in a year would be a sufficient definition. Some get drunk by accident, and others from the pure love of drink; they will have it under any circumstances. The latter are what I should call habitual drunkards, men who get drunk from habit.
2356. It would be necessary, in order to work an Habitual Drunkards Act on your plan, to have a short and emphatic definition?-It would be so.
2357. You say that the cases vary very much? -They do.
2358. With regard to the man who gets drunk on Saturday night, and yet goes to his work sober on Monday morning, and does his work properly and fairly, you would not call him an habitual drunkard, or interfere with him?-No; it is the sotting drinkers who are not satisfied with Saturday night, but would drink Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and every other day in the week if they could manage it.
2359. Would you accept this as a definition of an habitual drunkard, a person who either squanders his property, or mismanages his property, or places his family in trouble or distress, transacts his business prejudically to the interests of his family, his friends, or his creditors, through the use of intoxicating drinks, and takes such liquors to an extent that he incurs a danger of ruining his health, and shortening his life?There is no doubt about that.
2360. You would have no hesitation in calling him an habitual drunkard?-Certainly not.
2361. If evidence could be produced before a public authority that a person was that, you would consider that he might be fairly classed as an habitual drunkard?—Yes.
2362. You would not interfere with a man who, coming into town on a market day sober went away tipsy ?-No, there are many who do not interfere with them. If they are incapable of getting away, or are in any danger, the police do interfere with them. They arrest them for their own safety. If they are found committing breaches of the peace, or assaulting persons, and so on, of course the police interfere; but if the man is going quietly away, the police do not apprehend him. Indeed in Leeds, we should not have cells enough to hold them all.
2363. Having once defined the habitual drunkard, do you think it would facilitate matters if printed forms were placed in the hands of the police, so that any person applying for one might have it, and serve it upon a publican, or upon the drunkard himself?-Yes, it would be a very good plan, but especially I think the publican should have notice, because it would so simplify the mode of dealing with him. We have a great difficulty with regard to the charge of “knowingly harbouring;” that has been a cardinal difficulty with the police with regard to publicans, and with regard to many other matters; you want not only the person to be known, but the particular crime. It is necessary that the publican should clearly understand it, so that there may be no difficulty in dealing with him.
2364. I believe as a rule the habitual thief haunts certain localities?-Yes, so does the habitual drunkard.
2365. You do not consider him a particularly migratory animal?-Not at all. We have no difficulty in putting our hands upon such persons, and we should have no difficulty in putting our hands upon habitual drunkards; they do not wander, as a rule. They have certain houses that they frequent, I mean those drunken sots.
2366. You say that the method of treating habitual drunkards by light sentences is useless. What else would you suggest to the Committee? -I think the magistrate might fairly be entrusted with discretionary power to impose a larger fine for the first cases of simple drunkenness; instead of 5 s. I would make it 40 s. or even higher than that, giving discretionary power to the magistrates. When a man has been convicted once or twice, I would increase the fine, and in default sentence the person to imprisonment for a long period. You might have a fine of 51. I am also strongly in favour of calling upon a man to find sureties as well; I think that would have a very good effect.
2367. After a certain number of ordinary convictions, compelling a man to find sureties, and sending him to a place of detention in default, you think would answer the purpose?-I think so. I think it would make the man more careful when he saw the consequences of his act.
2368. And it would make those who are about him more careful, would it not?-Yes, because they would suffer with him to some extent.
2369. Has your attention been called to the question of the mischief produced by adulteration? I am sorry to say I have seen very serious consequences arising from it in large towns, especially in Leeds and in Oldham.
2370. With regard to both beer and spirits?-Both beer and spirits. Spirits on account of their newness and rawness have an almost instantaneous effect upon the man who takes them; the spirit is bought because it tastes fiery and strong, and it is sold when it ought not to be.
2371. You are aware perhaps that the newer the spirit is, the greater quantity of poisonous oil it contains-Yes.
2372. It is in that respect that you allude to the newness and rawness of spirits?—Yes, the quantity of fussel oil in Rhenish brandies, for instance, is very pernicious.
2373. Will you tell the Committee to what extent you have noticed the effects of this adulteration? I have seen men come out of drinking places staring about them vacantly, and falling down almost as suddenly as if they were shot. I attribute that to their imbibing these new spirits, probably upon a large quantity of beer which they have taken beforehand. They may have gone to the beerhouse first, got uncomfortably full, and then have taken raw whisky, which has acted in such a manner upon them on coming into the fresh air, that they instantly fall to the ground in a state of stupor. Then the next morning you observe a livid hue in the face. Where it has not the instantaneous effect of producing stupidity, it produces frenzy, and under the influence of that they commit very serious offences; such as stabbing and violent assaults.
2374. It is not merely the dementia of drink, but of poisoned drink?–Yes.
2375. Your idea of legislation necessarily leads up to a large amount of imprisonment ?–Yes.
2376. Because you do not expect that these persons would be able to pay large fines?-No, but I should render it optional. I would give the magistrates discretionary power.
2377. Have you considered the feasibility of establishing separate wards in prisons or in workhouses for this particular class of cases ?-I have not gone into that much.
2378. You have no knowledge whether such places could be made to pay their way, in whole or in part?-No, I have not.
2379. Are you acquainted with the results of prison labour in that respect?-Yes.
2380. Would it be fair to expect from a drunkard who was sent every three or four months to a place of this sort, that he should be able to earn as much as an habitual criminal ?–I should say so, If his drink were taken away, I think he would soon be able to labour. But the great difficulty would be in respect of his family which would suffer to a very serious extent if the husband were sent away.
2381. The family would not suffer because the man was put to work, but because he was detained? Yes.
2382. What is the condition of the family of the habitual drunkard now ?–Wretched.
2383. Are there not many instances in which the drunken father or the drunken mother being away, the family is vastly better off?-Very likely. Many of the children of such parents have to be sent to industrial schools and reformatories in consequence of the bad habits of their parents, and the negligence with which the children are treated.
2384. You certainly do not speak of the present system in any terms of commendation on account of its economy?-Not at all.
2385. Between the cost of the recurrent sentences, and the pauperism of the family, the public is pretty handsomely muleted?-Certainly.
2386. I believe different boroughs and different counties vary in their method of making returns? -Very much.
2387. And it is therefore rather difficult to institute a fair comparison between different localities? Very difficult.
2388. Do you not think that it would be very desirable that not merely these offences, but all offences should be recorded in all places upon one and the same system?-I have advocated that for a very long period. I have in all my reports drawn attention to the very inaccurate way in which returns of this character are generally compiled.
2389. In the evidence which was given before us a few days ago, a gentleman connected with the police stated, that over and above the number of persons appearing in the returns, at least 20,000 pass through the police office without going before the magistrates at all?–With regard to the boroughs that I have had to deal with, every offence has been duly recorded, either as a refused charge, or a charge coming before a magistrate. I may state, that in Leeds, the refused charges are not numerous. In the case of a refused charge my attention is drawn to it, and I require an explanation as to why the man was apprehended at all. I know that it has been the custom very often to discharge prisoners who are charged with drunkenness, without taking them before a magistrate at all.
2390. Colonel Brise.[ It has not been so at Leeds?-No.
2391. Mr. Samuelson.] If a list of habitual drunkards were given to publicans, and they were forbidden under severe penalties to supply the persons whose names appeared on that list with drink, do you not think that as these men became known, they would render the law inoperative by changing the place which they frequented, and that so frequently that the landlords would not be able to recognise them?-That might be so in a degree; but my experience of habitual drunkards has been that they are generally to be found in a particular locality. I would serve the notices upon all the publicans in the borough, or in the district where there was any probability of the offence being committed.
2392. The great object of the habitual drunkard is, of course, to get drink?—Yes.
2393. And if the publicans in the district which he has been in the habit of frequenting have been warned against him, and will render themselves liable to penalties if they supply him, is it not natural to suppose that he will go a long way to get drink rather than not get it at all?-He might do so; but the district police would still find him out.
2394. The police in the other districts would know him also ?–Yes.
2395. Mr. Akroyd.] You received from me a return presented to the House of Commons, of habitual drunkards?—Yes.
2396. Have you examined it, and drawn a comparison between the towns of Sheffield and Leeds as regards the number of convictions ?-I have gone into that question.
2397. No doubt you have observed in the report the striking difference between those two towns, which do not differ materially in population, as regards the number of convictions, the number at Leeds being much larger than that at Sheffield-There is a great difference in that respect in the year for which the return is compiled.
2398. Can you explain or give any reason why there should be that great difference, not in the number of persons charged, but in the number of convictions?-There appears to be a larger number of persons discharged in Sheffield for drunkenness than in Leeds: that would make some little difference. In Leeds very few comparatively are discharged, and that makes the convictions appear higher in number than those in Sheffield,
2399. Do you mean discharged after conviction ?-Discharged without conviction. Out of the 1,940 charges in that year in Leeds, there were 1,769 convictions. In Sheffield the number was 904. In the year 1871 the discharges in Leeds out of the whole number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness amounted to six per cent. while the discharges in Sheffield were 14 per cent.; consequently, the ratio of convictions at Leeds to the whole number of persons proceeded against is higher than in Sheffield. Then, probably, there are more strangers in Leeds than in Sheffield. I find, from our returns of cases of drunkenness in 1871, we had 284 strangers. Leeds is also a central town in the riding, and large markets are held, and a great number of people who are non-residents, although locally connected, frequent Leeds for many purposes. There are fewer public-houses and fewer beer-houses in Leeds than in Sheffield.
2400. I will put into your hands a letter from the chief constable of Sheffield, giving the number of public-houses and beer-houses in that town. Will you state what the figures are? – There are 558 public-houses, 831 beer-houses, and 159 beer dealers.
2401. Mr. Miller.] Do you know the population of Sheffield?-It is stated as 239,947. The number of licensed victuallers in Leeds is 369, and beer-houses of all kinds 622. The population of Leeds is 259,201.
2402. Mr. Akroyd.] So that in fact, although you have a smaller number of public-houses and beer-shops in Leeds than in Sheffield, the convictions for drunkenness are greater?—Yes; that of course depends entirely upon the action of the police; they may take a different view of matters in Sheffield from what we do in Leeds. My instruction to constables is that any person found drunk and incapable, or drunk and committing a breach of the peace, should be apprehended and taken before a magistrate; whether they do that in Sheffield I do not know. There is the fact I alluded to before of the greater number of discharges in Sheffield than Leeds.
2403. Assuming these figures to be approximately correct, one might fairly infer from them that the amount of drunkenness does not depend on the number of public-houses or beer-houses; the number of opportunities that a man has for taking intoxicating drinks ?-Not at all, so far as the return is concerned. There is a variation in the case of almost every borough; I pointed that out very forcibly some two or three years ago.
2404. You properly laid great stress, in answer to a previous question, upon having some uniform classification for offences throughout the country. Did you observe, in reading the letter from the chief constable of Sheffield, that he also lays some stress on the same necessity for uniformity? –Certainly.
2405, You have also spoken forcibly and clearly about the necessity of a simple definition of habitual drunkards?—Yes.
2406. And I think in your letter to myself, you there hint that probably a third conviction within 12 months might be a simple definition of an habitual drunkard; is that your opinion?-In
some cases.
2407. If that were accepted as a definition, it would be a very simple one?—Yes.
2408. And you think, although it might not apply in all cases, it might generally apply -If you were to make the definition to depend upon a number of convictions, I think it would be almost a good plan to leave it discretionary with the magistrates; if a man had been convicted three times for drunkenness the magistrate should have the power to declare in his judgment that the offender was an habitual drunkard. The cases before the magistrates differ so in degree; almost every case.
2409. So that you would not lay down a hard and fast line? – No.
2410. If a man was convicted three times in the year, he should be considered an habitual. drunkard; of course there might be exceptional cases? Yes.
2411. Therefore you would leave the interpretation of the word with the magistrate?—Yes; I think after the third conviction, the magistrate might say whether or not he was to be deemed an habitual drunkard.
2412. If he considered there were exceptional reasons for the man having three convictions, he might exempt the man for the time being? – Exactly. You will remember probably in the Habitual Criminals Act there was a hard and fast line made in regard to public-houses. It was there enacted that upon a publican being convicted of harbouring thieves, the consequence of that conviction should be the forfeiture of his license, and the justices had no discretion. Now that might in some cases work with great hardship against a publican; therefore in the Crimes Prevention Act that is remedied, and the magistrate, I believe, has a power to say whether or not the license shall be forfeited. The same law is enacted, in fact, with the exception of leaving it discretionary with the justice to say whether the license should go with the conviction or not Hard and fast lines are rather awkward sometimes.
2413. Generally you consider them objectionable?-Generally.
2414. You have already said in your evidence that you see no great difficulty, in the event of being able to define what is an habitual drunkard, in extending the Habitual Criminals Act so that it shall apply to publicans who harbour habitual drunkards? – Yes.
2415. You are in favour of such extension! – Yes.
2416. You speak of the effect of spirits raw and new, that sudden effect on the man who drinks them -Yes.
2417. Do not you sometimes find that effect is increased by adulteration ?-Yes, adulteration in the beer, before the man takes the spirit; there is more adulteration in beer than in spirits.
2418. There is adulteration in spirit -No doubt, to some extent; the great mischief is in the publican buying them too new, almost fresh from the still, because they are very strong to the palate, and they bear more toning down.
2419. I suppose the adulteration of spirits is usually by a strong narcotic, that makes a man half mad and utterly unconscious of what he does? Yes, some men do not know what they have done, they have told me so, and in very serious cases of stabbing they have been utterly unable to account for their position the next morning.
2420. You would urgently recommend that very stringent precautions should be taken against the adulteration of beer and spirits?—Yes.
2421. Mr. Miller.] I think you said that the number of committals or times which a man must be brought before the magistrate in order to constitute him an habitual drunkard, you would leave to the magistrates themselves?-After a certain number they should have a discretionary power.
2422. Would you give a maximum or minimum?–I think after three convictions in one year, it should be discretionary to say whether a man is or is not an habitual drunkard. If he was ordered to be registered as an habitual drunkard, notice should be given to all the publicans of the district.
2423. Would you not find a great variety also in the minds of magistrates as to what formed an habitual drunkard -No doubt of it.
2424. So that you could not in that way arrive at any very definite rule?-No; probably that would operate in some measure against it.
2425. You get apprehended by your men all who are on the streets incapable by drink?—Any person found lying in the street incapable, and running any risk of danger to himself by the state in which he is, would be apprehended.
2426. Is that man brought before the magistrate the next day?—Yes.
2427. And punished?-Yes.
2428. Invariably-Invariably, with us.
2429. And that constitutes the difference between your system and some other systems? Probably so.
2430. What punishment, as a rule, do you give?-Five shillings is the maximum, or three days for simple drunkenness, and 40s. for drunkenness accompanied with any breach of the peace, or anything of a disorderly character.
2431. Your idea I think is that habitual drunkards should be registered, and their names made known to the publicans in the borough?–Yes.
2432. How would you manage to make those people known to the publicans?-By simply giving the publicans a written document, or printed notice.
2433. How would the publican know?–It is surprising what a little difficulty we find in that respect; as a matter of practice it is not at all difficult.
2434. From your experience there would be no difficulty?-I do not think there would; with regard to habitual criminals, the constables go into the public-houses and point out these men once or twice, and then if the publican harbours them after having them pointed out he is convicted; but they generally know them without the police being at the trouble of pointing them out.
2435. You would give your men the same power of entering the public-houses to see whether those habitual drunkards are furnished with liquor or not?They have power now to enter at all times under all circumstances.
2436. Making their names known to the police they would look after them the same as with habitual criminals?–Quite so.
2437. Mr. Clare Read.] You say that British brandy is a bad spirit; is that on account of the newness or the adulteration ?-It is the newness; I mean the Rhenish brandy; it is a very raw spirit, very pernicious, and full of fussel oil.
2438. What time do your beer-shops close in Leeds? Eleven at night.
2439. And the public-houses ?-At one o’clock.
2440. Do you often find that people half-drunk with beer, when shut out of the beer-shops, go to the public-houses?-It is the invariable rule.
2441. What is the result?-Drunkenness.
2442. You think that a glass of spirit after bad beer produces-? – Instantaneous drunkenness.
2443. In any alteration of the law you would advise that beer-houses and public-houses should be closed at the same time?At the same time. This return may apply somewhat to your questions. It is a return that I made for the 12 months ending 28 February 1871, and which gives for every hour in the 24 the number of persons who were apprehended for drunkenness simply; for drunkenness combined with disorderly conduct; and for drunkenness and assaults on the police. At noon there were 15; from noon to one o’clock in the day, 24; from one to two, 24; from two to three, 49; from three to four, 64; from four to five, 69; from five to six, 85; from six to seven, 116; from seven to eight, 139; from eight to nine, 134; from nine to ten, 127; from ten to eleven, 241; from eleven to twelve, midnight, 352; from twelve to one o’clock in the morning, when our houses close, 306; then. they fall off in the next hour to 146; the next, 37; the next, 8; the next, 1; and then 6 and 7 is blank; to eight o’clock in the morning, 3; to nine o’clock in the morning, 5; and to ten o’clock, 1; to eleven o’clock, 8. That is for the whole year.
2444. Is that the average in one day ?That is for the whole year.
2445. So that the three hours between 10 and one are the hours when the greatest number of persons are apprehended for these offences ?-Yes.
2446. Mr. Miller.] That is the average of the whole year?-This is what occurred for the whole
year.
2447. Mr. Clare Read.] You have reason to believe that the beer is sold very much adulterated in some of the beer-houses?-In the lower neighbourhoods, no doubt.
2448. And the spirits are sold very new ?Yes.
2449. And the two together make a man very drunk?–Yes.
2450. Dr. Lyon Playfair.] Do you think that there is much habitual drunkenness in Leeds that does not come under the cognisance of the police at all?—Yes; there would be several cases which do not get apprehended, where it is done quietly at home.
2451. Only several cases or a great many cases?-Speaking from my knowledge of the circumstances, I do not know of many cases.
2452. You think that if your mode of defining an habitual drunkard, as being a drunkard who came under a certain number of convictions, was adopted, that would cover the whole ground sufficiently?–I think it would, at least it would have a very large effect.
2453. Then the definition which the Honourable Chairman read to you would complete those cases which would not come under the action of the police?—Yes.
2454. Where was it you pointed out forcibly, as you stated, the fact that drunkenness was independent of the number of houses opened in a town or a district? – That was in a letter written by me in consequence of some observations made in the House of Commons in May 1869. I there state: “Bradford, for instance, specially alluded to by Mr. Henley, as coming out very handsomely,” shows only 191 drunken persons proceeded against in 1867, in a population of 130,000, against 1,340 for Leeds; and an aggregate of 1,504 for the smaller Yorkshire boroughs of Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield, York, and Middlesborough the population of Leeds being about 246,000, and that of the united boroughs about 160,000; all these towns are much alike in character of population and trade, but what profligate topers do the inhabitants of the latter boroughs appear in comparison with Bradford? Yet I very much doubt whether any person hereabouts would undertake the championship of Bradford against other towns in respect of sobriety. Can anyone suggest a reason why the number of persons apprehended for drunkenness in Manchester jumps from 5,639 in 1866, to 9,742 in 1867, while similar offences for the county of Lancaster and borough of Liverpool, exhibit no material difference; why the adjoining borough of Salford, with inhabitants of the same class, should return the comparatively small number of 455 drunkards in a population of about 120,000, or equal to one-fourth of that of Manchester; or why such offences in Warrington spring in one year from 476 to 727, and those for the metropolis recede from 20,330 to 16,608.
2455. What explanation do you give?-The diversity that exists in making the criminal returns, in the mode of compiling them.
2456. You do not think that the mere diminution of public-houses to a very large extent reatrains drunkenness ?-I do; I think the fewer beer-houses there are, and the better they are conducted, the less there will be of drunkenness.
2457. You have not had any experience which would confirm the evidence given by the chief constable of Liverpool, that though the number of beer-houses had very largely decreased in his borough, the cases of drunkenness had considerably increased?—No; it has been slightly the reverse with us; as the beer-houses have decreased our drunkenness has slightly decreased.
2458. Can you give us the figures?-Yes; in the year ending in 1871 there were about 1,600 persons proceeded against for drunkenness; in the previous year there were nearly 2,000.
2459. And do you attribute that to the fewer beer-houses-Not entirely; because in the year that there was the greatest reduction in the number of beer-houses, there was the greatest number of drunkards proceeded against. In the year 1869-70, there was a reduction of the beer-houses from 674 to 647; and in that year occurs the largest number of proceedings against persons for drunkenness that we ever had in the borough of Leeds; this might be somewhat accounted for by the adulterated state of the liquor.
2460. However, you have no very great difference there?-No; it is not very great.
2461. Colonel Brise.] I think you said that your orders to the police are, that if a man is drunk and incapable he is to be apprehended, and that if he is drunk and riotous he is to be taken before the magistrates?-In both cases they must be apprehended.
2462. In answer to an Honourable Member, you said that if a man was drunk and incapable he was to be apprehended and also taken before the magistrates?-Yes.
2463. Then there is no difference in the two cases?-In both cases they must be taken before a magistrate and dealt with. The police have no power to discharge any persons apprehended for drunkenness. They must in both cases go before the magistrates, whether for being drunk and incapable, or drunk and disorderly.”
2464. Then actually there is no difference?Only a difference in the mode of dealing with them. In the one case the maximum penalty is 58., and in the other 40s.; that is the only dif ference.
2465. The evidence we had from Sheffield was rather to the effect that the increased vigilance of the police was the reason of there being less drunkenness in the town; but I understand you to say that it is owing entirely to the men being apprehended in Sheffield without being taken before the magistrates and convicted?–I do not know whether in Sheffield persons are liberated without going before the magistrates. All our cases come before the magistrates, and are recorded in the criminal returns.
2466. You have not given us your opinion as to the desirability of establishing houses of refuge or reformatories for habitual drunkards. Are you of opinion that that would be a very valuable mode of treatment?-There is no doubt it would operate somewhat to reclaim them.
2467. How long a period of confinement do you think would be necessary?-I could not form an opinion upon that. I have not a very strong faith in reclaiming drunkards.
2468. Mr. Samuelson.] You say it is the invariable rule when a beershop is shut up, that the drinkers adjourn to the public-house? Yes.
2469. Then I suppose you would consider it a good thing if the beerhouse and the public-house were closed at the same time?-There ought to be no difference, in my opinion.
2470. What effect do you think would be produced by the prohibition of the sale of drink for consumption on the premises during the worst hours of the day or night?-I believe it would have an effect in promoting good order. There would be less street drunkenness if the houses were closed earlier.
2471. Do you think that any injustice would be done to the working-classes if at certain hours of the day they were not allowed to assemble in public-houses for the purposes of drinking, but were allowed to fetch the drink away and take it to their own homes during those hours which by the returns prove to be the worst ?–I should say that no working man ought to be in the public house after 11 o’clock at night. If he is, he is there for no good to himself or his family.
2472. Dr. L. Playfair. I suppose you mean no man, whether a working man or not?–I think it would apply to all persons.
2473. Mr. Samuelson.] I suppose the difficulty in making a rule would be, that we should be told that gentlemen have their clubs where they can get what they want?-That is so.
2474. Colonel Brise.] You think it would not be any hardship to close the house at that hour in Leeds? – I cannot see any great hardship to any one. I think it would conduce greatly to peace and good order.
2475. Mr. Miller.] You would close the houses earlier? Yes. I have always thought it would be desirable.
2476. What hour would you say?–I would not have it later than 11 o’clock.
2477. Mr. Samuelson.] I suppose there is another reason why the returns of convictions are not in proportion to the number of public-houses, or to the population. It may be that in some towns the occupation pursued by the poorer classes induces habits of drinking more than in others -No doubt. In all our large northern boroughs there is more drunkenness probably than in the southern boroughs.
2478. Is it not found that the sedentary occupation produces more drunkenness than out-of.door occupation?-I think very probably it does. Then there is a great deal of money earned now, and a great proportion of that goes to the public-house.
2479. Do the men abstain from working in Leeds during several days in the week, now that they earn high wages?-A great many do not work on the Monday; a great many forge men, for instance.
2480. Do you think that by their habit of drinking on certain days in the week they reduce the total amount of the wages they receive to nearly the same amount that they received before, when they were not able to give up two days’ work?-I can hardly answer that. There is no doubt a considerable reduction in consequence of the habit of drinking. They are earning now nearly double what they were earning a short time ago.
2481. Mr. C. Read.] How long ago?–I daresay they are earning from 25 to 30 per cent. more than they earned six or eight years ago
2482. Colonel Brise.] You think it would be no hardship to close the public-houses at 11 o’clock in Leeds. Do you think it would be a hardship to close them at a still earlier hour?–I think if you attempted to close them earlier there would be so much opposition that the object might be defeated; it is better to go gradually; in time, perhaps, you might get to ten o’clock, if you began at 11.
2483. Dr. Lyon Playfair.] When do the theatres shut in Leeds?-Any time before 12 o’clock;
about 11.
2484. Would it not be a hardship that a working man, coming from the theatre, should not be able to refresh himself?-I do not see why he needs it, as he had opportunities of obtaining it at the theatre.
2485. Colonel Brise.] What is the earliest hour at which you could close the public-houses in rural districts in your division of the county? – Our division of the county is a very peculiar one; it is nearly all town. I think if we tried 11 o’clock there would be more chance of succeeding than if we tried an earlier hour. For my own part, I think that the sooner public-houses are closed the better it is for peace and good order.
2486. Do you think in agricultural districts it is necessary to have a public-house open as late as that?-I do not think there is any necessity for it.
2487. Mr. Samuelson.] Do you think it would tend to reduce drunkenness if drink was not allowed to be sold at places of entertainment, theatres, music-halls, and so on ?–I think that drink should not be sold at concert halls; I think they should be conducted without drink.
2488. Do you not think that almost as many persons would attend them in that case?–I think so.
2489. And so would be kept out of the public-houses, as well as prevented getting drunk there? -Yes; I think that supplying drink in concert halls has a very bad effect.
2490. Mr. W. H. Gladstone.] You have no doubt that the rise of wages has had the effect of increasing drunkenness ?-I have no doubt of it.
2491. I do not think you have suggested any increase in the existing penalties for repeated cases of simple drunkenness ?-1 would have a maximum penalty of 40 s., and a maximum of 5 1. for repeated offences, leaving it to the discretion of the justices.
2492. Do you propose that for the first offence, or the second, or the third ?-If you had a maximum penalty of 5 1. for persons found drunk and disorderly, or committing a breach of the peace, that would enable the magistrate to meet all classes of cases.
2493. You would have a maximum of 40s. for a second or a third conviction for simple drunkenness?-Yes.
2494. After you have ascertained your habitual drunkard, in what way would you propose to deal with him -You could commit him to prison or fine him to any amount. In cases where a man comes before the magistrates very often (one person in Leeds has been up before the magistrates nearly 100 times), in such cases as those I should not have much difficulty in applying the penalties of the Vagrant Act.
2495. Mr. Ackroyd.] In the letter which you sent me on the 22nd of April you gave a return of the number of public-houses and beer-houses in order to show the result of the Wine and beer-houses’ Act; you say that in 1868 the number of licensed victuallers in Leeds was 372; in 1869, 375; in 1870, 374; in 1871, 3697-Yes; they do not vary much.
2496. Then the number of wine and beer-houses in 1868 was 770; in 1869, 674; in 1870, 647; in 1871, 622?—Yes.
2497. So that the number of beer-houses was about 50 less in 1871 than in 1868, although the population had increased materially ?–Yes about 150.
2498. May I ask if this decrease in the licensed public-houses and in the beer-houses at all diminishes the amount of drunkenness or the number of convictions?-No; you will see that the return of drunkenness has been about the same. The operation of the Wine and Beer-houses Act in Leeds has been that better order has been maintained in these houses, less drunkenness has existed in them, and less harbouring of improper characters. We deal with landlords of beer-houses and public-houses in Leeds for unlawfully permitting drunkenness; I speak of that most strongly, because I believe there is no worse offence committed by publicans than permitting persons to get drunk in their houses; it is the source of all the mischief outside. We have therefore dealt rather sharply. with that offence in Leeds. There are very few discharges take place in these cases. But drunkenness, strange to say, has not materially decreased; I mean the number of persons apprehended.
2499. In fact, the Wine and beer-houses Act puts the beersellers and licensed victuallers on their good behaviour, making them anxious not to commit an offence against their licenses ?–Yes; that Act of Parliament enabled us to do a great deal of good.
2500. The number of beer-houses in 1868 was 770 as compared with 622 in 1871; yet there has been no proportionate decrease in the number of convictions for drunkenness?-No.
2501. Mr. C. Read. Perhaps you would imagine that there might have been more drunkenness if they had not decreased the publichouses?-Possibly it might be so. We have had three years of very good trade in Leeds, and that has increased the offence of drunkenness.
2502. Chairman.] Amongst the other causes has the shortening of the hours of labour had anything to do with the increase of drunkenness? -Yes; a man has time now on Saturday to get drunk twice before he goes to bed.
2503. With regard to the hours to which you would restrict the beer trade, would you place any power in the hands of the magistrates to vary them for individual houses?I would. There, again, a hard-and-fast line might not be desirable. Although you may, as a general rule, close all public-houses at 11 o’clock, there would be a hardship in regard to certain trades if 11 o’clock was rigidly fixed; and I think the magistrates should have power to vary the hours as circumstances required.
2504. Would it not be a hardship to prevent a man, who started upon his journey at 2 o’clock in the morning with a load of corn to bring to the Leeds market, if he found he could get nothing until half-past 7 or 8 in the morning?—Yes; and that is why I would give power to the magistrates to vary the hours. Such a man may better be deemed a traveller than a great many others who are now so called.
2505. You stated that every case occurring before you is recorded by the magistrates?Yes.
2506. In the estreating of sureties, one of the great difficulties is to find a record of the first offence, is it not?-Yes.
2507. Then you would make every magistrate’s court a court of record?–Yes.
2508. And in that way you would get rid of the roundabout process of having to go to Quarter Sessions for estreating his recognisances? -Yes; it is a most expensive and a most inoperative mode of proceeding.