Known to the Police

t reference was made to the H

it has occupied much time in police-courts, and has

ess had been fully proved; they had not been found deterrent or reformative, the only pract

fer could have gone quietly out of existence, for I believe that the All-

e cares and worries of home, children, and employment do not concern them, then indeed those l

g

ed useful sanatoria, and frequen

hould at length be tried. The Habitual

earlier Act as to what constituted the

ting drink, are unable to control their affa

imes during the year with drunkenness should be dealt with, the great mistake being that no attempt was made previously to inquire into the character and condition of those that happened to be charged four times in the year. I suppose it wa

id not at all. But the Act netted a very different kind of fish-a kind that ought to have been n

g

ents of the Home Office, were to be duly licensed to receive habitual inebriates qualified under the new law. These institutions were to be supp

rged before them pleaded guilty to being habitual inebriates, and desired the question settled without reference

ns to ascertain the exact character and condition of the persons who came within the provision of the Act. I found, as I expected to find,

is there was no excuse. A glance at the annual criminal statistics would have shown to what sex[Pg 48] the oft-convicted inebriates belonged, and an inquiry among the police would have revealed their true character and condition. A considerable time elapsed before these refo

80 per cent. of gross unfortunates, dominated by vice or mental disease, homeless and shameless women; 10 per cent. old women who live alternately in work

ort of the Government Inspector for 1906 amply proves it. Dr. Branthwaite (the Government Inspector), a properly qualified medical officer, has taken infini

r can only speak of them as he finds them; he cannot speak of their mental capacity when outside his reformatories. I can; therefore I wish to say here something about them. There exists a large class of men and women who, when placed under absolute control in prisons or reformatories, submit themselves quietly to the authority that controls and the conditions that environ them. They obey orders, they display no anger, they offer no violence; they are not moody or spiteful, but they fulfil their duties with some degree of cheerfulness and alacrity. Those who have charge of them naturally look upon them as th

not of normal mind, for they are helpless before the stress of temptation. In fact, decent as they may seem while in custody, the gratification of their particular vice is the only thing of importance in life to them. These unfortunate people, when at liberty, are in reality under authority of a different kind, and their obedience to the dark, mysterious authority that controls them is as implicit as if they were de

￡1 10s. per week, in addition to the outlay on land, buildings, and appointments, to keep each of these demented[Pg 51] women. Though this cost has now been considerably reduced, it is e

ector claims that it is better for these women to be detained in inebriate reformatories than to undergo a continual round of short terms of imprisonment, varied by spells of liberty spent in gross orgies upon the street. He says, too, that it is the cheaper course. There is some truth in his contention. Of the exact proportion of the monetary cost of the two methods I am not concerned, but undoubtedly, for the good of the community and the purity of our streets, lengthened detention in inebriate reformatories is infinit

ars' comfort in an inebriate reformatory shall be your reward. There your work shall be limited, your leisure shall be certain, your food shall be plentiful and varied, and your recreation, indoors and out of doors, shall not be forgotten. There you shall live lives of comfort and comparative ease." So the State seems to say to the women of the class who at p

, so she appealed to the magistra

But she had another grievance this time: she told the magistrate that Mr. Holmes had insulted her. On being asked for particulars, she said that I had refused to help her to get into an inebriate reformatory, and further (and this was the insult), that I had said that she was big enough, strong enough, and young enough to work for her living. I pleaded guilty to th

mine, though to some extent it was useful to her; but vice a

nsing Act of 1902, some clauses of which dealt with habitual

nd circulated to the police and to the publicans. Publicans were prohibited under a[Pg 54] severe penalty from serving the "listed" with intoxicating drink within a period of three years. If the "listed" persons procured, or attempted to procure, any

the new Act, instead of getting their usual month they received but a fortnight, for the Act did not allow a more severe punishment. True, they had committed more heinous offences, for they had defied the law, which said they must not procure drink, and their offences had been dual, for they had been drunk, too, and disorderly and disgusting as of yore. Nevertheless, their double offe

er what it is. No one can glance for a single moment at those terrible photographs without seeing that there is something more than drink at the root of things. No one can meet them, as I have met them, face to face, can look into their eyes, and know, as I know, how pitifully sad, yet how horrible, are their lives, without affirming, as I affirm, that the State proclaims its ignorance when it classifies them as inebriates, and its impotence when it asks others to cure them of the love of drink. These are the women that fill our inebriate reformatories, and of whom the Home Office Inspector reports that 62·6 per cent. are not sane. Certainly they are not sane, and it is high time that the truth was realized and the fact faced. Is it scientific to call their disease[Pg 56] inebriety, when in sober truth it is something far worse-something that comes down through the ages, and in all climes and a

to grant separation orders between married couples when either husband or wife became habitually drunken. In this Act the same definition of habitual inebriety that governed the 1898 Act was adopted, and husbands very promptly began to demand separation[Pg 57] orders on account of their wives' drunkenn

was no hope of redemption; these women we were maintaining for two or three years in comfort. Will it be believed? I asked that drunken, but not immoral, women should be given equal chances of reformation. I asked that when a wife's drunkenness was proved, that she should, whether she consented or not, be committed for[Pg 58] one year to an inebriate reformatory, and that the husband's contribution for her support should be paid to the institution that controlled her. But the House of Commons would have none of it; the House of Lords would not entertain it; the Christian Churches would not support it; the guardians of public morality ignored it. Drunken wives, though physically weak and ill, though mothers of young children, though decent in other ways, were not to be allowed one chance of reformation, were not to be considered for one moment worthy of treatment equal to that give

g

g Commission Agent

his cause, and witnesses, too, were forthcoming. His young wife, when asked for her statement, did not attempt to deny that she was sometimes the worse for drink, but contented herself by saying that her husband drank a great deal more than she did, but it took less effect. She also sa

forth the husband was free of all obligations, pecuniary or otherwise, excepting that he might not legally marry till his wife's death. Whatever her faults were, I must confess that I felt very sorry for her. Young, friendless, and homeless, she was already on that polished, inclined plane down which many are precipitated to the lowest depths, from which nothing short of a miracle could save her. A few minutes later I was speaking to her outside the court, and asking about her future, when the opulent commission agent and his expensively dressed but non-legalized wife passed us. Triumph w

g some of the men who, driven almost distraught by the misery they had endured-and only those who have to endure it can tell how great that misery is-have applied for separa

annot they influence her?" "They are married, and are all abroad. They cannot help me; but they send me money when I require any. They want me to go to them, but I cannot leave her." "Do you earn any money?" "Oh yes! quite sufficient to keep us. I have had a good place for

ss, and he did it simply enough. It was the old, old story of drink, neglect, waste, and dirt-no food provided, no house made tidy, no beds made,

eparate orders were delivered to them, and then tremblingly rose to go, he to his lonely home and she to --. I accompanied them into the streets, and said to the old woman: "Where are you going to live?" She replied: "I am going home." "But you are separated. The magistrate has given your husband an order which says that you must no longer live with him." "Not live with my husband! Where am I to live,

conquer. He was a brave old man-a Sir Galahad with bent back and frosty locks. I watched them as they slowly disappeared along the street. Old as they were, they were passing[Pg 63] through love

persed, and great loneliness came upon her. She had not even the prattle of a grandc

old man's faithfulness was her only anchorage, but it held. The battle went sometimes against her, but from the day

annot put her homeless into the streets; I should not be able to sleep if I knew she was out." Of course not; what decent husband could?[Pg 64] And this feeling has, I am glad to say, been characteristic of husbands who have suffered intensely and long, and who through it all have been good and patient husbands. I do not wish it to be understood that I think evil of every husband who enforces a separation order on account of his wife's habitual drunkenness-far from it; for I know only too well that with some it has been a bitter and last resource, nothing else being