sense indicated, but they have scores who habitually get drunk.

This does not apply to women of the same class for reasons which I have mentioned more than once. In 1900 the number of cases committed to reformatories under the Act of 1898 was 16 males to 128 females. As more use is made of the Act I should expect this disparity to be more strongly marked, and I have no doubt that it will eventually make a considerable impression on the mass of female drunkenness. An extension of the law to class (3) would also be more likely to take effect among women than among men. Unfortunately a large proportion of female inebriates are the least hopeful subjects of reformatory treatment, and that fact must be faced. It has already caused some discouragement. The Government inspector attributes it to the picking out at first of the worst cases by magistrates for experimental treatment. There is evidence,' he says, of discouragement on the part of managers of reformatories who are called upon, in the early stages of their work, to deal with a worse class than they anticipated, and are proportionately disappointed in not obtaining evidence of the large percentage of good results they might under other circumstances have reasonably hoped for.' And he suggests that later on a more promising class will come into their hands. I hope that will be the case. There is a promising class of women. Indeed, women who are reformable at all are much more easily reformed than men. Their condition is more often due to some

quite temporary trouble, physical or mental, and they can more readily displace the alcoholic excitement by some emotional influence. But I am afraid that these will always form a minority.

The conclusion I draw is that the reformatory system will fail to touch the bulk of the male drunkards and will not reform the bulk of the female. This will seem very pessimistic to some, but it is not. It only means that this agent is limited in its action like the rest. But it is none the less worth using, like the rest; and the more clearly its limitations are realised the more purposeful will its application be, and the less subject to disturbance by that discouragement of which the inspector has so soon found evidence.

Perhaps I ought to say something about drugs. They have a proper use in the treatment of inebriates, as of any other patients, but on general lines. As for specific' cures,' I am open to conviction, but want good evidence. All that I have seen is quite worthless, and bears the stamp of quackery on its face. It could only impose on the ignorant.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THE literature of drink and temperance is very voluminous, but most of it is vehemently controversial, one-sided, and uninforming. The following is a list of publications selected because they either contain solid information or possess some other interest.

HISTORICAL

Nineteen Centuries of Drink in England. R. V. FRENCH.
History of Drink. J. SAMUELSON.

History and Science of Drunkenness. W. ACKROYD.
Temperance History. DAWSON BURNS.

LEGAL

Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Laws. J. PATERSON.

The Licensing Laws. G. C. WHITELEY.

The Licensing Laws, so far as they relate to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquor. R. M. MONTGOMERY.

The Need and Practicability of Licensing Reform. F. E. SLEE. (A critical examination of the recommendations of the Peel Commission. Also contains a summary of the existing law, very conveniently arranged.)

SCIENTIFIC

Alcoholism: A Study in Heredity. G. ARCHDALL REID, M.B. (An application of the Darwinian theory to alcoholism. Dr. Reid argues with much force that alcoholism tends to die out in a race through the elimination of the more alcoholic; but he pushes the theory too far and ignores other factors.)

L'Alcool et l'Alcoolisme. H. TRIBOULET et F. MATHIEU.

Drunkenness. G. R. WILSON, M.D.

GENERAL

The Liquor Problem in its Legislative Aspects. COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK.

(A critical and dispassionate study of the most important legislative experiments in the United States.)

The Temperance Problem and Social Reform. J. ROWNTREE and A. SHERWELL.

(A detailed examination of the American and Scandinavian experiments. Is a strong plea for the Norwegian method of disinterested management, and should be read in conjunction with Mr. T. P. Whittaker's Memorandum (see below) on the opposite side. The authors fall into all the fallacies with regard to consumption pointed out above (pp. 70, 117), and base their argument on the mistaken belief that Norway is the most sober country in Europe.)

Liquor Legislation in the United States and Canada. E. L. FANSHAWE.

(An examination of these experiments by an English barrister.) The Gothenburg System of Liquor Traffic. E. R. L. GoULD. (Prepared for the United States Commissioner of Labour. Is a full and accurate statement of facts in regard to the legislation of Norway and Sweden.)

Special Reports:

OFFICIAL

Select Committee (House of Commons) on Intoxication, 1834.

Select Committee (House of Commons) on Public-
houses, 1854.

Select Committee (House of Commons) on Habitual
Drunkards, 1872.

Select Committee (House of Lords) on Intemperance,
1876.

Select Committee (House of Commons) on British and
Foreign Spirits, 1890.

Royal Commission on Sunday Closing, 1890.

Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws, 1896.

(Mr. T. P. Whittaker's Memorandum, attached to the Final Report, states the case for Local Veto against the Scandinavian system; should be read with Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell's book. They answer each other.)

Return of Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages, &c., in the United Kingdom 1861-1893, 1894.

Annual Returns:

Judicial Statistics.

Statistical Tables (consumption).

Registrar-General's Report.

Alcoholic Beverages in Europe and U.S.A.

Report of Commissioner of Metropolitan Police.
Report of Inspector of Reformatories.

INDEX