Drunkenness Compared with other Social Statistics.

The following table brings up to date some figures formerly published by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) :—

The figures set out in the following table, carrying on those given in the Volumes for 1921 and onwards, afford a basis for

Figures supplied by the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The figures in these columns are for the United Kingdom, except that they include the Irish Free State from 1910 to 1st April, 1923, in columns 5, 16, and 18.

Figures for Great Britain only.

Unemployed persons in the coal mining industry who were disqualified for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts by reason of the trade dispute are excluded from this calculation.

comparisons between the convictions for drunkenness from year to year and the varying figures which may indicate the prosperity or the reverse of the country at large. The year 1926 was exceptional: and, except for the days lost, there is no figure which is not less than the corresponding figure for 1925.

Records of County Boroughs.

Following the plan adopted for 1924, Comparative Table C makes use of the period 1914 to 1925, leaving the year 1913 as the apex, reckoned as 100, unaffected by the war and post-war years.

The effect of the Table is that the figures for every County Borough for 1926 can be compared-both separately and together -not only with the figures for 1913, but with the varying averages over the intervening period of twelve years.

The County Borough figures for the year 1913 are given in column 2 of Table C. In colums 4 and 5 of the Tables the figures for every County Borough for 1926 are given in themselves (column 4) and as a percentage of the 1913 figures (column 5). They amount to 49,786 as against 121,383 in 1913, or 41.0 per cent.; and individual Boroughs vary between the extremes of 104 6 (Southend-on-Sea) and 10.1 (Lincoln) per cent. of their 1913 figures.

If the average convictions over the period 1914 to 1925 (column 3) are taken, it will be seen that they amount to 58,366 and that the total convictions for 1926 (column 6) number 49,786 or 85.3 per cent. of the average for the period.

This figure of 85.3 per cent. includes a number of cases where the Boroughs have scored less than their previous averages, but also covers fifteen (as against twenty-one for the year 1925) cases where the average for the period is exceeded. The table is arranged in order of the relation borne by the 1926 figures to this average, and these last cases accordingly appear at the end of the table and vary from 103.4 of the average to more than 147 per cent. as much. These cases include twelve of the same Boroughs as exceeded their average in the Table for 1925, but have lost nine, viz. Dewsbury, Bury, Great Yarmouth, Barnsley, Oxford, Wigan, Manchester, Southport and Derby. These Boroughs have fallen back into other places in the Table (Manchester being only just below its average) and have given way to three other Boroughs, viz. Worcester, Hastings and Portsmouth (which in 1925 was just below its average).

At the other end of the table there is (as for 1925) one Borough only with less than 30 per cent. of its average, viz.: Plymouth (which has always had a very low rate of convictions, and in 1926 had its lowest on record) with 28.0 per cent. The Borough, which last year appeared first in the Table, with less than 30 per cent. of

its average, appears this year seventh-Rochdale with 36.1 per cent. (having 39 convictions against 32 in 1925), and Carlisle (where the convictions increased from 73 to 96) was not so much below its average as before.

It will be seen that none of the Boroughs, which exceeded their average in 1926, came within the immediate influence of the mines stoppage. All these Boroughs had figures for 1926 which generally exceeded those for previous years and sometimes were higher than for any year since 1916 or 1915, and in one case 1914. Some of those which fell back into other places in the Table came more within that influence, and a few Boroughs showed striking decreases of convictions in 1926, e.g. South Shields, Gateshead, Newcastleon-Tyne, Derby, Cardiff, Manchester, etc. Other movements of other Boroughs also will, if investigated, lead no doubt to interesting facts; but it has to be borne in mind that the movements may be matters of much delicacy, especially where the figures are small, so that increase or decrease may bulk largely as a percentage, e.g. in one case an increase of 13 convictions (making a figure for the year 1926 higher than for any other year since 1914) raised the percentage from 129.3 to 147.8 and caused the Borough to drop six places in the Table, while a smaller change than that may cause a larger movement in the Table.

HOME OFFICE,

July, 1927

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION.

(a) The figures for 1895 represent licensed premises at the date of Brewster Sessions. For other years the figures are the number of licensed premises on the 1st January in the year indicated.

(b) The figures for clubs on page v represent the number of registered clubs in existence at the commencement of each year. The figures taken for the 1st January 1904 were not absolutely accurate, as the system of collecting statistics specially for a given day was not then in force: but they represent substantially the number of clubs registered in the course of the first year of registration.

(c) The proportions per 10,000 of the population for the period of the war 1915-1918 have been calculated on the estimated population for 1914; for other years upon the estimated population at the middle of the year.

(d) The figures for licences lapsed include premises closed after the renewal of the licence at Brewster Sessions.

(e) The figures in the column headed "New licences granted" relate to new justices' licences granted in the period or year. If the licences were re-grants of previous term licences on expiry, or if the premises have not, in any case or cases, been opened for business within the year, then the figures of new licences should be so much the smaller, but a corresponding increase would appear in "lapsed from various causes," the net decrease being that which is actually found at the end of the year (see p. iii).

"

(f) The figures for total amount received into Compensation Funds shown against a year do not represent precisely the proceeds of the charges imposed in that year. It is the practice to pay the proceeds into the funds in two instalments, the second of which is usually paid in the early months of the following year.

(g) In the table on page viii," Northern England" means all counties in England (exclusive of Wales) lying north of a line drawn along the southern boundaries of the counties of Monmouth, Hereford, Worcester, Warwick, Leicester, Rutland and Lincoln, from the mouth of the Severn to the Wash.

"Greater London" consists of the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London.

"

Southern England " comprises the remainder of England.

The figures given against the periods 1908-12 and 1919-23 in this table represent the annual average for those periods.

The areas referred to in the table on page x are as follows:

(1) Four Northern Counties:-Northumberland, Durham, Cumber⚫ land, Westmorland.

(2) Lancashire and Cheshire. (3) Yorkshire.

(4) Midland mining and manufacturing counties:-Derby, Stafford, Warwick, Nottingham, Northampton, Leicester.

(5) Glamorgan and Monmouth.

(6) London :-County and City.

(7) Home Counties:-Essex, Kent, Surrey, Middlesex.

(8) Adjacent agricultural counties:-Bedford, Berks, Bucks, Hertford, Sussex.

(9) Eastern agricultural counties:-Lincoln, Norfolk, Cambridge, Suffolk, Huntingdon, Rutland.

(10) Western agricultural counties:-Hereford, Salop, Worcester, Gloucester, Oxford.

(11) South-Western agricultural counties:-Wilts, Dorset, Southampton, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall.

(12) Remainder of Wales :-Anglesey, Brecon, Cardigan, Carmarthen, Caernarvon, Denbigh, Flint, Merioneth, Montgomery, Pembroke, Radnor,