Bristol and Inebriates (3)

The End of Inebriate Reformatories

Soon after the start of the Inebriates Acts came into force it was realised that it was not going to work as intended. Many rebelled and it was found that overall ‘about 10 to 15 per cent were too unmanageable to retain in certified reformatories under surroundings so desirably light and unprison-like.’ In addition in 1905 the published legal commentary for magistrates was that to be classified as a ‘habitual drunkard’, one had to be incapable of managing ones affairs when sober as well as when drunk. The result was that most being sent to reformatories after this date were classifiable as ‘mental defectives’ and had an even lower success rate.

Even before this legal commentary there already was a view that many inebriates were feeble-minded, if only to justify why reformatories were not working. This is highlighted in the considerations of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded who met from 1904 to 1908. The Rev. Burden, as a 'manager of inebriate reformatories', was appointed to the Commission. This was in part as he was a friend of several of the high officials of the Home Office and was seen as a useful man in generating accommodation where needed. In 1904 he had left Brentry to set up the 'National Institutions for Inebriates' and created a further 600 beds that were critical to the operation of the Inebriacy Acts. However it also reflected a feeling that Inebriates were feeble-minded. The Mental Deficiency Act that followed included people who were habitual drunkards.

From the outset of the Inebriates Act there was increasing frustration with the low rates of success. This came to a head in 1906 when the Treasury cut its grant for cases in reformatories. London County Council responded by cancelling its contracts with the National Institutions and sending only the more obviously treatable cases to reformatories. The number of persons admitted nationally had been consistently rising since 1899 but now almost halved from 493 in 1907 to 262 in 1908. It recovered slightly afterwards but admissions ran at a steady 300 a year until 1913. The system was now overprovided. In 1910 the Rev Burden complained to the Home Officethat his new contract with the London County Council was 'most unsatisfactory' as they were not sending enough cases, but that he had had to sign it. He warned that:

It is I fear very obvious that unless the number of cases committed is greatly increased, it will be hopeless for me to attempt to carry on more than one of our Reformatories. I am closing Lewes next week, and I see no alternative to closing Ackworth, Chesterfield, and Horfield as soon as I can conveniently do so. I hope to continue to use the East Harling premises as an Inebriate Reformatory, but unless the committals are sufficiently numerous it will be impossible to do so indefinitely.

Though the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws advocated early intervention and committal, the magistrates continued to turn against the use of the inebriate acts. A survey of the magistrates of London in March 1910 gave the inebriate reformatories no hope of recovery:

Mr Garrett: Has long ceased to look upon Inebriate Homes as Reformatories and merely uses them as places of detention for women who are an intolerable nuisance. All such cases as have been before him for some time past have already been in Inebriate Homes.

Mr Fordham: Cases which he considers fit for treatment in Reformatory seldom come before him. Doubts usefulness of treatment but sends cases at all likely to benefit. Finds that the threat to send to Reformatory is effective.

Mr Hutton: … Remarks on strangeness of authorities devoting almost exclusive attention to women who are as a rule practically irreformable whereas men are less difficult subjects for treatment.

Mr Mead: Does not intend to send any more cases to Inebriate Reformatories. Every single case committed has returned and been convicted again of drunkenness. Perhaps remedy of Reformatory treatment is not applied soon enough by magistrates but the fault is rather in the restricted definition of "habitual drunkard". Has long felt that workhouses sufficient substitutes for "these expensive institutions", viz Inebriate Reformatories.

A failed attempt was made to resurrect the reformatories with new legislation in 1912, but at this time people expected many of the inebriates to be dealt with under the new Mental Deficiency Act. Many campaigners preferred the indefinite confinement authorised by the Mental Deficiency Act to the fixed maximum of three years under the Inebriacy Acts, and so stopped pressing for a new Inebriacy law.

In 1913 the London County Council carried a resolution to close its inebriate reformatory, Farmfield. The Home Office was aghast.

If this resolution is carried out, and Mr Burden closes most of his Reformatories, the work will practically come to an end. This would mean a deplorable waste of money and labour. A certain proportion of the inebriates might be dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Act, but for the rest we should lose a piece of machinery which is not only beneficial to many inebriates, but also useful for the public.

The demand for places in Inebriate Reformatories almost totally collapsed in the war when the sale of alcohol was restricted and convictions for drunkenness dramatically reduced. All the reformatories run by the National Institutions closed in turn, often to temporarily become mental deficiency colonies. Because the National Institutions sent their cases to Brentry as they closed its inmate numbers remained high at over 200 until 1915.

The final transfer of inebriates from other institutions came in November 1915 when the London County Councilclosed its reformatory at Farmfield and transferred the 45 female inmates to Brentry before it converted Farmfield to being a mental deficiency colony. As well as having been the first licensed Inebriate Reformatory in England Brentry became the last, struggling with the staff shortages generated by the war. As inebriates could only be confined for up to three years it was clear that the institution would be virtually empty by the end of 1918.

The Board decided to set up a committee to look at Brentry's future as a reformatory. In March 1916 it was decided to ask councils to permit an application to the Charity Commission for a change in the purposes of Brentryto also accept mental defectives. This was agreed and on 16 December 1916 the Charity Commission approved a new scheme permitting this.

The first 11 new 'Mental Defective' inmates were admitted in June 1917 to the lower village. This transfer from being an inebriate reformatory to a colony for adult male mental defectives was not unique to Brentry. Farmfield transferred from being a female inebriate reformatory to a mental deficiency colony for adult males. Cattal (or Whixley) in Yorkshire made the same transition shortly after Farmfield. The Langho reformatory in Lancashire probably also did so. Only the Midland reformatory is known to have changed from being a reformatory for female inebriates to being a colony for female mental defectives when the National Institutions, now renamed the National Institutions for Persons Requiring Care and Control[NIPRCC], changed it to Whittington Hall Colony. This initial demand for beds for male mental defectives contrasts strongly with the demand for female inebriate beds. It probably was because the male mental defectives were less likely to have dependants than the inebriate men and were more likely than females to be seen as a nuisance who were difficult to control in the existing institutions of care.

At the same time as the growth of the inmate population of male mental defectives at Brentry there was a rapid run down of the number of Inebriates. By the end of 1917 there were only 11 men and 49 women left. In January 1918 the Brentry Committee wrote to the Home Secretary, stating that there were now only 8 male inebriates in the colony and soon would be only 6. They asked if the Secretary of State felt the expenditure justified and 'if he would authorise the discharge of the six cases referred to'. He agreed but by the end of the year there remained one man as well as 18 women. The last man left soon afterwards and in 1920, when an application was made to admit a male inebriatethe Home Office stated that there was now no reformatory accommodation in the country to take Male Inebriates. The final 6 ladies finally moved into the stable wing of the main administration block. The last admission of an inebriate was admission Number 957, a woman admitted on 11 March 1921. The last two inmates were discharged on the 31 October 1921, the day the licence for inebriates was formally surrendered. The Inebriate Acts remained in force but with no practical usefulness until they were repealed in the 1970s. The 1959 Mental Health Act excluded alcohol use as grounds for detention.

Top of Page