http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10316456/Sober-up-in-drunk-tank-and-pay-400-to-leave.html

Today in the news we have reports that Adrian Lee, the Northamptonshire chief constable and national policing lead on alcohol harm, favours the use of ‘drunk tanks’ to manage irresponsible drinkers. It seems to me to be a good idea. As things are at the moment the police have good reasons for avoiding the detention of drunks. A properly run system of non-penal detention might both benefit the drunks and meet with the approval of those who deplore the grossest scenes of inebriation on our streets. I take a historical view of such questions, and turn to my own work to inform the debate.

As part of my work, I have examined all the charges brought at the magistrates’ court in Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria, from 1876 to 1901, population 1500 approximately. There were over 2200 cases of all types, though drunkenness offences, at 404, were the largest category. Kirkby was a strong temperance town, and police arrests and summonses for drunkenness were higher than in other parts of Cumbria, not I believe because the people of the town were more bibulous, but because the culture of the town was anti-drink.

The Kirkby Stephen police were not inclined to arrest and detain drunks, they preferred to issue a summons. This fits in with the orders of the Chief Constable, who told his men that they should avoid arresting drunks because such action risked aggravating the situation and could cause injury to policemen. His orders on the matter were validated by a terrible incident in Kendal in 1886 when a policeman attempting to arrest a drunk was kicked in the head and promptly died.

http://www.guywoolnough.com/kendal-police-photo-book/beer-or-salvation/

Because the entries are sometimes incomplete, I cannot say precisely how many drunkenness cases were arrests and how many were dealt with by summons, but the ratio is approximately two summonses to every arrest. The magistrates preferred to fine those convicted: 296 were fined, 61 were discharged, 51 were gaoled and 5 absconded. Only four of those who were arrested were subsequently discharged, and they were all women, suggesting a more tolerant attitude towards female drunks, though of course it may have been that women were picked up for drunkenness when they were less inebriated than the men, so it is not possible to draw a conclusion.

The Kirkby Stephen police attended Brough Hill Fair, a two-day autumn event seven miles distant from the town. (This is Cumbria at its most thinly populated.)

http://www.guywoolnough.com/gypsies-brough-hill-fair/

Brough Hill Fair was the largest horse fair in the North of England; some claimed it was the largest in the whole country. It was certainly popular, and attracted thousands of people for business and for fun. I have carefully collected details of all the charges brought by police in connection with the fair and it is remarkable that between 1856 and 1910 only five persons were charged with drink-related offences. Fairs were notorious for over-indulgence, so it is impossible to believe that there was only one troublesome drunk every decade.

What the police did have on fair hill was the temporary lock up. It is mentioned from time to time in police records, when describing the circumstances of the arrest of a more serious offender. I believe that this lock-up was used regularly for drunks, that it was a form of ‘drunk tank’. Such lock-ups were used by other police forces, and I have found a picture of one used at the Derby. For the Kirkby Stephen police, it made complete sense, for the police station was seven miles distant from Brough Hill. It would be a waste of resources to take a drunk down into town, and it would be futile to issue a summons to a stranger who would be heading off to a distant home once the fair was over. I can only infer that the lock-up was used as a drunk tank, because there is no documentary evidence, but I am confident that my guess is right. After a few hours in the lock-up, the drunk, now sober, could have been released. The police were spared the inconvenience of a formal procedure, there was no paperwork, and fair-goers saw a salutary example of the police acting to keep order at the fair. Twenty first century ‘drunk tamks’ will be more sophisticated, but the principle is similar.