preceded the collapse of their master, but to lay stress on chronology is to obscure the true relation of cause and effect. Ludendorff's assertions that the defection of Bulgaria undermined the confidence of Germany in victory need deceive no one who has followed the rapid retirement of the Germans from the outskirts of Arras to the shelter of the Hindenburg line. When Bulgaria, justifying the spirit, if not the letter, of the prophecy, 'I do not know on which side Bulgaria will enter the war, all I know is that she will leave it on the other side,' set the example of desertion to Turk and Austrian, the reverberation of the hammer-strokes of Foch and Haig was already resounding throughout the East. The Bulgar threw up the sponge because he saw the Central Powers had shot their bolt. He was determined that he at any rate would not be the hindmost, and he may have hoped for preferential treatment as the first deserter. But what turned his thoughts to quitting the sinking ship was the irretrievable damage the vessel had sustained since July 15.*

It is no disparagement of the wonderful achievements of an army in Palestine and Mesopotamia to recall the fact that the Turk was only a subordinate member of the hostile team, and that it was easier to lose Palestine in Picardy than to free Belgium by capturing Baghdad. The collapse of the Turk did not affect the struggle in the West directly. Had the Germans managed to stand on the Meuse and to maintain the contest for another winter, the overthrow of Turkey would have made but little difference. The rout of the Turkish armies and the overrunning of Syria was, if anything, rather the fruits of victory in the West than a contribution to that victory. It was in the West that the main strength of our main enemy lay; the West that was therefore the decisive theatre; in the West the Allied cause was nearest to shipwreck; in the West the war was won.

A note on p. 263 of the Despatches draws attention to the fact that Ludendorff describes Aug. 8 as 'the black day of the German Army in the history of the war,' and ascribes to it as a direct consequence the defection of Bulgaria and all that followed therefrom.

Art. 7.-FEMALE INTEMPERANCE.

First Report of the Liquor Control Board (Liquor Traffic) appointed under the Defence of the Realm Amendment (No. 3) Act [Cd. 8117], Oct. 12, 1915. Second Report [Cd. 8243], 1916. Third Report [Cd. 8553], 1917. Fourth Report [Cd. 9055], 1918.

MAY one who has lived the life of a labourer, working and living as a labourer on a labourer's pay for fifteen years, contend that he knows something of working-class conditions? If so, and if such an one can also claim that he knows something of life in a rather less humble sphere, he will realise one curious truth: above a certain wage level the women are usually better than the men, below that level the women are not better than the men. By better is meant more definitely conscientious, less given to such practices of deception as tend to undermine the possibility of well-being to the family. Law, custom, and daily environment all combine in aiding and abetting the working-class woman in the frequent practice of deception. All honour then to the woman who, in spite of the difficulties created and fostered by her social superiors, yet continues to be truly the wife of her husband and the mother of her children.

The present writer's attention would probably not have been turned to these considerations so early had he not been a very rapid walker. He usually passed through certain streets a few minutes after his fellows had left home each morning. He was astonished to see women emerge from their houses and enter licensed premises within a very short period of their husband's departure for work. Similarly, returning home a few minutes before the majority of the men, he was enabled to witness the commencement of domestic upheaval-the arrangement of pails and brooms in entries and so forth -this more particularly on a Saturday. Looking a little more closely it was found that groups of women assembled each morning in public-houses, where, seated around pails, they prepared vegetables for the mid-day meal. Much detail of this kind could be given, but, while it is certain that it would not make pleasant reading, it is also probable that it would not be credited.

There can be no doubt that the Children's Charter' was a very necessary measure. Its more important provisions were clearly framed in view of the lapses of working-class mothers. At about that time, too, 1909-10, coroners were drawing attention to the increased mortality among infants; and many of these officials pointed out that, in future, deaths from overlaying could not be so readily deemed accidental. Many observers were beginning to realise that, as the men gradually became more temperate, the tendency was for the women to become less so. It was hoped that the Royal Commission on Divorce, which sat in 1910-11, would throw some light upon these matters. Unfortunately for the future welfare of the working classes, very few witnesses of the right type were called.* Another serious feature of the case lies in that, when the working man is compelled to appear in a Court of Law, the advice given him by the presiding judge or magistrate is usually strange. Take two cases at random: In July 1913, a man appeared at Shoreditch County Court, refusing to pay a bill for food, on the ground that he had already paid the money to his wife. The Judge is reported to have remarked: You must get a wife who manages better.'

It is always an ungracious thing for an individual to attack a class; and there is something particularly unpleasant about the notion of one who can give his ideas more or less lucid expression condemning a number of women who, by force of unkind circumstances, are scarcely in a position to reply. In the present instance the attack, if attack there be, is directed against the minority of a large class, because it is believed that that minority is growing, and because the baleful influence of that minority is much more powerful than is generally realised. Close personal observation throughout the ten years immediately preceding the war led me to the conclusion that, as the men of the working class were becoming more generally restrained in their use or abuse of alcohol, the women were becoming less so. As the war progressed, observant members of the class under

The present writer was permitted to make some definite statements in the columns of Truth,' April 13, 1910, and Jan. 18, 1911. So far as he is aware, they have not been contradicted.

6

consideration (women as well as men), formed the opinion that this growing indulgence was being accelerated. The number of very young girls frequenting public-houses came to be deemed appalling. On occasions of separation or reunion it was noted that women were by no means so shy as heretofore in partaking of alcoholic beverages. It was observed that, for one or two days following each air-raid, women foregathered on licensed premises, where they spent much time interchanging experiences and impressions while drinking. And there could be no doubt that, so far as women were concerned, the No-Treating Order' was having a distinctly bad effect. Many women whose custom it had been never to enter a public-house without male escort, and in no circumstances to approach the counter, now found how simple a matter it was to call for their own drink. A natural and useful reluctance was broken down; very soon many of these women were seen entering such places alone or accompanied only by members of their own sex. As the younger women drew high wages, some of the elder ones were not slow in encouraging them to drink. Certain public-houses came to be known as Widows' Retreats,' even as 'Cow Sheds.' When the custom of turning the women all out at eight or half-past eight began, in order to give the men coming from work a chance of a drink, this expulsion was the occasion of disorderly scenes and angry protest.

It was noted by one observer who had travelled daily on a particular tram route for a period of seven years that, though in the first three years of that period (i.e. in pre-war days) he had seen but one drunken woman on a car, yet in the first nine months of 1918 he saw eight. Effort was made to follow up this line of investigation, but the L.C.C. Tramway management has no information on some points and refuses it on others.* Two street fights between women occurred in a limited area within a period of six months. Onlookers asserted that it was many years since a similar incident had been witnessed in that neighbourhood. But these detached observations,

In Scotland, notably at Glasgow, the authorities have permitted some detail in this connexion to be published, but the present considerations are confined exclusively to England.

certainly accurate so far as they go, do not furnish absolute proof of the main contention, viz. that alcoholism is increasing among women of the working class. Moreover, it is to be noted that, in the districts in question, the relative proportion of the female population has recently increased; and it should be mentioned that the tramway observer was, during the war, compelled to travel home at a later hour than before.

In spite of the difficulties and inevitable conditions which tend to obscure the issue, certain facts emerge; and these form at least corroborative evidence. In and about London, girls habitually use public-houses at an age much younger than was formerly the custom. It has been argued that the custom was brought from the North and the Midlands. Possibly, but it has been adopted here. The war, too, brought in its train many more reasons or excuses than could formerly be urged for the taking of alcohol by women. The woman who formerly entered licensed premises with her husband had no more than one drink. Now she is usually found asking for one double Scotch' after another, or gin by the quartern, while a common drink with younger members of the sex is 'A Guinness with a port in it.' A current catch-phrase among munition girls runs: 'I do a man's work, so I need a man's drink.'

Whenever such a statement is laid before members of the educated class, it is met with the answer that it cannot be accurate, because statistics concerning female intoxication do not corroborate it. But statistics are not always reliable indications of a state of things, however accurately the actual figures may have been compiled; and those who have observed the trend of events from day to day feel that these particular statistics must be in some way at fault. Moreover, there are certain facts which tend to reduce the value of official figures when serious inquiry is on foot. Physiologists have been telling us for years that women are better equipped by nature than men for the concealment of symptoms. Secondly, no constable will arrest an obviously drunken woman if he can avoid doing so; and official statistics are based on convictions, which can only follow arrests. Add to this that it is matter of common knowledge that the police have latterly been far more lenient in respect of