215 
( Maidstone 
o 
( Norwich 
o 
\ Devonport 
5 
Colchester 
6 
Hastings 
28 < 
7 
Ipswich 
8 
Oxford 
9 
Portsmouth 
33 
10 
Dover 
11 
Brighton 
( 
12 
( Coventry 
t Bath 
35 j 
14 
Leamington 
( 
15 
Canterbury 
38^ 
16 
Great Yarmouth 
C 
17 
Reading 
18 
Exeter 
19 
C Plymouth 
i Sheffield 
41 < 
21 
Leicester 
22 
Northampton 
( 
23 
Bristol 
461 
24 
Lincoln 
Table II. 
( Bradford 
Gravesend 
Worcester 
Southamptoi 
Macclesfield 
Preston 
Cardiff 
W olverhampton 
Scarborough 
Swansea 
(. Stalybridge 
C Halifax 
46 < Southport 
C Middlesborough 
r Oldham 
52 J Wigan 
I Nottingham 
t_Derby 
56 Wakefield 
'’Sunderland 
Ashton 
57 Kochdale 
Great Grimsby 
Stockport 
_ Manchester 
Salford 
Newcastle 
62 Dewsbury 
Birkenhead 
Gateshead 
Warrington 
C Tynemouth 
69 } South Shields 
(. Liverpool 
If a map of England and Wales be drawn with the paral- 
lels of latitude and longitude, and the average numbers of 
apprehensions per ten thousand in each square formed by 
these parallels (or where the districts are populous in each 
half or quarter square) are marked in their respective squares , 
it will be seen that the drunkenness apprehensions are 
nearly the same along the south and south-east coasts, and 
that they then increase in a direction turning round more 
and more to the north-west, as we proceed noithward. I 
have not had time to examine the numbers for the smaller 
towns and for the counties to see whether they bear this out. 
The numbers from which the curves are constructed are 
not the exact ones obtained from the police report ; usually 
I have taken the nearest tens to facilitate calculation. 
