"tramp" proper. He is the remains of a vagrant class squeezed out of
society and preying upon it. He may be "born" or "made." He knows how to
get his living, and is usually to be found in the "doss-house"; if he
frequents the tramp ward, it is for cleansing purposes or casual need.
These are estimated by experts to be only about ten thousand in all
England.[37]
2. There exists also a class of "incapables," _i.e._ those infirm, old,
blind, lame, epileptic, etc. These are supposed to be provided for by
our Poor-law system, and should be inside workhouses. But numbers of
them are allowed to wander in penury and beggary. They "earn" a
precarious livelihood, and often drift into tramp wards, but cannot as a
rule fulfil the labour conditions, which often are not demanded from
them. (See Chap. III., p. 148.)[38]
3. There exists a large class of "inefficients," the special product of
the Industrial revolution. It is not probable that they will disappear
as a factor in social evolution, save by means of wise social
arrangements, because:
(1) They are continually renewed from the lower levels of the
population, who breed quickly.
(2) The standard of industrial requirements rises, and leaves many
behind stranded.
(3) Employment after middle age is difficult to obtain.
(4) The shifting of industries and changes in employment leave
units unprovided for.
It is evident therefore that the whole legislation of our country must
be remodelled, for _it is on the social organism as a whole_ that social
provision now devolves.
Green relates that the whole mass of Elizabethan poverty was absorbed
into healthy life by a wise poor law.
* * * * *
It will be our next duty to examine how far other nations furnish us
already with an object lesson in this respect.
We may summarise the case against the tramp ward as follows:
1. It makes no attempt to classify.
2. It pauperises without relieving distress.
3. It is unequally and often unjustly or defectively administered.
4. It provides for destitution a worse treatment than that of prison for
crime.
5. It therefore exerts pressure towards vagrancy and crime instead of
acting as a true deterrent.
6. Its existence blinds the public to the fact of _the absence of public
provision for migrating_, and the evils of sleeping out and unsanitary
lodging-houses accumulate.
IX. VAGRANCY LEGISLATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
We have now to consider the treatment received by vagrants in other
countries. Have they been more successful than ourselves? If so, why?
Count Kropatkin shows in "Farms, Fields, and Factories," that the
Industrial revolution is not confined to England. Belgium for instance
is a country with large manufactures. It is also a small country, and it
is easier to examine the entire working of a Poor Law in a small country
than in a large one. A most interesting account is given in a pamphlet
printed by W. K. Martin, 290, High Street, Lincoln, of the Belgian
Labour Colonies, personally visited by H. J. Torr and R. A. Marriott,
Major, D.S.O., Governor of Lincoln Prison.
A vagrancy committee was appointed from Midsummer Sessions, Lincoln, in
consequence of the number of vagrants committed to Lincoln Prison and
the unsatisfactory nature of the prison treatment. They report "that
the present short sentences, especially in view of the improved prison
dietary, are a treatment of no deterrent value." They are of opinion
"that the present methods of dealing with offences under the Vagrancy
Acts are not satisfactory in their effect on the habitual vagrant,
whilst they make no provision for the man who, gradually slipping out of
employment through inefficiency, forms the readiest recruit for the
professional vagrant class." "Prison conditions indeed, to persons with
so low a standard of physical comfort as the average vagrant, must be
extremely comfortable and even attractive." (See note 25.)
They show that in Lindsey alone 722 vagrants were committed to prison
from January to July, 1903, while in Holland only 178 were admitted. The
number of vagrants in Lincoln Prison during six winter months increased
from 703 in 1901 to 1,002 in 1902.
The vagrancy returns from different unions likewise increased as
follows:
1900 11,980
1901 15,053
1902 20,556
They gave cases of two men aged thirty and thirty-seven, against whom
there were twenty-two and thirty-one sentences, each one being short,
showing that the men entered prison almost as soon as out of it. The
cost _without subsistence_ for travelling expenses of prisoners and
escort amounted to £28 10_s_. for the two. They believe that "the
workman slipping out of employment" should be treated in a penal labour
colony as "a patient requiring care, not as a criminal requiring
punishment," and that his downward career should be checked before his
industrial skill is lost. "The large amount of highly-skilled labour
found at Merxplas, compared with the utter incapacity of the average
English prisoner committed for vagrancy, indicate, they believe, the
measure of the difference between the tramp at the commencement of his
career and the same man after any lengthened period of life on the
road." They point out that while this skill may not maintain the man
outside, in face of the drink difficulty, it may make him nearly
self-supporting inside, and forms a valuable national asset. The annual
cost per man in these colonies is smaller than that of prison or
workhouse.[39] It will be seen therefore that whereas we _manufacture_
vagrants, the Belgian labour colonies _arrest_ their development. It is
impossible to give a full account of the Belgian labour colonies. It
will be found in the Report referred to. There are five, two for women
and three for men. Those at Hoogstraeten and Wortel constitute a _Maison
de Refuge_, and that at Merxplas a _Depôt de Mendicité_. (See Appendix
III.)
Simple vagrancy, on first detention, would involve detention at Wortel
for one year or until the man had _earned_ fifteen francs. For the
second offence, and more serious ones, the man would be committed to
Merxplas for not less than two years or more than seven years. Laziness,
habitual drunkenness, or disorderly life as vagabonds, qualify for
admission.
Inside the colony there is a sixfold classification. The worst classes,
_i.e._ men sentenced for immorality or arson, men sentenced after
imprisonment, and men known to be dangerous, never mix with the others.
There is a _quartier cellulaire_ for the refractory. To these belonged
on September 3rd, 1903, only one hundred and forty-two men.
On, the other hand, the class of "vagabonds, mendicants and inebriates"
numbered three thousand and sixty-six.
Besides this there is a class for "infirm and incurable," who do light
work or none. The latter are allowed three centimes daily for small
luxuries, and may play games.
Those under twenty-one form another class and are given schooling. All
except the infirm work nine hours a day, receiving board and lodging and
from three to thirty centimes a day. They can spend it by means of
tokens, or it is banked for them until they leave the colony. There are
quite a number of trades. Very little machinery is used, so that more
men are employed. As far as possible materials used are grown on the
farm. The colonists themselves do all the work of every kind.
There is only a small staff. Control is mainly by means of transfer from
one class to another, and, in the last resort, summary punishment by the
Director, consisting of solitary confinement on bread and water. Escape
is easy and frequent, but men, if unable to support themselves, are soon
committed again.
The cost is under £10 per year _including_ cost of buildings, etc. (See
note 33.)
At Lincoln Workhouse it is £16 per year _exclusive_ of cost of
buildings, etc.
English prisons cost £22 11_s_. per year _exclusive_ of cost of
buildings, etc.
English convict prisons, £28 per year _exclusive_ of cost of buildings,
etc.
The writer has personally examined the _Danish_ system of penal poor
law. She is assured, however, that there are in Denmark _no vagrants
proper_. The penal workhouse in Copenhagen is about to be replaced by a
new one surrounded by a moat. The working of the system can however be
understood by the present arrangements. If a man fails to support
himself, his wife and family, or his illegitimate child, he can be
committed for six months, or a destitute man can claim admission. The
men in the lightest class of labour are sent out in gangs to sweep the
streets. Others are employed in breaking up stone to obtain crystals:
these sit at benches. This is comparatively light labour, and the task
is apportioned to the worker, not uniform; others carry on weaving,
spinning, wood chopping, etc., etc.
All these workers receive one kroner a month, which is saved up for
them. From the higher classes a man can go out if he has certain work.
The earnings of a defaulting husband are appropriated. The severer side
of the workhouse contains the refractory or dangerous; here also the
work is paid for, but on a lower scale. Solitary confinement and also
changes of rations are used for discipline. It is said that a law
authorising, in extreme cases, corporal punishment is likely to be
passed. A man can rise from grade to grade, or sink if "malingering."
Accommodation on the premises is provided for fourteen days for those
who become homeless; their furniture can be brought in, and the home
carried on. Meanwhile, by means of the municipal labour bureau, efforts
are made to find the man work and prevent the final breaking up of the
home. The commune will pay house rent for _three months_ for a genuine
case of unemployment. Thus no one need be destitute in Denmark, and the
consequent tightening up of the whole national life is evident even to
the casual visitor. Institutions exist for the proper care of the aged
(who also, if deserving, have old age pensions), for destitute women and
girls, for the feeble-minded, etc., while the relieving officer is _the
friend of the poor_. All poor-law relief is regarded as a debt to be
repaid to the State.
In _Germany_ again we have a national provision which cannot fail to
excite our admiration, though its working is not quite so perfect.
The example of Germany is chiefly valuable as showing us how to deal
with the problem of industrial migration. Throughout the land exist
numbers of Relief stations. These are places to which a man can go, and
by doing a certain task of work _earn_ tickets entitling him to bed,
supper and breakfast. In Germany, even more than in England, it is the
fashion for a workman to migrate. No young man's education is considered
complete unless he has been on _wanderschaft_, and thereby gained
experience of various workshops. Consequently all over the country
"Workmen's Homes" exist. At these a man can do a task of work in return
for food and lodging. They are said to be _superior_ to Rowton Houses at
_less_ cost. If a man is without money he can work his way from Relief
station to Relief station. The Relief stations are maintained by local
authorities, the _Herberge_ or lodging-house by a society. Each station
is practically a labour bureau. They are in telephonic communication all
over the country. Consequently a man can tell if he has a chance of
employment. He is given a "way-bill," and must pass along a certain
route. If he fails to get employment he is relegated to a labour colony.
The defect of Germany is the want of classification in the latter, but
this will probably be remedied.[40]
The following account of Berlin will show how the vagrant is treated
there: "Let a ragged man appear in any of the numerous open spaces and a
policeman is on him in a minute. 'Your papers!' If it is proved he has
slept in an asylum for the homeless more than a certain number of nights
he is conducted to the _workhouse_ and made to labour for his board and
lodging. Every person is known to the State, and also insured by it."
"Fall sick," says the State, "and we will nurse you back to vigour; drop
out of employment, and we will find you work; grow old, and we will
provide you with bread and butter; but become lazy and vagabond and we
will lock you up and make you work till you have paid the uttermost
farthing of your debt." (See note 27.)
Berlin has a huge building, like a factory, where the unemployed--whole
families--are received and provided for. But no one can use this
hospitality more than five times in three months. Otherwise they are
sent to the workhouse. Private enterprise has provided an asylum where
men can go five times in one month. "Dirty, ragged, unhappy wretches
dare not show themselves in the decent world as they do in London. They
slink into these asylums at five o'clock, have their clothes
disinfected, cleanse themselves under shower baths, eat bread and drink
soup, and go to bed at eight like prisoners in cells. Everybody feels it
is better to work than to fall into the hands of the law. There is a
central bureau for obtaining employment. The State placed out 50,000 men
in one year."
With regard to the labour colonies, which provide mainly for men weak in
character and physique, one interesting fact is the merely nominal
expertise at which they can be run. The Luhterheim Colony costs £3,200
per annum, but the average cost per man after _all_ expenses, including
interest on borrowed capital, have been paid, is only 2_s_. 7_d_. per
week. An error in the Board of Trade Report, 1893, describes the inmates
as mainly criminal. This is not the case. Of the 40 per cent. in German
colonies classified as criminal only 20 per cent. are criminal in the
English sense, the remainder being "casual warders," while 60 per cent.
are not _in any sense_ criminal. (See article by Percy Alden, _British
Friend_, October, 1904.)
Holland has also interesting colonies, "free" at Frederiksoord for the
deserving unemployed (chiefly deficient mentally or physically) and
"penal" also.[41]
Switzerland also has diminished mendicancy of late to an extraordinary
extent by the following measures:--
(1) Providing special facilities for men travelling in genuine search
for employment.
(2) Taking steps against the lazy.
(3) Adopting stringent police measures.
Forced labour institutions are the means employed. At the farm at
Witzwyl with 150 inmates, two officers are in charge of each group of
ten or twelve, and _work with them_. The men sleep and eat in cells and
have a liberal diet, and a fair chance when discharged of commencing
life afresh. At St. Johannsen the older and more hardened offenders are
confined.[42]
In order to facilitate migration there is an Inter-Cantonal Union over
fourteen of the twenty-two cantons. The Union issues a "Traveller's
Relief Book," by means of which the workman may tramp all over the
country and be fed and lodged. He has not to work his way, but beggars
and drunkards and idlers fall into the hands of the police, for if work
is refused when provided, the man proved "work-shy" is sent for from
three months to two years to the "forced labour" institution. The loafer
may be sent _either_ to prison, for from two to six months, or to the
forced labour institution, for from six months to two years. Almost
every canton has its forced labour institution. In Canton Schwyz persons
giving alms are _fined_ up to ten francs![43]
A description could also be given of the Austrian Poor Law, which
appears to be very similar to the Danish. It will thus be seen that
there already exist in several Continental countries methods of dealing
with vagrancy far superior to English methods. In fact our present chaos
may be considered as the effect of gradually accumulating errors. Ten
years before we formed the tramp ward the Germans began the Relief
station. We can hardly overestimate the results that would have
followed, in toning up our national life, from the substitution of real
remedies for futile attempts at repression, adapted to a bygone age, but
not to present conditions. It is time we retraced our steps, as all such
evils are cumulative in their effects.[44]
X. TENTATIVE ATTEMPTS IN ENGLAND.
It may first be stated that the stringent order of February 25th, 1896,
asking guardians to enforce the Casual Poor Act of 1882, not only has
not been universally obeyed, but also in some parts of England met with
opposition. The Poor-law Conference of the Western Counties felt that
while a stringent application of the Board's regulations would lessen
the number of vagrants applying at casual wards, "what would have
happened would be this, that those who would otherwise apply for legal
shelter would be driven to join the majority of 'sturdy rogues' who now
subsist in comfort by begging, who sleep in outhouses or pay for
lodgings, and never enter a casual ward with its restrictions and
taskwork." They considered that the only true way of dealing with the
question is to provide simple but sufficient food and a night's lodging,
demanding an equivalent of work for food, with no punitive detention,
"which is simply another expression for imprisonment for twenty-four
hours with hard labour." They recommend a mid-day dole to prevent
begging.[45]
That such results as they mention _did_ follow the application of the
more stringent order is shown by careful statistics kept by Charles H.
Fox, at Wellington, Somerset, on the high road to the west. From August
to October, 1896, police orders to the casual wards were 536, those
sleeping in lodging-houses 1,152. Thus about two to one did not seek the
legal shelter, besides those "sleeping out." As the number of casuals
was decreased by the severity, the number in lodging-houses increased,
and also there was a large increase in the percentages of offences of
sleeping out and begging (as shown in a previous section, p. 18). It is
evident that the only result of the change of policy was that mentioned
by the Conference.
Opinions such as these were expressed also in a practical form by what
is known as "the Gloucestershire system." A valuable report as to the
working of this is given by Colonel Curtis Hayward. Quotations from it
run as follows:--
"To prevent migration in times of great disturbance in the labour
market--if desirable--is not possible; but we should take care
that those who are driven by stress of circumstances to take to
the road do not find it so pleasant or profitable as to induce
them to take to it as an occupation, and join the ranks of
professional vagrants.
"We, in Gloucestershire, in normal times have reduced vagrancy
within very narrow limits."
The principle proceeded on is to discourage _almsgiving_ by _providing_
for migration, and so respecting the feelings of the public. "Severity
never had a good effect."[46]
The system adopted in Dorsetshire of giving bread tickets to the public
to give to wayfarers failed because of defects in working.
The authorities in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire resolved to co-operate,
as Gloucestershire is a great thoroughfare. In 1879, 1880, 1881, the
annual average of casuals was 60,882.
The result of a memorial to quarter sessions was the adoption of what
was then known as the Berkshire system. It failed in Berkshire owing to
want of co-operation.
It is as follows: A wayfarer on entering Gloucestershire or Wilts
receives, on application to the relieving officer, a ticket, on which is
written his general description and the place he is bound for, viz., his
_final_ destination. With this he goes to the vagrant ward, where he is
fed night and morning, for which he has to do a certain task. On his
discharge the name of the union to which he is to be admitted the
following night--the direct route--is written on his ticket, also the
name of the intermediate station he passes on his road, where between
the hours of one and three he is supplied with his mid-day ration of
half a pound of bread by the constable on duty. Leaflets explaining the
system and requesting the public not to give to beggars are periodically
left at every house in the county. The cost of the rations is defrayed
by voluntary subscriptions.
It is claimed that this system during the first quarter reduced vagrancy
returns 50 per cent. Colonel Curtis Hayward does not think that
compulsory detention acts as a deterrent. In 1891 when trade was brisk,
in March quarter, this system reduced the numbers to 4,497 as against
13,313 in 1881, and on the whole year from 60,000 to 22,000, whereas
other counties tell a different tale, the numbers being stationary or
only slightly smaller for Bucks, Oxford, and Warwick.
Worcestershire gives bread tickets to "selected honest wayfarers," but
nearly double the amount was spent, namely, £65 3_s_. 5_d_., to that
spent in Gloucestershire without selection. Colonel Curtis Hayward
thinks discrimination impossible. Exact statistics for Worcestershire
are not obtainable, but in nine unions the figures are:--
1881. 1891. 1894.
10,392 6,349 12,935
so that this system does not appear to have affected the returns.
From the Chief Constable's office, Dorchester, I have obtained a
valuable report of the Dorset Mendicity Society. It has been established
thirty-four years and provides food for the wayfarer in exchange for
bread tickets. Posters displayed at police stations deter the public
from giving doles. A large increase of vagrancy is admitted, but it is
claimed that there has been no increase in vagrant crime. The
professional beggar is said to avoid the county or to hurry through
it.[47]
In this report W. P. Plummer says: "It is a generally accepted idea that
all wayfarers are worthless idlers, and the only proper way of dealing
with them is to make the regulations of casual wards so universally
severe that men will avoid them. I have no hesitation in saying that a
more erroneous idea could not exist. My experience is that when a _bonâ
fide_ working man finds himself out of employment he very naturally
commences to search for fresh employment in his own neighbourhood, but
when funds get low he finds he must go further afield to try his luck,
and the casual ward must be his hotel. For what reason should he be so
treated as to make him prefer the shelter of a barn or rick? Every
facility should be given him, but where is there an employer who will
start men in the middle of the day when discharged from casual wards?
What about a mid-day meal? _He must beg to live._ He follows it up for a
week or two of necessity and he finds it pay. In a few weeks you have a
_properly manufactured moucher_." He suggests that in place of casual
wards there should be in each municipal borough or urban district a
State common lodging-house with labour yard, used also as a labour
registry, and backed by labour colonies under control of the Prison
Commissioners.[48] In 1904, £176 2_s_. 9_d_. covered expenses of 38,998
bread tickets, and administration. He wishes the justices, if they
convict, to have no option but to commit for third offence in one year
(or on the sixth altogether) for begging, sleeping out, hawking without
licence, disorderly conduct, etc. Tramps should be identified by
finger-marks. The governor of the prison should on receipt of list of
previous convictions re-arrest and charge the man before justices as an
habitual vagrant, and the justices should commit to a penal labour
colony.[49]
The various experiments of the Church Army, Salvation Army, Lingfield,
and other charitable agencies show the existence of a large class of men
willing to live under restraint and work for bare livelihood. All such
charitable agencies however are handicapped by the absence of
_compulsion_ at the bottom of our social system. Those on whom it is
most necessary to _enforce_ labour throw it up.[50] As experiments these
institutions are most valuable, but in the absence of definite State
provision they themselves often add to the confusion existing, by
providing merely temporary control for undesirable cases. A certain
amount of eligible deserving cases are rescued, the rest sink down after
considerable and disheartening expenditure of time and money.[51] It is
impossible for _private_ enterprise to tackle effectually what is the
duty of the community as a whole, or to undo the mischief wrought by a
radically wrong vagrancy system.
At the same time it is invaluable to know that numbers of men eagerly
desire to obtain employment, and that such an institution as the labour
house connected with Central Hall, Manchester,[52] can be made
practically self-supporting, after first cost, by wise management.
_Experiments_ must at first be costly, but pioneer work is necessary to
find out what suits English conditions. This is what makes each
attempted colony now most valuable. Lingfield appears to be especially
so, both as redeeming 40 per cent., as fitting them for emigration, and
also training helpers for social service. The capital cost was £160 per
head, the cost per man is £33. The inmates received are very
debilitated, and their work counts for _nil_ on arrival. Hollesley Bay
and Laindon have also been recently established.[53] We must now proceed
to consider the question from a national standpoint.
XI. REFORMS HAVING REFERENCE TO VAGRANCY.
Having endeavoured to make it clear how essential to organised society
is a proper treatment of the vagrancy question, it remains to consider
what reforms are necessary in England. It must be remembered that we
cannot adopt wholesale the policy of any other nation. We must work out
our own salvation. It is not possible, if it were desirable, to have the
individual as much under Government surveillance as in Germany for
example. Individualism and liberty of the subject are deeply rooted in
English soil.
It will be well if we first outline the objects to be aimed at.
(1) There should be at the bottom of society a _provision for
destitution_ to be _earned_ by honest work, sufficient to deter from
beggary and crime. This provision should be meagre but not worse than
prison fare. (See note 23.)
(2) There should be provision, ample and sanitary, for migration.[54]
(3) For women there should be some provision more eligible than vice.
(Appendix IV.)
(4) It is a national mistake to recognise a tramp class of women.[55]
(5) Those willing to work should be sorted from those unwilling.[56]
(6) It should be so arranged that the public understand there is
_sufficient_ provision for destitution, and are themselves deterred from
promiscuous charity.[57]
(7) Some place of detention other than prison should be provided for
vagrants convicted.[58]
(8) It is desirable also to provide labour colonies for defective
industrials.[59]
In discussing the _method_ by which such reforms can be brought about we
must recognise that there are many "lions in the path." It is not
certain that the necessary reforms can or will be carried through by
Government. In other countries an example has been set by private
enterprise, and has afterwards been adopted or subsidised by
Government.[60] We must, however, recognise that our English problem is
a huge one, that we have to make up for years of neglect, and that evils
are accumulating.
The great majority of our population live in towns. Vagrancy is
therefore one of our town problems, closely woven with the unemployed
problem. But we have not the great advantage possessed by many
Continental towns, that the Poor Law is under the control of the
municipality. In Copenhagen, for instance, the four burgomasters control
education, poor law, charity, municipal labour bureau, and old age
pensions, as well as municipal organisation. This gives unity to city
life. The new legislation in connection with the unemployed gives power
to the _Municipality_ at present mainly permissive, yet the _Poor Law_
is still separate, also the magistracy often works against the poor law
by the extreme leniency of their sentences. A poor-law officer cannot be
sure of convictions.
If lodging-houses are provided this falls to the municipality also.
There seems to be great need for unification of authority, and a
thorough over-hauling of our poor-law system in view of modern
conditions. It is also to be feared that the old traditions with regard
to treatment of tramps are very deeply engrained in the minds of
poor-law officials. The labour yard also is very seldom run on true
business principles, and it would be difficult to create through the
length and breadth of the land a thorough reform of the tramp ward, as
difficult as it has been found already to secure uniformity.[61]
Nevertheless, to create entirely new machinery when expensive buildings
already exist seems foolish.[62] The imperative need for reform,
however, calls for Government action, and so urgent is the call for a
_universal_ system, and so large are the issues at stake, that it would
seem to be the best to recognise the whole matter as a cause for
Government interference. It might be best if both the migratory and the
unemployed questions were recognised as calling for a new Department of
Labour, and the tramp ward or its substitute placed under the new
authority.[63] In the case of the Poor Law Reform of 1834, Poor Law
Commissioners were given wide authority to work radical reforms and
unify the parishes for poor-law purposes. Something like this seems to
be again necessary, but with still wider national needs in view.
These, for instance, are some of the reforms necessary:--
(1) To arrange definite _national_ routes of travel, and settle the
migration stations along these routes, including ration stations (unless
mid-day ration is given on leaving a station).[64]
(2) To close _unnecessary_ tramp wards, and publicly notify the
available routes.[65]
(3) To arrange for centres of population some plan by which a man may
make use of the tramp ward for three or five nights, and search for
employment.[66]
(4) To arrange a national system of Labour Bureaux.[67]
(5) To arrange the incidence of taxation for support of the stations.
The Poor-law Unions might be debited in proportion to percentage of
vagrants over last 10 years, and deficiency nationalised, or tramp
wards transferred to police.[68] (Appendix I.)
(6) To secure sufficient sanitary accommodation in every large centre
and on national routes, both for the destitute and for the _bonâ fide_
working man.
(7) To make uniform the supply of rations, the accommodation, and the
task of work, and see that the latter is on a proper business
footing.[69]
(8) To arrange for public charity to flow into authorised channels, and
discourage promiscuous almsgiving.[70]
(9) To provide detention colonies for the confirmed idler, vagrant, and
habitual drunkard, if committed by the magistrate.[71]
(10) To arrange a system to distinguish between the idle and the
"willing to work" unemployed.[72]
In addition to this, the facts in relation to unemployment show, that
there are periods of good and bad trade, leading to wane and flux of
employment.
Thus the wave from 1886 to 1893 in skilled trades was as follows:--
[Illustration]
It will be seen that unemployment almost disappeared in 1890. There are
also seasonal waves, summer and winter. It is for the equalisation of
such differences that some provision must be made, as well as for the
care of the "industrial invalid." In times of depression individuals are
thrust out who become a burden on the country all the rest of their
lives, either by idleness, beggary or crime. It must not be forgotten
that each of these _at present_ costs the community a far greater sum
than they would cost if provided with labour. Therefore:--
(11) Arrangements should be made whereby, by work specially arranged to
coincide with seasonal unemployment, the national cost of the incapable,
the inefficient, and the temporarily unemployed could be minimised. (See
"How to Deal with the Unemployed": Chap. V., "The Labour Market," by the
author.) (Brown, Langham & Co.)
(12) It would only be possible for _Government_ to carry out such large
schemes of afforestation or of reclamation of waste lands as would
effectually grapple with the whole problem.
There is, however, one question we must briefly deal with in considering
either private or public action.
It is said that if employment is found for the unemployed, if vagrant
and other colonies are formed, the result will only be to displace by
their products other workers. There is, it seems, a kind of vicious
circle, by which, for example, if prisoners made brushes, other
brushmakers are displaced, and so on.
It is forgotten that every day new and extensive businesses arise, and
their competition with others is not regarded as an evil. (These often
undersell, colonies need not.) But besides this it has been found by
investigation into the working of German labour colonies that their
products do not disturb the labour market. To a great extent the
colonists are engaged in supplying their _own_ need.[73] Kropatkin also
shows how the more careful cultivation of the land enables it to
maintain a larger population. To place the waste man on the waste land
seems to be true social economy. It must be remembered also that, to the
extent to which a pauper is made self-supporting, the money that before
supported him is set free. If, for instance, the cost of a pauper could
be reduced from £12 (English workhouse) to £5 (Belgian labour colony),
£7 would be set free for other expenditure. The weight of the Poor Law
is heavy upon us. In London alone indoor paupers rose from 29,458 in
1857 to 61,545 in 1891. Besides this, enormous sums are spent in
charity,[74] which forms as it were an additional tax on the
well-disposed. An effective law dealing with idleness would tone up our
whole population, and dispose many to work. The home market would
improve as taxation was lightened. We must go to the _root_ of social
disease.
The Continental system of providing an incentive to labour in the shape
of a very small wage is well worth consideration.[75] It makes
government easy and provides for sifting one class from another. It is
not sufficiently recognised that undesirables act as social microbes. If
they can be got to live under restraint, much evil is averted. The
modern organization of labour is such that it ought to be possible to
place our Poor Law on a sound economic basis, instead of the present
haphazard system. The cost of administration as it is, goes up by leaps
and bounds without adequate return.[76]
I have outlined above the _national_ reforms necessary. But we are slow
reformers, and it may be well to indicate reforms _immediately_
possible. These are outlined in a series of articles published last
March in the _Poor Law Officers' Journal_. They include changes in
administration of the tramp ward, such as the provision of a diet equal
to the lowest prison fare, suitable drink, and a mid-day ration, a
proper bed or hammock, absolute prevention of overcrowding, clean water
for the bath, and thorough carrying out of Local Government Board
precautions for cleanliness.[77] With regard to women, I strongly advise
admission to the workhouse proper, detention of children, and the
appointment of a lady protectress in connection with each workhouse,
whose duty it would be to investigate cases of need. Women should not be
allowed to tramp the country. A detention colony is badly needed, and
proper provision for the feeble-minded. In the case of women the moral
danger is a grave additional reason for prevention of vagrancy.[78]
I also recommend an _immediate_ modification of our tramp-ward system,
which would sort vagrants into two classes. By early admission and a
half-task of work, the wayfarer might be enabled to earn one night's bed
and board and go on his way, having a way-bill for his route. The
unemployed town-dweller might be given an identification note enabling
him to return for from two to three nights and to seek work meanwhile.
If he did not find it he could have a way-bill to another town. The idle
man who came late would be detained _two_ nights with double task.
Identification marks would be taken. If a man fell into the hands of the
police for offences against the law he would be deported to a vagrancy
colony.[79]
These changes would only need:
(1) The formation of one experimental vagrancy colony.
(2) Local Government Orders modifying the present tramp ward
regulations.
They are therefore _immediately_ possible, pending a further national
reform movement.[80]
As, however, even this would require a good deal of discussion and
delay, it would be well if the admirable suggestions made by Mr. J. H.
Jenner-Fust at the Conference on Vagrancy, held at Lancaster on Sept.
1st, 1905, could be carried forward. He suggests a combination of
unions, for relief of the casual poor, (under sect. 8, Poor Law Act,
1879). A joint committee holding office three years could be formed.
This committee would have power to acquire land and erect buildings,
and maintain inmates, etc. If a combination of several counties were
effected, a 1_d_. rate on No. 11 district and Cheshire would produce
£129,000. Such a committee could arrange to dispense with certain
workhouses and rent or lease others, to arrange for rules of travel,
uniform administration, keeping children from vagrancy, the way-ticket
system. Also for "test-houses" for the "work-shy" able-bodied. Perhaps
also for a labour colony, as experiments must be tried.
The Conference passed a resolution in favour of farm or labour colonies
under State control, or under control of the guardians of a county, for
detention of the habitual tramp, and also in favour of the provision of
a mid-day meal.
A committee was appointed to give effect to the resolutions, to consist
of representatives from each union in the conference district.
XII. CONCLUSION.
It remains now to place on a _scientific_ basis the facts related and
the reforms proposed.
Mankind has evolved from the nomad to the pastoral, from the pastoral to
the agricultural, from the agricultural to the industrial. These stages
represent also the development of the _individual_, and are expressions
of an underlying _psychical_ development.
The child is at first unable to fix his attention long on any one
object. He roves from one thing to another, and is essentially _nomad_.
By degrees certain objects become centres of consciousness with memories
attached. He cares for these, they are to him what flocks and herds are
to the _pastoral_, but he is still restless, unable to concentrate long
on one object. By degrees, as he unifies, some one object becomes
supreme, or rather he himself assumes the supremacy of his environment.
He arranges it so as to minister to his dominant passion. The girl
craves for the doll, the whole nursery ministers to the beloved object.
The child in this stage is essentially _agricultural_. In the next
stage, the _industrial_, he or she becomes plastic to educational
influences, and is "educed" or drawn out in the direction of natural
specialised ability.
This is the _normal_ development. But multitudes stay in one or other
stage. There are grown-up people incapable of concentration or of true
industrialism. Yet they may be efficient examples of "a lower type,"
_i.e._, capable of toil in a limited environment under direction.
Multitudes again are incapable of fixity of occupation continued over
long periods. Yet alternation of employment will keep them busy and
happy.
Others again cannot fix their attention any more than a child, only the
simplest of occupations is possible to them, yet they can be restrained
from evil.
It must be noted also that human nature _degenerates_ down this ladder.
The industrial highly skilled loses his trade. He is quite "at sea" out
of his usual environment. But at first he has no desire to rove. He
would cling to any environment that found him sustenance; and take eager
interest in a new trade. Thus in the Lancashire cotton famine many
industrials became skilled out-door workers. But if he cannot get
employment he roves to find it, and becomes "unsettled." It is hard then
for him to "settle down," he becomes fond of a day or two's work and a
day or two's play alternating. Finally, he becomes a true vagrant--a
nomad. It will be seen then that the arrest of vagrancy depends on the
application of scientific principles. Habitual and hereditary vagrancy
could soon be suppressed, or might even be neglected and allowed to die,
by gradual absorption of the _children_ of vagrants into the ranks of
the more developed population. It is the constant _recruiting_ of
vagrancy that is such an evil. It would seem as if the free leave given
in Germany for a man to enter and leave a colony, and then enter and
leave another, but at the same time to be under compulsion to earn his
living, is adapted to the "pastoral" class, who cannot easily settle yet
will intermittently work. To let them degenerate into "loafers" is
fatal.
Then again the slum dweller clings to his environment, and it is useless
to _force_ him to wander, and so send him down the ladder. For such
populations as West Ham, work on the land in return for sustenance seems
to be the way out. They are essentially "agricultural" in attachment to
environment, and would no doubt be suitable subjects for schemes of Home
colonisation.
A fully developed industrial, on the other hand, is best employed _as_
an industrial. In connection with new developments, there will be need
for such industrials. Therefore, if, as in Belgium, the needs of the
colony were supplied by "industrial" inmates, but the more untrained
were kept to farm work, on some form of simple manual labour, it would
seem as if the right organisation would be arrived at.[81]
It is probable that in our towns many forms of social waste occur, and
that new industries might be developed in connection with Labour
Bureaux, for temporary employment over crises. Much lies in the power of
the municipality. An interesting _new_ industry for utilisation of old
tins (waste) has arisen in connection with Central Hall, Manchester. In
the cotton famine the laying out of building plots gave employment to
many Lancashire weavers, and was ultimately remunerative.
It will be seen that the Tramp Ward, though in itself apparently only a
minor provision in our complicated poor law, is really a foundation
stone for our national treatment of destitution. Unless we get back to
the sound principles that underlie organised society, that if a man will
not work he must be made to do so, and that to enforce honest toil is a
social duty, we shall see national evils accumulate to national
destruction. Let me now pass in review the personal investigations which
led me to these conclusions.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] "Low as is the standard of comfort of the ordinary vagrant, that of
the class of people who frequent the charitable shelters or habitually
'sleep out' in London and other large towns is still lower. The casual
pauper is at least clean, while the man who sleeps in his clothes at a
shelter, or passes the night on a staircase, is often verminous and
always filthy. These people seldom or never go to casual wards, and they
can only find a living in large towns" (Vagrancy Report, p. 26). These
town-dwellers are not, however, _hereditary_ vagrants as a rule.
[3] "No doubt the coming into existence of a pauper class was a new and
startling phenomenon of Tudor times; it is probable, too, that the
suppression of the monasteries led to a large increase of the vagrant
population" (Vagrancy Report, p. 6).
[4] This was, however, only a portion of the "Statute of Labourers" (7
Rich. II., ch. 5; Vagrancy Report, p. 3).
[5] The Vagrancy Report gives a full historical summary of this
repressive treatment (chap. 1, sections 8, 11), but points out (section
12) that all legislation was then harsh, and that some punishments, such
as branding, may have been intended for identification, as with lost
sheep. It questions the existence of a widespread social evil.
[6] Statistics of vagrancy (Vagrancy Report, section 74) estimate the
difference between the number "on the road" in a time of trade
depression as 70,000 or 80,000, as against 20,000 or 30,000 in times of
industrial activity (as in 1900). See also effect of South African War
(section 76).
[7] The Report points out that the term "vagrant" is elastic, including
gipsies, hawkers, pedlars, and those employed in hop-picking or
fruit-picking (section 78; see also sections 400, 401). It appears
(section 402) that arrangements for these seasonal migrations are
improving in the hop-picking and fruit-picking counties, owing to the
action of local sanitary authorities and philanthropic societies. The
"casual labourer," on the contrary, is a constant addition to the ranks
of vagrancy (see section 81). "The vagrant of this class is usually a
man who has been unable to keep his employment from idleness, want of
skill, drinking habits, or general incapacity, or perhaps from physical
disability. As time goes on, he succumbs to the influence of his
demoralising mode of life, and falls into the ranks of the habitual
vagrant." Lack of unskilled employment, which is mainly seasonal, is as
large a cause.
[8] "The penal laws against vagrants were enacted contemporaneously with
the establishment of poor relief for the aged and infirm, and with
repeated attempts to build up a system for the correction and
reformation of the vagrant" (section 11, Vagrancy Report; see also
sections 257-260).
[9] The Report on Vagrancy does not appear to the author to deal with
the origin of this class (see sections 82, 83). The presence of the
"work-shy" class is recognised, and in section 81 the additions to it
from the ranks of casual labour attributed to bad habits or incapacity.
But the fact that the existence of this class is a _necessary result of
rise in capacity_ of the artisan classes is not alluded to. It would be
interesting to investigate how many of the "unskilled" and "work-shy"
have worked and earned their living for years, but have found it
impossible to keep a foothold. As _capacity_ rises, the strata of
"inefficient" must be left behind.
[10] In section 79 the Report deals with the _bonâ fide_ working man
looking for work. The author believes that though the Committee regarded
such as only a small proportion, this does not represent the real facts.
If, as is stated, the number of "vagrants" doubles in times of
unemployment, it is evident that the 50 per cent. squeezed out were
previously employed in some way. Evidently the ranks of vagrancy are
largely recruited from "working men," though by those most inefficient.
Six weeks' tramp has been stated to the author as long enough to turn a
"working man" into a "loafer."
[11] See Vagrancy Report, section 20.
[12] It will be seen that in 1848 the increase of vagrancy called for
attention. The report given by the inspectors led to a minute of the
Poor Law Board, signed by Sir C. Buller, on "the growing evil of
vagrancy." The decrease in vagrancy was put down to more stringent
regulations, but may have coincided with better industrial conditions,
as in 1853 the numbers again rose (Vagrancy Report, sections 28, 29,
30).
[13] It is not surprising that London should be the first to feel the
pressure of migratory destitution resulting in the Houseless Poor Acts,
1864, 1865 (see Vagrancy Report, section 33).
[14] See sections 38, 39 (Vagrancy Report).
[15] Mr. Curtis, clerk to the King's Norton Guardians, says: "In my
judgment the present measures have _totally failed to achieve their
object_" (Vagrancy Report, section 113).
[16] In 1866 a dietary was prescribed (Vagrancy Report, section 37).
[17] "In 374 unions the casual pauper gets only bread for breakfast and
supper ... for the mid-day meal 474 unions give only bread and cheese"
(Vagrancy Report, section 95).
[18] "The rule to detain vagrants two nights is but little observed"
(Vagrancy Report, section 94).
[19] See section 49, Vagrancy Report.
[20] "In the four years 1891 to 1895 the figures (for Jan. 1) rose from
4,960 to 8,810, an increase of 3,850; while the recent rise spread over
five years (1900 to 1905) was from 5,579 to 9,768, an increase of 4,189"
(Vagrancy Report, section 76).
[21] See section 70, Vagrancy Report, respecting vagrants in common
lodging-houses. It is surprising how many inmates are "without settled
home." I have personally interrogated many women who have been homeless
for years with their husbands, but have lived in lodging-houses. The
seasonal migration of the rich produces a reflex tide of migration of
"hangers on" of all kinds; there are also other seasonal migrations such
as that of the navvy (see section 33, Vagrancy Report).
[22] It is probable that a larger proportion of the inmates of casual
wards in London are of the "work-shy" class than in the north, because
London acts as a kind of national cesspool attracting the dregs, partly
by reason of its charities. The same may be said of a large centre like
Manchester. But if sufficient skilled observation had been given over
long periods, it would probably be found, as I have indicated, that
there are great changes in the _personnel_ of the tramp ward. It is
indicated in the Report (section 87) that the free shelters attract the
_lowest_ class. Hence the rise in the standard of cleanliness may mean
that the tramp ward now actually accommodates a higher social stratum
than formerly.
[23] See Chap. XV., Vagrancy Report. It is doubted that the percentage
is so high. It will vary in different localities.
[24] "Evidence before us shows that severity of discipline in one union
may merely cause the vagrants to frequent other unions."
[25] It is acknowledged that the present dietary is insufficient, not
only owing to absence of a mid-day meal (section 160), but also as a
minimum for "a fair day's work," which requires (section 307) at least
2,500 calories in heat-producing value and 55 grammes of proteid. The
proposed amended dietary is as follows:--
Breakfast: Bread, 8 oz.; margarine, 3/4 oz.; cocoa (made with cocoa
husk), 1 pint.
Dinner: Bread, 8 oz.; cheese, 1-1/2 oz.
Supper: Bread, 8 oz.; margarine, 3/4 oz.; potatoes (cooked), 6 oz. Salt,
1 oz. per five men daily.
This would provide 2,500 calories with 63 grammes of proteid.
[26] The superiority of the prison dietary is freely acknowledged in the
Report (see sections 203-206).
[27] See sections 197-201, Vagrancy Report. "Many tramps openly declare
that they prefer prison to the casual wards."... "Vagrants assigned as a
reason for refusing to work that they wished to lay up for a fortnight
during the winter in gaol." Window-breaking and tearing-up clothes are
freely resorted to in order to get into prison. On the 28th of February,
1905, 3,736 male prisoners out of 12,369 were reported by the prison
governors as persons with no fixed abode, and with no regular means of
subsistence (section 59). In London, in 1904, 1,167 casuals shirked work
or tore their clothes (section 107).
[28] See Vagrancy Report (section 41) with regard to the enforcement of
the four nights in London. In 1904, 16,060 cases were detained four
nights. A list has been made of 950 habitual tramps who live in London
tramp wards (section 110). A similar list might be made of tramps who
circle round in the towns in the Manchester district. In 1904, in
London, 21,367 people were _refused admission_ to tramp wards (Vagrancy
Report, section 104).
[29] The opinion of the Committee is very unfavourable as to shelters
(see sections 338-359). It does not, however, appear to be sufficiently
recognised that these shelters have arisen as a direct result of the
repressive policy of the tramp ward and the insufficient national
provision for destitution. The dregs of our social system must
congregate somewhere; they will naturally gravitate where conditions are
most favourable, and where existence can be maintained. It is impossible
to sustain existence on a tramp-ward dietary, and regulations will not
allow the homeless wanderer to settle there. Consequently he goes
elsewhere. Until a more effective national provision is made, the
shelter is at any rate a provision for the most destitute. Free
shelters, however, especially if in an insanitary condition, may
constitute a danger, being out of relation to the true national policy
of dealing with destitution. The care of this lowest class is better
understood abroad. If the State accepts the care of the destitute, some
provision must be made for those "past work." The Report is written as
if the state of these men was due to the "demoralising effect of the
shelters." Mr. Crooks, however, says: "The poor chaps have become
degenerate; they cannot work; they have got quite _past work_; they can
hardly beg; they go in and have a meal, good sound food, stop all night,
and come out in the morning. What do they do in the morning? All life is
objectless; they have nothing to do; they have simply to loaf away
another day without any object in life at all."
In his evidence he attributes this to "general break-up," due to the
absence of proper food and shelter. He shows that people of this
character "loafing and lurching with eyes like the eyes of a dead fish,"
were "improved out of all knowledge" at the Laindon farm colony.
A few nights' "sleeping out" may reduce a man to a most miserable
condition. It is a wonder that many survive. The writer has been
receiving for years _women_ reduced to the extremest destitution and
incapable of work without rest and food. The majority have passed on to
employment, but in the state received it would have been impossible for
them to obtain it.
[30] Repeatedly asserted by tramp ward inmates.
[31] Note 25.
[32] See section 15 as regards Shakespeare's "vagrom men."
[33] It is surprising how little is said in the Report about common
lodging-houses, though in the chapter on spread of disease by vagrants
useful recommendations are made as to stricter enforcement of existing
laws. As a rule, cleanliness in shelters (in spite of the use of the
"bunk" for sleeping) is far in advance of the common lodging-house.
Beds, especially flock beds, are often most insanitary for this class of
persons. Inspection is often merely perfunctory or too infrequent to act
as a check. Even in London inspection leaves much to be desired though
conditions are greatly improved.
[34] This lodging-house has since been removed or suppressed.
[35] This was a northern lodging-house.
[36] The average number _prosecuted_ in 1899-1903 reached 9,003. It
would be much greater but for the leniency of the police (Vagrancy
Report, section 379). On the 7th July, 1905, in Holborn district, 1,055
males and 176 females were found "principally on the Embankment, the
larger number of them on the seats."
[37] The Vagrancy Report gives very varying estimates (section 74),
varying from 25,000 to 80,000. But it is to be noted that these figures
include all persons "without settled home or visible means of
subsistence." The writer estimates at 10,000 those belonging to the
confirmed tramp class. A number of those estimated in the total are
included in "Vagrants Wandering to their own Hurt," see sections
389-391.
[38] See "Vagrants Wandering to their own Hurt," Chap. XIV., Vagrancy
Report.
[39] An account of the labour colonies in Holland, Belgium, Germany, and
Switzerland is given in the Vagrancy Report, sections 228-256. In
Germany the average net cost is £6 per head per year. At Merxplas,
Belgium, it is £9. See also Appendix III.
[40] The German Relief System is described (sections 168-170), Vagrancy
Report. The adoption universally of the way-ticket and provision for
"seekers for work" would assimilate our system to this.
[41] See sections 228-230, Vagrancy Report.
[42] See sections 249-256, Vagrancy Report.
[43] See sections 171, 172, Vagrancy Report.
[44] "In view of the subsequent history of the law as to casual paupers,
it is matter for regret that Parliament should have thus abandoned the
older tradition by which county authorities were charged with a
responsibility for vagrants nearly akin to the responsibility falling on
parochial authorities in respect of ordinary paupers" (Vagrancy Report,
section 260).
[45] The way-ticket system appears likely to pass into legislation (see
sections 173-182, Vagrancy Report).
[46] The Gloucestershire way-ticket system is described in sections 160,
161, 176, Vagrancy Report.
[47] See section 164, Vagrancy Report.
[48] It will be seen that these recommendations are in substance adopted
by the Committee, Appendix II.
[49] This is also practically adopted in Report (see sections 221, 222,
224).
[50] "The short period during which, on an average, a colonist stays at
Hadleigh, and the absence of any power of detention, militate against
the possibility of financial success" (Vagrancy Report, section 267).
[51] Only 158 remained in Hadleigh Colony more than six months of 523
persons received during the two years ending September, 1904. Sixty
"satisfactory" cases were readmitted later (Vagrancy Report, sections
263, 264).
[52] See "How to Deal with the Unemployed" (Brown, Langham & Co.), pp.
181-184.
[53] See sections 268-271, Vagrancy Report, also Appendix III.
[54] The "way-ticket" system will partly meet this need, but it cannot
be properly met with without the provision of better lodging-houses,
well-regulated and sanitary.
[55] See sections 403-409, Vagrancy Report, Appendix IV. and VII.
[56] "We are strongly of opinion that some better provision should be
made to assist the man genuinely in search of work" (section 155).
[57] "It is most important to remove the excuse for casual almsgiving"
(section 155). (See also sections 385-388.)
[58] See evils of short sentences (Appendix V.).
[59] The comprehensive scheme for labour colonies is outlined in
sections 227-286, Vagrancy Report.
[60] "The general principle of a compulsory labour colony on habitual
vagrants may be borrowed from abroad, but the essential details must be
worked out at home." The proposal is to bring subsidised philanthropic
institutions to bear on the problem, but to form one State colony for
vagrants (Vagrancy Report, sections 277-305).
[61] The proposal to place the casual ward in charge of the police will
tend to this unification.
[62] See section 132, Vagrancy Report.
[63] The placing of the tramp ward under the police is a step in the
right direction, but further reforms are urgent in poor-law
administration.
[64] Section 179, Vagrancy Report.
[65] Section 130, Vagrancy Report.
[66] This need does not appear to be recognised in Vagrancy Report.
[67] Sections 184, 185, Vagrancy Report.
[68] Section 136, Vagrancy Report. The transfer of vagrancy charges to
police will greatly simplify the question of finance.
[69] Sections 95, 181, 308-10; sections 93, 148, 149, Vagrancy Report.
[70] Sections 345-388, Vagrancy Report.
[71] Sections 284, 285, 304, Vagrancy Report.
[72] Sections 178-182, Vagrancy Report.
[73] Section 300, Vagrancy Report.
[74] It is estimated that £100,000 is given away in London in a year to
street beggars (section 386, Vagrancy Report).
[75] "We believe that the best and simplest method of securing the
desired end (incentive to work) would be to allow the colonists to earn
by industry and good conduct small sums of money, a portion of which
would be retained till discharged and a portion handed over to them
weekly to spend, if they like, at the canteen of the colony." Vagrancy
Report, section 260.
[76] See enormous cost of casual wards, Vagrancy Report, Chap. IX.
Paddington cost £195, Poplar £219, and Hackney £346 _per head_. The
_average_ cost in the country is £60 and in London £150 per head. See
also "The Extravagance of the Poor Law," _Contemporary Review_, June,
1906.
[77] The proposed reforms go much further in the right direction. It is
to be hoped they will not be minimised in passing into law.
[78] See sections 403-409, Vagrancy Report. The Committee regard the
question of "female vagrants" as "comparatively unimportant." But it is
not sufficiently considered that the disparity in numbers of men and
women vagrants (887 females to 8,693 males on January 1st, 1905), and
the smaller numbers of women found "sleeping out," are due to the
existence of a possible method of livelihood for women by prostitution,
absent in the case of men, but exceedingly harmful to the State. The
temptation to prostitution through destitution should be as far as
possible removed. (See Chap. V.)
[79] See recommendations 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, Appendix II.
[80] The one objection to the Report is the delay consequent on the
necessity for legislation. It is a pity that there is not a
recommendation to proceed at once by Local Government Board Order in the
direction of the finding of the Committee. Legislation may be postponed
till after the Poor Law Commission.
[81] The author has more fully developed the psychical principles
involved in right classification of the undeveloped in an article
published in the _Contemporary Review_, June, 1906.