RECOMMENDATIONS OF RECENT COMMISSIONS.
It is now desirable to review the attitude towards this question of
three Commissions who have considered and reported upon it during the
past seven years--the Viceregal Poor Law Reform Commission for Ireland,
appointed in 1903, the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy appointed
by the President of the Local Government Board in July, 1904, and the
Royal Commission on the Poor Law, appointed in December, 1905.
The Irish Viceregal Commission, in their Report published in 1906, came
to the following conclusions:--
"Our opinion agrees with that of the majority of witnesses examined
before us, that people who are travelling about the country without
employment, without any means of their own, and who have to support
themselves by mendicancy or recourse to the Poor Law, or by sleeping
out, should be brought by the police before a court of justice. If
they could not then, or through the police or other agency after
remand, give satisfactory evidence (documentary or other), to the
court, of their being habitually hard working and self-supporting,
there should, we suggest, be power conferred upon a Court of
Jurisdiction to direct them to a Labour House in which the inmates
should, as is said to be the case in Belgian establishments, be
required to make or produce the food, clothing and necessaries for
such an institution. We think that, at all events to begin with, four
such Labour Houses might be established for Ireland, and that four
disused workhouses might be set apart for the purpose."[69]
[Footnote 69: Report of the Vice-Regal Commission on Poor Law Reform in
Ireland, Vol. I., p. 55.]
It may be observed here that the Royal Commissioners who inquired
into the working of the Irish Poor Law in 1833 recommended, in their
Report of 1836, that the able-bodied paupers should be employed in the
reclamation of waste land, in works of drainage and fencing, and in the
building of improved dwellings. They also recommended the establishment
of penitentiaries for vagrants, and the deportation of suitable persons
as free labourers to a non-penal Colony. Substantially this was the
method of treating loafers practised in Holland at that time.
The Vice-Regal Commission enumerated the following classes of people as
suited to detention in Labour Houses:--
(1) Rural vagrants over fifteen years of age.
(2) Urban loafers over fifteen years of age.
(3) Mothers of two or more illegitimate children except when nursing
infants.
(4) All parents who are unfit to be entrusted with the charge of their
children, except mothers nursing infants.
(5) Any able-bodied soldiers or ex-solders who are not self-supporting
or are not supported by the Military Authorities.
(6) Any able-bodied adult persons who may, at the instance of the
police or the local Poor Law Authority, be considered by a Court of
Justice as proper cases, owing to their failure to support themselves.
(7) Destitute able-bodied adults who may voluntarily desire to be
admitted as inmates; and
(8) Any destitute able-bodied adults who may be offered an order of
admission to a Labour House by Poor Law Authorities or their officials
in the prescribed manner, _i.e._, as a test of destitution.[70]
[Footnote 70: _Ibid._, Vol. I., p. 58.]
As to the character of the Labour Houses proposed, the Report of the
Commission states:--
"We should be sorry to see in them anything suggestive of more comfort
than can be derived from very hard work, enough of simple food, clean
healthy buildings, fittings and surroundings, but everything of the
plainest, roughest kind. After the first starting and equipment of
the Labour House we think that the inmates, all of whom would be
able-bodied, ought to be obliged to rely, as far as possible, on
their own labours for their support, and as a stimulus they should be
individually made to feel the necessity for personal exertion."[71]
[Footnote 71: _Ibid._, Vol. I., p. 55.]
The Commission further proposed that these Houses of Detention should
be provided and administered by the General Prisons Board and their
cost be defrayed by the National Treasury.
The English Committee on Vagrancy was the immediate outcome of the more
active interest taken in Poor Law circles in the question of vagrant
regulation during the years 1901 to 1904, and of the great increase in
vagrancy which took place during the trade depression of three of those
years.
It must be remembered that the Vagrancy Committee were called upon to
inquire into the case of wayfarers exclusively; nevertheless, some
of their recommendations are equally applicable to loafers of other
classes.
The terms of reference were--"To inquire and report with respect to
England and Wales as to (1) the law applicable to persons of the
vagrant class (_i.e._, the statutory provisions and the bye-laws,
rules, and regulations made thereunder); (2) the administration of the
law applicable to these persons; and (3) any amendments which should be
made in it or in its administration."
The findings of the Committee are crystallised in the words: "It is
clear to us that the present system neither repels nor reforms the
vagrant."
The negative and positive recommendations which were embodied in the
Committee's Report, a document marked by exceptional ability and
breadth of view, may be briefly summarised as follows. This Report is
the more important since the Poor Law Commission, wisely abstaining
from further inquiries into this aspect of Poor Law administration,
substantially endorsed the conclusions of the Vagrancy Committee and
the remedial measures based upon them.
The Committee accept the view that the relief of vagrants should
be altogether removed from the jurisdiction of the Poor Law and be
entrusted to the police, adding:--
"We have considered in detail the difficulties in the way of
this change, and on the whole, we see no reason to doubt that if
the importance of effecting it is once realised, the necessary
adjustments can be made without serious friction."[72]
[Footnote 72: Report of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy, Vol.
I., p. 34.]
In sympathy with this view the Committee would empower the police to
provide lodging for genuine wayfarers, but they would detain habitual
vagrants in Forced Labour Colonies.
"Our view is that means should be provided to allow of the habitual
vagrant being dealt with otherwise than under the Vagrancy Act, and
that as far as possible, he should be treated not as a criminal, but
as a person requiring detention on account of his mode of life. This
is the principle which governs the system adopted in Belgium under
the law of 1891. For this purpose we propose that a class of habitual
vagrants should be defined by statute, and that this class should
include any person who has been three or more times convicted during
a period of, say, twelve months of certain offences now coming under
the Vagrancy Act, namely, sleeping out, begging, refusing to perform
task of work in casual wards, or refusing or neglecting to maintain
himself so that he becomes chargeable to the poor rate. It will be
seen that we do not propose to create any new offence, and that under
the existing law, this class could be dealt with as incorrigible
rogues. Under this proposal, a means is provided of enabling the Poor
Law authorities to deal with the class of "ins and outs" who now cause
considerable trouble in workhouse administration. We suggest that
persons coming within this definition should be committed by a petty
sessional court to quarter sessions or assizes, and there dealt with
in the same way as the incorrigible rogue, with the exception that
the sentence should be committed to a labour colony for a term not
exceeding three years."[73]
[Footnote 73: _Ibid._, p. 59.]
The Committee further endorse the objections to short sentences which
have been advanced times without number by critics of the Vagrancy
Laws, and propose that delinquents committed to the proposed Labour
Colonies should be detained for not less than six months or more than
three years, but that there should be power to curtail a sentence when
a prisoner showed good conduct or earned a certain sum of money in
wages, as is done at Merxplas.
"The evidence we have received shows conclusively that from any
practical point of view, it is impossible to defend a sentence of a
few days. That it is in no way deterrent to the vagrant is the opinion
of all the witnesses.... We are so fully convinced of the futility and
needless expense of the short sentence, that we consider it necessary
to urge that in any case, where the magistrate deems it expedient to
give a sentence of less than fourteen days for a vagrancy offence, the
sentence should be for one day only.... A sentence for one day means
that the prisoner is detained until the rising of the court, and then
discharged. Under our proposal this sentence would be a conviction;
the conviction would be recorded, and the offender would be warned
by the court that on his second or third conviction he would be
imprisoned for a considerable period or, if our later recommendations
are accepted, he would be committed for a still longer period of
detention in a labour colony as a habitual vagrant."[74]
[Footnote 74: Report of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy, Vol.
I., pp. 51 and 53-54.]
The Committee adopted my view that Voluntary Labour Colonies of the
German type are useless for persons of the loafing class.
"It is clear that a labour colony of the German type is of little use
for dealing with persons of the tramp class. Mr. Dawson says that 'it
is not disciplinary in the coercive sense: it is purely voluntary;
the inmates can stay or not as they please.' Many of this type of
colonists come again and again, and are termed 'colony loafers.' They
correspond to the 'ins-and-outs' of our English workhouses. The object
of the colonies is to effect some moral reformation, but it appears
that three-fourths of the colonists have been previously imprisoned,
and there is no evidence that any substantial improvement results
from the time spent in the colonies. Mr. Dawson expresses his opinion
thus:--
'Speaking generally, I do not think that you can regard them as being
reformatory institutions. The inmates do not stay long enough and the
discipline is not severe enough.'"[75]
[Footnote 75: _Ibid._, p. 66.]
They also include the existing English Labour Colonies in the same
criticism. "None of these Colonies," they say, "is intended primarily
for persons actually belonging to the vagrant class; there is no
power of detention, and the conditions are generally superior to what
would be desirable in a Colony to which habitual vagrants would be
committed."[76]
[Footnote 76: _Ibid._, p. 70.]
The Committee further agree that a purely agricultural Colony is
altogether inferior to one in which trades and industries are carried
on in conjunction with farm work, and that only on this twofold basis
can a Labour Colony be conducted economically and efficiently.
"Apart from the fact that agriculture alone would not pay, the
experience of labour colonies is that agriculture could not be relied
upon as the sole employment for the colonists: on wet days throughout
the year, in frosty weather, and, indeed, during a great part of the
winter, but little farm work could be carried on; again, some of
the colonists would be quite unfitted for work of this character;
and, lastly, there would be difficulty in disposing of the surplus
agricultural produce without affecting outside industries. Everywhere
the managers of colonies have found it necessary to establish
workshops and various kinds of indoor industries in addition to work
on the land, and it seems clear that the organisation of indoor
industries must take the foremost place in a colony if employment has
to be found for a large body of colonists all the year round."[77]
[Footnote 77: Report of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy, Vol.
I., p. 80.]
Very wisely and necessarily, too, the Committee have called attention
to a danger which, unless closely watched, would discredit past
redemption any public Detention Colonies that might be established in
this country--the danger of launching into extravagant, foolish, and
needless expenditure on buildings and initial installation.
"We are strongly of opinion that as regards any buildings coming
within our proposals, means should be adopted to protect the ratepayer
from any expenditure that is not really necessary for the object in
view."[78]
[Footnote 78: _Ibid._, p. 87.]
The Committee would deal kindly with the private interests which may be
expected to raise an outcry against Labour Colony competition in the
labour market. While, however, they would restrict competition with
free industry as far as possible, they add the reservation that on that
principle free labour would not have to compete with the Colonies--in
other words, the latter should have a right to supply, if able, the
whole of their own needs.
The Committee would adopt in full the Continental practice of allowing
the inmates to earn wages out of which to supplement their food rations
and to save for the day of release.
"We realise the futility of establishing labour colonies for the
reformation of the habitual vagrant unless some means can be devised
of making him work: and it would be undesirable to have to resort to
constant punishment to enforce the performance of the daily task. The
punishments, too, would be limited; bread and water diet could not be
given continually, and confinement to a cell would probably soon lose
its effect. Compulsion, therefore, would in some cases be impossible,
and the inducements to good conduct and industry which are held out to
the inmates of prisons, such as letters or visits from their friends,
classification indicating superiority of some kind, and so on, would
scarcely appeal to the majority of the inmates of a vagrant colony. We
believe that the best and simplest method of securing the desired end
would be to allow the colonists to earn by industry and good conduct
small sums of money, a portion of which should be retained until their
discharge, and a portion handed over to them weekly to spend, if they
like, at the canteen of the colony in the purchase of extra articles
of food, tobacco, etc.; and the accumulation of a certain amount of
earnings might afford an opportunity for earlier discharge."[79]
[Footnote 79: _Ibid._, p. 77.]
It is worthy of note that the Merxplas theory of social reinstatement
is virtually embraced by the Committee, who say:--
"In the case of labour colonies, much expense in the way of buildings
and staff can be saved by adopting the view accepted at Merxplas, that
it is not worth while to go to great expense in preventing the escape
of the inmates. If a colonist escapes, and is able to support himself
without coming within the reach of the law, his escape from the colony
is no matter for regret; if he breaks the law and comes again before
a magistrate a proper system of identification will ensure his being
sent back to the colony. If the detention is intended not so much as a
punishment, but rather as a means of restraining the vagrant from his
debased mode of life, the risk of his escaping need not be regarded so
seriously as in the case of a criminal committed to prison to expiate
his crime."
Considering the question of finding employment for discharged
prisoners, the Committee recommend that the superintendent of each
police division should be responsible for the collection of information
as to work available in his district, and that this information should
be transmitted at frequent intervals to the chief constable of the
county, who would send complete lists to each police station and
to the casual wards for the inspection of those seeking work. This
recommendation was made before the decision to establish State labour
registries in all the large towns. Where this new machinery exists it
would clearly be expedient to use it, and for that purpose it would be
necessary for each Labour Colony to keep in constant touch with the
nearest official registry, receiving its periodical lists of vacant
situations, and notifying such reliable labour as it may have at
disposal. The public labour registries would in this way be helpful in
assisting discharged inmates to find industrial employment, but in so
far as agricultural work might be needed, the Colonies would probably
have to rely upon their own sources of information.
When they come to discuss the authorities which should establish and
be responsible for the maintenance of the Detention Colonies, some of
the Committee's recommendations seem to me to call for reconsideration.
They object to State-managed Colonies on the ground that the State
would provide institutions of the wrong kind, and would be sure to
establish either too many or too few,[80] and propose that the County
Councils and voluntary philanthropic and religious agencies should be
left both to establish and manage these institutions.
[Footnote 80: "There are no means of estimating approximately the
number of tramps who might properly be committed to labour colonies,
and it is even more impossible to estimate how many would actually
be committed if provision were made by law for the purpose. The
result of any Government Department undertaking to supply sufficient
accommodation for all the vagrants committed by the magistrates would
either be that the accommodation would be wholly inadequate for the
requirements, or, as is perhaps more probable, that public money
would be wasted in establishing and fitting up institutions in which,
for at all events some years, the provision made would be altogether
disproportionate to the number of inmates....
"There is another consideration to which we attach great weight, and
it is that labour colonies established by the State would inevitably
have to be all of the same type, and we have at present no sufficient
knowledge to determine exactly what that type should be."--Report, Vol.
I., pp. 75.]
The County Councils alone are, in my opinion, the proper authorities
to undertake this responsibility, and in entrusting it to them we
should only be reverting to the practice of the sixteenth century, when
the provision of places of work for vagrants was made incumbent upon
Quarter Sessions in every county.
Moreover, I hold still to the view, advanced in my evidence before
the Committee, that there is no warrant whatever for supposing that
private enterprise and philanthropy would be willing to provide the
funds necessary for establishing these Colonies. Nor, in my opinion,
is there any reason why they should. The disciplinary treatment of
the vagrant and the loafer is a public duty, and it cannot safely be
left to private effort, however well-meaning that effort might be. The
Voluntary Labour Colonies of the Continent and the English Colonies
of the Salvation Army type rest rightly on a private basis, for their
work is avowedly philanthropic and moral, and the men for whom they
exist come and go at will. Detention Colonies, on the other hand, would
be an essential part of the penal system of the country, and powers
of restraint such as they would exercise could not properly be placed
in the hands of private individuals or associations. I reassert the
contention, therefore, that the Colonies should be provided by the
counties according to requirements, the right being given to several
counties to combine for the purpose, with a view to avoiding any
unnecessary multiplication of establishments. At the same time private
Colonies would prove useful auxiliaries to the public Colonies in the
way indicated in the third chapter.[81]
[Footnote 81: _See_ pp. 89-91.]
One type of Colony alone the Committee would require the State to
provide--a Colony strictly penal in character for the reception of bad
cases.
"Although we have recommended that labour colonies should be
established and managed by county councils and voluntary agencies
rather than by the State, we are of opinion that it may be necessary
to have at least one institution under State control. It will no doubt
be found that certain of the habitual vagrants will not be amenable
to the discipline of the ordinary labour colonies, or from their
repeated escapes, and re-committals will need a more severe treatment.
We would suggest that instead of sending such cases to a prison, a
labour colony of a penal type should be established by the State. This
State labour colony should be conducted generally, on the lines of the
ordinary labour colony, except that the discipline enforced should
be more severe, and that escapes should be more carefully guarded
against. It would also be necessary to secure that it did not possess
attractions over the ordinary colonies, either in diet or other
respects."[82]
[Footnote 82: Report of Vagrancy Committee, Vol. I., p. 82.]
They propose also that all Colonies, however established, should be
certified by the Secretary of State, should be managed in accordance
with regulations issued by him, and should be subject to inspection by
officers appointed by him.
The Committee do not assent to the immediate abolition of the casual
wards. "We see no likelihood," they write, "of its being possible
to dispense altogether with casual wards for the reception of needy
wayfarers, at all events for some years,"[83] though they propose to
place them under the control of the police. As my own evidence is
cited in favour of abolition, it may be advisable to say that as an
alternative I suggested, as already explained,[84] the establishment
of hostels superior to the casual wards for the accommodation of
genuine work-seekers. I contend that the casual wards are too good
for the vagabond and not nearly good enough for the honest worker.
In Germany and Switzerland, as we have seen, accommodation equal to
that of a decent working man's cottage can be had in public hostels
by the certified wayfarer for the cost of a dirty bed in an English
"model" lodging-house, and if the ratepayer were relieved of the heavy
direct and indirect cost of maintaining the tramp, he would probably be
willing to make provision on generous lines for respectable wayfarers
desirous of finding employment.
[Footnote 83: _Ibid._, Vol. I., p. 34.]
[Footnote 84: _See_ Chap. III., pp 96-103.]
Something may, indeed, be said in favour of abolishing the casual wards
by degrees only, but the insuperable objection to their permanence is
that to retain the wards would mean the retention and toleration of the
tramp. It will be useless to wage war against vagrancy if we leave the
enemy in quiet possession of his cover. In any event it is clear that
until improved accommodation is provided for _bona fide_ work-seekers,
the casual wards will have to continue in some form. When such
accommodation exists, however, and the tramp is given the alternative
of work with freedom or work under restraint, the excuse for the casual
ward will disappear.
Meantime, the Vagrancy Committee wish to see genuine seekers of work
treated differently from the ordinary casuals, in having a merely
nominal task of work to perform, instead of one of nine hours, in
return for the relief given.
"Some means," they say, "should be adopted of discriminating between
the wayfarer who is genuinely in search of work and the idle vagrant.
Nearly all the witnesses we have examined have expressed themselves
in favour of some system of way-tickets as a means of helping the
_bona fide_ work-seeker on his way or of assisting to distinguish
such a case from the undeserving mendicant. The proposal is one which
has received general support. Although the _bona fide_ work-seeker
forms but a very small proportion of the total number of vagrants,
it is impossible to exclude this class from any consideration of
the vagrancy problem. The fact that under the present system the
working man on tramp who goes to a casual ward receives just the
same treatment there as the professional mendicant, is a direct
encouragement to indiscriminate almsgiving, as persons who give to
the beggar on the road have the excuse that he may be a _bona fide_
work-seeker who ought not to be treated like the ordinary vagrant.
We are strongly of opinion that some better provision should be made
to assist the man genuinely in search of work, not only because his
case merits different treatment, but because it is most important to
remove the excuse for casual almsgiving. It appears that in the case
of members of trades unions there is no need of any provision of this
sort....
"We propose the performance of a small task by the holder of a
way-ticket. It may be urged that if the man is _bona fide_ in search
of work he should not be required to do any task; but we consider that
a task of a useful but light nature will help to maintain a spirit
of independence, and at the same time act as a check to any abuse of
the facilities provided. In return for the food and lodging given,
it seems only right that the recipient should do some work, but we
think he should be free to do the work as soon as he wishes, either on
the day of arrival or the next day, so that he can leave the ward as
early as possible. For the way-ticket man we propose that there should
practically be no detention, and we think that he should generally
have better treatment and accommodation than the ordinary vagrants,
and be kept as far as possible apart from them. And it should be open
to him to remain at the ward for another night if he desires a rest on
his journey."[85]
[Footnote 85: Report of Vagrancy Committee, Vol. I., pp. 43 and 49.]
The passport or way-ticket system recommended by the Committee
is substantially that which has been carried on for years in
Westphalia[86] and other parts of Germany in connection with the Relief
Stations, as already described, and upon which the Swiss system was
modelled. The Committee say:--
[Footnote 86: For the rules of the Westphalian system of Relief
Stations, _see_ Chap. IX., p. 212-215, and for text of way-tickets,
_see_ Appendix II., p. 254-257.]
"We think that the police should be empowered to issue a way-ticket
to a man who can satisfy them either that he has worked at some
employment (other than a casual job) within a recent period, say three
months, and that he has reasonable ground for expecting to get work at
a certain place, and that he is likely to keep to it, or that he has
some other good ground for desiring to go to some particular place.
A case that might be dealt with under the latter description is the
sailor who has missed his ship, and wishes to get to some other port.
"The ticket should give the man's personal description, his usual
trade, his reason for wanting to travel, and his proposed destination,
and should contain his signature, and, possibly, his finger-prints for
the purpose of testing his identity. It should be in the form of a
book, something like the Swiss traveller's book, with spaces on which
should be stamped the name of each casual ward visited. We think that
the duration of the book should be limited to a certain period, say
one month. With this book, the man would go to the casual ward, and
be entitled to a night's lodging, supper, and breakfast, and, after
performing two hours' work to help to pay for his food and lodging,
he should be free to leave the ward whenever he likes. The name of
the next ward on the direct line of his route, which he can reach
that night, should be entered in the book, and if he arrived at that
place he should be treated in the same manner. The book would thus be
a record of the man's journey, and show clearly on the face of it
whether he is genuinely in search for work."[87]
[Footnote 87: Report of Vagrancy Committee, Vol. I., pp. 48, 49.]
There would appear to be no reason, however, why the issue of
way-tickets should be confined to the police, and the finger-print
method of identification, which is well enough for rogues and
vagabonds, would be an indignity in the case of _bona fide_ working
men. In both respects a certain degree of elasticity seems desirable.
Way-tickets might be issued by the State labour registries, the Charity
Organization Societies, and relieving officers, and in the case of
organised workers by their trade unions, without reference to the
police, and the less reputable class of way farers alone might be
required to apply to the local police office.
The Poor Law Commission have virtually endorsed the Detention Colony
proposals contained in the Report of the Vagrancy Committee, while
giving them wider application. The Vagrancy Committee considered the
vagrant alone; the Poor Law Commission considered him only in so far
as he uses the casual wards and hence falls upon public charity, and
even so quite incidentally as one among many types of mischievous
paupers with whose case existing Poor Law methods and institutions are
unable satisfactorily to deal. The recommendations of the Commission,
therefore, cover a wide field, yet so far as measures of discipline and
restraint go they coincide broadly with the proposals detailed in the
earlier pages of this book.
The Commission say in the Majority Report:--
"The last and most difficult class with which the Public Assistance
Committee will have to deal are those who, before they have any chance
of being restored to independence, require detention, discipline,
and training for a prolonged period. We may subdivide this class
into two divisions:--(1) Those unwilling to work; (2) those whose
character and behaviour are such that no employer will engage them....
It does not seem to us that the maintenance and detention of persons
who will not work, or whose recent character and conduct are an
inseparable bar to their re-entering industrial life, are within the
legitimate functions of a Public Assistance Authority. Detention under
disciplinary treatment affords the best hope of their reformation,
or of preventing them by their example or conduct from contaminating
those with whom they come in contact. They should be handed over to
that authority whose special duty it is to detain those whose presence
at large is a mischief to the community. Detention Colonies under the
control of the Home Office should, in our judgment, be established for
the reception of this class. We believe that no system of labour or
industrial colonies can be properly worked unless there is in reserve
a semi-penal institution, to which those who refuse to comply with the
rules and regulations of the colony can be sent upon proof of repeated
or continuous misconduct."[88]
[Footnote 88: Majority Report, Vol. II., pp. 544, 545.]
Elsewhere the Commission more particularly specify the following acts
as justifying detention:--
(_a_) Wilful refusal or neglect of persons to maintain themselves or
their families (although such persons are wholly or in part able to
do so), the result of such refusal or neglect being that the persons
or their families have become chargeable to the Public Assistance
Committees.
(_b_) Wilful refusal on the part of a person receiving assistance to
perform the work or to observe the regulations duly prescribed in
regard to such assistance.
(_c_) Wilful refusal to comply with the conditions laid down by the
Public Assistance Authority upon which assistance can be obtained,
with the result that a person's family thereby become chargeable.
(_d_) Giving way to gambling, drink, or idleness, with the result that
a person or his or her family thereby become chargeable.
They add:--
"The counterparts of the first two of the above offences are
already punishable under the Vagrancy Acts, and a third repetition
of them renders the offender liable to imprisonment for not more
than one year with hard labour. For this punishment we propose to
substitute committal to a Detention Colony for any period between
six months and three years. This proposal is in general harmony
with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy,
and we believe it to be essential to the proper treatment of the
ins-and-outs, the work-shy, and the loafer. Moreover, by removing
these cases to the care of another authority, the Public Assistance
Authority will be enabled to deal more effectively and more hopefully
with the better class of workmen applying for assistance."[89]
[Footnote 89: _Ibid._, Vol. II., p. 549.]
Again:--
"Stronger measures--particularly detention--should be taken in dealing
with the ins-and-outs. Public Assistance Authorities should have
power to retain the children of such under their care, and to take
proceedings to secure the detention and training of the parents in a
suitable institution or colony, until they are prepared to maintain
themselves and their families outside.
"Feeble-minded ins-and-outs should be detained in suitable
institutions according to the recommendations of the Royal Commission
on the Feeble-minded.
"For able-bodied ins-and-outs, who are incapable of maintaining
themselves permanently owing to want of discipline, application, or
skill, provision should be made by which they would labour according
to their strength, and support themselves as far as possible; more
varied work might be furnished, and their labour made more productive
in supplying the needs of the institution to which they are admitted.
"For those frequenting Public Assistance Institutions who are
confirmed drunkards, and persons leading immoral lives there should be
power of detention after their incapacity to lead a decent life has
been proved.
"Paupers well able to work, _i.e._, cases of persistent idleness,
should be referred to a Detention Colony under the Home Office."[90]
[Footnote 90: Majority Report, Vol. II., pp. 282, 283.]
As I have already shown, every one of these social offences is punished
by detention and disciplinary treatment in Forced Labour Colonies,
variously called, on the Continent. Not only so, but we have seen that
the power to commit to these institutions is in many towns exercised by
the Poor Law Authorities, either independently of or concurrently with
the police and the magistrates.
Beyond recommending that the Detention Colonies should be established
by the State, and that the local Public Assistance Authorities should
pay for the maintenance of individuals detained by their order or
request, the Commission do not go into details, but accept the general
conclusions of the Vagrancy Committee.
Not less gratifying than the attitude towards the question of vagrancy
of these official investigators is the widespread support which Poor
Law Authorities in general have given during the past several years to
the repressive policy which is now before the country. The proceedings
of the Poor Law Conferences and the Reports of Poor Law Inspectors
testify clearly to the new spirit which has come over public opinion.
Wherever we look, indeed, signs of changed opinions, abandoned
prejudices, and expectations of a new departure are visible. It is
not too much to hope and to ask that one of the first steps in the
reform of the law of public relief may be the subjection to wholesome
systematic restraint of all those parasitic sections of the population
which now abuse public and private charity. Only when they cease to
obstruct the path of the social reformer will it be possible to view
in its true proportions and relationships the momentous question of
society's obligation to the unemployed and the helpless poor.
APPENDIX I.
THE CHILDREN ACT, 1908, AND VAGRANTS.
Section 14 (Part II.) of the Children Act, 1908, provides:--
"(1) If any person causes or procures any child or young person or,
having the custody or care of a child or young person, allows that
child or young person to be in any street, premises, or place for
the purpose of begging or receiving alms, or of inducing the giving
of alms, whether or not there is any pretence of singing, playing,
performing, offering anything for sale, or otherwise, that person
shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding £25, or
alternatively, or in default of payment of such fine, or in addition
thereto, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not
exceeding three months.
"(2) If a person having the custody, charge, or care of a child or
young person is charged with an offence under this section, and it is
proved that the child or young person was in any street, premises, or
place for any purpose as aforesaid, and that the person charged allowed
the child or young person to be in the street, premises, or place, he
shall be presumed to have allowed him to be in the street, premises, or
place for that purpose unless the contrary is proved."
The Act (Section 20), also empowers a constable or any person
authorised by a justice to take to a place of safety any child or young
person in respect of whom an offence of the kind has been, or there is
reason to believe has been, committed, and (Section 21) where a person
having the custody, charge, or care of a child or young person has been
convicted of committing such an offence in respect of a child or young
person, or committed for trial for such offence, a Court of Summary
Jurisdiction may order the child or young person to be committed to
the care of a relative or other fit person until the age of sixteen
years, or for a shorter period, and (Section 22) may make an order for
maintenance during such period on the parent of or other person liable
to maintain the child or young person, up to the limit of £1 weekly.