RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 13 May 1870 vol 201 cc632-70

DR. BREWER

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory working of the regulations in force to secure the humane intentions of the Legislature in behalf of the Homeless Poor, consequent on the practically indiscriminate distribution of relief given to the whole class of applicants, criminal or not criminal, impostors or genuine poor; and, to move, That vagrants applying for shelter and food shall be put under the protection, regulation, and management of Police, said, that a reference to the original Poor Law institution of England, as based on various Acts passed between the reigns of Henry VII. and the 7th year of James I. showed that the evils that had then to be contended with arose from the fact that large numbers of dissolute and restless idlers, disbanded soldiers, and quondam lawless retainers had been thrown loose upon society. In the attempt to disintegrate the mass a division into three classes was made. The first consisted of the maimed, the diseased, and the impotent poor, for whom the Maisons Dieu, infirmaries, and hospitals were provided; the second, of the infant poor, for whom schools were built; and the third class, the idlers, the dissolute, the vagrants, and the incorrigible beggar, for whom Bridewells and institutions for correction were supported. This division had been the result of the constant preaching of Latimer, Ridley, and the most popular divines of that period; and it was felt then that it was requisite and essential to the good government of the State to separate from this mixed mass of pauperism this third and dangerous class, which then as now threatened the well-being of society. There was, then, nothing new in the proposal to place I this vagrant class under the supervision and regulation of the police, for that was the original and primal basis of the Poor Law institution of the country. That was still the law and practice of every other European State. No one had ever attempted to review the policy of the Legislature in respect to vagrancy without referring to an Order in Council passed in 1349, the year subsequent to that of the terrible plague called the "black death." That Order in Council was as follows:— No person shall give anything to a beggar that is able to labour, because that many valiant" (that is strong) "beggars as long as they may live on begging do refuse to labour, giving themselves to idleness and vice, and sometimes to theft and other abominations. No one upon said pain of imprisonment shall, under colour of pity or alms, give anything to such which may labour, or presume to favour them in their sloth and idleness, so that thereby those vagrants may be compelled to labour for their necessary living. That Order in Council was not passed into an Act until the succeeding reign, in consequence of the terrible state of disease under which the metropolis was labouring. It appeared to have been the result of the knowledge and intelligence of the celebrated man, well known to every lawyer in the House, John de Thoresby the Chancellor, the author of the celebrated Statute of Treasons, and like the Statute of Treasons, it went to the very root of the matter, by punishing not the man who received, but the man who gave the alms and thus made the mendicant. Just as in the case of the Statute of Treasons, the statute founded on the Order in Council he had quoted was undoubtedly passed before men's minds were sufficiently advanced to give the sanction of conscience to obedience to the statute, and, consequently it fell to the ground, the first offender in all these cases being, of course, the King, who was followed by the Church and Court to the detriment and scandal of the whole country. The next reign was celebrated and sullied, as the reign in which commenced a series of barbarous and novel enactments against beggars and vagrants, totally excluding from the operation of their sanctions, those who were the beggars' tempters and abettors. The Acts became impotent simply because they were outrageous and impossible. In more recent times, the introduction of machinery into agricultural and manufacturing pursuits did undoubtedly withdraw multitudes of labourers from one locality and attract them to another, and hence the migratory character stamped upon vast bodies of the agricultural and manufacturing population tended greatly to modify, if not to revolutionize, the sentiments of society generally and ultimately to reverse the policy of the Government in relation to vagrancy. In the sympathy which was felt for this class, the danger of vast bodies of agricultural and manufacturing workmen herding in large cities and in this great metropolis with the vagrant, the idle, and the dissolute, was lost sight of, until the vagrant, from his intractability, his immobility, and his ponderous apathy, became what was called master of the situation. The evil was increased by the number of charitable institutions intended for the relief of distress, but conducted without discipline, without classification, and without labour, whether as a means of education or as a test of condition. In 1856 there were in London 530 charitable institutions and nightly refuges and cognate societies, and the returns of the annual expenditure of the former class alone was £1,805,635. The returns of the night refuges and institutions of that description were then, as now, very defective, and, more than that, very unsatisfactory, and of their income we had no account. Of the working generally of these institutions those who had most deeply studied this subject for years, as it affected this metropolis, felt that what John de Thoresby said in his day was true also in this, for under colour of pity and giving alms, these institutions were simply provocative of the very evils which they were intended to mitigate and allay. The number of vagrants in London in 1856 was 1,205, which was supposed to be a seventh, or, more nearly, a sixth, of the entire vagrant population of England and Wales. The whole night admissions in every institution for the year were returned as 143,000. He had himself taken great pains, by the help of I men who had been all their lifetime employed in investigating the subject, and occupied in relieving the poor, to obtain, certain information as to how many of these admissions were wayfarers, or travelling mechanics and agricultural labourers, moving from place to place, seeking work, between 1856 and 1864. Now, though undoubtedly the number varied, not only according to the period of the year, but more especially according to the locality, if they put aside the night before the Derby, and the night before the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, they would find that the number of real wayfarers was never 6 per cent, and rarely more than 1 per cent. It would be remembered that in 1858 a very strong outcry was raised upon the subject of the homeless poor and vagrant classes in consequence of two children having wandered from their homes and taken refuge in a certain institution not far from Hatton Garden. In the year 1864 the number of night admissions rose, from 143,000 in 1856, to 216,549. The number of individuals making applications did not rise in proportion, but the recurrent admissions of the same individuals greatly increased. In fact, the casual character of the applicants was gradually lapsing into that of habitual vagrancy. Seven out of the 42 parishes to which he applied could give him no returns, because they had kept no books. Therefore their number, whatever it might be, must be added to the 216,549. But in the years 1863, 1864, and 1865 a vehement and continuous onslaught was made upon the metropolitan guardians for not supplying sufficient accommodation for the "casual" poor. Unfortunately, that word had done all the harm. If it had been the casual poor the guardians would have richly deserved it; but it was not the casual poor, and the erroneous use of that term had got them into all that trouble. In 1864 an Act was passed for distributing over the whole metropolitan area the charge incurred in providing food and accommodation for the wayfarers and the foundlings. Now that phraseology would not only not cover the whole mass of the applicants, but would touch only 1½ per cent, composed, as that vast aggregate was, of professional tramps, convicted thieves, and habitual vagrants who constitute the great proportion of the vagrancy of London, and of every large town where the vigilance of the police slumbers. Consequently, another Bill was passed in the following year, 1865, extending the provisions of the former Act beyond the wayfarers and the foundlings to wanderers and other destitute persons; but as the measure excluded all proper means of ascertaining the true character of the applicants, it really embraced all wanderers and all persons who preferred living at the expense of the public to maintaining themselves by monotonous industry. It was entitled the "Houseless Poor Act"—not the homeless poor, but the houseless poor, a very different thing. When he had spoken of the title and the provisions of that Act to his Continental friends who were engaged in dealing with vagrancy, they exclaimed—"England provides for the houseless poor; then we suppose she will next make provision for the landless poor." And when they found that was to be done without inquiry by the police into the character, antecedents, and modes of life of those classes, they added—"We know that England is very rich, but she must be very rich indeed to deal simply by the force of her money-bags with the part of any population which is the most difficult of all to govern." He had asked one eminent man, well known to the House, whether he was not astonished that men and women should yearly be found starving in the streets of that great metropolis; and his answer, which went to the root of the whole matter, was—"Not at all. The wonder is, that whole families of the humbler, self-supporting, labouring men, are not beggared and do not die of want with such a weight on their shoulders: and, as for the really destitute and those fallen into distress, what decent poor man or woman would mix with such a ruffian lot as in your vagrant wards must nightly congregate?" His friend referred him to the causes of crime, which were the same in England as in France and in Germany, and said that the records of the prisons showed that, next to drunkenness, the generality of crime arose from the desire to acquire property with a less degree of monotonous labour than the ordinary industry required to obtain it honestly. That statement corre- sponded with the confession of criminals themselves, which proved that among the pauses of crime, next to drunkenness, was the desire, as they expressed it, to "shake a free leg," which means intolerance of control, love of ease, sloth, and sensuality. From those causes proceeded the large number of our convicted felons, who were inextricably interwoven with our vagrant population. In Mr. Doyle's Report for 1866 there was this passage— As a general rule in this district the casual ward of the workhouse, so far from being the temporary refuge of the deserving poor, is a place of rendezvous for thieves and prostitutes, and other vagrants of the lowest class. The Houseless Poor Act he conceived to have been a complete reversal of all the legislative policy of this country, not only because it gave to persons who called themselves destitute, but of whose destitution they had no proof whatever, a primal right or lien on property, but also because it gave to a man who had no house a right prior to, and greater than that of the self-supporting labouring ratepayer; for, as everybody knew, the rates were due in advance, and the law had no scruple about selling the bed, the chair, and the table of the honest working man to meet the collector's demand. The Houseless Poor Act excluded all possibility of such a check or guarantee against imposition as was contemplated even by Socialism, and it required the vagrant wards to be open from 6 o'clock in the evening to 8 the next morning, so that the persons admitted to them came there and remained during the hours of the day when the best or only chance of getting employment, if they really wanted it, presented itself. Thus they, as it were, actually initiated the inmates of those wards into habits of idleness by their system. He had himself conversed with occasionally respectable vagrants in a casual ward, and they had told him that the institution was simply a herding together of the helpless and the accidentally indigent with the worst and most depraved portion of society. The most alarming feature of the operation of this law was afforded by the Returns he had received from every parish and union in the metropolis on the following four points—first, the number of men, women, and children admitted in the year ending Michaelmas, 1869, compared with those admitted in 1864; secondly, the proportion of those admitted in 1869 whose settlements were believed to be in the country or abroad—this belief being not based simply on the statement of the applicant, but on the knowledge and experience and investigation of the officials; thirdly, the proportion of those who, within the same period, were believed to be of the criminal class; and, fourthly, the supposed proportion of recurrent admissions. The total number of admissions in the metropolitan area in casual wards, exclusive of night refuges and other charitable institutions, was 614,088. Taking, then, the number of vagrants in England and Wales as 6,692, the admissions in the casual wards of the metropolitan workhouses alone would give to all the vagrants 92 nights' lodging in 1869. But the calculation was, that in all cases of wayfarers and non-professional tramps, including casual sickness, 30 nights a year for each was an ample and most sufficient average. But this was very far short of the real state of things. The admissions into hospitals, night refuges, charitable institutions, and prisons into which the London vagrant found his way swelled this average into not less than 120. But we knew that, although the number of vagrants might be diminished in certain counties, yet all the vagrants of England and Wales had not spent the year in London. It was simply undeniable that the following conclusion must be drawn:—First, that the operation of the Act had worked notable increase in the number of vagrants; and, secondly, that the number of habitual vagrants, vagrants who continued vagrants, and made vagrancy a trade was correspondingly increased. Of the proportion which immigrant vagrants bore to the whole of the admissions, he could not give a perfectly accurate table, because in 273,939 admissions only, out of the total 614,088, had the officers of 42 Unions and parishes taken the precaution to observe and report. He had divided the parishes into two; the first batch of 147,003 gave 116,939 not belonging to the London vagrant classes; the second batch of 126,936 gave the number not belonging to London as 106,938. This, therefore, would give in 273,939 only 50,062 to London vagrants properly so called; but it must be borne in mind that the accommodation in night refuges and cognate institutions for vagrants was omitted. It was no part of his object to strain matters; but he contended that the Act had allured to London and to a vagrant life in London a very large proportion of those who found nightly admission to the night wards, and this had operated on a scale of such magnitude that if the estimated number of nights for wayfarers were applied in the calculation, the number of ascertained vagrants would have risen to 20,453, and that from prisons and other refuges to 11,000 or 12,000 more. But this deduction was opposed to the direct testimony borne in respect of night refuges in the metropolis; the recurrent admissions varied from 9–10ths every three months to 1–8th. But some most intelligent officers stated to him—"They see throughout the year the same faces, the admission suspended only during the term of imprisonment." But the now very nearly accurate information as to the external character of the vagrants and the number of night admissions proved that the wayfarer was a very rare bird indeed—that the vagrant was now the habitual, and unless instant action be taken this incorrigible class would be not simply dangerous but a stigma to civilization. Of the proportion of convicted thieves among the vagrants he had no accurate returns from the vagrant wards; but of their existence in dangerous numbers, especially in some Unions, he had very clear and valuable evidence. In St. Mary's and St. John's, of 23,605 admissions—15,199 men and 6,861 women and 1,545 children—50 per cent were of the criminal class. In St. Luke's, Middlesex, a somewhat lawless quarter, two-thirds of the vagrants were ascertained to live on plunder, and had been convicted of theft. In St. Pancras the number of that class was only 15 per cent; in the Strand it was 25 per cent. In St. Olave's the account was less favourable still. In Rotherhithe the proportion was 50 per cent. In Wandsworth it was 33 per cent. As regarded the City, the account of a most intelligent officer contained this statement—"There are few who are not more or less belonging to this class." In Kensington also the account was unfavourable. In St. Mary's, Islington, Mr. Hicks bore the same testimony as was borne of the vagrants in the City. In Holborn, where the number of admis- sions had risen from 2,631 to 15,882, petty thieves constituted one-half the admissions. In Hendon things were similar. In St. Georges Hanover Square, 25 per cent of the vagrants had been convicted of crime. In Fulham, while 30 per cent had been in prison, 15 per cent had been committed for felony. In Clerkenwell the criminal class was but 1 per cent, and in Brentford it was 5–16ths. He did not want to unduly press these statistics on the House; but as many Members might, as he had done, frequently visit vagrant wards, and have given much attention to this subject, the evidence adduced in these returns would probably show them that of which he had taken much pains to convince himself—namely, that a proportion dangerously great for public safety of the dangerous classes was mixed up with the vagrant proper. Having then shown that the vagrant class in London had been vastly augmented, he would state in two Lines the actual magnitude of the number. In the tables of the population of London from 18 to 39—the ages which included by far the largest proportion of male vagrants—there were 478,500 males. In the night admissions of the year 1869 the male admissions numbered 370,413. They must take away from 478,500 all men in the metropolitan prisons, all in hospitals, and all in nightly refuges, all in charitable institutions of all classes of this age, and then see whether 370,413 admissions into workhouse vagrant wards of the male population was not something alarming enough. It was a fact unparalleled in Europe. No metropolis could endure the like, and yet in England the consumption of solid food per head of the whole population exceeded that of France, Prussia, Spain, Belgium, as well as that of the more Southern States, in the following proportion:—In Prussia the consumption of bread per head of the whole population was, according to the tables of Professor Kolb, 324lb. per annum; in England, 450lb.; in France, 495lb. The consumption of animal food per head of the population was in Prussia, 35½lb.; in France, 46 3–10lb.; and in England, 136lb. per annum. Professor Entemann, of the Lower Chamber of Berlin, had told him that in that metropolis, estimated in 1864 as possessing 633,749 inhabitants, a vagrant population was never allowed to exist as a permanent incubus upon the people, and, in fact, not 60 individuals coming under that description existed. No country except England would undertake to provide for the nightly accommodation of a wandering population. Taking the smaller towns of the North German Confederation, he found that in Lübeck the number of vagrant poor in 1862 was 46; in 1864 it was 57; in 1867, just after the War, it rose to 74; but in 1868 it had again fallen to 34. The vagrant population in that country was regarded as so closely connected with the criminal population as to form one of the dangerous classes. The returns he had obtained from France were not stated with sufficient clearness to be of much use in supporting his view of the question; still they showed that the police in Paris were in the habit of treating vagrants as belonging to the dangerous classes. The course adopted in that city was to educate the vagrants by means of hard and useful work, and every care was used to prevent the children of such persons from following in the footsteps of their parents. It had been stated that the French law did not recognize pauperism, and that no provision in the way of rates was made for the maintenance of paupers; but the various charities for the relief of the poor in that country were supported largely out of the communal revenues, which were principally derived from the octroi and similar imposts. He had intended to enter at length into the details of a scheme he had drawn up for the regulation of our vagrants; but he felt that the state of the question and his own position in that House would render such a course on his part both offensive and presumptuous. He did not think, under these circumstances, that his Motion would be objected to as being a mere abstract Motion, because he had pointed out the existence of a serious evil, and had indicated its source and the remedy that lay in the hands of the Government. He had shown the necessity that existed for placing these undisciplined, unclassified, and ungoverned persons under a uniform discipline, an accurate classification, a firm government, and for imposing upon them a labour test. He had forborne to lay before the House an immense mass of matter relating to the counties and affecting the larger towns of England, because there were so many hon. Members in that House who had devoted much of their time to the study of this subject, and who might take that opportunity of putting the House in possession of their views. But he believed he had amply proved the necessity that existed for the unfortunate and dangerous class to which he referred being taken in hand by the direct Executive of this country, and not left under local management—that the remedy involved elements too complicated to be entrusted to any but the Executive authority of the State. Steps should be taken to separate the accidentally poor from the professional vagrant living by crime. Such a protection was absolutely needful for the safety of the country no less than for the progress of civilization. What was especially needed in this country was organization and unity of action. He thought that the House would agree that the utter absence of all control, of all attempts at reclamation, and of all efforts to get at the children of these unhappy men and women constituted a danger which local agency could not cope with, and he would conclude by moving his Resolution.

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

, in seconding the Motion, said, that he wished to make a few observations as to the operation of the law, especially in his own part of the country. The Macclesfield Union a short time ago published a statement as to the increase of vagrancy during the last few years. They stated that the number of vagrants in Macclesfield was in 1860, 378; and that in the following years to 1864 the numbers were—416, 1,154, 4,934, 4,229; in 1865–6 the numbers were nearly the same; in 1867, 4,036; in 1868, 5,785; and in 1869 the number reached was 8,245. Now, as to the treatment that might be supposed to have brought about this state of things. The guardians, in reply to the circular letter of the Poor Law Board upon vagrancy, stated that at one period they had tried a strict system, and at another a lenient one; and the result was, that they had come to the conclusion, that no system, be it humane or strict, harsh, and severe, would operate as an effectual check to vagrancy. This coincided with a very able Minute of Mr. Charles Buller, in 1848, in which he said that experience had shown that the roughness and coarseness of fare only inflicted hardship upon the really meritorious and destitute, and did not counterbalance the inducement that the certainty of food and shelter held out to the dishonest vagrant. These were important facts, and showed that the treatment of such a vast amount of vagrancy must be a matter of great difficulty. It was all very well to place vagrants under the control of the police, but something more must be done to stop the evil effectually. In his (Mr. Bromley Davenport's) opinion, future generations must be looked to; and though it might be too late to turn the adult vagrant from his evil courses, yet the country ought to adopt measures to prevent a fresh brood of paupers from being produced every day. The children of vagrants, in order that they might be prevented from following the bad habits of their parents, should be educated in a special manner, so that their vagrant and predatory instincts might be eradicated. He had himself proposed several years ago to place the whole class of vagrants under the police, and the proposal met with the favourable consideration of the House; but the plan was never carried fully into effect, and he now hailed with satisfaction a proposition to effect the same object.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, vagrants applying for shelter and food should be put under the protection, regulation, and management of the Police,"—(Dr. Brewer,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. CORRANCE

said, that at the commencement of this Session he expressed his regret that the Government had not mentioned the great subject of pauperism in the Queen's Speech; but since then he had somewhat modified his opinion in consequence of seeing the large amount of business that the House had undertaken, for he should be sorry to see such a question as this entered upon without an adequate prospect of their being able to deal with it in some efficient manner and arriving at a proper end. At the time to which he had alluded he had also expressed the hope that the Session would not be allowed to pass by without some private Member bringing the matter before the House, and in his opinion they were much indebted to the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Brewer), who had done so in so able a manner. In the course of last Session he (Mr. Corrance) himself undertook to introduce the whole general question of pauperism, and when he placed his Notice upon the Paper it was certainly his intention to have given some prominence to the question that they were now discussing. But it might have been observed that he really treated this matter as but a subordinate part of the question, and he had reason for doing so, for when he came to enter more fully into the subject it seemed to him that this question of vagrancy scarcely entered into the general question of pauperism itself, but stood almost completely apart from it. This opinion was greatly confirmed by further researches in the same direction. It seemed to him that this question of vagrancy was never thoroughly contemplated in the Act of 1834, but was introduced only collaterally, as forming a subordinate part of the measure; and indeed in succeeding times there was very little mention of it. In 1866, Mr. Cave, one of the Poor Law Inspectors, stated that— Although the Commissioners laid down very exact, and even minute regulations for the management of the permanent inhabitants of a workhouse, they issued no regulations for the treatment of vagrants; and Guardians were left to treat the casual poor in any manner which seemed expedient to each Local Board. The first system of the Poor Law Board was based upon local settlements and removals and a very strictly defined system of local administration, and it scarcely embraced the case of such a large and erratic class as the vagrants. At first also there was not sufficient central power, and the powers of the Commissioners were renewed from year to year until 1839. At that time the wants of the vagrant class became apparent, and in 1844 the District Asylums Act was passed in reference to London to meet the most pressing wants. The operation of that statute was very much like that of the Houseless Poor Act of the present day, and it attracted a large proportion of homeless men to London. It seemed to have been a failure, for in 1848 the Minute of the Board, to which reference had already been made, was issued, and in it they said— The Board are unable to suggest any additional test or punishment that shall prevent the abuse of relief indiscriminately extended to every stranger who may represent himself as destitute. A sound and vigilant discrimination in respect of the objects of relief, and the steady refusal of aid to all who are not ascertained to be in a state of destitution, are, obviously, the most effectual remedies against the continued increase of vagrancy and mendicancy. The Minute went on to state— The Guardians must, therefore, encounter the responsibilities of their position, and entrust the business of administering relief to officers who shall possess sufficient discrimination to distinguish those whose urgent destitution gives them a claim to relief from those who throw themselves habitually on public charity because it is extended to all who choose to ask it. This showed that the Board was utterly incompetent to prescribe remedies to meet this case, and tasks were imposed upon the guardians which they could not perform. They had not efficient officers for this work, and how were those officers to ascertain the condition of the casual wayfarer? The system itself precluded this, for it was essentially a local system. The result was that Boards of Guardians acted more or less upon their discretion; and about 10 years afterwards there were some unpleasant symptoms, though there was nothing that brought the matter to direct issue. Towards 1860, however, there were circumstances which took place in London that gave rise to considerable scandal. Some Boards of Guardians had acted with humanity, and others with the greatest severity; and it happened that people applied, were refused admission, and died. This attracted the attention of the House. A Committee sat in 1864, and the result was the passing of the Houseless Poor Act. The Report of that Committee was very interesting, and speaking of vagrants it said that this class was a distinct and separate class; that their habits were predatory, and that their means of living were means of robbing. In 1868 the next official notice of the matter took place; and it would be pretty evident from this document that the Poor Law administration had, under ordinary circumstances, been found to be thoroughly deficient and incapable of exercising efficient control over this class of people. He believed that the Poor Law Board had done its utmost in this direction— that it had issued good Minutes founded upon correct information, but that the guardians had not been competent to carry them out. That Department, however, was not the only one concerned, for representations had also been made to the Home Office, as he should show—no later than last year—in a correspondence with the Chief Constable of Cumberland and Westmoreland. The Chief Constable wrote— Chief Constable's Office, Carlisle, 1st February, 1869. Dear Sir,—In reply to your communication I have much pleasure in enclosing for your information an extract from my Report to the last Michaelmas Quarter Sessions, in relation to tramps and vagrants. The police of these counties have orders to use their utmost exertions to apprehend persons found committing offences against the Act 5 Geo. IV. c. 83. No doubt they experience pretty much the same difficulty in tracing out this class of offenders as is found to exist in connection with the discovery of crime generally. However, they did succeed, as you will see from my Report, in apprehending 524 persons. I need hardly say that the police would not be justified in apprehending persons simply because they bore the appearance of tramping vagrants. As to there being any difficulty in tracing out offences committed by tramping vagrants, I can only say that no insuperable difficulties have been in these counties, and, since the magistrates have uniformly enforced the law there was in the two counties during the year ending on the 29th of September, 1868, a decrease of 6,935 tramping vagrants, while various petty larcenies, burglaries, and other crimes decreased in a most remarkable proportion. My opinion is that a large proportion of tramps go about the country for the purposes of plunder, and I feel persuaded, from the experience we have had in these counties, that if the law were generally carried out professional tramping' as a profession, might be very speedily and successfully grappled with.—Believe me to be, dear Sir, always very faithfully yours, (Signed) J. DUNNE, Chief Constable of the Counties of Cumberland and and Westmorland. To J. B. B. Baker, Esq., &c, Hardwicke Court, Gloucestershire. 'Your Committee consider it necessary to specially draw the attention of the Court to the great public evils that arise from the habitual depredations committed by tramps and vagrants. A large majority of the crimes in the county are committed by such persons. The daily average number in Westmorland was this year 35, showing an increase of 10 as compared with last year; and your Committeee are of opinion that it would be greatly conducive to the public interests if the laws in regard to those persons were in every case most strictly administered.' He believed that he was right in saying that the Home Office had taken very little notice of that communication, or of further representations made to that Office by General Cartwright in his Re- port; and, at all events, it had produced no corresponding action. Were the Home Office authorities waiting for the Poor Law Board, or the Poor Law Board waiting for the Home Office, or was it a case of divided responsibility? He believed that the Poor Law Board had done its best, but the Home Office had done very little, and not taken any prompt or efficient measures to meet the necessities of the case. He was inclined to think that if the Home Office had co-operated more frankly and freely with the Poor Law Board the result might have been much more satisfactory. The facts to which he had alluded were the data upon which he came to the conclusion that this matter was scarcely one which the Poor Law Board could deal with if left to itself. There was a great deal of collateral evidence upon this point; and some of it referred to the horrible places in which tramps lived. In reference to the tramps' lodging-houses in Bristol it was stated— Any person of respectability resorting to these places would be the exception and not the rule. Remaining there above two or three nights would raise the strongest presumption against any man's character, and any man residing there for several nights may safely be considered a rogue or a scamp of some sort or other. There does not appear to be much difference in those frequenting them. The class appears to be tramps, low thieves, receivers of stolen property, begging letter writers, and rogues of every description. All those frequenting them are ruined, dead ruined—all lost as if they did not belong to humanity. They are so lost that they cannot be reformed. Those places are schools for ruining the souls and bodies of all children entering them. The general opinion seems to be that some of these houses are frequented by particular classes of rogues. In answer to another question it was said— They are not brothels in the usual acceptation of the word, but every man or lad bringing a woman or young girl there would unhesitatingly be received and no questions asked. How could they be asked? It makes me sick at heart when I think of the prostitution going on among the children. Mr. Barwick Baker, of the Manchester Statistical Society, had published a paper in reference to these classes, and showed what was a very serious matter, that the number composing them had of late years very greatly increased. No doubt the casual visitors were likely to be over registered by being put down two or three times; but still allowing for this the figures were very serious. Mr. Baker stated that the numbers of vagrants and tramps from 1858 to 1867 were as follows:—22,559, 23,353, 22,664, 24,011, 29,504, 33,182, 29,114, 33,690, 33,191, and 32,558. And what made the matter even worse was that the proportion of vagrants to tramps had greatly increased. He would remind the House that the two classes—vagrants and tramps—embraced all houseless wanderers, and that there was one class of wayfarers—namely, those who were looking for work or changing their residence—who were properly entitled to relief. Mr. Baker said— The next thing which strikes us is the varying proportions of vagrants to tramps. In 1851 the vagrants were one-tenth of the whole, and with some variation continued so till, in 1866, they became one-eighth, and in 1867 one-sixth of the whole. This may be fairly explained when we come to the history of the last two years. It should, however, be noticed that the increased number of tramps since 1856, as distinguished from vagrants, cannot have been caused by Poor Law regulations, seeing that they are entirely independent of them. Yet from 1858 to 1865, when they reached their highest point, the tramps—exclusive of vagrants—increased from 20,317 to 30,190, or by nearly one-half; and since then, while the vagrants have been largely increasing, have receded to 27,481. There could be no doubt whatever that the vagrant class was a criminal class; and the House would from these figures perceive the correctness of the proposition with which he started—namely, that such a class could not possibly be dealt with by means of a merely local administration. And as the guardians of the poor could not exercise proper supervision over such a class, they had acted on the plan of getting rid of them and passing them on to another parish. Mr. John Lambert, the author of an ably written pamphlet on the subject of The Vagrancy Laws and Vagrants, quoted Shakespeare in one part of his work, where he puts in the mouth of Dogberry words which Mr. Lamberts says has since formed the practical code for the guidance of Bumbledom— Dogberry.—This is your charge: you shall comprehend all vagrom men; you are to bid any man stand in the prince's name. 2nd Watch.—How if he will not stand? Dogberry.—Why then take no note of him, but let him go; and presently call the rest of the watch together, and thank God you are rid of a knave. The great anxiety of the authorities appeared to be to get rid of the troublesome vagrant, who was everything that was disagreeable and objectionable, and who could not be said to be clean even when washed. With regard to the local magistrates, he was afraid matters were not much better. He confessed he had often found it hard to send a man to prison for sleeping in a barn or under a hedge. If humanity was called forth on such occasions, how much more was it strengthened when the offender was a woman? He had recalled to memory the words of Crabbe, in his poem entitled The Hall of Justice. In speaking of the vagrant, the poet puts this plea in the mouth of a woman— My crime!—This sickening child to feed— I seized the food, your witness saw; I knew your law forbade the deed, But yielded to a stronger law. Know'st thou to Nature's great command All human laws are frail and weak? I saw the tempting food, and seized— My infant-sufferer found relief; And, in the pilfered treasure pleased, Smiled on my guilt, and hushed my grief. He thought there were many magistrates who, in answer to that plea, would say— Receive our aid, and then again The story of thy life disclose. For though seduced and led astray, Thou'st travelled far and wandered long; Thy God hath seen thee all the way, And all the turns that led thee wrong. Now, he had heard several suggestions from both sides of the House, as a remedy for the evils complained of. Education had been urged. He only asked the House this question—how was it possible to get at the class of vagrants in order to apply that remedy? It was simply impossible to bring education to bear upon the vagrant class. He should have much greater confidence in a system of strict and accurate supervision. Let the vagrants first be found out—then let them be labelled and ticketed by the police, and handed over to be dealt with by the Poor Law Board or by the Home Department.

MR. STAPLETON

said, he viewed this subject as one of great and increasing importance. The reforms that were taking place in other Departments increased the difficulty of applying a remedy to vagrancy. The more careful the Government were in selecting men for the Army and Navy, the greater were the difficulties with which his right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Board had to contend. In former times the idle spirits of the country, and those who, from bad character, were unable to obtain work, found refuge in the Army or Navy; but now that both of these services were exhibiting greater care in the selection of the men they admitted into them, they were, in effect, adding considerably to the army of vagrants. It would, no doubt, be very beneficial if some plan or system were established by which those persons could be reformed. But any such plan, he was afraid, would be so extremely difficult and expensive to carry out that he was hardly sanguine enough to hope to see it put in operation. In the meantime, however, something effectual might be done to check the great evil of which they complained. That something must be done through the Home Department. And here he thought they suffered much by that system of divided authority which at present existed. At night the vagrants went for shelter to the Department of his right hon. Friend, and in the daytime they betook themselves to the practice of begging in the public streets. Unless, then, the beggar was effectually put down, this army of vagrants would go on increasing in numbers. If we had an efficient police, determined to put a stop to begging, a great blow would be struck at the root of this evil. At present the police did not seem to think it was part of their duty to interfere with mere beggars, unless they were actually given to them in charge; and, of course, private persons were very reluctant to give beggars in charge. It was the duty of the Home Department and the municipal authorities to see that the existing law in reference to this subject was fully carried out. If vagrants understood that they could not, on being discharged from the vagrant ward, spend the day in begging with intimidation, they would be obliged to take work if they could get it, and if they could not, it was better that they should become permanent paupers.

MR. C. S. READ

said, he thought the practical experience of guardians of the poor for rural districts would lead them to view with favour the Motion of the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer). There was no doubt that vagrants, as a class, were semi-criminal; and, therefore, it was for the police, rather than the guardians of the poor and the relieving officers, to grant them casual relief. In all those Unions where the police had been made relieving officers for the vagrant class, a certain amount of improvement had taken place. It had been said that no treatment could possibly reduce the number of vagrants; but he was quite sure that if a uniform labour test and the cold bath were regularly applied they would have a good effect. There was nothing vagrants disliked so much as cold water; but the misfortune was that in the rural workhouses there were not officers enough to impose upon the vagrants this penal ablution. The House would agree with him in saying that ever since the President of the Poor Law Board took office he had done all he could to reduce the number of vagrants. If, however, the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish hawkers' licences were carried, the flood-gates of vagrancy would be opened in the rural districts, and they would be inundated by vagrants whom there would be no power of checking or means of punishing.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he thought it something foreign to the duties of the police that they should be turned into relieving officers, and that to invest them with these functions would be attended with consequences which were scarcely appreciated. The Poor Law Guardians ought to be better instructed in their duties, and the auditors ought to be directed to disallow the large sums which were now expended upon vagrants—an expenditure which was entirely illegal and unauthorized, and which was almost the only cause of the present difficulty, and of the alarming increase of vagrancy. The hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) did not sufficiently recognize the legal distinction between vagrants and casual poor. Vagrants were persons who could give no satisfactory account of the way in which they got their living; they included idle and disorderly persons, rogues and vagabonds, and incorrigible rogues. There was nothing better known to the law than the offence of vagrancy. Vagrants wilfully threw themselves upon the chances of begging and illegitimate modes of obtaining a livelihood, while a pauper was a person who, although in want of sustenance for the time, could distinctly account for that circumstance when called upon to do so. The place at which he (Mr. Whalley) lived was upon the highway, between two labour districts; and it had come to be recognized by guardians, magistrates, and police, that it was an excuse for vagrancy that a man was in want of work. It had now become a recognized excuse for vagrancy that a man was out of work. But no man had a right to wander about in search of work at the expense of the country. The Poor Law Guardians had allowed themselves to drift into a system of tolerating vagrancy; and the magistrates in many cases disregarded their duty and the law they had to administer in their suggestions how tramps should be provided for. The magistrates ought to treat vagrancy as an offence, and one of a grave character, seeing that it lay at the root of so many other offences. Their excuse was the want of accommodation in our prisons, and the expense to the county of committing vagrants. But in districts where magistrates had taken cognizance of the law, and had instructed the police to deal with persons who could not give a reasonable account of how they got their living, vagrancy had almost entirely disappeared. This was so in Merionethshire; and in Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire the same results were beginning to flow from the same system. The Poor Law Board should direct the guardians not to apply the money of the ratepayers for the support of this criminal class of the population, but should require the police to interfere in all cases except that of the casual poor, which was a distinct class, and should also require the magistrates to enforce the law against vagrants.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, this was no doubt a very grave question for all who had a share in the administration of the Poor Law. During the last few years there had been a great increase in the number of persons relieved in the casual wards, and he believed it was generally admitted that the present system tended rather to increase than suppress vagrancy. In the opinion of gentlemen of great experience it was doubtful whether Poor Law Guardians were the persons who should be entrusted with the duty of dealing with vagrancy. In the country they generally held their sittings only once a fortnight, and their officers had not the knowledge which should qualify them to distinguish between the criminal and the really deserving vagrants. The question was how should this discrimination be exercised, and the suppression of vagrancy be at- tempted. His hon. Friend (Dr. Brewer) had referred to the system, in France; but had not alluded to the dépôt de mendicité outside Paris, where these classes were treated. Falling into the hands of the police, vagrants were regarded as guilty of an offence against the law and were sent to this depôt, where they were detained for varying periods and were immediately set to work, the employment being suited to the capacity of the weakest and the most ignorant. At his visit one fact struck him as of great importance. Here was the one workhouse of Paris, containing no more than 900 persons of both sexes—little more than half the number in the casual wards of London—and it acted as a great educational institution. Eight or nine different industries were practised there with success, and all the inmates were compelled to labour if they were capable of using their hands in any way whatever. Thus they acquired the habit of working, and when discharged they received 20 francs, sometimes more, and were told that with this sum they must either go home or put themselves in the way of getting work; and if they came there again they were detained for a longer period. He saw there persons who in England would be considered wholly incapable of any kind of labour; but at this institution labour of some kind was found for them, and that labour was most beneficial to them and, in its after results, to the community. An able Minute written by the late Mr. Charles Buller had been quoted; but one passage had been omitted which deserved consideration. He said— The task work prescribed and found useful where it has been properly applied has, from its being only occasionally enforced, exercised no general influence as a test; and the laws against vagrancy and disorderly conduct have failed to produce the effect of repression. Now, those words, used in 1848, were, he thought, quite applicable to the year 1870. The truth was, the machinery for the repression of vagrancy was wholly inadequate. The question of vagrancy was, he might add, not properly speaking a Poor Law or charitable question. Means might be found even under police administration to provide that those who became accidentally destitute, or who were honestly endeavouring to work for a living, should be taken care of with the tenderness which their misfortunes might justify. He held in his hand, however, a report which was not long ago made to the Guardians of the Whitechapel Union by the clerk of the Union, who was a very competent authority on the subject. In that report he stated that 64 persons were relieved in the casual wards on a certain night, and that of those only one could be said, in the strict sense of the word, to be a wayfarer; and 54 had no present place of residence to which they could resort as such. They might very fairly, he thought, be classed as professional vagrants. The same gentleman, in a more recent report, said— When it is stated specifically that of the 71 vagrants relieved last night, Monday, the 25th of October, in the houseless poor wards, 55 were, upon observation by my instruction, found to be personally known to the superintendent as persons who had been one or more times relieved in the same ward, and, generally, that fully two-thirds of the vagrants there relieved are personally known to the superintendent as habitual wanderers or professional vagrants, it will be apparent that the increase is in the more worthless class, and that, in the main, the increase is attributable to the attractiveness of the relief itself. This is even more strongly illustrated by the fact that during the year ended the 29th of September, 1860, no fewer than 205 vagrants were convicted from the wards of this Union for refusing or neglecting to perform the task of work required from them or for destroying their clothes—several having been convicted more than once, and one four times. He had himself paid a visit to the vagrant poor in that part of the town, and he found it was the custom to issue tickets for the vagrant ward at 7 o'clock in the evening; but he observed that those tickets were not used until 12 o'clock. The fact was that many persons used the vagrant ward as their hotel, and spent the evening at the public-house or the theatre. As soon as that fact had been ascertained other regulations were made; but he ventured to say that no regulations would prove of any avail short of a labour test and detention in dealing with a population to whom any amount of deprivation was preferable to honest work. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Poor Law Board would direct their attention to the subject, and endeavour to frame some measure by which, at all events within the metropolis, a great institution should be established which would apply the educational labour test to our casual poor.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

said, he could not help thinking that if the Acts now in operation were stringently enforced, we should soon arrive at such a weeding out of those who might be regarded as belonging to the criminal classes as to leave very few difficulties in our way. One great evil was, that there was not any general test adopted throughout our workhouses with respect to those who went to them, and he had little doubt that if a line of demarcation were clearly drawn between the criminal classes and those who might be regarded as our pauper population—those who were the really houseless poor—much would be done to provide a remedy for the state of things of which we had at present to complain. He should, however, be the last man to say that a wayfarer, strictly so called, and a man easy to be distinguished from the professional mendicant by those who had any fair aquaintanceship with the appearance and manners of each—such an one going from place to place in search of work, should not be regarded as following a reasonable occupation. During the cotton famine men were at perfect liberty to go to such places as London or Leeds in search of work, and the argument of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) was therefore, he contended, founded on erroneous premises. At the same time that class of paupers who spent one-half of their time in prison, and the other half out, and who used their time out of prison in qualifying themselves for a return to confinement, ought to be looked after by the police. Until the line of distinction which he indicated—and it was not one difficult to mark out—was drawn and kept up by very stringent regulations, the class of professional beggars would, he was afraid, continue to increase—alike to the detriment of the country and of themselves.

MR. WALTER

said, there was no doubt that vagrancy was becoming an organized profession among certain classes of the community, and he could add nothing to what had been so ably expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) with regard to the necessity of putting it down by such means as it could be most effectually dealt with. He must, however, enter his emphatic protest against the doctrine which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) that every man who could give no account of himself, except that he was going from place to place in search of work, should be laid hold of and sent to gaol. He himself had met persons of that class who had stopped him on the road, and who, when he had asked them what they were about, replied that they had been travelling on the look out for employment for so many weeks from distant parts of the country. He had taken them at their word and had given them work, and he was bound to say that they had done it as honestly as any other labourers on his estate. To speak of such men, then, in the wholesale manner in which the hon. Member for Peterborough had spoken of them—as being only fit for gaol—was, he thought, neither in accordance with the liberty of the subject nor with common humanity. He would mention to the House the plan which he himself had adopted in the absence of any better means of dealing with the question, and it was one, in his opinion, deserving of consideration. He had made a rule never to give relief to "tramps," as they were called, whom he found begging on the roadway. When he came across a man in that position he gave him a note to the superintendent of police of the nearest town, with instructions to the policeman to inquire into the case and find out whether it was one worthy of relief. That plan he had found to answer perfectly well. A rule of that kind might be adopted in the absence of any legal provision to meet the difficulty which at present existed, but he hoped his right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Board would provide such a mode of dealing with cases of this kind, as would enable persons whether resident in the country or in towns to feel themselves conscientiously at liberty to decline altogether to give money to this class of people.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, it would have been more satisfactory to him to have seen this subject of vagrancy dealt with in a Government Bill, had the pressure of business allowed of the introduction of such a measure, instead of its being brought under the notice of the House by the present Motion. The question had seriously occupied the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and himself, and they were aware that there were several important points connected with it which ought to be, and they hoped would be, dealt with by the Government. His hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) asked whether there had been any co-operation in regard to this subject between the Poor Law Board and the Home Office, assuming that there was divided responsibility and divided action. He could, however, assure his hon. Friend that such was by no means the case; but that, on the contrary, the two Departments had been in constant communication with a view to devising some scheme by which the evils complained of might be remedied. Yet he would frankly state that the co-operation of the Home Office and the Poor Law Board was not sufficient to put down vagrancy, for there was another power which could contribute far more effectually to put it down—namely, the public themselves. Unless the public co-operated it was impossible to hope to deal satisfactorily with the subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) had spoken of the effect on the houseless poor of opening the private refuges in London, and, indeed, those refuges had as much influence on the spread of vagrancy as the casual wards of the workhouses. "When no provision was made for the houseless or homeless poor of the metropolis—as his hon. Friend preferred to call them, there was every reason why benevolent individuals should encourage private refuges, as many harrowing stories were told, and told truly, of accidents happening in consequence of persons coming to town and being unable to find a lodging for the night. It should be borne in mind, however, that in the refuges there was no discipline and no test whatever, and it was curious to observe the effect which the opening of these establishments during the winter had upon the casual wards. Anybody who glanced at the statistics of pauperism in the metropolis would perceive that about December when pauperism increased, there was a sudden decrease in the number of those who frequented the casual wards. The reason was, that they transferred themselves to the more comfortable wards of the refuges, where there was no labour test. Vagrants always selected days and places with remarkable care. Thus their favourite day for going into the casual wards was Saturday, because there was no task of work to be performed on the Sunday morning. With much of what had been said concerning the evils of casual wards it was impossible not to agree, but it was necessary to choose between them and the evils which would arise if they did not exist. It could not be denied that there was a large class of persons who slept in the wards instead of going to lodging-houses, and he might mention that as he was walking home one night past the workhouse of St. George's, Hanover-square, he heard one vagrant say to another—"Hullo! where is the hotel?" There were a number of vagrants who regularly went their rounds night after night from one workhouse to another. The same class slept in the lodging-houses as in the casual wards. Sometimes when they were in possession of a certain number of pence and were anxious to be out early in the morning they went to the lodging-house instead of the vagrant ward. But what would be the result if these casual wards and refuges did not exist? He might state, as a matter of fact, that in 1844 and 1846 as many vagrants were maintained in the metropolitan workhouses as at the present moment. And here he must say a few words respecting the mode in which the statistics of vagrancy were kept. There was a great deal of fallacy in casting up the number of admissions, as was constantly done. Suppose, for instance, there were 1,000 permanent paupers in the metropolis, they would change their quarters every night, and, as there were 365 days in the year, the number of admissions would be 365,000. Of course, anyone who examined the question with care, as his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester had done, would distinguish between the admissions and the number of vagrants; but some persons failed to draw this distinction and, in consequence, made the grossest exaggerations. In point of fact the actual number of vagrants was not so great as was popularly believed. The returns lately made showed that there were between 1,200 and 1,600 in the metropolis, and he hoped, therefore, that the figures cited by the Member for Colchester respecting the number of admissions would only have their proper weight on the public mind, and that nobody would run away with the idea that there were hundreds of thousands of vagrants in London. The vagrants in the metropolis consti- tuted a large portion of the total vagrancy of the country. Memorials had been sent to the Home Office and the Poor Law Board stating that the vagrants in the whole country might be I counted by hundreds of thousands; but here, again, the mistake had been committed of confounding the number of vagrants with the number of admissions. In truth, the number of vagrants had been accurately ascertained by reckoning up the numbers admitted into the wards on two nights in the year, and it appeared that the whole number of vagrants, including the metropolis, varied from 6,000 to 7,000. It might be said, however, that, according to the police returns, the number was 32,000 or 33,000, but it should be remembered that they included persons who were tramps and vagrants, but who slept in lodging-houses at their own expense, and who, consequently, were not vagrants at all in the sense in which the Poor Law Board used the word. The police included under the term vagrant all professional tramps or persons without visible means of subsistence and no fixed place of residence, and who slept within the police district on a given day; and a great many of these were simply tramps, who moved about from place to place, sleeping in common lodging-houses at their own expense. The hon. Member for Colchester had alluded to the heavy burdens which the metropolis had to bear in consequence of vagrancy, but, as a matter of fact, the actual cost of the vagrants to the metropolis was only about £6,000 for the half-year, or about one-sixteenth of a penny in the pound for the whole year. He admitted, however, that there were serious questions connected with vagrants apart from the mere cost. No doubt many of them became permanent paupers; for when a vagrant fell sick he went into the workhouse, choosing the workhouse and infirmary where he thought he would be best treated. In London there was a certain class of permanent casuals, who, though varying the ward where they slept, never thought of migrating from one part of the country to another; whereas in the country there were numbers of tramps gaining a livelihood as hawkers, or by other trades, and who, when they fell sick or failed to procure work, applied for a night's lodging at the public expense. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Bromley Davenport) spoke of various plans which, had been tried in order to check vagrancy in the country, and seemed surprised that, notwithstanding the bad fare and miseries to which the casuals were exposed, they should persevere in that mode of life. These vagrants did not mind going into a very bad casual ward at night if they thought there were soft-hearted people in the neighbourhood who would assist them on the road. Therefore it was impossible, by laying down stringent rules respecting the casual wards, to put down vagrancy unless the public co-operated by refusing to encourage vagrants during the day. Revelations had been made as to the manner in which the London casuals spent their day. Every hon. Member, indeed, must have seen men loitering about the parks without any apparent object. These men went about from ward to ward for their night's lodging. The proposal now before the House was to transfer the charge of vagrants from the guardians to the police. But that proposal involved other considerations, and it was important that these should not be lost sight of by the House. There were two principles from which we never departed in this country—one was respect for the liberty of the subject, and the other the recognition of the right which the law had conceded to every man to be supplied with the first necessaries of life at the public expense. As long as those two principles were maintained in England it was useless to establish comparisons with other European countries, as in scarcely any one of them were these principles in fall force. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had spoken of various remedies that had been tried, and of one which had not been tried. For his own part he confessed that there was one remedy which he felt strongly disposed to try and that was the power of detention. But the House must not blind itself to what was meant by the power of detention—it would be called a kind of imprisonment. Hitherto, in this country Parliament had only been willing to permit the detention of vagrants for a period of four hours, though in Scotland, he believed 24 hours' detention was possible. He believed that it was by looking more to stringent powers of detention than to any change of the body which administered the law, that a remedy would be found for the evils which were complained of. A power conferred upon the guardians of detaining paupers would be a stronger measure than the administration by the police of the law as at present existing. When persons talked about the police dealing with vagrants they might mean one of two things—either that they considered the police more likely to discover whether the applicants for relief were criminals or deserving objects, or that they were willing to give to the police more effectual powers of dealing with the vagrant class than those which now existed. But as matters at present stood there was no adequate power of detention, and the provisions of the law which had been quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) were in one sense so exaggerated and in another so defective, that the police were unable to prosecute and secure the conviction of vagabonds. In many parts of the country magistrates had not, indeed, done all which they might have done in the way of punishing vagrants, being deterred by the charges which would be imposed upon the county if the vagrants were detained for any time. The most, therefore, had not been made even of existing legislation. But there could be no doubt that, with regard to persons having no visible means of obtaining a livelihood, and with a fancy for sleeping in barns and outhouses, there was either no available means of reaching them by law, or else the provisions which might be appealed to were so stringent that it was almost impossible to apply them. As a matter of fact it was not an offence, under the law, to be without any visible means of obtaining a livelihood; but the offence was to be wandering about at night, or sleeping in a barn or out-house without any visible means of existence. It might be useful to consider the expediency of adding to the definition of "rogue" and "vagabond," so that a certain number of applications for relief, or the passing of a given time in casual wards might, when these circumstances were brought under the notice of a magistrate, constitute an offence under the Act. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Goschen) that this indiscriminate practice of using the accommodation which the Legislature had provided for quite a different class might be treated as an offence. He candidly avowed that if Parliament were inclined to concede power to detain paupers for a longer time than they were now detained, and to keep them at work, he believed that would be a very effectual means of diminishing vagrancy and pauperism. The House would remember that a pauper using a workhouse stood in precisely the same position relatively to the workhouse as a vagrant. The pauper must be taken in at any time when he applied, and could not be refused relief, and he could equally discharge himself at any time, the authorities being powerless to control his movements. It frequently happened that a particular workhouse was full of men and women for a long time, and then, when harvest-time came, they all took their discharge; not a single able-bodied person was left to discharge the necessary duties, and the guardians were actually obliged to hire servants for the purpose. There was no reciprocity—if he might use the phrase. The pauper had it all his own way; he came in when he liked and went out when he liked; and it was notorious that if there were a fair or any other proceeding in the neighbourhood in which the paupers took an interest, they would, as regularly as possible, discharge themselves in the morning and present themselves for re-admission in the evening. This was an abuse which had frequently been brought under the notice of the Poor Law Board; but it would be effectually checked if Parliament allowed paupers to be detained for a longer time. Of course, such a power must be discreetly used, or it would be very liable to abuse; and in former times it was said that to compel a man to remain a certain time in the workhouse and not let him go out when he chose was something exceedingly like imprisonment. But it might be fairly argued that a bargain was made between the pauper and those who supported him—that he was to be at liberty to enter the workhouse or the casual wards, but if he did enter that he was to remain for such and such a time. It was often supposed that paupers did not like the accommodation provided for them in the workhouse; but the fact was the standard of accommodation fixed by the humanity of the Legislature was higher than the casuals themselves cared for. As long, however, as the doctrine was held up that we were to provide lodgings for all that were homeless, that state of things would continue; and rightly so, for he did not believe that mere discomfort would do any good; the only way, in which valuable results could be hoped for, was to interfere with the roving habits of the vagrant class, by detaining them longer than at present within the workhouse walls. As regards the employment of the police, there were certain difficulties which he must point out. The hon. Member for Colchester had very fairly raised the question, and everyone who heard him must have felt that he had devoted an enormous amount of time and labour to this investigation. But it was idle to talk of organization such as existed in Prussia or in France. Our police were not like the police of those countries, and, train them as we might, they never would be. Besides, our public opinion was different; our principles of law and the whole of our social arrangements diverged so widely from the Continental model that we could not hope, we could not even wish, to follow that model in all respects. It was said, however, that the police would be able to discriminate better than the present officials between the different classes of applicants. Let him put before the House the circumstances as they would happen. At 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening a casual would apply for relief and say—"I am totally destitute." How was it possible at that hour to discriminate as to the class to which he properly belonged? In the morning such discrimination would be possible, and the power of detention, if granted by the House, would enable an offender to be dealt with accordingly. In London, where a great many vagrants were known to the police, it might be possible to discriminate at first sight; but in the country neither the guardians nor the police knew until morning what the character of the vagrant was. If the principle were laid down that the deserving vagrants were to be relieved by the guardians, and the undeserving vagrants and semi-criminal classes by the police, this would require two establishments in every Union, would lead to serious expenditure, and it was by no means certain how it would work. If the plan, which had been sketched out, of handing over the relief of vagrants to the police were adopted, it would be necessary to build from 700 to 1,000 vagrant wards over the country at large, because it would be necessary that these should be at certain distances from each other. There ought at present to be vagrant wards in every Union; but those existing were often distant 15 or 20 miles from each other, and it would be impossible to diminish their number. He left it to the House to say whether it was desirable that there should be separate establishments for vagrants, quite apart from the workhouse, in every Union—establishments, moreover, which must be on a capacious footing; for it was impossible to tell beforehand on any day whether the numbers would be 20 or 100. The police might co-operate with the guardians, and this had been done with good effect in some cases. As regarded the metropolis, he had been in communication with the Chief Commissioner, and ascertained that there would be no great difficulty in the police and representatives of the ratepayers working together. But in the country attempts of a similar kind had been made in many Unions, and in several instances had been abandoned. At first, the joint system proved very effective; but when it was found that the police were merely "harmless scarecrows," and were, if anything, easier than the relieving officers, the good effects wore off. It was against experience that the police, in the distribution of relief, were at all discriminating. They had to be specially educated for the duty before they could discharge it with efficiency. At the same time, he did not reject the idea of utilizing the police as far as possible. In many Unions, there were cases in which it would be useful if the vagrant ward were at the police-station, and not at the workhouse; that was to say, where the staff of the workhouse could not successfully cope with the numerous vagrants. In Wales, where their numbers were exceedingly large, frequent complaints had been made that the staff, consisting probably of a feeble old porter and another officer, were quite unable to enforce anything like discipline. There were also other cases in which the co-operation of the police would be useful; but he was satisfied that, to put the vagrants under the police throughout the country would, in the first place, be very expensive, and would not lead to that discrimination which all admitted to be exceedingly desirable. But he relied more on the power of detention than on any other alteration of the law. He had, he hoped, said enough to show that this subject seriously occupied the attention of the Government, and that they were alive to the evils which existed, which, indeed, had existed throughout English history, and sometimes to a greater degree than at present. The hon. Member for Colchester, in his historical retrospect, spoke of the harshness of the law againt vagrants; but these old laws were not only harsh against vagrants, but against people who gave them alms. Thus, in the reign of Edward III., any person giving alms to such as were able to work was liable to imprisonment; and, in the time of Elizabeth, a fine of 20s. was imposed on those who gave alms. This showed that the very subject which now occupied so much of our attention had also engaged the attention of our forefathers. He could only repeat that it was hopeless for himself or others to deal with the question of vagrancy and pauperism, unless public sentiment was with them. This country more than any other valued every single life, however poor and miserable. He trusted the country would always maintain that feeling; but, at the same time, he was convinced it would be impossible effectually to deal with the most pressing evils of vagrancy unless the public guarded themselves against the exercise of indiscriminate charity. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a Division.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the discussion had turned upon the theory of vagrancy rather than upon any practical remedy. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was certainly not open to that remark; but after listening to that speech, he was far more prepared to approve of the proposal of the hon. Member for Colchester than of the remedy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad, however, to hear that the Poor Law Board were really in earnest in this matter. The subject was referred to in their Report of this year; but scarcely, as it appeared to him, in sufficiently strong terms. In that Report it was stated that the vagrancy of the metropolis showed a comparatively small increase; that in the country at large there was no material increase; that the present arrangements were unsatisfac- tory; that there should be more uniformity of treatment, and better means of communication between the various authorities who had to deal with vagrancy, and that a more uniform system should be appointed by law. He regretted that the Government had not introduced some measure dealing with this matter; but some active steps might have been taken by the Poor Law Board, without bringing in any Bill on the subject. Not long before the late Government quitted Office a circular was issued by the Poor Law Board, to the various Unions throughout the country, relative to vagrancy, recommending the keeping of a register, a uniform task, a uniform diet, and separation, as far as possible, for vagrants. It also explained the ticket system for one class of vagrants, to which he would afterwards refer. That circular was issued with the desire that Guardians should state in reply any difficulties they might feel in dealing with the matter; and, if no reason appeared to the contrary, the recommendations contained in it were to be made compulsory by a General Order at an early period. But 18 months had elapsed, and this had never been done. In dealing with vagrancy there must be a uniform system throughout the country. Vagrants should not be able to go to one workhouse and find a larger or better diet than in another workhouse, while at the same time no work was exacted. Vagrancy could not be checked in England without uniformity of treatment, and that could only be secured by a General Order from the Poor Law Board, which should be compulsory on all Boards of Guardians. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board might, with every propriety, have issued such an Order, the more especially as a system, similar to that recommended in the circular, had been in existence over the metropolis without any difficulty for some time past. There would also be less difficulty in enforcing uniformity of diet upon those who were received only for the night and morning than upon paupers who remained in the workhouse for a lengthened period. Another point recommended in the circular was discrimination between those who were really destitute and those who were not. If discrimination were construed too harshly some vagrants would receive no relief. Then came the necessary consequence. The public found it out. Cases of hardship occurred, and the public sentiment, instead of putting down vagrancy, encouraged it by giving alms to those who begged. On the other hand, discrimination might not be exercised at all, and persons might be received who had means to find their own lodging at night. The best rule that could be laid down, he thought, was that relief should be given in all cases to the really destitute, and when that was done some work should be exacted. The public would then know that all who applied for relief received it, and would be less tempted to give alms generally to those who beg. With respect to those who were travelling through the country to obtain work he thought they should be encouraged as much as possible. With this view a ticket system had been adopted in the county he represented. If one of that class came to a workhouse overnight, and without a ticket, he was obliged to remain four hours on the following morning, and do a certain amount of task work. He would inform the master of the workhouse to what part of the country he was going, and would then receive a ticket, on the presentation of which at any workhouse on the line of journey the person seeking work would receive relief without performing the task of work. So much for those who were bonâ fide travelling in search of work; but with respect to habitual vagrants, he thought the magistrates of every county should be more careful than they had been in carrying out the existing law. In some counties greater strictness in this respect had been attended with very beneficial results. The Reports of Inspectors of Constabulary for the last year showed that in Gloucestershire, since the system of ordering the police to apprehend vagrants had been adopted, cottage robberies had decreased in number. In Lancashire, Cumberland, and Westmorland the same plan of apprehending vagrants had been adopted with good results, and the uniform adoption of such a system would soon put an end to systematic vagrancy. As to the point more particularly recommended by the hon. Member for Colchester he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) believed it was pretty generally admitted by those who had considered the question that the police were the best relieving officers of vagrants, because by far the greater portion of the vagrants were professional tramps In the Union in which he resided (North Leach), the county of Gloucester had a long disused prison, which the Poor Law Board and the county had permitted the guardians to use for vagrants, who were placed under the care of a superannuated county policeman. It was found to answer admirably. During the 12 months previous to the 28th of November, 1868, when the prison was adapted for use, the number of vagrants relieved amounted to 1,242; in the following year there was a considerable addition, owing to the fact, probably, that the work of checking vagrancy was comparatively new to the police, who were not as strict as they might have been. In the first six months of the present year, however, there had been a very large decrease in the number of vagrants relieved; they were 400, as compared with 600 in the six months of the previous year, and the result showed what had been stated by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read), that the police were specially fitted for the work. But the transfer of vagrants to the police would have to be accompanied by further alterations of the law. The present incidence of vagrant relief would have to be altered, and the system of placing it on the Common Fund, as in London, would have to be adopted throughout the country, by transferring the charge for vagrants from the poor rate to the county rate. Statistics showed that, while the increase in vagrants relieved throughout the country had been as much as 50 per cent during a period of two years, in London, where they were under the police, and the relief was drawn from the Common Fund, the increase in the same time had been only 11½ per cent. There could be no objection to extending the area of chargeability for purposes of vagrancy, because local knowledge, so much insisted on for ordinary cases of relief, was useless in the case of vagrants who tramped the country. The President of the Poor Law Board had suggested a policy of detention, but this would be attended with great difficulty, and would probably tend to increase promiscuous; alms-giving. If a vagrant excused himself from going for relief to the proper officer and submitting to detention, on the plea that his wife was sick and 50 miles away, and he was anxious to go to her at once, the sympathy of the charitable would be raised and alms would be given him. He believed that great good would result from the general adoption of separate cells for vagrants, as in the case he had referred to. The Unions of Richmond and Oswestry had a similar plan, whereby the vagrant was put in a separate ward by night and by day. This was a welcome arrangement to the legitimate tramp in search of work, because he was not herded with the professional vagrant; and it was a check upon the idle, because the officer could see that he did his fair share of work. Besides, it was well known the professional vagrant delighted in the society of the ordinary casual ward. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the expense; but at a Union quoted by one of the Inspectors of Constabulary in 1868, the cost of building separate cells of the kind was £450; and the Inspector said the building might be put up for £350. He added that each vagrant earned his food, and there was a clear profit on the stonebreaking of 16d. per cubic yard. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was useless for the Government or Parliament to exert itself unless the public assisted in the matter. As long as the public persisted in giving to an idle, dissolute class, so long would vagrancy continue; but he firmly believed that if some uniform system of relief were adopted throughout the country, by which the public were assured a certain amount of relief for a certain amount of work was given to each applicant, promiscuous charity would be checked, and the object in view would be obtained.

COLONEL DYOTT

said, he had listened with great satisfaction to the speech from the Treasury Bench, and he desired to tender the Government his sincere thanks for the policy which the right hon. Gentleman had announced. With reference to the proposal immediately under the consideration of the House—to substitute the police for the relieving officers—he begged to express his entire disapproval of it; but he attached the greatest value to the plan of detention sketched by the right hon. Gentleman. He would like to see casual wards attached to every Union workhouse; and he believed that the power of detention in the case of those who applied for admission to the wards, coupled with the punishment as rogues and vagabonds of those whose statements were found to be untrue, would do much to check the vagrancy which was now so common.

SIR JAMES LAWRENCE

said, he thought that the fact ought not to be lost sight of that much of the vagrancy existing in the metropolis was due to the sudden collapse of the shipbuilding trade in the East-end of London, whereby of 20,000 men all but about 700 were thrown out of employment. He was glad to find that his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board to some extent had accepted the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer), and that he had expressed himself favourable to the detention of vagrants; because this detention, though it ought not, in his opinion, to exceed 48 hours, he regarded as the chief means of repressing vagrancy. If some such course as that recommended by his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board were adopted, they would, he believed, find vagrancy very much diminished, and be able to give an account very different from the painful story which had been laid before the House that evening by the hon. Member for Colchester.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.