COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th July.] (Hansard, 16 August 1871)

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he must protest against the clause, and, in doing so, he protested against the policy of detention of vagrants which was proposed in the clause as likely to encourage, rather than suppress, vagrancy by giving an excuse for begging, and holding out an inducement to the charitably disposed to give their alms more freely than they would do, if they thought that every poor man on a journey to his wife and family, or in search of work, might be detained if in his destitution he took advantage of the use of the casual ward. There could be no doubt that the practice in the Metropolis and other large towns was for vagrants to make a regular circuit of the casual wards, which they made their homes, and so relieved themselves at the expense of the ratepayers, which it was never intended they should do. It was the professional and almost criminal vagrants that they should endeavour to diminish by checking the inducements to vagrancy by indiscriminate almsgiving, and making them as uncomfortable as possible in these nightly refuges. The clause would be difficult of operation in the Metropolis, and would rather increase than diminish the evils complained of. The clause would not be 1740 required in country Unions, and he trusted that if the clause were retained the Guardians would exercise the option given to them, and not put it in operation.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, the clause was sufficiently elastic to meet the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire. It simply limited and defined the right of the pauper to claim his discharge from the workhouse; but it left the discretion of the Guardians in discharging him untouched, so that while the criminal vagrant, the more numerous class, might be detained, the honest wayfarer might be allowed to go on his way. The professional vagrants who made use of the casual wards were a small proportion of the number returned by the police. On the 1st of April, 1868, the number of vagrants returned by the police was 36,179; but, according to the Poor Law Returns, the number of vagrants was returned, on the 1st of January, as having been reduced from 4,469 to 3,735. The question of vagrancy was, therefore, clearly a larger question than could be dealt with in that Bill. What they now had to deal with was a class of idle vagrants which bordered closely on the margin of criminality, and they endeavoured by that clause to deter them from making a convenience of the casual wards of the country, and, at the same time, to enable the Guardians to detain and punish those who obtained food and shelter under false pretences.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he concurred in the object of the Bill, but he had some doubts if it would carry out the intentions of the Government. The class of paupers the Bill was intended to deal with, as distinguished from well-meaning persons in temporary distress, ought to be placed under the authority of the police, and the expense charged on the county rate or Consolidated Fund, and not on the poor rates.

§ MR. SCLATER - BOOTH
said, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Rylands), that the poor rates ought not to be charged with the expenses attendant on this class of paupers, and in dealing with the question of local burdens next Session they would have to consider whether it was not a charge that the country at large ought to bear, and not the local taxpayer. He also thought that to detain vagrants and 1741 keep them shut up was to depart altogether from the principle of local poor relief.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, the clause would act most unjustly to a deserving class of poor who went into Kent in the hop-picking season in order to earn, if possible, a little extra money; and he suggested whether the severity of the clause might not be mitigated in respect to such persons by the adoption of "the Dorchester ticket system" for supplying bread instead of giving money. It had been adopted in some parts of Kent, and had been found to work well.

§ COLONEL NORTH
said, that in his part of the country nine out of every ten of these travelling paupers were confirmed thieves and blackguards, who watched labouring men leave their homes and then entered, bullied the men's wives, and insisted on being fed. They usually assaulted the Governor of the workhouse, would not take their bath, or do anything which was ordered, and made a point of having a row before they left. They constantly tore up their clothes, and when they went out, as often as not, it was for the purpose of getting drunk, and next day they insisted on their right to come in again. What were you to do with such men? They certainly were in want of food, but he could not help thinking that they deserved to be. He strongly objected to the ratepayers being called upon to support workhouses if they were to be turned into a sort of prison for the reception of this disreputable class of persons. He thought the expenses of such a proceeding ought to be paid by the State.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel North) ought to be a supporter of the clause, for nothing would so much tend to keep persons out of the casual wards. By a Return in his possession he found that out of 645 Unions, 571 had provided vagrant wards, of which 427 were reported on as being sufficient. After that outlay had been incurred, he did not think it would be wise to render it nugatory by transferring the vagrant class to the police; and in dealing with vagrants as a class, it appeared to him that one stringent rule could not be made applicable to them, as if they were all criminals. There was no measure which they could adopt which would tend more to keep professional vagrants away from 1742 the casual ward than the power of detention, which the clause conferred. The system of separating the honest from the professional vagrant, both in the sleeping wards and when at work, had been found to act as a great deterrent upon the vicious class, who from knowing the system and the peculiarities of each Union as well as if they were publicly advertised in the newspapers, had been in the habit of selecting their quarters; but once let every Union provide proper accommodation for the casual poor, and one uniform method of diet and treatment be adopted, and vagrancy as a trade would soon fall off. Mr. Wodehouse reported that in the Battle Union, Sussex, upwards of 100 vagrants got relief as often as twice and three times a-week during the past year, and many of them had resorted to that practice for a number of years. The clause would enable the Guardians to exorcise a deterrent against that class of persons, and he had every reason to believe the Bill would have the effect of greatly reducing the number of vagrants.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, the Metropolis suffered more than any other part of the country under the burdens imposed by the vagrant class, and for that reason he must protest against any difference in the treatment of the metropolitan and country Unions. These vagrants came in shoals; nobody knew anything about them, and they wandered from district to district continually, and the ratepayers of London had to pay for their support. Not a few ratepayers were themselves poor, and the burden fell all the more heavily upon them. Casual wards ought to be placed under Government control in some form or other, and the expense paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and he was glad to hear there was some probability of that taking place, as the whole country would then contribute. He concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) in thinking that people who picked hops and were paid for it ought not to be treated as vagrants.

§ MR. MUNTZ
thought the character of the clause had been mistaken. It was one that was merely permissive, and would not extend to the deserving poor such as those before mentioned. Your regular scientific tramp had an unsure-mountable objection to work in any shape, and the prison records showed 1743 that the greatest criminals had been originally tramps. But a workman out of employment had no such objection to the labour test as these casual rascals, who spent their lives in going in and out of workhouses, and prowling about between-times, hon. Members who talked of drawing money from the Consolidated Fund, should first show how that fund was to be sustained after an enormous demand had been made upon its resources. At the same time, he trusted that the whole question of the Poor Law would be considered, and the burden of rates re-adjusted, so that that Fund might at least be charged with its fair proportion of the expenses incurred in relieving pauperism. No one could question the common experience of his hon. Friends that these casuals had become an intolerable nuisance throughout the country, and the sooner they were rigorously dealt with the better for the ratepayers.

§ SIR. MASSEY LOPES
said, that if magistrates only exercised their existing powers vagrancy would very soon be got rid of. No county had been worse off in that respect than Wiltshire; but the exertions of a new Chief Constable had got rid of most of the common lodging-houses, and with them the vagrants had disappeared. It was rather hard that after spending £7,000,000 upon work-houses, the ratepayers should be called upon for additional contributions. The cells provided by the police appeared to answer all necessary purposes; and it was very doubtful whether any improvement would arise if vagrants came under the immediate charge of the Guardians, instead of being, as at present, under the jurisdiction of magistrates.

§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS
referred to an old Statute of Henry VIII., in order to show how much more severe the law was in former times than at present. Amongst other things, every vagrant or vagabond persisting in his old courses was taken up and sent to the place from which he had come, there to earn his living. If he still persisted in his idleness he was again taken up and whipped, besides which he had the gristle of his right ear cut off. If after that he was again taken up for vagrancy he was capitally executed as a felon.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, it was a principle of the law of England that every destitute wayfarer was entitled to 1744 relief; and he was not prepared to abandon that principle. The principle of the Bill was to relieve those who required relief.

MR. HENLEY
said, he did not think that any great result would come from that Bill, but he regarded it as being a step in the right direction. All their legislation and all their practice had been to pass the vagrants along anyhow to get rid of them. In some cases they were passed to gaol; and his experience led him to think that vagrants did not dislike the gaol and thought it preferable to the Union. It was, no doubt, a good thing to give the power of stopping vagrants; because by so doing an opportunity would be given of separating the wheat from the chaff, and possibly of assisting those who were deserving by procuring them employment.

§ MR. STANSFELD
proposed, at end of Clause 7, to add— Provided, That in the case of a pauper suffering from bodily disease of an infectious or contagious character absconding or escaping from or leaving any workhouse or asylum as aforesaid, the justice convicting him of the offence may suspend the execution of the warrant of commitment, and may order the pauper to be taken back to such workhouse or asylum, there to remain until he shall be cured or otherwise lawfully discharged therefrom, and when he shall be cured the warrant of commitment shall be put in execution by order of the said justice or some other justice having jurisdiction in the place; any officer of such workhouse or asylum, or any constable, may apprehend the pauper who may have so absconded or escaped from or left the same, and take him before a justice without having previously obtained a summons or warrant, and upon the order of the justice take him back to the workhouse or asylum: And provided also, That where any casual pauper is taken before a justice charged with any offence under this Act the justice may, if he think fit, grant a certificate to the person who has preferred the charge for the amount of the expenses incurred by him in relation thereto, and such certificate shall have the same effect, and the amount mentioned therein shall be paid and recovered in like manner as in the case of a certificate granted by justices in petty sessions under section fourteen of the Act of the eighteenth and nineteenth years of Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty-six.

§ MR. RYLANDS
trusted that the expenses arising from such provisions as these would be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, as otherwise great injustice would be done to certain localities.

§ MR. STANSFELD
observed that, in his belief, the Bill would result in a decrease instead of an increase of the charges with respect to vagrants.

§ COLONEL NORTH
thought that more protection than at present existed should be afforded to the relieving officers, whose windows frequently suffered at the hands of these vagabonds when their demands were not acceded to.

§ MR. RYLANDS
observed that that was a large discretion, and if it were given as proposed to the Poor Law Board, would afford an additional reason for placing the cost of casual wards on the Consolidated Fund.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
argued in favour of a system for defraying the expenses of this accommodation out of the Imperial funds, instead of throwing it upon the local rates. He did not believe that the clause, as it now stood, ought to be put in practice throughout the country, because he was convinced that the matter could be more effectually dealt with if the charge over the vagrants was placed in the hands of the police, who knew far more about them than the Guardians. He hoped, at any rate, if they were to pass the clause, that the right hon. Gentleman would take carefully into his consideration the whole question of providing these vagrant wards, and would not at once compel the various Unions to provide them as now proposed.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, his belief was that the notions of hon. Members with regard to the cost of separate wards were exaggerated. The whole number of vagrants frequenting casual wards was not 4,000, and he believed the number might be further decreased without much increased expenditure.

§ MR. MUNTZ
objected to the large powers that would be conferred by this 1746 clause on the Poor Law Board, and suggested, by way of Amendment, the omission of the words "Poor Law Board," so as to leave the action of the Boards of Guardians in the matter more unfettered. The clause, as thus amended, would be to the effect that the Guardians of every Union should provide such casual wards and such fittings and furniture as in their judgment should be necessary, regard being had to the number of casual paupers likely to require relief therein.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, as he considered that the powers conferred on the Poor Law Board by the clause, as it now stood, were excessive. He objected to the Poor Law Board assuming to itself the power of spending as much of the ratepayer's money for this purpose as they pleased.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, that he certainly could not accept the Amendment, though he as certainly did not desire to exercise any extraordinary powers, for the power vested by the clause in the Poor Law Board was precisely the same as the Department possessed in regard to all workhouses, as distinguished from casual wards; but it was very important that they should arrive at some system of uniformity in dealing with the vagrant class, and to establish the power in some central authority to draw up general regulations for the guidance of the Guardians. The policy of the Bill with respect to vagrants could not be carried out without uniformity of treatment, and he contended that the Poor Law Board ought to be allowed to exercise a discretion in the matter.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was by no means satisfactory. He thought that the Amendment would not diminish the stringency of the clause. The great object was to provide separate cells for casuals, as under present arrangements a night in a casual ward was looked upon by vagrants as a most enjoyable proceeding. Separate cells would, however be a great expense, and he must repeat that that expense should, in his opinion, fall on the Consolidated Fund, not on the local rates.

§ SIR MASSEY LOPES
expressed his surprise that the Amendment should be objected to, and hoped the hon. Member 1747 for Birmingham would press it to a division. It was a wrong principle to convert their workhouses into prisons, and, in his opinion, vagrants as distinguished from casual paupers ought to be dealt with, not by the Guardians, but the magistrates.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the Amendment could not be put, and that the question before the Committee was, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, if that was the case, he should vote against the clause altogether.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, that he had moved the Amendment. He should divide against the clause.

§ MR. RYLANDS
confirmed the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that he had moved the Amendment.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, that if the clause were taken away, the utility of the Bill would be destroyed.

§ MR. STANSFELD
suggested that the hon. Member for Birmingham might move his Amendment on the Report.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he could not agree to the adoption of the course proposed.