§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at Clerkenwell Police Court on Tuesday two crossing sweepers were charged by the police with begging, and that they were both discharged by the learned magistrate, who remarked, in the first case, that—
The prisoner seemed to get his living in a legitimate way as a crossing sweeper, and he did not see why the constable had taken him into custody;whether these prosecutions were undertaken with his sanction or knowledge; whether the defendants were, or either of them was, detained one night in custody; and, whether provision is made for sweeping crossings by the Vestries, or any other Public Authority; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent the interference of the police for the future with crossing sweepers plying their occupation?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)As to one of the boys alluded to, I have not been able to obtain any information. As to the other, the Commissioner of Police informs me that he was charged because, although he had a broom, he was seen begging and receiving money away from any crossing, and at a place where the roadway had not been swept. I had no knowledge of these prosecutions. I understand that the boy was detained all night in custody, no bail being offered. Vestries and District Boards have power, under the Metropolis Local Management Act, to appoint and pay crossing sweepers; but I am not aware that they have acted on this power. The instructions to the police, given in 1881, are that crossing sweepers who do not beg or run after people are not to be interfered with; but that if they annoy passengers by begging they may be charged.