CHAPTER XIII.

(1) VAGRANCY: (2) INEBRIETY

(1) Vagrancy:--

Out of a curious medley of Tudor legislation has grown up the English idea of Vagrancy. It is a survival of a long series of penal enactments dating from the 14th century, which were directed against the desertion of labourers from their respective districts when serfdom was breaking down. Parliament interposed to prevent the rise of wages, resulting in the free exchange of labour, and, at the same time, to check the acts of disorder which followed in the train of Vagrancy and Mendicancy. Further penalties against Vagrancy followed from the Elizabethan law of Settlement. The wandering or vagrant man became, from the operation of these causes, a suspected or criminal person, and, in the course of time, vagrancy and crime became almost synonymous terms. It was not till the beginning of the last century that steps were taken to repeal and consolidate the numerous enactments--some fifty in number--relating to the law of Vagrancy, which four centuries had accumulated. The present law dates back as far as 1824, and bears the impress of the old Tudor legislation. It is repressive in character, and its object is to punish the offences such as wanderers are likely to commit. The offences dealt with by the Act are numerous, and can be divided roughly into three classes:--

(1) offences committed by persons of a disreputable mode of life, such as begging, trading as a pedlar without a licence, telling fortunes, or sleeping in outhouses, unoccupied buildings, &c., without visible means of subsistence:

(2) offences against the Poor Law, such as leaving a wife and family chargeable to the poor rate, returning to and becoming chargeable to a parish after being removed therefrom by an order of the justices, refusing or neglecting to perform the task of work in a workhouse, or damaging clothes or other property belonging to the guardians; and

(3) offences committed by professional criminals, such as being found in possession of housebreaking implements or a gun or other offensive weapon with a felonious intent, or being found on any enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose, or frequenting public places for the purpose of felony.

The offences specially characteristic of the vagrant class are "begging" and "sleeping-out," and it is with vagrancy used in this sense that the Prison Authorities are chiefly concerned. Under the Act any person begging in any public place is an idle and disorderly person liable to imprisonment on conviction under the common law for one month or a fine not exceeding £5: a person wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence, or not giving a good account of himself is styled a "rogue and vagabond" and may be punished with imprisonment up to three months, or a fine not exceeding £25. There is a third category of Vagrant, known as the Incorrigible Rogue, _i.e._, a person who has been more than once convicted of any offence under the Act. Such a person is convicted at a Court of Petty Sessions and committed till the next Court of Quarter Sessions to receive sentence, which may be to a year's further imprisonment or to corporal punishment.

There is another class known as Vagrant, which does not come within the jurisdiction of the Prison Authority, and who is known as the destitute wayfarer or casual pauper. This class presents a curious history of quasi-penal legislation. No special provision was made for his case when the whole question of the Poor Law was comprehensively dealt with by the celebrated Act of 1834. During the years following that Act, there was an alarming increase of non-criminal vagrancy, and the principle of relieving the casually destitute in "special" wards of the Workhouse was established, and, with it, the principle of a prescribed task of labour in return for food and lodging. There was, however, no power to detain for more than four hours after breakfast on the morning after admission. It was not till 1871 that the period of detention was prolonged to the third day after admission, on proof that there had been more than two admissions during the month; it then became necessary to frame regulations for the detention of the casual vagrant on lines analogous to those under which the prisoner is detained:--labour, dietary, task, &c., and the casual ward became in many respects a sort of miniature Prison for very short sentences. These provisions, however, of which the purpose was to render detention in Casual Wards unattractive, especially to the habitual Vagrant, did not succeed in diminishing the number of the class of destitute wayfarer, who have for so long been a puzzle and a problem to the Poor Law reformer. The average numbers received into Casual Wards on a given day, for the five years ended 1876, had risen from 2,945 to 8,012 for a similar period ended 1913.

The Casual Wards, moreover, furnish a considerable contingent each year to the Prison population in the shape of persons who misbehave as paupers, _i.e._, refuse to perform the allotted task, or destroy workhouse clothes. There was at the beginning of the century a remarkable increase in the number of persons committed for offences against Workhouse regulations. For twenty years previously the numbers had oscillated between two thousand and four thousand: in 1901 they increased to over five thousand. The cry that the pauper prefers Prison to Workhouse was again raised with the object of showing that the conditions of Prison life were unduly attractive.

This agitation, combined with the fact that the number of persons convicted of "Begging" and "Sleeping-Out" had risen, in the four years from 1900 to 1903, from 12,631 to 20,729 led to some uneasiness in the public mind, and a special Inquiry was ordered by the President of the Local Government Board as to the law applicable to persons of the Vagrant class, and as to the administration of that law. Previously to this, the Prison Commissioners had reported to the Secretary of State--"that they are not prepared to admit that the increase of the vagrant class sent to prison is due to the fact that the conditions of prison life are unduly attractive. Casual paupers as soon as they become prisoners are subject to ordinary prison rules, not specially devised for dealing with this class, but to meet the _average human needs of thousands of prisoners of different classes, characters, professions, and physique_; and being, as a rule, under very short sentences, they receive the dietary and employment which practice and experience has designed as being, on the whole, the best and the most salutary for the early stages of a sentence of imprisonment. This dietary is not, like that of a casual ward, for one night or two nights, but part of a systematically graduated dietary table, intended to embrace both short and long sentences. The dietary and task are uniform throughout the country, varying only on medical certificate, all prisoners on reception being subject to a careful medical examination, and if they deviate from the normal standard of health and fitness, a full task of labour is not imposed; and the medical officer also has power to make additions to the dietary. In workhouses, however, our inquiries show that there is no uniform scale of diet or of task, and, so far as we are aware, these are not regulated by medical certificate as is done in prison. Hence, two results follow: Firstly, vagrants to whom the prison dietary and task and medical practice are well known, from a probable acquaintance with many prisons, openly profess a preference for the prison in those localities where the workhouse conditions are more severe; and, secondly, it may happen that on reception in prison the medical officer will not certify the prisoner as fit for the labour, the refusal to perform which, at a workhouse, has resulted in imprisonment."

"Again, the prison dietary is based on the opinion of experts, is framed on scientific principles, so as to represent a sufficiency, and not more than a sufficiency, of food for an average man doing an average day's work. The scale of tasks is based on the experience extending over many years of what can reasonably be expected from a man working his hardest during a given number of hours per diem. They believe that both the dietary and the tasks strike a fair average, so as not to err on the side of severity or leniency. As before stated, they can be varied on medical advice. The large and almost preponderating rôle played by medical officers of prisons is a factor that should be taken into account by anyone who attempts to compare prison with workhouse life. Public opinion properly exacts the most scrupulous care in all matters affecting the treatment of prisoners, and medical officers are always liable to criticism from outside persons for having failed to diagnose this or that malady, to have ordered this or that dietary, or to have prescribed this or that task. They dwell on this matter at some length, because they feel it necessary to guard against the impression which might be formed from the fact that a small section of the criminal community openly prefer prison to the workhouse, that therefore prison life is unduly attractive, that its conditions are not sufficiently rigorous, and that the whole edifice should be reconstructed to meet the special case of a few ne'er-do-wells who have lost all sense of self-respect, and to whom it is a matter of indifference whether they spend a few nights in a workhouse, a prison, or a barn. The diminution of this class is not, in our opinion, likely to follow from any alteration of prison régime; it might be modified if, as we venture to suggest, a more uniform system were established in workhouses, and a greater discrimination shown in the treatment of each case; it can only be effected gradually by a general improvement of social conditions, pending which the prison can only play a very insignificant part as a remedy for this evil; for no one can seriously contend that vagrancy is going to be cured by a succession of short sentences in the various local prisons of the country. So generally is this felt to be the case that strong expressions of opinion from responsible persons have been expressed in favour of some specific remedies being provided by the State for dealing with the admitted evil of professional vagrancy. It has been suggested that labour colonies should be established on the Belgian model, where the professional vagrant who now tramps from prison to prison could be detained for a long period of time. This system it is believed has worked well in some foreign countries. A necessary condition of its application would be some system of identification, so that a vagrant, after undergoing a sentence in one locality, should not, as now, be able with impunity to commit another offence in another locality, again become subject to a light penalty, and so on _ad infinitum_. If such vagrants could be identified by finger prints or otherwise, and systematically dealt with on indictment and sentenced to a long term, something at least more effective than the present system might result. We do not see how any system can be effective without an elaborate method of identification."

The Report of the Committee of 1906 is an instructive and valuable document. The Casual Ward system was condemned both on the grounds of efficiency and of economy, and it was boldly proposed to substitute the Police for Poor Law Authorities as the body responsible for local relief and management of Casual Wards. The want of uniformity in the administration of over 600 independent authorities had impressed the Committee as the principal cause in the failure of the system, and it was believed that by giving control of the Wards to the Police, and by that way only, uniformity of treatment would be secured.

With regard to the punishment of Vagrancy also, the evidence showed that there was no uniformity whatever in the sentences given for Vagrancy offences. It was found that sentences given by stipendiary magistrates appeared to be as little governed by any fixed principles as those inflicted by unpaid justices. The great majority of the sentences are for fourteen days or under. The evidence showed conclusively that as a protection against vagrancy, short sentences were indefensible. They quoted the opinion of the Prison Commissioners that the "elaborate and expensive machinery of a prison, whose object is to punish, and at the same time to improve, by a continuous discipline and applied labour, cannot fulfil its object in the case of this hopeless body of men who are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and who, from long habit and custom, are hardened against such deterrent influences as a short detention in prison may afford." They came generally to the opinion that while it is evident that short periods of imprisonment were useless, and long periods could not be given without injustice, and having regard to the fact that prison conditions could not be made deterrent to vagrant offenders, a complete change in the treatment of Vagrancy was called for. Their principal proposal was that the class of habitual Vagrants should be defined by Statute to include any person who had been convicted three or more times within a period of twelve months of certain offences, such as "Begging," "Sleeping-Out," or refusing task in Casual Wards, and that such a person should be treated, as far as possible, not as a criminal, but as a person requiring detention on account of his mode of life.

The Report on the Belgian Colony at Merxplas, which was issued by a Committee appointed by the Lindsey (Lincs.) Quarter Sessions in 1903, had strengthened the growing conviction in this Country that new methods were necessary for dealing with habitual Vagrants, and a large number of local authorities and Courts of Quarter Sessions addressed memorials to the Secretary of State and the Local Government Board in favour of the establishment of Labour Colonies for Vagrancy. The members of the Committee visited such Colonies in Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland, and though they came to the opinion that these Colonies, whether voluntary or compulsory, exercised but little reformatory influence, in spite of this, however, there was such a consensus of opinion as to the evil resulting from unrestrained habitual Vagrancy that the establishment of compulsory Labour Colonies in England and Wales was recommended. They state in their report, "even if they are not successful in achieving greater reformatory effects than the existing labour colonies abroad, we think that at least they may clear the streets of the habitual vagrant and loafer, may make him lead a more useful life during his detention, and may offer a real deterrent to those starting on a life of vagrancy." At the same time, they urged the great importance of a system of identification, by which the habitual vagrant could be recognized and dealt with. The finger-print system would furnish an easy method, and would only entail that any person charged with a vagrancy offence should be remanded for a few days to enable information as to previous convictions to be obtained. Any inconvenience that might be caused in the first instance by the remand of any person charged with a vagrancy offence would be fully compensated for by the ultimate results. The fact that no action has been taken upon the elaborate inquiry of 1906 goes to show that the sequestration, under strict control, of the habitual vagrant is not generally accepted as a solution of the evil, and it is a remarkable thing that, while in most civilized countries the proper treatment of Vagrancy has been the subject of so much thought and discussion, as in Belgium and Switzerland and other countries, and of practical expedients for the protection of the community from this _plaie sociale_, yet in England, Vagrancy is still dealt with and punished under the old law of 1824, a law which has little relation to the facts, customs, and habits of the present day, which only requires that where a vagrant shows by his actions that he is either a nuisance or a danger, there shall be power at law to bring him before the Courts. Although the magistrate may give him three days', or three months' imprisonment, or Quarter Sessions order him to be flogged, it remains a matter of indifference; and so long as public opinion is in this state regarding the question, it is not likely that Parliament will intervene.

Conditions prevailing during the War have caused a striking illustration to be furnished showing how the general demand for labour which prevailed has had the effect of practically clearing the prisons of the Vagrant convicted of Begging and Sleeping-Out. The numbers proceeded against for these offences had risen steadily for nearly 20 years until 1910, and for a number of years prior to the War had averaged over 37,000 annually, furnishing in 1913 no less than 11 per cent. of the total receptions into prison, though from some Counties the percentage was much greater, _viz_:--from Lincoln, 66; Cornwall, 58; and from many others over 30. Since that date, this large body of Vagrants in prison has fallen by no less than 93 per cent., _viz_:--from 15,000 in 1913-14 to 1,066 in 1918-19.

For a few years before the War, however, a decrease had been noted. By some it was attributed to the growing opinion among Magistrates as to the futility of very short sentences: by others, to the fact that recent alterations in the Prison régime had rendered a few days' sojourn in Prison more irksome than formerly: others also considered that the gradual adoption by various police authorities of the Way-Ticket system, (the object of which is to enable the needy wayfarer to move quickly through the county towards his destination and to provide him on his route with lodging, supper and breakfast at the casual ward, and with a mid-day meal, thus removing all necessity for begging), was a cause of diminishing the offence of Begging in public places. Others were of opinion also, that the Insurance Act, by which a Magistrate has proof of whether a man is a bonâ fide worker or tramp, has led to a greater individualization in the case of Vagrants brought before the Courts, and correspondingly to the diminution in the number committed to Prison. But an examination of statistics, spread over a long period, shows that the rise or fall of Vagrancy offences and other minor charges, is chiefly determined by the prevailing rate of unemployment in the country. Thus, in the years of trade depression which culminated in 1909, and which showed a very high percentage of unemployment, the number proceeded against for Begging and Sleeping-Out also reached the highest recorded total, _viz_:--45,408. Although this number is very great, there was, in addition, an enormous total of persons of vagrant habit, _i.e._, with no settled place of abode, appearing in criminal statistics at this time charged with offences other than Begging and Sleeping-Out. An inquiry made about this time showed that of the male Local Prison population _on a given day_ (14,632), no less than 4,411, or 30 per cent. (including 695 convicted of Begging and Sleeping-Out) had no settled abode, of whom 82 per cent. had been previously convicted, and 1,420, or 32 per cent., were classed as _habitual_ vagrants. It is not surprising to find, therefore, that, with the rapid fall in the percentage of unemployment, which set in in 1910, and has continued since, until during the War, when, owing to the abnormal conditions prevailing, there was abundant work for all, the number of persons actually charged with Vagrancy (Begging and Sleeping-Out) should have fallen in 1918 to only 2,651, and that, at the same time, a great decrease in crime should be recorded also. (Vide