Читать книгу Glimpses into the Abyss - Mary Higgs - Страница 9

Table of Contents

With the disturbances due to a change of condition of the working classes, and to the oncoming of a new epoch, arose an impulse towards repression, similar to that which in Elizabeth's time led to the laws against "sturdy beggars." The pressure of poverty, driving off individuals into the unattached or "dust" condition, causes of course an increase of beggary. This is resented by the upper classes, and if they constitute the main proportion of government, the natural consequence is sterner legislation with a view to putting down the evil. Thus, in 1824 was passed an Act, still in force, by which a beggar wandering alone, or asking alms in public places, may be punished as an idle or disorderly person with imprisonment for one month with hard labour. If already sentenced, with three months' hard labour. If again sentenced, twelve months' hard labour with whipping.[11] The severity of this law has been mitigated by the magistrates' unwillingness to convict for "the first offence."

But all legislation is unavailing to control vagrancy by repression if it springs from widespread social evils. The state of England under heavy tariffs grew worse and worse. Rose in his "Rise of Democracy" says that duties were imposed on 1,200 articles—"a system which was disastrous to the nation's finance, and to the manufacturers and operatives who formed the backbone of the nation. Manufacturers had enormous stocks of unsaleable goods, operatives had the bitter experience of an empty larder." "The state of society in England," wrote Dr. Arnold to Carlyle in 1840, "was never yet paralleled in history." "Alton Locke" and Cooper's "Autobiography" reveal something of the prevailing wretchedness. Lord Rosebery (speaking at Manchester Chamber of Commerce, November 1st, 1897) gave a picture of Manchester in 1839: "118 mills and other works were standing idle; 681 shops and offices were untenanted; 5,490 dwellings unoccupied. In one district there were 2,000 families without a bed among them; 8,000 people whose weekly income was only 1s. 2½d. In Stockport 72,314 people had received relief whose average income was 9–⅕d." Wheat was at 65s. a quarter. Strikes followed in 1842 and 1844.

Such a state of things must inevitably have led to the gradual breaking down of numbers into vagrancy. The process is a slow one. Homes successfully resist disintegration, often for a surprising length of time, but if trade depression continues they yield. First the worst go, and then better ones follow. This leads to pressure on public accommodation, at first hardly noticed, but as it increases there arise rumours of need for fresh legislation. This again is accompanied by investigation, often lengthy, and tentative experiment also covers ground, and so time passes.[12] It is not surprising, however, to learn that by degrees workhouses came to be regarded as "poor men's hotels," that the roving vagrant population seriously increased, and that pressure on accommodation led at last to legislation. In London especially the number of "sleepers-out" increased so much that the existence of a poor class practically outside the law of settlement and requiring at any rate temporary accommodation was recognised.[13] It was at first a humane measure to supplement the old severe Vagrant Act, 5 Geo. IV. c. 5, of imprisonment for one month with hard labour for wandering about, begging and neglecting family, or for three months, with hard labour if previously convicted, or found in uninhabited buildings, or if vagrants without visible means of subsistence. This was supplemented by the Metropolitan Houseless Poor Acts, 1864 and 1865 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 116, and 28 & 29 Vict. c. 34), which provided for destitute wayfarers and wanderers and foundlings shelter for the night.

But the creation of a new pauper class, i.e. casuals, needed a very wise statesmanship. We shall see later that the same need in other countries has led to much wiser measures.

In England, by the extension of this system to all workhouses, the casual ward was created in 1871.[14] Legislation since has principally been directed to making it deterrent and severe. It has never been a provision for migration such as the German relief station affords. It does not deal effectively with either vagrant, incapable, or the special product of the industrial period, the ineffective. The charges to be made against it must, however, be backed up by evidence. It will be sufficient now briefly to sketch what can only be considered as a national costly experiment which has failed in its purpose.[15] At first only shelter was provided, then food to obviate beggary, but of the most meagre description[16]: in many unions still only bread and water and a small portion of cheese is given, even with hard labour,[17] At first the casual was only detained till 11 a.m. or till completion of task. But as the numbers were found to increase, by the Casual Poor Act of 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 36) it was ordered that the casual poor should be detained till the second day and discharged at 9 a.m., after a full day's task. There are still, however, many unions where this is not enforced.[18]

A task of work in return for food was first demanded in 1842 after the commencement of the tide of vagrancy of which I have spoken.

It will be seen what a tremendous national experiment thus gradually arose under most unfavourable conditions. The nature of these adverse conditions may be summarised thus:

(1) The legislation was at best "hand to mouth," not taking into account the real causes at work.

(2) It was the result to a large extent of class prejudice, and all homeless wanderers, from whatever cause, are lumped together as "vagrants."

(3) It was impossible for the Local Government Board, however much it wished to do so, to secure a uniform system throughout the country. It does not even yet exist.

(4) The system attempted to deal with a class without any effective control over them. There is less control over vagrants than over paupers.

(5) Considerations of self-interest would obviously cause guardians to attempt to keep down casuals, regardless of statistics of sleeping out and beggary.

(6) Official opinion would hardly be in favour of a troublesome class, and grave abuses might easily arise.

To show that the casual ward is ineffective and costly, and open to grave abuse, evidence will now be given. It must be clearly noted that provision for migration is a new need of the Industrial age, and should not be confused with repression of vagrancy. Vagrancy proper was the crime of individuals who dropped out of a settled, mainly agricultural, society into the wandering life. Vagrancy as induced by modern conditions may be no crime. It is not a crime for a man who cannot obtain work to migrate to find it, or for a man to return home on foot from a distance. Yet, if there is no proper provision for migration, a man may, by contact with vagrants proper and degeneration, become incapable of settled existence. To prevent this should be the aim of social legislation. This would be true repression of vagrancy.