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.
IV. EXAMINATION OF VAGRANCY AS IT EXISTS AT PRESENT.
It is very difficult at first sight to examine the phenomena of vagrancy. Statistics covering the whole nation are comparatively useless, except that a great _general_ rise, such as has recently taken place, has grave significance. The policy of guardians in different parts of the country changes. Severer tasks and harsher conditions naturally reduce the number of candidates for the casual ward. Therefore statistics of reductions in inmates may be most misleading.[19] Mr. C. H. Fox, of Wellington, Somerset, has for a long time taken pains to observe the tide of vagrancy flowing through his union, which receives casuals journeying northward. The stringent order of the Local Government Board, February 25, 1896, asking for the detention of casuals for two nights instead of one, and advising the separate cell system, had the following results: "The number of casuals applying for police orders in Somerset from July, 1895, to July, 1896, twelve months before the more stringent order, was 25,062; and the number from July, 1896, seven months after the more stringent order, was 19,789. This shows a diminution of 21 per cent., and the current saying was 'Behold the success of their severity.' But, alas! during the latter period the cases of begging in the country rose no less than 83 per cent. and sleeping out 39 per cent., showing that severity only drove men to beg and find lodging where there was no imprisonment." The same observer shows how casual statistics depend upon statistics of unemployment by the following observation:
