"One of the favourite complaints at this conference will be the burden to the ratepayers, and the cost of their maintenance will be supplied to them by the various union masters. Now, how does it work out?

"The thirty-four men who were kept for the two nights and a day had 170 rolls, thirty-four portions of cheese, and 102 lots of coffee. This during a year would mean a considerable sum. For this the ratepayers think they would have to do a day's work--but do they? There were twenty-two men put to wood sawing, and here I a.s.sert, if the whole of the wood cut during the day had been equally divided between these men, and given to them as a task, it could have been done in two hours. Now, why were these men kept in their cells from 5.30 to 8.20?--why were they not sent to the labour yard at six o'clock and worked for this two hours, given their breakfast, and sent about their business? The ratepayer would have the same amount of work done, and have saved the price of 102 rolls and thirty-four lots of coffee, and thirty-four portions of cheese. To give an instance of the work done. There were two men nearest me who started to saw a sleeper with a cross-cut saw at nine o'clock, they had not finished at three o'clock, and the old man took one away, and I helped to finish it myself. This was the style of work all round, there is no task there; the old man in charge is an inmate and is laughed at, and they do what they like. The professionals dearly love a day's rest and an extra night's rest, and the working man is not going to do much for no pay if he can help it.

"If you want to study the ratepayer, take a man in a night, turn him out after two hours' work, he will have earned his twopenny feed in that time, and it does not cost more. You will give the man looking for work a chance, you will reduce the number of casuals, for you will soon break the professional tramp's heart, and greatly relieve the ratepayer.

"In conclusion, may I say that if you consulted half a dozen men who understood the game, you may be able to solve the tramp problem."

VII. THE COMMON LODGING-HOUSE.

Before we can pa.s.s in review the results of investigation into the working of the tramp ward, it is necessary to correlate with it the examination of the common lodging-house. It is not sufficient to look on the tramp ward as a _deterrent from vagrancy_; it is evident from the evidence already given that it most imperfectly fulfils another function, namely, that of a _refuge for wayfarers in extremity_.

How is it that such a need has arisen? It has arisen from a little-considered change in social customs, which has gradually led to acc.u.mulating evils. In old times there was a double provision for travelling, for rich and poor, the hospitality of the abbey and that of "mine host" at the inn. When the abbey was suppressed, more must have devolved on the inn. Accommodation there could be found both for rich and poor, though that for the latter might be only a bed of straw.[32]

But by degrees, as travelling became common, the rich absorbed the accommodation of the inn, which itself evolved from "hostel" into "hotel," and catered for the rich only. A travelling poor man therefore was put to it to find some other shelter. Hospitality is most freely exercised still by the very poor. By degrees some individual became known as willing to entertain strangers for a small charge, and so by degrees also evolved the _common lodging-house_. A description of one such formed by natural evolution will be found in Chap. II., pp. 97 _et seq._ It was simply an old house, probably once a farmhouse, now situated in a slum quarter of a northern town. The sanitary arrangements for numerous lodgers were a sink in the common kitchen, and a w.c., perfectly dry, and in a dreadful condition. The house was kept by a widow woman, who could exercise no effective control over the motley inmates. Men, women and children were crowded in the dormitory, separation of s.e.xes being quite insufficient. Insect pests abounded, and cleanliness was but of a surface character. Yet this, and one reputed to be worse, const.i.tuted the only accommodation for working-cla.s.s travellers, men and _women_, in a fairly large town.

Investigation in another direction, on the main route from Manchester to the south, revealed a similar state of things. The "best lodging-house in the town" contained no separate sitting-room for women, and a small sink without water laid on was all the accommodation for washing purposes. This was in the common kitchen, and water had to be fetched from the single men's room. The bed slept on was infested with vermin.[33] A London investigation revealed that similar accommodation, which in the north cost 4_d_., cost 6_d_. A description is given by a male investigator of the state of such a lodging-house. The common sitting-room was a half-cellar with a concrete floor, very dirty, _debris_ of meals and dust were just swept under the tables. Spitting was in evidence everywhere. In the dormitory of another a notice was posted that "Gentlemen are requested not to go to bed in their boots!"

Nevertheless it was evidently not obeyed. The state of the beds was such that my informant left without trying them. (See Chap. VII., p. 257.)[34]

It is true that a somewhat perfunctory "inspection" is supposed to enforce sanitation. But inspection is insufficient where the accommodation is not of the right kind to begin with, and it appears to be easily evaded. The fact is that it is not to private interest to provide anything but _minimum_ requirements. Nor is it likely that there will be _sufficient_ accommodation for the maximum demand. It is reckoned "lucky" to get into some lodging-houses if you apply even as early as seven o'clock for a bed. It is quite possible to be crowded out.

Dr. Cooper, of the London County Council, said recently:

"No civic community ought to allow what is going on at the present time. No man can afford to build really good lodging-houses, because the return for his money is so small. This is a public danger, both as regards the safety of the streets, and also the character of those who are unfortunately homeless." He thinks that "the whole of the outcasts should be absorbed into London County Council shelters."

The following is an account of the state of things at a lodging-house _repeatedly warned_:--"The floors of the kitchens and bedrooms were in a very dirty state. The beds and clothing were very dirty and insufficient. The bedding was so filthy that on the lodging-house keeper's attention being called to it he took the sheets off and put them in the fireplace."[35] Defendant was fined 3 and costs, but the lodging-house was not suppressed.

Such places as this breed disease, yet an honest working man travelling with money in his pocket to pay for his bed cannot be _sure_ of a cleanly place. Even in a _munic.i.p.al_ lodging-house there may be only "surface cleanliness." (See Chap. II., p. 33.) _Every one not sanitary is a centre of contagion._

There exists even in the mind of such social adepts as Mr. John Burns, a prejudice against "Rowton Houses," and other "poor men's hotels,"

possibly grounded on the supposition that they cater for and encourage the life of vice and idleness. But the fact is one that cannot be denied, that in the present precarious condition of things these ma.s.ses of homeless men exist. It would seem more sensible to bring them under effective sanitary control, and by investigation of their needs remove, if possible, obstacles to matrimony than to condemn them to insanitation, disease, and death. The following account gives an inner view of a Rowton House. It is not to be supposed that the majority of inmates would _prefer_ such a life, if only they knew a way out.

"It is possible to live there fairly comfortable on 10_s_. a week, and to exist on about 7_s_. Of course, there are all kinds of men there; some of them have known considerably better days. A lot are working men. A lot of men there seem to live by addressing envelopes; they have a nice warm room to sit in and work, but it is a heart-breaking job when all is said and done, for they only get 3_s_. per 1,000, and it will take a good man to do 1,000 a day. I made a good many enquiries about labour bureaux; they are to be avoided like poison, except the Polytechnic, the others keep you moving about the place, and you are lucky if you don't get charged heavily for doing so." The isolation and selfishness of the life impressed my informant. It was by no means one to be sought.

It will at any rate be seen that the question of absolute dest.i.tution and the question of provision for migration are bound up with the question of proper sanitary lodging-house accommodation. Before a travelling working man, even with money in his pocket, there lie at present three alternatives:--

1. He can find a common lodging-house, which means too often dirt, or worse.

2. He can enter the tramp ward. To do this he must make away with his money or hide it. He will, it is _supposed_, get clean accommodation, but endure hardship and degradation.

3. He may "sleep out." This is best; if he can find a cosy corner he can "keep himself to himself," and sleep clean. But it is _illegal_. Numbers of men are condemned all over England even in the depth of winter for this offence.[36] Unauthorised promiscuous herding in the open, such as occurs on Manchester brickfields, is a grave social evil. "A night on the Thames Embankment" is hardly an "earthly paradise." But neither is a night in a doss house or a tramp ward. It will be seen that there is _real need_ for social provision of shelter for the homeless or migrating poor.

VIII. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION.

We may summarise results as follows:

1. There exists at the bottom of society the hereditary vagabond or "tramp" proper. He is the remains of a vagrant cla.s.s squeezed out of society and preying upon it. He may be "born" or "made." He knows how to get his living, and is usually to be found in the "doss-house"; if he frequents the tramp ward, it is for cleansing purposes or casual need.

These are estimated by experts to be only about ten thousand in all England.[37]

2. There exists also a cla.s.s of "incapables," _i.e._ those infirm, old, blind, lame, epileptic, etc. These are supposed to be provided for by our Poor-law system, and should be inside workhouses. But numbers of them are allowed to wander in penury and beggary. They "earn" a precarious livelihood, and often drift into tramp wards, but cannot as a rule fulfil the labour conditions, which often are not demanded from them. (See Chap. III., p. 148.)[38]

3. There exists a large cla.s.s of "inefficients," the special product of the Industrial revolution. It is not probable that they will disappear as a factor in social evolution, save by means of wise social arrangements, because:

(1) They are continually renewed from the lower levels of the population, who breed quickly.

(2) The standard of industrial requirements rises, and leaves many behind stranded.

(3) Employment after middle age is difficult to obtain.

(4) The shifting of industries and changes in employment leave units unprovided for.

It is evident therefore that the whole legislation of our country must be remodelled, for _it is on the social organism as a whole_ that social provision now devolves.

Green relates that the whole ma.s.s of Elizabethan poverty was absorbed into healthy life by a wise poor law.

It will be our next duty to examine how far other nations furnish us already with an object lesson in this respect.

We may summarise the case against the tramp ward as follows:

1. It makes no attempt to cla.s.sify.

2. It pauperises without relieving distress.

3. It is unequally and often unjustly or defectively administered.

4. It provides for dest.i.tution a worse treatment than that of prison for crime.

5. It therefore exerts pressure towards vagrancy and crime instead of acting as a true deterrent.

6. Its existence blinds the public to the fact of _the absence of public provision for migrating_, and the evils of sleeping out and unsanitary lodging-houses acc.u.mulate.

IX. VAGRANCY LEGISLATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

We have now to consider the treatment received by vagrants in other countries. Have they been more successful than ourselves? If so, why?

Count Kropatkin shows in "Farms, Fields, and Factories," that the Industrial revolution is not confined to England. Belgium for instance is a country with large manufactures. It is also a small country, and it is easier to examine the entire working of a Poor Law in a small country than in a large one. A most interesting account is given in a pamphlet printed by W. K. Martin, 290, High Street, Lincoln, of the Belgian Labour Colonies, personally visited by H. J. Torr and R. A. Marriott, Major, D.S.O., Governor of Lincoln Prison.

A vagrancy committee was appointed from Midsummer Sessions, Lincoln, in consequence of the number of vagrants committed to Lincoln Prison and the unsatisfactory nature of the prison treatment. They report "that the present short sentences, especially in view of the improved prison dietary, are a treatment of no deterrent value." They are of opinion "that the present methods of dealing with offences under the Vagrancy Acts are not satisfactory in their effect on the habitual vagrant, whilst they make no provision for the man who, gradually slipping out of employment through inefficiency, forms the readiest recruit for the professional vagrant cla.s.s." "Prison conditions indeed, to persons with so low a standard of physical comfort as the average vagrant, must be extremely comfortable and even attractive." (See note 25.)

They show that in Lindsey alone 722 vagrants were committed to prison from January to July, 1903, while in Holland only 178 were admitted. The number of vagrants in Lincoln Prison during six winter months increased from 703 in 1901 to 1,002 in 1902.

The vagrancy returns from different unions likewise increased as follows:

1900 11,980 1901 15,053 1902 20,556

They gave cases of two men aged thirty and thirty-seven, against whom there were twenty-two and thirty-one sentences, each one being short, showing that the men entered prison almost as soon as out of it. The cost _without subsistence_ for travelling expenses of prisoners and escort amounted to 28 10_s_. for the two. They believe that "the workman slipping out of employment" should be treated in a penal labour colony as "a patient requiring care, not as a criminal requiring punishment," and that his downward career should be checked before his industrial skill is lost. "The large amount of highly-skilled labour found at Merxplas, compared with the utter incapacity of the average English prisoner committed for vagrancy, indicate, they believe, the measure of the difference between the tramp at the commencement of his career and the same man after any lengthened period of life on the road." They point out that while this skill may not maintain the man outside, in face of the drink difficulty, it may make him nearly self-supporting inside, and forms a valuable national a.s.set. The annual cost per man in these colonies is smaller than that of prison or workhouse.[39] It will be seen therefore that whereas we _manufacture_ vagrants, the Belgian labour colonies _arrest_ their development. It is impossible to give a full account of the Belgian labour colonies. It will be found in the Report referred to. There are five, two for women and three for men. Those at Hoogstraeten and Wortel const.i.tute a _Maison de Refuge_, and that at Merxplas a _Depot de Mendicite_. (See Appendix III.)