WHILE the majority of prisoners were under the
influence of drink at the time they committed the offences for which
they are convicted, it is equally true that they are in prison
because of their poverty. They are there because they are unable to
pay the fines imposed on them. Their offences may be attributable to
drink, but their imprisonment is due to want of money. There are
many who are most estimable citizens, though poor; poverty alone
does not lead them to prison. On the other hand, there are many
people who drink to excess and do not transgress the law; their
drunkenness alone does not lead them to jail; but while a man may be
poor and virtuous, his poverty will compel him to live under
conditions in which any vices he has may easily develop into crimes
or offences.
It is sometimes said that poverty, and especially the
poverty of the masses, is the result of drink, but no statement was
ever more grotesquely untrue. That drink aggravates poverty is
obvious; but no one can shut his eyes to the fact that all poor
people do not drink, and that all teetotalers are not rich. Drink is
often a cause of poverty; but to attribute poverty mainly to drink
is wantonly to libel thousands of our poorer fellow-citizens who
live far cleaner lives than many of their critics. On the other
hand, it is equally unsafe to attribute drinking mainly to poverty,
for many who indulge freely are possessed of considerable means, and
the practice is not peculiar to any social condition. That some are
driven to drink as a refuge from the monotony of their lives is
undeniable; but if poverty makes some men drunkards it makes others.
teetotalers. They see that their chances of “getting on" are less if
they take drink than they would be if they kept strictly sober, and
they abstain till they have attained their object; though they may
make up for their abstinence afterwards.
Of prisoners convicted for committing petty offences
—the largest number—many have been driven to offend by the squalor
of their surroundings. Poverty tends to limit a man’s choice in work
and in recreation. He is on the verge of destitution, having nothing
in the way of reserve, and he is forced to take work that may and
often does result in an income that is much less than the
expenditure of energy necessary to obtain it. If he is a member of a
family or has friends in the district where he is living, he can
usually obtain assistance in the time of his distress; and he is
himself counted on to render help when required. That such help is
commonly given by the poor to the poor is a commonplace, but its
importance in preventing destitution in places where poverty is
always present is not sufficiently recognised.
The majority of working-class families live almost
from hand to mouth. The utmost to be expected from them in the way
of thrift is provision for pay in time of sickness from a friendly
society ; and even that is not possible for all the members of a
household. Provision may also be made for aliment from a trade union
in time of unemployment; and in some cases for some period there may
be something saved and set aside in the bank. They are accustomed to
hear of their improvidence from people who have never known what it
is to suffer from ill-health and consequent loss of income, and who
would find their place in a lunatic asylum if they tried to live for
a year under the circumstances of those whom they criticise and
direct. Their lamentations and advice are sometimes echoed by the
man who has risen from the ranks to comparative opulence, and who
forgets that if his neighbours had been like him he would never have
been where he is. The only capital they have is their health, and
anything may happen to set aside the principal member of the family
and throw the others into a struggle that may lame them.
The life of the individual worker is nearly always
one of interdependence. In his early years he is dependent on his
parents and his elder brothers and sisters. When he is able to work
his wages go into the common stock, and by the time he can earn
enough to support himself he may have to contribute to the support
of his parents. Thrift in the case of any family cannot be estimated
by the money saved, and in many of the model thrifty families it may
be found that the cash saving has been made at the expense of
starving the bodies and minds of the children. Time and again,
well-doing families have become destitute after a severe and
prolonged struggle, or after a short period in which they have
suffered blow after blow, as a result of sickness or loss of work ;
and as there is no public provision made for helping such people
until they are quite destitute, and then only the minimum of relief
is given them and they are set adrift to recover under conditions
that render recovery almost impossible, it is wonderful that so many
manage to survive.
Those who sink are not therefore to be condemned on
that account as worse citizens than those who survive ; the time at
which they have been struck by calamity may account for all the
difference between them. We are all liable to sickness and death,
but if either comes at one time rather than another it may make a
very considerable difference to our families. When a man who is in a
steady situation with a fair wage dies leaving no provision for his
wife and family he is condemned. It is in vain to point out that he
used his pay towards their comfort and in such a way as to ensure
their fitness ; he ought to have been more careful; and tho very
people who preach faith are the first to blame him because he took
no thought of tomorrow, but did the best he could in the day that
was his. The fact is that every man who thinks, among those that are
dependent on the wages they earn— usually under a precarious tenure
of their situations— sees that his choice lies between securing the
best conditions in his power for his family in order that they may
be the more fit to do their work in the world, and doing something
less in order to lay by some money for them; between starving them
in essentials during his lifetime to secure them from starvation
should he die, and giving what he has while he is there to give, in
the hope that he may live to see them develop healthily.
From poverty to destitution is in many cases but a
short step, and it may be taken by those who have done nothing to
deserve it. Sickness, loss of employment, absence of friends who can
assist, may drive a man to extremity; and then it is a hard task
indeed for him to keep within the law and live. His sickness may
enable him to qualify for parochial relief, but as soon as he is
recovered so far as to be able to go about he may be cast adrift
without means of support.
If a man does not live by working he can only support
himself by the work of others; being destitute he must beg or steal.
X 14 was a man of thirty-five years of age who was charged with
theft. He was somewhat “ soft,” and had managed to support himself
during the lifetime of his relations by casual labour. He was
physically in good health and mentally not bad enough to obtain care
from any public body. On the death of those who had looked after him
he drifted to the common lodging-houses, but he had not enough devil
in him to be attracted by any of the vicious or to indulge in any
vices. He began to find difficulty in obtaining employment. Under
the stress of his condition his mental defect became accentuated,
and, though not prominent enough to call for official recognition,
it hindered him in his efforts to obtain work. Asked why he had
stolen, he gave a reply that in its reasonableness was striking. He
said, “What was I to do? I tried the parish, but they could do
nothing for me, for I’m quite weel. I tried beggin’, but I didna get
much, an’ I was catched. You’re no sae often catched when you
steal.” He did not want to steal, but it was the easiest thing to
do. In begging he took a risk of apprehension for everybody he
approached, and from most he would get nothing in the way of help.
He took the same risk when he lifted something, but at any rate he
drew no blanks. He had some very orthodox views on punishment; for
he believed that the proper thing to do with a man who stole—when
you caught him—was to send him to prison for so many days, the time
to depend on the value of the property stolen; but he thought that
the man who had suffered imprisonment for theft, and so paid the
penalty, ought to be allowed to enjoy the proceeds of his theft; and
he complained that though he had served so many days for the theft
of a pair of boots, he had not been given back the boots on his
liberation. I cite his case here, in spite of the fact that he was
mentally defective, because he really stated correctly the dilemma
into which a person is driven when destitute ; and because he
appeared to be one who, had it not been for his poverty and
destitution, would not have required attention either as a mentally
defective or a criminal. His social condition gave no opportunity
for the proper development of his mental powers, but stunted their
growth. As for their quality, it is in no wise different from that
of many who, thanks to better chances, are able to get themselves
accepted as public leaders on the strength of an absence of showy
vices, and tho exposition of a logical and narrow view of things;
solid men and safe, free from levity and serious-minded.
Poverty is no crime, but it is something very like a
police offence if the poor person is destitute. Everybody needs
food, clothing, and shelter, and they cannot be had without money or
its equivalent. A man may starve and go in rags rather than beg or
steal, but he must sleep somewhere. He cannot pay for a lodging, and
to sleep out is to qualify for sleeping in a cell. If the police
were not better than the law in this respect our prisons would
always be full. There are many men out of work who are far from
anxious to get it; indeed, and for that matter, most people are
quite content to do no more than they need ; and in spite of all
that has been said of the blessedness of labour, there are few of
the most earnest preachers against the idleness of others who would
prefer to work longer hours for less pay rather than shorter hours
for more.
We must discriminate; the objection to the man who
will not work is that he is not content to want. When he gets like
that he is so far from being an unemployed person that he has
adopted the occupation of deliberately living off others ; that is
his profession, and I am not at all sure that it is quite as easy as
it is assumed to be by those who have not tried it. Certainly the
amateur beggar makes but a poor show with the professional. His is,
at any rate, a dishonourable and an illegal profession; but while in
some cases he has been brought up to it, in many he has drifted into
it through destitution. We ought to have no professional beggars and
no professional thieves; but as they are in some way made, it does
not help to an understanding of the question to label them
“habitual,” condemn them, and neglect to ask, if they “growed,” how
it was they began their career. Many of these full-blown specimens
have been offered work at remunerative rates and have scorned it,
which shows— that they did so ; that is all. It does not show that
if in the beginning they had been taken in hand they would have
refused to do their share of labour. All experiments of that kind
only prove that the sturdy beggar finds it easier and pleasanter to
beg than to do the kind of work offered to him; they teach nothing
as to the causes which led him to begging ; and poverty and
destitution are the most common causes.
In our large cities there are numbers of children who
are destitute because of their parents being unable to provide for
them, or failing to do so. They are cast on their own resources from
a very early age, and have sometimes to assist in the maintenance of
others. When they can, some of them leave the homes which have been
far from sweet and take to living in common lodging-houses—in
Glasgow we call them “Models,” with a fine sense of humour, for they
offer the best of opportunities for the formation of citizens who
will not be models. If the boy grows up as he can, and in the
process develops anti-social qualities, it is not he who is most to
blame; and when we condemn his conduct, as we must, we might at
least admit that his course has largely been shaped by the
destitution which it would have paid us better to prevent than to
punish, when as its result we have allowed him to develop into a
pest.
At the other end of the ladder there are men who are
refused work because they are or seem old, and who are driven down
through destitution to become petty offenders. I remember when I was
employed in the poorhouse a man was brought to be certified insane.
He had attempted to sever a vessel in his arm in order that he might
bleed to death, but his ignorance of anatomy—he was a
pre-school-board man—had caused him to make an ugly gash at the
wrong place. He was talkative, and his story was clearly told. He
was about fifty years of age and was unable to follow the only trade
he knew. He was an iron-worker and had done hard work in his day. He
had never been a teetotaler, but he had always attended to his work.
At times he made good wages, but he had suffered from periods of
depression. Sometimes he had been able to save money, but it had
always melted. He could get work when work was to be had, but for
some year or two now he was physically unable to take a place. He
had contracted a disease of the heart. His son had got married and
had two children. He was a well doing and industrious young man;
sober, steady, and a good workman. He had been supported by this
son, of whom he spoke in the highest terms. He also was an
iron-worker. The son had never grudged him his keep, nor had his
wife. Why then had he attempted to kill himself? His explanation was
as clear as it was unexpected. He said, “Doctor, do I look unhappy?”
He did not; indeed he was rather cheerful. “Well, I never had ony
melancholy, if that’s the name for’t. My son’s a good lad. He slaves
as I slaved, and at the end he’ll drap tae. I’m done. I’ve enjoyed
my life on the whole, but I’m fit for naething but to be a burden on
him. He disna object; but there’s the weans. Every bite that goes
into my mooth comes oot o’ theirs. If they’re to be something better
than their faither or me, they’ll need mair of the schule ; and what
wi’ broken time an’ low wages they’ll no get it. I want them to be
kept frae work till they’re educated tae seek something better. He
and I have had our share of hard work. I’ve had my sprees, but he’s
a better man than I was—no a better tradesman; I’ll no say that—an’
I want his weans to hae a better chance than he had. No, I’m no a
Socialist; I’m a Tory if I’m onytliing, but I never bothered wi’
political questions, though I’ve heard a heap o’ blethers on a’
sides. What? Hell? Noo, doctor, does ony sensible man believe in
that nooadays? God’s no as bad as they make Him oot to be, an’ at
onyrate I believe that death ends a’.” There was no shaking him. All
he wanted was some lessons in anatomy—which he did not get. He
insisted that he was as sane as any of us, and asserted that he
could not be certified; but he was wrong there. The law takes most
elaborate precautions to prevent people killing themselves, aye even
when it has sentenced them to death, but so far it has not made any
provision for enabling them to work for their living.
We hear of the unemployable who could not work even
if he were willing, but apart from those who labour under mental or
physical disabilities—and many of them can and do work—I have not
met many of this class. There are many on distress works who make a
very poor show; they are not fit for that kind of work, but that is
a different thing altogether from saying that there is nothing they
can do that is useful. Certainly in the ordinary sense it cannot be
said of the^ man who is too old to secure employment that he is
unfit for work. He is shut out by competition, the employer quite
naturally preferring what he believes to be the more efficient
workman. Few of the older men who are thus thrown on the scrap-heap
take things in such a way that they try the open door of death, but
the fact that they are condemned to forsake their occupation does
prey on the minds of many and embitter their lives; and the fear of
dismissal increases in intensity as their hair turns white. When the
blow falls, if they have no resources what is to become of them?
There are all sorts of schemes proposed for dealing on the one hand
with the young and keeping them longer at school, and on the other
hand with the older men and providing them with work. To an outsider
it would seem that if the number of men employed is sufficient to
produce what is required, and there is a large surplus of unemployed
labour, those who are working are working too long. A stranger might
be excused for thinking that if one man is working eight hours and
another not working at all it would be better for both that each
should work four hours; but if he said so he would only show his
simplicity. The man who is employed would quickly point out that
this would reduce his wages. Yet when a man gets promotion, whether
in the public service or in private business, his salary and his
responsibilities are increased—the former certainly, the latter in
such a way that it becomes less easy to get rid of him—but his hours
are usually reduced; for more money would be of little use to him if
he did not get time to spend it. This is merely an observation, not
a doctrine ; but it is difficult to see how employment is to be
found for those who are willing and able to work unless we cease to
improve machinery and produce less economically ; or increase our
production enormously; or divide the work and the proceeds more
evenly. In any case, and while that matter is being settled, we
might recognise the dilemma into which those are thrust who cannot
find work and are destitute.
They must beg or steal, and if they get into the way
of doing either they are liable to become less fitted and less
inclined for other occupations. X 15 was an artisan earning a fair
wage and enjoying good health. He was married to a woman who was a
good housewife and manager. When he was about thirty-eight he was
thrown out of work by a strike in an allied trade. A commercial
crisis ensued and there was general distress. He managed for a time
to keep his head above water, but his resources gradually were eaten
away. His employers wound up their business, and when the local
difficulty had passed he found that he had to look out for another
place. While idle he had formed the acquaintance of others in like
case. He had been a steady, stay-at-home man, but in their company
he took to amusements which were harmless in themselves and new to
him. He also imbibed a taste for beer, but he did not get drunk. The
company was not bad company, but it was different from any he had
been accustomed to, and it was not good for him. For a time he
looked for work, but he did not find it. Others got settled, but the
luck was against him, and he became discouraged and despairing. By
and by he looked about in a half-hearted way, and gave more time to
loafing than to seeking rebuffs. He was not destitute, as his family
was able to keep the wolf from the door. In two years he was only
interested in getting drink from anybody who would treat him, and in
discussing public affairs with others who had fallen like himself.
He had given up the idea of work and had degenerated from a good
citizen to a loafer and, later, to a drunkard. He was never
convicted, but he had to be warned because of his conduct towards
his wife; and he died as a result of exposure wl^en drunk—to the
relief of his family, who were in danger of being dragged into the
mire by him. In this case his family saved him from destitution, but
the loss of his work drove him almost imperceptibly into the ranks
of the derelicts, in spite of the counter-influences of homo. In
many cases there is no family to do what his did for him, and the
process is more certain and easy.
Poverty compels men to live under conditions in which
their vices may easily develop into crimes or offences; and it makes
those who have transgressed the law less able to recover from the
effects of a conviction and more liable to become habitual offenders
; but it cannot be said that the amount of convictions in Scotland
is in relation to the poverty of any given district. In some parts
of the highlands and islands, where poverty is pronounced, there is
an entire absence of crime.
While no ratio can be traced between the amount of
drinking or the degree of poverty and the number of crimes or
/offences in Scotland, there is a very definite relationship between
the density of the population and the incidence of breaches of the
law. Not only is there more crime in the city than in the country,
but from the densely populated parts of the city there are more
committals than from the less crowded districts. The sanitary
reformer has shown us that our city slums are breeding-places for
diseases that do not confine their operation to the people who dwell
there, but may easily infect those who live under more wholesome
conditions; and substituting vice and crime for disease and death
the statement is equally true.
By letting in light and fresh air to the houses where
so many dwell we are able to save lives which would otherwise be
crippled or destroyed by the insanitary conditions in which they are
placed ; and just as surely we could break up the aggregations of
people whose acquired way of living is fatal to the proper
development of an enlightened civic spirit, if we were as eager to
prevent as we are to punish wrongdoing. There they are ; born into
little boxes of houses which are packed together in rows and built
in layers one above the other in the air. Their home life is passed
in similar boxes; and when they die they are put in smaller boxes
and placed in layers under the earth. The health
officer would speedily interfere if we tried to house
as many pigs to the acre as human beings; but we eat the pigs and
cannot permit them to be raised under conditions that would be
likely to result in their contracting disease. Also there are fewer
people making a living by furnishing accommodation for pigs than for
men ; and it is easier to regulate an occupation when those who are
engaged in it are not influential, than when they are; for we have a
traditional dislike to interfering with the rights of property. It
is therefore much easier to punish a slum-dweller for breaking our
sanitary regulations than a slum landlord for living off rotten
dwellings.
It is well known that the worse the building is, the
bigger the rent charged in proportion to the accommodation supplied.
If a man owns house property he expects to make a profit when he
lets it, from the difference between what he has paid for it and the
rent he receives from it. X 16 is an old woman who is past work and
has no resources. She has been in the poorhouse, but will not stay
there, though better housed and better fed and kept cleaner than
when outside. She is too old to settle down to the ordered life of
the institution, and when all its advantages are enumerated to her
and all available eloquence has been expended on her with a view to
persuading ^ her that in her own interest she ought gratefully to
accept its shelter, she sullenly and silently shows that her opinion
of the place as a desirable residence does not coincide with that of
those who are in no danger of being forced to live there. She rents
a small house and takes in lodgers, intending to make her living
from the difference between what she pays and what she receives in
rent. Under the Glasgow sanitary regulations certain houses are
“ticketed”; that is to say, their cubic content is measured, and a
card is fixed on the door stating the number of cubic feet in the
place and the number of persons who may be lodged therein. One adult
is the allowance for every 600 cubic feet; and half that space is
allowed for every person under twelve years. The sanitary inspector
is entitled to demand admission at any hour in order to ascertain
whether there is overcrowding. He calls one night and finds that the
limit has been exceeded, and she is sent to prison, in default of
paying a fine, for overcrowding. Of course there is a difference
between her and her landlord, for she has broken the law. Precisely;
but what kind of law is it that can reach only the poorer
transgressor and allows the partner in profits to escape?
X 17 is a woman of forty-two who has never been in
prison before, and is under sentence for overcrowding. On a midnight
visit the sanitary officer found six adults in a room ticketed for
three and a half—a bad case. The woman’s story was that her daughter
had been married to a young man some twelve months previously. He
was an iron-worker and seemed decent enough. He lost his situation
through bad trade and was unable to get another. Meantime a child
was born. The young people wrestled along for a time; but after
exhausting all the channels of aid which were open to them, they
were turned out of their house for failing to pay the rent. Their
furniture had been disposed of. The girl’s mother took them in to
shelter them. She admitted she had kept them in lodgings for some
weeks before the “sanitary” came down on her, and I suspect she had
been warned, but as she said, “What was I to do?” Asked if she had
informed the magistrate of the facts, she said she had not. “I
pleaded guilty, because if ye dae that ye get aff easier,”
She could not even make the best of her case, but if
she had been able to employ a lawyer she would not have required to
transgress the law; and as for stating her own case, that is what
few are able to do—till by experience they learn. Even when a person
of education and means finds himself in conflict with the law, if he
is prudent he gets an experienced lawyer to appear for him and
present the truth in the way that will appeal most strongly to the
judge.
Overcrowding not only breeds disease, but it tends to
destroy the sense of decency, and affords opportunities for the
commission of crime which ought not to exist. Now and again cases
come before the courts that have to be heard with closed doors, and
in every one of them this factor of overcrowding is present,
affording the opportunity and inducing to the commission of the
crime. The subject is so foul that it cannot be adequately treated
here without grave occasion of offence. Unspeakable corruption is
easy and possible, and it goes on because it is unspeakable.
It has often been said that poverty and destitution
are not likely to.lead to the commission of crimes against the
person, but rather to crimes against property and a priori there is
something to be said for the statement ; but whatever the likelihood
we need not concern ourselves with it when the facts are before us
for examination. In the first place, the great majority of persons
in prison for committing assaults of all descriptions are poor
persons. It is a rare thing for one in a good position to be
convicted of assault, and even the most cursory examination of those
who are in prison for assaulting others will show that their social
condition was a factor in the causation of the crime. I have pointed
out the part that drink plays in the matter, and incidentally shown
that it is mainly operative under the conditions which exist in
closely populated districts ; but many of the minor assaults are
committed by persons who are not under the influence of drink. Next
to drink, among the women, the most common cause assigned by them
for their imprisonment is “bad neebors.” They do not lose their
tempers and fight with each other because they are poor or
destitute, but poverty makes strange bedfellows and forces people to
rub against one another in such a way as to give occasion for
trouble; and to leave the fact out of account is simply to attempt
to study man apart from his surroundings and to ignore the effect
they have on his conduct.
In some parts of Glasgow—much as it has been improved
during the last generation—there is literally no room for the people
to live. A place to sleep in, to afford shelter from the weather, to
take food in? Yes. Room for recreation or for quiet rest? No. The
forbearance, the good-humour, the willingness shown to stand aside
and allow another member of the family to monopolise the scanty
accommodation, are wonderful; and they are the rule. Now and then,
here and there, a breakdown occurs; and if it result in a breach of
the peace, we are not concerned to recognise the cause, but only to
punish the wrongdoers. “What’s done we partly may compute, but know
not what’s resisted,” and are not disposed to find out.
A stair-head quarrel is a stock subject for the
humorist; but try to live for a week in such close and constant
contact with anyone, earning your living the while with exhausting
labour, and your wonder will be that the peace is so well kept. The
fact is that those people put up with a great deal more than their
censors would stand, and that is one reason why they are so badly
off. If they were as impatient of our smug mismanagement as we are
of their transgressions we should have learned how to regulate our
cities long ago. There is a great effort made to evangelise the
poorer classes, and it is well supported by earnest men who are
better off; it would not be a bad thing if the slums returned the
compliment and started a mission to the West End. The a 'priori reasoner
would then perhaps learn that while he might expect that crimes
against property would in part be the result of poverty and
destitution, because such crimes would relieve the poverty, though
in an illegal way; crimes against the person are also frequently a
result of poverty, not that they are committed with a view to its
relief, but because discomfort, irritability, impatience of
restraint, and other mental conditions which lead to assaults, are
as much an outcome of poverty as it exists in the slums of our great
cities as are hunger and want.
There is no slum district in Glasgow that does not
contain a larger number of well-disposed than of evil-disposed
persons; but a tenement may get a bad name through the misconduct of
one or two of its inhabitants, and a street may be regarded as wild
although there is only a minority of rowdy people living in it. We
take no account of those who do not annoy us, and when the noisy
people anywhere assert themselves we forget all about the others.
When we interfere officially it is to find that, good and bad, they
stand by one another. In this respect they are like gentlemen; they
do not give one another away to outsiders; and it is an interesting
sidelight on their view of the law that they do not look on its
representatives as their friends. So often its interference results
in making their condition worse that they distrust it; and it is
often a greater terror to those who do well than to the evil-doer.
It is no uncommon thing to see a woman who has been assaulted by her
husband plead with the court to let him go, and make all sorts of
excuses or tell the most incredible story to account for her
injuries. Then we hear exclamations and reflections on the power of
human love and the forgiving spirit of even a degraded woman. Human
love is wonderful, but it is no more marvellous than human
stupidity; and in these cases the woman is moved not so much by love
of the man as by knowledge of the results to her and hers of our way
of dealing with him. On the whole, she prefers to run the risk of
ill-usage from him when he is at liberty, being assured of his
protection against the ill-usage of others, to having to wrestle on
in his absence and suffer from the disapproval of others who are as
badly off, because of her disloyalty. See that her condition is
really improved by his conviction and she will be less likely to
perjure herself in the attempt to save him from the penalty of his
brutality.
In every slum district there are some living who
could afford to go elsewhere, but who remain where they are because
it has never occurred to them that they should remove. They have
gone to the district in its better days, and the change in its
character has been so gradual that they have not taken much notice
of it. They stay on just as men stay on at business after the need
has passed, because they cannot think of doing anything else and are
loth to seek fresh fields. It is not good for them that they should
do so, but it is not bad for the slum; for old inhabitants of this
kind exercise a good influence on many of the others.
Most slum-dwellers are not there because they prefer
slum life, but because they are unable to pay for better
accommodation. The smallness of their dwellings makes healthy
home-life difficult and in some cases impossible. Having no room in
the house for the recreation required after work, the man goes out
to seek change. The opportunities offered to him are few, except
those provided by private enterprise. There are the parks, and great
advantage is taken of them ; but in Glasgow they are nearly all at
considerable distances from the most crowded districts. The public
bowling-greens are used to the utmost in the evenings, but are only
available for a part of the year. The libraries attract
comparatively few of those whose labour has entailed much physical
strain on them ; and picture-galleries and museums appeal to only a
very limited number of our fellow-citizens, working-class or
otherwise.
It was once the idea of those who pleaded for the
public provision of means of recreation that these should be of such
a character as would “improve” the working classes. The intention
was excellent, but the people themselves were left out of
consideration, as is usual when efforts are made to recreate men
instead of providing opportunity for them to amuse themselves.
Perhaps they do not believe that it would be an improvement to
conform to our ideals; at any rate, the great majority have not
shown any eagerness to take advantage of the means for studying
science and art which we have placed within their reach ; and they
remain as regardless of the worship of these deities as the great
mass of the richer people who quite honestly have sought to elevate
them. The private caterer has found a way to interest them, for if
he failed to do so he would lose his means of livelihood, and that
fact may have helped to sharpen his powers of perception. He has to
amuse men as they are, not as he thinks they ought to be; and our
regulations quite properly debar him from doing so in an
objectionable way. The entertainments provided may not be of a very
high order, but the purpose of recreating thousands is served. If we
regret that they do not seek something better, let us remember the
monotony of their lives, the numbing effect of the conditions to
which they are subject, and be thankful they do not seek worse.
The small house of one or two rooms in a tenement is
what the majority have for a home, and when there is a family it is
insufficient to enable them to evolve a complete and healthy
home-life in it. Social intercourse is of necessity restricted, for
there is no room for the gathering of friends; and though public
entertainments, while valuable adjuncts, are poor substitutes for
social intercourse, they are better than nothing. The public-house
is almost the only place where the mass of town-dwellers can meet in
a social way with their friends, and the perils attendant on such
meetings are evident to all men. The effort to provide some
substitute for it has taxed the ingenuity and baffled the attempts
of many temperance advocates and social reformers. Much as they have
been criticised, the music-halls and such places have been a
powerful counter-attraction, but any means of public entertainment
cannot in the end supply the need for social intercourse between
kindred spirits. Some day the fact will have to be faced that the
only real substitute for the public-house is the private house; and
when that is fully realised the slums will go.
Many have to migrate from one district to another
because of the nature of their work. They have not “steady jobs,”
and though they may not suffer from unemployment, they may be
engaged now in one part of the city and now in another. The result
is that they have no abiding dwelling-place, and as a rule have only
the barest acquaintance with their neighbours; for when people are
moving about in this way they have neither the same opportunity nor
the same desire to form friendships with those around them.
Improvement in the means of locomotion has contributed to send
employers and well-to-do people out of the crowded areas of the city
and away from the parts wherein their employees reside. They see
less of their workmen than did a former generation, and their wives
and families know nothing about the men whose co-operation is
required to secure their comfort. There is less of personal contact
than there was and more chance of mutual misunderstanding. The bond
between employer and employed becomes more and more a mere money
bond ; each seeks to get as much as he can out of the other; and
with it all there arises a general feeling of instability and
insecurity, the necessary result of the absence of a spirit of
fellowship such as can only spring from the existence of a personal
as distinct from a pecuniary interest between man and man.
Where people are crowded together regulations are
required for their health and comfort, and the liberty of each has
to be restricted in the interest of the community. The more closely
they are packed the more interference is required. Practices which
in the country might be harmless or even laudable would be
intolerable if permitted in the town. To make our rules operative we
enact penalties against offenders— and sometimes enforce them. There
are so many now that it is questionable if there is anybody in
Glasgow who has not at one time or another been a transgressor. The
man from whose chimney black smoke has issued, or who has obstructed
the footpath by leaving goods outside his shop-door, does not worry
over, because he is not seriously worried by, such laws. He may
swear a little when summoned, and say evil things about the
officiousness of the authorities, but it is a small matter to him
even though he is fined. The man who finds himself in court for
using strange oaths in public or for spitting in or upon a tramcar
has more worry over the business. Even a small fine makes a serious
inroad in his day’s earnings, and the loss of time attending the
court docks him of the pay by which he might discharge the fine.
However much it may be required, every extension of the police
regulations for the government of a city implies an increase in the
number of offences and offenders dealt with ; and while it is
necessary that transgressors should be made to cease to do the
things the law condemns, it does not follow that the wisest means
are always taken to secure this object.
A crusade against consumption will meet with hearty
approval everywhere; but if the crusaders allow their zeal to direct
their energies wrongly their good intentions cannot be held as an
excuse for the harm they do. In a city that is ordinarily covered
with a haze, and sometimes with a cloud, of smoke; where the
inhabitants for the most part live in tenement houses that by no
stretch of fancy could be called spacious ; where the workers are in
many cases subjected to severe physical strain by the nature of
their work; and where the weather is variable and trying; it is not
surprising that many should suffer from “colds.” They are under the
necessity of spitting, and they spit not out of joy of spitting, but
because they have to. The practice is filthy— it is all the evil
things that can be said of it; and it should be discouraged. The
best way would be to alter the conditions that occasion it; the
worst way is to make the spitter a comrade of the criminal before
the bar of a police court.
As with this so with many other offences ; they are
manufactured without due regard to the injury that may be caused by
their enforcement. It is an easy thing to place burdens on the backs
of others, but nr fairness to them it should first be ascertained
whether they can bear them. Many of our laws are transgressed
because of ignorance or helplessness ; and neither is an excuse. We
are. all supposed to know the law, and surely no greater irony could
there be than such a hypothesis. If everybody knew the laws there
would be no need for lawyers ; and if the lawyers were agreed as to
what is the law at any time there would be little need for judges.
So well is it recognised that even the judges differ, that one set
is employed to correct another; and a final decision is only arrived
at because there is not another set yet provided to differ from
them. If a layman does not know the law he may be punished for his
ignorance ; but if a judge x does not know it the person in whose
favour he has given a decision may be punished by payment of the
costs of appeal. Let us not be too hard then on the ignorance of the
man who has transgressed one of our numerous commandments.
In the country, and where people are not crowded
together, there are offenders against good government; but there
each one knows the other, and when a man commits a petty offence,
though the local constable sees it, he may be judiciously blind if
in his judgment that is the best course to take. He knows the
inhabitants—they are his friends—and he reacts to the opinion of the
district. If he makes an arrest the matter is discussed, and when
the offender comes before the court, magistrate and prisoner meet as
persons who know one another. Judgment is given on a knowledge not
only of the offence, but of the offender, and all parties in the
case are tried by the public. In the city it is not possible for the
policeman to know the people who live in his district, nor for them
to know him. This is a great disadvantage to begin with, for he is
not able to distinguish between those who may be corrected and
restrained by their friends without the need for their being charged
and those who cannot be so dealt with. He arrests a person whom he
does not know for committing an offence. The prisoner is brought
before a judge who knows neither of them, save officially, and
judgment is given according to scale. As for informed public opinion
directed on the proceedings, there is none. In the city as in the
country, however, if an offender is known as being ordinarily a
well-behaved man he may not be prosecuted. If he is overcome by
drink someone may see him home or send him there. It is not so much
a question of his being well-to-do; it is a question of his being
known. If not known, no matter what his means he cannot be sent home
in a cab; but he may be taken to the police station in a
wheelbarrow.
What else can the police do? We take men of good
physique and character, many of them country-bred and unacquainted
with the complexities of city life. They are paid the wages of a
labourer, and with a uniform invested with powers and duties of the
most varied kind. They must be able to keep people from offending,
or to arrest them if they do offend; they must know the law ; they
must be prepared to act as doctors on emergency—what must they not
be able to do? We multiply our complaints, and cast on their
shoulders duties we ought to perform ourselves;
blaming them not only for any blunders they may
commit, but also for our own. We compel them to make arrests and
then lament the result. X 18 is sent to prison in default of paying
a fine, on conviction for using obscene language. She is seventeen
years of age, but does not look more than fifteen. In years she is a
young woman, but in body and in character she is a big girl. She is
the eldest of a family, the father of which is a casual labourer.
The mother does occasional charing. Both take drink, but neither has
ever been convicted or charged. The girl is employed in a factory
and earns about enough to support herself. At night she wants some
fun after her day’s work, and she does not want to assist all the
time in the household. She plays with other and younger girls and is
probably their leader. There is no playground for them but the
street corner, except they take the “back close,” which is not lit
and which might be a source of greater evil than the street. A
complaint is made to the police of the bad language used by the
girls. It is certainly lurid ; but where have they learned it? The
decorative expressions complained of are part of the current
vocabulary of many in the district, but are used with more restraint
by the elders. We have all our pet adjectives, which differ in
different localities and are of the nature of slang. In the West End
a thing may be “awfully nice,” though nothing can be at once awful
and nice; in the East End the adjective may be quite as
inappropriate, but everybody knows its signification; and so with
other parts of speech. True, their language is filthy, but it does
not shock those who use it; and that is perhaps the saddest thing
about it. The girls are warned, but they persist in speaking their
own language, and in bravado ornament it profusely and shout
opprobrious words at the policeman. One is caught. She has not
necessarily been worse than the others in her behaviour, but she has
either run in the wrong direction or not fast enough to escape. She
is taken to the police station and warned. The complaints persist.
Again she is arrested. She is the bad one; she was taken before.
On her liberation from prison she had lost her work.
She was shunned by the other girls, whose mothers forbade them to
associate with one who had been in prison, lest they should be taken
in charge also. It is an offence to associate with some classes of
offenders and criminals, and the cautious among the dwellers in
these districts do not care to take risks, so they try to keep clear
of anyone who has been in the hands of the police. The law may be
right enough, but you will not get them to believe that the innocent
person is safe ; not if he is poor. “Keep awa’ frae Jeannie. She’s
been in the nick; an’ if they see you wi’ her they’ll maybe think
you’re as bad, and land ye there tae.” They would help her if they
could, but they fear that association with her would only hurt
themselves and do her no good. Those who have been in prison
themselves will go with her, and those who are reckless; to their
company she is confined, for she mil not take to religion and the
help of its professors. She is soon back again; as cheerful and as
tractable as any girl could be.
In essence it is a common story. The police could
have done nothing else in the circumstances, and she had no grudge
against them, but admitted that they had treated her fairly; can as
much be said for those who by persistent nagging force the hands of
their officials, and who are more bent on punishing offenders than
on mending their bad manners? We have lost the personal interest we
ought to have in our neighbours; we have gone out from among them ;
we have cast on officials duties we ought to undertake ourselves as
citizens, and the result is an increase in the number of offences.
In themselves these offences are small matters, but the offenders in
many cases find themselves in prison for the first time as a result;
and it is the first time that counts. Every time a man is sent to
prison for a small offence committed he has been given a push
towards the life of a habitual offender; and the poorer and more
destitute he is the greater difficulty will he have in overcoming
the effect of that conviction. His first appearance may be on
account of a small transgression, but there is a common saying that
is often taken to heart—“As well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.”
The absence of personal interest in their neighbours
on the part of men in crowded districts not only permits atrocious
assaults and homicides to take place in the very heart of a densely
populated district, but it allows thieves to exercise their
profession unmolested because unknown. It also enables them to
escape observation when they are being sought for. The city is their
hunting-ground and their refuge.
Crime is largely a by-product of city life. It might
be mitigated if we were more public-spirited; but it will always be
an evil crying out against us, so long as we permit conditions to
exist which shut men into dens under circumstances that make decent
communion and fellowship between them difficult if not impossible,
and compel them to remain there till they can pay a ransom to the
man who holds up the land for his profit or his pleasure. |