(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.