The continued unwillingness of magis trates to enforce the statute of Elizabeth, notwithstanding a proclamation of James I., occasioned the passing of the stat 7 Jac. I. c. 5, which compelled the jus tices of every county under heavy penal ties to erect proper houses of correction for setting rogues, vagabonds, and other idle and wandering persons to work, and also required them to meet twice a year or oftener, if occasion required, for the better execution of the law.
The laws relating to vagrants continued substantially upon the footing of the statutes of 39 Eliz. and 7 Jac. I. for more than a century, until, in 1744, they were reconsidered and remodelled by the stat. 17 Geo. II. c. 5. This was the first legislative measure which distributed vagrants into the three classes of idle and disorderly persons, rogues and vaga bonds, and incorrigible rogues. Although this statute is now wholly repealed, it continued in force nearly a century, until 1822, when a temporary act, stat. 3 Geo. IV. c. 40, passed, repealing all former laws and re-enacting most of the pro visions of the stat. 17 Geo. II. c. 5, with many additions and modifications. The provisions of the stat. 3 Geo. IV. c. 40, were however entirely superseded by the 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, which now (1846) con stitutes the law respecting vagrants. This act was amended by the 1 Vict. c. 38 (1838). The third section of the statute Geo. IV. declares what persons are idle and disorderly persons, and may be committed by a single magistrate to hard labour in the house of correction for any time not exceeding one month.
The 4th section of this act declares certain classes of persons, which are there described, to be rogues and vagabonds, and empowers a single magistrate to commit them to hard labour in the house of correction, for any time not exceeding three months.
The 5th section authorizes a single magistrate to commit incorrigible rogues to the house of correction until the next sessions, during which interval they are to be kept to hard labour. The 10th section of the act authorizes the justices at sessions to continue the impri sonment of this class of offenders with hard labour for any time not exceeding a year, and to order whipping, if they deem it to be expedient Incorrigible rogues are defined by the statute.
The statute, besides the definition of the facts and circumstances which are to constitute offences in the several classes ibove enumerated, contains various pro risions for the prosecution of vagrants and the regulation and disposal of them. Thus it is enacted that any person may apprehend a vagrant and bring him before t magistrate. The persons as well as the carriages or luggage of the several de scriptions of vagrants may be searched, and money or goods found upon them may on their conviction be applied to wards the costs of apprehending them and maintaining them in prison. If pro
ceedings at the sessions are contemplated, either by reason of an appeal against a summary conviction or the commitment of an incorrigible rogue, the committing magistrate may bind over witnesses to prosecute, and the justices at sessions may order the payment of costs to persons so bound. And an appeal is given to the next sessions to any person aggrieved by an act or determination of any magistrate out of sessions concerning the execution of the act.
Although the modern statute is in many respects an improvement of the law, it is liable to some of the objections which were made to the 17 Geo. H. c. 5, and to others of a graver character. It is by no means exclusively a Vagrant Act, though popularly so called ; its provi sions extend to various offences not neces sarily connected with vagrancy, which the legislature has placed within the summary jurisdiction of justices of the peace. Under the former statute, a single magistrate was only intrusted with the power of summary commitment for a month in the ease of idle and disorderly persons, or to the next sessions in case of rogues and vagabonds and incorrigible rogues. But, under the recent act, a single magistrate has the power of at once committing rogues and vagabonds to prison with hard labour for three months. If the offences to be punished had been precisely defined by the statute, this extensive summary jurisdiction might have been less objectionable ; but the language of the law is very loose and inaccurate. For instance, who are to be considered " suspected persons," or " re puted thieves," or what is to be taken for an "unlawful purpose," or "frequenting a street," in the true legal construction of this statute, so as to render the persons to whose acts these phrases are applied rogues and vagabonds ? are often ques tions of doubt and difficulty to practical layers, and may reasonably occasion hesitation and differences of opinion even among those to whom the final interpre tation of penal laws belongs. This lati tude and vagueness of expression are peculiarly dangerous in a law which gives large judicial power to unprofes sional persons, who are for the most part withdrawn from the control of public opinion in the exercise of it ; where the subjects and objects of the law are nearly connected with local excitements and pre 'tins ; and where the parties who from misdecision are commonly the poor and helpless, to whom an appeal is wholly inaccessible.