not, as now, be able with impunity to commit another offence in another locality, again become subject to a light penalty, and so on _ad infinitum_. If such vagrants could be identified by finger prints or otherwise, and systematically dealt with on indictment and sentenced to a long term, something at least more effective than the present system might result. We do not see how any system can be effective without an elaborate method of identification." The Report of the Committee of 1906 is an instructive and valuable document. The Casual Ward system was condemned both on the grounds of efficiency and of economy, and it was boldly proposed to substitute the Police for Poor Law Authorities as the body responsible for local relief and management of Casual Wards. The want of uniformity in the administration of over 600 independent authorities had impressed the Committee as the principal cause in the failure of the system, and it was believed that by giving control of the Wards to the Police, and by that way only, uniformity of treatment would be secured. With regard to the punishment of Vagrancy also, the evidence showed that there was no uniformity whatever in the sentences given for Vagrancy offences. It was found that sentences given by stipendiary magistrates appeared to be as little governed by any fixed principles as those inflicted by unpaid justices. The great majority of the sentences are for fourteen days or under. The evidence showed conclusively that as a protection against vagrancy, short sentences were indefensible. They quoted the opinion of the Prison Commissioners that the "elaborate and expensive machinery of a prison, whose object is to punish, and at the same time to improve, by a continuous discipline and applied labour, cannot fulfil its object in the case of this hopeless body of men who are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and who, from long habit and custom, are hardened against such deterrent influences as a short detention in prison may afford." They came generally to the opinion that while it is evident that short periods of imprisonment were useless, and long periods could not be given without injustice, and having regard to the fact that prison conditions could not be made deterrent to vagrant offenders, a complete change in the treatment of Vagrancy was called for. Their principal proposal was that the class of habitual Vagrants should be defined by Statute to include any person who had been convicted three or more times within a period of twelve months of certain offences, such as "Begging," "Sleeping-Out," or refusing task in Casual Wards, and that such a person should be treated, as far as possible, not as a criminal, but as a person requiring detention on account of his mode of life.