.D IFFICILE est proprie communia dicere." The , story of the
old Poor Law has been told so that there is nothing new to be said about it. For often about two hundred years the country had accepted an [ The articles in this series are contributed by different writers,—each an espert in his own subject. Hence, though the general aim and purpose are the same, a difference in point of view may occasionally be visible. and them ma' also be occasional overlapping. It has been thought better not to suppress the individualism thus apparent in the articles, nor to attempt the production of a rigid uniformity by editorial omissions, alterations. awl. additions. An essential harmony produced 'by the adoption of common principles, and by the desire to awaken the public to the evils caused by the manufacture of paupers, is, however, visible throughout the series. This week's article completes the series.—En. Spectator.] ill-definedxesponsibility for the relief of the poor, which gradually widened until at the end of the eighteenth century it was taken for granted that no " poor " person could support himself without State-aid. Wages were universally supplemented according to the needs and numbers of a family. It paid no one to excel in industry, skill, or frugality, and these virtues bad in many places almost ceased to exist. Of course the attempt to support every one failed, and the ruin, both moral and physical, of the labouring classes was well-nigh complete. " The injury inflicted upon them by the deliberately hostile legislation of Tudor and Plantagenet was as dust in the balance compared with that which they suffered from the benevolent measures of some of the best men that have ever ruled in England." There had been protests from time to time against this theory that " the poor " . must be condemned to eternal dependence. Defoe had pointed out that the ideal of wise government should be to lead men to "live by their labour " ; Burke that " when we affect to pity those as poor who must labour, or the world would not exist, we are trifling with the condition of mankind. I cannot call a healthy young man, cheerful in his mind, vigorous in his arms, I cannot call such a man poor." Still, up to 1834 the opinion of the day, a strange mixture of the spirit of feudalism and of modern benevolence, continued to scout the idea that a poor man could support himself, and the law, in fact, rendered it impossible for him to do so. The last check upon pauperism was removed in 1762, when the power of offering relief in the workhouse was finally discarded. Thenceforward the increase of pauperism was fast and. furious. By the end of the reign of George III. the rates threatened to absorb the whole produce of the land. Then came the Royal Commission, which took evidence "from every county, almost every town, and from many villages." It sat two years, and reported in 1834. A. foreign observer has described that Report as a " masterly example of a thorough, comprehensive, and unbiassed inquiry." More than that, it is a remarkable instance of an inquiry which not only correctly diagnosed the disease, but also prescribed an effective remedy, and secured its adoption. It is a Blue-book which, as a study of social conditions, has become a classic. After describing in some detail the various methods of relief then existing, and their results, it proceeds :—" It is now our painful duty to report that the fund set aside by the 43rd Elizabeth for the putting to work of children and persons capable of labour, and the relief of the impotent, has been applied to purposes opposed to the letter and still more to the spirit of that law, and destructive to the morals of the most numerous class and the welfare of all." It is only possible in the course of an article to glance at a few of the facts disclosed by the evidence. As " the poor " were supposed to be unable to live by their labour, every one who applied got relief in some form, commonly in the form of outdoor relief, with or without labour. - Wages were everywhere supplemented according to needs, and the most iudlicient workman got most relief. Idleness and improvidence were condoned, and the Com- missioners point out that "in attempting to repeal that law of nature by which the effects of each man's improvidence or misconduct are borne by himself and his family we also repeal the other law by which each man and his family enjoy the benefit of prudence and virtue. In abolishing punishment we also abolish reward." The independent workman almost ceased to exist. If any such remained, there was no room for them. Farmers were partly bribed, partly forced, to employ pauper labour, and a man had to become a pauper before he could get work. The " allow- ance" system became an incentive to " boy-and-girl " marriages. Young couples often went straight from the church door to the overseer to claim relief. Allowances to mothers of illegitimate children led to a trade in bastardy. People claimed parish allowances for the performance of the most ordinary acts of humanity towards their own relations. Parents threw their children, and children their parents, upon the rates. Demoralisation was universal, but above all there stands out the miserable condition of those whom it was sought to " relieve." It is amply corroborated by contemporary writers, such as Arthur Young, Cobliett, and Harriet Martineau. Meanwhile the ratepayers, especially the smaller ones, were in little better plight. Small farmers and tradesmen began themselves to come upon the rates. One village, Cholesbury, became bank- rupt altogether, and others were within a measurable distance of bankruptcy. In several the rates were already £1 an acre. Farms in all districts were without tenants, because it was impossible to pay the rates.
The demoralisation of the administrators became equal to that of the paupers. " The rental of a pauperised parish was—like the revenues of the Sultan of Turkey—a prey of which every official hoped to get a share. The owner of cottage property found in the parish a liberal and solvent tenant. The petty shopkeeper and publican attended the vestry to vote allowances to his customers and debtors."—(Edinburgh Review, No. 149.) Dislocation of family life was complete. " Pauperism," say the Com- missioners, "is an engine for disconnecting each member of a family from all the others, and of reducing all to a state of domesticated animals, fed, lodged, and provided for by the parish without mutual dependence or mutual interest." Mr. Cowell, an Assistant Commissioner, who started with the idea that the pressure of the rates was the most important question, soon came to the conclusion " that this evil, however great, sinks into insignificance when compared with the dreadful results that this system has upon the morals and happiness of the labouring classes." As the Commissioners say, " in all ranks of society the great sources of happiness and virtue are the domestic affections, and this is particularly the case amongst those who have so few resources as the labouring classes." The Commissioners further find that " the discontentment of the labouring classes in every parish is proportioned to the money spent in poor rates." Turbulence and disorder became rife everywhere. In one parish the labourers are described as " very idle and imperious." Distrust, suspicion, and open hostility were universal.
These were the conditions with which the Commissioners had to deal. Their conclusions are clear and unhesitating. They point out that the attempt to relieve poverty had been a disastrous failure, and that the function of State relief must in future be limited to the relief of destitution. They lay down as a fundamental principle that the position of the pauper should be " less eligible " than that of the indepen- dent labourer, or, as it has been paraphrased, the position of the hanger-on than that of him upon whom he hangs. Further, "all relief to be spent or consumed by the pauper in his own house is inconsistent with that principle." The main cause of the evils of the day had been the outdoor relief given to the able-bodied pauper, and they recommend that all such relief should be forthwith discontinued. Such was the origin of the " new Poor Law," a law which has been called the charter of independence of the working classes, and which has certainly emancipated them, even if against their own will, from the slavery of pauperism.
We are now upon a wave of reaction, and it may be that we shall have to pass again through another crisis. How- ever that may be, it is plain that, whatever be the form of government, there must in public relief be some teat or limitation as au alternative to general pauperism. Human nature, like everything else, follows the line of least resist- ance, and in the absence of a check the consequences are inevitable. The Commissioners believed that they had found that check in the workhouse test, under which every destitute person is guaranteed the necessaries of life upon conditions. Even that responsibility is a large one, and the State which accapts it cannot be said to be acting ungenerously. This test is, however, now resented, and there are many who believe that they have discovered an adequate substitute for it in " discrimination." It has already been seen that discrimination was rejected by the Poor Law Commissioners, as it has been subsequently by all the leading authorities upon the Poor Law. It may be noted that the proposal has nothing new about it. Almost every Board of Guardians would contend that they have been " discriminating " for the last fifty years and more. But that has not prevented enormous and bewildering variations of pauperism in various localities at various times.
Again, some say that all these things happened long ago, that the conditions have changed, and that the evils would not recur. But there are still people living who were born under the old Poor Law. Moreover, where the old relief conditions have been revived, as recently in not a few localities, there the old social evils tend to recur in all their forms. Some, again, who have nothing else to recommend advocate " wise experiments." Most of these " experiments " are but the repetition of old failures. All of them involve a departure from the principles laid down in 1834. Principles, of course, have no value except in so far as their observance or non-observance bears upon social conditions. But there is no branch of administra- tion in which departure from principles is so hazardous as in the Poor Law. Nowhere are the forces which compel further departure so cogent and irresistible. Obsta principiis is a maxim the force of which is perhaps too little realised by the social reformers of our times.
Previous page
