MR. GLADSTONE ON THE POOR-LAW.
THE Times has been very severe on Mr. Gladstone for saying, in his speech on Friendly Societies, at Hawarden, last Tuesday, that there is nothing that can be called exactly unfair in an English labourer's taking advantage of the Poor-Law, and counting on going into a workhouse when he becomes finally unable to maintain himself. These were his exact words The Law of England has laid down for 300 years that the destitute ought to be relieved, and relieved, if necessary, by law,—out of the means and substance of those who possess the means and substance ; and I do not think that I am in a condition reasonably to contend that there is anything unfair or unjust to the possessors of property, when the labouring population choose to contemplate in the day of need,—of old age, for example,—falling back on that resource. I do not think that a wrong is done to the possessors of pro- perty, if the poor think fit, as some do, to confine themselves to falling back on the Poor-Law. But it is a wiser answer, it is what is called in Scripture ' a more excellent way,' when the labouring population of the country have in them manhood enough to say,
No, never, except from dire necessity, will we go to that extreme!' " For this part of his speech Mr. Gladstone has been severely reproved, and it has been contended that though our Poor-Law gives a labourer the legal right to relief in the last extremity, it gives him no moral right to contemplate beforehand taking advantage of the workhouse in that last ex- tremity, if he might instead strain every nerve to save up for his own old age. Now of course the real accuracy or inaccuracy of Mr. Gladstone's language turns on the meaning to be ascribed to the words " unfair" and " unjust." Mr. Gladstone says expressly that it is far nobler not to take advantage of the law except under extreme necessity ; that it is a far "more excellent way" to save in strength and health against the time of sickness and old age. But he says that even if the labourer refuses to do this, and prefers to fall back on his strictly legal rights, the holders of property have no right from their side to call this course "unfair" or "un- just" Now many things are doubtless, if we knew all, unfair and unjust, which those who suffer by them have no right so to regard. It is, in the judgment of conscience, unfair and unjust for a rich man who has derived great help in his youth from friends or relatives, to let them go to the workhouse in their old age, for no fault of their own, rather than repay barely the moral debt he owes them. But this, though unfair and unjust in the judgment of con- science, is not only perfectly lawful conduct, but is con- duct of which no man can determine the degree of the unfairness and injustice, without a very large and minute knowledge of the particular circumstances of the case. When on the whole, the law says that a particular line of conduct shall be regarded as lawful, it is of course believed that it is for the public benefit so to regard it ; and that can hardly be, unless in at least a great number of cases covered by the law, it would be more unfair and more unjust, as a general rule, to condemn and punish such conduct than to protect it. And in point of fact, Mr. Gladstone, later in his speech, pointed out the real considerations why a Poor-Law, even though it enables a labourer to spend his earnings during his time of health and strength, and to fall back on the fortunately not too tender mercies of the workhouse, in sickness and age, is more fair and just to society at large than unfair and unjust. Nobody would deny that to make the whole labouring-class thrifty and provident would be to raise them indefinitely in the rank of being, and that if that could be done by abolish- ing the Poor-Law, without introducing greater evils by way of compensation, it would be well to do it. But then could it so be done ? Would not a great deal more mischief be done on one side of their character than good on the other side, by such radical legislation ? Doubtless, the prospect of utter famine and houselessness in old age would be, in one way, a great astringent to the working-class. It would do something to make them severely frugal, and something to make them more constantly industrious. But what would it do besides ? Look at the condition of public feeling abroad, (where there is either no Poor-Law, or none at all like ours in its completeness), in relation to the differences of wealth, and see whether it be one-tenth part so satisfactory as that at home. We must not look exclusively at the effects of any law upon frugality and industry, and overlook its effects on envy and covetousness. What is the real significance of such Socialist movements as those which engender conspira- cies to assassinate, except that the people who have hatched them have been,—by one cause or another,—driven into re- garding the powers that be as mere enemies, to be got rid of, at the price of any pain and any shedding of blood ? Does that suggest that a severer system of dealing with destitution
has, on the whole, improved the character of the populations who are trained by it ? We believe that one secret of the comparative placability of the English peasantry, and the little success that Socialism of any formidable type has obtained amongst them, is that the Poor-Law has kept absolute starva- tion at least, from the door of the poorest class, and has pre- vented the kind of scenes and the kind of sufferings which make the life of the poor one long dread of famine, and trans- form humility into hate.
But it will be denied that any compulsory claim on the possessors of property. for the sake of those who have none (but many of whom might have had it, if they had laboured hard in their youth for that great end), is justifiable. It will be thought that to concede such a claim on the rich for the poor is a sort of Socialism, and is, in fact, a legislative inroad on the very essence of the right of property itself. And so un- doubtedly it is. As one of the Prussian Liberals said the other day, every liberty taken with private property in the interests of society,—and no civilised society could exist without a great number of such liberties,—is a concession to the principle of Socialism, though it may be a concession made, in part at• least, in order to preserve the better those pro- prietary rights which are not conceded. And such concessions are really necessary, if the so-called rights of property are not to be mischiefs to the community, instead of benefits. There is no such thing as absolute and unconditional right of property, in any true state of civilisation. As much of the principle as is possible is carefully guarded by legislation, in order to secure the accumulation of property,—which would not otherwise accumulate, — by identifying self-interest with that accumulation. But every step made of late years in the direction of so mitigating the rights of proprietors as to bring home to them that property is a. trust which, under grave circumstances, the State may do well to resume, has been a step, and a right step, in the direction of Socialism, though a step made to avoid Socialism, and not to promote it. And there is this to be said in favour of the systematic mitigation of the absolute rights of property, namely, that, as Mr. Gladstone puts it, the very poor who are dependent for their daily bread on their daily work, have a far harder duty to perform to the State than the owners of property, and should not be measured strictly by the same standard. "The constant grind of daily labour," said Mr. Gladstone, " is both ab- sorbing and depressing on the mind of a working-man. If you take a great deal of energy out of a man, you will agree with me that you don't leave as much as before. The consequence is that, taking the average of human nature, a very severe and constant pres- sure on the physical qualities of a man is apt, unless great care is taken, to undermine his force and independence. I assure you that I feel myself, in my way of life, that the excess of business seems to leave one without moral strength, —it leaves one only half a man ; and that is even of greater importance than the want of a sufficiency of bodily interests. In these circumstances, it is difficult for members of the working-classes always to preserve their perfect independence. It is hard for them to meet the pressure that comes on them from every quarter." That seems to us the true justification of laws which, at the cost of the rich, place a gulf between the poor and that absolute starvation which they so much dread. Without some such mitigation of the lot of the poor, at the expense of the rich, there is no real equality between the sacrifices of the rich and the sacrifices of the poor for the common benefit of society. Lives used up by constant physical labour sacrifice a great deal larger proportion of their own energy, even if they are taxed at a perfectly equal rate, than lives with a good deal of ease and leisure, and no such overpowering dread, in them. On the principle, then, that the State may demand equal sacrifices from all, it is not unfair and unjust, but fair and just, that those who have much, should contribute of that much to ward off the worst of dreads from the lives of those who have no- thing. Only thus can the sacrifice which the State demands be partially equalised, and that comparative self-possession secured to the poor which their exhausting lives would other- wise deny them. The abolition of a Poor Law might indeed increase the frugality and industry of the working-class, but if it did so by greatly deepening their feeling of the injustice of their position, by filling them with the sort of fierce envy with which the Socialists of Berlin must have been filled before they could plot the assassination of their aged Bing, by stimulating their hatred of the wealthy and their scorn of patience and long-suffering, it would injure instead of im- proving them, and diminish instead of increasing the stability of the social system. Those who really perceive the all-but essential part which the institution of private property plays in the growth of civilisation, ought to weigh well the advantage of those wise and salutary concessions to the Socialistic spirit which prevent property from being regarded with pure abhorrence, as an outcome of a cruel and selfish spirit. We believe that the poor will suffer as well as the rich,—and on the whole, considering their greater numbers, more than the rich,—through any attempt to undermine the principle of private property, so long as that property is re- garded as involving a trust, no less than a right. But if it be discharged of that trust, it will be in great danger of suffering a severe and dangerous attack from the poor, and of injuring the poor far more by the resentment and jealousy it breeds in them, than the prospect of destitution could benefit them by hardening their will to save, and spurring on the industry which makes saving comparatively easy.
Previous page
