POOR-LAWS.
TO THE EDITOR OF TICE SPECTATOR.
27th January 1847. Sul—In the whole province of legislation, there is no department which exercises a more important influence on the wellbeing both physical and moral of the la- bouring classes, than that which is occupied by Poor-laws; and there is no object of legislation which in this country has more occupied the minds of reflecting men, than the endeavour to discover in what way the greatest good and the least evil could be attained as to those matters with which poor-laws are concerned.
But the interest excited by poor-laws is not confined to England. They existed under one form or another in every Protestant country of Europe; in all their im- portance is appreciated; in all they have excited the earnest attention of the le- gislature. The existing Poor-law of England was enacted after the most rigid and search- ing inquiry which ever preceded the direct action of a legislative body; and no one measure, perhaps, ever united in its favour the suffrages of a larger portion of the well-informed public.
Under these circumstances, one might hope that at any rate little difference of opinion could exist among sensible men as to the objects of a poor-law—as to its main features—in short, as to anything excepting its minor details. Yet, Mr. Editor, even a man like yourself, who usually cast so piercing a gaze on all po- litical subjects, who are so little likely to be led astray by the transient humbug of the day, confess yourself to be at sea as respects this all-important matter; while it is perfectly clear that your correspondent "A Guardian," however amiable and intelligent he may be, is not merely at sea, but is being driven about among shoals and quicksands without either chart or compass. Both you and he dream occasionally of making a poor-law the refuge fur de- serving but unfortunate virtue, which has been buffeted by the gales of misfortune. Depend upon it, that we lay a sufficient burden upon it when we direct it to its legitimate objects,—viz. -First, the relief of destitution, from whatever cause arising;
Second, the removal of any 'pretext for vagrancy; Third, the attainment of these ends without serious injury to the social vir- tue; such as industry, economy, filial and parental affection, on which the wel- fare of the community so largely depends. In effecting this purpose with that completeness which the humanity of our generation requires, we shall encounter difficulties of an appalling kind: let us not add to these difficulties by mixing them up with others, which I firmly believe to be almost invincible. I have often been tempted to break a lance with your well-intentioned corre- spondent, (for well-intentioned I firmly believe him to be,) but have refrained from a fear that I might claim a larger space than your crowded columns would afford me.
In passing, I will just allude to a passage which you cull from a pamphlet by the Reverend T. O'Malley. In this the author suggests, that the paupers should be collected in industrial establishments, and employed according to their age, sex, 8:c. in raising their food, making their clothes, Fee. Now the value of this pro.. posiil has been often tested, in this and other countries, with one uniform result— thorough and complete failure, so far as respects any saving of expense. It is indeed absolutely requisite that employment should be found for the inmates of a workhouse; but if we except a little garden-stuff, or other objects of trifling importance, the dearest goods bought of a regular dealer are invariably cheaper, in an old country, than the 'Products of pauper labour.
However, I must now direct your attention to the point which formed my chief inducement for taking pen in hand today,—the suggestion cited by "A Guardian" as emanating from Colonel Wood, for making the support of paupers a general instead of a local burden, to be defrayed from the national exchequer, in place of being assessed on parishes or unions, as at present; the administration being left mainly, as now, in the hands of local authorities. Of all the crude notions now afloat in the public mind on the subject of poor- laws, this of making the support of the destitute a charge on the general revenue seems to me the most unwise. The plan might indeed be tried, but could not be persisted in for three years without producing the most appalling consequences. A board of guardians, as at present constituted, has many temptations to be extravagant in point of expenditure: its members may gratify their kindly feel- ings and obtain a reputation for liberality at the expense mainly of others. They well know that they may be over-prodigal of their neighbours' money in ninety-nine instances out of a hundred, and by so doing obtain credit for gene- rosity; but that if in the hundredth instance they exhibit even an appearance of i harshness, they will be held up to public scorn n half the newspapers of the empire. However, they are not without some counteracting motives, tending to produce an economical employment of the funds intrusted to their charge; for, first, these funds are partly drawn from their own pockets; secondly, they are an elected body, and would excite the discontent of their constituents by raising the rates above a certain point.
But suppose a hoard of guardians, most of them employers of labour, many of them the owners of cottages, to have the power of drawing on the public exche- quer: every motive to economy would be lost; payment of rent and wages out of a fund apparently inexhaustible would everywhere be the order of the day. The worst evils of the old Poor-law would not be local but universal: the expense of relieving pauperism would be soon doubled or trebled; and in a short period the law would be repealed, or a social convulsion ensue. But I may be told that the Government, which furnished the means of relief, might also administer those means, through the hands of local agents appointed by itself. To this I reply, waiving many other objections to the plan, that these local agents could never resist the pressure from without; that they would be hurried into extravagance, in spite of their own efforts and the injunctions of their superiors. Their lives would hardly be safe, if they did their duty. Con- ceive a Government superintendent of relief exposed to the heavy broadsides of the Times and Mr. Wakley !
But to throw the support of pauperism on the national exchequer would he hardly less unjust than it would be inexpedient. Property has been bought and bequeathed subject to this charge; a charge which is not more burdensome on the whole now than it was a century ago; a charge which, compared with the probable value of the property which is to support it, need not be heavier fifty years hence than at present. Why make an enormous present to the owners of real estates, at the expense of the rest of the community ?—especially as this class has so much in its power as respects the increase or decrease of pauperism. If, indeed, we were now about to enact a poor-law for the first time, as is the case in Ireland, we might well consider whether or no it might not be just and expedient to throw a part of the burden on the owners of personal property. I will now say a few words upon two points which at this moment create much interest among persons conversant with Poor-law affairs, and then take my leave of you. First, then, as to the law of last session respecting the non-removal of paupers who may have resided in a given parish for mom than five years: attempts are made to throw dust in the eyes of the public by complaining of this as a harsh enactment, which produces inconvenience to persons applying for relief. Nothing can be more untrue than such a representation: this is a measure of kindness and mercy; and the complaints emanate from places whose expenses are increased by the claims of non-settled paupers; such increase being nearly balanced by the diminution of expense in those parishes to which the paupers belong. Depend upon it, the principle of the Non-removal Act is benevolent and just. There exist doubts as to its interpretation which should be settled authoritatively; and a question of expediency, as to whether the relief given under it should be charged on the parish or the union, which is very important, and where much is to be said on both sides.
Now as to the proposed reconstruction of the Poor-law Board. That the Commissioners have not been guiltless of error and mistake, I freely allow: nevertheless, I am persuaded that few individuals could have been se- lected who would have acted better under circumstances of unexampled diffi- culty; and that no public functionaries could be found who .have been more cruelly and unjustly treated.
The Poor-law Commissioners were appointed for the purpose of protecting the interest of the public, and especially of the working classes, against the influence of prejudice and self-seeking. From the very commencement of their career they were exposed to attacks, in many of which truth, reason, and decency, were alike set at nought. Neither the community at large nor even the Government gave them a fair support; opponents were fierce and noisy; supporters cowardly and silent. The result is that they have fallen, and the central control must be placed in new hands.
I am unable to suggest a better scheme, as circumstances exist, than that pro- Posed by the Ministry. But while I say this, I am not blind to the waste of time,
and the other inconveniences which will arise, especially in the House of Commons, from endless petitions and discussions as to minute points of poor-law manage- ment, which never can be satisfactorily treated in a popular assembly. If Par- liament strenuously set its face against abuses of this kind,, the scheme may an- swer; but, judging of the future from the past, I am inclined to anticipate its failure.
Begging your pardon for having intruded on you so long, I remain, Sir, your
Previous page
