POOR RELIEF IN ENGLAND.*
" SINCE the reign .of Charles I., Englishmen have made them.. selves responsible for the maintenance of those who are destitute. All who cannot obtain food or shelter for them- selves or from their nearest relatives have a right to relief levied on the rest of the community." The, writer of The Early History of English Poor Relief undertakes to ,trace the growth of this system from its commencement in the early part of the sixteenth century. " Power in England at the beginning of the sixteenth -century," we are told, "passed from leaders of men to holders. _of wealth." Discharged retainers swarmed on the high- ways, and, according to Sir Thomas More, "..they .that-be thus destitute of service either starve with hunger .or man- fully play the thieves." The dissolution .of the _monasteries increased the savagery of the sturdy beggar by making.lidni hungry, and life was rendered unsafe for decent, disanie- staying working people. Fear made the G-overnment cruel, and the first _vagrancy laws are harsh in the extreme, but the worst, such as the law passed in 1547 _commit; ting the vagrant to slavery for a time or for life, were of short duration. Repressive measures led to preventive measures. Men realised that " there is no punishment so horrible that can keep them from stealing which have no • (1.) The Early History of English Poor Relief. By E. X. Leonard. Cam- bridge : University Press. [is. 6d.]. —(2.) Chalmers me Chartbi. Arranged and Edited by N. Masterman. London : A. Constable and Co. (7s. W.] other craft. whereby to get their Jiving." Collections were ordered to be 'made in all the churches fer the relief- of the poor.. The sermons of the time show a growing sense of the responsibility of society towards what we now call the residunm. Brinklow, preaching in 150 before the King, the Lord. Mayor, and the municipal officers, boldly told the latter that-it was " to their great shame before men and their utter damnation before God" that so much beggary and ruffianism infested-the streets.of London; "for there is not one of these but he lacketh either thy charitable alms to relieve his needs or thy due.correction to punish his fault." The public conscience was aroused by the public alarm. Old hospitals and almshouses were revised and improved, and new " houses of correction were .built." The first house of correction was a disused palace which was granted to the municipality of London. Ridley begs for this gift in a quaint letter written to Cecil, which gives us some insight into the " new philanthropy_"-of the sixteenth century. " Sir," he says, " there is a. lary wide_ empty house of the King's Majesty, called Bridewell, that would Wonderfully well serve to lodge Christ in, if he might £md such good friends in the'Court to procure his cause. Sir, I do take you for one that fea,reth God, and would that Christ should lie no more abroad in the street." Bridewell became the common name for houses of correction, which were established, in imitation of the first "house to lodge Christ" allover the country. Apparently they were, at least in their origin, in no sense gaols. In the London Bride- well work was provided for sturdy vagabonds, under which head came. also "the child inapt for learning," the " sick and sore when they be cured," and " such prisoners as are quit at the Sessions." A.. great deal of flogging seems to have gone along with this paternal system of relief. The ideal of the time was " to sett the pore on work." To work they were to be driven "with corrections, till their hands be -brought into such use and their bodies to such paynes as labour and learning shall be easier to them than idleness." The complete suppression of beggars • was found at first impossible, and such persons as were adjudged incapable of getting 'a, livelihood were licensed to beg and given a badge to protect them- from- arrest. It was not till the end of the sixteenth century that voluntary gifts were found inadequate to-carryout the philanthropic system of the time, and not till 1601 that a Poarrate was levied as a tax over the whole king- dohs and the system-of assessment began which has prevailed ever since in England. A quarter of- a century before this date a Poor-ran:rho& been levied on the citizens of London by the CommonCouncil as a temporary measure. It is noticeable, as this writer pointaout, that in the original Poor-lawsthe State followed the action- of the various municipalities rather than suggested_thenr._ For a long time State and voluntary aid ran on-side by side,ntul it is difficult to disentangle the one from the other. Overseer and Justices in every parish assessed the ratepayers, apprenticed- the destitute children, pensioned, boarded. out, or sheltered-in a department of the local. Bride- wells which were ordered to be built all over-the country the destitute sick and_aged, but much of the money necessary for setting the idle poor to work seems to have been voluntarily subscribed. " Stocks " were raised in every parish, consisting either of raw materials, such as hemp, &e., to be wrought up, or of money to_buy such material. Work thus provided was done sometimes by the • unemployed in their own houses and sometimes. in the houses of correction. Provision of corn, too, in -times of scarcity was raised both by force and __persuasion, the latter being employed first and backed by the former. How this system of relief works became too difficult 'and. turned into a gigantic system of out-relief is easily guessed; but our author does not take us further than the end of the- seventeenth century. We find few conclusions in the book, whiCh is stiff, and deals with masses. of. evidence little enlightened or strung together by theory. The-general conclusion of the writer seems; how- ever, tohe." that the law-abiding characteristics of the nation and: the absence of violent changes in the Constitution have been. at least partly due to the regular relief which has been granted under_ the. English Poor-law."
lh ia.always- well to see both sides of a question, and we: ard (1-. advise such of our readers as care to know the_ arguments against. .public poor relief to look at a book_ which has just been publishett :by_ Mr. • N. • Master- man, called Chalmers on Chality. Dr. Chalmers, the great Scotch divine of the beginning of this century who founded the Free Kirk of Scotland, was a deadly opponent of the Poor-law. Probably he was wrong we think he was—but he makes out a surprisingly good case in favour of voluntary charity. The book consists of selections from the works of Dr. Chalmers —which are now almost unprocurable— bearing on the relief of the poor. These selections are admirably strung together by the compiler. Until this century, for reasons too. long to go into here, the English Poor-law was practically inoperative in Scotland. As late as 1830 a compulsory Poor. rate was levied in only a hundred and fifty out of nearly a thousand parishes, and not more than twenty of these were north of the Forth and the Clyde. The legal system was, however, on the increase, and finally prevailed in spite of all the efforts of a man of genius to keep it back. " Humanity and justice," Chalmers said, "are distinct principles. The latter only is the proper subject for legislation." In his judgment a legal system of poor relief weakened the habit of accumulation, loosened the kindly ties of relationship— "turning a matter of love to a matter of litigation"—and lessened not only the sympathy of the rich for the poor, but, what is more important, the sympathy of the poor for one another. No doubt at the time of the reform of the Poor-law, when he gave evidence before the House of Commons, Chalmers stood on very strong ground. The mental and moral condition of the poor in Scotland was far better than that in England, demoralised as the labouring classes were becoming by the abuse of out-relief. Chalmers distrusted all large schemes, organised inquiries, and books of statistics written by men " who sow figures and reap a sum." The formation of a cliff, he said, can be best judged of, not by measuring, but by the careful examination of a lump of chalk. " There is not a single section of any city in Scotland of suitable dimensions to be called a parish which contains not within itself all the capabilities of comfort and of maintenance for all its families." Organisation—including a certain amount of charitable relief from richer friends—he believed, would stamp out, not poverty, but suffering caused by poverty. The lower classes in England; he thought, had lost, not only in morale, but in the actual amount of physical comfort they were able to enjoy, by the weakening effects of the Poor-law, and he held that the solution of the problem of destitution could only be arrived at " by leaving the whole matter to the operation of the mechanism of Nature, and by keeping in their right tone and action the principles which reside or which may be imparted in the constitution of individual men." A compulsory system of relief, he believed, showed a want of faith in human nature. He instances a gaol at Bristol wherein criminals were given bread and debtors were obliged to beg for • it. Sometimes they did - not get enough from passers-by, when the criminals supplied the need. If criminals, he argues, will not see their • brothers starve, why should we suppose that normally moral men should do so P Dr. Chalmers overrated, we think, not so much the power of compassion as the power of imagination. The criminals saw the debtors starving, and the sight of suffering is unpleasant to almost every one, and unbearable to very many. The thought of it is not, however, or the novels of the present day would not be what they are. But the suffering poor, thoad who come within the constant jurisdiction of the Poor-law, are not seen by the class next but One above them. The artisan who sees them has little to spare for them. The small upper class knows something of them from tradition and the habit of feudal charity. The upper middle class guesses shrewdly at their condition by the help of a well-trained imagination. But the huge lower middle class, who surely should not be kept out of pains and privileges of giving, is too apt to disregard them altogether. In towns, and in the country too, these people often look on the poor as a dirty, improvident set, living below in an abyss into which it behoves them to exercise all the respectabl' virtues in order not to fall.
Again, we cannot agree with Dr. Chalmers that humanity and compassion are outside the province of law., The law should reflect the enlightened conscience of the nation, that it may serve as an example to those still in darlmega,—for whom laws are made. In the mattet of cruelty to animals the law may be said to have created a conscience; alas been an explanation of sulfeng to those Who have "net imagination- enough to divine it. Had we had no Poor-law in England we should certainly have had more thrift, but not, we believe, more charity, even in its most spiritual sense. Thrift is a virtue, but as a- moralising agent it may be overrated. It means self-control, control not only of the lawless, extravagant, food-and-drink-loving self, but of the better, more generous self too. - The- example of the French peasant will illustrate what we mean. —
We congratulate Mr. Masterman on his work. He has succeeded in making the unpopular side of a dry subject keenly interesting, but as we lay the book down we still believe that the Englishman of to-day is the gainer by a law which, though sometimes baneful through careless administration, has given him the courage to spend, and left him the kindness to share, his last shilling.
Previous page
