Under the head of the several modes and characteristics of
street-cleansing, I stated at p. 207 of the present volume that there
were no less than four distinct kinds of labourers employed in the
scavaging of the public thoroughfares of the metropolis. These were:--
1. The self-supporting manual labourers.
2. The self-supporting machine labourers.
3. The pauper labourers.
4. The “philanthropic” labourers.
I have already set forth the distinguishing features of the first two
of these different orders of workmen in connection with the scavaging
trade, and now proceed in due order to treat of the characteristics of
the third.
The subject of pauper labour generally is one of the most difficult
topics that the social philosopher can deal with. It is not possible,
however, to do more here than draw attention to the salient points of
the question. The more comprehensive consideration of the matter must
be reserved till such time as I come to treat of the poor specially
under the head of those that cannot work.
By the 43 Eliz., which is generally regarded as the basis of the
existing poor laws in this country, it was ordained that in every
parish a fund should be raised by local taxation, not merely for the
relief of the aged and infirm, but _for setting to work all persons
having no means to maintain themselves, and using no ordinary or daily
trade of life to get their living by_.
It was, however, soon discovered that it was one thing to pass an act
for setting able-bodied paupers to work, and another thing to do so.
“In every place,” as Mr. Thornton truly says in his excellent treatise
on “Over Population,” “there is only a certain amount of work to be
done,” (limited by the extent of the market) “and only a certain amount
of capital to pay for it; and, if the number of workmen be more than
proportionate to the work, employment can only be given to those who
want it by taking from those who have.”
Let me illustrate this by the circumstances of the scavaging trade.
There are 1760 miles of streets throughout London, and these would seem
to require about 600 scavagers to cleanse them. It is self-evident,
therefore, that if 400 paupers be “set” to sweep particular districts,
the same number of self-supporting labourers must be deprived of
employment, and if these cannot obtain work elsewhere, they of course
must become paupers too, and, seeking relief, be put upon the same kind
of work as they were originally deprived of, and that only to displace
and pauperize in their turn a similar number of independent operatives.
The work of a country then being limited (by the capital and market for
the produce), there can be but two modes of setting paupers to labour:
(1) by throwing the self-supporting operatives out of employment
altogether, and substituting pauper labourers in their stead; (2) by
giving a portion of the work to the paupers, and so decreasing the
employment, and consequently the wages, of the regular operatives. In
either case, however, the independent labourers must be reduced to a
state of comparative or positive dependence, for _it is impossible to
make labourers of the paupers of an over-populated country without
making paupers of the labourers_.
Some economists argue that, as paupers are consumers, they should,
whenever they are able to work, be made producers also, or otherwise
they exhaust the national wealth, to which they do not contribute. This
might be a sound axiom were there work sufficient for all. But in an
over-populated country there is not work enough, as is proven by the
mere fact of the over-population; and the able-bodied paupers _are_
paupers simply _because they cannot obtain work_, so that to employ
those who are out of work is to throw out those who are in work, and
thus to pauperize the self-supporting.