The time has arrived when the modes of administering the poor-law in
England and Wales must undergo inquiry and revision. Twelve years have
elapsed since the Poor-Law Amendment Act became the law of the land; and
during the period many changes have been made. In many cases, the new
arrangements of the Poor-Law Commissioners have been adopted without a
murmur. In some cases, they have met with continued but fruitless
opposition. In others, they have been resisted with success. During the
whole period a war has raged, in which no two of the combatants have
used the same weapons, or drawn them in the same cause. One has adduced
particular cases of hardship, suffering, and death, as the results of
the new system. Another has collected statistics, and referred to
depauperised counties. And yet the same number of cases of hardship and
suffering may have occurred before 1834, although unrecorded and
unknown. Nor does it follow, because the official returns from
agricultural counties may show a diminished number of paupers, or a
diminished expenditure, that the residue have been able to earn their
bread as independent labourers. No period appears to have been assigned
when the results of the new system should be examined. Successive
governments have kept aloof from fear, until an accident led to
important disclosures, and an inquiry is now inevitable. The Poor-Law
Commissioners have been invested with extraordinary and dangerous
powers. They possess the united powers of Queen, Lords, and Commons.
Their most imperfectly-considered resolutions have the force of an act
of parliament, or rather, ten-fold more force--it being their duty,
first, to ascertain _what ought to be the law--then to make the
law--then to enforce it--and then, after the elapse of time, to report
upon its success or failure_. It would be difficult for the wisest to
exercise powers like these beneficially; and it is to be feared that
abuses have crept in. And when we find that men, who have hitherto
upheld the system, now demand inquiry in their place in parliament, and
the ministers who were concerned in the establishment of the system,
promising, either to withdraw opposition to the demand, or to amend the
laws themselves so we may be assured that the topic at the present time,
as regards the administration of Relief to the Poor in England and
Wales, is Inquiry and Revision.
The subject matter of this article must be suggestive, rather than
affirmative. Even at this time of day, it would be presumptuous to take
up a commanding or decided position. The old system was rotten. The good
it contained was choked up with weeds; the pruning-knife has been
applied unsparingly; and it is to be feared that good wood has been cut
away. New arrangements have been devised with practical shrewdness, to
displace clearly recognised evils; but, with these practical
improvements, certain economic theories have been speculatively, tried;
and it is likely that evils have sprung up; so that those who proclaim
so loudly that every part of the new arrangements is either naught or
vicious, and those who affirm that the old methods were all good, are
both remote from the truth, which, probably, lies somewhere between the
two.
The subject being set apart for inquiry, the question arises--How can a
subject which has so many phases be advantageously considered; to whom
must we go for information; and to what matters should the attention be
chiefly directed? It is to these questions this article will attempt to
provide answers. To the first question--To whom must we go for
information?--the answer is obvious. To all who are engaged in the
administration of the law, and chiefly to those who have to do with
those departments where evils may be supposed to exist. And, in order to
answer the second, the subject must be divided into classes, and the
mode of operation of the law in each must be sketched. The reader will
then be able to see for himself, and judge whether the matters referred
to are not those which most imperatively demand inquiry.
The several parishes, townships, chapelries, and hamlets of England and
Wales, whether grouped into Unions or not, may be usefully distributed
into three classes.
_The First Class_ includes "parishes, townships, chapelries, and
hamlets," grouped into Unions, in which the _population bears a small
proportion to the number of acres they comprise_.
_The Second Class_ includes small populous parishes, grouped into
Unions, in which the _population bears a large proportion to the number
of statute acres they cover_.
_The Third Class_ consists of _large single parishes_, in which the
_population bears a large proportion to the number of acres_.
The following diagram will explain this classification:
_____________________________________________________________________
| | | |Population| |Area of|No. of |
| COUNTY. | UNION. |No. of| of |Popula-|Union, |Relieving|
| | |Par- |Parishes |tion of|Statute|Officers.|
| | |ishes |__________|Union |Acres. | |
| | | |High |Low | | | |
|______________|__________|______|_____|____|_______|_______|_________|
|FIRST CLASS, | | | | | | | |
|Denbigh, |Ruthin, | 21 | 2066| 97| 16,019|166,619| 2 |
|Durham, |Easington,| 19 | 2976| 10| 6,984| 34,660| 1 |
|Staffordshire,|Uttoxeter,| 16 | 4864| 116| 12,837| 56,685| 1 |
|Derbyshire, |Shardlow, | 46 | 3182| 23| 29,812| 66,974| 2 |
|Lincoln |Louth | 88 | 6927| 24| 25,214|152,251| 3 |
|______________|__________|______|_____|____|_______|_______|_________|
|SECOND CLASS, | | | | | | | |
|Middlesex |City of | | | | | | |
| | London | 98 | 4014| 72| 57,100| 370| 3 |
|______________|__________|______|_____|____|_______|_______|_________|
|THIRD CLASS, |Parish. | | | | | | |
|Middlesex |Marylebone| 1 |.....|....|138,164| 1490| ... |
|______________|__________|______|_____|____|_______|_______|_________|
These divisions of territory may be regarded from different points of
view. They may be seen through the media of statute-books, reports,
returns, and statistics; or they may be actually surveyed. Each course
has its peculiar dangers. The mind, occupied with matters of detail and
routine occurrences, is apt to lose in comprehensiveness as much as it
gains in minute exactness. To avoid this danger the mind must soar as
the facts accumulate. It must regard them, sometimes from the height of
one theory, and sometimes from the height of another. For the mind
becomes tinged with the hue of whatever is frequently presented to it.
Opinions even are hereditary. And every set of facts leads to a
different conclusion, according to the texture of the minds they pass
through. Refer to the facts connected with the condition of the poor,
which have been proclaimed during the last few years; and then reflect
to what contradictory opinions they have led. The man of strong
benevolent feelings deduces one inference. The politico-economical
theorist deduces another. And the man of practice and experience is as
likely to be deluded as either. He sees destitution so frequently
connected with imprudence, laziness, and crime, that he is apt to
believe that the union is indissoluble. His mind has never embraced a
general idea, or traced effects to causes, or distinguished them, the
one from the other. And in this matter, where the causes and effects are
so complicated, and entangled by their mutual reaction, he is likely to
be at fault. Then the man of pure benevolence sees only the pain, and
demands only the means of immediate relief. And the political economist
tells us, "That the law which would enforce charity can fix no limits,
either to the ever-increasing wants of a poverty which itself has
created, or to the insatiable desires and demands of a population which
itself hath corrupted and led astray."
In the First Class, the parishes are large, thinly populated, and
situated generally in rural districts. In some cases, the Union includes
a country town; the neighbouring parishes and hamlets being connected
with it. The total number of parishes may be eighteen or twenty. In
other cases, the Union consists of about twenty-five parishes,
townships, hamlets, and chapelries. In some instances, the population of
the parishes are collected into so many villages, which are distant from
each other. In others, the entire surface of the country is sprinkled
thinly with cottages. The communications are by high-roads, and muddy
lanes, over high hills, and through bogs and marshes, and by
bridle-roads and footpaths--
"O'er muirs and mosses many, O."
In each of these Unions, the management of the relief fund is confided
to a Board, consisting of resident rate-payers, and resident country
magistrates. The former are guardians by election, and the latter
ex-officio. The Board is completed by the addition of the churchwardens
and overseers. The chairman is generally the most distinguished, and the
vice-chairman the most active man in the Union. The chairman regulates
the proceedings of the Board, and ascertains its resolutions. The clerk
records them. The relief which applicants are to receive, is determined
by the Board; except that which is given by certain officers in cases of
"sudden and urgent necessity." The management of the Union-house is
invested in the master--a paid officer. His duties are ascertained and
fixed. He is liable to dismissal by the joint resolution of the Poor-Law
Commissioners and the Guardians, or by the order of the Commissioners
alone. It is also the duty of the master to attend to such cases of
destitution as may be presented at the Union-House gate; and, if their
necessities be of a sudden and urgent character, to admit them into the
house. It may be remarked here, that information is wanted upon this
point. The question is not, by what general term may the cases be
designated, whether sudden or urgent, but what the circumstances of the
cases really are, which are so relieved. The answers to the question
would throw light upon the relation subsisting between a strict
work-house system and the increase of vagrancy. To continue. The sick
poor are confided to the care of the medical officer; and the out-door
relief is chiefly administered by the relieving-officer. His duties in
rural Unions are as follows:--To pay or deliver such amounts of money or
food as the Board may have ordered the poor to receive, at the villages,
hamlets, and cottages where they may reside. He must visit the poor at
their homes. He receives applications for relief; and when the necessity
is sudden and urgent, he relieves the case promptly with food. He must
report upon the circumstances of each case, and keep accounts. For
neglect of duty, he is liable to penal consequences, and to dismissal,
in the same way as the master. The average number of parishes,
townships, and hamlets committed to the care of the relieving-officer
may be about twenty. The reader may be able, from his local knowledge,
to picture this Union, and give it a name.
The Union then consists of twenty parishes. The Union-house is pretty
central, and situated near a small market-town. The meetings of the
Board are held in the Union-house, and upon the market-day; because then
the guardians, churchwardens, and overseers, after having transacted
their private business, may conveniently perform their public duties. At
the last meeting of the Board of Guardians, certain poor persons
appeared before them, and were ordered to be relieved with money or
food, at a specific rate, and for a specified time. The
relieving-officer resides in that part of the Union from whence he can
reach the most distant and opposite points with nearly equal facility.
He divides his district into rounds, and each occupies the greatest
portion of a day. At the end of each week he will have visited the whole
of the twenty parishes.
The Board met yesterday, and to-day the relieving-officer's week began.
By the conditions of his appointment, he must have a horse and chaise.
The contractor for bread is bound to deliver it at the home of the
pauper; he must therefore provide man and horse, and they accompany the
relieving-officer. They set out on the first day's journey; they arrive
at the first hamlet on the route, and stop at a cottage door. Around it
and within it the destitute poor of the hamlet are assembled. Each
receives his allowance of money and bread. But a group has collected
about the door, whose names are not on the relief-list. One woman tells
the relieving-officer that her husband is ill with fever, and her
children are without food. He knows the family; he hastens down the
lane, and across the field, and enters the labourer's hut. The man is
really ill, and there are too evident signs of destitution. A written
order is given on the medical officer to attend the case, and necessary
relief is given. The man who now approaches the officer with such an air
of overbearing insolence, or fawning humility, is also an applicant. He
is known at the village beer-shop, and by the farmer as a man who can
work, but will not; he is the last man employed in the parish; his hovel
is visited--it is a scene of squalid misery. What is to be done? He may
be relieved temporarily with bread, or admitted into the Union-house, or
he is directed to attend the Board. The relieving officer then proceeds
to his next station. There a larger supply of bread awaits him, for he
is now in a populous parish. The poor of the place are assembled at the
church door, and the relief is given in the vestry-room. The
applications are again received and disposed of. He then rides to the
cottages of the sick and the aged, and again continues his route. He
does not proceed far before he is hailed by the labourer in the field,
who tells him of some solitary person who is without medical aid.
By-and-by, he is stopped by the boy who has long waited for him on the
stile, and begs him to come and see his mother; and the farmer's man, on
the farmer's horse, gives him further news of disease, destitution, or
death. He completes his day's journey before the evening. To-morrow
another route is taken; and thus he proceeds from day to day, and from
month to month, through summer's heat and winter's cold.
The number of medical officers in a Union varies. In some cases, where
there are two relieving-officers, there are four medical officers. The
medical officer resides within the limits of the Union. He is not
prevented from attending to his private practice, and he does not
therefore reside in a central position, or at the nearest point to his
pauper patients; he is supplied with a list of persons who are in
receipt of relief, and he is bound to attend these without an order; he
must also attend to cases upon the receipt of a written order from the
relieving-officer or the overseer; he regulates the diet of his
patients, and he is paid by a salary, and by fees in certain cases.
There are contradictory opinions respecting the efficiency of this
system. Some say that the amount of remuneration is inadequate to insure
qualified persons, and others that the qualifications are secured by the
requisition of recognised diplomas.
If we inquire of those among the peasantry who have never received
parochial relief, or even of the yeomanry, we find that in many
districts, and especially those of which we are now speaking, it is a
difficult matter to obtain immediate medical aid; and if this
consideration have any weight, the system would appear satisfactory,
providing always the overseers perform their duty when applied to. It
would be desirable to ascertain whether there are any restrictions in
the issue of medical orders. As regards relieving the poor with food,
there are many who say, that, in so doing, the very evil is created
which we are endeavouring to destroy. But this is not said with respect
to medical relief. The labouring man with his family may earn an average
wage of from 7s. to 12s. per week. The most prudent cannot save much,
and those savings are invested in the purchase of a stack of wood, a
sack of meal, a crop of potatoes, a stye of pigs, or a cow. His savings
might enable him to provide food for his family during illness, but they
would be totally insufficient to pay for medicine and medical aid. It
would be desirable to ascertain where and to what extent medical clubs
and dispensaries exist, and what means the agricultural labourer, in
thinly populated districts, possesses for obtaining gratuitous medical
aid.
It would be well, too, if Boards of Guardians would remember that their
duties have not ended when they have disposed of the cases on each
board-day. They have to do with pauperism, not only as it exists to-day,
but as it may exist next month or next year; and therefore they have to
do with its causes, as well as its existing results. This truth is just
now occupying the minds of statesmen, and it is to be hoped that it may
receive the attention of Boards of Guardians. Sanatory regulations will
decrease pauperism. Many men have been destroyed, and their families
pauperised, by uncovered sewers in thickly populated lanes and alleys;
and much disease has been engendered by the want of facilities for
cleanliness. And so also has much pauperism been engendered by the drain
upon the resources of the poor man during a long illness. Could not this
be remedied, and that without weakening the feeling of independence? And
why might not a Board of Guardians be allowed, or compelled, to
contribute a given sum to any dispensary or medical club which may be
governed by certain rules duly certified?
We must now refer to the churchwardens and overseers of the several
parishes of this rural Union. The question with respect to them is, do
they receive the applications of the poor in their respective parishes,
and deal with them in the same way as the relieving-officer? It would
not be a sufficient answer to quote acts of parliament, or lists of
duties. It is doubtless of importance to know that, according to law,
the duty of relieving in cases of sudden and urgent necessity is still
reserved to the overseer. But it is of equal importance to ascertain
whether, in those extensive or thinly populated parishes where the
relieving-officer may reside many a weary mile distant from the cottage
of the destitute, any check, or hinderance, or heavy discouragement has
been offered to the overseer in his attempt to perform his duty. We can
easily conceive the farmer overseer, before 1834, riding over the fields
of his parish, and meeting one of the poor cottagers, at once relieving
him with a piece of money, and taking no further note of the
circumstance than was necessary to prevent his forgetting to repay
himself. And we can understand how the same overseer, under the new
system, when men to whom he has been accustomed to look up with
deference are united with him in the administration of relief, may not
trouble himself to inquire into, or care to exercise, the rights
reserved to him. Or he may find that he has something more to do than
merely to enter the amount in his pocket-book. He may have to report the
case to the relieving-officer, or to defend it at the Board--neither of
which acts his literary habits, his opportunities, his patience, or his
ability to speak before the magnates of his district in Board assembled,
may dispose him to perform. In other cases, where these considerations
may have no weight, the overseer may be of opinion, since paid officers
have been appointed to do the duty, and are paid to do it, that they are
the proper persons to perform it.
In thus referring to the duties of overseers, it must not be supposed
that a recurrence to the old system is aimed at. It is a common opinion
that the Union system is diametrically opposed to the old parochial
system. And it seems to be too generally thought that relief should be
given through paid agency. But this is not so. The power to relieve, in
cases of sudden and urgent necessity, still rests with the overseers.
But the law has deprived the overseer of the power to give permanent
relief. It will not allow him to give a regular weekly allowance. The
question the overseer has to do with is not whether labourer Miles shall
receive, for a number of consecutive weeks or months, a certain sum, but
whether he should not receive relief at this moment, his necessities
being sudden and urgent. The question of permanent relief is no longer a
subject of personal controversy and irritation between the labourer and
the farmer. It is now a question between the labourer and the Board.
What he shall receive no longer depends upon the will of a single
person, but upon the collective will of a number so great, that personal
partialities and prejudices can scarcely have place. The system, in this
respect, assures justice alike to the rate-payer and the indigent poor.
It stands between the poor man and the overseer; and also between the
overseer and the sturdy threatening vagrant.
But it is desirable to know whether the dereliction of duty by overseers
has been of frequent occurrence, and whether there has been any want of
care or disposition on the part of the authorities to facilitate its
exercise. That the relief given must be duly recorded and accounted for,
is quite clear. Now, do the means for doing this equal those given to
the relieving-officer, who requires them less? Then, again, have
arrangements been duly made to enable overseers to relieve in food? Is
the loaf or the meat at hand? Can it be had from the nearest shop? Or
must it be brought from the store of the contractor, who cannot always
reside in the next village? In fact, must the destitute person wait for
the periodical visit of the relieving-officer, and is the duty of the
overseer thus made a superfluity?
It is likely that the dweller in cities may not sufficiently estimate
the importance of this topic. In a populous city, however sudden the
casualty may be to which a fellow-creature may fall a victim, the means
of relief are within a stone's-throw from the spot. But the case is
different in that wide expanse of level country which opens to the view
of the pedestrian as he gains the summit of the hill. The plain is
dotted with solitary cottages, hamlets, and villages. The town is just
perceptible in the distance. But its hum and its chimes are unheard. The
Union-house loses its barrack-like appearance by its remoteness. He
descends, and its "goes on his way." He hears the voices of children,
the song of birds; and he sees cottages "embosomed" in trees, and those
pictures which pastoral poets have so loved to paint, pass in panoramic
order before him. He enters the cottage door; he sees the dampness of
the walls; he feels the clayey coldness of the floors, and observes the
signs of poverty. While pondering upon these things, sensation vacates
its office, and imagination rules in the ascendant; material images fade
away. Now the fields, the trees, and the entire air become covered and
filled with drifting snow. Or,
"The stillness of these frosty plains,
Their utter stillness, and the silent grace
Of yon ethereal summits, white with snow,
(Whose tranquil pomp and spotless purity
Report of storms gone by
To those who tread below.")
Or the winds howl, the biting sharpness of the frosty air nips the
joints and shrivels the flesh, and the smoking smouldering fire has no
power to control the winds which rush across the room. The scene
changes. The lowlands are flooded, and the waters reach to, and stagnate
at the cottage door. The rains descend; the air is saturated with water;
it chills the frame; the heart beats languidly, and the soul of man
stoops to the deadening influence of the elements. Agues, rheumatism,
and fevers prevail. The hardships of the season bear down old and young;
for the want of sufficient or nutritious food has shorn them of their
strength.
Upon awakening from this trance, "which was not all a dream," and
reflecting how far aid is distant, even if it can be obtained from the
nearest overseer, how forcibly must the thought occur--what numbers
suffer and die whose suffering is unrelieved and unknown! If our
pedestrian learn nothing from his trip for health and pleasure more than
this, he will have learnt enough to satisfy him that the point we have
directed his attention to, viz. that the means of relief in rural
districts should be made as ample as possible; and that, therefore, the
right and duty of the overseers to relieve promptly should be encouraged
and zealously guarded.
Reference must now be made to the notorious "Prohibitory Order." And in
doing so, it is not to the order itself, either in its original or
amended form, that the following remarks are especially made, but to the
practices which owe their origin to the enactments of the Poor-Law
Amendment Act, to the Utopian expectations of many, that a strict
work-house test would destroy pauperism, and to the explanations and
reports of the Commissioners themselves. The following is the
prohibitory in its latest and most humanised form:--
"Article I.--Every able-bodied person, male or female, requiring
relief from any parish within any of the said Unions, shall be
relieved wholly in the work-house of the said Unions, together with
such of the family of every such able-bodied person as may be
resident with him or her, and may not be in employment, and
together with the wife of every such able-bodied male person, if he
be a married man, and if she be resident with him; save and except
in the following cases:--
1st, Where such person shall require relief on account of sudden
and urgent necessity.[47]
2d, Where such person shall require relief on account of any
sickness, accident, or bodily or mental infirmity, affecting such
person, or any of his or her family.
3d, Where such person shall require relief, for the purpose of
defraying the expenses, either wholly or in part, of the burial of
his or her family.
4th, Where such person, being a widow, shall be in the first six
months of her widowhood.
5th, Where such person shall be a widow, and have a legitimate
child or legitimate children dependent upon her, and incapable of
earning his, her, or their livelihood, and no illegitimate child
born after the commencement of her widowhood.
6th, Where such person shall be confined in any jail or place of
safe custody.
7th, Where the relief shall be required by the wife, child, or
children of any able-bodied man who shall be in the service of her
Majesty, as a soldier, sailor, or marine.
8th, Where any able-bodied person, not being a soldier, sailor, or
marine, shall not reside within the Union, but the wife, child, or
children, of such person shall reside within the same, the Board of
Guardians of the Union, according to their discretion, may afford
relief in the work-house to such wife, child, or children, or may
allow out-door relief for any such child or children, being within
the age of nurture, and resident with the mother within the Union."
The fifth exception, relating to widows, is accompanied with a course of
reasoning directed against its application; and as it is to be feared
that the practice engendered by a former order, in which this exception
had no place, may have become habitual, this exception will be treated
as if it did not exist. Especial inquiries ought to be made, in order to
ascertain whether widows with children are generally allowed out-door
relief.
The immediate effect of this system of relief is a diminution of
expenditure. But we must look beyond the immediate effects. It is to be
feared that great politico-social evils result from this system. They
have been somewhat reduced in number, perhaps, by the new prohibitory
order. But it is too probable that the original wound has left a scar.
The evils are not on the surface, and strike the mind at intervals.
Perhaps we may be struck with the fact, that our prisons are filled with
individuals who have been committed for slight offences, and for short
periods; and it may casually appear, that the work-house has something
to do with it. Then the question may occur, why the ordinary
accommodation for wayfarers in the casual wards of work-houses has
become insufficient or less ample than formerly? Or, when travelling, we
may see whole families creeping along the roads apparently without
object or aim; and if, after giving them a coin, you ask them where they
are going to, and why they are going? you will be struck with the
vagueness of their replies. Wherever you meet them, you find they are
going from this place to that; and if you were to meet them every day
for a twelvemonth, the answers would always be as indefinite. At another
time, we may be deeply concerned in the subject of prison discipline;
and while studying reports, returns, and dietaries, the subject of
workhouse discipline may become associated with it, and induce
comparisons. And it may come to our knowledge, that there is a vast body
of persons to whom it is a matter of indifference whether they are
inmates of a prison or a workhouse. Or the mind may soar above the dull,
cold, field of politics, and extend its researches to the pure regions
of morality, leaving the questions of science for those of philosophy;
and then it will appear that there are causes in operation, and results
constantly flowing, which escape the "economic" eyes of assistant
Commissioners.
But we must avoid generalities. We still retain our original ground,
viz. the rural Union, with its large area and its thinly scattered
population. The reader must accompany us to the rural Union, where the
spirit of the prohibitory order exercises its most baneful influence.
We saw the relieving-officer performing his round of duties. The poor
were assembled at the cottage door. Two classes of applicants were then
given. We must now, however, look deeper into human nature. The
destitute consist of the virtuous and the vicious, the vulgar and the
refined. There stands an able-bodied man with his able-bodied wife, and
his large healthy family. His weekly wages amount to nine shillings per
week. If he loses a week's work he is destitute. He is now making an
application to the relieving-officer. But it is useless. He must walk to
the Union, and become an inmate, where his dinner awaits him. The man
who now approaches the officer is like the last, able-bodied and out of
work; but, unlike him, he has an idle, unthrifty, drunken wife. He is
always trembling on the confines of destitution; and the instant he is
without work he is on the brink of starvation. His spirit is broken. His
children are dirty and ragged, and appear emaciated without disease. He,
too, must enter the Union. The next is a hard-featured man;--
"A savage wildness round him hung
As of a dweller out of doors;
In his whole figure, and his mien,
A savage character was seen
Of mountains and of dreary moors."
He does not seem to care whether relief is granted or not; and we may
hear him say, "I don't want relief for myself, I can get my living
somehow or other--but my wife and child musn't starve. I shan't go to
the Union--I shall be off--and catch me who can."--In the cottage, a
woman is seated with her children, whose husband has done that which the
other has threatened to do. She may be industrious or idle, but she
cannot support herself, thus suddenly thrown upon her own resources. Let
us hope that she is allowed the benefit of the amended order.--There is
the man whose children are approaching the state of womanhood or
manhood. He has work to do, and he does it. He could manage to eke out a
subsistence for himself--for his habits are simple and frugal; but his
children are now a sore trial to him. His daughter has returned to his
cottage with a child of shame. She has erred, but she cannot be turned
from his door. She has tried to make the father contribute to the
support of the child, but without success. Poor ignorant creature,
instead of taking a competent witness with her, when she asked the man
to assist her, she was too anxious to hide her shame. Instead of putting
questions to him, in order "to get up" the corroborative evidence, she
was too apt to spoil all by passionate upbraidings. And then, when she
appeared before their worships the justices, she was too much abashed or
excited, to enable her to develope those latent powers of examination
and cross-examination which the law supposes her to possess. Those who
have witnessed those humiliating proceedings in our petty courts of
justice, and seen the magistrate at one moment kindly acting as counsel
for the girl, then falling back to his position as judge, and observed
the evident helplessness of the girl, must have left the court with the
impression that the whole affair is a disgusting farce. She departs
without redress. The "corroborative evidence" is declared insufficient.
She goes to her father's cottage. His heart compels him to give her
shelter, and a place at his scanty board. But the smallest assistance
cannot be rendered with impunity. And there he stands an applicant. He
is told, "you must come into the house." "But it is my daughter." "Then
she must enter the Union." And, if she does, there she must remain until
her child dies, or her hair grows grey.--On the other side, and away
from the rest, stands a coarse-featured man, who has often been an
inmate of the county jail. He is the smuggler on the coast, the footpad
on the common, the poacher in the forest, the housebreaker, the
horse-stealer, the sheep-slayer, or the incendiary. He may be any of
these. He demands his rights, and threatens vengeance if refused.--We
turn from this group, and walk slowly to the Union-house, now visible in
the distance; and, in walking, the time may be well employed in
reflection. The thought which occurs with the greatest vividness is
this--for the reception of such a group, what must the arrangements be?
There is the old man, honest but poor, who seeks there an asylum. There
is the man old in sin and iniquity, as well as years. There is the
able-bodied man and woman with their family. There is the able-bodied
man with his drunken, unthrifty wife, and his emaciated children. There
is the young girl, whom the season has thrown out of her ordinary field
employment. There is the woman with her illegitimate child, either
heart-broken, or glorying in her shame. There is the girl, young in
years but old in profligacy, suffering for her sins. There is the matron
in her green old age, the result of a life of industry and prudence. And
there is the ruffian, and the thief, and the profligate vagrant, male
and female. Now what arrangements can be made for this assemblage--the
bad anxious to obtain temporary quarters, the good anxious to retain
their homes?
Surely they are not classed according to rules in which age, and sex,
and state of health are the only principles? The widow with the
prostitute, the aged cottar with the aged vagrant. If this were all, the
moral consequences would not be so fearful. Does the young girl, who is
now innocent, associate daily with her who has wandered over half the
neighbouring counties, sinking lower and lower each journey? If so,
poison will be instilled, which produces certain moral death. Refer to
any list, now seven years old, of the inmates of a workhouse, who were
then aged from twelve to eighteen years, and then inquire what has
become of them. Or inquire of those who have the administration in
metropolitan parishes, or in manufacturing and sea-port towns, how many
of those unfortunates, scarcely yet arrived at the state of womanhood,
and suffering from loathsome diseases, were brought up, or were sometime
inmates of one of these Unions. Then there are the children of all
these;--the children of the farm-labourer associating with those of the
vagrant, who has quartered himself in the Union during the rains.
The evils which this system occasions are not, unfortunately, either to
be seen or understood by the casual observer. Even our observer may
suppose that all is well, after he has inspected the place. He sees
every thing clean and in order. There are no rags, no unshorn beards, no
unclean flesh. The ordinary concomitants of virtue are here present--by
compulsion. The rags, the filthiness of place and person, are absent--by
order. This is forgotten; and, allowing the outward and visible to
govern his judgment rather than the inward and spiritual, he leaves the
place exclaiming, "Well! this is not so bad after all!" The outside is
indeed white, but it is the whiteness of the sepulchre.
If this group is to be received into one building, there must be
something peculiar in its arrangements. All these persons are suffering,
more or less, from the want of food, or lodging, or clothing, or medical
aid. They are now offered the whole of these blessings, and yet they do
not feel blessed thereby. He has now that livelihood freely offered to
him which had cost him many a sigh to procure, and he has often sighed
in vain. What then can or must be the nature of the arrangements? It
must be remembered that this Union is presumed to be a test of poverty,
and therefore the condition of its inmates must be inferior to that of
the independent labourer.
To effect this, how must the authorities proceed? In the first place,
there are arrangements which they cannot make. They cannot altogether
dispense with the counsels of the medical man, while the matter is under
discussion. And an inspector of prisons should be admitted, certainly,
as far as the ante-room. Then the locality of the Union-house must not
be unhealthy. The internal parts of the building must not be exposed to
the inclemency of the seasons.
The rooms cannot be badly warmed or ventilated. They must not be allowed
to become filthy. The inmates must not sleep on a damp floor, with loose
straw for a bed, or an old carpet for a coverlid. Their clothes must not
be permitted to fall from them in tatters. They must not remain
twenty-four hours without food. And they cannot experience that gnawing
anxiety--that sickness of heart which those thousands suffer who rise in
the morning without knowing where they can obtain a meal, or lay down
their head at night. These "ills," which constitute so large a portion
of the poor man's lot, the inmate of this Union cannot be _made_ to
suffer. Nor can they be detained like prisoners. He must not be confined
for a longer period, after an application to leave has been made, than
will allow for forms and casualties. So in three hours he is a free man
again. What is to be done? Might not his food be touched? Might he not
be allowed food which, although possessing nutritious qualities, should
not be palatable? At this point, the prison inspector should be
consulted. This experiment upon the dietaries has been tried, and with
what success let public opinion trumpet-tongued proclaim. What must then
be done? First, the family may, nay, must be divided and distributed
over the building. The husband is sent to the "Man's Hall," the wife to
the "Woman's Ward," and the male and female children each to their's.
This arrangement is inevitable, but is fraught with dangers. The man who
has lived for months estranged from his wife and children--for seeing
them at certain times cannot be considered the same thing as living with
them--may learn to believe that their presence is not necessary to his
existence. And then it should not be forgotten, that the pain here
introduced is the pain arising from the infliction of a moral wound. An
attempt has been made to disturb a set of virtuous emotions in their
healthy exercise. By this separation they are deprived of their
necessary aliment; and, if they are not strong, will soon sicken and
die. Now, those moral feelings which preside over the social hearth are
those which exercise the greatest influence over the heart of the poor
man, and bind, and strengthen, and afford opportunities for the
development of the rest. They are in general the last that leave him.
And when they are gone, he is bankrupt indeed. It is a pain, too, which
only the virtuous feel. The lawless, the debauched, and the drunken pass
unscathed. Is there not danger?
In the second place, the inmates of the Union must work. And here also
there are limits which a Board cannot pass. Labour cannot be enforced
from a diseased man. The prudent master of a Union will not require a
task to be performed which he cannot enforce. The question is, what work
can the inmates be set to do? Not to lace-making or stocking-weaving,
for that is the staple of the neighbourhood. To give them this work
would diminish the demand for labour out of doors. What labour then must
it be? Here is the rock upon which the vessel is now driving. It must
certainly be real work. Must it, then, be disagreeable work? It must.
But there is no work so disagreeable that willing labourers cannot be
found to do it, and that at a rate of wages reduced by competition.
Then, again, the most disagreeable kind of labour cannot be done in a
Union-house. And experience proves, that the number of such employments
is extremely limited.
There are, however, certain kinds of labour that require no exertion of
skill--no variety of operation--and consisting of the mechanical and
monotonous operation of picking, which, if performed in the same room
during a certain number of hours of each day, and from day to day, and
from week to week, will become so sickening and wearying, that life with
all its miseries, doubts, and anxieties, and impending starvation, will
be welcomed in exchange.
This labour women may perform. Now, in what way can the men be tasked?
There are certain kinds of mere labour, hard and monotonous, such as
grinding--or rather turning a handle all day long--without seeing the
progress or result of the toil. He might also be employed in breaking
bones. This has been tried, and received a check.
But while the conclave are sitting in "consultation deep" upon this
knotty question, let us turn to another conclave, and mark their doings.
They know nothing of the poor-law, or paupers. The two authorities are
separated, the one from the other, by a gulf, the depth of which
official persons alone know. _They_ have to do with crime. They have to
punish the offender. And not only to punish the offender who has
committed acts which require long imprisonment, but those also who have
committed petty offences. Upon this latter subject they are engaged. The
prisoner must be set to work. And then arise the old questions, and with
the same result. What do they determine?
What has been done? Surely the two bodies have not each issued the same
regulations to paupers and prisoners. If this be so, the matter cannot
rest. And that it must be so, is obvious from a mere inspection of the
means which the workhouse master and the jailer have at their disposal.
It is not an oversight or an abuse. The data being given, the
consequences are inevitable. Each conclave has separately arrived at
nearly the same conclusion. In one case a prison and a prisoner, and a
brief period of incarceration is given, with the condition, that his
punishment shall not be so severe as that of the criminal deeply dyed in
crime; and yet his circumstances shall be less desirable than those of
the independent labourer. In the other case, a pauper and a Union-house
is given; and if the condition of the problem be, that the pauper's
situation shall be less disagreeable than that of the independent
labourer, the solution becomes impossible; and, if this latter condition
be left out or forgotten, the result is, that the prisoner and the
pauper are in the same position. This mode of treating the matter has
been preferred to that of comparing dietaries and labour-tables, and to
quoting from evidence showing the indifference with which the prison and
the workhouse are regarded by the lower class of paupers. Our object has
been to show that the strict workhouse system leads necessarily to these
evils.
It is argued, on the other side, that pauperism has diminished in those
Unions where the "prohibitory order" has been issued; and, in proof
thereof, we are referred to reports and tables showing diminished
expenditure. A family, with a judicious out-door management, would be
able to subsist with the occasional assistance of two, three, or four
shillings' worth of food weekly. The cost of the family in the house
would be about 18s. weekly; and yet the expenditure in the rural Union,
where the "prohibitory order" is in force, has been reduced. No especial
reference can now be made to the amount of unrelieved suffering which
this fact discloses. Those who decline the order cannot now be followed
to their homes; nor can another incident of this system be dwelt
upon--its tendency to reduce the standard of wages. The employer is
likely to get labour cheap, when he has a number of unemployed labourers
to choose from, who have just preferred to "live on" in a half-starved
condition, rather than submit to a system of prison discipline. To
return to the allegation, that pauperism has been diminished in those
Unions where the order is in operation. The reply is--that the
statistics do not touch the question. They ought to be thrown aside as
useless, until the condition of those who have refused to enter the
Union walls has been ascertained. Have their numbers become thinned by
the ravages of the fever, which their "houseless heads and unfed sides"
have unfitted them to resist? Have they been unable to pay their
pittance of rent; and is the cottage, which was once theirs, now falling
to decay? Have estates thus been thinned without the formality and
notoriety of a warrant? Have the able-bodied left the Union, and become
wanderers, seeking for an understocked labour-market; and, finding it
not, are they becoming, through common lodging-house associations, half
labourers, half vagrants--labouring to-day, begging to-morrow, and
stealing the next? Is the inclination to wander growing into a passion?
Are habits of strolling being formed? Is he gradually deteriorating to
the half-savage state? Is this so? A great national question is
involved. The French government know, by experience, the importance of a
true knowledge of "Les Classes Dangereuses."
Now, if any of these applicants have become wanderers, or have migrated
to distant towns where charities abound, or have been cut off by
sickness, or have remained in a state of semi-starvation, the statistics
would remain the same. Besides, these statistics embrace two periods;
the present time, when an extremely rigid system of out-door relief is
in action; and a past time, when the out-door management was loose,
irregular, and rotten; and for the diminution of expenditure, arising
from a sound system of out-door relief, no allowance has been made, the
whole benefit of the economy being referred to the workhouse test.
It is probable much of the evil has been stayed, from the circumstance
that the "system" has been carried into effect by human agency. A
certificate of illness from the medical officer would exempt the
individual from the operation of the rule. Now, the seeds of disease are
oftentimes deeply hidden in the bodily frame; and the alleged throbbing
or shooting pain, although the symptoms may not be seen, may have an
existence, and be certified accordingly.
Then the relieving-officer, after relieving the case as one of sudden
and urgent necessity to-day, may see the applicant again upon his next
visit; and knowing that a case is urgent after forty-eight hours'
fasting, and may be considered sudden, if two days' work only was
obtained when four days was expected, he may be relieved on the same
plea again, and again, and again. In point of fact, the relief is an
allowance.
If this be the practice, a bad mode of out-door relief has grown into
use, the worst peculiarities of the old method being involved in it. It
is irregular, partial, and dependent on personal partialities and
prejudices; and, if persisted in, would revive old times, when the
overseer gave away, in the first place, to the bold, the insidious, and
the designing, and modest merit was left to pick up the crumbs.
The result of an inquiry into the two other classes into which England
is parochially divided would probably be, that many evils have been
removed or lessened, that others have remained untouched, that much good
has been secured, and that new abuses have crept in.
Take the Union of small parishes. An improvement has certainly been
effected by the Union of these. A city or town, because it happened to
be composed of a large number of small parishes, having no perceptible
boundaries, but, in virtue of ancient usage or statute-law, was governed
by so many independent petty powers. It does not require much study to
ascertain what abuses would be likely to arise, or from what quarter
they would probably come. It is likely that the round of petty magnates
would be a small and cozy party; that a man, the moment he became
initiated, would begin to ascend the ladder of fortune. Jobbery would
flourish. Such things are not peculiar to England. In Spain and France
they have been matter of observation. Read the following extract from
Fabrice's account of the masters he served:--"Le Seigneur Manuel
Ordonnez, mon maitre, est un homme d'une piete profonde. On dit que, des
sa jeunesse, n'ayant en vue que le _bien_ des pauvres, il s'y est
attache avec un zele infatigable. Aussi ses soins ne sont-ils pas
demeures sans recompense: tout lui a prospere. Quelle benediction! En
faisant les affaires des pauvres, il s'est enriche."
These abuses belong to the past, but their existence should not be
forgotten. Pauperism would flourish. For a system of management,
proverbially jealous of having its affairs exposed to the gaze of the
ignorant vulgar, could not look with too curious an eye into the
circumstances of those who applied for relief. The beadle who flourished
in those days did not, as some affirm, derive his authority from his
cocked hat or his gilded coat, but from the real power he exercised.
The overseers were elected with their will, or against it. They often
served in a perpetual circle. The duty of relieving the poor was too
often left to subordinate irresponsible officers, whose duties were
neither expressed nor recognised. Their most arduous task was to keep
their superior out of hot water. But what kind of cases were relieved,
and under what circumstances, and what kind of cases were refused, and
under what circumstances, is now mere matter--matter of tradition, and
will become a mystery in the course of a few years. Many poor were
relieved; but the bold, the idle, and the squalid had the best chance.
Honest, humble poverty approached the overseer's door with fear and
trembling, and the slightest rebuff or harsh word, which an importune
application might occasion, would be sufficient to make her leave the
door unrelieved. While the destitute confirmed pauper would annoy,
insult, and extract relief, by the scandal of so much squalid
destitution lying and crouching about the overseer's door.
Now what change has taken place? These parishes have been formed into
Unions. The churchwardens and overseers of each parish form part of a
Board of management. This Board of management is completed by the
addition of a class hitherto unknown in parish matters, viz. the
guardians who are elected from the parishioners, on grounds in which
wealth, station, and public importance are elements. All repairs and
alterations, and the supply of provisions, are subject to contract, and
open to competition. The parish plumber can no longer make his fortune
by the repair of the parish pump. All disbursements are recorded, and
subjected to rigid inspection, and all receipts are duly accounted for.
But the poor, how do they fare? It is necessary to state, with reference
to this point, that the peculiar politico-economic theories which have
had such frequent expression in the letters, reports, and orders of the
Poor-Law Commissioners, have also had their influence upon all persons
connected with the administration of relief. The idea was, that a severe
"house test" would nearly destroy pauperism. This dream, however, is
passing away, and a more humane set of opinions are being engendered.
The circumstances of a city Union are widely different from those of the
rural Union; and, therefore, many suggestions and strictures which have
been made against the mode of administering relief in the latter are
inapplicable to the former. In the rural Union, the chief difficulty is,
that a long distance must be travelled before the application to the
relieving-officer can be made, and relief obtained. And it becomes a
matter of importance to know to what extent the local officers are able
to perform their duty. In the Union of small parishes, these
difficulties cannot exist, for the whole diameter may be traversed in
half-an-hour. Then a relief office is built. It is situated in a poor
neighbourhood. It is open a certain number of hours in each day; an
officer is in attendance; and the bread and meat, and other kind of
food, are in the building. These facts are known to the poor, to the
magistrates, and to the police. The individual power of the overseer in
these little parishes falls daily into disuetude. The poor man can
obtain relief most readily at the office. He need not wait for the
leisure moment of an overseer--deeply engaged in his private affairs.
The poor know this, and do not apply to him. Occasionally an application
is made to an overseer, and if he wish the case to be relieved, his most
convenient practical course, is to submit the case to the
relieving-officer, by a note, and then to put a question to the chairman
at the next board-day.
It will be found that the evil to be apprehended is, that relief in
certain cases may be too easily obtained, and a class of paupers
improperly encouraged. This, however, does not necessarily proceed from
the Union, but from certain other wise notions respecting mendicancy and
vagrancy.
A certain part of every workhouse is separated from the rest of the
building, and appropriated to wayfarers. Formerly, at the close of day,
a number of persons usually applied to the officers for lodging for the
night. They were questioned as to their mode of livelihood, their object
in travelling, the distance they had travelled, and the route; and these
answers were tested by any means at hand. If the result was
satisfactory, they were admitted, and allowed to pursue their way at an
early hour in the morning, with an allowance of food. If the result was
doubtful, or they were convicted of deceit, their application was either
deferred, refused, or they were required to do work for the relief
given. Then questions of age, sex, and degrees of health were
considered. Now, relief precedes inquiry; and as these persons are
relieved but once, no inquiry is made, and is in fact impossible. Now,
if a man appears before an officer apparently destitute, he must be
relieved forthwith. If the man is not relieved, the relieving-officer's
situation and character are in jeopardy. And so the workhouse at night
has become open house to all comers. The wards are filled with a strange
group of beings. The very scum, not of the poor, but the vicious, are to
be found in these wards. The man who attends these dens does his duty in
the midst of revilings and cursings, and at the risk of his life. The
poor man who is really "tramping" in search of work, and has not been
able to get the threepence for his night's lodging, has not the benefit
of this change. Fevers and other contagious diseases are likely to be
generated and spread. Some inquiry has been made into this subject, but
is by no means exhausted. Further inquiry should be made, and the
connexion between vagrancy and a strict workhouse system should not be
overlooked.
The third class into which the parishes and Unions of England have been
divided in this article, viz. that of populous single parishes, differs
from that which comprises Unions of small parishes in but few
particulars. These parishes are generally very populous, and cover a
small area. The duty of administering relief has always been heavy and
onerous. The mode of management has generally been determined by local
acts. A board of management has always existed. In some cases the
overseers have been elected and paid, because much experience, and the
devotion of much time, is necessary for the due performance of the
duties. In other instances, unpaid overseers hold the responsibility,
and are assisted by subordinate officers. Many of these parishes have
defied the power of the Commissioners, and retained their independent
authority. The Boards are composed of men of standing and business
habits. They are generally well acquainted with the poor, and know much
better how the relief fund should be expended, than those who see them
only through the imperfect media of reports and statistics. Many
novelties in management, enforced on Unions by the Commissioners, have
been voluntarily adopted, and many time-honoured fictions have been
exploded. In general, the proceedings of the Commissioners have not been
to them satisfactory. The new project of district asylums for the
reception of wayfarers may be given as an example.
These parishes, however, should not escape the inquiry; and a useful
direction might be given to it, if the subject of classifications in
workhouses were to be considered in connexion with these populous
places. Not that special evils exist, but because the subject of
classification on moral grounds might be more conveniently considered,
and more severely tested.
We think that an improved classification in workhouses, in which moral
consideration might be allowed to form an element, might be attempted.
Very decided opinions have been expressed to the contrary. It is
generally believed, and has been declared by high authorities, that the
poor fund is a statutable fund, raised by compulsion, for the relief of
destitution; and, therefore, the statutable purpose of the fund has
reference only to the fact of destitution, and not to moral qualities.
That this may be true in cases of _sudden_ necessity is not denied; but
with respect to those cases where relief is likely to be permanent--as
old age--or in those cases in which a period must elapse before the
relief is withdrawn, the moral character of the individual must, and
does, form a leading circumstance in the treatment. It is not said that
the fact of giving or refusing relief should depend on moral
considerations, but that the mode or manner should be determined by
them. Take a case. A widow with a family, in the first month of her
widowhood, applies for relief. During the first three months of her
husband's illness, his savings were adequate to his necessities. And
during the last three months, the weekly voluntary gathering of his
brother workmen, or the allowance from his club, has sufficed; and he
died without destitution actually coming to his door. His remains have
been conveyed to the grave; and, with the balance of money from the
friendly society, or trades' club, she has been supported to the end of
the first month of her widowhood.
The other case is also a widow. But, as a wife, she was unthrifty and
drunken, and she has not changed, for her sobriety was more than
suspected on the day of the funeral. Here, there are no savings, no
donations from friends, no allowance from a club. Her husband lived and
died a pauper, was buried as a pauper, and his widow has determined to
make the most of her destitution, and extract the utmost farthing from
the reluctant guardians. Each of these cases must be relieved. As
regards the fact of destitution, the latter case is the worst; but the
frugal widow suffers the greatest deprivation. To the common observer,
the state of the bad is one of pure misery, and the state of the other
simply quiet, frugal, lowliness of condition. The fact, however, really
is, that the good widow suffers the most keenly; and, excepting certain
little matters of decency and cleanliness, is really the most destitute.
The cry, "What will become of my children?" implies in itself a large
amount of suffering. The thought scarcely occurs to the mind of the
other. The treatment of these cases must be, and is different; and the
difference is founded on moral grounds. In one case, if the relief were
in money, it would be instantly transmitted into gin. Relief in kind
must be resorted to, and be given in small quantities, and frequently;
and even then she must be watched, or the bread would never reach the
mouths of her children. In the other case, a liberal allowance in money,
given in the first month of her widowhood, would be expended carefully,
and if given promptly, before her "little home" has been broken up, she
may be able in a few months to insure a livelihood, and become
independent of the parish. These cases represent extremes. There is
every variety of shade between them; and sometimes the case presents so
mingled a yarn of laziness, and bodily weakness, ignorance, cunning, and
imprudence, that the guardians scarcely know the proper treatment.
Boards of guardians have frequently to deal with such cases, and do,
without expressing it in words, dispose of them on moral grounds,
although those in high places may be too much occupied with statistics
and generalities to be aware of the fact.
The question, how far moral considerations can be allowed in the
classification of workhouses, is one of difficulty, and all opinions and
suggestions require to be cautiously and guardedly stated. This cannot
be done now. It may, however, be thought that, in suggesting a moral
classification, we are getting rid of some of our objections to the
"strict workhouse system." We may therefore say, that while we think a
sound system of out-door relief is the preferable mode of dealing with
poverty and pauperism, yet we believe the workhouse to be a necessary
adjunct. Under the most favourable circumstances, the Union-house or
workhouse is a moral pest-house; but, in the large manufacturing town or
populous metropolitan parish, it is a necessary evil. In cities, where
wretchedness is seen in its most squalid condition, and where crime
assumes its most varied and darkest hues, there must always be a
multitude of human beings whose necessities the public charities cannot
reach. There are diseases which hospitals will not admit, because they
can end only in speedy dissolution, or because they are incurable and
lingering. There are cases, compounded of deceit and misery, which
private charity passes by. There are aged men and women who have either
outlived their children or their affection, or who saw them depart many
years since to foreign lands as emigrants, soldiers, sailors, or
convicts. And there are young children whose parents have been cut off
by fever. There are the children of sin and shame. There is the young
woman, overtaken in her downward career by horrible diseases, and who is
now pitilessly turned from the door of her who taught her to sin for
money. There is the vagrant, the debauched, and the criminal, who are
approaching the end of their career. There are those who, by unexpected
circumstances, have been deprived of a shelter. And there are those who
will not work, who have absconded, and whose wives and children are
without home or food. For all these, and many more, an asylum must
exist, and this asylum is the workhouse. Is it quite clear that this
collection of human beings, representing so many varieties of virtue and
vice, cannot be divided and distributed over the building on principles
of classification, in which other elements than those of age, sex, and
healthiness might be admitted? The subject is worthy of full
investigation.
The subject of out-door relief might also be considered by the
committee, not so much with a view to ascertain the actual mode in which
it is dispensed, as to obtain suggestions from subordinate officers of
improvement in its administration. The stoker of steam-engine can point
out defects, and suggest simple remedies, which might escape the utmost
penetration and official research of the principal engineer. This
subject may be most conveniently considered under this head, because, in
populous parishes, out-door relief is a prominent feature. In many
cases, an apparently trivial change, which might be treated very
contemptuously as a mere affair of detail, would lead to important
reforms. In the report upon the Andover case, certain stringent remarks
appear upon the neglect of the relieving-officer in not filling up the
columns in his report-book headed "wages." Now, to those engaged in the
administration of relief, the omission is not considered a great fault,
it being in fact an omission of a mere form. Refer to the application
and report-book, and the pauper description-book, prepared by the
Commissioners, and the use of which _is enforced in all Unions_. They
consist in a series of narrow columns. Each column is headed by an
interrogatory, and appears to require a very brief answer. Refer to the
column headed "weekly earning," &c. In this column, it is the duty of
the relieving-officer to enter the amount of wages earned by the pauper.
Now, in most populous parishes, the mode of living of those who receive
relief is so irregular and precarious, as to preclude the possibility of
ascertaining the amount of their earnings. The number of carpenters,
bricklayers, smiths, and masons who receive relief is almost incredibly
few. There are many who style themselves carpenters, &c. who have no
knowledge of the trade. The bulk of the relieved poor consists of such a
group as this--jobbing-smiths and carpenters, who are generally old or
unskilful; aged men and women, and infirm persons, who do certain kinds
of rough needlework, take care of children and sick people. There are
cases where the head of the family is sickly, and whose employ is
occasional. There are widows who do needlework by the piece--not for
tradesmen, but for those who have received the work for those who
received it from the tradesmen. There are those who wash and charr by
the half or quarter of a day. There are men who make money-boxes,
cigar-cases, children's toys, list-shoes, and cloth caps, and send their
wives and children to sell them in the streets. If the weather is fine,
they go singly; if the night be rainy, they form a miserable group at
the corner of great thoroughfares. There are men who frequent quays,
docks, markets, and coach-offices. There are those who sell in the
streets, fruit, vegetables, and fish. There are those who sweep
crossings, and pick up bones, rags, and excrement; and there are those
who say they do nothing; and the most searching inquiry is at fault, and
yet they appear to thrive. In this multitude, there are thousands who do
not apply for parochial relief once in ten years. Now, try to fix the
wages of those who really compose the mass of pauperism in towns. Who
can conscientiously do it? The most correct statement must be erroneous.
By frequent visitation, the officer acquires an intimate knowledge of
their condition. When the Board are disposing of the out-relief cases,
it is by this knowledge the Board are guided. The column of brief
answers, read by the clerk, are so many algebraic symbols to the
majority, and convey no particular meaning; and this explains the
conduct of the Andover Guardians, which is otherwise inexplicable. They
must have had some data before them in dealing with cases, and the
earnings of the paupers could not possibly be omitted. There is no doubt
that the report-book was tacitly considered as a form necessary to be
filled up, because there were orders to that effect, but as having no
practical utility. And yet, how easily might the evil have been avoided!
The individual who devised and drew up the form should have thought less
of its statistical completeness, and more of its practical use. He
should have seated himself in the Boardroom, while the business of the
week was being transacted, a silent but observant spectator; and then,
with his mind imbued with the fact, he might have drawn up a form of
report-book which would have been useful, statistically and practically.
The principle of the book would have been that of the merchant's ledger,
in which, upon reference to a particular folio, an account of business
transactions with a person during many years may be seen at a glance.
Its construction would be obvious, and its chief feature might be easily
shown. It would be a book of the largest size. Each case would have its
own double page. On the left side, columns, as at present, might appear;
and on the right would appear a most circumstantial account of the
pauper's circumstances. If this page had been commenced in 1836, and
Mary Miles had received relief, either continuously or from time to
time, until 1846, the page would probably be filled; and its contents
being read by the clerk upon each appearance of the pauper before the
Board, a minute account of the character and circumstances of the case
would be disclosed, together with the several amounts of relief ordered
or refused, and the several opinions of the Board, as recorded at
different times, which would enable the Board to dispense with the
verbal statements of the relieving-officer. At present, a case, however
often relieved, is essentially a new one. The Board of Guardians is a
changing body; the individuals composing it may not attend regularly;
and thus the relieving-officer becomes the only person conversant with
the facts and merits of the case, and he is enabled, or compelled, to
exercise a degree of authority or influence which is highly inexpedient.
How easily may these and other evils be remedied! But how, and by whom?
This brings us back to our starting-point. An inquiry must be instituted
into the actual working of the existing machinery. It must be conducted
in a sober spirit, and without reference to theories; not in a reckless
spirit of destruction, but of improvement. The question is, What
remedial measures or improvement can be adopted in the administration of
the English Poor-Laws? And if this paper has shown any imperfections,
suggested any improvement, or should give the inquiry a useful
direction, its object would be gained.