this indefatigable cosmopolite. In some cases he had christened a
paltry tenement let at the rent of a few shillings per week “House;”
a small cottage in Albion Place, Rye, being magnified into “Albion
House.” When an address is assumed having no existence, his plan is to
request the postmaster of the district to send the letters, &c., to
his real address--generally some little distance off--a similar notice
also being given at the nearest railway station. The goods ordered are
generally of such a nature as to lull suspicion, viz., a gun, as “I am
going to a friend’s grounds to shoot and I want one immediately;” “a
silver cornet;” “two umbrellas, one for me and one for Mrs. Harper;” “a
fashionable bonnet with extra strings, young looking, for Mrs. Harper;”
“white lace frock for Miss Harper, immediately;” “a violet-coloured
velvet bonnet for my sister,” &c., &c., &c., ad infinitum.
A person, pretending to be a German baron, some time ago ordered and
received goods to a large amount from merchants in Glasgow. It was
ascertained he was a swindler. He was a man of about forty years
of age, 5 feet 8 inches high, and was accompanied by a lady about
twenty-five years of age. They were both well-educated people, and
could speak the English language fluently.
A fellow, assuming the name of the Rev. Mr. Williams, pursued a
romantic and adventurous career of swindling in different positions
in society, and was an adept in deception. On one occasion, by
means of forged credentials, he obtained an appointment as curate in
Northamptonshire, where he conducted himself for some time with a most
sanctimonious air. Several marriages were celebrated by him, which
were apparently satisfactorily performed. He obtained many articles of
jewellery from firms in London, who were deceived by his appearance and
position. He wrote several modes of handwriting, and had a plausible
manner of insinuating himself into the good graces of his victims.
He died a very tragical death. Having been arrested for swindling he
was taken to Northampton. On his arrival at the railway station there,
he threw himself across the rails and was crushed to death by the train.
There is a mode of extracting money from the unwary, practised by a
gang of swindlers by means of _mock auctions_. They dispose of watches,
never intended to keep time, and other spurious articles, and have
confederates, or decoys, who pretend to bid for the goods at the
auctions, and sometimes buy them at an under price; but they are by
arrangement returned soon after, and again offered for sale.
We have been favoured with some of the foregoing particulars by the
officials of Stubbs’ Mercantile Offices; the courtesy of the secretary
having also placed the register of that extensive establishment at our
service.
Number of cases of fraud and conspiracy
with intent to defraud in the Metropolitan
districts for 1860 325
Ditto ditto in the City 51
---
376
Value of property thereby abstracted in
the Metropolitan district £3,443
Ditto ditto in the City 2,429
------
£5,872
BEGGARS AND CHEATS.
In primitive times beggars were recognised as a legitimate component
part in the fabric of society. Socially, and apart from state
government, there were, during the patriarchal period, three states of
the community, and these were the landowners, their servants, and the
dependants of both--beggars. There was no disgrace attached to the name
of beggar at this time, for those who lived by charity were persons who
were either too old to work or were incapacitated from work by bodily
affliction. This being the condition of the beggars of the early ages,
it was considered no less a sacred than a social duty to protect them
and relieve their wants. Many illustrious names, both in sacred and
profane history, are associated with systematic mendicancy, and the
very name of “beggar” has derived a sort of classic dignity from this
circumstance. Beggars are frequently mentioned with honour in the Old
Testament; and in the New, one of the most touching incidents in our
Lord’s history has reference to “a certain beggar named Lazarus, which
was laid at the rich man’s gate.” Nor must it be forgotten that the
father of poetry, the immortal Homer, was a beggar and blind, and went
about singing his own verses to excite charity. The name of Belisarius
is more closely associated with the begging exploits ascribed to him
than with his great historical conquests. “Give a halfpenny to a poor
man” was as familiar a phrase in Latin in the old world as it is to-day
in the streets of London. It would be tedious to enumerate all the
instances of honourable beggary which are celebrated in history, or
even to glance at the most notable of them; it will be enough for the
purpose we have in view if I direct attention to the aspects of beggary
at a few marked periods of history.
It will be found that imposture in beggary has invariably been the
offspring of a high state of civilization, and has generally had its
origin in large towns. When mendicancy assumes this form it becomes
a public nuisance, and imperatively calls for prohibitive laws. The
beggar whose poverty is not real, but assumed, is no longer a beggar in
the true sense of the word, but a cheat and an impostor, and as such
he is naturally regarded, not as an object for compassion, but as an
enemy to the state. In all times, however, the real beggar--the poor
wretch who has no means of gaining a livelihood by his labour, the
afflicted outcast, the aged, the forsaken, and the weak--has invariably
commanded the respect and excited the compassion of his more fortunate
fellow-men. The traces of this consideration for beggars which we
find in history are not a little remarkable. In the early Saxon times
the relief of beggars was one of the most honourable duties of the
mistress of the house. Our beautiful English word “lady” derives its
origin from this practice. The mistress of a Saxon household gave
away bread with her own hand to the poor, and thence she was called
“_lef day_” or bread giver, which at a later period was rendered into
_lady_. A well-known incident in the life of Alfred the Great shows
how sacred a duty the giving of alms was regarded at that period. In
early times beggary had even a romantic aspect. Poets celebrated the
wanderings of beggars in so attractive a manner that great personages
would sometimes envy the condition of the ragged mendicant and imitate
his mode of life. James V. of Scotland was so enamoured of the life of
the gaberlunzie man that he assumed his wallet and tattered garments,
and wandered about among his subjects begging from door to door, and
singing ballads for a supper and a night’s lodging. The beggar’s
profession was held in respect at that time, for it had not yet become
associated with imposture; and as the country beggars were also
ballad-singers and story-tellers, their visits were rather welcome than
otherwise. It must also be taken into account that beggars were not
numerous at this period.
It would appear that beggars first began to swarm and become
troublesome and importunate shortly after the Reformation. The
immediate cause of this was the abolition and spoliation of the
monasteries and religious houses by Henry VIII. Whatever amount of
evil they may have done, the monasteries did one good thing--they
assisted the poor and provided for many persons who were unable to
provide for themselves. When the monasteries were demolished and their
revenues confiscated, these dependent persons were cast upon the world
to seek bread where they could find it. As many of them were totally
unaccustomed to labour, they had no resource but to beg. The result was
that the country was soon overrun with beggars, many of whom exacted
alms by violence and by threats. In the course of the next reign we
hear of legislative enactments for the suppression of beggary. The
first efforts in this direction wholly failed to abate the nuisance,
and more stringent acts were passed. In the reign of Charles II.
begging had become so profitable that a great many Irish came over to
this country to pursue it as a trade.
The evil then became so intolerable that a royal proclamation was
issued, specially directed to check the importation of beggars from
Ireland. It is intituled “A Proclamation for the speedy rendering away
of the Irishe Beggars out of this Kingdome into their owne Countrie and
for the Suppressing and Ordering of Rogues and Vagabonds according to
the Laws,” which recites that: “Whereas this realme hath of late been
pestered with great numbers of Irishe beggars who live here idly and
dangerously, and are of ill example to the natives of this kingdome;
and, whereas the multitude of English rogues and vagabonds doe much
more abound than in former tymes--some wandering and begging under the
colour of soldiers and mariners, others under the pretext of impotent
persons, whereby they become a burthen to the good people of the land,
all which happeneth by the neglect of the due execution of the lawes,
formerly with great providence made, for relief of the true poore and
indigent, and for the punishment of sturdy rogues and vagabonds; for
the reforming therefore of soe great a mischiefe, and to prevent the
many dangers which will ensue by the neglect thereof, the king, by
the advice of his privy council and of his judges, commands that all
the laws and statutes now in force for the punishment of rogues and
vagabonds be duly putt in execution; and more particularly that all
Irishe beggars, which now are in any part of this kingdome, wandering
or begging, under what pretence soever, shall forthwith depart this
realme and return to their owne countries, and there abide.” And it
is further directed that all such beggars “shall be conveyed from
constable to constable to Bristoll, Mynhead, Barstable, Chester,
Lyrepool, Milford-haven, and Workington, or such of them as shall be
most convenient.”
We see by this that the state of mendicancy in 1629, was very much what
it is now, and that the artifices and dodges resorted to at that period
were very similar to, and in many cases, exactly the same, as the more
modern impostures which I shall have to expose in the succeeding pages.
THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE POOR LAWS.
An Act passed in 1536 (27 Henry VIII. c. 25) is the first by which
voluntary charity was converted into compulsory payment. It enacts that
the head officers of every parish to which the impotent or able-bodied
poor may resort under the provisions of the Act of 1531, shall receive
and keep them, so that none shall be compelled to beg openly. The
able-bodied were to be kept to constant labour, and every parish making
default, was to forfeit 20_s._ a month. The money required for the
support of the poor, was to be collected partly by the head officers
of corporate towns and the churchwardens of parishes, and partly
was to be derived from collections in the churches, and on various
occasions where the clergy had opportunities for exhorting the people
to charity. Alms-giving beyond the town or parish was prohibited on
forfeiture of ten times the amount given. A “sturdy beggar” was to be
whipped the first time he was detected in begging; to have his right
ear cropped for the second offence; and if again guilty of begging
was to be indicted for “wandering, loitering, and idleness,” and if
convicted was “to suffer execution of death as a felon and an enemy of
the Commonwealth.” The severity of this act prevented its execution,
and it was repealed by 1 Edward VI. c. 3 (1547). Under this statute,
every able-bodied person who should not apply himself to some honest
labour, or offer to serve for even meat and drink, was to be taken for
a vagabond, branded on the shoulder and adjudged a slave for two years
to any one who should demand him, to be fed on bread and water and
refuse meat and made to work by being beaten, chained, or otherwise
treated. If he ran away during the two years, he was to be branded on
the cheek and adjudged a slave for life, and if he ran away again he
was to suffer death as a felon. If not demanded as a slave he was to be
kept to hard labour on the highway in chains. The impotent poor were to
be passed to their place of birth or settlement from the hands of one
parish constable to those of another.
The statute was repealed three years afterwards and that of 1531 was
revived. In 1551 an Act was passed which directed that a book should
be kept in every parish containing the names of the householders and
of the impotent poor; that collectors of alms should be appointed who
should “gently ask every man and woman what they of their charity
will give weekly to the relief of the poor.” If any one able to give
should refuse, or discourage others from giving, the ministers and
churchwardens were to exhort him, and failing of success, the bishop
was to admonish him on the subject. This Act, and another made to
enforce it, which was passed in 1555, were wholly ineffectual, and in
1563 it was re-enacted (5 Elizabeth c. 3), with the addition that any
person able to contribute and refusing should be cited by the bishop to
appear at the next sessions before the justices, where if he would not
be persuaded to give, the justices were to tax him according to their
discretion, and on his refusal he was to be committed to gaol until the
sum taxed should be paid, with all arrears.
The next statute on the subject, which was passed in 1572 (14 Eliz. c.
5), shows how ineffectual the previous statutes had been. It enacted
that all rogues, vagabonds and sturdy beggars, including in this
description “all persons whole and mighty in body, able to labour,
not having land or master, nor using any lawful merchandise, craft or
mystery, and all common labourers, able in body, loitering and refusing
to work for such reasonable wage as is commonly given,” should “for the
first offence be grievously whipped and burned through the gristle of
the right ear with a hot iron of the compass of an inch about;” for the
second should be deemed felons; and for the third should suffer death
as felons without benefit of clergy.
For the relief and sustentation of the aged and impotent poor, the
justices of the peace within their several districts were “by their
good discretion” to tax and assess all the inhabitants dwelling
therein. Any one refusing to contribute was to be imprisoned until he
should comply with the assessment. By the statutes 39 of Elizabeth,
c. 3 and 4 (1598), every able-bodied person refusing to work for the
ordinary wages was to be “openly whipped until his body should be
bloody, and forthwith sent from parish to parish, the most strait way
to the parish where he was born, there to put himself to labour as a
true subject ought to do.”
The next Act, the 43 Elizabeth, c. 2, has been in operation from the
time of its enactment in 1601 to the present day. A change in the mode
of administration was, however, effected by the Poor Law Amendment Act
(4 and 5 Wm. IV. c. 76) which was passed in 1834. During that long
period many abuses crept into the administration of the laws relating
to the poor, so that in practice their operation impaired the character
of the most numerous class, and was injurious to the whole country. In
its original provisions the Act of Elizabeth directed the overseers
of the poor in every parish to “take order for setting to work the
children of all such parents as shall not be thought able to maintain
their children,” as well as all such persons as, having no means to
maintain them, use no ordinary trade to get their living by. For this
purpose they were empowered to raise weekly, or otherwise, by “taxation
of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other; and of every occupier
of lands, houses, tithes, mines, &c., such sums of money as they shall
require for providing a sufficient stock of flax, hemp, wool and other
ware, or stuff to set the poor on work; and also competent sums for
relief of lame, blind, old and impotent persons, and for putting out
children as apprentices.” Power was given to the justices to send to
the house of correction or common gaol all persons who would not work.
The churchwardens and overseers were further empowered to build poor
houses at the charge of the parish for the reception of the impotent
poor only. The justices were further empowered to assess all persons of
sufficient ability for the relief and maintenance of their children,
grandchildren, and parents. The parish officers were also empowered to
bind as apprentices any children who should be chargeable to the parish.
These simple provisions were in course of time greatly perverted, and
many abuses were introduced into the administration of the poor law.
One of the most mischievous practices was that which was established
by the justices for the county of Berks in 1795, when, in order to
meet the wants of the labouring population, caused by the high price
of provisions, an allowance in proportion to the number of his family
was made out of the parish fund to every labourer who applied for
relief. This allowance fluctuated with the price of the gallon loaf of
second flour, and the scale was so adjusted as to return to each family
the sum which in given number of loaves would cost beyond the price
in years of ordinary abundance. This plan was conceived in a spirit
of benevolence; but the readiness with which it was adopted in all
parts of England clearly shows the want of sound views on the subject.
Under the allowance system the labourer received a part of his means
of subsistence in the form of a parish gift, and as the fund out of
which it was provided was raised from the contributions of those who
did not employ labourers, as well as of those who did, their employers
being able in part to burthen others with the payment for their labour
had a direct interest in perpetuating the system. Those who employed
labourers looked upon the parish contribution as part of the fund out
of which they were to be paid, and accordingly lowered their rate of
wages. The labourers also looked on the fund as a source of wage. The
consequence was, that the labourer looked to the parish, and as a
matter of right, without any regard to his real wants, and he received
the wages of his labour as only one and a secondary source of the means
of subsistence. His character as a labourer became of less value, his
value as a labourer being thus diminished, under the combined operation
of these two causes.
In 1832 a commission was appointed by the Crown, under whose direction
inquiries were made through England and Wales, and the actual condition
of the labouring classes in every parish was ascertained, with the view
of showing the evils of the existing practice and of suggesting some
remedy.
The labour of this inquiry was great; but in a short time a report
was presented by the commissioners, which explained the operation of
the law as administered, with its effects upon different classes, and
suggested remedial measures. This report was presented in 1834, and was
followed by the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act (4 and 5 Wm. IV.
c. 76) in August of the same year. This Act was again amended by the 7
and 8 Victoria, c. 101 (9th August 1844).
The chief provisions of this law are the appointment of a central
board of three commissioners in London for the general superintendence
and control of all bodies charged with the management of funds for
the relief of the poor. There are nine assistant commissioners; each
of whom has a district; the assistant commissioners are appointed
by and removable by the commissioners; and the whole is under the
direction of the President of the Poor Law Board. The administration
of relief to the poor is under the control of the commissioners, who
make rules and regulations for the purpose. They are empowered to
order workhouses to be built, hired, altered, or enlarged, with the
consent of a majority of a board of guardians. They have the power
of uniting several parishes for the purposes of a more effective and
economical administration of poor relief, but so that the actual
charge in respect to its own poor is defrayed by each parish. These
united parishes or unions are managed by Boards of Guardians, annually
elected by the rate-payers of the various parishes; but the masters
of the workhouses and other paid officers are under the orders of the
commissioners, and removable by them. The system of paying wages partly
out of poor-rates is discontinued, and, except in ordinary cases, of
which the commissioners are the judges, the relief is only to be given
to able-bodied persons, or to their families, within the walls of the
workhouse.
A glance at some of the clauses of the Act 7 and 8 Victoria will show
the present condition of the machinery of the Poor Law, as regards the
latest reforms.
Chapter 101, sect. 12, empowers the Poor Law Commissioners to prescribe
the duties of the masters to whom poor children may be apprenticed, and
the terms and conditions of the indentures of apprenticeship: and no
poor children are in future to be apprenticed by the overseers of any
parish included in any union, or subject to a Board of Guardians under
the provisions of the 4 and 5 Wm. IV. c. 76; but it is declared to be
lawful for the guardians of such union or parish to bind poor children
apprentices. The 13th section abolishes so much of the 43 Eliz., c. 2,
and of the 8 and 9 William III. c. 3, and of all other Acts, as compels
any person to receive any poor child as an apprentice.
The 14th and following sections make some new regulations as to the
number of votes of owners of property and rate-payers in the election
of guardians and in other cases where the consent of the owners and
rate-payers is required for any of the purposes of the 4 and 5 Wm. IV.
c. 76.
The 18th section empowers the commissioners, having due regard to the
relative population or circumstances of any parish, included in a
union, to alter the number of guardians to be elected for such parish
without such consent as is required by the Act of William.
This section also empowers the commissioners to divide parishes which
have more than 20,000 inhabitants, according to the census then last
published, into wards for the purpose of electing guardians, and to
determine the number of guardians to be elected for each ward.
The 25th section provides that so long as any woman’s husband is
beyond the seas, or in custody of the law, or in confinement in a
licensed house or asylum as a lunatic or idiot, all relief given to
such a woman, or to her child or children, shall be given in the same
manner, and subject to the same conditions as if she was a widow; but
the obligation or liability of the husband in respect of such relief
continues as before.
The 26th section empowers the guardians of a parish or union to give
relief to widows under certain conditions, who at the time of their
husband’s death were resident with them in some place other than the
parish of their legal settlement, and not situated in any union in
which such parish is comprised.
The 32nd section provides that the commissioners may combine parishes
and unions in England for the audit of accounts. By the 40th section
the commissioners may, subject to certain restrictions there mentioned,
combine unions or parishes not in union, or such parishes and unions,
into school districts for the management of any class or classes of
infant poor not above the age of 16 years, being chargeable to any such
parish or union, or who are deserted by their parents, or whose parent,
or surviving parent, or guardians are consenting to the placing of such
children in the school of such district.
By the 41st section the commissioners are empowered to declare
parishes, or unions, or parishes and unions within the district of the
metropolitan police, or the city of London, &c., to be combined into
districts for the purpose of founding and managing asylums for the
temporary relief and setting to work therein of destitute homeless poor
who are not charged with any offence, and who may apply for relief, or
become chargeable to the poors’ rates within any such parish or union.
STATISTICS OF THE POOR LAWS.
The salaries and expenses of the commissioners for carrying into
execution the Poor Law Acts in England and Ireland amount to about
56,000_l._
The following statements will show the number of paupers, and the
amounts expended in relieving their wants at various periods since the
year 1783.
The average sum expended for the years 1783,
1784, and 1785, was £1,912,241
1801 4,017,871
1811 6,656,105
1821 6,959,249
1831 6,798,888
1832 7,036,969
1833 6,790,799
1834 6,317,254
1835 5,526,418
1836 4,717,630
1837 4,044,741
1838 4,123,604
1839 4,421,714
1840 4,576,965
1841 4,760,929
1842 4,911,498
1843 5,208,027
1844 4,976,093
1860 5,454,964
Number of indoor and outdoor paupers relieved during the following
years:
Paupers. Proportion per cent.
to Population.
1803 1,040,716 12
1815 1,319,851 13
1832 1,429,356 9
1844 1,477,561 9·3
1860 844,633 4·3