them. Then, too, by bringing individuals of the two classes into personal intercourse, on one common ground, where they meet as equal to equal, it would do much towards making each better acquainted with the other, to strengthen that bond of mutual kindliness and good feeling which ought to unite all the branches of the great human family in one brotherhood of charity and love. The action of co-operative societies is far wider in its scope, and could they once take root and flourish, would be infinitely more powerful and efficacious. That, despite the marvellous success which more than one has achieved -especially that of Rochdale, in Lancashire-they are open to many difficulties, cannot be denied even by their warmest advocates; yet, if fairly and honestly carried out, they appear to us to offer the only real and peaceful solution of the mighty problem which every day is forcing itself more and more on the minds of all thinking men-how the balance of labour and capital may be adjusted, how the condition of the great bulk of the people in every land may be improved, without revolutionary violence. But on this important subject our limits will not permit us to enter at any length. The day will surely come, though the existing generation will not behold it, when pauperism will have disappeared; when the working classes will be able to maintain themselves in comfort and independence by their own honest exertions; when the abyss which now separates class from class will be bridged over by mutual love and charity, and the divine precepts of Christianity carried out to their full extent. It is to this great end that the efforts of all in every country, of high and low, rich and poor, should be directed. But it must not be forgotten that no mere kindly feeling, however warm; no charitable donations, however princely; no Poor-Law system, however well combined, can achieve this aim without the union of practical good sense, calm, unbiassed judgment, and personal devotion. Indiscriminate philanthropy does as much harm as good, for it only removes one evil to substitute another. By failing to distinguish real from simulated distress-the poor man struggling with temporary, and often unmerited poverty, from the beggar, who makes mendicancy a regular profession-by petting the sinner and pampering the convict, it fosters vice, pauperism, and crime. The Poor Law, be it administered as wisely and judiciously as it may, has a tendency to debase the labouring population. What, then, can be done? In the main, the same rule holds good for all countries, France as well as England. Let us help the working classes to help themselves, by sympathising in their struggles and trials, affording them the means of self-improvement, stimulating their energies, raising their self-respect, while we ameliorate their moral and physical condition, by affording them better drainage, better dwellings, more ready means of education for their children, and sanitary improvements of every description. But in England there is something more to be done. Drunkenness lies at the root of three-fourths of the pauperism and half the crime of the United Kingdom. It behoves every well-wisher of his country to make war against this fearful vice; and to encourage the temperance movement, despite the ridicule so frequently cast upon it by superficial observers. But above all, let England strain every nerve to rescue her hosts of destitute children from the abyss that yawns beneath their feet. In this respect she is working in the right direction. Reformatories and industrial schools are excellent things in their way, if kept within due bounds; but prevention is better than cure. District schools, feeding schools, ragged schools, though attesting the amount of the evil, will, if well managed and supported, do much to prevent the necessity of the reformatory and the gaol. Habits of sobriety and frugality amongst the working classes will do still more. They will enable the greater part to dispense with parochial or private relief, except in those cases of illness, infirmity, or sudden calamity, when to receive aid is no degradation, and to afford it is a privilege. When these habits are formed—and we fear not till then, despite all her noble and generous effortswill England be entitled to say with truth, pauperism is diminished. APPENDIX. SINCE the preceding article was first published, some very important measures have been passed in England relating to the Poor Laws, more especially those which affect the removal of the poor, and the contributions of parishes to the common fund. The first was passed in 1861, the last in 1865. The evils resulting from the statute of the 14th of Charles II.,* which enacted the arbitrary removal of the poor from one parish to another, whenever they became chargeable on that in which they happened to reside, together with the various and progressive modifications made from time to time in the law, from 1662 to 1858, in the endeavour to mitigate the evils it entailed, have already been dwelt on at some length in the preceding pages. We have seen to what hardships, litigation, and discontent this Act-which has been termed the most extensive invasion of the rights of Englishmen since the Conquest, and which undoubtedly bound the labourer to the glebe almost as completely as the feudal laws of the Middle Ages-had led in England and Wales. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, under which the unions were formed, as we have seen, enacted that, notwithstanding such union, each parish should be separately chargeable with, and liable to defray, the expenses of its own poor; and that, in order to carry out these provisions, the parishes were to be assessed to a common fund, for * By the 43rd of Elizabeth, 1601, the labourer was relieved at the charge of the parish where he was residing. building the workhouse and defraying what were called "establishment charges," according to their average expenditure.* The poor, as before, were liable to be removed whenever they became chargeable. So the matter rested till the passing of the Irremovability Poor Act in 1846. By this Act, which paved the way for subsequent improvements, the removal of any poor person from the parish in which he or she had resided five years; of widows the first year after their husbands' demise; of children under sixteen without their parents; of persons chargeable by illness or accident only-was prohibited. In 1860, a select committee was appointed to examine how far the hardships, necessarily incidental to the law of removal, might be further mitigated. In consequence of the recommendations made on this occasion, an Act was passed reducing the period necessary to acquire the status of irremovability from five years to three, and extending the area of residence from a single parish to the whole union; an important change, as it afforded the working man a better chance of finding a market for his labour, and did away with the motive which so often prompted proprietors and parish authorities to refuse building cottages for the agricultural labourers at the spot where they were employed, lest their inmates should become burdensome to the parish, thus forcing them to walk long distances morning and evening. Orphans, even if they had not resided in the parish the prescribed period, at the death of their parents * Union Chargeability Act (Glen). + Unfortunately, the desired result has not yet been completely attained. Cottage accommodation is still very deficient on many farms and estates, and a fearful amount of overcrowding, fever, and immorality is the result. Still there are indications of improve ment. |