many instances the rates were used to influence and corrupt the electors of parliamentary boroughs. The attempts which in some cases were made by the overseers to prevent impositions were generally overruled by the magistrates. The scale of relief given acted as an inducement to improvident marriages. In many instances it was found that the able-bodied paupers received higher allowances than the infirm and disabled. In the workhouse the pauper was overfed with beef and mutton, while the man who earned his food by the sweat of his brow could scarcely obtain bread; and the pauper often received in relief a larger amount than the industrious and independent laborer was paid in wages. When relief was once obtained, it was regarded as a kind of vested interest, to be continued through life. Often pauper parents begat pauper children; and so on to the third and fourth generation. Relief was given in the most careless manner, and with gross partiality. In Buckinghamshire it was allowed to all who chose to ask for it. The recipients were often known to be thieves or prostitutes. In many instances the allowance was extorted by violence and threats. Since the commencement of machine-breakings and rick-burnings, the amount had greatly increased, the allowance often being, in fact, a bribe given to the rioters in the hope of propitiating them. In some cases, at least, it was shown to be the cause of the outrages committed. Relief was insolently demanded for children, whose fathers were receiving high wages, or wasting their earnings in drunkenness and disorderly living. In Sussex laborers refused to work, preferring to live on the parish allowance. 1

reform.

Upon the coming in of the report of the commissioners, which dis- Poor Law closed the facts as briefly summarized above by Molesworth, the new Poor Law was enacted, embodying substantially the recommendation of the commission. Although severe in many of its features, it was designed to deal with a condition which had become a menace to the welfare of the nation. By this act of 1834 (4th and 5th, William IV.), the principal features of the act of Elizabeth and George I. were restored. Outdoor relief was abolished. The labor test was restored and able-bodied paupers could not receive assistance, except on condition of their entering the workhouse and rendering service to the government in compensation for the aid received. A person able to work could not receive assistance for himself or his family except by entering the workhouse. The administration of the law was placed under the control of a central body, which directed its enforcement through local guardians: subsequently the country was divided into unions embracing large districts. The result of this legislation demonstrates that corrupt administration of a bad system was the chief cause of the large public expenditures and the large number of persons assisted under the old law. Molesworth says:

The hopes of its authors were more than fulfilled, and the predictions of its opponents signally falsified. The introduction of the new act was speedily followed by diminished rates, higher wages, employment for all who sought it, a cessation of riots, rick-burnings and machine-breaking, and a great improvement in the habits and character of the working classes. 2

The fact that such changes immediately followed the repeal of the old law and that rates were reduced one-half in less than three years shows 1 History of England. Vol. I., p. 310. 2 Id., p. 318.

Present administra

tion of poor relief.

that the records of the number relieved, and the amounts expended by the parishes furnished no proof of destitution, lack of employment, or misery among the laboring masses during the protective period. The citation of the old records by the advocates of free trade as an evidence against the policy of protection, is simply a part of the general plan of misrepresentation and deception which is resorted to upon all branches of the subject, to discredit the system of protection and to sustain the policy of free trade. In comparing the extent of the pauperism which prevails in England at the present time with that which marked the earlier period, it should be noted that while the old Poor Law gave relief to nearly every one who asked and was extravagantly and corruptly administered to swell the sales of local merchants, and while it acted as an encouragement to pauperism, the present law is administered in so niggardly a way, and the terms of relief imposed upon the able-bodied and the casually poor are so humiliating that nothing short of the worst destitution, and the actual peril of starvation drive men to seek public aid. The policy of the present law is to discourage pauperism and place the pauper on practically the same level as the criminal.

General William Booth, gives the following description of the present administration of the Poor Laws in 1890:

The first place must naturally be given to the administration of the Poor Law. Legally the State accepts the responsibility of providing food and shelter for every man, woman, or child who is utterly destitute. This responsibility, it, however, practically shirks by the imposition of conditions on the claimants of relief that are hateful and repulsive, if not impossible. As to the method of Poor Law administration in dealing with inmates of workhouses or in the distribution of outdoor relief, I say nothing.

Both of these raise great questions which lie outside my immediate purpose. All that I need to do is to indicate the limitations-it may be the necessary limitations-under which the Poor Law operates. No Englishman can come upon the rates so long as he has anything whatever left to call his own. When long continued destitution has been carried on to the bitter end, when piece by piece every article of domestic furniture has been sold or pawned, when all efforts to procure employment have failed, and when you have nothing left except the clothes in which you stand, then you can present yourself before the relieving officer and secure your lodging in the workhouse, the administration of which varies infinitely according to the disposition of the Board of Guardians under whose control it happens to be.

If, however, you have not sunk to such despair as to be willing to barter your liberty for the sake of food, clothing and shelter in the workhouse, but are only temporarily out of employment seeking work, then you can go to the Casual Ward. There you are taken in and provided for on the principle of making it as disagreeable as possible for yourself, in order to deter you from again accepting the hospitality of the rates-and of course in defence of this a good deal can be said by the political economist. But what seems utterly indefensible is the careful precautions which are taken to render it impossible for the unemployed Casual to resume promptly after his night's rest the search for work. Under the existing regulations, if you are compelled to seek refuge on Monday night in the Casual Ward, you are bound to remain there at least till Wednesday morning.

Under the present system, therefore, the penalty for seeking shelter from the streets is a whole day and two nights, with an almost impossible task, which, failing to do, the victim is liable to be dragged before a magistrate and committed to the gaol as a rogue and vagabond, while in the Casual Ward their treatment is practically that of a criminal. They sleep in a cell with an apartment. at the back, in which the work is done, receiving at night half a pound of gruel and eight ounces of bread and the next morning the same for breakfast, with half a pound of oakum and stones to occupy himself for a day.

The beds are mostly of the plank type, the coverings scant, the comfort nil. Be it remembered that this is the treatment meted out to those who are supposed to be Casual poor, in temporary difficulty, walking from place to place seeking some employment.

The treatment of women is as follows: Each Casual has to stay in the Casual Treatment Ward two nights and one day, during which time they have to pick two pounds of of women. oakum or go to the washtub and work out the time there. While at the washtub they are allowed to wash their own clothes, but not otherwise. If seen more than once in the same Casual Ward, they are detained three days by order of the inspector each time seen, or if sleeping twice in the same month the master of the ward has power to detain them three days. There are four inspectors who visit different Casual Wards; and if the Casual is seen by any of the inspectors (who in turn visit all the Casual Wards) at any of the wards they have previously visited they are detained three days in each one. The inspector, who is a male person, visits the wards at all unexpected hours, even visiting while the females are in bed. The beds in some wards are composed of straw and two rugs, in others cocoanut fibre and two rugs. The Casuals rise at 5.45 a. m. and go to bed at 7 p. m. If they do not finish picking their oakum before 7 p. m., they stay up till they do. If a Casual does not come to the ward before 12. 30, midnight, they keep them one day extra. The theory of the system is this, that individuals casually poor and out of work, being destitute and without shelter, may upon application receive shelter for the night, supper and a breakfast, and in return for this, shall perform a task of ity of the system work, not necessarily in repayment for the relief received, but simply as a test of their willingness to work for their living. The work given is the same as that given to felons in gaol, oakum-picking and stone-breaking.

The work too is excessive in proportion to what is received. Four pounds of oakum is a great task to an expert and an old hand To a novice it can only be accomplished with the greatest difficulty, if indeed it can be done at all It is even in excess of the amount demanded from a criminal in gaol. The stonebreaking test is monstrous. Half a ton of stone from any man in return for partially supplying the cravings of hunger is an outrage which, if we read of as having occurred in Russia, or Siberia, would find Exeter Hall crowded with an indignant audience, and Hyde Park filled with strong oratory. But because this system exists at our own doors, very little notice is taken of it. These tasks are expected from all comers, starved, ill-clad, half-fed creatures from the streets, footsore and worn out, and yet unless it is done the alternative is the magistrate and the gaol. The old system was bad enough, which demanded the picking of one pound of oakum. As soon as this task was accomplished, which generally kept them to the middle of the next day, it was thus rendered impossible for them to seek work, and they were forced to spend another night in the ward. The Local Government Board, however, stepped in and the Casual was ordered to be detained for the whole day and the second night, the amount of labor required from him being increased four-fold.1

1 Darkest England and the Way Out. pp. 67–70.

Inhuman

Unfair basis of compari

son.

Present extent of

It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss the merits or the demerits of the system, but simply to point out that a policy which is evidently framed and administered, in part at least, for the purpose of discouraging the destitute from applying to the public for assistance, furnishes an unfair basis for comparison with the former extravagant administration of the old law. It should be further mentioned that by the advance of civilization the general improvements under which, during the last half century, man's ability to supply his wants have been so largely increased, the tendency among civilized nations has been toward the decrease of crime, destitution and pauperism. Taking into consideration this fact, the increase in pauperism in recent years in England furnishes more pronounced evidence that it is brought about by an unwise and degrading economic policy. Independent of all comparisons, the free trade economist should not be permitted to evade the responsibility which is now resting upon the English people, by raising a false and irrelevant issue. The policy of free trade must be tried and tested by present conditions. The degree of idleness, destitution and pauperism existing in England under free trade at the present time, after forty years of growth, of most marvelous civilizing and elevating agencies, is the important fact to be considered. Although the official records and statistics which are used as a basis of comparison, are very imperfect and disclose only a small part of the misery which so universally prevails, yet when taken by themselves they make a very bad showing.

The official returns of the British Government as reported in the pauperism Statistical Abstract, give the number of paupers relieved on the first of January, 1891 and 1894, as follows:

in Great

Britain.

Paupers in Europe in 1888, given by Mulhall, Dictionary of Sta

By

The population of the United Kingdom in 1891 was 37,731,415. the official records then, of the British Government, it appears that one out of every twenty-eight was a pauper. It may be well to mention in

this connection that the census of the United States in 1890 returns 73,045 paupers (United States Census Bulletin of 1890, No. 154), out of a population of 62,000,000, or one in every 851.

The official returns of the United Kingdom are very imperfect and only contain a partial statement of the pauperism which actually exists. Mr. Sidney Webb said:

Neither the Local Government Board nor the Times ever tells the world that over three millions of separate individuals were driven to accept Poor Law relief during last year-one in ten of our wage-earners. The Local Government Board returns carefully conceal the fact that at least 25 per cent of all persons over sixtyfive years of age are paupers, and 40 per cent of those over seventy.1

The official returns exclude from their enumeration "vagrants'' and those given "casual relief," and simply include those of other classes who are being assisted on the first day of January of each year at the time when the return is made. The millions of laborers who, through lack of employment, sickness and misfortune, apply for casual relief during the year, are not mentioned in the returns. This fact accounts for the difference in numbers given in the Statistical Abstract and the reports of official investigating committees.

It is an economic dogma that all forms of poor relief and public charity tend to encourage and increase pauperism. Under this claim a system of administration which is most humiliating and subjects the unfortunate to most severe hardships, and makes the yoke of poverty most galling, is justified. It is the opinion of many, however, that contributions and expenditures are kept as low as possible solely to protect the rate-payer. The free trade party in England has exercised great shrewdness in crowding as much of the care of the poor as possible on the labor unions. Were it not for the vast sums expended each year by the unions in out-of-work and sick benefits, the pauper class would be very largely increased. It should also be pointed out that there are over sixty private charitable societies organized for the relief of the destitute, supported by individual contributions. The vast sums expended through these sources should not be lost sight of in making calculations of the extent of this burden, and especially when comparisons are made with former periods, when there were no labor unions and few charitable societies.

In January, 1885, Mr. Frederic Harrison, in commenting on the widespread destitution before the Industrial Remuneration Conference, said:

To me at least it would be enough to condemn modern society as hardly an advance on slavery or serfdom, if the permanent condition of industry were to be that which we behold, that 90 per cent of the actual producers of wealth have no home that they can call their own beyond the end of the week, have no bit of

1 The London Program, 1891, p. 97.

The num

ber of the

destitute.