POOR
255
POOR
The English poor law system is the most compre-
hensive and is the result of nearly four centuries of
experiment; even now it is receiving the most careful
consideration with a view to further legislation in
consequence of the report of the Royal Commission
on the Poor Laws issued Ln 1909. This commission
sat for three years, held over two hundred meetings,
took evidence from over one thousand three huntlred
witnesses, and the commissioners made upwards of
eight hundred personal visits to Unions, meetings of
Boards of Guardians, and institutions in England,
Scotland, and Ireland. The volume containing the
report consists of one thousand two hundred and fifty
folio pages, six hundred and forty of which are signed
by a majority of fourteen out of eighteen of the com-
missioners, and over five hundred by a minority of
four. The two reports are the subject of much dis-
cussion, and rival associations are formed to further
their respective recommendations. That more mod-
ern European systems can show many points of
improvement upon the English system as a whole is
obvious.
The system in Denmark is considered by many to be vastly superior to the English system, in that infinite trouble is taken to prevent any jjerson who deserves a better fate from becoming a pauper owing to misfortune, temporary distress, illness, or accident. In England no one would ever think of applying to a poor law officer for advice, or for a loan or gift to help him over e\'il days, but in Denmark this is often done. At the same time those who receive poor law relief in Denmark are subject to penalties which would not be tolerated Ln England. In Austria and Russia great interest is taken in homes for the aged poor and the inmates always seem much brighter and happier than the average poor penson in an Eng- lish workhouse. In Belgium there is no poor rate, but large endowments exist. In France there are hospices civiles for indoor relief, and bureaux de bienfaisance for outdoor relief, but the relief of the poor is not compulsory except for foundlings and lunatics. The same may be said of Italy, but the charitable foundations there amount to more than thirty millions sterling. The poor laws of the United States are in many respects like the English poor laws, although not so comprehensive, and they are not universally adopted in all states. Every man is entitled by law to relief from the towm of his settle- ment, the rate being assessed on whole towns and not on parishes. These areas bear the burden of the settled poor; the unsettled poor, including Indians, are a charge upon the state. In New York one year's residence is sufficient to constitute a settle- ment. In .some states outdoor relief is considered more economical than relief in a workhou.se. The idle and the vagrant may be committed to the work- house and forced to labour as in a house of correction. The administration is in the hands of overseers, but the counties elect superintendents, holding office for three years, who are again responsible to a Board of Supervisors. Generally the American system is marked by a high degree of classification, variety of work, special education, and liberal treatment in the matter of diet. In Canada and Australia there are practically no poor laws, but many Catholic chari- table institutions exist for dealing with the various forms of destitution and sickness.
The history of the poor laws in England practically had its beginning with the abolition of the monas- teries by Henry VIII. A curious act of Edward VI (1551) enacted that everyone should give alms to the collectors on Sundays, and that if any one refused the bi.shop should admonish him. This form of "moral suasion" was not sufficient for the congregations of the new worship; and a few years later another act directed the bishop to commit those who did not give sufficient alms to the justices, who were to levy on
them whatever rate they thought fair. The establish-
ment of an official poor fund led to the establishment
of an official register of the poor; and an early act
of Elizabeth caused dwellings to be built, overseers
to be appointed and "stuff" to be provided to set the
sturdy paupers to work. In 1604 the act of 43
Elizabeth, c. 2, crystallized the whole arrangement,
leaving the main administrative power in the hands
of parochial authorities, annually appointed. Among
other things it provided for setting to work children
of parents unable to maintain them; also for setting
to work all such persons, married or unmarried, who
had no ordinary daily occupation to obtain a living.
It provided for the relief of the lame, impotent,
and blind, and those poor who were unable to
work.
This and other acts were renewed in the reign of James I and made perpetual in the reign of Charles I. Each renewal saw some new development. In the eighteenth century many experimental acts were passed, some of which were completely opposite in policy. In 1772 the workhouse test was introduced and no one who refused to be lodged and kept in such houses was entitled to parochial relief. In 1782 by an act known as Gilbert's Act power was given to adjacent parishes to unite into a union and to build workhouses for combined parishes. Section 29 of this act provided that no person should be sent to the poorhouse except such as were become in- digent by old age, sickuess, or infirmities, and were unable to acquire a maintenance by their labour, and orphan children. For the able-bodied the guardians were ordered to find suitable employment near their own homes. Poor law expenditure was beginning to grow and by 1785 it amounted to £2,000,000. In 1796 an act (.36 Geo. Ill, c. 23) was passed, repealing an act of 1722 which restricted out-relief. This reversal of policy encouraged out-relief to poor per- sons in their own homes and the cost of relief rose with frightful rapidity until it reached in 1818 the sum of £7,870,000. This was looked upon as an intolerable burden and many petitions were pre- sented to Parliament for its alleviation.
In 1832 a royal commission was appointed to in- vestigate the working of the poor laws and the report issued by the commissioners in 1834 presents a very unsatisfactory state of things. It was reported that funds collected were applied to purposes opposed to the letter and still more to the spirit of the law, and the morals and welfare of the people were being de- stroyed. It was found that in many places not only the rates due from the people were being paid from poor funds, but their house rent as well; consequently paupers became a very desirable class of tenant. In many districts it was the custom to make up the earnings of a family to what was considered a li\-ing wage, which enabled employers of labour to pay low wages, knowing the earnings would be supplemented from the poor funds. To provide employment in return for relief granted was most unusual and even where any attempt to do so was made, it was of a most unsatisfactory nature. The men were usually paid at a higher rate of wage than the indepen- dent labourer and were required to work fewer hours. Wives of independent labourers were often heard regretting that their husbands were not pau- pers.
The method of collecting rates for the poor fund was found to be as bad as its distribution. No general method existed: sometimes tradespeople would be called upon to pay the rates and in addition compelled to give employment where it was not required; at another time and place farmers would have to bear the burden. An instance is given of a farmer with five hundred acres ha%-ing to pay ten per cent per acre and to employ four or five more labourers than he required, costing him another £100, to say noth-
