(1817) Considerations on the Poor Laws by John Davison, 1777-1834

8/14/2019 (1817) Considerations on the Poor Laws by John Davison, 1777-1834

1/134


2/134


3/134


4/134


5/134

CONSIDERATIONSON

THE POOR LAWS.

BYJOHN DAVISON M.A.c*

FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD.

OXFORD,AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR J. PARKER.

Sold also by J. MURRAY, Albemarle Street 5 and byLONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, and BROWNE,

Paternoster Row, London.1817.


6/134


7/134

TO THE

RIGHT HONOURABLEWILLIAM STURGES BOURNE M. P.

CHAIRMANOF

THE SELECT COMMITTEEOF

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,APPOINTED IN THE LAST SESSION OF PARLIAMENT.

ON THE

POOR LAWS;THESE FEW PAGES

ARE INSCRIBED,WITH A GREAT AND SINCERE RESPECT,

BY HIS OBEDIENT HUMBLE SERVANT,Oxford,

Oct. 10, 1817. THE AUTHOR.


8/134


9/134

PREFACE.

1 HE author of the following pages is wellaware of the difficulty of the subject of thePoor Laws, when it is to be taken up with aview to any practical amendment of them.If therefore he should seem, in the course ofstating what he has wished to say upon them,to have expressed himself any where with lesshesitation and mistrust of judgment, than aquestion of such acknowledged intricacy re-quires, he has done so only to save some tedi-ousness in the form of putting his opinions,and begs, by declaring his sense of that diffi-culty once for all, to be acquitted of the indis-cretion ofspeaking confidently to others, wherehe himself would be glad to see his way withmore certainty.The very crowd of publications which have

already appeared in this same line of inquiry,may serve in some measure perhaps to excuse

B


10/134

11

one more. .In fact, in the promiscuous specu-lation which commonly falls upon a publicquestion, there is a service which even ordi-nary men are capable of; as it comes withinthe reach of very moderate sense soberly ap-plied, to pitch upon particular parts of a sys-tem, and canvass the reason of them, or ascer-tain their effect, with tolerable exactness : andthis is something done, though the stress ofduty for the practical statesman is still behind.He has to make up his mind upon the effectof the whole in its combined result; and takingone step further, has to connect plans of pro-posed improvement with interests not alwayseasy to be ascertained, before the experimentupon them has been risked. Still the moreconfined sketches of argument, which attemptto work out any of the details of the mixtquestion, may assist in giving some one ele-ment or other towards the more comprehen-sive practical arrangement. And the chanceof doing so much, is the real apology for thosewho may wish to throw in their share to thespeculations of the day, but who neither ima-


11/134

Ill

gine they have any thing of much conse-*

quence to offer, nor yet would choose to putthree sentences together in print with a cer-tainty of their being useless.

All reasoning on such a subject as the PoorLaws must be idle, that is not supported bya real knowledge of the state of things in thecountry as it stands under these laws ; andexisting facts must shape the anticipated ex-perience by which any given alteration ofthem is to be judged of. Instances and parti-cular cases therefore commonly make a figurein most of the publications, which either de-scribe what is, or recommend what should be.The author of these remarks has of course hisfacts and examples in view, such as his oppor-tunities of observation (it has been very li-mited) have afforded : but he has not broughtthem forward to justify his notions by them.He has declined doing it, as well because par-ticular cases, unless they are strong and ag-gravated, make little impression in the recital,and in proportion as they are aggravated be-yond the common average, though they catch

B 2


12/134

IV

exceedingly the popular understanding, theyare of the less real value in general reason-ing ; and also because his assumptions willeither be justified by the experience of thosewho may happen to read them ; or if theyare not so justified, the facts from which theyhave been drawn would be equally met andopposed by the reader's own contrary expe-rience.

It may be necessary to mention, that thesubstance of these Considerations was reducedto writing in the month of June last, in orderto explain why the allusion made in them tothe plan of a fund of parochial contributionamong the Poor themselves, is expressed undera doubt whether any such plan would actuallybe proposed or recommended. That doubt isnow removed, by the distinct recommendation,which the plan has subsequently received.


13/134

CONSIDERATIONSON

THE POOR LAWS.1 HE Poor Laws, as they stand at this day insystem and in practice, having modified, and insome degree having made the condition, such asit now is, of the labouring class, which is themost numerous class of the community; anychange of those laws, whether in the systemor the application of them, should be madewith such caution and leniency towards thepersons whose interests have been so incorpo-rated with them, as shall render the transitionof change gradual and easy in its effect, andtolerable to the prejudice which has been per-mitted to work itself into the minds and cal-culations of the poor. Whether it might notbe just strictly in the abstract to withdrawfrom them even at a very short notice anyholding of supposed advantage which mayhave been conceded to them improperly andunwisely at the first, with wrong towardsB 3


14/134

6others, and with much mistake towards them-selves, is a question not necessary t o be argued.In a legislative arrangement it cannot be con-sidered as practically just and fair, as it cer-tainly would not be wise, to shock, by a sud-den resumption, any kind of claim which hasbeen supported and encouraged by the prece-dent of a general and established usage of en-joyment. To force a new condition, withoutallowing time for the adaptation of circum-stances and feelings, is not consistent with theprinciples of that sound and genuine equity,which upholds the connexion between thelegislature and the subject.

But in prospective legislation, the moresevere the rule is made, and the more rigor-ously the line is drawn, to the exclusion ofundue claims, or claims of a doubtful, stillmore if they be of a mischievous kind, thebetter is the legislative arrangement ; better,both for the security of the public interest soguarded, and also for the more clear and pre-cise statement of the course of duty prescribedto the individual.Under the first of these two general princi-

ples, it seems advisable that all modificationsof the existing laws, as applicable to persons atthis present time entitled to parochial relief,


15/134

or to the claim of it, should be made withgreat considerateness and reserve, and shouldbe calculated rather for an adjustment by com-promise of obstinate difficulties, than upon thelarger views of independent and unembarrassedlegislation.

But under the second general principle, inthe case of persons who at this time have notitle to such relief, nor any necessary accessto the claim of it, the course of enactmentshould be different, as the subject to which itis to be applied is different. Here the groundis clear and open; and the wisdom of the legis-lature can make its own dispositions upon it.Consequently the strong sense of any one im-portant maxim of policy or ofjustice, ought tobe exhibited on the face of the public arrange-ment to be made prospectively, by the mostpure and absolute expression of the law in itsfavour.To restrain or reduce an existing inconve-

nience is the object in the first case. To keepan inconvenience excluded is the object in thesecond. In the one, much must be concededto past mistake 5 in the other, nothing oughtto be conceded, to the infringement of the in-terest in question.

Under these two leading ideas I have in-B 4


16/134

8tended to keep the main drift of the followingconsiderations. To pretend to turn to any thinglike a general maxim at every step would be tostrain things absurdly to an affected regularity,and would prevent each point from being con-sidered on its own merits. I have gone there-fore upon such general maxims only so far asto take a first bias and direction from them;but shall endeavour in the detail of inquiry tofollow the nature of the ground afterwards asit may happen to lie. The express and tech-nical application of them will be brought inmore distinctly in the end.The considerations themselves will be di-rected chiefly to the following heads of in-quiry : The provision for the dependent poor,whether able to wrork, or unable the policyof a parochial subscription fund the possibi-lity of finding a supply of work for thosewho may be thrown out of employ theamendment of the administration of the lawthe management of work-houses the artificialregulation of agricultural wages by poor-ratesthe effects of the existing law upon the habitsand manners of the poor and, lastly, the ex-pediency of a new legislative arrangement tobe prospective.

If we take up the case of persons now de-


17/134

9pendent, or liable to be dependent, upon paro-chial relief, we should have them divided intotwo general descriptions, obviously requiring adistinct and separate consideration; the first,of those who are not able to work 5 the second,of those wTho are able, but cannot find employ.The case of those who cannot work isof the easier consideration. By the law at

present they have a claim of relief, and thisrelief ought, probably, to be continued tothem, without discrimination of cases or per-sons, except for the amount of the relief to begiven according to exigency of want. I sayprobably, because upon the whole it wouldbe most fair and practicable. For althoughthe present want of some of these persons,under their disabled state, may be owing toformer improvidence, and consequently not initself, nor in the reason of the thing, a sufficienttitle to relief; still the selection of the provi-dent, and the exclusion of the improvident, bya review of their past life and means, wouldbe a business of impracticable trouble and un-certainty. The present usage therefore mustbe continued for some time, to make the parishresponsible for the support of all who are dis-abled from work, without exception.

If however any criterion could be establish-


18/134

10ed whereby to resist

the claims of destituteimprovidence, it would be highly expedient tohave recourse to such a criterion for the future.It is reported that the Committee of the Houseof Commons appointed to revise the PoorLaws, have it in contemplation to recommenda system of subscription to a common paro-chial fund by the poor themselves, and theactual subscribing to such a fund to be made acondition of subsequent assistance from theparish. If this plan of subscription to a paro-chial fund should ultimately be adopted, itwould supply what is now wanting, a simplecriterion of the providence of the parties. Ishall state presently more at large what I thinkof such a fund. In the mean time, it mani-festly might be made to have this kind of use,to furnish a rule whereby to know what per-sons had used any economy and forethoughtfor themselves when they were in health andstrength, and would so far supply the defectof the title upon which relief is often de-manded by the impotent and disabled. For, itcannot be insisted upon too strongly, that meredisability to work does not constitute of itselfa sufficient equitable claim to a certain legalmaintenance. If a man were to throw awayhis bread, because at this moment he is not


19/134

11

hungry, althoughhe might be hungry and un-provided in the course of a few hours, nobodywould say that he deserved to have a loaf givenhim when his time of hunger and privation ar-

rived. The case is the same on a larger viewof life: and there is no account to be given,why reasonable beings should not understandthe natural condition upon which they live,and learn to act accordingly. Disability towork, and want under that disability, maycome, probably will come, in the commoncourse of things. If a person have given noproof of a desire to provide at all for himselfagainst such seasons, the fault and the suffer-ing ought to go together; at least the lawought not to indemnify him against the penal-ties of his improvidence, without check or ex-ception.A subscription then to the common paro-chial stock might be made useful to improveand certify the claim of parties afterwardsapplying for relief, upon the plea of inabilityto work, as it would serve also to create, in afair way, a part of the fund for their actualmaintenance, when they came to be disabledfrom maintaining themselves by their labour.

But since habits of a totally different kindhave been encouraged by the laws heretofore,


20/134

12and the means and resources of the poor havebeen wasted by those habits ; the demand ofany subscription ought to be made (if such ameasure should be adopted) with great in-dulgence, both as to the amount of it, and asto the length of the term of subscription afterwhich the right of assistance from their parishshould be acquired.

It should be recollected that the poor dis-abledfrom work, of whom we are now speak-ing, will be of two kinds, as the disability it-self may be either permanent or temporary.The permanently disabled, whether reduced tothat state by the wear of old age, by loss oflimbs, or incurable infirmity, are those who havethe best right to all that the law can ever pre-tend to do. They stand foremost in deservingits full protection. But the other class, viz.those who suffer under a temporary incapacityonly, would not have so clear a right. Thelaw never can intend to provide against everyarticle and minute portion of such distress.At any rate, their application to the parishought to be discouraged: and to check the be-ginnings of such a correspondence with theparish, it seems expedient that no relief shouldbe allowed, till their disability, of a palpablekind, had lasted some time, as one month or


21/134

13two. For so long a time, their own economyand private benevolence together, should beleft to take care of them. And consideringthe greater activity of private charity whichwould follow, if the law did not profess to doso much, and the extensive relief already af-forded by the circle of our benevolent institu-tions, which are at hand with some kind of aidin almost every instance of suffering, there islittle reason to think that any severe, and atthe same time unmerited, distress, would besuffered, by this delay of legal interference,even if it were extended to a longer term.

I have adverted to the plan of a ParochialFund to be raised in part by contribution fromthe poor, because some such plan seems to bemuch thought of; and if it should receivecountenance from the recommendation of sohigh an authority as the Committee of theHouse of Commons, it would then become amost important object of consideration. Inthe ignorance whether it may receive any suchsanction or no, and under what form it maybe recommended, if at all, I beg to be under-stood as speaking of it only as a project offloating speculation. Having admitted one useof such a fund, as a test for the subscribers'certificate for relief under disability, I shouldstop there, confining it rigidly to that single


22/134

14object ; and deprecate most earnestly the ap-plication of it to any other purpose what-ever. For if it be designed to favour andfacilitate in any manner the present promis-cuous grant of parish assistance, and enablethe parish more effectually to discharge itsmultiplied obligations in all their extent ; oneof the main defences against the unlimitedand universal spread of pauperism in the coun-try would be done away, by that very fund,the discredit of parochial dependence ; andat the same time the aggregate of claims accu-mulate in a fearful ratio. The discredit of thatdependence would then be shaken in the veryprinciple of the thing. For the moral and ade-quate right acquired by contribution would makethe claimants consider themselves as drawingupon their own stock; as using their own pro-perty j as taking back with some interest whatthey had lent to the parish. Their actual con-tribution would of course be only a small partof the amount of their subsequent demands. Butthe parish books would seem to them only amore profitable kind of funded account, fromwhich, as proprietors, they drew a return of adoubled capital, and the loss of independentcharacter in the transaction would be no morethan follows from taking home a dividend fromthe bank. If a large gain is not to be allowed to


23/134

15the subscribers, it is a hardship upon them tooblige them, and a delusion to invite them, tosubscribe, only to have their own money again,in the shape of legal charity ; and if there is tobe a large gain, the temptation to traffick insuch profitable pauperism is a manifest andpregnant danger. The power of subscribingmust be open and general: indeed the law mustbe supposed to invite all, who by any possi-bility may be reduced to want hereafter, tosecure themselves by entering their names assubscribers. The most probable obvious con-sequence would be a vast influx of needy expec-tant contributors ; and the responsibility ofthe parish would be pledged to them all, assoon as they had opened their account with it.If therefore the present obligations and en-gagements of the parish are to be continued,under the usual heads and pleas, of loss ofW7ork, insufficient wages, family of children, oc-casional illness, and others, the incalculable ex-tension of its debtor concerns in the number ofparties instantly and irrevocably connected withit, is the first result which threatens to followupon the experiment. The pressure of thisweight of incumbrance upon the parish couldnot be effectually counteracted by a diminutionof the scale of allowances, any more than the


24/134

16evil of the present practice could be effectuallyrepressed by a stated and positive diminutionof the allowances now usually granted : be-cause it is not by the rate of the allowance,but by the heads and reasons of the allowance,that the evil has arisen. It is not by encourag-ing the poor to expect something from the pa-rish, that they become the heavy burthen uponit; but by encouraging them to expect thatsomething, whatever it be, on such and such ac-counts, and under such and such circumstances.When the reason and ground of the demand isonce established; or professed to be continued,the measure of allowance will force itself, as ithas done, by the exigency of each person whohas the ground and reason to prefer in his par-ticular case. It is the avenue of claim, not theamount of it, that is the spring of the evil. Aparish fund therefore so constituted, for generalpurposes, would be a permanent nucleus for agrowing and ruinous embarrassment to thewhole internal system of the country. The pa-rochial taxes would most probably be swelled intheir amount by the increase ofdependents uponthem, notwithstanding the sums contributed bythe dependents themselves. But even if the rateswere lowered, the mass of account and agencyin the parish concerns would be infinitely ex-


25/134

17tended ; and the character of an independentworking class more and more lost and absorbedin the connexion.

I have so little confidence in my own esti-mate of expedients wholly new, that I shouldhardly know whether to wish the experimentof this fund to be made, even for the singleand confined object which I have already men-tioned ; and one reason for hesitating aboutthis simple use of it, would lie in the difficultyof disposing of the case of parishioners livingat a distance from their parish. How is thecontribution of absentee parishioners to bedrawn ? and how are their rights to be affected,if they do not contribute ? Perhaps some new-regulation to be made for the express purposeof modifying the conditions of parish settle-ment, might smooth the difficulty. But this isstill to be done. The objections however arequite clear and positive against bringing anycases and concerns whatever within the rangeof such a fund, except the broad and palpableone of disabled strength of body and limbsunder a state of destitution. This is a condi-tion of suffering and privation that cannot bemistaken: it is not liable to be simulated byimposture; it implies no suspicion of fault; itis incapable of farther service to the commu-c


26/134

18nity; it is especially sacred by a reverence ofnature; and it is not tempting to abuse, as aperson would not subscribe to a fund under awish of soon finding himself in the list of crip-ples or incurables, in order to profit by hissubscription. These are distinguishing circum-stances to invite the especial care of the law :and they make the exercise of that care per-fectly safe. All other cases and pleas, as lossof work, insufficient wages, family of children,occasional illness, house-rent, &c. which nowcome within the scope of public relief, havebeen found to be so many distinct sources ofidleness, dishonesty, vice, and perplexity tothe affairs of the country.Upon this popular topic of a contribution to

a parish fund, I venture to affirm, that it is notfit that the poor should subscribe for the reliefof one another. Pecuniary charity is not theirduty : it is out of their province. Their ownreal wants forbid it; and they have not thefeeling which such a sacrifice requires. In noway are they made for it. And to try to makethem generous, wrhen they have more neces-sary and more attainable virtues to acquire, isto misplace the attention we bestow upon them.Benefit societies among the lower classes of thepoor are vicious on this account. They profess


27/134

19to offer a mutual guarantee against the casual-ties and contingencies of life, as well as its morecertain ordinary wants, out of a property toosmall to be exposed to the risks of other men'sfortunes: and the history of such associations,in the discontent of them, the complaints ofunfair distribution, and the manoeuvres prac-tised upon the direction of the funds, is partlya proof that the exercise of this mutual charityin money and kindness is not to be had amongpersons, whose hope and aim of gaining bythe partnership disavow the pretence of a per-fectly common benefit. If axioms were of anyworth in practical politics, I should venture tooffer two as the simplest and the very best forputting the affairs of the poor in a right train :the first, that every man should work for him-self, which has been rudely discountenancedby the practice of our Poor Laws ; and thenext, that every man should save for himself,an axiom which benefit clubs, combined paro-chial funds, and some other plans, trampleunder foot. Upon this new ground he wouldneither draw from the public, which has beenthe practice already tried, nor would the pub-lic draw from him, which, I must think, is theconverse mistake.

" In medium qucerunt" is a tempting senti-C 2


28/134

20ment. It seems to be in the way both to bene-volence and wealth. It is the sentiment bywhich the Roman poet has described the eco-nomy of a hive -, and a still greater poet of ourown has told us, that the inhabitants of a hivemay teach " the art of order to a peopled king-" dom." But men are not bees, as in manyother respects, so in this ; that the love of pro-perty, exclusive property, and aversion fromlabour, make no part of the natural historyof that wise insect; but in man they are cha-racteristic; and they are set off in him oneagainst another. They ought to be kept welltogether. He has his sympathies ; but it is notin the first instance with his hive, but withinhis cell, with his family. The poor man's en-deavours can hardly extend any further. Forhim, the principle ofjoint labour and commu-nity of acquisition is put where it ought to be,when it is infused into his lesson of domesticduty. His capacity of feeling and exertion isjust commensurate with it there. It fills his

; little circle: more is too much for him.The value of benefit societies, is among such

persons in society as are tolerably safe in acompetency of subsistence, and have somesurplus besides to lay out, upon the fate ofwhich they can reckon without anxiety. The


29/134

21stake of the club ought to be upon the optionalor occasional comforts, not upon the necessarysubsistence of its members; otherwise theyare gaming for their bread. Remedies to thePoor Laws must be sought in provisions appli-cable to persons not quite so high in the worldas those for whom benefit societies are calcu-lated. These associations may indeed keepsome from falling upon the parish, but theyare not so likely to discharge and take off thosewho are just within its connexion. Such per-sons require the most stimulating inducementof gain to be quite their own, and the fears ofwant to be wholly their own also. It shouldbe constantly remembered, that is not merelya security against misfortune that is wantedfor them, but an antidote to their imprudenceand neglect and misconduct. Community offortune by association, upon the principle of amutual assurance, is a fair provision againstloss ; but a most unfair one against delinquencyand folly. It makes the good pay forfeit forthe bad, by the very tenour of its rules.When the underwriters insure, or when mer-chants do it mutually for each other, it is againstsea-risk, against damage by accident ; and there-fore the ship, to be a proper subject of insur-ance, must be sea-worthy, and there must be a

c 3


30/134

22sufficient

piloton board. There is reason in

this. What would they think of an indis-criminate guarantee upon timbers of everysort, sound and unsound ? So when a life-office insures, the life in question must notbe in a deep consumption. In every case acertain worthiness of condition precedes theguarantee. Unless therefore a survey shall beordered, and a report made, upon the charac^ter of the parties to be combined together inparochial associations, it never can be otherthan mistake and fraud, to engage them thatthey shall mutually indemnify one another,against any thing more than casualties, orevents absolutely out of their own power, andwholly independent of their manner of acting.A mixed contribution from rich and poortogether, would be liable, as I have endea-

voured to shew, to the greatest objection ofall, if it is to create a fund for general pur-poses, open to the same forms of demand asnow subsist. The poor would flock in to thesubscription, which would be all for theirbenefit ; and the multitude of indigent part-ners, what by their numbers, what by the con-fidence of an acquired creditable right, woulddrain such a fund more rapidly than they haveever drained the parochial taxes. The property


31/134

23and the character of the two parties would bemore and more approximated and confounded.Indeed any fund whatever, appropriated to themultifarious purposes which are now withinthe scope of parish relief, would be insufficientto meet the demands accruing upon it, if thepoor are to be admitted to an interest in it bytheir becoming contributors. A fund for suchextensive purposes could not possibly be had bycontribution among the poor themselves. Thesubsisting practice therefore, of assessmentsupon the property of the other class alone, tobe extorted by the occasion, is the only, or thebest way of resisting and checking the pressure,as long as the present vague and promiscuousrange of relief is attempted to be continued.As the result of these considerations, if therebe any weight in them, I conceive that thedestination of a fund into which the poormight be invited to subscribe, should be strict-ly confined to a provision for them against theextreme hardship of bodily infirmity, perma-nent and irremediable; that the contributionfrom the poor themselves should.be on thesole and separate account of each individual;that his deposits should be moderate, neitherto press too much upon his current wants, norto lay the whole weight of the provision for

c 4


32/134

24that particular purpose upon himself; and, asa most necessary stipulation of justice, in or-der that he may never lose by the exercise ofhis economy, that the full amount of his con-tributions, if they should happen not to be ulti-mately withdrawn by his own personal want,or the remainder of them, should be restoredat his decease to his family, or other represen-tatives of blood; or perhaps, in default of nearkin, as he might direct. Whether one statedrate of deposit should be fixed, to insure astated amount of provision, or whether the rateof deposit should be left to the option andconvenience of the parties, and a proportionaterate of provision be granted upon it, would bea subordinate point to consider. Either wayhas its recommendations.With regard to the second general descrip-

tion of persons, now entitled by the usage ofthe law to parochial relief, " those who are able


33/134

25whether it be possible to find work for them,and how it is to be furnished. According tothe view which may be taken of the possibilityof finding an adequate supply of work, thesystem of arrangement for them ought ne-cessarily to be shaped. For that they ought tobe employed, if work can be found for them, Ipresume, is on all hands agreed.

Labourers and mechanics are thrown out ofemploy by a reduction of the relative demandfor labour ; that relativeness being taken uponthe numbers who want the employ, comparedwith the absolute amount of it ; and this re-duction of demand may be either temporaryin its cause, or of longer continuance. Plans forproviding employment under a temporary di-minution of the ordinary demands of it may beframed with tolerable effect, in the light ofmere expedients, and as measures of momen-tary relief; but not as measures of direct publicutility : and as such they may act in a reme-dial way against the occasion, but can neverbe regarded as integral parts of the nationalprosperity. The reason why they are prac-ticable at all, is, that it will always be possible,in a benevolent and opulent country, to make aforced effort, and turn the edge of a momen-tary pressure 5 for the whole national resources


34/134

26are not in the ordinary course of things strain-ed to their maximum of effect, but leavesomething more to be done by the exertionsof local or personal public spirit. On theother hand p the reason why such artificial ex-ertions are incapable of a continued and a be-neficial application, is, that the generosity andthe sacrifice necessarily combined with themmust secretly be wasting the resources of thecountry; and the arrangements made for them,not

beingfounded in the natural motives and

calculations of life as developed in trade andcommerce, cannot produce the effect of tradeand commerce in the increase of individual orpublic wealth ; and, as far as they are adverseto those motives and calculations, they mustproduce an opposite effect.

If therefore in any country there be causesin action which threaten to place any consi-derable number of the people constantly outof employ, in the ordinary ways and channelsof established industry ; neither the law, norsystems of parochial management, nor the ar-tificial patronage of individuals, will be able, bytheir contrivances, to obviate the essential evil,because they will not be able to create a realdemand for the spare labour. If that labourcould be profitably employed, the professed


35/134

27tradesman would take it up. If he cannotgain by it, the artificial tradesman, who has aworse chance, and many disadvantages to con-tend with, must lose by it; consequently itwill be a losing trade; that is, no trade, but afiction of charity.

In this country there are two causes, as Isuppose, which do actually threaten to throwa considerable number of hands constantly outof employ, not perhaps always in the samedistrict, nor of the same technical description ;but still to leave in some part or other of oursystem a great stock of unapplied labour.These causes are, first, the Poor Laws them-selves; and next, the fluctuating nature of ourManufacturing and Commercial Industry. Ofthe two, the latter, the fluctuating nature of ourmanufacturing and commercial industry, seemsto have taken the lead in creating the presentaccumulated difficulty in a surplus of unap-plied labour, as far as the operation of the twocauses can be estimated apart ; but the incon-venience so created, to have been greatly ag-gravated, by the simultaneous influence ofthose laws. Their proportion of influencehowever in producing the evil, needs not tobe made a question, if it be granted thatboth the one and the other contribute theirshare to the same effect. But there is this


36/134

28difference to be observed, that the consequenceof an accumulation of unapplied labour, as re-sulting from the laws, may be met and re-strained by all that counteracting change whichit may be thought proper to introduce into thelaws themselves. But the consequence, as re-sulting from the very nature of our manufac-turing and commercial industry, cannot beregulated ; inasmuch as it would be flatly im-possible to separate the consequence from thesystem, and prudentially impossible to retractthat system, or even perhaps to reduce it.That these two causes separately and joint-

ly do in fact tend to burthen the country witha number of supernumerary hands, scarcelyneeds a solemn shew of proof. The PoorLaws accelerate the growth of the popula-tion by a premature increase, inasmuch asthey enter into an engagement beforehand toprovide for all, though neither the mode, northe station, of employment for all, is either fore-sen or provided, nor any solid security takenfrom principles of general calculation, that theroom for employing them will exist, or if itexist anywhere, that it shall be accessible justas it shall be wanted. The undertaking of thelaw is upon a carte blanche to the population.The provision of the employment is deferredto a subsequent and most precarious arrange-


37/134

29ment, which hitherto has proved absolutelyfallacious. No adequate occupation has beenfound for those whom the law has undertakento support. It generates an evil which itvainly attempts to remedy by a tardy and sub-sequent application. It creates the labourers.It cannot, as I shall attempt presently to ex-plain, create the employment for them. Ithas to go begging itself, to find methods of ful-filling its own obligations.The effect of our manufacturing and com-mercial industry to the same inconvenience isapparent. These two branches of our nationalsystem are engaged in the production, or thecirculation, of commodities of an unequal de-mand and a shifting market. Besides causeswithin the

country,which may vary the activityof them, they are open to the fluctuations which

may be induced by changes in the condition,the wants, or the tastes of all that circuit ofthe world abroad, with which they have anypoint of connexion. War and peace alter-nately supplant many of the foundations uponwhich they rest, and other minor agents comein among them to their sensible disturbance. Inthis unsteady system, supposing the whole ef-fective demand upon our labour of manufactureor of circulation* to remain a constant quan-


38/134

30tity, it is not always for the same commodities,nor in the same channel, that the vent offersitself. There may be an increase in the wholeeffective demand, and yet many hands may bethrown out of work; because manufacturersofa given description may work more ; but stillif there be a remission of the demand in anysingle department of industry, there, in that de-partment, the exclusion from labour will takeplace; and the whole sum of activity will bemaintained, not by an equable partition of thelabour, but by a partial increase of it in onekind, and a depression of it in another. Thestimulus of a thriving trade in one branch willmake that quarter swarm ; and when it is de-pressed, its superabundant labourers will notbe taken off by the alternation of success inanother, but the thriving line will rear and at-tract labourers of its own. The supernumeraryhands will remain such, and will be throwntherefore for a time upon their own economy,or upon the Poor Laws, which discharge themfrom that economy. If an instantaneous trans-fer of residence, as well as of manual habits,were practicable, the shock of these fluctua-tions would be less felt than it is. But boththe one and the other are impossible to anygreat extent. The mechanics especially, and


39/134

31artisans of an improved country, are not somany units, but compose so many classes, whichare not readily interchangeable in kind, anymore than they can easily migrate to the newmomentary home which a prosperous localtrade at a distance might chance to offer them.It follows, that these disengaged men become somuch burthen upon the other members of thecommunity, and press heavily upon the movingwheels, which they cannot help to turn them-selves. A caste of unemployed poor is en-gendered, and spread far and wide ; the PoorLaws directly encouraging the increase of it bythe promise of a maintenance, scanty as it maybe; and disseminating the indigent race throughthe. country, to their several parishes, in quest ofthat maintenance. The produce of the labourof those who are in work is consumed by thosewho have neither work nor revenue ; and themost industrious country suffers in a largebody of its members many of the evils of acountry the most slothful and the most unim-proved.From these sources then we must expect acontinued, and a numerous succession of unem-ployed hands; numerous in proportion to theextended efficacy of the Poor Laws, combinedwith the occasional height and prosperity of


40/134

32our whole productive commerce, or of someof its divisions; a prosperity which ebbs fromtime to time as far back as its tide had risen.I speak of the extended efficacy of the laws aswe now see and feel it. They have been longacting to produce the harm to which the spiritof them gives the virtual tendency. Theyhave been adopted by the people ; and thatadoption of them has brought out their theo-retic mischief in its force. A cumbrous dis-eased excrescence has formed itself upon thehealthier part of the public body, fettering itsfunctions and eating out its strength.But it never was the original aim and design

of the law, that so many able hands should re-ceive any part of their maintenance from thepublic alms. To set them to work is the let-ter of the law. And upon the possibility offinding them in work ought to depend, as Ihave already observed, a great practical con-clusion in the revision of this part of the law.In the attempt then to take care of these un-employed men by finding them a supply ofwork, I am persuaded that it is possible to domuch to abate the burthen of their support, buttotally impossible to furnish them with pro-ductive employment, whereby they shall beable to support themselves, or add any thing


41/134

33to the public wealth. Their labour may beturned to use, but not to profit. They mayspend less out of the general stock by beingset to do something. But they must be spend-ing out of it to a certain loss, and form anitem of debt, it may be a heavy one, to thepublic account. The first part of this proposi-tion, that it is possible to furnish them withemployment to a certain extent in diminutionof the expence of their maintenance, is not like-ly to be controverted by anyone. The law wantsonly to be better executed. The second, " that" it is impossible to furnish them with produc-" tive employment," I should venture to restupon this simple principle; that the activity,vigilance, and sagacity of private interest inthe way of regular trade, would always be ableto take up any business, and make it prosper,sooner than the unskilful attempts of any bodyof overseers, commissioners, philanthropists,or legislators. This appears to me a principlealmost self-evident: and the consequence fromit must be, that a general system of parochialmanufacture of any kind with a view to profit,or with a hope of making such establishmentsmaintain themselves, is a chimaera, a castle inthe air, which only the architects of a mostvisionary policy will ever think of building. I

D


42/134

34have said, that systems of parish labour cannoteven be expected to make good their own ex-pences. A very ,short computation may shewus, that on the side of the parish concern, theoutgoings, with the necessary allowance to bemade for mismanagement, will exceed, on theside of the professed trader, his outgoings andvery high profits together: that is, whateverprofits can be made by him must be morethan covered by the disadvantages of parochialmanagement; and if none can be made by him,the relative loss will cut so much the deeperinto the parish finances.

If it be alledged, that the parish could affordto let out its labour at a cheaper rate thanothers could do, and might so have the ad-vantage of the market for that labour; nodoubt it is possible by the application of parishlabour to break down some private dealers :but then the command of the market so ob-tained would be producing harm to the rightand the left ; and though the parish might bedealing more largely, the impossibility of mak-ing a profit, and keeping within its expences,would stand just as before.We are driven to the inference, then, that noreal supply of productive employment can befurnished by legal arrangement, when the tradeof the country itself fails to furnish it.


43/134

35The question may be taken up again from a

consideration of the whole, amount of meansin the country applicable to the encourage-ment of labour; and the conclusion we shouldarrive at in that way would not be materiallydifferent. Let any amount of capital be sup-posed, or capital and revenue together as form-ing the present means of the country. Now itis not strictly true that this money will cer-tainly be laid out, in the present year suppose,to the last shilling in the encouragement oflabour. Parsimony and other causes may with-hold a part of it from that use; though, totake it more exactly, the parsimony of oneyear makes the profusion of another, and inthe average it comes nearly to the same pointas an equable expenditure. As to the accumu-lations of a fair economy, they are all to thepublic benefit, even if the individual had noindisputable right to make them. But I shallallow that there may be funds which the PoorLaws might possibly touch, over and above theexpenditure which the private owner mighthave chosen to make. Again, it is not true, thatthe undirected application of that money atthe free choice of the individual, either in theway of spending or of trading, would be thesame thing to a country, as when there is aD 2


44/134

36part

of it laid by law under a special appro-priation; because mere circulation differs fromdistribution. With a given quantity of waterto irrigate a meadow, it is possible, by thechoice and position of the sluices, to turn theflow of the water upon a given spot whichmost wants it. In like manner it is possible,that the managers of the parochial taxes mightcarry for a time a supply of money to a lan-guishing trade, and lay hold of an opportunityto spend more judiciously for the promotion oflabour than the original proprietors wouldhave done. But to imagine that there couldbe a continuance of this superior wisdom ofdistribution in the parochial management, andfound a national measure upon that assump-tion, is against all reason in a country wheretrade is well understood. Trading capital, whenonce it is created, and demand of labour, attractone another in the straight course of thingswith invariable certainty. In a rich country,when work is wanted to be done, money issoon found to set that work agoing, and in aspending country all the work is wanted,which there is the power of paying for. Inour own country, which is both the one andthe other, rich in possession and spendingby habit, there is an activity and an enter-


45/134

37prise in the investment of capital in traffick,which, not at the long run, but after a veryshort race of competition, must soon leave be-hind the awkward movements of a parochialcommittee. Consequently I infer, that thesums transferred to the parochial fund by lawfor the encouragement of labour, will soon beapplied to less advantage for that given pur-pose, than they would have been under the freediscretion of the proprietor or trader. In short,it seems to me that a full expenditure on theone hand, and trading funds of the promptestcirculation on the other, fairly divide betweenthem, and exhaust, in a general view, all thesubstantial encouragement which labour canexpect to draw from our whole stock of pecu-niary means. If it were necessary to trace thisview of the question still more closely, itshould be observed, that the poor rates mustbe raised and expended within the lines ofparochial demarcation; without which confine-ment of them, there could not be a hope ofany competent controul, cognizance, or properdisbursement of them. They make no transitfrom parish to parish ; and under this limitation,the chance is greatly lessened of making anyprofitable use of them. The supply of labourmay be in one place ; the chance of turningD 3


46/134

38that labour to profit, or the want of capital,may be in another; and so on. The power ofaccommodating and making opportunities meetis next to nothing.

After all, in order to render the levy by poorrates available to the farther profitable encou-ragement of labour, it would be necessary thatthe supposed remaining balance of our wealth,the reserve of means which is unduly kept outof circulation, should be drawn forth by aspecial direction of the levy to those precisehoards which would otherwise escape unfairly.The inquisition of the rates should detect it inthe privacy of its retreat, and drag it, and no-thing else but it, into the course ofuseful traffick.But how are the rates levied ? and how dothey apply in respect ofany such purpose ? Theyare levied upon the holders of a certain deno-mination of property indiscriminately; theyfall at a venture, without any selection ofwhat is idle or active; they draw upon thestock in the mass, and not, as they ought to dofor such a purpose, upon the lurking and fugi-tive portions of it, which are attempting toelude the general conscription of commerce.If therefore it could be demonstrated to a cer-tainty, that there are balances behind, over andabove the common run of expenditure, balances


47/134

39applicable to the fructifying uses of public in-dustry; yet, unless there was an equal cer-tainty that the law would lay its hand uponthose superfluous means, and no others, thetheory of augmenting the patronage of labourby poor rates is only fallacious. To make goodsuch a theory, it would require far better eyesthan the law ever can have, and more discretion-ary power than it ever ought to have, in thepursuit of its revenue. What takes place inany single parish in the kingdom is enough toset this matter in its true light. The rates arelevied, not upon those who spend less thanthey ought to spend, but upon many whowould be too glad to have the spending oftheir money in their own way, upon their ownwants and uses, according to their station inlife.

If then it be granted, that it is impracticableto provide full and adequate employment forany considerable number of our people, whenthe spontaneous wants of the country fail todo it ; the remaining consideration will be, howto dispose of such superabundant labourers inthe best way, and with the least loss to thepublic, which is bound to support them.

I have assumed all along, that there is an ex-isting legal obligation upon the parish to main-

D 4


48/134

40tain persons who are thrown out of regular work.Such is the construction of the clause in the Actof Elizabeth, now received and acted upon. Andsupposing the construction to be an erroneousone, still it hasgrown up into strength, and couldnot be reversed, on the sudden, without greatdisorder and private distress. That preparationsshould be made to change the practice, is awish closely connected with the opinion I havealready expressed, of the impossibility of creat-ing a supply of work at a call. If the hope ofsuch an improvement is to be shut out ofsight, the right management of this difficultcharge of these men becomes of the greaterconsequence. And if the hope is ever to berealized, still the management of them in themean time is a present question.All persons seem to be agreed, that a moreexact and systematic administration of thispart of the law ought to be enforced, bymaking labour and relief go together, insteadof prostituting the public alms to the supportof dependent idleness, with its family of vices.If then such an improved administration ofthe law is to be introduced, one necessary steptowards that end will be to vest the execu-tion of it in the hands of persons competentto pursue such an object. The persons who


49/134

41now hold it, are, generally speaking, with-out the character and qualification it requires.They are infinitely beneath their duties. Itis a vast interest between the public and thepoor, which is to be managed ; and in thepost of management, in the executive of thesystem, are placed by the name of overseers,or guardians, persons who neither have, norcan be expected to have, the industry, orthe intelligence, or the independence of mind,necessary for it. It is no discredit to these in-dividuals, that their duties are above theirtalents : their duties are imposed, and theircapacity of business is as respectable as theircondition in life can make it. But there arereal differences in the fitness of men for par-ticular duties, which, without implying eitherpersonal praise or blame, involve in thema great deal of the public interest. Applicationin a burthensome gratuitous office, is not tobe had, except with some high feeling andspirit

towards the public good; which mustbe sought, if it can be found at all, in thebetter ranks. The same may be said of theintelligence required for any service not strictlyreducible to a routine of method, as well as ofindependence of character : they both improvein proportion as one looks higher up in society.


50/134

42As things now are, the overseer handles hisdifficult business not worse than might be ex-pected ; sometimes yielding with a mistakenfacility to importunate and clamorous de-mands ; sometimes exasperating with an un-due severity of repulse and refusal ; often act-ing and judging amiss; and rarely giving to hisdecisions the impression of any authority orrespect. Perhaps nothing is under a worse or-der both of government and finance, than theaffairs of the parish revenue in many placesoppressed with poor. One of the faults of themisgovernment at present, as the details ofevery Quarter Sessions may shew, is in theliti-giousness of it. The discords, as well as thetrouble and expence of these disputes, are a sorenuisance. The intricacy of the laws themselvesmay be in part the cause: but ordinary mindschiefly are the most infected with the misap-prehension, the obstinacy, and the chicane,which lead to much of this excessive litigation.

It would be highly desirable therefore todraw into these offices a superior description ofmen. The qualification now is, that theymust be substantial householders. They oughtto be gentlemen, where such could be had,and could be prevailed upon, of some weightof character. Perhaps an enactment to raise


51/134

43the

qualificationof persons eligible to the of-fice of overseer or guardian of the poor, reck-

oned either by property, or by contribution tothe rates, would keep the option in a betterclass, where such a description of persons ex-isted. The benefit however would be infinitelygreater, ifthey would address themselves to thiskind of duty of their own accord, upon a soundapprehension of the decisive service they wouldhave the power of rendering.But these superior men must be in theexecutive of the parish. It will not be enough,if they act as a committee of occasional re-vision and controul upon the overseer. Thecontroul of a subordinate office is alwaysinvidious, unskilful, and difficult. The bestintelligence and the highest character arewanted to be in contact with the detail of thebusiness. The term of management shouldneither be annual nor long. An intermediateterm of three, or four years, would create expe-rience, and prevent the trouble, or the trust,from centering too much in the same hands.It ought unquestionably to be gratuitous. Imean that all the directing and managing offi-cial duties, as of deciding upon cases of appli-cation for relief, apportioning the amountof it, and levying the rates, should be in the


52/134

44hands of men who can afford to do so muchfor the public. Stipendiary overseers could notbe qualified as they ought to be. If they arepersons invited to the office by the emolu-ments of it, they must be of an inferior condi-tion in

society.And these emoluments them-

selves are not unlikely to put a wrong bias uponthe appointment.The management of such a public interest inbehalf of the poor as well as of the parish, isreally an object not unworthy the most liberalfeelings of the upper orders. It is a kind of ma-gistracy, and it would rise in estimation by afew examples. In towns the trouble of it, bybeing divided, might be reduced within com-pass. That condition of life however whichenables men to live at their ease, by no meansdisposes them towards voluntary laborious du-ty: and if there be no sufficient motive for thesacrifice oftheir ease, they do well to stand uponthe privilege of their fortune. It strikes me,however, that the ultimate execution ofthe PoorLaws in detail has much to do with the wholeof our internal national economy : that it isnot merely the disbursement and dispositionof so much of the revenue of the country ; buta very considerable force, acting upon themorals, industry, domestic manners, and gene-


53/134

45ral condition of our people, that is to be regu-lated : and if this be at all true, there arefew who can think the importance of thetrust insufficient to reach them. If againthe Poor Lawrs are making those fearful pro-gressive inroads upon the property of land-holders and gentry, the call to look into thedilapidation of their estates is pretty loud up-on them. Instead of pretending however todictate for the conduct of other men, I wouldsubmit to their attention some such queriesas the following : Whether the several classesof subjects in a free country do not owetheir services to it in their appropriate cha-racter ? Whether when gentlemen contributeby their purse or their expenditure to thepublic service, they do not reckon merelyas so many agents for the circulation of pro-perty ? whether they have not other means intheir hands ? and whether therefore it be nota privilege of duty especially theirs, to lendtheir weight, character, and judgment, to sta-tions of trust, where such advantages wouldhave room to act ?As to the interest and benefit of the poor in

such an arrangement, it is certain that theiraffairs, when they require any interference byauthority at all, are never in such good care, as


54/134

46when their superiors are induced to take anactive and gratuitous part in them. The dis-pensation of good from the enlightened mind,the cultivated feelings, and the independentspirit of the higher ranks, in the way of dis-interested service, is an invaluable part of theconstitution of our country in its magistracy,and in some other instances of a less ostensiblenature. It wants only a few distinguishedexamples to raise the name of Overseer ofthe Poor to a level with that of Magistrate.

If however this should prove a hopeless,as I am aware it is a very uncertain wish,the failure of it would be one reason moreagainst the continuance of the Poor Laws ontheir present footing. For when fit and com-petent men cannot be had to apply enactmentsmade, it is the strongest of all reasons againstthe enactments themselves. In every point ofview such an improvement in the strength andefficiency of the acting officers, as I have de-scribed, is wanted ; and most of all for the for-mation and execution of well-conceived plansof employment. Such designs really need someable heads to direct them. In the alternative,however, between abler officers of manage-ment, or a new law, I should be well satisfiedto see the law altered, and the gentry of the


55/134

47country relieved from the trouble of it. Only,on the other hand, if they persist in support-ing the present system by their voice and opi-nion, I think they might do something morein its favour, and shew that it can be welladministered.

If we might proceed on the supposition ofthe managers being the efficient men required,to their personal judgment and experiencewould properly be referred the local arrange-ments practicable in each parish, or in a limitedunion of parishes, for the supply of work and oc-cupation to the able labourers out of employ.No enactment could do more than simply di-rect that no reliefshould be granted, except withthe condition of some work being done for it.But the selection of the work, as to its kind, andthe details of planning it, must be left to theparishes within themselves. No general en-actment could be made either for workhouses,or against them : certainly not for them ; be-cause the circumstances of town and countrymake a total difference in the expediency ofsuch a contrivance as a workhouse. In thecountry it can hardly be any thing more thanan asylum of relief. In towns it may be madesubservient to occupation. But to set up aworkhouse even in towns, is to establish, at a


56/134

48heavy present expence, a very hazardous sys-tem.

In populous towns a workhouse has thischief recommendation of it, that among its in-mates some variety and assortment ofwork maybe carved out for the use of the establishmentitself. It may be made in part its own con-sumer. The mechanics of different trades maywork for each other; and so far supply mu-tually their wants. Or, if some one simplearticle of manufacture should be preferredfor all the hands indifferently, still it is morelikely that the government of the house willbe kept up, and the inspection of it attendedto, in a large town, than elsewhere. But themanagement of a workhouse is a problemof much greater difficulty, than persons seemgenerally to be aware of, when they set anyhigh expectations upon it. They think thatregulation can do every thing, forgetting whoare the subjects that come under the regula-tion. In a workhouse they will include ob-viously the most idle, the most disorderly, andthe worst workmen in their several trades, ofthe whole community: as the worst workmenare the first to be discharged in a fall oftrade; and the workhouse certainly will notimprove them. Upon this mass of untoward


57/134

49materials how is any discipline to act ? By acontinued struggle, by a close and scrupulousinspection, it may keep down the habits of itssubjects ; but, without a kind of coercionwhich I should think not to be compatiblewith the nature of the institution, it cannotreform them. The industry, and consequentlythe general morals, of such an establishment,must be at a low standard: the better in-mates must sink by the society of the worse :the family virtues, which can thrive only inthe privacy of a separate home, must be nearlyextinguished among them. Regulation, if peo-ple would consider the matter soberly, is reallya very impotent thing, where it has everything to do; that is, where it has no naturalmotive in the subjects of it to sustain its pro-visions and purposes. And what poor man orfamily can be expected to feel for the welfareof his workhouse ? Its discipline, on the otherhand, cannot be mended by rigour. It is nota place of penal coercion. It must be con-ducted therefore on other principles than thoseof a hulk or a prison. I know not whether itwould be practicable to make the comfortsand subsistence of the inmates bear a propor-tion to the labour they might choose to exert,and to supply in that manner a spirit of indus-


58/134

50try and good conduct among them. If such adisposition of things could be made, it mightdeserve the trial.One most serious and radical objection to the

establishment of a workhouse, which deservesto be well considered in places where theyhave not yet decided upon the measure, is,that it drags into the lowest state of bondageand degradation many who might otherwisehave retrieved themselves from the less un-seemly stains of parish dependence. It is therendezvous of dreadful invitation to strugglingfortunes ; and to rally back again from it is noeasy matter. I know that many persons con-sider the terror of a workhouse to be a salu-tary check upon the poor; and are not unwill-ing to press the alternative upon them of re-ceiving their subsistence in such an asylum, orof receiving nothing. The degradation of theworkhouse is to deter the approach to it.The hardship of it is to be the security theywould keep in hand against importunate claims.There is a certain policy, no doubt, in this vir-tual correction of the wide and excessive en-gagement of the law to take care of everybody. And whoever considers the growth ofheavy demands upon the parish to be whollyindependent of the constitution of the law,


59/134

51and believes it is to be ascribed solely to themisconduct, or the misfortune, of the applicantsthemselves, neither originating in the publicsystem, nor encouraged by it, he may vindi-cate the policy on grounds of justice, as wellas expediency. But another, who thinks that )the public system itself is in some measure asource of the evil that is to be subsequentlychecked by such intimidation, must considerthe law as visiting its own mistake upon thosewhom it has misled, when it first makes apromise of relief, and then tenders the reliefin such a form as may forbid the acceptance ofit. Believing as I do, that the Poor Lawsthemselves (in their practice however muchmore than by their original enactment) haveactually favoured the growth of pauperism,that they have loosened the motives of fru-gality, sober labour, and personal exertion inthe country, I derive no satisfaction from thesight of these equivocal establishments intend-ed to play off a double meaning, of invitationand repulse, of protection and abandonment ;but would much rather see the laws graduallyretract the erroneous principle upon whichthey have proceeded, than pretend to make itgood in so exceptionable a manner.As long however as the present system inE 2


60/134

.52its main branches remains in force, work-houses will exist ; and their good or bad ma-nagement, according to their capacity of agood management, will be of great importance.The project of them was received at first, I be-lieve, with the hope of a great saving in theparish expenditure by means of them. I donot profess to say whether this was a soundcalculation or not; because, though the entiremaintenance of a given number of persons,living in society, must clearly be more econo-mical in the necessary cost, for mere diet, thanit can be when they are to draw the same sub-sistence to their separate homes ; yet the ex-pences of buildings, ground-rent, salaries to of-ficers, waste, and other incidents, puzzle the ac-count farther than I will venture to follow it.Add to which, that every charge once fastenedupon a workhouse is hardly to be shaken off. Itis, as they say, a place for life; and few windtheir way out of it, except when they have beenforced there by some extraordinary season of na-tional distress. The most general history of itis one of constant inhabitancy : whereas an out-door patient of the parish is often assisted asmuch as he wants by occasional relief; and issometimes discharged off the list. But settingaside the calculation of comparative economy,


61/134

53which is a previous question before a work-house should be set up ; when it is once setup, the financial concerns of it are those whichare the most capable of a clear and satisfactorymanagement. It is the accessible point in thesystem. Application on the part of the ma-nagers, open eyes, and a few Arabic figures dothe business. Even in this department, easyand simple as it is, much, if I mistake not, re-mains to be done, under an improved manage-ment ; not by invidious interference, nor uponfactious professions of reform; but by thesteady determination of men of leading andauthority in a town, to take their proper sharein the duties of parochial affairs. Many mis-takes and abuses -would vanish before them;abuses which spring up, not from any want ofpersonal honesty, but the mere defect of intel-ligence, or of courage, or the proper habits ofgovernment and controul, in those who havehad the charge of it thrown upon them. Butinfinitely greater would be the benefit to theworkhouse from such an amended administra-tion of it in its more difficult province ; in itspolice, manners, and general economy. Theseare greater objects in themselves. They requiresome sense and intelligence to conceive howthey may be promoted. They require stillE 3


62/134

54more weight of character to uphold the provi-sions made for them. In short, I think thatfrom the walls of a workhouse the very strong-est attack is to be made upon the gentlemenof England, to reduce them to a surrender ofsome part of their time and thought to theparochial service; that the post bears pointblanc upon them ; and that the fire from itought not to cease, till they have consented tocome and take it into their own charge, andskreened themselves from its aim by gettingwithin the walls. They pay largely to the gar-rison, but it will never be in good order till theytake the command of it. They have not sparedthemselves in promoting the interests of thelower classes in other instances ofa very exten-sive concern. By an almost unanimous effort,they are now giving education to the infantyouth of their country. The public benevolencewould not be less, if they would take up thecause of arbitration between the wants of thepoor and their vices, in the administration of le-gal charity. The nature of the duty, in some ofits aspects, is perhaps not very inviting. It is notall pure pleasure, to give a weekly or monthlyattendance in the reiterated details of an irk-some examination of cases; to be molested bythe insult of prodigal indigence, or afflicted


63/134

55with the nearer view of the irresistible distressesof life in broken families, desolate old age, andremediless suffering. These are things to pallthe delicacy ofan indolent, fastidious, hesitatingvirtue. They are strong in themselves; andsome of the accidents and exterior circum-stances of appearance under which they arepresented to the notice, would be enough tomake the idler in practical benevolence turnaway from the company he had fallen into byhis over-zealous pretensions of service. Theywould exercise the patience of even firmercharacters, wrought to the cast of a more use-ful temper, and ready to take the good andthe bad together in their intercourse with lifeand its concerns. But if there be any solid forcein what I have attempted to shew, that thereis a real opportunity for men of a certain cha-racter to restrain much of the obnoxious matterthat gathers about these laws when they cometo be applied, and to obviate many of the ill re-sults of them \ and that no others can do thisso well as themselves, or rather, that none butthemselves can do it ; their aversion from thepersonal trouble, or the distaste, of the occupa-tion, will surely be overmatched by the strongerchallenge and provocation of a manlier feelingand principle; and like the prince in the oldE 4


64/134

56history, which history, if they choose, theymay make a modern one, they will strip offtheir mantle for a while, to help the publicwheels out of the mud where they have lodged.Most desirable of all would it be, that theseexertions should be engaged with the pro-spect of a speedy termination of them ; thatit should be an extra force, opposed to the con-sequences of the past system only in theinterval which the law might think properto interpose before its own authoritative cor-rection of them. But whatever may be de-cided, as to the principle of the law, the opera-tion of it, for good or for evil, as long asit remains, will depend, in no small degree,upon a closer and wiser attention to it, on thepart of those persons whose property and publicease and interest are as much connected withit, as I have endeavoured to make them thinktheir obligation of duty is.To take leave of this subject of workhouses,I would beg to suggest, whether it might notbe of some advantage to their good order, if aninspection of them at stated times, supposetwice or four times a year, were directed to beheld by a committee of magistrates, and oneannual report made by them, of their internalcondition, with the particulars of the number of


65/134

inhabitant poor, course of work, amount of ex-pence, accompanied with such general observa-tions, as might mark their sense of the corrector faulty state of management ; and this reportto be presented at the Quarter Sessions, with acopy of it to be sent to the Home Departmentof State, or the Privy Council. By which means,among other advantages of the practice, therewould be a set of important data of informationon the state of the poor maintained in thesehouses throughout the kingdom, continually inthe hands of the chief civil government; withan index of the increase or diminution of them ;and some connected correspondence of observa-tion upon these establishments, through the se-veral public authorities of the state.To pass from the town to the country. Inthe country, by a very general usage, moreprevalent however in the southern and mid-land counties, I believe, than in the northernparts of England, but certainly of a very widespread, labour and mendicity are so mixt to-gether, that it would not be easy to separatethem, and set them clear of each other, by anyregulation short of the introduction of anentirely new principle of practice in the law.The strange discordant combination of wages,and a general supplement to wages, by charity,


66/134

58is the phenomenon of our rural economy,as the Poor Laws have shaped it. Thingsabsurd in the reason, are not however alwaysequally hurtful in the practice. Whether inthis inconsistency of wages and alms blendedtogether, the effect is not quite on a par withthe reason of the usage, it may require perhapsan abler judgment to determine; but thereare mischiefs, and those pressing and opera-tive, which have their root in the usage, andwhich the most cursory observer of it mayperceive. The labourer reckons half with hismaster, and half with the overseer. Towardshis master he has neither the zeal nor theattachment he ought to have to his naturalpatron and friend : and with his parish hekeeps up a dependence which has somethingin it at once abject and insolent ; abject in thereal condition of it, insolent in his mannerof shewing it. By this dependence interposed,the personal bond between the master and theservant is loosened, though they are partiesmade to draw closely together by the tie ofa common interest ; and the invisible corpora-tion of the parish buys its pensioner's ill-will,or sullen and thankless contentment, with itsweekly offerings.The utility of this system, when it is vindi^


67/134

59cated at all, is often said to be in keepingwages low, and keeping them equal. Thesein themselves are no certain benefits; ratherthe reverse : but they ought to be of the mostextraordinary value to the agricultural interest,to compensate for the disorder they bringalong with them. Wages however are notkept low, as far as they are made up by thepoor rates. It is only drawing the payment ofthem from the purse of B, who has no workdone, instead of from that of A, who has thework done. The community pays what themaster does not. If it be said, that the master,whether farmer or other, is enabled to send thecommodity to market so much the cheaper, inconsequence of his labourers being paid inpart out of the pocket

of hisneighbours ; thischeapness has clearly been paid for, by some

person or other, in the amount of the rates ; thefull cost of the commodity has been accountedfor in the parish books; and the consumereither is the person who has paid so muchin advance for it, or it is the dealer himself,or it is some third person, who has far lessright than either of the two to do it. Therates therefore either take from the buyer, orthe seller, and of course can cheapen nothingbetween them; or if they take from a third


68/134

60person,

who has no concern with the transac-tion, it is the more preposterous to regulatetheir market at the cost of an unconcernedparty : but in either case, the great party, thecountry, can gain nothing on the head ofcheapness.

If it be argued, that the whole cost of wagesto the community for the labour of these men,who are half labourers and half paupers, iskept down by the rigour of the overseer hold-ing a closer hand with them than the masterwould be able to do, if he had the whole of theaccount to discharge; upon this forced reduc-tion of the labourer's earnings where is thegain to be reckoned? Stinted wages will bemet by stinted labour; work ill paid will beill done; and there is certainly no very strongstimulus upon the labourer towards his em-ployer's service, when he reflects that he drawsa portion of his subsistence from a quarter towhich he renders directly no work at all. Thereal state of the account in country labour be-tween the farmer and his workman, when wagesand parish allowance are mixt together, is nomore than this that for so many days workso much is paid by the master, and so muchadded by the parish. But that the farmergains more by his men, than he would do if


69/134

61he had the whole bargain with them, and paidthem better, is quite another point. Howmuch is lost to the farmer and the country bylowering the labourer's heart and spirit, andunstringing the sinew of his working powers,is an item not easy to be reduced to an arith-metical account: but it is something consider-able; and calculators ought to be very strongin their balances computed in money paid inwages, and saved by the medium of the poorrates, before they specify any sum which theywill set off as an equivalent for the diminutionof the great productive springs and principlesof human and rational industry.The equality of wages (as the lownessofthem)is merely nominal, if it cost so much inequalityof allowance from the poor rates to keep themat their pretended standard. But if it be al-ledged, that the current stipulated wages are thereal pay of the labourer, and that the reliefissuedfrom the rates is not given in part of wages,nor with any reference to the man's labour, butonly to the necessities of his family ; then this isthe prodigious and preposterous attempt madeupon the whole system of the country affairsthat a person shall be maintained according tohis necessities ; but shall not work, contrive,or provide according to his necessities ; instead


70/134

62of it, he shall draw his maintenance out of thelabour of others : for labour of some kind ul-timately supplies all the means of the country,and in the transfer of them from hand to handthey must either be earned, or received for no-thing: and in this manner a vicious equality ofduty in labour is substituted, where a radicaldifference of obligation exists 5 for a man's ownwants make his own obligation ; and all theforce supplied by that higher degree of obli-gation is sacrificed to the country, and thesense of it to the individual. To supersedethe personal motive, is to throw away so muchforce of labour ; and to equalize the compen-sation, is to add a positive discouragement to it.And after all, the equal standard is not secured.It is not secured even

nominally.There is a

great difference, and always has been, in thecurrent reputed wages, both in districts com-pared with one another, and within the samedistrict itself; a difference created either bylocal practice, or the master's choice, or thelabourer's worth. The tampering attempt ofthe law has succeeded only very partially : asfar as it has succeeded, it has done it withthese sensible disadvantages, injudiciously andunfairly.

If this parochial system cannot stand on the


71/134

63ground of a good national husbandry, still lesscan it on the principles of a sound legislation,directed to the care of the personal habits andmanners of the people : and if the Poor Lawshave a tendency hostile to the public manners,they act unhappily in that way, in which itcomes within the competence ofhuman laws toact with the greatest power. For the efficacy ofhuman laws may be cast perhaps nearly intothe following scale : their direct power to in-spire men with the love of probity, diligence,sobriety, and contentment, by positive com-mand, is small; their power to restrain theopposite vices is far greater; their power todiscourage or hinder good habits of character,by mistaken institutions, greatest of all: be^cause here they act at an advantage ; and theinstitution and the bad part of human naturego together; whereas in the other cases, theyare opposed, and the enactment has to force itsway. This one consideration makes the errorof any intrinsic virtual immorality of laws ofthe last importance; and yet it is the errorwith which our Poor Laws are commonlycharged, and charged with such a confidenceof imputation, as is usually expressed whenmen are speaking of a fact to be lamented,rather than discussed. I know of no sub-


72/134

64stantial reply which can be made to thatcharge. They discourage many of the besthabits of the people, of which their industry,the most obviously affected, is only the first.They may have been counteracted, they havebeen counteracted, by the presence of othermore wholesome invigorating powers in thecompound of our national fortunes ; but theirtendency by themselves is to paralyse andcorrupt those whom they profess to protect.There is poison in the alms of their mistakencharity.

This unfavourable spirit of these laws, inmany different respects, is so generally felt,that I believe, if the question of their repealturned solely upon it, they would be put downby the acclamation of all the thinking men inthe kingdom. I might therefore content my-self with the concession, almost unrestricted,of an almost unanimous agreement of opi-nion, and pass on without enlarging upon thisparticular topic. But as it is here that the mostforcible reasons for the amendment of theexisting practice lie, and as the weight of thesereasons is the most conclusive part of thewhole of the practical inquiry, according tomy own apprehension of it ; I shall trace, verybriefly, some of the modes of that bad influence


73/134

65which our Poor Laws in their practice throwupon the manners of our population, withoutthe least hope of adding any thing to the forci-ble exposure, which has been made of it byothers already.The first aspect of a fixed legal provision ofmaintenance, in the contingency of want, inde-pendent of personal character, or any otherpledge of antecedent economy, exertion, pru-dence, or merit of any kind, is a most pressinginvitation to all who like bread better than la-bour, and living at ease more than on the prac-tice of self-denial, to remit much of their pains,especially the pains of contrivance and fruga-lity in the husbandry of their affairs, to thereadier and less irksome plan of living at thecost of others on the wide open common ofparish subsistence. If they cannot resort toit for all they want, and make it their sole re-venue at once ; still to push the advantage oftheir use of it ; to think of it as a sure resourceagainst their heedlessness, indiscretion, andmistakes; to play with their duties, whichthey may discard at will, and be quite se-rious and settled in their view upon the libe-rality of the law, which cannot discard them,seems to be a true picture of the fact and thetheory of our parochial constitution, as ad-

F


74/134

66dressed to the feelings of our common people,against their industry. Originally, indeed, itwas intended that the grant of relief should bepurchased by labour. But the providing aplace of work is a part of a man's own duty*At the best, therefore, the law undertook torelieve him from one instance of his properduty, and so far did amiss. But the law hasfailed grievously in the threat of performing itfor him, in finding him the employ, and isglad to do the best it can to keep its pro-mise of finding him the subsistence. Uponthis ground of engagement he has gained overthe severity of the law, and profited by itskindness; and stands at present on a tenure ofvery easy conditions, with a right to be as de-pendent as his vices or idleness can make him.If one might hint at differences of nationaltemper, such laws are more injurious to themere industry of an Englishman, than theywould be to the native of many other countries.He is more inclined of himselfto efforts of work,than to a continuous and sober assiduity in it;he has more spirit than patience, and likes toearn, better than to practise any good thriftupon his earnings. His own way would be todivide himself between working hard, spend-ing fast, and living idle. In this ground of


75/134

67character, the law makes the greater disturb-ance : it just hits the faulty part of the charac-ter, and strikes in with the propensity of it.The foundation of all moral feeling andmoral conduct is in a responsibility, in a man'sown person, in the consequences of his con-duct. A sense and perception of this respon-sibility is the spring of the practical principlesof virtue. It enters into our highest duties.The Poor Laws shake this foundation. Theytell a man, he shall not be responsible for hiswant of exertion, forethought, sobriety. Theydeal with him, as if no such responsibility ex-isted. By cancelli

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	herbert-hillary-booker-2nd
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

(1817) Considerations on the Poor Laws by John Davison, 1777-1834

Documents