Cromwell's gate, for he observed that ancient and charitable custom, as all prelates, noblemen, and men of honour or worship, his predecessors had done before him.' On the other hand, the downfall of the Feudal system was followed by the dissolution of the Monasteries, of which Fuller wrote in his 'Church History' published about 1656:

'Their hospitality was beyond compare. Yet some will object that this their hospitality was but charity mistaken: promiscuously entertaining some who did not need and more who did not deserve it. Yea, these abbeys did but maintain the poor which they had made. For some vagrants accounting the abbey alms their own inheritance, served an apprenticeship, and afterwards wrought journey work to no other trade than begging. . . . Yea, we may observe that generally such places wherein great abbeys were seated swarm most with poor people at this day as if beggary was entailed on them.'

The statute of 1601 was by no means the first of its kind even in the reign of Elizabeth; for instance, the preamble of an Act of the 14th year of her reign, states that all parts of this nation of England and Wales be presently with rogues and vagabonds and sturdy beggars exceedingly pestered by means whereof daily happeneth horrible murders, thefts, and other great outrages to the high displeasure of Almighty God and to the great annoyance of the Common weal.' But this statute which forbids private almsgiving still re-enacts the old terrible punishment for beggars to the bitter end of death as a felon, without allowance of benefit of clergy or sanctuary. The failure of this and subsequent Acts, such as that of the 18th year, led eventually to the Act of the 43rd year of Elizabeth's reign, which was in fact, as Sir George Nicholls says, the result not of a sudden thought or a single effort, but founded upon the sure ground of experience.

Under this Act for the first time a compulsory assessment was made for the relief of the poor, to be applied to two main purposes, the relief of the impotent, and setting the able-bodied to work. The relief of destitution thus became a public duty to be undertaken at the public expense. For those unable to work, the overseers of the poor were empowered to build hospitals on waste

nt land. The mutual liability of children and parents me was extended to the grandfathers and grandmothers. be Careful provision was made for the apprenticing of Fe children, and Justices of the Peace were empowered to fo commit to gaol those who refused to work. From that Ist day onwards, this statute, which is now incorporated with subsequent legislation in the new Bill, has been administered with alternate waves of sentiment and severity. As long as pauperism is kept within reasonable bounds, the public is averse from stringent remedies.

eds

te

At the end of the 17th century, owing to the pressure of financial necessity and the decline of morals, ed there was an access of severity, and the institution of to workhouses as a labour test on the modern principle proved a successful remedy. In 1697 John Locke, the philosopher, and author of the Essay on the Understanding,' reported to the Board of Trade that 'the multiplying of the poor and the increase of the poor rate has proceeded neither from scarcity of provision, nor from want of employment since God hath blessed these times with plenty . . . it can be nothing else than the relaxation of discipline and the corruption of manners.' Over one half of those receiving parish relief were, he thought, well able to earn their own living. The workhouse, as Sir Frederick Eden says in his 'State of the Poor,' spurred many on to labour for a livelihood who would not work so long as they were permitted to receive a weekly allowance from the parish. A stringent Act of George I (1722), laying down that no relief was to be given outside workhouses, produced admirable results. The rates fell in Maidstone, for instance, from 1060l. to 5307., and in Beverley in Yorkshire, out of 116 receiving parish relief, only eight went into the workhouse when out relief was stopped. The expenditure, which was 188,1117. in 1650 and in 1698 was estimated at 819,000l., had by 1750 dropped to 619,000l., though the population had meantime increased. At the end of the 18th century there came a swing of the pendulum, and in 1782, Gilbert's Act, the adoption of which was optional, provided that no one should be sent to a workhouse who was physically capable of labour. The result of this and of the liberal allowances of out relief, made upon what was known as the Speenhamland scale (1795),

and of specifically legalising out relief to the able-bodied in 1796, was that the rates which had been 1,912,000l. per annum in 1785, rose to 7,870,8917. in 1817, for a population of 11,000,000, that is, an expenditure of 148. per head. The direct burden for the year ending March 25, 1832, amounted to 7,036,9687., and in addition the waste for the year ending March 25, 1832, from the labour rate and roundsman system of employment, was estimated at a further 7,000,000l., so that the total all told amounted to something like 20s. per head of the population of 14,000,000. The farmers were giving up the land, the agricultural labourer was demoralised, industry was at a standstill, and the country was brought to the verge of bankruptcy. The Royal Commission of Enquiry appointed in 1832 to find a remedy, reported 'that the great source of abuse is the outdoor relief afforded to the able-bodied on their own account or that of their families.' The economies which resulted from the workhouse test recommended by the Commission, legalised by the Act of 1834, and instituted by the Poor Law Commissioners subsequently appointed, reduced the expenditure gradually, so that by 1871 it had fallen to 78. per head of the population in spite of additions to the old expenditure of new and costly institutions, such as asylums, infirmaries, and district schools. In 1802-3 it was calculated that 28 per cent. of the population were in receipt of permanent or occasional relief; in 1870 it was 4.6 per cent. The State had been, as I have said, on the verge of bankruptcy, and the working classes thoroughly demoralised, when the reform of 1834 was introduced. All other classes, the lawyers, merchants, the manufacturers, were subject to uncertainties, the labourer alone was made secure by out relief, and that without the exercise of any care or forethought.' The system introduced in 1834 was based on the principle of deterrence, which had previously proved so successful. The Royal Commission laid down that while destitution must be relieved by the State, destitution must be proved by the willingness of the able-bodied to enter the workhouse; in other words, that the position of the pauper must not be more eligible than that of the independent working man. It is remarkable that an enactment accepting this principle could have been

passed in a year like 1834 just after a great extension of 12 the franchise. The explanation lies in the terror which , the moral and financial evils resulting from out relief of aroused in the nation, and the influence which the great end Duke of Wellington exercised on Parliament.*

dd

The results of the offer of the workhouse were instantaneous, almost in the first year the whole socalled surplus population was absorbed. In twelve unions in Kent out of 3512 able-bodied paupers, only of five were left on Aug. 20, 1836, and it was ascertained ing in that the absorption took place without hardship. They were encouraged to migrate in search of labour, and a report on such a migrant family states that they were it found on Sunday evening 'reading their Bibles and all clean, well dressed, and comfortable.' An interesting picture of 1836! It would have been impossible for the Government except through the Commission to face the odium of administration of such a stringent character however successful it be shown to be. Governments then, as now, are governed by elections, and that peril was evaded by the appointment of an independent commission outside politics for a term of years.

Out relief, though by far the most important, was not the only corrupting factor. The abuses in connexion with the vast number of charities which had grown up also received attention. In 1818 a Commission of Enquiry was appointed to inquire into this evil, and another in 1819. These and further inquiries resulted eventually in 1853 in the appointment of Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, and in a series of reforms. When, therefore, the great trial of the Lancashire cotton famine came in 1862, it was met and overcome by a combination of Poor Law and charitable effort, thanks to the new vigour inspired by the responsibilities introduced through the Poor Law into the lives of the poorer classes.

Philanthropists who had shown hostility to the Poor Law began to be interested in scientific treatment of

* Sir Robert Peel, the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Commons, gave no active assistance to the passage of the Bill, but he afterwards gave a straightforward support to the policy of the measure, and in the debate on the Bill for the continuance of the Commission on Feb. 8, 1841, made the notable admission that if a Conservative Government had attempted to pass the Act of 1834 it would have failed.

distress. Various societies were founded for the organisation of Charitable Relief culminating in the foundation in 1870 of the Charity Organisation Society, which continues its beneficent work down to the present day. The disastrous results of indiscriminate charity, whether on a large or a small scale, are too well known to need more than a passing reference. In 1869 Mr Goschen, as the President of the Poor Law Board, issued his famous minute on the relations between Poor Law and Charity, and the desirability that some understanding should be reached between those who administer the Poor Law and those who administer charitable funds.' The Guardians, he pointed out, have to give adequate relief, but they cannot legally give it: (1) in redeeming tools and clothes from pawn; (2) in purchasing tools; (3) in purchasing clothes except in cases of urgent necessity; (4) the cost of conveyance to any part of the United Kingdom; (5) in paying rent or lodging; and he suggested: (a) that in these cases charitable institutions might supplement the relief of the Guardians, and (b) that provision be made by charities of a public register for metropolitan relief as a means of keeping both forms of relief in touch,

It was well said by the Poor Law Commissioners in their report that 'the bane of all pauper legislation has been the legislating for extreme cases. Every exception, every violation of the general rule to meet a case of unusual hardship lets in a whole class of fraudulent cases by which that rule must in time be destroyed'; here is the case for the co-operation of charity. It may be observed in passing that this co-operation is even more necessary nowadays, when the charitable funds available in London are said to amount to 10,000,000. annually, quite apart from casual sums given to street beggars, etc. It is unnecessary to dwell on the results of charitable effort in bridging over the gulf between the different classes of the population, or on the wonderful effect of the self-denial of lives which some well-to-do people have spent in administering the Poor Law on sound lines. Names like those of Mr Bailward and Mr Crowder must occur to those who have had anything to do with the poor of the metropolis in the last half century.