Allowance-effects on Capital.-Extent of, has reduced, and is reducing, the small rate-payers to being themselves paupers; three references. In the south counties gradually destroying capital. After ruining capitalists, reacts upon labourers, in leaving them destitute.

Allowance system spreading.-The vigilance of the best select vestries and assistant overseers inadequate to check the increasing demand for. Increased at Tamworth, with decreasing population. All the evils of existing, and being gradually extended, in Durham and Northumberland.'

We have here, in a brief form, a fearful catalogue of the mischiefs produced by this system; and when we repeat that this odious practice is unwarranted by the law-is an illegal encroachment on the just application of the poor-fund, brought about by the interested manoeuvring of the larger rate-payers in vestry,connived at or sanctioned by the magistracy, either from carelessness, mistaken humanity, or, in some cases, a common interest with the employers of labour in shifting a part of its expense from themselves upon other parties-can there remain a doubt as to the necessity of the immediate and decisive interference of the legislature to terminate such a destructive abuse of an in itself wholesome law? Fortunately the evidence of the commissioners, which supplies us with such strong proofs of the enormous evil of the practice, affords equally convincing proofs of the facility with which it may be stopped, and all its baneful consequences mitigated immediately, and by degrees removed. We quote, as before, from the Table of Contents:

Allowance system discontinued without producing distress; eight references; discontinuance of has improved the moral character of labourers-nine references.'

We select a few of the examples here referred to. Mr. Majendie reports the case of Stanford Rivers, a purely agricultural parish, containing a population of 905, upon 4320 acres of a good quality of land; not over-peopled therefore, but at one time pauperised by the allowance system to a great extent :—

In the year 1821 the expenditure amounted to 11917., composed of the following items:-Weekly Pay, 3891.; Pauper Allowances, extra, 1867.; Workhouse, 3121.; Bills, 62l.; Incidental Expenses, 242/.; total, 11917.

In the year 1824 a select vestry was established, which effected some reduction; and in 1825, a gentleman of the name of Andrews, the occupier of a considerable farm, determined, with the concurrence of the rest of the parishioners, and the support of the very intelligent and experienced magistrate, Mr. Oldham, to make a bold effort to put down pauperism. The weekly pay was at once struck off: and in the year ending March, 1826, the account stood

thus:

thus-Pauper Allowances, 1271.; Workhouse Expenditure, 2561.; Medical, 427.; Incidental, 731.; County Rates, 621.; total, 560l.

เ

At the commencement of the new system, very numerous applications were made to the select vestry, but they were strictly examined: where relief was necessary, in cases of illness or real distress, it was liberally granted; but refused, unless considered requisite; and the labourers, by degrees, learnt to depend on their own resources. The rates gradually diminished, and the money expended on the poor alone, which in 1825 amounted to $347., was in 1828 only 1961. The vestry determined that all capable of work should be employed, and that no relief should be given but in return for labour.

The labourers improved in their habits and comforts. During the four years that this system was in progress, there was not a single commitment for theft, or any other offence.'-pp. 37, 38.

Mr. Chadwick reports as follows, of two other parishes

The Rev. H. C. Cherry, the Rector of Burghfield, near Reading, stated that "the whole of the single labourers, including those who were on the parish, as well as those who were independent, hailed the notification" (that rates would no longer be allowed in aid of wages)" with great satisfaction, as they considered that it would render wages in future more proportioned to their labour, and that single men would have a better chance." Mr. Cliff, the assistant-overseer of the same parish, says: "Whilst the allowance system went on, it was a common thing for young people to come to me for parish relief two or three days after they were married;-nay, I have had them come to me just as they came out of church, and apply to me for a loaf of bread to eat, and for a bed to lie on that night. But this sort of marriages is now checked, and in a few years the parish will probably be brought about. If the former system had gone on, we should have been swallowed up in a short time. . . . . Similar effects had been produced by the allowance system in Swallowfield" [no bad title for the system itself]; "but, by the abatement of the cause, the effects have ceased."'—pp. 236, 237. The same commissioner reports generally that

In the instances of individuals, as well as in several whole parishes, wherever the influence of the present system has been removed, the rise of the condition of the people has been proportionate to the removal of that influence or their previous depression. In Cookham, where the change was the most extensive, the parochial expenditure was reduced from 31331. to 11557., and the general condition of the labouring classes improved. Mr. Russell, the magistrate of Swallowfield, stated to me, that in riding through Cookham, he was so much struck with the appearance of comfort observable in the persons and residences of some of the labouring classes of that village, that he was led to make inquiries into the cause. The answers he received, determined him to exert his influence to procure a similar change of system in Swallow field.

'In Swallowfield, where it was partially effected, the rates were reduced from 9s. and 10s. in the pound to 5s. 8d., and during the last year to 3s. 8d. in the pound.'—p. 337.

Mr. Henry Stuart relates the case of the parish of Little Livermere, consisting only of one farm. When the present tenant, Mr. Rodwell, came into possession about five years ago, he found that the labourers had been in the habit of having their wages made up to a scale proportioned to their families, so that it was quite immaterial to them what was the nominal rate of wages, He refused to continue this practice, but―

'offered them such wages as he considered just, and engaged to keep them, their wives, and children in constant employment. This caused great dissatisfaction for some time, and there were constant threats held out against him, and appeals made to the magistrates, from whom many verbal messages were received, but to which no regard was paid, as work was always to be had. . . . . Mr. Rodwell has a thorough knowledge of the whole economy of rural life, and his opinion can be relied upon. He describes, that though only five years have elapsed since all allowance to able-bodied men has been discontinued, he can perceive an improvement in the general character and condition of his labourers.'-pp. 148, 149.

An instance is given of a young man belonging to this parish, applying to Mr. Rodwell for a house, backed by repeated notes from the magistrates, which were regularly put into the fire by Mr. Rodwell, the man being offered work at wages sufficient to enable him to hire lodgings, which he refused.

'At length finding the overseer inexorable, the man at last returned to his work and found lodgings for himself. The landlord's seat being within the parish, settlements are frequently acquired by persons living in his service. As, however, nothing is given out of the parish to a person who is able to work, those who require relief are obliged to earn it by their labour within the parish. The butlers and grooms are in this way generally got rid of within a week, as relief is invariably administered in the shape of task-work."

Examples of the same nature were produced before the committee of the House of Commons on the poor-laws in 1828. And we may observe, in passing, on the evidence published by the present commissioners, that though it has attracted much attention to the evils of the poor-law administration, it has neither thrown much new light on the subject, nor suggested any new modes of evil or new methods of cure, other than what had been fully produced before the legislature by the committees of 1817, 1821, 1826, 1828, and 1830.

We may refer, for instance, to the evidence given before the committee of 1828, by Mr. Hale, a gentleman who acted as treasurer of the poor-rates of Spitalfields, and principal manager

2 A 2

of

of its parochial business for some five-and-twenty years. The sagacity of this gentleman from the very commencement of the allowance system, in the scarcity of 1800 and 1801, penetrated its real character and foresaw its pernicious results. He always set his face against it,' and so long as he remained in office, no labourer ever received any money from the parish to make up the amount of his wages.

'I always refused to give relief to persons who were employed by independent masters. I advised the parish officers to say to such applicants, "Rather than give you a single shilling, as part wages, if you are to be a pauper, we will take care of you, but have the whole of your labour." The effect of this was, they seldom applied for any relief at all; and though we had a greater number of poor people congregating together in Spitalfields than in the same given space in any other part of the empire, yet our list of paupers was much less in proportion than in other manufacturing towns.'

It seems, however, that in 1826, the contagion of this economical pestilence forced its way into Spitalfields in spite of the strenuous resistance which Mr. Hale opposed to it.

They have now,' he says, got upon a system of reducing the price of labour, and eking it out of the rate, and many men have in consequence been driven to apply for parochial relief, and thus they have increased the number of paupers."

Uuable any longer to stem the torrent, Mr. Hale seems to have retired from the management of the affairs of the parish, and to have withdrawn even from the neighbourhood which he had in vain struggled to save from the contamination of this destructive system. He had, however, the satisfaction of being instrumental to the successful adoption of his principle in another populous manufacturing place.

Several years ago, they reduced the wages so low in Coventry, that, though in full work, the poor weavers were obliged to have weekly relief from the parish. Some of the leading gentlemen applied to me to know what to do. I advised them to come to an agreement not to give any more relief to people that were fully employed out of doors, and they informed the journeymen they relieved, that if they could not live by their wages, they must give up their work, and the parish would take care of them and find them some sort of employment. Work was then given up to a great extent, so that the masters were soon obliged to raise the wages again.

'What became of the poor ?-They took them into the workhouse, and some were, I believe, employed on the roads and other places. The plan was quite successful. The parish officers came to a determination; "I will not relieve you so long as you have work elsewhere." "Why? I am starving." Then, give up your work, and we will relieve and employ you." The result was, the masters were

soon

soon obliged to give the advance of wages again. The rates, moreover, were comparatively lowered, and the moral condition of the parish improved.'*

Mr. Lister Ellis detailed to the same committee the complete success of another such experiment, in a purely agricultural parish near Carlisle. This gentleman also described the beneficial change that had been wrought in Liverpool, by a similar reform enforced through the adoption of a select vestry in 1821-2. Previous to that time upwards of

8000l. had been annually given to paupers out of the workhouse, many of whom were able to work, and did work for whom they pleased, but having once got a "pension-ticket," that is to say, a card giving them a claim for a weekly allowance, it continued without intermission all their lives.'

The select vestry determined on peremptorily refusing relief in money to any one who was capable of labour. But labour was offered to such as were willing to work. The discipline of the workhouse was at the same time rendered more severe. The result was, that—whereas in 1821, 4117 paupers were relieved at an expense to the parish of 36,013l.-in 1827 the number of paupers had been reduced to 2607, and their cost to 19,395l., notwithstanding that a vast increase of population had in the mean time taken place.† It appears from the report of Mr. Henderson given in the Extracts,' that the select vestry of Liverpool continue to act upon the improved system with the most favourable results ::

6

No regular relief is given to able-bodied men having families, when fully employed. No rents are ever paid by the parish.' The select vestry strictly scrutinize every claim for relief; and the workhouse is used as a test of the real necessities of applicants. Some who pretend to be starving, refuse. Others, really in want, solicit admission.' The workhouse is one of the largest establishments of the kind in the kingdom, and its management appears, from Mr. Henderson's report, to be well worthy of minute attention. The great principle is to preserve order and strict discipline with a considerable degree of confinement, and to exact a full measure of work from all in proportion to their ability. This is a system intolerable to the lazy, the dissolute, and the impostor, while to those who are really unable to provide for themselves, it offers all that the letter or the principle of the law requires, viz. a resource from starvation. It is in fact a strict execution of the law of Elizabeth. The aged people and the young are made comfortable. The total number of paupers is about seventeen hundred. The total cost of the establishment about three shillings * Report of Select Committee on Poor Laws, 1828, p. 32,

Ibid. p. 54.

weekly