Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/492

472 POOR LAWS Poor-Law Amend ment Act, 1834. account or on that of their families, given either in kind or in money." They also reported that "great maladminis tration existed in the workhouses." To remedy the evils they proposed considerable alterations in the law, and the principal portion of their suggestions was embodied in the Poor-Law Amendment Act, 1834 (4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76). The Act was based on the principle that no one should be suffered to perish through the want of what is necessary for sustaining life, but at the same time that if supported at the expense of the public he must be content to receive such support on the terms most consistent with the public welfare ; and the objects of the Act were first to raise the labouring classes, that is to say, the bulk of the commun ity, from the idleness, improvidence, and degradation into which the maladministration of the laws for their relief had thrown them, and, secondly, to immediately arrest the progress and ultimately to diminish the amount of the pressure on the owners of lands and houses. Under the Act three commissioners were appointed (originally for five years, but subsequently continued from time to time) styled " the Poor-Law Commissioners for England and Wales," sitting as a board, and appointing assistant commissioners and other officers. The adminis tration of relief according to the existing laws was sub ject to their direction and control, and to their orders and regulations for the government of workhouses and the guidance and control of guardians and vestries and the keeping and allowing of accounts and contracts, without interfering with ordinary relief in individual cases. The favourable state of the country at the time present ing many facilities for the introduction of the law, which it was important to render available with as little delay as possible, the whole of England and Wales was divided into twenty-one districts, to each of which an assistant commissioner was appointed. The commissioners under their powers (gradually put into operation a circumstance which beneficially affected legislation of the period, as, for example, the commutation of tithes and the introduction of police) formed poor-law unions by uniting parishes for general administration, and building workhouses, guardians elected by the ratepayers (or ex qfficio) having the general government and administration of relief. The expense was apportioned to each parish on settled principles and rules, with power, however, to treat the united parishes as one for certain purposes. Outdoor relief might be given, on the order of two justices, to poor persons wholly unable to work from old age or infirmity. No rule appears to have been more fully sanctioned by practical results as of an advantageous nature than that under which the country was by degrees parcelled out into unions. In parishes no adequate power existed for carrying into effect the rules and regulations of the amended system. No principle of classification could be adopted within the workhouses, and the law was liable to be thwarted in its most material objects by petty interests of a local and personal character. With the aid of boards of guardians and their subordinate officers these interests were neutralized, and the law was rendered uniform in its operation. The economical advan tages derived from acting on an enlarged scale are self- evident. Waste unavoidably takes place when the purchase of supplies for a single parish forms a separate transaction. The second report of the commissioners showed that of one hundred and ten unions which had been in operation more than a year, the saving in forty-three of the largest was 46 per cent. ; in twenty-four of the smallest unions the rate of saving was not more than 29 per cent.; and in twenty -six unions of intermediate size a saving of 42 per cent, was effected. Even in many parishes not then included in a union the wide promulgation of the prin ciples of the amending Act gave an impulse to improve ment in the administration of the poor laws, which was attended by a marked reduction in the expenditure. The total amount of money expended in the relief of the poor in England and Wales during the twelve years prior to the passing of the Poor-Law Amendment Act (1823 to 1834) amounted to upwards of 76,090,000, and during the twelve subsequent years to less than 57,247,000. As the commissioners early remarked " It could not be expected that an Act which so materially dis turbed the distribution of as large a sum of money as 7, 000, 000 per annum, which of necessity changed the source from which a large portion of the inhabitants of the country derived their . customary means of subsistence, and which in so doing opposed itself not only to the interests, the prejudices, and the fears of a large portion of the population, but pressed hardly on the sincere though mistaken notions of charity which were established in the hearts of others, could possibly be carried into eii ect without difficulty and resistance. The obstacles which the Act had to contend with in the The m metropolis chiefly arose from the confusion and perplexity tropoli of jurisdiction which existed in the one hundred and seventy parishes comprised within the city of London and the metropolitan district, some of these containing govern ing bodies of their own ; in some the parish business was professedly managed by open vestries, in others by select vestries, and in addition to these there were elective vestries, under Sturges Bourne s Act, Sir John Hobhouse s Act, and other Acts ; and the majority of the large parishes were managed under local Acts by boards of directors, governors, and trustees. These governing bodies executed a great variety of functions besides regulating the management of the poor. The power, patronage, and the indirect advantages which arose from the administra tion of the local funds were so great that much opposition took place when it was proposed to interfere by constitut ing a board to be annually chosen and freely elected by the ratepayers, on which the duty of regulating the expendi ture for the relief of the poor was to depend. The general management of the poor was, however, on a somewhat better footing in London than in the country. Some opposition was experienced to the introduction of The ol the full benefits of the Act into the unions incorporated s J sten under Gilbert s Act, many provisions of which conflicted ^ with the new system. On the early dissolution of seven teen of those incorporations by the commissioners under their powers, it was found, however, that the rates were sensibly diminished. Much resistance of a general nature was encountered. Not only was the economical working of the new principles of management disputed, but a strong feeling was aroused against what was thought to be the inhumanity of the rigorous rules to which paupers had to submit in workhouses. While many proofs existed of the necessity for the introduction of a new system such as that, while wheat was rotting in pauperized and as yet unreformed districts of the south of England for want of reapers at 21s. and 24s. an acre, at the very same time able-bodied healthy men were lying under the hedges in another part of the same county with a parish allowance of 3s. a week on the other hand, it was felt as a grievance that old couples were refused relief at their own houses, and that if they entered the workhouse the sexes were separated. Throughout the country the reproachful name of " Bastille " was attached to the workhouse, and this is in many districts still retained, though no longer as an intended censure. In part of Devonshire prejudice was carried to the extent of a rumour leading poor persons to believe that the_ bread distributed by the relieving officers was mixed with poisonous ingredients. Both Houses of Parliament were inundated for years with petitions against the new system ; meetings were

held at which inflammatory language was used ; and in