28 NOVEMBER 1846, Page 13

POOR-LAW REFORM: A GUARDIAN'S SUGGESTIONS.

TIM four letters of our correspondent "A Guardian " are a valu- able contribution towards that discussion of the Poor-laws which is desirable in order to make their revision effectual. To prac- tical experience the writer adds enlarged views—to benevolent feeling, a "hard he..d " in reasoning ; a combination desirable in all legislation, but especially in what relates to the most compli- cated and difficult of subjects before the public.

He confirms the Feneral impression which has so strongly con- demned the administration of the New Poor-law ; but not, we gather, entirely on the common grounds of that condemnation. The general idea is, that the administration has failed not only from certain laxities of practice, but also from an overstrained rigour towards the poor: our correspondent seems to admit the official laxities, and also to think that the law has not been strict enough. Now, we think that all those opinions are correct ; but it is import- ant to keep in view the distinct points to which the several kinds of condemnation apply. To a wholesale condemnation of the New Poor-law, or of its administrators, we will not assent. Its advocates are quite entitled to say that it has not been fully car- ried out. Meanwhile, it has done a great deal of real good; as any one must be convinced who surveys the history of the subject or is acquainted with the working of the law. It has broken down because it had very serious defects ; and its administrators, we believe, were betrayed into the singular inconsistencies which misled them because those deficiencies were overlooked. They may plead an incomplete chart in excuse for their shipwreck. An undue sense of popular odium prevented successive Ministers of the Crown from placing in the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners enough power for the accomplishment of their set task. As the law, by its nature, pressed equally upon the indigent poor and the professed pauper, its application was of necessity obliged to be at once too strict and not strict enough. The constitution of the local boards often compelled the central body to work with unwilling and even hostile instruments ; generally with very indifferent, often with corrupt tools. Our correspondent admits the rude and ignorant character of Guard- ians : we believe that worse accusations than ic,o-norance and stupidity might often be brought home to them. The using rates to keep clown the level of wages has been a practice not confined to the agricultural districts ; nor has the new law succeeded in pre- venting self-interest, or apaltry parish interest almost as bad, from corrupting the administration. We suspect that the badness of the materials of the local executive, no less than the irregulari- ties of practice in the central body, demand revision of the admin- istrative portion of the act.

Another change which seems inevitable would of itself involve a considerable alteration of the machinery. Last session, the law of settlement tottered : our correspondent indicates that it will sustain further attacks next session; and he shows that it ought to be gradually abolished. We are not so confident as to the ex- pediency of any "home migration" of labour under official di- rection; but there can be no doubt as to the absurdity of a law which originated in the desire to substitute for villeinage some restriction upon migration of labour and upon wages. Even its advantages applied to a totally different state of society—when the several parts of the country were separated by almost impas- sable tracts, and when the migrant labourer could not be distin- guished from the vagrant outlaw. Newspapers, railways, and a complete official organization, make all England but one town : the injurious effects of the law are not more obvious than its ob- soleteness, its absurdity, and its utter futility. It would follow from an abolition of settlement and the con- sequent abolition of local liability, that the poor-rate must be thrown into a common fund, with central management. It does not follow, however, that all advantages and checks of localiza- tion need be abandoned. The rate might still be levied locally, by a distinct name, and distributed locally ; merely passing through a central administration : thus every parish would be able to compare its own payments and disbursements, and would have opportunity of calling the central body to account for any unfairness in distributing taxation or relief.

A Guardian says, "with the repeal of the settlement-laws the workhouse test falls." Boards of Guardians, however, must have full discretion to refuse as well as to give relief. You may say, he observes, that they will need "some principle to go upon—some 'labour' test or other machinery to answer the purpose" and he admits that "they must have superintendence and advice." The amount of funds must be controlled by other authority. He would have the whole fund for the poor voted by the House of Commons ; and he would also have a Minister for the Poor, who would be more "responsible" than the present Commissioners. We cannot agree that the affairs of the poor should be conducted by a Minister removeable and under direct political influences; or if he were not removeable, we do not see in what lies the in- crease of responsibility. But the striking omission in this part of our correspondent's exposition is that of which he seems to admit the necessity, "some principle to go upon." He says that" our Poor-laws succeed so ill because they profess to do too much—to relieve all destitution-to cancel all poverty"; " and he seems to incline to the refusal of all relier tirthe bodied. That would be an experiment dangerous and of doubtful justice where the poor are so much at the mercy. of circumstances over Which they can have no control, such as the fluctuations of employment. And his representation of the present Poor-law is scarcely accurate : it does not profess to cancel all poverty—it pro-' fesses merely to relieve those who are destitute of the means of supporting life—the "indigent"; and it tried to discriminate that class from the general poor by means of the workhouse test. The test failed ; it does not draw the line—it is a pencil that won't' mark. But you still need some device for securing that all who will work should have access to the means of subsistence. The principle of the law of Elizabeth was subsistence in return for

work : it is remarkable that, while considering the abuses which had allowed the work to become a nullity, the Commissioners do not seem to have considered the practicability of restoring that element to its original plan. The Guardian equally overlooks it : he mentions it, but does not discuss it. Our correspondent proposes, for present purposes, a gradual change, and a partial experiment. He would limit settlement to birth or five years' residence, and would make it apply to the union, not the parish. And he would at once try the rules which he proposes as the cardinal points of an improved law— a general fund, and discretion in giving or refusing relief to the able- bodied—in the London district. The measure which he sketches is well worth consideration. We still think it defective, for want of" the principle to go by " : but nothing can be more admirable than the spirit of the closing letter; and in discussion all candid and sincere suggestions from the intelligent are of use, if only as starting-points for further inquiry. The strong part of our correspondent's case is the settlement : his bill of indictment against the existing law is conclusive ; and his proposed mode of beginning the change, gradually, looks as if it would be practi- cable, facile, and productive of immediate advantage The writer

is not only ex qfficio a "Guardian," but occupies such station in

society as to command attention ; and, being also in Parliament, but free from partisanship, he will be able to aid in bringing the whole subject broadly before the National Council. There has been plenty of zeal, both in assailing and in defending the statute and its administrators ; but a real, an impartial discussion of the subject itself, will be as novel as it is desirable.