POOR-LAW REFORM.

[We have received, and continue to receive, a number of communications on Poor-law Reform. We are glad to see the spirit of discussion so active; but out limited space, seldom sufficient for the demands upon it, absolutely compels us to use a rigid process of selection in publishing communications of any kincL With respect to the Poor-law question in particnlar we wish that everything published should really help to advance the question. 'It is on that score that we have selected a series of letters, the first of which we print today: it marches upon newer ground than others. The writer is one whom we are glad to see taking. an independent part; and though we may have to mark a difference of opinion- with him on some points, we are sure that he will materially help the progress of- opinion. He regrets, that in our recent papers we confined ourselves to generalities. We. did so, because we desired, in the first place, considering the sudden-and great change caused in the position of the New Poor-law by late events, to take a com- prehensive review of the general bearings---to find out where we are. Moreover, we were willing rather to watch discussion for a time, under the altered aspect of affairs than to shut ourselves out from the advantage of further deliberation; suggestion, and experience, by hastening to dogmatic conclusions. We -are glad; for instance, to have the advantageof our correspondents' views before wesum up, our own. What we insist upon now is, that the subject ought to be diligently and earnestly investigatedt in a new and broader spirit; it merits a wider obser- vation than it has yet received. But diligence is not incompatible with delibera lion before- coming tc: specific conclusions.]

THE POOR-LAW SYSTEM: OUR ALTERNATIVES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.

SIR —I have perused.with some attention your recent articles on_ the•Poor-law system. Their temperate and philosophical tone do you credit; you have ap- proached the subject in a temper which its grave difficulties imperatively demand. Your distinction between poverty and 'pauperism is- admirable: the only question • is, how isitto be preserved ? In entering upon this very nice and critical-point, I regret-to observe that you have dwelt on generalities, rather than adopted the definite but more hazardous- course of recommending precise enactment. Difficult as the problem of a satisfactory poor-law is to solve, it is not on ac- count of its complexity. Though difficult, it is simple: it is this—" Wanted efficient means of distinguishing between deserving poverty and undeserving pauperism." The objection to our presenttest, the workhouse„isnot audit is -a: test, but that it is a bad and unjust test. What is more,, it is becoming ineffi- cient.

One of its main objects- was to increase wages—to-throw upon the employers (with whom I quite agree that the burden ought to-rest) the task. of keeping- their-men in honest independence, and the dtay of:giving a good days wagee for a. good day's work. Now, unhappily, from one cause or -other, theEnglish farmer, as the Reverend S. Godolphin Osborne appears -to have found out,• is unwilling unwilling.to. do this, and resorts to the most petty subterfuges to avoid such a.cbarge. fihe. gentleman or the squire takes his cue from the farmer, and is little bettor. Whether we are to attribute it to the evils of protection in narrowing the ener- gies—to the long and demoralizing habit under the old poor-law of-the pablier doing ." a something "—or-to a slovenly and-defective sense of obligation, arising: from imperfect education—the fact is, that employertrof agricultural labour in England generally, but more particularly, in the Southern counties of the kingdom, keep their labourers upon a miserable pittance, which scarcelyholds body and soul' together if the poor man has a large family, but effectually precludes him even um- der the most favourable circumstances from rising considerably in the social scale-, The hope that by steady conduct and virtuous habits he-will better his conditioni. is faint and flickering; and the seductions of the beer-shop are in nine cases out oh ten too strong for his virtue. There is no blinking this: it has long been a recogs nized fact.

The clever Whig scheme for remedying a sad state of social disorder, was a well:disciplined workhouse. I am the last man to deny that it has done some dcod; but the workhouse, as a test between deserving and undeserving -poor, is. eficient in sound theory and inefficient in actual practice. 1st. Its deficiency in theory, you have so well shown up, that I need.soarce: follow you. Suffice it to say, that the workhouse is, by the enforcement of striet discipline within its walls, penal; but it is applied to all the able-bodied poor. According to this law, then, poverty in an able-bodied-person, arising from what- ever cause, is treated as creme. It passes possibility to getout of this scrape. 231y. It is inefficient in actual practice: and I can speak to the fact as &- Guardian of the Poor. Those who attend the Boards know well how very large a portion of relief is in fact out-door relief; contrary to the theory of the law of the Whigs, but forced, under different pleas of one sort or other, from reluctant

Boards o' Guardians. So little does the present law fulfil its promises, that although, - out of the 595 Unions into which England is divided, the Commissioneraluives_ issued the order prohibiting out-door relief to 478 Unions, yet, out of 1,470,9701'

relieved last year, only 215,825 have been inmates of workhouses:Truly,_the - gubrious tones of Mr. Senior in the Edinburgh are not without reason: There is, "something rotten in the state of Denmark." The mode in which-the thing-- works, according to my experience, is this: I will illustrate by example founded on facts.

A relieving-officer appears before a Board of Guardians. " Gentlemen, they, are pressing me very hard in such and such a parish; the men with large dmilies. more especially. 1 he weather has been wet, and the labourers have not earned above four or five shillings- a head per week these three weeks past" What is their claim for relief? " Insufficiency of earnings." Note—Claim refused. On the same morning that these men were refused, the Board of Guardians re- • lieved plentifully, on the score of "sickness and destitution," with meat mat medicine, a party of tramps or gipsies who were found under a hedge in the neighbourhood, and passed them on to another union; where in all probability their vagrancy was encouraged in the i

e same manner. Beggary, alas! is on the ion crease amongst us.

Now what happens? Themendicant and the vagrant continue their wretched life. but what becomes of the independent labourer? Does he resortto the-wirionFs. Perhaps so, in some instances; but in most cases it will he found haskagglie. against the union-house, with its harsh and unprepossessing regulations, as kmg as he can. Scanty food and earnings soon take effect: he falls sick, and the re- lief.which was denied him by the relieving-officer is given—often too late—by the doctor. Let any one run his eye down the medical relief list of any union, and see in how many cases " debility " is assigned as the cause of sickness; and he will not doubt that this sad tale is often true. How else account for the enormous number of " ont-relief " cases, in comparison with those taken into the house, -which the krises now cited present to us ? The relief which the law denies " in aid of wages is wrung from the Board of Guardians in the shape of medical aid. Such is the workhouse test, in practice. No wonder that the kW is unpopular.

But, says the Poor-law economist, if you abolish the workhouse test, what

other will you supply ? And here, undoubtedly, is the pinching part of the whole question. Some say, a " labour test." But there was never agreater delusion upon the common sense of mankind than these words imply. "Labourer" is a term which would scarcely be applied to the pauper, of whom Lord Castlereagh once spoke in a speech on the l'oor-laws' as "employed to dig holes and fill them up." ` Labour," as used by the political economist, means profitable labour: if it besprofitable, private individuals, with that keen and sharighted acuteness with which Providence has gifted the animal man wherever his own interest is at stake, will be the first to employ it: if the labour be unprofitable, how will you distinguish between " unprofitable labour" and idleness ? It reminds one of schoolboy days: things that are equal to the same are equal to one another.

Having, then, disposed of the workhouse test and the labour test as unsatis-

factory in their nature, I wish to say a few words upon the favourite nostrum which sounds so well, but would work, I fear, so ill—a discretionary power left with Boards of Guardians to grant any amount of out-door relief to deserving applicants. YAII propose, I perceive, checks upon this power, in the nature of certificates of character from Justices of the Peace or other authorities. I am bound to state my belief, that such certificates would give rise to feelings of most rancorous jealousy among the poor themselves; that the good man, relying upon a conscious sense of rectitude, would scorn to apply for these worthless bits of paper; that the bad man, by importunity and appeals "ad misericordiam," would constantly obtain them. Nor will I pass over the greater objection to such a plan, that you would thus give to Boards of Guardians a right which, I assume, would be prac- tically almost without limit, of putting their fingers into their neighbours' pockets; a temptation by which, I fear, those gentlemen, unless tied down by the stringent letter of the law, would be very prone to be seduced. They are too often a selfish class; and although under the present law they are harsh to the poor' I have very little reliance on their regard for the public purse under a different system. Puffed up by the dignity of little men, and proud to be the dispensers of public alms,. they would probably. perform their duty very ostentatiously, and very ill. Multiform abuses would arise; and we should sink still deeper into that abyss of social degradation from which even the stringent poor-law of the Whigs has failed to raise us—and that too by the confession of Mr. Senior, one of its ablest and first advocates.

A heavily increasing poor-rate, it' will scarcely be disputed, is a great social

eviL The last eight years have Leen, upon the whole, a period of prosperity, and of peace both internal and eaternaL Yet in that period our poor-rates have in- creased 25 per cent, in the face of a very stringent and oppressive law. In 1837, the aggregate poor-rate was 4,044,7411.; in 1845, it is 5,039,7031.; and its in- crease is amount has been gradual and regular.

To express compassion for the ...r without pointing out the means by which

they may be relieved, is a cower d y and mawkish philosophy, which may become dangerous. There is no man upon whom local taxation presses so heavily as upon the man who is just emerging from a condition of. dependence. Those who know the habits of the poor know how eagerly they save to pay their rent. Of that rent the poor-rate is a direct increase. A pound of difference in a labourer's rent may cause the important distinction whether he lives " within his means " or " above his means —whether he is a " rich man," in the true sense of having ":enongb and a little over," or a poor man, in the equally true sense of being " dis- tressed, and not knowing where to turn for a shilling." Small sums are all- important to small people; and therefore, to be clamorous against the stringency of a poor-law, but blind to the evils which mast ever attend the increase of tax- ation-for the purposes of public benevolence, is a spurious and not a genuine hu- manity. Taxation falls upon the labourer in no indirect or circuitous manner. If moderate, it may stimulate his efforts and quicken his industry: the moment it be- comes excessive, (which it must do instantly if you make the industrious man Work double tides as it were, not only for his own family but his neighbour's,) you sap the very foundations' of industry, and reduce him to the condition of a slave.

It is under the deep impression of such a responsibility that we ought to address Onrselves to the "Condition-of-England question." Better it were to bear the ills we have, with patience and submission, than turn to others of a more serious because more anarchical nature. Oppression is bad, but violence and confiscation are far worse.

. If we adhere to the present law, I fear we must adhere to its principle in.. a form even more stringent than it has ever yet exhibited. We must stop the leak which medical aid has made in the principle of the enact- ment: we must openly avow, that for the benefit of society at large, no distinction is made between the deserving and the undeserving able-bodied poor,— For the simple reason that no difference can be made, and that public bounty, from its-very- nature, must be administered in the form of rough justice, with a harsh and indiscriminating hand; that fine lines are beyond our reach in such a rude work; that if we attempt them, it will only disjoint and put out of order the more important relations of society, which can only be kept in positiois by the Main attention of Government being directed to other more important objects. These ordered well, public relief will sink into insignificance in the scale. Begin at the beginning. Give the people good laws in other respects, and poor-laws will be little thought of. An undue attention on the part of legislators to the poor argues but a sickly state of society; for it proclaims to the world that their numbers are multiplying, and the condition of the masses not improving. Civil and religious liberty, cheap and even justice, free commerce at home and abroad, liberal education, wise colonization —these would be the best though not a com- plete justification of a severe poor-law. Such must be the language of the de- fenders of the existing system. Nothing ought to be repudiated so much as the tinkering of the present law; a soft style of speaking which has been in vogue of late, of mitigating its more oppressive clauses and working out exceptional cases. Avarice will find them out. The experience of the last five-and-thirty years has made the feeling of patriotism weak amongst those who ordinarily em- ploy the labourer. A man must be a very superior being to undergo the sacri- fices which a pure love of country entails. Hence, each will act as his neighbour does; and as the most selfish will be the most quicksighted in obtaining a view of his own pecuniary interest, the lowest standard of action will influence the bulk of mankind whenever the remuneration of the labourer is the point upon which they have to decide. The public parse will have to bear the burden of all this. The exceptional case will be a case made out by the selfish or indolent farmer to throw off his shoulders the burden of keeping the slovenly and idle labourer. We shall return to all the evils of the old system headlong. If we alter the present law, we must abrogate its principle: it must be a.radic reform, or. none at all; no half measures will do.

The heart recoils, I admit, from a more stringent application of the " work- house test "; but what can we do? Have we no alternative ? That, Sir, shall be the subject of my next letter.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, A Goan:outs.