THE PROGRESS OF PAUPERISM.
[To THE EDITOR OF VIE "SPECTATOR."]
Srn,—Your interesting article on " The Progress of Pauperism in the Spectator of December 29th touches on many problems which worry the brain of the Poor-law Guardian. It is self- evident that the great improvements in our workhouses of recent years must tend to increase rather than decrease pauperism. Yet surely humanitarian considerations come before those that are merely economic. Noting the obvious comfort of the best of our workhouses, your readers may be surprised to learn how bitter is the dislike of entering the " House" that still prevails among the aged and respectable poor. It is no exaggeration to say that frequently nothing short of sheer starvation forces them in. I know of nothing more pitiful than the entreaties of these old people pleading for a small measure of out-relief before a Relief Committee. Neither electric light, nor well-warmed wards, nor dining -halls of elegant architectural proportions, console them for the loss of their own poor little fireside. It is mere sentiment, you may say, but it is a sentiment instilled into them for generations, and it represents perhaps their highest social aspiration. For my own part, I think the sentiment worthy of all our respect. Unhappily, Boards of Guardians are apt to be unduly proud of the overgrown. institution over which they preside, and to nourish rigid views con- cerning out-relief even for the aged. And so on the one hand we drive in the reluctant poor, while on the other we open the door wide to the idler and the drunkard and the dissolute liver, who have no sentiment whatever concerning the disgrace of living on the rates, and who—in spite of certain drawbacks—enjoy in the workhouse a measure of solid comfort that they never enjoy elsewhere. Is it surprising that our wards are always full, and that we are constantly increasing our accommodation? The fundamental fault of our Poor-law system is that all who benefit by it, old and young, sick and healthy, deserving and worthless, are alike branded as "paupers," and no amount of careful classification inside the workhouse can alter that plain fact. The only remedy lies in breaking up these huge institutions with their fifteen hundred or eighteen hundred inmates. I believe they will some day be condemned by public opinion as emphatically as barrack= schools have been condemned in the past. Then there will be some possibility of treating workhouse inmates on their merits• Each case requires individual attention, but what individual knowledge can a House Committee have of fifteen hundred persons ? As a result everything is done by routine, and almost everything is left. in the hands of the Poor-law officials. whose reputation for enlightened and humanitarian policy does not stand remarkably high. The workhouse of to-day is a vast residential building, where the whole tendency—increased in many instances by the short-sighted and erratic policy of Guardians—is for those who have once entered to remain in. definitely, growing more and more unfit to lead an independent life outside. The workhouse of the future will,•I hope, be simply a clearing-house from which the destitute poor will be transferred to suitable institutions. I would send all the old people who were not fit recipients for outdoor relief to "homes of rest," and the old couples to almshouses, where they should be treated, not as paupers, but as pensioners of the State. The young should be sent to schools and training homes, the able-bodied to labour colonies in the country, the blind, the epileptic, the feeble-minded to institutions specially organised for their benefit. Only the worst class of "ins and outs" would remain, the dregs of our population who are beyond reclamation. By such means as these I believe that pauperism could be reduced. To carry out such a policy it would be necessary for the Guardians of the Poor to put themselves in touch with all the best social and reformative and educative endeavour of which the country can boast. But before this millennium can be reached how much prejudice must be over- come, how much blind resistance to reform will need to be
broken down !—I am, Sir, &e., V. M. CRAWFORD, Poor-law Guardian, St. Atarylebone.
[We cannot publish any more letters on this subject, but we must point out that our correspondent ignores the terrible expense involved in all such proposals. Even if they did not encourage pauperism directly, they might easily tax people just over the border line of poverty into pauperism. It must never be forgotten that the funds for the relief of the poor do not come out of a Fortunatus's purse, but are in a large measure drawn from the pockets of "hungering, thirsting men" not greatly raised above the level of pauperism.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
