POOR-LAW DOUBTS AND THEIR SOLUTION.
WE feel satisfaction in publishing the letter of "Y. Z.," a New Poor-law Conservative, not only because we desire to see discus- sion freely promoted, but also because that letter contains some points in themselves well worthy of consideration. The writer is a distinguished member of the school of political economists with whom the New Poor-law originated. His communication is an evidence of the necessity for the discussion which it deprecates. Y. Z. raises some questions without settling them ; indeed, there is no indication but what the writer is quite unprepared to settle them. For instance, he dismisses the subject of labour in workhouses with the remark that it has been a thorough failure "-so far as respects any saving of expense " ; which does not at all settle the question. The official authorities, both at the time ofthe Inquiry in 1833-4 and during the progress of administra- tion, have admitted the necessity for investigating the subject of labour : it is also admitted to be an essential in that law of Eliza- beth which the existing statute professed to continue ; and yet labour was the only branch of the subject that was very much neglected. Incidentally some evidence offered itself, of so mixed ak kind as to challenge further examination. The Commission was created to investigate abuses in the old administration of the law, and it was therefore antagonistic rather than constructive : one of the flagrant abuses was lavish expenditure, and the saving of rates one of the main objects of the Commission; hence undue prominence was given to the mere saving of rates. But the Commissioners have shown, repeatedly, that a direct saving of rates is not always a true economy ; as when they develop the policy of offering "the house" to applicants for relief, although it usually costs more to maintain a family in the workhouse than to aid them by out-door relief. Thb question of labour, then, was left unsettled ; and our esteemed correspondent moots it without giving any evidence that he is prepared to settle it. This, we contend, is to keep the Poor-law question in a very unsatisfac- tory state : for fourteen years, that is, ever since the reformers mooted it, the subject has been agitated,—proof that the amend- ment was in some way imperfect; and we desire to witness that further discussion which shall search to the bottom and at last lay the whole matter at rest.
Are we to arrive at such a settlement this session? At first it was a hope inferred from the fact of the Ministerial interposition, that we were to have that searching and final scrutiny : but doubts have arisen, from the great obscurity of the language used
by Lord John Russell and his colleagues, Sir George Grey and Lord Lansdowne ; and our correspondent's letter is calculated to strengthen those doubts. It exhibits—we wish to say it without offence—a prejudiced bias in favour of the law and of the admi- nistration as they exist; and Lord John Russell all but confesses to a like "partiality." The Andover disclosures were such as to demand that the administrators of the law should be called to account : Lord John Russell deprecates that course as harsh, and he waives it on the ground that the present Commission is about. to expire : the natural inference from his language is, that the administration is to be remodelled ; but there is a shrewd sus- picion abroad, among those who are not hostile to the Govern- ment, that one conclusion has been prejudged by Ministers— namely, that some of the officials whose conduct has most de- manded examination shall be retained.
It is evident that Ministers desire to limit the present in- quiry to the law of settlement ; a limitation which it would, be difficult to enforce. Settlement is not a separate bit of the law, that it can be taken and examined separately : it is more like an element diffused throughout, which must be traced by the scrutiny and analysis of all portions. It is connected wkh the other questions of local administration, local taxation, the applicability of a workhouse test, and indeed with almost every question that can be mooted. The attempt at limitation, therefore, must have one or other of two results : either, in excluding the general subject of the law, large portions of the professed subject of inquiry must also be excluded, and the investigation even into the law of settlement will not be real ; or the Committee will break through the bonds, and Government will be placed in the awkward position of having ita wishes set aside in the moat marked manner.
Our correspondent's letter abounds in further evidence that the economical school to which he and our Ministers belong feel th& strongest dislike to the new reopening of the subject. He says, for example, with a friendly sarcasm which is even flattering in. the form of expression, "You,. who are so little likely to be led away by transient humbug, confess yourself at sea." We have made no such confession. But the imputation implies that our accuser is firmly anchored to a fixed point ; and that hence it is too readily to be inferred that when he and those who agree with him profess to indulge the public wish to look into the newly-die. closed abuses, they only make a show of placing in issue that which they have predetermined not to yield. But the circum- stances are too strong for them. The whole subject has been re- opened—the administration of the law and public opinion about, it are "at sea" ; even those who desire to remain fixed at anchor' are obliged to yield they scarcely know what—they are at ses, though with their anchors down ; and if they are not without. "chart or compass," they are so unconscious of their own drifting that they are heedless of the warning to consult their guides. We do not confess to any such guideless condition. We see that the authors of the existing law are obliged unceasingly to alter, compromise, and tinker their own handiwork : we see that, from first to last, it has never been thoroughly enforced ; we see the' public bewildered by all these signs of unsettlement, and de- mending to know what it is all about ; and we contend that the public ought to have full satisfaction, without reserve of anything whatsoever. For ourselves, we discern, amid great and unde- niable improvements,, distinct and specific evils that have arisen. from the present administration of poor relief—some novel and peculiar to it, others common to the old administration : we wish to learn whether those evils are such as can be altered, or whether they are inherent in all poor-laws : if they are remediable, we insist on alteration if no amendment is practicable, we are pre- pared to stick to the present law with renewed confidence; but in that case we shall insist that it be, what it has never yet been,, fully and truly carried out. We could produce a counter-scheme on the spot : but we do not pretend to be superior to the necessity of further inquiry and comparing of notes. What we combat. is sham concession and one-sided inquiry ; what we insist upon is open inquiry, substantial conclusions, and that pledge of Minis- terial honesty which consists in standing or falling by the con- clusions adopted. One word more to our correspondent. He says, speaking of "A Guardian " and ourselves—" Both you and he dream oc- casionally of making a poor-law the refuge for deserving but unfortunate virtue." Our censor's prejudices blind his naturally clear sight. We never indulged in such a dream, or gave him warrant for the imputation. On the contrary, we have distinctly expressed our agreement with the conclusion of the official in- quirers, that desert can never serve as a test of the claim to relief, but destitution alone. We also believe that it is not within the province of a poor-law to promote "industry, economy, .filial and parental affection" ! or other "social virtues " ; about which there is in the authoritative writings on the Poor-law a great deal of "humbug" that has not been "transient," and no less gratuitous, assumption .The pittance extorted from official parsimony on the ground of destitution alone, can never be accepted as a bribe to the "social virtues "—the pauper knows that they would be too much for the money. If the Poor-law can promote social virtue at all, it is by the indirect mode of setting an example of j,ustacia tempered by that kindliness which is a duty of individual man, and cannot be neglected by aggregate man without injury ta the- welfare of his kind. There can be no peace without justice and transparent good faith between all parts of the state.
Previous page
