# Pauperization: cause and cure/Poor law out-relief

POOR LAW OUT-RELIEF.
PERHAPS the most satisfactory way of describing the principles that should regulate Poor Law Belief will be to explain the administration of out-relief in a certain, now notorious, Union; for the management of out-relief has always been the crucial difficulty of the system, and is now acknowledged to be the main question. In attempting to demonstrate such administration as exemplified in the Union of Atcham, in Shropshire, an agricultural district of about 20,000 inhabitants—it may be instructive to state, first two or three facts or principles which will be found to lie at the root of, and to be the key to, the whole matter, and which have certainly been here the main cause of what are now considered successful results.
(1.) The systematic adoption of strict and sound principles in giving out-door relief: the chief one being an attempt to set a premium on thrift and a discount on improvidence, as far as the present Poor Law will allow.
(2.) Personal devotion to the work—a constant unremitting energy on the part of one or two guardians, acting and re-acting on the officials. It is unnecessary to remind an audience of practical men that this minute individual service is the secret and the soul of success in carrying out any such intricate matters as the administration of a Poor Law; and that without such living spirit even the soundest principles become deadened and inoperative.
(3.) Sanitary precautions to mitigate as far as may be that fruitful cause of pauperism, illness from bad drainage, and bad ventilation.
First, then, with regard to out-door relief:—When an applicant comes to the Board, and before he appears there, a minute investigation is made into his circumstances and antecedents, his home is visited, and his family and relations scheduled. Some such course is supposed to take place at most Boards, but in many, such as in London, where the applicants are many and the relieving officers comparatively few, the enquiry is not very thorough. But further, there is required here the earnings of applicant's family, children or relatives able and bound to assist, rent paid, and quantity of land held, state of cottage whether tidy or the contrary, character of applicant, and name of his employer; whether he ever belonged to any club or has ever made any efforts to provide for himself or his family, and if his children have been vaccinated.
If a parent's sons or daughters are earning wages this would be taken into account, and the guardians would consider them bound to ​contribute to the support of their parent according to their ability. No relief is ever given to non-residents; and no out-relief is ever allowed to illegitimate children, nor to deserted wives, whom experience shows are generally in collusion with their husbands.
If the rent of a cottage exceed 4l., relief would only be granted for a short time, in order to allow the pauper to look out for a cheaper dwelling. Should the applicant have more land than a garden, the guardians would refuse out-relief, except medical or temporary, on account of the bad example to the poorer neighbours. Should the bedrooms be over-crowded, except with a man's own family, the guardians might refuse out-relief.
If a man or a woman's character is indifferent, out-relief is generally refused, but in the instance of members of benefit societies the case is always favourably considered. In determining the amount to be given to a member of a benefit society (not sufficiently provided for thereby), this Board, after some scruple, in which the desire to promote provident habits has come into collision with the rule of the Poor Law, have determined, ceteris paribus, to give the members of benefit societies one half they would give to applicants in the same position who were not members. This cannot be considered altogether satisfactory, and it is altogether illegal, but of this more hereafter.
When widows or men with children apply, the Board offer to take part of their family into the house, and though this plan was first introduced in order that the children of widows should receive an education, or in the case of sick men that the ventilation of his home should be improved by lessening the numbers, yet it has proved, rather to the surprise of the guardians, a most efficient test of destitution. It is, in fact, an application of the workhouse test, without breaking up the home; but the children so admitted, are far more carefully seen to than in most Union schools, and according to the reports of the Poor Law inspector, it is one of the best managed in England.
In considering the question of out or in-relief the Board have never been guided by motives of economy, falsely so called, but wholly and solely by principle. "Money is no object to us" has often been the conclusive answer to guardians or applicants who argued for granting some wretched dole that would only have gone to pauperise, or to supplement wages. In the return of expenditure for in-door paupers, it may be perceived that the individual cost is higher than in most unions, thus proving, that as far as money goes, more care and regard are shown than in most unions.
(2.) And that brings us to the personal service and supervision in the whole administration. Very considerable interest has been taken by the Chairman and some of the other guardians in the condition generally of the inmates, and especially in the school. The children are not only taught reading and writing, but they are industrially trained and so fitted for service that there is never the slightest difficulty in obtaining them places; there is, in fact, a local ​demand for them. It has been found by careful enquiry that a very small number of these children ever return to the workhouse, and hardly any who have had time to experience the effect of the training, so carefully bestowed. With this practical experience before his eyes, and with a lively knowledge of certain facts existing under the old Poor Law, when relations, and often mothers themselves, were paid for taking care of their own children, the Chairman, who for nearly forty years successfully worked this Union, had formed a strong opinion adverse to the effect of such an experiment in this country as the boarding-out system which has lately been sanctioned by the Poor Law Board.
Upon the same grounds, namely, to discourage that sort of communistic dependence too often promoted by the present administration of the Poor Law, the Chairman was strongly opposed to the introducing of the Compound Householder Act into his Union, namely, the creation of a class of persons unconscious of rates. When Tom Smith has to pay for his neighbour, Jack Robinson, he will see that he does not too easily come on the rates, but when Smith has nothing to pay, he is not so careful; and to this insidious cause may be often traced the prevalence of actual pauperism; in the Union above quoted, the only district where pauperism appears above the average being where the Small Tenements Act is in force. Perhaps it may some day be made clear that those who, for political or other reasons, made this Act universal in towns, exhibited culpable ignorance of a fruitful source of pauperism, and have aggravated, not a little, the difficulties of those engaged in dealing with the matter.
To the personal energy which made the school a model to Poor Law inspectors, was in great part the whole success of this administration due. A chairman of a union who will find opportunities for constant personal communication with the master, schoolmaster, and other officials, will strengthen both his own and their hands, and a guardian who will inquire minutely of the inmates of a workhouse how they came there (generally flagrant improvidence) will learn some of the most fertile local causes of pauperism. An inquiry as to how those are living who have left the workhouse, and who have been refused out-relief, will often lead to still further disclosures; but this, it should be observed, is impossible in any very large area of management, and difficult in any but a very moderate one. Therefore the present policy of the Poor Law Board in enlarging areas, some already unmanageable by their bulk and thereby destroying the possibility of personal supervision, is not the way best calculated to reduce pauperism.
But this personal supervision and care were still more shown in the district where the Chairman himself resided. Here in two Poor Law parishes, comprising a population of about 2500 souls, the pauperism amounted to only ½ per cent., almost all being in-door relief. While in one of those parishes, containing 300 souls, entirely owned by the Chairman, the pauperism amounted to some fraction—virtually nil. Thus by no spasmodic or accidental process, but by ​distinct gradation and care, an example of the extermination of pauperism is here shown. This consummation was entirely arrived at by setting a premium on thrift, and a discount and discouragement on improvidence, as a landlord can, by giving away little or nothing directly, but by spending considerable sums in improvement of cottages, drainage, &c., and by always declining, under any circumstances, to supplement the Poor Law relief.
These principles have been systematically applied for nearly forty years with the following results as regards statistics : —
| | 1836 | 1856. | 1870. |
| Population | 17,855 | 19,080 | 19,314 |
| Paupers | 1,395 | 329 | 293 |
| | or 8 p. c. | or 1¾ p. c. | or 1½ p. c. |
The reduction in expenditure is more than 100 per cent., namely, from 9800l. in 1837, to 4230l. in 1868. The present rate is 6d. in the pound for the relief of the poor. But these reductions, inaugurated by the new Poor Law, were going on in many places during those years, and are in no way exceptional. What is exceptional and unique in England is the proportion of the out-relief to the indoor poor, namely:—
| 1834 | 1834 | 1856. | 1856. | 1870. | 1870. |
| In. | Out. | In. | Out. | In. | Out. |
| 196 | 1199 | 176 | 153 | 154 | 139 |
Showing the pauperism proceeding at a decreasing ratio to the increase of population. Out of 600 unions in England this is the only one that exhibits a smaller proportion of out-door poor to in-door. For anything approaching a parallel you must go to the Irish Poor Law, where the regulations and medical relief make comparison difficult. But the ablest men have now declared their convictions that it is not the in-door but the out-door pauperism that is the subject that most demands attention and reform.
It does not require anything like forty years to produce these results; less than forty months, in the opinion of the aforesaid Chairman, might suffice to make a serious diminution in even the most pauperised unions; but what makes the difficulties so great is the habits of the people promoted by the present fatuous administration, and the absence of men capable and willing to devote themselves to the work. And, indeed, it is hardly wonderful if few are to be found to give themselves up to the laborious and gratuitous, but at the same time thankless, task of taking in hand a union of some 80,000 or 100,000 souls, of whom some 8 or 9 per cent, are already hopeless paupers.
(3.) Then, with regard to preventive measures, the most preventible and yet most fertile cause of out-relief is sickness, from neglect of the most obvious sanitary precautions. Therefore, in any ​case of more than casual sickness, in any sudden epidemic, attention in this Union is immediately directed to the state of the cottages in question; and if found, as is usually the case, in a state of palpable unhealthiness, the notice of the landlord or his agent is at once called to the circumstance; and it generally happens that either through the local guardians, or some other influence, an improvement is made. By this means the death rate in the Union has been reduced to fourteen per 1000—one of the lowest in England. And here it might be mentioned that the duties of guardian should not altogether cease when leaving the board. If landlords and clergymen, guardians and others, would interest themselves a little in these apparently small matters of the economy of life; if, instead of diffusing direct charity, they would use some active intelligence and sympathy in their own immediate neighbourhood by first serving on boards of guardians and getting to understand the relation of law, and then applying practically sound principles to the elevation and improvement of the poor, they would be the greatest allies a board of guardians, and a chairman in particular, could have in his struggle with pauperization, and make the Poor Law itself a means of raising instead of a mode of degrading a population.
In many unions it would be desirable to appoint at once a medical inspecting officer for a short time, to examine and report upon sanitary deficiencies, and this more especially in towns where much sickness is produced by neglect of the most simple precautions. Much of the success herein recorded was considered by the Chairman to be due to the perfect harmony and unanimity that reigned at the Board, and to the zeal and activity of the officers. The changes for the last thirty years, both in guardians and officers, have been as slight as is compatible with human life.
In conclusion, to recur to the question of giving relief to members of benefit societies (in which must be included the members of some that have by a wrong basis of computation broken up), and also in giving relief to applicants who at some time have attempted by deposits in savings banks or otherwise to make some provision for illness or old age, the issue is rather an important one. It is a difficulty which has occurred to most practical administrators of modern Poor Law, and it is a question not yet solved by the circular of the Poor Law Board in 1840, or the letter of January 5, 1870, in answer to Mr. Paget, and the Somersetshire miners, which is given at p. 108 of the Poor Law Report of 1869-70.
This much, nevertheless, may be said, that, however correct in law, or sound in theory, a system may be which encourages improvidence, or teaches the poor, as they are being practically taught in nearly every union in England, that any provision they make will disqualify them for relief—which is looked upon often as a sort of right—any such system must, eventually, come to be superseded by a more elevating one, and however perfect, even in principle, it may appear, you must first make it perfect in practice before it can be advantageously adopted. Furthermore, as a matter of principle, is ​the essential communism incorporated into our Poor Law itself altogether sound? Is not the system itself a matter of expediency and compromise, and therefore to be applied as a system of expediency and practical effect? What is the practical effect of this, not what is the strict theory, must be the question answered by the Poor Law Board.
There is an association, co-extensive with the Poor Law districts, now rapidly spreading over London, and known as the "Society for Organizing Charity and Repressing Mendicity," some of the members of which from the first commencement realized this difficulty, namely, when John Thrift and William Spendall appear before a board of guardians, John Thrift, who has made some provision for himself and family, is sent empty away, but William Spendall, who has never saved a farthing, is provided and cared for by the other ratepayers, and goes home rejoicing to pauperize his friends and neighbours.
This Society, through some of its committees, has attempted, as far as might be in the two or three years of its existence, to reverse this principle. John Thrift is to them a subject for assistance and sympathy, but William Spendall must look to the bare subsistence of the Poor Law. Is it impracticable to introduce such a policy into our present Poor Law? Here is a sort of outline for consideration, quantum valet:—
(1.) Administer generally your relief on a more liberal scale to those who have made some attempt at provision for themselves than to those who have not, and so set a premium on thrift.
(2.) As a rule the annuity or allowance of a friendly society should not be directly supplemented, since it ought to be adequate; but give to non-subscribers, ceteris paribus, two thirds only of what members are receiving, or the offer of the workhouse.
(3.) As a matter of principle and general rule, make it extensively known that those who when able make no provision for themselves will get less favour, if, indeed, any out-relief given at all. This need in no way be adopted at first as a hard and fast rule, but merely declared as the ulterior practice gradually to be taught to the poor, and the example of a few cases will soon be found contagious.
(4.) A Government recognition and insurance of all benefit societies that will pass a liberal scale drawn up by actuaries; namely, on the principle that one generation should support another—the young the old.
A step has already been made in this direction by Mr. Gladstone's Post-office Savings Bank and annuities—but information is at present very scantily supplied to different post-offices. The attention of the Poor Law Board might be called to this.
And now, finally, as one fact is worth forty arguments, consider these three—three great organized facts or systems working within the cognisance of, and actually in connection with, the Central Poor Law Board, and all tending to some better effect than towards improvidence and pauperism.
​First.—The administration of the Union herein described, where these sort of principles have been practically applied for nearly forty years with this sort of result:—That if pauperism over the rest of England could be brought to the same level, the country and the ratepayers might be saved some 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l. a year, and according to this experience the poor proportionately benefited, for that is the main point in question.
Secondly.—The Irish Poor Law where out-relief, except medical, is so strictly administered that the number represents only 1·15 of the proportion so treated in England. These statistics somewhat tally with those of the Union above described.
Thirdly.—The movement known as the Society for Organizing Charity and Repressing Mendicity, which has now laid itself alongside the Poor Law in London, and is gradually extending itself over the whole country, which, in reversing the present treatment of the poor, and substituting personal service and sympathy for mechanical cash-nexus, is seeking to raise up over England a new system to correct the vices of the old.
For side by side with a strictly administered Poor Law we should require and desire, especially in towns, a thorough co-extensive administration of localized and organized charity; not that thoughtless, easy giving, miscalled charity; not that vicarious system of paid secretaries, endowments, subscriptions, and sympathy by deputy, that is twice cursed—that curses him that takes and him that gives; no, not that, but hearty co-operation and personal service, with money spent on sound economic five-per-cent. principles, such as the improvement of the dwellings of the poor in towns has been shown to be, and with it all an associated power of repression towards vagrancy and imposture.
To sum up, then, and to repeat the practical causes that have been found in the aforesaid Union to reduce pauperism to a minimum, and out-door relief to the smallest in England, they are these:—
(1.) A strict administration of out-relief.
(2.) Personal energy, supervision, and sympathy.
(3.) Sanitary precautions.
(4.) And last, but not least, a practical reversal of the present Poor Law policy, and a revolution by administration in setting a premium on thrift.