The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-25 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Poor Law Report, both from the intrinsic mag-
nitude and difficulty of the subject, and from the length
and complexity of those discussions upon which the com-
missioners have entered in explanation or defence of the
views which they have entertained, and of the measures
recommended by them, is a work upon which we find it
impossible to do more at this early moment, within the
compass of an article, than touch, and that but sparingly.
If we were to state that single feature in the administra-
tion of the poor law system to which by far the largest
portion of its existing evils may he traced, we should say
it was the improvident application of the poor-rate. In
Vapport 'of this position, it is not necessary to deny that
trnany 'of our deserving fellow subjects receive an allow-
'aide more scanty than ought to be assigned to them,
'dr that others, who have rightful claims to relief, are not
'often contumeliously and cruelly rejected. But it is enough
to establish what, we believe, will not be contradicted—
that on the average vast sums are actually disbursed out
of the poors' rates to individuals as well as classes of men,
into the payment of which overseers are either deluded by
misinformation, intimidated by threats, fatigued by impor-
tunity, coerced by local authority, or induced in one with
branch of cases by mere cupidity, and which under a wise
and wholesome system of regulations would be reserved for
the really destitute—saving to the community perhaps one
half of the tax now levied, and thus extensively misapplied.
The able-bodied, idle, voluntary, and shameless pauper
finds, in almost every parish of England, by far too ea.)
an access to the poor fund. Relief to poor families at
their own dwellings, though in some instances, we fear, in
opposition to the committee, unavoidable, save at a dread-
ful sacrifice on the part of the poor themselves, is much
ton inconsiderately and too liberally granted. Support
to the mothers of illegitimate children, though excused
in a degree by motives of benevolent policy, has been
carried to a pitch extremely oppressive to parishes,
and grievously detrimental to female morals throughout
England. Finally, the addition ,o labourers' wages out of
the poor funds, whereby the cost of production is dimi-
tiished to the farmer, and indir- ctly the proprietor's rent
enhanced at the expense of those who derive no benefit in
return, has crowned the abuses of the poor law system,
and rendered some corrective measure indispensable to
war-ts checkirg the natural tendency of the above prac-
tices to perpetuate and extend themselves ad infinitum.
A, the evil has been described by one word, viz. " impro-
vidence;" so the remedy which the committee have pro
posed may be almost as fully characterized by stating, that
labour is to he the condition of relief, except only in cases
of sickness or other infirmity ; and that the amount of
such relief shall invariably fall short of the wages attainable
by independent labourers. By a strict adherence to these two
conditions one paramount advantage must be secured,—
viz., a sure criterion whereby to determine the claims of
every applicant for parochial succour. If the self-styled
pauper declines to work on the terms prescribed to him
by the administrators of the pow laws, he in effect admits
that he Las not sunk to that level of fortune which would
c institute a just title to relief. But as, on the other
band, those terms are no less irksome than humiliating,
should he comply with them it may be received as a proof
of entire and helpless destitution. There can, we think,
be little hesitation as to the soundness of the two condi-
tions above mentioned, regarded as general guides to the
management of the poor fund. 1. No labour—no relief.
2. Igo relief that shall raise the pauper to the same level
a, the independent labourer. The spirit of the law of
El zabeth was, to find work for the able and the idle ;
o Iterwise, no assistance, save only to the sick and weak.
There was, moreover, an express provision of the
law of Elizabeth, in furtherance of the former of the
above principles, the general usefulness of which we do
not me.n to question, but of which it may, we fear, be
honestly doubted whether the rigid and invariable
application can be enforced without, in especial cases, a
degree of harshness approaching to inhumanity towards
the poor. We mean the denial of even the smallest allow-
ance of food, clothing, or any other form of relief, except
under the roof of the workhouse. Now it is easy to ima-
gine casts in which the rigorous enforcement of such a
rule would be equal to the infliction of an intolerable
punishment upon the pauper family. What could be more
barbarous than to drag away an unfortunate being, who
was thrown out of work, with his wife and infants, from
their habitation to the common workhouse, and to exhibit
them like convicts or wild beasts to the contempt of the
whole world ? Poverty is in itself a severe misfortune,
why make it an ignominious crime? Tae outcry is loud
enough against the degradation of the poor of England,
who, it is said, are so lost to all sense of shame that they
receive public charity without blushing. Yet, insensible
as they are to the disgrace of living on the public purse ( which
iadeed there is another class of paupers not much abashed
by submitting to), there are few or none of the labour-
ing poor who do not feel humbled by becoming the in-
mates of a workhouse. A " workhouse pauper" is no-
toriously a term of contempt ; yet this, the most degraded
a•ate of pauperism is henceforth to be the destination of
every pauper family throughout the kingdom ! Why
not at once have the boldness to declare poverty " penal?"
The spirit of English society would too well sanction
such an addition to our jurisprudence, and the report of
the committee falls little short of a formal statute in
strict correspondence with it. Work, where it can he
found, ought to be provided for the pauper but as to the
forcing employment, with a view to make it profitable,
which the committee seem to contemplate, the thing is a
contradiction in terms. Upon the whole, it appears to
us that the workhouse system might be much and usefully
extended, but the project of making it coextensive with
relief, outstrips our conception of what would be either
humane or practicable in Great Britain.—Times.