Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1855-06-29
THE ENGLISH POOR LAWS AND THE

EN-
Barnum never perpetrated a viler humbug than the
pretended liberation of tho white slaves OF EnIiand
The laborng class Of England are to-day i'll state '
more abiect servude than in the time Of William Inc
Conqueror: they work longer hours are "orS' ''N
worse housed and worse clothed. The repor's u
committees of the British Parliament, appolhteu ~
INQUIRE into the condition of juvenile ana ie'''ae
ara 5,tect and exnose All amount of human suuer'S''
a,cossvs and nroractsd labor ofgnorance ana ''u,o
rality, ,unparalleledin thehistory OF tho
MANY laws have been passed to shorten anu -
,bs bours Of work. and otherwiaoto improve 'i'e ''"
a;t;on of the working class. But all these ia"' GU
.do5 and the sufferiugs and the labor OF Inc pour
ds;,v ncrcase. The fact OF the enactment OF SUCH
s .bovs that the poor are not FREQ, and that they
are cruelty treated. A.
The oniv aim and object Of the poor laws from the
reign of Edward Sd, when they c'ni"cnce'' " 'A''
of Henry 9Th, was to keep the poor at ho"le' alu
N sen them OF work. at rates liked oy their
For the frat offence OF quitting their P"rsf 'ieS
wsre 70 be whipped, for the second to be branded
and for the third offence, were to be hn"g. NOT
.r pyovsion was made for the aged, the destitute
or ths unemployed, nor indeed for any of the poor
whatever. No wonder that under such system 'ne
Barons OF England should liberate their serts' Ae-
rorjucly we find the process Of emancipation gong
on silently and ndimperceptby during this whole per"u'
# that csn be called emancipation, which relieved the
master from the obligation to provide for and take
care OF the slave, but left the freed man Us nch DE-
aver uuder the control of his late master In
very able article on Poor Inv REFORM IN 'he
Edinburg Review, October No ls4l, we hnd the
following language employed by the reviewer -
.Eor more than three hundred years, IRON Tue
berinnnr of the fourteenth to the middle ot lhe
seventeenth century, the English Parliament en-
deuvored to confns the laborer to his p"rSn' anu
force him to work there at the wage" "iiich tne
Justices should think fit. They accumulated e'-
actInent OH enactment, and severity OH Se'er'Is
they threatened the employer with hhe anu i''''
prisonment, and the laborer with torture cha'"S'
mutilation and death, aud they failed by reas"'''
SAYS the preamble to lst Ed. VI, Chapter D. "'i
the foolish pity and mercy of those who should have
seon the goody laws executed the said goody statutes
bav. had small effect" The samo writer i'll another
part of his Review, says:
.srhe first attempt on the part Of person depend
ant ON his labor to his free agency, 10y chang
ing bis abode, or by making bargain for h'S scr
rccs or even by refusing to work for his bare meat
and drink rendered him liable to he whipped anu
sent back to hs place Of BIRTH or last residence io
three years or, according to some statutes or one
year. there to be at the disposal of the local author
ties. The second attempt subjected him at one nn'c
to slavery for e to be fed on bread and wafer anu
refuse meat and caused to work by boating chaihnS
or otherwise; and for the third he was to suffer death
as felon!" Such was English liberty at its BIRTH
In practise, it is far worse now, however beautiful "
| may look in theory.