408 P O OK LAWS the 9 Geo. I. c. 7, relating to contracts for the maintenance of the poor, and that such provisions, from the want of proper regulations and management in the poorhouses or workhouses that have been purchased or hired under the authority of the said Act and for want of due inspection and control over the persons who have engaged in those contracts, have not had the desired effect, " but the poor in many places, instead of finding protection and relief, have been much oppressed thereby. " " For the remedy of these grievances and inconveniences, and in order to make better and more effectual provision for the relief and employment of the poor, and to introduce a prudent economy in the expenditure of the parish money," much legislative machinery was introduced, which, although not compulsory, was very extensively adopted, and with many amendments remained on the statute book long after the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. Although the Act has now disappeared, having been expressly repealed (as it was by implication previously) in 1871, Gilbert s Act is memorable as having first introduced the representation of the poor by guardians, although not by the present system of election. The Act repealed 9 Geo. I. c. 7, as regarded the farming of the poor where Gilbert s Act was adopted, but agreements for the diet and clothing and work of poor in poorhouses, subsequently termed "houses of industry," were expressly sanctioned. The limits of this article do not admit even of an analysis of this im portant statute. In many respects a double system of administration sprang up in parishes, single or united, adopting Gilbert s Act, and in parishes not under that Act. In both, the conflict between the administration of relief in and out of the poorhouse arose, and continued from the time of the establishment of places of Avork whether termed workhouses, poorhouses, or houses of industry, and whether under special local or under general Acts. Relief in In 1795 the 36 Geo. III. c. 23, reciting that a pro- and out vision of the 9 Geo. I. c. 7, prohibiting relief to persons refusing to go into poorhouses, " has been found to have house been and to be inconvenient and oppressive, inasmuch as it often prevents an industrious poor person from receiving such occasional relief as is best suited to the peculiar case of such poor person, and inasmuch as in certain cases it holds out conditions of relief injurious to the comfort and domestic situation and happiness of such poor per sons," gave power to the overseers, with the approbation of the parishioners in vestry or of a justice of the peace, to distribute and pay collection and relief to industrious poor persons at their homes under certain circumstances of temporary illness or distress, and in certain cases respect ing such poor persons or their families, or respecting the .situation, health, or condition of any poorhouse, in any place wherein houses shall have been hired or built and a contract made with any person for lodging, maintaining, and employing the poor, although the poor persons refused to be so lodged and maintained. Justices had besides a "just and proper discretion" for special cause stated in writing to order relief for a time not exceeding a month. This Act, however, did not extend to places where houses of industry or other places were provided under Gilbert s Act or under any special Act. The evils arising from fanning the poor under the 9 Geo. I. c. 7 nevertheless continued in places not adopting Gilbert s Act. Contractors were often non-resident and not of sufficient responsibility to insure performance of their undertaking. In 1805 these special defects were sought to be met by requiring residence, sureties, and the approval of the contract by two justices (45 Geo. III. c. 54). But these remedies did not touch the whole extent of the evil of neglect of the poor. The laws for regulating workhouses and poorhouses were found deficient and in effectual, especially when the poor in such houses were "afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases, in which cases particular attention to their lodging, diet, clothing, bedding, and medicine is requisite." A statute passed in 1790 (30 Geo. III. c. 49) enabled justices, or medical men authorized by them or the officiating clergyman of the parish, to visit workhouses, and on finding cause for com plaint to certify to the quarter sessions, and thereupon the court was authorized to make orders for removing any cause of complaint ; and, moreover, without waiting for this dilatory process, if on the visitation any of the poor were found afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease, or in want of immediate medical or other assistance, or of sufficient food, or requiring separation or removal, justices of the division were empowered to make an order for im mediate relief according to the nature of the application. There can be no doubt that the legislation of live years later already noticed (36 Geo. III. c. 23) had reference to cases of this kind as well as to the hardships inherent in the rigid application of the practice of confining relief to the workhouse. In 1819 an Act (59 Geo. III. c. 12) was passed, the result Selec of the report of a committee appointed two years before, vestr i containing a variety of provisions relating to the poor, empowering the establishment of select vestries " for the concerns of the poor " and regulating their proceedings. Where these were established overseers Avere prohibited from giving relief other than that ordered by the vestries, except temporary relief in cases of sudden emergency or urgent necessity. Justices had the power, as under earlier provisions, to order temporary relief in such cases, but they were prohibited from ordering relief in parishes where select vestries were established or in which the relief of the poor was under the management of guardians, governors, or directors, unless relief had been refused by such bodies. An amelioration of the harsher features of the law, and Vagi the separation of that branch of it relating to vagrancy, are found in the legislation of the 18th and early part of the 19th century. In early times, as has been pointed out, legislation affecting labour and vagrancy was blended. Very gradually labour was left to run a freer course. Provisions as to vagrancy and mendicity, including strin gent laws in relation to constructive "sturdy beggars," "rogues," and "vagabonds," still formed a prominent feature of poor-law legislation. In 1713 an Act was passed for reducing the laAvs relating to rogues, vagabonds, sturdy beggars, and vagrants into one Act, and for more effectually punishing them and sending them to their homes, the manner of conveying them including whipping in every county through which they passed (12 Anne, st. 2, c. 23). This Act was in turn repealed in 1740 ; and the substituted Consolidation Act (13 Geo. II. c. 24), embracing a variety of provisions, made a distinction between idle and disorderly persons, rogues and vagabonds, and incorrigible rogues. Four years later a statute reciting that " the number of rogues, vagabonds, beggars, and other idle and disorderly persons daily increases, to the great scandal, loss, and annoyance of the kingdom," deals with a great variety of offences, continuing the rough classification already mentioned, and including among " idle and disorderly persons " punishable with hard labour in the house of correction " all persons who shall run away and leave their wives or children to the parish " and " all persons who shall unlawfully return to the parish or place from whence they have been legally removed by order of justices, without bringing a certifi cate," and also " all persons who, not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idly without employment and
refuse to work for the usual and common wages given to