stated on the authority of an assistant poor-law commissioner, writing at the time of the change,[1]—
"The English pauper is better fed than the independent labourer; the suspected thief receives in gaol considerably more food than the pauper; the convicted thief receives still more; and the transported felon receives every day very nearly three times as much food as the honest, independent peasant. The Kentish pauper has what are called three meat days a week, in many cases four, and in some five; his bread is many degrees better than that given to our soldiers; he has vegetables at discretion; and especially in the larger workhouses it is declared with great pride 'that there is no stinting,' but that 'we gives 'em as much victuals as ever they can eat.'"
Of course they lived better than many of the ratepayers. The description of the old poor-law system is concluded with these words:—
"As a national jest-book, the history of our parishes and the contents of their ledgers stand, we must confess, unrivalled; but when we reflect that the sum total of this expenditure has annually exceeded seven millions, that the poor rates of any country are the symbol of its improvidence, and the sure signal of its distress, we must also admit that there exists in the history of our kingdom nothing more sorrowful, more discreditable, than our late poor-law system."
It will hardly be suspected that we are lamenting the close of such a state of things, or advocating in any respect a return to it. Nothing that we are at present about to suggest as a remedy or a reform was attempted under the former routine, or is incompatible with the present one.
It was no wonder that such a system came to an end, and that its gross injustice, as well as its injurious tendency, loudly demanded an alteration. An amendment was accordingly made, and has been the law in England sufficiently long for its results to be examined and fairly judged at the present day. When flagrant abuses are found to exist, it is hardly to be wondered at that a somewhat violent reaction frequently takes place in redressing them; and if over-indulgence was the fault of the old poor law, it can hardly be denied that harshness has been the characteristic of the new one. We have no doubt that it was originally framed with all due caution and deliberation, and that in the main its rules have worked beneficially for the country. But of late years a suspicion has begun to arise, that along with great benefits there exist also many evils which demand attention and remedy; evils, perhaps, not inherent in the system itself, but which have developed themselves and grown up around it in the course of years; unforeseen at the beginning,
- ↑ Sir F. B. Head—Essays Contributed to the Quarterly Review: see "English Charity."
