many, will not master and servant come to starvation? It is this very self-protecting power against over-population existing in slave countries, which is wanting in free society. This is our safe-guard, as we will show hereafter.*

With a juster appreciation of the causes of social evil, Sismondi, the eloquent historian of the Italian Republics, advanced the idea that, as the manufacturers derive the benefit of the labour of their operatives, it is upon them alone that the charge of supporting these operatives should fall at all times. But as it is manifest their number might become intolerably large if they were sure of their subsistence, he proposed that the manufacturers should be invested with the right of restricting marriage among them. Surely, this is a form of slavery which to most men would appear worse than chains and the lash. It is evident in addition, that if a manufacturer is bound by law to give subsistence to his workmen under any circumstances, he ought, in justice, to be allowed the means to compel the indolent and the refractory. There would be none but physical punishment in some shape. This would be a slavery infinitely worse than negro slavery; for the people held in subjection, instead of being stamped by nature itself with inferiority, would be entirely equal to their masters in every physical and mental quality. It is idle to suppose that such a plan can ever succeed.

All the systems and theories which we have hitherto been considering have been mere utopias, never put into actual practice. Or if a beginning of application has been made, the experiment has terminated in speedy failure. The system to which we now call attention differs in this particular: It is one of great importance. It comes to us mellowed by age and sanctioned by practice. It has been thought for a long period to be a sufficient remedy for the evils of free society. It is the only one which has not

burst asunder like an air-bubble at the first trial. It behooves us, therefore, to examine it carefully, and to see whether it is not a sufficient palliative, (we do not say a complete cure,) for the social disWhat recommends it specially to our consideration, is the fact that it has been imported, and engrafted upon our legislation; and that consequently it is here among us, a part of our institutions. Whatever there is of evil in it, is still un

ease.

developed, but it waits only for the same combination of circumstances to produce here the same bitter fruits that it has produced elsewhere. We allude to the English Poor-Laws. For the following sketch of their origin and history, we are indebted chiefly to an article in the Edinburgh Review for October, 1841.

So long as the labourer was a serf or villein, he was nearly in the same condition as our slaves, except that he was adscriptus gleba, bound to the soil. He owed his lord his labour and his assistance in time of danger, and the lord in return owed him subsistence and protection. The serf had no care for the future, for the master's estate was bound to support him in some shape. The lord could regulate the number of his serfs by the number of habitations which he allowed to be built and the restrictions upon marriage which he generally had at his command. But when the villein became a free labourer this was all changed. The lord was no longer bound to support those who had been his serfs; and if he had no need of them, or if they were infirm and helpless he had only to turn them out. The law having taken away his rights over them, had also released him of his duties to them. The maintenance of the infirm and the helpless, and also of those for whom no employment could be found, had now to fall upon society, upon the State. Accordingly, we find that the first enactments extended to regulate the condition of the poor, appeared shortly after the

abolition of serfage. They appear to have had for their object, not the benefit of the poor, but the protection of the masters against what was called the extravagant demands and the fickleness of the labourers. This class of enactments extends from 23d Edward III., (1349,) to 39th Eliz, (1597.)

The 23d Edward III. requires servants to accept the wages which had been usually given for five or six years before, and to serve, not by the day, but by the year; forbids persons to quit in the summer the places where they had worked in the winter, or to remove from one county to another. A few years later, the 34th Edward III., adds to the penalties imposed upon the labourers or artificers, absenting themselves from service, that they should be branded on the forehead with the letter F, and imposed a fine of £10 upon the mayor or bailiff of a town, who did not deliver up a labourer or artificer who had left his service. (People had not yet heard of the "higher law," it seems.)

The 12th Richard II., (1388,) has been regarded as the origin of the English Poor-Laws, in consequence of its providing that impotent beggars are to remain where they are at the time of the proclamation of the act; or if these places are unable or unwilling to support them, they are within forty days to repair to the places where they were born, and there to dwell during their lives. This enactment makes no provision for the support of the impotent poor; but by commanding them to be residents in one place the rest of their lives, it seems to assume that they shall be supported there. As to the labourers, they are prohibited on pain of imprisonment from quitting their residences in search of work; and because labourers will not serve without outrageous and excessive hire, wages are fixed every half year by the justices of the peace, according to the price of food; and punishments are decreed against the labourers who receive and the employers who give more. It is eveident from these statutes and multitudes of others extending down to George 1st, that their principal object was the

suppression of vagrancy and mendicancy, the confining of labourers to their own parishes and the compelling them to labour at a rate fixed by the Justices of the Peace, so that the employers might always have a sure and abundant supply of cheap labour. To effect this object," says Dr. Burn, in his History of the Poor-Laws, "the English statute book is deformed by enactments against ablebodied persons leaving their homes, or refusing to work at the wages offered them, or loitering, that is to say, professing to be out of work, which make this portion of English history look like the history of savages in America. Almost all severities have been inflicted except scalping." A new class of criminals was created by these sanguinary laws, designated under the names of "sturdy rogues," vagabonds," "idle persons," "serving men having no masters," &c.

The first attempt on the part of a person dependent on his labour for support, to assert his free agency by changing his abode or by making a bargain for his services, or even by refusing to work for bare meat and drink, rendered him liable, by the law of 1536, to be whipped and sent back to his place of birth or his last residence for three years, there to be at the disposal of the local authorities. For the second attempt, he lost his right ear; for the third, he was hanged as a felon. Under the milder (?) rule of Edward VI., branding on the shoulders, slavery for two years, slavery for life, with grievous whippings, burning through the gristle of the ear, branding on the forehead, and finally death, were introduced as supplemental punishments. It would seem that these British Dracos shared the sentiment of a modern Dives, who, being told that poverty is no crime, answered, Certainly not; it is a great deal worse!"

66

We perceive that these enactments make no provision for the support of the poor. They assumed that the impotent would be supported in their several places of residence, by voluntary alms. And as respects the able-bodied slave, for such the labourer was to the local authorities, they assumed that he could al

ways be made to earn his maintenance. Thus the 27th Henry VIII., (1536,) requires the parishes to which the ablebodied should be sent, "to keep them at hard labour, in such wise that they may get their living by the labour of their hands." It directs the church-wardens of every parish to collect alms and broken meat for the support of the impotent poor, and forbids the giving of alms to any other.

It soon became apparent that voluntary charity was an insufficient dependence for the maintenance of the impotent poor; and that if private individuals had not found it profitable to employ a number of the able-bodied, neither would the local authorities find it so. It became, therefore necessary to raise a fund for the support of the impotent poor and for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in the returns of the labour of the ablebodied. To effect this object, was enacted the celebrated 43d Elizabeth which has been called the charter of the English poor, and which has had heaped upon it mountains of praise and of blame, without deserving either. We find in it first, the principal of taxation for the support of the poor. It provides that the church-wardens, and two or more householders appointed by the Justices, shall take order with the consent of the Justices, for setting to work children and all persons having no means to maintain themselves, and using no ordinary or daily trade to get their living; and to raise a fund, by taxation of the inhabitants, for such setting to work, and for the relief of the lame, impotent, old and blind poor, who are not able to work.

Far from being dictated by charity, this act was but a part of the scheme which imprisoned the labouring classes in their parishes, and dictated to them their employments and their wages. But on the other side, it is not justly chargeable with the mischivious consequences which brought England to the verge of ruin.

Subsequent enactments were made at different times, one of which was construed as giving the justices (without

66

consulting the church-wardens or householders) the power of ordering relief to any applicant who showed reasonable cause. This was taking the administration of the fund out of the hands of those most interested in guarding it, viz: the rate payers. Charity becomes very easy to practise when all that is to be done by A, is to order B, to be relieved at the expense of C. Hence it was found that the Justices ordered relief to be given, in a very indiscriminate manner. At last, in December 1795, the 36th George III., cap 23, authorized a single Justice, at his just and proper discretion, to order relief to any industrious poor person or persons, at his, or her or their own home," without limit and without appeal. To show what were the doctrines held by the most eminent British statesmen of that period, we have only to state that Mr. Whitbread introduced a bill authorizing the Justices to fix a minimum of wages; Mr. Fox supported it on the ground that the magistrate ought to protect the poor from the injustice of a griping employer. Mr. Lechmere said that no labourer could support himself and his family in comfort, and that it was the duty of the legislature to relieve the industrious poor. Mr. Pitt introduced a bill in 1796, which entitled the poor labourer to an allowance in proportion to the number of his children, and authorized the parochial officers, if they thought his wages insufficient, to make up the deficiency from the parish rates.

Is it not a little surprising to find Pitt, the great champion of conservatism, advocating the identical doctrines now advanced by Louis Blanc, viz: that the labouring classes have a right to a support from the State, (whether for labour given in exchange, or not,) and that the poor man is entitled to relief according to his wants, since he is to receive allowance according to the number of his family?

The whole system of the English PoorLaws rests upon this principle: that society owes every man a living. It gives every one the right to claim it from the

State as his absolute due.* Let us consider the results of this principle when put in practice.

One of its first and most fatal consequences, is the multiplication of pauperism. It has contributed more than any other cause to increase the evil which it was intended to cure.

The relief which is given to the impotent poor, is not liable to abuse; for, however comfortable we may render the condition of the blind, the insane, the cripple, this will not increase the number of those unfortunate recipients of public charity. It is not probable that any one will destroy his sight or maim himself for life, for the sake of obtaining public assistance.

But the relief of the able-bodied poor involves very different consequences. If it be given without being coupled with some onerous condition, labourers will simulate distress and give up hard work to obtain the gratuitous relief. To prevent this result, all kinds of devices have been employed. The first idea that suggests itself, is to require labour in exchange for the relief. It is evident, however, that when the labourer does not depend for his living upon his industry and skill, but is sure of receiving his allowance whether his task be performed well or not, his work will most probably be very unprofitable, unless you make him labour under the lash or the fear of it: that is to say, unless you make him absolutely a slave. For we must observe that with men reduced to the condition of paupers, there is no mode of compelling them to industry but the infliction or the fear of bodily pain. Confinement would be no punishment to the previously overtasked labourer who comes on his parish for subsistence. He would welcome it as a season of repose, unless you

were to establish a law that whoever becomes a pauper is to be a prisoner forever; and we will see that this experiment has been tried in another country.

It might be supposed that pauperism might be checked by giving to the pauper less abundant or less palatable food than to the independent labourer. But this has been found impossible and inconsistent with humanity and the purpose of preserving life; for the independent labourer is already reduced to the minimum which will keep soul and body together. Thus we find it asserted, and upon abundant proof, that when relief is given in kind, as in the parish work-house, the nourishment is both of better quality and more abundant than the independent labourer can procure. Any proposition to reduce it has been frowned down by every one as savoring of absolute cruelty.

There are other difficulties in the way of requiring labour as an equivalent for relief. That it is unprofitable, as we have already shown, might be borne with, if the loss which it entails were limited. But this loss is continually increasing, as if endowed with a self-reproductive energy. Public bodies are proverbially the loosest task-masters in the world. Parish labour being therefore less rigidly enforced than labour for a private employer, the labourers have a constant inducement to abandon the latter and to cast themselves on the parish.

But this is not all yet.

The labour of eleemosynary establishments necessarily creates a competition which no other kind of labour can withstand. The object of such establishments is not profit, and they are generally` satisfied to dispose of the products of their industry for less than the actual

cost of production, leaving out of the calculation the interest upon the cost of the buildings and implements of labour. The loss which would consequently fall upon them is made up by charity, or in the case of the parishes, by taxation. Hence the disastrous effects of conventual industry upon the manufactures of the surrounding districts. The private manufacturer is ruined by such competition; or else he must reduce the wages of his hands to mere pauper wages, that is the bare support of the workman alone, whose family is thus thrown upon the parish. In either case an increase of paupers is the result. Where there exists a great superabundance of labour, every pauper whom you turn into a labourer deprives of employment some other labourer and turns him into a pauper. Suppose for example that the demand of the market affords labour to a certain number of weavers in a given district; if you set to weaving five hundred paupers in that district, you throw out of employment five hundred weavers who come upon you as paupers, not alone, but with all their families,

It was then necessary to have recourse to other means in order to prevent the mass of the labouring classes from throwing themselves upon the parishes for support. Be it said to their honour, the disgrace attaching to the name of pauper, and the honest pride of independence have been the most powerful checks. The ingenuity of parish officers has been exercised in inventing others. Paupers have been imprisoned in the workhouse, they have been harnessed to carts, they have been made to stand for hours in the pound; to attend numerous roll-calls, so that they might not use their labour for profit or amusement; to dig holes in order to fill them up again; to carry a ear of wheat ten miles in order to bring back a ear of barley.* Any and every means, however puerile, has been employed to couple relief with some distasteful condition; but all has been in vain. The poor rates increased yearly.

*

In 1776, they amounted to $7,600,000; in 1785, to $9,560,000. In 1800, a year of great scarcity, they reached $50,000,000. Since then, they have been fluctuating between thirty and forty millions of dollars. In 1834, the amount was $37,555,000.

Yes! nearly forty millions of dollars a year have been spent to relieve the eighteen hundred thousand paupers of England alone, for Scotland and Ireland are not included in the estimate. Bear in mind that this vast sum is public charity, raised by taxation, and does not include the large amounts yearly given away by private and voluntary charity. Now, let Englishmen testify as to the effects of a system involving so great a pecuniary sacrifice.

"The radical defect of all systems of the kind," says Malthus, "is that of tending to increase population without increasing the means for its support, and by thus depressing the condition of those that are not relieved by the parishes, to create more poor."

This encouragement to the increase of an already redundant population is direct and immediate in its action. When the labourer has nothing to look to for the maintenance of his family but his skill and industry, he is generally cautious enough not to marry until he has some reasonable prospect of being able to support a wife and children. But when he knows that he possesses a legal right to demand aid from the parish, why should he be restrained by any such consideration? More than this; when the practice prevailed of giving an allowance of from one to two shillings a week for each child above two years of age, a large family became a source of profit; and the young pauper would marry at eighteen or twenty, looking directly to parish assistance for the support of himself and his family. Thus it is that pauperism has gone on, multiplying from year to year, until, in 1848, the number of paupers amounted to more than two millions in England and Wales, and 900,000 in Ire

VOL. XXVII-2