Poor Law

The New Poor Law.

The New Poor Law made a clean sweep of the old practice of unrestricted out-relief. It grouped hitherto independent parishes into Unions, each under an elected board of guardians, with a strong central authority to enforce a uniform policy. And it laid down the cardinal principle that relief should only be given to the able-bodied poor and their dependants in a well-regulated workhouse under conditions inferior to those of the humblest labourer outside. This drastic measure of deterrence naturally provoked widespread popular discontent, and was indeed one of the grievances which played a part in the Chartist agitation. But it went far to reduce the volume and the cost of pauperism. As time wore on, however, its strict application became more and more difficult. The development of democracy, the growth of humanitarian feeling, and the discovery of more scientific methods of dealing with destitution, all helped to mitigate the harshness of poor law administration. There were improvements in the treatment of different classes of paupers, and many boards ot guardians adopted a more generous—or, as their critics said, a more lax—policy both in the granting of outdoor relief and in the management of the workhouse. But no one who looked below the surface could be satisfied with the poor law at the beginning of this century. Its abuses were not those of a hundred years earlier, but they were serious enough to call for public investigation. A royal commission "on the poor laws and the relief of distress" was appointed in 1905, and its reports, issued in 1909, exposed the whole system to a searching criticism. The failure of the poor law was seen in almost every department. "Well-regulated work houses" were the exception rather than the rule. Here and there the deterrent principle was maintained, and "able-bodied tests" were applied in the shape of stone-breaking or other tasks set to the unemployed workman, which were not only brutal but un economic. More often, however, the workhouse had an able-bodied ward, in which all and sundry were left to twiddle their thumbs in a demoralizing idleness. For the tramps there were casual wards run on methods that were cruel to the honest work-seeker, and utterly useless from the point of view of reforming the "work-shy." Nor was the condition of the non-able-bodied less deplorable. The general workhouses contained a great host of children, in constant contact with the adult paupers, often ill tended and improperly educated. The treatment of the patients in many of the infirmaries and sick-wards, and of the idiots, imbeciles and lunatics, was a scandal. In the granting of outdoor relief there was no uniformity at all In some Unions the allowances were fairly generous, in others they were utterly inadequate. There were boards of guardians which gave a widow is. or 1/6d. a week for her child, with nothing for herself. And despite the strenuous efforts of many of the guardians to humanize the admin istration and of others to keep down the cost of pauperism, the poor law was detested by the poor and a growing burden on the rates.

Reports of Royal Commission, 1909.

The royal commission demanded drastic reforms. The majority recommended that the boards of guardians should be replaced by statutory committees of the county and county borough councils, to be known as "public assistance authorities," with a number of minor bodies (public assistance committees) working under them in sub-areas. The general workhouses should be abolished, and different classes of the destitute relieved in properly specialized institutions. The able-bodied should as far as possible be provided for by other methods. Outdoor relief, or "home assistance," should be ade

quate, but should be given only after strict inquiry, under super vision, and on a uniform basis. The minority were not content with this; they proposed the complete abolition of the poor law—the thing as well as the name. They argued that the system was funda mentally bad. It was the business of the community to try to pre vent destitution, and not merely to palliate it when it occurred. This had long been recognized in _the case of other public authori ties which had to deal with different classes of the poor—the aged, the children, the sick and the feeble-minded. And these authori ties, it was pointed out, were not only working on the right principle ; they were better equipped than were the guardians for giving the appropriate treatment in each case, they were free of the "stigma of the poor law," and parliament was steadily extending their functions. But, while this was satisfactory in itself, it involved in practically every department a deplorable amount of administrative disorder, overlapping, duplication of machinery and waste. In the case of each class of the poor, infants, children of school age, the sick, the feeble-minded, the aged, the able bodied, there was at least one, and often more than one, other authority set up as a rival to the board of guardians. On adminis trative as well as humanitarian grounds, therefore, the minority report recommended the break-up of the poor law, and the dis tribution of the functions of the guardians (or the parish councils in Scotland) among the appropriate local authorities, save in the case of the able-bodied, who it was proposed should be made the charge of a national unemployment authority.

This policy received strong support throughout the country and there was an active agitation for poor law reform during the next two or three years. The Government, however, was not disposed to introduce the necessary legislation, and John Burns, the pres ident of the Local Government Board, undertook what he called "revolution by administration." All that he did in fact, was to abate certain of the most crying scandals ; in essentials the poor law was left intact. When the war broke out in 1914, the problem was naturally shelved ; the volume of pauperism rapidly dimin ished, and in any case no large reform was possible under war-time conditions. In 1917, however, the whole question was re-examined by a committee appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction, and presided over by Sir Donald Maclean, M.P.

The Maclean Report.

The Maclean committee was impor tant, because it included representatives of both the majority and the minority of the old royal commission, and it produced a unani mous report which reconciled their differences. The report in fact confirmed the sentence of death passed on the guardians eight years before, and made detailed recommendations for the break-up of the poor law. Its main proposals were : 1. The transfer of all the functions of the boards of guardians to the councils of counties, county boroughs, and boroughs or urban districts with populations exceeding 5o,000.

2. Provision for all the sick and infirm (including the aged requiring institutional care, and maternity cases and infants) should be made by these authorities under the Public Health Acts, suitably extended.

3. The Ministry of Health should have power to put any borough with a population over io,000, or any urban district with over 20,00o, in the position of an autonomous health authority, with such reservations as might be desirable.