Poor Law

This scheme, it will be seen, was based in principle on the Maclean report. But it had certain differences of detail, some of them important. In particular, it gave greater power to the counties, allowing no such autonomy as the Maclean report recommended to the larger non-county boroughs and urban dis tricts. It also contemplated some special system of dealing with the able-bodied unemployed, though what that system was could not be discovered from the brief and obscure statement (see point [6] above) in which it was adumbrated. The whole scheme, however, was, Chamberlain said, provisional; it was issued pri marily for consideration and criticism by the local authorities and others concerned. It had a mixed reception. Root and branch reformers welcomed it, though they were critical of certain de tails. The county and borough and district councils raised various technical objections. The guardians, who did not want to be done away with, and their friends, who carried weight with the Con servative Government, denounced it. In these circumstances it was evident that the proposals would have to be considerably modified before they could be made the basis of a Government bill. A new scheme emerged from the melting pot in the summer of 1927. It was largely an attempt to meet the criticisms of the Conservatives in the rural areas, and it represented a dubious compromise between the demand for reform and the claims of vested interests. Its principal features are :— (I ) The administration of the poor law is to be transferred from the existing boards of guardians to (a) the councils of the county boroughs, and (b) the councils of the non-county boroughs and the districts.

(2) The area of each county borough will be a single Union and the council will exercise all the poor law functions within its area.

(3) Elsewhere there is to be a division of powers. The town or district council will become the board of guardians for its area and will have the same powers and duties as the former guardians in regard to domiciliary relief.

(4) The provision of institutional relief will be the business of the county council, and all poor law institutions—workhouses, hospitals, casual wards, etc.—will be transferred to it. The new boards of guardians (save, as stated above, in the county bor oughs) will not be allowed to own or lease any institution or build ing, except their own offices.

(5) Schemes for the reorganisation and administration of the institutions are to be prepared by the counties and county bor oughs for the approval of the Ministry of Health. And these schemes are to include proposals not merely for the institutional treatment of paupers, but for the co-ordination of the public health service generally.

(6) The expenses of running the institutions will fall on the county or county borough, but the county council may recover from each board of guardians the cost of maintenance of its cases in an institution (except vagrants, who will be wholly a county charge).

There was little public discussion of the scheme, however, and in 1928 the Government abandoned it and reverted to the original plan.

The Local Government Act, 1929.

The whole machinery of Poor Law administration was changed by this Act which re placed the Boards of Guardians by Public Assistance Committees acting under the Ministry of Health. Two-thirds of the members of these Committees are required to be members of a County or County Borough Council. This law, together with previous legis lation, was consolidated in the Poor Law Act, 1930.

Any discussion of the laws which relate to the relief of the poor in the United States is much complicated by the wide variety of law and practice among the 48 States, the many laws within States covering the different types of public assistance, and the present involvement of the three levels of government—Federal, State, and local. Prior to 1933, there was no Federal agency where comprehensive data could be secured covering State relief laws, their administration, or relief expenditures and the number of per sons assisted. Since 1933, progress has been made in the collec tion of data covering the country generally on various types of outdoor relief. In addition, there have been many important spe cial studies on phases of public welfare made by various Federal agencies.

State Laws.

Few States had a "Poor Law" in the sense of a comprehensive statute regulating relief to the poor and its ad ministration. In many States the subject was dealt with briefly and fragmentarily in sections scattered through the general stat utes. In some States, local provisions so modified State law that it was difficult to know what the law really was.

State laws were based largely on the early English Poor Law. They had been only slightly altered since enactment, with no reflection of changing social conditions and increasing understand ing of social problems. The most important changes had been effected by taking away certain functions from poor relief officials, and not by reorganizing and improving the poor relief system. Under laws largely concerned with the control of vagrancy and able-bodied pauperism, officials attempted to care for the sick, aged, infirm, dependent children, destitute families, and in some cases the insane and mental defectives.

Responsibility for Care of the Poor.

The principle of responsibility for the care of the poor by some governmental unit was found in the laws of all States. The legislation tended to be permissive, leaving to the responsible authorities the decision as to whether almshouses should be erected and whether outdoor relief should be granted.