BELGIUM AND FRANCE.
M. Lebau, the Belgian Minister of Justice, has furnished a detailed report on the poor laws of Belgium, together with a considerable number of printed documents. Of the latter, we have printed only the regulations of the schools for the poor in Louvain, and of the out-door relief in Tournay; the laws of August, 1833, respecting the Dépôts de Mendicité; and some statistical papers respecting the relief afforded in different manners in 1833, and in some of the preceding years. The others were too voluminous for this publication; and though we have consulted them (particularly the Code Administratif des Etablissemens de Bienfaisance, M. Quetelet’s statistical works on the Netherlands and Belgium, and M. Ducpétiaux’s on Indigence,) with great advantage, we have been forced to omit them. Baron de Hochepied Larpent and Mr. Fauche, His Majesty’s Consuls in Antwerp and Ostend, have given valuable replies to the Commissioners’ questions; and Count Arrivabene a detailed account of the state of Gaesbeck, a village a few miles from Brussels. And we have inserted three reports as to the state of the Belgian poor colonies; one from Count Arrivabene, who visited them in 1829, and one from M. Ducpétiaux, and another from Captain Brandreth, both dated in 1832.
The union and subsequent separation of Belgium and France, and afterwards of Belgium and Holland, occasion the Belgian laws on this as on every other subject to be divisible into three heads:
First, those which she received when incorporated with France; secondly, those which were made during the union with Holland; and thirdly, those which have been passed since the revolution of 1830.
By far the largest portion of the Belgian poor laws is derived from the first of these sources.
French Poor Laws.
The government of the Directory, by three laws passed in the autumn of 1796, established the system under which the principal portion of the relief afforded by the public is now regulated in most of the countries which constituted the French empire.
Hospices and Bureaux de Bienfaisance.
By the first of these, that of the 16 Vendémiaire, An v. (7th October, 1796), the property belonging to the hospices (or almshouses) was restored to them, and their management was entrusted to a commission appointed by the municipal authorities.
By the second, that of the 23 Brumaire, An v. (13th November, 1706), it was enacted, that all the revenues of the different hospices in one commune should be employed as one fund for their common support.
And by the third, that of the 7 Frimaire, An v. (25th November, 1796), that in every commune there should be appointed one or more bureaux de bienfaisance, each bureau consisting of five members, to administer out-door relief; and that the funds at the disposition of the bureau de bienfaisance should consist of one-tenth of the receipts from all public exhibitions within its district, and of whatever voluntary contributions it could obtain. By the same law all able-bodied beggars were required, under pain of three months’ imprisonment, to return to their place of birth, or of domicile, if they had subsequently acquired a domicile.
By the law of the 3 Frimaire, An vii. (23d November, 1798), the additional sums necessary to provide for the hospices, and the secours à domicile (or out-door relief), of each commune, are directed to be raised by the local authorities in the same manner as the sums necessary for the other local expenses.
By that of the 4 Ventose, An ix. (23d February, 1801), all rents belonging to the State, of which the payment had been interrupted, and all national property usurped by individuals, were declared the property of the nearest hospitals. By that of the 5 Prairial, An xi., the commissaires des hospices and bureaux de bienfaisance were authorized to make public collections in churches, and to establish poor-boxes in public places; and by a train of subsequent legislation they were enabled to acquire property by testamentary dispositions.
It is to be observed that under these laws the members of the commissions des hospices, and of the bureaux de bienfaisance, are frequently, but not necessarily, the same persons. The maire (or principal civil officer) of each commune is a necessary member of every charitable board. The other members go out by lot, one every year, but are re-eligible.
By the law of the 16 Messidor, An vii., the inmates of the hospices were to be set to work, and two-thirds of the produce of their work was to belong to the hospice, the other third to be given to them either periodically or when they quitted the hospice. We mention this enactment, because it has afforded a precedent for many similar regulations.
And partly for the purpose of increasing the funds for charitable purposes, and partly with a view to reduce the rate of interest in the mode of borrowing usually adopted by the poor, by two arrêtés of the 16 Pluviose and 24 Messidor, An xii. (6th February and 13th July, 1804), all pawn-broking by individuals was prohibited, and public establishments for that purpose, under the name of Monts-de-Piété, were directed to be established and conducted for the benefit of the poor.
Foundlings and deserted children.
The French legislation respecting foundlings and deserted children is of a very different kind, and appears to us to be the portion of their poor laws deserving least approbation.
A law of the 27 Frimaire, An v. (17 Dec., 1796), enacted, that all recently-born deserted children should be received gratuitously in all the hospices of the Republic, at the expense of the State so far as those hospices had not a sufficient revenue specially destined to that purpose; and an arrêté of the Directory, of the 30 Ventose, An v., (20th March, 1791), founded on the previous law, directed that as soon as possible after children had been received in any hospice they should be sent out to be nursed, and brought up in the country until the age of 12; and then either left to those who had brought them up, if they chose to take charge of them, or apprenticed to farmers, artists, or manufacturers, or, if the children wished it, to the sea service.
The law on this subject received nearly its present form from an Imperial decree of the 19th Jan., 1811.
By that decree, the children for whom the public became responsible were divided into three classes: 1. Enfans trouvés; 2. Enfans abandonnés; 3. Orphelins pauvres. The first class comprises children of unknown parents, found exposed, or placed in foundling hospitals. The second, children whose parents are known, but have abandoned them, and cannot be forced to support them. The third, children without father or mother, or means of subsistence. For the first class a hospice was directed to be appointed in every arrondissement, with a tour (or revolving slide) for their reception, without the detection of the person bringing them. All the three classes of children were to be put out to nurse until six years old, and then placed with landholders (cultivateurs) or artizans until 12, subject to any mode in which the Ministre de la Marine might dispose of them. If not wanted by him, they were at 12 to be apprenticed for periods not exceeding their attaining the age of 25.
The annual sum of four millions (160,000l.) in the whole was to be contributed by the State towards these expenses. The remainder to be supplied by the hospices out of their own revenues or out of those of the communes.
Relatives claiming a foundling were to repay all that it had cost, as far as they had the means.
The last clause of this decree directs that those who make a custom of taking infants to hospitals shall be punished according to law. It is not easy to reconcile this clause with the rest of the decree. If taking an infant to a foundling hospital were an offence, it seems strange that the law should itself prescribe a contrivance (a tour), the object of which is to prevent the detection of the person committing the offence. In fact, however, no such punishment “according to law” seems to exist. If a nurse or other person entrusted with a child take it, in breach of duty, to a foundling hospital, the offence is punishable by the code pénal; but no punishment is denounced against a parent for doing so, however often the act may be repeated. Nor does the “making a custom of taking children to a hospital” appear as an offence in the detailed “Compte général de l’administration de la justice criminelle en France.”
Mendicity and Vagrancy.
The following is an outline of the French regulations, as far as they affected Belgium, for the repression of mendicity and vagrancy. A decree of the Convention, 27 Vendémiaire, An ii. (15th Oct., 1798), fixed the settlement, or domicile de secours, of every person, 1st, in the place of his birth; 2dly, of his residence for six months in any commune in which he should have married, or for one year in any in which he should have been registered as an inhabitant, or for two years in any in which he should have been hired by one or more masters. Every person found begging was to be sent to his place of domicile; if he could not prove any domicile he was to be imprisoned for a year in the maison de repression of the department, and at the end of his imprisonment, if his domicile were not then ascertained, to be transported to the colonies for not less than eight years. A person found again begging after having been removed to his domicile, was also to be imprisoned for a year: on a repetition of the offence the punishment was to be doubled. In the maison de repression he was to be set to work, and receive monthly one-sixth of the produce of his labour, and at the end of his imprisonment another sixth, the remaining two-thirds belonging to the establishment. On the third offence he also was to be transported. A transport was to work in the colonies for the benefit of the nation, at one-sixth of the average wages of the colony: one-half of that sixth to be paid to him weekly, and the other half on the expiration of his sentence. No person was to be transported except between the ages of 18 and 60. Those under 18 were to be detained until they arrived at that age, and then transported; those above 60, to be imprisoned for life.
The local authorities were authorized to employ their able-bodied poor on public works, at three-fourths of the average wages of the canton. Every person convicted of having given to a beggar any species of relief whatever was to forfeit the value of two days’ wages; to be doubled on the repetition of the offence.
The provisions of this law were, as might have been anticipated, far too severe for execution. After having remained, though inoperative, on the statute book for nearly 15 years, it was replaced by the Imperial decree of the 5th July, 1808.
By that decree a depôt de mendicité was directed to be established in each department, at the expense partly of the nation and partly of the department. Within 15 days after its establishment, the Prefect of the department was to give public notice of its being opened, and all persons without means of subsistence were bound to proceed to it, and all persons found begging were to be arrested and taken to it.
By a subsequent arrêté of the 27th October, 1808, it was ordered that all beggars should on their arrest be placed in the first instance in the maison d’arrêt of the district; and transferred from thence, if guilty of vagrancy, to the maison de detention, or prison; if not vagrants, to the depôt de mendicité. In the depôt they were to be clothed in the house dress, confined to regular and very early hours, the sexes separated, subject to severe punishments (rising to six months’ solitary imprisonment (cachot) on bread and water) for disobedience or other misconduct, or attempts to escape; deprived of all intercourse, except by open letters with their relations or friends, and kept to work at wages to be regulated by the Prefect, two-thirds of which were to belong to the establishment, and the remaining third was to be paid to them on their quitting the depôt.
The conditions on which a person might obtain his release from a depôt de mendicité are not stated.
The provisions of the code pénal appear to leave that question to the discretion of the Executive.
Section 274 of that code enacts that every person found begging in a place containing a public establishment for the prevention of mendicity, shall be imprisoned for from three to six months, and then removed to the depôt de mendicité. Under section 275, if there be no such establishment in the place where he is found begging, his imprisonment is to last only from one to three months; if, however, he has begged out of the canton in which he is domiciled, it is to last from six months to two years.
After having suffered his punishment, he is to remain (apparently in the depôt de mendicité) at the disposition of Government.