Causes favourable to the working of the above institutions.
We have now given a very brief outline of the institutions of those portions of the Continent which appear, from the returns, to have adopted the English principle of acknowledging in every person a right to be supported by the public. It will be observed that in no country, except, perhaps, the Canton de Berne, has compulsory relief produced evils resembling, either in intensity or in extent, those which we have experienced; and that in the majority of the nations which have adopted it, the existing system appears to work well.
These opposite consequences from the adoption of the same principle, may be accounted for on several different grounds.
1. Villenage.
1. Among some of the nations in question villenage still exists. Now where slavery, in any of its forms, prevails, the right of the slave or villein to support is a necessary and a safe consequence. It is necessary, because a person who is not a free agent cannot provide for himself. It is safe, because one of the principal evils of pauperism, improvidence, can scarcely exist among slaves, and the power of the master enables him to prevent idleness and fraud. The poor laws of Russia, therefore, if they can be called poor laws, are merely parts of her system of slavery.
2. Recency of the system.
2. Among most of the other nations in question the compulsory system is in its infancy. Denmark has only lately got rid of slavery, and her poor laws date from 1798. Those of Sweden, in their present form, of Mecklenburg, Saxony, Wurtemberg and Bavaria, all bear the appearance of recency. In Wurtemberg assessments had been long obsolete, until they were re-introduced during the famine of 1817. The only country in which the compulsory system appears to have continued as long as it has in England, is that in which it has produced effects resembling those which have followed it with us, namely, the Canton de Berne.
3. Small number of persons wholly dependent on wages.
3. Another circumstance which renders compulsory relief less dangerous in the countries which we have been considering than in our own, is the economical situation of their labouring population. In England the great mass of the people are day-labourers, enjoying, where they have escaped the oppression of poor law abuses, high wages and steady employment, but possessed of little visible property, and seldom living under their masters’ roof. Such persons are not deterred from demanding relief by the fear of losing their property, since, where they have any, it is capable of concealment; and they need not always even fear degradation, since the fact of their receiving it may often be concealed. There are many instances in the Poor Law Evidence in which the masters, and even the companions of paupers, were not aware of their receiving allowance. But the class of persons without visible property, which constitutes the bulk of English society, forms the small minority of that of the north of Europe. The Norwegian return states, (698 and 699) that at the last census in 1825, out of a population of 1,051,318 persons, there were 59,464 freeholders. As by 59,464 freeholders must be meant 59,464 heads of families, or about 300,000 individuals, the freeholders must form more than a fourth of the whole population. Mr. Macgregor states (p. 300) that in Denmark (by which Zealand and the adjoining islands are probably meant), out of a population of 926,110, the number of landed proprietors and farmers is 415,110, or nearly one-half. In Sleswick Holstein, out of a population of 604,085, it is 196,017, or about one-third. The proportion of proprietors and farmers to the whole population is not given in Sweden; but the Stockholm return estimates the average quantity of land annexed to a labourer’s habitation at from one to five acres (p. 375); and though the Gottenburg return gives a lower estimate, it adds, that the peasants possess much of the land. (p. 387.) In Wurtemberg we are told that more than two-thirds of the labouring population are the proprietors of their own habitations, and that almost all own at least a garden of from three-quarters of an acre to an acre and a half. (p. 511.)
All the returns concur in stating the number of day-labourers to be very small.
The Norwegian report states, that “by law servants should never be hired for a shorter period than a twelvemonth. Employing labourers by the day, though often done in and about towns, is consequently illegal.” (p. 695.) Few day-labourers are to be met with. (p. 698.) The Gottenburgh, that “strictly speaking there are in Sweden few labourers on the same footing as in England.” (p. 387.) The Russian, that “the labourers are almost all slaves,” and that “the average quantity of land allowed by a proprietor to his slave is 15 acres.” (p. 334.) The Danish report, that “the day-labourers form in Zealand and the adjoining islands less than one-fifth, and in Sleswick Holstein less than one-third of the agricultural population.” (p. 300.) The Wurtemberg report states the labourers to amount to 41,913 (meaning of course heads of families, or about 210,000 individuals) out of a population of 1,518,147, being in fact less than 1-7th. (p. 514.) The Bavarian, that “in the country there are very few day-labourers, as almost every person has some ground of his own, and few are rich enough to hire labour.” (p. 556.)
It is probable therefore that the class of persons who in the north of Europe and Germany would be exposed to the temptation of applying for public relief if it were granted on the same terms as in England, would be a small minority instead of a large majority, and would be perhaps a seventh, fifth, or at most a third instead of three-fourths, or even a larger proportion of the whole community.
4. The situation of the pauper being made less eligible than that of the independent labourer.
4. But the conditions on which parochial assistance is afforded in the countries in question, form perhaps the principal difference between their systems and that which we have adopted. In England, where the scale and the allowance system prevail, no condition whatever can be said to be imposed on the pauper. What he receives is a mere gratuitous addition to his income. Even where work is required, the hours are in general fewer, and the labour less severe than those of the independent labourer. And the workhouse, the most powerful of our instruments of repression, affords, in general, food, lodging, clothing and warmth, better than can be found in the cottage, and may be quitted at a day’s notice.
But in all the countries which we have been considering, except the Canton de Berne and perhaps Denmark, the great object of pauper legislation, that of rendering the situation of the pauper less agreeable than that of the independent labourer, has been effectually attained.
On recurring to the statements which we have extracted, it will be seen that he loses all right to property; that he becomes incapable of contracting marriage while receiving relief, and in many countries, if he have once received relief, cannot marry until he has reimbursed the parish, or has procured security that his future family shall not become chargeable, or till three years have elapsed since he last received relief. If married, he loses control over his children, he cannot choose his residence or his occupation, and if he once becomes the inmate of a workhouse he incurs the risk of imprisonment for life. When such are the terms offered by the public, it is easy to understand that none but the really destitute will accept them.
5. Restraints imposed on the labouring classes.
5. The prevalence of habits productive of pauperism is repressed by subjecting the whole labouring population to superintendence and restrictions, which we should consider vexatious. As they are in a great measure interwoven with the laws for the relief of the unemployed, and have been in general already stated, it is not necessary to repeat them.
6. Prevention of improvident marriage.
6. In almost all the countries which have been mentioned, endeavours are made to prevent the existence of a redundant population, by throwing obstacles in the way of improvident marriage. Marriage on the part of persons in the actual receipt of relief, appears to be everywhere prohibited, and the marriage of those who are not likely to possess the means of independent support, is allowed by very few.
Thus we are told that in Norway no one can marry without “showing, to the satisfaction of the clergyman, that he is permanently settled in such a manner as to offer a fair prospect that he can maintain a family.” (p. 697.)
In Mecklenburg, that “marriages are delayed by conscription in the 22d year, and military service for six years; besides, the parties must have a dwelling, without which a clergyman is not permitted to marry them. The men marry at from 25 to 30, the women not much earlier, as both must first gain by service enough to establish themselves.” (p. 423.)
In Saxony, “that a man may not marry before he is 21 years old, if liable to serve in the army.” In Dresden, “professionists, (by which word artizans are probably meant,) may not marry until they become masters in their trade.” (p. 482.)
In Wurtemberg, “that no man is allowed to marry till his 25th year, on account of his military duties, unless permission be especially obtained or purchased: at that age he must also obtain permission, which is granted on proving that he and his wife would have together sufficient to maintain a family, or to establish themselves; in large towns, say from 800 to 1000 florins, (from 66l. 13s. 4d. to 84l. 3s. 4d.;) in smaller, from 400 to 500 florins; in villages, 200 florins, (16l. 13s. 4d.) They must not be persons of disorderly or dissolute lives, drunkards, or under suspicion of crime, and they must not have received any assistance from their parish within the last three years.” (p. 511.)
And we have seen that a similar law prevails and is strictly enforced in Bavaria.
7. Provision for the education of the labouring classes.
7. Another means by which the extension of pauperism is opposed in the countries which we have described, is the care taken by the government to provide for the education of the labouring classes. We are told (pp. 695 and 698) that in Norway their children have free access to the parish schools, and that the poor pay for the education of their children, and for religious teachers, nothing or nearly so. The general report from Russia states (p. 332) that every parish in every town has a school which is open to children of all classes, under the direction of the clergyman; and this is borne out by the consular return from Archangel. (p. 337.) The Gottenburg report states (p. 385) that in Sweden gratuitous education is provided for children of the indigent, and that it is asserted that there is not one person out of 1000 who cannot at least read. The Danish reports state (pp. 264, 293) that the children of all poor persons are educated gratuitously: that the parish is taxed for the payment of the schoolmaster, the repairs of the schoolhouse, books, papers, pens, ink, &c.; and that parents are bound under a penalty to send their children regularly to school until they have passed the age of 14, and been confirmed. Gratuitous education is also afforded in Mecklenburg (p. 491) and in Prussia. Mr. Gibsone states, as the general law of the country, that “all children capable of going to school are obliged to attend it. Those whose parents are unable to pay the expense, must be sent thither at the cost of the community to which they belong” (p. 460); “the expense of school-money and religious instruction is about 1s. 6d. yearly for each child.” (p. 466.) In the detailed regulation for the relief of the poor in Berlin, (p. 455,) it is laid down that “the period of children being sent to school regularly commences at the beginning of the child’s seventh year, and terminates when the child, according to the testimony of the minister, has acquired the knowledge necessary for his station in life, which generally occurs on his attaining his 14th year. If parents allow their children to grow up without instruction, the commissioners for the relief of the poor are to remonstrate with them, and should this be of no avail, the commissary of police is to interfere.” In Saxony, “the local poor commission supports free schools.” (p. 480.)
The care which has been bestowed on this subject in Wurtemberg is remarkable. The government report, after stating the recent introduction and success of infant schools, adds that—
For older children, from the age of 6 to 14, there has long existed in Wurtemberg in every, even the smallest community, supported chiefly at the expense of the local church estate and community fund, and of the parents, with the co-operation, however, of the public treasury, a German or elementary school, which all children of that age, both boys and girls, must attend, and in which, with the exception of short holidays during the time of haymaking, harvest and vintage, they receive throughout the year every day, with the exception of Sundays and holidays, in winter for five and in summer for at least two hours, instruction in religion, morality, singing, the German language, reading, writing, arithmetic, and the elements of natural philosophy, natural history, geography and history. In summer, in consideration of the work in the fields, the instruction is given as much as possible in the morning; and at the season when the labours of the field are the most urgent, and in cases of great poverty, an exception is made in favour of those children, where it is required, who, on application, are excused two or three times a week from coming to school. With this exception, every illegal neglect of school is punished by a fine of two or three kreutzers, and if the neglect of attending is continued, from four to six kreutzers; and no child, even if it has completed the 14th year, is suffered to leave the elementary school till it has acquired sufficient knowledge of what is taught there. (p. 528.)
As, however, many poor children endeavour notwithstanding to avoid attending the elementary schools, and in all cases the instruction in these elementary schools occupies only the smaller portion of the day, so that those poor children who are not properly attended and employed by their parents have still plenty of time for idleness and beggary; attempts have latterly been made in some places to put such children under special superintendence, as, for instance, by appointing a guardian for each poor child in the person of an overseer or other public officer of the community, or of a neighbour, who has to observe it every where, at home, at work, at play; or by periodical general summons to the several parents; or by periodical visitations in the houses of poor families, especially of those who are suspected of not paying proper attention to the education of their children; or by the periodical exhibition of the work done at home; or by the public performance of some work as a specimen; or by gratuitously providing the poor children with tools and materials; by the distribution of rewards among the most diligent and skilful of the children; and by exhorting, summoning, and punishing negligent parents; by these means to acquire the certainty that such children are kept to the constant attendance of the church and school, and to doing their tasks; that they are sufficiently employed in a suitable manner; that they are not ill-treated, either by being overworked or by unmerited corporal chastisement; that they are not neglected with respect to clothing and cleanliness; and that they are not abandoned to idleness, beggary and other vices, &c. (p. 529.)
Partly to retain, by practice, what they have learnt in the elementary schools, and partly to promote the further improvement of the grown-up youth, a Sunday School is kept in every community in Wurtemberg, in the common school-room, where every youth and girl above 14 years of age, in the Protestant places to their 18th, and in Catholic places to their 21st year, must go every Sunday, or where there is only one school-room the youths and girls every Sunday alternately, and attend the lessons for at least an hour and a half, on pain of paying four kreutzers, and if the neglect is of long continuance, six kreutzers, for every time that they remain away. It may be added, that, according to the existing laws, more care has lately been taken that young persons of this age, unless they are wanted to assist their parents in their domestic and field-work, particularly those who are educated at the public expense, and the poor girls and youths discharged from the penal establishments, do not remain at home with their families, or, out of love to a more unrestrained way of life, endeavour to gain a livelihood as Eigenbrödler[9], as they are called, merely by sewing, knitting, &c., but that they try either to engage as servants or learn a trade. (p. 534.)
The Bavarian poor law enacts, that all the children of the poor shall, without favour and without regard to the usual pretexts, be kept to the practice of the public school and religious instructions, as also of frequenting the work and industry schools, and of learning a trade. The school money is to be paid from the poor institutions. (p. 559.)
Among all the Continental communities which recognize in the poor the right to relief, the only one which does not appear to provide the means of education, and to enforce their being made use of, is that in which pauperism has become absolutely intolerable, namely, the Canton de Berne; and even there any aubain (or person not entitled to bourgeoisie in the parish in which he resides) may be summarily ejected (unless possessed of landed property in it), if it can be proved that he does not either send his children to school or provide otherwise for their education. (p. 199.)
8. Central superintendence.
8. Lastly, in most of the countries which have been considered, the local administration of the laws for the relief of the poor is controlled by a central superintending authority.
The only countries, the reports from which state that this is not the case, are Sweden, Denmark, and Berne; and we have seen both that these are the three countries in which the poor laws are the worst administered, and that in all of them the mal-administration which the reporters deplore is mainly attributed by them to the absence of a central control.
[9] “Eigenbrödler” means one who endeavours to earn a livelihood independently.
We now proceed to give a short outline of the institutions for the relief of the poor in those countries which do not appear, from the reports in this Appendix, to acknowledge a legal right in the applicant.