SWEDEN.
The fullest statement of the pauperism of Sweden is to be found in a paper by M. de Hartsmansdorff, the Secretary of State for Ecclesiastical Affairs, (p. 368); an extract from Colonel Forsell’s Swedish Statistics, published in 1833, (p. 375); and Replies to the Commissioners’ Queries from Stockholm, (p. 372), and from Gottenburgh, (p. 384.)
M. de Hartsmansdorff states that every parish is bound to support its own poor, and that the fund for that purpose arises from voluntary contribution, (of which legacies and endowments appear to form a large portion,) the produce of certain fines and penalties, and rates levied in the country in proportion to the value of estates, and in towns on the property or income of the inhabitants. Settlement depends on residence, and on that ground the inhabitants of a parish may prevent a stranger from residing among them. A similar provision is considered in the Norwegian report, and rejected, (p. 718,) but exists in almost every country adopting the principle of parochial relief, and allowing a settlement by residence. An appeal is given, both to the pauper and to the parishioners, to the governor of the province, and ultimately to the King.
M. de Hartsmansdorff’s paper is accompanied by a table, containing the statement of the persons relieved in 1829, which states them to have amounted to 63,348 out of a population of 2,780,132, or about one in forty-two. This differs from Colonel Forsell’s statement, (p. 376,) that in 1825 they amounted to 544,064, or about one in five. It is probable that Colonel Forsell includes all those who received assistance from voluntary contributions. “In Stockholm,” he adds, “there are 83 different boards for affording relief to the poor, independent one of the other, so that it happens often that a beggar receives alms at three, four, or five different places.” There is also much discrepancy as to the nature and extent of the relief afforded to the destitute able-bodied. We are told in the Stockholm return, (p. 372,) that no legal provision is made for them; but by the Gottenburgh return, (pp. 384 and 386,) it appears that they are relieved by being billeted on householders, or by money.
The following severe provisions of the law of the 19th June, 1833, seem directed against them. By that law any person who is without property and cannot obtain employment, or neglects to provide himself with any, and cannot obtain sureties for the payment of his taxes, rates, and penalties, is denominated unprotected (förswarlös). An unprotected person is placed almost at the disposal of the police, who are to allow him a fixed period to obtain employment, and to require him to proceed in search of it to such places as they think fit.
Should any person, (the law goes on to say,) who has led an irreproachable life, and has become unprotected, not through an unsteady or reprehensible conduct, but from causes which cannot be reasonably laid to his charge, and who has obtained an extension of time for procuring protection, still remains without yearly employment or other lawful means of support, and not be willing to try in other places to gain the means of support, or shall have transgressed the orders that may have been given him, and (being a male person) should not prefer to enlist in any regiment, or in the royal navy, or should not possess the requisite qualifications for that purpose, the person shall be sent to be employed on such public works as may be going on in the neighbourhood, or to a work institution within the county, until such time as another opportunity may offer for his maintenance; he shall however be at liberty, when the usual notice-day arrives, and until next moving-time, to try to obtain legal protection with any person within the county who may require his services, under the obligation to return to the public work institution in the event of his not succeeding. Should there be no public work to be had in the neighbourhood, or the person cannot, for want of necessary room, be admitted, he shall be sent to a public house of correction, and remain there, without however being mixed with evil-disposed persons or such as may have been punished for crimes, until some means may be found for him or her to obtain a lawful maintenance.—(p. 362.)
Servants or other unprotected persons who have of their own accord relinquished their service or constant employ, and by means of such or other reprehensible conduct have been legally turned out of their employ, or who do not perform service with the master or mistress who has allowed such person to be rated and registered with them, or who, in consequence of circumstances which ought to be ascribed to the unprotected person himself, shall become deprived of their lawful means of support, but who may not be considered as evil-disposed persons, shall be bound to provide themselves with lawful occupations within 14 days, if it be in a town, and within double that number of days if it be in the country. Should the unprotected person not be able to accomplish this, it shall depend on Our lord-lieutenant how far he may deem it expedient to grant a further extended time, for a limited period, to a person thus circumstanced, in order to procure himself means for his subsistence.—(p. 363).
Such persons as may either not have been considered to be entitled to an extension of time for procuring lawful maintenance, or who, notwithstanding such permission, have not been able to provide themselves with the same, shall be liable to do work, if a man, at any of the corps of pioneers in the kingdom, and if a woman, at a public house of correction. If the man is unfit for a pioneer, he shall in lieu thereof be sent to a public house of correction.—(p. 363.)
It appears that pauperism has increased under the existing system. Mr. Bloomfield states that since its institution the number of poor has increased in proportion to the population (p. 368). The Stockholm return states that—
The main defect of the charitable institutions consists in a very imperfect control over the application of their funds, the parish not being accountable for their distribution to any superior authority. This is so much felt, that new regulations are contemplated for bringing parish affairs more under the inspection of a central board. Another great evil is, that each parish manages its affairs quite independently of any other, and frequently in a totally different manner; and there is no mutual inspection among the parishes, which, it is supposed, would check abuses. Again, parishes are not consistent in affording relief; they often receive and treat an able-bodied impostor (who legally has no claim on the parish) as an impotent or sick person, whilst many of the latter description remain unaided.