It is further objected to the present system, that it already begins to fall too heavy on the contributors, and that in course of time, with the constant increase of population, it will go on to press still more severely on them, inasmuch as their number and means do not by any means increase in a ratio equal to the augmentation of the number wanting support: (p. 274.)
Adds, in answer to more specific inquiries,
Before the introduction of the present poor law system, the distress was much greater, and begging of the most rapacious and importunate kind was quite common in the country. This was not only a heavy burthen on the peasantry, but was in other respects the cause of intolerable annoyance to them; for the beggars, when their demands were not satisfied, had recourse to insolence and threats, nay, even to acts of criminal vengeance. This is no longer the case, and in so far, therefore, the present system has been beneficial.
It is a fact that poverty now appears in less striking features than it did before the introduction of the poor law system. This may, however, proceed from causes with which that system has no connexion; for example, from the increased wealth of the country in general, from improvements in agriculture, from the large additions made to the quantity of arable land, which have been in a ratio greatly exceeding that of the increased population. If the clergyman, who is, and will always be the leading member of the poor committee, was able to combine with his other heavy duties, a faithful observance of the rules prescribed for him in the management of the poor, I am of opinion that the system would neither be a tax on industry nor a premium on indolence. But it rarely happens that the clergyman can bestow the requisite attention on the discharge of this part of his duty; and therefore it is not to be denied that the present poor law (not from any defect inherent in the system, but merely from faulty management) does occasionally act as a tax on industry and a premium on idleness. (p. 275.)
On the other hand, Mr. Browne thus replies to the questions as to the effects of the poor laws on the, 1. industry, 2. frugality, 3. period of marriage, and 4. social affections of the labouring classes, and on the comparative condition of the pauper and the independent labourer. (pp. 266, 267.)
1. On the industry of the labourers?—On their industry, most injurious, involving the levelling principle to a very great degree, lowering the middleman to the poor man, and the poor man who labours to the pauper supported by the parish. It tends to harden the heart of the poor man, who demands with all that authority with which the legal right to provision invests him. There is no thankfulness for what is gotten, and what is given is afforded with dislike and reluctance.
2. On their frugality?—The poor laws greatly weaken the frugal principle.
3. On the age at which they marry?—Encourage early and thoughtless marriages. The children are brought up with the example of indolence and inactivity before their eyes, which must be most prejudicial in after-life. I have often remarked amongst the people, who are naturally soft, susceptible and sympathizing, an extraordinary insensibility towards those who voluntarily relieve them, even at the moment of relief, and no gratitude whatever afterwards. I can attribute this most undesirable state of feeling, so contrary to what might be expected from the natural character of the people, solely to the perpetual association of right to relief. Thus does the system always disturb and often destroy the moral and kindly relation which should subsist and which is natural, between the higher and lower orders. The poor man becomes stiff and sturdy; the rich man indifferent to the wants and sufferings of the poor one. He feels him a continual pressure, at moments inconvenient to relieve, and under circumstances where he would often withhold if he could, partly from dislike to the compulsory principle, and often not regarding the case as one of real charity, and disapproving, as he naturally may, of the whole system of poor laws’ administration. From all I have observed, I feel persuaded (and I have lived a good deal in the country, having had much connexion with the lower orders, and not having been indifferent to their condition either moral or physical) that a more mischievous system could not have been devised—that poverty has been greatly increased by weakening the springs of individual effort, and destroying independence of character—that the lower orders have become tricky, sturdy and unobliging, the higher orders cold and uncharitable; and in short, that ere long, unless some strenuous steps are taken, Denmark will drink deep of the bitter cup of which England, by a similar system, has been so long drinking to her grievous cost. Were there no other objection, the machinery is wanting to conduct so delicate and complicated a system. And were it the best possible, and had the managers no other occupation but the one, the ingenuity of idleness to escape from action is so great, that it would often, very often, defeat eyes less actively open to detect it. I have spoken with few who do not object to the system from first to last, or who do not press an opinion that the state of the population before the existence of the poor laws was more desirable by far than at present.
4. On the mutual dependence and affection of parent, children, and other relatives?—No doubt it materially disturbs the natural dependence and affection of parent and child. The latter feels his parent comparatively needless to him; he obtains support elsewhere; and the former feels the obligation to support the latter greatly diminished. In short, being comparatively independent of each other, the affections must inevitably become blunted.
5. What, on the whole, is the condition of the able-bodied and self-supporting labourer of the lowest class, as compared with the condition of the person subsisting on alms or public charity; is the condition of the latter, as to food and freedom from labour, more or less eligible?—Were I a Danish labourer, I would endeavour to live partly on my own labour, and partly on the parish, and I feel persuaded that a labourer so living in Denmark will be better off than one who gets no help from the parish; that is, the former, from a knowledge that he may fall back on the parish, will spend all he earns at the time on coffee, spirits, tobacco, snuff, &c., whereas the latter, who certainly can live on his industry (except under extraordinary and occasional emergencies, sickness, &c.) is debarred from such gratifications. Under such circumstances, the poorer labourer is better off than the poor one.