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.