And as a general rule, a pauper who requests admission without any authority from his commune, may be received; but in that case his commune is to be immediately informed of what has occurred. If it offers to support him at home, he is to be sent back to it: if it refuses, he is to remain in the depôt at the expense of the commune: and the communes are to be informed that it depends on themselves to diminish the expense of supporting their poor in the depôts, by the judicious distribution of out-door relief, by the organization of committees for the purpose of watching over the indigent, and inquiring into the causes of their distress; by the erection of asylums for lunatics, the deaf and dumb, the blind and the incurable; and by the establishment of houses of employment (d’ateliers libres de travail) in winter, and infant schools. For all which purposes they are recommended to assess themselves. M. Lebeau says in his report, “Enfin chez, nous nul ne peut exiger de secours en vertu d’un droit.”[14] (p. 594.) But it must be admitted that these provisions, if not constituting a right in the pauper to relief, give at least a right to the managers of the depôts to force the parishes to relieve, either at home or in the depôt, any pauper who presents himself: and M. Lebeau himself felt the danger to which the parishes are exposed. In his circular of the 13th September, 1833, addressed to the provinces in which depôts are established, he urges the importance of adopting regulations respecting the reception and dismission of the poor voluntarily presenting themselves, which may preserve parishes from “the indefinite burden which would follow the too easy admission of applicants.” “These establishments,” he adds, “must not be considered by the poor as places of gratuitous entertainment, (des hôtelleries gratuites.) One of the best methods of preventing this will be the strict execution of the law which prescribes work to all those who are not physically incapable of it; and for those who are incapable, the ordinary hospices and hospitals are the proper receptacles. It is true that in some depôts work has been discontinued, because the results did not repay the expenditure; but this consideration ought not to prevail over the moral advantages which follow its exaction. Labour is the essential condition which must be imposed on the pauper; and if it require the sacrifice of some expenditure, that sacrifice must be made.”
In a subsequent circular, dated the 4th July, 1834, and addressed to the governors of the different provinces, M. Lebeau states, that one of the causes assigned for the prevalence of mendicity, is the facility with which persons obtain release from the depôts. “I invite you, M. le Gouverneur,” says the Minister, “when a pauper requests his release, to consider his previous history, to ascertain whether he has the means of subsistence, or the local authorities have engaged to provide for him; and to treat with great suspicion the solicitations of parishes, as they are always interested in obtaining the release of the paupers for whose maintenance they pay.”
With respect to the general working of these institutions we have not much information. It appears from the report of M. Lebeau that there are in Belgium six depôts de mendicité; one at Hoogstraeten for the province of Antwerp, at Cambre for Brabant, at Bruges for the two Flanders, at Mons for Hainault, at Namur for Namur and Luxembourg, and at Reckheim for Limbourg and Liege; that the hospices for the old and impotent, and the hospitals for the sick, are very numerous, and that nearly every commune possesses its bureau de bienfaisance for the distribution of out-door relief. In 1832 the annual income of the different bureaux de bienfaisance was estimated at 5,308,114 francs (equal to about 212,325l. sterling), and that of the hospices at 4,145,876 francs (equal to about 165,835l. sterling), altogether about 378,160l. But the report contains no data from which the whole expenditure in public relief, or the whole number of persons relieved, or the general progress or diminution of pauperism, can be collected.
An important paper, however, is contained in the supplement to M. Lebeau’s report, stating the number of foundlings, deserted children and orphans, in the nine provinces constituting the kingdom of Belgium, in the years 1832 and 1833; of which we subjoin a copy, having added to it the population of the different provinces, as given in the official statement of 1830.
YEAR 1832.
| Population. | PROVINCES. | Average number of | TOTAL NUMBER. | TOTAL EXPENSES. | Subdivision of those Expenses among | OBSERVATIONS. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foundlings. | Deserted Children and Orphans. | The Hospitals, Charitable Institutions or Foundations. | Towns or Communes. | Provinces. | |||||
| 354,974 | Anvers | 886 | 566 | 1,452 | 71,300 | .. | 31,300 | 40,000 | a |
| 556,146 | Brabant | 2,244 | 286 | 2,530 | 197,550 | .. | 147,050 | 50,500 | b |
| 601,678 | Flandre Occidentale | 35 | 461 | 496 | 34,123 | 15,600 | 18,523 | .. | c |
| 733,938 | Flandre Orientale | 688 | 219 | 907 | 64,479 | .. | .. | 64,479 | d |
| 604,957 | Hainault | 1,870 | 333 | 2,203 | 172,792 | .. | 25,072 | 147,720 | e |
| 369,937 | Liége | 41 | 153 | 194 | 15,550 | 9,665 | 4,694 | 1,191 | } f |
| 337,703 | Limbourg | 11 | 123 | 134 | 12,056 | 10,658 | 1,398 | .. | |
| 292,151 | Luxembourg | 13 | 12 | 25 | 1,841 | 232 | 1,609 | .. | |
| 212,725 | Namur | 653 | 9 | 662 | 44,533 | .. | 25,533 | 19,000 | g |
| 4,064,209 | TOTAL | 6,441 | 2,162 | 8,603 | 614,224 | 36,155 | 255,179 | 322,890 | |
(a) There is a tour at Antwerp, and also at Mechlin.
(b) A tour in Brussels and one in Louvain.
(c) No tour.
(d) A tour at Ghent.