Statement of the Provision for the Poor, and of the Condition of the Labouring Classes in a Considerable Portion of America and Europe / Being the preface to the foreign communications contained in the appendix to the Poor-Law Report

by Nassau William Senior

But the most interesting portion of the Belgian details is Count Arrivabene’s account of Gaesbeck, a small village about nine miles from Brussels, containing about 857 acres, inhabited by 364 persons, forming 60 families, or separate menages, constituted of 13 comparatively large farmers, occupying each from 30 to 150 acres, 18 small proprietors or small farmers, 21 day-labourers, and 8 artizans. The commune possesses a property producing an annual revenue of 556 francs, or nearly 23l. sterling, managed by its bureau de bienfaisance, of which the curé is the acting member. It expended in the year 1832, on the relief of the poor, (including the salary of the schoolmaster and clothing for the poor children who were to be confirmed,) 625 francs, or about 25l. 2s., being rather less than 1s. 4½d. per head. How the extra 2l. 2s. was obtained is not mentioned; but as the bureau is stated to have always nearly a year’s revenue in hand, it was probably taken from the receipts of a previous year. The heaviest item of expense is the support of one old man, at the annual expense of 72 francs, (rather less than 3l.) Ten other individuals, or heads of families, appear to have received nearly regular relief, amounting in general to about 6d. a week; and four others to have been assisted at times irregularly; the largest sum being 1l., given to L. Maonens, “pour malheur.” There has been only one illegitimate birth during the last five years. The average age of marriage is 27 for men, and 26 for women; the average number of births to a marriage, 3½. As these averages are taken for a period of 23 years, ending in 1832, during which the population has not increased, they may be relied on. Of the whole 60 families, only 11 are without land; all the others either possess some, or hire some from the proprietor. The quantity generally occupied by a day-labourer is a bonnier, or about 2½ acres, for which he pays a rent of from 60 to 80 francs. With this land the labourers keep in general a cow, a pig, and poultry. To be without land is considered the extreme of poverty. The number of labourers is precisely equal to the demand for their services. Daily wages are 6d., with some advantages equal to about 1d. more; and, as might be expected under a natural system, with no preference of the married to the unmarried. Labourers are generally hired by the year, and remain long in the same service. Crime is exceedingly rare: for the last 12 years no one has been committed to prison. Offences against the game laws are unknown. There are three houses of entertainment in the village, but they are not frequented by the labourers. “Are the labourers discontented; do they look on the farmers with envy?” asked the Count of his informant. “I do not believe,” was the answer, “that the labourers envy the farmers. I believe that the relation between the farmers and labourers is very friendly: that the labourers are perfectly contented in their situation, and feel regard and attachment for their employers.” (p. 14.)

What a contrast is exhibited by this picture of moral, contented, and (if the term is permissible) prosperous poverty, supported by the frugality and providence of the labourers themselves, and that of the population of a pauperized English village, better fed indeed, better paid, better clothed, and better lodged, and, above all, receiving 10, or perhaps 20 times the amount of parochial alms, but depraved by profligacy, soured by discontent, their numbers swelled by head-money and preference of the married to double the demand for their labour, their frugality and providence punished by the refusal of employment, and their industry ruined by the scale; looking with envy and dislike on their masters, and with hatred on the dispensers of relief!

And it is to be observed that the independence of the Belgian peasantry does not arise from any unwillingness to accept of relief. Out of the 60 families forming the population of the village, 19 appear to have received it in 1832; and a fact is related by Count Arrivabene, which shows that indiscriminate alms are as much coveted there as with us. In 1830 (the year of the revolution) many persons applied for charity at the gate of the castle of Gaesbeck, the residence of Marquis Arconati, and something was given to each. The next year the applications were renewed: the sum given to each applicant was fixed at 1d., and a single day in the week was fixed for its distribution. On the first of these days there were 50 applicants; the second, 60. The sum given was reduced to ½d. to a man, and a farthing to a child; but towards the end of the season the weekly assemblage had risen to 300 and 400 persons; they came from 10 and 12 miles distance, and it became necessary to abolish the allowance, trifling as the amount appears.

Poor Colonies.

The last portion of the Belgian institutions requiring notice are the poor colonies. We have already stated, that in 1823 the Belgian Société de Bienfaisance was established on the model and for the purposes of that already existing in Holland. In the beginning of that year the society purchased 522 bonniers (rather less than 1,300 statute acres), at Wortel, for the establishment of two colonies, called free, and divided them into 125 farms, of 3½ bonniers (about 9 statute acres) each; 70 in the colony No. 1, and 55 in the colony No. 2. In 1823 they purchased 516 bonniers (about 1,280 acres), at Mexplus and Ryckevoorsel, for the establishment of a mendicity colony. The first estate cost 623l., the second 554l., or less than 10s. an acre, from which the quality of the land may be inferred.

Families placed in the free colonies were provided each with a house, barn, and stable, a couple of cows, sometimes sheep, furniture, clothes, and other stock, of the estimated value, including the land, of 1,600 florins (133l. 6s. 8d. sterling), which was charged against them as a debt to the society. They were bound to work at wages fixed by the society, to wear the uniform, and conform to the rules of the colony, and not to quit its precincts without leave. A portion of their wages was retained to repay the original advance made by the society; a further portion to pay for the necessaries furnished to them from time to time, and the food for their cattle; and a portion paid to them in a base money of the colony, to be expended in shops established by the society within its limits.

At first each family of colonists worked on its own farm, and managed its own cattle, but it was found that the land was uncultivated, and the cattle died for want of attention or food; and in 1828 the society took back the cattle, and employed all the colonists indiscriminately in the general cultivation of the land of the colony. “From this time,” says M. Ducpétiaux (p. 624), “the situation of the colonist who is called free, but is in fact bound to the society by restrictions which take from him almost the whole of his liberty for the present, and deprive him of all hope of future enfranchisement, has resembled that of the serfs of the middle ages or of Russia. It is worse than that of the Irish cottiers, who, if they are fed like him on potatoes and coarse bread, have at least freedom of action and the power of changing their residence.”

Those colonists who had obtained a gold or silver medal, as a testimony that they could support themselves out of the produce of their own farms, were excepted from this arrangement, and allowed to retain the management of their farms, paying a rent to the society; but at the date of M. Ducpétiaux’s communication (10th December, 1832), the greater part even of them had been forced to renounce this advantage, and to fall back into the situation of ordinary colonists. Four families were all that then remained in this state of comparative emancipation.

The inhabitants of the mendicity colony were from the first subjected to the regulations ultimately imposed on the free colonists, with the additional restriction of being required to live in common on rations afforded by the society; the only respect in which, according to M. Ducpétiaux, they now differ from the free colonists.

Count Arrivabene visited these colonies in 1829, and then predicted their failure. The three years which elapsed between his visit and the report of M. Ducpétiaux were sufficient to prove the accuracy of this prophecy.