THE POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL. 565 



of Elizabeth, which does not authorize the relief to any one, ex- 

 cept the impotent, upon other condition than labour ; which does 

 not allow of any partial relief of partial distress, but interferes only 

 in cases where persons have " no means" 



The judges have decided that it is " the duty of overseers to pro- 

 vide work, if possible, before they afford relief." Yet it appears by 

 the Poor Rate Returns for the year ending March 25, 1832, that 

 out of 7,036,968 expended for the relief of the poor, only 354,000, 

 or little better than one-twentieth part, was paid for work,lincluding 

 work on the roads and in the workhouses. 



How is this to be accounted for ? Simply enough : every body 

 knows that it is much less trouble to afford people relief gratuitously, 

 than by " setting them to work/' as good Queen Bess ordained it, and 

 providing them moreover with the necessary materials. The parish 

 authorities have been much too neglectful in this matter, and they 

 have now themselves to thank for all the mischiefs they have brought 

 upon themselves, their families, and neighbours. What are we to say 

 of the parish gog-magogs of East-Bourne, in Sussex, for instance, 

 when we read that in that place " in which the average wages earned 

 by individuals by hard work are twelve shillings a-week, the parish 

 pays for nominal labour as much as sixteen shillings a-week !" That 

 " Two families alone received from it in the year ending Lady-day, 

 1832, ,92 4s. ; and that the wives of the few independent labourers re- 

 gret that their husbands are not paupers !" What are we to say of the 

 system itself, when we read that in Great Farringdon, Berks, when it 

 was insisted upon the paupers that they should work during the same 

 time as independent labourers, " they resisted and appealed to the 

 magistrates against this usage ! The ground of their appeal was that 

 it was a thing unknown before that parish labourers should work as long 

 or as hard as the other classes of labourers !" 



Upon the matter of settlements we have but few words to say at 

 present. The Poor Law Commissioners seem to be greatly perplexed 

 at finding that " the 43rd Eliz, c. 2, contains no definition of settle- 

 ments ;" forgetting that under the wise and straightforward regula- 

 tions of that statute the question of settlement became of small im- 

 portance either to the pauper or the parish who relieved him. There 

 were no inducements to pauperism allowed by the statute 43rd 

 Eliz. c. 2, and consequently a settlement was not the little freehold 

 or patrimony it is described to be at present. Upon this subject, and 

 the points of bastardy, family allowances, &c., we must reserve our 

 opinions for another time. 



To return now to the general subject, and to conclude with some 

 consideration upon the remedial measures to be adopted. With the facts 

 we have abundantly detailed, before us, of the wretched system pur- 

 sued in the greater number of parishes thoughout the country, and 

 with the additional assurance that in parishes where a better system 

 has been attempted the most happy changes have immediately taken 

 place ; observing moreover that the farther the approximation to the 

 original system appointed by the 43rd of Elizabeth has been attained, 

 the benefits have proportionably increased ; one would think that the 

 course to be adopted was a very simple one, and that to " reform it al- 

 together" we should only require a repeal of all the foolish enactments 



