10 



service, but in many cases had rescued a 

 certain section of the community from bank- 

 ruptcy and destruction. There had been 

 two great epochs in what was known as poor 

 law work, the first commenced with an Act 

 in 1601 known as 43 Elizabeth. That Act 

 Gubstituted a sort of leg-al compulsion for 

 the maintenance and care of the poor, to 

 take the place of the voluntary efforts of 

 the clergy and churchwardens. That Act 

 was terribly loosely drawn, with the result 

 that every parish interpreted the meaning 

 of its provisions according to its own ideas, 

 and chose just whatever means it thought 

 fit to administer it. This went on until 

 they came to another step. It was found 

 that the poor used very naturally to con- 

 gregate in the choicest spots — in the words 

 of the Act of Cliarles II., " they gravitated 

 to the parish which possessed the best com- 

 mon or the most stock, and did desolate 

 the country." It was then enacted that 

 every person should have a settlement, and 

 anyone going from one parish to another 

 who became destitute should be removed by 

 the chu'rchwardens within 40 days of the 

 liability for relief. In 1782 the Act known 

 as Gilbert's Act, was passed, and under this 

 legislation unions were established, and the 

 cost of the poor was made a common charge 

 upon the union. Here again, most extra- 

 ordinary provision was made, it being en- 

 acted in section 32 that labour should be 

 found fofr any poor person who was willing 

 to work, but could not get employment. 

 It was not the responsibility of the poor 

 person to seek work ; he simply had to state 

 to the parish officer that he had no work, 

 was unable to obtain any, and the parish 

 was required to provide it for him. Coun- 

 cillor Stone went on to refer to the woeful 

 resulte of this legislation, and to mention 

 some of the illustrations contained in the 

 Blue Book issued in 1834. Among other 

 things it appeared th-at in many of the 

 rural districts the rates varied from 4s. 6d. 

 to 21s. in the £. Let them just imagine 

 that. To-day, with all the jirogrcssive im- 

 provements, the cost of which came out of 

 the rates, if one went into a town they were 

 apt to complain if the rates amounted to 

 10s. in the £. Tet in many parts of Kent 

 and Sussex — t'dimore for one — they were in 

 those days paying 21s. in the £ on the full 

 assessment. Such was the condition of 

 thiiiETs previous to the passing of the Act 

 of 1834. Before that was done a Royal 

 Commission was held which cost moi'e than 

 any commission held previous to that time. 

 It "eat for two years, and made most ex- 

 haustive enqTiiry into the condition, both of 

 the poor and of the parishes, and of the 

 people who came within its sphere of influ- 

 ence. There were sonic 15,000 parishes then, 

 but the Commissioners were onlv able to 

 examine people from 3,000, and the result 

 was the I'jissing of the Act to which he hnd 

 referred. Proceeding, Councillor Stone de- 



clared that the stern measures adopted in 

 connection with the poor law of former days 

 to which people werp apt to object was really 

 necessary for the chastening and purifying 

 of the whole atmosphere of the working 

 classes of that day. Independent labour had 

 been discouraged, and men simply looked to 

 the poor law authorities for subsistence. A 

 premium was put upon early marriages, and 

 life in the poor houses had been of a most 

 demoralising character. In dealing with 

 this question of the abolition of Boards of 

 Guardiaus, it was most necessary to con- 

 sider what the Boards had done to justify 

 their proposed extermination, and what was 

 the authority that was to succeed them. 

 The probability was that whatever authority 

 did succeed them, most of the members of 

 the present Boards of Guardians would be 

 acceptable as members of that authority. 

 There was, therefore, no personal feeling or 

 petty parochial spirit when they said that 

 they had done nothing to justify the con- 

 demnation of the Boards. They simply 

 said, if you judge us by our works by what 

 we have done or what we are doing, we shall 

 be able to hold our own with all the other 

 public authorities. He did not, however, 

 suggest for a moment that the present sys- 

 tem was not capable of further amendment, 

 and of further adaptation to the needs of 

 the times, so that its policy might be a 

 progressive one. 



As evidence of the good work of Guar- 

 dians under the present system, Councillor 

 Stone mentioned that in the first two years 

 after the last enactment there was a saving 

 of 1^ million })ounds sterling. That showed 

 that there was a great leakage, and a leak- 

 age which was sapping the lifeblood of the 

 people. In 1854, exclusive of casuals and 

 insane, paupers numbered 56.5 per thou- 

 sand; iu 1870 it was 44.1; in 1890 24.5, and 

 in 1908 22.1. In 1850 the aged and infirm 

 chargeable " to the parishes were 22.7 per 

 1,000; in 1908 there were only 12.7. In 1850 

 the able-bodied numbered 13.5 per thou-- 

 sand; in 1905, 3.5; in fact, all classes, with 

 the exception of the insane and the 

 vagrants, had shown a most satisfactory 

 diminution, and as regarded the increase of 

 vagrants. Guardians could not be held 

 altogether responsible. One of the princi- 

 pal reasons of that increase was the indis- 

 criminate cha'rity that went on outside. 

 People with large hearts and very small 

 heads were ajit to encourage a state of 

 things which ought to be suppressed. (Hear, 

 hear). Unfortunately, lunacy had increased 

 enormouslv, so much so that out of the vast 

 army of 900,000 persons chare^cable to the 

 poor law one out of every eight was either 

 in an asylum or signed up to be detained 

 in a workhouse as a iicrson of unsound 

 mind. The speaker claimed that the poor 

 law infirmaries of the pre-^cnt day were 

 among the finest hospitals to be found in 

 any part of the country, so that if they 



