|
From the narrow and
partial character ofthe Commission appointed to inquire into the
administration and operation of the Poor LawB in Scotland, little could
have been expected from its investigations; and very little, we regret
to say, on which an effectual legislative measure can be based, has been
attained. The Commission consisted of highly respectable individuals;
yet, what could be expected from the labours of two Scottish peers, two
Scottish landed proprietors, and two Scottish clergymen—with the single
counterpoise of one English barrister—except what has resulted; namely,
that the whole of the' Scottish Commissioners should concur in
recommending the existing system, with a few modifications,—some of them
unquestionably improvements, and others of doubtful character,—and that
the solitary Englishman should dissent. Such is actually the case. Lords
Melville and Belhaven, Mr. Home Drummond, and Mr. Campbell of Craigie,
the Rev. Mr. Patrick MacFarlan of the West Kirk of Greenock, and the
Rev. Mr. James Robertson minister of Ellon, concur in judgment; and
Edward Twisleton, Esq., alone dissents. The principle of his dissent
will, we believe, be adhered to by the great majority of the people of
Scotland, not being ministers, members of kirk-sessions, or landowners.
It might save time to transfer the reasons of dissent verbatim to our
pages; but, in order to understand the grounds of it, the
recommendations embodied in the Report may first be briefly noticed.
We cannot regret the appointment of the Commission; for though neither
Sir Robert Peel’s, nor any other government, b likely to legislate upon
its Report, the evidence collected must reinforce the arguments that
have previously been found in other reports and statements, for the
necessity of a thorough revisal and sweeping alteration in the Poor Laws
of Scotland.
After taking a general view of the existing law, and its varied
operation over the kingdom, and pointing out some minor defects in its
administration, (while none are admitted in its principle,) it is
acknowledged that the relief afforded is, in many cases, inadequate; yet
no provision b-made for making an adequate amount of relief imperative.
Nay, it b gravely proposed, that the only protection which the poor at
present enjoy against the administrative bodies—the right of appeal to
the Court of Session—should be abolished. The expense, trouble, and
delay attending such appeals are, no doubt, injurious to the paupers,
whether as regards their right to relief, or the amount of relief
requisite; but it is not on this ground that the Report proposes to
abolish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but because “It is not
desirable that there should be any appeal from the decision of the
parochial managers as to the amount of allowance” We find the evidence
of. Mr. Dunlop adduced in support of this innovation of the existing
law, or for the abolition of this single, however inadequate, defence of
paupers against the oppression or parsimony of heritors and kirk-sessions.
"Yet, what does Mr. Dunlop’s evidence amount to?—to just nothing. He
says, that, if heritors and kirk-sessions evade their duty, they should
be controlled; but, that if they fairly and honestly exercise their
discretion, I am not sure that any other body is more likely to judge
properly.” Certainly not; but if here, as elsewhere, is a particle of
mighty force. The Court of Session may not be the best court of appeal;
something better, or more easily worked, and summary in operation, might
be devised ; but it b surely infinitely better than none. In the
newspapers, the other day, we saw Mr. Dunlop boasting, and justly, of
having, by law, compelled the Kirk-session of Fodderty to grant an
infirm aged pauper 4s. 6d. a-week instead of the miserable pittance it
allowed him. Would he then be for abolishing the privilege of appeal,
and for trusting wholly to heritors and kirk-sessions in all cases
“fairly and honestly exercising their discretion?” On this point the
Commissioners theorize as extravagantly as do those who would abolish
Poor Laws altogether; for of what use are laws for the relief of the
impotent poor without the means of enforcing them? With the solitary
exception of Mr. Twisleton, the Commissioners gravely state, that, “In
our opinion the desired result will be best obtained, not so much by
authoritative interference with managers, as by the influence of reason
and good feeling, aided by public opinion, in gradually leading them to
a right exercise of the powers [powers of sparing their own pockets!]
with which they are invested. We have stated, and we believe it will, on
all hands, be admitted, that in many parishes the poor are adequately
provided for. They have been brought to their presentsatisfactory
condition without the aid of compulsory measures applied by courts of
appeal. There has been no external interference with the management in
those parishes, except in a few instances, by the Judge Ordinary
ordering the managers to meet and consider and dispose of the claims of
paupers. We can see no reason why the same law should not produce the
same effects in other places.” —i—There is not in the Report a more
palpable fallacy than this. The Commissioners are compelled to admit,
that the relief given is, in general, inadequate ; but they forget that
the Border parishes, found in a better condition, owe that superiority
neither to the influence of “reason nor good feeling,” nor “public
opinion,” but to their proximity to England, and to the adoption of
compulsory assessments. At what far distant periods do the Commissioners
expect to see the heritors and kirk-sessions of the whole of the
northern provinces, from the mere influence of “reason and good
feeling," voluntarily granting the same rate of allowance to the
impotent paupers of their parishes, which are at present given in the
assessed parishes of Roxburghshire and Berwickshire?
The gentlemen whose evidence is adduced, as to the proper quantum of
allowanoe to be given, may be taken as pretty fairly representing the
opinions likely to be held by the most liberal bodies of heritors and
kirk-seseions; and we find that their ideas of what is adequate relief,
vary as six to one, or from one shilling to six shillings. Would no
appeal be required where such remarkable discrepancy of opinion might be
expected to arise? Dr. Handyside, who is described as Secretary to an
Association for obtaining a Government Inquiry into the administration
of the Scottish Poor Laws, considers 3s. 6d. a-week sufficient relief
for a man with a wife and four children, “at the working period of
life,” and Is. a-week sufficient for a single man. In proof of this, he
mentions a man whom he knows, who does very well with a shilling
—sixpence of it going for “a pretty comfortable lodging,” and the other
sixpence for “nourishment,” “very coarse, but sufficient.” Now, we
really think that some appeal might be required against a body of
heritors and a kirk-session regulating their allowances on this
gentlemans frugal scale; and yet he must be a fair example of prevalent
opinions as to the wants and capacities of pauper stomachs, and, as a
medical man, be held a well-qualified judge. Mr. Suter of Inver-asm
considers Is. fid. a-week the just sum, or “a fair allowance;” which is
certainly a vast improvement upon Dr. Handyside’s rate. The ideas of
other witnesses may represent those of a somewhat more rational kirk-session.
Dr. Forbes of Inverness says 3s. 6d. a-week; Mr. Macaulay, 5s. a-week;
and the Rev. Mr. Willis of Glasgow, “nearly 1s. a-day,” for “a helpless,
destitute, and infirm old man.” Mr. Sheriff Alison considers 5s. 6d.
a-week the very least that should be granted to a man with a wife and
two children who cannot get work in the factories. Now, the opinions and
estimates of the local managers of the poor will be quite as likely to
vary as those of the intelligent witnesses whose evidence is here cited;
but the price of food—of meal, bread, and potatoes—never varies in
different localities in any corresponding degree; and who, then, is to
judge between the extremes of the scale? Between the Is. of Dr.
Handyside and the 6s. of the Rev. Mr. Willis where lies the just medium?
Their own witnesses condemn the recommendation of the Commissioners, and
demonstrate that some court of appeal, whether the Court of Session or
not, is absolutely necessary, both for regulating the amount of
allowance, and the rights of claimants to relief. What is urged against
compulsory assessments in the Report is equally fallacious with the
total abolition of appeal. The same line of argument is employed in both
cases; namely, that the present system works so well, that there is no
need for trying another,—the voluntary method being that approved by the
“intelligence of the country.” The country is, however, acting in the
face of its own intelligence, as, besides in many rural parishes, in
every considerable town compulsory assessments are now being resorted
to.
Resisting assessments, abolishing the right of appeal, and leaving the
administrative power where it at present exists, namely, in heritors and
kirk-sessions, the Commissioners suggest one check, or seeming check, on
abuses and mal-administration, which we must now examine. It is, indeed,
the only novel great feature of their scheme of reform. This is the
establishment of what is called a Board of Supervision, in Edinburgh.
This Board is to consist of unpaid functionaries whose duties are, to
receive half-yearly Reports from the different parishes on the state of
paupers with classified lists, giving the requisite information about
the numbers and condition of the poor, the amount of relief granted, or
reasons for relief being refused, and such like. From these Reports, the
Board is to draw up and transmit an annual Report to the Home Secretary,
on the general management and condition of the poor throughout the
kingdom. The said Board is to possess no authority whatever to enforce
its commands on the several parishes, so far as we see, save to the
extent of exacting a parochial report,—to have no power “ of interfering
with the management of the parochial Boards, except by representation
and advice.” Conceive such a body of unpaid functionaries—everybody’s
business being nobody’s business—without power or authority, and,
probably, from its very constitution, without the desire of interfering
with the penurious or oppressive administration of heritors and kirk-sessions;
certainly haying much more sympathy with the administrators than with
the class whose interests they are presumed to superintend and protect!
In the administrative body no change is considered necessary. The
heritors and kirk-session are, as of yore, held quite sufficient; though
the compulsory rate-pay-ers, where such exist, may be entitled to a
vote, and feuars to appear by their representatives—not in a body, lest
their numbers should swamp the heritors. None are to be considered
heritors who have not a valued rent of £5 Scots and upwards. In town and
burgh parishes, the magistrates, as generally at present, are to be
considered “heritors," and are as such to act with the ministers and
kirk-sessions. In special circumstances a union of parishes is
recommended; and also the erection of workhouses for the infirm, the
aged, and orphans, in places with above five or six thousand of a
population, by what we consider the most conclusive reasoning in the
whole Report. One good new feature is the recommendation of medical
relief on a liberal scale. This is, indeed, regarded as a measure of
economy; but, like every thing else, it is a mere recommendation, and is
to be left to the discretion of the Parochial Boards — is., of the
heritors and kirk-sessions. The Duke of Richmond, whose opinions appear
to have had great weight with the Commission, instead of granting
medical relief to the poor, approves of medical dubs instituted by
themselves. His Grace is perfectly right. Not only are medical dubs, but
feeding clubs, and dothing-and-lodging clubs, most desirable, if the
poor, for their own benefit, could afford to establish such. It was not
to be expected that a body so cautious and circumspect as the
Commission, should venture to give any decided opinion, where medical
authorities are discordant, as to the causes of the fatal fevers and
epidemics that, for so many years, have desolated Edinburgh and Glasgow,
and other Scottish towns, annually decimating the working classes, and
often exceeding that fearful rate of mortality. But the evidence of
different eminent physicians is given; and, when examined, will be found
less at variance than at first sight appears: the main dispute being,
what are primary and what secondary causes, and not about the character
of the constant concomitants, and the results of these periodical
calamities.
The Report contains some useful recommendations regarding the care of
pauper lunatics, and the abuses which exist in granting what are called
posies or licenses to a pauper, to beg or claim relief while on his
route to his parish of settlement. These pastes are often made the
pretext for vagrancy and imposture, and in some localities are an
enormous abuse. They are, on the other hand, sometimes made the
instruments of oppression and crudly to the wandering poor. Instead of
sending either the respectable pauper, or the vagrant mendicant and
impostor, to roam from parish to parish, in virtue of the pass, it is
recommended that destitute paupers be relieved where they first apply,
and kept rill their place of settlement be ascertained; recourse to be
had on 4t for repayment of the expense of maintaining and transmitting.
The recommendation is good; but we fear that, without some very
stringent enactment, the plan would be quite inoperative in many parts
of the kingdom. At present, the Highland parishes pay no attention
whatever to such demands when made by Southern parishes. Those who give
about a shilling or two a-year to their poor when at home, cannot be
expected to transmit for their maintenance elsewhere.
A considerable change in the law of settlement is recommended, but which
is in fact a return to the old law of Scotland. It is recommended that a
settlement shall not be acquired, even by a native of Scotland, in less
than seven years of industrial residence; and in the case of the English
and Irish, it is recommended that the law be assimilated to the law of
England, which allows no right of settlement to Scottish, Irish, or
alien paupers, on any terms. The sight is not seldom seen—and a painful
one it is—of a Scotsman or Irishman, after spending twenty or thirty
yean of an industrious life in England, being shipped or marched back,
in old age and destitution, to the country and parish where he is
forgotten. We should hesitate about the adoption of so harsh a law; but
it is recommended by the Commissioners on the grounds of justiceor
perhaps reciprocity in injustice may be as apt a phrase.
In another point of suggestion, the Commissioners depart widely from the
example of the English Poor-law. They recommend that the fathers of
bastards be prosecuted criminally, and by summary process, if their
offspring shall become chargeable to the parish; and that married men,
who desert their wives and children, be subjected to similar penalties.
It is recommended, that in every parish where there is an assessment,
the collection made at the church-doors be left to be distributed by the
minister and kirk-session at their discretion, in small aids or
gratuities, to the modest poor; nor does it seem to be imagined that
such discretionary power may foster favouritism, whether sectarian or
secular. Dr. Gordon states in evidence, that the bestowal of pecuniary
assistance dean the way for insinuating a little sound spiritual advice,
or increases the clergyman’s "moral influence;’9 certainly a desirable
object.
One point most strenuously laboured in the Report, is the
assertion—reflecting as it does upon the whole of the landed proprietor
of Scotland— that by heriton and kirk-sessions starving out paupers, a
share of the burden which ought to fall upon the agricultural parishes,
now unassessed, is thrown upon the towns which are assessed. This is
flatly denied, and the denial is supported by reference to several city
parishes; while it is contended that the condition of the poor in the
rural parishes is in reality better than that of the city poor. This is
so directly in the face of former allegations, and experiences, and the
returns given in by the officers of the City Workhouses and Houses of
Refuge,—which show a great proportion of the destitute to be from the
agricultural districts, and especially from the Highlands,-^that there
must be some mistake. The rate of wages and that of the allowance
granted to paupers ought surely to settle this question; and in
contradiction to the opinions of three clergymen which are cited, we
would refer to the Reports on the State of the Poor from the different
Scottish parishes lately given in to the General Assembly, and to those
in the New Statistical Account. Besides, it is forgotten that the aged
and destitute poor, either from want of cottages, or with the hope of
obtaining employment, resort to the towns, and thus leave both the
parish funds and the alms of the charitable to the few that remain. In
what condition would the rural parishes be found, if no outlet for their
destitution existed ? The Commissioners state that the complaint is
universal in the towns, whether assessed or unassessed, of the influx of
destitute and impotent persons from the country; and in spite of what we
must roundly term the special pleading for the Scottish heritors, found
in the Report, we must believe the complaint not without cause.
The Report enters fully into the question of the right of able-bodied
paupers to relief. On the head, as on many others, every member of the
Commission b at issue with Mr. Twisleton. It is certainly the most
difficult point of all, in legislating for the poor, and one upon which
we own it b not easy to come to any satisfactory decision. The Poor-law
of Scotland recognises no right to relief in the able-bodied pauper; but
the practice of the country softens the severity of the law, and very
extensive aid is given, as was seen during the late period of
manufacturing distress. Yet the relief has been wholly voluntary, and
the Commissioners would make no change in the respect. No assessment to
be authorized for the relief of the able-bodied poor, whether temporary
or permanent; and their claim to relief is not recognised, even through
the stringent medium of workhouses. Nor are we surprised that the last
system of relief should, from what is seen of its working elsewhere,
find few admirers in Scotland. But the Report, we are sorry to find,
recommends nothing at once satisfactory and definite in its stead. The
distress of the able-bodied b left to be relieved by any casual means as
it may arise; except that it suggested that a fund shall be formed from
the collections at the church doors, applicable by the minister and kirk-session
to the relief of the able-bodied paupers of the parish, when such
distress occurs. Although the arrangement did not invest the kirk-sessions
with undue powers, it b otherwise objectionable; as it will be found in
most cities, that, in the parishes in which the paupers reside, little
or no money is raised at the church doors; while, in the wealthy
parishes, where large collections are raised, there are few or no
parishioners likely to become even occasional paupers. On thb head, and
on the condition of the labouring poor of the large towns, there b a
good deal of sensible remark; but nothing, we fear, to influence
legislators, except the warning to do nothing; not to interfere, save in
a few minor points, with the present law. For that law, indeed, there b
throughout the most reverend respect; and whoever may Jt>c found
dissatisfied with the Report, it assuredly cannot be the best body of
the landowners and clergy of Scotland. We cheerfully admit, that, within
the limits of that law, it suggests several improvements, of which,
however, the most important of all, the increase of pauper allowances,
is left to “reason,* *a discretion,” and “the force of public opinion.”
To the same vacillating or inoperative motives— where bodies of men are
concerned—are to be left the medical relief of the poor, and other
improvements suggested; so that we cannot see much necessity for
legislating on the subject, save for the return to the old law of seven
yean being required to obtain a settlement. All else b discretionary.
The Board of Supervision suggested, endowed with power to intermeddle,
but with none to control, would, from the first, be found irritating, if
active; though, from its constitution, it would, we fear, be more likely
to become, after the first year or two, slumberous and useless; like all
other great unpaid central boards, leaving its routine business to its
officer..
We cannot entertain the thought that any government will attempt to
legislate on so important a subject as Poor Laws for Scotland on the
narrow bash laid down in the Report; so that our few remarks may be
altogether misapplied, and our space misspent. But the public of
Scotland look with anxiety for the Report of a Commission that has been
a great deal talked about, and long to know what b to be expected from
its labours. When, to what we have said above, are added some of Mr.
Twiale-ton’8 reasons of dissent, the inefficient nature of the remedies
proposed will be perfectly intelligible. Mr. Twisleton dissents, First,
“Because the proposed alterations in the Scotch Poor Laws are, he fears,
insufficient to remedy the defects which are admitted to exist in their
administration." His second reason is, that, while it b admitted that
the provision at present made for the relief of the aged or infirm poor
is, in many parishes of Scotland, inadequate, the main reliance for the
supply of this deficiency seems to be placed on the proposed Board of
Supervision, which b to have no administrative control or direct
authority. "But," says Mr. Tibleton, “It appears to me that the striking
inadequacy of the allowances at present made to the aged and infirm poor
in a large proportion of the unassessed rural parishes of Scotland,
arises, not so much from ignorance of facts, as from want of funds;
which, again, is owing in no email degree to theories respecting the
effect of any provision for the poor, even when it b restricted to the
aged and the infirm. And any statements, made annually in Reports,
tending to show that this class of poor are in a destitute condition,
will be met with the usual answer, That the only cure for such evils is,
the moral and religious education of the young," &c., &c &c. We need not
follow out the hackneyed argument of certain amiable visionaries, of
which Scottish selfishness b but too ready to avail itself; and which
enough practical good sense laughs to scorn. Mr. Twisleton’s third
reason of dissent is, that parish assessments are not universal, because
not made compulsory; and lie regards "the mischiefs that hare been
attributed to assessments for the destitute, aged, and infirm, as
remarkably exaggerated, if not altogether visionary.” The just and
equitable principle of compulsory assessment as reaching non-resident
heritors, and those who contribute little or nothing to church
collections, it is impossible to set aside. Evidence of its imperative
necessity is found in the present and past condition of almost every
unassessed parish in Scotland, and the immense majority are still
unassessed; and if the matter be left wholly to the heritors, will
remain so.
Mr. Twisleton farther dissents, because it is not made compulsory oil
managers to provide medical attendance for paupers; nor, in large towns,
Houses of Refuge and Poor-houses; and because even where such erections
are recommended, the matter is, like medical relief, left entirely to
the discretion of the local managers. While he would leave many details
of arrangement to the local managers, he considers it necessary that the
principles of dealing with a subject so difficult, should be settled by
Parliament. He considers the Scotch law defective and anomalous in
levying the rate ; which defects the Report does not propose to alter.
This seems a just objection, but might be no insuperable obstacle; and
the main proposition, in which probably many of the people of Scotland
will dissent from the dissent, will be found in the provisions which Mr.
Twisleton deems necessary respecting the able-bodied poor. Yet Mr.
Twisleton s plan is an improvement on the Poor-law of England. He says,
“It seems to me desirable that in all towns which have a poor-house with
Wards for able-bodied men, [the Report recognises no such Ward,] the
managers of the poor should have a discretionary power, with the consent
of the Board of Supervision, to assess the inhabitants for the purpose
of setting to work destitute unemployed persons, without requiring them
to enter such poor-house.” This seems a liberal and wise provision, if
the right of the able-bodied to relief is recognised at all. To some
extent it must be admitted; and the limitations and safeguards to be
set, seem the chief difficulty in legislating for the poor of Scotland;
unless parliament is more disposed to defer to ancient prejudices, class
interests, and the love of power, felt by existing administrative
bodies, than to the principles of justice and enlightened humanity. The
Commissioners have entirely overlooked one important consideration, when
asserting that compulsory assessments are not required, from the liberal
amount of the ordinary voluntary collections at the church doors. The
consideration we allude to, is the disruption which took place last year
in the Established Church, and which, though the new Seceders may not be
nearly so numerous as is alleged by themselves, must tend to diminish
the Church-door collections very materially both in town and country. If
the “Free Church,” following the theories of Dr. Chalmers, supported
each congregation its own poor, our argument would be demolished; but we
hear of no such intention, and therefore compulsory assessments become
the more necessary, in order that Dissenters and Churchmen, resident and
non-resident heritors, may all contribute to the support of the poor
upon the only equitable principle.
It seems a little curious that the Commission reinforces its Report with
a copious extract from the report of a late Committee of the General
Assembly of the Church on the Management of the Poor of Scotland. That
Report, of course, upholds entire the good old system of church
collections and voluntary alms, administered to the poor by the minister
and kirk-session; and finds the great remedy for all defects, in Church
Extension, and additional endowments to the clergy of the churches
lately erected. It is worthy of notice that this Report of the Committee
of the General Assembly does not propose to abolish the right of appeal
to the Court of Session by paupers, which the Report of the Government
Commission proposes to abolish, substituting no jurisdiction in its
stead. Is this, without lack of charity, to be explained by the fact,
that the power of the Court of Session over rural kirk-sessions appears,
till within the last twelvemonth, to have long lain dormant? Its recent
interference to compel the heritors and kirk-session of a parish in Fife
to double, or—if we remember aright—to quadruple the allowance granted
to a destitute widow with several children, has naturally aroused the
jealousy of those hitherto uncontrolled and irresponsible bodies, who
dole out the miserable pittances vouchsafed to the destitute, aged, and
infirm poor of Scotland in by far the great majority of the Scottish
parishes.
Any one who chooses to take the slight trouble, may, in our pages1
learn, from what will be reckoned the best authority—that of the
parochial administrators of the Poor Laws—what has been, and is, the
real condition of Scottish paupers; and may then judge whether the
recommendations contained in this Report are sufficient to redress the
inherent evils of the system.
The Report closes with observations which, coming from so respectable a
quarter, must have influence, especially with Highland proprietors, and
which we have much pleasure in quoting :—
"The Scottish nation has hitherto had the character of being
pre-eminently an educated people. We deeply regret to find that, instead
of an improvement havii.g taken place in this respect, there is rather a
deterioration. This fact is accounted for partly by the children being
employed in manufactures at a very early age, and partly by the
diminished scale of wages, owing to which, parents are less able than
formerly to pay the school fees. Whatever be the cause, the effects are
greatly to be deplored. The evidence which we have received has led us
to form a decided opinion that one of the principal causes of pauperism
in many parts of Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and large
towns, is to be found in the imperfect education of the children of a
large proportion of the working-classes. We attach to this matter the
highest importance ; but do not consider ourselves authorized to offer
any special recommendation as to the education of those who are not
actually paupers, from the doubt we entertain of the subject being
within the scope of the Commission.”
In conclusion, we emphatically repeat that no government can legislate
upon this most unsatisfactory Report. |
