The

the burden on the rates became heavier than ever. sum spent on poor relief per head of population increased five or six fold between 1750 and 1832. In the latter year a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Poor Law, and make proposals for reform. After investigation the Commissioners made the following recommendations, which were immediately carried into effect by the Act of 1834 :

(a) The transfer of control to a Central Board, which was to have considerable powers over local guardians, who were to be directly elected by the ratepayers.

(b) The formation of Unions of parishes in order to provide a common workhouse for the district, the parishes to contribute to the upkeep in proportion to the number of its paupers.

(c) The re-introduction of the workhouse test for the able-bodied.

(d) The abolition of settlements except by birth, or by marriage in the case of women, or by parentage in the case of children.

The principle was definitely laid down that the relief granted shlould not be such as to make pauperism preferable to wage-earning, i.e., that the amount should not exceed the income of the poorest paid labourer.

In 1847 the Poor Law Board was constituted, and it supervised the administration of public relief until 1871, when its place was taken by the Local Government Board, which was formed largely in order to strengthen the powers over local authorities. This Board remained in existence until 1919, when the Ministry of Health was created in order to consolidate the functions of the Local Government Board together with those of several minor bodies.

The Act of 1834 is still the basis of Poor Law policy.

Though this Act undoubtedly improved the administration of poor relief at the time, subsequent developments have conspired to make the provisions either inoperative or extremely harsh. The machinery set up in 1834 is in many ways obsolete, and for the last twenty or thirty years there has been urgent call for reform. In 1905 the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress was appointed to inquire into the working of the whole system, to investigate the methods adopted supplementary to the Poor Law, and to report upon alterations thought desirable. The inquiry that followed was most thorough, lasting years. Evidence was taken orally and in writing from nearly fifteen hundred persons, and special investigators were appointed to study particular problems.

Reports of the Poor

Law

Commission

1909.

over three

The Commissioners stated that pauperism was as prevalent as it had been in 1871, and showed that it moved in cycles in a similar way to employment. The turning point of the pauperism cycle came a year or two later than that of the employment cycle, i.e. it took as a rule between one and two years for the unemployed to use up all their reserves and sell up their homes before they entered the ranks of the legally destitute. On the average nearly three-quarters of a million people were receiving relief throughout the period of forty years.

But while the number of paupers remained fairly constant, the amount spent on poor relief had more than doubled. In 1833-4 it had been a little over six millions; in 1905-6 it was over fourteen millions. (The population, however, had so increased that the cost per head fell from 8s. 1od. to 8s. 3d.)

The Commissioners were dissatisfied with the work of

the average Guardian, and with the apathy of the ratepayers in Poor Law elections. They condemned the wasteful overlapping and mismanagement, and also the lack of uniformity of practice as between the different Boards of Guardians.

The Commissioners were agreed that the institutional treatment of the poor was not satisfactory. About a third of the total number of paupers were treated in institutions, but there was no proper classification within the walls. The policy varied with different local authorities. The same institution might include the aged and the young, the mentally deficient and those of the criminal class. Some authorities kept children in "cottage homes" and similar institutions, while others grouped all classes indiscriminately in the workhouse. The main reason given for the lack of separate treatment was that the area was too limited; if the district from which the poor were drawn could be extended, it would be more possible to discriminate between, and provide accordingly for, the several classes.

With regard to outdoor relief (about two-thirds of the total), it was recognised that supervision was inadequate, while the existence of many private charities caused a certain amount of confusion. Further, the absence of uniformity in the standards of relief was emphasised. Some unions imposed stringent regulations while others were comparatively generous. One district would be highly rented and therefore highly rated; another district the reverse. One parish might have a very large proportion of the poorer classes and a large number of paupers to maintain, while another parish might have a relatively large proportion of the well-to-do yet only a small number of paupers to maintain. This discrepancy is very notable in London where the wealthy parishes in the West-End

have a lower burden per head than the poorer parishes in the East End.*

The Commissioners were unanimous on some points, but of widely divergent opinions on others. The unanimous recommendations, the proposals of the Majority and of the Minority, and the extent to which the several suggestions have been adopted, may be briefly outlined.

The unanimons recommendations were :

Unanimous

Recommendations.

(a) That the Boards of Guardians be abolished, and that the area of administration be enlarged from the Union to the County and County Borough. This proposal was included in the Ministry of Health Bill, 1920, which passed the Commons but was defeated in the Upper Chamber.

* The following table shows the unequal incidence of the burden in different parts of England and Wales. The actual figures relate to an abnormal period, but the proportions are very instructive.

Number in receipt of relief on June 30, 1923, in certain districts. Per 1,000 of population.

(b) That institutions be of the classified and not of the mixed type. This proposal was partly met by the Poor Law Institution Order, 1913, which provided for a certain amount of separation according to age, character and sickness.

(c) That the different charities endowed and voluntary be organised, in order to avoid friction and overlapping. In 1919 the National Council of Social Service was formed to deal with this and other defects, and over 40 provincial branches have been set up.* Proper co-ordination, however, is still lacking.

(d) That the administration of out-relief be improved; that relief should be given only after proper inquiry and supervision, but that it be adequate to meet the needs, and that voluntary agencies should be employed where personal care of individual cases is desirable.

(e) That children be removed from workhouses. This has been partly effected by the Poor Law Institutions Order, 1913, which laid down that children between the ages of three and sixteen, not under medical treatment, cannot be retained in adult institutions for a period exceeding six weeks.

(f) That Old Age Pensions be provided. sions were first granted by the Act of 1908.

These pen

(g) That Labour Exchanges be established. These were set up under the Act of 1909.

(h) That a scheme of State Insurance against sickness and unemployment be instituted. This too has been provided by the several Insurance Acts commencing in 1911.†

(2) That central control be strengthened and extended. As stated above, the Ministry of Health in 1919 replaced the Local Government Board, securing added powers.

* See Clarke, Social Administration, including the Poor Laws, pp. 170-172. † See Ch. XIII.