practically all its recommendations known as the "Poor Law Amendment Act," was passed by an immense majority.

The report of the commission advocated no new principles of relief. Its famous formula, "that the condition of the pauper ought to be, on the whole, less eligible than that of the independent laborer," which it declared must be the fundamental principle in a system of legal relief, was new in language only. The spirit of this principle was embodied in the Poor Law of Elizabeth, to which the report constantly refers as "the foundation and text-book of the English Poor Law." Consequently, the Law of 1834 was concerned chiefly with the organization of the administration of relief rather than with the introduction of new principles of relief.

The main provisions of the new law may be summed up conveniently under three heads: (1) A central authority was created in a board of three Poor Law Commissioners, who had extensive powers over local authorities. Not only could this board issue orders and enforce regulations as to the giving of relief, but it exercised also minute supervision over local administration through inspectors who visited the workhouses and investigated complaints, and through auditors, who audited the accounts of all local officials every half year. (2) The board of commissioners was to divide the country into districts of convenient size, to take the place of the 15,000 parishes, as the administrative units of the relief system. Each district, or Poor Law union, as it was called, had an elective board of guardians who were the responsible local authorities in the administration of relief; and as executive organs each board had one or more salaried relieving officers. (3) The guardians of each union were required to provide and build at least one workhouse, and all relief to the able-bodied outside was declared illegal, though

this provision was only gradually enforced. Thus was re-established the "workhouse test," the corner-stone of every wise system of public relief.

This résumé of the main provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 shows that it was essentially a centralizing measure; that, aside from the illegalizing of outdoor relief for the able-bodied, it accomplished the reform of the relief system by providing a central authority which, through supervision, could secure uniformity and efficiency in local administration.

8. LEGISLATION SINCE 1834. The board of Poor Law commissioners, established by the Law of 1834, was limited in duration to five years. From the first a bitter fight was waged upon the unlimited powers and authority of this central board, and, indeed, by the laboring classes upon the whole reformed system of relief. But the board was continued by Parliament in practically its original form until 1847, when it was transformed into a ministerial department responsible to Parliament. The desirability of consolidating various branches of local government into one department led again, in 1871, to a further change, the establishment of the Local Government Board, which has general supervision of all such matters as public sanitation, public works, and poor relief, and which has become now one of the most important departments of the Government.

The powers and functions of the central board have remained the same, save for gradual enlargement. Among these powers is that of issuing orders for the carrying out of the intentions of legislation. These orders have the force of law, and, hence, are hardly less worthy of note than acts of Parliament. Among the more important of them have been, the "Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order" of 1844, which forbade

relief to the able-bodied outside of the workhouse, save in exceptional cases; the "General Consolidated Order" of 1847, giving exhaustive directions as to the administration of relief, the management of workhouses, the meetings of guardians, and the duties of officers; and the "Outdoor Relief Regulation Order," regulating the giving of outdoor relief in cases where permitted, especially in large cities.

Through the influence of Sir Robert Peel, in 1846, the law of settlement was further modified by what is known as the "Irremovable Poor Act." This act forbade removal in case of indigency, if the person in question had dwelt five years in the parish. Later acts reduced the period to one year of residence within the union and so increased the number of cases of "irremovability" that relief in the place of sojourn is now the rule.

In the law of 1834 each parish was to pay for the relief of its own poor, while the common expenses of the union were to be borne by the parishes in proportion to the cost of their own paupers. It soon became manifest, however, that this was a clumsy arrangement and unjust to the poorer parishes of a union. After several half-way measures the "Union Chargeability Act" was finally passed in 1865, making the Poor Law union instead of the parish the bearer of the poor rate.

For the performance of certain functions of relief, as, e. g., the care of children, the Poor Law union had been found to be too small. Accordingly in 1879 power was given the central authorities to unite two or more unions for any purpose connected with poor relief. Thus many unions have been formed into districts for the erection of the so-called "District Schools" where large numbers of pauper children are educated together. The tendency is to transfer the costlier branches of public relief to these large administrative districts; and when this is not

done, subsidies from general public funds, as in the care of the indigent insane, are given local authorities for the more expensive forms of relief.

It is impossible in this brief sketch to notice the many philanthropic movements during the latter half of the Nineteenth century, which have brought about so many improvements in the administration of public relief in the case of the most helpless classes, as, e. g., the agitations for the better care of the sick poor, for the removal of the insane from the workhouses, and for the better education of pauper children. These will, however, be noticed briefly in the sections which deal with the present methods of caring for these classes.

By the Local Government Act of 1894 the local administration of relief was, so to speak, completely democratized. Previous to that date the boards of guardians had been elected by a classified franchise which granted the propertied classes as high as six votes. Now equal franchise is given to all adult persons, without distinction of sex, who have resided in the union for one year or longer. As a consequence many laboring men have been elected to the boards. Women, also, can serve as guardians, and a large number have been elected. One result of this democratization of the local administration has been that in some unions there has been a large increase in the giving of outdoor relief, as the labor leaders favor greater liberality, in this respect. But this can hardly be counted a serious danger, so long as the check of a supreme central authority remains.

CHAPTER II

THE PRESENT ENGLISH SYSTEM OF PUBLIC RELIEF

Aschrott has called England "the classical land of State poor relief." 1 As we have seen, it is only in the broad sense of the word "State" that this epithet is historically deserved. Originally the relief was communal or parish relief, which perhaps may be traced back to the clan system of social organization, but which was given definite form during the Middle Ages by the fact that the Church was the sole agent of public relief. So the duty of giving relief became attached to the parish; and it remained so down to 1834. Even now the bulk of relief does not come from general public funds, raised by taxing equitably the whole country, but from local funds raised by the taxation of a comparatively small area, the Poor Law union. However, the Act of 1834 did transform the relief system from a local into a state system. It supplied what had hitherto been lacking -a central authority which could secure uniformity of administration throughout the kingdom. Accordingly, local administration has now the character of appearing derived, from a central authority. The system is a state system; but the carrying out of details is left to local authorities upon grounds of expediency. The recognition of the right of relief as a civil right is further evidence of the state character of the system; but most of all does this appear in the highly centralized organization of the Poor Law administration. Let us see what this organization is:

1Art. Armengesetzgebung in Grossbritannien in Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften.

22

[74