It would appear that beggars first began to swarm and become troublesome and importunate shortly after the Reformation. The immediate cause of this was the abolition and spoliation of the monasteries and religious houses by Henry VIII. Whatever amount of evil they may have done, the monasteries did one good thing—they assisted the poor and provided for many persons who were unable to provide for themselves. When the monasteries were demolished and their revenues confiscated, these dependent persons were cast upon the world to seek bread where they could find it. As many of them were totally unaccustomed to labour, they had no resource but to beg. The result was that the country was soon overrun with beggars, many of whom exacted alms by violence and by threats. In the course of the next reign we hear of legislative enactments for the suppression of beggary. The first efforts in this direction wholly failed to abate the nuisance, and more stringent acts were passed. In the reign of Charles II. begging had become so profitable that a great many Irish came over to this country to pursue it as a trade.
The evil then became so intolerable that a royal proclamation was issued, specially directed to check the importation of beggars from Ireland. It is intituled “A Proclamation for the speedy rendering away of the Irishe Beggars out of this Kingdome into their owne Countrie and for the Suppressing and Ordering of Rogues and Vagabonds according to the Laws,” which recites that: “Whereas this realme hath of late been pestered with great numbers of Irishe beggars who live here idly and dangerously, and are of ill example to the natives of this kingdome; and, whereas the multitude of English rogues and vagabonds doe much more abound than in former tymes—some wandering and begging under the colour of soldiers and mariners, others under the pretext of impotent persons, whereby they become a burthen to the good people of the land, all which happeneth by the neglect of the due execution of the lawes, formerly with great providence made, for relief of the true poore and indigent, and for the punishment of sturdy rogues and vagabonds; for the reforming therefore of soe great a mischiefe, and to prevent the many dangers which will ensue by the neglect thereof, the king, by the advice of his privy council and of his judges, commands that all the laws and statutes now in force for the punishment of rogues and vagabonds be duly putt in execution; and more particularly that all Irishe beggars, which now are in any part of this kingdome, wandering or begging, under what pretence soever, shall forthwith depart this realme and return to their owne countries, and there abide.” And it is further directed that all such beggars “shall be conveyed from constable to constable to Bristoll, Mynhead, Barstable, Chester, Lyrepool, Milford-haven, and Workington, or such of them as shall be most convenient.”
We see by this that the state of mendicancy in 1629, was very much what it is now, and that the artifices and dodges resorted to at that period were very similar to, and in many cases, exactly the same, as the more modern impostures which I shall have to expose in the succeeding pages.
THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE POOR LAWS.
AN ACT passed in 1536 (27 Henry VIII. c. 25) is the first by which voluntary charity was converted into compulsory payment. It enacts that the head officers of every parish to which the impotent or able-bodied poor may resort under the provisions of the Act of 1531, shall receive and keep them, so that none shall be compelled to beg openly. The able-bodied were to be kept to constant labour, and every parish making default, was to forfeit 20s. a month. The money required for the support of the poor, was to be collected partly by the head officers of corporate towns and the church wardens of parishes, and partly was to be derived from collections in the churches, and on various occasions where the clergy had opportunities for exhorting the people to charity. Almsgiving beyond the town or parish was prohibited on forfeiture of ten times the amount given. A “sturdy beggar” was to be whipped the first time he was detected in begging; to have his right ear cropped for the second offence; and if again guilty of begging was to be indicted for “wandering, loitering, and idleness,” and if convicted was “to suffer execution of death as a felon and an enemy of the Commonwealth.” The severity of this act prevented its execution, and it was repealed by 1 Edward VI. c. 3 (1547). Under this statute, every able-bodied person who should not apply himself to some honest labour, or offer to serve for even meat and drink, was to be taken for a vagabond, branded on the shoulder and adjudged a slave for two years to any one who should demand him, to be fed on bread and water and refuse meat and made to work by being beaten, chained, or otherwise treated. If he ran away during the two years, he was to be branded on the cheek and adjudged a slave for life, and if he ran away again he was to suffer death as a felon. If not demanded as a slave he was to be kept to hard labour on the highway in chains. The impotent poor were to be passed to their place of birth or settlement from the hands of one parish constable to those of another.
The statute was repealed three years afterwards and that of 1531 was revived. In 1551 an Act was passed which directed that a book should be kept in every parish containing the names of the householders and of the impotent poor; that collectors of alms should be appointed who should “gently ask every man and woman what they of their charity will give weekly to the relief of the poor.” If any one able to give should refuse, or discourage others from giving, the ministers and churchwardens were to exhort him, and failing of success, the bishop was to admonish him on the subject. This Act, and another made to enforce it, which was passed in 1555, were wholly ineffectual, and in 1563 it was re-enacted (5 Elizabeth c. 3), with the addition that any person able to contribute and refusing should be cited by the bishop to appear at the next sessions before the justices, where if he would not be persuaded to give, the justices were to tax him according to their discretion, and on his refusal he was to be committed to gaol until the sum taxed should be paid, with all arrears.
The next statute on the subject, which was passed in 1572 (14 Eliz. c. 5), shows how ineffectual the previous statutes had been. It enacted that all rogues, vagabonds and sturdy beggars, including in this description “all persons whole and mighty in body, able to labour, not having land or master, nor using any lawful merchandise, craft or mystery, and all common labourers, able in body, loitering and refusing to work for such reasonable wage as is commonly given,” should “for the first offence be grievously whipped and burned through the gristle of the right ear with a hot iron of the compass of an inch about”; for the second should be deemed felons; and for the third should suffer death as felons without benefit of clergy.
For the relief and sustentation of the aged and impotent poor, the justices of the peace within their several districts were “by their good discretion” to tax and assess all the inhabitants dwelling therein. Any one refusing to contribute was to be imprisoned until he should comply with the assessment. By the statutes 39 of Elizabeth, c. 3 and 4 (1598,) every able-bodied person refusing to work for the ordinary wages was to be “openly whipped until his body should be bloody, and forthwith sent from parish to parish, the most strait way to the parish where he was born, there to put himself to labour as a true subject ought to do.”
The next Act, the 43 Elizabeth, c. 2, has been in operation from the time of its enactment in 1601 to the present day. A change in the mode of administration was, however, effected by the Poor Law Amendment Act (4 and 5 Wm. IV. c. 76) which was passed in 1834. During that long period many abuses crept into the administration of the laws relating to the poor, so that in practice their operation impaired the character of the most numerous class, and was injurious to the whole country. In its original provisions the Act of Elizabeth directed the overseers of the poor in every parish to “take order for setting to work the children of all such parents as shall not be thought able to maintain their children,” as well as all such persons as, having no means to maintain them, use no ordinary trade to get their living by. For this purpose they were empowered to raise weekly, or otherwise, by “taxation of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other; and of every occupier of lands, houses, tithes, mines, &c., such sums
of money as they shall require for providing a sufficient stock of flax, hemp, wool and other ware, or stuff to set the poor on work; and also competent sums for relief of lame, blind, old and impotent persons, and for putting out children as apprentices.” Power was given to the justices to send to the house of correction or common gaol all persons who would not work. The churchwardens and overseers were further empowered to build poor houses at the charge of the parish for the reception of the impotent poor only. The justices were further empowered to assess all persons of sufficient ability for the relief and maintenance of their children, grandchildren, and parents. The parish officers were also empowered to bind as apprentices any children who should be chargeable to the parish.
These simple provisions were in course of time greatly perverted, and many abuses were introduced into the administration of the poor law. One of the most mischievous practices was that which was established by the justices for the county of Berks in 1795, when, in order to meet the wants of the labouring population, caused by the high price of provisions, an allowance in proportion to the number of his family was made out of the parish fund to every labourer who applied for relief. This allowance fluctuated with the price of the gallon loaf of second flour, and the scale was so adjusted as to return to each family the sum which in given number of loaves would cost beyond the price in years of ordinary abundance. This plan was conceived in a spirit of benevolence; but the readiness with which it was adopted in all parts of England clearly shows the want of sound views on the subject. Under the allowance system the labourer received a part of his means of subsistence in the form of a parish gift, and as the fund out of which it was provided was raised from the contributions of those who did not employ labourers, as well as of those who did, their employers being able in part to burthen others with the payment for their labour had a direct interest in perpetuating the system. Those who employed labourers looked upon the parish contribution as part of the fund out of which they were to be paid, and accordingly lowered their rate of wages. The labourers also looked on the fund as a source of wage. The consequence was, that the labourer looked to the parish, and as a matter of right, without any regard to his real wants, and he received the wages of his labour as only one and a secondary source of the means of subsistence. His character as a labourer became of less value, his value as a labourer being thus diminished, under the combined operation of these two causes.
In 1832 a commission was appointed by the Crown, under whose direction inquiries were made through England and Wales, and the actual condition of the labouring classes in every parish was ascertained, with the view of showing the evils of the existing practice and of suggesting some remedy.
The labour of this inquiry was great; but in a short time a report was presented by the commissioners, which explained the operation of the law as administered, with its effects upon different classes, and suggested remedial measures. This report was presented in 1834, and was followed by the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act (4 and 5 Wm. IV. c. 76) in August of the same year. This Act was again amended by the 7 and 8 Victoria, c. 101 (9th August 1844).
The chief provisions of this law are the appointment of a central board of three commissioners in London for the general superintendence and control of all bodies charged with the management of funds for the relief of the poor. There are nine assistant commissioners; each of whom has a district; the assistant commissioners are appointed by and removable by the commissioners; and the whole is under the direction of the President of the Poor Law Board. The administration of relief to the poor is under the control of the commissioners, who make rules and regulations for the purpose. They are empowered to order workhouses to be built, hired, altered, or enlarged, with the consent of a majority of a board of guardians. They have the power of uniting several parishes for the purposes of a more effective and economical administration of poor relief, but so that the actual charge in respect to its own poor is defrayed by each parish. These united parishes or unions are managed by Boards of Guardians, annually elected by the rate-payers of the various parishes; but the masters of the workhouses and other paid officers are under the orders of the commissioners, and removable by them. The system of paying wages partly out of poor-rates is discontinued, and, except in ordinary cases, of which the commissioners are the judges, the relief is only to be given to able-bodied persons, or to their families, within the walls of the workhouse.
A glance at some of the clauses of the Act 7 and 8 Victoria will show the present condition of the machinery of the Poor Law, as regards the latest reforms.
Chapter 101, sect. 12, empowers the Poor Law Commissioners to prescribe the duties of the masters to whom poor children may be apprenticed, and the terms and conditions of the indentures of apprenticeship: and no poor children are in future to be apprenticed by the overseers of any parish included in any union, or subject to a Board of Guardians under the provisions of the 4 and 5 Wm. IV. c. 76; but it is declared to be lawful for the guardians of such union or parish to bind poor children apprentices. The 13th section abolishes so much of the 43 Eliz., c. 2, and of the 8 and 9 William III. c. 3, and of all other Acts, as compels any person to receive any poor child as an apprentice.
The 14th and following sections make some new regulations as to the number of votes of owners of property and rate-payers in the election of guardians and in other cases where the consent of the owners and rate-payers is required for any of the purposes of the 4 and 5 Wm. IV. c. 76.
The 18th section empowers the commissioners, having due regard to the relative population or circumstances of any parish, included in a union, to alter the number of guardians to be elected for such parish without such consent as is required by the Act of William.
This section also empowers the commissioners to divide parishes which have more than 20,000 inhabitants, according to the census then last published, into wards for the purpose of electing guardians, and to determine the number of guardians to be elected for each ward.
The 25th section provides that so long as any woman’s husband is beyond the seas, or in custody of the law, or in confinement in a licensed house or asylum as a lunatic or idiot, all relief given to such a woman, or to her child or children, shall be given in the same manner, and subject to the same conditions as if she was a widow; but the obligation or liability of the husband in respect of such relief continues as before.
The 26th section empowers the guardians of a parish or union to give relief to widows under certain conditions, who at the time of their husband’s death were resident with them in some place other than the parish of their legal settlement, and not situated in any union in which such parish is comprised.
The 32nd section provides that the commissioners may combine parishes and unions in England for the audit of accounts. By the 40th section the commissioners may, subject to certain restrictions there mentioned, combine unions or parishes not in union, or such parishes and unions, into school districts for the management of any class or classes of infant poor not above the age of 16 years, being chargeable to any such parish or union, or who are deserted by their parents, or whose parent, or surviving parent, or guardians are consenting to the placing of such children in the school of such district.
By the 41st section the commissioners are empowered to declare parishes, or unions, or parishes and unions within the district of the metropolitan police, or the city of London, &c., to be combined into districts for the purpose of founding and managing asylums for the temporary relief and setting to work therein of destitute homeless poor who are not charged with any offence, and who may apply for relief, or become chargeable to the poors’ rates within any such parish or union.
Statistics of the Poor Laws.
The salaries and expenses of the commissioners for carrying into execution the Poor Law Acts in England and Ireland amount to about 56,000l.
The following statements will show the number of paupers, and the amounts expended in relieving their wants at various periods since t
he year 1783.
Number of indoor and outdoor paupers relieved during the following years:
In the last report of the Poor Law Board (that for 1860) it is stated that for twenty-two years preceding the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834 the average annual disbursement for the relief of the poor was 6,505,037l., while for the subsequent 25 years it has only been 5,169,073l., the supposed annual saving by the new law being 1,335,964l. The average annual cost of the new union-workhouses has been about 200,000l., and the salaries of the paid Union-officers about 600,000l.
The London Underworld in the Victorian Period: Authentic First-Person Accounts by Beggars, Thieves and Prostitutes: v. 1 Page 46
