7,000,000l., so that the total all told amounted to something like 20s. per head of the population of 14,000,000. In 1834 there were two Commissions on the Poor Laws. The first reported and laid down the following principles: (1) That the recipient of public charity (in a blunter age called a pauper tout court) should not have a position more eligible than that of the independent labourer of the most poorly paid class. (2) That while destitution must be relieved by the State, destitution must be proved in the case of able-bodied persons by the test of willingness to enter the workhouse. (3) The appointment of a central board to centralise knowledge and to frame and enforce regulations as to the distribution of relief and uniformity of accounts. (4) That while knowledge and supervision should be centralised, power should be localised, since local knowledge was of the essence of sound administration in public assistance. The reforms above suggested were carried out by the second Commission which was appointed under the Act of Parliament of the same year. The unemployed were speedily absorbed. In two years the number of the able-bodied paupers in 12 Poor Law Unions decreased from 3512 to 5. Economies followed so that in 1871 the expenditure had fallen to 78. per head of the population, although in addition to the old expenditure new and costly institutions, such as asylums, infirmaries, and district schools, had been provided.

Moreover, within the same time a moral reformation had taken place. The working men came to trust their own initiative and self-reliance, and had in their Friendly Societies, Trades Unions, Building Societies, and Co-operative Societies, provided a practical solution for various sections of the social problem. For instance, provision was made against sickness, accident, old age, and unemployment by insurance, for arbitration and conciliation in industrial strife, as well as for facilitating the purchase of their own dwellings by the working classes, and facili tating the purchase at a reasonable price and of good quality of such necessities as food and clothing. Further, there was not only associated thrift but private thrift; and this prevailed to such an extent that at the end of the century the working classes, the first generation of which had been almost entirely dependent on the rates,

depes

to

entral

for

pers

ad amassed in various forms of thrift and self-help apital estimated by good authorities to amount to between 350 and 400 millions sterling, of which about 300 nillions can be definitely earmarked in various institutions. In Mr Gladstone's words, the Poor Law Reform of 1834 rescued the English peasantry from the total Loss of their independence.'

Roughly speaking, up to 1890 the old provisions with egard to public assistance, known as the Poor Law, prevailed; and it was possible to tell by reference to accurate statistics what proportion of the population was living by their own exertions and what proportion were dependent on public relief. Since then, owing to ertain sentimental and political causes, the system of public assistance for every conceivable object has been introduced. This is due, in so far as the politicians are concerned, to a desire for popularity at any price, and in the general public to a certain sloppiness of sentiment and lack of clear thinking, and in the majority of the recipients of the benefits to a certain want of grit, initiative, and self-respect; in other words, to a certain flabbiness of character which is always latent in human nature, but which can be encouraged or discouraged by the legislator. Till within the last quarter of a century dependence on the State has been a disappearing factor, but now it has reappeared in all its force. It is a chronic disease, for the same cases come back again and again for public assistance. It is hereditary in certain families from generation to generation, and is contagious. When a relieving officer has been to one house in a street he has to come again to others. Poor people will apply for what they believe to be their share in an inexhaustible fund intended especially for them; and if they have ever contributed to the rates they think they are only getting back their own money. Average human nature is not proof against the common desire to live without labour. During the Victorian era a test of well-being in a country was held to consist in the maximum of independence and the minimum of dependence on the public funds. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph' on May 30, 1921, in support of an article of mine in the same paper, the writer pointed out that twenty years ago, although he lived in a poor street in the East End of London

·

where all were poor, it was felt to be a degradation for a man or a member of his family to be in receipt of public assistance.*

The first breach in the reforms introduced by the Poor Law Commission of 1834 was effected in 1886 by the transfer of the relief of some of the able-bodied poor in the shape of the unemployed from the Guardians to other authorities. The second was the remission of school fees by the Education Act of 1890, which was advocated, amongst other reasons, to give the poor more money to clothe and feed their children. After 1890 came a halt, due perhaps to the exhaustive report of the Royal Commission on Labour which showed to what extent the material and moral well-being of the working classes had improved thanks to their own efforts, and the good hope existing that if the wholesome development and progress was allowed to continue the unskilled classes would solve their own problems as the skilled classes had done.

At the beginning, however, of the new century, from 1900 onwards, new views prevailed. In 1905, the Unemployed Workmen's Act was carried; in 1906, the Education (Provision of Meals to Children) Act; in 1907, the Educational Administrative Provisions Act, giving free medical attendance to children; in 1908, the Old Age Pensions Act; and in 1911 the National Health Insurance Act, which was followed by the National Insurance for Unemployment. The problem, therefore, was not due to the War of 1914-18, although that war has aggravated it by new economic conditions which have pressed heavily on certain branches of highly skilled labour, and concealed it in other cases, for instance, by new forms of malingering. The war has been followed by the new development of the Housing Acts, the extension of the unemployment dole, and the increasing overlapping and confusion of accounts. The figures can be given as far as they are now available for the United Kingdom: 1890, 25,000,000l., including 12,500,000l. for

History has repeated itself, for an old labourer stated to the Com mission of 1834 that when he was young, 'If any man applied to the parish he was pointed at by all who knew him as a parish bird, but it was very different now.' First Report, p. 69. Formerly a man would rather starve than apply,' p. 73.

Education; 1901, 39,000,000Z.; 1911, 69,000,000Z.; 1919, 173,000,000l., according to a return which will be alluded to directly but which is defective and includes figures as old as 1917; and for the year ending March 31, 1921, 332,000,000l., so far as can be ascertained from Parliamentary statements, including 99,000,000l. for War Pensions and 97,200,000l. for Education; while the figures for the year ending March 31, 1922, reach the appalling total for the United Kingdom of 400,000,000 sterling from public funds, excluding 30,000,000l. received from contributions, fees, etc. The Secretary of the Treasury stated in mitigation of these figures that the population of the United Kingdom had increased from 38,000,000 in 1891 to 47,000,000 at present, and that the increase in wages and prices rendered such services twice as costly, but he also said it was idle to pretend the money could not be better spent.* Exact and accurate statements are wanting; but, taking these figures as they stand, in the year ending March 31, 1921, it looks as if there was an expenditure of 6l. 17s. 4d. per head of the population, or subtracting Education, an expenditure of 4l. 17s. 4d. per head, and for the year ending March 31, 1922, an expenditure of 87. 6s. 8d. per head, Education included.

The vast expenditure of 400,000,000l. above mentioned has to be met from the rates and taxes, that is, from State and local taxation. English State finance formerly depended chiefly on indirect taxation. Now it has come to depend chiefly on direct taxation; and direct taxation, according to a great authority, has been carried to a point at which it has become a serious handicap to commercial enterprise, and consequently the immediate cause of unemployment. The signs that direct taxation has become excessive were given in the January number of the Quarterly.'

In addition to this, there is the burden of local taxation. This burden has increased enormously and, apart from State taxation, is having a prejudicial effect upon industry. An enquiry was recently held by the Ministry of Health at Sheffield at the request of the local manufacturers, who were alarmed at the rise of

* Hansard, April 4, 1922.

the rates, and the effect thereof on the power of the local industry to compete in the open market. The report of the enquiry, dated Feb. 5, 1923, mentions on page 3 a statement handed in on behalf of Messrs Vickers which contains an analysis showing that, 'after allowing for increased rateable value and reduced production, the cost per ton included 17. 14s. 3d. attributable to rates in the two half-years ended Sept. 30, 1922, against 4s. in the two half-years ended March 31, 1913.' The practical effect of such increase was brought out by Sir Arthur Hobson, who stated that, as a matter of fact profits did not now exist, and salaries had been reduced to the lowest figure so that all that remained to meet the increased charges was the wages fund.' In this connexion it should be added that the last report of the Ministry of Health* reminds us that the burden of pauperism falls directly or indirectly with principal weight upon the poorer wage-earners.'

Before going more closely into this expenditure I may at once define direct public assistance as comprising all beneficiary assistance from the rates and taxes for maintenance or treatment for which the recipient does not pay or only pays a portion. This expenditure which was, as we have seen, formerly under one heading of Poor Law Relief, is now camouflaged in the statistics of various branches of the administration, and disguised as education, public health, or the reward of industry on the plea that the causes of pauperism are being dissected. To put the definition in a concrete form, the Acts of Parliament under which this expenditure takes place fall under nine main heads: (1) The Acts relating to the relief of the poor; (2) Old Age Pensions Act; (3) the Education Act, 1890, and the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1907, and the Administrative Provisions Act, 1908; (4) Public Health Acts (a) as to hospitals and treatment of disease, (b) as to maternity and child welfare; (5) the National Health Insurance Acts; (6) the War Pensions Acts and Ministry of Pensions Acts; (7) the Housing of the Working Classes Acts; (8) the Unemployed Workmen's Act; (9) the Unemployed Insurance Acts. The above Acts are administered by various and

*(Cmd. 1713) 1922, p. 83.