in the amount expended for the relief of the poor soon after the passing of the Act, and though the Act was undoubtedly the chief cause of the fall, it would be rash to assert that more was effected than the correction of a glaring abuse. As soon as the wages of labourers ceased to be a direct charge upon the poor-rates, the rates were of course lightened to the extent of the sum which had previously been misapplied. But when honest industry had been discouraged, and set on the same level with pauperism during more than a whole generation, it was not to be expected that all the demoralisation of the past could be undone by the enactment of a single statute. Independence was valued by some of the persons to whom it was offered; but many, who had been taught through life to regard the parish as their paymaster, were not able, even if they were willing, to adapt their views at once to their new position. The parish, it must be remembered, though acting upon principles which were almost communistic, had nevertheless stood towards the labourer in a relation very nearly identical with that of the lord to his villein. Extremes often meet, even in political and social institutions. The parish and the lord were so far agreed that they both regarded the labourer as dependent on them, both regarded him as having an indissoluble tie to a certain place, and both did their best to check any attempt which he might make towards self

assertion.

Pauperism an

In the rural districts, at least, pauperism was the inherited vice of many long ages. In the sixteenth century it was too deeply ingrained for the searing iron to burn it out; in the nineteenth it is yet in inherited vice need of a remedy. Between 1834 and 1837, while the payment of labourers' wages was being re

not easily eradicated.

adjusted, there was a diminution of more than two millions more than one third of the whole-in the sum annually expended in the relief of the poor. But after 1837 it became apparent that, although a recent abuse had disappeared, its effects still lingered, together with the habits of more remote generations. There was

no longer a progressive improvement: the expenditure began again to increase, and, with some fluctuations, it has continued to increase until it has now become greater than it was before the Poor Law Amendment Act was passed. The average amount expended per head throughout the whole population was also considerably higher in the year 1874 than in the year 1837.

Notwithstanding these facts, however, the prevalence of pauperism is by no means so discouraging as it may at Its recent his first sight appear. The fluctuations are very great, both in the total number of

tory not discouraging.

paupers, and in the relation of the able-bodied adults to the whole; and no inference can safely be drawn from the returns of a single year. The worst years were 1849, 1850, 1863, 1864, and from 1869 to 1871: in all of them the mean number of paupers in receipt of relief was very nearly the same a little more than a million. The year 1873 was no worse than the year 1861; the year 1874 was better than the year 1873; and it would be difficult to make out an average for any ten consecutive years since 1849 which would be very different from the average of any ten other consecutive years. The sum expended in relief is not a sure guide to the number of persons relieved, because it must necessarily vary with the cost of maintaining the paupers, which cannot be inferred from the price of wheat

alone.

Some satisfaction may, therefore, be derived from

the fact that the population appears to be growing more rapidly and more steadily than pauperism. The mean number of paupers relieved constituted more than six per cent. of the whole population in 1849, more than five per cent. in 1851, less than five per cent. in 1871, and only three and a half per cent. in 1874.

kept pace with

the national

The increase of wealth, too, has, according to estimates which appear to be trustworthy, been far more rapid than even the increase of population-so much It has not so that on the average the inhabitants of the the growth of United Kingdom became sixty per cent. richer wealth. per head in 1870 than they were in 1841. It is, of course, always to be remembered that an estimate, however carefully made, can never be strictly accurate, but there can be no doubt that the multiplication of riches has been prodigious. It has been so great that money has lost much of its own value, because the rising demand for everything that can be bought has caused almost everything to rise in price. For this reason, indeed, it seems reasonable to make some deduction from any number of pounds sterling at which the value of British property is fixed when any comparison is made with earlier years. But whatever deduction is to be made on this score from the sum total of British capital or British incomes, the same deduction must be made in due proportion from the sum total expended in the relief of the poor. The following comparison, therefore, will hold good, whether any such deduction be made or not. In 1837 the whole population of England and Wales had to expend 5s. 5d. per head for the relief of the poor; in 1871, 6s. 111d. The year 1837 was one of the most favourable, the year 1871 one of the most unfavourable; yet the difference was less than twenty-eight per cent.

while the corresponding difference in the means of payment was no less than sixty per cent.

Though, however, there is no reason to believe that pauperism has been a growing evil since 1834, and though it has greatly decreased when considered in relation to the power of the country

Inferences

from the distribution of pauperism throughout

the country.

to bear it, there is certainly ground for some disappointment in the fact that it can hardly be said to have diminished absolutely as well as relatively. Yet there are sufficient indications that the past is to blame rather than the present for the persistent inability and reluctance of a considerable section of the population to maintain itself. Throughout the whole period, the agricultural districts have contributed more than their due share of paupers in proportion to the number of their inhabitants. The mining and manufacturing counties, on the other hand, contribute much less than the average, and the statistics for the metropolis do not attain a much higher level than the statistics for the chief mining and manufacturing districts.

These inequalities are precisely what history would have led us to expect. The agricultural labourer is the descendant of ancestors who, generation after generation, were kept in a state of dependence. The miner is commonly the descendant of miners, whose industry, unlike that of the agricultural labourer, has undergone a marked and progressive development with modern civilisation. He can find employment not only for him· self but for his children without the necessity of travelling far to seek it, and he has little to dread from the invasion of unskilled rivals from a distance. There has been a constant demand for the labour which he could supply, and he has therefore been able not only to maintain him

In the

self in independence, but even to dictate terms. large towns there is a mixture of population which suggests at once a further explanation of the great preponderance of agricultural paupers, and a reason for the somewhat unsatisfactory condition of the towns themselves. In the migrations encouraged by the rise of cities a current sets in from the rural to the urban districts. The rustics who leave their native place are the most enterprising of their class—the most easily roused to a spirit of independent action. But they

cannot be expected to shake off at once all the habits of ages and all the traditions of their forefathers. Knowing that they have the alternatives before them of success in a new walk of life, or support by a parish or union if they fail, they do not look with any insuperable aversion upon the prospect of entering a workhouse, and would not always make a very severe effort to avoid so small a calamity. Nor do they care much whether it befalls them as casual paupers in a strange parish, as paupers who have acquired a new settlement, or as paupers who are removed to their own union. The rustics who remain where they were born most strongly resemble in all respects the stock from which they sprang, and have the least power of adapting themselves to a new state of society. They are strong, hardy, and stolid, and yet ready enough with a blow; but they have not learnt to associate independence with industry. They fight well enough for a pheasant or a hare, but they will not struggle, and perhaps have not been sufficiently encouraged to struggle, against improvidence.

From whatever point of view pauperism may be regarded, civilisation is not to blame for it. Were the population of England distributed in the reign of Queen