ChapterNineTheVillagein1830
Wehavedescribedthegrowingmiseryofthelabourer，theincreasingrigours
ofthecriminallaw，andtheinsensibilityoftheupperclasses，duetothe
isolationofthepoor。WhatkindofacommunitywascreatedbytheSpeenhamland
systemafterithadbeeninforceforageneration？Wehave，fortunately，
averyfullpicturegiveninaParliamentaryReportthatisgenerallyregarded
asoneofthelandmarksofEnglishhistory。Wecannotdobetterthanset
outthemainfeaturesoftheReportofthePoorLawCommissionersof1834，
andtheseveraleffectstheytracedtothissystem。
Thefirsteffectisonethateverybodycouldhaveanticipated：thedestruction
ofallmotivesforeffortandambition。Underthissystem’themostworthless
weresureofsomething，whiletheprudent，theindustrious，andthesober，
withalltheircareandpains，obtainedonlysomething；andeventhatscanty
pittancewasdoledouttothembytheoverseer。’(1*)Alllabourerswerecondemned
toliveonthebrinkofstarvation，fornoeffortofwillorcharactercould
improvetheirposition。Theeffectontheimaginationwaswellsummedup
inarhetoricalquestionfromalabourerwhogaveevidencetoaCommissioner。
’Whenamanhashisspiritbrokenwhatishegoodfor？’(2*)ThePoorLaw
Commissionerslookedatitfromadifferentpointofview：’Thelabourer
feelsthattheexistingsystem，thoughitgenerallygiveshimlowwages，
alwaysgiveshimwork。Itgiveshimalso，strangeasitmayappear，what
hevaluesmore，asortofindependence。Heneednotbestirhimselftoseek
work；heneednotstudytopleasehismaster；heneednotputanyrestraint
uponhistemper；heneednotaskreliefasafavour。Hehasallaslave’s
securityforsubsistence，withouthisliabilitytopunishment。Allthe
otherclassesofsocietyareexposedtothevicissitudesofhopeandfear；
healonehasnothingtoloseortogain。’(3*)
Butitisunderstatingtheresultofthesystemonindividualenterprise
tosaythatitdestroyedincentivestoambition；forinsomeparishesit
actuallyproscribedindependenceandpunishedthelabourerwhoownedsome
smallproperty。Wagesundertheseconditionsweresolowthatamanwith
alittlepropertyorafewsavingscouldnotkeephimselfalivewithouthelp
fromtheparish，butifamanwasconvictedofpossessinganythinghewas
refusedparishhelp。Itwasdangerouseventolooktidyorneat，’ragged
clothesarekeptbythepoor，fortheexpresspurposeofcomingtothevestry
inthem。’(4*)TheReportoftheCommissionersonthissubjectrecallsRousseau’s
descriptionoftheFrenchpeasantwithwhomhestayedinthecourseofhis
travels，who，whenhissuspicionshadbeensoothed，andhishospitableinstincts
hadbeenwarmedbyfriendlyconversation，producedstoresoffoodfromthe
secretplacewheretheyhadbeenhiddentoescapetheeyeofthetax-collector。
Amanwhohadsavedanythingwasruined。AMr。Hickson，aNorthamptonmanufacturer
andlandownerinKent，gaveanillustrationofthis。
’Thecaseofamanwhohasworkedformewillshowtheeffectoftheparish
systeminpreventingfrugalhabits。Thisisahard-working，industriousman，
namedWilliamWilliams。Heismarried，andhadsavedsomemoney，totheamount
ofabout£；70，andhadtwocows；hehadalsoasowandtenpigs。Hehad
gotacottagewellfurnished；hewasamemberofabenefitclubatMeopham，
fromwhichhereceived8s。aweekwhenhewasill。Hewasbeginningtolearn
toreadandwrite，andsenthischildrentotheSundaySchool。Hehadalegacy
ofabout£；46，buthegothisothermoneytogetherbysavingfromhis
fairwagesasawaggoner。Somecircumstancesoccurredwhichobligedmeto
partwithhim。Theconsequenceofthislabouringmanhavingbeenfrugaland
savedmoney，andgotthecows，wasthatnoonewouldemployhim，although
hissuperiorcharacterasaworkmanwaswellknownintheparish。Hetold
meatthetimeIwasobligedtopartwithhim：“WhilstIhavethese
thingsIshallgetnowork；Imustpartwiththemall；Imustbereduced
toastateofbeggarybeforeanyonewillemployme。”Iwascompelled
topartwithhimatMichaelmas；hehasnotyetgotwork，andhehasnochance
ofgettinganyuntilhehasbecomeapauper；foruntilthenthepauperswill
bepreferredtohim。Hecannotgetworkinhisownparish，andhewillnot
beallowedtogetanyinotherparishes。Anotherinstanceofthesamekind
occurredamongstmyworkmen。ThomasHardy，thebrother-in-lawofthesame
man，wasanexcellentworkman，dischargedundersimilarcircumstances；he
hasaveryindustriouswife。Theyhavegottwocows，awell-furnishedcottage，
andapigandfowls。Nowhecannotgetwork，becausehehasproperty。The
pauperwillbepreferredtohim，andhecanqualifyhimselfforitonlyby
becomingapauper。Ifheattemptstogetworkelsewhere，heistoldthat
theydonotwanttofixhimontheparish。Boththesearefineyoungmen，
andasexcellentlabourersasIcouldwishtohave。Thelatterlabouring
manmentionedanotherinstanceofalabouringmaninanotherparish(Henstead)，
whohadoncehadmorepropertythanhe，butwasobligedtoconsumeitall，
andisnowworkingontheroads。’(5*)ThiseffectoftheSpeenhamlandarrangements
wasdweltonintheevidencebeforetheCommitteeonAgriculturalLabourers’
Wagesin1824。LabourershadtogiveuptheircottagesinaDorsetshirevillage
becausetheycouldnotbecomepensionersiftheypossessedacottage，and
farmerswouldonlygiveemploymenttovillagepensioners。Thusthesecottagers
whohadnotbeenevictedbyenclosurewereevictedbytheSpeenhamlandsystem。
Itisnotsurprisingthatinthecaseofanothermanofindependentnature
inCambridgeshire，whohadsavedmoneyandsocouldgetnowork，wearetold
thattheyoungmenpointedathim，andcalledhimafoolfornotspending
hismoneyatthepublic-house，’addingthatthenhewouldgetwork。’(6*)
Thestatesmenwhocondemnedthelabourertothisfatehadrejectedtheproposal
foraminimumwage，onthegroundthatitwoulddestroyemulation。
Therewasoneslightalleviationofthisvicioussystem，whichthePoor
LawCommissionersconsideredintheverydifferentlightofanaggravation。
Ifsocietywastobereorganisedonsuchabasisasthis，itwasatanyrate
betterthatthemenwhoweremadetoliveonpublicmoneyshouldnotbegrateful
totheratepayers。TheCommissionerswerepainedbytheinsolenceofthe
paupers。’Theparishmoney’saidaSussexlabourer，’isnowchuckedtous
likeastoadog，’(7*)butthelabourersdidnotlickthehandthatthew
it。AllthoughtheReportwereadcomplaintsofthe’insolent，discontented，
surlypauper，’whotalksof’right’and’income，’andwhowillsoonfight
forthesesupposedrightsandincome’unlesssomestepistakentoarrest
hisprogresstoopenviolence。’Thepooremphasisedthisviewbytheterms
theyappliedtotheirratesubsidies，whichtheysometimescalled’their
reglars，’sometimes’thecountyallowance，’andsometimes’TheActofParliament
allowance。’Olddustyrentbooksofreceiptsandolddirtyindenturesofapprenticeship
werehandeddownfromfathertosonwithasmuchcareasiftheyhadbeen
deedsoffreeholdproperty，asdocumentaryevidencetotheirrighttoashare
intheratesofaparticularparish。(8*)Ofcoursetherewasnotauniform
administration，andtheCommissionersreportedthatwhilstinsomedistricts
menweredisqualifiedforreliefiftheyhadanywages，inotherstherewas
noinquiryintocircumstances，andnon-necessitouspersonsdippedlikethe
restintothetill。Inmanycasesonlythewagesreceivedduringthelast
weekorfortnightweretakenintoaccount，andthustheallowancewouldbe
paidtosomepersonswhoatparticularperiodsreceivedwagesinexcessof
thescale。ThisaccountsforthefactstatedbyThoroldRogersfromhisown
experiencethattherewerelabourerswhoactuallysavedconsiderablesums
outofthesystem。
Themostobviousandimmediateeffectwastheeffectwhichhadbeenforeseen
withoutmisgivinginWarwickshireandWorcestershire。Themarriedmanwas
employedinpreferencetothebachelor，andhisincomerosewiththebirth
ofeachchild。Buttherewasonethingbetterthantomarryandhaveafamily，
andthatwastomarryamotherofbastards，forbastardsweremoreprofitable
thanlegitimatechildren，sincetheparishguaranteedthecontributionfor
whichtheputativefatherwaslegallyliable。Itwaseasiertomanagewith
afamilythanwithasinglechild。Asoneyoungwomanoftwenty-fourwith
fourbastardchildrenputit，’Ifshehadonemoresheshouldbeverycomfortable。’(9*)
Womenwithbastardchildrenwerethusveryeligiblewives。Theeffectof
thewholesystemonvillagemoralswasstrikingandwidespread，andawitness
fromaparishwhichwasoverwhelmedwiththissuddendelugeofpopulation
saidtotheCommission，’theeighteen-pennychildrenwilleatupthisparish
intenyearsmore，unlesssomereliefbeaffordedus。’(10*)Beforethisperiod，
ifwearetobelieveCobbett，ithadbeenrareforawomantobewithchild
atthetimeofhermarriage；inthesedaysofdemoralisationanddistress
itbecamethehabit。
Theeffectsproducedbythissystemontherecipientsofreliefwereall
ofthemsuchasmighthavebeenanticipated，andinthisrespecttheReport
oftheCommissionerscontainednosurprises。Itmerelyillustratedthegeneralisations
thathadbeenmadebyallPoorLawReformersduringthelastfifteenyears。
Butthediscoveryoftheextentofthecorruptionwhichthesystemhadbred
inlocalgovernmentandadministrationwasprobablyarevelationtomost
people。Itdemoralisednotonlythosewhoreceivedbutthosewhogave。A
networkoftangledinterestsspreadoverlocallife，andemployersandtradesmen
werefacedwithinnumerabletemptationsandopportunitiesforfraud。Totake
thecaseoftheoverseerfirst。Supposehimtobeatradesman：hewasliable
tosufferinhiscustomifherefusedtorelievethefriends，oritmight
betheworkmenofhiscustomers。Itwouldrequireamanofalmostsuperhuman
rigidityofprincipletobewillingnotonlytolosetimeandmoneyinserving
atroublesomeandunprofitableoffice，buttolosecustomaswell。(11*)From
theresolvenottolosecustomhemightgraduallyslipdowntothedetermination
toreimbursehimselffor’thevexatiousdemands’onhistime，tillastate
ofaffairslikethatinSlaughamcameabout。
’Population，740。Expenditure，£；1706。Theabovelargesumofmoney
isexpendedprincipallyinordersonthevillageshopsforflour，clothes，
butter，cheese，etc。：thetradesmenservetheofficeofoverseerbyturns；
thetwolastcouldneitherreadnorwrite。’(12*)
Iftheoverseerwereafarmerthereweretemptationstopaypartofthe
wagesofhisownandhisfriends’labourersoutofparishmoney，ortosupply
theworkhousewithhisownproduce。Thesametemptationsbesetthemembers
ofvestries，whethertheywereopenorselect。’Eachvestryman，sofaras
heisanimmediateemployeroflabour，isinterestedinkeepingdownthe
rateofwages，andinthrowingpartoftheirpaymentonothers，and，above
all，ontheprincipalobjectofparochialfraud，thetithe-owner：ifheis
theownerofcottages，heendeavourstogettheirrentpaidbytheparish；
ifhekeepsashop，hestrugglestogetallowanceforhiscustomersordebtors；
ifhedealsinarticlesusedintheworkhouse，hetriestoincreasetheworkhouse
consumption；ifheisinhumblecircumstances，hisownrelationsorfriends
maybeamongtheapplicants。’(13*)Mr。Drummond，amagistrateforHantsand
Surrey，saidtotheCommitteeonLaborers’Wagesin1824，thatpartofthe
poor-rateexpenditurewasreturnedtofarmersandlandownersinexorbitant
cottagerents，andthatthefarmersalwaysopposedapoormanwhowished
tobuildhimselfacottageonthewaste。
Inthecaseofwhatwasknownasthe’laborrate’system，themembers
ofoneclasscombinedtogethertoimposetheburdenofmaintainingthepoor
ontheshouldersoftheotherclasses。Bythissystem，insteadofthelaborer’s
wagesbeingmadeuptoafixedamountbytheparish，eachratepayerwasbound
toemploy，andtopayatacertainrate，acertainnumberoflaborers，whether
hewantedthemornot。Thenumberdependedsometimesonhisassessmentto
thepoorrate，sometimesontheamountofacresheoccupied(oftheuseto
whichthelandwasputnonoticewastaken，asheep-walkcountingforas
muchasarablefields)：whentheoccupiersoflandhademployedafixednumber
oflaborers，thesurpluslabourersweredividedamongstalltheratepayers
accordingtotheirrental。Thisplanwassuperficiallyfair，butasamatter
offactitworkedouttotheadvantageofthebigfarmerswithmucharable
land，andpressedhardonthesmalloneswhocultivatedtheirholdingsby
theirownandtheirchildren’slabor，and，incaseswheretheywereliable
totherate，onthetradesmenwhohadnoemploymentatwhichtosetanagricultural
laborer。After1832(2and3WilliamIV。c。96)theagreementofthree-fourths
oftheratepayerstosuchasystemwasbindingonall，andthelargefarmers
oftenbandedtogethertoimposeitontheirfellowratepayersbyintimidation
orotherequallyunscrupulousmeans：thusatKelvedoninEssexweread：’There
wasnooccasioninthisparish，norwouldithavebeendonebutforajunto
ofpowerfullandholders，puttingdownoppositionbyexemptingasufficient
number，togivethemselvesthemeansofamajority。’(14*)
LandlordsinsomecasesresortedtoMachiavelliantacticsinorderto
escapetheirburdens。
