Theproposalsunderthefirstheadprovidedthatsettlementmightbegained
byfiveyears’residenceasahouseholder，ifthehouseholderhadnotbecome
chargeableorbeenconvictedofcrime，orbeenabsentformorethansixweeks
inayear。TwoJusticesofthePeaceweretohavepoweroncomplaintofthe
parishauthoritiestoadjudicateonthesettlementofanypersonlikelyto
becomechargeable，subjecttoanappealtoquarterSessions。
Theproposalsunderthesecondheadaimedpartlyatvestryreformand
partlyatratingreform。Inthoseparisheswheretherewasanopenvestry，
allratepayerswerestillequalasvoters，butWhitbreadproposedtogive
extravotingpoweratvestrymeetingsinproportiontoassessment。22*He
wishedtoreformrating，bymakingstockintradeandpersonalpropertyexcept
farmingstock，whichproducedprofitliabletoassessment，byauthorising
thevestrytoexemptsuchoccupiersofcottagesastheyshouldthinkfit，
andbygivingpowertotheJusticesofthePeacetostrikeoutoftherate
anypersonoccupyingacottagenotexceedingfivepoundsinyearlyvalue，
whoshouldmakeapplicationtothem，suchexemptionsnottobeconsidered
parochialrelief。Healsoproposedthatthecountyrateshouldbecharged
ineveryparishinproportiontotheassessedpropertyintheparish，and
thatanyparishwhosepoorratewasforthreeyearsmorethandoublethe
averageoftheparishrateinthecounty，shouldhavepowertoapplytoQuarter
Sessionsforreliefoutofcountystock。
Whitbread’sproposalsforstimulatingthriftandpenalisingidlenesswere
astrangemedleyofenlightenmentandchildishness。Heproposedtogivethe
parishofficerspowertobuildcottageswhichweretobeletatthebest
rentsthatweretobeobtained：buttheparishofficersmightwiththeconsent
ofthevestryallowpersonswhocouldnotpayrenttooccupythemrentfree，
oratareducedrent。HeproposedalsotocreateaNationalBank，something
ofthenatureofaPostOfficeSavingsBank，tobeemployedbothasasavings
bankandaninsurancesystemforthepoor。Withthesetwoexcellentschemes
hecombinedaridiculoussystemofprizesandpunishmentsforthethrifty
andtheirresponsible。Magistratesweretobeempoweredtogiverewardsup
toamaximumof£；20withabadgeofgoodconduct，tolabourerswho
hadbroughtuplargefamilieswithoutparishhelp，andtopunishanyman
whoappearedtohavebecomechargeablefromidlenessormisconduct，andto
brandhimwiththewords，’criminalPoor。’
InhisunemploymentpolicyWhitbreadcommittedthefatalmistake，common
toalmostalltheproposalsofthetime，ofmixinguppoorreliefwithwages
inawaytodepressanddemoralisethelabourmarket。Theable-bodiedunemployed，
men，youths，orsinglewomen，weretobehiredoutbyparishofficersat
thebestpricetobeobtained。Thewagesweretobepaidtotheworker。If
theworkerwasasinglemanorwoman，orawidowerwithnochildrendependent
onhim，hisorherearningsweretobemadeupbytheparishtoasumnecessary
tohisorhersubsistence。Ifheorshehadchildren，theyweretobemade
uptothree-quarters，orfour-fifths，orthefullaveragerate，according
tothenumberofchildren。Nosinglemanorwomanwastobehiredoutfor
morethanayear，andnomanorwomanwithdependentchildrenformorethan
amonth。
Theproposalswereattackedvigorouslybytwocriticswhowerenotoften
foundincompany，CobbettandMalthus。Cobbettcriticisedtheintroduction
ofpluralvotingatvestrymeetingsinanexcellentpassageinthePolitical
Register。23*’ManyofthosewhopayratesarebutastepOrtwofrom
pauperismthemselves；andtheyarethemostlikelypersonstoconsiderduly
theimportantdutyofdoing，incaseofrelief，whattheywouldbedoneunto。
“But。”Mr。Whitbreadwillsay，“isitrightforthesepersons
togiveawaythemoneyofothers。”Itisnotthemoneyofothers，any
morethantheamountoftithesisthefarmer’smoney。Themaintenanceof
thepoorisachargeupontheland，achargedulyconsideredineverypurchase
andineverylease。Besides，asthelawnowstands，thougheveryparishioner
hasavoteinvestry，mustitnotbeevident，toeverymanwhoreflects，
thatamanoflargepropertyandsuperiorunderstandingwillhaveweight
inproportion？Thathewill，infact，havemanyvotes？Ifheplaythetyrant，
evenlittlemenwillriseagainsthim，anditisrighttheyshouldhavethe
powerofsodoing；but，whileheconductshimselfwithmoderationandhumanity，
whilehebehavesasheoughttodotothosewhoarebeneathhiminpoint
ofproperty，thereisnofearbuthewillhaveasufficiencyofweightat
everyvestry。Thevotesoftheinferiorpersonsintheparishare，inreality，
dormant，unlessincaseswheresomeinnovation，orsomeactoftyranny，is
attempted。Theyare，likethestingofthebee，weaponsmerelyofdefence。’
Malthus’criticismswereofaverydifferentnature。24*Heobjected
particularlytothepublicbuildingofcottages，andtheassessmentofpersonal
propertytotherates。Hearguedthatthescarcityofhouseswasthechief
reason’whythePoorLawshadnotbeensoextensiveandprejudicialintheir
effectsasmighthavebeenexpected。’Ifastimuluswasgiventothebuilding
ofcottagestherewouldbenocheckontheincreaseofpopulation。Asimilar
tendencyheascribedtotheratingofpersonalproperty。Theemployersof
labourhadaninterestintheincreaseofpopulation，andthereforeinthe
buildingofcottages。Thisinstinctwasatpresentheldincheckbyconsideration
oftheburdenoftherates。If，however，theycoulddistributethatburden
morewidely，thisconsiderationwouldhavemuchlessweight。Populationwould
increaseandwageswouldconsequentlygodown。’IthasbeenobservedbyDr。
AdamSmiththatnoeffortsofthelegislaturehadbeenabletoraisethe
salaryofcuratestothatpricewhichseemednecessaryfortheirdecentmaintenance：
andthereasonwhichhejustlyassignsisthatthebountiesheldouttothe
professionbythescholarshipsandfellowshipsoftheuniversitiesalways
occasionedaredundantsupply。Inthesamemanner，ifamorethanusualsupply
oflabourwereencouragedbythepremiumsofsmalltenements，nothingcould
preventagreatandgeneralfallinitsprice。’
TheBillwasintroducedin1807，beforethefalloftheWhigMinistry，
anditwenttoaCommittee。ButtheToryParliamentelectedthatyearto
supportPortlandandhisanti-CatholicGovernmentwasunfriendly，andthe
countymagistratestowhomthedraftoftheBillwassentforcriticisms
werealsohostile。Whitbreadaccordinglyproceedednofurther。Atthistime
theSpeenhamlandsystemseemedtobeworkingwithoutseriousinconvenience，
andtherewasthereforenodrivingpowerbehindsuchproposals。Butafter
1815theconditionshadchanged，andtheapathyof1807hadmeltedaway。
Therulingclasswasnolongerpassiveandindifferentaboutthegrowthof
theSpeenhamlandsystem：bothHousesofParliamentsetinquiriesonfoot，
schemesofemigrationwereinvitedanddiscussed，andmeasuresofVestry
Reformwerecarried。ButtheproblemwasnolongertheproblemthatWhitbread
hadsetouttosolve。Whitbreadhadproposedtoincreasetheshareofproperty
inthecontrolofthepoorrates，buthehadalsobroughtforwardaconstructive
schemeofsocialimprovement。TheVestryReformersofthisperiodweremerely
interestedinreducingtherates：therestofWhitbread’sprogrammewasforgotten。
In1818anAct25*waspassedwhichestablishedpluralvotinginvestries，
everyratepayerwhoserateablevaluewas£；50andoverbeingallowed
avoteforevery£；25ofrateableproperty。Inthefollowingyearan
Act26*waspassedwhichallowedparishestosetupaselectvestry，and
ordainedthatintheseparishestheoverseersshouldgivesuchreliefas
wasorderedbytheSelectVestry，andfurtherallowedtheappointmentof
salariedassistantoverseers。Thesechangesaffectedtheadministrationof
theSpeenhamlandsystemveryconsiderably；andthesalariedoverseersmade
themselveshatedinmanyparishesbytheDraconianré；gimewhichthey
introduced。Theparishcart，orthecarttowhichinsomeparishesmenand
womenwhoaskedforreliefwereharnessed，wasoneoftheinnovationsof
thisperiod。Theadministrativemethodsthatwereadoptedintheseparishes
arefrustratedbyafactmentionedbyaclerktothemagistratesinKent，
inOctober1830。27*Thewritersaysthattherewasasevereoverseerat
Ash，whohadamongotherapplicantsforreliefanunemployedshepherd，with
awifeandfivechildrenlivingatMargate，thirteenmilesaway。Theshepherd
wasgiven9s。aweek，buttheoverseermadehimwalktoAsheverydayexcept
Sundayforhiseighteenpence。Theshepherdwalkedhistwenty-sixmilesa
dayonsuchfoodashecouldobtainoutofhisshareofthe9s。fornine
weeks，andthenhisstrengthcouldholdoutnolonger。Thewriterremarked
thattheshepherdwasanindustriousandhonestman，outofworkthrough
nofaultofhisown。Itwasbysuchmethodsthatthesalariedoverseerstried
tobreakthepoorofthehabitofaskingforrelief，anditisnotsurprising
thatsuchmethodsrankledinthememoriesofthelabourers。Inthisneighbourhood
thewriterattributedthefiresof1830moretothiscausethantoanyother。
Theseattemptstorelievetheratepayerdidnothingtorelievethelabourer
fromtheincubusofthesystem。Hisplightgrewsteadilyworse。ACommittee
onAgriculturalWages，ofwhichLordJohnRussellwaschairman，reported
in1824thatwhereasincertainnortherncounties，wheretheSpeenhamland
systemhadnotyettakenroot，wageswere12s。to15s。，inthesouththey
variedfrom8s。or9s。aweekto3s。forasinglemanand4s。6d。foramarried
man。28*InonepartofKentthelowestwagesinoneparishwere6d。aday，
andinthemajorityofparishes1s。aday。Thewagesofanunmarriedman
inBuckinghamshirein1828，accordingtoaclergymanwhogaveevidencebefore
theCommitteeofthatyearonthePoorLaws，were3s。aweek，andthewages
ofamarriedmanwere6s。aweek。Inoneparishinhisneighbourhoodthe
farmershadlatelyreducedthewagesofable-bodiedmarriedmento4s。a
week。ThustheSpeenhamlandsystemhadbeeneffectiveenoughinkeepingwages
low，butasameansofpreservingaminimumlivelihooditwasbreakingdown
bythistimeonallsides。WehaveseenfromthehistoryofMertoninOxfordshire29*
whathappenedinoneparishlongbeforetheadversitiesofagriculturehad
becomeacute。Itiseasyfromthiscasetoimaginewhathappenedwhenthe
declineinemploymentandagriculturethrewasteadilyincreasingburden
onthesystemofmaintenancefromtherates。Insomeplaces，astheCommissioners
of1834reported，thelabourerswereablebyintimidationtokeepthesystem
inforce，butthoughparishesdidnotasaruledaretoabandonorreform
thesystem，theysteadilyreducedtheirscale。
Themostdirectandgraphicdemonstrationofthisfact，whichhasnot
apparentlyeverbeennoticedinanyofthevoluminousdiscussionsofthe
oldPoorLawsystem，istobeseeninthecomparisonofthestandardsof
lifeadoptedatthetimethesystemwasintroducedwiththestandardsthat
wereadoptedlater。In1795，aswehaveseen，themagistratesatSpeenhamland
recommendedanallowanceofthreegallonloavesforeachlabourer，anda
gallonloafandahalfforhiswifeandforeachadditionalmemberofhis
family。Thisscale，itmustberemembered，wasnotpeculiartoBerkshire。
Itwastheauthoritativestandardinmanycounties。Weareabletocompare
thiswithsomelaterscales，andthecomparisonyieldssomestartlingresults。
InNorthamptonshirein1816themagistratesfixedasingleman’sallowance
at5s。，andtheallowanceforamanandhiswifeat6s。，thepriceofwheat
thequarternloafbeing111/2d。30*Onthisscaleamanissupposedto
needalittleovertwoandahalfgallonloaves，andamanandhiswifea
littlemorethanthreegallonloaves，orbarelymorethanasinglemanwas
supposedtoneedin1795。Thisisagravereduction，butthemaintenance
standardfellverymuchlowerbefore1832。Forthoughwehavescalesfor
CambridgeshireandEssexfor1821publishedintheReportofthePoorLaw
Commissionof1834，31*whichagreeroughlywiththeNorthamptonshirescale
twogallonloavesforaman，andoneandahalfforawoman，inWiltshire，
accordingtothecomplicatedscaleadoptedatHindonin1817，amanwasallowed
oneandthree-fifthsgallonloaves，andawomanoneandone-tenth。32*A
Hampshirescale，drawnupin1822byeightmagistrates，ofwhomfivewere
parsons，allowedonlyonegallonloafahead，with4d。aweekperheadin
additiontoafamilyoffourpersons，theextraallowancebeingreducedby
apennyincaseswherethereweresixinthefamily，andbytwopenceincases
wherethereweremorethansix。33*TheDorsetshiremagistratesin1826
allowedamantheequivalentofoneandahalfgallonloavesandapenny
over，andawomanorchildoverfourteenoneandone-sixth。34*Wehave
ageneralstatementastothescalesinforcetowardstheendofourperiod
inapassageinM’Culloch’sPoliticalEconomyquotedintheEdinburgh
ReviewforJanuary1831p。353：’Theallowancescalesnowissuedfrom
timetotimebythemagistratesareusuallyframedontheprinciplethat
everylabourershouldhaveagallonloafofstandardwheatenbreadweekly
foreverymemberofhisfamilyandoneover：thatisfourloavesforthree
persons，fiveforfour，sixforfive，andsoon。’Thatis，afamilyoffour
personswouldhavehadsevenandahalfgallonloavesin1795，andonlyfive
gallonloavesin1831。