false philanthropy, found themselves in possession
of an opportunity which might never have recurred. They deserved the
gratitude of posterity by using it wisely and courageously.

The irregular development of the poor laws, from the act of Elizabeth
down to that of 1834, belongs to economic rather than to general
history. It is enough to say here that in later years, and especially
since the system of allowances adopted by the Berkshire magistrates at
Speenhamland in 1795 had become general, the original policy of
relieving only the destitute and helpless, and compelling able-bodied
men to earn their own living, had been entirely obscured by the
intrusion of other ideas. The result was admirably described in the
report of a commission, appointed in 1832, with the most comprehensive
powers of investigation and recommendation. The commissioners were the
Bishops of London (Blomfield) and Chester (Sumner), Sturges Bourne,
Edwin Chadwick, and four others less known, but well versed in the
questions to be considered. A summary of the information collected by
them, ranging over the whole field of poor-law management, was published
in February, 1834. It astounded the benighted public of that day, and it
still remains on record as a wonderful revelation of ruinous official
infatuation on the largest possible scale. The evil system was found to
be almost universal, but the worst examples of it were furnished by the
southern counties of England. There, an actual premium was set upon
improvidence, if not on vice, by the wholesale practice of giving
out-door relief in aid of wages, and in proportion to the number of
children in the family, legitimate or illegitimate. The excuse was that
it was better to eke out scanty earnings by doles than to break up
households, and bring all their inmates into the workhouse. The
inevitable effect of such action was that wages fell as doles increased,
that paupers so pensioned were preferred by the farmers to independent
labourers because their labour was cheaper, and that independent
labourers, failing to get work except at wages forced down to a minimum,
were constantly falling into the ranks of pauperism.

Had some theorists of a later generation witnessed the social order then
prevailing in country districts, they would have found several of their
favourite objects practically attained. There was no competition between
the working people; old and young, skilled and unskilled hands, the
indus