POOR RELIEF.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7731, 26 February 1909, Page 4

POOR RELIEF.

THE ELBERFELD SYSTEM.

It does not seem to bo generally known that the Elberfeld system put into operation in that town in 18o^, had its origin in the scheme of poolrelief thought out by the Rev Dr. Thomas Chalmers, and successfully administered by him in the parish of fat. John's, Glasgow, in 1820 and following years This fact was recognised here in Dr. Norman Maclcod's day, as can be seen by reference to his Memoirs. It is also interesting to observe that it is mentioned in a recent Spectator by the editor (though somewhat incorrectly) in his note to the appeal tor personal service by leading citizens of London. , In order, therefore, to understand the Elberfeld system aright, it is advisable to refer to Dr. Chalmers s own statements of the principles on which ho proceeded. To quote his own words: "If you confine yourself totne relief of poverty you do little. Dry up, if possible, the springs of poverty,, for every attempt to stem the running stream has signally failed." His first axiom was, " Help the people to help themselves. Teach them to look upon pauperism as a degradation/ He had faith in the inherent manliness of the people, to which the present Poor-law makes little, if any, appeal. Character was what he aimed at, and this by the moral uplift of a friendly hand. • Chalmers's method was to provide every family below or near the poverty line'with a helper, who by his friendly aid and advice would put them in the way of improving their position. For this purpose, he divided the parish of St. John's into twenty-live, districts, and each parish was put in charge of a deacon, whose duty it was to super-vise-the work of its helpers. No one was to starve, everyone in want was to be attended to, but the poor fund and "the liberalities of the rich" were to be the last resources. The parish of St. John's was one or the poorest in Glasgow. It consisted of 10,000 inhabitants, most of whom were of the working class, and many of them casual labourers. Previous _to this experiment the cost of poor reiieJ: in this parish was £1400 per annum. The Town Hospital, the Parochial Board of the day, continued for a tune the relief of the poor already on its books, and Chalmers undertook the relief of the new pauperism. The collection at the Sunday evening services for working men became the poor fund of St. John's parish. The results were far beyond Chalmers's most sanguine expectations. In a few months applications for relief had fallen to one-fifth of their previous number. In two years there was a surplus on hand of £65, and this ' in the dreariest and most distressful period that ever occurred in the history of Glasgow." Chalmers was then able to undertake the relief of the old pauperism as well as the new, and in four years the whole cost of out and indoor relief had fallen from £1400 to £280. Crime had correspondingly diminished. The weakness of Chalmers's scheme was that it was only parochial. The Town Council of the day, though friendly at first, changed their attitude after Dr. Chalmers removed to Edinburgh. They not only failed to give it that measure of support it needed, and indeed required, if it were to be permanent, but they also demanded from the "poorest of parishes" the payment of rates, although it drew no money from the General Poor Relief Fund —a policy manifestly unfair. The ideal aimed at by Chalmers, and for which ho placed before a Parliamentary Committee in 1830, was realised about a quarter of a century later in the town of Elberfeld, in Rhenish Prussia, and to a leading citizen of this town, Daniel yon dor Hoydt, belongs the honour of the discovery of " voluntary work in a municipal setting" and of demonstrating the stability and permanence of Chalmers's scheme when placed on a civic basis. It is briefly as follows: The town is divided into districts, in each of which fourteen almoners take charge of three or four cases each. These almoners meet fortnightly under a district superintendent to report and discuss cases and to vote relief. The whole proceedings are reported to central directors. Of these directors four are town councillors and four are co-opted citizens. With the exception of the officials in the central office all the workers are honorary. They are formally installed by the president or Lord Provost, when they take a vow to discharge conscientiously the duties of their office. The success of the system lies, as in Dr. Chalmers's effort, in the personal interest taken by the almoners in the individual families they visit. Their efficiency is increased by their having the power of the municipality behind them. In Elberfeld to-day there are 600 helpers, more than one-half of whom are business men, a smaller proportion being professional men, and only nine men of leisure. Many of these helpers have served the town in this capacity for years, it is considered an honour to be called upon to be an almoner, an honour that in all these years has only once been declined. The results in Elberfeld have been remarkable. In 1852 this town presented much the same social problems a^ perplex us to-day. There was on the one hand great wealth, and on the other great poverty. Out of the 50,000 inhabitants 4000 were paupers, or one in every twelve. A year after the adoption of the new system the rates were reduced by one-fourth, and in five years they had become comparatively trifling, street begging disappeared, and paupers numbered 1400, or one in 3S of the increased population. In 1909 Elberfeld has no submerged tenth, no slums in our sense of the word, and poverty and crime have correspondingly diminished. Poor rates arc reduced to a minimum. With such results it is not to be wondered at that other cities and towns in Germany have one after another adopted this system, such as Hamburg, Frankfurt, Leipzig, Mainz and Berlin, each with modifications to suit local conditions. Apart from its other advantages, in has recently been well pointed out, the system has rendered enormous service in enabling communities to find out cases of deserving poverty that would otherwise bo undiscovered, to eliminate criminal from general poverty, to greatly reduce indiscriminate almsgiving, and, perhaps most valuable of all, it has brought hundreds and thousands of well-to-do citizens face to face witli the problems of poverty in their own cities. Increased attention has of late been directed in Britain to the Elberfeld system, and m thirty cities and towns of England civic guilds of help Have been formed on Elberfeld lines, with workers varying in number from 1000 m Sheffield to fifteen in Bristol In Scotland, Dunfermline was the first to try the experiment. In various districts of Glasgow and neighbourhood a beginning has been made, but none of them has as yet secured that measure of municipal support and authority which is required to give tho needed stability and permanence. It is not likely that the system would be less successful in the land of its birth than it has been in that of its adoption, and it would seem fitting that the city in which it was first tried shou d lead in introducing it again. Would it not lie possible at the present time in the wards in which distress is most acute to make a beginning, as Chalmers okl, with the new pauperismo