When dwelling in the spikes, Orwell mentions several restrictions and disciplines indicating the consequences of the Vagrancy Law in 1824 and the New Poor Law in 1834. In fact, some of the rules were deduced from the old poor laws. For example, England has its tradition of hatred for idleness long before the philosophy of Utilitarianism proposed by Jeremy Bentham. Longmate finds that during the reign of Edward VI, anyone able to work but refused to, “and live[d] idly for three days,” “should be branded with a red hot iron on the breast with the letter V […]” (14).12 The workhouse in the nineteenth and twentieth century also followed this pattern to deter the able-bodied paupers from flooding into the spikes. However, in comparison with the lack of labor caused by the Black Death, in the nineteenth century the reason became the issue of overpopulation. Kenneth Morgan proves that the old poor law faced pressure from the statistics of population in England and Wales, finding that the population grew from 7.9 million in 1781 to 14 million in 1831 (62). In addition, partly influenced by the
12 Peter Higginbotham indicates that the attitude of anti-idleness and the urge of labor force resulted from the Black Death in 1348-9. http://www.workhouses.org.uk/vagrants/index.shtml Web. 12 Jan. 2019.
enclosure movement, the industrialization, and the insufficient harvest, the poor rate increased almost threefold from 1792 to 1812 in England and Wales (Morgan 62). In the meantime, the Malthusian principle of population also influenced the economists, including David Ricardo, John Ramsay McCulloch, and John Stuart Mill, to believe that abolishing the reliefs would possibly limit the number of the poor people (Inglis 219-20, Morgan 64). Morgan mentions that Ricardo even proposed to abolish the poor law entirely according to the theory of free market: Everyone had to compete equally without governmental intervention (64). On discussing the issue of poor law, Morgan finds that in the Royal Commission, which was set to investigate the operation of the poor law, two central figures “Edwin Chadwick and Nassau Senior” “were strongly influenced by the ideas of Jeremy Bentham” (65). It was effectivity and accountability that Bentham and his followers pursued. In spite of the good intention to pursue the efficiency in the welfare institutions, the process of data-collecting was not prudent enough.
Morgan finds that the evidence was barely gathered to prove that the underemployment resulted from welfare system which intended to decrease poverty (65). Adopting the imprecise investigation made by the Royal Commission, the Whig government embarked on making the Victorian New Poor Law (Longmate 107, Morgan 66). Morgan classifies fourfold regulations of the New Poor Law:
First, central government became involved in the operation of poor relief for the first time […]. Second, Poor Law Guardians were now to be elected by local ratepayers and property owners; they replaced the previous unelected overseers of the poor. […] Third, parishes were grouped into unions and the Act stipulated that workhouses could be built if the unions wanted them. […] Fourth, the link between central government and the provinces was provided by appointing assistant commissioners to check the operation of the new system. (67)
Morgan remarks that the disciplines in workhouses and the education of the poor children were barely mentioned (67). He also remarks that this was the first time that the government attempted to put the paupers and poor relief under national control (67). Even though an Irish tramp introduces the cocoa spikes, the tea spikes, and the skilly spikes to Orwell, he finds that the spikes in Cromley, Romton, and Edbury are all alike (166, 203). Indeed, some spikes are praised to be comfortable, but Orwell’s tone is ironic. “Chelsea was said to be the most luxurious spike in England; someone, praising it, said that the blankets there were more like prison than the spike,” Orwell writes (169). The readers really do not know whether to laugh or to cry; however, the case is the exemplum that conforms to the nationalization and systemization of the workhouses, equipped with similar filthy bedding and unhealthy nourishment.
Along with English government’s capitalistic tendency, the anti-communist trend and even anti-socialist attitude in England can be discovered in Orwell’s work. When Bozo talks about his screeving, or pavement drawing, style, he mentions:
[…] when the Budget13 was on I had one of Winston trying to push an elephant marked
“Debt”, and underneath I wrote, “Will he budge it?” See? You can have cartoons about any of the parties, but you mustn’t put anything in favour of Socialism, because the police won’t stand it. Once I did a cartoon of a boa constrictor marked Capital swallowing a rabbit marked Labour. The copper came along and saw it, and he says, “You rub that out, and look sharp of it,” he says. (182)
This passage shows twofold of the powerful English government, the law and the capitalistic tendency. It also reveals how powerful the English police are. They can command the tramps on the roads to leave if they want, and the reason of expelling is entwined with the ideology of
13 Indicating the “People’s Budge” passed in 1910
capitalism and utilitarianism. The tramps are thought to be unproductive, so their lives are presumably valueless and their right of staying on the roads can be easily deprived.
With regard to the law, Orwell does observe the weird phenomenon in England that begging is not allowed while begging by pretending to sell something is allowed. He explains the reasons of the beggars’ strategy of pretending:
The reason why they have to pretend to sell matches and so forth instead of begging outright is that this is demanded by the absurd law about begging. As the law now stands, if you approach a stranger and ask him for twopence, he can call a policeman and get you seven days for begging. But if you make the air hideous by droning ‘Nearer, my God, to Thee’, or scrawl some chalk daubs on the pavement, or stand about with a tray of matches—in short, if you make a nuisance of yourself—you are held to be following a legitimate trade and not begging. (190)
The phenomenon is obviously caused by the latent ideology of anti-idleness passed down from the end of the Middle Ages, and the result might be the meaningless and futile labor presented in the description above.
The legacy of the Act of Settlement and Removal presents itself in the form of workhouses and casual wards in the twentieth century. Near the end of his tramping life, Orwell admits that
“[i]t is queer that a tribe of men, tens of thousands in number, should be marching up and down England like so many Wandering Jews” (211). He alleges that it is “because there happens to be a law compelling him [a tramp] to do so” (211-12). Orwell elaborates that “if he [a tramp]
is not supported by the parish, can only get relief at the casual wards, and as each casual ward will only admit him for one night, he is automatically kept moving” (212). Historically, this circumstance resulted from the Casual Poor Act of 1882 (Higginbotham). The act might be the heritage of the Act of Settlement and Removal of 1662. In the period of industrialization and the urbanization, the removal from parishes was replaced with the tramping activities among
different districts within the metropolis. This kind of law was probably enacted to prevent not only idleness but also cozy accommodation, but its outcome was, as Orwell criticizes, inhuman residential environments of the workhouses and demoralizing effects on the homeless.