26 
issue now, so long as the Poor Law system lasts, is the amount 
of assistance those in need should receive from it. The Labour 
Movement claims ‘‘ adequate maintenance,” and, alas, even the 
Poplar scale falls far short of that. 
As a whole-hearted supporter of the pernicious principles 
of the Poor Law Report of 1834, Mr. Cooper holds that ‘‘ the 
amount of relief under the Poor Law should, of necessity, be 
calculated on a lower scale than the earnings of an independent 
labourer who maintains himself by his labour.” But why, 
because a sweated worker and his family starve slowly in the 
employ of a greedy profit-monger, should they starve more 
quickly under the care of the Guardians of the Poor? Poverty 
is not a crime, and degrading and severely deterrent conditions 
of relief aré an insult to the poor. The sole duty of the 
Guardians is to relieve the destitute. In doing this they 
exercise a discretion vested in them by statute, and in its 
exercise the Poplar Board will allow no outside arbitrary 
interference. The Ministry of Health tried to enforce the rule 
that no applicant for relief, no matter how large his family, 
should receive more than an amount which was 10/- less than 
the minimum wage of the lowest paid manual worker. The 
Poplar Guardians held that this was in clear conflict with their 
duty to relieve destitution, and have consistently and success- 
fully withstood the Ministry in their unjustifiable demand. 
What is held to be one of the strongest points made against 
the administration of the Poplar Board is that it failed to take 
into account, to the extent it should, the earnings of the 
children of dependent, able-bodied applicants. ‘Only a small 
portion of children’s earnings, when such earnings exceed 15/- 
per week, is calculated as the income of the family, and 
children’s earnings up to 15/- per week are ignored,” says 
Mr. Cooper. This is true, for the Poplar Board hold it to be 
unjust to put upon children the burden of maintaining an 
able-bodied father, mother, and the younger members of the 
family. Working children are entitled to be set free from 
demands which, if they endeavoured to meet them, must 
inevitably result in dragging them still further into the morass 
of destitution. After a week's work, they should, if their wages 
are such as to allow of it, be afforded an opportunity to find 
recreation at theatre or picture-palace, in the country, or by 
the sea. Many of these young people are looking forward to 
starting a home of their own, and when they have worked to 
earn the money necessary to provide that home, they have a 
right to expect that they will not be robbed of it in order to 
save expenditure on the part of a callous and indifferent 
community, that has neglected to tackle the problems of its own 
social disorganisation. Moreover, it has always to be remem- 
bered that where the attempt to enforce such regulations 1s 
made, the children have only to leave home and live in 
lodgings elsewhere and they are free from all obligation tc 
RED POPLAR