lems as to the position of the classical gymnasium and of the humanistic training which is the main gate of entry to the bureaucracy, and to those branches of public service having the greatest social prestige. Herr de Terra, in the article cited above, has occasion to explain that the scheme of education for railway officers which he proposes will not cause their position to have less of public esteem or of Vornehmheit, - an explanation which of itself indicates how important a part this factor in the situation plays.

On one point there can be no reasonable doubt. There has been an excess of red tape, a multiplication of officers, an unnecessary quantity of writing and reporting in the railway administration of the last ten years. So much may be gathered with certainty from the fact that the ministry has proposed a reorganization of the railway service, described in the Denkschrift last enumerated in our list of publications, by means of which the services of no less than eighteen hundred administrative officers will be dispensed with. The defects of the past doubtless have been due largely to historical causes. When the private railways were bought by the state, their divisions and boundaries were naturally made the basis of the organization of the state railways. As time has gone on and the system of public management has got into permanent working order, the rearrangement in organization has become feasible, and a scheme having this object in view was laid before the Landtag during the last spring. But it may be fairly inferred that, in addition to the defects due to the transition from private to public management, some of the defects inevitable in public management even at its best have shown themselves. A certain unwieldiness, a mechanical insistence on obedience to rules and regulations, a cumbrous system of checks and counter-checks, an excess of formalism not least likely in a bureaucracy like that of Germany, a lack of freedom and elasticity,- these are the obvious drawbacks of public management; and the indications are that they have shown themselves in Prussia.

All this, however, is not inconsistent with admitting that the system of public management in Prussia has been, on the

whole, unmistakably successful. Financially, industrially, and probably even in the details of administration, the Prussians have reason to be proud of the results secured by their body of trained public servants. The opponents of public management in countries like England and the United States will doubtless be tempted to find in the current controversy evidence in support of their assertions as to the general disadvantages of state ownership. But it is significant that even the severest critics in Germany never hint at such a thing as a return to the system of private ownership or suggest that the evils of the present régime outweigh its benefits. If some mistakes have been made, and if some of the defects inevitable in any system of public management have been encountered, the general result has, none the less, been one in which the German people and German bureaucracy may take pride.

F. W. TAUSSIG.

EARLY EXPERIMENTS WITH THE UNEMPLOYED.

In this paper I shall sketch the history of the attempts which were made in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to deal with the old problem of finding employment by the public authorities for those who will not or who cannot find work for themselves. This subject has been touched upon by Professor Ashley, who mentions the houses of correction in Edinburgh, Dublin, and Exeter.* Professor Cunningham also notes that work was provided in Lynn (1581), in Leicester (1584), and in Beverly (1599).† To these instances I can add several others from various county and parochial histories.

In general, a distinction was made between "vagabunds and myghtie stronge beggars" and "other poore and needye persons beinge willinge to work." The former were dealt with in houses of correction, while the workhouse furnished employment for the latter class. I shall speak first of the houses of correction, then of the workhouses, and finally of some other ways in which work was offered.

1. The statute of 1575 ordered that houses of correction should be provided in each county for punishing and employing "rogues or unsettled poor." These houses were to be made ready in a year, or within such times as seemed meet and convenient to the justices. Perhaps this last clause weakened the force of the statute, for few attempts seem to have been made to execute its provisions.

Before the passing of this statute, however, at least three cities had established houses of correction. In 1553 § King Edward VI. gave his house of Bridewell to the city of London "to be improved to be a Workhouse, not only to give Lodging to poor, idle, wandering Persons, Beggars, and others; but to find them Work to help maintain themselves. Two years later the City entered in and took Possession."

* Economic History, ii. 376.

+ Growth of English Industry and Commerce, ii. 60.

± 18 Eliz., C. 3.

§ Strype's Survey of London, i. 215.

The strict administration of the laws secured much better order in the city. In 1575 "there were few or no Rogues and Thieves in the Gaol, for Rogues nor masterless man dared not once appear in those Parts; into such good order had the care of the Magistrate at this Time brought the City and Suburbs."* About ten years later (1586), the same chronicler states that they had in prison in Newgate "the most principal thieves of the Realm, and they lacked but one," who seemed to elude capture. All these good effects were "owing to the great care of the Recorder, Fleetwood." In 1614 "the Lord Mayor of London thus detailed the steps he took to reform what he found out of order in the city.‡ He had freed the streets of a swarm of loose and idle vagrants, providing for the relief of such as were not able to get their living, and keeping them at work in Bridewell, 'not punishing any for begging, but setting them at work, which was worse than death to them.'

was

The king's house of Bridewell gave its name to other establishments of a like character; for example, a "Bridewell established in Norwich in 1571.§ "The poor being very oppressive for want of regular relief, the mayor and his successor made divers excellent orders and rules for their maintenance, and, by erecting a Bridewell at the Norman Spital, did much service to the city." The next year Queen Elizabeth gave a charter to the Corporation of Ipswich, which had "appointed certain houses for the correction of the vicious and curing of the sick, and called it Christ's Hospital." The purpose of the hospital is thus stated: "that the poor and orphans may be taught, such as were sick to be preserved alive for honest uses, and the slothful vagabonds and sturdy beggars, women of bad name and reputation, to be committed to custody and made to labor for their reformation." According to the same author it proved much less efficacious in promoting good morals than the similar institutions in London and Norwich. The date of the establishment of the Bridewell at Plymouth I Strype's Survey of London, ii., Book V., p. 538. + Remembrancia of the City of London, iii. 159. § Blomefield's Norfolk, iii. 296.

Wodderspoon's Memorials of Ipswich, p. 291.

† Ibid, ii., Book V., p. 543.

have not found; but in the municipal records for 1580-81 occurs this entry: *"Item rec of Sr Fraunces Drake, Keneighte, imployed in the house appoynted for ye Bridewell, lli." In 1589 the justices of Bury in Suffolk drew up regulations for a house of correction in that place.†

From 1590 to 1598 I have found no record of the establishment of any Bridewell. Perhaps the officials had relaxed their vigilance. In 1593 there is this record concerning London: "About the year 1593, and before, the City, as well as other parts of the kingdom, was grievously pestered with beggars." Sir Edward Hext, a Somersetshire justice, who writes in 1596, gives a striking account of the lawlessness in his county. He says: "This year there have been 183 most wicked and desperate Persons set at liberty. In truth, work they will not; they will rather hazard their Lives than work. And this I know to be true. For at such Time as our Houses of Correction were up (which are put down in most Parts of England, the more Pity) I sent divers wandering suspicious Persons to the House of Correction; and all, in general, would beseech me with bitter tears to send them rather to the Gaol. And denying it them, some confessed Felony unto me; by which they hazarded their lives; to the End they would not be sent to the House of Correction, where they should be forced to work." As an example of the boldness of the vagrants, he writes: "And this year there assembled 60 in a Company, and took a whole Cartload of Cheese from one driving it to a Fair and dispersed it among them.... Which may grow dangerous by the Aid of such Numbers as are abroad, especially in these Times of Dearth." After other instances of the same kind he says: "By this your good Lordship [the Lord Treasurer] may inform yourself of the State of the whole Realm; which I fear me is in as ill Case or worse than The greatest Fault is in the inferior Ministers of Justice; which should use more earnest endeavor to bring

ours.