Saga - 1978, Blaðsíða 154

148
GÍSLI ÁGÚST GUNNLAUGSSON
hefiir verið fjallað um, er því á margan hátt mikið um-
brotaskeið í sögu íslenskrar félagsmálalöggjafar, þar sem
mættust gömul viðhorf og ný. Þótt fátækralögin, sem al-
þingi afgreiddi 1905, fælu ekki í sér neina stökkbreytingu
frá fyrri lögum um þetta efni, átti starf milliþinganefnd-
arinnar ugglaust mikinn þátt í að móta mannúðleg við-
horf í garð þurfamanna, auka skilning á stöðu þeirra og
högum og mikilvægi félagsmálalöggjafar fyrir þjóðar-
heildina. Starf nefndarinnar vísaði þannig fram á veginn
og hafði árið 1907 leitt fátækramálin á þá braut, sem fylgt
hefur verið síðan.
SUMMARY
This paper deals with the Poor Law Commission of 1902—1905
and the problem of poor relief in Iceland in the period 1870—1907.
In the year 1902 a Commission was constituted to revise the leg-
islation concerning poor relief. In 1834 the first general Poor Láw in
Iceland since the regulations of Jónsbók (1280) came into force.
Chapters II—IV deal with legislation concerning the poor during the
19th century.
Prior to 1870 Icelandic society was almost entirely rural in
character. However, in the last decades of the century important
demographic and social changes began to be felt. Fishing and farm-
ing began to develop along lines already familiar elsewhere in
Europe. During the same period migration from rural areas to the
small fishing villages increased. Because of these social changes
the law of 1834 ceased to deal adequately with the situation and it
therefore became increasingly important by the end of the century
that a new law which would deal with the problem in its social con-
text should be passed.
The work of the Commission is discussed in chapters V—VI. K
instrumented the most thorough investigation into the state and
social position of one particular section of the population that had
ever been carried out. The Commission asked for reports from all
local governments giving exact information about everyone in re-
ceipt of poor relief from June 1901 to June 1902. This included in-
formation about the number of paupers, their age, number of de-
pendants, amount of poor relief granted to each individual etc.
Furthermore, the Commission asked for specific information from