Chapter IV: The Local Government Board (2)

[536] Twenty-fourth Annual Report, 1894-5, p. lxxiv.

[537] Third Report of Select Committee on Distress from Want of
Employment, 1895, p. 560.

[538] The Lord Mayor of Manchester, in reply to deputation from
the Chorlton Board of Guardians, 1895; _see_ Second Report of
Committee on Distress from Want of Employment, 1895, p. 54.

[539] Third Report of Committee on Distress from Want of
Employment, 1895, p. v. The Committee also recommended the
abolition of the penalty of disfranchisement, on persons in
receipt of poor relief, so far as "the deserving man forced to
become dependent on public aid" was concerned (_Ibid._).

[540] _Ibid._ p. iv. _See_ Mr. Shaw Lefevre's answer in House of
Commons 18th February 1895 (_Hansard_, vol. 30, p. 969). The
Central Authority persisted in its attitude with regard to these
powers, and the rules, without which they cannot be used, have not
in fact been issued; _see_ Mr. Gerald Balfour's answer in House of
Commons, 19th July 1905 (_Hansard_, vol. 149, pp. 1179-80).
Similar powers were, however, granted to distress committees of
local municipal authorities by the Unemployed Workmen Act 1905,
under which the necessary rules have been issued.

Finally we come, with regard to the relief of the section of the able-bodied who may be deemed to be "the unemployed," to Mr. Long's scheme, embodied in the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905, under which distress committees of the local municipal councils, formed partly of members nominated by the boards of guardians, are empowered to make special provision for those of the able-bodied who are "unemployed," without their becoming paupers, in the way of: (i.) emigration; (ii.) internal migration; (iii.) temporary employment; (iv.) farm colonies; or (v.) labour exchanges; at the expense, so far as emigration, migration, labour exchanges, and the cost of the whole machinery are concerned, of the local municipal rates, and, so far as the actual relief or wages is concerned, of voluntary subscriptions or subventions from the National Exchequer.[541]

[541] 5 Edw. VII. c. 18 (Unemployed Workmen Act 1905); Local
Government Board to Metropolitan Mayors, 20th October 1904, and
Circulars of 24th and 31st October 1904, 20th September, 10th
October, 8th and 22nd December 1905, 13th January 1906; Orders of
20th September, 10th October, 6th December 1905, 13th January
1906. Thirty-fourth Annual Report, 1904-5, pp. cxxii-iii, 150-6;
Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, pp. clxxx-cxcii, 349-438.

(vii.) _The Farm Colony_

Meanwhile various boards of guardians had obtained the sanction of the Central Authority for another method of dealing with that section of the able-bodied who are termed "the unemployed." Upon the pressing and repeated advice of the Central Authority itself, the Poplar Board (which did not at first respond to the suggestion[542]) had in later years cordially co-operated with the local municipal authority in making employment for the unemployed. The increase in the number of able-bodied applicants had continued. The workhouse was full, and indeed overcrowded. In October 1893 Mr. Lansbury had tried in vain to induce his fellow guardians to apply for the (Whitechapel) Modified Workhouse Test Order, permitting the admission to the workhouse of the men alone, whilst the families received outdoor relief. Two months later the Central Authority was asked to sanction the expenditure of £500 chargeable to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, to provide work for able-bodied applicants on three days a week. The Central Authority felt unable to sanction so vague a proposal, and practically invited a more definite scheme. Presently the idea of a farm colony, on which to employ able-bodied men, whilst their families remained on outdoor relief in London, received the approval of a conference of Metropolitan guardians. The Central Authority stated that, whilst it could not sanction any combination of areas with this object, it would consider any proposal by a board of guardians for the purpose. When, however, the Poplar Board of Guardians made such a proposal, the Central Authority declined to contemplate any action under the statutes of 1819 and 1830 already referred to, and persisted in regarding the proposed farm colony as merely a branch workhouse, deprecating it on account of the expense and distance.[543] Finally, by the generosity of Mr. Joseph Fels in placing land gratuitously at the disposal of the Poplar Board, the project in 1904 got under way, and the Central Authority (after suggesting, as an alternative, the use of the test workhouse at Kensington, which, as above mentioned, was on the point of coming to an end) sanctioned the extensive farm colony at Laindon under the pretence that it was a temporary workhouse, to which all the regulations of the General Consolidated Order of 1847, and all the elaborately prescribed dietaries of the Dietaries and Accounts Order of 1900, were nominally to apply.[544] At first the view of the Central Authority seems to have been that the men were not receiving indoor relief, but were, under the Out-relief Regulation Order of 1852, performing a task of work in a temporary workhouse, and were thus, we assume, receiving outdoor relief in respect of their wives and families in return for such a labour test.

[542] In answer to an inquiry in 1887, as to what action had been
taken on the Circular of 1886, the Poplar Board of Guardians
replied that no exceptional measures had been taken, and that they
had found it unnecessary even to open a labour yard (Local
Government Board to Poplar, 11th January 1887; Poplar to Local
Government Board, 12th January 1887).

[543] Local Government Board to Poplar Board of Guardians, 15th
January, 6th June, 17th August, and 4th October 1895; MS. Minutes,
Poplar Board of Guardians, 1895-1900.

[544] No Order appears to have been issued, sanctioning or
regulating this new experiment, the Local Government Board's
approval being apparently conveyed, partly by a brief letter,
partly by verbal communications through the inspector MS.
archives, Poplar Board of Guardians, 8th and 22nd July, 16th and
30th September, 21st October, 25th November 1903; 13th April 1904;
Local Government Board to Poplar Union, 16th and 28th July 1903,
and 11th April 1904. The Central Authority refused to modify the
General Dietaries and Accounts Order 1900, which had prescribed
model dietaries for inmates of workhouses, but had not included
any for men engaged all day out-of-doors at agricultural labour,
but it sanctioned the extra expenditure illegally incurred for a
more appropriate dietary (Local Government Board to Poplar, 10th
January 1905; MS. Minutes, Poplar Board of Guardians, 11th January
1905).

In February 1905, however, the so-called (Whitechapel) Modified Workhouse Test Order was issued to Poplar, under which the men alone could be admitted to the workhouse, and become indoor paupers, their wives and families receiving outdoor relief.[545]

[545] Special Order to Poplar of 4th February 1905 (modified
workhouse test). It is not clear whether: (i.) the men at the farm
colony; or (ii.) their families, were in 1904 included in the
statistics of indoor, or in those of outdoor, pauperism; nor
whether any change in the actual statistical classification was
made on receipt of the Order of February 1905.

Meanwhile the farm colony experiment was being tried in another form. The Central Authority gave its sanction, in March 1904, to the Poplar Board of Guardians sending some of their able-bodied male paupers to the Hadleigh farm colony of the Salvation Army, at a payment at the rate of £28:12s. per annum for each man, in addition to the outdoor relief granted to his wife and family.[546] In the following year it gave its sanction to a similar proposal by the Bradford Board of Guardians.[547] We do not know in what other instances the Central Authority tried this particular form of the farm colony experiment. The Lingfield farm colony of the Church Army was also being made use of by some boards of guardians, presumably with the sanction of the Central Authority.[548] We do not understand why these interesting farm colony experiments undertaken by Poplar, Bradford, and other boards of guardians, with the special sanction of the Central Authority, find no mention, either in its annual reports for 1904-5 or 1905-6, or in the reports for those years of the inspectors for the districts.

[546] MS. Minutes, Poplar Board of Guardians, 30th March, 18th
May, 15th June 1904; Local Government Board to Poplar Board of
Guardians, 25th March and 2nd June 1904.

[547] Local Government Board to Bradford Board of Guardians, 14th
January 1905. The Bradford Board had asked the Central Authority
in vain, two years before, to get powers to enable Boards of
Guardians to combine to form labour colonies of their own,
especially for vagrants (MS. archives, Bradford Board of
Guardians, February 1903).

[548] Local Government Board to Poplar Board of Guardians, 1st
December 1903.

_B._--VAGRANTS

The adoption, between 1886 and 1907, of a policy of discriminating between some able-bodied applicants and others, according to their character and circumstances, with a view (whether by Poor Law farm colony or by the relief works and labour exchanges of the distress committees) to the rehabilitation of the man really seeking work, makes all the more remarkable the retention, during the whole period, of a contrary policy with regard to wayfarers or vagrants. We find the Central Authority, from 1871 onwards, consistently maintaining for this class a policy of indiscriminate relief on demand, under deterrent conditions, distinctly "less eligible" than the poorest accommodation of the independent labourer, free from any trace of wish for, or attempt at, reform or cure, and intended to be uniform throughout the kingdom. There was, for instance, after 1871, no reversion to the policy so frequently adumbrated between 1847 and 1871, of discriminating between the professional tramp and the _bona fide_ workman in search of employment, reserving the deterrent casual ward for the one, and granting a night's lodging without conditions to the other. On the contrary, the basis of the new policy of 1871 was the universal establishment of the deterrent casual ward for all wayfarers, and the exclusion from the workhouse of even the worthiest among them. This uniformity was to be secured by the Pauper Inmates Discharge and Regulation Act, 1871,[549] which provided that a casual pauper should not be entitled to discharge himself before 11 a.m. on the day following his admission, or, if found a second time in one casual ward within a month, not till 9 a.m. on the third day, nor in any case until he had performed a prescribed task. The Act also made for uniformity by requiring the guardians to provide such casual wards as the Central Authority thought necessary, and by subjecting the admission, diet, and task to its Orders. From this time forth, therefore, the Central Authority assumes complete responsibility for the treatment of vagrants. Its Circular of 1871 begins by condemning the work of its predecessors. "The result of the system hitherto adopted in the relief of this class of paupers cannot be regarded as successful, for while there has been no uniformity of treatment as to diet and work there has been neglect in many unions to provide proper and sufficient wards."[550] The Central Authority enunciated once more the need for national uniformity, pointing out that stringent regulations in one union caused vagrants to vary their route and resort to another place, and expressed an intention of requiring that suitable accommodation should be provided at every workhouse. But no uniformity was actually prescribed. The examples of Bath and Corwen unions were quoted for the guidance of others. At Bath vagrants had to apply for relief at the police station, whence able-bodied men were sent to the workhouse, where they were relieved, and required to perform a three hours' task of stone-breaking, while women, children, and old and infirm men were relieved at a refuge without any task. The Central Authority mentioned this system with apparent approval, and remarked that it had diminished the vagrancy of Bath by over 58 per cent. At Corwen a proposal was approved to place the vagrant wards in the yard of the police station, and appoint a police officer as assistant relieving officer.[551] But the stream of vagrants, after a merely temporary abatement, continued to grow. In 1882 the Central Authority got another statute, and issued another order, increasing the period of detention and otherwise making the conditions more deterrent[552]--still without laying down any policy of discrimination between wayfarers of one sort and wayfarers of another. A few more years' experience showed that the detention really operated against the virtuous wayfarer, who found himself discharged too late to get the work for which he had tramped. The remedy of the Central Authority was to issue circulars suggesting that the guardians should give orders that casual paupers who had done their task on the preceding day should be allowed to leave early in the morning.[553] Some boards of guardians acted on this, others did not--thus destroying the national uniformity at which the Central Authority had aimed. Finally, in 1892, in tardy response to a recommendation of the House of Lords Committee of 1888, a Circular and an Order were issued, "with the view of facilitating the search for work by casual paupers who are desirous of obtaining employment," which gave to every inmate of the casual ward, who had performed his task to the best of his ability, an absolute right to claim his discharge at 5.30 A.M. in summer, or 6 A.M. in winter, on the second day after admission, on his merely representing "that he is desirous of seeking work."[554] Whether from this or other causes, the stream of vagrants continued to grow, with the usual fluctuations. In 1904 the numbers passed all previous records, and so unsatisfactory had proved the policy of 1871-1904 that a Departmental Committee was appointed to find a new one.[555]

[549] 34 & 35 Vic. c. 108, secs. 5, 6, 9.

[550] Circular Letter on Vagrancy of 18th November 1871, in First
Annual Report, 1871-2, p. 55.

[551] This Circular was issued after the passing of the Pauper
Inmates Discharge and Regulation Act, and a few days before the
General Order, of which the provisions will shortly be described.
In the next year the Board reported a diminution in the number of
vagrants, and allowed some of the less stringent of the
Metropolitan casual wards to be closed, an action which caused
difficulties in later years. In the unions where there were no
casual wards, ordinary vagrants were referred to that of a
neighbouring union, but the workhouse officials were bound to
admit any applicants who, from sickness or other cause, were
unable to proceed farther, and generally any case of urgent
necessity (Second Annual Report, 1872-3, pp. xxii-xxiii). In 1872
also the Board advised guardians to dispense with the services of
police constables as assistant relieving officers, and appoint the
superintendents of the casual wards instead (Circular on Vagrancy
in the Metropolis, of 30th May 1872; in _ibid._ p. 17). No reason
is given for this change, and thirty years later the co-operation
of the police in this manner is still assumed, for the board
sanction a subscription by the guardians towards the cost of
providing a mid-day meal for vagrants when proceeding from one
workhouse to another, "where the superintendent of police is
appointed assistant relieving officer for vagrants" (_Local
Government Chronicle_, 29th November 1902, p. 1203).

[552] 45 and 46 Vic. c. 36 (Casual Poor Act 1882); General Order
of 18th December 1882, in Twelfth Annual Report, 1882-3, pp.
64-71. The Metropolis was now deemed to be one town for the
purpose of punishing resort to the casual ward more than once in a
month.

[553] Circulars of 16th April 1885, 7th November 1887, and 18th
January 1888; _see_ Fifteenth, Seventeenth and Eighteenth Annual
Reports.

[554] Circular of 13th June 1892; Order of 11th June 1892;
Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1892-3, pp. 14-15.

[555] _See_ its Report, Cd. 2852 of 1906.

_C._--WOMEN

It was in this period of 1871-1907 that the Central Authority began to lay down a policy with regard to women as women; significantly enough, as part of the restrictive policy brought in by the inspectorate. Women continued to be practically ignored in the statutes and orders, so that their legal position remained virtually unchanged.[556] But without any change in the orders, or in the division of the whole country into geographical regions under which, as we have shown, women had different claims to relief, the Central Authority sought by circulars, minutes, decisions, and the persistent pressure of the inspectorate, to discourage the grant of outdoor relief to particular classes of women. Thus outdoor relief to able-bodied single women without illegitimate children continued to be permissible, without any labour test or other conditions, in all the unions under the Out-relief Regulation Order; and the area under this Order continued to grow in population, until it amounted, by 1907, to three-fourths of the whole. But by Circular of 2nd December 1871, the Central Authority advised that outdoor relief should not be given in any case whatsoever of this class.[557] Such outdoor relief was specifically prohibited in the rules adopted by the Manchester Board of Guardians in 1875, which were frequently commended to the notice of other Boards of Guardians, who, under inspectorial pressure, voluntarily put themselves under similar rules.[558] In the same way, without alteration of the Orders, it was urged that deserted wives should not be given outdoor relief, at any rate during the first twelve months after the desertion.[559] It was officially declared to be "inexpedient to allow outdoor relief to the wives and children of persons who are in gaol"--not merely of convicted prisoners under sentence, but also of those not under sentence, nearly all of whom are still unconvicted, and, therefore, legally presumed to be innocent--and this in spite of the admitted fact that "the law has provided that regulations prescribed with regard to widows shall apply to the wives in these cases," so that the Central Authority had no power to make a prohibitory order.[560] So, too, the "wives of men in the first class Army Reserve," to whom relief could not be actually prohibited without trouble with the War Office, were declared not to need constant relief, as "an able-bodied woman with the Government allowance and such assistance as her husband ought to provide from his pay and allowances should have no difficulty in finding, if not immediately, at least within a reasonable period after her husband's departure, sufficient employment to enable her to maintain adequately herself and her children." But outdoor relief might be given for a short period, and, it was suggested, on loan.[561] Even to widows, who, it was now recognised, accounted for a third of the whole pauper population,[562] outdoor relief was--apparently for the first time in the whole history of the Central Authority from 1834, so far as we can find--now officially discouraged. It was strongly recommended that it should not be given at all to "any able-bodied widow with one child only." Even where there were "more than one child, it may be desirable to take one or more of the children into the workhouse in preference to giving outdoor relief."[563] It is characteristic that this policy was not based on any consideration of what was the appropriate treatment for the child, but was regarded only as a "test," by which it was intended to exclude every widow who could _possibly_ maintain herself and family without poor relief. Six years later we have it observed, as a capital drawback to this policy, not that the children might suffer by being taken into the workhouse, but that "since the passing of the Elementary Education Acts this offer as a test of destitution has not the same effect as previously, inasmuch as the children being required to attend school, the mothers cannot have the benefit of any earnings which otherwise the children might obtain."[564] And though the Central Authority refused, in 1877, to make illegal the grant of outdoor relief to "widows within six months of their widowhood"--declaring, indeed, that "a widow, with or without children, could not, on the death of her husband, in all cases be required to go into the workhouse"--it was not obscurely hinted that "it may be that the period of six months now allowed is too long," and that "the guardians should exercise their discretion in dealing with each case according to its merits."[565] The example of the Bradfield Union, where "the widow's month" had, since about 1873, been substituted for "the widow's six months," was always being commended to boards of guardians by the inspectorate. Moreover, in the Metropolis, at Manchester, at Birmingham, and various other places, it was strongly recommended in these years that outdoor relief to able-bodied independent women should be given only with a labour test; which might be (as at Manchester) "the enforced silence and order of the needle-room," where the women, at any rate, learnt to knit, and sew, and darn a stocking, or, as at Birmingham and Poplar, what Mr. Corbett called "the comparative licence and desultory work of the ordinary oakum room."[566] The task of oakum picking was eventually preferred by the Central Authority, and, down to the last decade of the century, it was this that was recommended to boards of guardians. The effect of this long-continued and persistent pressure for the first twenty years of the Local Government Board, without any alteration in the legal status of women by order or statute, is seen in the statistics of outdoor relief. The able-bodied women getting outdoor relief on 1st January 1871, numbered 116,407.[567] On 1st January 1892, they had been brought down to 53,571, the reduction having been principally in: (_a_) wives of able-bodied men; (_b_) single women without children; and (_c_) wives of men in gaol, in the Army, Navy, etc., or otherwise absent. But the number of widows on outdoor relief had also been reduced from 53,502 in 1873 to 36,627 on 1st January 1892.[568]

[556] By the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act 1876, the
law which had for poor relief purposes put a woman whose husband
was beyond seas in the same position as a widow was extended to a
married woman living separate from her husband (39 & 40 Vic. c. 61
sec. 18; _Selections from the Correspondence of the Local
Government Board_, vol. iii. 1888, p. 186). It is also to be noted
that under the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, a married woman
having separate property was made liable to maintain her husband,
and, concurrently with her husband, also her children and
grandchildren if they became chargeable to the poor rate (45 & 46
Vic. c. 75, secs. 20, 21).

[557] Circular, 2nd December 1871, in First Annual Report, 1871-2,
p. 67.

[558] For the "Manchester Rules" _see_ Fifth Annual Report,
1875-6, pp. xvii-xix, 130-133. Somewhat similar rules were at the
instance of the inspectorate adopted by the Cheshire Unions as
late as 1891 (Twenty-first Annual Report, 1891-2, pp. 164-5).

[559] Circular of 2nd December 1871, in First Annual Report,
1871-2, p. 67. This suggestion we trace to Mr. Corbett, in 1869,
though in the milder form of limiting the grant of outdoor relief
to recently deserted wives, to two or three weeks only (Mr.
Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871, as reprinted by the Central
Authority for official circulation, February 1873). Ten years
later the Central Authority found that this policy was not
justified by the law, so far as regards deserted wives having
children under seven (as is the case with most of them). In such
cases it was found necessary in 1880 to advise that outdoor relief
could, in case of destitution, not be refused, even if the woman
was able-bodied, and irrespective of her character, the cause or
duration of the husband's absence, possible collusion with him,
etc. The Central Authority decided that, "assuming that the
applicant in this case is a married woman, whose husband, though
living, is not residing with her, she would not be liable for the
support of the children, who, being within the age of nurture,
cannot lawfully be separated from her; and the guardians would not
be justified, under these circumstances, in withholding out-relief
_for the children_" (_Selections from the Correspondence of the
Local Government Board_, vol. ii. 1880, p. 71).

[560] Local Government Board to Chairman of Central Poor Law
Conference, 12th May 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, p.
56.

[561] Circular, 30th August 1882, in Twelfth Annual Report,
1882-3, pp. 43-4.

[562] "Widows and their dependent children [on 1st January 1873,
25,740] constitute 33 per cent of the total outdoor pauperism of
London, and 57 per cent of so much of that pauperism as is caused
otherwise than by age and permanent infirmity" (Third Annual
Report, 1873-4, p. 179).

[563] Circular of 2nd December 1871, in First Annual Report,
1871-2, p. 67. The injurious results of this policy were reported
by Mr. Culley, _see_ his Report in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p.
74. On the other hand Mr. Longley preferred the "offer of the
House" to widows, in order to make their deceased husbands
provident. "The condition of a widow with a large family," said
Mr. Longley, "however deplorable it undoubtedly is, is one of the
ordinary contingencies of human circumstances, which may, in some
degree or other, be provided against equally with sickness, or
accident, or other bereavement.... A man in receipt of regular
weekly wages may be fairly called upon to secure his widow if
[un]able to work for her living, against dependence upon Poor Law
relief" (Mr. Longley's Report, in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, pp.
183, 185).

[564] Local Government Board to Chairman of Central Poor Law
Conference, 12th May 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, p.
56. Some of the inspectors altogether disapproved of the policy of
taking the children into the workhouse (_see_, for instance, Mr.
Culley's Report, in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. 74). One
inspector, at least, realised the connection of the destitution
due to widowhood with the absence of compensation for accidents
and industrial diseases among workmen. "Male life, at least, is
longer in the rural than in the manufacturing, mining, and seaport
unions. In the latter ... male life is more frequently cut short
by illness or accident arising from the nature of the
employment.... The proportion of children (exclusive of orphans)
to widows ... varies from 0·48 in the purely agricultural union of
Bedale to 2·30 in the manufacturing and shipbuilding district of
Jarrow.... I found ... on examining the returns from the different
relief districts that the highest rate of mortality amongst
husbands prevailed in the inland portion of the union, a state of
things which the relieving officers attributed to accidents in
shipbuilding yards and the unwholesome nature of the employment in
chemical works. In the same manner, in Tynemouth Union, I found
that the proportion of widows with young families was considerably
higher in the mining district than in the town of North
Shields.... In Teesdale the rate of mortality amongst the
leadminers is very great, owing, I was informed, to the bad
ventilation of the mines" (Mr. Culley's Report, in Third Annual
Report, 1873-4, pp. 72-3). We do not find that the point was
followed up until the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1900.

[565] Local Government Board to Chairman of Central Poor Law
Conference, 12th May 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, pp.
55-6. We find the policy of reducing "the widow's six months"
suggested by Mr. Corbett in 1869. At the Conference of East End
Guardians summoned by him, it was agreed "that the widows without
children should, as a rule, after a period not exceeding three
months from the commencement of their widowhood, be relieved only
in the workhouse" (Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871; as
reprinted by the Central Authority for official circulation,
February 1873).

[566] _Ibid._

[567] Twenty-third Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1870-1, p.
374.

[568] Third Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1873-4,
p. 588; Twenty-first Annual Report, 1891-2, p. 365.

After 1885, though some of the inspectors continued to recommend, with regard to women, the strict policy of 1871,[569] the Local Government Board itself, so far as we can discover, reverted to silence on the point, and gave no advice.

[569] It is, however, to be noted that in the model rules which
the most zealous inspectors were pressing on Boards of Guardians
in 1902--herein differing from the much commended Manchester rules
of 1875--the widow with only one child is recognised as a fit case
for outdoor relief (Mr. Preston-Thomas's Report, in Thirty-Second
Annual Report, 1902-3, p. 100).

_D._--CHILDREN

(i.) _On Outdoor Relief_

There seems to have been, so far as regards children, no explicit change in policy in 1871. To take first the 336,870 children under sixteen who were on outdoor relief on 1st January 1871[570]--almost exactly one-third of the aggregate pauperism--we see continued the same ignoring of their general condition. We do not find that the inspectors ever investigated what was happening to these children or that the Central Authority ever made any official inquiry, still less issued any order, on the subject. The general policy of restricting outdoor relief, which we have sufficiently described, had incidentally the effect, in the course of twenty years, of reducing the number of children on outdoor relief by nearly one-half.[571]

[570] Twenty-third Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1870-71,
p. 378.

[571] On 1st January 1892, the 336,870 children of 1871 had fallen
to 177,245, probably the lowest figure of the whole seventy years
(Twenty-first Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1891-2,
p. 365).

On one point, indeed, that of education, as we have seen, Parliament had explicitly over-ridden the implied contention that the Poor Law Authorities had no responsibility for the welfare of the children on outdoor relief. The policy of Denison's Act of 1855, which had been comparatively little acted upon, was extended in 1873 so as to make it compulsory on boards of guardians to see that such children between five and thirteen were regularly at school.[572] The guardians were even required to pay the school fees for children--even illegitimate children--who were not paupers, if they needed this, and the parents did not thereby become paupers.[573] We see the Central Authority communicating these decisions of the Legislature without comment, and the boards of guardians carrying them out as they chose;[574] sometimes even taking it upon themselves to petition the Education Department to relax the requirement of schooling after twelve, as being hard on the parent, useless to the child, and leading to "much necessary work being left undone," especially "the eradication of pernicious weeds."[575]

[572] 36 & 37 Vic. c. 86, sec. 3 (Elementary Education Act 1873);
39 & 40 Vic. c. 79, sec. 40 (Elementary Education Act 1876); 43 &
44 Vic. c. 23, sec. 5 (Elementary Education Act 1880). It was held
in 1877 that the guardians might, if they chose, pay, besides the
school fee, also for books and stationery (_Selections from the
Correspondence of the Local Government Board_, vol. i. 1880, p.
49).

[573] 39 & 40 Vic. c. 79, sec. 10 (Elementary Education Act 1876).

[574] Circulars of 30th December 1873 and 30th December 1876, in
Third Annual Report, 1873-4, pp. 4-7, and Sixth Annual Report,
1876-7, pp. 23-6; MS. Minutes, Bakewell Board of Guardians, 12th
January and 9th February 1874.

[575] _Ibid._ 30th August 1880.

We may see further imposition of responsibility on the boards of guardians for the well-being of the children of the poor, in the series of Acts for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Already in 1868 boards of guardians had been expressly directed by statute to institute proceedings against parents who neglected their children.[576] In 1888 the Central Authority reminded the guardians of the power they had thus had for twenty years, without often making use of it.[577] In 1889 Parliament enacted that any person having the custody of a child under sixteen who "wilfully ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes such child, or causes or procures such child to be ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering or injury to its health, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour," and that the guardians might, "out of the funds under their control, pay the reasonable costs and expenses of any proceedings" which they direct to be taken. They were not definitely required to take such proceedings, but Parliament laid the duty upon them to do so. The Act of 1894 made the provisions more explicit, and defined injury to health so as to include "injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement."[578]

[576] 31 & 32 Vic. c. 122, sec. 37 (Poor Law Amendment Act 1868).

[577] Circular of 31st December 1888, in Eighteenth Annual Report,
1888-9, p. 105.

[578] 52 & 53 Vic. c. 44, secs. 1, 12 (1889); 57 & 58 Vic. c. 41,
sec. 1 (1894); Circular of 30th September 1889, in Nineteenth
Annual Report, 1889-90, pp. 92-5.

These statutes were applicable, among others, to the 170,000 children on outdoor relief, many of whom were plainly underfed, housed in insanitary conditions, half-clothed, and generally treated in a manner "likely to cause injury" to their health; but we do not find that the boards of guardians realised the great increase of power and responsibility thus entrusted to them. The Central Authority, which observed mildly that Parliament evidently meant the guardians to institute proceedings, did not point out to them the applicability of the new statutes to the children on outdoor relief; and the boards of guardians, so far as we can ascertain, seldom or never acted on them. In 1904, accordingly, the power to pay the expenses of prosecution was transferred to county and borough authorities, so that the guardians ceased to be responsible for taking proceedings; but the workhouse remains a "place of safety" to which a constable or other person authorised by a Justice may take a child, the guardians are required to provide for the reception of any child so brought to the workhouse, and the master is bound to admit such child if there is sufficient accommodation.[579]

[579] 4 Edw. VII. c. 15, sec. 5.

After 1890 we find the responsibility of the Poor Law authorities for all the outdoor paupers beginning to be recognised by the inspectorate. "The absolute responsibility of the guardians for the material well-being of every one who is in receipt of outdoor relief,"[580] said Mr. Davy in 1893, had been officially recognised by the District Nurses Order, to which we shall recur. "If any relief at all is given to an applicant," Mr. Davy laid it down, "it is the plain duty of the guardians _to take precautions_ to insure that ... the pauper is sufficiently fed, clothed, and lodged."[581] This was notoriously not the case in many unions, the children especially being in an evil plight. "In many unions," said Mr. Baldwyn Fleming, in 1891, "the relieving officer and the inspector of nuisances could show guardians cases ... where large families are living in cottages too small for them, and the accommodation is in almost every respect unsatisfactory, where the children have little but rags to cover them by day or night, where school attendance is avoided to the utmost, where the feeding only just escapes starvation, where the physical and moral education of the children are equally impracticable, where infant life is one constant struggle with misery and privation."[582] The demoralising association of the outdoor pauper children with the pay-station was specially denounced by another inspector. "What," he said, "is the sense, I would ask--I _do_ ask in board rooms--of all this trouble and outlay to put the children into cottage homes or scattered homes, to keep them, in fact, altogether away from the workhouse, if while doing all this the very same authority permit the precisely similar children of the outdoor poor to haunt the pay-stations, to hang about workhouse gates, or to sit mixed up in waiting-rooms with adult paupers.... The children, early in life, often at times when they ought to be at school, have their eyes opened to the facility with which by exaggerating your impecunious condition, 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week can be got without the labour of earning it.... The master of one of the board schools had written ... to complain that three children systematically were kept from school on a particular day of the week for the purpose of drawing relief due to their parents."[583]

[580] Mr. Davy's Report, in Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1892-3,
p. 72.

[581] _Ibid._

[582] Mr. Baldwyn Fleming's Report, in Twentieth Annual Report,
1890-1, p. 222.

[583] Mr. Kennedy's Report, in Twenty-eighth Annual Report,
1898-9, pp. 168-9.

We cannot find, however, any order, minute, or circular explicitly taking official cognisance of the condition of these children (except in respect of the statutory requirement of school attendance); nor do the boards of guardians seem to have taken any trouble to inquire into their condition. In 1901 the Central Authority had reported to it, at its special request (in connection with the adequacy of the amount granted, especially for the aged), the amounts usually given in outdoor relief. In the majority of unions it must then have appeared that the amount allowed for the support of each child on outdoor relief was either the 1s. and one loaf per week, which had had the sanction of Mr. Corbett in 1869,[584] or frequently 1s. 6d. per week. The Bradford Board of Guardians, however, if no other, reported that it allowed to deserving widows with dependent children 4s. for the first child, 3s. for the second, and 2s. for each additional child (besides 5s. for the mother herself).[585] We do not find that any official view has been expressed as to this diversity.

[584] Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871, as reprinted by
the Central Authority in 1873 for official circulation.

[585] Bradford Union to Local Government Board, 26th January 1901
(MS. archives, Bradford Board of Guardians).

At the very end of the period we find Parliament suddenly insisting on the responsibility of the boards of guardians for the condition, not only of the children on outdoor relief, but of all children in so far as sufficiency of food is concerned. By the Act of 1906 special provision is made for children at school who are in need of food. This Act, embodied in a General Order, was communicated to boards of guardians in a circular which explains the exact degree of responsibility which, in the opinion of the Central Authority, Parliament has thereby imposed on them. A parent is bound to supply his children with necessary food, and if he is unable to do so should apply to the guardians for help. When a father, being able to supply food, neglects to do so, or being unable neglects to apply to the guardians, so that the child is underfed, a "special application" on behalf of the child may be made to the guardians or relieving officer "by the managers, or by a teacher duly empowered by the managers, of a public elementary school, or by an officer duly empowered by the local education authority." If the food is urgently needed it is to be supplied at once, as a loan to the father, and he is to be informed as soon as possible that it has been so given. When there is no such urgency, the father is to be informed that food will be supplied before it is given, that he may have the opportunity of providing it himself; and the guardians are to inquire whether the need is due to habitual neglect; if it is so, the relief shall (and in any case it may) be given on loan.

Whenever relief under this order is given on loan, the guardians are obliged to take proceedings for its recovery, unless the Local Government Board specially approves of their not doing so, which approval would only be obtainable in very special circumstances, _e.g._ if it were obviously impossible to recover the amount. It is held to be particularly important that these proceedings should always be taken, as they are the only means of safeguarding against abuse, for the rule that, as a condition of relief, the able-bodied father must enter the workhouse or be set to work by the guardians is specially abrogated in cases under this order, as being inapplicable to them. The order does not apply to any child who is blind or deaf and dumb, nor in the case of any relative except the father, nor if the child is not resident with the father. Relief is not to be ordered on a "special application" for a longer period than one month. "Where a special application is renewed within a short time, say six months, after the expiration of the period for which the relief has been given, and further relief has to be allowed, or where within this period special application is made and relief is given in respect of some other member of the same family, and the cause of the application is the habitual neglect of the father to provide food, the Board think that the guardians should consider whether the case is one in which proceedings could be taken against the father, either under the Vagrancy Act 1824, or the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904."

Finally, the Board "trust that the boards of guardians, particularly those of populous unions in which cases of underfed children more frequently occur, will endeavour to co-operate with the local education authorities in dealing with really necessitous cases, whilst exercising due discrimination so as to avoid the pauperisation and consequent disfranchisement of parents who ought not to be brought under the Poor Law."[586]

[586] Circular of 27th April 1905, in Thirty-fifth Annual Report,
1905-6, pp. 317-20.

The number of outdoor pauper children is now slightly more than in 1892, there being on 1st January 1906, 179,870 such, 96,804 being widows' children, 72,721 children with both parents or with fathers only, and 10,345 having no parents.[587]

[587] Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxi.

Turning now to the much smaller number of children in Poor Law institutions, of whom there were on January 1st 1871, 55,832[588] (together with a very small number "boarded out"), we see a similar continuity of policy in the Central Authority, but in these cases it is continuity in the policy of a constant enlargement of responsibility, and of a steady improvement in the provision.[589]

[588] Twenty-third Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1870-71,
p. 374.

[589] There are few statutory provisions of this period which
affect the institutional treatment of children, and these few deal
simply with financial questions. It is worth noting, however, that
they tend to improve accommodation, as they facilitate increased
expenditure, by allowing a larger sum to be raised for building,
fitting up, and furnishing Metropolitan District Schools (Poor Law
Loans Act 1872, 35 Vic. c. 2, sec. 1), and by allowing the
expenses of maintenance in a certified school to be paid up to any
limit to be fixed by the Local Government Board; and provide
against over-crowding by allowing no repayment from the common
poor fund in respect of children in a school in excess of a
maximum number fixed for the school by the board. The special
provisions for the education of defective children will be
considered under the heading "Defectives."

(ii.) _In Poor Law Schools_

The main preoccupation of the Central Authority since 1871, so far as children are concerned, has been the increase, progressive improvement, and novel development of the Poor Law school entirely removed from the workhouse.[590] The recommendations and incitements to boards of guardians to remove from the workhouse the healthy children of school age are incessant down to 1900.[591] Such children are ordinarily accommodated in Poor Law schools, either district schools, where these exist, or much more frequently "separated" or "workhouse schools," which may be of the old aggregated type, or "cottage homes" or "scattered homes." The dramatic change from the views of 1850 is the abandonment of the "district school." The aggregated type, held in such esteem previously to 1871, fell gradually into disfavour, and is now known as the "barrack school." Already in 1871 Mr. Corbett was criticising these schools as being far too large (as well as too indiscriminate in the kind of children admitted) to be really successful.[592] After repeated outbreaks of malignant ophthalmia, and continued experience of the mental drawbacks, especially of the large girls' schools, the Central Authority abandoned its policy, and presently came to decline to sanction proposals which would have the effect of "extending the large schools in the Metropolis and ... most readily [to] entertain any proposals for applying to other purposes any of these large buildings, subject to other provision of a suitable character being made for the children."[593] The barrack school system grew up out of the five Metropolitan school districts; these also therefore shared in the condemnation, and in 1899 two had been dissolved.[594]

[590] In his Report for 1898, the inspector of Poor Law schools
for the six northern counties describes the changes of the
preceding thirty-seven years. In 1871-5 there were seventy-four
unions, having considerable numbers of children, which educated
them all in schools within the workhouse walls. Four had distinct
schools, but on the workhouse premises; and four only had entirely
separate schools. In 1898, only one union had workhouse schools
for girls and two for boys; three had distinct schools, but on the
workhouse premises; with half-a-dozen others with similar
arrangements for part of the children, or for the children
awaiting transfer only. Elsewhere the children were in entirely
separate schools or cottage homes, or removed to certified
schools; or in scattered homes or boarded out (Mr. Mozley's
Report, in Twenty-eighth Annual Report, 1898-9, p. 183).

[591] The last in the published documents seems to be the
incidental reference in the Circular of 4th August 1900 as to the
aged and deserving poor (Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 18).

[592] Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871.

[593] _Hansard_, 1st February 1897, vol. 45, p. 904.

[594] _Ibid._ 2nd June 1899, vol. 72, p. 258. The process of
discovery of the evils of these large schools may be interestingly
traced in the annual reports of the L.G.B. Inspectors of Poor Law
Schools from 1871 to 1895; the _Report on the Health of
Metropolitan Pauper Schools_, by J. H. Bridges, 1890; and Report
of the Committee on Poor Law Schools, 1896.

A "separate school" belonging to a single union or separate parish would naturally be much smaller than a district school, but nothing is said as to the merits or demerits of an aggregated school of moderate size. The method which seems to have won the approval of the Central Authority is that of "cottage homes," or the "block system," under which children are grouped in bodies of not more than twenty-five or thirty in separate houses on a common ground of considerable acreage, and with suitable common buildings, such as baths, chapels, etc., under the supervision, not only of "house-mothers," but also of a superintendent of the whole. Since 1894 the Board have constantly approved the erection of schools on this plan; they always require that the cottage homes should be entirely separated from the workhouse. The outstanding feature of this system is the great expense.[595]

[595] The "cottage homes" required special orders widely differing
from those for the "barrack schools"; _see_, for instance, that
for the Marston Green Cottage Homes of the Birmingham Union of 8th
November 1879.

An alternative plan is that of "scattered homes," _i.e._ cottages taken here and there throughout the union, not adjacent to each other, wherein the children live under the care of matrons or foster parents, and whence they attend the public elementary schools. In some cases the results of this system have been good, but the Central Authority received reports of certain cases of bad management, which made it cautious in regard to other proposals in that direction. The adoption of the system in Camberwell was sanctioned on the conditions that the guardians could satisfy the Central Authority that they could get proper houses for the scattered homes, and also that they could be quite sure of having an adequate system of inspection.[596]

[596] Local Government Board to Camberwell Union. The Sheffield
"Scattered Homes" were described in Mr. Kennedy's Report, in the
Twenty-third Annual Report, 1893-4, p. 138. They were (as
"isolated homes") regulated by Special Orders of 4th November
1896, 23rd February 1898, and 7th February 1906.

Notwithstanding the great expense of these highly elaborated boarding-schools for the indoor pauper boys and girls--an expense reaching between £100 and £200 capital, and between £30 and £50 annual maintenance, for each child--we see the Central Authority constantly pressing for their multiplication. The very idea of "less eligibility" has been forgotten by the inspectors. To quote one of them in 1902: "The number and nature of obstacles (to the removal of children from the workhouse) conjured up in the minds of many of the country guardians is," he says, "quite surprising. One idea, which proves a great stumbling-block, is that the children will be put in a position above their deserts, and above that of the children living in their own homes with their parents."[597]

[597] Mr. Hervey's Report, in Thirty-first Annual Report, 1901-2,
p. 80.

On 1st January 1906, the total number of children in "district or separate schools" was no more than 12,393, whilst in "cottage and other homes" there were 14,590; and 11,368 were in other institutions (mostly certified industrial schools, conducted by philanthropic committees not for profit).[598]

[598] Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxi. The policy of
placing children out in private venture homes run for profit (the
old "farming" system) was not wholly given up. In 1874 the Central
Authority decided to "withdraw from the almost nominal
supervision" which it had exercised over the private venture
seaside homes for children; and to leave these, as certified
schools, entirely to the supervision of such boards of guardians
as chose to make use of them, the payments being classed as
non-resident relief (Circular of May 1874, in _Local Government
Chronicle_, 23rd May 1874, p. 334). Yet a Special Order of 17th
September 1879 regulated the admission of pauper children to the
Metropolitan Infirmary for Children, Margate (John Weekly,
proprietor). Others of 29th November 1880 and 30th June 1886, did
the same for the Downlands Seaside Infirmary for Children,
Rottingdean (J. F. Landguist, proprietor). In 1889, the North
Surrey School District established a Convalescent Home of its own
at Broadstairs (Special Orders of 8th February 1889 and 17th
October 1891).

(iii.) _The Workhouse Children_

Notwithstanding the desire of the Central Authority to remove the children from the workhouses, there remained on 1st January 1906 no fewer than 21,526 in these institutions.[599] The Central Authority has, for instance, never objected to the retention in workhouses of children of tender years, or of children of any age, in the interval before they can be sent to school. In 1889, indeed, it was especially forbidden to send children to separate schools under the age of three.[600] Though no alteration has been made in the General Consolidated Order of 1847, by which the internal economy of the workhouse is professedly governed, the Central Authority laid it down in 1895 that "in every workhouse in which there are several children too young to attend school, a separate nursery--dry, spacious, light, and well ventilated--should be provided, and should be suitably furnished."[601]

[599] Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxx. This includes a
comparatively small number of sick children in Poor Law
infirmaries.

[600] General Order of 22nd July 1889 (as to Metropolis); and of
10th February 1899 (to all unions). In 1878, indeed, the North
Surrey District School had refused to receive children under four,
and the Central Authority had declined to interfere (_Selections
from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board_, vol. i.
1880, p. 178).

[601] Memorandum, "Duties of Visiting Committees," June 1895, in
Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 122.

The children are always to be under the supervision of paid officers, a recommendation made in the days of the Poor Law Board, but still up to 1895 frequently urged--showing that at any rate till then it had not been effectively insisted on. Even in that year the Board had to write: "In no case should the care of young children be entrusted to inferior or weak-minded inmates"--a qualification which weakens the force of the prohibition of the use of paupers at all. "Unless young children are placed under responsible supervision they cannot be said to be 'properly taken care of'";[602] and again, more generally, "all children in workhouses should be under the charge of officers, either industrial trainers or caretakers, and should not be left to the charge of adult paupers."[603] The medical officer is responsible for the children's health, and with a view to the prevention of disease he is expected to inspect them, whether they are ill or not, "frequently and individually." In this connection may be mentioned a "Memorandum relative to Ophthalmia of New-born Children,"[604] in which the Board requested medical officers to give each nurse or midwife acting under their directions such written instructions as they might deem necessary in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the subject. In 1882 the Central Authority refused to sanction any women's committee;[605] but by 1897 the guardians were urged to appoint women's committees for the supervision of the women and children in the workhouse.

[602] _Ibid._

[603] Circular Letter, 29th January 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual
Report, 1895-6, p. 110.

[604] June 1897, in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, p. 24.