Chapter XV: Act 1898: ; or (iv.) a parent of the child has been sentenced to (3)

With regard to the able-bodied pauper, at any rate for the first fifteen years after 1871, there was to be no leniency. The spirit of the administration, whether of the workhouse or of the casual ward, was that subsequently expressed by Mr. Walter Long. "I would treat the wastrel and the vagabond, and the man who makes his wife and children paupers because of his own degraded habits, in a severe way, and I would make life a burden to him while he remains in the workhouse. I try to insist upon it that in the administration of our workhouses we should make such men realise that if we are compelled to keep them out of the rates we will do it at some discomfort to them."[792] But it was not, in fact, found practicable to avoid improving the accommodation, even for the able-bodied. For them, as for all other inmates, the Central Authority insisted on a sufficient supply of blankets, sheets, bedroom furniture and conveniences. For them, too, the Central Authority insisted on such comforts as knives and forks to eat their meals with--in one case having a long tussle with a recalcitrant board of guardians on this point.[793] The able-bodied shared, too, in the improvement of the cooking which took place, particularly after the general investigation which led to the new Dietaries Order of 1900. "This Order," said an inspector, "has certainly had two good incidental results. It has induced many boards of guardians to engage paid cooks, instead of employing chance inmates knowing nothing about the work ... and the cooking appliances have in many cases been overhauled and improved. In some places they have been of the most rudimentary character."[794] The able-bodied may even get special privileges. Inmates employed on specially heavy work are permitted to receive an extra meal, as lunch. The discretion in this matter at first belonged to the medical officer, but now the guardians have power to order lunch as they think fit. In no case can any inmate claim it as a right, and it is not to be given merely on account of household work. Lunch, when allowed, is very plain, and may not include alcohol. The medical officer is to advise as to the degree of employment necessitating lunch, but the Central Authority suggests that "heavy work," earning lunch for able-bodied men and women, should be taken to mean "an average day's work with sustained exertion, _e.g._ corn-grinding, pumping, stone-breaking or crushing, shifting heavy goods, digging, scrubbing, washing, ironing, etc.," while heavy work for the aged and infirm (or light work for the able-bodied) is "employment without sustained exertion, _e.g._ wood-chopping and wood-bundling, hoeing or weeding, sorting light articles, sewing, etc."[795] Beer was particularly objected to. In 1877 the Hackney Board of Guardians, who wanted to give beer to two paupers who assisted the coachman, were told that they were "legally empowered to require from inmates such labour as might be required without having recourse to exceptional indulgences"--in this case the giving of beer--"which would only, in effect, vitiate the principle of the workhouse being a pauper test."[796] On the other hand, it appears that beer is habitually allowed to the able-bodied inmates of certain workhouses at certain times, in return for work. A number of boards of guardians, having land to cultivate, have been permitted by Special Orders to "make to paupers employed in harvest work on land belonging to the guardians such allowance of food and _fermented liquor_ as may be necessary," without any direction of the medical officer.[797] And when in 1903 an auditor surcharged a workhouse master for beer allowed to certain inmates for work done, it was explained "that if such allowance was withheld, _some of the paupers would leave the workhouse_"--surely a strange threat to make to a Poor Law authority--and with others "difficulties would arise to get them to work." On this explanation the Central Authority (whilst upholding the auditor's decision in point of law) remitted the surcharge.[798] Finally, it may be observed that the shelter of the workhouse was not to be denied to the able-bodied, even for bad conduct. The master must admit all persons who present the proper order, at whatever hour of the day or night. He may not refuse admission even to a man in a state of drunkenness.[799] Nor could a man be punished for being admitted whilst suffering from _delirium tremens_.[800]

[792] _Hansard_, 9th May 1902, vol. 107, p. 1276.

[793] _Local Government Chronicle_, 21st December 1889, p. 1051.
This was with the Chester Board, which refused "to allow the
workhouse inmates knives and forks at dinner except on Christmas
Day." The Central Authority peremptorily required them to be
provided for "all the inmates."

[794] Mr. Preston-Thomas's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report,
1900-1, p. 126.

[795] Circular on Workhouse Dietaries, 11th October 1900, in
Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, pp. 63-4.

[796] Local Government Board to Hackney Union, January 1877, in
_Local Government Chronicle_, 13th January 1877, p. 31.

[797] Special Order to Wirrall Union, 11th June 1886; Special
Order to Drayton Union, 2nd September 1892. On the other hand, in
1901 the Keighley Guardians, for harvest work, were only allowed
to give extra "food and drink other than fermented liquor"
(Special Order to Keighley Union, 1st August 1901).

[798] _Local Government Chronicle_, 7th November 1903, p. 1091.

[799] Local Government Board to Hexham Union, April 1902; _Local
Government Chronicle_, 19th April 1902, p. 413; _Decisions of the
Local Government Board_, 1902-3, by W. A. Casson, 1904, pp. 14,
23.

[800] _Local Government Chronicle_, 13th June 1903, p. 577;
_Decisions of the Local Government Board_, 1902-3, by W. A.
Casson, 1904, p. 162.

There is, thus, a marked change of tone after 1885 in workhouse administration, as in other branches of policy. This change of tone becomes specially marked in the Circular of January and the Memorandum of June 1895, in which the newly elected boards of guardians, chosen for the first time on a democratic franchise and without any high rating qualification, were specially instructed as to their administrative duties. These authoritative documents breathe a spirit of humane consideration for the pauper inmates, without excepting the able-bodied, which Mr. Longley would, we think, not have regarded as "deterrent." The medical officer, rather than the master, was to advise the guardians on practically all the points on which the general regimen of the institution depended. The visiting committees were to take care that all the arrangements were in order; they "should satisfy themselves whether there is any structural defect in any part of the house; whether painting or lime-washing is required; whether the wards are clean and provided with such conveniences as lockers or shelves, so that they may be kept in proper order; whether there is any defect in the construction of the sanitary arrangements or in the general sewerage of the house; whether the yards are defective as airing courts or _places of recreation_. The attention of the visiting committee should be carefully directed to the subject of ventilation, which should be effected by special means, apart from the usual means of doors, windows, and fire-places, and should be so arranged that each ward may be brought into uninterrupted communication with the open air."[801] The classes of inmates are to be subdivided "with reference to their moral character or behaviour, or to their previous habits."[802] The employment to be provided is to be "unobjectionable in its character."[803] The clothing of inmates when absent on leave from the workhouse "should not be in any way distinctive or conspicuous in character."[804] The visiting committees are to see that there is always enough underclothing in stock to allow all the inmates the requisite changes; that "sufficient means for ensuring personal cleanliness are provided; that a convenient lavatory, as well as baths,[805] with water laid on, and supplied with towels, soap, and combs, are accessible to each class."[806] "A piece of cocoa fibre matting or other material, or a mattress, should be placed between the bedstead and the bed. A sufficient supply of blankets, sheets, bedroom furniture and conveniences should be provided."[807]

[801] Memorandum of June 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report,
1895-6, p. 121.

[802] Circular of 29th January 1895, in _ibid._ p. 108.

[803] Memorandum of June 1895, in _ibid._ p. 122.

[804] Circular of 29th January 1895, in _ibid._ p. 111.

[805] It had been ordered already in 1886 that, as regards the
bath, every person "should have the right to demand water which
has not been previously used" (Minute of Instructions, Bathing of
Workhouse Inmates, 2nd February 1886, in Sixteenth Annual Report,
1886-7, p. 1).

[806] Memorandum of June 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report,
1895-6, p. 122.

[807] _Ibid._ p. 121.

It remains only to mention the great improvement in the workhouse dietary carried out, after prolonged inquiries, in the General Order of 1900.[808] During the preceding twenty years there had been but little attention paid to the subject. The Central Authority had, in 1871, sanctioned the use of Australian tinned meat.[809] It had also authorised in over a hundred unions fish dinners once a week.[810] In 1892 it had drawn attention to the great variation among unions in the amount of alcoholic drink consumed.[811] In 1896 it had engaged in a prolonged struggle with the Chorlton Board of Guardians, and others elsewhere, who objected to the waste involved in supplying each inmate with a fixed and weighed-out allowance of bread, and who found by experiment that much less was used (and very much less thrown into the pig-trough) if the paupers were allowed to help themselves at meals without stint. The Central Authority long resisted this subversive proposal, and insisted on the General Consolidated Order of 1847 being obeyed. When the rebellious boards persisted, the Central Authority gave way--not, however, amending its Orders, but permitting, by letter, the breach of them.[812] An official Departmental Committee appointed to consider the matter advised the president that the injunction of the Order to weigh out a fixed ration to each pauper might with advantage be abandoned in the case of bread.[813] But when, in 1901, the Association of Poor Law Unions asked that the same principle should be applied to vegetables, the Central Authority consented only to bear the suggestion in mind.[814]

[808] Workhouse Regulations (Dietaries and Accounts) Order, 1900,
in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, pp. cvii. 62-72.

[809] _Knight's Official Advertiser_, 21st October 1871, p. 196.

[810] Thirteenth Annual Report, 1883-4, p. lii.

[811] Circular of 15th December 1892, in Twenty-second Annual
Report, 1892-3, p. 43.

[812] MS. archives, Chorlton Board of Guardians, 1895, etc.;
_Local Government Chronicle_, 11th January 1896, p. 33; 8th
February 1896, p. 121.

[813] This was also permitted by letter to the Grantham Board of
Guardians (Local Government Board to Grantham Union, November
1901; _Local Government Chronicle_, 7th December 1901, p. 1209);
and doubtless to others. The Central Authority had, in fact,
intimated its willingness "to consider applications" for a similar
concession "from the guardians of large unions" (Local Government
Board to Association of Poor Law Unions, 13th March 1901; _Local
Government Chronicle_, 23rd March 1901, p. 295).

[814] Local Government Board to Association of Poor Law Unions,
13th March 1901; _Local Government Chronicle_, 23rd March 1901, p.
295. We cannot find that, down to the present day, any such
permission has been given.

In 1900 the new Dietaries Order, as we have already mentioned, greatly increased the nutritive value, variety, and attractiveness of the diets allowed; whilst the accompanying Memorandum formulated a whole code of suggestions for the improvement of the meals.[815]

[815] On no account are the paupers, if allowed "milk," to be put
off with "skim milk" or "scald milk"; by a decision of 1903,
"milk" means always new milk (_Decisions of the Local Government
Board_, 1902-3, by W. A. Casson, 1904, p. 11.)

_K._--EMIGRATION

For many years after 1871 there is no change, either of policy or of practice, to record as to emigration, beyond the continuance and slow growth of a tiny trickle of child emigration to Canada. Down to recent years, at any rate, the Colonies expressed a decided objection to any Poor Law emigration of adults, being, as the Central Authority explained, "unwilling to run the risk of thus receiving persons of bad character, or those who, from weak health or other causes, might become burdensome to them," and "in consequence of representations which have been made by the Government of the United States" the Central Authority feels itself "precluded from sanctioning any expenditure from the poor rates in connection with the emigration to that country."[816] Nevertheless, the Act of 1849 had not been repealed and the guardians were not debarred from emigrating, not paupers only, but any poor persons settled in their unions, whether in receipt of relief or not. The number so emigrated (apart from orphan or deserted children) continued, however, to be small.[817] In 1905 the Central Authority, under Mr. Long's presidency, in connection first with the relief of the unemployed by the guardians, and then under the Unemployed Workmen Act, revived the old policy of 1835-53 and expressly encouraged the emigration, at the public expense, of suitable persons, whether or not otherwise in receipt of aid from the rates.[818]

[816] Memorandum on Emigration at the cost of the poor rate, in
_Local Government Chronicle_, 26th October 1889, pp. 884-5.

[817] In 1883-4 there were 296 persons emigrated; in 1885-6, 133
persons; between 1887 and 1898 the number fell from 301 to 12; it
began to revive in 1903, when it was 66; in 1905 it was 317 (_see_
Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Twenty-sixth, Thirty-third and Thirty-fifth
Annual Reports).

[818] Mr. Long in House of Commons, 2nd March 1905 (_Hansard_,
vol. 142, p. 184).

Meanwhile, the emigration of Poor Law children to Canada continued, special applications for the sanction of the Central Authority having to be made in each case.[819] The question of the superior position in which such children were thus placed, compared with those of the lowest grade of independent labourer, does not appear to have been raised. The emigration and special supervision in Canada were the subject of repeated circulars and correspondence.[820] The numbers of orphan and deserted children thus removed to superior conditions rose, from 100 or 200 annually, to 398 in 1903 and 491 in 1905.[821]

[819] Memorandum on Emigration, in _Local Government Chronicle_,
26th October 1889, p. 885.

[820] Memorandum of April 1883; Thirteenth Annual Report, 1883-4,
pp. xlvii.-xlix. 32-3; Fifteenth Annual Report, 1885-6, pp.
xxxvi.-xxxvii. 61-5; Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxv.

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

_L._--RELIEF ON LOAN

We note, without any explicit change of policy, a growing tendency to extend the sphere of relief on loan. It is in Mr. Corbett's Report of 1871 that we find a revival of the suggestion thrown out in 1840 that medical relief, in particular, might be given on loan; and even that it should be "generally granted by way of loan,"[822] without regard, it would seem, to the probability of its being recovered. This opinion of the inspectorate, though (as we gather) constantly pressed on boards of guardians, did not, in 1877, receive the explicit endorsement of the Central Authority. An influential proposal to make all relief (and especially all medical relief) recoverable as if given on loan was definitely negatived. "The policy of the existing law," it was declared, "is that the question whether or not relief shall be granted on loan, or, in other words, whether it shall be recoverable at a future time, is to be determined by a consideration of the actual circumstances existing at the time the relief is granted, and it would be at variance with that policy if every recipient of relief were to feel that after he again succeeded in obtaining employment any savings he might be able to put by would be liable for the repayment of the relief which he might have received."[823] This seems to be the latest declaration of policy. There is a particular difficulty in the way of granting medical relief on loan when the medical officer is paid by salary, which does not arise when he is paid by fee--namely, that of fixing the amount to be recovered. The Central Authority suggested that the difficulty might perhaps be met by paying him partly by fee and partly by salary, but it expressed no decided views as to either the practicability or the expediency of such a course.[824]

[822] Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871. Mr. Longley
repeated the suggestion (Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. 156).

[823] Letter to Chairman of the Central Poor Law Conference, 12th
May 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, p. 54.

[824] _Ibid._

Moreover, the Central Authority held that "the relieving officer has no power to compel any applicant to accept relief on loan. If, therefore, in a case of sudden or urgent necessity a person refuses to accept the offer of medical relief upon the condition that the cost thereof be repaid, the Board consider that the relieving officer would not be exempt from all further responsibility in the case, unless he had reason to believe that the applicant was in a position to procure the requisite medical aid without assistance from the poor rate."[825] When it was laid down in 1876 that no relief to a lunatic could be recovered unless and until declared to be on loan, it was remarked that "it will be incumbent upon the guardians ... to examine each case ... to consider all its circumstances, and not to declare the relief to be given on loan, until they are satisfied that the circumstances will justify such a declaration." Nor was it permissible to fix the value of medical relief at an arbitrary sum. "There are great practical difficulties," concludes the Central Authority in 1886, "in the way of determining the value of such relief," for the purpose of recovering it when made on loan.[826]

[825] _Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government
Board_, vol. ii. 1880, pp. 70, 110.

[826] _Ibid._ vol. i. 1880, p. 15; _ibid._ vol. iii. 1888, p. 271.

Thus, it can perhaps not fairly be said that the inspectors' policy of using the power of granting relief on loan as a means of deterring applicants from applying for or accepting it, has received formal endorsement by the Central Authority. On the other hand, unions which have adopted the policy of systematically granting all medical relief on loan, irrespective of the applicant's circumstances, have--so far as we can discover--not been reproved or criticised by the Central Authority for what is, apparently, a breach of its instructions. On a complaint being made of this practice, the Bradfield Board of Guardians contended that it was justified; and their contention was apparently upheld.[827] And the practice of the Bristol Board of Guardians of granting all outdoor relief on loan, irrespective of the applicant's circumstances, or even of his actual acceptance of it as a loan, has not been stopped. Moreover, by the Feeding of School Children Order, the Central Authority (in apparent contradiction of its decision in 1877) directed such relief to be given on loan irrespective of the father's circumstances.[828]

[827] Local Government Board to Bradfield Union, February 1893;
Bradfield Union to Local Government Board, 21st March 1893; MS.
archives, Bradfield Board of Guardians; _The Better Administration
of the Poor Law_, by Sir. W. Chance, 1895, pp. 123-4.

[828] General Order of 26th April 1905, in Thirty-fifth Annual
Report, 1905-6, pp. 321-2.

_M._--CO-OPERATION WITH VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

We left Mr. Goschen and the Poor Law Board much impressed with the value of systematic and organised co-operation with voluntary organisations in order to avoid the combination of outdoor relief with any other source of income. In 1873 we find an interesting report by Miss Octavia Hill on official and voluntary agencies in administering relief, which the Central Authority published and commended.[829] But, in spite of Mr. Goschen, the boards of guardians by no means invariably accepted the doctrine of never giving outdoor relief in aid of other pecuniary resources. The Brixworth Guardians, indeed, as part of their strict policy, refused to accord any favour to the person having an allowance from a friendly society; but even they seem to have made up from the poor rate the amount necessary for full maintenance. Most other boards of guardians, however, as the Central Authority was officially informed in 1873, reckoned, by a rough compromise, the friendly society pay at half its amount,[830] in flat contradiction of the dictum of the Central Authority of 1840 and 1870.[831] This course was incidentally reproved by the Central Authority in 1888. "The guardians," it was stated, "are bound to take into consideration all the means of support possessed by the applicant; ... if ... the allowance from the club or society appears to the guardians to be inadequate to meet all the requirements of the case, they should take such allowance into account in determining what amount of relief is required to relieve the destitution of the applicant."[832] It was, however, apparently found impracticable to take any official action; and there is, until 1894, scarcely any later mention of the subject.[833] The policy of "all or nothing," which Mr. Goschen had suggested as a counsel of perfection, was, in fact, not persisted in by the Local Government Board. The practice of making up insufficient incomes, whether derived from charity, from property or friendly society allowance or annuity, or even (in the case of women) from earnings, continued; not infrequently with the explicit sanction of the Central Authority.[834] In 1894 the policy of supplementing other resources received a partial sanction from Parliament. By the Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies Act 1894, boards of guardians were legally empowered if they thought fit, to ignore the fact that an applicant for relief had a friendly society allowance.[835] This gave a legal sanction to the usual compromise of counting such an allowance at half its value, and thus giving the thrifty person half the advantage of his thrift. It is difficult to see how the case of a person having a small friendly society allowance could be logically distinguished from that of a person having other means or sources of income insufficient to maintain him. Presently the Central Authority expressly extended the new doctrine to other forms of saving. In 1903 it declared that relief in supplement of property (in case of sickness or infirmity of the applicant or any dependent) was lawful. In the case of an applicant actually possessing property, "if the guardians are satisfied, after due inquiry, that the means possessed by an applicant are insufficient to support himself and family, they are empowered, subject to the regulations in force, to grant such relief as will meet the necessities of the case."[836] In the following year Parliament followed suit by expressly enacting that boards of guardians should not under any circumstances take into consideration any friendly society allowance up to 5s. a week.[837] There is, accordingly, in 1907 reported to be much outdoor relief avowedly given in supplement of charitable aid and other sources of income.

[829] Third Annual Report, 1873-4, pp. 126-30.

[830] Mr. Culley's Report, in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. 75.

[831] Minutes of Poor Law Commissioners, 1840; Poor Law Board to
Mr. R. H. Paget, M.P., 5th January 1870, in Twenty-second Annual
Report of the Poor Law Board, 1869-70, pp. 108-11.

[832] _Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government
Board_, vol. iii. 1888, p. 77.

[833] Once or twice it is mentioned by the inspectors; _e.g._ by
Mr. Baldwyn Fleming in 1889 (Eighteenth Annual Report of the Local
Government Board, 1888-9, p. 115), and again in 1891 (Twentieth
Annual Report, 1890-1, p. 225).

[834] Thus, in 1901, sanction was obtained by the Bradford
Guardians for the grant of non-resident relief in certain specific
cases into which they had made careful inquiry. Among the cases
thus accidentally reported for sanction, because they happened to
be those of "non-resident paupers," were those of grants of 2s. to
6s. a week, in supplement of family incomes of 7s. to 26s.
(Bradford Union to Local Government Board, 30th November 1901; MS.
archives, Bradford Board of Guardians).

[835] 57 & 58 Vic. c 25.

[836] Local Government Board decision in _Local Government
Chronicle_, 6th June 1903, p. 552.

[837] 4 Edw. VII. c. 32, sec. 1 (Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies