Chapter II: The Poor Law Commissioners (1)

It had, as we have seen, been left to the Poor Law Commissioners to formulate their own policy, with the guidance of the Report of 1834. This policy is, during the ensuing thirteen years, to be found in (1) the orders issued under the Act of 1834 and subsequent statutes; (2) the circulars and other explanatory or instructional communications to the local authorities, inspectors, auditors, etc., and (3) the reports to Parliament.

Under the term "order," we include, as is customary, all the "rules, orders, and regulations" issued in pursuance of statutory powers. With whatever parts of poor relief these dealt, they had the force of law; either under the specific powers relating to workhouses,[88] or relief to the able-bodied,[89] or under the general powers authorising the Poor Law Commissioners to make "rules, orders, and regulations ... for the guidance and control of all guardians, vestries, and parish officers so far as relates to the management or relief of the poor."[90] According to the Act of 1834 some of these orders were to be "General Rules," and were not to take effect until they had been submitted to a Secretary of State, and by him laid before Parliament for forty days; and they were disallowable by the Privy Council.[91] A "General Rule" was to be "any rule ... which shall, at the time of issuing the same, be addressed ... to more than one union or to more parishes and places than one."[92] Other orders, known first as "Particular Orders," and subsequently as "Special Orders," and now simply as "Orders," were subject to no such conditions. There was, however, no distinction between them as to validity, force of law, or sanction. It was therefore open to the Poor Law Commissioners to issue all its orders as particular or special orders by addressing them successively to separate unions or parishes, even if they were identical in their terms. For reasons explained in the Poor Law Commissioners' Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, this was the course adopted.[93] No general order was issued prior to 1841.

[88] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 42.

[89] _Ibid._ sec. 52.

[90] _Ibid._ sec. 15.

[91] _Ibid._ secs. 16, 17.

[92] _Ibid._ sec. 109.

[93] Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, pp.
32-34.

With circulars so-called we include all explanatory or instructional communications to local authorities or to the officers of central or local authorities, or to Parliament. These, though embodying the policy of the Central Authority, had not the force of law. Moreover, as they were issued for particular emergencies, and were never withdrawn or expressly abrogated, _they_--unlike any unrepealed orders--_must not be considered as necessarily laying down general policy for all time_. Subject to consideration of this limitation, we propose to include the circulars, letters, etc., along with the general and special orders, in our analysis of the policy laid down for each of the several classes of destitute persons.

_A._--_The Able-Bodied_

(i.) _On Outdoor Relief_

The ambiguity that existed, alike in the Report and in the Act of 1834, as to the meaning intended to be given to the term "the able-bodied" was, to a large extent, reflected in those documents of the Central Authority which expounded its policy with regard to the kind and conditions of relief to be given to this class. Once more there is no definition of the term able-bodied, which is used sometimes as an adjective and sometimes as a substantive. From the context it must be inferred, as we shall presently show, that the term is used in different senses in the orders relating respectively to outdoor relief and to the management of the workhouse. What proved in the event more inimical to the principle of National Uniformity was the fact that in the orders relating to outdoor relief to the able-bodied, there was no consistency as to whether any class of women was or was not to be included among the able-bodied. There are, as we shall presently describe, two distinct streams of regulations affecting outdoor relief to the able-bodied, one permitting such relief under conditions, culminating in the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order of 14th December, 1852 (still in force), and the other prohibiting it subject to exceptions, culminating in the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 21st December, 1844 (still in force). In the former series of regulations, beginning with the first orders issued in the autumn of 1834 to particular unions, the term "able-bodied" is _expressly qualified by the adjective "male"_ ("able-bodied male persons").[94] In the other series, beginning in 1836 with the Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town Unions, the category of the "able-bodied," _if we are to go by the actual wording of the orders_, clearly comprises both sexes; at first by excepting widows only from a universal rule, and presently by specifically including "every able-bodied" person, "_male or female_."[95] That this differing interpretation of the category of the "able-bodied and their families" was actually intended by the Central Authority in 1840, and 1844, and that it was not merely accidental, is shown by cases in which it was decided that outdoor relief to single women having illegitimate children was illegal, as being in contravention of the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order in force in those unions;[96] thus proving that, under this order, the category of "the able-bodied and their families" included independent women with children; although in the other kind of orders, contemporaneous in date, the same category included men only (and their families). This is the more puzzling, in that we find the Central Authority, in 1839 at least, regarding these very outdoor relief prohibitory orders as practically, if not literally, applicable only to able-bodied males. In the comprehensive defence of its action, when pleading for a renewal of the Act, the Central Authority expressly describes these orders as "_prohibiting outdoor relief to able-bodied male paupers_"; and as having attained the object aimed at, that of destroying the allowance system or relief in aid of wages, "_so far as respects able-bodied male paupers and their families_."[97]

[94] See for instance the Order of 31st December, 1834, issued to
Sutton Courtney Parish, now included in Abingdon Union, and the
Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, 14th December 1852, art. 1.

[95] See Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in
Town Unions, 7th March 1836, in Second Annual Report, 1836, p. 92;
the Order of 26th April 1839, to Aston Union; and Outdoor Relief
Prohibitory Order, 21st December 1844, art. 1.

[96] _Official Circular_, No. 1, p. 8, 8th January 1840; _Ibid._
No. 34, p. 79, 30th April 1844.

[97] p. 62 of Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law,
1839.

To sum up this question of definition, in one series of outdoor relief regulations applicable to the able-bodied, in force in certain unions, the category of "the able-bodied" expressly excludes independent women; in another series of regulations, in force in other unions, the category of "the able-bodied" includes such women. There is actual evidence that the Central Authority enforced these differing determinations so far as to include as among "the able-bodied" unmarried women having illegitimate children in those unions in which one set of Orders was in force. Whether it ever actually enforced this interpretation as regards single women without children is not apparent in the published documents, but would be seen from its records. The fact of variance between the two interpretations of the category of "the able-bodied" becomes important when the two series of regulations are consolidated into two orders embodying distinct policies, one or other of which is made applicable to every union in the country.

Once having determined what was included in the category of "the able-bodied," the ground becomes more clear. With regard to outdoor relief, there are the two streams of contemporaneous regulations already alluded to--the one permitting it subject to conditions, the other prohibiting it subject to exceptions.

The first series was, it is clear, regarded (at any rate down to 1842) as temporary, only "to be sanctioned as a palliative for a time, and until adequate and efficient workhouse accommodation shall be provided."[98] These regulations were, in the autumn of 1834, issued separately to certain unions pending the introduction of "proper regulations";[99] but we also find them, between 1835 and 1842, included as a matter of course in orders prohibiting outdoor relief, by way of exception, but still only as providing a temporary alternative, until accommodation can be obtained for the reception of such persons in the workhouse.[100]

[98] See the "Suggestions as to the most eligible modes of
Providing Outdoor Employment ... in cases where there is not an
efficient workhouse, and preparatory to the establishment of the
Workhouse System," p. 45 of Second Annual Report, 1836.

[99] Circular, 8th November 1834, p. 73 of First Annual Report,
1835.

[100] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v., art. 27, p. 92 of Second Annual
Report, 1836.

There was even a third series of Orders, which may perhaps be regarded as even more provisional and temporary than the first series. To various local authorities in large towns (such as Norwich), and in the Metropolitan parishes, Orders were issued from 1835 onwards, simply requiring that any outdoor relief to the able-bodied should be, to the extent of one-third[101]--sometimes to the extent of one-half[102]--"relief in kind," that is to say, in loaves of bread.[103]

[101] Poor Law Commissioners to Norwich Court of Guardians, 25th
July 1835; Special Order to Norwich, 29th July 1835; MS. Minutes,
Norwich Court of Guardians, July and August 1835.

[102] Special Order to Norwich, 21st October 1835; Poor Law
Commissioners to Norwich Court of Guardians, 21st October 1835;
MS. Minutes, Norwich Court of Guardians, October 1835.

[103] This term, Relief in Kind, has always been limited to food,
though the character of the food has been varied. Medicine and
"medical extras" supplied to the paupers in their homes have been
included in the term Outdoor Medical Relief. The provision of
clothing and bedding to the outdoor poor--classed as ordinary
Outdoor Relief--though permitted, has never been encouraged by the
Central Authority. (_Official Circular_, 10th November 1840, No.
9, p. 117; _Ibid._, July 1850, No. 39 N.S., p. 108; _see also
Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board_,
vol. ii., 1880, p. 71.) The provision of tools or implements of
trade was considered not to be of the nature of relief, and
therefore not legal. It was expressly prohibited by the Outdoor
Relief Regulation Order of 1852 (art. 3). Payment of rent (except
the provision of temporary lodging in urgent and sudden necessity,
or for housing a lunatic) was from the outset strictly prohibited.
(_See_ Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844, art. 5, and
Outdoor Relief Regulation Order of 1852, art. 3.) This prohibition
of payment of rent seems to have been considered of importance by
the Poor Law Commissioners. The impracticability of preventing
ordinary outdoor relief from being applied in payment of the
pauper's rent seems only gradually to have dawned upon the Poor
Law Board. In 1852 it was explained that although the Order
"prohibits the Guardians from paying the rent for a pauper either
directly or indirectly, it does not prevent them from allowing him
such relief as under all the circumstances of the case his
necessities may require; it will rest with the pauper to dispose
of the relief afforded to him in such manner as he may think fit."
(Poor Law Board to Hemsworth Union, 19th October 1852; in House of
Commons, No. 111 of 1852-3, p. 96.) A similar decision was given
in 1902. (_See Local Government Chronicle_, 9th August 1902, p.
805.) The prohibition still remains in force, but is accordingly
not now regarded as of importance.

It has been assumed that it was the intention of the Central Authority from the outset to replace these temporary orders permitting outdoor relief to the able-bodied by some permanent injunction substituting relief in the workhouse as the only method. But the documentary evidence indicates that the Central Authority either never entertained the idea--or else very quickly abandoned it--of issuing the Prohibitory Order to the manufacturing towns of the north. Thus, in October 1836, after nearly two years' experience, the Poor Law Commissioners, as their Assistant Commissioner reported, were disposed to leave "the contemplated workhouse system ... very much to the board of guardians, and they did not feel it necessary to lay down those strict rules that they had in some instances laid down for the government of unions in the south of England."[104]

[104] MS. Minutes, Newcastle Board of Guardians, 7th October 1836.

In 1842 the Central Authority, perhaps unwittingly, took a new departure. In the northern counties there were districts for which no orders "concerning the outdoor relief of the able-bodied" had been issued. The Central Authority had failed to induce the Local Authorities to provide "adequate workhouse accommodation," and it was found that "large numbers of able-bodied persons are often suddenly thrown out of employment by the fluctuations of manufacturers" (_sic_).[105] To meet this situation, a new General Order was issued (the Outdoor Labour Test Order, 13th April 1842); on the ground that it was impracticable "to issue the Order prohibiting outdoor relief to able-bodied persons."[106] This order is historically of two-fold significance. It has had, as will subsequently appear, a long and continuous career of its own, in force in combination with the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order in particular unions.[107] But between 1842 and 1852, standing by itself in other unions,[108] it was the temporary embodiment of an alternative policy of the Central Authority. This alternative policy was, in 1852, definitely adopted by the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order (still in force), as the one permanently appropriate for the circumstances of many unions, covering a large part of England and Wales.

[105] Circular of 30th April 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842,
p. 179.

[106] Minute of Commissioners respecting the means of enforcing an
Outdoor Labour Test, 31st October 1842, p. 381 of Ninth Annual
Report, 1843.

[107] For such Special Labour Test Orders, issued in supplement to
the Out-relief Prohibitory Order, _see_ those to Boston Union, of
3rd February 1847; Crediton Union, 21st May 1847; and Catherington
Union, 2nd June 1847, which are in the most usual form; or those
to Foleshill Union, 13th December 1847; Maldon Union, 7th December
1847; and Nuneaton Union, 13th December 1847, which are in a much
shorter form, omitting the authority for the appointment of a
superintendent of pauper labour.

[108] For such Special Labour Test Orders, issued to unions not
under the Out-relief Prohibitory Order, _see_ that to
Ashton-under-Lyne Union, 29th March 1847; or that, in a shorter
form, omitting the authority for the appointment of a
superintendent of pauper labour, to Chertsey Union, 17th December
1847.

This policy of leaving to the discretion of the local authorities the grant of outdoor relief to the able-bodied on certain conditions was, as already mentioned, confined to men. We can find no explanation of, or reason for, the entire absence of any provision for independent women who were able-bodied. It can only be inferred that, in those districts, the Central Authority meant the unlimited discretion of the local authorities with regard to outdoor relief to able-bodied independent women to continue. The outdoor relief sanctioned for able-bodied men was strictly limited to persons who were not in employment for hire. This limitation was expressly intended to prevent the old "Rate in Aid of Wages." But it was subsequently expressly allowed that outdoor relief might be given, in respect of the particular days in a week or the particular weeks in a month during which persons were unemployed, whilst they were in remunerative employment on other days of that week, or other weeks of that month.[109] In the case of persons partially disabled, and able to earn only partial maintenance, the Poor Law Commissioners recommended that they "should be entirely supported by the guardians"--not, be it noted, by being admitted to the workhouse--but either by their being "set to work by the guardians in such manner as may be suitable to their condition," or else by their being prohibited from doing any work on their own account.[110]

[109] Circular Letter, 14th December 1852, in Fifth Annual Report
of Poor Law Board, 1852, p. 31.

[110] Special Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law,
1839, p. 72.

It should be said that (with an exception to be hereafter noted in the case of women) the Central Authority stood rigidly on the position taken up by the 1834 Report that no regard was to be paid to character, in judging applications for relief. "If a person," said the Poor Law Commissioners in 1840, "be in a state of destitution, such person is to be relieved, without reference to the moral character of such person. Relief from the poor rates can only lawfully be given in cases where persons are destitute of the means of support. And the fact that the destitution may have been caused by the immorality or improvidence of the party who seeks to be relieved does not alter or vary the duty of guardians to administer relief proportional to the necessity of the case."[111]

[111] Poor Law Commissioners to Plymouth Board of Guardians, 25th
April 1840.

The outdoor relief, where given, had to be subject to two conditions. It was to be at least half in kind, and conditional on the recipient being set to work by the local authority, the time, mode and conditions of work being fixed by the Central Authority.

With regard to the kinds and conditions of "parish work," it was repeatedly laid down by the Central Authority that none would be sanctioned unless (_a_) the work was "hard," not of a kind usually performed by independent labourers or competing with them, nor "much regarded as to profitable results," strictly supervised, "of a laborious and undesirable nature in itself," and "of such a nature as to discourage applications from all who are not really necessitous"; (_b_) paid "less than would be paid for work of equal quantity if performed by independent labourers";[112] or as it was later stated, the payment "ought to assume the form of relief, not of wages.... A single man or a man with a wife and one child ought not to receive as much as a man with a wife and eight children."[113]

[112] p. 45 of Second Annual Report, 1836; _Official Circular_,
No. 29, p. 151, 30th November 1843.

It is not explained how payment on the last principle could be made consistent with the former principles. But the intention of the Central Authority is clear. In the words quoted with approval in the circular of 1835, the parish was to be "the hardest taskmaster and the worst pay-master."[114]

[113] Minute, 31st October 1842, p. 383 of Ninth Annual Report,
1843.

[114] p. 46 of Second Annual Report, 1836.

An important exception was made by a separate clause in the Order providing that the guardians might depart from any of these regulations in particular instances, and thus give outdoor relief to able-bodied males on any conditions, subject to their reporting each such instance within fifteen days to the Central Authority, and obtaining its subsequent approval. With that approval, outdoor relief to able-bodied men, without any conditions, was lawful. The records of the Central Authority between 1842 and 1847, which have not been published, would show how frequently application was made for this approval, and whether the Central Authority pursued any definite policy in approving or disapproving the cases, or merely approved all that were reported to it.

The second series of outdoor relief regulations, beginning with the Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town Unions of 1836, and culminating in the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844 (still in force), proceeds on the basis of forbidding outdoor relief to the "able-bodied and their families." But from the outset we find a series of express exceptions made in particular Orders, gradually increasing in number and definiteness. The most numerous and the most important of these exceptions relate to women, and will be subsequently dealt with. For the male able-bodied person himself (and his family) only three exceptions were to be made. The local authority had discretion to allow him outdoor relief (_a_) in case of sudden and urgent necessity; (_b_) in case of sickness, accident, or mental infirmity in his family; or (_c_) for the burial of any member of his family.[115]

[115] See Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order, 1844, art. 1.

Another series of exceptions allowed outdoor relief to the families of able-bodied persons (_a_) in gaol, or otherwise in custody; (_b_) absent as soldiers, sailors or marines; or (_c_) otherwise residing outside the union.[116]

[116] _Ibid._

A third exception empowered the local authorities (as in the analogous case of the Outdoor Labour Test Order) to depart from these regulations in any particular instance, and thus to give outdoor relief to the able-bodied, whether men, women, or their families, on any conditions, subject to their reporting each such instance within fifteen days to the Central Authority and obtaining its subsequent approval. With that approval outdoor relief to the able-bodied, without any conditions, was lawful. The records of the Central Authority between 1842 and 1847 would show what policy it pursued in approving or disapproving the cases of unconditional outdoor relief to the able-bodied, which were reported by those local authorities to which this Order had been issued. What appears from the published documents is that the Central Authority, between 1835 and 1842, "in cases where this Order had been issued ... had been obliged to sanction large exceptions to its provisions."[117]

[117] Minute of Commissioners, 31st October 1842, p. 381 of Ninth
Annual Report, 1843.

On this, among other grounds, the Central Authority in 1843 took to modifying the operation of the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Orders by supplementing them, in certain of the unions in which they were in force, by an Outdoor Labour Order, practically identical in terms with the Outdoor Labour Test Order of 1842, which we have already mentioned as being alone in force in other unions.[118] Similar Orders--in effect modifying the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order--have ever since continued to be issued to particular unions; but, from 1852 onward, in the form of applying to the particular unions concerned the Outdoor Labour Test Order of 1842, which had theretofore been issued alone.

[118] p. 379 of Ninth Annual Report, 1843.

We are now in a position to sum up the policy of the Central Authority, with regard to outdoor relief to the able-bodied, as it stood in 1847, embodied in documents applicable to three different parts of England and Wales. In thirty-two unions the Labour Test Order of 1842 was alone in force, whilst in twenty-nine others the regulations were essentially similar to this. In this part of the country the discretion of the local authorities to give outdoor relief to able-bodied independent women (as to other independent women) was unfettered by any regulation, and not directed by any instructions. Outdoor relief to able-bodied men and their families was within the discretion of the local authorities, if it was accompanied by test work by the man and subject to certain conditions. In other parts of the country, comprising 396 unions, the Prohibitory Order was alone in force, and outdoor relief to the able-bodied, whether men or women, and their families, was, with limited and precise exceptions, prohibited; unless, in particular instances, the local authority subsequently reported it to, and got it sanctioned by, the Central Authority. In yet other parts of the country, comprising eighty-one unions, the Prohibitory Order and an Outdoor Labour Test Order were jointly in force, and outdoor relief to the able-bodied, whether men or women, and their families, was, so far as general rules went, prohibited. But such outdoor relief was lawful if it was in each case subsequently reported to, and approved by, the Central Authority; with this difference between that given to able-bodied men (and their families) and that given to independent women (and their families) that the former had to be, and the latter had not to be, accompanied by test work. This requirement of test work by the man, in certain unions, as a condition of the outdoor relief to be thus sanctioned by the Central Authority, appears at first sight to impose on those unions an additional restriction on the grant of outdoor relief, as compared with those unions in which outdoor relief could be sanctioned by the Central Authority without test work. The practical result may have been exactly the opposite. The records of the Central Authority between 1843 and 1847 would show to what extent and in what kind of cases its sanction to these cases of outdoor relief was given or refused; and whether, according to the statistics, it was not given more frequently and even as a matter of course, where test work was obligatory as a condition, as compared with cases in which test work was not required. If this was so, not only did union differ from union in the extent to which outdoor relief to the able-bodied was sanctioned by the Central Authority, but it may be that the statistics would show that in this respect, sex differed from sex--such outdoor relief being freely granted and lightly sanctioned to able-bodied men from whom test work was exacted; and sanctioned with greater stringency in the case of the able-bodied independent women from whom no such test was exacted.

(ii.) _In the Workhouse_

When "the able-bodied and their families" entered the workhouse, we find the Central Authority prescribing a classification altogether different from that applied to outdoor paupers. The very category of the "able-bodied and their families" disappears. It was, of course, inevitable that this should happen. In any institution, infants, boys, girls, sick and healthy adults, male and female, required different treatments. But, to the confusion of every one concerned, the Central Authority retained, for its workhouse classification, as for the entirely different classification of outdoor paupers, the same adjective of "able-bodied," without even explaining that it was here used in an altogether different sense. As usual in the documents of this period, there is no definition of the term. But whenever it occurs in the regulations affecting the workhouse, the term "able-bodied" was apparently intended by the Central Authority to denote all persons not being either children, "the aged and infirm," or "the sick." If the draughtsman of the General Consolidated Order of 1847 had been aware of the need for a definition clause, he would presumably have said that in that Order the term "able-bodied" should denote those persons above the age of childhood, and below that of "the aged," who for the time being were in the enjoyment of normal health. This class, it will be seen, differs considerably from that referred to in the preamble of the section in the 1834 Act under which outdoor relief to the able-bodied was to have been abolished; namely, persons (with their families) "who at the time of applying for or receiving such relief were wholly or partially _in the employment of individuals_."[119] The Act thus pointed to the capacity to obtain employment for hire, at any wages whatsoever, whatever may have been the state of health, as the essential characteristic of being "able-bodied." This, too, was the construction placed on the term when used in the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order, 1844, where the Central Authority expressly held that "poor persons who have frequent ailments, who are ruptured and are generally of weak constitutions" but who are "in receipt of wages"--however low such wages might be--must be treated, for outdoor relief, as being "able-bodied persons."[120] When such persons entered the workhouse, not merely would the several members of their families pass into different categories, but they themselves, if the doctor so decided, would, in the view of the Central Authority, on crossing the threshold, cease to be "able-bodied persons,"--and become members of the diametrically opposite category of "the sick." If such persons, without being cured, subsequently left the workhouse, we must infer that, according to the policy of the Central Authority, their characteristic of physical or mental infirmity ceased to be relevant, as they passed, on crossing the threshold, into the ranks of "able-bodied persons."

[119] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 52.

[120] _Official Circular_, April and May 1848, Nos. 14 and 15,
N.S., pp. 227-8.

Inside the workhouse, the "able-bodied" (in the workhouse sense) are divided simply into male and female. We can find no regulations specially affecting relief to them, as apart from other inmates of the establishment, except some modifications in the amount of food allowed, or of labour exacted. As even these modifications are inextricably mixed up with the general regulations affecting all inmates, and are contained in the same long series of Orders, culminating in the General Consolidated Order of 1847, we relegate them to the subsequent section on the workhouse.

_B._--_Vagrants_

We have seen that the policy of the Report and Act of 1834, with regard to vagrants, was to ignore them as a class, to relieve them only in the workhouse, and to deal with them exactly as with other workhouse inmates. What the Central Authority seems to have contemplated was that the strict application of the "workhouse test" would not only prevent vagrants coming on the rates at all, but that it could be used to prevent almsgiving. It was apparently with this view that the Central Authority, in 1837, sanctioned a code of regulations for the admission to the workhouse of the "casual poor," meaning "wayfarers" or homeless "persons in a state of destitution ... who ... belonged to distant parishes."[121] These regulations included admission by tickets distributed by any ratepayer, and the performance of a task of work before the grant of a meal.[122] In diet, discipline, and other treatment, they were to be dealt with "as the other paupers in the workhouse."[123] In other unions the regulations included the establishment of a separate vagrant ward, which was equally sanctioned by the Central Authority. A similar plan was strongly pressed on the local authorities of the Metropolis in 1838 and 1839.[124] Such vagrants must, however, if destitute, not be refused relief.[125] The Central Authority hoped that "if these arrangements be adopted ... casual almsgiving in the streets, by which vagrancy and imposture are encouraged, will be materially checked."[126]

[121] Letter, 6th September 1837, in Fourth Annual Report, 1838,
p. 154.

[122] pp. 135-141 of Third Annual Report, 1837.

[123] p. 89 of Fifth Annual Report, 1839.

[124] Instructional Circular, 12th December 1838; in Fifth Annual
Report, 1839, p. 87; ditto, 7th December 1839, in Sixth Annual
Report, 1840, p. 103.

[125] Letter, 2nd August 1841, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p.
77.

[126] Circular, 7th December 1839; in Sixth Annual Report, 1840,
p. 104.

The first sign of discontent with this policy that we find is in 1841, when the Central Authority is asked by the local authorities of Lambeth and Colchester "whether the workhouse is to be a lodging house and to be inundated with these trampers" who habitually "make the union house a lodging house," greatly to the annoyance of the establishment. The Central Authority admits that its policy of a mere application of the "workhouse test" to vagrants has proved unsatisfactory, and declares the only effectual remedy to be a separate semi-penal establishment.[127] In the absence of adequate statutory powers, the Central Authority pours out, between 1841 and 1844, a stream of regulations and suggestions to local authorities, based on the idea of making the night's stay of the vagrant more unpleasant to him. There was to be everywhere a separate vagrant ward; without a fire; smoking and card playing were to be strictly prohibited; they were to be bathed; their bedding was to be inferior to that of other inmates, and so on. Above all, they were to be prosecuted under the Vagrant Act on the slightest provocation.[128]

[127] _Official Circular_, No. 12, 14th October 1841, p. 170;
Letter, 15th February 1841, to Newcastle Board of Guardians;
Letter, 12th September 1844, to Bradford Board of Guardians.

[128] _Official Circular_, No. 12, 14th October 1841, p. 170;
General Order, 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842,
p. 81; Letter, 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842,
p. 110.

Yet the Central Authority was not yet convinced of the need for a vagrant ward in every union. When the Bradford Board of Guardians pointed out in 1844 that the average number of their vagrants was only twelve a week, the Central Authority at once acquiesced in the abandonment of the proposed vagrant ward, and said that arrangements should be made to set the vagrants a task of work in the workhouse itself.[129]

[129] Letter to Bradford Board of Guardians, 3rd October 1844.

In 1842 and 1844, as we have seen, slightly increased powers over vagrants were obtained (including, but only by implication, statutory authority for the four hours' detention in the morning), together with powers to establish district asylums for the houseless poor in certain large towns.

The Central Authority "framed a scheme for division of the whole of the Metropolitan district" into areas corresponding "to the great lines of roads along which mendicants and vagrants" entered London,[130] which were to have separate establishments for vagrants, and so entirely relieve the Metropolitan workhouses of their care.[131] What Orders were issued to this effect is not clear. Meanwhile the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to consider the whole conduct of the Central Authority; and no further action was taken. Orders were issued to the boards of management of the newly created vagrant districts, telling them that they need not meet.[132] How far these vagrancy districts ever came into existence we have not yet discovered. One of them, the North Eastern Metropolitan District, had got so far as to enter into a contract for the purchase of a site and to borrow £3500 to pay for it. "Owing to various causes, the chief of which was a want of co-operation on the part of several of the boards of guardians, that scheme, after an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons, was abandoned."[133] Beyond this somewhat obscure episode, all that happened was that when the General Consolidated Order of 1847 systematically codified the regulations affecting workhouses, it included, scattered among its various sections, a few provisions relating to the treatment of the "casual poor wayfarers," such as the requirement of a separate ward, and the express regulation of their diet and employment.[134]

[130] p. 19 of Eleventh Annual Report, 1845.

[131] p. 19 of Twelfth Annual Report, 1846; _Official Circular_,
No. 5, N.S., p. 69, 1st May 1847.

[132] p. 11 of Thirteenth Annual Report, 1847.

[133] Minute of Poor Law Board on the Houseless Poor in the
Metropolis, 23rd December 1863, in Sixteenth Annual Report, 1863,
p. 31.

[134] General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847, _see_ arts.
97, 99 and 104.

_C._--_Women_

We have shown, in the preceding analysis of the Report and Act of 1834, that neither the "principles of 1834" nor the enactment of Parliament had prescribed the policy to be pursued with regard to women; except that it was implied or assumed that wives were to follow their husbands exactly as if they were infants. With regard to the widow, the deserted wife, the wife of the absentee soldier or sailor, the wife of a husband resident in another parish or another country--above all, with regard to the independent able-bodied woman--the Central Authority had either to let the existing practice of outdoor relief continue, or to discover a policy for itself.

With regard to the able-bodied independent woman, we have shown that the Central Authority developed, between 1834 and 1847, two distinct policies which became applicable to two different geographical areas. In the thirty-two unions in which the Outdoor Labour Test Order was alone in force, the discretion of the local authorities to give outdoor relief to able-bodied independent women was left unfettered by any rule, instruction or advice of the Central Authority.[135]

[135] We ought to state that in one of the early Orders (intended
to be temporary) the Central Authority did expressly prescribe a
policy for "single women not being aged or infirm." It was
evidently contemplated that they were to be dealt with quite
differently from the "able-bodied male pauper," who was to be put
to "parish work." The outdoor relief to be granted to them was to
be at least half in kind (p. 85 of First Annual Report, 1835). No
such clause appears in the General Orders subsequently issued.

In the 477 unions in which the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order was in force (either with or without an Outdoor Labour Test Order), outdoor relief to able-bodied independent women was prohibited, with certain exceptions, which, between 1835 and 1844, steadily increased in number. As crystallised in the Out Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844 (still in force) outdoor relief was allowed to such able-bodied independent women,

(1) On account of sudden and urgent necessity;

(2) On account of the sickness, accident, or bodily or mental infirmity of any member of their families (unlike a father in like case, the independent mother was not required to produce a medical certificate);

(3) For defraying the expenses of burial of any of their families;

(4) If a widow, for the first six months of widowhood or, without limit of time, if, unable to earn a livelihood, and having one or more children dependent on her, she had had no illegitimate child since her widowhood.[136]

[136] Amended Forms of Order prohibiting Outdoor Relief to the
Able-bodied, 1839 and 1840, in Report on the Further Amendment of
the Poor Law, 1839, p. 105, and Seventh Annual Report, 1841, pp.
99-100; Out Relief Prohibitory Order, 1844, art. 1.

In the Circulars issued with these Orders, the only instructions with regard to any class of able-bodied independent women relate to widows. In these instructions the grant of outdoor relief during the first six months of widowhood, without any mention of its being considered whether they had children or not, or whether they were employed for wages or not, is specially and repeatedly brought to the notice of the local authorities as laudable.[137]

[137] Instructional Letter, December 1839, p. 107 of Report on the
Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839; ditto, August 1840, p.
102 of Seventh Annual Report, 1841.

It was, indeed, insisted by the House of Commons Committee in 1838 "that a power should be continued to the board of guardians, taking into consideration the character of the parties, to relieve, out of the workhouse, widows with young children left dependent upon them."[138]

[138] Report of House of Commons Committee on Poor Law
Administration, 1837-8, p. 39.

This is the more significant in that the Central Authority, in one case at least, had tried a harsher expedient. In the Bradfield Union, which, under Mr. Stevens' chairmanship, had adopted an ultra-rigorous policy, the board of guardians itself passed a rule forbidding outdoor relief "to any widow or single woman, not being aged or infirm, who is of ability to work," except in sickness, accident or urgent necessity.[139] This was much criticised but was maintained by the majority, who asked the Central Authority to support them by issuing an Order prohibiting all outdoor relief to able-bodied women not being aged or infirm. The Poor Law Commissioners in reply said that they "most willingly confirm the resolution, and in so doing they desire to state that they consider the workhouse to be the best description of relief for all cases, and they are always glad to perceive that the guardians of any union view outdoor relief as the exception to the general rule, to be administered, with caution, in cases of sickness, infirmity and particular distress only."[140] But even the Bradfield Guardians found this Order, for which they had themselves asked, quite unworkable; and they were reduced to asking sanction for successive departures from it. They generally granted outdoor relief to widows for the first few weeks of their widowhood, and were often driven to extend it. They then asked for an alteration permitting outdoor relief to able-bodied "widows of good character with more than one child under eleven, if a boy, and under thirteen if a girl." The Central Authority was loath to let go, but had eventually to issue another Special Order as desired.[141]

[139] MS. Minutes, Bradfield Board of Guardians, 12th October
1835.

[140] MS. Minutes, Bradfield Board of Guardians, 8th, 15th and
27th February 1836; Special Order to Bradfield Union, 26th
February 1836.

[141] _Ibid._ 4th March and 31st October 1836; February, June,
July and November 1839; Poor Law Board to Bradfield Union, 17th
July and 7th November 1839; Special Order to Bradfield Union,
November 1839.

The grant of outdoor relief to widows having children, apart from this six months' term, is, "_so far as it relates to able-bodied women in employment_," regarded as of doubtful policy, to be made with circumspection, as likely to excuse contributions from relatives, to discourage insurance, and to have all the evils of the rate in aid of wages. It is suggested, moreover, that a widow can usually earn enough to support one child.[142] It may be understood from a bare reference in the Instructional Letter of 1839 to "able-bodied women themselves" as well as to widows, that the Central Authority was alive to the effect upon women's wages of the grant of outdoor relief to single independent women in employment.[143] But in the revision of this Instructional Letter in 1841--though its terms remained almost identical--the slight reference to the single able-bodied woman wage-earner was silently omitted.[144]

[142] See note 1.

[143] p. 108 of Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law,
1839.

[144] p. 102 of Seventh Annual Report, 1841.

With regard to married women, the policy laid down by the Central Authority differed according to the particular kind of Order in force, and thus according to the locality in which they resided. In all but specially excepted cases, relief to a woman under coverture was deemed to be relief to her husband, and came thus within all the various regulations and conditions limiting outdoor relief to the able-bodied man.

In the thirty-two unions to which Outdoor Labour Test Orders were applied by themselves--these culminating in the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order 1852 (still in force)--the policy of the Central Authority was to leave the discretion of the local authorities unfettered, with regard to the grant of outdoor relief to married women, except the wives of those men ("the able-bodied and their families") to whom outdoor relief was only to be granted in return for labour. In these latter cases the measure of the relief was to be the needs of the family, not the work done by the husband. In 1835 the Central Authority had even urged that, where the families were large, they "should be furnished with provisions according to their numbers and necessities in the same way as other paupers" by way of "additional relief" to the man for the "wives and children, as far as shall be actually necessary."[145]

[145] Circular, 21st September 1836, p. 48 of Second Annual
Report, 1836.

As the policy became settled, the phrase "additional relief" was dropped; but the amount given to the husband was to depend, not on the amount or value of the work that he did, but was to be "proportioned to the wants of the applicant and his family, and should not be deemed remuneration for the work done."[146] In these cases half, at least, of the relief given to the husband was to be in kind; whilst, _according to the Orders_, no labour was required from the wife.[147] In spite of the absence from the Orders of any requirement that the wife should render any task of labour, we find the Central Authority in 1842--concerned at the earning of money by the wives (and children) of men at "parish work"--making an inconsistent suggestion. In the Minute of 31st October 1842, it is suggested that, "if it be practicable, some employment, such as picking up or carrying stones, should be provided for the wives and children. The latter precaution is peculiarly important in the manufacturing districts."[148] This requirement of labour from the wife had, up to 1847, found no embodiment in any Order.

[146] Minute on Outdoor Labour Test, 31st October 1842, p. 383 of
Ninth Annual Report, 1843.

[147] Outdoor Labour Test Order, 30th April 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 175.

[148] p. 385 of Ninth Annual Report, 1843.

In the 477 unions to which the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844 applied, three extensive classes of wives were, by the policy of the Central Authority, to be treated as if they were widows.

(_a_) A wife deserted by her husband and having only legitimate children dependent on her could, under the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order, 1844, be given Outdoor Relief as a widow having a child dependent on her. As a matter of fact, the position of any wife living apart from her husband was better than that of a widow. The wife living apart from her husband (whether technically deserted by him or not, and whether or not he was within the union) could insist on the relief of her children, without applying for relief for herself; and if the child was below the age of seven, it could not be separated from her, _even with her own consent_; and thus the relief had to be outdoor relief. She could, moreover, send her children over seven into the workhouse without herself accompanying them, or herself becoming a pauper. On the other hand, though the local authority might, if it chose, grant outdoor relief to a widow having a child dependent on her (if she had had no illegitimate child born since her widowhood), it need not do so, and it could not relieve her dependent children, whether under seven or over, without making her a pauper.

(_b_) The wife of a husband-- (i.) Beyond the seas; (ii.) In custody of the law; or (iii.) Confined in an asylum as a lunatic or idiot was to be treated, for indoor and outdoor relief alike, as if she were a widow (a widow beyond the six months' term, though this is not so stated). By "beyond the seas," the Central Authority understood "out of Great Britain."[149]

[149] Instructional Letter, 17th October 1844; in Eleventh Annual
Report, 1845, p. 137.

(_c_) In the case of the wife of an able-bodied soldier, sailor, or marine in His Majesty's service (wherever he might be situated), the Central Authority expressly stated that it felt it to be "desirable to give great latitude" to the local authorities.[150]

[150] Instructional Letter, 21st December 1844; in Eleventh Annual
Report, 1845, p. 59.

In all other cases, within those parts of the country to which this Order applied, wives residing with their husbands had to follow them, and were not to be relieved, either in or out of the workhouse, without them. A more difficult question was whether a man could continue to receive relief in the workhouse if his wife insisted on leaving it. The Central Authority, on being appealed to by a local authority actually confronted with such a case, decided that the wife could not be prevented from leaving the workhouse. It hazarded the opinion (of which we do not admit the legal validity), "that a woman may be restrained by the control of her husband from leaving the workhouse, and if he declines to use his marital control, it is in the power of the guardians to dismiss the husband. But whether it is expedient or judicious to pursue such a course must depend on the peculiar circumstances which each individual case presents. One consideration is particularly important in dealing with any case of this description, that is, whether the husband is in a condition practically to exercise his control over his wife. Where he is not, it would be very unadvisable, in the opinion of the Commissioners, to make it a condition of the relief of the husband or of his children (if he have any) that he should exercise an authority over his wife which practically he cannot exercise."[151]

[151] _Official Circular_, 1st June 1845, No. 48, p. 90.

It is interesting at this point to sum up the policy of the Central Authority, so far as embodied in its published documents between 1834 and 1847, with regard to outdoor relief to women, especially as affecting the "Rate in Aid of Wages." The policy differed fundamentally in the two different areas of the country governed respectively by the two kinds of Orders. Where the Outdoor Labour Test Order (continued, after 1852, by the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, which is still in force) was alone applied, the discretion of the local authority to give outdoor relief to women of any status, married or unmarried, with children or without, was unfettered by any Order. The only rule made by the Central Authority in the matter was that if the woman was the wife of an able-bodied man who was himself employed on "parish work," and residing with him, at least one-half of his relief should be in kind. No rule was made or Order issued by the Central Authority against the grant of outdoor relief to women employed for wages, even in respect of the very days on which they were earning wages.

We have mentioned that the Central Authority, so far as men were concerned, stood rigidly to the position of the 1834 Report that the moral character of the applicant was to be absolutely disregarded in considering the relief to be granted to him. With regard to women, however, it took up a different position. We find it advising that the mothers of illegitimate children should, on this ground alone, not be granted outdoor relief.[152]

[152] Poor Law Commissioners to Plymouth Court of Guardians, 25th
April 1840.

Where the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order was in force, neither spinsters nor wives residing with able-bodied husbands[153] could, apart from sudden and urgent necessity, receive outdoor relief, unless they were sick. But with regard to widows and wives living apart from their husbands, the exceptions to the prohibition were so numerous that both these classes may almost be said to have been expressly allowed to receive outdoor relief. The fact that such women were in employment for wages was not regarded by the Orders of the Central Authority as relevant: nor was it prescribed that any task of labour should be exacted in return for the relief. And although if we look closely, it is possible to find, in the circulars, instructional letters and published decisions of these thirteen years (1834-1847), two or three bare incidental allusions to the possibility of outdoor relief to women having the effect of a "Rate in Aid of Wages," even these occur only in the earlier years, and presently die away entirely. It is, therefore, not incorrect to say that an objection to outdoor relief to women in employment formed during these years no part of the declared policy of the Central Authority.

[153] Not being soldiers, sailors, or marines.

When women entered the workhouse, the policy of the Central Authority (as in the analogous case of "the able-bodied") was to classify them in quite other categories than those which governed their outdoor relief. The woman's status, with regard to a man, so fundamental as long as she remained outside, was, in the workhouse, entirely irrelevant. What became important was whether or not she was sick, "able-bodied" (in the workhouse sense), or "aged and infirm"; whether or not she was a nursing mother, or a mother of children under seven years old; whether or not she was of "good character" or of "dissolute and disorderly habits" or the mother of an illegitimate child. These considerations--leading to classifications inconsistent with each other--affected the women's segregation in the workhouse, the employment provided for them, the dietary and the amount of their freedom. With all this we deal in subsequent sections.

_D._--_Children_

The policy of the Central Authority with regard to the relief of children rested on the general rule that children, residing with their parents (or surviving parent) and dependent on them for support, had to follow them for relief. This was not limited by any condition as to the age of the child, the essential fact being the dependence of the child for support. Looked at from the standpoint of the child, this involved a great and complex difference in policy in the two different areas of the country to which we have had so often to refer. In unions governed by the Outdoor Labour Test Order (afterwards the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, 1852), all such children might be relieved in their homes, the only limitation placed on the discretion of the local authority being that, if they were the children of able-bodied men, at least half the relief granted to the father for their necessities had to be in kind.