Chapter II: The Poor Law Commissioners (2)

In unions in which the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order was in force, the children (although not sick) of certain classes of parents might be relieved in their own homes, whilst those of certain other classes of parents could be relieved only by admission to the workhouse (unless, in particular instances, the grant of outdoor relief was specially sanctioned by the Central Authority). This determination by the Central Authority of the method of relief of such children did not depend on their age, their sex, their characteristics, or their needs, but on the artificial categories in which their fathers (or mothers) were placed. We need not follow these intricacies once more in detail. They can easily be unravelled from the foregoing sections on "The Able-bodied" and on "Women."

Whatever outdoor relief was given to the parent in respect of the child, the policy of the Central Authority was one of absolute non-intervention with regard to its treatment. No directions were given, either for its education or for any other of its needs. The only direction that we find is a decision that the local authority must not pay the school fees for any such child; and must not even add with this view 2d. per week per child to the outdoor relief granted to the parent.[154]

[154] _Official Circular_, 31st January 1844, No. 31, pp. 178-9.

When the child entered the workhouse it passed out of its former classification and entered into an entirely different one. For outdoor relief, as we have seen, the policy of the Central Authority was to distinguish among children only according to the kind of parents they had. Inside the workhouse, the policy of the Central Authority was to regard this classification as irrelevant, and to place all children, of whatever parentage, in categories, dependent on their own age, sex and health. They were either sick or well; and also either (1) Children under seven; (2) Boys between seven and fifteen; or (3) Girls between seven and fifteen. The treatment of these categories is so inextricably mixed up with that of the other inmates of the workhouse that we relegate the matter to our subsequent sections.

The Central Authority gave no direction to change the system under which some local authorities sent their pauper children to establishments kept for private profit. In 1838, this system was implicitly sanctioned by a long instructional letter, dealing with "Mr. Aubin's establishment for pauper children at Norwood," where the children were employed in the workshop on alternate days, and were under the special care of a chaplain.[155]

[155] Instructional Letter, 1838, in Fifth Annual Report, 1839, p.
76.

But the Central Authority was evidently uneasy about the quarter of a million pauper children, of whom it was gradually getting some tens of thousands in the great general workhouses on which it had insisted.[156] Reports on the training of the workhouse children were called for, and a valuable series was published in 1841, in which the establishment of separate boarding schools was suggested, where the children could receive both elementary schooling and industrial training. This proposal united the opposition of the boards of guardians, who objected to a new authority, to that of those who demurred to giving the pauper children any better education than the children of the lowest independent labourer.[157]

[156] At Midsummer, 1838, the children under sixteen in the
workhouses of the 478 unions then making returns numbered no fewer
than 42,767, out of a total workhouse population of 97,510.
(Special Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, p.
56.) In 1840 the Poor Law Commissioners estimated the total number
under 16 to be 64,570, of whom 56,835 were between 2 and 16
(Report on the Training of Pauper Children, 1841, p. iii.).

[157] "It would be said that we should be giving the pauper
children a better education than that obtainable by the
independent labourer's child. While I allow and lament this truth,
I wholly deny its force. Because the schooling of children out of
the workhouse is neglected, is this a valid reason and excuse for
equally neglecting those who are within it? According to this
argument, not a single ray of moral or religious knowledge should
be allowed to illumine the mind of a pauper child; he should be
brought up a perfect brute, since it is certain that this is the
lot of innumerable independent children" (E. Carleton Tufnell, in
Report on the Training of Pauper Children, 1841, p. 355).

In 1844, as we have seen, the Central Authority obtained statutory power to direct the establishment of district schools; but no Order on the subject appears to have been issued prior to 1847.

We pass now to the children of an age to be started in life. Though the Central Authority had been expressly empowered to issue regulations as to apprenticeship, it did not, during its first decade, issue any Order on the subject. The only indication which we can find of the policy which it wished pursued during this decade with regard to such children is a comment on the proposed Bill for the Amendment of the Poor Law in 1840. This comment is strongly adverse to the payment of apprenticeship premiums, and suggests that premiums are only needed in "occasional" cases of lame or blind children.[158] Not until 1845 does the Central Authority issue any directions on the subject. By the Apprenticeship Orders of December 1844, and January 1845, amended in August 1845, and included and amplified in the General Consolidated Order of 1847, elaborate conditions of apprenticeship were prescribed for the protection of the apprentice; limits of age were fixed; the duties of the masters were made more onerous and definite; and the payment of premiums, whilst still allowed for children between nine and sixteen, was expressly prohibited, at first for all over fourteen, but subsequently for all over sixteen, unless physically deformed or defective, except in the form of clothing.[159] But the Central Authority does not advocate apprenticeship. On the contrary, in issuing the Order of 1845, it wrote a special letter to accompany it in which the local authorities were pointedly reminded that it had hitherto refrained from issuing any regulations on the subject; that as Parliament had not abolished the system of apprenticeship it would "doubtless continue to be practised in those districts where it has hitherto prevailed"; that "there are not wanting authorities of weight against the system"; and that local authorities were not to infer that the Central Authority entertained "any desire to promote its introduction."[160]

[158] _Official Circular_, No. 5, 16th June 1840, p. 56.

[159] General Order, 31st December 1844, and 29th January 1845, in
Eleventh Annual Report, 1845, pp. 72-96; 15th and 22nd August
1845, in Twelfth Annual Report, 1846, pp. 60-71; and Arts. 52-74
of General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847.

[160] Circular, 1st January 1845, in Eleventh Annual Report, 1845,
pp. 96-7.

Apart from this severe discouragement of apprenticeship we can discover no indication of the policy of the Central Authority as to starting the children in life. No advice was given to the local authorities on the subject.

_E._--_The Sick_

We have seen that neither the Report nor the Act of 1834 laid down any policy for the sick--suggesting, in fact, no change in the existing practice under which they were both maintained and medically attended in their homes. During the whole of the period, 1834-47, there is nothing in the Orders laying down any other policy so far as the maintenance of the sick is concerned. Both the two streams of regulations, the Outdoor Labour Test Orders (culminating in the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order of 1852) and the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844, expressly excepted, from all their prohibitions or restrictions on the grant of outdoor relief, cases of "sickness, accident, or bodily or mental infirmity." In all these cases the policy of the Central Authority was to leave the local authorities the same absolutely unfettered discretion with regard to the grant of outdoor relief that they had before possessed. In the Instructional Letter of 1836 as to medical attendance the practice of granting outdoor relief to the sick in "food or clothing" is mentioned, without criticism.[161] So much was this the accepted policy that, when the Central Authority referred to the sick, in the comprehensive defence of its action in 1839, it only mentioned the steps that it had in view with regard to the better organisation of medical attendance, which did not seem to call "for any immediate general change"--without even alluding to the almost universal practice under which the sick received also outdoor relief in money.[162] In a Minute of 1840 it is pointed out that members of friendly societies in receipt of a money allowance whilst sick were only to be granted such amount of outdoor relief as, together with their allowances, would make up the sums which the local authority would have granted if they had had nothing. It is not even hinted that the grant of outdoor relief at all was against the policy of the Central Authority, although it is suggested that in these cases it should be granted on loan.[163]

[161] Instructional Letter, 6th May 1836, in Second Annual Report,
1836, p. 50.

[162] Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, pp.
73-81.

[163] Minute, 27th March 1840, in Sixth Annual Report, 1840, pp.
95-96.

The first suggestion that we have found of this policy not being wholly satisfactory occurs in 1840, in the Central Authority's comments on the case of a boy who had died, it was asserted, from privation whilst his father was actually in receipt of outdoor relief. No blame was imputed to the local authority, which, it was said, had been "acting under a recognised mode of relief"; but it was suggested that the case showed the dangers of "partial relief"; that illness was likely to be more quickly cured "with the advantages of the superior cleanliness and the better regulated warmth and ventilation of the appropriate rooms or a sick ward" of the workhouse together with the superior nursing, dietary, and doctoring there possible; and that, especially where there was likelihood of the outdoor relief or other family income being unwisely applied, it was better to relieve by admission to the workhouse.[164] But this first suggestion of an alternative policy stands alone; and it was not embodied in any Order.

[164] _Official Circular_, No. 9, 10th November 1840, pp. 113-118.

What the Central Authority was concerned about, with regard to the sick poor, was not their outdoor relief, but the extent to which they took advantage of the services of the parish doctor. Already in 1836 it was laid down by an Instructional Letter (which expressed no criticism on the practice of granting relief "in food or clothing") that medical attendance could be allowed only in cases of destitution. As, however, sickness quickly involved destitution, it was suggested that provident sick clubs should be promoted, to provide for medical attendance when needed.[165] Four years later it is pointed out that members of friendly societies, entitled as such to medical attendance, must not be allowed the services of the parish doctor.[166] This was repeated in 1844.[167] "Medical extras," such as "meat, milk, wine, and porter," could not be ordered by the doctor, but could be granted, on his recommendation, by the local authority; and it is to be noted that the Central Authority adds no words in any way discouraging such grant.[168] The Central Authority became even more concerned about the organisation of the medical attendance, the area of each medical officer's district, the method of selecting him, his qualification, and above all the mode of his remuneration, so that he might not be tempted to increase the number of cases.[169] Its views on this subject were embodied in the General Medical Order of 12th March 1842, and explained in the accompanying letter of the same date.[170] We omit this, along with other administrative questions; but it must be noted that the whole policy of the Central Authority in the matter rested on the assumption, on which no criticism was expressed, that the sick would, as a matter of fact, be relieved in their homes.

[165] Instructional Letter, 6th May 1836, in Second Annual Report,
1836, pp. 50-51.

[166] Minute, 27th March 1840; in Sixth Annual Report, 1840, p.
95.

[167] _Official Circular_, No. 34, 30th April 1844, p. 76.

[168] _Ibid._ p. 74.

[169] Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, pp.
73-81.

[170] pp. 129-142 of Eighth Annual Report, 1842.

When the sick entered the workhouse they were dealt with as a class by themselves, in the general establishment which alone was then in existence. We shall deal with the policy with regard to them in a subsequent section.

It may be noted that in 1840 the Central Authority supported the proposal of the Government Bill of that year for the establishment of district infirmaries, but these were not for the sick, but for the infirm.[171] The proposal was never proceeded with. In 1842 the local authorities are incidentally reminded that they have power to send sick persons to hospitals outside the union.[172]

[171] _Official Circular_, No. 5, 16th June 1840, pp. 51-53.

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

_F._--_Persons of Unsound Mind_

A separation of lunatics from the other inmates of the workhouses had been suggested in the Report of 1834. But it was in the course of this period 1834-47 that persons of unsound mind became recognised as a distinct class. It was, however, long before any settled term was used. We read of "idiots" (1), dangerous (2), or not dangerous (3), curable (4), or not curable; "the insane" (5), "persons of weak intellect" (6), or suffering from "mental infirmity" (7), or from "mental imbecility" (8), or from "disease of mind" (9), or merely "persons of unsound mind" (10).[173]

[173] (1) (3) Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief
in Town Unions, 7th March 1836, in Second Annual Report, 1836, p.
89. (2) General Order, 24th July 1847, art. 101. (4) Letter of 5th
February 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 111. (5) (10)
General Order, 3rd December 1841, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842,
p. 183. (7) Form of Order, 1839, in Report on the Further
Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, p. 106. (8) General Order, 30th
April 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 177. (9) General
Order, 5th February, 1842, in _ibid._ p. 80.

Persons suffering from "mental infirmity" (explained to mean "insane") were repeatedly excepted from the prohibition of the grant of outdoor relief.[174] In the Outdoor Labour Test Order a similar exception allows outdoor relief, without work, and even if the applicant is in employment, on account of the mental infirmity of a member of his family.[175] Finally, a similar exception was definitely incorporated in the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844 (still in force) and the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order of 1852 (still in force).

[174] Amended Form of Order prohibiting Outdoor Relief to the
able-bodied; Instructional Letter, 1839, in Report on the Further
Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, pp. 106-107.

[175] p. 177 of Eighth Annual Report, 1842.

We are not here concerned with the increasing statutory powers, and the practical application of them, for the compulsory removal to asylums or other licensed houses of persons certified to be dangerous; or with the question of their chargeability. When persons of unsound mind found their way to the workhouse they were to be detained. It should be noted that the Central Authority supported the Government proposal to enable unions to combine for the establishment of district asylums for the insane poor, a proposal which was not proceeded with.[176]

[176] _Official Circular_, No. 5, 16th June 1840, supplement, p.
9.

_G._--_Defectives_

We must note the beginning of a new class, only just mentioned in the Report and Act of 1834, viz. that of the physically defective, at first only those who were blind, or deaf and dumb. The Act of 1834 had implicitly sanctioned the grant of outdoor relief to such of these defective persons as were either wives or children, by regarding such relief as not made to the husbands or fathers, even if these were able-bodied and in employment. Within the period 1834-47 we find no hint of a new policy. The Central Authority issues no Order dealing with the suggestion, made in the Report of 1834, of institutional treatment for the blind. In 1842, however, the local authorities are incidentally reminded that they have power to send the blind or deaf and dumb to such voluntary institutions as existed for them even if they were outside the union.[177] Beyond this there is no suggestion of policy, either for the blind or for the deaf and dumb, except as regards apprenticeship. The deaf and dumb did not need to be taught to read and write before being eligible for apprenticeship.[178] Premiums were admitted to be necessary in binding as apprentices lame or blind children;[4] and might be given even for children over fourteen or even over sixteen, if they were unfitted for the trade by permanent bodily infirmity.[179]

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

[178] General Consolidated Order, 24th July 1847, art. 52.

[179] Minute, 13th June 1840, in _Official Circular_, No. 5, 16th
June 1840, p. 56.

[180] General Order, 31st December 1844, art. 2, in Eleventh
Annual Report, 1845, pp. 16, 72; General Consolidated Order, 24th
July 1847, art. 54.

_H._--_The Aged and Infirm_

As with the sick, so with the aged and infirm, neither the Report nor the Act of 1834 had suggested any change in the current policy of outdoor relief. Nor did the Central Authority prescribe any new policy with regard to this class.

It is to be noted that there is the usual absence of definition. The aged and the infirm are always referred to as forming one and the same class. (The word "impotent," used in the Report of 1834, seems to have been silently dropped.) It should be noted also that the class of the "aged and infirm" was not restricted to the infirm aged. The question of age did not enter in at all. What was meant was the class of persons permanently incapacitated, whether from old age, physical defect, or chronic debility, from obtaining any paid employment. The essential characteristic of "the aged and infirm" (like that of "children") was indeed the precise opposite of that of "the able-bodied." The latter always meant (for outdoor relief) those who were actually or potentially in employment for hire. The "aged and infirm" were those (not being children) who could not possibly get employment for any hire, however small; and together with the "children" and "the able-bodied" they made up in the eyes of the Central Authority the whole pauper universe.

It was, as we have seen, universally assumed that the various prohibitions or regulations of outdoor relief to the able-bodied did not apply to "aged and infirm persons." These persons were, indeed, expressly made exceptions from the first universal rule prohibiting outdoor relief to any one, in the "Form of Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town Unions."[181] In the succeeding Orders prohibiting or regulating outdoor relief, all mention of them is omitted, as not falling within the class of "the able-bodied and their families" to which alone these orders applied. In 1839 the Central Authority definitely laid it down "that we do not require aged and infirm paupers to be relieved only in the workhouse," and that "it is not our intention to issue any such rule."[182] The discretion of the local authorities in the matter of outdoor relief to this class was thus left as absolutely unfettered as before; and we can find in the published documents of this period of 1834-47 no direction or advice by the Central Authority on the subject, and no indication that it had any new policy.

[181] p. 92 of Second Annual Report, 1836.

[182] Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, pp.
53, 61.

When the aged and infirm entered the workhouse they (like the able-bodied) were put into entirely new categories, though without a new terminology. Those who, whilst in receipt of outdoor relief were merely "aged and infirm," found themselves classified in the workhouse according to sex, age and bodily health. Those who were under sixty, and were not ordered by the doctor to be put on special diet, found themselves classed as "able-bodied" (in the workhouse sense). These varieties of treatment in the general workhouse will be dealt with in a subsequent section. It is to be noted that in 1840 the Central Authority supported the Government proposal to enable "district infirmaries" to be established apart from the general workhouse for such of the aged and infirm as received indoor relief. The class to be therein accommodated was to include "every person applying for or receiving relief who shall, by reason of any bodily defect, or of any permanent ailment, or of the permanent effects of any ailment or bodily accident, be incapable of supporting himself."[183] The proposal was never proceeded with.

[183] _Official Circular_, No. 5, 16th June 1840, p. 53.

It is clear that, although there is no indication of this policy in the Report of 1834, or in any of the statutes, the Poor Law Commissioners, between 1834 and 1847, had it occasionally in their minds to apply the "deterrent" workhouse test to the aged and infirm, as well as to the able-bodied. In 1839, indeed, they expressed this intention. It will be remembered that the 1834 Report had talked of the aged enjoying "their indulgences" in workhouses set apart for them. "With regard to the aged and infirm," say the Commissioners of 1839, "there is a strong disposition on the part of a portion of the public so to modify the arrangements [of the workhouses] as to place them on the footing of almshouses. The consequences which would flow from this change have only to be pointed out to show its inexpediency and its danger. If the condition of the inmates of a workhouse were to be so regulated as to invite the aged and infirm of the labouring classes to take refuge in it, it would immediately be useless as a test between indigence and indolence and fraud, it would no longer operate as an inducement to the young and healthy to provide support for their later years, or as a stimulus to them whilst they have the means to support their aged parents and relatives. The frugality and forethought of a young labourer would be useless if he foresaw the certainty of a better asylum for his old age than he could possibly provide by his own exertions, and the industrious efforts of a son to provide a maintenance for his parents in his own dwelling would be thrown away and would cease to be called forth, if the almshouse of the district offered a refuge for their declining years, in which they might obtain comforts and indulgences which even the most successful of the labouring classes cannot always obtain by their own exertions."[184]

[184] Special Report of Poor Law Commissioners on the Further
Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, p. 47.

_I._--_Non-Residents_

A new class of persons arises in the documents after 1834, namely those who are not residing in the parish or union to which they apply for relief. There had grown up a custom under the old Poor Law by which, in order to save the expense and hardships of removal, parishes agreed to grant outdoor relief to persons belonging to them by settlement, who were residing elsewhere. The Central Authority set itself to restrict this practice. By various of its early Orders it prohibited it altogether, and at once (with the usual exceptions of sickness, accident, and urgent necessity) in the case of able-bodied male persons between sixteen and sixty. It prohibited it as regards all new cases for all other persons with the same exceptions.[185] Between this date and 1844 we find the same series of exceptions allowed to this general prohibition as in the case of outdoor relief to the able-bodied and their families; and these exceptions became stereotyped in Art. 3 of the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844 (still in force).

[185] p. 85 of First Annual Report, 1835.

_J._--_The Workhouse_

As we have shown, the Act of 1834 and the subsequent legislation left to the Central Authority complete discretion as to the kind of indoor maintenance to be provided for the destitute by the local authority. In view of the fact that the action taken between 1834 and 1847--culminating in the General Consolidated Order of 1847, which is still in force--determined, in the main, the character of the modern workhouse, it is necessary to analyse in some detail exactly what the policy was which the Central Authority in these years imposed from one end of England to another. The common understanding at the time was, we believe, that the policy to be carried out was that of the 1834 Report. Two limitations only were imposed on the power of the Central Authority in this respect. The building of entirely new workhouses--which the Report had thought would not be requisite in many instances[186]--was dependent on the assent either of a majority of the board of guardians or of a majority of the rated owners and occupiers.[187] The Central Authority was, however, empowered, without any local consent, peremptorily to order a local authority to enlarge or alter any existing workhouse or building capable of being converted into a workhouse; subject to the limitation that the principal sum to be raised on any parish could not exceed £50, or one-tenth of the average Poor Rate of the last three years.[188] As every board of guardians in the United Kingdom found itself in possession of several parish workhouses--sometimes of a large number of such buildings--it was within the statutory power of the Central Authority, even without local consent, to have given directions for the moderate enlargement and adaptation of any or all of these, which Parliament seems to have contemplated. The second limitation seems at first sight more serious. The Central Authority could not order any greater expenditure, on building or enlarging any workhouse, or sanction the borrowing for this purpose of any larger sum, than the average amount of the last three years' Poor Rate[189]--a limitation which, as we have seen, was, in 1844, repealed so far as the purchase of sites in the Metropolitan Police District and the parish of Liverpool was concerned.[190] But there was at no time any limitation to the aggregate amount of the expenditure out of Poor Rate that might be incurred by the local authority, or that might, with or without its consent, be ordered by the Central Authority to be spent, on the enlargement or adaptation of its various existing workhouses, provided that not more than the statutory maximum was spent on any one of them. In view of the strong objection expressed in the 1834 Report to the mixing of different kinds of paupers in a single institution,[191] and the positive recommendation, in preference, of distinct institutions, in separate buildings, with specialised rules and under different managements, for the several kinds of paupers[192]--for which it was expressly pointed out that the existing buildings were to be adapted[193]--these sections of the Act of 1834 indicate an intention of Parliament (as it certainly was the intention of the authors of the Report of 1834) that each union should have several small institutions, and should assign to those workhouses "separate classes of poor."[194]

[186] p. 313 of Report of 1834 (reprint of 1905).

[187] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 23.

[188] _Ibid._ sec. 25.

[189] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 24.

[190] See _ante_, p. 19.

[191] pp. 306, 307, 313 of Report of 1834.

[192] _Ibid._ pp. 306, 307.

[193] _Ibid._ p. 313.

[194] _Ibid._ p. 314.

It is startling to find that the Central Authority, between 1834 and 1847, pursued an entirely different policy. The published documents for this period do not afford any explanation of this difference. They do not show, for instance, whether it meant the deliberate adoption of a new policy, or whether it resulted merely from a discovery that the recommendations of the Report were impracticable in the rural unions. The documents simply assume the necessity for the establishment in each union, not of a group of specialised workhouses for the different classes, but of one institution, to be called "The Union Workhouse," for the paupers as a whole.

In no Special or General Order, in no Circular or published Minute, can we find any recommendation that a board of guardians should carry out the emphatic recommendations of the 1834 Report in favour of classification by institutions, and the adaptation of the existing buildings into specialised workhouses, "assigning one class of paupers to each of the houses comprehended within each incorporation."[195] Nor was the unity introduced and insisted on by the Central Authority one of structure only. That the policy was to have, under the one roof, for all the various kinds of paupers, only one institution and one _régime_, is revealed in every part of the workhouse code. In the elaborate series of Special Orders and General Orders which culminated in the General Consolidated Order of 1847 (still in force), we find a minutely particular body of rules, referring always to "the" workhouse of the Union, applied with practical identity to all unions, providing for the reception under a single roof and subject to a single officer of every kind of pauper, applying to all the inmates, and (with quite insignificant variations, presently to be noted, for the aged, the sick and the infants), treating all the kinds of paupers alike.[196]

[195] p. 313 of Report of 1834.

[196] See the first of such "Orders and Regulations," in First
Annual Report, 1835, pp. 96-110; the Consolidated Order for the
Administration of Relief in Town Unions, in Second Annual Report,
1836, pp. 81-89; the General Order, Workhouse Rules, 5th February
1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, pp. 79-104; and the General
Consolidated Order, 24th July 1847.

It was possibly connected with this policy of one general workhouse for each union that we find the Central Authority assuming that the grouping together of a score or more of parishes almost inevitably involved building a new workhouse. At first, indeed, the Assistant Commissioners were directed to examine to what extent existing poorhouses or workhouses could be "made useful for only one class of paupers."[197] In August 1835, the Central Authority could write of its year's experience that "it has also been proved that the expense and loss of time in building new workhouses may, in many cases, be saved, by a union of parishes and the combination of their existing workhouses and poorhouses, by assigning one or two classes of the paupers to one of the separate workhouses within the district."[198] But already by that time the contrary policy was being carried out by the most energetic subordinate of the Central Authority, who (as his private reports show) had quickly satisfied himself, and was rapidly convincing his superiors, that the policy of utilising as specialised institutions the existing parish workhouses was, with the boards of guardians of that time, administratively impossible. Already by August 1835, Sir Francis B. Head was reporting that "with the exception of Romney Marsh, the whole of East Kent, comprehending an area of 590 square miles, is now grouped into compact unions of parishes; these unions are all very nearly of the same size--all contain very nearly the same population--_all have voluntarily adopted for their workhouse the same low, cheap, homely building--all have agreed in placing it in the centre of their respective unions_."[199]

[197] First Annual Report, 1835, p. 29.

[198] First Annual Report, 1835, p. 16.

[199] _Ibid._ p. 166.

It is interesting to see the arguments by which this flagrant departure from the policy of the 1834 Report was attacked and defended. In 1835 we have a magistrate of Kent, belonging to a union where they had so far adhered to the recommendations of the Report, writing very graphically on the subject to Sir Francis Head. "There is one point," he said, "upon which our practice differs materially from most of our neighbours, and it is one upon which I entertain a strong opinion that ours is the correct system. It is the adaptation of existing workhouses to different classes, instead of building new ones.... In the first place upon our system there is a great saving of expense; our homes altogether have cost us under £300.... I dislike the appearance of these new houses all over the country.... I dislike the outward and visible sign of the change that is being operated. I am alarmed at the irritation. I fear the consequences. When we have eight workhouses there is hardly an inducement to pull down one only, and to pull them all down is next to impossible, from the wide surface over which they are spread. Our system, I might almost say, eludes the grasp of insurrection. Besides this, how much more perfect is the classification! How secure are our separate schools from all contamination. How small are the masses of pauperism which we bring together, compared with the congestion of one vast House. With us, our Houses are not like prisons, for we require no high wall to separate the classes; eight or ten miles distance is far more effectual than the highest walls."

To this Sir Francis Head seems to have replied to the following effect. He did not at all agree with his correspondent that eight classified workhouses were better than one general establishment. "The very sight," he said, "of a well-built efficient establishment would give confidence to the board of guardians; the sight and weekly assemblage of all servants of their union would make them proud of their office; the appointment of a chaplain would give dignity to the whole arrangement, while the pauper would feel it was utterly impossible to contend against it. In visiting such a series of unions, the Assistant Commissioner could with great facility perform his duty, whereas if he had eight establishments to search for in each union, it would be almost impracticable to attend to them. I would, moreover, beg to observe that in one establishment there would always be a proper governor, ready to receive and govern any able-bodied applicants, whereas in separate establishments this most important arrangement (the Able-bodied House) during harvest, etc., would constantly be empty, and consequently would become inefficient in moments of emergency."[200]

[200] MS. correspondence of Sir Francis Head.

Sir Francis Head, as we have seen, had his way. In writing a farewell letter to the Kentish boards of guardians at the end of 1835, he urges them to stick to the dietary, and to appoint a chaplain "to your central house, which will shortly be the sole establishment in your union.... As soon as this important object has been gained--as soon as you find that the whole of your indoor poor are concentrated in one respectable establishment--under your own weekly superintendence--when you see yourselves surrounded by a band of resolute, sensible, well-educated men faithfully devoted to your service--you will then, I believe, fully appreciate the advantage which you, as well as your successors, will ever derive from possessing one strong, efficient building, instead of having, from false economy, frittered away your resources among your old existing houses."[201]

[201] _Ibid._

After this we hear no more of the policy of specialised institutions for particular kinds of paupers, as recommended in the Report of 1834. The policy of the Central Authority settles down definitely to that which provided each union with one general workhouse, almost invariably built for the purpose, near the centre of the union.[202]

[202] The possibility was once barely mentioned in 1837 of the one
"common workhouse establishment" consisting "of a selection of the
better workhouses now existing in each union," instead of
concentrating "all the necessary accommodation in one workhouse
situated in the centre of the union" (Third Annual Report, 1837,
p. 27.) _See also_ the reference to this possibility in the
Instructional Letter sent in that year to each new Board of
Guardians (_ibid._ p. 82). In June 1837, the Central Authority
said that it had always preferred one central workhouse, but had
sometimes allowed existing ones to remain. Its two years'
experience had now confirmed it in its belief that one central
workhouse was better (Letter to Newcastle Board of Guardians, 20th
June 1837).

Two years later, in describing, with praise, "the consolidation of workhouse establishments" which had been going on in Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Central Authority observes "that very few will ultimately find it desirable to retain more than one establishment" (Fifth Annual Report, 1839, p. 29). In the Special Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, it is pointed out, as evidence that the Central Authority had not yet had time to put its policy completely into execution, that there were "still about seventy unions in which a central workhouse" had "not yet been built." (Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, p. 7.)

It is not easy to discover what policy was laid down as to the site and character of the new general workhouse thus prescribed. There was no Special or General Order, and apparently no paper of rules or suggestions, giving any direction as to the position to be chosen, the surroundings to be preferred, or even the area to be obtained. Nothing was prescribed as to the character of the building, the cubic space to be provided for each inmate, the sanitary arrangements, or the structural provision for classification by sex, age, character or condition. To some extent this lack of any statement of policy may have been supplied by oral explanations in the process of sanctioning the building plans. This hardly applies, however, to the choice of a site; and we cannot discover from any published document whether the Central Authority thought it preferable that the union workhouse should be located in the crowded streets of a populous city or in a pleasant rural district. The only help that seems to have been afforded was the publication in 1835 of some pictures and diagrams of suggested workhouses.[203] From these we may infer that the Central Authority had adopted as its policy the erection of the same "low, cheap, homely (?) building"--bearing no little resemblance to the prison plans of the period--with which Sir Francis Head was covering East Kent.

[203] First Annual Report, 1835, p. 29, and end.

It was not until 1842, after illness due to serious over-crowding had occurred at the Sevenoaks Workhouse,[204] that the Central Authority began to incorporate in its policy some elementary sanitary regulations. We have first the requirement that a maximum number to be accommodated in each workhouse should be fixed. Even then it was left to each board of guardians to suggest whatever number it chose, after consultation with its medical officer, subject to approval and to the final fixing of the number by the Central Authority.[205] In 1847 the phrase with regard to approval drops out, and the Central Authority merely fixes the number.

[204] Eighth Annual Report, 1842, pp. 13-15, 188-190, 194-198.

[205] General Order, 5th February 1842, art. 11, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 81; amended by General Consolidated Order, 24th
July 1847, art. 100; still in force.

In 1842 the medical officer of the union is required to report to his board any defects in drainage, ventilation, and warmth.[206] Beyond these somewhat exiguous forms no policy was even suggested to the local authorities with regard to the structural arrangements of the workhouse.

[206] Eighth Annual Report, 1842, pp. 14, 188-190.

We have now to consider how the Central Authority exercised its power to determine the character of the one general workhouse which it had imposed on each union. Let us take the policy laid down with regard to each phase of the indoor pauper's life.

(i.) _Admission_

The door was to be always open. In cases of "sudden or urgent necessity" any person in a state of destitution, applying at any hour, with or without an order or any other formality, was to be immediately relieved by admission, and by the supply of food, clothing, medicine, and other necessaries. Where the necessity was not urgent, the applicant had first to get an order for admission, which (unless some other mode of relief was adopted) could not be refused to any destitute person. The pauper admitted was to be cleansed, clothed, medically examined, and searched for prohibited articles, in a "probationary" or "receiving" ward. The pauper was then, if free from disease, to be assigned to his particular section of the workhouse, according to a sevenfold classification by sex, age, and physical condition.

(ii.) _Segregation_

The character of the workhouse of 1835-1847 was principally determined by the practice as to the segregation of its inmates. To discover exactly what the Central Authority intended this segregation to be is surprisingly difficult. We have first a rigid and logical classificatory scheme, imposed with the force of law. To this there came both a series of exceptions to the classification and a series of directions as to the practical segregation in daily life, additional to or inconsistent with the classification; some of them permissive and others mandatory.

The seven classes insisted on by the classificatory scheme of the Central Authority were (i.) aged or infirm men; (ii). able-bodied males over thirteen; (iii.) boys between seven and thirteen; (iv.) aged or infirm women; (v.) able-bodied women and girls over sixteen; (vi.) girls between seven and sixteen; and (vii.) children under seven. This classification, imposed in 1836, was confirmed, with only the slightest of modifications, by the General Orders of 1842 and 1847 (the latter still in force). As therein finally settled, it provided for "(i.) men infirm through age or any other cause; (ii.) able-bodied men and youths above the age of fifteen years; (iii.) boys above the age of seven years and under that of fifteen; (iv.) women infirm through age or any other cause; (v.) able-bodied women and girls above the age of fifteen years; (vi.) girls above the age of seven years and under that of fifteen; and (vii.) children under seven years of age." Explicit rules are made that each class is to remain in the separate apartments or buildings assigned to it, without communication with any other class.[207]

[207] General Order, 5th February 1842, art. 9, in Eighth
Annual Report, 1842, p. 80; General Consolidated Order, 24th July
1847, art. 98; still in force.

The modern student is struck at once by the omissions in this compulsory classificatory scheme. There is no class for the sick, either those suffering from infectious or contagious diseases, or from others. There is no class for the lying-in cases. There is no class for the lunatics, idiots, or imbeciles. There is no provision for infants at the breast, who, by the classificatory scheme, were ordered to be separated from their mothers. There was no class for the vagrant intending to stay only one night. Finally, there was no provision made for any segregation by character--not merely none by past character, but not even for any by present character or conduct, which would have effected a separation between quiet and orderly inmates and the turbulent prostitute or semi-criminal.

Some of these omissions were partly remedied by new Orders or recommendations between 1836 and 1847, which were embodied in the General Consolidated Order of 1847, but never found their way into the classificatory scheme itself.

With regard to the sick, the Central Authority imposed no requirements at all. It was incidentally mentioned in the Order of 1836, and repeated in those of 1842 and 1847, that the sick were, on admission, to be placed in "the sick ward," or in such other ward as the medical officer might direct. We have incidental references during the ensuing decade to the existence of sick wards in workhouses. But there was no provision in any Order requiring a "sick ward" to be provided, still less any provision requiring properly classified accommodation for the sick of different ages, sexes, conditions, or diseases. When these workhouse rules were issued in 1842 as a General Order to practically all the unions then in existence, they were still left without any mention even of infectious diseases. The utmost that the Central Authority could bring itself to do was to declare, in the covering letter, but not in the rules themselves, that it was the duty of the master, under the direction of the medical officer, to isolate an infectious case in a separate apartment.[208]

[208] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, pp. 108-109. In 1845, after the deliberate sending
to the workhouse of a small-pox patient had led to an epidemic,
the Central Authority goes so far as to suggest to the board of
guardians concerned "that it is of the utmost consequence that
provision should be made at the workhouse by separate infectious
wards for the reception of cases of this description without
endangering the health of all in the house" (Letter of 25th
September 1845, in _Official Circular_, 1st January 1846, No. 55,
p. 15). But even then there was no order made on the subject; no
alteration of the classificatory scheme; and no general
recommendation to all boards of guardians.

The explanation of the omission to provide for the sick will
become apparent at a later stage. It was no part of the policy of
the Central Authority that the sick should be received into the
workhouse at all. It was assumed that they would normally be
relieved in their own homes. The incidental scanty references to
the sick wards of the workhouses had reference only to the
accommodation of such of the inmates of the workhouse as happened
to fall sick. Even these were, in serious cases, to be transferred
to a voluntary hospital, where such an institution existed. A
resolution of the Poplar Board of Guardians, in 1842, to send "all
cases requiring extraordinary surgical aid" to the London Hospital
was approved (_Official Circular_, No. 20, 30th July 1842, p.
297). "Any reasonable subscription to a hospital or similar
establishment by a Board of Guardians" would be sanctioned
(_ibid._ No. 17, 12th April 1842, p. 250.)

When the rules were finally consolidated in 1847, they still ignored the sick in their scheme of classification, and actually omitted all mention either of infectious diseases, or of lying-in cases, merely laying it down in general terms that it was the duty of the guardians, "after consulting the medical officer," to "make such arrangements as they may deem necessary, with regard to persons labouring under any disease of body or mind."[209]

[209] Art. 99 of General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847;
still in force.

No provision whatever was made for the segregation of paupers of unsound mind, whether lunatics, idiots, or imbeciles. In an Order of 1836 we do indeed find "the ward for lunatics and idiots" incidentally mentioned, as existing in some workhouses;[210] but such a ward was never required by the Central Authority, nor even suggested by it.

[210] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. 5; in Second Annual Report, 1836, p.
89.

In 1842, it was ordered that, if such paupers were dangerous, they were not to be retained in the workhouse, but sent to an asylum within fourteen days.[211] It was even suggested in an Instructional Letter in 1842 that curable cases, even if not dangerous, should be sent to asylums; and that even incurable, harmless idiots were inconvenient inmates of a workhouse. But no hint is given of the desirability of their segregation whilst they are there.[212]

[211] Art. 12 of General Order, 5th February 1842, in Eighth
Annual Report, 1842, p. 82; repeated in art. 101 of General
Consolidated Order, 24th July 1847.

[212] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 111.

With regard to infants at the breast, no special provision was ever made by rule. But it was allowed that children under seven might be placed (though only if the guardians thought fit) in any part of the female wards; and the mothers were at any rate "to have access to them at all reasonable times."[213] The Central Authority remarked, in a covering letter of 1842--which was not repeated when the rules were re-issued in 1847--"that so long as any mother is suckling her child, she ought to have access to it at all times _except when she is at work_, and that the child ought not, even then, to be completely beyond the mother's reach."[214]

[213] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v. art. 15, in Second Annual Report,
1836, p. 90; art. 10 of General Order of 5th February 1842, in
Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 82; repeated in art. 99 of General
Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847.

[214] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842; in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 110.

In 1847, still without amendment of the classificatory scheme, the guardians were allowed to permit a mother and her infant children to occupy the same bed.[215]

[215] Art. 111 of General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847.

With regard to vagrants, the first departure from the policy of merely including them as able-bodied paupers came in 1842, in a rule requiring "casual poor wayfarers and vagrants" to be kept "in the Vagrant Ward," or other separate ward--presumably separate for each sex, though this was not explicitly required.[216]

[216] Art. 10 of General Order of 5th February 1842, and
Instructional Letter of the same date, in Eighth Annual Report,
1842, pp. 81, 110. In 1847 "casual poor wayfarers" were to be kept
in "a separate ward" (General Consolidated Order, 24th July 1847,
art. 99).

With regard to segregation by character, the first relaxation from the classificatory scheme is to be found in a letter of 1839, in which the Central Authority permits married women of good character to be placed with the aged women, in order that they may avoid the contamination of bad characters, but only _provided that their daily employment is not interfered with_.[217] We can find no contemporary document even allowing the guardians to protect from a like contamination unmarried women or young girls of good character.

[217] Letter, 1st April 1839, in Special Report on the Further
Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, p. 293.

In 1840, however, the _Official Circular_ referred to "the separation of certain abandoned persons from the other inmates," explaining that it rested "not on the consideration of their past conduct, but on that of their present habits and character."[218]

[218] _Official Circular_, 24th December 1840, No. 10, p. 143.

In 1842 the central authority incidentally observed in an instructional letter that the guardians were _permitted_ to subdivide any of the seven classes of the scheme imposed on them, and that it was "very desirable that females of dissolute and disorderly habits should be separated from those of a better character."[219]

[219] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 108.

Not until 1847 do we find a rule providing that, "as far as circumstances will permit," the guardians were to "further subdivide any of the classes enumerated" in the classificatory scheme, "with reference to the moral character or behaviour or the previous habits of the inmates, or to such other grounds as may seem expedient."[220]

[220] General Consolidated Order, 24th July 1847, art. 99.

Meanwhile, however, the Central Authority was breaking down by inconsistent provisions the classificatory scheme which it left still figuring in the forefront of its Consolidated Orders. We may cite first the provision as to aged married couples. The Central Authority had for seven years eloquently justified its insistence on the strict separation of all married couples, however aged. In 1842, however, it made a rule "that, if for any special reason it shall at any time appear to the board of guardians to be desirable to depart from the regulations contained in Art. 9, in respect of any married couple," who were infirm through age or any other cause, "the guardians shall be at liberty to resolve that such couple shall have a sleeping apartment separate from those of the other paupers," subject to obtaining in each case the consent and approval of the Central Authority.[221]

[221] General Order of 5th February 1842, art. 10; in Eighth
Annual Report, 1842, p. 80. It is, we think, not incorrect to
infer from the restricted terms of this rule, that the Central
Authority was clinging to its former policy in the face of public
pressure. Such an inference is supported by the terms in which the
covering letter of 5th February 1842 refers to the new proviso,
and by the broad hint therein conveyed that "the guardians can
allow outdoor relief to any aged couple whom it may be inexpedient
to separate" (Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth
Annual Report, 1842, p. 109).