Chapter II: The Poor Law Commissioners (3)

In 1846, on the vehement objection and practical rebellion of the Norwich Court of Guardians, it went much further and agreed to sanction "an arrangement by which a separate room shall be assigned to each married couple of whatever class,"[222] that the guardians thought fit. In 1847, however, Parliament swept the original policy away so far as legislation could do so, by enacting, unconditionally, that no married couple over sixty should be compelled in the workhouse to live separately and apart from each other.[223]

[222] Letter to Norwich Court of Guardians, 3rd February 1846.

[223] 10 & 11 Vic. c. 109, sec. 23.

A second inroad into the classificatory scheme was made by the provision that children under seven might be placed in any female ward, whether that of the sick women, that of the aged and infirm women, or even that of the able-bodied women.[224]

[224] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v. art. 15, in Second Annual Report,
1836, p. 90; repeated in General Order of 5th February 1842, art.
10, proviso 5, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 81; and in
General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847, art. 99, proviso 7.

Yet another, and possibly a more important inroad into the scheme was made by a rule of 1842, which permitted the guardians in particular cases to classify boys and girls over ten in any way they thought fit.[225]

[225] General Order of 5th February 1842, art. 10, and
Instructional Letter of the same date, in Eighth Annual Report,
1842, pp. 81, 109; repeated in 1847, in more guarded form,
maintaining at any rate segregation by sex (General Consolidated
Order of 24th July 1847, art. 99).

(iii.) _Service_

But it was in its rules as to the services to be rendered by the workhouse inmates that the Central Authority most effectually undermined its own classificatory scheme, and practically destroyed any real segregation. That scheme, as we have shown, expressly forbade the paupers in any class to leave the particular "ward or separate building and yard" assigned to such class, or to hold any communication with any other class.[226] Nevertheless the Central Authority had, from the first, a policy of workhouse organisation inconsistent with any such segregation. Practically all the workhouse service was to be performed by the paupers themselves, and every pauper who was capable of work was to be incessantly occupied in that service. The able-bodied women who formed Class V. might be supervised by the aged and infirm women of Class IV. The children under seven who formed Class VII. might be supervised either by the able-bodied women of Class V., or by the aged and infirm women of Class IV., or by the girls of Class VI. The boys over seven who formed Class III. might be supervised by the aged and infirm men of Class I. The girls over seven who formed Class VI. might be supervised by the aged and infirm women of Class IV. These girls, so far from being confined to the premises assigned to their class, were to be employed in the able-bodied women's wards, in the aged and infirm women's wards, in the wards for the children under seven, and in household work generally, provided only that they were somehow kept from communicating with able-bodied men or boys. The sick, whether male or female, whether of good character or of bad, had necessarily to be waited on, and no paid nurses were required to be appointed. Consequently the provision allowing all the sick wards to be attended by the able-bodied women, by the girls between seven and sixteen, by the aged women, or by any combination of these that the master might direct, in itself necessarily destroyed all real segregation. By 1847 this permission had been so far restricted as to confine the attendance on the sick males to the aged and infirm men and the aged and infirm women; though such girls over seven, such able-bodied women, and such aged or infirm women as the master might deem fit might still be employed indiscriminately in the service of any of the wards except those for men and boys, and generally for household work throughout the workhouse.[227]

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

[227] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v., arts. 9, 13-14, in Second Annual
Report, 1836, pp. 89-90; General Order of 5th February 1842, art.
10, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 81; General Consolidated
Order of 24th July 1847, art. 99.

(iv.) _Diet_

It is significant of the unity of _régime_ insisted upon in the one general workhouse that the Central Authority laid constant stress on the uniformity to be observed in the dietaries of all the classes of paupers in the workhouse, except only by order or on the advice of the medical officer, which might be either for the sick, for those requiring a change of diet, for the nursing mothers, or for the infants.

Even to those paupers who were employed as servants only the common fare was "in general" to be given.[228] The first dietaries issued to the boards of guardians for them to choose from were drawn up avowedly for the able-bodied, with no other variation for other classes than were contained in a few footnotes referring (apart from the sick and children under nine) to extras which the guardians might, if they thought fit, allow to persons over sixty. Thus, practically the only difference in the food to be allowed to the able-bodied males, the able-bodied females, and the children over nine, was one of quantity. Even the aged and infirm had the same diet, with nothing else prescribed for them, and with no greater indulgence allowed, even if the guardians wished it, than an ounce of tea per week, with milk and sugar, and the possible addition, in one out of the six dietaries among which the boards of guardians might choose, of meat pudding once a week instead of bread and cheese; and, in four of these dietaries, also of butter for breakfast.[229] There was, of course, to be no alcoholic drink for any class of pauper except by written medical order.[230] No presents of food to individual paupers or classes of paupers were to be allowed, as they would produce inequality and discontent.[231] Even the sick, who were originally to be dieted case by case at the discretion of the medical officer, were, in 1842, to be fed with absolute uniformity as among the different classes of paupers and among the different individuals in a class, it being urged on the guardians that the medical officer should be restricted for his patients to a choice among four fixed dietaries which he was to draw up once for all, and hang up in the sick wards for permanent reference. These were described as "high, middle, low, and fever"; and he was expressly to be instructed "that the quantity of articles to be allowed for each should be minutely specified."[232]

[228] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 109.

[229] Circular on Workhouse Dietaries, 1836; in Second Annual
Report, 1836, pp. 64-66.

[230] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v. art. 23; in Second Annual Report,
1836, p. 91.

[231] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842; in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 113.

[232] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 113. This instruction was made mandatory on the
medical officer in 1847, but he was permitted to frame in advance,
not four only, but as many different dietaries as he chose. The
instructions of 1842 were not, however, superseded (General
Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847, art. 207, sec. 9; _see also_
under art. 108).

Finally, as it had been found that the old men and women who were allowed weekly ounces of tea and weekly allowances of butter would not take their teas simultaneously or consume their little pats of butter evenly, this distressing deviation from the dietetic uniformity led the Central Authority to suggest the withdrawal of the privilege, in favour of a simultaneous service of "a certain quantity of liquid tea" and of portions of bread and butter.[233]

[233] _Official Circular_, 30th July 1842, No. 20, p. 301.

With regard to the quantities of food to be supplied, the policy of the Central Authority passed through three phases. In 1836 the boards of guardians were expressly directed that the diet in the workhouse (which, as we have shown, was to be practically uniform for all classes of paupers) was not to be "equal"--that is to say, was actually to be inferior--"to the ordinary mode of subsistence of the labouring classes of the neighbourhood."[234] This was perhaps more tactfully expressed in the Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town Unions, in saying that the diet was "in no case to exceed in quantity and quality of food the ordinary diet of any class of able-bodied labourers living within the same district."[235] All the contemporary warnings of the Central Authority were against giving too much; and there was no provision for ensuring that each pauper got even the quantity prescribed in the dietary chosen by the local authority. No extra dinner was allowed on Christmas or other feast days, unless, indeed, this was supplied by private individuals.[236] In 1842 a change was made. The Central Authority fixed a separate dietary for each workhouse, and there was no longer any reference to these dietaries being inferior to the subsistence of the independent labourer; on the contrary the intention of the Central Authority was avowedly "to assimilate them as much as possible to the ordinary food of the working classes in the neighbourhood"[237]--in Kent and Sussex mainly bread and cheese, in the northern counties meat, potatoes, and porridge, and in Cornwall including fish. Moreover, it was provided that any pauper might, on demand, have his prescribed portion weighed out to him.[238] Finally, by 1847, we gather that the principle had been silently adopted of fixing such a dietary as was calculated to keep the paupers in physical health, irrespective of the amount or kind of food that might ordinarily be obtained by the lowest class of non-pauper labourer in particular districts or at particular periods. Even extra food on Christmas Day was allowed at the expense of the Poor Rate, at the unfettered discretion of the boards of guardians.[239]

[234] Circular on Workhouse Dietaries, 1836, in Second Annual
Report, 1836, p. 63.

[235] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v. art. 21; in Second Annual Report,
1836, p. 91.

[236] _Official Circular_, 2nd July 1840, No. 6, pp. 73-74.

[237] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 112.

[238] General Order of 5th February 1842, art. 18, and
Instructional Letter of the same date, in Eighth Annual Report,
1842, pp. 83, 113; repeated in General Consolidated Order of 24th
July 1847, art. 109.

[239] General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847, art. 107.

It should, however, be added that, although the policy of the Central Authority passed, as stated, through these three phases, the actual dietaries prescribed by it, even in the first phase, seem (in the light of modern physiology) to have been ample for health, if the paupers always got what was prescribed and knew how to eat it.

(v.) _Cleanliness and Sanitation_

It was part of the policy that the utmost cleanliness and good order should be maintained throughout the workhouse; and (to the limited extent of the hygienic knowledge of the time) that sanitary conditions should be insisted on. It was expressly made the duty of the master and matron to enforce "industry, order, punctuality, and cleanliness" on all the inmates; every day to "see that each individual is clean and in a proper state"; daily to inspect and see that all the sleeping wards are "duly cleaned and properly ventilated," and "to take care that the wards, kitchen, larder, and other rooms and offices be kept clean and in good order." All paupers were compulsorily to be cleansed on admission. All the workhouse inmates were to be supplied with clean linen and stockings every week, whilst their beds were to have clean sheets monthly.[240] This latter requirement was superseded in 1842 by the more general provision that the beds and bedding were to be kept in a clean and wholesome state.[241] Food was to be given out as required for each meal, not once for the day. It was to be eaten only in the dining-room, and not (except as ordered for the sick) elsewhere in the house. All remnants were to be removed from the dining-room by the officers after each meal.[242] It was compulsory on each board of guardians to appoint a qualified medical officer, as part of the very first business. It was expressly made part of his duty to attend regularly at the workhouse, and come whenever sent for; to examine all the sick and give all necessary directions for their care; to give all necessary directions for the meals of the aged and infirm, and the children; and (from 1842 onwards) "to report in writing to the board of guardians any defect in the diet, drainage, ventilation, warmth, or other arrangement of the workhouse, or any excess in the number of any class of inmates which he may deem to be detrimental to the health of the inmates."[243]

[240] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. iv. arts. 4, 5; in Second Annual
Report, 1836, pp. 85-86.

[241] General Order of 5th February 1842, art. 75; in Eighth
Annual Report, 1842, p. 95.

[242] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842; in _ibid._ p.
112.

[243] General Order of 5th February 1842, art. 78; in _ibid._ p.
97.

(vi.) _Discipline_

The same desire for uniformity of treatment for all workhouse inmates is seen in the Orders of the Central Authority with regard to the hours to be observed. A fixed time-table was imposed, to be rigidly observed by all classes of paupers, in all workhouses, at all seasons of the year. The whole of the day from getting out of bed to retiring to rest was definitely allotted. All classes of paupers were to observe precisely the same hours, except (1) the sick, who were never recognised in the classificatory scheme; (2) the aged and infirm; and (3) the children under seven, all of whom had to rise, go to bed, take their meals, and work at whatever hours the master might appoint, subject to any directions of the board of guardians. Thus, it was peremptorily ordered by the Central Authority that the able-bodied men, the able-bodied women, and the boys and girls over seven should, whatever their several strengths and conditions, all rise at five in summer and seven in winter; that they should all work for uniformly ten hours in summer and nine hours in winter; that they should all eat three simultaneous meals; that they should all have during the day exactly one hour of unallotted time and no more, and this between 7 and 8 p.m., winter and summer alike; and that all, whatever their ages or physical strength, should go to bed uniformly at 8 p.m. all the year round. This remained unchanged in 1847, except that the hours of rising had been altered in 1842 to 5.45 in summer and 6.45 in winter, with corresponding breakfast times.[244] Besides the remarkable uniformity of this scheme of daily life, which was absolutely enforced on paupers of all ages from seven to sixty (or such other age-limit as might be adopted for "the aged"), one is struck by its omissions. There was no provision for going out in the open air, and no time during which it was possible; unless the Central Authority meant that the several classes of paupers might be allowed in the various yards between 7 and 8 p.m., in summer and winter alike. No pauper was to be allowed to go outside the workhouse walls except for "urgent or special reason," and it was expressly laid down that they were not to be permitted, whether their conduct was good or bad, to go out "at stated intervals."[245] A slight relaxation in this latter respect was permitted (though not prescribed) in 1842, in the case of children under fifteen, when the master was allowed, if he chose, to send any of them out for exercise under the charge of the schoolmaster or other officer.[246] There was equally no provision (at any rate for any but "boys and girls") for any exercise of the mental faculties, either in the form of recreation or in the form of education or training. From 1836 to 1842 it was even ordered that the meals were to be taken in silence, even by the children.[247]

[244] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v. art. 17, in Second Annual Report,
1836, pp. 90, 99; General Order of 5th February 1842, arts. 13-16,
in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, pp. 82-83, 99; General Consolidated
Order of 24th July 1847, arts. 102-106, and Form (N).

[245] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842; in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, pp. 115-116.

[246] General Order of 5th February 1842, art. 24, and
Instructional Letter of the same date, in Eighth Annual Report,
1842, pp. 84, 116. This was repeated in the General Consolidated
Order of 24th July 1847, art. 117.

[247] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v. art. 17; in Second Annual Report,
1836, p. 90.

No provision was made for the supply of any books for the use of the inmates, whether sick or well--not even Bibles and prayer-books; and it was thus made unlawful for the boards of guardians to have provided these, even if they had wished to do so--unless, indeed, it would have been held by the Auditor that they were "reasonably necessary." The point seems never to have been raised. The education provided for the children was of the scantiest. It was confined to "boys and girls," without definition of age, and it was thus left to the boards of guardians to begin it as late and to terminate it as early as they chose. It was to consist of instruction for three hours a day "at least," in "reading, writing, and the principles of the Christian religion," together with "such other instructions" as were "calculated to train them to habits of usefulness, industry, and virtue."[248] Apparently arithmetic was thought not to come under this definition, as it was added in 1842.[249] Shoe making was approved in 1845 in the case of Poplar.[250] A schoolmaster or schoolmistress needed only to be appointed "if the guardians shall think fit"; and the Central Authority thus left it open to guardians to impose the task of instruction on the porter or matron--this being actually mentioned in the Instructional Letters[251]--or on an aged pauper--a course which was frequently adopted without rebuke. If a schoolmaster or schoolmistress was appointed no qualification was required.[252] No provision was made for playrooms, playthings, or even playing time for children of any age.

[248] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v. art. 16, in Second Annual Report,
1836, p. 90.

[249] General Order of 5th February 1842, art. 22, in Eighth
Annual Report, 1842, p. 83.

[250] MS. Minutes, Poplar Board of Guardians, 15th January 1845.

[251] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842; in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 124.

[252] This remained so even in the General Consolidated Order of
24th July 1847, art. 167.

With regard to the adults, well or sick, it was apparently part of the policy to ignore, and even to prohibit, recreation. Playing at cards and all other games of chance were absolutely forbidden to all classes of inmates at all hours and seasons. Smoking was peremptorily prohibited in any room in the workhouse, except by the special direction of the medical officer, and the boards of guardians were told that they might prohibit it in the yards if they chose. No visitors were allowed (otherwise than to the sick) except at the will, and actually in the presence, of the master or matron. It even required a special exception, not made until 1842, to enable parents to see their children who were in the same workhouse "at some one time in each day."[253]

[253] General Order of 5th February 1842, art. 10, proviso 6, in
Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 81.

(vii.) _Employment_

We may infer from the scheme of daily life just described, which the Central Authority imposed on all classes of workhouse inmates, that it laid great stress, as a matter of policy, on the ten hours of work which it exacted from all who were neither physically disabled nor below the age of seven. The bulk of the inmates, especially the aged and infirm, the women and children, and, we may add, the defectives, were evidently to be employed on the ordinary household service and attendance of the workhouse and its inmates. It was expressly ordered that all the paupers so employed were to be under "the strictest superintendence," not to be given "offices of trust"; and confined to "offices of mere labour which can be performed under trustworthy superintendence."[254] But this household service did not suffice to find occupation for the able-bodied, especially the men. The Report of 1834, it will be remembered, had been emphatic in recommending that all pauper employment should be in accordance with the spirit of the Act of Elizabeth, useful to "the employer as well as to the employed," and that everything which gave to labour a repulsive aspect was to be avoided as mischievous. The Central Authority did not adopt this policy, even at the beginning of its work, and by 1847 had adopted a contrary one. From the outset the policy laid down was that the pauper was not to work on his own account, was not to be remunerated for his labour, and was not to obtain any personal advantage from working harder or more skilfully than the prescribed minimum. But the policy of the Central Authority, at first, was that the work should be useful, and for the benefit of the union. Thus, in 1836 it was ordered that the clothing of all the paupers should, "as far as possible, be made by the paupers in the workhouse."[255] This project promptly disappears from the documents, presumably on the discovery that tailoring and bootmaking were skilled occupations, beyond the capacity of ordinary workhouse inmates.

[254] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842; in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 109.

[255] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, in Second Annual Report, 1836, p. 91.

In 1842 the central authority declares itself unable to suggest for the able-bodied men in the workhouse "any kind of labour which is likely to be productive of profit"; and remarks that "stone-breaking under proper superintendence is generally found to answer." other occupations which are named to the guardians as being frequently adopted are grinding corn in hand mills, pounding or grinding bones for manure, and oakum-picking.[256] the horrors revealed in the inquiry into the andover workhouse scandal led to a summary prohibition of the employment of paupers in pounding, grinding, or otherwise breaking bones, or preparing bone dust.[257] this left practically only stone-breaking, hand-grinding, and oakum-picking at the disposal of the boards of guardians--occupations, as it seems to us, combining in the highest degree the characteristics of monotony, absence of initiative, toilsomeness, and inutility--giving, in fact, to labour, in flat contradiction of the recommendation of the report of 1834, an aspect as repulsive as could be devised.[258]

[256] Letter of 18th February 1842; in _Official Circular_, 13th
February 1843, No. 23, p. 43. _See also_ the interesting letter of
5th March 1842, giving the reasons for grinding by stones rather
than by a steel mill (_ibid._ 30th July 1842, No. 20, p. 298).

[257] General Order of 8th November 1845, and Circular Letter of
the same date, in Twelfth Annual Report, 1846, pp. 72-77.

[258] The last instruction of the Central Authority during this
period with regard to employment is the Circular of 1st April
1846, stating that the task to be exacted in oakum-picking should
be 4 lb. per day for males and 2 to 3 lb. per day for females
(_Official Circular_, 1st April 1886, No. 58, p. 57).

(viii.) _Sanctions_

As the policy of the Central Authority was to exclude from the life of the workhouse inmates everything of the nature of reward, encouragement, stimulus, responsibility, or initiative, the question arises by what means the monotonous discipline was to be maintained. The documents indicate that the Central Authority relied on the two forces of punishment and religion.

The discipline of the workhouse was to rest primarily on the fact that the master, either with or without the prior sanction of the board of guardians, had summary powers of instant, though carefully limited, punishment of any pauper inmate. Any disobedience of the regulations or of any order of the master might be punished, sometimes at his sole discretion, sometimes by order of the board of guardians, by confinement not exceeding twenty-four hours in a separate room or cell, and by reduction to a diet of bread and water only for not more than two days. Between 1840 and 1847 the disorderly or refractory pauper might also, by order of the guardians, be made to wear a special dress for not more than forty-eight hours.[259] But elaborate precautions were taken against abuse. The greatest care was to be taken that no injury to health was caused by any punishment.[260] Corporal punishment was strictly confined to boys under fourteen. And, as some protection to the paupers against tyranny or oppression, the rules as to discipline and punishment were to be put up in the dining-halls, school-rooms, and board-room;[261] it was expressly provided that any pauper who had been punished or who was reported as refractory was (whether this was requested or not) to be brought before the board of guardians at its next meeting, and given an opportunity of complaining; and the visiting committee was to ascertain the truth of every complaint made to them. Under no circumstances was the master to lay hands on a pauper. If force was absolutely needed, he should call in the porter or other officer.[262] For graver offences the pauper had to be proceeded against before the magistrates under the Vagrant Acts and the ordinary criminal law.

[259] Form of Order, 1840, art. 5; in Seventh Annual Report, 1841,
p. 115. This was repeated in the General Order of 5th February
1842, art. 38, and Instructional Letter of the same date, in
Eighth Annual Report, 1842, pp. 86, 121. But it was omitted from
the General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847. And when a board
of guardians had made all the unchaste women wear a yellow gown,
this was in 1839 disallowed by the Central Authority, on the mixed
grounds that the Poor Law Amendment Act had removed all penal
consequences from incontinence, and that classification should be
by present habits and character, not by past conduct (Minute of
5th March 1839, in Sixth Annual Report, 1840, pp. 98-100; _see
also_ Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 121). We are told that the slang term for
workhouse wards for immoral women was "Canary Wards," so that the
distinctive dress must have been widely known.

[260] Circular Letter of January 1841, in Seventh Annual Report,
1841, p. 121.

[261] Form of Order, 1840, art. 23; in Seventh Annual Report,
1841, p. 118.

[262] Circular Letter of January 1841, in Seventh Annual Report,
1841, p. 121.

Passing from punishment to religion, we may note that the main preoccupation of the Central Authority was, in accordance with the 1834 Act, to protect the pauper from proselytism or from being compelled to attend services contrary to his religious feelings. The basis of this protection was the compulsory creed register. No pauper was to be obliged to attend--or so placed that he could not avoid being present at--any religious service contrary to his principles. Children were not to be educated in any creed other than that of their parents. On the other hand, it was expressly laid down that a chaplain should be appointed and prayers and services should be officially provided, although these were only to be those of the Established Church.[263] But provision was made for what promptly became the holding of Nonconformist services in the workhouse, by the permission that any pauper might be visited at any time of the day by a licensed minister of his own persuasion, for religious assistance or the instruction of children.[264] Those who were registered as members of the Established Church, whether adults or children, were not to be permitted, even with their own consent, to receive religious assistance or instruction from ministers of other denominations.[265] This, however, was altered in 1842, when the Central Authority, whilst still thinking it "objectionable," announced that it would not interfere to prevent the attendance of such persons as desired it at any Nonconformist service performed in the workhouse.[266] In one union (Royston), where the board of guardians refused to appoint a chaplain, and sought to induce the inmates to receive the voluntary ministrations of Nonconformists, the Central Authority was driven peremptorily to forbid, by three successive special orders, any pauper inmate, whether child or adult, belonging to the Established Church being even allowed to attend Nonconformist services in the workhouse.[267] Finally, the Central Authority reverted, for all unions, to its policy of 1839, restricting the ministrations of Nonconformist ministers to members of their own denomination only, except in so far as the guardians might choose to allow inmates belonging to any sect of Protestant Dissenters to receive, if they chose, the ministrations of any Protestant Dissenter.[268]

[263] Letter of 4th February 1836, in Second Annual Report, 1836,
pp. 66-67.

[264] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v. art. 17, in Second Annual Report,
1836, p. 91.

[265] Letter of 6th November 1839; in Seventh Annual Report, 1841,
pp. 230-2.

[266] Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842,
p. 117.

[267] Special Orders, 1st February 1842, 20th April 1842, and 18th
January 1845; in Eleventh Annual Report, 1845, pp. 30-1, 132-3.

[268] General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847, art. 122.

For all who did not conscientiously object, there were to be public prayers daily before breakfast and after supper; and Divine service within the workhouse every Sunday, at which attendance was compulsory on all members of the Church of England, not being children or sick. It was obligatory to appoint a chaplain, whose duty it was to preach every Sunday, to examine and catechise the children at least once a month, and to visit the sick. It is, however, to be noted that it was directed that "the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper" was not to be administered in the workhouse, except to "the sick and disabled inmates": though the chaplain was allowed to permit any other inmates to communicate along with the sick, if he thought fit.[269] Gradually, however, workhouses got regular "chapels" within their walls, though without any express direction or sanction of the Central Authority for their establishment or equipment; and the Central Authority then allowed, when a chapel existed, the administration of the Sacrament, if the bishop sanctioned it.[270] No labour, except household work and cooking, was to be performed on Sunday; nor (as was added in 1842) on Christmas Day and Good Friday. The Anglican children were to be prepared for confirmation by the chaplain, who might be assisted by the schoolmaster or schoolmistress.[271] Originally no provision was made for permitting any of the paupers ever to leave the workhouse to attend Divine service outside, and the Central Authority long held to this position. Presently it began to consider possible relaxations for the aged, the widows with families, and the children.[272] In 1842 it was expressly left open to the guardians to allow such inmates as they thought fit, to whatever class they belonged, to go out to church or chapel, in the custody of the master or porter, on Sunday, Good Friday, and Christmas Day.[273] In strange contradiction of the dictum that the workhouse was not to be looked on as a place for the punishment of past misconduct, this privilege of going out to church or chapel was to be forbidden to any woman who had an illegitimate child,[274] a disqualification not incorporated in the General Consolidated Order of 1847. And as the master or porter could not be required to go to a Dissenting chapel, some other regulation was to be made by the guardians for the case of Dissenters, "such as inducing the ministers of the different congregations to certify the attendance," with "the times of the commencement and end of the service."[275]

[269] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 117.

[270] Letter of 20th December 1842, in _Official Circular_, 25th
January 1843, No. 22, p. 31.

[271] _Official Circular_, 1st August 1845, No. 50, p. 123.

[272] Circular of 12th March 1838, in Fifth Annual Report, 1839,
pp. 71-72.

[273] General Order of 5th February 1842, arts. 32, 33, in Eighth
Annual Report, 1842, p. 85. Moreover, women after confinement
might be "churched," and children were normally to be baptized, in
the parish church (Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in
Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 117).

[274] General Order of 5th February 1842, arts. 32 and 33, in
Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 85. This was rescinded (but
apparently only for 81 unions out of 542) by Order of 7th February
1843, in Ninth Annual Report, 1843, p. 378.

[275] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842; in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 118.

(ix.) _Discharge and Detention_

It was an essential part of the policy of the Central Authority that any workhouse inmate over sixteen could leave the house on giving reasonable notice--at first defined as three hours, and then left more vague, but explained to mean sufficient to enable the master to make the necessary entries, return the pauper's own clothes, etc., and to let the discharge take place in working hours. The option was, however, with the head of the family in each case; and if the head was "able-bodied"--it is not clear whether this was to be in the "indoor" or the "outdoor" sense of that term--the whole family had to leave with him (or her), unless the board of guardians chose to allow an exception. In particular an able-bodied man was not to be allowed to leave his wife and children in the workhouse, whilst he sought work. If he insisted on going out, the wife and children were also to be discharged with him.[276] It was, in fact, to be a cardinal feature of the workhouse that so far as any person over sixteen was concerned there should be no power of detention. Even if paupers persisted in repeatedly passing in and out at short intervals--it might be "for improper purposes"; even if "persons of weak intellect" or of "confirmed vagrant habits" made it "a practice to return again after a short absence, generally in a most abject and loathsome state";[277] even if women persisted in returning to the workhouse year after year to be confined of a succession of illegitimate children;[278] or if sick paupers demanded their discharge at a time when to go out would "damage their own health," or even, if they had an infectious disease, "endanger the health of others,"[279] they were still, after a warning, to be permitted freely to leave when they chose. To this total lack of power to detain there were only three exceptions. Children who were doubly orphaned, or deserted by both parents, might be detained if under sixteen; the guardians (though without statutory authority) being assumed to be _in loco parentis_. A person of unsound mind, duly certified as such, could be detained; but this power did not apply to persons of merely defective intellect or feeble-minded. Finally, as we have already mentioned, the practice of four hours' detention of vagrants in the casual wards was introduced by the Central Authority, under the implicit authority of the Acts of 1842 and 1844.[280] On the other hand, although no person could insist on admission to a workhouse, and the board of guardians could (subject to their obligation to relieve him in some way, if actually destitute) legally turn a pauper out of the workhouse who did not wish to leave, the Central Authority advised that, as "persons who are not really destitute would be unwilling to remain" in any workhouse that was "properly regulated," this legal power ought not to be exercised,[281] except, as above explained, in the case of dependents where the head of the family insisted on taking his own discharge; or except for the purpose of immediately prosecuting the pauper under the Vagrant Acts.[282]

[276] _Official Circular_, 16th November 1841, No. 13, pp. 187-8.

[277] Answer of 9th June 1842, in _Official Circular_, No. 23, p.
40.

[278] Answer of 10th February 1843, in _Official Circular_, 23rd
May 1843, No. 25, p. 94.

[279] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, pp. 114-155.

[280] 5 & 6 Vic. c. 57, sec. 5, and 7 & 8 Vic. c. 101, sec. 53.
_See ante_, p. 14.

[281] Answer of 4th January 1844, in _Official Circular_, 31st
January 1844, No. 31, p. 187; Instructional Letter of 5th February
1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 107.

[282] Instructional Letter of 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 107.

(x.) _The Workhouse of the General Consolidated Order of 1847_

We will now attempt to summarise the policy of the Central Authority as it stood in 1847 with respect to indoor relief. The workhouse for each union was to be one centrally situated, plain building; designed to house all sorts and conditions of paupers, under one head, and according to a single code of rules. There was to be complete separation of the sexes, with the one nominal exception in favour of aged married couples who demanded it. But the regulations made association among inmates of the same sex practically unrestricted. For although the elaborate classificatory scheme of 1836 depending on the respective ages was duly incorporated in the General Consolidated Order of 1847, this was hindered from ensuring any effective segregation by exceptions and inconsistent provisions; and was, in fact, rendered practically nugatory by requiring all inmates capable of service to perform the household work of all the wards and to supervise or serve all the other inmates of the same sex. On the other hand, all the workhouse inmates were to be, as far as possible, restricted from intercourse with the outside world, and thus confined to the atmosphere of pauperism. The policy with regard to treatment was to insist on cleanliness and order; to provide food, clothing, and sleep ample for health (even, to modern ideas, excessive); and to balance this by rigorous discipline, complete subjection to the master, and suppression of all individual impulse. Above all, the paupers were to be kept constantly occupied in toil, persistent and monotonous, with every element of encouragement, stimulus, responsibility, initiative and skill deliberately eliminated. Everything in the nature of recreation, mental exercise or training was (except for a minimum of teaching to the young children) avowedly excluded. The only forces appealed to were the fear of punishment and a modicum of religious exhortation. It was a fundamental principle that the _régime_ of the workhouse should apply uniformly to all the pauper inmates whatever their past character, or present conduct, with the indispensable minimum of deviation for senility, infancy, and actual infirmity from sickness or otherwise. Even the sick are almost entirely ignored in the Orders of the Central Authority, and there is the very minimum of recognition of any hospital provision. The policy of the Central Authority at this date, in short, deliberately excluded any use of the workhouse for the curative, reformatory, or educational treatment of any class whatsoever. There was only to be one institution in each Union for all classes of paupers. It was to be a place which, whilst it provided the full requirements of physical health, starved both the will and the intelligence, and forced the pauper into a condition of blank-mindedness. By this means it was intended that no destitute person still capable of exerting or of enjoying himself, with the merest shred of mental faculty or mental desire, would consent to remain in the workhouse a day longer than he could help. Hence it was a part of the policy to avoid all obligatory detention, and to persist in regarding the workhouse as a place of merely temporary sojourn, in which no inmate, of whatever age, sex or condition, need be permanently domiciled.

_K._--THE POSITION IN 1847 COMPARED WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF 1834

The proposals and recommendations of the Report of 1834 fall under five heads, though opinions may differ as to the relative weight intended to be given to each. These five heads are:--

(i.) That there should be national uniformity in the treatment of
each class of paupers, so that every applicant of any class might
receive identical treatment wherever he happened to reside.

(ii.) That outdoor relief to the able-bodied and their families
should be abolished--it being left ambiguous whether or not this
applied to any woman not legally dependent on an able-bodied man.

(iii.) That each local authority should have a workhouse in which
able-bodied applicants for relief should be received and set to
work under strict discipline, in order to test their destitution.

(iv.) That the condition of the able-bodied pauper should be less
eligible than that of the lowest class of independent labourer.

(v.) That, in so far as the aged and infirm or the children were
given indoor maintenance, this should be in separate institutions,
under distinct management, in which the old might "enjoy their
indulgences" and the children be educated by "a person properly
qualified to act as a schoolmaster."

Dealing separately with each of these, we see, with regard to national uniformity, that the Poor Law Commissioners had failed to embody this in their Orders even with regard to able-bodied men; and had, by 1847, wholly abandoned it in regard to other classes. In over 100 places the Poor Law Commissioners had practically failed to introduce their new principles at all. The rest of the country was divided for some purposes into two, and for others into three geographical areas of uneven size. In 396 unions outdoor relief to the able-bodied and their families was prohibited. In thirty-two unions under one set of regulations, and in eighty-one and twenty-nine unions under others, it was permitted on conditions. But it was with regard to the relief of women and children dependent on able-bodied persons that the two geographical areas differed most markedly. In the 396 unions, these dependents of able-bodied persons could not be relieved otherwise than in the workhouse. In the thirty-two, and also in the eighty-one and twenty-nine unions, they could be relieved in their homes. A similar geographical difference prevailed with regard to the relief to be given to the independent woman. For all the other classes of paupers, whether these were the specific exceptions to the classes above mentioned, or the much more numerous "aged and infirm," "sick," or orphan or deserted children, no uniform method of relief was prescribed or even suggested. Each of the local authorities was left to devise its own policy.

Passing now to the second head, the abolition of outdoor relief to able-bodied persons and their families, we note that the Poor Law Commissioners had, by 1847, in regard to 142 unions (comprising over one-fifth of the whole number), practically abandoned the hope of prohibition. In its stead, the Commissioners had sanctioned the opening of stone-yards, etc., for the employment of men receiving outdoor relief.

With regard to the third head, the use of admission to a workhouse as a test of destitution of the able-bodied, this was not prescribed by the Commissioners to the 142 unions just mentioned.

The fourth head, making the condition of the able-bodied pauper less eligible than that of the lowest class of independent labourer, the Commissioners strove incessantly to insist upon. But by 1847 they had given up attempting to secure this less eligible state by giving less food, inferior clothing, worse accommodation, or shorter hours of sleep than those enjoyed by even the average labourer. The Commissioners were now attempting to secure this less eligible state by monotonous toil, lack of all recreation, a total absence of any mental stimulus, and, where possible, by confinement within the workhouse walls.

But it was under the fifth head that the Commissioners had, by 1847, departed most widely from the principles of 1834, viz. in the kind of institutional treatment to be provided for such aged and infirm persons, or children, as the local authority chose to refuse outdoor relief to, and to receive in the workhouse. Following the lead of the Report of 1834, the Poor Law Commissioners took no steps, so far as we can ascertain, either to encourage or to discourage the relief of the aged and infirm, and of the sick, by money allowances in their own homes. But where these classes were admitted into the workhouse, the Commissioners, instead of the separate, specialised institutions recommended in the Report of 1834, prescribed one general workhouse to contain these classes together with the able-bodied and their families, and, we may add, also the orphan and deserted children. This involved, in spite of the elaborate classification nominally imposed, an indiscriminate, common establishment, with a uniform _régime_ for all classes alike. This _régime_ was, with the minimum of exceptions, that devised for the able-bodied adults. The workhouse of 1847 was, above all, to serve as a test of destitution, and as a place which the able-bodied would find less eligible than the worst independent existence. Hence when it was used for all classes--the aged and infirm, the sick, the dependent women, the young children, the defectives of various kinds, and those whom accident or sudden emergency had thrown within its walls--it was necessarily, to all of them alike, an institution which, whilst providing the full requirements of physical health, starved both the will and the intelligence, and forced the pauper into a condition of blank-mindedness.

It must be said that, between 1834 and 1847, there seems to have been entertained by some persons of authority and repute a simpler and most drastic view of the policy intended by the Report and Act of 1834, namely, the abolition, as soon as practicable, of all outdoor relief to all classes of paupers; and the substitution, in all cases, of the offer of admission to the workhouse. This was intended to ensure that the condition of the persons relieved should be "less eligible," so as to induce them and their relatives to avoid maintenance out of the poor rate. It is clear, as we have shown, that neither the Inquiry Commissioners of 1834, nor Parliament, nor yet the Poor Law Commissioners themselves between 1834 and 1847, ever took that view. They were too fully conscious of the impossibility of so dealing with the great mass of the sick and the aged and infirm, and they had not at all made up their minds about widows with children, or even about unencumbered independent women. Harriet Martineau, indeed, who had not before her the statistics showing to what an enormous extent the pauperism--even that of 1834--was made up of the aged and infirm and the sick, could naïvely depict, in her _Poor Law Tales_, the complete success of an absolutely inflexible offer of "the House" to every applicant without exception; the result being an entirely de-pauperised parish, and the overseer turning the key in the door of an absolutely empty workhouse. What is more remarkable is to find even able subordinates of the Poor Law Commissioners talking as if they took this view. "It appears to me," wrote Sir Francis Head in 1835, "that we have no discretion allowed to us to deliberate whether the workhouse system is good or bad. Our Poor Law Amendment Act is physic which the legislature, in the character of physician, has prescribed to remedy an acknowledged evil. We are called upon to administer it, and it seems to me that the only discretion granted to us is to determine what period is to elapse before _all outdoor relief is to be stopped_."[283]

[283] MS. letter, Sir Francis Head to S. L., 6th November 1835. It
is perhaps a question whether Sir Francis Head really meant what
he said; or whether he was not speaking merely of outdoor relief
to the able-bodied.

Fortunately we are not left to conjecture in this matter. In 1847, on the eve of their transformation into the Poor Law Board, the Commissioners (then Sir George Nicholls, Sir George Cornewall Lewis and Sir Edmund Head) put officially on record what in their view had been the intention of the legislature in passing the Act of 1834, and what, in this respect, had been their own consistent policy. In a special report to the Home Secretary in 1847, they declare that: "In exercising the discretion entrusted to them by the legislature, the Commissioners have been placed between two extreme opinions with respect to the manner of framing their regulations. On the one hand, it is held that the main object of the Poor Law Amendment Act is the extinction or repression of outdoor relief _generally_ (and not merely of the outdoor relief of the _able-bodied_), with the consequent diminution of the expenditure from the poor's rate; and that the Commissioners ought to proceed to the accomplishment of this end with little regard to public opinion. On the other hand, it is asserted that the existing law, and the regulations made under it, have gone much too far in the limitation of the outdoor relief of the able-bodied, have effected too great a reduction in the amount of pauperism and the expenditure for the relief of the poor, and have thereby deprived the poorer classes of a vested right in the property of the rate-paying part of the community.

"The Commissioners have pursued a middle course, almost equally removed from each of these extremes. They have considered the main object of the legislature in passing the Poor Law Amendment Act to have been the extinction of the _allowance system_;[284] or the system of making up the wages of labourers out of the poor's rate. With this view their regulations respecting the limitation of outdoor relief have been almost exclusively confined to the able-bodied in health; and these regulations have been issued particularly to the rural unions inasmuch as it was in the agricultural counties, and not in the large towns or manufacturing districts, that the allowance system was most prevalent, and led to the most dangerous consequences.... The Commissioners ... have to the utmost of their power given effect by their regulations to the views of the legislature."[285]

[284] _See_ the preamble to Sec. 52 of the Poor Law Amendment Act.
[This footnote, like the italics, is in the original.]

[285] Letters addressed by the Poor Law Commissioners to the
Secretary of State respecting the Transaction of the Business of
the Commission, 1847, House of Commons, No. 148 of 1847, pp. 30-1.

In 1847 the Poor Law Commissioners were, by Act of Parliament, abolished, and their duties transferred to the Poor Law Board, under a minister responsible to Parliament.

It is therefore more correct to treat, as Mr. Mackay does, the policy of abolishing outdoor relief to all classes as a further development of the "principles of 1834," rather than as part of them. "The administrative success of the Act of 1834," he writes, "consists in the fact that the offer of the workhouse served quite as well as an absolute refusal of relief. It obliged the able-bodied to assume responsibility for the able-bodied period of life; and, as we shall presently see, _it is now argued that an application of the same principle to the other responsibilities of life would produce equally advantageous results_.... That the able-bodied period of life must be responsible for the period that is not able-bodied is an incontrovertible proposition. But the first step, at that date the only practicable step, in recreating the personal responsibility of the labourer, was to hold him responsible for the able-bodied period of his own life" (_History of the English Poor Law_, by T. Mackay, 1899, vol. iii., pp. 137 and 154).