m:'.
 
 LI E) RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 
 or ILLI NOIS
 
 vT 
 
 IN WHAT KESPECTS 
 
 MAY THE 
 
 ADMINISTEATION OF THE POOR LAW 
 
 BE IMPEOVED ? 
 
 A PAPER READ AT BRISTOL, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL 
 OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, 
 
 BY 
 
 ELISHA KOBINSON, 
 
 A MAGISTBATE FOR THE CITY OF BEISTOL, AND FOEMERLY CHAIRMAN OF THE 
 BRISTOL BOARD OF GUARDIANS. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THOMAS KERSLAKE & CO., PARK STREET. 
 
 1869.
 
 IN WHAT EESPECTS MAY THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
 THE POOR LAW BE IMPROVED? 
 
 Without preface, I reply — By a more thorough classification 
 of those who claim support or assistance from the public rates. 
 The complaints in reference to the administration of the Poor 
 Law may be summarized under two heads : — First, That the 
 poor are harshly treated; and, second. That their cost is an ex- 
 cessive tax upon the productive industry of the country. 
 
 I have a sufficiently good opinion of the benevolence of rate- 
 payers to think that, if the former complaint were unfounded, 
 the latter would scarcely exist — viz., I believe that if the really 
 unfortunate — the sick, the aged, and the infantile portion of 
 the poor, were treated as they should be, the public, with few 
 exceptions, would not grudge the money expended upon their 
 relief. 
 
 Let it be here distinctly understood, that, speaking in gene- 
 ral terms, I wish to lay no specific blame on either the guar- 
 dians, or the paid officers who administer the Poor Law. With 
 few exceptions, I know nothing to lead me to think that the 
 law is carried out otherwise than with diligence and faithful- 
 ness — I would say with efficiency, if I could — for I am especi- 
 ally desirous to give all credit to a body of men with whom I 
 have been for years associated, and who give much valuable 
 time and thought to the all but hopeless task of reconciling the 
 claims of the deserving poor with those of the heavily taxed 
 ratepayer — but efficiency is impossible. 
 
 Few guardians who leave the relief-table of a union con- 
 nected with a populous city, but must feel (if they think on the 
 subject) that they have been both niggardly and wasteful — nig- 
 gardly, because to some specially deserving case they have
 
 not done enough; and wasteful, because to the idle and disso- 
 lute they have been compelled to grant something which goes 
 to maintain vice instead of relieving distress. 
 
 Guardians have some difficulty in getting at the merits of the 
 case of an applicant for relief, but far more difficulty in dealing 
 with an undeserving case when it is ascertained. Why is this ? 
 Do not the Poor Laws, passed in 1834 and since, distinctly decree 
 that all able-bodied applicants for relief shall work, as the con- 
 dition of assistance ? They do. This is the spirit and inten- 
 tion of the law, and it is assumed by some that it is carried out. 
 But it is not. The so-called labour performed in most poor- 
 houses is, in amount, of a very unsatisfactory character. 
 
 What is required is labour, enforced with certainty as to time 
 engaged and quantity performed; but this cannot be brought 
 into full practice until a far more complete subdivision is made 
 between the aged, feeble, imbecile, and young, and the able- 
 bodied paupers and vagrants. The management of feeble and 
 that of able-bodied paupers are two very distinct pieces of busi- 
 ness, and require agencies with different qualifications. For 
 the one class a manager, with the quality of administrator and 
 nurse, is the most fitting; for the other, the controller should 
 possess the characteristic more approaching that of a jailer or 
 taskmaster. 
 
 To the benevolent mind, unversed in Poor-Law administra- 
 tion, this rigid line may appear harsh; but all who have had 
 much experience know that there is the habitual pauper as well 
 as the habitual criminal — that it is the chronic and hereditary 
 pauperism which is impoverishing the ratepayers, embarrass- 
 ing the guardians, and bringing discredit upon the whole sys- 
 tem of Poor- Law administration. 
 
 Converse with whatever practical men you will, all admit 
 the efficacy and necessity of the labour-test, and spasmodic 
 efforts are constantly being made by guardians to put the test 
 into practice. But occasional energy in this direction is of little 
 avail. Guardians change, and officers relax in their efforts, 
 
 UHJC 

 
 and the wily tramp and habitual pauper get help with little or 
 no labour. And this need surprise no one while the feeble and 
 the able-bodied paupers are all under one roof and one manage- 
 ment. It has been found, in effect, that the labour-test is not 
 continuously applied. The task of making a constitutionally 
 lazy man work is too arduous and important to be united with 
 duties of a totally different character. Let a man or woman 
 once take parish relief, and thus lose his or her self-respect, 
 and they will always look to the rates for assistance in periods 
 of difficulty and trial. Nothing but the consciousness that 
 he will be made to labour hard for any relief he may get will 
 prevent a man, once on the rates, from applying again. This 
 may be called a platitude ; but platitude or no platitude, while 
 everybody says it is true, little effort is made vigorously to grap- 
 ple with the evil. The principle to be taught is self-reliance, 
 and this can only be taught by compulsion. If a man feels he 
 has something else to depend on other than his own exertions, 
 the chances are he will exert himself very little. The same 
 principle applies to others beside the very poor. I know many 
 men of whom it may safely be said, that, had they inherited a 
 few hundred pounds, they would never have made the effort to 
 acquire the means they now possess ; and, where the self-respect 
 of a man is at its lowest ebb, as in the case of a pauper, the 
 best, the only moral and physical training you can give him is to 
 teach him self-reliance by making him work. Rely on it, we 
 want facilities for carrying out the law as already prescribed 
 for habitual paupers, as well as for habitual criminals. 
 
 I will give two or three cases from unions, more as illus- 
 trations than proofs, in support of my statement, that the labour- 
 test is not vigorously and regularly applied. I beheve it will 
 be admitted that, as a rule, it is not applied as it ought to be. 
 I do not deny its partial application, nor do I question the wish 
 and intention of guardians generally to adopt it. My assertion 
 is, that it is not applied with regularity. 
 
 The first illustration I shall give is from the Cardiff Union,
 
 On the 14th of August last, a guardian, Mr. Bird, introduced 
 and carried a resolution at the Board, ''That tramps should 
 not receive any food at the tramp ward until they had per- 
 formed an allotted portion of work.""^ He stated that during 
 the past year they had relieved 5,420 paupers in the tramp ward, 
 and that, during the past month, the number had been 823, or 
 nearly equal to 10,000 persons in a year. He also observed 
 that they were all able-bodied paupers, and the majority of them 
 between thirty and forty years of age. He then referred to what 
 had been done in other unions, and showed that, where the 
 system of applying the labour-test had been carried out, the 
 number of tramps had been very materially reduced. The 
 effect of this resolution was speedily shown, for, before the 
 month was out, the following report was issued — " That owing 
 to the new system of compelling tramps to perform a certain 
 amount of work before giving relief, only 8 had been relieved 
 during the past week, as compared with 198 in the correspond- 
 ing week of last year." The experience of the following weeks 
 does not continue to show so marked a disproportion between 
 this year and last, but the diminution continues to be very 
 satisfactory. 
 
 My next illustration is taken from the parish of Liverpool, 
 where, in 1868, 15,000 paupers were in the receipt of relief. 
 Under the head of a "Reformed Workhouse," I extract from 
 the newspapers of September, 1869, that at a meeting of the 
 Liverpool Workhouse Committee, held on Thursday, the Vestry 
 Clerk reported — "That there was not, at that moment, in the 
 establishment, a single man whom the doctors would certify 
 as able bodied and fit to work." The editor, in his comments, 
 says — *• This is an unprecedented state of things, the work- 
 house having been notorious as an asylum for lazy, idle, and 
 dissolute persons." I wrote to the Vestry Clerk, and asked him 
 
 * I think the resolution would have been more humane, and not less effective, if it had 
 said, " should not leave the poor-house," instead of "should not receive any food until," &c.
 
 if he would kindly explain to me the cause of this "Reform- 
 ation." That gentleman, Mr. Hagger, answered me very cour- 
 teously, in the following terms: — "That, while not admitting 
 fully the justice of the editor's comments, there is sufficient truth 
 in them to give us cause for gratulation at the present state of 
 the workhouse. For a long time prior to December, 1S67, our 
 workhouse had been so crowded as not to allow of proper classi- 
 fication. The able-bodied men and the partially disabled were 
 placed together, and the internal discipline of the house was 
 (perhaps it might be urged, necessarily so) very lax. About 
 the date referred to, the Select Vestry hired another work- 
 house, and the governor of the principal one resigned his 
 office. The new man was a firm disciplinarian, and the labour- 
 test was thenceforth rigidly enforced in all cases where the 
 medical men would certify that the men were fit to undergo it. 
 These are, I believe, the main causes for the present state 
 of things. Side by side with this, there has been increased 
 vigilance on the part of the Relief Committee, of the Vestry, 
 and of the relieving officers, so that, upon the whole, we have, 
 throughout the past year, experienced a diminution in pauper- 
 ism in each division of the relief organization — in-door, out-door 
 and vagrants. In proof of this, I copy from the Liverpool 
 statistical return, published weekly, for the week ending Satur- 
 day, the 28th of August, 1869, the following return of paupers 
 in and out of the workhouse, in that week and the corresponding 
 week of 1868:-- 
 
 
 1868. 
 
 1869. 
 
 Reduction. 
 
 In-door Relief 
 
 3,465 
 
 2,746 
 
 719 
 
 Out-door 
 
 ".535 
 
 10,769 
 
 766 
 
 Total .. 15,000 .. 13,515 -• 1,485 
 
 The reduction is 10 per cent, in numbers, and the saving £"160 
 per week. The fact, that among the 13,500 paupers receiving 
 relief in i86g, there was not a single man whom the doctors 
 could certify as able-bodied and fit to work, is to me most con- 
 clusive evidence of the efficiency of the labour-test. Some, per-
 
 haps, will suggest that other causes may have tended to bring" 
 about the result shown. I know of none. There certainly has 
 been no decrease in the population of Liverpool, and I doubt if 
 it can be said that trade is so much better in 1869 than in 1868 
 as to account for more than a fraction of the result." Mr. Hagger 
 concludes his letter by saying — "' I fully believe that a good 
 labour-test, strictly and persistently enforced, is the one thing 
 upon which we must rely in dealing with able-bodied pau- 
 perism." 
 
 I will now allude to three places in which no recent energy 
 has been put forth in enforcement of the labour-test, and 
 which, I think, will illustrate more correctly than the cases 
 of Cardiff and Liverpool, its application or partial application 
 in unions generally. 
 
 The Poor Law Report for 1867-8, in reference to the Metro- 
 politan Unions, says — "The crowded state of the workhouses, 
 which precluded the application of the workhouse-test to the 
 able bodied, and the difficulty of providing out-door labour on 
 a large scale, have alike tended to increase the numbers of the 
 able-bodied class applying for relief, and caused increased ex- 
 penditure." 
 
 The following is in reply to an enquiry made of the Clerk 
 to the Lambeth Union — "We do not apply the labour-test 
 either adequately or regularly. Our means for doing so are 
 insufficient; and we shall do better when we have our new 
 house." 
 
 I will now allude to the Bristol Union. The following is 
 the labour-test adopted there for able-bodied paupers: — Rise 
 at six, breakfast at seven, begin work at eight and go on till 
 twelve, when they dine ; resume work at two, and continue it 
 until half-past five or six — about eight hours in all. The 
 labour consists in cultivating the land, and other out-door 
 employment in fine weather; and in wet weather stone-breaking 
 and oakum picking. The women are engaged in washing, 
 cleaning and oakum picking. It cannot be said that this
 
 amount of work is sufficient to deter the indolent from coming 
 upon the rates of the union, especially those who have once 
 tasted workhouse bread. 
 
 These people possess little sensitiveness or pride, and have 
 no scruple about a^ain living at the public expense, and I fear 
 that the regular living and easy work invite rather than deter 
 the entrance of many into the workhouse. 
 
 These illustrations, taken from Cardiff, Liverpool, London, 
 Bristol, and Lambeth, represent generally the application of 
 the labour-test in large unions throughout the kingdom. In 
 the two former, recently-displayed activity in its application ; 
 in the three latter, its imperfect application in a very mild form. 
 
 It will not have escaped observation that the Cardiff report 
 speaks of the " New System" of compelling to work, &c., and 
 that the Liverpool Workhouse is spoken of as a "Reformed 
 Workhouse." This is in i86g, 35 years after the Act had pass- 
 ed which insisted on labour as the condition of relief to the 
 able bodied. The fact that the practice now being carried out 
 at Cardiff and Liverpool is styled "New System" and "Refor- 
 mation," proves conclusively that while that portion of the 
 Poor Law dictum which prescribes labour as the condition 
 of relief is not absolutely a dead letter, it is ordinarily very 
 imperfectly complied with. Newspapers lay hold of these 
 announcements and copy them as something remarkable, and 
 this is another proof that the full application of the labour- 
 test is more novel than constant, the exception rather than 
 the rule. 
 
 The mover of the labour-test resolution at Cardiff urged as 
 an incentive to the adoption of test-labour what was doing in 
 other unions, and I know that, in most administrations, there 
 is an occasional rousing up upon the subject, and "work" is 
 the order of the day ; but a relapse too often takes place, and 
 the lazy pauper resumes the ascendancy, and revels in his 
 indolence. 
 
 The money saved in the Parish of Liverpool, in consequence
 
 10 
 
 of its improved administration, is £"160 per week, or more than 
 ;f8,ooo per annum. This saving is, of course, an important 
 object, but is by no means the greatest advantage gained, 
 either to the town of Liverpool or to society. The gross 
 number of persons receiving parish assistance in 1868 over 
 those receiving it in 1869, was 1,485. Take it, that of this 
 number, 1,485, 1000 only are employed, and that their average 
 earnings are 8/- per week, or ;f 20,800 per annum, this alone 
 is no mean advantage ; yet there is a greater benefit in the 
 improved condition of the would-be paupers by the enforced 
 practice of industry, by the self-reliance engendered, and by 
 the better moral tone that must exist in those who trust to 
 themselves for subsistence rather than to ratepayers, many 
 of whom are only a degree better off than themselves. 
 
 But it will be said, "What of the remaining 485 ? You have 
 disposed of the 1000. Admitting your calculations, as to their 
 position and earnings, to be moderately accurate, are you 
 content that the remainder shall be thrown upon other unions, 
 or allowed to beg or thieve for a maintenance ?" My reply is — 
 First, That other unions should enforce the labour-test as it is 
 done in Liverpool, there would then be no advantage in one 
 union over another. Second, That there is no law to prevent 
 either unconvicted beggars or thieves making the workhouse 
 their temporary home, as they can obtain their discharge at 
 any time. 
 
 Let it be recollected that my argument is not for the exclu- 
 sion of any from relief in the workhouse. Admit all who 
 apply. But let the condition of relief prescribed by law, 
 " work," be strictly enforced. If the residuum I have alluded 
 to do not enter the workhouse, because they will not comply 
 with its conditions, any hardship they may suffer will be 
 self-imposed. 
 
 With reference to ''work," I am not advocating it so much 
 as being directly profitable to the union, as for its beneficial 
 effect upon the pauper himself. There is no doubt of the
 
 II 
 
 desirability of a man's doing work enough while in the 
 house to maintain himself and family, and pay for his super- 
 vision — and this ought to be attempted ; but, because it is 
 found difficult or impracticable, this should not cause the 
 slightest relaxation in the discipline. The directly economical 
 benefit derived from pauper-labour is a very subordinate part 
 of the good to be effected. To show a lazy or apathetic man 
 that work is the stern necessity of his existence is the 
 paramount, though indirect advantage. I am not so un- 
 charitable as to assert that all able-bodied men or women who 
 apply for relief are lazy. Many of them would work, if the 
 employment could be obtained without much effort on their 
 part. These applicants for relief are often constitutionally 
 apathetic — they want will^ and the labour-test tends to remove 
 the apathy, and create the will. 
 
 These remarks about productive labour are suggested by 
 the preceding extract from the Report of the Poor Law Board, 
 about the " difficulty of providing out-door labour on a large 
 scale having tended to increase the numbers of able-bodied 
 paupers applying for relief." I maintain (where productive 
 labour is not obtainable) that shot-drill, as performed in 
 barracks, or the removal of stones or other substances from 
 one place to another, and back again, is better than the 
 incomplete or partial application of the labour-test. 
 
 In the usual arrangements of a poor-house, with all classes 
 under one roof, experience shows that, as a rule, the labour- 
 test is not strictly carried out. It may be said that it might 
 be, and that it ought to be. This is, however, an intensely 
 practical business, and long experience shows that, ordinarily, 
 it is not carried out with any approach to efficiency. Nor can 
 it be expected. Take, for example, a workhouse with upwards 
 of a thousand inmates of all classes, and it would be surprising 
 if the master were able to insist upon ten hours' hard work, 
 such as would be performed by a brickmaker or a dock- 
 labourer, from able-bodied paupers, whose aim is to live
 
 12 
 
 without work, and many of whom possess an amount 
 of craft not shared by industrious men. At the same 
 time that the master has to deal with this difficult class, he 
 has to exercise a general supervision over all the other work 
 done, deal kindly with the sick, the aged, the young, and 
 imbecile, control the accounts, the commissariat, and the 
 subordinate officers. It may be done, but seldom is. It will 
 perhaps be argued that in a large workhouse there is a super- 
 intendent of labour, whose duty it is to control the workers. 
 This is true, but his office is of too subordinate, too incidental 
 a character. The men he has to deal with require more vigour 
 than he has authority to exercise, and the place they work in 
 should be redolent of nothing but labour. 
 
 This brings me to a more specific reply to the question, *' In 
 what respects may the Administration of the Poor Law be 
 improved ?" My answer is, That the Law should be consistent 
 with itself, by authorizing greater facilities for entire classifi- 
 cation, so that the defect now caused by its incompleteness 
 may be removed. The case is this, that a law exists 
 prescribing work as a condition for relief, but neglects to 
 provide arrangements by which such law can be enforced. 
 I submit that full classification cannot be made, nor can the 
 labour-test be effectually applied, and the object of the Poor 
 Law accomplished, until, in populous districts, the law directs 
 the area of administration to be extended by throwing two or 
 three unions into one. Further, there should be two distinct 
 establishments in each union — the one being for the able bodied, 
 the partially able bodied, and those healthy aged who are fit for 
 some work, the vagrants and the casual poor, which for the 
 sake of distinction I will call the ^' work -house,'' and its 
 proposed occupants the " able." The other establishment 
 should partake more of the almshouse and infirmary combined, 
 and should contain the aged who are unfit for work, the sick, 
 the maimed, the imbecile, and otherwise infirm poor. These, 
 for convenience, I will term the " feeble," and their place of
 
 13 
 
 residence the " hospital." Of the children I will speak in a 
 subsequent portion of this paper. 
 
 The " ^e'or/^-house " should be placed as near the greatest 
 mass of the population in the union as circumstances will 
 admit, so that no unnecessary hardship should be inflicted by 
 compelling a fatigued man or family to travel far for their 
 night's lodging and food. Let a man be either an habitual or 
 hereditary pauper — call him what you will — let his character 
 be bad as it may, it is contrary to the spirit of English law, 
 contrary to the best instincts of our nature, unkind, and often 
 cruel, to compel applicants for food and shelter at night, who 
 may be both destitute and weary, to walk four or five miles 
 before they can obtain it. Yet this they must do if they would 
 obtain relief from either of two unions closely connected with 
 this city. This establishment should be, as its name implies, 
 a house for work — full, continuous labour of ten hours' dura- 
 tion for the able bodied — work of a fitting character, and 
 moderate in amount for the partially able — in fact, work for 
 all resident, either temporarily or permanently in the work- 
 house. The only exception would be in the case, of young 
 children, and the women nursing them, who would come in as 
 casuals, and this exception is unavoidable. The work-housQ 
 being conveniently situated, able-bodied men might work here 
 whose families were not in the house, receiving nearly the 
 whole relief in food for themselves and families. The design 
 of the place, the character and the business of the place, 
 would all be included in the word " work." All able-bodied 
 paupers entering it, and bringing no *'way ticket," must 
 discharge their task before leaving. Of course, such an 
 establishment should be presided over by a strict disciplinarian, 
 with authority to punish those who were refractory, or did not 
 perform their allotted share of labour. With this officer should 
 be associated a matron, who would unite energy with firmness, 
 tact, and kindness. Able women who come into a workhouse 
 are too often of bad character, and more difficult to control
 
 14 
 
 than men. With such an executive, released from the multi- 
 farious duties of an ordinary poor-house, and supervised by 
 an active committee, a vigorous and satisfactory administration 
 might reasonably be expected, and the blot upon the present 
 administration of the Poor Law, by its incomplete application 
 of the labour test, be removed. 
 
 I will now refer to the " hospital " or •* almshouse," which 
 should contain all the adults unfit for work. It will be seen 
 at once with how much greater facility the wants of the aged, 
 the sick, and imbecile, can be supplied when they are detached 
 from the able paupers. Careful nursing should here be the 
 rule, together with a more varied diet than is usually allowed 
 in the present poor-houses. To the decrepid and helpless 
 many comforts might be granted, and the chief officer, being 
 relieved of the control of the able bodied, could give more 
 attention to the convenience and well-being of his helpless 
 family. In addition to this, the regulation as to visitors, and 
 their gifts, might be considerably modified. A friend of mine 
 has said '* Let the union find bread (you have no right to be 
 generous with public money), but let private charity put a 
 little butter on the parish bread — viz., give an easy chair, a 
 few prints, books, &c." In a house devoted exclusively to the 
 feeble and the afflicted, these and other comforts might be 
 accepted from the kindly disposed. Great difficulties naturally 
 exist in offering increased comforts under the present system, 
 but there is a large amount of benevolent feeling in store, and 
 the assurance that kind attention and gifts would be bestowed 
 on deserving objects, would incite an enlarged generosity 
 which might be accepted with few restrictions. Some of the 
 well-conducted among the partially able paupers should be 
 employed to assist the paid nurses, but no able pauper ought 
 to be so employed. 
 
 Although no general declaration has been made by the Poor 
 Law Board in favour of the more complete separation of the 
 different classes of paupers, I see, by their Report of 1867-8,
 
 15 
 
 that '* progress had been made in the separation of the Work- 
 houses from the Infirmaries." Steps have also been taken 
 under the Act for the formation of district schools. 
 
 The parish of Lambeth is about to build a new workhouse, 
 and appropriate the old one as an infirmary, and it has 
 already separate schools at some miles distance. I also notice 
 that an order has been issued by the Poor Law Board to unite 
 the City of London Union with the East and West London 
 Unions ; but while I imagine this is being done, primarily, 
 for the purpose of equalizing the rates, a fine opportunity will 
 be afforded for the classification of the paupers. 
 
 I will now only say, in reference to the carrying out of this 
 more perfect classification, that it may be done with half the 
 revolutionary process of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 
 1834. '^h® present poor-houses would be available with 
 scarcely any alteration. Three unions being united, the 
 buildings would suffice for the workhouse, the hospital, and 
 the school — all the difference being that each class would be 
 housed in the establishment appropriated for its especial use. 
 
 I have as yet said nothing of pauper children or of their 
 education. Children, of course, are dependent on the rates 
 from no fault of their own, and should be kept as oiuch as 
 possible from contact with pauperism, and separate from both 
 the poor-house and its associations. With this view, district 
 schools have been established, where children from various 
 poor-houses are educated, altogether away from adult paupers. 
 This is, undoubtedly, an improvement upon bringing up in 
 the workhouse, but no continuous training of children in 
 masses can be so beneficial as the habits of domestic life 
 learnt in the homes of thrifty and industrious cottagers. 
 
 The system of boarding out pauper children is, in Scotland, 
 universal, and has existed for twenty years — the children, of 
 course, being under complete supervision by inspectors. Sir 
 John M*Neil, the head of the Poor Law administration there 
 says, in giving his evidence before a select Committee of th^
 
 i6 
 
 House of Commons, that ''the result is the most satisfactory 
 thing he has to report in respect of the administration of the 
 Poor Law." In proof of its success, I may state that a work- 
 house is now building in Edinburgh for looo inmates, at a 
 cost of £35,000, and no provision whatever is being made for 
 children. 
 
 Paupers are said to be a special race, and the Royal Com- 
 missioners on Education in England have reported, '* That 
 pauperism is hereditary, and that the children born and bred 
 of that class furnish the great mass of the pauper and criminal 
 population." This is the result of the system of rearing 
 children in masses in workhouse schools. Now, mark what 
 Sir J. M'Neil further says as to the results of the boarding- 
 out system in Scotland : '* The effects are such that ultimately 
 the children melt into the population, and you can afterwards 
 find no trace of them, they are not distinguishable from the 
 people with whom they have been brought up." 
 
 This seems conclusive enough, but to show that the separate 
 workhouse school or district school is not altogether bad, I 
 give the following extract from a short account of the Bristol 
 Workhouse School, furnished me by the schoolmaster, Mr. 
 Hughes: — *'The Bristol Workhouse School may be compared 
 to a district school — it is completely apart, and is a separate 
 establishment from the Workhouse. On the school premises 
 there is nothing to remind the children of pauperism. There 
 the teaching and training are made specially subservient to 
 the requirements of this class. In them, they are under con- 
 stant supervision, and receive an education equal to that given 
 in a National or British School, in conjunction with field labour 
 and useful trades, by which they acquire habits of industry. 
 This mode of training has succeeded most satisfactorily with 
 the boys, as several hundreds can be pointed out who have left 
 the school, and are succeeding creditably in various positions 
 in life — some as commercial travellers, clerks, shipwrights, 
 sailors (one is a sea captain), servants, master tradesmen,
 
 17 
 
 journeymen tailors, shoemakers and blacksmiths, sergeants 
 and corporals in the Army (that were drafted from the work- 
 house band), common day labourers ; six are in business on 
 their own account in the city, others have pushed their way 
 to America, Australia, and New Zealand, one is in the employ 
 of the Oriental Steamship Co., another is in the band on board 
 the Galatea (Prince Alfred's ship), and in the receipt of 30/- per 
 week and board — and some few have fallen into crime. The 
 number of this class is very small. During the last twenty 
 years, upwards of 1,800 have passed through the boys' school, 
 and of this number, jive are in the men's wards in the work- 
 house, three of whom from affliction were never physically 
 capable of providing for themselves. To specify interesting 
 facts of boys who have left us, and to quote gratifying extracts 
 from their letters to us, would fill a small volume." 
 
 The account of the girls' school is not equally satisfactory, 
 and is as follows: — "Girls sent to service during the last five 
 years, 99*; of these, 22 returned to the house, 9 of whom turned 
 out badly; the other 13, returned for no bad conduct, have 
 gone to service again, and are doing well." 
 
 I believe that the Bristol Workhouse School is a favourable 
 example of the system, and that it is superior to many work- 
 house schools. 
 
 But I wish to have both sides stated. My leanings are dis- 
 tinctly in favor of the boarding-out system. The chief objec- 
 tion to it, however, appears to be in the difficulty of finding 
 proper persons with whom to board the children. Could suit- 
 able cottagers be found to take them, and a full control be 
 exercised by proper inspection, the experiment of a system 
 that has answered so well in Scotland should certainly be tried 
 in England. I find that, in England, the plan is in operation 
 in the following Unions — viz., Leominster, Swindon, Eton, 
 Caistor, Horncastle, King's Norton, and Chorlton; I also notice 
 that resolutions in favor of its adoption have been passed by 
 the Boards of Guardians of Merthyr, Stone (in Staffordshire),
 
 i8 
 
 and Berwick-upon-Tweed, and that, at the latter place, a 
 Committee of Ladies has been appointed to aid in carrying 
 the plan into operation. The subject is very fully treated in 
 Miss F. Hill's ''Children of the State," and in a pamphlet 
 written by Colonel Grant, R.E. (each published by Macmillan, 
 London). Answers to objections, questions of cost and other 
 details of the boarding-out system will be found fully stated 
 in the latter publication. Both works will repay perusal. 
 
 I learn, as the opinion of officers of several large unions, 
 that a check needs to be put upon paupers going in and out of 
 the workhouse at pleasure. Gangs of the vilest of both sexes 
 do it in populous districts continually, using the place as their 
 hotel. To shut the doors against them is not to be thought 
 of; but magistrates should have power to order any pauper, 
 habitually discharging him or herself, and soon after seeking 
 re-admission, to be detained for a short time in the workhouse. 
 . This would tend to destroy the attraction of a workhouse life 
 for these roughs as much as stricter discipline, but can only 
 be effected by fresh legislation. 
 
 Briefly to recapitulate, my suggestions are — 
 
 I St — That several unions should be thrown into one, for the 
 purposes both of rating and administration. 
 
 2nd That in each union, those able to work, and all able 
 
 bodied, should be sent to the " Work -house/' That those unable 
 to work should be sent to an establishment, being a combina- 
 tion of the Infirmary and Almshouse, and called the " Hospital." 
 That the children should be sent either to the district school, 
 or boarded out in cottages. 
 
 3rd — That a power should be given by law to detain 
 paupers who are continually passing in and out of the work- 
 house. 
 
 4th — I will add what I have not before alluded to, that a 
 closer supervision than now exists is an imperative necessity. 
 The Poor Law Board should be required to ascertain, by
 
 19 
 
 frequent and real inspection, whether their rules are carried 
 into execution. There should also be a more efficient audit, 
 by officers of the Poor Law Board giving their whole time to 
 their duties. A careful comparison of management and 
 expenditure, by means of a close inspection and a good audit, 
 would enable the Board to insist upon uniformity of system 
 among the various unions, or a sufficient reason to the contrary 
 (which there is not), and that uniformity could mean little less 
 than a bringing of the worst managed up to a level with the 
 best. 
 
 Few subjects deserve more the attention of the phil- 
 anthropist than that of the pauperism existing in a highly- 
 civilized community. The presence of so much want in the 
 midst of so much abundance is painful to all sensitive minds. 
 Its direct money cost in local taxation is seven millions 
 sterling per annum. The hopelessness of success in giving 
 moral and religious training to people in a state of destitution 
 is admitted. Looking at the subject as a whole, or taking it 
 in detail, it is worthy of the deep consideration of the master 
 minds of the present day. The further power of law must be 
 called into operation to check the growing evil, but it must be 
 the power of law tempered by Christian love, and by a full 
 consciousness of our own defects. 
 
 Discussions on this and kindred topics have done something 
 towards giving effect to recent legislation, and I entertain a 
 sanguine hope that the deliberations of this Conference may 
 further assist in the improvement both of our laws and of 
 their administration.