SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 312
APPENDIX A 321
Memorandum by the Local Government Board as to the Local Authorities
for Poor Law purposes and the Out-relief Orders in force at the
end of the years 1847, 1871, 1906.
APPENDIX B 343
Extract from the Minority Report for Scotland giving the reasons in
favour of the Complete Supersession of the Poor Law.
INDEX OF UNIONS AND OTHER PLACES MENTIONED 365
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 371
ENGLISH POOR LAW POLICY
The English Poor Law Policy, of which we present an analysis, is that
which has been from time to time promulgated for the authoritative
guidance of local authorities in the relief of the destitute, whether
laid down by Parliament or by Departments of the National Government.
This policy is to be found principally in (1) Orders, whether "General"
or "Special"; (2) circulars and other instructional communications to
officials and to local authorities, and (3) reports to Parliament. These
documents fall into three periods, 1834-1847, 1847-1871, and 1871-1907,
corresponding respectively with the Poor Law Commissioners, the Poor Law
Board, and the Local Government Board. But these are themselves governed
by (4) the Act of 1834 and subsequent amending statutes; and the Act of
1834 itself lays down no policy, and having regard to its origin, and to
its immediate connection with the recent Royal Commission, it cannot be
understood without (5) the Report of the Royal Commission of 1834. Hence
it is convenient, if not indispensable, in order to render the
subsequent analysis intelligible, to begin with an exact statement of
the proposals of the Report of 1834.[5]
[5] This analysis is confined to relief in all its various forms,
excluding all questions of chargeability (or the recovery from
other persons of the amount expended on relief), settlement,
removal, assessment, rating, and mere administrative procedure.
CHAPTER I
THE REVOLUTION OF 1834
It is unnecessary for us even to refer to the disastrous chaos into
which the Poor Law and its local administration had in 1832 fallen, or
to the events which led up to the celebrated Royal Commission appointed
in that year. Their report, presented in 1834, and the Poor Law
Amendment Act of the same year, together form the starting-point of all
subsequent legislation and administration.
THE 1834 REPORT
The proposals of the Commissioners of 1834 were either formal
"recommendations," exceptionally displayed in prominent type, or
suggestions scattered among the pages which purport to summarise the
evidence. For instance, the famous "principle" that the situation of the
pauper should not be made "really or apparently so eligible as the
situation of the independent labourer of the lowest class" is not a
"recommendation," but occurs only as an assertion in the course of an
argument.[6] We have therefore included, in the following statement of
"the principles of 1834," all dogmatic assertions of this nature, as
well as the formal recommendations.
[6] p. 228 of the Report of 1834. The references are to the latest
reprint (1905).
_A._--_National Uniformity_
The most revolutionary principle of the Report of 1834--the fundamental
basis alike of the Act of 1834 and of the policy of the Central
Authority--was that of national uniformity in the treatment of each
class of destitute persons. It was this principle that was in most
marked contrast with the previous practice, under which each parish or
union had pursued its own Poor Law policy. It was this principle that
furnished the ground for the very existence of a Central Authority. The
Commissioners recommended that there should be uniformity in the
administration of relief in the different parts of the country, in
order--
(_a_) To reduce the "perpetual shifting" from parish to parish;
(_b_) To prevent discontent among paupers; and
(_c_) To bring the management more effectually under the control of
Parliament.[7]
[7] pp. 279-280 of the Report of 1834.
For this among other reasons the recommendation seemed to the
Commissioners to follow, "as a necessary consequence, that the
Legislature should divest the local authorities of all discretionary
power in the administration of relief."[8] But they did not put this
recommendation into large type. What they put into large type was the
recommendation that there should be a Central Authority to control the
administration, _directed_ to frame and enforce regulations, "as far as
may be practicable ... uniform throughout the country."[9]
[8] p. 294 of the Report of 1834.
[9] p. 297 of the Report of 1834.
It is to be noted that the uniformity proposed by the Commissioners was
a geographical uniformity in the treatment of particular classes of
paupers, both indoor and outdoor, in different places, not an identical
treatment of all paupers, or of all the paupers in any one place. We
shall deal presently with their varying recommendations with regard
to particular classes. But in two categories they proposed a further
uniformity, a uniformity in the treatment of different individuals in a
class. They emphatically pointed out that any attempt to discriminate
according to merit, _in the award of outdoor relief_, is dangerous
and likely to lead to fraud.[10] This proposed further uniformity of
treatment among individuals in a class, it will be seen, is expressly
limited to the amount to be given as outdoor relief. It is not
repeated in that part of the Report which deals with classification
in institutions, nor does it apply to the decision as to whether
or not outdoor relief should be given at all. A further uniformity
recommended by the Commissioners was that of identity of treatment of
the able-bodied, whether deserving or undeserving. To this we shall
refer in connection with the able-bodied. It is to be noted that the
Commissioners do not explicitly apply it to any but the able-bodied.[11]
[10] p. 47 of the Report of 1834.
[11] pp. 263-264 of the Report of 1834.
_B.--The Able-Bodied_
Apart from a few stray suggestions, it might almost be said that
the Report of 1834 was entirely directed to the treatment of the
adult able-bodied labourer, with the family dependent on him. Let
us take, for example, the famous principle, already referred to,
that the situation of "the individual relieved shall not," on the
whole, "be made really or apparently so eligible as the situation
of the independent labourer of the lowest class." This proposal,
characterised as "the first and most essential of all conditions,"
occurs, as a dogmatic assertion, in the discussion of the remedial
measures to be applied _to the able-bodied_.[12] It cannot be said
to be clear from the Report whether the Commissioners wished this
principle to be understood as applicable to the relief of any persons
other than adult able-bodied wage-earners and their families. It is
followed by forty-four pages of argument and illustration relating
exclusively to the able-bodied wage-earner. These are summed up in a
sentence at p. 279 ("If the vital evil of the system, _relief to the
able-bodied on terms more eligible than regular industry_"), which
points to the same limitation. The principle is not reasserted when
the Commissioners, in quite other parts of their Report, make their
few recommendations with regard to the aged, the sick, and the orphan
poor. We have failed, indeed, even to satisfy ourselves from the
context whether the Commissioners had in their minds the case of the
adult able-bodied woman without a husband. Though there is no phrase or
definition excluding the independent female wage-earner from the term
"able-bodied," the Commissioners frequently use this term as applicable
to men only; and nowhere do they mention, in recommendation or by way
of illustration, under the category of able-bodied, the independent
woman worker.
[12] p. 228 of the Report of 1834.
When we pass to recommendations explicitly restricted to the
able-bodied, we are left in the same uncertainty as to what the term
includes. No definition of able-bodied occurs in the Report. From the
course of the argument throughout and all the illustrations from the
evidence, we infer that the Commissioners had exclusively in view
the adult man capable of obtaining employment in the labour market
at any wage whatsoever, together with his wife and children under
sixteen dependent on him. It is important to notice this ambiguity in
the Report of 1834, because it explains a similar ambiguity in the
subsequent policy of Parliament and the Central Authority.
Assuming that we understand what classes of persons were intended
by the Commissioners to be included under the term able-bodied, the
proposals of the Report of 1834 are clear and peremptory:
I. That outdoor relief to the able-bodied and their families should be
discontinued; except--
(_a_) As to medical relief; and
(_b_) Apprenticeship of children.
No other exceptions should be made. "Where cases of real hardship occur,
the remedy must be applied by individual charity, a virtue for which no
system of compulsory relief can or ought to be a substitute."[13] "It
appears to us that this prohibition" (of outdoor relief to the
able-bodied) "should come into universal operation at the end of two
years,"[14] Meanwhile, it was suggested--
(_a_) That there should be a gradual substitution of relief in kind
for money doles;[15]
(_b_) "That all who receive relief from the parish should work for
the parish exclusively, as hard and for less wages than independent
labourers work for individual employers."[16]
(_c_) That the able-bodied, even "of the best character," should
not be offered "more than a simple subsistence. The person of bad
character, if he be allowed anything, could not be allowed
less."[17]
[13] p. 263 of Report of 1834.
[14] p. 297 of Report of 1834.
[15] p. 298 of Report of 1834.
[16] p. 262 of Report of 1834, made by way of comment as to the
temporary policy.
[17] p. 264 of Report of 1834.
That these recommendations had in view only the adult able-bodied
person, capable of obtaining employment for wages, is supported by the
explicit statement of the Commissioners that "the outdoor relief of
which we have recommended the abolition is, in general, partial relief
... at variance with the spirit of the 43rd of Elizabeth, for the
framers of that Act could scarcely have intended that the overseers
should 'take order for setting to work' those who have work and are
engaged in work; nor could they by the words 'all persons using no
ordinary and daily trade of life to get their living by' have intended
to describe persons 'who do use an ordinary and daily trade of
life.'"[18]
[18] p. 262 of Report of 1834.
II. That the able-bodied should be offered maintenance in a workhouse.
It is important to notice exactly what the Commissioners here proposed,
with all the emphasis of large type. Relief to the able-bodied and their
families was to be "in well-regulated workhouses (_i.e. places where
they may be set to work according to the spirit and intention of the
43rd of Elizabeth_)."[19]
[19] _Ibid._
These workhouses for the able-bodied were to be separate from the
buildings in which the aged and the children were accommodated; they
were to be under separate officers; and were expressly not to form part
of one great establishment containing other classes of paupers.[20] The
character of the employment to be found for the able-bodied must also be
noted, as the Commissioners made this a cardinal point. It will be
remembered that the 43rd of Elizabeth directed that the overseers should
obtain "a convenient stock of flax, hemp, wool, and other necessaries
for the poor to work upon," _i.e._ that they should "set the poor to
work" on a normal productive enterprise. This principle is repeated and
emphasised by the Commissioners. The employment to be found for the
able-bodied "ought to be useful employment." Fictitious, artificial, or
useless labour was "pernicious," and "ought to be carefully
prevented.... The association of the utility of labour to both parties,
the employer as well as the employed, is one which we consider it most
important to preserve and strengthen; and _we deem everything
mischievous which unnecessarily gives to it a repulsive aspect_. At
the same time we believe that in extended districts the requisite
sources of employment will be easily found. The supply of the articles
consumed in workhouses and prisons would afford a large outlet for the
_manufactures carried on in the House_."[21] They even refer with
approval to outdoor employment as possible in most districts.
[20] pp. 306-307 of Report of 1834.
[21] p. 324 of Report of 1834.
_C.--Vagrants_
With regard to vagrants, the Commissioners were convinced that they
would "cease to be a burden," if they were treated like the ordinary
able-bodied pauper. The difficulty was to enforce this, and they
therefore recommended that the Central Authority should "be empowered
and directed to frame and enforce regulations as to the relief to be
afforded to vagrants and discharged prisoners."[22]
[22] p. 340 of Report of 1834.
_D.--Women_
With regard to the treatment of women, it cannot be said that the Report
of 1834 afforded much guidance to the Central Authority. Whether or not
the Commissioners meant to propose the abolition of outdoor relief to
the legally independent able-bodied woman is, as we have shown,
indeterminate. In this Report the single independent woman is nowhere
mentioned. The wife is throughout treated exactly as is the child; and
it is assumed that she follows her husband, both with regard to the
continuance of outdoor relief to the aged, the impotent, and the sick;
and with regard to its abolition in the case of the able-bodied. Such
women as entered the workhouse were apparently to be regarded as divided
into only two classes; they were to be accommodated either in the
building for "the aged and really impotent," or else in the House for
the "able-bodied females."[23] With regard to the really baffling
problems presented by the widow, the deserted wife, the wife of the
absentee soldier or sailor, the wife of a husband resident in another
parish or another country--in each case whether with or without
dependent children--the Report is silent.
[23] p. 306 of Report of 1834.
To the class of mothers of illegitimate children the Commissioners
devoted much attention. The almost universal practice had been for such
mothers to receive outdoor relief, the amount of which the parish was
supposed to attempt to recover from the putative fathers. We do not find
that the Report recommended any change in the method of relief of such
paupers. Its proposal was, in effect, to put the mothers of illegitimate
children in the same position as the widows with legitimate children. As
already mentioned, the Commissioners nowhere state whether they
recommend any change in the method of relief of such widows--unless,
indeed, it could be argued that these women were to be included under
the class of able-bodied. The revolutionary change which the Report
proposed with regard to bastardy dealt with chargeability, not methods
of relief. The Commissioners strongly recommended the exemption of the
putative father from any legal obligation to reimburse the parish. "If,"
say the Commissioners, "our previous recommendations are adopted, a
bastard will be, what Providence appears to have ordained that it should
be, a burden on its mother, and where she cannot maintain it, on her
parents."[24]
[24] p. 350 of Report of 1834.
_E.--The Children_
Apart from apprenticeship, the Report deals only incidentally with
children. It is assumed throughout that children go with their parents,
both with regard to the continuance of outdoor relief to the aged,
impotent and sick, and with regard to its abolition in the case of the
able-bodied.
On one point the Report is emphatic and clear, namely, that, where
children do enter the workhouse, they are to be accommodated in a
separate building, under a separate superintendent, in order that they
may "be educated" by "a person properly qualified to act as a
schoolmaster."[25]
[25] p. 307 of Report of 1834.
With regard to apprenticeship, all that the Report is--
(1) Expressly to except relief by way of apprenticeship from its
proposal to abolish outdoor relief to the able-bodied parent.[26]
(2) To recommend that the Central Authority should "be empowered to
make such regulations" as it might think fit; and subsequently "to
make a special inquiry" into the subject.[27]
[26] p. 262 of Report of 1834.
[27] p. 338 of Report of 1834.
_F.--The Sick_
In contradistinction to the revolutionary proposals of the Report of
1834 with regard to the able-bodied, it is extraordinary that it
suggested absolutely no change with regard to the sick. The current
practice was, in nearly every case, to deal with the sick by outdoor
relief, with or without medical attendance.[28] The Report contains no
suggestion for any alteration in this respect. When the Commissioners
came to sketch out the classification of their proposed workhouse
institutions, they did not include anything in the nature of a
hospital.[29] This explains why the Report of 1834 does not mention any
provision for indoor medical officers. Even when dealing with the
able-bodied and their families, the Commissioners explicitly except
medical attendance from their proposed abolition of outdoor relief.[30]
[28] p. 43 of Report of 1834.
[29] pp. 306-307 of Report of 1834.
[30] p. 262 of Report of 1834.
This omission of anything in the nature of proposals for indoor relief
for the sick becomes the more significant when we notice that the
Commissioners do allude with approval to a possible extension of
institutional treatment for certain classes of defectives, such as
lunatics and the blind.[31]
[31] p. 307 of Report of 1834.
_G.--The Aged and Impotent (or Infirm)_
An almost similar absence of proposals is to be noted with regard to the
aged and impotent. The current practice was to deal with these cases, as
a rule, by outdoor relief. On this the Commissioners observe merely that
"the outdoor relief to the impotent (using that word as comprehending
all except the able-bodied and their families) is subject to less
abuse.... No use can be made of the labour of the aged and sick, and
there is little room for jobbing if their pensions are paid in money.
Accordingly, we find that even in places distinguished in general by the
most wanton parochial profusion, the allowances to the aged and infirm
are moderate."[32] The Commissioners made no proposal that outdoor
relief to the aged or impotent (or infirm) should be abolished, or even
curtailed.
[32] pp. 42-43 of Report of 1834.
Such "aged and really impotent" persons as were accommodated in the
workhouse were to have a separate building to themselves, under a
separate superintendent; expressly in order that "the old might enjoy
their indulgences."[33]
[33] p. 307 of Report of 1834.
Passing now to those proposals of the Report which affected paupers
generally, these concern the organisation of the workhouse, emigration
and relief on loan.
_H.--The Workhouse_
With regard to the workhouse, the whole emphasis of the Report is upon
classification of the inmates according to their needs; and
classification, not in separate parts of one building, but by the
allocation to separate classes of entirely distinct buildings in order
that there might be separate and differing treatment under distinct
management.
The Commissioners state that "at least four classes are necessary:--
1. The aged and really impotent.
2. The children.
3. The able-bodied females.
4. The able-bodied males.
"Of whom we trust the two latter will be the least numerous classes. It
appears to us that both the requisite classification and the requisite
superintendence may be better obtained in separate buildings than under
a single roof."[34] The Commissioners were insistent that the treatment
measured out to each class should differ according to its requirements,
and "each class might thus receive an appropriate treatment; _the old
might enjoy their indulgences_ without torment from the boisterous; the
children be educated; and the able-bodied subjected to such courses of
labour and discipline as will repel the indolent and vicious."[35] The
need for separate buildings, under entirely different kinds of officers,
with different qualifications, at different rates of payments--in
contradistinction to one large building under a single officer--is
emphasised again and again at different parts of the Report.[36] It was,
indeed, largely in order to provide these specialised institutions that
the Commissioners recommended the formation of unions, it being made a
cardinal principle that the Central Authority should "assign" to the
various existing workhouses thus coming under one board of guardians
"separate classes of poor."[37]
[34] p. 306 of Report of 1834.
[35] p. 307 of Report of 1834.
[36] _See_ pp. 305, 306, 307, 313-314 of Report of 1834.
[37] p. 314 of Report of 1834.
It is interesting to notice that, apart from this cardinal principle of
classification by separate and specialised buildings, practically the
only recommendations relating to the organisation of the workhouse,
which are to be found in the Report, relate either to the character of
the employment to be provided in the buildings set aside for the
able-bodied--which, as we have seen, was expressly to be of a normal
productive character, free from repellent characteristics--or to the
enactment of a maximum diet (and no minimum). "The Commissioners should
be empowered to fix a _maximum_ of the consumption per head within the
workhouses, leaving to the local officers the liberty of reducing it
below the maximum if they can safely do so."[38]
[38] p. 298 of Report of 1834.
_I.--Emigration_
Without laying much stress upon emigration, the Report recommends that
any vestry should be empowered to pay for it out of the poor rate, in
the case of persons (apparently whether paupers or not) having
settlements in the parish and willing to emigrate.[39]
[39] p. 357 of Report of 1834.
_J.--Relief on Loan_
The Commissioners recommended "that under regulations to be framed...
parishes be empowered to treat any relief afforded to the able-bodied,
or to their families, and any expenditure in the workhouses, or
otherwise incurred on their account, as a loan," to be legally
recoverable. It is to be noted that this proposal is expressly limited
to the "able-bodied or to their families." No definition, as usual, is
given of the term able-bodied.[40]
[40] p. 337 of Report of 1834.
_K.--The Principles of 1834_
To sum up the principles of administration recommended for adoption in
the Report of 1834, omitting minor recommendations and incidental
qualifications, they resolve themselves into three. The Principle of
National Uniformity required that the relief afforded to each class of
paupers should be uniform throughout the kingdom. The Principle of Less
Eligibility demanded that the conditions of existence afforded by the
relief should be less eligible to the applicant than those of the lowest
grade of independent labourers. The Workhouse System was recommended on
the assumption that it was the only means by which the Principle of Less
Eligibility could be in practice enforced. The two latter principles
were applied explicitly only to the able-bodied and their families. To
them (but to them only) any other form of relief ought, it was urged, to
be made unlawful.
THE ACT OF 1834 AND ITS AMENDMENTS
The marked feature of this period is the paucity of statutory enactment
affecting relief. Only four statutes[41] contain any provisions on the
subject (apart from administrative detail), and these provisions are
almost entirely mere enabling clauses, permitting the Central Authority
to make such rules as it thinks fit, subject to a few specified
exceptions. We can extract from these exiguous provisions nothing in the
nature of a policy imposed by Parliament on the Central Authority. As
already mentioned, it was assumed that the Central Authority would put
into execution the proposals of the Report of 1834. Parliament contented
itself with giving the Central Authority wide powers and almost
unfettered discretion in the use of them.
[41] 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, quoted as the Act of 1834; 5
& 6 Vic. c. 57, quoted as the Act of 1842; 7 & 8 Vic. c. 101,
quoted as the Act of 1844; 10 and 11 Vic. c. 109, quoted as the
Act of 1847.
_A._--_National Uniformity_
Prior to 1834 there were many authorities legally entitled to order
relief from the rates. The Act of 1834 made for national uniformity by
confining this power, subject to certain exceptions as regards special
classes, to the boards of guardians when formed; and until these were
formed, to the select vestries or bodies formed under local Acts; to the
exclusion, in these places, of the Justices of the Peace and the
overseers. The new relief-giving local authorities were made subject to
the control of a Central Authority, to be exercised by rules having the
force of law.
Two of the great classes of relief were singled out for special
reference in the Act. The Central Authority was expressly empowered to
make "rules, orders and regulations to be observed and enforced at every
workhouse."[42] The Central Authority was also expressly empowered to
make "rules, etc., to regulate the relief of the able-bodied and their
families."[43] With regard to all other classes of paupers (_e.g._ the
aged and impotent; orphan and deserted children; widows and deserted
wives, with their children; and the sick--unless any of these can be
supposed to have been included by Parliament under the term able-bodied)
the Central Authority had general powers only; the administration of all
poor relief was made subject to its direction and control; and it was
empowered and directed "to make rules for the management of the poor,
the government of workhouses and the education of the children therein
... for the apprenticing the children of poor persons; and for the
guidance and control of all guardians, vestries and parish officers so
far as relates to the management or relief of the poor."[44]
[42] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 42.
[43] _Ibid._ sec. 52.
[44] _Ibid._ sec. 15.
_B._--_The Able-Bodied_
It was expressly provided that relief to the able-bodied should be given
only in accordance with the rules of the Central Authority. These rules
might be of any kind, including (subject to exceptions) a total
prohibition, then or at any future time. In the special preamble to this
section, Parliament pointed to the difficulty of "an immediate and
universal remedy"--doubtless referring to the proposal of the Report of
1834 that all such relief should be prohibited within two years. But
Parliament gave no direction for prohibition, nor did it expressly limit
the discretion of the Central Authority on the subject, beyond certain
specified exceptions. These exceptions were (1) that complete discretion
was reserved to the board of guardians so far as regarded the grant of
food, temporary lodging or medicine "in cases of emergency," subject
only to reporting their action to the Central Authority; and also,
subject to the approval of the Central Authority, so far as regarded the
grant of money or other relief in such cases;[45] (2) that in cases of
"sudden and urgent necessity" the overseer was required to give "such
temporary relief as each case shall require in articles of absolute
necessity but not in money";[46] and (3) that any Justice might order
medical relief in case of "sudden and dangerous illness" and relief in
certain cases to non-parishioners.[47]
As in the Report itself, no definition is given in the Act of what was
meant by "able-bodied persons." In the special preamble, however,
prefixed to this section, it is recited that it is enacted in
consequence of the prevalent practice of giving relief "to persons or
their families who, at the time of applying for or receiving such
relief, were wholly or partially in the employment of individuals."[48]
[45] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 52.
[46] _Ibid._ sec. 54.
[47] _Ibid._
[48] _Ibid._ sec. 52.
_C._--_Vagrants_
The Act of 1834 is silent with regard to vagrants, in accordance with
the proposal of the Report of 1834 that those destitute persons who had
hitherto been deemed vagrants should be dealt with simply as other
destitute persons. It may, however, be noted that express provision was
made to enable any one Justice to order temporary relief in kind to
persons not settled in nor usually residing in the parish, in cases of
urgent necessity, in which the overseer had refused relief.[49]
In 1842, however, it was enacted that the local authority might
"prescribe a task of work to be done by any person relieved in any
workhouse in return for the food and lodging afforded to such person,"
and (implicitly) might detain such person until the task was done; but
such detention was not to exceed four hours after breakfast on the day
following admission. Refusal or neglect to perform such task, or wilful
damage to property, subjected the person to be deemed an idle and
disorderly person within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act of 1824. This
section is not expressly confined to wandering persons, but the marginal
note confines it to the "occasional poor."[50]
[49] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 54.
[50] 5 & 6 Vic. c. 57, sec. 5.
In 1844 the Central Authority was empowered to combine parishes, in
London and five other large towns, into districts for the provision of
Asylums for Houseless Poor, that is to say, "asylums for the temporary
relief and setting to work therein of destitute houseless poor"; to
constitute Boards for such districts; with the consent of such Boards,
to direct the establishment of such asylums, at the expense of the poor
rates of such districts, up to a maximum of one-fifth of their whole
Poor Law expenditure; and to make rules, etc., for such asylums, subject
to a conscience clause and to facilities for entry by ministers of
different denominations.[51] These Asylums for Houseless Poor were to be
mildly penal establishments, supplementary to the workhouses, and
involving detention for a term not exceeding four hours after breakfast
on the day after admission; or, in the case of a person subjected to
punishment for an offence committed during his stay, for any period up
to twenty-four hours.[52]
[51] 7 & 8 Vic. c. 101, secs. 41 to 56.
[52] _Ibid._ sec. 53.
_D._--_Women_
As in the Report of 1834, so in the Act of 1834, women do not appear as
a class. It is assumed that married women follow their husbands, either
with regard to the continuance of outdoor relief to the aged, the
impotent and the sick; or with regard to its regulation or prohibition
in the case of the able-bodied.
It is, as we have shown, difficult to infer that the term "able-bodied"
was meant to include any but persons ordinarily in employment at wages,
or capable of such employment. Whether or not Parliament had in
contemplation under this term even the adult independent woman without
encumbrances seems to us doubtful. It is practically clear that the term
was not intended by Parliament to apply to the widow, however
able-bodied in the ordinary sense, nor to the deserted wife, the wife of
the absentee sailor or soldier, or the wife of a husband resident in
another parish or another country, _if any of these were encumbered with
young children_, and so did not fall under the class of persons actually
or potentially in employment at wages, cited in the preamble to the
section dealing with the able-bodied.[53] If this is so, we can only
infer from the Act, as from the Report, that no change in practice was
then suggested. With regard to such women, at least, the discretion of
the Central Authority in its "direction and control" of poor relief, and
its "management of the poor," and its power to make rules "for the
guidance and control of" the local authority "so far as relates to the
management or relief of the poor," was unfettered.[54]
[53] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 52.
[54] _Ibid._ sec. 15.
The fact that widows were not considered by Parliament to be included
within the term "able-bodied persons and their families" may further be
inferred from a section in the 1844 Act. This provided that the wife of
a husband either (_a_) beyond the seas, (_b_) in the custody of the law,
or (_c_) confined as a lunatic or idiot, should, notwithstanding her
coverture, be treated for purposes of relief, _as if she were a
widow_.[55] This implies that a widow was not regarded as subject to the
conditions of relief to "able-bodied persons and their families."
[55] 7 & 8 Vic. c. 101, sec. 25.
It may be noted that relief to the child under sixteen of a widow was to
be deemed relief to the mother;[56] and relief to an illegitimate child
under sixteen was to be deemed relief to the mother so long as she
remained unmarried or a widow.[57] Another section of the 1844 Act
allowed a widow having a legitimate child dependent on her, and no
illegitimate children, who at her husband's death was residing with him
in a place where she had no settlement, to be granted non-resident
relief.[58]
[56] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 56.
[57] _Ibid._ sec. 71.
[58] 7 & 8 Vic. c. 101, sec. 26.
_E._--_Children_
With certain insignificant exceptions hereinafter noticed, the only
provisions with regard to children as such in the 1834 Act relate to
children in the workhouse. The Central Authority was directed to make
rules, etc., "for the education of the children" in the workhouse.[59]
It was specially enacted that no child in a workhouse was to be educated
in any creed other than that of his parent, or, if orphaned, "to which
his godparents may object." Facilities for free entry of ministers of
the child's own persuasion were to be accorded.[60]
[59] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 15.
[60] _Ibid._ sec. 19.
In 1844 the Central Authority was expressly empowered at its discretion
to combine parishes (within fifteen miles) into school districts, and to
constitute boards for such school districts; and, subject to the consent
of a majority of such a board, to direct the establishment of district
schools at the cost of the poor rates of the district, up to a maximum
of one-fifth of the total Poor Law expenditure of the district.[61]
[61] 7 & 8 Vic. c. 101, secs. 40, 42-44.
The Central Authority was empowered to make rules for such schools, it
being, however, expressly enacted: (1) that an Anglican chaplain was
always to be appointed; (2) that facilities for visits by ministers of
other denominations were to be given; and (3) a conscience clause was
inserted.[62] Such district schools were to be for the accommodation of
pauper children under sixteen, either orphans, deserted, or having
parents who consented,[63] including such children from parishes outside
the district.[64]
[62] _Ibid._ sec. 43.
[63] _Ibid._ sec. 40.
[64] _Ibid._ sec. 51.
With regard to apprenticeship the law remained at first unchanged,
except that the Act of 1834 empowered the Central Authority to make
regulations (in significant phrase) "for the apprenticing the children
of poor persons"[65] in the execution of the then existing law. This
applied, not to those who were destitute or who applied for relief, but
to "the children of all such whose parents shall not, by the ...
churchwardens and overseers, or the greater part of them, _be thought
able_ to keep and maintain their children."[66]
[65] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, secs. 15 and 61.
[66] 43 Eliz. c. 2, sec. 1; 18 George III. c. 47,
preamble; 56 George III. c. 139.
In 1835, the Merchant Shipping Act incidentally authorised local
authorities to apprentice boys over thirteen, with their own consent, to
the mercantile marine, whatever the distance of the port or address of
the shipmaster; to pay a premium of £5; and to convey the boy to his new
master by a constable.[67]
In 1842 the Parish Apprentices Act made it clear that all the previous
Acts applied also to cases in which no premium had been paid.[68]
[67] 5 & 6 William IV. c. 19, secs. 26, 29.
[68] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 7.
But the first substantive alteration of the law was made in 1844, when
the Central Authority was expressly empowered to make regulations
prescribing the duties of masters and the other conditions of
apprenticeship; the power of apprenticing was confined to the boards of
guardians; and the former compulsory obligation on householders to
receive apprentices was abolished.[69] The class of children to be
apprenticed remained unchanged.[70]
[69] 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, secs. 12, 13.
[70] There was a provision (since repealed), in sec. 15 of the
Act of 1834, which we need not notice, as to making rules for the
management of parish poor children under Hanway's Act (7 George III. c.
39), since repealed.
_F._--_The Sick_
Parliament made no enactment with regard to the sick as a class; did not
therefore seek to interfere with the existing practice under which the
sick usually received outdoor relief; and did not even empower the
Central Authority to make any regulations for the relief of the sick as
such, except in so far as they were either inmates of workhouses or
belonged to the indeterminate class of the "able-bodied and their
families." Its only power in this connection lay in the general words
placing the administration of all relief under its direction and
control, and in the general authority to make rules, etc., for the
guidance and control of local officers as far as related to the
management or relief of the poor.[71]
[71] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 15.
The only provision relating to the sick as such was an express sanction
of the existing power of any Justice to order medical relief in cases of
sudden and dangerous illness without any restriction whatever.[72]
[72] _Ibid._ c. 54.
With regard to lunatics, the only provision was one in 1838, that the
Justices might commit a dangerous or criminal lunatic to an asylum, at
the cost of the Poor Rate.[73]
[73] Criminal Lunatics Act, 1838, 1 & 2 Vict. c. 14, sec. 2.
We may note a provision, declaring that relief to a blind or deaf and
dumb wife or child under sixteen should not be deemed relief to the
husband or the parent.[74] This apparently prevented these (together
with their husbands or parents), from falling into the class of the
"able-bodied and their families."
[74] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 56.
_G._--_The Aged and Impotent_
The only provision relating to the aged and impotent as such was the
express retention of the Justices' power to order outdoor relief without
limit of amount or period. This was made subject to the conditions that
the person should be (1) wholly unable to work, (2) entitled to relief
in the union, and (3) desirous of outdoor relief; and that (4) the order
should be given by two Justices "usually acting for the district," one
of whom had satisfied himself of his own knowledge that the conditions
were fulfilled.[75]
[75] _Ibid._ sec. 27.
_H._--_The Workhouse_
The conditions and character of the relief to be afforded by admission
to the workhouse were to be subject to rules etc., which the Central
Authority was empowered and directed to make.[76] The power of the
Central Authority was subject to an important limitation. Any order for
the building of a new workhouse was made conditional on obtaining the
consent either of a majority of the guardians or of a majority of the
ratepayers and owners.[77] The Central Authority could, however, without
such consent, order the local authority "to enlarge or alter" any
existing workhouse or building capable of being converted into a
workhouse up to a limit of £50 or one-tenth of the average Poor Rate for
the past three years.[78] Moreover, the local authority was not to
expend on the building, alteration or enlargement of any particular
workhouse (whether by way of loan or out of rate) more than the annual
average of the poor rate during the three preceding years.[79] These
limitations were removed, so far as regards the cost of sites in the
Metropolitan Police District and the parish of Liverpool, in 1844.[80]
It was also expressly provided that no person was to introduce alcoholic
liquor into a workhouse without the written order of the master, under
penalty of a fine not exceeding £10; nor was the master to do so save
for domestic use of the officers, except in conformity with the
rules.[81] Confinement beyond twenty-four hours, and the corporal
punishment of adults, were expressly forbidden.[82] Notices of the law
on these subjects were to be publicly displayed.[83] A conscience clause
protected workhouse inmates, and they had also the right to receive
visits by religious ministers of their own persuasions.[84]
[76] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, secs. 15, 42.
[77] _Ibid._ sec. 23.
[78] _Ibid._ sec. 25.
[79] _Ibid._ sec. 24.
[80] 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, sec. 30.
[81] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, secs. 92, 93.
[82] _Ibid._ sec. 93.
[83] _Ibid._ sec. 94.
[84] _Ibid._ sec. 19.
_I._--_Emigration_
The Act carried out the proposal of the Report, by enabling the
ratepayers (including rated owners) to emigrate, at the expense of the
poor rates, with the approval of the Central Authority, "poor persons"
having settlements in the parish whether paupers or not.[85]
[85] _Ibid._ sec. 62.
_J._--_Relief on Loan_
It was enacted that any relief that the Central Authority might declare
or direct to be by way of loan should be legally recoverable by the
local authority, even by attachment of wages.[86]
[86] 4 & 5 William IV. secs. 58, 59.
Five years later the local authority was given power to attach Army and
Navy pensions, in repayment of the cost of relief, even without such
relief having been declared to be on loan.[87]
[87] Pensions Act, 1839, 2 & 3 Vict. c. 51, sec. 2.
CHAPTER II
THE POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS
It had, as we have seen, been left to the Poor Law Commissioners to
formulate their own policy, with the guidance of the Report of 1834.
This policy is, during the ensuing thirteen years, to be found in (1)
the orders issued under the Act of 1834 and subsequent statutes; (2) the
circulars and other explanatory or instructional communications to the
local authorities, inspectors, auditors, etc., and (3) the reports to
Parliament.
Under the term "order," we include, as is customary, all the "rules,
orders, and regulations" issued in pursuance of statutory powers. With
whatever parts of poor relief these dealt, they had the force of law;
either under the specific powers relating to workhouses,[88] or relief
to the able-bodied,[89] or under the general powers authorising the Poor
Law Commissioners to make "rules, orders, and regulations ... for the
guidance and control of all guardians, vestries, and parish officers so
far as relates to the management or relief of the poor."[90] According
to the Act of 1834 some of these orders were to be "General Rules," and
were not to take effect until they had been submitted to a Secretary of
State, and by him laid before Parliament for forty days; and they were
disallowable by the Privy Council.[91] A "General Rule" was to be "any
rule ... which shall, at the time of issuing the same, be addressed ...
to more than one union or to more parishes and places than one."[92]
Other orders, known first as "Particular Orders," and subsequently as
"Special Orders," and now simply as "Orders," were subject to no such
conditions. There was, however, no distinction between them as to
validity, force of law, or sanction. It was therefore open to the Poor
Law Commissioners to issue all its orders as particular or special
orders by addressing them successively to separate unions or parishes,
even if they were identical in their terms. For reasons explained in the
Poor Law Commissioners' Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law,
1839, this was the course adopted.[93] No general order was issued prior
to 1841.
[88] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 42.
[89] _Ibid._ sec. 52.
[90] _Ibid._ sec. 15.
[91] _Ibid._ secs. 16, 17.
[92] _Ibid._ sec. 109.
[93] Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, pp.
32-34.
With circulars so-called we include all explanatory or instructional
communications to local authorities or to the officers of central or
local authorities, or to Parliament. These, though embodying the policy
of the Central Authority, had not the force of law. Moreover, as they
were issued for particular emergencies, and were never withdrawn or
expressly abrogated, _they_--unlike any unrepealed orders--_must not be
considered as necessarily laying down general policy for all time_.
Subject to consideration of this limitation, we propose to include the
circulars, letters, etc., along with the general and special orders, in
our analysis of the policy laid down for each of the several classes of
destitute persons.
_A._--_The Able-Bodied_
(i.) _On Outdoor Relief_
The ambiguity that existed, alike in the Report and in the Act of 1834,
as to the meaning intended to be given to the term "the able-bodied"
was, to a large extent, reflected in those documents of the Central
Authority which expounded its policy with regard to the kind and
conditions of relief to be given to this class. Once more there is no
definition of the term able-bodied, which is used sometimes as an
adjective and sometimes as a substantive. From the context it must be
inferred, as we shall presently show, that the term is used in different
senses in the orders relating respectively to outdoor relief and to the
management of the workhouse. What proved in the event more inimical to
the principle of National Uniformity was the fact that in the orders
relating to outdoor relief to the able-bodied, there was no consistency
as to whether any class of women was or was not to be included among the
able-bodied. There are, as we shall presently describe, two distinct
streams of regulations affecting outdoor relief to the able-bodied, one
permitting such relief under conditions, culminating in the Outdoor
Relief Regulation Order of 14th December, 1852 (still in force), and the
other prohibiting it subject to exceptions, culminating in the Outdoor
Relief Prohibitory Order of 21st December, 1844 (still in force). In the
former series of regulations, beginning with the first orders issued in
the autumn of 1834 to particular unions, the term "able-bodied" is
_expressly qualified by the adjective "male"_ ("able-bodied male
persons").[94] In the other series, beginning in 1836 with the
Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town Unions, the
category of the "able-bodied," _if we are to go by the actual wording of
the orders_, clearly comprises both sexes; at first by excepting widows
only from a universal rule, and presently by specifically including
"every able-bodied" person, "_male or female_."[95] That this differing
interpretation of the category of the "able-bodied and their families"
was actually intended by the Central Authority in 1840, and 1844, and
that it was not merely accidental, is shown by cases in which it was
decided that outdoor relief to single women having illegitimate children
was illegal, as being in contravention of the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory
Order in force in those unions;[96] thus proving that, under this order,
the category of "the able-bodied and their families" included
independent women with children; although in the other kind of orders,
contemporaneous in date, the same category included men only (and their
families). This is the more puzzling, in that we find the Central
Authority, in 1839 at least, regarding these very outdoor relief
prohibitory orders as practically, if not literally, applicable only to
able-bodied males. In the comprehensive defence of its action, when
pleading for a renewal of the Act, the Central Authority expressly
describes these orders as "_prohibiting outdoor relief to able-bodied
male paupers_"; and as having attained the object aimed at, that of
destroying the allowance system or relief in aid of wages, "_so far as
respects able-bodied male paupers and their families_."[97]
[94] See for instance the Order of 31st December, 1834, issued to
Sutton Courtney Parish, now included in Abingdon Union, and the
Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, 14th December 1852, art. 1.
[95] See Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in
Town Unions, 7th March 1836, in Second Annual Report, 1836, p. 92;
the Order of 26th April 1839, to Aston Union; and Outdoor Relief
Prohibitory Order, 21st December 1844, art. 1.
[96] _Official Circular_, No. 1, p. 8, 8th January 1840; _Ibid._
No. 34, p. 79, 30th April 1844.
[97] p. 62 of Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law,
1839.
To sum up this question of definition, in one series of outdoor relief
regulations applicable to the able-bodied, in force in certain unions,
the category of "the able-bodied" expressly excludes independent women;
in another series of regulations, in force in other unions, the category
of "the able-bodied" includes such women. There is actual evidence that
the Central Authority enforced these differing determinations so far as
to include as among "the able-bodied" unmarried women having
illegitimate children in those unions in which one set of Orders was in
force. Whether it ever actually enforced this interpretation as regards
single women without children is not apparent in the published
documents, but would be seen from its records. The fact of variance
between the two interpretations of the category of "the able-bodied"
becomes important when the two series of regulations are consolidated
into two orders embodying distinct policies, one or other of which is
made applicable to every union in the country.
Once having determined what was included in the category of "the
able-bodied," the ground becomes more clear. With regard to outdoor
relief, there are the two streams of contemporaneous regulations already
alluded to--the one permitting it subject to conditions, the other
prohibiting it subject to exceptions.
The first series was, it is clear, regarded (at any rate down to 1842)
as temporary, only "to be sanctioned as a palliative for a time, and
until adequate and efficient workhouse accommodation shall be
provided."[98] These regulations were, in the autumn of 1834, issued
separately to certain unions pending the introduction of "proper
regulations";[99] but we also find them, between 1835 and 1842, included
as a matter of course in orders prohibiting outdoor relief, by way of
exception, but still only as providing a temporary alternative, until
accommodation can be obtained for the reception of such persons in the
workhouse.[100]
[98] See the "Suggestions as to the most eligible modes of
Providing Outdoor Employment ... in cases where there is not an
efficient workhouse, and preparatory to the establishment of the
Workhouse System," p. 45 of Second Annual Report, 1836.
[99] Circular, 8th November 1834, p. 73 of First Annual Report,
1835.
[100] Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town
Unions, 7th March 1836, sec. v., art. 27, p. 92 of Second Annual
Report, 1836.
There was even a third series of Orders, which may perhaps be regarded
as even more provisional and temporary than the first series. To
various local authorities in large towns (such as Norwich), and in
the Metropolitan parishes, Orders were issued from 1835 onwards,
simply requiring that any outdoor relief to the able-bodied should
be, to the extent of one-third[101]--sometimes to the extent of
one-half[102]--"relief in kind," that is to say, in loaves of
bread.[103]
[101] Poor Law Commissioners to Norwich Court of Guardians, 25th
July 1835; Special Order to Norwich, 29th July 1835; MS. Minutes,
Norwich Court of Guardians, July and August 1835.
[102] Special Order to Norwich, 21st October 1835; Poor Law
Commissioners to Norwich Court of Guardians, 21st October 1835;
MS. Minutes, Norwich Court of Guardians, October 1835.
[103] This term, Relief in Kind, has always been limited to food,
though the character of the food has been varied. Medicine and
"medical extras" supplied to the paupers in their homes have been
included in the term Outdoor Medical Relief. The provision of
clothing and bedding to the outdoor poor--classed as ordinary
Outdoor Relief--though permitted, has never been encouraged by the
Central Authority. (_Official Circular_, 10th November 1840, No.
9, p. 117; _Ibid._, July 1850, No. 39 N.S., p. 108; _see also
Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board_,
vol. ii., 1880, p. 71.) The provision of tools or implements of
trade was considered not to be of the nature of relief, and
therefore not legal. It was expressly prohibited by the Outdoor
Relief Regulation Order of 1852 (art. 3). Payment of rent (except
the provision of temporary lodging in urgent and sudden necessity,
or for housing a lunatic) was from the outset strictly prohibited.
(_See_ Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844, art. 5, and
Outdoor Relief Regulation Order of 1852, art. 3.) This prohibition
of payment of rent seems to have been considered of importance by
the Poor Law Commissioners. The impracticability of preventing
ordinary outdoor relief from being applied in payment of the
pauper's rent seems only gradually to have dawned upon the Poor
Law Board. In 1852 it was explained that although the Order
"prohibits the Guardians from paying the rent for a pauper either
directly or indirectly, it does not prevent them from allowing him
such relief as under all the circumstances of the case his
necessities may require; it will rest with the pauper to dispose
of the relief afforded to him in such manner as he may think fit."
(Poor Law Board to Hemsworth Union, 19th October 1852; in House of
Commons, No. 111 of 1852-3, p. 96.) A similar decision was given
in 1902. (_See Local Government Chronicle_, 9th August 1902, p.
805.) The prohibition still remains in force, but is accordingly
not now regarded as of importance.
It has been assumed that it was the intention of the Central Authority
from the outset to replace these temporary orders permitting outdoor
relief to the able-bodied by some permanent injunction substituting
relief in the workhouse as the only method. But the documentary evidence
indicates that the Central Authority either never entertained the
idea--or else very quickly abandoned it--of issuing the Prohibitory
Order to the manufacturing towns of the north. Thus, in October 1836,
after nearly two years' experience, the Poor Law Commissioners, as their
Assistant Commissioner reported, were disposed to leave "the
contemplated workhouse system ... very much to the board of guardians,
and they did not feel it necessary to lay down those strict rules that
they had in some instances laid down for the government of unions in the
south of England."[104]
[104] MS. Minutes, Newcastle Board of Guardians, 7th October 1836.
In 1842 the Central Authority, perhaps unwittingly, took a new
departure. In the northern counties there were districts for which no
orders "concerning the outdoor relief of the able-bodied" had been
issued. The Central Authority had failed to induce the Local Authorities
to provide "adequate workhouse accommodation," and it was found that
"large numbers of able-bodied persons are often suddenly thrown out of
employment by the fluctuations of manufacturers" (_sic_).[105] To meet
this situation, a new General Order was issued (the Outdoor Labour Test
Order, 13th April 1842); on the ground that it was impracticable "to
issue the Order prohibiting outdoor relief to able-bodied persons."[106]
This order is historically of two-fold significance. It has had, as will
subsequently appear, a long and continuous career of its own, in force
in combination with the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order in particular
unions.[107] But between 1842 and 1852, standing by itself in other
unions,[108] it was the temporary embodiment of an alternative policy of
the Central Authority. This alternative policy was, in 1852, definitely
adopted by the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order (still in force), as the
one permanently appropriate for the circumstances of many unions,
covering a large part of England and Wales.
[105] Circular of 30th April 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842,
p. 179.
[106] Minute of Commissioners respecting the means of enforcing an
Outdoor Labour Test, 31st October 1842, p. 381 of Ninth Annual
Report, 1843.
[107] For such Special Labour Test Orders, issued in supplement to
the Out-relief Prohibitory Order, _see_ those to Boston Union, of
3rd February 1847; Crediton Union, 21st May 1847; and Catherington
Union, 2nd June 1847, which are in the most usual form; or those
to Foleshill Union, 13th December 1847; Maldon Union, 7th December
1847; and Nuneaton Union, 13th December 1847, which are in a much
shorter form, omitting the authority for the appointment of a
superintendent of pauper labour.
[108] For such Special Labour Test Orders, issued to unions not
under the Out-relief Prohibitory Order, _see_ that to
Ashton-under-Lyne Union, 29th March 1847; or that, in a shorter
form, omitting the authority for the appointment of a
superintendent of pauper labour, to Chertsey Union, 17th December
1847.
This policy of leaving to the discretion of the local authorities the
grant of outdoor relief to the able-bodied on certain conditions was, as
already mentioned, confined to men. We can find no explanation of, or
reason for, the entire absence of any provision for independent women
who were able-bodied. It can only be inferred that, in those districts,
the Central Authority meant the unlimited discretion of the local
authorities with regard to outdoor relief to able-bodied independent
women to continue. The outdoor relief sanctioned for able-bodied men was
strictly limited to persons who were not in employment for hire. This
limitation was expressly intended to prevent the old "Rate in Aid of
Wages." But it was subsequently expressly allowed that outdoor relief
might be given, in respect of the particular days in a week or the
particular weeks in a month during which persons were unemployed, whilst
they were in remunerative employment on other days of that week, or
other weeks of that month.[109] In the case of persons partially
disabled, and able to earn only partial maintenance, the Poor Law
Commissioners recommended that they "should be entirely supported by the
guardians"--not, be it noted, by being admitted to the workhouse--but
either by their being "set to work by the guardians in such manner as
may be suitable to their condition," or else by their being prohibited
from doing any work on their own account.[110]
[109] Circular Letter, 14th December 1852, in Fifth Annual Report
of Poor Law Board, 1852, p. 31.
[110] Special Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law,
1839, p. 72.
It should be said that (with an exception to be hereafter noted in the
case of women) the Central Authority stood rigidly on the position taken
up by the 1834 Report that no regard was to be paid to character, in
judging applications for relief. "If a person," said the Poor Law
Commissioners in 1840, "be in a state of destitution, such person is to
be relieved, without reference to the moral character of such person.
Relief from the poor rates can only lawfully be given in cases where
persons are destitute of the means of support. And the fact that the
destitution may have been caused by the immorality or improvidence of
the party who seeks to be relieved does not alter or vary the duty of
guardians to administer relief proportional to the necessity of the
case."[111]
[111] Poor Law Commissioners to Plymouth Board of Guardians, 25th
April 1840.
The outdoor relief, where given, had to be subject to two conditions. It
was to be at least half in kind, and conditional on the recipient being
set to work by the local authority, the time, mode and conditions of
work being fixed by the Central Authority.
With regard to the kinds and conditions of "parish work," it was
repeatedly laid down by the Central Authority that none would be
sanctioned unless (_a_) the work was "hard," not of a kind usually
performed by independent labourers or competing with them, nor "much
regarded as to profitable results," strictly supervised, "of a laborious
and undesirable nature in itself," and "of such a nature as to
discourage applications from all who are not really necessitous"; (_b_)
paid "less than would be paid for work of equal quantity if performed by
independent labourers";[112] or as it was later stated, the payment
"ought to assume the form of relief, not of wages.... A single man or a
man with a wife and one child ought not to receive as much as a man with
a wife and eight children."[113]
[112] p. 45 of Second Annual Report, 1836; _Official Circular_,
No. 29, p. 151, 30th November 1843.
It is not explained how payment on the last principle could be made
consistent with the former principles. But the intention of the Central
Authority is clear. In the words quoted with approval in the circular of
1835, the parish was to be "the hardest taskmaster and the worst
pay-master."[114]
[113] Minute, 31st October 1842, p. 383 of Ninth Annual Report,
1843.
[114] p. 46 of Second Annual Report, 1836.
An important exception was made by a separate clause in the Order
providing that the guardians might depart from any of these regulations
in particular instances, and thus give outdoor relief to able-bodied
males on any conditions, subject to their reporting each such instance
within fifteen days to the Central Authority, and obtaining its
subsequent approval. With that approval, outdoor relief to able-bodied
men, without any conditions, was lawful. The records of the Central
Authority between 1842 and 1847, which have not been published, would
show how frequently application was made for this approval, and whether
the Central Authority pursued any definite policy in approving or
disapproving the cases, or merely approved all that were reported to it.
The second series of outdoor relief regulations, beginning with the
Consolidated Order for the Administration of Relief in Town Unions of
1836, and culminating in the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844
(still in force), proceeds on the basis of forbidding outdoor relief to
the "able-bodied and their families." But from the outset we find a
series of express exceptions made in particular Orders, gradually
increasing in number and definiteness. The most numerous and the most
important of these exceptions relate to women, and will be subsequently
dealt with. For the male able-bodied person himself (and his family)
only three exceptions were to be made. The local authority had
discretion to allow him outdoor relief (_a_) in case of sudden and
urgent necessity; (_b_) in case of sickness, accident, or mental
infirmity in his family; or (_c_) for the burial of any member of his
family.[115]
[115] See Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order, 1844, art. 1.
Another series of exceptions allowed outdoor relief to the families of
able-bodied persons (_a_) in gaol, or otherwise in custody; (_b_) absent
as soldiers, sailors or marines; or (_c_) otherwise residing outside the
union.[116]
[116] _Ibid._
A third exception empowered the local authorities (as in the analogous
case of the Outdoor Labour Test Order) to depart from these regulations
in any particular instance, and thus to give outdoor relief to the
able-bodied, whether men, women, or their families, on any conditions,
subject to their reporting each such instance within fifteen days to the
Central Authority and obtaining its subsequent approval. With that
approval outdoor relief to the able-bodied, without any conditions, was
lawful. The records of the Central Authority between 1842 and 1847 would
show what policy it pursued in approving or disapproving the cases of
unconditional outdoor relief to the able-bodied, which were reported by
those local authorities to which this Order had been issued. What
appears from the published documents is that the Central Authority,
between 1835 and 1842, "in cases where this Order had been issued ...
had been obliged to sanction large exceptions to its provisions."[117]
[117] Minute of Commissioners, 31st October 1842, p. 381 of Ninth
Annual Report, 1843.
On this, among other grounds, the Central Authority in 1843 took to
modifying the operation of the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Orders by
supplementing them, in certain of the unions in which they were in
force, by an Outdoor Labour Order, practically identical in terms with
the Outdoor Labour Test Order of 1842, which we have already mentioned
as being alone in force in other unions.[118] Similar Orders--in effect
modifying the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order--have ever since
continued to be issued to particular unions; but, from 1852 onward, in
the form of applying to the particular unions concerned the Outdoor
Labour Test Order of 1842, which had theretofore been issued alone.
[118] p. 379 of Ninth Annual Report, 1843.
We are now in a position to sum up the policy of the Central Authority,
with regard to outdoor relief to the able-bodied, as it stood in 1847,
embodied in documents applicable to three different parts of England and
Wales. In thirty-two unions the Labour Test Order of 1842 was alone in
force, whilst in twenty-nine others the regulations were essentially
similar to this. In this part of the country the discretion of the local
authorities to give outdoor relief to able-bodied independent women (as
to other independent women) was unfettered by any regulation, and not
directed by any instructions. Outdoor relief to able-bodied men and
their families was within the discretion of the local authorities, if it
was accompanied by test work by the man and subject to certain
conditions. In other parts of the country, comprising 396 unions, the
Prohibitory Order was alone in force, and outdoor relief to the
able-bodied, whether men or women, and their families, was, with
limited and precise exceptions, prohibited; unless, in particular
instances, the local authority subsequently reported it to, and got it
sanctioned by, the Central Authority. In yet other parts of the country,
comprising eighty-one unions, the Prohibitory Order and an Outdoor
Labour Test Order were jointly in force, and outdoor relief to the
able-bodied, whether men or women, and their families, was, so far as
general rules went, prohibited. But such outdoor relief was lawful if it
was in each case subsequently reported to, and approved by, the Central
Authority; with this difference between that given to able-bodied men
(and their families) and that given to independent women (and their
families) that the former had to be, and the latter had not to be,
accompanied by test work. This requirement of test work by the man, in
certain unions, as a condition of the outdoor relief to be thus
sanctioned by the Central Authority, appears at first sight to impose on
those unions an additional restriction on the grant of outdoor relief,
as compared with those unions in which outdoor relief could be
sanctioned by the Central Authority without test work. The practical
result may have been exactly the opposite. The records of the Central
Authority between 1843 and 1847 would show to what extent and in what
kind of cases its sanction to these cases of outdoor relief was given or
refused; and whether, according to the statistics, it was not given more
frequently and even as a matter of course, where test work was
obligatory as a condition, as compared with cases in which test work was
not required. If this was so, not only did union differ from union in
the extent to which outdoor relief to the able-bodied was sanctioned by
the Central Authority, but it may be that the statistics would show that
in this respect, sex differed from sex--such outdoor relief being freely
granted and lightly sanctioned to able-bodied men from whom test work
was exacted; and sanctioned with greater stringency in the case of the
able-bodied independent women from whom no such test was exacted.
(ii.) _In the Workhouse_
When "the able-bodied and their families" entered the workhouse, we find
the Central Authority prescribing a classification altogether different
from that applied to outdoor paupers. The very category of the
"able-bodied and their families" disappears. It was, of course,
inevitable that this should happen. In any institution, infants, boys,
girls, sick and healthy adults, male and female, required different
treatments. But, to the confusion of every one concerned, the Central
Authority retained, for its workhouse classification, as for the
entirely different classification of outdoor paupers, the same adjective
of "able-bodied," without even explaining that it was here used in an
altogether different sense. As usual in the documents of this period,
there is no definition of the term. But whenever it occurs in the
regulations affecting the workhouse, the term "able-bodied" was
apparently intended by the Central Authority to denote all persons not
being either children, "the aged and infirm," or "the sick." If the
draughtsman of the General Consolidated Order of 1847 had been aware of
the need for a definition clause, he would presumably have said that in
that Order the term "able-bodied" should denote those persons above the
age of childhood, and below that of "the aged," who for the time being
were in the enjoyment of normal health. This class, it will be seen,
differs considerably from that referred to in the preamble of the
section in the 1834 Act under which outdoor relief to the able-bodied
was to have been abolished; namely, persons (with their families) "who
at the time of applying for or receiving such relief were wholly or
partially _in the employment of individuals_."[119] The Act thus pointed
to the capacity to obtain employment for hire, at any wages whatsoever,
whatever may have been the state of health, as the essential
characteristic of being "able-bodied." This, too, was the construction
placed on the term when used in the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order,
1844, where the Central Authority expressly held that "poor persons who
have frequent ailments, who are ruptured and are generally of weak
constitutions" but who are "in receipt of wages"--however low such wages
might be--must be treated, for outdoor relief, as being "able-bodied
persons."[120] When such persons entered the workhouse, not merely would
the several members of their families pass into different categories,
but they themselves, if the doctor so decided, would, in the view of the
Central Authority, on crossing the threshold, cease to be "able-bodied
persons,"--and become members of the diametrically opposite category of
"the sick." If such persons, without being cured, subsequently left the
workhouse, we must infer that, according to the policy of the Central
Authority, their characteristic of physical or mental infirmity ceased
to be relevant, as they passed, on crossing the threshold, into the
ranks of "able-bodied persons."
[119] 4 & 5 William IV. c. 76, sec. 52.
[120] _Official Circular_, April and May 1848, Nos. 14 and 15,
N.S., pp. 227-8.
Inside the workhouse, the "able-bodied" (in the workhouse sense) are
divided simply into male and female. We can find no regulations
specially affecting relief to them, as apart from other inmates of the
establishment, except some modifications in the amount of food allowed,
or of labour exacted. As even these modifications are inextricably mixed
up with the general regulations affecting all inmates, and are contained
in the same long series of Orders, culminating in the General
Consolidated Order of 1847, we relegate them to the subsequent section
on the workhouse.
_B._--_Vagrants_
We have seen that the policy of the Report and Act of 1834, with regard
to vagrants, was to ignore them as a class, to relieve them only in the
workhouse, and to deal with them exactly as with other workhouse
inmates. What the Central Authority seems to have contemplated was that
the strict application of the "workhouse test" would not only prevent
vagrants coming on the rates at all, but that it could be used to
prevent almsgiving. It was apparently with this view that the Central
Authority, in 1837, sanctioned a code of regulations for the admission
to the workhouse of the "casual poor," meaning "wayfarers" or homeless
"persons in a state of destitution ... who ... belonged to distant
parishes."[121] These regulations included admission by tickets
distributed by any ratepayer, and the performance of a task of work
before the grant of a meal.[122] In diet, discipline, and other
treatment, they were to be dealt with "as the other paupers in the
workhouse."[123] In other unions the regulations included the
establishment of a separate vagrant ward, which was equally sanctioned
by the Central Authority. A similar plan was strongly pressed on the
local authorities of the Metropolis in 1838 and 1839.[124] Such vagrants
must, however, if destitute, not be refused relief.[125] The Central
Authority hoped that "if these arrangements be adopted ... casual
almsgiving in the streets, by which vagrancy and imposture are
encouraged, will be materially checked."[126]
[121] Letter, 6th September 1837, in Fourth Annual Report, 1838,
p. 154.
[122] pp. 135-141 of Third Annual Report, 1837.
[123] p. 89 of Fifth Annual Report, 1839.
[124] Instructional Circular, 12th December 1838; in Fifth Annual
Report, 1839, p. 87; ditto, 7th December 1839, in Sixth Annual
Report, 1840, p. 103.
[125] Letter, 2nd August 1841, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p.
77.
[126] Circular, 7th December 1839; in Sixth Annual Report, 1840,
p. 104.
The first sign of discontent with this policy that we find is in 1841,
when the Central Authority is asked by the local authorities of Lambeth
and Colchester "whether the workhouse is to be a lodging house and to be
inundated with these trampers" who habitually "make the union house a
lodging house," greatly to the annoyance of the establishment. The
Central Authority admits that its policy of a mere application of the
"workhouse test" to vagrants has proved unsatisfactory, and declares the
only effectual remedy to be a separate semi-penal establishment.[127] In
the absence of adequate statutory powers, the Central Authority pours
out, between 1841 and 1844, a stream of regulations and suggestions to
local authorities, based on the idea of making the night's stay of the
vagrant more unpleasant to him. There was to be everywhere a separate
vagrant ward; without a fire; smoking and card playing were to be
strictly prohibited; they were to be bathed; their bedding was to be
inferior to that of other inmates, and so on. Above all, they were to be
prosecuted under the Vagrant Act on the slightest provocation.[128]
[127] _Official Circular_, No. 12, 14th October 1841, p. 170;
Letter, 15th February 1841, to Newcastle Board of Guardians;
Letter, 12th September 1844, to Bradford Board of Guardians.
[128] _Official Circular_, No. 12, 14th October 1841, p. 170;
General Order, 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842,
p. 81; Letter, 5th February 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842,
p. 110.
Yet the Central Authority was not yet convinced of the need for a
vagrant ward in every union. When the Bradford Board of Guardians
pointed out in 1844 that the average number of their vagrants was only
twelve a week, the Central Authority at once acquiesced in the
abandonment of the proposed vagrant ward, and said that arrangements
should be made to set the vagrants a task of work in the workhouse
itself.[129]
[129] Letter to Bradford Board of Guardians, 3rd October 1844.
In 1842 and 1844, as we have seen, slightly increased powers over
vagrants were obtained (including, but only by implication, statutory
authority for the four hours' detention in the morning), together with
powers to establish district asylums for the houseless poor in certain
large towns.
The Central Authority "framed a scheme for division of the whole of the
Metropolitan district" into areas corresponding "to the great lines of
roads along which mendicants and vagrants" entered London,[130] which
were to have separate establishments for vagrants, and so entirely
relieve the Metropolitan workhouses of their care.[131] What Orders were
issued to this effect is not clear. Meanwhile the House of Commons
appointed a Select Committee to consider the whole conduct of the
Central Authority; and no further action was taken. Orders were issued
to the boards of management of the newly created vagrant districts,
telling them that they need not meet.[132] How far these vagrancy
districts ever came into existence we have not yet discovered. One of
them, the North Eastern Metropolitan District, had got so far as to
enter into a contract for the purchase of a site and to borrow £3500 to
pay for it. "Owing to various causes, the chief of which was a want of
co-operation on the part of several of the boards of guardians, that
scheme, after an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons, was
abandoned."[133] Beyond this somewhat obscure episode, all that happened
was that when the General Consolidated Order of 1847 systematically
codified the regulations affecting workhouses, it included, scattered
among its various sections, a few provisions relating to the treatment
of the "casual poor wayfarers," such as the requirement of a separate
ward, and the express regulation of their diet and employment.[134]
[130] p. 19 of Eleventh Annual Report, 1845.
[131] p. 19 of Twelfth Annual Report, 1846; _Official Circular_,
No. 5, N.S., p. 69, 1st May 1847.
[132] p. 11 of Thirteenth Annual Report, 1847.
[133] Minute of Poor Law Board on the Houseless Poor in the
Metropolis, 23rd December 1863, in Sixteenth Annual Report, 1863,
p. 31.
[134] General Consolidated Order of 24th July 1847, _see_ arts.
97, 99 and 104.
_C._--_Women_
We have shown, in the preceding analysis of the Report and Act of 1834,
that neither the "principles of 1834" nor the enactment of Parliament
had prescribed the policy to be pursued with regard to women; except
that it was implied or assumed that wives were to follow their husbands
exactly as if they were infants. With regard to the widow, the deserted
wife, the wife of the absentee soldier or sailor, the wife of a husband
resident in another parish or another country--above all, with regard to
the independent able-bodied woman--the Central Authority had either to
let the existing practice of outdoor relief continue, or to discover a
policy for itself.
With regard to the able-bodied independent woman, we have shown that the
Central Authority developed, between 1834 and 1847, two distinct
policies which became applicable to two different geographical areas. In
the thirty-two unions in which the Outdoor Labour Test Order was alone
in force, the discretion of the local authorities to give outdoor relief
to able-bodied independent women was left unfettered by any rule,
instruction or advice of the Central Authority.[135]
[135] We ought to state that in one of the early Orders (intended
to be temporary) the Central Authority did expressly prescribe a
policy for "single women not being aged or infirm." It was
evidently contemplated that they were to be dealt with quite
differently from the "able-bodied male pauper," who was to be put
to "parish work." The outdoor relief to be granted to them was to
be at least half in kind (p. 85 of First Annual Report, 1835). No
such clause appears in the General Orders subsequently issued.
In the 477 unions in which the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order was in
force (either with or without an Outdoor Labour Test Order), outdoor
relief to able-bodied independent women was prohibited, with certain
exceptions, which, between 1835 and 1844, steadily increased in number.
As crystallised in the Out Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844 (still in
force) outdoor relief was allowed to such able-bodied independent women,
(1) On account of sudden and urgent necessity;
(2) On account of the sickness, accident, or bodily or mental
infirmity of any member of their families (unlike a father in like case,
the independent mother was not required to produce a medical
certificate);
(3) For defraying the expenses of burial of any of their families;
(4) If a widow, for the first six months of widowhood or, without
limit of time, if, unable to earn a livelihood, and having one or more
children dependent on her, she had had no illegitimate child since her
widowhood.[136]
[136] Amended Forms of Order prohibiting Outdoor Relief to the
Able-bodied, 1839 and 1840, in Report on the Further Amendment of
the Poor Law, 1839, p. 105, and Seventh Annual Report, 1841, pp.
99-100; Out Relief Prohibitory Order, 1844, art. 1.
In the Circulars issued with these Orders, the only instructions with
regard to any class of able-bodied independent women relate to widows.
In these instructions the grant of outdoor relief during the first six
months of widowhood, without any mention of its being considered whether
they had children or not, or whether they were employed for wages or
not, is specially and repeatedly brought to the notice of the local
authorities as laudable.[137]
[137] Instructional Letter, December 1839, p. 107 of Report on the
Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839; ditto, August 1840, p.
102 of Seventh Annual Report, 1841.
It was, indeed, insisted by the House of Commons Committee in 1838 "that
a power should be continued to the board of guardians, taking into
consideration the character of the parties, to relieve, out of the
workhouse, widows with young children left dependent upon them."[138]
[138] Report of House of Commons Committee on Poor Law
Administration, 1837-8, p. 39.
This is the more significant in that the Central Authority, in one case
at least, had tried a harsher expedient. In the Bradfield Union, which,
under Mr. Stevens' chairmanship, had adopted an ultra-rigorous policy,
the board of guardians itself passed a rule forbidding outdoor relief
"to any widow or single woman, not being aged or infirm, who is of
ability to work," except in sickness, accident or urgent necessity.[139]
This was much criticised but was maintained by the majority, who asked
the Central Authority to support them by issuing an Order prohibiting
all outdoor relief to able-bodied women not being aged or infirm. The
Poor Law Commissioners in reply said that they "most willingly confirm
the resolution, and in so doing they desire to state that they consider
the workhouse to be the best description of relief for all cases, and
they are always glad to perceive that the guardians of any union view
outdoor relief as the exception to the general rule, to be administered,
with caution, in cases of sickness, infirmity and particular distress
only."[140] But even the Bradfield Guardians found this Order, for which
they had themselves asked, quite unworkable; and they were reduced to
asking sanction for successive departures from it. They generally
granted outdoor relief to widows for the first few weeks of their
widowhood, and were often driven to extend it. They then asked for an
alteration permitting outdoor relief to able-bodied "widows of good
character with more than one child under eleven, if a boy, and under
thirteen if a girl." The Central Authority was loath to let go, but had
eventually to issue another Special Order as desired.[141]
[139] MS. Minutes, Bradfield Board of Guardians, 12th October
1835.
[140] MS. Minutes, Bradfield Board of Guardians, 8th, 15th and
27th February 1836; Special Order to Bradfield Union, 26th
February 1836.
[141] _Ibid._ 4th March and 31st October 1836; February, June,
July and November 1839; Poor Law Board to Bradfield Union, 17th
July and 7th November 1839; Special Order to Bradfield Union,
November 1839.
The grant of outdoor relief to widows having children, apart from this
six months' term, is, "_so far as it relates to able-bodied women in
employment_," regarded as of doubtful policy, to be made with
circumspection, as likely to excuse contributions from relatives, to
discourage insurance, and to have all the evils of the rate in aid of
wages. It is suggested, moreover, that a widow can usually earn enough
to support one child.[142] It may be understood from a bare reference in
the Instructional Letter of 1839 to "able-bodied women themselves" as
well as to widows, that the Central Authority was alive to the effect
upon women's wages of the grant of outdoor relief to single independent
women in employment.[143] But in the revision of this Instructional
Letter in 1841--though its terms remained almost identical--the slight
reference to the single able-bodied woman wage-earner was silently
omitted.[144]
[142] See note 1.
[143] p. 108 of Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law,
1839.
[144] p. 102 of Seventh Annual Report, 1841.
With regard to married women, the policy laid down by the Central
Authority differed according to the particular kind of Order in force,
and thus according to the locality in which they resided. In all but
specially excepted cases, relief to a woman under coverture was deemed
to be relief to her husband, and came thus within all the various
regulations and conditions limiting outdoor relief to the able-bodied
man.
In the thirty-two unions to which Outdoor Labour Test Orders were
applied by themselves--these culminating in the Outdoor Relief
Regulation Order 1852 (still in force)--the policy of the Central
Authority was to leave the discretion of the local authorities
unfettered, with regard to the grant of outdoor relief to married women,
except the wives of those men ("the able-bodied and their families") to
whom outdoor relief was only to be granted in return for labour. In
these latter cases the measure of the relief was to be the needs of the
family, not the work done by the husband. In 1835 the Central Authority
had even urged that, where the families were large, they "should be
furnished with provisions according to their numbers and necessities in
the same way as other paupers" by way of "additional relief" to the man
for the "wives and children, as far as shall be actually
necessary."[145]
[145] Circular, 21st September 1836, p. 48 of Second Annual
Report, 1836.
As the policy became settled, the phrase "additional relief" was
dropped; but the amount given to the husband was to depend, not on the
amount or value of the work that he did, but was to be "proportioned to
the wants of the applicant and his family, and should not be deemed
remuneration for the work done."[146] In these cases half, at least, of
the relief given to the husband was to be in kind; whilst, _according to
the Orders_, no labour was required from the wife.[147] In spite of the
absence from the Orders of any requirement that the wife should render
any task of labour, we find the Central Authority in 1842--concerned at
the earning of money by the wives (and children) of men at "parish
work"--making an inconsistent suggestion. In the Minute of 31st October
1842, it is suggested that, "if it be practicable, some employment, such
as picking up or carrying stones, should be provided for the wives and
children. The latter precaution is peculiarly important in the
manufacturing districts."[148] This requirement of labour from the wife
had, up to 1847, found no embodiment in any Order.
[146] Minute on Outdoor Labour Test, 31st October 1842, p. 383 of
Ninth Annual Report, 1843.
[147] Outdoor Labour Test Order, 30th April 1842, in Eighth Annual
Report, 1842, p. 175.
[148] p. 385 of Ninth Annual Report, 1843.
In the 477 unions to which the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844
applied, three extensive classes of wives were, by the policy of the
Central Authority, to be treated as if they were widows.
(_a_) A wife deserted by her husband and having only legitimate children
dependent on her could, under the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order,
1844, be given Outdoor Relief as a widow having a child dependent on
her. As a matter of fact, the position of any wife living apart from her
husband was better than that of a widow. The wife living apart from her
husband (whether technically deserted by him or not, and whether or not
he was within the union) could insist on the relief of her children,
without applying for relief for herself; and if the child was below the
age of seven, it could not be separated from her, _even with her own
consent_; and thus the relief had to be outdoor relief. She could,
moreover, send her children over seven into the workhouse without
herself accompanying them, or herself becoming a pauper. On the other
hand, though the local authority might, if it chose, grant outdoor
relief to a widow having a child dependent on her (if she had had no
illegitimate child born since her widowhood), it need not do so, and it
could not relieve her dependent children, whether under seven or over,
without making her a pauper.
(_b_) The wife of a husband--
(i.) Beyond the seas;
(ii.) In custody of the law; or
(iii.) Confined in an asylum as a lunatic or idiot was to be
treated, for indoor and outdoor relief alike, as if she were a widow (a
widow beyond the six months' term, though this is not so stated). By
"beyond the seas," the Central Authority understood "out of Great
Britain."[149]
[149] Instructional Letter, 17th October 1844; in Eleventh Annual
Report, 1845, p. 137.
(_c_) In the case of the wife of an able-bodied soldier, sailor, or
marine in His Majesty's service (wherever he might be situated), the
Central Authority expressly stated that it felt it to be "desirable to
give great latitude" to the local authorities.[150]
[150] Instructional Letter, 21st December 1844; in Eleventh Annual
Report, 1845, p. 59.
In all other cases, within those parts of the country to which this
Order applied, wives residing with their husbands had to follow them,
and were not to be relieved, either in or out of the workhouse, without
them. A more difficult question was whether a man could continue to
receive relief in the workhouse if his wife insisted on leaving it. The
Central Authority, on being appealed to by a local authority actually
confronted with such a case, decided that the wife could not be
prevented from leaving the workhouse. It hazarded the opinion (of which
we do not admit the legal validity), "that a woman may be restrained by
the control of her husband from leaving the workhouse, and if he
declines to use his marital control, it is in the power of the guardians
to dismiss the husband. But whether it is expedient or judicious to
pursue such a course must depend on the peculiar circumstances which
each individual case presents. One consideration is particularly
important in dealing with any case of this description, that is, whether
the husband is in a condition practically to exercise his control over
his wife. Where he is not, it would be very unadvisable, in the opinion
of the Commissioners, to make it a condition of the relief of the
husband or of his children (if he have any) that he should exercise an
authority over his wife which practically he cannot exercise."[151]
[151] _Official Circular_, 1st June 1845, No. 48, p. 90.
It is interesting at this point to sum up the policy of the Central
Authority, so far as embodied in its published documents between 1834
and 1847, with regard to outdoor relief to women, especially as
affecting the "Rate in Aid of Wages." The policy differed fundamentally
in the two different areas of the country governed respectively by the
two kinds of Orders. Where the Outdoor Labour Test Order (continued,
after 1852, by the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, which is still in
force) was alone applied, the discretion of the local authority to give
outdoor relief to women of any status, married or unmarried, with
children or without, was unfettered by any Order. The only rule made by
the Central Authority in the matter was that if the woman was the wife
of an able-bodied man who was himself employed on "parish work," and
residing with him, at least one-half of his relief should be in kind. No
rule was made or Order issued by the Central Authority against the grant
of outdoor relief to women employed for wages, even in respect of the
very days on which they were earning wages.
We have mentioned that the Central Authority, so far as men were
concerned, stood rigidly to the position of the 1834 Report that the
moral character of the applicant was to be absolutely disregarded in
considering the relief to be granted to him. With regard to women,
however, it took up a different position. We find it advising that the
mothers of illegitimate children should, on this ground alone, not be
granted outdoor relief.[152]
[152] Poor Law Commissioners to Plymouth Court of Guardians, 25th
April 1840.
Where the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order was in force, neither
spinsters nor wives residing with able-bodied husbands[153] could, apart
from sudden and urgent necessity, receive outdoor relief, unless they
were sick. But with regard to widows and wives living apart from their
husbands, the exceptions to the prohibition were so numerous that both
these classes may almost be said to have been expressly allowed to
receive outdoor relief. The fact that such women were in employment for
wages was not regarded by the Orders of the Central Authority as
relevant: nor was it prescribed that any task of labour should be
exacted in return for the relief. And although if we look closely, it is
possible to find, in the circulars, instructional letters and published
decisions of these thirteen years (1834-1847), two or three bare
incidental allusions to the possibility of outdoor relief to women
having the effect of a "Rate in Aid of Wages," even these occur only in
the earlier years, and presently die away entirely. It is, therefore,
not incorrect to say that an objection to outdoor relief to women in
employment formed during these years no part of the declared policy of
the Central Authority.
[153] Not being soldiers, sailors, or marines.
When women entered the workhouse, the policy of the Central Authority
(as in the analogous case of "the able-bodied") was to classify them in
quite other categories than those which governed their outdoor relief.
The woman's status, with regard to a man, so fundamental as long as she
remained outside, was, in the workhouse, entirely irrelevant. What
became important was whether or not she was sick, "able-bodied" (in the
workhouse sense), or "aged and infirm"; whether or not she was a nursing
mother, or a mother of children under seven years old; whether or not
she was of "good character" or of "dissolute and disorderly habits" or
the mother of an illegitimate child. These considerations--leading to
classifications inconsistent with each other--affected the women's
segregation in the workhouse, the employment provided for them, the
dietary and the amount of their freedom. With all this we deal in
subsequent sections.
_D._--_Children_
The policy of the Central Authority with regard to the relief of
children rested on the general rule that children, residing with their
parents (or surviving parent) and dependent on them for support, had to
follow them for relief. This was not limited by any condition as to the
age of the child, the essential fact being the dependence of the child
for support. Looked at from the standpoint of the child, this involved a
great and complex difference in policy in the two different areas of the
country to which we have had so often to refer. In unions governed by
the Outdoor Labour Test Order (afterwards the Outdoor Relief Regulation
Order, 1852), all such children might be relieved in their homes, the
only limitation placed on the discretion of the local authority being
that, if they were the children of able-bodied men, at least half the
relief granted to the father for their necessities had to be in kind.
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.